So Bishop Williamson made himself look "kookish" by discussing it?
You know, curioustrad, I'm tired of you insulting the Resistance. First you grinded an axe against Fr. Pfeiffer and now you're going after Bishop Williamson, and to be honest, I'm still having a difficult time making heads or tails out of what you're saying. The only thing I managed to understand from your post is that somehow we "benefit" the Zionists by making ourselves look "kooky" when we discuss the "h0Ɩ0cαųst".
No, we benefit the Zionists when we don't speak the truth. The "h0Ɩ0cαųst" is nothing more than a replacement of the Crucifixion, and serves no purpose other than to give Jєωs more power by labeling anyone who criticizes them or denies the "h0Ɩ0cαųst" as some "anti-semetic".
no that's not what he says here.
What does he say, then?
May I begin by pointing out that the moniker at the top of this page says: "A place for SSPX and other Traditional Catholics to discuss matters pertaining to the Catholic Faith". If Matthew (the moderator) has changed this then let him remind me and all of us of this so that I can be clear on the matter. I believe (but I may be wrong) that this forum is open to all Trad. Catholics - I have not seen any qualifications. Thus I do not believe this forum espouses the resistance or rejects those who hold with the SSPX. If it has become a pro-resistance forum - then a clear statement of that should be made so I and others can know this.
Thus if it is not - then this is a place for discussion and discussion involves ideas not polemics, character assassination and other tactics of harassment. As I have stated before - we all have a vested interest in this and people have a right to air their views provided toes are not tread upon and a minimal amount of Catholic charity is shown to all.
You know I do not make an issue of people but of ideas. Others choose to make an issue of me not my ideas.
Where can it be said that I have attacked Bishop Williamson ? Where did I call him a kook ? He is the sanest man on the planet ! To him I owe everything as to the ability to see reality and the crisis of everything from Faith through culture and back again. Look again - the only thing I question is methodology not the message. Perhaps I should have declared a 120 % loyalty to his position not 110 % ?
Certainly the world believes him to be a kook, because the world has painted anybody who believes as he does to be a kook - so be it, but the appearance of kookishness is not what we are after but that Truth - JESUS CHRIST - should reign everywhere as King of hearts, souls and society. Truth is reasonable, divisive, but above all right. Truth is never stupid nor seeks to be stupid, nor surrenders to its enemies. Have you forgotten that Truth told Pilate that his power was not his but given to him from above ?
If a small group of people believe the world to be flat not round and it is in fact flat then they are correct and not the majority that believes it to be round. If the world is in fact round and a large group believes it to be flat then the world is round and the small group right and the large group kooky. If the large group convinces almost everybody that the small group is kooky - then right they are but kooky they appear to be.
The h0Ɩ0cαųst is a replacement - but apparently "kooky" (as the world labels it) denial does not refute it. As I told the bishop 2 or 3 years ago there are much bigger battles to fight than this and one of them is on Trads' doorsteps: a deal with Rome. While +W is busy fighting windmills - +F is free and busy selling the storefront. Result - +W "sidelines" himself and a credible Trad resistance and +F sells SSPX to modernism. Now the h0Ɩ0cαųst and the fight for Tradition are both important but are they equally important ? I think not - that was all that I was saying - see the proportion of the picture.
Next, where have I attacked Fr. Pfeiffer ? The reference to "Calamity Joe" I made was naturally suggested by the thread name and tenor of posts that referred readers to the musical "Calamity Jane" and the corresponding comic juxtaposition between Deadwood and Pfeifferville that others evoked not I.
However, did I not ask for a statement of principles ? Did he not provide them after his meeting in Brazil ? Did I not praise those principles ? By all means !
I have questioned the wisdom and merit of proceeding with rapid consecrations since the Bishop carries a huge influence in the SSPX. I have said that to proceed precipitously would be to waste a lot of capital. I have stated that in the eventuality of consecration(s) in the choice of candidates I would recommend Fr. Hewko over Fr. Pfeiffer but that only because Fr. Hewko commands respect among his peers in the SSPX because his expulsion was treated differently by the SSPX hierarchs.
May I ask if the resistance is an end in itself or a means to an end ? Are resistance members preparing for a permanent mental siege or was it to stop the SSPX selling out to modernist rome ? As long as they do not has not the resistance achieved its goal ? Is there a desire to create a parallel church ? If this is the case then certain resisters are definitely not in the mode of the Archbishop:
"There is no question of us separating ourselves from Rome, nor of putting ourselves under a foreign government, nor of establishing a sort of parallel church as the Bishops of Palmar de Troya have done in Spain. They have even elected a pope, formed a college of cardinals… It is out of the question for us to do such things. Far from us be this miserable thought of separating ourselves from Rome!"
1988 Sermon at the Consecrations