Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Moorslayer on September 16, 2015, 04:30:13 PM
-
So I'm a recent convert to Catholicism in an SSPX parish, in part because I admire Bishop Williamson's courage. I was sad to discover that he was removed from the Society.
Do you think that when the next Superior General elections happen, and if Bishop Fellay is not reelected, does Bishop Williamson have a good chance at being reinstated in the Society with a position of power/influence within the Society?
What are the other 2 Bishop's opinions on Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson?
Can anyone give me a quick rundown on the inside information of how the culture of the SSPX leadership works?
I just want a clear understanding of the situation, because I'm very new to this.
Thank you.
-
Do you think that when the next Superior General elections happen, and if Bishop Fellay is not reelected, does Bishop Williamson have a good chance at being reinstated in the Society with a position of power/influence within the Society?
Very unlikely. It wasn't Bp Fellay alone that decided to exclude Bp Williamson from the General Chapter meeting, and those (mostly) same voters will decide who the next Superior is going to be.
-
Very unlikely. It wasn't Bp Fellay alone that decided to exclude Bp Williamson from the General Chapter meeting, and those (mostly) same voters will decide who the next Superior is going to be.
How many voters are there? Are the other 2 Bishops sympathetic to Williamson?
-
This is a quote from when Bp Williamson was excluded from the meeting:
At the General Chapter, which is presently being held at Écône, there was a vote taken on the decision of Bishop Fellay to exclude Bishop Williamson from the Chapter. Bishop Williamson sent an explanatory letter to each member of the Chapter regarding his understanding of the crisis that the FSSPX currently endures. (It has not yet been made public but will be made public; I have not read it.) Bishop Fellay abstained from voting. The final vote was 29 vs. 9 in favour of Bishop Fellay's decision to exclude Bishop Williamson.
Thus, we now have final proof that Bishop Fellay's coup of the Fraternity has been accomplished. His work is complete. Over two thirds of the members of the Chapter are his men. The FSSPX founded by the Archbishop, as we have known it and loved it over the years, is done.
Now, as the hardship we have expected nears, the SSPX clergy and faithful will be armed with this information when they make some weighty decisions for their futures and their families.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=19646&min=0&num=3
-
This is a quote from when Bp Williamson was excluded from the meeting:
At the General Chapter, which is presently being held at Écône, there was a vote taken on the decision of Bishop Fellay to exclude Bishop Williamson from the Chapter. Bishop Williamson sent an explanatory letter to each member of the Chapter regarding his understanding of the crisis that the FSSPX currently endures. (It has not yet been made public but will be made public; I have not read it.) Bishop Fellay abstained from voting. The final vote was 29 vs. 9 in favour of Bishop Fellay's decision to exclude Bishop Williamson.
Thus, we now have final proof that Bishop Fellay's coup of the Fraternity has been accomplished. His work is complete. Over two thirds of the members of the Chapter are his men. The FSSPX founded by the Archbishop, as we have known it and loved it over the years, is done.
Now, as the hardship we have expected nears, the SSPX clergy and faithful will be armed with this information when they make some weighty decisions for their futures and their families.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=19646&min=0&num=3
Interesting thanks. But what about the other 2 Bishops? I heard at least one of them had favorable opinions of Bishop Williamson.
Does Bishop Williamson even want to seek reunion with SSPX? I think he could accomplish a lot more within the Society than outside, resisting it.
-
Let's face it. Bp. Fellay should not have been the superior general of the Society anyway. That's not even taking into account his length of tenure. ABL never intended that a bishop should be elected SG. But somehow he got in.
I see the leadership ranks of the Society filled with priests, (mostly European), who can not bear the sight of Bp. Williamson. I think they have had problems with His Eminence for years, long before he was expelled. The second in command, the German Fr. Phluger, is, IMO, a scarcely disguised liberal. I think he, in particular dislikes H.E. (Read his 8 page letter to the bishop)
But Williamson's real problems came at the time he gave the interview in 2009 to a Swedish TV network. He had been saying similar things about the "h0Ɩ0cαųst" for years prior to his remarks in the last 5 minutes of an hour long interview. Everyone knew, including most, if not all of the bishop's confreres, not to mention seminarians and the lay faithful throughout the world, his views on the h0Ɩ0cαųst, the "gas chambers," the "six million, etc," Williamson was not particularly shy about expressing them. And yet, the SG said that he had never been aware about how H.E. felt on these matters . What a crock of lying ______!
Pope Benedict, at the time, pretended likewise that he hadn't been aware of +Williamson's views on the subject. Pure baloney! It's just that the lifting of the excommunications came at about the time the interview was conducted, late November, 2008,early January of 2009. The affair was fresh in the minds of everyone, and a total embarrassment to Fellay & Co., not to mention the pope. Personally, I loved every entertaining minute of it.
But to answer the question: No, Bp. Williamson will not reunite with the Society, not until +Fellay & Co. are out of there, and certainly not until all the Tribal connections are severed. The SSPX can not survive to continue its original mission until its Augean stables are cleansed.
-
certainly not until all the Tribal connections are severed. The SSPX can not survive to continue its original mission until its Augean stables are cleansed.
What are SSPX's connections to the Jews? I haven't heard of this. I know Bp. Fellay stated in 2012, "The enemies of the Church. The Jews, the Masons, the Modernists."
-
Moorslayer, as a "recent convert", your curiosity is to be commended, however, before you plunge in to ask detailed questions, wisdom would have that you first prepare yourself to know the truth when it is presented to you.
I encourage you to take as much time as need to firstly understand the crisis in the Church. Read as much as you can about Vatican II, the errors of it, and the reasons for the errors. Archbishop Lefebvre himself wrote many books about Vatican II and his own response to the errors promoted by it. Read, read, read, there is no quick way to get where you need to be.
With regard to the most current events, say post 2012, this forum site has links devoted to provide that information too. Look at the 1st 4 forum lines under SSPX Resistance on this forum. They provide a lot of historical information.
Check out truetrad.com also. Other sites are available for your review.
Finally, asking innocuous questions whether Bishop Williamson will return to the SSPX serves no purpose, as such speculation is not worth the time taken to read the sentence. Only the SSPX and the person you mention knows the answer to that question, so I encourage you to not use forums to encourage speculation.
-
Best Answer
Moorslayer, as a "recent convert", your curiosity is to be commended, however, before you plunge in to ask detailed questions, wisdom would have that you first prepare yourself to know the truth when it is presented to you.
I encourage you to take as much time as need to firstly understand the crisis in the Church. Read as much as you can about Vatican II, the errors of it, and the reasons for the errors. Archbishop Lefebvre himself wrote many books about Vatican II and his own response to the errors promoted by it. Read, read, read, there is no quick way to get where you need to be.
With regard to the most current events, say post 2012, this forum site has links devoted to provide that information too. Look at the 1st 4 forum lines under SSPX Resistance on this forum. They provide a lot of historical information.
Check out truetrad.com also. Other sites are available for your review.
Finally, asking innocuous questions whether Bishop Williamson will return to the SSPX serves no purpose, as such speculation is not worth the time taken to read the sentence. Only the SSPX and the person you mention knows the answer to that question, so I encourage you to not use forums to encourage speculation.
-
Nickolas:
Finally, asking innocuous questions whether Bishop Williamson will return to the SSPX serves no purpose, as such speculation is not worth the time taken to read the sentence. Only the SSPX and the person you mention knows the answer to that question, so I encourage you to not use forums to encourage speculation.
Come again!? this forum and others like it are full of "speculation" on a wide range of issues. Why can't Moorslayer inquire into these sspx matters? I don't get it. It is at least "worth the time taken to read the sentence," IMO. Without lots of "speculation," or if speculation were discouraged or not permitted on many topics, Cathinfo would probably shut down, wouldn't it?
-
Hollingsworth, don't you believe there is a difference between disputations and speculation? You and I can debate the differences here, and that would be a good, healthy debate. There are very many threads on this forum that are healthy one's, void of speculation. Other portions of threads here are speculative, and they often lead to troublesome quarrels that serve no purpose, do they?
I believe we can take our example from our Blessed Lord Himself. He disputed much with the Pharisees but I don't believe he ever speculated with anyone, at least in the reading I have done.
In 2nd Timothy 2:23, Paul seems to warn us about speculation leading to quarrels.
http://biblehub.com/2_timothy/2-23.htm
-
Moorslayer, as a "recent convert", your curiosity is to be commended, however, before you plunge in to ask detailed questions, wisdom would have that you first prepare yourself to know the truth when it is presented to you.
I encourage you to take as much time as need to firstly understand the crisis in the Church. Read as much as you can about Vatican II, the errors of it, and the reasons for the errors. Archbishop Lefebvre himself wrote many books about Vatican II and his own response to the errors promoted by it. Read, read, read, there is no quick way to get where you need to be.
With regard to the most current events, say post 2012, this forum site has links devoted to provide that information too. Look at the 1st 4 forum lines under SSPX Resistance on this forum. They provide a lot of historical information.
Check out truetrad.com also. Other sites are available for your review.
Finally, asking innocuous questions whether Bishop Williamson will return to the SSPX serves no purpose, as such speculation is not worth the time taken to read the sentence. Only the SSPX and the person you mention knows the answer to that question, so I encourage you to not use forums to encourage speculation.
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.
-
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.
.
-
Nickolas, in my earlier post, which seemed to open yet another controversy, you seem to point to the things I say in it as "speculative." Would you care to specify what particular items in that post are speculative?
-
Hollingsworth, I was not referring to anything in your post as speculative, but merely drawing a distinction between speculation and debate of issues. That's all. I apologize if I led you to believe otherwise.
-
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
-
Nickolas: Finally, asking innocuous questions whether Bishop Williamson will return to the SSPX serves no purpose, as such speculation is not worth the time taken to read the sentence. Only the SSPX and the person you mention knows the answer to that question, so I encourage you to not use forums to encourage speculation.
Come again!? this forum and others like it are full of "speculation" on a wide range of issues. Why can't Moorslayer inquire into these sspx matters? I don't get it. It is at least "worth the time taken to read the sentence," IMO. Without lots of "speculation," or if speculation were discouraged or not permitted on many topics, Cathinfo would probably shut down, wouldn't it?
Between your posts here and at ABL2, I'm beginning to think you just like to argue for the sake of argument.
-
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.
-
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
Interesting. Thank you.
I don't think it's entirely fair to hang it all on the French, however. Fr. Francois Chazal and Bishop Jean-Michel Faure being prime examples of the contrary, not to exclude such others as Fr. Patrick de la Rocque from St. Nicholas du Chardonnay.
.
-
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.
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?
-
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P100GPCX6WU
(I don't like Voris he just mentions what I'm talking about)
-
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.
.
-
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. 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.
I must protest. "and that it constitutes an objective danger to the faith of Catholics "
Full Stop! The Church forbids a Catholic from knowingly placing themselves where a danger to the Faith exists.
We can go no further at that point, and I do not see any possible circuмstance where that does not apply, and therefore any counsel which controverts this is wrong and should not have been given.
She came for permission and absolution from something that she suspected or knew was wrong and she received both and others who are of the same mind did as well.
Very Bad.
-
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: 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.
Creepy crawlies...lol. Your name calling is so childish.
-
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.
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:
-
J Paul:
Yes, that kicking off business was unnecessary. Others are tolerated who are much less charitable than you.
I can't tell you how relieved I feel at not having to go back there. They did me a favor. I asked for it and got it. Thanks, Tradfly and Richard. There are certainly a number on that forum who, perhaps, are less charitable than I, but I make no excuses. Suffice to say, you can't really build up anything positive with a bunch like that, IMO.
-
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.
-
Creepy crawlies...lol. Your name calling is so childish.
That's why the "creepy crawlies" actually banned him. Not because of his views. There was evidently a housecleaning of some prominent provocateurs who had been long tolerated but crossed the line with their personal insults. Their occasional positive imput will be dearly missed by most at ABL2, but their lack of charity and downright mean-ness will not.
-
I will say again that I am very happy to have been expelled from ABL2. I'm not certain who these "provocateurs" were on that forum to whom 1st Mansion refers, (outside of myself). But not to worry, ABL2 admits a number of other kinds of "provocateurs." Most of them feel they can declare open season on the bishop, and not be called to account for it.
-
The title of this thread would be more properly titled, "What are the chances of SSPX reuniting with Williamson?".
Bishops Williamson never changed. He always remained the same in the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre, who was guided by the Holy spirit. Bishop Williamson never left the SSPX, rather it was SSPX who left him and the original position of +Lefebvre.
SSPX changed by flirting with Rome and kicking out good, prudent priests opposed to dealing with Rome until Rome rejects the new order mass and Vat II.
-
I was banned from ABLF 1.0 for a number of reasons. The official reason was for criticizing the administrator SSS. But months earlier I was bewildered by a huge attack mounted against me by half the forum, joined in by Telesphorus of all people, for suggesting gender-segregated forums. Not demanding, mind you. I was merely suggesting, more for conversation fodder than anything. I also created bad blood with those on the forum who were devotees of Dawn Marie for expressing skepticism about her; these devotees also happened to be the same people who were most aggressive towards me months earlier for suggesting gender-segregated forums. The big surprise was that Telesphorus sided with the bull-dykes and she-males against me. I received support only from Graham, PereJoseph, and Ethelred and 1 woman (who's handle escapes me). GottmitunsAlex agreed with me that this craziness was an indication of feminism within traddom.
I can see from lurking on ABLF 2.0 that the same dysfunctional atmosphere continues to reign. I find needleduck about the most unsavory person on that forum. Her forced good-humor conceals a snake in the grass. Telesphorus astonished me by joining in the attack. Mr. Anti-Feminism, of all people. I guess Telesphorus is one of those types who's very strong when it comes to rhetoric, but in action is full of contradiction.
As far as Bishop Williamson, I've become cautious about him as a result of learning the following things about him:
-- Inviting Rabbi Mayer Schiller to Winona to speak to seminarians.
-- Promotion of The Poem of the ManGod, in which "Jesus" is depicted: "I love and venerate Hillel, I respect and honour Gamaliel. They are two men through whose justice and wisdom the origin of man is revealed"
I've read that Cardinal Bea, the false Jєωιѕн convert responsible for Nostra Aetate, was the man behind early promotion of The Poem
-- Has promoted Malachi Martin.
-- Has promoted Charles Coulombe
2vermont is at least Judaized. She's a Jєωιѕн convert who has attacked me on Te Deum for my posts about Jews. She was also one of the women on ABLF 1.0 who attacked me for suggesting gender-segregated forums.
-
ascent:
The title of this thread would be more properly titled, "What are the chances of SSPX reuniting with Williamson?".
Exactly! The chances are slim to none that the SSPX will reunite with +Williamson, because the organization has gone of the rails vis-a-vis the original mission of ABL. Bp. Williamson has remained true to the original Lefebvrian mission by and large, imo. Perhaps a more appropriate question might be: What are the chances of numbers of so-called "traditional Catholics," once apparently loyal to ABL, reuniting with Bp. Williamson. ABL2 forum, named after the Archbishop, spends inordinate amounts of time downgrading and undermining His Eminence, IMO. And I would speculate that one of the most critical voices over there is not even Catholic. But if I tell you what I think he is, I'd be accused of "downright meanness." LOL.
-
2vermont is at least Judaized. She's a Jєωιѕн convert who has attacked me on Te Deum for my posts about Jews.
Yeah, that's one of the litmus tests for Jєωιѕн "converts". See if they still defend and / or propagate jewry.
BUMP:
It is historical fact that the Jews have been behind the worse revolutions against the Church of Christ. (Reformation, French Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, Vatican II, etc.) If a convert Jew takes an issue with these historical facts against Judaism and still may take offense when someone points out these facts, then it is a proof that as Ascend says, he is not really born to New Life as a Catholic, but still carries the mark of the Jew with their innate nature to revolt against Christ. Wherever the Jews as a whole are allowed to gain power, only spiritual and social decay follows. That is why they have always been expelled and secluded from everywhere, until XX century when they have literally taken over the world and over the Catholic Church with Vatican II, and we are seeing the disastrous results of the global Jєωιѕн influence. Everything that is twisted in society today, we can thank the global spread of Judaism for.
Over the centuries, the Church has never changed her firm, wise stance on the Jєωιѕн question (until Vatican II, apparently). On the one hand, she prevented the Jews from being mistreated and she allowed their religion to be practiced in private. On the other hand, however, faced with the impossibility of converting them, she rebuked them for the crime of Deicide, exhorted them to repent, and isolated them in order to prevent them from perverting Catholics.
.........................
In the Brief of May 27, 1581, Gregory XIII (1572-1585) warned the faithful and religious authorities against the false conversions of Jews as a means to infiltrate the Catholic Church. (37) In the Bull Antiqua ʝʊdɛօrum improbitas of June 1, 1581, the Pontiff established these conditions for when Jews must be submitted to the vigilance of the Inquisition:
a. when they attack Catholic dogmas;
b. when they invoke devils or offer sacrifices to them;
c. when they teach Catholics to do the same;
d. when they speak blasphemies against Our Lord and Our Lady;
e. when they try to induce Catholics to abandon their Faith;
f. when they forbid a Jew or an infidel to convert;
g. when they consciously favor heretics;
h. when they disseminate heretical books;
i. when, in disdain for Our Lord, they crucify a lamb – principally on Good-Friday – and then spit on it and spew it with insults.
j. when they oblige Catholic wet-nurses to pour their milk into the toilettes and sewers after they have received the Eucharist. (38)
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a028htJPII_VisitToѕуηαgσgυє1986.htm
As we see, the Jєωιѕн infiltration have always been a thread for the Church but never seemed so victorious and evident as with Vatican II Council.
-
Wise words.
2Vermont objected to my thread suggesting that Catholics should be cautious about Jєωιѕн converts who haven't been disowned by their families. I learned from GottmittunsAlex that this was also the view of St. Vincent Ferrer.
-
One of the ABL2 anti-Williamson denizens, a frequent contributor there, who takes upon himself often the responsibility of reprinting H.E.'s ECs, does not apparently know if he's a jew or not. It must be some kind of ethnic amnesia. LOL.
-
Wise words.
2Vermont objected to my thread suggesting that Catholics should be cautious about Jєωιѕн converts who haven't been disowned by their families. I learned from GottmittunsAlex that this was also the view of St. Vincent Ferrer.
This does strike me as a possible marker to look out for. I have an ex-Mormon in-law who converted to traditional Catholicism, and his whole family disowned him, won't even see his children on holidays. And at the mostly Mormon place of employment he has, he is ostracized. Not that he seems to care, though.
(However, that may not always be the case. Many families now-a-days consider themselves religious conservatives of whatever variety, yet condone anything under banner of 'love and acceptance.')
-
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.
.
Of course he told her that she could go to the Novus Ordo. Bp. Williamson, in one and the same answer told her:
the Novus Ordo is a "key part of the new religion, a major part of the worldwide apostasy.”
“Do whatever you need to nourish your faith.”
“Some Novus Ordo priests are nourishing and building the faith in the Novus Ordo parish.”
“There have been eucharistic miracles with the Novus Ordo Mass. They are still occurring.”
“While the new religion is false, is dangerous, and it strangles grace, and it’s helping many people to lose the faith, at the same time there are cases where it can be used and is used to build the faith.”
“Do whatever you need to do to keep the faith.”
“You make your own judgments.” “I’ve got to make my own decisions in my own circuмstances.”
“Therefore there are cases when even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one’s faith instead of losing it.” “Stay away from the Novus Ordo. But exceptionally, if you’re watching and praying, even there you may find the grace of God. If you do, make use of it in order to sanctify your soul.”
“If they [the lay people] can trust their own judgement, that attending the New Mass will do them more good than harm spiritually…But it does harm in itself. There is no doubt about that. It is a rite designed to undermine Catholics’ faith, and to turn their belief away from God towards man.”
“The whole of the new religion, and the Novus Ordo Mass is an essential part of the new religion, is designed to get you away from the Catholic Faith…”
All of this was in the same answer to this one question asked by this one woman. It took Bp. Williamson about 10 minutes to answer her.
I think this illustrates the position of the SSPX and even the so called "Resistence." This is the consequence of not answering the essential question definitively. This is the consequence of having your "pope" and eating him too.
Watch his response for yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzI4WKwDlPk
-
I think this illustrates the position of the SSPX and even the so called "Resistence." This is the consequence of not answering the essential question definitively. This is the consequence of having your "pope" and eating him too.
I agree. I think so long as these men are "recognized" as popes confusion reigns.
-
I agree. I think so long as these men are "recognized" as popes confusion reigns.
Who are "these men?" I lost the thread here.
Who 'recognizes' these men as popes?
Confusion does reign, it's true. And 2vermont and mysterium help to sow it.
-
I agree. I think so long as these men are "recognized" as popes confusion reigns.
Who are "these men?" I lost the thread here.
Who 'recognizes' these men as popes?
Confusion does reign, it's true. And 2vermont and mysterium help to sow it.
Who recognizes these men as popes?
Why Bp Fellay and Bp Williamson do. Did I miss something? Did they recently announce that they are now Sedevacantists?
Yes, confusion does reign in the SSPX and the so called "Resistence", when people are told: “Some Novus Ordo priests are nourishing and building the faith in the Novus Ordo parish.”
I am not confused. Vatican II and the Novus Ordo "Mass" are not Catholic and a Catholic cannot assist at a Novus Ordo "Mass" under ANY circuмstances.
That should have been Bp Williamson's answer.
-
Wise words.
2Vermont objected to my thread suggesting that Catholics should be cautious about Jєωιѕн converts who haven't been disowned by their families. I learned from GottmittunsAlex that this was also the view of St. Vincent Ferrer.
This does strike me as a possible marker to look out for. I have an ex-Mormon in-law who converted to traditional Catholicism, and his whole family disowned him, won't even see his children on holidays. And at the mostly Mormon place of employment he has, he is ostracized. Not that he seems to care, though.
(However, that may not always be the case. Many families now-a-days consider themselves religious conservatives of whatever variety, yet condone anything under banner of 'love and acceptance.')
It's not necessary to be suspicious of converts from most, or all, non-Jєωιѕн religions, because no non-Jєωιѕн religion that I'm aware of gives permission to adherents to pretend to not be adherents. Judaism permits Jews to not admit that they're Jєωιѕн, so a Jew can convert to the Church and claim to be a good Catholic while remaining in his mind a Jew.