Eleison Comments Number CCLXII
#11
(07-21-2012, 05:58 PM)PeterII Wrote: It's remarkable that Bishop Williamson has not been kicked out of the SSPX yet.  I don't know if Bishop Fellay is being patient or imprudent.

Bishop Williamson does not want to allow conciliarists to come to a Traditional understanding of Catholic doctrine.  He has interpreted an ambiguous Council for himself in the most modernist way possible, just like the modernists.  He insists that that must be the correct interpretation. 

What? The conconciliarists destroyed and continue to destroy traditional Catholic doctrine, that is what they do.......again, that is what they do, consider that, that  is their purpose in life. That is why the NO is so dangerous as you just aptly proved by your total misunderstanding about conciliarists.

They want to destroy all things traditional, not try to come to a better understanding.  :doh:




Reply
#12

Stubborn Wrote:What? The conconciliarists destroyed and continue to destroy traditional Catholic doctrine, that is what they do.......again, that is what they do, consider that, that  is their purpose in life. That is why the NO is so dangerous as you just aptly proved by your total misunderstanding about conciliarists.

They want to destroy all things traditional, not try to come to a better understanding.  :doh:

That's what Bishop Williamson wants us to believe, but it is not true.  There are different factions of prelates running the Church, from modernists and liberals on one end, to conservatives near Tradition on the other.  For example, in the US alone you had the likes of an Archbishop Weakland versus Archbishop (now Cardinal) Burke.  Both had jurisdiction in the post conciliar Church, but which would you rather have running your diocese? 

The SSPX has never denied that souls can be saved in the Novus Ordo.  It's a matter of quality though - the more Traditional, the better.  However, Bishop Williamson's over simplification of the matter can easily turn one to real schism.
Reply
#13
Well, the gloves are off completely now, it seems.

Kyrie eleison.
Reply
#14
(07-21-2012, 05:58 PM)PeterII Wrote: It's remarkable that Bishop Williamson has not been kicked out of the SSPX yet.  I don't know if Bishop Fellay is being patient or imprudent. NO, BP. FELLAY CANNOT ARGUE WITH THE TRUTH OF BP. WILLIAMSON'S POSITION.

Bishop Williamson does not want to allow conciliarists to come to a Traditional understanding of Catholic doctrine.  OH, BALONEY! THE MODERNISTS HAVE  NO DESIRE TO RETURN TO PRE-VATICAN II DISCIPLINE AND THEOLOGY. He has interpreted an ambiguous Council for himself in the most modernist way possible, just like the modernists.  He insists that that must be the correct interpretation.  JUST HOW WOULD YOU INTERPRET IT? IT IS A BOGUS COUNCIL.

Personally, I think the SSPX as a whole is a contradiction. That said, at least Bp. Williamson sees the modernists for what they are. Unfortunately the recognition he gives them is bewildering. I say nothing more.
Reply
#15
(07-21-2012, 10:11 PM)OldMan Wrote:
(07-21-2012, 05:58 PM)PeterII Wrote: It's remarkable that Bishop Williamson has not been kicked out of the SSPX yet.  I don't know if Bishop Fellay is being patient or imprudent. NO, BP. FELLAY CANNOT ARGUE WITH THE TRUTH OF BP. WILLIAMSON'S POSITION.

Bishop Williamson does not want to allow conciliarists to come to a Traditional understanding of Catholic doctrine.  OH, BALONEY! THE MODERNISTS HAVE  NO DESIRE TO RETURN TO PRE-VATICAN II DISCIPLINE AND THEOLOGY. He has interpreted an ambiguous Council for himself in the most modernist way possible, just like the modernists.  He insists that that must be the correct interpretation.  JUST HOW WOULD YOU INTERPRET IT? IT IS A BOGUS COUNCIL.

Personally, I think the SSPX as a whole is a contradiction. That said, at least Bp. Williamson sees the modernists for what they are. Unfortunately the recognition he gives them is bewildering. I say nothing more.

Even Bishop Williamson says, " the SSPX has never said that the documents[Vatican II] contain no truth," So then what are those truths?  Bogus truths?  And adhering to the "errors" of the Council does not necessarily make one a full fledged Modernist or apostate heretic.  It could subject one to a lower theological censure only. 
Reply
#16
(07-21-2012, 05:58 PM)PeterII Wrote: It's remarkable that Bishop Williamson has not been kicked out of the SSPX yet.  I don't know if Bishop Fellay is being patient or imprudent.

The power of a bishop to ordain and more importantly, to consecrate other bishops is a big deal for both the modernists and the devout.  The modernists see it as the potential loss of control, the devout view it as a solemn responsibility.

Bp. Fellay and the Hierarchy do not want Williamson either with or without the other two bishops consecrating more bishops and ordaining more priests formed in tradition.  That would simply ensure a prolonged struggle.

So, they will tolerate anything he does as long they see him and the other two as the end of the line for SSPX bishops. 

The ironic part would be if some of the claims that Fr. Malachi Martin made turned out to be true and there are traditional bishops among the Novus Ordo clergy who have been secretly consecrated along with a number of unofficial priests trained for no other purpose than to offer the TLM in perpetuity. 



Reply
#17
I read on another forum that Bps. Tissier and Gallereta voted to exclude Bp. Williamson from the general chapter. Anyone know if this is true? If so it looks like +Williamson is on his own.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)