Fr Rostand visited San Antonio last Sunday. He said it was a routine visit, but we've been parishioners there since 2004 and have never had the District Superior visit, so who knows. He said Mass and gave a sermon and then there was a dinner afterward where there was a Q&A session.

There were plenty of things he said which I completely disagree with and, as usual, I'm continually disappointed at the new positions of the Society leadership.
But, nonetheless, there was very little that could be considered "surprising" as we already knew Fr Rostand's position on all of this.

Matthew and I made some notes Sunday afternoon on things which were said before we discussed any of it, so this is the best our minds could offer as to what he really said.

Below are my notes, Matthew's will follow.

--------------------------------------

It was mentioned that the Society leadership is dissatisfied with wishing only to be Catholic and yet not enjoying the recognition of being part of the Church.

The conditions explained for considering recognition from Rome in the future were in line with the recent letter of Fr. Thouvenot including not considering anything which would prohibit the Society from speaking openly about Vatican II.

No mention was made of the Soceity requiring any sort of doctrinal change from Rome before agreeing to reconciliation.

When asked what would be the point at which the Society would cease attempting to discuss with Rome, Fr Rostand said that as the Pope is the supreme head, the Society as a subordinate is not in a position to refuse discussion.

Father mentioned several times that, unlike 5-10 years ago, there are today bishops within the Church who are favorable toward Tradition. When asked who these bishops were, he mentioned Cardinal Burke and could name no other American bishops.

It was said that Bishop Williamson has changed his position regarding dealings with Rome over the past 10 years and that if you read his letters from 10 years ago, you'll see that his position has changed. He mentioned that this change was unfortunate, but appears to be leading toward a split between Bishop Williamson and the Society.

The recent confusion and turmoil within the Society was attributed to the Society being attacked.

Much of the confusion brought about within the recent past -- especially the past few months -- was attributed to rumors originating on sedevacantist websites. No mention was made of what these rumors said.

Maybe we will have a visit from Fr. Rostand too, as our priest is in the U.K. for the next couple of weeks.  I do hope he comes back.   :thinking:

* He said Bishop Williamson has changed in the past 5 or 10 years, on topics such as the lifting of the excommunications and Summorum Pontificuм. He never cited any details -- docuмents, "Eleison Comments" issue numbers, etc.

"The Jєω cries out in pain as he strikes you."

Fr. Rostand tries to obfuscate Bishop Fellay's change of position with a false accusation that +Williamson has done the same. +Williamson has remained steadfast contra mundo while +Fellay clearly admitted to changing his position on the Religious Liberty text of Vatican II:

http://thesensiblebond.blogspot.com/2012/05/rorate-already-passed-this-on-as-have.html

Previously, +Rostand cried "dishonest" against those acknowledging +Fellay's undeniable admission of changing his position.

Say what you will about +Williamson's "imprudence." Nobody can accuse him of practicing the deceit we now regularly witness from +Fellay, +Rostand, and company.

Assuming this report is accurate, +Rostand is morally obligated to withdraw his false charge against +Williamson (or back it up.)

It was mentioned that the Society leadership is dissatisfied with wishing only to be Catholic and yet not enjoying the recognition of being part of the Church.

I believe this statement goes to the crux of the matter. The current SSPX leadership is tired of being "outside of the Church." They want the prestige that comes with "official" recognition as a Catholic bishop, priest, etc. As such, they've lost their will to resist modernist Rome. Father Rostand's statement is the most telling one I've heard to date. I think it explains most of their recent actions.

Quote from: MaterDominici

It was mentioned that the Society leadership is dissatisfied with wishing only to be Catholic and yet not enjoying the recognition of being part of the Church.

I believe this statement goes to the crux of the matter. The current SSPX leadership is tired of being "outside of the Church." They want the prestige that comes with "official" recognition as a Catholic bishop, priest, etc. As such, they've lost their will to resist modernist Rome. Father Rostand's statement is the most telling one I've heard to date. I think it explains most of their recent actions.

"The Society of Saint Pius X has never left the Church. It is in the heart of the Church. There where the authentic preaching of the faith is, there is the Church. This project of "officialization" of the SSPX leaves me indifferent. We have no need of it, and the Church has no need of it. We are already on the pinnacle, as a sign of contradiction, that attracts those noble souls, that attract lots of young priests, despite our pariah status. One would wish to place our lamp under the bushel for our integration in the Conciliar world. This status that is proposed to us, of a personal prelature, analogous to that of Opus Dei, is a status for a state of peace. But we are currently in a state of war in the Church. It would be a contradiction to wish to 'regularize the war'."
- Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, June 13, 2012; Rivarol Interview


These words from our holy bishop should be ingrained upon the hearts & souls of all those emboldened to fight as true sons & daughters of Archbishop Lefebvre.  No matter what the cost!

Not long ago, many priests, religious and faithful wore that "Pariah Status" as a badge of honor!...
A unique and privileged grace from the Lord God that marked souls as true friends of the Cross of His beloved Son.
Now, this precious gift is looked upon with worldly derision and scorn.
Shame & confusion typically await those who reject grace & prefer to impose their own will... they're left abandoned to their own device.

Lets polish up those badges Ladies & Gents!...
May we joyfully re-adorn ourselves with the status of the outcasts in perfect imitation of Christ our King.

When Bishop Fellay ousted +Williamson from Winona a few years ago, almost the entire graduating class of that year was massacred. Only one seminarian was ordained to the priesthood in the following June.

What you say is true in spirit, but not quite factually correct. When +Williamson was reassigned, there were already four young men who were deacons. They were not removed from orders and they were elevated to the priesthood in June 2004 (Frs. Lester, Goldade, Magana, and Thomas). 2005 saw the first of the low counts with Fr. Asher alone being ordained. In 2006-2008, there were 4, 1, and 0 priests ordained, respectively.

2009 was a large group of new priests, many of whom would have only been at the seminary under +Williamson for one year or none at all.

(While the numbers do a pretty good job, even 2003 ordinations had only 2 priests, so you'd really need more than strict numbers to make the case for this purging which I do believe took place.)

Never let reality get in the way of a good rumor. Is Bishop Tissier de Mallerais still under house arrest in Chicago?

Is Vatican II still conceived in modernism or is it part of the tradition of the Church?  Are the errors in the Council not of the Council but of an interpretation of them?

Did Bishop Fellay learn that in the doctrinal discussions?  

When did Bishop Fellay decide that his cult was going to start smearing Bishop Williamson as mentally ill?

How many years was Bishop Williamson rector at Winona again?