Author Topic: Quo vadis "Resistentia"? (Read 11287 times)

Luker · « **Reply #60 on:** June 21, 2014, 01:47:01 PM »

Quote

Quote from: Cristian

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!

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

I have read through this thread again trying to understand what Bp Williamson might have meant by this but I still don't understand how this is any way different than Bp. Fellay and the 'neo-SSPX' attitude towards an agreement. I thought the principle of the Resistance was supposed to be, in contrast to the supposed new attitude of the Society, "NO practical agreement without Rome converting back to the Faith" Not we have to wait for a 'no-strings attached deal with the modernists in Rome'.

I would have expected a theoretical phone conversation between Francis and Bp Williamson to look something more like this:

Francis: Your 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.

Bp Williamson: So... how about that Syllabus of Errors by Pius IX ? You on board with that now ?

Francis: What's a Syllabus of Errors ? That sounds pretty divisive.

Bp Williamson: Oookay then, lets move along.

Francis: Hey, we are doing a new Assisi meeting next year, you guys want in ? There is going to be fireworks this time !!

Bp Williamson: *Click*

So can someone explain just what it is we are missing? So now 'no strings attached' practical agreements have apparently never been 'anathema' to the Resistance ?

The other point that has me confused is why is it the Resistance would need canonical recognition from the modernists in Rome at all? I had thought that the Resistance was supposed to be the true Society of St Pius X that is carrying on the work of Archbishop Lefebvre in keeping up the traditional priesthood and sacraments ? I had thought it was the 'neo-SSPX' that had changed and departed from the mission of the good Archbishop ? So apparently it is not the actual continuation of the true SSPX, the Resistance is then something entirely new and that needs a fresh canonical recognition to found a new organization ?

I will admit to being really confused as to just what the core principles of the Resistance is supposed to be about.

Adolphus · « **Reply #61 on:** June 21, 2014, 03:57:01 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: Adolphus
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.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but that is exactly what Bp. Fellay said too...

You have to read the whole discussion and listen to the conference to understand.

He's speaking regarding his authority as a bishop to establish or erect an order of priests, because people bring it up everywhere he goes.

He's speaking hypothetically to give an example in the discussion about whether or not if Francis called him asking for him to help restore the Church; he would be skeptical and get it in writing.

That is all.

A couple of people want to quote it out of context and blame the good bishop for this or that.

It's been explained repeatedly on this thread, but people without understanding continue to speak confusion.

They both, Bp. Fellay and Bp. Williamson were speaking hypothetically ("If the pope...").

They both appeared to have forgotten that the letter the SSPX sent to Card. Gantin in 1988 stated:

Quote

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.

Just as they both (along with the other two bishops) forgot that the same letter declared:

Quote

To be publicly associated with this sanction which is inflicted upon the six Catholic Bishops, Defenders of the Faith in its integrity and wholeness, would be for us a mark of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful

when the four bishops signed a letter to thank BXVI for the lifting of the excommunications accepting explicitly that such excommunications were effective during twenty years...

Graham · « **Reply #62 on:** June 21, 2014, 04:29:29 PM »

Everyone take a deep breath. I have given the correct interpretation. It is not a position statement on his desire or willingness to make a practical agreement with the modernists. It is simply a badly worded rhetorical point about jurisdiction.

The only interesting question here is whether he is correct about jurisdiction. Not whether he's a shill, controlled opposition, a sellout, etc.. If supplied jurisdiction allows him to found a religious order (which still sounds dubious to me), and if his doing so would be a good thing, let's hear about that.

holysoulsacademy · « **Reply #63 on:** June 21, 2014, 05:22:58 PM »

The bishop was basically talking about waiting for permission from Rome to head or start a society of priests. He did not mean that he was about to enter into a practical agreement with Rome. My understanding is that he is waiting for a sign from those in authority to start or head a society just like the Archbishop got a sign from the local bishop to start the society. He is not willing to make that decision now and take charge. He needs a clearer sign from God that this is what God wants him to do. And since he does not have any of the same signs or very similar signs that the archbishop had he feels it is prudent to wait until then. At least that is my understanding, I was there for that speech.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #64 on:** June 21, 2014, 07:32:35 PM »

Idiots would be an understatement for some of the people who have posted on this thread. Idiots!

Graham · « **Reply #65 on:** June 21, 2014, 07:42:26 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Idiots would be an understatement for some of the people who have posted on this thread. Idiots!

Who would they be?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #66 on:** June 21, 2014, 08:32:43 PM »

Quote from: Graham

Everyone take a deep breath. I have given the correct interpretation. It is not a position statement on his desire or willingness to make a practical agreement with the modernists. It is simply a badly worded rhetorical point about jurisdiction.

The only interesting question here is whether he is correct about jurisdiction. Not whether he's a shill, controlled opposition, a sellout, etc.. If supplied jurisdiction allows him to found a religious order (which still sounds dubious to me), and if his doing so would be a good thing, let's hear about that.

It wouldn't be a religious order-- it would be a priestly group. And the priestly group already exists, or rather, many priestly groups already exist. He would not be founding anything.

Just what exactly does he need jurisdiction for? I gave a long list of actions which he's been performing his entire clerical career that he has never had jurisdiction to perform, and has always relied on the Church to supply it for him. Would he, as the "leader" of an already established group of priest, suddenly be faced with performing actions he has never had to perform before, and that he thinks he can only perform with the blessing of a notorious and miserable pantheistic heretic?

I've never demanded an explanation from H.E. for why he's chosen to proceed with a hands off approach. In fact, so long as he continues to perform episcopal duties for the faithful who require them, I honestly don't think it makes a whole lot of difference. But having been given such a woefully inadequate and disturbing one, it's hard to be content and not wonder just exactly what is going on.