|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 18, 2009 12:39:31 GMT
More bad news from j. Christopher Pryor. Tissier de Mallerais has endorsed willaimson's views (for endorsement and link to statement see below). Pryor also summerises an interview in which Williamson's publisher Stephen Heiner implicitly suggests that Williamson is a sedevacantist, the Pope is the head of "a new religion" (i.e. one which is not the historic Catholic faith) and that the nine priests who broke away from the SSPX in Mgr. Lefebvre's lifetime to found the Society of St. Pius V after Mr. Lefebvre rejected their sedevacantism were in fact correct. Link to full interview on Pryor's blogpost:3. Below is a link to an interview of Stephen Heiner. Stephen Heiner is the owner of True Restoration Press and Get Smarter Prep. Heiner is the de facto spokesperson for Bishop Williamson. He publishes Bishop Williamson's blog and his letters from the seminary. In this interview Heiner makes some interesting revelations. Here are some highlights from the interview: A. Heiner speaks about knowledge of a an internal split within the SSPX which is hidden from the faithful. Heiner discussed the Sedevacantists who split from the SSPX. (Sedevacantists believe that Pope Benedict XVI, and the three prior popes, were not true popes, but heretics.) Heiner said that the split is still within the SSPX hierarchy. Heiner declares that many hold the position of the "Nine," that the Traditionalists and Rome belong to two different churches or religions. (This phrase did not appear to be a metaphor.) B. Heiner claims to have pushed Bishop Williamson to write his blog. C. Heiner declares that in rejecting Bishop Williamson, the SSPX should have treated Bishop Williamson with class and dignity. D. Heiner declares that by rejecting Bishop Williamson's Holocaust denial, the SSPX is just just trying to be accepted. E. Heiner declares that SSPX members are lying when they say that they are about preaching religion and not politics. F. Heiner emphasizes multiple times that the Pope is the head of a new religion. (The sense in which he uses this phrase does not appear to be metaphorical.) G. Heiner speaks of Sedevacantists in a positive light. christopherpryor.blogspot.com/2009/09/bishop-bernard-tissier-de-mallerais-of.htmlHere is Tissier's Williamson endorsement: angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27795Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:53 pm Post subject: Bp Tissier endorses Vol 4 of Bp W's Letters -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Econe 20 August 2009 Dear Mr. Heiner, His Lordship Bishop Richard Williamson had someone send me the fourth Volume of his Letters from the Rector which you published, and I have to thank you for this new publication of my fellow bishop’s writings. ... The four Volumes of Ridgefield and Winona Letters make today’s reader a spectator of forty years of Church History, forty years in which the Church has been moved and shaken as never before. They help him to see things in the light of Christ the King, and to weigh them in the balance of the Eternal Truth, of Him who said, “I am the Truth” (Jn. XI: 6). The reader feels compelled to discover how the holy Church of God, after being entrusted with the divine Deposit to be held sacred and to be faithfully presented to men “depositum sancte custodiendum et fideliter exponendum” (Vatican I, Decree Pastor Eternus), has managed, by an inscrutable permission of Heaven, to leave this holy Deposit in the unholy hands of the proponents of the “Church” of Man, which has all too obviously enslaved itself to oppressive liberalism and submitted to the lies of officialdom: “He that trusteth to lies feedeth the winds: and the same runneth after birds that fly away” (Prov. X: 4). Thanks be to God that our episcopal Rector’s upright mind, sane eye and holy free thinking have been a light in the darkness. Not only has he been a strong defender of the godly Truth, but he has also been a persuasive advocate of that true manhood and sane femininity that pertain to Christianity. On this double basis, with the grace of God, he has helped to regenerate two generations of Christian men and women, who have rebuilt a whole Christendom, on a small scale maybe, but with a great hope, the hope that lies for Church and Fatherland in large families and numerous schools, and in the courageous civic commitment of Christian men to applying the principles of the political Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ to real life.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Sept 18, 2009 14:04:11 GMT
One wonders if the SSPX are indulging in fun and games at our expense in this business.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 28, 2009 12:52:31 GMT
Since I posted a link to the lunacies of Ignis Ardens and noted Bishop Tissier's eulgoies on Bishop Williamson, I feel I should note that Christopher Ferrara has posted an article on the REMNANT site exposing the lunacy of holocaust denial and pointing out the damage which Bishop Williamson is doing to the traditionalist cause (and many other things). I do not endorse Mr. Ferrara's general views; I am posting this for information and to highlight that not all SSPX members endorse the ravings of Bishop Williamson and the other criminal lunacies so freely propagated on Ignis Ardens. www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-0131-ferrara-triumph_and_tribulation.htm
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 13, 2009 11:18:30 GMT
thoughtactioneire.blogspot.com/2009/09/and-if-ever.htmlMore lunacy from an English-based SSPX poster signing himself "Kyrie Eleison". Note that he is equating the possibility of Papal involvement in the election of future SSPX heads with the demands of non-Catholic and actively anti-Catholic governments to appoint bishops. How can anyone who believes in the doctrine of Papal infallibility (as the SSPX professes to do) maintain that the Papacy could be so corrupted that the mere exercise of its normal authority (bear in mind that the head of every religious order or pious association requires Papal confirmation before assuming their position, and this is a necessary and longstanding feature of religious life) is as destructive to the faith as letting a "Roman fox" into the henhouse? Clearly the person signing himself "Kyrie Eleison" is so corrupted by schism that he has ceased to be a Catholic. He is not merely a fox but a wolf and the sooner the faithful who remain with the SSPX are gathered into the sheepfold, and the sheepdogs are let loose to drive the obstinate wolves away into the wilderness where they belong, the better it will be. ELEISON'S POST And if ever any discussions to be held between Rome and the Society of St Pius X did seem to be arriving at a non-doctrinal "practical agreement" between them, then all Catholics wishing to save their souls would have to study the "agreement" closely - especially the fine print - to see who would in future be appointing the leader or leaders, and their successors, in the Rome-approved SSPX. He might be given whatever title pleased either party: "Superior General" or "Personal Prelate" or "Lord High Executioner" (a personage of noble rank and title) - the name would be of no importance. Crucial would be, who was to make the decisions, and who would appoint whoever would make the decisions ? Would he be appointed by the Pope or by the Congregation of the Clergy, or by any Roman official, or would he continue to be appointed independently of Rome from within the SSPX as now, by a 12-yearly election through some 40 leading SSPX priests (next election in 2018) ? Yet what would the "agreement" have gotten Rome if it had not gotten them control over appointing the SSPX leadership ? The history of the Catholic Church is littered with examples of the struggle between the friends and enemies of God - normally Church and State respectively, but no longer ! - for control of the appointment of Catholic bishops. For as any intelligent friend or enemy of the Church well knows, the bishops are the key to its future. (As Archbishop Lefebvre used to say, in defiance of all today's democratic nonsense, it is the bishops who form the Catholic people and not the people who form the bishops.) A classic example of this struggle is the Napoleonic Concordat of 1801 by which the newly Freemasonic French State made sure that it acquired a significant degree of control over the choice of bishops in the Church in France. Promptly all pre-Revolutionary bishops were sacked who were still too Catholic, and the Church was then securely on its way to Vatican II. Similarly when in 1905 the Freemasons broke off the union of the French State with the Church, the better to persecute it, the heroic Pope Pius X profited by his unwanted new independence of that State to appoint, and himself consecrate, a mere handful of nine bishops, but their virile Catholicism so scared the Freemasons that as soon as Pius X was dead, they hastened back to renegotiate a certain reunion of Church and State, if only they could recover control of the appointment of French bishops - and Vatican II was back on track. The pattern was repeated in 1988 when the heroic faith and courage of Archbishop Lefebvre alone saved the SSPX by his consecrating of four bishops independently of the explicit disapproval of Conciliar Rome. The same Conciliar foxes might now "give away the store" in order to regain control of the SSPX's four "ugly ducklings", and their potentially independent successors - ducklings make a dainty morsel for hungry foxes ! God bless Fr Schmidberger and Bishop Fellay, and all their successors who will maintain that Catholic independence for as long as Rome is out of its Catholic mind ! Kyrie eleison. Kyrie eleison. London, England
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 13, 2009 11:21:20 GMT
On further exploration of the blog in question I find that the person offering "eleison comments" is none other than Bishop Williamson! My comments on his mindset stand.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 15, 2009 10:27:05 GMT
The latest from Fr. Zuhlsdorf, commenting on an interview with Bishop Fellay (admittedly the report is very abbreviated and in a liberal journal, so it may not be a full representation of his position - some of the commenters point out, for example, that the report implies Fellay suggested the talks might last a century, when he really said it would take that long to resolve the current crisis within the Church). wdtprs.com/blog/2009/10/sspxholy-see-talks/#comments The comments have some interesting analysis ofthe SSPX position - this, for example: Fr. Jay Scott Newman, I agree with you that the Holy See is definitely going to be the party that eventually makes a final decision about the meaning of the Second Vatican Council. The Roman Pontiff is the successor to Peter, not Bishop Fellay. Also, I am of the opinion that the Holy See has to humbly accept responsibility for their own grave negligence over the last 45 years when they have let liturgical and doctrinal errors run nearly unchecked throughout the Church. How could Pope Paul VI have ever approved a Missal that was so inorganically constructed? What was Pope John Paul II doing as these ruptures in the Church’s life were allowed to harden? As I have also written on this blog numerous times, it seems highly unlikely that Rome will ever admit that there are any serious flaws in the Council’s documents on ecumenism and religious liberty. In fact, scholars like Fr. Brian Harrison have already demonstrated how the documents themselves are in continuity with the Church’s Sacred Tradition. The CDF has also aptly clarified issues like how we are to understand the phrase “subsists in” in Lumen Gentium. With Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict is doing his part to clarify and improve the liturgical situation. I’m afraid what keeps the SSPX hardened in their positions against Rome’s explanations and clarifications is the SSPX’s fundamental theological vision for the Church that does not sufficiently take into account the developent of doctrine and the difference between changes in doctrine and changes in the application of a doctrine. For example, the Church has always believed in the right of people to be free from coercion in matters of religion, but how that doctrine has been applied in specific cases over time has varied. The SSPX sees the Church applying the doctrine of religious liberty differently at this point in history than it has done in the past when monarchies were in vogue, and the SSPX has falsely concluded the Church has changed the essentials of the doctrine itself. The essentials have remained the same. Moreover, people often have a hard time with change, and I unfortunately know a lot of people in the SSPX who just do not feel comfortable with any sort of newer developments in the Church’s thinking or in the Liturgy. That seems like an improper approach to the Catholic Faith because the Holy Ghost is still working in the Church and deepening our understanding of the Sacred Deposit of Faith. We can’t close ourselves off to the Holy Ghost just because we are afraid and because change is uncomfortable. Having said that, we also cannot have a total overthrow of the past as the liberals are advocating. As Pope Benedict has said, “What was sacred then, REMAINS sacred and great for us, too.” Comment by Jason Keener — 14 October 2009 @ 12:48 pm
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 22, 2009 10:40:34 GMT
When I contemplate some of the recent SSPX statements listed above with the moves of the Traditional Anglican Communion towards reconciliation, I am reminded of Our Lord's warnign to the Pharisees that the publicans and tax collectors entered the kingdom of heaven before them.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Nov 12, 2009 23:33:10 GMT
Monkeyman, I thought all was settled with Pope Benedict XVI requiring a signed agreement that the SSPX pledge allegiance to all current Catholic Doctrine although they still do not possess rights to minister the Sacraments. Far from that, I'm afraid. Three of the SSPX bishops still seem to be asking the Pope to repudiate several of the Vatican II documents, or at least to say that they are debatable. Only Bishop Fellay seems to be taking a more pragmatic approach. Unfortunately it appears that these discussions will be difficult and that there is only a small chance of agreement. There are many bishops and priests (I know some myself and have heard of others) who repudiate the "Spirit of Vatican II" faction and are completely orthodox but remain within the Church and celebrate the Mass in the Ordinary Form if they have to, while preferring the Extraordinary Form. I think these men are the foundation on which the recovery of the Church can be built; whereas all those excellent SSPX priest will, I fear, go down a blind alley and become irrelevant in a generation or two.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Nov 13, 2009 12:34:17 GMT
Monkeyman, I thought all was settled with Pope Benedict XVI requiring a signed agreement that the SSPX pledge allegiance to all current Catholic Doctrine although they still do not possess rights to minister the Sacraments. Far from that, I'm afraid. Three of the SSPX bishops still seem to be asking the Pope to repudiate several of the Vatican II documents, or at least to say that they are debatable. Only Bishop Fellay seems to be taking a more pragmatic approach. Unfortunately it appears that these discussions will be difficult and that there is only a small chance of agreement. There are many bishops and priests (I know some myself and have heard of others) who repudiate the "Spirit of Vatican II" faction and are completely orthodox but remain within the Church and celebrate the Mass in the Ordinary Form if they have to, while preferring the Extraordinary Form. I think these men are the foundation on which the recovery of the Church can be built; whereas all those excellent SSPX priest will, I fear, go down a blind alley and become irrelevant in a generation or two. To practice both rituals, called biritualism, is not - I think - the agenda of not only SSPX but also SSP or IGS or even Institute of King the Christ. The fruits of the Ordinary form and the extra-ordinary ARE different indeed. A good priest know it I reckon. Since different problems, work/car and health of Father Brady, i went back to the Ordinary form. But i have to say it is a real struggle for me. Just to keep faith, to keep practising simply. And now in Wexford, we have another scandal with a paedophile who was volunteering at children mass ! This kind of thing is less likely to happen in the EF, because the role of lay people is nil.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Nov 13, 2009 23:22:00 GMT
Far from that, I'm afraid. Three of the SSPX bishops still seem to be asking the Pope to repudiate several of the Vatican II documents, or at least to say that they are debatable. Only Bishop Fellay seems to be taking a more pragmatic approach. Unfortunately it appears that these discussions will be difficult and that there is only a small chance of agreement. There are many bishops and priests (I know some myself and have heard of others) who repudiate the "Spirit of Vatican II" faction and are completely orthodox but remain within the Church and celebrate the Mass in the Ordinary Form if they have to, while preferring the Extraordinary Form. I think these men are the foundation on which the recovery of the Church can be built; whereas all those excellent SSPX priest will, I fear, go down a blind alley and become irrelevant in a generation or two. To practice both rituals, called biritualism, is not - I think - the agenda of not only SSPX but also SSP or IGS or even Institute of King the Christ. The fruits of the Ordinary form and the extra-ordinary ARE different indeed. A good priest know it I reckon. Since different problems, work/car and health of Father Brady, i went back to the Ordinary form. But i have to say it is a real struggle for me. Just to keep faith, to keep practising simply. And now in Wexford, we have another scandal with a paedophile who was volunteering at children mass ! This kind of thing is less likely to happen in the EF, because the role of lay people is nil. Imposing bi-ritualism on everyone is not the answer. Groups like SSPX and FSSP must be allowed to celebrate the EF only. But for others, like some of the main religious orders and some secular priests who already celebrate the EF but must also offer Mass in the OF, bi-ritualism is a solution. Guillaume, we know that there were priests who abused children back in the days when the Tridentine Mass was universal.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 17, 2009 17:17:41 GMT
Michael G is right - we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that priestly abuse is purely a post-Vatican II phenomenon.
From the Wikipedia entry on St. Peter Damian (a doctor of the church); About 1050, during the pontificate of Pope Leo IX, Peter published a scathing treatise on the vices of the clergy, Liber Gomorrhianus, dedicating it to the pope. In this "Book of Gomorrah" Petrus Damiani made an attack on homosexual practices... as subversive disruptions against the moral order occasioned by the madness associated with an excess of lust. It caused a great stir and aroused not a little enmity against its author.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 17, 2009 10:43:14 GMT
Fr. Zuhlsdorf informs us of more schismatic nonsense from Bishop Williamson. He is now making weasel-worded suggestions that wdtprs.com/blog/2009/12/something-from-sspx-bp-williamson-remember-him/#commentsHere is a paragraph in which Williamson implicitly reiterates his opposition to any reunion between the SSPX and what he calls "newchurch". the passages in square brackets are comments by Fr. Zuhlsdorf. Now it is true that any one sacrament administered in real life will have been either valid or invalid. There are no more shades between valid and invalid than there are between pregnant and not pregnant. But if we consider the Conciliar sacraments [Is that a real distinction? Conciliar sacraments?] being all the time administered throughout the Newchurch as a whole, we can only say some are valid, some are invalid, but they have all been placed on a slide towards invalidity by the Conciliar Rites’ total thrust to replace the religion of God with the religion of man. That is why the Newchurch is on its way to disappearing altogether, and why the Society of St. Pius X can in no way allow itself to be absorbed into it. [So… that seems to be a "no" vote concerning the discussions going on between the SSPX and the Holy See. I wonder what Bp. Fellay thinks about this statement by his SSPX brother.] EXTRACT ENDS Bishop Williamson goes on to give a characteristic display of learning and discernment as follows: Meanwhile, as to just how far down the slide is this or that priest, or even the Newchurch as a whole, I will apply the great principle of St. Augustine: "In things certain, unity; in things doubtful, liberty; in all things, charity". [Actually, that’s not Augustine.About that phrase often attributed to St. Augustine… A form of this phrase, pops up at first in about 1628 in German Lutheran circles. It seems to have come from one Rupertus Meldinius, also known as, Peter Meiderln, in his tract entitled Paraenesis votiva pro Pace Ecclesiae ad Theologos Augustanae Confessionis] END OF EXTRACT Bishop Williamson's Protestant roots are showing, methinks. The post is very reminiscent of the writings of Paul Kramer (whose name has come up in other contexts on this blog) in that it encourages nervous traditionalists to develop a from of excessive scrupulosity - in this case fear that NO sacraments are rouinely or generally invalid - without making being straightforward in stating its position so that Williamson can retain "plausibel deniability" if challenged. As always on Fr Zuhlsdorf's blog, the comments are very interesting and repay a read.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 17, 2009 10:59:50 GMT
Here is a piece from an Anglo-Catholic blog (the author is a cleric meditating reconciliation with Roem under ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS) noting a SSPX priest, one Fr. scott, whose response to the proposed Anglican usage is strongly reminiscent of the Pharisee's response to the Publican (though at least the Pharisee was not a Samaritan schismatic as well) liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2009/12/anglicanorum-coetibus-and-sspx.htmlIn the comments, a reader points out that Bishop Fellay takes a different view:Bp. Fellay, SSPX Superior General, weighs in: www.kreuz.net/article.10273.html“Das ist großartig. Das ist eine große Freude.” “That is awesome. That is a great joy.” Even Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX says the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus is a great thing. Courtesy of: www.theanglocatholic.com/2009/12/ecclesiastical-sundries-4/
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 17, 2009 17:44:06 GMT
Some of the lunatics on Ignis Ardens are now accusing Bishop Williamson of being insufficiently anti-semitic. You think madness can be taken no further, and you find something madder yet. For the record I add this link as documentation only and utterly dissociate myself from the evil sentiments found therein. z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=4803&st=0
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 18, 2009 18:47:13 GMT
Fr Zuhlsdorf reports John Paul II may soon be declared venerable - there are SSPX protests in the comboxes (link for information). wdtprs.com/blog/2009/12/benedict-xvi-may-approve-john-paul-ii-as-venerable-on-19-dec/ One of these commenters links to a scurrilous article by Attila Sinke Guimaraes claiming those canonised and beatified by John Paul II are not the real thing www.traditioninaction.org/bev/067bev06-02-2005.htmHere's a quote which really shocked me, and I thought I had got used to Radtrad looneyism: QUOTE In fact, the selection of saints that pleased Wojtyla was far from being perfect. He decreed that modernists like Frederic Ozanan and Angelo Roncalli be raised to the glory of the altars. END QUOTE I can see why a Radtrad would dislike Bl. John XXIII, but what in heaven's name has he got against Bl. Frederick Ozanam, whose charity and personal sanctity have been revered since the mid-nineteenth century? Is Guimaraes making diehard legitimist monarchism a necessary condition for sanctity? The Pharisee who condemned the publican seems compassionate in comparison. What planet is this man on?
|
|