There was quite the uproar a few weeks ago— at least among those who follow the travails of the traditionalist group SSPX — when Bishop Richard Williamson in his weekly column ostensibly called Pope Benedict XVI an anti-Semite for changing the prayer for the Jews in the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite.
This outlandish statement by Williamson — the latest in a long line of outlandish statements — caused quite a stir among comboxes here around the blogosphere. This statement apparently prompted the Catholic Herald to do a feature piece on Bishop Williamson attempting to prove that it is Williamson who is, in fact, the anti-Semite.
I do not wish to wade into the morass of debating Williamson’s possible antisemitism but I was interested to see if he addressed the uproar over his comments in a subsequent article. He did indeed.
In fact his next article is entirely dedicated to the topic. He starts by congratulating anyone who has the wisdom to agree with him.
I congratulate them, because they had to be thinking with their Catholic minds instead of merely emoting with their (objectively) vile media.
One can be forgiven if one suspects that Bishop Williamson is not prone to introspection. He retreads some of the same ground from his previous column and insists that it is really he and not the Pope who loves the Jews. Just in case you need a refresher course in who the Jews are, Williamson reminds us that the Jews…
were responsible for the crucifying of Our Lord Jesus Christ — “His blood be upon us and upon our children“, Mt.XXVII,25 — they have as a race and as a religion, always with noble exceptions, continued to reject him down to our day. Thus St. Paul observed that they not only “killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets”, but they also prohibited St. Paul himself from “speaking to the Gentiles so as to save them”. In brief, their behavior was such that “they please not God and are adversaries to men” (I Thess. II,14-16). Closer to our own time, it is a matter of historical record that the designing and launching of, for instance, Communism, to wrest mankind away from God and to replace his Heaven with a man-made paradise, was largely their achievement.
Jesus Christ Crucifying Commies. Yeah, that helps.
In his most recent column, Williamson responds to readers questions about the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. The reader wonders whether the Church is really returning to its tradition or if this is merely a trap designed to dismantle the SSPX. Short answer: Trap. No worries mate, Bishop Williamson will steer the safe passage around it even if the Pope won’t.
So any apparent benevolence shown by Benedict XVI towards the true Faith or the true Mass can only mean that he wishes them to be reconciled with the Conciliar religion and all other religions! Therefore if he is not a conscious agent of truth-dissolving Freemasonry, at any rate he has no understanding of the true Faith, and so he cannot grasp how absolutely opposed it is to the man-centered religion of Vatican II.
Agent of freemasonry or an idiot. Yeah, that helps.
In a rare moment of lucidity, Williamson admits that the SSPX has no divine promise of indefectibility. This admission raises some interesting questions.
However, I have often made myself unpopular with colleagues in the SSPX by recalling the obvious fact that the SSPX does not have the guarantee of indefectibility that the Catholic Church has. The SSPX could fail. That is why, given what service it has rendered since 1970 to the Universal Church in guarding the Faith, and what service it can still render, Catholics must pray for it, especially for the leadership, that it may not fail.
While I am quite sure that there are myriad reasons that Williamson might be unpopular among many groups, I will leave that aside. What interests me is the admission that the SSPX has no divine promise of truth and his acknowledgment that the SSPX may very well fail in its mission. If, as Williamson puts it, the Church of Rome has “departed the true Faith” and the SSPX might fail in its mission would that not mean that the “Gates of Hell” had prevailed against the Church? I am pretty sure that somebody pretty high up on the food chain promised that would not happen. Williamson attempts to evade the logical conclusion of his own statements with this little escape clause:
[God] would offer to all sheep of good will, in some other form, all the guidance and support they would need to save their souls.
Yes. He would. He has. The Church, imperfect as it may be sometimes. If Williamson could learn this one lesson and have the humility to accept it, Williamson and all who look to him for guidance would be much better off. This one lesson. Yeah, that would help.
March 11, 2008 at 3:02 am
“If, as Williamson puts it the Church of Rome has “departed the true Faith” and the SSPX might fail in its mission, would that not mean that the “Gates of Hell” had prevailed against it?”
Unfortunately, this is where the spin control kicks in. The same wordsmiths who say things like, “Oh the New Mass isn’t invalid, but…” and then proceed to make such a case, that they may as well claim that it is. They’ll pick incidents where the Church has been in crisis, and attempt to draw comparisons between themselves and the great reformers. But the latter never played the victims, and the latter never forgot who held the keys to the kingdom.
Besides, if Williamson doesn’t keep his followers all fired up, he’ll lose his fan base, and no longer be a big fish in a little pond. Worse than that, there might be a reconciliation with Rome, and he’d have to stop shooting his mouth off when the mood strikes him.
March 11, 2008 at 4:10 am
I think that it might be helpful to look more carefully at Bishop Williamson’s position in the S.S.P.X. In 2000, Darío Cardinal Castrilló Hoyos offered the S.S.P.X what Bishop Fellay admitted was, jurically “the Rolls Royce” structure (a universal and personal exempt apostolic administration–the Campos got it except for the universal part) . But the Society finally refused this until two pre-conditions had been fulfilled (viz. what S.P. delivered, plus the lifting of the declarations of excommunication). However, these two have morphed into three, really, the third being a negotiation over doctrine that might very well take years, even decades, to proceed.
In 2000, it was widely regarded that, as ‘bad cop’, Bsp. W. was prepared to break up the Society over Rome’s offer. In one article in “The Remnant”, he almost came out and suggested that, should the other Society bishops make an arrangement with Rome, he might just have to stage a revolt, thereby splitting the Society. This, it might be guessed (we don’t know, of course), forced Bsp. Fellay back.
I suggest that one could misread Williamson here when he says that the S.S.P.X in not indefectable. I suggest that this is yet another veiled threat against the mainstream in the Society: make a deal with Rome and I’ll split the Society in twain.
In other words, he is not suggesting that Rome is a safe authority, whereas the Society is not. He is suggesting that *he* is a safe authority, whereas both Rome and the Society are not.
When a rapprochement between Rome and the Society finally is reached, there will probabaly be a few in the Society who will reject it. The question, however, is how many that few will be. Statistics which I have collected suggest that a slow but growing groudswell in favour of S.P. is coming. The real question, in about two to five years from now, is whether or not anybody at all will need the Society of St. Pius X. I suspect that a small number will, but that’s all.
It is in the interest of the Society bishops to make an arrangement with Benedict XVI as soon as possible. This may include Bsp. Williamson but he may find himself leading a revolt in the Society which only isolates wild extremists. The Society insisted on freeing all the priests of the Latin Church to celebrate the old Mass. Did they Society bishops consider that, should a Pope do it, it would put the Society out of business? An interesting consideration.
P.K.T.P.
March 11, 2008 at 4:21 am
Mr. Archbold, using a very sarcastic tone in response to the admitedly bizarre comments of Bsp. Williamson, writes,
“Agent of freemasonry or an idiot. Yeah, that helps.”
The reference to freemasonry on the part of Bsp. W. was indeed, well, way out there. But the idiot part here is not really what Williamson means. If you look at his other comments on this in the past, he has suggested that Pope Benedict XVI has “a Catholic heart but a Modernist’s mind”. He is referring to the theological positions of a liberal Pope versus the liturgical and ceremonial conservative tendencies of the same Pope. I think that he would say that the Pope’s prayers at the Blue Mosque and at synagogues is an indication of his Modernist tendencies, which are not Catholic in spirit. Essentially, Williamson rejects Benedict XVI’s adherence to the modern tendencies in œcumenism and so on. On one occasion, W. called the Pope “an Hegelian”.
I have no intention of opening this can of worms here. I am only trying to explain what I think W. meant by this. He is not saying that the Pope might be an idiot. He is saying that the Pope is intellectually unCatholic but emotionally Catholic.
P.K.T.P.
March 11, 2008 at 11:55 am
Mr Perkins,
Your thoughts about an alternative reading of the “indefectibility” comments are very interesting. I am not familiar enough with the internal politics of the SSPX to know if it is a probable interpretation, but interesting none the less.
As for your other interpretation that Bp. Williamson is referring to an emotional blindness rather than an intellectual one seems like trying to make a silk purse from a sow’s ear. I appreciate that you are earnestly trying to temper the Bishops comments. Would that the Bishop himself or the leaders of the society would do the same.
Patrick
March 11, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Good analysis, Mr Perkins.
March 11, 2008 at 2:34 pm
I don’t think that W. was implying that the gates of Hell would prevail against the church or that it wouldn’t be able to ride out its current crisis in the end. But Mr. Perkins is probably right that he may be trying to justify splitting the SSPX at some point. Second topic: I do not think that the SSPX is soon to outlive its purpose: there’s too much work to do, and its priests are well-trained to do it. I think ideally it would continue to exist within the church, but it would be the “gold standard” for tradition. There’s a lot of liturgical abuse out there to counterbalance.
March 11, 2008 at 4:05 pm
The Jews weren’t responsible for Jesus’ crucification; I was.
March 11, 2008 at 5:24 pm
He admitted it!!! Get him!
March 11, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Ok– help me out here– what “purpose” does the SPX society have?
Letting people think that it’s OK to dissent as long as you do it for LITURGICAL reasons?
Luring traditional Catholics out of the Church (where they might have fought for good liturgy) into a schismatic movement?
I don’t get it– To me, asking if the SPX might still have a purpose is like asking if the Lutherans still have a purpose…
I guess so, if your purpose is to prevent the whole “That all might be one” thing from happening.
Get with the program. It doesn’t matter whether you LIKE the pope or not (though personally I think we’ve had a rather good run recently — but then I was born in 77, so my memories are limited to JP2 and Benedict.) There have been good popes and bad popes throughout the Curch’s history. But the Church is still the Church.
If you seriously believe that the Church can be so corrupted that you have to leave, you might as well be a Mormom.
And if you ACTUALLY believe that the gates of Hell will not prevail, you should be in union with Rome.
How on Earth can you logically justify Schism?
Sorry for the Rant— I just REALLY don’t understand the Pius the X society thing— to my mind it’s just a disgrace to the memory of St. Pius X!
March 11, 2008 at 9:37 pm
One blogger quite rightly remarked that there is still much work for the S.S.P.X to do. However, I should like to suggest that the situation of the Society has changed as a result of “Summorum Pontificum”. I have kept a very close watch on the numbers for at least twenty years now, and once co-authored a weblist of regularised Traditional Latin Masses. My sense of things (backed by cold hard facts) is that the rate of growth for the Society was exponential from 1970 to 1990 but has slowed considerably since then, and may now be flat-lining. It might very well be entering a decline very soon.
In contrast, the rate of growth for regularised Masses, which saw an exponential growth from 1989 to 1993 but then slowed to a crawl, is now in the midst of another boom, this one much larger than the last. In fact, the growth is so substantial that it really puts the future of the S.S.P.X in jeopardy.
Let me give bloggers some examples. Take the case of Germany. It took eighteen years to gain every-Sunday Traditional Latin Masses in one-third of the German sees. In just seven months, the number has doubled to two-thirds. That is the sort of rise one sees when Apollo 11 lifts off at Cape Canaveral. But there’s more. 150 German priests are currently learning the old Mass. There is a learning lag for this. As a result, an even faster rate of growth may be coming as these priests make use of the new norms.
In the U.S.A., 27 new sees have gained an every-Sunday T.L.M. in just seven months, a greater gain than that for the previous TEN YEARS!
In France, 80% of the sees have the T.L.M. on an every-Sunday basis now, and 84% of faithful live in those sees. The hold-out against tradition has always been centred in the leftist urban north-east (around the old royal capital of Rheims). Recently, Archbishop Jordan of Rheims invited the Institute of Christ the King (I.C.R.) to celebrate Mass there (not yet weekly, but it’s coming). Another Bishop from the region, at Nancy, has helped provide every-Sunday Masses, and the Pope has just replaced the ageing liberal Bishop of Soissons, also in that area.
What counts more than anything else, however, is the situation in Latin America. Fully one half of all faithful live there. Under the 1988 m.p., there were almost no regularised Masses there. The Campos deal in 2000 opened the door a bit, but only for Brazil. To give bloggers some idea of the situation, consider that Mexico had not even one regularised T.L.M. every Sunday, and it is the second most populous Catholic country on the planet earth.
As a result of S.P., we now have an every-Sunday T.L.M. in the huge City of Monterrey, Mexico, and the I.C.R. has celebrated Mass at Mexico City. We have another in Lima, the hugely populous capital of Peru. The F.S.S.P. has arrived in Colombia, along with the regularised Institute of the Good Shepherd (I.P.B.)
Now, the S.S.P.X had a free hand in Latin America for nearly forty years and yet achieved very little. For example, it tried for decades to offer the old Mass every-Sunday at Lima. Even after having acquired a chapel for this purpose a few years ago, it still lacked the manpower and the support. But the Oratorians have, in just three months, started a regularised every-Sunday Mass there. Meanwhile, the Campos and I.P.B. are spreading the old Mass all over Brazil.
Latin Americans have a mindset which will not accept a Catholicism that is not blessed by the Pope. They will go over to the other extreme, Pentecostalism, but are not inviting to the S.S.P.X.
I could write much more on this. I have given only a taste of it. In Protestant North Carolina, fourteen priests enrolled in the F.S.S.P. training progamme for the old Mass. I am in contact with several of them. They are starting up T.L.M.s all over N.C.! In Poland and in the Philippines, reports are coming in of a groundswell. As a result of S.P., there are even every-Sunday Masses in Sweden and Estonia, for their tiny Catholic populations.
This puts the S.S.P.X in a precarious situation. Who needs tradition without the Pope’s blessing when you can get it with his blessing? Now, of course, it’s not that simple, and S.P. priests will need gradually to adopt and inculcate a true sensus catholicus in order to reverse the Age of Aquarius Revolution. But the signs are everywhere. Just this morning, I read about a priest in the U.S.A. who is now saying the New Mass versus solem orientem for ALL his Masses.
The S.S.P.X asked for a general permission and is now being overwhelmed by it. Be careful what you ask for: you just might get it.
At this point, while the Society is still strong, Bishop Fellay should gift the Church with a Society as part of a universal diocese for tradition. The Pope suggested this in 2000 for just the S.S.P.X itself. If he asks for this, he can get it for all of us, together with a protection for the Society’s property. This is achievable today. But will anything be achievable tomorrow for the Society? Food for thought. He should ask himself how he can best protect tradition in the new conditions. I suggest that a regularised structure(s) is the way to go. This will probabaly cost him some Society hardliners. Such changes always have that result. But Bsp. Williamson should also ask himself if a rebellion is in anyone’s best interest. I see no future at this point for a splinter group leaving the Society. It would go the way of the do-do bird.
The Pope must deal with many heretics from within the curia. The Society can help him the most by being a recognised part of the Church. As for Williamson’s points about theology, yes, there are problems, at least it would seem, with the Pope’s non-binding theological ideas. But this is just one relatively good Pope in the midst of a papacy that cannot be all that long. We have to think about the future and about how best to launch a counter-revolution.
P.K.T.P.
March 11, 2008 at 10:12 pm
An addendum to my last post.
In the case of the U.S.A., the S.S.P.X offers every-Sunday Masses in the territory of 64 sees. The F.S.S.P. and I.C.R. combined offer it in 37 sees. However, when you factor in diocesan priests celebrating the old Mass, regularised Masses are offered every Sunday in 136 sees, more than twice the S.S.P.X number. And I think that that number will climb to 150 by September. Frankly, with the sole exception of the underpopulated and thinly-populated Diocese of Juneau, in Alaska, I think that there could be every-Sunday Masses in all the American dioceses fairly soon. That would be 175 sees.
In addition, many U.S. dioceses which already had the old Mass under the 1984 Indult are gaining far more. The question now for the Society is whether its continued independence will lead to decimation or only to a substantial decline.
P.K.T.P.
March 11, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Second Addendum to my postings on statistics:
In the case of the U.S.A., there are now only four dioceses which have an S.S.P.X Mass every Sunday but not a regularised one. These are the Dioceses of Gaylord (Mich.), Winona (Minn.), Crookston (Minn.), and Las Vegas (Nev.).
Las Vegas is by far the most populous and important of the four. It has a regularised T.L.M. one Sunday per month, an every-Sunday N.O. in Latin, and both Ruthenian and Italo-Albanian (!: one of only two in the U.S.A.) Byzantine Divine Liturgies every Sunday. So there are options to the S.S.P.X there for traditionalists.
There are now some regularised T.L.M.s in the Diocese of Winona but not yet on an every-Sunday basis. I think that that is about to change soon. The Bishop of Winona has avoided conflict with the Society in the past because Winona is the site of its U.S. seminary.
In the case of Gaylord, a priest is currently training to offer a regularised Mass.
That leaves Crookston to the S.S.P.X. It is one of the least-populous Catholic dioceses in America.
P.K.T.P.
March 12, 2008 at 2:01 am
I won’t open Pandora’s Box by addressing the “antisemitism” question or the “big fish in a little pond” canard, but I am intrigued by Mr. Perkins’ comments. If what he says is true (and I have no reason to doubt him) then one can’t help but wonder if Summorum Pontificum wasn’t a very clever tactic to attempt to destroy the S.S.P.X — be careful what you wish for indeed.
The decline of the S.S.P.X in favour of diocesan Masses pursuant to S.P. could be very dangerous for the precise reason that the liturgy is only one very small part of the problem. It really boils down to a problem of doctrine — and I daresay that as well intentioned as all the diocesan priests now offering the Mass of All Time are, none of them have the solid doctrinal formation that a truly traditional priest has. Remember, we had the T.L.M. in the 1950s, but because of lack of doctrine, we got Vatican II and the ensuing crisis. They could have kept the ancient Mass after Vatican II and we’d still be in a crisis because of the doctrinal errors that are rampant in the Church today.
I’m interested to hear what numbers Mr. Perkins has for Canada. There have certainly been none here in Winnipeg, despite a number of people asking for it.
March 12, 2008 at 2:07 am
To Dierdre: The SSPX is not in schism – and is not outside the church: the Vatican has said otherwise, on the record, several times. This is one of those falsehoods so often repeated that it passes for true. You may not know this, but the SSPX was founded by Archbishop Lefebvre within the church with the blessing of the local bishop and the Vatican, back in the early to mid seventies. It was not, like the Lutheran sect, created in protest of the Church at all or to lead people away from it, but to protect Her traditions and train priests in those traditions, which were in grave danger of being lost forever at that point. They didn’t leave the Church, they were trying to keep its traditions alive from within. The society had already been around many years (more than ten years)when Abp. Lefebvre incurred the displeasure of the Vatican by consecrating bishops without permission of the Pope. He did this only because he knew that he did not have long to live. That is when the talk of schism began, but it was never explicit and how Cardinal Hoyos has gone on record as saying the SSPX is not, in fact, in schism. Abp. Lefebvre was a fine devout priest and wonderful bishop; Pope St. Pius X is not at all dishonored by him or by the majority of the fine priests of the SSPX now serving the Church. But the important point here is that the SSPX is not grounded in dissent or protest. It is to uphold tradition. Period. They do not consider themselves outside the Church and neither does Rome. Finally, Dierdre, you started out by saying “help me out, here” that sounded slightly facetious – but I hope you are sincere. The SSPX has probably helped you and all of us more than you will ever know. Kit.
March 12, 2008 at 3:03 am
Mr Perkins,
Very interesting posts on the statistics concerning “regular” celebrations of the TLM.
Are these statistics collated, published and updated anywhere? Or is it necessary to do the leg-work necesary to keep up to date onself?
March 12, 2008 at 4:32 am
John Paul the Great, wanted to consecrate a Bishop to succede
Lefebre. The Archbishop presented
4 Priests of the Society. The Holy
Father did not accept either one.
and asked Lefebre to present more possible candidates, Lefebre chose
Schism. Now 20 years later we can
see the great wisdom of the Holy
Father. He was guided by the Holy Ghost. Those 4 guys have been nothing but trouble for Holy Mother
Church.
Lefebre messed up big time!
March 12, 2008 at 5:02 am
That’s not quite correct, angelo. Lefebvre wanted to consecrate 4, JPII only wanted one, chosen through the ordinary episcopal selection processes. I don’t think the for SSPX Bishops were ever “submitted and rejected” the way you describe.
Secondly, angelo, please tell me why His Holiness John Paul II was greater than 262 of the 264 Popes who preceded him.
He was a holy man, and full of virtue, sure. Maybe even a Saint. But only two popes in the history of Catholicism have “The Great” affixed to their titles. And may God have mercy on his soul, but Pope John Paul did nothing compared to Popes Leo and Gregory The Great. Even Pope St. Pius V, who saved The Church from the double threat of Protestantism and Islam hasn’t been deemed The Great.
So what did we get? Brilliant writings? Well yes. Applied by those in power (Cardinals, Bishops..). Well, no (with a few honourable exceptions – Bruskewitz, Burke, Pell, Ranjith… how many more??). But wait… We did get the wonders of not one, but two “Prayer Meetings at Assisi.” – kissing up to false religions and idol-worshippers. We got beautiful Papal Masses that had NOTHING to do with Tradition (but lots of bare boobies!). We got “World Youth Day” that had NOTHING to do with Tradition – but you could buy consecrated hosts on e-bay afterwards…. We got altar girls, and nothing done to stop communion in the hand. We got hand-outs in 1984 and 1988 for an “indult” Traditional Latin Mass, ignored by liberal bishops and never enforced. We got seminaries that brought the sodomites in by the droves. We got “Lavander Mafia” bishops who protected homo-rapist priests. We got wonderful men like Mahony, Weakland, et al.
And we’ve got a millions of Catholics who are contracepting and aborting their way to a very dark place, in defiance of the Church’s (and JPII’s) teaching, and even more who don’t even believe in transubstantiation. Outside the “traditionalist movement” – the FSSP and the ICKSP – many seminaries are empty, and quite often hetereodox.
I always thank God for the late Holy Father – because without him, things could have got much worse still, but to call him “the Great” is really over the top.
A little more historical perspective, and a little less hagaiography, please.
March 12, 2008 at 5:46 am
Mr. Wansbutter is correct in pointing to a doctrinal problem. However, it is my impression that most of the regularised priests learning the old Mass are either traditionalists or at least conservatives. This means that, in many respects (and, sometimes, in every respect), they are inculcating the True Faith just as surely as are S.S.P.X priests. I expect that trend to continue and note that the Society itself has always reiterated that it is not the whole Church, only (it says) part of her.
While Mr. Wansbutter makes a very good observation regarding principle, I think that it really is true that, as Michael Davies so often put it, for most faithful, it’s the Mass that matters. Get the Mass right and other good things follow. That is because the Traditional Mass is the first and most immediate catechism of the Faith and leads priests and people to a stronger faith.
Mr. W. also asked about Canada. I am afraid that the sitaution in Canada, Australia, and Ireland (also in Scotland) has been very disappointing since S.P. was published. A priest here in my Diocese was just getting ready to offer it and was then suddenly recalled to Nova Scotia, at the other end of the country.
The Society is marginally ahead of regularised Masses in Canada in terms of numbers of sees (14 to 13) but more faithful are served by regularised Masses per diocese. 58% of faithful live in sees having regularised Masses every Sunday; 51%, in the territory of sees having Society Masses.
Regularised Masses are available every Sunday in the following 13 sees:
Montréal, Toronto, Québec, London, Hamilton, Calgary, Vancouver, Ottawa, Edmonton, Sherbrooke, Sault Ste. Marie, St. Catharines, and Saskatoon.
Society Masses are available every Sunday in the territory of the following fourteen sees:
Montréal, Toronto, Québec, Calgary, Vancouver, Edmonton, Ottawa, Sherbrooke, Trois Rivières, Winnipeg, St. Catharines, Victoria, Kamloops, Grouard-McLennan.
There are 63 sees in Canada, so 13 is only 21% if them; 14, 22%.
P.K.T.P.
March 12, 2008 at 6:42 am
To answer Mr. Alexander’s question: I do the legwork myself on the numbers, and update notices of changes to the ctnJogues list. There are some very good sites out there now for statistics, such as Mr. Carl Schwalm’s Mater Dei site for the U.S.A. and Canada (which I contribute to) and the Missa Tridentina Site in Germany.
P.K.T.P.
March 12, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Mr Perkins:
The person identified as “David” is another fellow of the same first name. I use my full name for identification here. By the way, I’d like to welcome a few more guys to the party. “O quam bonum et jucundum, est habitare cum fratribus in unum.”
That was a toast my father taught me years ago. Anyone know where I got it?