« The Epiphany of the Catechist Pope | Main | They love women »
August 26, 2005
Meeting of Minds?
Some of the other RC blogs are abuzz with the meeting, scheduled for Monday, between Pope Benedict XVI and Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the Fraternity of the Society of St. Pius X.
Rocco Palmo has questions for those who are enthusiastic about the meeting
Papabile comments here, here and here.
Vaticanisti has a post and many comments
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d834600e1e69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Meeting of Minds?:
» Could it be? No, it can’t be. I must be dreaming. from Cacoethes Scribendi
Bishop Fellay and Pope Benedict are going to meet. Could there possibly be a reconciliation in the works? That would be wonderful, and we can always hope, but I’m kinda doubtful… There’s an SSPX chapel much closer to me than the n... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 26, 2005 12:09:37 PM
Comments
This is supposed to be an issue? Maybe I haven't bothered enough conservative St Bloggers lately.
If something comes out of this meeting, then it'll be news. Until then, it's just another appointment on the pope's desk calendar, like Pele.
Posted by: Todd at Aug 26, 2005 11:03:36 AM
So..what do you think, Todd? should I remove the post? Let me think on this...
Posted by: amy at Aug 26, 2005 11:14:48 AM
Pele?
Oh come on. If this was the Patriarch of East Kripneywwastan, who has a Church if 30 adherants, we'd be all agog with Ecumenism, and "uniting the Churches".
But it's only the SSPX with their 1 million or so attendees throughout the world.
Did any of the bishops meet personally with John Paul II after Ecclesia Dei?
I mean, if you can't go to a Catholic blog and find out about stuff like this, we might as well pack our tents and go home.
Posted by: Der Tommissar at Aug 26, 2005 11:42:04 AM
I am inclined toward hopefulness. However, it is the SSPX that will have to recant and re-normalize relations with the Holy See, and not the other way around.
Other than the schismatic mentality that certain SSPX clergy and laity have, a declaration of complete acceptance of the Second Vatican Council, the Novus Ordo Mass, and loyalty to the pope and the curia would probably be enough to get the reconciliation wheels spinning.
Here's hoping!
Posted by: julian at Aug 26, 2005 11:58:16 AM
Hmmm! If the future Church may be smaller, as I believe Pope Benedict predicted in earlier writings, it looks like he believes there is a chance that this smaller church might well include the adherents of SSPX. Much too early to tell of course, but this is a very interesting development.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Aug 26, 2005 12:10:25 PM
Todd,
I've mostly disagreed with your postings over the last couple of years, but, in the past, there wasn't this attitude of mealy-mouthed anger and spite that there seems to be in your recent postings. Is there something wrong?
As far as I'm concerned - this IS an issue, and I'm glad that Amy (and others) are getting the news out.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Aug 26, 2005 12:11:14 PM
Other than the schismatic mentality that certain SSPX clergy and laity have, a declaration of complete acceptance of the Second Vatican Council, the Novus Ordo Mass, and loyalty to the pope and the curia would probably be enough to get the reconciliation wheels spinning.
I'll just pinch hit for the other team a second here...
The SSPX claims to accept VII "In Light of Tradition". What that means, you can all beat into the ground.
On the other hand...it might be nice to rescind the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre. You know, if we're all into getting the wheels rolling.
Posted by: Der Tommissar at Aug 26, 2005 12:16:38 PM
Wow, many of those pro-SSPX comments on Vaticanisti's blog are little more than vitriolic personal attacks against those who do not share their views. Is rude and hateful behavior part of the SSPX formation process? What gives?
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Aug 26, 2005 12:20:01 PM
I read to my children from The Dawn Treader last night. As most of you know, this is book five (or is it four?) of Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia.
One of the characters is Eustace, Edmund's and Lucy's cousin. Eustace is simpering, self-righteous, progressive, dismissive, self-aggrandizing, and usually exits a conversation once his superficial understanding of a topic becomes evident.
Now I ask you, fellow parishioners of St. Blog's, who does Eustace bring to mind?
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Aug 26, 2005 12:29:07 PM
I'd like to ask a question:
Last February, John Allen reported on a 50-page booklet released by the SSPX entitled “From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy.” I don't really know that much about the SSPX's theology, so I'll give you Allen's analysis:
"'As attractive as he seems at first sight,' the booklet concludes about John Paul, 'as spectacular as his ceremonies appear on TV, and however large the crowds that follow him, the realty is extremely sad: ecumenism has transformed the holy city that is the church into a city in ruins.'
"Other than the pope, the villain of the story as told by the Lefebvrites is Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, who is accused of heresy three times in the 50-page document.
"Interestingly, there isn’t one word on what has long been the signature issue for the Lefebvrites: the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass. This confirms what experts have always understood, that the Latin Mass is the tip of the iceberg. The real theological issues, such as ecumenism and inter-faith relations, run much deeper. This is why, Vatican experts on traditionalism say, it was futile to believe that allowing permission for wider celebration of the pre-conciliar Mass, as John Paul did in 1988, would solve the problem."
Now, in his relatively new pontificate, in which he has not made (to the best of my knowledge) substantial comments about sexuality or other topics, Benedict XVI has already made remarks such as:
"The current Successor of Peter ... is disposed to do all in his power to promote the fundamental cause of ecumenism. In the wake of his predecessors, he is fully determined to cultivate any initiative that may seem appropriate to promote contact and agreement with representatives from the various Churches and ecclesial communities. Indeed, on this occasion too, he sends them his most cordial greetings in Christ, the one Lord of all." (April 20, 2005)
Furthermore, given his close relationship to his predecessor (and his own personal history, including his role in the drafting of the Joint Declaration on Justification), it would seem rather doubtful that Benedict XVI would immediately revise John Paul II's declaration that the Catholic commitment to ecumenism is "irrevocable" and part of the Catholic Church's awareness "of her identity and her mission in history."
Here's the question: Apart from consideration of the Latin Mass, has the SSPX developed an ecclesiology that is presently irreconcilable with the Catholic Church's awareness "of her identity and her mission in history?" If Allen is basically correct, is the SSPX in any position to receive Unitatis Redintegratio?
I'm just asking - I hope that nobody will see the above remarks as being uncharitable, even if my concerns should prove to be misguided.
Thanks.
Neil
Posted by: Neil at Aug 26, 2005 12:31:21 PM
It's interesting that the Italian news-site gets things hopelessly muddied. The SSPX is a "Society", not a "Fraternity", which was the name the FSSP assumed precisely to avoid confusion with schismatics. And the notice also does not seem to understand that the Novus Ordo in Latin is not the old rite.
This project seems hopeless to me; the Pope dealt with them so often in the past I suspect he knows it too. As I said on another blog, people whose real interest was the liturgy came back with the Indult. The ones who are left use the old rite simply as a hook on which to hang all variety of tenets that Rome simply cannot tolerate. I realize of course how much heterodoxy is tolerated on the left, but somehow the context makes the aberrations on the right worse. The Pope cannot give beautiful talks in synagogues while at the same time embracing groups who indulge in grotesque anti-Semitic propaganda.
It may be that the average SSPX layperson in Europe is not as wacky as the American counterpart, because the bishops there have been so much stingier with the Indult. But still, the idea of Pope Benedict reconciling with the likes of Bishop Williamson in incredible to me.
Posted by: David Kubiak at Aug 26, 2005 12:35:21 PM
The SSPX on the subject: http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q6_vaticanII.htm
I don't care what they say they think, they need to issue a binding declaration of loyalty and acceptance. Lefebvre cannot have the sentence of excommunication lifted. He acted against the Church. He refused to do as he was told, and he broke the agreement he had reached. How can he repent now?
Posted by: julian at Aug 26, 2005 12:38:12 PM
Neil,
You're right that the "Old Mass" is just the tip of the iceberg. I attempted some research on the status of a local parish with less-than-clear ties to the archdiocese, and the examples of anti-semitism I found among SSPX adherents via a simple Google search was surprising.
That doesn't mean reconcilation is impossible, but SSPX leaders likely (and thankfully) will leave behind wolves among their flock if it does.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Aug 26, 2005 12:46:13 PM
"Now I ask you, fellow parishioners of St. Blog's, who does Eustace bring to mind?"
Someone whose mission in life is to show the rest of us how incurably retro we are??
I keep having the frightening nighmare that Todd and Joseph D' were twins who were separated at birth ....
Posted by: Christine at Aug 26, 2005 12:52:01 PM
there's some canonical difficulty in talking abour rescinding Lefebvre's excommunication. Notwithstanding the fact that lifting an excommunication of a dead person is really only a symbolic action, Lefebvre was excommunicated latae sententiae - that means that he was excommunicated by the very act of what he did (ordain bishops without a pontifical mandate - canon 1382). When Michael Cerularius, the patriarch of Constantinople, was excommunicated in 1054, he was excommunicated by an act of the pope (acting through his legate, Humbert) which, insofar as he was acting through his Petrine authority, could be rescinded by a succeeding pope. To rescind Lefebvre's excommunication, it would need to be determined that Lefebvre didn't do what he appeared to do - namely, consecrate bishops without a pontifical mandate using the full command of his will. There may be some wiggle room in that Lefebvre may have thought he was acting in violation of the law out of necessity (it's interesting to see SSPX'ers who would castigate the Church gladly for embracing the theory of the primacy of conscience, yet resort to that same theory to defend their founder).
I'd love as much as the next guy to see a wholesale rejection of schism by the SSPX and a return to fidelity to Rome, but I don't know how a lifting of Lefebvre's excommunication could really happen.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Aug 26, 2005 12:57:51 PM
Rich,
I have long believed that reconciliation is possible, but only with parts of the SSPX community - not all.
This idea of a Fellay-Williamson split doesn't surprise me.
If by making concessions which do not compromise magisterial teaching (which includes the Council) the Holy Father can get back those who are, so to speak, get-back-able, it sounds like a Very Good Thing (TM) to me.
I have no idea what that concession(s) might be. I trust to the Pope's judgment. Certainly one cannot argue with SSPX claims that implementation of Ecclesia Dei's call for wide and generous granting of the indult has been widely flouted and that new measures are called for to realize it. Either way, Fellay and what followers he can bring with him must explicitly affirm the Council's teachings - all of them. Thay may end up using wiggle words like "in the light of tradition" but then they would hardly be the only ones to engage in such behavior.
As for the rest, the hard core schismatics who cherish the hardest-edged aspects of the Tridentine Church (especially the unpleasant behaviors toward the Jews), all we can do in the end is pray for them.
Posted by: Richard at Aug 26, 2005 1:00:53 PM
David,
The US Bishops aren't stingy with the Indult? Oh, come on -- it's better than it was, but they are still very stingy!
Regarding bringing the SSPX back in: they (the SSPX) have said that what is required for them to end their schism is 1) lifting the excommunications (which, contra julian, CAN be done after the excommunicated has died; and julian, if you get mad about that, try googling around about the ambiguities of Martin Luther's excommunication that may / may not have been lifted by the late Holy Father) and 2) free permission to any priest to say the old Mass. People who claim this latter requirement undercuts the bishops authority, whatever, learn some liturgical history. Sure, there would be some unpastoral Pastors who could alienate folks by too quickly switching to the old Rite; but why not let's be charitable and assume that priests will be good and will, by and large, offer the old Rite to groups who have been catechized and prepared, and at first in limited quantities, as it were. And to preempt: no, there is not a parallel between an irreverant celebration of the Mass that people aren't prepared for an a celebration of the old Rite that shocks people with its strangeness, etc. Yes, both are wrong to do, but the former -- clown Masses, polka Masses, whatever -- are in fact bordering on sacrilege, and allowing them to occur is therefore intrinsically unpleasing to God; whereas a thoughtlessly imposed celebration of an old Mass, while possibly scandalizing the faithful, etc, would be wrong to do, but is not intrinsically unpleasing to God.
Posted by: Mark Wyman at Aug 26, 2005 1:10:17 PM
I am sure people could point to any number of unattractive literary characters, conservative and liberal, and make passive aggressive characterizations about each other all day long.
Anyway, Eustace turned out all right in the end.
I thank you, though, for reminding me of one of my all time favorite opening lines in a Novel though: "There was a boy called Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and he almost deserved it." Perfect.
Posted by: Katherine at Aug 26, 2005 1:18:01 PM
Richard wrote: Either way, Fellay and what followers he can bring with him must explicitly affirm the Council's teachings - all of them. Thay may end up using wiggle words like "in the light of tradition" but then they would hardly be the only ones to engage in such behavior.
So .... receiving pastoral "teachings," in the "light of tradition" is a resort to wiggle words? Do you not intend to receive the teaching of the Council in light of Tradition?
See also: There WERE doctrinal teaching documents written before Vatican II!
Posted by: Mark Wyman at Aug 26, 2005 1:19:24 PM
The Pope has an appointment with Pele? I guess he couldn't get an appointment with Maradona, who, while a better player on the pitch than Pele, could certainly use a visit by the Pope to become a better person off the pitch like Pele.
Posted by: c matt at Aug 26, 2005 1:19:59 PM
Regarding the excommunication of Martin Luther, this is an excerpt from First Things referencing Pope John Paul II's visit to Germany:
"Nonetheless, some Protestants complained that he did not formally revoke the excommunication of Luther. There had been rumors before the visit that he wanted to do that but had been dissuaded by his advisors. In response to this question on other occasions, John Paul has noted that an excommunication holds only during a person's lifetime, and Luther's case has long since been submitted to a higher tribunal, the final judgment of God. In any event, the logically prior ecumenical step is the removal of the Council of Trent's condemnations of Reformation doctrine."
Posted by: Christine at Aug 26, 2005 1:21:12 PM
I share Patrick Rothwell's reaction to the vituperative pro-SSPX comments on the other blogs.
"Traditionalism" is very attractive in many ways -- until one encounters a few real, live Traditionalists. An awful lot of these folks seem to have surrendered their minds to whacky conspiracy theories ("Novus Ordo was written by a committee of Protestants and Jews!"), while surrendering their hearts to bitterness and anger. Sad.
Posted by: Simon at Aug 26, 2005 1:23:01 PM
Simon wrote: ""Novus Ordo was written by a committee of Protestants and Jews!"
You forgot the FREEMASONS!!!!!
:)
But, c'mon, not all traditionally-minded Catholics are so bad! And the best way to drain those admittedly fevered swamps is to bring the old Mass -- and the full breadth of traditional Church teaching -- back into the bright light of common, everyday living.
Posted by: Mark Wyman at Aug 26, 2005 1:26:29 PM
I thank you, though, for reminding me of one of my all time favorite opening lines in a Novel though: "There was a boy called Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and he almost deserved it." Perfect.
I burst out laughing upon reading it, with my nine- and ten-year-old not quite understanding why.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Aug 26, 2005 1:33:52 PM
It may be that the average SSPX layperson in Europe is not as wacky as the American counterpart, because the bishops there have been so much stingier with the Indult.
Did you mean to say the Bishops in America were stingier with the indult? I am having trouble following your reasoning otherwise. If the indult is more widely available, I would think SSPXers would be less wacky. If it is less available (eg, stingier) I would think the SSPXers would be more wacky.
Anyway, I don't see one indult Mass per week per 2 million Catholics as the overflowing font of generosity here in Houston.
Posted by: c matt at Aug 26, 2005 1:37:09 PM
