Five debts owed to Bishop Richard Williamson
In one final farewell to the late Bishop Williamson, we assess five significant contributions made to the Church.
In one final farewell to the late Bishop Williamson, we assess five significant contributions made to the Church.
(Apologies if you received this post by email more than once.)
We will all have our memories of the late Bishop Richard Williamson.
Some of us knew him only through online material, whereas others knew him in person. I knew him in person, although not for as long or as well as others.
In the time that I did know him, Bishop Williamson was a very unassuming man. I remember realising at a picnic that his Lordship was sitting quietly, almost by himself. He was not complaining about a genuinely annoying ruckus that was going on around him, and he had been tolerating, with amusement, my son cheekily helping himself to the episcopal olives.
He was less tolerant with me: I recall him telling me off, on the day of my confirmation, for having a hand in my pocket when I was about to kiss his ring. But even then, he was gentle, pleasant and even amused at my gaucheness.
These small moments capture an aspect of Bishop Williamson that his enemies and critics might like to forget: a man of strong ideals, yet also one of patience and humour.
RIP Bishop Richard Williamson (Obituary)
+Viganò's Eulogy for +Williamson—and other responses
Farewell to a ‘turbulent priest’: Bishop Richard Williamson's funeral and burial
Bishop Williamson’s legacy
In the days following his death, discussions about his legacy have included both praise and critique. Some have expressed concerns about “hagiographical” portrayals of his legacy, calling for a more measured assessment of his ideas and character.
As I noted in his obituary, I also disagreed with several ideas expressed by the late bishop (cf. Bishop Donald Sanborn’s succinct analysis on Williamson’s idea of “mentevacantism”). Nonetheless, such concerns about alleged “hagiography” are misplaced for two reasons.
First: problematic aspects of his ideas and character—real or perceived—have been addressed in exhaustive (and sometimes quite churlish) detail elsewhere, by critics inside and outside of the Church. There is no need to repeat them here.
For similar reasons—apart from noting the warm relations he maintained with many SSPX priests—I have nothing to say about his clash with Menzingen. For a start, this had already been concluded by the time I knew him.
Second: obituaries, tributes and fond memories of those who die are not hagiography. Engaging in such writing can be a duty and necessary exercise of gratitude (and even piety) towards one to whom we are indebted.
In keeping with this duty, this article will discuss five key “debts” owed to the late Bishop:
His insistence on the Kingship of Christ and the liberty of the Church
His constant promotion of the Rosary
His transmission of the spirit of St. Ignatius’ Spiritual Exercises
His witness to the importance of sacramental integrity
His distinction between the Conciliar Church and the Catholic Church.
Others might have chosen different debts to discuss, such as his strident views on history, politics, literature, music, marriage and the sexes, alleged medical treatments, his keen sense of what the traditionalist clergy were and were not, or his denunciations of the various enemies of the Church.
Nonetheless, these are the five heads under which I shall render this last duty of gratitude towards the late Bishop.
First Debt: Bishop Williamson and the Kingship of Christ
The heart of the crisis
In my end is my beginning.
These are words which Mary Queen of Scots embroidered into her work in prison, awaiting her execution by Elizabeth I of England, taken up by T.S. Eliot in his Four Quartets—a favourite, I am told, of the late Bishop Williamson, but certainly of his biographer, friend, and collaborator Dr David Allen White. White himself died soon after Williamson on 11th February 2025.
The modern crisis in the Church begins and ends with the doctrine of the social kingship of Christ.
One of Lefebvre’s most famous books was They Have Uncrowned Him. The “uncrowning” of Christ the King—manifested particularly in the acceptance of the liberal doctrine of religious liberty following Vatican II—was a constant theme of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, as well as Bishop Williamson himself.
It has become trendy for people to say “Christ is King,” and even some Protestants like to talk about “restoring Christendom”. But the Kingship of Christ is, in a sense, the personification of the doctrines of the Church’s liberty and independence as a perfect society, and the duty of civil societies to recognise the true religion, to worship God and to make laws in accordance with it.
But Williamson did not only preach and talk about this doctrine. In the final years of his life, he lived it, and bore witness to this Kingship and liberty at risk to himself.
The Lockdown Years
During the years of 2020-2022, we were in the depths of lockdowns, church closures, and the general sense of impending doom.
One of the great scandals of that period was that secular governments had presumed to close churches and suppress public worship.
Another scandal—perhaps even greater—was that those who claimed to be our “shepherds”…
Either accepted these church closures and suppressions
Or argued against them on wholly naturalistic grounds.
These grounds were naturalistic because they were applied to “religious worship in general,” rather than to that of the Catholic Church; and because they were based on reasons such as the importance of worship for mental health.
Unbelievably, the president of the alleged Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales signed a letter to a government minister, calling for worship to be permitted because it served as:
[A]n essential sign of hope […] especially for Black Asian and Minority Ethnic people.1
It is difficult to understand what such a statement is trying to convey, whether in itself or as an argument against lockdowns.
Yet another scandal was the spectacle of allegedly Catholic politicians—such as the famous Jacob Rees-Mogg in the UK—voting in favour of laws that entailed these closures and suppressions. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
In other words, all these parties were silent about:
The rights of God
The rights of Christ the King
The liberty of the Church.
Betrayal of Christ the King
Practically speaking, it is understandable that clergy do not see themselves as being in a position to ignore the laws of the civil power. But even if one complies with unjust laws, there is such a thing as complying under protest.
Similarly, stating the true doctrine on the absolute independence of the Church from the civil power was necessary at the time, and could have been done without any risks or loss.
The Douay Catechism states that Catholics are obliged to make an open profession of faith “as often as God’s honour, our own, or our neighbour’s good requires it.”2 Canon 1325 §1 expresses this reality in very similar terms:
The faithful of Christ are bound to profess their faith whenever their silence, evasiveness, or manner of acting encompasses an implied denial of the faith, contempt for religion, injury to God, or scandal for a neighbor.3
St Thomas explains further:
“It is not necessary for salvation to confess one’s faith at all times and in all places, but [it is] in certain places and at certain times – namely when by omitting to do so, we would deprive God of due honor, or our neighbor of a service that we ought to render him.
“For instance, if a man, on being asked about his faith, were to remain silent, so as to make people believe either that he is without faith, or that the faith is false, or so as to turn others away from the faith.”4
In this passage, St Thomas is discussing sin, and what is necessary for salvation. Nonetheless, his comments shed light on the requirements for membership of the Church. In the context of membership, one component of “professing the faith” is fulfilling such obligations.
Williamson’s demonstration of Christ’s Kingship through action
As I have said, such protests and professions were conspicuously absent on the part of the putative hierarchy.
However, from the beginning of this debacle, the late Bishop Williamson was completely sceptical of the whole affair, and did what he could—a great deal—to ensure that Almighty God would continue to be worshipped by the Catholic faithful, and to ensure that they would continue to have access to the sacraments.
Other priests took steps to ensure the faithful were cared for during this time, whether immediately or as matters became clearer. We are very grateful to all of them.
But credit must be given where credit is due. While the rest of us were being “prudent,” Bishop Williamson was quietly getting on with being right.
Thus, the first debt owed to the late Bishop is made up of respect for his constant preaching of the Kingship of Christ, and gratitude for him putting this doctrine into action during the lockdowns, for the sake of the faithful.
These matters were the context for the following article, which explains:
Why the feast of Christ the King came to exist
How it was completely changed following Vatican II
What the effects of these liturgical changes have been on doctrine and practice.
In effect, the scandals that took place during Covid were nothing less than the fruits of these changes to the feast and doctrine of Christ the King.
I also discussed this matter with Mr Theo Howard at The Two Cities podcast.
Second Debt: Bishop Williamson and the Rosary
Those who used to see Bishop Williamson around London or elsewhere would notice that he often had a small Rosary ring in his hand, with which he would be quietly and unobtrusively praying the decades.
He encouraged everyone to say fifteen decades a day—though no one knows how many he must have prayed himself.
He advised families to meet in homes to pray the Rosary together, especially during the COVID restrictions, when some could not attend Mass. I was able to do this with some other families for a time, and it provided great solace during those difficult years.
He also organized “Rosary Blasts” in Walsingham, England, where over 100 decades of the Rosary would be prayed in a weekend at the famous Marian shrine.
In our day, few have been as insistent and compelling in their promotion of the Rosary as the late Bishop Williamson.
Williamson’s encouragement
Inspired by his advocacy, The WM Review launched a series of 54-Day 15-Decade Rosary Crusades during the Covid lockdowns. These efforts received endorsements from figures throughout the Catholic world, including Bishop Williamson. When we asked the bishop for his endorsement for the first crusade, he replied as follows:
… congratulations also on anything you do to encourage the praying of the Rosary. Do not expect exemplary perseverance from all who climb on board, but make sure to thank God and the Blessed Mother even just for their climbing on board.
And I suggest that you follow those who do show perseverance and propose to them as a next step that they think of the five First Saturdays […]
I will offer a Mass for the intention of your initiative…
It was during the fourth Rosary Crusade that Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine began. It seemed that as a result of this, all talk of vaccine mandates soon dried up. Personally, I think that this was a result of Our Lady’s powerful intercession, and a demonstration of the strength in dedicating 15 decades a day for 54 days.
No-one who knows about the Austrian “Rosary Crusade of Reparation” (1948-55) should scoff at such an idea.
Williamson’s gentleness
Despite his insistence, Williamson was never extreme or exigent about saying fifteen decades a day.
He acknowledged that not everyone could manage that much, and he thought that something was better than nothing—because of the power of the Holy Rosary.
Just last August, he cited Sr Lucy of Fatima’s words on the “special power” of the Rosary, which enabled it to “solve all problems,” and said:
This power is something that Catholics (and non-Catholics) need to believe in, for the world’s imminent trials. The key is that the world around us empties out God, leaving a shell of Him at most.
The prayer of the Rosary restores the sense of God, little by little, in human souls. Let us begin with the man-made absence of God, and pass on to the power of the Rosary.5
In the same newsletter, he explained why the Rosary is so useful for man:
… how can anyone pretend that praying the simple and repetitive Rosary can be a cure?
Physically, the Rosary engages, regulates and tranquillises all the most mobile parts of a human being: the fingers with the beads, the mouth with uttering the prayers, the mind with contemplating the Mysteries, maybe also the feet with walking up and down. This captivating of our fickle frame frees the soul to commune with God, i.e. to pray.
My mind goes wool-gathering? The beads bring me back.
And spiritually, the Mysteries centre on Our Lord, framed symmetrically within Mysteries of Our Lady (the unsymmetrical “Mysteries of Light”, added by modernists, should be disregarded). She gives Him birth, He dies for our sins, She is rewarded with the Queenship of the Universe.6
Thus, we are indebted a second time to Williamson’s tireless enthusiasm and encouragement in praying the Rosary.
For more on the “special power” of the Rosary, see the following article by my co-editor M.J. McCusker, which was first delivered as a conference in 2018, at pro-life rallies across Ireland in 2018:
Third Debt: Bishop Williamson and St. Ignatius’ Spiritual Exercises
It is well-known that Bishop Williamson was very interested in apparitions of Our Lady (the delicate role of which in Catholic theology we have discussed elsewhere).
The bishop put great store by Our Lady having personally given the Rosary to St Dominic herself, and by her having personally commanded us to say it daily via the apparitions at Fatima. This is why, as we have seen, he promoted the Rosary as the means of surviving the modern world, attaining and retaining the faith, and resolving any problem at all.
But the Rosary is not the only weapon that Our Lady has given to the Church. According to tradition, she is also responsible for having blessed the Church with The Spiritual Exercises of St Ignatius of Loyola, who was the founder of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits).
In his 1922 Apostolic Letter Meditantibus Nobis, Pope Piux XI referred to this tradition:
To inaugurate his new militia with due solemnity, [St Ignatius of Loyola] spent an entire night in arms before the altar of the Virgin; and shortly thereafter, in that retreat at Manresa, he learned from the very Mother of God how he was to wage the battles of the Lord, receiving, as it were, from her hands that most perfect code of laws—which may rightly be so called—that every good soldier of Christ Jesus ought to use. We speak of the Spiritual Exercises, which are said to have been divinely imparted to Ignatius.7
“Passing on the flame”
Just as Bishop Williamson was a faithful apostle for the Rosary, so too was he an apostle for the Exercises. As with many other priests of the SSPX, he completed the fully thirty-day Spiritual Exercises under Fr Ludovic Barrielle, before entering Ecône. By 1973, Williamson was himself assisting Barrielle in giving the Exercises—which continued after he was ordained.
In most cases today, the Spiritual Exercises are given in a compressed, five-day format. Most traditionalists who have had the opportunity to make the Exercises in the five-day format have Fr Barrielle to thank for it. In the words of the foreword to the prayer book Christian Warfare, Barrielle “passed on the flame of the Spiritual Exercises of St Ignatius to future priests of the Society of St Pius X.”
But from where did Barrielle receive this precious flame?
Fr Francisco de Paula Vallet
Barrielle was a member of the Parochial Cooperators of Christ the King (CPCR). Until Vatican II hit, Barrielle was one of the main preachers at the chief house of the CPCR in France—and soon after, he joined up with Archbishop Lefebvre.
This institute was established by Fr Francisco de Paula Vallet in Spain, in the 1920s. It was entirely focused on delivering Vallet’s compressed, five-day form of the Exercises to laymen—particularly for men.
Vallet had enormous success with working men and former anti-Catholics. Those who made the retreat, and became “Parish Cooperators” would recruit new retreatants, whether through going door to door, or just speaking to people in the pub or at the barbers. These “alumni” would be the ones giving the retreats to the next cohort.
We will shortly be publishing more material on Vallet’s work, but suffice it to say that he transformed formerly anti-Catholic Catalonia and prepared it for the ravages of the Spanish Civil War.
It is estimated that from 1923 to 1927, Vallet had given the five-day retreat to 12,643 souls. It is also estimated that 6,000 of Vallet’s former retreatants shed their blood for Christ during the Communist persecution there.
This is the tradition to which Bishop Williamson was an heir, along with those others who were formed by Fr Barrielle in the seminary. This is the flame which Barrielle received and passed on, and which continues to enlighten and enkindle souls today.
Bishop Williamson and the Exercises
In an interview with Peter Gumley, he discussed their role in strengthening the faith:
… The faith is not strong enough. How do you strengthen the faith?
Classic means of the Catholic Church: the Exercises of Saint Ignatius.
Those are designed to remake… how to say… it’s like boot camp—you know boot camp in the Army—it’s spiritual boot camp, the Exercises. And they will put a man’s faith back on its feet.
They’ll put a man, a Catholic man, back on his feet. Which is what they did for the next few hundred years [after St Ignatius].8
At another time, Williamson referred to the Exercises as “the Excalibur” and the tool “with which St. Ignatius forged the Jesuits.” In the same interview, he said:
[W]e use the Ignatian Exercises, we also use Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas. So you know, those are two classic instruments of Catholic formation. You can’t get more classic than the Summa for the mind and the Exercises for the will.9
Williamson not only promoted the Exercises, but he also continued to give them and to facilitate their use, even in the final years of his life. I myself had the privilege of attending the five-day form of the Exercises given by Williamson and by Fr Paul Morgan (now Bishop Morgan).
Despite having been a traditional Catholic for years, that retreat was eye-opening, and I have not yet finished reaping the benefits of those five days. A few weeks after that retreat, he delivered another round of the Exercises in London, to a group of the young men who had “adopted” him in the final years of his life.
The Exercises would have continued to be available without Bishop Williamson. They continue to be given in Fr Vallet’s five-day form by groups such as:
The Society of St Pius X (SSPX)
The Institutum Mater Boni Consilii (IMBC)
The Fraternity of St Peter (FSSP)
The Benedictines of the Abbey of Saint-Joseph de Clairval in Flavigny-sur-Ozerain.
I am also informed that the Roman Catholic Institute (RCI) also offers them. In addition, Vallet’s own groups continue in a Novus Ordo setting today.
But none of this diminishes this third debt which we owe to Williamson, of having in fact been the one who “passed on the flame” of the Exercises to many of us.
We have published a number of classic texts on the Spiritual Exercises, aimed at exonerating St Ignatius, the Jesuits and the Exercises from guilt by association with their “heirs,” and at showing their true worth in the eyes of the Church:
Fourth Debt: Bishop Williamson and sacramental integrity
We now reach a topic which some find sensitive, because it touches on the validity of sacraments received by countless faithful in the post-Vatican II era.
This is a long-standing question. In 1978, the German Una Voce Korrespondenz published a study by Dom Athanasius Kröger OSB—a priest in good standing—which concluded that consecrations carried out with Paul VI’s new rite were subject to doubt. Given the debates on the topic and praxis of traditionalists have gone on so long, it should not be surprising that Catholics have different views, and that some find the question sensitive.
However, this does not need to be so, if we recognise the good will of all parties to the discussion, and prioritise seeking the truth itself (whatever it may turn out to be) over worrying about the consequences it may entail. Men such as Fr John Zuhlsdorf have shown how to engage with this issue with dignity and grace—in spite of its implications for them personally.
When we approach questions like this, particular cases and the feelings of individuals are not legitimate data. We cannot refuse to consider these questions, out of fear of causing offence—even if we do not seek to cause it, and lament it if we do. For those concerned, I have written extensively on this angle of the issue (for example, here and here), offering explanations and nuances and clarification about what is and is not being argued.
With this in view, let us consider the 1988 consecrations.
Lefebvre’s Justification for Consecrating Bishops
In June 1988, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrated Bishop Richard Williamson to the episcopate, alongside Frs Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, and Alfonso de Galarreta. He explained this dramatic step in his sermon that day:
You well know, my dear brethren, that there can be no priests without bishops. When God calls me—this will certainly not be long—from whom would these seminarians receive the sacrament of [holy] orders?
From conciliar bishops, who, due to their doubtful intentions, confer doubtful sacraments?
This is not possible.10
Lefebvre’s central concern was ensuring the continuity of the sacraments, especially holy orders. Without bishops, there can be no ordinations or confirmations; without priests, Mass, confession, and extreme unction would cease, leaving only baptism and matrimony.
But he was not merely concerned that modern bishops would refuse to ordain traditionalists or securing sacraments for the Society of St. Pius X—his concern was for the entire Church. For example, in 1986, he stated his belief that the sacraments conferred by modernists had become subject to doubt:
I cannot say, myself, that for all sacraments in the Conciliar Church, these three conditions [for validity] are never met. I don't think we can say that.
But I think with new priests, with priests who no longer have Catholic intentions, they don't know what the proper intention is, the intention of the Church, so that perhaps the validity of their sacraments is at least doubtful.11
By 1987, his position had hardened. Writing to Williamson and the other three future bishops, Lefebvre stated:
[T]he absolute need appears obvious of ensuring the permanency and continuation of the adorable Sacrifice of Our Lord in order that ‘His Kingdom come.’ […]
I find myself constrained by Divine Providence to pass on the grace of the Catholic episcopacy which I received, in order that the Church and the Catholic priesthood continue to subsist for the glory of God and for the salvation of souls.
The main purpose of my passing on the episcopacy is that the grace of priestly orders be continued, for the true Sacrifice of the Mass to be continued, and that the grace of the Sacrament of Confirmation be bestowed upon children and upon the faithful who will ask you for it.12 [Emphasis added.]
In 1988, Lefebvre wrote the following striking letter:
I agree with your desire to reordain conditionally these priests, and I have done this reordination many times. All sacraments from the modernist bishops or priests are doubtful now. The changes are increasing and their intentions are no more Catholic.13
Such texts could be multiplied at great length.
Some have claimed, against these texts, that Lefebvre advised his bishops not to conditionally ordain priests systematically.
This is false. Just a few weeks before his passing, this claim was posed to Williamson, and he “firmly” responded by saying that Lefebvre had advised caution about ordaining unsuitable men—not that he was advising a presumption of validity, and affirming the intrinsic validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration (NREC).
Lefebvre’s concern, then, was not simply the survival of his own apostolate but the preservation of the priesthood and the certainty of the sacraments for the entire Church.
The principle of conditional repetition of the sacraments
It is an established principle of Catholic theology that one cannot receive the sacraments when there is a well-founded doubt about validity.
If there is well-founded doubt regarding the validity of a sacrament which has already been putatively conferred, the Church requires conditional repetition to ensure that the faithful do not go without necessary graces. The minister, in such cases, prefaces the sacramental form with: “If thou art not already confirmed…” or “…ordained.” This is standard Church practice when doubt exists.
Lefebvre and his collaborators understood this well, and in response to concerns over the reformed rites, they conditionally repeated many sacraments.14 The SSPX followed this principle, particularly in the case of confirmations.
Archbishop Lefebvre himself had defended this practice in 1975, stating:
These parents have the right to be certain that their children are receiving the grace of Confirmation. This is, after all, a grave responsibility for parents. It is grace, which keeps the soul alive.15
Like the other three bishops consecrated by Lefebvre, Williamson conditionally confirmed any faithful who had received the new rite.
Further Bishop Williamson (and Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, at least as late as 2016) took Lefebvre’s warnings about conditional ordination seriously. They conditionally conferred the sacrament of holy orders on men who had been ordained in the Novus Ordo rites, or whose ordaining bishops had been so consecrated.
Reports indicate that Williamson performed more conditional ordinations than the other three bishops combined—even before his expulsion from the SSPX.
Theological Debates on Validity
Sometimes these debates are presented as turning on the sacramental intention of the ministers. But in fact, the post-Vatican II sacramental reforms have raised serious concerns beyond just this factor.
Fr. Alvaro Calderón, a respected theologian in SSPX circles, was greatly admired by the Bishop. Williamson discussed his book Prometheus on many occasions (and in several series of conferences).
Calderón also wrote an in-depth study on the NREC, which has been quietly sidelined since its publication. As with his praise of Tissier de Mallerais’ study of Ratzinger’s modernist theology, Williamson's endorsement of Calderón’s study continued even after the author had apparently abandoned his work to the “memory hole.”
While Calderón believed the new rite was probably valid, he recognized that moral certainty is required for the conferral and reception of the sacraments. In the absence of this, conditional repetition is necessary. His conclusion was as follows:
If we consider the matter, form and intention of the new rite of episcopal consecration in the context of the rite and in the circumstances of its institution, it seems to us that it is most probably valid, because it not only means what it should mean, but most of its elements are taken from rites received by the Church.
But we believe that there is no certainty of its validity, because it suffers from two important defects, one canonical and the other theological […]
But the positive and objective defects that this rite suffers, which prevent certainty of its validity, seem to us—until there is a Roman judgment, for which many things would have to change—to justify and make necessary the conditional reordination of priests consecrated by new bishops and, if necessary, the conditional reconsecration of these bishops.
Such uncertainties cannot be tolerated at the very root of the sacraments.16
This is the principle which Williamson embraced. It was also Lefebvre’s principle: doubtful sacraments can and must be repeated conditionally for the sake of the faithful.
Williamson’s episcopal consecrations
The question of sacramental validity is not merely theoretical but has direct consequences for the souls of the faithful. Bishop Williamson understood this well and acted accordingly.
Following his expulsion from the SSPX, Bishop Williamson consecrated several bishops to ensure the continuity of valid sacraments, including:
Jean-Michel Faure (2015)
Thomas Aquinas Ferreira de Costa (2016)
Gerardo Zendejas (2017)
Giacomo Ballini (2021)
Michał Stobnicki (2022)
Paul Morgan (2022)
These consecrations provide a safeguard for sacramental validity, ensuring its continuation within the Resistance—and maybe beyond, depending on what the future holds.
Williamson also reportedly conditionally consecrated Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, though this remains unverified. If true, it aligns with his well-documented concern for sacramental integrity.
Sacramental legacy beyond holy orders
Aside from the question of Holy Orders, Williamson was generous in ensuring that the faithful had moral certainty through conditional repetition of sacraments, even when he may not have personally shared every ground for doubt. In this, he faithfully followed Archbishop Lefebvre’s pastoral prudence.
Many among us—ourselves, our families, our friends—were conditionally confirmed by Bishop Williamson.
Further, he was consulted on M.J. McCusker’s study on the topic of widespread access to conditional baptism, following widespread invalid and doubtful cases. He approved of its approach and implemented it when requested.
As stated in the obituary:
Although he has gone from among us, Bishop Williamson’s legacy lives on in the sacramental characters imposed on the souls whom he baptized, confirmed, and ordained, and in the peace of conscience that he provided through his conditional repetition of these sacraments.
Thus, we are indebted to Bishop Williamson a fourth time for his role in fact in ensuring that we and many others are baptised children of God, and confirmed “soldiers of Christ.”
For further analysis of Lefebvre’s pastoral practice regarding conditional confirmation and ordination, see below:
Fifth Debt: Bishop Williamson, the Conciliar Church and the Catholic Church
Everybody knows that there is a crisis in the Roman Catholic Church. But most Catholics, including many traditionalists, fail to grasp the full extent of the problem.
Our current crisis is one of:
Faith
Unity
Liturgy
Authority
Ecclesiology
Morality
… and more.
Without a doubt, this is the worst crisis the Church has ever faced. But recognising this is not a cause for despair. Rather, it is the first step toward finding real answers. Once we realise the magnitude of the crisis, we can ask the right questions—and face the answers not only without fear, but with peace and joy.
In the decades following Vatican II, Catholics have asked:
What is happening?
How should we act?
What principles justify our actions?
One of the problems is that the nature and scale of this crisis was totally unexpected. There was no pre-written manual for what to do in this situation. As a result, different groups took prudent steps to cling to the Faith—even if they were not always able to provide fully coherent explanations for their actions. As time passed, the three questions above were answered in familiar ways. These answers became commonplaces and maxims, including:
“The Church is always in crisis.”
“We have had many bad popes in history.”
“The ordinary magisterium is fallible and can contain error.”
“The Church’s teaching about herself isn’t really that clear.”
“It’s not a problem until the pope tries to define formal heresy ex cathedra.”
These maxims then hardened into theories and “positions”, which in turn became the foundation for ideological “camps,” often influenced more by tribalism and ‘party spirit’ than by rigorous theological reasoning. Such maxims (and their applications) are treated as if they are self-evident truths. But too often, they are asserted rather than demonstrated, and their relevance is simply assumed.
When applied to real-world events, they frequently lead to contradictions or evasions. This is very visible when reading traditionalist controversy: when one looks at the footnotes, one rarely finds theological principles being established by serious authorities. But if we want to understand this crisis, we must base our analysis on theology—not on tribalism, party spirit, commonplaces, soundbites, or pious optimism.
We said above that this is the worst crisis in the Church’s history. This is so, not just because of the scale of the crisis, but because Catholic doctrine teaches that the Church is necessarily preserved from the very errors she appears to have suffered since Vatican II.
We can deny neither the Church’s indefectibility, nor the facts of the crisis. On the one hand, we know—with the supernatural certainty of divine faith—that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ. On the other hand, we know that, for over sixty years, the organisation based in the Vatican has taught errors about its own nature and constitution.
The necessary conclusion is that we must re-examine our assumptions about what has happened since the 1960s. There are two main ways of doing this:
One is to minimise and relativise the crisis, pretending that it is not as bad as it seems.
Another is to look for legal loopholes, as if we were trying to “get the Church off the hook” in a courtroom.
If one invokes the visibility of the Church as a defence for the Conciliar edifice, one is left defending a purely naturalistic visibility, rather than the visibility contained in traditional doctrine and theology.
However, there is another way, which we will only find if we ask the right question. The question has been asked by many of the great leaders following Vatican II. It is a profoundly disturbing question when one first hears it. The question is this:
What is the “Conciliar Church”?
To some, asking this question may seem like madness—or even like suffering shipwreck in the Faith. But we must both ask and answer it.
Further, we must ask: can we say, without qualification, that the institution based in the Vatican—headed by Francis and his recent predecessors, taken exactly as it presents itself—is actually the Roman Catholic Church?
Or is it the true Church, infected by a modernist sickness?
Or is it a completely separate false sect?
Or is it something else?
In 2013, Fr Jean-Michel Gleize SSPX, John Lane, and Bishop Tissier de Mallerais each published papers addressing this question. Their arguments, though not written as direct replies to one another, engaged with the same fundamental issue. But even before their debate, Bishop Williamson had addressed the question in an Eleison Comments newsletter, titled ‘Apples Rotting’ (14 May 2011):
In two ways a rotten apple may cast a little light in the darkness of today’s eclipsed Church. Firstly, we do not wait for every part of an apple to be rotten before we call it rotten as a whole, yet parts of it are still not rotten. In answer then to the question whether the apple is rotten, we must make a double distinction: as a whole, yes; in these parts, yes; in those parts, no. And secondly, while apple is not rot and rot is not apple, yet the rot is inseparable from its apple and cannot exist without it. [...]
Similarly, today’s Church is rotten as a whole insofar as Conciliarism is widespread throughout it, but that does not mean that every single part of the Church is rotten with Conciliarism. So it is as wrong to condemn any part still Catholic because of the Conciliar whole, as it is wrong to excuse the Conciliar whole because of those parts still Catholic. To fit one’s mind to the reality, one must distinguish both between the different parts, and between the whole and the parts.
And if we apply to today’s Church also the second part of the comparison with a rotten apple, we can say that it is genuinely useful to speak of two churches, the “Conciliar church” and the Catholic Church, because Conciliarism is to be found in real life all through the Church, although in their pure state Conciliarism and Catholicism exclude one another like apple and rot. But they are not in real life separable any more than are the rot from its apple or any parasite from its host. In real life there is only one Church, the Catholic Church, suffering today all over from the Conciliar rot.17
The distinction between the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church—or the “Conciliar/Synodal Church,” as it now calls itself—is the key to understanding the present crisis.
For many, Bishop Williamson was in fact the one who introduced them to the idea of there being a distinction between the Conciliar Church and the Catholic Church. Although we have come to disagree with various points in his presentation of the problem of the Conciliar Church—and believe he did not go far enough—we must recognise Williamson’s insistence on addressing the question.
By this insistence, Bishop Williamson kept Archbishop Lefebvre’s analysis alive, which itself provides the foundation and evidence for others to reach the true analysis of the crisis in the Church:
The Holy See has been vacant since around the time of the Second Vatican Council, having been occupied by illegitimate usurpers.
For this, although he did not draw the conclusion himself, we are indebted a fifth time to Bishop Williamson.
Those who wish to understand Lefebvre’s analysis further, and to understand the crisis in the Church theologically, rather than through slogans or tribal loyalties, could begin here:
Conclusion
This article has outlined five “debts” owed to the late Bishop Williamson—five defining aspects of his legacy that contributed to shaping the Church after Vatican II. These debts are:
The Kingship of Christ—His emphasis on the Social Kingship of Christ and the dangers of religious liberty post-Vatican II.
The Holy Rosary—His tireless advocacy for 15 decades a day, public “Rosary Blasts,” and Rosary Crusades.
The Spiritual Exercises—His role as an apostle of St. Ignatius’ Spiritual Exercises, hosting or encouraging the faithful to make the five-day Ignatian retreats of Fr Vallet.
Ensuring Sacramental Integrity—His practice of conditional repetition of sacraments originally conferred in the new rites.
Distinguishing the Conciliar Church and Catholic Church—His explanation, employing the analogy of a “rotten apple,” which aided many in understanding the Church’s present crisis (even if it did not go far enough).
We could summarise these five debts aa follows.
The late Bishop was a great enthusiast for the visions of Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser, particularly his interpretation of the seven ages of the Church, a framework for understanding sacred history. While such schemas are often associated with visionaries, Holzhauser’s interpretation was also taken seriously by theologians, including Cardinal Louis Billot, who placed it in the epilogue of his classic ecclesiological work, On the Church of Christ.
Williamson frequently referred to this interpretation, which places us in the fifth age—that of the Church of Sardis, a time of spiritual decline and crisis. In Apocalypse 3:2, Our Lord warns Sardis to:
Strengthen the things that remain, which are ready to die.
This call—and the rest of the Letter to the Church of Sardis—are strikingly relevant to our day. In this time of doctrinal confusion, many Catholics find themselves perplexed, disheartened, or even on the brink of losing the faith. The Letter contains many stirring encouragements when read in this light.
Williamson’s life’s work was to “strengthen what remains.” Whether defending Christ’s Kingship, encouraging the Rosary, promoting the Spiritual Exercises, ensuring sacramental certainty, or clarifying the Conciliar crisis, his constant concern was for Catholics to hold onto what remains, to stand firm, and to fortify the faith for the future.
For his lifelong work in strengthening what remains, we are indebted again to Bishop Richard Nelson Williamson.
Requiescat in pace.
Read next:
Obligatory Inclusion: Against Mentevacantism—Bishop Donald Sanborn
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription from you helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all. Plus, you will get access to our exclusive members-only material.
(We make our members-only material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
Henry Turberville, The Douay Catechism or An Abridgement of the Christian Doctrine, published 1649. In Tradivox II, Sophia Institute Press, 2021, Q3 p 111.
The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, in English Translation with Extensive Scholarly Apparatus, trans. Dr Edward Peters, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2001
St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Benziger Bros, 1947. III Q3 A2
Eleison Comments DCCCXCI, August 10 2024.
Eleison Comments DCCCXCI, August 10 2024.
Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography, p. 626, trans. Brian Sudlow, Angelus Press, 2004
Even Fr. Pierre-Marie, in his much-cited study defending the validity of the new episcopal consecration rite, concedes that “serious reasons” exist for doubting certain consecrations. He described conditional repetition as “the usage that seems to prevail,” and recognises that it is a “prudential measure” that does not weaken his conclusion on validity.
https://www.wmreview.org/p/pierre-marie-ii
Similarly, Fr Peter Scott SSPX made the following striking comments in his 2007 article on the subject:
For regardless of the technical question of the validity of a priest’s holy orders, we all recognize the Catholic sense that tells us that there can be no mixing of the illegitimate new rites with the traditional Catholic rites, a principle so simply elucidated by Archbishop Lefebvre on June 29, 1976:
‘We are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time, of the Catholic religion. We are not of that universal religion, as they call it today. It is no longer the Catholic religion. We are not of that liberal, modernist religion that has its worship, its priests, its faith, its catechisms, its Bible.’
https://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained-30479
Lefebvre, ‘The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass,’ Ottawa, 1975)
Dear Mr Wright, Please reconsider the wording you have used near the end of this tribute to make it clear beyond any doubt, that it is your opinion, and not a quote from Bishop Williamson, that the Holy See has been vacant since the Second Vatican Council. Thank you and God bless.