.
Rather than post the whole interview, it seems to me this portion
serves as a strong incentive to go read the whole thing. Two of
the interviewer's questions were too pressing to pass up, though!
Can you venture a guess what each question was preceding the
answers below (preceded by "bpW:")?
bpW: As for feelings, I do not blame anybody for not asking me about how I feel. As the French would say, the problem is not there. The problem is global apostasy!
As for my daily routine, if I am not travelling, I am living for the moment “under the radar” in London, looking after myself, occupied quite heavily with writing for each week in French and English the “Eleison Comments”, and then with vetting the German, Italian and Spanish translations. The “Comments” have a number of devoted translators, and a Frenchwoman who vets my French !
bpW: The principal root of the rot is that the mass of human beings alive on earth, created by God and for God, have turned their backs on Him. It is a Luciferian worldwide revolt against our Creator, and will be severely punished, because only a severe punishment can still stop almost all souls alive from sliding into Hell. God punishes those whom He loves, like any good father. See Hebrews XII, 7. It is a revolt that has built up over centuries, if not millennia, led by true Satanists who want every single soul to fall into Hell.
bpW: “Fiftiesism”, as I call it, means that form of Catholicism in the 1950’s which kept up many of the appearances of the true Church, but inside was all ready to go with the modern world in its apostasy. All that was needed for the appearances of the true Church to collapse was churchmen who would disguise the collapse as a “renewal” or “renovation” of the Church, just as Protestantism was disguised as a “reform” or “Reformation”.
bpW: By his wisdom, faith, fidelity, sanctity and personal charisma the Archbishop drew many young men to follow him in the 1970’s and 1980’s who never really understood the fullness of his reasons for resisting the Council, and fighting against it. This is because they never understood just how far the modern world has gone wrong. Therefore as long as the Archbishop was alive, they lined up behind him like ducklings following Mother Duck on a pond. But within a few years of his no longer being amongst them, they began to fall back into the ways of the modern world (see for instance the story of GREC). It is a process all too natural for fallen human nature. Exactly the same thing happened in the diocese of Campos in Brazil when Bishop de Castro Mayer was no longer there amongst his priests, only it happened there faster.
When you mention the Archbishop’s “attitude” and the very different attitude of Bishop Fellay, you are correctly concentrating on the issues which determine where are true unity and obedience, and where are false unity and obedience. It is a shame that so many good SSPX priests and laity apparently never understood the Archbishop’s fight for the Faith and for the Church, or his “disobedience”, but such is the power of the world all around us to distract and to mislead souls.
bpW: I can remember the Archbishop calling Cardinal Ratzinger, as he then was, the “Artful Dodger”, which was a very kind way of putting it. The Archbishop would have had no illusions about Pope Ratzinger. As for Pope Francis, I think the Archbishop would have shrugged his shoulders in horror. Does that sound contradictory ? “What do you expect of the Conciliar Church ?” he would have said. To Bishop Fellay I am sure that – in private ! – he would have spoken very severely. I think even Bishop Fellay would have been shaken. But would Bishop Fellay have changed his ways if he had not had to ? I doubt it.
REX!: Your Excellency, some people say, mostly in a derogatory way, that you are interested in various cօռspιʀαcιҽs. Thus it is presupposed that anything you say on the topic must be taken with a lenient smile: “The conspiracy nut, you know...” In spite of this, can you give us your opinion on possible conspiracy within SSPX? The Church has been infiltrated long before why should not be much smaller and weaker SSPX at some time, too? Do you think there may be anything true about it? How would such a conspiracy operate in reality?
bpW: As for cօռspιʀαcιҽs, many people will swallow the absurd conspiracy theory, for instance, of 19 Arabs pulling off the attacks of 11 September, 2001, while they refuse the mass of evidence of the real conspiracy, namely that those attacks were an “inside job”. When the peoples of the world want decadence while pretending not to want it, politicians are two a penny who pretend to be conservative while in fact serving the Revolution. Hence such politicians work in the dark. Hence conspiracy becomes normal.
As for conspiracy within the SSPX, I have never wanted to believe that any of my colleagues could be infiltrators or conspirators, but if I think about it, I might name a few, because what has happened to the SSPX corresponds to the fruits of a conspiracy. Certainly Bishop Fellay likes to work in the dark because he does not like what he calls “leaks”.
However, in many a case, including that of the fall of the SSPX, I do not think that a conspiracy is mainly to blame. Mainly to blame is not the match but the pile of dry wood just waiting to be set on fire. With the SSPX that pile would be too many bishops, priests and laity that have not a strong enough faith to have understood what the SSPX was all about.
bpW: “Pay, pray and obey” was a slogan attributed to the leaders of the Church in the 1950’s. It is not Catholic, because Almighty God does not want mindless and lukewarm robots in his Heaven. He spits “Fiftiesism” out of his mouth. Menzingen has clearly fallen back into “Fiftiesism”.
As for the present finances of the SSPX, I have no reliable information, one way or the other. But Americans have a saying, “No doctrine, no dollars.” The mainstream SSPX is giving up on doctrine. It would be most normal for it to lose the dollars.
bpW: In a lecture given in Ireland last spring, I am told that Bishop Fellay said half a dozen times that the problem of Bishop Williamson is a purely personal problem, supposedly a personal antagonism. Now it is true that I find highly distasteful what he has done to the SSPX, but the problem is absolutely not personal. It is a problem of the Faith. This is what he wants to disguise by pretending that the problem is mine, a personal problem with him or with whoever. Nonsense ! My problem with Menzingen is ideological, and it is not my problem, but Menzingen’s. Just like Archbishop Lefebvre’s problem with the Newchurch.
REX!: We have heard about the faithful being denied the Sacraments in SSPX chapels only due to their previous assistance at the Mass celebrated by a Resistance priest. In the Czech republic the situation is not as dramatic as in other countries in the world. Yet we have seen the Czech prior´s Declaration issued a few months ago with the approval of the then District Superior which in one of three points (the other two being irrelevant for our purposes) says:
“The activity of Bishop Williamson after his expulsion from SSPX is more and more directed against our Priestly society, he speaks about us as of a “Newsociety”. He also returns to the thematization of his revisionist theories which lead to the relativization of the nαzι crimes, which is unacceptable. Thus all the future activities claiming to support Bishop Williamson will be regarded as being hostile towards our Priestly Society.”
I think you may share any opinions you wish in a case of a free matter but I do not want to ask you about the historical questions because of the national law which is almost identical to the German one. Nonetheless, would you please comment on the Declaration´s point as to the term “Newsociety”? With this Declaration a few of us have become enemies literally overnight...
bpW: Just as what Vatican II has made of the Church is something so different from the true Church that it is realistic to speak of a “Newchurch”, so what Bishop Fellay and his collaborators have done to the Society of St Pius X is so different from what Archbishop Lefebvre founded that it seems to me entirely realistic to speak of a “Newsociety”. The fall of the mainstream Church after Vatican II and the recently manifest fall of the SSPX are entirely parallel. It is the same malady – love of the modern world.
bpW: What do you expect ? The SSPX has changed. I have been consistently and openly opposed to that change. The promoters of the change are bound to defend their change and so to attack anybody who opposes it. Many good priests have been thrown out of the Newsociety for that reason, and any layfolk that follow them are liable to be denied the sacraments. There is a well-known saying: “Nobody is so sectarian as a liberal”.
bpW: I think that the consecration of a bishop or bishops to ensure in the present circuмstances, as best humans can, the defence of the Faith, is simply a matter of time. I do not know when or where, but I have no objection in principle, especially as it is becoming inconceivable for any of the other three SSPX bishops to consecrate a candidate who would not fit the Conciliar profile, as they say. In practice I am waiting for Providence to show its hand, as I think it will. It is God’s Church. He does look after it !
bpW: I am certain that Russia will eventually be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart, because did not Our Lord say to Sister Lucy in 1931 that it would be ? But He also said that it would be late, in other words only when the world situation will seem to be desperate.
Thank you, Your Excellency, for your time and for everything you do. May God bless you!
Interviewer: D. Grof
Source: REX!
.
.
.
.
My useless comment: When The Great One gave his Krah-advised
warnings to +W up to and including the final deliberate (in)human
act of one year ago, for which he will answer in eternity if he doesn't
repent before it's too late, his only objective complaint was that +W
kept on giving interviews like this one, basically. For this one
mentions H.E.'s ongoing efforts with his ECs. Not only that, now that
I've read it again, above, it becomes obvious to me that what we have
here is a kind of "Mega-Special Edition Eleison Comments"
inasmuch as it cluster-bombs the spectrum against which many of
them are wont to target-strike. Add to that the fact that in an
interview setting, +W shows his real prowess, for the words come
apparently effortlessly for him, and he doesn't have to bleed over
the text like he is wont to do when writing, so this bonus issue was not
only big, it was most likely rather "easy" for H.E. to undergo! I find it
most revealing to read +W's words here, all in one flowing movement,
for it coalesces the essence over which +F is all upset: this is the
reason TGO wanted +W to cease writing his ECs. But the real kicker
is, that by "expelling" +W, all he has done is make it all the more
simple for him to publish the very thing that TGO was trying to
suppress! "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice
to deceive!" (from "Marmion" by Walter Scott, 1808). "Oh, how
simply the web's un-spun when by truth, deception's undone." (That's
an old saying I just made up!)
Topic: Interview with Bishop Williamson (Read 1913 times)