Author Topic: Eleison Comments (Read 7232 times)

Binechi · « **on:** August 29, 2015, 05:58:16 PM »

Eleison Comments by His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson

Number CDXXIV (424)

August 29, 2015

Relentless Romans

Readers, wait for it, take in advance a hint –
When the agreement comes, read the fine print!

Rumours coming from the Society of St Pius X seem to confirm the speculation of these “Comments” last week (see EC 423 of Aug. 22) that Rome wants an agreement with the SSPX.The rumours tell of a secret meeting held at the beginning of this month where SSPX leaders discussed finances and a “doctrinal preamble.” Was it the same preamble mentioned by Cardinal Müller on August 3? Drawn up by Rome for the SSPX to sign? The Cardinal said that that would be necessary for any agreement, while Bishop Schneider saw no doctrinal problem because Vatican II was merely “pastoral.” With or without rumours, let us review unchanging basics.

The 16 official docuмents of the Second Vatican Council present together a new vision of God, life and man, a new religion in tune with the man-centred modern world, but clashing with the God-centred Catholic religion that had not changed essentially for over 1900 years. Both religions teach their vision of God, life and man, both are doctrinal, but the two doctrines clash. However, by skilful ambiguities – ambiguity is the hallmark of the 16 docuмents – the Council Fathers were persuaded that there was no clash, and so when they voted in favour of the docuмents, there were three reasons why Catholics worldwide went along with the new religion: its clash with the true Faith was skilfully disguised, it was imposed on Catholics by almost all Church authorities from the Popes downwards, and it was rather easier to practise than the pre-Conciliar religion.

But God raised one true shepherd, Archbishop Lefebvre, to insist on the doctrinal clash, to stand up to the unfaithful Church authorities, and to continue the practice of the pre-Conciliar religion for any souls wishing to take the trouble. And these were enough in number for the Archbishop’s Society to have spread all over the world by the time he died in 1991. But his successors at the head of his Society w ere born after World War II into a very different world from that of the Archbishop, born before World War I. They did not see the world or doctrine as he saw them, so they had not the same motivation as he had to go on standing up to the Church authorities, even if they were not yet themselves wanting the Conciliar relaxation of Church discipline (wanted now by more and more Traditionalists). It was simply a matter of time before the magnetism of Rome would exert its pull.

As for the Romans, they were obdurate in their new Conciliar religion, and so from 2000 onwards they openly welcomed all approaches being made by the SSPX, because its doctrine and practice of unchanged Catholicism were a standing rebuke to their Freemasonic novelties, and a constant threat to them, like an unconquered pocket of the enemy in the rear of an otherwise all-successful invasion. Therefore as the Romans want to absorb the SSPX into their Newchurch, so the SSPX’s present leaders want to put themse lves back under Rome’s official Church authority. It is a marriage made in Hell, and sweet Newchurchmen like Bishop Schneider can see no problem, because they have not seen, or have not wanted to see, the underlying clash of basic doctrine.

So Cardinal Müller is right in this respect. If two men have different visions of God, life and man, any agreement between them can only be relatively superficial. So if the SSPX cannot be brought by Rome to abandon dogma, or rather to undermine all Catholic dogma with the Masonic super-dogma that all dogma is mush, then the SSPX is bound to act within the walls of Rome like a Trojan horse. That is why the Cardinal will insist on a preamble, whether written by Rome or by the SSPX is of no importance, so long as the mass of Traditionalists, just like the mass of Catholics after Vatican II, will let themselves be deceived by the doctrinal ambiguities. Brilliant these will be.

Kyrie eleison.

JPaul · « **Reply #1 on:** August 29, 2015, 10:42:51 PM »

Quote

The 16 official docuмents of the Second Vatican Council present together a new vision of God, life and man, a new religion in tune with the man-centred modern world, but clashing with the God-centred Catholic religion that had not changed essentially for over 1900 years. Both religions teach their vision of God, life and man, both are doctrinal, but the two doctrines clash. However, by skilful ambiguities – ambiguity is the hallmark of the 16 docuмents – the Council Fathers were persuaded that there was no clash, and so when they voted in favour of the docuмents,etc.

Quote

But God raised one true shepherd, Archbishop Lefebvre, to insist on the doctrinal clash, to stand up to the unfaithful Church authorities, and to continue the practice of the pre-Conciliar religion for any souls wishing to take the trouble.

Speaking of ambiguity and contradictions, the one true shepherd, whom the good Bishop proposes was also one of the council Fathers who signed the 16 official docuмents which presented " together a new vision of God, life and man, a new religion in tune with the man-centred modern world, but clashing with the God-centred Catholic religion that had not changed essentially for over 1900 years."

This naturally raises the questions, was he one of those who were persuaded that there was no clash?
or was the clash so disguised that he failed to notice the un-Catholic nature of said docuмents?

Which beggars the next thought, why is Bishop Fellay's SSPX so wrong for following their founder's original actions relating to the New Religion?

A bit tongue in cheek but could not they sign now and protest later as did ABL?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #2 on:** August 30, 2015, 12:31:59 AM »

.

Quote from: J.Paul

A bit tongue in cheek but could not they sign now and protest later as did ABL?

They would make themselves complicit when they should have known better having history for their teacher. ABL didn't have the benefit of previous experience, so it's not the same now as it was then.

But your idea might be nonetheless something they could be banking on as their "ace in the hole," sad to say.

This EC is yet another short synopsis of what Vat.II was all about, and very well written.

It's a crying shame that all the SSPX might not be paying attention, since it was written by someone they're wont to ignore, to their peril.

.

Wessex · « **Reply #3 on:** August 30, 2015, 04:10:19 AM »

As always, the reality is not so black and white. There were others who stood up to "the unfaithful Church authorities". They must always be acknowledged and remembered. And the archbishop wavered to the extent that an agreement was always a strong probability during the twenty years of his 'rebellion'. He would have been able to seduce the faithful far more than the current bursar-bishop into accepting a reconciliation.

Bp. W is a good politician and like his mentor can always draw a crowd that hunger for clear concise messages. But perfect truth is an inconvenient spoiler that stalks the minds of the more inquisitive; the last refuge for solid traditionalists that see so many purveyors of truth come and go. The Society's demise started as soon as it was conceived because it was not a strictly breakaway movement. We have witnessed another example of mankind's liberal trend slowly overwhelming conservatism. This is a classical script; the bishop did not invent it. Scene one of this drama opens with dissidents resisting authority; the final scene ends with dissidents yielding to same authority leaving a smaller remnant re-enacting their own drama. Plus ca change.

2Vermont · « **Reply #4 on:** August 30, 2015, 09:32:01 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote
The 16 official docuмents of the Second Vatican Council present together a new vision of God, life and man, a new religion in tune with the man-centred modern world, but clashing with the God-centred Catholic religion that had not changed essentially for over 1900 years. Both religions teach their vision of God, life and man, both are doctrinal, but the two doctrines clash. However, by skilful ambiguities – ambiguity is the hallmark of the 16 docuмents – the Council Fathers were persuaded that there was no clash, and so when they voted in favour of the docuмents,etc.

Quote
But God raised one true shepherd, Archbishop Lefebvre, to insist on the doctrinal clash, to stand up to the unfaithful Church authorities, and to continue the practice of the pre-Conciliar religion for any souls wishing to take the trouble.

Speaking of ambiguity and contradictions, the one true shepherd, whom the good Bishop proposes was also one of the council Fathers who signed the 16 official docuмents which presented " together a new vision of God, life and man, a new religion in tune with the man-centred modern world, but clashing with the God-centred Catholic religion that had not changed essentially for over 1900 years."

This naturally raises the questions, was he one of those who were persuaded that there was no clash?
or was the clash so disguised that he failed to notice the un-Catholic nature of said docuмents?

I would like to know about this myself. Why did ABL sign those docuмents in the first place? Does he ever explain why and when he came to the realization that he made a huge mistake? How long did it take him?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #5 on:** August 30, 2015, 09:40:34 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

There were others who stood up to "the unfaithful Church authorities".
They must always be acknowledged and remembered.

Great! But if the world relies on that post, they'll be forgotten.

How about this: Provide a list of their names and countries of origin/operation.

I'm asking for the names of those who stood up at least as prominently as ABL did (since your claim is that he didn't really stand up so much in the first place).

E.g., Does Fr. Leonard Feeney make your list? He "stood up" in 1948, long before the Council reared its ugly head. Or is he somehow disqualified for some unmentionable 'reason'?

.

2Vermont · « **Reply #6 on:** August 30, 2015, 09:53:55 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Wessex

There were others who stood up to "the unfaithful Church authorities".
They must always be acknowledged and remembered.

Great! But if the world relies on that post, they'll be forgotten.

How about this: Provide a list of their names and countries of origin/operation.

I'm asking for the names of those who stood up at least as prominently as ABL did (since your claim is that he didn't really stand up so much in the first place).

E.g., Does Fr. Leonard Feeney make your list? He "stood up" in 1948, long before the Council reared its ugly head. Or is he somehow disqualified for some unmentionable 'reason'?

.

Cardinal Ottaviani?

Matto · « **Reply #7 on:** August 30, 2015, 03:39:26 PM »

I would like to learn about these others who opposed Vatican II and the Novus Ordo and the evil that followed it. I was only aware of three Bishops who did anything about it and we all know who those were. Were there any other Bishops or are you just talking about the many independent priests who opposed the Novus Ordo religion?

TKGS · « **Reply #8 on:** August 30, 2015, 04:42:12 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

I would like to know about this myself. Why did ABL sign those docuмents in the first place? Does he ever explain why and when he came to the realization that he made a huge mistake? How long did it take him?

Many concerns were raised for many of the docuмents by many bishops. Those concerns were answered, by and large, adequately by Vatican officials. What the bishops didn't know was that the very officials who were answering their questions were also the ones who intended to use the docuмents' vagueness to remake the Church. (This is also, by the way, another item of evidence that there was no valid pope as this could not have happened, in my opinion, if the Holy Ghost had been protecting Peter from the evil one.)

In any event, although the archbishop's signature is reported to have been attached on all 16 docuмents, the archbishop denied having signed at least two of them. I have read that the bishops present had to sign attendance rosters each day they were present for a general session and that Archbishop Lefebvre did indeed sign a docuмent he believed was simply an attendance roster that was later attached (rightly or wrongly) to two of those docuмents.

I heard part of this explanation in at least one cassette tape recording of the archbishop giving a conference (the cassette, I'm afraid, no longer exists, but I did hear it). He maintained in the conference that he did not sign all of the docuмents though the only one he specifically named in the conference was the docuмent on religious liberty since that was what he was talking about at the time.

2Vermont · « **Reply #9 on:** August 30, 2015, 04:52:07 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: 2Vermont
I would like to know about this myself. Why did ABL sign those docuмents in the first place? Does he ever explain why and when he came to the realization that he made a huge mistake? How long did it take him?

Many concerns were raised for many of the docuмents by many bishops. Those concerns were answered, by and large, adequately by Vatican officials. What the bishops didn't know was that the very officials who were answering their questions were also the ones who intended to use the docuмents' vagueness to remake the Church. (This is also, by the way, another item of evidence that there was no valid pope as this could not have happened, in my opinion, if the Holy Ghost had been protecting Peter from the evil one.)

In any event, although the archbishop's signature is reported to have been attached on all 16 docuмents, the archbishop denied having signed at least two of them. I have read that the bishops present had to sign attendance rosters each day they were present for a general session and that Archbishop Lefebvre did indeed sign a docuмent he believed was simply an attendance roster that was later attached (rightly or wrongly) to two of those docuмents.

I heard part of this explanation in at least one cassette tape recording of the archbishop giving a conference (the cassette, I'm afraid, no longer exists, but I did hear it). He maintained in the conference that he did not sign all of the docuмents though the only one he specifically named in the conference was the docuмent on religious liberty since that was what he was talking about at the time.

I since found this online

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Interview_With_Archbishop_Lefebvre.htm

which seems to corroborate what you are stating. IT appears he did not sign Dignitatis Humanae and Guadium Et Specs. I am surprised that he did sign Lumen Gentium.

JPaul · « **Reply #10 on:** August 30, 2015, 05:34:45 PM »

2Vermont,

Quote

IT appears he did not sign Dignitatis Humanae and Guadium Et Specs. I am surprised that he did sign Lumen Gentium.

There is apparently some evidence, which is not SSPX sourced, to dispute the number of docuмents signed, but even if he did not sign those two, he did sign the others, and some of the others were the worst, Lumen Gentium and Sacrosanctum Concilium being grave offenders.
The basis for the docuмent on Ecuмenism was the heterodoxy of Lumen Gentium. It sits front and center in the New Religion.

A plain reading of the docuмents shows them to be such, that nothing short of a change in wording to remove the ambiguity would have been an acceptable assurance. That should have been each Catholic Bishop's requirement for signing. Each Bishop who signed them failed in their duty to the Church and made what has happened to the Holy Church possible.

curioustrad · « **Reply #11 on:** August 30, 2015, 06:23:24 PM »

Quote from: Wessex

As always, the reality is not so black and white. There were others who stood up to "the unfaithful Church authorities". They must always be acknowledged and remembered. And the archbishop wavered to the extent that an agreement was always a strong probability during the twenty years of his 'rebellion'. He would have been able to seduce the faithful far more than the current bursar-bishop into accepting a reconciliation.

Bp. W is a good politician and like his mentor can always draw a crowd that hunger for clear concise messages. But perfect truth is an inconvenient spoiler that stalks the minds of the more inquisitive; the last refuge for solid traditionalists that see so many purveyors of truth come and go. The Society's demise started as soon as it was conceived because it was not a strictly breakaway movement. We have witnessed another example of mankind's liberal trend slowly overwhelming conservatism. This is a classical script; the bishop did not invent it. Scene one of this drama opens with dissidents resisting authority; the final scene ends with dissidents yielding to same authority leaving a smaller remnant re-enacting their own drama. Plus ca change.

Why Wessex you amaze me - I almost find myself in complete agreement with you except that perhaps you were hinting at it and did not fully say so or perhaps you really are unaware of the technique (but judging by the careful phrasing) I think you do know.

It's no secret that from the beginning the SSPX looked like a Trojan Horse in the Traditional Camp. Several old time SSPX priests told me that getting the Archbishop to "muscle up" to Rome was like pulling teeth. They suggested the same scenario as Wessex but with a twist:

Thesis: New Mass and Vatican II,
Antithesis: resistance - but the Antithesis - SSPX - (Rome controlled) which effectively neutralized Tradition.

Now we see the Hegelian philosophy: (So it takes several decades - these guys can wait)

Synthesis: New Mass, Old Mass, Vatican 2 (with reservations - which in the practical order means FSSP = tacit acceptance) The Fellayite solution.

So this in turn produces:

Another antithesis "resistance" - but from the beginning we see mayhem and disorder. The Pfeifferites will have nothing to do with the Williamsonites - reminds me of the SSPX and the SSPV - end result ? Neutralization of both camps.

Look at the new SSPX website for the UK district. Remember Fr. King and his celebrated "departure" ? Look at his Mass schedule at Respice Stellam and compare that with the SSPX. Fr. King offers Mass at 9.30 am on Sundays in Bingley (Yorkshire) and the SSPX does too but at 5.00 pm. He offers Mass in Liverpool at 5.00 pm and so does the SSPX at the same time but only 2 Sundays a month - so where do you think a self-respecting Trad would go to Mass - every week ? In both cases to Fr. king. Add to this the fact that the SSPX has closed its priory in the north of England which effectively leaves the territory open to Fr. King.

From this anecdotal evidence I would say the "Resistance" is a sham and those who believed in it were well and truly hood-winked ! The only thing that is being "resisted" by the "Resistance" is the other parts of the "Resistance". I should think that's exactly where Rome and + Fellay would want them to be - divide et impera ! Now they have drawn the "resisters" out into the open it takes very little to isolate them.

Add to this mix the fact that + Williamson has said more than once that if Francesco called he would come running (sentiments echoed by + Faure) whose side are these people on - which camp are they really in ?

I'm only asking questions - I'm not attacking anybody but a few facts and figures have me wondering about the "State of Denmark". It certainly leaves me wondering.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #12 on:** August 30, 2015, 06:45:58 PM »

Quote

From this anecdotal evidence I would say the "Resistance" is a sham and those who believed in it were well and truly hood-winked ! The only thing that is being "resisted" by the "Resistance" is the other parts of the "Resistance". I should think that's exactly where Rome and + Fellay would want them to be - divide et impera ! Now they have drawn the "resisters" out into the open it takes very little to isolate them.

Ouch! That hurts. But you're right. The so-called "resistance" is basically a sham. The resisters resist other parts of the "Resistance." That's my take exactly. The "Resistance" came into being without a clear or adequate definition of what it really was, or presently is. But that doesn't take away from the fact the conciliar church is toxic to our faith, being essentially heretical and apostate....does it? The sham of "resistance" does not give more legitimacy to the Fellay-led sspx... does it?

curioustrad · « **Reply #13 on:** August 30, 2015, 07:30:16 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Quote
From this anecdotal evidence I would say the "Resistance" is a sham and those who believed in it were well and truly hood-winked ! The only thing that is being "resisted" by the "Resistance" is the other parts of the "Resistance". I should think that's exactly where Rome and + Fellay would want them to be - divide et impera ! Now they have drawn the "resisters" out into the open it takes very little to isolate them.

Ouch! That hurts. But you're right. The so-called "resistance" is basically a sham. The resisters resist other parts of the "Resistance." That's my take exactly. The "Resistance" came into being without a clear or adequate definition of what it really was, or presently is. But that doesn't take away from the fact the conciliar church is toxic to our faith, being essentially heretical and apostate....does it? The sham of "resistance" does not give more legitimacy to the Fellay-led sspx... does it?

I might quibble with some of the characterization but essentially we are in agreement. Which begs the question why does + Williamson play the devil's advocate with Francesco ?

hollingsworth · « **Reply #14 on:** August 30, 2015, 08:44:23 PM »

curioustrad:

Quote

Which begs the question why does + Williamson play the devil's advocate with Francesco ?

You must think that I will know exactly what you're asking. Maybe I should. But, frankly, I'm not certain what you mean by "devil's advocate" here. Are you asking, by chance, does H.E. give the benefit of the doubt to Pope Francis, or something along that line? :confused1: