The Williamson bubble is starting to deflate

Discussion in 'Resistance Movement' started by Machabees, Jul 9, 2017.

  1. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    With a half of decade accepting all things Bishop Williamson in everything he says without distinction, as to reel in a bishop after publicly abandoning three of the sspx, some of the louder voices in the false resistance are beginning to see the gloss is cracked on the hummel and finding it shallow underneath.

    In the last few weeks there came a spontaneous acknowledgement from some of his [conservative] supporters that Bishop Williamson is showing to be a fraud doing his own thing; even beginning to question his doctrinal position. Rightly so. However, their investment it shows is still leveraged not to give up on the miter when it is the only one in town; until Bishop Zendejas became a venue. Tides are changing towards his "service" and the SAJM as a foundation for them. But not for the other trad-ecumenists; they like BW liberal package just they way it is; it gives more movement of religious expression.

    From a few pieces written by these [conservative] supporters, yet bent on their own narration trying to form a "history" to their liking, at least they have acknowledged what has been the obvious for years, Bishop Williamson is not the persona in legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre. Rather, Bp. Williamson is hedging a new path.

    Today, even the arch-supporter Hollingsworth questions the integrity of BW's position laid with ambiguous language bent to conciliarism.

    Hollinsworth said:
    We're all looking for a sure means of saving our souls. But does H.E. mean that the Conciliar Church is a sure means? That is more of a rhetorical question than a serious one. Does H.E. mean that the Society is a sure means? How could he, since he tells us that the SSPX is on the verge of extinction. How about the Fraternity, or the various sede expressions, or the "Resistance.," or numerous other independent Catholic works? Do these possess the sure means of salvation? I think, until shown otherwise, that H.E.'s comment in this regard is kinda glib.

    ...And I have to wonder whether H.E. would echo quite as forcefully the words of the Founder. Would +W call the Conciliar church a false church? Would he today affirm that it is not the Catholic Church. I'm not sure frankly.

    https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/eleison-comments-menzingens-mistake-(no-521)/

    Well, they are beginning to catch on.

    To answer Hollingsworth's question whether BW would affirm that the conciliar church is NOT the catholic Church, he will be disappointed to know that one only needs to read BW's many statements to find there is no such affirmation but only a affirmation drawing TO conciliarism and supported by the other three false resistance bishops. See BW's many quotes to this regard here and here.

    The hypocrisy screams...
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2017
  2. Defender

    Defender Member

    The post below was posted almost two years ago on ABLF2.1 (a sedevacantist blog?), but it is still relevant today and raises some good questions.


    The fruits of Bishop Williamson


    (Posted by Somebody » Sun Nov 22, 2015 9:51 pm)

    What is this bishop's game ? What is he doing ? What are the fruits of his labour ? What has he achieved so far ? What is he still aiming for ?

    Is he a builder ? Is he gathering the faithful ? Is he uniting them ? Is he leading them forwards ?

    Or is he entertaining them ? Distracting ? Dividing ? Demotivating ? Neutralising maybe ?

    Then comes the question : cui bono ? Who benefits from the 'skittles going flying', and the 'toys being put away' ? Who benefits from the confusion and the controversies, spoon fed like a true soap opera ?

    And the next question : why ? Is he just clumsy or confused ? Or is he following a map ? Has he got a plan we don't know about yet ?

    I can already feel the indignation and the fury breathing down my neck for daring to ask these questions.

    Wake up people ! Put your feet on the ground and pull your head out !

    We now have even Fr Chazal joining the dirty war inside the resistance. This one against that one, priest against priest. And what does bishop Williamson do ? Nothing, except sow more confusion and distractions, brought to you in soap opera instalments, so you can keep coming back for more fluff. I wonder when the next Charles Dickens conference will be ? Anybody know ?

    I am no expert on FreeMasonry, but even I can see that this is exactly how the Freemasons operate, it fits perfectly into their agenda. Whether Bishop Williamson is a freemason himself or not, I do not know or claim to know. But I can understand why some are starting to think along those lines. It just fits the pattern : lead the most outspoken and strong opponents out of the SSPX, and then when they're out, keep them busy and confused, lest they get too organised and become an external threat. A clever variant of divide and conquer.

    A few years back, when the lid was still closed on the new direction in the SSPX, Bishop Williamson gave a strong talk in Asia, telling his listeners (among whom were Fr Chazal and Fr Pfeiffer) : 'You priests have to act now, speak up.' So they did and not long after they found themselves expelled from the SSPX. What did Bishop Williamson say as soon as they were out : 'You're on your own now. I won't lead you, I won't organize, I won't start a seminary, etc.'. Is that how you would expect a bishop to act ? Lead the strong and brave men out of the camp and then refuse to lead them any further ? Instead distract and confuse them, so they start squabbling amongst themselves and get nowhere fast ?

    One of the most popular slogans among Trads is 'look at the fruits'. Yet when it comes to their own backyard, they are totally oblivious to the rotten fruits falling everywhere and especially to the rotten tree these fruits are falling of. One of the symptoms of Freemasonic infiltration, about which they always have a good laugh, is that they do things right in people's face, yet the people don't see it.

    If my words are unfounded or even sinful, then I am sure God will punish me and somehow draw good out of them for others. At least I will not be accused of being lukewarm.
     
  3. Admin

    Admin Moderator Staff Member

    Last edited: Jul 11, 2017
  4. unbrandable

    unbrandable Well-Known Member

    Wow! What a change. Did he get paid off or something?
     
    Scarlet Pimpernel likes this.
  5. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    That was a mild piece from Samuel. See in the link below for more of his stronger statements against BW and Fr. Chazal...then out of utility like a tweety bird on cue, he says the total opposite today. A 180 may not be the right expression. How about flipping over on his head...bouncing down a rubber mountain...hop scotching over a field of flavored trad-ecum sledge...while blabbering word games at the same time----saying:

    "The greatest positive influence to me is now bishop Williamson, bishop Thomas Aquinas and Fr Chazal, not because they are perfect, but mainly because they are humble, moderate and experienced. They stay focused on what is important, and don't get caught up in petty fights."

    "Bishop Williamson is #1 for me and always has been someone
    I look to for proper perspective."

    Oh how mushy. If only we can have some of that fermented camel manure -- we all can giggle with him.

    There's more in the link below, if one can stand the nauseating nasal. Did I say nasal yet? There seems to be so much of it lately...as if they have financial stocks in a tissue factory.

    Samuel: Then and Now… http://cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/samuel-then-and-now….4212/

    This false resistance stuff is so peevish and bile.

    Hopefully this flagrant hypocrisy will be knocked back into the left field of the BW soup.

    Were their quotes straight forward enough? There's more in archive...hoping it could grow cobwebs to go into the trash bin one day when the opposing BW train totally crashes. Anti-thesis' against our Lord always will.

    Thus is the fairness of providing the very quotes of the "conservative" supporters of BW.

    Words have meaning.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2017
  6. Scarlet Pimpernel

    Scarlet Pimpernel Active Member

    Camp A versus Camp B-
    The resistance is really polarized with 2 camps and I have no doubt that was the game plan for Bsp. Williamson from the get-go and as well the reason the SSPX tossed a Bishop to the resistance. Also remember that B. W. himself said in 2012 that they where offering him "a deal". Who accepts deals from someone who supposedly just kicked you out?

    camp A, the true resistance- Defenders of the faith
    camp B, the fake resistance- Defenders of Bsp. Williamson

    It did seem odd to a few that they would cut loose a well liked bishop for priests and laity to turn to for him to "guide" and console. For recall, the resistance began first and was growing rapidly from the get-go. The sspx and Rome knew they had to do something to derail the growing resistance and they most likely had the Bp. Williamson plan ready to go if needed before hand.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017
    immaculata likes this.
  7. Martius

    Martius Well-Known Member

    Aptly named thread.

    Aptly said, back when Somebody/Samuel was clear-sighted. I wonder what happened to him........
     
  8. Deus Vult

    Deus Vult Well-Known Member

    Yes that's true. I'd forgotten too that Bishop Williamson wasn't "kicked out" until October of 2012 when Menzingen and the world could see that a movement was in fact developing and growing fast worldwide.