Author Topic: Quo vadis "Resistentia"? (Read 11295 times)

Centroamerica · « **Reply #15 on:** June 18, 2014, 01:14:15 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Matthew
Quote from: Centroamerica

Put it into context. He's talking about the pope calling him to give him a regularized position within the officially recognized Church. He's saying he would go to Rome to get it in writing if some miracle phone call giving free reign to Tradition took place.

Assuming people are reading and not skimming, everyone should know this.

For the record, if Bishop Fellay did this same thing (accepted a unilateral/one-sided official recognition and blessing from Rome, a rubber-stamp for all the SSPX is doing) no one would have had a problem with it -- least of all me.

Father Hewko rejected this kind of thinking out of hand.

So then you are saying that Fr. Hewko claims that no one should ever, under any circuмstances, speak to any church official in Rome?

Where does Fr. Hewko say anything like this?

Centroamerica · « **Reply #16 on:** June 18, 2014, 01:20:01 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Father Hewko rejected this kind of thinking out of hand.

[/color]

Excuse me?

Is "Out of hand" an adverbial phrase modifying the verb "to reject" or is the phrase "out of hand" an adjective clause that describes the noun in gerund form- "thinking"??

s2srea · « **Reply #17 on:** June 18, 2014, 01:39:20 PM »

Quote from: Cristian

Bp Williamson said:
If…, if…, if… by some miracle, Pope Francis rang me up next week and said:

—You Excellency, you and I have had our divergences, but right now I am authorizing you to found a society. You go right ahead for the good of the Church.

—Holy Father, can I have that in writing? Do you mind if I come to Rome and get that with your signature?

—Yes, of course.

—Alright, then I’d be on the next plane to Rome. I’d be on the next plane to Rome!

But without that, “row up a creek without a paddle”.

I don't know what the big deal is here. If the pope were to grant jurisdiction to traditionalists, to +Williamson, no strings attached. There would be nothing wrong with getting it in writing. Matthew is 100% on point here. We're not talking about a working relationship. We're talking about having canonical recognition; no doctrinal preamble; no recognition of the NO as licit; no placing this particular group of priests under the dioscean authorities; no GREC; no pursuing recognition for its own sake (I think its safe to assume in this example, the Pope would reach out to the bishop more or less randomly), no strings attached.

The "signature" is essentially to say- lets make your command to restore Tradition 'official'. If some moddie-bishop tries to stop us, I got your name behind me.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #18 on:** June 18, 2014, 01:44:01 PM »

This post is a clear example of the general ignorance of those who oppose the resistance.

Matthew · « **Reply #19 on:** June 18, 2014, 02:50:01 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Matthew
Quote from: Centroamerica

Put it into context. He's talking about the pope calling him to give him a regularized position within the officially recognized Church. He's saying he would go to Rome to get it in writing if some miracle phone call giving free reign to Tradition took place.

Assuming people are reading and not skimming, everyone should know this.

For the record, if Bishop Fellay did this same thing (accepted a unilateral/one-sided official recognition and blessing from Rome, a rubber-stamp for all the SSPX is doing) no one would have had a problem with it -- least of all me.

Father Hewko rejected this kind of thinking out of hand.

Says you. Source?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #20 on:** June 18, 2014, 03:35:55 PM »

When +W was here he said if there were talks with Rome, they should be "you're a pack of damned liars." Rats, he called them.

And now if Bergoglio calls on him to "fix the Church" he'd come running? What's the difference between +W and +F then? One's "bad willed" and Bishop Williamson is just naive? I'm seriously asking. I don't see it.

If memory serves, Archbishop Lefebvre had a limo sent for him in 1988 during the talks over the protocol. He didn't get into the limo. Think he'd have lived long enough to get out of it?

And Bishop Williamson thinks something has changed between April last year and now where if he's called to "fix the Church" he'll come running to the people he calls liars and rats?

I thought the driving force behind the SSPX Resistance was that there could not be a "deal" until Rome converted. Is that true or not? Depends on who you ask, I guess.

ETA: If a "deal" with Rome is acceptable before it converts, then the whole "principle vs. prudence" canard is just that, a canard. There is no principle by which a deal cannot be reached before Rome converts, it's just a question of how prudent such a deal would be.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #21 on:** June 18, 2014, 03:47:22 PM »

And if there's no principle, there's really no resistance properly called. It's merely a division of priests based on the best practical approach to the situation. Any apparent liberalization in the SSPX should be fought from within the SSPX, just as if VII was merely "misinterpreted" or "misapplied" any sort of resistance should occur within the VII Church, rather than from without. Otherwise it's just more revolution.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #22 on:** June 18, 2014, 04:08:55 PM »

Actually, maybe +W is saying he could not head a society without Francis' permission.

Which is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard, but quite a bit different from saying that he would go to Rome [to fight from w/in the New Church] if Francis enlisted his help.

Or maybe there's not a difference?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #23 on:** June 18, 2014, 05:02:06 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Actually, maybe +W is saying he could not head a society without Francis' permission.

Which is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard, but quite a bit different from saying that he would go to Rome [to fight from w/in the New Church] if Francis enlisted his help.

Or maybe there's not a difference?

Didn't mean to sound too harsh there.

IF +W is meaning to say that he could not be the head of a priestly group without Francis' permission, I have to wonder just how exactly he justifies anything else that he does, or has done. It makes no sense at all.

Of course, neither does incorporating one's self into the NewChurch in order to "fix" it. What a mess.

awkwardcustomer · « **Reply #24 on:** June 18, 2014, 05:28:58 PM »

Ladislaus,

Regarding your comment that +Williamson is raising funds to build a lavish residence in London.

+Williamson certainly raised funds to buy a modest house in Broadstairs, which is on the Kent coast, some 70 miles from London. This far corner of Kent is probably one of the cheapest areas for property in the south-east of England. Elsewhere prices are through the roof.

If +Williamson is also raising funds to build a lavish property in London, this must be a new and entirely separate project for which he's going to need millions of pounds, given current property prices in that city.

Graham · « **Reply #25 on:** June 18, 2014, 05:52:19 PM »

Bishop Williamson must be speaking of founding a society. He will not do that without authorization by Rome, and since he will not seek or receive such authorization, he says "get used to" the idea of a loose cooperation under his moral authority.

Graham · « **Reply #26 on:** June 18, 2014, 05:59:32 PM »

A few posters, attempting to defend Bp. Williamson's ill-framed remarks, seem to have inadvertently stated that a practical agreement sans doctrinal resolution is actually acceptable, contrary to everything the Resistance has been saying for 2+years. Another has reaffirmed the myth that traditionalists are in an "irregular" position in relation to Modernist Rome. We must reject these notions.

Ambrose · « **Reply #27 on:** June 18, 2014, 06:50:36 PM »

Quote from: Cristian

See from 49:25 to 50:43...

Bp Williamson said:

Quote
Can you imagine that commanding Resistant priests is liking trying to herd cats?

Can you imagine?

Is it unimaginable?

In which case, is it worth trying if it is bound to fail?

It may be better not to attempt than to attempt and fail.

Some of you may think it would be better to attempt because it might succeed.

I don’t have the authority.

If…, if…, if… by some miracle, Pope Francis rang me up next week and said:

—You Excellency, you and I have had our divergences, but right now I am authorizing you to found a society. You go right ahead for the good of the Church.

—Holy Father, can I have that in writing? Do you mind if I come to Rome and get that with your signature?

—Yes, of course.

—Alright, then I’d be on the next plane to Rome. I’d be on the next plane to Rome!

But without that, “row up a creek without a paddle”.

And it is not a solution.

So, in what is called the Resistance movement, you’re going to have a problem of authority.

Get used to the idea.

If anyone sees any difference with +Fellay let me know...

Good post, Cristian!

Centroamerica · « **Reply #28 on:** June 18, 2014, 06:59:00 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

who you ask, I guess.

ETA: If a "deal" with Rome is acceptable before it converts, then the whole "principle vs. prudence" canard is just that, a canard. There is no principle by which a deal cannot be reached before Rome converts, it's just a question of how prudent such a deal would be.

I'm sorry that no one had responded to all the comments and confusions that you, Grahmam, and others posted here. I think that Matthew and others grew exhausted with having to explain and explain and s-p-e-l-l-e-v-e-r-y-t-h-I-n-g-o-u-t-f-o-r-y-o-u, but the general assumption is this:

If Francis calls +Williamson and is ready to give him free reign in the Church and restore the Church in every diocese, then he would have already converted. There will be no deal, no deal will be necessary. The resistance has always claimed this. There is no need to negotiate with Rome, when modernist Rome converts they will realize that Tradition is correct and take the necessary steps to ending the crisis. (Written permission authorizing Bishop Williamson to function within the dioceses would only be given to +Williamson after a conversion of Rome!)

I think that sometimes the subjects and topics that Mons. Williamson discusses are too difficult for some of the posters on this thread. If you look back through starting with what was quoted from + Williamson all the way to this comment, you will see a pattern of the same people being confused and taking simple phrases and isolating them out of context and trying to microanalyze them to say something "horrible" and then not quite understanding any of the discussion.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #29 on:** June 18, 2014, 08:43:09 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

I think that sometimes the subjects and topics that Mons. Williamson discusses are too difficult for some of the posters on this thread.

Utter BS.

This is clearly a statement of practical agreement without the conversion of Rome back to Tradition.