More on the Lefebvrites
Monday, January 26, 2009
By Bryan Cones
Comments (10)
The rehabilitation of the Lefebvrites, who went into schism after the Second Vatican Council, has drawn a lot of press coverage, especially in Europe, where most of the group's 150,000 members live. As expected, Jewish response has been strong and negative, as reported here by the UK Times, as one of the bishops restored to Rome's good graces is a vociferous denier of the Holocaust. I heard Bishop Richard Williamson's astonishing and chilling statement on the matter to a Swedish TV station on NPR over the weekend.
I think this incident once again reflects the pope's shortsightedness when it comes to how his actions are going to be received by the media and the world. Reconciling the Lefebvrites is hardly a high priority for many Catholics, and I don't think it should come at the cost of further poisoning the relationship between Catholicism and Judaism.
And I am still amazed that one can openly dissent from Dignitatis Humanae, Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Freedom, and be welcomed back to the fold without a note of clarification. Talk about double standards!
An update of note: L'Osservatore Romano has published a front page article calling Bishop Williamson's statements "unacceptable," and that his rehabilitation does not indicate approval of his views, according to the Associated Press.
Posted in: In preview mode
What I find interesting is
By Anonymous (not verified) on Friday, March 27, 2009What I find interesting is the permissiveness granted to conservative cafeteria Catholics as opposed to the condemnation liberals get for dissenting from the teaching on birth control or the ordination of women. Seems to me there's a big double standard.
Vatican II was pastoral and can be questioned
By David Phillips (not verified) on Friday, February 13, 2009Bryan, with all respect and charity I ask you, why couldn't a Catholic openly dissent from Dignitatis Humanae? Vatican II was supposed to be a pastoral council, not a dogmatic one.
Seeing as how Dignitatis Humanae understandably appears [to some] to directly contradict the teachings of previous popes, why should it be so shocking that some would dissent from, or question, it?
We have even priests, let alone lay people-- supposedly "in good standing"-- who do not believe in transubstantiation, a dogma taught by Council of Trent --and also taught by Paul VI after Vatican II! We have theologians who deny even such fundamental truths as the bodily Resurrection of Our Lord, or the truth of His Virgin Birth! Liturgical norms and Canon Law are disregarded openly by many, without any "note of clarification" required.
So why should a pastoral council be elevated into a "superdogma" which demands obedience or else???
I have held it all along, and I still hold it now: The "Lefebrvrites" [as you call them] are not, and were not, a schism. They are Catholics.
The only ones the supposed "excommunications" applied to were the two consecrating bishops and the four consecrated bishops- not the priests of the Society, let alone the faithful who attend Masses at their chapels.
The fact that these "excommunications" have now been lifted- without these bishops having to change or recant anything- is sufficient evidence to me that there never really was a schism.
These bishops never intended to break with the Church. They took the actions they did out of desperation and what they considered a state of necessity; they did not do so to form a schismatic group.
Dissent from Vatican II
By Bryan Cones on Monday, February 16, 2009To be honest, I think the teachings of Vatican II are open to further development and discussion. What cannot be denied is a) they are the current, valid, and authoritative teaching of the Catholic church and b) the teachings of Vatican II are the authoritative lens through which we interpret church teaching now. In effect, the SSPX denies the authority of the church to reformulate, interpret, and even change church teaching and liturgy, although even a cursory reading of history shows that it has done so, and surprisingly often.
The members of the SSPX, interestingly, were not excommunicated for dissenting from Vatican II, and they openly did so for nearly 20 years. They were excommunicated because they committed a schismatic act (ordaining a bishop without the permission of the Holy See), which incurs an automatic penalty of excommunication. Lefebvre knew that when he ordained those bishops. Lefebvre never asked to be granted dispensation to continue to celebrate liturgy of Trent; he openly rejected Vatican II as the work of the devil.
What I find interesting is the permissiveness granted to conservative cafeteria Catholics as opposed to the condemnation liberals get for dissenting from the teaching on birth control or the ordination of women. Seems to me there's a big double standard.
Bryan Cones
You make a valid point...
By David Phillips (not verified) on Monday, February 23, 2009It is true that at times, there is a double standard, as you state. Some "conservatives" call those who dissent on the liberal side "cafeteria Catholics," while having more toleration for those who dissent to the right. So, in this, I admit I agree with you.
To be fair, though, those who struggled with or rejected Vatican II and/or the changes in the Liturgy have often been treated with disdain for many years. They were treated less than charitably, and they were often only trying to follow the teachings they were taught from childhood- or wanted to maintain the form of Mass they grew up with.
Few olive branches have been extended to them.
Lefebvre's consecrations did not happen in a vacuum. Even though not excommunicated, he was not allowed to carry on with his seminaries or the Tridentine Liturgy. He had been suspended. The Vatican tried to get him to celebrate the New Mass- I read that the Vatican went so far to say that if he would just celebrate one Novus Ordo, all would be okay.
In the end, I agree with your point. We all need to be more charitable and consistent with one another.
How important do you think they are to Christ?
By MattePgh (not verified) on Friday, February 6, 2009--->"How important do you think they are to Christ?"
WHO IS THEY? Is it the offended Israelis, those of us who sit aghast listening to a supposed holy man attempt to disprove the gas chambers, or is it every person on the planet who has not accepted catholic dogma as the only truth.
I suspect you meant the latter. I suspect that you proffer to know how god will judge the worthiness of the souls. I assume that you are so certain of your beliefs, that any other path will lead ultimately to damnation.
How arrogant you must be. What PRIDE and WRATH must seep from soul. How about this? Lead a good life, help others(even jews) and hope that is enough. Because if you have the audacity to believe you know the will of god, you ain't never gonna meet him.
-->"You amaze me. Our Holy Father is not a politician. He has different motives than wanting to impress the press."
NOT A POLITICIAN eh? Well let's first take away the Vatican seat at the UN and recall all of the Vatican's ambassadors, close the bank. give away its wealth to the poor, and dissolve the posse of cardinals, and stick Herr RatsInBurger on a hillside to preach like Jesus, then you can say he ain't no politician.
-->"The laity’s priorities do not impress the Holy Father either."
Pius Timothy, it is people like you who drive the educated away from the church in droves, leaving only the third-world Flintstones as only area for the catholic church to expand. Too bad they are light on the collection plate.
Pius Timothy, you must repent and pray to god to show you that the only soul you need be concerned with is your own.
Best Regards
Jesus
I'm so confused
By Bradley (not verified) on Monday, January 26, 2009Unlike priestly marriage or homosexuality, I seem to remember that "bearing false witness" is right up there in the top ten of sins. Granted, the good bishop wasn't excommunicated for something so petty as violating (repetedly and profoundly) a top-ten admonition, rather for violating protocol. He deserves an entirely new excommunication. (Assuming he hasn't demonstrated contrition.)
One man's supposed sin
By Timothy (not verified) on Monday, January 26, 2009Greetings,
He may or may not. But one ought never personally desire that 150,000 souls be prevented from entering the Church because of one man's supposed sin.
Timothy+
What you said
By Bradley (not verified) on Monday, January 26, 2009Good Afternoon Timothy+...
In the event you were replying to me. I never said anything about the 150K.
Let us pray for each other.
By Timothy (not verified) on Monday, January 26, 2009Greetings,
You amaze me. Our Holy Father is not a politician. He has different motives than wanting to impress the press.
The laity’s priorities do not impress the Holy Father either.
Otherwise we would be a pro-contraception, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-women priests, and a pro-remarriage institution of democratically elected leaders.
The Holy Father’s first responsibility is to Catholics, eventually maybe only those Catholics who are in good standing by selective determination by means of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Maybe not as fantastic as you may initially think.
Now there is a double standard for you to consider from your perspective!
Our Holy Father has deemed the Society of St. Pius X worthy of rehabilitation, and you are worried about offending those who had no desire to come into the fold even before the Church announced the Society’s possible rehabilitation of 150,000 souls.
And for ones man’s views, you would deny that rehabilitation of 150,000 souls because it is “ hardly a high priority for many Catholics.”
How important do you think they are to Christ?
Timothy+
U.S. Catholic insists on a civil and respectful dialogue on our website, following our Comment policy. Comments should be charitable, on topic, and brief. U.S. Catholic reserves the right to delete comments deemed inappropriate. We encourage you to choose your words wisely.
