Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: s2srea on June 14, 2013, 08:59:27 PM
-
(http://www.dinoscopus.org/english/images/header.jpg)
Eleison Comments" by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCCIX - 309
ASIAN JOURNEY
A number of readers complained at the “Eleison Comments” of two weeks ago on authority being crippled. From its argument that on this side of the “imminent Chastisement” no further Catholic Congregation can be founded on a normal Catholic basis, they concluded that I believe there is nothing more for a bishop to do than to wait for God to intervene. But in that case why did I just spend two weeks in Asia, and why am I now in Ireland ? Likewise they conclude that I will never consecrate another bishop. I say – God willing – just wait.
In fact there is a great deal for a bishop to do to visit and encourage souls striving to keep the Faith when Headquarters of the Society of St Pius X is obviously still intent upon taking it into the arms of Conciliar Rome. On June 17 Bishop Fellay wrote to Benedict XVI, “I do intend to continue to make every effort to pursue this path (of reconciliation with Rome) in order to arrive at the necessary clarifications”. And in the same vein, “Unfortunately, in the present situation of the Society” Rome’s counter-proposal of June 13 to his Doctrinal Declaration of mid-April “will not be accepted.” Then it would have been fortunate if the Society had accepted Rome’s terms ?
Against this written evidence (made public by Headquarters) of Bishop Fellay’s on-going determination to sell out the Archbishop’s Society, we have quotes of his to the French District Superior that the “unfortunately” he only wrote “for the sake of the Pope”, and to the Carmelite Mother Superior in Belgium that he “never intended to pursue a practical agreement with Rome.” Alas, Bishop Fellay has such a track-record for adapting his words to his audience that quotes like these by no means disprove his intention to sell out the Archbishop’s Society. His astonishing ability to move the mental furniture around in his mind deserves an “Eleison Comments” all on its own, but in the meantime is it any wonder if what is coming to be called the “Resistance” is rising spontaneously all over the world ?
Between May 24 and June 6 I visited with Fr Chazal a good part of his flock of some 400 souls, and I gave over 50 Confirmations in South Korea, the Philippines and Singapore. Fr Chazal is a character. He has brilliant insights and is very funny into the bargain. If ever you meet him, ask him to do his imitation of an Indian politician ( he says the Indians are tough, and “can take it”).
In South Korea the Society’s change of direction caused a harsh split, with the result that the donor of the original chapel merely donated another. I had the pleasure of performing the marriage of the donor’s daughter. In the Philippines, just as I arrived, an older priest who fled the Newchurch years ago to work with the Society was fleeing the Newsociety to work with the Resistance. He looks like being entrusted with the beginnings of a seminary which Fr Chazal wants to launch, and he will in addition have his work cut out for him in centres throughout the central Philippines. In Singapore, a show-case in the East of Western-style materialism, still a good Chinese family with their friends have a firm grip on the change from the Society to the Newsociety. Truth will undermine this ExSPX, as Fr Chazal calls it, just as truth is undermining the Newchurch of the Novus Ordo.
Here are many souls to sustain on their way to Heaven. Do I have any candidates offering themselves for consecration as bishops ?
Kyrie eleison.
-
All this to say....
Bravo Bishop Williamson!!! :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
-
I'm glad I wasn't the only one scared at the “Eleison Comments of two weeks ago on authority being crippled".
Thank you, Your Excellency!
Thanks also to Fr. Chazal!
-
Between May 24 and June 6 I visited with Fr Chazal a good part of his flock of some 400 souls, and I gave over 50 Confirmations in South Korea, the Philippines and Singapore. Fr Chazal is a character. He has brilliant insights and is very funny into the bargain. If ever you meet him, ask him to do his imitation of an Indian politician ( he says the Indians are tough, and “can take it”).
( he says the Indians are tough, and “can take it”). :sad:
-
". . . Alas, Bishop Fellay has such a track-record for adapting his words to his audience that quotes like these by no means disprove his intention to sell out the Archbishop’s Society. His astonishing ability to move the mental furniture around in his mind deserves an “Eleison Comments” all on its own, . . ."
--Bishop Williamson
Indeed, truer words have never been spoken!
What came to mind immediately was Fr. Daniel Themann's rather pitiful/laughable "defense" of Part III, Paragraph 7 of Bishop Fellay's April 15, 2012 doctrinal declaration that reads:
"We declare that we recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II." (Source: The Recusant; my emphasis added)
Any reasonable person would take the statement for what it plainly says: that the SSPX recognizes the legitimacy of the New Mass.
Well, not according to Fr. Themann, apparently. He counters . . .
"The accusation is that the SSPX has accepted that the New Mass is a 'legitimate form of Mass.' But in the context in which this docuмent was issued (i.e., the constant insistence that we will never accept the New Mass and the goal of correcting the misconception that we do not really recognize the authority of popes since Vatican II), this statement merely means that the Society recognizes that Paul VI and John Paul II had the right to promulgate liturgical rites. Hence, it is not a judgment on the Novus Ordo itself." (Source: Regina Coeli Report, The SSPX Falsely Accused: Resistance to What?, p. 8, "Critique #3"; my emphasis added)
Really?
Why, I don't even know where to begin!!!
So, if I'm reading this right, the following statements have a dynamic equivalence if understood under the "proper context"?
"We declare that we recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments . . . according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II."
. . . equals . . .
" . . . the Society recognizes that Paul VI and John Paul II had the right to promulgate liturgical rites. Hence, it is not a judgment on the Novus Ordo itself"
This is a clear, disturbing example of the serial "mental gymnastics" that Bishop Fellay and his frantic puppets engage in at an institutional level to somehow "explain away" their clear betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre, the Society, the faithful, . . . but above all God!
The wise words of Bishop Williamson above speak to this sad, disgusting practice.
Why not just come out and say it right in the first place . . . that the SSPX was merely trying to recognize that Popes Paul VI and John Paul II had the right to promulgate liturgical rites?
In parentheses, Fr. Themann states that it's because:
1. We don't want to be branded as folks who "will never accept the New Mass"; and because . . .
2. We want to correct the "misconception" that we don't "really recognize the authority of the popes since Vatican II."
My response:
1. So we are planning on accepting the New Mass at some point down the line?
2. Modernist/Masonic Rome already knows precisely what we believe in. But, they nevertheless hurl the false accusations at us to put us on the defensive so that gullible fools just might fall for this age-old rhetorical trick, soften up their position, and finally fall into its palms begging for forgiveness! It's all rather simple: the perpetrator (Rome) hurls accusations at the victim (SSPX), the victim eventually buys into the repeated attacks and returns to the perpetrator begging for forgiveness. This dynamic is as sick as it is true with where Menzingen is taking the SSPX!
By the way, I can see Fr. Themann and his puppet masters care more about image and "diplomacy" RATHER THAN THE TRUTH!!!
My friends, this crisis is deep indeed.
-
.
The list of Fr. Chazal vocabulary is growing.
Indultery Mass -- the Indult that likes to step outside the confines of fidelity.
AFD -- the April Fifteenth Declaration a.k.a. the (Dialectical) Doctrinal Declaration.
ExSPX -- the neo-SSPX, a.k.a. Newsociety of St. Pius X, replaces SSPX.
There are no doubt others that I've missed!
When H.E. reports that Fr. Chazal says the Indians "are tough, they can
take it," it seems to me he means that they don't mind Fr. Chazal making
a joke of their politicians, because they're not too 'sensitive' so as to be
'offended' at the truth of their own situation -- which implies that Liberals,
such as those in America or England, are very much offended when their
deplorable liberalism is joked about because they ARE thin-skinned, and
they ARE NOT tough, because they're EFFEMINATE.
-
I'm glad I wasn't the only one scared at the “Eleison Comments of two weeks ago on authority being crippled".
Thank you, Your Excellency!
Thanks also to Fr. Chazal!
So he shook you up a little bit -- and didn't lose you!
So it worked. That's good news!
I know others who came away saying, "It sounds like he's giving up!"
And it worked on them, too, because they had been rather critical of
+W before that, but seeing the possibility that he might be bowing out
of the scuffle actually scared them.. That's good!
-
". . . Alas, Bishop Fellay has such a track-record for adapting his words to his audience that quotes like these by no means disprove his intention to sell out the Archbishop’s Society. His astonishing ability to move the mental furniture around in his mind deserves an “Eleison Comments” all on its own, . . ."
--Bishop Williamson
Indeed, truer words have never been spoken!
What came to mind immediately was Fr. Daniel Themann's rather pitiful/laughable "defense" of Part III, Paragraph 7 of Bishop Fellay's April 15, 2012 doctrinal declaration that reads:
"We declare that we recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II." (Source: The Recusant; my emphasis added)
Any reasonable person would take the statement for what it plainly says: that the SSPX recognizes the legitimacy of the New Mass.
AND that the SSPX recognizes that the Newmass was promulgated ----
but it wasn't. The Newmass was never promulgated nor could it have been,
and the promoters knew that, but they lied and ACTED as IF it had been
promulgated, with the question of legitimacy a foregone conclusion, even
while it was an ERRONEOUS conclusion.
Well, not according to Fr. Themann, apparently. He counters . . .
"The accusation is that the SSPX has accepted that the New Mass is a 'legitimate form of Mass.' But in the context in which this docuмent was issued (i.e., the constant insistence that we will never accept the New Mass and the goal of correcting the misconception that we do not really recognize the authority of popes since Vatican II), this statement merely means that the Society recognizes that Paul VI and John Paul II had the right to promulgate liturgical rites. Hence, it is not a judgment on the Novus Ordo itself." (Source: Regina Coeli Report, The SSPX Falsely Accused: Resistance to What?, p. 8, "Critique #3"; my emphasis added)
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."
Really?
Why, I don't even know where to begin!!!
So, if I'm reading this right, the following statements have a dynamic equivalence if understood under the "proper context"?
"We declare that we recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments . . . according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II."
. . . equals . . .
" . . . the Society recognizes that Paul VI and John Paul II had the right to promulgate liturgical rites. Hence, it is not a judgment on the Novus Ordo itself"
Aaaaah! The false distinction sneaks right in under the radar!
Yes, the popes have the right to promulgate LEGITIMATE liturgical rites,
that is, those that have GROWN ORGANICALLY out of the RECEIVED AND
APPROVED rites of Apostolic Tradition --- but they do NOT have ANY right
to promulgate liturgical rites (like the NovusOrdo is) that have been
entirely MADE UP by a bunch of heretics, apostates and even pagans,
without regard to what has been received and approved by traditional
praxis and observation, from what has been handed down to us from our
forebearers in the Faith.
This is a clear, disturbing example of the serial "mental gymnastics" that Bishop Fellay and his frantic puppets engage in at an institutional level to somehow "explain away" their clear betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre, the Society, the faithful, . . . but above all God!
The wise words of Bishop Williamson above speak to this sad, disgusting practice.
Why not just come out and say it right in the first place . . . that the SSPX was merely trying to recognize that Popes Paul VI and John Paul II had the right to promulgate liturgical rites?
In parentheses, Fr. Themann states that it's because:
1. We don't want to be branded as folks who "will never accept the New Mass"; and because . . .
2. We want to correct the "misconception" that we don't "really recognize the authority of the popes since Vatican II."
My response:
1. So we are planning on accepting the New Mass at some point down the line?
Good!
2. Modernist/Masonic Rome already knows precisely what we believe in. But, they nevertheless hurl the false accusations at us to put us on the defensive so that gullible fools just might fall for this age-old rhetorical trick, soften up their position, and finally fall into its palms begging for forgiveness! It's all rather simple: the perpetrator (Rome) hurls accusations at the victim (SSPX), the victim eventually buys into the repeated attacks and returns to the perpetrator begging for forgiveness. This dynamic is as sick as it is true with where Menzingen is taking the SSPX!
Okay, but you're missing the point of #2, and it's weakness. Catholics
recognize the authority of the popes since Vat.II (at least the non-sedes
do) --- BUT, we should not erroneously allow them authority to do that
for which they have no legitimate authority to do -- namely, to promulgate
illegitimate liturgical rites, OR, to even so much as (like Paul VI did)
act AS IF they are promulgating an illegitimate liturgical rite.
We're stuck on whether the so-called promulgation was legitimate or not,
and then whether the Newmass is licit or not -- BOTH OF WHICH ARE A
WASTE OF TIME, MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING!
The REAL issue is that the Newmass is an ILLEGITIMATE LITURGICAL RITE
in the first place, REGARDLESS OF HOW it's promoted. AND, as such, it is
no more the STUFF of legitimate promulgation than a WOMAN is the stuff
of a legitimate ordination!!
That is to say, the NovusOrdo liturgy is NOT VALID
MATTER for papal promulgation of a liturgical rite!!!!
By the way, I can see Fr. Themann and his puppet masters care more about image and "diplomacy" RATHER THAN THE TRUTH!!!
My friends, this crisis is deep indeed.
The crisis is deep, but once you see through the fog of their obfuscation,
the depth becomes rather shallow indeed.
Just imagine how shallow it will be once the real Third Secret is released!
It will suddenly turn into no more than a tiny puddle on the sidewalk.
-- Which is precisely why the Modernists refuse to let it out of its prison cell.
But they can't keep it there forever. The truth will come out.
-
". . . Alas, Bishop Fellay has such a track-record for adapting his words to his audience that quotes like these by no means disprove his intention to sell out the Archbishop’s Society. His astonishing ability to move the mental furniture around in his mind deserves an “Eleison Comments” all on its own, . . ."
--Bishop Williamson
Indeed, truer words have never been spoken!
What came to mind immediately was Fr. Daniel Themann's rather pitiful/laughable "defense" of Part III, Paragraph 7 of Bishop Fellay's April 15, 2012 doctrinal declaration that reads:
"We declare that we recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II." (Source: The Recusant; my emphasis added)
Any reasonable person would take the statement for what it plainly says: that the SSPX recognizes the legitimacy of the New Mass.
Well, not according to Fr. Themann, apparently. He counters . . .
"The accusation is that the SSPX has accepted that the New Mass is a 'legitimate form of Mass.' But in the context in which this docuмent was issued (i.e., the constant insistence that we will never accept the New Mass and the goal of correcting the misconception that we do not really recognize the authority of popes since Vatican II), this statement merely means that the Society recognizes that Paul VI and John Paul II had the right to promulgate liturgical rites. Hence, it is not a judgment on the Novus Ordo itself." (Source: Regina Coeli Report, The SSPX Falsely Accused: Resistance to What?, p. 8, "Critique #3"; my emphasis added)
Really?
Why, I don't even know where to begin!!!
So, if I'm reading this right, the following statements have a dynamic equivalence if understood under the "proper context"?
"We declare that we recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments . . . according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II."
. . . equals . . .
" . . . the Society recognizes that Paul VI and John Paul II had the right to promulgate liturgical rites. Hence, it is not a judgment on the Novus Ordo itself"
This is a clear, disturbing example of the serial "mental gymnastics" that Bishop Fellay and his frantic puppets engage in at an institutional level to somehow "explain away" their clear betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre, the Society, the faithful, . . . but above all God!
The wise words of Bishop Williamson above speak to this sad, disgusting practice.
Why not just come out and say it right in the first place . . . that the SSPX was merely trying to recognize that Popes Paul VI and John Paul II had the right to promulgate liturgical rites?
In parentheses, Fr. Themann states that it's because:
1. We don't want to be branded as folks who "will never accept the New Mass"; and because . . .
2. We want to correct the "misconception" that we don't "really recognize the authority of the popes since Vatican II."
My response:
1. So we are planning on accepting the New Mass at some point down the line?
2. Modernist/Masonic Rome already knows precisely what we believe in. But, they nevertheless hurl the false accusations at us to put us on the defensive so that gullible fools just might fall for this age-old rhetorical trick, soften up their position, and finally fall into its palms begging for forgiveness! It's all rather simple: the perpetrator (Rome) hurls accusations at the victim (SSPX), the victim eventually buys into the repeated attacks and returns to the perpetrator begging for forgiveness. This dynamic is as sick as it is true with where Menzingen is taking the SSPX!
By the way, I can see Fr. Themann and his puppet masters care more about image and "diplomacy" RATHER THAN THE TRUTH!!!
My friends, this crisis is deep indeed.
This made me dizzy when I heard it yesterday from a friend of mine that talked to Fr. Themann at our church for 3 hours. It makes me even sicker now.
This is absurd, and entirely dishonest for him to say that "Oh this is what he -really- meant, when clearly, by the language, that statement MEANT NOTHING OF THE SORT!"
-
No offence intended, but Bishop Williamson reminds me of a gambler.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/Jj4nJ1YEAp4[/youtube]
:cowboy:
-
Check out Sean's thread on Bishop Williamson's Impromptu Conference of June 5, 2013. It's worth listening to and hopefully clarifies the good Bishop's thoughts.
:incense:
-
OK, maybe I shouldn't have compared +Williamson (in his Eleison Comments) to a gambler. I was basing it on the post below. But you have to admit that there is a game afoot in the SSPX; otherwise, why the confusion?
I'm glad I wasn't the only one scared at the “Eleison Comments of two weeks ago on authority being crippled".
Thank you, Your Excellency!
Thanks also to Fr. Chazal!
So he shook you up a little bit -- and didn't lose you!
So it worked. That's good news!
I know others who came away saying, "It sounds like he's giving up!"
And it worked on them, too, because they had been rather critical of
+W before that, but seeing the possibility that he might be bowing out
of the scuffle actually scared them.. That's good!
-
With an image of Our Lady and the pure Saint, Fr Denis Fahey to the foreground, Bishop Williamson gave two conferences today in Ireland.
Close to a hundred people attended to welcome and hear the Bishop.What a privilege it was to again kneel to kiss the episcopal ring of the priest chosen by God and Archbishop Lefebvre.
-
Good, no excellent! Any hope of a video?
-
To the two unidentified thumbs-down folk re: My comment on EC. I told you so!
-
The West's Awake.... Thank God..... :pray:
-
OK, maybe I shouldn't have compared +Williamson (in his Eleison Comments) to a gambler. I was basing it on the post below. But you have to admit that there is a game afoot in the SSPX; otherwise, why the confusion?
I'm glad I wasn't the only one scared at the “Eleison Comments of two weeks ago on authority being crippled".
Thank you, Your Excellency!
Thanks also to Fr. Chazal!
So he shook you up a little bit -- and didn't lose you!
So it worked. That's good news!
I know others who came away saying, "It sounds like he's giving up!"
And it worked on them, too, because they had been rather critical of
+W before that, but seeing the possibility that he might be bowing out
of the scuffle actually scared them.. That's good!
I expect that "gambler" is over the top. There are too many lurid
connotations there.
Better to say "calculated risk" because +W knows the landscape
pretty well. He knows the Faith and he knows Catholics all over the
world. He can see what's happening, and he is prepared to comply
with the will of God. So what to us may look like a gamble to him is
really a little daring, perhaps, but not really that risky.
It only appears risky when we don't have the inside scoop.
-
The West's Awake.... Thank God..... :pray:
Thank God indeed - If you'll forgive me quoting Tolkien:
FORTH EORLINGAS!
-
The West's Awake.... Thank God..... :pray:
Thank God indeed - If you'll forgive me quoting Tolkien:
FORTH EORLINGAS!
"The West" is Ireland? :confused1:
When did that happen?
What do you call the land west of the Mississippi, then???
-
The metaphorical west. Europe. Old Christendom, if you will.
-
The Wests AWAKE... THOMAS OSBOURNE DAVIS... refers to the west of Ireland... silly me, i thought everyone knew that......
-
I thought you might mean Ireland... Well, I'm a dunce. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Bishop's Irish Conference will be as good as they invariably are - the man is a lion for Tradition in every way, he's always at the breach where the fighting's thickest.
-
not at all. 'But hark,a voice like thunder spake... The wests awake, the wests awake.... it is a joy to see BW in the west of Ireland.... :dancing: please join in the dance.....:)
-
Good, no excellent! Any hope of a video?
Yes, keep posted. The 1st conference was on seven ages of the church and in context of crisis of the SSPX.
The second dealt with what is Catholic and what is Modernist.With Pascendi used.Also critique of Kant.
Regardless of personal opinions of Bishop Fellay, there is the emphasis on doctrine.
With Bishop Fellay tip toeing through the tulips with the conciliar church, we must not forget doctrine.
-
Sorry if i was being parochial..... sure dont the Irish always think we are the centre of the universe... :dancing:
-
Not at all. And a little line of dancing men:
:dancing: :dancing: :dancing: :dancing: :dancing: :dancing: :dancing: :dancing: :dancing:
PatrickG said:
Good, no excellent! Any hope of a video?
Yes, keep posted. The 1st conference was on seven ages of the church and in context of crisis of the SSPX.
The second dealt with what is Catholic and what is Modernist.With Pascendi used.Also critique of Kant.
Regardless of personal opinions of Bishop Fellay, there is the emphasis on doctrine.
With Bishop Fellay tip toeing through the tulips with the conciliar church, we must not forget doctrine.
Excellent.
-
To coincide with the visit of the Bishop,the SSPX youth group organised an outing so were absent from the conference today.Total lack of respect for the Bishop.That is not to say those present were all old folk.No, there was mix age group.
The youth group was asked to change date of their outing but declined.A clear snub of the one chosen by the Archbishop.
-
The West's Awake.... Thank God..... :pray:
Thank God indeed - If you'll forgive me quoting Tolkien:
FORTH EORLINGAS!
"The West" is Ireland? :confused1:
When did that happen?
What do you call the land west of the Mississippi, then???
Double west.
- or -
Triple West.
- or -
Way Out West
-
Touche' Msgr. Williamson!
You have rallied the troops.
-
I expect that "gambler" is over the top. There are too many lurid
connotations there.
Better to say "calculated risk" because +W knows the landscape
pretty well. He knows the Faith and he knows Catholics all over the
world. He can see what's happening, and he is prepared to comply
with the will of God. So what to us may look like a gamble to him is
really a little daring, perhaps, but not really that risky.
It only appears risky when we don't have the inside scoop.
I apologize for any "lurid connotations" in my original post. The phase "calculated risk" does perhaps suit it better. My reasoning was that +Williamson has been dealt a hand, and he appears to be playing it out. I'm not a card player, but I know what it entails.
:sign-surrender:
-
Trying to understand Msgr. Fellay's "Mental Furniture" is like playing Monty Hall's Let's Make a Deal!
Is it ?
Door Number 1 ?
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ_unCANPkh2ev4OiF2RsH-_41bhja_RFbiPAejcMTW2N1LIlZm)
Door Number 2 ?
(http://www.stannerh.org/images/708_priest_view_from_altar.jpg)
or... Door Number 3 ?
(http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/images/altar.jpg)
-
Door 3 is practical because it can double as a masonic lodge.
Oops.....did I just say that? :stare:
-
Of course Menzingen had their spies positioned in the crowd.It matters little as the crisis is about doctrine and truth.Bishop Fellay, a liberal and his gang are lying to themselves and their faithful.They are weaselling around on doctrine and keep trying to reconcile Tradition with the conciliar church, which Bishop Williamson correctly described as a "chocolate club".
-
Before the conference, I visited a SSPX chapel.It was not open but wouldn't have entered.I stood outside and said a few prayers in reparation.My farewell to the SSPX.
-
Edited
-
I didn't attend the second day of the conference (today)so have missed out if practical plans are to be made for a resistance chapel or for a priest to visit?
The mood yesterday from those I spoke was to hold on and attend SSPX chapels until Bishop Fellay signs.
There is a faint hope the SSPX might come back to reality but it is passing by the day. It's up to the people that attended.
I don't attend the SSPX so a matter for their flock really. I can't bring myself to attending a Society chapel. It's easier for me as I am not married, haven't children attending a Society school etc etc. It's easier to walk away.
Don't get me wrong. I would love to be able to attend a Society chapel but when you weigh it up and pray. I did sign a letter to Fr Morgan so prepared to part company.
I am open to hiring a hall. I am open to allowing Mass in my house but there is not sufficient parking.
I haven't support from the ground to hire a hall. People won't give up "their" chapels.
-
It's what God wants. I might want Bishop Williamson to offer daily Mass in my house but that is not the will of God, is about personality, and what I want.
Between Ireland and Britain, the resistance is in good shape. It's organic, a loose network. Numerically numbers are good. All positive. I still believe it will be small numbers that matter.
-
It was acknowledged that worldwide laity are leaving the SSPX chapels.
-
". . . Alas, Bishop Fellay has such a track-record for adapting his words to his audience that quotes like these by no means disprove his intention to sell out the Archbishop’s Society. His astonishing ability to move the mental furniture around in his mind deserves an “Eleison Comments” all on its own, . . ."
--Bishop Williamson
Indeed, truer words have never been spoken!
What came to mind immediately was Fr. Daniel Themann's rather pitiful/laughable "defense" of Part III, Paragraph 7 of Bishop Fellay's April 15, 2012 doctrinal declaration that reads:
"We declare that we recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II." (Source: The Recusant; my emphasis added)
Any reasonable person would take the statement for what it plainly says: that the SSPX recognizes the legitimacy of the New Mass.
Well, not according to Fr. Themann, apparently. He counters . . .
"The accusation is that the SSPX has accepted that the New Mass is a 'legitimate form of Mass.' But in the context in which this docuмent was issued (i.e., the constant insistence that we will never accept the New Mass and the goal of correcting the misconception that we do not really recognize the authority of popes since Vatican II), this statement merely means that the Society recognizes that Paul VI and John Paul II had the right to promulgate liturgical rites. Hence, it is not a judgment on the Novus Ordo itself." (Source: Regina Coeli Report, The SSPX Falsely Accused: Resistance to What?, p. 8, "Critique #3"; my emphasis added)
Really?
Why, I don't even know where to begin!!!
So, if I'm reading this right, the following statements have a dynamic equivalence if understood under the "proper context"?
"We declare that we recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments . . . according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II."
. . . equals . . .
" . . . the Society recognizes that Paul VI and John Paul II had the right to promulgate liturgical rites. Hence, it is not a judgment on the Novus Ordo itself"
This is a clear, disturbing example of the serial "mental gymnastics" that Bishop Fellay and his frantic puppets engage in at an institutional level to somehow "explain away" their clear betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre, the Society, the faithful, . . . but above all God!
The wise words of Bishop Williamson above speak to this sad, disgusting practice.
Why not just come out and say it right in the first place . . . that the SSPX was merely trying to recognize that Popes Paul VI and John Paul II had the right to promulgate liturgical rites?
In parentheses, Fr. Themann states that it's because:
1. We don't want to be branded as folks who "will never accept the New Mass"; and because . . .
2. We want to correct the "misconception" that we don't "really recognize the authority of the popes since Vatican II."
My response:
1. So we are planning on accepting the New Mass at some point down the line?
2. Modernist/Masonic Rome already knows precisely what we believe in. But, they nevertheless hurl the false accusations at us to put us on the defensive so that gullible fools just might fall for this age-old rhetorical trick, soften up their position, and finally fall into its palms begging for forgiveness! It's all rather simple: the perpetrator (Rome) hurls accusations at the victim (SSPX), the victim eventually buys into the repeated attacks and returns to the perpetrator begging for forgiveness. This dynamic is as sick as it is true with where Menzingen is taking the SSPX!
By the way, I can see Fr. Themann and his puppet masters care more about image and "diplomacy" RATHER THAN THE TRUTH!!!
My friends, this crisis is deep indeed.
Excellent commentary. Thank you.
-
Bishop Williamson reminds me of a gambler.
:cowboy:
This is how he strikes me:
(http://www.nopatternrequired.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Kitty-And-Mouse0011.jpg)
He is the cat. The Resistance is the mouse.
-
MAGDALENA: OK, maybe I shouldn't have compared +Williamson (in his Eleison Comments) to a gambler. I was basing it on the post below. But you have to admit that there is a game afoot in the SSPX; otherwise, why the confusion?
CANTATE: The game is being played by +W, who has employed ambiguous language to create dispositions in hearts that have nothing to do with the dispositions God would place there. Columba (on IA) gave excellent reasons why +W's reasoning was faulty in the EC entitled Authority Crippled. I was glad to read the critiques of that twaddle produced by Columba and Sean Johnson, who stepped up to the plate like real men.
This Resistance is not the +Williamson fan club. It is God's Cause and we all better defend it with utmost sincerity, loyalty, and seriousness.
+Williamson should be called to task for his childish game playing. Either defend the Faith like a true Bishop of the True Church or pass the baton to someone else who will.
He's got affirmative obligations and he's shirking his duty.
And now, let my online crucifixion begin . . .
-
Touche' Msgr. Williamson!
You have rallied the troops.
He has not rallied this troops.
Forget what he says and look at what he fails to do.
-
Compared to what BF has managed to do.....?
-
Compared to what BF has managed to do.....?
This afternoon the Bishop offered a resistance Mass.
-
cantatedomino,
There must be two Bishops Williamson: the one you are talking about and the one everybody else I know, knows from his incredible written and verbal production based on Faith, his continuous travels all over the world, etc. as clearly presented in cathinfo and in around 200 other sites around the world. I'll do some research and will let you know.
-
Bishop Williamson has repeatedly stated he is not a general--he's a Lord Chancellor.
Think Churchill not Patton.
-
MAGDALENA: OK, maybe I shouldn't have compared +Williamson (in his Eleison Comments) to a gambler. I was basing it on the post below. But you have to admit that there is a game afoot in the SSPX; otherwise, why the confusion?
CANTATE: The game is being played by +W, who has employed ambiguous language to create dispositions in hearts that have nothing to do with the dispositions God would place there. Columba (on IA) gave excellent reasons why +W's reasoning was faulty in the EC entitled Authority Crippled. I was glad to read the critiques of that twaddle produced by Columba and Sean Johnson, who stepped up to the plate like real men.
This Resistance is not the +Williamson fan club. It is God's Cause and we all better defend it with utmost sincerity, loyalty, and seriousness.
+Williamson should be called to task for his childish game playing. Either defend the Faith like a true Bishop of the True Church or pass the baton to someone else who will.
He's got affirmative obligations and he's shirking his duty.
And now, let my online crucifixion begin . . .
Who has the authority to chastise an Apostle of Christ? Another bishop or the Pope.
-
MAGDALENA: OK, maybe I shouldn't have compared +Williamson (in his Eleison Comments) to a gambler. I was basing it on the post below. But you have to admit that there is a game afoot in the SSPX; otherwise, why the confusion?
CANTATE: The game is being played by +W, who has employed ambiguous language to create dispositions in hearts that have nothing to do with the dispositions God would place there. Columba (on IA) gave excellent reasons why +W's reasoning was faulty in the EC entitled Authority Crippled. I was glad to read the critiques of that twaddle produced by Columba and Sean Johnson, who stepped up to the plate like real men.
This Resistance is not the +Williamson fan club. It is God's Cause and we all better defend it with utmost sincerity, loyalty, and seriousness.
+Williamson should be called to task for his childish game playing. Either defend the Faith like a true Bishop of the True Church or pass the baton to someone else who will.
He's got affirmative obligations and he's shirking his duty.
And now, let my online crucifixion begin . . .
Yes, and allow me to be the first to hammer in what I hope will be many many nails for such a stupid statement.
You know, the first thing that came to mind reading your tripe was that of nαzιs. You want the Resistance to be 'pure,' don't you? As evident in several threads, "white makes right." Awful. The attitude has been bounced around CI for the last few months in some shape or other: "Get rid of that Mexican!" or "Father Pfeiffer is shirking his responsibilities! I[/i] think he should be doing this or (insert completely unrelated yet totally self-serving task here)." Oh, add to the list that the oft-marginalized Asian Resistance is RARELY or EVER mentioned here. I guess if they aren't clad in tweed, or discussing Chesterton over a game of backgammon, or speaking the King's english then they're really not Resistance material so they ought just hang it up. It's just too much for an intellectually-frustrated feminist in a trad jumper to take. Just playin' with the big boys, trying to make some big noise...
There's really not much difference between what you (and others with the same sentiment) want and what a lot of these End Timer Born-Again types want: you want to see changes happen in your lifetime. Where they want to see Jesus with a flaming sword riding on an angry pony made of cloudstuff mowing down evildoers like He was mowing the lawn, you want to see Bp Williamson to have a go at Bp Fellay, much like John Wayne and Victor McLaglen did in The Quiet Man, or at the very least, see ol' Bernie slapped around like Johnny Fontaine ("You can act like a man!). Unbelievable. What gall.
The Blessed Virgin Mary herself prophesized that when the Church is at its worst, when the Church looks dead and without pulse, that will be her hour. It's on her schedule, not yours. Yet it appears you think you have the formula for making things right. But unfortunately, like many who disagree with the pace, the verbiage, or the method, you will never take the initiative to implement an alternative. You only work with complaints.
I don't want to pound any more nails into you, but I would like you to consider what was said, put it in your jumper, and snap it.
-
MAGDALENA: OK, maybe I shouldn't have compared +Williamson (in his Eleison Comments) to a gambler. I was basing it on the post below. But you have to admit that there is a game afoot in the SSPX; otherwise, why the confusion?
CANTATE: The game is being played by +W, who has employed ambiguous language to create dispositions in hearts that have nothing to do with the dispositions God would place there. Columba (on IA) gave excellent reasons why +W's reasoning was faulty in the EC entitled Authority Crippled. I was glad to read the critiques of that twaddle produced by Columba and Sean Johnson, who stepped up to the plate like real men.
This Resistance is not the +Williamson fan club. It is God's Cause and we all better defend it with utmost sincerity, loyalty, and seriousness.
+Williamson should be called to task for his childish game playing. Either defend the Faith like a true Bishop of the True Church or pass the baton to someone else who will.
He's got affirmative obligations and he's shirking his duty.
And now, let my online crucifixion begin . . .
Yes, and allow me to be the first to hammer in what I hope will be many many nails for such a stupid statement.
You know, the first thing that came to mind reading your tripe was that of nαzιs. You want the Resistance to be 'pure,' don't you? As evident in several threads, "white makes right." Awful. The attitude has been bounced around CI for the last few months in some shape or other: "Get rid of that Mexican!" or "Father Pfeiffer is shirking his responsibilities! I[/i] think he should be doing this or (insert completely unrelated yet totally self-serving task here)." Oh, add to the list that the oft-marginalized Asian Resistance is RARELY or EVER mentioned here. I guess if they aren't clad in tweed, or discussing Chesterton over a game of backgammon, or speaking the King's english then they're really not Resistance material so they ought just hang it up. It's just too much for an intellectually-frustrated feminist in a trad jumper to take. Just playin' with the big boys, trying to make some big noise...
There's really not much difference between what you (and others with the same sentiment) want and what a lot of these End Timer Born-Again types want: you want to see changes happen in your lifetime. Where they want to see Jesus with a flaming sword riding on an angry pony made of cloudstuff mowing down evildoers like He was mowing the lawn, you want to see Bp Williamson to have a go at Bp Fellay, much like John Wayne and Victor McLaglen did in The Quiet Man, or at the very least, see ol' Bernie slapped around like Johnny Fontaine ("You can act like a man!). Unbelievable. What gall.
The Blessed Virgin Mary herself prophesized that when the Church is at its worst, when the Church looks dead and without pulse, that will be her hour. It's on her schedule, not yours. Yet it appears you think you have the formula for making things right. But unfortunately, like many who disagree with the pace, the verbiage, or the method, you will never take the initiative to implement an alternative. You only work with complaints.
I don't want to pound any more nails into you, but I would like you to consider what was said, put it in your jumper, and snap it.
Dear Novus Weirdo,
1. Your response to me lived up to your user name, for which I thank you wholeheartedly. Truly your analogies are bizarre and quite . . . well . . . weird.
2. I choose my words carefully, and yet you have imputed motives to me that are pretty much impossible given what I have written. Either I do not employ words according to their proper signification, or you are rashness on steroids. I surmise the latter is true, since your reply is drenched with affected outrage, and therefore has an effeminate quality, a la high school drama queen. I can picture you rehearsing your crucifixion in front of a mirror in your skivvies.
In fact, your Greek tragedy in three paragraphs has all the hallmarks of something written in the garage months ago. All it needed was the proper staging.
3. You are not capable of rational thought. If you were, you would have demonstrated it when you had the chance. All you have demonstrated thus far is that you are a grade-B scriptwriter, and that you have serious emotional hang-ups about women. The others that remonstrated with me did so rationally, and I respect them for it.
4. Sooner or later we as a group of faithful Catholics will have to give deep consideration to various problems that are growing and widening with time. It is entirely possible that we can do much better than we are doing now. Honesty and self-examination - things SSPXBrand cannot do, and for which we castigate them ceaselessly - are essential for us if we are to remain faithful to Christ. The insane, hair trigger touchiness many people have about Bishop Williamson is a bad sign. It is a sign of infection and pus. It should be held up to the light, lanced, and dealt the death blow. Respect and admiration and love for the man is one thing; what I see on the forums goes far beyond that sane rule and measure.
5. If you were a rational man you would be sure of your facts before you speak. The fact is that one of the main things that got Pablo into trouble here and on IA was his harsh criticism of Bishop Williamson. Did you take him to task with one of your Greek dramas when he laid the Bishop out in his unique manner? I don't recall seeing you do that. No - as I said before, you were most likely waiting for the right staging and the right lighting to bring out the grand opening of the revelation of your smallness.
God bless you.
-
cantatedomino,
There must be two Bishops Williamson: the one you are talking about and the one everybody else I know, knows from his incredible written and verbal production based on Faith, his continuous travels all over the world, etc. as clearly presented in cathinfo and in around 200 other sites around the world. I'll do some research and will let you know.
Thank you for your kind reply.
-
Cantate, your criticisms against Bishop Williamson are totally uncalled for and illogical. I'm not saying that +Williamson is perfect, he certainly isn't. But I don't think anyone can call themselves a true supporter of the Resistance and think so lowly of him. He's the ONLY Traditional Catholic Bishop in the world who teaches the true Catholic Faith, exposes the neo-SSPX for what it is, AND warns others of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. In other words, no Traditional Catholic Bishop that I am aware of does all three of those things. Please, how about giving credit where credit is due! We're blessed to have him with us.
-
Bishop Williamson has repeatedly stated he is not a general--he's a Lord Chancellor.
Think Churchill not Patton.
Bishop Williamson is an extremely powerful figure who leads an army of adoring disciples that follow him wherever he goes. He may say that he is not their leader but rather their friend and counselor and teacher and benefactor, but the effects of his actions belie that affirmation.
He is leading men, actively and assiduously, though he says that he is not. He is a brilliant man, well aware of his natural power and the power of his supernatural office to shape human affairs. Surely he knows that he is leading the resistance in spite of his protests to the contrary.
Thus if he knows he is leading the resistance, and knows that he will always be leading the resistance because Catholic men will always follow him no matter how much he protests against their following him, and if he knows that men follow him because he is a faithful Apostle of Christ, and if he knows that he cannot terminate his authority and his mission from God because he is a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech, then he also knows that he has a strict obligation before God and men to lead openly and sincerely and well.
Is it likely that he does not know these things? Not likely.
Can you lead an army in actuality and yet affirm that you are not leading it at the same time? Is that not a simultaneous contradictory?
My purpose in writing today is to point out a contradiction that is getting long in the tooth. It is becoming the elephant in the room.
-
Bishop Williamson has repeatedly stated he is not a general--he's a Lord Chancellor.
Think Churchill not Patton.
Did Churchill employ strategy? Then yes, he's a Churchill, not a Patton. BTW, I would never call him a Patton, and neither would he term himself such.
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSxVyuaCpm1U8cC80f5F84cWMmHzRb2Z5my7xEvm6LF90uvrfTg)
-
Cantate, your criticisms against Bishop Williamson are totally uncalled for and illogical. I'm not saying that +Williamson is perfect, he certainly isn't. But I don't think anyone can call themselves a true supporter of the Resistance and think so lowly of him. He's the ONLY Traditional Catholic Bishop in the world who teaches the true Catholic Faith, exposes the neo-SSPX for what it is, AND warns others of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. In other words, no Traditional Catholic Bishop that I am aware of does all three of those things. Please, how about giving credit where credit is due! We're blessed to have him with us.
Hello SSS,
I am ready to follow Bishop Williamson ALMOST everywhere he goes. Where I will not follow him is down the road of this contradiction.
I will not proclaim something that is preposterous and unreal, namely that the man who is leading the resistance in all actuality is yet not its leader.
This is a problem that needs to be cleared up.
-
Bishop Williamson has repeatedly stated he is not a general--he's a Lord Chancellor.
Think Churchill not Patton.
Did Churchill employ strategy? Then yes, he's a Churchill, not a Patton. BTW, I would never call him a Patton, and neither would he term himself such.
That said, Cantate makes a good point.
-
Cantate,
Fr. Pfeiffer is technically the leader of the Resistance, not Bishop Williamson. I don't understand this "contradiction" you speak of.
-
Cantate,
Fr. Pfeiffer is technically the leader of the Resistance, not Bishop Williamson. I don't understand this "contradiction" you speak of.
Fair enough, and I've said enough.
God bless you and God bless the Bishop.
-
Cantate,
Bishop Williamson has the grace of his state--which you and I don't have. Do you think he has a reason, other than cowardice, for his inaction?
-
There is a FACT here that CAUSES all crises in the Church, including the crisis within the SSPX.
The FACT is one of apathy, complicity, and or silence from baptized souls, priests, and BISHOPS [throughout] in the face of a need within a situation of the Church that God is providing for our attention. Anyone of these by themselves or together are disastrous.
• Baptized souls, priests, and Bishops do have an outright obligation to defend Holy Mother Church.
• Baptized souls, priests, and Bishops do have the moral duty to defend another in need of the True Faith.
• Baptized souls, priests, and Bishops do have a responsibility to stand up to serve the Church within their capacity.
In this thread of Eleison Comments regarding Bishop Williamson, it is true he is a Bishop of the Catholic Church. He knows that he has left his “personality” of the “old man” to receive the “new man” when he took a step forward in the seminary to receive the sub diaconate, the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and also for the August responsibility to be an Apostle of our Lord –a Bishop.
Bishop Williamson has indeed stood up in his obligation and responsibility over the many years. He has also written many great works in his Seminary Letters, Eleison Comments, conferences, Sermons, and such, of which took care of the situations that Holy Mother Church needed to address during those times.
There is another need that just surfaced within the overall crisis in the SSPX and within the Church that God is asking for his attention. Namely, in his function as a Bishop, not only is he dealing with his unjust expulsion from the last 8-months, he also has the outright obligations and responsibilities to the Church to “feed my sheep”.
In this new crisis, Bishop Williamson has certainly stood up for the Faith. No doubt about it.
There is however an item of real concern that the Catholic world is calling out for the Shepherd, Bishop Williamson, to address in this crisis -of which he is not standing up for- to lead as a Catholic Bishop to call in his [Traditional] flock entrusted to him. Not to go around doing what he wants to do –to be a “father, adviser, and a friend.” He has stated this passivity, in lien of being a “Shepherd”, in his unbelievable Eleison Comments called: “Authority Crippled”.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24929&min=0&num=5
Many priests and faithful have described this in their own words throughout many articles and posts over the medium of the internet. In all, everyone encourages Bishop Williamson in his weaknesses to take stock in his new position that God is calling for his attention.
Bishop Williamson does need our support amongst this large wall of apostation in the secular world. We can only imagine what Archbishop Lefebvre went through; none the less, as ABL being “retired”, he prayed to know if God was asking him to go back into the active apostolate.
Bishop Williamson is not retired. He never was. He still has an active obligation and responsibility to God’s vineyard.
Yes, Bishop Williamson was unjustly “kick out” of his religious order. Being unjust, and therefore illegal, he is still an SSPX Bishop (until God repairs that damage sometime in history). Until then, he and we, must carry on the torch of our Baptism and teach the Faith.
Today, the essential problem, and a grave problem I might add, is that catechetically as Bishop Williamson is still an active Bishop and a standing member of the “real” SSPX, he has the responsibility of a Shepherd to rally his SSPX priests, along with other Catholic priests, and his faithful throughout the Catholic world who are standing up in the same crisis of the Faith –he needs to lead as a Catholic Bishop. He has NO choice in the matter. It is NOT a “personal” wish, or a desire, for him to collect the flock. It is a moral obligation and a responsibility as a Catholic Bishop to do –like it or not.
He CANNOT act in the passivity of a “father, adviser, and friend”. That is for the secular world to take care of. He has a role as a Catholic Bishop that the secular world cannot do. He needs to find his identity and lead. Like it or not!
And lastly, for Bishop Williamson to end his recent Eleison Comments (ASIAN JOURNEY”), to say: “Do I have any candidates offering themselves for consecration as bishops?” 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 in his duty as a Shepherd that God is placing in front of him.
Can he really see what he needs to do as an active Catholic Bishop in this new time of crisis of the Catholic Church?
He needs encouragement from everyone to see his duty.
Priests and faithful are dead without a Bishop actively leading them…Bishop Williamson is not retired. He must lead like an Apostle of Jesus Christ, a Shepherd in the Vineyard!
-
Cantate,
Bishop Williamson has the grace of his state--which you and I don't have. Do you think he has a reason, other than cowardice, for his inaction?
Dear Zeitun, be careful what you say. Where have we heard this "grace of state" thing before?
The truth is that we all have the grace of state, by virtue of our Baptism and Confirmation, to defend the Faith. We live in an age marked by a complete collapse of authority. It's pretty much every man for himself, in terms of working out one's salvation. Humanly speaking, we are rudderless, though there are very good priestly souls still left in the world and still working very hard and trying to lead by their charity and their example.
I cannot judge the Bishop nor can I state his motives. We must stick to the objective order. Pointing out the contradiction is as far as anyone can go.
Gd bless and keep you.
-
Dear Machabees,
Every time I read something you write, I am impressed. Thank you so much for what you have said here. Your charity - for God, for souls, and for the good Bishop - is apparent.
It is love for God and love for souls and love for the Bishop that calls Catholics to action now. It is not an act of disloyalty to the Bishop to call him on this. It is something we owe him if we really care about truth.
-
Cantate,
Fr. Pfeiffer is technically the leader of the Resistance, not Bishop Williamson. I don't understand this "contradiction" you speak of.
ServusSpiritusSancti,
Fr. Pfeiffer is NOT technically the leader of the "Resistance". Only in a "practical" manner, yes.
It has always been providentially BISHOP Williamson as the leader of the"resistance" long before when he was in the seminary training seminarians and priests to "resist" the tides of liberalism and modernism, and to stand up, even within the SSPX itself.
In that training, it was some of his priests, and others, that continued to stand up through out the world. These few priests may have some publicity right now; that is only because the rest of the SSPX priests have STOPPED teaching those perennial truths of the Faith and the fight against modernism -the many voices gave up- and now there is only a couple of voices left in the "wilderness"; that draws attention on them.
Bishop Williamson needs to maintain his position he had before and "actively" lead. NOT take up a different position to only passively be a "father, adviser, and a friend."
We need him to take up his former position again. It is a survival of the Faith and the Catholic Church; same fight; same plan.
There is a battle going out there with souls falling into the pit -he must again lead as an active Catholic Bishop- calling in his priests to re-group and protect them; along with re-grouping the faithful.
There is NO other choice in the vineyard...the harvest is great and the laborers are few. Especially when he is the last BISHOP of tradition left. There is no other to carry the torch. He MUST do it.
It is NOT a time to be passive; as it is a time to be ACTIVE!
Our Lord is worth it..and the salvation of souls are worth it.
-
Cantate,
Fr. Pfeiffer is technically the leader of the Resistance, not Bishop Williamson. I don't understand this "contradiction" you speak of.
ServusSpiritusSancti,
Fr. Pfeiffer is NOT technically the leader of the "Resistance". Only in a "practical" manner, yes.
It has always been providentially BISHOP Williamson as the leader of the"resistance" long before when he was in the seminary training seminarians and priests to "resist" the tides of liberalism and modernism, and to stand up, even within the SSPX itself.
In that training, it was some of his priests, and others, that continued to stand up through out the world. These few priests may have some publicity right now; that is only because the rest of the SSPX priests have STOPPED teaching those perennial truths of the Faith and the fight against modernism -the many voices gave up- and now there is only a couple of voices left in the "wilderness"; that draws attention on them.
Bishop Williamson needs to maintain his position he had before and "actively" lead. NOT take up a different position to only passively be a "father, adviser, and a friend."
We need him to take up his former position again. It is a survival of the Faith and the Catholic Church; same fight; same plan.
There is a battle going out there with souls falling into the pit -he must again lead as an active Catholic Bishop calling in his priests to re-group and protect them; along with re-grouping the faithful.
There is NO other choice in the vineyard...the harvest is great and the laborers are few. Especially when he is the last BISHOP of tradition left. There is no other to carry the torch. He MUST do it.
It is NOT a time to be passive; as it is a time to be ACTIVE!
Our Lord is worth it..and the salvation of souls are worth it.
Another worthy post. You are a great warrior for God.
-
There is a FACT here that CAUSES all crises in the Church, including the crisis within the SSPX.
The FACT is one of apathy, complicity, and or silence from baptized souls, priests, and BISHOPS [throughout] in the face of a need within a situation of the Church that God is providing for our attention. Anyone of these by themselves or together are disastrous.
• Baptized souls, priests, and Bishops do have an outright obligation to defend Holy Mother Church.
• Baptized souls, priests, and Bishops do have the moral duty to defend another in need of the True Faith.
• Baptized souls, priests, and Bishops do have a responsibility to stand up to serve the Church within their capacity.
In this thread of Eleison Comments regarding Bishop Williamson, it is true he is a Bishop of the Catholic Church. He knows that he has left his “personality” of the “old man” to receive the “new man” when he took a step forward in the seminary to receive the sub diaconate, the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and also for the August responsibility to be an Apostle of our Lord –a Bishop.
Bishop Williamson has indeed stood up in his obligation and responsibility over the many years. He has also written many great works in his Seminary Letters, Eleison Comments, conferences, Sermons, and such, of which took care of the situations that Holy Mother Church needed to address during those times.
There is another need that just surfaced within the overall crisis in the SSPX and within the Church that God is asking for his attention. Namely, in his function as a Bishop, not only is he dealing with his unjust expulsion from the last 8-months, he also has the outright obligations and responsibilities to the Church to “feed my sheep”.
In this new crisis, Bishop Williamson has certainly stood up for the Faith. No doubt about it.
There is however an item of real concern that the Catholic world is calling out for the Shepherd, Bishop Williamson, to address in this crisis -of which he is not standing up for- to lead as a Catholic Bishop to call in his [Traditional] flock entrusted to him. Not to go around doing what he wants to do –to be a “father, adviser, and a friend.” He has stated this passivity, in lien of being a “Shepherd”, in his unbelievable Eleison Comments called: “Authority Crippled”.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24929&min=0&num=5
Many priests and faithful have described this in their own words throughout many articles and posts over the medium of the internet. In all, everyone encourages Bishop Williamson in his weaknesses to take stock in his new position that God is calling for his attention.
Bishop Williamson does need our support amongst this large wall of apostation in the secular world. We can only imagine what Archbishop Lefebvre went through; none the less, as ABL being “retired”, he prayed to know if God was asking him to go back into the active apostolate.
Bishop Williamson is not retired. He never was. He still has an active obligation and responsibility to God’s vineyard.
Yes, Bishop Williamson was unjustly “kick out” of his religious order. Being unjust, and therefore illegal, he is still an SSPX Bishop (until God repairs that damage sometime in history). Until then, he and we, must carry on the torch of our Baptism and teach the Faith.
Today, the essential problem, and a grave problem I might add, is that catechetically as Bishop Williamson is still an active Bishop and a standing member of the “real” SSPX, he has the responsibility of a Shepherd to rally his SSPX priests, along with other Catholic priests, and his faithful throughout the Catholic world who are standing up in the same crisis of the Faith –he needs to lead as a Catholic Bishop. He has NO choice in the matter. It is NOT a “personal” wish, or a desire, for him to collect the flock. It is a moral obligation and a responsibility as a Catholic Bishop to do –like it or not.
He CANNOT act in the passivity of a “father, adviser, and friend”. That is for the secular world to take care of. He has a role as a Catholic Bishop that the secular world cannot do. He needs to find his identity and lead. Like it or not!
And lastly, for Bishop Williamson to end his recent Eleison Comments (ASIAN JOURNEY”), to say: “Do I have any candidates offering themselves for consecration as bishops?” 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 in his duty as a Shepherd that God is placing in front of him.
Can he really see what he needs to do as an active Catholic Bishop in this new time of crisis of the Catholic Church?
He needs encouragement from everyone to see his duty.
Priests and faithful are dead without a Bishop actively leading them…Bishop Williamson is not retired. He must lead like an Apostle of Jesus Christ, a Shepherd in the Vineyard!
:applause: :applause: :applause:
-
I spoke with Bishop Williamson IN PERSON months ago and asked him about the future. He communicated to me that he is awaiting a sign from Heaven.
in 1903 Giuseppi Sarto was elected Pope and while he very much desired to lower the age for children to receive the Blessed Sacrament, he didn't take formal action until 1910. Why did he wait so many years? He was awaiting a sign from Heaven, which turned out to be the news of Little Nellie Organ, a 4 year old child who had died after receiving Holy Communion.
I'm not debating the principle of whether it's right or wrong that he should take the lead. That's self-evident. I'm stating the REALITY that he won't be pushed. He's a phlegmatic temperament. He will move when he Our Lady tells him. Listen to his conferences. He lays it all out--he's waiting for Her.
I'm certain Bishop Williamson will NOT be moved by human means. Storm Heaven with prayers for him to take the lead. Make sacrifices. He won't be bullied into it--he's already perfected the act of resisting coercion.
-
The August 10, 2012 Declaration from Vienna, VA:
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.
-
I cannot judge the Bishop nor can I state his motives. We must stick to the objective order. Pointing out the contradiction is as far as anyone can go.
God bless and keep you.
Well stated.
-
Bishop Williamson has repeatedly stated he is not a general--he's a Lord Chancellor.
Think Churchill not Patton.
Yes, it is this fact that you have rightly stated where the central problem in the "resistance" really is: "That Bishop Williamson has repeatedly stated he is not a "general"--he's a Lord Chancellor."
By fact, he really is a GENERAL, because he is a Catholic BISHOP. He needs to recognize that and stop acting like a "solider".
Until then, there is no UNITY in the "Resistance" without a Bishop.
It is the way God had created it...there MUST be a Bishop to lead.
Not to be a passive Bishop...with the lambs to run around "independently". We will for sure get picked off one by one and eaten by the wolf. The lambs do not hold the staff nor the Miter to defend themselves from the wolf; only the Shepherd has the power to protect.
With another layer of this crisis revealing itself, lets please encourage Bishop Williamson to find his role as the GENERAL he really is, and lead us, as only a Bishop can do.
Who has the authority to chastise an Apostle of Christ? Another bishop or the Pope.
God gives to us for the salvation of souls, that in charity and humility, even a Baptized Catholic, or even a donkey can (Numbers 21-35), when their superior(s) is making a wrong decision for the good of the Church.
-
I just can't support Bishop Williamson setting up a "parallel church".
-
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.
-
I spoke with Bishop Williamson IN PERSON months ago and asked him about the future. He communicated to me that he is awaiting a sign from Heaven.
in 1903 Giuseppi Sarto was elected Pope and while he very much desired to lower the age for children to receive the Blessed Sacrament, he didn't take formal action until 1910. Why did he wait so many years? He was awaiting a sign from Heaven, which turned out to be the news of Little Nellie Organ, a 4 year old child who had died after receiving Holy Communion.
I'm not debating the principle of whether it's right or wrong that he should take the lead. That's self-evident. I'm stating the REALITY that he won't be pushed. He's a phlegmatic temperament. He will move when he Our Lady tells him. Listen to his conferences. He lays it all out--he's waiting for Her.
I'm certain Bishop Williamson will NOT be moved by human means. Storm Heaven with prayers for him to take the lead. Make sacrifices. He won't be bullied into it--he's already perfected the act of resisting coercion.
Good comment. "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as in heaven" as the Lord's Prayer goes. Yes, lets us storm heaven with prayers for him to take the lead. :pray:[/i]
Noel Christie Danker
-
Good comment. "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as in heaven" as the Lord's Prayer goes. Yes, lets us storm heaven with prayers for him to take the lead. :pray:[/i]
Noel Christie Danker
Amen! :geezer:
-
I just can't support Bishop Williamson setting up a "parallel church".
Can you please explain what you mean by "Bishop Williamson setting up a "parallel church"?
He is still a [traditional] Catholic Bishop; he is still in the religious order of the "real" SSPX; to which he must re-group.
Has something changed that I do not know about?
If you are referring to Fr. Pfeiffer trying to start another religious congregation, that is NOT a "parallel" church. Supplied jurisdiction provides for this protection until conciliar Rome finds it's true identity of Her Tradition again. Then all of these present problems will go away.
-
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.
-
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.
Can you also please explain your above post?
I think your misunderstanding is based on the word "duty", and of what really is the "duty" of an active Catholic Bishop.
I have tried to bring this out some what catechetically in my other post about this. Where you able to see my other post on this? I can try to explain it differently for you.
It is like a married person who entered into the Sacrament of Matrimony. Both spouses have a "duty" to provide one another the Catholic Faith and to provide the Catholic Faith to their children. When one of the spouses decides to be "passive" and no longer "active" in the duties of that role, it creates stress in the "marriage" and within the "family".
God did not provide in the Sacrament for either one of the spouses to become "passive"; only active.
So too with a Bishop of the Catholic Church. A Bishop has entered into the Sacrament of Holy Orders, then in consecration of a Bishop. In that Sacrament of Holy Orders, a Bishop has a "duty" to provide the Catholic Faith to the Baptized souls in the Church. If a Bishop decides to be "passive" and no longer "active" in the duties of that role, it creates stress in the "family" of the whole of the Church.
So, God did not provide for any priest or Bishop to become "passive"; only active.
Bishop Williamson, as an active Bishop of the Catholic Church, MUST re-group his scattered (SSPX) priests and faithful, and lead the fight, like David in the Old Testament. If not, it only creates stress in the Church.
As far as Fr. Pfeiffer, he, and the many other priests have spoken to Bishop Williamson about these very things, and have stated it so to us. Bishop Williamson NEEDS to lead. He has no other choice...
Please ask Fr. Pfeiffer.
-
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.
-
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=25251&min=45#p3)
MAGDALENA: OK, maybe I shouldn't have compared +Williamson (in his Eleison Comments) to a gambler. I was basing it on the post below. But you have to admit that there is a game afoot in the SSPX; otherwise, why the confusion?
CANTATE: The game is being played by +W, who has employed ambiguous language to create dispositions in hearts that have nothing to do with the dispositions God would place there. Columba (on IA) gave excellent reasons why +W's reasoning was faulty in the EC entitled Authority Crippled. I was glad to read the critiques of that twaddle produced by Columba and Sean Johnson, who stepped up to the plate like real men.
This Resistance is not the +Williamson fan club. It is God's Cause and we all better defend it with utmost sincerity, loyalty, and seriousness.
+Williamson should be called to task for his childish game playing. Either defend the Faith like a true Bishop of the True Church or pass the baton to someone else who will.
He's got affirmative obligations and he's shirking his duty.
And now, let my online crucifixion begin . . .
You're really looking forward to being taken to task aren't you?
Why should we give you the untoward satisfaction, to your own
disordered desire for attention?
Yes, and allow me to be the first to hammer in what I hope will be many many nails for such a stupid statement.
You owe Novus Weirdo thanks for sparing you my own chastisement
which would have been far more severe, I can assure you.
You know, the first thing that came to mind reading your tripe was that of nαzιs. You want the Resistance to be 'pure,' don't you? As evident in several threads, "white makes right." Awful. The attitude has been bounced around CI for the last few months in some shape or other: "Get rid of that Mexican!" or "Father Pfeiffer is shirking his responsibilities! I[/i] think he should be doing this or (insert completely unrelated yet totally self-serving task here)." Oh, add to the list that the oft-marginalized Asian Resistance is RARELY or EVER mentioned here. I guess if they aren't clad in tweed, or discussing Chesterton over a game of backgammon, or speaking the King's english then they're really not Resistance material so they ought just hang it up. It's just too much for an intellectually-frustrated feminist in a trad jumper to take. Just playin' with the big boys, trying to make some big noise...
There's really not much difference between what you (and others with the same sentiment) want and what a lot of these End Timer Born-Again types want: you want to see changes happen in your lifetime. Where they want to see Jesus with a flaming sword riding on an angry pony made of cloudstuff mowing down evildoers like He was mowing the lawn, you want to see Bp Williamson to have a go at Bp Fellay, much like John Wayne and Victor McLaglen did in The Quiet Man, or at the very least, see ol' Bernie slapped around like Johnny Fontaine ("You can act like a man!). Unbelievable. What gall.
The Blessed Virgin Mary herself prophesized that when the Church is at its worst, when the Church looks dead and without pulse, that will be her hour. It's on her schedule, not yours. Yet it appears you think you have the formula for making things right. But unfortunately, like many who disagree with the pace, the verbiage, or the method, you will never take the initiative to implement an alternative. You only work with complaints.
I don't want to pound any more nails into you, but I would like you to consider what was said, put it in your jumper, and snap it.
Dear Novus Weirdo,
1. Your response to me lived up to your user name, for which I thank you wholeheartedly. Truly your analogies are bizarre and quite . . . well . . . weird.
Typical liberal garbage. If you can't attack the message attack
the messenger. Back to Kindergarten for you.
2. I choose my words carefully, and yet you have imputed motives to me that are pretty much impossible given what I have written. Either I do not employ words according to their proper signification, or you are rashness on steroids.
Funny, you! You haven't seen much, have you? If you could
please choose your words more carefully you'd do us all a favor.
But the problem is, you don't have anything of substance to say,
so you ought to choose NO words. Yeah. That's the ticket.
I surmise the latter is true, since your reply is drenched with affected outrage, and therefore has an effeminate quality, a la high school drama queen. I can picture you rehearsing your crucifixion in front of a mirror in your skivvies.
Make that Kindergarten in San Francisco, West Hollywood
or Minneapolis, where you can be among your own.
In fact, your Greek tragedy in three paragraphs has all the hallmarks of something written in the garage months ago. All it needed was the proper staging.
3. You are not capable of rational thought. If you were, you would have demonstrated it when you had the chance. All you have demonstrated thus far is that you are a grade-B scriptwriter, and that you have serious emotional hang-ups about women. The others that remonstrated with me did so rationally, and I respect them for it.
The pot calls the kettle black. It takes one to know one. You are
describing yourself. Typical liberal nonsense.........
Do not collect $200.
4. Sooner or later we as a group of faithful Catholics will have to give deep consideration to various problems that are growing and widening with time. It is entirely possible that we can do much better than we are doing now. Honesty and self-examination - things SSPXBrand cannot do, and for which we castigate them ceaselessly - are essential for us if we are to remain faithful to Christ. The insane, hair trigger touchiness many people have about Bishop Williamson is a bad sign. It is a sign of infection and pus. It should be held up to the light, lanced, and dealt the death blow. Respect and admiration and love for the man is one thing; what I see on the forums goes far beyond that sane rule and measure.
Steady, now --- (lance cantatedomino) --- there. Much better.
5. If you were a rational man you would be sure of your facts before you speak. The fact is that one of the main things that got Pablo into trouble here and on IA was his harsh criticism of Bishop Williamson. Did you take him to task with one of your Greek dramas when he laid the Bishop out in his unique manner? I don't recall seeing you do that. No - as I said before, you were most likely waiting for the right staging and the right lighting to bring out the grand opening of the revelation of your smallness.
God bless you.
Pablo laid the bishop out? Don't make me laugh! :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh2:
Too late.
-
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.
I find it amusing how many experts there are who think
they know better than a good bishop. Why don't you go
around telling +de Galarreta or +de Malarais what to do
and how to do it?
Or why stop there? Go pick on +Fellay. He has plenty of
spare time to handle your concerns. He'll get right back
to you, I'm sure.
The first thing a bishop needs if he's going to lead, is
respect from his following, and with the likes of
cantatedomino lurking in the shadows, and so many of
the poisoned minds of the Accordistas ready to dish out
the standard catch phrases of the Pfluger/Nely/Smidberger
/Rostand/Coture/Morgan hate mail, with friends like that,
who needs enemies?
Why did ABL leave his beloved Society with the standard
example of a priest as SG and NOT a bishop? Because
(in case you didn't notice) the SSPX bishops have no
jurisdiction over the Faithful.
Maybe bishops do have free will all right, but we should
be thankful that we've got at least ONE bishop who prefers
GOOD free will to BAD free will!
-
If you are referring to Fr. Pfeiffer trying to start another religious congregation, that is NOT a "parallel" church. Supplied jurisdiction provides for this protection until conciliar Rome finds it's true identity of Her Tradition again. Then all of these present problems will go away.
Supplied jurisdiction doesn't apply anymore. There are many choices for getting the sacraments now.
-
The August 10, 2012 Declaration from Vienna, VA:
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.
-
If you are referring to Fr. Pfeiffer trying to start another religious congregation, that is NOT a "parallel" church. Supplied jurisdiction provides for this protection until conciliar Rome finds it's true identity of Her Tradition again. Then all of these present problems will go away.
Supplied jurisdiction doesn't apply anymore. There are many choices for getting the sacraments now.
???
Can you please explain that also?
You have been writing many posts that do not explain your reasoning. You just "throw" it out there.
Please read the many threads on Cathinfo that talks about Supplied Jurisdiction. It is very objective. It is not a candy shop to pick and choose...
Perhaps, you can explain to the Traditional Benedictines, the Dominicans, the Capuchins, the Carmelites, the Transfigurations, St, Josephats, the Franciscan Sisters that they do not have Supplied Jurisdiction to function? They would be very interested to know that they can function, or survive without it. Even the Redemptorists, and on how Rome treated them as a real religious congregation when they were absorbed into the conciliar church.
I wouldn't mind conversing with you; but you will need to provide what you mean by your unexplained posts.
Thank you.
-
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.
I find it amusing how many experts there are who think
they know better than a good bishop. Why don't you go
around telling +de Galarreta or +de Malarais what to do
and how to do it?
Or why stop there? Go pick on +Fellay. He has plenty of
spare time to handle your concerns. He'll get right back
to you, I'm sure.
The first thing a bishop needs if he's going to lead, is
respect from his following, and with the likes of
cantatedomino lurking in the shadows, and so many of
the poisoned minds of the Accordistas ready to dish out
the standard catch phrases of the Pfluger/Nely/Smidberger
/Rostand/Coture/Morgan hate mail, with friends like that,
who needs enemies?
Why did ABL leave his beloved Society with the standard
example of a priest as SG and NOT a bishop? Because
(in case you didn't notice) the SSPX bishops have no
jurisdiction over the Faithful.
Maybe bishops do have free will all right, but we should
be thankful that we've got at least ONE bishop who prefers
GOOD free will to BAD free will!
Granted the clerics you list are bad news, I wouldn't include "Morgan" as been part of the gang.
With the death of the Archbishop, Bishop Fellay and his gang of liberals could be themelves, and no longer hide their ambitions.
-
John Grace: "The 1st conference was on seven ages of the church and in context of crisis of the SSPX".
Are we in the sixth (Apocalypse III, 7-13: "To the Church at Philadelphia")? Many thanks, when feasible.
-
Fr Morgon deserves inclusion.... by association...
-
I just can't support Bishop Williamson setting up a "parallel church".
This idea has no real utility. For 40 years every SSPX priest, every SV priest, and every independent priest has operated without the slightest regard for Roman sensibilities or formalities.
We need to stop saying one thing and doing the opposite.
If what the SSPX has been doing for decades does not constitute setting up a parallel church, and if what +W has been doing since his expulsion from the SSPX does not constitute setting up a parallel church, then his continued active apostolate does not constitute setting up a parallel church.
Arguments that will successfully oppose my call to wake up about the contradiction I pointed out cannot be based on legalism because those same arguments must necessarily presuppose that we keep setting up chapels, keep ordaining priests, and keep making the Sacraments available to souls. We cannot live opposing realities.
One of the major SSPX pitfalls is positivistic, legalistic thinking that terminates in self-contradiction. [See: both anything coming from Menzingen and EC: Authority Crippled]. 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.
-
Yes, it is this fact that you have rightly stated where the central problem in the "resistance" really is: "That Bishop Williamson has repeatedly stated he is not a "general"--he's a Lord Chancellor."
With another layer of this crisis revealing itself, lets please encourage Bishop Williamson to find his role as the GENERAL he really is, and lead us, as only a Bishop can do.
Machabees is correct. There is a problem in the resistance. It is serious, but not death dealing because God is with us.
Here is a quote from Fr. Chazal's Asian Report. I cannot help but notice that awareness of the problem seems to be reaching critical mass:
+CHAZAL: 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. Fr de Tanouarn, a prince among our french liberals, says he will not do it ; I think it is an omen to the contrary. As a consequence i feel fully exonerated from the obligation to come to Virginia. I have done my part. But, could you please give him a copy of "Gods and Generals" as a birthday gift, or at least play Stonewall's Virginia speech on a big screen, saying: "Just as we, would never march into any other place, and novusordoize other people, so we would never allow anybody to march into our place, and novusordoize our people!"
-
Can you please explain that also?
I just don't see how the original state of emergency that neccessitated the formation of the SSPX and the consecrations still exists. Much like Bishop Williamson doesn't see a need to consecrate new bishops at this time.
We have choices in receiving the sacraments but those choices weren't always so readily available.
I go to Resistance Masses when I can because 1) I have no personal attachment to the Society, 2) I know that the priests teach TRUTH, 3) the sacraments are valid, 4) others in the Resistance seem to be awake to the fact that we are entering the final age before the End Times, 5) there is less hypocritical judging of others, and 6) the priests are boldly proclaiming to the world that the visible Catholic Church has lost the Faith.
I still believe that my local bishop is my authority not Bishop Wiliamson, who I love and respect as a wise elder and statesman. I often say he's the grandfather I wish I had. But what authority does he have in my parish? In anyone's parish? Until the Divine Directive is received I believe he will remain as he is, acting as father, teacher, friend.
And who is it hurting? Are souls being lost over it? I'm not saying there aren't, I'm asking because I have no real awareness of it. I have listened to almost every conference +W has given in the last year and I hear the same message--waiting for Our Lady.
The other question I have is this: if Bishop Williamson were acting as you want, as some others want, how would things be different? What specific actions would he be doing? On what timeframes? I really want to know what people believe should be happening compared to how it is now. I'm open to being converted on this point.
Just read cantate's last post. Also, directing this to her. Please explain in "dumb people's language" so I can understand what a Resistance under "General Williamson" would look like.
Thank you--I await my conversion to your position.
-
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.
The self-contradiction arises from Bishop Williamson's letters to us, and from statements he has made in public. I take him at his word. By his word I can discern the contradiction. The contradiction steps from his metaphysical constitution as Catholic Bishop, the truth of which is universally evident. His self-report does not align with what he is, hence the contradiction. Machabees has done an exemplary job of pointing out that the very fact of Bishop Williamson being an Apostle is the root of the problem. As long as "Bishop Williamson is an Apostle" is true, then there are no unknown truths that could possibly change Machabees' analysis.
-
Yes, it is this fact that you have rightly stated where the central problem in the "resistance" really is: "That Bishop Williamson has repeatedly stated he is not a "general"--he's a Lord Chancellor."
With another layer of this crisis revealing itself, lets please encourage Bishop Williamson to find his role as the GENERAL he really is, and lead us, as only a Bishop can do.
Machabees is correct. There is a problem in the resistance. It is serious, but not death dealing because God is with us.
Here is a quote from Fr. Chazal's Asian Report. I cannot help but notice that awareness of the problem seems to be reaching critical mass:
+CHAZAL: 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. Fr de Tanouarn, a prince among our french liberals, says he will not do it ; I think it is an omen to the contrary. As a consequence i feel fully exonerated from the obligation to come to Virginia. I have done my part. But, could you please give him a copy of "Gods and Generals" as a birthday gift, or at least play Stonewall's Virginia speech on a big screen, saying: "Just as we, would never march into any other place, and novusordoize other people, so we would never allow anybody to march into our place, and novusordoize our people!"
..... 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......
Bishop Williamson can satisfy all parties by consecrating a "neutral" bishop. A Brazilian perhaps?
-
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.
Can you also please explain your above post?
I think your misunderstanding is based on the word "duty", and of what really is the "duty" of an active Catholic Bishop.
I have tried to bring this out some what catechetically in my other post about this. Where you able to see my other post on this? I can try to explain it differently for you.
It is like a married person who entered into the Sacrament of Matrimony. Both spouses have a "duty" to provide one another the Catholic Faith and to provide the Catholic Faith to their children. When one of the spouses decides to be "passive" and no longer "active" in the duties of that role, it creates stress in the "marriage" and within the "family".
God did not provide in the Sacrament for either one of the spouses to become "passive"; only active.
So too with a Bishop of the Catholic Church. A Bishop has entered into the Sacrament of Holy Orders, then in consecration of a Bishop. In that Sacrament of Holy Orders, a Bishop has a "duty" to provide the Catholic Faith to the Baptized souls in the Church. If a Bishop decides to be "passive" and no longer "active" in the duties of that role, it creates stress in the "family" of the whole of the Church.
So, God did not provide for any priest or Bishop to become "passive"; only active.
Bishop Williamson, as an active Bishop of the Catholic Church, MUST re-group his scattered (SSPX) priests and faithful, and lead the fight, like David in the Old Testament. If not, it only creates stress in the Church.
As far as Fr. Pfeiffer, he, and the many other priests have spoken to Bishop Williamson about these very things, and have stated it so to us. Bishop Williamson NEEDS to lead. He has no other choice...
Please ask Fr. Pfeiffer.
Excellent analogy. Explains it well in a different way. God bless you for your explanations.
-
If you are referring to Fr. Pfeiffer trying to start another religious congregation, that is NOT a "parallel" church. Supplied jurisdiction provides for this protection until conciliar Rome finds it's true identity of Her Tradition again. Then all of these present problems will go away.
Supplied jurisdiction doesn't apply anymore. There are many choices for getting the sacraments now.
I do not understand this statement.
Some of these choices involve a compromise on doctrine.
The Church cannot yoke itself to error.
-
Can you please explain that also?
I just don't see how the original state of emergency that necessitated the formation of the SSPX and the consecrations still exists.
Now that is a very interesting statement. If you go back and reread the Letter of the Three to the One, and also the Reply of the One to the three, you will find that the One used this same argument against the Three.
As the Three demonstrated, the necessity or state of emergency not only continues in being, but has increased in extension and degree. There could be no resistance and +W would have to immediately halt his operations, if there is no longer a state of necessity.
Furthermore the fact of the persistence of the state of emergency makes the EC, Authority Crippled, that much more self-contradictory.
-
It could be argued that if folk, who attended the conference given by Bishop Williamson all go back to SSPX chapels, then they are not resisting.It is not the SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre.
A status quo is maintained.It's not easy to leave an SSPX chapel.When Bishop Fellay does sign,expect more action.
-
Just read cantate's last post. Also, directing this to her. Please explain in "dumb people's language" so I can understand what a Resistance under "General Williamson" would look like.
Thank you--I await my conversion to your position.
Zeitun, I thank God for the contributions of Machabees to this thread. He explains things far more effectively than I can.
To attempt to simplify what I am saying:
1. Bishop Williamson is an Apostle.
2. Apostles have very defined duties, obligations, and powers. These obligations and powers come from God and are non-negotiable. No Apostle can "rewrite his own charter." He must do what he was ordained to do, or perish. As for what Bishop Williamson is called to do here and now, read what Machabees has said. He describes it well.
3. Bishop Williamson keeps writing us letters and saying in public that he is not our formal leader. He says that he is simply an adviser and friend. He refuses to take matters in hand; he refuses to assume leadership of the priests and faithful clamoring to him for that very thing. People are begging him to pick up his crosier and lead. They are begging him to do this precisely because he is a Catholic Bishop, faithful to Catholic teaching. Thus far he is explicitly refusing to pick up his crosier.
4. His words and his refusal to assume the role of Apostle contradict his very nature, the nature of Apostle. His words and his refusal to accede to the requests of so many, give the impression that he is trying to "write his own charter." Furthermore, because of his nature of Apostle, people are following his lead, in spite of his protests that he is not their leader. Therefore he is leading de facto, whilst yet protesting that he is not leading. This is as untenable as it is unattractive.
5. Asking him to pick up his crosier and lead is akin to asking a lion to roar. Lions roar and bishops lead. It is not sin or hardihood or arrogance to ask a lion to roar or a Bishop to lead.
When the catechumen arrives at the Church doors he is asked what he seeks from the Church, and he replies: The Faith! That is not presumption or hardihood. It is an obligation to ask the Church for the Faith. Asking +W to pick up his crosier and lead is akin to asking the Church for the Faith. We ask for what God has ordained.
I hope this helps.
-
Bishop Williamson can satisfy all parties by consecrating a "neutral" bishop. A Brazilian perhaps?
If we want to go neutral, perhaps a Swiss bishop . . .
-
It could be argued that if folk, who attended the conference given by Bishop Williamson all go back to SSPX chapels, then they are not resisting.It is not the SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre.
A status quo is maintained.It's not easy to leave an SSPX chapel.When Bishop Fellay does sign,expect more action.
John, I can't help but notice that you are a true gentleman. Its' refreshing.
-
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.
As for attending SSPX chapels? You basically have the SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre under Bishop Williamson and then this 'Church of Bishop Fellay' that is trying to reconcile truth, Catholic Tradition and the SSPX with the conciliar church. Their best fantasy is the fantasy of converting Rome from within.
-
Not all priests can do what Fr Pfieffer, Chazal,and BW do, and thank God for them. But wwe do have Priests we can trust, and we cannot abandon them, as BW says, watch and pray....
-
Clare will probably laugh or perhaps Bernadette but the title of the Bishop Williamson conference in Ireland was entitled 'Voice in the Wilderness'.
-
The recusant dot com slash conference-support (no spaces):
St. Joseph's Carmel
1st June, 2013
Dear Fathers, Dear Faithful of the Resistance!
Fr. Zaby has just notified us of your call for help. We are in spirit with you and we pray with fervour. May your conference through the special graces of the most holy hearts of Jesus and Mary serve to strengthen you in faith and love. Being put so much under public pressure brings you closer to those martyrs who in the first centuries were viewed as enemies of the state and of society, worthy of persecution. Those who allow themselves to be enlightened by God will recognise the truth.
When Sr. Lucia of Fatima was asked about the Third Secret, she pointed to the 12th and 13th Chapter of the Apocaöypse which refers to a beast emerging from the sea:
"And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. ... Here is the patience and faith of the saints." (Apoc. 13, vv.7&10)
In Germany too, the injunctions (in practical terms, it amounts to excommunications) are beginning to be issued by Fr. Schmidberger. Everybody who kills you thinks that he is doing a service to God (killing through slander also falls into this category). In the hearts of Jesus and Mary lies our strength and our trust.
Today we will carry out extra mortifications on your behalf and recommend ourselves to your prayers.
Your Sisters of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel.
-
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.
As for attending SSPX chapels? You basically have the SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre under Bishop Williamson and then this 'Church of Bishop Fellay' that is trying to reconcile truth, Catholic Tradition and the SSPX with the conciliar church. Their best fantasy is the fantasy of converting Rome from within.
That's right. The resistance is de facto under +Williamson and SSPXBrand is officially under +Fellay. The difference is that +Fellay has his outfit squarely in hand, while +Williamson denies even that he is heading up something. That's problematic.
It is entirely possible that the primary reason why so many people continue to follow +Fellay in spite of his sell out is that he is an Apostle and supremely acts like one. Catholics fall in line with Apostles that act like Apostles. That's how it is. That is also why so many people blindly follow Popes and corrupt novus ordo bishops.
When an Apostle sends mixed messages about who and what he is, stagnation ensues because people are not sure how to follow a kind of leadership that amounts to a form of dissimulation. There are many steadfast loyalists who make up the current membership of the resistance, but there has to be a much greater number of people who would come out of the crumbling +Fellay structure and join the resistance if only it was headed by an Apostle acting as such and if only it had a coherent structure. Human nature requires order and structure, and God never asks us to go against our nature. Grace builds upon nature.
As for the need for the consecration of more bishops right now, it is crazy to think otherwise. Even were +W perfect in every way, one Bishop for the whole world is not enough. ABL made four, and that is not even enough. To ask +W to consecrate more bishops is not an indictment of his record. It is based on common sense, which we are obliged to follow.
+ABL's Operation Survival was based, in part, on quantity. He understood that he was obligated, as Apostle, to populate the Church Militant. +W has the same onus and obligation, as he is the last man standing.
If we want to use +W's paradigm of a "loose association," we have to ask - loose association of what? The answer has to be - a loose association of authentically Catholic entities. An authentically Catholic entity must contain the principle of generation, or else it is sterile and set for extinction. Each of the original twelve Apostles left a Church in their wake. The Church of Antioch, of Laodicea, of Sardis, of India, of Egypt, etc. These were under the Pope, but they did not rely upon the Pope as their generative principle, nor did they rely on the original Apostles as their generative principle. Each locality had its generative principle in its bishop.
The example of +ABL teaches that, though we may not set up a parallel church, yet we are obligated to perpetuate the order of supernatural generation, throughout the duration of any period of necessity. A multiple of bishops spread throughout the world is required to effectuate this. Even material nature adheres to this principle: Be fruitful and multiply.
-
stgobnait: “Not all priests can do what Fr Pfieffer, Chazal,and BW do, and thank God for them. But wwe do have Priests we can trust, and we cannot abandon them, as BW says, watch and pray....”
Disagree: “the Truth shall make you free” (St.John, VIII,32): all good priests I know who runned away are as happy as anybody could be in this life.
-
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!
-
Yes, fundamentally it's difficult to "recognize and resist" for decades on end.
"If the days were not shortened, not even the Elect would be saved."
Either you're tempted to stop resisting, or stop recognizing. It's hard to not give up on the Conciliar Church when it maintains a course AWAY FROM Catholicism for 4 decades and still going strong.
And it's hard to be against the world for that long. The world is all we know. How can we be the enemy of all we know, to have everyone call us names, etc. for DECADES on end. It's easy to be a perfect trad for 5, 10, maybe 15 years. But eventually we get sick of it. We want people to accept us already. We're sick of being misunderstood.
Only God knows how long this Crisis is going to go on. We have to be patient, and hunker down for the long haul. This has to be a great time of grace for those who persevere.
-
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=25251&min=80#p1)
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.
I find it amusing how many experts there are who think
they know better than a good bishop. Why don't you go
around telling +de Galarreta or +de Malarais what to do
and how to do it?
Or why stop there? Go pick on +Fellay. He has plenty of
spare time to handle your concerns. He'll get right back
to you, I'm sure.
The first thing a bishop needs if he's going to lead, is
respect from his following, and with the likes of
cantatedomino lurking in the shadows, and so many of
the poisoned minds of the Accordistas ready to dish out
the standard catch phrases of the Pfluger/Nely/Smidberger
/Rostand/Coture/Morgan hate mail, with friends like that,
who needs enemies?
Why did ABL leave his beloved Society with the standard
example of a priest as SG and NOT a bishop? Because
(in case you didn't notice) the SSPX bishops have no
jurisdiction over the Faithful.
Maybe bishops do have free will all right, but we should
be thankful that we've got at least ONE bishop who prefers
GOOD free will to BAD free will!
Granted the clerics you list are bad news, I wouldn't include "Morgan" as been part of the gang.
With the death of the Archbishop, Bishop Fellay and his gang of liberals could be themselves, and no longer hide their ambitions.
While I must respect your own personal knowledge of Fr. Morgan
and what kind of man he is, I must confess, that while I do not
know him, what I see is what I see, and I see a priest who is not
standing up for the principles of the Founder, ABL, but is rather
going to specific and deleterious extremes in his attacks of the
Resistance and his defense of the nefarious Menzingen-denizens.
You may have better knowledge of what he's made of, but all I
can know is what he writes in the context of current events.
That is to say, it's up to him: if he persists in his association with
these DESTROYERS of Tradition, he falls, but if he stands up for
the truth and says what needs to be said, he will obviously be
immediately subject to the consequences.
It's not an easy choice but then, it could be a lot worse.
What did St. Lawrence do? . . . Capitualte? Not on your life!
Fr Morgan deserves inclusion.... by association...
-
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!
Yes, this is my personal dilemma. Thank you for articulating this when I couldn't. I've felt for some time now the Resistance needs to determine "Where are we going?" but I never believed that the +Williamson question was essential. Maybe I was wrong about that??????? I have viewed "Operation Survival 2" as nothing more than the lifeboats pulling in people who jumped off the Titanic. Has the ship already sank or is it still sinking? If it's already sunk then we go to the next phase. If not, then the boats need to stay in place and rescue more souls.
I've struggled greatly with "recognize and resist" because it's so apparent that there's been a loss of Faith not just in NewRome but in the SSPX. Am I a sede? I don't want to be.
Where's the EASY button?
OK, I'm listening. Does anyone have a plan for real action we laity can take?
-
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=25251&min=75#p4)
The August 10, 2012 Declaration from Vienna, VA:
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!
Yes, this is my personal dilemma. Thank you for articulating this when I couldn't. I've felt for some time now the Resistance needs to determine "Where are we going?" but I never believed that the +Williamson question was essential. Maybe I was wrong about that??????? I have viewed "Operation Survival 2" as nothing more than the lifeboats pulling in people who jumped off the Titanic. Has the ship already sank or is it still sinking? If it's already sunk then we go to the next phase. If not, then the boats need to stay in place and rescue more souls.
I've struggled greatly with "recognize and resist" because it's so apparent that there's been a loss of Faith not just in NewRome but in the SSPX. Am I a sede? I don't want to be.
Where's the EASY button?
OK, I'm listening. Does anyone have a plan for real action we laity can take?
One idea is, you could take Machabees' advice and send +W a small
donation, with the attached message that you hope he does not delay
making consecrations of several new bishops from among the many
excellent and PROVEN candidates at hand.
And you can also take it up a notch, which Machabees has overlooked.
You could make your own observations, regarding who you believe
would make a good bishop for the coming age of persecution, and
you could write to each of them explaining that they should answer
+W's call by presenting themselves to him with a short summary of
the reasons that they believe they are qualified and ready and willing
to be elevated to this high dignity for all to see.
Among the reasons should not be "to make the Menzingen-denzens
more miserable."
Not that that wouldn't happen, just that that shouldn't be a motive.
-
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.
-
Yes, fundamentally it's difficult to "recognize and resist" for decades on end.
"If the days were not shortened, not even the Elect would be saved."
Either you're tempted to stop resisting, or stop recognizing. It's hard to not give up on the Conciliar Church when it maintains a course AWAY FROM Catholicism for 4 decades and still going strong.
And it's hard to be against the world for that long. The world is all we know. How can we be the enemy of all we know, to have everyone call us names, etc. for DECADES on end. It's easy to be a perfect trad for 5, 10, maybe 15 years. But eventually we get sick of it. We want people to accept us already. We're sick of being misunderstood.
Only God knows how long this Crisis is going to go on. We have to be patient, and hunker down for the long haul. This has to be a great time of grace for those who persevere.
I think you are quite right.
-
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!
-
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.
-
He is leading, prudently.... not off a cliff....
-
He is leading, prudently.... not off a cliff....
The buzz word of the Bishop Fellay club."Prudence" and blind obedience are factors in why there is a new direction in the surrendered, compromised SSPX.
-
and who is speaking of Bishop Fellay.....? not I......
-
and who is speaking of Bishop Fellay.....? not I......
Perhaps not but use the language of compromise.
-
IS IT MY USE OF LANGUAGE, YOU OBJECT TO... OUR LACK OF ACTION FROM BISHOP WILLIAMSON.....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
IS IT MY USE OF LANGUAGE, YOU OBJECT TO... OUR LACK OF ACTION FROM BISHOP WILLIAMSON.....
I don't understand the need for the block capitals. My understanding is you still attend a SSPX so let us be objective in the discussion.
Others are at this stage
Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=12541&st=100
And now is also the time for the laity who still attend SSPX chapels to say "good-bye". They need to put their money where there mouth is.
Often things are written in a context. I mentioned the language of compromise. 'Prudence' and blind obedience have brought about the demise of the SSPX. I am sorry to see the 'resistance' use this Fellayite language.
-
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.
Total rubbish and have you support for this attack on the Bishop? I don't intend to entertain such nonsense.
-
I find it strange though that with edifying conferences in Ireland folk will still walk back in to SSPX chapels. Fr Bufe offers Mass so am interested as to why Irish folk still attend the SSPX chapels. There is an alternative to the 'Church of Bishop Fellay'.I can see why people remain in Society chapels but when then is the crossing of the line? I find it strange.
-
I followed Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. early on. I sent back the District magazine. Didn't give money to Fr Sherry and Fr Gallagher and then stopped going. I thought of returning at Easter. I did pray,discern.consult but it is not the will of God and why return to a surrendered SSPX where priests lie from the pulpits. Not the priests in Ireland but priests in general.
I must admit the recent Irish conference has boosted my opinion of Ireland. I thought people had become cowards. I was mistaken.
Having said.If I was to hire a hall, I don't believe people would use it. They won't give up their chapels. I would have egg on my face in an empty hall. What I will do is any money I had for a hall will go to the resistance. Where does this Fr Mac Donald stand?
The SSPX is controlled by Jєωs, the fight has gone out of many priests and laity tend to be sheeple.
-
I find it strange though that with edifying conferences in Ireland folk will still walk back in to SSPX chapels. Fr Bufe offers Mass so am interested as to why Irish folk still attend the SSPX chapels. There is an alternative to the 'Church of Bishop Fellay'.I can see why people remain in Society chapels but when then is the crossing of the line? I find it strange.
The same reason that an elderly lady told me recently about putting all her money in Barclays Bank because she still trusted it. Habituation, inertia, big institutions, and crowd mentality are powerful reasons inspiring blind trust. Folk have to be hit hard before changing direction. Once the lady starts losing money, she will wake up but it may be too late.
-
Can you please explain that also?
I just don't see how the original state of emergency that neccessitated the formation of the SSPX and the consecrations still exists. Much like Bishop Williamson doesn't see a need to consecrate new bishops at this time.
We have choices in receiving the sacraments but those choices weren't always so readily available.
I go to Resistance Masses when I can because 1) I have no personal attachment to the Society, 2) I know that the priests teach TRUTH, 3) the sacraments are valid, 4) others in the Resistance seem to be awake to the fact that we are entering the final age before the End Times, 5) there is less hypocritical judging of others, and 6) the priests are boldly proclaiming to the world that the visible Catholic Church has lost the Faith.
I still believe that my local bishop is my authority not Bishop Wiliamson, who I love and respect as a wise elder and statesman. I often say he's the grandfather I wish I had. But what authority does he have in my parish? In anyone's parish? Until the Divine Directive is received I believe he will remain as he is, acting as father, teacher, friend.
And who is it hurting? Are souls being lost over it? I'm not saying there aren't, I'm asking because I have no real awareness of it. I have listened to almost every conference +W has given in the last year and I hear the same message--waiting for Our Lady.
The other question I have is this: if Bishop Williamson were acting as you want, as some others want, how would things be different? What specific actions would he be doing? On what timeframes? I really want to know what people believe should be happening compared to how it is now. I'm open to being converted on this point.
Just read cantate's last post. Also, directing this to her. Please explain in "dumb people's language" so I can understand what a Resistance under "General Williamson" would look like.
Thank you--I await my conversion to your position.
Zeitun, thanks for your clarifications.
In your reasonings and new questions, Cantatedomino has answered very well in his posts.
By the way Cantatedomino, your other writings on this situation of Bishop Williamson are also well written. Thank you, and good job.
Zeitun, in the simplicity of your other question, is the simplicity of the answer. "if Bishop Williamson were acting as you want, as some others want, how would things be different?" The answer is: Nothing but remaining Catholic and faithful to ones baptism.
That was Archbishop Lefebvre's answer. It shows that it is still the same fight; just revealing itself in another way. So it is the same plan. Remain balanced in the peace of being Catholic. Continue your sanctification in the Sacrament that one has. Fulfill one's duties faithfully. Continue to pray, study, and read. Receive the Sacraments of Divine grace as often as you can, and leave the rest to God. He is the Head of His Church. He knows what he is doing. He is God, and He is Good at it.
All the rest, have peace.
As far as this situation of Bishop Williamson, if he just did what he had been doing for the last 25 years, just continue leading as an SSPX Bishop, without making any changes, there would be no issues in the "Resistance". It would be a clean and easy transition within the fight. The only difference for him would be a change of a new Priory to work out of -that is it.
In other words, they are all still SSPX Members, only illegally expelled. So they just continue on in the fight and Mission that God had given to Archbishop Lefebvre.
It is conciliar Rome that had left the Catholic Church. Likewise, it is also the conciliar SSPX that had left the SSPX.
For the "real" SSPX, the only difference is that the numbers had dropped significantly over night; the conciliar SSPX kept the buildings, while the Real SSPX kept the Faith.
Have peace...it is God's work and is His troubles; not ours. We need only to know, love and serve God and be faithful to our duties of state.
For Bishop Williamson, he just needs to return to his former position as an acting SSPX Bishop, call in his SSPX priests, and faithful, regroup, and lead the fight that he once did being "inside" the other buildings under the apostate Bishop Fellay.
It is quite simple...
If there is a complexity, it arises only when Bishop Williamson, as a BISHOP, relinquishes his duties to his priests and the Church at large.
Please encourage him...to see his role as an acting SSPX BISHOP.
-
I find it strange though that with edifying conferences in Ireland folk will still walk back in to SSPX chapels. Fr Bufe offers Mass so am interested as to why Irish folk still attend the SSPX chapels. There is an alternative to the 'Church of Bishop Fellay'.I can see why people remain in Society chapels but when then is the crossing of the line? I find it strange.
The same reason that an elderly lady told me recently about putting all her money in Barclays Bank because she still trusted it. Habituation, inertia, big institutions, and crowd mentality are powerful reasons inspiring blind trust. Folk have to be hit hard before changing direction. Once the lady starts losing money, she will wake up but it may be too late.
In Ireland elderly people tend to keep money at home. In relation to the SSPX folk will be hit hard if they invest in that doomed new neo SSPX seminary.
-
I find it strange though that with edifying conferences in Ireland folk will still walk back in to SSPX chapels. Fr Bufe offers Mass so am interested as to why Irish folk still attend the SSPX chapels. There is an alternative to the 'Church of Bishop Fellay'.I can see why people remain in Society chapels but when then is the crossing of the line? I find it strange.
Is Fr. Bufe on his own now?
-
The thread is boring. :sleep:
-
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:
To attempt to simplify what I am saying:
1. Bishop Williamson is an Apostle.
2. Apostles have very defined duties, obligations, and powers. These obligations and powers come from God and are non-negotiable. No Apostle can "rewrite his own charter." He must do what he was ordained to do, or perish. As for what Bishop Williamson is called to do here and now, read what Machabees has said. He describes it well.
3. Bishop Williamson keeps writing us letters and saying in public that he is not our formal leader. He says that he is simply an adviser and friend. He refuses to take matters in hand; he refuses to assume leadership of the priests and faithful clamoring to him for that very thing. People are begging him to pick up his crosier and lead. They are begging him to do this precisely because he is a Catholic Bishop, faithful to Catholic teaching. Thus far he is explicitly refusing to pick up his crosier.
4. His words and his refusal to assume the role of Apostle contradict his very nature, the nature of Apostle. His words and his refusal to accede to the requests of so many, give the impression that he is trying to "write his own charter." Furthermore, because of his nature of Apostle, people are following his lead, in spite of his protests that he is not their leader. Therefore he is leading de facto, whilst yet protesting that he is not leading. This is as untenable as it is unattractive.
5. Asking him to pick up his crosier and lead is akin to asking a lion to roar. Lions roar and bishops lead. It is not sin or hardihood or arrogance to ask a lion to roar or a Bishop to lead.
When the catechumen arrives at the Church doors he is asked what he seeks from the Church, and he replies: The Faith! That is not presumption or hardihood. It is an obligation to ask the Church for the Faith. Asking +W to pick up his crosier and lead is akin to asking the Church for the Faith. We ask for what God has ordained.
I hope this helps.
-
Fr Bufe is as far as i know, working as best he can. His health is not great, and we do not know all of his circuмstances..... it would not be easy for a lot of people to attend his Mass's, i would think, yes , he is working alone....
-
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.
Total rubbish and have you support for this attack on the Bishop? I don't intend to entertain such nonsense.
It is not an "attack". I, and Fr. Pfeiffer have just stated the support. Please read it again.
Have you support for your contrary comment that Bishop Williamson is not delinquent in his duties as a BISHOP to call in his priests and the faithful within this new crisis?
The more time goes on, the more delinquent the situation becomes within this new crisis. A fight without a leading BISHOP is a fight that is already lost.
You and I are NOT independent to have it otherwise. It is God's order.
An army without a BISHOP is a Rottweiler without teeth.
BISHOPS must lead the fight...
-
Yes, fundamentally it's difficult to "recognize and resist" for decades on end.
"If the days were not shortened, not even the Elect would be saved."
Either you're tempted to stop resisting, or stop recognizing. It's hard to not give up on the Conciliar Church when it maintains a course AWAY FROM Catholicism for 4 decades and still going strong.
And it's hard to be against the world for that long. The world is all we know. How can we be the enemy of all we know, to have everyone call us names, etc. for DECADES on end. It's easy to be a perfect trad for 5, 10, maybe 15 years. But eventually we get sick of it. We want people to accept us already. We're sick of being misunderstood.
Only God knows how long this Crisis is going to go on. We have to be patient, and hunker down for the long haul. This has to be a great time of grace for those who persevere.
I think you are quite right.
And I do agree as well.
It does seem that there is an almost inevitable reckoning which is beginning to take place. It appearing as though Menzingen has chosen the path which will lead to the abandonment of resisting in favor of recognition, and hoping for the best.
The "resistance" has in opposing Menzingen woven themselves into a position where abandoning recognizing might be the only logical direction to maintain true resistance.
Having once raised the error and evil of the Conciliar church to such a high degree upon which much of their effort rests, it begs the question and highlights the deficiency of recognize and resist philosophy.
That is to say, if Menzingen has widened its recognition to the level which they have been espousing, how can they continue to resist and have any credibility?
Which brings to the fore the proposition that if the resistance means what it says about the apostate modernist Romans and Vatican II, and if it is true, then how can the recognize/resist position not undermine the arguments upon which they are based?
-
Is the SSPX a schismatic group? If so, does that make the Resistance also schismatic?
-
.
The original post, for reference:
And I do agree as well.
It does seem that there is an almost inevitable reckoning which is beginning to take place. It appearing as though Menzingen has chosen the path which will lead to the abandonment of resisting in favor of recognition, and hoping for the best.
The "resistance" has in opposing Menzingen woven themselves into a position where abandoning recognizing might be the only logical direction to maintain true resistance.
Having once raised the error and evil of the Conciliar church to such a high degree upon which much of their effort rests, it begs the question and highlights the deficiency of recognize and resist philosophy.
That is to say, if Menzingen has widened its recognition to the level which they have been espousing, how can they continue to resist and have any credibility?
Which brings to the fore the proposition that if the resistance means what it says about the apostate modernist Romans and Vatican II, and if it is true, then how can the recognize/resist position not undermine the arguments upon which they are based?
.
Seeing your post, J.Paul, and then seeing it again later, it's still not
making total sense. I don't doubt that you know what you're trying
to convey, but the words on this page are not doing it for me.......
In my attempt to understand you, I have added some words in
brackets that I think must be missing because without them there
is simply far too much ambiguity endemic in the post.
Yes, fundamentally it's difficult to "recognize and resist" for decades on end.
"If the days were not shortened, not even the Elect would be saved."
Either you're tempted to stop resisting, or stop recognizing. It's hard to not give up on the Conciliar Church when it maintains a course AWAY FROM Catholicism for 4 decades and still going strong.
And it's hard to be against the world for that long. The world is all we know. How can we be the enemy of all we know, to have everyone call us names, etc. for DECADES on end. It's easy to be a perfect trad for 5, 10, maybe 15 years. But eventually we get sick of it. We want people to accept us already. We're sick of being misunderstood.
Only God knows how long this Crisis is going to go on. We have to be patient, and hunker down for the long haul. This has to be a great time of grace for those who persevere.
I think you are quite right.
And I do agree as well.
It does seem that there is an almost inevitable reckoning which is beginning to take place.
This reckoning: is it going to be explained or substantiated below, or, is what
follows a different subject matter? You don't say so I'm not sure.
It [is] appearing as though Menzingen has chosen the path which will lead to [their] abandonment of [their] resisting in favor of recognition [of the SSPX by modernist Rome], and hoping for the best.
The "resistance" has in opposing Menzingen woven themselves into a position where abandoning [any intention or interest in becoming recognized by modernist Rome] might be the only logical direction to maintain true resistance.
Here you seem to part company with the Resistance that I know. The
Resistance, properly understood, is nothing other than the Catholic Church
outside of which there is no salvation. You seem to be making it into
something else, at least in your own perception.
I put it to you that ABL himself had no interest in becoming recognized by
modernist Rome, either! The Menzingen-denizens are hard at work
building up a FALSE understanding of this pseudo-ABL of their own making,
now that he is no longer here (I really wish he were here for our sake but
he would have no interest in being here for his own sake, I'm sure!) to
explain himself. He did plenty of explaining himself in the last 4 years of
his venerable life for all of us to know full well what he stood for. And for
him, the "only logical direction to maintain" the ONE TRUE FAITH (which,
properly understood, is one and the same as the "true Resistance") is just
that, by abandoning any intention or interest in becoming recognized by
modernist Rome -- SO LONG AS IT REMAINS MODERNIST ROME.
It is not our place to change it into the True Rome of the One True Faith,
but rather to maintain that One True Faith intact while God, in His own good
time (whatever that is) decides it is now the time to restore the Faith of
Catholics in the seat of St. Peter where it belongs.
Having once raised the error and evil of the Conciliar church to such a high degree upon which much of their effort rests, it begs the question and highlights the deficiency of recognize and resist philosophy.
It is this paragraph, above, that is incomprehensible. What is the subject?
What is the object? What are you talking about? Who raised the error?
Whose effort rests on error? What begs the question? What highlights the
deficiency? What is this recognize and resist philosophy to which you refer?
Do you know anything about philosophy? Have you studied it? When
you use the word do you know what you're talking about? Or, is it in
your way of thinking one and the same as concept, principle or ideology?
(BTW it's not.)
That is to say, if Menzingen has widened its recognition to the level which they have been espousing, how can they continue to resist and have any credibility?
What is this "width" of the Menzingen recognition to which you refer? Can
you describe it, or can you define it? Because it might be something to
you that is unique, and to someone else it might be entirely different.
How have they been espousing this "width of their recognition" as you say?
Which brings to the fore the proposition that if the resistance means what it says about the apostate modernist Romans and Vatican II, and if it is true, then how can the recognize/resist position not undermine the arguments upon which they are based?
Is this "recognize/resist position" the same thing as the "recognize and
resist philosophy" to which you alluded previously, above? If not, then
how is it different? If it's the same, then why would you use the much
more narrow and specific term "philosophy" above, since to do so only
introduces misunderstanding and confusion in the reader, who has to
go about presuming that you mean to say something other than what
you're literally saying?
There are at least 5 very different ways I could restate this paragraph
of yours, above, based on various ways of interpreting what you have
written. Would it help for me to do that? Then you could pick the one
you were trying to convey, or, you could write a new paragraph that is
entirely different from my 5, which is more like what you mean to say.
Your "proposition" (which is actually a hypothetical proposition):
If the resistance means what it says about the apostate modernist
Romans and Vatican II, and if it is true, then how can the
recognize/resist position not undermine the arguments upon which
they are based?
When you say "they," might I rightly presume you mean the arguments?
Because "they" could also/alternatively mean "the resistance," and/or
"modernist Romans," and/or "Vatican II."
Do I need to list the permutations of these elements for you?
The purpose of all this is to make the distinction between what many
of us here on CI and therefore the world think the Resistance IS, and
what it is NOT.
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.
FWIW this is all in context of the EC 309 inasmuch as +W is truly a
Resistance bishop, whether he has yet sufficient conviction that he can
rise up and proclaim it as such, because, at least in part, because the
most pernicious and subversive Menzingen-denizens have had some
measure of success in stringing up their Guy Fawkes "Resistance" for
the world to see (which is a lie) and he might be immediately
misunderstood by many who would be turned against him based on an
erroneous principle of mistaken identity.
-
.
The Menzingen-denizen Voodoo Doll technique:
(http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/voodoo-doll_163.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :laugh1:
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!)
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
...which hopefully will be the twelfth of NEVER...
-
I don't feel humiliated knowing I would have an empty hall.I accept the consensus and realise an Irish exodus from chapels is not going to happen.
-
cantatedomino,
There must be two Bishops Williamson: the one you are talking about and the one everybody else I know, knows from his incredible written and verbal production based on Faith, his continuous travels all over the world, etc. as clearly presented in cathinfo and in around 200 other sites around the world. I'll do some research and will let you know.
There is only one Bishop Williamson, a very good Bishop, and we should be down on our knees thanking Almighty God for giving him to us in these perilous times! Pray for him, as well as all of the Resistance priests, and thank Almighty God.
-
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.
Very well said. Let's give Bishop Williamson support for the daunting task that lies ahead, not criticism. We have not walked in his shoes.