September 30th, 2013
Motto: Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. (Shakespeare, Hamlet)
Your Excellency, let me first thank you very much for allowing me to ask you a few questions which our readers may be interested in.
REX!: Many people want to know your opinion on various things; however, it seems to me that no-one asks you a plain question first: How do you feel a year later since having been expelled from SSPX? And can you in connection with this tell our readers how does your usual daily schedule look like now?
+BW: As for feelings, I do not blame anybody for not asking me about how I feel. As the French would say, the problem is not there. The problem is global apostasy !
As for my daily routine, if I am not travelling, I am living for the moment “under the radar” in London, looking after myself, occupied quite heavily with writing for each week in French and English the “Eleison Comments”, and then with vetting the German, Italian and Spanish translations. The “Comments” have a number of devoted translators, and a Frenchwoman who vets my French !
REX!: I began this interview with the motto as I usually do. In this case it seemed to me quite appropriate to start with Shakespeare. First, I know you like the great author; second, the quotation would quite precisely characterize the present state of the Church and world itself, too. What in your opinion is rotten in today´s Church and world, or let me be more specific, what is the principal root of the rot?
+BW: The principal root of the rot is that the mass of human beings alive on earth, created by God and for God, have turned their backs on Him. It is a Luciferian worldwide revolt against our Creator, and will be severely punished, because only a severe punishment can still stop almost all souls alive from sliding into Hell. God punishes those whom He loves, like any good father. See Hebrews XII, 7. It is a revolt that has built up over centuries, if not millennia, led by true Satanists who want every single soul to fall into Hell.
REX!: You in your Eleison Comments or in your conferences occasionally use the term “fiftiesism” to describe a kind of Catholic mentality of 1950s. It seems you consider this to be one of the precursors of what happened after Vatican II. Can you, please, explain it?
+BW: “Fiftiesism”, as I call it, means that form of Catholicism in the 1950’s which kept up many of the appearances of the true Church, but inside was all ready to go with the modern world in its apostasy. All that was needed for the appearances of the true Church to collapse was churchmen who would disguise the collapse as a “renewal” or “renovation” of the Church, just as Protestantism was disguised as a “reform” or “Reformation”.
REX!: You are often being accused of being a unity breaker; the Resistance blamed for being sectarian. To me it on the contrary seems that Menzingen is right now claiming much more jurisdiction than it really possesses. Can you, please, comment on this?
+BW: Unity that is not unity in the truth will be unity in a lie. Unity is always secondary in this respect. Around what is the unity uniting ? That is the question. Did Archbishop Lefebvre break or uphold the unity of the true Church ? Menzingen today, whatever it may pretend in words, is in reality wanting to unite the Society of St Pius X around a policy of rejoining the mainstream Church, which is Conciliar. Menzingen has no authority whatsoever to promote such a compliance with the worldwide apostasy.
REX!: How does it come, Your Excellency, that the same people who understand that Archbishop Lefebvre´s resistance to the Conciliar authorities was correct and talk about the Revolution, but nevertheless ask for blind obedience in condemnation of the Resistance? I certainly understand that the fundamental problem is whose attitude, is in fact, in line with the Archbishop´s one. We all, however, know that the Archbishop signed the Protocol in 1988 only to cancel it the very next day. Bishop Fellay was ready to sign even the worst version of it under the title Doctrinal Preambule...
+BW: By his wisdom, faith, fidelity, sanctity and personal charisma the Archbishop drew many young men to follow him in the 1970’s and 1980’s who never really understood the fullness of his reasons for resisting the Council, and fighting against it. This is because they never understood just how far the modern world has gone wrong. Therefore as long as the Archbishop was alive, they lined up behind him like ducklings following Mother Duck on a pond. But within a few years of his no longer being amongst them, they began to fall back into the ways of the modern world (see for instance the story of GREC). It is a process all too natural for fallen human nature. Exactly the same thing happened in the diocese of Campos in Brazil when Bishop de Castro Mayer was no longer there amongst his priests, only it happened there faster.
When you mention the Archbishop’s “attitude” and the very different attitude of Bishop Fellay, you are correctly concentrating on the issues which determine where are true unity and obedience, and where are false unity and obedience. It is a shame that so many good SSPX priests and laity apparently never understood the Archbishop’s fight for the Faith and for the Church, or his “disobedience”, but such is the power of the world all around us to distract and to mislead souls.
REX!: You were close to archbishop Lefebvre and I suppose you knew him quite well. How do you think he would hypothetically see things today? Ratzinger becoming the Pope (only to retire after some time), then the new Pope Francis “no-number” etc. And what do you think he would tell bishop Fellay?
+BW: I can remember the Archbishop calling Cardinal Ratzinger, as he then was, the “Artful Dodger”, which was a very kind way of putting it. The Archbishop would have had no illusions about Pope Ratzinger. As for Pope Francis, I think the Archbishop would have shrugged his shoulders in horror. Does that sound contradictory ? “What do you expect of the Conciliar Church ?” he would have said. To Bishop Fellay I am sure that – in private ! – he would have spoken very severely. I think even Bishop Fellay would have been shaken. But would Bishop Fellay have changed his ways if he had not had to ? I doubt it.
REX!: Your Excellency, some people say, mostly in a derogatory way, that you are interested in various conspiracies. Thus it is presupposed that anything you say on the topic must be taken with a lenient smile: “The conspiracy nut, you know...” In spite of this, can you give us your opinion on possible conspiracy within SSPX? The Church has been infiltrated long before why should not be much smaller and weaker SSPX at some time, too? Do you think there may be anything true about it? How would such a conspiracy operate in reality?
+BW: As for conspiracies, many people will swallow the absurd conspiracy theory, for instance, of 19 Arabs pulling off the attacks of 11 September, 2001, while they refuse the mass of evidence of the real conspiracy, namely that those attacks were an “inside job”. When the peoples of the world want decadence while pretending not to want it, politicians are two a penny who pretend to be conservative while in fact serving the Revolution. Hence such politicians work in the dark. Hence conspiracy becomes normal.
As for conspiracy within the SSPX, I have never wanted to believe that any of my colleagues could be infiltrators or conspirators, but if I think about it, I might name a few, because what has happened to the SSPX corresponds to the fruits of a conspiracy. Certainly Bishop Fellay likes to work in the dark because he does not like what he calls “leaks”.
However, in many a case, including that of the fall of the SSPX, I do not think that a conspiracy is mainly to blame. Mainly to blame is not the match but the pile of dry wood just waiting to be set on fire. With the SSPX that pile would be too many bishops, priests and laity that have not a strong enough faith to have understood what the SSPX was all about.
REX!: Menzingen´s policy is sometimes described with a slogan, “Pay, pray, obey”. Do you think it is fitting? And what do you think about the economic situation of SSPX? On one hand, money is spent on the megalomaniac purposes such as the new oversized seminary in the USA, on the second hand, the donations are undoubtedly lessening. Do you think the time may come when SSPX ends up in bankruptcy?
+BW: “Pay, pray and obey” was a slogan attributed to the leaders of the Church in the 1950’s. It is not Catholic, because Almighty God does not want mindless and lukewarm robots in his Heaven. He spits “Fiftiesism” out of his mouth. Menzingen has clearly fallen back into “Fiftiesism”.
As for the present finances of the SSPX, I have no reliable information, one way or the other. But Americans have a saying, “No doctrine, no dollars.” The mainstream SSPX is giving up on doctrine. It would be most normal for it to lose the dollars.
REX!: What would you tell someone who says that in fact all the present quarrels can be traced far back, they are mostly personal, and have nothing to do with principles although now it is presented so?
+BW: In a lecture given in Ireland last spring, I am told that Bishop Fellay said half a dozen times that the problem of Bishop Williamson is a purely personal problem, supposedly a personal antagonism. Now it is true that I find highly distasteful what he has done to the SSPX, but the problem is absolutely not personal. It is a problem of the Faith. This is what he wants to disguise by pretending that the problem is mine, a personal problem with him, or with whoever. Nonsense! My problem with Menzingen is ideological, and it is not my problem, but Menzingen’s. Just like Archbishop Lefebvre’s problem with the Newchurch.
REX!: We have heard about the faithful being denied the Sacraments in SSPX chapels only due to their previous assistance at the Mass celebrated by a Resistance priest. In the Czech republic the situation is not as dramatic as in other countries in the world. Yet we have seen the Czech prior´s Declaration issued a few months ago with the approval of the then District Superior which in one of three points (the other two being irrelevant for our purposes) says:
“The activity of Bishop Williamson after his expulsion from SSPX is more and more directed against our Priestly society, he speaks about us as of a “Newsociety”. He also returns to the thematization1 of his revisionist theories which lead to the relativization of the Nazi crimes, which is unacceptable. Thus all the future activities claiming to support Bishop Williamson will be regarded as being hostile towards our Priestly Society.”
I think you may share any opinions you wish in a case of a free matter but I do not want to ask you about the historical questions because of the national law which is almost identical to the German one. Nonetheless, would you please comment on the Declaration´s point as to the term “Newsociety”? With this Declaration a few of us have become enemies literally overnight...
+BW: Just as what Vatican II has made of the Church is something so different from the true Church that it is realistic to speak of a “Newchurch”, so what Bishop Fellay and his collaborators have done to the Society of St Pius X is so different from what Archbishop Lefebvre founded that it seems to me entirely realistic to speak of a “Newsociety”. The fall of the mainstream Church after Vatican II and the recently manifest fall of the SSPX are entirely parallel. It is the same malady – love of the modern world.
REX!: There is a true story of a young man from the Czech republic who participated in the Walsingham Pilgrimage in England. When he came back home, the Czech SSPX prior asked him simple yet surprising question: “Tell me on which side do you stand? Are you with us or Bishop Williamson? You must decide!” In a small country where there are not many possibilities other than attending the SSPX masses this question seemed rather shocking. The prior even told him that the issue would have to be solved in the district HQ in Jaidhof, Austria [Czech republic technically belongs to the Austrian district]. The man also played the organ regularly during the SSPX masses. He was asked to stop playing because of what was mentioned above. Can you comment on this?
+BW: What do you expect ? The SSPX has changed. I have been consistently and openly opposed to that change. The promoters of the change are bound to defend their change and so to attack anybody who opposes it. Many good priests have been thrown out of the Newsociety for that reason, and any layfolk that follow them are liable to be denied the sacraments. There is a well-known saying: “Nobody is so sectarian as a liberal”.
REX!: Now a question of eminent interest for many. Did anything change that could push you nearer to consecrating a bishop, or bishops in the near future? Are you decided, or will you wait for a sign from God?
+BW: I think that the consecration of a bishop, or bishops to ensure in the present circumstances, as best humans can, the defence of the Faith, is simply a matter of time. I do not know when or where, but I have no objection in principle, especially as it is becoming inconceivable for any of the other three SSPX bishops to consecrate a candidate who would not fit the Conciliar profile, as they say. In practice I am waiting for Providence to show its hand, as I think it will. It is God’s Church. He does look after it !
REX!: A very debated topic recently: Do you think the time is coming when Russia will be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart, i.e. the time when everything will seem almost lost? If yes, why do you think so?
+BW: I am certain that Russia will eventually be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart, because did not Our Lord say to Sister Lucy in 1931 that it would be? But He also said that it would be late, in other words only when the world situation will seem to be desperate.
REX!: Is there anything special you would like to tell the readers in conclusion of this interview?
+BW: Watch and pray, watch and pray, Fifteen Mysteries every day. And may God bless abundantly every reader that wishes to adore, love and serve Him.
Thank you, Your Excellency, for your time and for everything you do. May God bless you!
Interviewer: D. Grof
1Linguistics the mental act or process of selecting particular topics as themes in discourse or words as themes in sentences