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!)
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 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?
Topic: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268 (Read 19932 times)