Report: BW bishops refuse Service to Non Una Cum priests?
Jun 12, 2018 15:38:18 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2018 15:38:18 GMT
There is an unverified report alleging the Williamson line bishops are refusing to give confirmations to non una cum priests. radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/06/resistance-bishops-refusing-to-service.html
This is a strange anomaly for many reasons.
- Bishop Williamson said he condemns "dogmatic" sedevacantists in the preface to Fr. Chazal's new book, but NOT practical sedevacantism in which he promotes you can go to their masses.
Quotes of Bishop Williamson on Sedevacantism:
· If someone wants to be a sedevacantist, we needn’t bother trying to show them that they are mistaken.
· Not all sedevacantist Masses should be avoided.
· Sedevacantism is dangerous and it can lead to losing the Faith, but you can be a sedevacantist if you want.
· If someone wants to be a sedevacantist, we needn’t bother trying to show them that they are mistaken.
Eleison Comments #348:
“Therefore, it seems to me, if James is convinced that to save his soul he must stay in the Newchurch, I need not hammer him to get out of it. If Clare is persuaded that there is no grave problem within the Society of St. Pius X, I need not ram down her throat why there is. And if John can see no way to keep the Faith without believing that the See of Rome is vacant, I need urge upon him no more than that that belief is not obligatory.”
“Therefore, it seems to me, if James is convinced that to save his soul he must stay in the Newchurch, I need not hammer him to get out of it. If Clare is persuaded that there is no grave problem within the Society of St. Pius X, I need not ram down her throat why there is. And if John can see no way to keep the Faith without believing that the See of Rome is vacant, I need urge upon him no more than that that belief is not obligatory.”
· Not all sedevacantist Masses should be avoided.
- 25th September 2016, Houston, Texas
“You’ve got to do what you can. God doesn’t ask the impossible. He does ask the possible. The sedevacantist Mass is available. It’s close enough, and so - is it a devout priest? Is he a raving madman? Does he have the Faith? Sedevacantism is dangerous. But if there’s no other Mass available, I wouldn’t exclude attending it.”
“You’ve got to do what you can. God doesn’t ask the impossible. He does ask the possible. The sedevacantist Mass is available. It’s close enough, and so - is it a devout priest? Is he a raving madman? Does he have the Faith? Sedevacantism is dangerous. But if there’s no other Mass available, I wouldn’t exclude attending it.”
· Sedevacantism is dangerous and it can lead to losing the Faith, but you can be a sedevacantist if you want.
Eleison Comments #417:
“The opinion [sedevacantism] itself is dangerous precisely because it can be the beginning of a slide towards losing the Faith. … Now if a Catholic needs to hold that opinion in order not to lose his Catholic Faith, let him hold it.”
“The opinion [sedevacantism] itself is dangerous precisely because it can be the beginning of a slide towards losing the Faith. … Now if a Catholic needs to hold that opinion in order not to lose his Catholic Faith, let him hold it.”
- Bishops Faure and Zendejas support sedevacantist priests and were in the SAME organization with them sharing the altar and apostolates in the (now defunct) USML in reason he started his own SAJM and brought them into it.
Bishop Faure also accepts non una cum seminarians to be ordained a part of the whole transfer from USML into SAJM training them under the Dominicans.. cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/bishop-faure-sajj-seminary-accepts-%E2%80%9Cnon-una-cum%E2%80%9D-seminarians-to-be-ordained.4493/
- Bishop Zendejas was consecrated with all the other three bishops with him in the non una cum chapel of Fr. Ringose admitting he omitted the popes name from his masses since then.
- The Dominicans of Arville also support the non una cum priests sharing apostolates and masses on their altars.
So if this is an about face, the false resistance will need to provide some proof of reasoning than just reports and effeminate changes based on whimsical submission to the heavy hand of Bishop Williamson, who by the way, said he wants NOTHING to do with the resistance.
Further, Bishop Williamson refuses to service the SSPX-mc priests and their OLMC Seminary (no clerical elevations, no confirmations, no Holy oils) for NO reason given and for NO doctrinal condemnations. The SSPX-mc priests write to him every year asking him for these services. He never responds. I know, I have read them and there is another one on its way to him in the next two weeks. As with, they have written many times to the other bishops for the same service...to no response. Very grave! So much for Bishop Williamson saying in his Nov. 3, 2012 Eleison Comment, AND NOW?, "I am ready to put my bishop’s powers at the disposal of whoever can make wise use of them.". He proves that to be a farce!
With long abused patience of these priests and the Church in need to save souls in Her missions, the fathers may allow these many letters to be public.
The Fact? Bishop Williamson just does want he wants using God's sacraments as weapons just like the tyrant Bishop Fellay does.
Here is the alleged report.
Resistance Bishops Refusing to Service Chapels of Non Una Cum Priests? Yes, according to the following report from St. Athanasius Chapel, Vienna, VA.
June 10, 2018
Dr. Chojnowski: Just in from St. Athanasius Chapel, Vienna, VA.
In my private communication with Fr. Chazal he has indicated that he still believes the "Non Una Cum" position to be erroneous and, yet, he says that he bears no animosity towards those who hold the position.
All this follows the news, cited on link below, that says that Resistance Bishops have refused to associate with or service the chapels of Non Una Cum priests, formerly of the SSPX.resistance-bishops-fight-against-sedevacantism
Here below is the news coming out of St. Athanasius Chapel as written by W. E. Platz:
Dr. Chojnowski: Just in from St. Athanasius Chapel, Vienna, VA.
In my private communication with Fr. Chazal he has indicated that he still believes the "Non Una Cum" position to be erroneous and, yet, he says that he bears no animosity towards those who hold the position.
All this follows the news, cited on link below, that says that Resistance Bishops have refused to associate with or service the chapels of Non Una Cum priests, formerly of the SSPX.resistance-bishops-fight-against-sedevacantism
Here below is the news coming out of St. Athanasius Chapel as written by W. E. Platz:
The bigger news this week is not Father Ringrose but the SSPX Resistance
Your Excellencies, Priests, and Friends,
The SSPX Resistance priests, as a whole, have denigrated the Non Una Cum Mass. It is not unusual to hear reports that some even have now said that the Non Una Cum Mass is schismatic. Some others have written that the Mass of the Non Una Cum Priests can NOT be attended. Indeed their own priests who are NUC have been expelled from the chapel groups they were serving and shunned. Furthermore the Resistance Bishops refuse to bring the NUC chapels the sacrament of Confirmation.
So the big and good news is not that Father Ringrose, in defense of Catholic Doctrine, has publicly stated that he has dropped the name Francis from the Canon of his Masses. Rather the bigger news is that the Resistance group of clergy publicly ACCEPTS Father Ringrose, despite the fact that many of them still condemn NUC Masses. Father Ringrose has been publicly Non Una Cum Francis since at least the winter of 2015. At that time, he explained the Church's teaching against R&R in conferences to his laity. Since then the Resistance priests continue to service his Church even with episcopal visits and Confirmations. January of this year brought the content
of the 2015 conferences to publication in three Sunday bulletin articles and saw the removal of the name Francis from the St. Athanasius Sunday Missalettes. Nevertheless, the Resistance is still in service to Father Ringrose.
Another good sign is that Fr Chazal has written a book that reportedly has some agreement with Father Ringrose. Father Ringrose stated in a Sunday Bulletin article that it is OBVIOUS that Francis does not possess the Indefectible and Infallible teaching power promised by Christ to the successors of Peter, because he is OBVIOUSLY imposing errors in faith and morals upon the whole Church. Father Chazal reportedly concurs. It is also noteworthy that in the introductory pages of the book Bishop Williamson suggests that there is no problem attending NUC Masses.
We hope and pray that these events are signs that the Resistance [R&R], as a whole, is coming to the realization that their justification for R&R is untenable and that they will soon themselves cease promoting this error which is contrary to the promise and doctrine of Christ Himself as His Church teaches. Essentially, in their effort, as honest as it no doubt is, to defend one doctrine and avoid its related error, they have mistakenly fallen into another doctrinal error of the highest order, namely that it is possible that the Pope in union with the Bishops promulgate errors contrary to faith and morals upon the whole Church.
We pray that while the R&R position is still maintained, its clergy will, at least, cease shunning their own Resistance NUC priests and refusing sacraments to the parishioners of these priests. While these good priests are begging for help, R&R clergy show no embarrassment in providing service to Father Ringrose and making use of his hospitality and kindness. One may legitimately wonder why the apparent double standard: why persecute their own non una cum priests, who, like Father Ringrose, are only being faithful
to the teachings of Christ?
Adversus solem ne loquitur
W. E. Platz
Your Excellencies, Priests, and Friends,
The SSPX Resistance priests, as a whole, have denigrated the Non Una Cum Mass. It is not unusual to hear reports that some even have now said that the Non Una Cum Mass is schismatic. Some others have written that the Mass of the Non Una Cum Priests can NOT be attended. Indeed their own priests who are NUC have been expelled from the chapel groups they were serving and shunned. Furthermore the Resistance Bishops refuse to bring the NUC chapels the sacrament of Confirmation.
So the big and good news is not that Father Ringrose, in defense of Catholic Doctrine, has publicly stated that he has dropped the name Francis from the Canon of his Masses. Rather the bigger news is that the Resistance group of clergy publicly ACCEPTS Father Ringrose, despite the fact that many of them still condemn NUC Masses. Father Ringrose has been publicly Non Una Cum Francis since at least the winter of 2015. At that time, he explained the Church's teaching against R&R in conferences to his laity. Since then the Resistance priests continue to service his Church even with episcopal visits and Confirmations. January of this year brought the content
of the 2015 conferences to publication in three Sunday bulletin articles and saw the removal of the name Francis from the St. Athanasius Sunday Missalettes. Nevertheless, the Resistance is still in service to Father Ringrose.
Another good sign is that Fr Chazal has written a book that reportedly has some agreement with Father Ringrose. Father Ringrose stated in a Sunday Bulletin article that it is OBVIOUS that Francis does not possess the Indefectible and Infallible teaching power promised by Christ to the successors of Peter, because he is OBVIOUSLY imposing errors in faith and morals upon the whole Church. Father Chazal reportedly concurs. It is also noteworthy that in the introductory pages of the book Bishop Williamson suggests that there is no problem attending NUC Masses.
We hope and pray that these events are signs that the Resistance [R&R], as a whole, is coming to the realization that their justification for R&R is untenable and that they will soon themselves cease promoting this error which is contrary to the promise and doctrine of Christ Himself as His Church teaches. Essentially, in their effort, as honest as it no doubt is, to defend one doctrine and avoid its related error, they have mistakenly fallen into another doctrinal error of the highest order, namely that it is possible that the Pope in union with the Bishops promulgate errors contrary to faith and morals upon the whole Church.
We pray that while the R&R position is still maintained, its clergy will, at least, cease shunning their own Resistance NUC priests and refusing sacraments to the parishioners of these priests. While these good priests are begging for help, R&R clergy show no embarrassment in providing service to Father Ringrose and making use of his hospitality and kindness. One may legitimately wonder why the apparent double standard: why persecute their own non una cum priests, who, like Father Ringrose, are only being faithful
to the teachings of Christ?
Adversus solem ne loquitur
W. E. Platz