Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => SSPX Resistance Sermons => Topic started by: MaterDominici on September 01, 2012, 02:08:34 AM

Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: MaterDominici on September 01, 2012, 02:08:34 AM
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 “essential requirement” is freedom for the Society to teach the unchanging truth of Catholic Tradition, and to criticize those responsible for the errors of modernism, liberalism and Vatican II. Well and good. But notice how the Chapter’s vision has changed from that of Archbishop Lefebvre. No longer “Rome must convert because Truth is absolute”, but now merely “The SSPX demands freedom for itself to tell the Truth.” Instead of attacking the Conciliar treachery, the SSPX now wants the traitors to give it permission to tell the Truth ? “O, what a fall was there !”

The second condition requires exclusive use of the 1962 liturgy. Again, well and good, insofar as the 1962 liturgy is no such betrayal of the Faith as is the Conciliar liturgy imposed by Rome from 1969 onwards. But do we not right now see Rome preparing to impose on Traditional Congregations that have submitted to its authority a “mutual enrichment” Missal, mixing Tradition and the Novus Ordo? Once the SSPX were to have submitted to Rome, why should it be any more protected ?

The third condition requires the guarantee of at least one bishop. The key question here is, who will choose him ? Readers, in the text of any future “agreement” with Rome, go straight for the paragraph about the appointment of bishops. In 1988 Rome proposed that the Archbishop present a selection of three candidates for Rome to choose one. Rome then rejected all three. When will people get it ? Catholics must fight and fight in this titanic war between the religion of God and the religion of man.

The fourth condition desires that the Society have its own tribunals of the first instance. But if any higher tribunal is of the official Church and can undo the lower tribunals’ decisions, what Catholic decision of any Society tribunal will still have any force at all ?

The fifth condition desires exemption of SSPX houses from control by diocesan bishops. Unbelievable ! For nigh on 40 years the SSPX has been fighting to save the Faith by protecting its true practice from interference by the local Conciliar bishops, and now comes the General Chapter merely desiring independence from them ? The Society is not what it was, dear readers. It is in the hands of people quite different from Archbishop Lefebvre !

The sixth and last condition desires a Commission to be set up in Rome to look after Tradition, with a a strong representation from Tradition, but “dependent on the Pope”. Dependent on the Pope ? But have the Conciliar Popes not been ringleaders of Conciliarism ? Is Conciliarism no longer a problem ?

In conclusion, these six conditions are excessively grave. Unless the Society’s leadership is shaken out of its dream of peace with Conciliar Rome as revealed by them, then the last worldwide bastion of Catholic Tradition risks being on its way to surrendering to the enemies of the Faith. Maybe bastions are out of date.

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

Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Calasanctius on September 01, 2012, 04:57:09 AM
God Bless His Grace Bishop Richard Williamson!

Where would we sheep be without such a Shepherd of Souls?
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Francisco on September 01, 2012, 05:22:15 AM
Obviously Bp Fellay and friends have not read Piers Compton's THE BROKEN CROSS (available free on the internet), or if they have, they reckon it's another conspiracy theory.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 01, 2012, 08:05:29 AM

It has taken H.E. a month to finally comment on the General Chapter in specifics...





Quote
...Surely these Conditions demonstrate an alarming weakness on the part of the Society’s leaders as a whole...

...In conclusion, these six conditions are excessively grave. Unless the Society’s leadership is shaken out of its dream of peace with Conciliar Rome as revealed by them, then the last worldwide bastion of Catholic Tradition risks being on its way to surrendering to the enemies of the Faith. Maybe bastions are out of date.




Does anyone doubt that he would have had similar observations if he had been
present himself? But remember: the first act of the Chapter was to confirm the
nefarious order of +Fellay to prevent +Williamson from attending the Chapter.  



What will "shake" the Society's leadership "out of its dream of peace with Conciliar
Rome?" What could do so? Is it likely to happen? What can we do about it?



Post messages on the Internet?



Send our donations to dinoscopus.org and to Our Lady of Mount Carmel, KY!




I just got a Seminary letter from Fr. Yves Le Roux, Winona. It comes with a
beautiful, one page collage of color photos of the 8 new ordinands at Winona, 2
of whom are the two Benedictines from Our Lady of Guadalupe Monastery in
New Mexico... Silver City, that is. (There are at least two other Benedictine
monasteries in NM, which are Novus Ordo: Pecos and Abiquiu.) At the bottom of
the color page (back side) it asks us to contribute to the new seminary project in
Virginia -- you know, the one that +Fellay could easily turn over, lock, stock, and
barrel, to the local bishop if he signs a "deal" with Rome, which could happen at
any time, according to +Williamson, if you know how to read English and have
paid attention to his words, including those of this particular EC 268. (Of course,
the  Fellayites assure us that no deal is in the offing and we are a bunch of  
weenies for saying the contrary.)

It's a nice letter, asking us to consider the spiritual value of a retreat during this
time of Summer when we think of vacations. It's an interesting message, however,
it is glaringly obvious to me that it comes at the END of the summer, on the
occasion of Labor Day Weekend in the USA, the "official end of summer
vacations." IOW: now that summer vacations are done with, Fr. Le Roux is asking
us to think about what we might do with our summer vacation, now that it's too
late to plan for it ... HUH? Is he talking about NEXT summer? That would be 8 or 9
months in the future.

Or, is he rather hinting at the fact that we may have "missed" something else?
Is he perhaps hinting at the fact that the General Chapter just took place and
Bishop Williamson was illegally prevented from attending, and so not only His
Excellency missed the Chapter, but THE WHOLE WORLD has "missed" whatever
benefits the Chapter may have had if H.E. had been present?

Is Fr. Le Roux hinting at the fact that now that we have missed the chance to
have a retreat during our summer vacation this summer, that perhaps planning
8 or 9 months ahead of time for next summer would be a way of fortifying our
homes, by "preparing to fight for the Faith from within our homes?" -- As H.E.
ends this EC 268?


And therefore, is Fr. Le Roux indirectly hinting at our need to be prepared for
what is going to happen in the SSPX during the next 8 or 9 months, while +Fellay
and the "office help" continue to chew away at the framework of the SSPX like
a swarm of termites?






Note: H.E. does not describe what we should do to "fortify our homes." He no
doubt is going to take that up next week! Or, that is, if we really want him to,
perhaps we ought to get busy and write him letters requesting that he do so.

Alternatively, just keep reading CathInfo and see what turns up ..................  :wink:
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: TKGS on September 01, 2012, 09:20:26 AM
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.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: stgobnait on September 01, 2012, 09:54:57 AM
are you allowed to leave reading material in the back of your chapel..... :reporter:
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Adolphus on September 01, 2012, 01:08:03 PM
I would like to say that we should not focus exclusively on the signing of an agreement as the "sell-out issue".  SSPX's problem is much bigger and deeper than that.  And please, don't misunderstand me: I am not saying that an agreement with the conciliar rome would be a good thing; what I'm saying is that the agreement is not the main and final point.

We must keep in mind that the devil is behind all this, and that he wants to destroy the Church to avoid the souls to have a salvation media.  Destroying the Tradition is part —if not all— of what he needs to do.  So, what he wants now is to end the SSPX since it is by now the bigger group world wide which keeps the Tradition.

Somehow, the devil seduced Bp. Fellay so that H. E. started to look for a roman recognition.  Some have suggested that Bp. Fellay wanted so from the very moment he became a seminarist.  I don't know whether this is true or not.  However, we know Bp. Fellay and many of H. E.'s collaborators have been seduced by the devil and are leading the Society toward modernism.

Having considered this, we should be thinking that the devil will try to do whatever fulfills his plan.  Whether it is an agreement or not, we don't know.  But just look around and see how much damage has been done so far and the agreement hasn't been signed yet.  An agreement could open the eyes of many who still don't want to accept the reality.

I know many say that B XVI wants to reconcile the SSPX with the church and that he is in a hurry to do it, since he is old enough to think his life is close to its end.  That could be true and the devil could be taking advantage of it, but if this is not what the devil has planed, he'll move his pieces to avoid it.

Thus, my point is that we should not be waiting for something may never happen.  We know the SSPX's leadership has taken the way of the lie and deception and should not be followed.  If an agreement is reached or not, won't change this fact.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: stgobnait on September 01, 2012, 01:16:32 PM
 i agree, much damage has been done... suspicion, mistrust, even fear, is the norm now in my chapel..... can it be repaired, i don't believe it can.....
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 01, 2012, 02:07:01 PM
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.



Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 01, 2012, 02:25:18 PM
Quote from: Ferdinand
Quote from: Neil Obstat


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.





Amen to that Neil!


Alleluia to that, Ferdinand!

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


Are you going to let some accordista cleric or chapel coordinator (getting their marching orders from +Fallacious) stop you from your Catholic Duty?
:facepalm:

Viva Cristo Rey!



Hey, stgobnait: I have an idea for you. Why don't you write a letter to Fr. Rostand
and ask his permission to disseminate the EC 268 in SSPX parking lots.

See what he says, okay?   :idea:

VIVA LA VIRGEN DE GUADALUPE!
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on September 01, 2012, 04:08:55 PM
Bishop Williamson at his best! What an awesome issue of EC. Thanks for posting this, Mater.

God Bless Bishop Williamson.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: stgobnait on September 01, 2012, 04:09:20 PM
i can do that, neil obstat,  and in 'war on'..... does that mean i have to lead the charge..... :shocked:
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Columba on September 01, 2012, 04:15:36 PM
Quote from: MaterDominici
Unless the Society’s leadership is shaken out of its dream of peace with Conciliar Rome as revealed by them, then the last worldwide bastion of Catholic Tradition risks being on its way to surrendering to the enemies of the Faith. Maybe bastions are out of date.

I suspected that Bishop Fellay might have been intimidated by a threat of some worldwide ʝʊdɛօmasonic clampdown if he did not submit the SSPX to Rome. That would explain the chutzpah of SSPX corporate signatory Maximilian Krah's intentional provocation of the hardliners by the flagrant advertisement of his Mossad connections.

Bishop Williamson's disturbing comment adds to my suspicion.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on September 01, 2012, 04:31:31 PM
Moderator: Please don't derail threads. Post this in a separate topic if you wish to post it.

It has nothing at all to do with the latest Eleison Comments, and therefore is off-topic.


The letter posted below had been on Angelqueen in 2010 after it's partial publication on Culture Wars Magazine. It is as pertinent today as it was then. Roman Authority can only be confronted with Truth: Dogma. Also, His Excellency, + Williamson, does not seem to understand yet that the 1962 Missal has always been considered a transitional Missal. That Rome is doing to it presently, is what was expected and that it has to be dumped by the SSPX as soon as possible.

Marie Auxiliadora
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on September 01, 2012, 04:47:47 PM
The link is http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Culture%20Wars%20reply%20for%20web%20posting%209-10.htm since the footnotes didn't show correctly.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Seraphia 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?
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: SeanJohnson 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.

Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Matthew 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.

Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Seraphia 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.

Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Sienna629 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
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: stgobnait on September 01, 2012, 06:25:22 PM
oh you must be in the same chapel as me........... :reporter:
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: stgobnait on September 01, 2012, 06:40:47 PM
well. maybe not the same..... but similar... :detective:
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Sienna629 on September 01, 2012, 06:42:55 PM
Quote from: stgobnait
well. maybe not the same..... but similar... :detective:


Yes!
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: GertrudetheGreat 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.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Columba 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.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: trento 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?
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Columba 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.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Neil Obstat 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.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Neil Obstat 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.



Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: GertrudetheGreat 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!

Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Ethelred on September 02, 2012, 07:40:04 AM
Could we please stay on-topic and not derail virtually any thread? It's unfair.



This is a most excellent Eleison Comment. Thank you, Your Excellency!
As SpiritusS. says: Bishop Williamson at his best!


Now I'd like to quote "Faber" from another forum on the same topic:

Quote from: Faber @ Sep 1 2012, 15:17 GMT
Quote from: Seraphim
On the other hand, I dont like the part about "fortify your homes."

It could be taken to mean the bishops have no plans to do anything, regardless of what happens, and the best they can advise us is to become home-aloners.


There won't be a new bastion when this one is slighted. Bishop Williamson has been talking about a loose association of priests and about "only the rosary left" some time ago.


Quote from: Bishop Williamson

Maybe bastions are out of date.

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



Very well said, Faber. Genau so ist es. It looks like we Catholics will have to do what our brave Japanese brothers in faith did after their priests had been slaughtered.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 02, 2012, 08:00:05 AM
As usual, when there is something profoundly helpful for understanding the devil's
ploy, something that liberals desire to suppress because it might devastate their
smoke-and-mirrors campaign, the minions come out of the woodwork to flail
around over side issues, over diversionary tactics, over contrived controversy.

Let the liberals flail away.

Here is a copy of Bishop Williamson's EC 268, and we don't have to fuss and
fume over whether he said this or not, because it came to all of our email boxes
just yesterday, and we can see it is legitimate.

I have printed out multiple copies and I will hand them out to interested parties
this morning at Mass. I suggest you all do the same.

Of course, Gertrude the Ingrate will complain, but so be it. Some people will never
be satisfied with the truth.








SIX CONDITIONS (EC 268)


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 “essential requirement” is freedom for the Society to teach the unchanging truth of Catholic Tradition, and to criticize those responsible for the errors of modernism, liberalism and Vatican II. Well and good. But notice how the Chapter’s vision has changed from that of Archbishop Lefebvre. No longer “Rome must convert because Truth is absolute”, but now merely “The SSPX demands freedom for itself to tell the Truth.” Instead of attacking the Conciliar treachery, the SSPX now wants the traitors to give it permission to tell the Truth? “O, what a fall was there!”

The second condition requires exclusive use of the 1962 liturgy. Again, well and good, insofar as the 1962 liturgy is no such betrayal of the Faith as is the Conciliar liturgy imposed by Rome from 1969 onwards. But do we not right now see Rome preparing to impose on Traditional Congregations that have submitted to its authority a “mutual enrichment” Missal, mixing Tradition and the Novus Ordo? Once the SSPX were to have submitted to Rome, why should it be any more protected?

The third condition requires the guarantee of at least one bishop. The key question here is, who will choose him? Readers, in the text of any future “agreement” with Rome, go straight for the paragraph about the appointment of bishops. In 1988 Rome proposed that the Archbishop present a selection of three candidates for Rome to choose one. Rome then rejected all three. When will people get it? Catholics must fight and fight in this titanic war between the religion of God and the religion of man.

The fourth condition desires that the Society have its own tribunals of the first instance. But if any higher tribunal is of the official Church and can undo the lower tribunals’ decisions, what Catholic decision of any Society tribunal will still have any force at all?

The fifth condition desires exemption of SSPX houses from control by diocesan bishops. Unbelievable! For nigh on 40 years the SSPX has been fighting to save the Faith by protecting its true practice from interference by the local Conciliar bishops, and now comes the General Chapter merely desiring independence from them ? The Society is not what it was, dear readers. It is in the hands of people quite different from Archbishop Lefebvre!

The sixth and last condition desires a Commission to be set up in Rome to look after Tradition, with a strong representation from Tradition, but “dependent on the Pope.” Dependent on the Pope? But have the Conciliar Popes not been ringleaders of Conciliarism? Is Conciliarism no longer a problem?

In conclusion, these six conditions are excessively grave. Unless the Society’s leadership is shaken out of its dream of peace with Conciliar Rome as revealed by them, then the last worldwide bastion of Catholic Tradition risks being on its way to surrendering to the enemies of the Faith. Maybe bastions are out of date.

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

Kyrie eleison.

© 2012 Richard N. Williamson. All Rights Reserved.


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








The good Bishop clearly announces that "these six conditions are excessively
grave." We cannot ignore his words, lest we ignore our own peril. Print it, learn it,
share it. This is something you can do NOW to further the good of the Church.

You don't even have to fuss about how to get the copy off the CathInfo site and
into your printer, because here is a .doc file ready to download and print out:

Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: John Grace on September 02, 2012, 08:10:05 AM
Quote
Of course, Gertrude the Ingrate will complain, but so be it. Some people will never
be satisfied with the truth.


Let him complain all he likes.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: chrstnoel1 on September 02, 2012, 08:32:12 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
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.


Great suggestions Neil!

I remembered placing Fr. Chazal's 'WAR ON' at the back of the chapel here.
1st, nobody was interested to even looked at it. They were picking some articles on +fellay and 2nd. after the first Mass, the whole 'stack' was taken by a 'lackey' and most probably handed over to the district superior.  :dwarf:
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: John Grace on September 02, 2012, 08:41:12 AM
Quote
Great suggestions Neil!

I remembered placing Fr. Chazal's 'WAR ON' at the back of the chapel here.
1st, nobody was interested to even looked at it. They were picking some articles on +fellay and 2nd. after the first Mass, the whole 'stack' was taken by a 'lackey' and most probably handed over to the district superior.
 

You beat me to it. My suggestion would be to hand out copies after Mass but outside the chapel property.

It's also possible to put material on a cd/dvd and distribute in the same manner.

Also material can be translated to various languages.

Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: John Grace on September 02, 2012, 08:51:50 AM
Quote
the whole 'stack' was taken by a 'lackey' and most probably handed over to the district superior


Assuming you mean a 'lackey' to mean pro-agreement, perhaps a few people can have a word with him/her. I'm not suggesting you intimidate the person but could they clarify why they are for a deal etc etc. They might change their mind. It's never any harm to have a word with them.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: John Grace on September 02, 2012, 08:59:54 AM
But to keep the thread on topic, the latest EC (Six Conditions) from the Bishop is very clear as to why there should be no agreement with Rome. Even this piece alone is sufficient to highlight why we must oppose a deal.It's only my personal view but to support this agreement is to surrender to the enemy. An agreement is more than compromise, it is a sell out.

Quote
The Society is not what it was, dear readers. It is in the hands of people quite different from Archbishop Lefebvre!

The sixth and last condition desires a Commission to be set up in Rome to look after Tradition, with a strong representation from Tradition, but “dependent on the Pope.” Dependent on the Pope? But have the Conciliar Popes not been ringleaders of Conciliarism? Is Conciliarism no longer a problem?

In conclusion, these six conditions are excessively grave. Unless the Society’s leadership is shaken out of its dream of peace with Conciliar Rome as revealed by them, then the last worldwide bastion of Catholic Tradition risks being on its way to surrendering to the enemies of the Faith. Maybe bastions are out of date.

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

Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 02, 2012, 09:10:22 AM
Quote from: Ethelred
Could we please stay on-topic and not derail virtually any thread? It's unfair.



This is a most excellent Eleison Comment. Thank you, Your Excellency!
As SpiritusS. says: Bishop Williamson at his best!


Now I'd like to quote "Faber" from another forum on the same topic:

Quote from: Faber @ Sep 1 2012, 15:17 GMT
Quote from: Seraphim
On the other hand, I dont like the part about "fortify your homes."

It could be taken to mean the bishops have no plans to do anything, regardless of what happens, and the best they can advise us is to become home-aloners.


There won't be a new bastion when this one is slighted. Bishop Williamson has been talking about a loose association of priests and about "only the rosary left" some time ago.


Quote from: Bishop Williamson

Maybe bastions are out of date.

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



Very well said, Faber. Genau so ist es. It looks like we Catholics will have to do what our brave Japanese brothers in faith did after their priests had been slaughtered.



Your words are quite chilling. No two ways about it. Remember the Japanese
martyrs. They might become our role models, and soon. Remember the Cristeros.

I appreciate your desire to stick to the theme of this thread here, Ethelred,
because it's quite frustrating to look for material in the forum when it is not
described by the title of the thread:


 Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268


That ought to be good for anyone looking for "Manager Williamson EC 268."


............Wait a minute................

Manager Williamson?
The English abbreviation for Monsignor is Msgr., not Mgr. It seems we forget that
because of the French "Mgr."

Maybe we should all just speak French and keep it simple?!   :thinking:


But back to the topic! I have to admit, that I'm quite uncomfortable with the
concept that "Maybe the bastions are out of date." I do not like that.

Call me a stick-in-the-mud, but I prefer a holy Holy Father, and sound catechesis
at the local parish. I had a few years of that before the age of reason, but it
wasn't enough! What I received in school and my parish church as a child was a
fading remnant of the Golden Age of the Church; enough for me to recognize what
had just happened, but not enough for me to fully appreciate all the effects
thereof.

I feel like a child who arrives at the Parade just as the last band is marching by,
and as they fade away down the street, I see the cleanup crews sweeping and
the crowds going home. I did not see the whole parade. I did not see the most
magnificent floats. All I can do is look at the photographs that others took when
those things had gone by, long ago, before my time.

It seems to me that this particular EC, 268 is not quite the last marching band
of the parade. But it is a marching band. Don't miss it. I would like to think there
is at least one float left before the final band and the cleanup crew. Maybe the
parade has been stopped for a moment. Sometimes there is a traffic jam even
when "full speed" is 2-1/2 MPH. But you know, when that happens, one advantage
of a marching band over a float is, that the band can stand still and play a song.

Do not miss the music of H.E.'s words here.

Share the music with your friends today.

Make someone happy.

Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: stgobnait on September 02, 2012, 09:40:56 AM
    you know what, that actually brought a tear (or two ) to my eyes...... :sad:  we really are in dire straights.....          
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Emerentiana on September 02, 2012, 12:04:19 PM
Quote from: John Grace
Quote
the whole 'stack' was taken by a 'lackey' and most probably handed over to the district superior


Assuming you mean a 'lackey' to mean pro-agreement, perhaps a few people can have a word with him/her. I'm not suggesting you intimidate the person but could they clarify why they are for a deal etc etc. They might change their mind. It's never any harm to have a word with them.


I can tell you from personal experience that talking to this "lacky"  is the surest and best way to be expelled from the chapel!  
The lacky will dutifully report tto the priest, and of course, mention your name.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: stgobnait on September 02, 2012, 12:30:01 PM
 :reporter: their everywhere........
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: John Grace on September 02, 2012, 12:36:24 PM
Quote from: Emerentiana
Quote from: John Grace
Quote
the whole 'stack' was taken by a 'lackey' and most probably handed over to the district superior


Assuming you mean a 'lackey' to mean pro-agreement, perhaps a few people can have a word with him/her. I'm not suggesting you intimidate the person but could they clarify why they are for a deal etc etc. They might change their mind. It's never any harm to have a word with them.


I can tell you from personal experience that talking to this "lacky"  is the surest and best way to be expelled from the chapel!  
The lacky will dutifully report tto the priest, and of course, mention your name.


I'm alarmed if people have allowed themselves to be bullied out of leaving the chapels of the SSPX. How are people expelled from the chapel?

Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Faber on September 02, 2012, 02:01:40 PM
Be prepared: When Bishop Williamson will be excommunicated by the Menzingen, he will ask us whether we're jealous.

Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Matthew on September 02, 2012, 03:23:51 PM
I second the suggestion to distribute this E.C. at your chapel. Just make a stack of papers, and place it there when no one is looking. Even if a "lackey" takes them away and trashes most of them, you tried. And some people got a copy before he discovered it!

And you never know -- you might be at one of the chapels where there ISN'T a vigilant lackey keeping an eye out.

Either way, you'll get people talking -- and that's what we want. We're of the TRUTH, not the deceivers who want to stifle all discussion and knowledge of what's going on. We WANT people to be awake, to listen and think for themselves.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Sienna629 on September 02, 2012, 08:52:06 PM
Quote from: Emerentiana
Quote from: John Grace
Quote
the whole 'stack' was taken by a 'lackey' and most probably handed over to the district superior


Assuming you mean a 'lackey' to mean pro-agreement, perhaps a few people can have a word with him/her. I'm not suggesting you intimidate the person but could they clarify why they are for a deal etc etc. They might change their mind. It's never any harm to have a word with them.


I can tell you from personal experience that talking to this "lacky"  is the surest and best way to be expelled from the chapel!  
The lacky will dutifully report tto the priest, and of course, mention your name.


Bingo!!!  Sounds like our Chapel!
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: sspxbvm on September 02, 2012, 10:31:31 PM
It will take a little time but we are planning on some "advertising". Everybody should do this.  Perhaps in the Catholic Family News as well???  
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Matthew on September 02, 2012, 11:11:24 PM
Catholic Family News, Remnant, Wanderer, etc. obviously reach some people or they wouldn't still be in business.

But many people don't read them, and they are of little use for advertising purposes.

8 years ago my uncle started an online website that sells just about everything Catholic (books, CDs, statues, rosaries, mugs, etc.) and, like a good Baby Boomer, took out an ad in a Catholic newspaper. That's what you would do, right?

Well, he got almost no business. He placed several ads, and he maybe got 2 or 3 orders.

Do you know how his business took off, and why he gets a steady stream of orders to this day? He started advertising on Google AdWords. That way he only paid a nickel (or 7 cents, 9 cents, etc. -- depends on how competitive the keyword is) for each CLICK on his ad, by an interested party. And they end up right on his website, ready to place an order!

I learned a valuable lesson from him. Don't act like it's the 1980's when it isn't.

If you want to spread the word, bug all your family & friends that you have e-mail addresses for. Even if you don't normally send "mass e-mails", I think it's OK if you do it for critical, important causes only -- such as the survival of Tradition itself.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 03, 2012, 02:45:06 AM
Quote from: John Grace
Quote from: Emerentiana
Quote from: John Grace
Quote
the whole 'stack' was taken by a 'lackey' and most probably handed over to the district superior


Assuming you mean a 'lackey' to mean pro-agreement, perhaps a few people can have a word with him/her. I'm not suggesting you intimidate the person but could they clarify why they are for a deal etc etc. They might change their mind. It's never any harm to have a word with them.


I can tell you from personal experience that talking to this "lacky"  is the surest and best way to be expelled from the chapel!  
The lacky will dutifully report tto the priest, and of course, mention your name.


I'm alarmed if people have allowed themselves to be bullied out of leaving the chapels of the SSPX. How are people expelled from the chapel?



Unfortunately, SSPX chapels have developed a system of volunteers who are at the
service of the priests (which in itself isn't a bad thing, but it's how they ABUSE this
system that isn't good), and certain things are stigmatized. Now, when someone
tries to distribute pornography or sedevacantist literature or Protestant Tent Revival
flyers, it's understandable to have volunteers picking the stuff up from the tables in
the vestibule, or out of the pews. Chick Publications (Jack Chick) is a ubiquitous
offender in our area. Hill of Hope flyers is another one. Or Medjugorje: don't get
me started!!

But when it's a page of Eleison Comments, how could that be offensive? Would a
page of a Winona seminary letter be offensive?

When someone is expelled, one of the volunteers gets the fun job of hunting the
person down and approaching them to explain that they are no longer welcome
to the chapel. That's an assignment I would not enjoy, at - all.

I have to admit that I am very fortunate. I tried to give my priest one of the
copies today and he said he didn't need it because he had already read it. He
even recalled the last words of the page: "Fortify your homes." He assured me
that it would be okay to pass them out. I have to admit, it was not as easy as
leaving a stack for people to take one. I tried that and nobody took even one.
So I grabbed most of them and went around asking people one at a time if they
would like to take one home, and most of them did accept it.

This is an independent chapel, so the outlook is a bit different from SSPX chapels,
but not regarding the Faith. I'd say it's a superficial, political kind of difference. It's
just emerging, slowly over the years, and it's not entirely developed, IMHO. But
the faithful are respectful of the SSPX, certainly would not hesitate to go to one
of the chapels especially when traveling, and have a high regard for the 4 bishops.
It seems to me that if it were not for my promotional efforts, many of them would
have no idea what's going on with the "doctrinal talks" or what +Williamson has
disseminated via Dinoscopus.

But that's not all. I found no one who was enthusiastic about this EC. I was feeling
a bit weird. Here I am, getting all pumped up over this page, and it seems to be
falling on deaf ears. Two people I gave it to, who generally respect my opinion,
read it in front of me (I was otherwise occupied passing out pages) and then
handed it back to me when they were done. They said they didn't need to keep
a copy, because they read it. They had little or no comment. Everyone was more
interested in talking about the same things they always talk about after Mass.
This gives me the firm impression that everyone who took a copy today from me
is going to go home and place this copy directly into the "dustbin," as +Williamson
would say! (British idiom)

Then there were the two problems. Both intelligent, respected professionals in
the community. One of them assured me that he had seen this already, two or
three weeks ago. I said that it was new as of yesterday, and nobody in the world
had seen it even one week ago because it hadn't been written yet. He was
certain that it was old hat to him. That made me think, when I was going to put
a date on the top of the page, I figured it wouldn't be necessary. But now, this guy
would have had a whole different outlook if he had seen yesterday's date (Sept.
1st, 2012) in black and white. Such a simple thing. Who would have known?

The other one winced as he read it, and I encouraged a reaction. He said that
these points are not very respectful of authority(!) I felt my stomach twinge. That's
a sign I had better watch what I say! I probably should have invoked the Holy
Ghost, but to be honest, I forgot to do so. However, I did have the vague intention
and I think that might have been enough at this level. I don't really know. I
replied that +Williamson was prohibited from attending the GC this summer, and
the FIRST ACT of the GC was to ratify this illicit order from +Fellay. He winced
twice as much. I then said that these analyses of the 6 resolutions are cases
in point, because if +Williamson had been at the GC, this is the kind of thing he
would have said about these "conditions," and much more, I'm sure, and THAT is
EXACTLY the reason that +Fellay did not want him to be there
! In fact, if
+Williamson HAD been at the GC, these 6 conditions probably would never have
seen the light of day!


You will never believe his reply to that. He had a reply, but I'll give it tomorrow...
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: stgobnait on September 03, 2012, 04:32:06 AM
 i believe people in my chapel would react the same, no one wants to rock the boat. most are happy with the ststus quo...... to try to open a debate, most would scurry away,  seriously, its like walking a thightrope..... without the safety net.......
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: John Grace on September 03, 2012, 05:00:43 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: John Grace
Quote from: Emerentiana
Quote from: John Grace
Quote
the whole 'stack' was taken by a 'lackey' and most probably handed over to the district superior


Assuming you mean a 'lackey' to mean pro-agreement, perhaps a few people can have a word with him/her. I'm not suggesting you intimidate the person but could they clarify why they are for a deal etc etc. They might change their mind. It's never any harm to have a word with them.


I can tell you from personal experience that talking to this "lacky"  is the surest and best way to be expelled from the chapel!  
The lacky will dutifully report tto the priest, and of course, mention your name.


I'm alarmed if people have allowed themselves to be bullied out of leaving the chapels of the SSPX. How are people expelled from the chapel?



Unfortunately, SSPX chapels have developed a system of volunteers who are at the
service of the priests (which in itself isn't a bad thing, but it's how they ABUSE this
system that isn't good), and certain things are stigmatized. Now, when someone
tries to distribute pornography or sedevacantist literature or Protestant Tent Revival
flyers, it's understandable to have volunteers picking the stuff up from the tables in
the vestibule, or out of the pews. Chick Publications (Jack Chick) is a ubiquitous
offender in our area. Hill of Hope flyers is another one. Or Medjugorje: don't get
me started!!

But when it's a page of Eleison Comments, how could that be offensive? Would a
page of a Winona seminary letter be offensive?

When someone is expelled, one of the volunteers gets the fun job of hunting the
person down and approaching them to explain that they are no longer welcome
to the chapel. That's an assignment I would not enjoy, at - all.

I have to admit that I am very fortunate. I tried to give my priest one of the
copies today and he said he didn't need it because he had already read it. He
even recalled the last words of the page: "Fortify your homes." He assured me
that it would be okay to pass them out. I have to admit, it was not as easy as
leaving a stack for people to take one. I tried that and nobody took even one.
So I grabbed most of them and went around asking people one at a time if they
would like to take one home, and most of them did accept it.

This is an independent chapel, so the outlook is a bit different from SSPX chapels,
but not regarding the Faith. I'd say it's a superficial, political kind of difference. It's
just emerging, slowly over the years, and it's not entirely developed, IMHO. But
the faithful are respectful of the SSPX, certainly would not hesitate to go to one
of the chapels especially when traveling, and have a high regard for the 4 bishops.
It seems to me that if it were not for my promotional efforts, many of them would
have no idea what's going on with the "doctrinal talks" or what +Williamson has
disseminated via Dinoscopus.

But that's not all. I found no one who was enthusiastic about this EC. I was feeling
a bit weird. Here I am, getting all pumped up over this page, and it seems to be
falling on deaf ears. Two people I gave it to, who generally respect my opinion,
read it in front of me (I was otherwise occupied passing out pages) and then
handed it back to me when they were done. They said they didn't need to keep
a copy, because they read it. They had little or no comment. Everyone was more
interested in talking about the same things they always talk about after Mass.
This gives me the firm impression that everyone who took a copy today from me
is going to go home and place this copy directly into the "dustbin," as +Williamson
would say! (British idiom)

Then there were the two problems. Both intelligent, respected professionals in
the community. One of them assured me that he had seen this already, two or
three weeks ago. I said that it was new as of yesterday, and nobody in the world
had seen it even one week ago because it hadn't been written yet. He was
certain that it was old hat to him. That made me think, when I was going to put
a date on the top of the page, I figured it wouldn't be necessary. But now, this guy
would have had a whole different outlook if he had seen yesterday's date (Sept.
1st, 2012) in black and white. Such a simple thing. Who would have known?

The other one winced as he read it, and I encouraged a reaction. He said that
these points are not very respectful of authority(!) I felt my stomach twinge. That's
a sign I had better watch what I say! I probably should have invoked the Holy
Ghost, but to be honest, I forgot to do so. However, I did have the vague intention
and I think that might have been enough at this level. I don't really know. I
replied that +Williamson was prohibited from attending the GC this summer, and
the FIRST ACT of the GC was to ratify this illicit order from +Fellay. He winced
twice as much. I then said that these analyses of the 6 resolutions are cases
in point, because if +Williamson had been at the GC, this is the kind of thing he
would have said about these "conditions," and much more, I'm sure, and THAT is
EXACTLY the reason that +Fellay did not want him to be there
! In fact, if
+Williamson HAD been at the GC, these 6 conditions probably would never have
seen the light of day!


You will never believe his reply to that. He had a reply, but I'll give it tomorrow...


With the exception of a handful of the "Bishop Williamson was imprudent" types, the Irish SSPX chapels are certainly pro- Bishop Williamson and anti agreement.Same applies to the British District. He was warmly greeted when he visited Ireland.Same for Bishop Tissier. Bishop Fellay will get a very cool reception in Ireland for certain.Bishop Fellay is not popular in Ireland.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: stgobnait on September 03, 2012, 08:52:26 AM
 he used to be....... :rolleyes:
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Ethelred on September 03, 2012, 10:12:27 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Ethelred
...
Quote from: Faber @ Sep 1 2012, 15:17 GMT
There won't be a new bastion when this one is slighted. Bishop Williamson has been talking about a loose association of priests and about "only the rosary left" some time ago.

Quote from: Bishop Williamson
Maybe bastions are out of date.

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


Very well said, Faber. Genau so ist es. It looks like we Catholics will have to do what our brave Japanese brothers in faith did after their priests had been slaughtered.


Your words are quite chilling. No two ways about it. Remember the Japanese martyrs. They might become our role models, and soon. Remember the Cristeros. [..] I have to admit, that I'm quite uncomfortable with the concept that "Maybe the bastions are out of date." I do not like that.

Well, we Catholics can't like that. We would really prefer a holy Holy Father, and sound catechesis at the local parish.
But unfortunately the reality is very different. And we Catholics can't close our eyes to this.

The situation in the SSPX is terrible and it really only gets worse every week. The good priests are being persecuted since Pentecost, when some of them stood up and others supported them. And now one after the other is getting expelled, like predicted by Fathers Chazal and J.Pfeiffer around Pentecost.
So it's foreseeable that soon there will only be... prepare to fight for the Faith from within your homes.

The good Bishop doesn't say this carelessly but because he clearly heard how the SSPX-Titanic rammed the Newrome-Iceberg, whilst some SSPX-dreamers still think the blasts are from the ship's band...

Quote from: Neil
Do not miss the music of H.E.'s words here.
Share the music with your friends today.
Make someone happy.

Yes, I just did, and it made them happy and me. Sharing Bishop Williamson's "word music" is always wonderful and a great help in staying Catholic.


Quote from: Faber
Be prepared: When Bishop Williamson will be excommunicated by the Menzingen, he will ask us whether we're jealous.

Yes indeed.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: GertrudetheGreat on September 03, 2012, 10:25:33 AM
Quote from: Ethelred
And now one after the other is getting expelled, like predicted by Fathers Chazal and J.Pfeiffer around Pentecost.


I think you mean, TWO priests are likely to be expelled, because they have already physically and morally departed from the SSPX, and set up their own priory.

I guess they won't officially be expelled at the exact same moment in time, so you can rightly say "one after the other".  Yes, ONE, after THE other. Very precise!

And these two priests predicted this, you say?  Well, it isn't hard to predict one's own actions, is it?
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: nadieimportante on September 03, 2012, 10:53:39 AM
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; (outside of the Catholic Church there is no sanctifying grace- Dogma)

3) And in those whom grace sanctifies, they by that action alone become members of the Church;(how can they be sanctified outside of the Church if there is no sanctifying grace outside 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 (so God's grace did not give them enough information, nor send them a teacher, nor keep them alive long enough to find out they need to be baptized? They were born by mistake in the wrong place and died before God could finish what he started?)
...
5) Fr Feeney denies this because he understands "no salvation outside the Church" to mean "no salvation without water baptism;" (not really. Fr. Feeney believed the same as St. Augustine, “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ )


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;( Trent makes no mention of what happens to a person who is justified, but dies before he can be baptized. Fr. Feeney never said they go to limbo. Fr. Feeney, like St. Augustine did not believe that such a person ever existed)

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. (This mindset goes against dogmas at every turn, as minisculie explained in the other answers. Moreover, if it was true, why should they be  "relatively few in number"? This is the achilles heal of the SSPXers, they want to limit their liberalism on this point to separate themselves from the conciliarist liberals, however, this is ridiculous. The truth is that once you swallow this liberalism, there is no limiting the numbers to "relatively few". Yet another wrench in the works.





Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: nadieimportante on September 03, 2012, 10:57:04 AM
Most important condition is not mentioned:

The pope must consecrate Russia to the Immacualte Heart of Mary, as requested by Lucia.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Catholic Samurai on September 03, 2012, 01:56:56 PM
Quote from: nadieimportante
Most important condition is not mentioned:

The pope must consecrate Russia to the Immacualte Heart of Mary, as requested by Lucia.


Correction: as requested by Our Lady, through Lucia.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 03, 2012, 02:31:51 PM
Quote from: John Grace
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: John Grace
Quote from: Emerentiana
Quote from: John Grace
Quote
the whole 'stack' was taken by a 'lackey' and most probably handed over to the district superior


Assuming you mean a 'lackey' to mean pro-agreement, perhaps a few people can have a word with him/her. I'm not suggesting you intimidate the person but could they clarify why they are for a deal etc etc. They might change their mind. It's never any harm to have a word with them.


I can tell you from personal experience that talking to this "lacky"  is the surest and best way to be expelled from the chapel!  
The lacky will dutifully report tto the priest, and of course, mention your name.


I'm alarmed if people have allowed themselves to be bullied out of leaving the chapels of the SSPX. How are people expelled from the chapel?



Unfortunately, SSPX chapels have developed a system of volunteers who
are at the service of the priests (which in itself isn't a bad thing, but it's how they ABUSE this system that isn't good), and certain things are stigmatized.
Now, when someone tries to distribute pornography or sedevacantist
literature or Protestant Tent Revival flyers, it's understandable to have
volunteers picking the stuff up from the tables in the vestibule, or out of the
pews. Chick Publications (Jack Chick) is a ubiquitous offender in our area.
Hill of Hope flyers is another one. Or Medjugorje: don't get me started!!

But when it's a page of Eleison Comments, how could that be offensive?
Would a page of a Winona seminary letter be offensive?

When someone is expelled, one of the volunteers gets the fun job of hunting
the person down and approaching them to explain that they are no longer
welcome to the chapel. That's an assignment I would not enjoy, at - all.

I have to admit that I am very fortunate. I tried to give my priest one of the
copies today and he said he didn't need it because he had already read it.
He even recalled the last words of the page: "Fortify your homes." He
assured me that it would be okay to pass them out. I have to admit, it was
not as easy as leaving a stack for people to take one. I tried that and
nobody took even one. So I grabbed most of them and went around asking
people one at a time if they would like to take one home, and most of them
did accept it.

This is an independent chapel, so the outlook is a bit different from SSPX
chapels, but not regarding the Faith. I'd say it's a superficial, political kind of
difference. It's just emerging, slowly over the years, and it's not entirely
developed, IMHO. But the faithful are respectful of the SSPX, certainly would
not hesitate to go to one of the chapels especially when traveling, and have
a high regard for the 4 bishops. It seems to me that if it were not for my
promotional efforts, many of them would have no idea what's going on with
the "doctrinal talks" or what +Williamson has disseminated via Dinoscopus.

But that's not all. I found no one who was enthusiastic about this EC. I was feeling a bit weird. Here I am, getting all pumped up over this page, and it
seems to be falling on deaf ears. Two people I gave it to, who generally
respect my opinion, read it in front of me (I was otherwise occupied passing
out pages) and then handed it back to me when they were done. They said
they didn't need to keep a copy, because they read it. They had little or no
comment. Everyone was more interested in talking about the same things
they always talk about after Mass. This gives me the firm impression that
everyone who took a copy today from me is going to go home and place
this copy directly into the "dustbin," as +Williamson would say! (British idiom)

Then there were the two problems. Both intelligent, respected professionals
in the community. One of them assured me that he had seen this already,
two or three weeks ago. I said that it was new as of yesterday, and nobody
in the world had seen it even one week ago because it hadn't been written
yet. He was certain that it was old hat to him. That made me think, when I
was going to put a date on the top of the page, I figured it wouldn't be
necessary. But now, this guy would have had a whole different outlook if he
had seen yesterday's date (Sept. 1st, 2012) in black and white. Such a
simple thing. Who would have known?

The other one winced as he read it, and I encouraged a reaction. He said
that these points are not very respectful of authority(!) I felt my stomach
twinge. That's a sign I had better watch what I say! I probably should have
invoked the Holy Ghost, but to be honest, I forgot to do so. However, I did
have the vague intention and I think that might have been enough at this
level. I don't really know. I replied that +Williamson was prohibited
from attending the GC this summer, and the FIRST ACT of the GC
was to ratify this illicit order from +Fellay. He winced twice as
much.
I then said that these analyses of the 6 resolutions are
cases in point, because if +Williamson had been at the GC, this is
the kind of thing he would have said about these "conditions," and
much more, I'm sure, and THAT is EXACTLY the reason that +Fellay
did not want him to be there
!

In fact, if +Williamson HAD been at the GC, these 6 conditions
probably would never have seen the light of day!




You will never believe his reply to that. He had a reply, but I'll give it tomorrow...





With the exception of a handful of the "Bishop Williamson was imprudent" types, the Irish SSPX chapels are certainly pro- Bishop Williamson and anti agreement. Same applies to the British District. He was warmly greeted when he visited Ireland.Same for Bishop Tissier. Bishop Fellay will get a very cool reception in Ireland for certain.Bishop Fellay is not popular in Ireland.


I am so glad to hear your report, John Grace. It is these small actions of
communication that bolster our resolve and give us hope. I know others
who have buried their heads in the sand, thinking that "everything's okay ...
don't worry ... the SSPX priests are all good men ... nothing to worry
about." There is nothing I can tell them to "wake them up" that they won't
think is "rubbish." Now your observation about Ireland and the English
district is something I can hold on to.

I want you to know that I really appreciate your comment.

Quote from: Matthew
I second the suggestion to distribute this E.C. at your chapel. Just make a stack of papers, and place it there when no one is looking. Even if a "lackey" takes them away and trashes most of them, you tried. And some people got a copy before he discovered it!

And you never know -- you might be at one of the chapels where there ISN'T a vigilant lackey keeping an eye out.

Either way, you'll get people talking -- and that's what we want. We're of the TRUTH, not the deceivers who want to stifle all discussion and knowledge of what's going on. We WANT people to be awake, to listen and think for themselves.


It gives me great consolation to know that like minds can meet like this,
Matthew, even if not person - to - person, but "virtually." How many tens of
millions of people are there between us, and how many are clueless in
regards to all these issues? And now, more and more of them are Trads??!!
What's happening in the world?

Time to re-study St. John's Apocalypse!

Quote from: Ethelred
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Ethelred
...
Quote from: Faber @ Sep 1 2012, 15:17 GMT
There won't be a new bastion when this one is slighted. Bishop Williamson has been talking about a loose association of priests and about "only the rosary left" some time ago.

Quote from: Bishop Williamson
Maybe bastions are out of date.

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


Very well said, Faber. Genau so ist es. It looks like we Catholics will have to do what our brave Japanese brothers in faith did after their priests had been slaughtered.


Your words are quite chilling. No two ways about it. Remember the Japanese
martyrs. They might become our role models, and soon. Remember the
Cristeros. [..] I have to admit, that I'm quite uncomfortable with the concept
that "Maybe the bastions are out of date." I do not like that.


Well, we Catholics can't like that. We would really prefer a holy Holy Father, and sound catechesis at the local parish.
But unfortunately the reality is very different. And we Catholics can't close our eyes to this.

The situation in the SSPX is terrible and it really only gets worse every week. The good priests are being persecuted since Pentecost, when some of them stood up and others supported them. And now one after the other is getting expelled, like predicted by Fathers Chazal and J.Pfeiffer around Pentecost.

So it's foreseeable that soon there will only be... prepare to fight for the Faith from within your homes.

The good Bishop doesn't say this carelessly but because he clearly heard how the SSPX-Titanic rammed the Newrome-Iceberg, whilst some SSPX-dreamers still think the blasts are from the ship's band...

Quote from: Neil
Do not miss the music of H.E.'s words here.
Share the music with your friends today.
Make someone happy.


Yes, I just did, and it made them happy and me. Sharing Bishop Williamson's "word music" is always wonderful and a great help in staying Catholic.


My hat's off to you, Ethelred, and it gives me great satisfaction knowing that
you have made this effort to share the joy. It's rather ironic now, we do not
really know ahead of time who will appreciate it. But this is how we learn. This
sharing of good news is what lets us discover who is ready to accept the news
of small victories, and who is not ready. We should remember to pray for those
who are not ready, though.................


Quote
Quote from: Faber
Be prepared: When Bishop Williamson will be excommunicated by the Menzingen, he will ask us whether we're jealous.


Yes indeed.


I know what you're saying, but I don't think H.E. would ask if we're "jealous."
He could possibly ask that in private conversation, but he wouldn't go on
record. I believe he's learned a "school of hard knocks lesson" from his
Sweedish interview experience.  

ABL wore his so-called excommunication like a badge of honor. That is
docuмented fact. I realize GertrudetheinGrate won't appreciate the fact, but
"facts is facts" as they say. Sometimes all it takes is one missing fact in a
person's mind to make his thinking all disordered. And the devil is extremely
skilled at figuring out which fact that should be. After he gets the ball rolling
downhill, he doesn't have to bother tending it much, because once the law of
gravity (as it were, our fallen nature -- together with our voluntary service of
mammon, otherwise known as "the flesh and the world") kicks in, we're on
"auto pilot" and we can go around thinking we're a Trad and presuming we're
on our way to salvation, when in fact the devil has a serious meat-hook in our
soul, which he will undoubtably use to its fullest effect at the last moments of
our life when all the "cards are on the table" or so he would lead you to
believe!!



"... insomuch as to deceive (if possible!) even the elect...
And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh would be saved: but for
the sake of the elect, those days shall be shortened" (Matt. xxiv. 24, 22).



If any of these good priests are expelled, they will not be foresaken, and they
will not be ashamed. I know that many independent chapels will welcome them
with open arms. And curiously, these independents who are currently on good
terms with the SSPX may find that they are not on such good terms any more
if they fraternize with priests whom Menzingen has kicked out. That will be the
next phase.

These punitive and unjust aggressions
of Menzingen
are divisive and destructive practices.
And they are the NATURAL CONSEQUENCE
of becoming acclimated to the
unclean spirit of Summorum Pontificuм.
[/size]





nip = Correction: as requested by Our Lady, through Lucia. >>
>>Thank you:
I was going to comment on that but you fixed it first. Cheers! :cheers:
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 03, 2012, 02:50:59 PM
Quote from: nadieimportante
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


Hey, nadieimportante: that reply by Seraphim was a mistake: it was presuming
that Seraphia was talking about an off-topic post (which has been removed for
that reason) but Seraphia was referring to the thread topic, as you can see by
looking at Seraphia's response to that:

Quote from: Seraphia
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




Your copying that erroneous post again is
perpetrating the error. It really ought to be deleted.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 03, 2012, 03:02:42 PM
The stupid ink dried again so I have to repost the same thing.....




Quote from: nadieimportante
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 ...


Hey, nadieimportante: that reply by Seraphim was a mistake: it was presuming
that Seraphia was talking about an off-topic post (which has been removed for
that reason) but Seraphia was referring to the thread topic, as you can see by
looking at Seraphia's response to that:

Quote from: Seraphia




Umm.. I'm talking about the actual TOPIC.

You know, the one we've been talking about -- Bishop Williamson.

[actually, his EC 268]





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 ...  




Your act of copying that erroneous post again is perpetrating the error.

The erroneous post really ought to be deleted.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Sienna629 on September 04, 2012, 08:07:50 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat



Quote
When someone is expelled, one of the volunteers gets the fun job of hunting the
person down and approaching them to explain that they are no longer welcome
to the chapel. That's an assignment I would not enjoy, at - all.




It might very well be the pastor in an SSPX Chapel, and he will no doubt relish the task.



Quote
This is an independent chapel, so the outlook is a bit different from SSPX chapels...




No, WAY, WAY different. I cannot imagine any INDEPENDENT priest itching to sign with Apostate Rome
 and bear the ensuing yoke, so you would presumably have the pastor on your side.That's WAY, WAY different!
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Ethelred on September 05, 2012, 09:15:24 AM
I'd like to quote a nice comment from our good Hollingsworth (from another forum on the same topic) :

Quote from: Hollingsworth @ 1 Septembver 2012, 14:01 GMT
I loved this EC. Hopefully, from this point on, we will never get another EC on the subject of Brahms. The bishop has finally crossed the Rubicon.


Yes, we love this EC.

I've to admit I also love the other ECs about topics like Brahms, modern art, and so on, because they're great applications of the Faith to the real world. There's few (SSPX) clerics who still know how to do this art.

Of course I understand Hollingsworth's point well, and in the current heat of the final battle of the SSPX, such "Six Conditions" and "Conciliar circuмstances" EC are most helpful. Hopefully our good bishop continues to write such sharp ECs.

May God bless Bishop Williamson, and always wield his pen.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Wessex on September 05, 2012, 01:50:45 PM
I cannot imagine why we would not benefit from knowing about Brahms etc. in this age of discordant compositions called art, whether as applications of religious faith or as healthy standards of appreciation. The bishop's interests do extend beyond the church door which enables him to have this world view which many in the Society if not most now deprecate or find imprudent. Because of habituation or institutionalisation, parish opinion will follow the leadership and its appointees and an army of ushers on the lookout for 'trouble makers'. If the Society is now a changed creature (which it is), any challenges will be seen as actions against it and generate accusations of schism and disobedience, all the more so because possession of assets is nlne-tenths of the law.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: stgobnait on September 05, 2012, 01:58:14 PM
theres not enough of us to be called an army, anymore...... :stare:
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 05, 2012, 06:13:06 PM
Quote from: Sienna629
Quote from: Neil Obstat

When someone is expelled, one of the volunteers gets the fun job of hunting the
person down and approaching them to explain that they are no longer welcome
to the chapel. That's an assignment I would not enjoy, at - all.




It might very well be the pastor in an SSPX Chapel, and he will no doubt relish the task.





Really? I wasn't thinking along those lines! Wow. It's worse than I thought!

Why don't you read stuff like this in the DICI Newsletter??

(Yes, that is a rhetorical question!)

Quote
Quote
This is an independent chapel, so the outlook is a bit different from SSPX chapels...




No, WAY, WAY different. I cannot imagine any INDEPENDENT priest itching to sign with Apostate Rome and bear the ensuing yoke, so you would presumably have the pastor on your side. That's WAY, WAY different!


Yes, we do have the pastor on our side, but he is not really enthusiastic with the
situation. He's caught in the middle. Keep in mind that he has a number of
parishoners who are of the mind that everything's okay, and that the rumor
mill is the enemy. If he comes out explaining matters before there is substantial
actions from Menzingen to force a sell-out, then these parishoners would write
him off as a contributor to the rumor mill. It's a sticky situation.

I think it would be helpful if we could get one of the persecuted priests to come
and say Mass one Sunday for us, and give a sermon. I think that would help to
put a firsthand witness on the radar screen. Several of our faithful have friends
or relatives who are SSPX priests, but I'm not mentioning any names.

But if our pastor would arrange for that, I suspect he would "rock the boat" with
the local District parishes like Arcadia and Colton.

I don't want to instigate any movement. I would simply like my friends to be
aware that it's important to "fortify our homes," and to be prepared for changes.
We really don't know how fortunate we have it, being unencuмbered by the
wiles of Menzingen. At the same time, it is a sacrifice not to have a larger
structure for stability and representation. I don't see our pastor as worrying
about that, however, and his confidence is reassuring.

I could say more, but I'd like to stick to this topic.

Speaking of which, there is a post on another thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=20353&min=68&num=1) that pertains directly to
this thread, which readers here may like to comment on:





Thomas, the only condition anybody cared about was #1.  If that were granted, all the rest wouldn't matter.  Why is this?  Because no Modernist is going to agree to that.  It would mean the beginning of the end, and would signal a real conversion.

That's the thinking.  I'm not agreeing with it, but I understand it.  The Six Conditions, as well as the Statement, were compromise texts thrashed out by men with some very different views.  With #1 in place the hard-liners felt that the text was able to be agreed to.  That does not mean they were happy with it, of course.



What is "#1" again? Well, here is the Eleison Comment regarding #1:

The first “essential requirement” is freedom for the Society to teach the unchanging truth of Catholic Tradition, and to criticize those responsible for the errors of modernism, liberalism and Vatican II. Well and good. But notice how the Chapter’s vision has changed from that of Archbishop Lefebvre. No longer “Rome must convert because Truth is absolute”, but now merely “The SSPX demands freedom for itself to tell the Truth.” Instead of attacking the Conciliar treachery, the SSPX now wants the traitors to give it permission to tell the Truth ? “O, what a fall was there !”




Notice the difference between +Williamson's view and his critic's view. "The
Chapter's vision has changed... no longer Rome must convert ... but now
merely 'The SSPX demands freedom for itself to tell the truth'." According to
his critic, GertrudetheinGrate, "no Modernist is going to agree to that." I dare
say, GtG doesn't know much about Modernists. You give them an impossible
challenge and they fairly leap for joy with the prospect of going down in
history as a great "achiever." Or, should I say an inGrate achiever?!


H.E. asks a question about this curious shift of principle, this quasi-sellout
already:
"Instead of attacking the Conciliar treachery, the SSPX now wants
the traitors to give it permission to tell the Truth?"

And how does his resident, ungrateful critic view this?

"The Six Conditions, as well as the Statement, were compromise texts
thrashed out by men with some very different views.  With #1 in place, the
hard-liners felt that the text was able to be agreed to.
 That does not mean
they were happy with it, of course."

Could he have meant to say "compromised texts" or "compromising texts?"
Could it just be a typo?   ..................Naaaah.

Oh, don't miss the subtle disagreement with +Fellay: "That doesn't mean they
were happy with it, of course." They were unhappy with the product of the
GC, but +Fellay says that "profound unity prevailed." If each one's desires
were "compromised," everyone went away unhappily compromised. So does
he mean to say that ALL the capitulants were profoundly united in
unhappiness? Is that what +Fellay was thinking when he said they were
united, standing at the tomb of ABL???????


We should be able to see here why H.E. was "disinvited" from the GC. If he
had been there, there would not have been this easy compromise, this
quasi sell-out already. For in his absence, what we have is a smoldering,
festering unhappiness, a difference of opinion that lurks under the surface,
a difference that makes some pastors "relish the task" of informing certain
parishoners that they are no longer welcome: you know, like +Fellay did
to one, certain brother bishop in July!! HAHAHA


P.S. Why say "able to be agreed to" instead of "agreeable?" Could it be that
there was just too much resistance in the typing fingers to be "agreeable"
with the "hard liners?" And so, it's better to end the sentence in a preposition
and look like a schmuck-yokel, who can't express himself very effectively?
 
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: SeanJohnson on September 05, 2012, 07:19:20 PM
Quote from: nadieimportante
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; (outside of the Catholic Church there is no sanctifying grace- Dogma)

3) And in those whom grace sanctifies, they by that action alone become members of the Church;(how can they be sanctified outside of the Church if there is no sanctifying grace outside 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 (so God's grace did not give them enough information, nor send them a teacher, nor keep them alive long enough to find out they need to be baptized? They were born by mistake in the wrong place and died before God could finish what he started?)
...
5) Fr Feeney denies this because he understands "no salvation outside the Church" to mean "no salvation without water baptism;" (not really. Fr. Feeney believed the same as St. Augustine, “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ )


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;( Trent makes no mention of what happens to a person who is justified, but dies before he can be baptized. Fr. Feeney never said they go to limbo. Fr. Feeney, like St. Augustine did not believe that such a person ever existed)

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. (This mindset goes against dogmas at every turn, as minisculie explained in the other answers. Moreover, if it was true, why should they be  "relatively few in number"? This is the achilles heal of the SSPXers, they want to limit their liberalism on this point to separate themselves from the conciliarist liberals, however, this is ridiculous. The truth is that once you swallow this liberalism, there is no limiting the numbers to "relatively few". Yet another wrench in the works.







Oh brother.

Show me the dogma that says infants baptized in the Orthodox church (thereby becoming Catholics in fact) are damned, and I will concede.

........I sense a black hole approaching......discussing grace with a Feenyite who not only believes no salvation without water baptism, but also no grace outside the Church.....unless it is understood in this true sense: that there is no sanctifying grace outside he Church only because those sanctified by such grace are by that act part of the Church.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 05, 2012, 09:45:19 PM


Apparently Seraphim doesn't want to read....



Or think...........





Quote from: Matthew
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.

Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: SeanJohnson on September 06, 2012, 07:59:15 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat


Apparently Seraphim doesn't want to read....



Or think...........





Quote from: Matthew
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.



Sweet.

Another Feenyite converted to Catholicism!
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: SeanJohnson on September 06, 2012, 08:19:23 PM
Yes, I am in a cantankerous mood tonight.

Wondering why there are only 5 priests of 560 who see the light has gotten my Irish up!

Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: GertrudetheGreat on September 06, 2012, 09:04:08 PM
Quote from: Seraphim
Yes, I am in a cantankerous mood tonight.

Wondering why there are only 5 priests of 560 who see the light has gotten my Irish up!



5?  You're including the doubtfully-ordained non-member of the SSPX, Fr. Voigt, and the other non-member, Fr. Ringrose?  

I think the current count is 2, with one more "possible".

Let your Irish react to that!  :)

It's always possible that it is you who doesn't "see the light" but I suppose you don't take that possibility seriously.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Incredulous on September 06, 2012, 11:34:01 PM
Quote from: GertrudetheGreat
Quote from: Seraphim
Yes, I am in a cantankerous mood tonight.

Wondering why there are only 5 priests of 560 who see the light has gotten my Irish up!



5?  You're including the doubtfully-ordained non-member of the SSPX, Fr. Voigt, and the other non-member, Fr. Ringrose?  

I think the current count is 2, with one more "possible".

Let your Irish react to that!  :)

It's always possible that it is you who doesn't "see the light" but I suppose you don't take that possibility seriously.



Gertude,

Its not the "numbers" but "quality" of our priests my lovely.

Judas Maccabeus took 3,000 men and wasted 45,000 well-armed soldiers.
We like these Maccabean odds!

The Lion of Wimbledon rallies us:"Catholics must fight and fight in this titanic war between the religion of God and the religion of man."
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Ethelred on September 07, 2012, 03:33:31 AM
Quote from: Seraphim
Yes, I am in a cantankerous mood tonight.

Wondering why there are only 5 priests of 560 who see the light has gotten my Irish up!

5 US priests you mean?
However, there's life outside the USA, too.
:-)


Incredulous, thanks for your smart comments. Indeed we like these Maccabean odds, and we love our Bishop Richard Lionheart Williamson!
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: stgobnait on September 07, 2012, 03:43:18 AM
there is life outside the usa........ i wouldnt be counting on us here too much  :sad:
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Ethelred on September 07, 2012, 04:14:11 AM
Quote from: stgobnait
there is life outside the usa........ i wouldnt be counting on us here too much  :sad:

Well, it's not us laypeople who count but the clerics.
(Who then in-turn ought to be supported by us laymen.)

And we Europeans have some smart resistance clerics, too, who're usually already connected with the resistance in USA. For example Bishop Williamson in England, who in turn is through God's ways well connected with the resistance in continental Europe.

One Lion of Wimbledon can easily cope with 15 Fraidy Cats of Menzingen.

... to use the Maccabeus odds metaphor.

Obviously hard times are ahead of us! But "Our help is in the name of the Lord".
Something the modernists who want to join Newrome can't say.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Belloc on September 07, 2012, 07:16:47 AM
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.


what boggles my mind is why Fellay seems to act with others, but NOT his fellow Bishops??? Advice from priests,etc=none from the other 3 Bishops???
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Adolphus on September 09, 2012, 11:48:32 AM
Quote from: Seraphim
Yes, I am in a cantankerous mood tonight.

Wondering why there are only 5 priests of 560 who see the light has gotten my Irish up!

Not all the priests could or wanted to attend the resistance meeting at Vienna, Virginia.  But one has to count them as well.  In South America there are at least six priests preaching the sane doctrine and bringing the true sacraments to the faithful.  Five of them left the SSPX or were expelled from it due to the wrong way taken by Bp. Fellay.  The other priest, Fr. Grosso, was re-ordained by Bp. de Galarreta and did not enter the Society following Bp. Williamson's advice.

But, as pointed in some other comments, is not the number which counts.  What really counts is to be on the side where the Truth is.


Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 18, 2012, 05:56:13 PM
There is a website that offers commentary on the ECs and various other SSPX-
related happenings. In regards to this EC 268, here is the comment:


Bp Fellay's  "Six Conditions" for an agreement with Rome are straw men,-- they are  "pretend"  conditions, devoid of any real meaning. They are designed to trick the faithful  into thinking, once again, that Rome has changed. It hasn't. Rome is filled with the same liberal, leftist, modernist fakes and frauds that brought about the destruction of the Roman Catholic faith.

They are proponents of the one-world religion of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. The few in Rome that may still have the Catholic faith have absolutely no power or influence. All the important spots in all the dicastries are filled with modernists-- many are filled with outright protectors and promoters of sodomites.  

These six conditions are akin to the phony Rosary Crusades Bp. Fellay and Fr. Rostand promoted-- knowing full well that, in each case, the end results had already been agreed upon for 1) the so-called freeing of the Latin Mass, and 2) the so-called "lifting" of the excommunications.

Listen to Bp Fellay's own words, as he describes his new religion, one of accommodating Rome and the Modernists.




                                                Source (http://www.sossaveoursspx.com/)
                                 

                            http://www.sossaveoursspx.com/
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: parentsfortruth on January 14, 2013, 04:16:52 PM
I wish you would sticky this so people can quickly reference these conditions.
Title: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on January 14, 2013, 04:18:21 PM
God Bless Bishop Willliamson and all the  priests of SSPX-SO