The Hills Are Alive…

Damian Thompson posts traditionalist schismatic Bishop Richard Williamson’s views on The Sound of Music. Apparently the old warhorse musical is practically pornographic. Read it and see if this SSPX bishop doesn’t make Bob Jones University look downright liberal.

"Catholicism has always defined the ideal but there are no limits on God's mercy and ..."

Tony Palmer: Is There Salvation Outside ..."
"With all due respect, Shaun, are you relegating the actual Faith to whatever the local ..."

Notes on Tony Palmer’s Funeral
"There are good parking valets and bad parking valets. There are good housesitters and bad ..."

The Case for Conversion to Catholicism
"did you vote for Bush Fr Longenecker? would you have?"

Understanding Iraq

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • What?! Heresy to slam “The Sound of Music!” Mother Superior, in her infinite wisdom, sent the cheekily disobedient Maria to rethink her vocation and consider another path in life. Maria brought discipline and love to children adrift; she turned a distant widower into a loving father. The very model of a Christian homemaker. Not quite sure what bare breasts in ANOTHER movie have to do with singing about about goat herders and white alpine flowers, but I suppose you can make anything sound dirty if you try hard enough.

  • Anonymous

    I love the part where he is surprised and outraged by a villain’s being a Nazi — as if this is proof that movie is hackneyed, instead of proof that it is based on the lives of people who really fled from Nazis. And also, incidentally, on the life of a woman who married a man with a bunch of kids instead of becoming a nun. Oh well, never let real life mess up your grievances against a movie you don’t like!Gail from Cincinnati

  • Anonymous

    Sorry Rev,But if the SSPX is schismatic, then so was St Athanasius.So you realise that he consecrated bishops without papal mandate, and then intruded them into already occupied sees? Lefebvre never did that. Surely that’s setting up a parallel heirarchy!Also, A. sent pope Liberius a letter denying communion with him. Lefebvre did no such thing.How therefore, can the SSPX be in schism, when they did LESS than St Athanasius, and no sane person has ever claimed A. was schismatic?Please do not reply, “because Pope John Paul II said so.”That’s not a rational rejoinder, and reeks of the error of canonical positivism.

  • I loved that movie growing up! It’s portrayal of the mother superior is lovely, and it has the right balance of fun and drama. I loved singing Edel Weiss as a kid.The SSPX’ers think they are more Catholic than the Pope. It’s all just Protestantism. I understand the reaction way back in the 70s when stuff was going crazy after VII, but the holdouts now really bug me.

  • Dear Anonymous SSPX person. You better clear off this blog then. You might get infected with modernism, and don’t you start watching Sound of Music or it will rot your soul!

  • David

    Father,It is unbecoming of you to resort to tactics such as mocking Bishop Williamson who, like it or not, has the dignity of a Bishop.Also, please do not throw the words “schismatic” around as Fr. Newman has so recklessly done. If you are not prepared to walk up to a Baptist or an Anglican and call him a “hell-bound heretic” to his face then you should not call anyone “schismatic” or anything of the sort.Bishop Williamson has some wild ideas….so what? I do not see you blogging about every other bishop around the world who writes an article or gives a speech about Mother Earth or Gaia or how Buddhism is wonderful.This is Passiontide, we should be preparing for Holy Week by embracing humility….not mocking priests and bishops of Holy Mother Church.

  • David, Why not drop into your local novelty shop and purchase one of their instant sense of humor kits?

  • The members of the schismatic SSPX have no sense of humor. You should know that by now, Father Dwight.

  • Anonymous

    Uncle Mas is kinda creepy, if you think about it. Maybe, just maybe, the Bishop is onto something here.

  • Anonymous

    Dear Father,You assumed that I was an SSPX person. I’m not.I think that they suffer from the heteropraxis arising from the counter-reformation.I just dislike intellectual dishonesty. Please deal with the argument in favour of the SSPX not being schismatic.

  • Anonymous

    They are “de facto” schismatic. They ordain bishops and priests and intrude into jurisdictions where there are proper Ordinaries assigned by the pope. And just look at their attitude towards the revised Good Friday Prayer. They saw nothing substantially erroneous about it, yet they refused to comply to the Vicar of Christ (whom we are to love and respect more than any other bishop).

  • Anonymous Castrillón: “The Bishops, Priests, and Faithful of the [SSPX] are not schismatics.” Fr. Dwight, you appear to be very misinformed.

  • Did I miss something? When was Cardinal Castrillon elected to the papacy?

  • Anonymous

    Fr.The Holy Father grants competencies to his various dicasteries in order to not “micro manage” the Church. The Congregation of Divine Worship can state whether or not something is allowed without the Pope having to come down from on High and declare it so. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith can excommunicate people and declare something erroneous without the Pope explicitly declaring it so. Also, as the Holy Father has granted the Ecclesia Dei Commission power over all things “trad” (including the SSPX situation) they have the competency to speak for the Holy Father in this matter. If the President of Ecclesia Dei has emphatically stated that the SSPX is not schismatic why are you so loathe to not believe him? For heaven’s sake he was the Pope’s Cardinal Protodeacon and had regular meetings with him for years in his official capacity as the head of Ecclesia Dei. He of all people would know if they are schismatic and has the authority to say if they are or are not.That is how Rome works and we must accept it.

  • If they are not schismatic, to which hierarchy do they vow their obedience?

  • Anonymous

    We cannot throw the words “schism” around lightly. There are canonical conditions that are required that determine whether or not one is in schism. Laypeople and even individual priests have no authority to determine if someone is in schism or not. It is up to the hierarchy of the Church to determine that. It is not our place to question the rulings of Rome on schism. The authorities in Rome say they are not in schism. Period.We should be more concerned with converting the Muslims, Jews, Pagans, Athiests, and Protestants who we know are in schism and are destined for Hell unless we help and pray for them. Leave Rome to deal with the SSPX, they are not in harm of hellfire. The people in the Baptist or Anglican “churches” down the street however……they are the ones in true need of our time and efforts.

  • Anonymous

    “They are “de facto” schismatic. “Meaningless from a legal (not to mention theological) point of view.Are you by any chance spurred on in your errors by a malicious ego ???Well, ARE YOU?

  • Anonymous

    NO-ONE is obliged to accept the new prayer – it has not yet been promulgated according to law.In any case, even if it had, there would be ample justification for rejecting it – just as the pope conceded in Summorum Pontificum that those who rejected the Novus Ordo Missae were within their rights. It is inorganic, and therefore not a genuine development – notwithstanding the fact that it is theologically unobjectionable.

  • Anonymous

    We receive a clear DIRECTIVE (granted it is promulgated into law) from the Vicar of Christ HIMSELF and someone says: “N0-ONE is obliged to accept the new prayer – it has not been promulgated according to law.”…We hear a STATEMENT from a REPRESENTATIVE of the same Vicar of Christ and someone canonized it a the real state of affairs…I think I see a double standard here….And talking about my ego, I would dare say it is not as malicious and as erroneous compared to the ego of some members of the SSPX who pretends to be more Catholic than the Holy Father. They are “de facto” in schism, otherwise there should no talks about RECONCILIATION, FULL UNITY.

  • Anonymous

    “the pope conceded in Summorum Pontificum that those who rejected the Novus Ordo Missae were within their rights. It is inorganic, and therefore not a genuine development – notwithstanding the fact that it is theologically unobjectionable.”… Did the pope really say this? I should read SP again…I thought I read something like they are two forms of the same Roman Rite.