Author Topic: Was Bishop Williamson REALLY Disobedient? (Read 1584 times)

SeanJohnson · « **on:** February 24, 2013, 08:00:04 AM »

This brief post is for the benefit of those who admit to the deteriorating condition of the SSPX, and would join the Resistance priests holding to the traditional position of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX (I.e., No practical agreement with Rome until the doctrinal issues are resolved), but are unable to answer the charge of "disobedience" levied against the Resistance.

In other words, what are we to make of the Menzingen/Kansas City argument that, the matter of a practical accord being merely a prudential (rather than doctrinal) decision, Bishop Williamson and the Resistance priests had no theological grounds to resist such a decision of the lawfully elected Superior General?

Therefore, there are three issues which need to be fleshed out:

1) Is it really true, according to Catholic doctrine, that the purely prudential decisions of superiors can never be resisted by their subjects?

2) Regardless of this answer, is it really true that the signing of a merely practical accord would be merely a question of prudence, or, would it have direct doctrinal implications?

3) Application of the above principles to the case of Bishop Williamson.

Issue #1)
Is it really true that the merely prudential decisions of superiors can never be challenged and/or resisted by subjects?

Answer:
Scripture provides the answer to this question in the Book of Galatians, in which we are told that St. Paul resisted St. Peter "to the face, because he was to be blamed." But for what was St. Peter to be blamed? Not because of any decisions directly doctrinal, but "merely" because his imprudent (not heretical/doctrinal) behavior with the Jєωs was giving scandal to the faithful. This example alone is sufficient to destroy the false claim that only directly doctrinal teachings and decisions may be resisted by subjects.

Issue #2) Is the signing of a merely practical accord with Rome, while the Romans remain unconverted in their modernism, really a strictly prudential/practical decision?

Answer:
However one may choose to rationalize such a decision, the objective reality is that:
A) A unity in law without a unity in Faith is an (at least) implicit acceptance of doctrinal pluralism, completely repugnant to the most basic dogmas of the Catholic religion.
B) It stands as an implicit (at least) acceptance of religious indifferentism, so often condemned by the popes.
C) And one might add that the reasons stated by Menzingen in an attempt to head off these two observations (ie., That the SSPX will work from inside the Church to convert it) is also a violation of sound Catholic doctrine, since it is the superiors who form the subject, not the other way around.
D) Therefore, these simple observations suffice to prove the point that signing a merely practical accord while Rome remains committed to the religion of Conciliarism involves questions of doctrine.

3) Application of These Catholic Principles to the Case of Bishop Williamson:

Answer:
A) Insofar as it has been proven that both prudential and doctrinal matters can be causes excusing subjects from obedience to their superiors;
B) And insofar as, even were this not proven, the issue has clear doctrinal implications;
C) And insofar as the primary cause of Menzingen ordering Bishop Williamson to shut down Eleison Comments was that this column was frustrating Menzingen's drive for an accord;
D) And insofar as such an accord must be resisted for doctrinal matters;
E) And insofar as a Catholic bishop could not honor such an order and remain without blame for caving in to false obedience (ie., the sin of servility);
F) It becomes clear that not only is Bishop Williamson without blame or fault for having resisted to orders to close his website, but was actually bound to keep it open, according to the Catholic doctrine of necessity, once he perceived what was amiss in Menzingen/Rome.

Ps:
A) Necessity would also exonerate him from the charge of disobedience for the confirmations he did in Brazil without permission from Menzingen;
B) The faithful relying on the traditional Benedictines for their sacraments;
C) And the prior of that monastery having at that time recently opposed Menzingen's drive for a practical accord;
D) And Menzingen having at that time recently withheld sacraments from those communities whose loyalty were uncertain;
E) It was reasonable to conclude that the previously scheduled confirmation trip of Bishop De Galerreta could be cancelled;
F) Therefore Bishop Williamson, being the only prelate able to provide for the sacrament in such circuмstances, came to their assistance, according to the doctrine of necessity.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** February 24, 2013, 08:12:32 AM »

St. Paul's resisting St. Peter was more than a prudential matter.

Bishop Williamson wasn't kicked out over prudential matters.

He was essentially being told, despite being a bishop, to give up his duties, because of his adherence to the Faith.

That of course, is not within the power of a pious union with a non-binding vows renewed yearly to demand.

It's not really worth arguing this point, because to do so gives those demanding "obedience" (despite having no official ministry in the Church) more credit than they deserve.

They have no basis for their claimed authority. They are just making things up as they go along now. And if you point that out, you're out the door.

And so what happened to Bishop Williamson was simply the arbitrary whim of Bishop Fellay.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #2 on:** February 24, 2013, 08:35:50 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

St. Paul's resisting St. Peter was more than a prudential matter.

Bishop Williamson wasn't kicked out over prudential matters.

He was essentially being told, despite being a bishop, to give up his duties, because of his adherence to the Faith.

That of course, is not within the power of a pious union with a non-binding vows renewed yearly to demand.

It's not really worth arguing this point, because to do so gives those demanding "obedience" (despite having no official ministry in the Church) more credit than they deserve.

They have no basis for their claimed authority. They are just making things up as they go along now. And if you point that out, you're out the door.

And so what happened to Bishop Williamson was simply the arbitrary whim of Bishop Fellay.

The argument coming from Menzingen is that he was expelled for disobedience.

Whether a Pius union can compel lawful obedience from its members is another matter outside the scope of this thread.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #3 on:** February 24, 2013, 09:04:43 AM »

Quote

The argument coming from Menzingen is that he was expelled for disobedience.

Which presupposes that the SSPX has the authority to demand such obedience.

I think Bishop Williamson's response to his expulsion pretty much answers this question.

Jerome · « **Reply #4 on:** February 24, 2013, 09:59:37 AM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Telesphorus

The argument coming from Menzingen is that he was expelled for disobedience.

All arguments coming out of Menzingen are in the support of modernistic liberalism (on the inside) with the pretense of being traditional (viewed on the outside).

They've successfully managed to paint a shady grey on things that are supposed to be only black or white.........thus, have created confusion. :devil2:

bowler · « **Reply #5 on:** February 24, 2013, 04:03:52 PM »

Quote

And so what happened to Bishop Williamson was simply the arbitrary whim of Bishop Fellay.

That's all it is. The rest that the SSPX party line can say, is just a smoke screen.

Very un-Christ like. Bishop Fellay has taught us nothing there but wordly revenge. Any man of the world does the same thing every day.

Quote from: bowler

The mistakes that God allows us to make are only disastrous to us if we do not learn from them. Learning from other peoples mistakes of course is far better.

My experience in life has proven to me that the vast majority of persons do not learn from their mistakes, and that is most unfortunate.

Now, the mistakes made by the superiors of the SSPX during the last year, offers to us an opportunity to learn from other persons mistakes. We know what they have done and said, so I will not dwell on the details, but will only offer here what should have been done. What would have been done by a saintly leader and his assistants, the district superiors and the pastors of each chapel? The answer is something supernatural that would have edified the faithful. Something totally out of this world, something one does not ever see in the world today, something that Our Lord would have done.

A saintly hierarchy would not have done anything to any of the so-called resistance priests, and if any priest would have resigned, they would have bent over backward to bring them back, like our Lord would have done. A leader graced by the supernatural like a St. Peter, knew that you have to win the respect of great men. The greatest generals (St. Paul) are the ones that the other side will call "recalcitrant", it is precisely those men that a great leader (St. Peter) must rally to the cause. The great leader (St. Peter) does not feel threatened by any of his great generals, the great leader does not care about himself or his self-esteem, he KNOWS who he is. The great leader has only one goal and that is to accomplish his objective, and he knows that the most efficient and best way to do that is to surround himself with great men, the men that lessor leaders can't handle, the stallions, the champions (like St. Paul and the apostles).

The SSPX hierarchy on the other hand is the complete opposite of what I just described. The leader has no self-esteem, and thus he purposely surrounded himself with men that he perceives are no threat to his authority. Unfortunately you can't fight a battle with people like that. In effect, he has fired St. Paul, the 11 apostles, and anyone else (even parishioners) that might be perceived a challenge. He is left with no one with a fight.

I do not expect anything from the SSPX, the leadership is not there.

bowler · « **Reply #6 on:** February 24, 2013, 08:08:49 PM »

A thumbs down? I'm curious, what is it you don't agree with?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #7 on:** February 25, 2013, 02:45:12 AM »

There! I gave you your thumb back. Not that you need it. You have 233 more
plus votes than you do posts!

Quote from: bowler

Quote
And so what happened to Bishop Williamson was simply the arbitrary whim of Bishop Fellay.

That's all it is. The rest that the SSPX party line can say, is just a smoke screen.

It all comes down to TELEOLOGY.

What is the purpose of the thing? Why does it exist?

What is the purpose --- of the Society of SPX?
What is the purpose --- of the Faith - of being Catholic?
What is the purpose --- of running a religious order - of penalties - of sanctions,
punishments, rewards?

What you describe below, bowler, presumes a right-ordered teleology.

I say, that the Menzingen-denizens have an INVERTED teleology, that is, their
purpose is not to build up Christianity, but rather to build up a cooperative
between the scattered remnants of Catholics and the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, IOW,
the destruction of the Social Reign of Christ the King.

And it boils down to them not understanding what the Social Reign of Christ the
King is all about. This is why I say, that I will not be surprised at all if Fellay
changes the Society's Feast of Christ the King to the new date - of the last
Sunday before Advent, and he could do that this year. This would be entirely
acceptable to the Accordistas, because they basically worship him and anything
he says goes, as if he were a kind of Pope. And to top it off, the upcoming
papal conclave might not result in a pope right away. They might say that all
the Cardinals will go home and think about it for a while, which could turn into
thinking about it ALL SUMMER, and then by October, the SSPX will be so very
much jaded from being sedevacantist that +Fellay will be able to start doing
things that normally a Pope would do, like move a liturgical Feast Day from
the LAST SUNDAY IN OCTOBER to the LAST SUNDAY BEFORE ADVENT.

AND, he could get rid of Matthew xxiv once and for all, because the Accordistas
don't like Matthew xxiv anyway. Good Riddance!

Whether they know it or not, the Menzingen-denizens have bought into the Big
Lie that the post-Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church, even if it needs a
little "adjustment" -- They have SWALLOWED THE BAIT, HOOK LINE AND SINKER.

And they refuse to believe they are in the wrong for having done so!

Quote

Very un-Christ like. Bishop Fellay has taught us nothing there but worldly revenge. Any man of the world does the same thing every day.

The mistakes that God allows us to make are only disastrous to us if we do not learn from them. Learning from other peoples mistakes of course is far better.

My experience in life has proven to me that the vast majority of persons do not learn from their mistakes, and that is most unfortunate.

Now, the mistakes made by the superiors of the SSPX during the last year, offers to us an opportunity to learn from other persons mistakes. We know what they have done and said, so I will not dwell on the details, but will only offer here what should have been done. What would have been done by a saintly leader and his assistants, the district superiors and the pastors of each chapel? The answer is something supernatural that would have edified the faithful. Something totally out of this world, something one does not ever see in the world today, something that Our Lord would have done.

I agree, bowler.

Quote

A saintly hierarchy would not have done anything to any of the so-called resistance priests, and if any priest would have resigned, they would have bent over backward to bring them back, like our Lord would have done.

A leader graced by the supernatural like a St. Peter, knew that you have to win the respect of great men. The greatest generals (St. Paul) are the ones that the other side will call "recalcitrant", it is precisely those men that a great leader (St. Peter) must rally to the cause.

The great leader (St. Peter) does not feel threatened by any of his great generals, the great leader does not care about himself or his self-esteem, he KNOWS who he is.

The great leader has only one goal and that is to accomplish his objective, and he knows that the most efficient and best way to do that is to surround himself with great men, the men that lessor leaders can't handle, the stallions, the champions (like St. Paul and the apostles).

Once again, bowler, I agree.

Quote

The SSPX hierarchy on the other hand is the complete opposite of what I just described.

The leader has no self-esteem, and thus he purposely surrounded himself with men that he perceives are no threat to his authority.

Unfortunately you can't fight a battle with people like that. In effect, he has fired St. Paul, the 11 apostles, and anyone else (even parishioners) that might be perceived a challenge. He is left with no one with a fight.

I do not expect anything from the SSPX, the leadership is not there.

It would make sense to criticize the Menzingen-denizens if their objective is to
fight a battle in defense of the Faith. But I don't think it is!

They are not about a fight for the Faith of Catholics.

The Menzingen-denizens are WIMPS.

-- qualifier -- They might not think of themselves as wimps, because they think
that the thing they are devoted toward is a good thing: peace with the Modernists
in Rome, at any price! So to them, this 'attitude of war' against the Resistance is
a good thing. I have some friends who think this way. I've been tearing my hair
out trying to get to the bottom of this, and they are absolutely DUG IN to their
position - they think +Williamson is yesterday's news and +Fellay is 'WHERE IT'S
AT.' These are nice people, who held on to the Catholic Faith in the wake of Vat.II,
for all these years. But +Fellay to them is some kind of demigod. It is, as Tele
has been so admirably consistent in pointing out (thank you Tele!) that this is a
CULT of +Fellay. They are DILUSIONAL by thinking that the Catholic Faith is all
about UNITY as a fundamental principle, and the the FAITH is some kind of
decoration, like the star on the top of the Christmas tree. Fr. Hewko's little teepee
like this / is a perfect diagram of this. You write Faith on top and UNITY below:

FAITH
. /
UNITY

The point is, UNITY is the foundational principle, and FAITH is the thing that gets
supported by the unity. This is wrong. The FAITH of Catholics is the thing that
should be our foundation and our consequent UNITY is a product, a fruit of that
oneness of Faith. So this new idea of unity being the principal objective is EVIL.
And that is what came out of the General Chapter in July: so-called unity. But it
is a lie, because there was no unity in truth, only appearances, thanks mostly to
the silence of +de Mallerais and also of some of the other priests there. You can
blame +de Galarreta too, if you like but he's kind of a mixed bag recently; who
knows what's going on in his head?

All the Menzingen-denizens want to 'fight' for is to rip off someone's real estate,
and to make friends with the Jєωs. And the Jєωs are just fine with that, because
that's what they like to do, too! It's like one big, happy family!

We're looking at the Judaization of the Society, basically.

Which goes a long way to understand why they don't want +W around.

Like Fr. Pfeiffer says so well, there is something really wicked about this papal
abdication. It is not like all the previous ones, the most recent of which was only
600 years ago.

This papal resignation has an evil aspect. It is aimed at changing the papacy...
That's as far as he goes with it.
I'm going one step further.
Maybe I'm full of it.
But I don't think that a new pope will be elected right away.

I think the TELEOLOGY of the papacy is up for change - what is the purpose of the
Pope? Why not make him just a figurehead, like the King and Queen of England is?

I think they're going to say, "Let's go home and think about it for a while."
Besides, the Secretary of State was acting as the Pope in many ways. The
Holy Father stayed in another room while the Secretary of State handled the
business. Now the abdicated Pope will be in another office - just one or two
more doors down the hallway! And the Freemasons will have all the more
power and freedom to operate as they please!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #8 on:** February 25, 2013, 04:16:26 AM »

I can't believe it, but after all that, I forgot to say something important.

Well, actually, three things.

1) After 7.88 years as Pope, 94.5 months, he was unable to evoke the
unity of the Church regarding bringing sedevacantists back into the 'fold',
but now, by his abdication he is able to accomplish that in an indirect way,
by MAKING ALL CATHOLICS SEDEVACANTISTS! What he FAILED to achieve
remaining IN office he accomplishes by QUITTING.

2) If an interregnum can effect UNITY of all under SEDEVACANTISM, then
doesn't that make it a good thing? "Doesn't it? Interesting, isn't it?" As
+Fellay might say one of these fine days. I mean, he's all about turning
reality on its head lately. So why not, if a little interregnum is a good thing,
a longer interregnum might be a BETTER THING! "Isn't that interesting?"
(+F, again) And therefore, since Unity is the ultimate goal, anyone who is
opposed to the plan, like +Williamson would be, as he's still sane and
grounded in the Faith, would be inherently 'disobedient' by the fact of their
opposition. IOW, +W becomes the Fall Guy, the Scapegoat. That pleases the
Jєωs too, BTW, as it's their language. While +W is imposing his hands over the
heads of the priests he ordains and the bishops he consecrates, the Jєωs and
+F collectively impose their hands over the virtual head of +W, the Scapegoat.

3) Basically, it comes down to a new definition of "disobedience."

P.S. Make that four..
Please pray for my friend, Rachel. She is mysteriously sick and not getting
better. She wants to get better very much, and she prays all the time. And I
mean ALL the time. I think she is a victim soul. She reminds me of Blessed
Jacinta of Fatima, the holy one, who brought new meaning to the word 'virtue.'

bowler · « **Reply #9 on:** February 25, 2013, 08:22:30 AM »

Quote

Bowler: Unfortunately you can't fight a battle with people like that. In effect, he has fired St. Paul, the 11 apostles, and anyone else (even parishioners) that might be perceived a challenge. He is left with no one with a fight.

I do not expect anything from the SSPX, the leadership is not there.

Quote

Neal: It would make sense to criticize the Menzingen-denizens if their objective is to fight a battle in defense of the Faith. But I don't think it is!
They are not about a fight for the Faith of Catholics.

The Menzingen-denizens are WIMPS

.

I think we are in agreement in everything and your above quoted bottom line is identical to mine.

The only difference is that you analyzed the why of "why they didn't do as Our Lord would have done" and you concluded that it is because SSPX has changed their reason for being, their purpose:

Quote

It all comes down to TELEOLOGY.

What is the purpose of the thing? Why does it exist?

What is the purpose --- of the Society of SPX?
What is the purpose --- of the Faith - of being Catholic?
What is the purpose --- of running a religious order - of penalties - of sanctions,
punishments, rewards?

What you describe below, bowler, presumes a right-ordered teleology.

Putting it all together I don't know which came first, the egg or the chicken, but it matters not. Bp. Fellay embraced the new teleology and then surrounded himself with wimps that would go along with orders, or Bp. Fellay is a wimp, so naturally he went with the new teleogy and surrounded himself with other wimps. The question is whether Bp. Fellay is just a wimp with no fight, or whether he embraces the new teleology knowingly.

I believe he is just a wimp with no plan but to be at "peace" with the majority.