L
- Status
N
nsper7
Guest
I do not know that much about SSPX, but I gained respect for them after reading that article.
C
cathguy
Guest
My respect for the SSPX, and for its leadership (sans Msgr. Williamson), has been growing since this scandal broke.
I have been vociferous in my criticism of Williamson’s lunatic views. That said, I think it is clear the other leaders in the SSPX are well measured, faithfully Catholic, and committed to Catholic Tradition.
Now that Williamson has been removed as rector to the seminary, there ought to be absolutely NO reason why the SSPX is not given some regular canonical status in the Church.
Let us pray doubly hard for the Pope, and for Bp. Fellay, that they may have fortitude at this most difficult time. We have come so far. To allow Msgr. Williamson to undermine the whole thing would be terrible.
I have been vociferous in my criticism of Williamson’s lunatic views. That said, I think it is clear the other leaders in the SSPX are well measured, faithfully Catholic, and committed to Catholic Tradition.
Now that Williamson has been removed as rector to the seminary, there ought to be absolutely NO reason why the SSPX is not given some regular canonical status in the Church.
Let us pray doubly hard for the Pope, and for Bp. Fellay, that they may have fortitude at this most difficult time. We have come so far. To allow Msgr. Williamson to undermine the whole thing would be terrible.
M
maurin
Guest
that’s nice.
You have been vociferous in equating his erroneous views of history with the capacity of being a Bishop. You’ve exhibited no knowledge of the Bishop as a Bishop, or his capacity as a faithful Traditional Catholic or Teacher. You’ve exhibited NOTHING but hatred for the Bishop, and have fallen for the manipulations of the media and those liberal modernists whom you emulate on these pages.
Detest, yes!, the Bishop’s statements. Condemn them as lunacy if you wish. I know he’s dead wrong. About history. But you judge matters you have no capacity to judge.
is this your official opinion as a prince of the Church, or are you just exercising your ego?
Actually to allow the liberal modernist false ecumenism which you and and yours and the media and the world espouse to undermine the whole thing would be terrible.
you are creating a scapegoat to be given up for sacrifice to satisfy the world’s blood lust. And it won’t satisfy anything. You and yours and the world will hate the SSPX as long as they uphold and insist upon the Teachings of Our Lord. Because His Teachings are hard.
P
pnewton
Guest
This is an understandable move in light of the views of Bishop WIlliamson. On the other hand, we must never forget that all disciplinary measures in the Catholic Church are done with a view toward repentance and restoration.
L
Lujack
Guest
I’ve been reading your statements, and you’ve exhibited nothing but hatred for anyone who feels WIlliamson is not qualified to lead a diocese, or doesn’t agree with some of the positions of the SSPX.that’s nice.
You have been vociferous in equating his erroneous views of history with the capacity of being a Bishop. You’ve exhibited no knowledge of the Bishop as a Bishop, or his capacity as a faithful Traditional Catholic or Teacher. You’ve exhibited NOTHING but hatred for the Bishop, and have fallen for the manipulations of the media and those liberal modernists whom you emulate on these pages.
If Cathguy has no capacity to judge Bishop Williamson, then you equally have no capacity to judge any bishop in the Catholic Church today.
Again, if Cathguy has no capacity to judge Bishop Williamson, you have no capacity to judge any bishop in the Catholic Church today, or the Mass that they celebrate.
He just said now that Williamson is no longer playing a major role in the SSPX, he has no problem with them regaining full canonical status, so your response is to tell him that he hates the SSPX and the Church?
M
maurin
Guest
then you haven’t been reading them well. If you had, you would notice that Cathguy, you and I are in perfect agreement that Williamson’s take on the Holocaust is wrong.
again, if you had even the slightest understanding of what I have written, you would have noticed that judging the Bishop’s actions and public statements are fair game. Judging his fitness for office is a capacity neither Cathguy, you nor I have.
are you repeating the above paragraph in order to convince yourself, or other liberal modernists? Because repeating something ad nauseum neither makes an argument, nor makes the argument true.
no, he judged the fitness of the Bishop to lead. this is his superior’s call. His Holiness’, the Bishop of Rome, the Servant of the Servants of God, the Pope. Not Cathguy’s.
all interested in the subject will sleep well with this knowledge,
if you were paying attention, you would not be unnecessarily exaggerating my position. My response can be read clearly above. Your assessment of it missed the mark dreadfully, but consistently.
L
Lujack
Guest
Right. However, if someone argues that those views indicate personality traits that would hamper his ability to lead a diocese, and make him a lightning rod that would cause trouble anywhere he is a made a bishop, you accuse them of hating the SSPX.
I’ve read what you’ve written. You are drawing an arbitrary line between judging his actions and drawing conclusions from his actions.
Define liberal modernist. Maybe if I have a definition I’ll be able to address it. Does liking the OF Mass make me a liberal modernist, or are their other qualifications that I need to fit?
pQUOTE] no, he judged the fitness of the Bishop to lead. this is his superior’s call. His Holiness’, the Bishop of Rome, the Servant of the Servants of God, the Pope. Not Cathguy’s. all interested in the subject will sleep well with this knowledge, if you were paying attention, you would not be unnecessarily exaggerating my position. My response can be read clearly above. Your assessment of it missed the mark dreadfully, but consistently.
It is the Pope’s call, that is true, but that doesn’t mean others can’t speculate on it. Whether or not he is fit to be a bishop is not a matter of faith or morals, so we could conceivably even disagree with His Holiness’s decision (although I doubt it would come to that).
P
Paul2274
Guest
kpeople: :nunchuk: :slapfight: 
Paul
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Paul,
Paul
I think its more like this…
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
P
Paul2274
Guest
M
maurin
Guest
gentlemen,
trivializing an issue doesn’t lessen the negative impact an issue has. It is my contention that the way Bishop Williamson is being treated in the pages of all these threads which have been devoted to him is symptomatic of something quite detrimental to the Church. We can certainly judge the actions and the public statements of our Bishops…this is true whether said Bishop questions the means of genocide, or whether said Bishop is photographed giving Communion to a transvestite dressed as a nun of the “order of the sisters of perpetual” whatever it was in California.
For example, trivializing the way in which a Communicant receives the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord certainly did nothing to maintain the dignity of the Sacrament, nor did it protect or preserve the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament among Catholics. It has been shown in past threads on this very forum that belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is questioned by a not so trivial percentage of Catholics today.
Trivializing the conversation between Lujack, Cathguy and I, although clearly enjoyable for you both, conveys a sense of apathy and lukewarmth on your part. You might believe that we are beating dead horses, or chasing windmills for that matter, but it was to the lukewarm that John of Patmos gave warning in his Apocalypse.
Question, denounce, judge or reject the statements or actions of the members of our Hierarchy–that is one thing; but to judge one’s fitness to fill the office to which he was ordained is for his superior to do. “Holier than thou…”, it seems that it may not just be trads who can be accused of this.
And Lujack, I never brought up the form of the Mass…if you have an issue with that, fine–but please don’t put words into my mouth.
trivializing an issue doesn’t lessen the negative impact an issue has. It is my contention that the way Bishop Williamson is being treated in the pages of all these threads which have been devoted to him is symptomatic of something quite detrimental to the Church. We can certainly judge the actions and the public statements of our Bishops…this is true whether said Bishop questions the means of genocide, or whether said Bishop is photographed giving Communion to a transvestite dressed as a nun of the “order of the sisters of perpetual” whatever it was in California.
For example, trivializing the way in which a Communicant receives the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord certainly did nothing to maintain the dignity of the Sacrament, nor did it protect or preserve the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament among Catholics. It has been shown in past threads on this very forum that belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is questioned by a not so trivial percentage of Catholics today.
Trivializing the conversation between Lujack, Cathguy and I, although clearly enjoyable for you both, conveys a sense of apathy and lukewarmth on your part. You might believe that we are beating dead horses, or chasing windmills for that matter, but it was to the lukewarm that John of Patmos gave warning in his Apocalypse.
Question, denounce, judge or reject the statements or actions of the members of our Hierarchy–that is one thing; but to judge one’s fitness to fill the office to which he was ordained is for his superior to do. “Holier than thou…”, it seems that it may not just be trads who can be accused of this.
And Lujack, I never brought up the form of the Mass…if you have an issue with that, fine–but please don’t put words into my mouth.
M
maurin
Guest
Lujack, we do not know what form the SSPX will take when their status is regularized, but it seems to me that you might envision the Bishops as Bishops of local Dioceses. I doubt that will be the case, but I could be wrong. Abbots of different Religious Orders are themselves the Canonical equivalent of Bishops, but they are only in charge of the men serving under them in their perspective order.
then maybe you should read it again…if I have drawn a line it is between judging a Bishop’s actions and public statements as appropiate, but judging the fitness for a Bishop to serve as Bishop is only appropriate for the Bishop’s Superior. In this case it is the Pope. Not a layman.
you keep on bringing up the Mass…I haven’t done that. If you want my opinion, yes, I believe the NO Mass is sadly lacking in the expression of our Catholic Faith. If you expect me to say that it is invalid, you expect in vain. If His Holiness says it’s a valid form, it is a valid form, regardless of my personal opinion. Sorry you can’t find it in your heart to make the same distinctions with Bishop Williamson.
We are free to disagree with anything that we wish, and sometimes it is even lawful for us to do so, but that certainly doesn’t mean that it is morally right to do so publicly and at our own discretion. And a Bishop is a successor to the Apostles. Apostolic Succession is certainly a matter of Faith and Morals. The only judge of the worthiness of a Bishop as Bishop is his superior. Not laymen.
W
weepixie71
Guest
i dont care for what bishop williamson has said. put that aside, he as far as i know, has not said anything against the catholic faith.
i dont like his views, i dont like that he came out and wasted his time talking of historical politics when he could have been using that air time to be talking of Christ. as far as i know he did not deny the holocaust, remember a lot of good priests and catholics died also in concentration camps. he doesnt deny jews were killed, he is more or less questioning how the gassing could have been done without killing the nazi’s and everyone outside the gassing building too, because the building wasnt set up for it.
but if we are going to start excommunicating people on political views instead of catholic views, we as catholics are going to find ourselves in a huge heap of troubles
.
im glad im not excommunicated for every time i have done something that the catholic church would find embarrassing.
i dont like his views, i dont like that he came out and wasted his time talking of historical politics when he could have been using that air time to be talking of Christ
. as far as i know he did not deny the holocaust, remember a lot of good priests and catholics died also in concentration camps. he doesnt deny jews were killed, he is more or less questioning how the gassing could have been done without killing the nazi’s and everyone outside the gassing building too, because the building wasnt set up for it.but if we are going to start excommunicating people on political views instead of catholic views, we as catholics are going to find ourselves in a huge heap of troubles
.im glad im not excommunicated for every time i have done something that the catholic church would find embarrassing.
L
Lujack
Guest
Interesting. I wasn’t aware of that, but don’t you think it would be best for the SSPX if Bishop Williamson was not in a leadership role?
He is in some ways a stereotype of anti-semitism that is often used against supporters of the Tridentine Mass (although I enjoy the OF, I can appreciate the history of that Mass and I would like to see it conveniently accessible from every parish, even if I would attend it rarely at most), and I would think that the SSPX (and other societies such as the FSSP) would not like a figure like Williamson shaping their public image. As much as we would like to discount public image, it is important for a group that wants to raise awareness of the Tridentine Mass.
This is where I’ll disagree with you. The only person who should influence his status is his superior, but I think there is nothing particularly wrong with laymen speculating and debating on that status (so far as they recognize that they have no authority to influence the matter).
That’s not the question I asked, which was whether or not that was enough to make me a demonized “liberal modernist”. If Williamson is regularized, he’ll be a bishop whether I like it or not, so that is a distinction I recognize.
However, I don’t like having “liberal modernist” thrown at me as an insult because of my position on Bishop Williamson, which is not something affected by liberals or conservatives.
I would agree that if Williamson is regularized, it would be wrong for me to hold sit-ins outside of his cathedral and protest, but there isn’t much detraction going on here, just legitimate debate about his fitness to be a bishop. As long as we recognize we have no authority in regard to that topic, I don’t see why we can’t debate it.
M
Merkel
Guest
Unless Williamson was misquoted I don’t see there being any way that man will re regularized/recognized as a bishop within the Catholic Church. Yes we should continue to pay that he recants and repents and returns Home to the Catholic Church. But as a bishop? No way, that ship has sailed, there’s no putting the toothpaste back in the tube.
I wonder if this is new behavior on Williamson’s part or has he displayed problems prior to this?
I wonder if this is new behavior on Williamson’s part or has he displayed problems prior to this?
M
maurin
Guest
I have my opinions which I will keep private for now.
First you must prove that he is an anti-semite. As wrong as I think the Bishop is in his conclusions about the Holocaust, his questioning the numbers and methods does not make him an anti semite.
Speculation is not judging. Judging is what you and Cathguy have been doing. Not speculating. Judging.
So basically you are saying that you are correct in determining that Bishop Williams is an anti-semite based on his denial of the accepted numbers and methods employed by the Nazis in their attempted genocide, but I am incorrect in labelling you a liberal modernist ecumaniac based on similar lack of evidence? are you kidding? you mean you haven’t caught onto the irony yet?
I don’t know how else to get across to you Lujack that I’ve purposely “gone to far” in my conclusions because you have “gone too far” in yours. If you can make Bishop Williamson a demonized anti-semite, well, as the saying goes…
However, I don’t like having “anti-semite” and “holocaust denier” thrown at my Bishop as an insult because he questions the figures and methods of the genocide–not, of course, that genocide was attempted.
You still don’t see you are doing and have done what you just called me on doing?
Because you don’t have any authority in regard to that topic. And you are not ‘debating’ it. You have been judging it.
L
Lujack
Guest
Okay.
Not for the point I’m making. If the SSPX doesn’t want to be perceived as anti-Semitic (even though I know and you know that they aren’t), they wouldn’t want someone who is perceived as anti-Semitic to hold a leadership role, would they?
No, it isn’t. It is speculating, and its making a reasonable extrapolation. There are no credible historians who have ever claimed the gas chambers have existed, and with the exception of one misguided journalist from the 1940’s, all the people who have argued for numbers as low as Williamson does have been anti-Semites. Every. Last. One. There aren’t even any real sources for him to draw on that are not anti-Semitic.
I haven’t caught the irony because it doesn’t exist. In liking the OF Mass, I stand in the company of many good popes and bishops. Whose company does Williamson stand in? Anti-Semites and those linked to them, Nazi apologists and those linked to them, and one French journalist from the late 1940’s.
Anyone who argues for less than four million dead is on shaky ground, but they deserve the benefit of the doubt. Anyone who argues for less than one million dead knows exactly whose company they are keeping.
Look at the company he’s keeping; all but one are anti-Semites and holocaust deniers.
I haven’t used the words holocaust denier once in this argument because I know you don’t like them, even though they are a very convenient shorthand for the concept I’m trying to convey. He argues for a figure of less than one million, which is a ridiculous figure, historically speaking, and no credible historian has ever agreed with him.
No, I haven’t/
M
maurin
Guest
you mean, “and the truth be damned?” Look, I repeat again that I disagree with the Bishop on these matters. Perception is the realm of politics, not of the Faith. Truth is the realm of the Faith. Ought we sacrifice the Truth for the sake of the non-believers? Isn’t that false ecumenism?
Sources? provide them or retract the statement. I’m positive that i’m not in complete agreement with you above, but that doesn’t preclude the fact that I do agree to an extent.
need i remind you that you are bringing up the NO Mass as a red herring? You have neither provided nor prove your sources
convenience while forsaking the truth of the matter? really?
You are bantering around a lot of “facts” which you have “conveniently (?)” neglected to substantiate.
But I don’t disagree with your figures above.
Lujack, might we agree to disagree on these points and save the others from our rhetoric? I’m sure I won’t dissuade you from your opinions–I can guarantee you I won’t be dissuaded from mine. But we’re at a stale mate here, you and I. I’ll leave you the last word, and then bow out of the discussion. Agreed?
By the way, I sincerely appreciate the respectful tone in our conversation. Thank you for it!
maurin
I
I_Believe
Guest
I don’t agree with Bishop Williamsons tactics, and I certainly don’t claim to read his mind. But his comments, IMO, is a tactic to expose the root of the problem, which is, judeo-masonry and it’s evil agenda.
This is what it has come to. The Catholic Church is expected to answer to the world, and appease every attack and prejudice levied against Her.
The new ecumenism has failed.
This is what it has come to. The Catholic Church is expected to answer to the world, and appease every attack and prejudice levied against Her.
The new ecumenism has failed.
- Status