Author Topic: Novus Ordo Eucharistic Miracle (talk by Bp Williamson) (Read 8275 times)

JPaul · « **Reply #30 on:** July 26, 2018, 07:36:17 PM »

Quote from: X on July 26, 2018, 06:23:02 AM

If the Wessex’s and JPaul’s of the world want to pretend that sedeprivationism is not sedevacantism, or if they want to create some other -ism to describe themselves, it’s all the same to me:
“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

Perhaps, we do not choose to adopt an "ism", as you put it. A Catholic who is not a member of any cult or ill formed association, but a person who has not lost the use of his reason and ability to think critically might better sum things up.
Folks such as yourself, have been captured by myths, and must always find a category into which you can place this or that individual, who has anything to say which does not comport with the sectarian narratives of the past three or four decades.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #31 on:** July 26, 2018, 07:44:38 PM »

Quote from: X on July 26, 2018, 05:50:15 AM

I agree that when +BW came to the Resistance and changed its mission from carrying on the true SSPX apostolate to a disintegrating band of loosely affiliated independents, it was the death knell for the movement:

It was doomed to go the way of all independents: It dies when the independent dies.

And with the principle of authority willingly jettisoned, well, look around you today.

But let’s not pretend the problem was something inherent in Lefebvre’s approach (like his refusal to become sedevacantist, perhaps?):

The SSPX still has the same steady stream of 200 seminarians and 25-30 ordinations/year.

This clearly shows that (contrary to what +BW says), the concept of authority, seminaries, and raw material is not depleted or obsolete. Quite the opposite: Who makes a better show of excessive “obedience” and hierarchy than the rank and file SSPX clergy and seminarians?

Men still volunteer from all over the world, and consequently, it is as impossible to agree with +BW in this regard as it is to fault Archbishop Lefebvre’s approach (which is really just passive-aggressive sour grapes that he never endorsed sedevacantism.

Numbers are only one measure of success. When Bp W was thrown under the bus by Bp Fellay and there was no uprising among the hundred-plus priests who were trained in this manner, one rightly might conclude that the approach was less than a complete success.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #32 on:** July 26, 2018, 08:20:18 PM »

Quote from: apollo on July 24, 2018, 07:44:06 AM

However, I'm not sure which came first: the criticism of Bp Williamson or the refusal to work with Fr Pfieffer.

"Refusal" is only Fr. Pfeiffer's word. Bp Williamson gave conditions that would need to be met in order to support Fr. Pfeiffer's seminary and those conditions were never met. Ancient history at this point.

JPaul · « **Reply #33 on:** July 26, 2018, 09:46:41 PM »

Father Pfeiffer's support never materialized from the very beginning. That is a fact, but too much water has passed the dam so now it does not matter.

Meg · « **Reply #34 on:** July 28, 2018, 10:20:42 AM »

Quote from: Wessex on July 28, 2018, 05:23:36 AM

Conflicting personalities. The bishop brooks no opposition and collects toadies. Father speaks his mind in the manner of early activists.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Fr. Pfeiffer speaks his mind in the manner of early activists. To whom are to referring, regarding early activists?

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Novus Ordo Eucharistic Miracle (talk by Bp Williamson) (Read 8275 times)

JPaul

Re: Novus Ordo Eucharistic Miracle (talk by Bp Williamson)

MaterDominici

Re: Novus Ordo Eucharistic Miracle (talk by Bp Williamson)

MaterDominici

Re: Novus Ordo Eucharistic Miracle (talk by Bp Williamson)

JPaul

Re: Novus Ordo Eucharistic Miracle (talk by Bp Williamson)

Meg

Re: Novus Ordo Eucharistic Miracle (talk by Bp Williamson)