|
Post by Askel McThurkill on May 17, 2010 13:33:54 GMT
The word "OBSESSED" springs to mind re Bishop Williamson and the SSPX on this forum. Not a very Christian attitude displayed by most posters. Kyrie Eleison On the contrary, Father of three, the posters on this forum are either supporters or opponents of the SSPX, some of the former either supporting or opposing Richard Williamson. Those who oppose the SSPX are Christian in their attitude, as they essentially wish what they believe to be a sect cut away from the Church, which is the sole means of salvation, and wish it reconciled. This is easier said than done. It might be that a spoonful of honey catches more flies than a bucket of vinegar and that there is more vinegar in evidence than honey. But the SSPX have shown themselves more adept at doling out vinegar than honey, particularly at the Holy Father and the Bishops in communion with him. It is also tragic to see someone like Dickie Williamson treating the rest of the world, particularly SSPX supporters, with contempt. More likely to keep vinegar vats than beehives, I'd have thought.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on May 17, 2010 13:37:23 GMT
The only difference here is that some of us think this man is a danger to the faith and is a wolf rapped up pontificals. Msgr Williamson wouldn't have half the support he does have if he didn't play to the gallery so much and give credence to all the latest crackpot theories about anything from the twin-towers to the protocols of the elders of zion;. Its amazing how many trads lambast unjustly a Bishop of the conciliar church on the basis of rumours and hearsay but don't afford the same to the likes of Msgr Williamson who was very publicly disgraced and has shown a long history of this type of thing (anti-semitic cant). Question....is Rome obsessed with sex just because it gives perrenial clear teaching and defends the faithful from the perversion of sexual morality ? So attempting to warn people about dangers to the faith now constitutes obsession alegedly... Great analogy, Monkeyman. And it is true that SSPX supporters cannot see anything right in diocesan bishops but are blind to the many faults in the likes of Dickie Williamson.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on May 17, 2010 13:48:29 GMT
I mentioned De Pauw because he was so early and independent of Lefebvre, not because I care for him (from what I heard - and I don't know much detail) he was at least quasi-schismatic. I must say that the extent of what Benedict describes startles me, though I knew about the indult in England and Wales. this may be a problem for traditionalists. THe SSPX have a clear narrative and a central focus on the figure of Lefebvre, and as the original generation who remember what happened dies off this makes it easier for people to equate the SSPX with the whole traditionalist movement. BTW we could do with somebody recording the history of Irish traditionalism/orthodox Catholicism as the generation who went through the last few decades dies off. So much of its history is being written by the Diarmuid Ferriter/John Cooney types and this is now percolating through the school and university curriculum. So many trads seem to exist in a sort of eternal present, in which we do not remember/record our past actions and so cannot learn from them. There was a lot more than that going on. There were quite a number of priests who got ordained in diocesan seminaries in Spain as what was then known under the old code of canon law as "family priests". It doesn't exist in the new code but there are quite a few priests from that time still around that say the old Mass in various dioceses around Europe and perhaps elsewhere. Of course the diocese of Avelino in Italy provided another place for tradition- minded candidates to go and get ordained. Several groups, some good, some not so good can be traced to here. Cardinal Siri took several groups under his tutelage. Some were very conservative like the Communaute St Martin while others like Opus Sacerdotal leaned heavily toward tradition. I think the problem is the pixies only see the role of Mgr LeFebvre, God be good to him, in the proceedure. I have frequently heard, for example, pixies say that Una Voce would not exist without the SSPX. First of all, UV predates the SSPX by about seven years, and secondly, Eric de Saventhem (1st president of UV) was a generous benefactor to Mgr LeFebvre from the beginning. This gets lost in the narrative. I also notice that neither Beinidict nor Hibernicus nor Monkeyman mentioned Bishop de Castro Meyer, who began independently of Mgr LeFebvre and who did not come under censure until 1981. He joined Mgr LeFebvre later, but the two movements were independent of each other. A number of Latin American priests, many of Mgr de Castro Meyer's diocese wrote to the Holy See seeking a theological reason for switching from EF to OF. They never received one and continued to say the EF. I think in summary, we can say that though the SSPX is perhaps the principal reason the Mass was preserved as widely as it has been, it is certainly far from the only reason. And in these circumstances its central case, that its action is necessary for the preservation of the the faith, fails. BTW, a masters thesis was presented to Queen's in Belfast, regarding the history of the Latin Mass in Ireland.
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on May 17, 2010 13:59:37 GMT
I don't know how I could forget Bishop de Castro Meyer.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on May 18, 2010 10:58:11 GMT
There is much more than the SSPX or Dick Williamson under discussion on this forum. May fatherof3 can join in on the debates against the atheists, for example.
|
|
|
Post by father0f3 on May 18, 2010 21:22:33 GMT
Referring to Bishop Williamson as "Dickie" or "Dick" is imo, an insult and once again shows up some of the posters on here for what they are. Now where are these atheists........
As an old man recently said to me, "Without ArchBishop Marcel Lefebvre, you wouldnt even have the True Mass now".
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on May 19, 2010 8:55:47 GMT
Referring to Bishop Williamson as "Dickie" or "Dick" is imo, an insult and once again shows up some of the posters on here for what they are. Now where are these atheists........ As an old man recently said to me, "Without ArchBishop Marcel Lefebvre, you wouldnt even have the True Mass now". Ok, Father of 3 - you want atheists - go to the threads dealing with the existence of God where atheists are allowed to post. I have found none of those who post symathetically to either the SSPX or Dickie Williamson bother to join us in our engagement with the atheists. In fact, I don't know if they bother commenting on anything other than the SSPX matters and there is a lot of room on this forum for common ground. So are Father of 3, Secusia, Faithful, McAllister or Sceilg interested in debating on issues other than those concerned with the SSPX? With regard to Dickie Williamson, he is a former Anglican and atheist ordained to and suspended from the ministries of deacon, priest and bishop. The progression through holy orders shows undue haste and indiscretion on the part of the late Archbishop LeFebvre. Though his excommunication was lifted, he has been told that even in the event of reconciliation of the SSPX, his episcopal suspension will not be lifted until he publicly recants his very public position on the genocide of the Jewish people under the Third Reich. Within the SSPX, he is effectively suspended too. I applaud Bishop Fellay for doing so, but ask why he had to wait for the Holy See to take this initiative as it was obvious that Dickie was using his episopal office to do untold harm. With regard to the quote about Archbishop LeFebvre being the only reason we have the True Mass (his words, not mine), this is false on several grounds: 1. The Mass of Paul VI, at present called the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, is the True Mass when celebrate according to the rubrics and with the correct intention. The late Archbishop LeFebvre celebrated it himself on a few occasions (see his biography by Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais of the SSPX if you don't believe me). If you disbelieve that, you are threading close to sedevacantism. 2. Even if you disregard the Pauline Mass (and you can very legitimately point to widespread abuses in it), there are also the Eastern Catholic liturgies which with the exception of the Syro-Malabarese, have been unaltered. Again, let me remind you that Pope St Pius X celebrated the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom and mandated the use of the pre-Nikhonite liturgical books of the Moscow Patriarchate (pre-1656) be the difinitive liturgy of Russian Greek-Catholic (with the words 'Nec Plus, Nec Minus, Nec Alitur' - no more, no less, no differently). The forms of liturgy used by the SSPX sponsored Priestly Fraternity of St Josaphet include much Latinisation which deviates considerably from St Pius'es mandate. The FSSJ liturgies for all that are absolutely valid - don't get me wrong - but they do point out inconsistencies in the overall SSPX position. 3. Even if you confine yourself to the Mass of St Pius V being the one True Mass (which is incorrect - where would it leave the Carmelite or Dominican or Praemonstatensian or Ambrosian or Morzarabic Masses or many more ancient Latin rite Masses), it is incorrect, as pointed out by Beinidict and Hibernicus and Monkeyman above, to say that Archbishop LeFebvre is the sole reason we have what is now called the Extraordinary Form Roman Mass. Now, if you said it was the main reason, I would agree with you - but I still think a definitive survey of resistance to the Pauline liturgy is needed. But I will give a non-exhaustive list based on the above. The statement ignores: a. The work of the late Bishop Antonio de Castro-Meyer of Campos which was quite independent of that of Archbishop LeFebvre until 1984. b. The network of traditional chapels which sprung up across the US since the late 1960s, many of which have been since taken over by the SSPX, but many which have been regularised without any intervention by the SSPX. And some, for example, St Athanasius in Washington DC, still exist as independent chapels. c. A more diffuse network of priests resisting the new liturgy in Europe, most of whom were banished to remote rural parishes but who became the focus of popular resistance. I know of cases like these in Germany, Italy, France and Spain. d. The 1971 Cardinal Heenan Indult enabled the Mass of St Pius V be said in the dioceses of England and Wales. This was granted before any priests of the SSPX were ordained. e. The Federatio Internationalis Una Voce was founded, first in Norway in 1964 but spread to many countries. This was a lay movement which pre-dates the SSPX by several years and which was the first significant body to support Archbishop LeFebvre in 1971. It only broke with him in 1984, when its negotiators achieved the Indult Quattuor Abhinc Annos. However, even after that, FIUV Presidents Eric de Saventhem and Michael Davies held what might be called an ambivalent attitude to the SSPX. f. The Diocese of Avelino in Italy was a refuge for traditionally minded clerical students from all over Europe and even North America. Many of those ordained in this diocese said the traditional Mass in their home countries. The best known of these in the English-speaking world is Father Nicholas Gruner. I personally don't endorse most of his positions, but it does illustrate there were avenues other than the SSPX open long before Ecclesia Dei Adflicta brought about the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter in 1988. g. The Archdiocese of Genoa under Cardinal Siri was a more serious protection for traditionally minded clerics. Clerical students such as Monsignor Gilles Wach and Father Philippe Mora who went on to found the Institute of Christ the King studied under Cardinal Siri's protection. Neither Fathers Wach or Mora said the Pauline Mass at ordination and when they did their post graduate degrees in Rome, they lived in the Irish College where the then Rector, Monsignor John Hanley (a D. Hist. Eccl. who was postulator of the causes of St Oliver Plunkett and other Irish martyrs) allowed them say the traditional Mass every day in spite of the objections of other priests in the seminary and the attitude of the Irish bishops at the time. Other priests took the Genoa route too. h. Mgr Wach was directed to Genoa by a French organisation of priests, Opus Sacerdotale, which was an association of French priests committed to preserving the traditional Mass. This contributed greatly to the flowering of French traditionalism after the Indult - not all of which could be attributed to the SSPX. i. Father Georges de Nantes kept his traditional movement, evident in France and Quebec, very separate from the SSPX. j. The French Opus Sacerdotale was parralleled by an organisation of Spanish priests who tried to do the same thing in Spain. k. I didn't even mention the vast number of sedevacantists. So, anyway, Father of 3, it would not be true to say that credit is due to Monsignor LeFebvre alone for preserving the Mass of Pope St Pius V.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on May 19, 2010 14:02:22 GMT
Looking back on the posts, Alaisdir could have added:
l. Priests of 'Personal Patrimony' - a state possible under the 1917 Code of Canon Law. This was common in Spain, but Monsignor Gilbey in Cambridge University was of this status. He only died in the 1990s, long after Mgr LeFebvre, celebrating the traditional Mass with permission all through.
m. Priests all over the world who retained the practice of saying the Old Mass, at least in private. Ss. Pio of Pietriclina OFM Cap and Josemaria Escriva were examples of this - they may more influential than we imagine.
Anymore? Probably.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on May 20, 2010 1:03:05 GMT
Yeah I think I covered that already Askel or is this a different category of priest that was allowed for under the old code.... I can't believe I forgot the Institute Ste Croix de Riaumont who never defied Rome and celebrated the Old Rite right up to this day. I might add that the Chinese Patriotic Church have as much a rightful claim to securing the Old Rite as Archbishop Lefebvre does. Also Archbishop Thuc. And lest we ignore the elephant in the room, one Joseph Aloysius Ratzinger who is the reason the Old Rite is being said more openly today. The Agatha Christie Indult applied to the 65-67 missal only but this part was ignored. All of us who love dearly the old rite must accept that our own actions and I'm including the SSPX in this, slowed down the re-introduction of the 62 missal into the Church.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 24, 2010 10:47:41 GMT
In relation to Father of3's initial point- Bishop Williamson gets a lot of attention on this board because (a) he has engaged in statements and behaviour which are wrong in themselves, such as his persistent holocaust denial and consorting with neo-nazis, or his notorious misogyny - he denounced, for example, the naming of SS Catherine of Siena, Teresa of avila and Therese of Lisieux as doctors of the church on the grounds that women should never teach men (b) His propagation of these evils and falsehoods has given the Church's enemies weapons to assail the Pope and present all who are interested in the EF Mass as criminals and cultists such as he is. It is therefore necessary to dissociate ourselves from him and to point out his falsehoods for the benefit of those who may be ensnared by them. On the same principle, some of the most outspoken critics of Christina Gallagher and other alleged visionaries are themselves Fatima devotees, who object to the devotion which should be paid to Our Lady being hijacked by delusional attention-seekers or worse.
BTW though sceilg never showed interest in debating the atheists on this board it is unlikely he will do so in future, as I have banned him for anti-semitism. Anyone who echoes the disgusting attacks on what they call "holocaustianity" made by certain members of the Bishop Williamson online fanclub (see Ignis Ardens and thoughtactioneire if your stomach is strong enough)) will be banned as well.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on May 24, 2010 11:36:29 GMT
We can look at this another way, in terms of time.
1. The Pauline Missal became compulsory in 1971 and the Pian Missal was liberated again in 1984. That is 13 years, a trifle in the Church'es history.
2. The ban did not affect the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Church, in schism since the 1950s. They continued to use the Pian Mass until the German hierarchy paid for Chinese language missals for them around the late 90s, long after Ecclesia Dei Adflicta. There were more Chinese Patriotic Catholics attending the traditional Mass 10-15 years ago than all the other traditional Mass groups in the world combined.
3. Even though, as Monkeyman points out, the Agatha Christie Indult allowed for the liturgical books of '65 and '67, this was quickly interpreted as meaning the 1962. For this reason there was never a universal ban on the traditional Mass, a fact re-iterated by Summorum Pontificum. To cite Tissier de Mallerais' biography of Archbishop LeFebvre, the SSPX (including the Archbishop) made use of this restricted provision up to the Archbishop's suspension in 1976.
4. Bishop Antonio de Castro Meyer submitted his resignation to the Holy See at the age of 75 in 1979 and this was excepted in 1981. Through all this time, the Holy See was aware that though the bishop did not forbid the celebration of the Pauline Mass in the diocese of Campos, he required his diocesan priests to say the Pian Mass. After the appointment of a new (belligerent liberal) bishop, Mgr de Castro Meyer set up an alternative jurisdiction which lasted from 1981 to reconciliation in 2001 (both de Castro Meyer and his successor Licinio Rangel were excommunicated). However, some Campos priests wrote to the Holy See requesting a theological reason for saying the Pauline rather than the Pian Mass. No answer was given and they continued to use the old liturgy without sanction until after 1984.
5. Cardinal Siri died in 1987, a full three years after the 1984 indult, continually sponsoring clerical students to prepare for an exclusively traditional priestly ministry.
6. Archbishop LeFebvre only incurred sanction in 1976 and was offered reconciliation, regularisation and a successor within his ranks in 1988. He repudiated this, as we know. The wisdom of this step is open to question, but I will suggest:
a. The SSPX was never the largest group using the traditional Mass. In the early stages, that distinction belonged to the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Church until the late 1990s. Before that time, the 'indult' movement had overtaken the SSPX in size and is now the largest group using the traditional liturgy.
b. Other inititiatives preserving the Mass always existed alongside the SSPX. Many of these made use of other instruments to stay within the sphere of legitimacy as the situation between 1971 and 1984 afforded them.
C. The SSPX argument that it is not about the Mass, but the Faith, is extremely specious as a great many orthodox movements exist aside from it.
I therefore advance the opinion that:
I. Archbishop LeFebvre and the SSPX was not the sole reason the Mass of Pope St Pius V was preserved in the Church; and
II. The Archbishop's arguments for the case of grave necessity in consecrating four bishops in 1988 fails.
Over to you.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 27, 2010 11:17:25 GMT
A quibble; my understanding is that Bishop Castro Meyer was not formally excommunicated until he participated in the Econe ordinations as co-consecrator, and that Bishop Rangel was not excommunicated until he accepted consecration from the SSPX bishops (unless the view is taken - and it does not seem to be the official Roman view at present - that by adhering to Lefebvre and Rangel correction - Castro Mayor] after their excommunications he thereby incurred excommunication).
Let me play devil's advocate on one point: the Pixies may ask what happened in Genoa after Cardinal Siri, and whether the other initiatives mentioned might not have been quietly snuffed out as their sponsors died off had it not been for the need to deal with the SSPX challenge. I can think of two possible replies to these points (a) if schism is wrong in itself it can never be justified; otherwise we would have to approve the persistence of the Orthodox schism because it deterred the imposition of unjustified latinisation on the Eastern Rite churches in communion with Rome (b) I know of instances where diocesan apparatchiks have actually displayed delight at the departure of traditionalist critics to the SSPX, since it means they can dismiss their concerns out of hand and pay no further attention to them.
I always refer to Bishop Williamson as Bishop Williamson. Alasdair refers to him as Dickie (as in Dickie-bird, an affectionate term for canaries) to emphasise that he doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. I do not remember ever having seen the other abbreviation for his first name used on this board, but I can see that Fatherof3 might rightly object to the use of a potentially objectionable double entendre. Hence the four-letter version of his first name is banned in future, but call him Dickie all you like!
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on May 27, 2010 14:49:47 GMT
Actually the origin of the moniker 'Dickie Williamson' is quite innocent. Some of you may know that one of the priests who assists in St Kevin's in Harrington St is Father William Richardson. Over the years, there were a great many embarrassing moments caused by confusing 'William Richardson' and 'Richard Williamson', so the enforce differentiation, some people took to calling one 'Bill Richardson' and the other 'Dickie Williamson', without any vulgar connotation.
Believe me, Father of 3, I am not making this up.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on May 27, 2010 15:05:58 GMT
Hibernicus' suggestion on Bishops de Castro-Meyer and Rangel are correct.
The was never an issue with Mgr de Castro-Meyer until after his retirement in 1981 and even then, there are clearly two sides to the story. The new bishop behaved very aggressively towards trads. The retired bishop went back into business. Sometime in 1982, he teamed up with Archbishop LeFebvre. I presume he would have been suspended for ordaining priests. He was excommunicated in 1988 and Bishop Rangel was excommunicated on consecration in 1992 (the problem with the arguments against the excommunications is that they never address this event which is material to the case). Bishop Rangel's excommunication was removed in 2001 and one of his priests was consecrated as a successor, Bishop Fernando Rifan. Many in the SSPX took this, the new Campos diocese, as a sign of the Holy See's good will. That's how we got the Institute of the Good Shepherd and the Institute of St Philip Neri.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jun 1, 2010 1:27:05 GMT
I don't know how I could forget Bishop de Castro Meyer. I was thinking also of the late great Dom Gerard Calvet who I think one day will be canonised. Yes he sided with Lefebvre but not after '88. He started out with Jehan de Belleville at Bedoin in 1970 and eventually bought the property at Le Barroux. The history of this foundation makes for great reading. We can't overlook the fact that there has been great "sinning" on both sides...on the side of the late Archbishop and also especially on the side of the French episcopate who put Lefebvre in a corner where all he could do was defend himself. I am firmly convinced that if the hierarchy in France hadn't become so thoroughly modernistic then the Latin Mass would have made its way back into the Church alot sooner. Those who like the story of St Athanatius and Pope St Liberius and think it mirrors the Lefebvre case, should go to this website. www.holypopeliberius.blogspot.com/Kudos to the "Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer" for doing the Church and the Papacy a service in creating this blog.
|
|