Author Topic: Bishop Williamson warned us (Read 3745 times)

LucasL · « **on:** October 30, 2015, 09:58:17 AM »

After seeing what happened in Boston, after seeing Priests don't telling the truth, after watching people having weak doctrinal positions I thought it was a good idea to share something that shows how people didn't listen to the warnings +Williamson almost 3 years ago.

p.s: On this same conference, Bishop Williamson said good things about Fr. Pfeiffer.

P.S 2: Fr Chazal said one thing very good recently that I relate to this video: "The air we breath is apostasy".

hollingsworth · « **Reply #1 on:** October 30, 2015, 10:53:46 AM »

Thanks for posting that, Lucas. It is vintage Bp. Williamson. Many trads reject H.E., including a number of trads on this forum. They follow the teachings and doctrinal positions of +Williamson, say they, but there is always a great big BUT.
Bp. W might have said good things about Fr. Pfeiffer in 2013. I doubt that he would say those good things now. Fr. P has flown his colors, and, unless a miracle occurs, is about to crash land.

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** October 30, 2015, 11:32:24 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Thanks for posting that, Lucas. It is vintage Bp. Williamson. Many trads reject H.E., including a number of trads on this forum. They follow the teachings and doctrinal positions of +Williamson, say they, but there is always a great big BUT.
Bp. W might have said good things about Fr. Pfeiffer in 2013. I doubt that he would say those good things now. Fr. P has flown his colors, and, unless a miracle occurs, is about to crash land.

It's just proof that +W is not "out to get" Fr. Pfeiffer. It proves that he had no pre-existing aversion to him, or any reason to personally hate him.

Which means that any objection to Fr. Pfeiffer/ Boston KY that has arisen, has arisen because of the objective circuмstances, which His Excellency must in good conscience oppose.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #3 on:** October 30, 2015, 11:35:41 AM »

Mattew:

Quote

Which means that any objection to Fr. Pfeiffer/ Boston KY that has arisen, has arisen because of the objective circuмstances, which His Excellency must in good conscience oppose.

Exactly!

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** October 30, 2015, 11:43:22 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Many trads reject H.E., including a number of trads on this forum. They follow the teachings and doctrinal positions of +Williamson, say they, but there is always a great big BUT.

Yeah, yeah, we know, Valtorta. I guess that if you don't like Valtorta that means you reject Bishop Williamson's "doctrinal positions".

hollingsworth · « **Reply #5 on:** October 30, 2015, 01:41:27 PM »

lad:

Quote

Yeah, yeah, we know, Valtorta. I guess that if you don't like Valtorta that means you reject Bishop Williamson's "doctrinal positions".

Lad, I was beginning to have better thoughts about you. Then what do you do? You make another mess on the carpet.

Numbers of trads express disagreement with Bp. Williamson on a variety of issues, not just Maria Valtorta. I think you know that. One of the major problems with H.E., on the part of both the "resistance" priests and the faithful who follow and listen to them is this: The bishop sets up a new model of loosely federated independent chapels, served by independent priests. That really galls a number of folks in Tradland.

Another issue is his perceived "wishy-washy" stand on the New Order of Mass. He tolerates it, they assert, and even says that it's OK to attend the NO.

Another charge against him, which ties in with the his idea of independent chapels, is his seeming refusal to "take the lead." I've heard layfolk say this, and, of course, I've heard Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko say this.

Another item, which really seems to rankle some trad women, is H.E.'s attitude towards a college education for them. Others go off on him for his perceived attitudes towards women generally.

Others criticize H.E, for having associated in the past with such non-Catholics, even anti-Catholic, figures, such as Texe Marrs, David Irving and Lady Renouf.

Still others go off on him on his famous remarks about The Sound of Music. I take umbrage at this myself, because I really liked Julie Andrews in her tender years. (Admittedly, she's turned into something of a wrinkled prune since then.)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** October 30, 2015, 02:16:15 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Numbers of trads express disagreement with Bp. Williamson on a variety of issues, not just Maria Valtorta. I think you know that.

Yes, yes, I know that. I was largely just yanking your chain. In all seriousness, though, people can respect Bishop Williamson and yet disagree with him on this, that, or the other thing. And +Williamson wants it that way and has never sought any "authority" that he didn't have. Otherwise you slide in the Pfeifferism very quickly.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #7 on:** October 30, 2015, 02:26:17 PM »

lad:

Quote

In all seriousness, though, people can respect Bishop Williamson and yet disagree with him on this, that, or the other thing. And +Williamson wants it that way and has never sought any "authority" that he didn't have. Otherwise you slide in the Pfeifferism very quickly.

Exactly! You have, IMO, contrasted perfectly the major difference between Pfeifferism and Williamsonism. Fr. Pfeiffer takes upon himself an authority which he doesn't have now, nor did he ever have. Bp. Williamson, on the other hand, rejects any such imagined authority, simply pointing to his Episcopal rank, yet carefully qualifying it, and refusing to off half-cocked.

Patrick JK Gray · « **Reply #8 on:** October 30, 2015, 03:18:34 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

lad:
Quote
Yeah, yeah, we know, Valtorta. I guess that if you don't like Valtorta that means you reject Bishop Williamson's "doctrinal positions".

Lad, I was beginning to have better thoughts about you. Then what do you do? You make another mess on the carpet.

Numbers of trads express disagreement with Bp. Williamson on a variety of issues, not just Maria Valtorta. I think you know that. One of the major problems with H.E., on the part of both the "resistance" priests and the faithful who follow and listen to them is this: The bishop sets up a new model of loosely federated independent chapels, served by independent priests. That really galls a number of folks in Tradland.

Another issue is his perceived "wishy-washy" stand on the New Order of Mass. He tolerates it, they assert, and even says that it's OK to attend the NO.

Another charge against him, which ties in with the his idea of independent chapels, is his seeming refusal to "take the lead." I've heard layfolk say this, and, of course, I've heard Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko say this.

Another item, which really seems to rankle some trad women, is H.E.'s attitude towards a college education for them. Others go off on him for his perceived attitudes towards women generally.

Others criticize H.E, for having associated in the past with such non-Catholics, even anti-Catholic, figures, such as Texe Marrs, David Irving and Lady Renouf.

Still others go off on him on his famous remarks about The Sound of Music. I take umbrage at this myself, because I really liked Julie Andrews in her tender years. (Admittedly, she's turned into something of a wrinkled prune since then.)

I'm sorry, the remark about Julie Andrews will not do. It's impure -- what has the appearance of any woman to do with a Catholic? The film itself is immoral and places emotions over duty and discipline -- a typical plague of modern men.

I don't especially agree with His Lordship about the policy of the Resistance but I can see the sense in it, especially

Pilar · « **Reply #9 on:** October 30, 2015, 03:24:52 PM »

[/quote]

Still others go off on him on his famous remarks about The Sound of Music. I take umbrage at this myself, because I really liked Julie Andrews in her tender years. (Admittedly, she's turned into something of a wrinkled prune since then.)

I always thought he had pretty good reasons to dislike that movie. Firstly, it was nearly total fictionalized account of the Trapp Family story made as a propaganda piece. Secondly, it oozed sugary sentimentality all over everyone and helped candy a whole generation.

I disagree on Miss Andrews being a "wrinkled prune" however. She has aged remarkably well, appears dignified and her face hasn't been tortured and deformed by plastic surgery. You really think she looks that bad for 80?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2015/03/23/second-julie-andrews-memoir-expected-in-2017/70340344/

At any rate, that seems a superficial and disrespectful thing to say about elderly ladies in general.

Matthew · « **Reply #10 on:** October 30, 2015, 04:09:39 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

lad:
Quote
In all seriousness, though, people can respect Bishop Williamson and yet disagree with him on this, that, or the other thing. And +Williamson wants it that way and has never sought any "authority" that he didn't have. Otherwise you slide in the Pfeifferism very quickly.

Exactly! You have, IMO, contrasted perfectly the major difference between Pfeifferism and Williamsonism. Fr. Pfeiffer takes upon himself an authority which he doesn't have now, nor did he ever have. Bp. Williamson, on the other hand, rejects any such imagined authority, simply pointing to his Episcopal rank, yet carefully qualifying it, and refusing to off half-cocked.

I think I mostly understand you, but you said it in a very poor way:

1. There is no specific "williamsonism". Unless you mean Catholicism?

2. He points to his Episcopal rank? News to me. He seems to wear the office quite well with grace and humility. +Lefebvre made a good choice in consecrating him. The status/position didn't go to his head; he has sufficient natural character (nobility) to deal with the burden of rule.

Most men, unfortunately, do not.

TheRealMcCoy · « **Reply #11 on:** October 30, 2015, 04:48:27 PM »

I disagree with his aversion to mush and chocolate! :ready-to-eat:

hollingsworth · « **Reply #12 on:** October 30, 2015, 04:55:53 PM »

Pilar:

Quote

I always thought he had pretty good reasons to dislike that movie. Firstly, it was nearly total fictionalized account of the Trapp Family story made as a propaganda piece. Secondly, it oozed sugary sentimentality all over everyone and helped candy a whole generation.

I disagree on Miss Andrews being a "wrinkled prune" however. She has aged remarkably well, appears dignified and her face hasn't been tortured and deformed by plastic surgery. You really think she looks that bad for 80? ....
..At any rate, that seems a superficial and disrespectful thing to say about elderly ladies in general.

Agreed. The movie was fictionalized in many respects. I knew that. The Von Trapp family, for one thing, did not have to escape over the Alps in the dead of night. They left by train, I think, in the full light of day.

In any case, the music and songs were good. I still hum them from time to time. One of the five best musicals, IMHO, ever made by Hollywood. Right up there with "Oliver" and "My Fair Lady."

Historical accuracy was not H.E.'s chief beef, I don't think. Sure, it was a propaganda piece, digging even a deeper hole for the 'evil nαzιs.' Yes, it was sentimental and light. Nonetheless, it was well done. And I will continue to like it, even if it means finding a new priest to establish yet another trad Catholic 'Sound of Music' sect, and a new mail order "Bp.Ambrose" to do confirmations. (Just kidding, I think.)

As for Julie Andrews being a "wrinkled prune:" You may have me on that, Pilar. Perhaps, it wasn't Ms. Andrews I was thinking of. I may have mistaken her in old age for Lilian Gish or Bette Davis, I don't know. Suffice to say, I wouldn't have gone to the movie had an 80 year old Julie Andrews been cast in the leading role.

As for showing disrespect for elderly ladies. No disrespect intended. Some elderly ladies are just wrinkled, that's all, though they can't help it. :thinking:

Patrick JK Gray · « **Reply #13 on:** October 30, 2015, 04:57:43 PM »

Quote from: Patrick JK Gray

Quote from: hollingsworth
lad:
Quote
Yeah, yeah, we know, Valtorta. I guess that if you don't like Valtorta that means you reject Bishop Williamson's "doctrinal positions".

Lad, I was beginning to have better thoughts about you. Then what do you do? You make another mess on the carpet.

Numbers of trads express disagreement with Bp. Williamson on a variety of issues, not just Maria Valtorta. I think you know that. One of the major problems with H.E., on the part of both the "resistance" priests and the faithful who follow and listen to them is this: The bishop sets up a new model of loosely federated independent chapels, served by independent priests. That really galls a number of folks in Tradland.

Another issue is his perceived "wishy-washy" stand on the New Order of Mass. He tolerates it, they assert, and even says that it's OK to attend the NO.

Another charge against him, which ties in with the his idea of independent chapels, is his seeming refusal to "take the lead." I've heard layfolk say this, and, of course, I've heard Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko say this.

Another item, which really seems to rankle some trad women, is H.E.'s attitude towards a college education for them. Others go off on him for his perceived attitudes towards women generally.

Others criticize H.E, for having associated in the past with such non-Catholics, even anti-Catholic, figures, such as Texe Marrs, David Irving and Lady Renouf.

Still others go off on him on his famous remarks about The Sound of Music. I take umbrage at this myself, because I really liked Julie Andrews in her tender years. (Admittedly, she's turned into something of a wrinkled prune since then.)

I'm sorry, the remark about Julie Andrews will not do. It's impure -- what has the appearance of any woman to do with a Catholic? The film itself is immoral and places emotions over duty and discipline -- a typical plague of modern men.

I don't especially agree with His Lordship about the policy of the Resistance but I can see the sense in it, especially

... Sorry. 'Especially with the Chastisement, perhaps, very near indeed (Bishop Williamson reckons, a purely private opinion, on five years in his 'Seven Ages of the Church' in 2013, I think. Allowing his opinion to be near right, there would be a certain beauty in the Chastisement being in 2017, a century after Fatima, but neither he, nor I, nor indeed anyone but God actually know.)

The corruption of the SSPX proves there is good sense in this statement:

Quote

IT SEEMS THAT, today, God wants a loose network of independent pockets of Catholic Resistance, gathered around the Mass, freely contacting one another, but with no structure of false obedience, which served to sink the mainstream Church in the 1960’s and is now sinking the Society of St. Pius X

Nevertheless it is not typical of the Church. But these times are not typical, they're the worst in history, the very air is apostasy and superiors are readily corrupted. ''The Church supplies''. The Chastisement and the times of the Great Catholic Monarch and the triumph of the Immaculate Heart will lead to the restoration of the hierarchy in true obedience.

'Do not especially agree' is wrong of me, I am a mere layman and that was to my mind insubordinate. I'm sure he, as Matthew says, does not quarrel with those of other mind, e.g. the Union Sacerdotale Marcel Lefebvre seems to be on the lines of the SSPX.

Forgive me.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #14 on:** October 31, 2015, 11:18:23 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Quote from: Pilar
I always thought he had pretty good reasons to dislike that movie. Firstly, it was nearly total fictionalized account of the Trapp Family story made as a propaganda piece. Secondly, it oozed sugary sentimentality all over everyone and helped candy a whole generation.

I disagree on Miss Andrews being a "wrinkled prune" however. She has aged remarkably well, appears dignified and her face hasn't been tortured and deformed by plastic surgery. You really think she looks that bad for 80? ....

..At any rate, that seems a superficial and disrespectful thing to say about elderly ladies in general.

Agreed. The movie was fictionalized in many respects. I knew that. The Von Trapp family, for one thing, did not have to escape over the Alps in the dead of night. They left by train, I think, in the full light of day.

In any case, the music and songs were good. I still hum them from time to time. One of the five best musicals, IMHO, ever made by Hollywood. Right up there with "Oliver" and "My Fair Lady."

Historical accuracy was not H.E.'s chief beef, I don't think. Sure, it was a propaganda piece, digging even a deeper hole for the 'evil nαzιs.' Yes, it was sentimental and light. Nonetheless, it was well done. And I will continue to like it, even if it means finding a new priest to establish yet another trad Catholic 'Sound of Music' sect, and a new mail order "Bp. Ambrose" to do confirmations. (Just kidding, I think.)

As for Julie Andrews being a "wrinkled prune": You may have me on that, Pilar.

Perhaps, it wasn't Ms. Andrews I was thinking of. I may have mistaken her in old age for Lilian Gish or Bette Davis, I don't know. Suffice to say, I wouldn't have gone to the movie had an 80 year old Julie Andrews been cast in the leading role.

As for showing disrespect for elderly ladies. No disrespect intended. Some elderly ladies are just wrinkled, that's all, though they can't help it. :thinking:

The real tragedy of Julie Andrews was when she got nodes on her vocal cords and opted for some kind of laser surgery, which failed, ruining her voice permanently. She can no longer sing ANYTHING. She can barely TALK.

Most women lose their singing voice in old age, but there are notable exceptions, the great Marilyn Horne (born January 16, 1934) being perhaps most prominent. She has not quite the range she once had, but still retains most of her amazing tone quality, but no longer sings in public since her recovery from cancer in 2007.

.