Begging the question much. 'Fr' Mawdsley has no association with the SSPX - he was 'ordained' and dismissed from the FSSP for non-compliance of the FSSP jab dictates. Niether are 'antisemites'. Both clearly hoped (RIP Bp Williamson) and hope and pray that the Jews convert and save their souls.
Catholics are not against the Semitic race as such (BTW, Semites are both Jews and Arabs), because Our Lord, Our Lady and the Apostles are of that race. What the Catholic Church and faithful Catholics are opposed to is the Talmudic religion and the unfaithfulness of the Jews who do not accept the Messiah, Jesus, the heir of David and the Son of God, the fulfillment of the promises made in the Old Testament to their ancestors, who were faithful. Once they convert (and I know such cases, thanks be to God), they are no longer rejected and condemned by God but blessed because of the Fathers. So, the truth is that we love the Jews, but only insofar as they love and accept Our Lord Jesus Christ. But as long as they persist in being enemies of God and of His Church, we cannot be anything but enemies.
Thank you for putting all this out in a digestable manner!
"It is not possible to hold two contradictory propositions at the same time."
The failure of the effort to "square the circle" is the alchemist's wrapper around the violation of the law of non-contradiction. You can no more change error into truth than dirt into gold.
"It is also understandable that some will hold that merely expressing heretical ideas – even if by mistake, or in good faith – is enough to deprive someone of the ability to excommunicate, without the 'excommunicator' being personally heretical."
It may certainly be understandable (because of the Crisis), but they would be mistaken to hold this particular opinion, because a person who expresses a heretical idea by mistake or in good faith is not a heretic in any way, but remains a faithful Catholic, and it would thus be an unjust and arbitrary thing to remove from him the exercise of any right that he is given by law or lawful appointment, which is definitely not the case with someone who is a heretic.
I would like to see a Monty Pythonesque tribunal of Doctors of the Church ruling on the commitment of heresies: “Ding Ding Ding we have another one! Mark it on his chart Thomas, and let’s make sure his name is spelled correctly this time!”
I hope the men who launched these emotional criticisms read the above.
"[W]e are already living in chaos, and this chaos is principally caused by those who have treated these men as if they have papal authority." I wish that every R&R 'faithful' would read this statement prayerfully.
This was actually a very good take in Fr. Coleridge's writings, which WMReview published. Coincidentally, just before the FSSPX consercrations.
It is the non-Catholic sect, the false synodal church and anyone adhering to it, who break the unity of the Church! THEY fail in charity by not accepting the whole Truth and all the Church's Teachings! This is obviously true, but difficult to understand, since they are so many, and the faithful so few!
But is THEY who are in need of repenting and not anyone claimed as schismatic, protestant or luciferian - really, the Trad Inc. has called sedevacantism luciferian - no sedevacantist or anyone drawing the conclusions of Church's Dogmas.
And you know what, this is precisely how it feels down here. What I mean is that the effects of this separation are all around me, and I suffer the consequences with other few around me, while all is fine and dandy in the novus ordo land. And it goes like this, the more you give in to the synodal abomination, the more perks you get, from slightly larger SSPX presence, to the even more so Ecclesia Dei "approved" mass, all the way to novus ordo where you get whatever you want, only not the Catholic Faith.
"And if we are to leave our gifts before the altar, in order first to be reconciled to our brother if he have aught against us, much more is it idle, and even disrespectful and insulting to God, to bring to His feet any offering of zeal, any effort to extend His kingdom, to preach His faith or administer His sacraments, if we are in any way, either by our own choice or from the circumstances of our position, rebels against that law of charity which is violated by schism or heresy, by any insubordination to the authorities by which the Catholic Church is ruled, or by any separation from her world-wide unity.
In that case it is not one brother who has aught against us, but the whole body of our brethren in Christ, whose rights are trampled under foot, and who appear against us before the altar of God."
“O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth…?” (Gal. 3: 1)
It seems rather obvious that a public heretic (Cardinal Fernandez, who professes an heretical and firm conviction in universal salvation) who has no standing in the Church cannot exercise any authority in it.
Yet the world acts as if under some spell, unable to discern the fraud.
“because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying..." (2 Thess 2: 10-11)
It is therefore a punishment. But those who diligently seek out the truth continue to find it.
Ps: Commentary (copied from Google search result) on the passage from 2 Thess. 2: 10-11:
The Cause: The passage states that people will perish "because they received not the love of the truth." It isn't just about failing to know the truth; it's about failing to love and welcome it into one's heart.
The Effect: Because they consistently reject the truth and prefer unrighteousness or deception, God allows the "operation of error".
Understanding "God shall send": Biblical commentators, like the Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims, explain this carefully. It does not mean God forces people to sin or actively deceives them. Rather, it means God suffers (or permits) them to be deceived as a consequence of their own choices and their refusal to love the truth.
The Context: The Apostle Paul wrote these verses to warn the early church about a period of lawlessness and the rise of a deceitful figure before the return of Christ. It serves as a warning against being intellectually and spiritually indifferent to what is true.
Thank you for making this better known. Very few people know that Canon 6 of the 1917 did not abolish the Corpus. Where a new canon simply restates the old law (Cn. 20 n. 2), that canon is to be judged "ex veteris iuris auctoritate" and therefore by the received interpretations of the approved authors. Where a canon only partly concords (Cn. 20 n. 3), the concordant part is still judged by the old law, and only the discrepant part gets its own new sense. And where it's doubtful whether a canon actually departs from the old law (Cn. 20 n. 4), the presumption is in favor of the old law, "a veteri iure non est recedendum." So even the interpretive default favors continuity over rupture. Neuberger notes: "Whenever there is a gap in the legislation... the canonist may appeal to laws enacted in similar circumstances. In such a case the old law may serve as a norm for supplying the deficient legislation." Cf. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Canon_6/wotbAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1
Begging the question much. 'Fr' Mawdsley has no association with the SSPX - he was 'ordained' and dismissed from the FSSP for non-compliance of the FSSP jab dictates. Niether are 'antisemites'. Both clearly hoped (RIP Bp Williamson) and hope and pray that the Jews convert and save their souls.
Catholics are not against the Semitic race as such (BTW, Semites are both Jews and Arabs), because Our Lord, Our Lady and the Apostles are of that race. What the Catholic Church and faithful Catholics are opposed to is the Talmudic religion and the unfaithfulness of the Jews who do not accept the Messiah, Jesus, the heir of David and the Son of God, the fulfillment of the promises made in the Old Testament to their ancestors, who were faithful. Once they convert (and I know such cases, thanks be to God), they are no longer rejected and condemned by God but blessed because of the Fathers. So, the truth is that we love the Jews, but only insofar as they love and accept Our Lord Jesus Christ. But as long as they persist in being enemies of God and of His Church, we cannot be anything but enemies.
I hate Objection No. 3, as it is so often made without the distinction you made between legal authority and private judgment based on fact.
Thank you for putting all this out in a digestable manner!
"It is not possible to hold two contradictory propositions at the same time."
The failure of the effort to "square the circle" is the alchemist's wrapper around the violation of the law of non-contradiction. You can no more change error into truth than dirt into gold.
Mr. Wright:
"It is also understandable that some will hold that merely expressing heretical ideas – even if by mistake, or in good faith – is enough to deprive someone of the ability to excommunicate, without the 'excommunicator' being personally heretical."
It may certainly be understandable (because of the Crisis), but they would be mistaken to hold this particular opinion, because a person who expresses a heretical idea by mistake or in good faith is not a heretic in any way, but remains a faithful Catholic, and it would thus be an unjust and arbitrary thing to remove from him the exercise of any right that he is given by law or lawful appointment, which is definitely not the case with someone who is a heretic.
I would like to see a Monty Pythonesque tribunal of Doctors of the Church ruling on the commitment of heresies: “Ding Ding Ding we have another one! Mark it on his chart Thomas, and let’s make sure his name is spelled correctly this time!”
While their inanity was certainly amusing at times, they were often very shallow and incredibly blasphemous.
Thanks for this excellent article.
I hope the men who launched these emotional criticisms read the above.
"[W]e are already living in chaos, and this chaos is principally caused by those who have treated these men as if they have papal authority." I wish that every R&R 'faithful' would read this statement prayerfully.
This was actually a very good take in Fr. Coleridge's writings, which WMReview published. Coincidentally, just before the FSSPX consercrations.
It is the non-Catholic sect, the false synodal church and anyone adhering to it, who break the unity of the Church! THEY fail in charity by not accepting the whole Truth and all the Church's Teachings! This is obviously true, but difficult to understand, since they are so many, and the faithful so few!
But is THEY who are in need of repenting and not anyone claimed as schismatic, protestant or luciferian - really, the Trad Inc. has called sedevacantism luciferian - no sedevacantist or anyone drawing the conclusions of Church's Dogmas.
And you know what, this is precisely how it feels down here. What I mean is that the effects of this separation are all around me, and I suffer the consequences with other few around me, while all is fine and dandy in the novus ordo land. And it goes like this, the more you give in to the synodal abomination, the more perks you get, from slightly larger SSPX presence, to the even more so Ecclesia Dei "approved" mass, all the way to novus ordo where you get whatever you want, only not the Catholic Faith.
https://www.fathercoleridge.org/p/the-gospel-law-as-to-anger-iii
"And if we are to leave our gifts before the altar, in order first to be reconciled to our brother if he have aught against us, much more is it idle, and even disrespectful and insulting to God, to bring to His feet any offering of zeal, any effort to extend His kingdom, to preach His faith or administer His sacraments, if we are in any way, either by our own choice or from the circumstances of our position, rebels against that law of charity which is violated by schism or heresy, by any insubordination to the authorities by which the Catholic Church is ruled, or by any separation from her world-wide unity.
In that case it is not one brother who has aught against us, but the whole body of our brethren in Christ, whose rights are trampled under foot, and who appear against us before the altar of God."
“O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth…?” (Gal. 3: 1)
It seems rather obvious that a public heretic (Cardinal Fernandez, who professes an heretical and firm conviction in universal salvation) who has no standing in the Church cannot exercise any authority in it.
Yet the world acts as if under some spell, unable to discern the fraud.
“because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying..." (2 Thess 2: 10-11)
It is therefore a punishment. But those who diligently seek out the truth continue to find it.
Ps: Commentary (copied from Google search result) on the passage from 2 Thess. 2: 10-11:
The Cause: The passage states that people will perish "because they received not the love of the truth." It isn't just about failing to know the truth; it's about failing to love and welcome it into one's heart.
The Effect: Because they consistently reject the truth and prefer unrighteousness or deception, God allows the "operation of error".
Understanding "God shall send": Biblical commentators, like the Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims, explain this carefully. It does not mean God forces people to sin or actively deceives them. Rather, it means God suffers (or permits) them to be deceived as a consequence of their own choices and their refusal to love the truth.
The Context: The Apostle Paul wrote these verses to warn the early church about a period of lawlessness and the rise of a deceitful figure before the return of Christ. It serves as a warning against being intellectually and spiritually indifferent to what is true.
A detailed, evidenced and scholarly treatment of the excommunication débâcle. Thank you Mr Wright for this clarification.
Thanks Frank!
Commentary of Cardinal Juan de Torquemada, O.P.: https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/view/bsb10144754?page=425
Thank you for making this better known. Very few people know that Canon 6 of the 1917 did not abolish the Corpus. Where a new canon simply restates the old law (Cn. 20 n. 2), that canon is to be judged "ex veteris iuris auctoritate" and therefore by the received interpretations of the approved authors. Where a canon only partly concords (Cn. 20 n. 3), the concordant part is still judged by the old law, and only the discrepant part gets its own new sense. And where it's doubtful whether a canon actually departs from the old law (Cn. 20 n. 4), the presumption is in favor of the old law, "a veteri iure non est recedendum." So even the interpretive default favors continuity over rupture. Neuberger notes: "Whenever there is a gap in the legislation... the canonist may appeal to laws enacted in similar circumstances. In such a case the old law may serve as a norm for supplying the deficient legislation." Cf. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Canon_6/wotbAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1