Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: 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.
-
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."
-
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!"
-
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.
-
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.
-
If the SSPX stands upon the principles under which it has defended its legitimacy, then no such "regularization" is necessary. It would be like being Baptized a second time.
This need for it, is one of the fundamental contradictions in the Society's position, and the R&R position in general.
Bishop Williamson's older remarks are simply a manifestation of this, as is the position that regularization under the conciliar church is desirable under particular conditions.
Same position, think of a pig with lipstick.
They are both still SSPX. Neither has changed save that, Bishop Fellay will now take the deal sans lipstick.
-
This shows Green Scapular's substantial lack of reason, which encourages him/her in the position of unwavering support for the personalities that happen to currently hold the positions of power in the SSPX.
There is a difference of leaps and bounds between what Bishop Williamson said here, and for instance the Doctrinal Preamble of 2012 (where we saw for one of the first times the SSPX officially cite the Vatican 2 conciliar docuмents in support of the texts).
For the pope to give juridical standing to the Society, and to want and pray for this, is Catholic. What it means is that the pope would have converted and granted full recognization of rights to Tradition, without putting them under the diocesan bishops. There is nothing in what bishop Williamson says that will lead one to believe that he desired a "deal" without Rome having come to accept the Society's position. In the case of the Doctrinal Preamble, however, it is the complete opposite. It concedes to the position of the hermeneutic of continuity, i.e. accepting the Council in the light of Tradition. Let me quote from it here:
[doctrinal preamble of Bishop Fellay]
The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition,
[/quote]
This is straight from the playbook of the Fraternity of St. Peter and the Ecclesia Dei, and now that we have greater insight into what had happened in those days, we know that the G.R.E.C. was responsible for this treachery accepted and promoted officially by Bishop Fellay. It is a joke that he is still S.G. and as long as he is, the SSPX will suffer a crisis. He should do the right thing and step down from a position of leadership and remain a humble bishop, but he shows that he has no intentions of doing that.
I charitably ask you, Green Scapular, to inform yourself more about the issues that are tearing apart the SSPX founded by the Archbishop, if you truly love it as much as myself and others. It is no small matter that dozens and dozens of priests have left since this crisis in the SSPX began to surface in 2012, for the simple reason of wanting to continue in the same postion that they have always had and that of being able to fight for the Faith, without difficulties and preach against the idea of making a deal with the Roman authorities under the circuмstances of them not having converted to Tradition. It is no secret that more priests are wanting to join in this endeavor and will in due time. It is not a matter of choosing sides as you continuously make it out to be. Supporting those priests, who though with difficulty are fighting for the Faith in the SSPX, does not exclude supporting those good priests (many of them the closest friends of the Archbishop) who have left the SSPX in order to be able to combat for the Faith more freely.
You could start by informing yourself about the G.R.E.C. as laid out here to us by the Dominicans of Avrillé. http://www.dominicansavrille.us/the-g-r-e-c/
-
This shows Green Scapular's substantial lack of reason, which encourages him/her in the position of unwavering support for the personalities that happen to currently hold the positions of power in the SSPX.
There is a difference of leaps and bounds between what Bishop Williamson said here, and for instance the Doctrinal Preamble of 2012 (where we saw for one of the first times the SSPX officially cite the Vatican 2 conciliar docuмents in support of the texts).
For the pope to give juridical standing to the Society, and to want and pray for this, is Catholic. What it means is that the pope would have converted and granted full recognization of rights to Tradition, without putting them under the diocesan bishops. There is nothing in what bishop Williamson says that will lead one to believe that he desired a "deal" without Rome having come to accept the Society's position. In the case of the Doctrinal Preamble, however, it is the complete opposite. It concedes to the position of the hermeneutic of continuity, i.e. accepting the Council in the light of Tradition. Let me quote from it here:
[doctrinal preamble of Bishop Fellay]
The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition,
This is straight from the playbook of the Fraternity of St. Peter and the Ecclesia Dei, and now that we have greater insight into what had happened in those days, we know that the G.R.E.C. was responsible for this treachery accepted and promoted officially by Bishop Fellay. It is a joke that he is still S.G. and as long as he is, the SSPX will suffer a crisis. He should do the right thing and step down from a position of leadership and remain a humble bishop, but he shows that he has no intentions of doing that.
I charitably ask you, Green Scapular, to inform yourself more about the issues that are tearing apart the SSPX founded by the Archbishop, if you truly love it as much as myself and others. It is no small matter that dozens and dozens of priests have left since this crisis in the SSPX began to surface in 2012, for the simple reason of wanting to continue in the same postion that they have always had and that of being able to fight for the Faith, without difficulties and preach against the idea of making a deal with the Roman authorities under the circuмstances of them not having converted to Tradition. It is no secret that more priests are wanting to join in this endeavor and will in due time. It is not a matter of choosing sides as you continuously make it out to be. Supporting those priests, who though with difficulty are fighting for the Faith in the SSPX, does not exclude supporting those good priests (many of them the closest friends of the Archbishop) who have left the SSPX in order to be able to combat for the Faith more freely.
You could start by informing yourself about the G.R.E.C. as laid out here to us by the Dominicans of Avrillé. http://www.dominicansavrille.us/the-g-r-e-c/
[/quote]
Green Scapular lives in St.Mary's KS she is at cult central in the US district,I doubt she will change her point of view.
-
Green Scapular lives in St.Mary's KS she is at cult central in the US district,I doubt she will change her point of view.
Speculation, assumption, and jumping to conclusions based on non-existent evidence. Typical of a false-apparitionist cult-follower, and resister.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Green Scapular,
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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...
-
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...
.....and still does.
-
Bishop Williamson quoted the Archbishop quite often and as his spiritual son, he would faithfully let us know in Winona that the Archbishop had not been a gelded cleric, neither was he, and neither should we be.
Rome is occupied by modernists. P E R I O D The Archbishop did not trust them but as a true Roman, he never lost hope in the idea that it was possible they would change. Bishop Williamson knew and knows all too well that doing the cozy up and let's be friends routine is tantamount to dancing with the devil in the pale moonlight. Modernists are like voodoo; stay the hell away or look out!
The SSPX just wants everyone to get along because it pretends to be able fix everything since it is perfect and can't fail. I never learned to exalt myself when a seminarian of H.E., but I am not sure that is the case these days with the SSPX. I think they have grown soft and I am willing to bet many priors are more worried about the cars they drive, the restaurants they eat at weekly, the location of their next vacation, or the toys they can hind in their rooms, than about the rank bullying of their leaders.
On my first day in the seminary, Bishop Williamson addressed my entire class and said, "You are all worthless piece of sh*t, but Our Lord loves you despite that reality and I will with the grace of God and my faithful confreres in the SSPX, teach you to be fishers of men."
One young man, who was as I recall, quite educated, left 5 days later.
-
On my first day in the seminary, Bishop Williamson addressed my entire class and said, "You are all worthless piece of sh*t, but Our Lord loves you despite that reality and I will with the grace of God and my faithful confreres in the SSPX, teach you to be fishers of men."
One young man, who was as I recall, quite educated, left 5 days later.
When I was there a few years later (2000 - 2003), I recall some brothers/older seminarians suggesting that the bishop had mellowed a bit over the years.
Apparently that is the case, at least in some small way(s). For example, he didn't do that when I was there. He was all about teaching us humility though. For example, the ringing of the bell whenever a reader makes a mistake during meals. This is no longer done, perhaps to preserve the "self esteem" of the exalted future priests.
He compared the SSPX to a fat ugly "anchor man" on one end of the tug-of-war with Rome.
He also suggested on several occasions that the SSPX will only be blessed as long as it stands for the truth. And if it ever compromises, God will raise up children of Abraham from the very stones.
It's probably thanks to his influence that I have a balanced view of the SSPX, rather than the starry-eyed awe that some people have.
-
Viking:
Bishop Williamson quoted the Archbishop quite often and as his spiritual son, he would faithfully let us know in Winona that the Archbishop had not been a gelded cleric, neither was he, and neither should we be.
Rome is occupied by modernists. P E R I O D The Archbishop did not trust them but as a true Roman, he never lost hope in the idea that it was possible they would change. Bishop Williamson knew and knows all too well that doing the cozy up and let's be friends routine is tantamount to dancing with the devil in the pale moonlight. Modernists are like voodoo; stay the hell away or look out!
It occurs to me that many of the bishop's enemies may be "gelded." Because they act neutered trads. They may envy and loathe the bishop simultaneously, because, unlike him, they've come under the spell of modernist "voodoo," but can't do anything about it. They're trapped in a web of incipient modernism.