Author Topic: Eleison Comments - Invitation Withdrawn (no. 612) (Read 1127 times)

Matthew · « **on:** April 06, 2019, 12:30:13 PM »

Number DCXII (612)

April 6, 2019

Invitation Withdrawn
O Big Bad Wolf, you do have lovely teeth!
O no! O no! I’m scared of what’s beneath!
Bishop Vitus Huonder, still bishop of the large diocese of Chur in Eastern Switzerland which includes Zurich, is not after all going to take up residence in the boys’ school of the Society of St Pius X in Wangs when he retires later this month. In January his diocesan spokesman had announced that the bishop was moving into the school on behalf of Rome’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in order to maintain contact between Rome and the Society, but last month the bishop himself announced that he would not be retiring to the Society school in Wangs after all. And so the loving encounter between Rome’s bishop and the Society’s school was called off. Was it Rome, or the Society, or both, that had cold feet at the last moment? We do not know. It does not matter. What matters is to see clearly the never ending conflict between God’s reality and men’s false dreams, and to prefer God’s reality.
In this case the reality of God is that His Catholic Church and the churchmen’s Conciliar revolution can never blend together, while the dream of the churchmen is that they can. But God puts God before men, while the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) puts men before God. The two positions are as irreconcilable as Jesus Christ and Satan. From eternity Our Lord, Goodness itself, can only reject evil. Ever since Satan fell just after his creation, he has been fixed in evil and can only hate God, and His divine Son, and His Son’s true Church. And men are torn between the two from conception until death, because they receive from God their basic human nature and possibly sanctifying grace which both incline them to God, while from the Fall of Adam their nature is wounded with original sin which inclines them to Satan and to evil. Nor can any man alive avoid this conflict. Either he is advancing in good and becoming less evil, or he is retreating from goodness by sinking into evil.
Therefore if Bishop Huonder, a Conciliar bishop, had moved into the Traditional Catholic school in Wangs, one of two things must have happened. Either he succeeded in making the school less Traditional, or the school succeeded in making him more Catholic. And so if his residence in Wangs has been called off, either Rome feared his becoming more Catholic, which is not likely because Bishop Huonder is a typical crusader for the Newchurch of Rome, or the Newsociety changed its mind, and instead of installing the Conciliar wolf in its sheepfold in Wangs, decided to exclude him, after its prior decision to install him. Why the change of mind?
There are two possible explanations. Either by virtue the Newsociety for at least a moment stopped dreaming of wolves being nice, or by necessity it was forced by two extra revelations of wolvishness to delay the wolf’s welcome. On the one hand details came to light of a discreet meeting held in April four years ago in Oberriet, Switzerland , between Bishop Huonder and Bishops Fellay and de Galarreta with five more priests of the SSPX, to discuss the ecuмenism of Vatican II. BpH began with a position which can be summed up as “Agreement first, doctrine second,” which is typical for a Conciliarist. The SSPX bishops and priests responded by putting in front Catholic doctrine on ecuмenism, in a manner worthy of Archbishop Lefebvre. BpH concluded with the promise to take to Rome the SSPX objections to Conciliar ecuмenism. But the Romans know those objections inside out – in brief, BpH’s arguments show him to have been a faithful servant of Conciliar Rome. On the other hand details also came to light of BpH’s extensive work within the Newchurch, especially since 2011, on behalf of official friendship between the Catholic Church and the Jews. Such work is again typical of a Conciliarist either innocently or wilfully ignorant of nearly 2,000 years of consistent – and proud – Jєωιѕн hatred of the Church.
So these two revelations showed BpH to be imbued with the spirit of the Council, a potentially dangerous inmate of a house of the SSPX. The true Society would not invite him again. But the Newsociety risks merely waiting until Traditionalists are soft enough to accept such Conciliarism in their midst.
Kyrie eleison.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** April 06, 2019, 04:25:17 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on April 06, 2019, 12:30:13 PM

Number DCXII (612)
April 6, 2019

Was it Rome, or the Society, or both, that had cold feet at the last moment? We do not know. It does not matter.

I for one kindof think it does matter. If the Society turned him away, it would be interesting to know why. If he changed his mind, it would be interesting to know why. This might shed some light onto the state of affairs between Rome and the SSPX.

X · « **Reply #2 on:** April 07, 2019, 09:21:07 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 06, 2019, 04:25:17 PM

I for one kindof think it does matter. If the Society turned him away, it would be interesting to know why. If he changed his mind, it would be interesting to know why. This might shed some light onto the state of affairs between Rome and the SSPX.

Agreed.

My guess is that, following upon recent events in England, the SSPX and Rome realized they have been moving too fast, and the faithful and clergy will require a few more years of softening, lest more high profile defections threaten to awaken souls to the fact that they are being groomed for subjection to conciliar bishops (and all that that implies).

Consequently, my guess would be that Rome (who wants to capture all of Tradition, rather than provoke a revolt) summoned Bishop H to explain the situation, and there was a trilateral agreement that it would be most “prudent” to postpone these integration projects (at least such high profile and extensive ones as were proposed in the case of Bishop Huonder) for the moment.

After a few more years of sermons, conferences, and articles on romanitas, visible church = official church, etc, they will try again.

pearl777 · « **Reply #3 on:** April 07, 2019, 09:32:12 AM »

Quote from: X on April 07, 2019, 09:21:07 AM

Agreed.

My guess is that, following upon recent events in England, the SSPX and Rome realized they have been moving too fast, and the faithful and clergy will require a few more years of softening, lest more high profile defections threaten to awaken souls to the fact that they are being groomed for subjection to conciliar bishops (and all that that implies).

Consequently, my guess would be that Rome (who wants to capture all of Tradition, rather than provoke a revolt) summoned Bishop H to explain the situation, and there was a trilateral agreement that it would be most “prudent” to postpone these integration projects (at least such high profile and extensive ones as were proposed in the case of Bishop Huonder) for the moment.

After a few more years of sermons, conferences, and articles on romanitas, visible church = official church, etc, they will try again.

Spot-on. They'll take three steps forward, and one (apparent) step back.

Matthew · « **Reply #4 on:** April 07, 2019, 09:32:56 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 06, 2019, 04:25:17 PM

I for one kindof think it does matter. If the Society turned him away, it would be interesting to know why. If he changed his mind, it would be interesting to know why. This might shed some light onto the state of affairs between Rome and the SSPX.

You are nitpicking and quoting the Bishop out of context. Here is what he actually said:

"And so the loving encounter between Rome’s bishop and the Society’s school was called off. Was it Rome, or the Society, or both, that had cold feet at the last moment? We do not know. It does not matter. What matters is to see clearly the never ending conflict between God’s reality and men’s false dreams, and to prefer God’s reality."

NOTE that he didn't say, "It makes no difference", "it is completely uninteresting", "It wouldn't shed any light on anything", or "I wouldn't even be curious to know."

For more on the major difference between "Makes no difference" and "Does not matter", please see a separate thread: https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/does-not-matter-vs-makes-no-difference/

He's advocating that we focus on the big picture: that the Conciliar Church and the Catholic Faith are irreconcilable. This breakup, in the end, is just ONE MORE example of this. He is absolutely right. It had to break up one way or the other. And if this deal hadn't been called off, ONE or THE OTHER would have had to radically change -- either giving up Conciliarism, or giving up (traditional) Catholicism. Because the two are less capable of mixing together than fire and water.

Either the SSPX's flickering fire of tradition would have been extinguished by the abundance of Huonder's conciliar water, or his conciliar water would have been evaporated by the superior force of the SSPX's traditional fire. But the fire and water could not have co-existed for long. Of necessity, one would have had to extinguish the other.

I, personally, hate it when people put words in my mouth, make assumptions, or jump to conclusions. Especially since I'm a tell-it-like-it-is sort of person. When people jump to a conclusion, I'm insulted because I don't beat around the bush! If I meant to say X, I would have said X! I'm not shy about stating my mind.

Neither is Bishop Williamson. He is a master of English; I'm sure he chooses his words with as much premeditation as I do -- if not more so.

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** April 07, 2019, 09:39:59 AM »

Quote from: X on April 07, 2019, 09:21:07 AM

Agreed.

My guess is that, following upon recent events in England, the SSPX and Rome realized they have been moving too fast, and the faithful and clergy will require a few more years of softening, lest more high profile defections threaten to awaken souls to the fact that they are being groomed for subjection to conciliar bishops (and all that that implies).

Consequently, my guess would be that Rome (who wants to capture all of Tradition, rather than provoke a revolt) summoned Bishop H to explain the situation, and there was a trilateral agreement that it would be most “prudent” to postpone these integration projects (at least such high profile and extensive ones as were proposed in the case of Bishop Huonder) for the moment.

After a few more years of sermons, conferences, and articles on romanitas, visible church = official church, etc, they will try again.

Very wise analysis -- and spot-on prediction about what will happen.

But wait a minute! That was all (implicitly or explicitly) in the Eleison Comments, above. Let's give credit where credit is due :)
Nice elaboration and "putting into your own words" of +Williamson's latest EC.

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** April 07, 2019, 09:46:03 AM »

You know, it's a peculiar skill of a teacher or preacher to LEAD YOU to make certain thoughts, and formulate certain ideas in such a way that you feel like you discovered something.

A good teacher won't just spit it all out on the blackboard. Things that take no effort to arrive at are easily discarded. Easy come, easy go. Hard come, hard go.

Just like a good wife won't say, "We're doing this, and that's how it's gonna be!", openly striving with her husband for leadership. No, a wise and clever wife will try to bring around her husband to her way of thinking. She'll try to make him come up with the bright idea himself, so he'll be completely behind it.

Kind of like an old parenting trick: "Little Mary, would you like to wear this (modest) dress, or this (modest) dress?" whichever one she chooses you're OK with, because you framed the debate, as it were. But the girl is happy because she got to choose. (nevermind the flaw of this analogy: a girl shouldn't *have* any immodest clothes in her wardrobe. but I digress)

Author Topic: Eleison Comments - Invitation Withdrawn (no. 612) (Read 1127 times)

Matthew

Eleison Comments - Invitation Withdrawn (no. 612)

Ladislaus

Re: Eleison Comments - Invitation Withdrawn (no. 612)

X

Re: Eleison Comments - Invitation Withdrawn (no. 612)

pearl777

Re: Eleison Comments - Invitation Withdrawn (no. 612)

Matthew

Re: Eleison Comments - Invitation Withdrawn (no. 612)

Matthew

Re: Eleison Comments - Invitation Withdrawn (no. 612)

Matthew

Re: Eleison Comments - Invitation Withdrawn (no. 612)