Lefebvrist bishop says no reconciliation with Rome

SpiritDaily ^ | September 17, 2005

[NYer]

From CW News:

Sep. 15 (CWNews.com) - A bishop of the schismatic Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has warned traditionalist Catholics the "heresy of neo-modernism" which, he says, now controls the Vatican.

In an email message to his supporters, Bishop Richard Williamson, an English-born prelate who now serves the SSPX in Argentina, said that there are enormous differences "between Catholic Tradition and the position's of today's Rome." He continued: "Between these positions, any reconciliation is impossible."

Bishop Williamson conceded that some traditionalists might accept an offer of reconciliation with the Vatican, but "the conciliar positions of today's Rome would still be as false as 2 and 2 are 5, while the Traditional positions would still be as true as 2 and 2 are 4."

The Lefebvrist bishop wrote his email message to explain why he had said-- prior to the September 1 meeting between Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) and Bishop Bernard Fellay, the head of the SSPX-- that traditionalists would not be reconciled with the Vatican. He explained that if some traditionalists were to reach an agreement with the Vatican, others would resist-- "that if the Society [of St. Pius X] were to rejoin Rome, the resistance of Catholic Tradition would carry on without it."

Bishop Williamson, the most outspoken figure in the SSPX, is one of the four bishops consecrated by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in June 1988, in defiance of an order from the Vatican, prompting Pope John Paul II (bio - news) to announce the excommunication of the traditionalist leaders.

[Teófilo]

The problem with schismatics is that over time, the reasons for their schisms have often been vindicated.

Really? Have we become Nestorians yet, or Monophysites, when we reconciled with some of these "Churches of the East" holding on to ancient schisms? Do you think that the Orthodox will be reconciled to the Church in spite of their sustained denial of Papal Supremacy, or that their view will be ever accepted as a matter of course?

I don't agree with your statement above.

As for the SSPXers who follow continue under Bishop Williamson and in schism in the event of the SSPX reconciliation with Rome, good bye and good riddance. They will be destined to wither in the vineyard.

-Theo

[Conservative til I die]

Gee. I'm really shocked. These folks are fringe loon wacko's and should be treated as such. Shake the dust off our shoes and have nothing more to do with them.

If some of them want to come back on *OUR* (read: The One True Catholic and Apostolic Church) terms, then so be it.

[anonymoussierra]

thank you"NYer"
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Those whom dare question His Majesty will have heavy heart very soon. Fore These people whom should lead us are abounding fundamental rule. Eto infore His Majesty will explain to them in way that is terrifying of explain I say let them of eto it will come to light of whom is whom. If people would only understand what is at stake. Let it be I say."
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
thank you all

[Conservative til I die]

I know quite a few good people in the SSPX, and I'll not write them off, personally. I tend to think that writing any one off is an entirely unchristian attitude, and contrary to the Gospel.

It is up to those good people then, to right themselves and try to avoid endangering their eternal souls by following this schismatic cult...er, sect. It's been made clear time and time again to Catholics that the SSPX is not to be followed. Their Latin services are not a substitute for the Novus Ordo or the Indult Latin Mass. Any nominally legitimate Catholics still following the SSPX at this point have made a conscious and intentional decision to leave the Catholic Church.

Our job is to help lead them out of that darkness by compassionately but firmly correcting their error. But I think a false sort of of ecumenism (similar to ecumenism towards Protestants and non-Christians) that legitimizes any more than a couple of the SSPX's complaints is a lie. The hardcore SSPXers have little to offer except bile and heresy, and it is incumbent on them to admit their errors and crawl back to the Church for forgiveness from God. I personally won't dignify people that say our Mass is illegitimate crap and that our Popes are heretics, losers, and antipopes.

[Conservative til I die]

I tend to think that writing any one off is an entirely unchristian attitude, and contrary to the Gospel.

Luke 9:1-5
1 He summoned the Twelve and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases,
2 and he sent them to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal (the sick).
3 He said to them, "Take nothing for the journey, neither walking stick, nor sack, nor food, nor money, and let no one take a second tunic.
4 Whatever house you enter, stay there and leave from there.
5 And as for those who do not welcome you, when you leave that town, shake the dust from your feet in testimony against them."


Matthew 18:15-17
15 "If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

[Conservative til I die]

Really? Have we become Nestorians yet, or Monophysites, when we reconciled with some of these "Churches of the East" holding on to ancient schisms?

We're in full communion with heretical Churches? As in still-heretical Churches, not those that have renounced their heresy. What the hell are you talking about? Really, now.

[bornacatholic]

And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican" (Matt., xviii, 17).

Catholic Encyclopedia Schism...

All the first Epistle of St. John is directed against contemporary innovators and schismatics; and the author regards them as so foreign to the Church that in contrast to its members "the Children of God", he calls them "the children of the devil", (I John, iii, 10); the children "of the world" (iv, 5), even Antichrist (ii, 22; iv, 3).

"A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid" (Tit., iii, 10)

*As a Christian, I recognize the truth a schism is a grave evil done to the Body of Christ. It is indefensible and no Christian Catholic, any where, any time, has ever advanced the notion it is ever permissible to cause a schism.

As in all previous schisms, there are those attracted to it whose culpability is questionable. All schisms have tended to attract those uncertain in the Faith. That a schism includes such individuals goes without saying, at least for me. What does not, for me, go without saying is I think it a disastrous idea to invite them back corporately. I pray for individual followers of the sspx to convert. As to them as a whole..please. They are demonstrably noxious nuts.

Repeatedly efforts/advances have been made to the sspx and its supporters. Those efforts are ridiculed and repulsed by the sspx. I think they are a disgrace and I suspect these meetings are a way to keep their followers in tow. "Look, we tried our level best but Rome refuses to renonce their modernism so we are forced to keep the Traditions alive; buy this book...."

It's leading light, Fr. Fellay publicly decribes the normative mass as evil. And he is the "best and the brightest" of the schismatics.

As a neo-whatever, I will obey whatever the Magisterium decides. That is what we neo-whatevers do.

I am just expressing my strongly held personal opinion that inviting back into the church the sspx as a whole is suicidal. It would be inviting back into the Body of Christ those who are unceasingly warring against it and would be an invitation to more mayhem and madness.

The Schism has been around a long time and there is not a solitary piece of evidence they have stepped back one iota from any of their insane and outrageous ideas.

And, as my Bible citations (I could post more) illustrate, my personal opinion is not contrary to the Gospel.

A quick check of the Early Church Fathers would illustrate that when it coms to schism, my language and position is mild.

[Teófilo]

I objected to the following original statement:

The problem with schismatics is that over time, the reasons for their schisms have often been vindicated.

I pointed out the absurdity of this statement by demonstrating its absurd, ultimate conclusion. Your beef is not with me, but with the original poster.

-Theo

[bornacatholic]

Amen, brother. That was spot-on and riotously funny at the same time

For some reason this schism is "good."

Does anyone read the Bible and the Early Church Fathers anymore? Read the Early Church Fathers on Schism. They make your ears blister and they tell today's sspx'ers they are headed for HELL.

Period

[bornacatholic]

Do you support the sspx?

Do you reject the Indult?

Do you think the normative mass evil?

[RKBA Democrat]

"Really? Like what? Gnosticism? Arianism? Calvinism?"

You're somewhat conveniently ignoring the larger schisms that have occurred, i.e. that between the Orthodox and the Catholic church, as well as the Protestant reformation.

Ultimately, I do think that both the Orthodox as well as the Protestants were somewhat vindicated in their positions. Were they right to schism? Not in my view. However, I might also note that several of the needed reforms of the church happened in response to schisms.

"Heresy is never vindicated, so if a schism is due to heresy, which SSPX has largely embraced, SSPX will never be vindicated. If the form of the liturgy is their only gripe, that, indeed, may be "vindicated", if only by universal indult."

You and I differ on several points. First, I believe that the underlying reasons for the SSPX schism has more to do with perceived heterodoxy in the western church than anything. I don't often like to get into the NO versus TLM controversy because I just don't have a dog in the fight. But I will point out that the transition was handled horribly. I think SSPX, particularly in the US, rose from legitimate grievances regarding that transition and widespread heterodoxy in the western church.

I find it interesting that you mention the indult mass. Do you believe that the universal indult would be being considered at this poiint or that indult masses would even be an option if there weren't an SSPX to force the issue? Or is it mere coincidence that the location of of many indult parishes is within close proximity of SSPX chapels?

[escapefromboston]

neo-modernism?

Isn't that redundant?

[NYer]

The four Society bishops are of one mind in holding that on the one hand the Second Vatican Council imperiled the dogma of the Faith, but on the other hand the authorities of the official Church are to be respected as such; that the rescue of the Catholic Church depends on their returning to the positions of Catholic Tradition, and so the Society must do all it can to help along such a return

Not sure precisely what Williamson intends by 'Catholic Tradition' since it is not spelled out in this email. However, it is not surprising to see rifts within the "Traditionalists". Once separated from the Magisterium, groups must rely upon their own understandings and formulations.

The "Traditionalists" who do not return will fracture like other catholic dissident groups that refused to recognize Vatican Council I, etc. Christ remains with His Church; that is His promise, not man's.

[vox_freedom]

The chances of SSPX ever being vindicated are none and less than none.

Note to self, save this quote to serve it back as crow when Pope Benedict XVI makes his decision to clarify the excom issue and invites all priests everywhere to offer the 1962 Missal Traditional Latin Mass.

This statement is just as bold as the loud predictions, upon the death of John Paul II, that Cardinal Ratzinger had absolutely no chance at becoming Pope.
So sad, too bad...