I sortof remember that the initial reason for being expelled was disobedience, and the Kyrie Eleison newsletters issue: Sspx wanted Him to stop...Then a year later they then said that the S SPX didn't agree with his position on certain issues, (think German legal problem - gαs chαmb ers...)
You can find this and more in the Compromise/Changes from Sean Johnson: slightly adapted.
#40
"...On October 24, 2012 the SSPX General House in Menzingen announced that it had been decided on
October 4 to expel Bishop Richard Williamson from the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X:
"Bishop Richard Williamson, having distanced himself from the management and the government of the
SSPX for several years, and refusing to show due respect and obedience to his lawful superiors, was
declared excluded from the SSPX by decision of the Superior General and its Council, on October 4th,
2012."
https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/communiqu%C3%A9-general-house-society-saint-pius-x-october-24-2012-22586
Having been excluded from the meeting of major superiors in Albano, Italy the previous year (gathered to
consider the Doctrinal Preamble submitted by Rome), and then excluded again from participating in the
General Chapter in June, 2012, it seemed
Bishop Fellay had determined to have no more opposition to his reorientation and sellout of the SSPX to modernist Rome.(my emphasis )The two reasons usually adduced as examples of "disobedience" were:
1) The refusal to close his weekly Eleison Comments, which regularly warned the faithful and clergy of
the sellout underway;
2) The "unauthorized" apostolic visit to Brazil to confer the sacrament of confession to Dom Tomas
Aquinas' faithful at the Holy Cross Monastery.
Regarding this latter excuse, we shall have more to say in our next post.
For the present purpose, it suffices to cite the fact of Bishop Williamson's expulsion, noting that the
primary purpose of it was to remove an obstacle to the ralliement and facilitate the talks regarding same
with Rome (per SSPX German District spokesman, Fr. Andreas Steiner):
"The decision [to expel Bishop Williamson] will certainly facilitate the talks [with Rome]."
https://religion.orf.at/stories/2555877/#41: Change (The Expulsion of Bishop Williamson - Part II):
In the previous post, we saw that one of the two main reasons adduced as justification for the expulsion of
Bishop Williamson from the SSPX was the bishop's "unauthorized" pastoral visit to Dom Thomas
Aquinas's Holy Cross Monastery to offer confirmations to the faithful attached thereto.
But what was the historical context within which this pastoral visit transpired?
Why were the General House and the South American District so enraged?
One familiar with the strained relationship between Dom Thomas Aquinas and Menzingen between 2000
- 2012 will know the answer, ... the Dominicans of Avrille tells the reader
all he needs to know:
"When Benedict XVI issued his Motu Proprio on the “extraordinary rite”, Father Thomas Aquinas
refused to sing the Te Deum at Sunday Mass, as asked by Bishop Fellay to greet the papal
docuмent. Furthermore, on the occasion of the alleged lifting of the alleged excommunications, Father
Thomas Aquinas wrote a letter to Bishop Fellay in which he announced that he would not obey if an
agreement with conciliar Rome took place. Soon after, Bishop de Galarreta and Father Bouchacourt
came to the monastery to tell Father Thomas Aquinas that he had fifteen days to leave Santa Cruz,
otherwise the monastery would no longer receive any help or sacraments from the SSPX. With
Bishop Williamson’s spiritual assistance, Father Thomas Aquinas was able to stay at the
monastery. On 8 September 2012, he wrote: 'Unity must be based on the truth, that is to say on the
Catholic Faith; and the words and attitudes of Bishop Fellay are unfortunately not those of a disciple of
Archbishop Lefebvre who defended the truth without compromise...'"
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/presentation-of-bishop-dom-thomas-aquinas-o-s-b-part-2/#easy-footnote-bottom-1
And there it is: Bishop Fellay was trying to spiritually starve and extort the Benedictines into
compromise, while Bishop Williamson was charitably subverting Bishop Fellay's punitive coercion and
helping the Benedictines to stay faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre.
This is the true cause of the punitive expulsion of Bishop Williamson: He kept subverting Bishop Fellay's
sellout.
But what jurisdiction did Bishop Fellay and the SSPX have over the exempt religious orders?
None!
Had not Archbishop Lefebvre written to Dom Thomas Aquinas that, "You must revere and consult the
bishops of the SSPX, but they do not have jurisdiction over you because, as Prior of the Monastery, you
must have autonomy."
http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2016/02/quien-es-dom-tomas-de-aquino-ferreira.html#moreNote also that, in the Communique released shortly after Bishop Williamson's visit by Fr. Bouchacourt
(then South American District Superior), he implies that Bishop Williamson's visit was not necessary,
since "for many months" the SSPX had already planned to perform confirmations in Brazil (and by
implication, also for Dom Thomas Aquinas).
http://archives.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/fr_christian_bouchacourt_8-6-2012_communique.htmHowever, that implication is not consistent with Bishop Fellay's earlier declaration to Dom Thomas
Aquinas that, unless he resigned, the monastery would no longer receive financial or spiritual
assistance. Nor would it have made any sense for Bishop Williamson to have gone to Brazil in the first
place, if confirmations for Santa Cruz were already scheduled (i.e., Dom Thomas would not have needed
him. What would be the point?).
#42: Contradiction (The Expulsion of Bishop Williamson - Part III):
In post #40, we noted the expulsion of Bishop Williamson, the reasons adduced for said expulsion (i.e.,
refusal to close the Eleison Comments and his "unauthorized" pastoral visit to Brazil), and the convenient
impact said expulsion was perceived to have upon negotiations between the SSPX and Rome, according
to the SSPX German District spokesman, Fr. Andreas Steiner.
In post #41, we discussed the historical tensions surrounding the relationship between Menzingen and
Santa Cruz, resulting from Dom Thomas Aquinas's refusal to abandon the position of Archbishop
Lefebvre, and the punitive response by Bishop Fellay as both punishment and coercion, which led to
Bishop Williamson's "unauthorized" pastoral visit.
In this third and final installment regarding the subject of Bishop Williamson's expulsion, we examine the
doctrine of necessity to consider applied to Bishop Williamson's...was just):
In July and September/1999, The Angelus included an English-language edition insert of SiSiNoNo
featuring a brilliant 2-part theological study defending the 1988 episcopal consecrations. Part I of that
study concerned the doctrine of necessity and the duties and powers of priests and bishops trapped
therein; Part II concerned the application of this doctrine in the face of the Pope's "no."
https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_July/The_1988_Consecrations.htm
https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm
Essentially, the article (and the SSPX) argued the following points:
1) There existed a state of grave general spiritual necessity, because:
-"Many souls"
-"are threatened in spiritual goods"
-"of great importance (e.g., faith and morals)"
and
"are without hope of help from their legitimate pastors."
2) In that situation:
-There is a duty, sub gravi (i.e., grave), on the part of bishops,
-To come to the assistance of the faithful,
-With the jurisdiction springing from the request of the faithful (not the authorization of the superior),
-And to refuse to do so is a mortal sin.
3) In carrying out this duty, Archbishop Lefebvre had no obligation to receive permission from the Pope
because:
- "In such extraordinary circuмstances, says Dom Grea, the episcopacy proceeded "resolute in the tacit
consent of its Head rendered certain by necessity" (op. cit. vol.I, p.220). Dom Grea does not say that the
consent of the pope rendered the bishops certain of the necessity. On the contrary, the necessity rendered
them certain of the consent of the pope. Precisely why did the necessity render the consent of their Head
"certain," consent that in reality those bishops were ignoring? - Evidently because in necessity the
positive judgment of Peter is owed." (Ibid, Part I)
4) And as regards the "no" of the Pope:
-"It makes no difference to what we have just said if recourse to the pope is made materially impossible
by external circuмstances, as in the historical cases recalled by us [in Part 1]. But it is the pope himself
who is favoring or promoting a course for the Church infected by neo-Modernism which threatens the
goods fundamental to souls, goods indispensable for the salvation of souls, e.g., faith and morals. If the
pope himself is the cause or partial-cause,...what effect will recourse to the pope obtain in such circuмstances? He will be physically accessible, but
morally inaccessible. Recourse to him will be certainly physically possible but morally impossible, and if
it be attempted, it will result naturally in the pope's saying "No" to the act which the extraordinary
circuмstances require "in order that adequate provision be made" (ST, op. cit. in Part 1) for the grave
general necessity of souls." (Ibid, Part II)
And:
-"These circuмstances, however, will have the effect of rendering the duty of help more difficult and
perhaps even heroic on account of the easily foreseeable consequences. It will be denied that there is any
state of necessity! The rebuke implied in the act of helping the people will draw down upon whoever does
so revulsion and unjust accusations." (Ibid, Part II)
and finally:
5) "For that reason the subject, having prudently examined the circuмstances and been informed
by the “doctrinal rules” or by the “principles of theology and law” that it is “beyond the power of
legislator” to bind anyone to respect the law when it causes grave harm to so many souls, and that
to obey in such a case would be “evil and a sin,” he may not - indeed, he must not - submit to the
law or to the command“on his own authority,” “by his own judgment.” Hence, by his own
initiative, he refuses submission “without recourse to the superior,” that is to say, without any
dispensation or approval on the part of the said superior. The reason, writes Suarez, is: that in such
a case the authority of the superior cannot have any effect...should observe the law, the latter would not be able to
obey him because he must obey God rather than man and hence in such a case its is out of place
(“impertinens”) to ask for permission." (Ibid, Part II)
Now, these quotes are applied to the case of allegedly "unauthorized" episcopal consecrations (i.e.,
consecrations which are, in truth, authorized by the state of necessity regardless of what the superior -in
this case, the Pope- says).
It does not take much imagination to see all these principles applied to the case of Bishop Williamson's
pastoral visit to Brazil:
1) When Bishop Fellay levied a punitive sanction against Dom Thomas Aquinas's monastery and faithful
for not going along with the sellout of Tradition to modernist Rome, and refused to provide the
sacraments of Order and Confirmation (and presumably also holy oils?), he immediately created a state of
grave general spiritual necessity, because there were now "many souls" who were "threatened in spiritual
goods" of "great importance" and who were "without hope of help from their legitimate pastors."
2) Yet Bishop Williamson -as bishop- had the grave duty to come to the aid of the faithful, which he
could not refuse without committing mortal sin.
3) In the performance of this duty, there was no obligation to obtain the consent of Bishop Fellay,
because that consent was owed.
4) And had Bishop Williamson nevertheless asked permission, it would have been predictable declined,
because though Bishop Fellay would be physically accessible, he would be morally inaccessible (i.e.,
Because Bishop Fellay, same as John Paul II above, was the ultimate cause of the necessity!), which
nevertheless would not relieve Bishop Williamson of the grave duty the request from Santa Cruz had
placed upon him.
Moreover, Bishop Williamson's action was heroic in view "of the easily foreseeable consequences:"
Implicitly, Fr, Bouchacourt's letter (quoted in post #41) stating confirmations had already been scheduled
to be performed less than two months after Bishop Williamson's visit was a pre-emption of the claim of
necessity...if such scheduling could be substantiated.
But as we discussed, if Bishop Fellay had already interdicted Dom Thomas Aquinas, then why were
confirmations scheduled? And why was Dom Thomas Aquinas calling upon Bishop Williamson if such was the case?..."
****************************
This info was available on CI before a book was published...
Topic: Bishop Williamson & SSPX (Read 319 times)