Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - June 22nd  (Read 3032 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - June 22nd
« Reply #10 on: June 23, 2013, 05:41:06 PM »
I presumed he was referring to Bishop de Galaretta

Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - June 22nd
« Reply #11 on: June 24, 2013, 11:08:50 PM »
Apparently, sedevacantists are to blame for everything.  Not one of the Resistance priests is a sedevacantist.  Does this lack of logic strike anyone else as odd?  
"Their minds have turned to mush."  +Bp. Williamson


Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - June 22nd
« Reply #12 on: June 24, 2013, 11:57:56 PM »
.


Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta was in charge of the negotiations
from 2009 to 2011.  Therefore, when +W writes, "...For a long
time he was its defender, but since the Doctrinal Discussions
of 2009 to 2011 proved that Rome was persevering in its
doctrinal error," it would seem that puts +dG in the thick of it.

"...now he too, in 2013, approves of the Society’s collapse of
principle at the Chapter of 2012 when it renounced a doctrinal
agreement and set conditions for a merely practical agreement."
I have to admit, I have not seen any openly approving
statements from +dG on this Chapter.  What we do have is the
fact that he signed the GC papers. Maybe that's this "approval?"

"Yet he is glad that in practice the collapse bore no fruit !"  
-Now, at this point, it seems more closely related to +TdM than
to +AdG. +TdM even went on record saying that he believed
that the refusal of Newrome to accept the AFD was a sign of
intercession of Our Lady, a miracle of intervention.  Did +AdG
have anything to say about it?  

I don't think I'm qualified to say one way or the other, but it
does seem he must be talking about one or the other of these
two bishops, and obviously not +F. or the district superiors or
the other officers in Menzingen, for example.  

Be that as it may, could it be he's using a kind of abstraction
like a symbolic man that has aspects of various priests and/or
bishops in the Society's highest offices?  If that were the
case, the last paragraph should help answer this:

"As for the SSPX leaders, they are mired in duplicity
because they still have to deceive themselves and others that
they are faithful to the old religion of God and of Archbishop
Lefebvre..." -how are "the SSPX leaders" any different from
the analogy-man "...towards the top of the SSPX?"


After all this, I have to wonder whether either of the two
bishops have so much as read this EC.  (Hint: +AdG can
read it in Spanish, and +TdM can read it in French, because
those are supported languages in the available versions!)