So much for reining in the rest of the SSPX leadership and at least abiding by the spirit of the ongoing dialogue, huh Bishop Fellay?
(Yeah, well, maybe he didn't really violate all Five of the Conditions. We might need a canon lawyer to parse it and get an accurate count.)
Update [By PA] A taste of Williamson's vitriol.
On the other hand, the Cardinal did not proceed to any further official exorcism of the Society, but – reportedly – declared that he had never intended his text of June 5 to be an “ultimatum”. And so the situation returns to where it was before. I think we may expect the loving son to continue to try to get close to his leprous mother, the leprous mother to continue to try to hug him, the loving son to continue to jump back, then try to get close again, etc, etc.
...
The leader of the Traditional Redemptorists based in the Orkney Islands north of Scotland, who has just led as many of them as will follow him back into the embrace of Conciliar Rome, writes ecstatically of how “sweet” it “tastes” to be once more in “peaceful and undisputed communion” with the Vicar of Christ. Good luck, dear Father, with avoiding the leprosy! But at least you must be giving some consolation to Cardinal Castrillón! What confusion!
5 comments:
Hardly vitriol. Just being honest. I just wish Williamson would be consistently like this.
Vitriol is an understatement!!! One can see why several Roman authorities fear that SSPX, setting itself above the authority of Pope and Council, now stands on the precipice of heresy. They have opted for a dead magisterium, not a living one. And no one can interpret but these self appointed 'shepherds'. Sad, really... the SSPX is now another branch of the Old Catholics. Hardly worth taking seriously anymore, except for the damage they do to unsuspecting Catholic souls.
Hardly vitriol??? Yes, he is indeed honestly saying what he believes, so in that sense he is "just being honest"...that does not change the inherent problem with what he says.
St. Damien deVeuster, pray for Bishop Williamson, that he see the leprosy afflicting his own heart, and seek treatment from the Divine Physician and the Church founded by Him.
Mons. Williamson non ha violato un bel nulla e non ha mancato di rispetto a niente e a nessuno.
E' veramente vergognoso come l'autore dell'articolo estrapoli dalle parole di Monsignore solo ciò che gli fa comodo per colpevolizzarlo e ignori il seguito delle parole di Mons. Williamson, più cristalline dell'acqua!
Nel seguito del suo articolo, infatti, Mons. Williamson ha chiarito che il termine "lebbra" viene utilizzato nel Vecchio Testamento come figura dell'eresia; usando quel termine, dunque, Mons. Williamson ha inteso indicare le eresie sorte dal Vaticano II, ed infatti scrive: «il Vaticano II non solo è eresia, è una religione nuova e totale» («What confusion! A distinguished Italian journalist cannot understand the Society’s rejecting Rome’s “generous advances”. Reportedly Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Castrillón have both been sincerely hurt by recent statements coming from the Society about Rome or Romans suffering from leprosy. “What? Lepers? Us???” Ay, there’s the rub, as Hamlet said. Leprosy is an Old Testament figure of heresy, and Vatican II is not only heresy, it is a total new religion.»).
Prima di gridare allo scandalo, abbiate la bontà di leggere gli articoli per intero e senza pregiudizi.
Mons. Williamson e la FSSPX combattono per Dio e per la Fede, contro il modernismo, condannato da San Pio X.
A differenza degli indultisti, dunque, conducono una battaglia profonda, non superficiale. Non ha nessun senso, infatti, chiedere e celebrare la Messa in rito antico ed accettare contemporaneamente tutto il Concilio Vaticano II che esprime una dottrina differente dalla Messa di San Pio V.
A tutti i critici, e soprattutto agli indultisti vorrei chiedere:
Mons. Felici e molti altri prelati (compreso ovviamente Paolo VI), ripeterono a più riprese che il Concilio Vaticano II non intendeva essere dommatico e che, per le sue dichiarazioni, non era richiesto un assenso di Fede.
Se dunque quel Concilio non fu dogmatico, se non è stato richiesto un assenso di Fede incondizionato per le sue dichiarazioni, perchè allora il Vaticano pretende che, per la "piena comunione" (termine assolutamente inutile e mal utilizzato) con Roma, i lefebvriani accettino incondizionatamente il Vaticano II?
Ennesima contraddizione conciliare!
Post a Comment