Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson  (Read 162873 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline ElwinRansom1970

  • Supporter
  • ***
  • Posts: 973
  • Reputation: +735/-141
  • Gender: Male
  • γνῶθι σεαυτόν - temet nosce
Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
« Reply #105 on: February 04, 2025, 06:25:33 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Regarding the original theme of this thread, the falsehood was repeated this past Sunday at the SSPX Cleveland chapel that Msgr. Williamson "left" the Society. When this was stated, I very visibly shook my head in disagreement and muttered to myself in my best Williamson-style accent and manner: "Lies, lies ... all lies."
    "I distrust every idea that does not seem obsolete and grotesque to my contemporaries."
    Nicolás Gómez Dávila

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46170
    • Reputation: +27174/-5024
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #106 on: February 04, 2025, 07:51:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Regarding the original theme of this thread, the falsehood was repeated this past Sunday at the SSPX Cleveland chapel that Msgr. Williamson "left" the Society. When this was stated, I very visibly shook my head in disagreement and muttered to myself in my best Williamson-style accent and manner: "Lies, lies ... all lies."

    Well, if it was that same young priest there that I saw the last time I went to that chapel, he was undoubtedly taught this Orwellian historical revisionism in the seminary, likely never knew Bishop Williamson, and just accepted the +Fellay-ite propaganda.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46170
    • Reputation: +27174/-5024
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #107 on: February 04, 2025, 07:53:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's a conference room that they're currently using for their chapel, until they can raise funds to build the actual chapel.

    OK, so further confirmation that they can spend 10s of millions on a seminary structure but leave THE central focus and heart of the seminary for an afterthought.  With proper priorities, you build that first and could get by with less-luxurious living accommodations.

    So does that $50 million pricetag we've heard INclude or EXclude the cost of the eventual real chapel?

    Winona was great, though some A/C might have been nice in the summer and Bishop Williamson didn't have the heat turned on there until November 1, which made for some classes where we're in their with coats and gloves on so our hands weren't shivering attempting to take notes and we could literally see our breath sometimes, but that was no fault of the facility, just Bishop Williamson's attitude.  While I wasn't there when Fr. Iscara was, I heard of the infamous episode where he (being from warmer climates natively) went on strike and refused to come out of his room and teach until they turned on the heat.

    It was beautiful, serene, and peaceful up there ... and they could easily have just added another building to it for 1-2 million tops if they were a bit short on living space, or extended a few of the existing wings of living quarters.  Easy-Peasy.  There was MUCH MORE to the acquisition of that new property than just practical (or even spiritual) considerations.

    Apart from the fact that they were hoping for a huge influx of seminarians (build it and they will come), undoubtedly as the result of a "regularization", they also wanted to be close to D.C.  That too was a step back, since with Winona's somewhat-central location in the US, seminarians from pretty much anywhere could reasonably make the drive to get there, rather than having to fly.  It was equally-inconvenient from many locations, but not undoable.  With the current location, now anyone West of the Mississippi would have to fly in and out ... hoping they don't hit some helicopters, and hoping there's no Plandemic 2.0 lockdown that would force them to get jabbed before they'd be allowed to fly (or maybe that's what they want).  In the extreme cynical view, they put it near D.C. because D.C. might be a target for a terror attack and radiological fallout, so that someone intent upon wiping out as many seminarians and priests as possible might want to put it there.  That's wild speculation, but nevertheless the fact that there were ulterior motives for different players is clear.  This was an incredibly imprudent investment, and not required for any practical considerations.

    Some factors that likely played into it:  individuals' egos (look at how big a shot I am with my huge seminary), believing they'd get flooded with new seminarians after a regularization, desire to be near D.C., and the need to cash-strap the SSPX so badly that they would be forced to seek help from various special interest groups that would then have a large say in how things would be run ... e.g. Krah and company, as well as needing increased numbers of lay faithful (coming in from the Motu refugees), so they can't be too far "right" in their positions and their rhetoric, since they can't afford to lose all that collection money.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46170
    • Reputation: +27174/-5024
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #108 on: February 04, 2025, 08:10:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Some factors that likely played into it:  individuals' egos (look at how big a shot I am with my huge seminary), believing they'd get flooded with new seminarians after a regularization, desire to be near D.C., and the need to cash-strap the SSPX so badly that they would be forced to seek help from various special interest groups that would then have a large say in how things would be run ... e.g. Krah and company, as well as needing increased numbers of lay faithful (coming in from the Motu refugees), so they can't be too far "right" in their positions and their rhetoric, since they can't afford to lose all that collection money.

    Krah:  "Fellay, build this huge seminary.  We have your back."
    Fellay:  "Awesome, perhaps we could call it the Cardinal Fellay seminary."
    Krah:  "I'll put a word in for you."
    [builds seminary]
    Fellay:  "Krah, we're in a hole right now, with cost overruns, and need some extra cash."
    Krah:  "So, about that, Bish Fellay, I'm not so sure.  We'll have to talk about some things that need to change in SSPX."

    Offline Giovanni Berto

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1297
    • Reputation: +1049/-79
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #109 on: February 04, 2025, 08:36:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • As Orwell was mentioned...

    This new seminary reminds me of this:



    Offline CathSarto

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 101
    • Reputation: +93/-12
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #110 on: February 04, 2025, 09:12:17 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Our chapel's response:

    Dear Faithful,


    Please pray for the repose of the soul of Bishop Richard Williamson, who was called to God yesterday, 29 January 2025, at 11.23pm.

    Following a cerebral hemorrhage, he was rushed to hospital on the evening of January 24, after having received extreme unction. He was 84 years old, having been born on March 8, 1940.



    Ordained to the priesthood by Archbishop Lefebvre on June 29, 1976, he taught at the seminary in Weissbad for a year, then at Écône for five years. After a year as vice rector in Ridgefield, he directed the seminary in the United States for twenty years, then in Argentina for six, before retiring to England. Consecrated bishop on June 30, 1988, he also served as the Society’s second Assistant General between 1988 and 1994. Although his path and that of the Society separated many years ago, we nevertheless owe him a true debt of gratitude, in particular for his work in this country which includes the many priests he formed here, as well as the priestly ordinations and confirmations which he conferred. I recommend the eternal rest of his soul to your fervent prayers. Requiescat in Pace.





    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46170
    • Reputation: +27174/-5024
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #111 on: February 04, 2025, 10:26:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Our chapel's response:

    Dear Faithful,


    Please pray for the repose of the soul of Bishop Richard Williamson, who was called to God yesterday, 29 January 2025, at 11.23pm.

    Following a cerebral hemorrhage, he was rushed to hospital on the evening of January 24, after having received extreme unction. He was 84 years old, having been born on March 8, 1940.



    Ordained to the priesthood by Archbishop Lefebvre on June 29, 1976, he taught at the seminary in Weissbad for a year, then at Écône for five years. After a year as vice rector in Ridgefield, he directed the seminary in the United States for twenty years, then in Argentina for six, before retiring to England. Consecrated bishop on June 30, 1988, he also served as the Society’s second Assistant General between 1988 and 1994. Although his path and that of the Society separated many years ago, we nevertheless owe him a true debt of gratitude, in particular for his work in this country which includes the many priests he formed here, as well as the priestly ordinations and confirmations which he conferred. I recommend the eternal rest of his soul to your fervent prayers. Requiescat in Pace.

    They just pasted that in from fsspx.news website, verbatim.

    Offline Geremia

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4661
    • Reputation: +1517/-360
    • Gender: Male
      • St. Isidore e-book library
    +Williamson more "excommunicated" from SSPX than Conciliar Church‽
    « Reply #112 on: February 04, 2025, 12:05:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • But +Williamson was only "excommunicated" from the SSPX, not the Catholic Church, unless the SSPX thinks his Novus Ordo "excommunication" for "illicitly" consecrating bishops is valid?
    Actually:
    Stephen Kokx's LSN article is good:
    Quote from: LSN
    In 2015, Williamson consecrated French priest Fr. Jean-Michel Faure. Faure had been asked by Lefebvre to be consecrated in 1988 but turned down the offer after stating he believed he was unworthy. The SSPX denounced the move in a press release, but the Vatican [i.e., Conciliar Church] has never commented on it.
    So +Williamson is more "excommunicated" from the SSPX than he is from the Conciliar Church‽ 🤔
    St. Isidore e-book library: https://isidore.co


    Offline Clare67

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 43
    • Reputation: +41/-2
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #113 on: February 04, 2025, 12:25:36 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • They just pasted that in from fsspx.news website, verbatim.
    Almost, except they added "We nevertheless owe him a true debt of gratitude, in particular for his work in this country which includes the many priests he formed here, as well as the priestly ordinations and confirmations which he conferred." 
    The original communique did not include this bit, although it certainly should have.  

    Offline ElwinRansom1970

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 973
    • Reputation: +735/-141
    • Gender: Male
    • γνῶθι σεαυτόν - temet nosce
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #114 on: February 04, 2025, 01:29:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • When I see where the SSPX is today and then reflect back on the landscape of Tradistan back in the 80s and early 90s (and the stories I was yold first-hand about the 70s), it is very clear that the SSPX today is far to the Left of any Trads from those days, including the original FSSP.

    I do not believe that the SSPX of today would have cooperated with so many of the "independent" priests of those days. Further, those who left the SSPX to form the SSPV or the Instituto Mater Boni Consilii or even Msgr. Williamson himself would never have been admitted to Holy Orders were the SSPX of today been the SSPX of then. They would probably have been dismissed before Tonsure.

    I am not saying that the SSPX of old was perfect -- far from it -- but it was far superior to what claims the name SSPX today. I pity those men formed by Frs. le Roux and Goldade. They are so far from those who were formed by Msgr. Williamson or, before him, Bishop Sanborn.
    "I distrust every idea that does not seem obsolete and grotesque to my contemporaries."
    Nicolás Gómez Dávila