www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Excommunication of SSPX Bishops are lifted

Actually, I do blame him. In any delicate negotiations, language is a big deal; and a lot of the progress comes from understanding terms with new degrees of nuance and understanding.

So, it's one thing to allow the "subsist" language to stay on the books.

It's quite another thing to reassert that publicly. It pretty much signals that the Catholic Church (under Benedict XVI) is unwilling to look beyond the literal meaning of that word to find possible common ground with other churches. Instead, it signals that "subsist" is a non-negotiable point. The problem, of course, is that is the point of negotiation.

Francis, with all due respect, if that was the point that Benedict XVI was trying to make, he has totally botched the job.

I say that because everyone is interpreting this lifting of the excommunication of the SSPX as a tacit endorsement of the views of the SSPX and its members.

One of the SSPX bishops denies the extent of the Holocaust and is therefore likely to be anti-Semitic. So, now it seems that the pope either agrees with that or doesn't really care about that. And that, in turn, outrages the Jews and anyone who values civil liberties.

But it doesn't stop there.

The SSPX regard the Orthodox Church as heretics. By approving the SSPX to be in communion, the pope seems to agree with that opinion too. And that isn't going to make relations any easier or better between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church.

It's not just this decision. There were some of his previous remarks as well.

All in all, I fear that this pope really does not care about ecumenism. Instead, it appears that he wants to reintroduce some kind of pre-Vatican II mindset of the Catholic Church going it alone and not trying to get along with other religions. Unfortunately, he is alienating a lot of non-Catholics from the Catholic Church, and he is causing discord within the Catholic Church.

-- John

John,

I understand your interpretation; but I think it doesn't address the totality of the situation.

You repeatedly state that this pope "does not care about ecumenism." However, I think it is more true that he does not care about the type of ecumenism that you seem to advocate. From Benedict's many writings through the years, it is clear that he is very concerned about ecumenism, and sees it as an important task of the Church. But he is not like Pope John Paul II, who believed in the importance of symbolic gestures to further unity. These are important, but at some point we must move from symbolism to concrete actions. For example, the statement which clarified the meaning of "subsists" was a positive ecumenical step. That term has been debated within the Church since Vatican II, and thus non-Catholic Christians could easily be confused as to the Catholic belief. By clarifying the meaning, the Church has brought light to the issue, which is necessary for proper ecumenical talks. The attitude is not "Hey, we are the true Church, so accept it or else!" (which is what you might think if you read the media reports only on this issue), but instead "This is what we believe is the truth regarding the relationship between 'Christ's Church' and the 'Catholic Church'". True ecumenism begins with a full and complete understanding of one's own beliefs, then a full and complete understanding of other's beliefs. Only then can dialogue be productive. Ignoring the "hard issues" does nothing to advance the cause of Christian unity.

Regarding the actions of the SSPX, you seem to think the bishop's anti-semitism and some statements about the "heresy" of the Orthodox by SSPXers is the whole story. That is painting an unfair brush against the whole of SSPX (of which I'm no fan, I'll be honest). By this action, the pope is clearly trying to separate the members of SSPX into those who sincerely wish reunion with Rome and those who really do not. Those who are sincere in their desire to reunite with Rome will be helped by this action - which is objectively a good thing. Those who could care less about reunion with Rome (which I think includes Bishop Williamson) will refuse any attempts at reunion and will eventually be left behind.

Is the pope's move a risk? Surely. But it is a risk that is based on a desire for Christian Unity. I'd rather have a few more kooks like Bishop Williamson in the Church than have thousands of sincere Christians outside. Benedict's efforts might fail, but I for one applaud him for trying.

Francis, well said!

Let us be clear that "negotiations" are not a goal in themselves, and that there can be no compromise about the truth.

As I understand it, the aim of true ecumenism is not to arrive at the lowest common denominator or to paper over real doctrinal and theological difference. Rather, it is to eliminate misunderstandings that are obstacles to unity, and to promote a true conversion of hearts.

If the lifting of the excommunications can contribute to this kind of true ecumenism, then well and good. If not, the SSPX will remain separated from the Catholic Church and their Bishops and priests suspended from exercising their ministry.

Hi,

Two thoughts:

This latest development shows in no uncertain terms that, with a little patience, if you whine long and loud enough, you will get what you want. Even from the Catholic Church.

This lifting of excommunications might expose a deeper problem with the SSPX: Now that they don't have the Canonical issue to hide behind and will now be "forced" to talk doctrine, we might find out that they are not schismatics, in fact, but heretics and that the differences about liturgy were just excuses.

We'll have to wait and see.

Shalom,
Memo

Very true! Remember that over the years, there have been various groups who have left the Lefebvrists and returned to the Catholic Church. For instance, the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre led some of his followers to break away that same summer of 1988 and form the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter [en.wikipedia.org] in full communion with the Catholic Church. In recent years, we have seen the Brazilian ultra-traditionalists of Campos returning to the Church as the Personal Apostolic Administration of St. John Mary Vianney [en.wikipedia.org]. We should hope and pray that the lifting of the excommunications will lead the better part of the SSPX back to the Church, leaving behind only a small group of people who never cared about the truth or Catholic unity in the first place.

No it's not. Who says? Infallible You? Give me a break.

As far as this Pope not caring about ecumenism, I couldn't disagree more. It seems, perhaps, that he doesn't care for false ecumenism...and thank God for that! He is exhibiting true charity. I think he values true ecumenism, for why else would he lift the excommunications?

To all those who think that the Pope should cast away any chance of actually healing a rift in the Church in order to not even chance at a highly improbable reunion with the Orthodox, who are as unlikely to change their beliefs as we are unlikely to change ours, I can only say that I disagree very much.

Souls are at stake. When the chance comes to unite hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, with regularization in the Church, I think the most uncharitable thing would be to set that aside in favor of not hurting the feelings of non-Catholics.

I think some people are upset because, in the confusion of the last 40 years, they came to think that the Church was just going to put aside all of her "offensive" dogma in order to achieve reunion with non-Catholics. Although many of us knew this to be impossible from the beginning, I think the realization for some people now is simply distressing. But that's their fault, and the fault of those who wished to sew confusion and deceit these last few decades, not the Church's, or Pope Benedict XVI's.

Alexis

As to the SSPX being heretics, what heretical notions do they espouse? They seem to believe (doctrinally) nothing except the constant Teaching of the Church.

But you're right, Memo: if they do not, then it will come to light soon enough.

Alexis

Just to clarify, the Levebvrist/FSSPX teaching identifies the Church founded by Jesus Christ as the Roman Catholic Church, not the Catholic Church. So the problem is more than just the term, "subsist."

John(harmon),

He has removed their excommunications but not resumed communion with them. That is a pretty big difference. I think he has, in fact, given them just enough rope to hang themselves with.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I'm sure some are salivating at that very prospect!

Alexis

As an Orthodox Christian looking on, I don't really have an issue with the SSPX'ers, as it were. At least I can understand where they are coming from. As regards to Pope Benedict, I find his reasoning much easier to follow than his predecessor, i.e., This is what we are, and this is what we believe. Take it or leave it. Such candidacy is refreshing in ecumenical dialogues, as opposed to those who try to mask what they really mean behind ambiguous words, intended to convey warm fuzzy sentiment as opposed to constructive dialogue. As the Orthodox Church prepares to elect a new Patriarch, the choice will be between one who is a "warm fuzzier" and 2 who are much like Pope Benedict, i.e., this is what we are and this is what we believe. Take it or not. Which is why I support the latter. Then ecumenical dialogue will be much more honest.

Alexandr

While I tend to agree with you in terms of favoring the theology of Pope Benedict over Pope John Paul II especially as it pertains to the new Pope's clarity of expression, I think your characterization of the Servant of God's theology and views is more of a mean-spirited caricature than an authentic portrayal of his teachings.

That it does not speak to you personally (or theologically) would be a valid position. I also agree that there is great benefit to ensuring greater clarity in expressing points of disagreement. But to ascribe deceptive motives to him is fundamentally uncharitable.

Slavipodvizhnik,

I once discussed "inter-communion" with a (presumably) well-meaning Lutheran woman who had been involved in ecumenism for many years. I explained to her that as a Catholic I could not receive communion from the Lutherans, nor should the Lutherans present themselves for Communion in the Catholic Church. To which she replied that "I can see you are a good Catholic", with a smirk.

I am amazed that someone can spend years on "ecumenical dialogue" and still not bother to try to understand the views of the other side. Unfortunately, I fear that "ecumenical dialogue" sometimes takes place between people who are much too afraid of offending each other by actually saying what they mean. And even worse than that would be "ecumenical dialogue" between people who don't really believe in the teachings of their own Churches or communities.

Based on this, I much prefer ecumenical dialogue between genuine representatives of each Church or community who are willing to say what they believe in. But I am not so sure about the "take it or leave it" attitude. I think one should be willing to explore the possibility that their may be genuine misunderstandings, based perhaps on differences in language and terminology. After all, there may be many areas in which the Orthodox and the Catholics believe the same thing about the mysteries of faith, but they may emphasize different aspects of the mysteries.

Personally, I believe that if one is willing to follow this path, we will eventually and after much hard work (and with not a little humility and prayer) discover that there are no substantive theological or doctrinal differences between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. I may be wrong, but that is my belief.

* * *

As for the Lefebvrists, in my less than humble opinion I believe many of their pronouncements show a great deal of self-importance.

Re: "the Levebvrist/FSSPX teaching identifies the Church founded by Jesus Christ as the Roman Catholic Church, not the Catholic Church."
I have not seen this in their documents. Please give a reference/quote.

Here is what I think they focus on:
Pius XII in Mystici Corporus Christi - 1943, said (in section 12):
[quote]If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ -- which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church ...[/quote]
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MYSTI.HTM

The footnote refers to the Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith (Chapter 1) of Vatican I (which of course was signed by many bishops of Eastern rites)
[quote]The holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman church believes ...[/quote]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

This old teaching seems to be saying there is a Roman aspect to the true Church (for examply unity with the bishop of Rome). This is not the same as saying the Church is only the Roman Catholic Church.