Quote from: ManofGosh

Half my family was confirmed by Bishop Williamson, and the other half by Bishop Fellay, and one lonesome to Bishop Tissier. I have been to the seminary(to visit) and met them there also.  

May the Lord keep safe and united the Bishops of the SSPX!

Mary Queen of Heaven, pray for us!
St. Pius X, pray for us!
ArchBishop Lefebvre, pray for us!

I was confirmed by Archbishop Lefebvre, so where does that leave me? Which side do you think he would be with? I'd say Bp Williamson!

You are truly Blessed to have been confirmed by Archbishop LeFebvre.

   I'm about as big a Bishop Williamson supporter as there is, but let's be honest:

1) Ordering him to cease from publishing an internet article is hardly tantamount to ordering his to contradict the Faith;

2) It always was, and always will be within the jurisdiction of a religious superior to command his subordinates to obey in all things that do not contradict the Faith;

3) While I am happy to be able to continue reading EC on the internet, there is no dount whatsoever that Bishop Williamson is failing in true obedience by not complying with the order to cease.

4) Challenge: Can anyone provide a citation showing a religious superior cannot make such an order?  Obviously not.

5) I am happy Bishop WIlliamson's counter-balancing keeps Bishop Fellay from running off and signing an imprudent agreement, but hey, the truth is the truth: Bishop Fellay has every right to make an order closing down EC, even though I don't like it.

6) Again: I defy anyone to post a citation from a pre-V2 treatise on Canon Law or Moral Theology asserting the contrary.  You won't be able to.

7) Don't shoot the messenger.

Quote from: Seraphim

1) Ordering him to cease from publishing an internet article is hardly tantamount to ordering his to contradict the Faith;

Yes, but this isn't the only thing he's been 'ordered' to do.

Quote

2) It always was, and always will be within the jurisdiction of a religious superior to command his subordinates to obey in all things that do not contradict the Faith;

This is not wrong. But now you must demonstrate how +Fellay has the 'jurisdiction' of a religious superior to +W. It can not be done, considering the canonical position of the SSPX.

Quote

3) While I am happy to be able to continue reading EC on the internet, there is no dount whatsoever that Bishop Williamson is failing in true obedience by not complying with the order to cease.

True obedience to what/ who? What is true obedience as it relates to question #2? (PS: So much for your comment: I'm about as big a Bishop Williamson supporter as there is. Sorry- not the case here)

Quote

4) Challenge: Can anyone provide a citation showing a religious superior cannot make such an order?  Obviously not.

There are citations of cannon law, on this very forum, that would show that prelates with the cannonical status of those in Tradition in general, not just the SSPX, have no right to being a 'superior' apart from the distinguishing factors of priests and bishops in general; this has nothing to do with authority.

Quote

5) I am happy Bishop WIlliamson's counter-balancing keeps Bishop Fellay from running off and signing an imprudent agreement, but hey, the truth is the truth: Bishop Fellay has every right to make an order closing down EC, even though I don't like it.

If you haven't noticed- +Fellay has done everything possible to keep +Williamson from countering anything.

Quote

6) Again: I defy anyone to post a citation from a pre-V2 treatise on Canon Law or Moral Theology asserting the contrary.  You won't be able to.

7) Don't shoot the messenger.

6)-See #4above for to be defied. I will try to seek these quotes to post them here; I encourage you do the same.

s2srea:

   Here are my responses to your enumerated rebuttals:

1) It seems we agree on this point (on both my comment and your response);

2) By this rebuttal, I take you to mean that, since Rome does not recognize the SSPX as exercising a legitimate ministry within the Church (i.e., they do not have ordinary jurisdiction), it follows that Bishop Fellay cannot properly command Bishop Williamson (and by extension, nobody in the SSPX can command anyone else in the SSPX, there being no jurisdictionary foundation to compel compliance).

   Against this position I say:

     A) The subjective argument: All SSPX members believe the suppression of their Society by the Bishop of Fribourg, Switzerland to have been illegal.  As such, all believe themselves to persist as a legally constituted Society of Apostolic Life, and the ordinary jurisdiction illegally suppressed supplied by the Church itself, according to the doctrine of necessity.  The point: Whatever you think of this argument, Bishop Williamson accepts it, and as such, he subjectively believes that the SSPX possesses jurisdiction with all that follows from this belief (e.g., Legitimate ministry within the Church).  If then he believes this jurisdiction (and therefore heirarchical obedience to a superior possessing said jurisdiction) exists, he is contradicting his own belief by witholding obedience to a superior lawfully possessing the right to command.

     B) The objective argument:  There is in fact a state of grave general spiritual necessity in the Church today, which is present whenever: 1) Many souls  2) are deprived of spiritual goods  3) Necessary for salvation  4) And are without hope of help from their legitimate superiors.  In such a case the duty to provide for these sould falls -by way of both justice and charity- upon those who are able to provide it, such as bishops and priests.  In such cases, the Church supplies the jurisdiction lacking, for it is contrary to the mind of the Church that souls should perish for jurisdictional considerations (jurisdiction being created for souls, and not souls for jurisdiction).  This being the case, Bishop Fellay fully possesses the canonical jurisdiction of a religious superior, and all that which follows (e.g., the expextation of obedience from his subjects in all that does not contradict faith and morals).

     C) Tertiary: The clergy, upon ordination (and 5 times prior to this) pledge obedience to their superiors.  Leaving all jurisdictional considerations aside, a vow is a vow.  

3) See answer above, but with regard to your opinion that I do not appear to be a Bishop Williamson supporter, I add: Just as I do not subscribe to a cult of personality with Bishop Fellay, neither do I subscribe to one with Bishop Williamson.  I go where the truth is, and my following ceases when those on left or right leave that path, and only in such proportion as they leave it.

4) Your assertion here amounts to a wholesale rejection of the CHurch's doctrine of necessity.  It is foolish (I do not say you are foolish) to pretend a Bishop has the "right" to consecrate another bishop against the explicit wishes of Rome, yet pretend that same bishop does not possess authority to do so (i.e., Jusisdiction), and that which follows from it (e.g., the expectation of obedience to lawfully constituted superiors exercising legitimate ministry in the Church).

5) I agree with this comment entirely: The treatment dished out to Bishop Williamson is scandalous.  Even treacherous, considering the motives for it.  But saying that his disobedience with regard to publishing EC is OK because of all the bad treatment he has received is analogous to the famous Lutheran claim that "poor Martin Luther was treated so badly because of his ideas that his resistence was justified."  I don't think either you or Bishop Williamson want to say that.  In fact, I have surmised in the past that the very purpose of this maltreatment was designed specifically to elicit a public act of disobedience that could be used against Bishop WIlliamson as grounds for expulsion.  Why he does not see that, and continues on this course when we so dearly need him to remain in the SSPX is anyone's guess.

6) Pax Tecuм

Whatever dubious authority the SSPX can claim as a religious body it cannot be enough to justify attempting to silence one of its bishops because he has offended the Jєωιѕн authorities.  

Telesphorus-

   While I share your resentment on these (and several other) actions taken against Bishop Williamson, your opinion seems to have more of a secular, as opposed to a religious, foundation:

   1) You appear to reject the Church's doctrine of necessity (i.e., If you acknowledged this doctrine, you simultaneously and unavoidable acknowledge the power to compel obedience).  Not sure how a Catholic can do that, but this is not a fight I care to get into.

   2) Your logic seems to be that, if a superior mistreats an inferior, the inferior need not obey him any longer.  This would be hard to find a Catholic justification for.

   3) I have seen that sedes have a hard time breaking out of the old "either the pope is pope and we must obey, or he is not pope" mold.  Not sure why the wrestling witgh the doctrine of necessity is so hard.

   4) If necessity does not exist, than none of your sede bishops are justified in doing what they are doing, and authority and the power to compel obedience has somehow vanished from the entire Church....uh....unless it is preserved by the "lone bishop in the woods" theory?

   5) But back on point, you seem not to (want?) to acknowledge that yes, superiors can compel their subordinates in ways we don't like -even scandalous ways- so long as the order does not contradict Faith or morals.

Pax Tecuм

J.Paul, you hit the nail on its head.

Bishop Williamson's weekly preaching of the true Faith can't be stopped by corrupted preachers like Bishop Fellay, Fr Pfluger or Fr Schmidberger, because of the supreme law of the Church: the salvation of souls.

It's practically the same reason why Archbishop Lefebvre didn't follow his superiors including the liberal popes.

For example in the German-speaking SSPX chapels since about 2009 the priests are not allowed anymore to preach the entire Faith of the Church, just a neutered one and sometimes even a false one (*). I heard this is so in other countries, too, but I only judge the situation in the ones which use my native language.
Most of these German-speaking priests don't want to or can't preach the entire Faith anymore, and those few who could are being censored or sacked by their superiors.


I know of priests who reported this situation several times to Bishop Williamson. So he's aware of this terrible act of necessity and I think this is one reason (amongst others) why he decided to continue his weekly preaching. Deo Gratias for this!



(*) For example some months ago the FRG-German SSPX district superior Fr Schmidberger made his SSPX priests to officially preach the laity -- and this was also told in the official SSPX newsletter -- that every catholic including the priests should vote for chancellor Merkel's and Krah's political party named "CDU" which is anti-christian, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, abortionist, gender-mainstreaming, Zionist, etc.
This caused a big scandal amongst the thinking laymen (who usually also read the Eleison Comments, in my experience), and some priests said that the German SSPX district superior called the laity to sin -- because for example the CDU as governing party is actively doing mass abortions.

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.

J.Paul, you hit the nail on its head.

Bishop Williamson's weekly preaching of the true Faith can't be stopped by corrupted preachers like Bishop Fellay, Fr Pfluger or Fr Schmidberger, because of the supreme law of the Church: the salvation of souls.

It's practically the same reason why Archbishop Lefebvre didn't follow his superiors including the liberal popes.

For example in the German-speaking SSPX chapels since about 2009 the priests are not allowed anymore to preach the entire Faith of the Church, just a neutered one and sometimes even a false one (*). I heard this is so in other countries, too, but I only judge the situation in the ones which use my native language.
Most of these German-speaking priests don't want to or can't preach the entire Faith anymore, and those few who could are being censored or sacked by their superiors.


I know of priests who reported this situation several times to Bishop Williamson. So he's aware of this terrible act of necessity and I think this is one reason (amongst others) why he decided to continue his weekly preaching. Deo Gratias for this!



(*) For example some months ago the FRG-German SSPX district superior Fr Schmidberger made his SSPX priests to officially preach the laity -- and this was also told in the official SSPX newsletter -- that every catholic including the priests should vote for chancellor Merkel's and Krah's political party named "CDU" which is anti-christian, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, abortionist, gender-mainstreaming, Zionist, etc.
This caused a big scandal amongst the thinking laymen (who usually also read the Eleison Comments, in my experience), and some priests said that the German SSPX district superior called the laity to sin -- because for example the CDU as governing party is actively doing mass abortions.

   Ah yes, so much for all the examples of the Saints who yielded obedience against the scandalous commands of their superiors; who did violence to their own wills and inclinations for the virtue of obedience in matters that DID NOT CONTRADICT the Faith.

   The only way your position can be vindicated, ironically, is if you (like the Romans) pretend the h0Ɩ0cαųst is somehow relevent to the Catholic Faith, which would therefore impose a duty to explode that myth.

   Since this is clearly not the case...