Author Topic: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - June 22nd  (Read 1834 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kelley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 201
  • Reputation: +653/-0
  • Gender: Male
Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - June 22nd
« on: June 22, 2013, 10:14:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Number CCCX (310)   22 June 2013

    HORRIBLE FALL II

    “Horror” may seem too strong a word for the change of direction within the Society of St Pius X that at last became clear one year ago. However, if Hell is horrible; if one cannot avoid it without the faith; if the Faith came into grave danger in a Church disabled by Vatican II, but a fortress of the true Faith was miraculously established within that disabled Church; and finally if that fortress is now also being disabled, then “horror” may not be too strong a word.

    The SSPX has not yet fallen completely, but it has fallen a long way and it may fall all the way. The leadership that has skilfully promoted that fall over the last 15 years is still in power. It followed Archbishop Lefebvre while he lived, but it never understood, or it chose to cease understanding, why he founded the Society in the first place, namely to resist the downfall of Conciliar churchmen seeking to bring the Church into line with the glamorous but corrupt modern world. Once he was no longer there, these leaders were all too soon re-possessed by the glamour.

    Right now they are dragging down with them a number of older SSPX priests, and they are deforming the younger ones. As for the older priests, just like after Vatican II, those shaped under the Archbishop can be in torment from the Newsociety’s bending them out of shape, unless and until they make the decision to go with the flow, but thereupon their conscience has to be anaesthetized. As for the younger priests, just like after Vatican II, having been normally mis-shaped in the new direction, only by themselves can they find the old direction, because they are not being taught what the Archbishop was really about. In effect, the SSPX seminaries are slowly being turned into newseminaries. Care must be taken in recommending them for vocations.

    And towards the top of the SSPX ? Here is the recent thinking of one who is thoroughly familiar with the doctrinal stand of the Archbishop. For a long time he was its defender, but since the Doctrinal Discussions of 2009 to 2011 proved that Rome was persevering in its doctrinal error, now he too, in 2013, approves of the Society’s collapse of principle at the Chapter of 2012 when it renounced a doctrinal agreement and set conditions for a merely practical agreement. Yet he is glad that in practice the collapse bore no fruit ! Surely this was only because the Romans did not yet think the collapse was complete enough, yet he looks forward to the SSPX leaders renewing contacts with the new Pope, as though, having half collapsed, they do not risk collapsing completely when they crawl back to Rome in pursuit of canonical recognition for the SSPX.

    What has happened to his mind ? Just like many good priests under the tyrannical Paul VI after Vatican II, he has loosened it from divine doctrine and is making it go with the human flow. His conscience cannot be easy, but probably his will is getting set upon preferring the apparent good of the SSPX to the real good of the Faith, which is incompatible with submission to its powerful enemies. By pronouncing his solidarity with the Society leaders who want such a submission, he may not lose the faith himself, but by his new softness towards the Roman apostates he risks at the least making it somewhat easier for a number of other souls to begin losing the true faith.

    As for the SSPX leaders, they are mired in duplicity because they still have to deceive themselves and others that they are faithful to the old religion of God and of Archbishop Lefebvre, when in reality they are wanting to belong to the mainstream Church dedicated to the new religion of man. The loss of souls and the duplicity are a double horror.

    Kyrie eleison.

    Offline Kelley

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 201
    • Reputation: +653/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - June 22nd
    « Reply #1 on: June 22, 2013, 10:18:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Please continue to support His Excellency, Bishop Williamson by sending your donation here.


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18173
    • Reputation: +8255/-638
    • Gender: Male
    Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - June 22nd
    « Reply #2 on: June 23, 2013, 12:44:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .


    "Here is the recent thinking of one who is thoroughly familiar with the
    doctrinal stand of the Archbishop."

    To whom does His Excellency refer in these two paragraphs?  Do you suppose
    he's talking about a specific man in particular?  And if so, then whom?


    Quote

    And towards the top of the SSPX ? Here is the recent thinking of one who is thoroughly familiar with the doctrinal stand of the Archbishop. For a long time he was its defender, but since the Doctrinal Discussions of 2009 to 2011 proved that Rome was persevering in its doctrinal error, now he too, in 2013, approves of the Society’s collapse of principle at the Chapter of 2012 when it renounced a doctrinal agreement and set conditions for a merely practical agreement. Yet he is glad that in practice the collapse bore no fruit ! Surely this was only because the Romans did not yet think the collapse was complete enough, yet he looks forward to the SSPX leaders renewing contacts with the new Pope, as though, having half collapsed, they do not risk collapsing completely when they crawl back to Rome in pursuit of canonical recognition for the SSPX.

    What has happened to his mind ? Just like many good priests under the tyrannical Paul VI after Vatican II, he has loosened it from divine doctrine and is making it go with the human flow. His conscience cannot be easy, but probably his will is getting set upon preferring the apparent good of the SSPX to the real good of the Faith, which is incompatible with submission to its powerful enemies. By pronouncing his solidarity with the Society leaders who want such a submission, he may not lose the faith himself, but by his new softness towards the Roman apostates he risks at the least making it somewhat easier for a number of other souls to begin losing the true faith.

    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18173
    • Reputation: +8255/-638
    • Gender: Male
    Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - June 22nd
    « Reply #3 on: June 23, 2013, 01:38:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .


    The Resistance Sermons archive has this EC here.



    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Elsa Zardini

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 317
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - June 22nd
    « Reply #4 on: June 23, 2013, 11:43:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • + Tissier -my answer.


    Offline Charlotte NC Bill

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 421
    • Reputation: +495/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - June 22nd
    « Reply #5 on: June 23, 2013, 12:30:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Some young man fm our parish is in the seminary.....he's a strongly brain-washed Fellayite last I checked..( i.e.; last June he told his mother "oh Mom, don't even listen to Fr. Pfeiffer's sermon.." ) ..His immediate family came over several yrs ago having been "conservatives " in the NO...the father obviously thinks "sede-vacantism" ( whether real or imagined ) is the biggest problem ever...I really can't show any pride or enthusiasm for the seminarians any longer....Bp Williamson and the priests of the Resistance are right..they've won the argument but the wrong people hold the levers of power in the SSPX..The Resistance would have to prevail within the SSPX in order for me to regain my zeal for the SSPX..

    Offline Coastal GA Trad

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 40
    • Reputation: +36/-0
      • h
    Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - June 22nd
    « Reply #6 on: June 23, 2013, 03:18:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  :reporter:
    Quote
    Some young man fm our parish is in the seminary.....he's a strongly brain-washed Fellayite last I checked..( i.e.; last June he told his mother "oh Mom, don't even listen to Fr. Pfeiffer's sermon.." ) ..His immediate family came over several yrs ago having been "conservatives " in the NO...the father obviously thinks "sede-vacantism" ( whether real or imagined ) is the biggest problem ever...I really can't show any pride or enthusiasm for the seminarians any longer....Bp Williamson and the priests of the Resistance are right..they've won the argument but the wrong people hold the levers of power in the SSPX..The Resistance would have to prevail within the SSPX in order for me to regain my zeal for the SSPX..
    Posted Today, 6:30 pm
    Quote

    Elsa Zardini
    + Tissier -my answer.
    Posted Today, 5:43 pm


    I think it is His Lordship Bishop Tissier as well.

    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5723
    • Reputation: +3119/-146
    • Gender: Male
    • Love God and Play, Do Good Work and Pray
      • Julian Moore
    Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - June 22nd
    « Reply #7 on: June 23, 2013, 03:25:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Charlotte NC Bill
    the father obviously thinks "sede-vacantism" ( whether real or imagined ) is the biggest problem ever...


    How can it be such a problem when there are so few sedevacantists? I would hope someone would think conciliarism is the problem.
    I Love Watching Butterflies . . ..


    Offline stgobnait

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1346
    • Reputation: +941/-56
    • Gender: Female
    Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - June 22nd
    « Reply #8 on: June 23, 2013, 03:25:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes .... Bishop Tissier, could be described as the 'fat controller'..... how sad....

    Offline TheRecusant

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 160
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - June 22nd
    « Reply #9 on: June 23, 2013, 03:32:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I also think he is referring to Bishop Tissier de Mallerais.

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - June 22nd
    « Reply #10 on: June 23, 2013, 05:41:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I presumed he was referring to Bishop de Galaretta


    Offline Frances

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2660
    • Reputation: +2239/-21
    • Gender: Female
    Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - June 22nd
    « Reply #11 on: June 24, 2013, 11:08:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Apparently, sedevacantists are to blame for everything.  Not one of the Resistance priests is a sedevacantist.  Does this lack of logic strike anyone else as odd?  
    "Their minds have turned to mush."  +Bp. Williamson
     St. Francis Xavier threw a Crucifix into the sea, at once calming the waves.  Upon reaching the shore, the Crucifix was returned to him by a crab with a curious cross pattern on its shell.  

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18173
    • Reputation: +8255/-638
    • Gender: Male
    Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - June 22nd
    « Reply #12 on: June 24, 2013, 11:57:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .


    Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta was in charge of the negotiations
    from 2009 to 2011.  Therefore, when +W writes, "...For a long
    time he was its defender, but since the Doctrinal Discussions
    of 2009 to 2011 proved that Rome was persevering in its
    doctrinal error," it would seem that puts +dG in the thick of it.

    "...now he too, in 2013, approves of the Society’s collapse of
    principle at the Chapter of 2012 when it renounced a doctrinal
    agreement and set conditions for a merely practical agreement."
    I have to admit, I have not seen any openly approving
    statements from +dG on this Chapter.  What we do have is the
    fact that he signed the GC papers. Maybe that's this "approval?"

    "Yet he is glad that in practice the collapse bore no fruit !"  
    -Now, at this point, it seems more closely related to +TdM than
    to +AdG. +TdM even went on record saying that he believed
    that the refusal of Newrome to accept the AFD was a sign of
    intercession of Our Lady, a miracle of intervention.  Did +AdG
    have anything to say about it?  

    I don't think I'm qualified to say one way or the other, but it
    does seem he must be talking about one or the other of these
    two bishops, and obviously not +F. or the district superiors or
    the other officers in Menzingen, for example.  

    Be that as it may, could it be he's using a kind of abstraction
    like a symbolic man that has aspects of various priests and/or
    bishops in the Society's highest offices?  If that were the
    case, the last paragraph should help answer this:

    "As for the SSPX leaders, they are mired in duplicity
    because they still have to deceive themselves and others that
    they are faithful to the old religion of God and of Archbishop
    Lefebvre..." -how are "the SSPX leaders" any different from
    the analogy-man "...towards the top of the SSPX?"


    After all this, I have to wonder whether either of the two
    bishops have so much as read this EC.  (Hint: +AdG can
    read it in Spanish, and +TdM can read it in French, because
    those are supported languages in the available versions!)




    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16