Author Topic: Quo vadis "Resistentia"? (Read 16755 times)

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #45 on:** June 19, 2014, 10:43:57 PM »

Quote from: Graham

Quote from: Ladislaus
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.

No, he is talking - in a jumbled way, it's true - about authorization being necessary for the foundation of a society. This has been a running issue - you have many people pressuring him to organize a group, a new SSPX, and he responds that he has no authority (or desire) to do so, and so they will have to live with a loose association. Surely you recall many of these discussions on this very forum over the past two years. I believe this is the correct context for these comments of his.

Graham,

I must thank you for making the most sense explaining what he meant (which I'm glad you admit is jumbled).

But I can't pretend that it makes any sense. If +W is too tired, or too old, or too whatever to be actively involved in something, then so be it. But here he is making his case by saying that he cannot lead an organized priestly society because he doesn't have the permission of probably the most notorious heretic and blasphemer (barely) masquerading as a Christian since Martin Luther.

It doesn't even make sense according to the sedeplenist position. Bishop Fellay doesn't have a problem leading the SSPX without Francis' permission. Every effort of the SSPX as a priestly group is against the laws of the Novus Ordo Church and its popes. They invoke epikeia or supplied jurisdiction for literally all of their acts.

They haven't the authority to erect places of worship.
They haven't the authority to celebrate mass.
They haven't the authority to preach.
They haven't the authority witness marriages.
They haven't the authority to prepare couples for marriage.
They haven't the authority to train priests.
They haven't the authority to ordain priests.
They haven't the authority to hear confessions.
They haven't the authority to hold religious retreats.
They haven't the authority to publish their theological works.
They haven't the authority to perform confirmations.
They haven't the authority to perform episcopal consecrations.
They haven't the authority to minister to the sick.
They haven't the authority to baptize.
They haven't the authority to bless sacramentals.
They haven't the authority to enroll you in the scapular.

It is insulting to be expected to believe that somehow ALL of the above can be done indefinitely, constantly, without the approval of the Vatican or the local ordinary and actually against that very authority, but somehow being the leader (moral, official, unofficial or otherwise) of a group of priests is something you need permission for.

Graham · « **Reply #46 on:** June 20, 2014, 07:08:02 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: Graham
Quote from: Ladislaus
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.

No, he is talking - in a jumbled way, it's true - about authorization being necessary for the foundation of a society. This has been a running issue - you have many people pressuring him to organize a group, a new SSPX, and he responds that he has no authority (or desire) to do so, and so they will have to live with a loose association. Surely you recall many of these discussions on this very forum over the past two years. I believe this is the correct context for these comments of his.

Graham,

I must thank you for making the most sense explaining what he meant (which I'm glad you admit is jumbled).

But I can't pretend that it makes any sense. If +W is too tired, or too old, or too whatever to be actively involved in something, then so be it. But here he is making his case by saying that he cannot lead an organized priestly society because he doesn't have the permission of probably the most notorious heretic and blasphemer (barely) masquerading as a Christian since Martin Luther.

It doesn't even make sense according to the sedeplenist position. Bishop Fellay doesn't have a problem leading the SSPX without Francis' permission. Every effort of the SSPX as a priestly group is against the laws of the Novus Ordo Church and its popes. They invoke epikeia or supplied jurisdiction for literally all of their acts.

They haven't the authority to erect places of worship.
They haven't the authority to celebrate mass.
They haven't the authority to preach.
They haven't the authority witness marriages.
They haven't the authority to prepare couples for marriage.
They haven't the authority to train priests.
They haven't the authority to ordain priests.
They haven't the authority to hear confessions.
They haven't the authority to hold religious retreats.
They haven't the authority to publish their theological works.
They haven't the authority to perform confirmations.
They haven't the authority to perform episcopal consecrations.
They haven't the authority to minister to the sick.
They haven't the authority to baptize.
They haven't the authority to bless sacramentals.
They haven't the authority to enroll you in the scapular.

It is insulting to be expected to believe that somehow ALL of the above can be done indefinitely, constantly, without the approval of the Vatican or the local ordinary and actually against that very authority, but somehow being the leader (moral, official, unofficial or otherwise) of a group of priests is something you need permission for.

Is there some difference between providing sacraments, preaching, and so on, and founding a religious order with a rule and a hierarchy, such that supplied jurisdiction might not apply to the latter? I don't know, but it seems like there could be. I do know that ++Lefebvre placed some kind of importance on his belief that the SSPX was canonically founded, and only doubtfully dissolved. I'm just trying to understand + Williamson's perspective here.

Nishant · « **Reply #47 on:** June 20, 2014, 08:57:43 AM »

I listened to a bit of a sermon, and it is excellent, but I don't think it is consistent with what many Resistance priests have maintained in the course of the earlier back and forth polemics with the Society. His Excellency +Williamson states precisely what the SSPX is stating today, and has always stated, - that if a regularized structure without compromise is possible, it can be accepted for the good of the Church.

Fr. Hewko was cited earlier in this thread and Fr. Chazal likewise said, "Since that fateful month of may 2012 my specific intent has always remained the same : “That the SSPX and the New Rome remain separate until Rome converts”. http://www.therecusant.com/fr-chazal-war-aims A brief Google search shows Fr. Pfeiffer among others who have expressed themselves in a similar way. Just recently, there was an article by the Dominicans of Avrille posted here against His Excellency +Fellay considering even a simple ad-hoc "recognition of tolerance". So how does one maintain that such a hypothetical Roman proposal should absolutely be refused, while thinking a hypothetical Roman proposal for a structure for the Resistance would be a good and acceptable thing?

clare · « **Reply #48 on:** June 20, 2014, 09:06:20 AM »

Imagine the Resistance being regularised before the SSPX! :scratchchin:

Graham · « **Reply #49 on:** June 20, 2014, 09:19:21 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

I listened to a bit of a sermon, and it is excellent, but I don't think it is consistent with what many Resistance priests have maintained in the course of the earlier back and forth polemics with the Society. His Excellency +Williamson states precisely what the SSPX is stating today, and has always stated, - that if a regularized structure without compromise is possible, it can be accepted for the good of the Church.

Fr. Hewko was cited earlier in this thread and Fr. Chazal likewise said, "Since that fateful month of may 2012 my specific intent has always remained the same : “That the SSPX and the New Rome remain separate until Rome converts”. http://www.therecusant.com/fr-chazal-war-aims A brief Google search shows Fr. Pfeiffer among others who have expressed themselves in a similar way. Just recently, there was an article by the Dominicans of Avrille posted here against His Excellency +Fellay considering even a simple ad-hoc "recognition of tolerance". So how does one maintain that such a hypothetical Roman proposal should absolutely be refused, while thinking a hypothetical Roman proposal for a structure for the Resistance would be a good and acceptable thing?

I maintain that +Williamson is employing an exaggerated rhetorical device to explain his view that ordinary jurisdiction is required to found a religious order. I don't believe he is making a real position statement about his willingness to deal with modernist Rome, since that would contradict especially the last 2+ years of his life in the resistance, and of his teaching before that. Remember that actions speak louder than words.