Bp WIlliamson July 29 column

[Atomagenesis]

Bishop Williamson has a point, and you have to understand his position on the "indult" traditional orders better to understand what he is saying here.

He is not saying that those who attend the NO or the FSSP, IBP, ICK, what have you, do not have the faith, there are certainly those who attend these places that do. But his reasoning is that they all have one fatal flaw, that is, their inability and unwillingness to preach against the evils committed against the faith by the conciliar church, Vatican II, and all it stands for, meaning, we cannot have unity with those who reject dogmatic articles of the faith and celebrate a rite which is clearly a break with tradition and is condemned by the Council of Trent (cf. The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy by Fr. Kramer).

I think Bishop Williamson's concern is that, why are all these traditional orders, who celebrate the TLM, playing buddy buddy with coniliarists who reject Pascendi, the Syllabus, and the Oath Against Modernism and who also celebrate the new mass. Yes, some diocesan priests celebrate the traditional mass, and yes, that is a good thing, but that is not the end, it is only a means. What has to be done is a complete rejection and condemnation of the Novus Ordo and the errors of Vatican II, and until that happens, and until more priests are educated about it and the traditional orders realize it, then we will continue in the mess we are in today.

We cannot, and should not be cow-towing to modernist bishops who play friendly with traditional orders who are regularized, such as the FSSP. Although these bishops let the FSSP, ICK, or IBP or let some of their diocesan priests celebrate the TLM, these bishops are still furthering the great apostasy in the church by allowing the celebration of the Novus Ordo in their diocese and accepting the errors of the Second Vatican Council.

In order to understand where Bishop Williamson is coming from, it is best to read what Abp Lefebvre wrote from 1988 until his death.

[FHM310]

Bishop Williamson has a point, and you have to understand his position on the "indult" traditional orders better to understand what he is saying here.

He is not saying that those who attend the NO or the FSSP, IBP, ICK, what have you, do not have the faith, there are certainly those who attend these places that do. But his reasoning is that they all have one fatal flaw, that is, their inability and unwillingness to preach against the evils committed against the faith by the conciliar church, Vatican II, and all it stands for, meaning, we cannot have unity with those who reject dogmatic articles of the faith and celebrate a rite which is clearly a break with tradition and is condemned by the Council of Trent (cf. The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy by Fr. Kramer).

I think Bishop Williamson's concern is that, why are all these traditional orders, who celebrate the TLM, playing buddy buddy with coniliarists who reject Pascendi, the Syllabus, and the Oath Against Modernism and who also celebrate the new mass. Yes, some diocesan priests celebrate the traditional mass, and yes, that is a good thing, but that is not the end, it is only a means. What has to be done is a complete rejection and condemnation of the Novus Ordo and the errors of Vatican II, and until that happens, and until more priests are educated about it and the traditional orders realize it, then we will continue in the mess we are in today.

We cannot, and should not be cow-towing to modernist bishops who play friendly with traditional orders who are regularized, such as the FSSP. Although these bishops let the FSSP, ICK, or IBP or let some of their diocesan priests celebrate the TLM, these bishops are still furthering the great apostasy in the church by allowing the celebration of the Novus Ordo in their diocese and accepting the errors of the Second Vatican Council.

In order to understand where Bishop Williamson is coming from, it is best to read what Abp Lefebvre wrote from 1988 until his death.

Well said.

[Freudentaumel]

It follows that if the celebration of a Tridentine Mass is surrounded by circumstances that threaten to undermine my faith, then depending on the gravity of the threat, I may not attend such a Mass.

If anyone can provide me with any traditional reference to this, I will concede this point to Bishop Williamson.
Even in the past, there have been Tridentine masses "surrounded by circumstances that threaten to undermine [the] faith". There have been modernists, there have been unfaithful priests, fornicators and drunkards.
However, *never* has the Church proclaimed that such circumstances relieve one of the sunday obligation.

[GottmitunsAlex]

Bishop Williamson has a point, and you have to understand his position on the "indult" traditional orders better to understand what he is saying here.

He is not saying that those who attend the NO or the FSSP, IBP, ICK, what have you, do not have the faith, there are certainly those who attend these places that do. But his reasoning is that they all have one fatal flaw, that is, their inability and unwillingness to preach against the evils committed against the faith by the conciliar church, Vatican II, and all it stands for, meaning, we cannot have unity with those who reject dogmatic articles of the faith and celebrate a rite which is clearly a break with tradition and is condemned by the Council of Trent (cf. The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy by Fr. Kramer).

I think Bishop Williamson's concern is that, why are all these traditional orders, who celebrate the TLM, playing buddy buddy with coniliarists who reject Pascendi, the Syllabus, and the Oath Against Modernism and who also celebrate the new mass. Yes, some diocesan priests celebrate the traditional mass, and yes, that is a good thing, but that is not the end, it is only a means. What has to be done is a complete rejection and condemnation of the Novus Ordo and the errors of Vatican II, and until that happens, and until more priests are educated about it and the traditional orders realize it, then we will continue in the mess we are in today.

We cannot, and should not be cow-towing to modernist bishops who play friendly with traditional orders who are regularized, such as the FSSP. Although these bishops let the FSSP, ICK, or IBP or let some of their diocesan priests celebrate the TLM, these bishops are still furthering the great apostasy in the church by allowing the celebration of the Novus Ordo in their diocese and accepting the errors of the Second Vatican Council.

In order to understand where Bishop Williamson is coming from, it is best to read what Abp Lefebvre wrote from 1988 until his death.

Well said.

This.

[Phillipus Iacobus]

But Benedict XVI said that +Williamson was "never Catholic in the proper sense" because he converted from Anglicanism to the SSPX. "That means that he has never lived in the great Church."

Even though +W said

So you converted - to the Novus Ordo Church?

Williamson:Yes, initially. I was received into the Church in early 1971 by a “conservative” priest. He did not agree with Archbishop Lefebvre. But he believed I had a vocation, so he sent me firstly to a diocese and secondly to a religious congregation in London. After I got kicked out for the second time, he said, in his heavy Irish accent, “If you can´t keep your big mouth shut, there´s only one place for you, and that´s Econe.” So that´s where I went.

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3434378.0.html

[Cooler King]

But Benedict XVI said that +Williamson was "never Catholic in the proper sense" because he converted from Anglicanism to the SSPX. "That means that he has never lived in the great Church."

The holy father is correct.

[Phillipus Iacobus]

But Benedict XVI said that +Williamson was "never Catholic in the proper sense" because he converted from Anglicanism to the SSPX. "That means that he has never lived in the great Church."

The holy father is correct.

Funny that you left out the rest of the citation I posted.

[Phillipus Iacobus]

Just to make sure that no one missed it:

Williamson:Yes, initially. I was received into the Church in early 1971 by a “conservative” priest. He did not agree with Archbishop Lefebvre. But he believed I had a vocation, so he sent me firstly to a diocese and secondly to a religious congregation in London. After I got kicked out for the second time, he said, in his heavy Irish accent, “If you can´t keep your big mouth shut, there´s only one place for you, and that´s Econe.” So that´s where I went.

He did not go straight to the SSPX. This is a historical fact.

[Cooler King]

Just to make sure that no one missed it:

Williamson:Yes, initially. I was received into the Church in early 1971 by a “conservative” priest. He did not agree with Archbishop Lefebvre. But he believed I had a vocation, so he sent me firstly to a diocese and secondly to a religious congregation in London. After I got kicked out for the second time, he said, in his heavy Irish accent, “If you can´t keep your big mouth shut, there´s only one place for you, and that´s Econe.” So that´s where I went.

He did not go straight to the SSPX. This is a historical fact.

Booted out of the Diocesan seminary. Figures. Soon he will be booted out of Econe.
He should have been a revisionist and not a priest. Oh wait....... 

[Phillipus Iacobus]

Plenty of men have been booted out of seminaries. Ever read "Goodbye, Good Men?"

I admire your respect for a man of the cloth.