20 June 2013

Bishop Williamson: "Do I have any candidates offering themselves for consecration as bishops?"

From the Tales from Out There division comes the latest Eleison Comments from His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson, formerly of the SSPX and now free-floating in the land of the pseudo-Sede independents.

(An aside: Anyone who reads my blog will know that I have sympathy for the Society and think that they have had cause to claim unjust treatment, at least until sometime after the Motu Proprio and the lifting of the excommunications.  A reader will also know that I don't think the consecrations of the four bishops were justifiable at the time.  The fallout from them of course resonates, and though they have done undoubted good work since then, there has been also the obvious negative fallout. This paragraph is but a summary and a background for your convenience, as the history of the matter is not capable of pithy comment, and I give the benefit of the doubt for good faith to all Catholics of good will on both sides of this unfortunate rift.)

That being said, this Bishop Williamson thing is Exhibit 231 in the dossier of why the consecrations were not a good idea, and why the SSPX needs to become regularized ASAP.

It seems Bp. Williamson seeks candidates for episcopal consecration, and his matter of advertizing it is a bit cavalier.  A trial ballooon, perhaps, but a weird one, consistent with the womenpriest-on-a-barge crowd.  Sad. The last thing anybody needs is a proliferation of non-papally-approved lines of bishops causing a true schism.  The more toothpaste that gets squeezed from the tube, the harder it is to get it back in.

Excerpts from the Eleison Comments I pulled from Fisheaters:

15 June 2013

A number of readers complained at the “Eleison Comments” of two weeks ago on authority being crippled. From its argument that on this side of the “imminent Chastisement” no further Catholic Congregation can be founded on a normal Catholic basis, they concluded that I believe there is nothing more for a bishop to do than to wait for God to intervene. But in that case why did I just spend two weeks in Asia, and why am I now in Ireland ? Likewise they conclude that I will never consecrate another bishop. I say – God willing – just wait.

In fact there is a great deal for a bishop to do to visit and encourage souls striving to keep the Faith when Headquarters of the Society of St Pius X is obviously still intent upon taking it into the arms of Conciliar Rome. On June 17 Bishop Fellay wrote to Benedict XVI, “I do intend to continue to make every effort to pursue this path (of reconciliation with Rome) in order to arrive at the necessary clarifications”. And in the same vein, “Unfortunately, in the present situation of the Society” Rome’s counter-proposal of June 13 to his Doctrinal Declaration of mid-April “will not be accepted.” Then it would have been fortunate if the Society had accepted Rome’s terms ?

[...]His astonishing ability to move the mental furniture around in his mind deserves an “Eleison Comments” all on its own, but in the meantime is it any wonder if what is coming to be called the “Resistance” is rising spontaneously all over the world ?

[...]Truth will undermine this ExSPX, as Fr Chazal calls it, just as truth is undermining the Newchurch of the Novus Ordo.

Here are many souls to sustain on their way to Heaven. Do I have any candidates offering themselves for consecration as bishops ?

Kyrie eleison.

Kyrie eleison indeed.  What a mess.


TLMer said...

Toward my tradversion, I really considered attending SSPX services, but after reading through their materials, as well as others, I concluded that they were taking a more extreme view of issues than I was comfortable doing, and since I was also a convert, I already had some sensitivity toward Protestantism, which is what SSPX's positions felt like to me. I wish them the best, and concur with Timman that the sooner they become canonically regular, the better for all.

Matthew Rose said...

Note: I attend a "full communion" TLM.

That being said, the assertion that +Williamson is of the same sort as the wymnpryst crowd is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. I would rather say something stronger, but it would be inappropriate. The insanity of this comment is nearly beyond belief. The Bishop denies no article of the Faith, unlike most "full-communion" priests and Bishops, let alone the women priests, and he fights for the True Faith without compromise. The same cannot be said for most ICRSS and FSSP priests.

dolorosa said...

Very interesting youtube on the
SSPX crisis:


Anonymous said...

Todo muy lindo.. pero que hacemos con la libertad religiosa, el falso ecumenismo profesado por el CVII, etc, etc, etc, etc...

thetimman said...

Mathew Rose,

I certainly did not make him equivalent to the womenpriest crowd, but rather that such tactics as evidenced in his comments are reminiscent of them. It is a sign that I would expect better from him.

I cannot speak for either society you mention, and I cannot speak of extensive experience with the FSSP. But your contention that ICRSS priests compromise the faith is indeed laughable. I will suppose you do not belong to an Institute apostolate or else you would not say such.

My amigo español,

Verdad, pero los dos no son relacionados.

Long-Skirts said...

Timman said:

"... this Bishop Williamson thing is Exhibit 231 in the dossier of why the consecrations were not a good idea,"

Judas, who was chosen by Christ as one of the first Bishops turned against Our Lord...perhaps this "Judas" thing exhibits why Jesus shouldn't have started the Catholic Church?

Today, June 21, 2013, the feast of St. Aloysius, 12 men will be ordained to the priesthood: 11 from the SSPX, and one from the Dominican convent of Avrillé, France. In addition, 6 will be ordained to the diaconate at the SSPX Seminary, St. Thomas Aquinas, in Winona, Minnesota.

Since the 1988 consecrations, Seminaries, Convents, Monasteries, Retreat Houses, many schools for our childrens minds & souls and other Traditional Orders saying the Tridentine Mass...sounds like it was a good idea to me:


thetimman said...

Long Skirts, I have no problem acknowledging the many good works of the SSPX. I just think that there are some unfortunate consequences of the consecrations, too. No one can know, in this life, what would have happened otherwise.

Long-Skirts said...

Timman said:

"No one can know, in this life, what would have happened otherwise."

"If you are what you should be, you will set the whole world ablaze!"
(Saint Catherine of Siena)

long pants said...

While a diminishing few continue wringing their hands over all this SSPX nonsense, the rest of the church is moving in a different direction. We're finally back on the road to relevancy.

"The war between the Liberation Theology movement and Rome is over"

Long-Skirts said...

thetimman said...

"Long Skirts...No one can know, in this life, what would have happened otherwise."

but just IMAGINE...

Imagine no Tradition
It's easy if you try
No filled-up Seminaries
Just modernist blue sky

Imagine all the people
No True Mass Priests could say - ay - ay - ay - ay

You might say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
Fr. Kung and McBrien
Hoped the Church would be undone

Imagine there's no Lefebvre
It's easy if you try
Just a service by the people
With a little help from our friends we'd get by

Imagine all the people
No Mass with Priest to say - ay -ay -ay - ay

You might say I'm a dreamer
Twas Lefebvre who squashed our fun
But I hope that you will join us
In our world without the Son!

Anonymous said...

It is incredibly destructive to believe that the Church is on the road to some perceived relevancy under the framework of Liberation Theology. I guess it would make sense though if you count balloon Masses and heretical Redemptorists relevant.

Also, I would like to know of what the other 230 exhibits consist in the Dossier that would invalidate the consecrations? Perhaps I missed that Primer? I get the hyperbole; your point that the consecrations shouldn't have taken place was crystal. Consider if there were no consecrations. Would we have had an indult Mass established, or the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum? Would we have Traditional communities in the Church, thriving or otherwise? 

Like it or not we owe a continued gratitude to many in the Society who courageously led, and continue to lead the Church from the brink of losing a large measure of its sacred identity to modernistic tendencies. Unfortunately Bishop Williamson has chosen his own road, but ALL Catholics need to work, and pray, and sacrifice, and pray some more for regularization.


Peggy R said...

I don't know why exactly, but my first thought is the Gen Pickett quote: "I have no division." I don't think Bp. Williamson realizes that yet.

Long-Skirts said...

Anonymous said...

"It is incredibly destructive to believe that the Church is on the road to some perceived relevancy under the framework of Liberation Theology"

Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller said:

"'Liberation Theology'...should in my opinion be included among the most important CURRENTS in 20th century Catholic theology."


Forward in reverse
Tradition is perverse
The German states he's first
Among his equals immersed.

Except the one true one
Detested by this Hun
He is the Rhine's own son
Where Luther took his nun.

His father is the land
The land of heretics' stand
His master race has planned
Again to take command

And bring across the sea
A Liberation Theology
Concentrating you and me
In a Peter-less kind of ecology

But in a catacomb
Deep under Peter's Dome
There are men true to Rome
Though Hun denies them home.

Young Priests they're cassock strong
A universal throng
Four corners they belong
The Credo is their song.

From Seminary's grave
They rise for souls to save
Men brown, white, black and brave
Real men for us Christ gave.

The Rhine they will reverse
While Hun lies in his hearse
Tradition's Truth traverse
Take back Our Lady's purse!

Rory said...

All I hear about is the rebellion of 1988 from the neo-Catholic crowd when the consecrations of the bishops seems to me to follow from the actions taken by the Archbishop beginning after May 8, 1975. I don't think the neos have much clue about the history of events and so I expect such a superficial analysis from them.

So my question for you, Timman, who has accumulated so much evidence of the deep damage done to Holy Mother Church because Mgr. Lefebvre consecrated four bishops to succeed him at death, is about why you begin with 1988? If he had to obey modern Rome in 1988, why not 1987, why not 1977?

1988 happened because Rome was not to be trusted. Fifteen years of duplicitous behaviors had informed Mgr. LeFebvre that the authorities in Rome had no newfound love for Tradition, but rather they were waiting for his death, and the death of everything he stood for.

If Rome was to be trusted and obeyed in 1988, why aren't you criticising Mgr. Lefebvre for his rebellion in failing to dismiss the 117 seminarians and professors at Econe immediately upon receiving word of the suppression of the seminary in May 1975, two months before ordinations? Surely all he needed to do was obey and then Rome would most assuredly have accomodated us with the unadulterated tradition of Ecclesia Dei priests and churches? The Motu Proprio would have been sounded by Paul VI and nobody would be excommunicated? Hurrah?

Think about it. If 1988 is such a clear disaster, maybe it was because Mgr. Lefebvre never learned to obey every Vatican prelate or commission claiming to represent the pope, even if he thought it was a danger to the faith? He should have obeyed every Vatican commission or prelate even if their actions against him did not follow canonical procedures? He should have obeyed the unpredictable whims of a pope who apparently has no Traditional conscience, and has recently convoked a meeting hoping that God will hear prayers for world peace when the vicar of Christ joins with witch doctors and shamans carrying voodoo dolls to a Catholic church?

Timman, when does the "mess" caused by Mgr. Lefebvre begin for you? Are you saying everything was good until 1988? I think I can make a strong case, too, perhaps not with 231 exhibits, that Mgr. Lefebvre's actions in 1988 were imprudent only if he had been imprudent for the previous 18 years. If 1988 was a mess, so was 1975, and I daresay that some of your beloved Ecclesia Dei priests were among those 104 seminarians that Mgr. Lefebvre refused to hand over to the wolves in May 1975 (the Year of Reconciliation).

I don't see any possible way to approve of 1970-1988, while condemning consecrations in 1988. I cannot possibly see how to divide it up that way. One day, the full light of evidence will be shined upon the calumnies and injustices that were endured by a vilified and despised servant of God. Whether in this life or the next, I am confident that we will see that from beginning to end, Mgr. Lefebvre was faithful to his commission to "pass on that which he received".

traddadof4 said...

As Bishop Williamson once said: "All traditionalists are in a tug-of-war with modernism. Some are pulling on the front of the rope. The SSPX, on the other hand, is the fat boy at the back with the end tied around his waist."

Bishop Williamson has just come to believe that the SSPX is no longer fulfilling that "fat kid" role.

And if the fat kid loosens the rope .. for even a second ... the whole line goes! Do you think the forces against the church are not stronger than they have ever been?

Athelstane said...

Helllo Long Pants,

While a diminishing few continue wringing their hands over all this SSPX nonsense, the rest of the church is moving in a different direction. We're finally back on the road to relevancy.

There's a well known saying in Latin America: “The Church opted for the poor, and the poor opted for the Pentecostals.”

If you are not feeding their souls, it's irrelevant in the end how much you're feeding their bodies. Nothing can make you so irrelevant as grasping desperately for "relevancy." In any event, it's a little early for Sandro Magister to draw these conclusions.

Rory said...

It so happens that at the time you were making this blog entry about Bp. Williamson, I was beginning a re-read of the Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre by Michael Davies. The most striking part of the first of the three volumes is the manifest injustice of the original suspensions, which are all but forgotten by almost everybody who now expresses their opinion about the consecrations.

Given my clear position, with a son in the SSPX Seminary, I do not present myself as an unbiased bystander. Sadly, neither can I consider my recent post as a dispassionate and charitable attempt to defend the Archbishop.
The day after my comment appeared, I felt bad about a subtle attack at something to which you Timman, are ardently attached, and understandably so. I refer to the remarks about "your beloved Ecclesia Dei priests". (Was it so subtle that you missed it?)

But what was said is done and while I would like to imagine that I will in the future avoid "bitter zeal", I may or may not succeed. Of course I would hope to repair any injury you may have felt at my remark Tim.

I was continuing my reading today and came upon a passage which was taken from a conference Mgr. Lefebvre gave at Econe on Sept. 18, 1976. He was explaining to the seminarians his recollection of the sudden interview he had recently been given to His Holiness Pope Paul VI:

"Because we have the conviction that we are upholding the Truth, Truth must pilot our course, Truth must convince. It is not our person, it is not outbursts of anger, or insults to people, which will give added weight to Truth. On the contrary, that could cast doubt upon our possession of the Truth. Becoming angry and insulting shows that we do not completely trust in the weight of Truth, which is the weight of God Himself...So let us resolve that in our expressions and attitudes we shall not despise and insult people, but be firm against error. Absolute firmness, without compromise, without relaxation, because we are with Our Lord-it is a question of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The honor of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the glory of the Blessed Trinity is at stake-not the infinite glory in heaven, but the glory here below on earth. It is Truth; and we defend it at any cost, whatever happens." (Vol. 1, P.288)

I can not retract any of the substance of what I said. I am sorry for my remark. You were probably unhurt, but it was intended as an arrow and what I have just read is what decided me to express myself this way.

It is my hope, however, that from this evil good may come. I earnestly implore you Tim, if you never have, to obtain and read Michael Davies "dossier of 2,231 exhibits" showing step by step what spirit guided the words and acts of Abp. Lefebvre. While it is certainly intended as a defense, it is abundant in sound spiritual advice needed more than ever by all Catholics who love Holy Mother Church, as I am confident you do.

Yours very truly,


thetimman said...

Rory, I don't think I've ever been offended by you. Your first comment went unanswered in the bustle to get my family out the door on vacation.

I would be happy to read Davies. Until then perhaps I am unqualified to respond to your every point. I will venture to say that it is precisely because the only binding authority AL defied was in 1988, when clear canon law was against him.

1988 was not strictly necessary to ensure the continuation of the Society, you cannot say so.

As a lawyer, I can fashion arguments for the conduct of AL until 1988. I can also understand those for 1988, but it strikes me that those arguments rely on very shaky presuppositions.

Please don't worry about giving offense anymore. You're too scrupulous ;-). I suspect you have about 25 IQ points on me anyway, so I need more effort to take you on. Also, this issue is obviously dear to you, and your points are ready at hand.

I have always sympathized with the plight of the SSPX for lots of reasons-- among them that the have all the right enemies. But that by itself would not be enough.

I'll try to score a copy of Davies' book and get back here.

You are welcome to comment anytime.

Anonymous said...

Come on people, you are missing the point, our Great Church is corrupt and under the control of murderous, lying, Freemasons. (see JP1). The plan took more than a century to take effect and two years before what would be the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima they made their move and usurped the power of the Church by putting a Freemason on the throne Peter (see padre pio chiesa viva, by Fr. Villa, do it now!) The destruction of the Church is at hand, from within, the Great Apostasy of Sacred Scripture. Bishop Williamson is a courageous soul and should be leading the Resistance, or the biblical "remnant" as I call it. Please face the facts. Look at Hugh Akers blog and read his books. God bless you all.