SSPX Publishes Media Brochure regarding recent news

[Extempore]

We read both the press release and the letter from Bishop Fellay this Sunday at Mass. I am surprised (perhaps wrongly so) to see such negative reactions from people here.

Anyhow, a few responses to the comments here:

Between all of this, which you correctly point out, and the aura of anti-Semitism attached to this whole episode, I believe this will prove to be one of the most ill-advised papal actions in modern times.

I’m not sure why people keep spouting the anti-Semitism thing. Shocking that some are so quick to impute Bishop Williamson’s views onto the whole of the SSPX. Tell me, when Cardinal Mahoney expresses a controversial opinion, do we impute that opinion to the rest of Rome? No.

I’ll be the first to say that I think Bishop Williamson should never have said anything at all. However, I am not going to impute his personal opinions on the whole Society. That is a ridiculous (and, quite frankly, pitiful) attempt at mudslinging that most people of good will should ignore.

I wasn’t aware that Bishop Fellay had defended Bp. Williamson’s view of the holocaust. Did he do so publicly? Do you have a transcript of Fellay’s remarks in this regard?

Since people have been happily posting Fr.Z’s criticisms of the SSPX here, I’ll post one of Fr.Z’s transcripts of an interview with Bishop Fellay.

Bishop Fellay did not defend Bishop Williamson’s personal views on the holocaust as is evidenced here:

From Fr. Z’s Blog:

Q: Do you condemn the negationist declarations of Bishop Williamson?

A: [Fellay:] It does not belong to me to condemn them. I do not have the competence for this. But I deplore that a Bishop may have given the impression of involving the Fraternity with a view that is not ours.

Source: wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/fr-z-agrees-with-bishop-fellays-comments-in-an-interview/

 

[I_Believe]

I (man) am not upset over the goals of SSPX, to the opposite, i also like the tridentian mass.

But there are other issues, such as Bishop Fellays defending Bishop Williamsons view about the holocaust which i do not see befitting a man who is supposed to be a shepard and leader for many human beings.

Williamsons views looks more like paranoia to me.
I cant say anything against the lifting of the excommunications, but i wonder and i feel i got the right to do if it was really the appropriate time for it.

As i said nothing has changed in their status as priests, they are still not reconciled with Rome.

So the only thing this excommunication means is that they are again counted as members of the church, just like any layman.

The program they sent on swedish tv was not all about bishop Williamson but most of the time was for a swedish, former vicar, priest, in the swedish church (not catholic) who some years ago, when it became clear that the church will introduce the blessing of homosexual couples.

That was to much for him so he left the church and converted to catholicism. And joined the SSPX, and is now studying in germany and will become a priest this summer.

He is so important to the SSPX that they chosed to make him a priest after 3 years of studies, and usually it takes 6 years to become a priest at the SSPX.
But they need him here as quickly as possible, as there is no such priests here, when they come to hold mass they come from Britain.

But the program had a very bad angle, talking about the already conservative catholic church and now this man, Sten Sandberg, will be a resident priest inside the country and he is from the ultra conservative SSPX.

Anyhow, im not against SSPXs thoughts and goals, i am against those who deny the history or try to angle it their ways.

That has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ.

Well, that clears it up. For a moment I thought you were just mad about King Clovis

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

57. The Church has shown that she is hostile to the progress of the natural and theological sciences. From “LAMENTABILI SANE” as being condemned as a modernist heresy.

Isn’t this what SSPX is doing? being hostile to the “theological sciences”, if the liturgy can be termed a theological science. I’m open to being corrected.

I firmly believe in and am obedient to all Sacred Tradition, even recently adopted tradition. Either the Church has authority or it doesn’t. Through faith I can say that I KNOW it does. To attribute the works of the Church to an act of Satan is what the Pharisees did in saying Jesus “had a demon”. It seems wrong to forget that the “Gates of Hell will not prevail against” the Church.

Our Deacon stated from the pulpit that he didn’t think that Jesus knew who He was until a teenager, a heretical statement condemned in no. 35: “Christ did not always possess the consciousness of His Messianic dignity”. I will confront his statement in light of this Church teaching, not condemn him or the Church because of it.

 

[nbjayme]

Our Deacon stated from the pulpit that he didn’t think that Jesus knew who He was until a teenager, a heretical statement condemned in no. 35: “Christ did not always possess the consciousness of His Messianic dignity”. I will confront his statement in light of this Church teaching, not condemn him or the Church because of it.

Or course, it’s impossible for the Church to be condemned for there is no error in the Church. But where does the Church belongs or can be found? It is within those who practice that Universal Faith.

“Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”
St. Athanasius


As for the priest, there is no need to condemn, prayers can be done. But, you who know the Faith ought to remind people of what the Church Teaching is or are you to be lukewarm? If the priests persist in his error, he has condemned himself and no formal excommunication is needed.

 

[pnewton]

I’m not sure why people keep spouting the anti-Semitism thing.

That is easy to understand and they are two motives. If one is hostile to the SSPX, it is mud-slinging; inaccurate and dirty. However, one may also innocently be unduly influenced by the media that will mention this issue with Williamson in almost every news story that involves the SSPX. Even the secular media is hyping the story. I believe AB Fellay clarified this and distanced himself and the SSPX from issue.

 

[oldmass]

I’m not sure why people keep spouting the anti-Semitism thing. Shocking that some are so quick to impute Bishop Williamson’s views onto the whole of the SSPX. Tell me, when Cardinal Mahoney expresses a controversial opinion, do we impute that opinion to the rest of Rome? No.

Excellent point! The answer is, of course, no, as you say. Bp. Williamson’s views on the ‘gas chambers’ are his own. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the lifting of the excommunications, or with any of the other issues that confront the Church as a result of that lifting. The enemies of the traditional Latin Mass take every opportunity, it seems, to conflate so-called ‘anti-semitism’ with those who support the Church’s earlier Tradition. I happen to agree with Bp. Williamson’s view, not because I’m a Traditional Catholic, but because, as he said in the interview, the evidence against the existence of ‘gas chambers,’ in his opinion, is overwhelming. Most of the revisionist scholars who actively promote that view are not Catholics, much less Traditional Catholics.

 

[Extempore]

I believe AB Fellay clarified this and distanced himself and the SSPX from issue.

Yes, he did and here is a link and the text if anyone is interested:

We attained knowledge of an interview that Bishop Richard Williamson, a member of our society, gave to Swedish television. In this interview, he expresses himself on questions of history, especially to the genocide of the Jews by the Nazis. It is obvious that a bishop can speak only on questions of Faith and Morals with religious authority. Our society claims no authority at all over historic or other secular questions.

The mission of the priestly society is the distribution and restoration of authentic Catholic teaching and how it is laid down in dogmas. For that we are well known worldwide, accepted and appreciated.

It’s with great sadness that we recognize the extent to which the violation of this mandate has done damage to our mission. The affirmations of Bishop Williamson do not reflect in any sense the position of our Fraternity. For this reason I have prohibited him, pending any new orders, from taking any public positions on political or historical questions.

We ask the forgiveness of the Supreme Pontiff, and of all people of good will, for the dramatic consequences of this act. Because we recognize how ill-advised these declarations were, we can only look with sadness at the way in which they have directly struck our Fraternity, discrediting its mission.

At the same time we must be clear that these remarks in no manner represent the views of our fraternity. Therefore I prohibit Bishop Williamson until further notice from speaking in public on political or historic questions.

This is something we cannot accept, and we declare that we will continue to preach Catholic doctrine and to administer the sacraments of grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Menzingen, the 27th of January 2009

+Bishop Bernard Fellay

General Superior

Source: remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-fellay-communique_from_Fellay.htm

 

[oldmass]

Anjoh66: No it (the Williamson interview) was last week just some days before the lifting

I’m afraid that I have to questions your timeline. I’ve read from from at least two sources that the original interview was conducted in November, 2008, fully two months before the excommunications were lifted, suggesting, perhaps, as a few priest acqaintances of mine in the Society have suggested, that that portion of the interview was aired deliberately to coincide with the papal decree. A “setup” in other words.

 

[anjoh66]

I’m afraid that I have to questions your timeline. I’ve read from from at least two sources that the original interview was conducted in November, 2008, fully two months before the excommunications were lifted, suggesting, perhaps, as a few priest acqaintances of mine in the Society have suggested, that that portion of the interview was aired deliberately to coincide with the papal decree. A “setup” in other words.

I guess we misunderstood each other, yes i know that the interview was conducted at all saints day which is November 1st and the program was aired at the 21st January.

Yes it smells like a setup, but that arises another question:

How could they know that the Pope was going to lift the excommunications 3 days later.

The program was scheduled to be on air at least 2-3 weeks before the transmission.

I and other catholics with me here in sweden think it was just a unlucky coincidence.

It does really smell a setup as they was very anti catholic and they was also interviewing our bishop about that man Sten Sandmark who was a priest in the swedish national church and then joined SSPX.

They asked the bishop something like: and then he converted to the catholic church and he answered something like: no, he chosed to join another group, not our church.

So that looks very strange if the bishop say one thing and a few days later the vatican says something else. But of course he was also interviewed in november, and we dont know how much they cut that interview because his appereance was just 2-3 times very shortly each time.

 

[oldmass]

yes i know that the interview was conducted at all saints day which is November 1st and the program was aired at the 21st January.

So then, we’re clear on that point. I didn’t know that it was November 1, 2008. That would be a period of time between the live interview and the excerpt, aired in late January, of almost three months. (I was thinking earlier more in terms of two months.)

How could they know that the Pope was going to lift the excommunications 3 days later.

There was plenty of advance notice from reliable sources that this lifting of the excommunications was going to happen in about a week from the time the reports started circulating.

The program was scheduled to be on air at least 2-3 weeks before the transmission

.
How do you know that?

I and other catholics with me here in sweden think it was just a unlucky coincidence

Perhaps so. However, there are plenty of Catholics following the story and the flow of events who are beginning to suspect that it was a setup. I certainly do.