Mr. Oddie wrote this as a reaction to some criticism from the FSSPX of Assisi-3. Obviouly he was not aware when he wrote it that some voices from heh so-called Catholic right in Italy had set forth a far more extended objection than did the FSSPX, whose kneejerk reaction was to be expected since, after all, they find the Vatican II idea of religious freedom questionable, and this is one of the discussion points in their doctrinal discussions with the CDF. It goes without saying that Oddie's arguments apply just as well to the more-Popish-than-the-Pope Italian Catholics. As Mr. Oddie presents it, the extremists on the right, including the Lefebvrians, are just as guilty of cafeteria Catholicism as those on the liberal left....
You think you’re more Catholic than the Pope?
Then you’re on your way to the funny farm:
The interfaith pilgrimage to Assisi
doesn’t compromise a single Catholic belief
By William Oddie
13 January 2011
John Paul II prays at Santa Maria degli Angeli in Assisi with representatives of 12 world religions (AP Photo)
As my readers will have gathered by now, I worry about
Catholics who think that the Magisterium of the Church is just one opinion among many, and that it is up to them to decide what a Catholic may or may not believe. But at least their view is comprehensible, if defective. To put it crudely, they may be Catholic; they’re just not Catholic enough.
I am much more puzzled by those who think that the Pope himself is open to criticism on the ground that he isn’t Catholic enough, and certainly much less Catholic than they are.
Predictably, perhaps, the present Pope’s decision to commemorate the 25th anniversary of Pope John Paul II’s meeting with leaders of other world religions to pray for peace has drawn fire from the SSPX, who have recalled Archbishop Lefebvre’s attack on that event: the Church, he pronounced, had never before been “humiliated to such an extent in the course of her history” and that “the scandal given to Catholic souls cannot be measured”.
“The Church,” said the archbishop, “is shaken to its very foundations”.
[Not so shaken, obviously, as to keep Mons. Lefebvre two years later from coming as far as to sign an agreement for reconciling wiht Rome with no less than Cardinal Ratzinger, only to renege on it a few days later!]
Well, it was rubbish then and it‘s rubbish now. The Church wasn’t shaken to its foundations. On the contrary, John Paul II was the {ope who, more than any other in this century
[the 20th, you mean! Benedict XVI is a 21st century Pope], strengthened those foundations. I have to admit that I’m not particularly keen on what I have heard called “interfaith interface”. I think other religions are just wrong.
But if those who adhere to them are sincerely praying for peace within their own religious traditions, however they may understand what the word “God” may mean, who am I to say that He, the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, won’t listen to their prayers? I don’t know what good the Assisi meeting did, who can? But it can surely hardly be argued that it did any harm.
The fact is that Pope John Paul did more to defend Catholic orthodoxy than Lefebvre could have in a thousand years: for, the fact is that
Lefebvre, in separating himself from the Successor of Peter in the name of orthodox Catholic belief and practice, did nothing but encourage the notion that orthodoxy, far from being the same thing as ultimate sanity, is on the contrary, the mark of the extremist and the nutter.
What is the Pope risking by praying with those whose beliefs he does not share? This isn’t an interfaith doctrinal negotiation: he won’t compromise a single Catholic teaching.
This isn’t like inviting a Muslim to contribute a prayer in the context of the Mass (as has been done in Westminster Cathedral) on the ground that “we all worship the same God”, when clearly we don’t.
This is the way Pope Benedict understands this event:
“I will make a pilgrimage to the town of St Francis, inviting my Christian brethren of different confessions, leaders of the world’s religious traditions and, in their hearts, all men and women of good will, to join me on this journey in order to commemorate that important historical gesture of my predecessor, and solemnly to renew the commitment of believers of all religions to live their religious faith as a service to the cause of peace.” [As I noted at the time he made the announcement, he very carefully avoided making any reference to 'prayer', much less to inter-religious prayer. Very simply, I am very much in suspense about how he plans to execute Assisi-III, but however he does it, I trust his exquisite judgment and do not rule out the possibility of another real surprise! Sort of a teaching moment: "If you are going to do this at all, here is the way it should be done!"]
Well? And how is that a betrayal of the Catholic faith? You may think I’m taking the SSPX too seriously. But
there are plenty of people in communion with the Holy See who think they’re more Catholic than the Pope on this and other issues; if you doubt that, just look at some of the half-crazed comments to be found under the Herald’s online story headlined “SSPX leader criticises Pope’s plan to hold inter-religious meeting”.
Being a Catholic means believing many things, some of them more important than others. But one core principle is surely indispensable: Quite simply, you trust the pope. For, once you start thinking you are a better and more faithful Catholic than he is, you are well on your way to the funny farm.
This principle is connected to Messori's column a few posts above in which Jesus defined the task of Peter - and of his successors, the Popes: As the rock on which Jesus has built his Church, he has to confirm his brothers in the faith.
And Blessed Newman's observation is surely pertinent: that even among the worst of Popes - ie., the morally repugnant among them - not one failed to pass on the teaching of the Church as it had been handed down to them. Continuity, continuity, continuity... There is a fundamental reason for the Apostolic Succession and why it is such an important principle in the Catholic Church.
Also, it goes with what Benedict XVI said in LOTW (Page 8):
Where Peter is, there is the Church. It goes without saying that the Pope can have private opinions that are wrong. But when he speaks, as we already said, as the supreme pastor of the Church, fully aware of his responsibility, then he no longer says something that is personally his, whatever happens to occur to him. Then, conscious of this great responsibility and at the same time of the Lord’s protection, he knows that he is not misleading the Church in such a decision but, rather, is guaranteeing her unity with the past, the present, and the future and above all with the Lord.
It turns out the Catholic Herald ran a piece on the FSSPX yesterday which Oddie refers to, and here it is. However, since I had read, translated and posted the Summorum Pontificum Observatus blog from France much earlier (in the CHURCH&VATICAN thread, page 24) on remarks Fellay made after the homily referred to below, and knowing the FSSPX hard line on religious freedom, I was not surprised nor as indignant as I was about the Italian open letter to the Pope. At least the FSSPX was not lecturing the Pope but simply re-stating what it has been saying since 1986... It was bunkum then, it is bunkum now.
SSPX leader criticises Pope’s plan
to hold inter-religious meeting
By Anna Arco
12 January 2011
The leader of the Society of St Pius X has expressed anger at Pope Benedict’s decision to hold another inter-religious meeting at Assisi.
Weeks after Bishop Bernard Fellay said he was feeling optimistic about union with Rome this year, the superior general of the SSPX said he was deeply indignant about the Pope’s invitation to religious leaders around the world to join him in Assisi.
Preaching on the Epiphany, Bishop Fellay said: “Yes, we are deeply indignant, we vehemently protest against this repetition of the days at Assisi. Everything that we have said, everything that Archbishop Lefebvre had said at the time of the World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi in 1986, we repeat in our own name. It is evident, my dear brothers, that such a thing demands reparation. What a mystery!”
[Answering questions from the public - obviously a traditionalist audience - in Paris at a colloquium later that day,
benedettoxviforum.freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discussione.aspx?idd=8593...
Fellay is reported to have been conciliatory overall in his tone, and though he criticized Assisi-I, he apparently acknowledged that Assisi-II had been 'not as bad', but he did not refer to Assisi-2 in his sermon, and that's an error of omission... You should wait, Mons. Fellay, until we know what the Pope has in mind for Assisi-3.. You know Joseph Ratzinger better than to think he is creating unnecessary trouble for the Church by convoking Assisi-III!]
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the SSPX, complained about the first World Day of Prayer for Peace. He said the Church had never before been “humiliated to such an extent in the course of her history”. He told John Paul II that “the scandal given to Catholic souls cannot be measured. The Church is shaken to its very foundations”.
Pope Benedict told pilgrims at the first Angelus of the year that he would travel to Assisi in October to mark the 25th anniversary of the day.
He said: “I will make a pilgrimage to the town of St Francis, inviting my Christian brethren of different confessions, leaders of the world’s religious traditions and, in their hearts, all men and women of good will, to join me on this journey in order to commemorate that important historical gesture of my predecessor, and solemnly to renew the commitment of believers of all religions to live their religious faith as a service to the cause of peace.”
It always surprises me - and it shouldn't - when persons whose views I generally share suddenly take a stand quite differetnt from my own. And so, today I was shocked to find that Giuliano Ferrara, editor of Il Foglio, had written an editorial expressing his disapproval that some Catholics have reacted against the open letter by Di Mattei et al that he published yesterday. And to the fact that well-known Italian progressivist Catholic Alberto Melloni objected to the open letter for his own reasons in Corriere della Sera indulging in some name-calling against the writers of the open letter. But Melloni habitually does that against Catholic writers who have orthodox views!
What surprised me is that Ferrara was arguing as if the objection were to the fact that the open letter was published at all, or that the signatories had expressed their opinion! Of course, no one would dream of curtailing freedom of expression! In fact, the burden of the argument by the orthodox writers exemplified by Tornielli and Bordeo was to dispute the Di Mattei group's working hypothesis - but more importantly, to point out that Benedict XVI is the last person in the world anyone should lecture about the dangers of religious relativism and syncretism.
Ferrara, who is a self-proclaimed atheist, says in effect that every Catholic should be free to question the Church's orthodox teaching. Not really - because how is that different from the cafeteria Catholicism of the liberal left? On the matter of Assisi-3, the central question the objectors raised was whether the Pope - whose primary task is to uphold Christianity and its teachings - is acting in the interests of the faith at all! Each Catholic owes unconditional loyalty to the Successor of Peter, a loyalty in which one trusts implicitly that his teaching will never betray the Church of Christ.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 14/01/2011 00:01]