Posted on 08/29/2005 5:53:18 AM PDT by NYer
Thanks for the information!
Yikes! Those are some scary quotes you've got there.
There you go again tossing around NEO and liberal epithets at Catholics who are anything but. Course, there are many catholics on this board who sympathize with SSPX, but then again, lets keep painting with a broad brush. Really, you do need to take a break from the keyboard to think.
Originally, I had meant to respond to this:
Has the Vatican released their view of the conversation? I'm a little more adept at reading vaticanese (which means, really, that I'm entirely not adept at reading sspxese).
To which I posted this:
Really? Then clue me in, I've found many of the Vatican pronouncements to be so vague that whenever they get interpreted one way, some official spokesperson states dismissively that they meant something quite different. Clarification seems to be a leisure sport in Rome these days.
Actually, several SSPX supporters have told me that they have serious reservations about Williamson. Honestly. They've also told me that his move to Argentina was definitely not a promotion.
So I doubt he's going to be your next Superior.
Disunity must be something of a concern for those associating with SSPX, however. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that at some future date the society's bishops may disagree on regularizing its situation with Rome and go in opposite directions. That poses a real dilemma for yourself. Williamson's public letter was not directed at Rome. It was directed at the SSPX leadership and his own supporters within SSPX. It was a rallying cry and a warning to Fellay to keep at arms length. Photo ops in Fatima can't disguise this breach.
Williamson is brilliant, charitable and saintly. Hopefully the situation will be resolved and Williamson will be available papabile for the next conclave.
Not really. Williamson's problem is not intellect. It's basic common sense and humility. His writings certainly betray a lack of charity also. He's also a confirmed conspiracy theorist which usually indicates a poor feeling for the truth and a tenuous grip on reality.
It's highly unlikely at this stage that he will ever be in communion with Rome, absent some miracle of grace, still less a participant in a conclave.
There you go again tossing around NEO and liberal epithets at Catholics who are anything but.
Go back and read the post again. I didn't make any comments about the French and the English or Swiss (which Fellay actually is) and call anyone a loose cannon who is not. But there are misguided and liberal Catholics who believe in a "neo" Catholicism which is full of contradictions. But I wouldn't say they are not Catholic.
Course, there are many catholics on this board who sympathize with SSPX, but then again, lets keep painting with a broad brush.
Well, disregarding the comments about the French the Swiss and the English, when you have a broad brush being applied to the SSPX, traditionalists in general and a good man like Bishop Williamson is calumniated by people with an obvious evil intent. (they are recycling quotes that have either been debunked or removed from context. They know this and do it anyway.)
Really, you do need to take a break from the keyboard to think.
Think about what?
I used to be a part of the Anglican schism and heresy. It was one of the sins I confessed during my first confession prior to entering the Church - 12 years of obstinate and pertinacious refusal to investigate and accept the truths of Catholicism despite them being continually presented to me.
What schism was Scott Hahn a part of?
The Presbyterian heresy.
Come to think of it, we don't know WHO baptized the Apostles. Hmmm... is that an issue?
St. Alphonsus and many other saints tell us that Christ Himself baptized His Blessed Mother, St. John the Baptist, and St. Peter, and that St. Peter then baptized the other Apostles. This would seem to follow from St. John 3.22 and 4.1-2.
Actually, several SSPX supporters have told me that they have serious reservations about Williamson. Honestly.
It's only natural that there will be people with differing opinions. Just like the neos that believe it would be a mistake for Pope B16 to treat the SSPX with respect.
They've also told me that his move to Argentina was definitely not a promotion.
And how do they know? As I've shown, it can't possibly be a punishment because he hasn't been punished and has been traveling the world as he always has.
So I doubt he's going to be your next Superior.Disunity must be something of a concern for those associating with SSPX, however.
It's more of a hope on the part of the Neo Catholics.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that at some future date the society's bishops may disagree on regularizing its situation with Rome and go in opposite directions.
Or that could be part of the plan. Why give Rome the whole pie in one shot? Why not let them prove themselves with a partial gain? You don't send all of your troops into battle and leave none for defense.
That poses a real dilemma for yourself. Williamson's public letter was not directed at Rome.
Yes it was. That's why Rome had to make the meeting public knowledge.
It was directed at the SSPX leadership and his own supporters within SSPX.
Only as a sounding board. It reads fine in either case though. It's intrinsically a good, wise and prudent letter.
It was a rallying cry and a warning to Fellay to keep at arms length.
No. It told the Vatican that Fellay is not there to give up the fight. Fellay's comments after the meeting show this as well.
Photo ops in Fatima can't disguise this breach.
Calling persecution at Fatima by evil-doers a photo op doesn't make it so.
Williamson's problem is not intellect. It's basic common sense and humility.
Actually his common sense is one of his most refreshing qualities. As far as humility goes, he's devoted himself entirely to God and the preservation of the RCC. He has accepted the cruelty and abuse with charity and never defends himself personally.
His writings certainly betray a lack of charity also.
They same could be said of St. Paul when they are taken out of context. Of course you have to know what "charity" really is. Sometimes it's tough love in order to make people see the truth. There can be no higher form of charity than defending the Catholic Church and showing someone
He's also a confirmed conspiracy theorist which usually indicates a poor feeling for the truth and a tenuous grip on reality.
Not really. It means that Williamson is aware of power struggles and can cut through "spin" and "propaganda" and see the reality for what it is. An example of naive Americans would be the ones who bought into the "Uncle Joe" Stalin image during WWII. Or currently terrorists "hijacking Islam- a religion of "peace"
It's highly unlikely at this stage that he will ever be in communion with Rome, absent some miracle of grace, still less a participant in a conclave.
He actually is in communion with Rome that's just more spin. No one ever thought John XXIII would be Pope either.
Might we evaluate the sources for each of these alleged comments? Perhaps you wish they stand alone as a selfserving indictment? Perhaps your pen is dipped in a well of poision reflective of its user's mindset?
By continually spinning this "everyone is on the same page", "Fellay-good cop, Williamson-bad cop" stuff, you further erode your credibility.
We all have multiple sources of information in this internet age. Many of us have lives outside FR and see and observe things ourselves. You're not our unique source of information on SSPX. Williamson's position within the society and his attittude towards Rome and reconciliation are not classified information. His letter regarding yesterday's meeting can be read and understood clearly without the need for spin.
Silly.
I want the SSPX to come back. We need them in the Church because they will represent a powerful asset in the struggle against Modernism. But it would appear, unless Williamson is playing a bad-cop, that he is an obstacle to that because he seems less intent on full reconciliation than Fellay.
You see, you paint yourself into a corner with your overblown rhetoric.
No I don't.
There are divisions in most areas of the Church.
No there aren't. You are just imbibing in conspiracy theory. All the bishops in communion with the Holy See are fully on board and completely devoted to the Catholic Faith.
There certainly are in mine. SSPX is no different.
So you agree with Bishop Williamson then.
By continually spinning this "everyone is on the same page", "Fellay-good cop, Williamson-bad cop" stuff, you further erode your credibility.
No I don't. To say that Williamson and Fellay are on opposite sides is what is not credible.
We all have multiple sources of information in this internet age.
Some better than others.
Many of us have lives outside FR and see and observe things ourselves.
Possibly.
You're not our unique source of information on SSPX.
It's not the information. It's the speculation that's the problem.
Williamson's position within the society and his attittude towards Rome and reconciliation are not classified information.
It seems classified when you go onto neo-Catholic sites that refuse to actually post quotes in context and instead prefer to tell you what someone says and not show you. To paraphrase Bishop Sheen. There are plenty of devoted Catholic people that disagree with what they think are Williamson's postion and only a few that actually disagree with his real positions.
His letter regarding yesterday's meeting can be read and understood clearly without the need for spin.
Then why are the neo Catholics trying to spin it?
Silly.
Yes.
Look at his letter:
Firstly, the fact that the Society is asking to be received in audience by the Holy Father does not mean that it is on the point of betraying. If there is no contact between Tradition and Rome, now will the truth of Tradition ever make itself heard in Rome?
Secondly, there being a contact does not mean that an agreement is possible. Let all the Catholics who dream of fitting together Catholic Tradition and the present neo-modernist authorities of the Church come back down to earth. Catholic Authority and Catholic Truth will one day re-unite, but nothing for the moment indicates that that day is tomorrow – or the day after!
Lastly – and this is the subtlest trap of them all – let nobody think that because the Pope is of good will, therefore he cannot be a neo-modernist, or that because he is a neo-modernist, therefore he cannot be of good will. The present crisis of the Church would be much less grave and would deceive far fewer people if the neo-modernists were obviously of ill will. It is characteristic of these last times that bad principles are so widespread that few people are aware of the fact, and many people do evil convinced that they are doing good. That is why the Cardinal’s quotation is true to life in which he says that his “failure” of 1988 weighs “on his conscience”.
Let us pray to the Mother of God for Benedict XVI to see, above all the need to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart, and if we ourselves can see, let us pray to her that we too not go blind – “He who thinks he stands, let him take care not to fall”, says St. Paul (I Cor X, 12). The times are bad!
If only it were that easy.
Nevertheless, SSPX's sin of schism needs to be atoned for and reparated. They will do this in part by stopping their wholesale attacks against the Novus Ordo and by focusing themselves on preserving the Old Rite and by improving the New Rite without seeking to undermine or destroy it. The SSPX also should accept the full binding dogmatic authority of the Second Vatican Council an renounce all attempts to nuance, downgrade, subordinate, and/or diminish its Constitutions and Declarations through sophism and subterfuge. What is required of the SSPX is simple: that they embrace and love the Church NOW, and stop making an idol of an ideal Church of the past that frankly, never was.
Finally, regarding the defiant stance of Bp. Williamson, what he's really saying is that he is threatening to remain in schism even if the SSPX were to be reconciled with the Holy See. My take: so be it. He will then become an apostrophe to a footnote in the history of the Universal Church and only so much background noise. The choice before him is clear: assume a constructive posture, or become irrelevant. Now, let me bring to your attention this quote from Bishop Williamson:
Your Eminence, if ideas did not matter, you might be a good Catholic, but since the virtue of faith is seated in the mind and not in the heart, then so long as your mind swings between Tradition and modernity you are, despite yourself, in your position as Guardian of the Faith, a terrible enemy of the Catholic Church.When I accuse SSPX leaders of hubris, arrogance, and pedantery, this is exactly the kind of statements that I have in mind. This too requires repentance.
So, let us pray for reconciliation between the SSPX and the Holy See, that by rejoining the Mystical Body of Christ may the life of the Spirit once again course through them; may we all rejoice in the arrival of the prodigal son, for if one they were dead, then they will be alive again.
Really, you do need to take a break from the keyboard to think.
Think about what?
EXACTLY!!!
It's highly unlikely at this stage that he will ever be in communion with Rome, absent some miracle of grace, still less a participant in a conclave.
He actually is in communion with Rome that's just more spin. No one ever thought John XXIII would be Pope either
Just curious, how can you say that he is in communion with Rome, when you know that he is excommunicated?
Robert - the sources are Williamson's newsletters and SSPX websites. And if you can make that anti-Semitic crap and the insults to the then-Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith sound better "in context" - then you should really be running not only the Church but the planet as well.
Unless, of course, you're both anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic yourself.
And with a mind and pen like Williamson's on YOUR side - you don't have to worry about me.
The society claims about 450 priests, 180 seminarians and has a presence in 26 countries. Sadly, the classic sectarian attitude: the whole world (Church)is wrong, except us.
Not for tender ears?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.