Bishop Williamson told me since several years ago, that he thinks the message is true. It's a lie to say otherwise. He has always supported the seer.

Some good priests also believe the message is true. I think the same. I've met the seer and I can say she's a very good catholic woman, devout, humble, charitable. She has dedicated her life to promote the Rosary for the Consacration of Russia. I do belong to her site, a site for praying. A site dedicated to Our Lady.
A very good priest, thomist, told me the messages fullfils all the conditions requested by Saint John of the Cross.

I know how she has been persecuted, mocked, attacked.
The real seer is always attacked. Because the proud people cannot understand a message full of charity. They always mock the messenger, they try to discredit the message. And this is a sign the message comes really from God.

I support Bishop Williamson, I thank him for publicly support the message and the Messenger. I also support the seer. And I thank God for such big grace.

Indeed !

As I predicted last night that the authenticity (or otherwise) of the message was also proved by its reception by the faithful - do we see charity and harmony as a result of the message - are there good fruits in those who accept and embrace it ?

On the contrary ! I see name calling and questions about "loyalty" to Bishop Williamson. Here we have a problem:

Why is this question concerning Dawn Marie / Mrs. Anderson being made a question of adherence to the Bishop ?

Surely our loyalty is to the Faith as expressed in the Magisterium which is the Sacred Scriptures, the Tradition of the Church, the continuous teachings of the Fathers, Popes and Councils up to the Second Vatican Council. This is what the Archbishop taught and this is what Bishop Williamson teaches. To this he superads a private opinion of which he carefully wrote himself:

As to the messenger, readers are entitled to distrust my personal judgment, but as to the perfect correspondence between inside story and outside facts, readers can judge for themselves.

Insofar as he espouses the Faith then we are in agreement, but as he always said of the SSXP it is a human institution and as such capable of defecting and we put human trust in a human institution - I would think that he would expect nothing more of himself - certainly he has always said that both publicly and privately. I do question his judgment (as he allows) but not the man - he's generally spot on in my opinion.

That he told you he believes her, he repeats here; that he told me 2 years ago he didn't believe her any more is a fact - at least I know it to be true.

Can a person change their mind ? Evidently !

The fact that he has changed his mind (and quite often on this question) does not exclude the possibility that he is wrong now even as he thinks he is right when previously he held the contrary position.

Why speak of "lies" ? St. Anselm spoke of "fides quaerens intellectum" (Faith seeking to understand). As Gamaliel said of Christianity: "If it is of God it will prosper, if not..." we can say no more !

Cannot civilized Catholics debate with virtue not venom ?

Quote from: Cristera

Bishop Williamson told me since several years ago, that he thinks the message is true. It's a lie to say otherwise. He has always supported the seer.

Some good priests also believe the message is true. I think the same. I've met the seer and I can say she's a very good catholic woman, devout, humble, charitable. She has dedicated her life to promote the Rosary for the Consacration of Russia. I do belong to her site, a site for praying. A site dedicated to Our Lady.
A very good priest, thomist, told me the messages fullfils all the conditions requested by Saint John of the Cross.

I know how she has been persecuted, mocked, attacked.
The real seer is always attacked. Because the proud people cannot understand a message full of charity. They always mock the messenger, they try to discredit the message. And this is a sign the message comes really from God.

I support Bishop Williamson, I thank him for publicly support the message and the Messenger. I also support the seer. And I thank God for such big grace.

Indeed !

As I predicted last night that the authenticity (or otherwise) of the message was also proved by its reception by the faithful - do we see charity and harmony as a result of the message - are there good fruits in those who accept and embrace it ?

On the contrary ! I see name calling and questions about "loyalty" to Bishop Williamson. Here we have a problem:

Why is this question concerning Dawn Marie / Mrs. Anderson being made a question of adherence to the Bishop ?

Surely our loyalty is to the Faith as expressed in the Magisterium which is the Sacred Scriptures, the Tradition of the Church, the continuous teachings of the Fathers, Popes and Councils up to the Second Vatican Council. This is what the Archbishop taught and this is what Bishop Williamson teaches. To this he superads a private opinion of which he carefully wrote himself:

Quote

As to the messenger, readers are entitled to distrust my personal judgment, but as to the perfect correspondence between inside story and outside facts, readers can judge for themselves.

Insofar as he espouses the Faith then we are in agreement, but as he always said of the SSXP it is a human institution and as such capable of defecting and we put human trust in a human institution - I would think that he would expect nothing more of himself - certainly he has always said that both publicly and privately. I do question his judgment (as he allows) but not the man - he's generally spot on in my opinion.

That he told you he believes her, he repeats here; that he told me 2 years ago he didn't believe her any more is a fact - at least I know it to be true.

Can a person change their mind ? Evidently !

The fact that he has changed his mind (and quite often on this question) does not exclude the possibility that he is wrong now even as he thinks he is right when previously he held the contrary position.

Why speak of "lies" ? St. Anslem spoke of "fides quaerens intellectum" (Faith seeking to understand). As Gamaliel said of Christianity: "If it is of God it will prosper, if not..." we can say no more !

Cannot civilized Catholics debate with virtue not venom ?

Have you read the history of Melanie of La Salette? The reception of the message is not always a proof.

And please, don't misunderstand. I wanted to say I support Bishop Williamson for publishing this story. Of course you can support him and not believe in the message. I do believe.

Interesting passage from Acts Chapter 5:

34 But one in the council rising up, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, respected by all the people, commanded the men to be put forth a little while.
35 And he said to them: Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do, as touching these men.
36 For before these days rose up Theodas, affirming himself to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all that believed him were scattered, and brought to nothing.
37 After this man, rose up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the enrolling, and drew away the people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as consented to him, were dispersed.
38 And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought;
39 But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God. And they consented to him.

And I for my part have even defended DM here on Cath Info myself - as surprised as I was to find the other night - I don't even remember writing the post - but computers always tell the truth: so...

You see inquiring minds can change and be wrong - this kind of confusion (St Ignatius says) is not from God !

Trads, of various sorts, in Asia are now glued to their seats and are indeed staying tuned. Will a future EC reveal heaven's displeasure at the neo-colonial way the X-SPX Asia District has been run for all these years?

Quote from: Matthew

What I will not allow on CathInfo is an outburst of name-calling and hate towards ANY Bishop. And yes that includes Bishop Fellay.

Go ahead and look -- you won't find such a post on CathInfo.

I recall it being permitted on here to refer to Bishop Fellay as "+Fallacious"...  by a poster who remains in good standing to this day: Ferdinand.  Those posts remain.  

Those posts by Ferdinand have all been deleted.

It is well-known that one of Bishop Williamson's particular weaknesses is being too inclined to believe in apparitions and prophecies that match up with his world view.  

In the end, this is one of major reasons why I see the Resistance folding. Some will return to the SSPX. Others will be absorbed into sedevacantism. Many will abandon traditionalism completely.

It is the natural inclination of a movement to follow its episcopal leadership. In this case there is only one bishop, and he appears to be enthralled by a certain alleged visionary.

Quote from: peterp

and I've found these  quotes from posters too:


Fellay is acting worse than Pontius Pilate. ... Pilate tried to cop out and wash his hands of Christ's death. ...

Bishop Fellay is a master deceiver

Opus Fellay strikes again. The treatment Fr. Chazal has received is disgusting.

...

But who's counting?  

Seriously, man, you need to find yourself a better hero.
Apparently you are most impressed by those who are skilled at politics and manipulating public opinion...

Not exactly my kind of hero, but "to each his own".

However, although you can choose to admire who you will, you can't complain when we rightfully criticize your hero when that hero does something wrong. Quite a few of your "list" I have no problem with at all. The man is not above criticism!

Criticizing a man, and lambasting him with hatred are two different things. I believe I (and many others) can tell the difference. That's why it's not possible to have some kind of simplistic rule that can be explained to (or understood by) a literal moron (that used to be a scientific term, you know). I have to rely on my common sense and judgment on this one.

When does criticism end and uncharitable hatred begin? For one thing, "criticism" will offer some kind of proof or reasoning to back up a charge. And "criticism" will stick to one charge at a time, very humbly and reluctantly bringing up a single negative point. Hatred is usually more "throw a bunch of crap on the wall, and see how much of it sticks."


P.S. You don't have sources for any of those quotes, do you? I suspect that many of them weren't posted on CathInfo, or not for more than a few hours (until I found the post). For all I know you wrote those yourself, or collected them from all sorts of online/offline sources. Sorry, but I can only moderate posts here on CathInfo.

Matthew,

It took several minutes, but I just now highlighted each line one by one on peterp's list, then right clicked on each one and asked Google to search for the highlighted phrase.  Every single quote came up as a real quote found on Cathinfo, still on live links right now.  Peterp made nothing up, and all his sources are from cathinfo.

Peterp,
Amazing list.  Thank you.