Bishop Williamson is to visit also the sisters in Brilon Forest, which recently by parted from the Society of St. Pius X. Another stop is expected to be Wigratzbad. There was recently a priest in the 25th Year of his consecration a sedisvakantistische community, about over 50 people. Previously, he worked for the Society of St. Pius X. believers in Überlingen. In Constance, he founded the club Saint Thomas Aquinas and V. to get established. He has been the Spiritual Director of the monastery for years in close contact with the sisters there and he preaches the spiritual exercises regularly. He left the Society before, but returned once more to her. For some time he hasn’t prayed for the Pope during Holy Mass, which was viewed very critically by his superiors and confreres.
Bishop Williamson is expected to be a private visit to Ober-Ramstadt, where he attended a newlywed couple, originally from him in a chapel of the Society of St. Pius X. wanted to get married. This was forbidden by the German District Superior of the Society of St. Pius X, Father Franz Schmidberger, whereupon the Prior of Rheinhausen wed the couple.
The dispute between the leaders of the Society of St. Pius X. and the situation around Williamson continues to escalate. A splitting or separation of this group is imminent. At a wedding, which took place recently, a German Prior openly criticized the Superior General of the SSPX, Bishop Bernard Fellay as a “traitor". The same has been said by a priest during last year's Pentecost pilgrimage. Observers interpret this as a threat of force to impose the upper a particular opinion without wanting to leave the SSPX itself.
Many priests were present at the aforementioned wedding who had left the SSPX years ago, well before the talks with the Vatican and priests who left the Society recently and officially denounce the present course of the Fraternity as "modernist". Some of these priests, went after their departure initially, surprisingly to communities standing close to the Vatican, but left it again quickly to seek out "vagantes".
Laymen, who openly position themselves sedisvacantist, earned a ban by the German District Superior. You may in specific cases currently still receive the sacraments in the chapels of the SSPX, but not distribute leaflets and not to incite unrest. Such measures are nothing special and were immediately imposed by district leaders since the founding of the SSPX.
Layman who’ve been banned are supposed to have co-organized Bishop Williamson’s trip. Bishop Williamson is clearly testing how much and what kind of support he can expect in Germany.
Most of the "priests in the resistance" were already expelled years before for disobedience and intemperate criticism of superiors. Transfers and composition of priory communities were often the main points of criticism. Whether the "resistance priests” themselves are under an authority or establish their own initiatives where they are the only authority themselves remains to be seen.
Since the "theological" justification for the "resistance" moves on thin ice and the talks between the Vatican and the Society of St. Pius X. seem to be misinterpreted, the conflict provides the current [? Father Firmin Udressy?] superior of the German district, Father Franz Schmidberger, more on a personal level: described the behavior in a preface of his newsletter in April 2013 as "stubbornness, self-righteousness, condescension, addiction to criticism, false dialectic, mockery and malice".
The Society of St. Pius X. has endured since its inception from attacks on the top, on the one hand of progressives, on the other side from sedivacantists. Therefore regular articles on the part of the SSPX are regularly published like Rightful disobedience to authority and Mgr Lefebvre: About the negotiations with Rome.
Bishop Williamson extended the position of sedevacantism for weeks in his periodical Eleison Comments and the direction begins to differentiate itself from Archbishop Lefebvre. Presumably he is trying to found the St. Marcel Center of the global initiative to expand sedevacantism the future.
Since its founding in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the Society of St. Pius X has lost two or three priests per district every year, because they were dissatisfied with their superiors, or they were excluded because they refused, “to pay their rightful leaders due respect and obedience. "
The SSPX claims to have 569 priests worldwide according to its report in 2012. The number of faithful, who are connected to it should include, according to Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos in 2007, about 600,000 people, including 100,000 in France. Other sources mention 150,000 followers.
Blogs and forums of "resistance" currently claim there are 22 priests who are supposed to be associated with this initiative worldwide.
Bishop Williamson was convicted in January in Regensburg court on the charges of incitement for a fine of 1800 Euros.The district court justified the relatively small fine with the fact that Williamson currently enjoys no income according to the court. Williamson is appealing against the judgment before an appeal.
[Update 17:06 clock: Williamson's visit in Germany is making the process of reconciliation between the Society of St. Pius X.and the Vatican enormously difficult, if not halting it entirely, which is most certainly his intention.
He writes in his column of 9 March ""We think that lifting the excommunications would set in motion an irresistible process of drawing closer, with a view to an agreement between the Holy See and the SSPX, or at least an agreement with a large part of the SSPX priests and faithful." Comment: indeed the friendly contacts between Rome and the SSPX were setting such a motion in process in January of 2009, and only an outburst from within the SSPX of the most horrible heresy of modern times - "anti-semitism" - stopped that process. But either Catholic reconciliation with Vatican II is no problem, or one has to say that that outburst was providential, because it also stopped, at least for a while, the false reconciliation.” In the article published in February’s column he writes: And historical truth goes by evidence, the most reliable kind of which is the material relics of the past, because these are in principle quite independent of human emotions.
Bishop Williamson is indifferent, in his own words, to whether his statements could be used in Germany or not, even if he refrained from publishing his words, because he pursues another goal with the help of Holocaust "denial", namely the torpedoing of the talks between Rome and the Fraternity. This intention should correspond to the so-called Dolus eventualis, according to which the offender holds for the possible success of its commission as a result of the seriousness of his actions and condones it to hazard the conditions and accept it. In other words, Bishop Williamson has deliberately committed a crime as a provocation in order to achieve a different purpose, the torpedoing of the talks between Rome and the Fraternity.
That Bishop Williamson cites in this context on the one hand the truths of divine revelation, and on the other hand sees his actions as inspired by the Divine Providence, it is an interesting insight into his state of mind.]
Text: Linus Schneider
Photo: Jens Falk
Photo: Jens Falk
Link Katholisches...
11 comments:
DID ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE AND CARDINAL WALTER KASPAR USE THE SAME WRONG PREMISE IN INTERPRETING VATICAN COUNCIL II ?
'It is rather pleasant to hear an arch-enemy of Tradition take our side to stigmatize the undercurrent which produced the studied ambiguities and errors which are pregnant in the very texts of the Council', says the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) website.
The SSPX still does not realize that theology has gone wrong in the Catholic Church because of the use of an irrational premise.On this error is based the theology of Pope Francis and Cardinal Kaspar in the interpreting of Vatican Council II. They are using the false premise of being able to see the dead who are now saved in Heaven. Then they use this irrational theory to reject Tradition.They suggest there are known exceptions in 2013 to the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Errors.This is the staple interpretation of Vatican Council II sustained by the non Catholic media.
The pope and Cardinal Kaspar may not be aware of the false and irrational premise they are using but then neither is the SSPX and perhaps neither was this known to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
So when the SSPX (USA) says Cardinal Kaspar has the same position on this issue as them they do not realize that Cardinal Kaspar's interpretation of Vatican Council II, his entire new theology, is based upon an irrationality. There is no rational basis for this theology.
For instance Vatican Council II says all non Catholics need to convert into the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism'for salvation(Ad Gentes 7).It does not mention any exceptions since these cases when existing are invisible to us, they are known only to God.So the Council is traditional.It is saying all Hindus, Buddhists etc need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation and all members of Protestant communities and Orthodox Christians need Catholic Faith.So Vatican Council II is in agreement with the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Errors on this issue.
For Cardinal Kaspar Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition since there are known exceptions saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience(LG 16), elements of sanctification(LG 8), imperfect communion witht the Church(UR), being 'good and holy'non Catholics (NA), seeds of the word etc. These cases are visible for him. So they are known exceptions.This is irrational. We cannot see the dead who are saved and who are now in Heaven. We cannot name those saved in invincible ignorance in 2013.
If we personally do not know these cases how can they be exceptions. Something must exist, it must be known for it to be an exception.
So there is only one rational interpretation of Vatican Council II and it is the traditional one.There is no ambiguity in Vatican Council II since Cardinal Kaspar's interpretation has no rational basis.
The SSPX (USA) instead of pointing out this error are supporting Cardinal Kaspar.-Lionel Andrades
continued
from the SSPX website:
This affirmation needs to be placed in parallel with the letter Archbishop Lefebvre sent to Cardinal Ottaviani on December 20, 1966, just one year after the closing of the Council.
that, [almost universally], when the Council innovated, it shook the certitude of the truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as belonging definitively to the treasure of Tradition... Whether it be the transmission of the bishops’ jurisdiction, the two sources of Revelation, the inspiration of Scripture, the necessity of grace for justification, the necessity of Catholic baptism, the life of grace among heretics, schismatics and pagans, the ends of marriage, religious liberty, the last things, etc.: on all these fundamental points, the traditional doctrine was clear and unanimously taught in Catholic universities. Now, numerous Conciliar documents on these truths henceforth allow doubts.
It is rather pleasant to hear an arch-enemy of Tradition take our side to stigmatize the undercurrent which produced the studied ambiguities and errors which are pregnant in the very texts of the Council.-SSPX ,USA website
http://www.sspx.org/pastors_corner/pastors_corner_april_2013.htm#breakdown_authority
____________________________________________________________
CARDINAL JOSEPH RATZINGER AND ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SSPX PROBLEM BY IDENTIFYING THE WRONG PREMISE
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/cardinal-joseph-ratzinger-and.html#links
Did Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre know that implicit desire,invincible ignorance etc were not known to us and irrelevant to the dogma? If he did he never said it clearly.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/did-archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-know.html#links
BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS NOT AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA SO IF FR.LEONAED FEENEY SAID ‘THIS OR THAT’, AS THEY SAY, IT IS IRRELEVANT
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/baptism-of-desire-is-not-exception-to.html#links
Vatican Council II agrees with Fr.Leonard Feeney on extra ecclesiam nulla salus Nothing in Vatican Council II contradicts the literal interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/vatican-council-ii-agrees-with.html#links
ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE MISUNDERSTOOD BY SSPX PRIESTS IN HERESY
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2010/06/archbishop-marcel-lefebvre.html#links
concluded
SSPX (USA) falls for the Cardinal Kaspar canard
Here Cardinal Kasper is saying that the documents themselves were constructed in such a way as to permit progressive interpretations when put into the hands of progressive theologians or bishops. Here the cardinal agrees that the conflict is inherent to the texts themselves produced by the Council and not due to some later wrong interpretations of it. Contra to the conservative mantra of "perfect documents - imperfect implementation", Kasper affirms the traditionalist critique of "imperfect documents lead to imperfect implementation." In other words, there is an intimate and logical connection between the documents and their implementation.-SSPX,USA
The conflict arose because of the active influence of Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits at Vatican Council II. They were citing the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 of Pope Pius XII,as if it was a break through, something new in the Catholic Church. Since this was a magisterial document for them, they wanted its message also included in the Council.
The Letter of the Holy Office only mentions being saved in implicit desire and in invincible ignorance. This is nothing new. This is traditional. However the Cardinal and the Jesuits interpreted being saved in invincible ignorance etc as being explicit, visible to us in the present times and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So when the conservatives at Vatican Council II accepted Lumen Gentium 16, for instance,which says that a person can be saved in invincible igorance etc they knew that these were implicit cases,known only to God and so were irrelevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.
Cardinal Kaspar and the liberals, like the Jesuits and the Archbshop of Boston, assume that LG 16 refers to visible, instead of invisible salvation and so the confusion arises.There is ambiguity. There are two positions to a simple text. One can interpret LG 16 as referring to known exceptions to the dogma or as referring to invisible cases and so irrelevant to the dogma.The text is neutral.One uses a rational or an irrational premise.It can be assumed that we can see the dead saved in invincible ignorance or that we cannot see them. This is the premise which will influence theology and the interpretation of a traditional Council.
When it is realized that LG 16 etc can rationally only refer to cases invisible for us we are left with only one rational interpretation of the Council. This is the traditional one.
So when Cardinal Kaspar etc say there is a progressive interpretation with regard to other religions and ecumenism they should be asked to name someone in 2013,who is a visible exception to the dogma. Also they should be asked to cite text in Vatican Council which says these cases are visible to us or that they are exceptions to the dogma on salvation.There is no such text.
-Lionel Andrades
http://www.sspx.org/pastors_corner/pastors_corner_april_2013.htm#kasper
I don't understand why this "resistance" is still in existence. They are pretending like the dialogue with Rome is still ongoing. It is, for all intents and purposes, dead, finished, there will be no reconciliation, not with this head of CDF, not with this Pope, certainly. So just what is the complaint? I think it is little more than a mask for a disaffected and very small minority of the Society to gain for itself the authority and leadership it feels its due, and to advance the descent into sede vacantism. Good luck with that. Smaller and smaller groups of people, each invincibly convinced that only it is pure, righteous, and in possession of the truth. And they attack each other savagely. It is profoundly sad.
And I say this as an outsider with no connection to SSPX whatsoever. But from my outsider's standpoint, it appears +Williamson, an immensely gifted man, is pursuing his own ambition to the detriment of the Society and the souls under his sway.
Because Bp Williamson likes to blah blah blah blah BLAH.
The priests of the resistance are sharing why they support it by making youtubes and you would know why if you took the time to watch them. For one thing there is a loss of trust within the SSPX and it started about ten years ago. There is also the Doctrinal Preamble which Bishop Fellay "was" planning to accept which is very similar to the one that A/B Lefebvre rejected from Rome. There is also more to this that catholics don't understand and must take the time to do so. Check out
the resistance websites as they are growing: http://www.therecusant.com/
And you have seen the Preamble he was prepared to sign?
@ Tantumblogo The phrase "rebel without a cause" is the answer to your question.
http://www.sspx.org/district_news/2013/sspx_falsely_accused_resistance_to_what_4-23-2013.htm
I think you can see that some of the other Traditional Societies in union with Rome are having problems with this CDF. It may or may not be the case that someone is appealing for them.
I think the negotiations with Rome are far from over.
Linus Schneider Says in the context +Williamson speaks of divine revelation and Divine Providence. L. Schneider says it gives interesting insight into +Williamson's state of mind. I don't know what L.S. means. I don't know if he knows what he means. Bishop Williamson was differentiating between the one and the other which is Doctrinally correct. I have heard him do this in some other instances. He in those instances was correct.
Post a Comment