Lefebvrist bishop says no reconciliation with Rome

Sep. 15 (CWNews.com) - A bishop of the schismatic Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has warned traditionalist Catholics the "heresy of neo-modernism" which, he says, now controls the Vatican.

In an email message to his supporters, Bishop Richard Williamson, an English-born prelate who now serves the SSPX in Argentina, said that there are enormous differences "between Catholic Tradition and the position's of today's Rome." He continued: "Between these positions, any reconciliation is impossible."

Bishop Williamson conceded that some traditionalists might accept an offer of reconciliation with the Vatican, but "the conciliar positions of today's Rome would still be as false as 2 and 2 are 5, while the Traditional positions would still be as true as 2 and 2 are 4."

The Lefebvrist bishop wrote his email message to explain why he had said-- prior to the September 1 meeting between Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) and Bishop Bernard Fellay, the head of the SSPX-- that traditionalists would not be reconciled with the Vatican. He explained that if some traditionalists were to reach an agreement with the Vatican, others would resist-- "that if the Society [of St. Pius X] were to rejoin Rome, the resistance of Catholic Tradition would carry on without it."

Bishop Williamson, the most outspoken figure in the SSPX, is one of the four bishops consecrated by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in June 1988, in defiance of an order from the Vatican, prompting Pope John Paul II (bio - news) to announce the excommunication of the traditionalist leaders.

Nothing like dangling a phony carrot to tempt a 'bite'. By all means, provide the name, parish and eparchy of this Maronite priest. I'll "bite". And, while you're at it, please cite dates, times and related conversations to justify your phony claim.

I'll privately e-mail you with the name, parish and eparchy of this Maronite priest. And I'll give you the date, time and related conversation in which he told me, "the filioque is wrong" "Transubstantiation doesn't work anymore." "there is no Devil" "There are no Angels." When I asked, "What about the Resurrection of the Body? His reply was, "Does it matter?" Of course, I won't relate anything to you concerning the confessional aspect of the visit.

And if you'd like, I'll give you the names of the Norbertine priests that I told this too. One of them said to me, "He should have his papers pulled."

My claim is not phony. The reason I went to a Maronite was because my SSPX priests are hundreds of miles away during the week and I wanted to find a traditional priest not infected with Modernism to hear my confession. Instead I walked right into it. It just goes to show you that the Eastern rites are not immune from the fallout of Vatican II. Which is why there are traditional Easterns just as the SSPX are the traditional Latins. I plan on visiting a few other of the local Eastern Churches (Byzantine, Ukrainian) in the near future to see what the priests are like and how infected they are if at all. Maybe I'll find a dependable priest among them. Maybe not. But my SSPX priest wants me to go to any priest for confession if I find I need to during the week, rather than wait for the weekend that may never come if it's my time.

Believing that the Jews are a cursed race is not heretical.

*Wrong. Heresy (# 2089 Catechism) "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise as obstinate doubt concerning the same."

As to whether or not the heresy is formal or material one would have to know the individuals involved and their knowledge, intent etc but it is as clear as can be the sspx teaches antisemitic heresy.

Retroactive heritics are phantoms.

Once something is defined theological speculations have no standing to say nothing of theological opposition to Doctrine defined. That is heresy.

As re the Immaculate Conception William of Ware (I am going from memory here) supplied the reasoning but the fact the Angelic Doctor couldn;t supply the reasoning doesn't have anything to do with the question at hand.

Aquinas would be applicable only if he were alive after the declaration and continued to deny or doubt the docctrine taught by the Church

The personal opinuons of the saints have no standing in Catholic Authoritative Teaching unless then have been adopted and become part of the Magisterium. I have asked you repeatedly to please post where the personal opinions of these saints were adopted. You and your friends have failed to do so.

There is no such thing as retroactively labelling as heretics those who had personal opinuions about this or that issue that hadn;t been defined. Vatican Two, an Ecumenical Council, has once and for all and forever closed off any legitimate doubt or denial or debate as to whether or not the Jews as a race are cursed.

They aren't

That you don't understand this fundamental reality of Catholicism really should cause you to reconsider your imagined competence to define and judge Tradition.

That is, and always has been, the role of Holy Mother Church, not individuals

Knock what off? Defending the SSPX? Praying for someone who falsely accuses me of being a schismatic, a heretic, and an anti Semite among other things? I believe I have been most restrained considering the intense hatred and venom spewed in my direction for daring to defend myself and the SSPX against false accusations

And yet this post remains:

To: RKBA Democrat
The SSPX are surely schismatics and, in a sane world, would be roasting on an open fire. As The Geezer points out, they may also be heretics in their views of papal authority and denial of their obligations to obey. Knuckling under to error or even tolerating it is NOT love.
110 posted on 09/18/2005 1:06:00 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)

Well, I am done with this thread, unless pinged for a specific response to any of the questions I asked and didn't have answered.

It is very sad the sspx can attack the Church established by Jesus and pretend that is Tradition and yet become all defensive when asked to provide a defense of their many hersies. Then it is all calumny this and unfair that. A Double-Double standard is one of the operating principles of a schism; they can unjustly do to Divinely Established Authority what they won't tolerate the Faithful justly doing to them

I have listed all the many heresies of the sspx on this thread and I have exposed to the public the hateful antisemitic teaching of the sspx.

There has been no legitimate response. There is a very good reason for that.

Tradition has never defended Schism.

Tradition has never defended or excused heresies.

Tradition has never taught the Jews as a race are cursed.

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise as obstinate doubt concerning the same.

I am quite aware of this. It is proof positive that believing that "the Jews are a cursed race" is not heretical. I suspect you simply don't understand the meaning of the terms here in which case you should refrain from accusing anyone of heresy.

Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei - Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

The first paragraph states: "With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed." The object taught in this paragraph is constituted by all those doctrines of divine and catholic faith which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable. These doctrines are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and defined with a solemn judgment as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks 'ex cathedra,' or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
These doctrines require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law.
The second proposition of the Professio fidei states: "I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals." The object taught by this formula includes all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area, which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed.
Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks 'ex cathedra' or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a "sententia definitive tenenda". ... Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church. ...
The third proposition of the Professio fidei states: "Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act." To this paragraph belong all those teachings on faith and morals - presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect. ... A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore "tuto doceri non potest".

I have asked you repeatedly to please post where the personal opinions of these saints were adopted. You and your friends have failed to do so.

Vatican Two, an Ecumenical Council, has once and for all and forever closed off any legitimate doubt or denial or debate as to whether or not the Jews as a race are cursed.

You don't understand what the saints meant by this "curse." It doesn't mean that Jews are "evil" and therefore they should be persecuted. It means they have been punished with a sort of spiritual blindness, a darkened veil over their hearts. Some Jews conspired to kill Christ and they did. They who did called down a punishment on themselves and their children. Its this punishment - a darkened veil - which caused them to continue to reject Jesus as the True Messiah.

Up until Vatican II era the Church prayed specifically that this "veil" be lifted. This was a tremendous service to the Jews! She obviously believed that the lifting of this veil was necessary. Traditional Catholics continue to believe it is. Its amazing how the performing of such a service and a desire to see all Jews converted could be so distored - by Catholic nonethless! - that it is now evidence of hatred for the Jews - or "antisemitic" - when it is nothing less then an act of great love for them.

It is horrible that we are being handed such dishonesty by our Church's leaders - suddenly, after all this time, there's no veil, (presumably all the Church's prayers for the Jews up til V2 was a wasted effort based on ignorance) and that the Jews are perfectly right and pleasing to God by waiting for another Messiah. That's a clear departure from our Church's teachings. And its a gross disservice to the Jews.

Let's see. It took about 12 seconds to find this on the SSPX website.

However, in what does that curse consist. Surely it cannot be that there is a collective guilt of the Jewish race for the sin of deicide. For only those individuals are responsible for the sin who knowingly and willingly brought it about. Jews of today are manifestly not responsible for that sin. The curse is of a different nature, and corresponds to the greatness of the vocation of the Jewish people as a preparation for the Messias, to the superiority of their election, which makes them first in the order of grace. Just as the true Israelites, who accept the Messias, are the first to receive "glory, honor and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek" (Rm 2:10), so also are the first to receive the punishment of their refusal of the Messias: "Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek" (Rm 2:9). The curse is then the punishment for the hardhearted rebelliousness of a people that has refused the time of its visitation, that has refused to convert and to live a moral, spiritual life, directed towards heaven. This curse is the punishment of blindness to the things of God and eternity, of deafness to the call of conscience and to the love of good and hatred of evil which is the basis of all moral life, of spiritual paralysis, of total preoccupation with an earthly kingdom. It is this that sets them as a people in entire opposition with the Catholic Church and its supernatural plan for the salvation of souls. Father Denis Fahey in The Kingship of Christ and Organized Naturalism explains this radical opposition. He describes "the Naturalism of the Jewish Nation" and the "age-long struggle of the Jewish Nation against the supernatural life of the Mystical Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ" (p. 42) He goes on to explain that "we must distinguish accurately between opposition to the domination of Jewish Naturalism in society and hostility to the Jews as a race" which latter form of opposition "is what is designated by the term, ‘Antisemitism,’ and has been more than once condemned by the Church. The former opposition is incumbent on every Catholic and on every true lover of his native land."

And where does it say in that decree that I have been excommunicated or that I am a schismatic as I and other Catholics on this forum have been repeatedly falsely accused of NYer?

As the Motu Proprio (Ecclesia Dei)declares in no. 5 c) the excommunication latae sententiae for schism regards those who "adhere formally" to the said schismatic movement. Even if the question of the exact import of the notion of "formal adherence to the schism" would be a matter for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it seems to this pontifical Council that such formal adherence would have to imply two complementary elements:
1. a) one of internal nature, consisting in a free and informed agreement with the substance of the schism, in other words, in the choice made in such a way of the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre which puts such an option above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the magisterium of the Church),
2. b) the other of an external character, consisting in the externalising of this option, the most manifest sign of which will be the exclusive participation in Lefebvrian "ecclesial" acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (one is dealing however with a sign that is not univocal, since there is the possibility that a member of the faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of the followers of Lefebvre but without going along with their schismatic spirit).

Fr. Denis Fahey, Irish Spiritan

Sungenis referred often to Fr. Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp. (1883-1954), whom he dubbed "the expert on Catholic/Jewish relations." He was particularly indebted to Fahey's book, The Kingship of Christ and Conversion of the Jewish Nation. Fr. Fahey was one of the key sources of inspiration for Fr. Charles E. Coughlin (1891-1979). Both priests had a conspiratorial view of Jewish involvement in world history, a perspective based on the notorious forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. While Sungenis did not himself cite The Protocols, it is nonetheless a remote source of his beliefs, because of its importance to Fahey. A British extremist, Ivan Fraser, quotes Fahey in an article defending their authenticity: "It was natural that the Jews should try to discredit the Protocols, for their growing fame was focussing [sic] more public attention on other revealing utterances" [Waters Flowing Eastward].

Of Fahey's antisemitism, the fringe publication Seattle Catholic said,

...the Christian anti-Semite has for his dream the restoration of the state which "had its foundations in theological principles." If such is the case — as both history and logic demonstrate even to this very day — may we all then have the courage to respond with the words of Fr. Fahey: "In that sense...every sane thinker must be an anti-Semite."

Today, Fr. Fahey is of great interest to extremists around the world, quoted and sold by such organizations as the SSPX, Stormfront, the National Alliance, and Radio Islam.

* Question, sir. What books by authentic catholic priests not holding antisemitic ideas are sold by Stormfront, National Allinace, and Radio Islam?

Do those outfits sell books by Von Balthasar, Du Lubac, Pope John II, do they sell the Documents of Vatican Two, the Catholic Catechism?

* I know I sais I wasn't going to come back to this thread but that was too absurd not to respond to. fahey is always cited as an "expert" by those on the rad-trad right

1. Jesus Christ is a Jew.

2. St. Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein) was a Jew.

3. St. Peter was a Jew and so were all of the other apostles.

4. St. Paul was a Jew.

5. It is a fact that the early Christians at Jerusalem persisted in worshiping at the Temple at Jerusalem. Although they were baptized, they still regarded themselves as Jews by ancestry. This consciousness faded after the Council of Jerusalem in which Peter was persuaded that it was not necessary for Gentile men becoming Catholics to be circumsized. That heavily suggests that between Pentecost and the Council of Jerusalem, circumcision was expected of converts who were uncircumcised gentiles (suggesting that they were becoming Jews by conversion but of the Christian group of Jews. Any ambiguity, confusion or error was cleared up at the Council of Jerusalem by Peter's assent to conversion of uncircumsized Gentile men without cicumcision being required of them.

6. I trust that you regard none of Jesus Christ, St. Benedicta, St. Peter, St. Paul or the rest of the apostles as "cursed."

7. There is nothing infallible about saints. They are simply and publicly recognized as being within the Church Triumphant as residing in Heaven.

8. St. Paul executed St. Stephen for St. Stephen's profession of the Catholic Faith. St. Mary Magdelene is purported to have....well, this IS a family website. The man who murdered St. Maria Goretti when she refused his sexual advances later reprented and has himself been at least beatified if not canonized. St. Thomas Aquinas offered the opinion that girls are ensouled only after three months have passed since conception but that boys are ensouled immediately. I have no idea whether St. Alphonsus regarded Jews as a cursed race. If he did, he embarassed himself. I have no idea as to whether he is being quoted out of context. I do know that taking Annas and Caiphas at their word and imagining that they could order God to put the guilt of the Blood of Jesus Christ upon future generations of Jews gives Annas and Caiphas far more credit for authority than either deserved.

9. Baltimore Catechism:

Q. Who made me? A. God made me.

Q. Why did God make me?

A. To know Him, to love Him and to serve Him in this world and to be happy with Him forever in the next.

As to the second answer, there is no escape clause like "unless you are a Jew and therefore accursed."

10. Another very good insight is provided by St. Ignatius Loyola who, being confidentially "informed" that Fr. Lainez, an early Jesuit, was a secret Jew, replied: "How very furtunate for him to be related not only to Our Savior but to His Blessed Mother." Lainez was an early successor of Ignatius as Jesuit Superior General or "black pope."

11. Catholics have no responsibility to engage in "debates" with the schismatic and/or with the excommunicated.

12. What really matters in exchanges with you is not whether St. Alphonsus and other saints had eccentric and erroneous views as to Jews but whether you avoid the near occasion of sin by avoiding the defense of the schism and whether you are prepared to submit in holy and sincere obedience and humility to the pontiff.

13. If, as one who rises to the defense of the antipapal schism and somehow regards himself nonetheless as a Catholic and as a "supertrad" feels that he has somehow been treated unfairly by the Catholics, who knows? Maybe, you are right as to that. I rest assured that no indignity or unfairness inflicted upon you or perceived by you as inflicted upon you will begin to equal the evil abuse heaped upon John Paul the Great of happy memory by the antisaint Marcel's band of excommunicated schismatics who sully the memory of Pope St. Pius X by misappropriating his name and sully the Church's reputation by claiming what is not theirs: membership in the Roman Catholic Church.

14. Spoon feed yourself.

I'm sorry, I don't see my name there. Could you show it to me? And could you please provide the source of these paragraphs? It seems that whomever is writing this is only offering an opinion, as their disclaimer in the first paragraph states, as well as saying it is not a matter for them to decide.

I also missed the part about how the SSPX should be "roasting in an open fire". Could you point that out too?

Anyway Pope Benedict XVI does not share this opinion, as he formally declared when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, CDF to the Hawaii 6.

DECREE OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
(THE "HONOLULU" DECISION)
[Mrs. Morley and five other Traditional Catholics in the Diocese of Honolulu, known as "The Honolulu Six," were "excommunicated" by the Bishop of Honolulu on the grounds that they:

* established a traditional chapel in the diocese
* impugned the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the New Mass for four years on a religious radio program
* invited independent and SSPX priests to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass at the chapel
* invited an SSPX bishop to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation at the chapel
* disobeyed the bishop
[Even in the face of all these acts on the part of The Honolulu Six, the Vatican decreed that the six did not commit the crime of "schism" and declared that the bishop's action in "excommunicating" them was null and void. Subsequently, the bishop was removed from office by the Vatican on a morals charge.
[In clear violation of the Vatican's decree, the Bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska, later threatened with "excommunication" any Catholics in his diocese attending the Traditional Latin Mass at independent and SSPX chapels. Although the threat was given much publicity, the bishop in the end backed down when his bluff was called and declined to take any such illegal action.]
LETTER
On July 3, 1991, Mrs. Patricia Morley had recourse to this Congregation against the Decree of the Bishop of Honolulu issued on May 1, 1991.
His Excellency, the Most Reverend Joseph Anthony Ferrario, with aforesaid Decree declared Mrs. Morely excommunicated on the grounds that she had committed the crime of schism and thus had incurred the "latae sententiae" penalty as provided for in canon 1364.1 of the Code of Canon Law [1983].
This Congregation has examined carefully all the available documentation and has ascertained that the activities engaged in by the Petitioner, though blameworthy on various accounts, are not sufficient to constitute the crime of schism.
Since Mrs. Morley did not, in fact, commit the crime of schism and thus did not incur the "latae sententiae" penalty, it is clear that the Decree of the Bishop lacks the precondition on which it is founded.
This Congregation, noting all of the above, is obliged to declare null and void the aforesaid Decree of the Ordinary of Honolulu.
Joseph Card.
Ratzinger, Prefect
Alberto Bovone,
Secretary
Vatican City, June 4, 1993

Does your judgment or the judgment of other lay Catholics on this forum on this matter overrule that of the pope, then Cardinal Ratzinger?

Do you admit adherence to the SSPX? I had thought you had denied that while defending the schism with all your might. What you really object to is Catholics defending the ruling of Pope John Paul II excommunicating Marcel and the Econe V and the adherents of SSPX and declaring SSPX the schism that it is.

You are far too quick to take offense.

SSPXers come here to advertise their schism and to pick off a poorly catechized Catholic or three with phony pleadings of moral equivalency (Why didn't JP II punish the guys WE don't like instead of punishing US? It's all about US, you know!). When the necklace of truth is wrapped around their necks for all to see, they scream like banshees doused in Holy Water (understandably enough. Note to self: Be sure to soak necklaces in Holy Water hereafter before applying.)

The Roman Catholic Church governs itself through the pope as Vicar of Christ on Earth. As to SSPX, Marcel, its other bishops and its schismatic fantasies, the papacy has ruled. They are gone from Holy Mother the Church unless and until they are allowed to return, presumably by permission at an equal level of the papacy and not by virtue of their own selective fantasies. If you do not agree, I frankly do not care. Make your own bed and lie (as in recline) in it. If ever I should be so unfortunate as to find you agreeing with me, I would be sure to double check my premises.

As to your objections to my suggestion that, in a sane world, schismatics would be roasting on an open fire, are you denying that Holy Mother the Church used to do exactly that (Hus, Wycliffe and many others) or are you attacking that particular tradition (justice, whatever) of ecclesiastical justice, as such, when it is suggested that it would justly be applied to modern day schismatics if only civil society would not interfere?

During the immediate aftermath of the election of Sixtus V as pope, there was a papal coronation banquet. Sixtus V approved a proposal to hang by the neck until dead two teenaged highwaymen from the rafters of the banquet room during the banquet for the crime (in God's Papal States) of carrying weapons on the highway and using them in an armed robbery of a carriage and its wealthy occupants. They were hanged. It was business and not personal.

Would you agree that Sixtus V would have been at least as justified if he had been burning schismatics at the stake instead? If not, why not? If valid then, why not now? The Vatican City is a sovereign state and the pope is king.

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.