Author Topic: ELEISON COMMENTS Falling SSPX (Read 6799 times)

JuanDiego · « **on:** October 25, 2013, 08:49:54 PM »

Number CCCXXVIII (328) 26 October 2013
FALLING SSPX

For the glory of God and for the salvation of souls it is essential to diagnose why in today’s circuмstances an end is now threatening the 40 glorious years of the defence of the Faith by the Society of St Pius X. An article and a letter recently written may help in this respect: an article analyzing the Society’s fall, and a letter with a note of hope as to how it may rise again.

The article appeared in French on the Internet (see “Un Évêque se lève”). After reading a book on utopianism in modern education which compares it to the same unrealistic dreaming in modern politics, the article’s author found that the same pattern in six stages could be applied to the SSPX. Firstly, the pattern: 1 A refusal of human nature as a given to be worked with, and not against. 2 A dream of fabricating the child/man completely anew. 3 The exclusion of natural structures of family/society. 4 The total re-fashioning of the child to generate a perfect new society. 5 The disastrous results, despite all the initial good intentions -- 6 Ignorant and perverse children, and a society apostatising and making war on God.

Secondly, the application to the SSPX: 1 Refusal of the reality of the unprecedented crisis in the Church. 2 Dream of fabricating a reconciliation between the Conciliar Church and Tradition. 3 Exclusion of natural interaction between leaders and led. 4 Total re-fashioning of Catholic authority to impose the dream. 5 Disastrous resulting Stalinization of the SSPX, despite all pious intentions -- in education, politics or the SSPX, when the dreamer confronts unyielding reality, he is liable to use all the force he has at his disposal to crush the reality -- his dream is so much more lovely. 6 Loss of fighting spirit, liable to lead to entire loss of Faith.

The letter, reaching me by e-mail, follows the same general line of analysis, but adds a note of hope. Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay being who they are (both utopians, one might add), the letter-writer thinks that a Rome-SSPX agreement is bound to come, and resistance to it will be crushed. If the SSPX thus falls, he thinks it will have been by its under-estimating of the laity and by its under-employing of them to help establish in society the Social Reign of Christ the King. The SSPX need only pick up again with the laity to work for that Reign, and -- here is the hopeful note -- it will rally and strengthen all kinds of Catholics who have kept the Faith despite all they have suffered in recent years, coming from the Novus Ordo, from Ecclesia Dei, from Fransiscans of the Immaculate, or wherever. Thus, concludes the letter-writer, “the SSPX by the action of those remaining faithful to it will not sink into chaos, quite the opposite.”

For myself, while I agree that clericalism ( undervaluing the laity ) has been one aspect of the problem of the SSPX, I do not think that it has been the root of the problem. I think that the root has rather been today’s universal turning to man instead of God (cf. Jer. XVII, 5,7), a falling away by no means confined to the SSPX, with the consequent loss of objective truth and falsehood, objective right and wrong. However, I do agree with the letter-writer’s vision of a new alliance being forged at some time in the future, of true Catholics from all corners of the Newchurch and the Church, to carry forward the Catholic Faith (cf.Mt.XIX, 30). May the SSPX shake off its present problems to play a leading part, or, better, a humble part, in that alliance.

Kyrie eleison.

Wessex · « **Reply #1 on:** October 26, 2013, 08:23:10 AM »

There was always power-freakishness within the Society with a long list of casualties among priests and laity going back decades. It was never such a perfect response to V2 to prevent it adopting bad ways and eventually falling apart. It was a particular reaction to V2 but not a solution .... and now seeks to align itself with V2 because it has decided it has failed in its rather ambitious mission.

This notion of traditionalists and conservatives coming together one day is like revisiting GREC. The conciliar revolution in the form of Bergoglio may indeed frighten some as to the horrors to come but the vast majority that are the mainstream have after generations become the pew fodder that the management wants. Travelling through southern Italy recently, I saw the extent to which Newchurch appealed to ordinary folk there. I saw churches full of people happy to sing and swing along with their pastors in persuance of some religion that suited them. Conservatism may appear in cultural nostalgia and residual dramatic architecture but I saw litle evidence of wanting to return to the old days.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #2 on:** October 26, 2013, 08:46:43 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

There was always power-freakishness within the Society with a long list of casualties among priests and laity going back decades. It was never such a perfect response to V2 to prevent it adopting bad ways and eventually falling apart. It was a particular reaction to V2 but not a solution .... and now seeks to align itself with V2 because it has decided it has failed in its rather ambitious mission.

This notion of traditionalists and conservatives coming together one day is like revisiting GREC. The conciliar revolution in the form of Bergoglio may indeed frighten some as to the horrors to come but the vast majority that are the mainstream have after generations become the pew fodder that the management wants. Travelling through southern Italy recently, I saw the extent to which Newchurch appealed to ordinary folk there. I saw churches full of people happy to sing and swing along with their pastors in persuance of some religion that suited them. Conservatism may appear in cultural nostalgia and residual dramatic architecture but I saw litle evidence of wanting to return to the old days.

Well, after all, Wessex:

"80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861."

(Condemned proposition #80, Syllabus of Errors, 1864).

John Anthony · « **Reply #3 on:** October 27, 2013, 09:28:21 PM »

Let me offer a few thoughts on the latest EC.

"1 Refusal of the reality of the unprecedented crisis in the Church."

+Fellay contradicted that yet another time in Kansas City.

"2 Dream of fabricating a reconciliation between the Conciliar Church and Tradition."

Does H.E. mean that the Society hopes to play its part in the return of Rome to tradition? I suppose that the Society would have to plead guilty.

If H.E. means that the Society dreams of being the prime mover in the conversion, +Fellay denied that yet another time in Kansas City.

If H.E. means that the conversion will involve compromise, +Fellay contradicted that yet another time in Kansas City.

3 Exclusion of natural interaction between leaders and led.

If H.E. means expelling the disobedient, I suppose the Society would have to plead guilty.

If H.E. means that the operation of the SSPX is significantly different from pre-Vatican II religious congregations, I think that he is dead wrong. Its exercise of authority is if anything looser.

If H.E. means that the Society doesn't listen to the followers of its disobedient members and former members, I suppose that the Society would have to plead guilty.

If H.E. means that the relation between the Society and its faithful is significantly different from that of pre-Vatican II religious congregations and its faithful, I think that he is dead wrong. Those relations are if anything less structured and more transparent.

"4 Total re-fashioning of Catholic authority to impose the dream."

I haven't the faintest idea what H.E. means by this.

" 5 Disastrous resulting Stalinization of the SSPX, despite all pious intentions -- in education, politics or the SSPX, when the dreamer confronts unyielding reality, he is liable to use all the force he has at his disposal to crush the reality -- his dream is so much more lovely."

Stalinization? Such as putting Bishop Williamson up in Wimbledon, paying his legal bills, and tolerating his efforts at subversion?

"6 Loss of fighting spirit, liable to lead to entire loss of Faith."

For quite a while now, nearly the only object of +W's fighting spirit is the SSPX, and particularly its Superior General. He did criticize the Holy Father in last week's EC; but then so did everybody this side of The Wanderer. This week it's back to the SSPX.

In Kansas City, +Fellay laid out yet another time his battle plan: reliance on the commands and promises of Fatima, and carrying on the work of the Society in the spirit of ABL.

Back in 2002-03, when I was coming to tradition, I saw no more fighting spirit in +W's rector's letters and in the Angelus than I see in the Society now. Nor did I see much rock 'em sock 'em in ABL. What impressed and still impresses me is the calmness and the clarity of his analysis of the disaster that struck the Church, and the careful determination with which he set out, under God, to do what he could against it. The clerical notabilities of the Resistance other than +W do not remind me of the Archbishop at all. +W doesn't remind me of the Archbishop at all, either, but for different reasons.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #4 on:** October 27, 2013, 10:00:22 PM »

Quote from: John Anthony

Let me offer a few thoughts on the latest EC.

"1 Refusal of the reality of the unprecedented crisis in the Church."

+Fellay contradicted that yet another time in Kansas City.

"2 Dream of fabricating a reconciliation between the Conciliar Church and Tradition."

Does H.E. mean that the Society hopes to play its part in the return of Rome to tradition? I suppose that the Society would have to plead guilty.

If H.E. means that the Society dreams of being the prime mover in the conversion, +Fellay denied that yet another time in Kansas City.

If H.E. means that the conversion will involve compromise, +Fellay contradicted that yet another time in Kansas City.

3 Exclusion of natural interaction between leaders and led.

If H.E. means expelling the disobedient, I suppose the Society would have to plead guilty.

If H.E. means that the operation of the SSPX is significantly different from pre-Vatican II religious congregations, I think that he is dead wrong. Its exercise of authority is if anything looser.

If H.E. means that the Society doesn't listen to the followers of its disobedient members and former members, I suppose that the Society would have to plead guilty.

If H.E. means that the relation between the Society and its faithful is significantly different from that of pre-Vatican II religious congregations and its faithful, I think that he is dead wrong. Those relations are if anything less structured and more transparent.

"4 Total re-fashioning of Catholic authority to impose the dream."

I haven't the faintest idea what H.E. means by this.

" 5 Disastrous resulting Stalinization of the SSPX, despite all pious intentions -- in education, politics or the SSPX, when the dreamer confronts unyielding reality, he is liable to use all the force he has at his disposal to crush the reality -- his dream is so much more lovely."

Stalinization? Such as putting Bishop Williamson up in Wimbledon, paying his legal bills, and tolerating his efforts at subversion?

"6 Loss of fighting spirit, liable to lead to entire loss of Faith."

For quite a while now, nearly the only object of +W's fighting spirit is the SSPX, and particularly its Superior General. He did criticize the Holy Father in last week's EC; but then so did everybody this side of The Wanderer. This week it's back to the SSPX.

In Kansas City, +Fellay laid out yet another time his battle plan: reliance on the commands and promises of Fatima, and carrying on the work of the Society in the spirit of ABL.

Back in 2002-03, when I was coming to tradition, I saw no more fighting spirit in +W's rector's letters and in the Angelus than I see in the Society now. Nor did I see much rock 'em sock 'em in ABL. What impressed and still impresses me is the calmness and the clarity of his analysis of the disaster that struck the Church, and the careful determination with which he set out, under God, to do what he could against it. The clerical notabilities of the Resistance other than +W do not remind me of the Archbishop at all. +W doesn't remind me of the Archbishop at all, either, but for different reasons.

Hello John-

Allow me to make a couple reflections upon your reflections:

1) You seem to place great weight on whatever Bishop Fellay says most recently. You seem to ignore that, at various times, Bishop Fellay has contradicted what he says. I am certainly willing to give His Excellency the benefit of the doubt, and have no intention of casting doubts upon his honesty, but you seem unable to understand that the contradictions have resulted in an understandable trust issue with many people. Bishop de Galarreta's "Reflections" explain why.

2) Your attempt to portray the 3.5 yr sidelining of Bishop Williamson as a charitable exercise from Menzingen is revolting. Paying his legal bills? You seem to forget that lawyer trashed his client in open court.

3) Tolerating his efforts at subversion? The letter of Bishop Fellay to the Three Bishops acknowledges that the deal Bishop Fellay was pursuing with Rome was contrary to the common good of the SSPX, yet he was heading down that path because he feared new sanctions from Rome. How then was Bishop Williamson's resistance (or anyone else's, for that matter) subversion, when in reality it was erected at great sacrifice to protect the common good of the SSPX against the imprudence of its Superior General (something he now thankfully appears to recognize)?

4) If Bishop Fellay has finally trashed the idea of a merely practical accord (and let him annul the 6 conditions to prove it), then Deo Gratias.

5) As for your comments on not noticing any difference in fighting spirit between the SSPX of 2003 and 2013, well, apparently you are in denial about the branding campaign (the primary tenet of which is to cease fire on Vatican II, according to Fr Wegner).

As always, John, I am just trying to keep both sides honest.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #5 on:** October 28, 2013, 01:15:08 AM »

.

Sorry I didn't post this earlier, as it was mostly done a few hours after
this EC first came out, but I had to do some other things first...

.

It is important to recognize the CONTEXT of conferred
Scripture, otherwise you are going to miss what the author
had in mind, that is, if he was thinking of what the quoted
or conferred Scripture is saying.

Here, there can be no doubt to what +W is referring, when
he notes Jer. xvii. 5.7 and Matt. xix. 30.

The context is our defection from the One True Faith by way
of falling into a false religion of man, and away from the true
religion of God. This "new alliance" to which +W alludes is
not to be mistaken as some appeal to the worldliness of
modern man. +W is talking about a remnant that remains
faithful to the true Church, and to the Catholic Faith of our
Fathers, even while the majority may be on board with what
has become commonplace in Newchurch.

Quote

For myself, while I agree that clericalism ( undervaluing the laity ) has been one aspect of the problem of the SSPX, I do not think that it has been the root of the problem. I think that the root has rather been today’s universal turning to man instead of God (cf. Jer. XVII, 5,7), a falling away by no means confined to the SSPX, with the consequent loss of objective truth and falsehood, objective right and wrong. However, I do agree with the letter-writer’s vision of a new alliance being forged at some time in the future, of true Catholics from all corners of the Newchurch and the Church, to carry forward the Catholic Faith (cf. Mt. XIX, 30). May the SSPX shake off its present problems to play a leading part, or, better, a humble part, in that alliance.

The bishop is referring to humility as a virtue that is
superior to being a leader. When Jesus told the rich
young man to sell what he had and follow Him, He did
not tell him that he would become a "leader" in the
Church. He said to FOLLOW Him.

In context:

"I do agree with the letter-writer’s vision of a new alliance being forged at some time in the future, of true Catholics from all corners of the Newchurch and the Church, to carry forward the Catholic Faith" - "And many that are first, shall be last: and the last shall be first" (Matt. xix. 30).

The context is the rich young man who asking Jesus
what else is wanting in himself, beyond his having
kept the commandments of God from his youth, that
he may be saved. And Jesus answering him said,

"If thou will be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and
give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in
heaven, and come: follow me."

The context is the rich young man, when hearing
Our Lord say this to him "went away sad: for he
had great possessions" (Matt. xix. 16-22).

The context is how the Apostles reacted to this
word, for it caused them to wonder: "Who then can
be saved?" For Our Lord had said to them, "...a rich
man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to
pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man
to enter into the kingdom of heaven" (vs. 23-25).

The context is Our Lord's answer to this question,
which note: it is the same question that the rich
young man had just asked of Him, and His answer
had evoked in the rich man his walking away sad,
for he did not want to give up his material wealth
as Our Lord had said to him -- as if he did not want
to relinquish his great title to (SSPX!) properties
and money and the going concern of the regular
contributions of the Faithful.

I am reminded that Fr. Hector Bolduc did just that.
After receiving much wealth from the Benzinger
fortune he used it to purchase various properties
which he then turned into centers for the
Canonized Traditional Latin Mass in the western
United States, all of which he turned over to "the
poor" SSPX, only to then be expelled, much as the
author above, Bishop Williamson was expelled,
and leaving behind their great possessions, they
followed Jesus Christ.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #6 on:** October 28, 2013, 02:46:08 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

Sorry I didn't post this earlier, as it was mostly done a few hours after
this EC first came out, but I had to do some other things first...

.

It is important to recognize the CONTEXT of conferred
Scripture, otherwise you are going to miss what the author
had in mind, that is, if he was thinking of what the quoted
or conferred Scripture is saying.

Here, there can be no doubt to what +W is referring, when
he notes Jer. xvii. 5.7 and Matt. xix. 30.

The context is our defection from the One True Faith by way
of falling into a false religion of man, and away from the true
religion of God. This "new alliance" to which +W alludes is
not to be mistaken as some appeal to the worldliness of
modern man. +W is talking about a remnant that remains
faithful to the true Church, and to the Catholic Faith of our
Fathers, even while the majority may be on board with what
has become commonplace in Newchurch.

Quote

For myself, while I agree that clericalism ( undervaluing the laity ) has been one aspect of the problem of the SSPX, I do not think that it has been the root of the problem. I think that the root has rather been today’s universal turning to man instead of God (cf. Jer. XVII, 5,7), a falling away by no means confined to the SSPX, with the consequent loss of objective truth and falsehood, objective right and wrong. However, I do agree with the letter-writer’s vision of a new alliance being forged at some time in the future, of true Catholics from all corners of the Newchurch and the Church, to carry forward the Catholic Faith (cf. Mt. XIX, 30). May the SSPX shake off its present problems to play a leading part, or, better, a humble part, in that alliance.

The bishop is referring to humility as a virtue that is
superior to being a leader. When Jesus told the rich
young man to sell what he had and follow Him, He did
not tell him that he would become a "leader" in the
Church. He said to FOLLOW Him.

In context:

"I do agree with the letter-writer’s vision of a new alliance being forged at some time in the future, of true Catholics from all corners of the Newchurch and the Church, to carry forward the Catholic Faith" - "And many that are first, shall be last: and the last shall be first" (Matt. xix. 30).

The context is the rich young man who asking Jesus
what else is wanting in himself, beyond his having
kept the commandments of God from his youth, that
he may be saved. And Jesus answering him said,

"If thou will be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and
give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in
heaven, and come: follow me."

The context is the rich young man, when hearing
Our Lord say this to him "went away sad: for he
had great possessions" (Matt. xix. 16-22).

The context is how the Apostles reacted to this
word, for it caused them to wonder: "Who then can
be saved?" For Our Lord had said to them, "...a rich
man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to
pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man
to enter into the kingdom of heaven" (vs. 23-25).

The context is Our Lord's answer to this question,
which note: it is the same question that the rich
young man had just asked of Him, and His answer
had evoked in the rich man his walking away sad,
for he did not want to give up his material wealth
as Our Lord had said to him -- as if he did not want
to relinquish his great title to (SSPX!) properties
and money and the going concern of the regular
contributions of the Faithful.

I am reminded that Fr. Hector Bolduc did just that.
After receiving much wealth from the Benzinger
fortune he used it to purchase various properties
which he then turned into centers for the
Canonized Traditional Latin Mass in the western
United States, all of which he turned over to "the
poor" SSPX, only to then be expelled, much as the
author above, Bishop Williamson was expelled,
and leaving behind their great possessions, they
followed Jesus Christ.

More gibberish from Neil.

sigh.......

John Anthony · « **Reply #7 on:** October 28, 2013, 12:23:08 PM »

Dear Sean,

Some comments on your first comment (in quotes):

"1) You seem to place great weight on whatever Bishop Fellay says most recently. You seem to ignore that, at various times, Bishop Fellay has contradicted what he says."

I've followed +Fellay's writings, conferences and sermons very carefully for nearly ten years. If he has contradicted himself in any way that matters, I don't know what it is.

By the time I came to tradition, the Society and Rome were once more talking.

That process ultimately led to the official conversations in 2009-10.

Some time between late 2011 and early 2012, he became convinced of the genuineness of the Pope's desire for a unilateral regularization of the SSPX -- regularization in the sense of not requiring any doctrinal compromise. He therefore changed his mind about the priority of a doctrinal solution. The reason was in my view fairly clear: the insistence on a doctrinal settlement was based on the assumption that this was the only way in which it could achieve regularization; modernist Rome would not grant regularization as long as it was modernist. But now the Pope was saying that this was not the case.

So +Fellay pursued the Pope's proposal. But for whatever reason, the Pope finally demanded doctrinal compromise if not doctrinal capitulation, and that was the end of that.

I am not quite clear what +Fellay means in saying that the Society has been protected from an agreement with Rome. My best guess is that even after the Pope's about-face, he did not appreciate the strength of the hieararchical resistance to any truck with tradition represented by the election of Pope Francis. Be that as it may, he sees something in recent events that makes him change his view of the events of 2012-13. Of course, this change of view is academic, since there's no practical chance that Pope Francis or the forces around him will budge from the accept Vatican II/accept the Novus Ordo line, assuming that they even bother to deal with the Society.

+Fellay's changes are not contradictions. They are changes in reaction to perceived changes in Rome. You can evaluate his judgments as you see fit, but they are not contradictory.

I am not sure what +de Galarreta's "Reflections" are, although I probably know them without the name. Can you identify them further?

My chief problem with +deG's and +Tissier's reactions in the first half of 2012 is that they seem to me at odds with the spirit of ABL. He was prepared to take risks in his dealings with Rome, as witnessed by the events of 1997-98. He signed a protocol written by Rome with few or no changes. It seems to me that +Fellay's behavior in 2011-12, up to and including the April 15 declaration, which was a more traditional version of the 1998 protocol, is clearly in the spirit of the Archbishop, as is the response to the letter of the three bishops. It is that response that shows a true Catholic fighting spirit. All those who more or less openly resisted +Fellay in those days were scared. +Fellay was not scared.

2) Your attempt to portray the 3.5 yr sidelining of Bishop Williamson as a charitable exercise from Menzingen is revolting. Paying his legal bills? You seem to forget that lawyer trashed his client in open court.

3) Tolerating his efforts at subversion? The letter of Bishop Fellay to the Three Bishops acknowledges that the deal Bishop Fellay was pursuing with Rome was contrary to the common good of the SSPX, yet he was heading down that path because he feared new sanctions from Rome. How then was Bishop Williamson's resistance (or anyone else's, for that matter) subversion, when in reality it was erected at great sacrifice to protect the common good of the SSPX against the imprudence of its Superior General (something he now thankfully appears to recognize)?

4) If Bishop Fellay has finally trashed the idea of a merely practical accord (and let him annul the 6 conditions to prove it), then Deo Gratias.

5) As for your comments on not noticing any difference in fighting spirit between the SSPX of 2003 and 2013, well, apparently you are in denial about the branding campaign (the primary tenet of which is to cease fire on Vatican II, according to Fr Wegner).

As always, John, I am just trying to keep both sides honest.

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #8 on:** October 28, 2013, 12:31:03 PM »

Quote from: John Anthony

I've followed +Fellay's writings, conferences and sermons very carefully for nearly ten years. If he has contradicted himself in any way that matters, I don't know what it is.

stgobnait · « **Reply #9 on:** October 28, 2013, 12:44:56 PM »

this...

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #10 on:** October 28, 2013, 02:48:03 PM »

Quote from: ultrarigorist

Quote from: John Anthony

I've followed +Fellay's writings, conferences and sermons very carefully for nearly ten years. If he has contradicted himself in any way that matters, I don't know what it is.

That is my reaction too.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #11 on:** October 31, 2013, 05:12:40 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

More gibberish from Neil.

sigh.......

Sean, if you don't understand me, perhaps you would think of a
substantive question to ask. But then, you, who think you are the
leader of the Resistance (poor fellow!) would not want to see what
Bishop Williamson is saying here, because it exposes the pride
of your agenda.

Pride, Sean, pride.

And, lest I forget:

"...in today’s circuмstances an end is now threatening the 40
glorious years of the defence of the Faith by the Society of St Pius X."

But for Sean, all it takes is a little re-grouping the politics of
Menzingen so they can all agree on a scheme to return to the old
SSPX while saving face. Why? Because of pride, and Sean, who
is a very proud person, projects his passion for self-righteousness
onto Menzingen and presumes they have a desire to return to
the old SSPX. Which is, of course, his subjective fantasy and
nothing more.

.

InDominoSperavi · « **Reply #12 on:** November 04, 2013, 05:14:54 AM »

I think this Eleison Comment is ambiguous and dangerous. Here is an article to explain the problem. I wish Bp Williamson to write an other Eleison Comment to clarify his thought :
http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.fr/2013/11/le-commentaire-eleison-n-n328-une.html

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #13 on:** November 04, 2013, 06:50:32 AM »

Quote from: InDominoSperavi

I think this Eleison Comment is ambiguous and dangerous. Here is an article to explain the problem. I wish Bp Williamson to write an other Eleison Comment to clarify his thought :
http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.fr/2013/11/le-commentaire-eleison-n-n328-une.html

Will you please give us the substance of the argument?

John Grace · « **Reply #14 on:** November 04, 2013, 07:12:36 AM »

Quote from: InDominoSperavi

I think this Eleison Comment is ambiguous and dangerous. Here is an article to explain the problem. I wish Bp Williamson to write an other Eleison Comment to clarify his thought :
http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.fr/2013/11/le-commentaire-eleison-n-n328-une.html

I wasn't so surprised with this mention. There is already an "alliance" between Trads and Neo Catholics in Ireland.

For example in pro-life activism differences are put aside as SSPX youth steward events alongside the more charismatic JPII type youth.

For many in Ireland there will be "great joy" when the SSPX "come home".