Author Topic: Allegation: Bp. W against practical accord with Rome only from 2010 on (Read 4473 times)

hollingsworth · « **on:** March 05, 2013, 02:25:57 PM »

Have others of you heard this? If you listen to priests like Fr. Ceriani and Pere Morgon, you come away thinking that Bp. Williamson may have been supportive of +Fellay & Co. and their efforts to achieve a practical accord with Rome. These priests assert, (as I understand it anyway), that Bp. W. was on board with the "accordistas" until 2010. Only in 2010 and thereafter did H.E. go into a full "resistance" mode. What say some of you?

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** March 05, 2013, 02:27:39 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Have others of you heard this? If you listen to priests like Fr. Ceriani and Pere Morgon, you come away thinking that Bp. Williamson may have been supportive of +Fellay & Co. and their efforts to achieve a practical accord with Rome. These priests assert, (as I understand it anyway), that Bp. W. was on board with the "accordistas" until 2010. Only in 2010 and thereafter did H.E. go into a full "resistance" mode. What say some of you?

+W has always been against a practical agreement. His writings show proof of that.

Quote

There is a very good written record that Bishop Williamson has always opposed any kind of arrangement until Rome rejects Vatican II, the Novus Ordo and all the Modernist heresies. What especially always stood out to me about His Lordship's position was that he never focused on the likelihood of betrayal by the Vatican as being the reason for not making an agreement. His Lordship always said that even if, somehow, it could be guaranteed that no betrayal would occur nor compromise would be required, it would still be gravely wrong to regularize because it would be like allowing Tradition to be made like another ring in a circus, alongside all the Modernistic rings, which would be an insult to God, a betrayal of the Truth, a damage to souls and would, all by itself, over time, destroy the beliefs of the SSPX clerics and their lay flocks.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #2 on:** March 05, 2013, 02:51:12 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Have others of you heard this? If you listen to priests like Fr. Ceriani and Pere Morgon, you come away thinking that Bp. Williamson may have been supportive of +Fellay & Co. and their efforts to achieve a practical accord with Rome. These priests assert, (as I understand it anyway), that Bp. W. was on board with the "accordistas" until 2010. Only in 2010 and thereafter did H.E. go into a full "resistance" mode. What say some of you?

I say this is complete hogwash.

I was in the seminary during the Campos capitulation, and he was vociferously against any sort of accord even at that time

B from A · « **Reply #3 on:** March 05, 2013, 02:51:21 PM »

Quote

Sunday, December 30, 2007
Archbishop's Wisdom

Working through the monthly letters from Winona Seminary between the years of the episcopal
consecrations (1988) and the year of Archbishop Lefebvre’s death (1991), I have been reading through a number of the direct quotes from those last years of his life. What clarity of vision!

Here are a few samples from mid-June of 1988, in other words after he had taken the decision to
consecrate, but before the consecrations actually took place:

“It is not true that between ourselves and Rome it is just a question of details to negotiate. The basic problem is always there—Rome’s liberalism and modernism. They [the Roman churchmen] mean to bring us and all our works round to the Council while leaving us a little Tradition...”

Cardinal Ratzinger [as he then was] “put before me a letter to the Pope that I should sign, apologizing for my errors! But it is we that should be questioning them on their faith! We should be demanding of them to pronounce the Anti-Modernist Oath... But whenever I bring up their liberalism and modernism, they never reply. They just persist in their errors.”

“The more you think about it, the more you realize their intentions are not good... We cannot put
ourselves into their hands... We made an honest attempt to continue Tradition under Rome’s protection, but it did not work out... They never intended to secure a place for Tradition within the Church. I entered these negotiations” (of May, 1988) because of “a faint hope that these churchmen had changed. They have not changed, except for the worse.” In conclusion: “I do not think one can say that Rome has not lost the faith.”

And by 2007, 2008, have we seen anything coming out of Rome to persuade us to the contrary? If anyone thinks so, let him show us his evidence. Kyrie eleison.

Bishop Richard Williamson

Quote

Sunday, November 11, 2007
Agreementitis II

Eleison Comments XIX
The argument in favor of the SSPX “coming in from the cold” and “getting back into the Church” can also be expressed in this sort of double proposition: all great clashes in the Church have always finished in some sort of compromise – what other solution is possible for the long-standing discord between the SSPX and Conciliar Rome?

As to the first part of the proposition, one might agree if the Faith were not at the root of this discord. To help out the Pope or to restore the good name or canonical status of the SSPX, some compromise might be conceivable, but not if the Faith is at stake, because the Catholic Faith is that body of objective supernatural truths without (an at least rudimentary) belief in which no soul can be saved (Heb. XI, 6).

But is the very Faith involved in the so far 37-year struggle of the SSPX? Yes, says a distinguished German theologian, Professor Johannes Dörmann, who is quite independent of the SSPX. After prolonged and professional study of the complete speeches and writings of John-Paul II, he recognized and declared that “lefebvrism” was not just about Latin or the liturgy, but about the very foundations of the Faith. Indeed. Being another form of subjectivism, neo-modernism turns any rock of truth into plastic.

As to the second part of the proposition, there being no other solution possible than some kind of
compromise, one may reply that there are problems which man can make and which God alone can solve. An elephant can fall into an elephant-trap, but not by himself climb out again. In Noah’s time, mankind had so “corrupted its way” (Gen. VI, 12) that the Lord God was driven to wash it out and virtually start over.

In the Sodom of today’s Church and world, have not merely human solutions been made similarly impossible? When in the troubles of the near future enough human beings get down on their knees to beg the Lord God to rescue them, then through his Mother he will do so. Meanwhile the bounden duty of all Catholics belonging to the “remnant chosen by grace” ( underline the “by grace” -- Rom. XI, 5), is not to let anything, love of Rome or family or life or whatever, take precedence over safeguarding the true Faith, which is an obedience to, and love of, the true God. Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy upon us!
Kyrie Eleison.

Bishop Richard Williamson
La Reja, Argentina

B from A · « **Reply #4 on:** March 05, 2013, 03:02:11 PM »

Quote

Saturday, September 29, 2007
Agreementitis
Eleison Comments XIII

An argument often heard in favor of the Society of St. Pius X coming to some kind of agreement with the neo-modernists in Rome runs something like this: “You cannot expect Rome to come back to the true Faith overnight. Down all the history of the Church such returns have taken tens or hundreds of years. Do you want us to wait out our lives before we can be received back into the Church? You seem to like proverbs -- how about ‘Half a loaf is better than no bread’? Souls without number are waiting for the Society to move.”

There are in fact several arguments here. Let us take them one by one:-

*What I expect Rome to do or not to do is of no importance. On the contrary the true Faith, complete, is as important as eternal salvation or damnation. The true Faith, because “Without the faith it is impossible to please God (St. Paul to the Hebrews). Complete, because whoever denies one single Article of the Faith has lost the Faith altogether (Catholic doctrine), and neo-modernism turns to mush every single Article of the Faith.

*It may have taken a long time for past heresies to be washed out of the Church’s system, but if Catholics faced with the Arian heresy had agreed to Semi-Arianism or even Quarter-Arianism, how would the Church have survived? The Church survived thanks to Catholics like St. Athanasius who insisted on the entire Arian heresy being washed out – see the Athanasian Creed.

*A wait of 30 or 50 years or even longer is of little importance compared with the purity of the Faith. As St. Athanasius famously said, “They have the buildings, we have the Faith”. It is for those who, by the grace of God, have the Faith to “receive back”, so to speak, those who have mushed it (nor does any SSPXer in his right mind presume that the SSPX has any kind of monopoly on that Faith).

*Half a loaf is still bread, and nothing but bread. On the contrary half a truth is necessarily accompanied by poisonous untruth, otherwise it would be nothing but truth.

*If the SSPX were ever to give souls a lead in mixing Catholic truth with error, it would be better if it had gone out of existence first. May it never come to that! Kyrie Eleison.

Bishop Richard Williamson
Italy

Quote

Saturday, July 12, 2008
Bishops Agree
Eleison Comments LIV

Many friends of the Society of St. Pius X wonder what position towards an agreement with Rome is taken by Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta. He is one of the Society’s four bishops, but what he thinks and says is not so often quoted, at least in English, a language which he may understand, but which he prefers not to have to speak.

At the Society’s mother-house in Ecône, Switzerland, it was he who this year conducted the annual ceremony of ordinations to the diaconate and priesthood. Sections of his sermon are available on the Internet at christus.imperat, for instance. Here are two paragraphs, the first concerning the Society’s episcopal consecrations of June 30, 1988, because this year was their 20th anniversary; the second concerning Cardinal Castrillón’s “ultimatum” of June 4 and 5, one month ago.

From the truth no longer being preached, but merely looked for (as though one did not know it) followed, said the bishop, “the importance and need for those consecrations to ensure the survival of the Catholic priesthood. We are proud of the consecrations, not as being a revolt against the pope, but as being in reality the safeguard of the Catholic priesthood. We are also proud of the figure of Archbishop Lefebvre.

We are not “lefebvrists”, but we adhere to his way of thinking because it is Catholic. We are ashamed neither of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, nor of the unchanging Catholic Church, nor therefore of Archbishop Lefebvre.”

Further on, as to the Cardinal’s “ultimatum”, the bishop said that calling it an ultimatum was going too far. He went on, “We saw it rather as being meant to scare us, to put pressure on us to come to a purely practical (not doctrinal) agreement (with Rome). This is the way they want to make us go, but it is a dead end, and we will not go that way. We cannot undertake to betray our professing of the Faith, nor can we get drawn into an exercise in demolition. Our reply to the Holy Father is therefore to follow the steps laid down (complete liberation of Tridentine Mass and nullification of the “excommunications” of 1988) as preliminaries to a doctrinal encounter. Rome will react either with a slowing down or complete stop of contacts, or with a fresh condemnation – one wonders exactly what form that might take – or with a lifting of the “excommunications”.”

Firstly the Faith, then Rome – all four Society bishops follow substantially the Archbishop´s line of thinking, “because it is Catholic”. “Sooner die than betray,” he used to say.
Kyrie Eleison.
La Reja, Argentina

(emphasis added)