Author Topic: A Letter to Bp. Faure (Read 18151 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #55 on:** September 01, 2015, 03:50:48 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

I would start this topic on the ABL2, since that forum published just today the letter reprinted below. However, I think I will end my participation there. ABL2 is too anti-Bp. Williamson for my blood. I get angry and say things on ABL2 which I later regret.

I couldn’t find the letter on the link provided, so I’ll just have to assume that I did not dig deeply enough in Issue 29 of The Recusant. It was written and signed, apparently, by Steve and Alena Camidge.

The link provided below has a defect, where it spells out "september" and the EM web page only abbreviates "sept" in the address:

http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/the_recusant_-_issue_29_-_sept_2015.pdf

The letter is found on page 24 of this PDF.

Quote

This couple was “honored,” they write, to have the bishop in their home as a “house guest.” But that's all over now. Previous warmth and fellow feeling towards His Excellency has, evidently, gone poof! A once fervent love and esteem for the bishop have obviously grown cold. The blush is definitely off the rose. Bp. Williamson is no longer a champion of the “resistance.” He is "a quitter," the Camidges conclude.

The Camidges claim to be “faithful members of the Resistance.” Uh-Oh! That can mean only one thing, to me anyway, viz. They are also “faithful” followers of Father Pfeiffer.

At the risk of offending some, I would just say this: This letter reeks of Pfeifferism. It is redolent of Father's spirit. Fr. P.’s smothering influence hangs heavily over its contents.

The Camidges are members of “Our Lady of Good Success Mission” in Toronto. Are there indeed any chapels or missions under Father’s pastoral care which are not called “Our Lady of Good Success?”

What makes this letter so disturbing in my view are not the abuses directed at the good bishop, per se. We’ve heard them repeated over and over again lately. But it’s the fact that the Camidges are attempting to draw away from His Excellency a new bishop just consecrated by the former. This just blows my mind. I would laugh at it outright, if it were not all so sad.

We did not leave Fellayism in order to be baptized into Pfeifferism. We did not jump from the ‘frying pan’ of the Fellay-led SSPX to be subsequently tossed upon ‘the fire’ of a Pfeiffer-led “resistance.”

What’s wrong with these people!!!!? Can't folks see what is going on here? Fr. Pfeiffer has painted himself into a corner. He doesn't like the way in which bp. Williamson leads. Yet is own self-perceived leadership superiority can carry him only so far. Like, he's gotta have a bishop or two in order to make his neo-sspx model work. Duhhhh! Did he not think of that before he started to bad mouth the bishop. Why should bp. Williamson give Fr. Pfeiffer & Co. the time of day?

[this works]:
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/the_recusant_-_issue_29_-_sept_2015.pdf

[this doesn't work]:
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/the_recusant_-_issue_29_-_september_2015.pdf
A Letter to Bishop Faure

2nd August, 2015

Your Excellency,

We are faithful members of the Resistance. Bishop Williamson's first public appearance after being released from the attic in London was at our home in Caledon, Ontario, Canada. We were honoured to have him as a house guest.

However, we now must ask, or rather insist, that you take charge of the Resistance.

Bishop Williamson's recent comments about allowing people to go Novus Ordo Mass to maintain their Faith, and his counselling prospective seminarians to stay from Resistance seminaries were bad enough, and are splitting the Resistance.

This Eleison Comments [420 “Authority Limping”] contains the most idiotic comments he has made to date. He renounces authority because it does not come from the Conciliar Church. Archbishop Lefebvre never renounced authority and also never sought it from the Conciliar Church!

Bishop Williamson correctly claims that supplied authority must be triggered by demand from below - the Resistance has been demanding it for three years and Bishop Williamson is sick of the requests. He cannot - but does - claim that there is no such demand!

He claims that if a priest left the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre had no power to stop him. So what! If a priest leaves a Diocese and goes independent, a Bishop cannot stop him, despite having the keys to the Diocese. Bishop Williamson is in no worse a situation.

He is "more and more disinclined to impose even a true viewpoint on anybody" - he is renouncing his responsibility to teach - this is not a Bishop talking. This is a quitter.

Please, Your Excellency, take charge. Show everyone how Archbishop Lefebvre would act. Renounce firmly the errors of Bishop Williamson. Your seminary is a great start, but at this point, the Resistance needs a Bishop who will lead, teach, and who will work for the King- ship of Christ - not one who passively waits for Our Lady to fix everything while he be- moans his sad situation.

And please put a muzzle on Bishop Williamson!

With prayers,

Steve and Alena Camidge
Our Lady of Good Success Mission, Toronto
A Letter to Bishop Faure

There have been members in this thread critical of this letter asking +Faure to "take charge."

I find it odd that the next sentence, "Show everyone how Archbishop Lefebvre would act" implies the authors believe that +Williamson, ABL's first choice as successor and personal friend, is now acting in a way that his mentor would not, and furthermore, is asking +Faure to step up to the plate and fill in for the shortcomings of the bishop who just consecrated him.

As if they're a better judge than the man who knew him personally and who was chosen by ABL in the beginning.

In other words,

Look, +W has been disappointing us for a good long while, and now we expect that you, who he has just consecrated bishop, would take up the slack and at long last satisfy our expectations where +W has fallen short.

Or perhaps,

We have been pressing hard on +W to fulfill our expectations for a long time, and now it's evident that's going nowhere, therefore, we're embarking today on our campaign to switch the pressure off of +W, since he has shown himself obstinate in his refusal to comply with our demands, and onto you, who we intend to pester for years to come regarding this issue.

It kind of carries a note of threat to it, IMHO. It's like,

we have been trying hard with our tactics of control-mongering and they haven't been working on +W, so maybe now the same techniques will work on +Faure.

A playground bully pushes around and keeps it up until someone caves to the pressure, and that's when the bully knows who will be his victim for some time to come.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #56 on:** September 01, 2015, 04:16:40 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Neil Obstat,
Quote from: Page 7

There are cases where even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one's Faith instead of losing it. That's almost heresy within Tradition. But that's what I think. But I hope it's clear that I don't therefore say the Novus Ordo Mass is good, the new religion is good, all Novus Ordo priests are good. That's obviously not the case. Generally it's a tremendous danger, because the new religion is very seductive. It's very soft and sweet and sticky and it's easy to go with it an lose the Catholic Faith.

But exceptionally, if you're watching and praying, even there you may find the grace of God. If you do, make use of it in order to sanctify your soul... Therefore I will not say every single person must stay away from every single Novus Ordo Mass. If they can trust their own judgment that attending this N.O. Mass will do more good than harm spiritually, ...[shrug]... But there's no doubt that it does more harm than good spiritually, there's no doubt about that. It's a rite designed to undermine Catholics' Faith and to turn their belief away from God and towards man.

I am sure that is not lost on you that objectively, these statements and the thinking behind them are self contradictory and very dangerous as they can confuse and misdirect Catholic souls seeking sound counsel.

Thank you, J.Paul.

It is the difficulty of the aspect of duplicity that one might find in these statements that bothers me. It is at least representative of a half-step toward ambiguity, and we all know that ambiguity was the hallmark of Vat.II.

I have found that it's not easy to quote and/or explain it well to someone else. It is very easy to go beyond what +W actually said and to say that "the Novus Ordo is all right at least sometimes," as I did above -- but he didn't really say that, did he?

When Benedict XVI came out with his hermeneutic of continuity screed, the first thing that came to mind was the lecture I heard on ancient philosophy where it was explained in no uncertain terms that all of the sound thinkers of the distant past agreed wholeheartedly that it is essential and utterly basic to sanity in thought that the distinction between what is and what is not be kept intact; for the moment one dares to say that something can be A and at the same time not A, all grip on reality is lost and sound thinking becomes utterly ruined.

.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #57 on:** September 01, 2015, 05:14:12 PM »

Neil O:

Quote

There have been members in this thread critical of this letter asking +Faure to "take charge."

I find it odd that the next sentence, "Show everyone how Archbishop Lefebvre would act" implies the authors believe that +Williamson, ABL's first choice as successor and personal friend, is now acting in a way that his mentor would not, and furthermore, is asking +Faure to step up to the plate and fill in for the shortcomings of the bishop who just consecrated him.

As if they're a better judge than the man who knew him personally and who was chosen by ABL in the beginning.

Well, yeah, already! You touch on one of the very reasons the topic was introduced to begin with. I mean, it's altogether ludicrous! Someone, i.e., a certain priest, (who will go unnamed :furtive:) should go back to this couple, who are apparently under his pastoral care, and set them straight. But before doing that, though, he might have to set himself straight first. Just saying....

JPaul · « **Reply #58 on:** September 01, 2015, 08:04:27 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: J.Paul
Neil Obstat,
Quote from: Page 7

There are cases where even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one's Faith instead of losing it. That's almost heresy within Tradition. But that's what I think. But I hope it's clear that I don't therefore say the Novus Ordo Mass is good, the new religion is good, all Novus Ordo priests are good. That's obviously not the case. Generally it's a tremendous danger, because the new religion is very seductive. It's very soft and sweet and sticky and it's easy to go with it an lose the Catholic Faith.

But exceptionally, if you're watching and praying, even there you may find the grace of God. If you do, make use of it in order to sanctify your soul... Therefore I will not say every single person must stay away from every single Novus Ordo Mass. If they can trust their own judgment that attending this N.O. Mass will do more good than harm spiritually, ...[shrug]... But there's no doubt that it does more harm than good spiritually, there's no doubt about that. It's a rite designed to undermine Catholics' Faith and to turn their belief away from God and towards man.

I am sure that is not lost on you that objectively, these statements and the thinking behind them are self contradictory and very dangerous as they can confuse and misdirect Catholic souls seeking sound counsel.

Thank you, J.Paul.

It is the difficulty of the aspect of duplicity that one might find in these statements that bothers me. It is at least representative of a half-step toward ambiguity, and we all know that ambiguity was the hallmark of Vat.II.

I have found that it's not easy to quote and/or explain it well to someone else. It is very easy to go beyond what +W actually said and to say that "the Novus Ordo is all right at least sometimes," as I did above -- but he didn't really say that, did he?

When Benedict XVI came out with his hermeneutic of continuity screed, the first thing that came to mind was the lecture I heard on ancient philosophy where it was explained in no uncertain terms that all of the sound thinkers of the distant past agreed wholeheartedly that it is essential and utterly basic to sanity in thought that the distinction between what is and what is not be kept intact; for the moment one dares to say that something can be A and at the same time not A, all grip on reality is lost and sound thinking becomes utterly ruined.

.

Thank You, Neil Obstat.
Well you make a good point. It is the concept of something being at once one thing and at the same time another that unsettled me. It is impossible if one considers that something to be an objective truth.
But if subjective considerations enter into one's thinking while stating such truths then such dual minded ideas can make some kind of sense to that person.

The SSPX has existed with this duality from its inception sometimes being here and sometimes being there but here the Bishop is presenting these opposing ideas together at the same time and the contradiction presents itself like a finger in the eye.

Frankly, I certainly do not think the Bishop meant it to sound quite the way it sounds, but there it is. You cannot say what he says without what that implies or makes possible being exposed.

Quote

for the moment one dares to say that something can be A and at the same time not A, all grip on reality is lost and sound thinking becomes utterly ruined.

Precisely!

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #59 on:** September 01, 2015, 10:00:59 PM »

I think the good Bishop gets caught up too much (as we all can) between the theological theory and the practical effects. In "theory" one can go to a N.O. mass and get some good out of it. But in practice, even if you were going to the most "conservative N.O." mass available, there's problems associated with it - like, communion in the hand, immodest dress of others in attendance, irreverent activities of the congregation, mistakes in the rubrics, etc.

The point is, in theory the N.O. could be valid, but in practice, is that all that matters? Of course not! One has to take in all the circuмstances surrounding the Mass, AND all the effects that your attendance would cause. If you don't separate these 2 ideas, then you sound like a highly confused individual.

That's why, in my opinion, in the face of all the doubts, problems, and circuмstances surrounding the N.O. mass, the answer should simply be: STAY AWAY. No ifs, ands, or buts. Some have tried for the last 40 years to fit the square peg in the round hole, but it's not going to happen. The N.O. mass isn't Catholic. Let's quit trying to find a way to make it so.