Bellarmine Forums

John MacFarland on Bishop Williamson's ecclesiology
Page 1 of 1

Author:  John Lane [ Tue Jul 02, 2013 5:19 am ]
Post subject:  John MacFarland on Bishop Williamson's ecclesiology

From IA: ... p=22069916

John MacFarland wrote:
+W is not confused or ambiguous. He does not follow his ideas to their logical conclusion, but he follows them far enough to effectively deny all authority to the Church of Christ on earth. He doesn't admit to himself that he believes that indefectibility has been refuted, but I can't see how he could come to any other conclusion from his premises.

Appeals to supplied jurisdiction have no purchase on him. He knows that supplied jurisdiction assumes that the power to bind and loose exists in the first place. His analysis would seem to deny that it does exist. He does not rule out that God might restore it, but he seems pretty clear that it doesn't exist now.

So it is not surprising that he is accused of being an ecclesiological Protestant, because that is what he is. For him, unless and until God decrees otherwise, the next stop after you or me or +Williamson is God. The Church therefore is just the invisible body of those who have the Faith. He will not shoulder authority because there is no authority to shoulder. It has been destroyed by the conciliar revolution, taken temporary shelter with the FSSPX, and now is gone entirely. He avoids the Protestant sneaking authority back in because he thinks the world is going to end in 60 years, give or take. He will not serve anyone but God, because there is nobody but God to serve; and he'll live out his life dodging the fact that his theories destroy the Church in order to save it. If you're not concerned to be a Catholic, it all works together pretty well.

This is about right, in my observation.

The highly suspicious "Anthony Malleus" commented in response:

I think that from what you correctly point out, it is becoming harder for the sectarians to maintain that Bp. Williamson is not a Sedevacantist.

This is precisely the opposite of the true interpretation.

Williamson's problem is that he doesn't believe in sound ecclesiology. He is still Protestant in his ecclesiology. I doubt he would even dispute this if he were presented with it.

Sedevacantists are Roman to our bones. Our Roman ecclesiology is the reason for our sedevacantism. We conclude that the See is Vacant precisely because if it isn't, then the Church has defected. Sedeplenists with a generally Roman ecclesiology argue that we are mistaken in assigning the cause of the evils of Vatican II formally to the conciliar popes. That is, they argue that the conciliar popes are somehow not responsible for those evils. In this way both theories attempt to remain Roman. But Williamson's theology is totally different. He cheerfully admits that Rome is responsible, and he vehemently rejects the idea that he will ever be a sedevacantist. MacFarland is therefore right - Williamson believes that "indefectibility has been refuted."

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group