Thank you for your reasoned response.
I had posted this on another thread, but it refers to this one as well. So I just copied and pasted here:
Most readers of the EC 275 saw and heard it pretty much as you did, and so I must admit, I did as well -- at first.
Well, this is something +Williamson should be aware of. The language is just a tool to express ideas, and if the language he uses is expressing different ideas of those he want(s) to share, then he needs either to educate his interlocutors (readers in this case) or to change his language.
I expect that he is aware of it, but he's a bit preoccupied at the moment. I'm
expecting that he might have something to say to clear this up in the next EC, but
as often happens, it may take another week or two...
Did he suggest reading this Poem in its entirety to children of all ages? No.
Did he recommend that it is better than the Rosary? No.
What did he recommend? He said that INSTEAD of Television, to "defend" your
family (from modern worldliness and associated attacks of the devil) selected
chapters (!) of the Poem could be read aloud. Did he say which chapters? No.
Did he explain how you can know if a given chapter is appropriate for YOUR age?
No, he did not.
In fact, H. E. does not even warn us about some chapters to be avoided. Certainly he says "selected chapters", but does not explicitly warn about some chapters being dangerous to the reader.
You're right, he does not. But my point is, that +Fellay et. al. are not warning us
that parts of Vatican II ought to be avoided. That seems to be the whole point
of this Poem-that's-not-poetry fiasco here. He is using satire to ridicule falsehood.
If you are familiar with the style of +Williamson, you would know immediately, or at least upon due reflection, that what he is actually saying here is that Reading Vat.II docs because they say you can get an indulgence is just about as safe as reading Valtorta's Poem of the Man God to your children because a bishop says it can "fortify your home" -- for you know that there are DANGEROUS parts of Vat.II docs and there are DANGEROUS parts of the Poem, but you are not qualified to judge which parts those are!!
Sorry, but I don't see where H. E. says or even suggests that the Poem is dangerous. In fact, he makes an apology of the book, a very weak defense, though. And this Eleison comment is not the only one presenting the Poem as a work worth to read.
Once again,
nor does +Fellay say or even suggest that Vat.II docs are
dangerous. And I think this will prove to be the big trhrust of the next few
weeks, in EC, if not, I'll eat my hat! bBEcause, the so-called plenary indulgence
lasts for a whole year. This has got to be the first time in history that the Church
has offered a plenary indulgence for doing something that is specifically dangerous
to your faith. If readers of EC are upset about the so-called Poem, they ought
to be utterly ENRAGED about the so-called indulgence, and hey, they ought to
be kind of upset, as it were, about the fact that +W just got "EXCLUDED" from
the Society he was instrumental in founding. Hello? Where is the loyalty there?
You see, he is mimicking the shortcoming of +Fellay and the Menzingen-denizens
doing what they're doing, but with a different set of docuмents. Both the Vat.II
docs and the Poem are dangers to our faith, in truth.
Does he say here that what they would 'learn' about Our Lord and Our Lady would necessarily be all 'good' things by your reading of even "selected chapters" that MAY be appropriate for their age group (and then again, maybe not!)? No, he does not.
Does he say that some chapters might be inappropriate? No, he does not.
Does he say the book contains heresies? No, he does not. But he does say the seeming doctrinal errors are not difficult to explain.
Well, you got me on that one. He does not say some chapters might be
inappropriate, literally, but as I said, you can derive that message directly from
what he does say, at the LOWEST LEVEL OF INTERPRETATION of what is not
literally said. The point here is, that H.E. expects his readers (perhaps it's a bit
too much to expect, but some may consider it a compliment!) to do even MORE
than the lowest level, that is, to
do a higher level of interpretation, that is, to
think about whether he is actually drawing attention to how upset we ought to
be over the so-called plenary indulgence for reading Vat.II docuмents this year. In summary, if you do start reading the Poem to your family, you may:
~ be reading material inappropriate for their age, if you guess wrong;
~ be better off just praying the Rosary together;
~ likely select inappropriate chapters for any age, even your OWN age;
~ soon discover that you just never know when any sentence will scandalize you;
~ find your children learning EVIL things about Our Lord and Our Lady from the Poem;
~ be faced with difficult challenges to answer your children well;
~ discover your reading is pushing your children away from the faith.
Does it still look like he is recommending that you read the Poem to your family?
I just find difficult to believe HE's comment can be summarized as you did. And this does not change whether I read it in English or in another language.
I can't fault you for that, and maybe it's a bit of a stretch, but it seems to me
that what I summarized is not false, no? I do not see you identifying anything I
wrote there that is obviously incorrect. Now, I know that truth vs. error is not
the same thing as truth compared to that which is devoid of being not false. But
the author of EC is asking us to think. He is hoping that what he writes will jar
our unthinkingness into an awareness that something is rotten in Denmark...
And furthermore, it is now evident that this EC 275 was a warm-up to his
OPEN LETTER TO BISHOP FELLAY ON AN "EXCLUSION" which is not quite as
cryptic as EC 275, but it does have its own hurdles to share. In other words,
if you could make it through the Poem (poetry often does not say what it seems
to say by looking only at the words it contains!)
The book is not really a poem. The word "poem" was used only for marketing purposes.
Now you're doing it to me. I was using the word, "Poem," in a pejorative way,
but not obviously. To consider it "poetry" one would have to be a bit dense. So
on the surface, the title of the book is a BIG FAT LIE. Are you still willing to think
that it's a good idea to read it to your impressionable children, OR, that +W is
thinking that his readership will blindly follow that ostensible suggestion?
know that he is
NOT really expecting you to read that drivel to your children, then you would
most likely be able to read the OPEN LETTER and know that you are not
misunderstanding that too.
You seem to be sure you have interpreted EC 275 very well. I wonder why so many persons have interpreted in a very different way. Persons including priests.
Actually, I'm not that sure! You see how rhetoric can be deceptive? Your
wonderment regarding others, including priests, is legitimate. I agree with you!
However, if you read EC 275 and come away miffed that he's recommending
that you corrupt your family by following his advice, then perhaps you ought to
just take a powder* on the OPEN LETTER, because it's most likely it will go right over your head.
I don't have problems reading the open letter. I'm not saying that +Williamson is recommending to corrupt our families. But
~ having signed a letter to thank BXVI for the lifting of the excommunications,
~ having sung the Te Deum to thank the deplorable Summorum pontificuм,
~ having said this motu proprio is favorable to the Tradition,
~ having presenting Maria Valtorta's book as something good to read,
~ having referred to BXVI as a pope with traditional heart but modernist head,
Bp. Williamson does not seem to be very trustable...
That's why I said I didn't know what to think of His Excellency.
Okay, those things constitute "off topic items," actually, but I'll humor you.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that +W signed the letter in hopes that it
may make some difference toward his punitive treatment in the Society that he
loves. If you are a father, you know that sometimes you may do things that hurt
yourself or someone else in the family, only because there is a greater good to
be had, even if it is a 'long shot.' And the more difficult your situation, the more
extreme your actions may become, respectively.
As for the Te Deum, the same thing applies, that is, I have the same inkling on it.
As for the motu proprio, you certainly can't disagree that in some respects, it was
a help for Tradition, after all, it had a positive effect of squelching the hateful
diatribe against the CTLM. I know for a fact, from people I know, that their
attitudes changed overnight. So while it may not have been perfect, it was not
entirely a BAD thing. So saying it was "favorable" doesn't seem to me to be a
poor choice of words at all. Maybe you could expand on this opinion of yours, that
is, that +W's saying the motu proprio was "favourable" to Tradition was a mistake?
No?
Regarding his "presenting Maria Valtorta's book as something good to read," I have
to agree that it seems to be a questionable move to give the APPEARANCE of
recommending this piece of TRASH. On the other hand, if he were to come out
saying that it's a piece of 'trash,' it would have been a big fat nothing at this time.
I think he was trying to accomplish something, but exactly what I don't know, and
so I'm taking a WAG.
And finally,
~ having referred to BXVI as a pope with traditional heart but modernist head,
+W is saying here something I can completely agree with, and entirely disagree
with you for taking issue with it. It seems to me that the reason this is the case
is, once again, you are misinterpreting what he is saying. By saying his "head" is
Modernist, H.E. appeals directly to his intellect, which can think, provided that
its faculties are still operative, and Modernism tends to deaden faculties,
per se. Let me translate that for you, not because you may not understand me, but
because someone else reading this here public forum might misunderstand me.
It seems to me that +Williamson is effectively saying with this that "IF B16 has
an ounce of sense left in between his ears after a lifetime of having his
thinking noodle deep-fried in the cauldron of the sewer of all heresies (dregs
up a particular fragment of the тαℓмυd don't it?), then perhaps, and this might
be a "long shot," (sometimes a father takes extreme measures when there is a
hope for success) perhaps he might be able to see that Tradition is a better
road than the one the Church has been hijacked onto for the past half century."
But you see, he did not explain the
intention behind the 'traditional heart' phrase.
That is, he did not explain his OWN intention, nor did he explain the POPE'S
intention. Now you might well note that nobody can explain someone else's
intention, unless they can show where that someone has explained their OWN
intention. +W is here saying that he is not "at war" with the Pope, and is willing
to give him the benefit of the doubt, in hopes, let us say, that even at this late
stage, B16 may undergo some kind of miraculous conversion. For it is in the heart
that such conversions take place, is it not? It reminds me of a parenting doctrine
that says you don't call your child a "bad boy," because when he hears that over
and over and over again, eventually he will believe it, and then there will not be
any way to reach him. So if you say the Pope has a "traditional heart," and
presuming the Pope ever sees this phrase or hears that you said it, there may be
a chance that it nudges him in the right direction. Let's face it, it would have
more of a positive influence than seeing a growing number of Catholics proclaiming
that he could not possibly BE the Pope, and therefore he is NOT the Pope. 
Topic: Eleison Comments 275 - by Bishop Williamson (Read 22884 times)