Author Topic: Bishop Williamson in 2004. (Read 6362 times)

Green Scapular · « **Reply #10 on:** June 15, 2015, 01:34:33 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Green Scapular
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.

You don't understand Tradition at all. You have a flawed notion of authority.

By your argument, we should just go with the authority (Bishop Fellay/The Pope) as opposed to the group leaving the main group's control, in order to resist the destruction (Bishop Williamson/Archbishop Lefebvre) because to "choose" anyone other than the established authority is to use our own private judgment and prudence about "who is doing a better job" of keeping the Faith -- which according to you is simply Protestant.

So, in essence, you think the Traditional movement itself is fundamentally protestant, because it advocates all of us "using our heads" and deciding privately not to follow those who are clearly destroying the Faith.

You don't understand the Traditional movement. You are confused.

Matthew,
Let me try again. A recognition by Rome is not a matter of Faith, but simply a prudential timing thing. If BW was for it before he was against it (or is he?), was he for destroying the Faith then, but for defending it now? No, because it is not objectively right or wrong, but a subjective matter. In that case, why does his or anyone else's subjective opinion about the timing and circuмstances of recognition by Rome trump Bishop Fellay's? Those who personally agree with BW more than BF think BW's opinion trumps BF's. Yet there is no doctrinal issue. Just a prudential one. This proves the resistance has nothing to do with defending the Faith, but is all about which bishop or priest or non-doctrinal paper they personally agree with or not.

JPaul · « **Reply #11 on:** June 15, 2015, 02:28:46 PM »

Green Scapular,

Quote

Yet there is no doctrinal issue. Just a prudential one. This proves the resistance has nothing to do with defending the Faith

Come now, no doctrinal issue? One read through of the DD of 2012 and no one could make such a statement with a straight face.
As for the resistance so called defending the Faith, when they are chasing down Bishop Fellay's ambiguities and modernist flourishes, they are wasting time, but when they depart from their preoccupation with Menzingen and preach against the conciliar fraud, then they are certainly defending what was the Catholic Church.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #12 on:** June 15, 2015, 03:34:19 PM »

I agree with Matthew. She is completely lost about Tradition. It's a "I want my team to win" kind of thing that doesn't seem to take into account the grave danger to souls that is a direct result of the worse crisis the Church has ever seen, meanwhile Bishop Fellay is constantly communicating with the Roman authorities giving everyone the impression that he is working hard for a deal.

The fact of the matter is that as long as the official position of the Vatican is that the Archbishop and bishop De Castro Mayer had died excommunicated from Holy Mother Church, there should be no discussions at all. This was the original precondition. It was never met. Instead a false "liftin" of the "excommunications" is what we saw. As long as the Vatican officially accepts these two were excommunicated and died out of the Church, a discussion with the vatican will only end unfavorable for Tradition. There is no way around this. Just as the Campos priests accepted that the excommunications were valid and later erased Bishop de castro Mayer's memory and writings from everything, the same will happen to the SSPX. A deal without the clarification of the "excommunications" of two of the greatest bishops of the 20th century is a precondition and remains to be. In consideration of this, all discussions were and continue to be against the common good of the SSPX, resulting in the situation that we see today...priests leaving and being kicked out. This has been caused by the Superior General, and I would hate to be in his shoes.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #13 on:** June 15, 2015, 03:34:35 PM »

Green S. ,of course, thought she’d come up with a “gotcha,” as one poster mentioned. It didn’t work. She’s been around before, and, as I recall, she was not a real pleasant sort of person then. So if she is a “lackey” of Bp. Fellay, it makes sense. And, if she lives in St. Mary’s, that makes sense too, in that St. Mary’s seems to be a collection point for a lot of fifth chromosome SSPX types.

But the point she is trying to make is ludicrous on its face. Bp. Williamson, as well as the rest of the SSPX leadership in 2004, including Bp. Fellay, did not express a willingness to give up the ‘company store’ in exchange for canonical recognition. All that has changed since, of course.

Bp. Williamson did not say to Cardinal Gagnon: “Hey, Your Lordship (or whatever they call cardinals), tell His Holiness that in exchange for “juridical standing and status (for) the Society,” we’ll swear slavish obedience to you, to the bishops and No.25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council. We’ll go with the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and we’ll say that the New Mass is pretty cool too. We’ll cut the Jews some slack, as well as members of other non-Catholic religions. We’ll ask only for one bishop, and we won’t be terribly argumentative if you choose one for us who isn’t particularly sympathetic to tradition. We’d like to have a Roman commission for oversight within the Society, most of them selected from among our ranks, of course. But hey again, Cardinal Gagnon, if that’s not agreeable to His Holiness, we’ll just go along with whomever you serve up. Yes, we’d like the president of this commission to be one of our own. But we’re flexible. Your Lordship (or whatever they call cardinals), we’ve already stepped out on behalf of V2, haven’t we? Haven’t we told the world that the Council was not what many people think it was? Have we not declared to the Catholic press that this bugbear of “religious liberty” was merely a footnote during the Council’s proceedings, So you see, Cardinal Garnon, we’re easy! We want to do business with you all, and are willing to make enormous concessions in order to do so.

Bp. Williamson said nothing like this in 2004. He made no concessions to Rome whatsoever. He only expressed a hope and a prayer that the Pope might get his head on straight and do the right thing. Neither he nor the Society at that time sent Cardinal Gagnon back to Rome with even a box of cookies, much les multiple assurances that the Society promised to buy at least three quarters of the New Church agenda

Matthew · « **Reply #14 on:** June 15, 2015, 03:55:49 PM »

Green Scapular is in ignorance, so I'll cut her some slack.

Nevertheless, she is in ignorance.

(If Green Scapular turns out to be male, he/she should have picked a less androgynous screen name)

I was at the Winona seminary in the early 2000's, and I remember being almost surprised how much of a "killjoy" +Williamson was, in regards to the doctrinal discussions +Fellay was engaging in at the time. He was meeting once in a while with Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos. I still remember the criticisms +Williamson made.

I remember being excited at the prospect of "change" -- some kind of deal being done. Just anything new is appealing to human nature. Like I said -- I never went so far as to criticize or be against +Williamson, but I do remember being a tad surprised by his lack of enthusaiasm, and even criticism.

I guess he knew what was happening better than most of us...