![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Excommunicated SSPX Bp. Williamson speaks
Over at our friends of Rorate there are excerpts of an interview with the ecommunicated SSPX Bp. Williamson.
Rorate has quite a few excerpts, and you should go there to see them, but I want to lift and post some here. These appear near the end.
My emphases and comments.
[REGULARIZATION OF THE SOCIETY]I sincerely pray for the day when the many good men in the ranks of the SSPX will be reconciled fully with the Church, whether in some juridical structure or other, ... However it happens, I long for it to happen. They will have so much to contribute to the good of the Church, the teaching of sound doctrine, pastoral zeal which I know many of them show generously. They had and have so much to contribute.
[16.] On the future, how would you envision a regularization of the Society if it were ever to come about?
Well, the Archbishop used to say, and he’s quite right: “Once Rome comes back to its senses, there is no more problem”. Already the Romans are making documents, it’s already lined up how they would do it. It’s paperwork, paperwork. [Probably not an entirely honest answer for someone who has such grave misgivings about doctrine since the Second Vatican Council. Sure… the excommunications can be lifted pretty easily. A structure for the Society could be created with a few strokes of a couple pens. But there will be a lot of debate about, especially, the Church’s teaching on religious liberty and, probably, social doctrinal documents.]
[THE TRANSALPINE REDEMPTORISTS]
[17.] Lastly, would you care to comment on the latest proceedings with the Redemptorists at Papa Stronsay?
It doesn’t look good, it looks like they are going to make an agreement with modernist Rome. So, in my opinion, that’s not a very good idea, because they will be obliged, more or less, to abandon the defence of the Faith. More or less. [Actually, if you consider it…. the SSPX heavy-weights really act as much like modernists as the old and new theological modernists do. They set themselves up as the arbiters of what is right and wrong without any serious reference to the Holy See. Some of them will even carefully attack Vatican I. Interesting no?]
[18.] How would the change you predict manifest itself?
They will no longer be able to freely criticize Vatican II, [piffle… anyone is free to criticize "Vatican II", properly understood. I believe Benedict XVI has himself criticized Councils, saying that there were Councils which perhaps should never have been held. Not everything about every Council is perfect. These things can be discussed. However, causing scandal and rifts in the Church is not the best way to go about it.] and they will come under pressure to celebrate the modern Mass, or at least attend the modern Mass with the local Bishop on a Good Thursday. [That is so very hard to do?] The New Church can hardly insist on less, it has to insist on that. [New Church… ]
[19.] Would you even consider the Redemptorists regularizing their situation with Rome treason?
Treason is a very strong word. I distinguish subjectively and objectively: objectively I think it’s more grave than subjectively. Subjectively I dare say they mean well, they have good intentions, and they are sincere. But objectively I think they are abandoning the true cause of the Faith, yes, they are essentially abandoning the true defence of the Faith, I would say. [In other words, he thinks they would be traitors to the cause. On the other hand, many of us who have not broken manifest unity with the Church sometimes think of certain traditionalists who opted out almost as deserters from the front line of battle.]
[20.] Should that be taken as your personal opinion or the position of the Society?
I think a number in the Society would share that opinion, yes, that they are objectively abandoning the true defence of the Faith. A number in the Society would take that position, and I think a number would also say, they nevertheless mean well, they’re sincere, they have good intention, they mean to defend the Faith, not to abandon the defence of the Faith. But the Archbishop was quite severe about those people who abandoned Tradition in those years, years back he was quite severe.
[21.] Saying that the Redemptorists at Papa Stronsay are abandoning Tradition could be perceived a just as strong a statement as calling it treason.
I didn’t say they are abandoning Tradition, I said they are abandoning the true defence of Tradition, which is a slightly different thing. They will still be defending Tradition to some extent, but they are abandoning the complete and true defence of Tradition.
[22.] Have you read anything of the way the Redemptorists are reasoning and considering their situation?
No, I haven’t. I don’t keep up with these things.
[23.] But surely people in central command have in order to properly deal with matters?
Of course. I’m not in central command, I’m not in headquarters. I’m way out in South America so I can enjoy the sunshine and forget about a lot of problems.
Sure… the excommunications can be lifted pretty easily. A structure for the Society could be created with a few strokes of a couple pens. But there will be a lot of debate about, especially, the Church’s teaching on religious liberty and, probably, social doctrinal documents. So, isn’t this what everyone wants, debate about the things that really matter and isn’t that debate when not acrimonious, helpful to the church at large?
I sincerely pray for the day when the many good men in the ranks of the SSPX will be reconciled fully with the Church, whether in some juridical structure or other, ... However it happens, I long for it to happen. They will have so much to contribute to the good of the Church, the teaching of sound doctrine, pastoral zeal which I know many of them show generously. They had and have so much to contribute. I couldn’t have said it better, Father, except to say that the entire society and other independents who dispute no doctrine or dogma should be welcomed into the fold. Frankly, I don’t believe there is as much difference over true doctrine or dogma as many would gave us believe.
Comment by Paul Haley — 12 June 2008 @ 12:07 pmI do not agree with the approach of the Society of St. Pius X to the problems in the Church today, but to be quite honest I think they do have a point. There are problems in the Church of which the liturgy is only the visible manifestation. A few words in Latin and some Roman vestments do no make one an orthodox Catholic. Unfortunately it is the deeper doctrinal problems the Church is facing which many- including those who push for a more traditional liturgy- tiptoe around.
I think elements in the SSPX might take some issues to the extreme, but at the very least they are speaking up when many others who enjoy better relations with Rome prefer to be silent.
The facts are plain. There is a clear rupture between pre-Vatican II theology and post-Vatican II theology- blame this on the spirit of Vatican II or the letter of Vatican, but it is still there. And lets face it, the theological issues are not limited to fringe scholars- they are working throughout the Church. Nor is Rome entirely innocent here.
I may not agree with the SSPX on everything, but for a moment lets listen to what they say about this matter, because at the moment they are the only ones saying it. We
Comment by Jonathan Bennett — 12 June 2008 @ 12:08 pm“central command”!
Sounds like the Romulan Star Empire and not the Church! ;-p
Comment by Mark M — 12 June 2008 @ 12:10 pmPlease excuse my “fat-fingering” in the previous post above when I should have hit the “h” key instead of the “g” key – “have us believe” instead of “gave us believe”. Serves me right for attempting to type from a laptop, eh?
Comment by Paul Haley — 12 June 2008 @ 12:19 pmFather I pray with you on this one. I know there are some extremist in the SSPX who may never accept Rome no matter what but there are many who are sincere in wanting things to work out but it will be a very winding road home.
Comment by AnnaTrad — 12 June 2008 @ 12:39 pmAs I see it the SSPX is showing a concern for the souls of the faithful which is not shared by most of the Church. One asks why the SSPX has not yet been “regularized” with a stroke of a pen- simply, because the Society does not wish orthodox faith to merely be one of many “valid expressions” of Catholicism.
Like I said, I do not agree with the SSPX on everything, nor their approach which tends to be “extraordinary times call for for extraordinary measures”, but at least they do not treat the faith as a buffet.
Comment by Jonathan Bennett — 12 June 2008 @ 12:47 pmI think that it will be interesting to see what happens once the Papa Stronsay Redemptorists come back into the Church. I wonder how the rest of the Redemptorist family will view them
With regard to Vatican I being disputed, this does not surprise me in the least. I once listened to a sedevacantism debate on the internet between Robert Sungenis and John Lane. Needless to say, it was extremely acrimonious with Sungenis being insulted over and over again and being asked to prove his ideas from theological manuals.
Nevertheless, there was a point of contention when it came to Vatican I and its statement on the perpetual successors of Peter. In fact, it was one of the sticking points of the debate. Sungenis brought up the topic over and over again to prove his point. It was interesting to note the other side’s reaction to this.
Comment by Brother Juniper — 12 June 2008 @ 1:26 pm“Romulan Star Empire” indeed. It is a very, very sad situation altogether. I’m certain many of those adhering to the SSPX are as saddened as those ‘on the inside’, but I do blame types such as Williamson for needlessly prolonging the agony. His words and actions have been severely divisive and I have a very hard time finding anything along the lines of humility or a longing for reconciliation in anything he does. The self-righteousness is excruciating.
And when a closely related group like the Transalpine Redemptorists take the awful trouble of exposing themselves to criticism from all sides, just to further the cause of God and Unity, he “[doesn’t] keep up with those things”. If he wants to ‘forget’ about all troubles and leave the work to ‘central command’, he shouldn’t presume to act as spokesman for the movement.
Much prayer needed, for everyone.
Comment by Stephen V. — 12 June 2008 @ 1:28 pmFather wrote:
Father,
Bishop Williamson said “Once Rome comes back to its senses…” That would imply no regularization until the doctrinal issues are worked out. So, the bishop is being 100% honest. He said the same thing in his interviews with Bernard Janzen years ago. “The SSPX is in the job to go out of business, we can be integrated into the normal structures of the Church easily.”
This is a straw man argument. The reference the SSPX uses is the Magisterium of the Church, not the Holy See which hasn’t invoked anything Magisterial to address this Crisis in over 50 years.
Come on Father. You don’t think anyone notices the silence from the clergy posters and yourself in these discussions when the blame gets put properly where it belongs? On Paul VI and JPII. It was Paul VI and JPII that caused rifts and scandal. Popes not stopping liberal bishops and liberal bishops not stopping liberal priests. If anything, the scandal was the Popes not supporting and encouraging LeFebvre and instead persecuting him!
And also, how can you spin “Not everything about every Council is perfect. These things can be discussed” when right above you accuse the SSPX of “carefully attacking Vatican I” ? How are we supposed to distinguish between “a careful attack” and “a discussion?”
That not the same thing in “other words.” He made the distinction between the subjective and objective. Traitors would imply a positive willingness to aid modernism in the Church.
Before anyone else was on the front line of battle, before people even acknowledged the existence of a front line, there was archbishop LeFebvre and Richard Williamson. The fact that they were shot in the back by the very papacy they were trying to protect is not their fault. Calling a man unjustly tarnished for fighting the good fight a “almost a deserter” is just perpetuating propaganda and doesn’t reflect the realities that confront us today and back in 1988. What freedoms we have for traditional practices today, we owe to men like LeFebvre, Williamson, Fr. Gommar DePauw, Fr. Vincent Miceli, Fr. Malachi Martin, Fr. Paul Wathens and others.
If the Popes had been equally as imperious in their treatment of liberals, you might have a case, but then again, if that had happened, there would have been no need for an SSPX.
Father, Instead of taking shots at Bishop Williamson from afar, I’ll suggest again you interview him yourself. I’m sure he’ll be willing to answer your questions and get into it with you as deeply as you like. You can argue the Summa with him or go over Pascendi and I’m sure he’ll keep up with you. I took the trouble to go and meet him and study him years ago and that was just so I’d know the truth firsthand before I wrote anything about him. Justice and Charity should require you to at least make the attempt.
Comment by Gerard — 12 June 2008 @ 1:29 pmThey do not treat the faith as a buffet? Well maybe not in some areas – they deserve credit for that. But in their respect and obedience to apostolic authority, they are cafeteria catholics. It’s truly a shame.
Comment by Matthew M. — 12 June 2008 @ 1:36 pmI don’t get it.
Comment by Corboy — 12 June 2008 @ 1:36 pmHe has a crack at the Papa Stronsay fellas for making an effort to be regularized but before that he tells us that there is paperwork from Rome effectively doing the same thing for the SSPX….I’m gunna go to work and not worry about it. I just hope they come back soon and help us all out.
And to risk being labeled a total sci fi geek: It’s “The Romulan Empire” and “Star Fleet” for any Trek fans out there.
Comment by Gerard — 12 June 2008 @ 1:40 pmDuring that interview, Father Z, maybe Bishop Williamson will once again reveal how 9-11 was a conspiracy of the US Gov. and how the Jews invented the holocaust to fuel Zionism.
Comment by Matthew M. — 12 June 2008 @ 1:44 pmThe “official” name of the Romulan Empire IS the “Romulan Star Empire.”
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Romulan_Star_Empire
Comment by Matthew — 12 June 2008 @ 1:49 pmThat’s not exactly accurate Matthew. They exhibit enormous respect for apostolic authority. They just have more respect for God and the salvation of souls. A Norbertine friend was asking me about the chapel I attend and when I told him pictures of the recent Popes were in the entranceways, he said, “That’s better than most parishes.” Also, you’ll actually hear a sermon in which Popes (yes even Paul VI and JPII and Benedict) are quoted in order to teach something valuable. (eg. the necessity of zeal to accompany the gaining of indulgences, Cardinal Ratzinger’s quotes about people no longer knowing how to pray with vigor etc.)
And remember, true obedience is required, not servility. But it seems the bishops are more tolerant of Fr. Pfleger in Chicago and prefer his kind of orthodoxy to anything resembling the Church prior to 1965.
Comment by Gerard — 12 June 2008 @ 1:51 pmGerard, as you know, the SSPX exists because of a