Real Catholic Theology vs. Resistance Wonderland
Sedevacantism:
Bishop Sanborn Responds to Bishop Williamson
Bishop Richard Williamson, formerly with the Society of St. Pius X but expelled in 2012 for being as obedient to Bp. Fellay as Fellay was obedient to John Paul II, still stubbornly clings to the Lefebvrist “recognize-and-resist” position and so continues to reject Sedevacantism. A convert from Anglicanism in 1971, Bp. Williamson has demonstrated again and again that although he always has plenty to say, he has no real grasp of genuine Catholic theology.
Recently, Bp. Williamson published a two-part series against Sedevacantism in his weekly Eleison Comments. They can be accessed here:
- Sedevacantism Again – I (Oct. 1, 2016)
- Sedevacantism Again – II (Oct. 8, 2016)
You will notice that in these two articles, Bp. Williamson refers to a “BpS” without naming him further. This is a reference to Bishop Donald Sanborn, rector of the sedevacantist Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Brooksville, Florida.
Bp. Sanborn has now responded to Bp. Williamson’s arguments against Sedevacantism, focusing mostly on the ordinary Magisterium, infallibility, and indefectibility. Instead of writing another article, however, Bp. Sanborn simply responded in a video interview conducted by Fr. Nicolas Desposito. The video can be watched here:
This is not the first time that Bp. Williamson has had his argument against Sedevacantism picked apart. The last time Bp. Williamson had tried to refute the sede vacante position was in 2014 and 2015, and both times it didn’t end well for him:
- Response to Bp. Williamson on Sedevacantism
- Bp. Sanborn refutes Bp. Williamson on Sedevacantism
- Is Sedevacantism Pope-Sifting? Bp. Sanborn responds to an Objection
- Against Mente-Vacantism: Are the Novus Ordo Popes “incapable” of being Heretics?
Bp. Williamson has a history of dangerous, poor, and non-Catholic theology. For example, in the summer of 2015 he shocked a number of people when he declared that it was fine to assist at the “New Mass” as long as it “nourishes your faith”. If you need a refresher, here are the relevant links:
- Bishop Williamson: OK to go to the Novus Ordo “Mass” if it “Nourishes your Faith”
- Christ or Belial? Bp. Sanborn refutes Bp. Williamson on the New Mass
- Williamson Watch: More Commentary on the “New Mass” Fiasco
Finally, let’s also not forget that Bp. Williamson has been promoting the horrific Poem of the Man-God by Maria Valtorta, a work that is full of disturbing blasphemies, heresies, and other errors against the Faith, as demonstrated here:
Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God was even condemned by name by the Holy Office in 1959, as shown in the link above.
In short: Stay away from Bp. Richard Williamson. He is a danger to souls under the guise of “traditional Catholicism”.
;
Regarding the work of Maria Valtorta:
1) Pius XII gave his verbal approval to work according to two witnesses.
2) The book was introduced in the index in 1959, when yourself consider that the Sede was vacant.
3) arguments against the work does not make sense. As for “Little John”, I understand what was said as a further deepening of the same dogma. The dogma can not evolve, but its understanding can increase.
As for the “universal salvation”, that is something which you take so. The new pair Christ-Mary was said by the Fathers of the Church. Etc.
(1) Hearsay. Pius XII allegedly also called Dietrich von Hildebrand the “twentieth-century doctor of the Church”, which is absolutely laughable. Let’s not believe everything that someone says Pius XII said.
(2) Yes, the Holy See was vacant in 1959, but the people in the Holy Office were still pretty much the same people. In addition, if they condemned the work in 1959, it would mean that all the research done on the book and the consultations with other theologians took place before then.
(3) Not sure what you’re saying here.
Stay away from unapproved private revelations. They just cause trouble! Stick to the tried and true spiritual works Holy Mother Church has approved.
(2) The introduction in the index was not signed by a Pope, it is your position, and I think that it is very probable. I also think that Roncalli wasn’t a Pope, I can’t see that it is posible with his doctrine.
Ottaviani was the prefect of the Holy Office. He approved the Second Vatican Council Novus Ordo Missae, is not it so?
I don’t know if the Pope himself must sign each condemnation issued by the Holy Office, but if so, then I agree with you that legally speaking the condemnation is not binding. But that doesn’t mean it is altogether worthless or insignificant. At the very least, the very people who had been appointed by Pope Pius XII to ensure orthodoxy in the Church and condemn error, examined and condemned this book. Think of it not as an official act of the Holy Office but simply the act of the world’s most knowledgeable experts in matters of doctrine.
As far as Cardinal Ottaviani goes… No, he did not approve the Novus Ordo Missae, although I am sure he celebrated it. Remember the “Ottaviani Intervention”. He went along with Vatican II, that indeed he did. So perhaps it should tell us something that when someone who agrees with Vatican II nevertheless condemns Valtorta, it must be *really* bad indeed.
By the way, Ottaviani was only the pro-secretary of the Holy Office (1953-59) and then the secretary (1959-66). The Prefect of the Holy Office is always the Pope himself. This was changed only by “Pope” Paul VI in his reform of the curia in the 1960s.
I wonder if that quote of Pius XII about Dietrich von Hildebrand isn’t fake. I’ve never seen any real documentation for it. Publisher’s blurbs obviously don’t make it.
It must be. Allegedly the source of the quote is Alice von Hildebrand, Dietrich’s wife (who is still alive), but what I would want to know is how she heard about it — because it is quite possible that there was a misunderstanding somewhere. The idea that von Hildebrand should be a doctor of the Church is so ridiculous as not to even deserve a discussion thread. 🙂
Denz 1800: THE VATICAN COUNCIL 1869-1870
Ecumenical XX (on Faith and the Church)
SESSION III (April 24, 1870)
Dogmatic Constitution concerning the Catholic Faith
Chap. 4. Faith and reason
1800 [The true progress of knowledge, both natural and revealed] .For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding [can. 3]. “Therefore . . . let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.”
It clearly admits a “deeper understanding”.
I don’t understand. It clearly condemns “the specious name of a deeper understanding”. Our knowledge and understanding can grow ( after all, we have about 2,000 years of writings to explore), but it must always have the same meaning.
The sense must be the same. But the faith is one thing, and the theology another. The theology can have development without changing the meaning. Some things can be explained better.
If not, St. Thomas would not say anything after St. Augustine.
I want to caution you here: “But the faith is one thing, and the theology another.” That is a dangerous statement. Recall Pope Pius VI’s condemnation of the teaching of the Synod of Pistoia on the Holy Eucharist, which, although the explanation given contained no error, he condemned because it omitted the word “transubstantiation”…
>>> The doctrine of the synod, in that part in which, undertaking to explain the doctrine of faith in the rite of consecration, and disregarding the scholastic questions about the manner in which Christ is in the Eucharist, from which questions it exhorts priests performing the duty of teaching to refrain, it states the doctrine in these two propositions only: I) after the consecration Christ is truly, really, substantially under the species; 2) then the whole substance of the bread and wine ceases, appearances only remaining; it (the doctrine) absolutely omits to make any mention of transubstantiation, or conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which the Council of Trent defined as an article of faith, and which is contained in the solemn profession of faith [see n. 997]; since by an indiscreet and suspicious omission of this sort knowledge is taken away both of an article pertaining to faith, and also of the word consecrated by the Church to protect the profession of it, as if it were a discussion of a merely scholastic question,–dangerous, derogatory to the exposition of Catholic truth about the dogma of transubstantiation, favorable to heretics.
<<<
(Denz. 1529) – http://patristica.net/denzinger/#n1500
I also think so. It understood that theology can’t be separated from faith.
To put it another way, faith gives us data; heology give its understanding.
As for the work of Valtora, obviously it is not a “magisterium”.
For example, say that redemption ends with the pain of the Virgin, it is an obvious heresy. But I understand that there is coredemption points as in the letter to the Colossians. In fact, the Saints have referred to the Virgin as “coredeemer”.
Also from the perspective of New Adam and New Eve.
Otherwise, I know many people Novus Ordo who despises the work of Valtorta.
Rather that work like the conservatives.
In the traditionalist camp there is a division.
From the Valtorta book: [REMOVED BY MODERATOR]
Well, if you don’t want to show this text, it is not because it has been included in the index by the Pope, but because it doesn’t convince you.
I didn’t even read it, to be honest. I just don’t want quotes from that book on this web site.
“It is because they are in a particular mood of reaction and revolt that they have a motive for making out that all that is white is a dirty grey and the black not so black as it is painted.” Chesterton
God Bless Bishop Sanborn!
Late to the party, but I’ll add this. I have a soft spot for Bp Williamson, esp since he had the guts to speak out on the gas chamber hoax of WWII. He took the heat for it, that’s for sure! Now, you can say his historical opinion has nothing to do with religion. But not so fast! He said this in a sermon (paraphrasing): “There is no such thing as sin today, that is what this crazy modern world tells us. Or rather, the only sin is Nazi sin. And Adolf Hitler is the devil, his helpers and the SS are the demons, Golgatha is replaced by Auschwitz, the holy cross by the imagined gas chambers, which means the alleged six million gassed Jews are the new savior…the sacrificial lamb, and etc. And that’s just deadly!”
Now, who can help but admire a prelate with the guts to say something like that! It is impossible to even IMAGINE Father Jazzhands down at your local Novus Ordo parish saying anything even remotely like it!
But Bp. Williamson is wrong to promote Valtorta. We have absolute proof she’s a fraud. She claims the Lord revealed to her how the image on the Shroud of Turin was formed, and that He specifically said this would prove His credibility through her (by convincing the “difficult doctors” of the Church who demand evidence). She claims the Lord said that the scourging so damaged His kidneys, that He was producing copious amounts of urea…and this, combined with sweat and blood, is what made the image.
Well, modern science has shown this to be totally wrong. The image was not formed by a liquid of any kind, as proven by how the image is only on the uppermost fibrils of the linen, and doesn’t soak through as a liquid would have done. So if Valtorta is right, then Our Lord is a liar. And not just a liar about any little thing, but He lied about the very topic that He told her would prove the authenticity of His apparitions to her!
So forget about Valtorta. But I shall continue to have a soft spot for Bp. Williamson, I can’t help it! LOL