Bp. Williamson Preaches "Peace for Mankind"

Discussion in 'Resistance Movement' started by Machabees, Aug 7, 2017.

  1. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    For the last two weeks Bishop Williamson has been trying to promote the consecration prayer he drafted and read publicly with his other three false resistance bishops three months ago, Eleison Comment - "Fatima Consecration I and II".

    However, what he is promoting, and still promotes, is the religion of man, his end "Peace for Mankind", in contrast to the message from Heaven for the religion of God.

    This was already show here, False Resistance Consecration of Russia Prayer, but BW adds anew whitewash to his present contradiction by saying in prelude:

    [The Fatima consecration] included a brief history of Our Lady’s request for the Consecration, showing how the leaders of the Church failed, and are still failing, to respond adequately to Heaven’s simple solution to the unprecedented problems of today’s Church and world.

    What is that "to respond adequately to Heaven’s simple solution" of today's problems? Is it just to kneel and pray doing nothing but let Mary do something herself for us? Or for us to dislodge sin from mind and heart the false doctrines of the world and ACTIVELY and positively put on the armor of true doctrine without ambiguity and compromise?

    What is the crisis about? People lacking prayer or people lacking true doctrine which to lead one's life and pray by?

    Bishop Williamson did not provide the latter of God's glory but only lead his followers to be content with the former to do nothing but pray. Yet Saint James says: "Faith without works is dead" (James 2).

    Another Eleison Comments showing a path for twisted dysfunction Bishop Williamson and his three other bishops lead with dead coffins before God.

    As they lead with teaching Universal Salvation, again.

    And, Indifference.

    Channeling Conciliar Spiritism

    And...on and on they go toward Vatican II; only with a false resistance Miter than a new-sspx Miter.
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2017
    Martius likes this.
  2. Martius

    Martius Guest

    We've become accustomed to seeing and hearing conciliar bishops misleading their flocks but it hurts the soul to see once-traditional bishops doing the same.

    "Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword." Matthew 10:34
  3. Tobias

    Tobias Member

    I did follow the links and would not have suspected this in his EC. I get bp.w dropped the ball from his founder abl but he is clever at changing course.
  4. Fidelity

    Fidelity Guest

    I don't see anything wrong in the text of the consecration...
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 9, 2017
  5. kelley

    kelley Member

    Exactly. From the get-go, the prayer is shrouded in a disingenuous spirit. Any true sons of Archbishop Lefebvre would never champion the odious teaching that the Novus Ordo Missae confers grace and can be a source of nourishment for one's faith. Does the bishop foolishly believe he can deceive Our Lady as he does his willful adulators?
    Machabees and Martius like this.
  6. Martius

    Martius Guest

    Well said!
  7. Fidelity

    Fidelity Guest

    kelley said:
    “ Does the bishop foolishly believe he can deceive Our Lady as he does his willful adulators?”

    That's absolutely unbelievable to hear such a statement when we know how much the good bishop loves the Mother of God.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 10, 2017
  8. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    How is it "unbelievable" when the pope loves the Mother of God too? Isn't the pope in error? Even the muslims honor Mary as well.

    What does "loving" someone not having anything to do with some souls deceiving at the same time? The novus ordo and the court systems are full of this dichotomy. So what love do you speak of and what love does BW have for her? Is it by the faith of Saints? Why are you passing over BW's declared shift of change from the doctrinal and structural path of ABL so evident in his Eleison Comments? Surely one cannot follow blindly what a man or a bishop says without testing it, our Lord counsels, that would not be fair to BW and to God the same.

    You cannot jest as you do in your above two posts without the honest regard for what BW openly says to all in the last 5-years. Honestly, he even makes folly of the "resistance" not wanting to belong to it, "Put away your toys", he tells everyone making a motto out of it; more than once. So why would his followers put him in that position of a "resistance" bishop when he openly opposes it?

    There is a lot of documentation on Cor-Mariae for your preview and edification. Please read through...it will help you understand more. Perhaps you can provide your thoughts distinctly for a productive conversation than leaving a 'Thomas disbelief' and blanket statements. We always welcome honest exchange.
  9. Vincent

    Vincent Well-Known Member

    All Catholics, good and bad, usually profess a love for the Mother of God. This is standard operating procedure.

    Fidelity, how do you judge Bishop Williamson to be a 'good' bishop?

    Is it standing up for tradition? - Nope, he professes and preaches the new mass has grace, among a myriad of other errors publicly professed in the last two years.

    Please tell us why you feel he is a good bishop.
  10. Fidelity

    Fidelity Guest

    Machabees said : "How is it "unbelievable" when the pope loves the Mother of God too? Isn't the pope in error? Even the muslims honor Mary as well."

    First of all, it's absolutely false to believe that the muslims honor Mary. They don't honor her because they refuse to recognize her as the Mother of God. This false idea comes from one of the text of the Second Vatican Council : "They [the muslims] also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion." (Nostra Aetate)

    Secondly, I'm sorry but we can't compare Bishop Williamson with Pope Francis. There is a huge difference between the two. I hope you realize that. Pope Francis destroys the Church, not Bishop Williamson. He was expelled from the Society because he refused to go along with modernist Rome.

    Please listen to this sermon he made in England in 2017 :

    After having listened to this sermon, do you sincerely believe that Bishop Williamson wants to deceive the Mother of God? Do you believe that he wants to destroy the Church? Do you believe that he doesn't want to save souls?

    Machabees said "There is a lot of documentation on Cor-Mariae for your preview and edification. Please read through...it will help you understand more."

    This documentation twists completely the bishop's words. For example, you said that the following statement means that Bishop Williamson doesn't want to save the Newchurch or the Newsociety :

    " It has no ambition either to save or to convert either the Newchurch or the Newsociety." (Consecrations Achieved by His Excellency Bishop Williamson)

    That's a completely false interpretation of the good bishop's words. This phrase simply means that he doesn't pretend that he is the saviour of the Church. We all know that Bishop Williamson did all he can to save the Society. Only God knows how much he suffers to see the slide of the Society. When he came to visit us he told us : "My dear friends, do all you can to convince your priests to refuse the agreement".

    So, it's false to say that Bishop Williamson doesn't care about souls.

    "The conversion of sinners and the salvation of sinners hang upon you and me, who have the Faith, by the gift of God. You and me praying for."
    (Bishop Richard Williamson, Last Sunday before Pentecost, starts at 15:43)
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 12, 2017
  11. Fidelity

    Fidelity Guest

    Vincent said : "Fidelity, how do you judge Bishop Williamson to be a 'good' bishop? Please tell us why you feel he is a good bishop."

    It's not a question of feeling. I don't feel he is a good bishop, I see he is a good bishop from the facts.

    1. Since five years, in spite of his age, he is travelling the world to give sacrements to the souls who want to keep the Faith.

    2. He accomplished the heroic act of consecrating bishops for the survival of the Catholic Faith.
  12. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    The sedevacantist bishops do this too. The Thuc bishops do this too. Novus ordo bishops do this too. The new-sspx do this too. So these "facts" are not supportive to an objective "good".

    So again, the question is what faith are you speaking of? We cannot pick and choose what we like or do not like; nor isolate BW on one sermon or one quote, that would be protestantism.

    Fidelity, you remain surfaced to these questions instilling your view of "interpretation" to what BW says. We do not. We accept what he says as he repeats the same often and supports his context to the whole; he is a catholic bishop deserving the respect. As such, BW represents himself manifesting there is no difference between he, Bishop Fellay, and pope Francis but of degree; not of substance. They all echo one or more aspects of the revolution against the Church.

    Here is a delineation of that faith.

    You are obviously in the false resistance. So let's go to the heart of it. This is about the words and practice of a Catholic bishop -Bishop Williamson- since 2012 to present, not your interpretation or anyone elses; be fair to him, he is a bishop and a previous rector and professor of a seminary for 25 years.

    Do you agree with his every statement, I repeat every statement, Bishop Williamson made in this link: Quotes of Bp. Williamson supporting the new religion and conciliarism? If so, answer yes. If no, answer so and point them out for a fair conversation.

    Be careful, and honest, God knows your answer upholds your salvation or you sin denying the faith to give persona to a man (BW). While you are reading it, can you make a separate answer whether you agree and support this quote of BW too. Note, there are five clauses he formed together to make one supporting thought. No way around it and no "interpretations" please:
    • "Our Lord said seek and you shall find; knock and it will be open to you. If you look for the truth, and you look for the true worship of God, you may find some of it in an Anglican Church. But you start talking to the minister, probably his principles are most likely are not completely true.” (Bishop Richard Williamson: 'The Existence of God: The Pre-requisite for all Politics', July 2016, @1:19:09, www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQalQor5itQ
    You can be the first to answer. No one, not even the false resistance priests want to touch that one in an honest manner. Realizing it is against the first Commandment of God; and is consistent with everything else BW demonstrates.

    Let me add also for you, I hear quite often from the false resistance that BW plays down the new religion as false...it is dangerous... Yes, I can read and hear it too as he speaks to a room of traditional Catholics in many conferences, sermons, and Eleison Comments after another for the rest of the world too to consume, while in the SAME sentence and breath he acknowledges "the new religion is -at the same time- can be used to build the faith". That double speak is called, in his words, “the classic Communist or Neo-modernist means of subversion, using practicalities to undermine truth, not in principle but in practice.” He used another expression of the same the neos use by placing a “subjective excuse in the foreground is to put the objective in the background”. Classic. See if you can see the SAME in BW's own quotes and practice below. The context is very present to support the new religion too, indult and the rest, quote: "Therefore, in my opinion, be content to attend the least contaminated Tridentine Mass that there is any-where near you" .

    Here are just eight from the top, out of 48, within the link provided for you to answer your acceptance or not:
    • While the new religion is false, is dangerous, and it strangles grace, and it’s helping many people to lose the faith, at the same time there are cases where it can be used and is used to build the faith.(Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
    • “Stay away from the Novus Ordo. But exceptionally, if you’re watching and praying, even there you may find the grace of God. If you do, make use of it in order to sanctify your soul.” (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
    • “The golden rule is this. The absolute rule of rules seems to me be this. Do whatever you need to nourish your faith.” (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
    • "N.O. priests are nourishing and building the faith in their N.O. parish."
    • "The new religion, is false, it's dangerous and it strangles grace. And it's helping many people to lose the faith. At the same time there are still cases where it's been, it can be used and is used still to build the faith." (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
    • "Stay away from the Novus Ordo, but exceptionally, if you're watching and praying, even there you may find the grace of God. If you do, make use of it in order to sanctify your soul." (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
    • “I do not say to everybody inside the Novus Ordo, priests and laity, I don’t say: ‘You’ve got to get out!’” (Bp. Williamson, conference in St. Catherine’s, Ontario, Canada, 5th November 2014)
    • “Therefore the NOM and the Novus Ordo Church as a whole are dangerous for the Faith, and Catholics are right who have clung to Tradition to avoid the danger. But as they have had to put a distance between themselves and the mainstream Church, so they have exposed themselves to the opposite danger of an isolation leading to a sectarian and even pharisaical spirit, disconnected from reality.” (Bp. Williamson, ‘Eleison Comments’ #438, 5th December 2015)
    So your reference of "good" is quite subjective when BW goes on his own path preaching "conservatism". We know only good comes from God and one is only good being in continuity to His will spoken through the perennial Church of Tradition; not through progressive modernism BW is demonstrating of late.

    Do you support every statement BW said in that link?
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2017
    Deus Vult and kelley like this.
  13. Vincent

    Vincent Well-Known Member

    Oh boy.

    Contra 1. Pope Francis is older (80) than Bishop Williamson and he too travels (perhaps more frequently?) than the Bishop all over the world.

    Contra 2. Those four bishops were certainly carefully chosen, for they all parrot Bishop Williamson's errors, such as grace in the new mass, false eucharistic miracles, etc. They have all already begun too, their betrayal of the Catholic Faith.

    One could argue that it was not for the faith he consecrated bishops but to expand a clerical hierarchy over which he is the head.

    Ironically enough, he verges on the schismatic in proclaiming that the consecration of Bishop Zendejas was for North America. For as we all know, Archbishop Lefebvre ordained auxiliary bishops, with no territorial jurisdiction as that is an authority only the pope can give. So for B. Williamson to assign a territory to B. Zendejas is akin to setting up his own church.

    Can't give what you don't have, ya know? Anything else, Fidelity?
    Deus Vult likes this.
  14. Rose

    Rose Guest


    It was with a heavy heart that many started to realize, that like Bishop Fellay, Bishop Williamson was leading people in a new direction. By asserting that there is grace in the new mass (as but one example), in direct opposition to everything not only Archbishop Lefebvre taught but also taught by the Society for the last 40 years, Bishop Williamson set off on a new course. Dragging the souls of many priests and faithful with him, who understandably, at first, could not comprehend that the great Bishop Williamson was or could be wrong. He was always known as a great defender of tradition. It seemed incomprehensible that somehow he was not doing what he always did, defend tradition.

    But most unfortunately, we cannot ignore what is right before our eyes. We cannot pretend that the Bishop has not spoken in direct opposition to the teachings and guidance of the great Archbishop Lefebvre. If we can so clearly see these contradictions in the new SSPX since 2012, we must be fair and just and acknowledge that they are also painfully present in Bishop Williamson. With eternal life at stake, we cannot overlook Bishop Williamson's errors so prominently promoted in sermons and on his blog. To do so would be to love men above God.

    It is God's honor and glory at stake. God is not honored in or by the new mass. It gives no grace. It is sterile.
    This is what the old SSPX always taught. Including Bishop Williamson.

    We cannot excuse the damage he is doing now for the sake of who he once was. The same way the English Catholics of the 1530's could not follow their king who told them that from now on he was the head of the English Church. They had to choose between God and a man. And in a similar way, we must do the same. We must disavow those who, despite their prior good words and deeds, now lead souls astray.
    Deus Vult, kelley and Admin like this.
  15. Fidelity

    Fidelity Guest

    Machabees, the sedevacantist bishops, the Thuc bishops and the modernist Novus Ordo bishops are not fighting for the Truth. I am impressed, edified, and sympathetic with the sufferings of Bishop Williamson because he has refused to go along with modernist Rome. He has refused to destroy the Church. He has done the magnanimous thing, the heroic thing. With a lion's heart and with an admirable courage, he is fighting for the true Faith.

    In most of your posts, you twist the Bishop's words. (Father Pfeiffer does the same thing in his sermons. He find something wrong in each and every word of Bishop Williamson)

    Here is the teaching of Bishop Williamson : You must be in the Catholic Church if you want to save your soul.

    "the way to be happy for Eternity is to die in the arms of the Catholic Religion, in the arms of the Catholic Church." ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZXSo1rDNX8 Bishop Williamson, Window On The World part 1, starts at 9:50)

    "if Eternity in Heaven is salvation, then you have to go through Our Lord Jesus Christ who was the one and the only incarnate God, the one only time God took human nature, become human being in order to die on the cross and open Heaven for souls. (
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZXSo1rDNX8 Bishop Williamson, Window On The World part 1, starts at 9:51)

    "Our Divin Lord said : " I am the Way, the Truth and the Life " and he said : " I am God and if you want to get to Heaven, you must believe in Me". And that's not outrageous and Our Lord prove it wasn't outrageous by dying on the cross. He died a horrible death on the cross to prove his love for us human beings. He loved us even unto death and if we want to go to His Heaven then, we need to believe him and do what he says which is to believe, to be baptized and to be a member of His Church. And he got a right to say that because he's God" (
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZXSo1rDNX8 Bishop Williamson, Window On The World part 1, starts at 10:31)

    "(...) to put him [Our Lord Jesus Christ] in the same class as all of those leaders of religions is blasphemy, objectively speaking, is blaphemy (...)" (
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POI97yn83zI Bishop Williamson Last Sunday before Pentecost, starts at 4:37)

    It's false to say he teaches something else. We all know he would be ready to suffer martyrdom in order to stay faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Machabees said : "your answer upholds your salvation"

    You should rather worry about the salvation of all the children who won't receive confirmation because Father Pfeiffer says there is no catholic bishop left. Think for one moment, only one moment... How many of them will lose the Faith and go to Hell because of that.
    Jack likes this.
  16. Admin

    Admin Administrator Staff Member

    Your sincerity in defending Bishop Williamson cannot be doubted Fidelity. It would help, however, if you could point out
    • where Bishop Williamson's words have been twisted. Also
    • can you tell us where Fr. Pfeiffer has found 'something wrong in each and every word of Bishop Williamson'.
  17. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    Truth Fidelity? Twist? Quite ironic.

    You have spun everything presented into cotton candy. Too much candy will cause cavities.

    There is a serious doctrinal question asked of you; you have not answered. Was that on purpose? Those quotes of BW are quite unsettling, are they not, no catholic can avoid them.

    I ask you again:

    Do you agree with his every statement, I repeat every statement, Bishop Williamson made in this link: Quotes of Bp. Williamson supporting the new religion and conciliarism? If so, answer yes. If no, answer so and point them out for a fair conversation.

    Trying to pass over BW's very belief what the "catholic faith" is (post 2012), of what you say he will suffer martyrdom for, are you not interested what he will "die" for? Will you "suffer a martyrdom" for those statements too? No Catholic Saint ever did.

    Having a piety for a catholic bishop means nothing if not based on Doctrine...you are covering over this. Why?

    I agree with Admin, your blanket statements are very shallow if not represented with solid evidence. We are not interested to go into a fruitless round robin with you, every time, with every false resistance person who placates the errors of a catholic bishop (in point with BW) as does those with Bishop Fellay.

    I have defined and supported everything I have written; you have not. If you wish to continue in conversation with us, or on this forum, please have the decency to explain your charges or go to the false resistance forums who will welcome the liberal-conservatism you promote.

    Your posts show you just wish to troll and give us to question your honesty.
    Rose, Scarlet Pimpernel and kelley like this.
  18. Martius

    Martius Guest

    Please, please, please, Fidelity, explain how the words of Bishop Williamson have been twisted. The false resistance has been saying this over two years now but yet, no one can demonstrate how his words are "twisted." And that is because his words are not twisted. They are his own words, taken straight out of the Bishop's blog or his sermon, complete with the minute mark or link, where ALL can hear or read the Bishop's own words. Where all can compare the Bishop's words as they are quoted with the actual words written or words spoken.

    Its a weak and cowardly argument. 'He's misunderstood.' EVEN, even if that was the case, after two years, the Bishop has ample opportunity - with his own blog and several false resistance websites and fora who do his bidding - to banish the misunderstandings. He remains silent or he doubles-down on them.

    It is noticed too that you are only speaking to Machabees in this thread (despite others answering/speaking with you) and further, that you only choose to accuse him but do not answer him. Very interesting.
    kelley and smiley like this.
  19. Jack

    Jack Guest

    Machabees, I believe Fidelity did answer your question (at least indirectly), but you simply did not like (or understand) the answer. Allow me to spell it out for you.

    If you stand back and look at the many good things that bishop Williamson has done for the Resistance and the Catholic Church in general (and Fidelity pointed some of these good things out to you), then any decent Catholic would be more than happy to follow the advice of St. Ignatius of Loyola to try and interpret anything and everything that such a fellow Catholic says in the best possible way, especially when we are speaking about a bishop. Do you believe St. Ignatius was a modernist for recommending such an attitude?

    Let me give you an example. You hold it against the bishop that he said "The golden rule is this. The absolute rule of rules seems to me be this. Do whatever you need to nourish your faith." But have you ever considered that if the salvation of your soul is the supreme law (salus animarum suprema lex), and if without faith it is impossible to please God and save your soul (as you yourself so often claim), then it logically follows that nourishing your faith is a necessary condition in obeying this supreme law and that therefore we ought to do whatever we can to nourish our faith. And this is what bishop Williamson said.

    You see, if only you want to, you would be able to interpret many (if not all) of the bishop's words in a positive and Catholic way.

    Your problem is though, that you have a priori judged the bishop's internal forum in a negative way and that you take every opportunity to tell others that your negative judgment is proven by facts, while in fact the best "proof" you have ever come up with is your own worst possible interpretation of the facts. It is an attitude that is unfitting for a Catholic (the Archbishop called it "diabolical"), and one that will be meted out to you yourself some day.

    Vincent, while the substance of your last post is rather weak (a substance, or lack thereof, which betrays a mind that is not very strong in theology), the poison seems to be in the tail.. pride and arrogance.

    Rose, you don't seem to know much about the Archbishop, as the claim you attribute to him is false. Whenever the Archbishop came close to saying there is no grace in the New Mass, he was always speaking about those Masses said by modernist priests, whose intention was very doubtful and in circumstances that included the worst possible abuses. This is very clear if you look up his quotes in context. But at the same time he also taught that there can be still priests who are not truly modernist but who out of a mistaken sense of obedience say the New Mass as best as they can. And in 1974 the Archbishop even explicitly told his seminarians to attend such a New Mass. He would have never done that if he believed such a New Mass was without grace. Unless of course you would like to point out to us (with a grave heart no doubt) that the Archbishop too was a modernist at times, or that he was not as clued up as you with regards to the teachings of the Church, at least not in 1974. If he had known back then that the New Mass was intrinsically evil, as some of you claim, then he would have never told his seminarians to attend such a New Mass. But the facts are there, whether you know and admit them or not.

    Martius, if you repeat a lie often enough, does it ever become the truth? Are you able to give me one (just one) example of a heretical statement by bishop Williamson, and explain to me why that statement (and not just your interpretation of that statement) is heretical? And by the way, I fail to see how you could question Fidelity's courage and motives, given that he (on his own until now) is up against quite a few people at the same time, one of whom seems to believe that the longer his posts are the better the argument he makes. How about you go onto CathInfo and show us by your example that you have the courage and charity that Fidelity has demonstrated here, and reply to each and every one that decides to bombard you or insult you.

    kelley, I fail to see a "disingenuous spirit" in the consecration prayer. Maybe you could substantiate that claim to us. If not, then I would say your gratuitous accusation falls under what the Archbishop called a "diabolical" attitude of finding fault with others. You ought to read "The Imitation of Christ", especially the part about avoiding rash judgments.
  20. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    "Jack" (or really Samuel Loeman again?), are you providing for a Vatican III in tradition? Jesus Christ said test all things. Morals are subservient to principled truth. Your proposal is what happened at Vatican II: overlook the modernist speech; just look at the “good”. Also, your comment that “Fidelity did answer your question (at least indirectly)” is cutely worded. Does that mean a car did crash (at least indirectly)?

    Wrong. Your hitting another ball in the foul zone. Trying to blind BW’s context he placed it in surrounded by all the other allowance to go to the novus ordo mass and "judge for yourself..." i.e. freedom of conscience" is placed his "golden rule...". Please, BW would appreciate if he did not have to untangle the public messes from unofficial press secretaries as he remains consistent in his Eleison Comments providing for the subjective right to go to the novus ordo. (Refer to the link "Fidelity" (or really Sean Johnson?) chooses not to answer Quotes of Bp. Williamson supporting the new religion and conciliarism ) Isolating the bishop's words is a no-no. It is not fair to him and any soul reading your attempt to make the modernism sweet -- how is that “good”?

    I see, as Fr. Chazal rightly says about the new-sspx, they just streamline the modernism with a “traditional spray can” to interpret it as favorable. You are doing the same with a “Williamson spray can” to make his modernism sound favorable.

    Wrong. Your choice is to “interpret” what the bishop says. We take him literally to mean what he says; no alterations. He is a catholic bishop; a rector and professor of a seminary of 25 years; he cannot speak his mind without you people always trying to “interpret” it for him...to gain your own tiered agenda? Why is that? You do not like what he is actually saying? Trad-ecumenism is quite competitive for you to make your believes above others? Please. As it is, some of BW's louder supporters are already starting to ditch him...and puffing up the other three "resistance" bishops. By the way, Perhaps you can answer this other question Fidelity refused to answer:

    BW openly says to the world in the last 5-years that he does not belong to the "resistance"; has nothing to do with it; and always puts the word "resistance" in quotation marks referring to it as a spectator, "Put away your toys", he tells everyone making a motto out of it; more than once. So why would his followers put him in that position of a "resistance" bishop when he openly opposes it?

    Vincent (and the others) can answer for themselves. Though Jack, that would be rude of you not knowing his/their intention of the “internal forum”...how he/they wrote it. According to your “Williamson spray can” you should have interpreted their comments (Vincent’s especially) more positively than the “negative” you did. Is that a double standard or a tactic of the false resistance?
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2017
    Rose, unbrandable and kelley like this.