Angelqueen.org

[servitium]

Bishop Williamson: Thoughts for January 2006

Bishop Richard Williamson
January, 2006

If the crisis in the Catholic Church goes on getting worse, as seems likely for the moment, there are going to be more and more Catholics wishing to keep the Faith who will be tempted to become ‘BLEEPS!’, that is, to believe that there has been no true Pope on the See of Peter since, say, the death of Pius XII in 1958. In the hope of decreasing rather than increasing the confusion of such Catholics in a near future promising to be not easy, may I present the double reason for which I have never myself been a ‘BLEEP!’.

The main problem, obviously, is the liberalism of the last five Popes in particular (John XXIII, Paul VI, John-Paul I and II, Benedict XVI). Instead of resisting the anti-catholic modern world, they preferred to adapt more or less to its errors. The result was foreseeable — the decomposition of the Church, to the point that one may fear that in a few more years there will be none of it left standing. Then how is it possible that two — or three — or five Vicars of Christ — Vicars of Christ, in Heaven’s name! — can have been such bad Shepherds of the Universal Church? “It cannot be�, cry out the ‘BLEEPS!’, “they cannot have been true Popes�.

Let us note firstly that this often indignant reaction proceeds from the Faith. If someone did not believe in the Church, in the Papacy in particular, obviously he would have no difficulty in granting that Popes could be grave-diggers of the Church. But let us also note that it is exactly the same argument that pushes liberal Catholics to be liberal, and ‘BLEEP!’ Catholics to become ‘BLEEP!’: — (Major premise) The Pope is infallible. (Minor premise) The recent Popes are liberals. (Liberal conclusion) Therefore we must become liberal. (‘BLEEP!’ conclusion) Therefore these “popes� are not true Popes.

From which it seems that ‘BLEEPS!’ may not be so anti-liberal as they may think! Indeed over the last 30 years we have seen several leading ‘BLEEPS!’ topple over into liberalism in the most surprising way, and even now we see certain leading figures of Catholic ‘Tradition’ being tempted to embrace conciliar Rome. A Catholic being tempted by ‘BLEEP!’ cannot think too hard on this apparently surprising relationship between ‘BLEEP!’ and liberalism — they may be like heads and tails of the same coin.

Now in the argument condensed above, the logic is good, the Minor is good, so the problem must be in the Major. It lies in fact in the exaggeration of papal infallibility. And here we come to my double reason: — to make the Truth and the Church of God so dependent on human beings is a too human way of considering the things of God.

As for Truth, it is natural or supernatural. Natural truth we read in the nature of created things, and all humankind’s stupidities and fantasies cannot change one little bit of what is to be found or read there. As for supernatural Truth, it has existed without change in the mind of God since all eternity. It was merely revealed by Our Lord Jesus Christ, who as man repeatedly said that it was above him. It has been merely handed down ever since by the Apostles and their successors, with the Popes at their head. “Heaven and earth will pass away�, says Our Lord, “but my words will not pass away� (Mk. XIII, 31).

So let us not be unduly concerned if Our Lord’s human instruments, including his Popes, fail even gravely in handing down his Truth, or in defending his Church. This Truth and Church come from God and to him they belong. It is God who chose to entrust them into the hands of men easily capable of putting them in peril, but how could he embellish his Heaven with the great heroes of his Church unless it was also possible for unheroes to betray it? And if unheroes do put it in peril, do we imagine that God is incapable of dosing with precision that peril for the good of the elect, both shepherds and sheep, a precision that absolutely excludes the destruction of the Church? Who do we take God for? “Is my hand shortened, that it cannot redeem?�, says the Lord, “or have I no power to deliver?� (Is. L, 2).

Surely the fact that the latest Popes have been tottering is no reason either to follow them regardless or to reject them regardless. Let us quietly pray for them, because at the split second or seconds in time calculated from eternity by God, he will intervene to rescue in his Pope the principle of authority, alone capable of saving Church and world.

Mother of the Church, intercede for the Vicars of your Son!

[And now...]

[Augustinus]

[Sam]

Simple and to the point, how I wish the local bishop could put things as simple as his Excellency does. Nevertheless, prayer is the key, and I wil keep praying for the Holy Father and Church.

[Telit Likitis]

The Bishop Said

[Augustinus]

Does no one else see the sentence I quoted as a none-too-subtle attack on Bishop Fellay?
_________________
Deus vult!

[ghebreyesus]

WHY ARE YOU ASSUMING IT MEANS FELLAY? Maybe he mens Rifan.

[Tony]

[KateT]

Or maybe we could just ask...for clarification?

Kate

[houndofheaven]

Well, once again, the Voice of reason prevails with great wisdom and above all, a pure Catholic thought process with out all the deadly emotions! How blessed we all are to have his Voice in these times of great discontent . Your pray tonight should be to thank God for all Bishop Williamson has done, most of which, we will never really know, which is excatly how he would want it.

[ProeliatorDei]

I would like to see what Bp. Williamson would say when having to directly address the following authorities:

"Now when a pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls <i>ipso facto</i> from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
- St. Francis de Sales

"it is possible we may be obliged to believe John Paul II is not pope."
- Abp. Lefebvre, (1986)

[Trad Catholic Professor]

[ancilladomini]

Actually Bishop Fellay is NOT the object of Williamson's attack - a much less likely candidate is being envisioned

[momof9]

cilladomini



Joined: 21 Dec 2005
Posts: 4

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:02 pm Post subject:
Actually Bishop Fellay is NOT the object of Williamson's attack - a much less likely candidate is being envisioned


And you know this how?

[bibiana]

Bishop Williamson is terrified of nothing, Prof.
He'll be devoured by lions before he will concede one iota of the Traditional Catholic Faith.

[bibiana]

And I am crazy-glueing myself to his cloak-tails.

[murph]

[bibiana]

As usual tho', I don't think he addressed the question head-on:
Is it possible for a heretic to be pope?

[servitium]

[murph]

[murph]

[servitium]

Anger permiates his every thought...

Of course this is to whom he is referring....

THIS man is the real danger to Tradition AND the true Catholic Church....

He sees the rapprochement coming and it terrifies him....

I heard on a dozen websites....

[Eulogius]

May God bless and keep Bishop Williamson.
His insights and courage are invaluable at this point in time.

[AskStPhilomena]

I heard rumors on more than a dozen websites that Bishop Williamson is a strident BLEEP!-BLEEP. Therefore this letter is most probably a forgery.

[Phyllis Schabow]

Dear Bishop Williamson:
This is an excellent article. Jim Condit of Cincinnati, Ohio, gave a conference talk late last year in which he quotes Fr. Faber, the famous Oratorian of London who said, "How will the elect ever be deceived? It will be done by good men. Good men who think they are doing the right thing will actually be aiding the antichrist, and it is they who will lead men into error."
How true this is today. Your explanation should be a great help to Catholics still wondering how they can balance all the contradictory information they have regarding the obvious heresies being taught by prelates.
BLEEPS! are just like protestants who subjectively decide what is true for them. They become their own Popes.
Truth is always so simple it can be explained to a child, just as Our Lord said and did. A child's father remains his father even if he is a great sinner. Nothing can change that relationship established by God. So it is with a Pope - he is still our Shepherd, however weak and enfeebled he may be, how wrong, how great a sinner.
We can pray quietly, but we can also sing it from the housetops - so all the household will know the Faith is true yesterday, today and forever!
Thank God and Our Lady for this wonderful Faith!
Phyllis Schabow

[Gerard]

[Gerard]

ProeliatorDei wrote:

[Wessex]

This continuing argument over the legitimacy of modern popes will tax the minds of most people. Similarly, the medieval peasants in the fields would have barely visited such a problem; their preoccupations were locally induced. But we thinking people have the temerity to question our elders and betters in case we are led over the cliff edge with the rest of the lemmings. The autonomous nature of a large part of traditionalism speaks for itself despite some token reference to a living pontiff. Also, the SSPX and SSPV much prefer to revere earlier popes and have created churches in exile awaiting a Roman restoration which will not come in our lifetime. Meanwhile, we have to endure countless initiatives by impatient people who are considering the merits of half a loaf.

[ecumenicaltraddie]

[Gerard]

[ghebreyesus]

[ecumenicaltraddie]

"It would only be a good thing if he were elected as the next Superior General."

Not a snowball's chance in hell, Deo Gratias! So he IS running for office?

"People want to hear from him."

Really? The nine people here who are always his defenders? A church of nine. We have lots of those here in the Bible Belt.

"He can educate people in a few small quotes better than all of JPII"s encyclicals combined."

Difference being is that one is the magisterium, for which we owe AT THE MINIMUM, a religious assent of mind and will, and the other are the musings of a bishop without jurisdiction, sort of like auxiliary Bishop Gumbleton.


"Who elected you to speak on behalf of "most" traditional Catholics?"

The same people who elected you to state that LOTS of Catholics want to hear what Bishop Williamson has to say.

"Aren't we still waiting for Nov. 19th 2005 to roll around and the TLM to be freed?"

Oh, good one. Let me explain this again simply so you can understand. I reported what an unidentified Roman source close to the scene told me. It was blocked by the Secretary under Cardinal Arinze, as we now all know. He is now serving at the Fatima chapel UNDER Cardinal Ruini, so his powers and authority have evaporated. He has been replaced by an SSPX sympathetic Archbhishop. So with one fell swoop, the Pope has taken care of the Fatima stupidity (no more Hindu worship there!) and arranged the deck so the rapproachment with traditionalists (both Ecclesia Dei and SSPX sympathetic) can have smooth sailing.

It's coming, baby! And I can't wait. But I don't expect any acknowledgement from you, nor does my ego depend upon it, Deo Gratias!

"Schmidberger's recent quotes are harder hitting than bishop Williamson's and have the mods in the Vatican more upset than usual."

Really, which ones? I've read all the most recent, I believe. And how do you know?

"As opposed to your rumor mongoring and rabble rousing?"

Reporters often use "unnamed Vatican sources" for their quotes in their articles. They are sometimes right. They are sometimes wrong. All in God's good time; not yours or mine.

"Why don't you give it a rest and go hang out at Envoy?"

What is Envoy? By the way, you finally found a site that won't kick you off no matter what you say. Congratulations! How many non-traditionalist Catholics do you think you're going to evangelize here?

"This Williamson bashing is what is embarassing."

It is more embarrassing to see you think he is articulate and a clear thinker. It is more embarrassing that you think we should read his fulminations rather than JPII encyclicals. I've read about 15 of JPII's encyclicals, by the way, AND I've read Bishop Williamson's fulminations. So I think I can compare them.

By the way, how many JPII encyclicals have you read?

[Tony]

[murph]

[Tony]

[Chesteretté]

"Indeed over the last 30 years we have seen several leading ‘BLEEPS!’ topple over into liberalism in the most surprising way, and even now we see certain leading figures of Catholic ‘Tradition’ being tempted to embrace conciliar Rome."


Did somebody suggest that this meant Bishop Rifan? Surely the SSPX consider that Bishop Rifan embraced conciliar Rome a while ago; so, how could Rifan be 'even now [...] tempted'?

Who is the Bishop referring to then?

Well it must be people (for it is plural, please note)

a) doing it NOW
b) doing it VISIBLY (otherwise how would we 'see' them?)
c) who are LEADING FIGURES in Catholic Tradition
d) thinking about RECONCILIATION (embracing) with Rome

Well, it's not Bugs Bunny, is it!!

It does make me wonder whether Bishop Fellay is writing thoughts for January.

The real question isn't who the Bishop is referring to; the real question concerns the Bishop's purpose in making this statement.

Perhaps Angelqueen will oblige us by putting that question to the Bishop in his next interview.

[WhatIf]

The author of this letter has displayed a faulty use of logic, for he has compared universal teaching to liberal opinion. This error is huge and does not bode well for anyone in the SSPX, if that is the real source of this letter, for it undermines the Supreme Pontificate of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

To place condemned human opinion on the level of known Catholic teaching is a grave sin against the Faith. All logicians know that one cannot compare apples to oranges. In this case, the comparison is one of Truth to Lies. Surely, an ordained minister of Christ did not pen this letter.

For if he did, then he has insinuated that Christ is now ordaining priests for anti-Christ. This is like insinuating that the teachings of the Sanhedrin came from Christ. Christ teaches through His Pontificate and it is for every Catholic Bishop to know what is and what is not, of Christ's Pontificate. In order to make this distinction, he must first have knowledge of who is a legitimate successor of St. Peter. The Church provides all of these answers and it is to the Church one must go for answers, not to speculative theologians.

The title "Supreme Being" belongs to Our Lord alone. Jesus Christ is the founder and foundation of His pontificate. One is either with Him or he isn't. The author of this letter has fed the modernist deception and hateful lie that there are two Christs with two opposing wills. Two Christs=two wills=two papacies=two bodies of doctrine=two churches=two social programs... The modernists are inventive but they aren't original. They have created a false God to serve their subjective opinions and whims and many traditionalists have fallen for this false Christ.

[ecumenicaltraddie]

[ecumenicaltraddie]

[ecumenicaltraddie]

[ProeliatorDei]

[ProeliatorDei]

[Tony]

[ancilladomini]

"Indeed over the last 30 years we have seen several leading ‘BLEEPS!’ topple over into liberalism in the most surprising way, and even now we see certain leading figures of Catholic ‘Tradition’ being tempted to embrace conciliar Rome."

Yes this is the quote of quotes. Williamson is referring to former BLEEPS! who haven't reconciled with Rome but are considering doing so. That's why I said it wasn't Fellay he had in mind.

[Kankin]

I have met Bishop Williamson and have read that he is possibly the most different one of the four SSPX Bishops.

When he stated at the beginning of his letter "there are going to be more and more Catholics wishing to keep the Faith who will be tempted to become ‘BLEEPS!’ " ... I could not help but feel that he was talking about what might happen if the SSPX makes a deal with Rome.

I suspect that we are going to see a further deepening into the Third Secret of Fatima.

God Bless You All

[murph]

[servitium]

Face it murph, Brian is one of us - he migrated from the old hangout. I even caught him sticking up for us over there once a while back.

Call me silly, but I have this goofed up idea that when and if our leadership removes this damnable and unecessary emnity they've created between us, we'll all be on the same side.

[Crusader]

[ecumenicaltraddie]

[Rubrician]

Interesting posts from a variety of positions.

The salient point is surely that if we are Catholics we either acknowledge the pope or become Bleepists.

To have the pope as a sort of titular, as Williamson implies, and ignore him is to put people in the same position as those who broke away from Rome after Vatican I.
_________________
'Lighten our darkness we beseech Thee O Lord'

[Torquemada]