Author Topic: "Eleison Comments" by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCXCII - 292 (English) (Read 2869 times)

Alex117 · « **on:** February 15, 2013, 09:07:09 PM »

Number CCXCII (292), 16 February 2013

DI NOIA, ANNOYER

Two months ago the Vice-president of Rome’s Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei addressed to the Superior General of the Society of St Pius X and to all its priests a letter of several pages, accessible on the Internet, which Fr. Lombardi as spokesman for the Holy See called a “personal appeal”. The letter has been raising comments ever since. It is clearly the latest move in Rome’s campaign to bring the SSPX to heel, and put an end to its 40-year resistance to the Conciliar Revolution. As Bishop de Galarreta said in October of 2011, even if the SSPX turns down Rome’s offers, still Rome will keep coming back. Sure enough. But let us see briefly what Archbishop Di Noia has to say to “Your Excellency and dear Priestly Brothers of the Society of St Pius X”:--

He begins by admonishing Society leaders, notably Fr Schmidberger, Fr Pfluger and Bishop Fellay (in that order) for giving interviews so critical of Rome as to call in question whether the SSPX really wants reconciliation with Rome. Moreover, doctrinal differences are as intractable as ever between the SSPX and Rome. So he calls for a new approach, focusing on unity instead.

Church unity is hindered by four vices and promoted by the four opposing virtues of humility, mildness, patience and charity. Dividers of the Church are enemies of God. All we need is love. Away then with “harsh and unproductive rhetoric”. Let the SSPX fulfil its charism of forming priests, but priests who will be docile to the official Magisterium, who will preach the Faith and not polemics, and who will treat theological problems not in front of untrained layfolk but with the competent authorities in Rome. The Pope is the supreme judge of such difficult questions. In conclusion, Benedict XVI does want reconciliation. Bitterness must be healed. In Our Lord’s words, “Let them be one.” (End of the Archbishop’s letter.)

Notice in passing how, typically for modern man and for modernists, the Archbishop brackets out the essential question of doctrine, but this letter’s main interest lies elsewhere : how could the Archbishop have dared to address it to all SSPX priests without prior collusion with SSPX HQ ? It served him by forwarding the letter to all SSPX priests ! Here is one indication amongst many others that there are contacts between Rome and SSPX HQ that are kept from public view. But the question then arises, what motive can SSPX HQ have had to give to the modernist Archbishop such privileged and dangerous access to all SSPX priests ? Does it want them to become modernists also ? Surely not ! But it may well want to help Rome towards “reconciliation”.

By transmitting the Archbishop’s loving appeal, SSPX HQ gets the sweet message through to all SSPX priests without anybody being able to accuse HQ itself of going soft. On the contrary, the Roman letter makes them all see how nice the Romans are. True, there is a gentle rebuke to the SSPX leaders for not being nice, but that will serve to show how these are standing firm in defence of the Faith ! Above all, the letter will have served as a trial balloon, to test the priests’ reactions. What are they thinking ? Both Rome and Menzingen need to calculate at what point to go ahead with a “reconciliation” such as will carry with it a large majority of the priests, and not alienate so many that organized resistance to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr religion will continue.

Dear SSPX priests, if you do not want to be swallowed alive by New Order Rome, I gently advise you to react. Let your Superiors know, as discretely as you like but in no uncertain terms, that you want nothing, but nothing, to do with Conciliar Rome, until it clearly abandons the Council.

Kyrie eleison.

Alex117 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 15, 2013, 09:09:06 PM »

A lion like always.

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #2 on:** February 15, 2013, 09:11:09 PM »

:applause:

Machabees · « **Reply #3 on:** February 15, 2013, 09:22:05 PM »

Translation:

GREEN light for ACTION and OPEN RESISTANCE!

No more belly crawling and whining...stand up and FIGHT for the Lord God and His True Faith!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #4 on:** February 15, 2013, 11:39:14 PM »

Now if only +de Mallerais would speak up. He said he would, when the time was
right. It sure looks right to me. So what's up?

How many of the SSPX priests who want to say something are waiting for their
"captain" to give the word? Hopefully, they'll take the advice of their captain in
exile and send a message to His Excellency Tissier before it's too late!

But you can't shortchange +W for his fortitude. He could say more, but then he
would be criticized for saying too much. A little goes a long way.

Let's hope he's heard.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #5 on:** February 15, 2013, 11:44:18 PM »

Quote from: Alex117

Number CCXCII (292), 16 February 2013

DI NOIA, ANNOYER
...
By transmitting the Archbishop’s loving appeal, SSPX HQ gets the sweet message through to all SSPX priests without anybody being able to accuse HQ itself of going soft. On the contrary, the Roman letter makes them all see how nice the Romans are. True, there is a gentle rebuke to the SSPX leaders for not being nice, but that will serve to show how these are standing firm in defence of the Faith ! Above all, the letter will have served as a trial balloon, to test the priests’ reactions. What are they thinking ? Both Rome and Menzingen need to calculate at what point to go ahead with a “reconciliation” such as will carry with it a large majority of the priests, and not alienate so many that organized resistance to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr religion will continue.

Dear SSPX priests, if you do not want to be swallowed alive by New Order Rome, I gently advise you to react. Let your Superiors know, as discretely as you like but in no uncertain terms, that you want nothing, but nothing, to do with Conciliar Rome, until it clearly abandons the Council.

Kyrie eleison.

Does the underline show up?

Quote

Above all, the letter will have served as a trial balloon, to test the priests’ reactions. What are they thinking ? Both Rome and Menzingen need to calculate at what point to go ahead with a “reconciliation” such as will carry with it a large majority of the priests, and not alienate so many that organized resistance to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr religion will continue.

Dear SSPX priests, if you do not want to be swallowed alive by New Order Rome, I gently advise you to react. Let your Superiors know, as discretely as you like but in no uncertain terms, that you want nothing, but nothing, to do with Conciliar Rome, until it clearly abandons the Council.

I didn't think so.

Alex117 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 16, 2013, 08:55:28 AM »

The underlines were in the email I received:

If that's what you're talking about, Neil.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #7 on:** February 16, 2013, 11:03:33 AM »

Reading the EC is a lot like tuning your HAM radio to the right frequency. If
you don't get the tuning right, you won't get the message clearly. It's important
to be on Bishop Williamson's channel. First things first.

Let's tune in for a few minutes here, okay?

Quote from: +W

By transmitting the Archbishop’s loving appeal, SSPX HQ gets the sweet message through to all SSPX priests without anybody being able to accuse HQ itself of going soft.

On the contrary, the Roman letter makes them [SSPX priests] all see how nice the Romans are.

True, there is a gentle rebuke to the SSPX leaders for not being nice, but that will serve [SSPX HQ] to show [SSPX priests] how these [SSPX leaders] are standing firm in defence of the Faith !

Above all, the letter will have served as a trial balloon [for both the Romans and for the Menzingen-denizens], to test the priests’ reactions.

What are they [both Rome and Menzingen] thinking ?

Both Rome and Menzingen need to calculate at what point to go ahead with a “reconciliation” such as will carry with it a large majority of the priests,

and not alienate so many that organized resistance [at least centralized in what is left of the SSPX when the smoke clears after the "reconciliation" explosion occurs] to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr religion will continue.

As usual, H.E.'s EC is a packed message, and easily glossed over unless it is
first "unpacked." It's like a computer file that arrives "zipped" -- how much use
can you make of it before it is UNZIPPED?

Start at the end and work your way backwards:

~ The nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr religion is an agenda that desires universal acceptance,
much as the Catholic Church rightly operates with the marks of Apostolicity and
Catholicity. That is, the Church goes back to Apostolic foundation and is brought
to the entire world as the universal means for salvation of every human creature.

~ When this satanic anti-Catholic neo-paganism finally takes hold, it threatens
to be an explosive event, causing much confusion and disorientation in the faith
of the people of the world, out of which the devil desires to evoke an overthrow
of the Catholic Church once and for all. Of course, if it can result in the death of
humanity as a whole, that would be just fine, too. The devil hates human life.

~ But the explosion is a big risk, because there is no going back. Once the
bomb detonates, there is no return to what was before the detonation. So
before he sets the timer and commits to the explosion, the devil wants to know
what will come of the consequences after the smoke clears.

~ So too, in order to be most effective, the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr Religion (NWOR)
must have a universal application, but since it is based in FALSEHOOD, it is
fragile and easily overrun by mere exposure for the lies that it embraces.
Therefore, in order to protect its fragile falsehood, the NWOR requires that the
overtaking of the SSPX -- which currently is the most effective resistance to the
falsehood of the NWOR -- will happen in such a way that organized resistance to
its lies will not survive to threaten the success of the worldwide imposition of
the NWOR.

~ How to achieve that? How does the NWOR ensure that an organized
resistance does not survive?

~ The NWOR must calculate very carefully how to overrun the SSPX by means
of a "reconciliation" such that it will carry with it a large majority of the priests,
and not alienate so many of the priests (and Faithful) that organized resistance
to the NWOR might not be entirely crushed.

~ This is what NewRome is thinking, and by complicity, the Menzingen-denizens
are at least USEFUL IDIOTS in the employ of their Communist masters.

~ The letter from Archbishop Di Noia will serve as a trial balloon for primarily
the NewRomans, but also for the capitulationist Menzingen-denizens, to test the
reactions of the SSPX priests, such that they might more accurately calculate
what the damage will be in the CONTROLLED DEMOLITION EXPLOSION, and
thereby assure the devil of a successful recovery after the smoke clears.

~ The letter also aids in the DECEPTION for the priests, whose reaction is being
measured, such that these Guinea Pig priests might be nudged towards
thinking that the Menzingen-denizens are standing firm in defense of the faith!
How does the letter do that? By making it look like the Menzingen-denizens
have not been "nice" by providing a GENTLE REBUKE in the letter.

Isn't that nice?

~ Simultaneously, the letter makes the Guinea Pig priests deluded into
perceiving (erroneously) that the NewRomans are very nice people.

Isn't that nice?

~ Now, if it was the Menzingen-denizens who had sent out this letter to all the
Guinea Pig priests, it would have had the effect of making it look like the
Menzingen-denizens had gone soft in the fight to defend the Faith of our
Fathers.

Faith of our Fathers living still,
In spite of dungeon, fire and sword.
Oh, how our hearts beat high with joy,
When e're we hear that glorious word!
Faith of our Fathers holy faith!
We will be true to thee till death!

(I remember singing that for my Confirmation in 1966. We were LOUD.)

~ So, how to protect the false image of the Menzingen-denizens is the goal.

~ The Menzingen-denizens accomplished this goal of getting the message
through to the Guinea Pig priests by turning over their e-mail addresses to the
NewRomans, represented by Di Noia, such that he can send the e-mail blast
out himself, to give the false impression that the Menzingen-denizens have
not gone soft in the fight to defend the Faith (even though they may very well
have done just that -- but since APPEARANCES ARE EVERYTHING, all that
matters is what SEEMS to be, not what really is).

~~ Subjective reality is the "truth." ~~

~ And so, "By transmitting the Archbishop’s loving appeal, SSPX HQ gets the
sweet message through to all SSPX priests without anybody being able to
accuse HQ itself of going soft."

And that was only ONE PARAGRAPH.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #8 on:** February 16, 2013, 11:29:13 AM »

Quote from: Alex117

The underlines were in the email I received:

If that's what you're talking about, Neil.

I'm frustrated with losing underlines in copy when I post it on CI, and in order
to get formatting to show up, I have to go through the copy and make sure
they are all in, putting them in manually.

So I'd like you to know, Alex117, that I really appreciate your diligence
in putting those few underlines in faithfully, because they are very important!

+W does not use a lot of emphasis in his writing. But he more than makes up
for that in his live delivery. There are two schools of thought on this topic, it
seems to me. One says that you only print what grammar demands, and
what common editorial subtlety would dictate. That generally means no bold,
no italics, and no underline, come what may. Check out your daily
newspaper for example. Or look at The Recusant. They might use italics
for the title of a book or a periodical, but never for accentuation of the
importance of one or more words in a sentence. Bold is reserved for the
headline of segment or the title (headline) of an article. This is what everyone
expects to see. But wen a dramatic reading or a speech makes use of such
printed copy, all the commas and all the periods are thrown out the window,
and the broadcaster/orator makes the material his own, and delivers it with all
the emphasis and expression that he believes ought to be there.

A most compelling example of this is +W's sermons. Likewise Fr. Pfeiffer's.

The other school says that you try to reflect the way a speaker delivers his
speech in the way you write it down, such as in a transcription. That might
entail USING ALL CAPS, FOR EXAMPLE, EVEN FOR AN ENTIRE SENTENCE OR IN
SOME CASES A PARAGRAPH OR MULTIPLE SENTENCES. When copy is moved
from one electronic system to another, as text, it often times loses its emphasis
as bold, underline, italics, font, color, point size, and indentation. But ALL CAPS
does not get lost, since the CAPITAL LETTERS are different characters than the
lower case letters. It's not a matter of formatting. And as far as I know, there
is no function in word processing programs that allows you to change blocks of
text into all caps or out of all caps. Correct me if I'm wrong.

So, when you put these underlines in like that, it does a lot for the copy. We
don't see much emphasis in the ECs, so when there is some, it must be really
important. And that says a lot for prudence, because by only using emphasis
when it is really important, that makes the emphasis all the more impressive,
and if emphasis is not impressive it isn't really emphasis at all. It's more like
clutter, and everyone hates clutter, no?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #9 on:** February 16, 2013, 12:08:09 PM »

DI NOIA, ANNOYER

I have to be honest. I'm still scratching my head over the title. :scratchchin:

I'd like to think I have this figured out. But I'm not quite sure just yet. It is
rather unusual for +W employ a caricature of someone's name for his purposes.
It is a sort of Juvenal irony that this is happening here. He is sort of stepping
out of character on stage in a Shakespeare play to speak to the audience in
person while the other actors on the stage stand motionless in "freeze frame"
posture, as if oblivious to what he is saying to the crowd "out there" -- a crowd
that the actors cannot see, in the theatrical reality of the stage play.

Most evidently, Archbishop Di Noia is being accused of annoying someone. But
who, exactly is being annoyed? At first glance it might seem to be +W, but that
is too shallow. H.E. is not self-serving in his ECs. He is the servant of the
servants of God in his ECs, since our papacy has been sorely lacking in that
virtue for oh, so long.

So, who is it? Is it the Society? Well, perhaps the Society PROPERLY ORDERED.
But is it? Read on and see, that the Menzingen-denizens are committing the
unforgivable offense (offence) of capitulationism. Pun intended. So the Society
inasmuch as it is not properly ordered could not be the object of the jibe, that
is, entirely. So what else is there?

It could be the Faithful of the SSPX who are trying to hang on to the Faith of our
Fathers through the stormy seas of Modernism-run-rampant. I would go for that.
But is that sufficient? Is it all about us? How does it get there? What about how
we think? Does +W say that Di Noia is annoying to common sense and right
reason? Does this Archbishop in his official capacity proceed in his purloined
letter to insult our own manner of thinking about what is real? Perhaps he does.

But if that is the case, does he not offend the truth of God, as well? I have read
through the whole thing again, thinking of this, and I have to admit, that I cannot
find any reason to think that it DOES NOT mean this.

And if so, it makes sense that it would be the title of the whole EC, for then +W
can say what he needs to say without having to say it. He has certainly found
out the hard way that he can get into a lot of trouble for saying too much to
certain people in certain situations.

curioustrad · « **Reply #10 on:** October 14, 2014, 08:13:01 PM »

Quote

Above all, the letter will have served as a trial balloon, to test the priests’ reactions. What are they thinking ? Both Rome and Menzingen need to calculate at what point to go ahead with a “reconciliation” such as will carry with it a large majority of the priests, and not alienate so many that organized resistance to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr religion will continue.

Sorry I was making a reply to a PM and it appeared here - please ignore.