Author Topic: Letter from Bishop Fellay to Bishop Williamson (Read 54146 times)

pbax · « **Reply #120 on:** October 21, 2011, 08:16:17 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote
3 There exists in Anglo-saxon circles a network of infiltrators of the SSPX preparing a break-away. You are put forward as the head of this movement, you are the friend of its leaders and you are playing their game.

Yes, a breakout from the Fellay's encirclement.

A break away from what? Keeping the true faith. No we are not the ones trying to break away. Show me one thing that Bishop Williamson says that he would not have said if the Archbishop was alive? If you say 9/11 well yes,but do you want a bet that he would have kept quiet even back then. Maybe on the jews then! Was not the good Archbishop found guilty on his death bed, in a court of law for speaking out against Moslems.

Who do you think The Archbishop criticized the most in his writings etc, maybe JP11, Cardinal Hoyas maybe, no it was, at best, that conservative, (certainly not traditional) Cardinal Ratzinger.

Did not Michael Davies say "A conservative priest is the devils pet"
So then what must a conservative pope be! Bloomin heck one would hate to think eh!

No tis not Bishop Williamson breaking away!

Telesphorus · « **Reply #121 on:** October 21, 2011, 08:27:08 PM »

Quote from: pbax

Quote from: Telesphorus
Quote
3 There exists in Anglo-saxon circles a network of infiltrators of the SSPX preparing a break-away. You are put forward as the head of this movement, you are the friend of its leaders and you are playing their game.

Yes, a breakout from the Fellay's encirclement.

A break away from what? Keeping the true faith. No we are not the ones trying to break away. Show me one thing that Bishop Williamson says that he would not have said if the Archbishop was alive? If you say 9/11 well yes,but do you want a bet that he would have kept quiet even back then. Maybe on the jews then! Was not the good Archbishop found guilty on his death bed, in a court of law for speaking out against Moslems.

Who do you think The Archbishop criticized the most in his writings etc, maybe JP11, Cardinal Hoyas maybe, no it was, at best, that conservative, (certainly not traditional) Cardinal Ratzinger.

Did not Michael Davies say "A conservative priest is the devils pet"
So then what must a conservative pope be! Bloomin heck one would hate to think eh!

No tis not Bishop Williamson breaking away!

Well, not breaking away from Archbishop Lefebvre's mission, yes.

But accused of forming a breakaway infiltration - sounds almost like an oxymoron.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #122 on:** October 21, 2011, 08:30:27 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

How does one address the ficticious imagination of a man? A pure fantasy that takes various forms? Bold and gratuitous assertions without any foundation or evidence? Do you seriously consider these comments to be a series of "points"? They are not even remotely "points." These are hardly benign comments either, therefore I meet aggression with aggression, sometimes this is appropriate.

Certainly legal recognition would be a blessing for the Church because it is unnatural for there to be a conflict between interior and exterior aspect of the Church, between the law and charity. The problem started with Rome and it will end with Rome. This legal recognition will come about without the slightest compromise from the SSPX.

I'm not saying that aggression shouldn't be used when necessary, but you are using it in unnecessary situations. No one on this thread expect maybe Telesphorus has committed any calumny or taken any cheap shots towards Bishop Fellay. Mostly people on this thread have just been stating the facts.

Archbishop LeFebvre said he wouldn't try to "reconcile" with Rome until they converted first. Rome has made it clear they aren't converting, so I don't know why Bishop Fellay would want to "reconcile" with such liars and modernists until they agree to convert. What would they gain of it? The acceptance of Novus Ordites? As if the Society regularlizing with Rome will make the modernists more TLM-friendly?

The SSPX is a small group, they alone cannot change the crisis. Bishop Williamson said that it will take a chastisement to correct things. Even if the Society has only a small group of supporters, so be it. As St. Augustine said: "Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it, right is right even if no one is doing it".

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #123 on:** October 21, 2011, 08:31:35 PM »

Quote from: LordPhan

Quote from: hollingsworth
Well, is anybody willing to take up Ethelred's challgenge?
What is the problem with Eleison Comments?

noone on this entire thread was saying there was something wrong with EC.

I also notice that most of the people that are arguing here are not in Bishop Williamson's circle. Bishop Williamson and his supporters are not pro-sede, quite the contrary actually so I don't understand why Sede's are even in this thread.

The sedes I think are hoping he will become sede if he breaks away. However, though he's not exactly pro-sede, he isn't against the sede position either.

ManofGosh · « **Reply #124 on:** October 21, 2011, 09:18:42 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: LordPhan
Quote from: hollingsworth
Well, is anybody willing to take up Ethelred's challgenge?
What is the problem with Eleison Comments?

noone on this entire thread was saying there was something wrong with EC.

I also notice that most of the people that are arguing here are not in Bishop Williamson's circle. Bishop Williamson and his supporters are not pro-sede, quite the contrary actually so I don't understand why Sede's are even in this thread.

The sedes I think are hoping he will become sede if he breaks away. However, though he's not exactly pro-sede, he isn't against the sede position either.

Why would anybody including the sede's want to break up the four Bishops? How would this benefit the succession of good Catholic Bishops? How would this help the succession of Good Holy Priest (even the independent ones)?

Finding good Holy Bishops now and days is becoming very hard. SSPX could create more if the need arose. These Bishops ordain Holy Priest every year, and some break off and go independent, but in most cases always serve the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre. These independent a lot of times serve simple independent chapel that most sede's go to. Where would you be without them. The old independent Priest who courageously defied their Bishops attempts to change the Faith are almost all dead. Where do you find suitable replacements?

If it were all about the four Bishops and nothing else the Vatican would hardly be falling over their heels for a deal. The true reason is because of Vatican fear of Truth in numbers. They hear the SSPX, Independents, and most importantly a million voices screaming out the same thing. The million plus Traditional Catholics praying and rebuking(with charity) every single lie that erupts. It is this million people that the Vatican wants, This is why deal after deal comes, This is why Bishops Williamson can say whatever he likes, This is why NO ONE should sign any deals with the Vatican. We can all see what they plan on doing to us.

Of all the SSPX Priests I have met(almost 100), I have never met a German one. I know they're out there, I just personally never met one. I have met tons of American, some French, and one Brit. My point is if there is a problem with certain Priests in the Society then that should be dealt with by the Bishops. No Priest should abandon the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre. No Priest should be doing or saying anything, but that which is beneficial to Traditional Catholicism.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #125 on:** October 21, 2011, 09:20:47 PM »

I predict BW gets removed from the SSPX and the rest of the Society reconciles with Rome, getting a more than generous offer from the Pope as far as full autonomy and protection from the local bishops. BF already said the Pope had something else in store for them that will surpass their expectations.

JPaul · « **Reply #126 on:** October 21, 2011, 09:23:23 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: J.Paul
This matter is beyond the state of necessity or normal clerical obedience.
There is another and supreme law of the Church which directly applies, the salvation of souls.

The world and the Church are enveloped by Judaic darkness.
From what is observable, Bishop Williamson sees his duty as providing a meager illuminant to light the perilous path upon which Catholic souls find themselves today.
Bishop Fellay on the other hand thinks it best to avoid shining to much light upon the тαℓмυdic beast, and is willing to enforce mandatory belief in the Judaic fables and lies to quell its wrath.

This false narrative , and all which issues from it, including the false council, are docuмentably false. This can be known by any Catholic who uses his powers of reason and diligence which one is obilged to do. It also has been a greatly destructive force within society and especially in the Church.

One lights the lamp, the other orders it extinquished,
Which of these is acting for the good of souls?

JMJ

So, it seems you are on Board with the Romans: The h0Ɩ0cαųst is an act of Catholic Faith, which no man may be prohibited from expressing the truth about, eh?

If not, then Bishop WIlliamson has no grounds for resisting obedience.

So which is it?

The h0Ɩ0cαųst is a Catholic article of faith??? If so, Bishop Williamson must tell the truth about it whatever Fellay says.

The h0Ɩ0cαųst is clearly not relevent to Catholicism, in which case Bishop Williamson must render obedience to quiet his column.

Seems pretty simple if you leave your politics out of it.

You are absolutely off the rails with such a false characterization of what I said.

You may believe that you understand obedience and necessity, however your understanding is both biased and defective.

Yes, I see. It is very simple when one limits one's own comprehension while wearing his favored blinders.

JMJ

Ethelred · « **Reply #127 on:** October 22, 2011, 03:51:21 AM »

Quote from: LordPhan

Quote from: hollingsworth
Well, is anybody willing to take up Ethelred's challgenge?
What is the problem with Eleison Comments?

noone on this entire thread was saying there was something wrong with EC.

Bp Fellay wants to close Bishop Williamson's last opportunity to fulfill the latter's preaching mission: the EC. Please see published letter in the starting post.

So clearly Bp Fellay thinks something must be wrong with the EC.

The supporters of Bp Fellay's wish to close the EC here in the thread, namely Seraphim, should well be able to answer the simple question: What is the problem with Eleison Comments?

Unless these supporters think a blind obedience was catholic, like Bp Fellay and Fr Pfluger do. Then I suggest to hear (or read) the many sermons of Archbishop Lefebvre who proved that there's no blind obedience for us catholics.

Quote

I also notice that most of the people that are arguing here are not in Bishop Williamson's circle. Bishop Williamson and his supporters are not pro-sede, quite the contrary actually so I don't understand why Sede's are even in this thread.

Bishop Williamson accepts the position of Archbishop Lefebvre who said (and even wrote in his Ecône seminary guidelines!) that the question whether the conciliar popes are popes or not, is a hypothesis which will have to be decided by the magisterium in the future. The Archbishop continued to say that he doesn't think the hypothesis is applying currently (at his time).

However I agree with you that this thread has nothing to do with the sede question.

Ethelred · « **Reply #128 on:** October 22, 2011, 08:56:20 AM »

Quote from: Ethelred

The supporters of Bp Fellay's wish to close the EC here in the thread, namely Seraphim, ...

This sounds like very strange English to me. Let's rephrase what I meant:

Those people here who say that Bp Fellay could easily close the EC, namely Seraphim, should well be able to answer the simple question: What is the problem with Eleison Comments?

In other words: What is Bp Fellay's justification to stop Bishop Williamson from preaching the faith via Eleison Comments and so working for the salvation of the souls?

I'd like to recall in own words what Archbishop Lefebvre told us so many times about proper obedience which is the only form of catholic obedience. Unfortunately Bp Fellay's SSPX doesn't preach it anymore (and when you read his letter you won't be surprised why he doesn't) :

God vests any authority to catholic superiors for an exact purpose: to ultimately praise our Lord Jesus Christ and to work for the salvation of the souls. If a superior acts contrary to this purpose he loses his right to obedience, and catholics are actually obliged to disobedience, in order to be able to stay obedient to God and His Church.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #129 on:** October 22, 2011, 09:54:02 AM »

People here say that Bishop Williamson should obey Bishop Fellay, his Superior. Blind obedience has never been Catholic, as Ethelred said. Going by the logic of several people in this thread, if +Williamson shoud obey his Superior, then Archbishop LeFebvre should have obeyed his Superior (the Pope) when he was asked to accept Vatican II and the Novus Ordo.

And some additional food for thought: by disobeying Bishop Fellay, isn't Bishop Williamson obeying Archbishop LeFebvre, and more importantly obeying God? Afterall, attempting to reconcile with Rome before they convert is totally going against the Archbishop's mission.

s2srea · « **Reply #130 on:** October 22, 2011, 10:03:08 AM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

I predict BW gets removed from the SSPX and the rest of the Society reconciles with Rome, getting a more than generous offer from the Pope as far as full autonomy and protection from the local bishops. BF already said the Pope had something else in store for them that will surpass their expectations.

This may be true. But it will not matter if he's removed or not, as long as he's serving the True Church of Jesus Christ.

As far as what he has in store for them, wasn't it +Williamson himself who quoted, "I fear the Greeks, even when they are bearing gifts”.

Caminus · « **Reply #131 on:** October 22, 2011, 11:32:54 AM »

I wonder why "Pinay" hasn't revealed his source. Very curious. BW's communication is not deemed private, but his source hides under anonimity? Pinay justifies his refusal to reveal his source on the basis of the standards of "journalism." At least he implicitly admits his actions have nothing to do with Catholic morality, so far as he is concerned.

Caminus · « **Reply #132 on:** October 22, 2011, 06:28:15 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

I wonder why "Pinay" hasn't revealed his source. Very curious. BW's communication is not deemed private, but his source hides under anonimity? Pinay justifies his refusal to reveal his source on the basis of the standards of "journalism." At least he implicitly admits his actions have nothing to do with Catholic morality, so far as he is concerned.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #133 on:** October 23, 2011, 11:41:36 AM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

People here say that Bishop Williamson should obey Bishop Fellay, his Superior. Blind obedience has never been Catholic, as Ethelred said. Going by the logic of several people in this thread, if +Williamson shoud obey his Superior, then Archbishop LeFebvre should have obeyed his Superior (the Pope) when he was asked to accept Vatican II and the Novus Ordo.

And some additional food for thought: by disobeying Bishop Fellay, isn't Bishop Williamson obeying Archbishop LeFebvre, and more importantly obeying God? Afterall, attempting to reconcile with Rome before they convert is totally going against the Archbishop's mission.

Once again, defective minds are unable to grasp and apply such basic principles of Catholic morality.

OK, I will humor this thread one last time with a response:

1) Please explain how Bishop Williamson's refusal to shut down EC is tantamount to "Blind obedience" (aka: Servility; obedience to an evil order);
2) Which is the same thing as requesting to to demonstrate how Fellay's order to shut down EC is against the Catholic Faith. Please show me which dogmas you believe this order to violate.

Of course, you can't, the very idea being preposterous.

But you are PO'd at Fellay, so it matters very little how unsound your rationale is.

You have reached a conclusion (Williamson doesn't have to obey Fellay), and are now frivolously searching for an elusive Catholic justification, which cannot be found, hence your defective answers and broad jumps in theology and logic.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #134 on:** October 23, 2011, 04:15:32 PM »

First of all Seraphim, I never said that ordering Bishop Williamson to shut down his blog was against Catholic doctrine. Just because something isn't against Catholic doctrine does not mean that command must be followed. For instance, demanding that Archbishop LeFebvre didn't Consecrate Bishops was not against Catholic doctrine. Does that mean Archbishop LeFebvre should have obeyed JPII? Of course not, because if he did then the SSPX would no longer exist. That was precisely why the Vatican didn't want him to Consecrate those Bishops, and exactly why they excommunicated him and the Society after he did the Consecrations. The Vatican was furious that the Society would continue, so they excommuncated them in order for them not to be recognized by the Vatican II church.

This isn't so much about Bishop Fellay trying to shut down EC. This is primarily about Fellay totally ignoring Archbishop LeFebvre's mission by trying to "reconcile" with modernists who have no interest in bringing back Tradition. None of the other three Bishops in the Society seem very interested in reconciling, yet Bishop Fellay apparently thinks it will achieve something.

But exactly what would it achieve? The approval of Novus Ordites? What Bishop Fellay needs to realize is that even if the Society becomes "regularlized" it won't make the modernists listen to them or like them anymore. Take the Fraternity of St. Peter for example. They're "in communion" with Rome, but do the modernists acknowledge them or act is if they exist? No, because they don't like Tradition or the Traditional Latin Mass. So if they don't follow the FSSP, what makes you, Bishop Fellay, or anyone else think they would follow the SSPX if they are "regularlized"? They don't even acknowledge that Benedict lifted the Society's excommunications two years ago, they still say the Society is "schismatic" and "offers illicit Masses". Even if a reconciliation occurs, they'll keep saying the same things unless the Society accepts Vatican II and the Novus Ordo.

The fact is, liberals and modernists only obey the Pope when he does something liberal. Oh, but when he does something even remotely Traditional (like release the Motu Proprio) they completely ignore him and what he does. And they accuse Traditional Catholics of not obeying the Pope! Look at the double standard!

So Bishop Fellay is wasting his time trying to reconcile. It's pointless. The ONLY thing it would accomplish would be getting a few more semi-Trads to show up at their chapels. That's it.