It would seem I am rebuked.
It would seem I am rebuked.
It would seem I am rebuked.
Bishop Williamson shouldn't claim to have authority he doesn't have.
That doesn't mean he can't be a leader.
Quote from: SeanJohnsonIt would seem I am rebuked.
It would seem His Excellency reads CathInfo. Don't feel so bad. It is what it is.
be thankful that the rebuke wasn't a thrashing. one of the most courteous rejections I've ever read.
Reading EC, I was waiting for the other shoe to drop. Sean has nailed it.
The Concilliar Church is outside the Church of all time, therefore they cannot authorize a new Congregation within the Church of all time. They cannot give what they do not have.
Therefore, His Excellency has to accept supplied jurisdiction and consecrate bishops so that the Church of all time can continue (if God so wishes).
His Excellency is making us come to the conclusion ourselves rather than spoonfeeding us (maybe that is next week's column).
Quote from: TelesphorusBishop Williamson shouldn't claim to have authority he doesn't have.
That doesn't mean he can't be a leader.
He has it.
Bishop François Charrière of Fribourg established, on a provisional (ad experimentum) basis for six years, the International Priestly Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) as a "pious union"..... In January 1975 the new Bishop of Fribourg stated his wish to withdraw the SSPX's pious union status. Though Lefebvre then had two meetings with the commission of Cardinals, the Bishop put his intention into effect on 6 May 1975, thereby officially dissolving the Society. This action was subsequently upheld by Pope Paul VI, who wrote to Archbishop Lefebvre in June 1975. (Extracted from Wikipedia).
Did Bishop Fellay write this particular EC? Or am I suffering from Mindrot?
A pious union doesn't have much authority anyway.
I commend Bishop Williamson for not setting himself as a figurehead of a new organization that would have such a risky prognosis.
Decentralization is the way to go until there are good bishops and a good Pope.
I am intimately convinced that it is the Society which represents what the Good Lord wants, to continue and maintain the Faith, maintain the truth of the Church, maintain what can still be saved in the Church, thanks to the bishops grouped around the Superior General, playing their indispensable part, of guardians of the Faith, of preachers of the Faith, giving the grace of the priesthood, the grace of Confirmation, things that are irreplaceable and absolutely necessary.
I am intimately convinced that it is the Society which represents what the Good Lord wants, to continue and maintain the Faith, maintain the truth of the Church, maintain what can still be saved in the Church, thanks to the bishops grouped around the Superior General, playing their indispensable part, of guardians of the Faith, of preachers of the Faith, giving the grace of the priesthood, the grace of Confirmation, things that are irreplaceable and absolutely necessary.
Once again, I do not think it possible for a community to remain faithful to the Faith and Tradition if the bishops do not have this Faith and fidelity to Tradition. It's impossible. Say what you will, the Church consists first and foremost of bishops. Even if the priests are of your way of thinking, the priests are influenced by the bishops. Whichever way you look at it, the bishops make the priests, and so guide priests, either in the seminaries or in preaching or in retreats or in any number of ways. It is impossible to maintain Tradition with progressive bishops.
Just remember what the Archbishop said about his consecrations - it was like the blow that struck Goliath.
It might look hopeless, that a consecration will be covered in scorn, but it is the courageous, correct course of action.
Let's just pray Bishop Tissier wakes up.
New bishops will be necessary. (as Bishop Williamson mentioned when he was expelled from the society) And Bishop Williamson will consecrate several, when the time is ripe. Hopefully sooner rather than later, but obviously at his discretion.
6) That said, there is nothing in the annals of SSPX history to indicate that Archbishop Lefebvre would have sent his seminarians packing had he not gained the recognition of the Swiss bishop;
....I am not interested in beginning a new undertaking."
Faced with this project which did not appeal to me at all- here again, it was Providence which was compelling me to forge ahead!- I said: "Fine! Listen, it is simple, since you insist, it will be Bishop Charriere who decides. I know bishop Charriere, the bishop of Fribourg. I will go and see him. If he encourages me to go ahead, fine, I will see if I can organize something for these seminarians."There was still no question though, of founding a society just of taking care of these seminarians in a more direct way. "If bishop Charriere does not agree, then I will not do anything or do only what he tells me."
s2srea, your words are really quite beautiful, but it is now 40+ years later and we are surrounded by the enemy on all sides. If ++ABL were alive today, are you sure he would have taken the more passive approach?
Our own Traditional leadership is in free-fall and we are faced with dire consequences. As St Teresa of Avila said when referring to the Lutheran revolt: "We need virile souls"!
In the meantime, I will continue to pray multiple daily rosaries and maintain a holy hope for our Blessed Mother and Queen to intervene in these terrible times.
Or put another way:
It was not the illegal suppression of the SSPX which authorized (and rightfully presumed authority for) the 1988 consecrations, but the state of necessity which compelled Archbishop Lefebvre to act in the matter, whether he wanted to or not.
His personal will in the matter was irrelevant to his duties to come to the aid of the faithful trapped in necessity.
Quote from: SeanJohnsonOr put another way:
It was not the illegal suppression of the SSPX which authorized (and rightfully presumed authority for) the 1988 consecrations, but the state of necessity which compelled Archbishop Lefebvre to act in the matter, whether he wanted to or not.
His personal will in the matter was irrelevant to his duties to come to the aid of the faithful trapped in necessity.
Thank you SJ. I see where you're coming from. Now, whether this state of necessity requires that a union of priests be formed, is another matter, is it not? As long as there is a perpetuation of priests and bishops who can administer valid sacraments, is there a actual need for a congregation? One can clearly see the benefit to having a union of priests, but are those benefits outweighed by the weakness in such a structure, as found in the Neo SSPX?
Archbishop LeFebvre was compelled to do what he did to preserve the Catholic priesthood. A purpose which according the Church allowed him to act a state of necessity. He always wished to act within the law of the Church. In this case the Church allowed him to circuмvent it, while still satisfying its intent.
Bishop Williamson is not in that same situation yet. If the Society joins an unconverted Rome and the integrity and survival of the Priesthood is once again endangered. I have no doubt whatsoever, that Bishop Williamson will do what is appropriate to preserve the Catholic priesthood and the Religion.
To move at the wrong time can be disastrous. Were he to form a congregation now, it would likely be stopped dead in its tracks and overwhelmed by controversy over the legality and method of its institution, and would spend too much of its time and resources to counter these attacks.
It would not be able to get down to the true purpose of its erection, and its message would be lost in irrelevancies.
He advised the Vienna Fathers to wait until circuмstances would be more favorable to their cause. They did not, and now are rolling a very large boulder up a very steep hill.
This has placed an inordinate burden upon them and they have not been able to accomplish as much or gain as much sarcerdotal support as the might have with better timing.
One of Father Chazal's first fusillades was called "War On". Well if it is indeed a war, then one must adopt a stategy to achieve the goal of victory. A most critical part of strategy is advantageous timing. Also allowing the adversary's misteps and other circuмstances to provide a better chance of achieving short and long term victory.
The Bishop is waiting and observing. He has experience and wisdom. The correct strategy will come to him. God will provide the circuмstances for him to use it, if it is His will to do so.
As others had pointed out, Vat. II was brand new, and ABL was a RETIRED Prelate. He was coming from a “fresh” perspective in the beginning of this crisis with seeing a more visible structure of authority in the tenants of the Church than it is today (obviously); for which, in ABL’s thinking it would be more in accord with working with the visible parts of that structure he saw that still had a Catholic sense. So we cannot compare the two times Providence had showed at the early time of 1970 to the duressed time of 2012 as being the same.
Also from 1970 to 1976, ABL was talking to conciliar Rome on terms of “apologetics”. After 1976 and onward, ABL was talking on terms of the “Doctrine of Necessity” and was starting to build a STRUCTURE caused by conciliar Rome’s hand that did make it into -a wholesale state of “Doctrine of Necessity”.
Further, in ABL’s time, he had stated many times as each year had passed since the time of 1970, that Vat. II is more evil than he had first thought (…). Therefore, the “situation” for ABL had STRUCTURLY changed to the “Doctrine of Necessity” after the initial 1970.
On a side note. I personally think that God provided that structure to happen in 1970 to be the “anchored thorn” for conciliar Rome in order for Tradition to launch its worldwide stand and have its tremendous fruits with other religious orders drawing from that. Continuing still, if Bishop Williamson starts something, it is because of the roots of that Providential structure (he is a Bishop from it). And, illegal as it was that he was expelled from it, he is still never the less, a SSPX member that history will come to vindicate him; along with some of the other priests that were similarly expelled.
As history clearly shows with Bishop Williamson, that in the situation, and time of ABL, beginning on year one, there is a HUGE difference in comparing the situation, and time, of Bishop Williamson with now year 43 of travesty already gone by seeing the onslaught of destruction since Vat. II in this [diabolical] crisis against the Church.
For Bishop Williamson, he was “born” in the “Doctrine of Necessity” NOT outside of it. Therefore, for Bishop Williamson, he is NOT retired; he must lead in the fight that was entrusted to him by Our Lord Jesus Christ -and His messenger- ABL.
In other words, Bishop Williamson in 1988 was made out of the “Doctrine of Necessity” and he must continue in it until conciliar Rome returns back to her identity in order to put his miter at the feet of the [converted] Pope, until then there is still a “Doctrine of Necessity” and he must act accordingly.
In another point of history, St. Athanasius did not need to, nor start, a “congregation” in order to gather, protect, and lead the priests and the sheep…he just acted like an APOSTLE of Jesus Christ and gathered his priests, confirmed the brethren, and in time, he ordained priests and consecrated other Bishops for the survival of the Church.
The key point here is, St. Athanasius did not need to, nor start, a “congregation” in order to gather, protect, and lead the priests and the sheep!
Bishop Williamson, as a Bishop, needs to step-up to be more UNITIVE with his priests and faithful in this fight for the Faith, and for the integrity of the Catholic Church, that God had entrusted to him; NOT just to be a “father, adviser, and friend”.
Quote from: J.PaulArchbishop LeFebvre was compelled to do what he did to preserve the Catholic priesthood. A purpose which according the Church allowed him to act a state of necessity. He always wished to act within the law of the Church. In this case the Church allowed him to circuмvent it, while still satisfying its intent.
Bishop Williamson is not in that same situation yet. If the Society joins an unconverted Rome and the integrity and survival of the Priesthood is once again endangered. I have no doubt whatsoever, that Bishop Williamson will do what is appropriate to preserve the Catholic priesthood and the Religion.
To move at the wrong time can be disastrous. Were he to form a congregation now, it would likely be stopped dead in its tracks and overwhelmed by controversy over the legality and method of its institution, and would spend too much of its time and resources to counter these attacks.
It would not be able to get down to the true purpose of its erection, and its message would be lost in irrelevancies.
He advised the Vienna Fathers to wait until circuмstances would be more favorable to their cause. They did not, and now are rolling a very large boulder up a very steep hill.
This has placed an inordinate burden upon them and they have not been able to accomplish as much or gain as much sarcerdotal support as the might have with better timing.
One of Father Chazal's first fusillades was called "War On". Well if it is indeed a war, then one must adopt a stategy to achieve the goal of victory. A most critical part of strategy is advantageous timing. Also allowing the adversary's misteps and other circuмstances to provide a better chance of achieving short and long term victory.
The Bishop is waiting and observing. He has experience and wisdom. The correct strategy will come to him. God will provide the circuмstances for him to use it, if it is His will to do so.
Are you saying the time will not be right until such time as starting a new congregation (or consecrating bishops) would have wide support and popular approval amongst traditional laity and clergy?
The Menzingen cadre is running down on its ability to revise and "explain"
the questionable things that it does. There will be a time of reckoning when the issues will be clear enough that priests and laity will have to choose one side or the other. Wait and see will no longer be a valid position.
There is perhaps too strong a belief in the SSPX as an institution, which would only be natural for someone a part of it for so long.
Quote from: Machabees
The key point here is, St. Athanasius did not need to, nor start, a “congregation” in order to gather, protect, and lead the priests and the sheep!
Bishop Williamson, as a Bishop, needs to step-up to be more UNITIVE with his priests and faithful in this fight for the Faith, and for the integrity of the Catholic Church, that God had entrusted to him; NOT just to be a “father, adviser, and friend”.
Great post, except that I would observe (relative to your 2nd to last paragraph) that if St. Athanasius did not found a congregation to organize against Arianism, it was because St. Benedict, Cassian, et al had not yet invented monastic/communal life by this point in Church history.
And more to the point, had the idea occurred to him, he certainly would not have sought the approval of Arian bishops to authorize an order designed to destroy them.
Would not the answer be predictable?
Yet, is it not equally obvious that the necessity would vindicate such a decision nevertheless?
can you imagine the uproar that would ensue
if he were to consecrate bishops now? It would be headlines in all the
Zionist-friendly venues, to be sure. Even as it is, they call him "convicted
h0Ɩ0cαųst denier" as though that were his official title, instead of "Bishop."
Quote from: SeanJohnsonQuote from: Machabees
The key point here is, St. Athanasius did not need to, nor start, a “congregation” in order to gather, protect, and lead the priests and the sheep!
Bishop Williamson, as a Bishop, needs to step-up to be more UNITIVE with his priests and faithful in this fight for the Faith, and for the integrity of the Catholic Church, that God had entrusted to him; NOT just to be a “father, adviser, and friend”.
You're entitled to your opinion, but you have no right to instruct +W what
his proper role is today. It is not your place, and it is not within your
expertise to judge this situation for the Bishop. Not even Fr. Pfeiffer, who
apparently agrees with your precept, does not dare to demand this of +W.QuoteGreat post, except that I would observe (relative to your 2nd to last paragraph) that if St. Athanasius did not found a congregation to organize against Arianism, it was because St. Benedict, Cassian, et al had not yet invented monastic/communal life by this point in Church history.
And more to the point, had the idea occurred to him, he certainly would not have sought the approval of Arian bishops to authorize an order designed to destroy them.
St. Athanasius was not out to "destroy the Arian bishops." He was out to
convert them, or to remove them from their sees, but his passion was not
to put them in hell. St. John Chrysostom was most outspoken about this too,
but what he said was to give words of warning to the Arian bishops, not to
deal them a mortal wound in this life or the next.QuoteWould not the answer be predictable?
Yet, is it not equally obvious that the necessity would vindicate such a decision nevertheless?
The necessity might vindicate such a decision, but it is not your place to
make such a presumptuous demand on the Bishop. It is his judgment
that must be applied, and not yours. You are not a bishop.
SeanJohnson (Seraphim), Avec l'Immaculée thinks that you should not leave cathinfo now. You are one of those who have the most clear ideas at the moment : you must speak and be on the battlefield.
If you feel you are getting angry and that you loose peace, wait two days before writing but do not leave at the time people need to hear the clear truth. Avec l'Immaculée is with you and supports you.
We must not change anything in our way of thinking or in our behaviour. God is with us. Bp Williamson is wrong. We must tell the priests that they have no choice : either they speak openly, or they sin by omission. If they speak, they will be expelled. And it will be good, if they want to save their souls. Bp Williamson will tell them : "you should not have done that." And the priest will have to answer : "our excellency, it was that or sin, I want to save my soul". And Bp Williamson will go and visit him as he goes to visit Fr Pfeiffer and Chazal and that's it ! With his approval or without his approval, every priest's duty is clear : SPEAK OUT and speak out means to be expelled from the society, of course... Not going to a stupid canonical trial which is a real trap to silence the priest.
Finally, I would say that the question should not so much be whether necessity requires Bishop Williamson to start another congregation, but simply whether it permits him to do so.
Sean Johnson,QuoteFinally, I would say that the question should not so much be whether necessity requires Bishop Williamson to start another congregation, but simply whether it permits him to do so.
It would permit it under certain conditions, but, should he do so simply because he can?
Bishop Williamson unquestionably has the grace of state. He, being a truly Catholic bishop, will know when and if the time is right.
What they really need is to be “knocked” of a horse and see the light of day. Their Episcopal consecrations as a BISHOP -a decedent of the Apostles- is to fight like a true Shepherd; NOT to stand back, see the True Faith be trampled on and signed off into the modernist camp by the "Superior General", and watch the faithful be led astray.
No!
Stand up...
What Bishop Williamson still needs to know, and be confirmed, that he as a Catholic Bishop has the "Authority" from the state of necessity, supplied from the Church, to feed the sheep -to Teach, Sanctify, and to GOVERN!
It is the "Shepherd" that gathers the flock, protects them, and leads them; NOT the other way around!
Bishop François Charrière of Fribourg established, on a provisional (ad experimentum) basis for six years, the International Priestly Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) as a "pious union"..... In January 1975 the new Bishop of Fribourg stated his wish to withdraw the SSPX's pious union status. Though Lefebvre then had two meetings with the commission of Cardinals, the Bishop put his intention into effect on 6 May 1975, thereby officially dissolving the Society. This action was subsequently upheld by Pope Paul VI, who wrote to Archbishop Lefebvre in June 1975. (Extracted from Wikipedia).
Did Bishop Fellay write this particular EC? Or am I suffering from Mindrot?
1) This mindset is excessively legalistic
Sean Johnson,QuoteFinally, I would say that the question should not so much be whether necessity requires Bishop Williamson to start another congregation, but simply whether it permits him to do so.
It would permit it under certain conditions, but, should he do so simply because he can?
Bishop Williamson unquestionably has the grace of state. He, being a truly Catholic bishop, will know when and if the time is right.
In Scripture, God created the structure of sacrifice and worship; same still in the New Testament that Jesus Christ had ordained. Our Lord instituted a Church, which He is the Head. He has His Ministers (Pope, Bishops, and Priests) to dispense the Graces of His Redemption. Therefore, the Ministers need the faithful as the faithful needs the Ministers.
In this hierarchy, technically speaking, the Bishops are the main part of the structure of the Church. They do not need the priests. The priests are there to help him in the Ministry of the [numerous] faithful. However, the priest NEEDS the Bishop; it is their existence.
To apply this to today’s new [SSPX] crisis.
That prior to the SSPX crisis, the Bishops were UNITED with the priests and the priests were united with the Bishops. During this SSPX crisis, the Bishops and priests are divided.
With those that have been unjustly expelled, those who are in the process of being expelled, those not yet, or of those who are just hanging on still inside, that Bishop Williamson who is the only Bishop standing up, as a Catholic Bishop, along with the other priests who are rightly standing up, are all fighting against the SAME attack against the Faith and there is unity in that sense from which Menzingen, Bishop Fellay, has caused a massive crisis of distrust (to say the least), and has demonstrated with Docuмents, interviews, and conferences, that he is purposely putting the Faith into the hands of conciliar Rome; with proof, expelling any [member] who does not go along with it.
Therefore, in STUCTURE, the Bishop who was unjustly expelled (Bishop Williamson) can in fact go by himself into the world and dispense the Graces of Redemption to the faithful without the need of priests; however, he CANNOT allow the other priests, who do exist, and are calling out to him for help and support for their existence, to let them go on in life without a STRUCTURE of a Bishop –it would be death for them. That is why these many priests are waiting for Bishop Williamson to show some sign of “stability” for these priests to follow in his footsteps of protection and leadership.
Bishop Williamson, therefore, must form a VISIBLE unitive bond with these many priests. The priests, and faithful, are calling out to him for this. He must die to himself, like ABL did when he said that he did NOT want to do or start anything, but surrendered to what Providence has manifested –namely, seminarians were coming to him for protection and leadership; same to with Fr. Pfeiffer, the other many priests, many new seminarians, the many religious congregations who were also expelled, and of the many faithful throughout the world.
Bishop Williamson, as one Bishop, CANNOT minister the Graces of Redemption to the many numerous faithful by himself. Therefore, he must create a visible bond of unity with the priests who are calling out to him to fulfill the Church’s will of Redemption, sacrifice, and worship. Less we all fall and start worshiping cows, like St. Padre Pio had once said.
To summarize. As Bishop Williamson and the many other priests are still SSPX members, it is not necessary at this time to form another “statutory congregation” as it is extremely important to form a collective, unitive, and visible bond of existence together in keeping the same visible and STRUCTURAL bond of being SSPX members, and carry on as such within their new Priories to work out of –it is this that Bishop Williamson chooses not to be a part of- hence all of this strife, wonderment, and confusion.
Bishop Williamson, as he states himself in his last letter he wrote to Bishop Fellay, he is still a SSPX member precisely because he was unjustly expelled from it.
Bishop Williamson then must act accordingly to a standing member of the SSPX and all of the statues that gives life to him and that congregation which was officially blessed by the Church, along with his many priests, who also are still SSPX members, to work out of new Priories and Seminaries to continue the apostolate and the work of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Their strength would lie in the fact that they continue their faithfulness to this, as Fr. Pfeiffer and the other priests are advocating, their life of Grace would be fulfilled in this, and their unitve Catholic bond that is necessary for their existence would together get through this war that is being waged against the Holiness of the Catholic Church.
“Priests, where is your Bishop? Bishop, where is your priests?”
Why do the EC's keep ending up in the Sermons sub-forum, where they are quickly forgotten?
Why do the EC's keep ending up in the Sermons sub-forum, where they are quickly forgotten?
Resistance Sermons
Audio/video recordings and text transcripts of sermons from priests resisting the new orientation in the SSPX. Eleison Comments go here. Sermons/articles/conferences NOT favorable to the Resistance should be kept in the main SSPX-Rome subforum.
In regards to this Sub-Forum for collecting Resistance Sermons along with the Eleison Comments, my thoughts on this would be to then archive the "original" Eleison Comments of each week in the Sub-Forum, and then have the discussion on it in the main headline page.
Specifically, the reason for this idea is that the discussion of Bishop Williamson, as a Catholic Bishop standing up for Tradition, what he does, and what he writes about is extremely important, and harmonious, to everything else in headlines page of the Resistance itself.
As his writings are diverse in topics, and poignant at times with new information that needs to be analyzed and discussed, it gives us the opportunity to know what to do and which way to turn.
Therefore, by bringing back the discussion of the Eleison Comments to the main page, it will keep all of the important discussions together; not fractioned in different places.
Is this an idea open to others also?
Noticed the most recent "Comments" of +Williamson were removed along with Sean’s poignant comments.
I would like to add, with all do respect, that it is difficult to compare the actions of ABL in the late 60's and early 70's to that of + Williamson today. The Church / Rome were totally different. ABL still saw a spark of hope in those churchmen that he knew personally. Perhaps this is why canononical recognition was so important to him (besides the natural desire that every Catholic should have to be united to good and holy Rome). In 2013 however, Rome is not good or holy. The spark of hope cannot be seen in these churchmen. Any hope of a canononical approval is not possible.
One can only wonder, would ABL still hold the same hope and requirement for recognition by modern Rome in today’s circuмstances before forming the SSPX in 2013 as he did in the early 70's? Would he just allow the flock to scatter because such approval wasn't possible? I find it hard to believe that ABL would just walk away without providing Catholics of good will with a structure to continue the faith.
I believe times and circuмstances are so very different today than they were in the 1970's. Because of this, battle plans must be adjusted to provide for the faith. As Fr. Hewko’s said a while back, a priest must have a bishop. Until the resistance has a bishop they can call their own, a bishop that provides the "Apostolic" mark of the Church, the Resistance, and the true traditional priesthood will suffer a major setback.
Let us pray that H.E. Williamson provides the Resistance with a visible head that will afford it the "Apostolic" mark of the Church.
Mary Help of Christians...PRAY FOR US!