Author Topic: Bishop Williamson As first choice of the Archbishop? (Read 1976 times)

s2srea · « **on:** October 31, 2013, 08:43:46 AM »

I was speaking with someone in the Society recently. They told me, after I made the point, that bishop Williamson wasn't the first choice of the Archbishop, but that Fr. Schmitberger was, but he turned it down. Can anyone give me something to refute this? Something than just saying he's wrong?

Thanks.

Dolores · « **Reply #1 on:** October 31, 2013, 09:32:40 AM »

I started a similar discussion, but no real answer was ever given.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Archbishop-Lefebvres-Successor

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #2 on:** October 31, 2013, 10:25:18 AM »

I had heard, if Archbishop Lefevbre was only going to consecrate ONE bishop, it was going to be +Williamson. So... yes.

s2srea · « **Reply #3 on:** October 31, 2013, 10:28:39 AM »

Well, it would be nice to have a source to cite, if it exists. Hopefully someone can point me in that direction.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #4 on:** October 31, 2013, 10:37:23 AM »

I would ask Matthew, since he cites it on the Cathinfo page.

Please pray for Bishop Richard Williamson, a noble prelate and hand-picked successor of Archbishop Lefebvre whose wisdom and zeal for the truth have inspired many.

s2srea · « **Reply #5 on:** October 31, 2013, 10:58:13 AM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

I would ask Matthew, since he cites it on the Cathinfo page.

Please pray for Bishop Richard Williamson, a noble prelate and hand-picked successor of Archbishop Lefebvre whose wisdom and zeal for the truth have inspired many.

Thanks PFT. I did, hopefully he'll get a chance to respond.

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** October 31, 2013, 11:48:39 AM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

I had heard, if Archbishop Lefevbre was only going to consecrate ONE bishop, it was going to be +Williamson. So... yes.

I don't have a source to cite, unfortunately.

1. Bishop Williamson, political views and all, WAS chosen personally by Abp. Lefebvre. If Abp. Lefebvre had a problem with +Williamson, he would have expelled him a long time ago and he certainly wouldn't have consecrated Fr. Williamson a bishop.

2. I personally believe that +W was chosen as the "one bishop" when only one bishop was going to be selected. It certainly makes sense. I could give several reasons why I believe the story.
A. He was obviously one of the 4 consecrated, so he has a 25% chance of being "the one bishop" regardless of other evidence
B. The education and noble bearing of +W
C. He was the oldest of the 4 consecrated
D. The obvious reason: hindsight. Look at what +Williamson became. Perhaps Abp. Lefebvre had a special inspiration about his courage and fidelity to the Church. That inspiration might have been anywhere from 1 - 100% from God.
We're talking about the continuation/preservation of the Catholic Church and the fulfillment of Christ's promise to St. Peter here -- divine intervention is not off the table.
E. +Williamson spoke English. His Grace already spoke French, so if you were a Frenchman with a worldwide organization, what language would you prioritize next? English is the most important language to know in the modern world -- it's actually the new lingua franca (which literally means "French language")

3. Regarding my source, I was just repeating what I'd heard countless times, including in the 2012 Stephen Heiner interview.

s2srea · « **Reply #7 on:** October 31, 2013, 11:55:27 AM »

Thanks Matt.

This lunatic was saying +Fellay was the 'one' to be consecrated. I laughed.

Matthew · « **Reply #8 on:** October 31, 2013, 12:03:14 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

Thanks Matt.

This lunatic was saying +Fellay was the 'one' to be consecrated. I laughed.

It's easier to show that particular assertion is ridiculous.

I added another item:

E. +Williamson spoke English. His Grace already spoke French, so if you were a Frenchman with a worldwide organization, what language would you prioritize next? English is the most important language to know in the modern world -- it's actually the new lingua franca (which literally means "French language")

+Fellay added no new languages to the mix.

+Fellay was the youngest to be consecrated.

+Fellay had no pastoral experience. He was an administrator, bursar, accountant, etc. from the earliest days of his priesthood.

B from A · « **Reply #9 on:** October 31, 2013, 12:09:59 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

Well, it would be nice to have a source to cite, if it exists. Hopefully someone can point me in that direction.

I doubt that there is any kind of written source, as in, for example,

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre

If I am only going to consecrate one bishop, it will be Richard Williamson.

I have never seen any quotes by the Archbishop naming names before the final candidates were chosen, which makes sense. So all we have to go by is verbal comments among the priests from that time. Which is, I think, what Stephen Heiner's information was taken from. But I too have heard (and it makes sense) that if there would only be one it would be +W. Matthew's list above makes sense, and also, think about what we do know:

- There were only supposed to be 3 candidates. This fact is docuмented. In all of the docuмentation leading up to the consecrations, whenever the Archbishop refers to the candidates (not sure if that's the appropriate word), he mentions "three", except when referring to the fact that Rome is only planning to allow him one.

- The initial 3 were supposed to be Frs. Williamson, Faure, and Tissier de Mallerais. It seems safe to assume that Fr. Faure declined and made his recommendation of Fr. de Galarreta early on, in which case, by the time Rome was saying +L could only consecrate one, Fr. Faure might have already been out of the running, so to speak.

If +L had to choose between these remaining three, Williamson, TdM and dG, I think we can safely eliminate dG as the "one", because a) he wasn't even a first choice, and b) he was rather young. Thus we are left with TdM and W. And I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that it would have been W.

This is not directly related, but something in this discussion reminded me of a comment by Fr. Doran in this:

Quote

Fr. James Doran on Volume I of Bp. Williamson's Letters from the Rector

... The letters of the first volume cover the years when Father Williamson was first vice-rector and then rector of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Ridgefield Connecticut. Named by Archbishop Lefebvre to these posts, he was certainly a lieutenant for the esteemed prelate. These letters were written during that time of trust and confidence from the founder of the Society of St. Pius X. “Trust” and “confidence” are not too strong of words, as Archbishop Lefebvre, in a sense, confirmed these public writings of 1983-1988, by his choice of Richard Williamson as one of the four men consecrated to carry on his episcopal duties in that fateful year, 1988.

Read them. Appreciate them. Hate them, even. Whatever, as long as the ideas be kept alive and the complacency of so many years be shaken off.

Quote from: s2srea

Thanks Matt.

This lunatic was saying +Fellay was the 'one' to be consecrated. I laughed.

I'm glad you laughed.
I wrote the above before reading this post.
I think if you read "Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican", even very close to the time of the consecrations, +L still refers to "three" candidates. I'll have to check that, but if so, I think +F was a very last-minute add-on.

s2srea · « **Reply #10 on:** October 31, 2013, 12:44:02 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

I added another item:

E. +Williamson spoke English. His Grace already spoke French, so if you were a Frenchman with a worldwide organization, what language would you prioritize next? English is the most important language to know in the modern world -- it's actually the new lingua franca (which literally means "French language")

+Fellay added no new languages to the mix.

I actually brought the above up. But I will use the other next time.

Quote

+Fellay was the youngest to be consecrated.

+Fellay had no pastoral experience. He was an administrator, bursar, accountant, etc. from the earliest days of his priesthood.

s2srea · « **Reply #11 on:** October 31, 2013, 12:49:24 PM »

Excellent reasoning BfromA. Thank you for sharing it.

Ck104 · « **Reply #12 on:** October 31, 2013, 02:01:43 PM »

Actually, Archbishop Lefebvre submitted 4 possible candidates to then Cardinal Ratzinger for the one successor, two of whom were consecrated on May 1988.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/1988-05-03.htm

"In this letter Archbishop Lefebvre proposed four names to Rome for its choice of one bishop. Of these four names, two were consecrated on June 30, 1988. The two others remained the secret of Archbishop Lefebvre."

hollingsworth · « **Reply #13 on:** October 31, 2013, 02:09:28 PM »

Dist. of Asia:

Quote

Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger

(This letter is confidential and will not be published.)
In this letter Archbishop Lefebvre proposed four names to Rome for its choice of one bishop. Of these four names, two were consecrated on June 30, 1988. The two others remained the secret of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Wh made this letter confidential? Was it by request of the ABL himself, and does it extend into perpetuity? Or, as I am inclined to think, did the refusal to publish the letter come at a later date, possibly to mask the fact that Bp. Williamson was either the first or second Episcopal appointment?

B from A · « **Reply #14 on:** October 31, 2013, 02:50:14 PM »

Quote from: Ck104

Actually, Archbishop Lefebvre submitted 4 possible candidates to then Cardinal Ratzinger for the one successor, two of whom were consecrated on May 1988.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/1988-05-03.htm

"In this letter Archbishop Lefebvre proposed four names to Rome for its choice of one bishop. Of these four names, two were consecrated on June 30, 1988. The two others remained the secret of Archbishop Lefebvre."

It's true that at that point, when Rome was saying, "no, you can only consecrate one," he sent in the names of four episcopal candidates for them to choose from. (Interesting to note that of those 4, only 2 were consecrated. Once again, although of course we don't know for sure, but if I had to guess, the 2/4 who were consecrated in that list were +W and +TdM. Unless that list of 4 was submitted after Rome rejected his first choices?) But generally, whenever he speaks of how many bishops he planned or wanted to consecrate, the Archbishop usually speaks of "three" or "at least three."

Quote

November 21, 1987:
Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Gagnon

Noteworthy are the two demands made by His Grace for the unity and identity of the works of Tradition....and, on the other hand, three members of the Society will be enabled to receive episcopal consecration.

Quote

p 552 Marcel Lefebvre:

“On February 2 Archbishop Lefebvre confirmed the news: ‘I am resolved to consecrate at least three bishops on June 30, and I hope to have the approval of John Paul II. But if he were not to give it to me, I would do without it for the good of the Church and for the continuance of Tradition.’”

Quote

May 24, 1988
Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger

Therefore, with much regret we feel obliged to ask that, before the date of June 1, you indicate clearly to us what the intentions of the Holy See are on these two points: consecration of three bishops asked for June 30, and a majority of members from Tradition in the Roman Commission.

Without an answer to this request, I shall proceed with the publication of the names of the candidates to the episcopacy whom I will consecrate on June 30 with the collaboration of His Excellency Bishop de Castro Mayer.