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.  

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.

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.

The issue is that, despite RUMORS to the contrary back in 2012, that is not what was on the table. Such a hypothetical is just that -- a hypothetical and a ridiculous, unrealistic pipe dream to boot.

The fact of the matter is, the SSPX is NOT contemplating such an "instant recognition from Rome with no obligations on our side". No, they are exiling priests, kicking out 25% of the bishops because of "politically incorrect beliefs", purging bookstores, changing official teachings on Vatican II, preaching pro-Vatican II, diverging from Abp. Lefebvre on many points including the Pope question, becoming dogmatic sedeplenists, chasing "numbers", human respect and fame with projects like the Disneyland seminary, etc.

So it's a moot point. The SSPX is already "giving" on its side -- it's not just receiving a unilateral recognition from Rome. It's too late for that.

If I went up to my neighbor and gave him $200 every day, trying to woo him into giving me his tractor, and after several months he finally gives it to me, can I really celebrate that I got a "free tractor"? Once I shell out the first several thousand dollars, it's no longer a "free tractor" even if the neighbor ends up giving it to me. Understand?

I mean, don't we all wish for such a sweetheart deal! But it can't happen now. The SSPX has already compromised in exchange (past tense).

On the other hand, we have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecuмenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this. We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly. We believe in the One God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and we will always remain faithful to His unique Spouse, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.

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.