DOCTRINE UNDER-ESTIMATED? OR, BLAMING THE VICTIM?
An Exchange of
Views between Bishop Richard Williamson and E. Michael Jones
Bishop Williamson: Doctrine Under-Estimated
In a generally thoughtful
magazine from the USA, “Culture Wars”, the Editor recently took me
personally to task, together with the Society of St Pius X as a whole, for
wilfully cutting ourselves off from the mainstream Catholic Church. Let me
present as briefly and as fairly as possible E. Michael Jones’ argument, with
its main steps lettered to facilitate the answer:--
His main point is that the
problem of Vatican II is not doctrinal:
“(A) The Council documents are not themselves responsible for any of the
craziness following the Council in the name of its “spirit”. As for the
documents themselves, they are sometimes ambiguous, but (B) God is
always with His Church, which is why (C) only something Catholic can gain the
assent of the world’s assembled bishops, as happened at Vatican II. (D) Therefore it can and must suffice
to interpret the ambiguities in the light of Tradition, as Archbishop Lefebvre
himself once proposed to do.
“Therefore (E) Vatican II is
Traditional, and any problem between Rome and the SSPX cannot be doctrinal. (F)
Therefore the SSPX’s real problem is that it refuses communion out of a fear of
contamination, (G) proceeding from its schismatic lack of charity. (H) The
ensuing guilt they cover up by pretending that the Church is in an unprecedented
emergency, brought on by the anti-doctrine of Vatican II. (I) Therefore the
SSPX is saying that the Church has failed in its mission, and that the SSPX is
the Church. Nonsense! SSPX
bishops, sign over to Rome!”
REPLY: the problem of Vatican II is
ESSENTIALLY doctrinal. (A) Alas, the Vatican II documents are indeed
responsible for the “spirit” of Vatican II and its crazy aftermath. Their very
ambiguity, recognized by E.M.J., let the craziness loose. (B) God is
indeed with His Church, but He leaves His churchmen free to choose to do it
great, but never fatal, damage (cf.Lk. XVIII, 8). (C) Thus the mass of Catholic
bishops He let fall in the appalling Arian crisis of the fourth century. What
happened once is happening again, only worse. (D) At an early stage in the
post-Conciliar fight for Tradition, it may have been reasonable to appeal for
Vatican II to be interpreted in the light of Tradition, but that stage is long
past. The ambiguity’s bitter fruits have long since proved that the subtly
poisoned Conciliar documents cannot be salvaged.
Thus (E) the Council is not
Traditional, and the Rome-SSPX clash is ESSENTIALLY doctrinal, so (F) there is
good reason to fear contamination, because of Vatican II’s false doctrine -- it
is leading souls to Hell. (G) Nor is there a schismatic mentality amongst
(non-sedevacantist) Traditionalists, even though (H) the Church is in the thick
of the worst emergency of her entire history. (I) But just as in the Arian
crisis the few bishops who kept the Faith proved that the Church had not
absolutely failed, so today the SSPX belongs to the Church and is keeping the
Faith, without remotely pretending to replace, or to be on its own, the Church.
Michael, when, in all
Church history, were her assembled bishops deliberately ambiguous? You admit the ambiguity of Vatican II.
When did churchmen ever resort to ambiguity unless it was to pave the way for
heresy? In Our Lord’s Church, yes
is to be yes, and no is to be no (Mt.V, 37).
Dr. Jones: Blaming the Victim
The assembled bishops were
not deliberately ambiguous nor did they issue deliberately ambiguous
statements. The assembled bishops deliberated on and called for modifications
to documents that were influenced by the machinations of men whom history has
shown to be double agents. I am referring to people like Malachi Martin, who
was a paid agent of B’nai B’rith and the American Jewish Committee at the
council, and John Courtney Murray, who was working for Henry Luce’s Time/Life
empire, which had intimate connections with the CIA. The first story has been
told pretty much in full; the second will appear in the pages of Culture Wars and a forthcoming book by
David Wemhoff.
To say that Malachi Martin
and the Luce cabal at Time/Life, which included John Courtney Murray, tried to
influence the council is a fact which is now part of the historical record. To
say that they succeeded is something else again. To say that the bishops of the
world were in league with Fathers Martin and Murray is nothing short of
preposterous. Does this mean that Archbishop Lefebvre was in league with John
Courtney Murray? Archbishop Lefebvre approved Dignitatis Humanae. Was he
being “deliberately ambiguous” when he did? Did he do so “to pave the way for
heresy”?
I have never claimed that
the Council Fathers issued deliberately ambiguous statements. In my chapter on Malachi
Martin and the Jews in The Jewish
Revolutionary Spirit, I explain
in detail how the bishops tried to eliminate what they saw as error in the
drafts that led up to Nostra Aetate.
As I point out in my book, the Jews backing Malachi Martin’s efforts were not
happy with the final result.
Even if the Council Fathers
failed to eliminate every ambiguity from the texts they approved, that
contingency can be dealt with by the formula which Archbishop Lefebvre
endorsed, namely, “I accept Vatican II in the light of tradition.” This formula
can resolve all doctrinal difficulties. The fact that Bishop Williamson can’t
bring himself to sign it is a tragedy for the Church which I lament bitterly
and which I lamented to him personally when we met. The SSPX would be more
effective if it rejoined the Church, and the Church would be much more
effective in dealing with the world’s problems if Bishop Williamson spent less
time wasting his considerable talents on blaming the victim.
Bishop Williamson says: “At
an early stage in the post-Conciliar fight for Tradition, it may have been
reasonable to appeal for Vatican II to be interpreted in the light of
Tradition, but that stage is long past.” If it was reasonable in the past, it
remains reasonable today. And it will remain reasonable in the future. It is
always Catholic to interpret in the light of tradition. Indeed, I believe it is
now more necessary than ever.
Bishop Richard Williamson belongs to the Society of St Pius X. He writes
from Wimbeldon, England.
E. Michael Jones is the
editor of Culture Wars.
This exchange appears in the November 2010 issue of Culture Wars.
Share |
Index of
SSPX articles
The
Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History by
E. Michael Jones. Jews for Jesus versus Jews against Jesus; Christians versus
Christians versus Jews. This book is the story of such contests played out
over 2000 turbulent years. In his most ambitious work, Dr. E. Michael Jones
provides a breathtaking and controversial tour of history from the Gospels to
the French Revolution to Neoconservatism and the “End of History.” $48 + S&H,
Hardback. [In ordering for shipment outside the U.S., the book's price
will appear higher to offset increased shipping charges.] Read Reviews