SSPX Chapter Update – Bishop Williamson’s exclusion from chapter upheld by 29:9 vote

Rorate Caeli is reporting that Bishop Williamson’s exclusion from the General Chapter has been upheld.

The origin of the leaked information seems to have been the website, accompanied by the following sentence: “Now, as the hardship we have expected nears, the SSPX clergy and faithful will be armed with this information when they make some weighty decisions for their futures and their families.”

This sentence and the following ones, in my opinion indicate a great need to heed the advice of Fr. Couture:

“… It is worth recalling the wise rules of St Ignatius for the Discernment of Spirits, especially the 2nd and 5th rules. The 2nd describes how the devil tempts good souls. The classic signs are: anxiety (ex. what if… ? panic attacks, etc.), sadness, obstacles, false reasons, trouble, and discouragement. We do find all these signs at present in our ranks. It means the devil is nearby “as a roaring lion seeking whom to devour”. But then, we must remember the 5th rule which tells us what to do in times of spiritual desolation: pray, meditate, do penance, and examine yourself! This ought to be our program in this month of June, much better both for us and for our cause than rash judgments and idle gossip….”



UPHELD: Williamson exclusion maintained by SSPX General Chapter

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.

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 measure 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.

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.
Labels: After the talks (Holy See-SSPX)
Posted by New Catholic at 7/12/2012 07:45:00 PM

Get AQ Email Updates

21 comments on “SSPX Chapter Update – Bishop Williamson’s exclusion from chapter upheld by 29:9 vote

  1. Hardly surprising and least of all to +Richard the Lion Hearted, God love him.

    Nevertheless, whoever is playing the role of town cryer in Econe might want to look at how the “vote” broke down, between those appointed by certain interests and those whose interests were pointed in the direction of “quod accepit tradere.”

    Again and again and yet again, it must needs be said that what this entire issue has always been about began with the CLEAR WARNINGS posted by great Thomistic thinkers such as Msgr. Fenton, Fr. Hanahoe and Fr. Greenstock back in the 1950s.

    Modernists? Anathema sit!

    • tradical on said:

      The vote was ‘secret’ so the wretch who broke his vow of silence (assuming it wasn’t Bishop Williamson since he isn’t at the Chapter he wouldn’t have been bound in the same manner) will have to expose himself in order to find out how everyone voted.

    • The vote was made by secret ballot. No one will ever know who voted for or against, unless each individual identifies their vote.

      • tradical on said:

        Understood, but it does not preclude a person from polling the others to see how they voted.

        This would come at the cost of exposing himself.

  2. Perhaps they released the numbers following the vote. That does not violate one’s individual privacy, and is often done in other administrative settings–weren’t the figures released to the voters, for example, at Vatican II?

    • tradical on said:

      I really don’t know. It is possible that the internal correspondence was used. Then again we’d have internal correspondence being published.

  3. By my math, the great backlash against Bishop Fellay that many (mostly internet trolls and dour malcontents) had hoped for simply doesn’t exist.

    • tradical on said:

      My guess is 10% may actually leave based on past ‘issues’. Of course with +Mueller in place this may all be moot.

      Nothing unites so well as a common enemy.

      • True enough, that. Except, “unite” based – now – on what? What else lies ahead but yet another replay of the experiences of the IBP, the FSSP and Campos? By that, I mean the drop of the guillotine blade – now with Mueller commanding the scaffold!!!

        Should the GC come out with a verdict to accept surrender of its principle argument altogether – that Rome had first to convert prior to substantial agreement on some form of an accord – it will designate a grave humiliation against +Galereta and +deMallerais; this, inasmuch as Rome shoved the same – and completely unacceptable!!! – schema offered last September right back at +Fellay recently. If it was unacceptable then, why would it be now – or ever?

        Mon Dieu!

        Fideism in the 1950s led to widespread softening of the intellectual rigor incumbent upon Catholics truly serious about defending the Faith, whole and entire. “All will be well….”

        In the ultimate, eternal sense? Sure!

        In the present and foreseeable future, and while time and means remain to prevent disaster? Not always.

        The valpolicella and gnocci are already being packed into the catering trucks, soon to be enroute to Sunny Nova Roma! Magnifico!

        Der Panzerkardinal und Der Heilege Vater: 1

        Tradition: Nil

        • tradical on said:

          “… drop of the guillotine blade …”
          That all depends on whether or not the Pope was sincere in his desire for regularization etc.

          If not, then it is unlikely that they will proceed and both parties may ‘pull back’ for a while.

          Our part remains the same, prayer, penance, patience.

          • tradical said, “If not, then it is unlikely that they will proceed and both parties may ‘pull back’ for a while.

            Can’t pull back too long. Muller has thrown down a gauntlet:

            Muller said, “Eventually, the “point of no return” is coming and they must decide: Do they wish for the unity of the Church? This includes the acceptance of the form and content of the Second Vatican Council, and the previous and subsequent statements and decisions of the Magisterium. There is no other way.

            • tradical on said:

              We’ll have to watch, pray and see if he lives up to his bluster. He was shut-down once before by Pope Benedict XVI, we’ll have to see what happens in the coming weeks.


              • He was once shut-down, but now has been promoted to President of the CDF???

                As far as the coming weeks, have you already forgotten his statements over the past three weeks?

                • tradical on said:

                  Hi Irish,

                  He was shut-down by the Pope. This is nothing stopping that from happening again, unless he is the Pope ( not a possibility that I want to consider before supper).

                  I have not forgotten his statements at all.

                  The outcome of the Chapter and any communications (private or public) to Rome afterwards will add clarity to where this process is going.

                  I did find it interesting that there was an earthquake centered in the town of the Pope’s summer residence. A warning? Don’t know, might be.

                  • Interesting, Trad. Remember the earthquake at Assisi?

                    • tradical on said:

                      Yep, also the ‘snows’ in Rome – two years in a row. Not unheard of, but rare.

                      It may mean nothing, or for the Pope something. That’s the funny thing about signs, the Pope may know it was meant for him as a sign, we can only speculate.


    Central question: What is the WRITTEN RECORD of His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI concerning HIS ATTITUDE towards the Traditinoalist critique and its proponents?

    Answer: “…THEY MUST BE FIRMLY RESISTED.” ( cf., Catholic Family News website, quoting then-CDF Secty. Ratzinger, and which position, as far as ANYONE RESEARCHING THE MATTER reports has, yet to be retracted. The CFN article was re-published only very recently on the publication’s website. )

    Central Concept: THIS SAME IDEOLOGY, CONDEMNED CONSECUTIVELY BY POPE AFTER POPE – from Pius IX right through Pius XI, but alas!, allowed to breathe, if only under limitations, during the pontificate of Pius XII – AND MOST VOCIFEROUSY OF ALL by the greatest Pope in 500 years, St. Pius X,- has taken hold of the THINKING AND DECISION-MAKING PROCESS INSIDE THE VATICAN, ever since 1962.

    Earlier Warnings: Again, CFN published in recent years, that there were a number of CLEAR WARNINGS AGAINST THE NEW IDEOLOGY prepared by thoughtful, Thomistically-grounded scholars in the late 1950s and early 1960s, theologians such as Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Fr. David Greenstock and Fr. Edward Hanahoe. These thoroughly orthodox writers saw clearly what was threatening the Church, from within, and did all they could to sound the alarm. They were not heeded.

    The result? Behold Rome today… and, very likely, Econe any day now…

    In effect, Pope Benedict, a good, kindly and sincere successor of St. Peter, by his written words and his public actions is, in every objective sense, RESISTING TRADITION and traditionalists themselves wherever and whenever Tradition is found to be in “discontinuity” with the nouvelle theologie so dear to Him and his formative mentors. A number of those same liberals, as was he, were placed on a watch list by Cd. Ottaviani’s Holy Office under Pius XII. Neverlheless, this same contingent was rescued from banishment by liberal hijackers, men like Cd. Frink and Cd. Suenens, who moved with speed and a comprehensive tactical plan sufficient to suppress all resistance and mute their orthodox opponents from day one, in session one, of the council.

    In a sense, there is only one month in the Nervous Ordeal calendar: Whatever month it actually happens to be, it ALWAYS reads “October, 1962” in the mind of the “true believer” tap dancing his way down the corridors of Brave New Church.

    So, just as the Battle of Midway strategically decided the outcome of the War in the Pacific, the opening bell at Vatican II sounded the death knell of traditionalism as an effective and triumphal fighting force within the Catholic Church.

    Of course, there HAD been one recognizable international counter-revolutionary organization which HAD STOOD with tenacious clarity against the destruction of the Church by Her own churchmen.

    But, then….

    • It’s amazing that Cardinal Ottaviani, who served as Pro-Prefect of the CDF from 1966-1968, has since been succeeded by the likes of Joseph Ratzinger, William Levada, and now Gerhard Mueller.

      Hermeneutics of continuity, my apse.

  5. I think a lot of us are making this far more complicated than it needs to be. A few points:

    1. Bishop Fellay has already made it abundantly clear that what was offered last month is NOT acceptable. Unless what came from the CDF has changed or will change, the GC meeting is not going to affect what is essentially a dead letter. Hence everything remains in a holding pattern.

    2. As far as any agreement goes, now or in the future, as long as the Society can keep it’s property, choose its bishops and operate/speak with reasonable freedom that’s all they will ever need and FAR MORE than Archbishop Lefebvre ever asked for. The “Rome must convert” concept is illogical. This restoration will happen from the ground up, not the other way around.

    3. Regardless of what happens, there will be no “split.” Even if there were substantial moral/ideological support (there isn’t), the “tyranny of logistics” would make it utterly impossible.

  6. Hermeneutics, as a term of art, has a specific meaning. Or, at least, it is supposed to have one.

    Not to mention that such is supposed to be the case with every other word in every one of the, what is it?, thousands of tongues, dialects and languages extant today.

    So, what actually takes place when words are misused and, worse, such misuse breaks out of the language engineering laboratory and drifts off on the evening breezes into the clear air, only to later float down through open windows and into the private confines of kitchens, bedrooms, boardrooms and, horror of horrors!, sanctuaries and confessional booths around the globe?

    I think that is what is occuring with this mushminded “concept”, this be-all catch phrase- “hermeneutic of continuity”. It has become one to which can be found clinging for dear life any number of earnest neo-Cath commentators out to put nasty integralist ruffians in their place every time the latter raise embarrasingly unanswerable questions about previously-papally-condemned idiocies such as ecumania, liturgical expressionsim, religious libertarianism or eccleisological marxism.

    After all, if somebody far enough up the progressivist food chain invents a definition, whether to advance a revolution, obfuscate his way out of an intellectual faux pas or he just thinks it sounds cool, who’s to say he shouldn’t? After all, since that particular big fish is a renowned progressivist VIP, it simpy MUST mean something! Even if it doesn’t. Even if it blatantly contradicts all settled prior meaning. Or lexicographical soundness. Or common sense. Doesn’t matter! Deal with it, you ultramontanist, medievalist swine! Peasants!

    So, here we are but tolerated to sit, holding out our little, cracked traditionalist rice bowls, begging a grain or two from passersby as they glare at our hand made signs reminding them that: “Yes, actual history actually DID occur before you were even born!”; “Yes, there WERE educated, wise men long before “American Idol” – even before TV!”; “Once upon a time, ‘forever’ meant just that!” ( and, my personal favorite ) “And so did the phrase: Anathema sit!”

    Too dour? Too little “hope”? Well, perhaps…. since there usually is some bright spot somewhere, isn’t there?

    Fr’instance, had some VIP instead decided to describe this completely upside-down notion that what was once insufferably un-Catholic was now, and for obscure reasons to be fudged over later, somehow, suddenly “Catholic” and in such words as….

    “Bra-a-athers und zeesters, vee today zee zees outflowing of zee new spirit of which mine zooperdooper, great predecessor spoke zo often, ass a form of zee, zo-called- “hemimetabulous-ness of zee impropriety”, you see? Ja! Zat’s eet! Ja, I teenk mein Panzerkardinal offer at zee CDF veel luff zat one!”

    … then we could probably deal with it.

    At least it would seem closer to the truth. “Hemimetabulous” refers to an incomplete metamorphosis, as in the case of a slimy larva that fails to hatch into a handsome mayfly or even a spectacular butterly.

    Which, when you think about it, ain’t all that bad a description of the whole Nervous Ordeal enterprise!

  7. Unfortunately, McDee, I think the matter will be handled with the traditional steel fist inside the velvet glove of diplo-speak…

    There is an element of accuracy in the Hegelianism to which you refer. However, the NO has valid rites and even the SSPX has never said otherwise. So issues there are non-starters.

    However, and in distinction from what I truly hope for and which Serv expressed very clearly, I do expect that your own expectation regarding the bumpiness of the days ahead is just the way matters will play out.

    FWIW, scant attention has yet been given to the very worldly political factors which are not far from all of this, and on all sides.

Leave a Reply