Author Topic: A Warning From Bishop Williamson (Read 6439 times)

SeanJohnson · « **on:** March 10, 2012, 06:56:15 AM »

For some time I have attempted to point out to certain readers that the overriding principle of Archbishop Lefebvre with regard to signing a practical accord with Rome was that there should be no such agreement until the doctrinal issues were first resolved.

The conversion of Rome was the prerequisite to signing a deal.

I then pointed out that Bishop Fellay, despite his assertion of fidelity to the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre, was actually contradicting them, as evinced by his Feb 2 sermon at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, in which he stated his readiness to accept a deal with Rome, despite the fact that (in his own words!) none of the doctrinal issues have been resolved.

In other words, he is paying mere lip service to the principles of ABL so as to not alienate a certain percentage of parishioners and clergy (mainly Anglo-Saxon), while himself embarking upon a different course for the SSPX than the one ABL laid out for it, for the good of souls and Church.

For all you who pretended Archbishop Lefebvre never had such a requirement, here it is in Bishop WIlliamson's latest column (Titled "Turning Point" referring to this new change of direction under Bishop Fellay):

Number CCXLIII (243) 10 March 2012

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

TURNING POINT
Speaking in the USA last month on Rome-SSPX relations, the Society of St Pius X’s Superior General said that some practical agreement between the two might be possible if Rome would accept the SSPX as it is, and he quoted the Archbishop as having often said that such an arrangement would be acceptable. However, Bishop Fellay did add that the last time that the Archbishop said this was in 1987. This little addition is highly significant, and it deserves to be dwelt on, especially for a younger generation that may be unfamiliar with the historic drama of the Episcopal Consecrations of 1988.

In fact the drama of dramas, without which the SSPX would never even have come into existence, was the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), at which the large majority of the world’s Catholic bishops signed on to that “up-dating” of the Church by which they split their Catholic authority from the truth of Catholic Tradition. From that point on, Catholics had to choose between Authority and Truth. To this day, if they choose Authority, they must long for Truth, and if they choose Truth, they still yearn for union with Authority. Archbishop Lefebvre chose Truth, which is why he founded the SSPX in 1970 to defend it, but for as long as possible he did all in his power to heal its split with Authority by striving to obtain Rome’s approval for his Society. That is why Bishop Fellay is right to say that until 1987 the Archbishop repeatedly wished and worked for some practical agreement with Rome.

However, by 1987 the Archbishop was 82 years old. He foresaw that without its own bishops, the SSPX’s stand for Tradition must come to an end. It was becoming urgent to obtain from Rome at least one bishop, but Rome stalled, surely because it too was well aware that the SSPX without its own bishop would die a lingering death. The resolute stalling of then Cardinal Ratzinger in May of 1988 made it clear to the Archbishop that neo-modernist Rome had no intention of protecting or approving of Catholic Tradition. So the time for diplomacy was over, and he went ahead with the Episcopal Consecrations. From then on, he said, it was to be doctrine or nothing. From then on the absolutely necessary prelude to any contacts between Rome and the SSPX, he said, would be Rome’s profession of Faith in the great anti-liberal docuмents of Catholic Tradition, e.g. Pascendi, Quanta Cura,etc..

And that is why, as Bishop Fellay implied on February 2, never again until his death in 1991 was the great Archbishop heard to say that some practical agreement might be possible or desirable. Himself he had gone as far as he could to obtain from Authority the minimum requirements of Truth. He even once suggested that he had in May of 1988 gone too far. But from the Consecrations onwards he never wavered or compromised, and he urged his Society to take the same line.

Has the situation changed since then? Has Rome returned to the profession of the Faith of all time? One might think so when Bishop Fellay informs us in the same sermon that Rome has modified its harsh position of September 14, and declares itself now willing to accept the SSPX as is. But one need only recall Assisi III and the Newbeatification of John-Paul II to suspect that behind the Roman churchmen’s new-found benevolence towards the SSPX lies in all likelihood a reliance on the euphoria of re-established and prolonged mutual contact to dilute, wash out and eventually dissolve the SSPX’s so far obstinate resistance to their Newchurch. Alas.

“Our help is in the name of the Lord.”

Kyrie eleison

Stubborn · « **Reply #1 on:** March 10, 2012, 08:21:51 AM »

I guess I don't what the issue is as regards +Williamson vs +Fellay vs +Lefebvre...... nor do I agree that Bishop Fellay is ready to give in so long as Rome remains in error.

In his Feb. 2 sermon, he says: The problem remains at the other level – at the level of the doctrine..........................And that’s why we were obliged to say no. We’re not going to sign that.

I mean, he comes out and says the problem is with doctrine and that's why he won't sign - so what is it that I am missing?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #2 on:** March 10, 2012, 08:25:19 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

I guess I don't what the issue is as regards +Williamson vs +Fellay vs +Lefebvre...... nor do I agree that Bishop Fellay is ready to give in so long as Rome remains in error.

In his Feb. 2 sermon, he says: The problem remains at the other level – at the level of the doctrine..........................And that’s why we were obliged to say no. We’re not going to sign that.

I mean, he comes out and says the problem is with doctrine and that's why he won't sign - so what is it that I am missing?

You are missing the other part of the sermon where he says he is ready to accept a deal with Rome, so long as there are no strings attached.

How could you listen to the sermon and read Bishop WIlliamson's article, yet miss that????

....unless you want to miss that :scratchchin:

Stubborn · « **Reply #3 on:** March 10, 2012, 08:31:53 AM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Stubborn
I guess I don't what the issue is as regards +Williamson vs +Fellay vs +Lefebvre...... nor do I agree that Bishop Fellay is ready to give in so long as Rome remains in error.

In his Feb. 2 sermon, he says: The problem remains at the other level – at the level of the doctrine..........................And that’s why we were obliged to say no. We’re not going to sign that.

I mean, he comes out and says the problem is with doctrine and that's why he won't sign - so what is it that I am missing?

You are missing the other part of the sermon where he says he is ready to accept a deal with Rome, so long as there are no strings attached.

How could you listen to the sermon and read Bishop WIlliamson's article, yet miss that????

....unless you want to miss that :scratchchin:

I did not listen to the sermon, I only read the link. Still, what about the part I quoted and bolded?

I have a slow internet connection and will try to download then listen to the sermon now.

JMartyr · « **Reply #4 on:** March 10, 2012, 08:46:59 AM »

This is from ABL two years after the consecrations.
"Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop."

So IMHO, this sounds like a reconciliation could have been reached without Rome renouncing their revolution.

JMartyr · « **Reply #5 on:** March 10, 2012, 09:00:25 AM »

But earlier in the same sermon, he also said
"Well, we find ourselves in the same situation. We must not be under any illusions. Consequently we are in the thick of a great fight, a great fight. We are fighting a fight guaranteed by a whole line of Popes. Hence, we should have no hesitation or fear, hesitation such as, "Why should we be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome, why not join the Pope?" Yes, if Rome and the Pope were in line with Tradition, if they were carrying on the work of all the Popes of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, of course. But they themselves admit that they have set out on a new path. They themselves admit that a new era began with Vatican II. They admit that it is a new stage in the Church's life, wholly new, based on new principles. We need not argue the point. They say it themselves. It is clear. I think that we must drive this point home with our people, in such a way that they realize their oneness with the Church's whole history, going back well beyond the Revolution. Of course. It is the fight of the City of Satan against the City of God. Clearly. So we do not have to worry. We must after all trust in the grace of God.

It is kind of hard to tell what would be acceptible situation for ABL to reconcile with Rome.

s2srea · « **Reply #6 on:** March 10, 2012, 09:05:37 AM »

I don't know JMartyr, I don't think he's necessarily saying that they would ought-right accept a deal. He's responding to the question which was posed to him. He was responding to the "What if...", and saying, "well I'd like to see that happen first, then we can discuss what we would do."

And the disparity between +Fellay and +Williamson is how they play out the answer to what they do. +Fellay seems eager to just have gotten them to finally consider accepting the SSPX. +Williamson is not so ready to be taken into a fold, who only wants to accept them in the name of false Ecuмenism- the same way Paul VI accepted the Fenneyites under the same pretense; they want unity with the society, but its only because they want unity with everyone. And he is more wary of what may happen in the future, it seems. The purity of the lineage of the Lefebvre bishops must be kept safe. With the apparently new laxed scrutiny of the validity of ordinations of those priests who join the SSPX from the NO, I don't think this concern is unfounded.

Stubborn · « **Reply #7 on:** March 10, 2012, 09:10:39 AM »

Quote from: JMartyr

This is from ABL two years after the consecrations.
"Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop."

So IMHO, this sounds like a reconciliation could have been reached without Rome renouncing their revolution.

IMO, +ABL was probably just being sarcastic, perhaps presenting a challenge of sorts. He knew, better than probably anyone else, that by Rome embracing modernism became not merely non-traditional, but vehemently anti-tradition.

As such, he rightly believed such a thing as a traditionalist Bishop would not be coming out of modernist Rome in his life time, and personally, I highly doubt +ABL would have signed anything without the doctrinal issues first being settled ------the thing is, in order for that to happen, Rome will need to admit to new teachings since V2 - for *that* to happen, Rome would need to acknowledge the traditional teachings............won't happen as long as modernism is the rule.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #8 on:** March 10, 2012, 09:20:45 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: JMartyr
This is from ABL two years after the consecrations.
"Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop."

So IMHO, this sounds like a reconciliation could have been reached without Rome renouncing their revolution.

IMO, +ABL was probably just being sarcastic, perhaps presenting a challenge of sorts. He knew, better than probably anyone else, that by Rome embracing modernism became not merely non-traditional, but vehemently anti-tradition.

As such, he rightly believed such a thing as a traditionalist Bishop would not be coming out of modernist Rome in his life time, and personally, I highly doubt +ABL would have signed anything without the doctrinal issues first being settled ------the thing is, in order for that to happen, Rome will need to admit to new teachings since V2 - for *that* to happen, Rome would need to acknowledge the traditional teachings............won't happen as long as modernism is the rule.

[/quot

1) This line of discussion misses the point of the thread;
2) The thread regards the contradiction of principles between Archbishop Lefebvre, post-1988 (i.e., No practical solution until the doctrinal questions are resolved)
3) And Bishop Fellay (i.e., We are ready to take a deal from Rome even though none of the doctrinal issues have been resolved).
4) Here you have Bishop Williamson pointing out this contradiction himself.
5) Not sure what is left to be said.

Stubborn · « **Reply #9 on:** March 10, 2012, 10:04:15 AM »

Quote from: Seraphim

1) This line of discussion misses the point of the thread;
2) The thread regards the contradiction of principles between Archbishop Lefebvre, post-1988 (i.e., No practical solution until the doctrinal questions are resolved)
3) And Bishop Fellay (i.e., We are ready to take a deal from Rome even though none of the doctrinal issues have been resolved).
4) Here you have Bishop Williamson pointing out this contradiction himself.
5) Not sure what is left to be said.

Ok, I see what I missed...............First, +Fellay says:And that’s why we were obliged to say no. We’re not going to sign that.

He then goes on to say........ We agree with the principle but we see that the conclusion is contrary. Great mystery! Great mystery! So what is going to happen now? Well, we have sent our answer to Rome. They still say that they’re reflecting on it, which means they’re probably embarrassed. At the same time I think we may see now what they really want. Do they really want us in the Church or not? We told them very clearly, if you accept us as is, without change, without obliging us to accept these things, then we are ready. But if you want us to accept these things, we are not. In fact we have just quoted Archbishop Lefebvre who said this already in 1987 – several times before, but the last time he said it was in 1987.

I just kept missing it - {slaps forehead with palm}

Ok, your 2, 3 and 4 are spot on - sorry I missed your points earlier. Although I'm not sure what the actual "deal" would be - I mean, seems to me that the SSPX will remain doing the same thing they've always done in the same chapels, seminaries etc. Pretty much is like telling Rome that they are not going to do anything different than they've been doing - - -- "if you want us, that's how you'll take us". Is that a bad thing?

One one hand, SSPX will not be signing anything that says they accept the errors. This is good.

OTOH, if SSPX remains "as they are", they'll agree to be regularized officially with modernist Rome. I don't know but seems pretty unlikely Rome will agree. Not sure what difference it will make either way - other than to possibly show the unknowing world that the SSPX now accepts the NO.

VinnyF · « **Reply #10 on:** March 10, 2012, 10:05:38 AM »

If you read the very detailed account of the signing and then rejection of the Protocol on May 5, 1988 as presented in the book Archbishop Lefebvre and The Vatican by Fr. Laisney (Angelus Press), the Archbishop writes to Cardinal Ratzinger on May 6, 1988, "Eminence, Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol...However, you yourself have witnessed my deep disappointment upon the reading of the letter which you gave me, bringing the Holy Father's answer concerning the episcopal consecrations." [The proposed June date was rejected]. "Given the particular circuмstances of this proposal, the Holy Father can very well shorten the procedure [of approving the candidates] so that the mandate be communicated to us around mid-June. In case the answer will be negative, I would find myself in conscience obliged to proceed with the consecrations ..." So was the Archbishop being deceptive in telling Rome that the reason for his rejection of communion was about the Consecrations, and not about the faith?

In July 1988, the Archbishop recalled to a reporter for 30 Days magazine that he had originally signed the Protocol with extreme distrust. In his interview with 30 Days, as well as his letter to Cardinal Ratzinger, his reasons for not accepting communion with Rome were not based on the erroneous interpretations and implementations of V2. Rather, he distrusted that the Rome of 'dirty tricks' including those leveled on Fr. Augustine of Flavigny, the closing of the Roman seminaries including Mater Ecclesiae, the letter of Abbe Carlo, etc, would work to undermine the canonical structure proposed in the Protocol. He also mentions Assisi and the visit to the ѕуηαgσgυє as indications of deception.

For the Archbishop, it appears that his "trigger" to indicate Rome's readiness to begin the return to tradition was the granting of the episcopal consecrations. Perhaps he felt that this is what would eventually lead to a restoration of the faith? He does not mention, anywhere in his account, that dogmatic issues were the cause of his rejection of communion.

So, in my humble opinion, Bishop Fellay is following Archbishop Lefebvre lead to the tee when he proclaims 'take us as we are'. The result may be that eventually everyone is excommunicated again in a dry martyrdom defending the faith. But that is the price one must be willing to pay.

Stubborn · « **Reply #11 on:** March 10, 2012, 10:12:01 AM »

Quote from: VinnyF

So, in my humble opinion, Bishop Fellay is following Archbishop Lefebvre lead to the tee when he proclaims 'take us as we are'. The result may be that eventually everyone is excommunicated again in a dry martyrdom defending the faith. But that is the price one must be willing to pay.

This is pretty much to be expected IMO as well.

Caminus · « **Reply #12 on:** March 10, 2012, 11:30:50 AM »

Quote from: Seraphim

For some time I have attempted to point out to certain readers that the overriding principle of Archbishop Lefebvre with regard to signing a practical accord with Rome was that there should be no such agreement until the doctrinal issues were first resolved.

The conversion of Rome was the prerequisite to signing a deal.

I then pointed out that Bishop Fellay, despite his assertion of fidelity to the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre, was actually contradicting them, as evinced by his Feb 2 sermon at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, in which he stated his readiness to accept a deal with Rome, despite the fact that (in his own words!) none of the doctrinal issues have been resolved.

In other words, he is paying mere lip service to the principles of ABL so as to not alienate a certain percentage of parishioners and clergy (mainly Anglo-Saxon), while himself embarking upon a different course for the SSPX than the one ABL laid out for it, for the good of souls and Church.

For all you who pretended Archbishop Lefebvre never had such a requirement, here it is in Bishop WIlliamson's latest column (Titled "Turning Point" referring to this new change of direction under Bishop Fellay):

What you seem to fail to realize is the material difference between what Rome is offering now and what it offered ABL when he was alive. He in fact signed a protocol which, if Bishop Fellay signed the same docuмent now, would be viewed as tantamount to betrayal today. Have you ever read that protocol? In fact, the only reason why he repudiated it was the fact that Rome delayed regarding the consecration of an SSPX bishop. Compare that protocol with what Rome offers now, a no stings attached juridical accomodation without the slightest compromise regarding doctrine.

He offered no immutable "principles" regarding this matter unless you would describe "talking doctrine" as a principle. In that case, that principle has been maintained. I'm not sure what you are so afraid of; its as if you think that legal recognition will act like coodies, infecting the SSPX priests, as if they are so weak-minded, that they will turn into novus ordo priests given time. The only principles that ABL did lay out was that which pertained to the formation of priests. And that is what the SSPX has maintained throughout, the most important principle of all.

Now I do agree that intimate cooperation with novus ordo priests could have a detrimental effect, but a legal recognition doesn't amount to such behavior. The priests of the society are anti-liberal, they publicly refute error and they do not consort with N.O. priests or bishops. On the other hand, the FSSP does not publicly refute error and regularly mingle with N.O. priests. Consequently, they are in grave danger of being perverted as many of them are, while some are not. A priest who does not actively condemn error, will eventually succuмb today. And this is true of the SSPX. The day they stop condemning error, become less anti-liberal, is they day the SSPX will be neutered. This won't come about based on a mere "legal recognition" but for other unrelated reasons.

So I would suggest that you step back, take a deep breath and liberate yourself from a form of intellectual paralysis. Have a little confidence in the SSPX priests and bishops, while remaining cautious, reserved and watchful as Bishop Williamson does.

s2srea · « **Reply #13 on:** March 10, 2012, 11:45:40 AM »

Well I can't argue with that

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #14 on:** March 10, 2012, 03:06:46 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: Seraphim
For some time I have attempted to point out to certain readers that the overriding principle of Archbishop Lefebvre with regard to signing a practical accord with Rome was that there should be no such agreement until the doctrinal issues were first resolved.

The conversion of Rome was the prerequisite to signing a deal.

I then pointed out that Bishop Fellay, despite his assertion of fidelity to the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre, was actually contradicting them, as evinced by his Feb 2 sermon at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, in which he stated his readiness to accept a deal with Rome, despite the fact that (in his own words!) none of the doctrinal issues have been resolved.

In other words, he is paying mere lip service to the principles of ABL so as to not alienate a certain percentage of parishioners and clergy (mainly Anglo-Saxon), while himself embarking upon a different course for the SSPX than the one ABL laid out for it, for the good of souls and Church.

For all you who pretended Archbishop Lefebvre never had such a requirement, here it is in Bishop WIlliamson's latest column (Titled "Turning Point" referring to this new change of direction under Bishop Fellay):

What you seem to fail to realize is the material difference between what Rome is offering now and what it offered ABL when he was alive. He in fact signed a protocol which, if Bishop Fellay signed the same docuмent now, would be viewed as tantamount to betrayal today. Have you ever read that protocol? In fact, the only reason why he repudiated it was the fact that Rome delayed regarding the consecration of an SSPX bishop. Compare that protocol with what Rome offers now, a no stings attached juridical accomodation without the slightest compromise regarding doctrine.

He offered no immutable "principles" regarding this matter unless you would describe "talking doctrine" as a principle. In that case, that principle has been maintained. I'm not sure what you are so afraid of; its as if you think that legal recognition will act like coodies, infecting the SSPX priests, as if they are so weak-minded, that they will turn into novus ordo priests given time. The only principles that ABL did lay out was that which pertained to the formation of priests. And that is what the SSPX has maintained throughout, the most important principle of all.

Now I do agree that intimate cooperation with novus ordo priests could have a detrimental effect, but a legal recognition doesn't amount to such behavior. The priests of the society are anti-liberal, they publicly refute error and they do not consort with N.O. priests or bishops. On the other hand, the FSSP does not publicly refute error and regularly mingle with N.O. priests. Consequently, they are in grave danger of being perverted as many of them are, while some are not. A priest who does not actively condemn error, will eventually succuмb today. And this is true of the SSPX. The day they stop condemning error, become less anti-liberal, is they day the SSPX will be neutered. This won't come about based on a mere "legal recognition" but for other unrelated reasons.

So I would suggest that you step back, take a deep breath and liberate yourself from a form of intellectual paralysis. Have a little confidence in the SSPX priests and bishops, while remaining cautious, reserved and watchful as Bishop Williamson does.

And what you fail to realize is that ABL was not concerned with getting an offer from Rome, but in their conversion.

That is why he insisted on their conversion before talking about deals.

Bishop Fellay has other ideas (which he has been working on for 10+ years).