In All Things
Mickens on SSPX
Robert Mickens, the Rome correspondent for the London Tablet has a lengthy article on the SSPX saga in this week’s Tablet here.
He also sent us this much more personal reflection, which he has allowed us to post here:
Pope Benedict XVI said at his general audience on Wednesday that the four bishops of the Priestly Fraternity of St Pius X (SSPX) -- the so-called Lefebvrists -- will now have to show their "true fidelity and true recognition of the magisterium and authority of the Pope and of Vatican Council II".
What does this mean?
In an interview the next day in the Italian paper "Corriere della Sera", Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, head of the "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, claimed that the head of the Lefebvrists had already recogised the Council and said confidently that he and his group would be eventually welcomed back into the Roman Church. Conservative blogs quoted sources that said 2 February would be the day, though it seems extremely unlikely if not impossible. There have to be some discussions or at least a semblance of them. But...
"Full communion will come," said the cardinal, who heads the commission that deals with the Lefebvrists. "In our conversations, Bishop Fellay has recognised Vatican Council II, he has recognised it theologically. Only a few difficulties remain," he said, "such as ecumenism and freedom of conscience..."
But do not think the Lefebvrists will be made to budge. The Vatican is intent on finding a formula that they sign without denying anything they hold.
A young professor at the Legionaries of Christ’s university in Rome, Fr Mauro Gagliardi, gave a clue of what to expect.
"The Fraternity of St Pius X can offer the Church an important contribution in applying the ’hermeneutic of continuity’ that must be applied to the documents of Vatican II," he said.
This apparent reference to Pope Bendict’s hermeneutic for interpreting the Council is imprecise -- as Fr Joseph Komonchak and others have clearly pointed out -- but it is not altogether mistaken. And Fr Gagliardi is not just any professor in Rome. He was recently named as consultant to the papal liturgical ceremonies office and mixes in the circles that are currently in favour in the Vatican. He said, "The ’Lefebvrists’ have a spirituality and charism that can be a richness for the life of the entire Church." This certainly is the view of Cardinal Castrillon and probably reflects, at least in some measure, the Pope’s thinking, too.
There is no question that Pope Benedict wants the SSPX back in the Church. Up to now he has done everything to accommodate them on their terms. He will do so on the interpretation of the Council, as well. The two CDF documents in 2007 (on the nature of the Church on 29 June and on evangelisation on 3 December ) have already begun paving the way for this. The Lefebvrists will argue, and the Pope will agree, that, in substance, we have the same doctrine after Vatican II as we had before. All "changes" were merely stylistic or operational, but not theogical -- i.e. none of the changes were essential, so none have to be adopted. The Vatican and the SSPX will also say, together, that much of the Council was badly misinterpreted by theologians and bishops in the post-conciliar period, and they will even cite the long list of theologians the CDF condemned to prove that Rome never caved in. Despite everything to the contrary (i.e. the fact that the SSPX does not really buy or live Vatican II), they will find a way together to finagle a formula that helps them profess "true fidelity and true recognition" of the Council (in light of the constant Tradition) but allows them to continue living as if Vatican II never existed. There are already a number of "Ecclesia Dei" communities in communion in Rome (off-shoots of the SSPX like the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter) that currently do this.
The formula that is produced will be just as disingenuous as the invented nonsense of "two forms of the one Roman Rite".
You are probably saying this scenario is an exaggeration and that this could never happen. Many have said it before. Not a few people called me strident, hysterical and worse back in 2005 when I started saying that the Pope was intent on issuing a universal indult for use of the Tridentine Mass. The motu proprio finally arrived in July 2007 and then most people tried to downplay it, saying it would have no practical effect in our parishes, etc.. Again I said they were. It has only been eighteen months (!) and the changes are beginning to take place, especially in seminaries.
All of this should be a cause of great alarm to those of us who still believe that something monumental happened at Vatican II, that there were developments, reforms and -- yes -- points of rupture with the past (despite the Pope’s unconvincing arguments to the contrary).
Joseph Ratzinger is completing, as pope, the work he began more than twenty-five years ago as prefect of the CDF. It is no less ambitious than the wholesale reinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council. And no one seems willing or able to stop him." -- Robert Mickens
James Martin, SJ
Comments (40) |
3746 Views
Add Comments (registration required)
Comments
In my opinion, there will be no reaction from the grass roots other than gnashing of teeth because Catholic grass roots movements are inherently limited by Catholic ecclesiology (e.g., Voice of the Faithful). A previous posting's droll reference to a ''Society of Saint John XXIII'' didn't draw the crucial distinction; SSPX was formed by a bishop with the ability to create a line of succession. If there are potential ''John XXIII bishops'' out there, they've been awfully quiet since the passing of churchmen like Bernardin, Untener, and Lucker. Faced with a lack of consecrated leadership, the only alternative for individuals who believe in the ideals of Vatican II is to seek them in places like the Episcopal Church, or in the remote islands of abbeys and parishes which still believe in the Vatican II reforms and quietly operate under the hierarchy's radar.
I believe the substance of Vatican II is not dependent upon eliminating those who yearn for the liturgy of their youth; or for something that feels more transcendent; in this respect Pope Benedict XVI is right. Maybe Vatican II was more about attitudes and any overreaching in either (or many) directions calls for a sort of centering that indeed the Pope represents.
Maybe the answer lies in Mr. Schewe's observation about the 'lack of consecrated leadership.' What if the Vatican II parish priests out there started speaking/acting up against these reactionary policies? Why wouldn't their parishioners support them? And really, what's the worst that could happen? Their scarcity of numbers gives them leverage -- it's not like the hierarchy can afford to 'fire' them, and being moved around can't stop them from continuing to speak out and act (rather, they can spread their message, and perhaps inspire others to join their ranks). Well?
You might want to add to this list Cardinal Alfrink, Bishop Bekkers, Bishop Ernst and a few others (all from Holland; they ministered before the disastrous appointments of men like bishop Gijsen, Simonis et al). Add also Cardinal Koenig of Vienna and the current Cardinal Danneels of Belgium. I'm sure that there are more.
Posted By John Stangle, "I believe the substance of Vatican II is not dependent upon eliminating those who yearn for the liturgy of their youth;..." There is plenty of evidence that those who wish to return to the "good old days", are often (mostly?) younger persons, i.e. too young to have experienced the old ways. So, what do these young people mean when they speak of "the liturgy of their youth"? I am old enough to remember the old ways, and I don't yearn one bit to go back to the liturgy of my youth.
Posted By Robin, "it's about fear: of the modern world, ideas that are 'different,' women, human sexuality, other religions (esp. Judaism), having to do critical thinking to make moral choices, etc." Right on, Robin. Especially your statement, "having to do critical thinking to make moral choices, etc." In the "good old days" you didn't need to think, the Pope, your bishop and parish priest did the thinking for you. Easy. And the threat of mortal sin kept those in line who acted or thought differently.
Moreover, I'm a little puzzled why commentators think that Benedict XVI is intent on destroying the effects of a Council which he was a peritus for and has spent nearly his entire life defending. The debate, I take it, is how one interprets the Council documents. No doubt, that's no easy endeavor (despite the conclusory assertions coming from both sides of the debate), but surely we can dispense with the risible argument that Benedict XVI is somehow anti-Vatican II.
Finally, I find it a little humorous that advocates for a more "progressive" interpretation of Vatican II, end up resorting to the language and attitudes supposedly abandoned by the Council. For example, conservative or traditionalist aren't just wrong or misguided, they're anti-modern, misogynistic, sexually-frustrated prudes, and anti-Semites. In other words, traditionalists are the dreaded "Others."
"First, the council professes its belief that God Himself has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness. We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men."
Card. Ratzinger almost 25 years ago: "Does this mean that the Council itself should be revoked? Absolutely not. It only signifies that the real reception of the Council has not yet begun. What has devastated the Church in the last decade is not the Council, but a refusal to receive it." That's it. ;-)
Wha...? Scarcity of numbers?? Are you living in the same Church I am? In my experience, since re-verting to the Faith in 1990, the ones having to operate under the radar are traditionalists. After all I can't attend an approved Traditional Latin Mass without driving a minimum of 25 miles -- and I live in a HUGE metropolitan area!
I think that's what he means, but I wanted to be sure.
Bob Rowden
''the Inquisition was an honest tribunal, which sought to convert heretics more than to punish them, which condemned relatively few people to the flames, and which only employed torture in exceptional cases.''
''The Inquisition adopted an attitude toward heretics comparable to that of our Lord.''
''the Inquisition was a humanitarian work''
''the Inquisition was entrusted to the finest flowers of the clergy of the era.''
''those condemned to death were not always executed. Their sentences were sometimes commuted to time in prison, and they were then burned in effigy. Moreover, the condemned were not necessarily burned alive. If they showed a certain repentance, they were suffocated before being thrown on the pyre. Remember also that it was only the relapsed, that is to say those who fell back into heresy after having abjured it, who were condemned to death.''
''the fear of death often facilitated their conversion.''
''Catholics have nothing to be ashamed of in the past work of this holy tribunal.''
For additional information readers may want to visit http://www.sspx.org/against_the_sound_bites/defense_of_the_inquisition.htm
Is it not time now for our bishops to exercise their office of collegiality and stop this insanity?
I'd say rather that your ''fundamentally changed'' Church is an invention of your own wish that the Catholic Church be something other than what it truly is.
But how, in fact, was that Latin Mass celebrated in reality in the 'good old days'? The priest, with his back to the people, mostly softly mumbling words in a strange language that nobody in the pews (maybe also the priest himself) didn't understand, while 'Mrs.Jones' was saying the Rosary, or 'doing' the Stations of the Cross,and
'Mr. Jones' standing in the back, playing cards with his buddies (yes, I've seen this many times). The priest did 'his thing 'in Latin, the people did theirs. I'm sure they all meant well. Moreover, those present believed that they avoided committing a mortal sin, since they were physically present. I could write a book about what the Latin Mass had become, and when someone suggests to go back to the Latin Mass, I cringe. I think that most young people who wish to go back to the Latin Mass, didn't really grow up with it, and don't really know its real history, what it had become. Maybe they are going to do things differently, but I've heard that story too many times before.
Some of those reading this may accuse me of drawing a caricature of the Latin Mass; in fact, the Latin Mass HAD BECOME a caricature of what was intended, and I am just describing it in part.
And post-Vatican II liturgy? I consider it a work in progress, not perfect. And that's fine with me.
Do they really think the average suburban Catholic parish of the 50's and early 60's had the resources to do a Mozart Mass or Gregorian chant? As the kids of today's Facebook generation would say: PUH-LEEZE!
Robin, while my choice to move to Anglicanism may not appeal to you (and I respect your view) at least I have the pleasure of not rubbing elbows with a motley collection of Francoists, monarchists, rabid anti-Semites and out from under a rock collection of fascists of all stripes.The comments of the SSPX supporters on this blog show where they want to take your church and it ain't pretty.
I will limit my obervations to the liturgical life of the Church in saying this, but I find little salience to Father Martin's panicked observations. As a convert to Catholicism and as a (relatively) young husband and father, I have been delighted in the recent liturgical changes that have taken place even in our local parish - ''tricle down'' effects, if you will - of very recent reforms in the papal liturgies. These include use of some Latin and Gregorian chant along with an overall sense of ''sacrality'' and purpose in the Mass. These changes have helped to recapture a vertical emphasis (i.e. an emphasis not on ''celebrating community'' - whatever the heck that means - but on worshiping God in his majesty and mystery). THIS is the Catholicism in which I want to raise my children.
The truth is, I wholly appreciate the measured and sensible efforts of the pope to understand the post-Vatican II reforms (especially the liturgical ones) in the vein of a ''hermeneutic of continuity''. To do anything less is completely irrational and is condescendingly dismissive of nearly 2,000 years of the Church's organic development. Any sensible person can read the actual documents of Vatican II and realize the extent to which many of those documents were mangled, I mean ''interpreted'', in the name of ''progress'' and in the ''spirit'' of the textual content as opposed to its letter. I am deeply grateful for the pope's attempts to return us to our liturgical moorings.
By the way, I am not aware of any catholics who think that the Church started at Vatican II; I’ve never heard that. ALL catholics believe in the rich Tradition of our Church (which includes Vatican II), even though some (many?) may express that in different ways.
I don’t know if this makes any sense to some of the commentators above. But I must admit that some commentators really scare and disturb me. In several of the commentators, I don’t hear the voice of Christ. We have so much in common. We can be passionate about our different views but in the end we all belong to the same Church and believe in the same deposit of our Faith and our rich Tradition. And above all: let’s love one another, rather than shout at one another in anger or dismiss one another.
God willing, the Holy Father will succeed! It's amazing to see Catholics for whom every matter of doctrine has been negotiable suddenly become extreme doctrinal rigorists. More that half of the parishioners in my very typical parish do not believe in the basic teachings of the faith: the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, transubstantiation, just to mention a few; but the SSPX-ers must remain excommunicated because they reject this or that item pronounced by the Second Vatican council. What hypocritical nonsense! Here's a proposal: let's come up with a comprehensive doctrinal check-list, one that includes everything taught by the church; and let's come up with a precentage that one has to score on the check list in order to remain in full communion with the Church. Now, let's apply it universally: all Catholic University profs, all bishops, priests, and, yes, even all Jesuits. I suspect that the SSPX would score quite well. America Mag and the Jesuits I'm not so sure about.
We are finally getting down to the issues. Traditionalists reject Modernism and we reject Vatican II as a failed Council. None of us contracept and we have large families. In France, one third of the seminarians are SSPX. Quickly the Traditionalists are growing and the Novus Ordo is dying. You can not provide the priests anymore to keep it going.
So we as a church have to deal with this. If you want the Church to become more modern, and more liberal, it will never happen. I suggest going over to the Anglicans. For other Novus Ordo types, we can tolerate your Mass if you clamp down on the abuses. Within a few more years it will no longer exist anyway. And as for Traditionalists, we will continue to grow and draw the young into our movement. We are the future, the near future, and you can't stop it.
I think it's all a big misunderstanding, which is to be expected considering the 40 years apart. It just needs to be clarified that the SSPX does in fact accept Vatican II, that it only wants the option of the 1962 rite, that we are all one Church together, side by side. When that happens, the Church will be bigger and stronger and who can complain at that?
Frank Cook
If the Catholic Church changed in manner that I considered to be immoral and unjust, I'd go somewhere else.
Vatican II called for full, conscious, and active participation by all Catholics in the liturgy. During the Eucharistic Prayer, and especially in the Consecration, as all informed (posting on NCR website) Catholics know, the mysteries of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus are made anamnetically present, none more centrally than His passion and cross. In praying the rosary and stations, those folks were far more mentally focussed on the dynamic matter of the Mass than most folks at Novus Ordo Masses in the U.S. today. Most post-conciliar Catholics don't know the Mass from a hole in the ground. I would venture to say that 95% of all Sunday Novus Ordo attendees are either ''praying'' in the vaguest of senses (sure as shoot not ''full, conscious, and active'') or have their mind on something wholly other. The rosary and stations-praying wasn't perfect, but it was many times closer to the liturgical goal of Vatican II than most American Catholics, at least, are now.
Any parish has the resources to do basic Gregorian chant, so long as they have a decent instructor and a little practice. It is not rocket science.
I don't think that's quite accurate. My understanding is that one third of all French seminarians are *traditionalist* - FSSPX, FSSP, ICK, IBP, the various monastic orders, etc., all added together.
Which, come to think of it, is still a stunning figure. Traditionalist orders - with all the impediments and prejudices under which they have labored - now apparently draw half as many vocations as all French dioceses put together. I imagine this was one of the facts which factored into the Pope's desire to reconcile with the Society.
And this is a problem with the more progressive implementations (as they might understand it) of the Council: it's been death on vocations. Someone above lamented the passing of Bernardin, Untener, and Lucker. Yet one of the most striking things about such prelates is the trickle of new vocations their terms produced - especially Untener. Some of the old religious orders, especially women's have essentially collapsed.
Maybe not such a big deal if you buy into some of the more radical theologies which really deny a sacramental priesthood anyway in favor of lay congregationalism. But you'd have a harder time calling that ''Catholic,'' if the term has any meaning at all.
When it can be seen as just another event in our long tradition and treated accordingly, the Church will be able to take from it what is useful and quietly ignore the rest.
At the moment there are far too many vested interests both for and against with personal and emotional attachments to the events of the 1960's and their immediate aftermath.
In the meantime please say a prayer for the 80% of Catholics who don't give a fig one way or the other and never darken the door of a church. They have been failed more than anybody else.
The simple fact of the matter is that we are in a time of harvest - on truly a global scale. The weeds' home is the world of fallen man and they've attempted to 'take over' the Church and make the 'world' the Church's home. Not surprisingly, all that has been overgrown with weeds is in a rapid state of disintegration. Though the weeds are on a mission to 'unite' the fallen world, their unification is for their own removal - the 'final act' of a long cycle in the life of fallen man on this planet.
Add Comments (registration required)
* The opinions expressed here are those of our contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the editorial opinion of America magazine.