Author Topic: Bishop Williamson Expelled? (Read 22646 times)

Francisco · « **Reply #15 on:** September 12, 2012, 05:16:41 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Ethelred
1) Well, the good Bishop Williamson recently received a canonical admonition for disciplinary reasons from Menzingen. Didn't it start the same way with the other clerics who're now expelled (like Frs Chazal and probably J. Pfeiffer) ?

2) And last week or so, an European SSPX district superior said to several priests after a meal this:
"We have to split with Bishop Williamson now".
(For Decades this superior works towards an agreement with Newrome, and officially since 2009 he's no friend with Bishop Williamson anymore.)

Add to this that it's no secret that Fr N. Pfluger (the driving force behind Bp Fellay), Max Krah with his Jєωιѕн backers, and also Bp Fellay hate Bishop Williamson so much that since years they work hard "to get rid" of him.

Yes, they are parasites.

Along with Couture, Laisney, Rostand, Simoulin, Wailliez, Vernoy ...

Pablo · « **Reply #16 on:** September 12, 2012, 02:00:59 PM »

Straight from the Horse's Mouth.

Bishop Williamson is still a member of the Surrendered SSPX as of this moment.

I apologize for the bad info.

It was given to me by what I considered a reliable source.

Onward, I will only state facts as I know them.

*

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #17 on:** September 12, 2012, 02:12:06 PM »

Flubbed the codes that time! Duuuh.

Quote from: Sigismund

Fr. Bouchacort said

"...only the Superior General, Bishop Fellay in this case, issues mandates to the auxiliary bishops to undertake a pastoral visit."

Auxiliary bishops? Just what does Bishop Fellay think He is[?] He is sacramental bishop utterly without jurisdiction who heads up a Society of the Common Life without Vows. Auxiliary to whom? Bishop Fellay? Nonsense. And while we are quoting ABL, father, didn't his Grace say clearly that the head of his Society of the Common Life without Vows should not be one of the bishops? Odd that he is so fundamentalist about the spirit of the Archbishop when it suits his agenda and so cavalier in ignoring it when it doesn't.

Yes, it SHOULD be odd. But oddity is par for the course with +Fellay these days!

Quote

As many here are [aware], I [am] no particular fan of the SSPX and even less a fan of Bishop Williamson. However, it is increasingly apparent that Bishop Williamson being expelled from the SSPX is just about the best thing that could happen...TO BISHOP WILLIAMSON.

Excellent point. +Williamson is not "auxiliary" bishop to anyone! To say so is a LIE.

But then the Fellayites are rather full of lies these days, so what else is new?

Regarding the expulsion of H.E., there is a comment under Fr. Pfeiffer's latest
sermon on YouTube:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=20497&min=20&num=5

Quote from: Pablo

Straight from the Horse's Mouth.

Bishop Williamson is still a member of the Surrendered SSPX as of this moment.

I apologize for the bad info.

It was given to me by what I considered a reliable source.

Onward, I will only state facts as I know them.

*

So are you saying that the comment by FolieAdieu 20 hours ago (see the linked
thread) was not correct? Is this a retraction of FA's rumor on your YouTube
comments page? Please be specific.

NeelyAnn · « **Reply #18 on:** September 12, 2012, 02:43:58 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Flubbed the codes that time! Duuuh.

Quote from: Sigismund
Fr. Bouchacort said

"...only the Superior General, Bishop Fellay in this case, issues mandates to the auxiliary bishops to undertake a pastoral visit."

Auxiliary bishops? Just what does Bishop Fellay think He is[?] He is sacramental bishop utterly without jurisdiction who heads up a Society of the Common Life without Vows. Auxiliary to whom? Bishop Fellay? Nonsense. And while we are quoting ABL, father, didn't his Grace say clearly that the head of his Society of the Common Life without Vows should not be one of the bishops? Odd that he is so fundamentalist about the spirit of the Archbishop when it suits his agenda and so cavalier in ignoring it when it doesn't.

Yes, it SHOULD be odd. But oddity is par for the course with +Fellay these days!

Quote

As many here are [aware], I [am] no particular fan of the SSPX and even less a fan of Bishop Williamson. However, it is increasingly apparent that Bishop Williamson being expelled from the SSPX is just about the best thing that could happen...TO BISHOP WILLIAMSON.

Excellent point. +Williamson is not "auxiliary" bishop to anyone! To say so is a LIE.

Actually, I believe ABL, himself, referred to the four bishops acting more or less as auxiliary bishops. I don't have time to look it up, but I am fairly certain I did read that at one time in one of his sermons or talks.

As far as bishops go, they are all equal. But we are not talking about Bishop to Bishop here, we are talking about Bishop to Superior.

So, although Bishop Williamson may not be an auxiliary bishop to BISHOP Fellay, he is ONE of the auxiliary bishops used by and subject to SUPERIOR GENERAL Fellay.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #19 on:** September 12, 2012, 04:17:18 PM »

Quote from: NeelyAnn

Actually, I believe ABL, himself, referred to the four bishops acting more or less as auxiliary bishops. I don't have time to look it up, but I am fairly certain I did read that at one time in one of his sermons or talks.

As far as bishops go, they are all equal. But we are not talking about Bishop to Bishop here, we are talking about Bishop to Superior.

So, although Bishop Williamson may not be an auxiliary bishop to BISHOP Fellay, he is ONE of the auxiliary bishops used by and subject to SUPERIOR GENERAL Fellay.

Your post is a great example of a RUMOR spreading. Because it spreads all within
your one post!

You start with a presumption based on a vague memory ("I believe... more or less...
I don't have time to look it up... I'm fairly certain I did read that in one of his
sermons or talks), continue on to your stated opinion (they are all equal... Bishop
to Bishop... Bishop to Superior), and finish up with your allegiance to the lie that
we started with (+Williamson is ONE of the auxiliary bishops...).

No, he's not "one of the auxiliary bishops." The SSPX doesn't have any auxiliary
bishops. Why do you think ABL specifically said that a bishop should not be
elected to Superior General??? TO AVOID THIS VERY KIND OF LIE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Shheeeesh! ...

+Fellay should resign from SG and a PRIEST should be elected, not a bishop.
But first, the Fellayites packed in the loggia should be purged. It might just be
too much for a simple procedure.

Columba · « **Reply #20 on:** September 12, 2012, 05:18:57 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: NeelyAnn
Actually, I believe ABL, himself, referred to the four bishops acting more or less as auxiliary bishops. I don't have time to look it up, but I am fairly certain I did read that at one time in one of his sermons or talks.

As far as bishops go, they are all equal. But we are not talking about Bishop to Bishop here, we are talking about Bishop to Superior.

So, although Bishop Williamson may not be an auxiliary bishop to BISHOP Fellay, he is ONE of the auxiliary bishops used by and subject to SUPERIOR GENERAL Fellay.

Your post is a great example of a RUMOR spreading. Because it spreads all within
your one post!

You start with a presumption based on a vague memory ("I believe... more or less...
I don't have time to look it up... I'm fairly certain I did read that in one of his
sermons or talks), continue on to your stated opinion (they are all equal... Bishop
to Bishop... Bishop to Superior), and finish up with your allegiance to the lie that
we started with (+Williamson is ONE of the auxiliary bishops...).

No, he's not "one of the auxiliary bishops." The SSPX doesn't have any auxiliary
bishops. Why do you think ABL specifically said that a bishop should not be
elected to Superior General??? TO AVOID THIS VERY KIND OF LIE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Shheeeesh! ...

Yes, the Catholic Encyclopedia defines an auxiliary bishop as one deputed to a primary diocesan bishop.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02145b.htm

It is impossible to speak of one or several auxiliaries without reference to a primary bishop. Perhaps Fr. Bouchacourt was anticipating that the SSPX would obtain juristiction from rome equivalent to a worldwide diocese with Bishop Fellay as the ordinary and the other bishops as auxiliaries.

Quote from: Neil Obstat

+Fellay should resign from SG and a PRIEST should be elected, not a bishop.
But first, the Fellayites packed in the loggia should be purged. It might just be
too much for a simple procedure.

Fr. Carl Pulvermacher explained in The Angelus why a bishop could not become Superior General of the Society:

Quote from: Fr. Carl Pulvermacher

September 1988
answers given by Father Carl Pulvermacher

Q. Why wasn't Fr. Schmidberger consecrated a bishop? (C.B., New Orleans, La.)

A. Because, as Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, he has a form of jurisdiction. The priests who were consecrated bishops were expected not to have any jurisdiction, but to be only ordaining, consecrating and confirming bishops. They are never to be considered bishops ordinary, bishops of a diocese. They were consecrated to preserve the Mass and the Sacraments by their work of ordaining traditional priests during these special times, priests who can give us the true Mass and true Sacraments.

http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=1507

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #21 on:** September 12, 2012, 06:12:50 PM »

Thank you, Columba. That will be one gold star for you and you may move to
the head of the class if you wish................. :cool:

Incredulous · « **Reply #22 on:** September 12, 2012, 10:23:09 PM »

This is funny (excerpt from Traditio today):

"German sources reported on September 11, 2012, that Fellay will expel Bishop Williamson from his Neo-SSPX. If that is true, the question is why he didn't do it earlier ..." ?

The answer is simple. Williamson has an immense following within the NSSPX. His erudition, gentlemanly demeanor, and traditional Catholic stance, similar to that of Archbishop Lefebvre, stands in stark contrast to Fellay's theological ignorance, nasty temper, and New Order mentality.

Loyalty to Fellay can only be coerced through intimidation and false obedience; loyalty to Williamson comes from genuine respect.

[Some information for this Commentary was contributed by the German news service Kreuz.]

NeelyAnn · « **Reply #23 on:** September 12, 2012, 10:30:13 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: NeelyAnn
Actually, I believe ABL, himself, referred to the four bishops acting more or less as auxiliary bishops. I don't have time to look it up, but I am fairly certain I did read that at one time in one of his sermons or talks.

As far as bishops go, they are all equal. But we are not talking about Bishop to Bishop here, we are talking about Bishop to Superior.

So, although Bishop Williamson may not be an auxiliary bishop to BISHOP Fellay, he is ONE of the auxiliary bishops used by and subject to SUPERIOR GENERAL Fellay.

Your post is a great example of a RUMOR spreading. Because it spreads all within
your one post!

You start with a presumption based on a vague memory ("I believe... more or less...
I don't have time to look it up... I'm fairly certain I did read that in one of his
sermons or talks), continue on to your stated opinion (they are all equal... Bishop
to Bishop... Bishop to Superior), and finish up with your allegiance to the lie that
we started with (+Williamson is ONE of the auxiliary bishops...).

No, he's not "one of the auxiliary bishops." The SSPX doesn't have any auxiliary
bishops. Why do you think ABL specifically said that a bishop should not be
elected to Superior General??? TO AVOID THIS VERY KIND OF LIE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Shheeeesh! ...

+Fellay should resign from SG and a PRIEST should be elected, not a bishop.
But first, the Fellayites packed in the loggia should be purged. It might just be
too much for a simple procedure.

Archbishop Lefebvre’s Sermon at the Priestly ordinations in Ecône, June 29, 1987

"Well, if that is what God asks of us, we shall not hesitate to provide ourselves with auxiliaries to continue the work of the Society, for we cannot believe that God wishes this work to be destroyed, to come to an end, to continue no further, for souls to be abandoned and for the Church by that very fact to have no more pastors."

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Bishops-to-save-the-church.htm

Shheeeesh! ...

Bishop Williamson: "Two simple facts: the six bishops of June 30 and all who follow them are neither schismatic nor excommunicated. One reason they are not schismatic is because as the Dean of the Canon law Faculty at Paris' Catholic Institute (nothing to do with the Society) said on July 4, what constitutes schism is not one bishop consecrating another without permission (even if that gravely offends against Church discipline), but the subsequent conferring upon him of an apostolic mission, i.e. jurisdiction. But upon the bishops of June 30 Archbishop Lefebvre pretended to confer no jurisdiction – they are merely his auxiliary bishops, at the service of the Society, and under orders of its Superior General, principally to confirm and ordain (in the USA prepare for a tour of Confirmations in the spring)."

http://www.sspxseminary.org/publications/rectors-letters-separator/rectors-letter/116.html

Shheeeesh! ...

Angelus Press, December 2008:

Title: Twenty years ago Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four auxiliary bishops. What are your thoughts?

"Archbishop Lefebvre’s and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer’s consecration of four auxiliary bishops..."

http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2905

Shheeeesh! ...

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

1905-1991

A short biography By Father Ramon Angles

"An obscure Protocol was signed the fifth of May, 1988, but the day after, the Archbishop discovered that there were no securities that his conditions will be promptly fulfilled, and he decided to consecrate four auxiliary bishops against the explicit liberal will of the Pope."

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/lefebvre.htm

Shheeeesh! ...

SISINONO

March 2000 No. 37

The 1988 Consecrations

"Archbishop Lefebvre remained faithful to this letter to the Holy Father and to the mandatum of the consecrations by conferring only the power of order upon the four bishops consecrated by him. While it can be maintained that the bishops consecrated by him are not exactly identical to "missionary bishops," it can be said that the "auxiliary" bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X are effectively "missionary," because they have received (only) a power of order to be exercised with a supplied jurisdiction over individuals. (18)

...

18. The bishops consecrated as "auxiliaries" of the Society of Saint Pius X are not to be included in the category of "auxiliary bishop" without "right of succession," referred to in Canon 403, § I of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. These latter enjoy the power of jurisdiction over the territory of a diocese, being placed alongside [a latere] the diocesan bishop when "he is not able personally to fulfil all the episcopal offices as the good of souls would demand" (Commento, cit., p.241). It must be remembered that jurisdiction in actu supplita is not the same as in actu expedita referred to in §2 of the Nota Praevia affixed to Lumen Gentium, this latter always resulting from a canonical mission. That which justifies jurisdiction supplita in actu is especially the state of necessity, in particular in the case of grave error and of heresy which have been publicly spread, also and above all on account of a temporary cessation of the authority of the official Church. In a similar situation, grave necessity of the many which is effected by a danger of seduction to error is equated by unanimous teaching to the extreme necessity of the individual as can be had in the danger of death."

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/2000_March/The_1988_Consecrations.htm

Shheeeesh! ...

A short history of the SSPX

Part 5

1988

"The day after, the Archbishop discovers that there are no assurances that the conditions will be promptly fulfilled, and he decides to proceed to the consecrations of auxiliary bishops."

http://www.sspx.org/sspx_faqs/a_short_history_of_the_sspx-part-5.htm

Shheeeesh! ...

Angelus Press, June 1988:

Title: The Consecration of a new Bishop

"Archbishop Lefebvre realizing very well, that he is getting older, and that he will not have everlasting life on this earth, decided to consecrate some auxiliary bishops to succeed him."

And from the same issue:

Title: Visit of Cardinal Gagnon

"And thirdly, the Archbishop said in his letter that it is urgent that there be consecrated some auxiliary Bishops, and that he cannot wait any longer than the 30th of June"

http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=1457

The Church Laws & the Legal status of the SSPX
By Raymond Taouk

"God the Holy Ghost, as at Pentecost, inspired Archbishop Lefebvre to proceed with the consecration of his auxiliary bishops given the state of necessity existing in the Catholic Church."

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/lestatus.htm

NeelyAnn · « **Reply #24 on:** September 12, 2012, 10:33:50 PM »

So, Neil Obstat, what was it you were saying about rumors and auxiliary bishops?

And you, Columba, perhaps you should have been around to explain that whole 'auxiliary' thing to ABL.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #25 on:** September 12, 2012, 10:42:40 PM »

Quote from: NeelyAnn

So, Neil Obstat, what was it you were saying about rumors and auxiliary bishops?

And you, Columba, perhaps you should have been around to explain that whole 'auxiliary' thing to ABL.

I think to have auxiliaries you have to have a See, as Archbishop Lefebvre did. And Archbishop Lefebvre did not have his position by virtue of being superior general of the SSPX. Neelyann.

At any rate, in the context of the SSPX, "auxiliary bishop" certainly doesn't mean the same thing as bishops who assist the local ordinary.

None of the SSPX bishops have sees, or jurisdiction, the SSPX does not really have official status in the Church. So for Bishop Fellay to claim that somehow Bishop Williamson is violating his authorized position as "auxiliary" by visiting people without Bishop Fellay's permission. Well, frankly it's bizarre.

It's Faith that matters, not family chapels and to OBEY the +FELLAY

chrstnoel1 · « **Reply #26 on:** September 12, 2012, 10:45:29 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Ethelred
1) Well, the good Bishop Williamson recently received a canonical admonition for disciplinary reasons from Menzingen. Didn't it start the same way with the other clerics who're now expelled (like Frs Chazal and probably J. Pfeiffer) ?

2) And last week or so, an European SSPX district superior said to several priests after a meal this:
"We have to split with Bishop Williamson now".
(For Decades this superior works towards an agreement with Newrome, and officially since 2009 he's no friend with Bishop Williamson anymore.)

Add to this that it's no secret that Fr N. Pfluger (the driving force behind Bp Fellay), Max Krah with his Jєωιѕн backers, and also Bp Fellay hate Bishop Williamson so much that since years they work hard "to get rid" of him.

Yes, they are parasites.

Not forgetting Anti-Apostle - 1026!

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #27 on:** September 12, 2012, 11:05:00 PM »

I am now using a photo of Bishop Williamson as my avatar to show my support for him (and to get rid of that annoying gap in-between the screen-name and the "level dots" following the "flag" feature being axed).

Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if Fellay eventually expells +Williamson. The treatment that +Williamson has received since 2009 has been sickening.

trento · « **Reply #28 on:** September 13, 2012, 12:50:00 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: NeelyAnn
So, Neil Obstat, what was it you were saying about rumors and auxiliary bishops?

And you, Columba, perhaps you should have been around to explain that whole 'auxiliary' thing to ABL.

I think to have auxiliaries you have to have a See, as Archbishop Lefebvre did. And Archbishop Lefebvre did not have his position by virtue of being superior general of the SSPX. Neelyann.

At any rate, in the context of the SSPX, "auxiliary bishop" certainly doesn't mean the same thing as bishops who assist the local ordinary.

None of the SSPX bishops have sees, or jurisdiction, the SSPX does not really have official status in the Church. So for Bishop Fellay to claim that somehow Bishop Williamson is violating his authorized position as "auxiliary" by visiting people without Bishop Fellay's permission. Well, frankly it's bizarre.

It's Faith that matters, not family chapels and to OBEY the +FELLAY

All the SSPX bishops are auxiliaries, +Fellay himself included. They do not have jurisdiction and are only meant to provide the sacraments, according to the mind of Archbishop Lefebvre for this crisis. That is why Fr. Schmidberger was the SG immediately after +Lefebvre, and even during that time, all 4 bishops have to report to Fr. Schmidberger during his tenure as SG.

Perhaps the question should be asked why was +Lefebvre's will of not having a bishop becoming the SG not adhered to.

Matthew · « **Reply #29 on:** September 13, 2012, 01:03:27 AM »

Just like the Pope must be disobeyed for the sake of the Faith, the Superior General of a pious union must also be disobeyed for a sufficiently grave reason.

I'm sorry, but it's not for the good of the Church to keep a wise, able-bodied, learned bishop in "moth balls" like an old dress shirt.

He should be out teaching, exhorting the Faithful, conferring the sacrament of Confirmation, saying Mass in public, giving sermons, etc.

Bishop Fellay can decide where, the timing, who will run what seminary, etc. but overall what he's doing to Bishop Williamson (exile, forced retirement, expulsion from the SSPX?) is outrageous.