As they gallop toward Rome, their home, the neo-SSPX (NSSPX) horsemen halt their stampede to offer a few responses regarding the consecration of Father Jean-Michel Faure a bishop by His Excellency, Bishop Richard Williamson. A more recent denouncement, A comparison of motives for a new bishop, attempts to comparatively distance the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre from the similar actions of Bishop Williamson.
The NSSPX frames the intentions of Bishop Williamson by stating that his actions were undertaken, essentially, for personal reasons and ceremoniously validated with statements of supernatural intentions to foster an appearance of sanctity. They state: “. . . personal motivations may indeed seem too human, and so they are accompanied by statements of supernatural intention . . .”.
As this is a blatant misrepresentation, it is almost funny. The spin is amusing, but anything can be twisted to suit one’s agenda. A telling story illustrates this point: A man rescued a little girl after she had been caught by an African lion, while she had leaned too far into the lion’s cage. A gentleman observed the unfortunate incident and sprang into action. He walloped the lion over the nose with his umbrella. This stunned the lion and caused him to release his hold on the girl. The man pulled the girl free and returned her unharmed to her frantic parents. The entire episode had been witnessed by a journalist who endeavored to interview the heroic man. While speaking to him, the journalist noticed that the gentleman had a small bible in his pocket and asked if he was a Christian. Indeed, he was a Christian. Once the interview was complete, the journalist gave the man his card and told him that the article should appear in his newspaper the next day. Early the next morning, the man purchased a copy. He found the article, detailing his actions, with the following headline: Right-wing Christian Fundamentalist Assaults African Immigrant and Steals His Lunch.
It must be a very distracting time for the NSSPX. All those twists and turns that they must navigate in their theatre of magical signposts along the road to raucous Rome, to join the mecca of infernal party boys – Rome is our home – giggle, giggle. Such must be the cause of detraction, I meant distraction.
They seem to have forgotten the telling signposts from one of their very own websites:
>>>>Shocking ecumenism of Pope Francis
>>>>Pope sorry for “breeding like rabbits” comments
>>>>Bishop Fellay: Church situation catastrophic!
Signposts that translate to read: Crisis in the Church – still!
For an individual, such as Bishop Williamson, who is highly literate as well as vastly observant, the many such signposts and the seemingly willful blindness of the NSSPX hierarchy offer more than a . . . mere doubt . . . that there is . . . sufficient cause . . . to act to protect the Faith as he did on March 19, 2015. In fact, his actions were far from . . . foolish haste . . ., but a testament to his . . . real prudence.
Catholics have a duty to fight for the Truth at all times, especially during times when the Church is hemorrhaging from one crisis after another. For each individual Catholic this battle is personal. All will render an account to God for their valour or their cowardice – laymen, priests and bishops alike.
Heed the words of Our Lady at La Salette, September 1846. She encouraged faithful Catholics to fight: Fight, children of light, you, the few who can see.
The Church has always recognized that enemies lurk within and that we must be constantly vigilant. In the Office of Holy Week (1890), we find words that were not penned by the willfully naïve: . . . see what things the enemy hath done wickedly in the sanctuary. And they that hate thee have made their boasts, in the midst of thy solemnity.
His Excellency, Archbishop Lefebvre, left a clear warning, too: . . . we must be very prudent and fight to the death, if need be, in order to deliver the Church from these enemies who are within.
Where the deposit of Faith is being guarded by faithful Churchmen, there shall be found amongst them malevolent, ravenous termites – cunning and shapeshifting as ever, often framing the true faithful as the deviants. Isn’t it ironic!
When, therefore, has the fight for Truth not been personal, one’s own duty to act?
In The Case of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: Trial by Canon Law, Charles P. Nemeth, a lawyer, wrote: That Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre [now include Bishop Richard Williamson] conducted an unauthorized consecration is not a point of contention. The Act was done. But Acts are not the sole basis in the determination of ecclesiastical wrongs. An act in and of itself has no moral dimension or inherent imputability. An act must be linked to a mental state, an intent or mindset . . . Both the 1917 and 1983 Code [see Canon 1323, especially § 4 & 7] insist on a mental imputability to find one liable for the acts they commit .
The NSSPX websites states the same: However, according to canon law, a person who believes, like Archbishop Lefebvre did, that there is a moral necessity to break a law (i.e., for the salvation of souls) would not incur any automatic penalties, even if that person were to be incorrect in that assessment .
The author further explains: No “authority,” . . . can force a bishop to compromise in his teaching of Catholic faith or administering of Catholic sacraments. No “law,” can force him to cooperate in the destruction of the Church. With Rome giving no guarantee of preserving Catholic Tradition [now include the NSSPX], Archbishop Lefebvre had to do what he could with his God-given episcopal powers to guarantee its preservation. This was his duty as a bishop.
And, in comparison, so it is with His Excellency, Bishop Williamson. May Our Lord bless him in abundance.
 A comparison of motives for a new bishop., retrieved from http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/comparison-motives-new-bishop-7745
 Kevin DUTTON, Split-Second Persuasion: The Ancient Art and New Science of Changing Minds, Anchor Canada, pp. 160-161.
 Office of Holy Week, M.H. Gill and Son, 1890, p. 147.
 Archbishop Marcel LEFEBVRE, Liberalism, The Angelus Press, 1980, p. 17 – text of a speech given at Barcelona, Spain, December 29, 1975.
 Charles P. NEMETH, M.S., J.D., L.L.M., The Case of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: Trial by Canon Law, Angelus Press, 1994, p. 37.
 Wasn’t Archbishop Lefebvre excommunicated?, retrieved from http://sspx.ca/en/faq-page/wasnt-archbishop-lefebvre-excommunicated-1994
Sr. Michaela Raphaela