OPEN LETTER TO PRIESTS of the SOCIETY of ST PIUS X. by Bp. Williamson

[Dawn Marie]

---

OPEN LETTER TO PRIESTS of the SOCIETY of ST PIUS X.

Reverend and dear Fathers,

The recent publication of the Doctrinal Declaration, addressed by the General Council of the Society of St Pius X to the Church authorities in Rome on April 15 last year, confirms our worst fears. We waited for nearly a year to know what it contains. It proves once and for all that the present leadership of the Society of St Pius X means to lead it away from the direction set for it by Archbishop Lefebvre, and towards the ideas and ideals of the Second Vatican Council.

However busy you may be with the daily ministry, this is bound to concern you because it means that the souls under your care are, through you, coming under Superiors meaning to lead them and yourselves towards, even into, the great apostasy of modern times. We recall that it is Superiors who mould their subjects and not the other way around – have we not observed a number of good Society priests, one after another, giving up the fight for the Faith as we know Archbishop Lefebvre led it, and instead going with the flow, with the strong and very different current flowing for some years now from the top of the Society downwards ?

Detailed analysis will confirm the danger of each of the Declaration’s ten paragraphs, as outlined only briefly below:--

I Fidelity promised to the “Catholic Church” and to the “Roman Pontiff” can easily be misdirected today towards the Conciliar Church as such, and to the Conciliar Pontiffs. Distinctions are needed to avoid confusion.

II Acceptance of teachings of the Magisterium in accordance with Lumen Gentium # 25 can easily be understood, especially in conjunction with Rome’s 1989 Profession of Faith which is mentioned in a footnote of the Declaration, as requiring acceptance of Vatican II doctrines.

III,1 Acceptance of Vatican II teaching on the College of Bishops as contained in Lumen Gentium, chapter III, is, despite the “Nota Praevia”, a significant step towards accepting Conciliar collegiality and the democratisation of the Church.

III,2 Recognition of the Magisterium as sole authentic interpreter of Revelation runs a grave risk of submitting Tradition to the Council, especially when the interpretation of any break between them is automatically to be rejected (cf. III,5 below).

III,3 The definition of Tradition as “the living transmission of Revelation” is highly ambiguous, and its ambiguity is only confirmed by the vague words about the Church, and by the quotation from the equally ambiguous Dei Verbum #8, which follow.

III,4 The proposition that Vatican II should “throw light” on Tradition by “deepening” it and “making it more explicit”, is thoroughly Hegelian (since when did contradictories explain and not exclude one another ?), and it risks falsifying Tradition by twisting it to fit the multiple falsehoods of the Council.

III,5 The statement that the novelties of Vatican II must be interpreted in the light of Tradition, but that no interpretation implying any break between the two is acceptable, is madness (All shirts are to be blue, but any non-blue shirt must be taken to be blue !). This madness is none other than that of Benedict XVI’s “Hermeneutic of continuity”.

III,6 Giving credit to the novelties of Vatican II as being legitimate matter of theological debate is gravely to underestimate their harmfulness. They are fit only to be condemned.

III,7 The judgment that the new sacramental Rites were legitimately promulgated is gravely misleading. The New Order of Mass especially is much too harmful to the common good of the Church to be a true law.

III,8 The “promise to respect” as Church law the New Code of Canon Law is to respect a number of supposed laws directly contrary to Church doctrine.

Reverend Fathers, whoever studies these ten paragraphs in the original text can only conclude that their author or authors have given up the Archbishop’s fight for Tradition, and have gone over in their minds to Vatican II. Do you wish yourself and your flock to be moulded by such Superiors ?

Nor let it be said that the first two and last three of the ten paragraphs are broadly taken from the Archbishop’s own Protocol of May 5, 1988, so that the Declaration is faithful to him. It is well known that on May 6 he repudiated that Protocol because he himself recognized that it made too many concessions for the Society to be able to continue defending Tradition.

Another error is to say that the danger is over because the Declaration has been “withdrawn” by the Superior General. The Declaration is the poisoned fruit of what has become a liberal mind-set at the top of the Society, and that mind-set has not been recognized, let alone retracted.

A third misconception is to say that since no agreement has been signed with the apostates of Rome, then there is no further problem. The problem is less the agreement than the desire of any agreement that will grant to the Society official recognition, and that desire is still very much there. Following the whole modern world and the Conciliar Church, the Society’s leadership seems to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth.

Reverend Fathers, “What cannot be cured must be endured.” Blind leaders are a punishment from God. However, the least that you can do about this disastrous Declaration is to study it for yourselves with everything that led up to it, otherwise you will lose your Society without realizing it, just as the mass of Catholics lost their Church with Vatican II, and did not realize it. Then having made the disaster clear in your own mind, you must tell the truth to your Society flock, namely the danger in which your Superiors are placing their faith and therewith their eternal salvation.

To all of us in that Society which Archbishop Lefebvre made into a worldwide fortress of the Faith, Our Lord is now putting the question of John, VI, 67 : “Will you also leave me ?”

To any and all of you I gladly impart the episcopal blessing of your servant in Christ,

+Richard Williamson, Nova Friburgo, Maundy Thursday, 2013.

[Dawn Marie]

The problem may not be so much that Bp. Fellay signed it.  We all make mistakes.  The Archbishop signed it to but the Archbishop co operating with grace and in humility also ripped it up the next day.

Rip it up Bishop Fellay, please....

[Dawn Marie]

Archbishop Lefebvre

... With that I think that I have said what I wanted to say to you, and given you a certain line of conduct in the present events, which perhaps are going to go even faster. There will be possibly other manifestations of putting the brakes on by the Vatican; and it is very, very dangerous for us to "rally" ourselves now.

No rallying, no rallying to the liberals; no rallying to the ecclesiastics who are governing in the Church now and who are liberals; there is no rallying to these people.

From the moment when we rally ourselves, this rallying will be the acceptance of the liberal principles. We cannot do this, even if certain appeasements are given us on the Mass of St. Pius V - certain satisfactions, certain recognitions, certain incardinations, which could even be offered to you eventually.

[Alley]

I pray he rips it up, I will pray continually or this grace, with love!

[3n21tr41n50ql]

I don't understand--still!--what's all the hubbub. Bishop Fellay hasn't done anything that the Archbishop himself hadn't done in dealing with the robber-barons. "We" trusted the Archbishop. Why we don't trust Bishop Fellay...I'm confused.

Our Lady, pray for us. Post Deus, sola Spes nostra.

[Dawn Marie]

Because Bill, the pre amble response His Excellency sent to Rome was almost the same (only a bit worse) one ABL signed in 88.  The next morning ABL ripped it up, realizing by the grace of God, that to put the SSPX under an unconverted Rome would mean the death of the Society. 

Like I said it is not that Bp. Fellay signed it, its that he signed it and is sticking by it no matter what.  Nothing has changed in Rome since 88 and with the election of Pope Francis it seems things may be taking an even more downward slide.  Still in spite of all that the preamble response the 3 conditions remain in the hands of Rome with the hope of +Fellay that they will accept it and recognize the SSPX which puts the Society in the hands of modernists, apostates, heretics and in some cases even outright enemies of God.

That is what ABL calls suicide of Tradition.  That is what Bp. Fellay calls the restoration of the Church.

[Dawn Marie]

He needs our prayers.  Many priests are leaving and many more I'm afraid will follow.  They aren't leaving or being expelled because they have suddenly changed, it is because the Society has changed what it always previously had maintained.

I don't judge Bp. Fellay, I'm not even condemning him for what has happened over the last few years.  He's a man in the position all hell works to destroy day and night.  I do pray for him, very much, and very hard hoping he realizes this course he is on is an extremely dangerous one for all involved.

Rip it up Bishop Fellay, please...

[Michael]

You are spot on.  Bishop Fellay needs to rip it up and make a public statement that it has been done.  The devil works constantly for the destruction of the society, it is the largest and strongest remnant of tradition.  The calls for greater ecumenism and now prayers for Muslim brothers by the Pope and Vatican are not calls to conversion, they are calls for mutual acceptance.  This is a grave error.  In order to restore confidence among the religious and laity, Bishop Fellay needs to destroy the document and stand strong against these errors.   I also pray that he would seek reconciliation with Bishop Williamson and the other priests.  I would like to see Bishop Fellay reach out to sede groups to work to bring them all together in a united front against the errors of modernist Rome.  I don't know if this is even possible, but it makes more sense to me than giving in to the modernists. 

[3n21tr41n50ql]

Maybe I am missing something. If I am, someone please point me to where I can find what I missed, but the last I heard, Bishop Fellay gave a resounding NO to Benedict XVI.

So my comment, "what's all the hubbub"

[Dawn Marie]

I stand corrected, Bp. Fellay did withdraw the faithless preamble.

______________________________________________

Quote DM:

I understand all the points Father Chazal makes as to why the preamble was a serious issue and why it was a danger that it was signed [...]  But do I understand that Father is saying the faithless preamble has been withdrawn?

Answer; Quote Beatus
If I remember correctly, Father explained that the preamble was withdrawn for the wrong reasons. He quotes Bishop Fellay in effect saying that he was forced to withdraw the preamble due to opposition by a sufficient number of Society members, and not because Bishop Fellay no longer believes in and adheres to its content. Again if memory serves, Father explains that for any withdrawal to really signify a repudiation of its content, that repudiation would have to be clearly communicated by its author, Bishop Fellay.

[3n21tr41n50ql]

Petrus,

For justice's sake could you please reprint for us the "wimpy" declaration, and explain to us why it is "wimpy?"

I'm not arguing. It's just that some of us are followers of the Society, and I am having a very difficult time accepting what I am perceiving as disrespectful adjectives being tossed around like throw pillows on a couch.

St Benedict's rule cautions against disregarding the input from subordinates; the Saint makes it clear that sometimes Our Lord uses the least of us to speak His mind. I am reminded of Caiaphus being used to remind us all to offer a worthy sacrifice.

If, as is being bandied about, it is true that Bishop Fellay's change of heart came about "under pressure" from his subordinates, then Deo Gratias that His Excellency has the humility to hear the voice of God in that way.

Until--or better stated, unless--His Excellency proves otherwise, I will assume that he is behaving with prudence. Listening to, if that is his only motivation as the accusations go, his subordinates is proof of this prudence.

I agree whole heartedly and unreservedly that "full communion" with the robber-barons in charge of Rome is suicide. I'm not willing at this point to agree that that's where His Excellency wishes to take the Society.

God preserve His Excellency Bishop Fellay.

[Dawn Marie]

The sine qua non conditions to which the Society binds itself and that she requires from the Roman authorities before considering a canonical recognition :

1 Freedom to keep, to transmit and to teach the sane doctrine of the unchanging magisterium of the Church and of the unchangeable truth of Divine Tradition ; freedom to defend, to correct and to reprove, even in public, those responsible for the errors or novelties of modernism, of liberalism, of The Second Vatican Council and their consequences ;

2 Exclusive use of the liturgy of 1962. The retention of the sacramental practice that we have at the moment (including holy orders, confirmation and marriage) ;

3 The guarantee of at least one bishop.

 "Desirable" conditions (not absolutely necessary for an agreement however)

1 Our own ecclesiastical tribunals, in the first instance ;

2 Exemption of houses of The Society of St Pius X in respect of diocesan bishops ;

3 A Pontifical Commission in Rome for Tradition, dependent on the Pope, with a majority of members, and the presidency, from Tradition.

[3n21tr41n50ql]

It would absolutely help, DM, if you identified the source. While it is true that I may be dense, naive, blind, take your pick, or choose your own adjective, I'm not objectively seeing anything but a strawman in the criticism of the first point. The Second Vatican Council's errors are explicitly mentioned.

Even Archbishop Lefebvre himself said that, what was it, 95% of the Council can be accepted interpreted Traditionally. It is those who break with Tradition, those who implanted the time bombs and their progeny who need to be rebuked. Or tarred, feathered, excommunicated and maybe herded together on Gilligan's Island. But what do I know.

I do understand where you and Petrus are coming from. And yes, I too share your discomfort and fears. But as I've said, unless His Excellency actually drinks the poison,we're clashing gongs conversing as if he already has drunk it, washed the glass, dried it, put it back in the cupboard, gone to his room, lied down on his bed, turned out the lights, and is now waiting for the end.