Author Topic: VIDEO: Bp Williamson slams "Bp Fellay and his gang" (Read 4881 times)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #15 on:** July 25, 2012, 10:09:24 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Sorry, Tele, your words do not add up, objectively. Nothing was condemned in the Council (Vatcian II). The Council did not make any condemnations.

I was referring to this statement:

Quote from: Bishop Fellay

Thanks to the doctrinal discussions with Rome] we see that many things which we would have condemned as being from the Council are in fact not from the Council” … and that: “The Pope says that the Council must be put within the great Tradition of the Church… These are statements we agree with, totally, absolutely.”

SSPXCrisis · « **Reply #16 on:** July 25, 2012, 11:31:51 PM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

SSPX Crisis, if I may ask, I presume Bishop Williamson is aware that his statements are being made public in this manner, and has approved it?

Bishop Williamson personally approved the online release of the ~9 hours of talks he gave in Bristol, England back in June. I've just put together some highlights... the whole set of conferences (13 videos' worth) can also be viewed on YouTube.

Nishant · « **Reply #17 on:** July 26, 2012, 01:23:47 AM »

Those who would criticize the CNS interview ought in fairness to quote the relevant portion in its entirety. You may not agree with Bishop Fellay, of course, but, after speaking of why the traditional teaching under Pius XII on religious tolerance is preferable, he explains his opinion that it is Rome's position that has changed.

Columba · « **Reply #18 on:** July 26, 2012, 11:44:56 AM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

Those who would criticize the CNS interview ought in fairness to quote the relevant portion in its entirety. You may not agree with Bishop Fellay, of course, but, after speaking of why the traditional teaching under Pius XII on religious tolerance is preferable, he explains his opinion that it is Rome's position that has changed.

Rome's position is all over the map and remains unclear. Are you saying that Bishop Fellay did not admit that he had changed HIS position?

"I may say in the discussions, I think, we see that many things which we would have condemned as being from the Council are in fact not from the Council but the common understanding of it. [...]

Looking closer I really have the impression that not many know what the Council said about it. The Council is presenting a religious liberty which in fact is a very, very limited one, very limited."

http://thesensiblebond.blogspot.com/2012/05/rorate-already-passed-this-on-as-have.html

These comments are not taken out of context from the video, which was posted at www.sspx.org.

Nishant · « **Reply #19 on:** July 27, 2012, 12:10:13 PM »

Quote from: Columba

Rome's position is all over the map and remains unclear. Are you saying that Bishop Fellay did not admit that he had changed HIS position?

If you mean doctrinally, Columba, then yes, I think Bishop Fellay has not changed his doctrinal position. If you think otherwise, tell me with regard to what doctrine his position has changed?

This is the portion of His Excellency's speech that I would hope would be quoted by those who wish to criticize him, in the interest of fairness, "In our talks with Rome, they clearly said that to mean there would be a right to error or right to choose each one his religion is false". Then he talked about persecution of the Church in the middle east and said the problem is not about the freedom that is asked, but about which principle is invoked to do it. All of this does not strike me as coming from a doctrinally indifferent Bishop.

He had said religious tolerance is the traditional teaching and still says it. He had said there is no right to error and still says it. What he did say is that Rome is now openly admitting it as opposed to several decades when they did not.

Those who have followed this matter from the start will know that wasn't always the case. When Archbishop Lefebvre respectfully asked a similar question of the Pope, of whether there is a right to error, the answer was, "Ah, this is not the time for theology". That's why doctrinal discussion were a precondition to regularization, and the Society's general chapter has reiterated a similar condition going ahead while not ruling out canonical normalization.

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #20 on:** July 27, 2012, 08:40:44 PM »

SSPXCrisis,

I placed a pro-Williamson comment on YouTube and not only was my comment removed, but I was banned from the channel. What the heck!

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #21 on:** July 27, 2012, 08:42:38 PM »

"...I think Bishop Fellay has not changed his doctrinal position."

Did you listen to Fr. Pfluger's talk on June 5, 2012 where he revealed portions of the doctrinal preamble submitted by Bishop Fellay to Rome? Unacceptable.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #22 on:** July 28, 2012, 01:00:00 AM »

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

"...I think Bishop Fellay has not changed his doctrinal position."

Did you listen to Fr. Pfluger's talk on June 5, 2012 where he revealed portions of the doctrinal preamble submitted by Bishop Fellay to Rome? Unacceptable.

Could you please be more specific? What was unacceptable?

~ the fact that it was put on YouTube? (was it on YouTube??)

~ Was the talk itself unacceptable?

~ Was the preamble unacceptable to Rome, or someone else?

Can you post a link for the talk itself, here?

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #23 on:** July 28, 2012, 11:35:07 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
"...I think Bishop Fellay has not changed his doctrinal position."

Did you listen to Fr. Pfluger's talk on June 5, 2012 where he revealed portions of the doctrinal preamble submitted by Bishop Fellay to Rome? Unacceptable.

Could you please be more specific? What was unacceptable?

~ the fact that it was put on YouTube? (was it on YouTube??)

~ Was the talk itself unacceptable?

~ Was the preamble unacceptable to Rome, or someone else?

Can you post a link for the talk itself, here?

http://www.gloria.tv/?media=301352

This is what someone transcribed in French:

Transcription de certains passages
de la conférence de monsieur l’abbé Pflüger, le 5 juin 2012

1h 07 mn : On nous reproche d’abandonner la Foi. Alors cette déclaration doctrinale, peut-être le titre est mal choisi, elle dit justement que :
« nous promettons d’être toujours fidèles à l’Eglise catholique et au Pontife romain, nous déclarons accepter les enseignements du magistère de l’Eglise en matière de foi et de morale »
- si un jour il faut confesser je crois la liberté religieuse on ne va pas le faire, mais si on dit le credo pendant la messe on dit le credo de toujours donc pourquoi exiger de nous quelque chose qui n’est pas de foi, et ce qui est vraiment nouveau, si on compare, si il y a quelque chose qui a changé, on établit maintenant dans cette déclaration de Mgr Fellay du 15 avril il définit comme un principe général comment il faut juger ce concile Vatican II et il semble que le pape, on attend la réponse, il accepte ce texte qui dit :
« l’entière tradition de la foi catholique doit être la critère »,
- donc la tradition comme disait Mgr, il faut voir le concile Vatican II dans la lumière de la tradition, ici on dit –
« l’entière tradition de la foi catholique doit être le critère et le guide de compréhensions des enseignements du concile Vatican II lequel à son tour éclaire certains aspects de la vie et de la doctrine de l’Eglise implicitement présents en elle non encore formulés, les affirmations du concile Vatican II (ainsi de suite) et du magistère pontifical postérieur relatives à la relation entre l’Eglise catholique et les confessions chrétiennes non catholiques (ainsi de suite) doivent être comprise à la lumière »,
- donc les textes difficiles, on énumère plusieurs problèmes -,
« doivent être comprises à la lumière de la tradition entière et ininterrompue de manière cohérente avec les vérités précédemment enseignées par le magistère de l’Eglise sans accepter aucune interprétation… »
- donc c’est clair pour dire le principe c’est qu’il faut juger, comprendre ces textes qui sont difficiles dans la lumière ou dans l’esprit, dans la compréhension de la Tradition.
« C’est pourquoi il est légitime de promouvoir par une légitime discussion l’étude et l’explication théologique d’expressions ou de formulations du concile Vatican II, du magistère qui a suivi dans le cas où ils n’apparaissent pas conciliables avec le magistère antérieur de l’Église. »
On change rien, on n’abandonne rien, mais il semble, en tout cas le pape il ne faut plus avaler le concile, il faut aussi pour la messe les autres choses, il ne faut plus faire une profession de foi pour le concile Vatican II, il suffit, et encore une fois ils connaissent notre position sur ce concile, il suffit qu’on est catholique.

This is the English translation provided by the same person:

We promise to always be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff. We declare that we accept the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church in matters of faith and morals.

The entire tradition of catholic faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the second Vatican council, which, in turn, enlightens certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself and not yet formulated.

The affirmations of the second Vatican council […] and of the posterior pontifical Magisterium concerning relations between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic Christian confessions […] must be understood in the light of the entire and uninterrupted Tradition in a manner which is coherent with truths previously taught by the Church and without accepting any interpretation whatsoever.

That is why it is legitimate to promote through a legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of expressions or formulae of the second Vatican council and the ensuing Magisterium whenever these do not appear reconcilable with the Church’s previous Magisterium.

Nishant · « **Reply #24 on:** July 28, 2012, 12:09:48 PM »

I understand many people disagree with +Fellay's decisions, but what I don't understand is why they think he is doctrinally incompetent, or what sign he has ever given of that.

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Did you listen to Fr. Pfluger's talk on June 5, 2012 where he revealed portions of the doctrinal preamble submitted by Bishop Fellay to Rome? Unacceptable.

I believe this specific preamble was the one worded by Rome, then modified by +Fellay, then sent back, then deemed unacceptable by them as it contained references to the "errors of the Council" etc, yes? Again, this is pretty similar to what the General Chapter has collectively decided.

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #25 on:** July 30, 2012, 07:01:59 AM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

I understand many people disagree with +Fellay's decisions, but what I don't understand is why they think he is doctrinally incompetent, or what sign he has ever given of that.

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
Did you listen to Fr. Pfluger's talk on June 5, 2012 where he revealed portions of the doctrinal preamble submitted by Bishop Fellay to Rome? Unacceptable.

I believe this specific preamble was the one worded by Rome, then modified by +Fellay, then sent back, then deemed unacceptable by them as it contained references to the "errors of the Council" etc, yes? Again, this is pretty similar to what the General Chapter has collectively decided.

No. It was the preamble that Bishop Fellay sent to Rome on April 17, 2012.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #26 on:** August 01, 2012, 01:16:54 AM »

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
"...I think Bishop Fellay has not changed his doctrinal position."

Did you listen to Fr. Pfluger's talk on June 5, 2012 where he revealed portions of the doctrinal preamble submitted by Bishop Fellay to Rome? Unacceptable.

Could you please be more specific? What was unacceptable?

~ the fact that it was put on YouTube? (was it on YouTube??)

~ Was the talk itself unacceptable?

~ Was the preamble unacceptable to Rome, or someone else?

Can you post a link for the talk itself, here?

http://www.gloria.tv/?media=301352

This is what someone transcribed in French:

We promise to always be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff. We declare that we accept the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church in matters of faith and morals.

The entire tradition of catholic faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the second Vatican council, which, in turn, enlightens certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself and not yet formulated.

The affirmations of the second Vatican council […] and of the posterior pontifical Magisterium concerning relations between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic Christian confessions […] must be understood in the light of the entire and uninterrupted Tradition in a manner which is coherent with truths previously taught by the Church and without accepting any interpretation whatsoever.

That is why it is legitimate to promote through a legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of expressions or formulae of the second Vatican council and the ensuing Magisterium whenever these do not appear reconcilable with the Church’s previous Magisterium.

That's nice, but I don't see any answer to my question.

What was unacceptable? What: it can be a one word answer if it's meaningful.

And, unacceptable to whom?

When you say "unacceptable," you have two entities missing, what it was that
was unacceptable, and who it was, to whom the thing was unacceptable. You're
missing both of those things.

I don't do French, so I have to ask for help.