FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Bishop Williamson: Now where?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
NOW  WHERE ?

If, as seems to be the case, the doctrinal discussions over the last year and a half between Rome and the SSPX have persuaded neither Rome to convert nor the SSPX to betray, then the question arises, where do we go from here ?  Surely the crisis of Vatican II proved if anything the need for Catholics to do some thinking for themselves on such a question, and not just follow their leaders blindly - are not millions of Catholics still being softly led into apostasy ?  That is why to the bishops of the SSPX a fighting Gaul puts a threefold question, surely serious enough to deserve an answer (his questions are abbreviated and adapted) :--

In your opinion, does the recent announcement of Assisi III, solemn commemoration of John-Paul II's ecumenical encounter of various religions held in Assisi 25 years ago, add anything new to what we already know of the ecumenical course being followed by Benedict XVI ?     

Answer : It is one more proof that the Church leadership in Rome is intent upon persevering along the disastrous path of giving official Catholic approval to all sorts of false religions. "I do not think we can say," Archbishop Lefebvre once said, "that Rome has not lost the Faith."

In your opinion, does this announcement prove or disprove the opportuneness of doctrinal discussions being undertaken between the SSPX and Rome ?   Answer : It surely proves the opportuneness of their coming to an end. While they were going on, they did have collateral advantages, well enumerated by Bishop de Galarreta (see EC 156, July 10, 2010). However, their mere taking place at all also had the disadvantage of creating in souls either false hopes or true fears of a pseudo-reconciliation between doctrinal positions which are, in reality, absolutely irreconcilable. The announcement of Assisi III has helped to put an end to such hopes and fears, at least for the moment - but dreamers cling to their dreams !

Just as Assisi I was a major incentive for Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrate four bishops in 1988, should the announcement of Assisi III be encouraging the SSPX to consecrate more bishops ?   Answer : The SSPX's Superior General answered this question two months ago in the USA. He said that if the circumstances of 1988 which drove the Archbishop to consecrate were repeated, then there would be more bishops. The question then becomes: are the circumstances of Assisi III repeating those of Assisi I ?  One can only reply, opinions vary. Many serious Catholics think the circumstances have grown much worse, but that is not necessarily the opinion of Bishop Fellay, who as Superior General is responsible for such a major decision for the SSPX.

Then back to our original question: where now for the SSPX ?  The answer is clear. It must continue along the path set for it by its Founder, namely firm resistance to the (at least objective) apostates in Rome, making known as widely as possible the Archbishop's diagnosis of the otherwise insoluble problems of Church and world. His solution is simply to maintain Catholic life in accordance with the pre-Conciliar Catholic doctrine and morals of all time, for the greater glory of God and for the salvation of as many souls as possible.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                  Kyrie eleison.

(04-02-2011, 11:06 AM)Petertherock Wrote: [ -> ]Just as Assisi I was a major incentive for Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrate four bishops in 1988, should the announcement of Assisi III be encouraging the SSPX to consecrate more bishops ?   Answer : The SSPX's Superior General answered this question two months ago in the USA. He said that if the circumstances of 1988 which drove the Archbishop to consecrate were repeated, then there would be more bishops. The question then becomes: are the circumstances of Assisi III repeating those of Assisi I ?  One can only reply, opinions vary. Many serious Catholics think the circumstances have grown much worse, but that is not necessarily the opinion of Bishop Fellay, who as Superior General is responsible for such a major decision for the SSPX.

Then back to our original question: where now for the SSPX ?  The answer is clear. It must continue along the path set for it by its Founder, namely firm resistance to the (at least objective) apostates in Rome, making known as widely as possible the Archbishop's diagnosis of the otherwise insoluble problems of Church and world. His solution is simply to maintain Catholic life in accordance with the pre-Conciliar Catholic doctrine and morals of all time, for the greater glory of God and for the salvation of as many souls as possible.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                  Kyrie eleison.
I really dont mean this offensively so please no one take as such and I ask this innocently, but dose anyone think the SSPX might one day, say when new bishops or made to replace the current ones in the far future should the "lack of full communion" continue,  claim jurisdiction for themselves and take Sees? 

While of course SSPX is not sedevacantist, I have always wondered why the sedes (sry to bring them up) never did so themselves, like how the Greek Old Calendarists did or the Russian preisted Old Believers did....
(04-02-2011, 12:46 PM)Scythian Wrote: [ -> ] I really dont mean this offensively so please no one take as such and I ask this innocently, but dose anyone think the SSPX might one day, say when new bishops or made to replace the current ones in the far future should the "lack of full communion" continue,  claim jurisdiction for themselves and take Sees? 

While of course SSPX is not sedevacantist, I have always wondered why the sedes (sry to bring them up) never did so themselves, like how the Greek Old Calendarists did or the Russian preisted Old Believers did....

I don't think the Novus Ordo system would hold out as long as the SSPX or whatever springs out of the SSPX can.  There would have to be something catastrophic happening to Rome like a terrorist attack or a natural calamity  and the SSPX would have to basically the only ones left to send a bishop to claim the see at Rome. 

I can't imagine a clean scenario by which they could logically and irrefutably "take over" with real jurisdiction. 
(04-02-2011, 11:06 AM)Petertherock Wrote: [ -> ]Then back to our original question: where now for the SSPX ?  The answer is clear. It must continue along the path set for it by its Founder, namely firm resistance to the (at least objective) apostates in Rome, making known as widely as possible the Archbishop's diagnosis of the otherwise insoluble problems of Church and world.

Good to see this.  Especially in light of a rumor I heard just recently about someone trying keep the Archbishop's sermons from being quoted freely, a rumor which I hope is not true. 
If memory serves Fr Malachi Martin said everything would be Ironed out before 2020...
(04-02-2011, 01:10 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-02-2011, 12:46 PM)Scythian Wrote: [ -> ] I really dont mean this offensively so please no one take as such and I ask this innocently, but dose anyone think the SSPX might one day, say when new bishops or made to replace the current ones in the far future should the "lack of full communion" continue,  claim jurisdiction for themselves and take Sees? 

While of course SSPX is not sedevacantist, I have always wondered why the sedes (sry to bring them up) never did so themselves, like how the Greek Old Calendarists did or the Russian preisted Old Believers did....

I don't think the Novus Ordo system would hold out as long as the SSPX or whatever springs out of the SSPX can.  There would have to be something catastrophic happening to Rome like a terrorist attack or a natural calamity  and the SSPX would have to basically the only ones left to send a bishop to claim the see at Rome. 

I can't imagine a clean scenario by which they could logically and irrefutably "take over" with real jurisdiction. 

It would seem that, some day, a full normalization would have to include the SSPX Bishops either becoming ordinaries somewhere or becoming auxiliaries with titular sees.  This would have to be decided by the Holy Father.
...Then back to our original question: where now for the SSPX ?  The answer is clear. It must continue along the path set for it by its Founder...

Have your pope and disobey him too! Sounds like a plan.  Huh?
(04-02-2011, 10:33 PM)OldMan Wrote: [ -> ]...Then back to our original question: where now for the SSPX ?  The answer is clear. It must continue along the path set for it by its Founder...

Have your pope and disobey him too! Sounds like a plan.  Huh?

Well..we have a Pope that on one hand says that history has proven that some ecumenical councils have proved to be a waste of time and on the other says that the current ecumenical policy is irreversible.  So, as long as the Popes continue to pass off bad policy as if it is dogma, legitimate disobedience and resistance will be the order of the day.

When Rome takes care of the liberals (by "care" I mean driving them out or converting them) and condemns their errors, the SSPX will cease to be a problem. 
I believe it was Bishop Williamson who said that Pope Benedict has a diseased mind, and that the disease was Hegel.

I am now in complete agreement after reading the CFN article by John Venari (spelling) on the recent flap over Jews, which went over the MANY flaps.

This Pope is not the reformist Pope.  And I now STRONGLY doubt that he is the martyred Pope of the Fatima vision, whose blood is used to strengthen the Faithful.  No, he is old.  He has no momentum.  And he has a diseased mind.

So getting back to the topic of this thread, nothing is going to happen until we get a new Pope.  I personally believe he will be the reformist Pope.  The SSPX will just have to be patient for the next Pope.
Yes, the Pope who makes media faux pas (homosexuals and condoms) and convenes a new Assisi is a Pope we should all obey.

Why can't he just be Catholic?  Why can't he follow the faith he became a priest in, and not this new order which has imposed itself on Catholicism worldwide.

What changed in the last 40 years that we need a new Mass, a new Catechism, a new Council, and a new EVERYTHING that didn't apply in the prior 1900 years?
Pages: 1 2