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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8

Author Topic: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson  (Read 162901 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Seraphina

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3772
  • Reputation: +2761/-245
  • Gender: Female
Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
« Reply #60 on: January 31, 2025, 11:41:05 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Miseremini on January 31, 2025, 11:28:21 AM
    No, he's praying for them to return to their original purpose.
    Probably both. 
    Logged

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2842
    • Reputation: +2932/-517
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #61 on: January 31, 2025, 02:41:01 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
    • I was warning the faithful to get out of SSPX at least a decade ago, when I was still pretty active on Cathinfo.  Now I post only rarely.  Few of you were very sympathetic then.  But your tune has changed, and it's gratifying to hear.  The SSPX needs to go.  Bp Fellay and his corrupt organization need to be thoroughly exposed.  Bp Williamson was the heart of that apostolate.  And Fellay & Co. cut the heart out of it. 
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46218
    • Reputation: +27190/-5030
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #62 on: January 31, 2025, 03:50:15 PM »
  • 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!!

    Of course he doesn't care, but this realization is for us, as per hollingsworth's post just before mine, where it's a matter of exposing who the SSPX are.  What they wrote (and didn't write) about Bishop Williamson speaks volumes about who they are.
    Logged

    Offline Philip

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 119
    • Reputation: +62/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #63 on: January 31, 2025, 04:08:56 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on January 31, 2025, 03:50:15 PM
    Of course he doesn't care, but this realization is for us, as per hollingsworth's post just before mine, where it's a matter of exposing who the SSPX are.  What they wrote (and didn't write) about Bishop Williamson speaks volumes about who they are.
    Absolutely.  Even more telling is the fact that the UK District, where Bishop Williamson lived at the HQ, 125 Arthur Road, Wimbledon, have no mention whatsover of his passing.  They maintain a list of recently departed, and all departed persons associated with the SSPX yet there is no mention of Bishop Williamson.  On the list of departed souls there are several priests, and laity, who separated themselves from the SSPX over the years whose names are listed so why not Bishop Williamson?
    Logged

    Offline Clare67

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 45
    • Reputation: +44/-2
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #64 on: January 31, 2025, 04:40:10 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Philip on January 31, 2025, 04:08:56 PM
    Absolutely.  Even more telling is the fact that the UK District, where Bishop Williamson lived at the HQ, 125 Arthur Road, Wimbledon, have no mention whatsover of his passing.  They maintain a list of recently departed, and all departed persons associated with the SSPX yet there is no mention of Bishop Williamson.  On the list of departed souls there are several priests, and laity, who separated themselves from the SSPX over the years whose names are listed so why not Bishop Williamson?
    That is terrible and shameful!   
    Logged

    Offline Kephapaulos

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1880
    • Reputation: +486/-19
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #65 on: January 31, 2025, 06:35:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: hollingsworth on January 31, 2025, 02:41:01 PM
    I was warning the faithful to get out of SSPX at least a decade ago, when I was still pretty active on Cathinfo.  Now I post only rarely.  Few of you were very sympathetic then.  But your tune has changed, and it's gratifying to hear.  The SSPX needs to go.  Bp Fellay and his corrupt organization need to be thoroughly exposed.  Bp Williamson was the heart of that apostolate.  And Fellay & Co. cut the heart out of it.
    Yes, indeed, the heart of the SSPX was stripped out.

    I was going to do another thread on it, but i will post it here instead.

    The two hardliners are passed into eternity, and the two softliners are left.

    God punishes and tests when He takes away underappreciated shepherds and rulers. Saint Pius X and Kaiser Karl come to mind. 

    Logged
    "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis; sed nomini tuo da gloriam..." (Ps. 113:9)

    Offline confederate catholic

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 823
    • Reputation: +304/-44
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #66 on: February 01, 2025, 01:49:54 AM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
    • I agree with Ladislaus, Bishop Williamson was the society, he made boys into men and priests, he spoke the truth and agree with him or not his only interest was your salvation, the SSPX is nothing but a shell a hollow pr firm. But I don't expect much from the society anymore, if you can turn your back on one of your foundations you are useless 

    Eternal memory dear Bishop Williamson 
    Logged
    قامت مريم، ترتيل وفاء جحا و سلام جحا

    Offline Giovanni Berto

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1301
    • Reputation: +1050/-79
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #67 on: February 01, 2025, 12:40:11 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
    • The fellows crossed the line this time.

    He did not retire at all, he was working until he died, as far as I know.

    This is not even justifiable using the argument of mental reservation. This is simply lying. That ugly sin.
    Logged

    Offline Geremia

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4661
    • Reputation: +1517/-360
    • Gender: Male
      • St. Isidore e-book library
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #68 on: February 01, 2025, 02:44:30 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • The SSPX priory here hasn't said a daily Requiem Mass for the Dead for him, that I'm aware of.
    Logged
    St. Isidore e-book library: https://isidore.co

    Offline Jr1991

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 715
    • Reputation: +326/-90
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #69 on: February 01, 2025, 09:54:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • The SSPX chapel down here sent a last-minute email stating that there would be a Mass on Thursday for the repose of Bishop Williamson. It seemed to be cobbled together because they were under pressure from some people. I'm through with the SSPX.
    Logged

    Offline Geremia

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4661
    • Reputation: +1517/-360
    • Gender: Male
      • St. Isidore e-book library
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #70 on: February 01, 2025, 10:16:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Jr1991 on February 01, 2025, 09:54:02 PM
    The SSPX chapel down here sent a last-minute email stating that there would be a Mass on Thursday for the repose of Bishop Williamson.
    That's odd. Usually when a priest in the SSPX dies, they say a requiem for his soul the next day. ☹
    Logged
    St. Isidore e-book library: https://isidore.co

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1509
    • Reputation: +1234/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #71 on: February 01, 2025, 10:35:14 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Geremia on February 01, 2025, 10:16:43 PM
    That's odd. Usually when a priest in the SSPX dies, they say a requiem for his soul the next day. ☹
    At the SSPX church where I am, both priests offered Mass for the repose of Bishop Williamson's soul the day after his death i.e. the next Mass they offered after news of his death. One of the priests also offered at least two Masses before his death for the grace of a happy and holy death.
    Logged

    Offline Against the Heresies

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 119
    • Reputation: +108/-2
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #72 on: February 01, 2025, 11:19:21 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
    • An SSPX priest here in Europe told me, that there is a communication from the General House on the subject of requiem.
    It states that a private requiem for Bishop Williamson is possible, but not a public one.
    "Private" in this context means that the intention for which the Mass is being offered is known to no one but the celebrant (and the the donor of the stipend, or to very few other person). The opposite would be an announced Mass.

    Anyone who knows a little about canon law will notice that this order corresponds to the treatment of excommunicated persons. In the Codex Iuris Canonici of 1917, c. 2262 states (in English translation):
     
    Canon 2262
     
    § 1. One excommunicated is not able to participate in the indulgences, suffrages, and public prayers of the Church.
    § 2. Nevertheless, it is not prohibited:
     1.° For the faithful to pray privately for him;
     2.° For priests privately and avoiding scandal to apply Mass for him; but, if he is banned, only for his conversion.

    Logged

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1509
    • Reputation: +1234/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #73 on: February 02, 2025, 12:48:18 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Against the Heresies on February 01, 2025, 11:19:21 PM
    An SSPX priest here in Europe told me, that there is a communication from the General House on the subject of requiem.
    It states that a private requiem for Bishop Williamson is possible, but not a public one.
    "Private" in this context means that the intention for which the Mass is being offered is known to no one but the celebrant (and the the donor of the stipend, or to very few other person). The opposite would be an announced Mass.

    Anyone who knows a little about canon law will notice that this order corresponds to the treatment of excommunicated persons. In the Codex Iuris Canonici of 1917, c. 2262 states (in English translation):
     
    Canon 2262
     
    § 1. One excommunicated is not able to participate in the indulgences, suffrages, and public prayers of the Church.
    § 2. Nevertheless, it is not prohibited:
    1.° For the faithful to pray privately for him;
    2.° For priests privately and avoiding scandal to apply Mass for him; but, if he is banned, only for his conversion.

    Very interesting.
    If it is true, it certainly was not observed by SSPX priests in my neck of the woods.
    I confess, I am having difficulty believing they could do such a wicked thing, and I would hope, if it is true, that many priests will treat such an illegitimate command with the contempt that it deserves.
    Logged

    Offline Geremia

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4661
    • Reputation: +1517/-360
    • Gender: Male
      • St. Isidore e-book library
    Re: SSPX Response to Bishop Williamson
    « Reply #74 on: February 02, 2025, 10:14:23 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Against the Heresies on February 01, 2025, 11:19:21 PM
    An SSPX priest here in Europe told me, that there is a communication from the General House on the subject of requiem.
    It states that a private requiem for Bishop Williamson is possible, but not a public one.
    "Private" in this context means that the intention for which the Mass is being offered is known to no one but the celebrant (and the the donor of the stipend, or to very few other person). The opposite would be an announced Mass.

    Anyone who knows a little about canon law will notice that this order corresponds to the treatment of excommunicated persons. In the Codex Iuris Canonici of 1917, c. 2262 states (in English translation):

    Canon 2262

    § 1. One excommunicated is not able to participate in the indulgences, suffrages, and public prayers of the Church.
    § 2. Nevertheless, it is not prohibited:
    1.° For the faithful to pray privately for him;
    2.° For priests privately and avoiding scandal to apply Mass for him; but, if he is banned, only for his conversion.

    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?
    Logged
    St. Isidore e-book library: https://isidore.co
    Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8
    « previous next »