Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Nemmersdorf on October 13, 2011, 05:54:16 PM
-
http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2011/10/letter-from-bishop-fellay-to-bishop.html
Letter from SSPX Superior General Bishop Fellay to Bishop Williamson
Letter from Bishop Fellay to Bishop Williamson
23 September, 2011
Your Excellency,
I would be happy to invite you to the SSPX Superiors’ meeting to be held in Albano early in October, as the nature and composition of the meeting has been somewhat changed because of current events. I would also be happy to send you a text from Rome to which they want a reply. However, I find myself obliged to attach conditions to each of these points.
Firstly, as to the text, I ask of you an oath in writing that you will communicate to nobody either the text or its content. Too often in the past you have lacked discretion, so I am obliged to submit you to a procedure of this kind, which I am not happy to have to do.
Secondly, as to the meeting in Albano, I can only invite you to attend insofar as you stop publishing Eleison Comments. You have already been given the reason several times, as you have been given the order to stop. You considered that for the sake of the preaching and defence of the Faith you needed pay no attention, on the pretext that nobody had the right to stop a bishop from fulfilling his duty to preach and defend the Faith. But such preaching and defence of the Faith are inserted in concrete circuмstances which may well call for superiors to intervene. Besides, no other bishop of the SSPX publishes a circular letter and considers himself thereby hindered from expressing himself.
Moreover the consequences of your attitude are harmful to the SSPX: you ooze distrust towards SSPX headquarters and the Superior General. You cannot help yourself communicating this feeling to those around you. No revolution could do a better job of undermining authority… and this you do in the name of a supposed possible betrayal on the part of the Superior General… That is very serious.
Especially when a certain number of indications show that your action is not confined to theory:
1 To an Argentinian priest from the Novus Ordo who asks for your advice, you recommend that he should not join the SSPX.
2 To an American layman you write that the apostasy of the mainstream Church is farther advanced than that of the SSPX. How can you write such things, false and unjust, against the Society of which you are still a member?
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.
And you talk to us of being double tongued! As for the unity of the SSPX, the one most putting it in danger is yourself, your Excellency! Always in the name of defense of the Faith. In such a grave moment as the confrontation now taking place between ourselves and the Holy See, the outcome of which will be decisive for our own future and not without consequences for the entire Church, I ask you then, once more, to remain silent until further orders. If you were to refuse to heed this directive, it would mean both your not being invited to the Albano meeting and the starting of the canonical procedure leading to exclusion from the SSPX. So I await your reply.
All of this is most sad, and it has nothing to do with the confrontation just mentioned, whatever you may think. The loss of one of its bishops is one of the worst things that could happen to the SSPX. It depends entirely on you to spare it such a misfortune. Do believe, your Excellency, in my fervent prayers to the Sacred Heart of Jesus,
BpF.
-
"Infiltrators" do not attempt to breakaway. They attempt to subvert from within.
The SSPX is being led by infiltrators trying to lead it to abandon its mission given to it by Archbishop Lefebvre. Those who remain faithful to the mission of the Archbishop are not the infiltrators. No, the infiltrators are those who betray his mission.
-
Is this another cleaning out the stables operation? Who are these "infiltrators"? An "Anglo-Saxon circle" would give us some hope.
-
There are here three possibilities:
1) The letter is not authentic;
2) The letter was leaked by Bishop Williamson himself (which will have swift and dire consequences);
3) The letter was leaked by Bishop Fellay to cast Bishop Williamson in the light of grave disobedience.
Unfortunately, #2 seems most likely to me.
If so, His Excellency has fallen into the Jews' trap: He will be expelled, the future SSPX under the direction of Maximillian Krah....uh....I mean Bishop Fellay, will become toothless and self-censured; Campos-style.
The world just became a much darker place for me.
Not sure what to do.
-
Is this a joke? Who made this public? Did Bishop Wiliamson end up attending the meeting?
Bishop Williamson was not at the meeting.
I believe he would have been willing to take an oath that the letter not be made public until Bishop Fellay took final action on the letter. I don't think Bishop Williamson would have been indiscrete. But I see absolutely no evidence that Bishop Williamson is willing to stop publishing his weekly "sermon", nor should he.
Bishop Fellay was willing to have Bishop Williamson at the meeting provided Bishop Williamson completely withdraw from all contact with the faithful.
Of course, my analysis is predicated on the authenticity of the letter. I don't know if it is authentic.
-
Moderators:
I don't know what your thoughts on Bishop Williamson are, but I would sure like to see his voice remain within the SSPX.
IF YOU DON'T REMOVE THIS LETTER SOON, HE IS TOAST!
PS: to Pinnay: You are an idiot!
-
The world just became a much darker place for me.
Not sure what to do.
Not true, Seraphim. The CMRI is always open and welcoming Catholics into their pews. You will face no contradiction in thought there, about doctrine or Traditional teaching.
-
Apparenty the Moderators on this forum prefer the expulsion of Bishop Williamson, and therefore choose to leave this thread intact?
If so, you are deceived about being able to have Bishop Williamson promote sedevacantism if (or now, when) he gets expelled.
Your treachery will yield you no benefit.
You have only weakened tradition this noght.
Nothing more.
-
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!
-
Apparenty the Moderators on this forum prefer the expulsion of Bishop Williamson, and therefore choose to leave this thread intact?
If so, you are deceived about being able to have Bishop Williamson promote sedevacantism if (or now, when) he gets expelled.
Your treachery will yield you no benefit.
You have only weakened tradition this noght.
Nothing more.
Maybe Bishop Fellay leaked it. Why do you assme it was Bishop Williamson who leaked it?
-
Apparenty the Moderators on this forum prefer the expulsion of Bishop Williamson, and therefore choose to leave this thread intact?
It's already been posted on a frequently read blog. Doubtlessly it has already made it's way around the net. It's too late now.
-
Apparenty the Moderators on this forum prefer the expulsion of Bishop Williamson, and therefore choose to leave this thread intact?
It's already been posted on a frequently read blog. Doubtlessly it has already made it's way around the net. It's too late now.
I saw that it has been removed on FE
-
I saw that it has been removed on FE
Can it be removed from MP's blog? I wish, but I think we're going to learn the truth about this supposed letter soon enough.
I need a drink .
-
I saw that it has been removed on FE
Can it be removed from MP's blog? I wish, but I think we're going to learn the truth about this supposed letter soon enough.
I need a drink .
I am monitoring it and it was put back on FE
-
I am, reluctantly, forced to conclude that this letter is genuine, especially in light of what I already know to be certifiably true.
Recall the thread I started several months ago: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/A-little-bird-told-me-about-the-SSPX
-
This letter is vicious. Just disgusting. How can Menzingen dare to forbid the preaching of an exceptionally gifted shepherd. They cry for the wrath of God!
I heard from a trustfully source that the letter is authentic, but confidential. I'm sure Bishop Williamson didn't publish it, and so he's not to blame.
Now it's in the open. And the world sees Menzingen unmasked. This is a problem, because the Newpope B16 cannot want Bishop Williamson to start a traditional branch when Newrome is about to bag the SSPX. So the Newpope's entire gilded cage for the SSPX would be pointless.
Bishop Williamson, man of God, for the sake of all people of good will on earth, please continue your gracious Eleison Comments -- if it's at all possible! You know well that the Scourge of God will soon hit the earth, but until then we need every spiritual help we can get. Yours is excellent, your Excellency.
-
This letter is vicious. Just disgusting. How can Menzingen dare to forbid the preaching of an exceptionally gifted shepherd. They cry for the wrath of God!
I heard from a trustfully source that the letter is authentic, but confidential. I'm sure Bishop Williamson didn't publish it, and so he's not to blame.
Now it's in the open. And the world sees Menzingen unmasked. This is a problem, because the Newpope B16 cannot want Bishop Williamson to start a traditional branch when Newrome is about to bag the SSPX. So the Newpope's entire gilded cage for the SSPX would be pointless.
Bishop Williamson, man of God, for the sake of all people of good will on earth, please continue your gracious Eleison Comments -- if it's at all possible! You know well that the Scourge of God will soon hit the earth, but until then we need every spiritual help we can get. Yours is excellent, your Excellency.
Unfortunately, you have it exactly backwards: This plays perfectly into the hands of BXVI, Bishop Fellay, and Krah/Jews: They now have their excuse to axe Bishop WIlliamson (which was almost certainly the plan all along, since the Jews object to him, as does Rome).
They couldn't care less about Bishop Williamson trotting off on his own with a marginal number of clergy (5 at most).
This indiscretion by Bishop Williamson and Pinnay just pulled the last teeth out of the SSPX.
-
This letter is vicious. Just disgusting. How can Menzingen dare to forbid the preaching of an exceptionally gifted shepherd. They cry for the wrath of God!
I heard from a trustfully source that the letter is authentic, but confidential. I'm sure Bishop Williamson didn't publish it, and so he's not to blame.
Now it's in the open. And the world sees Menzingen unmasked. This is a problem, because the Newpope B16 cannot want Bishop Williamson to start a traditional branch when Newrome is about to bag the SSPX. So the Newpope's entire gilded cage for the SSPX would be pointless.
Bishop Williamson, man of God, for the sake of all people of good will on earth, please continue your gracious Eleison Comments -- if it's at all possible! You know well that the Scourge of God will soon hit the earth, but until then we need every spiritual help we can get. Yours is excellent, your Excellency.
Unfortunately, you have it exactly backwards: This plays perfectly into the hands of BXVI, Bishop Fellay, and Krah/Jews: They now have their excuse to axe Bishop WIlliamson (which was almost certainly the plan all along, since the Jews object to him, as does Rome).
They couldn't care less about Bishop Williamson trotting off on his own with a marginal number of clergy (5 at most).
This indiscretion by Bishop Williamson and Pinnay just pulled the last teeth out of the SSPX.
....and as I said before, you will find no sedevacantism in Bishop WIlliamson.
-
Apparenty the Moderators on this forum prefer the expulsion of Bishop Williamson, and therefore choose to leave this thread intact?
If so, you are deceived about being able to have Bishop Williamson promote sedevacantism if (or now, when) he gets expelled.
Your treachery will yield you no benefit.
You have only weakened tradition this noght.
Nothing more.
Somehow, I doubt that the Vatican and the SSPX leadership log onto CathInfo every day searching for dirt, hanging on to every comment and topic critical of the Society.
Methinks you take yourself a little too seriously.
-
This letter is vicious. Just disgusting. How can Menzingen dare to forbid the preaching of an exceptionally gifted shepherd. They cry for the wrath of God!
I heard from a trustfully source that the letter is authentic, but confidential. I'm sure Bishop Williamson didn't publish it, and so he's not to blame.
Now it's in the open. And the world sees Menzingen unmasked. This is a problem, because the Newpope B16 cannot want Bishop Williamson to start a traditional branch when Newrome is about to bag the SSPX. So the Newpope's entire gilded cage for the SSPX would be pointless.
Bishop Williamson, man of God, for the sake of all people of good will on earth, please continue your gracious Eleison Comments -- if it's at all possible! You know well that the Scourge of God will soon hit the earth, but until then we need every spiritual help we can get. Yours is excellent, your Excellency.
Unfortunately, you have it exactly backwards: This plays perfectly into the hands of BXVI, Bishop Fellay, and Krah/Jews: They now have their excuse to axe Bishop WIlliamson (which was almost certainly the plan all along, since the Jews object to him, as does Rome).
They couldn't care less about Bishop Williamson trotting off on his own with a marginal number of clergy (5 at most).
This indiscretion by Bishop Williamson and Pinnay just pulled the last teeth out of the SSPX.
This was inevitable, Bishop Williamson was already gagged and confined, what good was he doing the SSPX sending his letter out every week (not that the faithful doesn't benefit from it). How could he stop this sellout (if it is indeed a sellout) from happening if the superior of the SSPX considers him "uranium"? How long do you expect him sit there muzzled?
-
"I would be happy to invite you to the SSPX Superiors’ meeting to be held in Albano early in October, as the nature and composition of the meeting has been somewhat changed because of current events. I would also be happy to send you a text from Rome to which they want a reply. However, I find myself obliged to attach conditions to each of these points.
Firstly, as to the text, I ask of you an oath in writing that you will communicate to nobody either the text or its content. Too often in the past you have lacked discretion, so I am obliged to submit you to a procedure of this kind, which I am not happy to have to do.
Secondly, as to the meeting in Albano, I can only invite you to attend insofar as you stop publishing Eleison Comments. You have already been given the reason several times, as you have been given the order to stop."
So, it appears that Bishop Williamson has two choices. He can be present at these meeting s and look at the preamble if he produces an oath in writing that he will not reveal its contens AND that he will stop publishing his online letter. Why doesn't Bp Fellay just ask him to drop dead? For all practical purposes Bishop Williamson has already been kicked out of the SSPX.
-
Unfortunately, you have it exactly backwards: This plays perfectly into the hands of BXVI, Bishop Fellay, and Krah/Jews:
I think that Maurice had no right to publish the letter. But now it's too late.
Where this situation plays into, we'll have to see. God will have the last word, and I know Bishop Williamson is on HIS side.
They now have their excuse to axe Bishop WIlliamson (which was almost certainly the plan all along, since the Jews object to him, as does Rome).
Not the ostrich-like way please!
Menzingen tries to axe the good Bishop for about three years now. (And that's why, for example, Krah who works for Bp Fellay and other superiors could insult Bishop Williamson constantly.)
Bishop Fellay wrote in this letter that he "ordered" to stop the Eleison Comments several times. So Bishop Williamson had a good time to think in peace about continuing or discontinuing his graceful preaching. Could this be the reason for the nice new web-site www.dinoscopus.org (http://www.dinoscopus.org) which went online just a few weeks ago?
Indeed nobody has the right to stop a good bishop from fulfilling his duty to preach and defend the Faith.
Unfortunately the double-thinking Bishop Fellay doesn't understand it because for several years he's not defending the whole faith anymore -- for example when he fawns upon the first and most vicious enemies of our Lord Jesus Christus, the anti-christian Jews, and propagates Vatican II untruths like "The Jews are our elder brothers" etc.
They couldn't care less about Bishop Williamson trotting off on his own with a marginal number of clergy (5 at most).
Newrome cares.
Unfortunately no majority of the SSPX priests support Bishop Williamson (which shows the bad state of the society). But you give a random shot by saing "5 at most". Or do you mean just the German-speaking zone? Because then you would be about right. :-)
This indiscretion by Bishop Williamson and Pinnay just pulled the last teeth out of the SSPX.
That's an unfair accusation against Bishop Williamson. Don't do it.
Let's wait and see what happens.
-
So, it appears that Bishop Williamson has two choices. He can be present at these meeting s and look at the preamble if he produces an oath in writing that he will not reveal its contens AND that he will stop publishing his online letter.
That's a precise and good summary.
Why doesn't Bp Fellay just ask him to drop dead? For all practical purposes Bishop Williamson has already been kicked out of the SSPX.
Yes, that's the point.
-
Ethelred:
I heard from a trustfully source that the letter is authentic, but confidential. I'm sure Bishop Williamson didn't publish it, and so he's not to blame.
Yes, I too have heard from the most trustworthy of sources. The letter is genuine, and Bp. W did NOT publish it. However, the matter has been handled rather carelessly, and whether or not the bishop must bear some responsibility for that carelessness, the jury is still out.
-
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!
-
I think some points need clarification in light of some erroneous comments:
1. A superior general has the authority to ask (command) the members of his religious congregation to obey his requests - and yes, this applies even to a bishop. This would even apply if the superior general were a priest and one of the members were a bishop.
2. A bishop can in fact be commanded to cease preaching, either completely or partially. Remember, a bishop receives his mandate to preach the Gospel from the Church, that is, through her ecclesiastical authorities (to whom he swears obedience during his episcopal consecration), either the pope, the metropolitan archbishop, the local ordinary or the superior general of a religious congregation.
3. As we see related in the lives of the saints, sometimes obedience is required even when this is perceived to be a lack of a good - but in reality, it is actually preserving the good.
4. This is an internal issue of the SSPX - thus it is really none of our business. Instead of contributing to the work of the Devil by making absurd speculations and even posting false rumors (which is calumny mind you), we should instead do the work of Heaven and pray for the SSPX, Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson. That is the best service we can render to the Church at this moment.
-
I think some points need clarification in light of some erroneous comments:
1. A superior general has the authority to ask (command) the members of his religious congregation to obey his requests - and yes, this applies even to a bishop. This would even apply if the superior general were a priest and one of the members were a bishop.
2. A bishop can in fact be commanded to cease preaching, either completely or partially. Remember, a bishop receives his mandate to preach the Gospel from the Church, that is, through her ecclesiastical authorities (to whom he swears obedience during his episcopal consecration), either the pope, the metropolitan archbishop, the local ordinary or the superior general of a religious congregation.
3. As we see related in the lives of the saints, sometimes obedience is required even when this is perceived to be a lack of a good - but in reality, it is actually preserving the good.
4. This is an internal issue of the SSPX - thus it is really none of our business. Instead of contributing to the work of the Devil by making absurd speculations and even posting false rumors (which is calumny mind you), we should instead do the work of Heaven and pray for the SSPX, Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson. That is the best service we can render to the Church at this moment.
With regard to #2 -- isn't that the same as a suspension?
Didn't Archbishop Lefebvre, (and possibly others in the SSPX) flagrantly violate Rome's "suspension" of his faculties? Because it was unjust; Rome had been taken over by Modernists. So the greater good demanded that this particular bishop continue preaching the Holy Catholic Faith.
The SSPX could easily go astray as well. So although the Traditional movement is legitimate (disobeying the Pope and other superiors in Rome, consecrating bishops without mandate, etc.), Bishop Williamson couldn't do the same thing when a mere BRANCH of the Church gets infiltrated or goes astray?
There are a LOT of things that are normally done, but must be set aside during a time of crisis.
And #3 is very, very dangerous to promote in 2011. Yes, obedience is a great virtue, but if I wholeheartedly took you up on that I might find myself gritting my teeth during Novus Ordo services every Sunday! No thanks.
I suppose God calls some to heroic obedience -- but that doesn't include me (or many others on this board, I imagine) Instead, we're being called to heroic faith, heroic trust/hope, heroic rejection of human respect, heroic sacrifice of the company of friends and even family, sacrifices to attend the Traditional Mass, etc.
Regarding #4 -- what false rumors are you speaking of? I agree that people shouldn't make things up and post it as if true. But I'm going to give the membership here the benefit of the doubt that no one is posting things that he himself knows to be false!
But I disagree that it's an internal issue that doesn't affect us. It affects all Catholics who attend their chapels, and all traditional Catholics in general to a lesser extent. It is most certainly "my business" and "my concern".
And I agree that prayer is advisable, but keep in mind that there is a time to pray, and a time to fight. (I suppose there is also a time to do both!)
-
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!
ArchBishop Lefebvre would have been for unity of the four Bishops he hand selected and ordained. He selected four on purpose not just because it sounded cool. They would always be able to have Bishops if one died, because the others could ordain a replacement.
P.S. I do think it is a blessing you were confirmed by Archbishop Lefebvre.
-
Good Catholics, what is all this secrecy? Dictator Fellay should follow the principles of his superior -- that is, if he even acknowledges Jesus Christ as his superior -- Who told the corrupt leader of the Church of His time, Caiphas: "I have spoken openly to the world ... in secret I have spoken nothing" (John 18:20/DRV). Benedict-Ratzinger's "Doctrinal Preamble," actually a Vatican II Doctrinal Ultimatum, involves a question of Catholic doctrine, which is public. Clearly, Fellay wants to engineer some kind of dirty backroom deal with Ratzinger to sell out the Neo-SSPX without any accountability to the SSPX membership. Fellay should be more careful. "What goes around comes around." His dirty dealing will likely come back to hit him aside the head and dash forever the visions of scarlet dancing in his head!
I normally hate traditio , but I thought the above was pretty good.
-
I think some points need clarification in light of some erroneous comments:
So do I...
A superior general has the authority to ask (command) the members of his religious congregation to obey...
Does the SSPX have any real canonical standing during this time in the desert? Tis rather doubtful.
The fact that Bp Fellay is, or might at some stage become, a sellout in a manner that could affect all who support the SSPX is not a merely "internal issue" of the SSPX.
These times are not normal; stop acting as if they are. If -- IF -- Bp Fellay is, in fact, some kind of sellout, rat, what have you, he needs to be taken to task for it and exposed for what he is. FWIW, the SSPX only began because some Catholics spoke out, resisted those in authority, fought for the common good, etc. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Godspeed.
-
From the comments posted on Maurice Pinay's blog:
I wish I could say otherwise, but I am not shocked in the least at this latest report.
There are many things that I could very critically comment on about this reputed letter from Bp. Fellay to Bp. Williamson, but since I cannot attest to its authenticity at this time I will refrain from doing so. Nevertheless, in my opinion the time has unfortunately finally come for me to make public a personal face to face conversation I had with the Rev. Fr. Niklaus Phluger in the mid-afternoon of Sunday, February 20, 2011.
Said conversation took place in the bookstore of the SSPX's chapel Our Lady Immaculate in Oak Park, Illinois. At the time Fr. Phluger was First Assistant to the Superior General of the SSPX, His Excellency Bp. Fellay.
I have been a regular attendee of Our Lady Immaculate for a good number of years. I am familiar to some degree with the circuмstances surrounding the long internal exile which has been imposed upon Bp. Williamson by Bp. Fellay. It was in this context that I walked up to and engaged Fr. Phluger in a brief one on one exchange. We stood all alone.
I figured my time with Fr. Phluger would be rather limited so I immediately cut to the chase in inquiring about the status of Bp. Williamson. In the course of our talk, Fr. Phluger made some pointed derogatory statements about Bp. Williamson. These were topped off by his stunning assertion with respect to Bp. Williamson and this is verbatim: "He's a nαzι." As God is my witness that is exactly what this priest told me face to face.
I made the above quote known to Bp. Williamson as well as the full details of my conversation with Fr. Phluger in an email to the former one day later on February 21, 2011. I still retain that email as well as the reply I received to it from Bp. Williamson on February 22, 2011. (I also informed my SSPX pastor of the conversation and the specific nαzι assertion in an email to him on February 23rd.)
I am sorry to bring such a despicable affair to light at this time, but I think that those who are in a position to do so should hold Fr. Pfluger accountable for it. Don't shoot the messenger. In my opinion his aforesaid assertion to me was a grave calumny. Some may strongly disagree, but my conscience -- after much consideration -- informs me that my extraordinary step of making it public at this time is fully justified.
The internal exile of Bp. Williamson should in my opinion never have been imposed. Furthermore, in my opinion its continuation is absolutely wrong and is (or at least should be!) an ongoing scandal to the faithful.
James Phillips
-
These were topped off by his stunning assertion with respect to Bp. Williamson and this is verbatim: "He's a nαzι." As God is my witness that is exactly what this priest told me face to face.
James sent out this summary of a conversation with Fr. Phluger some months ago. So I was already familiar with it. But I'm glad Matthew posted it on Cathinfo. What choice really does Bp. W have at this point. If the second in command at SSPX thinks he's a nαzι, the time certainly has come for a separation to occur.
-
:shocked:
An SSPX priest...
...calling Bishop Williamson...
... a nαzι?
:shocked:
OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!!
-
:shocked:
An SSPX priest...
...calling Bishop Williamson...
... a nαzι?
:shocked:
OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!!
Maybe if they don't they feel that they'll lose potential $$$$$$$ - ...I mean converts to tradition!
-
It's warm and sunny outside, and it is still a cold black day today.
God preserve us!
-
These were topped off by his stunning assertion with respect to Bp. Williamson and this is verbatim: "He's a nαzι." As God is my witness that is exactly what this priest told me face to face.
James sent out this summary of a conversation with Fr. Phluger some months ago. So I was already familiar with it. But I'm glad Matthew posted it on Cathinfo. What choice really does Bp. W have at this point. If the second in command at SSPX thinks he's a nαzι, the time certainly has come for a separation to occur.
I repeat that Fr Niklaus Pfluger is the mentor and protector of the Jew's friend and helper Max Krah (see "Krah-Gate" here on Cathinfo). The two match perfectly: Two overachievers who are the SSPX key players in the plot against Bishop-Williamson. I'm sure by now that at least Krah has got Jєωιѕн backers. Still without Bishop Fellay's support they couldn't do this. This newest letter from Bishop Fellay to Bishop Williamson speaks volumes.
Actually the Swiss-German but anti-Germanic Fr Pfluger put Krah into his position inside the SSPX at all, when the Father was SSPX district superior in Germany and looked after the new Dresden chapel where Krah comes from. So it's no surprise Krah says such insults against Bishop Williamson publicly for years now. Everybody who doesn't believe the "h0Ɩ0cαųst"-lie is a "nαzι" for them.
May the Lord keep safe and united the Bishops of the SSPX!
Pious hope but several years too late. There's no "keep them united" because they are not united anymore, and this was publicly visible since early 2009 (but of course the problem goes much deeper).
Let's humorously quote the evening prayer of a school child when earlier the same day he wrote a class test's essay... :-)
Dear Lord, please let London be the capital of France, otherwise my school essay is wrong...
-
'Dumb Ox' has posted the following on Ignis Ardens.
The moderators are to be commended on the suppression of the private communication sent by Bishop Fellay to Bishop Williamson, on 23rd September, a translated version of which has recently been made public and was linked to on this forum.
The question that should be asked is who ultimately benefits from this private communication being made public.
When the obvious conclusion is drawn it may, perhaps, present a more likely scenario of its leaking.
Bishop Williamson certainly does not stand to gain from its publication at the present time. It was published without his permission and he is angry that it has been made public; a fact that can be easily confirmed should anyone wish to phone and ask him about it.
Its publication merely results in more internal SSPX pressure being put upon His Lordship, and his good name eaten away with suspicions that he has been - as the text of the communication boldly claims - indiscreet. It makes him look very foolish in his choice of trusted friends and advisors, and it gives the appearance of the good bishop being prone to allowing his emotions to rule his reason in a misguided attempt to hit back at Bishop Fellay.
On the other hand, Bishop Fellay does not gain from its publication either. His control freakery, machiavellian operating procedure, despotism and spiteful way of treating people he finds himself at odds with - things all well known amongst SSPX clerics - is now apparent for the world to see and to understand.
So who else could have leaked this communication - sent to Williamson by Fellay in the form of an email, not a letter, and written in French?
It is certain that the communication was copied to a number of Fellay's inner circle at Menzingen and further afield.
Two names from amongst this circle come immediately to mind. Fr. Pfluger, who for some time now has been attempting to play off and discredit both Williamson and Fellay to anyone who will listen in the hope of fulfilling his own puffed-up ambitions in regard to SSPX.
Behind Pfluger stands the shadowy figure of the Liberal "He who shall remain nameless".
"He who shall remain nameless", Menzingen's lawyer introduced to the inner circles of SSPX by Fr. Pfluger, is a conduit between Menzingen and the world of Finance, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and Judaism.
For the past three years "He who shall remain nameless", with the co-operation of Fellay and Pfluger, has been hell-bent on attempting to remove Bishop Williamson from within SSPX; a fact well-established and chronicled by the "bannedgate" investigation and by Stephen Heiner.
It is clear that neither Williamson nor Fellay stand to gain from the publication of the content of this private email at the present time. The ultimate beneficiaries of its publication are Pfluger, "He who shall remain nameless", Masonry and Judaism.
It appears to be very likely that those who have allowed publication of this private email have been played by the enemy.
-
Let's humorously quote the evening prayer of a school child when earlier the same day he wrote a class test's essay... :-)
Dear Lord, please let London be the capital of France, otherwise my school essay is wrong...
Hilarious! :laugh1:
-
Dear Maurice Pinay,
Please publish on the same blog on which you published the Sept 23 letter of Bishop Fellay to me, the following message --
The September 23 letter from Bishop Fellay to me, as posted on the Maurice Pinay blog, is authentic, but it was put on the Internet without my knowledge and without my permission. I sent a copy to friends to ask their advice or to tell them why I was not present at the Albano meeting, but never did I want that copy to appear in public. I have no idea who posted it, nor do I ask who did so.
Bishop Richard Williamson, London, 14 Oct. 2011
this is Bishop Williamsons letter of todayI found that someone published on FE
-
Dear Maurice Pinay,
Please publish on the same blog on which you published the Sept 23 letter of Bishop Fellay to me, the following message --
The September 23 letter from Bishop Fellay to me, as posted on the Maurice Pinay blog, is authentic, but it was put on the Internet without my knowledge and without my permission. I sent a copy to friends to ask their advice or to tell them why I was not present at the Albano meeting, but never did I want that copy to appear in public. I have no idea who posted it, nor do I ask who did so.
Bishop Richard Williamson, London, 14 Oct. 2011
Your Excellency-
I beg to differ with you:
I would find it quite instructive to learn who submitted this letter for publication.
And I doubt very highly that it was one of those tho whom you confided for advice.
Why?
Because I do not believe in coincidences, and it strains credulity to believe that the very letter which accuses you of indiscretions should itself become proof of the fact!
Certainly Bishop Fellay informed others of this letter (e.g., Maximillian Krah, Fr. Pfluger, Fr Nely, et al).
None of these are great friends of yours, and their contempt for you is (shamefully) public.
This affair has all the halmarks of one trying to rid oneself of an enemy, rather than that of a careless indiscretion:
Certainly it would be used against a stupid, ignorant, and brainwashed public to justify an expulsion from the SSPX (i.e., I can see them all now, nodding their heads, as if to say, "Bishop Fellay said no more indiscretions!"), perhaps to accomplish the goal of an agreement with Rome that the Jews will find less distasteful with you out of the picture (and this just 2 weeks before the blasphemy in Assisi is about to convene: Yet another amazing coincidence, and very convenient timing!).
Yes, it would be very instructive indeed to learn the identity of this treacherous person.
-
Well the publishing of a formal letter between bishops is hardly what I would call treachery. I'd say it was likely done by one of Bishop Williamson's supporters who wasn't going to stand by and watch him be reduced to Bishop Fellay's water boy.
-
Well the publishing of a formal letter between bishops is hardly what I would call treachery. I'd say it was likely done by one of Bishop Williamson's supporters who wasn't going to stand by and watch him be reduced to Bishop Fellay's water boy.
Oh.
Well, of course you could be right.
But if so, that would be a pretty stupid friend, considering the easily forseeable consequences (with friends like that, who needs enemies?).
But, yes, I would call it treachery (whether published by friend or foe): Bishop Williamson clearly says it was not his wish this be published, and his friends would have known that (i.e., He would not just have given them the letter and said, "Go do what you want with it.").
A friend may have had good intentions, but not Bishop Williamson's best interests at heart, if that is what happened.
But as per my previous post, I find it highly unlikely that a friend sent Pinay the letter; seems more the work of a calculating enemy to me.
But what do I know?
Pax tecuм.
-
What careful thinker would jump to the conclusion that Bp. Williamson or one of his friends would leak the letter? While that is a possibility, it is at least as likely that one of Bp. Fellay's confidants would leak the letter to provide a pretext for accusing and further ostracizing Bp Williamson.
What started as clericalism has rotted into tyranny.
Bp. Williamson spoke truth. It is truth that put him in the crosshairs of the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan. But why the fratricide? Is fratricide traditional?
It is truth about Judaism and its fables (Titus 1:14) that has been pulled from the SSPX websites. Is concealment of the truth traditional? Did Jesus conceal the truth? Excepting Peter's denials, did the Apostles ever conceal the truth? Have the Saints and Doctors of the Church concealed the truth?
Is it prudent to conceal or endorse the lies of the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan? Is that traditional?
Hell no!
What we are seeing from the sanctimonious defenders of Bp. Fellay and his regime of malefactors (Krah, Pfluger, Hegenberger, et al.) are EXACTLY the same rationalizations used by the Novus Ordo neo-Pharisees when they concealed and enabled the sodomite rapists. I spit on those rationalizations.
Jesus did not tell us that concealment and lies would set us free. He said the TRUTH will set us free.
The Novus Ordo has made itself a sect of the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan. It increasingly appears that Bp. Fellay's regime and defenders are willing to sacrifice the truth to join that sect.
Antagonists of the truth, get over your embarrassment. Bp Fellay's letter only confirms what any discerning eye could have seen for years. This letter offers an opportunity for the Faithful to hold Bp. Fellay to justly account for his behavior—as is our right!
One poster on the Maurice Pinay blog mentioned Bp. Fellay's response. Where is that?
-
Caminus, not everyone wants to do an "Ode to Reality" style expose, where proof/vindication is pretty much impossible and you're basically giving up peace of soul (and any high ground you would have had) for nothing.
That's actually a last-ditch desperate move -- for one who has nothing to lose.
I'm sure Gladius could comment on this one.
-
'Dumb Ox' has posted the following on Ignis Ardens.
The moderators are to be commended on the suppression of the private communication sent by Bishop Fellay to Bishop Williamson, on 23rd September, a translated version of which has recently been made public and was linked to on this forum.
The question that should be asked is who ultimately benefits from this private communication being made public.
When the obvious conclusion is drawn it may, perhaps, present a more likely scenario of its leaking.
Bishop Williamson certainly does not stand to gain from its publication at the present time. It was published without his permission and he is angry that it has been made public; a fact that can be easily confirmed should anyone wish to phone and ask him about it.
Its publication merely results in more internal SSPX pressure being put upon His Lordship, and his good name eaten away with suspicions that he has been - as the text of the communication boldly claims - indiscreet. It makes him look very foolish in his choice of trusted friends and advisors, and it gives the appearance of the good bishop being prone to allowing his emotions to rule his reason in a misguided attempt to hit back at Bishop Fellay.
On the other hand, Bishop Fellay does not gain from its publication either. His control freakery, machiavellian operating procedure, despotism and spiteful way of treating people he finds himself at odds with - things all well known amongst SSPX clerics - is now apparent for the world to see and to understand.
So who else could have leaked this communication - sent to Williamson by Fellay in the form of an email, not a letter, and written in French?
It is certain that the communication was copied to a number of Fellay's inner circle at Menzingen and further afield.
Two names from amongst this circle come immediately to mind. Fr. Pfluger, who for some time now has been attempting to play off and discredit both Williamson and Fellay to anyone who will listen in the hope of fulfilling his own puffed-up ambitions in regard to SSPX.
Behind Pfluger stands the shadowy figure of the Liberal "He who shall remain nameless".
"He who shall remain nameless", Menzingen's lawyer introduced to the inner circles of SSPX by Fr. Pfluger, is a conduit between Menzingen and the world of Finance, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and Judaism.
For the past three years "He who shall remain nameless", with the co-operation of Fellay and Pfluger, has been hell-bent on attempting to remove Bishop Williamson from within SSPX; a fact well-established and chronicled by the "bannedgate" investigation and by Stephen Heiner.
It is clear that neither Williamson nor Fellay stand to gain from the publication of the content of this private email at the present time. The ultimate beneficiaries of its publication are Pfluger, "He who shall remain nameless", Masonry and Judaism.
It appears to be very likely that those who have allowed publication of this private email have been played by the enemy.
You know, guys who write this stuff can't seem to tell the difference between the an intellectual self-construct and reality. These conclusory allegations, this pseudo-detective guesswork never seems to grasp a serious implication which is this: If these "facts" are so glaringly obvious then your version of the story necessarily implicates Bishop Williamson. The 64 thousand dollar question is this: Why has not Bishop Williamson mentioned this blatant evil, why has he not exposed these machinations? Either he must be a coward or he is in de facto connivance by his continued assocation with the evil hierarchy of the SSPX. In short, the behavior of the hero of the story is not at all commensurate with the alleged circuмstances divined by these commentators. The imaginations of these men do not seem to comprehend that exaggeration and gratuitous imputation of evil is just as bad if not worse than the "undermining scheme" they allege is afoot. I think they're just hungry for a juicy story, rather than settling for mundane disagreements and other inevitable and standard faults of men in general. And I always find it humorous when the criticism is made of Bishop Fellay and his "despotic, control freak" rule. These words can only come from one infected by a false notion of liberty especially within the context of a religious order. They sound, rather like liberal Americans who abhor such "control" over subjects. Maybe you should study how religious orders were ran in the past, take for example St. Philip Neri's order which is markedly simliar to the structure of the SSPX. St. Philip Neri advised his priests that if they decided to be singluar in their saying of the Mass, they would be expelled from the order. Yes, indeed, quite the despot.
If such Catholics have so little respect for a 100% validly consecrated bishop of the Catholic church now in time of crisis how will they have respect in times of peace?
-
The making public of Bishop Fellay's letter has at least brought out into the open one thing which has been clear from the actions of the Society's leadership but not been directly confirmed until now.
I refer to Bishop Fellay's hostile reference to "Anglo-Saxon circles". Those doing harm to the Society are all “Anglo-Saxons”?! The danger of infiltrators in the Society is from “Anglo-Saxons”?!! Is this a sick joke?
I refer to the un-Catholic racism of the current leadership, and no, I most certainly am not referring to the phony anti-semitism accusations against the good Bishop Williamson. I refer to the anti-American racism of the French leadership of the Society.
Why was the American Fr. Fullerton removed as District Superior and replaced by a foreigner, a Frenchman? Why was the editor of the Angelus magazine Fr Kenneth Novak, a good, zealous, inspiring priest, a tireless worker for the salvation of souls, replaced by a foreigner, (a German in this case) who promptly turned the Angelus from a vehicle for promotion of virile Catholicism into the "Lives of Jєωιѕн saints" journal? Why is the American seminary not run by any of the many gifted, zealous, holy, talented American priests of the Society, but by a foreigner, again a Frenchman? In fact one of the most zealous, effective apostles of committed, integral Catholic living, Fr Vicente Griego, was removed from his position of rector in St Marys where he was doing so much good in building up a true Catholic revival...Why? To lead the American seminary? No, (that job is held by a Frenchman), to be banished to Australia to head the dying seminary there. And now there are multiple French priests in St Marys. American priests who are doing great good for souls are shipped out of the country to the former penal colony of Australia and the premier American chapel stocked with French priests!
Real racism is a sin. Actual KKK members who hate blacks are sinning, genuine nαzιs who hate Jews for being Jews are sinning, and invidious discrimination against American priests because they are Americans and not French-compromising-wusses is a sin.
Exaggerated patriotism in the form of nationalism or jingoism is wrong, but genuine patriotism, a genuine love of country is not only a virtue but an obligation. To sit idly by while one’s country is insulted and one’s fellow countrymen are discriminated against and mistreated and harm done to the Catholic cause in this country is unacceptable cowardice. Save the calls for false humility and false obedience. Cooperating in injustice is neither humility nor obedience, God forbid!, it is cooperation in sin based on cowardice.
Alright. Bishop Fellay and the French priests of the Society have declared war on the dreaded "Anglo-Saxons". At least it is out in the open now.
Are there no men left in America to stand up for this country? Does no one have the intestinal fortitude to tell the limp-wristed French foreigners that enough is enough? We want our good, holy (and yes, American) priests back in their leadership positions where they were doing so much good for God, the Church, our families and the Society,
No more racism in the Society!
-
The making public of Bishop Fellay's letter has at least brought out into the open one thing which has been clear from the actions of the Society's leadership but not been directly confirmed until now.
I refer to Bishop Fellay's hostile reference to "Anglo-Saxon circles". Those doing harm to the Society are all “Anglo-Saxons”?! The danger of infiltrators in the Society is from “Anglo-Saxons”?!! Is this a sick joke?
I refer to the un-Catholic racism of the current leadership, and no, I most certainly am not referring to the phony anti-semitism accusations against the good Bishop Williamson. I refer to the anti-American racism of the French leadership of the Society.
Why was the American Fr. Fullerton removed as District Superior and replaced by a foreigner, a Frenchman? Why was the editor of the Angelus magazine Fr Kenneth Novak, a good, zealous, inspiring priest, a tireless worker for the salvation of souls, replaced by a foreigner, (a German in this case) who promptly turned the Angelus from a vehicle for promotion of virile Catholicism into the "Lives of Jєωιѕн saints" journal? Why is the American seminary not run by any of the many gifted, zealous, holy, talented American priests of the Society, but by a foreigner, again a Frenchman? In fact one of the most zealous, effective apostles of committed, integral Catholic living, Fr Vicente Griego, was removed from his position of rector in St Marys where he was doing so much good in building up a true Catholic revival...Why? To lead the American seminary? No, (that job is held by a Frenchman), to be banished to Australia to head the dying seminary there. And now there are multiple French priests in St Marys. American priests who are doing great good for souls are shipped out of the country to the former penal colony of Australia and the premier American chapel stocked with French priests!
Real racism is a sin. Actual KKK members who hate blacks are sinning, genuine nαzιs who hate Jews for being Jews are sinning, and invidious discrimination against American priests because they are Americans and not French-compromising-wusses is a sin.
Exaggerated patriotism in the form of nationalism or jingoism is wrong, but genuine patriotism, a genuine love of country is not only a virtue but an obligation. To sit idly by while one’s country is insulted and one’s fellow countrymen are discriminated against and mistreated and harm done to the Catholic cause in this country is unacceptable cowardice. Save the calls for false humility and false obedience. Cooperating in injustice is neither humility nor obedience, God forbid!, it is cooperation in sin based on cowardice.
Alright. Bishop Fellay and the French priests of the Society have declared war on the dreaded "Anglo-Saxons". At least it is out in the open now.
Are there no men left in America to stand up for this country? Does no one have the intestinal fortitude to tell the limp-wristed French foreigners that enough is enough? We want our good, holy (and yes, American) priests back in their leadership positions where they were doing so much good for God, the Church, our families and the Society,
No more racism in the Society!
Isn't the SSPX a missionary order?
Part of entering religion entails sacrificing the comforts of your homeland in order to remind yourself that we have not here a lasting habitation.
-
Isn't the SSPX a missionary order?
Part of entering religion entails sacrificing the comforts of your homeland in order to remind yourself that we have not here a lasting habitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most SSPX priests have no knowledge of pre-Vatican II missionary activity. Even in a country like India they can still have " the comforts of their homeland ", and they do. In the Asia district, only very recently has an Asian been made prior at one of the priories. Four Asian priests of this district have left the Society, three, the priesthood altogether. The District Superior, whose tern of office seems to coincide with that of Bishop Fellay, is a Canadian from Montreal.
-
The SSPX is not a missionary order, Archbishop Lefebre's previous Order the Holy Ghost Fathers was. SSPX was formed to preserve the Mass of All time and the Faith.
-
I'm sure the time will come for Bishop Williamson to speak out. That we speak out for him is to sound the alarm bells.
-
On the one hand, the idea that there is a persecution of Anglo-Saxon priests within the SSPX is new to me. I suppose one could construe Bishop Fellay's words in the letter to reach that conclusion. Not that such a conclusion necessarily follows, but it does seem to indicate a grain of truth in the hunch (i.e., If Bishop Fellay has been fearing revolt or separation from Anglo-Saxon priests, it would be natural for him to remove them from positions of influence). And apparently the alleged pretext for this persecution is that Anglo-Saxon priests are more "hard core" doctrinally/politically than others?
On the other hand, some of the most hard core priests I have known are the French. In seminary, I remember Fr. Therian Gaudray (who is now back in France, but was teaching in the seminary in Winona....under Bishop Williamson). There is also the recent example of the scathing letter from the French District Superior condemning the upcoming Assisi blasphemy, to which Bishop Fellay later had to strangely attach his "approval" (i.e., To make a shoe of still being able to control his leadership?).
So, while it is interesting that Bishop Fellay does seem worried about Anglo-Saxon priests, I am not sure I would call the French weak. Remember: Archbishop Lefebvre was one of them.
Now, whether the French currently in place are of the "milder" variety, and deliberately so, I cannot say, but it is an interesting question again.
-
While that is a possibility, it is at least as likely that one of Bp. Fellay's confidants would leak the letter to provide a pretext for accusing and further ostracizing Bp Williamson.
This is the likely scenario given the meeting at Albano didn't go according to their plans. If Bishop Fellay wasn't able to presuade those present to accept the doctrinal preamble, perhaps Fr Pfluger is seeking to become the new Superior General? For himself or Max Krah to 'leak' the letter is plausible.
The post from 'Dumb Ox' makes alot of sense. :cheers:
-
Apparenty the Moderators on this forum prefer the expulsion of Bishop Williamson, and therefore choose to leave this thread intact?
It's already been posted on a frequently read blog. Doubtlessly it has already made it's way around the net. It's too late now.
I saw that it has been removed on FE
FE leadership has always been in the business of morally straining at gnats while swallowing camels.
-
Apparenty the Moderators on this forum prefer the expulsion of Bishop Williamson, and therefore choose to leave this thread intact?
It's already been posted on a frequently read blog. Doubtlessly it has already made it's way around the net. It's too late now.
I saw that it has been removed on FE
FE leadership has always been in the business of morally straining at gnats while swallowing camels.
Its still on. I am its author
-
Apparenty the Moderators on this forum prefer the expulsion of Bishop Williamson, and therefore choose to leave this thread intact?
It's already been posted on a frequently read blog. Doubtlessly it has already made it's way around the net. It's too late now.
I saw that it has been removed on FE
FE leadership has always been in the business of morally straining at gnats while swallowing camels.
Its still on. I am its author
My statement still stands, but good to know.
Was it taken down at one time? Otherwise what was the poster who said it was taken down at FE talking about?
-
As for the OP, what do we really expect Bishop Fellay to do? He wants to include BW and he wants to keep the Society together. Yet BW repeatedly disobeys his own superior general and does things to undermine the Society. It seems BW has a sort of schizophrenic view of the SSPX. He remains with them, but advises others against them. What do you do with such a person if you are BF?
BW's actions would not be tolerated in any religious order even in the NO or most likely Sede-dom. In my opinion BF has been painfully patient with BW, constantly pleading with him to knock off the dissent and join the team. Unfortunately, for all of BW's good qualities, he has de facto (if not verbally) decided that his personal views on historical matters, Rome, the Society, and his personal apostolate trump his fidelity to the Society. He has made clear he will do his own thing and the Society (and BF) be damned.
Therefore, unless BW does a 180, which is unlikely, I see no future choice but BW forcing BF's hand to kick him out of the Society. BW can then play the true Trad/ martyr role and really come out of the closet and go wild with his accusations of the Society selling out, Rome and the SSPX being in apostasy, etc. I predict he will then magically discover the Sede position and set himself up as a leading figure in their movement, which they are desperate for.
I see his path diverging from the Society. I simply see no way out of it.
-
Therefore, unless BW does a 180, which is unlikely, I see no future choice but BW forcing BF's hand to kick him out of the Society.
So get it on! Bp W.'s tenure is over. By being forced out, he can start over from scratch. I'll certainly follow him, because, as it stands for me anyway, the Society has lost its way.
-
As for the OP, what do we really expect Bishop Fellay to do? He wants to include BW and he wants to keep the Society together. Yet BW repeatedly disobeys his own superior general and does things to undermine the Society. It seems BW has a sort of schizophrenic view of the SSPX. He remains with them, but advises others against them. What do you do with such a person if you are BF?
BW's actions would not be tolerated in any religious order even in the NO or most likely Sede-dom. In my opinion BF has been painfully patient with BW, constantly pleading with him to knock off the dissent and join the team. Unfortunately, for all of BW's good qualities, he has de facto (if not verbally) decided that his personal views on historical matters, Rome, the Society, and his personal apostolate trump his fidelity to the Society. He has made clear he will do his own thing and the Society (and BF) be damned.
Therefore, unless BW does a 180, which is unlikely, I see no future choice but BW forcing BF's hand to kick him out of the Society. BW can then play the true Trad/ martyr role and really come out of the closet and go wild with his accusations of the Society selling out, Rome and the SSPX being in apostasy, etc. I predict he will then magically discover the Sede position and set himself up as a leading figure in their movement, which they are desperate for.
I see his path diverging from the Society. I simply see no way out of it.
There's some truth to this (except the sede part, I don't know why that keeps being thrown around, maybe I'm missing something) at least from the exterior view. The question is if there is good reason for Bishop Williamson's position. That we really don't and won't know until all these talks and their results are in the open. Maybe Bishop Williamson has dementia in his old age, maybe he sees things the rest of us don't and is ready to sound the alarm if it goes too far, thereby reining Bishop Fellay in at least for a time. They all need checks and balances, Bishop Fellay as well, so who knows. In any case the SSPX is under strong attack and there are many possibilities of how this could play out.
But Bishop Williamson being objective and watchful is not a new thing. I remember him 15 years ago preaching from the pulpit in Post Falls that the SSPX is only a vehicle and vulnerable and would only last as long as God willed it so always to keep our eyes open and not get too comfortable. That's not a bad message as far as I'm concerned.
-
As for the OP, what do we really expect Bishop Fellay to do? He wants to include BW and he wants to keep the Society together. Yet BW repeatedly disobeys his own superior general and does things to undermine the Society. It seems BW has a sort of schizophrenic view of the SSPX. He remains with them, but advises others against them. What do you do with such a person if you are BF?
BW's actions would not be tolerated in any religious order even in the NO or most likely Sede-dom. In my opinion BF has been painfully patient with BW, constantly pleading with him to knock off the dissent and join the team. Unfortunately, for all of BW's good qualities, he has de facto (if not verbally) decided that his personal views on historical matters, Rome, the Society, and his personal apostolate trump his fidelity to the Society. He has made clear he will do his own thing and the Society (and BF) be damned.
Therefore, unless BW does a 180, which is unlikely, I see no future choice but BW forcing BF's hand to kick him out of the Society. BW can then play the true Trad/ martyr role and really come out of the closet and go wild with his accusations of the Society selling out, Rome and the SSPX being in apostasy, etc. I predict he will then magically discover the Sede position and set himself up as a leading figure in their movement, which they are desperate for.
I see his path diverging from the Society. I simply see no way out of it.
Not so sure about that.
Apparently the SSPX is moving away from Bishop Fellay's accomodating faction and toward Bishop Williamsons:
Is is reported on Thomas Drolesky's website (and quoted on Pinay's) that the SSPX District Superiors unanimously rejected signing the Doctrinal Preamble.
Whether there is a continuing effort within the SSPX to recast the Preamble into something they can get enough support to sign, I do not know.
-
Wallflower:
I remember him 15 years ago preaching from the pulpit in Post Falls that the SSPX is only a vehicle and vulnerable and would only last as long as God willed it so always to keep our eyes open and not get too comfortable. That's not a bad message as far as I'm concerned.
Wallflower, are you still in Post Falls? If so, I would like to meet you.
-
Wallflower: I remember him 15 years ago preaching from the pulpit in Post Falls that the SSPX is only a vehicle and vulnerable and would only last as long as God willed it so always to keep our eyes open and not get too comfortable. That's not a bad message as far as I'm concerned.
Wallflower, are you still in Post Falls? If so, I would like to meet you.
No sorry, it's been a long time since I was there. I'd like to visit again in the next few years. If I'm still on CI I could always PM then. If you are there we probably have friends in common! Although, things have changed and grown drastically since I was there. I barely recognize it anymore when I visit.
-
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.
-
As for the OP, what do we really expect Bishop Fellay to do? He wants to include BW and he wants to keep the Society together. Yet BW repeatedly disobeys his own superior general and does things to undermine the Society. It seems BW has a sort of schizophrenic view of the SSPX. He remains with them, but advises others against them. What do you do with such a person if you are BF?
BW's actions would not be tolerated in any religious order even in the NO or most likely Sede-dom. In my opinion BF has been painfully patient with BW, constantly pleading with him to knock off the dissent and join the team. Unfortunately, for all of BW's good qualities, he has de facto (if not verbally) decided that his personal views on historical matters, Rome, the Society, and his personal apostolate trump his fidelity to the Society. He has made clear he will do his own thing and the Society (and BF) be damned.
Therefore, unless BW does a 180, which is unlikely, I see no future choice but BW forcing BF's hand to kick him out of the Society. BW can then play the true Trad/ martyr role and really come out of the closet and go wild with his accusations of the Society selling out, Rome and the SSPX being in apostasy, etc. I predict he will then magically discover the Sede position and set himself up as a leading figure in their movement, which they are desperate for.
I see his path diverging from the Society. I simply see no way out of it.
Blind obedience has never Catholic, stevus. This is what Archbishop LeFebvre said. Bishop Williamson is under no obligation to follow the commands of Bishop Fellay if it means he must compromise his Faith. And that's basically what Fellay is demaning that he do. I also think it comes off as being quite a controll freak to tell +Williamson what he can and can't do on the internet.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
"I would be happy to invite you to the SSPX Superiors’ meeting to be held in Albano early in October, as the nature and composition of the meeting has been somewhat changed because of current events. I would also be happy to send you a text from Rome to which they want a reply. However, I find myself obliged to attach conditions to each of these points.
Firstly, as to the text, I ask of you an oath in writing that you will communicate to nobody either the text or its content. Too often in the past you have lacked discretion, so I am obliged to submit you to a procedure of this kind, which I am not happy to have to do.
Secondly, as to the meeting in Albano, I can only invite you to attend insofar as you stop publishing Eleison Comments. You have already been given the reason several times, as you have been given the order to stop."
So, it appears that Bishop Williamson has two choices. He can be present at these meeting s and look at the preamble if he produces an oath in writing that he will not reveal its contens AND that he will stop publishing his online letter. Why doesn't Bp Fellay just ask him to drop dead? For all practical purposes Bishop Williamson has already been kicked out of the SSPX.
So true.
-
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.
-
It is most unfortunate that the SSPX has gone off the rails and silenced its greatest cleric. What good is a cleric if he is silent? Is it not the job of a Bishop to preach and to lead?
At the moment Bishop Williamson is under house arrest and is not free and I don't see that he ever will be while Fellay, Phluger, and Krah are anywhere near the reigns.
So as bad as it sounds I think the best thing for Bishop Williamson would be if he was removed. At least then he would be more free to preach and to lead as a Bishop ought to.
It might seem like a great loss to the SSPX, though a toothless tiger can't lose anymore teeth can 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...
-
It is most unfortunate that the SSPX has gone off the rails and silenced its greatest cleric. What good is a cleric if he is silent? Is it not the job of a Bishop to preach and to lead?
At the moment Bishop Williamson is under house arrest and is not free and I don't see that he ever will be while Fellay, Phluger, and Krah are anywhere near the reigns.
So as bad as it sounds I think the best thing for Bishop Williamson would be if he was removed. At least then he would be more free to preach and to lead as a Bishop ought to.
It might seem like a great loss to the SSPX, though a toothless tiger can't lose anymore teeth can it!
1) He offers the true Mass to God
2) He offers his persecution as penence to God
3) He weathers this storm until the climate changes within the SSPX (as it appears to be doing, evidenced by the unanimous rejection of the Preamble by all 27 District Superiors).
4) Then he resumes.
-
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;
Like Archbishop Lefebvre did, indeed.
In the biggest act of necessity in the history of Church ever, let's name Saints from that time, please.
P.S. Well, the Archbishop is not an official saint yet. But there's an official SSPX prayer for his canonisation. Interestingly since a few years the German-speaking SSPX districts don't use this prayer anymore in their chapels... :-( Could it offend Newrome's Newpope B16 too much?
who did violence to their own wills and inclinations for the virtue of obedience in matters that DID NOT CONTRADICT the Faith.
When the FRG-German SSPX district orders their laity to vote for a mass murdering, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ-ising and gender-mainstreaming party this is contradicting the Faith, of course. Moral theology is an important part of the Faith.
And that's just one example of many.
So what does this have to do with Bishop Williamson? Because he's upholding the entire Faith, not compromised, also what's concerning moral theology, politics, economics, etc.
If a German-speaking traditional catholic wants to keep the entire catholic Faith, he'll gladly use Archbishop Lefebvre's living follower Bishop Williamson as shepherd.
I know many traditional catholics who go to the holy mass every Sunday but dislike Bishop Williamson because of the SSPX superiors having demonised him. And since a few years I observe how these laymen are loosing their formerly sound catholic positions (and finally minds) in the crazy modern times. They're being liberalised! Because they don't have got any sound shepherds anymore who they could follow. Fr Pfluger and Fr Schmidberger is all they've got but they're compromised to say it in a diplomatic way...
It looks like we laymen cannot survive without true shepherds, because Our Lord designed his Church exactly this way. That's one reason God gave us Archbishop Lefebvre and still gives Bishop Williamson to the catholic and pagan world.
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.
Are you too much fixated on the "h0Ɩ0cαųst"-lie maybe? Because I didn't talk about it. Also Bishop Williamson never talk about the "h0Ɩ0cαųst" in his Eleison Comments, didn't he.
New-Rome by the way officially stated via B16/Ratzinger's press officer Lombardi in 2009 (or 2010) that every catholic has to believe in the "h0Ɩ0cαųst". And Fr Schmidberger, Fr Pfluger and Bishop Fellay act as if they believed this, too. But that not what I wrote about. Please let's stick to our topic which is not the "h0Ɩ0cαųst"-lie.
-
It is most unfortunate that the SSPX has gone off the rails and silenced its greatest cleric. What good is a cleric if he is silent? Is it not the job of a Bishop to preach and to lead?
At the moment Bishop Williamson is under house arrest and is not free and I don't see that he ever will be while Fellay, Phluger, and Krah are anywhere near the reigns.
So as bad as it sounds I think the best thing for Bishop Williamson would be if he was removed. At least then he would be more free to preach and to lead as a Bishop ought to.
It might seem like a great loss to the SSPX, though a toothless tiger can't lose anymore teeth can it!
The Bishop is not a prisoner. He recently gave an excellent doctrinal conference in another part of England and has travelled outside of Britain several times. Many faithful have invited him to their respective chapels and Mass centre's. There is no reason for Bishop Fellay to prevent him from travelling.
-
Seraphim, do you want the SSPX to get a deal done with Rome? That's what you seem to be implying.
-
Well the publishing of a formal letter between bishops is hardly what I would call treachery. I'd say it was likely done by one of Bishop Williamson's supporters who wasn't going to stand by and watch him be reduced to Bishop Fellay's water boy.
Yes, I think that pretty well covers it.
-
Seraphim, do you want the SSPX to get a deal done with Rome? That's what you seem to be implying.
No.
How did you come to that conclusion???
-
Well the publishing of a formal letter between bishops is hardly what I would call treachery. I'd say it was likely done by one of Bishop Williamson's supporters who wasn't going to stand by and watch him be reduced to Bishop Fellay's water boy.
Yes, I think that pretty well covers it.
.....regardless of the consequences to his friend Bishop WIlliamson. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
-
It is most unfortunate that the SSPX has gone off the rails and silenced its greatest cleric. What good is a cleric if he is silent? Is it not the job of a Bishop to preach and to lead?
At the moment Bishop Williamson is under house arrest and is not free and I don't see that he ever will be while Fellay, Phluger, and Krah are anywhere near the reigns.
So as bad as it sounds I think the best thing for Bishop Williamson would be if he was removed. At least then he would be more free to preach and to lead as a Bishop ought to.
It might seem like a great loss to the SSPX, though a toothless tiger can't lose anymore teeth can it!
The Bishop is not a prisoner. He recently gave an excellent doctrinal conference in another part of England and has travelled outside of Britain several times. Many faithful have invited him to their respective chapels and Mass centre's. There is no reason for Bishop Fellay to prevent him from travelling.
So what is and isn't H.E. Bishop Williamson allowed to do? Does he still travel to do Confirmations? When was the last time he ordained a Priest?
The most recent Bishop to come to Australia was Bishop De Gallaretta who does not even speak English. He gave a sermon in French. Obviously Fellay is keeping him out of the loop or he would have sent an English speaking Bishop to an Enlglish speaking country.
Where has he travelled? I would love to see he him in my own country.
-
1) He offers the true Mass to God
2) He offers his persecution as penence to God
3) He weathers this storm until the climate changes within the SSPX (as it appears to be doing, evidenced by the unanimous rejection of the Preamble by all 27 District Superiors).
Just because the preamble may be rejected does not mean Bishop Willaimson is going to stop being treated like "uranium".
4) Then he resumes.
Resumes what?
-
Seraphim, do you want the SSPX to get a deal done with Rome? That's what you seem to be implying.
No.
How did you come to that conclusion???
Well, you just seem to think Bishop Williamson should obey Fellay.
-
Seraphim, do you want the SSPX to get a deal done with Rome? That's what you seem to be implying.
No.
How did you come to that conclusion???
Well, you just seem to think Bishop Williamson should obey Fellay.
Well, yes, I think he should obey Bishop Fellay unless the latter orders him do do something contrary to Faith or morals (in which case he must resist).
Obedience is not always pleasant, and I CERTAINLY do not like the treatment Bishop Williamson has received.
But nobody has been able to demonstrate that Bishop Fellay has given an order contrary to Faith and morals.
Instead, what we have are several deplorable examples of Bishop Fellay bullying Bishop WIlliamson.
Scandalous as that may be, it is not against Faith and morals to order abstention from publishing EC; there is nothing in the duties of state that commands a bishop to publish an internet column; there is nothing contrary to the faith in ordering one to desist from publishing same.
According to Catholic morals, this order should be complied with.
It is like drinking castor oil, to be sure, but just saying...
-
Well, I think that bullying him is not at all the best way to accomplish anything. If Bishop Williamson obeys Fellay, I have a bad feeling that Fellay will expect him to participate in a "reconciliation" should one occur. For the time being, +Williamson should be cautious.
-
Well, yes, I think he should obey Bishop Fellay unless the latter orders him do do something contrary to Faith or morals (in which case he must resist).
Obedience is not always pleasant, and I CERTAINLY do not like the treatment Bishop Williamson has received.
But nobody has been able to demonstrate that Bishop Fellay has given an order contrary to Faith and morals.
Instead, what we have are several deplorable examples of Bishop Fellay bullying Bishop WIlliamson.
Scandalous as that may be, it is not against Faith and morals to order abstention from publishing EC; there is nothing in the duties of state that commands a bishop to publish an internet column; there is nothing contrary to the faith in ordering one to desist from publishing same.
According to Catholic morals, this order should be complied with.
It is like drinking castor oil, to be sure, but just saying...
Bishop Williamson and Bishop Fellay would not be Bishops if Archbishop Lefebvre had of obeyed JPII order not to consecrate them.
The order not to Consecrate them was not against Faith or morals so if you are to stick to that argument you would also argue that Achbishop Lefebvre was wrong in Consecrating them.
There is far more behind the motivation ordering Bishop Williamson to cease publication and I'm sure Bishop Williamson can see that. Sometimes it is necessary to resist and promote the truth especially when most of the SSPX have now made money and bums on seats more important than the truth.
If you could see something clearly morally wrong and you chose to speak out and you boss told you to shut up, would you say that you have an obligation to speak out or to to be obedient and hide the truth when souls are being deceived?
-
Bishop Williamson and Bishop Fellay would not be Bishops if Archbishop Lefebvre had of obeyed JPII order not to consecrate them.
The order not to Consecrate them was not against Faith or morals so if you are to stick to that argument you would also argue that Achbishop Lefebvre was wrong in Consecrating them.
Excellent point, Zenith.
-
The SSPX was formed in resistance to modernism. We all know modernism is not necessarily obvious in directly contradicting Faith and morals but twists it ever so gently and slowly.
Fellay's motivations have been influenced by modernist and pro-zionist Rome and Bishop Williamson can see that and for this reason he resists.
Just like Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson is resisting for the sake of the truth. When you open the door just a tiny bit to error, before you know it the flood gates will open.
When you see the motivation behind an order is wrong, you have just as much obligation to resist it as you would an order that was morally wrong.
-
Well, yes, I think he should obey Bishop Fellay unless the latter orders him do do something contrary to Faith or morals (in which case he must resist).
Obedience is not always pleasant, and I CERTAINLY do not like the treatment Bishop Williamson has received.
But nobody has been able to demonstrate that Bishop Fellay has given an order contrary to Faith and morals.
Instead, what we have are several deplorable examples of Bishop Fellay bullying Bishop WIlliamson.
Scandalous as that may be, it is not against Faith and morals to order abstention from publishing EC; there is nothing in the duties of state that commands a bishop to publish an internet column; there is nothing contrary to the faith in ordering one to desist from publishing same.
According to Catholic morals, this order should be complied with.
It is like drinking castor oil, to be sure, but just saying...
Bishop Williamson and Bishop Fellay would not be Bishops if Archbishop Lefebvre had of obeyed JPII order not to consecrate them.
The order not to Consecrate them was not against Faith or morals so if you are to stick to that argument you would also argue that Achbishop Lefebvre was wrong in Consecrating them.
There is far more behind the motivation ordering Bishop Williamson to cease publication and I'm sure Bishop Williamson can see that. Sometimes it is necessary to resist and promote the truth especially when most of the SSPX have now made money and bums on seats more important than the truth.
If you could see something clearly morally wrong and you chose to speak out and you boss told you to shut up, would you say that you have an obligation to speak out or to to be obedient and hide the truth when souls are being deceived?
Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops because of the state of grave spiritual necessity.
Do you pretend there is a necessity for Bishop WIlliamson to publish EC?
Could you support that contention with a little doctrine?
-
Well, yes, I think he should obey Bishop Fellay unless the latter orders him do do something contrary to Faith or morals (in which case he must resist).
Obedience is not always pleasant, and I CERTAINLY do not like the treatment Bishop Williamson has received.
But nobody has been able to demonstrate that Bishop Fellay has given an order contrary to Faith and morals.
Instead, what we have are several deplorable examples of Bishop Fellay bullying Bishop WIlliamson.
Scandalous as that may be, it is not against Faith and morals to order abstention from publishing EC; there is nothing in the duties of state that commands a bishop to publish an internet column; there is nothing contrary to the faith in ordering one to desist from publishing same.
According to Catholic morals, this order should be complied with.
It is like drinking castor oil, to be sure, but just saying...
Bishop Williamson and Bishop Fellay would not be Bishops if Archbishop Lefebvre had of obeyed JPII order not to consecrate them.
The order not to Consecrate them was not against Faith or morals so if you are to stick to that argument you would also argue that Achbishop Lefebvre was wrong in Consecrating them.
There is far more behind the motivation ordering Bishop Williamson to cease publication and I'm sure Bishop Williamson can see that. Sometimes it is necessary to resist and promote the truth especially when most of the SSPX have now made money and bums on seats more important than the truth.
If you could see something clearly morally wrong and you chose to speak out and you boss told you to shut up, would you say that you have an obligation to speak out or to to be obedient and hide the truth when souls are being deceived?
PS: There was nothing contrary in the popes refusal to allow the consecration of bishops by ABL??? Wow. That shows complete ignorance of the CHurch's doctrine of necessity. This refusal of permission was clearly contrary to faith and morals insofar as it directly repudiated the doctrine of necessity which is present whenever: 1) Many souls 2) are threatened in spiritual goods 3) indispensable for salvation 4) and are without hope of help from their legitimate superiors. In such cases, those who are able to render assistance are compelled -both in justice and charity- to do so, especially priests and bishops. Look it up.
-
Bishop Williamson and Bishop Fellay would not be Bishops if Archbishop Lefebvre had of obeyed JPII order not to consecrate them.
The order not to Consecrate them was not against Faith or morals so if you are to stick to that argument you would also argue that Achbishop Lefebvre was wrong in Consecrating them.
Excellent point, Zenith.
Horrible point Zenith, and completely irrelevent.
Please read up on the doctrine of necessity before you pretend there was nothing contrary to faith and morals in JPII's refusal to allow permission to consecrate.
You guys sound more like ignoramuses and emotionalized cheerleaders than informed, well-read Catholics. Sheesh!
-
Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops because of the state of grave spiritual necessity.
Could you support that contention with a little doctrine?
Do you pretend there is a necessity for Bishop WIlliamson to publish EC?
I don't pretend. I use the same reasoning. Because of the state of grave spiritual necessity to point out the errors of our times inside and outside the Church.
-
Well, yes, I think he should obey Bishop Fellay unless the latter orders him do do something contrary to Faith or morals (in which case he must resist).
Obedience is not always pleasant, and I CERTAINLY do not like the treatment Bishop Williamson has received.
But nobody has been able to demonstrate that Bishop Fellay has given an order contrary to Faith and morals.
Instead, what we have are several deplorable examples of Bishop Fellay bullying Bishop WIlliamson.
Scandalous as that may be, it is not against Faith and morals to order abstention from publishing EC; there is nothing in the duties of state that commands a bishop to publish an internet column; there is nothing contrary to the faith in ordering one to desist from publishing same.
According to Catholic morals, this order should be complied with.
It is like drinking castor oil, to be sure, but just saying...
Bishop Williamson and Bishop Fellay would not be Bishops if Archbishop Lefebvre had of obeyed JPII order not to consecrate them.
The order not to Consecrate them was not against Faith or morals so if you are to stick to that argument you would also argue that Achbishop Lefebvre was wrong in Consecrating them.
There is far more behind the motivation ordering Bishop Williamson to cease publication and I'm sure Bishop Williamson can see that. Sometimes it is necessary to resist and promote the truth especially when most of the SSPX have now made money and bums on seats more important than the truth.
If you could see something clearly morally wrong and you chose to speak out and you boss told you to shut up, would you say that you have an obligation to speak out or to to be obedient and hide the truth when souls are being deceived?
PS: There was nothing contrary in the popes refusal to allow the consecration of bishops by ABL??? Wow. That shows complete ignorance of the CHurch's doctrine of necessity. This refusal of permission was clearly contrary to faith and morals insofar as it directly repudiated the doctrine of necessity which is present whenever: 1) Many souls 2) are threatened in spiritual goods 3) indispensable for salvation 4) and are without hope of help from their legitimate superiors. In such cases, those who are able to render assistance are compelled -both in justice and charity- to do so, especially priests and bishops. Look it up.
Don't put words in my mouth.
I said that there was nothing morally wrong in the order not to consecrate but there is of course something morally wrong in its motivation just as there is nothing morally wrong in Fellays order hut its motivation is morally wrong. Who is pretending now!
-
Bishop Fellay's authority as head of the SSPX is very tenuous, at best.
Certainly no bishop has the right to tell another bishop to stop publishing his writings out of fear of offending those special people that people are afraid to talk about.
-
Bishop Fellay's authority as head of the SSPX is very tenuous, at best.
Certainly no bishop has the right to tell another bishop to stop publishing his writings out of fear of offending those special people that people are afraid to talk about.
Please support this BS with some doctrine.
This is the argument of a mad 3rd grader.
-
Please support this BS with some doctrine.
What is the canonical status of the SSPX?
This is the argument of a mad 3rd grader.
Even a third grader can see no clergymen has a right to silence another from speaking of Catholic teachings out of fear of the Jews.
-
[...] There is far more behind the motivation ordering Bishop Williamson to cease publication and I'm sure Bishop Williamson can see that. Sometimes it is necessary to resist and promote the truth especially when most of the SSPX have now made money and bums on seats more important than the truth.
If you could see something clearly morally wrong and you chose to speak out and you boss told you to shut up, would you say that you have an obligation to speak out or to to be obedient and hide the truth when souls are being deceived?
Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops because of the state of grave spiritual necessity.
... and he held countless sermons and published important writings because of the same state of spiritual necessity, although his formal superiors had suspended him.
Aside the Archbishop's attack on Judaism and Islam he said political things about how bad the Moslem mass immigration is, he then got sued for it by a Jєωιѕн group (hear hear) and finally got sentenced for "hate speech" in France. Sounds familiar?
Do you pretend there is a necessity for Bishop WIlliamson to publish EC?
Could you support that contention with a little doctrine?
Yes, there's a necessity for Bishop Williamson to preach the true Faith, for example by publishing Eleison Comments.
I named some practical examples for this necessity yesterday which apply to an entire SSPX district and very probably to others, too.
According to the judgement of traditional priests the German SSPX superiors and their obeying priests officially called their laity to sin by making them to actively vote for a mass murdering, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ-ising and gender-mainstreaming party. I've been told that some brave priests stood up against this modernist madness and asked for a dispensation which was denied by Fr Schmidberger.
So, since the German SSPX superiors and their obeying priests are compromised in upholding the Faith -- let's name it: the district fails --, the German-speaking catholics are in the state of grave spiritual necessity.
Would you care to elaborate? Here is my full comment from yesterday. (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=16316&min=85)
And this is just one example of many.
Let's reduce it to a common denominator:
Not only the German-speaking SSPX catholics are basically divided into two fractions:
1) A larger group which is lead by Bp Fellay, Fr Pfluger, Fr Schmidberger and which isn't really interested in Archbishop Lefebvre and so is being systematically liberalised and modernised up to the point that their faith is compromised.
2) A smaller group which is lead by Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson and which stays non-liberal due to the vital spiritual guidance of the English Bishop and of those priests who're listening to the good Bishop.
(Some exception just prove this rule.)
The Englishman St. Boniface converted the Germans to the Faith, and today another Englishman keeps us to the Faith.
St. Boniface, pray for us!
-
Excellent points Ethelred refuting this false and blind obedience.
-
This all stems from the fact that Fellay is terrified of offending the Jews and having his "good" name tarnished and loosing money on the collection plate.
He has lost his sensus Catholicus. Catholics have always been persecuted through history so why would we expect anything different considering the times we live in are a time of apostacy and great evil.
As soon as a little comes his way he runs cowering at his persecutors feet begging for forgiveness .
He is promoting the false freemasonic idea of separation of Church and state by putting limits on what a cleric can speak about and limiting it to purely "religious" matters.
He should stop acting like a modernist diplomat and start acting like a Bishop who wants to protect his flock from ALL evils and false ideas whether they are religious of secular.
-
Please support this BS with some doctrine.
What is the canonical status of the SSPX?
This is the argument of a mad 3rd grader.
Even a third grader can see no clergymen has a right to silence another from speaking of Catholic teachings out of fear of the Jews.
I will take this to mean you can find no doctrine to back your bizarre opinion.
-
[...] There is far more behind the motivation ordering Bishop Williamson to cease publication and I'm sure Bishop Williamson can see that. Sometimes it is necessary to resist and promote the truth especially when most of the SSPX have now made money and bums on seats more important than the truth.
If you could see something clearly morally wrong and you chose to speak out and you boss told you to shut up, would you say that you have an obligation to speak out or to to be obedient and hide the truth when souls are being deceived?
Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops because of the state of grave spiritual necessity.
... and he held countless sermons and published important writings because of the same state of spiritual necessity, although his formal superiors had suspended him.
Aside the Archbishop's attack on Judaism and Islam he said political things about how bad the Moslem mass immigration is, he then got sued for it by a Jєωιѕн group (hear hear) and finally got sentenced for "hate speech" in France. Sounds familiar?
Do you pretend there is a necessity for Bishop WIlliamson to publish EC?
Could you support that contention with a little doctrine?
Yes, there's a necessity for Bishop Williamson to preach the true Faith, for example by publishing Eleison Comments.
I named some practical examples for this necessity yesterday which apply to an entire SSPX district and very probably to others, too.
According to the judgement of traditional priests the German SSPX superiors and their obeying priests officially called their laity to sin by making them to actively vote for a mass murdering, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ-ising and gender-mainstreaming party. I've been told that some brave priests stood up against this modernist madness and asked for a dispensation which was denied by Fr Schmidberger.
So, since the German SSPX superiors and their obeying priests are compromised in upholding the Faith -- let's name it: the district fails --, the German-speaking catholics are in the state of grave spiritual necessity.
Would you care to elaborate? Here is my full comment from yesterday. (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=16316&min=85)
And this is just one example of many.
Let's reduce it to a common denominator:
Not only the German-speaking SSPX catholics are basically divided into two fractions:
1) A larger group which is lead by Bp Fellay, Fr Pfluger, Fr Schmidberger and which isn't really interested in Archbishop Lefebvre and so is being systematically liberalised and modernised up to the point that their faith is compromised.
2) A smaller group which is lead by Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson and which stays non-liberal due to the vital spiritual guidance of the English Bishop and of those priests who're listening to the good Bishop.
(Some exception just prove this rule.)
The Englishman St. Boniface converted the Germans to the Faith, and today another Englishman keeps us to the Faith.
St. Boniface, pray for us!
Then you and your supporters are beyond help.
I leave you to your preferences
-
Seraphim, you are dealing with a strange group of men whose operative principle is their imagination which results in these bizarre imputations. In their emotional blindness, they fail to see that they are actually implicating Bishop Williamson himself. There is no dealing with this strange little group, it is impossible because they have abandoned reason, sound principles trading it for whatever might suit their insatiable desires, not fearing to venture the most preposterous and baseless accusations. They are like drama-queens, feeding off an internal dispute, interpreting or misinterpreting according to their whims, drawing the strangest of false inferences which in the end only show their own intellectual instability. It is a sad thing for they are fomentors of discord, they are carnal minded men who live according to the flesh, praying for division in order to validate their chimerical fantasies.
It is certain that Bishop Williamson has been treated unjustly. It is certain that Bishop Fellay has mishandled the situation, at least according to the little that we know of the situation. That is as far as one can go. All else is the product of imagination.
-
Seraphim, you are dealing with a strange group of men whose operative principle is their imagination which results in these bizarre imputations. In their emotional blindness, they fail to see that they are actually implicating Bishop Williamson himself. There is no dealing with this strange little group, it is impossible because they have abandoned reason, sound principles trading it for whatever might suit their insatiable desires, not fearing to venture the most preposterous and baseless accusations. They are like drama-queens, feeding off an internal dispute, interpreting or misinterpreting according to their whims, drawing the strangest of false inferences which in the end only show their own intellectual instability. It is a sad thing for they are fomentors of discord, they are carnal minded men who live according to the flesh, praying for division in order to validate their chimerical fantasies.
Yet you constantly engage here... You show your mean, pompous attitude quite well lately Matt- I've told you this before. I don't think anyone here presumes to know everything, but I know most here 'try'. You are mean to belittle people here, while acting as if you're of some higher intelligence and see's what no one else sees; in actuality, its seems as if you're just another cool-aid drinkin zombie with a Traditional twist.
-
Indeed, calling people drama queens over this isn't the best way to get your point across.
Didn't you say you are for the Society joining Rome Caminus? Doesn't look like the other three Bishops are interested in it.
-
Seraphim, you are dealing with a strange group of men whose operative principle is their imagination which results in these bizarre imputations. In their emotional blindness, they fail to see that they are actually implicating Bishop Williamson himself. There is no dealing with this strange little group, it is impossible because they have abandoned reason, sound principles trading it for whatever might suit their insatiable desires, not fearing to venture the most preposterous and baseless accusations. They are like drama-queens, feeding off an internal dispute, interpreting or misinterpreting according to their whims, drawing the strangest of false inferences which in the end only show their own intellectual instability. It is a sad thing for they are fomentors of discord, they are carnal minded men who live according to the flesh, praying for division in order to validate their chimerical fantasies.
Yet you constantly engage here... You show your mean, pompous attitude quite well lately Matt- I've told you this before. I don't think anyone here presumes to know everything, but I know most here 'try'. You are mean to belittle people here, while acting as if you're of some higher intelligence and see's what no one else sees; in actuality, its seems as if you're just another cool-aid drinkin zombie with a Traditional twist.
I don't think you fully understand the gravity of the accusations and their preposterous nature leveled against Bishop Fellay, nor have you pondered the supposed grounds upon which such claims are made. If you would go back through the thread and objectively and with disinterest consider even simply the terrible inferences made, let alone outright calumny, I'm sure you would agree with my assessment. I operate based upon totally different principles, that of justice, giving everyman his due, avoiding the imputation of evil based upon mere suggestions or slender evidence, love of the brotherhood which fosters true supernatural unity, reserve in judging motives and concrete circuмstances of which I know little or nothing. These men, so obsessed with their opinions, do not realize how much harm they are doing to the Mystical Body of Christ.
I fully support Bishop Williamson and have even composed a letter to Bishop Fellay in order to express my opinion on the matter. But if we take these fools at face value, you haven't taken into account the fact that they actually implicate Bishop Williamson rather than exonerate him, for if there is anyone who knows and understands the situation, far better than our commentators here, it is Bishop Williamson himself, thus one one must conclude that he is in collusion or simply a coward or maybe even some other unsavory possibility. It's the old fallacy of "proving too much." They are left with the vain prayer of a devil petitioning for the divison of the Society rather than its unity and integrity.
-
Then you and your supporters are beyond help.
I leave you to your preferences
So you prefer to just ignore the state of necessity of which I gave you a concrete example.
This means you prefer to be an ignoramus then who maybe knows a lot about theoretical faith and canon paragraphs but cannot apply this to reality.
With this you're not alone however: That's actually the main problem of Bp Fellay's New-SSPX: Sweet Sunday sermons but when it comes to applying the catholic Faith to the real world they fail miserably.
And that's just no enough for us catholics in order to survive 7/24 in the real world. And the SSPX' laity adapts: most of those I know go to Sunday mass and listen to the sweet Sunday sermons (just if it's not too critical about Newrome, Newpope, New masters of the World and their nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, etc), but after that they nicely blend back into the world with its web of lies.
Compromised! The New-SSPX and their laity is compromised. And those shepherds like Bishop Williamson who still strike a blow for the truth against basically the entire new world, and so give us catholics a vital possibility to respire the catholic Faith and apply it in practice (!), are silenced by cruel and incapable diplomats whose bad actions are in turn defended by those who prefer to be the ignoramus.
Bishop Fellay and guys like you have not given us any good reason why the Eleison Comments should be closed. Do you know that catholic obedience is not blind? So for the love of God: What is the problem with Eleison Comments?
Tell us here and now: What is the problem with Eleison Comments!
You desert us laymen who're battling every day in this totally anti-christian or even satanic world with which the SSPX makes on compromise after another, and as if that weren't enough you even attack one of the last bishops who resist this compromising liberalism.
A real sermon (like the Eleison Comments) purge our souls and prepare us for our daily battles in real world. We catholic laymen need applications of the Faith. That's what the experienced missionary Archbishop Lefebvre knew inside out and that's what Bishop Williamson and a few others know very well.
So yes, leave us catholics (at our preferences) who appreciate the merciful help of Bishop Williamson via his applications of Faith, but don't hinder God's work in the form of of such shepherd's apostolates.
-
Then you and your supporters are beyond help.
I leave you to your preferences
So you prefer to just ignore the state of necessity of which I gave you a concrete example.
This means you prefer to be an ignoramus then who maybe knows a lot about theoretical faith and canon paragraphs but cannot apply this to reality.
With this you're not alone however: That's actually the main problem of Bp Fellay's New-SSPX: Sweet Sunday sermons but when it comes to applying the catholic Faith to the real world they fail miserably.
And that's just no enough for us catholics in order to survive 7/24 in the real world. And the SSPX' laity adapts: most of those I know go to Sunday mass and listen to the sweet Sunday sermons (just if it's not too critical about Newrome, Newpope, New masters of the World and their nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, etc), but after that they nicely blend back into the world with its web of lies.
Compromised! The New-SSPX and their laity is compromised. And those shepherds like Bishop Williamson who still strike a blow for the truth against basically the entire new world, and so give us catholics a vital possibility to respire the catholic Faith and apply it in practice (!), are silenced by cruel and incapable diplomats whose bad actions are in turn defended by those who prefer to be the ignoramus.
Bishop Fellay and guys like you have not given us any good reason why the Eleison Comments should be closed. Do you know that catholic obedience is not blind? So for the love of God: What is the problem with Eleison Comments?
Tell us here and now: What is the problem with Eleison Comments!
You desert us laymen who're battling every day in this totally anti-christian or even satanic world with which the SSPX makes on compromise after another, and as if that weren't enough you even attack one of the last bishops who resist this compromising liberalism.
A real sermon (like the Eleison Comments) purge our souls and prepare us for our daily battles in real world. We catholic laymen need applications of the Faith. That's what the experienced missionary Archbishop Lefebvre knew inside out and that's what Bishop Williamson and a few others know very well.
So yes, leave us catholics (at our preferences) who appreciate the merciful help of Bishop Williamson via his applications of Faith, but don't hinder God's work in the form of of such shepherd's apostolates.
Come now Ethelred, you don't seriously think your responses stand a chance against seraphim's well informed parrot style one liners now do you!
:wink:
-
As for Caminus, I don't think I've seen one of his posts that wasn't laced with insults. He seems to out do himself every time!
-
Thought this might be appropriate.
"A bishop can do nothing more perilous before God, and nothing more shameful before men, than fail to proclaim freely his own thoughts." St Ambrose.
-
Seraphim, you are dealing with a strange group of men whose operative principle is their imagination which results in these bizarre imputations. In their emotional blindness, they fail to see that they are actually implicating Bishop Williamson himself. There is no dealing with this strange little group, it is impossible because they have abandoned reason, sound principles trading it for whatever might suit their insatiable desires, not fearing to venture the most preposterous and baseless accusations. They are like drama-queens, feeding off an internal dispute, interpreting or misinterpreting according to their whims, drawing the strangest of false inferences which in the end only show their own intellectual instability. It is a sad thing for they are fomentors of discord, they are carnal minded men who live according to the flesh, praying for division in order to validate their chimerical fantasies.
It is certain that Bishop Williamson has been treated unjustly. It is certain that Bishop Fellay has mishandled the situation, at least according to the little that we know of the situation. That is as far as one can go. All else is the product of imagination.
Well said.
The entire line of argumentation seemd to be, "You can't do that to Bishop WIlliamson! Therefore, he can do whatever he wants. After all, they are both bishops with no authority!"
Real good theology there boys.
-
Then you and your supporters are beyond help.
I leave you to your preferences
So you prefer to just ignore the state of necessity of which I gave you a concrete example.
This means you prefer to be an ignoramus then who maybe knows a lot about theoretical faith and canon paragraphs but cannot apply this to reality.
With this you're not alone however: That's actually the main problem of Bp Fellay's New-SSPX: Sweet Sunday sermons but when it comes to applying the catholic Faith to the real world they fail miserably.
And that's just no enough for us catholics in order to survive 7/24 in the real world. And the SSPX' laity adapts: most of those I know go to Sunday mass and listen to the sweet Sunday sermons (just if it's not too critical about Newrome, Newpope, New masters of the World and their nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, etc), but after that they nicely blend back into the world with its web of lies.
Compromised! The New-SSPX and their laity is compromised. And those shepherds like Bishop Williamson who still strike a blow for the truth against basically the entire new world, and so give us catholics a vital possibility to respire the catholic Faith and apply it in practice (!), are silenced by cruel and incapable diplomats whose bad actions are in turn defended by those who prefer to be the ignoramus.
Bishop Fellay and guys like you have not given us any good reason why the Eleison Comments should be closed. Do you know that catholic obedience is not blind? So for the love of God: What is the problem with Eleison Comments?
Tell us here and now: What is the problem with Eleison Comments!
You desert us laymen who're battling every day in this totally anti-christian or even satanic world with which the SSPX makes on compromise after another, and as if that weren't enough you even attack one of the last bishops who resist this compromising liberalism.
A real sermon (like the Eleison Comments) purge our souls and prepare us for our daily battles in real world. We catholic laymen need applications of the Faith. That's what the experienced missionary Archbishop Lefebvre knew inside out and that's what Bishop Williamson and a few others know very well.
So yes, leave us catholics (at our preferences) who appreciate the merciful help of Bishop Williamson via his applications of Faith, but don't hinder God's work in the form of of such shepherd's apostolates.
You are clueless about the doctrine of necessity, and your reasonions make such broad jumps that I can't even follow your argumentation.
You need to read a book on necessity, and then apply those principles to...uh...an internet column. Good luck with that.
-
You are clueless about the doctrine of necessity, and your reasonions make such broad jumps that I can't even follow your argumentation.
You need to read a book on necessity, and then apply those principles to...uh...an internet column. Good luck with that.
... said the theological master bookworm teaching in ... uh... an Internet forum.
Of what avail is your clever books when you're unable to apply them to the real-world and to the state of emergency in the Church?
Well, I'm going to repeat my simple question to you:
What is the problem with Eleison Comments?
Come now Ethelred, you don't seriously think your responses stand a chance against seraphim's well informed parrot style one liners now do you! :wink:
Yes, I see, not a chance.
-
don't think you fully understand the gravity of the accusations and their preposterous nature leveled against Bishop Fellay, nor have you pondered the supposed grounds upon which such claims are made. If you would go back through the thread and objectively and with disinterest consider even simply the terrible inferences made, let alone outright calumny, I'm sure you would agree with my assessment. I operate based upon totally different principles, that of justice, giving everyman his due, avoiding the imputation of evil based upon mere suggestions or slender evidence, love of the brotherhood which fosters true supernatural unity, reserve in judging motives and concrete circuмstances of which I know little or nothing. These men, so obsessed with their opinions, do not realize how much harm they are doing to the Mystical Body of Christ.
The only calumny I've seen regarding this matter is from Telesphorus, though that isn't surprising given he strongly dislikes the SSPX anyway. The point though, Caminus, is that you are better off addressing people's points rather than insulting them. Tele does the same thing, it doesn't help you win arguments. If anything, it makes you lose arguments.
I don't doubt that you support Bishop Williamson, but I specifically remember you saying about a month ago that you wouldn't mind seeing the Society "reconcile". Why?
-
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.
-
Caminus,
I can see your point where it may look like Bishop Williamson is a coward if some conclusions are taken to extremes. I had not thought of this before. I do not believe Bishop Williamson to be a coward in any sense. Thank you for bringing this up. It has given me food for thought.
Andy
-
Caminus,
I can see your point where it may look like Bishop Williamson is a coward if some conclusions are taken to extremes. I had not thought of this before. I do not believe Bishop Williamson to be a coward in any sense. Thank you for bringing this up. It has given me food for thought.
Andy
Judging by the things Bishop Williamson was quoted as having said in the letter, it's evident that he's trying to do his best from within the SSPX to have an influence on it. Saying that apostasy has progressed in the SSPX, speaking of the "double-tongued," telling a young man not to become an SSPX priest, that is extremely strong criticism. And sending out the Eleison comments on the Deicide was also a masterful stroke.
-
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.
-
Well, is anybody willing to take up Ethelred's challgenge?
What is the problem with Eleison Comments?
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I attend an SSPX Chapel. I'm not sure that +W has reached the conclusion that he no longer has to obey +F. I think he has been fairly obedient to the SG thus far, with the exception of refusing to close down his Eleison Comments. Whether or not +W is perfectly obedient is of no concern to me personally. I believe that H.E. +W is the true successor to the Archbishop, and was always meant to be. He is the true "shepherd" of the traditional Catholic sheep in this time of crisis. +F is an interloper, a "hireling," as it were, who needs either to step down or be driven off, along with the likes of Frs. Phluger, Rostand, Heggenberger, et al. Do I sound like I'm taking sides? You bet I am. Now ask me if I care.
-
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.
Bishop Williamson vetted the letter as authentic.
What good reason then is there for knowing the source?
Vain curiosity is not a good reason. Weaponizing the information is not a good reason.
I support "Maurice" in keeping his source confidential.
-
I support "Maurice" in keeping his source confidential.
I think that I know who the source is, but will not reveal it. Why? Because it will not change 'facts on the ground,' as they say. There was a breach of confidence, no doubt. The source was not authorized to release this letter, and Maurice Pinay was not authorized to reprint it. Enough said. Both the source of the letter and MP will have to live by the decision they made against the expressed will of the bishop.
-
On the contrary, the source will likely reveal a motive. "Weaponizing information"? Sorry friend, that's already been done by the release of confidential information. Concealing the source is pure hypocrisy. Pinay is an IDIOT.
-
On the contrary, the source will likely reveal a motive. "Weaponizing information"? Sorry friend, that's already been done by the release of confidential information. Concealing the source is pure hypocrisy. Pinay is an IDIOT.
The motive that matters is the motive that prompted Bp. Fellay to pen the letter (and then claim the letter was an "accident").
The salient fact is the fratricidal treatment of Bp. Williamson.
Who and why someone shined a light into the dark is a distant concern, a diversion from the salient issue. Yes, some would weaponize that information.
You show no reason to have confidence in your assessment of "Maurice Pinay."
-
The Pharisees are once again commanding their footstools, the neo-Pharisees:
Pope Stern's Inquisition (http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2011/10/pope-sterns-inquisition.html)
Pope Foxman Says SSPX Has No Place in the Church (http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2011/10/pope-foxman-says-sspx-has-no-place-in.html)
Rabbis Demand Papal Condemnation of Bishop Richard Williamson's Preaching of the Gospel (http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2011/10/rabbis-demand-pope-condemn-bishop.html)
-
On the contrary, the source will likely reveal a motive. "Weaponizing information"? Sorry friend, that's already been done by the release of confidential information. Concealing the source is pure hypocrisy. Pinay is an IDIOT.
Caminus, are you suggesting that letter is fake?
-
On the contrary, the source will likely reveal a motive. "Weaponizing information"? Sorry friend, that's already been done by the release of confidential information. Concealing the source is pure hypocrisy. Pinay is an IDIOT.
The motive that matters is the motive that prompted Bp. Fellay to pen the letter (and then claim the letter was an "accident").
The salient fact is the fratricidal treatment of Bp. Williamson.
Who and why someone shined a light into the dark is a distant concern, a diversion from the salient issue. Yes, some would weaponize that information.
You show no reason to have confidence in your assessment of "Maurice Pinay."
Accident? Where? Fratricidal? I suppose you have created your own definition of the term. Why are you trying to divert attention from important information? And I don't need to give you a reason regarding my "assessment" of "Pinay" besides the fact that it should be obvious to any right thinking Catholic. He hides his source while violating the rights of two traditoinal Bishops all under the color of "Journalism"? What a joke. That sounds like something a тαℓмυdic Jew would say. Your small circle contains many characters who have such ironic tendencies, e.g. Hoffman spouting condemned liberal Catholic error that has its source in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, which of course has its roots in Judaism.
-
If you think it Catholic and even laudable for a bishop:
(1) to publicly disparage a fellow bishop as "uranium" and "hand grenade"
(2) to disparage "Anglo-Saxon circles"
(3) to conflate the Holy Family, true Jews, with the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan
(4) to submit to "Jєωιѕн fables" (Titus 1:14) as though they were Catholic dogma
(5) to fail to "Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine." (2 Timothy 4:2)
(6) to make a Zionist influential in Society finances
(7) to allow the flagship English-language publication to contradict St. Paul to canonize "The Saint of the Sanhedrin"
"et cetera, et cetera, et cetera,"
you reveal the value of your discernment and opinions.
-
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.
Then I consider the case closed:
You have just admitted the order to close down EC does not violate faith or morals.
The necessary conclusion, therefore, is obedience must be rendered.
But you don't like that conclusion (Which means your beef is not with me, but with Jesus and His Church and His moral law).
I doubt you will be able to find higher authority to overrule Him.
PS: I fully realize you will fall back to the entirely gratuitous "No bishop can bind another bishop" rationale (For which 16 pages of comments have been unable to provide a citation, and for which 2011 years of Church history provide countless examples of refutation).
PPS: After this, you will further regress to "Sure bishops can bind other bishops, but these bishops do not exercise ordinary jurisdiction." In which case, you have just pulled the rug out from under every sedevacantist and entirelyeliminated the doctrine of necessity from the corpus of Catholic doctrine. Quite an impressive feet! Did you stop to realize that after doing so, there is nothing left but obedience to modernism or the fictitious "lone bishop in the woods?"
-
If you think it Catholic and even laudable for a bishop:
(1) to publicly disparage a fellow bishop as "uranium" and "hand grenade"
(2) to disparage "Anglo-Saxon circles"
(3) to conflate the Holy Family, true Jews, with the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan
(4) to submit to "Jєωιѕн fables" (Titus 1:14) as though they were Catholic dogma
(5) to fail to "Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine." (2 Timothy 4:2)
(6) to make a Zionist influential in Society finances
(7) to allow the flagship English-language publication to contradict St. Paul to canonize "The Saint of the Sanhedrin"
"et cetera, et cetera, et cetera,"
you reveal the value of your discernment and opinions.
Your contrived, distorted "laundry" list is as laughable as it is distorted. One truly does wonder why you continue to distract from the question at hand. Indeed, you reveal the "value of your discernment" which is caused by the same disproportion and lack of judgment that has caused many a man to fall from grace. But I don't suppose I can derail that one-track mind of yours, so I shall let it rest and let your sad tactics speak for themselves.
-
The motive that matters is the motive that prompted Bp. Fellay to pen the letter (and then claim the letter was an "accident").
Sounds pretty desperate, doesn't he? It will be the first letter ever, to my knowledge, deliberately written, posted as an email, or sent snail mail, and then explained away later as an "accident."
-
The motive that matters is the motive that prompted Bp. Fellay to pen the letter (and then claim the letter was an "accident").
Sounds pretty desperate, doesn't he? It will be the first letter ever, to my knowledge, deliberately written, posted as an email, or sent snail mail, and then explained away later as an "accident."
Where did he say this?
-
Your contrived, distorted "laundry" list ...blah, blah, blah.
Thank you for your opinion.
-
You're welcome, thank you for showing once again your evasion.
-
If you think it Catholic and even laudable for a bishop:
(1) to publicly disparage a fellow bishop as "uranium" and "hand grenade"
(2) to disparage "Anglo-Saxon circles"
(3) to conflate the Holy Family, true Jews, with the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan
(4) to submit to "Jєωιѕн fables" (Titus 1:14) as though they were Catholic dogma
(5) to fail to "Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine." (2 Timothy 4:2)
(6) to make a Zionist influential in Society finances
(7) to allow the flagship English-language publication to contradict St. Paul to canonize "The Saint of the Sanhedrin"
"et cetera, et cetera, et cetera,"
you reveal the value of your discernment and opinions.
Excellent points.
I'm sure Diego appreciates your support, but let's give others a turn.
-
The motive that matters is the motive that prompted Bp. Fellay to pen the letter (and then claim the letter was an "accident").
Sounds pretty desperate, doesn't he? It will be the first letter ever, to my knowledge, deliberately written, posted as an email, or sent snail mail, and then explained away later as an "accident."
Very well said, dear Hollingsworth. :-)
I'm sure hollingsworth appreciates your support, but let's give others a turn.
-
Forum said:
I'm sure hollingsworth appreciates your (Nemmersdorf's?) support, but let's give others a turn.
I'm not certain why the "Forum" inserted this. If Nemmersdorf and/or I are hogging the subject, it is not apparent by the almost total inactivity on this thread over the past couple of days. Neither Nemm., nor I, nor anyone else, has taken a turn.
-
Forum said:
I'm sure hollingsworth appreciates your (Nemmersdorf's?) support, but let's give others a turn.
I'm not certain why the "Forum" inserted this. If Nemmersdorf and/or I are hogging the subject, it is not apparent by the almost total inactivity on this thread over the past couple of days. Neither Nemm., nor I, nor anyone else, has taken a turn.
Sorry for the confusion! I should have mentioned that the forum "said" this just to me when I tried to up-vote (= +1) your article. It's because of Matthew's voting system which allows the users only a certain percentage of up (or down) votes on a a single person before others must vote on this person, too. Distributed ... something.
Now I've reached my limit with voting up your good articles, so others have to vote before the forum allows me to vote on your articles again. Next time I'll just write "Agreed" or so instead of copying what the forum "said" to me.
-
It's because of Matthew's voting system which allows the users only a certain percentage of up (or down) votes on a a single person before others must vote on this person, too. Distributed ... something.
Now I've reached my limit with voting up your good articles, so others have to vote before the forum allows me to vote on your articles again. Next time I'll just write "Agreed" or so instead of copying what the forum "said" to me.
Oh, so that's it. OK. I don't come on this forum that often so the moderator's folkways are not that familiar to me.
-
The motive that matters is the motive that prompted Bp. Fellay to pen the letter (and then claim the letter was an "accident").
Sounds pretty desperate, doesn't he? It will be the first letter ever, to my knowledge, deliberately written, posted as an email, or sent snail mail, and then explained away later as an "accident."
Where did he say this?
-
Sounds pretty desperate, doesn't he? It will be the first letter ever, to my knowledge, deliberately written, posted as an email, or sent snail mail, and then explained away later as an "accident."
Where did he say this?
Do you need to know everything? :smirk:
-
Yes, I don't want the Reputation score to reflect "What Ethelred thinks of this person" -- I'd rather have it reflect the forum membership at large.
The more people using the voting system, the better.
Otherwise, guys like Ethelred will decide who has a good or bad reputation. That wouldn't be good, would it? Even if you like Ethelred. It would be best for the reputation to be a total of EVERYONE's votes for and against the person's posts.
So, the moral of the story is,
Everyone, get out and vote!
-
Sounds pretty desperate, doesn't he? It will be the first letter ever, to my knowledge, deliberately written, posted as an email, or sent snail mail, and then explained away later as an "accident."
Where did he say this?
Do you need to know everything? :smirk:
Excuse me? The claim was made that Bishop Fellay stated this letter was an "accident". Where did he make this claim or are you just making it up? Also, why does your little circle neglect my previous question regarding the source? I think I already know the answer to the motive of this evasion, but I'll leave it to you to make a rational response.
-
Where did he make this claim or are you just making it up? Also, why does your little circle neglect my previous question regarding the source?
Well, maybe for now we want to keep it a "little circle." For now you'll just have to believe, that this claim was not made out of whole cloth.
-
:jester: This has got to be the best joke I've seen in a long time. Pinay hides his source and now you hide your "accident" source. What? Cat gotch'ya tongue? I thought your circle just luuuuuuvvvss to post anything that might in anyway paint Bishop Fellay in a bad light. Put up or shut up, buddy. Same goes for that pseudo-trad punk "Pinay".
Thank God Almighty this group of yours, inspired by the demons, who would gleefully see the SSPX divided and conquered, is confined to a small number of anonymous internet gossips.
-
http://www.sspx.org/news/traditio_or_traditor-tradition_or_traitor-10-26-2011.htm
Traditio or Traditor
(tradition or traitor)?
10-26-2011
SSPX.org commentary
A website ill-named Traditio has repeatedly spread sedevacantist rumors undermining the SSPX’s activities and sowing seeds of discords around the virtual globe. Recently (on October 11) they published some comments, which would not have been worth reporting if they had not been blatant lies.
Then it turned out that at the meeting of Neo-SSPX superiors in Albano, Italy, on October 7, 2011, not only was the Society's senior bishop, Richard Williamson, absent, but also absent was the Society's second-senior bishop, Tissier de Mallerais, having been banished by Fellay to Kansas City, Missouri, in the United States, to preside over another one of those incessant Neo-SSPX "conferences," which are designed to keep the Neo-SSPXers in line with Fellay's policy dictates. At the meeting Fellay was attacked by several Lefebvrite superiors who told Fellay point blank that they would not "engage in compromise with the false principles of the Second Vatican Council" with the New Order sect that the Society's Archbishop-Founder condemned as "uncatholic."
It is just a little too convenient that Fellay engineered the absence of the two most senior bishops from his own "Sellout Conference" in Albano, Italy, on October 7, 2011. Does this mean that Fellay's two senior bishops are now in disagreement with his sellout programme to Newrome? Even though Tissier had been scheduled for the Kansas City "conference" several months in advance, he could have flown to Italy anyway -- Albano was too important to miss and to allow Fellay to propagate his Novus Ordo propaganda.
Before clarifying these statements we must take note of their recent disappearance from Traditio’s website. They were quietly expunged, but without any apology or clarification offered either to Bishop Fellay or the SSPX for their gross inaccuracy¾especially as the true facts were always available.
The first “clarification” is the group photograph of the general chapter members who were present at the Albano meeting on October 7. It was taken in front of the SSPX’s Albano priory on October 7th and published on October 10th as part of DICI’s online press release. Traditio merely had to look at the photograph to see Bishop Tissier clearly present in the picture!
If Traditio believes that the SSPX faked this picture¾published before their comments(!)¾to disprove their accusations, we would gladly provide them chapter and verse of His Excellency’s flight schedule from Rome all the way to Kansas City on Saturday, October 8th, which allowed him to participate in the tail end of the Angelus Press Conference. Mind you, we kept him busy, having to go through a Pontifical Mass, and two conferences back-to-back under jet lag conditions. To be a traditional bishop is no picnic!
Traditio seems to know a lot about the secret meeting of Albano, particularly the crunchy news of the indignation of priests adverse to Bishop Fellay and his sellout to modernist Rome. This is to be contrasted with the placid official report of Bishop Fellay who simply mentioned the unanimous front of the Society superiors at the meeting. Again, we need to ask who of the two is right? Is Traditio giving us a scoop or another lie?
This obvious flaw is just one of a long “tradition” of false rumors. In the course of the last 10 years, it has persistently predicted that the SSPX was going to give in to the Modernists. The prophet has been fooled all along! But, now it pretends that the SSPX has not given in yet thanks to the sane warning of Traditio.
This website is feeding on rumors and writers, unworthy of the publicity given them. Unfortunately, whoever goes to visit them adds his support (indirectly at least) to the "trustworthy" sedevacantist rumor mill.
The absolute liberty of the virtual press leads to many contradictory statements. But it is not quite incidental that the web surfers are all too prone to check the latest, tastiest, wickedest, piece of news, sure bate to curious readers.
“Lie, lie; something will eventually stick!” This was the motto of Voltaire who endeavored to “crush the infamous one”, the Church! Rather than let ourselves be led by the itching ears of the tale bearers, it is high time that traditional readers use their judgment. The multiplication of random information does not bring about the truth any more than one thousand idiots make one intelligent man. Erudition is nothing without wisdom.
By and large, it may not be untrue to say that the broader the media, the more superficial the message. Something to think about!
I'm not a fan of Traditio nor am I a sede but can sedevacantists really be blamed. Didn't the Society expunge material from their own websites?
The SSPX.org commentary does acknowledge that Bishop Fellay and Fr Pfluger met with resistance in Albano.Blaming 'Traditio' ain't going to work, Bishop Fellay.
-
Thank God Almighty this group of yours, inspired by the demons, who would gleefully see the SSPX divided and conquered, is confined to a small number of anonymous internet gossips.
Please get ahold of yourself, young man. Take a break from the computer and go out for a walk.
-
The demonic influence is seen in the sickening pride and arrogance of Bishop Fellay's cabal, and in the hysterical abusiveness of its defenders.
-
Put up or shut up, buddy. Same goes for that pseudo-trad punk "Pinay".
A comment at Letter from SSPX Superior General Bishop Fellay to Bishop Williamson (http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2011/10/letter-from-bishop-fellay-to-bishop.html) linked to the report of the 'mistake' statement directly from Bp. Wiliamson to Dr. Thomas Drolesky (http://christorchaos.com/index.html.mno.html):
October 14 Afternoon Update
Although I am working on a new article for the "vast" readership of this site, which should be posted by tomorrow morning, I did want to take a brief moment to provide you with a bit of news.
A letter that was sent to Bishop Richard Williamson by Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, has appeared at mauricepinay.blogspot.com. Although His Excellency Bishop Williamson is indeed quite aware of my own position concerning the state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal, he has always been unfailingly kind to me whenever I have communicated with him. This was the case today as I sought to ascertain the authenticity of the letter.
[This corrects an earlier posting that was based upon my own misreading of His Excellency's words]: Bishop Williamson noted that the letter that has been posted is genuine. That letter, however, was sent to him by mistake, he has been told by a district superior who attended the meeting with Bishop Fellay in Albano, Italy, on October 7, 2011. It was at that meeting that Bishop Fellay said that the letter that Bishop Williamson received was sent by mistake, that a second letter, which does not contain the threat of expulsion from the Society of Saint Pius X, was meant to have been sent. Bishop Williamson reports that he has not received this second letter and that he has not been informed by Bishop Fellay that a "mistake" had been made.
One would presume that the that the threat of expulsion has been withdrawn as result of the information given Bishop Fellay from the district superior who attended last week's meeting. As Bishop Fellay has not communicated with Bishop Williamson directly about that he said at the district superiors' meeting last week was a "mistake," this is, obviously, just a presumption for the moment. Time will tell.
What is indisputable, it appears, is that Bishop Williamson is still under "orders" to remain "silent" and not to publish his Eleison newsletter.
Bishop Williamson also related what is publicly known: that the district superiors of the Society of Saint Pius X expressed their opposition to the proposed "doctrinal preamble" when they met with Bishop Fellay in Albano, Italy, on October 7, 2011. His Excellency was very grateful for the firmness of the district superiors....
Disclaimer: This is not a "look over here" post. Caminus asked for the source of the "accident" report. Bishop Williamson is the source. Dr. Drolesky (sede vacantist or not) is the reporter. If Bp. Wiliamson can talk to Dr. Drolesky is such detail, do not lynch me.
-
Disclaimer: This is not a "look over here" post. Caminus asked for the source of the "accident" report. Bishop Williamson is the source. Dr. Drolesky (sede vacantist or not) is the reporter. If Bp. Wiliamson can talk to Dr. Drolesky is such detail, do not lynch me.
Well, thanks for that, whether you intended to get me off the hook or not. When Caminus comes back from his walk, this "source" business should have been all but difused. :roll-laugh2:
-
Disclaimer: This is not a "look over here" post. Caminus asked for the source of the "accident" report. Bishop Williamson is the source. Dr. Drolesky (sede vacantist or not) is the reporter. If Bp. Wiliamson can talk to Dr. Drolesky is such detail, do not lynch me.
Well, thanks for that, whether you intended to get me off the hook or not. When Caminus comes back from his walk, this "source" business should have been all but difused. :roll-laugh2:
It would seem the source is, as Diego put it, "Dr. Drolesky (sede vacantist or not) is the reporter.", the problem. It would seem to me any press coming from an outsider would be questionable by members of the SSPX. Of course if you are not a member then anything will suffice, but I would take it with a grain of salt.
-
It would seem the source is, as Diego put it, "Dr. Drolesky ...
Can you read?
I wrote, "Bp. Williamson is the source."
If you have 'suspicions' about Dr. Drolesky lying as you infer because it has a 'problem' that "Dr. Drolesky was the reporter," do what he did—call Bp. Williamson himself.
-
It would seem the source is, as Diego put it, "Dr. Drolesky ...
Can you read?
I wrote, "Bp. Williamson is the source."
If you have 'suspicions' about Dr. Drolesky lying as you infer because it has a 'problem' that "Dr. Drolesky was the reporter," do what he did—call Bp. Williamson himself.
Um yeah ok that makes it true, maybe you or Mr. Drolesky can provide that phone number so I may have a chat with Bishop Williamson too, can't seem to find it anywhere. Thanks in advance.
-
It would seem the source is, as Diego put it, "Dr. Drolesky ...
Can you read?
I wrote, "Bp. Williamson is the source."
If you have 'suspicions' about Dr. Drolesky lying as you infer because it has a 'problem' that "Dr. Drolesky was the reporter," do what he did—call Bp. Williamson himself.
Um yeah ok that makes it true, maybe you or Mr. Drolesky can provide that phone number so I may have a chat with Bis
hop Williamson too, can't seem to find it anywhere. Thanks in advance.
Don't forget the post from 'Dumb Ox'.
The moderators are to be commended on the suppression of the private communication sent by Bishop Fellay to Bishop Williamson, on 23rd September, a translated version of which has recently been made public and was linked to on this forum.
The question that should be asked is who ultimately benefits from this private communication being made public.
When the obvious conclusion is drawn it may, perhaps, present a more likely scenario of its leaking.
Bishop Williamson certainly does not stand to gain from its publication at the present time. It was published without his permission and he is angry that it has been made public; a fact that can be easily confirmed should anyone wish to phone and ask him about it.
Its publication merely results in more internal SSPX pressure being put upon His Lordship, and his good name eaten away with suspicions that he has been - as the text of the communication boldly claims - indiscreet. It makes him look very foolish in his choice of trusted friends and advisors, and it gives the appearance of the good bishop being prone to allowing his emotions to rule his reason in a misguided attempt to hit back at Bishop Fellay.
On the other hand, Bishop Fellay does not gain from its publication either. His control freakery, machiavellian operating procedure, despotism and spiteful way of treating people he finds himself at odds with - things all well known amongst SSPX clerics - is now apparent for the world to see and to understand.
So who else could have leaked this communication - sent to Williamson by Fellay in the form of an email, not a letter, and written in French?
It is certain that the communication was copied to a number of Fellay's inner circle at Menzingen and further afield.
Two names from amongst this circle come immediately to mind. Fr. Pfluger, who for some time now has been attempting to play off and discredit both Williamson and Fellay to anyone who will listen in the hope of fulfilling his own puffed-up ambitions in regard to SSPX.
Behind Pfluger stands the shadowy figure of the Liberal "He who shall remain nameless".
"He who shall remain nameless", Menzingen's lawyer introduced to the inner circles of SSPX by Fr. Pfluger, is a conduit between Menzingen and the world of Finance, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and Judaism.
For the past three years "He who shall remain nameless", with the co-operation of Fellay and Pfluger, has been hell-bent on attempting to remove Bishop Williamson from within SSPX; a fact well-established and chronicled by the "bannedgate" investigation and by Stephen Heiner.
It is clear that neither Williamson nor Fellay stand to gain from the publication of the content of this private email at the present time. The ultimate beneficiaries of its publication are Pfluger, "He who shall remain nameless", Masonry and Judaism.
It appears to be very likely that those who have allowed publication of this private email have been played by the enemy.
-
Bp. Williamson did not hesitate to contact "Maurice Pinay" for clarification. Why would he hesitate to contact Dr. Drolesky for clarification?
Dr. Drolesky's post admitted that he had initially misinterpreted, so he contacted Bp. Williamson for clarification AND he published the correction. Why would he then lie as your "Dr. Drolesky is the reporter; that is the problem" clearly infers?
If Bp. Williamson can trust Dr. Drolesky enough to speak with him, why do you have suspicions?
Bp. Williamson's current residence and the phone number there are known. Do your own homework ...or not. You can remain on yer [sic] rear end, carp, and engage in innuendo. Your choice.
Then again, Bp. Williamson might have 'suspicion' about you that he doesn't have for Dr. Drolesky—who has already shown his integrity in clarifying the record.
:applause:
-
The "accident" story is true. I know it for a fact. Diego is reporting fact. He knows it. I know it, and others do as well. Dr. Droleskey is not the only source. He is not even a primary source. :smirk:
-
It would seem the source is, as Diego put it, "Dr. Drolesky (sede vacantist or not) is the reporter.
Can you read?
I wrote, "Bp. Williamson is the source."
If you have 'suspicions' about Dr. Drolesky lying as you infer because it has a 'problem' that "Dr. Drolesky was the reporter," do what he did—call Bp. Williamson himself.
Um yeah ok that makes it true, maybe you or Mr. Drolesky can provide that phone number so I may have a chat with Bis
hop Williamson too, can't seem to find it anywhere. Thanks in advance.
Don't forget the post from 'Dumb Ox'.
The moderators are to be commended on the suppression of the private communication sent by Bishop Fellay to Bishop Williamson, on 23rd September, a translated version of which has recently been made public and was linked to on this forum.
The question that should be asked is who ultimately benefits from this private communication being made public.
When the obvious conclusion is drawn it may, perhaps, present a more likely scenario of its leaking.
Bishop Williamson certainly does not stand to gain from its publication at the present time. It was published without his permission and he is angry that it has been made public; a fact that can be easily confirmed should anyone wish to phone and ask him about it.
Its publication merely results in more internal SSPX pressure being put upon His Lordship, and his good name eaten away with suspicions that he has been - as the text of the communication boldly claims - indiscreet. It makes him look very foolish in his choice of trusted friends and advisors, and it gives the appearance of the good bishop being prone to allowing his emotions to rule his reason in a misguided attempt to hit back at Bishop Fellay.
On the other hand, Bishop Fellay does not gain from its publication either. His control freakery, machiavellian operating procedure, despotism and spiteful way of treating people he finds himself at odds with - things all well known amongst SSPX clerics - is now apparent for the world to see and to understand.
So who else could have leaked this communication - sent to Williamson by Fellay in the form of an email, not a letter, and written in French?
It is certain that the communication was copied to a number of Fellay's inner circle at Menzingen and further afield.
Two names from amongst this circle come immediately to mind. Fr. Pfluger, who for some time now has been attempting to play off and discredit both Williamson and Fellay to anyone who will listen in the hope of fulfilling his own puffed-up ambitions in regard to SSPX.
Behind Pfluger stands the shadowy figure of the Liberal "He who shall remain nameless".
"He who shall remain nameless", Menzingen's lawyer introduced to the inner circles of SSPX by Fr. Pfluger, is a conduit between Menzingen and the world of Finance, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and Judaism.
For the past three years "He who shall remain nameless", with the co-operation of Fellay and Pfluger, has been hell-bent on attempting to remove Bishop Williamson from within SSPX; a fact well-established and chronicled by the "bannedgate" investigation and by Stephen Heiner.
It is clear that neither Williamson nor Fellay stand to gain from the publication of the content of this private email at the present time. The ultimate beneficiaries of its publication are Pfluger, "He who shall remain nameless", Masonry and Judaism.
It appears to be very likely that those who have allowed publication of this private email have been played by the enemy.
Come on, dumb ox, who wants to remain anonymous? Let me compare him to a successful anonymous whistle blower named deep throat. Who not by his mere statements was able to get congress to act on a president, but by his unmistakeable evidence. He was able to produce Tape phone conversations, hand signed letters, and actual docuмents that were enough to impeach a president. Surely, dumb ox hasn't accomplished anywhere near that with a mere statement.
-
Bp. Williamson did not hesitate to contact "Maurice Pinay" for clarification. Why would he hesitate to contact Dr. Drolesky for clarification?
Dr. Drolesky's post admitted that he had initially misinterpreted, so he contacted Bp. Williamson for clarification AND he published the correction. Why would he then lie as your "Dr. Drolesky is the reporter; that is the problem" clearly infers?
If Bp. Williamson can trust Dr. Drolesky enough to speak with him, why do you have suspicions?
Bp. Williamson's current residence and the phone number there are known. Do your own homework ...or not. You can remain on yer [sic] rear end, carp, and engage in innuendo. Your choice.
Then again, Bp. Williamson might have 'suspicion' about you that he doesn't have for Dr. Drolesky—who has already shown his integrity in clarifying the record.
:applause:
A simple, no I cannot provide the phone number would have sufficed. It is not for me to do my "homework" on this subject. It is left to them(dividers of the SSPX) to prove with evidence and facts that this is true instead of hear say. In my opinion they have not, but they did a pretty good job at stirring the roost for a moment.
-
In my opinion, there is an unhealthy level of suspicion in the air.
-
Another blog has run this very topic and this intriguing entry was submitted. Being from the Asia District myself, I find the comments made pretty sound:
B. V. said...
Dear Maurice Pinay,
Thank you for posting Bishop Fellay's letter on your website as a form of intervention. I am writing to you from Asia and so as a new expat, I have been able to travel to different SSPX Mass Centers in Asia. I have long been praying about what to do with the SSPX situation here. I find that Bp. Fellay who has long kept the Asian district superior in place for far too long closes his eyes to many many abuses within the SSPX or he has set up the system that way & unchecked. He has wasted so much time caught up in Rome's net instead of focusing on his REAL JOB: being a shepherd to the souls entrusted to him. Recently he has visited the Philippines and last year his assistant visited Asia. They visit but overlook the pathetic situation of MOST of the Mass centers & do NOTHING to make the missions successful apostolates. The Mormons & Protestant sects put the SSPX to shame in this part of the world!!! Visit Asia & you'll see! I am so SICK of poor Asian countries being used by the SSPX as charity cases or as a basket case as a whole. We DON'T need medical missions!!! We need Catechism books, Catholic libraries, Catechetical centers & catechists, and more experienced SSPX priests because Asians are hungry for the TRUE FAITH. We have more than enough medical clinics around for vaccinations & medical care (btw the SSPX medical mission is only once a year in the Philippines & they haven't converted anyone!). When we are sent a good SSPX priest who sees the tragedy & tries to improve it, he is transferred as soon as the district superior senses the improvements & that he cannot make him a yes-man. Hmmmm sounds like the superior general himself huh!
So here we have a Traditional Catholic Bishop shoved in a hole in England just because he dares question established Zionist "facts". When I went to public high school in Silicon Valley in the states, I couldn't believe I was forced to watch 2 weeks worth of h0Ɩ0cαųst movies for U.S. history class!!! Doesn't that tell you anything??? Bishop Williamson should be allowed to travel & resume his duties as a Catholic Bishop. Preaching is a duty! Before his exile, he actually told my husband that we were better off moving back to Asia because of what was going to happen to the U.S. For that advice alone I am truly grateful! I know that if he traveled here & saw what was going on he would say something & do something about it.
No! Look at all this chaos & suffering because the Superior General has been in power far too long!!!
When will SSPX-attending Catholics start thinking for themselves and hold those in authority accountable when they are wrong and abusive??? I've been thrown out of many forums for daring to question the actions of certain priests or a certain district superior. I've personally experienced that you will get their (SSPX) ear if you write a big check but if you're going to question & investigate their operations, you will simply be shut down. So now I'm smarter about donations. I am not discounting the hardworking SSPX priests but I believe the SSPX needs major reform from within and it should start from the top down. If it takes a letter to jump start change or at least a wake up call, so be it!
October 25, 2011 10:12 AM
-
I am not going to rebuke B.V.'s statement. I know two priest in Asia that I have known since they were little boys. I also have always been a huge supporter of Fr. Coulter and have read the Asian newsletter for the past 6 years. It is quite obvious the neglect in that Region, but as I said this is not because of the holy priest who had/have been serving the district.
As far as holding those in authority responsible, well that has been happening. The whole, post this statement then it disappears is in fact rebukes. For the laity to rebuke in public hurts the integrity of the SSPX. For nobody to rebuke hurts the integrity of SSPX. So there is a fine line to follow, it is not like they are the newchurch or ever will be.
It is important for us to remember without the SSPX you would not have what you have had from them. So understanding your frustration, keep in mind that the integrity of the SSPX is very important if there is going to even be a SSPX to "reform". Like that old saying becareful what you ask for or you just might get it, but what if getting it means losing everything (i.e. them realising they are still to thin and pull out of Asia, or even huge break-offs that completely compromise the resources of the SSPX altogether). I just ask everyone to keep this in mind, and pray for the SSPX and all holy religious fighting the good fight.
-
According to this SSPX priest, a deal will not happen.
My dear brethren
The meeting of the Society’s superiors took place at Albano on 7-8th October as announced in last month’s newsletter, and Bishop Fellay did indeed use this opportunity to discuss the ‘Doctrinal Preamble’ text as received from Cardinal Levada on 14th September.
The first day of the meeting covered three issues: an overview of the contacts with Rome since 1987; a summary of the doctrinal discussions; and an oral exposition of the Doctrinal Preamble docuмent itself.
With regard to the doctrinal talks it was disappointing to note that the Roman commission failed to acknowledge the break between traditional and conciliar teachings. Instead it insisted upon the ‘hermeneutic (interpretation) of continuity,’ stating that the new teachings included and improved the old!
It was interesting to learn that the 14th September meeting had not touched upon the doctrinal talks at all, but rather was dedicated to expounding possible practical solutions for the Society.
So it was perhaps not surprising to learn that the proposed doctrinal basis for any canonical agreement in fact contained all those elements which the Society has consistently rejected, including acceptance of the New Mass and of Vatican II as expressed in the New Catechism. Indeed, the docuмent itself conveys the impression that there is no crisis in the Church...
Hence the stated consensus of those in attendance was that the Doctrinal Preamble was clearly unacceptable and that the time has certainly not come to pursue any practical agreement as long as the doctrinal issues remain outstanding. It also agreed that the Society should continue its work of insisting upon the doctrinal questions in any contacts with the Roman authorities.
In many ways we can see the hand of Providence in this meeting, falling as it did on the Feast of the Holy Rosary, given the clarification of Rome’s persistence in the modern errors, and the consequent necessity of continuing with the fight against modernism through fidelity to Catholic Tradition.
The second day of the meeting was dedicated to its original theme, that of communications and the media.
-
I am not going to rebuke B.V.'s statement. I know two priest in Asia that I have known since they were little boys. I also have always been a huge supporter of Fr. Coulter and have read the Asian newsletter for the past 6 years. It is quite obvious the neglect in that Region, but as I said this is not because of the holy priest who had/have been serving the district.
Sir,
You do not live in this district. Yes, the district does have a glossy newsletter which needs to be filled and those two little boy priests were deported from India earlier this year.
Why shouldn't the laity be critical of priests if there is a need to? There are former faithful in this district who now exchange horror stories of their experiences. People did not challenge Vatican II enough, and see what happened. Talking about "holy priests", is subjective. A foreign visitor, after attending just one Mass of a priest stationed here, likened him to another St Xavier. Yet, the opinion of a senior Traditionalist, which was shared by others, was that this very priest was " arrogant and uncouth and fit only to serve wild animals!"
-
Some people might be looking for this.
-
This letter from Father Christian BOUCHACOURT contains proof of the letter from Bp. Fellay to Bp. Williamson
Martinez, October 12, 2011
†
Society of St. Pius X
District of South America
The Superior
Dear Fathers,
Just got back from Rome a few hours ago and I want to share some news about the meeting to which we were summoned by our Superior General, Bishop Fellay. It was an informative meeting.
As the communiqué that was published said, the General Council was attended by all the District Superiors and three of the four bishops.
Indeed Bishop Williamson did not go to Albano. He had also been summoned to the meeting, but Bishop Fellay had added two conditions: to close his blog and keep secret the contents of the preamble that Rome gave the SSPX. Bishop Williamson did not agree to at least one of the two conditions, and for that reason did not take part in the meeting in Albano.
The session unfolded in three stages. Firstly, Bishop Fellay presented a historical assessment of relations with Rome. Secondly, Bishop de Galarreta and Father Jorna spoke of the doctrinal discussions in Rome. Lastly, the doctrinal preamble provided by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, signed by Cardinal Levada, was presented.
No need to review the historical facts concerning our relations with Rome. You already know the essentials. Regarding the doctrinal discussions, we studied four capital points: the Novus Ordo Missae; religious liberty; ecclesiology- Lumen Gentium, the "subsists in", collegiality; and the Magisterium and Tradition.
Our opponents did not seek to answer our arguments but constantly tried to show that there is no break with tradition. They recognized that religious liberty, collegiality, and so on, are modern terms but, they maintained that they are contained implicitly in Tradition and made explicit by the Vatican Council.
The climate of the discussions was cordial, which permitted each one to openly express his position. Our opponents remained sympathetic to our arguments, at least outwardly.
The text of the docuмent given to Bishop Fellay and his assistants remains confidential. But I can tell you some elements of its content. It has two parts: a preamble and a brief doctrinal canonical solution proposed for the SSPX.
The preamble is based on the memorandum of understanding that was once proposed to Archbishop Lefebvre, but it is more restrictive .
We are asked to recognize Catholic Tradition in the light of Vatican II and the teachings of the Popes after the Council. Moreover, we should accept on the one hand, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which constitutes a compendium of the conciliar doctrine, and also, the Code of Canon Law published in 1983, with an application tailored to the particular discipline given to the SSPX.
Then, we should also recognize the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo. According to the explanations of the Vatican canonists, the word "legitimate" means "legal" ... This is not the commonly understood sense.
Then would follow the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Allegiance.
Finally, if we sign this preamble, we would be granted a personal prelature, similar to the canonical structure of Opus Dei.
Clearly, this preamble, with its content, cannot be signed, even if amendments are made. The situation of the Conciliar Church, the Pope's remarks in Germany, the meeting in Assisi, all declare that it is not the time to sign such a docuмent. We would be crushed by the system, as were the "motu propio" communities.
Bishop Fellay will send his response in a few weeks, and perhaps publish a doctrinal declaration whch will have nothing to do with what was presented to us, and it will not be accepted by Rome.
Although there is a canonical opening by Rome, the doctrinal situation in the Church has not changed.
Rome needs us. It needs us to reunite with them to prove that the Vatican II is not a rupture with Tradition, and to neutralize the progressive wing that yearns for a manifest rupture with Tradition. Clearly we cannot continue this way. We must stand firm and wait for Rome to take new steps. Rome returns more and more (to Tradition), but still not enough.
So the battle continues! I ask you to maintain the confidentiality of the contents of this circular. You can tell the faithful that nothing was signed and that the situation remains identical to what we had before September 14. When I visit your priories, I will provide more details about the situation.
Finally I want to tell you that last Monday I went to Rome to pray before the Chair of St. Peter. I also went to climb the Scala Santa, asking the Lord to grant each of us, the District priests, an unwavering fidelity to the fight led by Archbishop Lefebvre for the good of souls, the Church and Tradition. Thinking of the tragedy that the Church is going through today should encourage our zeal for the sanctification of souls entrusted to our care.
Assuring you of my fraternal prayer in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
Father Christian BOUCHACOURT
Link to Spanish post:
http://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/original-carta-del-p-bouchacourt-a-los-sacerdotes-del-distrito-informando-de-la-reunion-de-albano/#more-18296
-
bump
(http://www.newsnet14.com/images/williamson_gagged.jpg)
-
that's one long thread to read. I think I read like 60% here and there.
Bottom Line:
the letter is authentic
No one says who leaked it
whatever group remains as the SSPX keeps all the properties
whatever group breaks away looses all the properties
As for the rest of the comments, they tear me one way then the other. NEVERTHELESS, all the comments are as nothing, since none of us has any decision making powers. So, I'll just let God sort it out.
The progressivist Vatican II revolution (for lack of a better term) was the best thing that could happen to the Church. The quicker that things get worse, the quicker that we'll eliminate this plague we are living in. God is in control.
"The tree does not understand the pruning, nor the ground the tilling, but the husbandman does."