Now, for the random quotes that struck me:
- “The bureaucracy is spent and tired.” – part of answer to a question about new movements within the Church.
Pope Benedict is often accused of being unduly fixated on Europe, ignoring the vitality of the Church in the rest of the world. That accusation won’t stick anymore. He affirms the importance of reviving Catholicism in Europe, certainly, but frequently points to what he has experienced on his trips, and the life which he has seen.
- “You could see that the lesson of the suffering Pope was a magisterium that was even more eloquent than the magisterium of the speaking Pope.” On Pope John Paul II.
- “Are you afraid of an assassination attempt?
No.”
- “It is correct that Williamson is an atypical case in that he was, when you think about, never Catholic in the proper
sense. He was an Anglican and then went over directly to Lefebvre. This means that he has never lived in the
great Church, that he has never lived with the Pope.”
Thanks for beginning to comment again. Really helps to have your insights while working with people considering enterin the Church. Like Benedict you connect with the concerns of regular people (vs academics, journalists, and politicians).
Bishop Williamson did not convert from Anglicanism into the SSPX. He converted in 1971 into the diocesan Church and attended the Brompton oratory as a first seminary. The SSPX also was erected completely legally in the Church under the Pope. It did not have any legal issues until 1976. So the Holy Father got that wrong. It makes one wonder what else about Williamson and the SSPX he’s been mislead about.
I am very surprised that the Holy Father did not know that Bishop Williamson was a Catholic for several years before he entered the FSSPX seminary.
It makes one wonder why Pope Benedict XVI would make such a definite statement as the above without getting the facts correct.
…looking forward to the book
According to Wiki (I know)
Williamson, originally an Anglican, was received into the Catholic Church in 1971. After a few months as a novice at the Brompton Oratory, Williamson left. Williamson is fluent in French, German and Spanish. He became a member of the Society of St Pius X a traditionalist Catholic faction founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1970 in protest of the liberalism of the second Vatican council, He entered the International Seminary of St. Pius X at Ecône Switzerland, and in 1976 he was ordained a priest by Lefebvre.
If the above is true, as an Anglican he had already joined Lefebvre prior to becoming Catholic. If that is correct, the Pope is right.
I’ve not been able to find out exactly when Richard Williamson became a member (Not a Priest) of the SSPX. As stated above, he was ordained a priest in 1976 by Lefebvre. Either he joined just before being received into the Church or soon after, in any case it seems clear to me given all we know about him that his decision to become Catholic had a great deal to do with the founding of the SSPX by Lefebvre a year before his reception into the Church. I think the Pope is basically right.
The Pope is wrong, deal with it. He’s fully capable of being wrong on matters like this. He’s not allowed to calumniate the man though. He actually owes Bishop Williamson an apology.
Quote from a 2006 interview with Bishop Williamson:
http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2006/10/interview-with-bishop-richard-n.html
Question: Apart from music, what else contributed to your conversion?
Williamson: Especially reading the beginning of St. Thomas Aquinas´ Summa Theologiae. A Jesuit friend of the family recommended I read Teilhard de Chardin, but he added that “if I liked the older stuff”, I might try St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas. So I tried the Summa and I loved it. It was so utterly unsentimental. I had been used to religion in gooey washes of mush and slush. And here were great truths as hard as nails. I loved it.
Question: So you converted – to the Novus Ordo Church?
Williamson:Yes, initially. I was received into the Church in early 1971 by a “conservative” priest. He did not agree with Archbishop Lefebvre. But he believed I had a vocation, so he sent me firstly to a diocese and secondly to a religious congregation in London. After I got kicked out for the second time, he said, in his heavy Irish accent, “If you can´t keep your big mouth shut, there´s only one place for you, and that´s Econe.” So that´s where I went.
What were your initial impressions of Econe and the Archbishop?
Williamson: Econe – peace and order. The Archbishop – radiant with peace and order.
Facts:
1) Bishop Williamson did not convert directly into the SSPX
2) Bishop Williamson did live “in the great Church” as the Holy Father frames it.
3) The SSPX was completely legal and official within “the great Church” with no legal conflicts until at least 1974.
Gerard, his own answer to the second question above confirms exactly what I said. He was theologically in step with Lefebvre from the moment he entered the Church, a critic of an institution he had only just joined and as a consequence of which, he was kicked out of a diocese and soon after, a religious congregation also. He never embraced Catholicism in its fullness. Ticking the doctrinal boxes isn’t enough, you must also be obedient. As Francis Cardinal George said recently “The Devil is Orthodox”. Williamson went from being on the fringe in the Anglican Church to being on the fringe in the Catholic Church, I think he made the switch because the Catholic Church provided him with more room to manoeuvre, for a little while anyway. It is very clear to me that the Pope’s point is that Williamson never “properly” immersed himself in the Catholic Church, instead he wished to remain on the precipice.
The Holy Father’s words indicated something that is untrue. His conclusions are based on falsehoods. His conclusions are false. The Pope is wrong.
Williamson was theologically in step with LeFebvre because LeFebvre was in step with St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Pius X and the perennial magisterium of the Church. And, until 1976,the SSPX had no legal issues concerning it, when the liberals began to attack LeFebvre because it was obvious he was starting to grow. Prior to that it was inarguably “in the Great Church” and under papal authority.
The fact that Willimson was critical of liberalism in the diocensan seminaries is evidence of his orthodoxy. He would fit right in, with the priests in Michael Rose’s “Goodbye Good Men.” No one can claim the seminaries weren’t in shambles in the early 1970′s.
The fullness of Catholicism is not servile obedience, it is being able to delineate between true and false obedience. Cardinal George can’t even handle his own unorthodox priests. Fr. Pfleger is “in the Great Church” and “under papal authority.” Who are these prelates who are Catholics in the proper sense? Walter Kasper?, Hans Kung? Fr. Pfleger? Archbishop Dolan? Archbishop Weakland? Is that the immersion the Holy Father thinks produces “proper Catholics?”
(properly Catholic )Archbishop Dolan:
(never properly Catholic) Bishop Williamson:
Would that the Pope would actually take the time to listen to Bishop Williamson.
The Holy Father is wrong. There is no sense in making excuses for him.
That’s it. I’m following Gerard’s magisterium so I too can, finally, be fully Catholic.
Hey, Gerard, where do I have to go to find a Church, a parish, an institution, a society, or whatever, that fully lines up with what you call the real Catholic faith?
“The fullness of Catholicism is not servile obedience, it is being able to delineate between true and false obedience”
Sorry but you’re clearly wrong, it is exactly the above quote that underpins your argument thus far and also undermines your entire case against the Pope.
The Pope does not dispute his becoming Catholic, what he does dispute is the extent to which he ever really embraced (Proper) Catholicism in its fullness. Williamson entered the Church six years after the VII Council ended, we must assume that he had read all the documents and had a good idea of some of the changes on the way, and yet he still entered the “Great Church” but as a protestor. He’d gone from being a protestor in the Anglican Church to being a protestor in the Catholic Church, that’s what the Pope is getting at.
@ David. That’s great. Mocking is so much better than actually dealing with an argument. Are you saying that your parish is perfect in all things?
Balthasar, I’m sorry but you are making excuses for what the Pope said and putting your own interpretation on it.
His conclusion is based on faulty information. His premise is wrong, his conclusion is wrong. That’s all there is to it.
He calumniated Bishop Williamson. It doesn’t matter whether he likes him or not, he’s obligated to make amends to him.
And it’s okay. This isn’t a “gates of Hell will not prevail” scenario, the Church is still indefectible. History is filled with papal missteps and this is one of them.
As far as obedience is concerned, I am correct because I am correctly understanding the Church’s teaching on obedience.
See St. Thomas’ Summa on this subject:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm
See in particular article 5, reply to objection 3.
“Accordingly we may distinguish a threefold obedience; one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey: secondly, perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful: thirdly, indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful.”
And one more point, Williamson’s conversion is a lot more thorough than many, many Anglican converts in the post-conciliar period. Williamson didn’t have any of the concessions given to Protestant today or structures like that setup by the Pope in Anglicanorum Coetibus. He had to abjurre his heresy.
Finally, if we are to take your interpretation of the Pope’s words, we are still not presented with facts but rather an unsupported opinion of the Pope’s. Had the Pope presented something to back up his statement, something integral to Catholicism that Bishop Williamson doesn’t accept, then he might have a case. He didn’t. So he doesn’t have a case. And before you say “Vatican II” please remember that the Holy Father himself in Principles of Catholic Theology said that Vatican II may prove to be a complete waste of time.
I am not saying my parish is perfect; I am saying there is no perfect parish and the one, true Church has always been and always will be infested with, among other things, dreadful prelates like the ones you mentioned, Gerard. I don’t look for perfection in this life.
My impression is that you do, Gerard. That is, if a Church, parish, or society doesn’t live up to your standards then you’ll excoriate it.
@David, What does your impression have to do with the price of eggs? You’ve shifted from mocking to bashing me. You don’t know me from Adam. I haven’t said anything untrue. I’ve backed up my statements with facts.
So, what’s your beef? Are you just lashing out because someone pointed out an action of the Holy Father’s that deserves a rebuke?
The fact that Williamson is a serious Catholic who does know the Catholic faith in its fullness and communicates it better than any of the prelates I’ve mentioned, should be a good thing, but for the fact that the Holy Father made an imprudent and nonsensical judgment on the man based on erroneous information. The Holy Father should have him in charge of seminaries in Rome instead of being mean to the man.
If you’re going to be upset with someone, it should be the Holy Father for saying things that he shouldn’t have said. Say some prayers for him to get his proper bearings.
Oh, Gerard, Gerard. You cannot, I repeat, cannot tell with what emotion or facial expression someone says something in a post. Upset with you? Hardly. Bashing you?! No. But I certainly was mocking you the first time.
You are convinced Williamson has the fullness of the faith. OK. Maybe he does. You say the pope used bad judgement in saying what he did about Williamson. OK. Maybe he did. But are there no dreadful prelates in the SSPX? Do you think that there, and only there, can be found the real Catholic Church?
Seriously, do you think that the one, true Church would have no idiots in the episcopacy? Or wicked men, even? If you do, well, come on – surely you know Christ in complete charge of everything. Even when He is sleeping in the stern of the storm-tossed ship. Keep praying, Gerard, and trust that with one word He will calm the wind and the waves.
In the meantime I hope that you haven’t left the jurisdiction of the Holy Father. Even if, maybe, he made a mistake in regard to Williamson.