Author Topic: Bishop Williamson is BISHing perfectly (Read 5198 times)

Matthew · « **on:** January 18, 2016, 01:35:49 PM »

Whatever "bishing" is. I understand the old joke telling the butler to "buttle" and the waiter to "wait", but in the word Bishop -- the suffix "op" doesn't mean "one who does". So I fail to see Pablo's joke there, but I digress.

Some people are STILL chanting this worn-out canard, so I wanted to say a few words.

+Williamson can't just muscle his way in like an 800-pound gorilla and "take charge" of the Resistance. That should be obvious, as the idea comes from pure, undisputed Catholic doctrine.

My conclusion: These people who continue to criticize Bishop Williamson as "not doing his job" are either A) maliciously against Catholic doctrine or B) ignorant and should be pitied, corrected, and ignored if they persist in their errors.

Archbishop Lefebvre drew to himself a group of priests willing to follow him. It was natural for priests to follow a Bishop (or Archbishop) of the old order, before Vatican II. But authority flows from the pope down. Bishop Williamson has never been given any jurisdiction over any priest in particular.

Some people think it's as simple as "Me bishop. You priest. I tell you what to do!" but it's really not that simple.

If he commanded obedience of any random priest, he would be pretending to have authority that he doesn't actually have.

Now on the priest's side, it is prudent, meritorious and wise to work WITH the 2 Resistant bishops (currently there are only 2 bishops committed to Tradition among the ruins of the SSPX, a.k.a. the Resistance: +Williamson and +Faure)

But, strictly speaking, no one can force them. It would be wrong of the bishops to demand their submission. But, honestly, working with these faithful bishops (being on good terms with them, respecting their advice, etc.) is the best thing before God for Resistant priests to do.

And in point of fact, virtually ALL the Resistant priests are doing this naturally! Only 2 Resistant priests in the whole world aren't working with the 2 bishops. And those two priests are: Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko. (Please correct me if I'm wrong!) Please keep them in your prayers.

P.S. It's the height of irony, as well as hypocrisy, to see laymen (often in their 20's, unmarried, and "nothing special" when it comes to education on Church matters) presuming to criticize the leadership of +Williamson. If you, an uneducated layman, won't follow him, how can you demand that your priest subject themselves to him? We're talking about your priests, who are objectively much higher on the totem pole and better educated than you!

I guess it's the classic "Do as I say, not as I do."

king · « **Reply #1 on:** January 18, 2016, 05:07:50 PM »

Quote

+Williamson can't just muscle his way in like an 800-pound gorilla and "take charge" of the Resistance. That should be obvious, as the idea comes from pure, undisputed Catholic doctrine.

Quote

P.S. It's the height of irony, as well as hypocrisy, to see laymen (often in their 20's, unmarried, and "nothing special" when it comes to education on Church matters) presuming to criticize the leadership of +Williamson.

Here is a problem. Bishop Williamson says he cannot lead the Resistance. But Bishop Fellay can lead the SSPX and that too towards Rome?

What about the rest of the Bishops that ABL consecrated, are they also followers like Bishop Williamson and not leaders?

Has supplied jurisdiction become an excuse for lack of leadership?

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** January 18, 2016, 06:47:37 PM »

If I claimed to be the head of the Resistance, or the head of the Resistance media, what would you think of me?

You would rightly consider me a pompous ___, since I would be claiming an authority I didn't have. But I wouldn't achieve anything. If anything, I would hurt my cause.

Being a good leader, and having authority (which always comes from God) to be followed are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

I could still be a good forum owner/moderator (which is a kind of leader), objectively speaking. That is, I could set the example, promote what is good, attack what is evil, be impartial, be objective and not get "personal" about various issues, and try to encourage this kind of behavior in the membership. But I still wouldn't necessarily attempt to make everyone follow me, especially since I have no special authority to lead the whole Catholic world.

See the difference?

I have as much right to lead you as Bishop Williamson has to lead Fr. Pfeiffer. Now people can choose to "hear the voice of the shepherd" when that voice is Catholic, and choose to follow/support good prelates and priests (which is a smart and virtuous course of action) but it's still voluntary.

Just like people can choose to support CathInfo as a good source of news/discussion with a lot of good Catholics, without suggesting that I have a God-given right to their support or patronage.

Every good leader doesn't have automatic authority from God to be followed -- it's just wise and prudent to follow wise/virtuous/Catholic leaders rather than the contrary.

On the other hand, there are plenty of men who have the authority, but who are LOUSY leaders, starting with Pope Francis.

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** January 18, 2016, 07:37:03 PM »

Quote from: king

Here is a problem. Bishop Williamson says he cannot lead the Resistance. But Bishop Fellay can lead the SSPX and that too towards Rome?

The thing you have to keep in mind is that SSPX priests (and clerics) make a profession in the SSPX every December 8th. They voluntarily place themselves in the organization SSPX, and under the authority of whoever the General Chapter elects as its Superior General -- even if that individual is a simple priest rather than a bishop.

After the death of +ABL, Fr. Schmidberger was the Superior General.

Long story short, I want to see people stop throwing blanket criticism on +Williamson's "lack of action" and be specific about what he needs to be doing, in their eyes. That way we can criticize them for being unrealistic or unreasonable, if that's the case.

For example, is it necessary that +Williamson personally guide the local activities of every Resistance location? Or can he delegate some of that action to priests working with him?

Can't he just give his blessing to the activities of his subordinates? For example, how could a person criticize +Williamson for not setting up a Resistance forum, when he believes we already have one: CathInfo.com, which has his blessing?

OHCA · « **Reply #4 on:** January 18, 2016, 07:43:10 PM »

Quote from: king

What about the rest of the Bishops that ABL consecrated, are they also followers like Bishop Williamson and not leaders?

"...followers like Bishop Williamson..." :confused1:

Following the SSPX closer and closer to apostate Rome?

Following Fr. Pfeiffer and all of his blustering explicit and/or implicit demands?

Following the commands of PC & Thought Police?

Wessex · « **Reply #5 on:** January 18, 2016, 08:01:06 PM »

....... and yet in these extraordinary times (to borrow a word from somewhere) obeying all the rules and following all the practices that the conciliarists and their deferers would hamstring us with is yet again dividing folk into hardliners and softliners, some forever looking over their shoulders in case some protocol or other is not being followed.The bishops would be redundant but for confirmations in remote places and the odd ordination; even more so if they are shirking from taking extraordinary measures in extraordinary times. Political speeches on the part of Bp. W are fine and dandy but folk can be excused for expecting something more ...... unless ABL's bishops were always weak and watery specimens when tested ..... a fact gaining traction daily.

king · « **Reply #6 on:** January 18, 2016, 08:45:56 PM »

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: king
What about the rest of the Bishops that ABL consecrated, are they also followers like Bishop Williamson and not leaders?

"...followers like Bishop Williamson..." :confused1:

Following the SSPX closer and closer to apostate Rome?

Following Fr. Pfeiffer and all of his blustering explicit and/or implicit demands?

Following the commands of PC & Thought Police?

It is confusing isn't it? We have Bishops who do not want to lead and we have Bishops who do.

Why are we not following the Bishops who lead?

king · « **Reply #7 on:** January 18, 2016, 08:50:32 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

If I claimed to be the head of the Resistance, or the head of the Resistance media, what would you think of me?

You would rightly consider me a pompous ___, since I would be claiming an authority I didn't have. But I wouldn't achieve anything. If anything, I would hurt my cause.

Being a good leader, and having authority (which always comes from God) to be followed are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

...

Can a Resistance be led without a head? Can the SSPX be led without a head?

Are these leaders pompous ___ ?

Quote

Long story short, I want to see people stop throwing blanket criticism on +Williamson's "lack of action" and be specific about what he needs to be doing, in their eyes.

Have we come to a point where the sheep are leading the shepherd?

How far have we fallen since ABL and what more awaits.

OHCA · « **Reply #8 on:** January 18, 2016, 08:57:06 PM »

Quote from: king

Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: king
What about the rest of the Bishops that ABL consecrated, are they also followers like Bishop Williamson and not leaders?

"...followers like Bishop Williamson..." :confused1:

Following the SSPX closer and closer to apostate Rome?

Following Fr. Pfeiffer and all of his blustering explicit and/or implicit demands?

Following the commands of PC & Thought Police?

It is confusing isn't it? We have Bishops who do not want to lead and we have Bishops who do.

Why are we not following the Bishops who lead?

Which Bishops do you perceive to be leading?

Gerard from FE · « **Reply #9 on:** January 18, 2016, 11:28:48 PM »

Part of the confusion is Bishop Fellay should never have been elected General Superior. It gives off a confusing image of the SSPX being its own Church. If that wasn't apparent before it has become apparent over the years.

That was probably the first order of LeFebvre to be dumped that has led to confusion.

The original four SSPX bishops were originally not to be thought of as bishops with sees, but bishops only in so far as they had the sacramental power to ordain and confirm.

LeFebvre very rightly called them "sacrament machines."

TheRealMcCoy · « **Reply #10 on:** January 19, 2016, 05:30:26 AM »

The fight to uphold the Catholic faith against Arianism was quite nearly a lay effort, the vast majority of clergy embracing the heresy. If it were not for the steadfastness and the love of truth of the laity it might have taken much longer to eradicate it. The Pfeifferians could take a lesson and defend doctrine and truth rather than persons.

wallflower · « **Reply #11 on:** January 19, 2016, 07:03:18 AM »

Quote from: Gerard from FE

Part of the confusion is Bishop Fellay should never have been elected General Superior. It gives off a confusing image of the SSPX being its own Church. If that wasn't apparent before it has become apparent over the years.

That was probably the first order of LeFebvre to be dumped that has led to confusion.

The original four SSPX bishops were originally not to be thought of as bishops with sees, but bishops only in so far as they had the sacramental power to ordain and confirm.

LeFebvre very rightly called them "sacrament machines."

My thought exactly. That really was a usurpation of power and throws off the mentality of the people towards the bishops and their roles in the SSPX. Following bishops is the natural tendency which may be why +F was elected in the first place, but there was wisdom behind the rule that the bishops should not be elected. Too bad that was ignored. +F, were he wise, should have turned it down.

I don't now why it is so hard for some people to understand what an association of independents is and how it works. Maybe they've never been in business. The dream that the Resistance was going to explode as an organization and sock it to the SSPX really ran deep in some, they can't seem to let it go or see any other (more realistic) possibilities.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #12 on:** January 19, 2016, 08:03:33 AM »

LOL. I wouldn't be surprised if the term goes back to a fellow seminarian of mine. We both entered the seminary right after the summer of the consecrations. He would always refer to Bish Fellay (laughing in delight as he said it).

Matthew · « **Reply #13 on:** January 19, 2016, 08:34:48 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

LOL. I wouldn't be surprised if the term goes back to a fellow seminarian of mine. We both entered the seminary right after the summer of the consecrations. He would always refer to Bish Fellay (laughing in delight as he said it).

Well, +Fellay is sure filleting the SSPX right now. Along with a large cabal working with him and thinking along the same lines, that is. He is NOT alone, unfortunately. That's why this is not personal.

It's Catholic doctrine vs. error. And I like to keep it on that level.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** January 19, 2016, 10:32:31 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Ladislaus
LOL. I wouldn't be surprised if the term goes back to a fellow seminarian of mine. We both entered the seminary right after the summer of the consecrations. He would always refer to Bish Fellay (laughing in delight as he said it).

Well, +Fellay is sure filleting the SSPX right now. Along with a large cabal working with him and thinking along the same lines, that is. He is NOT alone, unfortunately. That's why this is not personal.

It's Catholic doctrine vs. error. And I like to keep it on that level.

I know. I was merely commenting on the term "Bish".