FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Bp Williamson column 11/30
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Why was there not an uprising amongst priests of the Society of St Pius X when their leaders' loss of grip on Catholic doctrine and subsequent betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre's work became absolutely clear from March of last year onwards ? Fr. Olivier Rioult, trail-blazer of the "Resistance" in France, gave several good reasons last month in an interview accessible in French on The following summary is freely adapted from the original text:--

Basically, original sin: Once the original fight for Tradition in the 1970's and '80's had succeeded in guaranteeing the survival of the essentials of the Faith, Traditionalists sat back on their laurels to enjoy their cosy enclaves, and they settled into a comfortable routine which they are now reluctant to lose. They have lost the spirit of fighting for the Faith.

Secondly, that particular form of original sin which is liberalism: Over the last ten years Society leaders have given the lead in weakening the fight against liberalism, error and immodesty. But to cease swimming against the current is to drift backwards, and a number of SSPX priests -- by no means all -- have grown weaker in their convictions and their preaching.

Thirdly, activism: some colleagues can also let themselves be run off their feet by their priestly tasks, leaving themselves no time or inclination to read or study. Turning into mere administrators and communicators, they weaken their convictions and preaching.

Fourthly, Bishop Fellay's trickery: for years his double-talk deceived everybody except a small minority of clear-sighted souls who could absolutely not get a hearing. Only last year did his mask come off with the March "Cor Unum" and with his reply of April 14 to the three bishops. The great majority of Traditionalists he had put to sleep (as he is now doing again).

Fifthly, fear of the unknown: when the whole world around you is going mad, and you find an enclave of sanity, and then that enclave also begins to go mad, it requires unusual strength of character to face up to the reality and not prefer some illusion or other, and of illusions there are plenty ! Thus many priests realize that they are living through a drama calling for some crucifying decisions, but they lack the necessary fortitude to launch into the unknown.

And last but not least, bad leaders: of course there have always been liberals within the SSPX as within the mainstream Church, but for as long as the leaders hold firm, these can be held in check. However, when in the mainstream Church John XXIII and Paul VI favoured their liberalism, the result was a tidal wave , and now that SSPX leaders have turned liberal, liberalism is sweeping through the Society as it would never have done under good leaders, true leaders.

These reasons given by Fr Rioult are all true, but none of them are stronger than that Faith which is "our victory over the world" (I Jn.V, 4). Indeed one might say that all the reasons come down to the lack of a strong enough Faith on the part of the priests, because they are living in a world in which the grip on Truth of every soul alive has been loosened, and if Truth is not true, how can Faith be true ?

Then what is the simplest way to strengthen one's grip on Truth, as we absolutely need to do in today’s crazy circumstances ? In my opinion:--

"Watch and pray, watch and pray,
Fifteen Mysteries every day".

Kyrie eleison.
For every hardline quote of Abp. Lefebvre you can find just as many quotes which are "accommodationist". That's why this "resistance" is doomed to fail. Both sides can quote Abp. Lefebvre to prove their positions.

Considering what the SSPX believes, their official stance and way of doing things since Abp. Lefebvre "sold out" and tried to reunite with Rome Bp. Fellay "sold out" and tried to reconcile with Rome is prudent. The resistance however, considering they believe the pope is the pope, are pure schismatics in their actions. St. Augustine said that schism is a sin against charity, and I'm not surprised since I always found Bp. Williamson's sermons/lectures to either have a toxic tone or having confrontational/aggressive rhetoric with the infamous and toxic WASPish sarcasm, completely lacking the merciful charity of a true bishop. The resistance is truly lukewarm, with the SSPX being hot, the CMRI being cold, and the pope being the source of the heat. The resistance accepts the pope as being pope, yet they don't even want to talk to him let alone obey him, and they never make the logical conclusions to their behavior towards the pope (i.e embracing sedevacantism).

At least the sedevacantists (CMRI), under the assumption their position is correct, are not schismatics because they aren't openly defying and wanting to break communion with a man they know is pope. If there hasn't been a pope since 1958 then they're technically not in schism, they aren't contradicting themselves. If you believe the pope is the pope, and behave like the CMRI, then you're a schismatic. PERIOD!

I find it funny certain trads, who pride themselves on being Thomists, aren't able to follow their own beliefs to their logical conclusions.

Now would be and opportune time for a Kyrie eleison!
Nearly every traditional community and independent priest affiliated with the Society up until 2012, even after heated and critical duscussions with Bishop Fellay and SSPX leadership, have nonethless remained affiliated with the SSPX.

To rebel against ones superiors requires hard evidence that those superiors are making or imposing substantial compromises to the Faith itself. Fr Themann demonstrated in a long conference called "Resistance to what?" available online, that no such evidence exists. The monthly ad nauseam arguments these last couple years from the so-called resistance offer no hard evidence of any kind, but only conjecture and interpretation of events and language.

To answer the six objections:

1. It does seem true that some trads have become too complacent in their enclaves, but it is an error of rigorism that complacency only fails to resist that which leans towards liberalism. The quietistic trad content with their chapel can be just as apathetic and tolerant of the rigorist to the right as they can be to the more liberal-minded on the left.

2. Merely asserting Society priests have allowed themselves to become weakened is not evidence they have, but calumny.

3. Society priests in general are very well read on the current state of Crisis in the Church, as is evident in the countless conferences given each week around the world. Most of the priests are reading well respected and authoritative sources, as opposed to conspiratorial and unprofessional sources.

4. Bishop Fellay is portrayed as a traitor, referring to past writings, without giving evidence and a reasoned argument about those writings. This is an endless and empty repetition.

5. Merely asserting that Society priests have become fearful and lacking in fortitude is not evidence it is so, but calumny.

6. Merely asserting that the priests of the Society have turned liberal is not evidence they have, but calumny.