Bishop Williamson Removed from SSPX
Rorate Caeli is reporting:
Rorate has learned and can confirm that Bishop Richard Williamson, one of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and co-consecrated by Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer on June 30, 1988, in Écône, Switzerland, for the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) has been removed from membership in said society by its Superior General, and can now be considered a former member. The removal comes at the end of an internal procedure that included repeated entreaties by the higher authorities of the Society regarding Williamson’s decisions and actions that apparently went unheeded.
Williamson is an insolent, dissident, holocaust-denying stumbling block and I, for one, am glad he’s gone.
About Fr Stephen Smuts
Excellent. Well done, SSPX. They’re still sedevacantist, semi-protestant pseudo-Catholic deniers of legitimate authority. Unless they submit to Rome, that is, and not set up Écône as a rival church.
The SSPX is not sedevacantist.
Why do they treat the Pope as if he were a “Modernist Heretic” then? As far as I know, the Holy Father was generous to SSPX, but normalization would mean that they accept that the Vatican II was a valid council, and the validity of the Church’s Magisterium. They did not sign anything. Are they disobedient to this Pope? Do they even see the Pope as the Pope at all? Why are they refusing what the Pope requests? If they were to label Pope Benedict XVI as a “Modernist Heretic” then what they’re saying is that he’s no Pope at all, hence sedevacantism.
What pains me most is the amount of good they could do in the Church if they only had the courage to face liberals within the Church rather than running away from them.
Their decision to remain outside amounts to a “Thanks, but no thanks.”
If the SSPX thought of the Holy Father as a modernist heretic, they would have rejected in principle any discussions with him, and certainly those that included the possibility of the SSPX returning to current Rome’s jurisdiction. But they didn’t. Don’t spread lies and hate by going from the particulars (the SSPX avoiding the bad direction of Roman authority) to the universal (saying that they are sedevacantist).
Your local bishop probably shows less respect and obedience to Rome than the SSPX bishops.
You might also think that you have courage, but you obviously have not suffered internal persecution for your faith at the hands of these liberals. Otherwise you would show greater charity. How is your Faith then?
Oh, and now you slander my OWN bishop- how do you know that my bishop has been or has not been respectful of the Pope? He hasn’t disobeyed the wishes of the Holy Father, unlike the SSPX. Any Catholic can receive communion and the sacraments and fulfill their Sunday obligations at any churches in my bishop’s diocese. You can’t say the same for the SSPX and their chapels.
The SSPX, ultimately REJECTED Rome, regardless of whether or not they entered into discussions with Rome in the first place. They ultimately decided for themselves, by their own authority, that they are “Orthodox” compared to the Pope. They wanted to do things THEIR way, rather than the Pope’s way, putting themselves in a pretended superiority to the Chair of St. Peter.
Even if I have suffered “internal persecution” at the hands of liberals, I’m not about to start my own society at odds with the Pope and the whole Catholic establishment. I consider myself a conservative, traditionalist Catholic, but I refuse to identify with the pseduo-protestants of the SSPX- their path is the path to hell and damnation if they continue with their disobedience.
Ioannes, Fr Ratzinger was a full-blown Modernist during and after VII. He remains a Modernist to this day. modernists can be ‘nice’ and ‘generous’ as long as you agree with them or go along with their ideas. Why not love each other and forget about Doctrine? That is the modernist solution.
Their fundamental premise is Protestant.. private judgement, as to what sacred tradition constitutes….i.e. we know better than the magisterium.They may not be sede vacantanist officially …but in practice they are.
Exactly! This is how all major schisms and heresies started: we know better and we are closer to apostolic tradition then the Church is.
They also strangely exercise their private judgement in choosing which ecumenical councils they accept and which they don’t. Recently, I tend to think that although their ecclesiology is generally Catholic, it is their pneumology which is deficient.
So by going along with whatever modernist ideals Rome has makes you a better Catholic then? You may be officially in good standing with an infected Rome, but what does that say about your unwavering dedication to the truth?
I think you just proved RIW and CC’s point, Marcus.
“Infected” Rome? Rome is or Rome isn’t. Question for the honest: how many antipopes were there before 1958? And a second question: what does the Church say about deferring judgement to a future council?
(The followers of the SSPX are a sad lot indeed. They recognize that something is wrong with the Vatican 2 sacraments and hierarchy, but they exist independently of them, but all their *own* SSPX sacraments etc are a strange hodge podge of pre- and post- Vatican 2 that would not be recognized by any pope ever. The interesting part of all this is that people attack the SSPX and their followers by saying that they are exercising private judgement. Unfortunately, the only private judgement they make is to question the situation barely enough to get themselves to an SSPX location. The followers of the SSPX are notorious for taking the crazy and irrational SSPX party line, whole and entire, without any question at all. Just try to talk to one of them once about this. If you don’t agree with them, they’ll walk away!)
About 42 antipopes as I have heard? Not counting Joan!
Oh Fr. Robert, you can do better than this! Even the staunchest “Catholic Protestants” should have heard by now that Pope Joan is a myth! Ask any medieval historian and he will affirm it…
For your further edification read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan
I did not count her, but this piece might be interesting
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1453197&page=1 …
Not to mention the whole Modern Anti-Popes and Conclavism.
I do not find Bishop Williamson at all ‘insolent’. Fr Smuts is right, however, when he says he is a stumbling block for so he is. He is a stumbling block to Bishop Fellay who continues his ‘Rake’s Progress’ down the attractive yellow brick road toward his fellow Modernist at the end of the via della Conciliazione.
Bishop Williamson is perfectly conformed to the traditional ecclesiology of Archbishop Lefebvre. If Lefebvre was right yesterday then Williamson is right today but in that case Fellay is wrong.
What is happening to Bishop Williamson is not, at all, the product of a long internal SSPX process. It is merely Bishop Fellay being the immature and imprudent man he has shown himself to be over the years. He is not the successor to Archbishop Lefebvre. He is a conniving ecclesial careerist whose taste for ruling exceeds his ability to rule. He is betraying his Consecrator and selling out the SSPX for a metre or two of modernist purple. Kyrie eleison, as Bishop Williamson would say.
John Rathowen..you call Fr Smuts a father…you are not that traditional a Catholic!
But just what does the name or term “Father” mean? And I am speaking here both biblically and theologically. As an Anglican, I myself would not use or allow the term, save for the biblical text from St. Paul in 1 Cor. 4: 15, “For though you have countless guides in Christ, you have not many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” St. Paul claims his power and authority are not within himself, but are within the Good News itself! He, Paul “begot” them thru the power of the Gospel of Christ, and it is only here that he asks them to follow him, as he is a pastor and shepherd “In Christ.” And btw, the truest Catholicity is really limited to the NT principles, and here we see the true Churchman is the “presbyter”, and priesthood is more that of being a man of the Gospel, itself…a preacher, and pastor-teacher, (as Paul liked to call himself).
I am, in fact, a very traditional Catholic, Mr Williams, and I am also an Anglo-Irish gentleman to whom courtesy comes very easily…..
RIW – This is Fr. Smut’s house and his rules. You can think what you like, but basic common courtesy requires that you use his proper title. And if you don’t want to follow the rules of common courtsey, then maybe following the Vatican’s admonition in the 1993 Ecumenical Directory #107 which states, “Catholics ought to show a sincere respect for the liturgical and sacramental discipline of other Churches and Ecclesial Communities, and these in their turn are asked to show the same respect for Catholic Discipline.” Fr. Smuts has been ordained as an Anglican priest as part of their sacramental discipline. It is simply rude and disrespectful to refer to him in any other way, and it is particularly egregious not to do so in his house.
I find myself in the odd position of defending Mr Williams. I fear I may have an attack of the vapours.
I think he has always been respectful of the blog owner, and was making a somewhat arch observation about the previous poster.
Now I need to have a lie down.
Thank you…… I am a fan of the Rev.Stephen Smuts and his excellent blog.
Die beste man in Suid-Afrika.
There’s nothing nicer or better than an Afrikaner with an English heart.
But sadly Fr. Stephen you (and certainly not I) according to Mr. Williams, will see heaven since were not really Roman Catholic! But thank God we both know better! For heaven is itself the “gift” of God In Christ, by faith and God’s glory!
RIW – if that reference was tongue-placed-firmly-in-cheek, then I apologize for my comments. Having run across fellow RCs who not only feel this way privately but who are obnoxious in their pushing their view to the point of incivility, I misinterpreted your meaning and thought you were serious. Forgive me, please!
Stephen, do you need smelling salts?
Amen there “wayfarer”! And theres little difference here between RIW and Stephen, sadly!
I’m at a loss to know what exactly you mean by that.
I will let you make an educated guess?
I have tried. I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say…
Perhaps its best to leave this, but I think it quite obvious, myself. Standing next or near Mr. Williams is a grave mistake in my opinion!
I wasn’t aware that I was standing next to Mr Williams except to point out one occasion when I felt (correctly, as it transpired) that he had been misunderstood. In fact if memory serves me correctly, I have positioned myself in opposition to Mr Williams on at least one occasion.
I am an old man. Perhaps you could remind me of where, in your opinion, I have supported Mr Williams position?
I don’t think it matters, at this moment, what Mr WIlliams’ position actually is. I am genuinely mystified as to what leads you to believe that I share his views.
liberalism is in the eye of the beholder..here are some sede vacantanaists who see Williamson as a liberal!
OF course I forgive you wayfarer and whilst i believe everyone in Heaven is Catholic.. I also accept the teaching that those in genuine invincible ignorance may be there too.
The only people in Heaven are or will be Catholics. Not saying that only Catholics go to heaven, but everyone in Heaven is Catholic or they will be. Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church, and not just some vague notion of “universality” but those followers of Christ in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Jesus called it HIS Church, and he founded it upon St. Peter who is the head and living authority of the Body of Christ, as Christ commanded Peter to feed his sheep. There is only ONE Church, not many, not two, and not like a many-headed (even if they call it “autocephalous”) hydra. It exists both in Heaven (The Church Triumphant) and on Earth (Church Militant). It reaches its fulfillment in Eternity, and what we have here on Earth is a foretaste.
When people say that all these disagreeing denominations are in heaven, what we’d have is an eternity populated by people eternally disagreeing with each other. Would you like to go to a “heaven” populated by only me and Irishanglican, eternally disagreeing with each other?
We only have One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.
I wonder where the ancient Eastern Orthodox Churches fit into this formula?
Again, I say, the Orthodox can go to heaven. But they will become Catholics, because only Catholics are in heaven. Same with Buddhists, Muslims, Oriental Orthodox, Taoists, Mormons, etc. They all can go to heaven, because Jesus died for them. But they will inevitably be Catholic if they end up in heaven. While there is distinction between the saints, there is no division among them. Hence, the division that exists on earth cannot be allowed into heaven. So divisions and differences are resolved by the time they enter heaven- IF they enter heaven. I would be surprised if someone enters heaven while denying the divinity of Jesus Christ or the existence of God.
If the Orthodox insist that the Church of God is a democracy (or, actually, an oligarchy), we’ll see in the end if bishops reaching consensus about doctrine will get them into heaven. And let’s see them do it out of communion with the successor of Peter, who God specifically gave preference in leading His Church, giving him the keys of the kingdom of heaven and power of binding and loosing everything on heaven and earth. This position is not, as the Orthodox claim, given to ALL the disciples; He did not say “You are Andrew, Thomas, Philip, John, James, etc.and on this Rock, I will build my church.”
I initially really, really liked the Eastern Orthodox. Then you get to read Mark of Ephesus and various Orthodox polemics against the Roman Catholic Church. They make Williamson and the SSPX look like petulant teenagers.
I ask myself why Roman Catholic leaders even bother trying to please these supremely unpleasable people. It makes the misconception of Roman Catholics that “Union is near” really laughable. It’s likely that Christian Unity will never happen. It is more likely that both Mt. Athos and St. Peter’s Basilica will be swallowed by the sea before it happens. It is more likely that Judgement Day will come tomorrow first before there is a return to communion between the Orthodox and the Catholics. That is the present reality, and by putting aside my initial optimism, as I’ve done with the “Ordinariates”, I’m learning to deal with it.
Bravo Ioannes! Hic est vere doctrina Sanctae Ecclesiae – feliciter scripsisti!
Church as monarchy, democracy or oligarchy? Sounds like the mess the RCC made of the Trinity when it created the filioque in clear contradiction to scriptural warrant. EO views on both the Trinity and Church are in full accord with scripture and apostolic belief.
As for RCs in heaven, what specific ones get the “get into heaven free card”? Does it include just pre-Vatican II traditionalists? Or also post Vatican II modern conservatives? And what about all the post-Vatican II liberals? I have such a hard time with my RC scorecard. All the RCs I know pretty much tend to be cafeteria-style RCs. Do they get the heavenly buffet?
Funny in all this talk about “Catholicity”, but where does Christ Jesus as Mediator fit in? The loss of this great doctrine is a profound weakness in all the High Church doctrine! The Holy Offices of Christ, are simply almosr nil, here! Where is the office of Christ as our head, to perform the office (officio) of king and of priest? This, then, is the only true happiness of the church, even to be in subjection to Christ, as Lord & Mediator, and it is here HE is Savior!
This is for you “Ioannes” and whoever might want to read it? I hope you can understand it? I quoted the part from the London Baptist Confession, 1689, here before, just a great piece of Reformed Scholasticism!
The scriptures teach the idea of one covenant of grace, sometimes referred to as the covenant of redemption or the eternal covenant, with different administrations of this covenant taking place in time. (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 13:20) In this covenant made before time God the Father gives God the Son for “many,” God the Son offers Himself in place of sinners, and God the Holy Spirit administers this covenant in time. No one can receive God the Holy Spirit unless they know Him (John 14:17), those who have not the Spirit of God cannot be saved (Rom. 8:9), if you deny God the Son you do not have God as your Father (1 John 2:23) and without a knowledge of our Triune God you are “without God.” (Eph. 2:12)
This Covenant is “…an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.” Jer. 32:40 Jesus Christ is our great high priest (Heb. 3:1, 4:14) who prays for us (John 17, 17:9; Rom. 8:43) and lives to do so. The London Baptist Confession of 1689 explains, “This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father, upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ and union with him, the oath of God, the abiding of his Spirit, and the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.” (Romans 8:30 Romans 9:11, 16; Romans 5:9, 10; John 14:19; Hebrews 6:17, 18; 1 John 3:9; Jeremiah 32:40)
Btw Michael, the Church is a ‘Federal Vision’, of the “Christ Jesus” of Glory! (Eph. 2: 18)
Aye, I keep plugging for “Christ Jesus” (The Pauline Gospel!)
@ Michael Frost.
The Kingdom of God is a Monarchy, not ruled by “the people” And certainly not ruled by “A few”; There is only One God, and One Ruler over Heaven and Earth and the Pope is His supreme agent on Earth until Judgement Day, this coming from Christ Himself. Our Lord is not a liar; He did not speak in parable, nor in hyperbole, nor metaphorically, nor allegorically on that issue.
The Holy Spirit comes from the love of the Father and the Son, and so it does not come only from the Father merely because it appears to us chronologically in Scripture, but comes from the Father and Son from all eternity. Sts. Cyril and Athanasius of Alexandria clearly acknowledges the Son’s eternal, Personal possession of (i.e., participation in) the Spirit. Christ did not work from some post-incarnational pouring forth of the Spirit, but by a Spirit Who was proper to Himself (the Person of the Son) from all eternity. Many who object at the Filioque are themselves guilty of being semi-Arian (no surprise, considering how popular that heresy was) by refusing to amend a Creed that is deficient in understanding of the nature of the Holy Trinity, for as much as we can understand it- If the Creed amended with the Filioque is unjustified, then so is the Athanasian Creed, which Orthodoxy considers orthodox.
Only Roman Catholics in communion with St. Peter and therefore his successors are in Heaven, because we believe in the communion of saints. Even if they call themselves “Catholics” I do not believe that the SSPX is in communion with Rome; schism is defined in the Code of Canon Law as “withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (canon 751), and so they necessarily excommunicated themselves by their disobedience. In this case, the authority of the Pope trumps “tradition” for if “tradition” alone is necessary for salvation, then schismatics like the Orthodox are right, communion with St. Peter is not at all important, and Our Lord Jesus Christ is a liar. St. Peter, and therefore the Papacy, is the Rock of the Church. I consider myself a traditionalist, and therefore, I strive to be loyal to the successor of St. Peter until I die.
On the other side of the ‘Tradition-Modern’ spectrum, you have pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, sodomitic pseudogamy, and so forth- yet they have the nerve to call themselves “Practicing Catholics” Ask a catechumen if those who consistently support the murder of children is in communion with the Church, and you will get a simple answer- NO. Yet these people believe themselves to be in communion with the Pope when they disobey him behind his back. At least the SSPX is honest about their disobedience. Do these people go to heaven? God knows who the liars are. But if you have half a brain, you can tell who the hypocrites are from the idiots. And yet we must trust in God’s mercy; He knows things we can never know.
But I repeat, we only have One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism; no division, hence there are only Catholics in heaven.
Yet oddly, the obviously Spirit-guided Fathers who composed the Nicene Creed somehow didn’t aunderstand the theology well enough to include the filioque? Or they just forgot to add it? And why did it take Rome about 5 or so centuries after the Spanish tinkered with the Creed before they, too, finally added it? Was Rome ignorant?
One thing is certain, “Ioannes” would not know what the real issue of the so-called “filioque” was if it feel on him! (I mean if it could) Putting one’s toe into the water does not make one a simmer! And theology is the doctrine and study of “God”, and not just the words of theology or that information. Sadly this blog has turned – some time ago – into a lay Catholic place for the most part, and not a good Catholic lay place, Ordinariate or Roman Catholic! Sad, very sad, for the best of Roman Catholicism, is certainly NOT this! And btw, real “Catholicism” does not teach just Roman Catholics in heaven, nor the most ridiculous idea of any “genuine invinciple ignorance.” And here of course “Catholicism” for me, is certainly not just Roman Catholic! As our EO or Orthodox Brethren know, Salvation is much more than a place, but it is the soteriology, the spiritual salvation of God Himself, and this is always in “the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” (2 Cor. 4: 4)
“For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.” (2 Cor. 4:6)
If someone has experienced this grace & mercy “in the face of Christ”, no one, not the devil nor the demons of hell can take it from you! (Jesus, John 10: 27-28)
*fell
There’s nothing wrong with the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed per se, But it is deficient in the same manner as the “Apostles’ Creed” That is, it is lacking in a complete, definitive statement regarding the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity; Yes, the Spirit comes from the Father, yes, the Son is eternally begotten by the Father (Before all worlds), but that makes it susceptible to those who hold Subordinationism as orthodox. (It isn’t- St. Athanasius considered it Arianism, hence denying the two natures of Christ.) Hence, the Filioque is a necessity to establish a solid and consistent understanding of the Holy Trinity; any council can claim that they’re “Guided by the Holy Spirit” – heavens, even Episcopalians can call their blessing of same-sex marriage as “Guided by the Holy Spirit” and it doesn’t necessarily make it so. Now, if the Pope says that same-sex marriage as an important doctrine of the Catholic Church and pronounces it Ex Cathedra, Heaven and Earth are bound to this. (God said so.) Jesus never spoke of “councils” being the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, nor did Jesus say that “councils” will bind and let loose what it binds and unleashes on Heaven and Earth.
Rome is consistent with the Alexandrian tradition regarding Trinitarian teaching. Whereas Byzantines have had countless of Arian and other heretical bishops and patriarchs in their ranks, no different from the amount of Modernists and liberals in the Roman Catholic Church nowadays. Will these people go to heaven? They can, through God’s grace. If they do enter heaven, there will be no division and no schism.
Here’s a list of patriarchs of various churches and compare how many heretics there are with each other. http://earlychurchfathers.org/fullcircle/static.php?page=static070723-132136
Irishanglican- All I can say about your theology is that its logic is sufficient to make a paper god bound in leather. The Adi Granth makes a superior god in comparison.
@Ioannes: I should have saved myself alot of time, for this text just came into my mind…Matt. 7: 6! And as I have said several times here, if I live long enough, perhaps you will grow-up, but to grow, one must be “planted”, and quite honestly, you (like many others here) may not be planted by and in the true grace of God? (Matt. 15: 13-14)…Ouch!
Whatever the so-called scholastic doctrine of “genuine invincible ignorance” is? It certainly is not connected to the saving knowledge of the Lordship and Salvation of Christ! And btw, the biblical ignorance here is again just amazing!
“And this is eternal life, that they may “know” you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” (St. John 17: 3) And here to know is the true knowledge (ginosko, Gk.), ‘to come to know, recognize, understand, or to understand completely’. And quite simply this knowledge is more than just intellectual activity to anything outside of just Christ, but by the operation of the Holy Spirit to the person ‘In Christ’! So only scholastic doctrine or sacramentalism, of itself, means nothing without Christ!
Very amusing, Mr Frost
Btw, just a personal point, but during this last year.. and now long run on this blog about Catholicism and the Ordinariate’s, the Anglicanorum Coetibus, etc. I am even more convinced of the Evangelical, Reformational and Reformed Gospel! I have not heard a good biblical and or theological reason to see or think otherwise! And I speak from the depth of my heart, mind and conscience!
Did you really expect to hear such reasons here?! It is not an apologetic blog. Our host sets the tone most of us try to respect also in the comment box.
Once again, let me suggest that if you want to hear “good biblical and theological reasons” why protestant paradigm is contradictory in itself, visit http://www.calledtocommunion.com. These guys have moved from positions which you hold right now. And they seem to know pretty well most of the reformed doctrines and authors you keep throwing at us here (and which are generally of no interest for people like me). They have also early church fathers at their fingertips. I am sure you will find people with theological knowledge matching yours there.
@CC, All Christian truth and theology is “apologetic”, something many “Catholics” seem to need to understand, both Roman and Anglo-Catholics! And I will also keep saying that Christianity is “Confessional”, and thus best seen as Reformational & Reformed! So like it or lump it, that’s my approach and belief! But, I don’t write as just a theolog alone, but hopefully always pastorally, as an Anglican, evangelical, catholic & reformed! And I too have read and sometimes read the Church Fathers, but they are always quite secondary to Holy Scripture itself. And I am one that obviously sees the Reformers and the Reformation actually ahead of the Church Fathers, to some real degree. That should be no surprise to anyone here. But too, I actually have an interior Christian life, also! Over 40 years called and regenerate, thanks be to God! So what ya see and hear in me, is what ya get, an Anglican “Reformed”! If thats pride? well then I call it “Pauline” actually, and just the work of God!
And btw, to make another point, my Eschatology is hardly classically Reformed, but more to what I see in Irenaeus of Lyons somewhat, i.e. “catholic”, but most certainly Historically Premillennial, and now even Progressively Dispensational! So I am not a cookie-cut modern Christian in any sense, either High Church or Low Church, but as I keep saying a “biblicist” Anglican. That GOD has called as a pastor-teacher! I am quite amazed how so many men in the so-called ministry today, appear to not see or understand their “call” of God? If ya don’t have this, then one should simply get out of the work of GOD’s “ministry”! – “Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.” (Ps. 127: 1)