Author Topic: Eleison Comments (Read 10388 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?