bp williamson 12/8 column
#1
An acquaintance sent to me recently a copy circularized to all SSPX priests by SSPX Headquarters (HQ) of an official explanation of five possibly troubling remarks of the SSPX’s Superior General (SG), and this person asked for my opinion. I honestly think that Superiors of the SSPX might be as troubled as before. Very briefly, here is why:--

Firstly, in Austria in May, the SG said that the SSPX needed to re-think its relations with Rome. HQ explains that this was no change of the SSPX’s position on Newrome, but merely a call for SSPX members to recognize that not everything said by Newromans is nonsense. However, the priests who heard the original words in Austria understood the SG to be meaning the same as what he wrote in the Society’s in-house magazine of last March (Cor Unum), namely that the “new situation” in the Church “requires that we take up a new position with respect to the official Church,” because since 2006 “we have witnessed a development in the Church.” Does HQ have an explanation for these written words of the SG ?

Secondly, on the same occasion the SG is meant to have said that the potential agreement with Rome would mean every chapel less than three years old being pulled down. HQ explains that in fact the SG said that where the SSPX had said Mass for more than three years, a chapel could be set up. However, the SG did also say that wherever the SSPX had ministered for less than three years, it might continue its ministry in private, which implies that any public buildings must be disused.

Thirdly, on CNS, also in May, the SG spoke of religious liberty being “very, very limited”. HQ explains that the SG was speaking of “true religious liberty”, i.e. as the Church has always taught it, namely the right limited to the Catholic religion. However the SG’s original words on CNS are as clear as clear can be, and verifiable by anybody with the Internet: “The Council was presenting a religious liberty which was in fact a very, very limited one - very limited.” HQ may need here to provide a second explanation to prove that its first explanation was not, at best, a mistake?

Fourthly, in Êcône in September, the SG admitted that he had been wrong in his dealings with Rome. HQ explains that the mistake was only on a “very precise and limited point”, namely whether the Pope would insist or not on the SSPX accepting the Council. However, this insistence on the Council (along with the New Mass) is the total bone of contention between the SSPX and Newrome. Is not this explanation of HQ like saying that the gash made by the iceberg in the side of the Titanic was a very precise and limited gash ?

Fifthly, years ago the SG said that the Council texts are “95% acceptable”. HQ explains that he was speaking of the letter and not of the spirit of the texts. However, what mother will give to her children any part of a cake which she knows is 5% poisoned ? It is true that she could in theory give them any part of the 95% not poisoned, but in practice will she not be afraid of the poisoning spirit behind all parts of the cake ?

In conclusion, had the SSPX’s crisis of this spring and summer made me wonder about the competence and honesty of the SG and his HQ, I fear that after this explanation of five quotes I would still be wondering. May God be with them, because they have a daunting responsibility.

Kyrie eleison.
Reply
#2
Such egotism
Reply
#3
(12-09-2012, 12:30 AM)GodFirst Wrote: Such egotism

What are you talking about?  Huh?
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#4
1) The pontificate of Benedict is decidely different, and has been very gracious with the Society. They have met every one of the SSPX's demands so far, namely the Mass and the excommunications, and doctrinal discussions.

2) So what? A big transition like this does mean some displacement. How many locations would this really entail?

3) It is a very limited freedom, if read in the light of tradition.

4) Williamson sees this as problematic because he isn't a diplomat. He obviously won't deal with the Vicar of Christ until he fully comes over to his side.

5) Yes, but who requires that they eat? He's saying cake. Numerous traditionalist priests can live within the Church without being poisoned. Williamson seems to be ignoring the facts on the ground. Knowing what I know, though, Williamson would say they're poisoned too. Only the few are pure and unpoisoned. Those few are him and his cadre of followers.

This Williamson piece is nitpicky. It shows a lack of cooperation. He's just throwing up road blocks for its own sake at this point.
Reply
#5
Bishop Williamson obviously still thinks that slapping New in front of every third works makes you look intelligent.
Reply
#6
(12-09-2012, 01:03 PM)Freudentaumel Wrote: Bishop Williamson obviously still thinks that slapping New in front of every third works makes you look intelligent.

Just curious, are you that critical of Pope Benedict and JPII whenever they  would "slap" the word "new" in front of something? 

Your answer will help us determine your intelligence as well as your integrity. 

Reply
#7
(12-09-2012, 10:33 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: 1) The pontificate of Benedict is decidely different, and has been very gracious with the Society. They have met every one of the SSPX's demands so far, namely the Mass and the excommunications, and doctrinal discussions.

Actually BXVI has only been superficially gracious, he's been exceedingly mean-spirited on a number of occasions.  Including a factually error ridden chapter about Williamson in his book "Light of the World."

The excommunications were passed off as an egotistical act of generosity instead of a matter of justice. 

The TLM was never legally abrogated, so it's not gracious to be complicit in the illegal suppression of the Mass.  B16 is just not complicit as Pope compared to Popes Paul and JPII. 

Quote: 2) So what? A big transition like this does mean some displacement. How many locations would this really entail?

The SSPX isn't anywhere where there isn't a reason for them.  It's a big deal to the people that go to them. 

Quote: 3) It is a very limited freedom, if read in the light of tradition.

But on its face it says something ambiguous.  In practice as demonstrated by the Popes it means something un-Catholic.

Quote: 4) Williamson sees this as problematic because he isn't a diplomat. He obviously won't deal with the Vicar of Christ until he fully comes over to his side.

Judas was the diplomat.  Our Lord and John the Baptist and the rest of the Apostles were not very diplomatic and even when they were, things didn't go their way. 

Quote: 5) Yes, but who requires that they eat? He's saying cake.

Cake is simply a substitute for food or sustenance.  And the only real sustenance is what the Church is supposed to serve.  There is no substitute for "cake" in the analogy. Unless you think false religions are offering rolls, and ice cream that is not poisoned. 

Quote: Numerous traditionalist priests can live within the Church without being poisoned.

When arguing with a modernist priest one time, I chided the bishops for allowing ambiguity in the texts.  He said, "Do you really think God cares about bishops arguing over one word?"  I said,"Yes."  He said, "Well if someone's faith is going to be shaken by one word being changed, they don't have a strong faith."  I said, "Are the bishops there to undermine the faith of the weak or to be there to strengthen everyone?"  He said,"We shouldn't be having this conversation here."  (It was in the confessional. ) 

Quote:  Williamson seems to be ignoring the facts on the ground.

LOL!  Williamson has a better feel for what is going on around the world than any Pope and 99% of the bishops. 

Quote: Knowing what I know, though, Williamson would say they're poisoned too. Only the few are pure and unpoisoned. Those few are him and his cadre of followers.

If that's the case, then why did he say the exact opposite in his interview with Bernard Janzen from 2005 or so? 

Quote: This Williamson piece is nitpicky. It shows a lack of cooperation.

Good. That's just what it should be. 

Quote:  He's just throwing up road blocks for its own sake at this point.

Nonsense.  You're just criticizing him at every opportunity for any excuse.  You're never going to agree with him, you like the crisis and the modernism in the Church and so you are at odds with a man who is unabashedly against it. 
Reply
#8
(12-09-2012, 04:25 PM)Gerard Wrote: When arguing with a modernist priest one time, I chided the bishops for allowing ambiguity in the texts.  He said, "Do you really think God cares about bishops arguing over one word?"   I said,"Yes."  He said, "Well if someone's faith is going to be shaken by one word being changed, they don't have a strong faith."  I said, "Are the bishops there to undermine the faith of the weak or to be there to strengthen everyone?"   He said,"We shouldn't be having this conversation here."  (It was in the confessional. ) 

Shocked
Reply
#9
(12-09-2012, 04:11 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(12-09-2012, 01:03 PM)Freudentaumel Wrote: Bishop Williamson obviously still thinks that slapping New in front of every third works makes you look intelligent.

Just curious, are you that critical of Pope Benedict and JPII whenever they  would "slap" the word "new" in front of something? 
If you are referring to the term "new evangelization", yes, I always found that term kinda silly, especially considering that it is sold as the best thing since sliced bread, yet is a lot less successful than the old evangelization used to be.
However, there is still a lot of difference between the term "new evangelization" and "NewEvangelization".
Reply
#10
(12-10-2012, 03:06 AM)Freudentaumel Wrote:
(12-09-2012, 04:11 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(12-09-2012, 01:03 PM)Freudentaumel Wrote: Bishop Williamson obviously still thinks that slapping New in front of every third works makes you look intelligent.

Just curious, are you that critical of Pope Benedict and JPII whenever they  would "slap" the word "new" in front of something? 
If you are referring to the term "new evangelization", yes, I always found that term kinda silly, especially considering that it is sold as the best thing since sliced bread, yet is a lot less successful than the old evangelization used to be.
However, there is still a lot of difference between the term "new evangelization" and "NewEvangelization".

So, what was the motivation of Pope Benedict and JPII?  To look intelligent?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)