SSPX and Vatican II
Here's part of one of The Tablet's latest editorials .....
****************************
Not yet back in the fold
31 January 2009
The announcement of the lifting of the excommunication of the four bishops illicitly ordained by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre has been received badly .....
The breakaway of Archbishop Lefebvre and his movement was widely interpreted at the time as being connected with the preservation of the old Latin Mass. The recent re-establishment of the Tridentine Rite as an alternative form of Mass by Pope Benedict has drawn most of the poison from that issue; the rest will come when the Society also accepts, as it surely must, that the post-Vatican II form is equally valid. But not far below the surface of the Lefebvrist movement have lurked some rather more disturbing views, not only its commitment to an ancien-régime style of Counter-Reformation Catholicism, but also to a virulent brand of Catholic anti-Semitism which has a long and disgraceful history, particularly in France (where the movement is strongest).
Bishop Williamson's recent remarks [denying the Holocaust] have to be read in that context. The Lefebvrists reject, for instance, the teaching of the Vatican II decree Nostra Aetate, including its key repudiation of the charge of "deicide" (literally god-killing, because of the supposed Jewish role in the death of Jesus). Lifting the excommunication of someone like Williamson, while he is still publicly propagating his bigoted opinions, sends an appalling signal to the world in general and to Jews in particular. To say of these opinions that they are "totally unacceptable", as the Bishops of England and Wales did in a statement this week, hardly does justice to them. They are evil.
Nostra Aetate is not the only Vatican II document the Lefebvrists contest. They do not like its key document Lumen Gentium, which sets out the basis for a modern constitution for the Catholic Church. They have rejected the decree on ecumenism, which brought an end to the post-Reformation conflict between Catholics and Protestants worldwide; and they rejected the decree on religious liberty, one of Vatican II's most radical departures from previous positions which was, for instance, a flat contradiction of Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors. With such documents as these, Vatican II created a new consciousness of what it was to be a Catholic. To be told by the Society that one of its main aims in seeking the lifting of the excommunication is so that it can work towards the rejection of that consciousness and the restoration of a pre-conciliar style of Catholicism is divisive and offensive. If this is the baggage they propose bringing with them, they would be better left out in the cold .....
***********************
****************************
Not yet back in the fold
31 January 2009
The announcement of the lifting of the excommunication of the four bishops illicitly ordained by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre has been received badly .....
The breakaway of Archbishop Lefebvre and his movement was widely interpreted at the time as being connected with the preservation of the old Latin Mass. The recent re-establishment of the Tridentine Rite as an alternative form of Mass by Pope Benedict has drawn most of the poison from that issue; the rest will come when the Society also accepts, as it surely must, that the post-Vatican II form is equally valid. But not far below the surface of the Lefebvrist movement have lurked some rather more disturbing views, not only its commitment to an ancien-régime style of Counter-Reformation Catholicism, but also to a virulent brand of Catholic anti-Semitism which has a long and disgraceful history, particularly in France (where the movement is strongest).
Bishop Williamson's recent remarks [denying the Holocaust] have to be read in that context. The Lefebvrists reject, for instance, the teaching of the Vatican II decree Nostra Aetate, including its key repudiation of the charge of "deicide" (literally god-killing, because of the supposed Jewish role in the death of Jesus). Lifting the excommunication of someone like Williamson, while he is still publicly propagating his bigoted opinions, sends an appalling signal to the world in general and to Jews in particular. To say of these opinions that they are "totally unacceptable", as the Bishops of England and Wales did in a statement this week, hardly does justice to them. They are evil.
Nostra Aetate is not the only Vatican II document the Lefebvrists contest. They do not like its key document Lumen Gentium, which sets out the basis for a modern constitution for the Catholic Church. They have rejected the decree on ecumenism, which brought an end to the post-Reformation conflict between Catholics and Protestants worldwide; and they rejected the decree on religious liberty, one of Vatican II's most radical departures from previous positions which was, for instance, a flat contradiction of Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors. With such documents as these, Vatican II created a new consciousness of what it was to be a Catholic. To be told by the Society that one of its main aims in seeking the lifting of the excommunication is so that it can work towards the rejection of that consciousness and the restoration of a pre-conciliar style of Catholicism is divisive and offensive. If this is the baggage they propose bringing with them, they would be better left out in the cold .....
***********************
posted by crystal | 4:35 PM
12 Comments:
In American Indian lore there is the story of a young man who is walking along a trail on a very cold day and sees a rattle snake. The snake pleads with the Indian to pick it up and warm it or else it will die. The Indian replies "but if I pick you up and warm you up you will bite me!" "No," says the snake, "because I know if you do not pick me up and warm me up I will die of the cold." Having mercy the young man picks up the rattlesnake and warms it up, at which time it strikes and bites the man. "Why?" asks the man. "You knew I was a rattlesnake when you picked me up," replies the snake.
I am afraid that Benedict has indeed picked up a rattlesnake but only time will tell. But there are also times, or so it seems to me, that one must show mercy despite risks that may be involved.
Let us hope, and even pray, that all turns out well. After all, it would seem that perhaps Jesus took an even greater risk for our salvation. Did He win or lose???
Hugs,
Mike L
Mike L
This reminds me of the story of the woman who was going to be stoned to death and she ran to Jesus knowing that He might be able to save her.
I doubt that she was innocent but who am I to judge. Anyway Jesus told the crowd that the one without sin should throw the first stone and they then all left.
As we also know Jesus asked this woman in so many words if they condemn her and she said no and then in so many words He also said, go and sin no more cause neither do I condemn you for your pass sins.
What else could I say that Jesus wouldn't have already said about these four bishops?
God Bless you Crystal
Peace to you and your family.
Hi Mike,
I don't see this as Benedict showing mercy to poor penitent ousiders who just want to come in from the cold. I think he leans in their direction ideologically and I don't think they're penitent. I'm not sure what the benefit of having these guys back is supposed to be, or how that benefit can trump the death of trust between Catholicism and udaism.
Hi Victor,
Yes, I think Jesus would forgive anyone of anything. But even he got angry with religious leaders that were "scandalous".
Crystal,
Do you have a link to that editorial? I don't see it in the free articles on the Tablet. Is is for subscription-viewing only?
I hardly ever agree with what Gerorge Weigel writes anymore, and I didn't like how he ended this article, but I like how he started it:
What do the Cardinal Richelieu and King Louis XVI, the Bastille and the Reign of Terror, the Bourbons and Robespierre, the revolutionary depredations in the Vendée, the Dreyfus Affair, the anti-clericalism of the French Third Republic, and the World War II Vichy regime have to do with the schismatic movement that the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre led out of the Roman Catholic Church in 1988—a movement that Pope Benedict XVI is now trying to move toward reconciliation by lifting the excommunications of its four illegally ordained bishops on Jan. 21?
In a word: everything.
The SSPX has never represented authentic Catholic "traditionalism." They've always represented a rump brand of Dreyfusard integralism masquerading as tradition. A Jansenist streak in France obsessed with the French Revolution and the restoration of the ancien regime. These recent events are a colossal embarrasment.
It's actually pretty funny to see the SSPX types going after the "neo-con" Weigel for writing it.
Hi Jeff,
No, the free edotorials are for everyone but you have too look in the left hand sidebar under "current issue" for the link "editorials" Here is where that one was - link
That's interesting about French history. I have to read about the Dreyfus Affair, but I do know some about Cardinal Richelieu and King Louis XVI (and the three musketeers:)
Jeff,
PS - have you seen what Michael Sean Winters has written in America's blog about Catholic anti-Semitism?
The one about Damon Linker? I just read it, including your comment. Very good. :)
Did you read Fr. James Martin today Mickens on SSPX?
Pretty sobering and scary thoughts.
Yeah, I saw that. I really like Fr. Martin. I'm reading one of his books now and I think I'll post something about in a day or two. What's also scary - taking a trip to the SSPX website.
I am shocked that commenters here are shocked about B16. Certainly they knew that he took the position from the beginning that Vatican2 added nothing; that it did not in any sense change or add to the universal, constant teaching of The Church. Jack
Jack,
I think most people are not surprised by B19's leanings but that he would make such an overt move in regards to them.
Post a Comment
<< Home