.


Post

Quote from: Zeitun

The August 10, 2012 Declaration from Vienna, VA:
 

Quote

The five founding fathers have elected Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer as their leader for a term of two years (compared to Fellay’s dictatorial 24 years). The fathers have refused to give up the name “Society of St. Pius X” because “we did not change the message; the official line of the [Neo-]SSPX has changed.” Although the founding fathers note that Fellay has not yet signed any “sellout deal” with Newrome, they publicly “withdraw the exercise of obedience to him for motives of Faith until this crisis is over,” in order for the priests to maintain obedience to God in their sworn Anti-Modernist Oath. Ironically, this was the same Anti-Modernist Oath to God that Fellay himself swore when he entered Major Orders with Archbishop Lefebvre.

Thanks for the above quote.

When you read the whole thing, along with the whole Genesis that surrounds it, you will see in the many writings and sermons of Fr. Pfeiffer, and the rest of the priests, that it is Bishop Williamson (also with the hoped for Bishop Tissier), being one of the Bishops of the SSPX that is standing up (not yet expelled), who has been faithful in leading the fight within the SSPX.

Why do you think that Bishop Fellay and Menzingen had to get rid of him -"trying to cause 'division' within the SSPX and wanting to oust the Superior General because of his betrayals to ABL and the Catholic Church".

Just because Bishop Williamson was not yet "expelled" (Oct. 2012) when that meeting took place in August 2012, it doesn't mean that Bishop Williamson, who was already during that time standing up to fight and encouraging the other priests to do same, is also in the natural function of a Bishop to lead and re-group his priests.

To say it another way.  If Bishop Tissier, or other, finally woke up and started to fight in the resistance, that Bishop, as a Bishop, would be the NATURAL leader of the "Resistance"; not a priest.

So what that meeting in Vienna, VA established along with their Declaration, was the PRACTICAL working of a re-grouping to have a priory to work out of.  And in that August 2012 meeting, Fr. Pfeiffer was designated to lead that group for a term of two years.  

To be in working as a "Practical" leader as one of the founding fathers in the Declaration and new Priory of that day, is completely different from an inference of an earlier post stating that Fr. Pfeiffer is "technically" the leader of the Resistance.

"Technically", it is really the 3-SSPX Bishops leading the Resistance that was manifested on April 14, 2012 against the 1-Bishop.  Then the number dwindled out of compromise to only one original Bishop left out of the three -Bishop Williamson.

So Bishop Williamson remains as "technically" the last Bishop leading the Resistance.  Fr. Pfeiffer will certainly attest to that.  The  problem now is, Bishop Williamson since he was expelled from the N-SSPX, is having a weak will to lead the Resistance in a PRACTICAL way.

Bishop Williamson [wrongly] chooses to only lead in a "Moral" way.  As a Bishop, he CANNOT do that.  It is a Role and a duty to lead in both the Moral and the Practical way -like he did- as the Rector in the Seminaries he was the head of.  He did it for many years; he knows how to do it; he just needs to be encouraged to take up his cross and carry it.

That will be his salvation as a Bishop and his glory...

Please encourage him to fulfill his role and duties as a [Traditional] Catholic Bishop.  We all will benefit, as with the countless future generations that will also benefit in his decision to lead UNITED with the influence and power of a BISHOP.

History will be obvious that +W did not come to any hasty decision,
and that whoever he chooses to consecrate will have been tested
by circuмstances that have revealed of what they are made.  He has
seen the folly of ABL in the myopic selection of +Fellay.  ABL did a
lot of things right but now we see what happens when only one bad
choice is made in who will be consecrated bishop, or not.  

The young Fr. Bernard Fellay had never had any position of pastoral
care for the Faithful, nor had he been responsible for other priests,
nor had he accomplished any missionary work, nor had he
demonstrated any of the things that invariably test bishops when
they go into the fray, especially in these trying times.  

He had none of it.  It wasn't "what he knew" but "who he knew."

And now, even the likes of +TdM has the bizarre nerve to say it was
+W who ABL should not have chosen for consecration?  


You can't make this stuff up.

The state of emergency makes possible all the independent apostolates. The half-way house approach of the Society was to 'recognise and resist' Rome and persuade her to restore tradition. To date this has not happened and in addition the leadership has turned liberal which has a bearing on its idea of a state of emergency. It says it now fears developing a schismatic mentality while remaining estranged from Rome!

The 'recognise and resist' formula has in my opinion a short shelf life. It was always going to cause the Society trouble with periodic crises. Its only choices were to either maintain a series of futile discussions with Rome or to keep some distance pretending to be the good part of the Church going bad. Could this situation continue for another forty years without it solidifying into a permanent 'church of protest' this time against conciliar Rome? Should not loyal traditionalists be looking ahead and claim for themselves and mankind the Church detached from the current disloyal Roman entity as the next stage on from the temporary state of emergency?

Now, the rightly-defined 'loose association' is in flux. A problem is residual attachments to the SSPX; a problem I do not have when I realised it was a property portfolio with Latin Mass benefits! Nor do I see any point in transferring the half-way SSPX formula (and thereby a few more seeds of liberalism) into another institution. I feel ABL would forgive, even recommend, such action in response to a new situation. There has to be a fresh realignment of hardline trads combining in total opposition to the V2 church! Playing politics and watching each other's moves will not cut the mustard!    

Earlier I wrote that "one of the major SSPX pitfalls is positivistic, legalistic thinking that terminates in self-contradiction. The resistance, as led by Bishop Williamson, has the seed of legalism in it, as it is an offshoot of the SSPX; and that seed will germinate into full blown self-contradiction if not uprooted."  

And now Wessex, you have perfectly fleshed out my comment. Interestingly, in listening to the +Themann debacle, I had many thoughts that coincide with what you have written here. Our future requires us to go beyond recognize and resist.    

I don't agree with the nonsense that Bishop Williamson is doing nothing and now is not the time for another Bishop. In the past several months how many countries has he visited? It's silly to suggest he is idle or has given up the fight.

Who has stated that Bishop Williamson is not doing anything?  He has been very active going around the world giving conferences, sacraments, and such.

The conversation here is, that Bishop Williamson has stated many times that he, as a Shepherd of the Catholic Church, does not want his fulfill his duties to lead as a Catholic Bishop.  He only wants to now act like a "father, adviser, and a friend".

Apostles do NOT just do that.  

Look into the Gospels of what Apostles of Jesus Christ are also suppose to do...lead!

Bishop Williamson IS an Apostle...he MUST act like one and lead!

He is leading, prudently.... not off a cliff....

 and who is speaking of Bishop Fellay.....? not I......

IS IT MY USE OF LANGUAGE, YOU OBJECT TO... OUR LACK OF ACTION FROM BISHOP WILLIAMSON.....

I was asked in a PM a particular question that is very important.  I mentioned to the person that I thought that it would be appropriate to answer the importance of that question on the main forum for all to discuss it.  Respectfully without using their name.

The PM was:

Re: PLEASE RETRACT PUBLICLY FROM THIS ONE:

"be it one of sarcasm or not, to put it out there as a “joke”, is another expression of Bishop Williamson with a type of apathy in NOT taking it seriously"

NO JOKE NOR SARCASM. YOU KNOW NOTHING.

Thank you for your PM.

First off, I am surprised at your comment in knowing of your prior posts.  My observation of Bishop Williamson’s particular statement may be a little bit of a “wake-up shock” to some here; however, I am the more “shocked” to read such a thing of Bishop Williamson.

I have known Bishop Williamson for many years; he knows me.   Bishop Williamson does speak and write many times in nuances.  This is another of one of his nuances.

I just spoke to Fr. Pfeiffer about a few things and he brought up that statement of Bishop Williamson on how lamentable it really is.

It is certainly not fitting at all that Bishop Williamson carries on so "nonchalantly" when the Church suffers for him to lead as an Apostle of our Lord's Church.

Here is one of the things that Fr. Pfieffer has said in regards to that particular injection of Bishop Williamson, and what could it only mean? "If Bishop Williamson asked you that question he is asking the general public out there in his Eleison Comments:  'Do I have any candidates offering themselves for consecration as bishops?”.   If someone was to respond and say yes to his request, what does that say of that individual?  Pride!"

So that statement of Bishop Williamson was not at all serious; it was a nuance of a jest, a “joke", even in nature of a type of a sarcasm to the many people who have tirelessly, and for him, relentlessly, are asking him to pick up his Crosier and lead as a Catholic Bishop; an Apostle of Jesus Christ.

Also, that last sentence of Bishop Williamson in his Eleison Comments had nothing to surround it for context.  The only reference it has in his article was at the beginning; which has its foundation base on his last Eleison Comments “Authority Cripped”.  In that, Bishop Williamson did not want to take his duties of a Shepherd of the Catholic Church seriously; he only wants to be a “father, advise, and a friend”.  That is lamentable!  The Church suffers, and he is going about doing his own thing.

Further, in Fr. Chazals recent “Asian Report”, he gives a quote of Bishop Williamson:

“Bishop Williamson trip in Asia was a shot in the arm for all centers. He saw 400 people, gave 52 confirmations, lots of speeches, consecrated two Chalices and his good humor, punch lines and british touch were totally enjoyed by everyone. He is up and running, but I agree with you, his fourth piston is yet to fire. But the fact that we discussed so long on the issue demonstrates that at least he is not irritated by the question and expresses a willingness to understand that if he departs this world, leaving us orphans, either his soul is lost or we don't need sacraments. "You are almost making me a Christian"... did he tell me as i was piling arguments sky high.”

Simply, Bishop Williamson realizes he needs “conversion”.

So what remains, is really for Bishop Williamson to “retract” his recent scandalous statements.  The sooner the better.  As also with the apathy of his statements within his "Authority Crippled".  The sooner the better also.

Lastly with some irony, Bishop Williamson’s choice for entitling his article "Authority Crippled", and its contents of him NOT wanting to lead like a Shepherd certainly also -makes “Authority Crippled”.

Bishop Williamson needs our help and encouragement to see the needs of this new crisis within the suffering Church and his duties as a “real” SSPX Bishop to respond to those needs that God is putting before him for his attention; gather in his (SSPX) priests and lead the sheep.