Replies

"the virtue of faith is seated in the mind and not in the heart" Someone please explain this statement for me--in clarity of terms.

No explantion needed. Look to the author - Williamson - a former Anglican.

Since a legitimate question was asked and not a request for a smarmy answer, there is an explanation needed. Williamson got it from that awful "Anglican" St. Thomas Aquinas.

Whether the Object of Faith can be Something Seen

"I answer that: faith implies intellectual assent to that which is believed. But there are two ways in which the intellect gives its assent. In the first way, it is moved to give its assent by the object itself, which is either known in itself, as first principles are obviously known, since the intellect understands them, or known through something else that is known, as are conclusions which are known scientifically. In the second way, the intellect gives its assent not because it is convinced by the object itself, but by voluntarily preferring the one alternative to the other. If it chooses with hesitation, and with misgivings about the other alternative, there will be opinion. If it chooses with assurance, and without any such misgivings, there will be 225faith. Now those things are said to be seen which of themselves move our intellect or sense to know them. Hence it is clear that neither faith nor opinion can be of things that are seen, whether by sense or by the intellect."

I'm guessing but it seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that he was drawn to the SSPX as a result of their schism with the intent of fostering it.

Williamson was with the SSPX long before the Apostolic delegation came to Econe and scandalized the archbishop by denying the physical resurrection of Our Lord. (Just as the local Maronite priest told me last month.) It was actually this scandal that convinced the seminarians (Williamson being one of the first to be interveiwed by the delegation) that there was a profound crisis in the Church.

I'm not an authority on the SSPX but, if I understand correctly, Bishop Fellay is the one who pulls the shots.

"Calls the shots" is what you mean. The Holy Father may want to speed things up because Fellay's term runs out in 2006 and Williamson may end up being the Superior.

If that is so, then you need not worry any more about Williamson's statement. Take a look at how he concludes his letter about (then) Cardinal Ratzinger.We might wish to trust you, but we cannot.

One year later by the way, Three of the four bishops (Williamson included) were across the table from then Cardinal Ratzinger and a few others. The future Holy Father had a copy of "the Problem of the Liturgical reform" with him. Published by the SSPX.

No doubt if the Holy Father and Fellay are able to bridge the gap, then Williamson will set off on his own.

I think it's funny that everyone is fostering this idea that there is a fractionalization between Fellay and Williamson. Williamson released his letter I'm sure with the full knowledge and consent of Fellay. This provided a number of advantages:

1) the meeting that was low key was suddenly public.

2) the expectations of the SSPX were expressed as "low" so no Vatican diplomat was going to think of this visit as a capitulation to the modernism rampant in the Church.

3) It's an example of the acceptance of the authority of the Pope and the papal priveleges. If the SSPX denied it and were actually "schismatic" they wouldn't bother with the Pope as the "sedes" don't.

4) That leaves the Holy Father with the "necessity" to extend and olive branch and possibly grant the "pre-conditions" that bishop Fellay has asked for. He can deny it and nothing happens. He can grant it and it only works towards his benefit and then sets in motion a new dynamic of the oncoming vicious war between the traditionalist and the Papacy on one side and the modernists on the other.

It has been brilliant maneuvering on the part of the SSPX. I was just watching the rerun of the EWTN's World Over Live and Raymond Arroyo gave the meeting a big talk up and provided video of a solemn High Mass in all it's glory. (This is a slick way of getting past their local bishop who won't allow them to broadcast such a thing) Arroyo is supportive of the Old Mass and his interviews with Mel Gibson helped draw attention to the traditionalist movement.

It's an easy wager to believe that Williamson actually knows more about the Catholic faith than most prelates in the Vatican. He also lives it more than most Catholics in the World. It's also an easy bet that he knows the thinking of Cardinal Ratzinger (now B16) better than anyone on this thread. Being an Anglican convert Williamson is very comparable with John Henry Cardinal Newman. Both highly educated, I believe Williamson is a Cambridge man, well read, extremely good in Latin and extraordinarily capable of explaining the Catholic Faith in Thomistic terminology. It's also funny how no one denies that the SSPX priests are some of the most well formed priests since the hey day of the Jesuits and they forget that many of them were taught and formed by Williamson himself.