Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: dreamtomorrow on February 09, 2014, 01:58:29 PM
-
B. Williamson isn't leading (he didn't leave-they forced him, maybe he'd still be there if it were up to him. He also purposefully didn't sign the recent declaration because it endorsed a seminary, which he is against) , we need him to go out and convince priests/superiors. The signatures bore no fruit and more than one was retracted. B. Fellay isn't going to sign agreement because he's getting what he wants without it and if there had been agreement people may have reacted so SSPX superiors are going to go the slow route. Also because majority of resistance supporters do and will continue to go to SSPX chapels until they see heresy which they won't. How you maintain hope?
-
Pray to God and our Blessed Mother for guidance.
-
Fail to do what? Fail to set up another organized priestly society, like the SSPX? In that sense, it will fail to a degree.
The true faith cannot disappear, so in a generic sense "resistance" to modernist errors will not fail. It just might not come with a nice home-schooling network, regular mass times, regular worship space or a drive to mass under an hour.
+ABL never wanted a bishop to be SG, because of the confusion it causes the faithful. I'm sure this, in part, has motivated H.E. Williamson's "hands off" approach.
-
Depends on the area, too.
Someone posted on here today that there were ten people at their Resistance mass today. I wasn't counting, but we probably had forty, maybe more.
And of course, there are priests all across the world. It is certain that there is a significant (though not majority) dissent towards Fellay & Co.
It also depends on what you mean by "the Resistance." If meant just generally to refer to those priests who have left or been expelled from the SSPX (as well as the faithful who have left), it's not like now that they're not affiliated with the SSPX that they just all fall into the same group by the fact.
Those who have left are unified in that they do not want to deal with heretics in Rome. But after that, more division begins. There are disagreements to organization. Should "the Resistance" be worldwide, with a superior general? Or should there be different chapters, governing themselves according to location, each with a provincial head? Or should it be entirely informal, with worldwide mass-circuits? Then of course you have the ecclesiastical differences, as there are sedevacantists, non-sedevacantists, anti-sedevacantists, etc. It seems to me that at least in the American Resistance, sedevacantist priests wouldn't be welcome to join with Fr. Pfeiffer, at least according to Fr's emphatic anti-sedevacantism. In South America, would sedeplenist priests be welcome to aid the sedevacantist priests? And then, of course, since each area is co-ordinated by laypeople (exception in Bostn, KY, I suppose) there are naturally personality conflicts since there isn't even a figurehead of authority in the group.
-
Fail to do what? Fail to set up another organized priestly society, like the SSPX? In that sense, it will fail to a degree.
The true faith cannot disappear, so in a generic sense "resistance" to modernist errors will not fail. It just might not come with a nice home-schooling network, regular mass times, regular worship space or a drive to mass under an hour.
+ABL never wanted a bishop to be SG, because of the confusion it causes the faithful. I'm sure this, in part, has motivated H.E. Williamson's "hands off" approach.
These are no times for “hands off” approach. ABL consecrated four bishops in 1988. What would he do today with the Roman apostates openly attacking doctrine? Bishop Williamson has to follow his own conscience, but if he is serious about defending the faith, at the very least he should consecrate bishops for every traditional order to insure their continuance without any compromise in the future. Those orders can also administer Confirmation to the faithful. If H.E. dies without doing a magnanimous deed such as consecrating bishops, his omission would have been much greater than ABL's, had he not consecrated the four. May +Williamson fulfill his duties in a manner pleasing to God and beneficial to His Church.
-
Fail to do what? Fail to set up another organized priestly society, like the SSPX? In that sense, it will fail to a degree.
The true faith cannot disappear, so in a generic sense "resistance" to modernist errors will not fail. It just might not come with a nice home-schooling network, regular mass times, regular worship space or a drive to mass under an hour.
+ABL never wanted a bishop to be SG, because of the confusion it causes the faithful. I'm sure this, in part, has motivated H.E. Williamson's "hands off" approach.
These are no times for “hands off” approach. ABL consecrated four bishops in 1988. What would he do today with the Roman apostates openly attacking doctrine? Bishop Williamson has to follow his own conscience, but if he is serious about defending the faith, at the very least he should consecrate bishops for every traditional order to insure their continuance without any compromise in the future. Those orders can also administer Confirmation to the faithful. If H.E. dies without doing a magnanimous deed such as consecrating bishops, his omission would have been much greater than ABL's, had he not consecrated the four. May +Williamson fulfill his duties in a manner pleasing to God and beneficial to His Church.
You act like because he has not yet consecrated bishops that he never will.
You realize that ABL did not consecrate bishops until a few years before he died, yes?
Patience.
-
Those who "resist from within" need to be clearer.
-
B. Williamson isn't leading (he didn't leave-they forced him, maybe he'd still be there if it were up to him. He also purposefully didn't sign the recent declaration because it endorsed a seminary, which he is against) , we need him to go out and convince priests/superiors. The signatures bore no fruit and more than one was retracted. B. Fellay isn't going to sign agreement because he's getting what he wants without it and if there had been agreement people may have reacted so SSPX superiors are going to go the slow route. Also because majority of resistance supporters do and will continue to go to SSPX chapels until they see heresy which they won't. How you maintain hope?
Remaining at SSPX chapel is part of problem.One must give their all to the resistance.
-
B. Williamson isn't leading (he didn't leave-they forced him, maybe he'd still be there if it were up to him. He also purposefully didn't sign the recent declaration because it endorsed a seminary, which he is against) , we need him to go out and convince priests/superiors. The signatures bore no fruit and more than one was retracted. B. Fellay isn't going to sign agreement because he's getting what he wants without it and if there had been agreement people may have reacted so SSPX superiors are going to go the slow route. Also because majority of resistance supporters do and will continue to go to SSPX chapels until they see heresy which they won't. How you maintain hope?
Remaining at SSPX chapel is part of problem.One must give their all to the resistance.
Yes.
-
One doesn't know the mind of Almighty God or his plan for the resistance.
-
No one is addressing the EXCELLENT point brought up by dreamtomorrow. Bishop Williamson did not leave the SSPX because he courageously stood up against the Modernist +Fellay. Rather, he was thrown out. He says over and over that these things have been brewing in the SSPX since the early 90's. Why didn't he point this out then? He let this disease fester for DECADES. How can it be expected that now he will rise up and lead?
I have spoken to more than one old time SSPX priest. Each one commented when talking about Fr. Hewko and Pfeiffer that one of the main reasons they could not join was because they have no Bishop. Without a Bishop they cut themselves off from the Church. Without this "root", they will eventually wither and die.
Like Dreamtomorrow, I believe that many more priests would "hop off the fence" if they knew there was a trusted Bishop at the helm.
-
B. Williamson isn't leading (he didn't leave-they forced him, maybe he'd still be there if it were up to him. He also purposefully didn't sign the recent declaration because it endorsed a seminary, which he is against) , we need him to go out and convince priests/superiors. The signatures bore no fruit and more than one was retracted. B. Fellay isn't going to sign agreement because he's getting what he wants without it and if there had been agreement people may have reacted so SSPX superiors are going to go the slow route. Also because majority of resistance supporters do and will continue to go to SSPX chapels until they see heresy which they won't. How you maintain hope?
Remaining at SSPX chapel is part of problem.One must give their all to the resistance.
Yes.
Yes? Where I am in India the local Resistance organizer turns up for SSPX Masses.I don't attend the Resistance Masses because of a personality clash I have with two of the Resistance priests. Obviously some people are in luck. They now get Mass both from the SSPX and the Resistance.
-
No one is addressing the EXCELLENT point brought up by dreamtomorrow. Bishop Williamson did not leave the SSPX because he courageously stood up against the Modernist +Fellay. Rather, he was thrown out. He says over and over that these things have been brewing in the SSPX since the early 90's. Why didn't he point this out then? He let this disease fester for DECADES. How can it be expected that now he will rise up and lead?
I have spoken to more than one old time SSPX priest. Each one commented when talking about Fr. Hewko and Pfeiffer that one of the main reasons they could not join was because they have no Bishop. Without a Bishop they cut themselves off from the Church. Without this "root", they will eventually wither and die.
Like Dreamtomorrow, I believe that many more priests would "hop off the fence" if they knew there was a trusted Bishop at the helm.
Is the bolded part their words our yours?
Hopefully yours, as it's completely and utterly wrong and a priest, especially an old one, should know better. Bishop Williamson, like Bishop Fellay, enjoys no mission from the Church. They do not represent Her through formal apostolic succession, and as such, a Catholic does not owe them obedience, and a Catholic not being "united to" or "allied" with them has absolutely zero impact on whether or not such a person is still a Catholic.
If they meant it in context of needing a bishop to be the figuredhead of a group, if they are old priests then they should know that ABL never wanted a bishop to lead the group because of the confusion it would cause the faithful; mainly viewing the SSPX as a parallel Church-- confusion which is evident both on the part of the NSSPX faithful and the Resistance faithful.
-
Is the bolded part their words our yours?
Hopefully yours, as it's completely and utterly wrong and a priest, especially an old one, should know better. Bishop Williamson, like Bishop Fellay, enjoys no mission from the Church. They do not represent Her through formal apostolic succession, and as such, a Catholic does not owe them obedience, and a Catholic not being "united to" or "allied" with them has absolutely zero impact on whether or not such a person is still a Catholic.
If they meant it in context of needing a bishop to be the figuredhead of a group, if they are old priests then they should know that ABL never wanted a bishop to lead the group because of the confusion it would cause the faithful; mainly viewing the SSPX as a parallel Church-- confusion which is evident both on the part of the NSSPX faithful and the Resistance faithful.
They could simply have meant it in the sense that a group will lose its footing without a bishop to perform ordinations, administer the sacrament of confirmation etc. An organization with a priest at the head and bishops further down the hierarchy would effectively remedy the situation described above.
-
Is the bolded part their words our yours?
Hopefully yours, as it's completely and utterly wrong and a priest, especially an old one, should know better. Bishop Williamson, like Bishop Fellay, enjoys no mission from the Church. They do not represent Her through formal apostolic succession, and as such, a Catholic does not owe them obedience, and a Catholic not being "united to" or "allied" with them has absolutely zero impact on whether or not such a person is still a Catholic.
If they meant it in context of needing a bishop to be the figuredhead of a group, if they are old priests then they should know that ABL never wanted a bishop to lead the group because of the confusion it would cause the faithful; mainly viewing the SSPX as a parallel Church-- confusion which is evident both on the part of the NSSPX faithful and the Resistance faithful.
They could simply have meant it in the sense that a group will lose its footing without a bishop to perform ordinations, administer the sacrament of confirmation etc. An organization with a priest at the head and bishops further down the hierarchy would effectively remedy the situation described above.
Bishop Williamson has made it clear that he is willing to perform that function for Catholics who need it. He can do it without "heading" the group.
The Archbishop was against having a bishop as the leader of a traditional group.
-
If we take 1965 as the start of the crisis, the Archbishop Lefebvre has been dead for almost half of it.
If we take 1969 and the new mass as the start, then more than half.
I remember the justification for the consecrations and the set up of the SSPX rather well and of if my memory serves me, the idea that we would still be in this mess in 2014 was not imagined.
What the Archbishop saw as a prudent measure, back then, might not be sensible today.
Who knows how much longer this continues?
-
Who knows how much longer this continues?
I doubt this will end.
-
Everything temporal ends.
Even the Egyptian and Assyrian empires collapsed eventually.
From the perspective of my human lifetime though you might be correct.
-
Everything temporal ends.
Even the Egyptian and Assyrian empires collapsed eventually.
From the perspective of my human lifetime though you might be correct.
True.
-
Smith's Ozymandias
IN Egypt's sandy silence, all alone,
Stands a gigantic Leg, which far off throws
The only shadow that the Desert knows:—
"I am great OZYMANDIAS," saith the stone,
"The King of Kings; this mighty City shows
"The wonders of my hand."— The City's gone,—
Nought but the Leg remaining to disclose
The site of this forgotten Babylon.
We wonder,—and some Hunter may express
Wonder like ours, when thro' the wilderness
Where London stood, holding the Wolf in chace,
He meets some fragment huge, and stops to guess
What powerful but unrecorded race
Once dwelt in that annihilated place.
-
MIR, exact words were "They don't even have a Bishop." I believe this was meant as a link to apostolic succession. What you say is true. But, perception is "No Bishop=schism". People (and I guess even priests) feel that having a Bishop in charge of a priest roots that priest into the terrafirma of holy mother church. A priest without a bishop is just a renegade.
-
No one is addressing the EXCELLENT point brought up by dreamtomorrow. Bishop Williamson did not leave the SSPX because he courageously stood up against the Modernist +Fellay. Rather, he was thrown out. He says over and over that these things have been brewing in the SSPX since the early 90's. Why didn't he point this out then? He let this disease fester for DECADES. How can it be expected that now he will rise up and lead?
I have spoken to more than one old time SSPX priest. Each one commented when talking about Fr. Hewko and Pfeiffer that one of the main reasons they could not join was because they have no Bishop. Without a Bishop they cut themselves off from the Church. Without this "root", they will eventually wither and die.
Like Dreamtomorrow, I believe that many more priests would "hop off the fence" if they knew there was a trusted Bishop at the helm.
Bishop Williamson and others did warn and sound the alarm. A reference point is an interview with Dr. Nick Kollerstrom. The Bishop states very few paid heed to him.
This is true because at the 'Voice in the Wilderness' 2013 conference even those who knew Fr Celier personally were shocked. A South African? man present was shocked at the liberals yet the liberals were saying/doing this since the early 1990s.
The liberals waited until the death of the Archbishop.
What disturbed me was how few SSPX laity cared about 'Krahgate'. A few here and there expressed 'concern' but most dismissed it as rubbish.
Laity did warn about the distraction rosary crusades but were laughed at and some were placed under 'Holy Obedience' as mentioned on this forum.
Oblationem had the excellent comment if only people had been vocal earlier. Many SSPX laity had become complacent. The SSPX imploded before their eyes and only the few saw this. The majority were blind. The false obedience discussed at length on the forum. Even Bishop Williamson attributes it to the demise of the SSPX.
'Expelling' Bishop Williamson was part of the plan. Fr Steiner stated it facilitates a deal.
The SSPX of the Archbishop continues via the resistance. The resistance is the heir to his heritage.
-
On the benefits of defending the truth:
"And know, that if you defend the truth, you will act thus; those who love and defend the truth, and for its sake lose friends or any other advantage, pour forth on My Head a box of precious ointment, the perfume of which fills My house; for he who corrects others, by giving good example, emits a sweet odor. And if he fails in any way in the manner of correcting or reprehending, either by negligence or by roughness, I will excuse him before God My Father and the whole court of Heaven, even as I excused Magdalen."
Our Lord to St Gertrude
-
Dreamtomorrow, How do you maintain hope? Hope is in the name of the Lord., and the Catholic faith that He gave us. If you place your hope in any man, you will be disappointed. If you put all of your hope on one priest you could be disappointed ...one Bishop....one Resistance ...etc. All you can do is put all of your hope in Our Lord. He loves you. He will guide you. In the words of the sainted Padre Pio, "PRAY, HOPE, and DON'T WORRY!"
Remember, God is in control. All we can do is pray for the grace to know and follow His will.
-
Why is Bishop Williamson opposed to a seminary? Where does he expect new priests to come from?
-
Why is Bishop Williamson opposed to a seminary? Where does he expect new priests to come from?
It seems the question should be not "opposed to A seminary," but rather "opposed to THIS seminary." But according to Fr. Pfeiffer, it's more like "opposed to these seminarians."
Fr. Pfeiffer explained in a recent conference that +W thought the seminarians in KY are "losers," but Fr. defended them with something like this:
So what's new about that? We've all been losers. Nobody is worthy to become a priest; that much is a given.
Another man present in the audience added, "You have to start somewhere." -Meaning that the Resistance is just getting started, so you shouldn't expect perfection from square one, or something like that.
That's not a direct quote, and I don't recall what the venue or date was. And I didn't really understand it very well, because it doesn't sound like +W to have such opinions of seminarians. There must be more to it than that. Maybe he did not think well of the buildings themselves? But Fr. didn't say that. Fr. Chazal has gone on record referring to it as a "cardboard seminary." That is in reference to its humble setting: not very comfortable, inconvenient pests (animals / bugs), muddy rutted roads, heating inadequacy, various things that are not the stuff that make for an attractive brochure. Basically, nobody who expects a two-star accommodation need apply. For sure, they are getting an early training in penitential living.
My question is, how does their willingness to tolerate such conditions make for them to be thought of as "losers?" Something doesn't add up with that. In my book, any seminarian who can willingly agree to misery while he studies is already halfway to sainthood.
.
-
All you need in enough food and warmth and away you go! Bp. W wants a palace to match his credentials, qualifications and celebrity and he has now got it in the Garden of Kent. I have experienced both and the simple life does have its merits, while too much grandeur can be a burden! Anyway, we live in our heads and hearts and our surroundings are merely a way of measuring our attachment to material things.
The bishop has doubts about the calibre of candidates. He questions the basis for their vocations in a world which hardly encourages them. The selection process has to be rigorous while at the same time beggars cannot be choosers. Bearing in mind he thinks the Church is on her last legs and any grand initiatives are now superfluous to maintaining a discreet vigil up to the end. I get the same message from Jehova's Witnesses!
-
Why is Bishop Williamson opposed to a seminary? Where does he expect new priests to come from?
It seems the question should be not "opposed to A seminary," but rather "opposed to THIS seminary." But according to Fr. Pfeiffer, it's more like "opposed to these seminarians."
Fr. Pfeiffer explained in a recent conference that +W thought the seminarians in KY are "losers," but Fr. defended them with something like this:
So what's new about that? We've all been losers. Nobody is worthy to become a priest; that much is a given.
Another man present in the audience added, "You have to start somewhere." -Meaning that the Resistance is just getting started, so you shouldn't expect perfection from square one, or something like that.
That's not a direct quote, and I don't recall what the venue or date was. And I didn't really understand it very well, because it doesn't sound like +W to have such opinions of seminarians. There must be more to it than that. Maybe he did not think well of the buildings themselves? But Fr. didn't say that. Fr. Chazal has gone on record referring to it as a "cardboard seminary." That is in reference to its humble setting: not very comfortable, inconvenient pests (animals / bugs), muddy rutted roads, heating inadequacy, various things that are not the stuff that make for an attractive brochure. Basically, nobody who expects a two-star accommodation need apply. For sure, they are getting an early training in penitential living.
My question is, how does their willingness to tolerate such conditions make for them to be thought of as "losers?" Something doesn't add up with that. In my book, any seminarian who can willingly agree to misery while he studies is already halfway to sainthood.
.
-
Fr. Pfeiffer explained in a recent conference that +W thought the seminarians in KY are "losers," but Fr. defended them with something like this:
So what's new about that? We've all been losers. Nobody is worthy to become a priest; that much is a given.
Another man present in the audience added, "You have to start somewhere." -Meaning that the Resistance is just getting started, so you shouldn't expect perfection from square one, or something like that.
A few thoughts on these comments,
Father Pfieffer's comments while they are indeed charitable, are a misdirection from whether or not the candidates are actually suitable for the Catholic priesthood, a subject upon which Bishop Williamson is much more qualified to make such a judgment.
The good Father does not address the qualities or qualifications of said applicants.
As to the lay comment, it is true that any endeavor must begin somewhere, but one such as a seminary for the priesthood should be considered only when at least a minimum standard of accommodation and physical ability by which to properly train and educate the candidates is present.
Simply finding a location and enlisting the first warm bodies who apply is neither prudent or adequate for such an enterprise.
This is also an illustration of why the Bishop does not want to lead such a group. He would have no actual control over its members as it has been shown from the beginning that they will not favor his advice or his dictates when they conflict with what they want to do and when they want to do it.
-
How about giving someone a chance! We should be supporting our young men aspiring to be religious... what if they read this.
-
All you need in enough food and warmth and away you go! Bp. W wants a palace to match his credentials, qualifications and celebrity and he has now got it in the Garden of Kent. I have experienced both and the simple life does have its merits, while too much grandeur can be a burden! Anyway, we live in our heads and hearts and our surroundings are merely a way of measuring our attachment to material things.
The bishop has doubts about the calibre of candidates. He questions the basis for their vocations in a world which hardly encourages them. The selection process has to be rigorous while at the same time beggars cannot be choosers. Bearing in mind he thinks the Church is on her last legs and any grand initiatives are now superfluous to maintaining a discreet vigil up to the end. I get the same message from Jehova's Witnesses!
All motivations of the both parties are at present too tied up with the SSPX and the parties ongoing attachments too, and resentments against them.
In such times the level of rigour might perhaps be adjusted within limits, but if, as the Bishop has been said to have used the term "losers", then one must assume that in this case he believes that rigour was thrown out of the window.
-
Why is Bishop Williamson opposed to a seminary? Where does he expect new priests to come from?
It seems the question should be not "opposed to A seminary," but rather "opposed to THIS seminary." But according to Fr. Pfeiffer, it's more like "opposed to these seminarians."
Fr. Pfeiffer explained in a recent conference that +W thought the seminarians in KY are "losers," but Fr. defended them with something like this:
So what's new about that? We've all been losers. Nobody is worthy to become a priest; that much is a given.
Another man present in the audience added, "You have to start somewhere." -Meaning that the Resistance is just getting started, so you shouldn't expect perfection from square one, or something like that.
That's not a direct quote, and I don't recall what the venue or date was. And I didn't really understand it very well, because it doesn't sound like +W to have such opinions of seminarians. There must be more to it than that. Maybe he did not think well of the buildings themselves? But Fr. didn't say that. Fr. Chazal has gone on record referring to it as a "cardboard seminary." That is in reference to its humble setting: not very comfortable, inconvenient pests (animals / bugs), muddy rutted roads, heating inadequacy, various things that are not the stuff that make for an attractive brochure. Basically, nobody who expects a two-star accommodation need apply. For sure, they are getting an early training in penitential living.
My question is, how does their willingness to tolerate such conditions make for them to be thought of as "losers?" Something doesn't add up with that. In my book, any seminarian who can willingly agree to misery while he studies is already halfway to sainthood.
.
With St Gerard Majella they wrote a note to the director that he would be useless!
-
All you need in enough food and warmth and away you go! Bp. W wants a palace to match his credentials, qualifications and celebrity and he has now got it in the Garden of Kent. I have experienced both and the simple life does have its merits, while too much grandeur can be a burden! Anyway, we live in our heads and hearts and our surroundings are merely a way of measuring our attachment to material things.
The bishop has doubts about the calibre of candidates. He questions the basis for their vocations in a world which hardly encourages them. The selection process has to be rigorous while at the same time beggars cannot be choosers. Bearing in mind he thinks the Church is on her last legs and any grand initiatives are now superfluous to maintaining a discreet vigil up to the end. I get the same message from Jehova's Witnesses!
Simple life is one thing, but don't glamorize unsafe conditions, they can be very burdensome and taxing. I can't imagine young healthy men though having to suffer unsafe things too much because they are strong enough to make basic repairs.
-
How about giving someone a chance! We should be supporting our young men aspiring to be religious... what if they read this.
We should be supporting them conditionally.
Admittedly, I only know one of the seminarians and at that I could hardly venture to say that I know him, only that I know who he is nominally and a detail or two. As concerns the others, I haven't he slightest clue of even their name, much less their background, personality, disposition, etc.
Anyways, the priesthood is a sacred office and must be treated with the utmost seriousness. It's not like joining a t-ball team where we should cheer and encourage the boys by the very fact of their undertaking.
-
No one is addressing the EXCELLENT point brought up by dreamtomorrow. Bishop Williamson did not leave the SSPX because he courageously stood up against the Modernist +Fellay. Rather, he was thrown out.
And why was he thrown out? Durrr, wasn't it because he was courageously standing up against +Fellay?
He says over and over that these things have been brewing in the SSPX since the early 90's. Why didn't he point this out then?
Perhaps he did and we aren't aware of it. Perhaps he railed against it in private, but thought the time was not right to publicly name names. Perhaps there is also some benefit of hindsight.
I have spoken to more than one old time SSPX priest. Each one commented when talking about Fr. Hewko and Pfeiffer that one of the main reasons they could not join was because they have no Bishop.
What a dumb excuse. Bishop Williamson works closely with them. They de facto have a Bishop.
-
:dancing-banana:Unsafe?
Personally, I have a real problem with any priest who is scared of a mouse or a spider!
-
Why is Bishop Williamson opposed to a seminary? Where does he expect new priests to come from?
It seems the question should be not "opposed to A seminary," but rather "opposed to THIS seminary." But according to Fr. Pfeiffer, it's more like "opposed to these seminarians."
Fr. Pfeiffer explained in a recent conference that +W thought the seminarians in KY are "losers," but Fr. defended them with something like this:
So what's new about that? We've all been losers. Nobody is worthy to become a priest; that much is a given.
Another man present in the audience added, "You have to start somewhere." -Meaning that the Resistance is just getting started, so you shouldn't expect perfection from square one, or something like that.
That's not a direct quote, and I don't recall what the venue or date was. And I didn't really understand it very well, because it doesn't sound like +W to have such opinions of seminarians. There must be more to it than that. Maybe he did not think well of the buildings themselves? But Fr. didn't say that. Fr. Chazal has gone on record referring to it as a "cardboard seminary." That is in reference to its humble setting: not very comfortable, inconvenient pests (animals / bugs), muddy rutted roads, heating inadequacy, various things that are not the stuff that make for an attractive brochure. Basically, nobody who expects a two-star accommodation need apply. For sure, they are getting an early training in penitential living.
My question is, how does their willingness to tolerate such conditions make for them to be thought of as "losers?" Something doesn't add up with that. In my book, any seminarian who can willingly agree to misery while he studies is already halfway to sainthood.
.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/vXe-jQ6NgKs?feature=player_detailpage[/youtube]
Towards the 4-1/2 minute mark and at the very end, he mentions "losers." January 1, 2013.
-
There must be more to it than that.
This.
-
B. Williamson isn't leading (he didn't leave-they forced him, maybe he'd still be there if it were up to him. He also purposefully didn't sign the recent declaration because it endorsed a seminary, which he is against) , we need him to go out and convince priests/superiors. The signatures bore no fruit and more than one was retracted. B. Fellay isn't going to sign agreement because he's getting what he wants without it and if there had been agreement people may have reacted so SSPX superiors are going to go the slow route. Also because majority of resistance supporters do and will continue to go to SSPX chapels until they see heresy which they won't. How you maintain hope?
Remaining at SSPX chapel is part of problem.One must give their all to the resistance.
That is correct. It is duplicitous to remain in an SSPX chapel if one supports the resistance. One of the two positions is wrong and it does not serve anyone to knowingly remain where error is found.
Bishop Williamson should consecrate at least a dozen bishops. That would cement the future of the resistance.
-
Does +Williamson hope to return to the SSPX one day, and is he trying to oust +Fellay?
-
How about giving someone a chance! We should be supporting our young men aspiring to be religious... what if they read this.
We should be supporting them conditionally.
Admittedly, I only know one of the seminarians and at that I could hardly venture to say that I know him, only that I know who he is nominally and a detail or two. As concerns the others, I haven't he slightest clue of even their name, much less their background, personality, disposition, etc.
Anyways, the priesthood is a sacred office and must be treated with the utmost seriousness. It's not like joining a t-ball team where we should cheer and encourage the boys by the very fact of their undertaking.
Aren't one or two of these men former seminarians from Winona who were "let go" during the rectorship of +Williamson? If so, that might explain his attitude.
-
How about giving someone a chance! We should be supporting our young men aspiring to be religious... what if they read this.
We should be supporting them conditionally.
Admittedly, I only know one of the seminarians and at that I could hardly venture to say that I know him, only that I know who he is nominally and a detail or two. As concerns the others, I haven't he slightest clue of even their name, much less their background, personality, disposition, etc.
Anyways, the priesthood is a sacred office and must be treated with the utmost seriousness. It's not like joining a t-ball team where we should cheer and encourage the boys by the very fact of their undertaking.
Aren't one or two of these men former seminarians from Winona who were "let go" during the rectorship of +Williamson? If so, that might explain his attitude.
This is interesting coming from a Fellayite. Are you still 100% behind Bishop Fellay?
-
How about giving someone a chance! We should be supporting our young men aspiring to be religious... what if they read this.
Indeed. Bishop Williamson testing the men is a good thing. It's amazing some people pick up on his critique of the seminary whilst ignoring how Bishop Fellay used the Holy Rosary to trick laity.
Even in Ireland you had SSPX laity saying Bishop Williamson was "imprudent." I appreciate they were/are from an Indult background but telling the truth is a duty of a Bishop.
Perhaps if more laity had challenged Bishop Fellay some of the recent crisis could have been averted.
For example did the woman placed under "Holy Obedience" ever wonder why she was placed under such obedience. She was cynically manipulated. She had read "internet rumour".
The SSPX treated their laity like fools. Even a participant on the forum stated their mantra is 'Pray, Pay,Obey'.
The resistance deserves our support. The Church of Fellay/Neo SSPX put themselves before the faith.
-
I stated earlier that only God knows the future for the resistance. At a human and practical level, the resistance is in great shape. It's the logical road forward.
-
It's a waste of time now calling for Bishop Fellay to resign as momentum was lost.
-
How about giving someone a chance! We should be supporting our young men aspiring to be religious... what if they read this.
We should be supporting them conditionally.
Admittedly, I only know one of the seminarians and at that I could hardly venture to say that I know him, only that I know who he is nominally and a detail or two. As concerns the others, I haven't he slightest clue of even their name, much less their background, personality, disposition, etc.
Anyways, the priesthood is a sacred office and must be treated with the utmost seriousness. It's not like joining a t-ball team where we should cheer and encourage the boys by the very fact of their undertaking.
Aren't one or two of these men former seminarians from Winona who were "let go" during the rectorship of +Williamson? If so, that might explain his attitude.
Can anyone deny or confirm this proposition? It does sound logical as the Bishop seemed to have particular knowledge of them.
If it be true, then those who would re-admit the men in question will have from the first, compromised their seminary and the priesthood.
-
What does Bishop Williamson's acceptance or rejection have to do with it? Have you ever interviewed for a job and been turn down by the executive who interviewed you, perhaps a very well respected person in your career field? Does that mean no one else should ever hire you? Should you never be given a shot by another company?
Many folks here seem to rule out divine providence, as if God had nothing to do with +Fellay being consecrated a Bishop or men being admitted to a seminary to test their metal in the fire of sacrifice and self-denial. All things happen for a reason. God’s grace is sufficient. It is how we respond to this grace that makes all the difference.
On another note, it must also be remembered that Winona had limited space and had to be slightly selective as to who was admitted. If it was true that certain men were rejected by Winona, perhaps it was due to limited space and a more qualified applicant. I know of one young man who applied to the seminary and was told by the seminary director that they were filled to capacity and that they should try and apply again next year.
-
How about giving someone a chance! We should be supporting our young men aspiring to be religious... what if they read this.
We should be supporting them conditionally.
Admittedly, I only know one of the seminarians and at that I could hardly venture to say that I know him, only that I know who he is nominally and a detail or two. As concerns the others, I haven't he slightest clue of even their name, much less their background, personality, disposition, etc.
Anyways, the priesthood is a sacred office and must be treated with the utmost seriousness. It's not like joining a t-ball team where we should cheer and encourage the boys by the very fact of their undertaking.
Aren't one or two of these men former seminarians from Winona who were "let go" during the rectorship of +Williamson? If so, that might explain his attitude.
This is interesting coming from a Fellayite. Are you still 100% behind Bishop Fellay?
Christ is the only one I have that kind of allegiance to.
-
Bishop Williamson, like Bishop Fellay, enjoys no mission from the Church. They do not represent Her through formal apostolic succession, and as such, a Catholic does not owe them obedience, and a Catholic not being "united to" or "allied" with them has absolutely zero impact on whether or not such a person is still a Catholic.
(Latin, missio canonica)
In the Middle Ages this was the Church certification necessary for preaching. In 19th-century Germany it was extended to teaching, as well.
(cf. http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Episcopal-Consecration.htm (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Episcopal-Consecration.htm))
Your applause a while ago was, I think, not a purely temporal manifestation; it was rather a spiritual manifestation, expressing your joy to have at last Catholic bishops and priests who are dedicated to the salvation of your souls, to giving to your souls the Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, through good doctrine, through the Sacraments, through the Faith, through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
...
Hence, many seminarians have entrusted themselves to us, they sensed that here was the continuity of the Church, the continuity of' Tradition. And they came to our seminaries, despite all the difficulties that they have encountered, in order to receive a true ordination to the Priesthood, to say the true Sacrifice of Calvary, the true Sacrifice of the Mass, and to give you the true Sacraments, true doctrine, the true catechism. This is the goal of these seminaries.
...
This is why we have chosen, with the grace of God, priests from our Society who have seemed to us to be the most apt, whilst being in circuмstances and in functions which permit them more easily to fulfill their episcopal ministry, to give Confirmation to your children, and to be able to confer ordinations in our various seminaries. Thus I believe that - with the grace of God, we, Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself, by these consecrations, will have given to Tradition the means to continue, given the means to Catholics who desire to remain within the Church of their parents, their grandparents, of their ancestors.
(cf. http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/To_the_Four_Bishops_Elect.htm (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/To_the_Four_Bishops_Elect.htm) )
"You four will be bishops for the Church, at the service of the Society of St. Pius X, as laid out in the Protocol of May 5. The Society has the standing to deal with Rome. It will be the Superior General's job, when the time comes, to pick up the threads again with Rome.
"Your function will be to give the sacraments of Holy Orders and Confirmation and to KEEP THE FAITH on the occasion of Confirmations, to protect the flock... You will be an immense support for the Society. Let all four of you be of one mind, without too many personal initiatives, for instance when it comes to requests for ordination. Do not ordain men who are on their own, and if they form part of a community, take a good look at the community.
Keep in mind that heretics and schismatics have no authority whatsoever to deny Catholic prelates a canonical mission. So if the above words of Archbishop Lefebvre are not the granting of a canonical mission then what is it? Are you saying that Archbishop Lefebvre himself was somehow relieved of his jurisdiction by heretics and schismatics?
More:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/To_the_Four_Bishops_Elect_June_13_1988.htm
(http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/To_the_Four_Bishops_Elect_June_13_1988.htm
)
Archbishop Lefebvre’s Recommendations
to the 4 bishops-elect, June 13, 1988
"Your function will be to give the sacraments, and to preach the Faith. You will be at the service of the Society. Rome only dealt with me because I had the Society behind me. It is a valid entity. Remain very united among yourselves, to lend strength to Tradition. It will be up to the Superior General to take the major decisions...
-
How about giving someone a chance! We should be supporting our young men aspiring to be religious... what if they read this.
We should be supporting them conditionally.
Admittedly, I only know one of the seminarians and at that I could hardly venture to say that I know him, only that I know who he is nominally and a detail or two. As concerns the others, I haven't he slightest clue of even their name, much less their background, personality, disposition, etc.
Anyways, the priesthood is a sacred office and must be treated with the utmost seriousness. It's not like joining a t-ball team where we should cheer and encourage the boys by the very fact of their undertaking.
Aren't one or two of these men former seminarians from Winona who were "let go" during the rectorship of +Williamson? If so, that might explain his attitude.
This is interesting coming from a Fellayite. Are you still 100% behind Bishop Fellay?
Christ is the only one I have that kind of allegiance to.
My sincerest apologies to VinnyF. He is a good egg.
Fewer and fewer are defending Bishop Fellay. By no means is he a bad man, an evil man but a liberal, who believes his own liberalism.
I agree with the point Tiffany made about giving the men a chance.
-
All of the pontificating and breaking hearts are unnecessary. Before we can begin to explore the situation and comment thoughtfully, we need to know with certainty,
1) Did Bishop Williamson actually use the word losers?
2) In the context of what he said, was he referring to the current Kentucky applicants?
3) Does he know these men?
4) Were some of these men seminary applicants under him?
5) If so, Did he have anything to do with releasing them from the seminary?
Gaining ordination as a Catholic priest is far more important and never equal to the most prestigious of secular positions. Bishop Williamson has the grace of the Episcopacy and should have the experience to judge more fruitfully who is and is not suited for ordination. It is a function of his state, it is not proper to a priest's function and state to make such determinations when valid Bishops are available.
Anyway, talking without knowing the facts is just guessing at best. Let us find them out so that we can speak with our heads on our shoulders and our feet upon the ground.
-
The resistance will not fail because it is rooted in the truth. "Truth suffers but never dies" ~ St. Teresa of Avila
-
The resistance will not fail because it is rooted in the truth. "Truth suffers but never dies" ~ St. Teresa of Avila
Then the SSPX should not have failed. Unless it was never rooted in the truth? If it was, apparently being rooted in the truth does not mean that an uprooting cannot happen.
-
The resistance will not fail because it is rooted in the truth. "Truth suffers but never dies" ~ St. Teresa of Avila
Then the SSPX should not have failed. Unless it was never rooted in the truth? If it was, apparently being rooted in the truth does not mean that an uprooting cannot happen.
The SSPX failed? When did that happen? As long as the remnant of SSPX (strict observance) remains true to the Faith that Archbishop Lefebvre - by the grace of God - taught, defended and preserved, then they will not fail because they are part of the true Church. Yes, Menzingen and the neo-SSPXers will fail if they continue to flirt with modernism and oppress the Resistance. My understanding is the war is still going... and Christ has not returned. Once He returns, the remnant of the true Faith will reign in glory with Christ.
Did the Catholic Church fail when Vatican II Council was assembled and engineered a counterfeit church and mass?
-
At present, resistance is more theoretical than practical. It searches for an honest definition and a mode of operation that will give an adequate expression to all the frustrations and deterioration of Mother Church at the hands of determined subversives. Resistance displaces tradition as a rallying point because the latter has been softened for wider appeal and modernists have also realised the value of such a powerfull weapon in the hands of their dissenters.
Lefebvre relied on traditional attitudes which over time have been softened and eroded by many of his core supporters and benefactors. New generations like the 'benefits' of modern life and would amend principle for them to continue. I would suggest therefore that resistance should be total to mean anything. Which means it moving out of the theoretical into the practical. So many traditionalists were never prepare to do that and were content with liturgical gloss as a way of dealing with change.
The SSPX has not failed if it were a means of gentle readjustment for originally wealthy conservative European Catholics. But it has failed as a practical solution because its long-term goal was vague or even non-existent. While it stews in its own juice it cannot be any other than a parallel church desperately seeking an exit. If the resistance does not want to go the same way, it must have some clear realistic goals alongside restoration theory.
-
The resistance will not fail because it is rooted in the truth. "Truth suffers but never dies" ~ St. Teresa of Avila
Then the SSPX should not have failed. Unless it was never rooted in the truth? If it was, apparently being rooted in the truth does not mean that an uprooting cannot happen.
The SSPX failed? When did that happen? As long as the remnant of SSPX (strict observance) remains true to the Faith that Archbishop Lefebvre - by the grace of God - taught, defended and preserved, then they will not fail because they are part of the true Church. Yes, Menzingen and the neo-SSPXers will fail if they continue to flirt with modernism and oppress the Resistance. My understanding is the war is still going... and Christ has not returned. Once He returns, the remnant of the true Faith will reign in glory with Christ.
Did the Catholic Church fail when Vatican II Council was assembled and engineered a counterfeit church and mass?
Sounds like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy to me where you get to define, church, SSPX and "true faith".
Under those circuмstances it will never fail, of course, because YOU will always have it.
How could it be otherwise?
-
Lefebvre relied on traditional attitudes which over time have been softened and eroded by many of his core supporters and benefactors. New generations like the 'benefits' of modern life and would amend principle for them to continue.
I don't think this is true.
I remember attending SSPX masses in the UK 1978-2004, US 1997 to 2008, Australia, 1994 to 1996 and France 1984 to 1998 and attitudes were not more Traditional than they are today.
For example, I never heard Archbishop Lefebvre or any SSPX priest in the late 1970s or early 1980s suggest that women should not go to University. My sisters all went to University around that time and none of them ever had negativity from any cleric or lay Catholic. That is a value or attitude that came along in the 1990s and I believe came straight from the pen of Bishop Williamson.
Modesty in dress was mentioned from around 1982 but notices pinned to church doors and laity being called out or refused the sacraments did not happen until the late 1980s at the very earliest. Lefebvre was dead or just about to be by then. Those attitudes did not come from him, but directly from the United States priests of the SSPX. I know because I first visited the US in 1997 and went to mass in 14 different US states and the dress code was an abiding memory.
I remember many young women and girls wearing trousers to mass in London or Paris between 1978 and 1986 and unless they were skin tight they were rarely if ever criticised for it.
Your mileage may vary, but Lefebvre was a Frenchman living in Switzerland and my Eurocentric memories of meeting him and visiting the chapels and priests he was closest too was that they were not as hard as the hardliners today. The aggregated Pre-split SSPX was far more hardline than the aggregated SSPX in Lefebvre's time.
I think Lefebvre actually relied on hope, (it had only been a decade or two that the crisis had been going on), Charity, he understood it was better to have people in the SSPX chapels with liberal faults than to chase them away, and much wisdom and common sense. I remember a lot of talk about the Freemasons but nobody ever doubted the moon-landings or helio-centrism back then. I was a very keen science student in those days so I think I would remember. Back then nutters were not mainstream.
I think several things happened to change the nature of the SSPX
Assisi, shocked and scared people and made them close ranks and react in an opposite fashion.
The hardliners got more of a foothold when Lefebvre was dead or dying and a group of less hardline SSPXers left the chapels. Various priests left to join the FSSP to escape the hardliners. Around 1993 the SSPX in the US was about as hardline as it has ever been. Converts arrived who adopted the more hardline status quo, as newbies they had no other option and converts find the zealousness attractive. Bishop Williamson who had always had a loyal camp of seminarians and priests, who liked his charm and oratory, picked up a group of lay supporters too. As the only English speaking Bishop, Williamson had a distinct advantage over a secretive Swiss and a couple of other Bishops with almost no public profile.
The h0Ɩ0h0αx comments and other things Bishop Williamson had said before brought matters to a head and Bishop Fellay could see he had to do something to stop an internal war.
The reality as I had experienced it, is that the arguments the SSPX used to justify its position 40 years ago now appear weaker and the situation more confused than in the early 1970s.
The next big event will be the Canonisation of JP2 at the end of April. If that goes ahead then I know very many Trads from FSSP to SSPX to Resistance who will be very troubled by it as they were by Assisi.
-
Wessex,
The SSPX has not failed if it were a means of gentle readjustment for originally wealthy conservative European Catholics. But it has failed as a practical solution because its long-term goal was vague or even non-existent. While it stews in its own juice it cannot be any other than a parallel church desperately seeking an exit. If the resistance does not want to go the same way, it must have some clear realistic goals alongside restoration theory
As long as the resistance functions primarily to combat Bishop Fellay and restore a compromised SSPX, rather than define and conform itself in reality as a vehicle of true and direct resistance to the Conciliar sect it can go no further than its parent has and is likely to inherit the same fate within a few decades or less.
It seems that there no coherent plan or larger principle is proposed for such combat other than to remain in high orbit around the SSPX with an occasional shot fired into the Conciliar void.
-
Why is Bishop Williamson opposed to a seminary? Where does he expect new priests to come from?
It seems the question should be not "opposed to A seminary," but rather "opposed to THIS seminary." But according to Fr. Pfeiffer, it's more like "opposed to these seminarians."
Fr. Pfeiffer explained in a recent conference that +W thought the seminarians in KY are "losers," but Fr. defended them with something like this:
So what's new about that? We've all been losers. Nobody is worthy to become a priest; that much is a given.
Another man present in the audience added, "You have to start somewhere." -Meaning that the Resistance is just getting started, so you shouldn't expect perfection from square one, or something like that.
That's not a direct quote, and I don't recall what the venue or date was. And I didn't really understand it very well, because it doesn't sound like +W to have such opinions of seminarians. There must be more to it than that. Maybe he did not think well of the buildings themselves? But Fr. didn't say that. Fr. Chazal has gone on record referring to it as a "cardboard seminary." That is in reference to its humble setting: not very comfortable, inconvenient pests (animals / bugs), muddy rutted roads, heating inadequacy, various things that are not the stuff that make for an attractive brochure. Basically, nobody who expects a two-star accommodation need apply. For sure, they are getting an early training in penitential living.
My question is, how does their willingness to tolerate such conditions make for them to be thought of as "losers?" Something doesn't add up with that. In my book, any seminarian who can willingly agree to misery while he studies is already halfway to sainthood.
.
What a great grace from God it is to be known as a loser. That's one of the graces of being a traditionalist. Everyone thinks you are a loser. But how much better it is to be thought a loser by the losers themselves! Deo gratias!
-
Fr. Pfeiffer explained in a recent conference that +W thought the seminarians in KY are "losers," but Fr. defended them with something like this:
So what's new about that? We've all been losers. Nobody is worthy to become a priest; that much is a given.
Another man present in the audience added, "You have to start somewhere." -Meaning that the Resistance is just getting started, so you shouldn't expect perfection from square one, or something like that.
A few thoughts on these comments,
Father Pfieffer's comments while they are indeed charitable, are a misdirection from whether or not the candidates are actually suitable for the Catholic priesthood, a subject upon which Bishop Williamson is much more qualified to make such a judgment.
The good Father does not address the qualities or qualifications of said applicants.
As to the lay comment, it is true that any endeavor must begin somewhere, but one such as a seminary for the priesthood should be considered only when at least a minimum standard of accommodation and physical ability by which to properly train and educate the candidates is present.
Simply finding a location and enlisting the first warm bodies who apply is neither prudent or adequate for such an enterprise.
This is also an illustration of why the Bishop does not want to lead such a group. He would have no actual control over its members as it has been shown from the beginning that they will not favor his advice or his dictates when they conflict with what they want to do and when they want to do it.
Candidates should definitely be tested and those who do not measure up should be let go. But don't forget St. Joseph of Cupertino who was as dumb as a rock. God gave him miraculous graces in order to pass the test and become a priest despite being an idiot. Deo gratias! He is a saint!
-
In these days we remember a real h0Ɩ0cαųst, the bombing of Dresden. On this topic the book by David Irving is recommended or a recent film docuмentary by Lady Michele Renouf. The film outlines why Britain should apologise to Germany. Both the book and film are recommended.
I mention this as truth was mentioned. I was surprised some SSPX laity stated Bishop Williamson was 'imprudent' for telling the truth in an interview. In the interview, the Bishop speaks about something being bad if it goes against truth.
It's not necessary to discuss at length the myth of the existence gas chambers and there never was a plan by Germany to kill Jєωs. This is all historical facts.
To say the Bishop was 'imprudent' goes against truth. The Bishop told the truth yet some laity could disregard truth and brand him 'imprudent'.
The great wisdom from Bishop Williamson should command our respect for him. His wisdom has brought many back to their Catholicism. Several have converted to Catholicism by the grace of God and because of the Bishop's defence of truth.
He is deserving to be called a true spiritual son of Archbishop Lefebvre. Two of the Bishops caved in. Bishop Tissier seems torn which way to act.
His interview was very good for those that seek and defend truth.
-
Fr. Pfeiffer explained in a recent conference that +W thought the seminarians in KY are "losers," but Fr. defended them with something like this:
So what's new about that? We've all been losers. Nobody is worthy to become a priest; that much is a given.
Another man present in the audience added, "You have to start somewhere." -Meaning that the Resistance is just getting started, so you shouldn't expect perfection from square one, or something like that.
A few thoughts on these comments,
Father Pfieffer's comments while they are indeed charitable, are a misdirection from whether or not the candidates are actually suitable for the Catholic priesthood, a subject upon which Bishop Williamson is much more qualified to make such a judgment.
The good Father does not address the qualities or qualifications of said applicants.
As to the lay comment, it is true that any endeavor must begin somewhere, but one such as a seminary for the priesthood should be considered only when at least a minimum standard of accommodation and physical ability by which to properly train and educate the candidates is present.
Simply finding a location and enlisting the first warm bodies who apply is neither prudent or adequate for such an enterprise.
This is also an illustration of why the Bishop does not want to lead such a group. He would have no actual control over its members as it has been shown from the beginning that they will not favor his advice or his dictates when they conflict with what they want to do and when they want to do it.
Candidates should definitely be tested and those who do not measure up should be let go. But don't forget St. Joseph of Cupertino who was as dumb as a rock. God gave him miraculous graces in order to pass the test and become a priest despite being an idiot. Deo gratias! He is a saint!
An excellent comment.
-
Fr. Pfeiffer explained in a recent conference that +W thought the seminarians in KY are "losers," but Fr. defended them with something like this:
So what's new about that? We've all been losers. Nobody is worthy to become a priest; that much is a given.
Another man present in the audience added, "You have to start somewhere." -Meaning that the Resistance is just getting started, so you shouldn't expect perfection from square one, or something like that.
A few thoughts on these comments,
Father Pfieffer's comments while they are indeed charitable, are a misdirection from whether or not the candidates are actually suitable for the Catholic priesthood, a subject upon which Bishop Williamson is much more qualified to make such a judgment.
The good Father does not address the qualities or qualifications of said applicants.
As to the lay comment, it is true that any endeavor must begin somewhere, but one such as a seminary for the priesthood should be considered only when at least a minimum standard of accommodation and physical ability by which to properly train and educate the candidates is present.
Simply finding a location and enlisting the first warm bodies who apply is neither prudent or adequate for such an enterprise.
This is also an illustration of why the Bishop does not want to lead such a group. He would have no actual control over its members as it has been shown from the beginning that they will not favor his advice or his dictates when they conflict with what they want to do and when they want to do it.
Candidates should definitely be tested and those who do not measure up should be let go. But don't forget St. Joseph of Cupertino who was as dumb as a rock. God gave him miraculous graces in order to pass the test and become a priest despite being an idiot. Deo gratias! He is a saint!
I had the same thought but I have to say that st. Joseph of Cupertino wasn't "an idiot" except in appearance. His continual ecstasies unfitted him for work and studies and we know he only passed his exams by Divine intervention. Like a book, these seminarians should not be judged by their cover. If they think they have a vocation, the worse that can happen is that they don't and be dismissed. How many young men has the SSPX pushed to the seminaries to try a vocation until proven otherwise. Just among my friends I know a great number of ex-seminarians.
-
:dancing-banana:
St. John Bosco was said to be insane by his bishop. St. Joseph Cupertino was rejected repeatedly, by several religious orders. St. John Vianney never mastered Latin beyond what was necessary to say Mass and give the Sacraments. If not for the political situation in France, he'd never been ordained. If these men are made into priests, it is God's Providence. I have no doubt that Bishop Williamson will ordain them, even if he did say they were losers. (That does not sound like H.E. He'd have used stronger language, not American slang!)
-
Sounds like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy to me where you get to define, church, SSPX and "true faith".
Under those circuмstances it will never fail, of course, because YOU will always have it.
How could it be otherwise?
Wrong. I can define SSPX, Church and true Faith as an assembly of Micky Mouses who worship Hale-Bopp comet, but that would not make it the case. Even if I believed in such nonsense, that would not make it truly SSPX. Even if only a remnant of SSPX stayed true to its founding (essentially Church's / Faith's preservation) by Archbishop Lefebvre, which by its very essence is truly Catholic, hence, truly the Church and Faith, and does not get swallowed up by modernists/heretics who "regularize" them, then the objective reality is they are still truly Catholic and part of the Mystical Body of Christ, regardless of whether I adhere to it or not. This truth defines itself, not any person attempting to define it. If nobody believed it, that would not make it untrue. It's still true even if nobody believed it.
-
Does anyone know the answers to the previous questions? It might be a good thing to establish the facts before condemning or canonizing these fellows.
It is too important and morally questionable to speculate on such a subject without knowing the true facts.
Beside that, it is not necessarily intelligence or how much a man knows which makes a good priest. It is who he is, and the quality of his vocation that is more important.