Sean Johnson
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@philosopher-
It might be more productive if you could even attempt an explanation of HOW/WHY he’s wrong, instead of gratuitously asserting it (because as the maxim says, “That which is alleged without proof can be dismissed without proof”).
It might be more productive if you could even attempt an explanation of HOW/WHY he’s wrong, instead of gratuitously asserting it (because as the maxim says, “That which is alleged without proof can be dismissed without proof”).
philosopher
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@Sean Johnson Well very easily, my point that he's ostensibly wrong for consecrated several bishops without even attempting to go through the proper canonical structures and is now excommunicated. Even Archbishop Lefebvre prior to consecration followed canonical norms, showing he was in no way rejecting the Pope or Schismatic. Initially they approved his request but due to political machinations by …More
@Sean Johnson Well very easily, my point that he's ostensibly wrong for consecrated several bishops without even attempting to go through the proper canonical structures and is now excommunicated. Even Archbishop Lefebvre prior to consecration followed canonical norms, showing he was in no way rejecting the Pope or Schismatic. Initially they approved his request but due to political machinations by modernists they convinced Pope JP2 to delay the final approval. The modernist delay tactic in which they were hoping with Lefebvre's advanced age he would expire. I've heard Williamsons arguments for down playing the Holocaust but he himself never did the investigation, never provides any primary sources that show his numbers are correct. He only relies on discredited historians books who have been show in English court of law to be antisemetic and in making false claims.
Sean Johnson
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@philosopher-
Then the SSPX was wrong for consecrating +Rangel of Campos without trying to go through proper channels, eh? Consequently, what you impute to +Williamson you unwittingly impute to the SSPX.
Then the SSPX was wrong for consecrating +Rangel of Campos without trying to go through proper channels, eh? Consequently, what you impute to +Williamson you unwittingly impute to the SSPX.
philosopher
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@Sean Johnson Again that was initiated by Williamson who was wrong in the Rangel de Campos case, and unfortunately +Tissier followed him in this ordination. +Rangel was not SSPX and afterwards he wrote a letter to Pope JP2 promising fealty and loyalty to the Pope, in which JP2 then officially recognized him. Again Williamson taking along +Tissier in going rogue left Bishop Fellay at the time in a …More
@Sean Johnson Again that was initiated by Williamson who was wrong in the Rangel de Campos case, and unfortunately +Tissier followed him in this ordination. +Rangel was not SSPX and afterwards he wrote a letter to Pope JP2 promising fealty and loyalty to the Pope, in which JP2 then officially recognized him. Again Williamson taking along +Tissier in going rogue left Bishop Fellay at the time in a difficult position in which he couldn't really go against it after it was done b/c he would be seen as not supporting tradition, moreover, it became mute since JP2 recognized +Rangel. The SSPX should have gotten rid of Williamson -a loose cannon in 1991, instead of allowing him in later years to stay on and sabotage the full canonical recognition of the Society with Rome.
Sean Johnson
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@philosopher-
…which Lefebvre said was not to happen until Rome converted. Fellay disregarded his founder in preference for his own notions, and the denuded SSPX we see today (a pathetic shell of its former self) is tge result of Fellay’s treachery. Fellay is a traitor, and the primary destroyer of the SSPX.
…which Lefebvre said was not to happen until Rome converted. Fellay disregarded his founder in preference for his own notions, and the denuded SSPX we see today (a pathetic shell of its former self) is tge result of Fellay’s treachery. Fellay is a traitor, and the primary destroyer of the SSPX.
philosopher
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Bishop Williamson's so called resistance SSPX is a very tiny group. Moreover, he has been excommunicated again for ordaining more bishops to his small fractured group. I'll contue to support the SSPX and not Bishop Williamson - he's wrong on the Holocaust, and he's wrong on Bishop Fellay and the SSPX.
Sean Johnson
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Very well done; explains the official reorientation of the SSPX in 2012, with the roots going back to the secret GREC meetings of 1997-1999, which culminated in the SSPX’s symbolic 2000 pilgrimage in which they marched into Rome in more ways than one.
Wish it had covered more of Fellay’s 2001 agreement with Cardinal Hoyos to “proceed toward a regularization by stages.” My book “As We Are?” …More
Very well done; explains the official reorientation of the SSPX in 2012, with the roots going back to the secret GREC meetings of 1997-1999, which culminated in the SSPX’s symbolic 2000 pilgrimage in which they marched into Rome in more ways than one.
Wish it had covered more of Fellay’s 2001 agreement with Cardinal Hoyos to “proceed toward a regularization by stages.” My book “As We Are?” documents many of the quid pro quo compromises to win Roman favor (as does the book “The Impossible Reconciliation” by Fr. Olivier Rioult, and the free online book “Is This Ooeration Suicide” by Mr. Stephen Fox).
Wish it had covered more of Fellay’s 2001 agreement with Cardinal Hoyos to “proceed toward a regularization by stages.” My book “As We Are?” documents many of the quid pro quo compromises to win Roman favor (as does the book “The Impossible Reconciliation” by Fr. Olivier Rioult, and the free online book “Is This Ooeration Suicide” by Mr. Stephen Fox).