Pushed to the SSPX

[surritter]

Excellent post, Br. JR!

 

[ProVobis]

For the good of the Society and the good of the Church, we must pray that as these four bishops get older, they will never think of ordaining another bishop without the pope’s authorizsation to do so. That would mean another excommunication and another 20 years or so of bad blood among Catholics.

Just a point of order, these four bishops have not themselves ordained other bishops. If they do so, it will be the first time for them. But if they do or even plan to, it means the talks will have broken down and those who attend their Masses will have a serious choice to make.

There is a good possibility that there may be a split in the ranks, however. There already is a drift among the four bishops and the Vatican may be the least of their problems.

 

[ibkc]

1. Make no more remarks about the Shoah and tow the line that Benedict has set down, 6 million Jews did die in concentration camps, end of story.

Since when did the Holocaust become religious dogma?

Don’t get me wrong, I accept the mainstream on this issue. I think Bp. Williamson is WAY off-base and that the bigotry against the Jewish people is one of the more ugly traits of some SSPX followers. But I am unaware of anything in the Catechism or in any other Church documents that mandates that anyone “tow the line” about historical events that do not concern our faith.

 

[Bluegoat]

Since when did the Holocaust become religious dogma?

Don’t get me wrong, I accept the mainstream on this issue. I think Bp. Williamson is WAY off-base and that the bigotry against the Jewish people is one of the more ugly traits of some SSPX followers. But I am unaware of anything in the Catechism or in any other Church documents that mandates that anyone “tow the line” about historical events that do not concern our faith.

I think that this is a matter of the SSPX bishops accepting another sort of authority, not of saying it’s dogma.

 

[ibkc]

I think that this is a matter of the SSPX bishops accepting another sort of authority, not of saying it’s dogma.

Again, I am unaware of any official teaching on the part of the Catholic Church regarding the Holocaust that any Catholic is required to accept as authority. If there were such a teaching and Bp. Williamson was violating it, that would be one thing, but as it is, he’s simply expressing an opinion on something that has nothing to do with the faith.

I don’t know where Br. JR is getting his information, but I doubt highly that the topic of the Holocaust is on the table at the talks.

 

[Bluegoat]

Again, I am unaware of any official teaching on the part of the Catholic Church regarding the Holocaust that any Catholic is required to accept as authority. If there were such a teaching and Bp. Williamson was violating it, that would be one thing, but as it is, he’s simply expressing an opinion on something that has nothing to do with the faith.

I don’t know where Br. JR is getting his information, but I doubt highly that the topic of the Holocaust is on the table at the talks.

I seem to recall that the Bishop in question was asked by the Pope, or some other official, to refrain from commenting on this issue. I may be wrong but I don’t believe that it needs to be an issue of dogma or doctrine for the Holy See to instruct its Bishops in this way. Rather like when I was a soldier, I was not allowed to make public comment on most military matters, even if the comment would have been perfectly legitimate as a private citizen. (As in, “Wow, that attack that killed all those guys was a dumb idea from the beginning”, or “The minister of Defense has no clue about military matters”.) There are other kinds of obedience one can be subject to, and that does seem to be a issue with the SSPX.

 

[ibkc]

I seem to recall that the Bishop in question was asked by the Pope, or some other official, to refrain from commenting on this issue.

Yes, and he did. I still really, really doubt that this is part of the current discussions. The press release put out by Ecclesia Dei in October said:

In a cordial, respectful and constructive climate, the main doctrinal questions were identified. These will be studied in the course of discussions to be held over coming months, probably every two months. In particular, the questions due to be examined concern the concept of Tradition, the Missal of Paul VI, the interpretation of Vatican Council II in continuity with Catholic doctrinal Tradition, the themes of the unity of the Church and the Catholic principles of ecumenism, the relationship between Christianity and non-Christian religions, and religious freedom. The meeting also served to specify the method and organisation of the work.

They are discussing doctrine. Whether or not Bp. Williamson runs his mouth about the Holocaust has nothing to do with Catholic doctrine.

 

[surritter]

I agree with Bluegoat. While not a matter of doctrine, it is a matter of charity.

 

[ibkc]

I agree with Bluegoat. While not a matter of doctrine, it is a matter of charity.

The fact is that the four bishops were not excommunicated because of anyone’s views on the Holocaust, the lifting of the excommunications had nothing to do with anyone’s views on the Holocaust, and that the information about the talks released by the Holy See do not even begin to suggest that Bp. Williamson’s views of the Holocaust are a topic of discussion. I am aware that some people need to imagine that the SSPX is getting a good finger-wag for letting Bp. Williamson say naughty things, and I suppose it makes some people feel better about the whole thing, but I feel the need to inject some reality into this little fantasy. These talks are about doctrine. Pope Benedict may have instructed Bp. Fellay on the finer points of charity and had him pass it along to Bp. Williamson, but if that conversation happened it was private between the three of them. It’s not part of these talks.

 

[surritter]

I simply meant that the SSPX can show solidarity and respect for the pope by not causing further division over something that – you are correct – is not a matter of doctrine.

 

[Bluegoat]

What I meant is that if the SSPX are not willing to show the appropriate kinds of obedience, then it becomes suggestive of their understanding of what kind of obedience they owe and authority they are under. And that does begin to get into matters of doctrine.

 

[ProVobis]

What I meant is that if the SSPX are not willing to show the appropriate kinds of obedience, then it becomes suggestive of their understanding of what kind of obedience they owe and authority they are under.

Bluegoat, again the issue of obedience. Obedience to whom? Seems as if obedience to the Pope by coming to the talks says a lot, doesn’t it?

It was the Archbishop’s disobedience in 1988 that got him excommunicated in the eyes of the Church. The disobedience was ordaining/consecrating four bishops who also were excommunicated. We all know that. But where have there been disobediences since then that would warrant another excommunication? No new bishops have been ordained. Wasn’t the lifting of the excommunication indicative of their attempt to reconcile and obey? If they are so disobedience-prone as you suggest, I doubt if they’d have their excommunications lifted. Or are you perhaps inferring that the Pope doesn’t know what he’s doing and he’ll only regret it later? This Pope as Cardinal Ratzinger had dealt and dealt with the SSPX for a long time. I say the Pope knew what he was doing then and he hard well knows what he’s doing now. He doesn’t need any suggestions from us.

And that does begin to get into matters of doctrine.

How exactly? The chain of command is recognized by both sides as far as I know.

 

[pnewton]

How exactly? The chain of command is recognized by both sides as far as I know.

That may be true for the most part. The one thing that comes to mind as being an exception is the hearing of confessions without the authority of the local ordinary.

 

[Bluegoat]

Bluegoat, again the issue of obedience. Obedience to whom? Seems as if obedience to the Pope by coming to the talks says a lot, doesn’t it?

It was the Archbishop’s disobedience in 1988 that got him excommunicated in the eyes of the Church. The disobedience was ordaining/consecrating four bishops who also were excommunicated. We all know that. But where have there been disobediences since then that would warrant another excommunication? No new bishops have been ordained. Wasn’t the lifting of the excommunication indicative of their attempt to reconcile and obey? If they are so disobedience-prone as you suggest, I doubt if they’d have their excommunications lifted. Or are you perhaps inferring that the Pope doesn’t know what he’s doing and he’ll only regret it later? This Pope as Cardinal Ratzinger had dealt and dealt with the SSPX for a long time. I say the Pope knew what he was doing then and he hard well knows what he’s doing now. He doesn’t need any suggestions from us.

How exactly?

The question was whether a Bishop commenting on an issue he had been asked by the Pope to be silent upon could be a matter of real importance in current talks between the SSPX and the Holy See. Even if the issue itself was one that did not directly relate to doctrine.

It was suggested that this could not be an issue, because it was not a matter of doctrine or beliefs of the Church.

But Bishops are not only under the authority of the Pope in one way. Their obligations are greater than a lay-persons - more like a religious. (That is the position I am maintaining, anyway). They also owe other kinds of obedience. If they are instructed not to comment on some issue by the Pope (say, ketchup vs mustard), then under normal circumstances they have an obligation to refrain.

Now, if this is the case (and no one here has made any real argument that it isn’t) then a refusal on the part of the Bishops to acknowledge/respond to this would indicate a breach in the understanding of authority between the SSPX and the Holy See. Which has been very much a part of the issue they are trying to work out. So yes, I think if they are having problems over this, it could indicate bigger issues that mayl not be able to be overcome by these talks.

The nature of the authority of the Pope and the governance of the CC, and the role of Bishops, is very much a matter of church doctrine.

I’m not sure why you think I was making suggestions about how the Pope should proceed. I don’t even know if there has been disagreement in the talks about this issue, or any other issue - (nor I suspect do you. The fact that talks are happening doesn’t always mean they are going well or are fruitful.) I was simply responding to the post which suggested that this could not possibly be a matter of concern. I don’t see why you have to be so rude about it.

 

[surritter]

It was the Archbishop’s disobedience in 1988 that got him excommunicated in the eyes of the Church.

No it got him excommunicated period. The phrase “in the eyes of the Church” is your way of saying that it wasn’t really an excommunication, or at least not a just one. But it was a fact.

The disobedience was ordaining/consecrating four bishops who also were excommunicated. We all know that. But where have there been disobediences since then that would warrant another excommunication? No new bishops have been ordained. Wasn’t the lifting of the excommunication indicative of their attempt to reconcile and obey? If they are so disobedience-prone as you suggest, I doubt if they’d have their excommunications lifted. Or are you perhaps inferring that the Pope doesn’t know what he’s doing and he’ll only regret it later? This Pope as Cardinal Ratzinger had dealt and dealt with the SSPX for a long time. I say the Pope knew what he was doing then and he hard well knows what he’s doing now. He doesn’t need any suggestions from us.

This brings up a good question. You imply that there has been no disobedience since the ordaining of four bishops. But the failure to repent from that is a continued state of disobedience, isn’t it? Every day that they refuse to acknowledge that wrongdoing could be seen an act of implicit support for that wrongdoing.

If I steal $1000, and then realize my wrongdoing, wouldn’t I return the money? Likewise, those four bishops have always been welcome to admit the act of schism and be reconciled to the see of Peter.

 

[ProVobis]

Those four bishops have always been welcome to admit the act of schism and be reconciled to the see of Peter.

First of all, a schismatic act is not schism. And calling it such does not make it so. But if it were and it were that easy to admit, it would have been done a long time ago. If I act on my own, I only have myself to bring to reconcile, as in confession. But when you have a million faithful who contribute to your cause and who wish to maintain old customs (which is upheld by Canon Law incidentally), the reality is you’re not going to turn your back on your faithful.

And I’m not quite sure they were always welcome to come back. There has always been hostile opposition against the SSPX, which I don’t think you can deny. So your claim is empty.

 

[ProVobis]

The question was whether a Bishop commenting on an issue he had been asked by the Pope to be silent upon could be a matter of real importance in current talks between the SSPX and the Holy See. Even if the issue itself was one that did not directly relate to doctrine.

There is no dispute that the Bishop in question should have kept his mouth shut. None. But is the fact that it was brought up after Jan 2009 not an attempt to undermine the lifting of the excommunications by the Pope? Whom exactly are you pointing fingers here at? Seems as if the Pope lost in the public relations game more than the SSPX bishops. And public relations isn’t doctrine.

I’m not sure why you think I was making suggestions about how the Pope should proceed. I don’t even know if there has been disagreement in the talks about this issue, or any other issue - (nor I suspect do you. The fact that talks are happening doesn’t always mean they are going well or are fruitful.)

You’re right, you and I don’t know, but this isn’t a new matter and, because we don’t know, we might be just better off not even conjecturing because if we take sides, one of the sides is going to have eggs on their faces at the end. And that’s definitely not fruitful.

 

[surritter]

First of all, a schismatic act is not schism. And calling it such does not make it so. But if it were and it were that easy to admit, it would have been done a long time ago. If I act on my own, I only have myself to bring to reconcile, as in confession. But when you have a million faithful who contribute to your cause and who wish to maintain old customs (which is upheld by Canon Law incidentally), the reality is you’re not going to turn your back on your faithful.

And I’m not quite sure they were always welcome to come back. There has always been hostile opposition against the SSPX, which I don’t think you can deny. So your claim is empty.

OK – I’ll accept the nuance in terminology and say it was a schismatic act.

And it’s true that this whole thing is harder because it’s not just a personal matter of four bishops, but a whole movement that can’t be turned around on a dime. I agree with that, but also point out that this makes the 1988 ordinations even more grave. My whole point in all this has been that – regardless of the sympathies to the traditional Mass – we are not a Church of vigilantes, but rather a Church of unity and authority.

 

[JReducation]

Again, I am unaware of any official teaching on the part of the Catholic Church regarding the Holocaust that any Catholic is required to accept as authority. If there were such a teaching and Bp. Williamson was violating it, that would be one thing, but as it is, he’s simply expressing an opinion on something that has nothing to do with the faith.

I don’t know where Br. JR is getting his information, but I doubt highly that the topic of the Holocaust is on the table at the talks.

There have been several mandates from the Vatican to religious communities and societies of apostolic life to keep their membership in line on this topic. Major Superiors are coming down very hard on people over this issue. In some communities you can be suspended for taking a position that is different from that of the Holy Father. They are getting preasure from the Vatican. There are several other areas of concern But as far as areas that would impact the Society, this is the only one that I can think of.

No, this is not on the table at the talks with the Congregation for the Faith. This is a separate issue that concerns the Vatican, not only about Bishop Williamson and other Society members, but other figures who are in the public eye too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ibkc]

There have been several mandates from the Vatican to religious communities and societies of apostolic life to keep their membership in line on this topic. Major Superiors are coming down very hard on people over this issue. In some communities you can be suspended for taking a position that is different from that of the Holy Father.

Gosh. I wish certain well-known priests and religious who openly flout Church teaching would get come down on hard. Nothing about the Holocaust is Church teaching, and the opinions of a wacky bishop are just that - the opinions of a wacky bishop.