Author Topic: Bp Williamson expulsion a tragedy for the world (Read 6929 times)

Matthew · « **on:** October 23, 2012, 01:02:02 AM »

Quote from: Incredulous

Quote from: Matthew
It's amazing that they have so many seminarians, particularly when one of the qualifications nowadays is being a Phlegmatic. :wink:

Fr. Wood certainly seems like a Phlegmatic temperament.

If you don't know the 4 Temperaments, go ahead and Google it. Among other things, Phlegmatic usually entails "passive" and "not a fighter".

He is a classic example of what I speak of when I say, "The new type of Priest the SSPX is looking for".

I kind of feel sorry for his students...we had some really interesting professors when I was there, but I honestly couldn't imagine Fr. Wood keeping the students awake very easily...

One anecdote to the claim that the new seminarians (After Bp. Fellay removed +W as the Rector) are different than the older say, 2000 ~ 2005 seminary classes:

1. Around the summer of 2005, a group of Winona seminarians came and ran the SSPX boys camp, in my town, for two weeks.

A. 90 boys... most of them undisciplined, acting silly and goofing around the first days, even in Mass. During the following 2-weeks, they were rigously exercised and disciplined. Any trouble, the seminarians or their aids came up and said:"Hey young man... get down and give me 10 push-ups, now!".

B. By the end of the 2-weeks, the boys behaved like a military unit.
They walked in, straight single file into Church. Almost all of them looked straight ahead and followed the Mass with their missals. They were pious when returning from the Communion rail to their pews.
The improvement in behavior was startling.

2. Around the summer of 2009, another group of Winona seminarians came and ran the boys camp, for two weeks.

A. Approximately 85 boys... undisciplined, acting silly and goofing-off the first days, even in Mass. During the following 12 days, they were not rigously disciplined.

B. The kids lacked piety at Mass from day one to the last day. I attended Mass with them and was shocked the see the seminarians not disciplining them?

I noticed one of the older seminarians, a deacon had "fixed" his hair and was using a cell-phone at the camp.
This didn't seem right. I thought these guys weren't as masculine in their supervisory duties as the 2005 seminarians.

To cross-check myself, to see if I was imagining things, I had a chance
to talk to the visiting older priest in charge of the camp and I commented
about the boys' demeanor at Mass.
The priest confirmed my comments by saying they had many problems at
that camp. He was dissatisfied with both the boys & seminarians.

Conclusion:

The newer camp seminarians were basically light-weights and reflected the new men coming out of the post +Williamson era seminary.
Their relaxed discipline wasn't by accident.

It's hard to argue with facts!

Indeed -- it takes a man to make MEN. Bishop Williamson is a real man as well as a faithful Bishop of the Catholic Church. He knows the way to manhood, being as he is presently there himself.

In fact, +W often taught us how women, no matter how well-intentioned, CANNOT raise boys and turn them into men. A MAN is needed to help a boy into manhood. No exceptions.

A cursory glance at +W's words and actions over the past years show the kind of virile man that he is. No wonder his seminarians knew how to be men -- and train other young boys to be men as well.

Manliness is passed on.

One of my favorite sayings, which I learned from the good Bishop:

Nemo dat quod non habet

No one gives what he doesn't have.

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** October 23, 2012, 01:05:26 AM »

You know, this is a good example of a point I'd like to make:

THIS ISN'T A GAME. This is serious.

It's not a football game, where I'm rooting for +Williamson and you're rooting for +Fellay.

We're talking about a man with incredible God-given ~~talent~~ genius for forming young men into priests equipped to deal with the modern world and its errors, modern culture, etc. and banishing him completely from public sight.

Just think of how EACH ONE of those boys (in the 2009 boys camp) is going to be affected by NOT having manly seminarians to discipline them. Each one of them might end up being a different kind of father in their own families which they will start founding in about 10 years' time.

And let's not even talk about the irreparable damage to seminarians/priests! Each of which is the leader of a whole congregation, whose ideas/ideals/priorities will be different because +Fellay decided +Williamson must go into exile on some fine Spring day in 2003.

We're talking about a total disaster here!

Telesphorus · « **Reply #2 on:** October 23, 2012, 01:21:07 AM »

Ultimately there are two kinds of priests.

1) Those whose mission is to spread the Gospel in service to Holy Mother Church for the sake of Our Lord Jesus Christ the King.

2) Those who are interested in comfortably presiding over the gradual dissolution of Catholicism as hireling overseers of the "flock" for ʝʊdɛօ-masony.

Ultimately one has to pick sides.

There isn't any doubt as to which side the conciliarists are on.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #3 on:** October 23, 2012, 01:41:10 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

... We're talking about a total disaster here!

I agree with you, Matthew. It is a disaster.

But I also disagree, because perhaps it is not a disaster. Let me explain.

The current state of affairs is as follows:

~ +Williamson has been prevented from being involved with the formation of
priests for several years now, which is a grave injustice.

~ +Williamson's principle attribute is his ability to pass on what he has received
in the form of manliness and priestliness to his seminary students.

~ Being deprived of the ability to exercise his God-given genius, has been and
continues to be the real disaster that is ongoing as of now.

~ The status quo for Canonized Traditional Latin Mass training of seminarians
worldwide is such that there is no place at all to send young men from
independent chapels who think they may have a vocation.

~ The status quo for SSPX seminarians is they are being slow-cooked in an
effete, pluralistic, cultish environment that is NOT conducive to good priestly
formation, regardless of their intention or calling or efforts.

~ So long as +Williamson remains under the thumb of the Menzingen-denizens,
this state of affairs seems to show no sign of changing.

But after +W is expelled, what could be the consequence?

~ +Williamson will no longer be held back by the Menzingen-denizens

~ Benefactors all over the world who have been reserving their contributions
to SSPX fundraisers and collection plates might easily be watching for
+W's next move.

~ There is a very fine, new 'ranch' in Boston, KY, which is founded on the
fertile soil of a fine old-Irish priest, Fr. Hanifin, who devoted the last years
of his life to giving a seminary formation to the young Timothy and Joseph,
who are now very good priests of the SSPX / SSPXSO.

~ Fr. Pfeiffer has not mentioned, as best I know, that he is not well disposed
to the establishment of a seminary in the area, which could be administered
from Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church.

~ It would be rather surprising if +Williamson were unwilling to discuss such
such a plan with Frs. Pfeiffer, Fr. Chazal, Fr. Voigt, Fr. Ringrose and even Fr.
Hewko.

So you see, it might not be such a 'disaster' after all...........................

1531 · « **Reply #4 on:** October 23, 2012, 02:39:25 AM »

Quote from: Daniel

Quote from: Matthew
In fact, +W often taught us how women, no matter how well-intentioned, CANNOT raise boys and turn them into men. A MAN is needed to help a boy into manhood. No exceptions.

Although I do not like some of the language 'Daniel' uses, which is insulting, some of the points he makes are valid. There have been many priests and saints over the centuries who did not have a father at home, either killed or who abandoned the family for whatever reason (ex. wars, famines, diseases, etc.) and the sons were raised by their mothers. That is not to say that a father is superflous, far from it, and I agree the father figure is most important and we do see the sad results arising due so many single mothers today. One reads of priests who have thanked their mother for instilling the faith in them.

1531 · « **Reply #5 on:** October 23, 2012, 02:42:13 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Matthew
... We're talking about a total disaster here!

I agree with you, Matthew. It is a disaster.

But I also disagree, because perhaps it is not a disaster. Let me explain.

The current state of affairs is as follows:

~ +Williamson has been prevented from being involved with the formation of
priests for several years now, which is a grave injustice.

~ +Williamson's principle attribute is his ability to pass on what he has received
in the form of manliness and priestliness to his seminary students.

~ Being deprived of the ability to exercise his God-given genius, has been and
continues to be the real disaster that is ongoing as of now.

~ The status quo for Canonized Traditional Latin Mass training of seminarians
worldwide is such that there is no place at all to send young men from
independent chapels who think they may have a vocation.

~ The status quo for SSPX seminarians is they are being slow-cooked in an
effete, pluralistic, cultish environment that is NOT conducive to good priestly
formation, regardless of their intention or calling or efforts.

~ So long as +Williamson remains under the thumb of the Menzingen-denizens,
this state of affairs seems to show no sign of changing.

But after +W is expelled, what could be the consequence?

~ +Williamson will no longer be held back by the Menzingen-denizens

~ Benefactors all over the world who have been reserving their contributions
to SSPX fundraisers and collection plates might easily be watching for
+W's next move.

~ There is a very fine, new 'ranch' in Boston, KY, which is founded on the
fertile soil of a fine old-Irish priest, Fr. Hanifin, who devoted the last years
of his life to giving a seminary formation to the young Timothy and Joseph,
who are now very good priests of the SSPX / SSPXSO.

~ Fr. Pfeiffer has not mentioned, as best I know, that he is not well disposed
to the establishment of a seminary in the area, which could be administered
from Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church.

~ It would be rather surprising if +Williamson were unwilling to discuss such
such a plan with Frs. Pfeiffer, Fr. Chazal, Fr. Voigt, Fr. Ringrose and even Fr.
Hewko.

Someone is posting negative points on this page...? Hm... At odds with our traditional standpoint?
I made sure I added my positive points!

So you see, it might not be such a 'disaster' after all...........................

Telesphorus · « **Reply #6 on:** October 23, 2012, 02:43:33 AM »

Did Matthew claim that Bishop Williamson was anyone's biological father?

Matthew · « **Reply #7 on:** October 23, 2012, 03:21:01 AM »

To spell out what Telesphorus started to say,

Bishop Williamson, or any other strong Catholic man could help an orphan, fatherless boy, etc. into manhood.

A boy needs SOME man to help him to manhood. No exceptions. If he were somehow deprived of this, he WOULD be "damaged goods" more or less.

I'm just stating the facts.

I don't think such damage is permanent -- a boy could find a proper role model a bit "late", or he could scavenge parts of manhood here and there from movies, TV, friends, books, etc. but let's face it...

NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET.

No one gives what he doesn't have. Unless your mom is a man, she can't teach you what it means to be a man, or how to be a man. She knows nothing of manliness, at least on the BEING end. She might be able to describe the traits she's attracted to, but she's never been a man herself.

And how can a woman -- whose brain is wired so much differently than a man's -- teach a man how to think, reason, and act like a man? That isn't even reasonable.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #8 on:** October 23, 2012, 03:22:14 AM »

Thank you for banning Daniel.

Tiffany · « **Reply #9 on:** October 23, 2012, 04:24:22 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Incredulous
Quote from: Matthew
It's amazing that they have so many seminarians, particularly when one of the qualifications nowadays is being a Phlegmatic. :wink:

Fr. Wood certainly seems like a Phlegmatic temperament.

If you don't know the 4 Temperaments, go ahead and Google it. Among other things, Phlegmatic usually entails "passive" and "not a fighter".

He is a classic example of what I speak of when I say, "The new type of Priest the SSPX is looking for".

I kind of feel sorry for his students...we had some really interesting professors when I was there, but I honestly couldn't imagine Fr. Wood keeping the students awake very easily...

One anecdote to the claim that the new seminarians (After Bp. Fellay removed +W as the Rector) are different than the older say, 2000 ~ 2005 seminary classes:

1. Around the summer of 2005, a group of Winona seminarians came and ran the SSPX boys camp, in my town, for two weeks.

A. 90 boys... most of them undisciplined, acting silly and goofing around the first days, even in Mass. During the following 2-weeks, they were rigously exercised and disciplined. Any trouble, the seminarians or their aids came up and said:"Hey young man... get down and give me 10 push-ups, now!".

B. By the end of the 2-weeks, the boys behaved like a military unit.
They walked in, straight single file into Church. Almost all of them looked straight ahead and followed the Mass with their missals. They were pious when returning from the Communion rail to their pews.
The improvement in behavior was startling.

2. Around the summer of 2009, another group of Winona seminarians came and ran the boys camp, for two weeks.

A. Approximately 85 boys... undisciplined, acting silly and goofing-off the first days, even in Mass. During the following 12 days, they were not rigously disciplined.

B. The kids lacked piety at Mass from day one to the last day. I attended Mass with them and was shocked the see the seminarians not disciplining them?

I noticed one of the older seminarians, a deacon had "fixed" his hair and was using a cell-phone at the camp.
This didn't seem right. I thought these guys weren't as masculine in their supervisory duties as the 2005 seminarians.

To cross-check myself, to see if I was imagining things, I had a chance
to talk to the visiting older priest in charge of the camp and I commented
about the boys' demeanor at Mass.
The priest confirmed my comments by saying they had many problems at
that camp. He was dissatisfied with both the boys & seminarians.

Conclusion:

The newer camp seminarians were basically light-weights and reflected the new men coming out of the post +Williamson era seminary.
Their relaxed discipline wasn't by accident.

It's hard to argue with facts!

Indeed -- it takes a man to make MEN. Bishop Williamson is a real man as well as a faithful Bishop of the Catholic Church. He knows the way to manhood, being as he is presently there himself.

In fact, +W often taught us how women, no matter how well-intentioned, CANNOT raise boys and turn them into men. A MAN is needed to help a boy into manhood. No exceptions.

A cursory glance at +W's words and actions over the past years show the kind of virile man that he is. No wonder his seminarians knew how to be men -- and train other young boys to be men as well.

Manliness is passed on.

One of my favorite sayings, which I learned from the good Bishop:

Nemo dat quod non habet

No one gives what he doesn't have.

My first thought when reading this is Where are the parents? To teach a child to is something the parents teach them, when very young. If they convert when a child is older it will be more of a challenge, but it can be done, starting with practice at home. If it takes priests at a 2 week summer camp to get children to sit in Mass, these families are already Christian, unless there are special needs causing it, there is discipline lacking at home. They are far more problems at home and with their upbringing besides not sitting still in Mass.

Matthew this sounds more like right wing GOP speak about it being impossible for a woman to raise a boy into a good man and how they are going to turn out a menace to society. Nothing in Church teaching supports this, it's been the last 30+ years we have the single mother as the scapegoat in society from the GOP. Masculine traits are not just something boys pick up from what is around them.

The priest should have been preaching to the parents or guardians of these means not be lax with their sons. How strange that a priest is disappointed with a summer camp because they seminarians did not discipline the children enough?

I think it's weird you are OK with a seminarian "rigorously" disciplining any child during a 2 week summer camp. Again if a child is that unruly the parents may need instruction. What about the priests that has deal with these unruly children in their Mass before and after the summer camp?

Tiffany · « **Reply #10 on:** October 23, 2012, 04:36:56 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

To spell out what Telesphorus started to say,

Bishop Williamson, or any other strong Catholic man could help an orphan, fatherless boy, etc. into manhood.

A boy needs SOME man to help him to manhood. No exceptions. If he were somehow deprived of this, he WOULD be "damaged goods" more or less.

I'm just stating the facts.

I don't think such damage is permanent -- a boy could find a proper role model a bit "late", or he could scavenge parts of manhood here and there from movies, TV, friends, books, etc. but let's face it...

NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET.

No one gives what he doesn't have. Unless your mom is a man, she can't teach you what it means to be a man, or how to be a man. She knows nothing of manliness, at least on the BEING end. She might be able to describe the traits she's attracted to, but she's never been a man herself.

And how can a woman -- whose brain is wired so much differently than a man's -- teach a man how to think, reason, and act like a man? That isn't even reasonable.

Matthew this comes from the right wing conservative GOP talk. History and Church teaching do not support this. Many good men have been raised by women alone. Males are designed different than females, boys are meant to be men.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #11 on:** October 23, 2012, 08:09:54 AM »

Quote from: Tiffany

Quote from: Matthew
To spell out what Telesphorus started to say,

Bishop Williamson, or any other strong Catholic man could help an orphan, fatherless boy, etc. into manhood.

A boy needs SOME man to help him to manhood. No exceptions. If he were somehow deprived of this, he WOULD be "damaged goods" more or less.

I'm just stating the facts.

I don't think such damage is permanent -- a boy could find a proper role model a bit "late", or he could scavenge parts of manhood here and there from movies, TV, friends, books, etc. but let's face it...

NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET.

No one gives what he doesn't have. Unless your mom is a man, she can't teach you what it means to be a man, or how to be a man. She knows nothing of manliness, at least on the BEING end. She might be able to describe the traits she's attracted to, but she's never been a man herself.

And how can a woman -- whose brain is wired so much differently than a man's -- teach a man how to think, reason, and act like a man? That isn't even reasonable.

Matthew this comes from the right wing conservative GOP talk. History and Church teaching do not support this. Many good men have been raised by women alone. Males are designed different than females, boys are meant to be men.

Not sure what you find objectionable in Matthew's post, but as the product of divorced parents, I can speak from personal experience that life would have been much easier for me had dad been around 24/7, and there is no way a woman can raise boys of choleric, sanguine, or melancholic temperments as effectively as with the help of a father. Phlegmatic temperments might be possible, but they would probably turn out ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. :judge:

sspxbvm · « **Reply #12 on:** October 23, 2012, 09:28:20 AM »

God will bring good out of B. Fellay's evil. The only "problem" is that we might all have to suffer through whats coming which can serve to increase our merit for Heaven.

In reality, God has already covered all the bases, so to speak. They take away the Blessed Sacrament? Make a good spiritual communion. They take away confession? Go behind the veil anyway. They take away a Catholic burial? Wear your brown scapular and be Faithful to Our Lady. There are promises attached. Check out the promises the Sacred Heart has made. Check out the promises for saying the prayers of St. Brigid.

Finally, there are independent priests so make a trip (depending how far away you are) once or twice a month. It does cost money to travel but you will merit a place in Heaven for your efforts!!

[/b]The door is now open for all who wish to become SAINTS. Let's line up to show God we are ready. Ready for persecution for His sake. How blessed we are to live in these days!!

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #13 on:** October 23, 2012, 10:48:03 AM »

What Matthew said is backed up by many psychologists, unfortunately, they now no longer like to say this kind of stuff because they will face ostacism - which is like a death sentence in the psych community. It's not only a man's job to teach his son to be a man, it's a man's job to separate a boy from his mother. It's highly unpopular to say this but there's truth in it. I know today's world tells girls that they can be whatever they want and even out-man any man out there but it's false thinking.

As Matthew said, the boys raised by single mom's usually get their manhood training somewhere else, i.e., tv, movies, a high school sports coach or, pre-Vatican II, Mass. Single moms may try their hardest but a family raised by a single mom is disordered. I am talking about single moms and not widows.

Along the lines of psychologists, I once stood wide eyed in a bookstore when I stumbled upon a self-help pop-psych book written by a female psychologist who was giving friendly advice to any man reading her book. The topic of the book was people who objectify their spouses. She said: If you're a man reading this book with the intention of learning how to correct your wife's objectifying, you are going to be disappointed. Unless her objectifying is in response to your behaviors toward her, it won't work. In 12 years of private practice, I have only had three women call in seeking treatment for themselves. And without fail, all three of those women later called to cancel their appontments. Women do not ever see themselves as needing correction, they see themselves as the correct one. I was stunned to see her say this so openly. A psychologically damaged woman is to be pitied and avoided.

No offense intended to any woman out there. The psychologist was referred to psychologically damaged women and not women in general. However, there is a kernel of truth in that. Look at the gruff Tele gets for highlighting the faults of feminism.

On the topic, though, it's a bad day for the SSPX if Bishop Williamson is officially expelled.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #14 on:** October 23, 2012, 11:02:58 AM »

Quote

Women do not ever see themselves as needing correction

Now, now, we have a loyal audience that we can't chase away.