Lefebvrist bishop says no reconciliation with Rome

SpiritDaily ^ | September 17, 2005

[NYer]

From CW News:

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.

[murphE]

I'm not posting to you because as I have only defended myself against calumny and yet you have suggested it would be just if "the SSPX were roasting in fire", I have been the one to be told to "knock it off".

[BlackElk]

Congratulations! I think that is the very first SSPX post that merits a kudo from Catholics. I genuinely rejoice in SSPX rejection of the Blood libel. This post is genuine and not sarcastic.

[NYer]

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

It's not like any aspect of this discussion is new. You continue to post the same fraudulent arguments when in fact you know that you are in schism. According to canon 751 such "refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or the communion of the members of the Church subject to him" constitute schism.

Here is an exchange of letters between a member of the SSPX and then Cardinal Ratzinger. The question of the Hawaiian case is addressed.

* * * * *

September 4, 1995
Feast of Pope St. Pius X
Scott M. Windsor, Sr.
P.O. Box 11502
Prescott, Arizona 86304-1502
USA

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Vatican City, Europe

Your Holiness,

My name is Scott Windsor, I live in Prescott, Arizona, USA, which is in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix under Bishop Thomas O'Brien. I am a convert and a "Traditionalist" Catholic. I truly appreciate the beauty and holiness of the Tridentine Mass. I am married and the father of five, and am extremely concerned for the well-being of all our souls.

In our diocese the Tridentine Mass is not licitly celebrated. Our only options for this Mass are:

1) through "independent" priests or

2) the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).

Where I live, in Prescott, we only have the SSPX for the Traditional Latin Mass. As a side note, Bishop O'Brien has been petitioned several times to allow the "Indult Mass" here and has been approached by (at the request of some local Prescott parishioners) the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter; all requests have been denied.

I have been well aware of the encyclical Ecclesia Dei , issued by the Holy Father on July 1, 1988 and the ramifications listed therein for those found in "formal adherence" to it. I have struggled with this for a long time, and then last Summer I was made aware of an incident in Hawaii wherein the Bishop of Honolulu (then Bp. Ferrario) had issued a "Canonical Warning" to a Ms. Morley. The particular charges that Bp. Ferrario named against Ms. Morley and the others, was that of schism and "ipso facto" excommunication (at which point he then referenced Ecclesia Dei).

In reading your response to Ms. Morley, you stated that there was "no formal schism, in the strict sense" plus the "charges lacked foundation and hence validity." You also indicated that the actions they were involved in were grave indeed, (assuming you meant the radio productions and the questioning of the soundness of Novus Ordo Missae, and other public embarrassments to the local church), for which you suggested alternative measures including interdict. My concerns for the attending and supporting the local SSPX mission seemed answered and I became more comfortable in my attendance and support there.

Lately, some of my friends on a computer bulletin board service (BBS) have challenged me, stating that I am a schismatic and need to reconcile myself to Holy Mother Church. I have listened to their arguments with earnest and thus have some renewed concerns that I know would be best answered by you.

My specific questions are:

Am I being schismatic in attending the Society of St. Pius X mission here in Prescott?

What does the Hawaiian Case mean to me in Prescott, Arizona, or any other person in a Society of St. Pius X chapel?

In all humbleness and sincerity, I am,
Faithfully yours,
Scott M. Windsor, Sr.

Rome's response follows

PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO ECCLESIA DEI
N. 117/95
Rome, 29 September 1995
Mr. Scott M. Windsor, Sr.
P. O. Box 11502
Prescott, Arizona 86304-1502
U.S.A.

Dear Mr. Windsor,

Thank you for your letter of 4 September 1995 addressed to His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing with matters related to our particular competence.

We are aware of the lack of authorized celebrations of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal in the Diocese of Phoenix and we can appreciate your desire to assist at the traditional Mass. We also recognize your earnest desire to remain in full communion with the Successor of Peter and the members of the Church subject to him, a desire which obviously prompted you to write this letter. In order to answer your questions we must explain the Church's present evaluation of the situation of the Society of St. Pius X.

There is no doubt about the validity of the ordination of the priests of the Society of St. Pius X. They are, however, suspended "a divinis" , that is prohibited by the Church from exercising their orders because of their illicit ordination.

The Masses they celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2 ). The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called "Tridentine" Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.

While it is true that the participation in the Mass and sacraments at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a mentality which separates itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff. Father Peter R. Scott, District Superior of the Society in the United States, has publicly stated that he deplores the "liberalism" of "those who refuse to condemn the New Mass as absolutely offensive to God, or the religious liberty and ecumenism of the postconcilliar church." With such an attitude the society of St. Pius X is effectively tending to establish its own canons of orthodoxy and hence to separate itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff. According to canon 751 such "refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or the communion of the members of the Church subject to him" constitute schism. Hence we cannot encourage your participation in the Masses, the sacraments or other services conducted under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.

The situation of at least one of the "independent" priests in the Diocese of Phoenix to whom you allude is somewhat different. He and the community which he serves have declared their desire to regularize their situation and have taken some initial steps to do so. Let us pray that this may soon be accomplished.

Finally, we may say that "the Hawaiian case" resulted in a judgment that the former Bishop of Honolulu did not have grounds to excommunicate the persons involved, but this judgment does not confer the Church's approbation upon the Society of St. Pius X or those who frequent their chapels.

With prayerful best wishes, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Msgr. Camille Perl
Secretary

[BlackElk]

For the record, I have never asked that you be told to "knock it off." Then again, I have never asked that ANYONE be told to knock it off.

Of course, you and I are both guests in JimRob's living room and he is neither a Catholic nor an SSPXer as I understand it. He is just a host who has the patience to put up with the infernal squabbling that arises here among Catholics and those who claim to be.

Although I have asked publicly that policies here be changed to generally suppress the eternal squabbling in the name of conservative POLITICAL unity instead of RELIGIOUS unity which is beyond anyone's insufficient powers here, he and those who run this living room have not agreed as is certainly their right.

The schism and its adherents attack the Church and her Faithful on this website. The Church and her Faithful defend against the schism. So be it. While the religious sideshows triggered by SSPX using this site for schismatic advertising and philosophical seduction of the poorly catechized among Catholics certainly distract from common political efforts, the decision to host such squabbling is neither yours nor mine.

I have no personal objection to your responding to me in whatever words you may choose. Your personal disagreement with what I post does not mean that I should ignore what you post to anyone.

[murphE]

It's not like any aspect of this discussion is new.

No it's not, which is why I am puzzled by your continued false accusations as well as you and anyone else on this forum presuming to have any authority at all to determine my status as a Catholic in good standing, which I am.

If Msgr. Pearl confirms that the bishop had no grounds to excommunicate the Hawaii 6, what grounds and authority do you, or any other poster on this forum pretend to have to declare that I am a schismatic or excommunicated? (That's rhetorical by the way).

[BlackElk]

Oh, my! Thanks for the ENTIRE text of Monsignor Perl's letter so often misused by the schismatics as a purported Vatican "seal of approval" of the schism.

The notorious Bishop Ferrario also came to a premature retirement when it was discovered that he had stashed an ex-altar boy in a San Francisco lovenest for His Excellency's weekend recreation. There is a tremendous lot more to the Ferrario story and the Vatican's reaction to him and his overturned excommunications of genuine Traditionalists than any SSPX schismatic will ever admit.

SSPX "truth" is akin to soviet "truth" and Nancy Pelosi "truth."

[BlackElk]

He had no theological preparation but he DID stay at Holiday Inn last night!

[BlackElk]

MurphE: I think the words that you are looking for are in the last substantive paragraph of the Gantin document linked by NYer at #288:

"The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor LeFebvre, otherwise THEY SHALL INCUR IPSO FACTO THE VERY GRAVE PENALTY OF EXCOMMUNICATION." (Emphasis supplied except for ipso facto whhich was emphasized in the original).

The auto da fe

is God's chosen way

to purge sin from the land

Another soul to heaven

from Torquemada's band!

Assuming for the sake of argument that such a papal decree as Ecclesia Dei has EVER been found wanting or overturned, it is a rash soul indeed who depends upon such meager, rare, alleged possibilities upon which to base his defense of repudiating the Faith by repudiating its Vicar of Christ on Earth.

[vox_freedom]

I've also been called a "schizzy" and attacked by these antagonists, even though I don't attend SSPX Masses, even as these Traditional Latin Masses are acknowledged by Rome to be licit. Rome is on the record with statements that it is permissible to attend SSPX Masses to satisfy Sunday obligations and even to contribute in their Offertory collections.
To clarify: No statement from Rome has ever called faithful Catholics who attend SSPX Masses schismatics. Yet we hear these harmful and judgmental charges of schism and excommunication thrown around here constantly.
Several posters here are free to name call and "personally attack" all in the name of "the Church." They go so far as to slam a new FR poster with their false "schizzy" label and then show no remorse when a modest defense is put forward. They admonish him with, "you won't last long here." as if they assume and usurp Moderator powers.
It is sad and unfortunate that there is no willingness to restrain the mean-spirited and baseless attacks and little opportunity for civil discourse on these important matters of Faith.
My engagement here with those who make false charges (calumny) and offer continual provocations against me and others on what I know to be the truth is, as of this point and voluntarily, finished.

[sempertrad]

See #284.

[murphE]

They go so far as to slam a new FR poster with their false "schizzy" label and then show no remorse when a modest defense is put forward.

Yep, and this new poster was a potential convert to the faith. It is a shame that such scandalous behavior displayed toward him may impede his conversion.

They admonish him with, "you won't last long here." as if they assume and usurp Moderator powers.

Maybe they have, I see Vidi Aquam has been banned or suspended. Let's pray that God showers him with graces in order to overcome the scandalous actions of others so that he may soon find his way into the Church.

[bornacatholic]

Amen, brother. As football players are wont to say..."if I am in a dark alley..if I am in a fox hole, I want you beside me, taking my back ect.

It is painful to have to point out that were Jews as a race cursed by God then God would be Jean Cauvin; John Calvin.

Is THAT what "Tradition" has become for the schism? Is THAT what Rome must accept for a reconciliation ?

Until this thread, although I suspected it, I never realized how accurate it is that antisemitism is the glue binding the schism together. Not that all who are attracted to the sspx are antisemitic, for that is definitely not the case - the old liturgy is what attracts many, not the antisemitism. But the hierarchy of the sspx is antisemitic. Just witness the Angelus FAQ on the issue

However, there isn't one identifiable schismatic in these threads who has objected to such rank Calvinism as the belief that God curses an entire race, especiallly His Chosen people, the Jews.

No, worse, they embrace and defend such Calvinism as Catholic Tradition.

Yikes.

This thread has been extremely revealing and ought cause some to seek Confession and Conversion a.s.a.p.

[bornacatholic]

*Tsk, tsk, tsk. There you go again, MurphE. I will post the truth of the maatter accrd. to Christifidelis which assisted the Honolulu six. Please, MurphE, stop trusting the schism will give you the truth of the matter. You are being manipulated by lting propaganda. It this instance it is the "honolulu six," other thimes ot wil be the "Card. Lara" lies, still other times it will ne the "Murray thesis"

Cardinal Ratzinger's decision reversing the excommunication of six members of the faithful in Honolulu is used in an attempt to legitimatize the SSPX. As most of you know, the St. Joseph Foundation assisted in defending the "Hawaii Six" and I can say that the status of the Society was not at issue in that case. What was at issue was the conduct of the defendants which, while admittedly blameworthy in some respects, did not constitute schism. The records of the case show that the former Bishop of Honolulu, Most Rev. Joseph Ferrario, tried to use penal law to silence chose six Catholics who were calling the attention of the public to what they perceived as the bishop's follies and misdeeds. Cardinal Ratzinger has never explicitly or implicitly approved of the actions of the SSPX

The SSPX And The Internal Crisis In The Church

I know that the Church is undergoing a terrible internal crisis. So does the SSPX, but I think our common understanding ends there. The St. Joseph Foundation now receives requests for assistance at the rate of over 2,000 per year and we know as well as anyone else just what faithful Catholics have to endure. Still, even if we cannot help them, I am confident that the vast majority will manage to bear their sufferings without refusing "submission to the Roman Pontiff or communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (c. 751).

If I may impose on our readers outside the United States just one more time, I will close with a final American example which I personally remember. During World War II, the former heavyweight boxing champion, Joe Louis, was drafted into the army. When the "Brown Bomber" arrived at the induction station, a reporter asked him if he did not think it unfair that he was forced to serve in the army of a country in which his people had suffered and were suffering so many injustices. Louis thought for a moment and said: "There's nothing wrong with this country that Hitler can fix."

I am by no means equating Archbishop Lefebvre with Adolph Hitler or the SSPX with the National Socialist Party, but the analogy remains an apt one. Terrible things are happening in the Church, but I don't see anything that the Society of St. Pius X can fix.

Taken from the August 22, 1996 issue of "Christifidelis". To subscribe to "Christifidelis", please contact: The Saint Joseph Foundation,

[murphE]

Cardinal Ratzinger's decision reversing the excommunication of six members of the faithful in Honolulu is used in an attempt to legitimatize the SSPX.

No, I didn't say it said anything about legitimizing the SSPX. What it does show is that Cardinal Ratzinger formally stated that the Bishop did not have the right to excommunicate the lay people involved because they were NOT guilty of a schismatic act. FROM YOUR OWN POST:

" What was at issue was the conduct of the defendants which, while admittedly blameworthy in some respects, did not constitute schism."

But, although Cardinal Ratzinger declared that a bishop had no grounds to make this statement, and nullified the "excommunications" you and others on this forum seem to think that you have authority above Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI, to declare other lay people on this forum excommunicated and schismatic for the same things these people did. And you say you "follow the pope" and accept his authority. HA! Only when it suits you.

Through the intercession of St Dymphna, may Our Lord shower you with graces.

[TheGeezer]

You have defined something that is not a dogma or doctrine as dogma or doctrine.

Really? Where?

Quo Primum is not dogma. You insist that it is.

One cannot set oneself up as equal in teaching authority to the pope, can one? Yet you have, have you not?

No and No.

If you assert that Quo Primum is dogma, you assume greater authority than the pope, who, by his approval of the new rite (in union, in fact, with the bishops of the Church at Vatican II), has de facto revealed his teaching that it is not dogma or doctrine. So you either declare your authority to be greater than the pope's, or you declare someone else's authority to be greater than the pope's who has this erroneous opinion. You have set yourself up as having superior authority than the pope. If you did not assert that, we would not be having this discussion: you would humbly obey the pope.

But you are not obeying the pope: you are disobeying the pope with your public and scandalous support of SSPX. It is one way or the other. Only in the disordered mind of one who wants to be a Catholic, but who cannot submit to papal teaching authority, can this contradiction exist.

First, I did not say that he doesn't have authority in these matters

Then obey him and withdraw support from SSPX.

It is not I who engage in ad hominem attack:

"Oh, I also dogpiled Father Paul Kramer and discovered he is one of the Fatime third-secret conspiracy advocates. It just figures." -TheGeezer, Post 214

Of course not.

John Paul the Great affirmed the Fatima secrets publication. He confirmed the dedication of Russia to the Blessed Virgin. Fr. Kramer disavows and contradicts those affirmations, revealing his defective Catholicity, intellectualism, and disobedience. He contaminates his discourse with emotion and illogical, circumstantial argument. His defects are a trademark of the antipapal paranoia that afflicts those who haunt the SSPX heresies. It only figures that he would be a part of the whole package. That is not ad hominem; it is hyperbole at worst and the truth at best.

[murphE]

John Paul the Great affirmed the Fatima secrets publication. He confirmed the dedication of Russia to the Blessed Virgin. Fr. Kramer disavows and contradicts those affirmations, revealing his defective Catholicity, intellectualism, and disobedience.

Oh this is too rich. Because someone doesn't accept that the pope revealed the complete third secret,( or did the consecration ) of a private revelation that no one is even required to believe as a Catholic, means that person has "defective Catholicity, intellectualism, and [is]disobedient."

That makes sense. [roll eyes]

[vox_freedom]

John Paul the Great affirmed the Fatima secrets publication. He confirmed the dedication of Russia to the Blessed Virgin.

[TradicalRC]

Quo Primum is not dogma. You insist that it is.

Pope Pius V seems to treat it so.

If you assert that Quo Primum is dogma, you assume greater authority than the pope, who, by his approval of the new rite (in union, in fact, with the bishops of the Church at Vatican II), has de facto revealed his teaching that it is not dogma or doctrine.

Are you saying that Vatican II was a dogmatic council, in spite of the fact that John XXIII AND Paul VI said explicitly that it was NOT? Now who's setting themselves up as a greater authority than the Popes?

[bornacatholic]

Pius V in the Bull "Quod a nobis", for the publication of the Roman Breviary (1508), expressed himself as follows: "Statuentes Breviarium ipsum nullo unquam tempore, vel totum vel ex parte mutandum, vel ei aliquid addendum, vel omnino detrahendum esse". The same pope uses similar terms in the Bull "Quo primum tempore", for the publication of the Roman Missal (1870): "Mandantes, ac districte . . . praecipientes ut coeteris omnibus rationibus et ritibus ex aliis Missalibus quantumvis vetustis hactenus observari consuetis, in posterum penitus omissis ac plane rejectis, Missam juxta ritum, modum ac normam quæ per Missale hoc a Nobis nunc traditur decantent ac legant, neque in Missæ celebratione alias cæremonias, vel preces quam quæ hoc Missali continentur addere vel recitare præsumant."

* Now, everyone knows the Breviary was reformed, changed, etc. Yet nobody accuses as a heretic or a destroyer of Tradition he who changed it (remember the Pope who changed it?)

The factt of the matter is that back in the day that was the nomenclature of Papal Encyclicals. That is the way they wrote. It is passing strange for anyone calling themselves traditionalist to accept the idiot idea one Pope could bind all future Popes in matters Liturgical, rendering The Keys nugatory, but, such is the state and "knowledge" of Tradition on the rad-trad schismatic right. They don't know jack about Tradition yet no matter how many times they are corrected they endlessly repeat the same errors

[NYer]

Oh this is too rich. Because someone doesn't accept that the pope revealed the complete third secret,( or did the consecration ) of a private revelation that no one is even required to believe as a Catholic, means that person has "defective Catholicity, intellectualism, and [is]disobedient."

In April 2002 Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe visited Sister Lucia and asked her personally if the consecration had been accomplished. She looked him in the eye and said: "It was done! The Holy Father willed it. It was done and you can tell your friends that it was done."

Essentially, Fr. Kramer is calling Sr. Lucia a liar. That is defective Catholicity, regardless of whether one is required to believe in the apparition.