Author Topic: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577) (Read 6439 times)

Mega-fin · « **on:** August 04, 2018, 09:53:22 AM »

General Chapter – II
Great God, I can’t. I must.
You can. I beg. I trust!
At least for the moment one may reasonably judge that the General Chapter of the Society of St Pius X concluded in yet another disguised defeat for the Catholic Faith. It is a shame if the 40 leading priests of what was once Archbishop Lefebvre’s Society do not grasp the full dimension of the Church and world crisis in which we all find ourselves today, but that is the reality. In a way they are not to be blamed, because they are no more nor less than children of their age. Given that we are living in pre-apocalyptic times, why should Society priests have been spared the temptations and blindness which have, since Vatican II, brought low the mass of the Church’s bishops and priests? The Church has Our Lord’s promise that it will never fail (Mt. XXVIII, 20), but the Society never had any such promise.
Therefore let Catholics who wish to save their souls “get real”, as Americans say, or adjust their minds to the reality of our situation. For example, an anxious mother from the United States just wrote to me of her concern for her children:– “I want my children to have other children who love the faith. And I want other opportunities for them to meet faithful Catholics and maybe marry one-day. I have a son who is only 12 and would like to become a priest. What is the future for them? Will there ever be in our neck of the woods a “Resistance” priest? And how about a school? And will my son ever be safe entering a seminary?” There must be today many Catholic mothers with the same heartburn. I replied with the immense need that all Catholics have today to grasp reality and to adapt to it:–
Dear Mother,
GET USED TO THE IDEA THAT IN A FAMINE A CRUST OF BREAD IS A LUXURY . The Church is in a state of famine. Therefore –
1 Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof, says Our Lord (Sermon on the Mount). There may or may not be a decent Seminary by the time your 12-year old grows up. If there is not, that will mean that Our Lord did not mean for him to be a priest. But much water will go over the dam between now and then.
2 A priest from the “Resistance” in your neck of the woods? Time alone will tell. Meanwhile you are not obliged to attend Masses which diminish your faith, in fact you may be obliged not to attend them. Let you and your husband judge. But if you attend no public Mass, you must adore God at home in a regular way on Sunday. That is the Third Commandment. Yourexample will teach your children.
3 A “Resistance” school will be a super-luxury. Meanwhile children DOOOOO listen to their biological parents, it is deep in their nature. You can send them to schools not so good, as long as you have the Rosary at home, and watch carefully over all influences that can come to play on them, especially their music… Do n ot let them be alone in their rooms with any electronics. Keep these out of the home, as absolutely far as possible.
4 Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. Remember St Ambrose to St Monica — “The child of so many tears (the future St Augustine) cannot be lost.” Weep tears of blood if necessary for the salvation of each of your children – what else matters? – but at the same time have a boundless trust in the Sacred Heart of Jesus and in the desire and power of His Mother to obtain their salvation.
Therefore, dear readers, the Archbishop and his Society were a super-luxury. It is all too normal if today we lose it. We must “gird our loins”, i.e. tighten our belts, and reckon on saving our souls without it, if necessary. The grace of God is always there. “The help of God is closer than the door.”
Kyrie eleison.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #1 on:** August 05, 2018, 12:58:04 PM »

In +W’s June 9 EC, entitled ominously, LIBERALS PREPARE His Excellency, admonishes “Capitulants” that the Church and Faith come first, and that “Menzingen may need to come off worst.” I interpret that to mean that Menzingen may have to change direction or, perhaps, not try so hard to curry Rome’s favor . So, does HE think Menzingen came off worst during the recent General Chapter?
Are we to take HE’s opening sentence in this latest EC to mean that Menzingen came off worst? He writes: “At least for the moment one may reasonably judge that the General Chapter of the Society of St Pius X concluded in yet another disguised defeat for the Catholic Faith.” ‘For the moment’ seems to lock in the next 12 years. Why is it such a “disguised defeat” when the five chosen leaders, (with perhaps the exception of the new SG, about whom most know little), have a proven track record. I would say that the defeat is pretty undisguised. And the Faith has clearly suffered by these appointments. Why can’t HE simply come out and state clearly the obvious? Why must he describe that defeat in such weak language. It ought to be fairly clear to all that the Society has not changed its course. In fact, the organization has doubled down.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #2 on:** August 05, 2018, 01:36:24 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth on August 05, 2018, 12:58:04 PM

In +W’s June 9 EC, entitled ominously, LIBERALS PREPARE His Excellency, admonishes “Capitulants” that the Church and Faith come first, and that “Menzingen may need to come off worst.” I interpret that to mean that Menzingen may have to change direction or, perhaps, not try so hard to curry Rome’s favor . So, does HE think Menzingen came off worst during the recent General Chapter?
Are we to take HE’s opening sentence in this latest EC to mean that Menzingen came off worst? He writes: “At least for the moment one may reasonably judge that the General Chapter of the Society of St Pius X concluded in yet another disguised defeat for the Catholic Faith.” ‘For the moment’ seems to lock in the next 12 years. Why is it such a “disguised defeat” when the five chosen leaders, (with perhaps the exception of the new SG, about whom most know little), have a proven track record. I would say that the defeat is pretty undisguised. And the Faith has clearly suffered by these appointments. Why can’t HE simply come out and state clearly the obvious? Why must he describe that defeat in such weak language. It ought to be fairly clear to all that the Society has not changed its course. In fact, the organization has doubled down.

I hadn’t thought of that, but it seems a fair point.

But what has me scratching my head is that H.E. is painting such a bleak picture for the the Resistance (almost like an anti-branding campaign), that combined with the underground apostolate, the discouragement of vocations, and the transformation of the Resistance into a sputtering movement of independents, H.E. might as well be saying to the world in bright red blinking neon:

“Stay Away!”

Almost certainly, the lady who received this grim response is reevaluating her options.

But to my mind, the primary fault does not lie with Bishop Williamson: He is just describing the reality of the situation (whether it is being created by self-fulfilling prophecy or not).

The primary fault for the current situation lays at the feet of the SSPX clergy, who have as a semi-conscious survival technique self-imposed a program of willful ignorance and CRIMETHINK upon themselves regarding the treacherous reorientation of the SSPX.

Had they done their duty and refused this reorientation, the Resistance would not be such a dessert.

This, in my opinion, is where the primary blame lays.

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** August 05, 2018, 02:06:38 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on August 05, 2018, 01:36:24 PM

Had they done their duty and refused this reorientation, the Resistance would not be such a dessert.

:chef: sounds tasty!
Maybe you meant "desert"?

hollingsworth · « **Reply #4 on:** August 05, 2018, 02:43:03 PM »

Another of HE’s pre-GC ECs, entitled VITAL ELECTION, and dated June 30. +W states:

“Therefore, divinely speaking, let nobody exclude the possibility of miraculous help from Heaven whereby the Society’s General Chapter will choose three top officials who understand what God wants from the Society, and mean with His help to give it to Him, namely the Society’s continuing or restored witness throughout the Church to the Social Kingship of Christ the King and to the one true religion instituted by the Incarnate God.”

Well, in plain, unequivocal English, can the bishop either affirm or deny that “three top officials” were chosen to lead the Society? Does he believe that the Society got “miraculous help from Heaven,” and that with this new leadership the Society now enjoys a fighting chance for a “restored witness?” I don’t think that it’s asking too much to inquire. In clear precise terms, can HE comment on the appointment of two additional advisors? Does he believe that these old relics of the SSPX can help bring about the restoration of the “Social Kingship of Christ the King?” Or, as many of us have probably concluded, does HE believe that these new appointments ensure the “disguised defeat” of any such restoration?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #5 on:** August 05, 2018, 06:11:11 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth on August 05, 2018, 02:43:03 PM

In +W’s June 9 EC, entitled ominously, LIBERALS PREPARE His Excellency, admonishes “Capitulants” that the Church and Faith come first, and that “Menzingen may need to come off worst.” I interpret that to mean that Menzingen may have to change direction or, perhaps, not try so hard to curry Rome’s favor . So, does HE think Menzingen came off worst during the recent General Chapter?

Are we to take HE’s opening sentence in this latest EC to mean that Menzingen came off worst? He writes: “At least for the moment one may reasonably judge that the General Chapter of the Society of St Pius X concluded in yet another disguised defeat for the Catholic Faith.” ‘For the moment’ seems to lock in the next 12 years. Why is it such a “disguised defeat” when the five chosen leaders, (with perhaps the exception of the new SG, about whom most know little), have a proven track record. I would say that the defeat is pretty undisguised. And the Faith has clearly suffered by these appointments. Why can’t HE simply come out and state clearly the obvious? Why must he describe that defeat in such weak language. It ought to be fairly clear to all that the Society has not changed its course. In fact, the organization has doubled down...

Another of HE’s pre-GC ECs, entitled VITAL ELECTION, and dated June 30. +W states:

“Therefore, divinely speaking, let nobody exclude the possibility of miraculous help from Heaven whereby the Society’s General Chapter will choose three top officials who understand what God wants from the Society, and mean with His help to give it to Him, namely the Society’s continuing or restored witness throughout the Church to the Social Kingship of Christ the King and to the one true religion instituted by the Incarnate God.”

Well, in plain, unequivocal English, can the bishop either affirm or deny that “three top officials” were chosen to lead the Society? Does he believe that the Society got “miraculous help from Heaven,” and that with this new leadership the Society now enjoys a fighting chance for a “restored witness?” I don’t think that it’s asking too much to inquire. In clear precise terms, can HE comment on the appointment of two additional advisors? Does he believe that these old relics of the SSPX can help bring about the restoration of the “Social Kingship of Christ the King?” Or, as many of us have probably concluded, does HE believe that these new appointments ensure the “disguised defeat” of any such restoration?

.
It seems to me that +W knows that hollingsworth will be asking these questions!
.
It seems to me that if H.E. were to "simply come out and state clearly the obvious," then the next question from hollingsworth would be "Then what are you, Your Excellency, going to do about it?" And he doesn't want to answer that question. Therefore, HE is much more at home with these other questions, instead.
.
Call that a drive-by observation. I don't pretend to know. Just sayin.
.
BTW I think they're good questions.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #6 on:** August 05, 2018, 08:48:09 PM »

A third pre- GC EC dated July 7 wherein prospective “capitulants” are warned not to capitulate, (a neat play on words.) “The hour is grave. The hour is very late,” the bishop reminds us all.

Well, did the capitulants capitulate? I, for one, think they did. They capitulated in spades. But the good bishop can not, apparently, bring himself to fully admitting that they did. He can do little more than point cryptically to a “disguised defeat.” Furthermore, he writes, “(i)n a way they (the capitulants?) are not to be blamed, because they are no more nor less than children of their age.”

So these five new appointments, and the rest of the sspx ruling class surrounding them, are relatively blameless. They’re simply creatures of the environment of the their times. Is that what we’re hearing?
The whole GC did, apparently, turn into a “children’s garden party.” If these five (new) leaders do contribute to decisions “with powerful repercussions for the entire Church= and world,” then please stop the world, cause I want to get off. If this bunch is “on the front line of the final battle between the Blessed Virgin and the Devil ,” then Heaven help us!

Go back and read the pre-GC ECs. +W was pretty worked up as he wrote them. But now that the event has concluded, and disappears in the rear view mirror, his sense of urgency seems greatly diminished. Maybe I misread him completely. But his attitude seems to be: ‘We tried, but we lost. Oh well. carry on’

Struthio · « **Reply #7 on:** August 05, 2018, 10:18:24 PM »

Roncalli and Montini sure were children of their time.

Are they to be blamed?

Wessex · « **Reply #8 on:** August 06, 2018, 08:25:48 AM »

SSPX priests are not living in torment. They have a job with a pension and are not uncomfortable. They keep the Latin Mass machine rolling on and offer to look after that side of man that still hankers after supernatural meaning and an existence beyond the grave. Not everyone wants this; life on earth is more than enough! For those that do the bishop is warning of much austerity to come and is proposing a highly personalised solution to the failure of religious institutions and the duplicity of their officials. The home becomes the Church, those complicated intermediaries vanish and a calm simplicity prevails based on parental ability to continue preaching the gospel. I am reminded here of JWs who say they need no heavy structure to prop up their beliefs! I perceive an echo of this in the bishop's new thinking.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #9 on:** August 06, 2018, 12:47:54 PM »

No one will deny that Bp. W. thought that the decisions taken by the recent GC would have serious repercussions for the Society and its future; and that the leaders finally chosen would influence and shape the Society, not to mention the entire church, for the next 12 years for good or for evil. It is obvious that he thought this way.

That is why I brought up, earlier, portions from his ECs in the run up to the Chapter. Bp. W. was certain that deliberations among the capitulants and the selection of new leadership would have either salutary effects or grave consequences for sspx, and, more importantly, for Mother Church at large. So it is not unreasonable for one to ask the bishop to explain in some detail what, in his opinion, the final results of the Chapter were. Simply stating that the whole affair resulted in “a disguised defeat for the Catholic Faith” does not really cut it, particulary in light of the many pre-Chapter words HE expended in issuing warnings, cautions, and projections of potential disaster, should the event not unfold as he hoped it would.

Again, did HE not write the following?

“Therefore, divinely speaking, let nobody exclude the possibility of miraculous help from Heaven whereby the Society’s General Chapter will choose three top officials who understand what God wants from the Society, and mean with His help to give it to Him, ...”

I am personally convinced that miraculous help from Heaven did not occur, and that the three top officials selected do not understand what God wants from the Society, much less how to attain it. Add to these three, two supernumeraries from the past, only compounds what I perceive to be an utter disaster in the making.

Does the bishop agree? Will he venture further comment? We have yet to see.

Seraphina · « **Reply #10 on:** August 06, 2018, 12:53:26 PM »

The Society isn't going to save the Church. Our Lady WILL save the Church by crushing the head of our adversary, Satan. 15 decades every day; watch and pray.

Mr G · « **Reply #11 on:** August 06, 2018, 02:53:15 PM »

FYI: On Maria Duce's You Tube Channel, she has a recent sermon by Bishop Williamson discussing the SSPX General Chapter meeting. It is on the 2nd half of the sermon.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #12 on:** August 06, 2018, 03:35:03 PM »

Mr. G: FYI:

Quote

On Maria Duce's You Tube Channel, she has a recent sermon by Bishop Williamson discussing the SSPX General Chapter meeting. It is on the 2nd half of the sermon.

Could I ask you to post a link to that sermon? I don't come with anything beyond July 7. And of course the GC did not convene until July 11. Maybe I missed it, but a simple link posting would be helpful.

cathman7 · « **Reply #13 on:** August 06, 2018, 04:58:19 PM »

He speaks about the General Chapter around the 20 minute mark.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #14 on:** August 06, 2018, 07:14:07 PM »

Thanks for posting the video. The sermon given on the 9^th Sunday after Pentecost, only a day after the GC closed on Sat. July 21. It took another week for the bishop to record initial reactions in an EC. They were not very illuminating, IMO

+W’s sermon was for me anti-climatic and disappointing. He is like a man sitting at the hospital bedside of a beloved spouse. She’s about to expire, and on life supports, hooked up to all kinds of tubes and wires. A monitor attached nearby shows a heart barely beating. At any moment the victim could flatline. Nevertheless, hope springs eternal. A last ditch ‘Pagliarani’ treatment has begun, a new untried procedure that the man admits he knows scarcely anything about. It could, he concedes, result in severe ‘Fellay/Schmidberger’ infections. So the man hangs his head and sighs mournfully.

I hope that a General Chapter- III EC may produce a bit more than this. But I’m not betting the farm on it. Pagliarani was once almost a sedevacantist, then a “servant of the system,” now, who knows what. But, HE asserts weakly, Fr. P. is “possibly the best man to replace Fellay.”

“Providence has kept the Society alive in spite of Bp. Fellay,” says the good bishop. Well, Your Excellency, +Fellay hasn’t gone anywhere. He’s right there at Fr. P’s side, offering advice and counsel to the inner circle, along with his sidekick Fr. Schmidberger. I’m sure that Krah & Co.will be hovering about, as well. And how, btw, can anyone be certain that the Society is still alive?

It may be time to pull the plug. But HE can’t bring himself to do that. We understand. After all, he spent many years in marriage to her. Perfectly natural, I guess, to feel as he does.

Author Topic: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577) (Read 6439 times)

Mega-fin

“Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

hollingsworth

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

SeanJohnson

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

Matthew

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

hollingsworth

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

Neil Obstat

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

hollingsworth

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

Struthio

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

Wessex

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

hollingsworth

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

Seraphina

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

Mr G

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

hollingsworth

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

cathman7

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

hollingsworth

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)