Rorate Caeli

Interview with Bishop Richard Williamson


A RORATE CÆLI correspondent in Scandinavia interviewed Bishop Richard Williamson (one of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988 for the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X - FSSPX / SSPX), a few days ago in a Scandinavian city. We post this exclusive interview here with no additional commentary - though we call our readers' attention to Williamson's answer to question #16.

[PERSONAL QUESTIONS]

[1.] Your Excellency, starting off - who would be the most important influence in your life apart from the Archbishop and possibly your own mother?

Probably Beethoven. Queen Mary Tudor said, that when she died, they would open up heart and find ‘Callais’ written on it. Callais was the last English possession in France, and it was lost under her reign. So when I die, they will open up my heart, and I think they will find ‘Beethoven’ written on it. He has been a very great influence. The music of Beethoven that is, not his person.


[2.] That pectoral cross, where’s it from? It looks like it could have been fairly newly made.

No, this is an old one. I believe it is from Canada, an American gave it to me. These details are maple leaves, you see.

[ROME]

[3.] How would you define romanitas?

I think it is a knowledge of the ways of Rome and love of the ways of Rome, which makes you instinctively behave in a certain way, which used to be in tune with the interest of the Church. But ever since Vatican II, romanitas is dangerous because it makes you behave in line with the New Church, which is not Catholic – not essentially Catholic.

[4.] Speaking of Rome, how do you personally keep up to date with Rome and things happening in the Church? Just to take a very current example of the fact that things are happening in Rome, today’s nomination was Cardinal Antonelli of Florence, a known supporter of tradition, as President for the Pontifical Council for the Family…

I don’t much follow what goes on in Rome, to tell you the truth, I don’t much follow. I think there is a fight going on, there has been a fight going on for a long time. But I think the freemasons hold the levers of power, and I don’t think they are going to let go. Oh yes, they still do, that is at least my opinion.

[TRADITIONAL COMMUNITIES]

[5.] What kind of contacts do you keep with other traditional communities?

I personally don’t have too many contacts, but the Society is through the headquarters in Menzingen regularly in contact with the various traditional groups, in Europe especially. There aren’t many such groups in South America, where I am stationed, and I don’t run in to them very much, I hardly run in to them at all.

[SEMINARY EDUCATION]

[6.] In your lecture, you mentioned that the level of education in humanities was a problem at seminaries, young men arriving to the seminaries with hardly any relevant human education at all some times. How do you tackle such a situation?

In the United States and in Argentina, I was responsible for introducing what is called a ‘humanities year’, which is a preliminary year of old fashion humanities. The young men study for a year some catechisms, a good deal of Latin, their own grammar, which they no longer know. The grammar of their own language – Spanish in South America and English in the United States - is obviously no longer taught to them. Grammar, didn’t you know, is [considered] fascist, because it’s structured. It structures the mind, so grammar has to be got rid of, which results in that the poor kids don’t know their grammar. Grammar, history, literature and some classical music – they know little of these things. So a year is better than nothing. It’s not much but clearly better than nothing.

[7.] Continuing on seminary education – how is the liturgy taught to the seminarians besides them taking part in it through daily Mass?


There is a course of liturgy - the humanities do not contain any liturgy, but from right through the seminary, one of the smaller courses is liturgy. It is not one of the main subjects, but it is a subject which is taught. So they learn about the theory of it and the practice of it. There is a liturgy course in the beginning of seminary training and at the end.


[THE SSPX AND IGNATIAN SPIRITUALITY]

[8.] If someone were to compare the Society and its spirituality with old school Jesuits, would there be something to it?

Yes and no. There is a comparison, but on the other hand, the situation of the Church is very different and the need of the Church is different. Archbishop Lefebvre always used to say that the spirituality of the Society is the Mass. So the spirituality of the Jesuits is the [Ignatian] exercises, that’s where the Excalibur, with which St. Ignatius forged the Society of Jesus.

[9.] Still comparing the two, the Society (of St. Pius X) using the Ignatian exercises is not to be considered a coincidence?


No, we use the Ignatian exercises, we also use Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas. So you know, those are two classic instruments of Catholic formation. You can’t get more classic than the Summa for the mind and the exercises for the will. The Society makes use of both those, but nevertheless the Archbishop said that the spirituality [of the Society] should be the spirituality of the Mass. The Mass is the great need of the moment, because Vatican II destroyed the Mass – or tried to destroy the Mass.

[WHAT IS THE SSPX?]

[10.] Would you say the Society is founded as a countermeasure for the Second Vatican Council?

You could say so, yes.

[11.] Wouldn’t that rather limit the Society making it tied down to a moment in time?

Well, the damage of Vatican II is going to last for quite a long time, so the Society has a chance for being needed for quite a long time. But of course, the other side of the chastisement is that the Church is going to get back on her feet. And then, maybe with luck, the Society will no longer be needed, and we could all go into retirement some time in the future.

[12.] In your lecture, it sounded like you were lamenting a difficult laity. Wouldn’t you rather agree that the most serious problems throughout Church history originated from within the clergy?

Again, yes and no. The only solution to the world’s problems is from good clergy, because the only solution is Our Lord Jesus Christ, since without Our Lord sin is insoluble. Only Our Lord can pay for and wash out sin. Now, Jesus Christ chooses to operate through His Church, and the Church is the priests, the priests run the Church. Therefore, all good comes from good priests, but correspondingly, all evil comes from the clergy too. The Latin expression for this is omne malum ab clero. They say that down in Hell, every soul would point to another soul and say: “You were responsible”. And then that soul would point to another and so on, and at the end of every chain is a priest. Terrible thought. I’m afraid a number of the leading heretics were priests: Nestor, Eutyches, Arius was a deacon, Luther… The real evil comes through the priest because the real good comes through the priest. So when the devil gets a priest to work for him, he does terrible damage.

[13.] Moving on, to what extent would you say you adapt your message to different crowds? For example, two days ago you shared in conference your view on the American constitution. That would most likely stir up reactions even in, say, the seminary in Winona.

If you’re speaking of the American constitution, obviously you have to be careful in the United States. When I would speak about that in the US, I would always say, like I think I said this time as well, that all of the essential problems of the United States come from my country, from England. If you lay down that preparation, it’s a little bit easier for the Americans to swallow. You obviously have to adapt partly to each audience, there are things you can say in front of some which you can’t say in front of others, but nevertheless the basic things you say have to be the same.

[ECUMENISM]

[14.] Connecting to your statements about the public practice of other religions, how would banning the same go about today in Catholic societies?

It would go over like a lead balloon. Simply because, people today are soaked in ecumenism, they’re soaked in the idea that truth doesn’t matter. All religions making you feel good are [considered] good, therefore to ban any religion is completely unfair and unjust, it’s “against chocolate”, it’s against being nice, it’s against being human. You can hardly do it today, because it won’t go over. That’s an example of, as you say, adapting to one’s audience.
So you couldn’t say it today, the people are too sick. When you’ve got a very sick invalid, there’s a strong medicine you would love to give him, but you can’t give it because he is too sick. Some people are too ill to take an operation that they need, the operation would kill them. You have to do something that they can take, most souls today can only be told truths they swallow.

[15.] So in practical matters today, it is more of a position than a recommendation for immediate implementation?

It is a position of principle. It’s a clear principle which you have to use prudence in applying. The application of the principle requires prudence.

[REGULARIZATION OF THE SOCIETY]

[16.] On the future, how would you envision a regularization of the Society if it were ever to come about?

Well, the Archbishop used to say, and he’s quite right: “Once Rome comes back to its senses, there is no more problem”. Already the Romans are making documents, it’s already lined up how they would do it. It’s paperwork, paperwork.


[THE TRANSALPINE REDEMPTORISTS]

[17.] Lastly, would you care to comment on the latest proceedings with the Redemptorists at Papa Stronsay?

It doesn’t look good, it looks like they are going to make an agreement with modernist Rome. So, in my opinion, that’s not a very good idea, because they will be obliged, more or less, to abandon the defence of the Faith. More or less.

[18.] How would the change you predict manifest itself?


They will no longer be able to freely criticize Vatican II, and they will come under pressure to celebrate the modern Mass, or at least attend the modern Mass with the local Bishop on a Good Thursday. The New Church can hardly insist on less, it has to insist on that.


[19.] Would you even consider the Redemptorists regularizing their situation with Rome treason?


Treason is a very strong word. I distinguish subjectively and objectively: objectively I think it’s more grave than subjectively. Subjectively I dare say they mean well, they have good intentions, and they are sincere. But objectively I think they are abandoning the true cause of the Faith, yes, they are essentially abandoning the true defence of the Faith, I would say.

[20.] Should that be taken as your personal opinion or the position of the Society?

I think a number in the Society would share that opinion, yes, that they are objectively abandoning the true defence of the Faith. A number in the Society would take that position, and I think a number would also say, they nevertheless mean well, they’re sincere, they have good intention, they mean to defend the Faith, not to abandon the defence of the Faith. But the Archbishop was quite severe about those people who abandoned Tradition in those years, years back he was quite severe.

[21.] Saying that the Redemptorists at Papa Stronsay are abandoning Tradition could be perceived a just as strong a statement as calling it treason.

I didn’t say they are abandoning Tradition, I said they are abandoning the true defence of Tradition, which is a slightly different thing. They will still be defending Tradition to some extent, but they are abandoning the complete and true defence of Tradition.

[22.] Have you read anything of the way the Redemptorists are reasoning and considering their situation?


No, I haven’t. I don’t keep up with these things.


[23.] But surely people in central command have in order to properly deal with matters?


Of course. I’m not in central command, I’m not in headquarters. I’m way out in South America so I can enjoy the sunshine and forget about a lot of problems.

40 comments:

Jordanes said...

Well, there is much I agree with in this interview, but I'm troubled by his comments about Freemasons pulling the levers in Rome, about "the New Church" that is "not Catholic, not essentially Catholic," and about his answer to question no. 16. The paperwork being drawn up for regularisation is great news -- but the tone of his answer, of most of his answers, makes me fear that when the SSPX is regularised, he may well sit it out and not return to full Communion.

Paul Haley said...

Already the Romans are making documents, it's already lined up how they would do it. It's paperwork, paperwork.

Does anyone know what the good bishop means by this statement? Can't tell whether it's good news or not. Thanks in advance for anyone with an authoritative answer to my question.gjdkrsqio

Paul Haley said...

Already the Romans are making documents, it's already lined up how they would do it. It's paperwork, paperwork.

Does anyone know what the good bishop means by this statement? Can't tell whether it's good news or not. Thanks in advance for anyone with an authoritative answer to my question.

andl said...

"I don’t much follow what goes on in Rome, to tell you the truth, I don’t much follow. "

Says it all really, doesn't it. If these people actually took the time to listen to Rome rather than simply drowning out its words with cries of 'MODERNIST!', rapprochement and the overcoming of misunderstandings might actually be possible.

But of course, Bishop Williamson and his ilk know better, don't they. They're right and that's that. Sigh.

Ut unum sint.

Ramon Wals said...

Bishop Williamson has "NO HOPE", a very dangerous situation for any prelate.

He continues to live in a cocoon sorrounded by an array of illogical and bitter lines of thoughts.

Tom S. said...

I am quite impressed with Bishop Williamson. His answers were well thought out and very much to the point, but also quite understanding of the realities "on the ground".
Notice how he sticks to his guns on the principles of matters, but still accepts the fact that, no matter how much we would like it, ideal principles need to be applied with prudence and consideration.

Stu said...

So all of the critical comments on the Transalpine Redemptorists but when asked "Have you read anything of the way the Redemptorists are reasoning and considering their situation?" he responds "No, I haven’t. I don’t keep up with these things."

Similarly, he comments on how doesn't much keep up on things going on in Rome but that the Freemasons are in control yet the documents are in work for the regularization of the Society.

Some of these comments seem rather disjointed.

Michael said...

The most horrific problem for Bishop Williamson is 'Freedom of Religion.' Jesus himself preached Give unto Ceasar..., and to God what is God's. Then the martyrs of the first three centuries prayed for freedom of religion. Later, something got strange in a 'Papal State' metality. Jesus Christ via Catholicism has to be via Free Will, and not coerced by the State. Bishop Williamson's arguement gives validity to the Jihad/Islamic 'slave to God' belief resulting in the loss of Faith and Reason. He knows well of freemasons, while claiming he is not in touch when it suits him. Bishop Williamson is disoriented inside a self-made quagmire.

hopingforheaven said...

I really do not have much interest in what an excommunicated and illicitly ordained 'bishop' has to say. He has his own church after all and those that choose to follow him rather than the holy father are free to do so.

"Modernist"Rome? See this man is always right and Rome is always wrong.

The saints stayed true to the Pope and they are our example.

Cerimoniere said...

As ever, Bishop Williamson is an enigma. His answer about the "paperwork" struck me as quite favourable to a reconciliation, but then his answers about the Redemptorists seemed to cut the other way.

The most striking aspect of this interview, however, was the impression of remoteness he seemed to be trying to convey. My instinct is that he's suggesting that since he was banished to South America, he no longer has much influence in the Society's policy.

As with most of what he says, it's overwhelmingly true, but slightly unbalanced, resulting in a (sometimes, very) unfortunate conclusion.

Marty said...

[16.] On the future, how would you envision a regularization of the Society if it were ever to come about?

Well, the Archbishop used to say, and he’s quite right: “Once Rome comes back to its senses, there is no more problem”. Already the Romans are making documents, it’s already lined up how they would do it. It’s paperwork, paperwork.


[17.] Lastly, would you care to comment on the latest proceedings with the Redemptorists at Papa Stronsay?

It doesn’t look good, it looks like they are going to make an agreement with modernist Rome. So, in my opinion, that’s not a very good idea, because they will be obliged, more or less, to abandon the defence of the Faith. More or less.


Ummm am I missing something here?

NCTradCatholic said...

Folks, take a peek at the article directly above this one (regarding the abominable Neocatechumenal Way). Any questions?

Moretben said...

...the Church is the priests...

No, Your Excellency, it is not.

The Book Burner said...

[18.] How would the change you predict manifest itself?

They will no longer be able to freely criticize Vatican II, and they will come under pressure to celebrate the modern Mass, or at least attend the modern Mass with the local Bishop on a Good Thursday. The New Church can hardly insist on less, it has to insist on that.
-----------------

This is absurd and an overused party line. The FSSP & the IBP both offer their criticisms on Vatican II. I recommend listening to some of the FSSP homilies on www.audiosancto.org


Neither the FSSP/IBP priests are forced to offer the New Mass, ever. They do not concelebrate.

It's arrogant to say that only the Society is fighting for the uncompromised tradition of the Church. I am deeply thankful for the SSPX and the life of Archbishop Lefebvre, but I am also extremely grateful for the priests of the FSSP.

humboldt said...

"Moretben said...
...the Church is the priests...

No, Your Excellency, it is not."

YES IT IS. The priests are the only ones who command in the Church: doctrine and liturgy.

Jeff said...

So odd!

When I read Williamson saying this

That’s an example of, as you say, adapting to one’s audience. So you couldn’t say it today, the people are too sick. When you’ve got a very sick invalid, there’s a strong medicine you would love to give him, but you can’t give it because he is too sick. Some people are too ill to take an operation that they need, the operation would kill them. You have to do something that they can take, most souls today can only be told truths they swallow.

I immediately thought:

"Doesn't he realize that this is in many ways the key to the ecumenical approach?"

So very odd...

A Simple Sinner said...

"My instinct is that he's suggesting that since he was banished to South America, he no longer has much influence in the Society's policy."

An interesting study and question about the SSPX and their attached bishops is the exact ecclesiology and function of these men who function in an episcopal capacity that they received in direct contravention of a direct papal order.

More to the point, who is in charge? Are the bishops? What is the hieararchy if and when and where the bishops should find themselves in disagreement with each other or with the elected officials of the SSPX?

Are they bishops who have a sesne of episcopal authority or do they serve in the capacity of being the "ordaining officers" of an order that is more governed or directed by an intelligentsia?

" The FSSP & the IBP both offer their criticisms on Vatican II. I recommend listening to some of the FSSP homilies on www.audiosancto.org"

For the record, I recommend listening to the same. Point of clarification - something I admire much in the FSSP and think they get too little respect or credit for... I don't think that they start and stop at a critique of the council itself so much as many of their members are proving useful in the two-fold function of both re-assessing a council they affirm as legitimate and also putting some of the interpretations that have been passed off as "authoratative" in the cross-hairs/under the microscope.

I can't deny the wisdom of some of the V2 Council Fathers' statements and sentiments. I vehemently deny the crap I was offered in my youth by many that "explained the council" to me. Traditionalists serving the Church with a traditional voice is needed and desirable. The way forward is NOT to reject a council or ignore it, but to actually, really, and truly TEACH IT unencumbered by the weight of idealogues' additions and errant thinking.

Why don't the FSSP fathers get more credit for the increadible work they are doing - very much in line with the heart of the Church and our Good Holy Father - in offering a fresh yet traditional voice?

Jordanes said...

The priests are the only ones who command in the Church: doctrine and liturgy.

How does that prove that "the Church is the priests"? Surely it is not true that everyone in the Church who is not a priest is not in the Church.

Michael said...

Moderator,
It appears you may have decided that you may have to skip my comments. I certainly could be wrong, but I thought they only generalized an amateur's take on the Holy Father's teachings on Freedom of Religion.
Would appreciate your input.

Long-Skirts said...

Moretben said...
...the Church is the priests...

No, Your Excellency, it is not.

Each priest is an Alter Christus!

THE
BLACK
SAILS

The power of the cassock
Is to lure
Like fishermen
To nets secure.

The power of the cassock,
Ebony shine,
A hull of hues
On deck Divine.

The power of the cassock
Anchors the man,
Dead to the world
In his sea-span.

The power of the cassock,
Weighted strength,
Before the mast
It's linen length.

The power of the cassock
Sails your soul
To greater depths
From shallow shoal.

The power of the cassock,
Captains' pure.
The fishermen,
Our land-locked cure.

humboldt said...

"The priests are the only ones who command in the Church: doctrine and liturgy.

How does that prove that "the Church is the priests"? Surely it is not true that everyone in the Church who is not a priest is not in the Church."

Hm! sophism at this level? The sole power in the Catholic Church is the priests.

Cerimoniere said...

A simple sinner:

The SSPX bishops are indeed "ordaining officers." They do not pretend to have jurisdiction, though of course they do claim to be Catholic bishops in good standing, and thus to possess the graces received in episcopal consecration.

The SSPX is governed in accordance with its statues, by the Superior-General and the other elected officials and district superiors. One of the bishops happens to be Superior-General, but that is by no means necessary. The Superior at the time of the consecrations was not one of those consecrated, and the bishops operated under his authority.

In itself, this is perfectly coherent. Obviously, that doesn't resolve the questions of whether the consecrations were justified in the first place, or whether the Society's irregular pastoral activities in general continue to be justified. Nor does it address the serious theological questions they raise concerning some magisterial documents and their interpretation.

Michael said...

I suggest the crucial question is Freedom of Religion, which roots in 'Give unto Ceasar..., and to God what is God's' We can only come to Christ through free will and not church/state sponsored legalisms. The martyrs of the first centuries prayed for Freedom of Religion. Correction of the Papal State mentality was the proper use of Faith and Reason. In addition, Divine Mercy saves the Church through whatever failings. Playing 'the clever', Bishop Williamson speaks to his own disorientations. His fix would place us in the Islamic fundamentalist mentality.

Moretben said...

Humbolt, this is utter madness. The Church is ALL of the baptised faithful. God has no step-children. Where did you get this caricature clericalism from? It's not Catholic teaching. Is this common currency in the SSPX today? If so, the predictions of your enemies of an inevitable slide into schism and heresy are proving earily prescient. During the quarter century of my own association with the SSPX, I never heard anyone propose that the "church is the priests". Your idea that is because of the exercise of power is positively grotesque. L'Etat, c'est moi - come to think of it, La tradizione sono io. Ultramontanism gone berserk. Don't you realise that this is precisely what got you into your present disastrous state?

Long Skirts - the very fact that a priest is an "alter Christus" sacramentally itself demonstrates that the Church is not co-terminous with the priesthood.

Honestly. Thank God I'm out of this.

Cerimoniere said...

I'm the last person to deny that Bishop Williamson is a little unbalanced at times, but I think his rather casual reference to "priests being the church" is being taken more literally than he meant it. Obviously, he doesn't think that baptized laymen (or indeed deacons!) aren't Catholics.

He says: "Now, Jesus Christ chooses to operate through His Church, and the Church is the priests, the priests run the Church."

Obviously, all he means is that the clergy bear the greatest responsibility for the crisis in the Church, because they have the authority and grace of state to correct abuses. Indeed permit or collaborate in most of them happening. Priests do indeed "run the Church." Sadly, at the moment, most of them do so very badly.

Robert said...

Thank you very much for posting this.

humboldt said...

We all belong to the Church, we all form the Mystical Body of Christ, but the priests do rule the Church, and such bear the sole reponsability for what has happened, and we lays do also share the responsability for putting up with the madness from the priests. Although it was a priest who stood up to the priests: Archbishop Lefevbre. But ignorance is the responsible for this.

Jordanes said...

The sole power in the Catholic Church is the priests.

Sorry, Humboldt, but that's not a true statement either.

Obviously, all he means is that the clergy bear the greatest responsibility for the crisis in the Church, because they have the authority and grace of state to correct abuses.

Yes, I'm sure that was his point, and this matter that's come up is a tangent or a rabbit trail. Still, his manner of speaking was incorrect, and seems to betray clericalism.

Moretben said...

What the discussion also demonstrates is a growing phenomenon: the readiness of increasing numbers of Catholics, even beyond the immediate ambit of the SSPX, to abandon their critical faculties where Bishop Williamson is concerned; to leap passionately to the defence even of things contrary to Catholic teaching because it is "His Lordship" who utters them (whether intentionally or merely carelessly is beside the point)and therefore they must be True. That's the very definition of a personality cult.

The following is quoted from an imaginary neo-Trad blog:

"CDF Infiltrated by Trans-dimensional Lizard People says excommunicated Bishop"

Well, you've got to hand it to Bishop Williamson, like him or loathe him. At least he tells it straight, not like those reptiles in the Vatican blah, blah...

Cerimoniere said...

Jordanes: "Still, his manner of speaking was incorrect, and seems to betray clericalism."

It certainly was, and there is always a danger in being misled by one's own figures of speech. However, of all the eccentricities of thought to pick on when dealing with Bishop Williamson...

Moretben: The tendency you describe assuredly exists, but it isn't evident here. I was suggesting that Bishop Williamson's words were being unfairly construed in this particular case, because I truly don't think he meant them literally. I did this in spite of it being Bishop Williamson, not because of it!

Some of the SSPX's positions seem to me to be correct, some not, and some arguable. However, Bishop Williamson is the last person I would choose to rely on for a good account or defence of what those positions are.

Stephen Heiner said...

For more of Bishop Williamson, agree or disagree, here is his blog:

http://dinoscopus.blogspot.com/

NCTradCatholic said...

Gosh, Moretben. Do let us know when you wish to bless us with more quotes from "imaginary" blogs!

Anonymous said...

How much longer will the SSPX put up with the silliness of Williamson, his ravings drove me from the SSPX many years ago.

Ione said...

I'm willing to gamble that Williamson is more involved in the SSPX out of his desire to be an enfant terrible than real conviction, and (I'm sure this will offend someone) I question whether he even believes in the God of the Catholic Church. His writings and lectures and rather deistic, or a thinly veiled excuse to promote his own conception of truth.

NCTradCatholic said...

And just what do you believe is "his own conception of truth"??

Michael said...

Post Mortem, finding Beethoven inside one's heart speaks to a mentality in love with his own intellect before all else. One wonders about the smug elitists who must have their own conceptions before the love of God.
Life must be deeper than the 'smells and bells.'

Ione said...

I have never met Williamson personally, though I have read his writings and seen his videos and I don't see a man of faith there, I see an angry agnostic opportunist looking for any reason to condemn Rome.

I consider Williamson Lefebvre's second greatest error (the first was the Archbishop's adoption of the 1962 revised Canon).

Lefebvre got saddled with Williamson, after losing his erudite young ordinands to sedevacantism and the SSPV, it seems Williamson was the only bright bilingual speaker remaining.

Fr. Cekada was intended to be what Williamson by default became when Cekada joined the nine. Williamson is an example of "right place right time."

Williamson is quick becoming the has-been of the SSPX, he doesn't arouse the interest and accolades he once did in the Traditionalist community.

He's an historical footnote at best, and even Williamson's former base, the more vociferous American SSPX faithful seem to have lost interest in him..

NCTradCatholic said...

My goodness, you do seem to know everything, don't you? "(A)n angry agnostic"?? Perhaps the 8th commandment doesn't apply to you? Or, perhaps you've been blessed with a perfect knowledge of everyone's soul, unlike us mere mortals.

Ione said...

NCTrad:

Look at that man's face on his webvideos, there is not a shred of conviction there (you don't have to be a telepath to see it).

I would hope most bishops, especially Traditional Bishops, would have Jesus Chirst written on their heart, not a Lutheran composer.

SassyDefiance89 said...

To: those poor souls who up to now are ignorant of what the true fight is all about... here is it in a gist: SSPX does NOT crave for any recognition or prestige or any form or material reward be it in any form or shape of "prelature" or BRIBERY!!! The main reason they were established was for the "PRESERVATION IN PERPETUITY of DOCTRINAL PURITY - a surrogate custodian so to speak till the ROMAN MODERNISTS aka as ROMAN ROGUES have (by God's grace) fully recovered their MORALLY CORRECT right use of their reason!!! COMPRENDE?????????

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did NOT offer himself or volunteer for this mission... he was forced (so to speak) and thrown into the ROMAN COLLOSEUM -- now if you ask why? -- my reply is - you need to ask God that question yourself when you meet him face to face on judgment day...

What is so hard to understand about what this "VILLAINOUSLY DEFIANT SCHISMATIC EX-COMMUNICATE TEENAGE PAPIST" had just posted above???

And if you have "issues" with what I have posted? TOUGH! THEY are your personal issues alone!!! Take it up with the Triune God on your personal judgment and or on general judgment!!! END of Discussion!!!

Ain't gonna reply to any more whinny protestations!!!

But this uncalled for provocation and "threat/ insult" on the part of the Roman Rogues sure makes for interesting and "intriguing" fodder for all of us who loves to argue, voice out our opinion, release our frustration and be heard!!!

God Bless... and giving you all a virtual " friendly fist bump"... take care and have a great and safe summer...

28 June, 2008 15:28

PS
as an aside I agree with what Tom S. posted!