Like a number of blogs across the blogosphere, Fr Z reported the rumour about a possible lifting of the excommunications on the bishops of the SSPX. According to a Spanish blogger at La Cigüeña de la Torre, the pope might be contemplating the lifting of the excommunications on the grounds that extenuating circumstances mitigated the fault of consecrating bishops without mandate. Consult Fr Z's post, or the Spanish one, for the full details.
I was thinking about this earlier on today, and especially about Fr Z's remark that the SSPX rhetoric had softened since the summer. I wasn't sure of this. In fact, what I was sure of was that since the SSPX bishops' interviews about the consecrations, there had been very little to report on that front.
And lo and behold, from Le Forum catholique comes a sermon of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, given at Colmar on 12 October, in which he denounces Pope Benedict XVI for a fist-full of heresies including denial of the incarnation, implicit denial of the divine maternity, and denial of the redemptive nature of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. And his conclusion?
"C’est une religion désincarnée. C’est une religion gnostique, chers fidèles, c’est de la gnose, nous sommes en pleine gnose avec le pape Benoit XVI!"
'It is a disincarnate religion. It is a gnostic religion, dear faithful, it is gnosis; we're deep into gnosis with the Pope Benedict XVI.'
It's not so much the variable quality of logic in TdM's argumentation that I object to. We all make mistakes and we all of us have good questions to ask some of the time. But what I really object to is the hubris with which TdM affirms his theological opinion in such an outrageously normative manner. In other words, I wonder if he realises quite how modern he is by declaring Pope Benedict to be the author of heresies in both his theological works from the 1960s and his more recent writings. My betting is that he does not.
I would be delighted if the pope were to lift the excommunications, but I somehow doubt very much that they can be lifted in this climate.
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
You are absolutly right ! a french bishop (Mgr Simon from Clermont Ferrand) said that SSPX was modernist in act, and Bp TdM is fully modernist in his way of thinking and exposing his own doctrine as if it was the very one of the Church...
Above all, Bp TdM seems not to be a good theologian and the so-called heresies that he imagines in BXVI doctrine are not...
étant Français, je poursuis dans cette langue car je n'arrive pas à m'exprimer dans la vôtre ! Bref, soit TdM est un menteur, soir il ne sait pas lire, mais il fait dire à Benoit XVI ce qu'il ne dit pas et nous sommes carrément dans le procès d'intention, ou alors il ne comprend pas ce que dit le Pape, et cette incapacité intellectuelle est inquiétante !
En tous cas, je suis en train de lire votre cheminement : c'est très intéressant mais vous devriez le traduire en français !
Merci, énormément, Antoine. Que The Sensible Bond devienne bilingüe!
Great post.
Mais pas si bilingüe que la reste de nous ne peut pas continuer de joiner dans!
Ttony, c'est du pur franglais à la Miles Kington!
Thank you, bryan - we'll let you know, but in the meantime do not relax your medication.
You are seriously unstable and your Pride has got the better of you. I believe that you have never gotten over your rejection from the sspx seminary and that's why ultimately, you are out for revenge! ne c'est pas?
Dr Bargheddi,
The only thing cheaper than your insinuations is the fact you make them pseudonymously. I'm sure you enjoy pathologising those you disagree with; I suppose it makes it much easier for you to feel superior. But then since you belong to the 'perfecti', your conscience must be automatically clear. Careful you don't trip over your phylacteries now.
BJS.
I've followed the SSPX's history for some time now, and what I don't understand is how TdM gets away with this within the Society. People talk about Bp Williamson, but I don't think his polemics have anything on this guy!
How the heck could a rapprochement be possible? This bishop - who hasn't a claim to an ounce of teaching jurisdiction - seems hell bent on foiling any successful negotiations by teaching outrageous propositions which only go to show his lack of theological breadth.
Great blog, Brian. I like your charity, objectivity and honesty. Keep up the good work, mate!
Bryan,
I've wasted a good half hour looking through this blog and reading your various articles - what drivel you spout forth! Your articles are incoherent jibberish and if nothing else show that you are so gripped with pride that you have lost any sense of reasoning - no, this isn't a cheap jibe, it is in fact a "reality" as His Excellency Bp.Williamson would undoubtedly say. The reality is this - You are grandstanding 20 years too late over the sspx "excommunications" - these supposed allegations on our Bishops and Priestly Society are entirely and absolutely bogus. Ofcourse, deep down you know that's the truth but pride is blinding and it is gripping. The Pope will most definately make a public act of lifting the non-existing "excommunications" and when he does, I will celebrate with joy - if not for that fact, but for the demise of this poxy blog!
Dr.Jozeph Bargheddi
So, just so we have this straight, you are happy to indulge in a lot of personal diatribe but make no reasoned refutation of any of the arguments?
I think your attitude is a perfect example of the unintended consequences of making the traditionalist caucus autonomous. Your pride is the pride of the Port Royaliste perfecti. Which is the only reason why I publish your messages.
I think that dr.bargheddi needs to see a Doctor!! Whatever have you done to upset him/her? I think that The Sensible Bond is Informative, balanced and a "bloody good read" keep up the Good Work Ches
annemarie
Regarding the "Excommunications" I believe that the SSPX needs to address the problem of the latest outburst( Colmar 12th October) of Bishop TdeM, and start to show publically the fraternal charity due to His Holiness Benedict XVI
annemarie
Hey Doc, if you find this blog poxy, then why bother reading it and checking up on this thread? Just cool it man. If you want to present an argument, do it reasonably, since the way you're carrying on makes you out to be an immature zealot (which I'm sure your not).
Annemarie, you've got to be right. Somebody shoud make him accountable, but that won't happen, because NO ONE is made accountable in the Society. This is why - apart from the question of excommunications - I think it's impotant that an agreement be made AND that the Society be given a canonical position in the Church (which they seem to be doing their darndest to avoid). No doubt Bishop Fellay is a fine man, but even he needs to be made accountable for the administration and discipline within the Society.
Brian, do you think Bishop TdM is a closet sedevacantist, and if he isn't one, wouldn't it be more logical for him to leave the Society and join them?
I don't know. Bishop Williamson appeals to the principle that modern popes have been badly formed and therefore are not fully aware of their objective 'departure' from the faith. TdM might have some more theologically baroque explanation for his position.
As for logic, TdM in his 20th anniversary interview invoked the idea that in twenty years time, there would be in Rome an apostasy organised by the Jewish religion. That idea is more akin to some of the hard-line Protestant attacks on Rome than anything else: Rome as the whore of the Beast.
Dr. Sudlow,
You said that:
"But what I really object to is the hubris with which TdM affirms his theological opinion in such an outrageously normative manner. In other words, I wonder if he realises quite how modern he is by declaring Pope Benedict to be the author of heresies in both his theological works from the 1960s and his more recent writings. My betting is that he does not."
(my emphasis)
Msgr. de Mallerais is not being at all modern/Modernistic (with regard to the infamous Introduction to Christianity, at least). Recall the words of St. Pius X:
"Thus, We have reached one of the principal points in the Modernists' system, namely the origin and the nature of dogma. For they place the origin of dogma in those primitive and simple formulae, which, under a certain aspect, are necessary to faith; for revelation, to be truly such, requires the clear manifestation of God in the consciousness. But dogma itself they apparently hold, is contained in the secondary formulae."
(italics in the original,
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html)
as well as the rest of sections 11 and 12. What I am saying is, given that someone, whether the then-Fr. Ratzinger or whoever, has put his thoughts down in some formula or other, this formula can be evaluated as to its veracity without regard to the sentiments of the author. If a dogma contains truth (rather than just being an historically-contingent expression of it, as the Modernists contend), then it is entirely fair to compare it at face value, as it were, with other formulae.
As to
"the idea that in twenty years time, there would be in Rome an apostasy organised by the Jewish religion"
this is not at all Protestant. See, for instance, the Catechism of the Council of Trent:
"The Sacred Scriptures inform us that the general judgment will be preceded by these three principal signs: the preaching of the Gospel throughout the world, a falling away from the faith, and the coming of Antichrist."
General apostasy is a pre-condition for the Last Judgment. Whether that's twenty years, a hundred years or a thousand years from now, who knows.
In answer to your first point, CP, TdM goes much further than merely comparing the statements. In fact, he is not asking questions at all but making what he thinks are inexorable conclusions with absolutely no regard for any other scholarship than his own on these issues. If he were prepared to climb off his high horse and test his ideas among his peers like other theologians, then I might have more respect for him.
As for the second point, it has not been proved by your citation, unless you somehow suppose - far-fetched as far as I'm concerned - that falling away of faith can possibly mean what TdM said.
The problem with TdM (and most of the Society, for that matter) is that he is taking the texts out of context. Has he really opened his mind as to what the pope was actually saying? It seems to me that he is a priori looking for so called heresies. I've been reading the pope's new book "Jesus of Nazareth" and it is clear there that he believes all that the Church believes and teaches. He especially has some inciteful comments on modern exegesis (and they aren't very flattering!).
Somebody told me this equation once: Text - context = pretext
The frustrating thing with the Society is that they really do mean well. If they didn't, nobody would give two hoots what they do.
Le problème, avec TdM, c'est qu'il insinue, en fonction de ce que ne dit pas Benoit XVI, que cette absence est volontaire et hérétique : c'est un véritable procès d'intention. En fonctionnant de façon identique, on pourrait dire qu''en affirmant que "Jésus est le Fils de Dieu", on nie la maternité de la Sainte Vierge, parce qu'on n'en parle pas !
Bref, TdM est un manipulateur et un très mauvais théologien. Il limite la portée des dogmes en oubliant ce que dit Saint Paul : Dieu s'est fait homme pour que l'homme se fasse Dieu... Mais TdM trouve horrible que l'homme veuille se faire Dieu et que Dieu attire l'homme à Lui pour le faire participant de sa propre nature ! En fait, il est cathare et en réalité, il accuse Benoit XVI de son propre vice : c'est TdM qui est gnostique. Et cela a été dit dans un commentaire : il n'a aucune juridiction pour prêcher et c'est un évêque qui ne peut enseigner la doctrine en étant garanti contre l'erreur puisqu'il n'est pas uni au Pape...
I think cathar is going too far. I thik also that theologians ought to raise questions. What they ought not to do is sit as the final arbiter of orthodoxy and liberally scatter their accusations of heterodoxy everywhere.
Antoine, je pense que vous avez raison... TdM est un manipulateur des paroles du pape. Est-il un mauvais theologien? Si'l ne peut pas ouvrir sa tete a la possibilite que le pape a quelque chose profondement catholique a dire; si'l a un prejugement contra toutes les ouvres du pape - il n'est pas un bon theologien.
And the scandal is shocking! There are so many SSPXers that look to these bishops for leadership and counsel. What a mistreatment of (non-juridical!) authority that TdM is guilty of. I once heard one of his sermons wherein he very sarcasticly canned the pope and belittled his thought while the listeners around were lapping it all up. They thought he was funny and were obviously not opposed to this sort of disrespect. That was a big worry to me, and perhaps the biggest indication of possible schism that I've yet seen.
If he does want to raise theological questions, he - and the whole Society - should should scrutinise their own theological position first, so as not to make a goose of themselves (cf the beautifully translated "Problem of the Liturgical Reform" of 2000). And then they should always be respectful of the authority of the Holy See and the person of the Holy Father.
Will they ever be able to do this?
I agree, Xavier. Part of the problem here is the profound lack of self-critique; that was my personal impression, at least, in the sspx milieu. I think there's a sense among some within the society, perhaps, that if any of their assertions are proven wrong then the whole operation would be proven wrong.
I'm glad you'e enjoying Benedict XVI's works. I've only read a few (Introduction to Christianity, The Ratzinger Report, Salt of the Earth, Milestones) but I've found them tremendously rich so far. I hope to get to "Jesus of Nazareth" sooner or later...
Xavier
"Will they ever be able to do this?” Never, because they are theological dilettantes. I keep saying this but many disagree and take their “doctrine” seriously. They don’t even know in what sense the Mass is Sacrifice, as we have seen some time ago.
As distressing as Benedict XVI's papal judaizing and affection for the syncretic Martin Buber is, the SSPX is engaged in a theological entropy from which the only result is either insular madness or complete dissolution. They have backed themselves into a corner; consequently, like all organisms who are trapped, they are becoming aggressive. As has been remarked elsewhere, they are hypesensitive to valid criticisms that nullify all of their positions, regardless of whether it's the validity of the New Mass, the new rites of consecration and ordination, religious liberty, etc. Internally, they know (as remarked above) if -- like a house of cards -- one is proved erroneous, they all are erroneous. As a former member of the SSPX I can tell you that all of the excesses of the Counter-reformation which gave birth to the blind ultramontanism that led to the almost universal acceptance of the New Mass -- namely, clericalism and triumphalism -- exist in all their resplendent glory in Society chapels. Yes, there are good, devout, and well-intentioned people there, but they are in error. They might not be de jure schismatic, but they are de facto schismatic. Yes, the world is a scary place, but taking comfort in an erroneous and surrogate reality is not healthy -- or very Catholic -- either. The Society has convinced itself that it is THE CHURCH when in reality it has become nothing more than a well-funded Jansenist counterfeit. The selfishness they exhibit regarding their possession of what they believe are the only valid sacraments in Christendom (even though Hutton Gibson would disagree rather vehemently with them on this point) certainly demonstrates a lack of charity. The Society's parishioners look down upon other Catholics as "Novus Ordo" catholics, and although they might go through the externals of praying for the Pope, they would obey their priest (whom they probably already idolize) or any one of the Society's bishops first. Whatever financial war chest the Society possesses, it's not being used for charity, but instead to fight phantoms that emotions have caused them to see. Society end-times fervor is in full-swing (enough to make the "Left Behind" rapture-loving Protestants blush), even though Archbishop Lefebvre himself is formally not part of Divine Revelation. Pastorally, the SSPX doesn't inspire hope; their sermons are infused with Cassandra-like drivel that belies Christ's Gospel. There is no good news there -- only fear heaped upon more fear. They have pretentiously self-imposed a martyrdom upon themselves, and have convinced their flock to be a party to it -- and the SSPX has the audacity to accuse the new liturgy of clericalizing the laity! Remarkable! Heaven knows you'll be considered a leper if you don't go on a Society retreat. "Oh, my," others will whisper in the corner, "so-and-so didn't go on an Ignatian retreat -- there must be something wrong with them." So who's set themselves up as priests -- and even God -- now? I might not like the presence of extraordinary ministers, but the ones I know are at least humble. Regardless of whatever formal appellation is applied to them ("schismatic," "excommunicated," etc.), the Society is objectively in error. A "folk mass" with guitars, however liturgically depressing it may be, is not a state of emergency. If you don't like the way things are in your local Church, stay and fight. Be like salt of the earth and talk to other parishioners. Talk to your priest. Talk to your bishop. Speak, but don't run away. Go to Church to receive Our Lord -- don't obsess over what others are or are not doing (like communion in the hand, etc.). If parishioners haven't been catechized properly, that's not their fault. Rather than crucifying them, educate them. You'll learn mercy and that's something the world needs more of. Why do you think the Holy Father made his offer to the Society months ago? Operating within the Church, the four Society bishops would be an asset to the Holy Father in his attempt to restore orthodoxy to the liturgy and Catholic worship. The Society hierarchy should "Be not afraid" and help The Church, otherwise the Society will continue its rapid -- and rabid -- descent into a perverse form of Catholic pharisaism.
David, I don't quite agree with you over the Cassandra-like sermons. In a twenty-year period, I heard my fair share of sermons like that, but I also heard many good ones. There are very decent men among their ranks - e.g. a Fr Leo Boyle in England, a Fr Michael McMahon in the USA - who do not conform to the stereotype.
One profound problem is that they are now set in a mode of constant criticism, a 'hermeneutic of suspicion', we might call it. How they will ever get out of that I simply have no idea.
I couldn't agree more, Ches - there are a number of SSPX priests who seem to have somehow broken the mould. They tend to be a bit cynical, though, since they feel as though they're beating their heads against a brick wall. One spoke to me very candidly about the stupid crusades that the Society goes on (pants... women in university... etc, etc) and simply shook his head. He considered himself the odd one out. All the same, they are the minority and the fact remains that the majority are very negative, if not pejoritive. Just recently I heard of one preaching at a first communion mass that women who wear trousers are transvestites. Go figure!
As sympathetic as I am to the SSP, though, I can't help thinking your're right, Dave: that the real battle doesn't consist in trying to build some fairytale Catholicism that doesn't exist, but in working to change from within. Surely it's from within that the Church has always been renewed in the past.
Ches -- make no mistake, I've heard excellent sermons from SSPX priests; I've also heard excellent sermons from priests in my diocese; however, because the SSPX, in general, seems to have convinced itself that only the SSPX is guarding the depost of faith its pastoral strategy, again, in general, seems designed to exert an emotional force equivalent to their conviction. It's as if they feel they simply must be excessive in order to counteract perceived deficiencies in the "Novus Ordo" (some of which are genuine, depending on diocese, priest, etc.). I live in the States, and I remember watching an expose -- either on 20/20 or 60 Minutes about a "traditional" Catholic community (in all honesty, it was so many years ago I don't remember if it was the SSPX or not) that had some of its elder members dress up as the devil and scare the young children who'd just received their first Holy Communion. It was a particularly frightening scene: the costumed individual wore an oversized and particularly grotesque satanic mask while bellowing and engaging in threatening gestures; the young children (dressed in their Sunday best) were screaming in terror. I was an adult and just watching the scene frightened me! Now, I'm not saying the SSPX endorses such shenanigans, but let's just say I have a feeling that I wouldn't be surprised to find out if it occurred through some of the more extreme elements of that milieu.
Xavier -- the reason why the SSPX is so enticing is because one doesn't have to struggle with a lazy or malicious hierarchy who are content to pursue a lowest common denominator approach when it comes to the liturgy -- and who regard those who want to see more Eucharistic reverence as freaks or mutants. It could be argued that the American Church is in a de facto state of liturgical schism -- at least based on the examples the Holy Father is trying to set in his Masses (i.e., communion on the tongue to kneeling communicants), especially if we look at how the Mass is conducted as a form of catechesis (or lack thereof) and also at the continual violations of JP 2's Inaestimabile Donum (like female altar servers). My Monsignor (an otherwise fine priest) was ordained in 1973 and is very much a product of his time. He exalts Jungmann but has no use for Gamber and has misrepresented the pre-Vatican 2 Church in order to exalt a "new springtime" which has yet to occur in the American Church. To a large extent change from within will be a natural result of demographics. As older priests infected with the malicious "spirit" of Vatican 2 (to be differentiated from the actual documents) die off, younger priests -- aware of the liturgical and catechetical devastation (and who have learned about the crisis in the Church largely thanks to the internet rather than their own clergy) will attempt to make improvements. I have voiced my opinions to the Monsignor and it's quite obvious from his replies and facial gestures that he thinks I'm a freak. So be it. At least I spoke out and at least he knows where I stand. "For many" has been approved as the correct translation for "pro multis" by the USCCB and will be incorporated into the 2010 Missal. Slowly, but surely, time will dissolve the Jungmanns and the Bugninis and they will fade away into something even less than mere footnotes. Christ has promised at least that much. However, putting the doctrinal issues aside for a moment, if it wasn't for Thuc's and Lefebvre's actions I personally feel that the Latin Mass (i.e., currently the '62 Missal) would have been wiped off the face of the Earth.
Post a Comment