Author Topic: Important Bishop Williamson endorsement - 1 minute video! (Read 6997 times)

JPaul · « **Reply #25 on:** July 10, 2015, 09:46:13 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: J.Paul
Who is doing, and what has been done to these two priests?

I won't repeat false rumors, but I will say something as to why it's important.

Presuming Bp Fellay doesn't steer his ship back in the right direction, we'd all like to see more priests stand up for Faith and walk away from the softening NeoSSPX. Those who are even remotely considering doing so are naturally going to keep up with how things are going with the priests who've already made the move.

Not every priest is going to choose to operate in the exact same manner, but they all need to find a place among this new structure. If a new priest on the Resistance scene is going to get bossed around, slandered, and even red-lighted by those he's supposed to be working alongside, how do we expect the Resistance (at least in this country) to grow?

Thank you for the reply.

Each independent priest is quite important, and especially when they have initiative and use it to carry out their priestly mission. Those who would red light their brother priest without very solid reasons, do indeed shine a red light, but it shines back upon themselves, and warns others to avoid them, lest those lose their humility as well.

It appears that some who have left the Society have taken its sectarian bias with them and seek to control or condemn others in the manner of a Bishop Fellay.

The quite ones who are doers and simply go about there business are a much safer course for the faithful.

It is hoped, that a core will emerge made up of those men who will see clearly the urgent needs of the Church, and place them above and apart from their own desires and concerns.

donkath · « **Reply #26 on:** July 10, 2015, 10:44:38 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: donkath
I would be very grateful MD if you could clear up something for me. Are you saying that Father Z. is in total agreement with Frs.Pfeiffer, Chazal, Hewko, Voigt, MacDonald et al.

Some of the priests you listed here red-light the SSPX saying that one should never under any circuмstances attend their Masses. I've never heard this from Father Zendejas. So, no.

Quote from: donkath
Does he have different reasons to the latter priests for leaving the n-SSPX?

Your list is a bit too long for me to give you a simple reply. Fr. Voigt, for example, has mentioned to me other things about the SSPX that he didn't agree with that had nothing to do with doctrine, but did support his decision to stop working with them. I've never heard anything of that sort from Fr. Zendejas. I've also never heard anything like that from Frs. Pfeiffer or Hewko, so from my point of view, Frs. Pfeiffer-Hewko-Zendejas all left the NeoSSPX for the same reasons. I've never met Frs. Chazal or MacDonald.

Thank you for your reply and for your point of view. I appreciate it very much.

I know Fr. Chazal very well. We see him regularly here in Australia. So it seems that Bishop Williamson is looking after any priests who leave the n-SSPX. He must be personally satisfied with their motives. Is he likely to make a public statement regarding all those who have left bringing them all together under his umbrella? It would help if he did because it would put an end to the divisions - for the sake of the confused laity.

Matthew · « **Reply #27 on:** July 11, 2015, 08:21:04 AM »

He can't bring "all" under him, just because he is a bishop, because that would be usurping an authority or jurisdiction that he doesn't have.

Yes, he is a bishop. But he is a bishop without explicit jurisdiction or territory.

So no priest -- not even Bishop Williamson -- can make himself the de-facto Pope of all Resistance priests. He can only "rule" those who voluntarily place themselves under him.

So a bishop "taking over" by force would be almost as bad as a priest doing the same thing. In both cases, there is no true AUTHORITY from above.

+Williamson addressed this somewhat in his CT and TX conferences -- the ones before the Q&A's. Look up those conferences.

Anyhow, that's how it always was in the SSPX. The only authority +Fellay has is from the consent of all those who voluntarily join the SSPX (=the priests and religious).

donkath · « **Reply #28 on:** July 12, 2015, 11:42:33 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

He can't bring "all" under him, just because he is a bishop, because that would be usurping an authority or jurisdiction that he doesn't have.

Yes, he is a bishop. But he is a bishop without explicit jurisdiction or territory.

So no priest -- not even Bishop Williamson -- can make himself the de-facto Pope of all Resistance priests. He can only "rule" those who voluntarily place themselves under him.

So a bishop "taking over" by force would be almost as bad as a priest doing the same thing. In both cases, there is no true AUTHORITY from above.

+Williamson addressed this somewhat in his CT and TX conferences -- the ones before the Q&A's. Look up those conferences.

Anyhow, that's how it always was in the SSPX. The only authority +Fellay has is from the consent of all those who voluntarily join the SSPX (=the priests and religious).

Oh yes, I understand that Matthew. Of course Bishop Williamson cannot force anyone to be under him. I would never suggest it. What I understand is that the good Bishop supports any priest who leaves the SSPX full stop - that is regardless of each priest's motives.