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.
 
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?

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

 

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.

Yes I have noticed that many of the posters on ABL2 are very anti-Williamson, including the owner. I didn't notice that as much on the original ABL forum.

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.

Yes I have noticed that many of the posters on ABL2 are very anti-Williamson, including the owner. I didn't notice that as much on the original ABL forum.

The website is not only anti-Bishop Williamson and pro Fr. Pfeiffer, but also heavily influenced by sedevacantists.  It is also very anti-Father Zendejas.  It is not a good place to be.    

The letter to Bishop Faure against Bishop Williamson was an embarrassment to read.  If the Recusant published this garbage then he agrees with it and shame on him.  At the very least we are finding out where their loyalties lie.  I'm sure Bishop Faure has an appropriate file to put it in.  

Quote from: Matto

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.

Yes I have noticed that many of the posters on ABL2 are very anti-Williamson, including the owner. I didn't notice that as much on the original ABL forum.

The website is not only anti-Bishop Williamson and pro Fr. Pfeiffer, but also heavily influenced by sedevacantists.  It is also very anti-Father Zendejas.  It is not a good place to be.    

The letter to Bishop Faure against Bishop Williamson was an embarrassment to read.  If the Recusant published this garbage then he agrees with it and shame on him.  At the very least we are finding out where their loyalties lie.  I'm sure Bishop Faure has an appropriate file to put it in.  

The Recusant crowd are very pro Fr.Pheiffer,in fact they told Bp.Williamson that his services were no longer required to say Mass.They prefer to wait for Fr.Pheiffer to say Mass.

Quote

The Recusant crowd are very pro Fr.Pheiffer,in fact they told Bp.Williamson that his services were no longer required to say Mass.They prefer to wait for Fr.Pheiffer to say Mass.

Oh dear, really!!?  No wonder the Church is such deep you-know-what.  Yes, the clergy has over the decades become increasingly liberal and decadent.  But numbers of the faithful are no bargain either.  It' just mind boggling! :shocked:

It is true that "like attracts like".  They deserve each other in my opinion.  What a black-eye they are on what is left of the Archbishop's remnant.  

The Recusant crowd are very pro Fr.Pfeiffer,in fact they told Bp.Williamson that his services were no longer required to say Mass.They prefer to wait for Fr.Pfeiffer to say Mass.

It is indisputed fact that Greg Taylor (owner of the Recusant, also "Gregorius" (or was it "Gregorio Sarto"?), one of the 3 that ran Ignis Ardens):

A) firmly and fervently supports Fr. Pfeiffer and Pablo
B) firmly and fervently rejects Bishop Williamson
C) Said that the infamous Pablo "is one of the finest Catholic gentlemen I have ever had the honor to know. I wish there were more like him." or something to that effect. He may have said it more than once, including in an e-mail he sent to me. I'd have to dig up the e-mail.

Keep in mind that the facts go against his appraisal of Pablo somewhat. For example, Pablo has openly admitted to doing "lay exorcism" and his public speech has betrayed an unhealthy (and un-Catholic) fascination with the devil.

Oh, and Pablo hasn't been to Mass in years. Yes, even though he often lives in Boston, KY, right on Fr. Pfeiffer's ranch where Mass is said all the time. What's the story with him? I don't know.

The Recusant crowd are very pro Fr.Pheiffer,in fact they told Bp.Williamson that his services were no longer required to say Mass.They prefer to wait for Fr.Pheiffer to say Mass.

Four peoples a crowd for the recusant holy hour? All the other folks in London get mass every week.

Quote from: +richard

Quote from: hollingsworth

What I can't understand is how Fr. P might think for a single second that he can promote his neo-sspx seminary model, while at the same time trashing the bishop with regularity.  Fr. P. needs at least one bishop to help forward his own agenda.  I would suggest that this priest, who openly declares his no-confidence in His Excellency, and continually points to the latter's refusal to lead, or to lead properly,  has created an insurmountable  problem for himself and for his followers.  Maybe he'd like to think that he's the tail wagging the dog.  But folks, it doesn't work that way.  
Fr. P can't pretend that the bishop(s) are, perhaps, not really cognizant of his dismissive attitudes.  He can't fly down with Fr. Hewko to Brazil for the Consecration of a new, and act as if everything were hunky-dory.  What does this priest think he's doing?  
As for Frs. P and H being at that consecration, I understand from pretty good authority, that they were not formally invited to attend.   They more or less crashed the party.  If someone can correct my understanding on this issue, please feel free.  I've been wrong before, but I don't think I'm wrong here.

It is my understanding that they did indeed "crash the party".

+richard would certainly be a "pretty good authority" :wink:

The best. :wink: