Supplement from the just-released March 2025 Bulletin from Holy Cross Monastery, Brazil (about to be posted separately):
SUPPLEMENT
N° 13
REVIVING THE MEMORY OF BISHOP WILLIAMSON
On January 29 of this year, 2025 — the feast of Saint Francis de Sales — God Our Lord called to eternity His Excellency Bishop Richard Nelson Williamson.
What judgment can and should we form concerning the long life of this octogenarian bishop of the Holy Catholic Church?
Above all, he was a man faithful to the guidance given by his ecclesiastical superior and consecrating bishop, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Thus he lived out his episcopal motto, ut fidelis inveniatur, conforming himself to the positions of the one who wished to have inscribed upon his tomb: tradidi quod et accepi — “I have handed on what I also received.”
Unfortunately, during his life he was much despised by those very members of the religious society founded by Archbishop Lefebvre. And what was the cause of this contempt?
It seems that his adversaries accused him — openly or subtly — of being exaggerated, imprudent, or even somewhat insane.
Are such judgments fair?
To be just, we must acknowledge that no man is free from fault, whether knowingly or not, in this vale of tears.
The more important question to consider is whether, in essence, a man remains upon the right path.
And what, probably, is the “capital fault” which the members of the Society of Saint Pius X impute to Bishop Williamson?
It appears to be the fact that he withdrew from the obedience owed to the then Superior General of the Society, Bishop Bernard Fellay.
If that is so, let us examine whether the accusation of insubordination stands.
The central point of disagreement between the two bishops concerned the rapprochement with the Roman authorities, in order to obtain from them canonical recognition for the Society of Saint Pius X.
Which of the two, then, was right?
To answer this question, let us read what each wrote to the other on this subject.
“An agreement, even a purely practical one, would necessarily and progressively oblige the Society to silence all criticism of the Council or of the new Mass. By ceasing to attack these victories of the Revolution — the most important of them — the Society would inevitably cease opposing the universal apostasy of our lamentable age, and would bring ruin upon itself.”
“Since the Second Vatican Council, the official authorities of the Church have strayed from Catholic truth; and today they remain as determined as ever to be faithful to conciliar doctrine and practice.”
“It is the entire subjective fantasy of man in the place of the objective reality of God. It is the whole Catholic religion made submissive to the modern world.”
“The problem posed to Catholics by the Second Vatican Council is profound.”
“How could one reconcile an agreement with resistance to the public authorities — among whom is the Pope?”
“Your description contains two defects: it lacks a supernatural spirit and realism.”
“Your vision of the Church is too human; you no longer see the assistance of grace and of the Holy Ghost.”
“On what principle do you act in this way? Do
(http://file:///C:\Users\antho\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png)2 SUPPLEMENT
you not believe that if Our Lord commands us, He will also give us the means to continue our work?”
“There is now a line being indicated — not completely straight, but clearly in favor of Tradition.”
“Within the Society, the errors of the Council are being treated as if they were super-heresies, as though they were the absolute evil, the worst of all.”
“Archbishop Lefebvre often made the necessary distinctions concerning the liberal. This lack of distinction leads one or another of you to an ‘absolute’ hardness. Such a caricature will logically result in a true schism.”
“The condemnation of the ‘hermeneutic of rupture’ denounces very real errors.”
“One can observe a change of attitude within the Church. This new movement has reached a good number (still a minority) of young priests, seminarians, and even a few young bishops, who clearly distinguish themselves from their predecessors, who express their sympathy and support, but who are still silenced by the dominant current of the hierarchy favorable to Vatican II. This hierarchy is losing momentum. This is an objective fact, and it shows that it is no longer illusory to consider a battle ‘within the walls,’ whose duration and difficulty we well know. I have observed in Rome that the discourse on the glories of Vatican II, once constantly repeated, though still upon the lips of many, is no longer in their minds. Fewer and fewer still believe in it.”
“This dialectic between truth/faith and authority is contrary to the priestly spirit.”
Shortly before the consecrations of 1988, when many people pressed Archbishop Lefebvre to make a practical agreement with Rome that would open a vast field of apostolate, he expressed his thoughts to the four bishops-elect:
“It may be a great field of apostolate, but in ambiguity and moving in two opposite directions at once — which would end by corrupting us.”
And when, a year later, Rome seemed to show true signs of benevolence toward Tradition, Arch-bishop Lefebvre still distrusted it.
He feared that it was nothing more than “maneuvers to take from us as many faithful as possible. This is the perspective by which they seem to yield a little more and go still further. We must absolutely convince our people that this is nothing more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to place ourselves in the hands of the conciliar bishops and modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger that threatens our people. If we have fought for twenty years to resist the errors of the Council, it was not in order to place ourselves now in the hands of those who profess these errors.”
“The more one analyzes the docuмents of Vatican II and their interpretation by the Church’s authorities, the more one realizes that this is not a matter of superficial or particular errors, such as ecuмenism, religious liberty, or collegiality, but of a total perversion of spirit, of an entire new philosophy founded upon subjectivism... This is very grave! A total perversion!... Truly astonishing.”
(A conference that seems to have been, as it were, the doctrinal testament of Archbishop Lefebvre, given to the priests of his Society at Écône, about six months before his death.)
“We do not conceive reconciliation in the same way. Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us toward Vatican II. As for us, we see it as Rome’s return to Tradition. We do not understand each other. It is a dialogue of the deaf.” (Fideliter, no. 66, November–December 1988, pp. 12–13)
When Archbishop Lefebvre told Cardinal Ratzinger that one must choose between the religious liberty of Vatican II and the Syllabus of Pius IX, because the two contradict each other, he received the answer: “We are no longer in the time of the Syllabus.” To which Archbishop Lefebvre replied: “Then what you tell me today will no longer be true tomorrow. There is no way for us to come to an understanding, for this is perpetual evolution.” (Fideliter, special issue, June 29–30, 1988, p. 15)
“One must not be afraid to affirm that the present Roman authorities, since John XXIII and Paul VI, have made themselves active collaborators of international Jєωιѕн Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and of global socialism.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Itinéraire spirituel, pp. 10–11)
“One cannot at the same time extend a hand to the modernists and wish to preserve Tradition.” (Fideliter, no. 87, September 1990, p. 3)
“If I had continued dealing with Rome, pursuing the agreements we had signed and putting them into practice, I would have carried out a ѕυιcιdє operation.” (Sermon, June 30, 1988, Fideliter no. 64, p. 6)
“Inextricable dificulties will arise with the bishops, with diocesan movements that will want us to collaborate with them, if we are recognized by Rome.” (Fideliter, special issue, June 29–30, 1988, p. 18)
“If you [the Vatican authorities] do not accept
(http://file:///C:\Users\antho\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png)SUPPLEMENT 3
the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to speak. As long as you refuse to reform the Council in light of the doctrine of those Popes who preceded you, there is no possible dialogue. It is useless.” (Fideliter, no. 66, November–December 1988, pp. 12–13)
“It is a strict duty for every priest who wishes to remain Catholic to separate himself from this conciliar Church, as long as it does not return to the Tradition of the Magisterium of the Church and of the Catholic faith.” (Itinéraire spirituel)
From all that has been said, we clearly see Bishop Williamson’s adherence to the teachings of Archbishop Lefebvre and, on the other hand, Bishop Fellay’s distancing from them. It remains to be seen whether, as Bishop Fellay affirmed, “there is now in Rome a line clearly in favor of Tradition,” and whether “one can perceive a change of attitude in the Church,” and that “the glories of Vatican II, though still repeated upon many lips, are no longer in their minds.”
It seems to us evident — and we do not see how anyone could think otherwise — that never have the Pope and the leaders of the Vatican shown themselves so opposed to Tradition as they do today.
Why, then, does the Society not return to thinking as Archbishop Lefebvre did?
Let us attempt some answers.
1º Perhaps the reasoning is this: “We no longer think as Bishop Fellay did. Indeed, there were many flaws in his position. Moreover, we made no agreement with Rome.”
2º Secondly, the members of the Society probably say: “We are doing what Archbishop Lefebvre did before 1988.”
3º A third answer, more conjectural but most logical: “We do not agree with Archbishop Lefebvre’s words and actions from 1988 onward.”
4º A fourth possible answer: “We are against Bishop Williamson and the ‘Resistance’ because they are a band of madmen. But we are against all the evil established in the Church by the progressives. Therefore, we continue like Archbishop Lefebvre.”
To this we reply:
1º If one wishes to claim that Bishop Fellay’s thought is no longer that of the Society, why then was Bishop Williamson not readmitted? And although no agreement with Rome has been signed, why does the Society not follow Archbishop Lefebvre’s advice not to accept Rome’s offers, seeing them as maneuvers (as noted above)?
2º For our part, we see in Archbishop Lefebvre a continuous and coherent line in his understanding of the crisis. It seems evident to us that he hoped against all hope, striving for many years to lead the Pope to recognize his errors. Finally, he concluded that this hope was in vain. It was enough to wait for the day when God would bring the Pope back to the doctrine of the Holy Church — and, until that day came, simply to continue doing what the Church had always done, ensuring her survival.
That is to say, there is no contradiction between the “Archbishop Lefebvre before 1988” and the “Archbishop Lefebvre after 1988.” Therefore, there is no reason to reject his final counsels and actions.
3º Here, it seems, lies the watershed: Archbishop Lefebvre is no longer regarded as one who knew, even to the end, how to position himself before the crisis in the Church. He is considered to have been too hard — and this attitude is said to have the “odor” of “true schism,” just as Bishop Fellay accuses Bishop Williamson of having.
4º However much one may find things to criticize among the members of the so-called “Resistance” and in Bishop Williamson himself, nothing justifies attacking them “en bloc,” since the distinctive and fundamental feature of their doctrine and attitudes is their desire to conform entirely to all the teachings of Archbishop Lefebvre, especially regarding how to deal with the present Roman authorities — namely, by keeping a prudent distance from them.
Moreover, to affirm that merely being “against” all the evil established in the Church by the progressives is enough to “continue like Arch-bishop Lefebvre” is a misleading claim, for it is not enough to be against — one must be against in the same manner.
Finally, we wish to record in these humble lines our boundless gratitude for all the support and friendship that Bishop Williamson showed us over many decades, never once denying his sincere affection.
May God receive him into His beautiful Heaven, in that privileged place reserved for those who, for love of God, feared neither man nor anything else.
Arsenius