FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Commentary on Bishop Williamson's affair...
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Forgot to post this, I put this on some other forums. Glad to hear what any of you think, please keep the criticism constructive. I would like to know why is it you might agree or disagree with the below comments. Thank you! Unity in faith and truth.
_______
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
Not sure my answer fits any of your categories, but you asked:

1. For me the whole Holocaust thing is irrelevant.
2. However, the whole disobedience of his superior AND the weird, underhanded attempts of sabotage of the Rome-SSPX talks are the issue.
3. The biggest issue of all is that no one seems to know what the SSPX position is. However, let me assume that Bishop Fellay represents SSPX views.
4. IF this is the case, bishop Williamson whould have been kicked out long ago, and definitely before the failed Rome-SSPX talks. This is IF Bishop Fellay is assumed to be the best and most faithful representative fo SSPX views. These two men do not see eye-to-eye. Therefore Bishop Fellay should have expelled him before he could do damage to the SSPX-Rome talks.
5. IF HOWEVER, Bishop Fellay is NOT assumed to be the best representative of SSPX views, then I would have to say that Bishop Williamson is the best representative of such views, and that Bishop Fellay should have been the one to leave.
6. For me, none of this has to do with views on the Holocaust. But I do think there is a problem in that the SSPX seems not to have one voice.
When you are saying 'talks" are you referring to the doctrinal discussions?  Bishop Williamson did nothing to subvert them.  If you're talking about "talks" that seemed to continue without any doctrinal conclusions, the main body of the  SSPX both clergy and faithful followers were taken off guard by those events. 
The world will ask Catholics to compromise their beliefs, their God, until the world gets the belief in "god" they want out of Catholics: no God at all.

There's no point in compromising with non-Catholics and the liberals among our clergy. 

We need to make SACRIFICES, yes, but NOT compromises for their benefit.  It will benefit the opponents of Catholic orthodoxy infinitely more for Catholics to remain orthodox in their beliefs.

Fellay, before this mess began, referred to the Jews as our "elder brethren" which is very untrue, as the modern Judaism of today finds it's origins in the time after the Temple's destruction, which in turn came after the Christ's death and the beginning of the Catholic Church. 

Fellay is friendly, and I WANT to like the guy, but politically correct language to appease the media troubles me.  Williamson, despite his views on Shoah history of which he's noone of authority and some seemingly bigoted statements he's made on women (hardly a misogynist, though, I'd say), at least remains orthodox in many of his statements.
I completely agree, and that is precisely what i stated it shouldnt matter at all. But somehow it has some sort of second double intended effect. Regardless whether you see it as important or not. I certainly dont care much about it, but what I fear is that this is having repercussion to the Catholic faith.
"1. For me the whole Holocaust thing is irrelevant."
_________________
I must remind you that if he would of kicked him a while ago, do you not think that would of been unjust with no reason whatsoever? How would have the faithful perceived that? I mean if even now it is having huge consequences, what would it have been a few years ago. Would most of the priest sided with H.E. Williamson, I certainly think so. My main point is that it is unjust and therefore they should have never done it in the first place. Bishop Fellay is a good Bishop, but he is making grave mistakes as a superior general. Let me remind you that sanctity does not always make you free of making mistakes as a ruler. Saint Celestine V the hermit-pope, was the first to resign because of his damage to the Church. He had no knowledge of Canon law and that political wisdom that is needed to shepherd the whole flock of the world. Yet we know that he was of the highest eminent sanctity. So I must make the distinction H.E. Fellay should resign for being unworthy of the office of Superior General, but that does not mean he is a heretic in any close sense of the word. He is destroying the SSPX in these last few years because of his stubborness to fail to see it. He has been imprudent, not sought counsel with his fellow priest's and BIshops. None of the monastic communities are supporting him, none of the BIshops agreed with him, and most of all the majority of priest are scared to do anything. What is going on? How can that be good ruling, it is the same type of hand that we were handed under Pope John Paul II... The same fist of Rome coming down whenever you say anything against what they believe. With no rule of law whatsoever but just smashing you down from one day to the next. The same is going on at the SSPX.

I was always the biggest advocate of the SSPX Rome Deal, but I am not stupid either. If you see that they clearly want to destruct you and everything is telling you not to do it. Then wisdom demands that you change your stance, not because of H.E. WIlliamson or anyone else. They just happen to have it correct in this stance.

"4. IF this is the case, bishop Williamson whould have been kicked out long ago, and definitely before the failed Rome-SSPX talks. This is IF Bishop Fellay is assumed to be the best and most faithful representative fo SSPX views. These two men do not see eye-to-eye. Therefore Bishop Fellay should have expelled him before he could do damage to the SSPX-Rome talks."

Thanks for the responses.
Bishop Fellay is Bishop Williamson's superior.  He refused direct orders over and over again.  So Bishop Fellay kicked him out.  It is as simple as that.  I would have done the same thing.

As far as what's next, well maybe +Williamson can join up with the SSPX-SO, and priests in the SSPX who want to have a permanent separation from the Church can join him.  Bishop Fellay has a goal to be regularized with the Church with protections.  That will always be his goal.  This probably will turn out to be a good thing as the two camps can now be separated.
Gerard,

I did not mean specifically the doctrinal talks but the 'political' talks that seemed to be going to lead to an SSPX regularization. I am not taking sides here, because I do not know enough of these two men. But from what it seems, Bishop Fellay was pro-regularization, and weird leaks kept coming out of the English district that were meant to sabotage this regularization. I do not know if Archbishop Lefebvre would have been for or against these talks, but I do think this is what the SSPX people have to determine to a certain extent. Funny thing is, if the answer is that they think their founding archbishop would have been against a regularization here, it would mean that he would have sided with Bishop Williamson, which would be very awkward to say the least. So anyway, I meant the 'regularization' talks.

I am also assuming that since the SSPX keep deciding to reaffirm the leadership of Bishop Fellay as their Superior General and representative, they must perceive him as expressing their views. This would suggest that Bishop Williamson did not really fit. But maybe someone who is closer to the relationship between the Superior General and his members would be able to confirm or deny this.
I don't think you understand the issue at hand. Even Bishop Fellay repeatedly in the past said, that the state of necessity has 0 to do whether the SSPX will join with ROme or not. So you failed in that respect to understand the essentials. So no those priest outside the SSPX are not apostates or "outside the Church" as you put it.

There are also priest that are being expelled simply by mentioning another opinion. In Chile about 2 weeks ago approximately, the SSPX priest was kicked out by just having an email conversation with Father Chazal. In one day, it was not even a two day affair. You think that it is somehow good to just expel your priest with no sort of due process of law. They show us no evidence, they do not post all the priest that have been expelled. They are as closed as possible, they keep information from you all for your own "good" well I beg to differ. If it was just H.E. Williamson I would possibly say that you are right. However, this is happening to all priest worldwide and is not just limited to one case. Which means that NO Bishop Fellay is wrong on all levels. It is not for him to decide to destroy the SSPX whether they join with Rome or not. We know that corrupt officials love to dwell in those dark corners, and they love to keep things secret because if the faithful were shown everything transparently they might be scandalized.  

Even in the corporate world if you have worked for a company for 20 plus years they will give you benefits and help pay for your sort of retirement. The SSPX is being not only complete unjust in the sense that they do not provide this for priest who have been with them over 20 or 30 years. So from one day to the next you are expelled... Even the ungodly world has it better in this respect. Is it not a sin against justice crying to heaven for vengeance to deprive someone of their days wages, how much more will it apply for those who have served the SSPX in the most faithful manner. Yet they all of a sudden just because they feel like it.

Canon law used to have apostolic visitors, which would prevent such scenarios from happening. Imagine a religious order where the inferiors cannot express their conscience DEAR LORD! That was always something that the Church wanted to prevent, IT NEVER EVER EVER wanted to prevent inferiors from expressing their concerns. Yet the SSPX is doing everything against the spirit of Canon law and just doing its own thing right now. As of right now I fear that the SSPX is heading towards destruction, and it is people like you that say that those who do not agree with SG Bishop Fellay are devoid of Catholicity that is precisely the problem or even worse the other extreme that "communion outside of Rome" is devoid of Catholicity. We all know that the word communion has lost its sense of the word.

Please think and read before you decide to give opinions. Tell me in what way any of the things listed above are just. You have no idea of the inner workings of the SSPX, and as such should ask before saying nonsense.
Pax Tecum.

Pax, man. Pax. Now it seems to me you are answering James, but I (and I will fully acknowledge my ignorance of such matters) think you do more for his argument than against it, for how can there be apostolic visitors when you are not canonically recognized by Rome? To whom is the last expelled priest supposed to appeal if he has no recognition from Rome anyway? To some other priest in the SSPX who happens to agree with him? The whole unrecognized SSPX is a can of worms and it leaves priests like the ones you mentioned (and I have no reason to doubt the specifics of the case as you state them, and I will not doubt you) exposed with no apostolic authority, no Holy See, no Roman Pontiff to appeal to. Therefore the whole irregularity thing will breed more irregularity.
(11-01-2012, 05:51 PM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]Bishop Fellay is Bishop Williamson's superior.  He refused direct orders over and over again.  So Bishop Fellay kicked him out.  It is as simple as that.  I would have done the same thing.

As far as what's next, well maybe +Williamson can join up with the SSPX-SO, and priests in the SSPX who want to have a permanent separation from the Church can join him.  Bishop Fellay has a goal to be regularized with the Church with protections.  That will always be his goal.  This probably will turn out to be a good thing as the two camps can now be separated.
'

There was never a separation!
Pages: 1 2 3