The now fairly infamous Bishop Williamson of the SSPX has, at the direction of Bishop Fellay, has been removed from his position as director of the Seminary of La Reja.
This is welcome news. The other day I criticized Bishop Fellay for not acting on distancing the Society from Williamson sooner, more to the point, before the lifting of the excommunications.
They should have done it then but they must do it now. Do the right thing and you will save the Society, save the Pope, and perhaps even save Williamson. Even if it saves no one, it is the right thing to do. Williamson has no business in any leadership position going forward.
Well, it seems that Bishop Fellay had already recognized the necessity of removing Williamson from a leadership position. I am very encouraged by much of what Bishop Fellay has done recently. I truly believe that reconciliation is his number one priority.
I will note that every time that I have written here urging the SSPX to distance itself from Williamson (starting almost 2 years ago), I have been roundly criticized in the combox by many. I wonder how many people who said that I was bending to the liberal media (even though I said it before the media had even heard of Williamson) or that my suggestion was “totally inappropriate” or even accused me (totally without merit) that I wanted the excommunication re-imposed. Silly all of it. What I suggested then was that he be removed from any leadership position. I wonder what the breathless commenters will say now that it seems Bishop Fellay agrees?
February 9, 2009 at 5:19 pm
I haven’t followed the comment threads about this business here but my guess is that some of ‘many roundly criticising’ will proceed to, ahem, prepare to cast Mons Fellay out of their communion. Some of the lay followers of the FSSPX are already shaking their heads and wondering what to do when Mons Fellay et al capitulate to ‘Conciliar Rome’.
I tend to want to take them by the shoulders and shake some sense into them: but the fact is that many of those people have been so badly dealt with by ecclesiastical authorities during the last 30 years that their obstinacy and irrationality becomes almost understandable: and it has to be admitted that just as many ordinary Catholics are woefully under-catechised, so too are many of the traditionalists, for whom the content of the Baltimore Catechism is the summa of theology and ecclesiastical history. (Not that everybody and his brother need to be theologians: but we are singularly ill-equipped to deal with the issues raised by the questions surrounding the reception and implementation of the Second Vatican Council if the penny catechism is our intellectual vade mecum.)
February 9, 2009 at 6:42 pm
“[T]he fact is that many of those people have been so badly dealt with by ecclesiastical authorities during the last 30 years that their obstinacy and irrationality becomes almost understandable…”
…except when you are referring to grown-ups.
Very few of these victims have ever had to depend on the Church for their livelihood. Many of them have had remedies at their disposal for years. Even in cities where the Traditional Mass is freely and enthusiastically available, and has been for years, that’s not good enough. There’s some other bone to pick.
Here’s one for the books. A guy living in Fredericksburg VA could attend an FSSP PARISH (!!!) in Richmond, and never darken the door of a “Novus Ordo church” for the rest of his anal retentive life. Why does he pass this by for an independent chapel? Well, before Mass the ladies of the parish lead the Rosary, instead of allowing the men to do it. This is this loser’s idea of scandal. Mind you, women have been praying the rosary out loud, often with men in the same room, for generations. Even in church. You think the children of Fatima paid any attention to this rule? Bernadette?? Any woman raised to the altar who ever saw a vision while standing in front of a crowd???
People, you have a choice. You can either whine about being a victim for the rest of your miserable tightly-wound life, or “offer it up” and move forward. You can dress it up in Irish curtain lace all they want. It’s a bunch of crybaby nonsense, and you need to get past it, right this damn minute, while there is still time.
Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia!
February 9, 2009 at 7:58 pm
On most of the substantive issues of course I am presuming that I agree with Mr Alexander: and I find it to be exasperating (to put it as mildly as I can) to have to try to deal with such things as who is leading the rosary (on the one hand, the truly trivial side) and Why Ordinations After 1970 Aren’t Unquestionably Valid (on the other hand, the ‘were it an issue reasonable theologians actually dispute it would be a serious issue indeed’ side): but I prefer to try approaching the ‘rejectionist traditionalists’ with honey rather than vinegar.
But it is hard. Just yesterday…. The feast of the Seven Founders of the Servites is Thursday in the old calendar and next Tuesday in the new (I am gotten used to thinking in terms of both of the calendars, since I hear Mass in both forms): this prompted a great rant from a friend who goes to St Athanasius in NOVA (one of the ‘chapels’) about the useless and stupid and modernist et cetera innovations in the new calendar–pft, I let it go by this time, while thinking more or less exactly what Mr Alexander writes in his final paragraph.
February 9, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Doc, thanks for writng.
We’ve already got the “honey.” It’s called “Summorum Pontificum.” It’s otherwise known as “lifting the four excommunications.” There’s no other option but colon therapy.
February 9, 2009 at 8:32 pm
David,
That was among your very best rants ever!
Huzzah!
February 9, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Later in the day, when the meds wear off…
February 9, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Oh, I think some of the traditionalist talking points are worth dealing with: let the Pope issue a bull making it clear that ‘continuity’ rather than ‘rupture’ is Catholic, that Dei verbum didn’t somehow eliminate Tradition et cetera, that ecumenism except in its proper sense is silly nonsense: perhaps add a canon to the Code that excommunicates bishops and priests who advocate opere et omissione the ordination of women. And so on and so forth. I suspect that Benedict XVI is well aware that he is likely to be the last pope who participated in a significant way at the Second Vatican Council, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he conceives a certain responsibility, that being the case, to offer a few more jars of honey.
February 9, 2009 at 9:21 pm
I think you should read this. Bishop Williamson is a great and humble man. After reading this I can not help but admire his courage and yet his willingness to step aside and take all the heat that is in fact directed at SSPX and the Pope. He should be given a leadership position because he clearly deserves it much more than all the soft-spoken media bending bishops who continue to give Communion to abortionists and agree with all the liberal agenda so that they don’t look bad in the media. He cares for the truth and for the faith.
And you, dear Patrick, should really be ashamed of your earlier comments.
February 9, 2009 at 9:28 pm
“I think you should read this. Bishop Williamson is a great and humble man….”
If he is, that has not been demonstrated in abundance. I for one read the Der Spiegel interview, and I thought, “What took you so long?”
These guys need to get on board. Leaving the negotiating table, only to go back and get the troops all riled up, is part of what has taken too long to resolve this.
I’ll bet Patrick’s not sorry. I’m gonna sleep like a baby tonight.
February 9, 2009 at 11:43 pm
I have this vision of progressives and rad trads being put together in rooms in Purgatory and not let out until 1) they come to total agreement on everything, or 2) the end of time, whichever comes first..
February 10, 2009 at 12:59 am
David Alexander,
You are my hero!
February 10, 2009 at 3:15 am
Great and humble men do not deny the objective reality of twelve years of mass murder. May God have mercy on us all.
— Mack
February 10, 2009 at 11:11 am
Patrick – I can only speak for myself when I say I think we are seeing eye to eye here on this issue. Once again, in the spirit of charity and reconciliation, I am giving Bp Fellay the benefit of the doubt here since for the last month + he seems to have demonstrated humility, courage and loyalty to the Vatican through his actions. I hope he continues down this path and that the SSPX can redeem themselves in the eyes of God and His church.
“[T]he fact is that many of those people have been so badly dealt with by ecclesiastical authorities during the last 30 years that their obstinacy and irrationality becomes almost understandable…”
…except when you are referring to grown-ups.
OK, your point about this Fredricksburg loon is well-taken, and yes, there are always going to be people walking around with long pole-like objects lodged in their nether regions. And you just have to realise a) they have been around since St Paul wrote his epistles and b) they do not represent the majority.
BUT, the part about being abused by authority is ABSOLUTELY accurate as well. I cite this example often, but here goes: in the archdiocese of Phoenix, AZ during the 90’s there was NO diocesan or FSSP Tridentine mass offered at all. The scandalous, cowardly little man who wore the bishop’s mitre at the time would not allow it. As I worked in Phoenix 1 week out of the month, I myself called the diocese to make a friendly (I swear!) inquiry as to why this was the case. I was told in no uncertain terms by some priestly-lackey that the bishop had every right to decide to deny the Tridentine mass, even though there were hundreds flocking to the SSPX and Sede chapels. And if I wanted to do so myself, then good ridance to me. *click*
What prompted such hate from this diocese? Why the absolute lack of charity, christian virtue and LOYALTY to the previous pope’s (vague) Ecclesia Dei? Well, by their fruits shall they be known, as this same bishop was later arrested for killing a man during a hit and run incident, then cowering behind a bunch of lies and pretexts, only to be finally convicted (the honour of being the only US bishop ever convicted in court). Had Dante known this man, I’m sure he would have written in another circle of hell for him.
But now, under the subsequent Bishop Thomas Olmsted, there is a regular Tridentine mass with the FSSP, so at least some of the damage has been (reluctantly?) corrected. But make no mistake, the repression, oppression and abuse ARE and have been there. How we deal with it is what separates the men from the boys, IMHO.
February 10, 2009 at 12:16 pm
“How we deal with it is what separates the men from the boys, IMHO.”
But first, we gotta pay attention. I never denied that these things happened, and in abundance. I maintain that the potential to put them behind us is not only present, but absolutely necessary. I also didn’t mean to imply that it was easy.
I stand by what I write. I do not defend what I didn’t write.
February 10, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Mr. Archbold:
Thanks for the I told you so! Congratulations were due but it seems you have already collected them.
Please read the following link: https://creativeminorityreport.com/2009/02/this-says-it-all.html
perhaps your next call for the removal of a Bishop can be directed at Archbishop Whurl, a man who also refuses to teach the truth – in his case it concerns the Church’s teaching on abortion and his audience is not south american seminarians but north american political leaders who plant themselves in Washington, DC for the better part of each year.
Of course, Whurl is not such low hanging fruit as Williamson -after all Williamson refused to teach the truth about history while Whurl refuses to teach the truth about faith and morals – will you take your blog into the fray?
happy hunting.
February 10, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Among the list of issues left open and yet to be discussed between Rome and the SSPX, we must not forget Collegialism. Collegialism as a decison-making rubric amongst the Bishops was and remains one of the key objections that the SSPX raises against Vat II. And for good reason.
Collegialism has matured to give us the various ‘Churches’ (‘American Church’, ‘Church in France’, and the blatently offensive ‘Jesuit Tradition’always mentioned immediately after the words “Catholic Tradition”.)
It has also left us toothless buracracies like the USCCB, and has metastacized into intra-diocesan beauracracies as well. Another result is toothless Bishops who do not teach because they no longer feel they need to given that they attend the annual meetings of the USCCB and the USCCB is there for all the heavy lifting that needs to be done.
Most recently we see the fruits of collegialism from a German Bishop who expresses his anger at Benedict and Rome, questioning the legitimacy of the removal of excommunications because the Bishops were not consulted.
February 10, 2009 at 2:28 pm
I’m not a member of the FSSPX.
I’m not a fan of Williamson.
But he was asked to do something, and he showed obedience.
Let’s continue praying for the regularization of the FSSPX.
February 10, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Deusdonat:
I wrote a series at summorumpontificum.net, about the practical side of implementing the TLM. Most of what happened in the 80s and 90s won’t necessarily apply today. As the law is currently written, there is nothing from stopping a priest from saying “private Masses” every Sunday if he so chooses. If you’re expecting immediate results, you’re going to be disappointed. But moving forward instead of looking back is absolutely essential if sacred tradition (upper or lower case, I really don’t care) is to be restored. Most of the people who had control of events back then will be retired or dead in about ten years. That’s not a long time when you think of it.
I invite you to read my series. The four installments can be found here.
February 11, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Dear Patrick Archbold,
Bishop Williamson is a hero.
Why He can not agree on 6.ooo.ooo instead of 300.000 or 50.000?
It is not allow to Bishop
Williamson or Mr. J. Doe to think this way?
What about freedom of speech?
What about Nagasaky, Hiroshima or Dresden numbers?
Are those numbers as important as others numbers?
Thanks
Roberto S.
Santiago
Chile
February 11, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Williamson has a right to his opinions, but not to his own facts. Neither does he have the right to use his episcopal office as a platform to espousing views outside the realm of Catholic faith and morals. If he is to return to the fold with the Holy See, he’ll have to get used to being accountable to someone else.
At the rate he’s going, he’d better hurry.