Automatically extracted text. OCR transcription may contain errors.
THE ATHANASIAN
A publication of Traditional Catholics of America t Editor: Fr. Francis E. Fenton, STL t Volume XII, No. 6 t September 1, 1991
An Update On The Open Letter To
Bishop Richard Williamson
John Kenneth Weiskittel
ine months have passed since my open letter on the without sympathy." However encouraging these words
N subject of sedevacantism appeared in the December 1,
1990 issue of this newsletter. The object of the letter was
seemed, I did not allow myself too much in the way of hope
as I read on. (As one who has written for the past ten years
to defend the sedevacantist position against attacks made on the ever-worsening situation in the Conciliar "Catholic"
by Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of Saint Church, I've found skepticism an increasingly frequent
Pius X (SSPX) in his own newsletter of July, 1990. visitor at my office!)
Since December ongoing reader interest has promp~d the The Bishop went on to say that he "firmly believes the
present update. A question I've been asked several times Pope is Pope," although he adds that his "mind is not
concerns the response – if any – from Bishop wholly settled on the July Newsletter argument." At this
Williamson. While such a response would be welcome, to point we have to be thankful for small and mixed blessings,
elicit one was not the primary aim of my study, which was I suppose, and that is what this must be considered.
both to show readers that a strong case can be made Bishop Williamson obviously still publicly proclaims John
challenging the validity of recent claimants to the Chair of Paul II as a valid Pontiff ("the Pope is Pope"), but now
Saint Peter and. in light of the heresy of these false Popes, expresses what sounds remarkably close to doubt as to the
to show those readers as well that such a challenge is, in method by which he has defended that position.
fact, a manifestation of profound reverence for and loyalty
to the office and dignity of the papacy. This admission is significant, for the Bishop indicates that
he has done some reconsidering, something that would
Still, I did have an interest in hearing from the Bishop and have seemed highly improbable to anyone who read his
finding out what sort of rebuttal might be forthcoming. July newsletter to which he refers. Let me take a moment
Several people who have read the open letter (including to refresh readers of my open letter (and inform those who
more than one priest) suggested to me that he would not haven't seen it yet) of the gist of Bishop Williamson's
respond, some even maintaining that he could not do so in argument. He maintained that John Paul II is having a
any meaningful way to such strong arguments. While I take "Liberal dream" that causes him to be "destroying the
such compliments with a large grain of salt, I neve,rtheless Church" unconsciously and he underscored his confidence
believed, and still do believe (my slight talents as a writer in this "dream" theory by averring that it must be "the
aside), that the proof is so manifest to those of us who true solution." How is it, then, that he is having second
refuse to wear blinders that any point-by-point refutation thoughts about such an "ironclad" argument?
of the letter would be a formidable task. In any case, I
didn't hold my breath while awaiting a reply. How indeed? Your guess is as good as mine because this
note is, as far as I know, the only thing of the sort that the
Good News … Bad News Bishop has written. He mentions in the course of the note
the possibility of a reply on his part but indicates that it will
I was pleasantly surprised, then, to receive a brief note require "a bit of luck." Whether he means a more in-depth
from Bishop Williamson dated January 8, 1991. He wrote private reply to me or another examination of the subject
that he had read the open letter "with much interest, not in his "friends and benefactors" newsletter is unclear; what
is clear is that, as of the second week of July, 1991, no moment because of its dubious nature. It is incredible to
reply of either kind has been forthcoming. I am willing to read that "for the moment the Church cannot be united"
believe that part of the reason for such a delay in since one of the indelible marks of the true Roman
responding centers around the death of Archbishop Catholic Church is its unity of morals, dogma and
Lefebvre – SSPX founder and the prelate who discipline. To suggest that it isn't united is akin to the
consecrated Bishop Williamson in 1988 – as the "ecumenical" error that the Catholic Church cannot truly
Bishop's schedule has undoubtedly been changed and be one until it is joined to the Orthodox, Protestants
expanded in the months that have followed. Nevertheless, and Anglicans.
I hope and pray that such a reply does come about
because the issue is one that desperately needs to Returning to the mind of John Paul II and the Bishop's
be addressed. assessment of it, I wonder precisely how much of it needs
to deviate from the Faith before he would begin to
There You Go Again, Bishop! question the legitimacy of the "Pope." (Sixty percent?
Seventy-five percent? Ninety-nine and forty-four one
This article could well have ended with the above material, hundredths percent?) Actually, the method by which we
but then Bishop Williamson's "friends and benefactors" can calculate one's Catholicity is much simpler than that
newsletter for June 10, 1991, crossed my desk. It is worth and we needn't worry about factoring in percentages in
bringing into discussion even though the matter of order to determine if one fails to meet the necessary
sedevacantism isn't raised. What is raised (for the first time criterion.
since my open letter) is the Bishop's insistence that John
Paul II is a well-meaning, if addleheaded, successor of The litmus test for making such an assessment is to be
Saint Peter. Now, where have we heard that before? found in Pope Leo XIII's 1896 encyclical on Church unity,
Salis cognitum. There His Holiness writes:
The letter deals with SSPX policies and how "Rome"
will use the Archbishop's death to lure Society members The Church. . . has regarded as rebels and
to it (more on this momentarily). In the course of his expelled from the ranks of its children all who
remarks on the need for a Pope to unify the Church, held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from
Bishop Williamson states that "the present Pope has its own. . . There can be nothing more dangerous
such uncatholic notions in half of his head (like the that those heretics who admit nearly the whole
curate's egg, it is good in parts) that he has no idea how series of doctrines and yet, by one word, as with a
to pull the Church together in the Faith, even if he drop of poison, taint the real and simple faith
wished to, so that for the moment the Church cannot taught by Our Lord and handed down by apostolic
be united." tradition. The practice of the Church has always
been the same, as is shown by the unanimous
A singularly remarkable statement in more ways than one. teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to
How on earth does one speak of a man whose views are consider as outside Catholic communion and alien
only "good (that is Catholic) in parts" as possessing the to the Church whosoever would withdraw in the
true Faith, much less deserving our filial obedience and least degree from any point of doctrine proposed
devotion? The Bishop readily concedes that John Paul II's by its authoritative Magisterium. (This passage
mind is made up of fifty percent "uncatholic notions." appears as cited in the English translation of
Obviously we aren't to take this figurr; as anything but a Father Noel Barbara's Fortes in Fide, Vol. 1, No.
general indication of the mental makeup of the would-be 6, pp. 48-49. The emphasis is also from the
Pontiff. (Ought not heaven be showered with our perpetual magazine. In the same issue, Father Barbara
lamentations for the Church in these dark days, days so reminds us that the possiblity of a Pope falling into
dark that a Bishop can declare that the man he perceives heresy is presupposed by the Church when she
to be Pope is largely heretical in his thinking?) The second prays in the Great Litany that God "preserve our
part of Bishop Williamson's sentence, while not directly Pope . . . in holy religion, we beseech Thee. hear
relevant to the question at hand, needs to be noted for a us." By mentioning this, I do not mean to suggest
THE A THANAS/AN 2 SEPTEMBER 1, 1991
that it is even certain John Paul II was ever a valid the confusion of the times by their insistence that John
Pope for, if his heresy can be shown to precede his Paul II is really on our side and is locked in a battle royal
1978 election, then, according to the 1559 bull of with the enemies of the Church. (I should note, however,
Pope Paul IV, Cum ex apostolatus officio (the that, despite the similar viewpoints expressed, The
proclamations therein declared by that Pontiff to Wanderer does not acknowledge Bishop Williamson. In
be binding "in perpetuity"), he could never have fact, in response to another question in the same issue,
legitimately risen to the Holy See even, declares "Catholic Replies" accepts John Paul II's worthless
Paul IV, if he was elected by the unanimous "excommunication" of him, Archbishop Lefebvre and
consent of all the Cardinals.) others in the SSPX.)
So pardon me if I wonder aloud how Bishop Williamson The suggestion that John Paul II is an anti-Modernist
justifies a half-Catholic Pontiff. As long as John Paul II is crusader is certain to elicit a collection of raised eyebrows,
asleep in his "Liberal dream" (13 years next month!) the disgruntled sighs, half-hearted chuckles and other signs of
Bishop will continue to make excuses for him, I'm afraid. disbelief from the majority of Athanasian readers (everyone
in this category should give thanks to the Lord for having
Before turning to other topics in his newsletter, Bishop received the grace to see the truth when so many blindly
Williamson concludes his brief mention of John Paul II by accept appearances). I won't take up space to repeat the
writing that he is "the Pope who is so bitterly attacked by numerous examples cited from time to time in this
the radicals that he must be doing something right." In newsletter but, for those few readers who may be new to
fact, this is brought up as a reason for urging his readers the subject, may I suggest "To Prove That John Paul II Is
to "keep praying for the Pope." Imagine, John Paul II Not A True Pope – How Many Examples Are Required?"
portrayed as a leader sharply at odds with his wayward by Father Fenton in the July 15, 1990 issue of The
underlings. Athanasian, as well as my own open letter mentioned
above. (These two studies do not take an exhaustive look
This same sort of John Paul-as-the-new-Pius X theme is at his sordid career but certainly give ample proof to the
also to be found in the June 27 issue of The Wanderer. In open-minded.)
fact. this disinformation is found in two separate columns
in the same issue. "Catholic Replies" informs – or, rather, It's interesting to examine the evidence that John Paul's
misinforms (whether deliberately so in this and the next conservative defenders use to build their case for his anti-
piece can only be answered by the columnists who wrote Modernist reputation. "Surely you're aware," they ask us,
them) – its readers that John Paul II "has battled "that he has silenced many of the radical theologians?"
Modernists day in and day out" in his efforts to "promote And of course the list flows freely from their lips: Kung,
and defend the teachings of the Church" and it urges Boff, Fox, Curran and Schillebeeckx. "Didn't the Pope
prayers so that he'll have "the strength and courage to take them all to task for their errors?" Ah, yes, and Kung,
continue this valiant effort." This is part of the absurd they're quick to remind us, was even denied the title of
reply to a California reader's query: "Why doesn't the "Catholic theologian." So, you see," they triumphantly
Pope do more to stop the spread of the Modernist heresy conclude, "he is on our side!"
in the Catholic Church, especially in the United States?"
(The question can be answered succinctly: Because he If one ignores John Paul II's own horrendous record, then
isn't Pope and to stop the Modernists would be to hinder this argument has a certain superficial weight. Given a
his brethren.) closer examination, however, even that falls away. If
anyone cares to see how a real Pope handles such a crisis,
The "From the Mail" column continues the theme. Saint Pius X provides an unexcelled model. Against the
Commenting on a recently released book from the Modernists (John Paul's alleged adversaries), whom he
Conciliar Church's "progressive" wing, it states that "the called "the worst enemies of the Church," Pope Pius X,
Modernists are still complaining about Pope John Paul II after his paternal pleas that they return to orthodoxy were
and the Vatican." Again and again, would-be traditionalists rebuffed, did the only thing that a true shepherd would do
are contributing (unwittingly, no doubt, in many cases) to to safeguard the eternal salvation of his flock – and that
THE ATHANASIAN 3 SEPTEMBER 1, 1991
was to remove the danger by excommunicating the faithful, the Modernist wolf must conceal his wolf's
heretics. The threat of Modernism was (and is) as identity under orthodox appearances and
formidable as any in Church history, so much so that declarations, and Catholic discourses. That is why
our sainted Pontiff made a point of identifying it as the Jesus took care to add: "by their fruits you shall
synthesis of all heresies. But John Paul II, far from know them." He did not say, and we emphasize it,
excommunicating (were it, in fact, possible for him to "you will recognize them by the orthodoxy of their
do so), only placed a period of silence on the offenders. words, of the profession of faith or of their Credo,"
What he actually accomplished was to silence the but "you shall know them by their fruits." ("a
conservative critics of these men as well, (since the fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos," Matthew VII, 16,
scandal was temporarily removed from the public eye) pp. 19-20)
and to give himself a measure of "protective coloring"
to distract the faithful while he went about with his own Seen in this light, John Paul H's "disciplinary" moves are
attacks against the Church. And never mind that, for only part of a "fine tuning" of the Vatican II "reforms," a
every one Kung that makes the controversial headlines, proc~ss begun by his predecessors. Mary Martinez, a
there are countless hundreds of "Catholic" college and traditional Catholic writer who for years lived in Rome, has
seminary professors who are daily teaching the same explained this as follows:
errors with complete freedom! For John Paul II, being a
Modernist theologian is an option that is permissible; Already during the 1977 Synod (on "catechesis")
such a one may still teach in Conciliar schools and there were indications that certain of the most
seminaries, provided he do so discreetly, knowing that influential bishops were aware of the fact that the
the doctrines he espouses are merely one acceptable rhythm of Conciliar change would have to slow
system of thought and that not even the most notorious down. In addition to the visible laceration that
heretic suffers excommunication. traditionalists represented, there was the alarming
increase in defectors, people who were simply
It is only when we look behind the traditional-sounding bored with the new rites and were quietly walking
pronouncements that John Paul II has sometimes made away. If, as several major Synod interventions
– and see such men remaining in his Church, see the indicated, there was an awareness that things had
sacrilege over which he presided at Assisi, see the gone too far too fast, then conservative gestures
uncatholic doings of the Conciliar bishops (many of on the part of whoever would become Pope could
whom he created), etc. – that we realize that he is have been expected. (Cited, Dr. Rama A.
unwavering in his commitment to the destruction of Coomaraswamy, The Destruction of Christian
Catholic tradition that is the legacy of the Second Tradition, Perennial Books, 1981, pp. 102-103)
Vatican Council. (In his deviousness, he is a worthy
successor to Paul VI who, after it was revealed that In other words, for the Conciliar Church to have the
Archbishop Annibale Bugnini – architect of the new appearance of continuity with the true Catholic Church, a
"mass" – was a Freemason, did not pronounce him certain amount of accommodation with the last generation
infamous and excommunicate him, but removed him of Catholics raised prior to Vatican II must be allowed;
from the glare of public scrutiny by appointing him hence, a simulated rebuke of Kung and others whose open
Nuncio to Iran.) Father Noel Barbara, in the journal heresy frightens them (and, if not checked, could frighten
mentioned above, well sums up the mentality with which them all the way to real Roman Catholic churches.) The
we are dealing when he writes: Modernists are confident in their conspiracy since they are
in almost complete control of the education of those raised
Now what deceives simple people more than after the Council. But the mask of piety must only be
language? It is quite obvious that, if heretical removed in slow stages.
bishops or a heretical Pope uttered only Masonic
declarations and discourses which were openly How, though, can we explain a Bishop Williamson? Kung
heretical, they would deceive no one. In order to is still a member of John Paul II's Church but the Bishop
be mistaken for a pastor, in order to deceive the and other SSPX members, whose only "crime" appears to
THE ATHANASIAN 4 SEPTEMBER 1, 1991
be adherence to tradition, are excommunicated. (This can will make full use of the occasion of the Archbishop's death
only mean excommunication from the Conciliar Church, a to try to entice the sheep out of the fold." And the
body that Bishop Williamson should wish to be no part of, Archbishop himself writes in a letter enclosed with the
and yet he inexplicably claims the pronouncement null and newsletter that "we (are) in union with Catholic Rome and
void and SSPX members are still part of that Church.) not Modernist Rome ." But which is the Rome over which
Bishop Williamson desperately clings to any slightest John Paul II presides? Both?!? Although the SSPX may
motion by John Paul II in the direction of orthodoxy – not know where he stands, John Paul II has told us in an
and thereby most dangerously sees a friend where in unguarded moment during a visit to Mexico: "Those who
actuality stands an enemy. Although certainly not one of remain attached to incidental aspects of the Church which
the "simple people" mentioned by Father Barbara, Bishop were valid in the past, but which have been superseded,
Williamson is nonetheless being taken in by deceptive cannot be considered the faithful." (Emphasis added) The
language, which explains why he is so puzzled by the Jekyll significance of this quote is that John Paul II makes it clear
and Hyde behavior of the "Pope" and his "uncatholic that for someone to adhere to traditional Catholic
notions." The seeming contradiction is perfectly in keeping teachings is sufficient to make him an outcast in the
with the practice of Modernists who, writes Pope Saint Conciliar Church or, as he puts it, such people "cannot be
Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi, "seem not unfrequently considered the faithful."
to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to another,"
which they do "deliberately and advisedly," so that "in It is abundantly clear to those who will but open their eyes
their books one finds some things which might well be that the entire Conciliar hierarchy, from the "Pope" down,
approved by a Catholic but, on turning over the page, one has lost (if they ever had it to begin with – individual
is confronted by other things which might well have been cases may vary) any claim to being legitimate successors to
dictated by a rationalist" Or, as Bishop Williamson Saint Peter and the Apostles. The time has come for the
describes John Paul II"s thinking . .. "it is good in parts." faithful to expose this imposture for what it is and to
declare in each and every case what was said of Judas:
The Faith Must Be Defended … Now!!! "Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be
none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take."
The time has come for Bishop Williamson and other (Acts 1:20) t
prelates and priests to come forth and courageously stand
up for the Faith they love. The hour has already grown late
in this conflict and the enemy becomes more emboldened
As the sellout of the USA by its traitorous leaders
every day. Why? In good part because many of the leaders
becomes ever more manifest, the subject of guns
of "traditional " Catholicism have become timid shepherds becomes an ever more critical one. Mr. Weiskittel
whose shots into the wolf pack are carefully aimed to miss will discuss it in his article in the next issue of
the leader of the pack. His disguise is so convincing to The Athanasian ( October 15, 1991)
many of them that they simply refuse to believe that he is a
wolf and continue to wonder why this "sheep" is able to
mingle with the pack without being tom to shreds.
To insist that sedevacantism is not an issue of vital To live in our great cities without the loss offaith
importance to every Catholic is self-defeating. Either the and purity requires no less heroism than was
Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church or it isn't. It needed in the days of bloody persecution.
cannot be both. If it is not the Catholic Church, then its – Pope Pius XII
leader cannot be Pope. The logic is straightforward; the
conclusion inescapable. It simply cannot be both ways. The hottest places in hell are reserved for those
who, in a period of moral crisis, maintain their
neutrality.
And yet that is precisely what Bishop Williamson and the
SSPX would have us believe. In his June newsletter he – Dante
quotes an unidentified Society source as stating: "Rome
THE A THANAS/AN 5 SEPTEMBER 1.1991