Bishop Williamson’s Journey To Brasil: The SSPX Speaks.

A very good shepherd: Bishop Fellay.

Below is the translation of the press release of the SSPX South American Superior. Translation courtesy of Catholic Church Conservation. 


At the invitation of Dom Thomas, prior of the monastery of the Holy Cross of New Freiburg, Bishop Williamson came to confer the sacrament of confirmation and give some lectures.
I would like to clarify that this trip has been organized independently of the SSPX. Indeed, according to the directives left by our founder Archbishop Lefebvre, only the Superior General, Bishop Fellay in this case, gives the mandate to the auxiliary bishops to undertake a pastoral visit. This procedure has not been respected, which is a serious act against the virtue of obedience but also a more basic lack of courtesy. In addition, the District Superior’s agreement has not been requested as required by the statutes of our Fraternity. The harmonious collaboration that existed between the SSPX and the Monastery of the Holy Cross has been broken by this act of great gravity, so the organizers must take responsibility before God. Indeed, some have been deceived and faithful attended the ceremonies and conferences announced believing that they had been organized by the SSPX.
After reading the article of Dom Tomas de Aquino “Honor and Glory to Mgr Williamson”, I denounce firmly the indirect accusations which were made ​​suggesting that the SSPX would agree with modernism and cease fighting for the defense of Catholic Tradition .
Such insinuations are gratuitous, false, hurtful and injurious to our Superior General and to the members of the SSPX. I cannot remain silent. If Bishop Fellay has rejected the outstretched hand of Rome on June 13, it is for doctrinal reasons. And it is because we reject the modernism imbued Vatican II which is the main cause of the ruin of the Church today and we want to continue saying it, it is also because we reject the Novus Ordo Missae that departs from both Catholic doctrine “as a whole and in detail”, that no practical agreement has been signed with Rome. This was the position of Archbishop Lefebvre yesterday and this is the position of Monsignor Fellay today. The General Chapter last July confirmed it. Any other assertion is nothing more than a manipulation or lie. Any prediction of a practical agreement reveals a morbid imagination.
At the beginning of December, Bishop de Galarreta will come to visit and confer the sacrament of Confirmation in Brazil and other countries in our district as our Superior General has planned for many months.
I invite the faithful of the Catholic tradition in Brazil not to pay attention to rumors, to continue to support their priests with their sacrifices, prayers and generosity and beg God to send numerous and ardent vocations to defend and extend the reign of Christ the King under the noble banner of the Catholic tradition and the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary. God bless you!
Padre Christian BOUCHACOURT
Superior de Distrito.
My very short thoughts:
1) The SSPX is really angry, and it is very likely this will have consequences.
2) Bishop Williamson clearly travelled to Brasil in full knowledge of the consequences, which he probably wanted to precipitate.
3) There are no covert agreements with the Vatican (this was also reported from a couple of days ago).
4) Bishop de Galarreta will not position himself on the side of Bishop Williamson.
I fully agree with Father Bouchacourt that the entire affair proved the doctrinal integrity of the SSPX rather than its contrary.

Posted on September 16, 2012, in Catholicism, FSSPX and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.

  1. Bp. Williamson has always been a loose cannon. He seems to be more concerned about pushing WWII revisionist history than he is about teaching and preaching the Catholic faith. I am, myself, not against revisionist history, but Williamson is, to my knowledge, not a trained historian. He should not be speaking about something he doesn’t have the training or competence in. But even if he did have both, his job description is ‘Catholic’ priest. If he wants to comment about the strained relationships that has existed between Jews and Christians since day one, that’s fine with me. It’s a part of our history, which he should know and teach. Bt he should not be dragging the SSPX and the Church into controversies that distract both from the main mission that or Lord gave us.

    • My personal impression is that he is a rather strange man as far as the revisionism is concerned (I am not concerned about that, though), and that even in good faith, he is utter mistrustful of pretty much everyone but himself and (perhaps) his closest allies. I do believe he is in good faith in thinking that the SSPX is compromising, though more reasonable people (like the other two bishops) have apparently accepted this is not the case.

      Still, I have the impression his following is large enough to ensure some permanence to the organisation he will (in case) create; at least as long as he lives.


%d bloggers like this: