Rorate Caeli

SSPX: Williamson removed

Rorate has learned and can confirm that Bishop Richard Williamson, one of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and co-consecrated by Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer on June 30, 1988, in Écône, Switzerland, for the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) has been removed from membership in said society by its Superior General, and can now be considered a former member. The removal comes at the end of an internal procedure that included repeated entreaties by the higher authorities of the Society regarding Williamson's decisions and actions that apparently went unheeded.

[Update - Oct. 24, 0645 GMT] Communiqué of the General House of the Society of Saint Pius X (October 24, 2012) 
Bishop Richard Williamson, having distanced himself from the management and the government of the SSPX for several years, and refusing to show due respect and obedience to his lawful superiors, was declared excluded from the SSPX by decision of the Superior General and its Council, on October 4th, 2012. A final deadline had been granted to him to declare his submission, after which he announced the publication of an “open letter” asking the Superior General to resign.


This painful decision has become necessary by concern for the common good of the Society of Saint Pius X and its good government, according to what Archbishop Lefebvre denounced: “This is the destruction of authority. How authority can be exercised if it needs to ask all members to participate in the exercise of authority?“(Ecône, June 29, 1987)


Menzingen, October 24th, 2012

131 comments:

Jason C. said...

Sad to see this development among a fraternity of priests. So is he not in full communion with them anymore?

Peter said...

This was bound to happen. Bishop Williamson is now free to speak his mind. I wonder what he will do next. More importantly, I wonder how many, if any, will follow him.

Martyjo said...

I am not in the least surprised by this, although I am saddened. Bishop Williamson made himself a law unto himself many years ago and has been sliding gradually further and further from reality ever since. There was no way that Bishop Fellay could continue to house him in the SSPX under the circumstances. Bishop Williamson did his level best to fracture the SSPX during the negotiations with Rome, but that was nothing new as we know from his calculated statement on the Holocaust in 2009. His Excellency has been the cause of internal divisions for at least two decades. It was absolutely right that the SSPX Superior General finally took the decision to expel him. He has betrayed the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre in so many ways and is now heading towards certain formal schism with the Church. Knowing what I do, I sometimes wonder if His Excellency was an infiltrator all along. Some may think that an exaggeration on my part. Believe me, it is not!

JustACatholic said...

They will probably continue to split. Bishop Athanasius Schneider describes the "protestantization" as such:

"Two groupings that maintain the theory of rupture are evident. One such grouping tries to protestantize the life of the Church doctrinally, liturgically, and pastorally. On the other side are some traditionalist groups that, in the name of tradition, reject the Council, and avoid submission to the supreme living Magisterium of the Church, the visible Head of the Church, submitting for now only to the invisible Head of the Church, waiting for better times."

New Catholic said...

A parallel report is available at Le Salon Beige (see our blogroll). We removed the reference from the post only because it could lead some to believe that Le Salon Beige was our source for this information, which was not the case, since we received it independently from our own sources.

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lily said...

Bishop Williamson will gather up his few priests who are expelled from the SSPX-Father Pfeiffer and Father Chaval. This has been in the planning for 2 years. This is best for everyone. If he attempts to ordain priests or another bishop he will most certainly be excommunicated by Rome.

NonOrwellio said...

Will his wonderful letters stay in the archives here?:

http://www.sspxseminary.org/publications/rectors-letters-separator/rectors-letter.html?filter=bw&

SSPXFriend said...

JustACatholic,

Schneider's charges of "protestantization" as applied to the SSPX are tired, lazy, and ignorant.

The SSPX and their friends DO NOT reject the Second Vatican Council. They reject the ERRORS of the Second Vatican Council - as every Catholic must.

Why did the Holy Ghost provide us with the examples of St. Paul - in Galatians 2 and Acts 5 - rejecting the errors of men, including St. Peter, to obey God? To teach us that when our duties to men conflict with those to God, we must obey God. The supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls. Obedience to God can oblige us to disobey men:

http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/archbishop_lefebvre_can_obedience_oblige_us_to_disobey_1988.htm

The SSPX and their allies have invented no new teachings. They simply hold to the teachings of approx. 1,929 years before the Second Vatican Council. In this extraordinary time, worse than the crisis of the Aryan heresy, obedience to God has sadly required disobedience to his wayward shepherds.

We are what you once were.

We believe what you once believed.

We worship as you once worshipped.

If you were right then, we are right now.

If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.

Andrew said...

This is good for the SSPX. It will help them purge their extremist elements which have nothing to do with traditional orthodox Catholicism.


PS: How does Williamson make a living? Is he going to get money from the society? I think benefactors have a right to know?

Lamentably Sane said...

A sad end to His Excellency's career, but it had to happen. He was insolent and incited rebellion against his superior.

Lamentably Sane said...

A sad end to His Excellency's career, but it had to happen. He was insolent and incited open rebellion against his superiors. In the final analysis, his immaturity and arrogance led him to disaster. All eyes must now be on Wimbledon to see how this news is received by the resident UK district superior...

Clario said...

The arrogance of those who accuse Bp. Williamson of arrogance is very interesting. They speak as if they possess all the information required to pass judgment on Bp. Williamson. They speak from on high. Strange.

Benedict Carter said...

Good to hear. Bishop Williamson has been beyond the pale for a good while now.

GMMF said...

SSPXFriend,

It is not true accross the board that the SSPX acknowledge the authority of the Second Vatican Council and subsequent Popes. It seems a common theological position of theirs to actually reject the authority of the Council, and not just resist on the three or four points they claim to see errors.

People like SSPX theology professor Fr. Gleize in his articles responding to Msgr. Ocariz about "religious submission" and SSPX Bishop Tissier in his June 15, 2012 ordination homily in Winona claim that Vatican II, by teaching those three or four alleged errors, has broken unity with the one, permanent Magisterium and therefore has no magisterial authority at all.

Tissier explcitly said "we do not accept the council to be a true Council."


Jason Clifford said...

There were no errors in the Second Vatican Council.

There have been subsequent errors with liberal and conservative interpretations of the Council all of which arise from a failure to obey legitimate authority - and thus to obey Christ.

Those subsequent errors in interpretations led to errors in implementation but the Council itself was not in error and Pope Benedict is doing great work to remedy those errors and bring about the full promise of the Council.

mjstro said...

The Lion has been caged long enough! If you think the "Truth"previously uttered by His Excellencie hurt the ears of. Bishop Fellay and neotraditionalists before, look out! +Williamson is a true son of Archbishop Lefevre. Now that he has been set free he will roar the sounds of truth once more. A stark contrast to the spirit of compromise sewed by +Felley over the past five years.

It was what Bishop Fellay said when he thought no one was listening (reply to his three fellow Bishops) that really showed his true colors. Instead of kindly addressing their concerns in a fraternal manneer, he sounded crass, uncharitable, and dictatorial.

Tina in Ashburn said...

so the revolution eats its own children...what's new.

Johannes de Silentio said...

I think the only proper response to this is sadness. Not sadness but x,y, or z. Just pure sadness.

Hilltop said...

[16] Get wisdom, because it is better than gold: and purchase prudence, for it is more precious than silver. [17] The path of the just departeth from evils: he that keepeth his soul keepeth his way. [18] Pride goeth before destruction: and the spirit is lifted up before a fall. [19] It is better to be humbled with the meek, than to divide spoils with the proud. [20] The learned in word shall find good things: and he that trusteth in the Lord is blessed. - Proverbs 16-20

The action is wise and prudent. It departs from evils and keeps the soul and way of the FSSPX. Pride went before Bp Williamson's destruction and his spirit was lifted up (in contention against is Superior) before his fall.
The Society has elected to be humbled in its decision than to divide spoils with Bp Williamson. The learned FSSPX shall find good things from this action and shall be blessed by their trust in the Lord.

May the holy Priests of the FSSPX continue to offer prayers and Masses for Bp. Williamson.

Floreat said...

"There were no errors in the Second Vatican Council.

So where can the following concepts be found in the pre-VII Magisterium?

- Collegiality?
- Religious liberty?
- Ecumenism?

Why did the Council Fathers specifically state that VII established no dogma?

Why, then, is acceptance of this pastoral council a necessary condition for the SSPX to return to full communion with the Church?

Floreat said...

The Lion has been caged long enough! If you think the "Truth"previously uttered by His Excellencie hurt the ears of. Bishop Fellay and neotraditionalists before, look out! +Williamson is a true son of Archbishop Lefevre. Now that he has been set free he will roar the sounds of truth once more.

Oh dear. Haven't you worked out yet what Williamson is?

AndrewRusso said...

Yes, Bishop Williamson is outspoken and controversial, not always right, not always wrong. However, IMO, Bishop Fellay does the SSPX great harm by continuing to run what increasingly appears to be a Stalinist purge of anyone who questions him or dissents from his accommodationist policies. I really think he should step aside for the good of the SSPX.

Virgil said...

AndrewRusso said, "However, IMO, Bishop Fellay does the SSPX great harm by continuing to run what increasingly appears to be a Stalinist purge of anyone who questions him or dissents from his accommodationist policies"

That you and others continue to push the same evidently false lines is a sign of the times, I suppose. Does the "purge" happen to anyone who questions or dissents? Is that why nothing has happened to Fr. Girouard or Bishop Tissier, among others? No, of course nothing has happened to them because they expressed their concerns in a way that was not rebellious, and openly insubordinate and disobedient.

The snarky emails of His Excellency each week, his call just before the General Chapter to "oust the bad guys" cannot be named as "questioning him" or "dissenting from his policies" but are the introduction of an insubordinate and deeply revolutionary spirit into the heart of a priestly society. Only a madman would continue to allow Bishop Williamson to act with such open contempt.

SSPXFriend said...

Those suggesting that Vatican II posited no error, or that the SSPX has identified only three or four errors in the documents of Vatican II, desperately need to read this:

The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church, by Fr. Matthias Gaudron

Tom said...

@ AndrewRusso:

There is nothing "Stalinist" about Bishop Fellay or his actions with respect to Williamson. Those who say otherwise are either (a) ignorant or (b) engaging in infantile hyperbole.

Dymphna said...

Williamson keeps on saying embarassing things and he keeps on being insubourdinate. There really wasn't any other outcome. No order would put up with a memmber who constantly causes trouble and who refuses to take orders.

Tantumblogo said...

SSPXFriend - Perhaps you should re-read Bishop Schneider's statement. He did not say the SSPX were protestantizers, he described them as rejecting the Council, a totally separate consideration. That's how it reads to me, anyway.

It is rather interesting to see the dissonance within the SSPX - dissent cannot be tolerated in individuals like Williamson, but the Vatican must tolerate SSPX dissent from Vatican II.

Pilgrim said...

Bishop Williamson is an example of where the road apart from Rome leads eventually.

Knight of Malta said...

For some reason, this breaks my heart. He was (is) such an amazing Theologian.

I predict he will come back into the fold; he is NOT a Sedevacantist.

Floreat said...

"It is rather interesting to see the dissonance within the SSPX - dissent cannot be tolerated in individuals like Williamson, but the Vatican must tolerate SSPX dissent from Vatican II.

I'm not sure that's an accurate analogy.

Dissent is tolerated within the SSPX, but public insubordination, calls to rebellion and constant attacks on religious superiors are not. So far, so much in line with Canon Law. Per both the 1917 and 1983 codes.

Equally, there is no obligation to obey "The Vatican", a collegiate concept if ever there was one.

The obligation is to obey the Holy Father in matters of doctrine. Despite the best attempts of liberal and modernist apologists to convince the faithful otherwise, acceptance of Vatican II is explicitly NOT a matter of dogma.

If BVXI considers it proper to exclude the SSPX from full communion, then let him declare that VII established new doctrine - specifically collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty. Then let him show how to these new 'doctrines' reflect Catholic Tradition. He cannot.

Inquirio said...

If Vatican II posited no new doctrine and is thus in continuity with traditional doctrine, why must anyone who embraces tradition pledge allegiance to Vatican II? By embracing tradition, don't they thereby embrace Vatican II - that is, if Vatican II is consistent with tradition?

On the other hand, if Vatican II posited new doctrine - which must therefore be rejected because there can be no additions to the deposit of faith - how then are the SSPX and their friends wrong to resist it?

I've proposed this line of inquiry before. It's never answered.

GMMF said...

Collegiality:

At the First Vatican Council, the relator on the issue of papal authority, Bishop Zinelli, officially and explicitly reassured the voting Fathers that approving sections in Pastor Aeternus on the Pope's supreme authority did not do away with the traditional doctrine that the entire episcopal college, united to its head, also possesses this authority. The head of the theoligical commission at the same council re-affirmed the same thing on the Council floor.

The section on the First Vatican Council in Fr. William Henn's book "Honor of my Brothers: A Brief History of the Relationship Between the Pope and the Bishops" is a good source for what happened at the First Vatican Council regarding this doctrine, quoting the relevant texts. The preceding section in that same book deals with the Gallican controversy, and cites approved pro-papal theologians who, again, taught the exact same thing as Vatican II does against the Gallicans.

Ecumenism:

The Church has always taught that all the baptized should be united in Catholic unity (I don't think this is controversial). Seeking this corporately is nothing new either, although it was previously generally only sought this way with the separated Greeks.

Likewise, it has always been taught that those not visibly members of the Church can be saved given certain circumstances, and that all the baptized always retain some connection to the Church (something less than membership), which is why they are always subject to the Church's jurisdiction and are not rebaptized when reconciling.

Not charging those with guilt of separation centuries removed is also not new. Read Cardinal Manning's 19th century work "The Workings of the Holy Spirit in the Church of England." He explains that the culpability for these sins becomes less and less probable the more generations one is removed from the original separation.

Religious Liberty:

The Church has always taught that the state's authority of coercion in even false religious matters is subordinate to the needs of the common good (Pius XII, Ci Riesce)and that the act of faith must be free and uncoerced. Vatican II merely expresses the same thing, but from the perspective of the individual person. He must be free from coercion by the state in relgious matters, within the limits of the common good.

Joseph said...

Will Bishop Fellay replace him by consecrating a new Bishop? I would imagine this could be a problem, if Confirmations are delayed due to lack of a Bishop.

Floreat said...

The doctrine on religious liberty, as it is expressed in no. 2 of the Declaration 'Dignitatis humanae,' contradicts the teachings of Gregory XVI in 'Mirari vos' and of Pius IX in 'Quanta cura' as well as those of Pope Leo XIII in 'Immortale Dei' and those of Pope Pius XI in 'Quas primas.'

"The doctrine on the Church, as it is expressed in no. 8 of the Constitution 'Lumen gentium,' contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius XII in 'Mystici corporis' and 'Humani generis.'

"The doctrine on ecumenism, as it is expressed in no. 8 of 'Lumen gentium' and no. 3 of the Decree 'Unitatis redintegratio,' contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius IX in propositions 16 and 17 of the 'Syllabus,' those of Leo XIII in 'Satis cognitum,' and those of Pope Pius XI in 'Mortalium animos.'

"The doctrine on collegiality, as it is expressed in no. 22 of the Constitution 'Lumen gentium,' including no. 3 of the 'Nota praevia' [Explanatory Note], contradicts the teachings of the First Vatican Council on the uniqueness of the subject of supreme power in the Church, in the Constitution 'Pastor aeternus'."


Fr. Gleize, SSPX, participant in the doctrinal discussions between the FSSPX and the Roman authorities.

Héctor el Cruzado said...

My solidarity to Bishop Williamson.
You following the steps of Monsignor Lefebvre, .
The true before the arrangements. The true before that please the world.

Floreat said...

Will Bishop Fellay replace him by consecrating a new Bishop? I would imagine this could be a problem, if Confirmations are delayed due to lack of a Bishop.

I doubt it.

There are three remaining Society bishops and all travel extensively to carry out confirmations, wherever they are needed and as Abp Lefebvre envisaged.

Bp Williamson travelled to Asia earlier this year to carry out consecrations, but arranged an early departure to return to Europe at a delicate stage in negotiations with Rome, neglecting to complete the planned confirmations.

He subsequently travelled to Latin America to carry out confirmations without the authorisation of his superior, or the knowledge of Bp de Gallareta.

It had been planned that these confirmations would be carried out by another Society bishop, later in the year.

According to public statements, Bp Williamson had refused to return to active service alongside his brother bishops and administered confirmations only occasionally, so it's unlikely that the other bishops will notice much of an increase in their workload with his departure.

Torkay said...

It is sad to see how many people view this incident as proof of a division within the Society, when in fact it, along with the results of the recent General Chapter, is clear proof of its internal unanimity.

The SSPX will at some point be the lifeboat for the sinking Barque of Peter, currently engaged in breaching its hull even more with this "Year of Faith." But that is the purpose of the Society to begin with: it seeks nothing for itself, only the restoration of the Church.

mjstro said...

Excellent Observations! Tina. The VATICAN II revolution continues to destroy the Church. Sad.
Mary Help of Christians...Pray for us!

Dr. Timothy J. Williams said...


Tantumblogo, why do you say: "It is rather interesting to see the dissonance within the SSPX - dissent cannot be tolerated in individuals like Williamson, but the Vatican must tolerate SSPX dissent from Vatican II" ? The Vatican tolerates every other form of dissent imaginable, as long as it is from the left. Just ask the unrepentant sisters in North America, who have absolutely nothing to fear from the "investigation." (I cite only one example, of which there are legions.)

TradDadof4 said...

"There were no errors in the Second Vatican Council.
There have been subsequent errors with liberal and conservative interpretations of the Council all of which arise from a failure to obey legitimate authority - and thus to obey Christ."

This mantra is so propesterous... it's useful, but does anybody really believe it? Councils have been around for 1900 years. Folks being unwilling to obey legitimate authority has been around since the Garden of Eden. So why is it that no other council in 1900 years has had this "disobedience unto misinterpretation" problem?

Ferraiuolo said...

Most if not all of the priests of the Society live in Wimbledon. And certainly most of them are influenced by Williamson. It seems that even the District Superior was keen on continuing to have Bishop Williamson doing all of his talks in their bigger Church in London and he continued to have vocational retreats elsewhere. The situation does not look good for the entire district and most of the faithful are inclined to be part of the Williamson faction.

Mater Dolorosa, ora pro nobis

GMMF said...

Floreat, just because he argues so, doesn't make it so. Martin Luther claimed the same thing of Popes and Councils contradicting, and he calso rejected their authority as a result.

One of the major problems with that whole article you quote from Fr. Gleize, is that he presumes everyone agrees with him that there is a direct contradiction, and then goes on to say that a hermeneutic of continuity is therefore illogical. The problem is, his premise is false. People like Msgr. Ocariz and the Pope do not argue that there exists such a contradiction, but quite the opposite.

Picard said...

GMMF:

Good post, with clear, considerable arguments.

Re: rel. lieberty. You wrote:
"He must be free from coercion by the state in relgious matters, within the limits of the common good."

If in Vat. II the limits were really the common good then I would agree that it can be read in a correct, sane way (but I would still critisize it for beeing ambiguous and not so clear!).

The problem is, that the due limits are only "public order" and "objective moral order/values" and NOT the "common good"

In the New Catechism (CCC) then there is this improvement: it speaks of the common good as the due limit.

So the CCC could perhaps been interpreted as in continuity with tradition.
But DH can not because the due limits are to narrow, it is not the common good.

John Fisher said...

Good. He should NEVER have been made a bishop in the first place. Not as an exAnglican who really always remained totally self absorbed.
Time is not on his side!

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

This does not surprise me, I cannot say whether I agree or disagree with it, I just wonder will he still be in London when I get back?

Pioquinto said...

Now we will witness who is who, defending the faith. The last ecumenical synod with a methodist lady-bishop included left me a bad aftertaste.
Godspeed, your Excellency Richard Williamson.

Jean Francois said...

The SSPX will at some point be the lifeboat for the sinking Barque of Peter, currently engaged in breaching its hull even more with this "Year of Faith." But that is the purpose of the Society to begin with: it seeks nothing for itself, only the restoration of the Church.

Ha, the continued arrogance of the followers of the SSPX knows no limits. Sorry to disappoint but there are plenty of us within the Church, (receiving valid and licit sacraments) as opposed to those "within" the Church who attend a valid but illicit Mass and do not receive valid Sacraments like marriage or confession) who are working for the restoration of the Church. This will be accomplished with or without the help of the SSPX.

Jean Francois said...

@Floreat Why, then, is acceptance of this pastoral council a necessary condition for the SSPX to return to full communion with the Church?

It is a common error to call Vatican II a "pastoral council." It was officially termed the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. It's aim was pastoral but nevertheless it was and remains an ecumenical council. There is a vast difference over the use of the word "pastoral."

Matt said...

Peter said, "This was bound to happen. Bishop Williamson is now free to speak his mind. I wonder what he will do next. More importantly, I wonder how many, if any, will follow him."

He has plenty of his own followers, to be sure.

JabbaPapa said...

Floreat :


"The doctrine on the Church, as it is expressed in no. 8 of the Constitution 'Lumen gentium,' contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius XII in 'Mystici corporis' and 'Humani generis.'

Mystici corporis Christi is contradicted not in the slightest -- and your allegation that Humani generis, an Encyclical providing teaching on certain aspects and limitations and requirements concerning theology could in any way be "contradicted" by a description of the nature of the Church is frankly bizarre.

"The doctrine on ecumenism, as it is expressed in no. 8 of 'Lumen gentium' and no. 3 of the Decree 'Unitatis redintegratio,' contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius IX in propositions 16 and 17 of the 'Syllabus,' those of Leo XIII in 'Satis cognitum,' and those of Pope Pius XI in 'Mortalium animos.'

Lumen gentium 8 says NOTHING on the subject of ecumenism. Your notion that 16 & 17 of the Syllabus of Errors are "contradicted" by the doctrine of Ecumenism is absurd !!! Unitatis redintegratio : "Christ's Catholic Church ... is the all-embracing means of salvation". Ditto Satis cognitum ... those who misinterpret the teachings on Ecumenism as if they claimed that the non-Catholic churches and denominations are all parts of the same big super-church are in Error, and their interpretation of those teachings is heretical. As for Mortalium animos, the only contradiction is that Unitatis redintegratio establishes that Bishops, Bishops Conferences, and the Holy See may authorise Catholics to attend certain specific ecumenical gatherings. Where such authorisation is not provided, the teachings of Mortalium animos are in full force. Ecumenical Councils have full Authority to overrule an earlier non-infallible disciplinary teaching.

"The doctrine on collegiality, as it is expressed in no. 22 of the Constitution 'Lumen gentium,' including no. 3 of the 'Nota praevia' [Explanatory Note], contradicts the teachings of the First Vatican Council on the uniqueness of the subject of supreme power in the Church, in the Constitution 'Pastor aeternus'."

What contradiction ???

Pastor aeternus : "the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church"

Lumen gentium : "the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power"

Alan Aversa said...

Remember: He is still a Catholic bishop who can purse his own regularization with Rome. Rome was going to deal with all the SSPX bishops individually anyways, so his "excommunication" from the SSPX does not really change much.

Jean Francois said...

So the CCC could perhaps been interpreted as in continuity with tradition.
But DH can not because the due limits are to narrow, it is not the common good.


As I commented previously, the following paragraph, IMHO, helps to understand DH in the continuity with traditional teaching. "Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ."
The problem with the SSPX and adherents is that they take isolated paragraphs and contrast them with earlier teaching to prove a contradiction. Unfortunately when read in context of the whole that contradiction weakens. I do not deny that there is greater ambiguity of statements in the documents of Vatican II and would love to see some clarity regarding such. I do not see error though where there is none.

Federico Z said...

"Bishop Fellay does the SSPX great harm by continuing to run what increasingly appears to be a Stalinist purge of anyone who questions him or dissents from his accommodationist policies". I see: "Stalinist purge", "dissent; is not "collegiality" the next word?

Matthew said...

His Excellency can now better spread the True Faith. God bless him!

Catherine of Siena said...

There was enormous corruption in the Church at the time of Luther. Does tbis mean tbe Protestant schism was justified? The SSPX clergy are strictly forbidden from administering the Catholic Sacraments and offering public Masses under penalty of grave (mortal) sin. Penance and Matrimony are not valid, unless in the case of Penance, there is a real danger of death. If the SSPX truly accepts the validity of the Novus Ordo then Bishop Fellay needs to put that in writing for the Holy See as he has been asked to do by the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ on Earth.

Bonifacius said...

He's free to speak his mind now? *Now*? He was expelled precisely because he's never stopped speaking his mind once, despite being ordered to keep silent. He's published his newsletter for years despite being ordered to stop. And since when is it a bishop's job to "speak his mind," as in his *own* mind?

--Bonifacius

Andrew G Russo said...

How exactly does it help the SSPX to lose thirty or so priests and one-quarter of its bishops for no heresy but simply for being outspoken and yes, perhaps less than diplomatic, in their defense of the faith? Are you saying they are worse than the outright heretics running loose in the clergy and episcopate of the Conciliar Church?

Matamoros said...

Peter said: "This was bound to happen. Bishop Williamson is now free to speak his mind. I wonder what he will do next. More importantly, I wonder how many, if any, will follow him"

Don't worry too much! What's important is that he will continue to do fantasitic work with souls, and for the Church, whatever the sanctimonious bleating on this blog. As those who support the SSPX have said all along, they do not believe that this Society is the Church. Therefore it's not the end of the world for anyone not to be a member of it. Bishop Williamson's departure has not made the slightest difference to the stance of the SSPX, as the speech from Bishop de Galarreta showed.

The disagreements concerning Bishop Williamson and the SSPX have been over non-essential issues (reading between the lines of de Galarreta's speech). It's actually a very human story that we can't fully judge and don't need to. The big disgreement was over the "peace process" with "newrome", and in the end Bishop Fellay had to adapt himself to the situation, which he, like most of us, wished had been different (i.e., a Rome that has really changed).

God bless Bishop Williamson. Regardless of where we go to Mass or who we like or dislke, we who wish to remain faithful to the Church of all time (not the Church that follows the world of today) are all in the same boat. Disagreeing with one another's views on the crisis and who caused it (all must agree that it wasn't Bishop Williamson), should not lead to anathemas and excomunications issuing forth from us laymen.

I've alway gone to SSPX Masses, and would have no problems going to a Sunday Mass said by Bishop Williamson. I attend traditional Masses approved by local bishops and will be in St Peter's Basilica on the 3rd of December along with the rest. Why all this sectarianism? The modernists are still in charge. Shouldn't we be doing something about them?

Vatican II wrecked the Church said...

Wow! Schismatic squared.

RogerThat said...

Talking freely is not the real point. What I want to know is whether he will be heard (by those who matter) or not. To talk free anyone does these days.

And I'd say that if he comes with all that non-sense about historical facts, I won't hear him. I always remember that denying, or falsifying, something that happened in the past is a real sin.

The Rad Trad said...

@Jean Francois:

How was Vatican II pastoral by nature and not a pastoral Council. It's akin to being a man by nature, but not a man.... or a goat..... or a pencil..... You see where I am going with this.

While I am inclined to agree with you that the SSPX is not going to just save the Church, you go too far in dismissing them. While they will not be pumping the water out of Peter's leaky barque, as bishop Williamson wanted them to do for so many years, they have provided a refuge for the spiritually suppressed and ignored since 1970. Complain as you will about being outside legal jurisdiction, I can see no argument against them being in Rembert Weakland's diocese, or in Rochester, NY. I do not like many of the things the SSPX has done (their own canonical tribunal to nullify marriages, re-administering confirmations etc), you should not congratulate yourself for attending a canonically regular Mass. Recall the initial founders of the FSSP and IBP had no problem with any of those things. They stopped at un-mandated episcopal consecrations, but saw providing non-canonical safe-havens to people as quite acceptable.

NIANTIC said...

Very sad but unavoidable and necessary. +Williamson had plenty of time to come to his senses but refused to do so. At some point, as Superior General, Bishop Fellay had to lower the boom for the good of the Society.

Mirari said...

The answer I've heard from theologian Fr. Brian Harrison is that although the thesis offered in Dignitatis was previously unstated it was never condemned. You can read his attempt at a hermeneutic of continuity on the Roman Theological Forum website. Whether he succeeds or not, I leave that to your judgment. As for me, I am bewildered at what has happened since the 60s. I hope B16 uses this year of faith to clarify V2 and solemnly condemn the bad interpretations.

Marty Jude said...

"Ferraiuolo said...
Most if not all of the priests of the Society live in Wimbledon. And certainly most of them are influenced by Williamson. It seems that even the District Superior was keen on continuing to have Bishop Williamson doing all of his talks in their bigger Church in London and he continued to have vocational retreats elsewhere. The situation does not look good for the entire district and most of the faithful are inclined to be part of the Williamson faction..."


What you say is untrue. There are 12 Priests in the GB District. Of these, one is independent, is publically affiliated to the FSSPX in GB - he resides approx. 1.5 hours from London. 8 other Priests live in 4 other priories outside of London. 2 of these priories are in the North of England and Scotland respectively. This leaves the [principal] priory in London where Bp Williamson and Fr Morgan [District superior] reside. Just 2 other Priests live at this priory.

I fail to see how this is 'most, if not all' !

As for "most of the faithful are inclined to be part of the Williamson faction" - where is your evidence of this? I cannot speak for faithful in London, but certainly in the North, people are far from happy with Williamson, his outspoken, inappropriate comments, inc. re the Holocaust, which has caused so much damage universally. As for Morgan, he is seen to be an arrogant despot; certainly not 'flavour of the month' or decade for that matter! Bring back Fr Black I say !!!

Paul M said...

What is your source NC?
There appears to be no official communique on any official website.

Scott Quinn said...

There has been an inordinate amount of bile and taunting at the SSPX at the news of the expulsion of Bishop Williamson. Indeed it is a sad day, but what needs to be pointed out is that Bishop Fellay/SSPX removed from the ranks of its membership a man who consistently sought division within the Church. If the superiors general of every other order of priests/religious would do the same, we'd have a vibrant Church in no time. Bishop Williamson made himself clear, and Bishop Fellay did the right thing. There should be rejoicing at -- yet again -- the SSPX rallying to support B16. When's the last time we heard any leader from the Society of Jesus make such a principled stand or statement?

Laurent said...

Mirari, "the bad interpretations" of Vatican II? Come on, what about condemning stalinism as "a bad interpretation" of leninism? This tragic joke has been going on for decades, let's put an end to it.

Gratias said...

Fighting a war on two fronts does not seem a good idea. Should have provided a clear answer to the Holy Farther's offer first.

Visio Clara said...

Bishop Fellay has done the right thing. Dick Williamson had to go. Laus Deo!

JohnD said...

Very sad over all. Prayers for the SSPX.

I'm sure Bp. Fellay now knows how Bl. JPII probably felt.

Donald John Leyshon said...

All of the above comments seem to take matters at face value. Putting aside the particulars of Bishop Williamson's relationship with his SSPX ex-confreres - I wonder if the stalemate in talks between Rome & the SSPX has been contrived deliberately by both sides? As the negotiations reached their climax the Plenary Session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith "lumped" 3 of the SSPX Bishops together in a way that could have created a grave split within the SSPX if Bishop Fellay and the General Chapter had decided to do a deal with Rome. Such a split might have assisted in giving Bishop Williamson much greater influnce within a breakaway SSPX "of Strict Observance". That scenario is now avoided as Bishop Williamson has now been hived-off on his own.

Schiffried said...

Matamoros said...
"I've alway gone to SSPX Masses, and would have no problems going to a Sunday Mass said by Bishop Williamson. I attend traditional Masses approved by local bishops and will be in St Peter's Basilica on the 3rd of December along with the rest. Why all this sectarianism? The modernists are still in charge. Shouldn't we be doing something about them?"

That is a very good attitude.

Catherine of Siena said...

Andrew Russo: Have you read any of the HUNDREDS of "Eleison" commentaries that SSPX Bishop Williamson has distributed weekly, in multiple languages, to thousands of souls across the globe for YEARS? They are filled with heresy and outright, vicious, direct attacks on the Papacy. You are correct, however - these messages have never been publicly disavowed by Bishop Fellay, by the way - never - and no corrective teaching for the faithful has ever been distributed by the SSPX hierarchy. So, I would tend to agree that Bishop Williamson's expulsion was probably more on account of an issue of control.

JabbaPapa said...

Me :

JabbaPapa said...

Floreat :

"The doctrine on the Church, as it is expressed in no. 8 ... &c &c &c ...


This post was part 2 -- is there any chance that the kind and faithfully Catholic moderators might approve my part 1 ?

Floreat said...

JabbaPapa,

The theological comparisons you consider to be bizarre and/or untrue are not mine. They are the position of the FSSPX as set out by Fr Glaize, professor of theology at Econe, and Bp Tissier de Mallerais. Hence the italics and the credit at the bottom of my post.

Comparing the texts, the Society position seems to me to be correct, but you obviously know better.

Floreat said...

J-F, the Council established no new doctrine.

Its "Dogmatic Constitutions" are not de fide where they deviate from, add to or contradict the Church's prior teachings.

If its Dogmatic Constitutions are in perfect correlation with the Magisterium up to that point, then why the need to demand that the SSPX accept the Council?

The Society's complete acceptance of and agreement with the pre-VII Magisterium should be enough, if they are the same.

The modern Church's insistence on acceptance of VII suggests that they are not at all the same in intent or effect.

Its insistence that the fruits of Vatican II are somehow articles of faith is dishonest and, frankly, alarming:-

John XXIII - Opening Statement
“The salient point of this council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. For this a council was not necessary. [...]

The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.

And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.”
(Opening Address, October 11, 1962; Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 715)



Pericle Cardinal Felici, General Secretary of the Council and Prefect of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office.

It was intended to assure them (the bishops) that it was not an infallible council, before they gave their approval to the first conciliar text, that on the Church, Lumen Gentium.

The declaration was published as an addendum to that text. It says that as the Council was intended to be “pastoral”, it should not be understood to be infallibly defining any matter unless it openly says so (which it never did).

“In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.”
(Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 98)



Abp Lefebre
A non-dogmatic, pastoral council is not a recipe for infallibility.

When, at the end of the sessions, we asked Cardinal Felici, “Can you not give us what the theologians call the “theological note of the Council?”” he replied, “We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic definitions in the past; as for the declarations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations.”

mjstro said...

The accusation by the SSPX that he "Distanced" HIMSELF from tthe leadership of the SSPX doesn't add up!

1) Did he remove himself from the seminary in Winona?
2) Did he remove himself from Argentina?
3) Did he exile himself to an atic in London?
4) Did he threaten himself with expulsion for publishing weekly comments?
5) Did he request to be banned from providing Episcopal sacraments like Confirmation?
6) Did he exclude himself from the General Chapter and refuse to participate?

Something doesn't add up. Hhhmmmm?????

Floreat said...

...and below from Paul VI on the pastoral nature of VII:-


“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority.

The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964.

In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.”

(General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)



and again:


“Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral.” (General Audience, August 6, 1975)"

Floreat said...

1) Did he remove himself from the seminary in Winona?
Effectively, yes. He was removed for practices and behaviour over a long period of time which were contrary to the good order of the Society.

2) Did he remove himself from Argentina?
Effectively, yes. He deliberately courted public notoriety by giving a television interview in which he aired controversial personalpolitical views
in the context of his role as a bishop of the SSPX and at a particularly inappropriate time. It could reasonably have been foreseen that critics of the Society would seize on this to level accusations of anti-semitism and create a media firestorm to derail Society discussions with Rome and to eject +W from Argentina. Had he kept his mouth shut about his political views, he would still be in Argentina and the Society would still have four bishops.

3) Did he exile himself to an attic in London?
He has been living in some degree of civilised style in a large property in one of the wealthiest parts of SW London. He has abundant funding, a car, the company of several priests who patently adore him, a cook, housekeeper, secretary and regular trips to the opera, dinner parties, political gatherings etc. He has a Society credit card and comes and goes as he pleases. Occasionally, he'll give Mass or hear confessions, or perhaps the odd 'doctrinal' conference and travels internationally. He's hardly starving in an oubliette.

4) Did he threaten himself with expulsion for publishing weekly comments?
You mean regularly weekly attacks on the target of his choice, most usually his religious superior, occasionally the General Chapter or those priests he refers to as 'bad rubbish'?

5) Did he request to be banned from providing Episcopal sacraments like Confirmation?
He has been performing Confirmations, hearing Confession and conducting Masses in SE England for the past few years. He has, however, refused to rejoin the 'circuit' of international Confirmation tours , and so the other bishops have been working overtime to fulfil his obligations as well as their own. He has made the occasional exception, where it has suited his purposes: notably to Brazil in September.

6) Did he exclude himself from the General Chapter and refuse to participate?
In films from his 'doctrinal' conferences in Bristol in June, it was shown that he called on the General Chapter to rise up and expel Bp Fellay. The General Chapter capitularies voted to exclude +W by a vote of 29-9 instead.

Tantumblogo said...

I never said the Vatican doesn't tolerate dissent. It tolerates far too much, that is much of the problem in the Church today. And I am not one who thinks the Council wonderful, it is at best ambiguous and confusing and prone to use to advance radical agendas, but I don't reject it outright, either. I'm troubled, you might say.

But how is the rebelliousness and undermining of authority for which Williamson was sacked any different from numerous attacks launched against the Holy See by the SSPX? In another post on this blog, a different SSPX bishop just called the Holy Father a modernist, and the SSPX has set as a condition for their return the right to challenge the Authority of the Church regarding Vatican II and all developments since, thus constantly undermining that Authority from within. I'm sorry, but I don't see much difference between what SSPX does and wants to do, and what Williamson has been doing. It seems to me that SSPX refuses to countenance a level of opposition within the ranks that they demand for themselves, as an organization, viz a viz the Church.

I agree that Williamson is out of control. I think he represents a faction of the SSPX which is trending rapidly towards sede vacantism. And this is a great tragedy, for Williamson has been a brilliant and erudite man who makes some very powerful theological arguments, but of late he's become bizarre and extreme. But that doesn't change the fact that there seems to be some hypocrisy here, and I say that as someone who has been and will continue to be sympathetic to the Society.

GMMF said...

Floreat,

For your first quote, there is not a period in the original where you put one, teh sentence continuest by describing the assent that is required of Catholic (while not using the words, the assent described appears to be obsequium religiosum).

Likewise, in your second quote, the original does not say "disciplinary and pastoral," but doctrinal and pastoral ("ma dottrinale e pastorale.")

Mnemosyne said...

Inquirio, you questions are devastating. It isn't surprising that no one answers them.

Observer said...

Andrew G Russo said...

How exactly does it help the SSPX to lose thirty or so priests and one-quarter of its bishops for no heresy but simply for being outspoken and yes, perhaps less than diplomatic, in their defense of the faith? Are you saying they are worse than the outright heretics running loose in the clergy and episcopate of the Conciliar Church?
-----------------------------


Andrew - It should be stated that there is no evidence that the SSPX has lost '30 or so priests' at this time. So far, Fr. Pfeiffer and Chazal have only been able ot garner support from a few 'independent' priests. In fact, Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Chazal have people posting on other forums expressing their dismay that the priests of the SSPX are not following them and they are trying to intimidate these priests to join them by instructing people to withhold donations (to these priests specifically) and any other support they might give them such as driving them, or bring meals, etc.

In my opinion, this does make them just as bad as those you mention, only in a different way.

Bishop Fellay was far too lenient with these priests, and Bishop Williamson, for far too long. He tried many, many times over to work with them before it ever came to this point. Even up until this time, he kept trying. At some point, you are left with no other options and that is the point Bishop Fellay has reached.

These priests and Bishop Williamson cannot work a counter mission, insult the SSPX, undermine Bishop Fellay, and encourage unrest in the SSPX and be allowed to stay. The damage done by these priests and Bishop Williamson, to date, is bad but can still be repaired. Had they been allowed to stay any longer, that may not have been the case. If they had been allowed to continue on, the may very well have completely destroyed the SSPX.

I don't know if that was their intention or not. I do not know what their true intentions are, but I can't help wonder.

Floreat said...

GMMF - I'm not sure which 'first' and 'second' posts of mine you mean - I've made a few posts this afternoon and can't see where 'doctrinal' would make sense in the context of:-


"The declaration was published as an addendum to that text. It says that as the Council was intended to be “pastoral”, it should not be understood to be infallibly defining any matter unless it openly says so (which it never did)." - Cardinal Felici

In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” Paul VI

...etc..

Vatican II could not add to the deposit of faith. The only doctrines it could promulgate were those already part of the Magisterium (per various quotes from the Council documents in my earlier posts, above).

The Council certainly promulgated novelties, but insofar as these were incompatible with the Magisterium, they were to be viewed with reservations per one of the other quotes I provided, from Cdl Felici.

So patently, there were deviations from the Magisterium in the Council statements, else why the 'reservations' .... and why the insistence that the SSPX completely accept the 'teachings' of Vatican II, when the Council Fathers explicitly established no new doctrine, and the Council documents are allegedly completely in line with the prior Magisterium?

No-one, not even the Pope, may demand obedience to anything which is in conflict with the Faith.

Looking at the fruits of Vatican II: the haemorragic loss of vocations, the 40-year suppression of the Mass of All Time (aka the 'Extraordinary Form'), the dismissal of the Rosary and subsequent changes made to its structure, the suppression of the Prayer to St Michael after Mass, the corruption of morals and behaviour within the Church, liberation theology, Clown Masses, Soho Masses, the former head of the CDF retiring to spend time with his 'close friend' and confrere....plus myriad other assaults on the Faith, it's easy to agree with Paul VI when he said that the smoke of Satan entered the Church back in the 60s.







Sixupman said...

+Williamson could have opted, with good grace, for retirement. He did not, instead he threw himself, aided and abetted, into dissension and ultimately a self-inflicted Martyrdom in which he will relish.

In the UK and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, he and the District Superior commandeered control of the Ignis Ardens blog. The overriding purpose of which was to throw muck at +Fellay and anyone who dared to support him.

It will be interesting to see if the District Superior follows the convictions of his conscience, or clings to the status, of office, in which he revels.

Ignis Arden bloggers also heaped vituperation on Fr. Black.

Joseph said...

The principle of authority which adherence to the Papacy necessitates, needs to be restored lest the other Bishops follow suit. Practical separation from the Papacy and self-governance, being Protestant principles, will fracture things further unless an act of Faith in the Papacy is made, with a willingness to "give it a shot" trusting in God's Providence. Without that trust, they will splinter into some kind of Western version of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

cyrillist said...

I'll have a crack at Inquirio's inquiry:

"If Vatican II posited no new doctrine and is thus in continuity with traditional doctrine, why must anyone who embraces tradition pledge allegiance to Vatican II? By embracing tradition, don't they thereby embrace Vatican II - that is, if Vatican II is consistent with tradition?"

Since the SSPX rejects the questionable parts of Vatican II, and since Rome claims that Vatican II is wholly in line with tradition, Rome can thus accuse the SSPX of only embracing the parts of tradition that suit them.

schmenz said...

I am not competent to judge the wisdom or lack thereof of this move, nor am I privy to any of the internal facts of the situation which would help in forming a correct judgment. So any comments from me on the expulsion of this Bishop would be valueless.

But regarding the side issue brought up frequently in the comments, namely, the realities of Vatican 2, I can say this. I am perfectly able to live a Catholic life (to the best of my ability)even if I had never heard of Vatican 2, or if Vatican 2 had never happened. This Council has added nothing positive to Catholicism nor have any of its teachings made the slightest positive difference to my living of the Faith, poor as that has been.

On the other hand its negative effects have been oppressive and it has made it more difficult for me and my family to live as Catholics...not impossible, but more difficult. For that alone I wish it had never happened.

Mirari said...

That is comparing apples and oranges, for both Leninism and Stalinism are intrinsically evil. I will leave it to the pope (current or future) to finally and definitively settle Vatican II. Until then, I will give the documents if VII the benefit of the doubt and continue to wait for definitive papal act such as that recommended by Bp. Schneider.

mjstro said...

Thank you Floreat for your kind reply. However, your description doesn't match the man. If what you say is true, it was most certainly the Bishops REACTION to how he was being treated. and the ever modernist leanings of + Fellay. I would guess it was + Williamsons attempt to slow down the destruction of theSSPX.

+Fellay has been proven to transfer those who reject his neotraditionalism. He bounced Williamson out of his stronghold in the U.S. He has recently bounced the other two Bishop from their Spanish and French positions of influence. He has pandered to modernist on his websites and has made his publications to impodent against the crisis in the church that they're not worth the cost of a subscription.

Folks may not have liked what + Williamson said in his weekly comments but no one has proven these comments untrue. Many would argue he might have very well saved the SSPX from selling out to modernists.

I've known Fr. Williamson and later Bishop Williamson. He has always been a loyal son of the Archbishop. No contradictions in his words, faithful and true. Bishop Fellay? ...not so much! The internet is full of his contradictions. His rude reply to his fellow Bishopswill live forever.
A leopard can't change its spots.
It will be interesting to hear His Excellencies first interview with True Restoration. There is no doubt he will once again speak the truth.

Inquirio said...

cyrillist, thanks for at least making the attempt. No one else ever does.

Your answer, however, is deficient because it's demonstrably false that Vatican II is in line with tradition. Dignitatis humanae is only one of the more glaring examples.

Mirari said...

Inquirio, if you visit the Roman Theological Forum website Fr. B. Harrison has several articles attempting to reconcile DH with previous magisterial teaching. He has a full length book that treats the same topic. It may be of interest to you. If you have time, please let me know if you think he succeeds or any objections you have to his reasoning.

cyrillist said...

Well, Inquirio, I agree. But as long as the "living magisterium" declines to offer authoritative clarification as to how the VII docs actually do square with tradition, we'll be left with nothing but "Shut up and use a hermeneutic of continuity." And obedience will be expected where obedience is not expected elsewhere.

Rough Ashler said...

What is Catholism anymore? We walk through life assuming we are right. Everyone is so quick to pass judgment on +Williamson, but not ask the questions. There is a complete dualism attitude of the situation. Now while i might not like or agree with the Bishop, he clearly thought he was doing the right thing. What is right anymore? Is it right vs. wrong or is it right vs. more right. This fighting a war on two fronts is a recipe for disaster. Over the last several years I've lost my belief in the Catholic Church. While I still believe in God and many of the Church's teachings, I do enjoy an outside point of view now. I remember the anxiety i used to feel about if we were on the right side....well of right. This internal bickering is distructive and it definatly needs to stop or the tradition movement will fail. I'm just reporting this as an outside perspective. You can quote canon and dogma, argue for weeks and years to come, but in the end are you helping or hurting the future of Catholicm. Thank you for your time.

Jay said...

Sad news, btw I have heard rumours Angela Merkel made huge efforts and used all her contacts to prevent full reconciliation of SSPX with Rome. I do not know if this is true but maybe it would explain the recent impass in the whole process.

Sixupman said...

Jay,

I have been attempting to raise this as crucial to consider the issue of BXVI vis a vis SSPX.

It has been reported that the German State threatened to withdraw diplomatic relations from the Vatican.

Fr. Schmidberger has alluded to German State interference.

+Fellay has alluded to BXVI admitting restraint upon his powers to act in the matter.

People at large are not into the minutiae of the various arguments concerning the SSPX case, pro and con Vatican II, licity or otherwise of the New Mass, abrogation or otherwise of the Old Mass,

If German State interference could be established, people at large would understand the enormity of the position - particularly if some East German Lutheran was a key player.

It is alleged that JPII was going to free the Old Mass, but was thwarted by the intervention of German, Low Country Hierarchies and England's Cardinal Hume.

Now we have a repeat performance of outside pressure upon the papacy. It should be shouted from the housetops.

Sixupman said...

Jay,

It may also account for the inexplicable appointment of ++Muller to the CDF.

Jay said...

Sixupman, thanks, this is good explanation for all these years of impossibilities. I knew about Cardinal Hume antipathy toward Tradition but had no idea about 'underground' Germany involvement.

Roman Catholic said...

At the end of the day, Truth in its purest form is what should prevail, not a bishop here or a priest there.

What riles me the most,in this post Vatican II age,is how the Catholic Church is bending backwards to try and bring in the other "Christian " churches when the Catholic Church herself for the past 2000 years, has claimed to be the guardian of the teachings handed down by Our Lord himself.

If you have the true faith and someone has abandoned it for what ever reason,why does one bring in a new Catholicsm (that seems Neo-Protestant),and engage in talks to abandon the old true precepts for a new one to please those who left the one true faith years ago.

Veritas said...

I beg to disagree with "Floreat." Bishop Williamson was forbidden from going on an international confirmation tour since he left Argentina, and was also not allowed to ordain! Are you calling Bishop Willaimson a liar, Floreat?

From the authorized translation of Bishop Williamson's Open Letter to Bishop Fellay (which appeared on CathInfo Forum):

"In 2009 he left his post as Seminary Rector and left behind Argentina to moulder in a London attic for three and a half years, with no episcopal functions because they were denied him."

If I Had a Heretic Hammer said...

Roman Catholic,

Bravo! You hit the nail on the head exactly. Yes, that's how incoherent the contemporary Church stance seems to have become.

For some other posters, with regards to the pope, I'd point out that he is the Supreme Pontiff. He can act if he wants. So what if Germany breaks diplomatic ties with the Holy See? Please. No more rubbish about some poor pope being a prisoner or being pressured. If he doesn't act, it's his choice, and his responsibility to answer for.

Sixupman said...

IiHaHH:

I fully acknowledge BXVI has not the courage to enforce the status of The Papacy, perhaps somewhat like Peter and his denial of Christ, cowardly.

On the other hand he might be hoist with hos own petard, in that apparently and someone can confirm, Vatican II can be interpreted that a pope only act in conjunction and collegiality with the bishops.

Regardless, none invalidates the interference in Vatican affairs by state governments as a crucial aspect in this matter.

Dymphna said...

I seriously doubt that Bishop Williamson is sitting in a cold attic eating day old gruel and wondering where his next meal is coming from. He will not end up naked and raving on the road like King Lear.

John F. said...

Roman Catholic, perhaps this may begin to allay some of your confusion:

http://sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/post-conciliar_church_a_new_religion.htm

Martyjo said...

Rough Ashler

"What is Catholicism anymore?"

The answer is that it is the same divine gift that it has always been.

"We walk through life assuming we are right."

No, we Catholics walk through life KNOWING we are right in the dogmas of the faith because the faith is from God, “who can neither deceive nor be deceived.”

"What is right anymore?"

If I may be so bold, this is typical of the kind of question one would expect from someone who has no supernatural faith.

"Is it right Vs wrong or is it right Vs more right?"

There can only ever be right or wrong, so it is always right Vs wrong, light Vs darkness. One is either right or wrong in matters of faith and morals.

"This fighting a war on two fronts is a recipe for disaster:"

We are in a spiritual battle from the day we are baptized till the day we die. “Our fight,” says St. Paul “is against the flesh, the world and spirits of darkness in the high places.” If we wish to win the crown of eternal life, then we must be prepared to do battle on all fronts. There are no spiritual conscientious objectors in heaven.

Yes, we Catholics do debate vigorously among ourselves over the errors of Vatican II, and we most certainly are appalled by the behaviour of certain prelates who abuse their sacred office, Bishop Williamson included. But we do so because we are not indifferent to the truths of the faith and we are not prepared to throw our hands up in the air because the Church is undergoing a time of great trial and say “that’s it, I don’t believe anymore!” What kind of faith would that be, if not a purely human one void of any real trust in God.

It is this purely secular view of religion which is at the root of the common accusation that Catholics are all hypocrites. Well, the good news is there is always room for one more in the Church founded by Our Lord for the salvation of sinners.

The truth is that while our holy religion is divine, we, the members of the Church, are all too human. Hence, the human element of the Church can often fail to live up to the standards of the divine law and that’s when heresies and dissentions arise. That Catholics rise up to challenge these heresies and dissentions means that the Mystical Body has a healthy immune system. You need to look at this crisis with supernatural eyes, not with the short-sightedness of human judgment.

Over the last few years I have lost my belief in the Catholic Church…

Well, it’s not God or the Church to blame for that, my friend. May I suggest that there is something else in your life which is at odds with the Church’s teaching, or you have just failed to nourish your faith with a healthy prayer life, particularly devotion to Our Lady. You can’t blame the Church for your own shortcomings or for your over-scrupulous conscience, it’s your soul and the devil must be thinking himself in with a great chance right now of getting a hold on it unless you turn from your present course of despair and get back to what is essential, namely: keeping the Commandments, saying the rosary every day and doing your duty in accordance with your state in life. This is what Our Lady of Fatima said were the three elements for salvation in our time.

As for the rest, you may expect that debates will continue, perhaps vehemently, between Catholics in the right Vs wrong arena for the duration of the present crisis brought about by Vatican II.


On that particular front you would do weel to take the wise advice of the Redemptorists, whose motto is: You have one life to live, one soul to save. Death will come soon, then Heaven or Hell for all eternity.

It’s a sobering thought, especially for those who think they are losing the gift of their Catholic Faith.

casualty of Vatican II said...

Time will prove that Bishop Williamson, whatever his personal faults, is and has always been a staunch defender of the faith in all its integrity. Bishop Fellay, in contrast, has demonstrated an accelerating inability or refusal to hold fast to the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Simultaneous with this doctrinal failure, the Superior General has over the past 12 years put in place institutional policies that centralize power both with respect to finances and to public expression by any other member of the order.

There is a Catholic way to exercise authority and there is a non-Catholic way to exercise authority. Bishop Williamson sees this expanding authority being abused and used in a manner that harms the defense of the faith and thus selectively disobeys.

And so Bishop Fellay punishes Bishop Williamson for the very same disobedience that +Fellay and the Society have been engaging in with respect to the Pope for the last 40+ years.

There is no consistency in principles here.

Floreat said...

"I beg to disagree with "Floreat." Bishop Williamson was forbidden from going on an international confirmation tour since he left Argentina, and was also not allowed to ordain! Are you calling Bishop Willaimson a liar, Floreat?

Google is your friend, Veritas.

Try searching with "Bishop Richard Williamson"*.*"confirmations in Brazil"........or perhaps try substituting "Japan" or "Korea" for "Brazil" in your search terms.

You could also read the Society's GB District newsletter or call the District Superior, Fr Morgan, (telephone number available on the GB District website) and ask him:-

- How many people have been confirmed in England and Ireland since autumn 2009?

- Who carried out the confirmations?

Observer said...

Veritas said...

I beg to disagree with "Floreat." Bishop Williamson was forbidden from going on an international confirmation tour since he left Argentina, and was also not allowed to ordain! Are you calling Bishop Willaimson a liar, Floreat?

From the authorized translation of Bishop Williamson's Open Letter to Bishop Fellay (which appeared on CathInfo Forum):

"In 2009 he left his post as Seminary Rector and left behind Argentina to moulder in a London attic for three and a half years, with no episcopal functions because they were denied him."

------------------------

First, it should be noted that Bishop Williamson was deported from Argentina as a result of his own actions (the infamous interview). It was the Argentine government who told him to leave and gave him a deadline to be gone. At the time when Bishop Williamosn left, there were not too many places that he could go that would not extradite him. He chose Great Britain because that was one place he would be safe. Until that fiasco blew over, he was useless to the SSPX because there were very few places they could send him.

Bishop Williamson has been living quite well in G.B. He has very nice accommodations. He has taken advantage of fine food, fine wine, the Opera and theatre, etc. He has not been locked up, and he has not been living out of a broom closet with nothing to eat but stale bread and water - regardless of how he or others might like to make it seem.

Bishop Williamson has been asked many times to return to assignment but he refused. He did finally accept an assignment to Asia earlier this year and afterwards we saw why - to sow a little trouble (this is when Fr. Chazal and Fr. Pfeiffer started their public attacks). An internet poster on another forum known as Dawn Marie exposed this information. For whatever people may think of her, she did/has maintained regular communications with Bishop Williamson, as well as at least 2 of the other Bishops, and she has email correspondence to back these things up. In addition, she has primarily been against Bishop Fellay for years so she did not reveal this out of spite - even if she did, it wouldn't change the truth of this info.

Bishop Williamson has long been engaged in his own activities (conferences, audio recordings, etc.) and has made quite a bit of money off of these items. Stephen Heiner handles his money/bank accounts in the US. He has accounts elswhere too. Bishop Williamson is not now, nor has he ever been destitute.

Those most outraged at Bishop Williamson's dismisal are the same who were calling for him to leave just months, weeks, and days before. Well, now he is gone. You got what you wanted, so why are you complaining.

Floreat said...

...and here's Bp Williamson himself, live from the Philippines in 2012

http://www.sspxasia.com/Countries/Philippines/OLVC_2012/Gallery/Bishop_Williamson_2012/Bishop_Williamson_1.htm

Floreat said...

...and for those who would like to see the "attic" where poor Bp Williamson has "mouldered" since 2009 need only look up the address of the GB District mother house on its website.

Google Earth will then provide images of the rather grand house in Wimbledon where Bp Williamson has been living in fine style for the past few years.

The first floor suite with balcony, overlooking London is his.

nikemen said...

I cannot find but odd that those who live or have done so with him love him, depite he bieng scorn by those who do not know him. I do not discuss the right of the FSSPX government to punish, but I will not buy the process of demonization.

Vatican II Casualty said...

Time will prove that Bishop Williamson, whatever his personal faults, is and has always been a staunch defender of the faith in all its integrity. Bishop Fellay, in contrast, has demonstrated an accelerating inability or refusal to hold fast to the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Simultaneous with this doctrinal failure (see the article promoting an economy of silence with heretics at SSPX.org,) the Superior General has over the past 12 years put in place institutional policies that centralize power with respect to finances and to public expression by any other member of the order.

There is a Catholic way to exercise authority and there is a non-Catholic way to exercise authority. Bishop Williamson sees this expanding authority being abused and used in a manner he believes harms the defense of the faith, and thus selectively disobeys.

And so Bishop Fellay punishes Bishop Williamson for the same disobedience that +Fellay and the Society have been engaging in with respect to the Pope for the last 40+ years.

There is no consistency in principles here.

KritKat said...

All of this is moot, the arguing about who is right - "modernist" Rome, SSPX, or Williamson, etc. Because until the SSPX types (including many, many Traditional Catholics who are not SSPX) stop being prideful, arrogant, and judgemental, any arguments fall on deaf ears for lots of us other Catholics. What I read here and on Angel and Fisheaters, etc., is inexcusable from supposed good, faithful, and holy Catholics. For me, I find all of this laughable. It's like slowing down to watch the car wreck. Brick by brick and full restoration of the Latin mass, etc., etc.? Ha! Not unless there's love.

Floreat said...

And so Bishop Fellay punishes Bishop Williamson for the same disobedience that +Fellay and the Society have been engaging in with respect to the Pope for the last 40+ years.

That's simply not true.

The Society obeys the Pope in all things which cannot be considered contrary to the Faith, i.e. everything except certain elements of VII.

There was nothing contrary to the Faith in the statutes of the FSSPX or in anything that Bp Williamson's superior and confreres expected of him.

arthur said...

Williamson has rightly been consigned to the outer darkness just as one before him who once said "non serviam." Williamson can now go to that predecessor of his, that predecessor whose example he has proven through his actions only too keen to follow. His poisonous, overweening pride has now been justly rewarded.

chaimbeul said...

Vatican ll Casualty wrote:

"Time will prove that Bishop Williamson, whatever his personal faults, is and has always been a staunch defender of the faith in all its integrity. Bishop Fellay, in contrast, has demonstrated an accelerating inability, or refusal to hold fast to the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre."

Both sides can claim that they hold to the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre. Did Archbishop Lefebvre write a rule by which the Society must be governed, and by which they should deal with Rome, or reconciliation? My understanding is that he did not; therefore, any supposed adherence to the principles of the Archbishop is subject to speculation.

Jean Francois said...

...The Society obeys the Pope in all things which cannot be considered contrary to the Faith, i.e. everything except certain elements of VII.

So any of them would concelebrate a Novus Ordo Mass with him?

Answer: No

They have been told they do not have jurisdiction to hear confessions yet they continue to do so. Their marriages are invalid. They operate in Dioceses without the permission of the local Ordinary's.

Result: Disobedience

Mar said...

Well, KritKat, why don't you lead by example? Not too much love in your judgemental little paragraph. Or is it that "Traditional Catholics" have to love "other Catholics" but "other Catholics" have no such duty towards "Traditional Catholics"?

Confuzzled said...

Isn't it strange how it always seems to be the ones who rail against pride, arrogance, and judgment who are the most prideful, arrogant, and judgmental?

Barbara said...

Martyjo, that was an excellent response to Rough Ashler - brief and to the point. And I add a plea to Rough, despite tainted humanity and the most dreadful confusion in the Church at the moment, She is the only place we are safe - the only hope of man - the holder of all that is true, beautiful and good - there is nothing outside Holy Church that is worth a row of beans. It's all man-invented the stuff ouside .

However, I know how you feel - I was near that state just a few short years ago - then I discovered the Old Rite - and I undestood so many things bit by bit - through a little study of the present distressful situation in the Church. Do you attend the Old Rite? I will remember you in my prayers Rough.

As for the rest of many of the comments here about Bishop Williamson - it is amazing that there are so many clairvoyants in one comment box - so sure of themselves, their pronouncements judgments and insinuations - as omniscent narrators in the life of another soul or souls for that matter...

This whole affair just makes me very sorry...

defendenos said...

Bishop Williamson was expelled for continued insubordination. No sympathy for him from me !

Whatever happened to bearing wrongs patiently?

Floreat said...

Jean-Francois,

What makes you believe that Society marriages are invalid?

There seems to be a tension between opinion and fact - disobedience of things contrary to the Faith is permitted.

SSPX priests would quite rightly refuse to assist at a Novus Ordo Mass, for reasons which should be apparent to any Catholic.

Council of Trent

"If anyone says that all Christians [lay people] have the power to administer the word [read at Mass] and all the sacraments [give out commnion], let him be anathema." [Canon 10, Session VII, March 3, 1547]

"If anyone says that the Rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the Canon is pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned, or that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only...let him be anathema." [Canon 9, Session XXII, Sept. 17, 1562]

"If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church... may be changed by any pastor of the Churches to any new ones: let him be anathema." [Canon 13 on the Sacraments,Session VII, March 3, 1547]

SPQRatae said...

Sic transit all Protestant groups who break away from Rome.
Fracture leads to break-up leads to endless splinter groups.

Rough Ashler said...

In response to Martyjo and Barbara,
"What is Catholicism anymore?"
The answer is that it is the same divine gift that it has always been.
"We walk through life assuming we are right."
No, we Catholics walk through life KNOWING we are right in the dogmas of the faith because the faith is from God, “who can neither deceive nor be deceived.”
I was raised tradition Roman Catholic, I understand the concept. Catholicism can be comparable to a linear line. One set of beliefs that are carried through in eternity. That is not my point however. If the Catholic faith is "unchanged," then Vactican II has deviated from that linear line. Ok, we are maintaining tradition so we are on that linear line still.
According to the Catechism, Tradition, Canon Law etc., what happens to those people who are not baptized in the Faith? What happens when the people of the faith die with sin on their soul? They do not go to Heaven. If you deviate from the linear line of faith then you are in heresy. We walk through life assuming we are right. The answer is not as simple as you make it seem Martyjo. +Williamson, does not act arbitrarily. No, he feels that he is doing the right thing, along with any of the priests that left the Society. Are their actions right or wrong? Let's take it to the next level. The indult priest and the priest that are "somewhat traditional" in the mainstream church. They assume they are doing the right thing. So one more step, Novus Ordo Catholics assume, ignorant or not, that they are doing the right thing. Just because we are assuming we are doing the right thing does NOT mean we are. So where is the line that crosses into heresy? And for that matter, what does the church say about heretics. This leads me into my next point.
"What is right anymore?"
If I may be so bold, this is typical of the kind of question one would expect from someone who has no supernatural faith.
"Is it right Vs wrong or is it right Vs more right?"
There can only ever be right or wrong, so it is always right Vs wrong, light Vs darkness. One is either right or wrong in matters of faith and morals.

Rough Ashler said...

Martyjo, to your response to my "what is right anymore?" question, I call that a cop out. I am asking on a philosophical level. I do have faith in God and still hold many teachings of the Faith in my life. I also have a respect for people of faith. In these Godless times, people of faith stand out like a beacon in the darkness. I have my own issues with parts of the Catholic faith. I do not call myself a Catholic anymore out of respect for Catholicism. In my travels, I have met so many traditional Catholics that state their beliefs fervently but will ignore other parts of the faith. They become uncomfortable when questioned about it and will quickly change the subject or immediately become defensive and state all the things they do instead of changing their lives, such as pray the rosary, not watch tv, etc. The Catholic faith is just that. I have heard them called Cafeteria Catholics. They pick and choose what they want to believe or follow according to what suits them best. I ask hard questions in here, but they are my own. I do not respect people who are not picking the sides out of fear. Fear of reprisals and hurt feels, fear of not wanting to lose face, fear of what is hard. I will not taint the Church as a Cafeteria Catholic, I have my own reasons for my actions, My own reasons for losing my faith, but you will not find you will find here. I do not blame the Church for my loss of faith, I merely write all the this to ask the questions people shy away from. I do want answers for my own enlightenment.
Martyjo, I would implore you to try an approach closer to Barbara's. In this time of feuding traditional Catholics, my message was more to show the need of Charity. Upon reading this forum, there are some very strong opinions and some harsh words. Your response to my Right vs Wrong comment sums its all up. If there is only one right and everything else is wrong. Then who out of all these opinions is right. Is it the SSPX? Is it the person who is quoting Canon Law above but siding with +Williamson. There are families torn apart by this debate. Families that don't speak to one another because of the side they chose. I come from one of those families. If someone views one side as right, then the consequence is the other is wrong. That was my meaning behind right vs. more right. Are the faithful that side with the one faction or another right or wrong? You can't claim they are both equal right in the faith of Catholicism as now they separated from SSPX views as right. The same principal applies to the Society of Pius the V. If you claim we are all on the side of RIGHT, then why are we are all bickering among tradition.

"This fighting a war on two fronts is a recipe for disaster:"
Your response to this section was my favorite. It is the strongest and most apologetic to the Catholic Faith out of your whole response. For that I acknowledge you. As you can see through out my response, I question many things. I'm probably wrong on many topics, but I do thank you for replying. In war, the best time to strike is when the enemy is fighting amongst themselves. Moral and resources are depleted and there are always causalities. My main point in all this is that we have a common enemy in this war we are fighting. And that enemy is not our Traditional Family. A house divided against itself will fall. Catholicism needs a united front for Catholicism. Martyjo and Barbara, thank your for your response

Matamoros said...

Rough Ashler said: "If someone views one side as right, then the consequence is the other is wrong."

That's the usual way. You're right of course to demand charity. I'm also against sectarianism. But it's only natural for Catholics in these times to choose to go to Church where they feel comfortable.

Our traditional family should indeed be more united and charitable. But give them their due: ours is a patriarchal family and our parents have gone mad temporarily. It's only natural that the kids will squabble. Let's make the best of it. Dad says he has the authority to spend all our inheritance on alcohol - we say no, and we'll make provisions for when he comes to his senses and thanks us for it.

Barbara said...

Dear Rough,

Well after your last post I see that you will know in your heart that the only place to be is with the Real Catholic Tradition - that which has been perrennial since Our Lord said those famous words to Peter. We stay with Peter BUT not the botched-up "continuity of tradition" that was ushered in after Vatican II. The things that don't contradict the 2000 year experience of Traditional Catholic Teaching which is TRUTH, that came from the Council- we can go along with.

It makes me very sad too that there is so much infighting, hurtful discussions and distrust in OUR CATHOLIC FAMILY - but we REALLY can be united at Holy Mass - which in the Old Rite reflects most perfectly our creed. The New Rite of course is valid if done correctly - but it doen't do the same job of transmitting love for the Faith and most especially love for Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament - for that is all that matters. The Post Concilar Church has been an utter failure in this regard - let's hope the authorities wake-up and do SOMETHING about it SOON! The Blessed Sacrament is my source of true strength and discernmemt - Him and His Most Holy Mother - heavens, I'm not even worth a row of beans without them! This is my story in a nutshell. The closer I get to them , the more tender my heart becomes - the more "united paraodixically in divisions I am with all my Catholic brothers and sisters - and for that matter even those who aren't Catholc. I am so sorry for anyone who does not know Our Lord and His Mother - who gave us the Church and Sacraments to know them and get to heaven. Do not deny yourself this - stay very close to Our Lady, please! And I will pray that She doesn't let you out of Her sight...look for a real priest - ask Our Lady to find you one...

I hope you don't mind me saying all this....

Barbara

Martyjo said...

Rough Ashler,

First of all allow me to apologise if my previous comments to you seemed a little condescending and harsh, they were not intended as such.

Anyway, having read your responses it seems to me that your primary question is how to expound divine truth while maintaining charity. Let me first agree with you that nasty exchanges between conflicting parties is certainly not the answer, so you're right on that point. But you'll admit, as we sinners must all admit, that sometimes passion takes over and people say things they shouldn't. It's part of our human condition, I'm afraid, but, as St. James said: the anger of man worketh not the justice of God.

Now that doesn't mean that all anger is wrong at all times. St. Paul said: let not the sun go down on your anger, by which he meant that we can be justifiably angry but must not let that turn to spite.

So, what is truth (or "right," as you put it)if it does not tend to charity, and what is charity if it does not honour truth? Incidentally, true charity means to love God above all things and to love our neighbour (principly his immortal soul) for God's sake. We cannot have a greater love for neighbour than to wish his soul to go to heaven, which sometimes means disabusing him of religious errors here below that could take him to Hell. It is the greatest act against charity to confirm our neighbour in error, or to be indifferent to his error under the pretext of keeping the peace. The proper practice of charity doesn't include being a door mat for everyone!

As to what it does entail, well Our Lord did not consider the keeping of the peace when He drove the moneychangers from the Temple, or when He called the Pharisees "whited sepulchers, hypocrites and children of the Father of Lies." Nor did St. Paul consider the peace when he publicly upbraided St. Peter for giving scandal. And what of St. John the Evangelist (the Apostle of love) who was merciless against those who perverted the Gospel? There are many such examples in history of popes and saints speaking very forthrightly against those in error when souls were at stake.

As to truth itself, well the Church has taught the same divine truths with infallibility for 2000 years without deviation, so very few people can say with honesty that they don't know what truth is. It's actually quite telling that despite all the catastrophic reforms we've witnessed in the Church since Vatican II, none of them has been forced on the faithful with infallibility, which would obviously caused conflict with past infallible teaching. Here is clear evidence that the Holy Spirit is still in charge in the Church.

So what about those who don't hold the Catholic Faith but who seem to be of good will? Well, the infallible dogma says outside the Church no salvation. It is incumbent upon all, then, to seek the truth and the Church revealed by God. Good will is not enough if it is not sufficiently good to want to know what is true in religion. For those who are genuinely ignorant of religious truth and have no way of knowing it, say, for example, someone living remotely in the Amazon jungle or a mentally retarded person with no proper use of reason, then the Church teaches that Our Lord's mercy extends to them in their invincible ignorance. This is not the case, however, for the good willed heretic who is nevertheless slothful in his duty to seek truth in religion. As the old adage says: the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

As Our Lord Himself said: Not all those who say Lord, Lord will enter into the kingdom of heaven. But he who does the will of my Father, he will enter into the kingdom of heaven. The first duty in doing the will of the Father is to belong to the Church founded by His Son.

Mike said...

Martyjo, You've got it completely backwards. You obviously don't know what you think you know.(pride) Bishop Williamson was the one holding to Archbishop's beliefs. Go back and read some of what he has taught. You and most of the people commenting on here are just SSPX Kool-Aid drinking sheep.

Mike

Cruella said...

Ironic, no? As goes the Junior Varsity, so goes the Varsity.