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
(10-26-2012, 04:10 PM)Might_4_Right Wrote: [ -> ]Please pray for the afflicted Superior General and pray also for the excluded one, that he may realize his wrong track and return back in the father's house.

Yes, prayers. This is not the end of the story, and perhaps, with the Faith as our base, this will turn out to be only a sad chapter, in what may become a final glorious outcome.

:pray:
(10-26-2012, 10:59 AM)JoniCath Wrote: [ -> ]He claims that Jews and Freemasons have contributed to the "changes and corruption" in the Catholic Church.
He is currently the only bishop to uphold Pope Leo XIII's command (Humanum Genus §31):
Quote:[b]We wish it to be your [i.e., the bishops'] rule first of all to tear away the mask from Freemasonry, and to let it be seen as it really is; and by sermons and pastoral letters to instruct the people as to the artifices used by societies of this kind in seducing men and enticing them into their ranks, and as to the depravity of their opinions and the wickedness of their acts.
(10-26-2012, 04:31 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-26-2012, 03:07 PM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]
Bishop Williamson Wrote: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.

Bishop Williamson's argument is a straw man fallacy.  There was no agreement with Rome, therefore there is no such thing as the "conciliatory Society."  And Archbishop Lefebvre met with Vatican authorities, just like Bishop Fellay has done.  So Bishop Williamson's justification for disobedience is based on his own imagination, rather than REALITY. 

Nonsense, the SSPX went into a "cleansing" mode as soon as the excomms were "lifted."  Articles offensive to some liberal anti-Catholic Jews were removed from the website (a stupid move making it look as if the SSPX was guilty of something when they were not.)  The ruthless tossing out of priests for not agreeing with secular authorities views on the "holocaust." 

The interviews by Fellay and his toadies never stopping to rake Bishop W over the coals, to spread rumors that he was dying, the persecution of him no matter what he did, to always find another phoney complaint.  Heiner's the problem, Wansbutter is the problem, the column is too public, the column itself needs to be closed. 

Nonsense.   It was a witch hunt based on nothing more than the cold water that Williamson splashed on Fellay regarding the insanity of capitulating to the loonies of the secular world and the Novus Ordo part of the Church. 

But Bishop Williamson was not expelled for his views on the Holocaust, Jews, conspiracy theories and all the other nonsense despite ample opportunity.  In the end, Bishop Williamson broke the SSPX's statutes with his confirmations in Brazil and really went independent on his own. 

You criticize the same Bishop Fellay who expelled senior priests like Fr. Aulagnier and Fr. Laguerie, and officially rebuked turncoats like Bishop Rifan and Fr. Sim for their capitulating to Conciliarist Rome. 

The fact is, the SSPX has always followed the same philosophy: walk the line between schism on one hand, and unnecessarily subjecting themselves to Novus Ordo bishops on the other.  You just happen to fall into the schismatic camp with a bunch of naysayers of late, but the SSPX will continue its mission. 
(10-26-2012, 06:15 PM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]But Bishop Williamson was not expelled for his views on the Holocaust, Jews, conspiracy theories and all the other nonsense despite ample opportunity. 

He wasn't expelled for any reason other than the changing of Bishop Fellay. 

Quote:  In the end, Bishop Williamson broke the SSPX's statutes with his confirmations in Brazil and really went independent on his own. 

That's the same myopic argument made by those that blame LeFebvre for his actions instead of viewing them as reactions. 

Quote: You criticize the same Bishop Fellay who expelled senior priests like Fr. Aulagnier and Fr. Laguerie, and officially rebuked turncoats like Bishop Rifan and Fr. Sim for their capitulating to Conciliarist Rome. 

Yep.  There's an amazing irony to the fact that Fellay was so intransigent with those priests but when he adopts their position, he can't tolerate the resistance.  Instead of trying to change the SSPX to suit his new attitude, he should have done like they did and joined the traditional zoo in the organizational structure and been slowly fed Vatican II and enjoyed his museum piece view of traditionalism. 

Quote:  The fact is, the SSPX has always followed the same philosophy: walk the line between schism on one hand, and unnecessarily subjecting themselves to Novus Ordo bishops on the other. 

Yet Fellay was the one calling for a "new way" of thinking.  Fellay was the flip flopper, the phoney, the one poo-poohing anyone who told him not to trust Rome and then was blaming others for his having been deceived.  And I personally knew from what an SSPX confided in me that Fellay did not want to continue the SSPX as is, because he was frustrated with slow and or no significant growth. 

Quote: You just happen to fall into the schismatic camp with a bunch of naysayers of late, but the SSPX will continue its mission. 

Maybe it will right itself, but Fellay and his minions have been the problem, not Williamson.  Fellay displayed weakness before the secular world, he set traditionalism back significantly.  Had he just let Williamson do his own fighting for himself and remained strong as any other good SSPX priest he would have gained the grudging respect of the world and the Church's enemies would know they have a significant and insurmountable problem.  Heck the Pope might have gotten some backbone instead of groveling and lying about Williamson and apologizing to the Church's enemies.
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.
In very early 2009, an American gentleman, appalled by Bp Fellay's manipulation of the Holy Rosary to get the SSPX into Newrome, started his own Rosary Crusade to oust Bp Fellay. He appealed to Bishop Williamson for a leadership role. The Bishop's reply is published below.


Mon, 16/2/09
To Everyone,


The requested letter from Bishop Williamson is below. I did request and obtain his permission to send it to everyone:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"No, no, a thousand times no", in the words of the old song.  Given the power in today's world of certain people, the game must be played to a certain extent according to their rules. I blame no colleague or Superior for trying to salvage a viable future for the SSPX as a whole from the wreckage caused by a few ill-chosen words on Swedish TV. I am not saying those words were or are untrue. I am only saying that I cannot go along with any repudiation of the present SSPX leadership.

I might go along with it if they were to try to cut a bad deal with Rome, but here and now I absolutely do not believe that to be the case.    If it became the case, I think you could trust me to say so, because the Faith would be at stake, and it does look as though I am liable to say what I think. Trust me then when I say that I do not think the SSPX is heading for betrayal.

Be patient. Pray the Rosary to avoid confusion in a situation in which the Devil is playing almost how he likes with countless hearts and minds.

I send you my blessing, and to all your friends, but not for the idea of setting me up to head a new organisation. No way.

Pray the Rosary. God bless you.                +Richard Williamson.




Seems like Our Lord may have other ideas for Bishop Williamson. 
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/
(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/

I'm in agreement. I don't think the SSPX should have to or accept a compromise of their core mission, but I think that the will of God seems to be manifesting that it is time. I even think this dust up on either end (Williamson, Muller, etc., strong statements on either side) is an indication of this. It's sort of the final birthing pangs before the joy of the birth, so to speak. I also think that the SSPX is debating what should be the wording of the statements. Just as one sentence saved the text on religion freedom from being voted down, because it was the "fail safe" placed in to negate any error, so I think that the SSPX is sifting exactly what they're willing to accept concerning Vatican II. I hope they can come to what seems to be right position. Vatican II is a valid Council. It needs to be interpreted in the light of Tradition. If any interpretation positively contradicts Tradition, then that interpretation is invalid. And also leaving room open for open discussion of the problematic points, without polemic. Lastly, at least giving a fair hearing to Benedict's teaching on continuity, that continuity must be the only valid interpretation. I think all of this was in the cards for years, going back to Lefebvre and Ratzinger and the breakdown in communication in 88.  :pray:
(10-27-2012, 01:58 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]
(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/

I'm in agreement. I don't think the SSPX should have to or accept a compromise of their core mission, but I think that the will of God seems to be manifesting that it is time. I even think this dust up on either end (Williamson, Muller, etc., strong statements on either side) is an indication of this. It's sort of the final birthing pangs before the joy of the birth, so to speak. I also think that the SSPX is debating what should be the wording of the statements. Just as one sentence saved the text on religion freedom from being voted down, because it was the "fail safe" placed in to negate any error, so I think that the SSPX is sifting exactly what they're willing to accept concerning Vatican II. I hope they can come to what seems to be right position. Vatican II is a valid Council. It needs to be interpreted in the light of Tradition. If any interpretation positively contradicts Tradition, then that interpretation is invalid. And also leaving room open for open discussion of the problematic points, without polemic. Lastly, at least giving a fair hearing to Benedict's teaching on continuity, that continuity must be the only valid interpretation. I think all of this was in the cards for years, going back to Lefebvre and Ratzinger and the breakdown in communication in 88.  :pray:

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.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13