The essential question - Bp. Williamson why did you change?
#1
audio of Bp. Williamson previous to 2012

listen to audio @ .55 min mark:
"... The New Mass is in any case illicit.  In any case.  It's designed to please Protestants, it's designed to undo Catholicism. It's intrinsically offensive to God, it's intrinsically evil. That's how it was designed and that's how it turned out."  -right from the mouth of Bp. Williamson

 The New Mass and the Satanic Mass are both valid, illicit and intrinsically evil.

audio @ 2.40 min. mark:
"If the New Mass is valid but illicit, may I attend?   NO! ... The fact that it's valid does not mean it's ok to attend."  - words spoken by Bp. Williamson


The burning question-  Why the change?
We are well aware of the new Bishop Williamson and what he now says about the New Mass, along with other erroneous things, such as N.O. Eucharistic miracles.  We know his words are quite the opposite of what the old Bishop Williamson used to say, "the New Mass is intrinsically Evil."   


So the burning question is... why?  Why has he changed?
Another question could be asked- Did he really and truly leave the SSPX or is he a planned subverter? 

Before the deal with Rome became public the SSPX could reasonably assume there would be some priests who would resist the Doctrinal Declaration and all, so they needed to have a net ready to catch and control the opposition.  Of course the priests would naturally be seeking a Bishop for guidance when the storm hits.
  I think the Recusant figured it out and demonstrated very well what Bishop Williamson and all those connected to him are about in the October 2015 Recusant editorial.  Thank you once again The Recusant for excellent detailing of the happenings since 2012!


Enemy Tactics – Take Note!
  Although I am able to offer no proof and no other reason than my own general impression, it does seem to me that the revolution is advancing and is now already much further advanced than it was a mere two years ago. The enemy is incredibly clever, and his plan is to neutralise Tradition - take note! - which means more than just making the SSPX assimilate into the conciliar Church, although that is surely a large part of it. To try to get an idea of what may be going on behind the scenes, what we might reasonably expect, it is useful to put ourselves in the shoes of the enemy. Try very, very hard to imagine that you are him. You want to see the destruction of all Tradition, of all resistance to the Council and to modernism, starting with the SSPX. You are very, very clever, you have a wealth of experience of using fair means and foul to get your way, not excluding subversion and outright lies and deception. And you are patient: you are prepared to wait all the time in the world to get your way, as long as you win in the end. Got that? Good. Let’s proceed with a little snippet of interview, somewhat in the style of the Lewis’s Screwtape Letters, where I will play the part of the enemy, sitting in campaign headquarters at anti-Christ HQ and answering questions candidly on how the campaign is to proceed.
Firstly: why has the open, unabashed, unashamed deal between conciliar Rome and conciliar Menzingen not yet been proclaimed? “Because I want to see the destruction of all Tradition, not just the SSPX. The SSPX was the largest bulwark of Tradition, it is important to neutralize it. But suppose I were to succeed in reducing the SSPX whilst allowing a small chunk of it to break off and continue resisting. What then? These fanatical extremist groups are like weeds, you stamp them out and in no time at all they’re back. However small their beginnings, they’ll be back. Just recall 1969, not long after our last major success: six ‘exiled’ seminarians living with one retired and marginalized Archbishop. It didn’t look much of a threat then, but in hindsight we would have been better to strangle the SSPX in its infancy! We waited patiently to reduce Fortress Vatican. We then had to wait patiently for another forty years to reduce Fortress SSPX. Do we really want to find that another fortress has been built despite our patient siege? No. This time we are going to do the job properly. We are going to be thorough. There will be no survivors!”
What, does that mean, practically speaking? How can you possibly prevent a breakaway from carrying on a war against you? What steps can you take to ensure the destruction not only of Archbishop Lefebvre’s SSPX, but also of anyone else wishing to break away and continue Archbishop Lefebvre’s SSPX?
“In theory it is remarkably simple. Experience shows that direct attacks have only a limited value. The more flexible and easily-adaptable the revolution can become, the more quickly and effectively it will advance. Remember the 1970s when we replaced the Mass of the Saints with a bastardized rite specially designed to make them lose the Faith? We thought that we had carried all before us and won the day, but before long we found that we still had some mopping up to do. Here and there the true Mass persisted, and with it Tradition. What was worse, we found that because refusing the New Mass in those days took guts and determination and a clear sense of Tradition, the result was that people could rally around the Traditional Mass and almost take for granted that the priest offering it was clear about what he was doing and why. The people went in search of a Traditional Mass for all sorts of mixed motives (sometimes no more than that this Mass was ‘more to their liking’) and ended up stumbling upon Tradition almost as a happy coincidence.
Once we realized what was happening, we soon began to refine our tactics and eventually found a very effective way to overcome this problem. Where direct attacks on Traditional chapels failed, we found that controlled opposition to them, although not entirely successful, worked remarkably well. Look at what a success Ecclesia Dei, the Indult Mass, the Motu Proprio have been for our cause!
With this Resistance then, we are finding the same thing. Our agents began by trying the usual old tactics: denunciations for disobedience, lamenting the disunity, crying wolf about “lies”, “calumny” and “slander”, emotional blackmail (“Think how much you appreciate your local chapel! Can you really live without the sacraments?” etc.) - the whole lot. To begin with these unimaginative, rusty old weapons did have some limited success. But a large part of the Resistance remained immune and as time went on we observed, paradoxically, that in many ways made the Resistance grow stronger with each attack. Going silent about the Resistance proved a short-term option and slowed down their growth, but it leaves the real troublemakers unmolested so that is no long-term solution either.
For the long term, then, what will probably work best is something more subtle, something akin to the way in which we enticed so many souls away from Tradition over the last twenty years, even before our subversion of the SSPX bore visible fruit. The indult, or “approved” Traditional Mass was something which only our fiendish intelligence could have conceived. Who controls an Indult Mass? Why the local bishop, of course. And he answers to Rome. Which is controlled by us. An Indult Mass, then, is controlled ultimately by us. We can afford to allow them the trappings and illusion of Tradition: they pose no threat to us once they are safely within our holding pen. Then we slowly, slowly squeeze out all their Faith until all that is left is pietistic sentimentality and a preference for “old” liturgy.
And all the while allow them to flatter themselves that they are still being “Traditional” and resisting the Council. After all, what they think they are doing does not matter half so much as what they actually are doing! We can afford to allow them the delusions as long as in reality they are achieving nothing. In fact, the delusion is key: above all they must have no shock which might wake them from their illusion. That most people nowadays tend not to think in terms of abstract principles, preferring instead to attach themselves to personalities and things, is a great help.”
How will you accomplish such a thing with the Resistance? It’s all very well talking about the idea, but how will you actually bring it about? “I am not at liberty to reveal the full details because our Fiendish Planning Department has not yet declassified them for general circulation. They will appear in due course when it is too late for the poor unsuspecting souls to do anything. But you do see the principle, the idea? We will create a harmless playpen, label it “Resistance” or some such, allow them to think that they are accomplishing something useful. And all the while we will be in ultimate control.
Most of our victims, once inside the holding pen, will keep themselves there. All we have to do is sow a little doubt and sap a little courage from their convictions. That’s all. Isn’t it wonderful? Just think. Even if the mask temporarily slips and they are tempted to doubt whether they really are resisting, the majority of them will feel too self-conscious to explore further, much less to act, and ultimately their doubt will end in inertia. They will say to themselves: “No, no, that can’t possibly be true!” and by the next morning they will have forgotten what they saw. We might even - and this is just pure evil genius! - encourage these poor fools to squabble with the SSPX. Only over trivial things, of course: personalities, personal injustices, and so on. Not doctrine! This will encourage them all the more to think that they are in the right place and doing the right thing. What is important is that our own fake “Resistance” will eventually supplant the real Resistance.
The SSPX has no chance of winning any argument with the Resistance and its only hope for avoiding losing more souls to the Resistance lies in silence. So we cannot use the SSPX to attack the Resistance. That is worse than senseless. But we can use a “Resistance” to attack the Resistance. If anyone sees our manoeuvre and raises the alarm we can get our agents to denounce him as a crackpot, a hater, etc.
Remember the disaster of 2012? We should have taken greater care! Hardly any priests spoke out or started resisting openly, but the ones who did were more effective than we could ever have guessed or dreamed possible. What’s more, like the 1970s, people who followed them for the most simple reasons ended up by chance receiving far more than they had asked for and in the care of priests who really had vision and clarity and were prepared to sacrifice themselves for the flock. The poor fools who followed them for silly mundane reasons had struck gold without even realizing it! Part of our plan must involve changing this unfortunate state of affairs. Our priests will look as close to the real thing as possible without actually being it. Their mission will be to supplant these enemy priests, to slowly but surely take as many souls away from them and leave them marginalized. When 80% of the souls in the Resistance are with them, we will know that 80% of the souls in the Resistance are in fact no longer in the Resistance, but in the play-pen controlled by us. These fake-Resistance priests can then set about weakening their flock by encouraging selfish tendencies. ‘You need your Mass. I can give you regular Mass. Come with me. Don’t be extreme like those others. Be balanced, be comfortable, think of the air of respectability and feeling of security which I can offer you.’ An occasional squabbly-sounding chat to the more ‘hard-line’ of the flock, you know, I hate Bishop Fellay, he’s a really bad guy, that sort of thing - nothing of any real consequence! and the trap is sprung. As long as the poor sheep do not ask too many questions nor probe too deeply about our fake priests and their motives, as long as they don’t stop to consider what they are really doing or why, or whose good they really have at heart, then they are in the bag for good!!
 Our agents can then deal with these “pockets” of fake “Resistance” when the time comes.  You’ll see.  It will make the previous masterstroke look like child's play!”

- from The Recusant Issue 30, October 2015
https://www.stmaryskssspxmc.com/?page_id=46








Reply
#2
I had forgotten about that neo-Screwtape editorial. Thank you for re-posting it here. Personally I think it is well on its way to standing the test of time, subsequent events have done nothing to prove it mistaken, but perhaps even more time will tell...

I was thinking about this question again, just the other day. The enemy tactics are diabolically clever and very effective. I am no fisherman and have never been fishing once in my life, but I understand that when you get something big on the end of your rod, you can't just haul it straight in, there has to be a certain amount of back-and-forth... is that right? Well, if so, then that is perhaps an apt analogy. 

Total refusal to ordain any priests or consecrate any bishops at all would by now have united more or less all the Resistance priests against Bishop Williamson, they'd all be admitting that something is seriously wrong with him and they'd all be very wary of any attempt by him to sway them in one direction or another. The same is surely true of the faithful. But Bishop Williamson hasn't totally refused outright to do any ordinations or episcopal consecrations, has he? He's done *some* ordinations, although it's always slightly strange, peculiar ones, seminarians who lived in the house of one solitary priest and taught themselves out of textbooks, for instance. HE ordains them to be vagabond priests, condemned to float around for the rest of their lives without a structure to belong to, and in fact very often they will end up saying Mass wherever they end up living and nowhere else. The same is true of his episcopal consecrations: there's something not quite right a out them. He first consecrated Fr. Jean-Michel Faure, a man who is all of one year younger than him (!). Then he consecrated another man, Dom Tomas Aquinas, who is a few years younger but still fairly elderly and who is in not very good health. He then finally consecrated a man who from day one had refused to say why he left the SSPX or what he stood for and whose every sermon, newsletter, whose very preaching and doctrine are kept top secret. And, of course, he made absolutely sure that each of them was willing to bend to his every unofficial whim and fancy, to obey the authority he so vocally claims not to have and to compromise doctrinally on important questions such as the New Mass. Episcopal consecrations like that are arguably worse than no episcopal consecrations at all. 

This seems to me to be very similar to the "give a little" tactic of modernist Rome. They hated the Traditional Mass and in the 1970s they tried to stamp it out completely and make it totally forbidden. That was effective at the very start, but by the time a decade had gone by there was a fairly solid opposition to them in the form of priests saying "illegal" Tridentine Masses, and faithful assisting at those Masses, almost all of whom were to a greater or lesser degree supporters of Archbishop Lefebvre. Then in the 1980s, the modernist Romans realised that if they allowed there to be a limited number of slightly-not-quite-right, doctrinally compromised Traditional Masses, it would help split Archbishop Lefebvre's Resistance to Vatican II into fragments. So they gave a little. 

How many priests and faithful fell for the token gestures from Rome in the 80's and 90's? All because they wanted to have their own little pretend 1950s parish, their own little token corner of the Traditional liturgy. And today, aren't we witnessing the same thing? How many supposedly Resistance priests, many of whom started off good, have slid into doctrinal compromise by reacting to Bishop Williamson's promotions of the New Mass with *at best* silence, and in many cases actually defending him? And all because they hope to be able to gain some sacramental favour from Bishop Williamson, to have a seminarian ordained, or their faithful confirmed... or even in the vain hope that they will be the next one to be made a bishop. Shameful. 

But it is very effective. Look how well it has worked.
*** FIND ALL BACK ISSUES OF THE RECUSANT NEWSLETTER HERE: https://www.stmaryskssspxmc.com/?page_id=46 ***
Reply
#3
Flashback to 2009 . . .

At a meeting of Bishop Fellay and French District Superiors, a Capuchin priest, Fr. Jean de Morgon, was one of the first to publicly accuse Bishop Fellay of plotting to sell out the Society to the Conciliar robbers. He was silenced, removed from the meeting, and ordered to issue a letter of apology to the Bishop. He agreed to apologize for the manner of his protest, but not for the content. 

To this letter of apology, Fr. de Morgon attached a startling declaration. He alleged that a network of progressivist priests had infiltrated the SSPX, and that they managed to rise to key-positions in the Society. He stated that the present day accord with Rome, headed by Bishop Fellay, would be the principal goal of their agenda. What was most eye-popping in the priest's letter was his final affirmation where he claimed that Bishop Williamson would be a part of this team.

Some may recall that when this news hit the on-line Trad-Catholic Forums in 2009, nearly all of the soon to be "Resistance" members sited the incident as one of the first alarms that gave solid credence to the eventual sell out. But the accusation of Bishop Williamson's involvement in the plan was simply brushed off as some kind of "mis-translation" and so fantastic that Fr. de Morgon must somehow be "confused." Even to this day, such lame explanations remain among the Bishop's blind defenders; yet, after all these years, there has never been published any kind of retraction or correction to Fr. de Morgon's claims. So, what seemed so crazy then, doesn't seem so far fetched now, does it? 

Quote:I have no trust in Bishop Fellay, who uses his authority to cover this whole operation. Neither do I have any in Bishop Williamson, who was found to be in secret contact with Rome a week after Easter 2008.

Read Fr. Jean de Morgon's Letter
Reply
#4
One can't help but notice that things have become more divisive under Bp. Williamson. They only thing uniting the False Resistance is Bp. Williamson. Total loyalty is all that matters to remain in that 'club.' Any objective criticism of his errors will get you ostracized and criticized. 

Compare that to Archbishop Lefebvre and the old-SSPX. Loyalty to the 'person' of the Archbishop was never demanded. It was always about the Faith. Loyalty to what the Church always taught. That was all that mattered. 

In the 'early' days of Bishop Williamson's errors (2015) many priests of the false resistance quietly agreed that he was wrong on the 'grace in the New Mass' issue but that 'we need a bishop' and therefore he must be tolerated. Now, fast forward a few years... the indoctrination is complete and these same priests are adamantly defending Bp. Williamson's errors and castigating anyone who refutes them. 


Excerpt from Archbishop Lefebvre's 1974 "Declaration":

Quote:To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church—all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church.

This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.

The only attitude of faithfulness to the Church and Catholic doctrine, in view of our salvation, is a categorical refusal to accept this Reformation.


Shame on the priests and bishops leading souls astray for the sake of one man...who like all of us, will one day meet his Maker!
"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Abp. Lefebvre
Reply
#5
Can anyone tell me what the false resistance is resisting?
Reply
#6
Scarlet Asked:
Quote:Can anyone tell me what the false resistance is resisting?

Answer:  Anyone who stands firm in truth and in the line of Archbishop Lefebvre without compromise.
Reply
#7
(10-10-2022, 08:12 PM)Scarlet Wrote: Can anyone tell me what the false resistance is resisting?

...the Resistance!
*** FIND ALL BACK ISSUES OF THE RECUSANT NEWSLETTER HERE: https://www.stmaryskssspxmc.com/?page_id=46 ***
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)