Author Topic: Mgr Williamson Excluded by Council Vote (Read 14101 times)

Graham · « **Reply #30 on:** July 12, 2012, 08:32:28 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

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:

I'm afraid that such a line of thought misses the boiled- down significance of the vote, which is really about how the Fraternity's leadership views and understands the Catholic Faith, as represented in the persons of Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson.

I have not prayed hard enough nor consistently enough for the victory of the Faith. If supreme happiness lies in union with God, and the Faith is the only means of securing this, than I must perforce believe that Catholic Tradition is the most important thing on earth and in heaven. My thoughts, words, and deeds have not borne this out. Mea maxima culpa.

1917 · « **Reply #31 on:** July 13, 2012, 08:18:01 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

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 Jews 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.

I guess I didn't realise B Williamson would be on the agenda ... the future of tradition is at stake! I can't see how it is possible to uphold something like this when ABp Lefrebvre consecrated the four Bishops, equal one to the other, and not just one turning against the other but getting other superiors and priests to vote, it is scandalous! It is not as if a great sin or heresy has been committed. To silence someone speaking only tradition speaks volumes and is a real worry.

Quote from: Graham

I'm afraid that such a line of thought misses the boiled- down significance of the vote, which is really about how the Fraternity's leadership views and understands the Catholic Faith, as represented in the persons of Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson.

I have not prayed hard enough nor consistently enough for the victory of the Faith. If supreme happiness lies in union with God, and the Faith is the only means of securing this, than I must perforce believe that Catholic Tradition is the most important thing on earth and in heaven. My thoughts, words, and deeds have not borne this out. Mea maxima culpa.

Have faith, for we all do what we can, Our Lord will take our shortcomings too ... "failure is success turned inside out", think I read that from a little St Jude card (brings tears to my eyes everytime I read it "don't you quit"). Difficult to understand except that perhaps what we see as failure Our Lord sees as victorious because we offer up ALL our prayers, failures and successes! As long as we always get up again! :pop:

Perhaps this 'purge' is for modernists to join Rome and for us to carry on with whatever is left of the true traditional priests and keep smiling! We have to be joyful even during sorrowful times thanking Our Lord for this cross... and this might help too :wink: :alcohol:

Canute · « **Reply #32 on:** July 13, 2012, 08:51:34 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

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.

Three French priests to "represent" the USA, which is one of the two largest Districts!

Apart from Fr. Post, how many real Americans were members of the SSPX General Chapter?

JPaul · « **Reply #33 on:** July 13, 2012, 08:59:59 AM »

In the end, it is not really unexpected that this would happen. The chapter consists with a majority of Bishop Fellay's appointees. That being so, any decisions which will be made, will be in favor of his postion. These are apparently men who exhibit staunch loyalty to a person, but they seem not to be men of conscience.

When the split which Bishop Fellay has knowingly fomented happens, it will become clear who and who should not be trusted with the spiritual welfare of souls.

I expect that Bishop Fellay will emerge with full authority to continue his chosen path. The union of the Society has been broken. It has been infiltrated by shadows, secrecy, and reprisals. That much we know. In a few days we will know more, or perhaps maybe less.

Once the lion is no longer distraced, I fear it will be angry and turn its attentions to those brave priests who have spoken out. We must pray to Heaven for their protection.

John Grace · « **Reply #34 on:** July 13, 2012, 09:10:05 AM »

I'm laughing at the Bishop Fellay lackey 'Henry V' having his moment over on Ignis Ardens.

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10189&st=25

Quote

I can understand you trying to put a brave face on it, but it's another embarrassing miscalculation by the Williamson Camp.

If you're going to appeal you first need an idea of what support you have; at least have a fighting chance of winning.

Before this the Williamson Camp line was +Fellay did not have the authority. He was behaving like a dictator and poor +Williamson was humbly suffering in silence this gross injustice.

But now the General Chapter has spoken. It has overwhelmingly supported +Fellay's action. It is saying +Fellay was right. It is saying to +Williamson: "we don't want you here". It is saying: "We don't support the Williamson Camp's action of leaking of confidential docuмents, calls to rebel, demanding the overthrow of the SG etc.".

So after this and that farcical "open letter" - with it's fraudulent names (which now include Modernists!) - what's the next tactic? Try and turn the Canterbury pilgrimage into a political rally?

The "Williamson Camp" is the camp of Archbishop Lefebvre and real Catholic resistance. Let Henry V and De Lallo have their moment.

Those who voted against Bishop Williamson should be embarrassed and ashamed for doing so.They will have to answer for it on the day of judgement.

The Canterbury Pilgrimage needs to be a show of strength in support of Bishop Williamson.

John Grace · « **Reply #35 on:** July 13, 2012, 09:13:42 AM »

The priests who voted against the Bishop need to be confronted and asked why they voted to exclude the one chosen by Archbishop Lefebvre.

Of course we shouldn't forget the massive support the Bishop has.Support from clerics and laity. Religious sisters and brothers across the world.

morningstar · « **Reply #36 on:** July 13, 2012, 09:21:40 AM »

Quote from: Canute

Quote from: Neil Obstat
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.

Three French priests to "represent" the USA, which is one of the two largest Districts!

Apart from Fr. Post, how many real Americans were members of the SSPX General Chapter?

Would the fourth be Father Griego? He is a native of New Mexico, but currently rector of Holy Cross Seminary in Australia.

John Grace · « **Reply #37 on:** July 13, 2012, 09:28:05 AM »

quote]When the split which Bishop Fellay has knowingly fomented happens, it will become clear who and who should not be trusted with the spiritual welfare of souls.
[/quote]

One can hardly trust the clerics who voted to exclude the Bishop. As I said in the previous post, they need to be challenged directly as to why they voted to exclude Bishop Williamson. To exclude him is to betray Archbishop Lefebvre. Perhaps these clerics want a neo SSPX?

Lines of faithful formed in Ireland when there was a threat to expel him in the past. Poor Fr Loschi at the time was left ashen faced. Faithful formed a line to speak with the priest. Others were able to phone the priory and outline their objection to the disgraceful treatment of the Bishop.

I have no doubt there will be strong opposition to this latest "stabbing in the back" of the Bishop.

Pryor, Henry V, De Lallo are no doubt delighted and having a great laugh but Bishop Williamson is a better man than those three and others any day.

Clint · « **Reply #38 on:** July 13, 2012, 09:32:29 AM »

Quote

But now the General Chapter has spoken. It has overwhelmingly supported +Fellay's action. It is saying +Fellay was right. It is saying to +Williamson: "we don't want you here". It is saying: "We don't support the Williamson Camp's action of leaking of confidential docuмents, calls to rebel, demanding the overthrow of the SG etc.".

So after this and that farcical "open letter" - with it's fraudulent names (which now include Modernists!) - what's the next tactic? Try and turn the Canterbury pilgrimage into a political rally?

What goes round comes round. These Fellay followers will end up betrayed and squashed in the same way they did to Bishop Williamson. Betrayed by their own, and by their new superiors in Rome, just like all the other traditional communities before them.

Fellay "SSPX", a bride that walked over her friends to marry a seven times divorced man. They think they are different than the other 6 brides that fell before them. They'll fall just like the rest.

Canute · « **Reply #39 on:** July 13, 2012, 11:13:24 AM »

Quote from: morningstar

Quote from: Canute
Quote from: Neil Obstat
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.

Three French priests to "represent" the USA, which is one of the two largest Districts!

Apart from Fr. Post, how many real Americans were members of the SSPX General Chapter?

Would the fourth be Father Griego? He is a native of New Mexico, but currently rector of Holy Cross Seminary in Australia.

I read somewhere that seminary rectors were supposed to be part of the General Chapter.

I didn't know Father Griego was an American, but Father Post is one of the oldest priests, so he would have been there. I wonder if there were any other Americans.

No capitulation without representation might be a good motto! :sign-surrender:

morningstar · « **Reply #40 on:** July 13, 2012, 11:48:17 AM »

Quote from: Canute

Quote from: morningstar
Quote from: Canute
Quote from: Neil Obstat
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.

Three French priests to "represent" the USA, which is one of the two largest Districts!

Apart from Fr. Post, how many real Americans were members of the SSPX General Chapter?

Would the fourth be Father Griego? He is a native of New Mexico, but currently rector of Holy Cross Seminary in Australia.

I read somewhere that seminary rectors were supposed to be part of the General Chapter.

I didn't know Father Griego was an American, but Father Post is one of the oldest priests, so he would have been there. I wonder if there were any other Americans.

No capitulation without representation might be a good motto! :sign-surrender:

Yes, Fr. Griego is an American. I read somewhere, forgive me I can't recall where, that he is present at the General Chapter.

Tomas de Torquemada · « **Reply #41 on:** July 13, 2012, 02:00:12 PM »

Quote from: Canute

No capitulation without representation might be a good motto! :sign-surrender:

There's no problem with Americanism in traditional circles....

magdalena · « **Reply #42 on:** July 13, 2012, 08:32:45 PM »

Quote from: Graham

If supreme happiness lies in union with God, and the Faith is the only means of securing this, than I must perforce believe that Catholic Tradition is the most important thing on earth and in heaven.

You couldn't have said it better: It is vital for everyone on this earth, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, that Catholic Tradition continues, even if only here and there. Of course, we have been told that it will, but that the number will be very small in the end. Kyrie eleison.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #43 on:** July 14, 2012, 01:43:52 AM »

Quote from: magdalena

Quote from: Graham
If supreme happiness lies in union with God, and the Faith is the only means of securing this, than I must perforce believe that Catholic Tradition is the most important thing on earth and in heaven.

You couldn't have said it better: It is vital for everyone on this earth, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, that Catholic Tradition continues, even if only here and there. Of course, we have been told that it will, but that the number will be very small in the end. Kyrie eleison.

I remember good Catholics from long ago who would have been deeply hurt if
they had known that we would be in the state we are in today. They might have
changed their ways back then. They might have become more outspoken
against the errors of the day, which were creeping in with small steps.

I knew one woman, for example, who was a generally very devout Catholic,
and she went to daily Mass, prayed the family rosary every day, kept her
children going to confession frequently and receiving Holy Communion. But
when the new mass came along, she didn't fight it. She was suckered in
because she liked to get up there and use the microphone. She wanted to be
involved in the liturgy. She wanted to wear pant suits at Mass. She didn't like
having to wear a veil.

But now, I think that if she had then been able to see what was to come after
50 years of this, that perhaps she would have changed her ways. I'd like to think
she would have, that is.

And this applies to us today. We see Bishop Williamson excluded, and we have to
wonder: what will be the long term effect of this? How are Catholics who do not
care whether he is excluded contributing to the demise of the SSPX? Does this
lack of concern hasten the abolition of Tradition in the world?

It seems to me that it does. Tradition is torn down one brick at a time, in the main.
We see some great strides, like under the leadership of Paul VI of infalicitous
memory. But most of the trend consists in little moves, frequent, little moves, like
keeping H.E. out of the GC. That probably seems more like a disaster to H.E.
himself, but for us, we'll only know the disaster when it shows up by way of the
effects of a Chapter meeting that was impoverished by his absence.

Zenith · « **Reply #44 on:** July 14, 2012, 06:30:12 AM »

Quote from: morningstar

Quote from: Canute
Quote from: morningstar
Quote from: Canute
Quote from: Neil Obstat
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.

Three French priests to "represent" the USA, which is one of the two largest Districts!

Apart from Fr. Post, how many real Americans were members of the SSPX General Chapter?

Would the fourth be Father Griego? He is a native of New Mexico, but currently rector of Holy Cross Seminary in Australia.

I read somewhere that seminary rectors were supposed to be part of the General Chapter.

I didn't know Father Griego was an American, but Father Post is one of the oldest priests, so he would have been there. I wonder if there were any other Americans.

No capitulation without representation might be a good motto! :sign-surrender:

Yes, Fr. Griego is an American. I read somewhere, forgive me I can't recall where, that he is present at the General Chapter.

I know Fr. Griego was recently in the US and was headed to Econe after.