October 4, 2005 AD

The following is the original text of an interview with Bishop Richard Williamson, one of the bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, as it appears here: http://www.angelqueen.org/articles/05-10_bp_williamson.shtml
We are including our comments in red font in the text.

To print this page, click here.

---

INTERVIEW WITH BISHOP RICHARD WILLIAMSON, SSPX

AQ: There have recently been 2 letters said to be written by you, send out via the Yahoo! “Tradlist” (website). There has been some speculation that these may have not been authentic. Would you care to settle the matter?

Bp. Williamson: The two letters, called “Thoughts for August” and “Thoughts for September” were written by Bishop Williamson, He says so!

AQ: The Yahoo! Tradlist is presented by the owner as a service with no official ties to the SSPX that is often used by Society clergy and episcopates as vehicle for online communication. It is said that your communications through it may become more regular. Should correspondence through Tradlist stated as authored by you be taken as such?

Bp. Williamson: Until further notice, “Thoughts” for any month, published by Tradlist, will also come from Bishop Williamson.

AQ: Some have wondered why if you feel the need to communicate broadly, you would use an unofficial avenue such as Tradlist as opposed to a Society asset such as DICI or SSPX.org. Can you shed any light on this?

Bp. Williamson: An official Society asset such as DICI or sspx.org may reach a particular public. A different asset may reach a different public. Our Lord would like his bishops and priests to reach everybody.

AQ: There has been much News about the meeting between the SSPX bishops and the pope. When the Society makes important decisions, for example on how to respond to a “deal” - if any - offered by the Curia, how are decisions reached? Is this done by a majority vote by all of the bishops or is there some other protocol in place?

Bp. Williamson: The Society of St. Pius X is governed by the General Council which consists of the Superior General and his two Assistants, presently Bishop Fellay, Fr. Schmidberger and Bishop de Galarreta. This General Council takes all current decisions concerning the running of the Society. Once a year, in June, the other two bishops attend the meeting of the General Council. However, Bishop Fellay has said that if there were serious question of, for instance, an important agreement with Rome involving the whole Society’s future, he would call a wide meeting of Society Superiors for consultation and decision.

AQ: Leaving aside the debate in some circles as to whether the supposed latae sentiae excommunications are binding or even valid, if they were lifted “no strings attached” would you view this as a positive development?

Bp. Williamson: If the present “excommunication” upon the Society’s four bishops, dating from 1988, were declared null or non-existent, with –genuinely– “no strings attached”, that could be a very positive development. Yet it should be borne in mind that Providence may have had good reason to allow the Society and its bishops to be “marginalized”. The marginalization may well have served to protect the Society, and may still be doing so.

AQ: If Rome were to declare that no permission was needed for the Tridentine Mass to be offered, do you see any downside to such a situation?

Bp. Williamson: If Rome liberated the Tridentine Mass so as to allow any Catholic priest to say it, with no need to ask anybody for permission, there would be a considerable upside. Grace, presently strangled by the new rite of Mass, could start flowing again in large quantities all over the Catholic world. Interesting. Can a true Pope promulgate a rite of Mass that strangles grace? Can the Catholic Church have such a Mass? What does this do to the Church's indefectibility and infallibility? Can the Church no longer guarantee that her sacraments are sure and undefiled fountains of grace? Or does Bp. Williamson honestly mean to suggest that Paul VI never properly promulgated the New Mass? This idea is refuted here. In any case, when Bp. Williamson speaks about the "Tridentine Mass," he means the 1962 Roncalli Missal.

But there would also be a downside –the risk of some Catholics, presently enjoying the Tridentine Mass embedded in the fullness of Catholic doctrine, going over to attending the Tridentine rite surrounded by Conciliar doctrine and practice, e.g. in centers of the Society of St. Peter. It is as wise to accept half a bottle of wine in place of nothing, as it is foolish to want half a bottle in place of a full bottle.

However, since many more Catholics going to the liberated Tridentine rite would be going from nothing to half a bottle than would be going from a full bottle to half a bottle, then it can be safely said that the Catholic Church as a whole would gain far more than it would lose from such a liberation of the Tridentine rite of Mass.

AQ: Society chapels are largely self sufficient and in the green financially. Is keeping control of SSPX property a non-negotiable point as far as you’re concerned?

Bp. Williamson: The Society of St Pius X has an enormous responsibility to Catholics all over the world who have generously supported it for the last 35 years. That responsibility would be betrayed by any action of the Society permitting Society properties to fall under the control of powers that would be set on frustrating the very purpose for which those Catholics were so generous!

AQ: One of the main causes for the falling out between John Paul II and Archbishop Lefebvre was that the Archbishop wanted to ensure that the Society, both then and in the future, would not come under the charge of bishops who would undermine its purpose. Would any “deal” with Rome be possible without the SSPX being assured that it will not be subject – now or in the future - to unfriendly or undesirable bishops?

Bp. Williamson: In Rome’s present way of thinking and acting, Rome can only seek for an agreement with the Society which would enable it to put an end to the Society’s resistance to what Rome has been doing –and has been waiting to do- ever since Vatican II, i.e. revolutionize the Catholic religion, and make it over into quite a different religion. As things stand now, for there to be an “agreement”, either Rome – neo-modernist Rome – drops its neo-modernism, or the Society betrays its Catholicism, or half and half, etc. We pray to God that Rome may convert. We beg God that the Society may not betray. So the Society of St. Pius X has the Catholic Faith, but Rome does not. Read that again: Rome does not have the Faith, Bp. Williamson says! But yet, Rome is the Holy See, which cannot lose the Faith, which is, in fact, the bedrock of the Faith and the principle of unity and orthodoxy. Have the promises of Christ shifted from Rome to the SSPX? Or could it be that, since it is manifest that Rome does not have the Faith, maybe this Rome isn't occupied by Catholics? That is, could it be that the Holy See is occupied by impostors who are not Catholics and so the Holy See is in fact vacant? That Ratzinger is not the legitimate bishop of Rome? Bp. Williamson cannot have it both ways: if Rome has lost the faith, either the Catholic Church can defect or what we see in Rome only appears to be the Holy See and is not occupied by legitimate shepherds. But the Catholic Church cannot defect, for her indefectibility is dogma. Therefore, the only alternative is that Rome's shepherds are illegitimate.

AQ: Have you ever had any regrets that you became an ordained bishop in the Society of Saint Pius X?

Bp. Williamson: None. Spelt N-O-N-E.

AQ: Some who attend Society chapels and partake in the sacraments offered in them may at times feel isolated from their fellow Catholics or have a sense of being “orphaned” from the earthly Church at large. Do you have any advice for them?

Bp. Williamson: For Catholics to feel “orphaned” ever since at Vatican II Mother Church began no longer behaving like their mother, is a most normal feeling for Catholics. They would not be true children of Mother Church if they did not feel orphaned since Vatican II. This is akin to blasphemy, is it not? Holy Mother Church cannot abandon her children! She cannot leave them orphans! Bp. Williamson impugns the promises of Christ! If the Holy Catholic Church could ever abandon her children, what good would she be? What good would the promises of Christ be? Holy Mother Church must always and of necessity behave like the Mother of all Catholics, for that is what she is--she cannot change in her being; she cannot change her identity. The Spotless Mother and Bride cannot become the Whore of Babylon!

However, let such Catholics have patience, and courage.

Sooner or later, God’s purpose in allowing these “40 years in the desert”, namely the cleansing of His Church, will be achieved, and then He will restore both the true fatherhood of the Holy Father, and the true motherhood of Mother Church. Until that time, pray faithfully the Rosary. So the Catholic Church has lost, or perhaps suspended, her Motherhood. Bp. Williamson will no doubt look in vain in Catholic doctrine to find theological justification for such an impious belief. The Blessed Mother at La Salette, instead, warned us that the Catholic Church would be eclipsed--something entirely different, and something entirely possible. A pseudo-church has moved in front of the Catholic Church and eclipsed her. This is the Vatican II church with its false "Catholic" bishops and popes. More information about this here.

Help of Christians, pray for us.

Consoler of the Afflicted, pray for us.

+ Richard Williamson