Conciliar Popes – IV

C

cantatedomino

Guest
Admin said:

I have to confess to members of Cor Mariae, that I am not satisfied with that. We need a Shepherd to rescue us from adding more confusion /opinions. Are all the priests who are leaving the society placing themselves under the aegis of Bishop Williamson for their own individual undeclared reasons? Archbishop Lefebvre gave no opinions about the faith. He instructed emphatically that the laity have a right to know what is the mindset of their leaders.

Another point I have been wishing to raise for some time now is this tagline 'homealoner'. If through their instransigence our leaders do not instruct us under the one banner of The Way the Truth and The Life then what else but that the lost sheep are forced into a homealone position? Not knowing which priest to choose they are forced into going directly to their Lord, humbly, beseechingly. You may be very surprised to know that they are getting many graces increased by their acceptance of ridicule. Those who demonise these abandoned sheep have given the good Lord the opportunity to supply directly into their souls whatever graces they plead for. Mary makes sure of that. You simple folk who pray your rosaries and pray spiritual Masses in union with those being said in the world can be assured you are not alone! They find themselves surrounded by a vast congregation as if in a great cathedral where all the angels, saints, and fellow-adorers pray in unison to their dear Lord and Saviour.

Like their patron Archbishop Lefebvre, when asked if he felt alone, what did he answer? Alone? When he was in the company of all predecessor shepherds of the Church? Impossible! Those who exercise their faith create a pathway directly into the Sacred Heart of Jesus via the perpetual intercession of our Mother Mary.

If we are going to be kept as a loose federation then brave hearts know where to go and to Whom. We have all the desert fathers to show us the way.

Kathleen Donelly

As I said on another forum, you speak with a grace I could never muster.

Thank you for your public witness!
 
C

cantatedomino

Guest
Nobody said:
The writing appeared on the wall long ago : apparitionitis, 'Dickens', loose association theories, weak SV arguments tricklefed in weekly soap opera installments, fuzzy orange lights..

We're running out of men !
Yup.

And it is because many of our otherwise good men follow Bishop W instead of Jesus Christ.

They need to convert.
 
C

cantatedomino

Guest
Nobody said:
<div class="quote" source="/post/6761/thread" timestamp="1436712266" author="@ajnc"><div class="quote_body"><div class="quote_avatar_container"><div class="avatar-wrapper avatar_size_quote avatar-0">//images.proboards.com/v5/defaultavatar.png</div></div><div class="quote_header">Jul 12, 2015 14:44:26 GMT @ajnc said:</div>Thank you. It looks like Bishop Faure will have to do the job.
Sorry to say, but don't hold your breath. He's seeing too much orange as well..
<div class="quote_clear"></div></div></div>I think you are right.

I think he will not take things in hand.

Pray God I am dead wrong.
 
C

cantatedomino

Guest
Admin said:
Mons. Williamson's successful visit to the United States accompanied by two Priests : Father Zendejus and Fr. Angelico OP from the Dominicans of Avrille.

Father Zendejas organized a great conference for the Resistance in Connecticut. Father Marie Dominique P. Angelico OP and OP, both of the Dominican Monastery of Avrillé, France attended. It was also attended by Dr. David Allen White.
Are we to understand from this that Bishop Williamson agrees with the new Declaration published by the Dominicans of Avrille?

Non Possumus
It is most certainly an inference that could reasonably be drawn.
 
C

cantatedomino

Guest
Nobody said:
<div class="quote" source="/post/6773/thread" timestamp="1436787540" author="@ecclesiamilitans"><div class="quote_body"><div class="quote_avatar_container"><div class="avatar-wrapper avatar_size_quote avatar-0">//images.proboards.com/v5/defaultavatar.png</div></div><div class="quote_header">Jul 13, 2015 11:39:00 GMT @ecclesiamilitans said:</div>What precisely do you mean by "orange"?
Either you're not the 'ecclesiamilitans' I know, or you're playing tricks.

Orange :

Neither red nor green,
but something in between.

The SSPX is full of rot,
but stay away we must not.

Avoiding them may be fine for you,
But others can make their own choice too.

Oh yes, we must fight the modernism,
but don't be too firm, that's called extremism.

<div class="quote_clear"></div></div></div>Who wrote this poem? Machabees or the Bishop?
 
D

Deleted member 149

Guest
cantatedomino said:
Nobody said:
Either you're not the 'ecclesiamilitans' I know, or you're playing tricks.

Orange :

Neither red nor green,
but something in between.

The SSPX is full of rot,
but stay away we must not.

Avoiding them may be fine for you,
But others can make their own choice too.

Oh yes, we must fight the modernism,
but don't be too firm, that's called extremism.
Who wrote this poem? Machabees or the Bishop?
It is all from Nobody's colorful pen.

 
C

cantatedomino

Guest
Machabees said:
cantatedomino said:
Who wrote this poem? Machabees or the Bishop?
It is all from Nobody's colorful pen.
//images.proboards.com/v5/smiley/tongue.png

Colorful and pretty darn accurate!

 

TheRecusant.com

Well-Known Member
Well done, Machabees. And well done Kathleen.

Let me add my own thoughts, for what they are worth. Machabees is of course quite right. To tell somebody that they can do something which is harmful to them is not very kind. And for a bishop to do so is even worse. Bishop Williamson may say that he is only expressing his opinion, but the fact of his being a bishop means that anything he says on a contentious issue will always carry more weight that you or I, because (rightly or wrongly) many faithful care about who is saying it as much as what is being said.

If sedevacantism "can slide into ... even the loss of one's Catholic faith" then how can the bishop say that "if someone needs to hold that position, let him hold it"..? It's one or the other, not both! The only answers which would make sense are: 1. He actually wishes harm upon such people by telling them they can hold a dangerous position (and that surely cannot be true!) or 2. He is trying to please both sides. Give something for everyone. The people who are already anti- will hear the "danger to your faith" bit and come away agreeing with what they heard, the people who feel differently will hear the "you can if you feel you need to" bit and will come away agreeing with what they hear. Both sides will praise the wisdom of the bishop. The problem is, stating the truth clearly and unambiguously can often lose friends and make enemies from amongst those who disagree, but its what must be done. If, on the other hand, my priority is to make and keep as many friends and supporters as possible (who to win friends and influence people!) then I will only ever tend towards saying something, but will ultimately try to keep all sides happy. I hope that is not what the bishop is doing here, but it looks rather like it to me. Perhaps someone else can suggest another possible answer.

As Machabees points out, there are also serious issues over his telling people that it is OK to go to the Novus Ordo in Canada last year. I have just been alerted (via a well known sedevacantist site) to a video of Q&amp;A in New York a couple of weeks ago where he says the same thing. At one point he says "Archbishop Lefebvre would say not to attend" the Novus Ordo and the next moment he tells the questioner that in some circumstances one can attend it. I don't see how that is defensible. I have also heard the bishop say the same regarding the SSPX i.e. "It is danger to your faith to attend the SSPX ... you can attend the SSPX." Either statement on its own would make sense but the two together don't.

Incidentally, as regards the yellow or "orange light" position towards the neo-SSPX - given that bishop Williamson told the faithful of Munich that it was OK to attend the SSPX priory there - the same SSPX priory which advertises Mass in the extraordinary form", and quite probably the most liberal SSPX parish in the world! - if you are OK to attend even a place like that, then you're OK to attend pretty much anywhere. At which point the whole idea of "yellow light" is shown up as being a meaningless sophism. Because if there aren't actually any places that must be avoided in practice, then in reality you are giving a green light but just dressing it up in a more "anti-SSPX" sounding language. Of course there are also issues surrounding the reasoning behind the bishop's so-called "yellow light" advice, the fact that he makes the issue depend entirely on the personality of the individual priest, whereas what we really ought to be worried about is the position of the SSPX as an institution, the doctrinal acceptance of Vatican II, etc. But that is perhaps for another discussion.

I think Kathleen ought to be commended for raising a very serious concern. If the Resistance has any claim to integrity, intellectual honesty or sincerity, it is that we did not seek a fight with Bishop Fellay but found ourselves forced to disagree with what he says because we follow ideas and principles, not personalities. If we now give bishop Williamson a free pass and turn a deaf ear to all this sort of nonsense then we are hypocrites and we lose any justification for what we are doing. Our opponents make us out as angry rebels who are merely "followers of Williamson" without principles, etc. Are we now to conform to this ridiculous caricature? Or shall we prove them wrong?

Finally, Kathleen is quite right that is not enough merely to say about a priest: "He left the SSPX! He must be one of us!" Various priests left the SSPX for various reasons. Some join the conciliar church. Some become sedevacantist. Some leave for themselves. Some even leave the priesthood altogether. In a time of diabolical disorientation it is all the more important that the truth be spoken loudly and clearly. The faithful have a right to know what their priests stand for. For the faithful to ask a priest to publicly nail his colours to the mast is not an outrageous liberty, it is only natural and right. And if he reacts badly to such a request, that is not a good sign.

Keep up the good work folks. adiutorium nostrum in nomine Domini.

- The Editor of the Recusant
 

Admin

Administrator
TheRecusant.com said:
Well done, Machabees. And well done Kathleen.

Let me add my own thoughts, for what they are worth. Machabees is of course quite right. To tell somebody that they can do something which is harmful to them is not very kind. And for a bishop to do so is even worse. Bishop Williamson may say that he is only expressing his opinion, but the fact of his being a bishop means that anything he says on a contentious issue will always carry more weight that you or I, because (rightly or wrongly) many faithful care about who is saying it as much as what is being said.

If sedevacantism "can slide into ... even the loss of one's Catholic faith" then how can the bishop say that "if someone needs to hold that position, let him hold it"..? It's one or the other, not both! The only answers which would make sense are: 1. He actually wishes harm upon such people by telling them they can hold a dangerous position (and that surely cannot be true!) or 2. He is trying to please both sides. Give something for everyone. The people who are already anti- will hear the "danger to your faith" bit and come away agreeing with what they heard, the people who feel differently will hear the "you can if you feel you need to" bit and will come away agreeing with what they hear. Both sides will praise the wisdom of the bishop. The problem is, stating the truth clearly and unambiguously can often lose friends and make enemies from amongst those who disagree, but its what must be done. If, on the other hand, my priority is to make and keep as many friends and supporters as possible (who to win friends and influence people!) then I will only ever tend towards saying something, but will ultimately try to keep all sides happy. I hope that is not what the bishop is doing here, but it looks rather like it to me. Perhaps someone else can suggest another possible answer.

As Machabees points out, there are also serious issues over his telling people that it is OK to go to the Novus Ordo in Canada last year. I have just been alerted (via a well known sedevacantist site) to a video of Q&amp;A in New York a couple of weeks ago where he says the same thing. At one point he says "Archbishop Lefebvre would say not to attend" the Novus Ordo and the next moment he tells the questioner that in some circumstances one can attend it. I don't see how that is defensible. I have also heard the bishop say the same regarding the SSPX i.e. "It is danger to your faith to attend the SSPX ... you can attend the SSPX." Either statement on its own would make sense but the two together don't.

Incidentally, as regards the yellow or "orange light" position towards the neo-SSPX - given that bishop Williamson told the faithful of Munich that it was OK to attend the SSPX priory there - the same SSPX priory which advertises Mass in the extraordinary form", and quite probably the most liberal SSPX parish in the world! - if you are OK to attend even a place like that, then you're OK to attend pretty much anywhere. At which point the whole idea of "yellow light" is shown up as being a meaningless sophism. Because if there aren't actually any places that must be avoided in practice, then in reality you are giving a green light but just dressing it up in a more "anti-SSPX" sounding language. Of course there are also issues surrounding the reasoning behind the bishop's so-called "yellow light" advice, the fact that he makes the issue depend entirely on the personality of the individual priest, whereas what we really ought to be worried about is the position of the SSPX as an instituonthe doctrinal acceptance of Vatican II, etc. But that is perhaps for another discussion.

I think Kathleen ought to be commended for raising a very serious concern. If the Resistance has any claim to integrity, intellectual honesty or sincerity, it is that we did not seek a fight with Bishop Fellay but found ourselves forced to disagree with what he says because we follow ideas and principles, not personalities. If we now give bishop Williamson a free pass and turn a deaf ear to all this sort of nonsense then we are hypocrites and we lose any justification for what we are doing. Our opponents make us out as angry rebels who are merely "followers of Williamson" without principles, etc. Are we now to conform to this ridiculous caricature? Or shall we prove them wrong?

Finally, Kathleen is quite right that is not enough merely to say about a priest: "He left the SSPX! He must be one of us!" Various priests left the SSPX for various reasons. Some join the conciliar church. Some become sedevacantist. Some leave for themselves. Some even leave the priesthood altogether. In a time of diabolical disorientation it is all the more important that the truth be spoken loudly and clearly. The faithful have a right to know what their priests stand for. For the faithful to ask a priest to publicly nail his colours to the mast is not an outrageous liberty, it is only natural and right. And if he reacts badly to such a request, that is not a good sign.

Keep up the good work folks. adiutorium nostrum in nomine Domini.

- The Editor of the Recusant
I want to thank the Editor of the Recusant for submitting this article in response to a request made for clarity and clear thinking regarding Bishop Williamson's Comments.

Recusant newsletters are to be found here : cor-mariae.proboards.com/board/188/recusant





 
C

cantatedomino

Guest
TheRecusant.com said:
Well done, Machabees. And well done Kathleen.

Let me add my own thoughts, for what they are worth. Machabees is of course quite right. To tell somebody that they can do something which is harmful to them is not very kind. And for a bishop to do so is even worse. Bishop Williamson may say that he is only expressing his opinion, but the fact of his being a bishop means that anything he says on a contentious issue will always carry more weight that you or I, because (rightly or wrongly) many faithful care about who is saying it as much as what is being said.

If sedevacantism "can slide into ... even the loss of one's Catholic faith" then how can the bishop say that "if someone needs to hold that position, let him hold it"..? It's one or the other, not both! The only answers which would make sense are: 1. He actually wishes harm upon such people by telling them they can hold a dangerous position (and that surely cannot be true!) or 2. He is trying to please both sides. Give something for everyone. The people who are already anti- will hear the "danger to your faith" bit and come away agreeing with what they heard, the people who feel differently will hear the "you can if you feel you need to" bit and will come away agreeing with what they hear. Both sides will praise the wisdom of the bishop. The problem is, stating the truth clearly and unambiguously can often lose friends and make enemies from amongst those who disagree, but its what must be done. If, on the other hand, my priority is to make and keep as many friends and supporters as possible (who to win friends and influence people!) then I will only ever tend towards saying something, but will ultimately try to keep all sides happy. I hope that is not what the bishop is doing here, but it looks rather like it to me. Perhaps someone else can suggest another possible answer.

As Machabees points out, there are also serious issues over his telling people that it is OK to go to the Novus Ordo in Canada last year. I have just been alerted (via a well known sedevacantist site) to a video of Q&amp;A in New York a couple of weeks ago where he says the same thing. At one point he says "Archbishop Lefebvre would say not to attend" the Novus Ordo and the next moment he tells the questioner that in some circumstances one can attend it. I don't see how that is defensible. I have also heard the bishop say the same regarding the SSPX i.e. "It is danger to your faith to attend the SSPX ... you can attend the SSPX." Either statement on its own would make sense but the two together don't.

Incidentally, as regards the yellow or "orange light" position towards the neo-SSPX - given that bishop Williamson told the faithful of Munich that it was OK to attend the SSPX priory there - the same SSPX priory which advertises Mass in the extraordinary form", and quite probably the most liberal SSPX parish in the world! - if you are OK to attend even a place like that, then you're OK to attend pretty much anywhere. At which point the whole idea of "yellow light" is shown up as being a meaningless sophism. Because if there aren't actually any places that must be avoided in practice, then in reality you are giving a green light but just dressing it up in a more "anti-SSPX" sounding language. Of course there are also issues surrounding the reasoning behind the bishop's so-called "yellow light" advice, the fact that he makes the issue depend entirely on the personality of the individual priest, whereas what we really ought to be worried about is the position of the SSPX as an institution, the doctrinal acceptance of Vatican II, etc. But that is perhaps for another discussion.

I think Kathleen ought to be commended for raising a very serious concern. If the Resistance has any claim to integrity, intellectual honesty or sincerity, it is that we did not seek a fight with Bishop Fellay but found ourselves forced to disagree with what he says because we follow ideas and principles, not personalities. If we now give bishop Williamson a free pass and turn a deaf ear to all this sort of nonsense then we are hypocrites and we lose any justification for what we are doing. Our opponents make us out as angry rebels who are merely "followers of Williamson" without principles, etc. Are we now to conform to this ridiculous caricature? Or shall we prove them wrong?

Finally, Kathleen is quite right that is not enough merely to say about a priest: "He left the SSPX! He must be one of us!" Various priests left the SSPX for various reasons. Some join the conciliar church. Some become sedevacantist. Some leave for themselves. Some even leave the priesthood altogether. In a time of diabolical disorientation it is all the more important that the truth be spoken loudly and clearly. The faithful have a right to know what their priests stand for. For the faithful to ask a priest to publicly nail his colours to the mast is not an outrageous liberty, it is only natural and right. And if he reacts badly to such a request, that is not a good sign.

Keep up the good work folks. adiutorium nostrum in nomine Domini.

- The Editor of the Recusant
How can I ever thank you enough for standing up in season and out?!!!!!

God bless you, Recusant!
 
D

Deleted member 149

Guest
TheRecusant.com said:
.........

Incidentally, as regards the yellow or "orange light" position towards the neo-SSPX - given that bishop Williamson told the faithful of Munich that it was OK to attend the SSPX priory there - the same SSPX priory which advertises Mass in the extraordinary form", and quite probably the most liberal SSPX parish in the world! - if you are OK to attend even a place like that, then you're OK to attend pretty much anywhere. At which point the whole idea of "yellow light" is shown up as being a meaningless sophism. Because if there aren't actually any places that must be avoided in practice, then in reality you are giving a green light but just dressing it up in a more "anti-SSPX" sounding language. Of course there are also issues surrounding the reasoning behind the bishop's so-called "yellow light" advice, the fact that he makes the issue depend entirely on the personality of the individual priest, whereas what we really ought to be worried about is the position of the SSPX as an institution, the doctrinal acceptance of Vatican II, etc. But that is perhaps for another discussion.

..........
That is another good point. As Bishop Williamson is saying a yellow light for him is that it is pretty much OK to go anywhere, but be "cautious", in the already compromised new-sspx, in the sedevacantist camp, as with telling that lady who said that she attends the new mass during the week in his recent NY conference, answering her saying: "Do whatever you need to nourish your faith". And further on in that same conference he spoke about Novus Ordo priests "nourishing the faith" of their congregations, of Eucharistic miracles with the Novus Ordo Mass, and that "there are cases when the Novus Ordo Mass can be used, and is still being used, to build the faith" (at minute 1:08:50).

As with, in his Canada conference of Nov. 2014 he stated: "I do not say to everybody inside the novus ordo, priests or laity, I don't say, you've got to get out. What I do say is that there is a very serious danger of your being poisoned by a poison that is coming steadily from above." And: "On the level of the people and many of the [novus ordo] priests, there is still faith there. You just can't write off the whole novus ordo." (at minute 20:50).

As Catholics, we do not and cannot hear these words to compromise the faith from anyone; let alone a traditional Bishop who knows better. For Bishop Williamson, or anyone, to dress up a green light or de-nature the red light is an imbalance showing that the whole idea of a yellow light for them is a "meaningless sophism".

The good God gave to us the Catholic faith to be the sole measure and reason in our life for discernment in our thoughts, words, and acts; not to follow personalities and every wind of opinions.

In addition to theses compromises, there is also the unfortunate new Avrille Dominicans weakness now Avrille Dominicans new Declaration that they are not “taking sides for one Society against another." And: "We have no intention to do anything “against” the Society."

The use of this yellow light thing is none other that a position of mediocrity and a pampering of personalities.

Bishop Richard Williamson needs to stand up and show us the side of an uncompromising Catholic Bishop that he once stood for; not the side of Richard Williamson as a man and his opinions. He needs to fulfill his role as a Bishop of the Catholic Church and act like a shepherd; not act like a sheep.

Let your speech be Si Si No No.

 

TheRecusant.com

Well-Known Member
You don't need to. I want to get my reward in the hereafter! If we got nothing but tons of praise, sweetness and light everywhere, if there were no attacks and no betrayals, if life were not a constant battle for the faith, even against people who are supposed to be on our own side, I would seriously start to wonder if I was on the wrong track...

But I appreciate the sentiment all the same. Thanks cantate.
 
D

Deleted member 149

Guest
TheRecusant.com said:
..............

I think Kathleen ought to be commended for raising a very serious concern. If the Resistance has any claim to integrity, intellectual honesty or sincerity, it is that we did not seek a fight with Bishop Fellay but found ourselves forced to disagree with what he says because we follow ideas and principles, not personalities. If we now give bishop Williamson a free pass and turn a deaf ear to all this sort of nonsense then we are hypocrites and we lose any justification for what we are doing. Our opponents make us out as angry rebels who are merely "followers of Williamson" without principles, etc. Are we now to conform to this ridiculous caricature? Or shall we prove them wrong?

............
Yes, all humans are held for what they say. Holy Scripture admonishes us: "But prove all things; hold fast that which is good. From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves. And may the God of peace himself sanctify you in all things; that your whole spirit, and soul, and body, may be preserved blameless in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Thessalonians 5).

Whether from the dishonesty of our opponents to turn a deaf ear to the perennial teachings that they were formed with in the seminaries of Archbishop Lefebvre, to now reduce those teachings to some other cause for an agenda to reconcile with the French Revolution, or if from one of our own in the Catholic Resistance that changes course to their own opinions, we stand firm. Our cause is the same cause our Lord gave to us on His blood soaked Cross. Christ did not compromise to the waywardness of the Pharisees and their opinions or hypocritical teachings; nor did our Lord compromise to the secular rulers. The Saints and Martyrs did not compromise; neither do we.

Bishop Williamson can receive in humility our concerns and admonishments for what contrary things he says in order to convert to that Cross that sanctifies or be on the side of history that walks away from the Cross. It is his choice as we all have the same choice.

There were only a few people who had lived with humility to serve at the foot of our Lord's Cross, and two other people who were elevated in their pride and pinned in equal height to our Lord who had shown us the two sides of history of human pride: one of them was proud in their elevation, gave his contrary opinion, and died in that opinion, the other in his pride then sought humility for his different views he carried in his life and begged for the fullness of our Lord's teaching, because of this disposition, he then found favor with our Lord, died in that blessing, and became a saint.

Archbishop Lefebvre also left us this wisdom and the guidance of what we need to do to fight in this awful apostation that confronts us each day -No Compromise with the French Revolution- period!

If God wants to, He can take stones and turn them into Bishops and priests. Let us put our trust in Him and not in man.

 

theophilus

Active Member
TheRecusant.com said:
Well done, Machabees. And well done Kathleen.

Let me add my own thoughts, for what they are worth. Machabees is of course quite right. To tell somebody that they can do something which is harmful to them is not very kind. And for a bishop to do so is even worse. Bishop Williamson may say that he is only expressing his opinion, but the fact of his being a bishop means that anything he says on a contentious issue will always carry more weight that you or I, because (rightly or wrongly) many faithful care about who is saying it as much as what is being said.

If sedevacantism "can slide into ... even the loss of one's Catholic faith" then how can the bishop say that "if someone needs to hold that position, let him hold it"..? It's one or the other, not both! The only answers which would make sense are: 1. He actually wishes harm upon such people by telling them they can hold a dangerous position (and that surely cannot be true!) or 2. He is trying to please both sides. Give something for everyone. The people who are already anti- will hear the "danger to your faith" bit and come away agreeing with what they heard, the people who feel differently will hear the "you can if you feel you need to" bit and will come away agreeing with what they hear. Both sides will praise the wisdom of the bishop. The problem is, stating the truth clearly and unambiguously can often lose friends and make enemies from amongst those who disagree, but its what must be done. If, on the other hand, my priority is to make and keep as many friends and supporters as possible (who to win friends and influence people!) then I will only ever tend towards saying something, but will ultimately try to keep all sides happy. I hope that is not what the bishop is doing here, but it looks rather like it to me. Perhaps someone else can suggest another possible answer.

As Machabees points out, there are also serious issues over his telling people that it is OK to go to the Novus Ordo in Canada last year. I have just been alerted (via a well known sedevacantist site) to a video of Q&amp;A in New York a couple of weeks ago where he says the same thing. At one point he says "Archbishop Lefebvre would say not to attend" the Novus Ordo and the next moment he tells the questioner that in some circumstances one can attend it. I don't see how that is defensible. I have also heard the bishop say the same regarding the SSPX i.e. "It is danger to your faith to attend the SSPX ... you can attend the SSPX." Either statement on its own would make sense but the two together don't.

Incidentally, as regards the yellow or "orange light" position towards the neo-SSPX - given that bishop Williamson told the faithful of Munich that it was OK to attend the SSPX priory there - the same SSPX priory which advertises Mass in the extraordinary form", and quite probably the most liberal SSPX parish in the world! - if you are OK to attend even a place like that, then you're OK to attend pretty much anywhere. At which point the whole idea of "yellow light" is shown up as being a meaningless sophism. Because if there aren't actually any places that must be avoided in practice, then in reality you are giving a green light but just dressing it up in a more "anti-SSPX" sounding language. Of course there are also issues surrounding the reasoning behind the bishop's so-called "yellow light" advice, the fact that he makes the issue depend entirely on the personality of the individual priest, whereas what we really ought to be worried about is the position of the SSPX as an institution, the doctrinal acceptance of Vatican II, etc. But that is perhaps for another discussion.

I think Kathleen ought to be commended for raising a very serious concern. If the Resistance has any claim to integrity, intellectual honesty or sincerity, it is that we did not seek a fight with Bishop Fellay but found ourselves forced to disagree with what he says because we follow ideas and principles, not personalities. If we now give bishop Williamson a free pass and turn a deaf ear to all this sort of nonsense then we are hypocrites and we lose any justification for what we are doing. Our opponents make us out as angry rebels who are merely "followers of Williamson" without principles, etc. Are we now to conform to this ridiculous caricature? Or shall we prove them wrong?

Finally, Kathleen is quite right that is not enough merely to say about a priest: "He left the SSPX! He must be one of us!" Various priests left the SSPX for various reasons. Some join the conciliar church. Some become sedevacantist. Some leave for themselves. Some even leave the priesthood altogether. In a time of diabolical disorientation it is all the more important that the truth be spoken loudly and clearly. The faithful have a right to know what their priests stand for. For the faithful to ask a priest to publicly nail his colours to the mast is not an outrageous liberty, it is only natural and right. And if he reacts badly to such a request, that is not a good sign.

Keep up the good work folks. adiutorium nostrum in nomine Domini.

- The Editor of the Recusant

This being a topic I had not sufficiently examined previously, I was much more inclined to reject many of the stronger objections to those who I felt couldn't be right. I still hold reserve with how far some of these observations are taken but I finally found the time too see what it was that Bishop Williamson has been saying with regards the bastard Novus Ordo and I was stumped, there was no way to justify this position. Even if it was true what H.E. implied about the Archbishop allowing in private and possibility of attendance at the action he publicly rebuked, the fact is the good Archbishop still (if it be true) only did so I private where Bishop Williamson made this objectionable comment in a widely publicly manor.
I'm hoping to see our local resistance priests speak against this next time they come, it's not something that can be glossed over.

Did anyone else see the timing of the new SSPX FAQ video? I wonder if that was planned, it would be interesting if in their new video they come across as more on the right path then Bishop Williamson on this point (even if their Superior General isn't).
 

Admin

Administrator
<div class="quote" source="/post/6761/thread" timestamp="1436712266" author="@ajnc"><div class="quote_body"><div class="quote_avatar_container"><div class="avatar-wrapper avatar_size_quote avatar-0">//images.proboards.com/v5/defaultavatar.png</div></div><div class="quote_header">Jul 12, 2015 14:44:26 GMT @ajnc said:</div>Thank you. It looks like Bishop Faure will have to do the job.<div class="quote_clear"></div></div></div>

Bishop Faure has the confidence and affection of Five sermons/Conference by Fr. Chazal and resistance priests. Thanks be to God.
 
Top