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]

 You are making much more of it by your description than even we are.  Thus far the only thing anyone has stated here is a concern.

There is every reason for concern Bill.  If Pope Francis accepts these General Chapter conditions Society chapels fall into the hands of the local bishops and authority of Rome.

Good luck.  For me that is every reason for concern.  It is also serious reason for concern amongst innumerable trads priests religious and religious communities who are leaving the SSPX or cutting ties with them over this new shift toward Rome.  6 priests this month alone.  My friend was told by the priest who currently serves their Mass that he was not sure how much longer he could continue coming and offering Mass because of the crisis of priests leaving and the ones left behind are overworked.

I hope things settle down but right now it is very edgy.

The General Chapter conditions can be found on DICI or the US District as they are sited above. 

[3n21tr41n50ql]

I'm not sure if "concern" is the only thing being brought up in the discussion. You said above that you retracted a previous position.

And I'll repeat as many times as are necessary: I SHARE THESE SAME CONCERNS.

I'm not willing to speak, as some have in terms of a done deal. If it becomes a done deal, I'll speak in those terms. And those terms will not be favorable.

You haven't cited your source, though, of the criticism of the preamble. May I ask you once again for the writer?

[Dawn Marie]

Nothing is a done deal.  No one said it was.  Right now it is an up in the air deal because Francis has not answered one way or the other.

I didn't change any position btw.  I said the obvious was the response to the preamble needed to be ripped up.  I was corrected in that it has been withdrawn.  That is a good thing.  Now if we can see the 3 weak conditions of the General Chapter also withdrawn I will breath and rest easy!

This whole thing boils down to one thing, preamble, General Chapter conditions et al.  The Society is split because +Fellay no longer believes that Rome must convert for the Society to come under them.  The other portion of the Society maintains that it must or an agreement with Rome is suicide as the Archbishop put it.

That's the bottom line, that is the main concern.  THAT is what people want +Fellay to state clearly again, that is what +Fellay has not done.  He maintains an agreement with them is the answer, because the Society will restore the Church.

I hold nothing against Bp. Fellay I just hope and pray he comes to the realization that this is not the right road before there is nothing left of the SSPX to speak of.

[Dawn Marie]

Thank you Mario for the suggestion.  For me personally it is hardly panic or desolation. Just an observation that the SSPX is in trouble which leads to an obvious concern for her welfare But your suggestion is appreciated :)

[Dawn Marie]

ok Mario, then please feel free to fix the crisis in the Church from within under the authority (and don't take that word authority lightly because the Romans will use it at every turn to shut Tradition down) of Francis and the liberal, Masonic, modernist bishops and Cardinals in Rome.

If you think you can be be both obedient to their authority and what they will demand AND restore the Church by trying to work from within it I will be happy to know just how that plan can be put into action.

God bless you

[Dawn Marie]

I agree with your perception in some regards concerning the resistance but the fact is it isn't 10 or 20 priests anymore.  The number is growing and growing rapidly.  This isn't about a handful of priests.  The handful is turning into a bushel. 

Something concrete has to be done to stop this or we will have to few priests to speak of left within the SSPX to even speak of.

[3n21tr41n50ql]

The same can be said, D, about the Bishops of the Church, circa 1962.

If they weren't right then, these Priests can't be right now.

Mario is absolutely correct to point out that Archbishop Lefebvre had official approval from the Church to begin the Society.

Of course there are no easy answers. Unless of course one decides to take matters into their own hands. Then all the answers are easy.

[Dawn Marie]

Agreed.

[Dawn Marie]

Its being bandied about, (whether true or false, rumor or not I haven't confirmed yet, so big grain of salt needed here), that Bp. Fellay may step down and Bp. De G may step in as SG to stop the flow of priests who are leaving and to bring back those who have left as well as to put a stop to the resistance.

I would hate to see Bp Fellay have to step down, that does pain my heart, but something does have to be done to stop this gaping hole.

[Dawn Marie]

Fr. Schmidberger's Editorial about the Carmelites



Source: http://www.pius.info/images/stories/mittei...3/mb_2013_4.pdf



"... At this point I have to convey a very painful message: The Carmelites of Brilon-Wald, misled by their Chaplain, have terminated their friendship with us. This monastery was founded on 2nd February 1984 under the patronage of St. Joseph and recently comprised eight nuns. At the end of February they informed Msgr. de Galarreta who is responsible for the religious communities associated with us that due to the liberalism within the SSPX they would terminate their relationship with us. This [liberalism] was a true threat for their Faith.

*Sorry, this was the part I meant to post, the rest was deleted.

[Birgitta]

And don't forget that for nearly every priest who has left, or been censured, or expelled for speaking out there is another who strongly supports their cause but is not yet in a position to do the same. Many faithful have asked their own priests in confidence what was going on, and some got honest answers. I can't help but think the problem may be larger than is being let on. 

[Dawn Marie]

Forming to resist from within is what the French priests are doing.  I agree with you that the priests leaving to form a new group is definitely not the answer.   It would be best all the way around were there no need for resistance anywhere and we were all united in heart mind all soul again.

I've been asking around (people in higher places who might know) and the answers I'm getting back are still not definitive but sound like Bp. Fellay stepping down and Bp. DeG stepping in may be what the Society is considering.  The only thing is Bp. Fellay can not choose his own successor so a general Chapter meeting to vote on a new SG would have to take place.  The reason Bp.DeG is being mentioned as the possible new SG is that is where it appears most of the GC priests are leaning toward.

We will see how this all pans out.  In the meantime I'm going to increase my prayer for all of them that the Holy Ghost will guide whatever decisions are made for the welfare of Tradition.

I hope the same as you, that the SSPX gets past this crisis and gets back to doing what it was doing before this mess started, saving souls and spreading the True Faith!

God bless you Mario