BP Williamson Declares Pope Has Lost His Authority

From Bishop Williamson’s latest internet posting..

Yet at Vatican II the official Church gave way to it [liberalism], by for instance declaring (“Dignitatis Humanae”) that every State must protect rather its citizens’ freedom-from civil constraint in the practice of their choice of religion than their freedom-for the practice of the true religion. And now the leaders of a certain religious Society want to put it under the authority of the Vatican II Romans. For the true religion, such action is, as Archbishop Lefebvre called it, “Operation Suicide”. But then liberalism is intrinsically suicidal.

Apparently it is the Bishop’s opinion that the Pope is no longer the primary authority over all Catholics, particularly those attached to the Society of St. Pius X.

Get AQ Email Updates

23 comments on “BP Williamson Declares Pope Has Lost His Authority

  1. “… For the true religion, such action is, as Archbishop Lefebvre called it, “Operation Suicide”. But then liberalism is intrinsically suicidal…”

    I didn’t notice that slight addition – more sadness.


  2. Thinking about this some more – gotta wonder just if this is what H.E. was thinking.

  3. I agree. In a certain sense, the Pope has lost his authority, or at least his credibility–it amounts to almost the same thing, what with his super groovy luv-in at Assisi, his love notes to de Chardin’s cosmic hipster litur-palooza, among other disappointing moves, like the beatification of his predecessor, His Holyness John Elvis Paul II.

    There’s nothing in this Eleison Comments to indicate Bishop Williamson is advocating the s- word, sensationalist headlines notwithstanding.

    Kwitcherbeefin’ about His Excellency, author.

    • Did you just mock John Paul II? Do you realize he is (at the least) a priest of God and so deserves your utmost respect, and that to criticize in this way a priest is a sacrilege? If God did not want him beatified then there simply would be no miracles.

      Prostitutes, tax collectors and people who go to Novus Ordo Masses are getting into Heaven ahead of you.

      • Of course I realized I mocked His super-coolness. He presided over the silent apostasy he himself lamented. What isn’t there to mock? Let’s see…..hmmmm….uhhh…. Sorry. Can’t think of anything.

        Prostitutes, tax collectors and modernist Catholics, who, as Our Lord commanded, have repented and sinned no more most certainly will get to heaven before me, Lana, I agree. Self righteous Internet trolls? Not so much.

        • I am aware of what Pope JP II said and did at Assissi. The Jews also could not understand that the One God had a Son. Luther also thought he knew better than the Pope regarding Indulgences.

          Who are you to judge priests and Popes and set up your own Magisterium as to what is and is not modernism?

          If JP II was wrong, then he was certainly a sinful Pope. Then why does God acknowledge not just his legitimacy but his sanctity in providing miracles?

          However, I do not need these proofs. But you, if you do not believe the words of His Vicar, then believe in the works.

          Sorry about posting this twice. I should have put this in as a reply to yours the first time.

          This is only the third or fourth time I have posted in any blog, and also my last. My time is better spent just praying for you. Goodbye.

    • Quo

      With all due respect, there is certainly a difference between credibility (a man-centered/emotional thing) and authority which, for the Pope, derives from Jesus Christ. If the Pope asks you to take out the garbage, you are obliged, as a Catholic to do it. If he asks you to sign a document that conflicts, even in your own opinion with the faith, you are obliged not to sign it. But if, in the next breath he asks you to bring him some pizza, you are again obliged to obey. If he commands you to appear in Rome to discuss the faith you must go and if he tells you you have a new Superior, you must accept that declaration and treat the new Superior in the same way concerning direction that is injurious to the faith. So he never loses ‘part’ of his authority since he never had the authority to ask you to do something contrary to the faith or morals. Although we have had Popes subsequently convicted of heresy, the concept that they ceased to be Pope with Papal Authority is unprecedented in church history.

      • And vinny, with all due and sincere respect, I believe you missed my point entirely. What you said the Bishop said just ain’t what he said, friend.

        But your point is well taken. I pledge to you that if the Pope asks me for pizza (I, as a child of 12, by the way, had no trouble finding Paolo Sesto in Fr Guido Sarducci’s Finda-da-Pope-inna-da-Pizza contest in ’75 or ’76), calls me to Rome to discuss the Faith, take out his trash, or even shine his shoes, I will comply post-haste, and with no qualms whatsoever.

        However, Pope he most certainly is, but his credibility as well as his authority is damaged by his own non-Catholic actions. You say so yourself above, although you skirt the issue, if you don’t mind me saying so.

        your headline remains sensationalistic and inaccurate.

        • I agree completely. This is not the sense of HERW’s commentary I got at all. The comment that vinnyf made about the pope designating a new superior, I didn’t get. Does he mean that the pope has the right to appoint a new superior of the SSPX or is he referring to Msgr. Mueller and Archbishop Di Noia? I was under the impression that religious orders have the right to appoint/elect their own superiors?
          And for Lana, we have every right to decide for ourselves whether a pope, bishop or priest is following the true magisterium of the Church. In fact, it is an absolute duty, since Vatican II.That is why it is extremely important to be informed regarding the 2000 year history of the Church and the de fide teachings that cannot be changed by anyone, ever, at any time. This is exactly why most went along with the changes of Vatican II. They didn’t know their Faith.
          I don’t believe that anyone who saves his soul will do it through Vatican II or it’s subsequent magisterium. It will be in spite of it! The conciliar popes have been worse than any popes in history because they have allowed heresy to set itself up in the House of God with the appearance of legitimacy. No matter how immoral some of the popes lives had been in the history of the Church, they did not teach heresy, either implicitly or explicitly. Under the watch of the conciliar popes, Freemasons and Jews have become powerful within the Church herself. How is that to be explained, Lana? What business have those, whose very core beliefs deny Our Lord is God, and whose goals include first and foremost the destruction of Christianity, got with Our Holy Mother Church? We owe nothing to heretics but to pray for them and give them good example. That is true love, not this touchy feely nonsense being passed off as charity. In the words of St. Margaret Clitherow, who was crushed to death slowly in early pregnancy, “I shall not say Amen to your prayers, nor shall you to mine.” That is the way to deal with heretics no matter who they are.
          St. John, the Apostle of Love, urged his disciples to leave the public baths with him when the heretic Cerinthus arrived in very animated words saying, “Let us flee, lest the bath fall in while Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is there.”

          • I plead guilty to the sensational headline. +HE statement that the SSPX is not currently under the authority of the Pope must mean the Pope does not have authority over at least some Catholics. The accuracy is appropriately inaccurate to +HE’s statement of “V2 Romans”, as if he is afraid to say that the the Pope is the problem.

            And as I said to Quo, his authority is absolute in matters of faith and morals .. he can’t lose that.

            Also, as Pope, he can give +Bp Fellay a new boss.

            • But vinny you yourself do not grant the Pope absolute authority in Faith and Morals. If you did, you would not go to SSPX Chapels. You would embrace liberalism, ecumenism, religious liberty, etc ad nauseum. Because that is what the Pope is teaching. If you insist he has absolute authority and yet you reject these contradictions, how can you explain the seeming hypocrisy? His authority is either absolute, or it isn’t. Which is it?

              • I don’t think that my attachment to the SSPX puts me at odds with the Pope in Faith or Morals because he has not declared that it is contrary to the faith or morals for a layman to assist at an SSPX chapel. If he declared it to be mortal sin to accept sacraments from the Society, the all bets would be off. He certainly could do it, but he hasn’t done it, in my opinion, because he knows that the SSPX is on solid grounds in both faith and morals. It is a fine but important point but keep in mind the meaning of the phrase ‘the teaching of the Pope’. You can’t, in essence, consider everything the Pope says as rising to the level of infallible and incontrovertible truth. In fact, to my knowledge, no post-conciliar Pope has defined or designated any such teaching. So basically, it falls under the category of the personal opinion of the Pope, which all Catholics should accept in deference to his office EXCEPT where that conflicts with the previously defined truths which the church has designated as infallibly promulgated. As far as the Council goes, since, by Rome’s insistence, it doesn’t conflict with the magisterium up until 1962, then I should be able to believe what the church taught prior to the Council and take or leave what the Council says as either good or not-good pastoral guidance since no new faith and/or no newly promulgated infallible dogma came from it.

                Regardless of how much liberalism, ecumenism, religious liberty, etc the Pope espouses at Temples, Assisi, mosques, or wherever, none of that rises to the level of dogma that we need to espouse to be considered in union with the soul and body of the Catholic Church.

                Does that make sense?

                • The last paragraph of course makes sense vinny, and I do agree with you up to a point.

                  I have to ask you though Vinny: you say “all bets would be off.” WhAt would you do if the Pope declared all but diocesan or NO religious orders were off-limits? I know it’s a stretch, but what would you do?

                  • Unfortunately, I don’t think it is much of a stretch at all. In that case, I would disobey the order based on the fact that it goes against my Roman Catholic faith to attend the Pauline Mass and subject my family to the faith it teaches and is taught by what one typically finds in the diocesan parishes.

          • I think that something that is widely misunderstood is that the Society is not a religious order. They don’t have that status in the Church. They don’t really have the rights of an order that they take on for themselves.

            They are a pious union of Priests. They do not claim to be a religious order.

  4. Lana, for your own peace of mind ( and ours ), please go read Pascendi, the Oath Against Modernism ( which J23, P6, JPI, JPII and B16 ALL solemly swore to uphold on the day each was made priest! ) and then take a video tour of some of the worst examples OF Modernism imaginable – at Assisi, in papal visits to synagogues and mosques, pagan “worship” sites, at Novus Ordo “events”, etc.

    Then get back to us.

    Oh, and look up the meaning of the term “job description”, too.

    Thank you.

    • One last comment before I leave for my EF Mass…. speaking of Assissi, what Pope John Paul II was doing was showing that he revered those elements in the books of other religions that were true. Similarly to how Paul lauded the statue to the Unknown God and explained to them Who it was. This is what he explained so beautifully in Dominus Ieusus, which I ask you to reread with a heart open, and see there the Sacred Heart and the Pope’s open arms to the joyous entry of all God’s people into the one true Church. An entry which will not occur so long as we say, we are right, you are completely wrong, there is nothing good about you, and you are going to hell. Which is not true, even as Pius XI wrote.

      • Acknowldging, as VIi says, that those who are saved is not ‘very often’…… BTW, I was converted back to the Church through a Protestant book. i am sure JP II would have kissed the elements of Truth in it which brought about my reversion. Love knows how to find the Beloved wherever He is hiding. God bless you. Amd now, this really is my last post.

  5. I am aware of what Pope JP II said and did at Assissi. The Jews also could not understand that the One God had a Son. Luther also thought he knew better than the Pope regarding Indulgences.

    Who are you to judge priests and Popes and set up your own Magisterium as to what is and is not modernism?

    If JP II was wrong, then he was certainly a sinful Pope. Then why does God acknowledge not just his legitimacy but his sanctity in providing miracles?

    However, I do not need these proofs. But you, if you do not believe the words of His Vicar, then believe in the works.

    However, I do not need these proofs. But you, if you do not believe the words of

  6. Sorry, my ipad malfunctioned on that last line.

    i did not get the reference to job descriptions.

    I am sorry, but I cannot bear to see this kind of sacrilege against a priest. I have also read on this blog some highly uncharitable remarks against current cardinals. if my son said anything like that against any priest I would wash his mouth with soap. Even if a priest sins, he is still God’s chosen and as such deserves our respect.

    Read how David refused to harm Saul, because he was ‘the Lord’s anointed’, even when God delivered him ino his hands.

    Go read The Sinner’s Guide.

    • Lana, you probably didn’t understand gpm’s job description reference because you have not understood the 2000 year history of the Church. St Paul tells us to test all things. Very little these past 50 years pass the test. Churches are empty. Bishops conferences ask the Pope if he is in communion with them.

      The difference between whom Our Lord chose to eat with and with whom the conciliar Popes eat with, is that Jesus is God, Who told His companions to “go and sin no more.” Never did He in its His companions to continue in their errors and sins, and be the best errers and sinners they can be.

      Big difference, dear heart. And I pray one day you will understand that difference.

  7. I am saddened by the fact that +Wiliamson has apparently left the Fraternity that ++Lefebrve created and I do not think he should set himself up against the Fraternity’s leadership. That said, his concerns speak for many that feel disenfrancished by the Fraternity as far as relations with Rome are concerned. Is there no room for unity within the Fraternity itself? One could ask the same question of the Church. It appears to me that the Fraternity is playing into the hands of those who sow division, speaking of the modernists of course.

Leave a Reply