FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Bp WIlliamson March 31 column
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
The desire of certain priests within the Society of St Pius X to seek a practical agreement with the Church authorities without a doctrinal agreement seems to be a recurring temptation. For years Bishop Fellay as the Society’s Superior General has refused the idea, but when he said in Winona on February 2 that Rome is willing to accept the Society as is, and that it is ready to satisfy “all the Society’s requirements...on the practical level”, it does look as though Rome is holding out the same temptation once more.

However, the latest news from Rome will be known to many of you: unless the Vatican is playing games with the SSPX, it announced last Friday, March 16, that it found Bishop Fellay’s January reply to its Doctrinal Preamble of September 14 of last year “not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems which lie at the foundation of the rift between the Holy See and the SSPX.” And the Vatican gave the SSPX one month in which to “clarify its position” and avoid “a rupture of painful and incalculable consequences.”

But what if Rome were suddenly to cease requiring acceptance of the Council and the New Mass ? What if Rome were suddenly to say, “Alright. We have thought about it. Come back into the Church as you ask. We will give you freedom to criticize the Council as much as you like, and freedom to celebrate the Tridentine Mass exclusively. But do come in !” It might be a very cunning move on the part of Rome, because how could the Society refuse such an offer without seeming inconsistent and downright ungrateful ? Yet on pain of survival it would have to refuse. On pain of survival ? Strong words. But here is a commentary of Archbishop Lefebvre on the matter.

On May 5, 1988, he signed with then Cardinal Ratzinger the protocol (provisional draft) of a practical Rome-Society agreement. On May 6 he took back his (provisional) signature. On June 13 he said, “With the May 5 Protocol we would soon have been dead. We would not have lasted a year. As of now the Society is united, but with that Protocol we would have had to make contacts with them, there would have been division within the Society, everything would have been a cause of division” (emphasis added). “New vocations might have flowed our way because we were united with Rome, but such vocations would have tolerated no disagreement with Rome which means division. As it is, vocations sift themselves before they reach us” (which is still true in Society seminaries).

And why such division ? (Warring vocations would be merely one example amongst countless others). Clearly, because the May 5 Protocol would have meant a practical agreement resting upon a radical doctrinal disagreement between the religion of God and the religion of man. The Archbishop went on to say, “They are pulling us over to the Council...whereas on our side we are saving the Society and Tradition by carefully keeping our distance from them” (emphasis added). Then why did the Archbishop seek such an agreement in the first place ? He continued, “We made an honest effort to keep Tradition going within the official Church. It turned out to be impossible. They have not changed, except for the worse.”

And have they changed since 1988 ? Many would think, only for yet worse.

Kyrie eleison.
In the event of a Rome-SSPX deal will Bishop Williamson quit the SSPX? Or for that matter will Bishop De Mallerais, who says that Benedict XVI has uttered heresies which he has yet to recant? Or Bishop de Gallaretta, the Society's doctrinal negotiator from 2009-2011, whose opinions have been discarded by Rome?. Or will we have a case of Three Mitred Monkeys?
(03-31-2012, 10:56 AM)francisco Wrote: [ -> ]Or will we have a case of Three Mitred Monkeys?

Completely inappropriate language for three Catholic bishops.
(03-31-2012, 10:56 AM)francisco Wrote: [ -> ]In the event of a Rome-SSPX deal will Bishop Williamson quit the SSPX? Or for that matter will Bishop De Mallerais,

Usually I wouldn't pile on. But since you made the horses-ass comment about monkeys that Crusader pointed out, I will avail myself of the opportunity to point out another mistake of yours Frankie

It's s Bishop Tissier Einstein, Not Bishop De Mallerais.   
(03-31-2012, 02:40 PM)matthew_talbot Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-31-2012, 10:56 AM)francisco Wrote: [ -> ]In the event of a Rome-SSPX deal will Bishop Williamson quit the SSPX? Or for that matter will Bishop De Mallerais,

Usually I wouldn't pile on. But since you made the horses-ass comment about monkeys that Crusader pointed out, I will avail myself of the opportunity to point out another mistake of yours Frankie

It's s Bishop Tissier Einstein, Not Bishop De Mallerais.   

OK. This is from Wikipedia on The Three Wise Monkeys: There are various meanings ascribed to the monkeys and the proverb including associations with being of good mind, speech and action. In the Western world the phrase is often used to refer to those who deal with impropriety by looking the other way, refusing to acknowledge it, or feigning ignorance.[citation needed]

Again, from Wikipedia:  Bernard Tissier de Mallerais
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And why such division ? (Warring vocations would be merely one example amongst countless others). Clearly, because the May 5 Protocol would have meant a practical agreement resting upon a radical doctrinal disagreement between the religion of God and the religion of man. The Archbishop went on to say, “They are pulling us over to the Council...whereas on our side we are saving the Society and Tradition by carefully keeping our distance from them” (emphasis added). Then why did the Archbishop seek such an agreement in the first place ? He continued, “We made an honest effort to keep Tradition going within the official Church. It turned out to be impossible. They have not changed, except for the worse.” And have they changed since 1988 ? Many would think, only for yet worse.

This worries me. If what Bishop Williamson says here is true, how can the SSPX ever reconcile with Rome?
I think the point is that most of us don't want to blindly "reunite with Rome". Rome has admitted to deviations in Faith (from consistent Catholicism), differences that they are not willing to address. Rome has problems. This isn't a new thought - it is the recurring thought for the last 50 years. It's why my grandparents refused the Council and the New Mass and kept their Catholic Faith and Traditions untainted. Deviations from faith, outright heresies, sex scandals, money scandals, discipline scandals, and the list goes on the current Vatican. We don't want to reunite with THAT. I am proud of our bishops. Remain Catholic and keep the unchanging Faith.
I have to agree. The Church has always taught and Sacred Scripture reveals that She is intrinsically ONE. She is thus by Faith. Clearly both the SSPX and the Vatican both admit differences specifically in Faith (as would any other traditional group; thus the "doctrinal" discussions). If there cannot be first a complete unity in Faith, then a "reconciliation" is simply a costume of worldly "togetherness". The bishops of the SSPX are right to hold their ground, because a compromise in Faith is a sellout to the devil. Some may think those strong words, but I am sure that we can find some really pertinent Scripture and other quotations on the subject.

So, the SSPX shouldn't come into full unity with Rome, because they might get vocations loyal to the Pope?  ???

Wow.  I'll laert the FSSP and the ICKSP that their vocations have Papist cooties.  :eyeroll:
(04-02-2012, 02:14 PM)Verum Dulces Wrote: [ -> ]I think the point is that most of us don't want to blindly "reunite with Rome". Rome has admitted to deviations in Faith (from consistent Catholicism), differences that they are not willing to address. Rome has problems. This isn't a new thought - it is the recurring thought for the last 50 years. It's why my grandparents refused the Council and the New Mass and kept their Catholic Faith and Traditions untainted. Deviations from faith, outright heresies, sex scandals, money scandals, discipline scandals, and the list goes on the current Vatican. We don't want to reunite with THAT. I am proud of our bishops. Remain Catholic and keep the unchanging Faith.

This kind of mentality among SSPX supporters bothers me. You should want to be united with that because that's the Holy See, despite the sinfulness of the humans making up the hierarchy. People forget that the SSPX never separated itself from the Church because it wanted to quarantine itself away from the mainstream. The SSPX was founded and continued in the heart of the Church until it was ostracised and condemned for refusing to adopt the changes.

If the SSPX could be given canonical status without having to accept Vatican Ii, compromise the faith, etc, then I can't see any way to justify rejecting such an offer.
Pages: 1 2 3