Author Topic: Mgr Williamson Excluded by Council Vote (Read 12985 times)

JPaul · « **Reply #15 on:** July 12, 2012, 04:39:59 PM »

With this situation being considered as true, it is both a window and a harbinger of the outcome of the Chapter.
We always knew that the Chapter would consist of a majority of loyalists. So it is not a surprise although a great disappointment that so many of the priests have apparently lost any sense of justice.

Whatever proposal is presented for a vote by Bishop Fellay's team in favor of a "deal", will in all likelyhood pass with an equal show support.

If that happens , even now, when Bishops Mueller and DiNoia have made clear their demands for submission to the Council and the Jєωs and the breaking of Tradition and in light of this, Bishop Fellay has not had second thoughts and backed away, it will be unquestionable that he intends to lead the Society into what will end in modernist ruination.

That will be the end. It will become an indult order which will then need to be avoided.

Also, none of us know what, if any, or what kind of pressures might have been offered to the voting body. This is also the first step in rebuilding Bishop Fellay's claim to absolute power. It is indeed interesting that nothing else of substance was leaked but this?

Of course, I hope I will be wrong in these observations but............

John Grace · « **Reply #16 on:** July 12, 2012, 04:40:36 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

The $$PX is not about the Catholic Faith anymore.

I disagree as there still devout and good priests in it. However, his exclusion of Bishop Williamson is wrong and all SSPX priests have to 'reflect' on which direction the Society is going in. There will be consequences for having treated Bishop Williamson in this manner. The priests who voted against the Bishop are an absolute disgrace bearing in mind Fr Richard Williamson was the first name presented to Rome by the Archbishop. Now, Bishop Fellay and his men stab him in the back. Probably the same clerics who betrayed him after his interview.

The other two Bishops will have to lead a protest about this treatment of the Bishop.

John Grace · « **Reply #17 on:** July 12, 2012, 04:43:26 PM »

Archbishop Di Noia can't be any clearer when he wrote “This is a new concept which we know the Traditionalists will not be able to accept immediately. Convincing them will take time, and in this respect we will have to be patient.”

We will get them eventually is his mindset.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #18 on:** July 12, 2012, 04:47:25 PM »

+Fellay is afraid of him because he knows +Williamson has a following.

So he's trying to make sure H.E.'s following don't have any effect on the voting
members at the GC. He's been using terrorist tactics to keep everyone under his
thumb: not ordaining clerics who come from independent groups who have dared to
voice any opposition; expelling SSPX priests who do not tow HIS "party line"; making
threats to expel other SSPX priests who have spoken courageously in recent months.

Now he's using the same tactics in the GC.

And this was after a retreat, last week. I wasn't there, but if +Fellay has been using
the effects of the retreat to evoke "obedience" from the voting members, for his own
political ambitions, he's digging himself a really big hole in hell. Because that is the
misappropriation of spiritual power, sort of simony. But if he's doing that, it's not the
first time he's done it, so it would be habitual: he's been developing his "art" getting
ready for the big project at hand.................

Ferdinand · « **Reply #19 on:** July 12, 2012, 04:58:18 PM »

Vote with your pocket book... the $$PX understands this language.

I would recommend redirecting your tithe, or holding onto it for future redirection. This is perhaps the only way +Fellay and his ilk will know the mind of the faithful.

Consider also removing your children from their schools (if you haven't already done so) where the modernist indoctrination will continue to increase in frequency and amplitude.

The war is on!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #20 on:** July 12, 2012, 05:15:10 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

With this situation being considered as true, it is both a window and a harbinger of the outcome of the Chapter.
We always knew that the Chapter would consist of a majority of loyalists. So it is not a surprise although a great disappointment that so many of the priests have apparently lost any sense of justice.

Whatever proposal is presented for a vote by Bishop Fellay's team in favor of a "deal", will in all likelyhood pass with an equal show support.

If that happens , even now, when Bishops Mueller and DiNoia have made clear their demands for submission to the Council and the Jєωs and the breaking of Tradition and in light of this, Bishop Fellay has not had second thoughts and backed away, it will be unquestionable that he intends to lead the Society into what will end in modernist ruination.

That will be the end. It will become an indult order which will then need to be avoided.

If it becomes an Indult order (to be avoided) it seems impossible that "the three" will
continue to be involved. Rather, I see them separating and starting their own, new
Society, the same as +ABL did, the only difference being, they won't have Rome's
approval in the beginning the way he did. And if that happens, +Fellay will gradually
be replaced by another DiNoia or Muller: these types are a dime a dozen. And when
he's no longer at the helm, then the erstwhile lemmings, the district superior
yes-men, can face the fact that they have to "convert" whole hog to the new way of
doing things, or else be phased out like +Fellay was: what goes around comes
around! If they're going to do this nefarious deed to +Williamson now, then they
can fully expect to have B16 do it to them later!

I hope they're hearing that, because they're making their own problems.

Quote

Also, none of us know what, if any, or what kind of pressures might have been offered to the voting body. This is also the first step in rebuilding Bishop Fellay's claim to absolute power. It is indeed interesting that nothing else of substance was leaked but this?

Of course, I hope I will be wrong in these observations but............

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #21 on:** July 12, 2012, 05:24:39 PM »

.................And to think: +Fellay had all of this in mind, while he was urging the
.................faithful of the world to join his Rosary Crusade for the intention of
.................the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary!
.................IF THAT ISN'T BLASPHEMY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS! And it's directed
.................not at the Holy Ghost, directly, but at His Spouse! What is that then?
.................Blasphemy against the Spouse of the Holy Ghost? I hope I don't
.................have to answer for that one come my particular judgment!

Ferdinand · « **Reply #22 on:** July 12, 2012, 05:39:33 PM »

“La Revolution Devore Ses Enfants”

Ask Fr. Laguerie of L'Institute du Bon Pasteur. Those perfidious clerics going along with the sell-out need only look to the history of the last 25+ years (starting with Mater Ecclesiae in 1986) to see how their vocations will be sullied and ultimately trampled in the mire of the NO.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #23 on:** July 12, 2012, 05:51:38 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Whatever proposal is presented for a vote by Bishop Fellay's team in favor of a "deal", will in all likelyhood pass with an equal show support.

How would you reconcile this with the same group of individuals showing a strong vote against the Preamble last September?

I might be foolishly optomistic, but I'm hoping this vote against Bishop Williamson is along the lines of "we can and should be firmly against a deal without speaking publicly about how poorly our Superior has handled this situation."

It's a long shot, I know. :thinking:

Clint · « **Reply #24 on:** July 12, 2012, 06:33:24 PM »

One of the lessor things that attracted me to come back to the Church, was the bullying that I heard of, where old people were being forced to accept the changes. Unfortunately for me, I never ran into any bullies. It's always been that way, bullies know who not to pick on.

I see now the bullying again in this backstabbing of the three bishops, and the SSPX as we knew it.

Maybe this time I'll run into some bullies. I look forward to the conflicts. What else have we got to do in this soft life? Lift weights? That's not noble.

There is nothing like having right on your side

MaterDominici · « **Reply #25 on:** July 12, 2012, 06:47:52 PM »

I've been wondering this for weeks. It's nice to see someone was able to put a list together.

Quote from: Dumb Ox on IA

For what it is worth the following are most likely the members of the 2012 General Chapter (I think it is accurate, but the final two on the longest-serving member list could possibly be incorrect).

Menzingen:
Bernard Fellay
Niklaus Pfluger
Alain-Marc Nely
Christian Thouvenot
Emeric Baudot

Bishops:
Richard Williamson
Bernard Tissier de Mallerais
Alfonso de Galarreta

Seminary Rectors:
Econe - Benoît de Jorna
Flavigny - Patrick Troadec
Goulburn - Vicente Griego
La Reja - Davide Pagliarani
Winona - Yves Le Roux
Zaitzkofen - Stefan Frey

Districts:
Africa - Loïc Duverger
Asia - Daniel Couture
Australia - Edward Black
Austria - Helmut Trutt
Belgium, Low Countries - Benoît Wailliez
Britain, Ireland, Scandinavia - Paul Morgan
Canada - Jürgen Wegner
Eastern Europe - Karl Stehlin
France - Régis de Cacqueray
Germany - Franz Schmidberger
Italy - Pierpaolo Petrucci
Mexico - Mario Trejo
South America - Christian Bouchacourt
Spain - Juan de Montagut Puertollano
Switzerland - Henry Wuilloud
USA - Arnaud Rostand

10 Priests by Seniority of Service:
Jean-Yves Cottard
Patrick Groche
Emmanuel du Chalard
Gregory Post
Louis-Paul Dubroeucq
Jean-Michel Faure
Pierre-Marie Laurencon
Jean-Pierre Boubee
Freddy Mery
Jacques Emily

MaterDominici · « **Reply #26 on:** July 12, 2012, 06:56:37 PM »

SSPX.org indicated there were four priests from the US district. Our two French leaders + Fr. Post + ______. Does anyone know who the fourth would be?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #27 on:** July 12, 2012, 07:24:27 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

SSPX.org indicated there were four priests from the US district. Our two French leaders + Fr. Post + ______. Does anyone know who the fourth would be?

Fr. Jaques Emily is the resident retreat master at Los Gatos, CA, USA. He's a very
fine priest. I can't say for sure, but I can't imagine him voting against having
+Williamson attend the GC.

JPaul · « **Reply #28 on:** July 12, 2012, 08:19:29 PM »

Thinking about it, something smells about this supposedly legitimate exercise of that sole authority for purely disciplinary reasons being placed first on the agenda, voted upon, and then leaked.

I can only see that it was in response to a minority raising the injustice of this action and Menzingen going through the motions of satisfying them, knowing that any vote would favor them anyway. In the end, making for another effective PR soundbite.

If you look at it objectively, it looks like another setup. And it is leaked.. and the Fellayites on the forums are blaming Bishop Williamson....again!

JPaul · « **Reply #29 on:** July 12, 2012, 08:23:50 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: J.Paul
With this situation being considered as true, it is both a window and a harbinger of the outcome of the Chapter.
We always knew that the Chapter would consist of a majority of loyalists. So it is not a surprise although a great disappointment that so many of the priests have apparently lost any sense of justice.

Whatever proposal is presented for a vote by Bishop Fellay's team in favor of a "deal", will in all likelyhood pass with an equal show support.

If that happens , even now, when Bishops Mueller and DiNoia have made clear their demands for submission to the Council and the Jєωs and the breaking of Tradition and in light of this, Bishop Fellay has not had second thoughts and backed away, it will be unquestionable that he intends to lead the Society into what will end in modernist ruination.

That will be the end. It will become an indult order which will then need to be avoided.

If it becomes an Indult order (to be avoided) it seems impossible that "the three" will
continue to be involved. Rather, I see them separating and starting their own, new
Society, the same as +ABL did, the only difference being, they won't have Rome's
approval in the beginning the way he did. And if that happens, +Fellay will gradually
be replaced by another DiNoia or Muller: these types are a dime a dozen. And when
he's no longer at the helm, then the erstwhile lemmings, the district superior
yes-men, can face the fact that they have to "convert" whole hog to the new way of
doing things, or else be phased out like +Fellay was: what goes around comes
around! If they're going to do this nefarious deed to +Williamson now, then they
can fully expect to have B16 do it to them later!

I hope they're hearing that, because they're making their own problems.

Quote
Also, none of us know what, if any, or what kind of pressures might have been offered to the voting body. This is also the first step in rebuilding Bishop Fellay's claim to absolute power. It is indeed interesting that nothing else of substance was leaked but this?

Of course, I hope I will be wrong in these observations but............

I agree, I do not believe that they have a grasp of the bad possibilities which are looming on the not so distant horizon.