Grave Danger

Below is Bishop Williamson’s Eleison Comments. His Excellency, Bshp Richard Williamson once again presents a wise commentary on the current situation between Rome and the SSPX. He frames it in history when His Excellency, Archbshp Lefevbre, of happy memory, signed the provisional protocol agreement with Rome, and overnight, with the seeming help of the Holy Ghost, saw the danger in such a “practical” agreement without a doctrinal agreement; which would be disastrous for the Faith. If the good Archbishop saw back then the dangers of such an agreement how much more danger is there today when the NewChurch, as Bishop Williamson labels them, is so much more egregious in their unorthodox and even at times materially heretical actions.
His Excellency’s point on new vocations entering the SSPX based on practical agreements would, in fact, undermine the Society’s orthodox practice and spell the end of tradition as we know it now. This in turn would negate all the sacrifices made to date by the Faithful, lay and clergy alike; sacrifices which you all have made on a personal basis which need not be recounted here. It would also betray our adherence to the true Faith and Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Faith. As proof of this we need only look to the Society of St. Peter and the priestly sons of His Excellency Castro da Meyer, also of happy memory. Their practical defense of the true Magisterium exists today in name only as they have capitulated to their Novus Ordo hierarchy and are forced to remain silent on the errors of Vatican Council II and the NewChurch teaching, doctrines and dogmas.
These are dangerous times for the living Catholic Faithful, more dangerous than ever. We must redouble our vigilance and be wary of NewChurch Romans bearing gifts.

The desire of certain priests within the Society of St Pius X to seek a practical agreement with the Church authorities without a doctrinal agreement seems to be a recurring temptation. For years Bishop Fellay as the Society’s Superior General has refused the idea, but when he said in Winona on February 2 that Rome is willing to accept the Society as is, and that it is ready to satisfy “all the Society’s requirements…on the practical level”, it does look as though Rome is holding out the same temptation once more.

However, the latest news from Rome will be known to many of you: unless the Vatican is playing games with the SSPX, it announced last Friday, March 16, that it found Bishop Fellay’s January reply to its Doctrinal Preamble of September 14 of last year “not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems which lie at the foundation of the rift between the Holy See and the SSPX.” And the Vatican gave the SSPX one month in which to “clarify its position” and avoid “a rupture of painful and incalculable consequences.”

But what if Rome were suddenly to cease requiring acceptance of the Council and the New Mass ? What if Rome were suddenly to say, “Alright. We have thought about it. Come back into the Church as you ask. We will give you freedom to criticize the Council as much as you like, and freedom to celebrate the Tridentine Mass exclusively. But do come in !” It might be a very cunning move on the part of Rome, because how could the Society refuse such an offer without seeming inconsistent and downright ungrateful ? Yet on pain of survival it would have to refuse. On pain of survival ? Strong words. But here is a commentary of Archbishop Lefebvre on the matter.

On May 5, 1988, he signed with then Cardinal Ratzinger the protocol (provisional draft) of a practical Rome-Society agreement. On May 6 he took back his (provisional) signature. On June 13 he said, “With the May 5 Protocol we would soon have been dead. We would not have lasted a year. As of now the Society is united, but with that Protocol we would have had to make contacts with them, there would have been division within the Society, everything would have been a cause of division” (emphasis added). “New vocations might have flowed our way because we were united with Rome, but such vocations would have tolerated no disagreement with Rome which means division. As it is, vocations sift themselves before they reach us” (which is still true in Society seminaries).

And why such division ? (Warring vocations would be merely one example amongst countless others). Clearly, because the May 5 Protocol would have meant a practical agreement resting upon a radical doctrinal disagreement between the religion of God and the religion of man. The Archbishop went on to say, “They are pulling us over to the Council…whereas on our side we are saving the Society and Tradition by carefully keeping our distance from them” (emphasis added). Then why did the Archbishop seek such an agreement in the first place ? He continued, “We made an honest effort to keep Tradition going within the official Church. It turned out to be impossible. They have not changed, except for the worse.”

And have they changed since 1988 ? Many would think, only for yet worse.

Kyrie eleison.

Richard of Danbury, D.S.G.


About Catholic Rural Solutions

This group is for the practical application of Catholic Distributist teachings as promoted by Pope St. Pius X, Belloc, Chesterton, Maurin and others in the 20th century. This group is also a respite for traditional Catholics who adhere to the Tridentine Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and who share a concern for small independent Catholic communities throughout the world. These communities while primarily small holding farmers, craftsmen and tradesman all espouse an integrated life based on Catholic Social Justice and the Sacred Magisterium of the Church. Through this we intend to inject the Distributist economic principles into the greater society. Please fell free to share your experiences in this vein. Flaming, proselytizing and persecution WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.
This entry was posted in Current Events, The Faith. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Grave Danger

  1. Lionel Andrades says:

    Monday, April 9, 2012
    Excommunicated priests could cry foul: Members of the SSPX need to appeal to the pope to affirm Vatican Council II (AG 7) in public.

    It’s all there in writing.Dissent from a religious. Not a liberal priest or bishop, but Our Holy Father the pope himself.

    It’s hard to believe. It was something that was a suspicion for a long time but there was no proof.Now the pope has made an error and put it in writing. He can no more stay behind the secret, confidential memos and telephone calls or cardinal – bishop proxies.

    The pope’s error is not ex cathedra but it is a public error contradicting the ex cathedra statements of popes and Church Councils but worse still, to would seem for some, it’s a common sense error.

    Perhaps it was inadvertant and no ill will was intended.Let us give our Holy Father the benefit of the doubt.

    The error, among other things, shows that the Vatican is in no position to demand that the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) accept Vatican Council II (Jewish Left version) when the pope himself is rejecting Vatican Council II , Ad Gentes 7 and misunderstanding Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II.(1)

    The SSPX on April 15, the deadline for their response to the March 16 Vatican statement, should ask the pope or the Vatican spokesman, to clarify their position on AG 7 and LG 16 and the factual error made by the pope in writing.

    How can there be ‘an ecclesial rupture of painful and incalculable consequences’ when the Vatican itself cannot affirm Vatican Council II according to common sense, reason and simple objectivity.

    Here’s the problem for all to see:

    The Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI tells Peter Seewald in the book Light of the World- Conversations with Peter Seewald (Ignatius) that there is only one way of salvation and all who are saved are saved through Jesus.

    This is a simple statement and acceptable. All good Catholics can agree with the Holy Father.He implies that all non Catholics are saved with the baptsm of water and Catholic Faith or, in invincible ignorance,a good conscience and other implicit forms of salvation known only to God and unknown to us.

    So this is the one way of salvation.

    But there is a problem here and it may not show itself unless you think it through.

    The Holy Father is saying that the one way of salvation is not just Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (AG 7, Vatican Council II) but also being saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16, Vatican Council II) etc.

    So when AG 7 states all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water the Holy Father says “No, Not all.”- the exceptions are those who are in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc and are saved. There are exceptions.

    There are exceptions to AG 7 ?

    Did Vatican Council II make a mistake?

    Is Vatican Council II irrational, illogical ?

    How can Vatican Council II like the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus say all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water ?

    Something is wrong, somewhere?!

    Now we come to the heart of the problem.The Richard Cushing Error.The objective flaw. And the Holy Father also fell for it.

    It’s simple. It’s so simple that many will not believe it.

    We don’t know anyone on earth saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience.

    Objectively we don’t know anyone in this category.They are in Heaven and are known only to God.

    So the one way of salvation is not all who are saved through Jesus and the Church as the Holy Father told Peter Seewald.

    The pope assumes that those saved in invincible ignorance etc are known to us and so they are an exception to AG 7.He also assumes that LG 16 refers to explicitly known cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance and with a good conscience.

    This is an objective, factual error. We cannot meet or telephone someone saved in invincible ignorance. So it is not an explicit, defacto exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the centuries-old one way of salvation for all.

    So when the Vatican asks the SSPX to affirm Vatican Council II the SSPX should ask the Vatican to clarify LG 16 and AG 7, what is the Vatican’s position on this objective error of the pope?

    Ask the Vatican spokesman if he knows anyone personally saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience.

    Catholic priests in Rome, to whom I have asked this question, say they don’t know a single such case.- Lionel Andrades

    Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself “by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.- Ad Gentes 7

    This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.-Lumen Gentium 14

    Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.-Lumen Gentium 16

    Sunday, April 8, 2012

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s