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.

Pace, sister :) Just because a schismatic lawyer writes in the publication of a suspended priest there is no reason not to trust the "information." I mean, one can either trust the Pope, in whose authority the Curia acts, and the CDF when they publicly testified to the truth the third secret had been revealed in full, and Sr. Lucy publicly agreed with the testimony, or, one can trust the legal mouthpiece of a schismatic rag when he propagandizes polemically in the publication of a priest suspended a divinis

Who is more trustworthty, the Vicar of Christ and the actual Seer of Fatima or schismatic liars?

Pope Pius V seems to treat it so.

Not at all, actually (and "Pope Pius V seems to treat it so" would be more accurately written "Pope Pius V seemed to treat it so." I think past tense is more appropriate of a dead pope. While he is enjoying the vision of God in heaven as we speak, he is not now the pope).

You have not proved the Quo Primum to be dogma, and I do not think you are competent to argue that Pius V felt that way either, purely from the text of Quo Primum. If you are willing use that tactic, you will be in the same erroneous but fashionable school of thought as "The Jesus Project", which concluded using literary criticism that perhaps one or two of the words of Jesus in Scripture were actually uttered by Jesus!

That Quo Primum is dogma is merely an erroneous assertion of the SSPX and its adherents that is logically and canonically impossible. It catches those who want to be faithful Catholics, loyal to the pope, in a logical vise.

If the pope says that adhering to SSPX results in excommunication, then what SSPX demands must be wrong; otherwise, the pope is erecting a barrier to salvation with his dictum. If he is wrong about what the SSPX espouses, then he is in error about a matter of faith and morals, and the Church is a fraud. If the Church is a fraud, then salvation is also a fraud.

Think of it: in the mind of SSPX, a liturgical preference requires demolition of the Catholic Church!

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?

You really should refrain from twisting what is plainly written. I wrote

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)... .

I included the portion concerning the rest of the bishops (which included Lefebvre, I think) only because you might assert that without the union of all the bishops the new liturgy might not be properly approved. The new liturgy, by the way, is also not dogma. It is only liturgy, like the Tridentine liturgy.

What matters is obedience to the pope, who explicitly condemned adherence to the SSPX with excommunication. That has not been rescinded by Pope Benedict, which means that adherence to SSPX still results in excommunication.

That doesn't matter to schismatics who don't really believe in the teaching and disciplinary authority of the pope, of course, does it?

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.