Since faith is one, it must be professed in all its purity and integrity". Pope Francis/Pope Benedict

Thursday, 23 August 2012

Rome-SSPX: Disobeying the Pope

The protestant neo-"traditionalist" Richard Williamson writes the following in his latest blog entry

"Thus conciliar Romans are driven by Vatican II as being their central notion to undo the SSPX that rejects Vatican II, and until they either succeed or change that central notion, they will continue to be driven to dissolve Archbishop Lefebvre’s SSPX. On the contrary the central drive of clergy and laity of the SSPX should be to get to Heaven, the idea being that Heaven and Hell exist, and Jesus Christ and his true Church provide the one and only sure way of getting to Heaven. This driving doctrine they know to be no fanciful invention of their own, and that is why they do not want it to be undermined or subverted or corrupted by the wretched neo-modernists of the Newchurch, driven by their false conciliar notion of God, man and life. The clash is total".

In contrast to Williamson's schismatic attitude of "conciliar Roman" and "neo-modernists of the Newchurch" as he indulges in taking upon himself the power to judge the Magisterium, I answer with the words of Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton [Episcopal Jurisdiction and the Holy See, American Ecclesiastical Review Vol. CXX, Jan-Jun. 1949]:

More than a year before the publication of Mystici corporis the Holy Father brought out the same truth in his pastoral allocution to the parish priests and Lenten preachers in Rome. In his address he taught that the Vicar of Christ on earth is the one from whom all the other pastors in the Catholic Church "receive immediately their jurisdiction and their mission" [c.f. Osservatorre Romano, Feb. 18, 1942]. ... Finally it signifies that any bishop not in union with the Holy Father has no authority over the faithful". 

Therefore, given that Williamson is (nominally) a bishop without a mission and faithful, but also a schismatic, why write about him? The answer is simple. He has the power to ordain and consecrate; he is a dangerous man to the degree that he can seduce and induce into schism, simple and uneducated Catholics. He has, it would unfortunately seem, a following in various protestant countries. This seems logical, given that simple Catholics breath the protestant individualism that surrounds them in their daily life, and then have it reinforced by Williamson's  neo-protestant ravings (along with the requisite pre-conciliar liturgical expressions). All very interesting, but besides the point. Attendance at a Tridentine Mass is not the litmus test of a Catholic. Unity with the Pope is. 


Freyr said...

Williamson is a protestant who believes he IS the magisterium. He is of a particular danger to Catholics who have become so infected with the principle of private interpretation that they will take the sacraments from anyone, however isolated from the Catholic Church they may be.

Young Canadian RC Male said...

Freyr and Barona. This is all good and well and your points are validly taken, but more frustration and anger should be directed at the true core of SSPX, who are being obstinate and disappointing to ALL Catholics including those of us who want them in full communion to bolster the Latin Mass. We're not going to them without canonical recognition. No way I and others want to put our souls in schism or receive illegitimate sacraments. Why aren't you guys then criticizing the true SSPX, when we already know Williamson is a Crackpot who's been exiled?

Freyr said...

That's actually a good point. What is needed is a reliable way to discern the difference between a catholic and a protestant in principle. It's not as easy as it sounds because a lot of folks are fooled by sights, sounds and emotions. Bells and smells do not make one a catholic and discernment is unfortunately a lost art.

Freyr said...

By the way I was just thinking ... I usually capitalize catholic and church when they refer to the whole Church and not when they refer to a particular church or building unless it is part of the name. Not exactly working with a hard and fast style sheet here... What's really got me intrigued is why you have Crackpot capitalized?

Barona said...

Good points all around. Yes, the SSPX does need to explain why it continues to move the goals posts vis-a-vis their position on "marriages" in their chapels; as well as thew preposterous notion of "marriage tribunals". On this latter point the Church has never granted such powers to any religious order. This is a power granted only to diocesan bishops. On the first point, the incredibly weak argument that the SSPX had to "witness" the "marriage" due to: a lack of the traditional liturgy and modernist (there you go again!!!) clergy teaching immorality to engaged couples.

Basically, the SSPX has been behaving as if the local hierarchy has completely defected and ceased to exist. Unlike the Modernists (yes, they do exist) the SSPX fell into the trap of trying to take upon themselves control over the sacramental discipline. The Modernists were far smarter in never trying such a useless trick. It is time for the SSPX to stop waiting for the "perfect" Church made up of "perfect" people. This is another fine trick to refuse obedience.

I was just reading last evening about the on-going struggles of the Papacy against the state. Simony, monarchical appointments and control of bishoprics was a multi-papal struggle... a wave of the magic wand did not do away with evil princes. Nor, will Richard Williamson's proposal of throwing Vatican II in the trash solve the Church's problems. In a sense, SSPX activity is a type of neo-Gallicanism. The SSPX should realize that the Papacy is in a much stronger position than in most of the Church's history.
The Papacy is strong, but the episcopacy is weak. Local clergy are confused, the laity are ignorant and uneducated. But haven't we been through all this before? The solution is not to flee like a coward but to help the Papacy.

city said...

thanks for posting.