Bp. Williamson's Oct. 19, '12, open letter to Bp. Fellay, "On an 'Exclusion'"
#51
(10-26-2012, 03:00 AM)Gerard Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 01:38 AM)Parmandur Wrote: Disobedience is disobedience; the priest and friar Martin Luther was following his conscience just as much as this bishop is.

Dishonesty is dishonesty.  Your comparison is dishonest.  

Not one bit.  :P
Reply
#52
(10-26-2012, 03:09 AM)Gerard Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 02:30 AM)Parmandur Wrote: I am not saying that +Williamson is a heretic, at all.  But he is disobedient to any and all authority outside of himself and his personal conscience.  This is why the Society is cutting ties with him; he won't listen, so why should they try talking to him?

It's obvious  you didn't even read the OP.   I guess Williamson was disobedient when he didn't go to Argentina, when he didn't leave Argentina, when he didn't go back to England, when he didn't curtail his activities and consign himself to only writing his blog column which he took off publicly and only mailed out directly. 

Fellay was on a witch-hunt to drum him out from years gone by,  coincidentally the Holy Father wanted Williamson dealt with separately so, Fellay set about to abuse his authority just as the Popes have been abusing their for the last few decades. 

Fellay and the Popes are disobedient to the Truth on a more than frequent basis and you think that calls for absolute obedience and connivance on the part of Catholics regardless of following a well-formed conscience? 

You've got Catholicism confused with Islam.

+Williamson obeyed when he had no choice, and wormed his way around any requests of the Superior.  This was not a unilateral decision of +Fellay; the rest of the leadership has his back on the matter of obedience.
Reply
#53
Fruitcake. Maybe following his conscience, but a fruitcake. Always was. Anyone who follows him into his new remnant etc group needs some serious prayer.
Reply
#54
Just curious, but what was the paragraph about the pilgrimage to Rome all about .  It mentioned that at the end of the pilgrimage a high ranking prelate invited the 4 Bishops for a meal and only 3 accepted.  It implied that Bishop Williamson was the one who did not accept.  What was the reason for his not accepting ?  That seems like it may have created some bad feelings.

Reply
#55
(10-26-2012, 03:32 AM)Benno Wrote: Fruitcake. Maybe following his conscience, but a fruitcake. Always was.

Is it really necessary to say that?  There must be some more respectful way to state your opinion.
Reply
#56
(10-26-2012, 03:24 AM)Parmandur Wrote: +Williamson obeyed when he had no choice, and wormed his way around any requests of the Superior.  This was not a unilateral decision of +Fellay; the rest of the leadership has his back on the matter of obedience.

The rest of the leadership has his back because Fellay has been appointing his allies to leadership positions since his first term. 

Williamson disobeyed when he had no choice.  You've got the whole thing wrong. 
Reply
#57
(10-26-2012, 03:23 AM)Parmandur Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 03:00 AM)Gerard Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 01:38 AM)Parmandur Wrote: Disobedience is disobedience; the priest and friar Martin Luther was following his conscience just as much as this bishop is.

Dishonesty is dishonesty.  Your comparison is dishonest.  

Not one bit.  :P

That's dishonest too. 
Reply
#58
(10-26-2012, 03:09 AM)Gerard Wrote: I guess Williamson was disobedient when he didn't go to Argentina, when he didn't leave Argentina, when he didn't go back to England, when he didn't curtail his activities and consign himself to only writing his blog column which he took off publicly and only mailed out directly. 

This is where Bishop Williamson and Gerard aren't being intellectually honest.  He left Argentina because his visa was revoked.  He returned to England because he's an English citizen and that was the only place he could go that would guarantee he wouldn't be extradited to Germany to face the (ridiculous, of course) charges against him for his holocaust remarks.  He curtailed his activities (at least all international and publicly visible ones) while the appeals process was played out.  Eventually the charges were dismissed and, lo and behold, he made a trip to South America. 

(10-26-2012, 03:09 AM)Gerard Wrote: Fellay was on a witch-hunt to drum him out from years gone by,  coincidentally the Holy Father wanted Williamson dealt with separately so, Fellay set about to abuse his authority just as the Popes have been abusing their for the last few decades. 

Fellay and the Popes are disobedient to the Truth on a more than frequent basis and you think that calls for absolute obedience and connivance on the part of Catholics regardless of following a well-formed conscience? 

You've got Catholicism confused with Islam.

Gerard, you've been slandering Bishop Fellay a lot lately, and you really need to knock it off.  It doesn't help your arguments when all you do is trash him with speculations (at best) and untruths (at worst).  There is no evidence that Bishop Fellay was going to sell out the SSPX.  You and others speculate that he would have if the General Chapter hadn't gotten in the way.  You're arguing un-disprovable positions because they have to do with someone else's intentions, which, by the way aren't yours so it's not fair for you to act like you know what they are.

It's completely false to assert that Bishop Fellay has been "disobedient to the Truth on a more than frequent basis."  Where do you get such an idea?  He may not be as "hard-line" as you'd like, but what has he done that's been disobedient to the Truth?  He's appointed his pals at high positions, or so you claim, but what leader doesn't appoint advisers who share his views?  That's not contrary to the Truth.

Catholics can, and should, follow their well-formed consciences.  So why is it necessary for some to take everything Bishop Williamson says as gospel?  He's very intelligent and very logical, to be sure.  I have tremendous respect for him and always will.  But everyone knows he's always had a bit of an issue with letting prudence and/or discretion guide the things he says in public sometimes (even on national TV).  A bishop ought to know better.

When I read this letter, I was immediately struck by the arrogance of it.  Mind you, I'm judging the letter on its own merit, to say nothing of the dispositions of its author, per se.  It's all about "you're wrong, I'm right" and is not the least bit humble.  The final paragraph where he refuses to allow himself to be expelled and calls on Bishop Fellay to resign "for the good of his own soul and everybody else" is tremendously arrogant.  I understand it's necessary to rebuke even your superiors when you think they're wrong, but that's not something that should be done with an "open letter."  This was nothing more than a "who's with me?".
Reply
#59
Said document duly leaked on time. Utterly unexpected.
Reply
#60
[size=10pt][size=10pt][b][b]Bishop Williamson not only makes a fool of himself with his ridiculous statements:

Jews and Holocaust denial
Williamson condemns the Jews.[48] He called them the "enemies of Christ" and urges their conversion to Catholicism.[49][50][51] He claims that Jews and Freemasons have [b]contributed to the "changes and corruption" in the Catholic Church.[52][53][54][49] He has also stated that Jews aim at world dominion[17][55] and believes The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to be authentic.[17] Williamson has denied that he is promoting hatred,[49][50] asserting that "I was attacking the enemies of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that includes Jews as well as Communists and Freemasons."[50] He argues that "Anti-Semitism means many things today, for instance, when one criticizes the Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip. The Church has always understood the definition of anti-Semitism to be the rejection of Jews because of their Jewish roots. This is condemned by the Church."[56]
Since the late 1980s, Williamson has been accused of antisemitism and Holocaust denial.[49][53][54][57][58] Citing the Leuchter report,[56] Williamson has denied that millions of Jews were murdered in Nazi concentration camps and the existence of Nazi gas chambers[18][59][60] and praised Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel.[49][50][53][54] During an interview on Swedish television recorded in November 2008, he stated: "I believe that the historical evidence is strongly against, is hugely against six million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler",[60] and "I think that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, but none of them in gas chambers."[18][59][61]

He makes a fool of the faith & the Church he belongs to.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)