Author Topic: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268 (Read 13269 times)

Seraphia · « **Reply #15 on:** September 01, 2012, 04:58:17 PM »

I most definitely will post this at the back of the SSPX Chapel I attend! It's such a small thing to do, but those who do not have internet access deserve to be informed. If I cannot stand up for what I believe now, how am I to stand up to what is coming?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #16 on:** September 01, 2012, 05:57:01 PM »

Quote from: Seraphia

I most definitely will post this at the back of the SSPX Chapel I attend! It's such a small thing to do, but those who do not have internet access deserve to be informed. If I cannot stand up for what I believe now, how am I to stand up to what is coming?

I wouldn't do that.

The article is very well written, and makes some good points.

However, it still suffers from the traditional Feenyite errors:

1) No salvation outside the Church is true enough;

2) But grace operates outside the Church;

3) And in those whom grace sanctifies, they by that action alone become members of the Church;

4) So that if a man die justified, he is saved;

5) so acknowledging implicit or explicit baptism of desire is really nothing more than acknowledging that sanctifying grace will exist in the souls of those Catholics who have not yet had the opportunity to manifest their desire to become the Catholics they already are (think infants validly baptized in any of the sects, who will lose Church membership when they attain the age of reason);

6) And here you can perceive why the reason the missionary charter of the Church is not hindered by acknowledging BoB/BoD, implicitly or explicitly;

5) Fr Feeney denies this because he understands "no salvation outside the Church" to mean "no salvation without water baptism;"

6) But since Trent declares that all the justified are saved, as opposed to Fr Feeney, who puts these in Limbo, we can see easily that Fr Feeney was heading down the wrong path;

7) in short, grace operates outside the Church, and brings some members into Her, but since we cannot know who these are, and they will be reletively few in mumber, the mission and necessity to go forth into all nations and baptize is not diminished in the least by admitting implicit Church membership.

Matthew · « **Reply #17 on:** September 01, 2012, 06:09:28 PM »

Seraphim, you need to read the whole thread.

Seraphia was talking about posting the latest Eleison Comments at the back of her chapel, not the post (above) about 2 posts up.

That post totally derailed this thread, and has annoyed me, so I removed it.
She can post it in a separate thread if she wants.

Seraphia · « **Reply #18 on:** September 01, 2012, 06:13:39 PM »

Umm.. I'm talking about the actual TOPIC. You know, the one we've been talking about -- Bishop Williamson.

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Seraphia
I most definitely will post this at the back of the SSPX Chapel I attend! It's such a small thing to do, but those who do not have internet access deserve to be informed. If I cannot stand up for what I believe now, how am I to stand up to what is coming?

I wouldn't do that.

The article is very well written, and makes some good points.

However, it still suffers from the traditional Feenyite errors:

1) No salvation outside the Church is true enough;

2) But grace operates outside the Church;

3) And in those whom grace sanctifies, they by that action alone become members of the Church;

4) So that if a man die justified, he is saved;

5) so acknowledging implicit or explicit baptism of desire is really nothing more than acknowledging that sanctifying grace will exist in the souls of those Catholics who have not yet had the opportunity to manifest their desire to become the Catholics they already are (think infants validly baptized in any of the sects, who will lose Church membership when they attain the age of reason);

6) And here you can perceive why the reason the missionary charter of the Church is not hindered by acknowledging BoB/BoD, implicitly or explicitly;

5) Fr Feeney denies this because he understands "no salvation outside the Church" to mean "no salvation without water baptism;"

6) But since Trent declares that all the justified are saved, as opposed to Fr Feeney, who puts these in Limbo, we can see easily that Fr Feeney was heading down the wrong path;

7) in short, grace operates outside the Church, and brings some members into Her, but since we cannot know who these are, and they will be reletively few in mumber, the mission and necessity to go forth into all nations and baptize is not diminished in the least by admitting implicit Church membership.

Sienna629 · « **Reply #19 on:** September 01, 2012, 06:22:28 PM »

Quote from: stgobnait

are you allowed to leave reading material in the back of your chapel..... :reporter:

We can't, on pain of expulsion

stgobnait · « **Reply #20 on:** September 01, 2012, 06:25:22 PM »

oh you must be in the same chapel as me........... :reporter:

stgobnait · « **Reply #21 on:** September 01, 2012, 06:40:47 PM »

well. maybe not the same..... but similar... :detective:

Sienna629 · « **Reply #22 on:** September 01, 2012, 06:42:55 PM »

Quote from: stgobnait

well. maybe not the same..... but similar... :detective:

Yes!

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #23 on:** September 01, 2012, 06:44:25 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Bishop Williamson
These were hammered out by discussion amongst the 39 capitulants of early July. (Emphasis added.)

The nature and tone of these remarks by Bishop Williamson gives credence to Father Pfeiffer's recent comments that claim Bishop Fellay is hell bent (pardon the pun) on reaching a deal with Conciliar, and unconverted, rome.

TKGS, the rumour regarding Bishop Tissier's comments has been debunked.

Bishop Williamson is criticising a list of conditions approved by the entire General Chapter.

Why did the hard-liners (including Tissier) vote for these conditions? Because of Condition #1: "Freedom to keep, to transmit and to teach the sane doctrine of the unchanging magisterium of the Church and of the unchangeable truth of Divine Tradition; freedom to defend, to correct and to reprove, even in public, those responsible for the errors or novelties of modernism, of liberalism, of The Second Vatican Council and their consequences."

The reasoning was, this will never be granted until Rome converts, so that nothing else really needs to be spelled out. Also, the General Chapter established that only the General Chapter could approve a reconciliation with Rome, thus stripping Bishop Fellay of the power to do so.

Columba · « **Reply #24 on:** September 01, 2012, 07:39:39 PM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

TKGS, the rumour regarding Bishop Tissier's comments has been debunked.

False.

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

the General Chapter established that only the General Chapter could approve a reconciliation with Rome, thus stripping Bishop Fellay of the power to do so.

The 2006 General Chapter made the same resolution but Menzingen previously asserted that Bishop Fellay could make a deal entirely on his own because his "grace of state" supposedly trumps everything else.

In his previously attempt at sell-out, +Fellay signed the Preamble without General Chapter approval. There is not reason to expect he will allow a General Chapter to stand in the way of any subsequent attempt at a sell-out.

trento · « **Reply #25 on:** September 01, 2012, 11:14:24 PM »

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat
TKGS, the rumour regarding Bishop Tissier's comments has been debunked.

False.

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat
the General Chapter established that only the General Chapter could approve a reconciliation with Rome, thus stripping Bishop Fellay of the power to do so.

The 2006 General Chapter made the same resolution but Menzingen previously asserted that Bishop Fellay could make a deal entirely on his own because his "grace of state" supposedly trumps everything else.

In his previously attempt at sell-out, +Fellay signed the Preamble without General Chapter approval. There is not reason to expect he will allow a General Chapter to stand in the way of any subsequent attempt at a sell-out.

When exactly did +Fellay signed the Preamble?

Columba · « **Reply #26 on:** September 02, 2012, 02:02:57 AM »

Quote from: trento

When exactly did +Fellay signed the Preamble?

The Preamble Bp. Fellay signed on April 15, long before the June General Chapter meeting, included the statement:

"The entire Tradition of the Catholic Faith should be the criterion and guide for understanding the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, which in turn clarifies certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church, not yet formulated but implicitly present in it. The statements of the Second Vatican Council and of the subsequent papal magisterium regarding the relationship between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic christian confessions must be understood in the light of all of Tradition."

http://angelqueen.org/2012/06/22/the-prelature-of-st-pius-x-what-bp-fellay-signed

Even if +Fellay had not accepted such an ambiguous position on Vatican II, his signing of the Preamble would still have violated the 2006 General Chapter resolution.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #27 on:** September 02, 2012, 02:51:58 AM »

Quote from: Sienna629

Quote from: stgobnait
are you allowed to leave reading material in the back of your chapel..... :reporter:

We can't, on pain of expulsion

I would recommend that you hire a college student (they're always looking for odd
jobs!) to distribute the pages to the cars in the parking lot during Mass, just before
Communion, if possible. The student should be told not to divulge your identity. They
are not obligated to answer any questions.

Alternatively, you can ask a friend who is from out of the area to help, someone who
attends a different Mass normally. Don't discriminate against Novus Ordo Catholics!
It's possible that you might find someone who is thus encouraged toward Tradition by
getting involved in fighting for the Faith. Certainly they would understand that no one
at a Novus Ordo church would care one way or another about the content of this
page! But here, an SSPX congregation is likely to be quite interested.

Be sure to have the SOURCE visible on the page: Eleison Comments or Dinoscopus.

They can also stand on the sidewalk to hand copies to anyone who is walking out of
the church away from the parking lot, in case you have insufficient parking and
some park on the street. It would be unwise to place copies on cars parked on
the street because they might belong to neighbors or other non-church people, and
those often are irritated by literature stuck under a wiper regarding the church to
which they don't belong.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #28 on:** September 02, 2012, 03:19:54 AM »

For the convenience of readers who would like a quick Word file to print, here
is an uploaded version of the original post ~~ with a few minor adjustments to
spacing and punctuational conventions (this is more American).

Attached. (see below)

Quote from: Neil Obstat

We have been waiting for the condensed, short version of this story.

We now have it.

We are all obligated to memorize The Analysis of the Six Conditions.

(We are also obligated to know what the difference is between "essential
requirement" and "condition." We should be able to respond to questions about
the appropriateness of putting "conditions" on legitimate authority. This is a war
on information, and it is our duty to be prepared, so we can state these facts
clearly and without passion, because we need to exhibit a collected, calm resolve
redolent of a committed virtue, a high standard of principle, an unwavering
adherence to the "Faith of our Fathers, living still, in spite of dungeon, fire and
sword.")

If Our Good Bishop had the authority he deserves, he could run a rigorous class
in "Christian Warfare" which would not be entirely different from the BOOK that
the SSPX sells by that title, inasmuch as it is directed toward the same end. H.E.
would be the professor, and he could make this a mid-term exam. We should
study the material as if it were for just such a test. For our test may be coming,
indeed, only not under academic circuмstances!

Quote from: Ferdinand
Quote from: MaterDominici

. SIX CONDITIONS

In an official letter of July 18 to Superiors of the Society of St Pius X, its General Secretary revealed the six “Conditions” for any future agreement between the SSPX and Rome. These were hammered out by discussion amongst the 39 capitulants of early July. Surely these Conditions demonstrate an alarming weakness on the part of the Society’s leaders as a whole.

The first...
The second...
The third...
The fourth...
The fifth...
The sixth and last...
In Conclusion...

Friends, prepare to fight for the Faith from within your homes. Fortify your homes.

Kyrie eleison.

© 2012 Richard N. Williamson. All Rights Reserved.

Donate

While Eleison Comments is provided free of charge, there are administrative and technical costs associated with making it available to subscribers worldwide and with operating the site. Contributions to offset these costs are appreciated, and may be made by contacting:

donate@dinoscopus.org

A Spiritual Work of Mercy - Instruct the Ignorant

This copy of the Eleison Comments needs to be printed out by all of us
and placed at the back of chapels, under windshield wipers and printed in the St. Mary's Star!

Regarding the St. Mary's Star... it needs to run weekly until the sell-out
or until the deposition of +Fallacious.

This copy of the Eleison Comments needs to be printed out by all of us
and placed at the back of chapels, under windshield wipers and printed in the St. Mary's Star!

This copy of the Eleison Comments needs to be printed out by all of us
and placed at the back of chapels, under windshield wipers and printed in the St. Mary's Star!

This copy of the Eleison Comments needs to be printed out by all of us
and placed at the back of chapels, under windshield wipers and printed in the St. Mary's Star!

This copy of the Eleison Comments needs to be printed out by all of us
and placed at the back of chapels, under windshield wipers and printed in the St. Mary's Star!

This copy of the Eleison Comments needs to be printed out by all of us
and placed at the back of chapels, under windshield wipers and printed in the St. Mary's Star!

This copy of the Eleison Comments needs to be printed out by all of us
and placed at the back of chapels, under windshield wipers and printed in the St. Mary's Star!

This copy of the Eleison Comments needs to be printed out by all of us
and placed at the back of chapels, under windshield wipers and printed in the St. Mary's Star!

This copy of the Eleison Comments needs to be printed out by all of us
and placed at the back of chapels, under windshield wipers and printed in the St. Mary's Star!

This copy of the Eleison Comments needs to be printed out by all of us
and placed at the back of chapels, under windshield wipers and printed in the St. Mary's Star!

Dust off your printers and get to work, folks. Copy time!

As Fr. Chazal has said: WAR ON.

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #29 on:** September 02, 2012, 07:33:45 AM »

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat
TKGS, the rumour regarding Bishop Tissier's comments has been debunked.

False.

Bishop Tissier asked another to post his denial of the rumour here, which that person did. Independently, I asked a different Fraternity figure about this rumour and he in turn wrote to Bishop Tissier, who replied, ”il n'y a rien de vrai dans ce qui m'est attribué sur internet.” Translated: "There is no truth in what was attributed to me on the internet."

If Fr. Chazal wishes to assert publicly that he stands by the words attributed to him, let him do so. Clearly he misunderstood his conversation with Bishop Tissier.

Even the people who published it originally, Truetrad, have now removed it, and Matthew here as well as the folks at IA have done the same.

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat
the General Chapter established that only the General Chapter could approve a reconciliation with Rome, thus stripping Bishop Fellay of the power to do so.

The 2006 General Chapter made the same resolution ...

No, it didn't. But don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs!