As rumored (accurately this time), the SSPX excommunications were lifted.
The decree is translated here, at NLM.
Let’s look at what exactly this means, for those not familiar with the ins and outs of these things.
This is a very specific act.
In 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre, the founder of the SSPX, consecrated 4 bishops, despite being warned not to do so by Rome. The four bishops were excommunicated by name as well as Lefebvre and Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer, who assisted.
What happened today is that those excommunications of those four bishops were lifted.
It doesn’t mean that the complexities of the SSPX situation are cleared up. It is important to note that these figures, as priests and bishops, are still suspended. The canonical questions of suspension, jurisdiction and so, are knotty. Note that the question has never been of SSPX Masses being “invalid.” It is of priests’ jurisdiction to do things like say Mass, hear confessions and witness marriages, which is a different issue. We have canonists among us, who can perhaps explain.
However, that does not mean that all is well with these bishops and the clergy of the SSPX. Whilst no longer excommunicated, these bishops are still not proper Catholic bishops in union with Rome. They lack the necessary permission to act as bishops, and the priests who work under them do not have the necessary permissions to act as priests. The division between the SSPX and Rome has not been healed, and it is still a very serious matter for a Catholic to receive the sacraments from a member of the SSPX in all but emergency situations. SSPX clergy do not have the necessary permission from Rome or from local bishops to carry out their work anywhere in the world. The Pope lifting the excommunications does not mean that the separation between the SSPX and Rome has ended. However, it is a move which seems to promise a sincere effort on Rome’s behalf to bring the SSPX back into the tent of the Church. The ball is now very much in the SSPX’s court in terms of how they will respond to this gesture.
It should especially be noted that the lifting of the excommunication does not mean that the Pope agrees with anything or everything that the SSPX bishops might say. In a singularly infelicitous episode, one of the SSPX bishops seems to have denied the holocaust recently. Do not let anyone try and convince you that the Pope endorses these views. Sometimes it is necessary to extend mercy to people whom we do not approve of – in this case, for the sake of the souls of the SSPX clergy and the people who attend their chapels, the Pope has been very brave in persisting with this act of mercy even though it threatens to be a PR disaster.
I am not one to read the Holy Father’s mind, but here is my long-distant assessment of this:
The Pope is not stupid. He knows the ins and outs of the SSPX better than any of us and is deeply familiar with the various currents of belief, practice and attitude that run through it. There are virulent anti-Semites in the SSPX. There are near-sedevacantists . There are many who believe that the Second Vatican Council was an illegitimate, invalid council. There are those who believe that the Mass that most of reading this blog go to every Sunday, if not every day, is invalid and that the elements are not consecrated.
But he also knows, particularly in Europe, there are many SSPX adherents who do not share these views and are simply seeking to practice a richer Catholic faith than is available to them in their local regular parish. I think to really understand the whole picture on this, you have to understand the European situation, which in many ways is quite different than it is here.
I think what the Pope knows is that there is going to be a huge degree of self-selection going on over the next few years, as well as some inevitably self-destructive behavior. In short, those who truly want to be union with Rome will do so, and the holdouts will hold out until some fantasy moment occurs in which the Novus Ordo Mass and the Second Vatican Council is repudiated.
It is not a stretch to see that this will actually lead to some division within the SSPX itself, even dramatic division among the leadership.
Personally, I think that this is a very generous act of the Holy Father, and I hope that no one would doubt his good will and sincerity. It will attract criticism, no doubt, but it’s important to understand precisely what this gesture means. It’s a gesture of mercy because the excommunications were justly imposed. It’s a concrete sign that the Holy Father wants to bring the Society back into communion. However, my understanding of this (and I admit that I’m not a canonist) is that this is simply a starting point. Bishops Fellay et al still lack jurisdiction within the Church and the Society cannot be said to have been restored into full communion. Bishops Fellay and the clergy of the society are still canonically irregular and do not have faculties to exercise their ministry. Whilst not excommunicate because of their irregular consecration, the Bishops of the Society are not properly members of the Catholic Hierarchy. Membership of the College of Bishops depends, not only on valid episcopal consecration, but also on hierarchal communion with the Bishop of Rome and the other Bishops.
It should also be noted that there is a lot of theological ground which needs to be covered, especially in the area of religious liberty, the authority of the Second Vatican Council and the newer liturgy. The clergy of the SSPX will need to undergo a severe examination of conscience regarding some of the things they have said over the past few years. However, with charity and the work of the Holy Spirit, wounds can be healed.
Fr. Tim Finigan (from England):
Some reactions are beginning to come in. Cardinal Vingt-Trois, Archbishop of Paris, in an interview this morning with Radio Notre Dame expressed some cautionary remarks but said:
I am delighted. This is an opportunity, a door open to allow Christians to find the fullness of communion with the Church. As long as they want or they accept it. It is a gesture of mercy and a gesture of openness to strengthen the unity of the Church.
The Chairman of the German Conference of Bishops has issued a statement in which he says that the Pope has offered his outstretched hand and that he hopes that they take it.
Not everyone is happy, of course: I am not thinking of the sandalistas or the secularists but of many good and sound Catholics who are concerned at the tendencies shown by some within the SSPX and given voice especially by Bishop Williamson. Damian Thompson has written a good piece this morning which summarises those concerns. (See: Pope Benedict is taking a huge risk in lifting the SSPX excommunications). I agree that he is taking a huge risk and that “Joseph Ratzinger has already factored the hostile reaction into the equation.”
As I indicated yesterday, I am delighted by this news. I have met some very good people from the SSPX and it is a great joy to know that the principal obstruction to their full jurisdictional normality in the Church has now been removed. It is a typically “Benedictine” move to have the announcement made during the Octave of Prayer for Christian Unity and I trust Pope Benedict’s judgement that this will “promote unity in the charity of the universal Church.” Nevertheless, Damian is right to say that “This is the biggest risk that Pope Benedict has taken in his pontificate so far.”
I would like to point out that the French Cardinal’s response is very telling. France is one of the main flash points for the SSPX – the urban myth (I don’t know if it’s true) is that on any given Sunday, more French Catholics attend SSPX Masses than Masses in regular parishes in communion with Rome. The French clergy and hierarchy have been very hostile to the SSPX (and the feeling has been mutual). I think that if Vingt-Trois can respond in this way, that says something, especially about groundwork that has been in work behind the scenes.
I am going to lift a very helpful comment from a thread at the New Liturgical Movement. It is clarifying:
After having carefully read the decree and the responses, I’d like to make the following initial observations:
1) The decree simply lifts the censure of excommunication and deprives it of any effect as of January 21, 2009. There is silence on whether the original decree of excommunication imposed on July 1, 1988 was valid, and the decree seems to imply that yes, it was. Take note that the decree neither declares the excommunications null and void from the beginning, nor does it mention any posthumous rehabilitation of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer. Thus, the Pope has struck a middle course: lift the excommunications as desired by the SSPX, without declaring the excommunications to have been invalid from the beginning.
Had Pope Benedict XVI declared the excommunications invalid from the beginning, that would have been seen as a massive slap to the face of the late Pope John Paul II. Of course, he did not do that. I don’t think he could have been expected to do that in the first place, whatever his actual opinions on the matter may have been.
2) The decree mentions that the Pope did this out of his “paternal sensitivity” to the pain suffered by the four bishops because of the excommunications, out of his desire for unity among the faithul, and in the hope that by thus lifting the burden of excommunication from the four bishops, the SSPX will be moved to reconcile with the Holy See. It is clear that the Pope is now extending the utmost mercy and clemency to the SSPX; I hope that the world’s bishops will take note and follow suit. At the same time, I pray that the SSPX’s hardliners will not abuse the Pope’s amazing generosity.
3) The lifting of the excommunications on the SSPX bishops does not signify that the SSPX is back in full communion with the Holy See. This is clear from the wording of the decree:
“It is hoped that this step be followed by the prompt accomplishment of full communion with the Church of the entire Fraternity of Saint Pius X, thus testifying true fidelity and true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope with the proof of visible unity.”
Basically, what the Pope is saying is: “Ok, SSPX bishops, I’ve removed your excommunications. It is now up to you to reconcile with the the Church”. It will be interesting to see what the SSPX will now do. The ball is in their court now. So, the SSPX bishops are NOT YET bishops in good standing; but they are now Catholic bishops, that is for sure.
All these seem to imply that the suspension a divinis remains for all SSPX priests and bishops.
4) Interestingly, the Holy See is referring to:
“..trusting in the effort expressed by them in the aforementioned letter of not sparing any effort to deepen the necessary discussions with the Authority of the Holy See in the still open matters, so as to achieve shortly a full and satisfactory solution of the problem posed in the origin…”
This signifies that the Holy See is now willing to open talks with the SSPX to resolve the SSPX’s difficulties with Vatican II, provided that these discussions will touch only on “still open matters.” This refers to the SSPX’s demand for “dialogue” on doctrinal matters with Rome.
The SSPX has always made clear that it will not reconcile with Rome unless Rome rejects Vatican II’s “errors and ambiguities” . However, in the SSPX’s response to this decree, Bishop Bernard Fellay has considerably toned down his position, simply stating that the SSPX has “some reservations” on Vatican II. I find this to be very hopeful.
Canonist Ed Peters weighs in with some early thoughts:
Based on what is public so far (in what are obviously only quick translations), it seems that Pope Benedict sees something like the “withdrawal from contumacy” required by 1983 CIC 1358 for the lifting of censures Light of the Law, 3 feb. 2006). That would be cause for rejoicing, to be sure, healing another wound on the mystical Body of Christ. Having said that, however, I confess that I’m having a hard time seeing in Bp. Bernard Fellay’s January 24th letter to the faithful, at least, any withdrawal from contumacy for the actual canonical crimes he and the others committed (receiving episcopal orders without pontifical mandate, ), or for that matter, much of a retreat from anything else he has said for the last 20+ years.
Fr. Z has a very good Q & A, as well.
Q: Is it okay for the SSPX bishops to ordain now?
No. The bishops of the SSPX are validly consecrated bishops, but the fact remains that they were illicitly consecrated. That hasn’t changed. They are still not reconciled with the Bishop of Rome. They are still suspended a divinis. They still have no permission to exercise ministry in the Church. They may not licitly ordain. They have no authority to establish parishes, etc.
Q: Are the chapels of the SSPX okay now?
Not in a juridical, legal sense, no. Many good things can happen in one of those communities, but the SSPX chapels are not, because of the lifting of the excommunications, suddenly made legitimate. They are not reconciled by this move.
Q: Are the priests of the SSPX in good standing now?
Not yet they aren’t. The priests of the SSPX are still suspended a divinis. They say Mass vaildly, but without the permission of the Church, either from a faculty of the Holy See or the local bishop. They do not have the necessary faculties to hear confessions and give sacramental absolution except in danger of death.
I wonder about a former German solder rehabilitating a Shoah denier? Bishop Richard Williamson is anti-semitic. This right in the middle of the difficulties surrounding Pope Pius XII. As for myself, I am opposed to furthering the canonization of Pius XII.
Being anti-Semitic, while regrettable, is not in itself an obstacle to communion with the Catholic Church. Lifting the excommunication on Bp. Williamson and the others hardly constitutes “rehabiliting” them.
As for Pius XII, he steered the Church through a very difficult period and worked behind the scenes to save Jews. True, he didn’t speak out publicly. But it would be very nice if what seemed the right thing to do at the time also happened to be what would look good to critics sitting safely in their comfortable chairs 60+ years later. Such, however, is not always the case. I guess Pius XII is guilty of not having sufficient foresight to gauge how his actions would look 60 years later, poor man.
I look forward to and pray for the eventual canonization of Pius XII.
As for the suggestion that has often been put forward that his canonization (as well as the lifting of the SSPX excommunications) will complicate relations with the Jews: I’m sorry, but I don’t see how the Jews should get a vote on Catholic doctrine and discipline.
Not surprisingly, the MSM are playing the Williamson angle at the top of the story.
For example, the headline on the FoxNews.com story reads, “Pope Lifts Excommunications of 4 Bishops, the link on the main FoxNews.com page</b? now reads “Holocaust-Denying Bishop Welcomed Back Into Church” (you’ll have to scroll down a bit).
And if this is what we can expect from a “friendly” news organization, what can we expect from the enemy news organizations? Like this from MSNBC via AP: Jews outraged by Holocaust-denying bishop.
The news of the lifting of the excommunications is wonderful, but Williamson has just made it into a disaster.
I am so excited. I’m 29 and the SSPX is pretty much all I’ve ever known. Most of us are thrilled about this :) Please don’t label all of us as extremists. I love the Pope, I don’t hate Vatican II and I’m not an anti-semite :) Praise be to God! We’ve been praying for this day to come! Thousands Families and individuals who attend the SSPX are being affected in a positive way this day :) Bishop Williamson has his personal beliefs that have nothing to do with the SSPX. They shouldn’t reflect on all of us. Please welcome us with positive and open arms. This is such a joyous day :)
David J White says that being anti-Semitic, while regrettable, is not in itself an obstacle to communion with the Catholic Church.
I disagree. Like notorious membership of Freemasonry or living together while not married, anti-Semitism is a sin, and a very grave one.
Not only for the usual reasons, but also because it insults Christ in His virtue of patriotism, His pious reverence for His native land and people.
“Being anti-Semitic, while regrettable, is not in itself an obstacle to communion with the Catholic Church.”
Say what? I think it was Pius XI who said that we all are spiritually Semitic. Jesus, the head of the Body of Christ, was a Jew. Remember? What could be a bigger breach of communion than hating Jesus?
This couldn’t have happened 15 years ago – there would not have been any fit on either side. It is regrettable that it has finally come about at a time of escalating anti-Semitism in Europe (not just amongst Islamists – I read in a piece by Frank Furedi the other day that 45% of Spanish people self-identify as ‘anti-Semitic’. There is no trait amongst Catholics I dislike more than anti-Semitism.
But I’m glad the 1st steps toward reunion have been taken. I’m even wondering if the liturgy in my diocese counts as an ‘emergency’ enabling me to attend the SSPX mass in Edinburgh :)
I’m not in two minds: horror of anti-Semitism vs. the Church. I am sure that if we put the Church first, everything will come right.
“It should especially be noted that the lifting of the excommunication does not mean that the Pope agrees with anything or everything that the SSPX bishops might say.”
This remark, taken from the blog Rationabile Obsequium, is surely wry, is it not? The same could be said of many a Bishop in ostensibly full communion with Rome, as in:
It should especially be noted that [simply because a Bishop is in full communion with the Holy See] does not mean that the Pope agrees with anything or everything [said Bishop] might say.
So now Petek says anyone in mortal sin is out of communion?
And further, that having roommates while celibate is gravely sinful?
I shoot off my mouth much more than I should (enough that I’d be out of communion if Petek got to write canon law) but I’m at least careful in my formulation.
What all of us who are not part of the Congregation of Bishops should do is pray. For the Holy Father, all the bishops, and all the faithful. Not telling God what to do, but trusting that He knows.
Amy is right. The European experience is radically different than ours. The problematic Bishop Williamson is not the personification of the SSPX.
Read what good writers have to say on the situation – and again, pray.
Amy,
This is not of significance only for Europe. (I didn’t say it was. I said the situation is a bit different there, and it is.) There are many SSPX advocates in the US, and there are SSPX in Asia and Africa.
And, no, the Pope is not stupid. He has always understood that the divinization of Vatican II was inappropriate; he himself criticized Gaudium et spes. As he himself said twenty years ago when speaking of the situation with the SSPX:
“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super-dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.”
“All this leads a great number of people to ask themselves if the Church of today is really the same as that of yesterday, or if they have changed it for something else without telling people. The one way in which Vatican II can be made plausible is to present it as it is: one part of the unbroken, the unique Tradition of the Church and of her Faith.”
Benedict XVI also set forth the “hermeneutic of reform and continuity” in his 2005 Christmas Address to the Curia, of which Bishop Fellay, et al., were most appreciative.
It is telling that even the most “orthodox” among current Catholics in the US tend to exalt Vatican II and see it as a break with tradition and Church history. Most evangelizers and catechists tend to go back no further than Vatican II for their citations. There is a de facto sense that everything “began” with Vatican II and what happened before is immaterial.
If the SSPX is reintegrated, this will change, even in the US. The US is simply doing more slowly what Europe has already done in the areas of secularism and the denaturing of Christianity. A restoration would provide a balance which has been lacking for nearly fifty years.
Prime wrote:
“It is telling that even the most ‘orthodox’ among current Catholics in the US tend to exalt Vatican II and see it as a break with tradition and Church history.”
Prima, this statement strikes me as inaccurate. Could you please give an example of who you have in mind as an “orthodox” Catholic who sees Vatican II as a break with tradition and Church history?
Amy,
One main reason why France appears to have so few Catholics may be that the multitudes attending mass in SSPX parishes aren’t counted. Wouldn’t the Archbishop of Paris want the SSPX to be brought back, for many reasons, among them so that the world might know the real numbers?
Mine is anecdotal evidence, perhaps ranking just below urban legend for reliability, but I’ve attended Mass in Paris at the SSPX church, St.-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet. It’s a huge church full to bursting every Sunday during one mass after another. By contrast, except for Notre Dame, the other churches I’ve visited in central Paris are 80% empty on Sunday mornings, no matter how famous their organs or how good their locations.
Statements about the SSPX churches in France having larger attendances than orthodox Catholic churches are, in fact, urban myths. Catholic practice in the diocese of Versailles is very high, and it is very healthy in the south-west. There are very large attendances at some of the new Community of Jerusalem churches. St.-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet was illegally occupied by the SSPX many years ago. It may be full, but it’s not in full communion with
The lady who announced that, at 29, the Lefebvrists were “pretty much all I have ever known” is alas in a sad way. Please, Susanna, open your eyes and discover the Church! There are great riches in the documents of the Second Vatican Council, in the teachings given by recent Popes. There is much to learn from the New Movements, much to discover about the great work the Church is doing around the world…you are missing out and now you are entering your third decade, it is time to learn more, and be open to the truths of the Church and not merely the membership of a group. Whatever happens as a result of this lifting of the excommunication, it must surely be a call to all who have become trapped in this mentality to see that there is generosity on the part of the successor of St Peter which must now be matched with serious thought, study, and recognition of past mistakes on the part of those to whom he is reaching. If all you have known is the Lefebvrists, get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and discover the whole picture.
Paul Marrack:
Many Catholics consider themselves “orthodox,” but see it merely as affirming certain doctrinal points. They see no need to enter into the religious and liturgical tradition of the Church in any meaningful way. Indeed, some of these people, e.g., the late Fr. Neuhaus, George Weigel (who wrote a column in Newsweek about it) were decidedly cool to Summorum Pontificum and were very defensive about its enactment, just the way several commentators have been about the lifting of the SSPX excommunication – it will have no effect or at least no great effect, it’s just for a small group, etc. When people like these do theological treatments (and this includes even David Schindler of Communio), they go back into Church history only as far as Vatican II (usually they stop with John Paul II). So they are “orthodox” as far as dogma and doctrine are concerned, but that is not all there is to being fully Catholic and that is what has been missing for the last fifty years. It was not intended by the Council Fathers, but that is what happened.
Alleging that statements about the SSPX churches in France having larger attendances than regular Catholic churches are urban myths, Fr Fergus writes, as though on point, “St.-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet was illegally occupied by the SSPX many years ago. It may be full, but it’s not in full communion . . . .”
Wait just a minute. St-Nicholas-du-Chardonnet is an SSPX church, and nowadays it is full every Sunday, for one mass after another. The more famous churches on the Left Bank in Paris are 80 per cent empty. “Illegally occupied many years ago” is not relevant.
If it is true that SSPX faithful in France are not now counted as Catholics, then the SSPX being brought back would make a significant difference to how we view the strength of the Catholic Church in France.
NPR today interviewed leaders of Jewish groups and approached the problem as one of politics for the Vatican rather than a pastoral problem for the Pope as Vicar of Christ.
“Welcome Back SSPX Bishops!” is a tad overstated. They can take communion, that is, they can receive the sacraments, but they are still not fully reconciled to act sacramentally for the Church.
I wish the news media could figure out that bishops are trained as pastors long before they acquire experience as diplomats. Ultimately, they know they are judged as pastors. Unlike elected officials, they aren’t campaigning for their “place in history.”
I’d love to leave this at Professor Peters’ site, but google/blogger isn’t letting me, so I’ll comment here…
If part of the requirement for the withdrawal of the excommunication is “withdrawal from contumacy for the actual canonical crimes he and the others committed” would continuing to ordain be a continuing of canonical crime? Is it a canonical crime for a bishop without a licit appointment to ordain a priest without a diocese or licit order?
First, as I comment here for the first time, I’d begin by a proficiat for Amy for her work and her writing.
Now on the situation in France, as I live as a catholic in this country : yes, to say that there are more people in SSPX masses than in regular catholic ones is an urban myth – or lefebvrist propaganda. There are around 60 % nominal catholics in France, among which something like 5 or 6 % are regular practicing ones (8,5 % are going to mass at least once a month – official category of statistical studies…). That gives a low level estimation of 2 millions of people every week in regular catholic masses.
On the other hand, statistics from the SSPX two years ago itself gave 150 000 (probably a bit more, but not exceeding 250 000, I think) of faithful – but that’s for all the world ! We can estimate them, in a relatively high estimation, at 30 000 in France (vs. 2 000 000, thus).
So pretending even only that the numbers are comparable is a big lie or a big mistake.
To refer to a preceding commentary, I live in the Left Bank in Paris and I can say that not a few of its churches are full on sundays : Saint-Etienne-du-Mont is full (400 places ?) for its four sunday masses, Saint-Germain-des-Pres is full for its youth mass and it has three non empty other ones, Saint-Francois-de-Sales has two rather full masses, the youth mass of Saint-Leon is full, etc. Of course that’s not the paradise and maybe a third of Left Bank parishes are in a vegetative state (which isn’t a dead state : that means that churches are only half bounded, that there aren’t many endeavours/activities, etc.).
But it is true that Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet (SSPX) a four bounded masses. And it is also true that, in many provincial French dioceses, we’re heading very fast to a spiritual desert already present in many many places. I think a half of the French dioceses hasn’t had an ordination for 15 years. They don’t have the chance of urban concentration that makes possible for christians to stick and live together and make a real community to sustain each other in the faith, together with the rural exodus; but also it’s very much – as you can easily see in the USA too – up to the bishop…
Been too long, sorry. Sursum corda fellow christians !
McG: Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but is St. Nicholas the only SSPX church in Paris? If so, then your anecdote seems unlikely to prove what you say it does. If we have one full SSPX church versus dozens (if not hundreds in such a large and once-heavily Catholic city) of 20% full Catholic churches, then the numbers in the 20% full churches, if added up, would dwarf the single full church. In an American conext, your statement would be like saying that because I know a storefront Evaneglical church in my neighborhood that it is well-attended, that must be the largest denomination in the area.
Yes, the article in my local paper (from the AP) highlights the “Holocaust denier” aspect both in the subheadline (in the main headline the four bishops are merely “divisive”) and the first sentence. It also repeatedly calls the Pope’s action a “rehabilitation.” The media seem to be even more stupid than usual today.
Sorry for typos in the previous post, but you can figure the meaning out.
I might also mention that the story was on the front page! (It was, however, below the fold.) If not for the anti-Semitism angle, it would have been lucky to be in the paper at all, or at most a paragraph or two under “World News Digest.”
The usually intelligent Steven Waldman, editor of Beliefnet, seems to be the most confused of all. At least the articles in the newspaper got around to the facts eventually, albeit in a distorted way. Waldman himself links to a relatively accurate article, but seems not to have read it. I genuinely wonder if he had even heard of the SSPX before today.
This sort of thing is why I cannot join blogs-over-MSM triumphalism. Someone else linked to here, though – maybe some will follow the link.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2009/01/the-holocaust-denying-catholic.html
The SSPX does not consider the Novus Ordo to be an invalid Mass. The SSPX believes the Novus Ordo, while valid, does not accurately reflect the Church’s teaching about the sacrificial nature of the Mass, etc. The SSPX also believes the way the Novus Ordo is celebrated is a rupture from the past. Can anyone really disagree with that? Why does the priest now face the people instead of facing East towards God and Christ Who will come from the East on the Last Day? Where is the Latin? Where is the Gregorian Chant? Where is the Sacred Polyphony? Where is the solemnity? Where is the mystery? Why are lay people now handing out Communion when in the Traditional Latin Mass lay people didn’t even handle the sacred vessels? Why are we no longer kneeling for Communion? Why were high altars ripped out of our churches? Why were communion rails torn out? Why did they white wash and level our church buildings? Why did guitars and rock bands replace the organ?
I can’t figure out why so many good and doctrinally orthodox Catholics are so cool to the idea of orthodox and traditional Catholic liturgy. I’m also not sure why so many good Catholics are cool to the idea of talking to the SSPX and bringing them back into the Church. As Catholics, we are all now told to dialogue with the Hindus, Jews, and Protestants, but as soon as dialogue with the SSPX comes up, good Catholics run away screaming. Is that fair? We have much, much, much, much more in common with the SSPX than we will ever have with the Hindus or Protestants.
The Church did not have a new start from zero with the Second Vatican Council and the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. I thank God that Pope Benedict is finally showing us that to be truly Catholic, we have to also start paying attention to all of the good that took place in the Church before 1962.
I recall hearing an SSPX guy speak a few years ago who was so extreme he scared me sennseless. Sure there are anti-Semites and scary RadTrads in the SSPX, but there are also an awful lot of Bible-believing, Tradition-loving souls as well, and in the U.S. an SSPX chapel has been a welcome reprieve to the pure *madness* found in many parishes. And the hijacking of Vatican II producing chaos. So this attempt at bridge-building is hugely welcome.
[Angelus Press is a good place to go to take the temperature of SSPX ideas for those alarmed. Their books on the Mass, for example (which are *our* pre-1960 books) can't be beat.]
Numbers are vexing and difficult to get hold of – for many reasons.
But it may be fair to say that all traditional masses in France – not just the (illicit) SSPX masses, but those of all traditional orders (FSSP, ICK, IBP, monastic foundations, etc.) account for a much higher percentage of total massgoers than their status or number of locales might suggest, or that much of the French episcopate might comfortable admit. Whatever else is true, traditionalists have very regular resort to the sacraments, and their numbers are growing – mainly because they have babies. The rest of the newcomers are no doubt mostly people drawn to the beauty of traditional liturgy and solid teaching, not raging anti-Dreyfusards.
And no doubt this is part of what drives the Pope’s actions. The French church is not dead but swaths of its do seem to look vegetative.
This is not to say the only hope for the French church is a full-blooded return to integrism, but it does seem that the model adopted by the French bishops since the 60′s simply has not had the hoped for fruits – quite the opposite. Some of this was inevitable given trends in French society at large. But mainstream French Catholicism (and that of most of the rest of Western Europe as well) has to ask itself hard questions about how much it has to answer for as well.
Jason:
Of course the SSPX officially does not claim that the Novus Ordo is invalid, but there are many associated with the movement that do.
All one has to do is go to a traditionalist-centered discussion board, such as Angel Queen, to see, and you don’t have to read too many posts for that thread to become clear.
There are many who take the stance you explain, but there are also many who do NOT believe it is valid, and do NOT believe that priests ordained in the new rite are valid priests – there was even a recent discussion on one as to whether Benedict was actually a bishop because he was ordained a bishop after Vatican II.
No, this is not official. But in the age of the Internet, one cannot argue that these views have no adherents within the SSPX – all it takes is ten minutes of searching to see how true it is.
And that is not even mentioning those of us who have had interactions with these folks – heck, even some non-SSPX traditionalists – who are horrified at their Masses having to be in the same building as a Novus Ordo Mass, and so on.
It is there, and the SSPX does itself no good by denying this strand of thinking among some of its members.
In my experience, 1 out of every 10 SSPXers I have ever met doubt that the Novus Ordo is invalid.
Of course, probably 3 out of 10 catholics I know who attend Novus Ordo masses also doubt the validity of Novus Ordo masses. So I don’t see how to fault SSPXers.
Franklin:
Do you mean 1 in 10 “doubt the Novus Ordo is INvalid” (as you wrote) or “doubt the Novus Ordo is VALID?”
If the former, are you saying that 9 out of 10 believe it is invalid?
Ted,
There certainly are members of the SSPX who hold odd and untenable positions. No one will disagree with you there.
We can’t forget, however, that many other Catholics who are in good standing with the Church also hold strange positions and do strange things. For example, did you happen to see the recent rock band and balloon Mass that Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna, Austria, took part in? Cardinal Schonborn played a major role in writing the New Catechism of the Catholic Church, yet he still takes part in silly rock band and balloon Masses. What about all of the bishops in the United States who continue to scandalize the faithful by giving Holy Communion to pro-abort “Catholic” politicians? What about all of the bishops in the United States who refuse to correct the rampant liturgical abuses found in just about every diocese? What about the Catholic lay people out there who ridicule the Traditional Latin Mass as being totally outdated and odd? Some Catholics actually now hold up for ridicule what they once found most sacred and important to their Faith—the Traditional Latin Mass. When the SSPX sees such things, it is not too hard to understand why the SSPX perceives a real crisis in the Church.
If one wants to look for bad, it can be found everywhere. Let’s focus instead on all of the good things that the SSPX does and can offer the Church. The SSPX would never partake in a balloon Mass, and they would never support giving Holy Communion to pro-abort “Catholic” politicians.
Why is it that Catholics are encouraged to find all of the good and true elements in their separated brethren, EXCEPT when it comes to the SSPX? Some Catholics will even pray and work with Protestants in the name of ecumenism, yet these same Catholics will speak in unkind ways about the “dangerous,” “schismatic,” and “nutty” people who attend SSPX chapels. Is this not a bit of a double standard?
Joanna B: There is much to learn from the New Movements, much to discover about the great work the Church is doing around the world…you are missing out and now you are entering your third decade, it is time to learn more
What? Like the Neo-Catechumenate and their scandalous liturgies or Focoloare and their religious indifferentism?
You imply that Susana has not been a Catholic because she has been associated with the SSPX all her life and then advocate that she joins these “new movements” who are just as sectarian if not more?
The president of the Ecclesia Dei commission has been clear for the past 5 years or so that the SSPX is not schismatic – it doesn’t mean full regularity but it means just that – not schismatic.
I agree with Jason, that it seems to me that most so-called “conservative” Catholics have the same double standards mentality they wish to accuse all traditionally-minded Catholics off.
And to be honest: if participation at your local Sunday mass is an act of heroic obedience rather than joyful participation, then one can hardly be termed schismatic for resorting to the SSPX.
Joanna:
It seems ridiculous and patrononizing to declare that somebody so obviously happy is “sad”. Why? because she’s not like you? The Church is not something for Susanna and her SSPX friends to “discover” like some unexplored continent. They have known it all along.
And I fail to see why a Catholic should be obligated to be especially interested or excited about learning from the various theological and spiritual offerings of 1960-2000 any more than, say 1260-2000. Or 760-800.
Ted:
Franklin, obvious typographical error aside, is absolutely right.
If you show a group of random SSPXers a Novus Ordo priest holding up a host and saying “this is my body”, maybe one in ten will deny that it becomes Jesus Christ.
If you show a group of random Novus Ordinarians a Novus Ordo priest holding up a host and saying “this is my body”, maybe seven in ten will deny that it becomes Jesus Christ.
Splinters, wooden beams.
Ottaviani:
I have had little contact with the Neo-catechumenal Way, but have had more significant contact with the Focolare.
To accuse them of religious indifferentism is profoundly wrong. Certainly at the level of their theological reflection on dialogue, they are deeply Christocentric. In my view, they are the archetype of a dialogue that is not indifferentism.
I won’t waste words except to say:
This is meaningless.
Each and every approach to the SSPX by the Vatican is met by them with the attitude of “no compromise, no surrender.”
The SSPX will “graciously” allow the church to “come back” when it renounces the Vatican II documents and all the other issues that provoked the split in the first place. They would see anything less as a betrayal of the very principles on which the split was based. And when you believe as they do, it is hard to fault them for that position. You don’t compromise on the truth. Trouble is, neither does the church.
Oh, dear; it has hit the fan royally.
Every fool from facebook to the secular press are yapping about how the holocaust denier is now in “full communion”, “fully reinstated” and “back in the fold”.
Of course no one cares one whit about things like schism, faculties, excommunication, reinstatement and hierarchical unity with the college of bishops.
And the Church who is famous for putting hard truths before unity and inclusiveness is now hammered for putting unity and inclusiveness before hard truths. Sigh. It would be hilarious if it were not so vexing.
Our Lord is a Jew. Our Blessed Mother is a Jew. The Holy Apostles are Jews! So, of course we don’t like Jews! Bugger! Sorry.
Is the NY Times anti-Ukranian for its continued minimization of Stalin’s terror famine?
Isn’t it a little overwrought to accuse Bishop Williamson of “anti-semitism” for his Holocaust Denial? This is on par with those who accuse Catholics who try to convert Jews to Catholicism of “anti-semitism” (apparently St. Peter was an anti-semite by that criteria).
A true anti-semite would necessarily be someone who wishes harm towards the Jews in general. Someone who disputes part of Jewish history, no matter how ridiculous the dispute (like Holocaust Denial), is not an anti-semite unless they are doing so as part of a general animus or hatred towards Jews as people and spiritual neighbors.
Raving lunacy is not the hatred that Christ condemned as standing in for murder in the mind. Raving lunacy is also not a sin. Bishop Williamson certainly does appear to be a raving lunatic. But I don’t sense any hatred coming from the man. There is far more hatred coming from those who constantly attack him.
Question: should not the Bishops show contrition and confess prior to reception of the Eucharist, now that they may receive?
For years I’ve defended the Catholic Church from everything form know-nothing-era-type bigotry to “soft of pedophiles.”
No more. Any church that can have a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, holocaust denying monster as a BISHOP doesn’t deserve a defense. I feel betrayed. Go make your subtle distinctions about how endorsing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion doesn’t make you an anti-semite — they’ll be lost on any person with a semblance of respect for common sense and the truth.
It is dispiriting in the extreme to see Roman Catholics respond to these events with either purse-lipped locutions about canon law or tiny squeals of delight.
One can but wonder at supposedly faithful Catholics who willfully choose to see the Pope’s actions in isolation from the broader context of the Church’s close involvement with many vile characters during and after WWII, such as the ardent Catholics who somewhat aggressively propagated the faith in Croatia.
Particularly repellent is the ability of apparently many Catholics to wonder, slack-jawed, as to just why the vast majority of Europeans have grown indifferent, if not hostile, to Roman Catholicism in particular, and Christianity in general.
In France, for example, the Church is now commonly regarded as the last redoubt of wacky monarchists, florid xenophobes, and well-heeled jerks who maintain that National Socialism got a few things right.
When the rape of a great many children and adolescents by priests, and the Church’s reaction to these crimes, has driven most Irish Catholics away from the Church, when Spain’s rejection of Catholicism grows relentlessly more absolute, when vocations in America have dwindled to practically nothing, you have to wonder why any Roman Catholic, much less the Pope himself, should see reconciliation with a bunch of Jew-hating nutcases as a uniquely pressing issue.
What’s most tragic about the Pope’s actions is how they profoundly undermine the Church’s radical defense of human dignity, not only with regard to abortion, but with regard to the more abstract realms of genetic research where the ends justify just about any means.
But my gut tells me that a great many Roman Catholics are less interested in realizing the Gospel’s promise than in kicking Jews in the teeth and otherwise working out their pent-up hatred for all the other victims of worldly power who bear witness to the Church’s faults and the urgent need to correct them.
As I Jew, I recognize that the Pope’s decision (a) relates only to the doctrinal issues regarding the investiture of these 4 bishops, not any (hateful) opinions they may hold and (b) is essentially an internal matter for the Catholic Church.
However, I hope Catholics will recognize the message this sends, intentional or not, and that, like it or not, it is a setback for carefully mended Catholic-Jewish relations.
In my view, it would have been less damaging if it had been accompanied, by a direct, unequivocal statement from the Pope denouncing Williamson’s views even while readmitting him.
Ask yourself one question: can you imagine Pope John Paul II re-admitting Williamson without such a statement? I cannot.
What most grates about this act of “charity” is what is says about the Holy Father and the Church he’d like to preside over.
I’ve never been one to support female ordination. As far as the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, through either nature or nurture, I don’t have a dog in that fight.
I don’t agree with the fetishization of Humanae Vitae, but I respect the Chruch’s teaching on reproductive issues.
I think the ultimate message that will be received by the general populace (both inside and outside the Church) is the glaring difference in Benedict’s approach to those who: favor female ordination, accept same-sex unions, and avail themselves of artificial birth control and assisted reproductive technologies with his approach to this rapid, unrepentent anti-Semite.
He has said the gas chambers didn’t exist. He has grossly under-accepted the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust (which he derisively refers to as “so-called”. He think The Sound of Music was too harsh on the Nazis.
And this person gets welcomed with open-arms. While homosexuals get compared to a threat to civilization and the very Earth itself.
As a practical matter, what does one now say to the divorced and remarried couple who are barred from the Eucharist while this cretin is publicly welcomed.
Joanna Bogle:
It seems that your statements are presumtive and smug. Maybe you had good intentions. It doesn’t matter too much though, you don’t even know me. I’ve attended the TLM my whole life, but that is not to say I’ve never attended a NO mass. I have at many times in my life attended NO mass, and regrettably been at shock most of the time at the irreverance by the churchgoers and sometimes priests. Do I believe that the NO mass is valid. Yes! :) Absolutely. I watch EWTN online, and listen to EWTN and local Catholic radio all the time too, and have many a time gone to protest abortion with my fellow local NO attending Catholics Joanna :)
My point is that people like to presume that everyone who attends the SSPX, or even most that attend the SSPX are Vatican II hating extremists that go to the SSPX out spite, to be rebelious, yadda, yadda, yadda! It’s just not true. It is so judgemental of people and really indicative of our weak human nature. There are people who attend the SSPX who are very wierd and extreme, and I could say the same for people I’ve met that attend the NO that are very weird and extreme liberals. To label EVERYONE the same because of what I read on online forums, or because that is what I have mostly run into would be absurd and quite uncharitable. Let’s not be nerds people! Let’s go out there and live our faith and not waste time in chat rooms, etc.. scrutinizing every person and thing on this planet. Living our faith, truly living it, will bear more fruit and give witness unto others and quite possibly bring others closer to God.
Out of the 600,000 people they say attend the SSPX churches, in my family alone there are about 75 (nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles, etc.) I know we are all very happy to hear the Pope’s joyous news. I am Catholic and always have been. If that seems sad to you, I find that strange. Let’s all be positive! Like Martha Stewart says, “It’s a Good Thing”. :)
Just when I was on the cusp of making confession and taking communion after 25 years in the wilderness, this happened. I can’t describe how I feel right now, though ‘wrecked’ comes close.
I’m confused – I was under the impression that SSPX was founded in opposition to Vatican II. Is that not the case? Has it evolved from that into something else? Why would an ordinary Catholic who endorses Vatican II be part of SSPX?
Rusty:
Congratulations. You’re a Donatist.
Daniel, I’m not sure, but is your question directed towards me? If so, what I can tell you in my limited knowledge is that I think the Society was founded to preserve the way the Mass was said for hundreds of years. I don’t think the SSPX was against Vatican II, but against the misinterpretations of it. I could be wrong, but this is what I have grown up to know.
JPF: Donatist, from Wikipedia: “Donatists were rigorists, holding that the church must be a church of saints, not sinners”
By making Richardson a bishop knowing what he represents, they embrace the sin — huge difference. Under your logic, he could just as well be an unrepentant pedophile and it would make no difference. Or are you just a semi-donatist?
The Church “has [Williamson] as a BISHOP.”
“And this person gets welcomed with open arms.”
Both these statements are untrue. The first may be true in a technical sense, but not in a practical sense, since Williamson is suspended and has no diocese. The second is simply false.
Off-topic: What’s the cause of the new cute little symbols beside commenters’ names?
Also, no one involved is named Richardson.
So the Pope’s grand strategy is to give these Bishops what they want (reversing their excommunication) and then ask them to behave properly? All to ease the pain of separation? Call me cray but isn’t the pain of separation the entire point of excommunication? This has to be the dumbest justification / strategy I’ve ever heard of.
These Bishops blatanly flouted the Vatican’s authority (not to mention the reforms of Vactican II). And these were the rational ones in the group. The real nutter denies the Holocaust.
But, hey, now that they have want they want I’m sure they’ll behave much better – yeah right. That’s like the GM of an American football team giving the player with the bad attitude, poor practice habits and countless run ins with the law a guaranteed contract worth millions of dollars and then expecting his behavior to change. Completely stupid.
No, that’s not it at all. The “grand strategy” probably simply involves opening the door a bit and then giving people a choice whether or not they want to walk through the whole way. If they choose not to…they choose not to, and it is their decision.
“By making Richardson a bishop knowing what he represents, they embrace the sin — huge difference. Under your logic, he could just as well be an unrepentant pedophile and it would make no difference. Or are you just a semi-donatist?”
Richardson is already a bishop. It’s a matter of sacramental realism that’s a stake here: the sacraments do not come about by our being good people, and they’re not rendered ineffective or lost through our being bad people (especially those sacraments which confer character, such as Orders). Bishops and even popes in the Church’s history have been conniving, adulterous, even murderous. They didn’t cease being bishops and popes for all that. This has nothing to do with approval of what they’ve done, or–as in this case–thought. Give it a rest.
And yes, a pedophile bishop would be nonetheless a bishop. He wouldn’t necessarily be allowed to remain in office, which is another point. And it’s not clear that Richardson would be given a See in his reunified state with the Church. But a bishop he will always be–Orders can no more be undone than Baptism. You seem not to understand the nature of the sacraments.
rick:
Quite honestly, what Catholics (or Jews) beyond the ecumenically obsessed care about “Catholic-Jewish relations”?
Has any of this Catholic-Jewish dialogue done a single thing to advance the salvation of any Catholic or Jew? I don’t see it.
My Jewish friends don’t believe in my religion and I don’t believe in theirs. They are obviously mutually contradictory since Christ said he came to fulfill Judaism, while modern Judaism claims it does not need any of His fulfilling. Most certainly at least one of us is completey wrong about the truth of our religion since they stand for different things. There’s no sense in lying to each other about this and pretending we are all headed down the same road together in the same way, hand-in-hand like Dorothy and the Tin Man, which seems to be what Catholic-Jewish ecumenism is all about.
So really, who cares what Williamson thinks about the Holocaust? It doesn’t mean anything for me as a Catholic and should mean even less for a Jew. Williamson chattering about history does not define my faith, nor does any other Bishop yapping about non-theological and non-moral topics.
In response to the moderator’s comment on my earlier post:
A more reasonable version of the “opening the door” strategy would be for the Vatican to allow these men to:
1) apologize in writing for flouting the Vatican’s authority;
2) acknowledge that their positions on Vatican II and other issues (e.g the Holocaust) were in direct conflict with the Church’s position;
3) make a sincere appeal to begin negotiations that could eventually lead to a reversal of their excommunication
The course the Vactican has taken makes a mockery of excommunication (ie we don’t want these men to suffer the pain of separation – again that’s the whole point of excommunication). It also reduces the Vatican’s leverage in getting these men to abandon their more radical positions. Finally it invites a large number of reasonable and faithful Catholics to question why they belong to a Church that continues to bungle such basic issues (e.g. you don’t promote a man who denies the single largest moral stain in mankind’s history to a leadership position – and this has nothing to do with Canon Law).
John is incorrect, and has not thought this through.
Consider this:
The fact is, these guys are all still suspended. They have no faculties or jurisdiction. At this point, if they even try to ordain anyone else – priest or bishop – they’re back in the hottest water once again. It’s a very interesting position they have been placed in. SSPX usually ordains a few every year. If they do it before they have been received back fully and had their suspensions lifted and received any jurisdiction – which is HIGHLY unlikely to happen anytime soon – BAM.
Pretty smart. It’s a true test of their obedience, based purely on their own choices and decisions. They would have no one to blame but themselves – not that they have had that, anyway.
This is so blindingly obviously an attempt to split the SSPX – which I’d say is a good thing – and if you read what they themselves are saying, this is a very popular interpretation. They’re saying, “Great! …hey…wait a minute….”
I think George has perhaps misunderstood my point.
I agree that these men are not fully reconciled with the Church and cannot perform their full duties or administer sacraments, etc. However, by reversing their excommunication, the Vatican has removed an enormous stigma & the largest hurdle to reconciliation. They have also initiated the process of reconciliation before receiving one single act of contrition from these men.
Excommunicaiton is a punishment – and not one meted out lightly. It only makes sense that these men repent before there is talk of rehabilitation.
The Vatican’s actions send a terible signal to these men, their supporters and the rest of the world.
“Quite honestly, what Catholics (or Jews) beyond the ecumenically obsessed care about “Catholic-Jewish relations”?” That made me laugh. It shouldn’t have, but there you go. So true.
Any way, more important than one crazy old uncle there is the question of the whole of SSPX and a lot of honest (but in error) faithful. I think Amy mentioned this, but I figure BXVI may be trying to forestall a French Schism (Frankian Communion?) since SSPX is clearly growing. It is worth the PR hit, and annoying some of the “ecumenically obsessed” and doctrinally challenged.
How about we support the Holy Father with prayer and penances (as well as for Williamson et al. and ourselves). If they can get over million rosaries in, what are we waiting for?
Susana,
I was asking generally but I’m glad for your response. With which exact interpretations of Vatican II do they disagree? My understanding was that Vatican II, rightly or not, quite explicitly changed the Mass and that the SSPX attempt to defend the traditional service necessarily puts them in opposition to it. This isn’t my field, though, so I’m not sure where I’m getting lost
Andrew
I don’t think the wider interests of the Church say anything about your faith.
But the Church is also a political and moral entity. If you don’t care about those dimensions of the Church, fine, but don’t pretend they don’t exist.
Among other things, the Church has its own capital and its own ambassadors. It also has an office devoted to interfaith relations–in part because of a very dark history of its dealings with non Catholics and non-Christains. Yes, I suppose it is easier to ignore centuries of religious friction throughout the world. Easy, but naive.
If you believe those non-religious roles are irrelevant to the Church, and should be abolished, your argument is with them, not with me. Until the Church’s non-religious dimensions are eliminated, even internal, doctrinal decisions will affect the Church’s non-religious interests. They have here.
Also, I note you don’t address my question: do you believe John Paul II would have handled this the same way? If not, why not?
rick:
With all due respect to the late Holy Father, I am not sure “What would JPII do” is the best question to ask.
Considerng what JPII did in regard to the clergy sexual abuse crisis in general, and some specific cases like Maciel of the Legionaries of Christ, that is.
(Remember, the Maciel supporters were able to stick it out throughout John Paul’s papacy – it was Benedict who finally brought it down and forced him to retire, and so on.)
I am just saying that John Paul II will be remembered for many things, but forcefully handling crises in the Church will not be one of them.
As to what JP2 would have done, it seems to me that JP2 valued loyalty and obedience over almost anything else (see, for instance, his choices for bishops)……….so I don’t think he would have taken these obstinate SSPX’ers back.
Do keep in mind that lifting an excommunication is only a first step in what can be a very long process. The Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch lifted their mutual excommunications back in the reign of Paul VI…………….so we’re a long way from seeing these four bishops and their flock re-integrated into the Roman church.
“Excommunicaiton is a punishment – and not one meted out lightly. It only makes sense that these men repent before there is talk of rehabilitation.”
Thank the Good Lord your name wasn’t bandied about the conclave. Even Wikipedia understands excommunication better than this.
Robert
Fair enough, but my point was not that Pope John Paul II would necessarily have made a different decision on re-admitting these bishops.
Rather it was that with John Paul’s desire to improve relations between the Church and Jews–and his emphasis on addressing the Holocaust (no doubt due in part to his own experiences as a boy in Poland)–he would have gone to some lengths to repudiate Williamson’s statements even as he was re-admitted.
I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I think such a statement here–a strong one from the Pope, not a tepid one from a spokesman–would have mitigated much of this controversy.
John in Atlanta: e.g. you don’t promote a man who denies the single largest moral stain in mankind’s history to a leadership position
Your grasp of history must be poor, if you don’t recall that Stalin killed more Russians in his reign than Hitler killing Jews.
Jim: As to what JP2 would have done, it seems to me that JP2 valued loyalty and obedience over almost anything else (see, for instance, his choices for bishops)……….so I don’t think he would have taken these obstinate SSPX’ers back.
He valued superficially loyalty and coporate “yes” men. The fact is that most of the bishops he promoted, never really supported him in any restate of orthodoxy and to claim the excesses of Vatican II. Cardinals Mahoney and Lehmann, come to mind. Most of the appointments of JP II were disasterous for the church – hence the unbridled refusal on a greater part of the bishops to recieve Pope Benedict’s motu proprio in 2007.
If aything, it was the lukewarm response of the Ecclesia Dei commision, in JP II’s pontificate, that went to hardening the hearts of the SSPX. If he really wanted them back on board, then it would have been JP II and not Benedict XVI who would have issued the motu proprio on the traditional liturgy in the first place, as one of the first pre-requisits set out by the SSPX in 2000.
Daniel,
I have been attending SSPX masses for the last five years, four years in Mexico, and one year here in Chicago, after I returned to the church after thirty years, and was too horrified at was was happening in my home parish in Pittsburgh both liturgically and doctrinally to go to mass there.
Regarding your question to Susana, have you read ‘Ottaviani’s intervention?’ It is not so very long, it’s on-line, and summarizes as well as anything SSPX’s position on the novus ordo mass. The points of doctrinal disagreement with VII are not so very many. I’m sure Susana can’t discuss all of them in a comment on a blog, but if you go to the Angelus Press site, you will identify several books that give well-written details on the several topics (identify a book at Angelus and then go to Amazon and get a used one, if that helps!).
But let me just briefly talk about one difference, not one that is part of VII’s documents but is very much a part of the “spirit” of the council, as it is sometimes called, still on-going in the Church. Sometime rather recently, a document was released by some official committee speaking for the Church (google it if you are interested in the name) on the subject of limbo. The Church’s traditional teaching on limbo was that babies who die before baptism (by any of the three kinds of baptism recognized by the faith–water, blood, desire) go there–not hell, not heaven. Limbo, the teaching says, is not a painful place like hell, but neither do those individuals there enjoy the Beatific Vision, the vision of God.
Now that’s a hard teaching. Poor little babies! But it is the traditional teaching of the Church. So what did the new document say? That these babies go to heaven. And that’s a nice teaching that does not ruffle any feathers. But aside from the fact that it changes the traditional teaching, which we are never free to do, it just knocks the socks off those of us who do sidewalk counseling, trying to convince women not to abort (which sometimes works, by the way, through the grace of God!). Now, with this new teaching, is the bizarre possibility that the aborting woman can justify her action as actually doing a good thing: sending her child straight to heaven. If you doubt that human minds could work that way, google Sister Arlene Welding, a school sister of St. Francis, who has been writing letters to editors explaining her vote for Obama on the basis of his support for abortion, since it is her experience that abortion may be preferable for poor children, because their lives are so hard. How could she possibly say that except for the doctrinal platform she enjoys as part of the spirit of VII, present and virulent in this new post-VII document!
Daniel, I’ve lived in Mexico the last four years and seen the work SSPX does there. They work among the poorest of the poor, and they bring the straight-up faith to them: no birth control; no abortion, of course; no annulments; frequent confession; frequent reception; marked reverence in church, including dressing as well as possible, and modestly; sermons with much attention to the spiritual life, by way of the gospel. Latin instruction and chant. And to see the dignity this old-fashioned Catholicism brings the poor, especially compared to the novus ordo church of Mexico, which is something you have to experience to believe. The SSPX chapels that I have personally observed there expect great things from their faithful, and they get it. That’s why I think SSPX will be a strong ally in B16′s struggle to restore tradition in the Church, and that that alone is the source of the lifting of the excommunications (besides the fifty three rosaries I myself put into the crusade of prayer SSPX faithful have been making during advent! 1,703,000 were given to B16 after Christmas).
The Church put no strings at all on this recent “deal” and that is because there are no strings to put: there is not one doctrinal item in which SSPX differs from tradition. There is nothing for them to give up or change, because they differ from Catholicism in nothing. And the next move is the Church’s, too: SSPX has asked, has long been asking, for a clarification from the Vatican of the doctrinal areas under dispute, and that is all. They are certain in the clarification that tradition will be upheld, just as their protests about the novus ordo mass are being upheld now, since their protests are identical to B16′s! Use the Latin! Use sacred music! Turn back to God and stop making a show! They will not retreat from the demand for clarification–and all Catholics should be glad!
Bishop Williamson is old and senile, not lionized by SSPX, but endured much the way, as one poster observed, some of the old novus ordo bishops must be endured.
Thank you for asking such a kind question. I hope you are able to persist and investigate a bit. You may also visit an SSPX chapel, if there is one in your area. If you have been taught that you can only go there under some kind of emergency, this is not what the Vatican says (google simply ‘may catholics attend SSPX castrillon hoyos’ to see what he wrote–that the faithful may attend). If you are close to Chicago, come to Our Lady Immaculate in Oak Park. You will be charmed by the number of children, by their behavior in church, and by the number of African-American children who have been adopted by various families. It is in no way a racist place. The priest is only twenty-nine, and he can preach!
White Lily:
Bishop Williamson is old and senile,
No he’s not. At least not “old.” He’s 68 years old. He’s very vigorous and with it. Nice try!
I am shocked that none of you have brought up the most important part of this affair.
Most of the world’s Traditionalists actually have nothing at all to do with the SSPX. Traditionalists generally reject the new Vatican II sacraments, while the SSPX has always held that they are not “per se” invalid (whatever that means. Just a way to play the fence). Many, maybe most, SSPX attendees do believe the Novus Ordo (the New Mass) is totally and completely invalid, for many reasons including the fact that (in the English translations) the words of Consecration are misquoted.
However, Traditionalists outside of the SSPX have a LOT to criticize the SSPX with. The SSPX is viewed as the “false resistance,” a ploy from Modernist Rome. It all goes back to their founder, Marcel Lefebvre, who was ordained priest by an enemy of the Church who had not the power to ordain — the ultra-liberal progresivist (and Lefebvre’s close friend) Achilles Lienart. So Lefebvre’s orders are invalid. Therefore, these four SSPX “Bishops” are not Catholic Bishops. They will have to receive conditional re-ordination, as will all of the “priests” they have ordained.
Incidentally, in September 1992 Richard Williamson tried to defend his claim of Catholic Bishop by stating that St. Cyprian was consecrated bishop without having first been ordained a priest (Williamson was privately “ordained” priest by Lefebvre, while a real Catholic bishop acted as co-consecrator at the 1988 episcopal consecration). But Williamson’s claim is false, as anyone who reads even the most encapsulated account of St. Cyprian (there are several) will know. In the Roman Catholic Church, only a Catholic priest can be consecrated bishop.
This is an old issue, incidentally. Many of the Traditionalists who first brought this up, in the 1970s, are now dead. But much has been written on the topic. The SSPX defenses are feeble and resort to name-calling: “Father” Schmidberger, for instance, in a 1978 Angelus article, defends Lefebvre’s invalid ordination by citing the example of Talleyrand. But the case is not parallel — with Talleyrand, there were co-consecrators. With Lefebvre, he was alone at the hands of the devil (Lienart).
Please forward or pass this information to interested parties. It absolutely needs to be heard.
Ottaviani,
Thanks for the clarification.
I feel much much better knowing that Pope Benedict XVI has started the process that may promote a man who denies the SECOND greatest moral stain on the history of mankind to a position of leadership within the Church. Yes, that’s much more comforting. Thanks for opening my eyes to the big picture and the salient point here.
Williamson’s pre-Cambrian views on the proper role for women and his apparent disbelief in in evolution are just icing on the cake.
From Richard Williamson’s letter “Girls at University” (both quotes taken directly from the SSPX website: http://www.sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/September1-2001.htm):
In explaining St Aquinas’ reasons why women should not be educated, Williamson writes:
“To grasp these three reasons, let us back up another five millennia [from Aquinas], to Adam and Eve.”
Expounding on why women are unfit for higher education, Williamson writes:
“Now what does a university call for? Whereas in modem “universities” the males all believe in “if it feels good, do it,” which is why they are, as they wish, overrun by feeling females, on the contrary in a true university one thinks about universal reality, which is the prerogative of men. A woman can think in this way, or do a good imitation of handling ideas, but then she will not be properly thinking as woman. The dilemma is inescapable: she cannot do what is properly men’s thinking or work without cutting across her deepest nature. Did this lawyeress check her hair-do just before coming into court? If she did, she is one distracted lawyer. If she did not, she is one distorted woman.”
Yeah, this guy is a real gem. We should promote more people with his view points into leadership positions within the Church.
Franklin Jennings,
You are correct in pointing out that I mis-stated the purpose of excommunication. The Catholic Encyclopedia does a good job of summarizing (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm):
“Excommunication (Latin ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion — exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness.”
Since excommunication is a “medicinal” and not a “vindictive” censure, it is incorrect to call it punishment.
The point I made rather poorly was that since excommunication is the most serious form of censure available, Pope Benedict should have extracted formal concessions from the four Bishops (and SSPX) before lifting it. The four did not apologize for flouting the Vatican’s authority, nor did they (or SSPX) recant their opposition to Vatican II. The Pontiff removed the censure & it’s associated stigma and gave a moral boost to their cause while receiving very little in return.
In fact, SSPX has only pledged filial loyalty & devotion to the pontif (which is a big step forward for some of its members) but they continue to openly reject the reforms of Vactican II.
Again from their own web site (http://www.sspx.org/discussions/interview_re_aug_29_05_meeting_w_pope.htm):
Bishop Fellay describing a a portion of his meeting with Pope Benedict XVI
“Then Benedict XVI pointed out that there can be only one way of belonging to the Catholic Church: i.e., by having the spirit of Vatican II interpreted in the light of Tradition, that is to say according to the intention of the Fathers of the Council and the letter of the text. This is a perspective that rather frightens us….”
This exchange provides hope that Pope Benedict will not bend further in rehabilitating SSPX before they formally reject their opposition to Vatican II. However, the pontiff has severely weakened his position by reversing the excommunication of these four men.
“Did this lawyeress check her hair-do just before coming into court? If she did, she is one distracted lawyer. If she did not, she is one distorted woman.”
Wow. Just…wow.
Why does a modicum of care for personal appearance mean that women should not be a lawyers? Good hygiene and a good mind are not mutually exclusive. And yes, I did check my hairdo before going into court today. It shows respect for the court to be well-groomed. More of my counterparts, male and female, should check their reflection in the mirror before entering a courtroom — there are far too many sloppy-looking lawyers.
Regarding Bishop Williamson’s words about the education of women: he has made me mad, too. But his words have no effect on SSPX practice. You will find scores of happy little girls in their schools.
But it is true that these little girls are being taught that their first job as women, if they do not have a vocation to religious life, is to be wives and mothers (and the little boys, husbands and fathers). That’s out of synch with the world. I guess comments here might tell me if it’s out of synch with the novus ordo world. But the world is out of synch with both nature, and God. And the ‘new role’ one branch of feminism has taken on, of equality in everything, is really screwing up society.
To be brief, I’ll cut to the chase and skip divorce, etc, all the indicators. A sure measure of “screwing up society” is the birth rate because lots of indicators end with that number as the concrete data. And it’s down everywhere. Greece, for example. 1.3 children per two adults. They say no society has ever recovered from that low a level. Most European countries and most Asian countries are close to Greece’s low. Hong Kong is below one child per couple. The US is (was) the only developed nation holding on to bare replacement level. That’s why Europe and Asia export to us, and why when we failed (to buy), they failed. Well, what’s the harm? you ask. Isn’t that good for everybody? No more carbon footprints?
No, the economy needs a gently rising population. If you listen to the current debate, you will hear the words “need to build internal markets” and “demand failure” and many like them. They’re talking about humans, people buying things. The stimulus is designed to give us money to spend–not necessary if our population were growing, because the new population is both producer and consumer and it will eat and it will have shelter, and working, it will produce real, not speculative, value. (Nancy Pelosi recently denied these economic realities, talking to some group or other in the last couple of days; she averred that it was necessary now to be more aggressive in promoting abortion both here and abroad, because the world and the country ‘just can’t afford any more mouths to feed under the current conditions’; which is just the opposite of what economists are saying the industrial world needs–it needs more mouths to feed instead of feeding the mouths we’ve got TOO MUCH. It needs car buyers, house buyers. It needs the fifty million consumers we’ve aborted in the last forty years. That’s a PP official figure.)
Uh, what’s that got to do with women? Women–middle class women even from the poorest countries– are refusing to reproduce. All around the world. They are busy going to school (women dominate university populations in every developed country now), having careers, and buying shoes. They don’t mind checking their hair as they go into court, and they’ll win their cases. They’re all Carrie Bradshaw, from Singapore to Chicago. They all deny that the primary social responsibility of women is to mother children, all other roles secondary.
The National Right to Life group has just released a new survey about who aborts. The population aborting now is not the first-pregnancy unmarried teenager. It’s a women with one child already, pregnant with another by the same guy, married or unmarried; she kills the second because (she responded in the survey) “he doesn’t do his half of the work.”
What did that make you think? I shared this survey with another Catholic woman who stays with me outside the Washington abortion mill every Saturday morning. She said, “I knew it! Abortion is men’s fault!” But no, sisters. Babies are women’s work. Bearing them and breast feeding them innoculates women against future breast cancer. The body is made that way. And our stubborn insistence that it is not that way is just like Eve in the garden. I will not serve, might be the motto. I will not have this body. I will not have this job.
So if you were wondering where it actually happened, the clashing of all the contradictions, this is where. Where the rubber meets the road. Where “feminism” steps on a human face. It’s a baby’s face. And it’s our economic future. Williamson is maddening in his crude way of putting it, but the fact remains that demographically something has to change, and that means women have to change. We’ve taken a wrong path but it’s a familiar old path, just pride. Just sin. Not modern at all.
There’s a story, Mao was sitting with Henry Kissinger after a meeting. Mao said, “I know how to really bring down the US, and fast, too.” Henry took the bait, “How?” “I’ll just send you a hundred Chinese women,” Mao said with a sigh. They say this happened. (But we had the last laugh. We sent him a hundred “feminists.”)
This is a parallel with Williamson’s comments about the Holocaust. I don’t study the conspiracy theories and guess that the holocaust happened. My dad died in that war, I hope it was for something real. I am equally sure that sinful–greedy– interests are milking it for all it’s worth and distorting the truth. The situation invites exaggeration in rebuttal, maybe to be heard above the general excited weeping.
Paul,
I saw your concern about Bishop Williamson’s validity mentioned on another blog today. It was mentioned that Hutton Gibson, father of the actor Mel Gibson and a former Jesuit seminarian, wrote an entire book about Richard Williamson and the SSPX dealing with this topic.
The book is the second book on Mr. Gibson’s book page (a free PDF download) and after paging through the dense prose I have to say that the concerns are alarming at the very least.
Apparently the SSPX has been operating for over 30 years with their own line of priests, but since Williamson and the other bishops all have orders traced to Lefebvre, whose own orders were shown to be invalid, then all of these priests must undergo ordination “sub contitione” at the hands of a valid Bishop in order for them to be considered valid.
What I want to know is, why were the SSPX permitted to operate so long, for so many years? Even if they were excommunicated, why did the Church not warn people of the dubious validity of SSPX priests and bishops? Souls are at stake.
I’m just not getting it. The “experts” always say that excommunication is not punishment. OK, then why is the word “mercy” being used so often? What actions of the four bishops put them back into the Catholic community?
Jan,
Thanks for the comments. I don’t deny that there is a huge problem surrounding birthrates in most of the developed world, nor that a major reason for the drop in birthrates is the opening to women of educational and career doors that were not previously opened to them.
“They all deny that the primary social responsibility of women is to mother children, all other roles secondary.”
I think I’d even agree with you on this — woman’s nature is designed for mothering. However, I don’t think that the only way women can fulfill this role is by staying at home raising children. To be sure, it is a noble calling to raise children full-time, but there is more than one way of being a mother.
Have you ever read Edith Stein’s “Essays on Woman”? She writes about physical motherhood (the kind of full-time mothering that you are describing) and spiritual motherhood. Women can be spiritual mothers in various professions. Teaching and social work come to mind, of course — both professions that are dominated by women. But women can bring a feminine, “motherly” touch to many professions. A female doctor, for instance, may provide a different bedside manner than a male doctor. Many patients are more comfortable with female than male ob/gyns, for instance. The fields of public interest law are dominated by female lawyers — many of whom provide compassionate, caring representation to the poor and marginalized.
Women do bring something different to the career world than men do. I don’t think it’s any mistake that many women are drawn to these kinds of fields, and I think that women can indeed fulfill their roles as mothers in these kind of jobs. My job, for instance, involves working with vulnerable children and families daily. Though I am not a mother in a physical sense, I can provide a lot of compassion and guidance and spiritual “mothering” to my clients and their families.