Author Topic: Bishop Williamson in 2004. (Read 6408 times)

Green Scapular · « **on:** June 14, 2015, 08:52:29 PM »

What do you all think of this 2004 opinion of Bishop Williamson ?

Will attempt to attach the audio file.

Green Scapular · « **Reply #1 on:** June 14, 2015, 09:17:31 PM »

Here is the transcript:
"Let's pray for the Society. Let's pray in particular for Cardinal Gagnon who today is back in the Society seminary in Switzerland,. (He) has terminated his one month visit of Society houses in Switzerland, France, and Germany. Let us pray that he, when he composes his report upon the Society for the Holy Father's study, that he present the truth in such a way that it wins the Pope's approval. Let us pray for the Pope that he may do what he quite clearly should do: to give juridical standing and status to the Society which wholly deserves it and absolutely needs it for the good of the universal Church, let alone the Society."

Ekim · « **Reply #2 on:** June 14, 2015, 10:50:33 PM »

Different Pope, different curia, different mindset in the Novus Ordo, Different mindset of society and hence, different outlook by +Williamson.

One may say "Hey, that bread isn't so bad, just cut off the bad spot." A month later. "Sheww, that thing is smelly, moldy, and nasty. Best to stay away!"

Green Scapular · « **Reply #3 on:** June 14, 2015, 11:40:53 PM »

Quote from: Ekim

Different Pope, different curia, different mindset in the Novus Ordo, Different mindset of society and hence, different outlook by +Williamson.

One may say "Hey, that bread isn't so bad, just cut off the bad spot." A month later. "Sheww, that thing is smelly, moldy, and nasty. Best to stay away!"

You are saying that Bishop Williamson made a prudential determination based on various factors at a given point in time, and later changed based on other factors? If being for or against "recognition" by Rome is based on subjective circuмstances that change, then it is NOT based on objective truth that never changes, ie, the Faith, because the Faith isn't subject to change, ever.

Does this not prove to you resisters that all this resistance disturbance simply boils down to which Bishop you each subjectively think is making better prudential decisions...and you simply follow the bishop you agree with the most?

But that sounds like Protestantism.

wallflower · « **Reply #4 on:** June 15, 2015, 08:26:00 AM »

Is your understanding of the situation truly this superficial? I am torn between wanting to laugh at what you think is a big Gotcha moment but also feeling a little sorry for how minor a moment it actually is.

Most people want the SSPX to be regularized and given proper jurisdiction. The problem is under what circuмstances? So what that Bishop Williamson hoped/hopes for regularization? We all do! But not under the conditions of the current Doctrinal Preamble. Not under the conditions of being a strictly practical agreement, putting Doctrinal issues on the backburner (which if memory serves, Bishop Fellay expressly noted he was doing). Not under the conditions of having to refurbish the image of the SSPX to be more NO-friendly and VII-neutral. Archbishop Lefebvre already explored all avenues and came to the conclusion that it could not safely be done without doctrinal solution first and foremost. We happen to agree.

I find it difficult to believe that you have hung around here as long as you have and still don't recognize this, whether or not you agree. Perhaps a little examination of conscience regarding intellectual dishonesty or bad-will is in order? I am genuinely nudging you to rethink your time spent here if this is all it boils down to.