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!
If Rome can allow China to appoint "Bishops" and hopes to reconcile these Communist Chinese "Bishops" of the Communist Patriotic Church, what would impede Rome with SSPX?
I think the only real impediment is SSPX refusing communion. As you can see from this letter there is at least a major segment that is adamantly against even DISCUSSING reunion with Rome.
Schism for the sake of schism.
Oh, here it is, from the same Letter:
You yourself, dear Mgr. Fellay, after having heard from several members of the Fraternity and having met your Council, sent to me the secretary of the Society of St. Pius X, Don Selegny, accompanied by Don Simoulin, with the mission of presenting several questions concerning the formulas of an eventual reintegration. The secretary, after having heard my responses articulated to his numerous questions, expressed himself in an extremely harsh manner about the present rite of the Holy Mass, as the faithful united to the Vicar of Christ and their Bishops adhere to, in claiming that this rite was evil; he informed me moreover of having received from you a mandate to suspend the dialogues, if two prior conditions were not granted: to lift the excommunication and to permit all Catholic priests to celebrate according to the rite of St. Pius V.I should say that I was left saddened and perplexed, because this development was not in line with the climate of trust, of cordial fraternity and reciprocal respect which, until then, had sustained and animated our relations.
Since the beginning, starting out from a sound, fundamental position, a hope was kept alive of being able to put an end to the irregular situation in which your Fraternity finds itself; even more so because I noted neither the scent of heresy nor the will to incur a formal schism on your part, but only the desire to contribute to the good of the universal Church, considering that the specific charism of the Society of St. Pius X toward Tradition, in the current context, could only benefit the path of the Church.
It was absolutely not a matter of a trap, set up to silence you or destroy your movement, and a base strategy with hidden intentions or with unconfessed aims was never followed, as certain among you have written to the contrary.
I can say that on the part of the Holy See and of all people involved in this difficult but promising episode for the unity of the Church, we never lacked the honest desire to see the Society of St. Pius X reconciled with the See of Peter so that, with its particular charism of service to Tradition, it could contribute to the missionary work of the new evangelization.
Also, although I did not doubt the disposition of Your Excellency to continue our dialogue toward the desired end, I am surprised at the declarations you and other members of the Society of St. Pius X have made on this subject.
It seems to me in fact that your declarations, which appear to cast doubt on the sincerity of the Holy See, are not useful in making our common efforts thrive, and have created a less favorable climate and cast doubt on the Society of St. Pius X’s understanding of this important matter.
Permit me, therefore, to quote some of your statements, enumerating several of these contradictory attitudes and assertions in which your Fraternity seems to be risking itself, which create perplexity and are in contradiction to the Tradition of the Church. Besides, how could I not confront these painful points, if they contained questions that invite at least some explanation?
Sometimes I think yes. Sometimes I think it is his British disposition coming out and that he is merely posturing. Can't often tell from his writings.
He is not off his rocker near as much as 90% of the current U.S. Episcopate. Let's start with Mahony, Hubbard, Brown, etc.
Come on. Where is the real crisis?
"Was Bishop Williamson one of the other bishops?"
I do not believe that Bishop Williamson was in attendance. All the rest were, as far as I recall.
The entire quote you gave is the one I attempted to paraphrase.
"Schism for the sake of schism."
Yet post No. 24 directly below yours, from Cardinal Hoyos, specifically states otherwise. Rash judgment on your part? Or a simple misunderstanding that you would wish to correct?
I'm confused. Cardinal Hoyos says the opposite of you, and he met the bishops.
Yes, CHARITY, by all means. But doesn't the motto of some Lefebvrian bishop or other (maybe Lefebvre's, I can't recall) say something about "truth in charity?
At any rate, speaking of charity: your response was all personal attack (me and the neo-cons, I guess).
Instead: How about dealing with the texts of the Circular Letters I posted?
You know, when you self-proclaimed Guardians of Tradition go off onto a personal rant, that's usually a sign that you've run out of ammo.
So: point blank question 1: do those Circular Letters strike you as duplicitous?
2. On the SSPX USA website, the banner proclaims "filial devotion and loyalty" to Pope Benedict XVI. Do those letters - which actually state NOT FOR GENERAL PUBLICATION - sould filial, devoted or loyal to you?
Leave my alleged lack of charity out of your response and just let us know what you think of the SSPX's honesty and docility before the Vicar of Christ on earth, our Supreme Pontiff, Benedict XVI.
On the other hand the Mahony elements within the US church are by nature, while insidious, effete pansies who will continue to give way in the face of robust orthodoxy.
I'm not a big one for crises.
My reading of the Hoyos letter is that he says the Society started without the intention of schism but began to go off the rails on a crazy train, if you will excuse the Ozzy reference.
"You know, when you self-proclaimed Guardians of Tradition go off onto a personal rant, that's usually a sign that you've run out of ammo."
I claim no such title. I profess the Credo of the People of God by Pope Paul VI, the Athanasian Creed, the apostles' creed, the Nicene-Constantinople Creed and the Credo of the Council of Trent. How about you?
"So: point blank question 1: do those Circular Letters strike you as duplicitous?"
No. Not at all. They were internal matters for priests of the SSPX, which you chose to violate and make public. Who is the duplicitous one? What are you? An investigative reporter?
"2. On the SSPX USA website, the banner proclaims "filial devotion and loyalty" to Pope Benedict XVI. Do those letters - which actually state NOT FOR GENERAL PUBLICATION - sould filial, devoted or loyal to you?"
Yes. They do. Have you ever read anything written by many priests and bishops in the Novus Ordo who are allegedly in "full communion" with Rome. Perhaps it is time to recognize the child-like Faith does not mean naivete about how things really work in the Church. It appears to me they are concerned about being allowed to stay true to Tradition. Similar to the Orthodox. Have you ever read the Second Vatican Council document on ecumenism?
"Leave my alleged lack of charity out of your response and just let us know what you think of the SSPX's honesty and docility before the Vicar of Christ on earth, our Supreme Pontiff, Benedict XVI."
I think this initial meeting instigated by Bishop Fellay, and accepted by Pope Benedict XVI is a wonderful sign. I find nothiner in the letters you post other than caution to be given to some of the more extreme elements within the SSPX. It was an internal letter, remember, that you chose to make public.
"I'm not a big one for crises."
Pope Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, has said numerous times (as well as Pope John Paul II), that we are in the midst of a crisis. He puts much of the blame on the collapse of the liturgy.
Perhaps you should re-align your thinking more closely and docilely with that of our Holy Father.
Lets see, who is actually hereticial, SSPX or the Post Vatican II church:
A "heretic" is defined in Canon 1325 as: "Any baptized person who, while retaining the name of Christian, obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by the Divine and Catholic Faith".
The argument that a laymen cannot state his firm conviction that a cleric of whatever rank is a heretic is not true at all either, as St Thomas taught that it is our responsiblity to do such.
Canon 1935 state:
"Any member of the faithful may at all times denounce the offence of another, and the obligation of denouncing another becomes urgent... when one is obliged to do so in virtue of the natural law where there is danger to faith or religion or other imminent public evil." Clearly such is the case today when many through ignorance of the Faith give their allegiance to false shepherds.
Does the following below fall under heresy as defined above, leading the faithful astray, or do you really think that Lefebvre is a heretic because he happened to consecrate some Bishops as he wanted to practice the faith as handed down and not the "new brand" proposed by Vatican II. Who has caused more harm to Catholicsm, Lefebvre or the Post Vatican II Popes who are actually heretics straight off as defined by Pope Pius X (Oath against Modernism) as well as their refusal to take the Papal Oath, which if they were to take would put them in direct heresy or at least apostasy, which is a clear break from Orthodoxy and Traditional teaching
As Bishop Karol Wojtyla, of Crakow:
1. He was a student of the heretical existentialist Jacques Maritain.
2. He gutted the schema on Communism at Vatican II.
3. He allowed Protestant Evangelist Billy Graham speak at his cathedral.
As Pope John Paul II:
1. On May 4, 1980, he presided from a straw hut over an ordination ceremony and native Mass of people undulating to the rhythm of tomtoms, accompanied by accordians and guitars.
2. In February 1982, he presided over a "dance" Mass in Libreville.
3. On December 11, 1983, he preached in a Lutheran church at Rome.
4. On May 8, 1984, he presided over a Mass in Papua-New Guinea at which male and female dancers, nude from the waist up, danced; an aboriginal woman, also nude from the waist up, read the Epistle.
5. In September 1984, he presided over a Mass in Canada at which a pagan Indian chief invoked the Great Spirit and presented the pope at the Offertory with an eagle feather dipped in blood.
6. In 1985, he told 50,000 Moslems in Morocco: "We and you believe in the same God, the one God and the only God."
7. In August 1985, he presided over "dance" Masses in Cameroon and Garoua.
8. On August 8, 1985, he visited Togo and prayed in a "Sacred Forest" consecrated to the worship of pagan gods and participated in a pagan initiation ritual in a grove sacred to the pagan animists.
9. In 1986, he presided over a Mass in Fiji at which the thurifer was an aboriginal dressed only in a loin-cloth; he is said to have witnessed there a pagan animal sacrifice.
10. In February 2, 1986, he was marked with cow dung, the "Tilac," the sign of the adorers of the pagan goddess Shiva, by a Hindu priestess at Bombay.
11. On June 24, 1986, he sat with Grand Rabbi Elio Toaff in the sanctuary of the Jewish synagogue at Rome and prayed for the coming of the Messias.
12. On October 27, 1986, he participated in an ecumenical prayer meeting at Assisi, Italy, during which an image of Buddha was placed on top of the tabernacle. He again brought together Christian, Muslim, and Jewish leaders in Assisi on January 9-10, 1993, to pray for an end to the war with the Mohammedan Bosnians, and on January 24, 2002, for yet another "ecumenical prayer meeting" for "peace" with the Mohammedan terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. This time the leaders included not just the usual Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, and Jews, but also leaders of "Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Jianism, Confucianism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, and followers of Tenrikyo and African tribal religions." (Associated Press)
13. On February 4, 1993, he engaged in dialogues with the high priests and witch doctors of Voodoo.
14. In 1994, he smeared the pitch from a native tree on his face instead of incensing the altar during a beatification ceremony in Australia.
15. In 1995, he approved the building of the first Mohammedan minaret in Rome.
16. On April 6, 1997, he recited the Credo without the Filioque on the occasion of the 1700th anniversary of the Constantinople I Council and on ecumenical occasions. (Eastern Catholic Life)
17. In 1998, he gave communion, at a private Mass in the Vatican, to the late Rev. Sheila Brown, who had only shortly before been ordained an Anglican priestess and who, at that Mass, wore her "Roman" collar.
18. On November 23, 1998, he shared the altar of St. Peter's with bare-chested, bare-footed tribesmen from Oceania holding spears, "searching for new impulses." (Associated Press)
19. In 1999, he gave communion to several Lutheran bishops who were his guests during a mass in the pope's private chapel in the Vatican. (London Tablet)
20. On June 1, 1999, he end of an audience, he bowed to the Muslim holy book, the Koran, presented to him by a delegation, and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqui television. (June 1, 1999, Catholic News Service)
21. On January 18, 2000, he allowed Rev. George Carey, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury and Eastern Orthodox Metropolitan Athanasius to participate in their official capacities at the opening of the Holy Door.
There are always dozens of crises ongoing. Millions of crises large and small. The world can be seen as a perpetual crisis, or series of crises. One might say that the greatest crisis was resolved in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Instead of crisis, crisis everywhere I choose to see crises as the natural consequence of our fallen world, and thus normative (in a disordered sense) rather than extraordinary.
Regarding the liturgy, "abuse crisis", etc, I believe the tipping point has come and gone.
A "heretic" is defined in Canon 1325 as: "Any baptized person who, while retaining the name of Christian, obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by the Divine and Catholic Faith".
None of the things you have listed can be considered an obstinate denial of the Faith. And if you have read ANY of my posts, you would realize I have argued that, as far as I know, the word "heretic" has never been used by the Vatican, any Pope, nor Vatican dicastery, against Archbishop Lefebvre.
However, your posting of these infringements of prudence (in your opinion) could be seen as giving scandal to those weaker in the Faith. To give scandal purposely is considered grave matter, and thus potentially a mortal sin. I have spent much time defending Archbishop Lefebvre against unreasonable attacks, but I am not ever going to condone ordaining bishops against the express will of the Holy Father.
For that, you may view me as an enemy, but you may want to read on what is doctrine, vs. discipline, vs. dogma, etc., before you go around accusing the former Holy Father of heresy.
If he was an obstinate heretic, that makes you a sede, NOT an SSPX adherent.
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.