Barking schismatics, brave Fellay
by David Mills
May 16, 2012
Speaking of traditionalist Catholics, the subject of William Doino’s earlier post, in the English weekly newspaper the Catholic Herald William Oddie notes that the FSSPX is apparently about to go into schism over its leading bishop’s plan to return to full communion with the Church. The dissenting group, which includes the notorious Bishop Williamson, have declared their “formal opposition” to any accord with the Catholic Church.
The leader of the FSSPX (the Fraternal Society of St. Pius X), Bishop Bernard Fellay, seems inclined to return if his group’s concerns are met and reportedly has a reasonable idea of what “met” will mean.
It will, for example, include the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council’s statements but not necessarily a particular and narrow interpretation of the ones, like that on religious liberty, that bother the SSPX. But, Oddie reports, “The three dissident bishops seem to me to be not only talking utter rubbish but to be actually barking, positively up the wall (Vatican II, they say, represents “a total perversion of the mind, a new philosophy founded on subjectivism. Benedict XVI is no better than John Paul II in this regard… he puts human subjective fantasy in the place of God’s objective reality and subjects the Church to the modern world”; you see what I mean)."
Oddie’s “barking,” as in “barking mad,” is hyperbole, of course, but when you read some FSSPX material, of which Oddie’s sample is representative, you do get that disorienting feeling of having fallen into someone’s alternative universe where everyone else sees things in a very distorted way. Like, say, describing Benedict as a purveyor of “human subjective fantasy.”
A schism within the movement if some portion accept Benedict’s offer was certainly predictable and several people, including me, did predict it.
Once a group goes into schism, some part of it will never come back and the longer the schism lasts ,the more firmly some will remain where they are, especially when so much of their identity is built not only on being outside the supposedly bad thing but on being the only ones who truly see the truth about it.
And then there are the connections that hold people in place, the friends and jobs and relationships that a return to the body they left will upset and perhaps end. Human institutions are built to last and for good reason. And for the clerics and leading laymen in such groups, small as they are, there is also on the one side the prospect of losing sheep they’ve been given to shepherd, and on the other the prospect of losing the status they now have in the small body they’re in, though the Pope’s offer of a personal prelature may remove this impediment.
[Precisely!]
These comments come from my experience, back when I was a conservative Episcopalian, with the various, no the many, groups that had left the Episcopal Church. As much sympathy as I had with the “Continuing Anglicans” and their reasons for leaving the Episcopal Church, and as theologically articulate as many of them were in explaining why they believed they had to do so, you didn’t have to spend much time talking with these groups to suspect that many were driven by a taste for battle and division, and this group included many in the clerical leadership — not to mention the clergy who wanted advancement (“purple fever,” it was often called, after the color shirt Episcopal bishops wear) denied them (sometimes for good reason) in the Episcopal Church and who thought they had a better chance in a much smaller and more conservative body.
Others left for cultural and political reasons, like those ex-Episcopalians I heard who complained that all the problems started when the Episcopal Church endorsed the civil rights movement and who were clearly still upset, and saw the church’s activism as justifying departure.
And yet many of them so driven were very nice, mild-mannered, traditionally pious people, when they weren’t dealing with things Episcopal. That’s one sign of the problem with breaking away, even when you think you really have to do it. It can be a nice place to live, the breakaway body, with nice people, so that they never want to go home.
There are good reasons, based in human nature and the nature of human institutions, that it’s hard to think of church schisms that were ever healed, other than by the breakaway group withering away or becoming something else. And that’s not healing, exactly, more like getting used to living without a foot or an arm. Or without the other lung, some would say.
Anyway, cheers and kudos to Bishop Fellay. Here are some quotes from his response to the dissidents. There are more in the article. Fellay, rites Oddie, accuses the dissidents for a “lack of a supernatural view and a lack of realism,” and then says:
Your all too human and fatalistic attitude implies that we should not count on God’s help, his grace or the Holy Spirit. If Providence guides men’s actions, has it not been guiding the movement back to Tradition? It makes no sense to think God will let us fall now, especially since we only want to do his will and please him.
Likewise you lack realism, just as the liberals make the Council a superdogma, you are making the Council a superheresy. Archbishop Lefebvre made distinctions about liberal Catholics, and if you do not make them, your caricature of reality could lead to a true schism.
[Archbishop Lefebvre] would have accepted what is proposed; we must not lose his sense of the Church. . . . Church history shows that we only recover gradually from heresies and crises, so it is not realistic to wait until everything is sorted out. If we refuse to work in this field, we fall foul of the parable of the wheat and the cockle in which Our Lord warns us that there would always be internal conflict.
As I say, cheers to Bishop Fellay.
I've finally translated those two letters - from the three dissident bishops to Fellay, and his response to them. They recapitulate better than anything the entire FSSPX dispute from a sensible viewpoint - Fellay's - and from the blindly irrational viewpoint of his fellow bishops.
First the dissenters' letter:
Letter to the General Council of the FSSPX
April 7, 2012
To the Superior-General,
the First Assistant and
the Second Assistant,
For several months, as many know, the General Council of the FSSPX has been seriously considering Roman proposals with a view to a practical agreement, given that the doctrinal discussions from 2009 to 2011 proved that doctrinal agreement is impossible with Rome at the moment.
Through this letter, the three bishops of the FSSPX, who are not part of the General Council, wish to let you know, with all due respect, the unanimity of their formal opposition to any such agreement.
Of course, on both sides of the present division between the Conciliar Church and the FSSPX, many desire that Catholic unity be repaired. Honor to them, on both sides. But the reality that dominates everything, and to which all these desires must yield, is that since Vatican II, the officials of the Church have been separated from Catholic truth, and today they are as determined as ever to remain faithful to the Council's doctrine and practices. The discussions in Rome, the Doctrinal Preamble, and Assisip-III are clear examples.
The problem posed to Catholics by the Second Vatican Council is profound. In a lecture which seemed to be the last doctrinal testament of Mons. Lefebvre, given to the priests of the Fraternity in Econe about six months before he died, after having briefly reviewed the history of liberal Catholicism that emerged from the French REvoolution, he recalled how the Popes had always fought against this attempt of reconciliation between the Church and the modern world, and he declared that the FSSPX'S war against the Vatican II was exactly the same combat.
He concluded with these words: "The more one analyzes the documents of Vatican II and their interpretation by Church authorities, the more one realizes that it is not about superficial errors nor some specific errors such as ecumenism, religious freeedom, and collegiality, but rather, a total perversion of the spirit, a new philosophy based on subjective relativism...This is very serious! A total perversion! It is truly frightening".
Now, is the thinking of Benedict XVI better in this respect than that of John Paul II? Just read the study done by one of us, La foi au peril de la raison (faith endangered by reason) to realize that the thinking of the current Pope is equally impregnated with subjectivism. It is entirely man's subjective fantsay instead of God's objective reality. It is the entire Catholic religion subjected to the modern world. How can anyone imagine that a practical agreement could resolve such a problem?
But, one can say to us: Benedict XVI is truly welcoming to the Franternity and its doctrine. As a subjectivist, he well may be, because liberal subjectivists can even tolerate the truth, but not if the truth refuses to tolerate error. He will accept us in the context of a relativistic and dialectical pluralism, provided we remain in 'full communion' with Church authority and other 'ecclesial realities'.
And that is why the Roman authorities would be able to tolerate that the Fraternity continues to teach Catholic doctrine, but they will absolutely not support that she condemns Conciliar doctrine.
And that is why even a purely practical agreement will necessarily silence progressively all criticsm of the council or of the new Mass on the part of the Fraternity. In ceasing to attack the most important victories of that Revolution [Vatican II], the whole Fraternity will necessarily cease to oppose the universal apostasy of our lamentable era, and she would sink herself. Ultimately, who would guarantee that we can remain as we are and protect us from the Roman Curia and the bishops? Benedict XVI?
One can well deny it but this slippage is inevitable. Don't we already see in the Fraternity a weakening in the Profession of Faith? Today, alas, it is the opposite that is considered 'abnormal'.
Just before the Consecrations of 1988, when many insistexd that Mons. Lefebvre enter into a practical agreement with Rome since that would open up a whole new field for apostolate, he told the four ordinands: "A vast field for the apostolate perhaps, but one in ambiguity, following two opposite directions at the same time, with the result that we would rot". How to continue and preach all the truth? How can we sign an agreement without the Fraternity 'rotting' in contradiction?
And when one year later, Rome appeared to show true gestures of accepting Tradition, Mons. Lefebvre continued to be distrustful. He thought they were "nothing more than maneuvers in order to separate from us the greatest number of faithful possible. That is the context in which they seem to yield a little bit more each time, and even to go rather far to do this. So we must absolutely convince our people that it is nothing but a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put ourselves into the hands of conciliar bishops and modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger that threatens our people. If we have been able to fight for 20 years now to resist the errors of the Council, it was not so that we could place ourselves in the hands of those who profess these errors".
After Mons. Lefebvre, the duty of the Fraternity is more than simply to denounce these errors by their name, but to oppose effectively and publicly the Roman authorities who are spreading them. How can one reconcile an agreement with this public resistance to the authorities, namely, the Pope? After having fought for more than 40 years, should the Fraternity now place itself at the hands of mondernists and liberals whose pertinacity we have noted?
Monseigneur, and fathers, watch out! You are leading the Fraternity to a point where it can no longer turn back, to a profound division without return, and if you do reach such an agreement, to powerful destructive influences which it will not be able to endure.
If the bishops of the Fraternity have been protecting it, it is because Mons. Lefebvre refused a practical agreement. Since the situation has not changed substantially, since the condition set by the Chapter meeting of 2006 has not been realized in any way (a doctrinal change by Rome that would allow a practical agreement), listen to your Founder. He was right 25 years ago. He is still right today.
In his name, we call on you: Do not involve the Fraternity in an agreement that is purely practical.
With our most cordial and fraternal greetings, in Christ and Mary,
Mgr. Alfonso de Galarreta
Mgr. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais
Mgr. Richard Williamson.
The reply from Mons. Fellay and his two asisstants in the General Council:
FRATERNITE SACERDOTALE
SAINT-PIE X
Menzingen
April 14, 2012
To Bishops Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson and De Galarreta
Excellencies:
Your joint letter addressed to the members of the General Council has merited our fullattention. We thank you for your solicitude and your charity. Allow us, in turn, with the same spirit of charity and justice, to make the following observations.
First of all, the the letter cites well the seriousness of the crisis that is shaking the Church and analyzes with precision the nature of the prevailing errors that cotninue to pullulate. However, the description is marred by two faults regarding the reality of the Church: it lacks the element of the supernatural just as it lacks realism.
On the lack of supernatural sense: Reading your letter, one must seriously ask if you still believe that the visible Church whose seat is in Rome is the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Church that has certainly been disfigured horribly a planta pedis usque ad verticem capitis (from the sole of the foot to the top of the head), but a Church which still has Our Lord Jesus Christ as the head.
One has the impression that you are so scandalized that you no longe accept that this could still be true. In your opinion, is Benedict XVI the legitimate Pope? If he is, can Jesus Christ still speak through his mouth?
If the Pope expresses a legitimate will regarding us, good will, which does not order us to violate the commandments of God, do we have the right to ignore or return such goodwill with a slapdown? If not, on what principle are you acting this way? Don’t you believe that if Our Lord commands us, he will also give us the means to continue our work?
Now, the Pope has made known to us that the concern to resolve our status for the good of the Church is at the very heart of his Pontificate, and that he knows very well it would be much easier for him and for us to just leave the situation as it is. He has thus expressed a decisive and correct intention.
With the attitude that you advocate, there is no longer room for either the Gideons nor the Davids, nor for those who count on the help of the Lord. You reproach us for being naïve or afraid, but it is your view of the Church that is too human and even fatalistic: You see dangers, conspiracies, difficulties, but you no longer see the asisstance and grace of the Holy Spirit.
If one accepts that Divine Providence conducts the affairs of men, while allowing them full freedom, one must also accept that the developments in recent years in our favor are under His governance. They indicate a line – not very straight – but clearly in favor of Tradition. Why would this stop when we are doing all we can to keep faith and that we accompany our efforts with uncommon prayer?
Will the good God allow us to fall at the most crucial moment? This does not make sense. Especially since we are not trying to impose our will but that we are trying to discern through these events what God wants, being ready for everything, as He pleases.
At the same time, your letter lacks realism, both as to the intensity of errors [regarding the Council] and to their extent.
In terms of intensity: In the Fraternity, there is a tendency to make the errors of the Council into super-heresies – it has become the absolute evil, worse than anything else, just as the liberals have dogmatized this pastoral Council.
The faults are already so bad that one cannot exaggerate them (cf. Roberto de Mattei. Une histoire jamais ecrite, p. 22; Mgr. Gherardini, Un debat a ouvrir, p. 53; etc). You no longer make a distinction, whereas Mgr. Lefebvre several times made the necessary distinctions about liberals*.
This lack of distinction leads to an ‘absolute’ hardening. This is serious because it is a caricature that is no longer within reality and will logically end in a future schism [in the Fraternity]. It is perhaps why this is one of the arguments pushing me not to delay further in responding to Rome.
In terms of extent: On the one hand, you would clothe the present authorities in Rome with all the errors and all the evils one finds in the Church, leaving aside the fact that they have been trying, at least in part, to detach themselves from the most serious of these errors (the condemnation of the ‘hermeneutic of rupture’ denounces all too real errors).
On the other hand, you would claim that EVERYONE is rooted in this pertinacity (“they are all modernits”, “they are all rotten”). This is manifestly false. A great majority is still borne along by the [liberal] movement, but not everyone.
To the point that on the most crucial question of all – the possibility of surviving under the conditions of a recognition by Rome of the Fraternity, we have not come to the same conclusion as yours.
It must be noted in passing that WE HAVE NOT SOUGHT a practical agreement. That is false.
We did not refuse a priori, as you demand, to consider the Pope’s offer. For the common good of the Fraternity, we would much rather prefer the current intermediate status quo, but Rome will no longer tolerate it.
In itself, the proposed solution of a Personal Prelature is not a trap. It results first of all from the fact that the situation in April 2012 is very different from what it was in 1988. To pretend that nothing has changed is a historical error.
The same evils make the Church suffer, and the consequences are even more serious and obvious than before. But at the same time, one can see a change of attitude within the Church, with the help of the gestures and actions of Benedict XVI towards Tradition.
This new movement [owards Tradition], which began at least a dozen years ago, is getting stronger. It has reached a good number (but still a minority) of young priests and seminarians, and even a small number of young bishops who are clearly different from their predecessors, who have given us their sympathy and their support, but who are still fairly stifled by the dominant line in the hierarchy in favor of Vatican II.
But this hierarchy is losing steam. This objectively shows that it is no longer illusory for us to consider a struggle intra muros(within the walls), whose duration and difficulty we are well aware of. I have been able to observe in Rome how much the discourse about the glories of Vatican II, to which we shall be subjected, is still on the lips of many, but is no longer on everyone’s mind. They believe in it less and less.
This concrete situation, with the canonical solution proposed, is very different from that of 1988. If we examine the arguments that Mgr. Lefebvre gave at the time, we conclude that he would not have hesitated to accept the proposal made to us. Let us not lose the sense of the Church which was so strong in our venerated founder.
The history of the Church shows that the healing of the evils which afflict her has habitually taken place gradually, slowly. And that when one problem ends, another begins… oportet hereses esse. (there will always be heresies).
To wait until everything is settled before coming to what you call a practical agreement is not realistic. Seeing how things have been taking place, it will probably take decades [to resolve everything]. But to refuse to work in the field because it has bad weeds that could stifle and hamper the grass recalls a Biblical lesson: It is Our Lord himself who makes us understand this with the parable of the chaff, that we shall always have it in one form or another, as the bad weeds that we must pull out and fight within the Church.
You cannot know how your attitude – each in your own way – has been very difficult for us. It prevented the Superior-General from communicating and sharing his great concerns with you - concerns that you would have gladly shared – in the face of your strong and passionate incomprehension.
How much he would have wanted to be able to count on you, on your advice, in the course of taking this step which is so sensitive for our history. It is a great trial, perhaps the worst one of his leadership.
Our venerated founder gave his bishops precise tasks and responsibility. He showed very well that the principal element which unites our society is the Superior-General.
But for some time now, you have tried – each one differently - to impose on him your point of view, even in the form of threats, and publicly. This dialectic between truth/faith and authority is contrary to the priestly spirit. He at least expects you to try to understand the reasons that have made him act as he has done in recent years, according to the will of divine providence.
We pray for each of you, so that we may all find ourselves together in this struggle which is far from over, for the greater glory of God and for love of our dear Fraternity.
May our Risen Lord and Our Lady protect and bless you.
+Bernard Fellay
Niklaus Pfluger+
Alain-Marc Nely+
American rabbi and Holocaust refugee says
'Trust the Pope's judgment on the FSSPX'
Rome, Italy, May 18, 2012 (CNA/EWTN News) - A leading American rabbi and Holocaust refugee says people should trust Pope Benedict’s judgment when it comes to the Church possibly readmitting the Society of St. Pius X, which has a bishop who denied the scale of the Holocaust.
“Let me tell you this, I think that Pope Benedict XVI in many ways really understood the Holocaust because he was in the German Army. He deserted (the army), his family was anti-Nazi, I mean he was completely opposed to Hitler,” Rabbi Jack Bemporad told CNA May 16.
“Now, given the fact that he suffered under Hitler and that his family suffered under Hitler, how could he in any way accept or welcome someone who denies that Hitler did anything wrong?” he asked rhetorically.
The Society of St. Pius X broke with the Catholic Church in 1988 after its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, ordained four bishops without the approval of Pope John Paul II.
One of those ordained, Bishop Richard Williamson, was fined $13,500 in Germany in 2010 after denying the extent of the Holocaust during a television interview.
The Society subsequently issued a statement disassociating itself from his views. The conviction was also later quashed by the German appeals court.
Rabbi Bemporad, who currently serves as Professor of Interreligious Studies at the Pontifical Angelicum University, dismissed Bishop Williamson as “one person who is really crazy” and “knows nothing.”
He also believes that Williamson does not speak for the vast majority of Society members.
“
The mistake is to take a few people and make them somehow representative of everyone without realizing that that just isn’t true,” he said. “I think it is only a small part of this group that is that radical. I think the vast majority are very happy and would love to be part of the Church.”
Earlier this week the Vatican announced that negotiations with the Society about reconciling the 1988 breach will now happen “separately and singularly” with three of the Society’s four bishops, including Williamson.
For his part, Williamson has made it increasingly clear that he is opposed to reconciliation with Rome. In a letter written earlier this month to his superior
[It was not an individual letter, but written jointly with the two other dissenting bishops!], Williamson (
and the two other bishops) suggested that reunion would cause the Society to cease opposing “the universal apostasy of our time.” He (
they) also accused Pope Benedict of being “a subjectivist.”
“Now I don’t think that in trying to find a way of incorporating this group that they are going to accept in any way any of the extreme positions that Williamson stands for,” predicted Rabbi Bemporad.
The Catholic Church’s view of Judaism was formally set out for the first time in the Second Vatican Council’s declaration on relations with non-Christian religions,
Nostra Aetate. It rejected both anti-Semitism and the belief that present-day Jews are responsible for Christ’s death.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 20/05/2012 14:37]