The most recent General Chapter vote to oust Bishop Williamson was and probably sadly remains a telling sign of the state of the SSPX.  Even laymen in association with the SSPX's publishing arm think Bishop Williamson is bad for business.  Forget the fact that they dislike him because he offends their more sensible and 'prudential' minds on such things like history or ecclesiology.

Sadly, I would bet there is not a chance in Hades that His Lordship will be welcomed back to a house of the SSPX before the Lord is done with him on this rock.

The anti-Dinoscopus sentiment had been seminal in the SSPX since the Summer of 1994.  I witnessed it with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears when in Winona.  There are many a fair-weather-fan priest on the anti-Dinoscopus mailing list by now, particularly since the French Foreign Legion runs most autonomous houses in districts worldwide. I could only name 3 clerics who might even have the stones to house that 'eccentric lump of English plutonium'.  They are castrated because of the fear of being 'swiss-fellayed'.  I say, unabashedly there are a bunch of chickensh*ts in collars these days.


"Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt."

Caesar, The Gallic Wars

Quote from: Moorslayer

I already understand the crisis concerning Vatican 2 and the reasons for the resistance. My intentions are not to speculate, but to inquire about any legitimate info such as statements and such, concerning if reunion is even plausible. If there have been no statements from either side on the possibilities of reunion, then I guess the answer to my question is no.

Barring an act of God that somehow reforms the SSPX present leadership somehow, it seems to me that +Fellay and his hand-picked cronies have taken a sharp turn away from the path laid out by ABL, and +Williamson has held fast to the straight and narrow way, while the other two original bishops are somewhere in the middle and apparently each of them could go right or left, but who knows?

I am not aware of any "statements from either side on the possibilities of reunion," as you put it.  

You have to consider the entire range of what has been going on over the past 3 decades in the Society of St. Pius X in particular and in the world in general.  You must review the facts of GREC and how +F had been so reticent about its dealings for YEARS, even acting as though nothing at all was going on, when it in fact WAS.  

You must consider how so many speeches he has given over the years have been LONG and BORING, containing so little substance as to put the audiences to SLEEP, while everyone thought it was a great virtue of the SSPX faithful to be so patient and submissive to this penitential listening fiasco.  

You must not overlook how +F has made no secret of the fact that he is attracted to reunion with Conciliar Rome like a bug is drawn to a light bulb.  He has presented his attraction as some kind of holy quest, and actually, +W has not done anything to take a stand against that attraction.  

In all justice we in the Resistance must not lose sight of the guiding principle laid down by ABL such that this remnant of Catholics cannot fall victim to any attraction to Rome until Rome first converts back to the Faith of our Fathers, because so long as Conciliar Rome is infected with this rampant Modernism poison, there is no point of us submitting to their authority since they would simply eat us alive when we walk through the door.  That is their nature.

Therefore, inasmuch as +F and his henchmen have fallen off the rails in the direction of walking through that door prematurely, there really cannot be any possibility of reunion unless +F and his cronies CONVERT and once again embrace the foundational principle that would keep us all together:  resistance to the Modernism of Conciliar Rome.

.

Except both Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson don't seem to take issue with Catholics attending the NO.

Except both Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson don't seem to take issue with Catholics attending the NO.

That's a lie, and you know it.  Attempting to stir up controversy, now?

Or, when you said, "I'm beginning to think you just like to argue for the sake of argument," were you thinking of yourself?

.

Except both Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson don't seem to take issue with Catholics attending the NO.

Well IDK about Bp. Fellay's position in particular but I know the SSPX officially warns against attending the NO.

(I don't like Voris he just mentions what I'm talking about)

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: 2Vermont

Except both Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson don't seem to take issue with Catholics attending the NO.

That's a lie, and you know it.  Attempting to stir up controversy, now?

Or, when you said, "I'm beginning to think you just like to argue for the sake of argument," were you thinking of yourself?

.

Actually it's not a lie and you know it.  Or are you one of the folks who deny or explain away that Bishop Williamson advised a woman to attend the NO in June?

No, it's a lie and you know it.

Bishop Williamson did not advise a woman to attend the N.O., but only explained to everyone publicly that he did not advise AGAINST her doing so, for personal reasons applicable only to her case and to others like her.  He was very clear in saying that he does not recommend the N.O. for everyone, and that it constitutes an objective danger to the faith of Catholics in general.  Maybe you should pay better attention.

.

OK,so you are one of the blind ones who likes to explain it away.  No matter how you slice it, Bishop Williamson didn't tell her NOT to attend.  No trad cleric should ever do that.    

Neil O:

Bishop Williamson did not advise a woman to attend the N.O., but only explained to everyone publicly that he did not advise AGAINST her doing so, for personal reasons applicable only to her case and to others like her.

I agree entirely.  J Paul would argue against that position, but, I believe, he does so in good faith.  2Vermont, on the other hand, is against the bishop across the board.  She, along with several others, attacks the bishop maliciously, and always with the intention of bringing him down IMO. 2Vermont identifies very comfortably with the creepy-crawlies " over on ABL2.  I was kicked off ABL2 yesterday.  I wear that expulsion as a badge of honor, (although my lack of charity at times was not commendable.  So I am not totally innocent myself.)  Having admitted that, however, I believe that numbers of so-called "traditional Catholics" are, in fact, fifth columnist who are under a great deal of Tribal influence, as is the SSPX today, IMO.

Neil O:

Quote

Bishop Williamson did not advise a woman to attend the N.O., but only explained to everyone publicly that he did not advise AGAINST her doing so, for personal reasons applicable only to her case and to others like her.

I agree entirely.  J Paul would argue against that position, but, I believe, he does so in good faith.  2Vermont, on the other hand, is against the bishop across the board.  She, along with several others, attacks the bishop maliciously, and always with the intention of bringing him down IMO. 2Vermont identifies very comfortably with the creepy-crawlies " over on ABL2.  I was kicked off ABL2 yesterday.  I wear that expulsion as a badge of honor, (although my lack of charity at times was not commendable.  So I am not totally innocent myself.)  Having admitted that, however, I believe that numbers of so-called "traditional Catholics" are, in fact, fifth columnist who are under a great deal of Tribal influence, as is the SSPX today, IMO.

Yes, that kicking off business was unnecessary. Others are tolerated who are much less charitable than you.
Neo-Tradition is indeed rife with sectarianism, cultishness, and my guy is better than your guyism.
A lot of tearing down and little building up. Much military talk and titles with no plans how to win the battle, little conceptualizing of strategy but grand presumptions of victories.

Your mention of the fifth column strategy is timely. It has been used successfully for millennia and is still here today...........think Krah and friends, and perhaps............... :scratchchin:

Trad sites are known for their bar-room brawls; we are a mix of refugees from the new order in terms of politics as well as religion. Resistance does not mean unity. But division can occur in many ways and I have found that a site can take on a hard to clarify character of its own; one that is changing and can has a life-cycle. I am reminded of the early days of Angelqueen when there were some really clever cookies on board.