Author Topic: Eleison Comments" by Mgr. Williamson - Asian Journey - 309 (Read 18885 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #135 on:** June 18, 2013, 04:49:04 PM »

.

The Menzingen-denizen Voodoo Doll technique:

It's important to distinguish because one of the devices these nefarious
Menzingen-denizens are trying to use is the STRAW MAN --

-- of fabricating a false image of what the Resistance is, and then --

(once they have seen evidence that their effigy figure is being
accepted by the Accordista-lap-dog-lemmings)

-- proceed thenceforth to attack it with pins and needles,
as if to make a MOCKERY of anyone who would dare to expose their
lies for what they are: LIES.

Columba · « **Reply #136 on:** June 18, 2013, 08:23:51 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

Quote from: Columba
Quote from: Machabees
So what remains, is really for Bishop Williamson to “retract” his recent scandalous statements.

Why not chalk this up as just another one of H.E.'s occasional eccentricities that tempers any temptation we might have of turning him into a cult figure?

The Resistance cause is serious but resistors cannot afford to take themselves too seriously. The glory of our upcoming victory will belong to Our Lady. If leadership offends the sensibilities of resistors by making flip comments, that presents a good opportunity for sharing a slice of King David's humble pie:

"Perhaps the Lord may look upon my affliction, and the Lord may render me good for the cursing of this day." 2 Sam. 16:12

Why does one wish to have an air in wanting to act like a "back seat Catholic" in this fight, and wanting to put off ones duties -as if Our Lady will take care of it herself?

No! It is She who literally asks us for the last 100-years to "stand-up" and fight. She will provide us the Grace of Her Son. It is up to us to fight in these battles of the Militant Church; as is the same with Bishop Williamson.

Please stop giving Bishop Williamson excuses to go onto a different course.

What is wrong with asking a BISHOP of the Catholic Church to lead in his duties, obligation, and responsibility?

Cantatedomino has addressed this well in his earlier post: [...]

You misunderstand. I too have also previously stated that +Williamson should take up the mantle of ++Lefebvre that +Fellay has given up. My point was simply that resistors should have patience and not take offense at +Willilamson's graduated pace. He is a "reluctant prince" daunted by the task that lies ahead, but slowly moving towards it. +Williamson's calling is to become the next St. Athenasius, the next ++Lefebvre, but it would be unseemly if he appeared ambitious or was too eager to assume such a place of honor. Our attitude should be one of humble acclamation rather than one of impatient insistence that +Williamson ascend this new higher position.

Columba · « **Reply #137 on:** June 18, 2013, 08:35:03 PM »

Quote from: cantatedomino

Quote from: Zeitun
Quote from: cantatedomino
Our future requires us to go beyond recognize and resist.

Great....but what does that look like? I'm not an abstract thinker. Someone please flesh out details of real actionable steps.

We rebuild the Catholic City without worrying about what is legal or illegal. The Pope is God's concern. God will deal with the problem of the Pope when He wills to. In the meantime we have our own obligations to God and to souls.

Thus we focus on what is Catholic, and not on what is legal. We focus on current reality, rather than on how things should be in the Church. We don't allow ourselves to become distracted and crippled by scrupling over jurisdiction and faculties, when the only ones who could give these are heretics and infidels of the most debased order.

If we really are 'supplied jurisdiction-niks,' then let us rebuild the Catholic City as if we really believed in supplied jurisdiction. Let us be fruitful and multiply, having Jesus Christ for our Supreme Authority, until He put the Papacy back in order.

All these things we already do, but with half-hearted confidence and without real conviction. This lack of conviction makes us culpably hesitant. Operation Survival does not mean using natural family planning to space out one's children. It means, be fruitful and multiply.

We must build the Catholic City with holy impunity, rather than with overly cautious trepidation.

"Recognize and resist" does not require getting caught up in legalism nor even in repeating any mistakes that may have been made by ++Lefebvre, unless the refusal to embrace sedevacantism is considered a mistake. (I am not opposed to working with sede's, but cannot accept that their position is a requirement of faith.)

As I see it, "recognize and resist" simply recognizes that office of pope can be held by Judas just as the office of Chief Priest during the time of Jesus was legitimately held by His enemy. "Recognize and resist" was a central tenet of ++Lefebvre that should not be abandoned unless it is clearly erroneous.

Novus Weirdo · « **Reply #138 on:** June 18, 2013, 11:46:13 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

Quote from: Novus Weirdo
Quote from: Zeitun
And I'd like to also add that the premise stated here that Bishop Williamson isn't doing his duty as a bishop is based on the ASSUMPTION of those posting that they have all the facts and the TRUTH. I do not have any of the facts, I don't know all the truth, and +W knows much more than he is telling.

I'm sticking with Fr. Pfeiffer. The rest of you can start your own Resistance and elect a better leader, someone more agressive and more to your matinee-idol liking.

Excellent point.
These people want +Williamson, Fr Pfeiffer, or others to be their marionette. When that doesn't happen, the petulance begins. Someone reminds them that they are not in charge of Resistance priests and they regurgitate half-baked rejoinders masquerading as intelligent put-downs that sound like they come from a C-list screenwriter channeling John Hughes.

Hate to break it to 'em, but George C. Scott is dead. There will be no new Patton, no new Churchill, no new MacArthur - "They shall not return." And as for starting their own Resistance? Forget about it! They will cannibalize themselves in the process.

You are making it sound like the Holiness of the Catholic Church is dead, and God cannot lead His own Church in trying to solicit the HELP of His own consecrated BISHOP.

In the Old and New Testaments, it shows this human drama that men have free will...so too God's Bishops.

If you are trying to describe a Church in crisis without a Bishop leading it, independence is starting to set in, please be careful.

No, I was referring to this irrational cry for a Mitre'd Patton - not later, not on God's terms, but on their terms right NOW.

People are wrapped up in the romanticized or the whooped-up version of the man and wishing that Resistance leadership took a page from the playbook. Zeitun referenced it well with the comment of 'matinee-idol,' because many were referring to either a)the cinematic interpretation or b) a very flawed individual.

Here's a few facts about General Patton; you decide if you want + Williamson to possess a few of those particular qualities:
* GP was a fervent believer in reincarnation.
* GP was a fatalist (no heroic virtue there).
* GP considered the Koran/Quran/whatever to be "a good book." So you want +Williamson to go the "every religion is beautiful" route? We have Popes for that.
* GP gave a good speech but that was only because he had difficulty reading. Do you want a leader who cannot properly read/interpret doctrine or scripture?
* GP liked to use profanity in his speeches because the underlings liked it, but it did dismay others (such as Gen Bradley, certainly no slouch) who thought it 'unbecoming conduct'.
* GP may have had his admirers for his courage, but he had a great many detractors for his impetuousness and his inability to function in a situation requiring judgement or skill.

So, let's review this. A leader is wanted who can rally the troops per se but projects an uncouth, unprofessional public image with a questionable belief system. Yeah, that has success written all over it...

Can anyone explain how that will help the Resistance?

Machabees · « **Reply #139 on:** June 19, 2013, 12:41:32 AM »

Quote from: Columba

You misunderstand. I too have also previously stated that +Williamson should take up the mantle of ++Lefebvre that +Fellay has given up. My point was simply that resistors should have patience and not take offense at +Willilamson's graduated pace. He is a "reluctant prince" daunted by the task that lies ahead, but slowly moving towards it. +Williamson's calling is to become the next St. Athenasius, the next ++Lefebvre, but it would be unseemly if he appeared ambitious or was too eager to assume such a place of honor. Our attitude should be one of humble acclamation rather than one of impatient insistence that +Williamson ascend this new higher position.

Pardon me Columba, however, it is NOT "ambitious or too eager" for Bishop Williamson to "assume a place of honor". He is already a BISHOP. Catechetically, he must be standing up "in season and out of season". NOT when he wants to feel like it with a "graduated pace".

He needs to see his duty before him; that has always been before him. This is NOT new to his understanding. He has been "holed-up" in an attic for a number of years. He knew that this was coming; and what the suffering Church needs for him to do.

Machabees · « **Reply #140 on:** June 19, 2013, 12:49:44 AM »

Quote from: Novus Weirdo

Quote from: Machabees
Quote from: Novus Weirdo
Quote from: Zeitun
And I'd like to also add that the premise stated here that Bishop Williamson isn't doing his duty as a bishop is based on the ASSUMPTION of those posting that they have all the facts and the TRUTH. I do not have any of the facts, I don't know all the truth, and +W knows much more than he is telling.

I'm sticking with Fr. Pfeiffer. The rest of you can start your own Resistance and elect a better leader, someone more agressive and more to your matinee-idol liking.

Excellent point.
These people want +Williamson, Fr Pfeiffer, or others to be their marionette. When that doesn't happen, the petulance begins. Someone reminds them that they are not in charge of Resistance priests and they regurgitate half-baked rejoinders masquerading as intelligent put-downs that sound like they come from a C-list screenwriter channeling John Hughes.

Hate to break it to 'em, but George C. Scott is dead. There will be no new Patton, no new Churchill, no new MacArthur - "They shall not return." And as for starting their own Resistance? Forget about it! They will cannibalize themselves in the process.

You are making it sound like the Holiness of the Catholic Church is dead, and God cannot lead His own Church in trying to solicit the HELP of His own consecrated BISHOP.

In the Old and New Testaments, it shows this human drama that men have free will...so too God's Bishops.

If you are trying to describe a Church in crisis without a Bishop leading it, independence is starting to set in, please be careful.

No, I was referring to this irrational cry for a Mitre'd Patton - not later, not on God's terms, but on their terms right NOW.

People are wrapped up in the romanticized or the whooped-up version of the man and wishing that Resistance leadership took a page from the playbook. Zeitun referenced it well with the comment of 'matinee-idol,' because many were referring to either a)the cinematic interpretation or b) a very flawed individual.

Here's a few facts about General Patton; you decide if you want + Williamson to possess a few of those particular qualities:
* GP was a fervent believer in reincarnation.
* GP was a fatalist (no heroic virtue there).
* GP considered the Koran/Quran/whatever to be "a good book." So you want +Williamson to go the "every religion is beautiful" route? We have Popes for that.
* GP gave a good speech but that was only because he had difficulty reading. Do you want a leader who cannot properly read/interpret doctrine or scripture?
* GP liked to use profanity in his speeches because the underlings liked it, but it did dismay others (such as Gen Bradley, certainly no slouch) who thought it 'unbecoming conduct'.
* GP may have had his admirers for his courage, but he had a great many detractors for his impetuousness and his inability to function in a situation requiring judgement or skill.

So, let's review this. A leader is wanted who can rally the troops per se but projects an uncouth, unprofessional public image with a questionable belief system. Yeah, that has success written all over it...

Can anyone explain how that will help the Resistance?

BISHOPS in the Catholic Church lead. That is what they were consecrated for.

Bishop Williamson is a BISHOP.

Therefore, Bishop Williamson must lead. It is God's order of Holy Orders and the Episcopacy. Not ours.

It is that simple. Anything less is NOT Catholic -period.

Novus Weirdo · « **Reply #141 on:** June 19, 2013, 09:22:34 AM »

Quote from: Machabees

BISHOPS in the Catholic Church lead. That is what they were consecrated for.

Bishop Williamson is a BISHOP.

Therefore, Bishop Williamson must lead. It is God's order of Holy Orders and the Episcopacy. Not ours.

It is that simple. Anything less is NOT Catholic -period.

And that is all true. BUT that was not the consensus earlier in this thread. The overwhelming opinion was that +Williamson was somehow lax in his duties because he was not 'leading' or 'fighting' according to the personal whims, demands, and/or desires of the LA-Z-Boy Regiment of the Resistance.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #142 on:** June 19, 2013, 11:02:33 AM »

Quote from: Novus Weirdo

Quote from: Machabees

BISHOPS in the Catholic Church lead. That is what they were consecrated for.

Bishop Williamson is a BISHOP.

Therefore, Bishop Williamson must lead. It is God's order of Holy Orders and the Episcopacy. Not ours.

It is that simple. Anything less is NOT Catholic -period.

And that is all true. BUT that was not the consensus earlier in this thread. The overwhelming opinion was that +Williamson was somehow lax in his duties because he was not 'leading' or 'fighting' according to the personal whims, demands, and/or desires of the LA-Z-Boy Regiment of the Resistance.

La-Z-Boy Regiment

How many from the La-Z-Boy Regiment have been to Korea,
Singapore, India, Brazil, Idaho, Canada, London, Kentucky,
Virginia, Palestine, Germany and France (among others) in
the past year alone, while demonstrating the ability to speak
the native language in most places?

(Korea being a typical exception - whereas the ability to eat
KimChee when in Korea, is all that's really important!)

John Grace · « **Reply #143 on:** June 19, 2013, 12:55:41 PM »

Has the SSPX youth
group in Ireland outlined why it snubbed Bishop Williamson?.They arranged an outing to West Cork instead.Terrible lack of respect for the cleric chosen by God and the Archbishop.

You couldn't depend on that youth group after doing this.

Incredulous · « **Reply #144 on:** June 19, 2013, 01:02:58 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

Has the SSPX youth
group in Ireland outlined why it snubbed Bishop Williamson?.They arranged an outing to West Cork instead.Terrible lack of respect for the cleric chosen by God and the Archbishop.

You couldn't depend on that youth group after doing this.

Why the Irish youth's behavior mimics the American Butt Scouts ?

John Grace · « **Reply #145 on:** June 19, 2013, 01:06:19 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous

Quote from: John Grace
Has the SSPX youth
group in Ireland outlined why it snubbed Bishop Williamson?.They arranged an outing to West Cork instead.Terrible lack of respect for the cleric chosen by God and the Archbishop.

You couldn't depend on that youth group after doing this.

Why the Irish youth's behavior mimics the American Butt Scouts ?

The SSPX youth group and not irish youth in general.Young and old attended the conference.However, the sspx youth group snubbed it.We know where their priorities lie.
Is it every day Bishop Williamson visits Ireland yet they are below in West Cork?

Machabees · « **Reply #146 on:** June 19, 2013, 04:04:12 PM »

Quote from: Novus Weirdo

Quote from: Machabees

BISHOPS in the Catholic Church lead. That is what they were consecrated for.

Bishop Williamson is a BISHOP.

Therefore, Bishop Williamson must lead. It is God's order of Holy Orders and the Episcopacy. Not ours.

It is that simple. Anything less is NOT Catholic -period.

And that is all true. BUT that was not the consensus earlier in this thread. The overwhelming opinion was that +Williamson was somehow lax in his duties because he was not 'leading' or 'fighting' according to the personal whims, demands, and/or desires of the LA-Z-Boy Regiment of the Resistance.

Perhaps that is the "consensus" you may view; it doesn't apply to me that you wish to attribute your strong comments to.

In the future, please read the posts I have written before you judge unwisely.

It is better to worked together than to cause false statements.

Thank you.

John Grace · « **Reply #147 on:** June 21, 2013, 10:14:32 AM »

Where the conference given by Bishop Williamson differed to conferences given by Bishop Fellay was that questions were from the floor and were allowed. Not questions written on a piece of paper and taken from a basket. On the second day questions and answers went on for two hours.

One question asked was "When are you returning?" Fantastic support for Bishop Williamson in Ireland.

Compared to the Bishop Fellay conference in Dublin where Fr Morgan was quite heavy handed in preventing questions being asked.

John Grace · « **Reply #148 on:** June 21, 2013, 11:00:51 AM »

I found the conferences very helpful in many ways. One was I realised until that weekend or until recent times many SSPX laity in Ireland hadn't a clue what was going on. GREC etc etc was all new.

Now, people are aware and more angry with Bishop Fellay and the gang. The few here and there in Ireland, who are pro-agreement are from an Indult background so I guess compromise is to be expected.

I was far too harsh on people in Ireland. They hadn't a clue of what was happening.

With the sell out by Bishop Fellay and the gang out in the open, they can't ignore the truth.

One man present couldn't believe Fr Celier etc etc could say or do what they are doing but once the Archbishop was dead, it was easier for the liberals to be more open about the new direction of the SSPX.

Many, who had given Bishop Fellay, the benefit of the doubt are asking questions, and are quite angry.

Each person present was given information in their hands so can't deny receiving the truth. Information about doctrinal declaration etc etc.

Fr Morgan will have a difficulty in preventing questions and answers next time Bishop Fellay is in Ireland.

stgobnait · « **Reply #149 on:** June 21, 2013, 11:26:17 AM »

...which hopefully will be the twelfth of NEVER...