Catholic Laymen challenge Bishop Fellay and Defend Bishop Williamson
Replies 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.

Anonymous
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

sounds likes there are many that are working to wedge and divide the SSPX-pray for them and esp, Williamson.....

What I don't understand is that Bishop Williamson was very clear that he was addressing a rumor, so why is this such a big deal? Did I read it wrong? Did he state it as fact and call for action somewhere?

My thoughts exactly.

Here are the quotes from +Williamson's column:

...reports from France and Germany together with a rumour from Rome...

...If - repeat, if -- this is true...

...The rumour from Rome...

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.

Sounds like much ado about nothing, to me.

So why does Bishop Fellay make such comments?

 

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.

FWIW, people do not generally get "very annoyed" by nothings.  If they do, they tend to refrain from saying so in public.

I used to be a Novus Ordo convert to the faith.

God gave me the grace to see truth more fully and realize the contradiction that was obvious in Novus Ordo vs tradition and former splendor of the Catholic Church.

I left and went to an FSSP mass and thought it to be amazing. Only until I saw how contradiction and error ran there too. I thought, now it couldn't be Vatican II, could it? And the Pope today? Maybe I'll go more traditional to SSPX (which came before FSSP) and I'll be safe.

This article only proves why I'm not part of SSPX and anyone associated with the NCC™ (New Catholic Church™). Just more schizophrenic insanity from there.

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.

Is this only good for the SSPX, or does this apply to the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops and priests within the Roman Catholic Church?