Posted on 08/16/2005 8:50:57 AM PDT by Mershon
A FEW THOUGHTS for AUGUST, 2005 By Bishop Richard Williamson
In this year’s May-June issue of the French bi-monthly magazine “Sous la Bannière”, on page 7, there is a most interesting quotation attributed to Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. It reads as follows:
“A source in Austria, preferring to remain anonymous, assures us that Cardinal Ratzinger recently made the following admission to an Austrian bishop who is a friend of his: ‘I have two problems on my conscience: Archbishop Lefebvre and Fatima. As to the latter, my hand was forced. As to the former, I failed’.”
Of course if the “source in Austria” prefers to remain anonymous, we have no means of verifying whether the Cardinal truly said these things about Archbishop Lefebvre and Fatima, but the quotation is at least true to life, so it is worth dwelling on for a few moments.
As for what the Cardinal says about Fatima, we suspected back in June of 2000, when the Vatican – with the Cardinal in the forefront – supposedly released the third Secret, that there was some trickery going on. Either Rome was still hiding the true Secret, the one kept in his room by Pius XII but never looked at, or Rome was revealing the true Secret but twisting its interpretation. Either way, we said to ourselves at that time, Rome was wanting to have done with Fatima, and we saw Cardinal Ratzinger playing a leading part in the manoeuvre. Now comes the quotation from Austria confirming that the Cardinal was indeed taking part in a manoeuvre. Who “forced his hand”? Was it John-Paul II? Some hidden power behind both Pope and Cardinal? God knows.
As for what the quotation says about Archbishop Lefebvre, there too, if the quotation is not true it is certainly true to life. In May of 1988 when Archbishop Lefebvre was threatening to consecrate with or without Rome’s permission bishops for the Society of St. Pius X, it was Cardinal Ratzinger who represented the Holy See in the negotiations meant to head off the “break” that such consecrations would involve. We recall that the Cardinal almost “succeeded” on May 6 when Archbishop Lefebvre signed a draft agreement, but the Cardinal “failed” when the Archbishop after a sleepless night took his signature back on the following day. And now comes the quotation from Austria confirming that the Cardinal still sees the termination of those negotiations as a “failure”.
This confirmation is important as suggesting that the Cardinal will remain, now he is Pope, in the same frame of mind to deal with the Society of St. Pius X in the audience which this August 29 he is due to grant to Archbishop Lefebvre’s successor at the head of the Society, Bishop Bernard Fellay. In other words, it is highly likely both that the present Pope is sincerely convinced that the “break” between the Society and Rome must be brought to an end, and that he will give all the appearances of being of good will when he employs all possible means, including his long experience of Roman diplomacy and all the prestige of his now exalted rank, to bring the “break” to an end.
In fact, a Rome-SSPX agreement seems impossible. And of course if the Society rejoined Rome, the resistance of Catholic Tradition would carry on without it, and if the Pope “converted”, then instead of the gentle war now being waged on his right by Tradition, he would be faced with a savage war being waged on his left by the cabal of neo-modernists. Either way, the war goes on between the friends and the enemies of the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.
But what is important here and now for Catholics who will be following with interest the up-coming meeting between Rome and the Society, is not to fall into any of the traps that the Devil will be setting for them.
Firstly, the fact that the Society is asking to be received in audience by the Holy Father does not mean that it is on the point of betraying. If there is no contact between Tradition and Rome, now will the truth of Tradition ever make itself heard in Rome?
Secondly, there being a contact does not mean that an agreement is possible. Let all the Catholics who dream of fitting together Catholic Tradition and the present neo-modernist authorities of the Church come back down to earth. Catholic Authority and Catholic Truth will one day re-unite, but nothing for the moment indicates that that day is tomorrow – or the day after!
Lastly – and this is the subtlest trap of them all – let nobody think that because the Pope is of good will, therefore he cannot be a neo-modernist, or that because he is a neo-modernist, therefore he cannot be of good will. The present crisis of the Church would be much less grave and would deceive far fewer people if the neo-modernists were obviously of ill will. It is characteristic of these last times that bad principles are so widespread that few people are aware of the fact, and many people do evil convinced that they are doing good. That is why the Cardinal’s quotation is true to life in which he says that his “failure” of 1988 weighs “on his conscience”.
Let us pray to the Mother of God for Benedict XVI to see, above all the need to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart, and if we ourselves can see, let us pray to her that we too not go blind – “He who thinks he stands, let him take care not to fall”, says St. Paul (I Cor X, 12). The times are bad!
This is precisely Luther's heresy and the heresy of the major Protestant Reformers. If you truly understood what you were writing and meant it, then with these words you have explicitly abandoned the Catholic faith. I will assume rather that you did not realize what you were writing.
Others have responded to detail when it is legitimate to disobey on a matter of discipline. Even in matters of unjust discipline, in most instances Catholic theology asks the victim of unjust discipline to suffer in silence. The stories of the lives of saints are replete with cases where a truly holy person was falsely accused and did not defend himself but waited for God to vindicate him. When the injustice causes scandal to others for whom one is responsible, then it may be necessary to defend oneself.
But disobedience in doctrinal matters is another thing altogether and the ordination of priests and bishops belongs not merely to discipline but to doctrine, given the Catholic claims about Christ instituting the sacrament of Orders. Luther claimed that he had to disobey the pope for the sake of the Church, the true Church. Identifying the "true Church" as somehow separate and in opposition to the office of Peter is the Protestant heresy. Please say you did not mean it.
Which one does the SSPX fall under? They are clearly sell-outs and anti-Catholic, but then they're kind of Catholic themselves ....
Can't help but pity them.
I'll wait until he does that and then be at the head of the line of those who disobey a commmand to sin. But no pope has ever done this and to imply that the post-Vatican II popes did so is calumny for which you should be ashamed. And no,Assisi did not involve a command to worship Gaia, so please spare me that claim.
In calling on Archbishop Lefebvre to refrain from ordaining priests and bishops the pope was not asking him to commit a sin. To have refrained from the ordinations would not have been to worship Gaia. It was Archbishop Lefebvre's prudential judgment that he needed to ordain those priests and bishops. The pope believed otherwise. To have acceded to the pope's judgment would not have involved a sin on Lefebvre's part unless one has already concluded that the pope was leading the Church into apostasy and that to accede to the pope's position would be to apostasize. But to make that claim is to join Luther and the other Protestants who distinguished the apostate "papal church" from the true church.
I'm beginning to believe that you really knew and meant your claim that the true Church can somehow be separated from the Petrine office. That's pure Protestantism. Please tell me you have thought better of it and no longer make these claims.
Seems like you're not saying that those things didn't happen, but that they are for one reason or another okay.
"t no pope has ever done this and to imply that the post-Vatican II popes did so is calumny for which you should be ashamed."
I in no way implied that, and to say I did so is calumny for which you should be ashamed.
"I'm beginning to believe that you really knew and meant your claim that the true Church can somehow be separated from the Petrine office."
When was that?
"Maritain was not a heretic."
I sometimes address comments to the wrong people, too.
"And so many of the Schismatics hate the Catholic Mass so much there's no way they'd go for it."
I don't think it's necessary to attribute hate to men who are standing on principle.
I call 'em like I see 'em.
"I call 'em like I see 'em."
Maybe you should look again, without all the anger.
I believe we were discussing the Traditio list in #35. What I quoted was the first proposition of it.
I'm a happy person. But I do see anger and hatred and attacks in the stuff coming from the SSPX.
Like I said, I pity them.
Agreed.
Worse, a number of Catholics still seem to think that 'Bishop X does [this wrong thing,] therefore the Church [is good/is evil.]
The Church is indefectible. It's those dratted PEOPLE...
I know for a fact that the Tilak in India incident is totally false. Others can tell you more about the rest.
If Jews loved Christ, they would no longer be Jews, but Christians, jsut a little side note
* LOL I don't know how many times I have seen this lately. This appears to be the latest mantra of the self-annointed trads.
Call them on their errors and they begin screaming Calumny, Calumny.
I hear that so often I sometimes think I must be in the takeout line at China Imperial Restaurant
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.