The question is not meant to be obnoxious, though doubtless some will read it that way. This response would be understandable, given the minute profile cut by the tiny fraternity largely written off as 'renegade' since the laetae sententiae excommunications of the late Abp Lefebvre and his illicit ordinations of four bishops in 1988, even after these excommunications were lifted for the surviving four in 2009. SSPX clerics lack proper faculties and continue to operate under suspension. The most common sentiment in the secular media toward the fraternity, since SSPX Bp. Richard Williamson's denial of the historicity of the Nazi holocaust, has been contemptuous dismissal. Most mainstream Catholics, if they have an opinion at all, seem to wonder how anybody who loves the Church could possibly have a problem with the Second Vatican Council and persist in stubborn schism. That's the sort of language one hears.
The upshot is this: almost nobody seems to really care about this small, inconsequential group of traditionalists or the talks they are having with representatives of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican -- almost nobody, that is, but the Holy Father.
Some of you may remember the hot water Pope Benedict got himself into with critics both inside and outside the Church when he lifted the excommunications on these SSPX bishops. Remember how the Pope's good name was dragged through the mud because of this act in the public media in guilt-by-association links drawn to the scandalous holocaust denials of SSPX Bp. Williamson? Remember the howls of execration from the Catholic liberals in the media? They conjured images of the Holy Father, former head of the CDF himself, in the mantle of the Spanish Grand Inquisitor, Tomas de Torquemada, ready to re-institute the auto-da-fé -- a bracing image I find rather charming, although that's beside the point.
The point is that the Holy Father has had a long-standing pastoral sympathy and solicitude for members of this fraternity. As we noted in "His Holiness responds to the wolves" (Musings, March 13, 2009), Pope Benedict wrote in his Letter to Catholic bishops concerning his remission of the excommunication of the SSPX bishops:
Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? ... I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?He warned, furthermore: "... if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another."
... At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.
If you are not praying for the Holy Father's intentions concerning these talks between the CDF & SSPX, or the Holy Spirit's guidance in the ongoing proceedings (which nobody should expect to be resolved overnight), then I want to know why.
So many things in Catholic history, as in life itself, are not what they at first seem. I first began to see this when, as a Protestant, I began a slow, painstaking investigation into the claims of the Catholic Church and began to see my prejudices and illusions crumble, one-by-one. I have never reached the point where I've been satisfied that I have all the answers, pertinacious though I am wont to be; but I have attained the satisfaction of learning, from experience, that for every question I have, there is in Catholic Sacred Tradition a sufficient answer, provided I am willing to do the painstaking work of investigating the issue.
Of related interest:
- Fr. Z, "Dog Bites Man! Sun Rises In East! SSPX, Holy See disagree!" (WDTPRS, February 22, 2011)
- Fr. Z, "Wm. Oddie on the Holy See/SSPX talks" (WDTPRS, March 1, 2011)
- New Catholic, "Collapse?" (Rorate Caeli, March 1, 2011), emphatically denying any collapse in the CDF-SSPX talks
- Fr. Z,"WDTPRS POLL: SSPXers and CATHOLIC TRADITIONALISTS ONLY!" (WDTPRS, March 1, 2011) -- a poll showing that lay, ordained, and seminarian members of the SSPX or other Catholic traditionalist groups overwhelmingly accept the validity of the Novus Ordo Missae, whatever criticisms they may have of it, theological or otherwise.
- Fr. Z, "WDTPRS Spiritual Bouquet for Pope Benedict for St. Joseph’s Day (19 March)" (WDTPRS, February 19, 2011)
- "Have you hugged your tradie today?" (Hug-a-tradie-day International, March 1, 2011).
20 comments:
"auto-da-fé -- a bracing image I find rather charming, although that's beside the point."
burning at the stake is charming??
A lot of people care about keeping the SSPX out in the cold, as reconciling them would upset their scheme of things.
Hymer,
My apologies. The epistolary means of communications lacks the nuance of inflection or facial expression. Yes, I find it 'charming', in the same way I am charmed by Mel Brooks, Monty Python, New Oxford Review's "I'd rather be roasting heretics" gear, and "that gasoline smell of napalm in the morning" .... But you've got to have a warped, pertinacious sense of humor and can't be too decent or serious a chap to find it so.
John L., always good to hear from you. Keep up your flow of good articles, and how about another book or two?
Good post. Thanks for the links. Ignore the distractions.
I do pray for the Holy Father's intentions.
Unfortunately, it does seem that ONLY Pope Benedict, like his predecessor, are advocating the 'hermeneutic of continuity' with respect to Vatican II -- proposing that the content of the conciliar documents can be rightly interpreted (recall his famous December 2005 address to the Roman curia); Benedict XVI's
clearly stated objective, his words: "a prompt commitment on their part to take the further steps necessary to achieve full communion with the Church, thus showing true faithfulness to, and true recognition of, the Magisterium and authority of the Pope and of Vatican Council II."
However, insofar as this would entail some degree of acceptance of Vatican II, it seems to me that many if not most within the SSPX
want nothing to do with it, and are unwilling to meet the Pope halfway. In fact, the stated goal of the SSPX in entering the talks were, to begin with, NOT those of the Holy Father, but rather with the sole purpose of laying out their doctrinal disagreements with Vatican II, and no more.
This is the fundamental impasse between them.
Christopher,
I very much enjoy your blog on the Holy Father and I'm happy to see you here.
You are certainly right that there is an impasse, but not of the kind that should be unexpected given the distance Catholics have drifted in their understanding of Catholic tradition and even of the conciliar documents since the Second Vatican Council.
I agree that some blame may be placed at the feet of representatives of the SSPX, but hardly all the blame. Think of the rampant confusion emanating even from the hierarchy itself over the last 40 years. Why, the liturgy we have is not even remotely like what was prescribed by Sacrosanctum Concilium.
It seems to me that a great deal of the blame falls on those who represent what has been called the hermeneutic of rupture. And many of these are found within the hierarchy itself. Should we wonder that some of those who love the Catholic faith should find the contemporary Church confusing?
Some of the blame may even fall on the documents of the Council themselves, inasmuch as they are often equivocal on certain points, proposing 'X' in one paragraph, but then making 'X' a mere option that may be disregarded for pastoral reasons in the next. A close reading of Sacrosanctum Concilium illustrates this in spades.
The severity of this problem has been acknowledged by respected and faithful bishops, as Sandro Magister has recently noted in a post about Bishop Athanasius Schneider (author of the well-known monograph, Dominus Est), who, at recent conference in Rome on the hermeneutics of the Council (attended by prominent luminaries), called for a "New Syllabus of Errors in the interpretation of Vatican Council II."
For these reasons, I am inclined to be a bit gentler with the SSPX in its talks with Rome than those who, at one extreme, say that the problem is merely one of stiff-necked refusal to "accept Vatican II." For one thing, Vatican II wasn't a doctrinal council, so why should acceptance of it be made a litmus test for recognition by Rome? On the other hand, if Rome insists on the SSPX's acceptance of Vatican II, does this logically entail that it was more than a pastoral council and did in fact teach new doctrines? Perhaps you can see my point.
For another thing, there would seem to be some onus on Rome, as Bishop Schneider suggests, to clarify what is important to accept in Vatican II and why -- particularly as it claimed to introduce no new doctrine.
I would invite you to pay not only for a more tractable disposition on the part of the SSPX in these matters, but also for more honesty in advertising on the part of the representatives of Rome. Surely the Church is in dire straits. Surely the concerns of the SSPX bear some consideration. If both parties are interested in promoting the true Catholic faith, the problem should not be ultimately unresolvable.
One final thought in this otherwise already much too lengthy comment: There is a spectrum of views represented in the SSPX, and I think it would be a mistake to paint the entire group as rejecting the ecclesiastical authority behind the Second Vatican Council, even if most would have dreadfully unpleasant things to say about some of its documents. Most laity and clerics within the SSPX, for instance, seem willing to acknowledge the validity of the Novus Ordo, despite the fact that they loathe many things about it.
I'm a fan of your blog. What a pleasant surprise to see you here!
The issue of placing blame in this SSPX-Rome controversy, in my view, is often resolved much too simply and hastily. Most conservative Catholics seem inclined, like George Weigel, to see the only problem here as residing in the SSPX's stiff-necked refusal to "accept Vatican II" and be "reconciled to the Church." Pleae understand me if I say that I am a bit less confident than Weigel and his fellows about the matter being quite as simple as that.
First, Vatican II is self-described as a non-teaching council. It claims to have defined no new doctrines. If that is true, then why should acceptance of Vatican II be made a litmust test for "reconciliation to the Church"? Second, confusion about how to interpret Vatican II has reigned throughout the last 40 years, and the revisionist representatives of the "hermeneutic of rupture" responsible for this confusion are found among, not primarily censured outcasts, but numerous prominent bishops throughout the hierarchy. Third, investigation of the drafts or schemas leading to the final Vatican II documents shows that many of them are riddled with problems of heterodoxy, as Ratzinger has publicly admitted before becoming pope. While the final documents do not teach heresy, they are ambiguous at key points, revealing the equivocity of the rival factions forced ultimately to compromise in wording. Sacrosanctum Concilium is a prime exhibit, affirming 'X' in one paragraph, while making 'X' a disregardable option in the next. Fourth, the problem of Vatican II and how it should be interpreted -- what in it is important, must be accepted, and why -- has been recognized as such a major problem that a recent conference of prominent luminaries on the topic in Rome called for a New Syllabus of Errors in the interpretation of Vatican II, as noted by Sandro Magister. Fifth, since the SSPX represents a spectrum of views, I'm not at all certain it would be accurate to view the majority as denying the ecclesiastical authority behind Vatican II. In fact, regardless of their critical stance toward the Novus Ordo, the SSPX publicly recognizes the validity of the Novus Ordo, as do the majority of clerical and lay members of traditionalist groups generally, as a recent post by Fr. Z shows.
"A lot of people care .... about keeping the SSPX out in the cold."
Ha-ha. Too true. Too true.
"... as reconciling them would upset their scheme of things."
Like havin to get cencure half the bishops?
I'm sorry. I should not have said that.
Christopher,
I'm a fan of your blog. What a pleasant surprise to see you here!
The issue of placing blame in this SSPX-Rome controversy, in my view, is often resolved much too simply and hastily. Most conservative Catholics seem inclined, like George Weigel, to see the only problem here as residing in the SSPX's stiff-necked refusal to "accept Vatican II" and be "reconciled to the Church." Pleae understand me if I say that I am a bit less confident than Weigel and his fellows about the matter being quite as simple as that.
First, Vatican II is self-described as a non-teaching council. It claims to have defined no new doctrines. If that is true, then why should acceptance of Vatican II be made a litmust test for "reconciliation to the Church"?
Second, confusion about how to interpret Vatican II has reigned throughout the last 40 years, and the revisionist representatives of the "hermeneutic of rupture" responsible for this confusion are found among, not primarily censured outcasts, but numerous prominent bishops throughout the hierarchy.
Continued ...
Third, investigation of the drafts or schemas leading to the final Vatican II documents shows that many of them are riddled with problems of heterodoxy, as Ratzinger has publicly admitted before becoming pope. While the final documents do not teach heresy, they are ambiguous at key points, revealing the equivocity of the rival factions forced ultimately to compromise in wording. Sacrosanctum Concilium is a prime exhibit, affirming 'X' in one paragraph, while making 'X' a disregardable option in the next.
Fourth, the problem of Vatican II and how it should be interpreted -- what in it is important, must be accepted, and why -- has been recognized as such a major problem that a recent conference of prominent luminaries on the topic in Rome called for a New Syllabus of Errors in the interpretation of Vatican II, as noted by Sandro Magister.
Continued ...
Third, investigation of the drafts or schemas leading to the final Vatican II documents shows that many of them are riddled with problems of heterodoxy, as Ratzinger has publicly admitted before becoming pope. While the final documents do not teach heresy, they are ambiguous at key points, revealing the equivocity of the rival factions forced ultimately to compromise in wording. Sacrosanctum Concilium is a prime exhibit, affirming 'X' in one paragraph, while making 'X' a disregardable option in the next.
Fourth, the problem of Vatican II and how it should be interpreted -- what in it is important, must be accepted, and why -- has been recognized as such a major problem that a recent conference of prominent luminaries on the topic in Rome called for a New Syllabus of Errors in the interpretation of Vatican II, as noted recently by Sandro Magister.
Continued ...
Fifth, since the SSPX represents a spectrum of views, I'm not at all certain it would be accurate to view the majority as denying the ecclesiastical authority behind Vatican II. In fact, regardless of their critical stance toward the Novus Ordo, the SSPX publicly recognizes the validity of the Novus Ordo, as do the majority of clerical and lay members of traditionalist groups generally, as a recent post by Fr. Z shows.
In this light, I am inclined to be a bit more generous in my estimation of the SSPX's purpose of "laying out their doctrinal disagreements with Vatican II," instead of simply "submitting." The question, after all, is: to what would they be submitting? The Church is obviously in acute crisis. The liturgies celebrated in most Catholic parishes does not remotely resemble what was prescribed by Sacrosanctum Concilium. The question raised by the SSPX seems a fair question. In view of this, I would invite readers to pray merely for a more tractable disposition on the part of the SSPX, but about what seems to be the more fundamental problem: honesty in advertising on the part of the Church. Where is the hermeneutic of continuity to be found? Where is the hermeneutic of rupture represented?
That should have read "to pray NOT merely for ..."
Sheldon:
In this light, I am inclined to be a bit more generous in my estimation of the SSPX's purpose of "laying out their doctrinal disagreements with Vatican II," instead of simply "submitting." The question, after all, is: to what would they be submitting?
There is no disputing that the problems of Vatican II are acute; that these reside not only in its implementation but that there are issues inherent in the content of the documents themselves.
I'm not denying the SSPX's right to voice their (legitimate, IMHO) concerns about Vatican II. The pont of my prior post was in observing that the impasse seems to be precisely that -- cognisant of the many problems in the wrongful implementation of Vatican II, Pope Benedict XVI and John Paul II are of the conviction that the conciliar documents can nonetheless be understood and implemented in continuity with tradition.
Benedict himself seems to be devoting his pontificate to demonstrating how this is indeed possible, and I think his wish is that the SSPX would admit that an acceptance of Vatican II "in continuity" with prior tradition can be achieved.
From what I see and read, the SSPX believes Vatican II constituted an irrevocable rupture with tradition. There is no continuity to be had or achieved. To pursue it would be futile. Coincidentally (and as you noted) progressive bishops/clergy/laity also share in this convinction that VII constituted an irrevocable rupture as well -- however, one which they deem for the better).
That would be the question -- is Benedict correct, or the SSPX?
Where is the hermeneutic of continuity to be found? Where is the hermeneutic of rupture represented?
Good questions!
Hi Chris,
Good to see you here, responding to Sheldon. I can't speak for him, but I think the question with which you end your comment could better be put thus: "That would be the question -- is Benedict right, or are the revisionists?"
I put the question that way strictly in view of the comparative insignificance of the SSPX in terms of size, versus the colossus of steel and bronze which is the face of the hermeneutic of rupture in the Church.
It is interesting that you put the SSPX "in bed with" the revisionists on this issue, in that both interpret Vatican II as a 'rupture' with the past, whereas Benedict (and JP2) have wanted to interpret them in terms of 'continuity' with tradition.
In this debate, however, it would seem that the major opponents of Benedict would be the colossus of steel and bronze rather than the kid on the block yelling that the emperor has no clothes. =)
God bless,
PB
Post a Comment