Bishop Williamson continues to trod down a path remarkably different than Archbishop Lefebvre's

+
JMJ

As long anticipated, Bishop Williamson has finally put forth his foot to trod yet another step off the path set for the SSPX by Archbishop Lefebvre.

He has consecrated a Bishop and hinted that this was but a test before he turns on the 'bishop mill'.   I suspect that Bishop Williamson's decision will, as in the salt-mill legend, sink the boat of the resistance.

Why?

Because now instead of a loose association of priests (and one bishop), it is quite possible that the 'resistance' will now devolve into a loose association of 'bishops' (and one priest) and soon there-after a new variant of the sede-vacantists/schismatics will fully take hold.  After all it is Bishop Williamson who said, in answer to Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, we are not part of the same Church.  He is simply following his principles to their logical end.

The following three SSPX articles provide a counter-point to the 'rationale' provided by Bishop Williamson et al.

While I am confident that the 'died in the wool' (pun intended) 'resistors' will shunt the perspective of the SSPX aside, just as they cast aside Catholic Teaching (see here and here), there is still hope for those who as merely confused by the conspiracy theories uttered by the 'resistance'.

This issue with Bishop Williamson et al is, at the root, theological error (ie at least a lesser degree of heresy), compacted with a hint of schism and a dash of conspiracy theory to add flavour.

It won't be too long before this concoction fully ripens.


P^3









Communiqué of the General House of the Society of St. Pius X concerning the episcopal consecration of Father Faure.

19-03-2015 
Filed under From RomeFrom TraditionNewsThe Church in the world
logo_fsspx
On March 19th 2015 Bishop Richard Williamson performed the episcopal consecration of Fr. Jean-Michel Faure at the Benedictine Monastery of the Holy Cross in Nova Friburgo, Brazil.
Bishop Williamson and Fr. Faure have not been members of the Society of St. Pius X since 2012 and 2014, respectively, because of their violent criticisms of any relations with the Roman authorities. According to them, such contacts were incompatible with the apostolic work of Archbishop Lefebvre.
The Society of St. Pius X regrets sincerely that this spirit of opposition has led to an episcopal consecration. In 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre had clearly indicated his intention to consecrate auxiliary bishops who would have no jurisdiction, because of the state of necessity in which the Society of St. Pius X and faithful Catholics found themselves at that time. His sole goal was to make available to the faithful the sacraments which priests ordained by the bishops would offer. After having done everything conceivable to gain permission from the Holy See, Archbishop Lefebvre proceeded with the solemn consecrations on June 30, 1988 before several thousand priests and faithful and hundreds of journalists from around the world. It was abundantly clear from all the circumstances that, despite the lack of authorization from Rome, this action done in the most public manner was for the good of the Church and of souls.
The Society of St. Pius X denounces this episcopal consecration of Father Faure, which, despite the assertions of both clerics concerned, is not at all comparable to the consecrations of 1988. All the declarations of Bishop Williamson and Fr. Faure prove abundantly that they no longer recognize the Roman authorities, except in a purely rhetorical manner.
The Society of St. Pius X still maintains that the present state of necessity renders legitimate its action throughout the world, without denying the legitimate authority of those for whom it continues to pray at every Mass. The Society intends to continue its work of priestly formation according to its statutes. It has every intention to keep the deposit of the Faith and the purity of the Church’s moral teaching, in opposition to errors, from wherever they may come, in order to pass on such Faith and morals in the traditional liturgy and by preaching, in accordance with the missionary spirit of its founder: Credidimus caritati [1 John 4:16].
Menzingen, March 19, 2015



Courtesy of Dici.org



Episcopal Consecration


March 22, 2015 
There is a striking contrast between the recent episcopal consecration by Bishop Williamson and those done by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988.

Respect for Canon Law

By Fr. Francois Laisney
Archbishop Lefebvre had founded the Society of St. Pius X as a proper religious “society of common life without vows”, duly canonically approved by Bishop Charriere on November 1, 1970. There is no similar “society” with Bishop Williamson, the “sacerdotal union Marcel Lefebvre” has no real authority – Bishop Williamson himself said that such authority was now impossible – absolutely no canonical standing and no rules.
Archbishop Lefebvre always strove to respect Canon Law, and obtained the approval of the proper authorities for his seminary of Econe and other priories until the illegal suppression of the SSPX in 1975 made it impossible; even then he filed two appeals at Rome, which Cardinal Villot buried. Since such appeals have “suspensive power”, the SSPX legally still exists in fact though often not recognized. It has been practically recognized since.
This clearly shows that Archbishop Lefebvre never neglected Canon Law, never thought that “faith” would dispense him from the Canon Law! But where is such respect of Canon Law on Bishop Williamson’s part? It is nowhere to be seen.

A thriving Society

The Society of St. Pius X had lived and grown for more than 18 years, showing its vitality by its six seminaries, its solidly established chapels, schools, missions, organized in districts as is normal for a Catholic religious society. It had in 1988 more than 200 priests, plus more than 200 seminarians, brothers, sisters, oblates, etc.
The “loose association” of priests with Bishop Williamson does not even have three years existence, with no regular order, practically no seminaries (the one in the Philippines in south of Manila was closed because their hostess was so disgusted by the disorder!): they already have big divisions among themselves (to the point that some have already made civil lawsuits against others) and some are already openly sedevacantists, thus manifesting no unity among themselves: hence no solidity.
It is claimed that Bishop Faure “intends” to open a seminary: how can he claim an “Operation Survival” for something that does not yet exist? What a contrast!

A mandate granted In principle

Archbishop Lefebvre had already asked Cardinal Ratzinger in the early 80s for the consecration of a bishop, and for a whole year before the 1988 Consecrations, he made every effort possible to have it done with the proper papal mandate—to the point that the pope approved on May 5, 1988, the principle of a consecration by Archbishop Lefebvre.
He then, on May 6th, asked for the practical realization of this approval, requesting a date for the ceremony: he had himself already postponed several times the date. Rome waited three weeks to give him a date, and the very letter offering a date asked for new candidates which made it impossible to be ready for that date.
This dishonesty manifested that Rome did not intend to observe the approval given on May 5th, and by indefinite delays would make it void. This caused Archbishop Lefebvre not to delay any longer his “Operation Survival”. But where are the efforts of Bishop Williamson to obtain any approval by the pope? Absolutely none! What a contrast!
The recognition of the authority of the pope was very clear and concretely manifested by the protocol; only the dishonesty of Rome made this protocol void. But the recognition of the authority of the pope by Bishop Williamson is only a theoretical recognition, denied in practice and by his many declarations rejecting ANY submission to the current pope.

A real enemy

St. Augustine says that what makes a martyr is not the fact of suffering and death but the cause for which one dies (thus there are no Muslim martyrs!) Archbishop Lefebvre resisted real abuses AFTER they were done, not before! But Bishop Williamson and his followers resisted BEFORE any compromise by the SSPX was made, and even three years later such compromise is nowhere to be seen.
Archbishop Lefebvre resisted BIG and evident scandals, such as the novelties of Vatican II (religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality), the New Liturgy, with its communion in the hand, and many other “approved” practices and finally the huge scandal of Assisi in 1986. Bishop Williamson opposes some ambiguous words in a proposed April 2012 declaration, which was made void and completely discarded within months: the disproportion of the cause is again striking.

Assuring the future

To assure the survival of the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops between 35 and 52 years younger than he was in 1988. Bishop Williamson pretends to assure a survival… by consecrating a bishop who is just one year younger than himself, very past secular retirement age and very close to bishops’ retirement age! Again, what a contrast!





This one is not like the others: Faure

March 26, 2015 
Can the March 19th episcopal consecration of Fr. Faure by Bishop Williamson be compared to the 1988 Consecrations of Archbishop Lefebvre?
Image above: Fr. Jean-Michel Faure enthroned after episcopal consecration versus the four enthroned bishops consecrated for the SSPX by Archbishop Lefebvre.
Of recent news is the episcopal consecration of Fr. Jean-Michel Faure by Bishop Richard Williamson that took place on March 19th.
Supporters of Faure's episcopal consecration have been justifying this act by comparing it to the 1988 Episcopal Consecrations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. However, a close examination of the two events will show that the one is definitely not like the other—thus why the SSPX denounced the consecration of Fr. Faure.
We have just added to our news/events section an excellent commentary by Fr. Francois Laisney, Episcopal Consecration, which compares the context and spirit of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's "Operation Survival" versus the consecration of Fr. Faure.
In addition to Fr. Laisney's clarifications, we are also offering for the benefit of our readers these webpages on our site:
Both of these pages include additional links providing related articles, words of Archbishop Lefebvre, and documents that provide important context.

Comments

Popular Posts