Saturday, April 30, 2011

SSPX: Bishop Williamson hints at sedevacantism

Rorate Caeli has the story here.

Yes, Williamson is a flake and a schismatic.  That is hardly news.  This however raises the rather interesting question (from the Roman POV) of heresy.  Does sedevacantism imply a rejection of what Roman Catholics refer to as the "indefectibility" of the church? I think a good Catholic could make a plausible argument to that effect.


Jack O'Malley said...

Did Williamson "hint" at sedevacantism? Or was he being ironic? Is he himself a schismatic? I pass over the your portrayal of him as a "flake". De cleri deliratione non est iudicandum.

But more to the point:

Are the FSSPX schismatics?

Is sedevacantism a heresy?

I'd never heard either point of view so starkly stated.

The Church has experienced several extended interregna and its indefectibility has survived intact. The result of the divine warranty evidently.

Anonymous said...

I think you guys are reading too much into that one word 'yet'.

Anonymous said...

Similar to Protestants who read too much into Mary's 'first-born son' to imply that she had other children.

Jack O'Malley said...

I think you guys are reading too much into that one word 'yet'.

Perhaps, but hermeneutics is an art as much as a science, no?

Mona said...

I support Bishop Williamson - I believe it is best to leave the sede vacantist claim/accusation/assumption out of this or any conversation UNTIL IF and WHEN someone specifically and publicly states it over an extended period of time.

Thee SSPX as well as Bishop Williamson are not schismatic; they ahve held onto The Roman Rite without wavering for the benefit of all of us who appreciate -- seems people get "nervous" and "uncomfortable" when Bishop Williamson speaks truth and/or his opinion.

Grow up; "flake" is a juvenile barb hurled when children are cornered.

May God give us more Priests and Bishops like him who are strong and holy.

John (Ad Orientem) said...

In case it has escaped your notice sede vecantism has been mentioned by the bishop himself, with the word "yet" attached. You sound like it is a theory without adherents. It has many and it is a perfectly legitimate topic of discussion.

You claim the SSPX is not schismatic? Let me ask a few questions.

1. Do they submit to the authority of the Holy See which according to canon law is the court of final appeal on all matters?
2. Are they in full and normalized communion with the Holy See?
3. Do they unambiguously recognize the rites and sacraments of the Roman Church promulgated by the Pope of Rome as both licit and valid?
4. Do their priests grant absolution and annulments and marry persons without faculties (rendering such acts both illicit and invalid according to Roman Doctrine)?

They are schismatics.

Finally you object to my use of the term "flake." While admittedly harsh and judgmental I don't think it is out of bounds when referencing a man who is on record denying the Holocaust and affirming his belief that the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" are real. Under the circumstances I think I was quite restrained and even charitable in my characterization of the man. I could easily have used other descriptive terms like...
Bigot, Anti-Semite, Loon and nut job.

John (ex SSPXer with no desire to go back to that dark place)