Bishop Williamson,
and that structure is very much part of Tradition – “Peter, feed my sheep” (Jn XXI, 17). Therefore however deep is the Conciliar corruption in Rome, Catholics must still be looking to Rome.
I don't get it?
Is his excellency talking about "Rome" the historical sacred physical entity and geographic location or Francis and his ʝʊdɛօ-masonic riddled holy See ?
If it's the latter, I'm not buying it.
I hear this "Rome" comment all the time from the neo-trad crowd and in their next breath, they label you as a sede or schismatic.
It's too much like Bp. Fellay's "primacy of Francis" spin.
What else could he say... as he sells tradition down the river?
"Is his excellency talking about "Rome" the historical sacred physical entity and geographic location, or Francis and his ʝʊdɛօ-masonic riddled holy See?"It seems to me it's both. That is, +W is using two different-but-not-unrelated connotations even in the SAME sentence! I would expect him to be expecting a lot of readers won't pick up on that literary device he's throwing into the mix here.
First, when +W says "the Conciliar corruption in Rome," he's talking about Conciliar Rome which is indistinguishable from the corruption in the wake of the unclean spirit of Vat.II.
Second, when +W says, "Catholics must still be looking to Rome," he's talking about the Papal See, or the office of the Supreme Shepherd, which does not actually HAVE to be in physical Rome, Italy. Remember it was in France for a long time hundreds of years ago.