Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on July 18, 2023, 01:34:22 AM
-
Bishop Williamson is doing the right thing in consecrating several bishops. In these uncertain times, especially in far flung Mass centers, there is uncertainty about the administering of Confirmations.
(https://i.imgur.com/4c8o9KZ.png)
From the Facebook page of Traditional Catholic + MCSPX
( Bishop ( Bishop Michal Stobnicki )
" On the contrary, the “Resistance” has followed the Archbishop’s pioneering example in 1988 by taking its own bishops for Truth and Tradition. Between 2015 and 2017 there were Bishops Faure, Tomas and Zendejas, who have surely laboured successfully for Tradition since then, and more recently, but privately, Bishop Ballini for Ireland (2021) and Bishop Stobnicki in Poland (2022). But why the privacy? Indeed privacy is not natural for ceremonies of consecration of Catholic bishops, but the 2020’s are no longer the 2010’s, let alone the 1980’s. The reasons were, firstly, to enable more and more Catholics to catch up with the Church’s crying need to follow Archbishop Lefebvre’s example by giving more priority to Truth and less importance to that Conciliar Authority which is without the Truth; and secondly, to delay waving a red rag under the nose of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, which is more powerful and more malicious with each day that passes. Here below is Bishop Stobnicki’s brief autobiography:—
I was born in 1987 into a Polish Catholic family, I graduated from school in 2006 and joined the SSPX on the advice of old Polish priests. In 2008, I was abruptly removed from the SSPX seminary in Zaitzkofen, because I was in too close contact with Bishop Williamson, but I continued my priestly formation under the direction of the senior Polish priests, and two Traditional bishops. Meanwhile, in 2014 I graduated from law school and I did some work as a lawyer for a while. In 2013 I had again contacted Bishop Williamson when he was expelled from the FSSPX. In 2016 he began coming to Poland regularly, and he saw fit to ordain me priest on July 1, 2017. For the next five years, such were the fruits of my priestly ministry in Poland (and – surely a good sign – the violent opposition to it) that I was consecrated by him as a bishop, in private but with witnesses, on August 15, 2022. With one fellow priest also ordained by Bishop Williamson, we serve now 17 Mass centres in Poland, which includes so far nine Confirmation ceremonies, and the conditional re-ordination of six priests. The violent opposition has continued also, up to and including the possibly murderous slashing of a tire of my car. Establishing the “Resistance” in Poland has been hard work, but my colleague and I are now helping to look after many good souls. Thanks be to God, and to Our Lady, Queen of Poland. "
)
" On the contrary, the “Resistance” has followed the Archbishop’s pioneering example in 1988 by taking its own bishops for Truth and Tradition. Between 2015 and 2017 there were Bishops Faure, Tomas and Zendejas, who have surely laboured successfully for Tradition since then, and more recently, but privately, Bishop Ballini for Ireland (2021) and Bishop Stobnicki in Poland (2022). But why the privacy? Indeed privacy is not natural for ceremonies of consecration of Catholic bishops, but the 2020’s are no longer the 2010’s, let alone the 1980’s. The reasons were, firstly, to enable more and more Catholics to catch up with the Church’s crying need to follow Archbishop Lefebvre’s example by giving more priority to Truth and less importance to that Conciliar Authority which is without the Truth; and secondly, to delay waving a red rag under the nose of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, which is more powerful and more malicious with each day that passes. Here below is Bishop Stobnicki’s brief autobiography:—
I was born in 1987 into a Polish Catholic family, I graduated from school in 2006 and joined the SSPX on the advice of old Polish priests. In 2008, I was abruptly removed from the SSPX seminary in Zaitzkofen, because I was in too close contact with Bishop Williamson, but I continued my priestly formation under the direction of the senior Polish priests, and two Traditional bishops. Meanwhile, in 2014 I graduated from law school and I did some work as a lawyer for a while. In 2013 I had again contacted Bishop Williamson when he was expelled from the FSSPX. In 2016 he began coming to Poland regularly, and he saw fit to ordain me priest on July 1, 2017. For the next five years, such were the fruits of my priestly ministry in Poland (and – surely a good sign – the violent opposition to it) that I was consecrated by him as a bishop, in private but with witnesses, on August 15, 2022. With one fellow priest also ordained by Bishop Williamson, we serve now 17 Mass centres in Poland, which includes so far nine Confirmation ceremonies, and the conditional re-ordination of six priests. The violent opposition has continued also, up to and including the possibly murderous slashing of a tire of my car. Establishing the “Resistance” in Poland has been hard work, but my colleague and I are now helping to look after many good souls. Thanks be to God, and to Our Lady, Queen of Poland. "
-
Consecrating bishops is not the issue but the manner in which it was done. There should have been ample public notice like banns of ordination.
-
Consecrating bishops is not the issue but the manner in which it was done. There should have been ample public notice like banns of ordination.
The first three bishops (Faure, Tomas, and Zendejas) are all members of congregations, but the last three (Ballini, Stobnicki, and Morgan) are all independents.
It could be accepted tgat +Williamson consecrated them in the great and (then) reasonable fear of worldwide lockdowns, as was done behind the Iron Curtain. But now that the threat has passed, while the bishops remain, they should join a Resistance congregation.
Lefebvre never ordained or consecrated independent priests and bishops, and the covid crisis/lockdown fear having passed, their is no excuse for them remaining independent.
-
Consecrating bishops is not the issue but the manner in which it was done. There should have been ample public notice like banns of ordination.
So someone who didn't really have formal training except under some "senior" priests, went to law school, worked as a lawyer, and was just ordained to the priesthood 5 years prior to his consecration, at the age of 35? This one has a strong chance of blowing up on Bishop Williamson. Perhaps Bishop Kelly can now argue about the "mental state" of Bishop Williamson.
-
Bishop Williamson is doing the right thing in consecrating several bishops. In these uncertain times, especially in far flung Mass centers, there is uncertainty about the administering of Confirmations.
(https://i.imgur.com/4c8o9KZ.png)
Ah hello based department?
-
Here below is Bishop Stobnicki’s brief autobiography:—
I was born in 1987 into a Polish Catholic family, I graduated from school in 2006 and joined the SSPX on the advice of old Polish priests. In 2008, I was abruptly removed from the SSPX seminary in Zaitzkofen, because I was in too close contact with Bishop Williamson, but I continued my priestly formation under the direction of the senior Polish priests, and two Traditional bishops. Meanwhile, in 2014 I graduated from law school and I did some work as a lawyer for a while. In 2013 I had again contacted Bishop Williamson when he was expelled from the FSSPX. In 2016 he began coming to Poland regularly, and he saw fit to ordain me priest on July 1, 2017. For the next five years, such were the fruits of my priestly ministry in Poland (and – surely a good sign – the violent opposition to it) that I was consecrated by him as a bishop, in private but with witnesses, on August 15, 2022. With one fellow priest also ordained by Bishop Williamson, we serve now 17 Mass centres in Poland, which includes so far nine Confirmation ceremonies, and the conditional re-ordination of six priests. The violent opposition has continued also, up to and including the possibly murderous slashing of a tire of my car. Establishing the “Resistance” in Poland has been hard work, but my colleague and I are now helping to look after many good souls. Thanks be to God, and to Our Lady, Queen of Poland. "
Does no one else see the problem here?
1987 -- born
2006 -- enter SSPX seminary
2008 -- expelled from SSPX on account of being "in too close contact with Bishop Williamson"? so, after 2 years of formal seminary.
WHAT???? Bishop Williamson was still a bishop in good standing with SSPX in 2008 (expelled only in 2012). +Stobnicki was clearly not expelled for that reason. Something stinks.
2008-?? -- continued studying (?) under some "senior Polish priests" (doesn't say they were trad) and 2 Trad bishops (+Thuc line bishops?). This suggests he was actually expelled for becoming aligned with sedevacantists, not for close contact with Bishop Williamson
2013 -- contacted Bishop Williamson after +Williamson was expelled from SSPX
but ... continued on with law school, graduating in 2014 and then worked as a lawyer for a while.
2016 -- re-established contact with Bishop Williamson when he visited Poland
2017 -- ordained to the priesthood
So, was ordained a priest with only 2 years of formal seminary training, some nebulous private training, and law school
2022 -- after just 5 years as a priest, at the age of 35, again, with very little seminary training under his belt, consecrated a bishop
Why? "Such were the fruits of my priestly ministry ..." aka I was such an awesome priest that I was consecrated a bishop at the age of 35 with 2 years of formal seminary training.
Something doesn't add up here, and this is going to give anti-Resistance a lot of ammunition. He's clearly lying about why he was expelled from SSPX in 2008. Not a good start for a Traditional bishop with 2 years of formal seminary training and 5 years of "priestly ministry" under his belt, probably serving chapels of about 15 people.
-
The first three bishops (Faure, Tomas, and Zendejas) are all members of congregations, but the last three (Ballini, Stobnicki, and Morgan) are all independents.
...
Lefebvre never ordained or consecrated independent priests and bishops, and the covid crisis/lockdown fear having passed, their is no excuse for them remaining independent.
I believe Bishop Faure started SAJM after he was made Bishop, thus he was consecrated independent, and then created the congregation. So, the last three Bishops can also start their own congregation and thus no longer be independent.
-
Does no one else see the problem here?
1987 -- born
2006 -- enter SSPX seminary
2008 -- expelled from SSPX on account of being "in too close contact with Bishop Williamson"? so, after 2 years of formal seminary.
WHAT???? Bishop Williamson was still a bishop in good standing with SSPX in 2008 (expelled only in 2012). +Stobnicki was clearly not expelled for that reason. Something stinks.
2008-?? -- continued studying (?) under some "senior Polish priests" (doesn't say they were trad) and 2 Trad bishops (+Thuc line bishops?). This suggests he was actually expelled for becoming aligned with sedevacantists, not for close contact with Bishop Williamson
2013 -- contacted Bishop Williamson after +Williamson was expelled from SSPX
but ... continued on with law school, graduating in 2014 and then worked as a lawyer for a while.
2016 -- re-established contact with Bishop Williamson when he visited Poland
2017 -- ordained to the priesthood
So, was ordained a priest with only 2 years of formal seminary training, some nebulous private training, and law school
2022 -- after just 5 years as a priest, at the age of 35, again, with very little seminary training under his belt, consecrated a bishop
Why? "Such were the fruits of my priestly ministry ..." aka I was such an awesome priest that I was consecrated a bishop at the age of 35 with 2 years of formal seminary training.
Something doesn't add up here, and this is going to give anti-Resistance a lot of ammunition. He's clearly lying about why he was expelled from SSPX in 2008. Not a good start for a Traditional bishop with 2 years of formal seminary training and 5 years of "priestly ministry" under his belt, probably serving chapels of about 15 people.
Oh not based then.
-
Does no one else see the problem here?
1987 -- born
2006 -- enter SSPX seminary
2008 -- expelled from SSPX on account of being "in too close contact with Bishop Williamson"? so, after 2 years of formal seminary.
WHAT???? Bishop Williamson was still a bishop in good standing with SSPX in 2008 (expelled only in 2012). +Stobnicki was clearly not expelled for that reason. Something stinks.
2008-?? -- continued studying (?) under some "senior Polish priests" (doesn't say they were trad) and 2 Trad bishops (+Thuc line bishops?). This suggests he was actually expelled for becoming aligned with sedevacantists, not for close contact with Bishop Williamson
2013 -- contacted Bishop Williamson after +Williamson was expelled from SSPX
but ... continued on with law school, graduating in 2014 and then worked as a lawyer for a while.
2016 -- re-established contact with Bishop Williamson when he visited Poland
2017 -- ordained to the priesthood
So, was ordained a priest with only 2 years of formal seminary training, some nebulous private training, and law school
2022 -- after just 5 years as a priest, at the age of 35, again, with very little seminary training under his belt, consecrated a bishop
Why? "Such were the fruits of my priestly ministry ..." aka I was such an awesome priest that I was consecrated a bishop at the age of 35 with 2 years of formal seminary training.
Something doesn't add up here, and this is going to give anti-Resistance a lot of ammunition. He's clearly lying about why he was expelled from SSPX in 2008. Not a good start for a Traditional bishop with 2 years of formal seminary training and 5 years of "priestly ministry" under his belt, probably serving chapels of about 15 people.
You think he'd lie like that about the reason for being expelled knowing full well Bp. Williamson can out him as a liar at any time? No way.
Besides, how old was Fr. Damien Dutertre when he was consecrated? 30? Is that an outrage as well?
-
can someone contact Bishop Williamson and fraternally correct him? Maybe he doesn't realize what he is doing is wrong. Sean Johnson?????? Matthew?????
-
It’s the questionable formation and the independence that make the choice curious, more than the age.
Lefebvre consecrated Fellay when he was only 30.
-
It’s the questionable formation and the independence that make the choice curious, more than the age.
Lefebvre consecrated Fellay when he was only 30.
de Galarreta was only 31.
-
If I may be the advocatus diaboli, Augustine, the lawyer, was ordained at the age of 37, and, four years later was consecrated a bishop by St. Ambrose. There are other examples in church history of the lawyer, the professor, the learned layman, getting ordained, and perhaps consecrated. In these days of the Great Apostasy what does "formal seminary training" even mean? There are no minor seminaries, and the "traditional" major seminaries barely stay afloat. I recall the words of Our Lord, "I can raise up sons of Abraham from these very stones." At least Bp. Williamson is doing his part to restore tradition in the form of bishops. When the other three bishops in the SSPX go to their judgment what will be their reply to Our Lord? "Well, Lord, we stayed in the SSPX because it was founded by Msgr. Lefebvre. We did not consecrate any bishops, but we did go along with the Novus Ordo bishop when he consecrated our holy oils for us."
-
You think he'd lie like that about the reason for being expelled knowing full well Bp. Williamson can out him as a liar at any time? No way.
Besides, how old was Fr. Damien Dutertre when he was consecrated? 30? Is that an outrage as well?
.
When was Fr. Duterte consecrated a bishop?
-
Why? "Such were the fruits of my priestly ministry ..." aka I was such an awesome priest that I was consecrated a bishop at the age of 35 with 2 years of formal seminary training.
Something doesn't add up here, and this is going to give anti-Resistance a lot of ammunition. He's clearly lying about why he was expelled from SSPX in 2008. Not a good start for a Traditional bishop with 2 years of formal seminary training and 5 years of "priestly ministry" under his belt, probably serving chapels of about 15 people.
I agree that his story should be better explained and that the text gives the impression that he lacks humility.
On the other hand, I believe that the private tutoring of candidates to the priesthood may be the future of Tradition.
Seminaries are costly and demand a lot from the students. Some of them even have to live in another country. On regular times, men could study to the priesthood in their own dioceses.
Before the great Council of Trent, seminaries were not mandatory, so, a lot of good priests and saints were probably educated through private tutoring.
-
I have some personal anecdotes on the new Bishop- he travels the entirety of Poland having Mass for resistance members in that country and has for quite a few years. I understand why BW consecrated him. It makes perfect sense. There are few Priests, no Bishops ( prior to Bishop Michal) and many members.
-
I have some personal anecdotes on the new Bishop- he travels the entirety of Poland having Mass for resistance members in that country and has for quite a few years. I understand why BW consecrated him. It makes perfect sense. There are few Priests, no Bishops ( prior to Bishop Michal) and many members.
No, it really doesn't make any sense.
-
You think he'd lie like that about the reason for being expelled knowing full well Bp. Williamson can out him as a liar at any time? No way.
Yes I do. And that's a bad sign. No way he was expelled in 2008 from SSPX for contacts with Bishop Williamson, who was at that time still an SSPX bishop in good standing. Bishop Williamson wasn't expelled until 4 years later, and it wasn't until 2009 that the h0Ɩ0h0αx uproar took place (after Ratzinger lifted the excommunications in early 2009). Then he magically shows up receiving some informal training under some unnamed "Trad bishops". Only other Trad bishops are there are sedevacantist +Thuc line bishops. He should name these bishops that he trained under, and explain the quality of his training.
-
No way he was expelled in 2008 from SSPX for contacts with Bishop Williamson, who was at that time still an SSPX bishop in good standing.
I don't intend to get involved in this thread, except to recall the following:
Although +Williamson was technically in good standing until 2009, he was nevertheless slated for termination at least as early as 1999 (when +Fellay first attempted to remove him as rector of the Winona seminary).
In 2001, the only things standing between the SSPX and a practical accord were +Williamson and Avrille.
Obviously, Menzingen (and Rome) viewed him as an obstacle to the ralliement.
When I was in Winona, there was a great "under the table" divide between priests and seminarians as to who they backed: +Williamson or +Fellay (mostly for the same reasons).
So yes, +Fellay did not start menacing +Williamson until 2009, but he was already taking practical measures to eliminate him gradually at least 10 years earlier. That being the case, with +Fellay and Rome already knowing their plans for a reoriented SSPX did not include +Williamson, expressing yourself as a great supporter of him would not be good for your ordination prospects.
-
Can anyone can provide decent links(videos/articles) regarding the circuмstances of +Williamson's exit from the Society, what happened there?
-
I don't intend to get involved in this thread, except to recall the following:
Although +Williamson was technically in good standing until 2009, he was nevertheless slated for termination at least as early as 1999 (when +Fellay first attempted to remove him as rector of the Winona seminary).
In 2001, the only things standing between the SSPX and a practical accord were +Williamson and Avrille.
Obviously, Menzingen (and Rome) viewed him as an obstacle to the ralliement.
When I was in Winona, there was a great "under the table" divide between priests and seminarians as to who they backed: +Williamson or +Fellay (mostly for the same reasons).
So yes, +Fellay did not start menacing +Williamson until 2009, but he was already taking practical measures to eliminate him gradually at least 10 years earlier. That being the case, with +Fellay and Rome already knowing their plans for a reoriented SSPX did not include +Williamson, expressing yourself as a great supporter of him would not be good for your ordination prospects.
Ladislaus, in light of this wouldn't you say your judgment was premature?
-
I don't intend to get involved in this thread, except to recall the following:
Although +Williamson was technically in good standing until 2009, he was nevertheless slated for termination at least as early as 1999 (when +Fellay first attempted to remove him as rector of the Winona seminary).
In 2001, the only things standing between the SSPX and a practical accord were +Williamson and Avrille.
Obviously, Menzingen (and Rome) viewed him as an obstacle to the ralliement.
When I was in Winona, there was a great "under the table" divide between priests and seminarians as to who they backed: +Williamson or +Fellay (mostly for the same reasons).
So yes, +Fellay did not start menacing +Williamson until 2009, but he was already taking practical measures to eliminate him gradually at least 10 years earlier. That being the case, with +Fellay and Rome already knowing their plans for a reoriented SSPX did not include +Williamson, expressing yourself as a great supporter of him would not be good for your ordination prospects.
Maybe. But there's at least much more to the story than appeared in the biography. Simply being "in contact" with +Williamson would not have resulted in an expulsion from the seminary in 2008. +Williamson didn't even get into hot water (over the h0Ɩ0h0αx situation) until 2009. And then he ends up with some "Trad bishops". Something doesn't fit here. This wouldn't be the first time someone was expelled from a seminary and then latched onto another group after claiming that he was dismissed for persecution (Urrutigoity and Roberts come to mind).
-
Ladislaus, in light of this wouldn't you say your judgment was premature?
No. Nobody would have gotten expelled in 2008 for merely being "in contact" with Bishop Williamson.
-
No. Nobody would have gotten expelled in 2008 for merely being "in contact" with Bishop Williamson.
Well, I agree that the literal meaning is false but we all understood what was meant. He meant he was resistance aligned and that's why he got kicked out. He can be more resistance aligned even if he's a sedevacantist.
-
I agree that his story should be better explained and that the text gives the impression that he lacks humility.
On the other hand, I believe that the private tutoring of candidates to the priesthood may be the future of Tradition.
Seminaries are costly and demand a lot from the students. Some of them even have to live in another country. On regular times, men could study to the priesthood in their own dioceses.
Before the great Council of Trent, seminaries were not mandatory, so, a lot of good priests and saints were probably educated through private tutoring.
The Opus Dei ordains to the priesthood men with professional qualifications after seminary training of a year or so.
-
The Opus Dei ordains to the priesthood men with professional qualifications after seminary training of a year or so.
This is the worst example you could give.
If you are not familiar with the problems of this terrible group, you can start here:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/jopus.htm
-
Does no one else see the problem here?
1987 -- born
2006 -- enter SSPX seminary
2008 -- expelled from SSPX on account of being "in too close contact with Bishop Williamson"? so, after 2 years of formal seminary.
WHAT???? Bishop Williamson was still a bishop in good standing with SSPX in 2008 (expelled only in 2012). +Stobnicki was clearly not expelled for that reason. Something stinks.
2008-?? -- continued studying (?) under some "senior Polish priests" (doesn't say they were trad) and 2 Trad bishops (+Thuc line bishops?). This suggests he was actually expelled for becoming aligned with sedevacantists, not for close contact with Bishop Williamson
2013 -- contacted Bishop Williamson after +Williamson was expelled from SSPX
but ... continued on with law school, graduating in 2014 and then worked as a lawyer for a while.
2016 -- re-established contact with Bishop Williamson when he visited Poland
2017 -- ordained to the priesthood
So, was ordained a priest with only 2 years of formal seminary training, some nebulous private training, and law school
2022 -- after just 5 years as a priest, at the age of 35, again, with very little seminary training under his belt, consecrated a bishop
Why? "Such were the fruits of my priestly ministry ..." aka I was such an awesome priest that I was consecrated a bishop at the age of 35 with 2 years of formal seminary training.
Something doesn't add up here, and this is going to give anti-Resistance a lot of ammunition. He's clearly lying about why he was expelled from SSPX in 2008. Not a good start for a Traditional bishop with 2 years of formal seminary training and 5 years of "priestly ministry" under his belt, probably serving chapels of about 15 people.
Yes I didn't buy the one-sided reason given that he was expelled because he was "too close to Bp Williamson". That is why priestly ordinations and episcopal consecrations should rarely be done secretly. The worldwide lockdowns aren't even a good excuse because it is pretty obvious it can't last forever. The sedevacantist groups fare much better than the Resistance in this regard.
-
This is the worst example you could give.
If you are not familiar with the problems of this terrible group, you can start here:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/jopus.htm
I think you misunderstood our resident Opus Dei fanatics (Incredulous or Miser):
They mean to suggest +Williamson is Opus Dei.
:facepalm:
-
You think he'd lie like that about the reason for being expelled knowing full well Bp. Williamson can out him as a liar at any time? No way.
Well, we all know what happened with the case of Fr. Rodrigo da Silva.
-
No. Nobody would have gotten expelled in 2008 for merely being "in contact" with Bishop Williamson.
You are wrong. I was in Zaitzkofen at the time and saw how Bishop Williamson was hated. So much so that seminarians were told not to go to his lectures when he came and he was ridiculed. I know that Rector Pfluger opened letters from Bishop Williamson to abbé Michal. Is this normal?? Fellay and company had wanted to destroy Bishop Williamson for a long time. Until they finally invited Swedish television and organised a trap. It was November 2008. They were afraid that abbé Michal would warn the Bishop, so they suddenly removed him. He had a few hours to pack up all his things.
-
You are wrong. I was in Zaitzkofen at the time and saw how Bishop Williamson was hated. So much so that seminarians were told not to go to his lectures when he came and he was ridiculed. I know that Rector Pfluger opened letters from Bishop Williamson to abbé Michal. Is this normal?? Fellay and company had wanted to destroy Bishop Williamson for a long time. Until they finally invited Swedish television and organised a trap. It was November 2008. They were afraid that abbé Michal would warn the Bishop, so they suddenly removed him. He had a few hours to pack up all his things.
No, not wrong. SSPX has always opened seminarians' letters ... that's well known ... regardless of who they're from or to. Rest is an absurd bunch of nonsense, that SSPX entrapped Bishop Williamson to make the h0Ɩ0cαųst comments when those comments completely derailed the re-unification with Rome.
-
No, not wrong. SSPX has always opened seminarians' letters ... that's well known ... regardless of who they're from or to. Rest is an absurd bunch of nonsense, that SSPX entrapped Bishop Williamson to make the h0Ɩ0cαųst comments when those comments completely derailed the re-unification with Rome.
If you have no problem reading other people's letters then we live in different civilisations. Strange that somehow other letters were not opened.
The journalists from Sweden came at the invitation of Father Pfluger, who encouraged the seminarians to talk to them. The enemies of the Church don't make plans by the month, but by years. Why does Rome need an FSSPX with a bishop who builds up opposition? Such a bishop has to be got rid of, and at the same time Benedict XVI has to be hit.
-
I guess Bishop Michel just doesn't pass the Ladi test. :facepalm:
-
I believe Bishop Faure started SAJM after he was made Bishop, thus he was consecrated independent, and then created the congregation. So, the last three Bishops can also start their own congregation and thus no longer be independent.
A rather ironic idea since Bishop Williamson mentioned something like “there can be no organisation, no structure.” “The era of structures is yesterday.”
-
A rather ironic idea since Bishop Williamson mentioned something like “there can be no organisation, no structure.” “The era of structures is yesterday.”
Indeed, it is ironic that first Bishop he consecrated turns around and does the very thing he suggest they do not do. The SAJM make it know that they do not approve of independent priests yet is Bishop Williamson that suggest there be "pockets of resistance" and not SSPX 2.0. I suppose that is why the website Non Possumus (nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com) (https://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/) removed all links to anything related to Bishop Williamson. There used to be a link to the St. Marcel Initiative and a link to respice stellam – Under the patronage of Stella Maris, Our Lady Star of the Sea (https://respicestellam.org/)
-
Does anyone know what Bishop Stobnicki means when he claims "[t]he violent opposition has continued also, up to and including the possibly murderous slashing of a tire of my car"? Generally speaking, slashing a car tire is an act of vandalism, not something 'murderous.' Is he claiming that his life has been in danger?
-
Does anyone know what Bishop Stobnicki means when he claims "[t]he violent opposition has continued also, up to and including the possibly murderous slashing of a tire of my car"? Generally speaking, slashing a car tire is an act of vandalism, not something 'murderous.' Is he claiming that his life has been in danger?
Possible mistranslation?
I went to Google translate and went backwards from "murderous" to Polish and got: morderczy
When looking at the definition of this word, it can mean not only murderous but also "dangerously violent".
I think we have some Polacks here who can chime in ... :laugh1:
-
Indeed, it is ironic that first Bishop he consecrated turns around and does the very thing he suggest they do not do. The SAJM make it know that they do not approve of independent priests yet is Bishop Williamson that suggest there be "pockets of resistance" and not SSPX 2.0. I suppose that is why the website Non Possumus (nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com) (https://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/) removed all links to anything related to Bishop Williamson. There used to be a link to the St. Marcel Initiative and a link to respice stellam – Under the patronage of Stella Maris, Our Lady Star of the Sea (https://respicestellam.org/)
In my opinion, the lack of a congregation was the primary reason for the Resistance failure to launch.
It was the original cause of friction between Pfeiffer and Williamson.
By the time +Faure was consecrated, mid 2015, the Resistance was already 3.5 years-old, and most priests had already made their decisions.
Too little, too late.
Everyone understood that a Resistance movement formed according to independent pockets of resistance, without any means of reproduction (except along the lines of questionable formation we see emerging now) was a death sentence.
-
In my opinion, the lack of a congregation was the primary reason for the Resistance failure to launch.
It was the original cause of friction between Pfeiffer and Williamson.
By the time +Faure was consecrated, mid 2015, the Resistance was already 3.5 years-old, and most priests had already made their decisions.
Too little, too late.
Everyone understood that a Resistance movement formed according to independent pockets of resistance, without any means of reproduction (except along the lines of questionable formation we see emerging now) was a death sentence.
Yes, and I've always disagreed with Bishop Williamson for not putting SOMEthing together by way or organization ... that could have reined in the individuals who later became loose canons. Now, it needn't be a strict "Society" of any kind. One of the issues with SSPX has always been the "one size fits all" notion of priestly vocation. Before Vatican II, there are dozens upon dozens of options for how to live out even a priestly vocation. Some young men are more contemplative, others more academic, others more pastoral, others more "ora et labora"-minded, etc. That's why there are so many orders in the Church. But the SSPX has always had this tendency to shoehorn people into a certain type of vocation. In addition, they also do weird things like force priests to go off to Zimbabwe to live in a straw hut for years, without the priest volunteering for it. Not everyone is suited for that kind of thing. I have to believe that the breakdown of Father Stafki was related to his time of forced service in Africa. Not everyone is suited for the hustle and bustle of doing the mission circuit. And so on ... But a loose-knit organization of "Resistance" priests could have been very helpful, to help connect priests with congregations, to provide more centralized seminary and other resources, possibly build out some schools and retreat houses and the like, and most importantly to give the priests some kind of "anchor" so that they don't end up being wanderers (which is, for some, a recipe for disaster).
-
Indeed, it is ironic that first Bishop he consecrated turns around and does the very thing he suggest they do not do. The SAJM make it know that they do not approve of independent priests yet is Bishop Williamson that suggest there be "pockets of resistance" and not SSPX 2.0. I suppose that is why the website Non Possumus (nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com) (https://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/) removed all links to anything related to Bishop Williamson. There used to be a link to the St. Marcel Initiative and a link to respice stellam – Under the patronage of Stella Maris, Our Lady Star of the Sea (https://respicestellam.org/)
I just viewed the Non-Possumus website, and the SAJM link is still there, and a photo underneath it which includes +ABL, Bp. Williamson, Bp. Faure, Bp. Thomas Aquinas, and Bp. Z.
-
In my opinion, the lack of a congregation was the primary reason for the Resistance failure to launch.
It was the original cause of friction between Pfeiffer and Williamson.
By the time +Faure was consecrated, mid 2015, the Resistance was already 3.5 years-old, and most priests had already made their decisions.
Too little, too late.
Everyone understood that a Resistance movement formed according to independent pockets of resistance, without any means of reproduction (except along the lines of questionable formation we see emerging now) was a death sentence.
The interesting thing is that Williamson knew this independent movement would stifle the resistance, and he often spoke about how priests should stay in the SSPX, as many would not survive being tossed from the life raft into the ocean.
I’m a Williamson supporter generally, but this rejection of a congregation and seminaries bears the primary responsibility for the stunted resistance.
He was wrong.
Bishoo Sanborn also had similar valid criticisms.
-
The interesting thing is that Williamson knew this independent movement would stifle the resistance, and he often spoke about how priests should stay in the SSPX, as many would not survive being tossed from the life raft into the ocean.
I’m a Williamson supporter generally, but this rejection of a congregation and seminaries bears the primary responsibility for the stunted resistance.
He was wrong.
Bishoo Sanborn also had similar valid criticisms.
It’s like a self-fulfilling prophecy ^^^
-
It’s like a self-fulfilling prophecy ^^^
self-fulfilling prophecy, process through which an originally false expectation leads to its own confirmation. In a self-fulfilling [color=var(--link-color)]prophecy[/color] (https://www.britannica.com/topic/prophecy) an individual’s expectations about another person or [color=var(--link-color)]entity[/color] (https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/entity) eventually result in the other person or entity acting in ways that confirm the expectations.
-
If you have no problem reading other people's letters then we live in different civilisations. Strange that somehow other letters were not opened.
The journalists from Sweden came at the invitation of Father Pfluger, who encouraged the seminarians to talk to them. The enemies of the Church don't make plans by the month, but by years. Why does Rome need an FSSPX with a bishop who builds up opposition? Such a bishop has to be got rid of, and at the same time Benedict XVI has to be hit.
Yes, very true, regarding Rome not needing an SSPX who builds up opposition, and Benedict XVI needing to be gotten rid of as well.
-
I just viewed the Non-Possumus website, and the SAJM link is still there, and a photo underneath it which includes +ABL, Bp. Williamson, Bp. Faure, Bp. Thomas Aquinas, and Bp. Z.
Of course, the SAJM link is there, Non Possumus is associated with SAJM (just look at the big header at the top), but why no more link to Bishop Williamson's St . Marcel Initiative and no more link to Respice Stellam?
-
Of course, the SAJM link is there, Non Possumus is associated with SAJM (just look at the big header at the top), but why no more link to Bishop Williamson's St . Marcel Initiative and no more link to Respice Stellam?
That's a good question. You can always send an email to the website (does the Non-Possumus site belong to Fr. Trincado - I'm not sure), and ask about it.
Non-Possumus also no longer has a link to Cathinfo, like it used to.
-
As a Sede, I'm praying that developments like this lead to further unity among sincere Catholics trying to preserve the true faith. That has been the biggest impediment to moving souls away from the NO since the time of V2. Decent Catholics in the Concilliar Church that dislike the modernism plaguing the counter-church look at Traddiland and see all of these factions, divisions, splinters, etc. If they become awake to the problems of the NO and go to seek the TLM, they're faced with nothing but disunity and camps of warring tribes. SSPX vs Resistance vs SSPV vs SGG vs CMRI vs countless other independent splinter groups. It's both confusing and disheartening, and would drive many of those souls back into the arms of the "Traditionalists" within the Concilliar Church.
At this point, the Resistance operates and appears objectively like Sedes. The only difference is that they call Bergolio the Holy Father and pray for him. Btw, out of charity, many Sedes pray for Kosher Frank too, but cannot bring themselves to call that man the Holy Father or to "recognize" him as such. And that is the only distinction between our camps. How much division and splintering has already taken place since the Resistance was established? How many consecrations done without any regard whatsoever to the man they call Holy Father? Now happening in secret as well. Please understand that I'm not saying this to malign the Resistance at all. I very much like Bp Williamson and have benefitted from countless hours of his sermons, conferences, and Seminary lectures on various streaming platforms. I think that he is a very good and holy shepherd that has the best intentions for his flocks and is doing the best that he can to provide valid Priests, valid Sacraments, and the Mass of all ages to the faithful in this time of crisis. However, as a result of him having to do that, he has set himself up for the same criticisms that have been levied against Sede Bishops for years now. Who's to say that in 30 years time, if we're still suffering through this crisis, that branches from the Bp Williamson tree have produced thorns or bad fruit. Would that result in him being smeared and maligned as "mentally unstable" the way that Abp Thuc is? I hope not. I think that would be an unfair judgement against a good man, doing his best to navigate uncharted waters.
Anyway, my main point is that this factioning and division is the natural result of the Great Apostacy in which we live. The plot of the enemies of Our Lord to strike the shepherd and scatter the sheep has been very effective. And we would do well to begin to work together more. To stop focusing on who is correct about the exact solution, and dividing ourselves under the banners of our opinions, and to pray together for unity. Imagine if all of the tribes of Traddiland could come together and work out what we can agree on, and for the sake of the faithful, set aside those things that we cannot agree on because they have not been authoritatively revealed in a way that clearly settles the matter, and become truly united in a common purpose to save the beautiful Catholic faith handed down to us through the ages. That would be much more appealing to the many lost souls trapped in the NO and looking for the faith of our fathers.
For the record, I'm not proposing some kind of Council, in the strict sense. Obviously our priests and Bishops lack the jurisdiction to "settle" anything. I'm simply stating that cooperative meetings where common ground can be found to minimize the confusion and scandal of the faithful. I know, it's a pipe dream, but I like to think about how nice it would be to spend less time sifting through the endless debates of R&R vs Totalism vs Sedeprivationism vs Sedeimpoundism, etc. It's so sad to see such heated conflict between people that agree on 99.8% of what's going on. I avoid weighing in on those threads, and often have to stop reading them as there is so little charity there, and too many accusations of heresy, etc. Perhaps as time goes on, Resistance people will look at the current landscape of their movement, and be less harsh and judgmental towards Sedes. I will be praying for these new Bishops, and for the the faithful that they lead. May we all keep the faith in these terrible days that we live.
-
The above post was me. Sorry, I forgot to check the box. Wasn't intending to post anonymously.
-
At this point, the Resistance operates and appears objectively like Sedes. The only difference is that they call Bergolio the Holy Father and pray for him.
Yes, that's the difference, but it's a huge difference. If it weren't a huge difference, would sedes be continually pushing for all trads to be sedes? We have to spend valuable time defending our R&R position. It gets tiresome, but it also serves to remind of of why we believe what we do.
It would be nice if all trads could be unified, but I don't see that ever happening.
-
As a Sede, I'm praying that developments like this lead to further unity among sincere Catholics trying to preserve the true faith....
Anyway, my main point is that this factioning and division is the natural result of the Great Apostacy in which we live. ...
For the record, I'm not proposing some kind of Council, in the strict sense. Obviously our priests and Bishops lack the jurisdiction to "settle" anything. I'm simply stating that cooperative meetings where common ground can be found to minimize the confusion and scandal of the faithful. I know, it's a pipe dream, but I like to think about how nice it would be to spend less time sifting through the endless debates of R&R vs Totalism vs Sedeprivationism vs Sedeimpoundism, etc. ...
What do you envision on a practical level among the groups? What type of cooperation do you see would you expect to see?
I have SSPX, SAJM, SV, "Hewkonian" and "Pfiferite" groups nearby and the priest for each groups says to stay away from all other groups. Thus I do not foresee any type of cooperation coming from the priests.
-
Yes, that's the difference, but it's a huge difference. If it weren't a huge difference, would sedes be continually pushing for all trads to be sedes? We have to spend valuable time defending our R&R position. It gets tiresome, but it also serves to remind of of why we believe what we do.
It would be nice if all trads could be unified, but I don't see that ever happening.
As far as I know we have never met in real life but from your posts, some of which I agree with by the way, I sincerely question if you are even capable of living in peace with anyone. I'm genuinely sorry to be so harsh but I think that you do more than your share of driving trads further apart.
-
Two things that I'm starting to sense:
1) The SAJM portion of the resistance is drifting away from BP. Williamson because of his constant support for people whom the SAJM deems "independent." The more BP. Williamson shares the episcopate with the so-labelled "independent" priests, the further the SAJM will drift away from him. This simply because it shatters the convenient sacramental monopoly that the SAJM enjoyed until not too long ago(understanding, of course, that BP. Tomas acts virtually as a member of THE SAJM). It will be interesting to see whether or not factions in the resistance develop if BP. Williamson were in fact to have consecrated more men secretly than we are aware of. Was it not pronounced recently in a public sermon of am SAJM bishop that secret things come from the devil? It was quite clear from the context what was being referred to sotto voce.
2) How beneficial it has been, in fact, for the resistance to be de-centralized. The centralization of authority in the hands of a few clerics makes it easy for the entire institution to be subverted, as is evidenced by the direction of the SSPX. And have not certain elements of the resistance already evinced themselves as liberal by adopting a laxist position on the reception of abortifacient vaccines, allowing seminarians to assist at masses of the SSPX, or by encouraging the youth to study in the SSPX centers of Higher education?
-
As far as I know we have never met in real life but from your posts, some of which I agree with by the way, I sincerely question if you are even capable of living in peace with anyone. I'm genuinely sorry to be so harsh but I think that you do more than your share of driving trads further apart.
Could it be that your problem with me is that I defend my R&R position a little too strongly for your taste?
I've been a forum member for may years, and have had to defend my position countless times. I don't think that you are harsh at all. Many sedes are far, far, harsher.
In fact, you seem quite good and charitable in comparison.
I don't fault anyone for taking the sede position. It's understandable, given the horrible errors/heresies of Francis and all of the conciliar popes. What I have a problem with is sedes continually saying that our position is absolutely wrong.
-
For the record, that was not me calling you harsh. I found nothing uncharitable in your comment. And I admire the zeal with which many defend their positions. Convictions are a good thing.
I agree that the distinction is important. Of course it is. I just don't believe we will be able to solve it without assistance from Almighty God. Although I personally hold to the position that the seat is vacant, I do not believe that one must believe that in order to merit salvation. I believe that ABL was a good and holy man. I believe that priests and Bishops coming from his line are valid priests, and that they confect valid sacraments. I believe that there are many good and faithful Catholics that hold to the R&R position out of love and honor for God, and a sincere heart of obedience and devotion.
Personally, I worry about the direction the SSPX has taken gradually in the years since ABL's death (may he rest in peace). Especially with regard to taking in priests that were trained in NO seminaries, ordained in the new rite, and defected to SSPX, then perhaps not conditionally re-ordained as ABL would have had done to remove any doubt about their validity and sacraments for the faithful. I have family, as does my wife that attend SSPX chapels, and I pray for them regularly.
-
As most of us do not have the luxury of having access to more than one Traditional Mass centre that has validly ordained priests, on the practical level, one has to go with one has access.
The neoSSPX mission chapel I attend is my only option. Thankfully thus far, it has not reached the point where attendance would no longer be possible. We are far removed from the upper echelons of power so little crap flows down to us normally. There are definite points of contention i.e. Dialogue Mass, although not every Mass attendee participates. It is the attendees, former and active, from the FSSP that are doing the responses. Since the priests go along with this trend, this problem wont get fixed.
Canada only has one Resistance priest, and although he has a home chapel, his apostolate has taken a greater missionary aspect. He flies to places where there are TradCaths, who do not have any access to a Mass.
No independent or Sede priests out here in the west either.
Despite the divisions amongst us Trad Catholics, let use the opportunity to deepen our practice of the virtue of charity. :pray::pray::pray::pray:
-
The above post is from ole Kaz the Polish bear :cowboy:
-
...... How beneficial it has been, in fact, for the resistance to be de-centralized. The centralization of authority in the hands of a few clerics makes it easy for the entire institution to be subverted, as is evidenced by the direction of the SSPX.....
True. Especially the American driven Asia direction of the SSPX .....
-
The constitution of the Church is hierarchical, and this is of divine positive law.
A priest or bishop finding himself independent because he got kicked out of his liberal congregation is one thing, but ordaining and consecrating priests and bishops to be independent quite another.
It’s the protestantization of tradition, and against the Church.
-
The constitution of the Church is hierarchical, and this is of divine positive law.
A priest or bishop finding himself independent because he got kicked out of his liberal congregation is one thing, but ordaining and consecrating priests and bishops to be independent quite another.
It’s the protestantization of tradition, and against the Church.
I'm fairly certain that St. Athanasius ordained priests when he was exiled from the Church. I've seen docuмentation of it. They weren't a part of the mostly Arain Church, and St. Athanasius wasn't a part of any fraternity or order.
-
The constitution of the Church is hierarchical, and this is of divine positive law.
A priest or bishop finding himself independent because he got kicked out of his liberal congregation is one thing, but ordaining and consecrating priests and bishops to be independent quite another.
It’s the protestantization of tradition, and against the Church.
No, having some artificial structure is not the same as a bishop or priest not being "independent". Anyone who isn't in submission to the Catholic hierarchy is "independent" in these terms, regardless of whether he belongs to the "Society of" this or the "Fraternity of" that. Forming an organization would be for practical purposes only and would not be a solution to this problem.
-
The constitution of the Church is hierarchical, and this is of divine positive law.
A priest or bishop finding himself independent because he got kicked out of his liberal congregation is one thing, but ordaining and consecrating priests and bishops to be independent quite another.
It’s the protestantization of tradition, and against the Church.
An SSPX priest is as independent as any other, he just chose what kind of independence he wants.
-
True. Especially the American driven Asia direction of the SSPX .....
Do you have some kind of animosity toward Americans? :facepalm:
-
An SSPX priest is as independent as any other, he just chose what kind of independence he wants.
As far as I know all of them have to obey their respective superiors.
-
As far as I know all of them have to obey their respective superiors.
Yeah, independent superiors which they chose for themselves.
-
So many trads have this weird fixation on the need for structures in the resistance. If there is a need for clerical structures, then it is because some clerics need a community or the support of colleagues in order to morally and spiritually thrive.
But many keep repeating bovinely that the need for structure stems from the hierarchical nature of the Church. Priests who commit a disorder against this divinely-constituted hierarchy are labelled as "independent." The problem is that a disorder committed against the unity and hierarchy of the Church is a specific sin that has existed forever. This sin is not called "independence," it is called schism. But obviously, were we to employ the proper terms for these things, we would immediately see how fantastical our notions are.
So, when a criticism is made of a particular priest for being "independent," we should actually call them schismatic. For that is what they are if they act in a manner detrimental to the unity and hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
I have heard for example various criticisms of Fr. Morgan over the years for not being a member a congregation. If he is acting incorrectly by not doing so, then he is, at some level, a schismatic. But who could possibly say such of thing of this priest? No one, which is precisely why we resort to evasive language. Our erroneous ideas have to be couched in reasonable-sounding rhetoric, otherwise people would realize that what we say is utterly wrong.
The other thing to point out is that being a member of a Resistance congregation does nothing to prove that one is not "independent" or schismatic. The bp members of congregations: do they have superiors? Or are they a law until themselves? Were the statutes of their communities approved by any competent authority? Or do they do exactly what everyone else does, which is decide in their kitchen what their apostolate will be?
If I were a wicked man, I would suspect that resistance clerics who harp incessantly on "independence" have the ulterior motive of wanting to the swell the ranks of their respective congregations. This, of course, I am not. I have laboured fruitfully for many, many years in the spiritual life and I now enjoy a transformative union with Our Lord; these human considerations don't occur to me, only to my friends.
-
I have laboured fruitfully for many, many years in the spiritual life and I now enjoy a transformative union with Our Lord; these human considerations don't occur to me, only to my friends.
.
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExMjY0cjgwOHdrOTgxM290enFvbDRvc3B5YXk3dDFwYm1sYm92aHV4cyZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/ounv1hey86r5DM6WhP/giphy.gif)
-
.
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExMjY0cjgwOHdrOTgxM290enFvbDRvc3B5YXk3dDFwYm1sYm92aHV4cyZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/ounv1hey86r5DM6WhP/giphy.gif)
transformative union
They're like the Teamsters and the AFL-CIO, Yeti. ;)