Sat 19th Apr 2014 | Last updated: Sat 19th Apr 2014 at 07:48am

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

SSPX expels Bishop Williamson

By on Wednesday, 24 October 2012

Bishop Williamson had written an open letter calling for the superior general, Bishop Bernard Fellay, to resign (Photo: CNS)

Bishop Williamson had written an open letter calling for the superior general, Bishop Bernard Fellay, to resign (Photo: CNS)

The Society of St Pius X has confirmed that it has expelled the English Bishop Richard Williamson.

Bishop Williamson, 72, one of four men illicitly ordained in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in Écône, Switzerland, has been a controversial figure, particularly for his views on Jews, who he has called the “enemies of Christ”.

In a statement the society said: “Bishop Richard Williamson, having distanced himself from the management and the government of the SSPX for several years, and refusing to show due respect and obedience to his lawful superiors, was declared excluded from the SSPX by decision of the superior general and its council on October 4 2012. A final deadline had been granted to him to declare his submission, after which he announced the publication of an ‘open letter’ asking the superior general to resign.

“This painful decision has become necessary by concern for the common good of the Society of Saint Pius X and its good government, according to what Archbishop Lefebvre denounced: ‘This is the destruction of authority. How authority can be exercised if it needs to ask all members to participate in the exercise of authority?’”

Bishop Williamson, who was educated at Winchester, has denied that millions of Jews died in Nazi gas chambers and believes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to be authentic.

A television interview in which Bishop Williamson denied the Holocaust was broadcast in January 2009 on the same day that Pope Benedict XVI lifted the automatic excommunications of the four bishops, causing the Vatican embarrassment. Bishop Williamson apologised to the Pope but did not retract the statement.

Superior general Bishop Bernard Fellay subsequently banned Bishop Williamson from speaking in public.

  • awkwardcustomer

    ….

  • awkwardcustomer

    What is disqus playing at?

  • JabbaPapa

    Whether matters of Faith and morals are *defined* by a particular Council is irrelevant to the fact of their being *taught* by such a Council.

    Quite apart from which — my point is, and always has been, that Catholics MUST give their assent to ALL Ecumenical Councils, even where it may be permissible for them to disagree with this or that specific teaching provided by any Council, if they have good reason to do so.

    The false notion that accepting a Council should require the unconditional acceptance of all of its teachings is NOT Catholic teaching.

  • Sweetjae

    How do you distinguished between the two? They are “INSEPARABLE” because Christ said that if the Church speak solemnly, (through General Councils with Peter at the helm) she is speaking for Him!

    The question is, are you giving too much authority to yourself to properly interpret Sacred Tradition? If that is the case, who really is obedient to man or God here?

  • Sweetjae

    Because you can not deny the fact that those various clergy and their followers had been sons and daughters of SSPX. Divisions, offshoots, disobedience are not of God.

  • Sweetjae

    What is this? Just because VII didn’t make no new Dogma so Catholics are not required their assent and obedience???? Where is this statement from? Definitely not from Scripture nor Tradition. Besides the fact there are Dogmatic Degrees and Constitutions, VII is classified as Ordinary Magisterium of the Universal Church that according to Vatican One [1] requires acceptance of ‘de fide’.

  • Sweetjae

    So what were they constituting in VII? Making creme pie recipes?

  • Sweetjae

    A Sede, I suspect? Since Sedevacantism is a distinct religion on it’s own, so who is your pope? Yourself?

  • Sweetjae

    You won’t have the Faith, the whole Catholic Faith (preVII if you want) IF YOU don’t have the Obedience to accept it in the first place. Obedience is the KEY because Christ Himself said, without obedience NO ONE can please Him and there is NO offer of Redemption to the world because primarily He saved the world through obedience to His Father.

  • Sweetjae

    A closet Sede? The Church of Rome in error? What a boast! Do even consider that the culprit might be your interpretation of the past and present Magisterial documents?

  • Sweetjae

    Then why don’t elect him? And start your church?

  • Sweetjae

    The Orthodoxy that in order to be a good abiding catholic, he must accept ‘de fide’ ALL, again ALL duly convened Councils of the Church, without which one might fall on the same error as Luther did, cherry picking and thus said, “Ecumenical Councils can err”.

    What stopping one from saying the past Councils might have erred as well????

  • awkwardcustomer

    Vatican II was unlike any other duly convened Council of the Church in that it was defined, by both Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI as being NON-DOGMATIC.  No other Church Council has been thus defined.  Unlike all OTHER duly convened Councils of the Church, Vatican II made no dogmatic statements on Faith and Morals which Catholics are bound to accept ‘de fide’.

    This is not to say that Catholics can just blithely disregard Vatican II.  But Vatican II’s documents, which DO NOT carry the mark of infallibility, contradict previous teachings of the Magisterium on numerous points.

    What you are suggesting is that contradictory teachings have to be accepted ‘de fide’ by Catholics, which is impossible. Besides the Conciliar popes never intended that Vatican II had to be accepted ‘de fide’.  So why are you insisting that they did? 

  • awkwardcustomer

    Vatican II was unlike any other duly convened Council of the Church in that it was defined, by both Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI as being NON-DOGMATIC. No other Church Council has been thus defined. Unlike all OTHER duly convened Councils of the Church, Vatican II made no dogmatic statements on Faith and Morals which Catholics are bound to accept ‘de fide’.

    This is not to say that Catholics can just blithely disregard Vatican II. But Vatican II’s documents, which DO NOT carry the mark of infallibility, contradict previous teachings of the Magisterium on numerous points.

    What you are suggesting is that contradictory teachings have to be accepted ‘de fide’ by Catholics, which is impossible. Besides the Conciliar popes never intended that Vatican II had to be accepted ‘de fide’. So why are you insisting that they did?

  • awkwardcustomer

    They were thinking up new ways of presenting the Faith to the modern world and of furthering Ecumenism.  This was the stated aim of the Council.

  • awkwardcustomer

    The stated aim of the Council was to present the Faith to the world in new ways and to further the cause of Ecumenism.  Hence Vatican II was defined as PASTORAL, and not Dogmatic.

  • awkwardcustomer

    You are saying that Catholics must give an assent of Faith to a Church Concil but that it is also permissible for them to disagree with specific teachings of that Council.

    How can this be? 

  • awkwardcustomer

    But they were expelled from the SSPX.  People have been excommunicated from the Church.  That doesn’t mean that the Church is characterised by ‘divisions, offshoots and disobedience’.

  • awkwardcustomer

    The Church didn’t speak solemnly though Vatican II which, unlike any other Church Council, was openly declared to be Pastoral, since it was concerned with new ways of presenting the Faith to the modern world and not with making dogmatic pronouncements requiring the assent of Faith. 

  • awkwardcustomer

    This cannot be.  Your argument seems to be that Vatican II must be accepted as a whole, but that problems in its teachings need not.  I don’t get it. 

  • awkwardcustomer

    That’s right.  Vatican II represents a significant departure from the traditional teachings of the Church.  But since it was openly declared by two popes to be non-dogmatic, Catholics are not bound to assent ‘de fide’ to its erroneous teachings.

  • JabbaPapa

    You’re the one insisting that these teachings should be rejected — can you justify this insistence, in the face of the Magisterium of the Church ?

  • JabbaPapa

    How can this be?

    By virtue of the fact that we’re not gibbering morons.

  • JabbaPapa

    The Church didn’t speak solemnly though Vatican II

    This statement is completely false.

    It is a non-Catholic teaching.

  • Sweetjae

    You (meaning SSPX) and the Sedevacantists are the only one asserting that there were supposedly “contradictions” in the Magisterial documents. The real culprit is due to a flawed interpretation.

  • Sweetjae

    There had been at least 4 past Councils of the Church that didn’t define new Dogmas nor condemn heresies, they were pastoral in nature too, so do Catholics have the right to refuse too???

  • Sweetjae

    Yes I agree with you, but is there a teaching from ANY of the past Councils that says a catholic have the right to refuse a Council if it’s nature is pastoral???This assertion is very common with people who wanted to justify their position even if that position has no support from Scripture nor Tradition.

  • Sweetjae

    We cannot classify the one that is the Original as of divisions and offshoots because she the First, the Antecedent, the Beginning, the Authentic. Everyone and everything that separate from the Original are considered counterfeit.

    SSPX is not the Church that Jesus Christ established on earth, let’s face it.

  • Sweetjae

    The Concilliar Popes don’t need to say again and again that V-II had to be accepted as ‘de fide’ because the Church had already stated and taught clearly by the previous Council of V-I that the teachings classified under Ordinary Magisterium which V-II is under, must be accepted as ‘de fide’.

    Beside the fact in the Closing Statement of VII, Pope Paul VI had written and demanded catholics that they have to accept the Authority of VII and her Teachings. Can google it.

  • Sweetjae

    It’s not the Vatican that is asking the SSPX to accept a duly convened Council rather IT IS GOD HIMSELF through Scripture and Tradition have the right in asking and demanding a catholic to accept ALL, again ALL duly convened Councils of the Church.

    Martin Luther accepted only the first 7, John Calvin only the first 4, how about you?

  • Sweetjae

    Archbishop Lefebvre is no St. Athanasius, their case is totally different.

  • Sweetjae

    What then should a good catholic do if it’s not the Church nor the Pope? Listen to your thinking and voice?

  • Sweetjae

    This is a false notion that characterized traditionalist’s position of every sect, that a catholic have the right to refuse a duly convened Council if its nature is pastoral. Nowhere found in Tradition nor Bible. There had been at least 4 pastoral Councils from the past that didn’t make new Dogmas nor condemn any heresy, do we have to refuse them too?

  • Sweetjae

    Bishop Williamson is a bishop like Milingo was also a bishop, just a matter of time before he suffer the same fate.

  • Sweetjae

    Archbishop Lefebrve himself cast you out….really are you a Sede or a Conclavist?

  • Sweetjae

    I’m referring also to the followers of differing sects lost to Sedevacantism and Sedeprivationism. They run in thousands actually.

  • Sweetjae

    Don’t play dumb, Mr. B, you know what I’m talking about. Beside the fact you had insulted me again then complain and cry like a baby when treated the same. Though I won’t be drag at your filthy level.

  • Sweetjae

    Yah right after you threw every name under the sun even the toilet seat at the ‘nu church’!!!!

  • Sweetjae

    Rather it’s your interpretation of Tradition that is meaningless and has no weight.

  • Sweetjae

    It didn’t depart from Tradition rather it is a continuity of Tradition that deepened our understand of Tradition as it applies to the rapidly changingnworld.

    Vatican One teaches that Ordinary Magaiterium must be accepted DE FIDE and VII happened to be a legit Ordinary Magisterium. Clear. Direct. Spot on.

  • Sweetjae

    To Mr. Benedict Carter,

    You have personally insulted me again in this thread by calling me “Illiterate” then when you receive the same treatment you complain like a spoiled toddler. I won’t be drag to your level because this is a typical mind of a man who only sees the beam in other people’s eye.

  • JabbaPapa

    Right — as if the phrase “spoiled toddler” were some kind of compliment.

    At least when I accuse you of hypocrisy, I retain some sort of objectivity by my remark…

  • JabbaPapa

    Thankfully, NOT obedience to yourself …

  • whitedonkey96

    The Church does indeed discern what is and is not Catholic doctrine, in reference to 2,000 years of infallible teaching.

    The problem being those elements of Vatican II which directly conflict with that teaching.

    It is up to the present hierarchy to define, once and for all, the much-discussed ‘hermeneutic of continuity’. 

    Unless and until that happens, there can be no legitimate belief that Vatican II dicta on the Church, ecumenism, or religious liberty are worthy of obedience by any Catholic.

  • JabbaPapa

    … because you’re probably insisting on a subordination of Revelation to logic ; whereas there is a part of Revelation that does not obey human rationality.

    Vatican II must indeed be accepted as a whole, and problems in its teachings need not be accepted.

    Han shooting first does not destroy the validity of Star Wars : Episode IV — no matter whether you agree or disagree with this one single scene in the film.

    Details do not invalidate Structure.

  • Michael O’Toole

    I was a fellow reporter with Richard Williamson on the Western Mail in Cardiff in the early 1960s.
    His odd views on society and lack of charity perhaps qualified him to seek comfort in the strange philosophy and practices of the Christian church.

    Michael O’Toole
    livingenglish@yahoo.com

  • awkwardcustomer

    The SSPX condemns Sedevacantism.

  • awkwardcustomer

    The SSPX condemns Sedevacantism. 

  • awkwardcustomer

    ‘The doctrine of the infallibility of ecumenical councils states that solemn definitions of ecumenical councils, approved by the pope, which concern faith or morals, and to which the whole Church must adhere are infallible. Such decrees are often labeled as ‘Canons’ and they often have an attached anathema, a penalty of excommunication, against those who refuse to believe the teaching. The doctrine does not claim that every aspect of every ecumenical council is infallible.’
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibility_of_the_Church

    A dogma or solemn definition concerning Faith and Morals which carries the mark of infallibility has to be clearly identified and stated as such. Nothing in Vatican II does this and, what’s more, the conciliar popes expressly stated that Vatican II would make no doctrinal definitions and condemn no errors.

    The ‘religious submission’ called for by Pope Paul VI further substantiates this.  ‘Religious submission’ and ‘Assent of Faith’ are not the same thing.  In calling for ‘religious submission’ to Vatican II, and not an ‘Assent of Faith’, Pope Paul VI was further emphasising the non-dogmatic, and hence non-infallible, nature of Vatican II.

  • awkwardcustomer

    ‘The doctrine of the infallibility of ecumenical councils states that solemn definitions of ecumenical councils, approved by the pope, which concern faith or morals, and to which the whole Church must adhere are infallible. Such decrees are often labeled as ‘Canons’ and they often have an attached anathema, a penalty of excommunication, against those who refuse to believe the teaching. The doctrine does not claim that every aspect of every ecumenical council is infallible.’http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibility_of_the_Church

    A dogma or solemn definition concerning Faith and Morals which carries the mark of infallibility has to be clearly identified and stated as such. Nothing in Vatican II does this and, what’s more, the conciliar popes expressly stated that Vatican II would make no doctrinal definitions and condemn no errors.
    The ‘religious submission’ called for by Pope Paul VI further substantiates this.  ‘Religious submission’ and ‘Assent of Faith’ are not the same thing.  In calling for ‘religious submission’ to Vatican II, and not an ‘Assent of Faith’, Pope Paul VI was further emphasising the non-dogmatic, and hence non-infallible, nature of Vatican II.