UPDATE: I take note of a profound and authoritative essay by Massimo Faggioli, 'Il Vaticano II come "costituzione" e la "recezione politica" del Concilio,' in the Jesuit review Rassegna di teologia. It will appear The Tablet as well. Faggioli points out that Vatican II had a huge political significance as a moment of democratization in the constitution of Catholicism, in clear rejection of the Constantinian epoch. The Lefebvrites have always fundamentally rejected this.
I also note an essay by Alberto Melloni, "Le tre svolte di papa Ratzinger" at http://www.statusecclesiae.net, which suggests that the Pope may be learning that in welcoming back the Lefebvrites he has stumbled against the impossibility of turning the clock back on the Council's vision, an impossibility brought home to him not only by the widespread protests of church and political leaders, not least in Germany, where the evil of anti-democratic and anti-semitic movements is well-known, but also by the persistent and proud negation of the Council expressed by the Lefebvrites themselves, who cynically exploited the Pope's gesture. Melloni sees the Pope as now (1) recognizing the doctrinal gravity of the Lefebvrists' negation of Vatican II; (2) abandoning the misleading polemic against an alleged "hermeneutics of discontinuity" and speaking instead of Vatican II as containing in itself the entire prior doctrinal heritage of the Church, so that the changes it brought have deep traditional foundations; and (3) abandoning polemic against interreligious dialogue (earlier declared impossible in the strict sense) in order to speak of the journey of different religions, each with their own distinctive manner of imaging the divine, to the source of light, a journey in which interreligious dialogue is now regarded as a top priority of the Church. Melloni's comment is in line with that of the Bishops of England and Wales (see below) -- which has been denounced by Neocaths as rebellious, etc.!
The emergence of public opinion in the Church, thanks to the Williamson controversy and to the power of the internet, is remarked by La Croix: http://www.la-croix.com/article/index.jsp?docId=2369259&rubId=4078
http://www.la-croix.com/article/index.jsp?docId=2368688&rubId=4078
Cardinal Vingt-Trois addresses the problems: http://www.la-croix.com/article/index.jsp?docId=2369506&rubId=1098
***
Dear brethren in the Episcopal ministry!
The lifting of the excommunication of the four bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 without a mandate of the Holy See has led, both within and outside the Catholic Church, for a variety of reasons, to a discussion of such vehemence as we had not experienced for a long time. Many bishops felt at a loss before an event which came unexpectedly and could barely be integrated positively among the questions and tasks of the Church of today. Although many pastors and faithful were willing in principle to value positively the Pope's desire for reconciliation, against this was the question of the appropriateness of such a gesture, given the real urgency of a believing life in our time. Several groups, however, accused the Pope openly of wanting to return behind the Council. An avalanche of protests was set into motion, the bitterness of which made injuries visible which transcended the moment. Therefore I feel pressed to address to you, dear brethren, a clarifying word, which is meant to help to understand the intentions which have guided me and the competent organs of the Holy See in this step. I hope in this way to contribute to peace in the Church. To lead men to God, to the God speaking in the Bible, is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and the successor of Peter in this time. From it then it follows on its own that we have to be concerned for the unity of believers. For their strife, their internal dissent, calls their talking about God into question. Therefore, the effort for the common witness of faith of the Christians - for ecumenism - is included in the highest priority. Then there is also the necessity that all who believe in God seeking peace with each other, trying to become closer to each other, in order to walk, in the different-ness of their image of God, yet together towards the source of light - inter-religious dialogue. Those who proclaim God as love unto the end, must give the witness of love: devoted to the suffering in love, fending off hatred and enmity - the social dimension of the Christian Faith, of which I have spoken in the encyclical Deus caritas est.
One mishap for me unforeseeable, was the fact that the Williamson case has superimposed itself on the remission of the excommunication. The discreet gesture of mercy towards the four bishops ordained validly but not legitimately, suddenly appeared as something entirely different: as a disavowal of the reconciliation between Christians and Jews, and therefore as the revocation of what in this area the Council had clarified for the way for the Church. The invitation to reconciliation with an ecclesial group separating itself had thus become the opposite: an apparent way back behind all the steps of reconciliation between Christians and Jews which had been made since the Council and which to make and further had been from the outset a goal of my theological work. The fact that this superposition of two opposing processes has occurred and has disturbed for a moment the peace between Christians and Jews as well as the peace in the Church I can only deeply regret. I hear that closely following the news available on the internet would have made it possible to obtain knowledge of the problem in time. I learn from this that we at the Holy See have to pay more careful attention to this news source in the future. It has saddened me that even Catholics who could actually have known better have thought it necessary to strike at me with a hostility ready to jump. Even more therefore I thank the Jewish friends who have helped to quickly clear away the misunderstanding and to restore the atmosphere of friendship and trust, which - as in the time of Pope John Paul II - also during the entire time of my pontificate had existed and God be praised continues to exist.
Another mishap which I sincerely regret, is that the scope and limits of the measure of 21 January 2009 have not been set out clearly enough at the time of the publication of the procedure. The excommunication affects persons, not institutions. Episcopal consecration without papal mandate means the danger of a schism, because it calls into question the unity of the Bishops' College with the Pope. The Church must, therefore, react with the harshest punishment, excommunication, and that is to call back the persons thus punished to repentance and into unity. 20 years after the ordinations this goal has unfortunately still not been achieved. The withdrawal of the excommunication serves the same purpose as the punishment itself: once more to invite the four bishops to return. This gesture was possible after the affected had expressed their fundamental recognition of the pope and his pastoral authority, albeit with reservations as far as obedience to his magisterial authority and that of the Council is concerned. This brings me back to the distinction between person and institution. The releasing of the excommunication was a measure in the field of ecclesial discipline: the persons were freed of the burden of conscience of the heaviest ecclesial censure. From this disciplinary level one has to distinguish the doctrinal area. That the Fraternity of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical position in the Church is not based ultimately on disciplinary grounds but on doctrinal ones. As long as the Fraternity does not possess a canonical position in the Church, its officials do not exercise legitimate offices in the Church. One has therefore to distinguish between disciplinary level affecting the persons as persons, and the level of doctrine, at which office and institution are concerned. To say it once again: As long as the doctrinal issues are not resolved, the Fraternity has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers, even if they are free from ecclesiastical censure, do not exercise in a legitimate way any ministry in the Church.
Given this situation, I intend to connect the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", which since 1988 is responsible for those communities and individuals who, coming from the Fraternity of Pius X or similar groups, want to return into full communion with the Pope, in the future with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This shall make it clear that the problems now being treated are essentially doctrinal in nature, especially those concerning the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the postconciliar Magisterium of the Popes. The collegial organs through which the Congregation works on the questions arising (especially the regular assembly of the Cardinals on Wednesday and the General Assembly every one or two years) guarantee the involvement of the prefects of various Roman congregations and of the worldwide episcopate in the decisions to be made. One cannot freeze the magisterial authority of the Church in 1962 and - this must be quite clear to the Fraternity. But to some of those who show off as great defenders of the Council it must also be recalled to memory that Vatican II contains within itself the whole doctrinal history of the Church. Who wants to be obedient to it [sc. the Council] must accept the faith of the centuries and must not cut the roots of which the tree lives.
I hope, dear brethren, that with this both the positive meaning as well as the limit of the measure of 21 January 2009 is clarified. But now the question remains: Was this necessary? Was this really a priority? Are there not much more important things? Of course, there are more important and urgent things. I think that I have made clear the priorities of the pontificate in my speeches at the beginning of it. What I said then remains my guideline unchangedly. The first priority for the successor of Peter, the Lord has unequivocally fixed in the Room of the Last Supper: "You, however, strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22, 32). Peter himself rephrased this priority in his first letter: "Be ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you." (1 Peter 3, 15). In our time, in which the faith in large parts of the world threatens to go out like a flame which can no longer find food, the first priority is to make God present in this world and to open to men the access to God. Not to just any god, but to the God who spoke on Mount Sinai, that God whose face we recognize in the love unto the end (John 13, 1) - in the crucified and risen Jesus Christ. The real problem of our historic hour is that God is disappearing from the horizon of men and that with the extinguishing of the light coming from God disorientation befalls mankind, the destructive effects of which we are seeing ever more.
If then the struggle for Faith, hope and love in the world is the true priority for the Church in this hour (and in different forms always), then still the small and medium-sized reconciliations also belong to it. That the quiet gesture of a hand stretched out has become a great noise and thus the opposite of reconciliation, we have to take note of. But now I have to wonder: Was and is it really wrong, also in this case, to go to meet the brother, who "hath any thing against thee" and to try for reconciliation (cf. Mt 5, 23f)? Does not civil society, too, have to try to prevent radicalizations, to bind their possible supporters - if possible - back into the major creative forces of social life to avoid isolation and all its consequences? Can it be entirely wrong to strive for the lessening of tensions and constrictions and to give room to the positive which can be found and integrated into the whole? I myself, in the years after 1988, have experienced how by the return of communities previously separating themselves from Rome the interior climate there has changed, how the return to the great, wide and common Church overcame onesided-ness and lessened tensions, so that now they have become positive forces for the whole. Can a community leave us totally indifferent in which there are 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university institutes, 117 brothers, 164 sisters? Should we really calmly leave them to drift away from the Church? I am thinking, for example, of the 491 priests. The plaited fabric of their motivations we cannot know. But I think that they would not have made their decision for the priesthood, if next to some askew or sick elements there hot not been there the love of Christ and the will to proclaim Him and with Him the living God. Should we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical marginal group, from the search for reconciliation and unity? What will then be?
Certainly, we have long and have again on this occasion heard many dissonances from representatives of this community - pride and a patronizing know-it-all attitude, fixation into onesidedness etc. For the love of truth I must add that I have also received a series of moving testimonials of gratitude, in which was made perceptible an opening of hearts. But should the great Church not also be able to be magnanimous [in German its a play on words: "great Church - great of heart"] in the knowledge of the long wind she has; in the knowledge of the promise which she has been given? Should we not, like good educators, also be able not to hear some bad things and strive to calmly lead out of the narrowness? And must we not admit that also from ecclesial circles there have come dissonances? Sometimes one has the impression that our society needs at least one group for which there need not be any tolerance; which one can unperturbedly set upon with hatred. And who dared to touch them - in this case the Pope - lost himself the right to tolerance and was allowed without fear and restraint to be treated with hatred, too.
Dear brethren, in the days in which it came into my mind to write this letter, it so happened that in the seminary of Rome I had to interpret and comment the passage of Gal 5, 13-15. I was surprised at how directly it speaks of the present of this hour: "Do not make liberty an occasion to the flesh, but by charity of the spirit serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. But if you bite and devour one another; take heed you be not consumed one of another." I was always inclined to regard this sentence as one of the rhetorical hyperbole which occasionally there are with St. Paul. In some respects it may be so. But unfortunately, the "biting and devouring" is there in the Church even today as an expression of a poorly understood freedom. Is it surprising that we are not better than the Galatians? That we at least are threatened by the same temptations? That we have always to learn anew the right use of freedom? And that we have always to learn anew the first priority: love? On the day on which I had to speak about this in the seminary, in Rome the feast of the Madonna della Fiducia - our Lady of Trust - was celebrated. Indeed - Mary teaches us trust. She leads us to the Son, in Whom we all may trust. He will guide us - even in turbulent times. So at the end I would like to thank from my heart all the many bishops who have given me in this time moving signs of trust and affection, but above all the gift of their prayers. This thank I extend to all the faithful who have shown me during this time their unchanged fidelity to the successor of St. Peter. The Lord preserve us all and lead us on the path of peace. This is a wish that spontaneously rises from my heart, especially now at the beginning of Lent, a liturgical time particularly propitious to inner purification, and which invites us all to look with new hope towards the radiant goal of Easter.
With a special Apostolic Blessing, I remain
Yours in the Lord
Benedictus Pp. XVI
From the Vatican, on 10 March 2009 http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/#7496467594768792823 Emphases added. *** Some thoughts: A letter that gives an almost unprecedented look into the personal thoughts of a reigning pontiff. It clearly shows that the Vatican is highly sensitive to the criticisms it has received. There is considerable humility in this letter, but also a defensiveness that betokens continuing blind spots. Does Benedict really understand why his governance is so heavily criticized? In pointing to the numbers of SSPX, does he take account of the fact that these numbers are now likely to increase? Can he plausibly claim that the problem of antisemitism in the SSPX was known only to internet surfers?
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has harsh comments on the Pope's letter, and claims he is writing off his critics, including many bishops motivated by deep concern for the Church, as surrendering to instinctive anticlericalism. http://www.faz.net/s/Rub117C535CDF414415BB243B181B8B60AE/Doc~E6F31726BC6634442A16430B1C8A1EF2C~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html
Papal biographer Marco Politi notes the solitude of the Pope and its cause. Indeed there has reigned a deafening silence of the world's bishops -- not one of them are seen springing to the defense of the Supreme Pontiff. The sprungbereite Feindseligkeit of which the Pope complains is but the tip of an iceberg of isolation. He is all alone at the center of a desert of his own making.
"Benedetto XVI è solo. Ma non perché ci sia un partito che gli rema contro. Bensì per il suo di governo solitario, che non fa leva sulla consultazione e non presta attenzione ai segnali che vengono dall'esterno. Meno che mai quando provengono dal mondo dei media, considerato a priori con sospetto. "Benché sia stato più di un ventennio in Vaticano al tempo in cui era prefetto della Congregazione per la Dottrina della fede - spiega off record un monsignore - Ratzinger non conosce affatto la Curia. Era chiuso ieri nella sua stanza nell'ex Sant'Uffizio ed è chiuso oggi nel suo studio da papa. Lui è un teologo, non è un uomo di governo. Passa metà della giornata a occuparsi dei problemi della Chiesa e l'altra metà concentrato sui suoi scritti: sul secondo volume dedicato a Gesù". Monsignore si ferma e soggiunge: "Non è detto che un grande teologo abbia con precisione il polso della realtà così come è"."
The Bishops of England and Wales went to the trouble of commenting on the papal letter:
“The Pope’s letter is a collegial act to the Bishops of the Catholic Church. In a deeply humble letter, the Pope explains his decision to lift the excommunications of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre and offers a heartfelt apology for the mistakes made and the unintended consequences of that decision. He thanks ‘our Jewish friends’ for quickly helping to clear up the misunderstanding and to restore the friendship and trust that has existed throughout his pontificate and that of John-Paul II.
“The Pope expresses his strong commitment to inter-religious dialogue, especially with those of the Jewish faith and ecumenical dialogue with other Christians. He reveals his passion for reconciliation and in a rallying call to all in the Church to give better witness, the Pope emphasises that the fundamental priority of the Church is to lead men and women to God.
“Essential to this task is the need for unity and it is the Petrine Office that is the centre and promoter of the unity of the Church and, as such, a prophetic voice as to how individuals and nations across the world should relate. As part of our Lenten journey the Pope calls on all of us to put our trust in the Lord who protects us and guides our steps along the way to peace.”
The English bishops cleverly nudge the Pope on the way he should go. But can Benedict live up to this?
Damian Thompson of The Telegraph, an ardent papalino who attracts crazies including holocaust deniers to his combox, pours contempt on the English bishops: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/blog/2009/03/16/never_forget_what_the_english_and_welsh_bishops_did_to_the_pope_on_thursday
Jeff, also at Vox Nova: "I was stunned by the petulant and self-pitying tone of this letter, which didn’t neglect to snidely take a swipe at “those who show off as great defenders of the council… As Cardinal Ratzinger, he was intimately involved in negotiations with the SSPX since at least before 1988. Anyone with even a passing interest in the SSPX was well aware that Williamson was an anti-semite and that the whole organization, from bishops to lay member adherents and sympathizers, was characterized by a fixation on crackpot Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theories. It’s getting harder and harder to defend Benedict from the charge of being a reactionary and a pre-conciliar restorationist. From the meaning of “subsists” down to this whole affair, he’s taken upon himself the role of being the sole interpreter of the Council. Considering the fact that he’s one of the last men standing, I guess it’s hard to stop him from doing so.
"How many times have we heard things like this?
"“An agreement has been made with Marcel Lefebvre. Now the SSPX has the ball in it’s court.”
"“John Paul II has granted the indult. Now the SSPX has the ball in it’s court.”
"“Benedict has issued the Motu Proprio freeing up the Latin Mass. Now the SSPX has the ball in it’s court.”
"“Benedict has lifted the excommunications. Now the SSPX has the ball in it’s court.”
"And so it goes…
"The SSPX has never tried to move the ball at all. They’ve never moved on anything, apart from this: It sounds like they’ve moved Rome closer to Econe than the other way around."
'as the letter goes it becomes uncomfortable to read. At first it is thus: "I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility." Then he goes on to take sides as a victim WITH the schismatics and against those who raised legitimate questions about his actions: "At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown [he is referring to the SSPX]; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint."'
'Benedict's defensive approach also undermines his patent tactic of trying to put himself in the place of the Apostle Paul, chiding everyone else for "biting and devouring one another," as Paul writes in Galatians. He critiques others for apparently trying to undermine his Christ-mandated quest for unity, yet does not explain why that campaign only moves in a rightward direction.'
July 9, 2007
Wiesenthal Center Condemns Antisemitic Schismatic Catholic Group
Against the backdrop of Pope Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio that invites greater use of pre-Vatican II Latin Mass liturgy, the Wiesenthal Center reiterated its grave concerns over the theologically-based Jew hatred of a prominent schismatic church, the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), specifically mentioned in the Pope’s letter to Bishops that accompanied his ruling. The Switzerland-based SSPX insists that many Vatican II changes are inauthentic and illegal. “Their view of New Testament Scripture holds the Jews “directly responsible for the crucifixion,” and all subsequent generations of Jews cursed with the ‘blindness to things of G-d and eternity,’ ” charged Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. SSPX teaches that Jews as a people stand “in entire opposition with the Catholic Church.” Further, it asserts that “Christendom and Jewry are designed inevitably to meet everywhere without reconciliation or mixing. It represents in history the eternal struggle of Lucifer against G-d, of darkness against the Light.” Jews, SSPX insists, “should neither be eliminated from among us… nor given equality of rights.” “Jews are known to kill Christians.” SSPX reportedly sells copies of the infamous forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and its Bishop of Canada defends the libelous work on their website www.sspx.org.
“Thankfully, SSPX’s antisemitism is not characteristic of other Traditionalists. However, we hope that the Church will condition any rapprochement with this group to the abandonment of their open theological hatred for Jews, which stands in defiance of Church teaching,” Cooper added.
Earlier, the Wiesenthal Center and other Jewish groups expressed concern that a 1962 Good Friday Latin Mass, predating Vatican II,* includes prayers “even” for the Jews who live with a “veil of blindness,” and for their conversion, as well as one for the “heathens,” i.e. Muslims. “These words, taken alone could be seen as stepping back from the current Good Friday Mass which underscores the eternity “of the promise to Abraham and his posterity,” he concluded.
Don Franco Barbero comments:
Ratzinger, scomodato Paolo di Tarso che viene ripreso e citato, si lamenta perché "nella chiesa ci si morde e divora".
Che fegato ha questo papa!
Ha morsicato e divorato intere schiere di teologi della liberazione, di biblisti, di cristologi, di preti non ossequienti, ha attaccato tutti e usato la scomunica ecclesiale senza risparmio…e ora viene a scoprire che nella chiesa c'è tensione e clima di ostilità. Ed è grave che lui se nel accorga solo ora perché molti cristiani e cattolici, proprio dall'interno, lo hanno messo in questione…stanchi di essere da lui "morsicati"-
Il problema è che, quando si opprime, si crea una chiesa in cui si sollecitano sentimenti ambigui. Ma noi non abbiamo nessuna intenzione di mordere. Vogliamo solo poter esprimere costruttivamente un pensiero diverso dal suo.
More comment: http://creativeadvance.blogspot.com/2009/03/benedict-reforms-vatican-to-head-off.html
I was amused about the Internet ignorance of the Vatican.
Interesting, considering how the Vatican is supposedly knee-deep in knowing all about all.
Posted by: evagrius | March 14, 2009 at 07:34 AM
Response from the SSPX;
http://www.dici.org/accueil.php?loc=FR
With "editorial" from Rorate Caeli;
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
I must state that I am completely bemused by all this.
To me, this entire episode is a perfect illustration of Kuhn's "paradigm shift".
Theory and reality don't match.
Either theory shifts to explain/ relate to reality or...reality is denied and theory becomes a curiosity.
Posted by: evagrius | March 14, 2009 at 10:27 PM