Everything Father Franz Schmidberger says here is backwards.
Is this, October 26th, 'backwards day' or something? I know it's not April Fools' day.
His aversion to the Superior General and his Council became rejection, rejection became resistance and resistance became open rebellion.
It is +Fellay's
aversion to the principles of their founder ABL that is the cause
of all this turmoil, and therefore his
aversion to +Williamson, since +W is the
one who most personifies faithfulness to those very principles.
He missed no opportunity to alienate the administration of the Society from himself, he revealed confidential docuмents and at last demanded unashamedly the resignation of the Superior General.
It is rather +Fellay who has 'missed no opportunity to alienate' himself and his
erstwhile administration (the Menzingen-denizens) from the principles of ABL
and by extension those who are faithful to them ('the three' bishops and all the
good and loyal SSPX priests worldwide).
It is the Superior General who has 'unashamedly demanded the resignation' of
the good Bishop Williamson! Let's get it straight here! It is the SG who has
FAILED to share these 'confidential docuмents' that would have exposed his
own nefarious undermining of the Society from within! How much more is he
hiding?? Maybe we will now be finding out, for +W doesn't have to keep
holding back, does he? Wait -- are you sure this is such a good idea, +Fellay?
As every candidate for ordination, Bishop Williamson has promised at his priestly ordination on June 29, 1976 obedience and reverence to Archbishop Lefebvre and his successors.
Well, +Fellay made that promise too, but has he kept it? Has he maintained his
adherence to what he has received, as what is carved on the tombstone of
ABL at his grave over which +Fellay stood so proudly after the GC?
Before the Bishops' consecration our founder beseeched in a letter the four candidates for the episcopacy to remain united among themselves, in submission to the particular Superior General. Which message would we send outwards and inwards, if a bishop demands obedience and reverence form the candidates at the priestly ordination to the Superior General, while he takes the liberty for himself to insult him.
And has +Fellay remained united, or has he made some abrupt departure off
on a 'new direction' and an utter contradiction to the rule of "no doctrine, no
deal" with Rome? Just as ABL refused false obedience to the erroneous Pope, so
too +W refuses false obedience to the erroneous SG. Of course, sedevacantists
would disagree. They would say that if +Fellay is erroneous, he must not be
the true Superior General.
Our Lord says in the Gospel of St. Luke: “No kingdom can be at war with itself without being brought to desolation, one house falling upon another.”
So, +Fellay has taken up arms (ideologically) against the Society, and when it
tries to defend itself, he blames the conservators for 'being at war with itself!'
What temerity! What vitriol! What insolence!
As Bishop Williamson despite many counsels, fraternal exhortations and warning words was unwilling to change his position, after all, only the separation remained.
What about +W's counsels to +F? What about +F's duty to remain faithful to
the Founder's defined path? And as for 'fraternal exortations,' that's a poor
choice of words. Try 'tyrannical threats,' or 'abusive lies,' or 'contemptuous and
unreasonable demands.' Let's face the facts. +F was 'unwilling to change his
position' and return to what he had ALREADY ABANDONED. What foolishness!
We have thus lost in our fraternity a bishop. Personally this exclusion hits me all the more, as Bishop Williamson was as a seminarian at Ecône with me in the same course and after his ordination he was 1976 in Weissbad for one year my coworker in the formation of the young Levites in the German-speaking part.
The fraternity has lost a bishop all right, and his name is +Fellay! Where is he
going?
Quo vadis, Fellay? And if something is "hitting you all the more,"
I would hope it would be the light of TRUTH, or is it a cold, dead fish in the face?
Is this what you would have expected as a seminarian at Ecône, years ago, to
have your SG running off on some wild tangent and expecting others to follow
along behind him like LEMMINGS? What about those "young Levites in the
German-speaking part" -- are they on board with you? Or do they lament the
unjust and criminal abjuration of everything true that +Fellay attempts to
perpetrate with this
illicit and immoral 'expulsion' of a good bishop?
No, the real fraternity has not lost +Williamson. He is still here, God willing, and
may the saints preserve us! He is "waiting" as he says.
Please pray for the afflicted Superior General and pray also for the excluded one, that he may realize his wrong track and return back in the father's house.
Afflicted -- what? No, no, no, Fr. Schmidberger, you've got it backwards. The
afflicted is not the Superior General. The Superior General is the
AFFLICTOR. He is causing the affliction to happen to Bishop Williamson. Maybe you missed
that lesson in grammar when you were in third or fourth grade. You see what
happens when children are not good students?
This is one of the errors of Russia: to get the OBJECT of the verb mixed up
with the SUBJECT of the sentence. Communists thrive on omitting the object in
their sentences. Ever notice that? And here, Fr. Schmidberger is acting, or
writing actually, just like a student of Stalin. He's got the object of the verb
confused with the object of the second verb. The sentence should read:
Please pray for the afflicted one who was excluded, and pray also for the
Superior General who afflicted him with exclusion,
that he may realize his
wrong track and return back to the father's house. 
Topic: Statement of Fr. Schmidberger SSPX (Read 5195 times)