Bp. Williamson's exclusion from SSPX upheld

  • Thread starter Thread starter sw85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sw85

Guest
From Rorate Caeli:
Now that the matter has unfortunately been leaked and made public in the usual forums in which leaked documents magically appear, Rorate is independently able to confirm that the exclusion of Bishop Richard Williamson as a member of the General Chapter of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) was upheld by an overwhelming majority of the capitularies currently assembled in midterm General Chapter taking place in the International Seminary of Saint Pius X, in Écône (Valais), Switzerland.
Click to expand...
The news of the exclusion of Bishop Williamson by the SSPX Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, “due to his stand calling to rebellion and for continually repeated disobedience,” was first confirmed by another leaked letter sent by the General Secretary of the SSPX, Father Thouvenot, on June 25, 2012, which was leaked in the same usual forums on the very same day it was received. The ruling was questioned by Williamson himself, who appealed to the Chapter, whose members subsequently voted, in a secret ballot, to uphold the measure adopted by the Superior General.
Click to expand...
The decision seems to show that the Superior General has kept his authority within the SSPX in these decisive months of discussions and decisions regarding the Society and the Holy See.
Click to expand...
One commenter adds:
[The vote was] 29 x 9. It seems to confirm what had previously been reported: that at the summit of the SSPX there were 25 % anti-Fellaysians, 25 % pro-Fellaysians, and 50 % “legitimists” (those who’ll follow the leader wherever he goes).
Click to expand...
 
I’ll be honest. I think his exclusion is a good thing. His views on the Holocaust are definitely controversial.
 
I would say his views are deliberate and repulsive, rather than controversial or ludicrous.
 
Am I the only one to find it ironic that the SSPX should exclude someone for ‘rebellion & disobedience’?
 
This is so hopeful!! I am really glad to hear that it was voted on by a majority. 👍

So lets keep praying!
 
I love the TLM but BIshop Williamson has damaged the traditionalist movement with his Holocaust denial.
 
philial said:
Am I the only one to find it ironic that the SSPX should exclude someone for ‘rebellion & disobedience’?
Click to expand...
I am sure they would argue “this is different;” however, it will be interesting to watch given the similarities and irony.
 
As a superior general myself, I can tell all of you that Bishop Fellay’s decision to exclude Bishop Williamson would have blocked the way to reunification. Canon Law as well as the Modus Procedendi of the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, which is what the SSPX is, do not allow a superior to exclude any member of the institute from a chapter.

Novices and juniors have passive participation. They can attend, opine, but not vote.

Permanent members have active participation. They can attend, opine, vote and be elected to office.

The only way that Bishop Fellay could pull this off without raising many eyebrows at the Vatican was to have the capitulars vote. The capitulars are the highest ranking authority in any institute. They trump the superior general.

Had Bishop Fellay not done this, Bishop Williamson would have had legal right to sue the SSPX in a civil court. Every institute is a legal corporation. CEOs of corporations cannot ban those who have stock or hold office in the corporation, but the Board can.

Were they in full communion with Rome, he could have taken his case to the Signatura or to the Sacred Congregation. As they are not in full communion, he does not have this right. This is an excellent example for those who argue that the SSPX is in full communion or that there is not such thing as partial communion. The fact that you cannot make use of the Church’s legal system to protect your rights, because the system does not recognize your existence, is a clear sign that there is not a full communion.

The Church can hold Bishop Fellay’s feet to the fire for violating the canonical rights of a Catholic, but she cannot hear Williamson’s case, because he has not canonical status. He would have to file as a layman, not as a bishop. That gets pretty murky.

The idea of having the capitulars vote, was genius. Rome does not have to get involved, nor does the good bishop have a civil case against the Society. They obviously have someone who knows civil and Church law.

As to the grounds for not allowing you to participate, those are irrelevant. The capitulars can disqualify you because they don’t like your aftershave.

He can’t appeal to the Church on the grounds that the capitulars treated him unjustly, because the Church will simply tell him that since he is a bishop without canonical rights, there is nothing that she can do for him. If he wants to appeal as a secular Catholic, then the Church can hear his case. To do so would be an admission on his part that he has no canonical standing.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
So then, is his grace Williamson caput?

Will the good bishop capitulate in light of the vote?

Or will he capitalize on this situation, and take nine capitulars with him? :ehh:

What is the next chapter?

Inquiring minds want to know.
 
Hesychios said:
So then, is his grace Williamson caput?

Will the good bishop capitulate in light of the vote?

Or will he capitalize on this situation, and take nine capitulars with him? :ehh:

What is the next chapter?

Inquiring minds want to know.
Click to expand...
The nine capitulars did not say that they agreed with him. That was not the question on the table. The question was “Should he be banned from the General Chapter?”

Nine felt that he should be included. Maybe the still disagree with him. It is possible that those who voted to exclude him agree with him, but felt that they could not include him, because of the means that he uses to deliver his message. He would be a liability to the party rather than an asset. A chapter is a political event, make no mistake about it. It is not a council of the Church. It is where policies are made. There are parties and camps within the parties like any other political event. The larger the community, the more politics. They are created for that purpose. This way, the politics of the community never enter into daily life. They are decided at the chapter and you move on. Hence the term “chapter”. You write it and you close the book. You may never speak of it again.

I have always explained chapters to novices as the Pilate System. “What we’ve written, we have written.” Once the chapter is over, the discussion is over. God help him who brings up the question once it’s been answered by the chapter. It can get you slammed by a superior.

Bishop Williamson is not out of the SSPX. He’s not allowed at the chapter. This means that whatever the chapter decides, he must obey or he is in schism with his own community. It’s scary stuff. In a sense, they are pushing him to schism.

If he does not capitulate to whatever the chapter decides, he is out. Where does a bishop go who has no diocese and no community? I don’t know the answer. I don’t know if anyone knows the answer. He can always go to the pope, but I don’t believe that will happen before pigs learn to fly.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV 🙂
 
I am an SSPX sympathizer to take this with the humor it is intended.

When the crazies want you out of the asylum then it is time to rethink your position.

When the SSPX say, whoa, man, you are reallllllly out there. That is how you know you may need to check yourself.
 
philial said:
Am I the only one to find it ironic that the SSPX should exclude someone for ‘rebellion & disobedience’?
Click to expand...
No! LOLOL

I figure he’ll break away from SSPX. What do you call a remnant of a remnant? A swatch? A thread? A tatter? Will there be a newspaper called The Fragment?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top