Bishop Williamson's latest newsletter 10 August, 2013



<p align="justify">link

Number CCCXV (315)
27 July 2013


When people wish to defend the very bad Doctrinal Declaration (DD) officially submitted by the Society of St Pius X to the Roman authorities in mid-April of last year as the basis for a practical agreement between Rome and the SSPX, they will often argue that since Rome refused the DD, the DD is of no further interest and may be forgotten. But in this month’s issue of the “Recusant”, newly arisen magazine of the Resistance in England, there appears a contrary argument which deserves careful attention. Here it is, either quoted directly from the original, or summarized:--

“The DD, as both its name and its contents make clear, is a statement saying that a number of doctrinal positions on questions of the greatest importance in the present crisis in the Church are acceptable to the SSPX. The problem is that several of the positions expressed in the DD are not acceptable.” For instance the SSPX’s General Chapter of last July was told by a leading theologian of the SSPX that “This Declaration is (...) profoundly ambiguous and sins by omission against the duty to denounce clearly the principal errors which are still raging within the Church and are destroying the faith of Catholics. As it stands, this Declaration gives the impression that we would accept the ‘hermeneutic of continuity’.”

“The harm done by the DD is therefore that of a doctrinally dubious public statement. Nor has it, as such, been “withdrawn” or “renounced”. In fact Bishop Fellay consistently refuses to admit that there is anything doctrinally dubious about his Declaration. At the very most he admits to having tried to be “too subtle”, but he does not admit that such subtlety is highly objectionable in matters pertaining to the defence of the Faith. Bishop Fellay complains that the whole problem is that he “has not been properly understood” even by theologically very skilled members of the SSPX. He allows, among others, Fr Themann in the USA to defend the Declaration in public conferences that have been recorded and are being distributed among the faithful.”

It is true that matters might have been worse if Rome had accepted the DD, but that does not lessen the standing damage wrought by the DD’s manifestation of what is doctrinally acceptable to the SSPX. For if Bishop Fellay says that he “withdraws” and “renounces” the DD, he certainly seems to mean no more than that it was inopportune at that moment, as being liable to cause division in the SSPX. “He has never as much as suggested that the DD is doctrinally dubious and unacceptable. And that is where the real issue has been all along, and that is the issue that is far from being solved: the Superior General seems to refuse to make any unambiguous profession of the SSPX’s position.”

In conclusion, the scandal caused by the DD has still not been repaired “Trying to downplay the seriousness of the matter for the purpose of maintaining or regaining peace and quiet among the faithful risks encouraging the mentality that doctrine does not matter all that much, as long as things run smoothly and we can keep the true Mass, etc..” Such downplaying will only make the scandal worse (End of the article in the “Recusant”).

This article states very moderately the problem of the DD not being publicly recanted or retracted by Bishop Fellay. But how can any Catholic Congregation keep and serve the Truth when it is led by a Superior who so obstinately plays at ducks and drakes with the Truth ? If the SSPX is a lifeboat, either it gets rid of this deluded Captain who constantly seeks to drill holes in the floor of the lifeboat, or the SSPX turns into a deathboat. May God in his mercy open the SSPX’s eyes.

Kyrie eleison.


Number CCCXIV (316)
3 August 2013


Besides arguing that the Doctrinal Declaration of mid-April last year was refused by Rome and so is of no further interest, people claiming that there has been no significant change in the Society of St Pius X also resort to the three bishops’ recent Declaration of June 27, which was obviously designed to reassure people that the SSPX lifeboat is undamaged and still perfectly seaworthy. However, souls wishing not to drown need to take a closer look.

It is the 11th paragraph which has become notorious. In brief, the bishops here state that they intend in the future to follow Providence, whether Rome soon returns to Tradition, or it recognizes explicitly the right and duty of the SSPX to oppose in public the Conciliar errors. Now this “whether” clause is out of the question because nothing short of a divine intervention is going to make the enemies of God, firmly established within the Vatican, let go of their Council. We come to the “or” clause. What can the bishops have meant by Rome “explicitly recognizing” the “right and duty” of the SSPX to oppose the Council ?

The obvious meaning is that Rome would grant to the SSPX some official status within the mainstream Church, or some form of canonical regularisation. Some such recognition is obviously what the SSPX leaders have been striving for ever since they adopted the ideas of the Parisian think-tank, GREC, well over ten years ago. But when those leaders in April of last year largely accepted Rome’s terms for such a recognition, they created such a storm of protest within the SSPX that they were forced to pretend that they no longer want any such recognition based on the mid-April terms. Then what can the “or” clause of June 27 mean ?

Within a few days the French District Superior put to them exactly that question. He was told that the “or” clause does not necessarily entail any official recognition, but merely the eventuality of a weak but Catholic Pope being on the one hand Catholic enough to recognize the SSPX’s “right and duty”, etc., but on the other hand too weak and isolated within Rome to be able to impose on the Romans any official recognition, etc.. And the District Superior at least appeared to be content with this answer when he immediately transmitted it to the priests of his District.

Well, knock me over with a feather ! Firstly, who, just reading the text of June 27, could ever have guessed that this was what the bishops had in mind ? And secondly, what in the text of June 27 excludes a range of other possibilities that the bishops would accept in the name of “following Providence” ? Given that on June 17, 2012, Bishop Fellay wrote to Benedict XVI that he would continue to do all he could to pursue a reconciliation between Rome and the SSPX, what in the text of June 27 excludes the cunning Romans eventually making to the bishops such an offer of reconciliation that – always in the name of “Providence” – they could not refuse ?

Good luck to anyone who accepts the interpretation of the “or” clause given to the French District Superior. However, there are many of us who will remain unconvinced that the leadership of the SSPX has given up on its mad dream of reconciling irreconcilables. Until clear proof to the contrary, we will assume that those leaders remain, however unwittingly, intent upon turning the SSPX lifeboat into a deathboat. And when everyone drowns, they will make it all the ocean’s fault !

Kyrie eleison.


7 August 2013


Author’s preface --

Poor little me ! In Spanish just appeared
From a colleague, a list of countless reasons why
One crazy English bishop must be feared
As an enemy of the Faith. “Oh dear !” say I.

For if I do not answer, then, says he,
That proves me guilty. So, for better or worse,
Let me defend that Brit, but in carefree,
And not too serious, stichomythic verse.


The Resistance started well before last year.
It’s true, and those who blazed the trail are dear.

The harm was there. For years you did not speak.
One always hopes the harm will never peak.

You praised the Motu Proprio – Roman trick !
It’s true. To see the good I was too quick.

You spoke not when good colleagues were expelled.
Their cause, but not their persons, I upheld.

You spoke up on Six Million – with what gain ?
A substitute religion’s harm is plain.

You think you draw right-wingers ? No hope there !
Of their salvation do you quite despair ?


You tell us very little of your past.
Persons and personalities come last.

Winchester College served the bad Empire.
Elsewhere yourself its teaching you admire.

Your university was a real spies’ nest.
The spying had for me no interest.

Your guru, Malcolm Muggeridge, was a mole.
He died a Catholic. Truth was his main goal.

Fabians are wolves, in skins of sheep disguised.
He was no Fabian. Truth he recognized.

The new religion was all he ever knew.
Deeply he thought and prayed. His heart was true.


An agent of the new religion you are !
Not if Archbishop Lefebvre is my lodestar.

Schmidberger, you – two pincers of one crab !
Go tell him that ! He’ll say “Idiotic blab !”

You talk so tough, but just to keep Trads mod.
Well, judging by the fruits, that’s rather odd.

Your eccentricity is just a mask.
To poison Catholics ? Them you need to ask.

British subversion – that’s the key to you.
Subvert the Devil is what I hope to do.

As Seminary Rector good men you drove out.
Most chose to leave. Few did I ever rout.

Spying and the use of terror marked your rule.
Smart seminarians thought me rather a fool.

You helped to expel the Nine, good men and true.
But to th’Archbishop’s line they would not hew.



Your coat of arms – a rose upon a cross !
Therefore I’m Rosicrucian ? -- I’m at a loss !

No, no ! The rose obliterates Our Lord !
Heavens above ! And what, the lion and sword ?

Venice, Venetian usurers they do show.
And where was Sarto Cardinal ? Do you know ?

Anyway, you share the rose of M I 5.
And so for British Intelligence I live ?


Papal infallibility you deny.
Outside Tradition he cannot work, say I.

Your “re-incommunication” you did greet.
With sweetie-pies one can need to be sweet.

Pope Ben’dict knew not what he did, you say.
A total world in error holds much sway.

You say one Pope can rule two churches. How ?
As one hand could hold apple and rot, right now.

You love Maria Valtorta’s crazy work.
That accusation is one I will not shirk.

All kinds of apparitions make you enthuse.
St Paul said, “Sift, and keep what’s good.” That’s news ?

New rites of Holy Orders you defend.
On the edge of invalidity they’re penned.

Schmidberger, you, here bent the Archbishop’s mind.
Cath’lic theology makes no-one blind.



Of Cath’lic Latin America you’re no friend.
In Argentina five years did I spend.

Cath’lic Resistance you just undermine.
Let time be judge. Its judgment will be mine.

Resistance into a sheer dead end you lead.
I lead it not, despite how many plead.

The Apocalypse is a constant theme of yours.
Our terrible times must give to all of us pause.

You’re British ! English ! What more need be said ?
When I love not my country, shoot me dead !



Your abuse, dear Father, I take not amiss.
I pray we meet in everlasting bliss.
But while my anger you may not have stirred,
Be careful of God -- He judges every word.

RNW, London, 7 August, 2013.

Number CCCXVII (317) 10 August 2013
________________________________________REAL CANONISATIONS ?

“What do you think of Pope Francis’ intention to “canonise” John-Paul II and John XXIII next spring ? Is it not a way of “canonising” Vatican II ? And does that not raise the question of authority, given that all the manuals of theology prior to Vatican II teach that the Pope is infallible when he pronounces a canonisation ?” Such was the serious question (slightly modified) put to me recently by a journalist of Rivarol. I answered along these lines:--
The determination shown by the heads of the Conciliar Church to canonise the Conciliar Popes demonstrates the firm will of the enemies (at least objective) of God to be done with the Catholic religion and to replace it with the new religion of the New World Order. Thus to a Newchurch correspond Newsaints to be fabricated by a process of canonisation which has been dismantled and “made new”. As is always the case with modernism, the words remain the same but the content of the words is quite different. Therefore Catholics who have the true Faith need not worry one little bit whether these Newcanonisations are infallible or not. They are proceeding from the Newchurch, which is a dummy of the Catholic Church.
But then what is this dummy ? That is a delicate question, because one easily gets accused of being a “sedevacantist”, which is a word that nowadays frightens Traditionalists almost as much as the word “anti-semitic”. But what we need is to concentrate on reality by “judging just judgment and not according to the appearance”, as Our Lord says (Jn. VII, 24). We must not let ourselves be misled by appearances, by emotions or by words. Today for instance, are not schools becoming centres of unlearning instead of learning, hospitals places of killing instead of healing, police instruments of oppression instead of protection, and so on ?
Thus by what Sister Lucy called a process of “diabolical disorientation”, the churchmen have become agents of lying instead of the Truth. They have allowed their minds and hearts to be taken over by the ideas and ideals of the Revolution, that radical and universal uprising of modern man against his God and Creator. Yet these objective traitors (they can still mean in their hearts to be serving God – Jn. XVI, 2) are still churchmen in the sense that nobody else than they is “sitting on the chair of Moses”, in Our Lord’s words (Mt.XXIII, 2). The Pope is sitting there.
In other words the dummy Church in question is the Church occupied not by men who are not churchmen, but by churchmen whose hearts and heads are occupied by more or less of a new religion which is absolutely not Catholic. But notice the “more or less”. Just as rot does not take over an apple all at once, so the dummy church, or the Newchurch, may be in the process of eclipsing the Catholic Church, but within it are still some bishops, many priests and a host of layfolk who can have kept the Catholic Faith up till now. They are on a slippery slope, highly dangerous for their faith, but one cannot say that they are outside of the true Church. God knows.
So when it comes to the authorities of the Newchurch, I would treat their authority as one does that of a family father who has gone temporarily mad. One pays no more attention to his madness than to be watching out for the moment when it comes to an end, but in the meantime one does not cease loving him or even respecting the authority intrinsic to his fatherhood. So help me God.

Kyrie eleison.