Rorate Caeli

Confirmed:
Williamson removed

UPDATE (1200 GMT): The official news agency of the SSPX, DICI, has now confirmed the following:
Bishop Williamson, as he declared in his interview [to Der Spiegel] does not wish to "hurt in any way the work of the Fraternity"; that is why he accepted, on January 31, the decision of the Superior General [Bishop Fellay] to relieve him of his position as director of the Seminary of La Reja (Argentina). [In French: DICI - permanent link]
__________________________________

[Original post:] In an e-mail message sent to the most prestigious Argentinian daily, La Nación (Monday edition), the superior for the South American District of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Father Christian Bouchacourt, confirmed that Bishop Richard Williamson "was removed from his charge as head of the seminary" of Nuestra Señora Corredentora of La Reja (Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina).

The name of Williamson's successor as director of the seminary was not mentioned by Bouchacourt, though rumors indicate that it could be Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, a Spaniard raised in Argentina, currently living in Madrid.

Related: Der Spiegel interviews Bishop Williamson (in English), including a comment with which all reasonable observers will agree: "Apparently Germany's leftist Catholicism has not yet forgiven Ratzinger for becoming pope."

59 comments:

Anonymous said...

a logical move after the persistant denial of Bp Williamson. Bp Fellay will be forced to distance himself more and more (and the SSPX) from nonsensical types like the "dinoscopus".

Even more logical with the increasing pressure of GermChurch through the liberal media : the chief of GermChurch, Abp Zollitsch, who is borderline with the Catholic faith on numerous aspects, used the word "Mister" to speak of Bp Williamson, denying so his episcopate. FrenChurch spokesman (msgr. Podvin) is also using the Williamson case to try to derail any progress between Rome and SSPX.

It was highly expected : liberal Catholics are using the Williamson case not only to block any discussion with SSPX (late cardinal Eyt in 2001 rejoiced loudly when the initial talks were stalled) but now they use him to launch a worldwide attack against pope Benedict XVI himself.
GermChurch dissenters' hatred against the pope and before J. Ratzinger is well known. Keeping numerous die-hard liberals at key positions was extremely naive and the danger of this papal (both John Paul and Benedict) policy shows off today.
Die-hard liberals are deprived of any moral restraint : for tactical purpose, they will use anything you give them.
The Regensburg speech was a rehearsal, like the Wielgus case. We can notice the enigmatic figure of cardinal Re both in the Wielgus case and the present decree.

nb. it is interesting to see how this Swedish tv program was conceived. Miss Venner, a famous anti-religion/anti-catholic researcher, is involved. Neither in 2001-2002 nor in 2005, the negationnist accusation was ever raised. Suddenly Bp Williamson made a confession with an obviously hostile journalist (in the end, he himself asks if the journalist wants him in jail in Germany because he is breaching the local law). It is clearly an "objective alliance" between Bp Williamson and the anti-Ratzingerian bishops and Catholics.

Alsaticus

New Catholic said...

"[L]iberal Catholics are using the Williamson case not only to block any discussion with SSPX (late cardinal Eyt in 2001 rejoiced loudly when the initial talks were stalled) but now they use him to launch a worldwide attack against pope Benedict XVI himself."

You are right, as usual, Alsaticus - but this absurd strategy is bound to backfire. As a pure strategic move, the Liberals might have won this battle if they had limited themselves to the SSPX question. By attacking the Pope, and by using even secular powers to embarrass Peter, they have put themselves in a very difficult situation.

May God grant many more years of productive life to His Holiness.

Anonymous said...

It is outrageous that Bp Williamson has been removed.

I'm an SSPX supporter, but I'm extremely disappointed by this.

I can't believe how little loyalty there is among trads. They care more about human respect than they do about standing by one of their own.

Pathetic.

antonio said...

Another dubious way for contacting the press; e-mail?. No mention so far on the south america district web site, and still no official document for the expulsion of fr.Abrahamovic.

New Catholic said...

Antonio,

Regarding Father Abrahamowicz, it has been confirmed. The communiqué of the head of the Italian District of the SSPX, Father Davide Pagliarini, was even distributed this Sunday (yesterday) in several SSPX chapels and Mass centers in Italy. The fact that it has not yet been posted in the website is completely irrelevant, since events within the SSPX have been very fluid in the past few weeks.

NC

Anonymous said...

As an SSPX Mass attender I am glad Bishop Williamson is going. I was told last night that the SSPX have been told they can no longer visit Sweden. A friend told me that she heard the SSPX called "that Jew hating sect" I hope he's pleased with himself for the trouble he has caused. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Anonymous said...

So, Alsaticus, do you think that Williamson has done this deliberately? If so, I wonder, is he planning a counter-Society. He has indicated that possibility before, ever since 2000, in fact, when the Society was first considering Rome's offers.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

This is like opera boffa. One wonders what is coming next. I sometimes wonder if the mercurial Bsp. W. has decided to give us some valuable entertainment before he bows out owing to age (at 69). There is also ironic humour here. I mean that he is showing up, for instance, the fact that the Germans learned nothing from World War II, since they've passed fascist laws against freedom of expression on matters of historical record. What an exposé!

On the positive side, we get to relish the howls of outrage of the Zionists, the secularists, and other liberals, and that has to be worth hard cash. I mean, it's delicious. It could be argued that Williamson is a big winner here: he gets the excommunication lifted the very day it is revealed to the world that he has dismissed the Holocaust as a wild exaggeration. He gets to make the Pope look foolish, a Pope he's called not intellectually Catholic.

Frankly, I think that the anger of the Jews over this is probably itself an exaggeration. The people whom it really infuriates are the people I dislike most in this world (other than abortionists): leftist journalists. But I'd better not mention them again. Every time I think too much about leftist journalists, I have to run back to the penalty box.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

One understands that when Bishop Fellay & his cohorts are fully placed under Roman papal jurisdiction, a name change will take place. This new eccesial structure will no longer be known as the FSSPX. This will be an excellent development, since it will allow those who do nto wish to follow Fellay to remain. It becomes clear that the movement originally initiated by Archbishop Lefebvre is now dead and must re-group under another name. One foresees large property battles like those that are occuring in the Episcopal church. But such is the cost of progress and evolution. Brick by brick, step by step, first Campos now SSPX.

Anonymous said...

Bishop Williamson has become a veritable “star” in Germany (all tabloids have him on their title page, with headlines like: “The liar bishop” or “Send him to hell!”) and Fr. Schmidberger and the German district could face real trouble. At least for them, cutting all connections to Bp Williamson could be the only possible means to avoid public prosecution. The seminary in Zaitzkofen has already proclaimed: “We don’t want to see him here anymore.”

If not before, after his recent comments in the German leftist periodical "Der Spiegel" (in defiance of his superior's order not to talk about the subject) it looks like he is in fact deliberately trying to thwart any agreement with Rome by all possible means. One wonders if that was not already his intention when he gave the infamous interview (making sure that everyone noticed he is making his statement in Germany and violating German law). If that be true, he rightly deserves to be expelled from the Society, regardless of his political or historical opinions. It seems that a split of the SSPX is inevitable.

Aedifex

crouchback said...

Come on guys what about a bit of charity. +Williamson is a bit of a show off and farts repeatedly and loudly in the lift. Everyone "suffers". He has "apologized", after a fashion, and has said he will study things and see where he went wrong. Let him retire to a shed in Patagonia and books can be parachuted in for his edification. After a while he can come and let us see the fruits of his studies. Anyone else in SSPX circles, who may harbour conspiracy theories, ought to, 1 Keep their mouths shut. 2, Have a good hard look and see where such theories have a bearing on faith....None I would say. 3, Any literature or other media they have concerning such things should be burned, keep away from it, it is worse than Pornography for certain types of people.

Anonymous said...

It's about time!

Guadalupe Guard said...

As traditional Catholic I choose in charity to see Bishop Williamson's person and actions in the best light.

1) He reluctantly but honestly responded to a historical question. His position is not motivated by hatred of the Jewish people but nonetheless recognizes the grave influence many of their members have in contemporary society, which thus gives credence to the possibility that they have grossly inflated historical events to advance their causes.

2) Bishop Williamson has humbly admitted his imprudence and agreed to revisit the history in question. Likewise admirable is his refusal to recant when he has not come to that conclusion intellectually.

3) Bishop Williamson is courageously accepting his martyrdom for the sake of the SSPX and the Church.

May we all pray that the above is the case. If it is the case Bishop Williamson has proven to be a bishop that is mitre and mozzetta above the vast, vast majority of prelates today.

Anonymous said...

How about they rename the new ecclesial structure the "Legionaries of Christ"? Kill two birds with one stone wink wink.

S.H.

John Menezes said...

Has the SSPX stooped so low that its South American District Superior had to notify the press that Bishop Williamson had been relieved at La Reja Seminary? What has seminary rectorship got to do with a viewpoint, made public, on history, that too 3 months ago. The Holocaust denier bishop is removed in order to appease the Second Covenant (where the Jews are concerned) denier "pope."

Anonymous said...

The Legionaries of Christ will decline rapidly after this fiasco with their founder.

I have no sympathy for the Legion.
They are neo-Cons. They profess traditional Catholicism, but never celebrate the Tridentine Latin Mass, nor even ad-orientam Mass.

One of their number, a certain Fr. Jonathan (who is the star reporter for Fox TV Catholic religious issues), has frequently denegrated Catholic tradition and the SSPX on air.

Removing Bishop Williamson is a pity. Though his remarks were not in agreement with historical facts, it is the fault of the Jews, and radical liberal Catholics that the issue exploded out of all proportion as it has.

It should not be an ulltimate offense or crime to question the Holocaust because it affected Jews.

I wonder if there would have been such an outcry if the Holocaust had affected another group other than Jews, such as Catholics....or maybe the Lutherans, or the Orthodox.

I am almost certain, that if the Holocaust had been an attempt by Hitler to wipe out Catholics (rather than Jews), there would have been no outcry, and by now, sixty-five years later, no one would care.

Anonymous said...

There will be no property disputes. Society property is controlled collectively by a group of early Society members. It will all go with or without Fellay. I suspect that it will go with him.

P.K.T.P.

tomm said...

Well stated Guadalupe Guard. Viva Christo Rey!

Paul Haley said...

Hopefully, this will put this matter to rest though I doubt the media will let go of it. But it is ironic, I think, that the General Superior of the FSSPX acted so quickly to put his house in order while so many in the institutional church refuse to do so. I won't go into the details for they are legion but the Jesuits come quickly to mind. What does this say for Bishop Fellay's respect for the Holy Father and his desire to be in union with him? I think the answer is obvious to all those with a traditional heart. May the restrictions be lifted soon!

Anonymous said...

I support Bishop Williamson's right to give his personal opinion on an historical matter based on the evidence he has seen - even when it is politically incorrect to do so.

Thankfully we still have one Bishop left who is not a slave to political correctness.

antonio said...

You should read better the news release in french on www.dici.org. Among it says that'contrary to what the media has been saying, the SSPX has never imposed an ultimatum to Bishop Williamson'.

LeonG said...

Once again the media has hijacked the real news. In amplifying a few ill-chosen words craftily manouevred by one of its devious representatives the issue of rescinding the excommunications has been reduced to hysterical accusations of anti-semitism. Who cares about apologies or public statements to the contrary? The agenda is hate The Church, hate The Church and hate The Church. In addition, it is to be noted once more which side the backsliding liberal wing of the NO has placed itself behind. As usual, there are no surprises.

Anonymous said...

It may be that the SSPX is putting its house in order, but at the behest of Conciliar Rome. There is beginning to emerge the true picture, and that is that this whole fiasco was the result of an orchestrated event, planned well in advance and with a deal already in place. I may go so far as to even suggest that the affair last year with the Redemptorists was not the scandal to the SSPX leadership as everyone seemed to think. My opinion, strictly however.

Anonymous said...

"It becomes clear that the movement originally initiated by Archbishop Lefebvre is now dead and must re-group under another name."

That is neither clear nor self evident.

Returning to the institutional structures of the Church is not defeat, but progress.

crouchback said...

Gaudalupe Gaurd

So he's been martyred as well..!!
How should he be represented on the altar pieces.? How about on a spit, roasting in front of a blaze of microphone and TV sets, whilst evil journalists baste him with his own juices.
Martyrdom indeed, it's abuse of language like that, that has led him to where is is at right now.

Confiteor said...

The interviewers from Der Spiegel are hateful, frothing, bloodthirsty dogs. +Williamson's answers are brilliant, and I speak as one who vehemently disagrees with +Williamson's holocaust views.

In our haste to pile upon +Williamson (I plead guilty), let us not forget who our real enemies are: the secular liberals and modernist Catholics who hate Catholic Tradition and thus hate the Holy Father for what he is doing.

Let's move beyond the sideshow and get on with the doctrinal discussions. Then the liberals will really howl.

I agree with Paul Haley about +Fellay; the latter, aside from his irregular status, is proving to be a model bishop.

crouchback said...

I've just read the interview in English. Nothing the "wrong" there.I am off to look up the book that +Williamson talks about.

Anonymous said...

Hopefully, Williamson will split and take the nutjobs with him.

arturovasquez said...

Funny, it never snowed in La Reja when I was a seminarian there. Nice photo, though.

I don't know if it is this way in other religious orders, but the SSPX generally has a policy of whisking people away in the middle of the night, and then only informing others of the transfer a few weeks later. I have seen many priors go out like that.

If I am to guess the disposition of my former professors there, I would assume that they were actually behind him 1000%. I was there for two years, and I would be lying to you if I said that there is not a tad bit of anti-Semitism in that seminary. The seminarians themselves must have their head spinning if this is true.

All the same, I thought the choice of putting Williamson in there in the first place was a little odd to begin with. His predecessor, Fr. Langeau, who was rector when I was there, is a holy prest and a dear man who went completely native, in a manner of speaking. Williamson speaks many languages, but with a thick British accent. (I would assume his French is somewhat better than his Spanish.) He did finish the construction of the seminary church, and did a rather nice job. For those of us familiar with Bishop Williamson, La Reja, and the SSPX, the international media storm behind these remarks is surreal to say the least.

John McFarland said...

Anonymous 9:10,

Don't be upset; sometimes the truth causes scandal, and so the truth must not be spoken. See St. Paul on the matter of eating meat sacrificed to idols; one must not let one's superior knowledge lead to the damnation of one for whom Christ died. Bishop Williamson himself made in quite clear that he was prepared to be sacked if that's what it took to calm things down. (Note also that he didn't resign, and that he has not flinched one bit on his contention that at bottom this is all a matter of truth.)

My only disappointment is that Bishop Fellay and Father Schmidberger seemed to have affirmed the reality of the Holocaust narrative. But note a couple of things about that. The first is that their statements are no more related to the Faith than the statement that got Bishop Williamson in trouble, and no more binding on anybody. Note also that it is a crime in Germany (where, as you know, the SSPX HQ is located) to cast any doubt on the Holocaust narrative, and truth has absolutely nothing to do with it. Bishop Fellay has a very tough row to hoe, and he deserves our sympathy and our prayers, even if we don't agree with his handling of every particular.

And as for many of the other commenters:

Nothwithstanding the cynicism of an old New Yorker and lawyer, I'm quite scandalized at the ignorant and hateful things that are being said about Bishop Williamson. They are mostly driven by the delusion that the deal is imminent, and that l'affaire Williamson is in danger of scotching the deal. When it turns out that there is no deal, come back and maybe we can talk with some semblance of rationality and charity.

Curiosus said...

No, please God Bishop Williamson will not split. It is not right to wish for divisions in the Church. Indeed he is acting nobly, under the salutary influence of renewed communion with Peter. Some of the readers of this blog would do well to follow suit. And perhaps we can abandon the silly expression 'Conciliar Rome'?! It's so outmoded now. Bishop Fellay is leading the most important movement in the Church since Vat II. Let us give him our prayerful support.

John McFarland said...

Curiosus,

No, we can't abandon "silly' referencess to conciliar Rome, or even (to put it more accurately) modernist Rome. I can't stop you and like-minded folks from declaring victory and going home (to use the cynical old crack from the Vietnam war), but I can tell you that you're deluding youself. The fight is not over; it has just begun. The Pope is not On Our Side: he is a revolutionary who deplores the excesses of the revolution -- but he is still a devotee of the revolution itself. The SSPX, with or without Bishop Williamson, no matter or how or badly it handles the whole Holocaust dustup, is not going to sign a couple of hundred words of diplomatic babble and let it go at that.

Confiteor said...

John McFarland,

It sounds almost like you hope that there is no deal. If Bishop Fellay wants the deal, do you support him in general, leaving aside every particular detail?

I'm a diocesan Catholic with no affiliation with the SSPX. I want a deal between Rome and the Society, not in order for the SSPX to be lured into a "Conciliar trap", but so that their re-integration might might bear the very fruit that the liberals and neo-cons fear: a roll-back of Vatican II. Consider me something like a resistance fighter who is eagerly awaiting the liberating troops -- in this case, a long column of black-cassocked priests led by four (yes, four) bishops with crucifix held high in hand.

Paul Haley said...

Now, it appears we can get down to the nitty-gritty between Bishop Fellay and His Holiness. I would start by quoting from the Oath of Modernism composed by Pope St. Pius X and which the then Fr. Ratzinger solemnly took before God at his ordination:

Holy Father these words are of no doubt familiar to you from that wonderful and fruitful day of your ordination as a priest: "Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way."

"I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God."

Holy Father, you have been characterized by some as a modernist and an advocate of the New Theology of Rahner, Lubac, von Balthazar and others. Do you, as we begin these discussions, hold to the same truths that you proclaimed in the Oath which you took at your ordination? We ask this question not to embarrass you but because we are solidly with you in this oath before God. And, do you firmly believe that the goal the ecumenical movement must have as its final goal the unity of all believers on the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?

Assuming the answers to both questions is a resounding "Yes then the response should be: And, now, Holy Father, do you have any questions you would like us to answer? And I would stay for as long as necessary to answer the Holy Father's questions in a manner that convinced him we are not his enemies but loyal soldiers in the Army of Christ.

Of course, there is also the possibility of a non affirmative or equivocating answer from the Holy Father but I suggest the Holy Spirit would not allow that to happen. God bless.

Anonymous said...

John McFarland: Thank you. Leave it to a New Yorker to speak the truth! I think I'm more dismayed by the reactions of my dear "brothers and sisters in Christ" than by the events themselves. I thought only the Catholic Answers crowd was capable of such animosity.

John McFarland said...

Confiteor,

Forgive me for being blunt, but it appears to me that you, like pretty much everyone who comments on this blog, knows very little of what the SSPX is about.

But the Society has made its position quite clear in extensive writings, which are posted on its various websites and available in back issues of the Angelus magazine, or in Angelus Online for fifteen bucks a year.

The essence of these is that the issue between the Society and the Vatican is doctrinal. The Society and its allies have demonstrated that the magisterium of Vatican II and the post-Vatican II church is radically deficient and adulerated. It follows that there can be no regularization of the Society's status until there has been a regularization of the doctrine of the Church.

These are very strong words; but they are true words. Any analysis of the situation that does not recognize their truth is at best a waste of time.

Implicit in the bullying over Bishop Williamson is the hope that the Society can also be bullied into abandoning its basic view of the situation. This is not going to happen. It seems that Bishop Fellay believes in the existence of the gas chambers, and cannot take seriously the opposite opinion -- particularly when all hell has broken loose over Bishop Williamson's expression of that opinion.

But neither Bishop Fellay's nor Bishop's Williamson's view has anything to do with the Catholic faith. and I see not a scintilla of evidence that Bishop Fellay has any intention of changing his stance as regards the Faith.

But if I turn out to be wrong about Bishop Fellay, he will deserve to be bracketed in the history of the Church not with St. Pius X, but with Judas. Without the Faith, it is impossible to please God.

Joe B said...

The more comments I read about this man, the more I give the benefit of the doubt to Bishop Williamson. Question a liberal sacred cow and you get spewed with hatred, and hatred reduces credibility. Hello, crouchback.

This is beginning to smell like another liberal lynch mob building. Bishop Fellay has handled this with great charity towards SSPX' detractors, and still it isn't enough. Bishop Williamson has made every statement a humble and truth-seeking one, and still that isn't enough. You who thirst for his blood haven't made your case that this is about truth. It's the same hatred we see from you regarding your greatest benefactor of that time, Pope Pius XIII.

You have a history of lies and hatred, so you have lost all credibility with me. So for now, count me suspicious of you and still inclined to believe that Bishop Williamson has done nothing wrong and will probably eventually be exonerated.

Peter bar Jonah said...

I think the superiors of the fsspx made the right decision in removing Bp. Williamson. This could further the Pope's negotiations with the SSPX superior for the renewal of allegiance. Also, I am pleased that the crevice, so to speak, that Bp. W. opened up after Pope. Benedict removed excommunications is now semi closed up. For the furthering of negotions with Rome!

Anonymous said...

It was my understanding that Pope Benedict did NOT take the Oath of Modernism, nor did any of the post V2 popes. Do you have proof?

Prima said...

Please stop bashing the Holy Father. Were it not for him, the SSPX would never have had the change to reintegrate themselves into the Church.

As far as interpretations of the "modernist" Ratzinger go, I suggest you read what he has written. Equally as good: watch him in prayer or at the liturgy.

Hardly a modernist.

Jordanes said...

It's the same hatred we see from you regarding your greatest benefactor of that time, Pope Pius XIII.

Pius XII, I hope you mean?

dcs said...

It was my understanding that Pope Benedict did NOT take the Oath of [sic] Modernism, nor did any of the post V2 popes. Do you have proof?

Since Benedict XVI was ordained a priest prior to the Pontificate of Paul VI, one would have to assume that he took the Oath against Modernism - some sort of proof would be required for any statement to the contrary.

Paul Haley said...

Anonymous said...

It was my understanding that Pope Benedict did NOT take the Oath of Modernism, nor did any of the post V2 popes. Do you have proof?

09 February, 2009 18:05

Not as Pope but at his ordination as a priest on 29 June 1951 at the diocese of München und Freising {Munich}, Germany. This is also contained in an article in the current edition of Catholic Family News under John Vennari's byline.

The Oath against Modernism was issued by the Roman Catholic Pope, Saint Pius X, on September 1, 1910, and mandated that "all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries" should swear to it.

The oath continued to be taken until July 1967 when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith rescinded it. It is, however, still taken before priestly ordination by most traditionalist Roman Catholic clergy.

This is really at the heart or the crux of the issues facing the participants in any "reconciliation" dialogue between the SSPX and the Holy See. If agreement on it is obtainable, then it should be smooth-sailing from there on out. Without such agreement it appears to me that reconciliation will be nothing but a dream.

Stephen Heiner said...

It is particularly telling that people spewing the most disgusting venom have not the courage to even sign their own name.

Anonymous said...

"Der Spiegel: Are you actually aware that you are dividing the Church with your extreme views?

Williamson: Only violation of the dogmas, that is, the infallible principles, destroys faith."

Is there anybody else out there that believes that a high ranking clergy's persistent and recklessly hurtful statements can shake the faith of someone that believes even clergy should aspire to leading Christ-like lives and repent when it's brought to their attention they haven't ?

Does it hurt the faith of anyone when a church leader acts arrogantly or selfishly, but ostentatiously "upholds", at least vocally, dogma ?

I think St. Paul would care.

Well, at least the leadership of the SSPX finally figured out it had been years overdue in neutralizing him.

Since Williamson and the leadership of the SSPX have been so transparently lazy and untimely in cleaning up their acts, it does make one wonder if they have exercised a comparable lack of diligence and judgement in understanding, rather than just calcifying, "dogma".

This story really isn't getting any better.

Stay tuned for more fallout.

Confiteor said...

The Society and its allies have demonstrated that the magisterium of Vatican II and the post-Vatican II church is radically deficient and adulerated. It follows that there can be no regularization of the Society's status until there has been a regularization of the doctrine of the Church.

No, John McFarland, it does not follow in that way. First of all, you would need to define what "radically deficient and adulterated" actually means in strict theological terms. Does it mean that the magisterium has defected from the Faith? If yes, then you have no logical option than to adopt the position of sedevacantism. Please be precise in your terms. You are a Thomist, I presume?

Secondly, if we assume that the magisterium has not defected from the Faith (thus, thankfully, ruling out the sedevacantist option), then why cannot the regularization of the doctrinal situation be undertaken after the canonical regularization of the Society? The doctrinal regularization will take years. Why not undertake it within the structures of the Church?

What are you afraid of? You will have your own bishops. That was the #1 sticking point for Archbishop Lefebvre. Yes, he did say that he would never again deal with Rome without first addressing the doctrinal issues ... yet that was because he still had NO EPISCOPAL SUCCESSORS. A lot has changed since then, no?

Anonymous said...

Prima, It's not Pope bashing. It's asking the Holy Father -- you know, the leader of our Holy Roman Catholic Church, the one who is safeguarding the faith handed down from the Apostles -- asking him to reassure his faithful flock that he firmly intends to carry out his duty as Holy Roman Pontiff according to the Will of God, and not the will of the modernists. Is that too much to ask?

Confiteor said...

The idea that a Bishop would put the Vicar of Christ under a hot lamp and demand that he take the anti-modernist oath is presumptuous. Is that a Traditional approach??? It's absurd. I don't think that Bishop Fellay would even dream of such a thing.

No, the SSPX should come to the table and present their arguments. Go through the Dubia on Religious Liberty line by line. Present the case against the Novus Ordo Missae. See what the Pope says in response, and take it from there.

Anonymous said...

Stephen Heiner Said:

It is particularly telling that people spewing the most disgusting venom have not the courage to even sign their own name.

Stephen,

Your bio says you love worthwhile discussions. (This discussion must not be for you.)

Me said...

What of the letter the 4Bishops sent? Any news on what it said yet?

crouchback said...

John McFarland....

So the SSPX goes to the Vatican with its collection of back issues of the Angelus. The Vatican puts the Vat II documents with Archbishop Lefebvres signature on the table. Michael Davies HAS surely went over every dot and tittle of Vat II, so we know exactly where the bones of contention are. The Pope waives the SSPX through, and we renew the church. There should be no time wasted as every anorak on the planet relives the 60's poring over the documents word by word.

St. Rafael said...

All this talk is nonsense.

The SSPX has been growing for years. it has kept the faith while many in the Church have lost it,including many clerics.

Whther regularization happens or not, the SSPX are here to keep the faith for the next half century. The SSPX will explode in growth due to the lifting of the excommunications.

The SSPX are growing and the Conciliar structure is dying.

Bishop Fellay and the SSPX will outlive Pope Benedict. They will outlive the apostate bishops,cardinals, and hierarchy in the Vatican.

There will be a restoration and the SSPX will be there, along with a Pope of Tradition, and St. Lefebvre.

Confiteor said...

Yes, he did say that he would never again deal with Rome without first addressing the doctrinal issues ... yet that was because he still had NO EPISCOPAL SUCCESSORS. A lot has changed since then, no?

I should correct myself here. It was after the 1988 consecrations, I believe, that ABL vowed never again to deal with Rome without first addressing the doctrinal issues. Nevertheless, much has changed since then: the Society has a strong global presence (nearly a million faithful strong), the Mass has been freed, the excommunications have been lifted, and liberal Catholics are on the defensive. The time is right to address the doctrinal issues in parallel with the canonical regularization.

Anonymous said...

"We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong. That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive..." (June 29, 1976, the late Archbishop Lefebvre)

"The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church." (Reflections on Suspension ‘A Divinis’ by Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre)

In 1987 the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said:

"I have summed it up to Cardinal Ratzinger in a certain words, of course, because it is difficult to sum up this whole situation; but I said to him: 'Eminence, see, even if you grant us a bishop, even if you grant us a certain self-government in relation to the bishops, even if you grant us all the liturgy of 1962, if you grant us to continue the seminaries and Society, as we do it now, we cannot collaborate; it is impossible, impossible, because we work in two diametrically opposed directions: you, you work for the de-Christianization of society, of the human person, and of the Church, and we, we work for its Christianization. They cannot be in agreement.' Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. It is not just words, it is not just words in the air that I say to you. It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy. One cannot have confidence any more in this world. He has left the Church, they have left the Church, they are leaving the Church. It is sure, sure, sure."

These ARE NOT my words, but those of Abp. Lefebvre. If they were valid then, why not now?

What has changed in Rome since the late 70's? Has Rome renounced modernism? Is an anti-modernist oath required? Have the errors of Vatican II been condemned? NO, NO, and NO!

To which Church does the SSPX align itself with today? The Conciliar Church or the Catholic Church. I think the answer is clear to all. Bp Fellay even acts as the Conciliarists do. Just look at his cowardly response to the attacks over the imprudent remarks of Bp. Williamson. I would hate to be Bp. Fellay's enemy if this is how he treats his friends...

pclaudel said...

". . . the Mass has been freed, the excommunications have been lifted, and liberal Catholics are on the defensive."

Oh? On the planet whereon I live, the Mass is being assimilated to the Novus Ordo, one small step at a time; the excommunication process was juridically questionable at best right from the start, a fact that may be seen in the merely pro forma acceptance of their lifting (i.e., as an act of the pope's paternal benevolence) by Bishop Fellay, speaking for his brother bishops and the SSPX; and liberal Catholics--from Cardinal Lehmann to Deal Hudson and covering the entirety of the territory between them--are appearing tonight and every night at the ecclesiastical Grammy Awards ceremony singing their theme song "Je ne regrette rien."

Confiteor said...

Anon 21:50, we ought to be careful about embracing every single word said by Archbishop Lefebvre. The words that you have quoted are for all practical purposes the words of a sedevacantist, avowals to the contrary notwithstanding. Seriously, Anon 21:50, you cannot take those words literally and still contend that Pope Benedict XVI is a true and valid pope. You must make your choice. From a logical point of view, you cannot have it both ways.

From a practical point of view, on the other hand, things are happily different. You can have it both ways! That is to say, regularization does not necessarily equate with collaboration. Hans Kung is regularized, yet would any sane person contend that Kung collaborates with the Pope in the "reform of the reform"? Similarly, the SSPX can regularize their situation and still preach against the aberrations of the Council. Why not? Is Rome going to burn them at the stake?

Anonymous said...

Several remarks reading this thread. I'm somewhat appalled by the crazy admirers of the so-called martyr bishop Williamson !
Please can we go back to earth ?

1. Bp Williamson willingly, hungrily responded to the questions of the Swedish TV journalist. Have a look on youtube etc.
He is going into "technical" details of chimneys and sorry to say but b**l s**t.
So he did this on purpose.

2. In the end, he says to the journalist that what he was telling is illegal in Germany and it could send him to jail : I hope you don't want me into jail, he is asking.
So either Bp Williamson is a complete idiot, lacking the minimal intelligence to be a priest, or once again he did what he did with a clear conscience and due purpose.

3. Bp Fellay sent his letter to the pope Dec. 15, 2008, with the approval of the 3 other bishops. So Bp W., early November, knew well something was in the tube with Rome. Another clue.

4. Naturally he knew the whole anti-Catholic media + various organisations + anti-Ratzingerian bishops and clergy (especially in Germany but also in Europe) would be delighted by the opportunity to lash at the pope they hate. Another clue.

5. Who was the first to block Bp Fellay early 2001 after the brief meeting with the pope ? Bp Williamson. Another clue.
It's true that Bp Tissier de Mallerais challenged (successfully) his leadership as the n°1 to badmouth the pope in 2007-2008.

6. Martyrdom ? it has no sense to be a martyr for supporting b**l s**t that is not connected with the Creed.

7. For those who do not live in Europe, the denial of the nazi genocide of European Jews is an extremely sensible topic. It's not a matter of First Amendment freedom of speech here and several countries (Germany, France etc.) have laws incriminating deniers like Bp Williamson.

8. Crazy Bp Williamson asked for proofs he is wrong : but there are tons of proofs, miles and miles of files, testimonies, reports, books, studies etc. It's nearly impossible to bring him the "proofs" : his cell in La Reja must be too small and you would need 1000 of cargo planes to fly them ...
Asking for forgiveness for his silly attitude and living in penance for all the dammages he's done against the whole Church,specifically the Traditionalist movement, should be his present concern.
n.b. For those who are lost in confusion about antisemitism, read "Mit brennender Sorge" encyclical (Pius XI, 1937), plus the 1938 Instruction of cardinal Pizzardo for seminaries, plus the 1928 Holy Office decree. How can any traditionalist ignore ... Tradition ?

For those who seek real martyrdom, begin by supporting pope Benedict XVI against Church ennemies. It's very clear that all those who want this papacy to fail are rejoicing with the splendid "gift" from Bp Williamson.

Alsaticus

Confiteor said...

The devil sows tremendous confusion, such confusion that even so a great Churchman as Archbishop Lefebvre would believe in his heart that the Chair of Peter was vacant, that the "Pope" in Rome was an imposter. Yes, that is what he believed. How can you read the words quoted by Anon 21:50 and conclude otherwise?

The choice is before us: Catholicism or sedevacantism. Bishop Fellay chooses Catholicism, he chooses to trust Peter, because he trusts Our Lord Jesus Christ.

There is indeed a crisis of Faith here, and it's not just the liberals who have lost the Faith.

Pclaudel, why don't you just abandon Bishop Fellay and the Pope, and be done with it.

Anonymous said...

Why can't some people just admit that they are sedevacantists? I pray for the Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict XVI. I pray for Bp. Fellay, who has shown so much courage in this matter. And I pray for those who walk the road to perdition by denying the ONE, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church....that being the Church headed by Pope Benedict XVI.