CathInfo.com

It's a sad fact that from the beginning the priests of the GB District have worn suits in public. I don't know why. One reason I heard was that otherwise people would think they were High Anglicans!

What you heard is true; I also heard it from continental European SSPX priests (who wear cassocks) that they observed what you say when they visited the island England. They told me, that when it is important to be distinguished from Anglican "priests" who traditionally wore cassocks, some traditional Roman-Catholic priests who normally wear the cassocks, temporally used the clergyman.

That could be the reason why Bishop Williamson on a few occasions wore the clergyman in England, for example near his former place, the SSPX headquarters' house. Of course there are sometimes other reasons, too. Maybe he could write an Eleison-Comment about it, or better a series of Comments.



Now in order to make this extremely important discussion with so many extremely wise guys more interesting:

Who could post that photograph which shows Archbishop Lefebvre during a visit to his US SSPX district wearing a clergyman ?

(Hint: the photograph exists. And on it, the Archbishop looks very much like Bishop Williamson looks like during the interesting London Forum lecture. They were very close.)

One last point (I promise), just like Archbishop Lefebvre who, on occasion, wore the clerical suit.

Yes, indeed. :-)


God bless Bishop Williamson.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: John Grace

Cassock related, I met Fr Hewko a few 'blocks away' from the hall.As I walked the street I saw a towering figure in a cassock ahead of me. Sure enough it was Fr Hewko.

Fr. Hewko, a man largely responsible for my spiritual formation, would never go anywhere without a cassock. And I love him for it.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: s2srea

And look how far it got the majority of them....

Look- all I'm saying is that the interior of the man- his mind and teachings on the faith- are infinitely more important to me than his garb. I don't understand why some Traditional Catholics split hairs on matters like this which are not important to the Faith; I think the bishop has more than proven his Catholic worth. He isn't walking around in a Hawaiian shirt or anything. There may be many reasons for the man to wear what he did when and where he did in this video, and while traveling. He has the permission of the Church prior to Vatican II being in a Protestant, non-Catholic country; not to mention that its not normal garb for him.

This is silly.

And imagine how far they might have fallen without it!

By your logic, Bishop Williamson who, on occasion, wears a priests suit must have fallen to some degree. Not very likely Sean. Obscurus is hitting the nail on the head. I think you are being a little stubborn in your thinking right now, and are not taking into account what he is saying. Nobody is promoting the suit; it is a matter of opinion, not of faith, morals and doctrine; it is a discipline which is changeable. Do we prefer it(the cassock)? You bet your bum.

No, I think NC Bill hit the nail on the head at the top of the page.

You are being stubborn in opposing him, and excusing the Bishop.

*Sighs* I'm not opposing anyone here Sean. And, if he doesn't mind my saying so, I think he was referring to you when he mentioned the Pharisaical attitude.

Quote from: Charlotte NC Bill

"He should have worn a cassock" Agreed? Agreed...Something that deserves THAT much space goes on for pages....it makes us look a little Pharasaical, really.

Sean- I get the impression that you are somehow needing to be at odds with the Bishop because you disagree with him on a larger issue- that of the creation of a formal priestly group. I don't think this attitude is needed. I'll leave it at that, but this is the impression I get. I really like you. You have a lot of zeal and seem to be an honest and brave man. May God bless and reward you for your efforts in this resistance, which are surely far greater than my own.

Your friend, Richard.

Then you would be wrong.

Wasnt there the 'belt ' which distinguisht sspx, from anglicans, always thought that was a cop -out, not to wear the cassock..