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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8

Author Topic: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson  (Read 162922 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Meg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6790
  • Reputation: +3467/-2999
  • Gender: Female
Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
« Reply #45 on: January 30, 2025, 03:04:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora on January 30, 2025, 11:39:44 AM
    Meg,

    Pope St. Pius X said that Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies and that it's goal is the destruction of DOGMA. Heresy is the denial of Dogma. He gave us the Oath Against Modernism to be taken by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries. The word "definition" (or dogmatic definitions) he says, should be understood today as they were in 1910 or the original meaning.

    Duh. I know what Modernism is. Pope St. Pius X knew what Modernism is. But he never said that Modernists were outside of the Church. He never said that sedevacantism was the answer to the heresy of Modernism. He never mentioned sedevacantism at all. 
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #46 on: January 30, 2025, 03:05:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Matthew on January 30, 2025, 01:28:32 PM
    I tried to make that clear.
    I'm talking about a hypothetical that takes a lot of imagination.
    Imagine tomorrow the SSPX is dissolved. Someone sues them for 750 billion, the victims are awarded the whole amount, and the SSPX is forced to be sold off and liquidated. Again, we're NOT talking about a nuke dropped on Menzingen during a rare "100% of their priests" meeting there. That wouldn't be good at all. That's why I'm specific about the organization/bank accounts/real estate/propaganda outlets being destroyed, and nothing more.

    That would be 100% good. Some growing pains, yes -- but it would be GOOD FOR ALL PARTIES.

    The consequences would be:
    - hundreds of priests now outside the SSPX and its control. Each priest would obviously set up shop somewhere, to serve the Faithful.
    - the Faithful would largely have to give up their beautiful buildings and illusion that "the Crisis is over". That would be 100% good, in my opinion. People *need* a bit more basement, spare room, garage, and hotel Masses in their lives. WAY TOO MANY TRADS are bombarded with evidence all around them that there is no Crisis in the Church any longer -- what with the size, manpower, equipment, and professionalism of the SSPX, which rivals that of the Catholic Church before Vatican II!
    - Like in the 1970s and 1980s, Trads would learn to appreciate having the Mass once again, and would have to stop taking it for granted.

    My point is that the SSPX adds nothing, over and above what GOD gives in the Mass, and what the Priests give by their ministrations. All the SSPX adds is evil, corruption, lies, propaganda, enabling of crimes against children, etc.
    Yes, the world would be better off without all that.

    Even the least of their "evils" -- propagating the illusion that the Crisis is over -- is not exactly good for most Trads. Because of their material success, years in business, war chest, and real estate portfolio. If that were all taken away, it would be better for Tradition -- and the world -- as a whole.

    Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining it. 
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1431
    • Reputation: +1366/-143
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #47 on: January 30, 2025, 03:24:57 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on January 30, 2025, 03:04:37 PM
    Duh. I know what Modernism is. Pope St. Pius X knew what Modernism is. But he never said that Modernists were outside of the Church. He never said that sedevacantism was the answer to the heresy of Modernism. He never mentioned sedevacantism at all.

    Correct.
    Logged
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline josefamenendez

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5443
    • Reputation: +4099/-281
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #48 on: January 30, 2025, 06:06:34 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on January 30, 2025, 03:04:37 PM
    Duh. I know what Modernism is. Pope St. Pius X knew what Modernism is. But he never said that Modernists were outside of the Church. He never said that sedevacantism was the answer to the heresy of Modernism. He never mentioned sedevacantism at all.
    Was sedevacantism even a "thing" during the Papacy of St Pius X? Yes, the threat was  modernism, and they were still in the Church as the revolution was not yet complete.
    The Pope had to address the infiltration of the modernists, jews and freemasons working inside the Church. 

    St Pius X was also a Pope in the pre-Vatican ll Church- why would he speak of sedevacantism during his reign?

    Sedevacantism was a logical  response to the false Consilliar Vll Church and a rejection of the official hijacking of the Church,   including the papacy.
    If Pius X had spoken, let's say in 1958 ,or 1972 or 1986 or 2012 or 2025-or so, do you think it was possible that he would have addressed sedevacantism?

    Even in Tradition, we have many modernists still, if you pay close attention. They are still here, within the Church.
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #49 on: January 30, 2025, 06:23:10 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: josefamenendez on January 30, 2025, 06:06:34 PM
    Was sedevacantism even a "thing" during the Papacy of St Pius X? Yes, the threat was  modernism, and they were still in the Church as the revolution was not yet complete.
    The Pope had to address the infiltration of the modernists, jews and freemasons working inside the Church.

    St Pius X was also a Pope in the pre-Vatican ll Church- why would he speak of sedevacantism during his reign?

    Sedevacantism was a logical  response to the false Consilliar Vll Church and a rejection of the official hijacking of the Church,  including the papacy.
    If Pius X had spoken, let's say in 1958 ,or 1972 or 1986 or 2012 or 2025-or so, do you think it was possible that he would have addressed sedevacantism?

    Even in Tradition, we have many modernists still, if you pay close attention. They are still here, within the Church.

    No, I don't believe that Pope St. Pius X would have addressed or advocated for sedevacantism if he were here today, or if he were alive since the VII council. Modernism hasn't changed. Modernism is still Modernism, no matter who it is that is attached to the heresy. 
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9239
    • Reputation: +9076/-870
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #50 on: January 30, 2025, 06:50:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on January 30, 2025, 06:23:10 PM
    No, I don't believe that Pope St. Pius X would have addressed or advocated for sedevacantism if he were here today, or if he were alive since the VII council. Modernism hasn't changed. Modernism is still Modernism, no matter who it is that is attached to the heresy.

    Yeah, I mean… didn’t he also issue an oath against sede-vacantism?

    Even though the “Catholic” modernist masons would go onto poison him to death (His German Jesuit nurse),
     he was most concerned about the sedes taking over the Church and installing some jew-clown actors as Pope.

    Logged
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline Jr1991

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 717
    • Reputation: +326/-90
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #51 on: January 30, 2025, 08:39:45 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
    • I was saddened to hear about Bishop Williamson. I always appreciated his talks and sermons. It seems that the SSPX is trying to save face after being pressured to respond, likely due to concerns over fundraising. May the good Bishop rest with our Lord now. What a poor example the SSPX sets for the flock.
    Logged

    Offline Jr1991

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 717
    • Reputation: +326/-90
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #52 on: January 30, 2025, 08:59:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Matthew on January 30, 2025, 01:28:32 PM
    I tried to make that clear.
    I'm talking about a hypothetical that takes a lot of imagination.
    Imagine tomorrow the SSPX is dissolved. Someone sues them for 750 billion, the victims are awarded the whole amount, and the SSPX is forced to be sold off and liquidated. Again, we're NOT talking about a nuke dropped on Menzingen during a rare "100% of their priests" meeting there. That wouldn't be good at all. That's why I'm specific about the organization/bank accounts/real estate/propaganda outlets being destroyed, and nothing more.

    That would be 100% good. Some growing pains, yes -- but it would be GOOD FOR ALL PARTIES.

    The consequences would be:
    - hundreds of priests now outside the SSPX and its control. Each priest would obviously set up shop somewhere, to serve the Faithful.
    - the Faithful would largely have to give up their beautiful buildings and illusion that "the Crisis is over". That would be 100% good, in my opinion. People *need* a bit more basement, spare room, garage, and hotel Masses in their lives. WAY TOO MANY TRADS are bombarded with evidence all around them that there is no Crisis in the Church any longer -- what with the size, manpower, equipment, and professionalism of the SSPX, which rivals that of the Catholic Church before Vatican II!
    - Like in the 1970s and 1980s, Trads would learn to appreciate having the Mass once again, and would have to stop taking it for granted.

    My point is that the SSPX adds nothing, over and above what GOD gives in the Mass, and what the Priests give by their ministrations. All the SSPX adds is evil, corruption, lies, propaganda, enabling of crimes against children, etc.
    Yes, the world would be better off without all that.

    Even the least of their "evils" -- propagating the illusion that the Crisis is over -- is not exactly good for most Trads. Because of their material success, years in business, war chest, and real estate portfolio. If that were all taken away, it would be better for Tradition -- and the world -- as a whole.
    It is unfortunate that this statement is true. I remain amazed that more SSPX priests have not chosen to go to independent chapels whether they be Sede or not. The sacraments supersede any glorious monuments the SSPX dreams of. 
    Logged

    Offline Godefroy

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 518
    • Reputation: +550/-57
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #53 on: January 31, 2025, 02:38:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ThatBritPapist on January 29, 2025, 08:19:57 PM
    The SSPX in Herne England and Preston announced Prayers!
    Funnily enough it started where Bp Williamson off at the Brompton Oratory they asked for Prayers!
    It's quite possible that we know each other. Whenever we come to the UK from France, we go to mass in Herne
    Logged

    Offline Croagh Patrick

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 113
    • Reputation: +116/-1
    • Gender: Male
    • Could you not watch one hour with me.
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #54 on: January 31, 2025, 06:44:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • The passing  of Bishop Richard Williamson
    We learn with deep sorrow that Bishop Richard Williamson has been called to God on January 29, 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.
    Sadly, his path and that of the Society separated many years ago. 
    We recommend the eternal rest of his soul to your fervent prayers.
    R.I.P.

    At best lip service!!!
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46284
    • Reputation: +27230/-5037
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #55 on: January 31, 2025, 06:58:40 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
    • Right, it's so brief (and includes much spin) that it's more insulting than if they had said nothing.  You can tell that they were just shamed into doing it.  They put a lot more effort into it when Huonder died ... despite his having done nothing but retire there, and simulate consecrating some holy oils.  By contrast, Bishop Williamson toiled for decades at the service of Tradition and the SSPX, wonderfully influencing so many souls.  No other SSPX did even a fraction of what he did for Tradition.  Galaretta, I wouldn't know he existed if I didn't remind myself.  Fellay did next to nothing but try to sell out to Rome.  Tissier was ill at the end, wrote a couple books, but that was it and you didn't hear too much from him either.
    https://sspx.org/en/news/his-lordship-bishop-vitus-huonder-has-departed-life-43944

    You'd expect them to have a few pages, with pictures, etc. ... for someone who did so much for Tradition.

    It's literally (if I take out the full-sentence grammar):

    Bishop Williamson died.  January 29, 2025 11:23 PM.  Sad.  Brain hemorrhage.  Last Rites. 84.  Born March 8, 1940.  Ordained June 29, 1976.  Taught ... Weissbad, Econe, Ridgefield, rector of US seminary, Argentina.  "Retired" to England.  Consecrated June 30, 1988.  Second Assistant General 1988-1994.  Separate path from SSPX.  Sad.  Recommend to YOUR prayers.

    That's literally everything in there.

    So you add the spin:

    +Williamson "retired" to England, making it sound like he went on his own initiative because he was too old to continue.
    +Williamson went on his own path from the SSPX, as if this were some mutually-agreed-upon separation.  Divorce couples say this all the time, even when it's just one party that sues for the divorce.

    Uhm, no, you EXPELLED him, sacrificed him to the Jews and Modernists, and that will forever redound to your disgrace.
    Logged

    Offline Croagh Patrick

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 113
    • Reputation: +116/-1
    • Gender: Male
    • Could you not watch one hour with me.
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #56 on: January 31, 2025, 08:41:59 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Lad!!

    They may as well have written it in shorthand? Anyway, what does he care if he's shining bright in Heaven, not a jot!!

    An Irish blessing I always write when saying farewell: "Ar dheis lámh Dé go raibh a hanam dilís(On God's right hand may his sweet soul be)".
    Logged

    Offline Everlast22

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 772
    • Reputation: +676/-190
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #57 on: January 31, 2025, 08:43:57 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on January 31, 2025, 06:58:40 AM


    Uhm, no, you EXPELLED him, sacrificed him to the Jews and Modernists, and that will forever redound to your disgrace.
    Those buildings and new SSPX churches ain't cheap, man. :laugh1:
    Logged

    Offline Seraphina

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3772
    • Reputation: +2761/-245
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #58 on: January 31, 2025, 11:05:47 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Croagh Patrick on January 31, 2025, 08:41:59 AM
    Lad!!

    They may as well have written it in shorthand? Anyway, what does he care if he's shining bright in Heaven, not a jot!!

    An Irish blessing I always write when saying farewell: "Ar dheis lámh Dé go raibh a hanam dilís(On God's right hand may his sweet soul be)".
    He’s probably laughing at them.
    Logged

    Offline Miseremini

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4458
    • Reputation: +3530/-272
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #59 on: January 31, 2025, 11:28:21 AM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Seraphina on January 31, 2025, 11:05:47 AM
    He’s probably laughing at them 
    No, he's praying for them to return to their original purpose.
    Logged
    "Let God arise, and let His enemies be scattered: and them that hate Him flee from before His Holy Face"  Psalm 67:2[/b]

    Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8
    « previous next »