SSPX District Superior: Tradition and Democracy

[EcceAgnusDei]

This just came in on Rorate-Caeli:

From the sermon pronounced by Fr. Benoît Wailliez, Superior of the Benelux (Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg) District of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), yesterday in Brussels:

You see, my dear faithful, when we talk about the Second Vatican Council, and about one of the grave problems in the Church, we talk immediately about collegiality. That democracy was installed in the Church, where everyone says what he wants, thinks what he wants and opposes everything, even the Pope. Let us pay attention that we will not have that same situation in our Fraternity! We are not a democracy! We do not have collegiality, where everybody can say what he wants, can put things on internet, pressure people, leak confidential documents… This is an absolutely lamentable situation! In contrast, my beloved faithful, in an army we follow our leader who has the grace of state to make the decision in this situation.

This is a very astute point.

• PAX

 

[curlycool89]

This just came in on Rorate-Caeli:

This is a very astute point.

I’m confused about who he seems to be talking about. It can’t be the Catholic Church, because it is and has never been a democracy.

 

[Timothysis]

I’m confused about who he seems to be talking about. It can’t be the Catholic Church, because it is and has never been a democracy.

Completely true. I have yet to see one instance where the Church has changed her stance on any moral or religious issue just because people inside of the Church wanted it.

More hot air from the sspx.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m confused about who he seems to be talking about. It can’t be the Catholic Church, because it is and has never been a democracy.

I may be wrong here, but collegiality in this context might refer to the votes of the bishops within their own synods, where they are with and under the Pope. I’ve never heard of collegiality of priests or laypeople.

 

[curlycool89]

I may be wrong here, but collegiality in this context might refer to the votes of the bishops within their own synods, where they are with and under the Pope. I’ve never heard of collegiality of priests or laypeople.

I wonder what his opinion of the Council of Constance is?

 

[ImmaculataFides]

I’m confused about who he seems to be talking about. It can’t be the Catholic Church, because it is and has never been a democracy.

He’s talking about the teaching of collegiality, from Vatican II, which pretty much undermined Papal Authority after the Council. The teaching put greater emphasis on the authority of the Bishops. Other than that, I’m ignorant on the subject so you would have to ask someone more knowledgeable than myself.

 

[wasserfall]

Fr. is referring to the breakdown in lines of authority after Vatican II.

While it is true that the hierarchy formally remained intact, many priests and bishops felt empowered to follow their own desires and to openly resist any attempt by authority to rein them in. This is blamed on the concept of “collegiality”.

It is not an instance of direct application of democracy with the Church, but rather an instance of thinking inspired by liberal democratic ideology, whereby wayward clergy use the council as an excuse to exercise their wills independently.

Those in authority felt the same breeze blowing when, after the council they suddenly felt powerless to discipline their wayward inferiors.

This (evil) spirit is still strong today among the clergy in many parts of the world. See the recent priest rebellions in Austria and Ireland.

 

[choliks]

Fr. is referring to the breakdown in lines of authority after Vatican II.

While it is true that the hierarchy formally remained intact, many priests and bishops felt empowered to follow their own desires and to openly resist any attempt by authority to rein them in. This is blamed on the concept of “collegiality”.

It is not an instance of direct application of democracy with the Church, but rather an instance of thinking inspired by liberal democratic ideology, whereby wayward clergy use the council as an excuse to exercise their wills independently.

Those in authority felt the same breeze blowing when, after the council they suddenly felt powerless to discipline their wayward inferiors.

This (evil) spirit is still strong today among the clergy in many parts of the world. See the recent priest rebellions in Austria and Ireland.

Could this breakdown in lines of authority be also said when Abp Lefebvre ordained 4 bishops without the approval of the Holy See?

 

[Big_Feet]

While it is true that the hierarchy formally remained intact, many priests and bishops felt empowered to follow their own desires and to openly resist any attempt by authority to rein them in. This is blamed on the concept of “collegiality”.

It is not an instance of direct application of democracy with the Church, but rather… , whereby wayward clergy use the council as an excuse to exercise their wills independently.

Hmmm. Sounds like something that happened in 1988.

 

[ProVobis]

Could this breakdown in lines of authority be also said when Abp Lefebvre ordained 4 bishops without the approval of the Holy See?

One could argue, I suppose, that collegiality amongst the four (or five) bishops was never canonically established. Regularization obviously would change that.

 

[wasserfall]

One could argue, I suppose, that collegiality amongst the four (or five) bishops was never canonically established. Regularization obviously would change that.

The lack of sufficient respect for authority was the same, but the motivation was somewhat different.

 

[jwinch2]

More than likely, with his comments on leaking documents, Fr. Benoît is referring to potential dissenters within SSPX. Recently, some internal communications critical of the proposed reunion with Rome were leaked in what was widely perceived as an effort to derail the process by some hardliners within SSPX.

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/news/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebviranos-vaticano-vatican-15021/

I see the comments as an attempt to remind dissenters within SSPX that they are obligated to obedience to Bishop Felley and to Rome.

 

[Melchior_1]

*“after the Second Vatican Council the Church’s official authorities **separated themselves from the Catholic truth *and now they seem determined, as before, to remain faithful to conciliar doctrine and practice"

This line, found in the link that Jason posted, is really concerning.

 

[jwinch2]

*“after the Second Vatican Council the Church’s official authorities **separated themselves from the Catholic truth ***and now they seem determined, as before, to remain faithful to conciliar doctrine and practice"

This line, found in the link that Jason posted, is really concerning.

It is concerning, I agree. However, lets be honest, some have separated themselves from Catholic truth. Pope Benedict has had to replace multiple bishops because of dissent from Church teaching. Most of this has been handled quietly, but it happened nonetheless, including one very recently in Australia. I was not Catholic at the time so I was not paying attention, but I would not be surprised if Blessed JP2 had to do the same. It also would be shocking if some of the same things had not gone on within the various offices of the Vatican without many knowing about it.

Thankfully, the Church as a whole entity has not gone this route, mostly due to God’s grace I suspect. So while the comments are overstated, there are certainly some grains of truth in there.

Finally, it is also important to note, that there are also many within the Church who do not wish to see SSPX return and are not prepared to welcome them home. Many of the “spirit of Vatican II” crowd see the SSPX as standing for everything that they dislike about the Church and wish to get rid of for good. They are already freaking out about the many steps that Pope Benedict has taken and this one really bothers them. You also have those who believe in obedience, and see welcoming SSPX back into the fold as rewarding dissent.

At the end of the day, I am hopeful that the SSPX will come home completely and that the Church will embrace them as Christ taught in the parable of the prodigal son. We are being attacked on all fronts from the secular world. While I do not agree with many of the decisions they have made and am often disappointed at the attitude expressed by many of their supporters, the SSPX coming home will make the Church stronger. The Church needs to be strong.

 

[Melchior_1]

It is concerning, I agree. However, lets be honest, some have separated themselves from Catholic truth. Pope Benedict has had to replace multiple bishops because of dissent from Church teaching. Most of this has been handled quietly, but it happened nonetheless, including one very recently in Australia. I was not Catholic at the time so I was not paying attention, but I would not be surprised if Blessed JP2 had to do the same. It also would be shocking if some of the same things had not gone on within the various offices of the Vatican without many knowing about it.

Thankfully, the Church as a whole entity has not gone this route, mostly due to God’s grace I suspect. So while the comments are overstated, there are certainly some grains of truth in there.

Finally, it is also important to note, that there are also many within the Church who do not wish to see SSPX return and are not prepared to welcome them home. Many of the “spirit of Vatican II” crowd see the SSPX as standing for everything that they dislike about the Church and wish to get rid of for good. They are already freaking out about the many steps that Pope Benedict has taken and this one really bothers them. You also have those who believe in obedience, and see welcoming SSPX back into the fold as rewarding dissent.

At the end of the day, I am hopeful that the SSPX will come home completely and that the Church will embrace them as Christ taught in the parable of the prodigal son. We are being attacked on all fronts from the secular world. While I do not agree with many of the decisions they have made and am often disappointed at the attitude expressed by many of their supporters, the SSPX coming home will make the Church stronger. The Church needs to be strong.

I agree with all of this, however my concern comes from the gross generalization the three Bishops are making. Their rhetoric makes it sound like the Pope himself is the problem, and is no friend to “true” Catholicism.

Bishop Fellay’s response sure makes sense when you consider that this is the type of talking happening from the other three.

 

[jwinch2]

I agree with all of this, however my concern comes from the gross generalization the three Bishops are making. Their rhetoric makes it sound like the Pope himself is the problem, and is no friend to “true” Catholicism.

Bishop Fellay’s response sure makes sense when you consider that this is the type of talking happening from the other three.

Agreed. Many have been saying for some time that the hardest part of this process might be dealing with the internal dynamics of SSPX rather than the negotiation between them and Rome once a resolution was forthcoming. I am not sure about that, as it seems that getting to this point between SSPX and Rome has been very challenging. However, the situation within SSPX and within the Church will certainly present challenges as well.

We need to keep praying.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

Could this breakdown in lines of authority be also said when Abp Lefebvre ordained 4 bishops without the approval of the Holy See?

No. The reason being, modernist Bishops who interpreted “collegiality” incorrectly were rejecting lawful authority, not just being disobedient. Archbishop Lefebvre was simply disobedient. There is a difference between doubting the legitimacy of the command and the commander’s right to command. (to quote Iotaunum)

 

[ImmaculataFides]

Could this breakdown in lines of authority be also said when Abp Lefebvre ordained 4 bishops without the approval of the Holy See?

No. The reason being, modernist Bishops who interpreted “collegiality” incorrectly were rejecting lawful authority, not just being disobedient. Archbishop Lefebvre was simply disobedient. There is a difference between doubting the legitimacy of the command and the commander’s right to command. (to quote Iotaunum)

 

[newyorkcatholic]

The 1988 consecrations (which I acknowledge were disobedient) would never have happend if it were not for lots of other disobedience beforehand.

So you can point at them if you like, but it doesn’t change that fact that the original quote has a point. There is a very bad, overly broad misunderstanding of democracy in the Church. The Church has not (cannot) change it’s teaching on this, but many people with impugnity act as if the Church had done so.

Examples abound, I hope I don’t really have to go into them. Some already mentioned on this thread.

The SSPX perhaps should never have done the consecrations in 1988, but they hold very tightly to the doctrine always taught by the Church.

I have seen, and read, and known, and spoken to, so so so so many bishops and priests and laypeople in “good standing” with the Church in every way who not only deny articles of Trent or things taught with clarity in Scripture.

Frankly for the SSPX to say, “people are rejecting the Church’s teachings left and right, and then we get a council that complicates things instead of simplifying them, and very much is tolerated when people reject fundamental doctrines of the Church that we have discussed for centuries, but priests are disciplined when not following newer practices like using the NO, celebrating versus populum*, emptying their sanctuaries*, and so on” … frankly it’s understandable that the SSPX could see that and be really pushed to the edge and feel very frustrated and scared that if they don’t consecrate bishops they will die off and it will all be lost.

They should have had more trust, but humanly speaking, I totally understand.

*Now it is more acceptable to say the TLM, celebrate the NO ad orientem, keep a traditional sanctuary with statues and so on. But those born after the 60s and 70s (like me) should review the actual instructions and norms from that time on how to maintain church architecture and so on. Versus populum was Paul VI’s clear expressed wish for all Masses. The TLM was treated as if abrogated. Rules on sacred vessels were all abrogated (the rule that vessels should be least plated with a noble metal, though not necessarily gold anymore, is from the last decade I believe).

 

[curlycool89]

The 1988 consecrations (which I acknowledge were disobedient) would never have happend if it were not for lots of other disobedience beforehand.

And yet one wrong is still not a justification for doing another wrong. Others doing wrong does not release you from doing what is right.

There’s a popular phrase that says “character is what you do when no one is watching”. This is the same idea, “right is what you do even when everyone else is doing wrong”.