Matthew
Level 5
Reputation: 1677
(Likers: 113 / Critics: 35)
Group: moderator
Posts: 11,397
Joined: Aug 18, 2006
|
Catholic Laymen challenge Bishop Fellay and Defend Bishop Williamson
Replies by Tim Moore and Mark Taormino immediately follow this report
Bishop Fellay Denies Any Knowledge of New Motu Proprio
Dubs Bishop Williamson Rumor “Gossip” and “Unauthorized;”
Doctrinal Talks Continue
by Brian Mershon | The Remnant
August 24, 2010—Superior General Bishop Bernard Fellay of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), one of four bishops whose excommunications were lifted by Pope Benedict XVI in January 2009, today categorically denied any knowledge of an alleged special motu proprio being planned by the Holy See for the SSPX as stated recently by SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson. This rumored MP would not require the SSPX to take any sort of oath of acceptance where Vatican II and the New Mass are concerned.
“I’m very annoyed by the whole thing,” said Bishop Fellay. “Bishop Williamson’s statement is an unauthorized statement and is his own personal statement and not that of the Society.”
“It has never been the policy of the Society to base any kind of action or policy on gossip. I have absolutely no knowledge of any motu proprio.”
Earlier this week, Bishop Richard Williamson—who has allegedly been asked to refrain from publicly speaking on matters outside of faith and morals by the SSPX leadership—wrote a letter that was published initially on his website and then picked up by traditionalist internet Rorate Caeli blog.
In the letter, Bishop Williamson warns Catholics about the “danger” of a rumored motu proprio designed to lure the SSPX lay faithful into union with Rome and said, “…there is no way in which the neo-modernist teaching of Vatican II can be reconciled with the Catholic doctrine of the true Church.”
Bishop Williamson also said that according to both Holy See and SSPX sources, the ongoing doctrinal discussions have allegedly “run into a brick wall.” However, in today’s interview Bishop Fellay categorically denied this assertion. He said that the doctrinal talks with the SSPX representatives and Holy See theologians are ongoing and proceeding as planned with the next meeting scheduled in September. “There is nothing changed,” said Bishop Fellay. “All of this is gossiping and rumors and I’ll have nothing to do with rumors and gossiping. All of this is void—empty.”
“For the time being, everything is fine and everything is going smoothly according to plan,” he said. (End quote)
Dear Editor
Re: The Remnant's "exclusive" interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay
I am quite frankly "annoyed" by Bishop Fellay's annoyance, if Brian Mershon does indeed quote the SSPX Superior General correctly. I have never known Bp. Williamson to deal in irresponsible "gossip." Fellay's characterization of his fellow bishop's input I find appalling. Does not His Excellency Bp. Fellay realize that his Episcopal colleague's "personal statement" is, in the minds of numbers of us SSPX members, including myself, no more "unauthorized" than His Excellency's own 'personal statements' as expressed in the interview?
I think that Bp. Fellay had better not speak out so hastily when he claims, as he has a number of times, that Bp. Williamson's positions do not reflect those of the Society (at large?). Though the latter may not speak for much of the present leadership of SSPX at the highest levels, Williamson's views do nevertheless resonate among numbers of the SSPX priests and lay faithful to a degree which the Superior General might find alarming.
Truth be told, the doctrinal discussions have "run into a brick wall." I don't think that is mere gossip. SSPX leaders were telling us earlier that these discussions might go on for years. Now we understand they may well draw to a close early next year, just because of the "brick wall" created by irreconcilable doctrinal points of view. Everything is not "going smoothly," despite Fellay's claim to the contrary.
“All of this is gossiping and rumors," says he, "and I’ll have nothing to do with rumors and gossiping. All of this is void—empty.” Yes, I will have to agree: All of Bp. Fellay's interview posturing is void and empty, in my opinion.
Tim Moore
Post Falls, Idaho
Dear Editor
To the great irritation of many Faithful, Bp. Williamson's person and commentary have been disrespectfully characterized as ""uranium," gossip," and "imprudent." What could be more prudent than piercing foundational lies of the organized enemies of Jesus Christ? It is the Society's persecution of Bp. Williamson and toadying to the Pharisees (and the neo-Pharisees of the Novus Ordo) that has been “imprudent."
SSPX websites have been sanitized of truth about Judaism's Master Race imprecations and the two millennia of genocide those imprecations have inspired from the martyrdom of St. Stephen to the massacre of Gentiles in Operation Cast Lead. The SSPX has published (and refused to retract) the farrago "Saint of the Sanhedrin" (Angelus, 12/2009), e.g., speaking sweetly of Hillel, whose Pharasaical pilpul nullified God's Laws against usury and incest.
Evidently it is not just "the left" that has been penetrated by change agents. And still the despicable fratricide of His Excellency continues. It seems the laity have a better grasp than certain prelates on truth, history, and Catholic manners. God Bless Bishop Williamson! Viva Cristo Rey!
Mark Taormino
Kansas City, Missouri
***
Posted by Michael Hoffman at 8/25/2010 08:26:00 PM
Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Google Buzz
Labels: Bishop Bernard Fellay, Bishop Richard Williamson, Hillel, motu proprio, pilpul, Pope Benedict XVI, Sanhedrin, SSPX
1 comments:
James said...
Thank you Mr. Hoffman for helping to disseminate these two fine letters. To Mr. Taormino's letter I would only add that Bp. Fellay is also on public record as having derogatorily referred to Bp. Williamson as a "grenade." This description was given him immediately after and in response to Novus Ordo priest Fr. Thomas Rosica ridiculing Bp. Williamson by calling him a "loose cannon." See and listen to video clip from 26:55 to 27:10 at http://saltandlighttv.org/prog_slprog_witness_popup_0906_fellay.html
I expressed my own defense of Bp. Williamson to Bp. Fellay in an email I sent him a few hours ago at bfellay@fsspx.org.
James B. Phillips
|
.........................
Amazon.com sells just about everything, and they have excellent prices.
Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase! It costs you nothing extra.
Buy from Amazon.com and support CathInfo
Thank you,
Matthew
|
| Posted Aug 26, 2010, 5:56 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Alexandria
Level 4
Reputation: 31
(Likers: 4 / Critics: 2)
Group: Members
Posts: 2,130
Joined: Feb 11, 2010
|
I agree with the three gentlemen above. I am appalled by Fellay's remarks about Bishop Williamson and am also "annoyed at his annoyance." I know Bishop Williamson, and he has integrity. He would never deal in "rumors and gossiping".
I think Bishop Fellay's interview with Brian Mershon was irresponsible and will only further divide the SSPX faithful.
|
|
| Posted Aug 26, 2010, 6:36 pm |
|
Ignored by: 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gladius_veritatis
Level 5
Reputation: 971
(Likers: 87 / Critics: 59)
Group: Users
Posts: 7,857
Joined: Aug 25, 2006
|
Fine, going according to plan, etc.
Sounds like the kleptocrats and what they tell the sheeple about the economy, stimulus, etc.
As for wallflower and MD's point, it is very good. The question is: Why did Bp. Fellay go out of his way, in a public statement, to MAKE it a bigger deal than seems justified?
As for persevering in what I take to be a nonsensical process, you will understand if I say: Why bother? When the hens dialog with the fox, there is only one way it can end.
|
.........................
+ Vincit veritas +
|
| Posted Aug 27, 2010, 2:27 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Dulcamara
Level 3
Reputation: 21
(Likers: 9 / Critics: 1)
Group: Members
Posts: 1,198
Joined: Sep 27, 2007
|
Sounds like much ado about nothing, to me. One of the devil's greatest ploys is "divide and conquer". Again and again, these kinds of things threaten to divide those who SHOULD be united on matters of faith and morals (the only things WORTH getting all worked up about).
To me, it looks like someone took something out of context, and Bishop Fellay did "damage control". He has a responsibility to stand up for the name of the SSPX, and that's what he is doing. I'm sure Bishop Williamson doesn't take it nearly as personally as a lot of other people do, and he's the one these drama episodes are about.
We can argue till the cows come home about the truth of what H.E. Bishop Williamson said in that "infamous" interview. But the fact is, when Bishop Fellay asked him to make himself scarce, Bishop Williamson set an example that a whole lot of people proceeded to completely overlook: he obeyed. He had humility. He apparently desired the good of the SSPX (and thereby of the souls of the world) to his own personal image (whatever the truth about the statements he made).
It still amazes me that people can see that example he set, the example he willingly made of himself, that it is good to sacrifice one's self for the good of the many... and then proceed to bicker about this bishop versus that one. It would be like people watching the Passion movie, and then going out all revved up for revenge on their enemies. HUH?! What did we just watch again? Wasn't the example TOTALLY CONTRARY to that?
I have the highest respect and regard for Bishop Williamson, because whether he was right or not, he above all knew humility and obedience and the good of the many were higher things than what the world thought of him personally. If he had defied Bishop Fellay, THEN I would have been scandalized in his regard. But his humility and prudence are a real-life (heroic, I might add, considering how public the mess was) example of how we ought to act. Pity there are so many who are absolutely #$ll-bent on doing the exact opposite of the example he set: to forgive and forget, and to humbly submit. The saints did no less in their day.
It's easy with pride to say Bishop Fellay is wrong, but... prudence and pride are more often than not mutually exclusive. He needs to tend to his flock... not let the SSPX be painted black because of an unfortunate mistake (at least in saying something that definitely should not have been said to a reporter). His duty as a bishop is not to make Bishop Williamson look good to the world (unfortunately, yes). His duty is to save souls and to do whatever he can to help save the Church. It looks to me like he's doing that. How people can be so scandalized about that...
I think both bishops are continuing to do what they think is right to stop this "divide and conquer" tactic, both by the devil and by the media... Bishop Fellay by behaving as we can only reasonably expect a superior to behave, and Bishop Williamson by having the blessed humility to do the best thing for the SSPX by taking one on the chin, so to speak, for his unfortunate lapse in judgment (in saying something like that to a reporter).
As Catholics we should love our Bishops, even in spite of their faults, and if it comes to it, even in spite of any personal mistakes they may have made. We're not perfect either, but they ARE Catholic Bishops, and that in itself demands our respect and our love as their spiritual children. (Eg, even if you think one or both are wrong, love the sinner, hate only the sin.)
Last time I checked, it is not the place of the laity to judge, gossip about, raise factions against, or reprimand the clergy. In fact, last time I checked, the Catholic Catechism was staunchly against those kinds of things.
|
.........................
I renounce any and all of my former views against what the Church through Pope Leo XIII said, "This, then, is the teaching of the Catholic Church ...no one of the several forms of government is in itself condemned, inasmuch as none of them contains anything contrary to Catholic doctrine, and all of them are capable, if wisely and justly managed, to insure the welfare of the State. Neither is it blameworthy in itself, in any manner, for the people to have a share greater or less, in the government..." I likewise renounce any statements I may have made, insinuating that the Church should "change it's mind" in this matter, or might somehow be wrong about it. God forgive me!
|
| Posted Aug 27, 2010, 3:07 am |
|
Ignored by: 2
|
|
|
Telesphorus
Level 5
Reputation: 625
(Likers: 105 / Critics: 71)
Group: Members
Posts: 5,671
Joined: Mar 1, 2009
|
There is ample evidence that there is a faction of the Society that is keen on moving towards Rome, and that means getting rid of undesirable "baggage."
Reading in The Angelus the article on Gamaliel and certain other poorly researched articles leads is one clear sign.
Another sign is when a prayer for the Jews on Feast of Christ the King is cut short by the priest.
There's something very wrong going on.
|
.........................
Rome a perdu la foi, mes chers amis. Rome est dans l'apostasie.
- Archbi Lefebvre
|
| Posted Aug 27, 2010, 3:27 am |
|
Ignored by: 11
|
|
|
Telesphorus
Level 5
Reputation: 625
(Likers: 105 / Critics: 71)
Group: Members
Posts: 5,671
Joined: Mar 1, 2009
|
| Quote: | | Sounds like much ado about nothing, to me. |
So why does Bishop Fellay make such comments?
| Quote: | | One of the devil's greatest ploys is "divide and conquer". Again and again, these kinds of things threaten to divide those who SHOULD be united on matters of faith and morals (the only things WORTH getting all worked up about). |
All Catholics have to be on guard against wolves in the sheepfold.
There can be no doubt that the anti-Christians of the world are keen on subverting and infiltrating the SSPX.
|
.........................
Rome a perdu la foi, mes chers amis. Rome est dans l'apostasie.
- Archbi Lefebvre
|
| Posted Aug 27, 2010, 3:31 am |
|
Ignored by: 11
|
|
|
gladius_veritatis
Level 5
Reputation: 971
(Likers: 87 / Critics: 59)
Group: Users
Posts: 7,857
Joined: Aug 25, 2006
|
| Dulcamara said: | | It's easy with pride to say Bishop Fellay is wrong, but... prudence and pride are more often than not mutually exclusive. |
Is it out of the realm of possibility that one could say, in all humility, and out of justice, that he is wrong?
| Quote: | | Last time I checked, it is not the place of the laity to judge, gossip about, raise factions against, or reprimand the clergy. |
I do not know the whole story, but from what I read, it seems as if Bp Fellay saw fit to make some public comments that others are now examining. If a man does not want his comments examined, he should not open his mouth in public. The collar does not bring some kind of immunity. If Bp Fellay is being shot at, he has loaded the guns of his critics. Whether or not they are good shots is another question. FWIW, Bp Fellay basically called Bp Williamson a gossip -- publicly and, to all appearances, unjustly. To think, and even say, that such is NOT good is not, in turn, "gossiping" -- it is an observation of the obvious.
|
.........................
+ Vincit veritas +
|
| Posted Aug 27, 2010, 7:21 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
