Can anyone say who these priests are?  It looks like names written at the bottom,
but they're not very legible to me.  The priest in the front row on the left looks
familiar, but I don't recall what his name might be -- Fr. Vandernalli?? ..................  :confused1:

It appears to be in French, and the title looks like "Corps Professoral"

Would that be "The Professors' Corps?"

Hey, Adolphus, whoever you are (because I for one don't have a clue), what makes *me* very suspicious of someone being an agent provocateur is when they start goading me and others on to action.

I only honestly expressed my thought.  I'm sorry if someone felt aggressed, but it was not my intention.

I understand many of you, who participate in this forum, consider +Williamson a very trustable bishop and agree with most —if not all— of what he says.

Well, I do agree with many of his writings.  But I try to keep my eyes open, since I was already fooled once by Bp. Fellay.  There are things made by +Williamson that I just cannot accept, like admitting the excommunications being effective or like celebrating with a Te Deum a motu proprio which humiliated the Tridentine Mass comparing it with the Paul IV's bastard mass.

I cannot accept a bishop's recommendation of a prohibited book included in the Index, book promoted by Fr. Bea and condemned by Card. Ottaviani.

I completely agree with him about attending SSPX Mass centers for the moment. Why would we leave? Nothing has changed at my chapel. I would be  a home aloner looking for an excuse if I were to leave right now.

That is your opinion and I respect it.  In fact I didn't mean to leave now.  What I said is that the priests should warn the faithful about today's danger and risks and that +Williamson recommend them to do so.  Also I said that His Excellence's advice to the SSPX laity to attend SSPX Masses for the time being, watching out for the moment while their faith is not threaten is out of context, since it has been obvious that for many of us, faithful, is hard to know when our faith is threaten.

Things might not have changed in your chapel, but that is not the case in some other places.  Also, there is always the possibility that things had changed without the laity being aware of the changes.

And why shouldn't the priests hang tight for a few weeks? +W got expelled let see... 6 days ago. It takes a bit of time to set up bank accounts, arrange for living quarters, a new headquarters, etc.

+Williamson´s expulsion was expected long time ago.  There was at least one admonitory letter.  In fact, this division was announced since 2003 at least.  Anyway, I'm not asking too much: a recommendation for the priests to warn the laity, to reread ABL's writings.

Quote from: Adolphus

His recommendation to read Valtorta's book, which was disapproved by the Church en 1949 and then included in the Index in 1959.  Bp. Williamson has recommended this book at least two times.

In 1948 Pope Pius XII gave verbal permission for the book to be published according to three credible witnesses who signed a statement to that effect. When it was put on the index, the stated reason was that it hadn't been issued an imprimatur. Apparently the reason for that was that the publisher was in a big hurry to get it published and sent it straight to Rome without getting the local ordinary to sign off on it first. Anyway, it's not a straightforward story, with much more than meets the eye, and Vatican politics involved.

I'm sorry, but the verbal permission is unacceptable.  Who says so?  Those interested in publishing the book.  It is hard to believe that the pope, without having read the whole writing would have ordered to be printed.  You call three credible witnesses, but I wonder what makes you qualify them as credible.

What has been docuмented is that, in 1949 the Holy Office refused to give the Imprimatur.  The book was printed anyway and then included in the Index.

The book contains confusing ideas, to say the least.  Why to recommend it?  Aren't there many other books without confusing ideas?

+Williamson said that even Maria Valtorta wasn't sure about who had inspired her the writings: God or Satan.

Quote from: MiserereMeiDeus

Quote from: Adolphus

His recommendation to read Valtorta's book, which was disapproved by the Church en 1949 and then included in the Index in 1959.  Bp. Williamson has recommended this book at least two times.

In 1948 Pope Pius XII gave verbal permission for the book to be published according to three credible witnesses who signed a statement to that effect. When it was put on the index, the stated reason was that it hadn't been issued an imprimatur. Apparently the reason for that was that the publisher was in a big hurry to get it published and sent it straight to Rome without getting the local ordinary to sign off on it first. Anyway, it's not a straightforward story, with much more than meets the eye, and Vatican politics involved.

I'm sorry, but the verbal permission is unacceptable.  Who says so?  Those interested in publishing the book.  It is hard to believe that the pope, without having read the whole writing would have ordered to be printed.  You call three credible witnesses, but I wonder what makes you qualify them as credible.

What has been docuмented is that, in 1949 the Holy Office refused to give the Imprimatur.  The book was printed anyway and then included in the Index.

The book contains confusing ideas, to say the least.  Why to recommend it?  Aren't there many other books without confusing ideas?

+Williamson said that even Maria Valtorta wasn't sure about who had inspired her the writings: God or Satan.

Dear Adolphus,

You are obviously not a native English speaker.  I agree with you inasmuch as
sometimes the writings of +Williamson in English (a language in which he is most
eminently accomplished) are not that easily understood in English by other native
English speakers.  But when you translate them into other languages, it can only
get worse, as you probably know.  This applies to everything he writes, as it
applies to everything everyone else writes as well, but for +W, whose words are
not arranged as any pedestrian author would do, it is even more challenging.

Most readers of the EC 275 saw and heard it pretty much as you did, and so I
must admit, I did as well -- at first.  

I put it aside for a day, and came back to it, and lo, I saw quite a horse of
quite a different color.   Does that mean there had been a brown horse before,
and now there is a white horse, instead?  This is an example of how words can
mean quite something different from what they mean at first glance.  

I can offer two examples right away.

...a few readers wrote in to ask just how homes might be fortified. In fact various spiritual and material means of defending home and family have been suggested in previous numbers of the “Comments”, notably of course the Holy Rosary, but one fortification has gone unmentioned which I think I would try in place of television if I had a family to defend: reading aloud each night to the children selected chapters from Maria Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God. And when we had reached the end of the five volumes in English, I imagine us starting again from the beginning, and so on, until all the children had left home !

Did he suggest reading this Poem in its entirety to children of all ages? No.
Did he recommend that it is better than the Rosary?  No.
What did he recommend?  He said that INSTEAD of Television, to "defend" your
family (from modern worldliness and associated attacks of the devil) selected
chapters (!) of the Poem could be read aloud.  Did he say which chapters? No.

Did he explain how you can know if a given chapter is appropriate for YOUR age?
No, he did not.

So how are Catholic families supposed to use this advice to their benefit if they
don't know which parts of the Poem to read and which parts they should NOT
read???

ECs are not meant for those who are entirely disconnected from the current
challenges to the Faith.  If you live in a remote place and don't want to be up
with the times, then fine, read your Bible, pray your Rosary and keep the TV off.
But most of us are not like that.  We who are keeping up with the news know that
Bishops Fellay and DiNoia and Mueller all agree that Vatican II has many
redeeming qualities and we should line up like lemmings to avail ourselves of
the fabulous new 'plenary indulgence' for contemplating Vatican II docuмents
this year.  Does the 'plenary indulgence' say which parts of the Vat.II docs are
not decent material for the faithful to read? No, it does not.

If you are familiar with the style of +Williamson, you would know immediately,
or at least upon due reflection, that what he is actually saying here is that
Reading Vat.II docs because they say you can get an indulgence is just about
as safe as reading Valtorta's Poem of the Man God to your children because a
bishop says it can "fortify your home" -- for you know that there are DANGEROUS
parts of Vat.II docs and there are DANGEROUS parts of the Poem, but you are
not qualified to judge which parts those are!!   So how can you know when not
to read a sentence or two in either one?  You CAN'T!

From the reading of chapters of the Poem selected according to the children’s age, I can imagine almost no end to how much they could learn about Our Lord and Our Lady. And the questions they would ask ! And the answers that the parents would have to come up with !

Does he say here that what they would 'learn' about Our Lord and Our Lady
would necessarily be all 'good' things by your reading of even "selected chapters"
that MAY be appropriate for their age group (and then again, maybe not!)?
No, he does not.  

And the questions they would ask -- would be all nice, easy questions, right?
No, that is incorrect: he did not say they would.

And the answers the parents would have to come up with would always be the
kind of answers that lead their children TOWARD the faith, instead of AWAY from
it, correct?  No, that is INCORRECT.

In summary, if you do start reading the Poem to your family, you may:
~ be reading material inappropriate for their age, if you guess wrong;
~ be better off just praying the Rosary together;
~ likely select inappropriate chapters for any age, even your OWN age;
~ soon discover that you just never know when any sentence will scandalize you;
~ find your children learning EVIL things about Our Lord and Our Lady from the Poem;
~ be faced with difficult challenges to answer your children well;
~ discover your reading is pushing your children away from the faith.

Does it still look like he is recommending that you read the Poem to your family?


Now, I don't know how this EC looks to a Frenchman in French or a Spaniard
in Spanish, but I do know that you don't have to depend on Googlebabbleator
to get French or Spanish versions.  They're available on the EC website.

And furthermore, it is now evident that this EC 275 was a warm-up to his
OPEN LETTER TO BISHOP FELLAY ON AN "EXCLUSION" which is not quite as
cryptic as EC 275, but it does have its own hurdles to share.  In other words,
if you could make it through the Poem (poetry often does not say what it seems
to say by looking only at the words it contains!) EC 275, and know that he is
NOT really expecting you to read that drivel to your children, then you would
most likely be able to read the OPEN LETTER and know that you are not
misunderstanding that too.  

However, if you read EC 275 and come away miffed that he's recommending
that you corrupt your family by following his advice, then perhaps you ought to
just take a powder* on the OPEN LETTER, because it's most likely it will go right
over your head.  




*take a powder is an American English idiom that has nothing to do with
moving finely ground substances, used for dusting purposes, from one place
to another.

Most readers of the EC 275 saw and heard it pretty much as you did, and so I must admit, I did as well -- at first.

Well, this is something +Williamson should be aware of.  The language is just a tool to express ideas, and if the language he uses is expressing different ideas of those he want to share, then he needs either to educate his interlocutors (readers in this case) or to change his language.

Did he suggest reading this Poem in its entirety to children of all ages? No.
Did he recommend that it is better than the Rosary?  No.
What did he recommend?  He said that INSTEAD of Television, to "defend" your
family (from modern worldliness and associated attacks of the devil) selected
chapters (!) of the Poem could be read aloud.  Did he say which chapters? No.

Did he explain how you can know if a given chapter is appropriate for YOUR age?
No, he did not.

In fact, H. E. does not even warn us about some chapters to be avoided.  Certainly he says "selected chapters", but does not explicitly warn about some chapters being dangerous to the reader.

If you are familiar with the style of +Williamson, you would know immediately, or at least upon due reflection, that what he is actually saying here is that Reading Vat.II docs because they say you can get an indulgence is just about as safe as reading Valtorta's Poem of the Man God to your children because a bishop says it can "fortify your home" -- for you know that there are DANGEROUS parts of Vat.II docs and there are DANGEROUS parts of the Poem, but you are not qualified to judge which parts those are!!

Sorry, but I don't see where H. E. says or even suggests that the Poem is dangerous.  In fact, he makes an apology of the book, a very weak defense, though.  And this Eleison comment is not the only one presenting the Poem as a work worth to read.

Does he say here that what they would 'learn' about Our Lord and Our Lady would necessarily be all 'good' things by your reading of even "selected chapters" that MAY be appropriate for their age group (and then again, maybe not!)? No, he does not.

Does he say that some chapters might be inappropriate?  No, he does not.

Does he say the book contains heresies?  No, he does not.  But he does say the seeming doctrinal errors are not difficult to explain.

In summary, if you do start reading the Poem to your family, you may:
~ be reading material inappropriate for their age, if you guess wrong;
~ be better off just praying the Rosary together;
~ likely select inappropriate chapters for any age, even your OWN age;
~ soon discover that you just never know when any sentence will scandalize you;
~ find your children learning EVIL things about Our Lord and Our Lady from the Poem;
~ be faced with difficult challenges to answer your children well;
~ discover your reading is pushing your children away from the faith.

Does it still look like he is recommending that you read the Poem to your family?

I just find difficult to believe HE's comment can be summarized as you did.  And this does not change whether I read it in English or in another language.

And furthermore, it is now evident that this EC 275 was a warm-up to his
OPEN LETTER TO BISHOP FELLAY ON AN "EXCLUSION" which is not quite as
cryptic as EC 275, but it does have its own hurdles to share.  In other words,
if you could make it through the Poem (poetry often does not say what it seems
to say by looking only at the words it contains!)

The book is not really a poem.  The word "poem" was used only for marketing purposes.

know that he is
NOT really expecting you to read that drivel to your children, then you would
most likely be able to read the OPEN LETTER and know that you are not
misunderstanding that too.

You seem to be sure you have interpreted EC 275 very well.  I wonder why so many persons have interpreted in a very different way.  Persons including priests.

However, if you read EC 275 and come away miffed that he's recommending
that you corrupt your family by following his advice, then perhaps you ought to
just take a powder* on the OPEN LETTER, because it's most likely it will go right over your head.

I don't have problems reading the open letter.  I'm not saying that +Williamson is recommending to corrupt our families.  But

~ having signed a letter to thank BXVI for the lifting of the excommunications,
~ having sung the Te Deum to thank the deplorable Summorum pontificuм,
~ having said this motu proprio is favorable to the Tradition,
~ having presenting Maria Valtorta's book as something good to read,
~ having referred to BXVI as a pope with traditional heart but modernist head,

Bp. Williamson does not seem to be very trustable...

That's why I said I didn't know what to think of His Excellency.