The SSPX Before The Reconciliation

Part II of the video born of the CNS interview with Bishop Fellay is now out. You can see all of it above and as it goes on for little more than five minutes I suggest you invest the time.

My small considerations are as follows:

1) Look at how young, and motivated, those seminarians are. I wonder how many within the conciliar church have the same purity of intent. Some certainly have, but not many.

2) It is, if you ask me, no coincidence a mainstream outlet like the CNS exposes his readers/viewers to minutes of SSPX arguments without any counterpart; say, without the usual V II bishop saying to us how much they are in error, and perhaps schismatics. It truly means the CNS thinks the reconciliation is very near.

3) Note the very dry, realistic, absolutely beautiful attitude of the SSPX personnel regarding the reconciliation: beautiful if it happens, but we will not change. The rather open tones used in this interview (most certainly with the approval of Bishop Fellay) make it very clear not much will change within the SSPX should this reconciliation happen.

I looked at this brave people of God and realised – like, I am sure, many of you – I would rather have the SPPX not reconciled, than reconciled and muzzled or in any way whatsoever “sanitised”.

Mundabor

SSPX Clearly Closing Ranks

The Big Day can’t be far now…

If you visit Rorate Caeli (which, I am rather sure, you do) you will see there a close succession of interventions from Superiors of several districts of the SSPX. All of them are clearly supportive of the reconciliation. At this point I see the matter as follows:

1) Today is the 18 May and one months after Fellay’s response was given to the Vatican there are no open calls to rebellion to the official line of the Society. Not even Bishop Williamson is officially on record with a single word inviting to or even hinting at such a measure.  I tend to believe if such had been Williamson’s intention, the most effective and spectacular way of doing it would have been with an open challenge to the decision. It did not happen.

2) One after the other, the regional big whigs within the Society speak openly, and they all approve the move, provided it is done properly. Which it will, because Fellay was not born yesterday.

3) Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is on record with an open call to obedience and he is, crucially, one of those who signed the letter unfortunately leaked to the press.

4) I have no news of any group more or less spontaneously forming around the one or other rebel, and announcing the intention to give battle and split the Society.

Mind, I do not doubt there will be defections. If even the three Bishops clearly think Rome is not good enough for them to consider fitting to take its stretched hand, I do not doubt there will be a certain number within the Society willing to go further than this; particularly, when they have poisoned their own congregation for years with talks of the wickedness of Rome.

Still, the procession of SSPX notables and the absence of an open and credible challenge up to now justifies in my eyes the opinion that those who will secede will be a minority, and probably a minority who should not have been part of the SSPX in the first place.

Mundabor

SSPX-CDF: Journey Into The Vatican Corridors

Cardinal Schoenborn will be called to judge the SSPX’ orthodoxy.No, I am NOT joking…

On the usual Rorate Caeli, the translation of a rather saucy leak from the Vatican corridors: the Pope had the text of the SSPX’ reply to the Preambolo Dottrinale beforehand, and did not raise any objections.

This has been largely anticipated, and in fact it would have been rather inconceivable, and against the most elementary rules of prudence, that Bishop Fellay would give his official answer without having received unofficial confirmation that the Pontiff had given his green light. In the end, and if we are honest with ourselves, we know perfectly well a theologian Pontiff does not need the CDF – composed in part of individuals like Schoenborn – to know whether the answer his acceptable. Still, the fact itself the matter was leaked makes it rather intriguing.

Why then, will you ask, the three weeks of waiting to examine the document, and then the big meeting, and the big decision everyone knows has already been taken?

If you ask me, this is nothing to do with the Pope wanting to know what the CDF thinks on the matter, but about the Pope forcing the CDF to toe the line on the reconciliation.  The CDF is expected to say what they think beforehand, but they also clearly know what they are expected to say. If they criticise the SSPX’s answer, they will be silenced by the Pontiff and exposed as irretrievable tambourine-men. If they approve, they’ll have to shut up afterwards.

All in all, it could be this procedure isn’t all bad after all…

Mundabor

Bishop Fellay And CNS: The Video

This is the video released by the CNS following the interview, on which I had already commented.

First of all, please note the video has the same original sin of the interview: cut and put together with a certain intent, adorned with suggestive music and historical footage and, in general, more similar to a bad documentary rather than an interview.

Still, it clearly emerges Bishop Fellay is perfectly orthodox in his theology, albeit not without the solid practical spirit every Southern European Catholic carries with himself.

The part about the Vatican II, whose problems should be “rather” in the application has been cut – clear indication Fellay’s words have been not correctly transmitted – but Fellay stresses an important concept: V II is in itself far more conservative than its adorers would want us to believe (religious freedom: 1:36 to 2:02) albeit rather diplomatic in his criticism of it.  As to V II in itself, Fellay has very strong words (try 0:42 to 0:50), conveniently ignored in the interview.

In general, though, one can’t say he is – at least from what we have been shown – very belligerent. Which is fine, as there is a time for everything under the heaven, and it was probably not the right time to say the Church is ill  a planta pedis usque ad verticem capitis. Although, thinking of it, it might have said something similar, which was subsequently cut because it did not agree with the general tone the interview was supposed to have.

On a more personal note, from the interview emerges a man with very good, and very piercing eyes; with a marked sense of humour; and a with a fundamental serenity, and love for the Church, appearing from his every word.

In the next weeks and month, Bishop Fellay will be slandered and misinterpreted from both sides – right and left of him – in the most various ways. Please consider what he says before what other people say that he has said.

Mundabor

Bishop Fellay And The Chalice

Make no mistake, this is nobody’s fool: Bishop Fellay.

 

Interesting blog post from Richard Collins at Linen on The Hedgerow. The more interesting, because this is an episode lived directly by the author.

From this short but telling episode it appears Bishop Fellay is not only an extremely orthodox man, but also a very attentive, inquisitive mind, not prone to superficiality in what might be seen as, in a way, less important things. I liked the character emerging from the story through and through.

By reading the beautiful blog post you will, I am sure, also gain the impression the SSPX is in very good hands, and this is the last person who would sell it out, or wilfully harm it, or be cajoled into some dangerous compromise.

Enjoy.

Mundabor

Bishop Fellay, Vatican II, CNS.

Careful with the journalists….

Bishop Fellay spoke with a journalist of the Catholcs News Society, and what resulted is the article you read here. I am not overly fond of this kind of interview, because it seems to me that it can be easily adapted to let the interviewed say what the interviewer wanted him to say. If I want to give a certain “cut” to an interview, I will always be able to let my man talk and then pick and choose what best matches the idea I want to convey.

As a result, the idea which emerges from this interview is a Bishop much different from the Fellay we know (and love), rather resembling one of the many anodyne bishops the CNS interviews all the time. Again, I do not think he has been wilfully manipulated, but rather that the interview was made with a certain idea in mind, and the ready product ended up reflecting that idea.

The questionable part is, of course, the one regarding Vatican II.  Please read this words:

Although he stopped short of endorsing Pope Benedict’s interpretation of Vatican II as essentially in continuity with the church’s tradition — a position which many in the society have vocally disputed — Bishop Fellay spoke about the idea in strikingly sympathetic terms.

“I would hope so,” he said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition.

Now, the literal meaning of the words is that:

1) Bishop Fellay would hope V II is in continuity with Catholic tradition; but

2) alas, he does not think so, because he does not endorse the Pope’s interpretation of it being in continuity.

The facts of the SSPX position are still there, but they twisted and turned in such a way as to make Fellay much more doveish than he is.

One is tempted to think Bishop Fellay did not really mince words on this, because the author himself (I think it is fair to say so) must admit Bishop Fellay told him the SSPX will continue to say things as they are concerning Vatican II. Only, this becomes that he bishop “allows for the possibility”. Of course he does: if one asks the bishop “do you allow for the possibility that…” what is the poor chap supposed to answer: “I am certain the Pope will continue to deserve my criticism?”. Not even I would be so ungracious; not in my worst day. Therefore, Bishop Fellay clearly indicates the SSPX will continue to do its job, and the message is completely downplayed. 

It goes on:

“The pope says that … the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely,”

Of course we do. Of course every Catholic does. Who would ever expect an SSPX bishop say that the V II documents must be read in a progressive way? V II is purely wrong, it is not the Antichrist. Archbishop Lefebvre criticised the V II documents, but he did sign them. He never said the V II must be understood in a way not conform to Catholic tradition; the problem is exactly that when you do so, you discover how mediocre they are, willingly unclear, pandering to the fashion of the day, and in odour of heresy. But this does not mean they must not be understood in accordance with Tradition.   

The next one is the most insidious paragraph:

“The problem might be in the application, that is: is what happens really in coherence or in harmony with tradition?”

Give me a break: the poor chap has just gone through the pain of making very clear his position is not the Vatican’s one, and he does not think there is continuity, and now it is suggested he would see the problem merely in the application? How does this square with what the Bishop has just said?

The entire interview is construed in this way: of course Bishop Fellay does not want to be “provocative”; when the SSPX speak, it is merely because they are provoked (Assisi III, say). They never were obnoxious for the sake of bickering, it is truly not their style. But you notice the tone, meant to convey an idea of a Bishop Fellay so near to Vatican II, the reader should not bother to really measure the distance.

I hope this interview does not cause (more) disharmony within the SSPX, and if it does I hope Bishop Fellay requests and publishes the entire text. There are enough problems within the SSPX to allow well-intentioned, but poorly executed propaganda work to add additional ones. This is delicate, and I do not think any one who tries to invent a SSPX made of “friend of Vatican II” is making any service to truth, to the cause of the reconciliation, or to the SSPX itself.

Mundabor

SSPX: General Council Is Completely Right On The Reconciliation

Spot the one who is right…

If I were inclined to see conspiracies everywhere, I would say that this is an attempt of the former Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, to split the SSPX in the middle.

The fact is, I am entirely convinced this is not the case. I have read today with sadness the letter sent in April to the three (alas, all three of them) dissenting bishops. The tones of the letter are, I am afraid, harsh enough to let it appear improbable there is space for a “reconciliation about the reconciliation”. As it stands, I think some form of split appears rather probable.

Still, I think the Holy Father was right in proposing the reconciliation on the terms proposed, and was moved by a sincere desire to put an end to the controversy. As to the reaction of the three bishops, I can’t understand the attitude of not wanting to accept a gift because the giver is supposed to be not good enough; particularly when the giver is the Pontiff, and the gift is big. 

I have read (though I should not have ) the leaked letter of the three bishops, and everyone can read on Rorate the General Council’s answer. The letter is so full of sane orthodoxy and practical common sense, that I wonder at what type of person has been running along the corridors of the SSPX houses for now many years.

I will not publish any excerpt from the leaked letter. Let us see the most important points of Fellay’s reasoning:

 To read your letter, one seriously wonders if you still believe that the visible Church whose seat is at Rome is indeed the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Church horribly disfigured, to be sure, a planta pedis usque ad verticem capitis, but a Church that in spite of all still has as its head Our Lord Jesus Christ. One gets the impression that you have been so scandalized that you no longer accept that it can still be the true Church. For you, it would seem to be a question whether Benedict XVI is still the legitimate pope. And if he is, there is a question as to whether Jesus Christ can still speak through him.

The reasoning informing the letter of the three bishops is, in a word, the main reason why I was always afraid to attend Mass in a SSPX chapel: the uncomfortable feeling of knowing more than some (perhaps many) around me consider the Pope almost the Antichrist, others are Sedevacantists, other still morbidly grumpy about everything in Rome.

But Bishop Fellay is right. The Church is undoubtedly ill – a planta pedis usque ad verticem capitis, as he beautifully says -, but ill as the Church is, she is still the Church, and whilst it may be absolutely necessary to disobey to the Pope when the Pope wants to impose to the faithful a behaviour in contrast with Catholic faith and morals, a Catholic is not allowed to refuse the Pope’s stretched hand merely because he doesn’t like  his policies.

I have made very often the comparison of the SSPX and the Vatican with the dutiful son who refuses to obey his drunken father when the latter orders the former to buy alcohol for him. But this is different: the attitude of the three bishops is the same of the son who refuses the embrace of his father, because the latter is not entirely sober yet.

A loving son will in this case embrace his father, gratefully and lovingly so, and will continue the work towards his father’s complete recovery from drunkenness.

Let us see another argument:

If the pope expresses a legitimate will concerning us which is good and which does not order anything contrary to the commandments of God, have we the right to neglect or to dismiss this will? Otherwise, on what principle do you base your actions?

This is, I think, the most enlightening passage: there’s simply nothing seriously wrong with the offer. Yes of course an Ordinariate would have been preferable to a personal prelature, but I can’t see in this the reason of the three bishops’ dissent. It is not that. It is that they refuse the reconciliation purely because of the person it comes from, and the – alas, still partially V II-inebriated – Church he represents. I find this simply inconceivable. This is not even pathological grumpiness; this is outright Sedevacantism. 

Within the Society, some are making the conciliar errors into super heresies, absolute evil, worse than anything, in the same way that the liberals have dogmatized this pastoral council.

Another pearl. The three bishops have so much criticised V II, that they simply forget the Church of Christ existing before, during and after it. This is like denying the existence of the sky behind the clouds, because it has been grey and cloudy for so long. 

In itself, the solution of the proposed personal prelature is not a trap.

Firstly, this is a practical criticism, which is different from the fundamental problem – Rome being “not Catholic enough” for their liking – expressed by the three bishops. Secondly and examining the criticism itself, I cannot imagine, not by a long stretch, the SSPX being slowly strangled by an army of – basically, dying – liberal bishops. One must trust the simple fact that an organisation which had the guts of doing the right thing for so many years will not have any hesitation in disobeying again if they notice Rome is planning a mortal embrace. The reasoning of the bishops is in my eyes so naive as to think the character and nature of the SSPX would be fatally undermined just because they are not in the waiting room anymore. But wait: the SSPX has been in full communion for many years already! They do not need to be in “imperfect communion”! This is not what Archbishop Lefebvre wanted it to be! Neither the doctor nor Archbishop Lefebvre have ever prescribed the SSPX never to be in full communion until every little trace of V II has been annihilated! In fact, the SSPX was in full communion during several years of the worst V II madness!  

More practically, Fellay & Co. seem to me perfectly sound: there are already enough allied bishops to make place for whatever expansion the SSPX may desire; control over seminaries and organisation is maintained; practically, I want to see which bishop will dare to ask them to move an existing chapel out of his diocese, and which Pope will side with the bishop when the SSPX invariably refuses.

An organisation which maintains its leadership,  its seminaries and its character will always be able to react to murderous attempts in future, as it has been in the past. I really can’t see what is to be feared there.

I rather see Bishop Fellay made a Cardinal and one day, perhaps, Pope.

We will see how this pans out. I am afraid this won’t be pleasant. But unpleasant as it is, it is probably salutary and necessary, because at this point it is necessary that those who were disobedient for love of the Church are separated from those who were disobedient because they think they are the Church.

Mundabor

The Thing With The Guts

Around the Catholic blogosphere there is a lot of writing about orthodoxy, and rightly so. Orthodoxy being at the very core of Catholicism, it is perfectly fitting that it should receive the first place in the discussion.

Still, I seem to notice that not every orthodoxy is born equal; that, so to speak, this beautiful quality may be found in a shiny, resplendent way, or in a more opaque one.

In my eyes there are, broadly speaking, two types of orthodox Catholics: the silent and the vocal one.

The first one does everything right; if he is a priest, he can be very conservative in his priesthood, and liturgically unexceptionable; if he is a layman, he is a credit to his religion, and at all times aware of the example he wants to be for others. He is, in a word, perfectly sound, but that’s that.

Then there is the second type, the vocal one. If he is a priest, he is one of those priest who can’t shut up, or one of those bishops who end up in the viewfinder of the IRS; if he is a layman, he is the one likely to take fire every time heresy and negation of Christianity is discussed among his circle of friends or acquaintances.

I do not make any observation here as to the personal quality of the two archetypal “orthodox catholics”; for what I know, it can be those of the first kind are, on average, better able to live a Catholic life than the representatives of the second kind. But the fact remains, the second ones probably do more to advance sound Catholicism among the masses.

I am, for example, rather impressed by the difference in public behaviour between the Society of St. Pius X and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. I do not doubt the members of the second order are perfectly orthodox Catholics, strictly obedient to the Magisterium and intent on advancing the cause of Catholicism through spotless orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Still, I notice it is rare that priests of this order are in the line of fire when something really controversial happens (like the Assisi gathering, say) and whatever the position of the one or the other of their members might be, their collective profile is far more subdued than the one of the SSPX.

The latter are, as religious orders go, a completely different animal. They do not limit themselves to talking the talk, or to walking the walk. They go beyond these very laudable traits, in that they fight the fight. You see this not only in matters concerning internal disagreements with the Vatican (disagreements on which it is to assume the members of the FSSP must often be of exactly the same mind as their cousins at the SSPX; they just don’t say so), but matters of faith and morals in general. As every blog writer, I roam the internet seeking proper events and news which might make a blog post an interesting and possibly instructive reading, and I must say the presence of the SSPX whenever controversial matters are discussed is far more noticeable than the always unexceptionable, but rather less incisive FSSP. I cannot avoid thinking those members who left the SSPX to join the newly created FSSP knew from the beginning this would be the case, and were happy to proceed on this basis.

I do not think much will change after the Vatican-SSPX reconciliation. I expect the SSPX will proceed to some small adjustment in volume, but without any change in the tone. If you ask me, they will continue pretty much the same battle they have fought up to now, limiting themselves to only those small adaptations dictated by elementary common sense and proper behaviour.

They will do this also because they will be subject to intense scrutiny from their own members, of course. But in the end, I think they will continue to do it simply because they have guts, and see their role in fighting the fight.

Mundabor

Merci, Monseigneur…

The SSPX, The Pope, And The Legend Of The Wolves

Never seen them around the Vatican.

I have often noticed how a certain kind of Catholic tends to think we have two Popes. They do not do it only with the present one, but with every one. Certainly, though, this is particularly evident with the current Pontiff.

The first Pope they have is a smart, cunning man. His intellect vastly surpasses the one of the common mortals. If he isn’t an outright genius, he very much resembles one. Whatever he does, must be the expression of this uber-fine intellect. Even when it seems he has made a mistake – say, Assisi gathering; or caving in to the “trendies” in the Wagner affair; or not acting for months in the Austrian matter – they will assure you it might seem something went wrong, but in reality some extremely far-looking plan, whose long-term wisdom we cannot even fathom, is being actuated. You have no idea, they will tell you. He is sooo smart.

More often than not, the very same people think they have a second Pope. This one is the complete opposite of the first. He is frail, and rather naive. Wolves circle around him without pause like he lives in a Jack London’s novel; the reasons for this no one cares to explain, considering not one of the supposed wolves is there by coincidence, but all of them are there because they are wanted just where they are, by the very Pope. This second Pope doesn’t seem very smart. He doesn’t know what happens in the world outside, and only relies on the wolves to tell him what’s up. He seems to not even have an internet connection. He speaks several languages, but newspapers don’t make it into his office. He is lied to, manipulated, made a puppet of.

I’ll tell you what I think. I think this Pope is smart, and knows what he’s doing. He has around him the people he wants to have around him. If his aides are the right ones, than the merit is his, because he is the one who chose them; if they are the wrong ones, then he is responsible for this, for the very same reason.

I think this Pope is nobody’s fool, and a vast improvement on his predecessor; but I’ll tell you very frankly he is no hero of mine. I think the weak choices he makes are, all of them, conscious choices, made in the full knowledge of their consequences. I think so, because I think he’s smart, and I think I only have one Pope.

I think this Pope has decided from the start his pontificate would have one foot on the gas, and another on the brakes. When he decided to issue Summorum Pontificum, he knew his bishops would have boycotted it, and he knew he would have allowed them to get away with it. He wanted to do the right things, but without much energy, lest it causes too many problems. So he did a lot of things right, and to balance that he did a lot of things wrong. Bishop Bonny, about whom I have written yesterday, is one of his (many) wrong, or catastrophic, appointments or promotions. The number of heretical or extremely questionable bishops appointed, or promoted, by him is vast (scour the bowels of this blog, and you’ll see what I mean). He is the man who installed Nichols in Westminster. Schoenborn is a protege’ of his. His German bishops go around frolicking untouched. I won’t insult his – and your – intelligence by telling you he didn’t know his trendy bishops and cardinals would behave that way. Of course he knew. He knew, because he isn’t stupid. And he knew, because he does not remove them.

Now we are at the two Popes again. The smart, forward-looking Pope who decides to seal the reconciliation with the SSPX is (again) at the same time an old, frail man who in the next weeks will be surrounded by wolves (chosen by him; all of them, bar none) trying to let him do… what exactly? Say it was all a misunderstanding?

Please, let us abandon the legend of the wolves. The man knows what he does, and knows what the consequences of his actions are. He has clearly made his decision, and we must trust him he will follow through with it, in his own time. He will be the one who delights us if things go as they should, and who disappoints us if they don’t (improbable, anyway).

He is responsible, because he is in charge; and he knows that.

Mundabor