The Bishop's Weekly Column from the Parish Bulletin

OUR LADY OF FATIMA

CATHOLIC CHURCH

Phone Calls, Pushy SSPXers
and The Return of the Native

December 28th, 2005

Phone Calls...

The last place you want to be in the few days before Christmas is in a Catholic rectory ! So many people call wanting to know what time the Masses are. "Why the problem ?" you ask. Surely as a priest I should be happy that people want to come to Mass. My sentiments are always quite the reverse, let me explain. First, the reason most people call for Mass times is because they weren't at Mass last Sunday. In the case of one man he actually told me that the times for Mass this Christmas were different from the times last year. Might one well surmise from this when the last time was he came to Mass here (or even Mass at all) ? I want to scream at these people "Don't you know it's a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sunday ?" But out of charity I bite my tongue and whisper interiorly to myself that perhaps this Christmas some spark of Divine love might be enkindled in their soul.

...Pushy SSPXers...

Then the day before Christmas Eve I received a telephone call from a lady (obviously passing through) demanding (yes, demanding) if we were "Pius X", why there wasn't a Midnight Mass and why there wasn't a High Mass on Christmas Day in Spring Hill. You can already guess my frame of mind from the previous section. This time I was about to go into orbit. After explaining that we had no connection with the Society of St Pius X but that like them we recognize the Holy Father and offer the same Mass we moved on to discuss the schedule for Christmas.

As the questions became increasingly demanding and clipped I almost exploded and suggested that since she was passing through and really wanted a "Drive-thru Mass" she should call the McDonalds up the road and check their serving schedule for the day in question. I knew they would also be closed and decided to spare the manager there the same grief. Again I bit my tongue. I wonder sometimes what some people's religious experience really means to them. Is Christmas all about lecturing the Pastor about Church policy when you're just passing through, or about the humility of the King of Kings who, though the Lord of Creation, condescended to lay His head in an animals' feeding trough the night of His birth ? "Lord I know they sometimes miss the boat...miserere mei !"

...and The Return of the Native.

Just the other day I was speculating about Bishop Williamson's return to cyber space and right after I posted that column - he did indeed return to our computer screens on the Angelqueen forum. The English novelist Thomas Hardy's classic The Return of the Native makes a suitable title for the whole affair. I offer selections from the interview with commentary because there is so much left unsaid...

AQ: Bishop Fellay recently had a lengthy private meeting with Cardinal Hoyos. Is there anything at all you can share with us as to what came out of it?

Bp. Williamson: The main practical proposition emerging from the five-hour meeting on Nov 15 of Bishop Fellay with Cardinal Castrillón was that the four bishops should sign a letter requesting of Rome to “lift” the 1988 “excommunication”. Bishop Fellay commented that it would be difficult to find a form of words satisfactory both to Rome and to the SSPX for such a request. Rome is looking for a least little recognition of error, or expression of regret, on the part of the SSPX leadership. The SSPX has always maintained that by Church law itself the “excommunication” was and is non-existent. It is indeed difficult to see then how any agreement would be reached as to a form of words for such a request.

Well, now, this is interesting. If the SSPX bishops are interested in reconciliation with Rome, the Pope wants a letter of apology from them. Seems only logical since to receive episcopal consecration without pontifical mandate carries a latae sententiae excommunication which, in the case of the SSPX bishops, is a declared penalty. In fact years ago (1991 or 1992) Bishop Williamson admitted to me privately that he was "officially excommunicated". Now he tells us the excommunication was "non-existent". That sounds a little fishy to me. I have read the text and reproduce it here:

DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION

From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.

Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatic act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.

Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Pellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galaretta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.

Moreover, I declare that Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop emeritus of Campos, since he took part directly in the liturgical celebration as co-consecrator and adhered publicly to the schismatic act, has incurred excommunication latae sententiae as envisaged by canon 1364, paragraph 1.

The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication.

From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.

BERNARDINUS Card. GANTIN

Seems to me the bishops were excommunicated after all. Next Williamson proceeds to can the letter project by saying: "Bishop Fellay commented that it would be difficult to find a form of words satisfactory both to Rome and to the SSPX for such a request." I suspect Fellay meant that for Williamson it would be difficult.....etc. Fellay has probably had his letter drafted for some time now otherwise why did he spend the 5 hours in Rome recently at what was supposed to be a "top secret" meeting (until Williamson - as usual - blew the whistle).

Even this is curious. Yet again the same Bishop Williamson told me privately in the same conversation previously referenced, that if the Pope (John Paul II) required that he and the other three bishops ("for the good of the Church") lay aside their croziers and miters he would be the first to do so. This extract seems, now, to give the lie to his previous claim.

AQ: Do you believe that we can expect to see substantive changes in the situation that exists between Rome and the Society in the near future?

Bp. Williamson: Honestly, I see no likelihood of the situation existing between Rome and the SSPX changing in the near future. Even if Rome half-converted and the SSPX half-betrayed, in order for the two parties to meet half-way, still there would be war to the death between Conciliarism and Catholicism. We are not talking about Rome or the SSPX being nice or nasty. We are talking about two different, and necessarily opposed, religions.

In his thoughts for December, Bishop Williamson wrote about the need to savage the Council as the Council deserves to be savaged. Really this snippet illustrates the schizophrenia in the Society of St. Pius X, or more correctly in Williamson's ecclesiology and it deserves to savaged instead. Back in 1999 Edward Cardinal Cassidy who had Walter Cardinal Kasper's current job asked three of the four SSPX bishops up to his private apartments for a meal. It was reported back to me by a priest who used to be in the SSPX who heard it from a priest who is still in the SSPX that to Cardinal Cassidy's question: "What would it take for you to return to the Church ?" Williamson responded: "We don't even share the same Faith !" Whether this event is apocryphal or not is not now ad rem; he has made the same statement yet again: "We are talking about two different, and necessarily opposed, religions." Really ? Is he kidding ? That's like saying the Dalai Lama is the head of a different religion. Is Benedict XVI the Head of the Catholic Church or not for this man ? If he is who is he to refuse to obey him ? If he is not why doesn't Williamson admit he is a practical sedevacantist. Either way this has to be the closest statement to schism I have ever read from the SSPX. It will be recalled that the canonical definition of schism is: "refusal to be obedient to the Sovereign Pontiff and to those Bishops in union with him".

AQ: As of late, certain circles within various traditional “camps” (Una Voce, the Ecclesia Dei groups, indultarians, conservative Catholics etc.) have been exploring ways of working together toward moving Holy Mother Church closer to tradition. Some would say there’s been a noticeable warming toward the Society. Do you have any input on this?

Bp. Williamson: God bless all Catholic souls working to move today’s churchmen back towards Catholic Tradition! It is normal that in the process they should have warmer feelings, as you quote, towards the SSPX, but the SSPX is not the point. The SSPX exists only for Tradition. What is important is not that Catholics should feel warm about the SSPX, but that they should believe what the Catholic Church has always believed, and that they should understand – not an easy thing to understand! – how that belief excludes any acceptance of the new humanistic religion included and promoted in the new rite of Mass of Paul VI, and in the 16 Decrees of the Second Vatican Council.

Some people have just missed the boat. The only way reconciliation can take place between the SSPX and Rome is for the SSPX to accept the Pope's terms:

1/ Contrition for the rupture of ecclesial communion by illicit episcopal ordinations

2/ The acceptance of Vatican II as interpreted in the light of the intentions of the Council Fathers.

Beyond this Benedict XVI simply is not willing to budge. Fellay knows this and as contacts have continued with Rome, one by one, Fellay's demands have taken a back-seat as he has accepted each of Rome's conditions. Fellay continues to talk about reconciliation in stages - Williamson about the need for Rome to "convert".

AQ: Some have assumed that there is a possible division within the SSPX episcopate. Describe your professional and personal relationship with the other Society bishops in the most forthcoming way possible.

Bp. Williamson: Both friends and enemies of the SSPX are concerned about a division amongst the four SSPX bishops. Neo-modernist Rome in particular creates rumors of three of the four being ready to be nice to “Rome”, while only one (who shall remain nameless) insists upon being nasty to “Rome”. To all friends of the SSPX I am happy to say that there is no such division as “Rome” wants to believe, or create. All four bishops believe in Catholicism, and disbelieve in “Rome’s” Conciliarism, ie. the new globalist religion that burst into the Catholic Church with Vatican II.

We don't need Rome to invent stories of division - all we need to do is read the texts of Williamson's letters and Fellay's communiqués / conferences etc. and the constant jabbing from Williamson every time Fellay makes a move to Rome. As long as there is no deal the 4 bishops are united (they're on Williamson's game plan). Once a deal is in the offing it will be time enough for Williamson to put his money where his mouth is. There is a deal - it's just a question of when and how many Fellay can keep on board (clergy and laity).

Enough of business, dear friends ! I wish you all a happy, holy and grace-filled Christmas season and a New Year filled with God's choicest blessings !

+TF