Showing posts with label Richard Williamson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Williamson. Show all posts

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Notes: Thursday, December 23, 2010

1. "Bishop Williamson appoints new lawyer"

http://www.sspx.org/bishop_williamson_lawyer_update.htm
(brought to my attention by this AQ thread)

2. A new website against 'Communion in the hand'

http://www.communion-in-the-hand.org/index.html
(brought to my attention by this AQ thread)

3. An interesting AQ comment by "Amemus Athanasium"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=391844#391844

Interesting chiefly for mention of how

dissident patriarch Bartholomew I, while being a schismatic, received his theological doctorate and primary formation in the (Uniate) Russian College 'Russicum' in Rome. It is now a sadly ecumenist and dogmatically relativist institute, but it was once a great theological institute of the united Russian Byzantine Rite Catholic Church (or 'Russian Orthodox Church in communion with Rome').

4. Mr. Donohue with the names of those who have "theorized ["pedophilia"] as something fully in conformity with man and even with children"

http://members7.boardhost.com/CathPews/msg/1293010728.html

Reginaldvs Cantvar
23.XII.2010

Friday, November 26, 2010

Notes: Tuesday-Friday, November 23-26, 2010

1. On Light of the World

Here are some excerpts from the other day's edition of the Vatican Information Service (V.I.S.) daily e-mail bulletin (my square-bracketed ellipses, everything else as in the original):

LIGHT OF THE WORLD. THE POPE AND THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES

VATICAN CITY, 23 NOV 2010 (VIS) - This morning in the Holy See Press Office, a press conference was held to present a new book published by the Vatican Publishing House. The volume is entitled: "Light of the World. The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times. A conversation of Benedict XVI with Peter Seewald".

The conference was presented by Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelisation, and the journalist Luigi Accattoli.

Also present were Peter Seewald, who conducted the interviews with the Pope, and Fr. Giuseppe Costa S.D.B., director of the Vatican Publishing House.

[...] For his part, Luigi Accattoli suggested his journalist colleagues should "read this book as a guided visit to the papal workshop of Benedict XVI and to the world of Joseph Ratzinger. ... Above all we will see this man who was called to become Pope in the same perspective as when he published the two volumes on Jesus of Nazareth, which he presents not as documents of the Magisterium, but as testimony of his own search for the face of the Lord".

[...] In this book, Accattoli continued his explanations, the Holy Father "dedicates ample space to the conflict between the Christian faith and modernity. However, in at least two passages he recognises 'the morality of modernity' and the evidence of 'a good and just modernity'. These positive affirmations should be read alongside passages in which he recognises the religious crimes of the past: from the 'atrocities' committed 'in the name of truth' to 'the wars of religion', and that 'rigorism' towards corporeity which was used to 'frighten man'. In the conflict with the modern world, then, it is necessary to ask 'in what is secularism right' and where 'should it be resisted'".

[...] The Holy Father, Accattoli continued, "assures us that he would not have removed the excommunication from Bishop Williamson without undertaking further investigation, had he known the prelate's views on Holocaust denial". [...]
OP/ VIS 20101123 (1320)

So

1. Light of the World is non-Magisterial (we already knew that, of course, but I'll keep that quotation for future reference).
2. The Holy Father speaks of unnamed "'atrocities' ... committed 'in the name of truth'" and thinks that "[i]n the conflict with the modern world, then, it is necessary to ask 'in what is secularism right' and where 'should it be resisted'" (the answers, as far as I'm concerned, are 'nothing' and 'everywhere', respectively).
3. His Holiness "would not have removed the excommunication from Bishop Williamson without undertaking further investigation, had he known the prelate's views on Holocaust denial".

2. A couple of items regarding Msgr. Williamson

2.1 "Official Statement Re: Bp. Williamson's 'Lawyer Affair'"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34842

2.2 Msgr. Williamson did not go straight from Anglicanism to the S.S.P.X. (which was canonically regular at the time of his conversion anyway):

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34861

3. "Russia a 'one-party state'"

http://www.smh.com.au/world/russia-a-oneparty-state-20101125-18976.html?skin=text-only

4. "PLENARY SESSION OF INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION" (to deal with, among other things, social doctrine)

Full text of the relevant item from the other day's V.I.S. daily e-mail bulletin:

PLENARY SESSION OF INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

VATICAN CITY, 23 NOV 2010 (VIS) - The International Theological Commission, which is presided by Cardinal William Joseph Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is due to celebrate is annual plenary session from 29 November to 3 December in the Vatican's "Domus Sanctae Marthae". The meeting will be chaired by Fr. Charles Morerod O.P., secretary general of the commission.

According to a communique published today the commission will study three important themes: the principles of theology, its meaning and its methods; the question of the one God in relation to the three monotheistic religions; and the integration of Church social doctrine into the broader context of Christian doctrine.

At the end of their deliberations the members of the International Theological Commission will be received in audience by the Holy Father.
OP/ VIS 20101123 (150)

5. Some recent articles on so-called gay marriage, in theory, in Australia, and in Europe

In theory:
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/11/22/homosexual-marriage-and-the-slippery-slope/
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/11/22/more-homosexual-marriage-myths/
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/11/21/homosexual-marriages-myths/
http://concerned-voter.blogspot.com/
(I discovered that last single-post blog in a comment at the combox of the web-page whose link I provide immediately before its own link.)

In Australia:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/state-to-push-motions-on-same-sex-unions/story-e6frgczx-1225959710095
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/kids-for-gays-but-not-marriage-hockey/story-fn59niix-1225959716199

In Europe:
http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34887

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Sylvester, Abbot, and of St. Peter of Alexandria, Bishop, Martyr, A.D. 2010

Monday, November 1, 2010

Notes: Saturday-Monday, October 30-November 1, 2010 (part 1 of 2)

1. Msgr. Williamson on the teachings of Vatican II

ELEISON COMMENTS CLXXII (Oct.30, 2010) : DELAY CONDEMNING ?

Following on several recent numbers of "Eleison Comments" emphasizing the importance of doctrine (EC 162, 165-167, 169), a reader asks if it would not nevertheless be wiser to delay the condemnation of Vatican II, on the grounds that neither the Church officials in Rome nor Catholics at large are ready to accept that the Council is doctrinally as bad as the Society of St Pius X, following Archbishop Lefebvre, says that it is. Actually, it is far worse.

The doctrinal problem with the documents of Vatican II is not, mainly, that they are openly and clearly heretical. In fact their "letter", as opposed to their "spirit", can seem Catholic, to the point that Archbishop Lefebvre, who took direct part in all four Sessions of the Council, signed off on all but the two last and worst of those documents, "Gaudium et Spes" and "Dignitatis Humanae". However, that "letter" is subtly contaminated with the "spirit" of the brand-new man-centered religion towards which the Council Fathers were inclining, and which has been corrupting the Church ever since. If the Archbishop could vote again today on the 16 documents, one wonders if with the wisdom of hindsight he would vote for a single one of them.

So the documents are ambiguous, outwardly interpretable as being Catholic for the most part, but inwardly poisoned with modernism, that most pernicious of all Church heresies, said St Pius X in "Pascendi". So when for instance "conservative" Catholics, out of "loyalty" to the Church, defend the documents, what exactly are they conserving ? The poison, and its ability to go on corrupting the Catholic Faith of millions of souls, thereby setting them on the path to eternal damnation. It all reminds me of one Allied convoy crossing the Atlantic with vital supplies for the Allies in World War II. An enemy submarine succeeded in surfacing in the very middle of the defensive perimeter of ships, so that it was free to torpedo them one after another, because the Allied destroyers were chasing around and around the perimeter outside to hunt down the submarine, never imagining it could be in their midst ! The Devil is in the midst of the Vatican II documents and he is torpedoing the eternal salvation of millions of souls, because he is so well disguised in those documents.

Now imagine a sailor with sharp eyes on board one of the merchant-ships in the convoy who has noticed the little tell-tale wake of the submarine's snorkel. He yells, "The submarine is inside !", but nobody takes him seriously. Is he to wait and keep quiet, or is he to scream "Blue Murder !", and go on screaming, until at last the captain is brought to see the deadly danger ?

The SSPX must scream about Vatican II, and go on screaming, and without ceasing, because millions of souls are in deadly and unceasing danger. To grasp that danger, admittedly difficult to grasp in theory, read, or get translated into your own language, Fr. Alvaro Calderon's profound book on the Vatican II documents, "Prometeo: la Religion del Hombre".

Kyrie eleison.

2. Obituary of Mr. Justice Watson ("one of the drafters of the Family Law Act introduced in 1975 and a judge of the Family Court during its most turbulent period")

http://www.smh.com.au/national/obituaries/judge-sought-informality-in-court-with-nofault-divorce-20101031-178v1.html?skin=text-only

3. Some interesting figures on desired and actual Australian fertility rates

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/congratulations-its-lots-of-boys-and-girls-for-south-parramatta-20101031-178y5.html?skin=text-only

4. "Survey undermines size of gay community"

Brought to my attention by a post at Terra's blog:

A comprehensive and credible national survey in the United Kingdom has revealed that only 1.5% of Britons say they are homosexual, lesbian or bisexual, which is much less than the most commonly used estimate of 5 to 7 percent.

The findings were based on interviews with more than 450,000 people by the Office of National Statistics (the UK equivalent of the Australian Bureau of Statistics). The ONS has said that it had produced an accurate estimate based on a question of self-perceived sexual identity, with a valid response to the relevant question provided by 96% of those surveyed.
[http://australianchristianlobby.org.au/2010/10/survey-undermines-size-of-gay-community/]

Reginaldvs Cantvar
All Saints' Day, A.D. 2010

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Notes: Wednesday-Thursday, September 15-16, 2010

Graduates of independent schools were more likely to hold socially liberal views on gay marriage, abortion, IVF and foreign aid than graduates of public or Catholic schools. Non-government school graduates were more likely to be tolerant of free speech by religious extremists, while government school graduates were more likely to be in favour of reducing immigration.

Graduates of independent schools were more likely to have participated in a demonstration, attended a political rally, and donated money or raised funds for a social or political activity than graduates of government or Catholic schools. Graduates of independent schools were also more likely to be members of environmental groups and aid organisations.

Madness: Moves to end the banning of practising male homosexuals and practising male bisexuals from donating blood

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/gay-blood-donor-ban-harks-back-to-days-of-myth-20100914-15a8y.html?skin=text-only

That brings to mind an opinion piece by Mr. Piers Akerman some years ago, unfortunately apparently not available on-line, on why they were banned in the first place; the success of 'gay rights' activists in initially keeping sodomites eligible to give blood back in, if I'm not mistaken, the early '80s on the grounds of 'equal rights' had disastrous consequences.

Msgr. Williamson on doctrine and the possible regularisation of the S.S.P.X.

Copied and pasted from the e-mail:

ELEISON COMMENTS CLXV (Sept.11, 2010) : DOCTRINE -- WHY ?

Why is doctrine in general so important to Catholics ? And why in particular does the Society of St. Pius X, following Archbishop Lefebvre and now Bishop Fellay, insist that agreement on doctrine must precede any other kind of agreement with Conciliar Rome ? Why can the SSPX not accept to be regularized by Rome now, and leave the doctrinal differences to be worked out later ? Here are two connected but different questions. Let us start with the general question.

The word "doctrine" comes from the Latin doceo, docere, meaning, to teach. Doctrine is a teaching. In our liberal world where everybody wants to think and talk just as he likes, the word "indoctrination" has become a dirty word. Yet to put an end to indoctrination, one would have to close down all schools, because wherever a school is open, indoctrination is going on. Even if a teacher is teaching that all doctrine is nonsense, that is still a doctrine !

However, everyone in fact agrees on the need for doctrine. For instance, who ever would climb into an aeroplane about which he was told beforehand that its designer had defied the classic doctrine of aerodynamics, and turned the wings upside down ? Nobody ! Aerodynamic doctrine which is true, for instance, that wings must taper downwards at the back and not upwards, is not just words being spoken or written out of the blue, it is life and death reality. If a plane is to fly and not to crash, true aerodynamic doctrine, in fine detail, is essential to its design.

Similarly if a soul is to fly to Heaven and not crash into Hell, Catholic doctrine, teaching it what to believe and how to act, is essential. "God exists", "All human beings have an immortal soul", "Heaven and Hell are eternal", "I must be baptized to be saved", are not just words being imposed on souls to believe, they are life and death realities, but of eternal life and eternal death. St. Paul tells Timothy to teach these truths of salvation in or out of season (II Tim. IV, 2), and for himself he says, "Woe to me if I do not teach the Gospel" (I Cor. IX, 16). Woe to the Catholic priest who does not indoctrinate souls with the Church's infallible doctrine !

But the question remains: surely the SSPX, to obtain from Rome that precious regularization which Rome alone has the authority to grant, could come to a practical agreement by which no Catholic doctrine would be denied, but by which the doctrinal differences between Rome and the SSPX would merely be bracketed out for the moment ? Surely there need be here no betrayal of those great truths of salvation mentioned above ? Bishop Fellay himself answered that question briefly in an interview which he gave to Brian Mershon in May of this year, published in the "Remnant". Here are his words: "It is very clear that whatever practical solution would happen without a sound doctrinal foundation would lead directly to disaster... We have all these examples in front of us - the Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King and all of the others are totally blocked on the level of doctrine because they first accepted the practical agreement." But need that be so ? Interesting question...

Kyrie eleison.

"Russian Orthodox official blasts liberal developments in Anglicanism" (and does so in the very presence of the pretender Archbishop of Canterbury)

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33685

See also

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/09/orthodox-bishop-to-anglicans-you-are-doomed-if-you-dont-stop/

Particularly interesting was that Russian official's talk of "the possibility of establishing an Orthodox-Catholic alliance in Europe for defending the traditional values of Christianity". When the Consecration of Russia is done there will be something much better than a mere strategic alliance between us and them.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Cornelius, Pope, Martyr, and St. Cyprian, Bishop, Martyr, and of St. Euphemia and Companions, Martyrs, A.D. 2010

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Notes: Saturday-Tuesday, August 21-24, 2010

Msgr. Williamson on the Vatican-S.S.P.X. doctrinal discussions

An important piece from His Lordship, which I quote in full here (copied and pasted from the e-mail):

ELEISON COMMENTS CLXII (Aug.21, 2010) : DISCUSSIONS BLIND-SIDED ?

While the Rome-Society of St Pius X discussions are, by accounts from both sides, running into a doctrinal brick wall, reports from France and Germany together with a rumour from Rome spell danger for Catholics. That danger is a political deal which would simply go round the side of the doctrinal blockage. Politics threaten to circumvent doctrine.

From France and Germany, I was told me a few weeks ago that a large proportion of Catholics attending SSPX Mass centres are only hoping and waiting for some agreement to come out of the discussions. If - repeat, if -- this is true, it is very serious. Such Catholics may get full marks for wishing not to be cut off from what appears to be Rome, but they get low marks for not grasping that as long as the discussions remain doctrinal, there is no way in which the neo-modernist teaching of Vatican II can be reconciled with the Catholic doctrine of the true Church. Such Catholics may venerate and love Archbishop Lefebvre as they see him, but they have not understood what he was all about. They had best wake up if they are not in one way or another to fall into the arms of the neo-modernist Romans.

Agreement in front of doctrine means politics before religion, unity before truth, man before God. God before man means truth before unity, religion before politics and doctrine being more important than any non-doctrinal agreement. Only dreamers could not foresee the Rome-SSPX discussions running into a doctrinal brick wall. Only politicians can wish for any non-doctrinal agreement to come out of them.

Alas, to all appearances Benedict XVI sincerely believes in the Newchurch of Vatican II which is to unite in its bosom all men absolutely, regardless of whether they believe or not in the one true doctrine of the Faith. Therefore he sincerely wishes to gather in the SSPX as well - and he does not normally have too much longer to live ! So the blockage of doctrinal discussions should not unduly worry him. He must be looking to cut a political deal with the SSPX, in order to unite it with the rest of the Newchurch. It follows that he must ask of the SSPX neither too much, or it would refuse the deal, nor too little, because then the rest of the Newchurch would rise up in protest.

The rumour from Rome is precisely that he is thinking of a "Motu Proprio" which would accept the SSPX "back into the Church" once and for all, yet require from the SSPX no explicit acceptance of Vatican II or the New Mass, but only, for instance, the acceptance of John-Paul II's 1992 "Catechism of the Catholic Church", which is substantially modernist but in a quiet way. Thus the SSPX would not appear to its followers to be accepting the Council or the New Mass, yet it would be softly, softly, beginning to go along with the substance of neo-modernism.

Thus all seekers of unity would be content. Only not believers in Catholic doctrine.

DANGER !

Kyrie eleison.

See also here and here for discussion on these matters.

Democratic Labor Party (D.L.P.) candidate to become Victorian Senator?

I was interested to read the following in Mr. Malcolm Farr's column in yesterday's Sydney Daily Telegraph:

The word extraordinary is not out of place to describe an election which it seems will put a member of the Democratic Labor Party (revived version) into the Senate for the first time in more than 40 years. The emergence of Tony Abbott and the DLP - it seems fitting to many.
[http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/malcolmfarr/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/voters_will_soon_realise_nothing_has_been_resolved/]

Further investigation found a news report of August 22nd referring to the possibility of a D.L.P. win as an "outside chance":

But the DLP remained an outside chance of creating a huge upset.

"If the DLP get knocked out before us the preferences will go to us and we'll win, but if we get knocked out before the DLP our preferences will go to them and they're a very good chance of getting up," the spokesman said.

At the close of counting early on Sunday, Family First had 65,423 votes, or 2.69 per cent of the votes cast, while the DLP had secured 54,490, or 2.24 per cent.

Mr Madigan, a Ballarat blacksmith, would be the first DLP senator since Vince Gair in 1974 if he secures he wins.
[http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/dlp-an-outside-chance-for-senate-20100822-13ako.html]

while a report of the 23rd had the following to say:

But the Victorian [Sen. Steve Fielding] may be replaced by a philosophically like-minded newcomer in John Madigan from the socially and economically conservative Democratic Labor Party.

Mr Madigan, a blacksmith from Ballarat in Victoria, is tipped to take the final Senate seat even though he received only 2.2 per cent of the vote. The Greens will now hold the balance of power in the Senate, with new senators expected to be elected in Victoria, South Australia, NSW and Queensland.

But their ACT candidate, Lyn Hatfield Dodds, fell short of a seat, with ACT voters sticking with traditional voting habits to re-elect Liberal senator Gary Humphries.

The new Senate will not be formed until July but at this early stage, it appears there will be 34 Coalition senators, 31 from Labor, nine Greens, the South Australian independent Nick Xenophon and possibly the DLP senator.

[http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/greens-to-be-senate-go-to-party-to-the-power-of-nine/story-e6frfllr-1225908694201]

(Interesting that Mr. Madigan is a blacksmith, after last week's report that there was "not a single tradesperson among ["today's federal parliamentarians"]".) The most recent mainstream media news item I found referring to this possibility (dated the 24th) mentioned the following:

At presstime it looked like [Anthony Thow] had been pipped for a seat by a Ballarat blacksmith representing the Democratic Labor Party, ...
[http://www.investmenttechnology.com.au/i-t-news/another-fund-for-dr-don]

The A.B.C.'s website listed Mr. Madigan as one of the "Elected Candidates" for the Victorian Senate (apparently the only elected candidate not to come from Labor, the Coalition, or The Greens, judging by the "Senate Results - Summary" page and inspection of the results for all the States and Territories).

Dr. Feser and Mr. Muehlenberg on 'legislating morality'

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33298

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/08/23/on-legislating-morality/

"Growing trend against church weddings"

From the Geelong Advertiser (brought to my attention by CathNews):

A recent survey by Australian Marriage Celebrants found just one in four Australians tying the knot go for a traditional church wedding.
[http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2010/08/21/203365_news.html]

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Bartholomew, Apostle, A.D. 2010