The SSPX on Bp. Williamson

John Schwenkler     January 27th, 2009     
Share|

Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X and another one of the bishops whose excommunication was rescinded this past Saturday, releases a statement on Richard Williamson:

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.

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.

Share|
     Filed under: religion

6 Responses to “The SSPX on Bp. Williamson”

  1. Robert Cheeks, on January 27th, 2009 at 6:05 pm Said:

    Thanks for the info John. From what I’ve read by the SSPX I do agree with their mission and their opinion of Vactican II.
    One more query: Could you write a post on the Catholic Church’s position on the concept of the “co-redemptrist,” I may have mis-spelled!Is it doctrine/dogma or somebody’s opinion?

  2. John Schwenkler, on January 27th, 2009 at 6:09 pm Said:

    RC: Re. “co-redemptrix”, I can’t do better than Wikipedia:

    The concept of Co-redemptrix refers to an indirect or unequal but important participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption. She gave free consent to give life to the redeemer, to share his life, to suffer with him under the cross and to sacrifice him for the sake of the redemption of humankind.

    Co-Redemptrix has not been formally defined as a dogma, although petitions for declaring it (along with Mediatrix) a dogma have been submitted to the pope by various Cardinals and bishops. It would become a fifth Marian dogma if approved by the Holy See.

    My decidedly laymanish understanding has always taken this to be a largely verbal dispute: obviously there is some sense in which Mary “importantly participated” in Christ’s redeeming work, and so the word can be used just fine to express that. But obviously there’s the potential to be misleading or to get people unnecessarily upset, etc. etc. Maybe one of the Credo bloggers could do a better job with this than I?

  3. d, on January 27th, 2009 at 8:38 pm Said:

    Pretty dramatic turnaround–SSPX’s initial responses, before the excommunications were revoked, were a lot more defiant.

    http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-williamson_to_be_charged.htm
    http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-0123-bishop_fellay.htm

  4. John Schwenkler, on January 27th, 2009 at 10:42 pm Said:

    Pretty dramatic turnaround–SSPX’s initial responses, before the excommunications were revoked, were a lot more defiant.

    How so? To be honest, these two documents seem to have a pretty similar tone to the one I excerpted above.

  5. Petellius, on January 28th, 2009 at 5:13 pm Said:

    Mr. Schwenkler:

    You are right that the tone is roughly the same, though the apology was not bad. But the dramatic difference is this: “For this reason I have prohibited him, pending any new orders, from taking any public positions on political or historical questions.” Williamson was just silenced by his superior (on non-theological issues, at least). That is *huge*.

  6. John Schwenkler, on January 28th, 2009 at 5:15 pm Said:

    Williamson was just silenced by his superior (on non-theological issues, at least). That is *huge*.

    I agree.

« »