The Trojan Horse of Compromise
May 20, 2018 17:53:20 GMT
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2018 17:53:20 GMT
Thanks to Bishop Williamson, he has made (finally) a very good article we have been demonstrating from the get go. That is, Bishop Fellay believes that the conciliar reforms have all the makings of a true Catholic Church so that, with the tender loving care of the Society, it will become once again a Catholic Church. This deception of course is not a understanding of the Tradition of the Cross but of a neo-tradition packaged within conciliarism. Whereby, the string of concessions from rome is the accepted stamp of Bishop Fellay making neo-tradtion a value in his camp.
All grave before God said Elias screaming in Holy Scripture. All false religions are death and abominations regardless how dressed up it is.
To which brings up a hypocrisy from the author of this article - Bishop Williamson's own benevolence to Vatican II in support for his own belief the "conciliar church IS the Catholic Church" (see here, here, and here). This is the SAME foundation Bishop Fellay and all the rest of the traitors betrayed Catholic Tradition. The down fall of each was relative to its slow or fast death. For Bishop Williamson, he chose to make his slow death in the form of a neo-resistance, whereas Bishop Fellay chose neo-tradition, resulting in the SAME conclusion -- they both accept the LEGAL and PRACTICAL reform of Vatican II.
If there is a difference between those two bishops, it is one of path:
- Bishop Fellay accepts the Legal and Practical reforms of the Vatican II council and makes it public with negotiation.
- While Bishop Williamson also accepts the Legal and Practical (accepts novus ordo mass) reform of the Vatican II council, he acts more of a stallion and a hardliner to deceive his followers in public as a distraction only to bring his followers WITHOUT negotiation into the hidden back door of Vatican II while Bishop Fellay brings his followers in the visible front door.
The problem with the two bishops, they both compromised in the underling principle, they give "authority" to error.
Here is Bishop Williamson's article. The bold is mine.
All grave before God said Elias screaming in Holy Scripture. All false religions are death and abominations regardless how dressed up it is.
To which brings up a hypocrisy from the author of this article - Bishop Williamson's own benevolence to Vatican II in support for his own belief the "conciliar church IS the Catholic Church" (see here, here, and here). This is the SAME foundation Bishop Fellay and all the rest of the traitors betrayed Catholic Tradition. The down fall of each was relative to its slow or fast death. For Bishop Williamson, he chose to make his slow death in the form of a neo-resistance, whereas Bishop Fellay chose neo-tradition, resulting in the SAME conclusion -- they both accept the LEGAL and PRACTICAL reform of Vatican II.
If there is a difference between those two bishops, it is one of path:
- Bishop Fellay accepts the Legal and Practical reforms of the Vatican II council and makes it public with negotiation.
- While Bishop Williamson also accepts the Legal and Practical (accepts novus ordo mass) reform of the Vatican II council, he acts more of a stallion and a hardliner to deceive his followers in public as a distraction only to bring his followers WITHOUT negotiation into the hidden back door of Vatican II while Bishop Fellay brings his followers in the visible front door.
The problem with the two bishops, they both compromised in the underling principle, they give "authority" to error.
Here is Bishop Williamson's article. The bold is mine.
Eleison Comments
May 19, 2018
Number DLXVI (566)
“Pious” Dreams – II
Politics cannot solve the Church’s woes.
The Faith alone can beat her worldly foes.
If there is one thing certain about Catholic Tradition and the Second Vatican Council, it is that they are irreconcilable. It is tempting to think that they can be reconciled, because of course the letter of the 16 documents of the Council does include a number of Catholic truths. But the spirit of the Council is driving towards a new religion centred on man, and as the spirit inspired the letter of the documents, so even the Catholic truths which they include are harnessed to the Conciliar “renewal” and are made part of it. Indeed, Catholic Truths (and Hierarchy) have been used by the Modernists as carriers for their liberal poison, as a Trojan horse for their heresies. Therefore even Catholic truths are poisoned in the Conciliar documents. Thus in 1990 Archbishop Lefebvre saw and said that Vatican II is 100% infected by subjectivism, whereas in 2001 Bishop Fellay said that the documents of Vatican II are 95% acceptable.
It is indeed tempting to pretend that Catholic Tradition and Vatican II are reconcilable. In this way I need no longer be torn apart by trying to follow both Catholic Authority and Catholic Truth at the same time, because ever since that Council, as the Archbishop said, Catholics have been forced either to obey the Conciliar Popes and depart from Catholic Tradition, or to cleave to Tradition and “disobey” these Popes. Hence the temptation to pretend by one means or another that Tradition and the Council are reconcilable. But the fact that they are irreconcilable is the most important reality now governing the life of the Church, and so it will continue to be until Church Authority comes back to the Catholic Truth of all time.
In the meantime however, the present Superior General of the Archbishop’s Society, Bishop Fellay, is adamant that Catholic Tradition and the Conciliar Romans can be reconciled with one another, and ever since he approved of GREC in the 1990’s, he has been striving to bring them together. His problem is that he does not understand how modernism maintains Catholic appearances for them to act like a Trojan horse to deceive Catholic souls, while there is no true Catholic horse beneath what appears to be one. But Bishop Fellay believes that the false horse has all the makings of a true horse so that, with the tender loving care of the Society, it will become once again a Catholic horse. All too many Traditionalists have allowed themselves to believe in this mistaken policy and to follow his lead towards the Conciliar Romans, but the Romans for their part have not been deceived. They have played along with his policy by making apparent concessions to the Society and to Tradition (e.g. authorizations to confess, ordain, and marry), and by repeatedly pretending to him that he is on the brink of obtaining canonical recognition for the Society, so that for instance “only the final stamp is missing from the agreement.” But unlike him they have it clear in their minds that Catholic Tradition is irreconcilable with their Council, and so every time they have led him to the brink, they have insisted on the Society submitting to their Council.
However, with each “concession” that Bishop Fellay has accepted for the Society, the Romans have lured him further into their trap, and it has become harder for him to turn back. With each “concession” the agreement with Rome has become more and more of a practical reality, with or without the “final stamp.” By holding it back the Romans, by Bishop Fellay’s own fault, can play him like a fisherman plays a fish – how can he now unravel the “concessions” granted, and admit that his policy of 20 years has been a mistake? Yet his policy was wrong from the start. Lacking the Archbishop’s faith, he misconceived the Church’s problem and the Society’s “problem,” and trusted in human politics to solve them both. But of course the Romans with 2,000 years’ experience have been the more skilful politicians – “Your Excellency, enough of these games. For years we have made all the concessions, you have made none” (a big lie, since to accept Conciliar “concessions” is itself a concession to Rome). “Before July you accept the Council, or we excommunicate you, and show you up to the world as a failure. Choose!”
That is no doubt a crude version of how the cunning Romans can put pressure upon the Superior General, but it is he that should never have gone begging to Truthless Authority. In the case of the Catholic Church, Truthless Authority is in fact toothless Authority.
Kyrie eleison.
May 19, 2018
Number DLXVI (566)
“Pious” Dreams – II
Politics cannot solve the Church’s woes.
The Faith alone can beat her worldly foes.
If there is one thing certain about Catholic Tradition and the Second Vatican Council, it is that they are irreconcilable. It is tempting to think that they can be reconciled, because of course the letter of the 16 documents of the Council does include a number of Catholic truths. But the spirit of the Council is driving towards a new religion centred on man, and as the spirit inspired the letter of the documents, so even the Catholic truths which they include are harnessed to the Conciliar “renewal” and are made part of it. Indeed, Catholic Truths (and Hierarchy) have been used by the Modernists as carriers for their liberal poison, as a Trojan horse for their heresies. Therefore even Catholic truths are poisoned in the Conciliar documents. Thus in 1990 Archbishop Lefebvre saw and said that Vatican II is 100% infected by subjectivism, whereas in 2001 Bishop Fellay said that the documents of Vatican II are 95% acceptable.
It is indeed tempting to pretend that Catholic Tradition and Vatican II are reconcilable. In this way I need no longer be torn apart by trying to follow both Catholic Authority and Catholic Truth at the same time, because ever since that Council, as the Archbishop said, Catholics have been forced either to obey the Conciliar Popes and depart from Catholic Tradition, or to cleave to Tradition and “disobey” these Popes. Hence the temptation to pretend by one means or another that Tradition and the Council are reconcilable. But the fact that they are irreconcilable is the most important reality now governing the life of the Church, and so it will continue to be until Church Authority comes back to the Catholic Truth of all time.
In the meantime however, the present Superior General of the Archbishop’s Society, Bishop Fellay, is adamant that Catholic Tradition and the Conciliar Romans can be reconciled with one another, and ever since he approved of GREC in the 1990’s, he has been striving to bring them together. His problem is that he does not understand how modernism maintains Catholic appearances for them to act like a Trojan horse to deceive Catholic souls, while there is no true Catholic horse beneath what appears to be one. But Bishop Fellay believes that the false horse has all the makings of a true horse so that, with the tender loving care of the Society, it will become once again a Catholic horse. All too many Traditionalists have allowed themselves to believe in this mistaken policy and to follow his lead towards the Conciliar Romans, but the Romans for their part have not been deceived. They have played along with his policy by making apparent concessions to the Society and to Tradition (e.g. authorizations to confess, ordain, and marry), and by repeatedly pretending to him that he is on the brink of obtaining canonical recognition for the Society, so that for instance “only the final stamp is missing from the agreement.” But unlike him they have it clear in their minds that Catholic Tradition is irreconcilable with their Council, and so every time they have led him to the brink, they have insisted on the Society submitting to their Council.
However, with each “concession” that Bishop Fellay has accepted for the Society, the Romans have lured him further into their trap, and it has become harder for him to turn back. With each “concession” the agreement with Rome has become more and more of a practical reality, with or without the “final stamp.” By holding it back the Romans, by Bishop Fellay’s own fault, can play him like a fisherman plays a fish – how can he now unravel the “concessions” granted, and admit that his policy of 20 years has been a mistake? Yet his policy was wrong from the start. Lacking the Archbishop’s faith, he misconceived the Church’s problem and the Society’s “problem,” and trusted in human politics to solve them both. But of course the Romans with 2,000 years’ experience have been the more skilful politicians – “Your Excellency, enough of these games. For years we have made all the concessions, you have made none” (a big lie, since to accept Conciliar “concessions” is itself a concession to Rome). “Before July you accept the Council, or we excommunicate you, and show you up to the world as a failure. Choose!”
That is no doubt a crude version of how the cunning Romans can put pressure upon the Superior General, but it is he that should never have gone begging to Truthless Authority. In the case of the Catholic Church, Truthless Authority is in fact toothless Authority.
Kyrie eleison.
