FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Bp. Williamson's Oct. 19, '12, open letter to Bp. Fellay, "On an 'Exclusion'"
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 12 13
(10-27-2012, 06:54 AM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]These are sad days for the Society.  Most of our opinions are based upon presumptions at this point but what is definitely clear is that the Society has lost a great defender of the Catholic faith, whether by his fault or not.

I hope that we can all keep Bishop Williamson and Bishop Fellay, as well as the entire Society, in our prayers.  May God use this disunity and scandal to save souls and to right His Church.

I'm in agreement with Walty here, these are trying times for the Society and our prayers are sorely needed.
Looks like with the exclusion of Bishop Williamson, the Rome-SSPX talks will be heating up again.

Quote:VATICAN CITY,  (VIS) - The following English-language declaration was issued this morning by the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei".
Saturday, October 27, 2012

Declaration of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei"

  The Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" takes this occasion to announce that, in its most recent official communication (6 September 2012), the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X has indicated that additional time for reflection and study is needed on their part as they prepare their response to the Holy See’s latest initiatives.

    The current stage in the ongoing discussions between the Holy See and the Priestly Fraternity follows three years of doctrinal and theological dialogues during which a joint commission met eight times to study and discuss, among other matters, some disputed issues in the interpretation of certain documents of Vatican Council II. Once these doctrinal dialogues were concluded, it became possible to proceed to a phase of discussion more directly focused on the greatly desired reconciliation of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X with the See of Peter.

    Other critical steps in this positive process of gradual reintegration had already been taken by the Holy See in 2007 with the extension of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite to the Universal Church by the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum and in 2009 with the lifting of the excommunications. Just a few months ago, a culminating point along this difficult path was reached when, on 13 June 2012, the Pontifical Commission presented to the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X a doctrinal declaration together with a proposal for the canonical normalization of its status within the Catholic Church.

    At the present time, the Holy See is awaiting the official response of the superiors of the Priestly Fraternity to these two documents. After thirty years of separation, it is understandable that time is needed to absorb the significance of these recent developments. As Our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI seeks to foster and preserve the unity of the Church by realizing the long hoped-for reconciliation of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X with the See of Peter – a dramatic manifestation of the munus Petrinum in action – patience, serenity, perseverance and trust are needed.

Source:  http://visnews-en.blogspot.com/2012/10/d...ssion.html
I want whatever Adeodatus and Scriptorium are smoking.
(10-27-2012, 08:07 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]I want whatever Adeodatus and Scriptorium are smoking.

:LOL:


(10-27-2012, 04:22 PM)Adeodatus01 Wrote: [ -> ]I agree.  I think that this is a golden opportunity for the SSPX to get in practically on the "ground floor", so to speak, of the hermeneutic of continuity.  The Liberals are discredited.  The LCWR is in trouble.  The Pope has denounced the hermeneutic of rupture, the abuses, and the "cult of the banal".  Now is the time for the cavalry to show up... the SSPX and the FSSP and other traditional, orthodox Catholics need to lead the charge on the authentic reading of the Second Vatican Council documents.  If Traditionalists can wrest control of the narrative from the (currently routing) Liberals, the battle is ours.

I don't mean to argue, but the Holy Father could have easily done this by himself (e.g., compose a syllabus) at any point during the past seven years, especially given his intimate knowledge of Vatican II, but he's chosen not to... He also could have disposed of liberal bishops and replaced them with younger, traditional priests, but it doesn't seem he's done much of that, either...
(10-27-2012, 08:24 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-27-2012, 04:22 PM)Adeodatus01 Wrote: [ -> ]I agree.  I think that this is a golden opportunity for the SSPX to get in practically on the "ground floor", so to speak, of the hermeneutic of continuity.  The Liberals are discredited.  The LCWR is in trouble.  The Pope has denounced the hermeneutic of rupture, the abuses, and the "cult of the banal".  Now is the time for the cavalry to show up... the SSPX and the FSSP and other traditional, orthodox Catholics need to lead the charge on the authentic reading of the Second Vatican Council documents.  If Traditionalists can wrest control of the narrative from the (currently routing) Liberals, the battle is ours.

I don't mean to argue, but the Holy Father could have easily done this by himself (e.g., compose a syllabus) at any point during the past seven years, especially given his intimate knowledge of Vatican II, but he's chosen not to... He also could have disposed of liberal bishops and replaced them with younger, traditional priests, but it doesn't seem he's done much of that, either...

I think it's a fair point but you must admit it's a bit of armchair quarterbacking. Military history is a hobby of mine and a lot of times things look simpler until you learn more about the complexities. Often a given protagonist doesn't have the resources, doesn't have the time, doesn't have the manpower, doesn't have the "flexibility" (inasmuch as sometimes seizing one opportunity costs you the ability to seize a different opportunity). Often external influences totally stymie an otherwise golden opportunity.

For example, in Vietnam after Tet the VC were pretty much spent as a military force. And maybe you see that and understand that pacification as a military strategy has a chance to yield real political and operational fruit. I mean, you can deal with the NVA, especially if you start sending your BuFFs "over the fence" to light up the Trail. The problem is, Walter Fucking Cronkite doesn't see it that way. W.F. Cronkite says you're losing the war. It doesn't matter that you're stacking up Communists like cord wood. It doesn't matter that they've gone too far in places like Hue and their popularity is at a low ebb. W.F. Cronkite says you're losing, and now America thinks you're losing. So you can kiss those reinforcements and that funding goodbye. They're going to be taking troops away. The war's over, even though you just won a huge victory. The enemy gambled big and threw Snakes. But Cronkite misread the dice and said they threw Lucky 7. So you lose the whole schmear.

So it's not simple. And even that example is a gross oversimplification. The point is: with anything important, there are always lots and lots of factors and most people don't even see most of them, let alone all of them. So I'm disinclined to second guess an executive's action. That's not to say that people don't make mistakes. Fruitcake Hitler sending panzer divisions around on wild goose chases during Barbarossa so that Typhoon starts too late in the year and the Germans lose the whole ballgame right there. Obvious mistake. And it's also obviously true that sometimes people just act out of plain malice and/or insanity (see again Hitler or any random Communist). But often the situation is very complicated!

So can the Pope really just sack all the liberal bishops? How many would that be, exactly? How many schisms would that entail, how many whole countries lost to the Church? What is the dollar amount of property and assets that this would cause to be lost? I'm not particularly in favor of compromises but we're talking about the only institution to survive the fall of the Roman Empire here... a 2000 year old institution. The executive is morally required to take the long view, it seems to me.

I like to think that if I somehow blundered my way into the Papacy, my first acts would be to abolish CitH, altarettes, versus populum and EMHCs. I'd declare V2 a "closed council" and suspend all its initiatives pending review. Anybody who disobeyed would be anathematized. That's what I'd want to do. But could I? How many fruits of the sacrifices of poor Catholics would be lost, how many charitable institutions would collapse, how many good works would be scattered because of that forceful action? It would be insane to think that there would be no cost. There would be a very high cost indeed. Myself, I tend to favor bold strokes (in my opinion, history has borne out the wisdom of this). However, not everyone is in agreement about that or cut out for it. How many Julius Caesars or Pattons have there been?

If the Pope has acted as he has thus far, then even if it is a mistake I think he must have had good reasons. Without that sort of attitude you'll never have a nuanced reading of things!

If we want the Pope to take bold measures (and I find SP and UE to be rather powerful), then we must according to subsidiarity act to improve the conditions for HH to do so. He has to have the support of the faithful and the clergy at all levels. This takes time. But I think that there are opportunities. The Year of Faith is just such an opportunity. So there are to be reading and discussion groups on the V2 documents. These probably exist in your diocese. Who is leading them? Is it you? This is what I'm talking about: the Pope has already said that the old narrative (the Liberal party's version) of V2 is wrong. Well, who is spearheading the propagation of the right one? If it's not Trads then shame on us.
So, what the Holy Father has in theory ("full power to feed, rule and guide the universal Church") he does not have in practice?

Pope St. Pius X wrote that Modernism "is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church," and yet he was able to take numerous steps to curb it (e.g., Lamentabili Sane Exitu, Doctoris Angelici, Praestantia Scripturae, PBC decisions, Sacrorum Antistitum).  Realistically, couldn't the Holy Father do more than is currently being done?

And letting the liberal -- heretical -- bishops retain their sees, what will this do for the souls entrusted to their care?  What about them?  Or are the faithful of each diocese so committed to their bishops that they'd go anywhere with them, even so far as to separate from Rome?  If the Pontiffs continually take only small steps so as to avoid a possible schism with dissident bishops, then Vatican I will almost certainly become a dead letter.  Sooner or later, it would seem that push will come to shove.
(10-27-2012, 01:12 PM)Magdalene Wrote: [ -> ]Meanwhilel, there is renewed attention given to the full reunification of the SSPX with Rome.  THIS needs to happen!  We must all cling to each other and strengthen the remnant.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/10/declarati...scussions/

Why does "THIS" need to happen?  Is the crisis in the Church over and no one has been informed?  Are all of these celebrations going on in the "Year of Faith" about the penny dropping on Vatican II and we're finally free of it?  
(10-27-2012, 09:18 PM)Adeodatus01 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-27-2012, 08:24 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-27-2012, 04:22 PM)Adeodatus01 Wrote: [ -> ]I agree.  I think that this is a golden opportunity for the SSPX to get in practically on the "ground floor", so to speak, of the hermeneutic of continuity.  The Liberals are discredited.  The LCWR is in trouble.  The Pope has denounced the hermeneutic of rupture, the abuses, and the "cult of the banal".  Now is the time for the cavalry to show up... the SSPX and the FSSP and other traditional, orthodox Catholics need to lead the charge on the authentic reading of the Second Vatican Council documents.  If Traditionalists can wrest control of the narrative from the (currently routing) Liberals, the battle is ours.

I don't mean to argue, but the Holy Father could have easily done this by himself (e.g., compose a syllabus) at any point during the past seven years, especially given his intimate knowledge of Vatican II, but he's chosen not to... He also could have disposed of liberal bishops and replaced them with younger, traditional priests, but it doesn't seem he's done much of that, either...

I think it's a fair point but you must admit it's a bit of armchair quarterbacking. Military history is a hobby of mine and a lot of times things look simpler until you learn more about the complexities. Often a given protagonist doesn't have the resources, doesn't have the time, doesn't have the manpower, doesn't have the "flexibility" (inasmuch as sometimes seizing one opportunity costs you the ability to seize a different opportunity). Often external influences totally stymie an otherwise golden opportunity.

For example, in Vietnam after Tet the VC were pretty much spent as a military force. And maybe you see that and understand that pacification as a military strategy has a chance to yield real political and operational fruit. I mean, you can deal with the NVA, especially if you start sending your BuFFs "over the fence" to light up the Trail. The problem is, Walter f***ing Cronkite doesn't see it that way. W.F. Cronkite says you're losing the war. It doesn't matter that you're stacking up Communists like cord wood. It doesn't matter that they've gone too far in places like Hue and their popularity is at a low ebb. W.F. Cronkite says you're losing, and now America thinks you're losing. So you can kiss those reinforcements and that funding goodbye. They're going to be taking troops away. The war's over, even though you just won a huge victory. The enemy gambled big and threw Snakes. But Cronkite misread the dice and said they threw Lucky 7. So you lose the whole schmear.

So it's not simple. And even that example is a gross oversimplification. The point is: with anything important, there are always lots and lots of factors and most people don't even see most of them, let alone all of them. So I'm disinclined to second guess an executive's action. That's not to say that people don't make mistakes. Fruitcake Hitler sending panzer divisions around on wild goose chases during Barbarossa so that Typhoon starts too late in the year and the Germans lose the whole ballgame right there. Obvious mistake. And it's also obviously true that sometimes people just act out of plain malice and/or insanity (see again Hitler or any random Communist). But often the situation is very complicated!

So can the Pope really just sack all the liberal bishops? How many would that be, exactly? How many schisms would that entail, how many whole countries lost to the Church? What is the dollar amount of property and assets that this would cause to be lost? I'm not particularly in favor of compromises but we're talking about the only institution to survive the fall of the Roman Empire here... a 2000 year old institution. The executive is morally required to take the long view, it seems to me.

I like to think that if I somehow blundered my way into the Papacy, my first acts would be to abolish CitH, altarettes, versus populum and EMHCs. I'd declare V2 a "closed council" and suspend all its initiatives pending review. Anybody who disobeyed would be anathematized. That's what I'd want to do. But could I? How many fruits of the sacrifices of poor Catholics would be lost, how many charitable institutions would collapse, how many good works would be scattered because of that forceful action? It would be insane to think that there would be no cost. There would be a very high cost indeed. Myself, I tend to favor bold strokes (in my opinion, history has borne out the wisdom of this). However, not everyone is in agreement about that or cut out for it. How many Julius Caesars or Pattons have there been?

If the Pope has acted as he has thus far, then even if it is a mistake I think he must have had good reasons. Without that sort of attitude you'll never have a nuanced reading of things!

If we want the Pope to take bold measures (and I find SP and UE to be rather powerful), then we must according to subsidiarity act to improve the conditions for HH to do so. He has to have the support of the faithful and the clergy at all levels. This takes time. But I think that there are opportunities. The Year of Faith is just such an opportunity. So there are to be reading and discussion groups on the V2 documents. These probably exist in your diocese. Who is leading them? Is it you? This is what I'm talking about: the Pope has already said that the old narrative (the Liberal party's version) of V2 is wrong. Well, who is spearheading the propagation of the right one? If it's not Trads then shame on us.

Those are just recycled JPII excuses.  You're advocating the "lead from behind" strategy.  We have to make conditions for the Pope suitable for him to take "bold" steps.  C'mon.  That's putting a show on, not leading. 

The best things the current Holy Father ever said were said before he became Pope.  And they weren't even that bold.  (the Church has a lot of filth in it)  If he'd focused on doing something substantial in the manner of condemning errors, he would have some credibility.  Chopping off a few heads of the most agregious bishops would have done wonders to set an example and give the rest of the bishops opportunity to straighten up and fly right. 

But the harshest things this Pope has ever said are about traditionalists and he said them in the context of dealing with his bruised ego.  (the SSPX has to stop calling him names.  He's shocked that when he's nice to the SSPX the rest of the world calls him names "even the Pope" and trade are an awful bunch of arrogant creeps but he's gotten a few compliments from some of them so, they can't be all that bad.) 

This papacy is more and more looking like an ego trip than a shepherd leading the flock towards Heaven. 

Don't write a Syllabus of Errors of Vatican II, write over 700 pages of non-Magisterial novel musings in "Jesus of Nazareth" that just create more controversy and confusion.  At least a Syllabus would be controversial for the right reasons: correcting error. 

No.  People with a real desire to do something, find a way to do it.  He's wanted to do his "thing" and he doesn't want Vatican II "corrected" he wants traditional resistance to it squelched. 

(10-27-2012, 09:18 PM)Adeodatus01 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-27-2012, 08:24 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-27-2012, 04:22 PM)Adeodatus01 Wrote: [ -> ]I agree.  I think that this is a golden opportunity for the SSPX to get in practically on the "ground floor", so to speak, of the hermeneutic of continuity.  The Liberals are discredited.  The LCWR is in trouble.  The Pope has denounced the hermeneutic of rupture, the abuses, and the "cult of the banal".  Now is the time for the cavalry to show up... the SSPX and the FSSP and other traditional, orthodox Catholics need to lead the charge on the authentic reading of the Second Vatican Council documents.  If Traditionalists can wrest control of the narrative from the (currently routing) Liberals, the battle is ours.

I don't mean to argue, but the Holy Father could have easily done this by himself (e.g., compose a syllabus) at any point during the past seven years, especially given his intimate knowledge of Vatican II, but he's chosen not to... He also could have disposed of liberal bishops and replaced them with younger, traditional priests, but it doesn't seem he's done much of that, either...

Excellent post, Adeodatus. I too like Bold and decisive actions, I pray our next Pope will be in the mold of a Patton.

I think it's a fair point but you must admit it's a bit of armchair quarterbacking. Military history is a hobby of mine and a lot of times things look simpler until you learn more about the complexities. Often a given protagonist doesn't have the resources, doesn't have the time, doesn't have the manpower, doesn't have the "flexibility" (inasmuch as sometimes seizing one opportunity costs you the ability to seize a different opportunity). Often external influences totally stymie an otherwise golden opportunity.

For example, in Vietnam after Tet the VC were pretty much spent as a military force. And maybe you see that and understand that pacification as a military strategy has a chance to yield real political and operational fruit. I mean, you can deal with the NVA, especially if you start sending your BuFFs "over the fence" to light up the Trail. The problem is, Walter f***ing Cronkite doesn't see it that way. W.F. Cronkite says you're losing the war. It doesn't matter that you're stacking up Communists like cord wood. It doesn't matter that they've gone too far in places like Hue and their popularity is at a low ebb. W.F. Cronkite says you're losing, and now America thinks you're losing. So you can kiss those reinforcements and that funding goodbye. They're going to be taking troops away. The war's over, even though you just won a huge victory. The enemy gambled big and threw Snakes. But Cronkite misread the dice and said they threw Lucky 7. So you lose the whole schmear.

So it's not simple. And even that example is a gross oversimplification. The point is: with anything important, there are always lots and lots of factors and most people don't even see most of them, let alone all of them. So I'm disinclined to second guess an executive's action. That's not to say that people don't make mistakes. Fruitcake Hitler sending panzer divisions around on wild goose chases during Barbarossa so that Typhoon starts too late in the year and the Germans lose the whole ballgame right there. Obvious mistake. And it's also obviously true that sometimes people just act out of plain malice and/or insanity (see again Hitler or any random Communist). But often the situation is very complicated!

So can the Pope really just sack all the liberal bishops? How many would that be, exactly? How many schisms would that entail, how many whole countries lost to the Church? What is the dollar amount of property and assets that this would cause to be lost? I'm not particularly in favor of compromises but we're talking about the only institution to survive the fall of the Roman Empire here... a 2000 year old institution. The executive is morally required to take the long view, it seems to me.

I like to think that if I somehow blundered my way into the Papacy, my first acts would be to abolish CitH, altarettes, versus populum and EMHCs. I'd declare V2 a "closed council" and suspend all its initiatives pending review. Anybody who disobeyed would be anathematized. That's what I'd want to do. But could I? How many fruits of the sacrifices of poor Catholics would be lost, how many charitable institutions would collapse, how many good works would be scattered because of that forceful action? It would be insane to think that there would be no cost. There would be a very high cost indeed. Myself, I tend to favor bold strokes (in my opinion, history has borne out the wisdom of this). However, not everyone is in agreement about that or cut out for it. How many Julius Caesars or Pattons have there been?

If the Pope has acted as he has thus far, then even if it is a mistake I think he must have had good reasons. Without that sort of attitude you'll never have a nuanced reading of things!

If we want the Pope to take bold measures (and I find SP and UE to be rather powerful), then we must according to subsidiarity act to improve the conditions for HH to do so. He has to have the support of the faithful and the clergy at all levels. This takes time. But I think that there are opportunities. The Year of Faith is just such an opportunity. So there are to be reading and discussion groups on the V2 documents. These probably exist in your diocese. Who is leading them? Is it you? This is what I'm talking about: the Pope has already said that the old narrative (the Liberal party's version) of V2 is wrong. Well, who is spearheading the propagation of the right one? If it's not Trads then shame on us.

Excellent post, Adeodatus. I too like Bold and decisive actions, I pray our next Pope will be in the mold of a Patton.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13