Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: cantatedomino

Quote from: Pete Vere

Sean, I think we will need to wait out on this to see where Mgr. Williamson is going with his latest olive branch to sedevacantism.

I think he may be trying to suture the gash in South America. A good idea, methinks.

Perhaps this is part of it. Though as others have pointed out, it would be out-of-character for Mgr. Williamson to act solely for political motivations. Usually there is some strongly-held principle behind his actions, even when one disagrees with him.

What I am more curious about is whether Mgr Williamson's olive branch was in any way motivated by his vast knowledge of alleged prophecies and apparitions. This is a longstanding critique of many veteran trads like myself from the old days. We felt Mgr Williamson often seemed too easily distracted by alleged prophecies and apparitions.

Pete, I hope you do not take this the wrong way (I'd actually like to talk to you in person), but what was your motivation in having such an extensive conversation on these topics on such a controversial forum such as Cathinfo? And yes I understand you were looking for ggreg's post.

It seems a bit odd that someone who supports Ecclesia Dei would want to join this forum especially given your otherwise silent treatment of these issues for all these years. Correct me if I am wrong on this latter point.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: obscurus

Pete, I hope you do not take this the wrong way (I'd actually like to talk to you in person), but what was your motivation in having such an extensive conversation on these topics on such a controversial forum such as Cathinfo? And yes I understand you were looking for ggreg's post.

It seems a bit odd that someone who supports Ecclesia Dei would want to join this forum especially given your otherwise silent treatment of these issues for all these years. Correct me if I am wrong on this latter point.

That is a fair question, and I myself was wondering how Pete happened across ggreg's posts in the first place.

For myself, I have no inclination to search indult forums, sede forums, EWTN, etc.

It's kind of a boring story, but since many of your seem interested...

Over the years there have been many, many casualties within the traditionalist movement. Many come, stay for a time, then leave. What you guys refer to as "battle fatigue" sets in. Because of that, some of us reach a certain age where we feel more in common with those who have been around as long as we have, regardless of whether they are ED, R&R or sede. Some of us in that position keep in touch with one another offline.

I had lost touch with a lot of what was going on among R&R, other than negotiations were ongoing between Rome and the FSSPX. When Mgr Williamson was excluded from the last general council, some of these old friends (who were leaning both ways with regards to Mgr Fellay vs. Mgr Williamson) got in touch and asked me for an "outsider's opinion." The reason being that for years I had maintained Mgr Williamson would eventually split from the other three bishops, whereas during the same time they had maintained the four bishops were united and I was reading something into the situation that simply was not there. Since tension was now out in the open between the bishops, naturally these fellow old timers were interested in my perspective.

The difficulty is that I had been out of touch with the R&R for too long to really have an opinion, so my response was to give me a week or so to look into it. I ventured over to Angelqueen, which in my day had been the leading FSSPX-friendly webforum. It had undergone too many changes since my last visit and was also firmly in the Mgr Fellay camp. So although I respect John as a fellow veteran and consider him a good guy, despite our obvious differences within the traditionalist movement, Angelqueen was not very helpful in providing me with what would later become known as the Resistance position. AQ did give me a good perspective on the Mgr Fellay position.

I also checked out John Lane's sedevacantist forum and was surprised to discover him and others sympathetic to Mgr Fellay over Mgr. Williamson. So that was not too helpful either in helping me understand the...uh...let's call it proto-Resistance position.

I then asked my friends where I might read up on the pro-Williamson position, as well as get a better sense of what the average R&R trad caught in the middle was thinking. They directed me to about a half-dozen web forums. CI proved most useful in helping me understand what would going on.

I also found Ignis Ardens helpful at the start, but the moderators seemed caught in the middle and the place became too much of a war-zone and the fog of war grew too thick for me to really understand what was going on.

Fisheaters? There is a certain political correctness among hardline Ecclesia Dei and moderate R&R that simply grates on my nerves. Too many posters who are new to Tradition, and their zeal often trumps the common sense and experience of those who have been around a while. Which is why I suspect that Resistance equals the same boogeyman for FE posters that sedevacantism does for most R&R.

I checked out Archbishop Lefebvre forums when it came along, but again it seems to struggle from the same "Extra Charzal, no Mgr Lefebvre" tendency that I found distasteful among those who insist the FSSPX is never wrong. The same with many other Resistance forums.

In contrast, CI was a Resistance forum that allowed open debate between various different positions, so it gave me the best perspective for the least amount of wading through posts.
 
Then I came across one of GGreg's entries and was immediately addicted. I am surprised that no traditionalist publication (or even secular) conservative one has picked him up as a columnist. Although I disagree with him often, he's a throwback to Michael Davies and a genius wordsmith.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

I would be interested to hear your take on why you think John Lane sided with Bishop Fellay.

I think many found that surprising.

That is a question only John Lane can answer. But the more I reflected on the situation, the more I realized that this reaction may be in part political in that Mgr. Williamson's harshest critics (with whom I agree) over the infamous Swedish television interview and his propagation of various other conspiracy theories have in fact been sedevacantists. Even more so than the Novus Ordo.

Just take a good look at Mgr Sandborn's criticism of Mgr Williamson over the latter's h0Ɩ0cαųst denial and other conspiracy theories - it is one of the best I have read on the matter.

Since it has been known for years that Mgr Williamson has been predicting his own departure from FSSPX, and kept the door open to sedevacantism at that time under a future pope, I think the sedes may be worried that Mgr Williamson will now make good on this prediction and wander over to sedevacantism under Pope Francis. Had the expelled bishop leading the Resistance been Mgr Tissier de Mallerais, rather than Mgr Williamson, I think hardcore sedes would have been much more receptive to the Resistance.

I would be interested to hear your take on why you think John Lane sided with Bishop Fellay.

I think many found that surprising.

You think the sedes are afraid Bishop Williamson will wander over into their camp, and thereby tarnish their public image (i.e., because of his political and historical views)?

The impression I get from this forum is quite the opposite (i.e., The sedes have been hoping Bishop Williamson would take this action for many years).

Sorry if I can't keep up on my sedevacantist bishops, but is this the same sede bishop who has been accused of Americanism, and who said something to the effect that "separation of Church and state is the way it ought to be?"

Also, do you think this bishop retains a grudge against Bishop Williamson from the days of the court battles and property disputes of the 9?

Quote from: SeanJohnson

I have thus far read 1.5 pages of the 12 page article of Bishop Sanbourn.

I found the whole thing an interesting read. But if what you are looking for primarily is a leading sedevacantist reaction to Mgr. Williamson's Swedish television interview and entertainment of political cօռspιʀαcιҽs, you can save yourself some time and skip over the first six pages that are devoted to Mgr Fellay and the FSSPX negotations.

His views on Mgr Williamson begin on page 7.

Quote

I will keep reading, but I should note that I believe the existence of homicidal gas chambers in the cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρs is a demonstrable lie (the exposure of which is punishable by imprisonment).

Keep in mind that you are reading not to discover what you believe, or Mgr Williamson, but what Mgr Sandborn believes as a leading sedeprivationist on friendly terms with a number of leading sedevacantists. You may disagree with him and side with Mgr Williamson on the issue, but what you cannot disagree with is that Mgr Sandborn CONSIDERS Mgr Williamson's political views toxic to the traditionalist movement as a whole. For this reason, it would make sense that he and other sedes who share his perspective would prefer Mgr Williamson remain a problem for Mgr Fellay and the FSSPX, rather than become a sede problem.