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.

[TheGeezer]

Lefebvre abandoned the Church when he abandoned obedience to the bishop of Rome. In doing so, he implicitly denied papal teaching authority, placing his own intuition and opinions above those of Christ's vicar on earth. That, in my understanding, constitutes heresy.

Lefebvre wrote:

To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries stood as a sign and pledge of unity in worship, and to replace it with another liturgy which, due to the countless liberties it implicitly authorizes, cannot but be a sign of division, a liturgy which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith, is, we feel bound in conscience to proclaim, an incalculable error."

Now, whose teaching authority is greater: Lefebvre's, or conciliar joined with papal approval? The contradiction of scandalous public disobedience with assertions of adherence to what the Church "really" teaches might drive one insane if one did not embrace the obvious irony. This is what the SSPX claims to this very day, to be obedient to the papacy, even if by its very existence and apology it is not!

John Paul the Great thought the errors of the SSPX severe enough to forbid Catholics to belong to it:

"I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the church’s law" (Ecclesia Dei 5c). [emphasis added]

Disobedience in SSPX is implicitly heretical.

[TheGeezer]

And there are the stiff-necked SSPX rebels who would grind papal authority under their fancy little heels in order to advance the cause of their offended liturgical tastes almighty or their ongoing rebellion against Vatican II.

Man, I wish I hd written that! It sounds like St. Jerome vitriol, and that is throughly admirable. Regards.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

The mini-popes of FR couldn't find their backside with a map. They'll be strangely silent when BXVI blows all their little theories out of the water.

[BlackElk]

You will search in vain for any post by me to the effect that Josef Cardinal Ratzinger would not be elected. There were a few Third World cardinals that might have made good popes but the Vietnamese Cardinal who was Thuc's nephew died of stomach cancer a couple of years ago and Francis Cardinal Arinze and Dario Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos were not elected this time.

Since you seem too mired in inaccuracy to remember, my Bishop Thomas Doran has told his priests that they are all welcome to celebrate Tridentine Masses and he does so himself on occasion as well as confirming Catholics in the Tridentine rite at St. Mary's Oratory in Rockford. A decision by Benedict XVI to grant a universal indult will be welcomed in my home and in my diocese for the sake of the CATHOLIC faithful who are deprived of the Tridentine by their diocesan bishops who also seem not to get the message although they have yet to do "do it yourself" consecrations of bishops not chosen by the pope.

I will admit that it is not probable that a good pope like Benedict XVI would make the schizzies run the gauntlet as I would but he is pope and he gets to make the decisions.

There ios NOTHING about the excommunications and declaration of schism of SSPX that needs clarifying. JP the Great did those in Ecclesia Dei in 1988 and never relented. As with most schizzies, you want to see one pope contradict another to undermine papal authority.

Oh well, we can count on Williamson as a continuing icon of schism. Does his nibs also believe that the Holocaust never occurred? Do you? That the earth is flat? Do you?

[TheGeezer]

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.

Well, I think citing Calvin, perhaps the most erudite Protestant theologian, qualifies as not overlooking the Reformation? ;>)

The Orthodox schism, by the way, occurred more for political than theological reasons, since if Western Europe had responded with military effectiveness to rescue Constantinople from the Muslim invaders, there probably would not have been a schism.

Besides, what has been vindicated by the Orthodox schism? A few Orthodox churches are now teaching contraception and "situational" abortion as normative, morally. That, certain, is not a vindication of separation from papal teaching authority.

...

However, I might also note that several of the needed reforms of the church happened in response to schisms.

Many reforms of the Church have occurred without schisms as well. I think of St. Francis, for one.

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.

There was heterodoxy, but not by Vatican II. That's the amazing thing about claims of heterodoxy of Vatican II: in the official documents of Vatican II, you can't find it. Where do you find it is in the writing and teaching of radical-chic-lesbian-nun-socialist-liberation-theology-priests who claim to adhere to the spirit of Vatican II without actually studying it.

As an example, Vatican II did not teach that all religions are equal. It did not teach that salvation was possible outside the Church. What it DID teach was that governments must not coerce religious conviction from its citizens, but instead that religious liberty was a fundamental human right. And why did it do that, except to try to end the slaughter of Catholics living under all sorts of anti-Catholic governments everywhere? It changed no fundamental teaching of the Church. It expressed an understanding that was a defense of its flock against political forces wishing to destroy it. It was, if you will, an antiestablishmentarian teaching trying to preserve lives.

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?

There is no issue being forced. The TM is not necessary for salvation, for grace, for the Holy Eucharist. The indult mass is merely a means through which to attract souls back into the Church, to draw them away from the schimatic SSPX.

Or is it mere coincidence that the location of of many indult parishes is within close proximity of SSPX chapels?

I do not know if that is true; even if it is, however, if an indult mass attracts one away from heretical proests and illicit liturgy, so much the better.

Regards.

[BlackElk]

VA: Let me see if I understand your remarkably twisted claim. As a Lefebvrite, YOU are questioning The Geezer's faith for his faithfulness to the Roman Catholic Church and his rejection of the SSPX schism of excommunicated bishops, adherents and other taste-offended miscreants????? Last I checked, St. Paul, St. Athanasius and St. Joan of Arc are ours and not yours. You are limited to three dead excommunicated bishops but have no way to canonize them, understandably.

[BlackElk]

VA: How would you know from the outer darkness of your schism how Catholics behave? We defend our Church and revile its enemies (SSPX, for instance)

[TheGeezer]

Your understanding of heresy is faulty. According to your understanding, Sts. Paul, Athanasius and Joan of Arc were all heretics. Actually, Athanasius was declared heretic at least once, and perhaps twice, if I recall corectly. He was rehabilitated but relapsed in his old age.

St. Paul did not deny St. Peter's teaching authority when debating circumcision in particular and adherence to the Mosaic law in general, at the First Council of Jerusalem - is that what you are referring to? St. Peter agreed after listening to the argument that St. Paul was correct. St. Paul didn't go about claiming that his teaching authority was superior to the pope's, as Lefebvre did and the SSPX does.

Joan of Arc is an interesting citation. I wasn't aware of a controversy there, unless you are referring to the English burning her at the stake, which was thoroughly condemned by Rome...

[BlackElk]

Which of Daneels, Mahony, Hubbard, Kaspar, or McCarrick have taken it upon themselves to figuratively spit in the face of Pope John Paul the Great, massacre their vows of obedience as to the consecration of other bishops, all so that they can be sure that rebels like themselves will succeed them or the apostles? Answer, none, even among that abysmal gang of 5 AmChurch execrables.

Now, Marcel the Malignant DID take it upon himself to do each of those things at Econe in 1988. Can there be a more criminal act in the Roman Catholic Church than the illicit consecration of rebel bishops????? Grand theft ecclesiastical?????

[TheGeezer]

I certainly will refresh my understanding of the differences.

A thought, however, for you: when one publicly teaches as a truth something directly contradicting a teaching of the Catholic Church, that is heresy.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The Patriotic Association is a clerical society, not a Church. One cannot be baptized into a clerical society.

If it was a seperate Church, there would be no more reason for the Vatican to get upset when they consecrate Bishops than when the Swedish Lutherans do.

I didn't say the CPA Bishops are in the Church. But neither are they a Church.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

What has the CPA been doing for the past 50 years? Consecrating "bishops" licitly?

The CPA has been enoining ilicit consecrations of diocesean Bishops without a Pontifical Mandate.

The SSPX Bishops are prancing about as Episcopi Vagantes - Bishops at Large with no jurisdiction.

There is a world of difference there, however I don't know if you are astute enough to see it.

[BlackElk]

Not that I would not gladly see Mahony and Hubbard incarcerated for life by civil authorities for crimes, and the two of them plus Kaspar, Daneels and McCarrick deposed from their positions of authority and executed if that salutary remedy were still available. Likewise, Fellay, Marcel (if he were still available), Williamson, et al.

Also that would be 4 AmChurch execrables plus Kaspar.

[TheGeezer]

Marcel the Malignant

More Jeromic cheekiness!

I will have to write it down so it is not lost in my short-term memory quagmire!

Regards.

[murphE]

John Paul the Great thought the errors of the SSPX severe enough to forbid Catholics to belong to it:

LOL! Pul- leeze. And yet he thought good ole Cardinal Mahony, Cardinal Kasper and the rest just ducky. Yup the only disobedience worthy of punishment is disobedience done to ensure the continuation of the Mass of the saints, the traditional formation of priests, and the traditional faith.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

murph, they make this stuff up as they go along. It's too bad they don't have enough sense to see they are embarrassing themselves.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

It's not at all ironic. Schism breeds further schism. It has always been that way. Once you set yourself up as "knowing better" than the buck-stops-here-authority, there's really nothing to prevent someone else seting himself up as "knowing better" than you. Notice the fissiparity of Protesantism--initially one, then within 4 years (1517-1521) two (Zwingli, Luther), then another 4 years 3 (Anabaptists in Zurich), then an explosion of Anabaptist sects, plus Calvin and the race was on. There may have been 20 or 25 significant groups after 25 or 30 years, a few hundred by the 1700s, then perhaps a thousand by the late 1800s and the splitting knows no end. Schism is schism-producing.

And before anyone protests that the SSPX doesn't intend to split from Rome--that's exactly what Luther insisted he did not intend--even as he did it. He only wanted to correct the bad portion of the Church--for him, the entire papal/episcopal Church; for the SSPX, the infected Vatican II papacy. But the reasoning used by both is remarkably similar. And Luther had absolutely no defense against Zwingli's rival interpretation of Scripture. He could pound the table and shout and tell Zwingli he was wrong, but he lacked any authority that Zwingli could be expected to recognize and submit to because Luther had claimed for himself the authority to sit in judgment on the pope. The pigeons he launched simply came home to roost.

[sitetest]

Good post. Well put. Thanks.