Reliable sources say Bishop Richard Williamson, who was recently expelled from the Society of St. Pius X, is preparing to consecrate a new bishop. As the SSPX has moved closer to joining the One World "Frankenchurch" of Joseph Ratzinger (one sect comprising many falsehoods, as long as you recognize and submit to the heretical Vatican II teachings), some priests broke away to form The "Strict Observance Society of St. Pius X" to be "faithful to the principles of our founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre."
The upshot is that Bishop Fellay is leading the SSPX to its death by absorption into Antipope Benedict XVI, and they must break away before it happens. Bp. Williamson, now free of constraints, is rumored to be coming to America in order to consecrate one of these priests, Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, as a bishop for the new society.
A reason to rejoice? Yes and no. On the positive side, Modernist Rome will be deprived of engulfing and devouring the Lefebvre-line of bishops and destroying the Faith and apostolic succession of the society as they did in Brazil with the Society of St John Vianney back in 2002. On the downside, unless the "Strict Observance" comes to embrace sedevacantism, they will always be in danger of capitulating to the Modernist heretics in the future. Ironically, if they recognize Ratzinger as pope, both Williamson and Pfeiffer will incur laetae sententiae (i.e. Automatic) excommunication reserved to Ratzinger alone to remit since a bishop was consecrated without papal mandate. How will they justify this consecration? Another "state of necessity" like Lefebvre claimed when he consecrated Williamson and the other three in 1988?
What constitutes "necessity"? If Ratzinger is your pope you WANT to be in communion with him. You submit to the pope, you don't negotiate. This engenders a Protestant-like mindset that you can pick what papal decrees you choose and which you won't. When Ratzinger condemns abortion or sodomite marriages you cheer, when he condemns your actions he's wrong because (pick one):
(a) There's a state of necessity to keep the Faith alive (isn't that the pope's job?)
(b) He's not in compliance with Sacred Tradition (isn't the pope the guardian of authentic Tradition?)
(c) He's saying something heretical, but he's not aware of it because of he grew up in a modern mentality (A man with two earned doctorates doesn't know that Modernism is heresy?)
(d) He didn't promulgate it correctly (those canon lawyers in the Vatican ain't what they used to be!)
(e) He's badly advised (isn't he advised by the Holy Ghost who keeps him free of error as pope?)
It won't be long before someone figures this out---you can't recognize a true pope and then resist what you don't like. So if Montini (Paul VI), Luciani (JP I), Wotyla (JPII) and Ratzinger (B16), are all popes, someone will want to get back with him (or his apostate successor). Only if they realize that the post-Vatican II "popes" are merely heretics who lost their office can they forge on without the mental gymnastics to justify what they do. Then we can come closer to the day when an Imperfect General Council, discussed by many theologians pre-Vatican II, can come together to elect a true successor to Pope Pius XII. May Christ hasten that day.
It's a shame bishop Williamson isn't sedevacantist because he gives great sermons.
ReplyDelete