FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: SSPX bombshell: Williamson is out
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
(06-26-2012, 04:27 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2012, 03:54 PM)SpiritusSanctus Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2012, 01:38 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2012, 01:00 PM)SpiritusSanctus Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2012, 12:00 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]Good riddance to that sedevacantist-leaning nut.

Stupidest post ever. Someone apparently thinks they're above a Traditional Catholic Bishop.

I'm pretty sure the hubris is on Bishop Williamson's part, who thinks himself above the Supreme Bishop (not to mention above his duly elected superior).

So following in the footsteps of Archbishop LeFebvre is something to look upon, then?

I wouldn't have done what Archbishop Lefebvre (requiescat in pace) did. I don't think it was the right thing to do, but I can see why he did it. He's sort of a Savonarola figure in that way.

So are you even an SSPXer? Just curious.
(06-26-2012, 08:40 PM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]Face up to a sad truth.

Clerics who give communion in the hand and do nothing to stop abuses don't really care.

Mostly true I'm afraid.
(06-26-2012, 09:16 PM)SpiritusSanctus Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2012, 04:27 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2012, 03:54 PM)SpiritusSanctus Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2012, 01:38 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2012, 01:00 PM)SpiritusSanctus Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2012, 12:00 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]Good riddance to that sedevacantist-leaning nut.

Stupidest post ever. Someone apparently thinks they're above a Traditional Catholic Bishop.

I'm pretty sure the hubris is on Bishop Williamson's part, who thinks himself above the Supreme Bishop (not to mention above his duly elected superior).

So following in the footsteps of Archbishop LeFebvre is something to look upon, then?

I wouldn't have done what Archbishop Lefebvre (requiescat in pace) did. I don't think it was the right thing to do, but I can see why he did it. He's sort of a Savonarola figure in that way.

So are you even an SSPXer? Just curious.

SS, a couple recent polls showed, iirc, that well over half of this forum attends NO or FSSP masses, and almost a third would not consider going to an SSPX mass.
Is Bishop Fellay abusing Canon Law? Cross posted from another forum, written by a priest:

Quote:Canon 1373 (new code):

Can. 1373 A person who publicly incites his or her subjects to hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical authority or ministry, or who provokes the subjects to disobedience against them, is to be punished by interdict or other just penalties.

Three problems with Bishop Fellay using this canon to impose a punishment against Bishop Williamson:

1. Bishop Williamson does not have subjects. He is not even a pastor in one of the SSPX chapels. No one is subject to his authority; rather, he is subject to Fr. Morgan and Bishop Fellay.

2. Bishop Williamson cannot be punished for inciting hatred or animosity against the Ordinary because Bishop Fellay is not his Ordinary.

3. Only an Ordinary can impose the punishment of interdiction. By doing so, Bishop Fellay gives the impression that he is setting up a parallel hierarchy, one that smacks of schism.

It seems to me that in obedience Bishop Williamson can be asked to absent himself from ordinations, but, as a voting member, cannot be blocked from the Chapter. At least he cannot be blocked using this canon. I would call this an abuse of the law and authority.
(06-27-2012, 12:46 PM)Graham Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2012, 09:16 PM)SpiritusSanctus Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2012, 04:27 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2012, 03:54 PM)SpiritusSanctus Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2012, 01:38 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2012, 01:00 PM)SpiritusSanctus Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2012, 12:00 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]Good riddance to that sedevacantist-leaning nut.

Stupidest post ever. Someone apparently thinks they're above a Traditional Catholic Bishop.

I'm pretty sure the hubris is on Bishop Williamson's part, who thinks himself above the Supreme Bishop (not to mention above his duly elected superior).

So following in the footsteps of Archbishop LeFebvre is something to look upon, then?

I wouldn't have done what Archbishop Lefebvre (requiescat in pace) did. I don't think it was the right thing to do, but I can see why he did it. He's sort of a Savonarola figure in that way.

So are you even an SSPXer? Just curious.

SS, a couple recent polls showed, iirc, that well over half of this forum attends NO or FSSP masses, and almost a third would not consider going to an SSPX mass.

Are you talking about this poll?  http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...=3450767.0

I'm not sure if you can quite conclude what you've said from that poll.  That poll shows that almost 29% of users (who voted) do not attend SSPX due to their "status."  A number that definitely surprised me.  7% of users (who voted) said that they do not and would not attend the sspx, but that option was written with sedes in mind.  I don't think there are many, if any users here who prefer the NO over the TLM.  Maybe like one user. 

There are many people who attend FSSP or an SP mass simply because they can't get to the sspx or another chapel.  I attend sspx whenever I can but would not consider myself an "sspx'er" mainly because I'm not able to go every Sunday-- although it would be my desire to.

That being said, I still think it's too high a number of users on a traditional catholic site that won't attend the sspx due to status.  But on the other hand, most people who weren't raised in the sspx went through a time like that.  Most people who see the problems in the Church will invariably end up having no qualms about attending the sspx.  Sometimes it takes some time to get to that point, though.
Yup.
(06-27-2012, 04:09 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Are you talking about this poll?  http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...=3450767.0

I'm not sure if you can quite conclude what you've said from that poll.  That poll shows that almost 29% of users (who voted) do not attend SSPX due to their "status."  A number that definitely surprised me.  7% of users (who voted) said that they do not and would not attend the sspx, but that option was written with sedes in mind.  I don't think there are many, if any users here who prefer the NO over the TLM.  Maybe like one user. 

There are many people who attend FSSP or an SP mass simply because they can't get to the sspx or another chapel.  I attend sspx whenever I can but would not consider myself an "sspx'er" mainly because I'm not able to go every Sunday-- although it would be my desire to.

That being said, I still think it's too high a number of users on a traditional catholic site that won't attend the sspx due to status.  But on the other hand, most people who weren't raised in the sspx went through a time like that.  Most people who see the problems in the Church will invariably end up having no qualms about attending the sspx.  Sometimes it takes some time to get to that point, though.

But I first started attending the TLM at SSPX.  Did so for 14 years.  During that time I came disenchanted with it.  Actually, the way it is ran at parishes and schools, it gave me some real angry fits.  So I prayed to God and asked him for a Diocesan TLM only parish.  A few years later after I started praying for it, it happened.  The FSSP opened a TLM only parish, and it has been like heaven ever since.  My anger is gone at how the parish is ran.

Now I think the opposite from you.  I will only go to the SSPX chapel if no other TLM in the area is offered since SSPX's parishes are far from ideal, and do not have jurisdiction so marriages and confessions are questionable.  Honestly, you do not need to get married to save your soul.  With MP out, there is are more parishes offering the TLM, but in some areas SSPX is the only option.

I've lived and traveled all over the world.  The SSPX is good in places and right wacko in other places.
(06-27-2012, 06:42 PM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]I've lived and traveled all over the world.  The SSPX is good in places and right wacko in other places.

True, and things change back and forth over time.  A lot depends on  the priest or priests serving it and what their skills are.  The chapel I went to regularly for 9 years was running like a well-oiled machine and a new priest came in and his efforts to "tighten things up" resulted in chaos erupting.  Seemed like he was an excellent priest when he would give a good sermon but he was a horror in the confessional.  I think he suffered from fastidiousness to the point of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.  Needless to say, arguments broke out and he put a few nice splits into what up to that point had been an excellent oasis of Catholicism.  There seems to be some drama everywhere there is a TLM for some reason.  I guess it's the Devil trying to ruin it for everyone.
(06-27-2012, 07:31 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-27-2012, 06:42 PM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]I've lived and traveled all over the world.  The SSPX is good in places and right wacko in other places.

True, and things change back and forth over time.  A lot depends on  the priest or priests serving it and what their skills are.  The chapel I went to regularly for 9 years was running like a well-oiled machine and a new priest came in and his efforts to "tighten things up" resulted in chaos erupting.  Seemed like he was an excellent priest when he would give a good sermon but he was a horror in the confessional.  I think he suffered from fastidiousness to the point of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.  Needless to say, arguments broke out and he put a few nice splits into what up to that point had been an excellent oasis of Catholicism.  There seems to be some drama everywhere there is a TLM for some reason.  I guess it's the Devil trying to ruin it for everyone.

Happens just about everywhere. Your closing conclusion is closer to the truth than many want to believe!
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11