Posted on 03/20/2015 2:38:10 PM PDT by NYer
Former SSPX Bp. Williamson consecrated another bishop. They both have incurred the late sententiae excommunication foreseen in Canon Law.
The SSPX issued an official statement HERE:
On March 19, 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, [NB] 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. [I suspect that Lefebvre would be horrified.]
The Society of St. Pius X regrets sincerely that this spirit of opposition has led to an episcopal consecration. [May the come soon to regret other spirits of opposition.] In 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre had clearly indicated his intention to consecrate auxiliary bishops [NB] 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. [There is no question that Holy Orders, Mass and baptisms and confirmations are valid.] 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. [It was not abundantly clear… but read on.]
The Society of St. Pius X denounces this episcopal consecration of Fr. Faure, which, despite the assertions of both clerics concerned, is not at all comparable to the consecrations of 1988. [True.] 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. [Like admitting that Francis is indeed Pope, and then not submitting to his authority? Say his name in the Roman Canon and put a photo up? What do they do, exactly?]
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 Roman Pontiff and, I suppose, the local bishop. I wonder: Do the priests of the SSPX include the name of the local diocesan bishop in the Canon during 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
I pray that Williamson and the other fellow will be reconciled before they die.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Duh?
That's what I was afraid of.
“That’s what I was afraid of.”
Be afraid all you like. You probably won’t soon forget that I had to school you on The Nine. That must be galling. Even though your portray yourself as a Catholic Traditionalist there is probably no way you will ever know as much as I do about the Catholic Church, its traditions or the Traditional movement within the Catholic Church. And that too must be galling.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
>>“Instead of smelling like the sheep, Francis smell like the skunks he chooses to surround himself with.”<<
>>I might be bale to take that comment seriously if you could make an argument, any argument, but you’re never been able to do that here as far as I can tell.<<
Francis has chosen heretics to be members of his Gang. He hand picked a homo to be house mother of Domus Sanctæ Marthæ. What do you think he smells like?
Here’s that article again on The Nine - you know, those guys you apparently didn’t know anything about: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=48&catname=12
Be sure and read that.
Pride is the excessive love of one's own excellence. It is ordinarily accounted one of the seven capital sins.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia. Ever heard of it?
“Pride is the excessive love of one’s own excellence.”
Nothing I said had anything to do with pride. This is shown by the fact that I knew who The Nine were while you apparently never heard of them.
“It is ordinarily accounted one of the seven capital sins.”
Remember that while posting.
“From the Catholic Encyclopedia. Ever heard of it?”
Yes, that’s why I knew you quoted from it.
You just can't turn the pride off, can you? The fact that you confused the Gang of Nine with the SSPV bishops is laughable in itself. The fact that you tried to twist that around an accuse me of something that is false is even more ridiculous.
The one thing that you have "schooled" me on is that this has been the best example of the sin of pride that I have seen in a long time:
Even though your portray yourself as a Catholic Traditionalist there is probably no way you will ever know as much as I do about the Catholic Church, its traditions or the Traditional movement within the Catholic Church.
ROTFLMAO. Why don't you go "school" Cardinal Burke" next?
Perfect example of first denying the sin of pride and then exercising that sin in the very next sentence.
Textbook example!
And Cardinal Dolan is in “full communion”.
“You just can’t turn the pride off, can you?”
Discussing a fact that you apparently didn’t know is not a showing of pride on my part. One could easily say that a person pretending she knew about The Nine when she didn’t - that would be a showing of pride. Who did that again?
“The fact that you confused the Gang of Nine with the SSPV bishops is laughable in itself.”
I never did any such thing. I mentioned The Nine. I mentioned “Gang”. I never brought up any supposed “Gang of Nine”.
“The fact that you tried to twist that around an accuse me of something that is false is even more ridiculous.”
No, what is ridiculous is that you are now trying to explain away what you apparently did not know.
“The one thing that you have “schooled” me on is that this has been the best example of the sin of pride that I have seen in a long time:”
Everything I said is true. It apparently struck a chord as well.
“ROTFLMAO. Why don’t you go “school” Cardinal Burke” next?”
Don’t have to. I know him. He would have no problem with what I have said.
“Perfect example of first denying the sin of pride and then exercising that sin in the very next sentence. Textbook example!”
The fact that you keep going back to the same comment - which was entirely factual and utterly undeniable - would seem to indicate that it struck a chord. Enjoy.
A photo from your family album?
No. It’s from National Lampoons’ Animal House, not too different from Francis’s animal house of homos and heretics.
Any other stupid questions?
“Any other stupid questions?”
Oh, you’ve decided to stop asking them yourself apparently. Good for you, trying something new and all.
Good. You’ve admitted you have been asking stupid questions.
Keep up the good work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.