“In serving God, half-measures will not do. To all that He demands we must be true.”


After three issues of these “Comments” (July 15, 22 and 29) it is time to go to the very heart of the split between the two kinds of Catholic bishops for the future of the Catholic Church. On the one hand are those wanted by Archbishop Lefebvre for his original Society of St Pius X. On the other hand are those wanted by the Newsociety of Bishop Fellay who will have the official approval of the Newchurch of Vatican II. By the Archbishop’s policy of “No practical agreement without doctrinal agreement” he put God in front of men, God’s doctrine of the true Church in front of any false agreement with men’s Newchurch. On the contrary, the Newsociety is liable to put men in front of God by its policy of “Since we cannot have a doctrinal agreement with the Roman officials, let us have at least a practical agreement.”

Now some followers of the Newsociety may immediately object that ever since it adopted in 2012 the policy of practice before doctrine, it has not entered into any false agreement betraying true doctrine, so it is not putting men in front of God. True, the Newsociety has up till now refused any major false deal with Rome whenever Rome has insisted upon the Newsociety accepting the theory of the new religion, Vatican II, or its practice, by the New Mass. But the Newsociety has accepted since 2012 at least three minor agreements (over confessions, marriages and ordinations) which demonstrate to the world that it holds the apostates in Rome, in fact apostates from the Faith – so said the Archbishop – to be still servants of the true Faith. What message does that send to Catholics in confusion? The Romans have played skilfully.

For in fact Conciliar Rome has abandoned Catholic doctrine, it has devastated the Church ever since Vatican II, in the person of Pope Bergoglio it is deliberately destroying the Faith day by day, and it is preparing the September Synod on synodality by which to dissolve the last remaining structures of the Church of Jesus Christ. And the Newsociety? It keeps an official silence on all this demolition at work! Why? Because it wants not to offend the apostates in Rome from whom it is hoping for an official approval! Dreaming of a major approval, the Newsociety does not want, by speaking up, to throw away Rome’s three minor concessions mentioned above, by which Rome has effectively – cheaply – bought its silence. Can the Newsociety leaders not see how they have been sold a mess of pottage (Gen. XXV, 34)?

No, they do not see, because, one might fear, they want to have a comfortable life tucked away in a quiet corner of the wicked System presently governing world and Church. The Devil has deceived them that today’s Rome is not really all that bad, that the Newsociety is a normal Catholic Congregation fully deserving official recognition, that we are not in the thick of a pre-apocalyptic crisis with a divine Chastisement hanging over our heads, that the Vatican officials are our “new friends,” that “Pope Bergoglio loves us,” and so on. In other words at least the leaders of the Newsociety, if not also a number of its priests and faithful, have at least half-entered into the lala-land of modern man, which is enough for their Catholic salt to have lost its savour. In fact they have not had enough faith, not enough love of the Truth (II Thess. II, 10), to take the true measure of what is going on around them. St Thomas More might have said of them what he said of the English churchmen responsible for the collapse of the Catholic Church in England in his time: “They were not praying enough.”

Readers, Catholic or non-catholic, the situation is urgent beyond words. Pray for Our Lord to give us Catholic bishops with a real love of the Truth; with a strong faith to see how corrupt is the System being constructed by the Devil and his agents all around us; with no desire to even half-enter into the lala-land; with no inclination to keep silent when millions and millions of souls are being swept towards eternal damnation, but with a readiness to die like St Thomas More, if necessary, for the greater glory of God.

Pray through His Mother. Pray the Rosary. Pray 15 Mysteries a day. And God will bless you.

Kyrie eleison.



46 thoughts on ““In serving God, half-measures will not do. To all that He demands we must be true.””

  1. I’m so glad you posted this article. I had lost the website that Bishop W posts his commentaries. I would always go to the guest post on Ann’s site titled The Joozle Banboozle that had the link to this site. That post has been removed from Ann’s blog (????) so I lost track of Bishop W’s commentaries.

    His posts are usually spot on. I don’t know all the particulars about his past. Most of the articles I read seem to accuse him of being a nazi sympathizer. That always raises a red flag for me, especially when the subject is a Catholic.

  2. “The Devil has deceived them that today’s Rome is not really all that bad, that the Newsociety is a normal Catholic Congregation fully deserving official recognition, that we are not in the thick of a pre-apocalyptic crisis with a divine Chastisement hanging over our heads, that the Vatican officials are our “new friends,” that “Pope Bergoglio loves us,” and so on.”

    Not sure which SSPX folks are being talked about here. I’ve never met a single one under such delusions. H-y-p-e-r-b-o-le.

  3. In case anyone finds it helpful, as a reminder – the link at the bottom takes you to Parts I, II, and III (etc).

    Very nice! A much appreciated new resource.

  4. Mark, I thank you for this link to Bishop Williamson’s blog. I found this quote, at the end of Part I of “Two Kinds Of Bishops”:

    – quote –

    “Then, for as long as Authority is strangulated by Conciliar popes, Catholics are bound to be divided, so that some are 80% for Authority and 20% for Truth, others are 80% for Truth and 20% for Authority, with all possible combinations in between. But when the pope is so struck, the sheep are so inevitably scattered that whatever combination they hold to, if they are sincerely wanting to be Catholic, then God is visibly tolerating them. And Catholics, rather than play God by excommunicating one another, will do better, broadly speaking, to imitate God by tolerating one another (Gal. VI, 10), until God sees fit to end the crisis. Not that Truth does not matter, on the contrary, somebody in the Church must preserve it, but that without a functioning Authority, Catholics can that much less be blamed for not finding it.”

    – end quote –

    He refers elsewhere to this intrinsic Catholic conflict and scattering as *spiritual schizophrenia* derived from the Conciliar crisis and the Papal deformations.

    But THAT, above, is the best advice for navigating this crisis that I have yet heard. From apostolic authority, no less.

  5. Bishop Williamson’s Sunday sermons can be found here on YouTube.


    After listening to hundreds of hours of sermons, conferences, interviews, etc.
    I can tell you I have never heard (or read) one word of antisemitism coming from the good Bishop.
    He’s hated so much by the enemies of God because his only business is Truth telling.

      1. You are welcome Aqua.

        Disclaimer !
        On the sermon for the 8th Sunday after Pentecost (and in other talks, conferences, etc.) he talks very favorably about the apparitions at Garabandal.

        I don’t agree with Bishop Williamson’s view on what he says will happen or did happen at Garabandal.

        Jesus said, “Watch ye therefore, because you know not the day or the hour.”

        That’s all I’ll say on that.

        Except that he is my all time favorite living Bishop.
        I hope to meet him one day to thank him for using the gifts God gave him to pass on the Faith.

    1. What globalist do is call anyone who opposes them right wing extremists, racists, Nazis and bigots. It doesn’t matter if it is true or not.

      Anyone who recognizes what is happening is branded a conspiracy theorist.

  6. This article from Fidelity magazine from 1992 refers to a Fr. Angles, who was pastor at St. Mary’s, Kansas, at the time, as the Nazi enthusiast. Bp. Williamson was, at least in the past, a vocal Holocaust denier, fwiw.
    A long, but interesting article, especially reading it from thirty years later.

    One point that the author makes that is still pertinent- once you start separating, you will continue to splinter.

      1. In 1989, Williamson gave a speech to a Canadian church in which he decried the alleged persecution of Holocaust denier and neo-Nazi Ernst Zundel by the Canadian government. Williamson, who was then rector of SSPX’s main North American seminary in Winona, Minn., told his audience: “There was not one Jew killed in the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies. The Jews created the Holocaust so we would prostrate ourselves on our knees before them and approve of their new State of Israel…. Jews made up the Holocaust.”

        He may have tempered his message somewhat in recent years, but this sounds like straight-up denial.

  7. I don’t understand this post and I’ve read it several times.

    *NewSociety*? *NewChurch* of VII? And then this; “…which demonstrate to the world that it holds the apostates in Rome, in fact apostates from the Faith – so said the Archbishop – to be still servants of the true Faith.”

    Is Bp. Williamson a sedevacantist now? It certainly sounds like it.

    1. It’s all in the definitions, Kono, as I’ve said many times.

      I don’t dispute the facts. I dispute your conclusions.

      We had a huge epic discussion on this in a recent post here. Church, Anti-Church – occupying the same space. Wheat, Cockle – occupying the same field (according to the Gospel Word of Jesus Christ … it gets no more fundamental than that).

      Read this, the end of which I excerpted in my comment above.


      He recognizes the Cockle. So do you. But it is not for you to burn the Cockle. The Gardener says to wait, do that the Wheat is not damaged. And so we wait. And preserve the Truth, as Bp Williamson says, in preparation for the judgement and harvest *of Our Lord*, to whose will and Word we submit. He did not grant you or me power to judge and cast out Apostles. That is where you and I diverge and why you cannot understand the blog post – your base premises prevent you.

      1. Aqua, the problem I see with your Cockle and Wheat analogy is that this would point to the truth of the Indults and not the SSPX position of recognizing and resisting. The SSPX has one foot in the sede boat and one in the NO. It’s the exact legacy of Abp. Lefebvre.

        In response to Chris below you say something about mining Sacred Tradition for spiritual wealth. Where in Tradition is this to be found? The Bride of Christ is spotless in Her doctrines, liturgies and disciplines. “Mining” is just a new way of saying “sifting” the supposed true Church and Her popes. If you insist on saying there is a false Church coexisting in the same space as the true Church, then you are also saying the Son of God shares the same space with the devil. This sounds blasphemous to me.

        Bottom line, if you truly believe the Cockle and Wheat analogy is true, then you should be aligning yourself with the Indults….not the canonically irregular SSPX. Like it or not, believe it or not the SSPX position is simply sedevacantism which can’t declare sedevacante.

        1. Minining is not sifting. It is going down into a mine and bringing back precious metals and jewels. There is a limitless store in our Catholic mine.

          Yours is a false dichotomy between Indults and SSPX. Not an either-or. A both-and.

          The SSPX feet are both in Sacred Tradition. Your interpretation of SSPX is not correct.

          Like it or not, believe it or not, Sedevacantism is not a Catholic religion but intrinsically is an individual religion. There is no basis for your claims of authority to personally deprive Apostles and Priests anywhere in Sacred Tradition, Scripture, Dogma, Canon Law. You are making that up, sorry to say,

    2. That was the impression I got as well, which I could respect, if true. The problem we always encounter is that clergy never “come out and say it” for anything they believe. Rarely, if ever, do you find a cleric who will say what they mean, call a spade a spade, a fag a fag, or a heretic a heretic. It will be our job to correct this problem.

      1. Chris, I think he clearly said exactly what he meant to say: there is a false church coexisting within the same space alongside Holy Mother Church. One is false. The other is True.

        What he did not say is also clear. He did not deprive any Apostle of their Office. He did not declare all Bishops of NuChurch deprived of their Office, all Priests removed and Sacraments invalidated.

        I don’t get the sense that Bp Williamson is afraid to speak his mind clearly and honestly, either.

        If I ever heard an SSPX defense of the Sede position, I would give it much credence because they base their Apostolate on the defense of Sacred Tradition and mining its spiritual wealth for the faithful on behalf of our eternal souls. Haven’t seen that yet – including here. When they do, if they do, you won’t have to guess their hidden agenda.

        1. I just saw Macbeth the other day. Upon reflection it seems to have something to say about this …

          Macbeth was Scottish nobility, highly valued by his King as a loyal warrior. He won a great victory for his King. The King granted him additional titles and his public gratitude. King did not see Macbeth’s black heart, unfortunately for him and for Scotland, because Macbeth killed the King, blamed King’s servants and son, and usurped the Throne for himself to wide acclaim … hidden evil, lies, violence the heart of his ascension to the Royal Office.

          This evil, lies and violence could not be hidden for long and his reign became a public reflection of his hidden heart. His twisted, evil reign quickly became apparent to everyone. Soon, even his culpability in the murder of the previous King became obvious. But what, at that point, could anyone do? Nothing! By the end, everyone was suffering in silence and misery as the illegitimate King transformed into a myrdeflus tyrant.

          How was this problem solved? Nobility fought nobility. Not the “people” widely suffering and well aware if their tyrant king’s crimes.

          Nobility acted against the King, a Duke, directly harmed by tyrant “King”; this Duke whose family was publicly tortured and murdered by the tyrant had cause and standing to challenge the King and the King knew it. The resulting war on the King was not only legal but righteous. In “the fullness of time”, the crimes all fully exposed, proper authority on the side of Justice and righteousness acted to kill the King in holy combat. After which the “people” silently and disdainfully filed by the dead former tyrant king’s body without thought it memory.

          I see the current world, secular and Catholic, in similar ways – violence has been done to lawful order. But order must be restored according to the righteous Laws of God and not the laws of the angry mob. The time will come, and order will be restored. But it must be in God’s time, and in accord with God’s will and Law *which is Apostolic and Hierarchic*.

      2. Chris, not sure what you mean that it is our job to correct the problem. After 10 years of Bergoglio and the BiP movement, I’ve yet to hear one traditional priest/bishop call Bergoglio the heretic (and probably fag too) a false pope. Not one.

        Truly, it was studying the SSPX and their position which helped me turn to SVism. They (SSPX) and their supporters can deny it all they like, but the Society has set themselves up as Pope and Magisterium of the NO “Church”. They determine what is or is not safe to follow from the “Church” and those they insist are the valid hierarchy. They are the final authority. They in 1988 determined for themselves that the excommunications were invalid and could be ignored without impunity. Yet today they’ll argue we can’t determine Francis or his predecessors are antipopes unless or until cardinals say so
        or give Francis a warning. So the SSPX is free to disregard canonical warnings and excommunications from who they insist is the hierarchy of the Church, while said “pope” of this Church would have to abide by the warnings and condemnations from his underlings. Their position is untenable and does violence to what the Catholic Church teaches about herself.

        1. Kono,
          The difference between them and you is that they are Apostolic and Ordained. You are not. They are in the Line of Apostles and the contiguous Holy Hierarchy. You are not. They carefully source their theological positions in Sacred Tradition, Dogmas, Canon Law. You do not.

          Your only claim to authority is your own personal opinion. You have no standing to judge.

          They will be judged as Apostles and Priests. You will be judged as a Layman.

          1. I do not understand this comment Aqua. We sedes have valid clergy too. And we pass along what they teach us. I did not become sede by my own understanding. I looked at both the SSPX and sede positions and concluded SVism doesn’t have contradiction.

            To accuse me of “{my} only claim to authority is {my} own personal opinion” is pretty rich considering your personal opinion that BXVI was the last valid pope in opposition to what the SSPX officially holds.

            Another contradiction within this thread is your previously stated opinion that the SSPX are “field medics” whose mission it is to save souls. Seems to me Bp. Williamson is saying the *NewSociety* is NOT doing their job in this regard, because they’re NOT warning the faithful….for reasons. I suppose we can only guess what these reasons are.

            Bottom line, you Aqua, can use your reason to decide why Bergoglio is not pope, but when sedes do it, they’ve gone too far in using reason to justify their opinions.

            In my opinion, the only reason you cannot accept SVism is because you can’t believe the Church could be so small; a few valid bishops from both sede and SSPX and maybe a little over a thousand valid priests. I know. It’s scary. Being scary doesn’t invalidate the position. But it does explain the current state of the “Church” and the world.

          2. Kono said: “In my opinion, the only reason you cannot accept SVism is because you can’t believe the Church could be so small …”

            No. The reason I reject Sedevacantism is because it is no Church at all. It is not in accord with the Nicene Creed, it has no basis in Sacred Tradition, no authority to depose Popes, Bishops, Priests, invalidate Sacraments – and so I reject it.

            As for Pope Benedict XVI, I merely recognize that he never abdicated his Papal Office. I didn’t de-throne Francis. I defended, and still do, the rightful occupant who never left, as required by God, before another Pope is elected.

          3. Aqua says, “As for Pope Benedict XVI, I merely recognize that he never abdicated his Papal Office. I didn’t de-throne Francis. I defended, and still do, the rightful occupant who never left, as required by God, before another Pope is elected.”

            Unfortunately neither the NO “hierarchy ” nor the SSPX, nor the Indults hold your position publicly. Why should anyone believe your personal opinion which does not have any ecclesiastical support, over a sede’s opinion which does have it?

            The very least you could do is concede that the sedes are correct in that Bergoglio is not a pope, wherein the rest of the valid clergy are not. You, yourself on another forum said how important it was to identify who is or is not pope….I believe you even stated it was a salvation issue.

        2. We correct the antichurch by exposing its nonsense and preventing others from being scandalized by it (either via the 1958 or 2022 Sede positions; both are plausible, other approaches simply aren’t). I’m starting to think this is perhaps much more important than waiting for episcopal authorities (who might not be legit, as you said) “officially” resolve everything. Our goal should be to ridicule the antichurch, point out its absurdities, contrast it with traditional Catholicism, and pull as many back from the cliff of “leaving the Church” as possible. That’s what I meant by correcting the problem.

          Also, regarding Bishop Williamson, I suppose we can assume (hopefully), that if we had the chance to interview and ask him if he was a 1958 Sede, 2022 Sede, or something else, he would offer a clear answer. That’s the best way to test whether he’s forthright. Though I personally lack the connections to do so.

          Anybody want to try? It’s not a sin to ask for clarification. Our Lady asked St. Gabriel to clarify what he meant at the Annunciation.

          1. Chris, thank you for saying both ’22 and ’58 SVism are plausible. That’s been my main contention here. Of course me being a ’58er I’d argue it’s the “truer” position because we are under the tutelage of valid clergy and are in agreement that Bergoglio was never pope. SSPXers who hold to ’22 SVism, otoh, are not in agreement with their clergy on this very important issue….but are under the “tutelage” of the likes of………Ann Barnhardt.

          2. The evidence suggests, according to various polls, that the vast majority of Trads hold that Benedict was pope until Dec 31 2022, and I would venture a large percentage of clergy as well, in private. Not that polls determine truth, of course. It is the part about all Trads being heretics and all clergy being invalid and all sacraments being invalid where the full ’58 Sede position loses the plot, IMO. That’s the point where I turned back.

          3. Mark, I understand why you couldn’t get over that hump. Truly. But that does not negate it’s truthfulness. There’s never been a 5 decades long, canonically irregular Society sifting what was or was not safe to follow from “the Church” either. And your position ignores the fact that Apb. Lefebvre and the earlier days of the Society believed new rite ordinations were doubtful and consecrations invalid. 7 months of sedevacante doesn’t explain the great apostasy these past six decades.

            Why do you suppose Abp. Lefebvre wrote An Open Letter to Confused Catholics? Pretty simple. Catholics KNEW the Church couldn’t do what it did. The whole entire VII. Novus 🌍 Ordo is the antiChurch. It’s not some half and half hybrid thing.

    3. Methinks Williamson is a Catholic and wants to fight for the Church from within. Unlike some….

      The institution is still the one Jesus founded. The gates of hell will not prevail against it. Ergo, it’s asinine to leave it. You fight.

      1. Methinks Scripture disagrees with you jmy:

        And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities.
        Apocalypse 18:4‭-‬5 DRC1752

        1. Kono,
          And you are quite sure that the verses you refer to, “Babylon the Great”, is referring to Holy Mother Church?

          Chapter 17 goes into some detail upon the nature of Babylon, Mystery of Abominations. Are you claiming that St. John of the Apocalypse is referring to the RC Church Herself?

          “4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

          5 And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.

          6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.” (Apoc 17: 4-6)

          The RC Church, drunken with the blood of Saints, Martyrs? I don’t think so.

          I think it can easily be said that Babylon, Mystery of Iniquity, has another interpretation than yours.

          I don’t know, but it seems to me that when you start connecting the visions of the Apocalypse and the evil it describes of Lucifer himself directly and specifically to the Apostolic Church of our day … you better be really, really sure of yourself.

          Especially so when you are using that obscure, almost impenetrable Holy Scripture, describing as it does the indescribable mysteries of heaven and the end of days, as support for your advice that others join you in leaving Holy Mother Churchnfor a Sede chapel. Best be very careful.

          This is why I defer to ordained traditional Priests to interpret Scripture for me – especially in regards to claims as large as yours. I will need sources from Sacred Tradition before I accept this interpretation.

          1. I’ve gotten this from other sedes Aqua and will concede I do not know if any sede clergy has argued this. I’ll look into it. I’m betting they have though.

            I would ask you to read what you posted again, but without your false base premise that the NO/VII Church is the Catholic Church. Then it fits perfectly. The fake “Catholic Church” is drunk with the blood of the Saints in that it teaches contrary to what the Martyrs died for. What you posted actually solidifies the SVist position and makes it all the more clearer.

          2. Last point; “This is why I defer to ordained traditional Priests to interpret Scripture for me –”

            Indeed, an absolutely necessary and Catholic way of trying to understand what’s happening. Problem is, the clergy you defer to, unlike you, cannot or refuse to see Bergoglio is not Pope. Who is or is not pope these past six decades is very, very important.

          3. When I was studying traditional Catholic moral theology I learned “Babylon” means Rome. But indefectability of the Church is incompatible with the claim that Pius XII was the last pope.

            Now if the false prophet is an antipope, Catholicism is still true. The false prophet will try to get the entire world to worship the antichrist, who will govern the world.

          4. I don’t know if it’s Mystery Babylon (that sounds like a pagan mystery religion acting like the bride of Christ?) but Peter calls Rome “Babylon”.

            I think Mystery Babylon will come soon, but hasn’t yet, and we are in a transition period. I think it’s soon because digital money is replacing cash, antichrist has to make a false peace (after a world war?) as a false savior, because of the sacrilege to the Eucharist even by the hierarchy He may withdraw His Bodily presence.

          5. Kono said: “Problem is, the clergy you defer to, unlike you, cannot or refuse to see Bergoglio is not Pope.”

            The clergy I defer to, and I have discussed this with at least five Priests, do not raise my views to the level of a problem. *All* of them have said, independently, variations on the same essential thing … (I paraphrase):

            “There have been disagreements over the occupant of the Seat of Peter before. There is disagreement now. There will be disagreements in the future. A Doctor of the Church (St Catherine of Siena) disagreed with the declared Pope and disagreed with a future Saint (Saint Vincent Ferrer) over the topic (she was proved right, he later changed his view willingly). As long as you accept the authority of the Seat of Peter itself and the Apostles in union with him, there can be disagreement over individual names in time. The Creeds are core. Current controversy and differences of opinion is acceptable, if legitimate and in respect.”

            An article, for reference, discusses this concept –


            Not a single one of them had a problem with my views, consistent with how I express them here, publically. I submitted to their judgement on reception of the Sacraments, and they gave permissions similar to what I stated above. Which is why I have no problem giving them tolerance in their views opposed to mine about Francis. This mutual understanding is in line with my excerpt from Bp Williamson (above), I have repeatedly referred to here and elsewhere, about tolerance for other faithful Catholics in the midst of Conciliar schizophrenia.

            The name of the current Pope is not the RC religion. It’s not in the Creed. I firmly defend the right of the Apostles and Peter as their head until the end of time … even while, at the same time, we struggle with sin and diabolical attacks and sometimes profound disagreements. We fight (Eph 6:11-13 – the whole armour of God).

          6. T said: “When I was studying traditional Catholic moral theology I learned “Babylon” means Rome.”

            The “Whore of Babylon” stands out as a phrase I am well familiar with as a former Protestant – we (not we, actually … mostly “they”) used to use this all the time in referring to the Catholic “cult”. So when I see it in this context, it brings me back and I am immediately repelled by it (for that reason).

            Here is a Catholic Answers link that breaks down the Whore of Babylon of Apocalypse 17, 18 from the Protestant perspective and proves, point by paragraph point, why theirs is the wrong view of who or what this Babylon is. It’s pretty good.


            From my personal reading of 17, 18 for context of the verses excerpted above, I can’t see how any of this can relate to the Holy Bride of Christ. Catholic.com’s conclusion makes much more sense to me – “Rome” refers to worldly Rome, the Rome of Emperors and Kings, not the Rome where Christ reigns in His Vicar and through His Apostles – until the end of time, where the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the conquering “Woman” who is eternal Holy Mother Church.

          7. Aqua, you said this over at another forum: “Now we know why the identity and validity of the true Pope matters, even to mere laymen. Our souls are at stake while the Church burns.”

            I’m sorry if I find it perplexing that you excuse your clergy in this matter, but at the same time make it a salvation issue elsewhere. Since getting this overly obvious and important issue wrong puts one’s soul at stake, what else might your clergy have wrong? It’s entirely too obvious Bergoglio is not pope…and yet.

            Are you willing to concede that IF the SVists are correct and the NO Church is in fact NOT the Catholic Church, do the verses from the Apocalypse that both you and I sited make sense?

          8. T said, “…..He may withdraw His Bodily presence.” I believe you are wrong here, because He said He would be with us to the consumation of the world.

          9. I will not post more in case I scandalize, but if you want to know more research Anne Catherine Emmerich and the papal warnings about a one world church. I also think paleovacantism is false. I think it is now rising.

          10. Kono said,
            “I’m sorry if I find it perplexing that you excuse your clergy in this matter, but at the same time make it a salvation issue elsewhere.”

            It’s not really up to me to “excuse” the clergy. Perhaps I phrased myself poorly. Understand – I went to them (at least five different Priests independently) in *submission*; “these are my views, please correct and instruct me accordingly, please tell me *if you will allow me to receive Sacraments from you*”. I never went there with the intent to instruct them. I went there in submission to their authority, prepared to *listen*, and *submit* to authority in accord with my well-formed conscience. I was prepared to refrain from the Sacraments if they insisted *and* if I could not accept their answer.

            Happily, and predictably, it was all in accord and expansive on what I already knew, in conscience. It all, of course, made total sense – including their permissiveness in allowing differences in time of confusion.

            I will recall these wise words from Bp Williamson to you once again:
            – quote –
            “But when the pope is so struck, the sheep are so inevitably scattered that whatever combination they hold to, if they are sincerely wanting to be Catholic, then God is visibly tolerating them. And Catholics, rather than play God by excommunicating one another, will do better, broadly speaking, to imitate God by tolerating one another (Gal. VI, 10)”

            There are some things that I will die for – defending the identity of the Pope is not one of them. The Holy Name of Jesus Christ my Lord and Redeemer, the sweet name of Holy Mary Mother of God, the Papacy as an Office and the Apostolic Line which is the framework of Christ’s visible Church, Dogmas and Creeds … *these* I will die for, die a martyrs death if necessary (so help me God).

            But to die (or walk away from the RC Church) in defense of my opinion about the true occupant of the Seat of Peter – insisting every Priest, Bishop and Layman agree with me in time of controversy or I will cast them out? No. That thought does not cross my mind. Obedience, rightly ordered, is essential to the Christian faith within the Divine Hierarchy – and make no mistake, Hierarchy *IS* one of the Catholic Faith’s (God’s Kingdom’s) defining characteristics.

  8. To be clear: I can see that much of Williamson’s work might have appeal. Just be aware of
    possible problems with his work, as you would be with anyone else’s.

  9. Bp. Williamson officially announces he consecrated Fr. Morgan a bishop last year. He also hints at ’58 SVism being true. Mentions that there will be both confirmations and re-confirmations that day. Why the need for “re-confirmations”? He really is all over the map in this sermon.


    1. At one point he says it’s prudent to doubt the person of the pope, more important to keep the faith. Then later he says Bergoglio was validly elected and universally accepted… yes, all over the place.

      1. Thanks for replying Mark and thanks for posting my comments. Hopefully everyone here is searching for the truth in these times.

        I’m sorry I feel compelled though to point out the fact most everyone here was rah, rah for Bp. Williamson and what he said in Part IV of his “Comments”. And then today a new sermon is posted and he is all over the place. It is the legacy of Apb. Lefebvre…..sometimes sede, sometimes not. This is NOT a put down to the archbishop or the SSPX. It’s simply the facts. The confusion in BOTH the SSPX and sede land points to the truth of no pope for six decades….not 7 months.

        With Bp. Williamson’s admission that SVism COULD be true, would those here who adamantly oppose it concede just a little that it IS plausible?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.