Author Topic: Communiqu of the General House of the Society of St. Pius X (Read 10364 times)

Sienna629 · « **Reply #30 on:** March 19, 2015, 04:49:20 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Now, in terms of His Excellency's choice to consecrate another 70+ year-old for a Bishop, ............. he thinks the end times are so close that 70+-year-olds will carry the mission through to the end. And, he probably feels comfortable with +Faure, having known him for so long.

I think this is closer to the truth.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #31 on:** March 19, 2015, 04:59:36 PM »

Let's cite the original General House communique in its entirety, explaining the expulsion of Bp. williamson:

Communiqué of the General House of the Society of Saint Pius X (October 24, 2012)
26-10-2012
Bishop Richard Williamson, having distanced himself from the management* and the government of the SSPX for several years, and refusing to show due respect and obedience to his lawful superiors, was declared excluded from the SSPX by decision of the Superior General and its Council, on October 4th, 2012. A final deadline had been granted to him to declare his submission, after which he announced the publication of an “open letter” asking the Superior General to resign.
This painful decision has become necessary by concern for the common good of the Society of Saint Pius X and its good government, according to what Archbishop Lefebvre denounced: “This is the destruction of authority. How authority can be exercised if it needs to ask all members to participate in the exercise of authority? “(Ecône, October 3, 1987)

Read the bold type above. Let's be absolutely clear about the reasons submitted for the expulsion of Bp. Williamson in 2012. The earlier communique states unequivocally that 1) the bishop "distanced" himself from SSPX "management." 2)H.E. failed to show proper "respect and obedience," (not to Roman authorities, mind you, but to Fellay & Co.)

Quoting now today's public statement from SSPX headquarters:

Bishop Williamson and Fr. Faure have not been members of the Society of St. Pius X since 2012 and 2014, respectively, because of their violent criticisms of any relations with the Roman authorities. According to them, such contacts were incompatible with the apostolic work of Archbishop Lefebvre.

The dullest member of CI should understand the bait and switch technique employed here. In the first 2012 communique, it was a matter of not showing respect and obedience towards SSPX hierarchy. In this fresh 2015 communique, it is a matter of "violent criticisms" of Roman authorities. So which is it, Bernie? Were these priests expelled for disobedience to you, or to Roman authorities? Were these priests ejected because they did not show proper respect to you, or to Rome?

ihsv · « **Reply #32 on:** March 20, 2015, 12:29:48 PM »

The SSPX® leadership certainly seems to think it has a monopoly on Catholic Tradition™.

ihsv · « **Reply #33 on:** March 20, 2015, 12:33:32 PM »

I'm just waiting for the inevitable, thunderous Communiqué from the SSPX® leadership regarding this:

Lunch with Frank

Cantarella · « **Reply #34 on:** March 20, 2015, 02:08:55 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Ladislaus

Bishop Williamson and Fr. Faure have not been members of the Society of St. Pius X since 2012 and 2014, respectively, because of their violent criticisms of any relations with the Roman authorities. According to them, such contacts were incompatible with the apostolic work of Archbishop Lefebvre. Well, the former actually because he questioned the h0Ɩ0cαųst.

Well, nobody is allowed to upset the Jєωs nowadays... Being classified as anti-semitic has become the ultimate unforgivable "crime". Being anti-Judaism (meaning, you know, the ageless Catholic stand) automatically grants you the title of criminal nazy. :rolleyes:

That was meant to be a sarcasm, by the way.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #35 on:** March 20, 2015, 09:00:26 PM »

I would like someone, anyone, to come up with a comment or statement from Bp. Fellay, in the years prior to Bp. Williamson's expulsion, in which the former took issue with, or was at cross purposes with +Williamson, because of the latter's alleged "violent criticisms of any relations with Roman authorities." Is +Fellay, perhaps, referring to H.E.'s criticisms of the 'April 15 Declaration' or of the 'Six Conditions' coming out of the 2012 General Chapter? If so, there were a number of Fellay's own confreres, including Bp. Tissier, who were critical of them.

Stubborn · « **Reply #36 on:** March 21, 2015, 09:41:17 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

I would like someone, anyone, to come up with a comment or statement from Bp. Fellay, in the years prior to Bp. Williamson's expulsion, in which the former took issue with, or was at cross purposes with +Williamson, because of the latter's alleged "violent criticisms of any relations with Roman authorities." Is +Fellay, perhaps, referring to H.E.'s criticisms of the 'April 15 Declaration' or of the 'Six Conditions' coming out of the 2012 General Chapter? If so, there were a number of Fellay's own confreres, including Bp. Tissier, who were critical of them.

At this point, it's a moot point.
If anyone had any doubt about the direction +Fellay is leading "his" SSPX, or were holding on to the hope that perhaps the Resistance was somehow an over reaction, this Communique just obliterated any thinking along those lines and validates the Resistance beyond any doubt.

While it is a sad awakening for SSPXers, long time SSPXers should see by this Communique, that there can be no more doubt about the intentions of the SSPX and the direction they are heading.

Quote

The Society of St. Pius X denounces this episcopal consecration of Father Faure, which, despite the assertions of both clerics concerned, is not at all comparable to the consecrations of 1988. All the declarations of Bishop Williamson and Fr. Faure prove abundantly that they no longer recognize the Roman authorities, except in a purely rhetorical manner.

The Society of St. Pius X still maintains that the present state of necessity renders legitimate its action throughout the world, without denying the legitimate authority of those for whom it continues to pray at every Mass.

Dam bunch of lying hypocrites.

To denounce the actions of +Williamson is to lie about maintaining that their own (SSPX's) actions remain legitimate. To lie about their own mission's legitimacy is to say they have already made their deal with the conciliar crooks, either by handshake or in writing, it really doesn't matter, the deal is done even if it isn't finalized officially.

Personally, this makes me very angry because as one of the original members of the SSPX, I held out a glimmer of hope, but no more. I guess I fooled myself long enough.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #37 on:** March 21, 2015, 11:09:19 AM »

I guess the point I'm trying to make is this: Originally, the dispute which arose between Bp. Fellay and Bp. Williamson, or if you like, the bad blood that began to exist visibly between them, or better yet, the apparent 'distancing' of one from the other, had nothing really to do with +Williamson's vehement criticism of "Roman authorities, or his refusal to give proper recognition and respect to them. No, all the nasty stuff hit the fan immediately after H.E. gave his infamous interview, assuring the whole world that not one Jєω was popped into a "gas chamber." Had Williamson simply conceded that 6 million of the Chosen were gassed; another 6 million were shot and dumped into open graves; and that perhaps another 4 million or so were electrocuted, then, undoubtedly, Fellay would have made no statement publicly rebuking the claim. He would not have breathed a word of correction publicly to Der Spiegel. He might have gotten his fellow bishop aside thereafter in order to inform the latter that he had slightly exaggerated. But you can bet that the SG would have taken no disciplinary action against him. +Williamson would probably have remained in La Reja to this day. No, had the interview gone that way, H.E. would be a Society bishop in good standing still.
It was all about the Jєωs then. It is all about the Jєωs now. It is my opinion that most of the decisions which +Fellay takes these days are in close consultation and cooperation with basically hidden Tribal entities.

JPaul · « **Reply #38 on:** March 21, 2015, 11:40:01 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

I guess the point I'm trying to make is this: Originally, the dispute which arose between Bp. Fellay and Bp. Williamson, or if you like, the bad blood that began to exist visibly between them, or better yet, the apparent 'distancing' of one from the other, had nothing really to do with +Williamson's vehement criticism of "Roman authorities, or his refusal to give proper recognition and respect to them. No, all the nasty stuff hit the fan immediately after H.E. gave his infamous interview, assuring the whole world that not one Jєω was popped into a "gas chamber." Had Williamson simply conceded that 6 million of the Chosen were gassed; another 6 million were shot and dumped into open graves; and that perhaps another 4 million or so were electrocuted, then, undoubtedly, Fellay would have made no statement publicly rebuking the claim. He would not have breathed a word of correction publicly to Der Spiegel. He might have gotten his fellow bishop aside thereafter in order to inform the latter that he had slightly exaggerated. But you can bet that the SG would have taken no disciplinary action against him. +Williamson would probably have remained in La Reja to this day. No, had the interview gone that way, H.E. would be a Society bishop in good standing still.
It was all about the Jєωs then. It is all about the Jєωs now. It is my opinion that most of the decisions which +Fellay takes these days are in close consultation and cooperation with basically hidden Tribal entities.

Don't forget the 3 million lampshades, and 1.5 million soap bars............

Think, shortly after Max Krah came on the scene, Bishop Fellay came out of the proverbial closet, and showed his true colors by energetically joining the Jєωs in savaging Bishop Williamson and attacking his good name.

Quote

It was all about the Jєωs then. It is all about the Jєωs now. It is my opinion that most of the decisions which +Fellay takes these days are in close consultation and cooperation with basically hidden Tribal entities.

Absolutely! And not just him. Rome is kneeling at the foot of the Jєωs, and it is they who will influence the disposition of the Society and what further attacks and penalties will be levied against Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure.

I have said a number of times that the Society is gone. The resistance so called and its Bishops need to turn the page and move on into their own destiny and calling under their own banner.

Matthew · « **Reply #39 on:** March 21, 2015, 11:48:36 AM »

Good point about making it official.

Anyone in the "Bishop Fellay hasn't done anything" or "there wasn't an agreement yet" camp needs to open their eyes.

Here you have the SSPX condemning a "Traditional Survival"-motivated consecration! An event that is IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY IDENTICAL with the "Operation Survival" consecrations back in 1988.

Anyone actually interested in learning the truth of the matter should pay attention to how the SSPX views this recent consecration. How do they distinguish themselves?

Because however they distinguish themselves from this consecration is exactly how they are distinguishing themselves from the +ABL's old SSPX.

My argument goes like this:

The +Faure consecration and the 1988 consecrations are essentially the same.
But the SSPX condemns the Faure consecration.
Therefore the SSPX condemns the 1988 consecrations as well.

But the 1988 consecrations are an essential element of the traditional resistance (to Modernism) of the Society of St. Pius X.
Therefore the SSPX has changed in some way.

Matthew · « **Reply #40 on:** March 21, 2015, 11:50:32 AM »

Note that the SSPX is officially taking issue with my "Minor" -- that the consecrations are the same in their essence.

Well, anyone who seriously looks into it can see that they're the same.

+Williamson even said publicly that no jurisdiction was to be given or assumed. He was doing it for the survival of the Traditional movement. 100% exactly the same as Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988.

I wonder how many dupes in the SSPX will believe their line of bull, or how many will open their eyes now.

JPaul · « **Reply #41 on:** March 21, 2015, 01:27:51 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Note that the SSPX is officially taking issue with my "Minor" -- that the consecrations are the same in their essence.

Well, anyone who seriously looks into it can see that they're the same.

+Williamson even said publicly that no jurisdiction was to be given or assumed. He was doing it for the survival of the Traditional movement. 100% exactly the same as Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988.

I wonder how many dupes in the SSPX will believe their line of bull, or how many will open their eyes now.

I would not count on too many conversions. Their faithful are conditioned to make some kind of sense, even if awkward, out of whatever dictates and statements come out of the Castle. They do not seem to look beyond the words that are given them, and obviously, they do not want to. This certainly goes for most of the priests as well. Ample evidence has come to light that would give pause or sway a reasonable man.

Matthew · « **Reply #42 on:** March 21, 2015, 02:24:10 PM »

You're probably right.

If they don't believe Moses and the prophets (who worked countless physical miracles), neither will they believe if one comes back from the dead.

(I love that passage -- it has meaning on so many levels).

The parable was Abraham talking to Dives, who just went to hell. So the "one giving testimony from beyond the grave" literally referred to Dives, hoping to appear to his brethren to try to convert them.

But it also applies to Our Lord, who worked miracles and rose Himself from the dead. And those who rejected Moses will also reject Our Lord -- once you've rejected the evidence of your own eyes, God's messengers, etc. what's one more rejection?

It's tempting for me (and others) to believe this evidence is especially strong, since it's new and clear -- but you're right, this isn't the first clear evidence we've seen that something is wrong. People have brushed off many other items equivalent to this.

JPaul · « **Reply #43 on:** March 21, 2015, 09:44:39 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

You're probably right.

If they don't believe Moses and the prophets (who worked countless physical miracles), neither will they believe if one comes back from the dead.

(I love that passage -- it has meaning on so many levels).

The parable was Abraham talking to Dives, who just went to hell. So the "one giving testimony from beyond the grave" literally referred to Dives, hoping to appear to his brethren to try to convert them.

But it also applies to Our Lord, who worked miracles and rose Himself from the dead. And those who rejected Moses will also reject Our Lord -- once you've rejected the evidence of your own eyes, God's messengers, etc. what's one more rejection?

It's tempting for me (and others) to believe this evidence is especially strong, since it's new and clear -- but you're right, this isn't the first clear evidence we've seen that something is wrong. People have brushed off many other items equivalent to this.

A great similitude. :applause: