It's great to see someone is doing some thinking!
Archbishop Lefebvre founded the SSPX in order to help save the traditional Catholic Faith as well as to preserve the “Catholic Priesthood of Our Lord Jesus Christ “. He discarded the concept of blind obedience to the Church hierarchy, in order to achieve his aims.
Yes, but we ought to remember that the practice of "blind" obedience has never
been a part of Catholic tradition, that is, outside of the Jesuit extreme
interpretation. In the various religious orders, obedience is held to a high level
of priority, but always under the principle of truth and justice, such that a
religious superior who demands that a subject commit a sin under obedience is
not to be obeyed in the matter of that command.
His Society is indeed geared, like all similar institutions, towards expecting strict obedience to the commands and directives of it’s Superior General. But would Archbishop Lefevbre wish that this obedience be taken for granted even when the Society seems to be abandoning it’s purpose and coming to a deal with Modernist Rome? Hardly likely!
Like with the corruption of any person or group of people, if the Founder had
survived to judge what is going on, +Fellay would be the one 'excluded' to be sure!
Furthermore, Archbishop Lefevbre initially wanted one bishop ( Williamson ) to carry on the Episcopal functions for the Society after his death. Further thought led him to want to expand his Episcopal team to three members (Williamson, de Mallerais, de Galarreta). These three were his desired candidates for the episcopacy but, for human and social reasons, if recent postings are true, a forth member was added. (Fellay).
These candidates were well known to Archbishop Lefebvre, and we must ask if he would have envisaged the expulsion of any of them from the Society on any ground whatsoever? Were they not consecrated to be Society Bishops for life?
It seems there was never any specific provision for removal of one of the
bishops, but there was established a provision, somehow, by +Fellay himself, for
as Superior General he has the power to make certain kinds of changes in the
charter or something like that. Normally to exclude an episcopal office from a
fraternal society, it would require the approval of the Supreme Pontiff... Hmmm.
............ Anyone want to guess how that would pan out ????
Bishop Williamson has been accused of disobedience and incitement to rebellion, including his videotaped call for Bp Fellay to be “kicked out”. Even if true, was he doing all this for fun? Or did he, and others, priests and laity, have a fear that a betrayal of the Society’s purpose was underway, led by none other than Bishop Fellay? Was he ever given an opportunity to put his fears before an appropriate tribunal in such a grave matter, rather than to just the General [Chapter], which apart from the General Bursar, seems to be at one with Bishop Fellay? A good opportunity for a once and for all thorough airing of views and settling of disputes would have been the last General Chapter, but this avenue was blocked by Bp Fellay when he excluded Bp Williamson from it.
Said exclusion was arguably an
act of treason by +Fellay, but you won't find the
Pope stepping up to the plate on that one! One source claims that all the
capitulants had to sign an agreement that they would support any resolution of
the Chapter that declares punitive measures to be taken against any of the
bishops of the Society, be what they may, and without signing that, a capitulant
would not be admitted to vote in the Chapter, which, if true, would be cause for
the charge of
a DOUBLE act of treason by +Fellay! I would seem that
keeping +W out of the Chapter and preparing for the systematic expulsion of any
of these original 3 bishops chosen by ABL from the beginning was the FIRST
ORDER OF BUSINESS at this particular Chapter meeting. What a scandal! And
to have done this in the context of an Ignatian retreat before it started. This
is something that not even Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler or Mao Tse Tung could
have done! No, not even Idi Amin or Fidel Castro! No, +Fellay has outdone all
the worst criminal tyrants in modern history. What a blasphemy his memory
evokes. Not even Nicolae Ceausescu could have done this. He wasn't a Catholic
Bishop! St. John Chrysostom said that the streets of Hell are paved with the
skulls of rotten bishops... Could he have had the likes of +Fellay in mind???
Maybe he knew of one
special place for +Fellay's skull... There is no crime
more heinous than the one that destroys the faith of Catholics. Our Lord said
to fear not him who attacks your body, but rather fear him who can send your
soul into eternal hellfire. If you thought that Paul VI was bad, it would seem
he can't hold a candle to +Fellay... And to to think that I actually met him in
person one day..................
If you think this is a joke, think again!
Why should Archbishop Lefebvre be excused of offering blind and servile obedience to his superiors but not Bishop Williamson when there appears a need for such a course to be followed?
Sorry, I can't think of any reason...............
The expulsion of Bishop Williamson is a scandal which Bishop Fellay must rectify immediately.
True enough. But why would he? Why would a bishop -- whose conviction and
long-term planning and scheming, hand placing capitulants for the Chapter in
each and every case with the sole criterion of a willingness to kowtow to his
every whim, a bishop whose methods put even Nicolae Ceausescu to shame --
why would such a bishop want to rectify his most dearly held objectives?
Sorry, I can't think of any reason...............
Topic: A FEW STRAY THOUGHTS ON BP. WILLIAMSONS EXPULSION (Read 2461 times)