Skip to main content

The SSPX Deserves and Needs Juridical Status - Bishop Williamson December 8, 1987


This may seem as a strange prelude to the subject of Bishop Williamson's words from 1987, but I'd like to discuss the reaction of five groups of people to information that they don't want believe.  The groups are:
  1. Protestants
  2. Sede-vacantists
  3. "Resistors"
  4. Modern Catholics
  5. Psychiatric Patients
I have had significant in-person or 'on-line' discussions with these 'groups' and all have something in common when confronted with a fact that is inconsistent with their perception of reality.

They change the topic in order to not have to face the possibility that their perception of the situation (ie reality) is flawed.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory and the Perceptual Blinders

This is cognitive dissonance theory applied.

When confronted with actions that were inconsistent with their beliefs (eg Kissing the Koran is bad, but Pope St. John Paul II kissed the Koran), since changing the actions was not an option (reality sucks eh?), they were left with either changing their beliefs (ie swallow pride and admit the reality) or change their perception of the action.

Most choose to change the perception of the action, building a wall to isolate their belief from reality.

This is accomplished by a variety of cognitive errors, the one I've frequently observed is the dreaded 'confirmation bias'.  This error is the equivalent of putting on perceptual blinders and seeking only information that supports the desired perception of reality.  Anything that dis-confirms the desired perception is ignored or discounted.  This is the stuff of which conspiracy theories are made.

One consequence of altering one's perception of reality, is that it only temporarily reduces the dissonance because reality is unaltered by our desires.

Reality is such a kill-joy.

In order to convince themselves that their modified perception of reality is correct, they will seek the comfort of others.

Meaning, they will seek converts from any available pool of candidates.

This will serve to reduce the dissonance in three ways.

First, they will re-affirm their perception of reality by repeating (over and over) their arguments for why there is no contradiction between the 'action' and their 'belief'.

Second, if they manage to gain converts, it will allow the 'believer' to take refuge in another fallacy: Ad Populum.  In other words, "these people believe, therefore my perception must be right".

Thirdly, they will isolate themselves from those they cannot convince.  This will shield them from the dis-confirmation offered by the 'non-believers'. In my experience the believer will sever relations that are weaker than the belief / perception modification they are seeking to 'confirm'. I know of cases where this has included family members.

This behaviour is therefore self-enforcing.  In the reduction of dis-confirming information, the 'believer' will eventually shut out all sources of disconfirming information and be locked in their perceptual belief.

In short, this behaviour results in the 'believer' applying perceptual blinders to the information they receive.

The stronger the belief, the bigger the blinders and the bigger the crisis required to readjust their perspective.

Bishop Williamson - circa 1987

This leads to the core subject of this posting.

The 'resistance' has a number of mantra's that they repeat to themselves and those that will listen.

  • They're selling out the SSPX 
  • They've compromised on Doctrine
  • They've changed
The list goes on.

Ultimately, the question is who has changed or 'deviated' from the path of Archbishop Lefebvre.  It is obvious to anyone who can read that the SSPX maintains the same positions on the following items:
The question is ... does the 'resistance' hold the same positions?  If so, who has really changed?  The 'resistance' revels in calling the SSPX the 'Neo-SSPX', where actually they are the 'Neo-Expats' who has changed ... or perhaps they never really held the same positions as the SSPX.  Perhaps these positions were only espoused.

We have here Bishop Williamson's 1980's outline on the various perspectives on the crisis of the Church:

I know that a number of resistors actually hold beliefs that are consistent with the 'moderate sedevacantist' positions listed above by Bishop Williamson.

We didn't know his beliefs concerning the principle that the SSPX, in justice, deserves to be canonically regular.

Until now.

I received a copy of this recording while away at the ordinations, in which Bishop Williamson (then only Father Williamson) asked those present to pray for the regularization of the SSPX.

Some resistors are on record as saying that the SSPX does not need to be regularized etc.

On that point, obviously they are at odds with Father Williamson.  Perhaps Bishop Williamson no longer believes that it is necessary.

However, that just proves the point that someone has changed.

I fully expect people to try and ignore these statements(in fact I've already noted 'resistors' re-imagining the reality).  The fact remains that Bishop Williamson stated that for the good of the Church the SSPX needs to be regularized.

If he has changed since that time, then so-be-it.  It just shows who has changed and who has not.

That's why I started this article with a re-cap on cognitive dissonance, because now the 'resistors' will have to re-spin their perception of reality in order to hold on to their beliefs.


... especially during today's Mass, let's pray for all those making their engagements and let's pray for the Society. Let's pray in particular for Cardinal Gagnon who's just, who today is back in the Society Seminary in Switzerland, has terminated his one month visit of the Society ... of Society houses in Switzerland, France and Germany. Ahh, let us pray that he ... when he composes his report of the Society for the Holy Father's uhh, study that the, that he present the truth in such a way that it wins the Pope's approval. Let us pray for the Pope the He may do what He quite clearly should do to give juridical standing and status to the Society which wholly deserves it and which absolutely needs it for the good of the Universal Church, let alone the Society ...

Audio File: Link


Popular posts from this blog

Thirty Days Prayer to Our Lady -

Providence has cast this prayer in my path twice in the last week.  I decided to post it here in order to have a copy handy.


Source Intro Prayer

With the condition of affairs in the cultural, political and physical world in a state of disarray we enter Lent - Ash Wednesday - February 25th - 2004 - more compelled then ever to pursue, diligently and faithfully, our personal road to holiness. It is a long, difficult path each of us treads, however, we do know the journey can be sweeter and more blessed if we travel it with others. Jesus has told us: "Wherever two or more are gathered in my name, I am with you." And there are many other biblical passages, as well, that urge us to love and help one another.

A 'Thirty Day Prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary ' was said by many Catholics during troubled times in their lives up until Vatican II. While looking through old stored away boxes, I came across a small white prayer book of the kind give…

Rorate-Caeil: Amazon Synod - Various articles.

So the exhortation has been published and is not as bad as feared, but perhaps it remains bad.

I have collected a number of articles from Rorate. Time allowing I'll search more and form my own opinion.


BREAKING — On the Amazon Synod document, let’s remain positive
Rorate-Caeli: On the Amazon Synod Document, let's remain positive

Rorate has learned that, at the current state of the text, Catholics should remain positive regarding the most controversial points of the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation “Querida Amazonia”, to be published tomorrow.

We cannot say anything, unfortunately, but we refer readers to the first paragraph of this post we published last week:

La Fede Quotidiana has learned of an important fact relating to the coming papal document on the subject of the Amazon. And this fact, unless modified at the last moment, contradicts what has been recently reported concerning a text in which ‘a yes’ is given to viri probati and the married priesthood.…