Number CCCVII (307)   1 June 2013

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AUTHORITY CRIPPLED
A number of good souls wish that a Congregation were founded to replace the Society of St Pius X. But while I share their fear that the SSPX is presently well on its way to disabling its formerly glorious defence of Catholic Faith and life, and while I therefore sympathize with their desire to see another Congregation like it to take its place, I do not believe that that is possible, and I think it is worth explaining why.

When in 1970 Archbishop Lefebvre wrote the charter of principles in line with which the future SSPX would be founded and would function, namely its Statutes, it was for him of great importance to obtain the official approval of them by the bishop of the Catholic diocese in which the original house of the SSPX was situated. As far as he was concerned, obtaining or not obtaining that approval meant all the difference between founding a Congregation of the Catholic Church and launching a private association of his own. He had every interest in founding a Catholic Congregation, far less interest in launching a private institution.

In fact when he went to see Bishop Charrière of the Diocese of Geneva, Lausanne and Fribourg to obtain that approval, he was not hopeful. The Conciliar Revolution was by then well under way, and it was directly contrary to what the Statutes projected. Providentially however, Bishop Charrière gave his approval, perhaps because he knew he was to retire soon afterwards. In any case the Archbishop returned exultant to Écône, and one report even tells of him waving the Statutes triumphantly in the air.

What that meant to him was that from then on, as far as he was concerned, he had the Church’s authority to build a Congregation of the Church, and while a few years later Rome might attempt to take back that authorisation, the attempt was so intrinsically unjust according to Church law that the Archbishop never hesitated to continue exercising inside the SSPX all the authority of a classic Superior of a Congregation. That classic Catholic authority has such power that by harnessing it to lies the Conciliar Popes have been able virtually to destroy the Universal Church, and by its being harnessed to a practical agreement with Conciliar Rome it is now virtually destroying the SSPX. On the other hand, as for authority over priests, nuns and laity outside the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre never arrogated to himself any other than that of a father, adviser and friend.

But the days of a Bishop Charrière are long since gone. How many sane bishops are there left in the mainstream Church ? And how could any of them today approve of Traditional and anti-Conciliar Statutes ? It is as though, just after the Archbishop got out of the Catholic castle with the Catholic Statutes in his hand, the Conciliar portcullis crashed down behind him. “They are mentally sick, but they have the authority,” as one of the four SSPX theologians said about the Roman theologians after the Doctrinal Discussions of 2009-2011. The SSPX is surely the last in line of the classic Congregations to be founded, at least until after the Chastisement. And it has not lasted long.

That is why, in my opinion, “What cannot be cured must be endured.” And that is why, right now, I envisage being little more than father, adviser and friend for any souls calling for a bishop’s leadership and support. Even that is task enough. May God be with us all.

Kyrie eleison.
 
 Contact Us:
Please write to the applicable email address from among the following with your questions, comments, or concerns:

letters@dinoscopus.org

- for comments to the author about a particular issue of Eleison Comments.

info@dinoscopus.org

- for general questions or comments.

admin@dinoscopus.org

- to resolve technical concerns or problems.

editorial@dinoscopus.org

- for back issues of Eleison Comments.

Donate
While Eleison Comments is provided free of charge, there are administrative and technical costs associated with making it available to subscribers worldwide and with operating this site. Contributions to offset these costs are appreciated, and may be made via the button below or by contacting:

donate@dinoscopus.org

paypal
 
 
© 2011-2013 Richard N. Williamson. All Rights Reserved.

A non-exclusive license to print out, forward by email, and/or post this article to the Internet is granted to users who wish to do so provided that no changes are made to the content so reproduced or distributed, to include the retention of this notice with any and all reproductions of content as authorized hereby. Aside from this limited, non-exclusive license, no portion of this article may be reproduced in any other form or by any other electronic or mechanical means without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review, or except in cases where rights to content reproduced herein are retained by its original author(s) or other rights holder(s), and further reproduction is subject to permission otherwise granted thereby.

Permissions inquiries should be directed to editorial@dinoscopus.org.
 
www.dinoscopus.org
 
 



................................................................
This email should only be sent to those who have asked to receive it. It is intended that this email be sent only to those who have asked to receive it, and who have completed a formal and completely voluntary subscription process. In the event you have received this message unwillingly, and/or you wish to unsubscribe from the mailing list, return to http://www.dinoscopus.org/english/eleisonenglish.html click the "unsubscribe" button after your email has been entered in the appropriate box. Otherwise, contact admin@dinoscopus.org with your concerns.  
 
 
 
 

It would seem I am rebuked.

It would seem His Excellency reads CathInfo.  Don't feel so bad.  It is what it is.

It would seem I am rebuked.

Thank you Sean, and welcome back!

If I may say so (before ducking back into my sabbatical):

1) This mindset is excessively legalistic;

2) The concern for the blessing of the churchmen seems to ignores the state of grave general spiritual necessity;

3) This state of grave general spiritual necessity imposes a duty on priests and bishops to supply for the needs of the faithful regardless of what the authorities will or will not approve;

4) According to the doctrine of necessity, the Church renders tacit approval to found a new congregation regardless of what the Church authorities think about it;

5) Because in necessity the churchmen have no power to withhold approval; jurisdiction springing from the request of the faithful.

6) That said, there is nothing in the annals of SSPX history to indicate that Archbishop Lefebvre would have sent his seminarians packing had he not gained the recognition of the Swiss bishop;

7) On the contrary, the SSPX has always taught that priests (and especially bishops) had a strict duty, in both justice and charity, to come to the aid of those caught in necessity requesting their help;

8) Which means Archbishop Lefebvre would have gone ahead with founding the SSPX regardless of what the heretical churchmen thought about it, because he could not avoid sinning against justice and charity had he abided by a refusal of official recognition.

9) This is the classical teaching of necessity championed by the SSPX, published in the Library forum on this website, and published in a 2-part Angelus series (beginning July-1999: The 1988 Episcopal Consecrations: A Theological Study).

10) No, Archbishop Lefebvre was going to found an organization regardless of what Rome said, because he had no other choice.  

11) That a bishop was found to (briefly) authorize it is irrelevant.

12) And that he went ahead with episcopal consecrations without approval (though in reality having the tacit approval because of necessity, just as Bishop Williamson has it today!), a more serious matter than starting a pius union, is the proof of it.

13) In other words, Your Lordship: You have official approval from the Church itself, and the refusal of the churchmen cannot obstruct the mandate.

God Bless Bishop Williamson!

Bishop Williamson shouldn't claim to have authority he doesn't have.

That doesn't mean he can't be a leader.

He has it.

Bishop François Charrière of Fribourg established, on a provisional (ad experimentum) basis for six years, the International Priestly Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) as a "pious union"..... In January 1975 the new Bishop of Fribourg stated his wish to withdraw the SSPX's pious union status. Though Lefebvre then had two meetings with the commission of Cardinals, the Bishop put his intention into effect on 6 May 1975, thereby officially dissolving the Society. This action was subsequently upheld by Pope Paul VI, who wrote to Archbishop Lefebvre in June 1975. (Extracted from Wikipedia).

Did Bishop Fellay write this particular EC? Or am I suffering from Mindrot?

A pious union doesn't have much authority anyway.

I commend Bishop Williamson for not setting himself as a figurehead of a new organization that would have such a risky prognosis.

Decentralization is the way to go until there are good bishops and a good Pope.

If ABL was concerned that he would be accused of trying to make himself
a pope, since the times today are about 5 times worse, it is quite simple
to expect that +W would have 5 times the concern for the same reasons.

With all the widely publicized criticisms against him, some even from within
the Traditional Catholic circles, can you imagine the uproar that would ensue
if he were to consecrate bishops now?  It would be headlines in all the
Zionist-friendly venues, to be sure.  Even as it is, they call him "convicted
h0Ɩ0cαųst denier" as though that were his official title, instead of "Bishop."


Those people are just waiting for the chance to denounce his name with
sky writing and tuxedo-with-a-microphone.   :reporter:  :soapbox: :cussing: