It is currently Tue May 30, 2017 5:25 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ] 
 Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
http://www.dici.org/en/news/communique- ... r-23-2012/

Communiqué of the General House of the Society of Saint Pius X (October 24, 2012)

24-10-2012
Filed under From Tradition, News

Bishop Richard Williamson, having distanced himself from the management and the government of the SSPX for several years, and refusing to show due respect and obedience to his lawful superiors, was declared excluded from the SSPX by decision of the Superior General and its Council, on October 4th, 2012. A final deadline had been granted to him to declare his submission, after which he announced the publication of an “open letter” asking the Superior General to resign.

This painful decision has become necessary by concern for the common good of the Society of Saint Pius X and its good government, according to what Archbishop Lefebvre denounced: “This is the destruction of authority. How authority can be exercised if it needs to ask all members to participate in the exercise of authority? “(Ecône, June 29, 1987)

Menzingen, October 24th, 2012

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:46 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
This has to be the biggest mistake that the SSPX has done in its 40 years. In fact up to this point they generally have done pretty decent, of course there are always some things we could go over. I have to say this one error alone compensated for what they did not do in the past. This is the equivalent of shooting yourself with a shotgun to your feet, and sawing your hand with a rusted iron blade.

In all of the media news ALL over the internet, almost with 99.9% unanimity. Which begs the question really, where is this one big great source coming from? Like if they all copy pasted from each other. It was something of the sort, ''Holocaust denier'' kicked from ultraconservative Catholic Society of priest's. I think I prefer to be called Catholic plain and simple shorter to write also.

Well anyways here is why I think this has worse consequences than just the SSPX/Indult/Sedevacantism and all Catholics of good will that do not belong to the New Religion with emphasis on the New Religion. We see now more than ever the real and ultimate goal, which many people sometimes completely miss the point.

The whole Holocaust issue is a classical red herring fallacy (look it up if you dont know what it is), to essentially destroy your immune system defenses.

Whether or not you agree or disagree with the Holocaust, the figures or gas chambers is completely irrelevant. The holocaust has become the new and only Dogma which Vatican II authorities will enforce, especially those who are part of the ''Springtime mentality.'' I really don't care what people think all of these things are disputable and they are constantly being revised plus it happened a long time ago (remember psywarfare here). Like sheep we are being led to the slaughter, without any type of ability to speak up in a manner consistent with Faith and Reason, because once you have been labeled as wacko all credibility and ad hominem attacks will follow. So much for journalistic objective criteria going out the window. Communist especially were trained in this type of psywarfare, to always get people divided at several levels. Men against women, children against parents, heterosexuals against homosexuals, have's against have not's, younger against older people, and so on. To divide and conquer is Satan's masterstroke. This is also not an endorsement in anyway for relativism and some sort of nice big Utopian group hug. They divide so that they never see the big picture because if you do, then you will know you are part of a grand con job, the price is your soul. Masonry in a similar fashion is the greatest classical case of a pyramid scheme, where only 1-2% of the members benefit (financially) from Masonry and the rest are just a bunch of useful idiots to use Lenin's terminology. The purpose of FreeMasonry is to fund the powers that be whoever they are, to carry about their little pet projects. These folks are Luciferians there is no doubt about it, and we know who it is they serve, the man downstairs a.k.a. the prince of this world. The fact that they are so successful is only because so many useful idiots are so willing to help them do all the work for them. Isn't it quite genius?

From everything that I have read the number of things that kept popping up from the different international newspapers.

1) Bishop Fellay kicked Bishop Williamson too late, the ''damage'' has been done they say. The Jews certainly don't even appreciate what he did at all. Its never enough attitude, until you get down on your knees and beg forgiveness or go to the Eastern wailing wall to write your little note *even then your motives are held suspect*.

2) The real problem they say is the theology of the SSPX, is that it is ANTI-SEMITIC by its very nature.
*I cannot OVER EMPHASIZE THIS ENOUGH they actually got it right on the dot, they are speaking like prophets here. This means that NO MATTER what your stance is on any given Jewish question, whether international conspiracy, banking, power, the state of israel and so on. You can be to the right of the Evangelicals more PRO Israel than they are, but if you have a theology that is traditional you are automatically an anti-semite.*

This is a completely unfair accusation, I personally know many many Jewish haters, I detest these people because their hate of Jewish people is founded on fanaticism, irrationality, and just good ol' bigotry for bigotries sake, definitely not Saintly material for that matter.

Members of the New Religion, naturally agree with this outlook.
Apostate and traitor to the faith, the most reverend wolf, Archbishop di Noia then delivers the payload:

“Vatican II repudiated anti-Semitism and presented a positive picture of Judaism. John Paul II took us further in recognizing the significance of the Jewish People for Christianity itself. This is a new concept which we know the Traditionalists will not be able to accept immediately. Convincing them will take time, and in this respect we will have to be patient.

The real problem of Bishop Williamson they all agree, is his theology. Which is not the REASON why they kicked him out of the SSPX. However, NO ONE else in the world will ever see it in this manner, the only thing that will pop to their heads is when they hear his name. Will be Jews being burned, ovens, gas chambers, pesticide poisining, Nazi's and the like.

Look at it more deeply, the real problem is our Founder Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Saint Chrysostom talks alot about this with his disputes with the children of Israel...
_________________________________________________________
Counter-arguments people have naturally brought up:

The SSPX initially was hoping that Bishop Williamson would leave of his own accord.
Thus as a result of his inability to self-kick himself out like many of the SSPX of Strict Observance did. Many will argue that Bishop Williamson brought this upon himself...

He brought this upon himself they will say:
1) By continuing to post Eleison Comments (when ordered not to) which really did not contain any direct reference to the Superior General or a complete anarchist mentality as they paint it to be. It was because people that would read his comments detected some aura of mistrust, which by the way is very few and almost limited to a fraction of the SSPX because many folks do not even read or have an email address for that matter. Just go to traditional chapels and ask around for emails, so few people have them even though its 2012.

2) By writing a letter to his superiors to resign, again please explain how this is wrong expressing your conscience to your superiors for abuse of power... Even if it was such a strong statement he made...

3) By giving personal advice to people who come to his advice (such as Novus Ordo priest wishing to join, an Argentinian priest comes to mind) by not joining the SSPX in its current state... How is giving private advice, of which is between the person who asked and Bishop Williamson is against the faith? ESPECIALLY when dealing with questions of prudential judgment of which we are free to disagree...

4) By talking with the SSPX of Strict Observance, just giving them counsel because they had asked him for advice. Is it in somehow doctrinally or canonically wrong to talk to these priest who left the SSPX or are not a part of the SSPX? How does this make any sense? First of all we dont have the content of the conversations just hearsay... In addition to this how is a SSPX ever to talk to a Novus Ordo priest with that line of logic... Completely way out of line.

5) Bishop Williamson going at the request of Dom Thomas Aquinas in Brazil to do confirmations against the explicit will of the SSPX. In the first place, why was he not even allowed to go in the first place. Once again no plain reason, they did not even offer to send another Bishop to be able to fill Bishop Williamsons position, which they could of plainly done. Dom Thomas was never offered that, the faithful have a right to sacraments, whether SSPX gives it or not plain and simple. Isn't that the whole epikea issue here? Of course this is not an endorsement of Episcopus vagantis, which is clearly not the case here. We are talking of a monastery with faithful who have had relations for over 30 years with the SSPX, not some vague unknown place...

6) They will say because H.E. Williamson did this things while professing to be a member of the SSPX was tantamount to heresy, deserving of expulsion.
______________________
Playing devils advocate here:
What if they would if simply allowed H.E. Williamson to go to Brazil without no reprisal, or send another Bishop to do it for him. Is it that hard? You already publicly humiliated him, distanced yourself from him, put him under the bus and just simply treating him like the nutty ol' granpa that all families have (we must respects always the office he holds).
What if they could of simply left H.E. Williamson with his Eleison Comments or at the very least wait within those comments to have some type of real condemnatory evidence that had something wrong in them. The problem is too often, its a trial where you are judge, jury and executioner... Where is the sense of Catholic justice or respect for the Old code of Canon law?
What if they could of just waited for H.E. Williamson to just walk out, which would of never been as destructive as what they have done here.
What if we return to the old Catholic thinking that excommunications/expulsions and the like of which their first and primary purpose is medicinal instead of tools of a dictator...
_________________
*I believe this are the main reasons why, so far as what they have said that justified Bishop Williamson getting kicked out.*

In order to be kicked out it has to be grave reasons, repeated acts of disobedience do not merit this especially if by kicking Bishop Williamson not only are you dividing your own household much, but it has no immediate or future benefits to the cause of the faith. This is a complete abuse of power... No father has a right to do such a thing to his children, much less important authorities that many look for guidance in these wicked times.

This is absolutely non-sense, on many levels most people that make this accusation usually are completely not fully aware of both sides of the story. Which is partly why I am writing this. Many times it is done because they get their stories from ''traditionalist blogs'' which sometimes say good things, but then when it matters the most they just simply disinform and have clear agenda's (not once any of my comments have been approved to these blogs I did not even attempt to make my topic controversial whatsoever, a sign of bad will in the best case scenario). Father Z, Rorate Caeli etc... (I dont really blame them, they really just got no clue).

There is really no way to look at this in a positive light... From every angle even presuming good will upon the authorities of the SSPX, actually makes even deeper problems opening a bigger can of worms.

In the audience here it goes without saying, but if you still are not sure. Save yourself some time, and don't even bother keeping up with the mainstream media about anything whatsoever. It is not a waste of time, but you then have to inform yourself of what the news really was, JUST because once a while they get it right does not justify listening to them. I don't see anyone using a mistimed watch just because two times a day the time will be correct. I could of kept going but this was the crust of the issue.

Fortes in Fide,

A fellow Catholic

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:07 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post Re: Bishop Williamson's letter to Bishop Fellay
This is the Authorized Translation - see new thread.

OPEN LETTER TO BISHOP FELLAY
ON AN “EXCLUSION”

London, 19 October, 2012

Your Excellency,

Thank you for your letter of October 4 in which, on behalf of the General Council and General Chapter, you let me know of your “recognisance”, “declaration” and “decision” that I no longer belong to the Society of St Pius X. The reasons given for your decision to exclude your servant are, you tell me, the following: he has continued to publish the “Eleison Comments”; he has attacked the authorities of the Society; he has exercised an independent apostolate; he has given support to rebellious colleagues; he has been formally, obstinately and pertinaciously disobedient; he has separated himself from the Society; he no longer submits to any authority.

May not all these reasons be summed up in disobedience? No doubt in the course of the last 12 years your servant has said and done things which before God were inappropriate and excessive, but I think it would be enough to point them out one by one for him to make the apology called for in all truth and justice. But we are no doubt agreed that the essential problem is not to be found in these details, that it can be summed up in one word: disobedience.

Then let us at once point out how many more or less disagreeable orders of the Superior General have been unfailingly obeyed by your servant. In 2003 he left behind an important and fruitful apostolate in the United States to go to Argentina. In 2009 he left his post as Seminary Rector and left behind Argentina to moulder in a London attic for three and a half years, with no episcopal functions because they were denied him. All that was left to him by way of ministry was virtually the weekly “Eleison Comments”, the refusal to interrupt which constitutes the large part of the “disobedience” of which he stands accused. And ever since 2009 it has been open season for the Society Superiors to discredit and insult him to their hearts’ content, and Society members all over the world have been encouraged by their example to do the same if they wished. Your servant hardly reacted, preferring silence to scandalous confrontations. One might go so far as to say that he obstinately refused to disobey. But let that go, because that is not the real problem.

Then where is the real problem to be found? By way of reply let the accused be allowed to give a rapid overview of the history of the Society from which he is supposedly separating himself. For indeed the central problem goes a long way back.

Starting with the French Revolution towards the end of the 18th century, in many a formerly Christian State a New World Order began to establish itself, thought up by the Church’s enemies to chase God out of his own creation. To begin with, the old order in which throne upheld altar was replaced by the separation of Church and State. As a result, society was structured in a radically different way, creating serious difficulties for the Church, because the State, being henceforth implicitly godless, was bound in the end to fight the religion of God with all its might. Sure enough, the Freemasons set about replacing the true worship of God with the worship of liberty, a worship of which the neutral State in matters of religion is merely an instrument. Thus began in modern times a relentless war between the religion of God, defended by the Catholic Church, and the religion of man, liberated from God, and liberal. The two religions are as irreconcilable as God and the Devil. A choice has to be made between Catholicism and liberalism.

But man wants to have his cake and eat it. He does not want to have to choose. He wants it both ways. So in the wake of the French Revolution Félicité de Lamennais invented liberal Catholicism, and from that moment on, the reconciling of things irreconcilable became common currency within the Church. For 120 years God in his mercy gave to his Church a series of Popes, from Gregory XVI to Pius XII, who for the most part saw clear and held firm, but an ever growing number of layfolk were inclining towards independence from God and towards the material pleasures which liberal Catholicism makes much more accessible. The corruption spread until it infected bishops and priests, at which point God finally allowed them to choose the kind of Popes they preferred, namely Popes who would pretend to be Catholic but would in fact be liberals, whose talk might be right-wing but whose action is left-wing, who are characterized by their contradictions, ambiguity, Hegelian dialectic, in brief, by their lies. We are into the Newchurch of Vatican II.

It was bound to be. Only a dreamer can reconcile things in reality irreconcilable. Yet God, as St Augustine says, does not abandon souls that do not first want to abandon him, and so he comes to the aid of the small remnant of souls that is unwilling to join in the soft apostasy of Vatican II. He raises an Archbishop to resist the betrayal of the Conciliar churchmen. Respecting reality, with no desire to reconcile things irreconcilable, refusing to dream, this Archbishop speaks with a clarity, a coherence and truth that enables the sheep to recognize the voice of the divine Master. The priestly Society which he founds to form true Catholic priests begins on a small scale, but by its resolute refusal of the Conciliar errors and of their basis in liberal Catholicism, it draws to itself a remainder of true Catholics all over the world, and it constitutes the backbone of a whole movement within the Church which will go under the name of Traditionalism.

But this movement is intolerable to the churchmen of the Newchurch who mean to replace Catholicism with liberal Catholicism. Backed by the media and State governments, they do everything they can to discredit, disgrace and ostracize the courageous Archbishop. In 1976 Paul VI suspends him “a divinis”, in 1988 John-Paul II “excommunicates” him. He is a supreme nuisance to the Conciliar Popes because his voice of truth has the effect of showing up their pack of lies and of imperilling the betrayal they mean to carry out. And despite being persecuted, despite even being “excommunicated”, he holds firm, as do the large number of the priests of his Society.

Such faithfulness to the truth obtains from God a dozen years of internal peace and external prosperity for the Society. In 1991 the great Archbishop dies, but for another nine years his work carries on, faithful to the anti-liberal principles on which it was built. So what will the Conciliar Romans do to bring the resistance to an end? They will exchange the stick for the carrot.

In 2000 a major Jubilee Year pilgrimage of the Society to Rome shows forth in the basilicas and streets of Rome the power of the Society. The Romans are impressed, despite themselves. A Cardinal invites the four Society bishops to a sumptuous luncheon in his apartment. Three of them accept. Immediately after this most brotherly encounter, contacts between Rome and the Society which had grown rather cold over the last 12 years, pick up again, and with them begins a powerful process of seduction, as one might say, by means of scarlet buttons and marble halls.

Indeed contacts warm up again so swiftly that by the end of the year many priests and laity of Tradition are already afraid of a reconciliation taking place between Catholic Tradition and the liberal Council. The reconciliation does not come about for the moment, but the language of Society headquarters in Menzingen is beginning to change, and over the 12 years to come, it will show itself ever less hostile to Rome and ever more open to the Newchurch, to its media and their world. And while at the top of the Society the way is being paved for the reconciliation of irreconcilables, so amongst the priests and laity the attitude towards the Conciliar Popes and Church, towards everything worldly and liberal, is becoming more and more favourable. After all, is the modern world that surrounds us really as bad as it is made out to be?

This advance of liberalism within the Society, noticed by a minority of priests and laity but apparently not noticed by the great majority, became evident to many more in the spring of this year when, following on the failure in the spring of 2011 of the Doctrinal Discussions to bring the doctrines of Tradition and the Council together, the Society’s Catholic policy up till then of “No practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement” changed overnight into the liberal policy of “No doctrinal agreement, therefore a practical agreement”. And in mid-April the Superior General offered to Rome, as basis for a practical agreement, an ambiguous text, openly favourable to the “hermeneutic of continuity” which is Benedict XVI’s favourite recipe to reconcile, precisely, the Council with Tradition ! “We need a new way of thinking,” the Superior General said in May to a meeting of priests of the Society’s Austrian District. In other words, the leader of the Society founded in 1970 to resist the novelties of the Council, was proposing to reconcile it with the Council. Today the Society is conciliatory. Tomorrow it is to be fully Conciliar!

It is difficult to believe that Archbishop Lefebvre’s foundation can have been led to bracket out the principles on which it was founded, but such is the seductive power of the fantasies of our godless world, modernist and liberal. Notwithstanding, reality does not give way to fantasies, and it forms part of reality that one cannot undo the principles of a founder without undoing his foundation. A founder has special graces that none of his successors have. As Padre Pio cried out when the Superiors of his Congregation were starting to “renew” his Congregation in accordance with the new way of thinking of the Council, just closed: “What are you doing with the Founder?” The Society’s Superior General, General Council and General Chapter may keep Archbishop Lefebvre on hand as a mascot, but that will not help if they all share in a new way of thinking that by-passes the crucial reasons for which he founded the Society. Therefore however good their intentions, they are leading the Society to its ruin by a betrayal parallel in all respects to that of Vatican II.

But let us be just, let us not exaggerate. Since the beginning of this slow collapse of the Society, there have always been priests and laity who saw clear and did their best to resist. In the spring of this year their resistance became more weighty and numerous, so that the General Chapter of last July did place an obstacle in the way of a false Rome-SSPX agreement. But will that obstacle hold up? One may fear not. In front of some 40 Society priests on retreat in Écône in September, the Superior General, referring to his policy with regard to Rome, admitted: “I was wrong,” but whose fault was it ? – “The Romans deceived me.” Likewise from the whole springtime crisis he said that there had arisen “ a great distrust within the Society” which would need to be healed “by acts and not just by words”, but whose fault was it ? Judging by his acts since September, which includes this letter of October 4, he is blaming the priests and laity who failed to put their trust in him as their leader. After the Chapter as before, it seems as though he can brook no opposition to his conciliatory and Conciliar policy.

And that is the real reason why the Superior General has given several times the formal order to close down “Eleison Comments”. Indeed the “Comments” have repeatedly criticized the Society authorities’ conciliatory policy towards Rome, thereby attacking them implicitly. Now if in this criticism and these attacks there has sometimes been a failure to observe the respect normally due to the office or persons of the Society authorities, I readily beg forgiveness of anyone concerned, but I think that anybody actually reading the particular “Comments” implicated will recognize that the criticism and attacks usually abstracted from the persons, because the issues at stake are far more than just personal.

And if we do come to the great problem far surpassing mere persons, let us call to mind the immense confusion presently reigning in the Church, and placing in peril the eternal salvation of souls without number. Is it not the duty of a bishop to uncover the true roots of this confusion and to denounce them in public? How many bishops in the whole wide world see clear as Archbishop Lefebvre saw clear, and how many are teaching accordingly? How many of them are still teaching Catholic doctrine at all? Surely very few. Then is now the moment to be trying to silence a bishop who is doing so, if one is to judge by the number of souls that hang on to the “Comments” as they would to a lifebelt? How in particular can another bishop be wanting to shut them down when he himself has just had to admit to his priests that he let himself be deceived for many a long year on the same great questions ?

Likewise, if the rebellious bishop took upon himself – for the first time in nigh on four years – an independent apostolate, how can he be blamed for having accepted an invitation, coming from outside the Society, to give the sacrament of Confirmation and to preach the word of truth? Is that not the very function of a bishop? And if he is accused of having preached what was a word of “confusion”, there is always the same answer: what he said in Brazil was confusing only for people who follow the line confessed to be an error, as evoked above.

So if he does seem for years to have been separating himself from the Society, the truth is that he has been distancing himself from the conciliatory Society, and not from that of the Archbishop. And if he seems insubordinate to any exercise of authority on the part of Society leaders, the truth is that that applies only to orders running counter to the purposes for which the Society was founded. In fact how many other orders are there at all, besides the order to close down the “Comments”, which he can be blamed for having disobeyed in a “formal, obstinate and pertinacious” manner? Is there even one other such order? Since Archbishop Lefebvre refused to obey only acts of authority of Church leaders which were of a nature to destroy the Church, his disobedience was more apparent than real. Likewise refusing to close down the “Comments” is a disobedience more apparent than real.

For indeed history repeats itself, and the Devil keeps coming back. Just as yesterday Vatican II wished to reconcile the Catholic Church with the modern world, so today one could say that Benedict XVI and the Society’s Superior General both wish to reconcile Catholic Tradition and the Council; so again tomorrow, unless God intervenes between now and then, the leaders of the Catholic Resistance will be trying to reconcile it with Tradition henceforth Conciliar.

In brief, your Excellency, you may now go ahead and exclude me, because the arguments above are not likely to persuade you, but the exclusion will be more apparent than real. I have been a member of the Archbishop’s Society ever since my perpetual engagement. I have been one of its priests for 36 years. I have been one of its bishops, like yourself, for nearly a quarter of a century. That is not all to be wiped out with one stroke of a pen. Member of the Archbishop’s Society I therefore remain, and I wait.

Had you remained faithful to the Archbishop’s heritage, and had I myself been notably unfaithful, gladly I would recognize your right to exclude me. But things being as they are, I hope I shall not be lacking in the respect due to your office if I suggest that for the glory of God, for the salvation of souls, for the internal peace of the Society and for your own eternal salvation, you would do better yourself to resign as Superior General than to exclude myself. May the good Lord give you the grace, the light and the strength to perform such an outstanding act of humility and of devotion to the common good of everybody.

And so, as I have so often finished the letters I have written to you over the years,

Dominus tecum, may the Lord be with you.


+Richard Williamson.


Thu Oct 25, 2012 10:50 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
Well, it's all intensely fascinating, to be sure. But so much of this whole situation is wrongly apprehended by so many.

I agree that the media is focussing on Bishop Williamson's "holocaust denial". The self-identified "hard-liners" are with the media on this one - they attribute the situation to Williamson's "holocaust denial" too.

I'm not convinced it has anything significant to do with the situation. Nor do I think the role of Max Krah is important. He's just a typical worldly lawyer employed to take care of typically worldly things - money management. But for these so-called "hard-liners" he's at the epicentre of some conspiracy to gut the SSPX. There's no conspiracy, the agenda is completely clear, out in the open. The SSPX is sedeplenist, and it's trying to run that impossible "fine line" of recognising the Modernist as pope whilst refusing his errors. St. Robert Bellarmine's rhetorical question, "How can we avoid our head?" is not rhetorical for them. They think it has an answer.

A lot of what Bishop Williamson says about the trend of the past 12 years is true. Is the situation such that a reconciliation with the Modernists is around the corner? No. It's nearly November, and the most recent prophecy of a sell-out was that it would happen in October. Stand by for the next prophecy supported by unprovable rumour.

Personally, the "hard line" is the one between virtue and vice, and if anything's clear in this whole situation it is that the self-described hard-liners can't tell the difference. Their behaviour on the Web is scandalous beyond measure. They'd rather abuse Bishop Fellay than think, and they don't appear to have any sense of sin. They're liberals, they just call their liberalism something else.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:42 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
John Lane wrote:
A lot of what Bishop Williamson says about the trend of the past 12 years is true.

Yes, and this is what should be interesting and important to understand yet it is largely obscured, like most important things today.


Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:24 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
Robert, it's all too politically charged for fruitful discussion in most circles. Nor has the political charging been a natural development. It's been actively encouraged by certain persons with agendas of their own.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Oct 26, 2012 4:35 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
The fact that they are so successful is only because so many useful idiots are so willing to help them do all the work for them. Isn't it quite genius?
But, at the same time, as St. Thomas teaches, the Jewish people is the servant of the Church.
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
2) The real problem they say is the theology of the SSPX, is that it is ANTI-SEMITIC by its very nature.
The Church is neither philo- nor anti-Semitic, but, still, many Jews would consider those who don't compromise Catholic theology "anti-Semitic." This is one thing Rev. Frs. Michael Crowdy & Kenneth Novak argue in their ADL-'censored' "Mystery of the Jewish People in History." (It is a very interesting article because it discusses, unbiasedly, the positive and negative aspects, and emphasizes that true "anti-Semitism" is hatred of Jesus, Joseph, and Mary.)
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
This is a completely unfair accusation, I personally know many many Jewish haters, I detest these people because their hate of Jewish people is founded on fanaticism, irrationality, and just good ol' bigotry for bigotries sake, definitely not Saintly material for that matter.
With conversion, it is very great saintly material.
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
Members of the New Religion, naturally agree with this outlook.
E.g., transferring the Feast of Christ the King to the last Sunday of the liturgical year and the "We announce thy death, O Lord, until Thou comest" proclaimed immediately after consecration in the Novus Ordo, as Card. Ottaviani discussed in his Intervention, both have very eschatalogical emphases, as though the 2nd Coming were the 1st…
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
Apostate and traitor to the faith, the most reverend wolf, Archbishop di Noia then delivers the payload:

“Vatican II repudiated anti-Semitism and presented a positive picture of Judaism. John Paul II took us further in recognizing the significance of the Jewish People for Christianity itself. This is a new concept which we know the Traditionalists will not be able to accept immediately. Convincing them will take time, and in this respect we will have to be patient.
Cf. CFN's article on this.
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
3) By giving personal advice to people who come to his advice (such as Novus Ordo priest wishing to join, an Argentinian priest comes to mind) by not joining the SSPX in its current state... How is giving private advice, of which is between the person who asked and Bishop Williamson is against the faith? ESPECIALLY when dealing with questions of prudential judgment of which we are free to disagree...
He advised a Novus Ordo priest not to join the SSPX?
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
6) They will say because H.E. Williamson did this things while professing to be a member of the SSPX was tantamount to heresy, deserving of expulsion.
How can't they know what heresy is?
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
What if they could of simply left H.E. Williamson with his Eleison Comments or at the very least wait within those comments to have some type of real condemnatory evidence that had something wrong in them.
He'll still write his ECs. Perhaps Bp. Fellay is simply testing him, to see if he will spout heresy? God tested Job, so why can't a representative of the Good Shepherd do the same?
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
No father has a right to do such a thing to his children, much less important authorities that many look for guidance in these wicked times.
Let's call CPS on Bp. Fellay. :)
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
Father Z
I should see what he wrote.
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
There is really no way to look at this in a positive light... From every angle even presuming good will upon the authorities of the SSPX, actually makes even deeper problems opening a bigger can of worms.
No one has ever given me a good answer to my question: Wasn't Rome going to deal with the bishops on an individual basis? Why does it matter, for the conversion of Rome, that Bp. Williamson is no longer a part of the SSPX?

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:06 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
John Lane wrote:
Is the situation such that a reconciliation with the Modernists is around the corner? No. It's nearly November, and the most recent prophecy of a sell-out was that it would happen in October.


I had never heard this rumour. The only rumour I heard about October was that "negotiations", "discussions", "contacts", or whatever you want to call them would resume in October. Now I've always doubled or trebled specific time-frames given in such rumours to determine (after the fact) whether they were credible. I don't really pay much attention to them prior but do look at the history after. If such contacts or discussions resume by the end of the year, I'll see the expelling of Bishop Williamson as likely a verbal prerequisite for the resumption of negotiations and the original rumour credible. On the other hand, contacts could resume secretly since some contacts have apparently been made quietly since 2000 based on the Open Letter.

I don't believe that "reconciliation is around the corner" but I don't dismiss the idea either. I simply don't know. I'm not going to make major changes in my life based on accepting or denying rumours. The status quo is acceptable to me (personally) as long as everything remains status quo.

In any event, John is completely correct when he notes that the "SSPX is sedeplenist, and it's trying to run that impossible "fine line" of recognising the Modernist as pope whilst refusing his errors. St. Robert Bellarmine's rhetorical question, 'How can we avoid our head?' is not rhetorical for them. They think it has an answer." This is actually the problem that has plagued the SSPX for years and will continue to plague both the SSPX, the SSPX-SO, as well as Bishop Williamson for some time to come.


Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:00 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
TKGS wrote:
In any event, John is completely correct when he notes that the "SSPX is sedeplenist, and it's trying to run that impossible "fine line" of recognising the Modernist as pope whilst refusing his errors. St. Robert Bellarmine's rhetorical question, 'How can we avoid our head?' is not rhetorical for them. They think it has an answer." This is actually the problem that has plagued the SSPX for years and will continue to plague both the SSPX, the SSPX-SO, as well as Bishop Williamson for some time to come.


Yet that seemingly "impossible" fine line was held by Archbishop Lefebvre and has faltered under Bp. Fellay. I suppose one needs to decide whether one's going to discuss that situation or focus on a few (on either side) who want to use the situation for political purposes.


Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:45 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
Quote:
He advised a Novus Ordo priest not to join the SSPX?

Yes my understanding of it that is what they said. However it really begs the question whether it was really a Novus Ordo priest or some sort of set up? I mean what if that priest was dishonest in his question and never really cared whether to join or not. The reason why I say this is because, the very fact that he went to the SSPX authorities about a private conversation of which he probably never asked Mons. Williamson whether it would be okay to share that info. As such, such information should be regarded as dishonest and as good as toilet paper.

Quote:
Let's call CPS on Bp. Fellay. :)

Agreed, the problem is what will CPS do?

Quote:
No one has ever given me a good answer to my question: Wasn't Rome going to deal with the bishops on an individual basis? Why does it matter, for the conversion of Rome, that Bp. Williamson is no longer a part of the SSPX?


To answer your question it does make a big difference. Public image matters a lot, if few people who have been a part of the SSPX for 30+ years are super divided on this issue how do you think an outsider will see this? It will smell of crackpots/cults/sects few if any people ever read more than what the mainstream media says, and many rely on these blogs that I listed upon as some sort of authority therefore now officially we are a bunch of Mormons now. Even with those that are more informed it has taken me sometimes 5+ years to finally put their intellect to submission to the older magisterial teachings. Just imagine what it will take now, that we are a bunch of loonies at the same level of Adolf Hitler... If priest from the FSSP are called Lefebvrian, then SSPX = Lefebvre = Williamson = Nazi's. Just read around what people from the outside are saying, this is bad bad bad news. People need the sacraments, and there are many who will now for all practical purposes be home aloners. Having been there and done that for my last semester in Tech, I can say I don't wish that upon anyone. All the movements that were starting to head towards something good will now start heading to the other extreme... So any good that was done will be completely undone by one selfish Bishop (Fellay) and his gang. How could he do this to everyone? Does he have no care as to what consequences actions have?

This will affect those of goodwill from Conciliarism to tradition. In fact they will become only more convinced that the errors of the Council are the solution to our problem. The only thing they will do now is just follow Pope Benedict XVI on every word, and that is the unity that they will have. Papalotry... Which in some cases might be even worse then the liberalism and modernism of the others all depending on what the Holy Father does. What if in 3 years time, he starts going to the left of John Paul II? Since all the good willed Catholics are into Papalotry, that will mean that many will go into perdition as a result of it. I have seen it personally, the Pope says something and then some Catholic interprets it how he sees it which most of the time is more extreme than what he purported to say. But nevertheless, now the Pope said it so they go on some Holy Crusade preaching nothing but error. Horrid horrid.

Quote:
Nor do I think the role of Max Krah is important. He's just a typical worldly lawyer employed to take care of typically worldly things - money management. But for these so-called "hard-liners" he's at the epicentre of some conspiracy to gut the SSPX.


Who is Max Krah, sorry never heard of him. I am not inclined to say that this whole thing was for money, might be more of the temptation of getting a better promotion in the Vatican. That one would be more likely, then it being some sort of corruption of greed.

However many folks ever since 2009 stopped donating completely to the SSPX chapels, a friend of mine who has contacts in Mexico and is over there. Is telling me that many of the SSPX chapels in mexico receive no income anymore and they have to subsidized by the priory in Chihuahua which is one of the most divided in all of Mexico. Some places donations dropped to 50% and have steadily dropped more and more. So is this some sort of attempt now that they are building the new seminary which will cost millions, to clean its public image and get more funding from Novus Ordo crowds? Maybe, but again I prefer not to speculate too much. You know how they say, the devil is in the details and sometimes following the money trail gets you the real culprit in a lot of these things. All I know is that whatever new SSPX will emerge will be more Novus Ordo than traditional in terms of new blood. However, because of that they will soften their position by ten notches, because we want those collection plates to be nice and heavy with plenty of Benjamins of course.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:00 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
Quote:
He advised a Novus Ordo priest not to join the SSPX?

Yes my understanding of it that is what they said. However it really begs the question whether it was really a Novus Ordo priest or some sort of set up? I mean what if that priest was dishonest in his question and never really cared whether to join or not. The reason why I say this is because, the very fact that he went to the SSPX authorities about a private conversation of which he probably never asked Mons. Williamson whether it would be okay to share that info. As such, such information should be regarded as dishonest and as good as toilet paper.


Estimado Jorge: this priest, called Fr. Gabriel Grosso, was ordained in the Novus Ordo and then ordained sub conditione by Bp De Galarreta (or maybe it was Bp Tisier, I don´t recall right now). At the time he asked Bp Williamson he was a "friend priest" (at least we call it like that in Spanish, I don´t know the exact term in English) of the SSPX and the year was about to expire when he asked the Bishop and he said this:

Quote:
...For you, my advice would be not to join the Fraternity, but rather to cooperate with it. Keep your independence if you can, because it is my opinion that the Fraternity is in danger. If it overcomes the danger, then think about entering - but not before. The danger may last a while. You see very well how the same disease of the pre-conciliar period is now threatening the Fraternity. The same causes produce the same effects, and these causes of apostasy are more powerful than ever...


Cristian

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:42 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
Nov. 4, 2012 "Bishop's Corner", Bp. Daniel L. Dolan wrote:
Well, Bishop Williamson is no longer part of the Pius X Society. Under circumstances quite the same as our own experience some 29 years ago (save that the expeller became the expelled), His Excellency was shown the street without a penny of pension or insurance. This offense against the natural law alone cries to Heaven for vengeance, and characterizes the vengeance of this supposedly “priestly” society.

I wish I could say "unbelievable," but I'm not surprised in the least.


Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:46 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
Robert Bastaja wrote:
I wish I could say "unbelievable," but I'm not surprised in the least.


You're not surprised by the fact that Bishop Dolan recognises the parallel, or something else?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:26 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
John Lane wrote:
I'm not convinced it has anything significant to do with the situation. Nor do I think the role of Max Krah is important. He's just a typical worldly lawyer employed to take care of typically worldly things - money management. But for these so-called "hard-liners" he's at the epicentre of some conspiracy to gut the SSPX. There's no conspiracy, the agenda is completely clear, out in the open. The SSPX is sedeplenist, and it's trying to run that impossible "fine line" of recognising the Modernist as pope whilst refusing his errors.



Dear John,

You really don't think that the SSPX's position has changed? You don't think that there are those on the inside who don't have the Archbishop's good intentions in mind? That wouldn't make sense. The Church was highly infiltrated for many years before VII and this is a fact. Don't you think that the "powers that be" (the devil etc.) would make it one of their chief goals to subvert the largest body of faithful left in the world?


Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:11 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
Lance Tardugno wrote:
John Lane wrote:
I'm not convinced it has anything significant to do with the situation. Nor do I think the role of Max Krah is important. He's just a typical worldly lawyer employed to take care of typically worldly things - money management. But for these so-called "hard-liners" he's at the epicentre of some conspiracy to gut the SSPX. There's no conspiracy, the agenda is completely clear, out in the open. The SSPX is sedeplenist, and it's trying to run that impossible "fine line" of recognising the Modernist as pope whilst refusing his errors.



Dear John,

You really don't think that the SSPX's position has changed? You don't think that there are those on the inside who don't have the Archbishop's good intentions in mind? That wouldn't make sense. The Church was highly infiltrated for many years before VII and this is a fact. Don't you think that the "powers that be" (the devil etc.) would make it one of their chief goals to subvert the largest body of faithful left in the world?

I think what has actually changed, and I believe John has pointed this out before, is that the SSPX leadership no longer sees the papacy of Benedict XVI as subject to doubt or question as Archbishop Lefebvre did.


Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:40 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
John Lane wrote:
Robert Bastaja wrote:
I wish I could say "unbelievable," but I'm not surprised in the least.


You're not surprised by the fact that Bishop Dolan recognises the parallel, or something else?

I think the parallel is a very weak one, but Bp. Dolan, seeing it though his own distorted glasses, thinks it strong. And yes, it was something else.


Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:45 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
Lance Tardugno wrote:
You really don't think that the SSPX's position has changed?


Yes and no. There has been a shift of emphasis in some things. The main one is on the treatment of Novus Ordo orders.

Most of the comments made asserting that the SSPX has changed are based on nothing substantial at all, Lance. To take what would appear to be the strongest example, the CNS interview, the allegation was that Bishop Fellay was reversing the Fraternity's position on Vatican II and especially religious liberty. When he clarified his views, the reaction (of course) was to say that he is lying. So, we must believe that he thinks that Vatican II wasn't so bad, but he won't say so. Well, he won't be convincing too many people that Vatican II ain't so bad using that approach, will he? He will find it hard to get others to think that religious liberty is a good doctrine if he says repeatedly that it's an error. Don't you think?

Lance Tardugno wrote:
You don't think that there are those on the inside who don't have the Archbishop's good intentions in mind? That wouldn't make sense. The Church was highly infiltrated for many years before VII and this is a fact. Don't you think that the "powers that be" (the devil etc.) would make it one of their chief goals to subvert the largest body of faithful left in the world?


Yes, but what are the the means to that end? Secret agent priests, complete with cackling laughs and occult practices? Or the proven means already being identified and condemned by St. Paul in the first century? You know, dissensions, sects, envies, etc.? When the man yelling "conspiracy!" is refusing to act within the bounds of reason and the moral law, one has the right to ask what his agenda is. And whatever it is, it isn't good, it isn't Catholic, it doesn't come from God.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Nov 06, 2012 9:09 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
Robert Bastaja wrote:
I think what has actually changed, and I believe John has pointed this out before, is that the SSPX leadership no longer sees the papacy of Benedict XVI as subject to doubt or question as Archbishop Lefebvre did.


Yes, but that change occurred decades ago, Robert. In one sense, it changed before the Archbishop died, long before, in that he appointed an anti-sedevacantist to the position of Superior General. Bishop Fellay's approach to the question is not Archbishop Lefebvre's, but he thinks it is, and it is a very great deal better than Fr. Schmidberger's!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Nov 06, 2012 9:12 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
John Lane wrote:
Robert Bastaja wrote:
I think what has actually changed, and I believe John has pointed this out before, is that the SSPX leadership no longer sees the papacy of Benedict XVI as subject to doubt or question as Archbishop Lefebvre did.


Yes, but that change occurred decades ago, Robert. In one sense, it changed before the Archbishop died, long before, in that he appointed an anti-sedevacantist to the position of Superior General. Bishop Fellay's approach to the question is not Archbishop Lefebvre's, but he thinks it is, and it is a very great deal better than Fr. Schmidberger's!


Yes, he thinks it is, but it isn't.


Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:20 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:00 pm
Posts: 12
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
How ironic that Bishop Fellay is demanding submission and obedience when he himself refuses to submit to and obey the man he considers to be the Roman Pontiff.


Fri Nov 09, 2012 4:07 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:40 am
Posts: 13
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
Nicholas Evans wrote:
How ironic that Bishop Fellay is demanding submission and obedience when he himself refuses to submit to and obey the man he considers to be the Roman Pontiff.


I would find it hard to believe that you don't know the difference between the justified disobedience of Bp. Fellay and the unjustified disobedience of Bp. Williamson.


Fri Nov 09, 2012 4:21 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
TraditionalistThomas wrote:
Nicholas Evans wrote:
How ironic that Bishop Fellay is demanding submission and obedience when he himself refuses to submit to and obey the man he considers to be the Roman Pontiff.


I would find it hard to believe that you don't know the difference between the justified disobedience of Bp. Fellay and the unjustified disobedience of Bp. Williamson.

I'd like to know how you'd explain the difference.


Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:04 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:13 am
Posts: 194
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
Oh excuse me...I must have stumbled onto the wrong forum. I'm not on Ignorant Ardens or CattyInfo am I? :?

_________________
On the last day, when the general examination takes place, there will be no question at all on the text of Aristotle, the aphorisms of Hippocrates, or the paragraphs of Justinian. Charity will be the whole syllabus.

- St. Robert Bellarmine


Fri Nov 09, 2012 9:03 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
TraditionalistThomas wrote:
I would find it hard to believe that you don't know the difference between the justified disobedience of Bp. Fellay and the unjustified disobedience of Bp. Williamson.


TT, don't bite, obviously everybody knows the difference!


Katie wrote:
Ignorant Ardens or CattyInfo


Gold!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:05 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
Katie wrote:
Oh excuse me...I must have stumbled onto the wrong forum. I'm not on Ignorant Ardens or CattyInfo am I? :?

It was an actual question because I don't think the answer is all that obvious. I understand why you might have taken it differently.


Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:36 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:44 am
Posts: 76
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
John Lane wrote:
Lance Tardugno wrote:
You don't think that there are those on the inside who don't have the Archbishop's good intentions in mind? That wouldn't make sense. The Church was highly infiltrated for many years before VII and this is a fact. Don't you think that the "powers that be" (the devil etc.) would make it one of their chief goals to subvert the largest body of faithful left in the world?


Yes, but what are the the means to that end? Secret agent priests, complete with cackling laughs and occult practices? Or the proven means already being identified and condemned by St. Paul in the first century? You know, dissensions, sects, envies, etc.? When the man yelling "conspiracy!" is refusing to act within the bounds of reason and the moral law, one has the right to ask what his agenda is. And whatever it is, it isn't good, it isn't Catholic, it doesn't come from God.

I liken Vatican II to throwing a piece of bread (the Catholic faithful) into the garbage. Crumbs remain on the plate (the remaining traditionalists), and the devil is trying to bang the plate a few times to get the remaining crumbs to go into the garbage.

The sole raison d'etre of the Novus Ordo -- and the Vatican II "popes" -- is to wipe out traditional Catholicism. That's it. It coexists just fine with every other false religion on the planet. And recognizing the Vatican II "popes" as valid, despite their manifest public heresy, is a problem that we must overcome if we are not to be suckered in the end.


Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:49 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
Brendan wrote:
And recognizing the Vatican II "popes" as valid, despite their manifest public heresy, is a problem that we must overcome if we are not to be suckered in the end.


I agree, obviously, but since this thread is about Bishop Williamson, let me say that he will become a sedevacantist just after hell freezes over, so there's no hope for assistance in that direction.

I like Bishop Williamson, and recognise his many excellent qualities, but the cheering of him by certain sedevacantists is ridiculous. He's just another anti-Modernist sedeplenist, and if sedeplenism is a dangerous dead end, he's part of the problem, not part of the solution.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:59 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
And right on cue, the latest edition of Eleison Comments. :)

This might dampen a few sede cheers...

Quote:
Number CCLXXIX (279) 17 November 2012
________________________________________

DEEP PROBLEM

Many Catholics do not conceive of the full depth of the problem posed by the Conciliar Revolution of Vatican II (1962-1965) in the Catholic Church. If they knew more Church history, they might be less tempted either by liberalism to think that the Council was not all that bad, or by “sedevacantism” to think that the Church authorities are no longer its authorities. Did Our Lord question the religious authority of Caiphas or the civil authority of Pontius Pilate?

The problem is deep because it is buried beneath centuries and centuries of Church history. When in the early 1400’s St Vincent Ferrer (1357-1419) preached all over Europe that the end of the world was at hand, we today know that he was out by over 600 years. Yet God confirmed his preaching by granting him to work thousands of miracles and thousands upon thousands of conversions. Was God confirming untruth ? Perish the thought ! The truth is that the Saint was correctly discerning, implicit in the decadence of the end of the Middle Ages, the explicit and near total corruption of our own times, dress rehearsal for the total corruption of the end of the world.

It has merely taken time, God’s own time, several centuries, for that implicit corruption to become explicit, because God has chosen at regular intervals to raise Saints to hold up the downward slide, notably the crop of famous Saints that led the Counter-Reformation in the 16th century. However, he would not take away men’s free-will, so that if they chose not to stay on the heights of the Middle Ages, he would not force them to do so. Instead he would allow his Church, at least to some extent, to adapt to the times, because it exists to save present souls and not past glories.

Two examples might be Molinist theology, made virtually necessary by Luther and Calvin to guarantee the protection of free-will, and the Concordat of 1801, made necessary by the Revolutionary State to enable the Church in France to function at all in public. Now both Molinism and the Concordat were compromises with the world of their time, but both enabled many souls to be saved, while the Church allowed neither to undermine the principles which remained sacred, of God as Pure Act and of Christ as the King of Society respectively. However both compromises allowed for a certain humanising of the divine Church, and both contributed to a gradual secularising of Christendom. Compromises do have consequences.

Thus if a slow process of humanizing and secularizing were to go too far in that world from which alone men and women are called by God to serve in his Church, they could hardly enter his service without a strong dose of radio-active liberalism in their bones, calling for a vigorous antidote in their religious formation. Naturally they would share the instinctive conviction of almost all their contemporaries that the revolutionary principles and ideals of the world from which they came were normal, while their religious formation opposed to that world might seem pious but fundamentally abnormal. Such churchmen and churchwomen could be a disaster waiting to happen. That disaster struck in mid-20th century. A large proportion of the world’s 2000 Catholic bishops rejoiced instead of revolting when John XXIII made clear that he was abandoning the anti-modern Church.
So nobody who wants to save his soul should follow them or their successors, but on the other hand the latter are so convinced that they are normal in relation to modern times that they are not as guilty as they would have been in previous times for destroying Christ’s Church. Blessed are the Catholic souls that can abhor their errors, but still honour their office.

Kyrie eleison.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:01 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
I think it is interesting that Bishop Williamson throws in sedevacantism (indeed, virtually all anti-sedevacantists do this) while never actually addressing sedevacantism. We are supposed to just assume that the subsequent comments demolish sedevacantism whereas he did no such thing.

I hear the same thing in Bishop Fellay's talks. Both men condemn sedevacantist but never address sedevacantism. But they also condemn, as heretics and schismatics, virtually the entire hierarchy of the Conciliar church--including the man they regard as pope.

When I read the Comments last night, my first thought was that it was very poorly written for he wrote nothing that actually supported his thesis paragraph. But few people (especially Americans, but I think this is probably true throughout miss-educated Western civilization) actually read with a critical eye. Most people simply assume that if something is mentioned, the evidence given either support or refute that thing. Since Bishop Williamson mentioned liberalism and sedevacantism and said that both are wrong because of Church history and then continued to say something about history, he has conclusively demonstrated that Church history has refuted these two "errors". In fact, I'm not exactly sure how anything was proven, or even inferred, from this essay.


Sat Nov 17, 2012 1:45 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
I agree, TKGS, and the first point of history he mentions is the role of St. Vincent Ferrer, one of the most famous of those who actually applied the principles later enunciated by St. Robert Bellarmine with permanent lucidity. The irony!

From an old article I wrote in the 1990s:

Quote:
"We should not decide the legitimacy of the popes by means of prophecies or miracles or visions. The Christian people are governed by laws against which extraordinary events count nothing." (St. Vincent Ferrer, De moderno ecclesiae schismate, Bibl. Nat., no. 1470; quoted by Mourret, History of the Catholic Church, B. Herder, Vol. V, p. 133.)

The law of the Church, reflecting the divine law explained and proved by Bellarmine, was codified in the Decretals as the canon, Si papa. It reads:

"Let no mortal have the presumption to accuse the Pope of fault, for, it being incumbent upon him to judge all, he should be judged by no one, unless he departs from the faith."

Which, of course, is the identical doctrine as was taught by Pope Urban VIII, in Unam Sanctam. We see in the quote from the sainted Thomist, Br. Vincent, two clear points relevant to present controversies:

1. Christians may and ought to "decide the legitimacy of popes" as circumstances demand, and
2. These determinations are to be made according to known laws.

Now let's see how he applied them in practice.

St. Vincent had often urged Benedict XIII to arrange a double resignation of himself and the Roman claimant, for the good of Holy Church, so that a single pope could be elected who would be accepted by all of Christendom. He presented this to Benedict as a sacrifice - the sacrifice of his true authority, his true office, for the greater good. However Peter de Luna, Benedict XIII, continued to frustrate all efforts at bringing this great event about.

In the mean time men had growth thoroughly disgusted with the Schism. It had lasted almost forty years, and circumstances were ripe for a solution to be found. The solution agreed upon was a council, to be held at Constance, which would receive the resignations of the (at that time) three papal claimants, or if necessary depose them, and select a new, universally acceptable pope.

In the lead up to the Council St. Vincent redoubled his efforts to convince Benedict to resign, but to no avail. Such was his fame, and his unequalled moral authority, that the entire world was expecting St. Vincent to bring about an end to the great Schism, and after weeks of penance, unceasing prayer, negotiations, threats, exhortations, more penance, more prayer, even more exhortation, threatening, and negotiation, the thaumaturg was at the end of his resources, with no sign of peace or unity. He declared that he would retire for a few days, and then he would give the solution to the crisis. The world held its breath.

When the great day arrived, St. Vincent was seated with an audience of churchmen, nobles, and Benedict himself, and he delivered the most astonishing address that one could imagine; he declared that whilst Benedict was the rightfully elected Roman Pontiff, his ill-will in refusing to sacrifice his rights for the good of the Church had made it clear that he was, in fact, a schismatic. And as a schismatic, he had forfeited his membership in Holy Church and with it his papal office. He was no longer pope. This epiphany was delivered on January 6, 1416, at Perpignan.

St. Vincent Ferrer was a practical and theoretical “sedevacantist,” who "judged" a pope (that is, judged the validity of the claim of a man to the papacy), and found him wanting, and then rejected him. He had never expressed any doubts about the legitimacy of Benedict's election. Nor had he considered his claim doubtful in any way. His case was quite clearly that Benedict lost his membership in Holy Church by schism, and thus forfeited his office. In other words, St. Vincent applied the principles of St. Thomas and of the Fathers; the same principles later presented by Bellarmine, with perfect, and perfectly clear, consistency.

The effect was stupendous. All but a couple of cardinals abandoned Benedict, and the schism was effectively ended. As Henri Ghéon put it, Martin V, elected subsequently by the Council of Constance, was "Br. Vincent's Pope." Martin V, in turn, recognising the divinely ordained means by which his office had been secured and the unity of Holy Church defended, wrote to the saint and offered him "anything he wanted." St. Vincent wanted, of course, nothing but Jesus Christ. Shortly afterwards he was perfectly united to Him in heaven.


More info in this thread: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... ?f=2&t=516

The bulk of Bishop Williamson's article appears to be in support of a view he has expressed many times before, which is that the Vatican II culprits are not heretics because, due to their intellectual distance from reality, they do not realise that their ideas conflict with Christian doctrine. More precisely, because they believe that contradictories can be true at the same time (i.e. they are crazy), they have lessened responsibility for their heretical beliefs, and are not true heretics. In this way he is addressing sedevacantism.

I wrote to him about this a few years ago: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... 6540#p6540

There's a streak of Gallicanism in the position Bishop Williamson presents. It sits behind his lack of interest in reconciling with "rome", informing and motivating it. Bishop Fellay has a much more Roman and therefore Catholic theological matrix. Williamson's a thinker without sufficiently sound principles; Fellay's a man with sounder principles who doesn't think as hard.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:43 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Bishop Williamson Expelled from the SSPX
I'm glad you brought up St. Vincent. I had remembered reading about him and also found it ironic that Bishop Williamson would bring him up in a supposed refutation of sedevacantism even though the Saint was, himself, a "sedevacantist" for a time (though, of course, the word was not yet coined). But I could not remember, for sure, where I had read it so I did not believe I could appropriately enter his case into evidence, so to speak. Thanks for doing so.

It is too bad that the bishops will not consider the evidence of St. Vincent.


Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:52 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.