Bishop Richard Williamson - one of the three bishops who co-signed the letter opposing Bishop Fellay - has even more aggressively written this past Saturday - May 12, 2012 - in his "Eleison Comments CCLII - Faith Killers" opposing reconciliation. It should be noted - once again - that he writes in direct disobedience to his legitimate Superior, Bishop Fellay. The irony of this latest outburst merely confirms Bishop Fellay's assessment of the situation and the trajectory of some towards a potentially tragic schism.
Highlights outlining where Williamson is coming from and where he perhaps is going include:
"...the Newchurch is subjectivist, and any merely practical agreement implies that subjectivism is true. According to the new Conciliar religion, dogmas of Faith are not objective truths but symbols that serve subjective needs (Pascendi, 11-13, 21)...Neo-modernist Rome would be happy with any practical agreement by which the SSPX would even only implicitly renounce its radical claim to the universality and obligation of “its” truths ... Rome can wait for a few years before closing in, to make sure that the poor fish is well on the hook, but then - ...to be swallowed by the Conciliar monster....So why, in Heaven’s name, would it be any different with the SSPX? Rome’s temptation may be rejected this time round by the SSPX, but let us be under no illusions: the subjectivists will be back and back and back to get rid of that objective truth and objective Faith which constitute a standing rebuke to their criminal nonsense".
Well, you have to go with your feelings, even if those feelings fly in the face of objective truth. Williamson has placed himself squarely in the same camp as Nancy Pelosi who said "My religion has, compels me--and I love it for it--to be against discrimination of any kind in our country, and I consider this a form of discrimination,” Pelosi told reporters on May 10. Of course Williamson would come to far different conclusions than Ms. Pelosi. The trouble with calling someone subjectivist is that it presumes that the person doing the name calling is standing on the solid ground of objective truth. Both Williamson and Pelosi are standing on shifting sand.
ReplyDeleteOh yeah... one question. How can someone who was illicitly consecrated and who possesses no jurisdiction be the legitimate superior of anyone? The SSPX was born of an act of disobedience and rebellion. There is a serious double standard being applied here.
ReplyDelete