BW's Official Church is Official Hypocrisy
Feb 5, 2018 21:22:40 GMT
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2018 21:22:40 GMT
In another thread we talked about Normalization of Deviation, and how it is also playing out in Bishop Williamson's camp as a circus not lacking its own illusions.
Bishop Williamson's newest Epistle Jan. 2018, #551, “Official Church”?, gives his thoughts what a Conciliar church is and what is the Official Church (having two possible meanings), and no one should use both synonymously as one and the same - for it will deceive.
Couldn't agree more.
BW defines more what the conciliar church is; but reserves a portion for doubt and ambiguity. Why is that?
Read it slower. There are multiple problems with this Jan. 2018 understanding of the conciliar church. If the conciliar church is specific and wholly erroneous, and separate from the Official Church, how can there be only a large part of it wrong "more or less" poisoned, why not the whole part, what of the other small part of the conciliar church in his mind? Or is BW slighting a double meaning not to be so explicit? He said "Large part of today's Church".. this can only refer that the Church is both official and unofficial conciliar?
Not surprising. We'll show you why later, but let's finish his Jan. 2018 understanding of these two ideas.
He says:
Couldn't agree more again.
In July 2009, EC #105, Conciliar Church, Bishop Williamson defined the conciliar church at that time from the true Catholic Church in another good distinct manner:
However, in Dec. 2012, EC #281, Various Churches, just after BW was unjustly kicked out of the SSPX by Bishop Fellay, BW attempts to define these terms again beginning his new enterprise he just formed weeks prior for his independent loose networks, he said:
Here BW is saying the conciliar church is A PART OF the Catholic Church is his example of being the ROT OF THE APPLE. But how can the "Apple", the Catholic Church have rot?
He begins to merge the two by being "visible".
Not necessarily true. Visibility of the Church is based on the Four Marks of the Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolate that denote the living Faith; not buildings.
So BW just incorporated another word "Mainstream church" saying, the conciliar church is the Official Church and is similarly the “Mainstream Church” which means today’s official Church as opposed to the “Traditionalist” remnant.
Wow! What end is up? Ok, so BW just called all three: conciliar church, official church, and mainstream church are all one and separate from the "Traditionalist remnant".
This leaves us to conclude the BW of 2009 contradicted the BW of 2012, just as he contradicted the BW of 2018. Why?
If we go to the BW of 2015, 2016, and 2017, he said the conciliar church is "Catholic" and not to be rejected. Therefore, if you cannot reject it, the conciliar church for him is an Official church.
So is the "Traditional remnant" for him inside or outside the conciliar church or within it the Catholic Church? He actually said the Catholic Church is OUTSIDE the Traditional movement! (sic)
As much as BW is shown to be in conflict with himself, let's get back to the main topic of his Jan. 2018 appearance of saying it is bad to synonymize the conciliar church with the real Official Church; even though he just did in 2012.
Is this the only time BW synonymize the conciliar church with the real Official Church? Is it a typo or mistake his regulating enforcers always want us to believe?
No, Bishop Williamson has synonymized the conciliar church as the real Official Church within 23-Eleison Comments:
Even stating it twice without distinction in his last week Jan. 2018 EC 547.
In 2009 and 2010 while holed-up in the London attic forming what we discovered a short time later in his declared independence in 2012, he also synonymized without distinction the conciliar church as the real Official Church:
EC 87
EC 151
EC 155
EC 173
And the rest is all between his independent thinking of 2012 and 2018 - consistently!
EC 314
EC 312
EC 457
EC 447
EC 473
EC 542
EC 424
EC 268
EC 282
EC 332
EC 355
EC 402
EC 420
EC 408
EC 504
EC 510
EC 246
EC 323
So Bishop Williamson and his camp plays games with Catholics minds as they were in the Coliseums by the pagans - Normalization of Deviance - is the continuing stand with the false resistance -- the false shepherds of the Cross.
Here also is an article from TheRecusant.com on this topic showing BW's duplicit position. www.therecusant.com/williamson-conciliar-church
Bishop Williamson's newest Epistle Jan. 2018, #551, “Official Church”?, gives his thoughts what a Conciliar church is and what is the Official Church (having two possible meanings), and no one should use both synonymously as one and the same - for it will deceive.
"The words “Conciliar Church” are perfectly clear, whereas the words “official Church” are not clear, but ambiguous. To replace “Conciliar Church” by “official church” is to replace clarity by confusion, and it also stops Catholics from referring to the evil of Vatican II."
BW defines more what the conciliar church is; but reserves a portion for doubt and ambiguity. Why is that?
For on the one hand “Conciliar Church” signifies clearly that large part of today’s Church which is more or less poisoned with the errors of the Second Vatican Council. Those errors consist essentially in the re-centring upon man of the Church which should be centred on God.
Not surprising. We'll show you why later, but let's finish his Jan. 2018 understanding of these two ideas.
He says:
On the other hand “official Church” is an expression with two possible meanings. Either it can mean the Church officially instituted by Christ and officially brought to us down the ages by the succession of Popes, and to that “official Church” no Catholic can object, on the contrary. Or “official Church” can be taken to mean that mass of the Church’s officials devoted to Vatican II who for the last half-century have been using their official power in Rome to inflict upon Catholics the Conciliar errors, and to this “official Church” no Catholic can not object.
Therefore “Conciliar Church” expresses something automatically bad, while “official Church” expresses something good or bad, depending upon which of its two meanings it is being given.
Therefore “Conciliar Church” expresses something automatically bad, while “official Church” expresses something good or bad, depending upon which of its two meanings it is being given.
In July 2009, EC #105, Conciliar Church, Bishop Williamson defined the conciliar church at that time from the true Catholic Church in another good distinct manner:
So the Catholic Church always has two aspects: divine by its origin or beginning (Jesus Christ) and by its end (bringing souls to Heaven), it is, in between, also necessarily human, by its involvement in amongst the human beings it came to save. Therefore as there must be human beings inside the Church, so too there will always be imperfections inside the Church, sometimes very visible, but these imperfections will still be incapable of staining the Bride of Christ, spotless in herself.Now Conciliarism, as the new religion of Vatican II putting man in the place of God, is error and imperfection, purely human, in no way divine. So the expression “Conciliar Church” means the Catholic Church in its purely human and imperfect aspect, the Church as disfigured by modern man organising Vatican II to put himself in the place of God. Yet the divine Church remains stainless beneath all the disfigurement, as if it were a kingfisher swooping down on a lake to pick up a fish and fly again heavenward, flicking off as it flies any water it momentarily picked up.
Then there are two Churches? No way. There is only the one immaculate Bride of Christ. Then does the expression “Conciliar Church” have no real meaning? Alas, it names an all too real reality. It names all those members and structures of the one true Church as caught up in the toils of the subtle errors of Vatican II, and as tending all the time to be taken out of the true Church by those errors. This is the “Conciliar Church” from which Archbishop Lefebvre did not mind being “excommunicated,” because, as he said, he never belonged to it in the first place.
Then there are two Churches? No way. There is only the one immaculate Bride of Christ. Then does the expression “Conciliar Church” have no real meaning? Alas, it names an all too real reality. It names all those members and structures of the one true Church as caught up in the toils of the subtle errors of Vatican II, and as tending all the time to be taken out of the true Church by those errors. This is the “Conciliar Church” from which Archbishop Lefebvre did not mind being “excommunicated,” because, as he said, he never belonged to it in the first place.
However, in Dec. 2012, EC #281, Various Churches, just after BW was unjustly kicked out of the SSPX by Bishop Fellay, BW attempts to define these terms again beginning his new enterprise he just formed weeks prior for his independent loose networks, he said:
“Conciliar Church” means the God-centred Catholic Church as fallen and still falling under the sway of the man-centred Second Vatican Council. Conciliarism (the distilled error of Vatican II) bears the same relation to the true Church of Christ as the rot of a rotten apple bears to the apple which it is rotting. Just as rot occupies the apple, depends on the apple, cannot exist without the apple, yet is quite different from the apple (as uneatable is different from eatable), so man-centred Conciliarism so occupies Christ’s Church that little of the Church is not more or less rotten, yet Conciliarism is so different from Catholicism that one can truly say that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church. But the Catholic Church is visible. Isn’t the Conciliar Church also visible?
He begins to merge the two by being "visible".
“Visible Church” means all the buildings, officials and people of the Church that we can see with our eyes. But to say that the Catholic Church is visible, therefore the visible Church is the Catholic Church, is as foolish as to say that all lions are animals so all animals are lions. That part alone of the visible Church is Catholic which is one, holy, universal and apostolic. The rest is various sorts of rot.
“Official Church” means the Church as led by, and following, its visible officials. Since these today are largely Conciliar, so the “official Church” is largely Conciliar and not Catholic, according to the four Marks. Similarly “Mainstream Church” means today’s official Church as opposed to the “Traditionalist” remnant. However, let nobody say there is nothing one, holy, universal or apostolic left in the mainstream Church, any more than everything in the “Traditionalist” remnant shows forth the four Marks. Wheat and chaff are always mixed in Christ’s Church (cf. Mt. XIII, 24–30).
So BW just incorporated another word "Mainstream church" saying, the conciliar church is the Official Church and is similarly the “Mainstream Church” which means today’s official Church as opposed to the “Traditionalist” remnant.
Wow! What end is up? Ok, so BW just called all three: conciliar church, official church, and mainstream church are all one and separate from the "Traditionalist remnant".
This leaves us to conclude the BW of 2009 contradicted the BW of 2012, just as he contradicted the BW of 2018. Why?
If we go to the BW of 2015, 2016, and 2017, he said the conciliar church is "Catholic" and not to be rejected. Therefore, if you cannot reject it, the conciliar church for him is an Official church.
- "There is still something Catholic in the conciliar church, so it’s
wrong for us to reject it completely.” (Bp. Williamson, Eleison Comments
#447, Feb. 6, 2016).
- "Therefore the NOM and the Novus Ordo Church as a whole are dangerous
for the Faith, and Catholics are right who have clung to Tradition to
avoid the danger. But as they have had to put a distance between
themselves and the mainstream Church, so they have exposed themselves to
the opposite danger of an isolation leading to a sectarian and even
pharisaical spirit, disconnected from reality.” (Bp. Williamson,
‘Eleison Comments’ #438, 5th December 2015)
- Sermon for the first Pontifical mass of Bishop Zendejas, May 12, 2017, saying, God and his Church can be, and is, corrupt.
"The Catholic Church has gone conciliar, it's still the church, even though
it is rotten with conciliarism with Vatican II." (Bishop Williamson,
sermon for Bishop Zendejas's first pontifical High Mass, @ minute 24:32,
www. youtube.com/watch?v=Pr7hlngdFTo).
So is the "Traditional remnant" for him inside or outside the conciliar church or within it the Catholic Church? He actually said the Catholic Church is OUTSIDE the Traditional movement! (sic)
- "Let us not believe that tradition has a monopoly on Catholicism.
Catholicism is much much more than the dear movement of tradition of
today. May our Lady look after all Catholics in whatever part of the
church they are found." (Bishop Williamson, Sermon for the first
Pontifical mass of Bishop Zendejas, May 12, 2017,
www. youtube.com/watch?v=Pr7hlngdFTo )
- Consistent with what he also said on Jan. 7, 2017:
"In today’s crisis of the Church, of an unprecedented gravity in all Church
history, it is most important that Catholics should give due importance
both to the Traditional movement and to the Catholic Church outside the
Traditional movement." (Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments, #495, Jan. 7, 2017)
In the same EC, he separated again the Church as one, and the “traditional movement” as another.
“Tradition in its broadest sense, meaning everything which Our Lord entrusted to
his Church to be handed down ( tradendum in Latin) to world’s end, is
indispensable to the Church, and the Traditional movement has played an
indispensable part in preserving Traditional doctrine and sacraments
from their destruction by the Conciliar Revolution over the last
half-century.” (Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments, #495, Jan. 7, 2017)
- “Therefore, in my opinion, be content to attend the least contaminated
Tridentine Mass that there is any-where near you…” (Bishop Williamson,
Eleison Comments #505)
As much as BW is shown to be in conflict with himself, let's get back to the main topic of his Jan. 2018 appearance of saying it is bad to synonymize the conciliar church with the real Official Church; even though he just did in 2012.
Is this the only time BW synonymize the conciliar church with the real Official Church? Is it a typo or mistake his regulating enforcers always want us to believe?
No, Bishop Williamson has synonymized the conciliar church as the real Official Church within 23-Eleison Comments:
Even stating it twice without distinction in his last week Jan. 2018 EC 547.
In 2009 and 2010 while holed-up in the London attic forming what we discovered a short time later in his declared independence in 2012, he also synonymized without distinction the conciliar church as the real Official Church:
EC 87
EC 151
EC 155
EC 173
And the rest is all between his independent thinking of 2012 and 2018 - consistently!
EC 314
EC 312
EC 457
EC 447
EC 473
EC 542
EC 424
EC 268
EC 282
EC 332
EC 355
EC 402
EC 420
EC 408
EC 504
EC 510
EC 246
EC 323
So Bishop Williamson and his camp plays games with Catholics minds as they were in the Coliseums by the pagans - Normalization of Deviance - is the continuing stand with the false resistance -- the false shepherds of the Cross.
Here also is an article from TheRecusant.com on this topic showing BW's duplicit position. www.therecusant.com/williamson-conciliar-church
