Bishop Williamson's Eleison comments


I can’t find Bp. Williamson’s Eleison Comments anywhere on the forum. Maybe I haven’t found where they are located.

I find that +W’s Eleison comments are helpful in putting certain events and situations into a proper context.


The Eleison Comments can be found on H.E.'s website:

People only tend to repost them on a forum if they would like to start a discussion or post a comment about them.

Sometimes silence speaks volumes too.



What might silence mean (regarding Bp. Williamsons EC), as far as speaking volumes? Can you further explain? Thanks.


It is my opinion that silence on the EC’s means either:

  1. People disagree with H.E.'s comments
  2. People have lost interest in H.E.'s comments

Speaking for myself:

  1. To take his latest 3 E.C.'s as an example, I disagree with H.E. trying to see some return to doctrine in Fr. Pagliarani’s comments. What I see is a Superior General who is neither hot nor cold, who speaks in ambiguous language and who has since his election 5 months ago not reversed or corrected one single word or action by his predecessor. He’s just a puppet placed at the front in order to comfort the sheep on their way to the slaughter house.
  2. I have lost interest in H.E.'s words because, like Fr. Pagliarani, I see too much idle (and ambiguous) talk and not enough actions in him.


I appreciate the explanation. You’re probably right about Fr. Pagliarani. But I think that +W is realistic about Fr. Pagliarani, and doesn’t think that he’s a good SG for the SSPX.

It’s good that the latest EC is now at least being discussed. That’s not a bad thing.

I’m not sure why +W focuses on the SSPX a lot. Maybe there’s a correlation to +ABL focusing on Rome quite a lot, too, as to all of the scandals that occurred in Rome and the conciliar church in general when he was head of the SSPX. I could be wrong, but maybe +W doesn’t want to give up hope on the SSPX. Just as +ABL didn’t want to start a counter-church, +W doesn’t seem inclined to start a counter-SSPX.

Both +W and Fr. Chazal have been rather charitable in their comments regarding Fr. Pagliarani. I admire that. It’s unusual thing for a trad to do, and quite refreshing, to be honest.

Question: would the Resistance exist if not for +W? It certainly might, but I’m not sure how, since he was the one who consecrated the other three bishops. Without bishops, the Resistance would be eventually doomed to die out.

I think it’s unfortunate that the only two resistance forums in the U.S. do not really support +W. I mean, CathInfo posts +W’s EC’s, but there’s little interest in them except to criticize them. That’s why I don’t post there anymore. Resistance issues are hardly ever talked about in a positive manner, especially anything relating to +W.


The reason the SSPX came to be is because there was (and still is) a crisis in the Church. If there were no crisis in the Church, there would have been no reason for the SSPX to exist. Likewise, the reason the Resistance exists is because there was (and still is) a crisis in the SSPX, and if there were no crisis in the SSPX, there would have been no reason for the Resistance to exist. So yes, the Resistance would certainly exist with or without bishop Williamson, but I have no idea in what shape or form it would be today without bishop Williamson’s contribution (of consecrating 3 more bishops). No doubt the bishop gave the Resistance the means to survive, and for this we should be grateful.

With regards to everything else the bishop has said or done, I see two extreme positions:

The first one is to exaggerate any faults or disagreements one may have with the bishop, which is what the Pfeifferites have been doing. They have a long history of exaggerating faults, of stretching the truth and of turning any error or disagreement into a full-blown heresy. At the same time they have built a cult around Fr. Pfeiffer of whom they can see or hear no evil. Luckily, it seems that finally at least some of them are starting to wake up to the fact that this was not a good way to go about it.

But the second group tends to treat bishop Williamson as infallible and impeccable, refusing to see or hear anything wrong about him, which also leads to a cult mentality. A Catholic ought to defend and excuse as much as possible, but there comes a point where we have to admit that the bishop is not impeccable or infallible and that simply looking the other way would be wrong.

CathInfo has gradually lost the support of the Resistance because for too long Matthew has tolerated too much nonsense (dogmatic sedevantists, feenyites, flat earthers, trivial babble, …) and condemned those members who opposed his “tolerance”. As the saying goes, “a friend to everyone is a friend to no one”. In my opinion, this has caused CathInfo to lose it’s appeal with the Resistance and to become a babble box for everyone else.



#3, “people agree with what the bishop has said”

#4 “people have a mix of 1,2 and 3 but are not interested in coming on internet forums to discuss or get into arguments”


I agree with your assessment of the reason for the existence of SSPX and the Resistance. I agree too that the Resistance would still exist without Bp. Williamson and that we should be grateful that he has provided a means for the Resistance to survive.

I’m not sure, however, as to why you mention extreme positions regarding +W or Fr. Pfeiffer. I’ve never been much interested in the issues surrounding Fr. Pfeiffer, and quite frankly I don’t understand the fascination with him by some trads (either very much for or against).

If I have given the impression that I believe that +W cannot ever be wrong, it wasn’t intended. I certainly do not have a cult worship mentality of the Bishop , or any bishop. But as a layperson, I do not believe that I am more qualified to judge matters of the SSPX than Bishop Williamson is.

I think that the Resistance will never really amount to much in the U.S. This is mainly due, IMO, to the individualistic mentality that we Americans have. That’s why there is a prevalence of sedevacantists here in the U.S. as well. We lay trad Catholics in the U.S. seem to truly believe that we have it all figured out, and that the trad priests and bishops mainly exist in order to justify our individual views of truth. Didn’t Archbshop Lefebvre very nearly give up on having an SSPX presence in the U.S., after the “Nine” fiasco? I think he knew that we Americans are a little nuts.

There is, I believe, a Resistance forum based in France that probably isn’t radically individualistic as the American Resistance is, but unfortunately, I don’t speak French and can’t participate. I do like Fr. Trincado’s blog (non-Possumus), in which he always features Bishop Williamson’s Eleison Comments. But then Fr. Trincado isn’t American, as far as I know.

It doesn’t really bother me that Cath info allows quite a few unpopular or controversial topics to be discussed. It’s just unfortunate that there are few participants there who are interested in Resistance topics, and there are several who continually work against the Resistance. Again, the individualistic American thing is always at work. At least Matthew posts +W’s EC.


Sure, there’s those as well, but I thought we were talking about people who used to post and publicly discuss the EC’s and who for some reason no longer seem to do so. Why did they go quiet? Maybe they migrated to #4 (which is similar to #2), but I haven’t seen any yet that went quiet because of #3, on the contrary. I’ve seen people go quiet because they disagree and/or are disappointed, but they don’t want to upset the apple cart. Which is why I mentioned the two extreme positions. For some reason, very few (online) people are able to agree or disagree without falling into one of these two extremes.


See my previous post. Also, I’ve been accused by the bishop’s “enemies” of all kinds of nasty things when I agreed with and stuck up for the bishop on some controversial issues, while at the same time the other side accused me of “hating” the bishop because I disagreed with him on other things. Which just illustrates my point that many people have this binary mindset and very few are capable of agreeing or disagreeing with other Catholics without putting their “opponent” into one of these boxes.

As a layperson, are you more qualified than bishop Fellay to judge Roman matters?

In bishop Williamson’s view (or plan) the Resistance will never really amount to much anywhere in the world. Let’s hope the future will prove him wrong.

Except for the fact that because of poor moderation (Matthew’s policy of “tolerance”) these “discussions” more often than not end in more polarisation, enmities and all kinds of un-Catholic behaviour, with the result that (in general) the more humble and meek (i.e. good Catholic) members leave and the more proud, opinionated and aggressive (i.e. bad Catholic) members stay.


Looks like Matthew deleted the thread.


What was the subject matter of the thread?


Contention about geocentrism v heliocentrism, which descended into 4-letter words (but only by one poster).


Please, someone tell me that the bishop’s website has been hacked and that someone is playing a bad joke on the poor man, as it looks like the latest EC (#597) features Maria Valtorta’s lively imagination again. And if this is not someone else’s bad joke, then I wonder, what could possibly motivate the bishop to keep repeating that garbage? Surely he knows that 99% people of Traditional Catholics won’t have a bar of it. So what’s the point of the ridiculous and futile exercise?


I’m not a betting man, but if I were, I would happily bet that Non Possumus will not feature the latest EC (#597). The point being, as I mentioned before, that sometimes silence speaks volumes too.


A priest recently told me that H.E. will have come across Valtorta at seminary, as Fr. Barrielle was quite the devotee and where Apb. Levebvre tolerated it.

Just an observation, I put no store in it myself.


Yes, Fr. Barielle seems to be the one who lit the fire (or at least fanned the flames):


That’s an excellent quote, I’d not yet seen it. The arguments are the same as I’d ever heard though, I can now see from where it is that they come.


the bishop should know that maria voltara was condemned pre Vatican 2 . I cannot understand the bishop ’ s attachment to it- some of it sounds pornographic and it has changed my opinion of him


I guess we can add Ven. Agreda’s “City of God” to the garbage heap as well?

Mystical City of God by Mary of Agreda

Q: What to think about Mary of Agreda’s Mystical City of God?

A: A complicated story, and at least as long as the Mystical City itself. In short, there seems to be little doubt that the person of Maria Agreda is, and was, widely considered to be a saintly person. Her cause was introduced for the first time shortly after her death in 1672, then promoted again a century later, but, to this day, has not come to fruition. As to her Mystical City , it was written in obedience to her confessors (spiritual directors), burnt twice, recommenced three times, never of her own volition. The book was condemned in 1681 by Innocent XI, but execution was suspended for Spain. The Sorbonne or University of Paris did the same in 1696 by 102 votes of 152 after having had it examined by 132 doctors of theology. In contrast, several Spanish universities such as Salamanca and Alcala gave their approval, as did the Spanish Inquisition after ten years of study. In 1729, Benedict XIII maintained the condemnation. The work was placed on the Index, but the decision was contested by its supporters, invoking faulty translations from the Spanish original. Some of the reasons for the condemnation by the Sorbonne were: indecent (i.e. very physical) language; a tendency to give Mary adoration instead of veneration; her Immaculate Conception, and, thanks to this privilege, mediation of all graces. Being of Franciscan obedience and culture, Maria Agreda was following Scotist and not Thomist theology. Some of the theological ideas, namely the Immaculate Conception and the mediation of all graces became common opinion in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the former even dogma. The Index was abolished in 1966, although with the caveat to avoid readings harmful to faith and moral conduct.


At regular intervals, the ML/IMRI receives questions about the validity and orthodoxy of Agreda’s Mystical City of God . Most of these questions deal with the faith binding character of this work, in other words, ‘do we have to believe in what is said in this book?’.

  1. The Mystical City of God falls in the category of what the Church terms “private revelations,” that is insights and experiences of individuals pertaining to events and persons of Salvation history, or, more generally, the possible understanding of, and rapports between the natural and the supernatural order.

Though frequently the result of a special grace given to the recipient, these insights and experiences are in no way binding for faith and morals of the faithful.

  1. Their validity has to be measured against the official revelation as the church received it in and through Jesus Christ, has treasured and deepened it for millenaries, and pronounced by and through its magisterium.

So what can be said about the Mystical City? According to Enrique Llamas, a Spanish Mariologist of reputation, the Mystical City of God not only does not contain any theological errors, but is compatible with the Mariological doctrine of Vatican II (LG,Ch. 8) (See: La Madre Agreda y la Mariologia del Vaticano. Editorial Arca de la Alianza, 20072, 126). On the other hand, a committee initiated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1992-1999) reached different conclusions on some of the issues at stake. It admits that the Mystical City does not contain specific doctrinal errors and/or heresies, but observed that the presentation of Our Lady contrasts with what Scripture tells us about her, and affirms, at the same time, that its Mariology is not compatible with that of Vatican II. One of the practical consequences thereof was, that the nihil obstat regarding the pursuit of Mary of Agreda’s beatification and canonization was not granted for the time being. (Rome, February 19, 1999).

  1. This having been said, the Mystical City of God , well before the abolition of the Index in 1966, has all along been a source of inspiration for many souls eager to deepen and enliven their spiritual life. In conclusion then it would be advisable, figuratively speaking, to read Mystical City of God with Scripture in one hand, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church in the other.

Chronology for the Lifetime of Mary of Agreda*

1602 Birth of Maria Coronel, Agreda, Spain.
1605 Birth of Spanish Hapsburg prince Felipe, future king of Spain, Portugal, Naples, and Sicily.
1618 Thirty Years’ War erupts between Spain, France, Germany, and all major powers.
1620 Nuns witness Sor Maria levitating in Agreda; she reports simultaneous bilocation to New World.
1620 Marriage of Prince Felipe to Isabel de Bourbon, daughter of King Henry IV of France.
1621 Death of King Felipe III. Prince Felipe accedes to throne as Felipe IV under thumb of minister Olivares.
1623 Church conducts ecclesiastical investigation of Sor Maria of Agreda and exonerates her.
1626 Native Americans inform New Mexico missionaries of repeated apparitions of Lady in Blue.
1627 Sor Maria is elected abbess of the Convent of the Conception, Agreda, Spain.
1628 Letters circulate between New World and Spain about Spanish nun’s supernatural appearances.
1629 Native American Jumano chieftain, Capitan Tuerto, cites appearances of a Lady in Blue.
1630 New Spain missionary, Alonso Benavides, writes to Felipe IV about the Lady in Blue.
1631 Benavides visits Agreda for three-week interrogation on Sor Maria’s bilocations and confirms them.
1635 Spanish Inquisition opens case against bilocation experiences of Maria of Agreda.
1637 Sor Maria begins writing controversial biography of Mary as Co-Redemptoress alongside Jesus.
1643 Felipe IV meets Sor Maria en route to battlefront, begins a twenty-two-year friendship and correspondence.
1644 Death of Isabel, Felipe IV’s first wife. He consults Sor Maria on temporal and spiritual matters.
1645 Sor Maria completes writing Mystical City of God, then burns it on the order of a temporary confessor.
1646 Engagement of Felipe’s son to Emperor Ferdinand III’s daughter, Mariana of Austria. Death of prince.
1648 Treaty of Westphalia marks end of Thirty Years’ War and significant losses for Spain.
1648 Sor Maria is implicated in a plot against the Crown, adding to the Inquisition’s list of concerns about her.
1649 Marriage of King Felipe IV to his son’s former fiancee, Mariana of Austria, also Felipe’s niece.
1650 Spanish Inquisition interrogates Maria of Agreda for eleven days and ultimately acquits her.
1655 Sor Maria begins second writing of Mystical City of God, completed in 1660.
1657 Sor Maria intervenes with Duke of Gramont, helps to effect the Peace of the Pyrenees with France.
1665 May: death of Sor Maria de Jesus of Agreda. September: death of King Felipe IV.

  • Fedewa, Marilyn H. Maria of Agreda: Mystical Lady in Blue. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 2009. pp.277-278.