Author Topic: Bishop Williamsons most recent Comments, (Read 4642 times)

Ekim · « **on:** June 03, 2013, 03:57:01 PM »

Noticed the most recent "Comments" of +Williamson were removed along with Sean’s poignant comments.

I would like to add, with all do respect, that it is difficult to compare the actions of ABL in the late 60's and early 70's to that of + Williamson today. The Church / Rome were totally different. ABL still saw a spark of hope in those churchmen that he knew personally. Perhaps this is why canononical recognition was so important to him (besides the natural desire that every Catholic should have to be united to good and holy Rome). In 2013 however, Rome is not good or holy. The spark of hope cannot be seen in these churchmen. Any hope of a canononical approval is not possible.

One can only wonder, would ABL still hold the same hope and requirement for recognition by modern Rome in today’s circuмstances before forming the SSPX in 2013 as he did in the early 70's? Would he just allow the flock to scatter because such approval wasn't possible? I find it hard to believe that ABL would just walk away without providing Catholics of good will with a structure to continue the faith.

I believe times and circuмstances are so very different today than they were in the 1970's. Because of this, battle plans must be adjusted to provide for the faith. As Fr. Hewko’s said a while back, a priest must have a bishop. Until the resistance has a bishop they can call their own, a bishop that provides the "Apostolic" mark of the Church, the Resistance, and the true traditional priesthood will suffer a major setback.

Let us pray that H.E. Williamson provides the Resistance with a visible head that will afford it the "Apostolic" mark of the Church.

Mary Help of Christians...PRAY FOR US!

Machabees · « **Reply #1 on:** June 03, 2013, 04:11:16 PM »

"Bishop Williamsons most recent Comments,
» why were they removed?"

I have addressed that question also in a recent post within that original discussion. I will re-post it here for feed back:

----------------------------------------------------------

In regards to this Sub-Forum for collecting Resistance Sermons, along with the Eleison Comments [if it needs to be in the Sub-Forum section], my thoughts on this would be to then archive the "original" Eleison Comments of each week in the Sub-Forum, and then have the discussion on it in the main headline page.

Specifically, the reason for this idea is that the discussion of Bishop Williamson, as a Catholic Bishop standing up for Tradition, what he does, and what he writes about is extremely important, and harmonious, to everything else in [the] headlines page of the Resistance itself.

As his writings are diverse in topics, and poignant at times with new information that needs to be analyzed and discussed, it gives us the opportunity to know what to do and which way to turn.

Therefore, by bringing back the discussion of the Eleison Comments to the main page, it will keep all of the important discussions together; not fractioned in different places.

Is this an idea open to others also?

Incredulous · « **Reply #2 on:** June 03, 2013, 04:24:39 PM »

I see Watson.

"The case of the Missing Comments" rears it's ugly head again.

:detective:

MaterDominici · « **Reply #3 on:** June 03, 2013, 05:48:35 PM »

Quote from: Ekim

Noticed the most recent "Comments" of +Williamson were removed along with Sean’s poignant comments.

Just moved, not removed.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Eleison-Comments-307-Authority-Crippled

Incredulous · « **Reply #4 on:** June 03, 2013, 06:07:07 PM »

Thank you Mater Dominici!

Ekim · « **Reply #5 on:** June 03, 2013, 08:54:30 PM »

Thanks :)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #6 on:** June 03, 2013, 09:09:52 PM »

Quote from: Ekim

Noticed the most recent "Comments" of +Williamson were removed along with Sean’s poignant comments.

I would like to add, with all do respect, that it is difficult to compare the actions of ABL in the late 60's and early 70's to that of + Williamson today. The Church / Rome were totally different. ABL still saw a spark of hope in those churchmen that he knew personally. Perhaps this is why canononical recognition was so important to him (besides the natural desire that every Catholic should have to be united to good and holy Rome). In 2013 however, Rome is not good or holy. The spark of hope cannot be seen in these churchmen. Any hope of a canononical approval is not possible.

One can only wonder, would ABL still hold the same hope and requirement for recognition by modern Rome in today’s circuмstances before forming the SSPX in 2013 as he did in the early 70's? Would he just allow the flock to scatter because such approval wasn't possible? I find it hard to believe that ABL would just walk away without providing Catholics of good will with a structure to continue the faith.

I believe times and circuмstances are so very different today than they were in the 1970's. Because of this, battle plans must be adjusted to provide for the faith. As Fr. Hewko’s said a while back, a priest must have a bishop. Until the resistance has a bishop they can call their own, a bishop that provides the "Apostolic" mark of the Church, the Resistance, and the true traditional priesthood will suffer a major setback.

Let us pray that H.E. Williamson provides the Resistance with a visible head that will afford it the "Apostolic" mark of the Church.

Mary Help of Christians...PRAY FOR US!

There are a couple other problems with Bishop Williamson's approach to the crisis in the SSPX:

1) If it is an acceptable reason not to found another congregation because at some point they will just betray it, well, then according to that rationale, no congregation in the history of the Church would have ever been founded (all of them having been betrayed at some point or another);

2) Concordantly, this approach would ignore all the good the congregation would do before the betrayal occurred. Look at what the SSPX has accomplished in 40 years! Would it have better to have never founded it in 1970 because Bishop Fellay would subvert it in 2012?

3) And the persistent fact that it was indicated to me by a priest that it was not right for Bishop Williamson to urge them to leave the SSPX without at the same time offering them anywhere else to go. In fairness to His Lordship, he has not urged anyone to leave anything, but I understood the point the priest was making.

4) Similarly, who has a vocation to an independent apostolate? If you correctly answer, "nobody," then it remains for Bishop Williamson to explain how his strategy of a loose confederation can possibly attract seminarians to perpetuate tradition under such a plan; there being none with such a vocation to a secular independent priesthood in the history of the Church.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #7 on:** June 03, 2013, 09:37:15 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Ekim
Noticed the most recent "Comments" of +Williamson were removed along with Sean’s poignant comments.

I would like to add, with all do respect, that it is difficult to compare the actions of ABL in the late 60's and early 70's to that of + Williamson today. The Church / Rome were totally different. ABL still saw a spark of hope in those churchmen that he knew personally. Perhaps this is why canononical recognition was so important to him (besides the natural desire that every Catholic should have to be united to good and holy Rome). In 2013 however, Rome is not good or holy. The spark of hope cannot be seen in these churchmen. Any hope of a canononical approval is not possible.

One can only wonder, would ABL still hold the same hope and requirement for recognition by modern Rome in today’s circuмstances before forming the SSPX in 2013 as he did in the early 70's? Would he just allow the flock to scatter because such approval wasn't possible? I find it hard to believe that ABL would just walk away without providing Catholics of good will with a structure to continue the faith.

I believe times and circuмstances are so very different today than they were in the 1970's. Because of this, battle plans must be adjusted to provide for the faith. As Fr. Hewko’s said a while back, a priest must have a bishop. Until the resistance has a bishop they can call their own, a bishop that provides the "Apostolic" mark of the Church, the Resistance, and the true traditional priesthood will suffer a major setback.

Let us pray that H.E. Williamson provides the Resistance with a visible head that will afford it the "Apostolic" mark of the Church.

Mary Help of Christians...PRAY FOR US!

There are a couple other problems with Bishop Williamson's approach to the crisis in the SSPX:

1) If it is an acceptable reason not to found another congregation because at some point they will just betray it, well, then according to that rationale, no congregation in the history of the Church would have ever been founded (all of them having been betrayed at some point or another);

2) Concordantly, this approach would ignore all the good the congregation would do before the betrayal occurred. Look at what the SSPX has accomplished in 40 years! Would it have better to have never founded it in 1970 because Bishop Fellay would subvert it in 2012?

3) And the persistent fact that it was indicated to me by a priest that it was not right for Bishop Williamson to urge them to leave the SSPX without at the same time offering them anywhere else to go. In fairness to His Lordship, he has not urged anyone to leave anything, but I understood the point the priest was making.

4) Similarly, who has a vocation to an independent apostolate? If you correctly answer, "nobody," then it remains for Bishop Williamson to explain how his strategy of a loose confederation can possibly attract seminarians to perpetuate tradition under such a plan; there being none with such a vocation to a secular independent priesthood in the history of the Church.

Additionally, I might add:

5) If it is true, as His Lordship says, that his expulsion from the SSPX was illegal, and that therefore he remains part of the SSPX, then that would indicate that he also still retains the official approval and jurisdiction of the Swiss bishop of Fribourg to form seminaries, consecrate bishops, etc.

So what's the problem?

Napoli · « **Reply #8 on:** June 03, 2013, 09:42:34 PM »

While it's nice to have the Bishop's responses here, I am sure most of you receive them in your email. Just saying.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #9 on:** June 03, 2013, 09:44:07 PM »

Quote from: Napoli

While it's nice to have the Bishop's responses here, I am sure most of you receive them in your email. Just saying.

Good point: We could do away with this forum and communicate individually by email.

Machabees · « **Reply #10 on:** June 03, 2013, 10:29:53 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

There are a couple other problems with Bishop Williamson's approach to the crisis in the SSPX:

1) If it is an acceptable reason not to found another congregation because at some point they will just betray it, well, then according to that rationale, no congregation in the history of the Church would have ever been founded (all of them having been betrayed at some point or another);

2) Concordantly, this approach would ignore all the good the congregation would do before the betrayal occurred. Look at what the SSPX has accomplished in 40 years! Would it have better to have never founded it in 1970 because Bishop Fellay would subvert it in 2012?

3) And the persistent fact that it was indicated to me by a priest that it was not right for Bishop Williamson to urge them to leave the SSPX without at the same time offering them anywhere else to go. In fairness to His Lordship, he has not urged anyone to leave anything, but I understood the point the priest was making.

4) Similarly, who has a vocation to an independent apostolate? If you correctly answer, "nobody," then it remains for Bishop Williamson to explain how his strategy of a loose confederation can possibly attract seminarians to perpetuate tradition under such a plan; there being none with such a vocation to a secular independent priesthood in the history of the Church.

Good points, especially #4.

Under Bishop Williamson's rational, the growth of Tradition will suffer without priestly recruits (seminarians) to go into the harvest...and the Church dies.

Machabees · « **Reply #11 on:** June 03, 2013, 11:08:45 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Additionally, I might add:

5) If it is true, as His Lordship says, that his expulsion from the SSPX was illegal, and that therefore he remains part of the SSPX, then that would indicate that he also still retains the official approval and jurisdiction of the Swiss bishop of Fribourg to form seminaries, consecrate bishops, etc.

So what's the problem?

I believe this is the most important and central to this whole problem.

Bishop Williamson and the other priests need to unite and to stay faithful to their membership as true SSPX members, and continue on in their work that ABL handed on to them, out of new priories and seminaries; the growth will be fresh, strong, and balanced, as God had always blessed it throughout the many years when it was FAITHFUL in maintaining the original cause of its Founding -to preserve and to protect the Faith.

Being faithful to this SSPX membership is the True practical and structural identity that bonds them with the unity of graces that already exist, and which they have, as a blessed congregation.

To break this bond they have together, is to break their own membership, and the source of graces they were ordained in.

When a Subdiaconate in the Seminary "crosses the conscience line" to serve God, he loses himself, and puts on "Alter Christus". Bishop Williamson needs to reconsider his position in all of this very seriously -like ABL had done- and make the proper decisions.

We pray for him...to see clearly in what he needs to do.

Incredulous · « **Reply #12 on:** June 03, 2013, 11:21:14 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

Quote from: SeanJohnson

There are a couple other problems with Bishop Williamson's approach to the crisis in the SSPX:

1) If it is an acceptable reason not to found another congregation because at some point they will just betray it, well, then according to that rationale, no congregation in the history of the Church would have ever been founded (all of them having been betrayed at some point or another);

2) Concordantly, this approach would ignore all the good the congregation would do before the betrayal occurred. Look at what the SSPX has accomplished in 40 years! Would it have better to have never founded it in 1970 because Bishop Fellay would subvert it in 2012?

3) And the persistent fact that it was indicated to me by a priest that it was not right for Bishop Williamson to urge them to leave the SSPX without at the same time offering them anywhere else to go. In fairness to His Lordship, he has not urged anyone to leave anything, but I understood the point the priest was making.

4) Similarly, who has a vocation to an independent apostolate? If you correctly answer, "nobody," then it remains for Bishop Williamson to explain how his strategy of a loose confederation can possibly attract seminarians to perpetuate tradition under such a plan; there being none with such a vocation to a secular independent priesthood in the history of the Church.

Good points, especially #4.

Under Bishop Williamson's rational, the growth of Tradition will suffer without priestly recruits (seminarians) to go into the harvest...and the Church dies.

There are some Catholics who suspect this is part of the Third Secret of Fatima... the decapitation of the priesthood.

This is obviously what the ʝʊdɛօ-masons want for the Catholic Church.
After-all, the Jєωs had their priesthood decapitated in 70 AD.

Not to say that Our Lord will allow it to happen, but we are responsible for protecting the Catholic Faith and the priesthood as much as we can.

Machabees · « **Reply #13 on:** June 04, 2013, 12:52:45 PM »

Imported from the Eleison comments thread:

Quote from: InDominoSperavi

I would like no more sub-forums at all for Resistance sermons and . Sub-forums mean less people looking at them. And the discussions we have at present are very important. We must give more importance to the sermons of the courageous priests who tell the truth and everybody should be aware of the questions risen by the eleison comments.

I agree 100%!

It is like having very important "front page" news in front of you, then in a few hours, it gets tucked away into "page 12" of the newspaper; hardly getting anymore views; never mind a discussion anymore; unless someone puts it up as another "headline" in the main page.

As like also in having a similarly important conversation in a room with many people in it, all of the topics are interactive in front of you, then you have to leave the room, go into "another room" that is "empty", in order to have a "discussion" on the same topics you were just having in the other room -with the people in it.

For those who are "veterans", you know were things are kept and where to find them for discussion. For those that are new to all of this, which is the large majority, it is hidden from them; and this is not what the Resistance is about; it is to get the most "up to date" information as visible as possible and to get the discussion out there in the forefront to drive the debate. So far, we have been successful.

While the Sub-Forum has been an experiment, it shows that it is not working in the hoped results. So the point in all of this is, and what is necessary, is to keep the fresh information interactive in front of you before it is moved away; especially, when there is already a very live, positive, and informative discussion going on within it.

In proof of this, look what just happened to the new Eleison comments we are talking about -it is not getting the views anymore- so another thread was started in the MAIN PAGE to continue the discussion.

In the vitality of the Catholic Faith, and the Resistance to keep it alive, for which Cathinfo is a strong platform, lets stay organized with the new "up to date" information by keeping it all together in front of you, then if necessary, move the items to the Sub-Forum for "archive" after 2-weeks or so.

VeraeFidei · « **Reply #14 on:** June 04, 2013, 03:41:39 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

, consecrate bishops, etc.

So what's the problem?

Consecrate Bishops?

I think you mean ordain priests. Generally speaking, one needs Papal approval to consecrate a Bishop, otherwise it is a schismatic action (notwithstanding a Crisis, of course!).