Bishop Williamson – off the deep end.
The discussions directed towards reconciliation between the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) and the Holy See, which were noted here a while back, seem to have reached an impasse for now. There appears to be significant opposition within SSPX to Bishop Fellay’s work toward normalizing the status of the SSPX, not least ending its effective schism from the Church. Much of that opposition centered on Bishop Williamson, who gained notoriety by denying aspects of the received history of the Holocaust.
It seems Williamson has now played his hand. A website has been launched to support his new St Marcel Initiative. There is not much to the page thus far, and it would only be fair to allow that there is more to come. Yet this page is public, and it is already deeply disturbing.
The name itself is bemusing. The ostensible reference appears to be to St Marcel the Centurion. However he is more commonly known as St Marcellus of Tangier, or St Marcellus the Centurion. The fact that he has chosen to render the name Marcel surely must imply an allusion to his own beloved Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the SSPX and episcopal consecrator of Williamson. There is the whiff here of Williamson canonizing the late Archbishop. Not a good start.
This maverick, I’ll-do-it-my-way approach, all part of the stance he has adopted of Williamson contra mundum et ecclesiam, receives apparent confirmation on this simple web page. First, after barely a paragraph of introduction (disturbing in itself, of which more below), Williamson asks for money. His request is not subtle and he offers several ways of donating. Indeed, raising money seems to be the main purpose of the website. Not that there is anything wrong per se with asking for donations to help in a religious work. However, some works are legitimate and others not. That is one difference between donating to the Church and donating to a cult.
What is this work for which Williamson asks money? This is the second point which seems to confirm that Williamson has set up his own ecclesial community (or “the True Church” as he would no doubt term it). What does Williamson say?
IT SEEMS THAT, today, God wants a loose network of independent pockets of Catholic Resistance, gathered around the Mass, freely contacting one another, but with no structure of false obedience, which served to sink the mainstream Church in the 1960’s (sic) and is now sinking the Society of St. Pius X…. For myself, once my situation stabilizes, I am ready to put my bishop’s powers at the disposal of whoever can make wise use of them.
So he has discerned, it would seem through private revelation (a central element of radical Protestantism), that God now does not want either the Church or the SSPX (those evil “structure[s] of false obedience”), but a loose network of resistance cells. Williamson is selflessly (!) offering himself as bishop at large to La Résistance.
What should be made of this? Simply, that Williamson has ceased to be Catholic in any but the technical sense deriving from his Baptism. He has abandoned any concept of the organic development of the Church and seeks to replace its “structure of false obedience” (the hierarchy, the curia, and the diocesan system one presumes) with resistance cells. He has ceased to conceive of the role of the bishop as always and everywhere at the service of the universal Church by bonding to it the local Church that he serves. Being the bond of communion for resistance cells, following their own version of the Gospel, is not the same. In time I expect Williamson’s rhetoric will involve references to the primitive Church, served by the peripatetic St Paul, to whom we will all be invited (implicitly at least) to compare him.
Williamson is now bishop-for-hire: has mitre, will travel. He now embodies the very radical Protestantism he would affect to despise. Worse, he is setting himself up as an episcopal prostitute.
We can only pray for him, and those souls that he might lead astray, that he might come to his senses and reconcile himself with Christ’s Vicar, and so too Christ’s Church. The Church’s earthly mantle is, and always has been and will be, dirty and a little ragged. Yet it still adorns the Body of Christ. Williamson’s self-manufactured substitute will not suffice to replace. Horrible to think what body it might adorn.
PS For some insightful recent commentary of Williamson, written before the his Initiative was revealed, see Brian’s blog.
Why do schismatics always have the prettiest websites?
The surplus of form covers the deficit of substance. And I think Williamson has moved beyond schism into outright heresy now. Sad, but, I fear, true.
A strong claim…what do you have in mind?
For a start, an effective denial of papal infallibility and of the indefectibility of the Church. These are not open to discussion but are established truths of the Faith to which all must submit.
The whole of Vatican 2 is heresy along with those that look to it as a guide post. Bishop Williamson is a hero with backbone to stand up to the establishment.
Excellent post. The irony of a man who accuses the Holy See of Protestant errors writing “God wants a loose network of independent pockets…” is stunning.
Thank you! Alas, I suspect the irony would be lost on him. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
If what passes for the church today is a pope that plays with condoms, bishops that accept abortion and priests that sodomise altar boys, I would say Bp. Williamson is a much-needed breath of fresh air. The conciliar church is a doomed construct and awash with invalidity. Anyway, what use is canon law and posturing hierarchies among the ruins? Back to simplicity and away from worldliness …….
Of course, I had forgotten that the Church was perfect before the Council. Silly of me. As for Williamson’s flight from worldliness, the primacy of his donation buttons suggests otherwise.
The imperfections of the Church’s members are not the basis by which to judge it. No valid judgment of an institution can be made on the basis of those who disobey it. As for the Pope playing with condoms, I think that has come from the realm of fancy. Some of the pre-conciliar popes were far from saintly. Alexander VI was appallingly immoral. Many others were immoral, weak, venal, equivocating and incompetent. Using the line of reasoning you appear to have adopted, the pre-conciliar Church should be rejected. Hardly sensible surely?.
Christ has guaranteed his Church founded on Peter. No Pope, no Church. No Church, and you may end up facing God on judgment day very much alone. I am sticking with the Church, warts and all. There is no other choice.
The days of the ‘remnant’ church have begun. If the Vatican is as riddled with freemasons and liberals as is often alleged, where lies truth? If prophecy is right, it is likely the church will indeed be going ‘underground’ in the fashion he describes, during persecutions to come.
His words do sound like the seeds of protestantism, the irony the greater for the fact that Williamson is not a ‘reformer’ but a traditionalist. His rallying cry “return to the church” only exasperates, since he next points out that that Church no longer exists. The adjunct to this is of course – “Church – return to tradition”, something which it seems reluctant to do.
Most perplexing is his ‘bishop for hire’ advance. Once can only assume he is seeking a new home away from the SSPX. I don’t think he is going to start selling indulgences (but that’s been done before!).
There are those of us who sympathise with much of what Williamson says, and wish the Church itself would expand a little to incorporate gifted and impassioned men like him, not let them go. The end of his story is not yet reached of course. Who knows, he may be remembered as a ‘voice in the wilderness’ yet. The best advice was, pray for the bishop.
Sadly, Williamson is not a traditionalist. At best he is schismatic, at worst a heretic. Both these types of creature begin as being the more zealous, the purer, the sounder. And as they begin to believe their own rhetoric they drift further away from the Church and from truth. The Church will exist till the end of time; and until then, where Peter is, there can be found the Church, how imperfect it might be in its members both high and low. That is de fide, no matter what casuistry Williamson and his ilk might employ. We have it from Christ himself. We are ultimately much safer, if no less agitated, sticking to Christ than to Williamson.
I can see the point you are trying to make; it is just that Williamson is not the man to help you make it. He has very strong allegiance to someelements of tradition, but not all. This smorgasbord approach can never equate to authentic traditionalism, or Tradition in its proper Catholic sense. His voice is so discredited, so indiscreet, so doctrinaire that the Church could well do without it. Our wake-up calls need to come from a more credible source.
Prayer and patience, with a dollop of fidelity: this is our best weapon for now.