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.
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.
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?