Bishop Richard Williamson of the
Society of St. Pius X says John Paul II was a “good man” and that he doesn’t
have the same religion as his “Pope”
By Bro. Peter
Dimond, O.S.B.
-5/27/05-
The Remnant recently held an interview with Bishop Richard Williamson
of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). The
interview (May 15, 2005 issue) consisted mainly of his thoughts on the election
of Benedict XVI. I will quote portions
of this interview and then interject some comments, but first it is important
to remind the readers of the definition of schism.
Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:
“One who after baptism… rejects the
authority of the Supreme Pontiff or
refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is
a schismatic.”
Schism can be either refusing communion with a
true pope (not an antipope) or refusing
communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the pope. The position of the SSPX acknowledges the
Vatican II “popes” as true popes and holds the Novus Ordo
“bshops” to be Catholic bishops. However, the SSPX operates outside of
communion with this hierarchy, which it considers to be the Catholic
hierarchy. This is clearly a schismatic
position. Now, prescinding from their denial of the salvation dogma, let
me point out that the Society of St. Pius X could have been confused in good faith
about the fullness of what was happening with regard to the Novus Ordo hierarchy for a certain period time – perhaps a number
of years. When the Vatican II apostasy
broke, they justifiably wanted to resist it.
The full ramifications of what was occurring were not very clear to
them. However, after decades, when the dust finally settled, the leaders of the SSPX had to examine their
position and come to the realization that they have no justification for
operating independently of the Novus Ordo hierarchy
if the Novus Ordo hierarchy is, in fact, Catholic. The only reason that they could be
independent of the Novus Ordo hierarchy is if the
Novus Ordo hierarchy has lost the Faith, is not
Catholic, is outside the Church and holds no authority.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30: "Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that
heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are "ipso
facto" deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice,
II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest
heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just
as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.
Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching
of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately
lose all jurisdiction."
But the SSPX, after decades of apostasy taught by
the Vatican II sect, and after decades to examine its untenable position, still
obstinately maintains that the apostate, Novus Ordo
hierarchy is the true Catholic hierarchy!
Yet, it refuses to put itself under their authority and operate in
communion with them. The SSPX’s official position is without any
doubt obstinately schismatic. They
are operating outside of communion with the hierarchy they deem to be the
hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
St. Ignatius of
Antioch, Letter to the Trallians, (A.D. 110): “He that is within the sanctuary
is pure; but he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons
does not have a clean conscience.” (Jurgens, Faith of the
Early Fathers,, Vol. 1:50)
St. Jerome, Commentaries on the Epistle to Titus,
(A.D. 386): “Between heresy and schism there is a distinction made, that heresy
involves perverse doctrine, while schism
separates one from the Church on account of disagreement with the Bishop. (Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2:1371a)
That being said, here are some quotes from Bishop
Williamson’s recent interview with The
Remnant:
Q: What do you think about Cardinal Joseph
Ratzinger being elected to the papacy?
A. Bishop Williamson: I was a little
surprised, at first, because some people had said he wasn’t really in the
running. After that, to tell you the honest truth, I don’t expect a great deal from Rome as it stands. They are too far
gone in the “New Religion,” and the “New Religion” is too radically different
and distant from the True Religion. Rome is Rome, though, and I do
believe there the popes are, and there are the cardinals, and that is where the
official structure of the Church is to be found. But, I’m afraid, for the
defense of the Faith, you’ve got to wait for some grave event to shake Rome
and/or to drive the true cardinals out of Rome to start again somewhere else.
I’m afraid that Rome is too deeply in the grips of the enemies of God.
This, ladies and gentlemen, sums up the completely
ridiculous – and schismatical – position of the SSPX,
which is (for lack of a better description) so obstinately inconsistent that it
is correctly labeled THEOLOGICAL PUKE. Bishop Williamson holds that the Vatican II
religion is a new religion. This,
ladies and gentlemen, means that the religion of the Vatican II Church is NOT
THE CATHOLIC RELIGION. This means that
the MEN WHO LEAD THIS RELIGION ARE LEADERS OF A FALSE, NON-CATHOLIC
RELIGION. They are not Catholics. But the heretic Bishop Williamson holds that
the men who lead this new, non-Catholic religion that is “radically
different” from the “True Religion” are still Catholics, are inside the
Catholic Church, and are the legitimate hierarchy of the Church. This is theological puke from the pit of hell
– especially when we consider that this has been the position of the SSPX for
about 30 years now and they still refuse to change it. Even though they recognize the leaders of
this new religion as Catholics (contradiction 1), Williamson and the SSPX’s
leaders refuse to operate under them (contradiction 2) and thus operate
schismatically. The fact that Bishop
Williamson can continually spew this completely illogical, totally schismatic
garbage year after year, in talk after talk, and the people at the SSPX, The Remnant, Catholic Family News, etc. accept it as Catholic, tells us
something about how little most of them care about the Catholic Faith.
BISHOP WILLIAMSON TELLS US THAT JOHN PAUL II WAS A “GOOD
MAN”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Q: Is the use of the “human dignity”
argument drawn from Karl Rahner’s teaching?
A. Bishop Williamson: Definitely. They’re
centering everything on man. Pope John Paul II centered so much on the human
person. He believed in the human person, he believed in man. And remember what
Jeremiah said: Woe to any person who puts his trust in man. It’s the same, very
much alive with John Paul II. I think
John Paul II was sincere. I think he was a good man, but he was just
deeply mistaken. And I think Pope Benedict XVI is the same kind of man. I
believe he’s decent and sincere, but deeply mistaken.
This
is probably the most evil statement I’ve ever read from a “traditionalist”
leader who claims to be opposed to the Vatican II religion. Bishop Williamson tells us that Antipope John
Paul II, who he knows: kissed the Koran; presided over a new religion; prayed
with devil worshippers; etc.; etc.; etc. – I don’t even want to give the whole
list, as Williamson knows all about it.
This antichrist Bishop Williamson tells us that John Paul II was a “good
man”! This is an outrageous
abomination! This proves that Bishop
Williamson has absolutely no faith.
Bishop Williamson, you are the firstborn of Satan.
St. Ireneaus, Against
Heresies: “Once he [St. Polycarp]
was met by Marcion, who said to him, ‘Do you recognize
me?’ and Polycarp replied, ‘I recognize you as the firstborn of Satan!’”
(Jurgens, Faith
of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:212)
I’m
at a loss for words. I don’t know what
to write to attempt to communicate how evil the above statement from Bishop
Williamson is. It means that the entire
Catholic Faith which John Paul II continually rejected (but was still a “good
man”) is utterly meaningless; that Jesus Christ, whom John Paul II continually
rejected by endorsing false religions, is utterly meaningless; that the entire
Traditional Catholic Faith is utterly meaningless; that the Traditional Mass
(which John Paul II forbade except where it could counter independent chapels’
Latin Masses) is utterly meaningless; that basically every man is a good man
and is saved, since if John Paul II was a “good man” then everyone is
good. This shows us that beneath all of
the externals of the SSPX, beneath all the pomp and ceremony, there is a very
dark reality that is reflected in their absolutely heretical positions on the
Vatican II sect and the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
1 Kings
15:22-23: “And Samuel said: Doth the
Lord desire holocausts and victims, and not rather that the voice of the
Lord should be obeyed? For obedience is better than sacrifices:
and to hearken rather than to offer the fat of rams. Because
it is like the sin of witchcraft to rebel: and like the crime of idolatry, to
refuse to obey. Forasmuch as thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord hath
also rejected thee from being king.”
This passage of scripture concerns obedience to the
Word of God – faith in His revealed word.
The chilling admonition above in 1 Kings 15 was made by the prophet
Samuel to King Saul, who had offered sacrifice in direct violation of God’s
word. Saul had attempted to please God
with his sacrifice, while he was simultaneously contravening God’s spoken word. King Saul’s sacrifice, therefore, was
completely rejected by God and Saul himself was cast off by the Lord. The words spoken by Samuel to King Saul could
be said to the multitude of phony “Catholics,” especially the obstinate
supporters of the SSPX and other false “traditionalists” who believe that
non-Catholics can be saved, who reject God’s voice (His revealed dogma that
there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church) or who equate good with evil
– the Church of Christ with the Vatican II religion – or who hold that
apostates can be “good men.” And because
they don’t accept His Word on the truths of the Faith, and confuse the truth of
God with a lie, while they think they can please Him by offering sacrifice
at the Traditional Latin Mass, their sacrifice at the Traditional Latin
Mass will not profit them and will be rejected by God. Because they reject the “voice of the Lord” –
the hard truths of Jesus Christ – and put the Mass (the Sacrifice) before the
Faith (obedience to His word), God utterly rejects their sacrifices and
offerings.
The
leaders of the Society of St. Pius X are not Catholics. Bishop Williamson is a not a Catholic. He is used by the devil to mislead
Traditional Catholics. The SSPX
undoubtedly does some good things and not every single person who goes
there is a heretic or a schismatic. But
the SSPX also does evil things – such as publishing books which teach that
souls can be saved in false religions – and some of their official positions
are absurd, wicked, not Catholic and lead people into schism and heresy and
therefore to hell. Many of the people
who go there have fallen into heresy and schism as a result of their non-Catholic
positions. Those who continue to support
them after becoming aware of information such as this will go to hell. Further, many of those who haven’t seen the
heretical positions of the SSPX refuted are still being led into schismatic and
heretical beliefs, such as that the Church can officially teach error and
“canonize” incorrectly. These people are
being led to reject what they deem to be “the Catholic Church” as an erroneous
body which needs the SSPX’s correction.
Remember,
Bishop Williamson is also the same man who, when Antipope John Paul II
“canonized” Josemaria Escriva,
told us (as did Fr. Peter Scott) that canonizations are not infallible anymore!
Bishop Richard Williamson of SSPX, Dec. 6,
2002: “Therefore, for Pope John XXIII to have been truly a Blessed, and for
Msgr. Escriva to have been truly a Saint, the Second
Vatican Council would have to have been a true Council, or a Council true to
Catholic Tradition. Which
is ridiculous, as at least regular readers of this Letter know. Yet are not Catholic canonizations
infallible?”
“Indeed before Vatican II,
Catholic theologians agreed that canonizations (not beatifications) of Saints
were virtually infallible... But since Vatican II...
there has followed such a flood of canonizations under John Paul II, that the
whole process of canonizing has lost, together with its solemnity, any
likelihood of infallibility. Indeed,
how can John Paul II intend to do anything infallible, or therefore do
it, when he so often acts and talks, for instance about ‘living tradition’, as
though truth can change?
“So this or that Saint ‘canonized’ by John
Paul II may in fact be in heaven, even Msgr. Escriva,
God knows, but it is certainly not
his ‘canonization’ by this Pope which can make us sure of that fact. Nor need we then feel obliged to venerate any
of the post-Vatican II ‘Saints’.... Similarly Church infallibility does
not mean that the Church’s teachers will never teach untruth by, for instance,
dubious ‘canonizations’, only that, amongst other truths, the truth of the
Christian sanctity will never be totally falsified or silenced... Obviously,
Padre Pio was an entirely traditional Saint, and we
need not doubt the worthiness of his canonization. However, it might be advisable not to profit
by his Newchurch ‘canonization’ to venerate him
officially or in public, insofar as that might be liable to give to other Newchurch ‘canonizations’ a credit which is not due to
them.”
This
is totally heretical and reveals that Williamson has no Faith whatsoever in
Papal Infallibility or the Church of Jesus Christ.
St. Alphonsus
Liguori, The
Great Means of Salvation and Perfection, 1759, p. 23:“To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is
heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and
others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the
Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible
influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.”
Here
is more from the interview with Williamson:
Q: One, would you explain what you mean by
the “New Religion” and, two, do you think Pope Benedict is consciously or
willingly promoting the “New Religion”?
A. Bishop Williamson: The “New Religion”
starts from man and is centered on man. The “New Religion” starts from the
proposition that God, and the idea of God, is too strange for modern man, and
so, to get through to modern man, we must start from man. That’s what’s called
from Karl Rahner the anthropological term, the “turn
towards man.” And Fr. Ratzinger, at the time of the Second Vatican Council, was
closely tied to Karl Rahner, a close disciple. So,
the young Joseph Ratzinger was soaked in this brand new theology. For instance,
instead of saying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God from eternity who took a
human nature, it [the New Religion] says that Jesus Christ is the man who was
such a perfect man that he could be called the Son of God.
Q: Is that what Karl Rahner
said?
A. Bishop Williamson: Yes, that’s Rahner and Fr. Ratzinger. It’s an
absolute revolution. And it has, deep down, nothing to do with the Catholic
Faith. It’s an attempt by Catholic priests who want to say something that will
be acceptable and understandable by modern man—an attempt by these priests to
re-write, to empty out all the bottles, all the dogmas, of their old content
and re-fill the dogmas with brand new content that will be acceptable to modern
man. And that new content is coherently
a system that starts with man, centers on man, and finishes with man. Hence,
the New Mass is said in the language of man and no longer in Latin. And it’s
said with the priest turned towards man, and no longer towards God. Those are
two concrete examples of the “turn towards man.” That is, briefly, the “New
Religion.” Is Cardinal Ratzinger
conscious of all this? I
believe he’s in good faith. I
can easily be wrong. I believe that he and his like, sincerely believe the
“Old Religion,” the old Catholic religion, was out of touch with modern man,
and they sincerely believe that, whatever the Catholic religion is, it’s got to
be in touch with the men of its time or get in touch with the men of its time.
This is outrageous. Bishop Williamson tells us again and again
that the leaders of this new, non-Catholic religion – which accepts false
religions, etc., etc., etc. – are in good faith. When he says this, he again condemns himself
as a schismatic. For if one can be in
good faith while not only adhering to the new religion, but leading
it, then Williamson is showing us again that he has no excuse for not being in
communion with this hierarchy.
Q. If you were talking to a run-of-the-mill
Novus Ordo Catholic about the dogmas being spilled
and refilled, how would you explain that to him? And explain the point about
the Church being inverted?
A. Bishop Williamson: I would quote some of
the statements from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: I think he’s a decent representative of a crazy mistake. I do
believe he’s a decent man. But the question is not whether he’s decent
or sincere. The question is, what is he actually saying? And is he actually
defending the Faith?
Bishop Williamson and the official position of the
SSPX hold that the Catholic Church has become a “crazy mistake.” In their bad will, they refuse to acknowledge
that the Vatican II antipopes and the Vatican II/Novus Ordo
bishops are not part of the Catholic Church.
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928:
“During
the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been
contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears
witness: ‘The Bride of Christ cannot be
made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the
sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.’”
REGARDING INDEPENDENT CHAPELS WHICH
ACKNOWLEDGE BENEDICT XVI AS THE POPE
Finally, I would like to say a few words to all
those people who hold that Benedict XVI is the pope and who attend and support
independent traditional chapels – which are independent of the hierarchy of the
Novus Ordo bishops, such as Fr. Wathen’s
chapel, Fr. Pulvermacher’s, etc. If you want to obstinately assert (after you’ve seen the evidence and the
arguments) that you are not a sedevacantist and that
you hold that Benedict XVI is the Pope, while at the same time you support an
independent chapel such as those named above, then you are acknowledging yourself to be a schismatic. You are outside of communion with the
hierarchy you deem to be the Catholic hierarchy. You also probably reject the “canonizations”
declared by John Paul II, such as his “canonization” of the modernist heretic Josemaria Escriva. You also will almost surely reject the
“canonization” of John Paul II himself which Benedict XVI will soon
declare. You have fallen into schism;
you blaspheme the Catholic Church and you are outside the Catholic Church, all because you have refused to accept that
heretics are not Catholics and don’t hold authority in the Church – the
present sedevacantist reality. Don’t tell me that he is “the pope” while you
attend a chapel that is outside of his authority and shun the chapels under his authority. Don’t tell me that he is the “pope” unless
you are prepared to go to the Indult Mass or the New Mass and have true unity
with this heretic by denouncing the independent chapels as outside the
communion of the Church. Stop mocking
God, because unless you change your position – and if you continue to support
such heretical priests – you will go to hell.
Also, we hear from many people, especially at the
SSPX, that they are just laypeople who cannot get involved in these issues,
such as the sedevacantist issue. They
just go to Mass at the SSPX and support them and try to be good, spiritual
people who live the Faith. This is the
response of many SSPX supporters when confronted by sedevacantist
arguments. Okay, if that’s the case – if
you don’t have the authority to get involved with these issues and you are just
a “simple layman who goes to Mass” and tries to live the Catholic Faith – THEN
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO ATTEND THE SSPX OR ANOTHER INDEPENDENT CHAPEL. IF YOU ARE TOO SIMPLE TO “FIGURE THIS STUFF
OUT” AND YOU CANNOT GET INVOLVED WITH THESE ISSUES – IF THAT IS YOUR POSITION
(WHICH GOD FORBID) – THEN ACCEPT YOUR LOCAL NOVUS ORDO CHURCH, GO TO THE NEW
MASS, AND ACCEPT VATICAN II, WHICH IS THE RELIGION APPROVED BY THE LOCAL NOVUS
ORDO BISHOP. But “no,” the would-be
“simple” layman who “just goes to the
SSPX and tries to live a good life”
and doesn’t get involved in “these issues” all
of a sudden gets involved in the issues and becomes a “theologian.” He “knows” that he cannot accept the New Mass
and his local Novus Ordo religion. He thus condemns himself out of his own
mouth, refutes his own argument and shows his hypocrisy by only “getting
involved” where he wants to get involved.
For the bottom-line is that if one can accept the
New Mass and Vatican II religion and save his soul then there is no
justification whatsoever for going to an independent chapel or the SSPX. It’s all a matter of preference, in that
case. But if one holds that faith
obliges him to reject the New Mass and the Vatican II religion as something
which will cause the loss of his salvation, then
the local church and the New Mass (and the authorities who imposed it) cannot
represent the Catholic Church. The Holy
Catholic Church can never lead us to hell.
So, the person must either: 1) return to the local
Novus Ordo authorities or 2) correctly conclude that they don’t represent the
Catholic Church – the sedevacantist position.
If he obstinately refuses, in the face of evidence and arguments, to
come to appropriate conclusion that the Novus Ordo
authorities who offer him this false religion are not Catholic and hold no
authority in the Church (the sedevacantist position), this person condemns
himself as a schismatic. His excuse that
he is too simple “to get involved in all of these issues” and that he “just
goes to Mass” obviously will not be accepted by God because then he would have
been justified before God by simply following his local Novus Ordo parish.
All of this hopefully shows us again that the only
Catholic position is, of course, the sedevacantist position, and that all the
other false positions are heretical and schismatical,
including the false position of the SSPX.
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com