Bp. Williamson: Orthodoxes are Followers of Christ

Discussion in 'Resistance Movement (Member 149 is Machabees)' started by Deleted member 149, Oct 20, 2017.

  1. When Bishop Williamson called a novus ordo Cardinal "brave" and "honorable" fighting for the rights of Vatican II isn't enough for concern, Bishop Williamson just stated in his recent Eleison comments (Putin Speaks) that the Orthodox religion of Vladimir Putin is a follower of Christ.

    Of course there is only one Christ and that Christ founded the Catholic religion for men to find redemption and the path to salvation. The Catholic Church is the ONLY doctrinal and moral compass that is pleasing to God based on His revelation through His Son Jesus Christ.

    For Bishop Williamson however, he is channeling that the moral premise without the doctrinal obligation is a road worthy to follow in example of orthodox commentary and calls them "christian"; like the neo-sspx bountifully extols other religions with the SAME name and badge of Catholics.

    "Some experts in the perfidy of the New World Order are still distrustful of Vladimir Putin, which is understandable, but as Americans say, if he talks, walks and quacks like a follower of Christ, then common sense says that he is a follower of Christ. Read here a version (taken from video sub-titles) of a speech of his one year ago in Russia, and judge for yourselves if his world-vision is not Christian:-

    ...Without the moral values that are rooted in Christianity and other world religions, without rules and moral values that have been formed and developed over thousands of years, people inevitably lose their human dignity. As for ourselves we think it is right and natural to defend these moral values coming from Christianity. We must respect the right to self-determination of every minority, but by the same token there cannot and must not be any doubt about the rights of the majority." (Eleison Comments, Putin Speaks, #535)​

    For BW dredging the views of non-catholics highlighting their quotes than what the Church and Her saints have said for consumption, only leads to the same denominator, non-catholic impulses for man-made ideas. Is there no more commentary of Catholic scholars and marvels of saints God had raised? Why so many Eleison comments given paragraph after paragraph to laymen's democratic views? Can't the bishop speak for himself?

    Opening the door to ecumenism has been BW new venture. He also said in July 2016 the Anglican church has true worship in it, quote:

    "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

    Now the Orthodox are the SAME believers as Catholics he feeds to his followers.

    Channeling conciliarism is a punishment quite clear when the Lord God is not served as the only God man must bow to.

    So is this all BW's views? No, his three other bishops (Faure, Aquinas, Zendejas) are complicit following this new faith of BW without saying a word of condemnation, displeasure, or any ode of conflict. These bishops have been silent on all of BW's modernistic views shown here Quotes of Bp. Williamson supporting the new religion and conciliarism.

    To be fair to these bishops, I was given first hand knowledge of a person who sent those quotes to ALL of the bishops and to many of his false resistance priests almost one year ago when it was posted. Moreover, they ALL read these Eleison Comments too; not a word or any consternation.

    Result...SILENT CONSENT!

    "Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it; and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them." - Pope St. Felix III
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 20, 2017
  2. Martius

    Martius Guest

    Bishop Williamson seems to be ‘channeling’ Pope Francis and the Lutherans -

    Pope Francis:
    “On Thursday, asked about what he likes and doesn’t like in the Lutheran ecclesial community, Pope Francis said he likes Lutherans who are active followers of Christ, while he dislikes Christians who are hypocritical or who have a lukewarm faith (emphasis mine). I like all the good Lutherans, eh?” he said. “There are many good ones, the Lutherans who really follow Jesus Christ. On the other hand, I don’t like lukewarm Catholics or lukewarm Lutherans.” https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...us-closely-pope-francis-tells-lutherans-82907

    Bishop Williamson:
    “...the Russians (have had) so much suffering that they learned their lesson and are now finding their way back to God, and their nation’s turning to Him has deserved for them from God a true statesman for their leader, who is the hope of many decent souls all over the world. Some experts in the perfidy of the New World Order are still distrustful of Vladimir Putin, which is understandable, but as Americans say, if he talks, walks and quacks like a follower of Christ, then common sense says that he is a follower of Christ. ” (emphasis mine) https://stmarcelinitiative.com/putin-speaks/

    Since when did being a supposedly ‘Christian’ heretic become the new guidepost for Catholic acceptance. By this line of reasoning, Luther should have been praised in his own time and ever afterwards, as Pope Francis has posited:

    “The leaders of the world’s Catholics and Lutherans have signed a joint declaration at an ecumenical prayer service commemorating the greatest schism in western Christianity, stating that what unites the two traditions is greater than that which divides them. Pope Francis, who travelled to Lund in Sweden for two days of joint events, told worshippers at the city’s cathedral that Catholics and Lutherans had a “new opportunity to accept a common path”. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...int-declaration-pope-francis-christian-sweden

    Over the last few years, it has been rather interesting that Bishop Williamson has begin appearing more and more liberal and modernist than even Bishop Fellay. Bishop Fellay has a one track mind...make a deal with Rome. But what is Bishop Williamson’s defense? He supposedly doesn't have any agenda. So what is his excuse for such perfidy.
    Scarlet Pimpernel likes this.
  3. It needs to be emphasized how silent the three other bishops are to all of Bishop Williamson's flagrant disregard to the Church's teachings on these matters. And for that matter the other false resistance priests too who say NOTHING...while reprinting and promoting the same Eleison comments on their false resistance websites unabated! There is not a peep from any of them in the last five years. Only some of their loose laymen followers who act like unofficial press secretaries try to off-put the bishops statements as "virtue" abolishing any resemblance to catholic identity and orthodoxy. What have we come to? This is not "subtle" or a dialect of "he meant something else". That is how error brush-fires...and consent becomes more common.

    Bishop Williamson shows he isn’t so very ashamed and embarrassed to be so easily exposed for the modernist he is (now). These other bishops are bishops of the Catholic Church and must defend Her and Her doctrinal premise and supremacy; not a man's, a pope's, or another bishop's personal views.

    They need to stop playing the "ABL" card as a theme or mascot the neo-sspx does to further their agenda. It is clear there is an agenda with these false resistance bishops allowing these errors to spread.

    Where would we be if there were more BWs and lazy bishops at the time of Luther and Arianism to do less while placating these errors? Oh yes, there were many all around the world scourging Christ St. Athanasius and Catholic faithful stood against.

    So why the silence from these bishops and false resistance priests allowing men's minds to indulge in themselves while Christ is put into the tomb?
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 20, 2017
    Rose likes this.
  4. Wonder if all of this 'literary show' Bishop Williamson promotes week after week in his Eleison comments to off set and neutralize any resistance is a part of the "amiable separation" he received from Menzingen? And now he is so caught up into his own independence, we are witnessing a sad loss of grace in his mind seriously betraying Holy Tradition in -SAME- as the nominal and specific betrayals we witness in Bishops Fellay, Tissier, and de Galeretta against Tradition. What is happening with these prelates?

    Punishment from God, mirage of office, the Blessed Mother refuses to be mocked?

    It is noticed all seven of these bishops have used the BVM as a scapegoat to forward their agenda to be passive, do nothing, and progress to modern thought and behavior when she officially condemned with a strict punishment to stay away from the defilement of modern man's ambitions and ideologies.

    The eclipse of the faith becomes more apparent she forewarned and foretold. When will men learn?

    Her Son is the only way forward - uncompromised!
    Rose and Scarlet Pimpernel like this.
  5. Admin

    Admin Administrator

    It is like Our Lady is waiting for all the modernists to expose themselves so that WE can see and identify them. Fr. Pfeiffer's excellent expose of their tactics is a 'must hear' for the laity. See June Conference.

    Our Mother is giving us time to arm ourselves to recognise the enemy whenever/wherever he pops up his head. If we fail to make full use of the time available to us we endanger our own souls.

    Last edited: Oct 20, 2017
  6. Bishop Williamson sends out his Newest Eleison comments, Culture’s Importance – II https://stmarcelinitiative.com/cultures-importance-ii/ praising President Putin again in his Orthodox culture while making mush of Catholic culture.

    BW Quote:
    • Let us resort again to the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, for some politically incorrect common sense on the notion of “culture,” which he is taking in its broadest but real sense as the values, standards and way of life.
    • Putin is in this respect on the side of Almighty God.
    Yet BW quotes Putin who says with desire - "we should look for ways to build and follow a common path". That is Ecumenism; not "on the side of Almighty God"!

    Bw ends with a conservative state of utopia...emphasizing Putin is to him a natural and spiritual hope for the consecration of Russia. (sic).

    And within his EC, Fatima Reversed?, BW praise the "fruit" of Putin's Orthodoxy:

    "True, with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 the Russian people began to repudiate the godless Communism under which they had suffered so much for 70 years, and since then they have not ceased to evolve towards God instead of away from him. Leading this evolution has been Russia’a Prime Minister or President since 1999, Vladimir Putin (born in1952), who by his personal example and public leadership has done all he could to promote the real revival of the Christian Orthodox religion within Russia. Some observers still doubt that Putin is genuine, but the fruits are there: thousands of churches and cathedrals rebuilt all over Russia and morality defended, while outside of Russia Putin has more than once delayed the outbreak of World War III by outwitting the delinquent Western politicians, puppets of the godless New World Order and pushing for its triumph.

    Then can one say that Russia today no longer needs to be converted? No, because Orthodox Christianity is not yet Catholicism."

    As far as "defending morality" is that not relative? Muslims and Amish do this to in their view of things. So what fruit is that in view of Catholicism? Nothing but a virtue in natural law...that can be built to receive the grace of God. "Grace builds on nature", says St. Thomas Aquinas.

    What only remains in BW Epistles are only day dreams with all the time he has not building a true Catholic society while praising the orthodox society.

    BW needs to go back to his Catholic books. Politics without the true religion is tyranny; The true Religion without politics is anarchy. There is no utopia in Putin. He is a man who needs conversion, not on BW's conservative terms, on the terms of the blood of Catholic Martyrs.
  7. Anand

    Anand Well-Known Member

    Bp.Williamson does nothing to oppose either the Modernists in Rome or the Novus Ordoising of Bp. Fellay and company.
  8. Admin

    Admin Administrator

    Last edited: Jan 3, 2018
  9. TheRecusant.com

    TheRecusant.com Well-Known Member



    4th January 2018

    Dear Father Ortiz,

    It is the memory of your 27-page long Ambrose Moran document dealing with questions of the schismatic Orthodox, and the time I spent reading through it, which spurs me to write to you first and foremost. In some people’s eyes, you are the Church’s champion leading a crusade against the peril of schismatic Orthodoxy. For this reason, I feel sure that the following will interest you a great deal. I wish to begin by drawing your attention to some fairly recent statements made by Bishop Williamson which appear to favour the Russian Orthodox. His words appeared in Eleison Comments #525 August 2017 and #535, October 2017 and can be read here: stmarcelinitiative.com/fatima-consecration-ii/ and here: stmarcelinitiative.com/putin-speaks. The first talks about the consecration of Russia requested by Our Lady of Fatima and uses the name “Holy Russia” to describe contemporary Russia before its consecration has happened. The second one begins by defending the use of the phrase “Holy Russia” and then goes on to call Vladimir Putin “a follower of Christ”, even though he is a man whom the whole world knows to be a Russian Orthodox schismatic.

    1. Holy Russia

    Bishop Williamson begins Eleison Comments #535 by telling his readers that:

    “One reader of these ‘Comments’ was surprised to see them (August 5) referring to ‘Holy Russia’ when since 1917 it is Russia that has been spreading its errors throughout the world.”

    Whether Bishop Williamson has misrepresented the grounds for his reader’s objections (knowingly or otherwise) is unclear. Regardless, the fact remains that the main objection to calling Russia “Holy” is not merely that it was a Communist country after 1917, for this would be to suggest or give the impression that Russia perhaps was “holy” before 1917 and that it was only the Bolshevik revolution which took away that “holiness”. You and I know otherwise, Father, as does Bishop Williamson.

    Bishop Williamson then goes on to justify calling Russia “Holy Russia” by saying:

    “But ‘Holy Russia’ is an expression that goes much further back than the 20th century. It refers to the Russian people’s natural inclination to religion. If from 1917 to 1989 they were the spring-bed of international Communism, that is only because they served it with a religious fervour…”

    The question which he begs is: their inclination to what religion? You and I both know the answer, Father. The religion of Russia is not the Catholic religion. It is a false religion calling itself Russian Orthodoxy and has been since the year 1054. And whilst the phrase “Holy Russia” may go back earlier than the 20th century, it is not that much earlier, and nowhere near as old as the schism of 1054. The phrase is a comparatively recent invention of the Orthodox. It therefore does not refer to anything Catholic but is a reference to Russian Orthodoxy supposedly being the true religion, since it recalls the false teaching of the Russian Orthodox according to which Russia (and not Rome) has a sort of spiritual primacy over the world, the true religion being the schismatic, man-made national religion of that country.

    The contrast which the bishop draws between Russia pre- and post- 1917 is also misleading since, as mentioned above, it risks leaving the impression that things were bad in Russia after 1917, but not before. An uninformed person reading Bishop Williamson’s words might be forgiven for thinking that before 1917 Russia was a truly “holy” country, where all or most people were “fervently” practicing the true religion. But you and I know that that is not the case, quite the contrary. The truth is that the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 only replaced one form of darkness with an even more brutal and unpleasant form of darkness. Even so, prior to 1917 Russia was a country in need of conversion, a country practicing a false religion, a country which, in the name of that false religion, persecuted and oppressed the Catholic Church, even officially in her government and laws, sometimes with bloody violence. The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that in the mid-19th century, a mere two generations before the Bolshevik revolution, Czar Nicholas I was busy persecuting the Church in Russia and also in Poland which at that time fell under his sway:

    “The reign of Nicholas I was a long period of persecution and suffering for Catholics in Russia. …

    Catholics were prohibited from restoring their churches and from building new ones; from preaching sermons that had not previously been approved by the government, and from refuting the calumnies of the Press against Catholicism. It is not necessary for us to recur to the authority of Catholic writers, like Lescœur, to prove how odious this violence was; we may be satisfied with a mere glance at the immense collection of laws and governmental measures concerning the Catholic Church, from the times of Peter and of Ivan Alexeievitch to 1867. …

    It is not without reason that a Catholic writer has said that the laws of Nicholas I against Catholicism constitute a Neronian code.”


    His successor, Czar Alexander II, was little better.

    “The first years of the reign of Alexander II were not marked by anti-Catholic violence. … Soon however there was a return to the methods of Nicholas I, notwithstanding the fact that Pius IX wrote to the tsar, imploring liberty for Catholics of both rites in Russia. In another letter, addressed in 1861 to Mgr. Fialkowski, Archbishop of Warsaw, Pius IX referred to the continual efforts of the Holy See to safeguard the existence of Catholicism in Russia, and to the difficulties that were opposed to all measures of his and of his predecessors in that connection. Encouraged by the words of the pope, the Polish bishops presented a memorandum to the representative of the emperor at Warsaw, asking for the abrogation of the laws that oppressed Catholics and destroyed their liberty. A similar memorandum was presented to the tsar by the Archbishop of Mohileff and the bishops of Russia. Upon the basis of these memoranda, the government accused the Catholic clergy of promoting the spirit of revolution and of plotting revolts against the tsar. Most painful occurrences ensued; the soldiery was not restrained from profaning the churches and the Holy Eucharist, from wounding defenceless women, or from treating Warsaw as a city taken by storm. One hundred and sixty priests, and among them the vicar capitular Bialobrzeski, were taken prisoners, and several of them were exiled to Siberia. Mgr. Deckert, coadjutor of the Archbishop Fialkowski, died of the sufferings that these events caused him. The condition of the Poles were becoming intolerable, and Catholicism suffered proportionately. Amid the general indifference of Europe, one voice, that of Pius IX, was raised, firm and energetic, in favour of an oppressed people and of a persecuted faith.


    Would it be worth noting that the persecution of the Church by the Russian government and national “church” did not end with the death of Alexander II but carried on into the 20th century?

    “It should not be forgotten that, during the entire reign of Alexander II, the religious policy of Russia was inspired by Konstantin Pobiedonostseff, Procurator General of the [Russian Orthodox] Holy Synod, who, for political rather than religious motives, was a fierce adversary of Catholicism. The Catholic clergy continued to endure the severest oppression, abandoned to the caprices of the police, greatly reduced in numbers, and trammelled by a thousand obstacles in the exercise of its apostolic ministry. This condition of things was prolonged into the reign of Nicholas II, during which Pobiedonostseff exercised his dictatorship until 1905.”


    1905 is a mere twelve years before the Bolshevik revolution and the apparition of Our Lady of Fatima. But which Russia is it that we see here, is this the “Holy Russia” of which Bishop Williamson speaks? Was it “Holy Russia” which persecuted the Church? Was it “Holy Russia” which made the condition of Polish Catholics intolerable? Was it “Holy Russia” which sent soldiers into Catholic Churches to smash them up and profane the Blessed Sacrament? Was it “Holy Russia” which arrested priests and sent them to die in Siberia? Which Russia was this Russia which officially passed so many laws designed to suppress the Catholic Church and against which Pius IX energetically protested?

    2. A Follower of Christ

    That would be bad enough, but it gets worse. In the same Eleison Comments #535, Bishop Williamson tells us that Vladimir Putin is “a follower of Christ.”

    “Some experts in the perfidy of the New World Order are still distrustful of Vladimir Putin, which is understandable, but as Americans say, if he talks, walks and quacks like a follower of Christ, then common sense says that he is a follower of Christ.”

    Father, can a Russian Orthodox schismatic truly be called “a follower of Christ”? Can, in this particular case, possibly the best known Russian Orthodox schismatic in the whole world, a man who promotes the false religion of Russian Orthodoxy on television by his words and deeds and bad example, nevertheless be called “a follower of Christ”? Does Vladimir Putin need to convert and become a Catholic or does he not? If, say, you had managed somehow to become his best friend and closest, most trusted confidant, and he were to ask you one day: “What do you think, Father, should I become a Catholic? What would you advise me to do?” - would you urge him to do so as soon as possible, or would you tell him that there really is no need? I ask again: can a Russian Orthodox schismatic truly be called a follower of Christ? This is a yes or no question, Father. Bishop Williamson is either right or wrong. There are huge implications either way.

    3. Implications

    If what Bishop Williamson says is right, and a non-Catholic who publicly professes the Russian Orthodox religion can truly be called “a follower of Christ,” then it is not necessary to be a Catholic in order to follow Christ. And since it is by following Christ that we save our souls and gain the eternal reward of heaven, this in turn must surely mean that it is not necessary to become a Catholic in order to save one’s soul.

    If what Bishop Williamson says is right, and Russia as it is today, in its present unconsecrated state, can be called “Holy Russia” due to the “the Russian people’s natural inclination towards religion” of any sort, be it the false religion of Russian Orthodoxy which persecuted the Church or the false religion of Communism which persecuted the Church and many others indiscriminately, then the word “holy” has undergone a radical change of meaning. According to this new meaning, the more inclined a person is towards joining and supporting whatever the fashionable false religion du jour is and “serving it with a religious fervour,” even if that service involves persecuting the Church, the more they can be said to be “holy.”

    If what Bishop Williamson says is right, and Russia, a country with hardly any Catholics (all Catholics, including liberal and non-practicing Catholics, total barely 1% of the population) and where the Church is not represented in the state at any level can be called “holy”, then holiness can be found outside the Church, which in turn must surely mean that the Church is not necessary for sanctification since it is now possible to be “holy” without being in any way Catholic.

    If what Bishop Williamson says is right, and a known, publicly-professing Orthodox schismatic can be “a follower of Christ,” then the charges which you levelled against Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko of “association in sacris” (if there were such a thing) and of being “suspect of schism” (ditto) do not make a lot of sense because if, for argument’s sake Ambrose Moran really were a Ukrainian Orthodox and not a Ukrainian Catholic, he could still nevertheless be regarded as a “follower of Christ,” could he not?

    On the other hand…

    If what Bishop Williamson says is not true, then he has publicly propagated some ideas which are, at the very least, highly misleading and will lead to confusion among the faithful and even priests.

    If what Bishop Williamson says is not true, then he would appear to have contradicted Church teaching on a number of points (‘Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus’ for example), whether implicitly or explicitly, knowingly or unwittingly.

    If what Bishop Williamson says is not true, then such moral authority as he still enjoys due to his status as one of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 will unfortunately only serve in this instance to help lead souls astray.

    If what Bishop Williamson says is not true, and you can see that it is not true, then you surely have a very grave moral obligation to point that out to him, for his benefit at least, if no one else’s.

    If what Bishop Williamson says is not true, and you can see that it is not true, then the unfortunate fact that he made these misleading statements in public means that they must be put right in public in order to repair the damage and clear up any confusion caused, and that any correction made to him, by you or by anyone else, must also be made in public.

    If what Bishop Williamson says is not true, then as a sober man who takes such things seriously, you must surely ask yourself how this could have happened and whether perhaps it might have happened before on an occasion which you did not notice and whether it will happen again.

    4. Justice

    It is, as always, very disappointing to witness a supposedly “Traditional” Catholic bishop saying such things. What is perhaps even more disappointing is the lack of response from those calling themselves Traditional. It has now been nearly three months since Bishop Williamson made these statements, and I and many others have been waiting to see what your response would be, Father. So far, we have been disappointed.

    Father Ortiz, you are regarded around the world as being a priest associated with, cooperating with and in some way joined to Bishop Williamson. That is true whether you like it or not, whether you intend it or not. You have in the past referred to Bishops Williamson and Faure as “our bishops,” you assisted at the most recent episcopal consecration which Bishop Williamson performed, an event which took place at your church where you are resident, St. Athanasius, in Vienna, Virginia. And to this day, nobody has ever seen a public word from you which so much as hints at a difference between Bishop Williamson and yourself. I find this not a little perplexing.

    The reason I find it perplexing is that not so very long ago you publically accused Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer and Fr. David Hewko (and indirectly all those who assist at their Masses) of being in some way tainted with schism and Orthodoxy due to their “association with” a man whom you regard as an Orthodox schismatic, despite the fact that he made a public profession of the Catholic Faith in 2015 and that his baptism as a Catholic in the late 1940s was proven beyond all doubt by the unearthing of his baptismal certificate from the parish in New York where he was born. I remember well the pages and pages of talk about “communicatio in sacris,” and the quotations concerning those “suspect of heresy” to which you had added the word “schism” in square brackets, as though there could ever be such a thing as one “suspect of schism”. Only last year you wrote a letter to the Australian faithful accusing Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko of “association in sacris” – a thing which does not exist! – and telling them that they could not go to their Masses. I thought then, as I do now, that you greatly overreached yourself and overstated your case. Had you confined yourself to saying that you were concerned over the question of Ambrose Moran’s past or that you found Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko to have exercised not enough caution for your liking then, I suspect, people might have taken you a little more seriously. I myself would still not necessarily agree, but it need not have been a point of public contention. Since, however, you chose to make this into such a big, public cause celebre, unfortunately you must bear the consequences of that decision, which is why people are now waiting to see what your response will be to Bishop Williamson.

    You accused Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko of being too closely “associated” with someone whom you suspected was Orthodox. You accused them of temporising with schismatic Orthodoxy and of being “suspect of schism” and said that no one may go to them for the sacraments lest they too become somehow tainted with Orthodoxy and schism. And yet now, today, when the whole world has witnessed Bishop Williamson speaking of the Orthodox schismatic Putin as a “follower of Christ” and of the Orthodox Russia which persecuted the Church as “Holy Russia” your response is total silence. A less generous man might be tempted to accuse you of the very worst kind of hypocrisy and self-interest. You have unjustly attacked two priests who are innocent of the crimes with which you charge them and who would never knowingly have anything to do with schismatic or heretical false religions, except to convert them. And yet when one of your own friends a year or two later does the very thing of which you accused those two priests, you look the other way and pretend you didn’t notice.

    If it was, as you said, “necessary to warn the faithful” about the non-existent “association” of Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko with schismatic Orthodoxy, why is it not now necessary to warn the faithful of the very real and undeniable temporising with and favouring of schismatic Orthodoxy on the part of Bishop Williamson? Father Ortiz, to avoid anyone mistaking your silence for rank hypocrisy, you must now choose. Either you must denounce the recent statements of Bishop Williamson and warn the faithful against what he is currently encouraging them to think. Or you must apologise to Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko and let it be known publicly that you were mistaken, that you overstated your case, that they were and are innocent of the charges which you levelled against them and that, in any case, even if they had been guilty, it would not matter because, as Bishop Williamson has now made clear, the Orthodox can be “followers of Christ” too. One or the other, Father.

    On behalf of many others who, like myself, eagerly await your reply,

    God bless,

    Greg Taylor

    PS – If my memory serves, Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko asked you, in charity, to point out to them what “calumnies” they had committed against Bishop Williamson (or “our bishops,” as you put it), an entirely reasonable request. It has now been a whole year. Perhaps you would like to consider fulfilling their request and showing them where they went wrong?
    mirella likes this.
  10. Admin

    Admin Administrator

    See attached pdf file of above letter to Fr. Ortiz.

    Attached Files: