Author Topic: Bishop Williamson - May 19, 2016 (Read 23142 times)

Incredulous · « **Reply #15 on:** May 23, 2016, 09:14:50 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

I was hearing about the freemasons as a boy and my parents talked about them at length but no names seemed to crop up and one could be excused for thinking that they were one of the Church's classic bogeymen to scare the untutored, children and horses. To the extent that the Church we are also told has been riddled with them throughout history, the impression is that they take the form of some malevolent mist that descends on otherwise pious folk during their weak moments and carries them away to worship some other deity. If such an evil entity is attacking the very vitals of the Church and the SSPX, cannot the bishop name them so that we can mobilise and go and kill its leaders, wives, mistresses, servants, dogs and slaves? Or must they remain as some undefined agency of fear immune from attack because of their useful place in a very familiar strategy? Very much how the devil is depicted.

Good point!
HE knows Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ has been with us for a long time.
His lectures cite, since Pope Gregory XVI at least.

I like your comment about killing them. I was watching a history on Wm. Tecuмseh Sherman's destruction of the South during the cινιℓ ωαr and thought the same thing. Why couldn't we kill this nutty Freemasonic Yankee general, who enlisted criminals in his army to burn, rape, murder and rob the residents of multiple States?

I think the issue is "firepower". We don't have enough of it.
We have to go to the ultimate weapon, pulling-out our Holy Rosary much more often.

Incredulous · « **Reply #16 on:** May 23, 2016, 09:22:32 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

Quote from: PG
Wessex - it is preferred to simply name the errors. Because, blessed are they who believe without seeing, as our Lord says. We do not need to see what goes on behind the closed doors of the lodge. We do not need to see what goes on in the ghetto. And, +Williamson does a great job at that. Not a sermon of his goes by without him repeating for us the church's teaching about objective truth/non contradiction(2+2 =4 and it does not =5). And, this strikes a deathblow to modernism. He also mentioned nfp in one of these recent usa sermons, commending those who practice their marriage right where it is not unlikely children are to occur. Although, I would prefer that he were more direct concerning it, because I don't believe I have ever heard him speak directly about the NFP controversy. And, Rome has a new teaching on NFP. NFP is the temptation of the flesh taught by the new church.

I think the bishop likes his US audiences; the British ones ask too many questions!

Not seeing and relying on fallen clerics is the road to disillusion. Not a good formula. This masonic script is old hat. Has the SSPX ever told Rome to clean out her dirty stables; stables it now wishes to occupy? The bishop does a great job in turning a great problem into a great mythology. And so he becomes part of the problem. The people of today want more than vague generalities.

The bishop does indeed repeat that the new church is a mass of contradiction. But her intention is to build a church that embraces conflicting ideas in the name of inclusion. This is being true to the underlying objectives of the Council. I see more consistency here than in the bewildering amount of tortuous reasoning and positioning that continues to plague traditionalists. Their leaders for their own reasons prefer the convenience of fog to the boldness of clarity.

"Thumbs up!" I think your contrarian view has merit for the discussion.

Incredulous · « **Reply #17 on:** May 23, 2016, 09:43:01 AM »

Matthew, may I make a few comments?

1. I don't think Bp. Williamson looks to be in good health.

2. It doesn't appear the Resistance Bishop's critics will argue with him concerning the topic of "Good souls" residing within the schismatic Novus ordo infrastructure, either in the pews or within the clergy.

But it begs the question, "What is that to us?"

3. Coincidentally, yesterday, I was recommended to read a book by Father Paul Trinchard, S.T.L., titled "Life Before Death". This is a Jesuit priest who converted to tradition, late in life.

Two of the main themes of his book:

A. The high level of invalid ordinations, post 1968.

B. The Novus ordo missae is a serious sacrilege.

This is in-line with Father James Wathen's, who had the grace and to write the "Great Sacrilege" book.

This debate, started by him in 1970, is more current than ever.

B from A · « **Reply #18 on:** May 23, 2016, 11:05:09 AM »

Quote from: Bp. Williamson

But is the "Beast" the real problem? Supposing Oliver Stone or whoever could pull it out of its lair into the light of day and kill it off, would our problems be over? Rather, is it not true that if the people then still clung to their liberalism, preferring illusion to reality, they would perpetuate all the conditions necessary for the "Beast" to come back to life in the same shadows? "Please deceive us! We love the rotten way of life you give us! Please pretend you are not there, and we will pretend also!" Ultimately, the "Beast" is product, and not producer, of the people's turning away from God.

JPaul · « **Reply #19 on:** May 23, 2016, 11:06:48 AM »

Very good points Incred, In that vein, I would like to know how the good Bishop arrives at his doubly emphasized "most probably valid" ordinations. What gives him such confidence in something which is so questionable?

Having stated how the disciplines have been corrupted by the Masonics since the council in order to destroy the Church, it does not follow that these things would have improved over the decades. Thirty years ago that confidence was not the generally held opinion in Traditional circles.
Who could deny that the Freemasons have always known, that to destroy the Church, it was imperative to destroy the Catholic priesthood or render it invalid, Enter Vatican II and the Novus Ordo.

It appears that the Bishop has dug in his heels on the issue raised in NY and subsequent ECs, and is moving forward to expand its scope.

We who might disagree with his position would not deny that some in the Novus Ordo religion have held on to their faith and are in God's grace, but would argue that this has happened in spite of the Novus Ordo and its religion, not because of it.

The straightforward remedy to stop the sacrilege in the Novus Ordo is to stop the Novus Ordo.

Incredulous · « **Reply #20 on:** May 23, 2016, 12:16:55 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Very good points Incred, In that vein, I would like to know how the good Bishop arrives at his doubly emphasized "most probably valid" ordinations. What gives him such confidence in something which is so questionable?

Having stated how the disciplines have been corrupted by the Masonics since the council in order to destroy the Church, it does not follow that these things would have improved over the decades. Thirty years ago that confidence was not the generally held opinion in Traditional circles.
Who could deny that the Freemasons have always known, that to destroy the Church, it was imperative to destroy the Catholic priesthood or render it invalid, Enter Vatican II and the Novus Ordo.

It appears that the Bishop has dug in his heels on the issue raised in NY and subsequent ECs, and is moving forward to expand its scope.

We who might disagree with his position would not deny that some in the Novus Ordo religion have held on to their faith and are in God's grace, but would argue that this has happened in spite of the Novus Ordo and its religion, not because of it.

The straightforward remedy to stop the sacrilege in the Novus Ordo is to stop the Novus Ordo.

JP,

A quick equation.

Father Trinchard stated that the Novus ordo structure is much worse than Protestantism.

Pope Leo XIII spoke from the Seat to say the Anglican ordinations were invalid.

Therefore: Novus ordo sacraments < Anglican sacraments ? True Catholic Sacraments.

Meg · « **Reply #21 on:** May 23, 2016, 12:51:23 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

The straightforward remedy to stop the sacrilege in the Novus Ordo is to stop the Novus Ordo.

What have you personally done to stop the Novus Ordo?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #22 on:** May 23, 2016, 01:06:16 PM »

If there's so much Catholicism and validity in the new sacraments/mass, then the Bishop has the obligation of making his own, personal 'deal' with new-rome. He has no excuse for being 'independent' if new-rome offers the means of salvation.

JPaul · « **Reply #23 on:** May 23, 2016, 01:59:44 PM »

Quote from: Meg

Quote from: J.Paul

The straightforward remedy to stop the sacrilege in the Novus Ordo is to stop the Novus Ordo.

What have you personally done to stop the Novus Ordo?

I stopped attending it,(shortlived as that was), I speak against, I write against it, I have encouraged, at least one priest out of it, I do my best to convince others to cease attending it and to stay away, and when called upon by my superiors to support their efforts to remove it, I will do so.
From there, it is up to our Bishops, Priests, and clerics to initiate a formal strategy to stop the revolution in accordance with the doctrine and law of the Church, as it is their duty to instruct the weak and ignorant about its evil nature and dangers.

And I always pray for it to stop. I have done all that my humble station has allowed for me to do.

God Bless You

JPaul · « **Reply #24 on:** May 23, 2016, 02:20:45 PM »

Incredulous,

Quote

JP,

A quick equation.

Father Trinchard stated that the Novus ordo structure is much worse than Protestantism.

Pope Leo XIII spoke from the Seat to say the Anglican ordinations were invalid.

Therefore: Novus ordo sacraments < Anglican sacraments ? True Catholic Sacraments.

Yes the Novus Ordo and the Anglican service represent a distinction without difference. :cheers:

Meg · « **Reply #25 on:** May 23, 2016, 02:24:18 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Meg
Quote from: J.Paul

The straightforward remedy to stop the sacrilege in the Novus Ordo is to stop the Novus Ordo.

What have you personally done to stop the Novus Ordo?

I stopped attending it,(shortlived as that was), I speak against, I write against it, I have encouraged, at least one priest out of it, I do my best to convince others to cease attending it and to stay away, and when called upon by my superiors to support their efforts to remove it, I will do so.
From there, it is up to our Bishops, Priests, and clerics to initiate a formal strategy to stop the revolution in accordance with the doctrine and law of the Church, as it is their duty to instruct the weak and ignorant about its evil nature and dangers.

And I always pray for it to stop. I have done all that my humble station has allowed for me to do.

God Bless You

And yet the Novus Ordo continues on as before, despite your endeavors. Do you believe that if only Bp. Williamson would spend all of his time speaking out against the NO and its evils, then this would somehow stop the Novus Ordo? How would that work, exactly?

The SV's have a similar strategy: they want that all trads would work together to show that there isn't really a Pope in the chair of St. Peter. Only then will the Crisis (supposedly) end. Okay, maybe it's not quite that simple, but that's what it seems to boil down to.

Yet Bp. Williamsom doesn't adopt the methodology of either so-called solution (or the other personal solutions of laypersons). And for that there's no end of criticism.

What he is trying to do is to show that charity is very much needed, and that we should not think that there is no Faith left in the conciliar church. We should not have animosity for those who attend the NO. Why is that such a terrible thing?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #26 on:** May 23, 2016, 03:04:39 PM »

Quote

and that we should not think that there is no Faith left in the conciliar church. We should not have animosity for those who attend the NO. Why is that such a terrible thing?

Why does the conciliar church need any kind of defense? 99% of the catholic world is on "their side". But it's we Trads who are at fault for pointing out their errors? We are the bad guys? NONSENSE!

The idea that there is this "animosity" against individual NO people is similar to the boogeyman - it doesn't exist. Trads do, and should, have animosity for those authorities who promote the NO, for they are destroying the church, and sending people to hell. Just as Christ hated the pharisees, so we hate modernists. But, in charity, we still pray for them. We also pray for those normal people who attend the NO, and we point out its errors, so that they may stop going.

But to defend the NO and to argue that they still have "some faith" is like arguing that a protestant is still "part catholic". ...Ok, I'll go along - I will say: The typical NO catholic is still part catholic. Now what? What does that solve? Are we supposed to stop trying to convert them? Are we supposed to stop telling them that the NO is wrong, communion in the hand is wrong, the new sacraments are doubtful, and that their salvation is in jeopardy, etc?

If we are still supposed to keep trying the convert them, then who cares if they are 0% or 90% catholic? If they (or anyone) isn't 100% catholic, they can't get to heaven! So who cares what % they are???????

Meg · « **Reply #27 on:** May 23, 2016, 03:19:26 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

Quote
and that we should not think that there is no Faith left in the conciliar church. We should not have animosity for those who attend the NO. Why is that such a terrible thing?

Why does the conciliar church need any kind of defense? 99% of the catholic world is on "their side". But it's we Trads who are at fault for pointing out their errors? We are the bad guys? NONSENSE!

The idea that there is this "animosity" against individual NO people is similar to the boogeyman - it doesn't exist. Trads do, and should, have animosity for those authorities who promote the NO, for they are destroying the church, and sending people to hell. Just as Christ hated the pharisees, so we hate modernists. But, in charity, we still pray for them. We also pray for those normal people who attend the NO, and we point out its errors, so that they may stop going.

But to defend the NO and to argue that they still have "some faith" is like arguing that a protestant is still "part catholic". ...Ok, I'll go along - I will say: The typical NO catholic is still part catholic. Now what? What does that solve? Are we supposed to stop trying to convert them? Are we supposed to stop telling them that the NO is wrong, communion in the hand is wrong, the new sacraments are doubtful, and that their salvation is in jeopardy, etc?

If we are still supposed to keep trying the convert them, then who cares if they are 0% or 90% catholic? If they (or anyone) isn't 100% catholic, they can't get to heaven! So who cares what % they are???????

Well, I don't think it's a case of Bp. Williamson defending the conciliar church when he says that it's a mistake to think that there's no faith left in the conciliar church. You seem to take everything one or two (or more) steps further than Bp. Williamson has gone. Regarding trads being at fault for pointing out their errors, well, where did Bp. Williamson say that trads are at fault for pointing out errors? I don't recall that he has said this.

What he DID mention in the video (did you view it?) is this: How is a Novus Ordo Catholic going to see tradition when they are called heretics? There is a way to address errors without, IMO, resorting to harshness.

If Our Lord hated the Pharisees, then why he did pray for the particular Pharisee that put him to death? Remember that? And didn't our Lord also command that we love our enemies, and pray for them? Not just to pray for them....but to love them. Pray for those who persecute us.

So you believe that all Novus Ordo Catholics aren't actually Catholic, therefore they aren't any of them going to Heaven? They're all going to Hell?

Incredulous · « **Reply #28 on:** May 23, 2016, 03:24:02 PM »

Gentlemen, from Kentucky, North Carolina and South, Reload your rifles and break those Yankee ranks!

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #29 on:** May 23, 2016, 04:12:06 PM »

Quote

How is a Novus Ordo Catholic going to see tradition when they are called heretics? There is a way to address errors without, IMO, resorting to harshness.

Who said that NO catholics have no faith left? Who cares what % of Faith they have, if they are still in error? That's the question.

The Bishop is implying (as he's done previously) that we Trads are 'too extreme' because we have 'pharisaical scorn' (his words) of NO catholics. I have no scorn for anyone, only for error. And I don't see any evidence that there are numerous Trads out there on a witch hunt against NO catholics. This whole conflict is imaginary.

We Trads are the ones being attacked and told WE are heretics, WE are disobedient, WE are not part of the Church. THIS is not an imaginary conflict. THIS conflict happens anytime I talk to a NO catholic, even one who goes to the indult (and was formerly trad).

Secondly, using the word heretic isn't harsh, it's the truth. Christ called the Pharisees "serpents, brood of vipers" and "hypocrites" (multiple times) - is He too harsh? Our Lord hated the pharisees because they spread error and kept many people away from God and the Truth. He prayed for them so that they would convert. These 2 attitudes are not contradictory, and they apply for all the modernists of new-rome.

If a NO catholic (or any catholic) does not believe 100% in all articles of the Faith, they are, by definition a heretic. And, heretics go to hell. This is why we must try to convert them. Conversion happens through charity, but not at the expense of, or watering-down of the Truth. The truth is harsh enough to one who is living contrary to it. But many people want to blame the 'delivery' on why they reject it, when the reason is, they want to do what pleases them.