Author Topic: Bishop Williamson in 2004. (Read 6369 times)

JPaul · « **Reply #5 on:** June 15, 2015, 09:01:45 AM »

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.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #6 on:** June 15, 2015, 09:09:28 AM »

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/

richard · « **Reply #7 on:** June 15, 2015, 10:05:05 AM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

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 · « **Reply #8 on:** June 15, 2015, 12:10:46 PM »

Quote from: richard

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.

Matthew · « **Reply #9 on:** June 15, 2015, 01:04:15 PM »

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.