Could someone please explain what is going on with Bishop Williamson in Brazil? It just seems to me that the original post was a whole heap of words that didn't explain anything at all and in fact just leaves me scratching my head.
Yes I know Bishop Williamson is a wonderful Bishop but I don't get is why all of a sudden after being under "house arrest" for so long, he is suddenly off to Brazil to do Confirmations. Don't get me wrong. I think its great, but perhaps I'm missing something. Was he sent their by Bishop Fellay or did he go of his own accord? I have not heard of Bishop Williamson doing any serious travelling and administering of Sacraments since the whole h0Ɩ0h0αx sharade.
Are the Benedictine's in Brazil affiliated with the SSPX and what is their current relationship with the SSPX?
I'm just trying to get my head around a thread that tells me very little and I don't speak Spanish.

Our good Cristera posted the Brazilian Neo-SSPX district superior's angry news-letter yesterday on the other forum.

And the persecution begins: Father Bouchacourt's Communiqué

Little improved Google translation:

Statement regarding the pastoral visit of Bishop Williamson to Brazil

At the invitation of Dom Thomas, prior of the monastery of the Holy Cross at Nueva-Friburgo, M. R. E. Williamson came to confer the sacrament of confirmation and give some lectures.

I would like to clarify that this trip has been organized independently from the SSPX. Indeed, according to the directives left by our founder Archbishop Lefebvre, only the Superior General, in this case Bishop Fellay, gives the mandate to the auxiliary bishops to undertake a pastoral visit. This procedure has not been respected, which constitutes a serious act against the virtue of obedience but also a more basic lack of courtesy. In addition, the District Superior agreement has not been requested as required by the statutes of our Society. The harmonious collaboration that existed between the SSPX and the Monastery of the Holy Cross has been broken by this act of great gravity, so the organizers must take responsibility before God. Indeed, some faithful have been deceived and they attended the ceremonies and conferences announced believing that they had been organized by the SSPX.

After Dom Tomás Aquina’s article «Honor and Glory to Mgr Williamson», I denounce with the strongest firmness the indirect accusations which were stated suggesting that the SSPX wanted to have a deal with modernism and to cease fighting for the defense of the Catholic Tradition.

These hints are unfounded, false, hurtful and injurious to our Superior General and to the SSPX’s members.  I cannot admit them and remain silent.  If Bishop Fellay has rejected Rome’s extended hand on June 13, is due to doctrinal reasons. And it is because we reject Vatican II imbued of modernism, which is the main cause of today’s Church’s ruin and we want to continue saying so, it is also because we reject the Novus Ordo Missae, which “in its ensemble and details”, departs from Catholic doctrine, that no practical agreement has been signed with Rome. This was the position of Archbishop Lefebvre in the past and this is Bishop Fellay’s position today. The General Chapter in July has confirmed it. Any other assertion is nothing more than manipulation or lie. Any prophecy about a practical agreement reveals a morbid imagination.

At the beginning of December, M. R. E. Bishop de Galarreta will come to visit us and to confer the sacrament of Confirmation in Brazil and other countries in our district as our Superior General has planned many months ago.

I invite the faithful of the Catholic tradition in Brazil to not pay attention to rumors, to continue to support their priests for their sacrifices, prayers and generosity and to beg God to send numerous and ardent vocations to defend and extend the kingdom of Christ the King under the noble flag of the Catholic tradition and the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary. God bless you!

Father Christian BOUCHACOURT
District Superior

(And in French, Portuguese and Spanish.)


This is much better:

The Prior of Santa Cruz, Nova Friburgo RJ, Dom Tomás de Aquino, knows what it's all about. He had founded Santa Cruz in 1987. Then, in 1988, his Superior, Dom Gérard Calvet of the Barroux, France, made a deal with Rome. Nova Friburgo RJ is less than 100 miles from Campos dos Goytacazes RJ, where Dom Fernando Arêas Rifan sold out the work of Dom Antônio de Castro Mayer in 2001.

Honor and Glory to Bishop Williamson, and Honor and Glory to Dom Tomás!


Dom Antônio and Dom Lefebvre, pray for us!

And also this is very nice:

I asked my priest and he says that a bishop who is a member of a congregation is released from his obedience to his superiors, and that this is written in canon laws. He is bound only to the Holy Father. According to him the bishops of the SSPX must normally follow the directions of Bishop Fellay but they are not bound to him by obedience.

We must pray and make sacrifices for Bishop Fellay so that he reunites with his brother bishops.

Our good Cristera posted the Brazilian Neo-SSPX district superior's angry news-letter yesterday on the other forum.

And the persecution begins: Father Bouchacourt's Communiqué

Little improved ... translation:

Quote from: Fr Bouchacourt

[..]

And now, in response to Fr. Bouchacourt's letter:

Declaration of Dom Tomás de Aquino
8. September 2012

DECLARAÇÃO DE DOM TOMÁS DE AQUINO (Portuguese)

(Thanks to Faber for the following English translation ! )


In view of the Communiqué of Rev Fr Bouchacourt the Monastery of the Holy Cross declares to have called H.E. Msgr Richard Williamson to Brazil because he is considered a worthy defender of the Catholic Faith, able to confirm in the Faith not only the monks of the Holy Cross, but also the relgious communities and the faithful, who see with great apprehension the nefarious policy of practical agreements with Rome before Rome converts of its liberal and modernist errors.

Why had the Capuchins, the Dominicans and even the Benedictines of Bellaigue their candidates excluded or threatened to be excluded from the ordinations, if not because of their opposition against an agreement? And this when Rome already didn't want the agreement anymore, at least not at this moment.

To keep the true reasons of what we are experiencing secret, is missing the truth. Why was Msgr Williamson asked to shut down his “Eleison Comments” if not because of the doctrine therein exposed? Why did Msgr Tissier de Mallerais have to interrupt his preaching in the USA, if not because he was against the policy of agreement? Why was Fr. Koller threatened with punishment, if not because he preached against this same policy? Why were the Rev Frs Cardozo, Chazal, Pfeiffer and others either punished or expulsed, if not because of their opposition against this same policy?

Msgr de Galarreta had called for caution some months ago: “For the good of the Society ... and of the Tradition, it's necessary to rapidly close Pandora's box, to avoid discredit and demolition of authority, to avoid contestation, discord, divisions, which may be irreversible.”

And Msgr de Galarreta asked, which would be the required conditions for a totally acceptable proposal, that is, for a victory which only can be doctrinal, because in this whole battle all rests upon the Faith. He himself answered by quoting Msgr Lefebvre: [the Archbishop explaining how he would ask them whether they are in full communion with Quanta Cura etc., many times cited on Ignis Ardens (Fideliter, n°66, November-December 1988, pp. 12-13)]

Conclusion. “Pandora's box” has not been properly closed, the line traced by Msgr Lefebvre has not been followed.

But probably the Rev Fr Bouchacourt will say that, on the contrary, everything was put right at the General Chapter. All is fine in perfect order. Sadly this is not the truth. The General Chapter maintained the objective of the agreement on a different basis than that exposed by H.E. Msgr Marcel Lefebvre. Read the Eleison Comments of Msgr Williamson about the six conditions and you will see how the resolutions of the General Chapter are not sufficient and are different from those of Msgr Lefebvre.

Others will say: what do you have to do with this? I do have, because the Faith is a common good of the Church and I belong to the Church and besides I have responsibility for the monks of Holy Cross and for the faithful who express their confidence towards us.

But they still will say: the obedience transfers the resposibilities to the superiors, and to be obedient is never wrong. Unluckily things are not so simple. This was the way how the majority of the Bishops accepted the Second Vatican Council.

But they still will say: You contribute to the division of Tradition. I respond that the union should be built around the truth, that is around the Catholic Faith. And the words and attitudes of Msgr Fellay sadly are not those of a disciple of Msgr Lefebvre, who defended the truth without concessions. Why silence Msgr Williamson and Msgr Tissier de Mallerais? Read the letter of the three Bishops to Msgr Fellay and his assistants and there you will find the reason of the battle of Tradition and the reason of our attitude.

[Gustavo] Corção [a Brazilian writer, hero of Vat. II resistance] incessantly repeated that a wrong notion of charity and union caused grave damage in the Catholic resistence. When truth and charity are separated, charity ceases to be charity. Many, even of his friends, accused him of a lack of charity because of his articles. But the first charity consists in telling the truth. And Corção was right, as the facts have proved. Msgr Lefebvre was charged with the same accusation.

Concerning union, Corção humorously said that experience had taught him against the popular saying “union makes strength” that union frequently makes weakness. And why? Because union without truth, union made with concessions, union which sacrifices the Faith, is weakness which “makes strong people weak”. And this is what happened with the Second Vatican Council, isn't it? To preserve the good of the union with Paul VI many bishops ended signing inacceptable docuмents. The union didn't make strength but the opposite.

Now, today in Tradition they want us to join, whatever it may cost, with those who believe, that the errors of the Council are not so grave, that 95% of the Councel are acceptable, that the religious liberty of Dignitatis Humanae is very, very limited, that we should not make super-heresies of the errors of the Council. But that is not true. The Council was the biggest desaster of the history of the Church since it was founded, as Msgr Lefevbre says in his book "From Liberalism to Apostasy". If we should build on this basis or we should unite on this basis, I prefer to abstain from that, and prefer to work for the integral restauration of the Catholic Faith as Msgr Marcel Lefebvre always advised us and reprimanded us, waiting that the Society reanimates anew in the Faith, which is what I hope, because it has the means to do it, it has excellent bishops and priests.

Concerning the accusation that I mislead the faithful, giving the false impression that I invited Msgr Williamson with all permissions of Msgr Fellay, I can say that for a long time I didn't hide our opposition against the policies of Msgr Fellay

to anybody; and, even given that the brazilian people may be somewhat green, I don't think that they are as green as the Rev Fr Bouchacourt thinks. On the contrary. Who doesn't know that Msgr Williamson is unpopular in Menzingen? However, here he is popular, because obedience is a virtue only if it submits to higher virtues, above all faith, hope and charity. To misuse obedience as a weapon to paralyse Tradition and repeat the master-stroke of Satan, like Msgr Lefebvre said, who by obedience put the whole Church into disobedience against tradition. We won't do that.

Let them say whatever they'll say. There is a problem, and this problem is of faith and it is grave. [cf. Arsenius, Faber]. Our position is already taken. We support who defends the faith as Msgr Lefebvre, Dom Antônio de Castro Mayer, St. Pius X and the whole Tradition of the Church did. If we have to suffer because of this, we will suffer, for Our Lord has warned us: “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tim. 3, 12).

Concerning the Society, we consider it to be a providencial work, founded by a Bishop who took the most difficult virtues to the highest heroism, which are those for which God created the gifts of wisdom, intelligence, counsel, strength, science, piety and fear of God. Msgr Lefebvre, we consider him as a light that shone in the darkness of the modern world, and the Society is his work and his heiress, but with the condition to be true to the received grace. We pray for her and if we oppose the policies of Msgr Fellay, it's not because we wish to be hostile against the Society, but for love of her and of Msgr Fellay himself, like we love the Holy Church and for love of her we fight the liberalism and modernism of her enemies, who installed themselves within her. May God bless and save the Society of St. Pius X, to whom I owe all I received of the best, as much the faith as the priesthood, which I received from the hands of H.E. Msgr Marcel Lefebvre.

Br. Tomás de Aquino
8th of September 2012
Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary

I am sorry. I must have misunderstood.

, is now just as contemptuous of the Society as his old adversary.  

so, ABL was not contemptous of ROme/Paul VI, but Williamson is for refusing to whittle down or white wash?

wow, aint it great to become mainstream and staid.....

perhaps some shaking up is over-due

Due tell is John what is your beef w/Williamson?
not willing to go along and have blind, drone obediance?

 Perhaps he doesn't want to part with those digs in Wimbledon that, amazingly enough, he still occupies.  

rather insulting slam, for one that bends over backwards for Fellay in his NICE digs in Swiss-Land.......

Would, really, give up your DIGS today? really?

rather getting to the heart of your feelings we are! :reporter: