Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Against the Heresies on February 03, 2025, 01:51:04 AM
-
A truly scandalous statement by Father Schmidberger on the death of Bishop Williamson. It was published today in his weekly newsletter, which was sent by email on Monday February 3rd.
Automatic translation by Google
Bishop Williamson was English, a convert from Anglicanism, a very educated, linguistically gifted, intelligent and capable man. As such, he did a lot of good in the Society and this was the reason why Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated him as bishop on 30 June 1988 with the three other candidates.
However, certain weaknesses in him could not be overlooked, which, as they increased, ultimately led to his separation from the Society several years ago:
He had difficulty reconciling grace and nature. On the one hand, he was very willing to give credence to messages, apparitions and other supernatural phenomena; on the other hand, he tended towards a certain naturalism, giving politics and contemporary phenomena an excessive amount of space in his sermons and lectures.
We warned him on several occasions about his comments on the h0Ɩ0cαųst, but to no avail. This led to the unfortunate interview for Swedish television on November 1, 2008, which at the end of January 2009 labeled the Society in Germany as "fascist, anti-Semitic" etc., a label we had been struggling with for years.
His defiance of the Society's authorities ultimately made a separation inevitable.
God forgive him for the errors and confusion he caused in the years that followed with his Kyrie eleison comments, and even more so for his episcopal consecrations, which lacked and still lack any objective necessity and any sensus ecclesiae.
Rather, may God richly reward him for his previous merits. R.I.P.
-----------------------
For those who understand German, here is the original text:
Bischof Williamson war Engländer, Konvertit aus dem Anglikanismus, ein sehr gebildeter, sprachbegabter, intelligenter und fähiger Mann. Als solcher hat er viel Gutes in der Bruderschaft bewirkt, und dies war der Grund, weswegen ihn Erzbischof Lefebvre am 30. Juni 1988 mit den drei anderen Kandidaten zum Bioschof konsekriert hat.
Doch konnte man gewisse Schwächen bei ihm nicht übersehen, die schließlich aufgrund ihrer Zu-nahme vor etlichen Jahren zu seiner Trennung von der Bruderschaft führten:
Er hatte seine Schwierigkeiten damit, Gnade und Natur zu verbinden. Einerseits war er sehr gern bereit, Botschaften, Erscheinungen und anderen übernatürlichen Phänomenen Glaubwürdigkeit zuzusprechen; andererseits neigte er zu einem gewissen Naturalismus, indem er der Politik und den Zeiterscheinungen einen übermäßigen Platz in seinen Predigten und Vorträgen einräumte.
Wir warnten ihn verschiedentlich wegen seiner Äußerungen zum h0Ɩ0cαųst; ohne Erfolg. So kam es am 1. November 2008 zu dem unglücklichen Interview für das schwedische Fernsehen, das Ende Januar 2009 der Bruderschaft gerade in Deutschland das Etikett "faschistisch, antisemitisch" etc. umgehängt hat, mit der wir jahrelang zu kämpfen hatten.
Seine Widersetzlichkeit den Autoritäten der Bruderschaft gegenüber machte schließlich eine Trennung unabdingbar.
Die Irrungen und Verwirrungen, die er in den folgenden Jahren durch seine Kyrie-eleison-Kommentare hervorgerufen hat, möge Gott ihm verzeihen, noch mehr seine Bischofskonsekrationen, die jeder objektiven Notwendigkeit und jedem sensus ecclisiae entbehrten und entbehren.
Möge Gott ihm vielmehr seine früheren Verdienste reichlich belohnen. R.I.P.
-
Hmmm… we see in Schmidberger the stereotypical Jєωιѕн penchant for spitting on the graves of their foes.
-
😢 The thoughts of Fr. Schmidberger are clear. How hatred blinds. Fr. S. expresses in his eulogy those very evils of which he accuses the bishop; lack of respect for authority, failure to reconcile grace and nature, sowing of error and confusion, having bad judgment, and without sensus ecclesiae. Better to have remained silent. 😢
-
Does anyone have Schmidberger's email conveniently at hand?
-
😢 The thoughts of Fr. Schmidberger are clear. How hatred blinds. Fr. S. expresses in his eulogy those very evils of which he accuses the bishop; lack of respect for authority, failure to reconcile grace and nature, sowing of error and confusion, having bad judgment, and without sensus ecclesiae. Better to have remained silent. 😢
Yes! Although I don't believe it is hatred, truly it is the very things of which he accuses Bishop Williamson as you say that are his own downfall and blind him to these supernatural realities, which give him a too naturalistic vision of the Church. We can only hope and pray for him what he prays for Bishop Williamson: God forgive him for the errors and confusion he has spread in recent years and reward him for all the good he has done in the past.
Recall this docuмent from 2016 where he promotes an agreement with the Rome of Pope Francis: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/04/considerations-schmidberger-letter.html:
Answers to some objections:
Question: But what will the people of the “Resistance” say?
Answer: We cannot perform our actions to please people who quite obviously have lost their sense of the Church and love of the Church in her concrete form.
-
Yes, Fr. Schmidberger needs our prayers. My comment is not intended in the sense of being complete and final. The fact Remains that a priest in a high position as is Fr. S, publishing such a disdainful letter brings shame on the SSPX more than anything Bp. W. ever wrote or said, either before or after his departure from the Society.
I suspect both Archbishop LeFebvre and Bp. Williamson, Bp. Tissier, too, are “turning in their graves” whilst interceding for Fr. S.
Maybe hatred was too strong a word. Is “intense dislike” better? I hope Fr. Schmidberger doesn’t write my eulogy!
It seems to me Fr. Schmidberger wrote what he did in a fit of emotion and hit SEND before thinking it over.
Let us pray for Fr. Schmidberger. Harboring “intense dislike” of one who has now gone to his judgment, who can neither defend nor amend, is a heavy burden to carry on one’s conscience.
-
A truly scandalous statement by Father Schmidberger...
We warned him on several occasions about his comments on the h0Ɩ0cαųst, but to no avail. This led to the unfortunate interview for Swedish television on November 1, 2008, which at the end of January 2009 labeled the Society in Germany as "fascist, anti-Semitic" etc., a label we had been struggling with for years.
Right you are AtH, truly scandalous.
We have it there in a nutshell, the reason for Bishop Williamson's marginalisation and expulsion: fear of the Jews.
Perhaps this is why we heard nothing out of Fr Schmidberger when the then District Superior of South America Fr Bouchacourt proclaimed that the Jews did not commit deicide: evidently history is of no account for Fr Schmidberger, what matters for the SSPX is good relations with the Jews: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/the-Jєωιѕн-people-did-not-commit-the-deicide/
Fr Bouchacourt confirms Fr Schmidberger's reason given for the expulsion of Bishop Williamson: https://www.clarin.com/edicion-impresa/fraternidad-san-pio-catolicos-francisco_0_BkiN5objP7e.html: For Father Cristian Bouchacourt, Superior of the Fraternity in the District, born in France, the Williamson case is a bad memory. "From that statement, he's no longer with us," he explains. And he cares to clarify: We're not nαzιs... Q. Do you defend the deicide, which imputed to the Jews the death of Jesus, as was the vision of the Holy See before the Council? A. The Jєωιѕн people didn't commit the deicide...
Why are we not surprised that instead of being exiled for such a grave statement, Fr Bouchacourt was not expelled like Bishop Williamson, no, he was promoted to Superior for France and then Second Assistant to the Superior General.
Dear SSPXers, are you stupid? Are you blind? For how long will you put up with this mockery?
Of course, when we know that this whole episode was in fact a deliberate trap set by Fr Shmidberger's friends, https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/interview-with-bishop-stobnicki/msg939106/#msg939106, when we know that they wanted Bishop Williamson to fall into this trap and utter these words about the 'h0Ɩ0cαųst', then it becomes clear just how sordid this whole affair really was and it becomes obvious to anyone who does not want to be deceived that this pretext for expelling Bishop Williamson, which Fr Schmidberger perpetuates, was in fact the premeditated means by which the enemy in the Society sought to remove their greatest obstacle (Bishop Williamson) to destroying the work of Tradition through an accord with modernist Rome.
-
We warned him on several occasions about his comments on the h0Ɩ0cαųst, but to no avail. This led to the unfortunate interview for Swedish television on November 1, 2008, which at the end of January 2009 labeled the Society in Germany as "fascist, anti-Semitic" etc., a label we had been struggling with for years.
His defiance of the Society's authorities ultimately made a separation inevitable.
I've always found the Society's fake "authority" to be one of their most obnoxious self-contradictions. Look, you're refusing submission to the man you hold to be the Vicar of Christ, who is, per the dogmatic teaching of Vatican I, the source and font of all authority in the Church after Christ Himself, from whom he in turn receives it, being His Vicar. Newsflash, Schmidberger, +Fellay, Pagliarani ... YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY! Among Traditional Catholics the only authority is moral authority, and so I find it repugnant that the man who had hands down the greatest moral authority in the Society should be taking commands from a no-account punk like Schmidberger (who does he think he is speaking to a bishop like this, and THE bishop chosen by +Lefebvre to carry on his legacy?). Somehow Schmidberger considers himself part of the "we" who had some alleged authority over His Excellency.
They're badgered, persecuted, and attacked priests for decades for being "disobedient" when they were merely following their consciences in a different direction than SSPX, either going FSSP, or Maronite, or Sedevacantists, etc. They had every much a right for their faith to be greater than their obedience as they did, in fact, a thousand times the right, since in disobeying the putative Vicar of Christ, they themselves are severed from the font of all authority in the Church and have no right to demand it of anyone else.
For a Society that since its very inception has harped upon how the Modernists used "false authority" to draw people in to their errors, they themselves believe THEY enjoy some charism of infallibility that the Vicar of Christ lacks, and some authority to impose their "positions" on consciences that the Vicar of Christ lacks? Utter hogwash. And this insistence on "obedience" from the priests has been the chief warning sign to me from the start they had been infiltrated, since they're using this very same tactic that had worked for them before to wreck the larger Church, false authority. And good old Schmidtie has long been at the top of my list of suspects. If there has ever been a priest who lacked any sense of what I would consider piety or devotion (the hardest part of being a priest for an infiltrator to fake), it's been Schmidberger, just mechanically going through the Mass and Office, etc. ... without any sense that he was actually internally immersed in them. Then this guy somehow became Superior (based on what? ... as he did not stand out in any respect), and was giving orders to bishops? Even before I started studying Catholic ecclesiology in depth, i.e. when I was a newbie who knew next to nothing, EVEN BACK THEN I realized the obvious in-your-face contradiction of hammering people with "authority" when your very raison d'etre entails having separated from the authority of Christ's Vicar.
I suspect His Excellency shared this same distaste / disgust toward this fake pseudo-authority that I have had for years, and that's why he shied away from creating his own organization, over which he'd have any authority. I do think he should have leveraged his moral authority to retain control of SSPX (between himself and Tissier, he could have caused a revolt there, which would have been welcome given the Society's pollution with Modernism since then), and they could have wrested control of the SSPX from +Fellay, Schmidberger, et al. But that's in the past now.
In fact, when I was still in Winona, so this would have been early 1990s, just a short time after Archbishop Lefebvre's death, Bishop Williamson predicted a fragmentation of the Society precisely because he felt that it was only the moral authority of +Lefebvre that had been the glue holding it together, and that the rest was artificial authority, and that the SSPX only had the role of being a "pilot light" that could ignite once the actual institutional Church gets restored to what it was.
-
Question: But what will the people of the “Resistance” say?
Answer: We cannot perform our actions to please people who quite obviously have lost their sense of the Church and love of the Church in her concrete form.
"Church in her concrete form" is the biggest load of hogwash I've ever seen to justify, at the same time, their own continued lack of "full communion" (a Vatican II Modernist term, by the way) with the putative Holy See and yet condemning the Resistance for doing the same. I'll get back to that later when I have time, but it's a complete load of bovine excrement, a total novelty.
-
"Church in her concrete form" is the biggest load of hogwash I've ever seen to justify, at the same time, their own continued lack of "full communion" (a Vatican II Modernist term, by the way) with the putative Holy See and yet condemning the Resistance for doing the same. I'll get back to that later when I have time, but it's a complete load of bovine excrement, a total novelty.
To say nothing of the fact that it sounds like some Kantian garbage ... whereas Traditionally various theologians tried to distinguish between the soul of the Church and the Body, which distinction Pius XII rejected in Mystici Corporis as explained well by Msgr. Fenton ... and the Aristotelian / Thomistic distinction would be between material and formal. So instead of relying upon well-established philosophical/theological ideas, they make up this amorphous new term, "concrete"? Over a thousand years of Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy wasn't good enough for you, where the meanings of the terms of very clear, so you have to make up this bogus term, probably off the pages of Kant (whom Bishop Williamson rightly despised)?
So, to what is the "Church in her concrete form" opposed, to the "Church as an idea", i.e. the idea of the Church? Such as when you pay lip service to the "Vicar of Christ" as some kind of idea but then continue to remain separated from the "concrete" Vicar of Christ ... i.e. for all intents and purposes?
-
So I did a bit of digging, and ... I nailed it.
(https://i.ibb.co/WvJK3p01/kant-concrete.png)
I'm not even close to an expert in Kant, and in fact have never bothered to read any of him, after His Exellency Bishop Williamson exposed him as total garbage, but kudos again to His Excellency in giving us enough of an overview to recognize this garbage when we hear it. That's what I said in another post, that His Excellency didn't just give us fish (i.e. thoughts), but taught us how to fish (how to think, and to recognize subjectivism in all its forms). Based on what I was armed with by His Excellency, I sniffed this "concrete Church" nonsense out pretty quickly ... as phenomenological hogwash.
I vaguely recall after Bishop Williamson had discussed how the Germans (who in his estimation, while being good at other things, completely suck at philosophy), even German Cahtolics, have had this inordinate admiration for Kant, having been perhaps their most renowned "philosopher" ... and I kindof recall him taking a subtle swipe at the German Trads (perhaps even Schmidberger) for being somewhat contaminated by this thinking themselves, saying that the Germans had this need to salvage Kant by attempting to reconcile his philosophy with scholasticism / Thomism / Aristotelianism, and that it was a doomed effort that could end only in disaster because they're simply not compatible.
-
A truly scandalous statement by Father Schmidberger on the death of Bishop Williamson. It was published today in his weekly newsletter, which was sent by email on Monday February 3rd.
Does this email exist on the internet? Often newsletter's have a "view in browser" function. Or can we see screengrabs?
-
Father Schmidberger also has an uncanny resemblance to Cardinal Rampolla
-
Father Schmidberger also has an uncanny resemblance to Cardinal Rampolla
I could never put a name to it, but he also reminded me of some figure from the Third Reich ... though perhaps it was actually some movie depicting such characters. Perhaps Himmler. But, if I were a judge at Nuremberg, I'd vote to convict him as a nαzι war criminal just on his looks alone. :laugh1:
I had thoughts of secretly flashing him the nαzι salute when no one else was looking to see if he instinctively responded with the same. :laugh1:
Although a young Schmidberger has a strong resemblance to Wojtyla-Katz and may be showing forth some of that Jєωιѕн lineage.
-
Only in your head.
Please explain what is the Novus Ordo church...
And then what elements of it thereof you think make it part of the true Church...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GXKYbkAW0AAm5Wc.jpg)
-
Does this email exist on the internet? Often newsletter's have a "view in browser" function. Or can we see screengrabs?
This email is not publicly accessible via the Internet. It is sent every Monday (hence its name "Montagsaussendung" = "Monday mailing" or "Monday dispatch") to those who have signed up to receive it.
(https://i.imgur.com/PFODbuS.png)
-
Only in your head.
Please explain what is the Novus Ordo church...
And then what elements of it thereof you think make it part of the true Church...
No matter what the topic is, you're absolutely obesessive-compulsively obsessed with your own retardation, so that you stalk me around CI (unable to refute, or, even comprehend, so much as a word of what I wrote) like some raving lunatic restating the same strawman over and over again.
At no point did I say or believe that the "Novus Ordo church ... [is] ... part of the true Church". Only in your overt stupidity can you keep thinking that I ever said this, and a brain fogged by your radically schismatic mental and spiritual defectiveness.
So, try reading this sentence 100 times over and over again, slowly, until you understand it. While it may cause you excruciating mental pain, it's necessary:
Some people in the Novus Ordo (aka Conciliar) Church may still be Catholic due to being in material error only, while continuing to profess the faith and intending to adhere to (what they wrongly believe to be) the Magisterium, and that intent to adhere to the Magisterium is the formal motive of faith.
This does not mean that the Conciliar Church his part of the Church, just as when St. Vincent Ferrer was subject to an Antipope, he remained a Catholic due to his error being only material in nature.
-
This (Joannes) is what happens when morons who don't know even the basics of Aristotelian/scholastic logic (and philosophy) attempt to make theological declarations from their armchairs.
-
This email is not publicly accessible via the Internet. It is sent every Monday (hence its name "Montagsaussendung" = "Monday mailing" or "Monday dispatch") to those who have signed up to receive it.
:laugh1: ... who would even know it existed in the first place to sign up for? I think I might pass, or else filter it into the same junk folder into which I'll send various other spam.
-
We warned him on several occasions about his comments on the h0Ɩ0cαųst, but to no avail. This led to the unfortunate interview for Swedish television on November 1, 2008, which at the end of January 2009 labeled the Society in Germany as "fascist, anti-Semitic" etc., a label we had been struggling with for years.
----------------------
For those who understand German, here is the original text:
Bischof Williamson war Engländer, Konvertit aus dem Anglikanismus, ein sehr gebildeter, sprachbegabter, intelligenter und fähiger Mann. Als solcher hat er viel Gutes in der Bruderschaft bewirkt, und dies war der Grund, weswegen ihn Erzbischof Lefebvre am 30. Juni 1988 mit den drei anderen Kandidaten zum Bioschof konsekriert hat.
Doch konnte man gewisse Schwächen bei ihm nicht übersehen, die schließlich aufgrund ihrer Zu-nahme vor etlichen Jahren zu seiner Trennung von der Bruderschaft führten:
Er hatte seine Schwierigkeiten damit, Gnade und Natur zu verbinden. Einerseits war er sehr gern bereit, Botschaften, Erscheinungen und anderen übernatürlichen Phänomenen Glaubwürdigkeit zuzusprechen; andererseits neigte er zu einem gewissen Naturalismus, indem er der Politik und den Zeiterscheinungen einen übermäßigen Platz in seinen Predigten und Vorträgen einräumte.
Wir warnten ihn verschiedentlich wegen seiner Äußerungen zum h0Ɩ0cαųst; ohne Erfolg. So kam es am 1. November 2008 zu dem unglücklichen Interview für das schwedische Fernsehen, das Ende Januar 2009 der Bruderschaft gerade in Deutschland das Etikett "faschistisch, antisemitisch" etc. umgehängt hat, mit der wir jahrelang zu kämpfen hatten.
Seine Widersetzlichkeit den Autoritäten der Bruderschaft gegenüber machte schließlich eine Trennung unabdingbar.
Die Irrungen und Verwirrungen, die er in den folgenden Jahren durch seine Kyrie-eleison-Kommentare hervorgerufen hat, möge Gott ihm verzeihen, noch mehr seine Bischofskonsekrationen, die jeder objektiven Notwendigkeit und jedem sensus ecclisiae entbehrten und entbehren.
Möge Gott ihm vielmehr seine früheren Verdienste reichlich belohnen. R.I.P.
Lad beat me to the punch! Who is "we" supposed to represent? It did not occur to me that the SSPX had an official h0Ɩ0cαųst Historian, in fact, is there anyone in the SSPX competent to argue the h0Ɩ0h0αx? If there is, I have not met him. This letter is ridiculous, very insubstantial. It is easy to write about the dead due their inability to defend themselves. Fr. Sch. ought to read David Irving, whom Bp. Williamson knew personally. Perhaps the "we" in Fr. Schi.'s letter will correct David Irving too! Thanks for the letter, I officially wasted three minutes of my life.
-
Lad beat me to the punch! Who is "we" supposed to represent? It did not occur to me that the SSPX had an official h0Ɩ0cαųst Historian, in fact, is there anyone in the SSPX competent to argue the h0Ɩ0h0αx? If there is, I have not met him. This letter is ridiculous, very insubstantial. It is easy to write about the dead due their inability to defend themselves. Fr. Sch. ought to read David Irving, whom Bp. Williamson knew personally. Perhaps the "we" in Fr. Schi.'s letter will correct David Irving too! Thanks for the letter, I officially wasted three minutes of my life.
You go against the h0Ɩ0h0αx narrative as a religion, they are coming after you. First and foremost the money will go. Can take that one to the bank.
-
I told Bp. Williamson in class one day, "Remember my Lord, there is no salvation outside the Church for those who deny the h0Ɩ0cαųst." He thought that was funny.
-
Hey, you two obstreperous organisms! Take your insults elsewhere. This thread is supposed to be about Fr. Schmidberger’s excremental eulogy.
Note: I called the eulogy 💩, not Fr. Schmidberger.
-
Hey, you two obstreperous organisms! Take your insults elsewhere. This thread is supposed to be about Fr. Schmidberger’s excremental eulogy.
Note: I called the eulogy 💩, not Fr. Schmidberger.
So, the use of the term "concrete Church" as the main point of Schmidberger's attack on the Resistance is in fact discussing the eulogy, since the main force of the attack was that ... alongside Bishop Williamson's "disobedience" their directives not to speak about the h0Ɩ0h0αx, and his sermons being too political. It was the obsessive-compulsive nutjob Johannes here who decided to twist it into some debate about the Conciliar Church. Every single thread I post on, this jackass brings up the fact that he can't accept how people can be in the Conciliar Church and still be Catholics, due to material error.
-
Well, I just want to discuss - and I didn't bring up the topic of the Church - he did.
I would be happy to debate him over here:
Poll: Are members of the Novus Ordo Schismatics? - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/poll-are-members-of-the-novus-ordo-schismatics/)
(https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/poll-are-members-of-the-novus-ordo-schismatics/)
And, if the SSPX is all overrun and given in to the Modernists then is it really any surprise what they say about +Williamson?
Good idea. Move the discussion to a more appropriate thread.
No, it’s not surprising that Bp. W. is treated poorly by those given to compromise with modernism. What IS surprising is that a higher up like Fr. Schmidberger would do so only four days after his death!
It wins my “Totally Tasteless Award” of the week.
-
However, certain weaknesses in him could not be overlooked, which, as they increased, ultimately led to his separation from the Society several years ago:
He had difficulty reconciling grace and nature. On the one hand, he was very willing to give credence to messages, apparitions and other supernatural phenomena; on the other hand, he tended towards a certain naturalism, giving politics and contemporary phenomena an excessive amount of space in his sermons and lectures.
We warned him on several occasions about his comments on the h0Ɩ0cαųst, but to no avail. This led to the unfortunate interview for Swedish television on November 1, 2008, which at the end of January 2009 labeled the Society in Germany as "fascist, anti-Semitic" etc., a label we had been struggling with for years.
His defiance of the Society's authorities ultimately made a separation inevitable.
God forgive him for the errors and confusion he caused in the years that followed with his Kyrie eleison comments, and even more so for his episcopal consecrations, which lacked and still lack any objective necessity and any sensus ecclesiae
So after a brief paragraph talking about Bishop Williamson's good qualities, he spends the bulk of his time attacking Bishop Williamson for:
-- certain weaknesses in him
-- that led to his separation from SSPX (so it was entirely his fault, and SSPX are blameless)
-- difficult reconciling grace and natural
-- excessively credulous toward messages, apparitions, etc.
-- excessive naturalism by focusing too much on politics in his sermons and lectures
-- we warned him (who are you? and who is "we"?)
-- compromised us after dealing with charges of "anti-Semitism"
-- defiance of Society's authorities
-- errors and confusion caused in KE comments
-- episcopal consecrations that lack any objective necessity (Schmidberger = measure of objectivity) and any sensus ecclesiae
So one could spend a long time on each of these points, and I will take them up one by one in defense of His Excellency as I have time, possibly putting them all together later and publishing an open rejection of Schmidberger's vile attack
-
Does anyone have Schmidberger's email conveniently at hand?
No, but you can write to the Genral House and have them forward your letter:
- Mariä Verkündigung Priory
Schloss Schwandegg
6313 Menzingen
Switzerland
-
-- certain weaknesses in him
-- that led to his separation from SSPX (so it was entirely his fault, and SSPX are blameless)
So, while Schmidberger does soften the attack by referring to them as "weaknesses", he holds Bishop Williamsoon entirely (100%) responsible for their "separation", without admitting any fault on the par of the Society, kindof like a couple divorcing always blame the other party completely. This attempting to cover up any blemish on the "Society" is probably the same mentality that they have when attempting to cover up and protect various sɛҳuąƖ predators. While we attack Wojtyla et al. for "apologizing" on behalf of "the Church", SSPX seem to have the same attitude, that SSPX should always be held blameless, as if it were effectively the Church. In fact, as we will see reinforced later, they do seem to think that the SSPX has all the notes, qualities, and attributes of the Church, as if the SSPX were the "spotless bride of Christ" -- while the Conciliar Church, the "concrete" Church I guess, has become thoroughly corrupt. So SSPX are the "ideal" Church? This entire thing is pathetically absurd.
-
I vaguely recall after Bishop Williamson had discussed how the Germans (who in his estimation, while being good at other things, completely suck at philosophy), even German Cahtolics, have had this inordinate admiration for Kant, having been perhaps their most renowned "philosopher" ... and I kindof recall him taking a subtle swipe at the German Trads (perhaps even Schmidberger) for being somewhat contaminated by this thinking themselves [...]
I remember Fr. Iscara taught us this in one of his classes. I remember he taught that Germans have a tendency (with their high IQs) to build huge ivory towers of thought, and basically to lose touch with reality. (I would continue with: philosophically, they get lost, like a helium balloon some kid let go of, and they spin off into the sky, into left field.)
Intelligence and the ability to abstract are almost synonymous. But so is creativity -- including the ability to come up with a whole house of cards built on nonsense. The Germans do have a lot of intelligence. But perhaps too much? Because they quickly detach themselves from reality, with their abstractions in matters of philosophy. They are so prone to getting detached from reality.
And you know Fr. Iscara's inimitable sense of humor. He concluded with, "and if anyone tells Fr. [Wolfgang] Goettler I said this, and they send me to the African missions as a punishment -- I'll make sure to request you as an assistant."
Along these same lines, I heard legends and stories of a great Trad philosophy professor who took his students out for some kind of break, and made them shovel manure for a bit. To keep them grounded in reality. It's hard to spin off into subjectivism "it's all in my head!" when you're shoveling heavy, smelly dung which is very CLEARLY existing in objective reality.
There's a reason why farmers, and rural folk in general, are more grounded in reality. If you have a herd of (female) cows, you're not going to have any baby cows. You can be as liberal as you want, as virtue-signalling, as LGBTQ friendly as you think you should be. But if you fail to have a bull in your herd, there will be no calves. Farmers get common sense for free, as a bonus, with their vocation.
-
This attempting to cover up any blemish on the "Society" is probably the same mentality that they have when attempting to cover up and protect various sɛҳuąƖ predators. While we attack Wojtyla et al. for "apologizing" on behalf of "the Church", SSPX seem to have the same attitude, that SSPX should always be held blameless, as if it were effectively the Church. In fact, as we will see reinforced later, they do seem to think that the SSPX has all the notes, qualities, and attributes of the Church, as if the SSPX were the "spotless bride of Christ" -- while the Conciliar Church, the "concrete" Church I guess, has become thoroughly corrupt. So SSPX are the "ideal" Church? This entire thing is pathetically absurd.
To be fair, this was the SSPX's fatal flaw even in "the good old days" (e.g., the 1980's).
My old priest I grew up with (from age 3 until I entered the seminary), Fr. Slupski, used to work with the SSPX before parting ways with them.
Both he and Thomas Nelson had the same opinion on the SSPX: on the one hand they're hardcore Trads, they keep the Faith without compromise, but on the other hand they think they're the Church. In other words, the SSPX doesn't think they are PART OF the Catholic Church, but that they ARE the Catholic Church.
Looking back on all my experience -- I can't say that these men were wrong. The SSPX, as an organization, got a bit high on itself, in its position as 800 lb Gorilla of Tradition. And many of the men in the SSPX internalized and expressed this attitude.
If you're unclear what I mean by 800 lb gorilla, google it. It's a very handy expression that conveys a precise idea. The SSPX is absolutely the 800 lb gorilla in the world of Tradition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/800-pound_gorilla
-
While Father Iscara taught there after my time, yes, Bishop Williamson also said that a lot about how part of the reason modern society has bought into this crap is because we're disconnected from reality and nature, and the more everyone lives in these artificial environments, the more plausible this garbage seems, whereas if you're in touch with nature and reality on a daily basis, it's utterly absurd.
Bishop Williamson used to mock Kant by suggesting that he should stand on a railroad track as a train sped toward him to determine how "real" it was going to be.
-
To be fair, this was the SSPX's fatal flaw even in "the good old days" (e.g., the 1980's).
My old priest I grew up with (from age 3 until I entered the seminary), Fr. Slupski, used to work with the SSPX before parting ways with them.
Both he and Thomas Nelson had the same opinion on the SSPX: on the one hand they're hardcore Trads, they keep the Faith without compromise, but on the other hand they think they're the Church. In other words, the SSPX doesn't think they are PART OF the Catholic Church, but that they ARE the Catholic Church.
Looking back on all my experience -- I can't say that these men were wrong. The SSPX, as an organization, got a bit high on itself, in its position as 800 lb Gorilla of Tradition. And many of the men in the SSPX internalized and expressed this attitude.
If you're unclear what I mean by 800 lb gorilla, google it. It's a very handy expression that conveys a precise idea. The SSPX is absolutely the 800 lb gorilla in the world of Tradition.
Agreed. And I wrote that earlier in this thread that even back in the days I was there I recognized how contradictory the SSPX were in demanding blind, unthinking acquiescence to its every whim, i.e. blind unconditional obedience, while saying it's OK to disobey the Vicar of Christ. Disobey the pope? No problem. Disobey the SSPX Superior General (at the time Schmidberger)? ... well, you're basically consigning yourself to the flames of Hell, as if the SSPX had some authority and some charism of quasi-infallibility that surpassed that held by the ["concrete"] Church.
-
Sorry to ruin your Sberger gripe/hate session with convo about the nature of the Church.
But where did you ever get the impression that the SSPX was "tactful" or had good "taste"?
They don't even operate in the sphere of common sense...
An organization doesn’t have tact or taste. People have them, or, in the case of Fr. S.’s words, lack them both.
-
Hmmm… we see in Schmidberger the stereotypical Jєωιѕн penchant for spitting on the graves of their foes.
Running the German through a word counter, I get 48 words of praise (toward the beginning) and 166 of criticism/attack. I counted the last section about resting in peace as neither.
Certainly inappropriate after someone has just passed away. We all know what your criticisms are and they can be alluded to if you don't want your text to read an an unequivocal endorsement of everything you do.
I wonder when Schmidberger dies how many people will be commemorating his life? It'll probably be a one-sentence blurb if a few news sources in Germany.
Meanwhile, the veritable torrent and outpouring of sentiment toward Bishop Williamson remains as a testimony to how many lives he's touched for the better. How many people will say: "Father Schmidberger changed my life." (apart from a few that he expelled from SSPX). Or "Bishop Glaretta changed my life." Or even "Bishop Tissier changed my life." [perhaps a few Frenchmen who were in direct contact with him). Or "Bishop Fellay changed my life." (as in, for the better).
-
I'm guessing that if they were to hold Bishop Williamson's funeral/requiem in the US, there would be thousands in attendance. I myself would make the 12-hour drive to Winona.
-
Disobey the pope? No problem. Disobey the SSPX Superior General (at the time Schmidberger)? ... well, you're basically consigning yourself to the flames of Hell,
Yeah and the sspx doesn’t even require/take vows. Their whole idea of obedience is cultish.
-
I'm guessing that if they were to hold Bishop Williamson's funeral/requiem in the US, there would be thousands in attendance. I myself would make the 12-hour drive to Winona.
I would, too, only it would be a two day trip for me. Virginia would be easier, but that won’t be happening.
-
"WAIT A MINTUE YOU FRIGGIN IDIOT - GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE YOU APE LOSER"!
But, I will leave you too it then :laugh1:
:cowboy:GO SHOVEL 🐄 💩? :laugh1:
-
I've always found the Society's fake "authority" to be one of their most obnoxious self-contradictions. Look, you're refusing submission to the man you hold to be the Vicar of Christ, who is, per the dogmatic teaching of Vatican I, the source and font of all authority in the Church after Christ Himself, from whom he in turn receives it, being His Vicar. Newsflash, Schmidberger, +Fellay, Pagliarani ... YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY! Among Traditional Catholics the only authority is moral authority, and so I find it repugnant that the man who had hands down the greatest moral authority in the Society should be taking commands from a no-account punk like Schmidberger (who does he think he is speaking to a bishop like this, and THE bishop chosen by +Lefebvre to carry on his legacy?). Somehow Schmidberger considers himself part of the "we" who had some alleged authority over His Excellency.
They're badgered, persecuted, and attacked priests for decades for being "disobedient" when they were merely following their consciences in a different direction than SSPX, either going FSSP, or Maronite, or Sedevacantists, etc. They had every much a right for their faith to be greater than their obedience as they did, in fact, a thousand times the right, since in disobeying the putative Vicar of Christ, they themselves are severed from the font of all authority in the Church and have no right to demand it of anyone else.
For a Society that since its very inception has harped upon how the Modernists used "false authority" to draw people in to their errors, they themselves believe THEY enjoy some charism of infallibility that the Vicar of Christ lacks, and some authority to impose their "positions" on consciences that the Vicar of Christ lacks? Utter hogwash. And this insistence on "obedience" from the priests has been the chief warning sign to me from the start they had been infiltrated, since they're using this very same tactic that had worked for them before to wreck the larger Church, false authority. And good old Schmidtie has long been at the top of my list of suspects. If there has ever been a priest who lacked any sense of what I would consider piety or devotion (the hardest part of being a priest for an infiltrator to fake), it's been Schmidberger, just mechanically going through the Mass and Office, etc. ... without any sense that he was actually internally immersed in them. Then this guy somehow became Superior (based on what? ... as he did not stand out in any respect), and was giving orders to bishops? Even before I started studying Catholic ecclesiology in depth, i.e. when I was a newbie who knew next to nothing, EVEN BACK THEN I realized the obvious in-your-face contradiction of hammering people with "authority" when your very raison d'etre entails having separated from the authority of Christ's Vicar.
I suspect His Excellency shared this same distaste / disgust toward this fake pseudo-authority that I have had for years, and that's why he shied away from creating his own organization, over which he'd have any authority. I do think he should have leveraged his moral authority to retain control of SSPX (between himself and Tissier, he could have caused a revolt there, which would have been welcome given the Society's pollution with Modernism since then), and they could have wrested control of the SSPX from +Fellay, Schmidberger, et al. But that's in the past now.
In fact, when I was still in Winona, so this would have been early 1990s, just a short time after Archbishop Lefebvre's death, Bishop Williamson predicted a fragmentation of the Society precisely because he felt that it was only the moral authority of +Lefebvre that had been the glue holding it together, and that the rest was artificial authority, and that the SSPX only had the role of being a "pilot light" that could ignite once the actual institutional Church gets restored to what it was.
Lad, I'm not sure what you've been smoking but Schmidberger, +Fellay, Pagliarani have the same authority by virtue of being superior general of the SSPX, similar to +Lefebvre being the founder and first superior general. Perhaps you are also saying +Lefebvre didn't have any authority to expel the Nine? And wasn't it +Williamson who played a big role also in the expulsion of the Nine?
Granted, I agree that Fr. Schmidberger's post was in poor taste. But I also read the same pollution in +Williamson's tributes by Resistance sources who added condemnations of +Fellay. For goodness' sake, let's just stop the mudslinging and pray for the departed bishop. As the saying goes, what goes around comes around.
-
https://odysee.com/@E.MichelJones:f/EMJ-Live-107:f
And now, here's this asshole with his take.
Should be keeping his mouth very shut.
-
Lad, I'm not sure what you've been smoking but Schmidberger, +Fellay, Pagliarani have the same authority by virtue of being superior general of the SSPX, similar to +Lefebvre being the founder and first superior general. Perhaps you are also saying +Lefebvre didn't have any authority to expel the Nine? And wasn't it +Williamson who played a big role also in the expulsion of the Nine?
Granted, I agree that Fr. Schmidberger's post was in poor taste. But I also read the same pollution in +Williamson's tributes by Resistance sources who added condemnations of +Fellay. For goodness' sake, let's just stop the mudslinging and pray for the departed bishop. As the saying goes, what goes around comes around.
I see the same thing. It is so frustrating.
-
Does anyone have Schmidberger's email conveniently at hand?
^^^^ My efforts to find it have failed. Does anyone have it?
His eyes need to be blistered by opprobrium heaped upon him.
-
https://odysee.com/@E.MichelJones:f/EMJ-Live-107:f
And now, here's this asshole with his take.
Should be keeping his mouth very shut.
Sad to see he is doubling down after many people rightfully told him off on twitter. Imagine standing before God at your judgement and having to explain why you, some NO layman, personally condemned to hell the man who has done the most good for the traditional Catholic movement since +Lefebvre. May God have mercy on his soul
-
Granted, I agree that Fr. Schmidberger's post was in poor taste. But I also read the same pollution in +Williamson's tributes by Resistance sources who added condemnations of +Fellay. For goodness' sake, let's just stop the mudslinging and pray for the departed bishop. As the saying goes, what goes around comes around.
It's ridiculous that you're trying to equate the two, Trento. +W was expelled simply because he didn't "follow orders". +Fellay is criticized because he's 1) constantly gaslighting people on why the sspx was founded and why Traditionalism originated and 2) watering down sspx's adherance to doctrine, in an attempted "merger" with new-rome.
It's an apples to pizza comparison.
-
It's ridiculous that you're trying to equate the two, Trento. +W was expelled simply because he didn't "follow orders". +Fellay is criticized because he's 1) constantly gaslighting people on why the sspx was founded and why Traditionalism originated and 2) watering down sspx's adherance to doctrine, in an attempted "merger" with new-rome.
It's an apples to pizza comparison.
THIS^^^. Trento's constantly trying to defend neo-SSPX and has shown himself a Modernist on a variety of issues, so he's slighly attempting to minimize (and justify) the mudslinging against Williamson by falsely equating it to those attacking SSPX for having expelled him.
-
^^^^ My efforts to find it have failed. Does anyone have it?
His eyes need to be blistered by opprobrium heaped upon him.
I'd love to see that, but alas I don't have his e-mail either.
-
https://odysee.com/@E.MichelJones:f/EMJ-Live-107:f
And now, here's this asshole with his take.
Should be keeping his mouth very shut.
Yep. Jones is a piece of trash, despite being right on one issue. Here's a broken clock who somehow has managed to be right only once per day.
-
-- difficult reconciling grace and natural
-- excessively credulous toward messages, apparitions, etc.
-- excessive naturalism by focusing too much on politics in his sermons and lectures
So, where to begin unravelling this heaping pile of dung? His Excellency constantly emphasized St. Thomas Aquinas' teaching that grace perfects nature, and does not destroy it. If politics and society are broken, it would make it difficult for the seeds of True Religion to grow and flourish, just like the parable of the seed cast onto the rocky soil. So it's evidently Schmidberger who fails to recognize this. Not only that, but the various "political" questions His Excellency delved into are not exclusively political but overlap with the spiritual chastisement. Our Lady came to warn about errors of "Russia" (precisely those of Judaeo-Masonry), and it was none other than the Jews and the Communists who infiltrated the Church and have constructed this "ape" thereof to eclipse the True Church, so they need to be exposed. This attitude from Schmidberger makes him sound like a Modernist buffoon in favor of separating Church and state, and dethroning Christ the King. Only from such a mind could come the allegation that discussing the political, intellectual, philosophical, and moral climate of society is purely "natural" and has nothing to do with the faith. Of course, that's what the Communist collaborator clergy in various countries argued as well, that there's no problem with cooperating with the civil authorities and refusing to open condemn or combat the Commie politicians. In fact, it was Wojtyla's friendliness with the Commie officials, with the same attitude Schmidberger displays here, that allowed the Church to be taken over, including by himself. Yet another reason to suspect Schmiddie of being an infiltrator.
In addition, while I agree that His Excellency was a bit to credulous regarding some apparitions, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China and why does it find place in a hit piece after Bishop Williamson's demise? It has nothing to do with why he "parted ways" with SSPX, and -- ahem, Schmidberger -- what about that woman +Fellay was taking instructions from about how to wreck the SSPX? Finally, these purported poles of grace (represented by apparitions) and nature (politics) actually have nothing to do with the relationship between grace and nature, as the discernment regarding the legitimacy of apparitions is also an exercise in natural reason, having nothing to do with grace. So this is such a bungled mess of garbage as to bring shame on its author.
-
-- we warned him (who are you? and who is "we"?)
-- compromised us after dealing with charges of "anti-Semitism"
-- defiance of Society's authorities
"We" warned him, as of Schmidberger had any authority, other than imagined, over His Excellency Bishop Williamson, being only a priest, and with the SSPX having no actual authority, having separated from subjection to the man the hold to be the Vicar of Christ. There's also the condescending, arrogant tone of "warning" the Bishop, as if he has some charism of infallible authority. No, a normal person without such hubris, would have stated simply that we disagreed with His Excellency regarding his emphasis on the h0Ɩ0h0αx. That's how someone with even a modicuм of humility, of respect for his episcopal office and for his status as THE hand-picked successor of the Archbishop to carry on his legacy (until the other 3 were thrown in as add-ons) would have phrased it, that I felt he was a bit imprudent with regard to an undue emphasis on such issues for various practical reasons You can even emphatically disagree without talking down to him as if you were in any position to "warn" him from your "See" of "authority, and declare his disagreement with your "warnings" as "deficient of the Society's [pseudo-]authorities." His use of a term is a verbal finger-wag as if issued by a superior to an inferior, and Schmidberger couldn't hold a candle to His Excellency Bishops Williamson on any point of comparison.
As for your battle with charges of Anti-Semitism, it's not his fault that you look like a nαzι, and sound like one too. I'm sure that the effeminate squirming of +Fellay when asked that question did much to combat the charges, when the manly thing to do would be to uphold the truth, which alas many secular are more fearless in upholding, thereby winning the respect of others in secular society who are at least onto the Jєωιѕн deception and would respect whatever religion you represent for having the backbone to speak the truth, rather than cowaring like an effeminate little weasel. I see Bishop Willamson being promoted everywhere by other people who have the courage to stand up to the Jews, on places like rense.com, Stew Peters, and other venues. And those are the ones who are closest to being conveted to the true religion, once they find representatives of said religion that aren't a pathetic gaggle of woke wimps.
This here (video below) was an absolute embarrassment to the Society and to Traditional Catholicism. +Fellay's "sins" that he admits to are that he "talks too much". Reminds me of when, during job interviews, if you're asked what your chief weaknesses are, you answer that you "work too hard" or "care too much", etc. LOL I was always much more subtle, where I'd say that I'm too much of a perfectionist and get frustrated easily with things that are just not right. Well, the problem is not that he talks too much, but that he talks at all. When asked about some comments he had made about the Jews being enemies of the Church, he snivels around it claiming that, what he means is that the Jews perceive themselves to be at enmity with the Catholic Church (I phrased it much more articulately than he did). He could have articulately addressed it saying that what he meant was that the Jews have perpetually been in a state of enmity with the Catholic Church. But instead he snivels around it.
See, +Fellay and Schmidberger, for being these big "prudence" guys are actually epic fails. So, when you start snivelling like this, the sharks bent on destroying the Church smell blood and come in for the kill. Instead, the only way to deal with them is to stand up and double down. This is actually what Trump (love him or hate him) put into action. Traditionally politicians snivelled around trying to say "nithe" things or dance around stuff ... but Trump just directly started blurting things out, and people loved it for him.
+Fellay needed to have doubled down. "Indeed, the Jews have been collectively trying to destroy and undermine the Church since they first crucified Christ. There's solid evidence that they instigated the early Christian persecutions. They hate Christ, and therefore the Church he founded, because they wanted a Messiah who would come and make them masters of the Universe. But then when the Messiah actually came, and they knew full well it was Christ, by their owns Scriptures, which they later tried to butcher and adulterate to eliminate the prophecy that pointed directly to Him, Jesus Christ, He explained that He came for everyone, not just the Jew, and that He came to found a spiritual kingdom, not an earthly empire, and they would have none of it, so they murdered the Messiah, murdered God himself, committed Deicide, and proudly called down the Blood of God upon themselves and upon their children ... and they labor under that curse to this day."
THIS is how that snivelling coward Fellay needed to answer the question and it would have elicited the collective cheers of the millions around the world who are onto the Jews and who are probably the closest to being of good will intellectually to be converted. You may have had many non-Catholic Arabs considering conversion to Catholicism as a result. But how many did he convert with this pathetic, shameful non-answer?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16uMh1ih36s
-
Why are we giving so much screen time to Schidberger?
CI has tons more members/followers than his weekly whatever.
We are just enabling him in distributing his poison. It didn't have to be translated for wider distribution.
Bishop Williamson responded to his ousting then remained silent on the subject.
Let his response be enough and follow his example of silence. He had CLASS.
-
^^^^ My efforts to find it have failed. Does anyone have it?
His eyes need to be blistered by opprobrium heaped upon him.
:laugh1: :laugh2:
-
Why are we giving so much screen time to Schidberger?
CI has tons more members/followers than his weekly whatever.
We are just enabling him in distributing his poison. It didn't have to be translated for wider distribution.
Bishop Williamson responded to his ousting then remained silent on the subject.
Let his response be enough and follow his example of silence. He had CLASS.
Yeah, so more of the same snivelling response that we saw from +Fellay above. Sure, His Excellency remained silent, which is why Schmidberger attacked him for causing "confusion" and "error" via his Eleison Comments.
-
So after a brief paragraph talking about Bishop Williamson's good qualities, he spends the bulk of his time attacking Bishop Williamson for:
-- certain weaknesses in him
-- that led to his separation from SSPX (so it was entirely his fault, and SSPX are blameless)
-- difficult reconciling grace and natural
-- excessively credulous toward messages, apparitions, etc.
-- excessive naturalism by focusing too much on politics in his sermons and lectures
-- we warned him (who are you? and who is "we"?)
-- compromised us after dealing with charges of "anti-Semitism"
-- defiance of Society's authorities
-- errors and confusion caused in KE comments
-- episcopal consecrations that lack any objective necessity (Schmidberger = measure of objectivity) and any sensus ecclesiae
So one could spend a long time on each of these points, and I will take them up one by one in defense of His Excellency as I have time, possibly putting them all together later and publishing an open rejection of Schmidberger's vile attack
I think Bishop Williamson pretty much summed it up in that wonderful EC: Alice was in Wonderland, and the SSPX wanted to be in Huonderland. Fr Schmidberger has been too long in Huonderland. I imagine it was very pleasant there on Dies Judaeicus. There, you don't have to worry about history or reality or validity, you just live the dream! And these comments of poor old Fr Schmidberger certainly show him to be in a dream world. But then again, he probably had to say such things to keep alive his ultimate dream of a deal with Rome. After all, he and Bishop Fellay fill those newly created positions of General Counselor to assist with such an endeavour.
-
So, just as there are two paradigms regarding what happened to the Church:
1) many Churchmen over time had their minds contaminated with Modernism eventually got into higher offices and want to spread their "truth"
2) enemies who hated the Church infiltrated with the deliberate intention of detroying it
Same can be said of the SSPX. You certainly have some cradle-+Fellayites who grew up in SSPX and were trained at the seminary under the nouveau régime, but I believe that some of the old-timers are agents, infiltrators, and/or compromised. I've long had Schmidberger toward the top of my list of suspects.
Of course, you need both, right? If enemies had infiltrate the Church/SSPX, unless fertile ground had already been prepared for acceptance of their programme, they would simply have been rejected by the Church/SSPX, kicked out, leaving the Church unharmed.
I think Bishop Williamson leaned toward option one, where he constantly spoke of the Churchmen losing their Catholic senses. I don't believe that. I believe that the leaders were infiltrators, agentes, and/or compromised (blackmailed), so that the destruction was quite deliberate, but not some kind of grass roots development over time.
-
Those clandestine meetings with GREC began a long, long time ago. The Goodship Lollipop has been listing, even sinking, for decades.
-
So, where to begin unravelling this heaping pile of dung? His Excellency constantly emphasized St. Thomas Aquinas' teaching that grace perfects nature, and does not destroy it. If politics and society are broken, it would make it difficult for the seeds of True Religion to grow and flourish, just like the parable of the seed cast onto the rocky soil. So it's evidently Schmidberger who fails to recognize this. Not only that, but the various "political" questions His Excellency delved into are not exclusively political but overlap with the spiritual chastisement. Our Lady came to warn about errors of "Russia" (precisely those of Judaeo-Masonry), and it was none other than the Jews and the Communists who infiltrated the Church and have constructed this "ape" thereof to eclipse the True Church, so they need to be exposed. This attitude from Schmidberger makes him sound like a Modernist buffoon in favor of separating Church and state, and dethroning Christ the King. Only from such a mind could come the allegation that discussing the political, intellectual, philosophical, and moral climate of society is purely "natural" and has nothing to do with the faith. Of course, that's what the Communist collaborator clergy in various countries argued as well, that there's no problem with cooperating with the civil authorities and refusing to open condemn or combat the Commie politicians. In fact, it was Wojtyla's friendliness with the Commie officials, with the same attitude Schmidberger displays here, that allowed the Church to be taken over, including by himself. Yet another reason to suspect Schmiddie of being an infiltrator.
In addition, while I agree that His Excellency was a bit to credulous regarding some apparitions, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China and why does it find place in a hit piece after Bishop Williamson's demise? It has nothing to do with why he "parted ways" with SSPX, and -- ahem, Schmidberger -- what about that woman +Fellay was taking instructions from about how to wreck the SSPX? Finally, these purported poles of grace (represented by apparitions) and nature (politics) actually have nothing to do with the relationship between grace and nature, as the discernment regarding the legitimacy of apparitions is also an exercise in natural reason, having nothing to do with grace. So this is such a bungled mess of garbage as to bring shame on its author.
Well said.
-
THIS^^^. Trento's constantly trying to defend neo-SSPX and has shown himself a Modernist on a variety of issues, so he's slighly attempting to minimize (and justify) the mudslinging against Williamson by falsely equating it to those attacking SSPX for having expelled him.
Did you read what Fr. Cekada wrote about +Lefebvre & +Williamson in "We Resist You to Your Face."? Go and justify all you want till kingdom come.
-
Maybe hatred was too strong a word. Is “intense dislike” better?
I think "deep disappointment" or "bitterness" is the appropriate description. People play no role for Fr. Schmidberger in their human, individual side. He knows no empathy, no love and therefore no hate. The individual is only relevant insofar as he functions as a cog in the great machine of tradition (equated with the SSPX). If he does a good job here, then he is a valuable member. But as soon as he disrupts the running of the machine, he is replaced without emotion, like an object.
Hence the bitterness about Bishop Williamson. He could have been a very capable cog and enabled great progress for the tradition (=SSPX). Instead, he has disrupted the machine and thereby prevented or slowed down the hoped-for successes.
All that matters is the progress and spread of the SSPX; he doesn't care about the individual worker. The individual is just a means to an end.
-
I vaguely recall after Bishop Williamson had discussed how the Germans (who in his estimation, while being good at other things, completely suck at philosophy), even German Cahtolics, have had this inordinate admiration for Kant, having been perhaps their most renowned "philosopher" ... and I kindof recall him taking a subtle swipe at the German Trads (perhaps even Schmidberger) for being somewhat contaminated by this thinking themselves, saying that the Germans had this need to salvage Kant by attempting to reconcile his philosophy with scholasticism / Thomism / Aristotelianism, and that it was a doomed effort that could end only in disaster because they're simply not compatible.
Just a quick note: Before Fr. Schmidberger found his way to the SSPX, while studying mathematics in Munich, he was in close contact with the philosophy professor Reinhard Lauth, who was deeply rooted in German idealism.
-
Running the German through a word counter, I get 48 words of praise (toward the beginning) and 166 of criticism/attack. I counted the last section about resting in peace as neither.
Certainly inappropriate after someone has just passed away. We all know what your criticisms are and they can be alluded to if you don't want your text to read an an unequivocal endorsement of everything you do.
Quantitatively speaking, only the first one and a half sentences are a positive appreciation. The rest is neutral or a criticism of various actions of the bishop.
Qualitatively speaking, the disproportion is even greater, because the first one and a half sentences do not recognize any actions/merits of the bishop, but list characteristics that he in a certain way "inherited" from his parents. So while not a single positive action is listed, many negative actions are mentioned.
-
"We" warned him, as of Schmidberger had any authority, other than imagined, over His Excellency Bishop Williamson, [...]
That's how someone with even a modicuм of humility, of respect for his episcopal office and for his status as THE hand-picked successor of the Archbishop to carry on his legacy (until the other 3 were thrown in as add-ons) would have phrased it [...]
Fr. Schmidberger certainly sees it differently. I will try to outline his point of view: the auxiliary bishops are only assistants of the SSPX and the Superior General. The actual center of the SSPX is the Superior General and in this office Fr. Schmidberger was the successor and "spiritual son" of the archbishop. Even if he no longer holds this office de facto, he certainly still sees himself "morally" as the successor of the archbishop. And that is why it is easy for him to equate his own point of view with that of the SSPX.
-
Why are we giving so much screen time to Schidberger?
Nobody is forced to read this thread. Everyone decides for themselves which posts they read and comment on and which they ignore.
Fr. Schmidberger is, after all, not an unimportant person in the history of the SSPX. His short comment is not only of historical interest (as a contemporary docuмent), but it also reflects the current "spirit" of the SSPX: their fraternal attitude towards deserving (former) members; their joy at the growth of the tradition, even outside their own group;... ;-)
-
-- errors and confusion caused in KE comments
-- episcopal consecrations that lack any objective necessity (Schmidberger = measure of objectivity) and any sensus ecclesiae
So, for the last part here, once again we have Schmidberger indicating that he is the measure of objectivity and sensus ecclesiae, as well as being capable of sitting in judgment that the KE Comments are filled with error and caused confusion ... and his entire attack had an arrogant, pedantic, and condescending tone as if he were projecting himself as an adult talking down to an infantile, immature Bishop Williamson. No, it's the neo-SSPX who are filled with error and are causing confusion, and His Excellency Bishop Williamson made judgments regarding the state of necessity that were predicated undoubtedly on his world view that a great chastisement approaches and he wanted to spread some bishops out around the world in a situation that he viewed as inevitable (and with which I whole-heartedly agree) ... namely, when we get into a Plandemic 2.0 and other controls on movement that will make Plandemic 1.0 look like a walk in the park, and, if you recall, even during the first one there were people who couldn't get to the Sacraments due to the lockdowns, including people dying in hospitals without the absolution and Last Rites. Of course, for those like Schmidberger who claim that "politics" has nothing to do with the spread of faith and the SSPX who gave no indications that they were aware of what was taking place during the first Plandemic, believing most of the propaganda and thinking the authorities to be acting in good faith, they don't see this. It's also the reason I believe that Bishop Stupki would ordain (and offer to ordain) married men, because he, having grown up behind the Iron Curtain, could more readily sense the thing that are about to happen. Just as they don't "see" what's going on in the world, so too they appear to have adopted some attitude that the Crisis in the Church is not some kind of apocalyptic or "End Times" aberration, but within the realm of normal for the Church, and seem to be operating with some bizarre institutional / official normalcy bias that infects their entire view of the world, the Church, and the Crisis ... on which Bishop Williamson and most Traditional Catholics with even a little faith left do not share, recognizing the highly abnormal situation that we're in and therefore an OBJECTIVE necessity to carry on as His Excellency Bishop Williamson did.
-
Here's another big problem with the new-sspx's management under +Fellay...they have become authoritarian...especially in regards to +W.
The sspx was formed as a group of priests, a collective, that would work together. There are no vows. It is not a formal religious order. There's no stock or legal rights. Add in the 4 bishops and you have 2 different religious hierarchies (priest vs bishop) and it's a hodge-podge of a group of people, trying to bring order in the midst of a crisis. Not easy.
The sspx leadership has 3 main functions.
a. Financial Mgmt - Collect donations and pay the bills (so that the lights stay on and the water stays running). Buy/build new chapels. Buy stuff for churches.
b. Organization Mgmt - Add new priests to the rotation/move priests where needed. Organize the sacraments and chapels. Organize system for travel, expenses, etc.
c. Member Mgmt - Settle disputes among priests. Help priests who are burned out or sick. Seminary mgmt. Etc.
In my opinion, the sspx does great at the above 3. Where they overstepped their bounds and where they have gone overboard, is in telling priests/bishops how to act, what they can/can't talk about, etc. The new-sspx (under +Fellay) went cultish and control-freak.
(And let's not forget, that Bishops have a DUTY to preach and teach, much more so than priests. Bishops such as +W should be preaching on DIFFERENT topics than priests. They have different vocations, duties, and obligations. A bishop in a diocese is "the man". The only person he answers to is the pope (and only on rare occasions). Otherwise, his calling is to lead, make decisions and be independent. The whole idea of +Fellay telling another bishop what to do is backwards. The idea that a PRIEST could tell a bishop what to do is insidious and anti-catholic.)
They went from +ABL's 'servant-leadership' to +Fellay's 'dictatorship' of controlling every aspect of the sspx. They homogenized chapels, the laity and the priests. They tried to homogenize +W and he said 'no thanks'. So they kicked him out.
They went from +ABL's simple goal of "let's save souls" to the +Fellay's dream of "let's build a community". The goals couldn't be more different, both in focus and scope.
To use a business analogy,
+ABL built a Mom-n-Pop store where everyone felt comfortable and who offered affordable prices to help the town.
+Fellay has built a "brand", a global, homogenized, corporation, where everyone must "stay in line" or else.
There are pros-cons to both approaches. I think most people though, prefer the former over the latter.
-
Is it possible to get some screengrabs or some incontrovertible proof of this newsletter from Schmidberger?
I'm not doubting it, but we can't expect anyone else to believe it just because it's written on a forum.
-
Is it possible to get some screengrabs or some incontrovertible proof of this newsletter from Schmidberger?
I'm not doubting it, but we can't expect anyone else to believe it just because it's written on a forum.
I could ask him next Sunday, but I don't really doubt it's him. I am a bit surprised, because I thought he was a more conservative priest, as he is a monarchist and everything. But I guess that was in 2008, when his Wikipedia page was written.
The German clergy hopes that Francis "in an eccentric moment" will give them new bishops and that's somehow supposed to help the situation (???). I've also personally argued with Fr. Pfluger, who shares the viewpoint, which Fr. Schmidberger presented in 2016: https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2016/04/the-moment-has-come-to-normalize.html (https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2016/04/the-moment-has-come-to-normalize.html)
Fr. Pfluger (who I supposes shares this thinking with Fr. Schmidberger, if the letter is from him), sees the "necessity" of consecrating bishops tied to the fact that "well there are still 2 bishops alive, so there's no necessity to consecrate bishops, maybe Francis will have a change of heart now". My attempt to explain to him that it would be a trap by Rome to get them under their authority fell on deaf ears. Post 2012 they completely lost the plot on what their actual mission is and where their jurisdiction comes from. So now they think his 2015 excommunications are valid, because there was more than one bishop left. The "lifting" of the "excommunications" was a clever trick to get them back under modernist authority, even without a formal signature. Most of the German laity are not independent thinkers, sadly. They go and fall with whatever their priest says. Few educate themselves about VII, even fewer suspect that there's anything wrong.
My assessment is that he was brainwashed to believe in the h0Ɩ0cαųst, as most German boomers of his generation are (without internet and public schools, there's little they could do). Or, he "fears the Jews" in the Bundestag to shut down German chapels. Nowadays this is much less risky, since German Zoomers are redpilled on the Jews because of TikTok, plus there are a lot more ex-Muslim converts who "know", but in 2010 it would have been a hard line to hold in BRD-Germany. I do, to some extent, understand that the German SSPX can't go all-out on the Jews, because they'd simply be banned. But it's uncharitable to put it into an eulogy 15 years later.
He does however, still celebrate very reverent Masses, I didn't have the impressions that he rushes Mass. I'd be careful with judgements, but then again I haven't been part of the SSPX for very long, I can't tell how things developed over the years. I can only say that the German priests are pretty bad on moral theology compared to the US ones.
I think it's fair to criticize +Williamsons apparitionism, promotion of false visionaries like Maria Valtora, promotion of dubious Eucharistic miracles, etc. (I hope these errors will die out now), but he was dead-on when it came to the historical role of the Jews trying to sabotage the Church, the core errors of Vatican II and standing up to +Fellay going back to Rome. See Fr. Hewko on how you can criticize a bishop while also remaining respectful.
It's very ironic, I was on my way to Stuttgart last Sunday, but I couldn't make it due to some circuмstances. Maybe it's a sign that I shouldn't go there anymore. I am personally "on my way out" of the SSPX if I can get a better job and relocate near a Resistance chapel, the only reason I still support the neo-SSPX to some limited extent is because they have valid sacraments (I don't want to be donatist and I'm still obliged to go as long as the sacrament is not doubtful and the priest is not teaching errors in the sermon) and they still do serve a purpose when converting non-Catholics (it's hard to go "only Resistance Mass" mode when there is only one Resistance priest my country). Hopefully I can be out of that situation soon.
His E-Mail is indexed at https://hunter.io/email-finder - I don't want to post it here in order to not provoke bots to mail him. If you input "fsspx.de" into the domain + his name, you can find his E-Mail.
-
See Fr. Hewko on how you can criticize a bishop while also remaining respectful.
Did you mean "how to αssαssιnαtҽ a bishop while remaining respectful, while at the same time leading countless Catholics to a life with no Mass and no sacraments"?
-
I personally think the bishop was already kind of senile in his later years. After 40 years of fighting modernists, that's understandable, but nevertheless bad for the faithful.
I don't agree with this " senile" term. It was remarkable that, to the very end, you could watch his sermon videos, for Sundays esp...he would hold on to this very small missal, all tattered and ancient, yet his mind was admirably smart, and explained mysteries as much as is humanly possible. So, yes, sometimes he would forget a detail here and there, but his love of Catholic culture invariably trumped any memory lapse. Actually, the last three sermons, they were perfect. The Epiphany if I recall was special. But yes, he wouldn't talk for an hour. "His Excellency" is what it says: Bishop Williamson was E X C E L L EN T !
He was very hospitable to me in Winona. He actually composed a little 4 line poem for me. Let's just finish by saying he was dignified, had integrity as Fr Chazal just spoke.... Once in a while he would use the French expression: " Noblesse oblige" which roughly translates to: When you hold a higher public office, walk the walk and talk the talk.
Pray for he repose of his soul,... RIP +
-
I don't care how much of a "fanbase" +Williamson has, Fr. Hewko was right to correct him, like +Ballini eventually did. I don't follow persons, I follow truth and most priests in the Resistance were just silent out of "respect" for the bishop, but many knew that he was propagating errors. But Hewko never "hated" him, he just wanted to stop this nonsense and not get people infected with error. I hope that things will be better now, I personally think the bishop was already kind of senile in his later years. After 40 years of fighting modernists, that's understandable, but nevertheless bad for the faithful.
Correcting the errors of other Traditionalists seems to be the central mission of Fr. Hewko.
-
Father Schmidberger also has an uncanny resemblance to Cardinal Rampolla
more liuke Reinhardt Heydrich
-
more liuke Reinhardt Heydrich
Just looked this individual up, and yes indeed.
-
Is it possible to get some screengrabs or some incontrovertible proof of this newsletter from Schmidberger?
I'm not doubting it, but we can't expect anyone else to believe it just because it's written on a forum.
I hope you're as proof-hungry about other topics claimed by the modern world as you are about this.
But seriously? Fr. Schmidberger's words and actions are SO HORRIBLE you can't believe they're true? You would sooner believe that someone in the Resistance went out of his way to compose several paragraphs of likely-sounding German from scratch, which exactly match Fr. Schmidberger's position, just to damage Fr. Schmidberger's reputation by implying he uttered such scandalous words?
Can we agree that these words are scandalous then? And if we find out they are truly Fr. Schmidberger, can we all agree that the SSPX has fallen and we need to set up alternative Mass center options all over the world?
If there are people who believe that this letter is a "fαℓѕє fℓαg" or a "conspiracy" (ever heard of Occam's Razor, guys?), I guess we're making progress! At least we can all agree those words are un-Catholic and quite scandalous.
-
He had difficulty reconciling grace and nature. On the one hand, he was very willing to give credence to messages, apparitions and other supernatural phenomena; on the other hand, he tended towards a certain naturalism, giving politics and contemporary phenomena an excessive amount of space in his sermons and lectures.
Yes, Bp. Williamson did give credence to apparitions, perhaps more than he should have, but isn't Bp. Fellay guilty of the same? Bp. Fellay gave great credence to the locutions of Madame Rossiniere, and, if I recall correctly, Fellay wanted to change the statutes of the SSPX so as to incorporate Rossiniere's teachings, which was quite appalling. Of course Fellay wasn't successful in this, but at least Bp. Williamson never wanted to change the statutes. Nothing even close to that.