|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Mar 18, 2015 17:56:23 GMT
I think that it is best to start a new thread on this, as Bishop Williamson and Co. no longer have anything to do with the SSPX (in fact, they think they are too liberal!). I mentioned already about his planned consecration tomorrow, but I think it might be a good idea to delve further into analysing the Resistance as they call themselves. In Ireland, the Resistance appears to be led by a few scattered individuals, one of whom is "faithofourfathers", who posts on the extreme Archbishop Lefebvre Forums (which I won't link to; anyone who wants a look is more than welcome to.). I notice that he appears to be very involved in the water charges and property tax campaign as well, so there is a danger that people may get sucked in through that avenue. I also notice that Bishop Williamson came to Ireland in 2013, so there is indeed some activity in this country. Needless to say, the views of this movement need no introduction here. One thing to take heart from is that even they notice that the "indult" movement is booming compared to them, the Institute in particular. Anyone else want to add their opinions?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Mar 18, 2015 19:18:15 GMT
How many people can they possibly have? They're a splinter of a splinter off the traditionalist movement, which itself is a fraction of practicing Catholics. I have met a number of SSPX members here in Ireland, although it's been a while since I moved in the circles where I met them so I'm not sure how many would have splintered off with this group. The SSPX are small enough here though, at least that's the impression I get, so there can't be many.
|
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Mar 18, 2015 20:19:36 GMT
How many people can they possibly have? They're a splinter of a splinter off the traditionalist movement, which itself is a fraction of practicing Catholics. I have met a number of SSPX members here in Ireland, although it's been a while since I moved in the circles where I met them so I'm not sure how many would have splintered off with this group. The SSPX are small enough here though, at least that's the impression I get, so there can't be many. Hi Ranger, I suspect that the membership is a few dozen at least, given that Bishop Williamson came over here. It is very difficult to say how big it is, given that details of "Resistance" Masses are not made public, and that information given out by both sides may be susceptible to bias. |
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 18, 2015 20:26:42 GMT
Looked in at the Archbishop Lefebvre Forums, which I hadn't previously heard of. Came across a moderator asserting "Bishop Fellay and the SSPX are in the pocket of moneyed Jewry", a long-time member referring to Williamson's opponents as "Zio-Catholics" and a poster who seems to be based in Ireland denouncing the Dominicans of St Saviour's in Dublin for having a Jewish speaker to give a talk on the Jewish religious calendar last month. These certainly seem like very suitable followers for Williamson, and no doubt have foresworn THE SOUND OF MUSIC as per the oracle. Incidentally, another poster refers to a SSPX priest in Athlone denouncing two of the laity by name from the pulpit, presumably for being Williamsonites.
Ranger; a small number of deeply-committed obsessives can make a lot of noise, and there are some very dodgy characters associated with the SSPX in Athlone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Mar 19, 2015 17:19:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 21, 2015 0:26:58 GMT
Even the pro-SSPX posters at Catholic Truth Scotland (who strike me as having a good deal of dingbattery about them) mostly agree that Williamson has gone off the deep end (and incidentally note that consecrating a 73-year-old suggests he is more concerned with publicity than succession). Note also two interesting points made in the comboxes: (1) A few posters mildly sympathetic to Williamson make the awkward point that the standard SSPX defence that the original excommunications did not apply because those affected subjectively believed they were acting from necessity is equally applicable to Williamson, so long as he has a real subjective belief (and remember he has shown himself capable of subjectively believing some extraordinary things). (2) One poster reports a rumour that some English members of the "resistance" are already denouncing Williamson as a modernist. The quarrels between Free Presbyterians and Reformed Free Presbyterians, and kindred splinter groups, come irresistibly to mind. catholictruthblog.com/2015/03/19/bishop-williamson-excommunicated/#comments |
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 25, 2016 18:38:19 GMT
Bishop Williamson has announced he is consecrating a third schismatic "Resistance" bishop on 19 March - a Benedictine based in Brazil. Alas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Feb 25, 2016 21:45:09 GMT
Bishop Williamson has announced he is consecrating a third schismatic "Resistance" bishop on 19 March - a Benedictine based in Brazil. Alas. Why does he need two Brazilian-based bishops? I don't know how strong the "Resistance" is there, but there can't be too many followers at the same time, even they will now have the same number of bishops as the society they left! |
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Mar 27, 2016 23:21:51 GMT
I had heard from someone within the SSPX community that +Williamson had refused to become the leader of the "Resistance" because the job would be like "herding cats". It that is true, he has more sense than I thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 1, 2016 20:24:23 GMT
I suspect Williamson enjoys being irresponsible, though "herding cats" is a pretty appropriate description (cf my comparisons to Trotskyites and Presbyterian fundamentalists, both of whom have the same tendency to infinite fragmentation).
Young Ireland's post about the oddness of having two of the three Resistance bishops based in Brazil is even more apposite for those who recall that one reason given for the Econe SSPX consecrations in defiance of Rome was precisely that they believed they would need bishops for different continents (whereas Rome was only willing to allow the consecration of one bishop).
|
|
