"And I beheld, and heard the voice of one eagle flying through the midst of heaven,
saying with a loud voice: Woe, woe, woe to the inhabitants of the earth....
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 8:13]

Saturday, May 17, 2014

"Eleison Comments" by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCCLViI - 357

Number CCCLVII (357)
17th May 2014

The crazy words and deeds of Pope Francis are presently driving many believing Catholics towards sedevacantism, which is dangerous. The belief that the Conciliar Popes have not been and are not Popes may begin as an opinion, but all too often one observes that the opinion turns into a dogma and then into a mental steel trap. I think the minds of many sedevacantists shut down because the unprecedented crisis of Vatican II has caused their Catholic minds and hearts an agony which found in sedevacantism a simple solution, and they have no wish to re-open the agony by re-opening the question. So they positively crusade for others to share their simple solution, and in so doing many of them – not all -- end up displaying an arrogance and a bitterness which are no signs or fruits of a true Catholic.
Now these “Comments” have abstained from proclaiming with certainty that the Conciliar Popes have been true Popes, but at the same time they have argued that the usual sedevacantist arguments are neither conclusive nor binding upon Catholics, as some sedevacantists would have us believe. Let us return to one of their most important arguments, which is from Papal infallibility: Popes are infallible. But liberals are fallible, and Conciliar Popes are liberal. Therefore they are not Popes.
To this one may object that a Pope is certainly infallible only when he engages the four conditions of the Church’s Extraordinary Magisterium by teaching 1 as Pope, 2 on Faith or morals, 3 definitively, 4 so as to bind all Catholics. Whereupon sedevacantists and liberals alike reply that it is Church teaching that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is also infallible, so – and here is the weak point in their argument – whenever the Pope teaches solemnly even outside of his Extraordinary Magisterium, he must also be infallible. Now their liberal Conciliar teaching is solemn. Therefore we must become either liberals or sedevacantists, depending of course on who is wielding the same argument.
But the hallmark of teaching which belongs to the Church’s Ordinary Universal Magisterium is not the solemnity with which the Pope teaches outside of the Extraordinary Magisterium, but whether what he is teaching corresponds, or not, to what Our Lord, his Apostles and virtually all their successors, the bishops of the Universal Church, have taught in all times and in all places, in other words whether it corresponds to Tradition. Now Conciliar teaching (e.g. religious liberty and ecumenism) is in rupture with Tradition. Therefore Catholics today are not in fact bound to become liberals or sedevacantists.
However, both liberals and sedevacantists cling to their misunderstanding of Papal infallibility for reasons that are not without interest, but that is another story. In any case they do not give up easily, so they come back with another objection which deserves to be answered. Both of them will say that to argue that Tradition is the hallmark of the Ordinary Magisterium is to set up a vicious circle. For if the Church’s teaching authority, or Magisterium, exists to tell what is Church doctrine, as it does, then how can the Traditional doctrine at the same time tell what is the Magisterium ? Either the teacher authorises what is taught, or what is taught authorises the teacher, but they cannot both at the same time authorise each other. So to argue that Tradition which is taught authorises the Ordinary Magisterium which is teaching, is wrong, and so the Pope is infallible not only in his Extraordinary teaching, and so we must become either liberals or sedevacantists , they conclude.
Why there is no vicious circle must wait until next week. It is as interesting as why both sedevacantists and liberals fall into the same error on infallibility.
Kyrie eleison.
If four conditions are not all in play. The Popes can err in what they teach or say.


  1. If everything must align with Tradition and Popes can go astray, how do we know that Popes from the time of the great schism, culminating at VI, didn't go astray and the Orthodox are correct for clinging greater to Tradition? I've heard the old arguments about divorce and contraception. But those, like ecumenism, conflict with the Church Fathers. So one can reject them (like Trads & Orthodox reject ecumenism & religious liberty) and remain Orthodox. What say you?

    1. Popes can go astray because they are human and can error. The Catholic Church cannot when it infallibly defines something either thru the solemn Magesterium it is truth and cannot be rejected. The schismatic orthodox break away from the Church and only Church not erroring Popes. In reality the Popes since VII are the same as the Russian/Greek...heretics and schsimatics.

  2. In other words, both the Orthodox and Trad Catholics recognize the Popes as valid. Both believe the Pope to be in error and in of need of returning to Tradition. Both base arguments off scripture and the Fathers. One group says VI was a bogus counsel and the Pope teaches error based on it. The other says VII was a bogus counsel and the Pope teaches error based on it.
    Both can put up a pretty good fight over who holds to Tradition better.

  3. No. the Orthodox were schismatics before Vatican II and continue as such they are outside the church still. They still do not believe all that must be believed to be inside the Body. The Orthodox are still heretics and schismatics. The Councils before VII were not faulty and all of which could be found in Tradition. Vatican II is CLEAR departure form Tradition because in Tradition we find opposing arguments. With the Schismatic orthodox they simply have chose their own route...theyll try to convince you of a certain error beofre Vatican Ii but its to no avail there outside the Church

    1. Sorry. Fathers or Tradition. Pope is truly the Pope. Typos!

    2. None of your comments will be seen publicly ever again hereon TCK as the last several have been removed my friend you are wasting your time takes me 5 secs to delete go troll eslewhere wont happen here adios amigo

  4. Greek orthodox Schism:

    The so called Russian "Orthodox" church is 100% Schismatic, and 100% Heretical. They are in a state of grave mortal sin by rejecting the Vicar of Christ.

  5. Mr Anonymous. I know you not to be ignorant that we catholics teach the Orthodox broke off from the Church adn are schsimatics I left apologetics. You seem to want to debate, this IS A TRADTIONAL Catholic Page, that is those who did not break off from the Church around 1054. Please keep your belief system elsewhere this is not the place nor the time i could go on all day with this and I simply dont have the time. Orthodox are schismatics and in some cases heretical, period. you already know our position. Further comments will be deleted, thank you

  6. I have 8 different media sites with apologetics on all issues that is where you can look to have questions answered unfortunately I am one man juggling 8 sites one of which has 100,000 members i dont have times every 5 minutes to stop provide apologetics and/or debate, thats why I have all of my sites including a youtube channel

  7. "But both believe Rome departed from the Faith, albeit at two different points in history."

    This statement qualifies schism. Rome never left the Faith before VII. That will end our thread my friend

  8. Because of that schism the Orthodox no longer recognize the primacy of the pope. this puts one outside the Church per Infallibly teaching of Christs only Catholic Church

  9. The Roman Catholic Church attributes to the primacy of the Pope "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered", a power that it attributes also to the entire body of the bishops united with the pope.

  10. First Vatican Council:

    Chapter 1 On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter

    We teach and declare that,
    according to the gospel evidence,
    a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God
    was immediately and directly
    promised to the blessed apostle Peter and
    conferred on him by Christ the lord.
    It was to Simon alone,
    to whom he had already said
    You shall be called Cephas [42] ,
    that the Lord,
    after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God,
    spoke these words:
    Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
    And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .
    And it was to Peter alone that Jesus,
    after his resurrection,
    confided the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
    Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44] .
    To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.
    The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.
    if anyone says that
    blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that
    it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself:
    let him be anathema.