Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Adolphus on November 23, 2014, 12:12:42 PM
-
FORTIETH ANNIVERSARY
November 22, 2014
Number CCCLXXXIV (384)
A great Archbishop, forty years ago,
Measured the Council’s doctrine, and said “No.”
Yesterday was the 40 th anniversary of Archbishop Lefebvre’s historic Declaration on November 21, 1974, of the reasons for which he and the priests and laity following him were taking their stand against the total change of the Catholic Church and religion being wrought in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. The Declaration is a fresh today as it was on the day when it was written, because the true Catholic religion of God is unchangingly true, while the Conciliar religion of man is resolutely false and it is occupying Rome more than ever.
The Declaration consists of ten brief paragraphs, little more than 50 lines in all: 1/ We cleave to Catholic Rome, eternal Rome. 2/ We refuse Conciliar Rome, neo-Protestant and neo-modernist. 3/ The Conciliar reform is destroying the Catholic Church and diminishing our Catholic Faith, 4/ as not even an angel from Heaven has the right to do (Galatians I, 8). 5/ We choose Tradition, we refuse innovations. 6/ Everything in the Church is being renewed in a way opposite to age-old Catholic doctrine. 7/ The Conciliar reform, coming from heresy and resulting in heresy, is unacceptable to Catholics, so 8/ we shall continue to form Traditional priests. 9/ And we shall cleave to the Catholic teaching and practice of all time, 10/ being convinced that by so doing we will remain truly faithful Catholics.
Notice firstly the clear and sharp distinction (1 and 2) between Catholic Rome and Conciliar Rome. Now it is true to say that Conciliar Rome is occupying the structures of Catholic Rome, but to say that the Conciliar Church is therefore none other than the Catholic Church is as foolish as to say that a cuckoo is a nightingale because it occupies a nightingale’s nest. (And to say that the Archbishop wrote of Conciliar and Catholic “Rome” and not of the Conciliar and Catholic “Church” is to quibble with words.)
But how does the Archbishop distinguish between Conciliar cuckoo and Catholic nightingale? By doctrine! Conciliarism is neo- Protestant and neo- modernist (2). Our faith is being diminished (3), in opposition to Catholic doctrine (6). Conciliarism is heresy (7). We cleave to Catholic teaching (9). And the brief summary above does not give all of the Archbishop’s references to doctrine. Catholic doctrine was the Northern star of his mind and action. It is because modern man wants freedom for his mind and action that he in effect wants his mind to be reduced to mush, whereupon doctrine has no more than a merely decorous function. It has no more bite upon man’s action, except the one disastrous doctrine that doctrine is unimportant. And that disastrous doctrine has a total bite. Here is why the Archbishop is being reduced within the Society of St Pius X, which he founded, to little more than a decorous mascot.
One is impelled to ask, what is it going to take to restore the bite of doctrine, the sense of reality and the love of truth in Society, Church and world? Surely suffering, no less. Solzhenitsyn made a remark to the effect that it will take the crowbar of events to smash open the concrete casing which modern man has built around his sinful way of life. Truly, Lord have mercy.
Kyrie eleison.
-
Bishop Williamson is saying that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.
How can he then inisist, as he so frequesntly does, that the Conciliar popes are Catholic popes?
According to Bishop Williamson's argument, if "Conciliar Rome is occupying the structures of Catholic Rome", then the Conciliar popes are the 'popes' of that occupying force. How, then, can they be Catholic popes, especially if "Conciliarism is heresy" as the Bishop maintains.
Sedevacantism is the only logical conclusion of Bishop Williamson's own argument, because if the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, then the Conciliar popes cannot possibly be Catholic popes. They are only 'popes' of the heretical Conciliar Church, meaning that the Catholic Church at present has no pope. Therefore the Seat is vacant.
-
Bishop Williamson is saying that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.
How can he then inisist, as he so frequesntly does, that the Conciliar popes are Catholic popes?
According to Bishop Williamson's argument, if "Conciliar Rome is occupying the structures of Catholic Rome", then the Conciliar popes are the 'popes' of that occupying force. How, then, can they be Catholic popes, especially if "Conciliarism is heresy" as the Bishop maintains.
Sedevacantism is the only logical conclusion of Bishop Williamson's own argument, because if the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, then the Conciliar popes cannot possibly be Catholic popes. They are only 'popes' of the heretical Conciliar Church, meaning that the Catholic Church at present has no pope. Therefore the Seat is vacant.
Bp. Williamson has explained this in the following way:
We can think of an apple partially rotten: one part is still good while the other is not, but both parts are the apple. The conciliar church would be the rotten part while the Catholic Church would be the good part, but the pope is the pope of the whole thing: pope of the conciliar church and pope of the Catholic Church.
I disagree with the bishop, but when he has been asked about this matter, that is what he has answered.
-
“We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong. That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a docuмent, official and definitive.... The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church....”
~Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on Suspension a divinis, June 29, 1976
-
Nado said,
You forget, these men are head of the true Church and head of a false Church simultaneously!
:facepalm:
Maybe not at the same time, but just moonlight for the true Church, part-time....one hour per month.
How can the head of a false church also be the Pope of the true Catholic Church?
-
Bishop Williamson is saying that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.
How can he then inisist, as he so frequesntly does, that the Conciliar popes are Catholic popes?
According to Bishop Williamson's argument, if "Conciliar Rome is occupying the structures of Catholic Rome", then the Conciliar popes are the 'popes' of that occupying force. How, then, can they be Catholic popes, especially if "Conciliarism is heresy" as the Bishop maintains.
Sedevacantism is the only logical conclusion of Bishop Williamson's own argument, because if the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, then the Conciliar popes cannot possibly be Catholic popes. They are only 'popes' of the heretical Conciliar Church, meaning that the Catholic Church at present has no pope. Therefore the Seat is vacant.
Bp. Williamson has explained this in the following way:
[i]We can think of an apple partially rotten: one part is still good while the other is not, but both parts are the apple. The conciliar church would be the rotten part while the Catholic Church would be the good part, but the pope is the pope of the whole thing: pope of the conciliar church and pope of the Catholic Church.[/i]
I disagree with the bishop, but when he has been asked about this matter, that is what he has answered.
So what we have according to the bolded is a Divine Institution that teaches both truth and error at the same time, and a pope of two churches one good and one bad???
That is not my definition of what a Divine Institution is, no wonder Protestants are laughing at us.
-
Bishop Williamson is saying that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.
How can he then inisist, as he so frequesntly does, that the Conciliar popes are Catholic popes?
According to Bishop Williamson's argument, if "Conciliar Rome is occupying the structures of Catholic Rome", then the Conciliar popes are the 'popes' of that occupying force. How, then, can they be Catholic popes, especially if "Conciliarism is heresy" as the Bishop maintains.
Sedevacantism is the only logical conclusion of Bishop Williamson's own argument, because if the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, then the Conciliar popes cannot possibly be Catholic popes. They are only 'popes' of the heretical Conciliar Church, meaning that the Catholic Church at present has no pope. Therefore the Seat is vacant.
Bp. Williamson has explained this in the following way:
We can think of an apple partially rotten: one part is still good while the other is not, but both parts are the apple. The conciliar church would be the rotten part while the Catholic Church would be the good part, but the pope is the pope of the whole thing: pope of the conciliar church and pope of the Catholic Church.
I disagree with the bishop, but when he has been asked about this matter, that is what he has answered.
The rotten apple analogy and the cuckoo occupying the nightingale's nest analogy are quite different. In this EC, +W is separating the Conciliar Church and the Catholic Church entirely. Has his thinking changed here? If so, then his conclusions about the pope question must also change..
If the Conciliar Church is a separate entity from the true Catholic Church, then the men at the head of the Conciliar Church - the Conciliar popes - cannot also be Popes of the true Catholic Church.
-
“We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong. That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a docuмent, official and definitive.... The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church....”
~Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on Suspension a divinis, June 29, 1976
If the Conciliar church is not Catholic, as Archbishop Lefebvre claims here, then the head of the this Conciliar church cannot also be the Pope of the Catholic Church.
-
“We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong. That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a docuмent, official and definitive.... The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church....”
~Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on Suspension a divinis, June 29, 1976
If the Conciliar church is not Catholic, as Archbishop Lefebvre claims here, then the head of the this Conciliar church cannot also be the Pope of the Catholic Church.
Agreed! :geezer:
-
If the Conciliar church is not Catholic, as Archbishop Lefebvre claims here, then the head of the this Conciliar church cannot also be the Pope of the Catholic Church.
Of course. Everyone knows that the true Pope is not Francis, but Gregory XVIII.
-
If the Conciliar church is not Catholic, as Archbishop Lefebvre claims here, then the head of the this Conciliar church cannot also be the Pope of the Catholic Church.
Of course. Everyone knows that the true Pope is not Francis, but Gregory XVIII.
Everyone? Who is Gregory XVIII? :confused1:
-
If the Conciliar church is not Catholic, as Archbishop Lefebvre claims here, then the head of the this Conciliar church cannot also be the Pope of the Catholic Church.
Of course. Everyone knows that the true Pope is not Francis, but Gregory XVIII.
Everyone? Who is Gregory XVIII? :confused1:
I was just kidding. Some traditionalists think that Cardinal Siri was elected Pope in '58 and took the name of Gregory XVII but was forced to resign under threat. Because he stepped down under pressure they claim that he was the true Pope instead of John XXIII and remained Pope until his death. They claim that before Siri died he secretly appointed cardinals who elected a new Pope after his death. This new Pope supposedly took the name of Gregory XVIII and he is reigning now in secret.
-
If the Conciliar church is not Catholic, as Archbishop Lefebvre claims here, then the head of the this Conciliar church cannot also be the Pope of the Catholic Church.
Of course. Everyone knows that the true Pope is not Francis, but Gregory XVIII.
LOL.
Wrt OP I do think that we are seeing a shift in +Williamson's thinking and I have to wonder (considering some other comments he has made in the recent past) whether sedevacantism isn't too far down the road for him.
-
A great Archbishop, forty years ago,
Measured the Council’s doctrine, and said “No.”
Was that before or after he signed the docuмents?
-
If the Conciliar church is not Catholic, as Archbishop Lefebvre claims here, then the head of the this Conciliar church cannot also be the Pope of the Catholic Church.
Of course. Everyone knows that the true Pope is not Francis, but Gregory XVIII.
Everyone? Who is Gregory XVIII? :confused1:
I was just kidding. Some traditionalists think that Cardinal Siri was elected Pope in '58 and took the name of Gregory XVII but was forced to resign under threat. Because he stepped down under pressure they claim that he was the true Pope instead of John XXIII and remained Pope until his death. They claim that before Siri died he secretly appointed cardinals who elected a new Pope after his death. This new Pope supposedly took the name of Gregory XVIII and he is reigning [playing solitaire] now in secret.
:roll-laugh2:
-
If the Conciliar church is not Catholic, as Archbishop Lefebvre claims here, then the head of the this Conciliar church cannot also be the Pope of the Catholic Church.
Of course. Everyone knows that the true Pope is not Francis, but Gregory XVIII.
LOL.
Wrt OP I do think that we are seeing a shift in +Williamson's thinking and I have to wonder (considering some other comments he has made in the recent past) whether sedevacantism isn't too far down the road for him.
I don't think he'll go sedevacantist anytime soon. I'm sure of it.
-
If the Conciliar church is not Catholic, as Archbishop Lefebvre claims here, then the head of the this Conciliar church cannot also be the Pope of the Catholic Church.
Of course. Everyone knows that the true Pope is not Francis, but Gregory XVIII.
LOL.
Wrt OP I do think that we are seeing a shift in +Williamson's thinking and I have to wonder (considering some other comments he has made in the recent past) whether sedevacantism isn't too far down the road for him.
I don't think he'll go sedevacantist anytime soon. I'm sure of it.
Agreed, he isn't known to follow the argument to its logical conclusion (even when the argument is his own).
-
If the Conciliar church is not Catholic, as Archbishop Lefebvre claims here, then the head of the this Conciliar church cannot also be the Pope of the Catholic Church.
Of course. Everyone knows that the true Pope is not Francis, but Gregory XVIII.
LOL.
Wrt OP I do think that we are seeing a shift in +Williamson's thinking and I have to wonder (considering some other comments he has made in the recent past) whether sedevacantism isn't too far down the road for him.
I don't think he'll go sedevacantist anytime soon. I'm sure of it.
I agree, not "soon". But I wouldn't rule it out in the next 5-10 years. I just hope he loses his penchant for believing in private revelations if/when he does.
-
The word sedevacante translates to the "seat is vacant". If the seat is vacant, that would mean that we should elect someone to fill the vacant seat.... but you can't do that because there is someone occupying the seat who is the bishop of Rome who happens to be teaching false doctrine in a non-infallible capacity.
Here lies the dilemma and why the term "sedevacante" makes no sense for this application.
The term sedevacante refers to a time between popes when no one is alive to occupy the chair. When the church is in this state, it works toward electing a new pope.
-
The word sedevacante translates to the "seat is vacant". If the seat is vacant, that would mean that we should elect someone to fill the vacant seat.... but you can't do that because there is someone occupying the seat who is the bishop of Rome who happens to be teaching false doctrine in a non-infallible capacity.
Here lies the dilemma and why the term "sedevacante" makes no sense for this application.
The term sedevacante refers to a time between popes when no one is alive to occupy the chair. When the church is in this state, it works toward electing a new pope.
Back before the Western Schism, do you think any Catholic believed there could be more than one papal claimant at one time? And yet it happened.
Anyway, my posts here weren't about turning this into another debate about sedevacantism. I just think that +Williamson's thinking seems to be shifting in that direction.
-
akwardcustomer says,
Bishop Williamson is saying that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.
How can he then inisist, as he so frequesntly does, that the Conciliar popes are Catholic popes?
Sedevacantism is the only logical conclusion of Bishop Williamson's own argument...
How can the head of a false church also be the Pope of the true Catholic Church?
If the Conciliar church is not Catholic, as Archbishop Lefebvre claims here, then the head of the this Conciliar church cannot also be the Pope of the Catholic Church.
2Vermont says,
I do think that we are seeing a shift in +Williamson's thinking and I have to wonder (considering some other comments he has made in the recent past) whether sedevacantism isn't too far down the road for him.
Centroamerica says,
I don't think he'll go sedevacantist anytime soon. I'm sure of it.
sedeprivationism
Learn it, Know it, Live it. :cool:
-
Ascent, how does sedeprivationism differ from sedeplenism and sedevacantism?
I still don't get it.
-
The word sedevacante translates to the "seat is vacant". If the seat is vacant, that would mean that we should elect someone to fill the vacant seat.... but you can't do that because there is someone occupying the seat who is the bishop of Rome who happens to be teaching false doctrine in a non-infallible capacity.
Here lies the dilemma and why the term "sedevacante" makes no sense for this application.
The term sedevacante refers to a time between popes when no one is alive to occupy the chair. When the church is in this state, it works toward electing a new pope.
It is two words "sede vacante", and it is in the ablative case, translating as "the see being vacant".
It's not a theological term, but a legal term. So, even when there is a false pope, the see doesn't actually become vacant until that fact becomes legal for everyone to know. The precise legal term when there is a false pope still possessing the see is "sede impedita". You can see this mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1912) in the article CARDINAL, at the end of section VIII when it covers the "Duties of Cardinals".
Sede impedita is the condition of the total impossibility of exercising the function when, by reason of captivity, banishment, exile, or incapacity a diocesan bishop is clearly prevented from fulfilling his pastoral function in the diocese, so that he is not able to communicate with those in his diocese even by letter. In this circuмstance the Holy See or ecclesial law may then provide ad casum personal figures predesignated for the succession, or others, foreseen by the bishop himself and to be renewed at least every three years.
-
Where is roscoe when we need him?
-
holmoak said:
Meanwhile, there remain unanswered questions, still. Not the least of which is,
What was the purpose of Bp. Williamson publishing this 5 part pitiful saga, exactly?
What I find amazing about all this is that the bishop's ECs are continually and faithfully reprinted on Cathinfo. This latest EC is posted by Adolphus, who is is one of the bishop's most unrelenting critics. He completely trashes the remote possibility that H.E.'s contention that Our Lady might have appeared to a "messenger" might be true. Bp. W. never deviates from his original narrative over the course of five separate and consecutive ECs. Holmjoke refers to it as a "5 part pitiful saga. Matthew, the site's owner agrees. A number of the forum's 'Sasquatches' are in solid agreement that such communications never took place. The bishop is made to look like an irresponsible, gullible fool. Yet that doesn't stop Adolphus from reprinting H.E.'s lastest EC. Wouldn't you all be better served by publishing material from some other truly credible Episcopal source, say, Bishop Sanborn, or Bishop Dolan, or even Bp Fellay. How about fastening on to some other cleric or Catholic scholar's writings, and making them regularly available to the public? But no, each week the bishop commands front and center attention. What is this fascination with Bp. Williamson? Why do you continue to preoccupy yourselves with the writings of one whom, many of you have unhesitatingly disecredited, whose words, you attest, can not be believed? Maybe it's the fact that even a broken clock is right twice a day. Is that it? If so, I can point you to dozens of 'broken clocks.' you needn't focus so exclusively on the good bishop.
-
What I find amazing about all this is that the bishop's ECs are continually and faithfully reprinted on Cathinfo. This latest EC is posted by Adolphus, who is is one of the bishop's most unrelenting critics.
I post what I think may be of interest in the forum, which does not have to be something I agree with or something I like.
For example, I have posted items regarding new signals of Bp. Fellay's betrayal or heresies/apostasies of Francis or BXVI.
He completely trashes the remote possibility that H.E.'s contention that Our Lady might have appeared to a "messenger" might be true.
No. I do believe that Our Lady might have appeared to someone She had chosen as Her messenger.
What I don't believe is that Our Lady had backed the first Rosary Crusade to help the conciliar church to humiliate the Holy Mass.
I know the first Rosary Crusade was not a success, since none of the three intentions was accomplished, not even partially.
What I don't believe is that Our Lady had said that BXVI was well intentioned. He might have fooled Bp. Fellay, but not the Mother of God.
And the list could continue, but I'll cut it short.
Bp. W. never deviates from his original narrative over the course of five separate and consecutive ECs.
I don't know about you, but I think H.E. modified some words in his third chapter probably because of the critics aroused by the previous chapter:
So, given the backing of Our Lady, the first Crusade was an unexpected success, both in the number of rosaries prayed by the people, and in Pope Benedict XVI’s fulfilment of Bishop Fellay’s long-standing wish by the declaration in his Motu Proprio of July 2007, that the Tridentine Mass had never been abrogated.
In 2007 Benedict XVI partially satisfied the pre-conditon with his Motu Proprio. Rejoicing as though it were a complete satisfaction, Bishop Fellay moved on to the second pre-condition
Both expressions are wrong, yet do not express the same idea.
-
hollingsworth said:
Bp. W. never deviates from his original narrative over the course of five separate and consecutive ECs.
Adolphus: I don't know about you, but I think H.E. modified some words in his third chapter probably because of the critics aroused by the previous chapter:
Bp. Williamson EC 380 said:
So, given the backing of Our Lady, the first Crusade was an unexpected success, both in the number of rosaries prayed by the people, and in Pope Benedict XVI’s fulfilment of Bishop Fellay’s long-standing wish by the declaration in his Motu Proprio of July 2007, that the Tridentine Mass had never been abrogated.
Bp. Williamson EC 381 said:
In 2007 Benedict XVI partially satisfied the pre-conditon with his Motu Proprio. Rejoicing as though it were a complete satisfaction, Bishop Fellay moved on to the second pre-condition
Adolphus, (or is it Iacobus?, or is it Jaime Flores?)
I hesitate to answer this, because the semantic flimflam is so obvious to me, but perhaps not to others. However, let me give it a shot. You'll no doubt try to twist my answer, aided and abetted by other forum 'Sasquatches,' I'm sure.
You, of course, want to show that +W changed his tune. You think that his "critics" have smoked him out, and that he was forced to make some rhetorical adjustments. H.E. simply notes correctly in EC 380 that Benedict did indeed acknowledge that a a "wish" of +F had been fulfilled, viz. that the Old Mass had never been abrogated. Nowhere in the EC380 does +W suggest that the condition, or precondition, had been totally satisfied. In EC381, it becomes clear that it had been "partially satisfied." No contradiction here, for the simple reason that EC 380 never asserts that the condition had been totally fulfilled.
I would use bold type in some places, but I think that the extra flourish might be wasted on the likes of you and your hairy friends. :smirk:
-
H.E. simply notes correctly in EC 380 that Benedict did indeed acknowledge that a a "wish" of +F had been fulfilled, viz. that the Old Mass had never been abrogated.
Some prefer to ignore the fact that Bp. Williamson said, incorrectly, that the first Crusade had been a success:
So, given the backing of Our Lady, the first Crusade was an unexpected success, both in the number of rosaries prayed by the people, and in Pope Benedict XVI’s fulfilment of Bishop Fellay’s long-standing wish by the declaration in his Motu Proprio of July 2007, that the Tridentine Mass had never been abrogated.
The first Crusade was not a success, since none of the intentions was accomplished:
Along the same lines, the Chapter asks me to communicate to you the following ambitious project: The Society has the intention of presenting a spiritual bouquet of a million Rosaries to the Sovereign Pontiff for the end of the month of October, month of the Rosary.
These Rosaries will be recited for the following intentions:
1. To obtain from Heaven for Pope Benedict XVI the strength required to completely free up the Mass of all time, called the Tridentine Mass.
2. For the return of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
3. For the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Again, none of these intentions were accomplished. Not even partially.
H.E. notes incorrectly that BXVI acknowledged that the Holy Mass had never been abrogated.
«In reality, the Motu Proprio says that the Traditional Mass has never been abrogated as the extraordinary form but that it was repealed as the ordinary form. By this act, Benedict XVI made the Roman rite of Mass lose, de jure, its status as the only ordinary and official form, and relegated it to the status of “extraordinary form”, after having humiliated it by comparing its sanctity to that of the “bastard rite.”» (A Catechism of the Crisis in the SSPX)
In EC381, it becomes clear that it had been "partially satisfied."
Again, H.E. says incorrectly that the precondition had been "partially satisfied".
In which manner could it have been partially satisfied? Partially freeing the Holy Mass? Then the Mass would not have been completely freed.
And let us no forget that those pre-conditions were asked as signals of good will. Was such humiliation a signal of good will? Is that how a precondition was satisfied?
And regarding the "apparitions" to the "messenger":
I do believe that Our Lady might have appeared to someone She had chosen as Her messenger.
What I don't believe is that Our Lady had backed the first Rosary Crusade to help the conciliar church to humiliate the Holy Mass.
I know the first Rosary Crusade was not a success, since none of the three intentions was accomplished, not even partially.
What I don't believe is that Our Lady had said that BXVI was well intentioned. He might have fooled Bp. Fellay, but not the Mother of God.
And the list could continue, but I'll cut it short.
-
Adolphus:
«In reality, the Motu Proprio says that the Traditional Mass has never been abrogated as the extraordinary form but that it was repealed as the ordinary form.
And we didn't know that, Jaime? Please cut the crap! Before I consent to interact with you again, I want you to tell us who you really are, with whom you are associated, and what part of the world you are from. Do I understand that you are a sedevacantist? I really don't care one way or the other. Please name a few of the traditional clerics whom you support.. Are you a follower of Frs. Merramo or Ceriani by chance? From whence does your visceral contempt of Bp. Williamson arise. Are you a part of that anti-Williamson band of clerical whinners in SA? Please give me a headsup on just who you are. Most of you know who I am, what I think and why I think as I do. I'm not going to repeat my identity over and over again.
-
Adolphus: «In reality, the Motu Proprio says that the Traditional Mass has never been abrogated as the extraordinary form but that it was repealed as the ordinary form.
And we didn't know that, Jaime?
I don't know who you refer to when you say "we". But Bp. Williamson seems to ignore it.
I don't know either why you got visceral and request irrelevant information.
I don't know who you are and know a little about what you think, but I don't pay too much attention to the persons nor the names. I prefer to focus on the ideas.
Anyone can register in fora and some even to still identities and impersonate as someone else.
-
Some attacks of Jaime Flores (Adolphus / Iacobus) against Bp. Williamson on the site "Radio Cristiandad". He helps the enemies of Bp. Williamson: Fr. Ceriani Arioni, Fr. Meramo Chaljub, Fr. Turco, Fr. Grosso, etc. They are sedevacantists.
JAIME FLORES: MONS. WILLIAMSON: HISTORIA INTERNA… HISTORIA EXTRAÑA
HISTORIA EXTRAÑA Monseñor Williamson nos ha regalado una historia extraña en sus Comentarios Eleison números 379 a 383, historia que él mismo ha intitulado “Historia interna“. Su relato principia refiriéndonos las dos peticiones que hiciera Nuestra Señora, la Santísima Virgen María, en Fátima, en el año de 1917: 1º) que Rusia fuera consagrada a Su … Sigue leyendo →
Publicado en Falsa Resistencia, Falsa restauración, Jaime Flores, Mons Williamson
Miércoles 12 noviembre 2014
JAIME FLORES: REFLEXIONES SOBRE EL ELEISON 382
REFLEXIONES SOBRE EL ELEISON 382 El Comentario Eleison Nº 382, que contiene la cuarta parte de la llamada “historia interna”, llegó tarde. En vez de ser publicado el viernes o el sábado, como se hace regularmente, no se hizo público hasta el día lunes. Esto no deja de llamar la atención, toda vez que los … Sigue leyendo →
Publicado en actualidad, Falsa Resistencia, Jaime Flores, Mons Williamson
Domingo 28 octubre 2012
CARTA DE LECTORES: JAIME FLORES: COMENTANDO EL ELEISON 276
Comentando el “Comentario Eleison” Su Excelencia, Mons. Williamson trata de su expulsión de la FSSPX en su Comentario Eleison CCLXXVI. En él dice: «Es una decisión crucial por parte de los líderes de la FSPX, no por ninguna razón personal, sino por la remoción de lo que mucha gente consideró ser el más grande obstáculo … Sigue leyendo →
Publicado en actualidad, Antiacuerdismo, Carta de lectores
Sábado 1 noviembre 2014
JAIME A FLORES: MONSEÑOR WILLIAMSONTRAS LAS HUELLAS DE MONSEÑOR FELLAY
MONSEÑOR WILLIAMSON TRAS LAS HUELLAS DE MONSEÑOR FELLAY En sus Comentarios Eleison 379 y 380, el obispo inglés ha imitado a quien fuera su Superior General hasta hace pocos años, al afirmar que la primera cruzada de rosarios que emprendió la FSSPX en 2006 fue un éxito, que fue la causa del “cuмplimiento por parte … Sigue leyendo →
Publicado en Colaboradores, Falsa Resistencia, Mons Williamson, Mons. Fellay
GOOGLE TRANSLATE:
JAIME FLORES: MONS. WILLIAMSON: INTERNAL HISTORY ... STRANGE HISTORY
STRANGE HISTORY Williamson gave us a strange story in his Commentaries Eleison numbers 379-383, history that he has entitled "internal history". His story begins referring the two requests to make Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary at Fatima in the year 1917: 1) that Russia be consecrated to His ... Continue reading →
Posted in False Resistance False restoration, Jaime Flores, Bishop Williamson
Wednesday November 12, 2014
JAIME FLORES: REFLECTIONS ON ELEISON 382
REFLECTIONS ON ELEISON 382 Eleison Review No. 382, which contains a quarter of the "inside story" came later. Instead of being released on Friday or Saturday, as is done regularly, was not made public until Monday. This continues to draw attention, since the ... Continue reading →
Posted in news, False Resistance, Jaime Flores, Bishop Williamson
Sunday October 28, 2012
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: JAIME FLORES: COMMENTING THE ELEISON 276
Commenting on the "Comment Eleison" His Excellency Mons. Williamson is expulsion from the SSPX in his Commentary Eleison CCLXXVI. It says: "It is a crucial decision by the leaders of the SSPX, not for any personal reason, but by the removal of what many people consider to be the greatest obstacle ... Continue reading →
Posted in news, Antiacuerdismo, Letter of readers
Saturday November 1, 2014
A JAIME FLORES: BISHOP WILLIAMSON THE FOOTSTEPS OF BISHOP FELLAY
BISHOP WILLIAMSON THE FOOTSTEPS OF BISHOP FELLAY In his comments Eleison 379 and 380, the English bishop has imitated his former Superior General until recently, saying that the first rosary crusade undertaken by the SSPX in 2006 was a success, which was the cause of "compliance ... Continue reading →
Posted in Contributors, False Resistance Williamson Mons, Mons. Fellay
-
It's interesting that so many people who are completely opposed to the resistance and Bishop Williamson come here hiding behind a false identity for the purposes of pushing their agendas. It's like a hornet's nest of anti-resitance, anti-Bishop Williamson people.
-
It's just about like I'd figured, having learned most of the above from another source. Untitled pretty well confirms all we suspected. Look, Adolphus, alias, Iacobus, alias Jaime, I don't care a fig who you follow. If Frs. Ceriani and Meramo row your boat, that's perfectly OK with me. But why do you waste so much time driving about in ultra-rigorist overdrive? You nit and you pick. You attempt to lead me and others into a miasmic swamp of distracting minutia. If you and the other inhabitants of that obscure, mist-shrouded place wish to do so, be my guest. But don't ask me to wade about in it with you. Look, Jaime, Frs. Ceriani and Meramo may be fine priests, but IMO they have taken themselves out of the game. No one cares about them, least of all the pope and his curia. As far as the Roman apparatus is concerned, you sedes do not even amount to pesky flies whom Roman officials occasionally have to swat. Your people go virtually unnoticed and unremarked upon by virtually anyone of importance in the Ecclesial scheme of things. So why should I pay any attention to you?
On the other hand, Bp Williamson is a properly and validly ordained priest of God. He is a validly appointed bishop of the Church, consecrated by an archbishop whose name is etched on a wall in St. Peter's. Who is your bishop, or who are your bishops? I don't know their names. Let me pull you away for a minute from your unhealthy preoccupation with Bp. Williamson. Tell us something about your own bishop(s), and about the trust you repose in them. :smirk:
-
I don't care a fig who you follow.
If you don't, why do you keep asking?
Frs. Ceriani and Meramo may be fine priests, but IMO they have taken themselves out of the game.
I thought you had said you didn't care…
Who is your bishop, or who are your bishops?
I thought you had said you didn't care…
Tell us something about your own bishop(s), and about the trust you repose in them.
I thought you had said you didn't care…
If you don't care, why do you ask?
If you don't care, why should I answer? :smirk:
-
Do Frs. Ceriani and Meramo ever do a circuit in the USA or Canada?
-
Do Frs. Ceriani and Meramo ever do a circuit in the USA or Canada?
They say to do that is useless (establishment of centers of mass, etc.). It is to expect a restoration. That is illusion. There will be no triumph of the Immaculate Heart before the Parousia. There will be no restoration before the Parousia. (!!!)
-
Just to extend the metaphor, there are two minds inside of Francis, a Catholic mind and a Conciliar (non-Catholic) mind ... both co-existing in the same body. By virtue of the Catholic identity, he remains Pope, but when the Conciliar part is acting, he is not to be obeyed. Francis has Multiple Personality Disorder.
Of course, a slightly less bizarre way to say this would be to say that Francis is pope materially but not formally, but the +Williamson won't go there.
-
Just to extend the metaphor, there are two minds inside of Francis, a Catholic mind and a Conciliar (non-Catholic) mind ... both co-existing in the same body. By virtue of the Catholic identity, he remains Pope, but when the Conciliar part is acting, he is not to be obeyed. Francis has Multiple Personality Disorder.
Of course, a slightly less bizarre way to say this would be to say that Francis is pope materially but not formally, but the +Williamson won't go there.
See, I don't think there is even a Catholic part. I could see someone saying this about Benedict, but not Francis.
-
Just to extend the metaphor, there are two minds inside of Francis, a Catholic mind and a Conciliar (non-Catholic) mind ... both co-existing in the same body. By virtue of the Catholic identity, he remains Pope, but when the Conciliar part is acting, he is not to be obeyed. Francis has Multiple Personality Disorder.
Of course, a slightly less bizarre way to say this would be to say that Francis is pope materially but not formally, but the +Williamson won't go there.
Do you think this would be applicable to all the conciliar popes? All of them had/have multiple personality?
-
FORTIETH ANNIVERSARY
November 22, 2014
Number CCCLXXXIV (384)
A great Archbishop, forty years ago,
Measured the Council’s doctrine, and said “No.”
Yesterday was the 40 th anniversary of Archbishop Lefebvre’s historic Declaration on November 21, 1974, of the reasons for which he and the priests and laity following him were taking their stand against the total change of the Catholic Church and religion being wrought in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. The Declaration is a fresh today as it was on the day when it was written, because the true Catholic religion of God is unchangingly true, while the Conciliar religion of man is resolutely false and it is occupying Rome more than ever.
...
Cardinal Garrone : There is absolutely no relationship between the observations you are making, observations which might be justified, and the crass statements contained in your docuмent [1974 declaration].
Archbishop Lefebvre : I recognise that my “declaration” is an exaggeration ...
...
Cardinal Garrone : ... how could you write things of this kind [1974 declaration]?
Archbishop Lefebvre : I wrote them in a moment of indignation provoked by what the Visitors had said. ...
...
Archbishop Lefebvre : On certain points of the Council, one can express... reservations.
Cardinal Garrone: But you write: "The whole Council". You do not accuse the Council of simply being a little tendentious, but of being fundamentally orientated in a modernist and protestant direction. What impression can a seminarian reading your "manifesto" [1974 declaration] draw from it? It will be the source of the orientations which will inform his conscience. Will this young man be formed in the Catholic Church? I say no! He will not be a Catholic but a sectarian. He will follow Archbishop Lefebvre and not the Pope.
Archbishop Lefebvre: No, that is an exaggeration. I do not say that one must follow me, but the Magisterium.
Cardinal Garrone : But this [the 1974 declaration] says the opposite!
Archbishop Lefebvre: It is not so!
(Transcript of an examination by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, March 3, 1975)
...
"Convinced that this visit was but the first step on the road to our suppression, for so long desired by all the progressivists, and observing that the visitors had come with the desire to bring us into line with the changes effected in the Church since the Council, I decided to explain my thinking to the seminary. That is the origin of my declaration [of November 21, 1974], written, it is true, under a feeling of indignation and no doubt excessive."
(Account dated May 30, 1975 and sent to Msgr. Benelli and Cardinal Villot, quoted in Un évêque parle, vol II, published by Dominique Martin Morin, 1976, p.26)
-
Do Frs. Ceriani and Meramo ever do a circuit in the USA or Canada?
They say to do that is useless (establishment of centers of mass, etc.). It is to expect a restoration. That is illusion. There will be no triumph of the Immaculate Heart before the Parousia. There will be no restoration before the Parousia. (!!!)
My goodness. I had never heard of these priests before now. But I have recently come to this same conclusion - there will be no restoration before the Parousia,
I Googled their names and a few articles came up. It seems there's some controversy, which I have no intention of getting involved in.
Are there any other Catholics out there who also believe that there will be no restoration before the Parousia?
-
Just to extend the metaphor, there are two minds inside of Francis, a Catholic mind and a Conciliar (non-Catholic) mind ... both co-existing in the same body. By virtue of the Catholic identity, he remains Pope, but when the Conciliar part is acting, he is not to be obeyed. Francis has Multiple Personality Disorder.
Of course, a slightly less bizarre way to say this would be to say that Francis is pope materially but not formally, but the +Williamson won't go there.
See, I don't think there is even a Catholic part. I could see someone saying this about Benedict, but not Francis.
yep
-
Just to extend the metaphor, there are two minds inside of Francis, a Catholic mind and a Conciliar (non-Catholic) mind ... both co-existing in the same body. By virtue of the Catholic identity, he remains Pope, but when the Conciliar part is acting, he is not to be obeyed. Francis has Multiple Personality Disorder.
Of course, a slightly less bizarre way to say this would be to say that Francis is pope materially but not formally, but the +Williamson won't go there.
See, I don't think there is even a Catholic part. I could see someone saying this about Benedict, but not Francis.
He says he believes in the Holy Trinity, is devoted to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and St. Therese. I guess that those are Catholic things.
-
Just to extend the metaphor, there are two minds inside of Francis, a Catholic mind and a Conciliar (non-Catholic) mind ... both co-existing in the same body. By virtue of the Catholic identity, he remains Pope, but when the Conciliar part is acting, he is not to be obeyed. Francis has Multiple Personality Disorder.
Of course, a slightly less bizarre way to say this would be to say that Francis is pope materially but not formally, but the +Williamson won't go there.
See, I don't think there is even a Catholic part. I could see someone saying this about Benedict, but not Francis.
He says he believes in the Holy Trinity, is devoted to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and St. Therese. I guess that those are Catholic things.
I thought to be Catholic one must hold to all truths of the Faith. You're either Catholic or not. Not partially so.
-
Do Frs. Ceriani and Meramo ever do a circuit in the USA or Canada?
They say to do that is useless (establishment of centers of mass, etc.). It is to expect a restoration. That is illusion. There will be no triumph of the Immaculate Heart before the Parousia. There will be no restoration before the Parousia. (!!!)
Before the Parousia we still need the Sacraments! Regarding the "restoration"... we (each and every on of us) must Pray as though everything depended on God, and Act as though all depended on Us (or so was the opinion of St. Ignatius and a few others).
I believe these "Resistance" Priests are of good will and I am happy they can distinguish between the "false-resistance", the "false-resistance" to the "false-resistance" and "resistance" to the "false-resistance". It is truly a grace.
If they are episcopal material the Good Bishop may very well consecrate one of them so they can help pick up the scattered pieces of the XSSPX.
-
Cardinal Garrone: But you write: "The whole Council". You do not accuse the Council of simply being a little tendentious, but of being fundamentally orientated in a modernist and protestant direction.
well, wasn't it, hasn't it been since, and is it not now "oriented in a modernist and protestant direction?"
What was the point of this edited exchange between Card. Garrone and the Archbishop?
-
Do Frs. Ceriani and Meramo ever do a circuit in the USA or Canada?
I don't think they do. It is my understanding that they have some Mass Centres in South America and they keep them busy.
Besides, I don't think they speak English. I know they do speak French besides Spanish, but I am not sure regarding English.
-
Do Frs. Ceriani and Meramo ever do a circuit in the USA or Canada?
They say to do that is useless (establishment of centers of mass, etc.). It is to expect a restoration. That is illusion. There will be no triumph of the Immaculate Heart before the Parousia. There will be no restoration before the Parousia. (!!!)
My goodness. I had never heard of these priests before now. But I have recently come to this same conclusion - there will be no restoration before the Parousia,
I Googled their names and a few articles came up. It seems there's some controversy, which I have no intention of getting involved in.
Are there any other Catholics out there who also believe that there will be no restoration before the Parousia?
I have always thought that the words "In the end" did not mean anything else that the end of the times.
What kind of triumph could it be that that later was going to be treaded down by the Antichrist?
-
My goodness. I had never heard of these priests before now. But I have recently come to this same conclusion - there will be no restoration before the Parousia,
I Googled their names and a few articles came up. It seems there's some controversy, which I have no intention of getting involved in.
Are there any other Catholics out there who also believe that there will be no restoration before the Parousia?
I think the long time Trad Joseph Saraceno is a Catholic who believes like that. He considers himself a prophet. Many on this site consider him to be otherwise!
He has predicted the Parousia. His email address perhaps gives one a clue. He spells parousia without the i.
parousa2009@yahoo.com
He also has a website which he will no doubt tell you about if you drop him a line.
-
Do Frs. Ceriani and Meramo ever do a circuit in the USA or Canada?
They say to do that is useless (establishment of centers of mass, etc.). It is to expect a restoration. That is illusion. There will be no triumph of the Immaculate Heart before the Parousia. There will be no restoration before the Parousia. (!!!)
My goodness. I had never heard of these priests before now. But I have recently come to this same conclusion - there will be no restoration before the Parousia,
I Googled their names and a few articles came up. It seems there's some controversy, which I have no intention of getting involved in.
Are there any other Catholics out there who also believe that there will be no restoration before the Parousia?
I have always thought that the words "In the end" did not mean anything else that the end of the times.
What kind of triumph could it be that that later was going to be treaded down by the Antichrist?
Exactly. But surely the overall message of the prophecies and private revelations is that there will be some kind of event followed by a restoration and period of peace. This event could be a chastisement which includes 'Three Days of Darkness', or it could be the Consecration of Russia. At any rate, this event will result in the conversion of the world, or what remains of it, a great revival for the Church and the restoration of Christendom. Some prophecies also tell of a Great Catholic Monarch who will play a key role in this restoration.
One effect of these prophecies and private revelation is to encourage Catholics to 'forget', if that is the correct word, the prophecies of Christ and St Paul - that there will be a revolt, that the Antichrist will rise and that the world as we know it will end. At the very least, these prophecies encourage Catholics to postpone these events to some distant future and to pin their hopes on a restoration.
-
Oh yes God forbid Catholics " pin their hopes on a restoration". I suppose it's better to give up all hopes of one and learn to enjoy being on the losing side.
-
Oh yes God forbid Catholics " pin their hopes on a restoration". I suppose it's better to give up all hopes of one and learn to enjoy being on the losing side.
The losing side - that's a strange way of seeing it. Christ Himself asked if there would be Faith on Earth when He came again. The Gospels warn of great tribulation before the end, such as the world has never known or will know. St Paul warns of a 'revolt' before the Antichrist comes.
All of this will happen before the Parousia, when Christ will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. And you equate this with being "on the losing side"!!!!
-
2Vermont said:
"I agree, not "soon". But I wouldn't rule it out in the next 5-10 years. I just hope he loses his penchant for believing in private revelations if/when he does."
Revelations are a solid patrimony of the Church.
1 Corinthians 14:6
"But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either in revelation, or in knowledge, or in prophecy, or in doctrine?"
And it should be noted, not one revelation or prophecy speaks of a future interregnum. On the contrary, St Francis of Assisi condemns sedevacantism:
"The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity."
And what is your hope for Bishop Williamson to become sedevacantist? For the good of his soul? Or to justify yourself and take pleasure into drawing him to the same error of perdition?
Luke 16:15
"And he said to them: You are they who justify yourselves before men, but God knoweth your hearts;"
Titus 1:9-11
"Embracing that faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine, and to convince the gainsayers. For there are also many disobedient, vain talkers, and seducers: especially they who are of the circuмcision:
Who must be reproved, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not"
-
Oh no, of course not. How in the world could anyone get the impression that we're on the losing side? What with not a single officially Catholic govt. in the world? What with most of the Central banks in the west ( the "Federal Reserve" the "Bank of England" being owned by the likes of N.M. Rothschild and sons of London, the Moses Seif bank of Italy, Goldman Sachs. What with virtually the entire media also being owned by the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan and their Masonic go-fers. What with the entire entertainment industry being owned by Cabalistic Jєωs. What with most of academia being ontrolled by the same clique. Losing side? Oh my, how could anyone get that idea? I mean they use their media to push official lies about everything important fm the h0Ɩ0h0αx to 9-11, to 7/7 to the Boston bombing and Sandy Hoax and everything in between. We have prospective US Presidential candidates lining up to kiss the ring of Sheldon Adelson. But really, you're right. I mean how can anyone deduce fm any of that the soldiers of Christ are losing? I mean that's just absurd.
-
Apparently nothing that happens in the public sphere matters until the 2nd Coming.
-
Charlotte Bill:
Oh no, of course not. How in the world could anyone get the impression that we're on the losing side? What with not a single officially Catholic govt. in the world? What with most of the Central banks in the west ( the "Federal Reserve" the "Bank of England" being owned by the likes of N.M. Rothschild and sons of London, the Moses Seif bank of Italy, Goldman Sachs. What with virtually the entire media also being owned by the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan and their Masonic go-fers. What with the entire entertainment industry being owned by Cabalistic Jєωs. What with most of academia being ontrolled by the same clique. Losing side? Oh my, how could anyone get that idea? I mean they use their media to push official lies about everything important fm the h0Ɩ0h0αx to 9-11, to 7/7 to the Boston bombing and Sandy Hoax and everything in between. We have prospective US Presidential candidates lining up to kiss the ring of Sheldon Adelson. But really, you're right. I mean how can anyone deduce fm any of that the soldiers of Christ are losing? I mean that's just absurd.
Very good observations. Of course, presently speaking, and maybe since the American and French Revolutions, we have been on the "losing side." You note correctly that there is no Catholic govt. in the world. The closest we come today is Russia and the resurgence of the Orthodox Christian faith. I would describe President Putin as a Christian prince, i.e. one who takes his Christian faith seriously and tries to model his behavior, (with notable lapses), after Christian principles. But the rest of the ruling clowns in the West are, for the most part, an embarrassment, the victims, as well as the pepetuators of state liberalism run amuck.
You're right, the Yids rule, the banks, the schools, the press, the entertainment and film industries. All of these institutions are under their control. I call them "Yids," because they can not be fairly or accurately called 'Jєωs.' St. Paul informs us that a real 'Jєω' is one inwardly, and that real "circuмcision" is of the heart.
These Yids can not be called the "Chosen" any longer because that distinction was lost when the curtain of the Temple was rent in twain. Their new status as the rejected people of God was capped by the destruction of their Holy Temple in Jerusalem almost 40 years later. Now we who believe are the spiritual offspring of Abraham. We are the "children of promise." We are the beneficiaries of "Supercessionism," a word which the Yids hate above all words.
At this point in time, the Yids can not even claim any racial descent from the ancient Hebrews. Most of them are the descendants of of a tribe of Turkic phallic worshippers, originating near the Caucasus. I mean, even most of those Pharisees and Scribes whom Our Lord excoriated mercilessly in that day, probably, at least, could trace their ancestry to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. These modern interlopers and тαℓмυdic frauds are no more related by blood to these ancient Patriarchs than you or I are.
Yes, our nation, indeed, the entire Western world is enslaved to the Yids. Presidential candidates of both parties would happily do more than kiss Sheldon Adelson's ring. They would compete with one another for the privilege of kissing that part of his anatomy which he sits upon. The Christian world is under a curse of judgment, it appears. It would be bad enough if we were being held down by the "natural branches" grafted back into the natural root. But no, we must bear the ignominy of subjugation to a foul, alien Satanic race of people who call themselves 'Jєωs,' but are not.