For more info and discussion, please visit www.CathInfo.com Conferences took place in New York on October 12, 2019 Bishop Williamson conference 1 on Vatican II, Prometheus book
Greetings Bishop, could you offer the Faithful a conference on the current state of the Church over these past couple weeks, perhaps if this has to do with Our Lady of Fatima’s Message, and some words of encouragement? Thank you Bishop Williamson.
Priesthood is coming to me strongly over the last few years..I keep backing down..I could never think of novo's ordo.just the true mass..hope all's going good with you.Ave Maria!
Pope Leo XIII, in Libertas, explained it well. Natural freedom- free will, not necessarily a "right". God has natural freedom, but it's not disordered like man's natural freedom. Moral freedom- one has the right to do what is right, but not what is wrong. License- claiming moral freedom to act in ways which may in fact be contrary to morality.
Your Excellency, I vehemently disagree that it is unlawful to oppose with necessary force an unelected government or a government that is elected via covert and unlawful, dishonest means that is against a preordained constitution. I understand that the United States has turned it's back on the worship of the Trinity, however why should the nation be not allowed to regain control of its destiny to reassert its allegiance to God? Did our Lord not say to sell a cloak for a sword for those without a script or a purse? Is a script not a paper law and a purse the financial means? How much suffering under persecution is justified?
H.E. says a lot about using "common sense." What does common sense tell us about the current pope? My common sense tells me that he can not possibly be a real pope.
The High Priest Caiphas conspired with others to have Our Lord tortured and killed. He was anything but faithful to the office of High Priest. Wasn't he driving the Jewish faith off a cliff worse than Pope Francis is doing to the Catholic Church today? ...and yet the Holy Ghost in Scripture called him the Chief Priest. Sheds a bit of light on the whole Pope question I think... In 33 AD, the Old Testament was still in effect -- including the Sanhedrin and the Synagogue.
@@matthewcathinfo402 Sorry, I disagree. Caiphas, as High Priest of the old religion, was just being faithful to the tenets of that religion. What teaching of the Mosaic religion did Caiphas deny? He sought to protect his understanding of it by delivering Jesus up to death. Plenty of heretics and crypto Jews were put to death by the church, because they denied or circumvented the teachings of the New Covenant
He wasn't faithful to the Mosaic law at all. One of the Ten Commandments is, "Thou Shalt Not bear false witness against thy neighbor" and yet he did just that, maliciously. No, he wasn't even a good Jew. And he was driving the whole Jewish religion off a cliff. During Holy Week, did Caiphas seem like a legit head of God's own religion, or the right arm of satan?
@@matthewcathinfo402 St. Jerome said clearly, that when Caiphas rore his robe, it was a sign for the pharisees that they lost their authority, yeah he even said that the seat was vacant from that moment on. So, loss of authority is possible, especially in the papacy. Bergoglio is not the pope, and he never was.
Does anyone know Williamson my spiritual father,pleas return ...yes...to me through this comment,no liers for I will put into you the test,I have a very important message for him
this is how senator palpatine became darth sidious He's got the history right, but he's missing one Thing, which is the most important of all; by which we the Followers of Christ should be recognized: LOVE.
Better state what you think that which is misrepresented rather blatantly accuse the Bishop. And then, if you r good at it, give your own correct version. That way we can either agree or disagree with your criticism.
Haven't you read "the critic of pure reason''? Kant is one of the ancestors of ''moral relativism''; according to Prof Peter kreft, Kant is a pillar of unbelief and rightly so, one of those who have tried to do great harm to the Christian mind.
No the good Bishop described Kant's erroneous doctrines exactly right. Kant teaches that man cannot actually know the essence of any thing. This is obviously absurd. For the accidents of a thing implicitly contain the essence, which the intellect then abstracts out of the singular, which is known by the senses. If we follow Kant's errors then the arguments for God's existence are no longer valid, since they assume a man is able to know the intrinsic essences/natures of things c.f. the V Ways of S. Thomas. Hence following Kant was the beginning of the atheism and agnosticism which is now consuming the world. So the good Bishop's analysis was spot on.
