First Response to Bp. Richard Williamson on Sedevacantism

That “Anxiety”…

Bp. Williamson and Sedevacantism

A Response to Bp. Richard Williamson’s Arguments
against Sedevacantism in his Eleison Comments of 2014
(Part 1)

On Jan. 25, 2014, Bp. Richard Williamson, formerly with the Society of St. Pius X, released issue no. 341 of his Eleison Comments, which are sent out on a weekly basis to subscribers by email. In this particular installment, His Excellency once again returns to the topic of sedevacantism. He writes:

Already we must stop here for a moment and consider what the English bishop is saying. He describes the words and actions of Francis as “so little Catholic”, as though one could have more or less of Catholicism. This contradicts directly what was taught by Pope Benedict XV in his inaugural encyclical Ad Beatissimi: “Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected” (par. 24; italics added).

Catholicism does not come in degrees, but it is easy to see why His Excellency would pretend otherwise: because this qualification of people as “somewhat Catholic” or “more or less Catholic” is extremely convenient when having to defend one’s resistance against Jorge Bergoglio while at the same time also denying that the man is an Antipope. With only the two rather rigid concepts of “Catholic” and “non-Catholic” to choose from, the “recognize-and-resist” position is pushed against the wall. This is why they love to remain vague and ambiguous and shy away from defining terms and from making clear assertions. This is why they love to talk about the “new orientation” which they despise, or the “pastoral council” they resist, or the “Newpope” they refuse to go along with.

But what do these terms actually mean? What is their definition, and who gets to define them?

Deliberate refusal to use clear and precise wording is actually a hallmark of Modernism, which thrives on imprecision and confusion because such is very conducive to the covert spread of error; in any case it does not befit a Catholic, least of all one attempting to tackle a problem that is theological in nature. In matters philosophical and theological, a Catholic has as his guide the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas (see Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Studiorum Ducem, 1923); and it was St. Thomas who pointed out, quoting Aristotle: “A small mistake in the beginning is a big one in the end” (De Ente Et Essentia, n. 1).

Bp. Williamson is probably the most well-known of the fiercest defenders of the absurd “recognize-and-resist” position, that position which insists on acknowledging the papal claimants after Pope Pius XII (d. 1958) as valid Popes but resisting whatever they teach, decree, or legislate that runs contrary to their understanding of traditional Catholic doctrine or practice. Not surprisingly, this effectively translates into simply ignoring the “Pope” while “doing your own thing” on the side.

The Society of St. Pius X, founded by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre in 1970, is the perfect example of how this position looks in practice: Put up a nice picture of the “Holy Father” in your sacristy, mention him in your prayers, and pay him lip service; but other than that, pretend he doesn’t exist, and even tell your people not to listen to him or embrace his teachings because by doing so they will endanger their eternal salvation. It’s essentially a mere primacy of honor that the “recognize-and-resisters” concede to the person they believe is Pope, rather than the primacy of jurisdiction Catholic dogma requires (see Denz. 1830-31). At least that’s how it is in practice, in actual fact. Queen Elizabeth II would be proud.

Regarding the issue of whether the papal claimants after Pope Pius XII, who died in 1958, have been real Popes, Bp. Williamson makes a most startling assertion: “The question is not of prime importance”, he says. Really? The question of whether the men who have brought about world apostasy and the demise of Christendom were genuine Vicars of Christ or diabolical charlatans is “not of prime importance”?? What, then, is? Bp. Williamson’s weekly Eleison Comments?

An interesting quote from Abp. Lefebvre comes to mind at this point, one Williamson perhaps forgot:

It should be obvious to anyone that if the Pope is not important in the Church, then no one is. Certainly Our Blessed Lord and His holy Apostles never displayed this carefree attitude of Bp. Williamson regarding whether the person claiming to be our Chief Shepherd is in fact the rightful shepherd or a usurper, a hireling, even a wolf (see Mt 24:24; Jn 10:12-13; Gal 1:8-9; 2 Thess 2:3; etc.).

But the English bishop goes on to explain his contention:

This is unbelievable! Did Bp. Williamson not learn in his seminary days that the Pope is the proximate Rule of Faith for all Catholics and the ultimate Teacher of the very Faith Williamson claims to be upholding? Let’s turn to the teachings of real Popes for a moment:

Bp. Williamson continually distorts Catholic doctrine regarding the authority and function of the Pope. Perhaps His Excellency can start quoting some solid Catholic dogmatic manuals to support his strange contention that it “doesn’t matter” whether a particular claimant to the papacy is valid or not. If it is necessary for salvation to submit to the Roman Pontiff, it would be rather expedient to know whether Jorge Bergoglio is in fact that Roman Pontiff, no?

Williamson’s insouciant attitude regarding the question of the Pope actually reveals a very frightening reality about him: The only reason why he can be so unconcerned about whether Francis is a true Pope or not is because he does not submit to him anyway. As far as Williamson is concerned, Francis might as well not be Pope. It makes no difference to him because nothing Francis says or does determines anything for Williamson: not what he teaches, not any rules or decisions he enacts, not saints he canonizes, not liturgical laws he puts in place, nothing. For Williamson, Novus Ordo “Popes” are but “cardboard Popes”, as Fr. Anthony Cekada once aptly called them — “for display purposes only”.

The problem with this attitude on the part of Bp. Williamson is that this is what is known in Catholic moral theology as the sin of schism. This sin consists in refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church: “After the reception of baptism, if anyone … refuses to be under the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic” (1917 Code of Canon Law, 1325 §2). Some further light is shed on this definition by the canonist Fr. Ignatius Szal, who clarified that to be considered a true schismatic, the person in question “must recognize the Roman Pontiff as the true pastor of the Church, and he must profess as an article of faith that obedience is due the Roman Pontiff” (Fr. Ignatius Szal, The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics [Catholic University of America, 1948], p. 2). This definition fits Bp. Williamson to a tee, except that the person he publicly recognizes as Pope is not in fact the Supreme Pontiff. This does not make a difference, however, to the fact that Williamson is leading people into the sin of schism (even if not, technically, the ecclesiastical crime, since Francis is not in fact the Pope), inasmuch as he is telling them to refuse submission to the person they believe to be the Roman Pontiff. Sin exists in the will, so the sin of schism is definitely there.

Now schism, as much as heresy and apostasy, expels one from the bosom of the Catholic Church; that is, one ceases to be a member of the Body of Christ if one is a schismatic. Pope Pius XII taught: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy” (Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 23; italics added). Schism is an offense against the unity of the Church and therefore in itself incompatible with membership in her.

It is very apparent from the foregoing that this is all very serious business. One can only shake one’s head at Bp. Williamson’s senseless remark that the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo “Popes” is “not of prime importance.” To a real Catholic, it is of prime importance, for a real Catholic submits to the Pope, apart from which submission he cannot inherit Eternal Life. Minor detail, eh?

Williamson has a habit of misrepresenting the facts by making it seem as though submission to the Pope was simply a question of obedience to commands. Such is not the case, of course. When the Pope issues an encyclical letter, for example, he is exercising his teaching office, and all the faithful have the obligation, under pain of mortal sin, to assent to the Pope’s teaching:

This only stands to reason. What is the alternative, anyway? That the Pope can no longer really teach but only offer opinions which the faithful are free to take or reject? (Imagine this scenario in a classroom at school.) Or that each time the Pope issues an encyclical, every Catholic gets out his copy of Denzinger to check and make sure the Pope is teaching the True Faith? (Or, alternatively, each individual Catholic checks with Bp. Williamson to see if he gives his approval?) In that case, who is really teaching whom? What kind of bizarre society is this, in which the student is the final arbiter of what to accept from the teacher?

We can see that the position espoused by His Excellency makes a complete mockery of the Catholic Faith. It wholly disfigures and renders useless the hierarchical structure instituted by Christ for the sake of perpetuating the Faith without tarnish of error, unto the salvation of all who are subject to the Roman Pontiff. In fact, Williamson reduces the teaching authority of the Pope to a mere permission to repeat the prior. But this is clearly a distortion of the Pope’s magisterium. Anyone can simply repeat what has been taught before; the Church wouldn’t need a Pope for that. But the only reason there even is something to repeat is that doctrine has been genuinely taught before, not merely restated; and it is this genuine teaching authority which every valid Pope possesses to the exact same extent as any other Pope.

As the First Vatican Council taught most eloquently:

Which teaching shall we accept? That of the First Vatican Council, or that of Bp. Williamson?

Next in his Eleison Comments 341, the English bishop asks for liberty in the question of sedevacantism:

We answer His Excellency thus: We are not at liberty to reject sedevacantism. Embracing it is, indeed, obligatory. This obligation, however, arises not from the sedevacantist position itself, but rather from the absence of any other viable alternative. There is simply no other position that can reconcile the facts about the Vatican II Sect with Catholic doctrine except that of sedevacantism. The duty to accept sedevacantism is extrinsic, therefore, rather than intrinsic, to the position itself.

Bp. Donald Sanborn has put together a succinct article on this very question, to which we direct all readers for a competent and clear answer to Bp. Williamson’s stance:

• Opinionism: Is the Question of the Pope “Just an Opinion”? (Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn)

It should not be difficult to accept that if sedevacantism is true, our adherence to it is required. In an allocution of Feb. 20, 1903, Pope Leo XIII stated clearly that “the strong and effective instrument of salvation is none other than the Roman Pontificate” (see Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 353). If John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis were true Popes, then Pope Leo’s statement is false, because since Vatican II, the “Roman Pontificate” has been nothing but a strong and effective instrument of damnation, disseminating the most noxious errors and heresies to the point where all of Christendom has virtually collapsed, all the while the “Pope” says things have never been better. This is what we’re dealing with.

Let us continue and examine a few more snippets from Bp. Williamson’s comments:

But under His Excellency’s beliefs, the Church has already failed. The Vatican today is no longer the guarantor of orthodoxy but a sewer of Modernism, so much so that Williamson himself went into schism in order to keep the heresies emanating from Rome from endangering his own soul. Or will anyone seriously assert that Bp. Williamson is not separated from today’s Vatican and the religion it professes?

Yet, Pope Leo XIII taught forcefully: “Union with the Roman See of Peter is … always the public criterion of a Catholic …. ‘You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held'” (Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 13). Can Bp. Williamson truthfully say this of the Novus Ordo Vatican? Of course he cannot. So it follows that if the Novus Ordo Sect is the true Catholic Church, then the Church established by Christ has failed and is a fraud and Christ a liar. But this is impossible!

On this point, we recommend everyone watch the excellent 2-hour conference given by Bp. Sanborn on the topic of the heresies of Vatican II, which you can watch free of charge here. His Excellency explains that while we know it is impossible for the Church to fail, nevertheless it is possible for individuals to defect and for false papal claimants to arise and deceive people. This is a crucial consideration in coming to understand why only sedevacantism can be accepted as a Catholic position, not that proposed by Bp. Williamson. (See also the clip Historical Precedents of Papal Impostors.)

Only if we say that the Vatican II Church is not the Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII and his predecessors, and the papal claimants since 1958 have not been true Catholic Popes, only then can we say that the Catholic Church has not failed, because while the Church can be eclipsed, as Our Lady of La Salette said she would be, and while a true Pope can be prevented or delayed, we have the divinely assured guarantee that the Church can never teach error or lead the faithful who adhere to her to damnation.

In the words of the great “Pio Nono”:

This ends the first installment in our response to Bp. Williamson; to be continued in Part 2.

Image source: youtube.com (screenshot)
License: fair use