Radio Cristiandad published Father Ceriani‘s analysis of the questions and answers heard during an interview conceded by His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson. Such analysis was published in three parts in Spanish:
What Father Ceriani points out results very interesting and, mainly, very important to be known by the faithful and even by other priests. Therefore, here we present Fr. Ceriani’s analysis in English. This translation is not complete, due to the extension of the original work, but summarizes all the ideas and the global idea expressed by Fr. Ceriani in his work.
Fr. Ceriani’s conclusions regarding an interview to Bp. Williamson
Several times I have warned about the attitude of Bp. Williamson. We cannot forget that he has been involved in many adverse events that have occurred over the last 12-13 years to prepare the Society [of Saint Pius X] for an agreement.
I have provided four clear examples:
-
The acceptance and defense of the motu proprio of July 7th, 2007
-
Asking, accepting and thanking the lifting of the excommunications in January 2009
-
Not having challenged nor repudiated the doctrinal discussions, but rather allowing and justifying them.
-
The fatal phrase: «to obtain from Rome that precious regularization which Rome alone has the authority to grant»
During the interview, there are only two questions regarding these Bishop´s controversial facts. However, the Bishop himself adds a new error to the list; a list of points we cannot agree with him.
Bp. Williamson alludes the document Quattor abhinc annos, which in 1984 insulted the Mass allowing it to be prayed by means of an insult, I mean, indult…
+++
Let us analyze firstly this new point. Bp. Williamson says:
Certainly I in 84, for example, greeted an apparently important step given by Rome in favor of the good Mass, the indult, because I honestly did not see in it a trap. And I wanted to see the good, and if Rome did something right, I wanted to greet the good and not to always criticize, criticize, criticize Rome. So, there was on my side a certain feeling, maybe of wanting to approve something coming from Rome, a benevolence towards Rome.
Before giving my own observations on this text, let us read what Non Possumus says about it. The administrator of this blog, have published after Bp. Williamson’s interview, the «Catechism of the crisis in the SSPX», presenting it as an extraordinary document, and recommending its reading, begging everyone to promote it to family and friends as well, and especially among the priests and seminarians of the Society…
Regarding Benedict XVI’s motu proprio, question No. 15 asks:
Then, what should Bp. Fellay have answered?
The answer is clear: What the Society responded to a similar action made by Rome (the indult of October 3rd, 1984). The SSPX’s Superior General recalled that such an indult was «ruinous for the metaphysics of law». It couldn’t be anything but an «argumentum ad hominem«, since «its conditions are unacceptable». A «Catholic, having the sense of the Church, cannot consider the indult as a foundation of his request» (Cor unum, June 1985).
Bear in mind that the Superior General in 1985 was Fr. Schmidberger…
I recommend Non Possumus to give this «Catechism of the crisis in the SSPX» to Bp. Williamson, so he can read it…
Let us remember what the indult of 1984 contained:
… the Supreme Pontiff, in a desire to meet the wishes of these groups, grants to diocesan bishops the possibility of using an indult whereby priests and faithful, who shall be expressly indicated in the letter of request to be presented to their own bishop, may be able to celebrate Mass by using the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition, but under the following conditions:
a) That it be made publically clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.
Moreover, it is common to discuss about the indult; however, the term seems rather inappropriate because, in principle, it means a personal and revocable exception to a common rule.
It is unclear, therefore, how the traditional Mass, the official and common, would be authorized for an indult. In fact, the alleged indult, limits the celebration of the traditional Mass to some specific and provisional cases.
Therefore, the insult plays the role of general prohibition. Did His Excellency not see this?
The analysis of the attitude of the Prelate on the document Quattor abhinc annos, which in 1984 insulted the Roman Rite Mass, indicates that Bp. Williamson, in 1984, had lost his critical sense, replacing it with a sentimentalism, which he calls benevolence: «do not criticize, criticize, criticize Rome always…» It even seems that he had also lost the philosophical sense, which teaches that evil is a privation of good: he wanted to see the good, and if Rome did something right, he wanted to greet the good…
His Excellency applied all this twenty years later to the Motu proprio…
Bishop Williamson answered to Non Possumus:
Bishop Williamson: Certainly I in 84, for example, greeted an apparently important step given by Rome in favor of the good Mass, the indult, because I honestly did not see in it a trap. And I wanted to see the good, and if Rome did something right, I wanted to greet the good and not to always criticize, criticize, criticize Rome. So, there was on my side a certain feeling, maybe of wanting to approve something coming from Rome, a benevolence towards Rome.
Equally, in 2007, I wanted to see the good. And there was some good. If you read exactly what I have written in favor of Summorum Pontificum, I think you would see that what I approved was not completely false; it has not been proved false later. I approved the fact that there were priests who could celebrate the true Mass.
The Eleison Comments started with two or three items in favor of Summorum Pontificum. It is true that I did not see a trap; that I did not write anything about the evil that Summorum Pontificum could represent. Have I been to this extent naive? Possibly. What I wrote was incomplete, yes; but false, no, I don’t think it was.
But since then, I’ve read reviews of Summorum Pontificum which are much more severe, and I agree that I did not see it at the time. I wanted to approve something of Rome to not always criticize, criticize, criticize. And indeed, there was something good. There was something good. Referring just to, mainly to good was incomplete. I admit it. I admit it was incomplete. Yes.
Again, let us read the «Catechism of the crisis in the SSPX», presented by Non Possumus as an extraordinary and recommendable document, begging everyone to promote it to families and friends as well, and especially among the priests and seminarians of the Fraternity…
9. Why is Menzingen going down the wrong road?
Because the SSPX’s authorities refuse to discard the ambiguity which they have created themselves.
-
What is such ambiguity?
It is twofold and concerns the imposture in two acts performed by Benedict XVI, which are in favor to the Tradition only in a material way and which Bp. Fellay presents as formal and categorical favorable to Tradition.
12. What is the first of such acts of Benedict XVI, which is a problem?
It is the Motu Proprio of Benedict XVI regarding the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the 1970 reform. Bishop Fellay states that «by the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI has restored to its rights the Tridentine Mass, asserting clearly that the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V has never been abrogated.» (Menzingen, 2007-07-07)
13. Where is the ambiguity?
What the Motu Proprio states in reality is that the Traditional Mass has never been abrogated as the extraordinary form, but that it was abrogated as the ordinary form. By doing this, Benedict XVI made the Roman rite of Mass lose, de jure, its status as the unique ordinary and official form, and downgraded it to the status of «extraordinary form», after having humiliated it by comparing its sanctity to that of the «bastard rite». Despite these facts, there is not an official document from Menzingen condemning this liturgical cohabitation.
Once again, I recommend Non Possumus to have Bp. Williamson reading this «Catechism of the crisis in the SSPX».
+++
Regarding the press release of the General House of the SSPX about Benedict XVI’s resignation:
(…) Despite the doctrinal differences that were still evident on the occasion of the theological talks held between 2009 and 2011, the Society of Saint Pius X does not forget that the Holy Father had the courage to recall the fact that the Traditional Mass had never been abrogated (…) It is not unaware of the opposition that these decisions have stirred up, obliging the pope to justify himself to the bishops of the whole world. The Society expresses its gratitude to him for the strength and the constancy that he has shown toward it in such difficult circumstances…
I think Bp. Williamson would not have had any difficulty accepting and reading this press release if he were the Director of one of the seminaries of the SSPX.
+++
Given the surprising declarations made by Bishop Williamson about the Motu Proprio in his Eleison Comments of July, August and September (Cfr. Eleison Comments of July 14th, August 25th and September 15th of 2007), on September 28, 2007 I decided to write a letter to clarify things.
Dear Monsignor, you wrote:
(…) «Thus the doctrine of Benedict XVI in his Motu Proprio and its accompanying Letter to the Bishops is a confused and confusing mixture of Catholicism and Vatican II, and I cannot cease highlighting the error of that Council’s attempting to reconcile the true Faith with the false modern world.
On the other hand the so-called «Tridentine Mass» is loaded with Catholic doctrine, so I can only rejoice that the Motu Proprio both recognizes that it was never properly suppressed and grants a certain freedom to priests to celebrate it. «In the land of the blind» where even «the one-eyed is king», that recognition and even limited grant are surely major steps forward.»
Now, in January, you told Rivarol:
«Vatican II is a major fact in the recent history of the Church, I agree. But its documents are much too subtly and deeply poisoned to be reinterpreted. The whole of a partly poisoned cake goes to the trashcan!
In September, rather than concluding that «the Motu proprio of Benedict XVI and the letter to the bishops accompanying it, should go entirely to the trashcan!», Your Excellency concludes by saying «I can only rejoice (…) that recognition and even limited grant are surely major steps forward»
I do not understand this dual mode of reasoning. From January to September, through June 29, 2 + 2 is no longer = 4… but = 5… 15… or 150…
+++
Bishop Williamson answered me on December 2nd:
To the human eye, in the case of the Motu Proprio, the liberalization and recognition of the old Mass are interwoven in the bad as a whole. To the divine sight, God may well «write straight with crooked lines».
The good part is not intrinsically bad, but extrinsically, for the part of the whole of which it is part.
Not being intrinsically bad (on the contrary), God may well make use of it, and a significant number of priests will benefit privately from the Motu Proprio to approach the true Mass and around to all the true religion, if they persevere.
There is a big difference with the documents of Vatican II. These descended. The Motu proprio rallies back, objectively, in part (only).
But I think that before God, for the good of the whole Church, this recognition especially supported by the release rather ambiguous, say at least privately, is a very important good, even huge in the context of Council and New Mass disasters.
Provided that we do not make any illusions about the need to fight more than ever. But the Arians are losing ground, and they will have to give yet.
Get the translation of the four (or five) articles on the Motu Proprio in dinoscopus.blogspot.com.
This demanded a reply from me getting into the details of the Motu proprio:
A)
Article 1st states:
The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the «Lex orandi» (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Blessed John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same «Lex orandi«, and must be given due honor for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s «Lex orandi» will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s «Lex credendi» (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.
It is, therefore [Proinde], permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as [uti] an extraordinary form of the liturgy of the Church.
The Society communicates that:
a) The Traditional Mass has never been abrogated.
b) It is therefore permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the Traditional Mass.
It is not said that:
a) The traditional Mass was never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church.
b) It is therefore permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal never abrogated, as extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church.
And especially, it is not said either that:
a) The Traditional Mass has been abrogated, as the ordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church.
b) That is the reason why it is forbidden to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the Traditional Mass as ordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church.
Dear Monsignor, analyze the text and get the consequences. The «proinde» has its reason for being there, as well as the «uti» has.
B)
1st) Do not be seduced by the illusion that the traditional Mass, by itself, maintains or moves, completely and necessarily, the priest and the faithful into the good doctrine.
As a proof of this, we see the schismatic Orthodox faithful (who have never changed the liturgy for centuries and yet remain outside the Church).
During the Second Vatican Council the Pope and all the bishops celebrated the traditional Mass, and yet they changed the Tradition of the Church.
More recently, those who signed an agreement with Rome, gradually adhered to the new doctrines resulting from the Council Vatican II, and that happens while they kept praying the traditional Mass.
2nd) All these facts prove that the Mass is not sufficient to retain or receive the faith and the Catholic doctrine.
It may be objected that true worship is necessarily linked to genuine faith, according to the adage «Lex orandi, lex credendi«.
Yes, indeed, the two are linked, but the truth is that the law of faith establishes the law of prayer, but not the reverse (Cfr. Encyclical Mediator Dei).
Pius XII had to put things in order. Indeed, even in his time, on behalf of inner feeling, modernism gave preference to the liturgy over the faith!
3rd) Therefore we must remain cautious more than ever. A heretic who holds a heretical liturgy is less dangerous than a heretic who holds the Roman liturgy, since in the latter case the error is not visible.
The problem of the Liturgy is especially a problem of faith; consequently, even if the old liturgy were mandatory tomorrow, that would not be enough to solve the problem of the crisis of the Church.
It is necessary that true faith be proclaimed again.
+++
As for the mixture of good and evil, let us leave Bishop Williamson himself to explain it. His Excellency, in his Eleison Comments CC, of May 14, 2011, wrote:
«In two ways a rotten apple may cast a little light in the darkness of today’s eclipsed Church. Firstly, we do not wait for every part of an apple to be rotten before we call it rotten as a whole, yet parts of it are still not rotten. In answer then to the question whether the apple is rotten, we must make a double distinction : as a whole, yes; in these parts, yes; in those parts, no. And secondly, while apple is not rot and rot is not apple, yet the rot is inseparable from its apple and cannot exist without it. Let us apply the first part of this common sense to the Novus Ordo Mass and the «Conciliar church», the second part to the «Conciliar church» and the Papacy.
As for the New Mass, it is rotten as a whole by its Conciliar man-centredness, but while some parts are clearly not Catholic (e.g. the Offertory), other parts are Catholic (e.g. the Kyrie Eleison). Because it is rotten as a whole and slowly makes Catholics into Protestants, it is not fit to be attended, but that part which is the Consecration may be Catholic and valid. So one can say of the Novus Ordo Mass neither that it is valid so it can be attended, nor that it cannot be attended so it is invalid. In truth it may be valid in its essential part, but that is not a sufficient reason to expose one’s faith to the danger of attending it as a whole.»
It would have been so easy to apply this to the Motu proprio…
I have written on the subject twice in Radio Cristiandad:
https://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2010/07/09/a-tres-anos-del-motu-proprio-summorum-pontificum/
From those writings, I summarize:
A bit of History
After implementing shrewd preparatory reforms, in April 1969 it is published a Novus Ordo Missae. Since then, two Masses tragically divide Catholics.
Since 2007, Benedict XVI, through the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, gives the impression of wanting to prepare officially a «third mass», i.e., the synthesis of the Roman Mass and the fruit of the protestantising reform of Paul VI.
How have we gotten here?
Paul VI wanted, explicitly and de facto, to replace the traditional Ordo with the New Ordo, to make the Novus Ordo Missae to actually occupy the place of the Old one.
But Paul VI never abrogated de juri the Roman Mass, and not even banned it.
Contrary to what many people wanted to make others believe and many others believed, the Roman Mass remained, from a strictly legal and canonical point of view, the official and unique Mass of the Latin Roman Rite of the Catholic Church.
The Roman Missal had not been abrogated.
Until July 7, 2007, it was clear, for those who really wanted to see it, that every priest had the duty (and therefore the right) to pray the Holy Mass according to St. Pius V’s Missal.
But de facto, since 1969, the priests who wished to maintain the Roman Mass were brutally persecuted by the supporters of the New Mass.
Therefore, the maintenance of the Roman Missal had to be conducted in an apparent and growing disobedience: Foundation of seminars and priories, occupation of churches, building of Mass centers, ordinations, Episcopal consecrations…
It was then, and only to hinder and reabsorb this legitimate reaction, that the Vatican was interested in the Roman Mass.
The measures taken by the modernist and antichrist Rome actually tended to stifle and eliminate the Roman Missal, and not to keep it and spread its use.
In October 1984, John Paul II signed a first indult, by which bishops were authorized to grant, under certain conditions, the celebration of the Roman Mass.
In fact, it was an act of suffocation and oppression, as the Roman Mass had never been abrogated, and because imposed conditions to allow its celebration were not necessary.
Accepting those conditions would mean to recognize the abrogation of the Roman Missal.
Furthermore, those requirements were poisoned, since a pardon could be granted only to those who had nothing in common (nullam partem) with those Catholics who questioned the doctrinal and canonical rectitude of the New Mass.
Therefore, they were completely deprived of any argument for the day it was decided to withdraw the indult, the rude and insulting authorization.
The maneuver was so obvious, the trap so insufficiently concealed, that few were caught.
In July 1988, due to the Episcopal consecrations performed by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer, the operation is attempted again.
On paper, the conditions are the same as in 1984: the Roman Mass is not declared mandatory, not even universally allowed, but only for some groups of faithful and some priests. Besides, both are compelled to admit the new protestantising Mass.
In July 2007, in the Motu proprio of Benedict XVI, we find again the same contempt for the Roman Mass… But this disdain has been able to be adapted to the circumstances and has learned to accept, with cryptic sagacity, the truth in the defense of the Roman Missal and in the rejection of the New Missal.
Thus, it is always wanted to distort such defense and rejection, while some compromises are offered. But the goal is always the same: to remove the Roman Missal.
Whether we see it or not, we like it or not, we accept it or not, the fact is undeniable: the Roman Mass and the Novus Ordo Missae are irreconcilable; one excludes the other and vice versa. If one is adopted, it necessarily leads to the rejection of the other.
We must be convinced: the bastard Mass of Paul VI has no other reason to be that the removal of the Roman Mass.
Therefore, there are not two rites face to face; the clash is apparent: there is only the Roman Rite facing its own destruction…
The two indults of 1984 and 1988, true insults to the Roman Mass were simple steps towards such destruction.
Some deluded priests and laity were caught in the trap of these intermediate steps… necessary in the revolutionary process.
Anyway, one thing is certain: what was blocking the operation of the revolutionary machinery was the irreducible group, which maintained the defense of the Roman Mass and the rejection of the bastard one, without accepting compromises.
The priority of the revolutionaries, the abolition of the Roman Mass, led them to establish a pause, rewind and even make more concessions … everything were needed to remove the grain of sand that prevented the gear to perform its baleful work.
The function of the Motu proprio
The formula according to which the Roman Mass has never been abrogated as the extraordinary form of the liturgy of the Roman Rite is one of the smartest ideas to bring the Roman Mass to the modernist doctrine.
The reality is that, if Benedict XVI wanted to legitimize the bastard Mass, he could not keep saying that the Roman Mass had been abrogated.
Therefore, it was necessary to solve the problem with intelligence, and to make us believe that the new Mass is the continuation and legitimate expression of the liturgy of the Roman Rite.
It was imperative to say that the Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi‘ of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite.
Besides, in his eagerness for dialectical synthesis, it was not thinkable that Benedict XVI would let visible the slightest suspicion of rupture or schism liturgy.
It was inevitable that «the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Blessed John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same «Lex orandi» and must be given due honor for its venerable and ancient usage».
It was mandatory to assert, «These two expressions of the Church’s «Lex orandi» will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s «Lex credendi«. They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite».
Consequently, appears clearly the real reason for the declaration of non-abrogation of the Roman Mass as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church. It is the infamous «one step back, two steps forward».
It would be ridiculous to think that the change of position on the field of battle is due to a start of restoration… it is a strategy for approaching the Tradition, yes … but to try to surround it and destroy it…
This is not a restoration. Quite the contrary: it is the consolidation and legitimating of the New Mass and the Council Vatican II, without tragic or dramatic fractures; to make us believe that it is a smooth evolution, and make sure that both are universally recognized, accepted and admitted peacefully.
Those who seek to prove that Vatican II is not a doctrinal schism, just want to prove that the New Mass is not a liturgical schism; rather that both are the result of a vital development, that must be assumed and accepted.
To understand the strategy of Benedict XVI with his Motu proprio, one must refer to the speech he gave to the Roman Curia on December 22, 2005.
When reading it and reflecting about it, it is clear that Benedict XVI tries to make us believe that between the infallible teaching of the Church and the new conciliar doctrine there is no discontinuity. In short, we are being told that the current and innovative Lex credendi is the same as the traditional and perennial.
Now, we know very well that the Lex orandi is the liturgical expression of the Lex credendi.
Therefore, after having resolved in 2005 the question of the Lex credendi, it was necessary to settle the question of the Lex orandi.
This was the mission of the Motu proprio of 2007.
If the Motu proprio of July 7, 2007 is recognized, it is necessary to accept that the Roman Rite lost de jure its condition of the official and only ordinary rite.
The antichrist and modernist Rome, through the Motu proprio, humiliated the Roman Rite of the Mass, trying to relegate it to the status of «extraordinary form» and merging the «bastard rite», which would be the «ordinary form» of the one Roman rite.
If the Motu proprio of July 7, 2007 is recognized, it would be necessary to accept that the Roman Missal is no longer the ordinary expression, and that, therefore, at least implicitly, must be considered abrogated as ordinary expression of the Church’s Roman Liturgy.
To conform to reality, those who accept the Motu proprio should draw some inexorable conclusions, since it is known that, once the premises have been set, the conclusions follow.
Dear reader, you already know such conclusions, but, just in case, I will summarize them:
The Roman Mass was never abrogated as extraordinary form.
The Roman Mass was abrogated as ordinary form.
It is allowed to celebrate the Roman Mass as an extraordinary form.
It is forbidden to celebrate the Roman Mass as an ordinary form.
+++
Now, let us consider some missing questions for Bishop Williamson that Non Possumus did not ask:
1) When did Your Excellency realize that what you had written about Summorum Pontificum was incomplete?
2) Did your Excellency formalize and publish a clarification on this matter, or is this the first time you do it at the time of this interview?
3) Since two or three years before the publication of the Motu Proprio the Superiors of the SSPX were aware of the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary form of one same rite. Did you know this or learned it just by reading the Motu proprio?
Let us pass to the point regarding the lifting of the excommunications in January 2009. Certainly the most impressing one…
Lifting of the excommunications
Is it the most important point? Individually considered, no; since it was much more serious to allow the Mass of the Roman Rite to be humiliated and insulted by relegating it to the extraordinary form of the same rite, of which the bastard Montinian mass would be the ordinary form, which on top of iniquity and offense, would express the same faith as the Roman Mass.
However, considered in the overall combat against the neo-protestant, neo-modernist and anti-Christ Rome, the capitulation to the lifting of the excommunications implies a real suicide of the Survival Work of Tradition, whose apex is precisely the Episcopal consecrations of 1988.
+++
On his behalf, Bishop Williamson said in the interview:
Non Possumus: And you thanked the lifting of the false excommunications
Bishop Williamson: Pffff…
Non Possumus: That’s also something that…
Bishop Williamson: Yes, yes, yes. I think that what I wrote and thought during that moment was, again, incomplete. But I wanted, I wanted not to depart from Bishop Fellay, I wanted to approve my fellows. This has played a role, I think, what I wrote and I thought at the time. I wanted not to see that… that… Pfffff…
Non Possumus: Yes…
Bp. Williamson: I wanted to wait for something better on the side of Rome and … Pffff … But, when on December 16 Monsignor Fellay wrote to Rome to request the lifting of the excommunications, he did not show this letter to me. We, the four asked, and he didn’t show me…
Non Possumus: You did not sign, right? That I did know. You didn’t ask for the lifting…
Bp. Williamson: I did not sign and did not see this letter. He did not show this letter. He did not write warning me: I am going to write this letter, do you approve? No, no. He wrote without my knowledge and without my approval. And, had he shown it to me, I do not think I would have approved, because he took too seriously these excommunications. Archbishop Lefebvre had always thought since the 88 that these excommunications were empty, [that] they have [had] no substance because there was no crime and the rest is in the Canon Law. But Bishop Fellay … Ahhh … Ahhh
I did not approve this attitude at the time, but after the lifting, he wrote a letter to thank the Pope. And this letter, I signed it, because there was in this letter of gratitude, after the lifting, a phrase, there was a reserve that allowed me to sign this letter of thanks.
But, reading this letter of thanks, it is implied a seriousness of what the Pope did. I mean, it is implicit to take seriously the excommunications, which is a mistake. Yes, it is a mistake. But, given the pope’s point of view, he did something … Pffff … something … Pffff … Pffff … He acted with courage in front of the other prelates of Rome … what do I know? … There was something to pass on his behavior.
But still, I’m not saying that everything I thought and wrote at the time was right, that was complete. No. Did I do wrong? Perhaps in part, yes… In part…
+++
Before analyzing this answer, let us reestablish the chronology of the main events surrounding this issue, even if they don’t have an equal relevance. The reader will find some of the texts cited as appendices at the end of this article. [Those appendices were not translated due to their extension, and therefore they are not included here, but they are available at the end of the original and complete writing here:
I have highlighted in red certain events to which Bp. Williamson has not made the least allusion in his response to Non Possumus. They are very important events and the silence about them is a symptom by itself and which I will discuss later:
June 30, 1988: Episcopal consecrations.
July 1, 1988: Declaration of Excommunication decree signed by Cardinal Gantin.
July 6, 1988: The Superiors of the SSPX send an open Letter to Cardinal Gantin.
September 2000: Stefano Maria Paci’s interview to Bishop Fellay, published in «30 Giorni» nº 9.
November 2000: Concerned about this interview, I called Bp. Williamson, who recommends me to trust Bishop Fellay.
April 2, 2001: New telephone call. Bp. Williamson tells me: You were right; it all began with that interview.
June 6, 2004: Letter from Bishop Fellay to Cardinal Castrillón de Hoyos asking, officially, the withdrawal of the decree declaring the excommunications.
June 18, 2004: Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 66, in which was announced this official request of the decree’s removal.
July 31, 2004: I send a letter regarding this request to the Council members and to the two remaining bishops of the SSPX, being Bp. Williamson one of them.
August 2004: Bp. Williamson’s response: «Everything would indicate that Bishop Fellay is changing the rifle to the other shoulder. But do not leave the Society. »
October 23, 2008: Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 73, launching the crusade to demand the withdrawal of the Declaration of excommunication decree.
Feast of Christ the King in 2008 in Lourdes: In the midst of an embarrassing Official syncretism with the Conciliar Church, and in the presence of the other three Bishops, Monsignor Fellay officially launches the Crusade.
December 15, 2008: Letter from Bishop Fellay to Cardinal Catrillón de Hoyos requesting the withdrawal of the Declaration of the excommunications decree [or the lifting of them?].
January 17, 2009: Bishop Fellay receives, at 16 hours, from Cardinal Castrillón de Hoyos’s hands, the Decree of the lifting of the excommunications, signed on January 21 (!?), to make it known by Monday 26 (!!??) …
January 21, 2009: Things are precipitated by the publication of Bishop Williamson’s statements and the threat of the weekly Der Spiegel.
January 22, 2009: Publication of the lifting of the excommunications decree.
January 24, 2009: Letter to the faithful and Bishop Fellay’s announcement.
January 25, 2009: Magnificat of gratitude in the SSPX’s houses and reading of Bishop Fellay’s letter on January 24.
January 29, 2009: Letter of the four bishops to Benedict XVI.
January 30, 2009: Bishop Williamson’s letter to Cardinal Castrillón de Hoyos.
January 31, 2009: I faxed my appeal to all the main superiors of the SSPX, including Monsignor Williamson, who never deigned to respond.
January 31, 2009: Letter from Bishop Fellay to all members of the SSPX.
February 3, 2009: Publication of my appeal on the Internet, in Spanish and French.
February 16, 2009: Letter of Bishop Williamson to Dr. Jesse Gomez Jr., who had asked the bishop to lead a reaction in the SSPX against Bishop Fellay.
+++
Keeping in mind this chronology, let us reread Bp. Williamson’s answer and see:
* Did His Excellency approve the Open Letter of the Superiors of July 6, 1988?
* This Open Letter is inconsistent with everything the SSPX has done, requested, approved, celebrated and appreciated later. How does the bishop explain or justify his participation in all that?
* Does His Excellency know the true content of the letter of December 15, 2008? [The request for the lifting of excommunications]
* If so, when and how did he know the original letter?
* Bp. Williamson refers to the request of the lifting of excommunication in such letter, but why does he not say anything about the acceptance of Vatican II therein contained?
* When and how did the bishop know the decree of January 21, 2009? [The lifting of excommunications decree]
-
The fact is that he did not react against it.
-
Did he order to sing the Magnificat in the Seminary of La Reja on the Sunday, January 25, 2009? [As a thanksgiving because of the lifting of excommunications]
* Did he read that day the original text of the letter of Bishop Fellay to the faithful? [The one saying «we accept and make our own all the councils up to the Vatican II Council»]
* It is a fact that he signed the letter of thanks to Benedict XVI.
* It is true that he sent a letter to Cardinal Castrillón de Hoyos.
* It is a fact that did not respond to my appeal.
* It is true that he wrote a letter to Dr. Jesse Gomez Jr.
-
What does His Excellency mean when he says: «what I wrote and thought during that moment was, again, incomplete. But I wanted, I wanted not to depart from Bishop Fellay, I wanted to approve my fellows. I wanted to wait for something better on the side of Rome»?
* What is the «reserve» contained in the letter to Benedict XVI that allowed His Excellency to sign it?
* Did he read that letter? When? Before it was sent?
* Can he point to any of his Eleison comments in which he retracts his mistakes and apologizes for the given bad example?
+++
I repeat that Bp. Williamson asked, accepted and welcomed the lifting of the excommunication.
He says he did not ask for the lifting of the excommunication, but recognizes that he accepted and thanked it, and that therefore, in part, he did wrong.
Now let us conclude the analysis of his response to see if it corresponds to reality.
Bishop Williamson: Yes, yes, yes. I think that what I wrote and thought during that moment was, again, incomplete. But I wanted, I wanted not to depart from Bishop Fellay, I wanted to approve my fellows. This has played a role, I think, what I wrote and I thought at the time. I wanted not to see that… that… Pfffff…
Once again, the problem of incompleteness…
I have already asked about this above: What is what he wrote and was incomplete? When and where did he write it? Was it before December 15, 2008?
Now I ask: Did His Excellency think at some point to depart Bp. Fellay and disapprove his fellows?
In his letter of February 16 [2009] addressed to Dr. Gómez, Bp. Williamson says: «I could oppose, if it was about to stop a bad agreement with Rome, but I don’t think that is the current situation. If that were the case, I believe I could say it, because the Faith would be in risk, and then I am obliged to say what I think. Trust me when I say that the SSPX is not being betrayed or abandoned».
Let us continue…
Bishop Williamson: But, when Bp. Fellay wrote on December 16 to Rome to request the lifting of the excommunications, he did not show me this letter. We four asked, and he did not show…
I did not sign nor see this letter. He did not show me this letter. He did not write to me saying: I am going to write this letter, do you approve it? No, no. He wrote without my knowledge and without my approval.
Now it is understandable why I am asking: Do you know the real content of the letter of December 15, 2008? If so, when and how did you know the original letter?
Because Bp. Fellay insists in asserting that, in the letter of December 15 it was not requested the lifting of the excommunications, but the withdrawal of the decree. However Bp. Williamson says «when on December 16 Monsignor Fellay wrote to Rome to request the lifting of the excommunications»
Bp. Williamson accepted the request of the withdrawal of the declaration of excommunications decree. I opposed it since the very moment of the official request in June of 2004.
The «Catechism of the crisis in the SSPX», already quoted above, presents the following two questions:
18. What is the second act of Benedict XVI, which poses a problem?
It is the decree for lifting the latae sententiae excommunications of the Society’s Bishops (2009-01-21), which did not correspond either with the second requirement of the 2006 Chapter, which says: «The repeal of the Decree of Excommunication of the four Society Bishops.»
For, just as in 1988, «For Rome, the goal of these discussions is reconciliation, as Cardinal Gagnon says, the return of the lost sheep into the sheepfold. When we think of the history of relations between Rome and Traditionalists from 1965 to our own time, we are obliged to state that it is one cruel, relentless persecution to oblige us to submit to the Council. The conciliar, modernist Rome of today could never tolerate the existence of a healthy, vigorous branch of the Church which condemns them by its vitality.» (Abp. Lefebvre, Econe. 1988-06-19)
19. But it doesn’t matter a great deal whether the excommunications are «repealed» or «lifted», does it?
«The Society refuses to ask for a ‘lifting of the sanctions.’ It is seeking ‘the repeal of the decree of excommunication’ and anyone can see that the terms that we employed to make our request are that way by design. We want to make manifest our conviction that the sanctions are invalid.» (Fr. de Cacqueray, Suresnes, 2008-12-31)
The work published as appendix II of my demission letter [attached as appendix in the original writing, but not included here] shows that even this is a mistake.
Therefore, even if Bp. Fellay only requested the withdrawal of the decree, that would have implied accepting the validity of the excommunications and the lifting of them.
That’s why I insist asserting that Bp. Williamson has asked the lifting of the excommunications. For more details, keep reading…
Bishop Williamson: And, had he shown it to me, I do not think I would have approved, because he took too seriously these excommunications.
«I do not think I would have approved»… That’s not a firm and categorical denial… After four years His Excellency is not sure of what he should have done!
And what he argues just passed the guilt to Bp. Fellay, just like Adam did to Eva and Eva to the serpent…
Bishop Williamson: I did not approve this attitude at the time, but after the lifting, he wrote a letter to thank the Pope. And this letter, I signed it, because there was in this letter of gratitude, after the lifting, a phrase, there was a reserve that allowed me to sign this letter of thanks.
At what moment he did not approve? In 2004? In 2006? In 2008? Before knowing the decree?
Bp. Williamson did not impugn the decree of January 21. He, who keeps silent, consents…
The Catechism for the crisis in the Society asks:
21. How did Bp. Fellay react in public to the lifting of the excommunications?
He expressed his «filial gratitude to the Holy Father for this act which, going beyond the SSPX, will benefit the whole Church … Besides our recognition to the Holy Father, and to all those who helped him make this courageous act, we are happy that the decree of 21st January sees «discussions» with the Holy See as necessary… In this new climate, we have a firm hope of arriving soon at a recognition of the rights of Catholic Tradition.» (Menzingen, 24/01/2009)
We already know how Bp. Williamson reacted: he did not impugn, but thanked…
Now, I would like to ask the reader to carefully read the letter of thanks sent to Benedict XVI and to try to find what is the «reserve» alluded by Bp. Williamson:
Whichever be the phrase intended to be used as an excuse, cannot go against the force and the gravity of this other: «In sentiments of thanksgiving we wish to express our deep gratitude or Your act of paternal kindness and for the apostolic courage by which You rendered ineffective the measure which imposed upon us twenty years ago as a consequence of our Episcopal consecrations»
It rendered ineffective the measure! Then, before January 21, the measure was effective… The excommunications were valid! …
And Bp. Williamson accepts it:
Bishop Williamson: But, reading this letter of thanks, it is implied a seriousness of what the Pope did. I mean, it is implicit to take seriously the excommunications, which is a mistake. Yes, it is a mistake. But, given the pope’s point of view, he did something … Pffff … something … Pffff … Pffff … He acted with courage in front of the other prelates of Rome … what do I know? … There was something to pass on his behavior.
And, when did he read it to realize it was implied to take seriously the excommunications? Before or after signing and send it?
Is it implicit? It is more that simple explicit and clear, since there is not any reserve in this letter that allows anyone to sign it…
Bishop Williamson: But still, I’m not saying that everything I thought and wrote at the time was right, that was complete. No. Did I do wrong? Perhaps in part, yes… In part…
Perhaps His Excellency is referring to his letter to Card. Castrillón de Hoyos: «Please also accept and transmit to the Holy Father, my sincere personal gratitude for the documents signed the last Wednesday and made public on Saturday.» [This is the lifting of the excommunications]
What is His Excellency thanking here? The implicit or the explicit part of the document?
+++
I repeat that several times, privately and publicly, I have warned about the attitude of Bp. Williamson. We cannot forget that he has been involved and has participated in many adverse events that have occurred over the last 12-13 years to prepare the Society for an agreement.
I have provided four clear examples:
-
The acceptance and defense of the motu proprio of July 7th, 2007
-
Asking, accepting and thanking the lifting of the excommunications in January 2009
-
Not having challenged nor repudiated the doctrinal discussions, but rather allowing and justifying them.
-
The fatal phrase: «to obtain from Rome that precious regularization which Rome alone has the authority to grant»
To concretize: regarding the last two points, they were not even mentioned in the interview and so they still remain.
As for the first two, Bp. Williamson not only did not retracted, but he tried to justify himself without getting it, except for those who are already predisposed to credit whatever comes from him.
