![]() The truth of the matter is that the primary instigator of the 2012 doctrinal discussions was none other than Benedict XVI, and they failed to result in any “official recognition” of the SSPX for the simple reason that Bishop Fellay was not then, and is not now, “ready to compromise doctrine.” Its commitment “to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy” (cf Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1974 Declaration) remains unchanged with every indication being that it is alive and well in its conferences, chapels and schools.Īs for the idea that Bishop Fellay went running to Rome with cap in hand, if this was truly the case, then where is the official recognition that he supposedly begged of the Church Authorities? If the Society is “hardly recognizable” today as compared to years past it is only in the degree to which it has grown. There may be room for one to engage in the former the latter, however, is just plain sinful.Īs if Bishop Williamson hadn’t given us enough reason to question his reliability in the matter, he continued:įalse ‘obedience,’ preferring Authority to Truth, now crept back at the top of the Society from which the Archbishop had exorcised it, and within a few more years his Society was hardly recognisable as its misleaders went to Rome, cap in hand, begging for official recognition from the Church AuthoritiesĮven the Kool-Aid drinkers among the “resistance” have to recognize this as hype. Look, it’s one thing to find cause for disagreement concerning matters of prudential judgment it’s quite another to question Bishop Fellay’s motives and his commitment to the good of the Faith. Pius X, severely condemned the modernists for their duplicity and wickedness in Pascendi, even he saw fit to “leave out of consideration the internal disposition of soul of which God alone is the judge.”īishop Williamson, by contrast, boldly presumes to have so much insight into the internal disposition of others’ souls that he has no problem accusing Bishop Fellay of being motivated by something other than “the good of the Faith and the Church.” Justice demands that Bishop Fellay’s accusers meet them with concrete answers apart from which, we will have no choice but to conclude that Bishop Williamson, and those who repeat his allegations, are guilty of calumny.Īs it is, there can be little doubt that if Archbishop Lefebvre was alive today to witness this sad spectacle he would most certainly reprimand Bishop Williamson for overstepping his bounds.Įven as the Society’s namesake, Pope St. These, my friends, are not just rhetorical questions. – Most importantly, what objective evidence does Bishop Williamson have to support such gravely serious allegations? ![]() – What “doctrines” in particular was he supposedly prepared to compromise? – How exactly did it “become clear” to him that Bishop Fellay was “ready to compromise doctrine”? ![]() While they were going down to Rome in pursuit of some political agreement, by which, as became clear at the latest in the spring of 2012, they were ready to compromise doctrine, on the contrary the Archbishop only ever went down to Rome for the good of the Faith and the Church. To which he immediately provided the answer, “No.”īishop Williamson went on to say of the “Archbishop’s successors,” meaning Bishop Bernard Fellay and those priests and bishops of the Society who haven’t joined ranks with the mutineers of the so-called “resistance”: Have his successors followed faithfully?” ![]() “The Archbishop died, twenty-five years ago. ![]() On March 26 th, Bishop Richard Williamson began his weekly Eleison Comments article by posing a rhetorical question: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |