Benedict and the Lefebvrites

NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER ^ | 09-02-05 | JOHN L. ALLEN JR.

[jec1ny]

Rarely has a 35-minute audience, one that didn't even appear on the pope's official list of engagements, made as much of a splash as Benedict XVI's "private" Aug. 29 encounter with Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the Society of St. Pius X, the body founded in 1970 by French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

The "Lefebvrites," known for their adherence to the pre-Vatican II rite of the Mass, split with the Vatican in 1988 when Lefebvre ordained four bishops without the pope's permission.

Benedict has a personal history on this score. It was then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who, in 1988, was asked by John Paul II to oversee negotiations to avoid just such a schism. Ratzinger worked out a "protocol of agreement" with Lefebvre, promising to appoint a bishop to head the society, and requiring only that the Lefebvrites approach doctrinal disputes with "a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics."

[jec1ny]

Long article which does little more than review the history of the schism. I did not find any really useful insights into the future here. But Allen is a good reporter (despite who he works for). I post it for those interested.

[vox_freedom]

Typical tripe from Allen and the useless NCR. The bias just reeks from this same "insider" writer who didn't think Ratzinger would become Pope -- or was it that he didn't want him to become Pope?

[jec1ny]

Probably a little of both. But while I agree that NCR is a terrible publication, I do think Allen is a well informed journalist who has a lot of well placed sources in Rome. Expressing the opinion that Ratzinger would not be elected was hardly restricted to those who don't like him, and should not be regarded as proof of journalistic bias. I didn't think he had much of a chance either, though I prayed for his election. Allen may or may not be somewhat liberal, but I don't think he is a radical lib. And I do think he has done a reasonable job of keeping his prejudices out of his work.

[murphE]

but the [SSPX] are a genuine ecclesiological nightmare -- legitimately ordained bishops acting outside of communion with the pope, spawning an entire ecclesiastical structure that Rome is constrained to recognize but cannot control.

It sounds like Mr. Allen envies them.

[NYer]

From WITL blogspot ........ (Rocco Palmo is a communications director and Vatican analyst).

* * * * *

Word to the Continuing Econians....

Allen's up... I'm rifling through it, but this sticks out for now from Scmidberger, the #2 of the SSPX:

In the lead-up to the Aug. 29 encounter, Schmidberger said he met in Rome with five cardinals and other officials of the Roman Curia, including Colombian Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, head of the Ecclesia Dei Commission created in 1988 to meet the pastoral needs of Catholics attached to the old Mass. Those five cardinals, he said, included three currently in the Vatican and two who are retired. Aside from Castrillón Hoyos, he declined to name the cardinals involved. I could probably name the five....

Schmidberger told me that he believes reconciliation between Rome and the Lefebvrites "is a question of some years, rather than months."

Schmidberger said he was bothered by a Vatican statement after the meeting which spoke of moving towards full communion.

"We have always considered ourselves to be in full communion with Rome," he said. "Talk of restoring 'full communion' is psychological rather than theological."

That Vatican statement also spoke of moving forward by "degrees," so I asked Schmidberger what those degrees might be.

Schmidberger cited the two pre-conditions that have routinely been laid down by the Lefebvrites: the pope should acknowledge the right of any priest to celebrate the pre-Vatican II Mass, and the Vatican should stop referring to the "excommunications" of the four bishops consecrated by Lefebvre in 1988.

Hmmmm... "The Vatican should stop referring to the 'excommunications.'" Schismatics, give me a break.

Whatever happened to calling a spade a spade?

[dsc]

"Ratzinger worked out a "protocol of agreement" with Lefebvre, promising to appoint a bishop to head the society, and requiring only that"

The story I got was that somebody, and I don't know if it was Cardinal Ratzinger or not, attached a codicil that the Vatican would arbitrarily select that one bishop.

Try this scenario:

Lefebvre dies, and the Vatican appoints now-Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles to head SSPX.

That's like police negotiating in a hostage situation, and agreeing as part of the settlement that the criminal gets to keep his hostage.

[Mike Fieschko]

Long article which does little more than review the history of the schism.

Allen interviewed Fr Franz Schmidberger in the article, and that makes the article much more than a 'review [of] the history of the schism'. I haven't seen any other post-meeting interviews of the participants in English.

On Friday, Sept. 2, I spoke by phone with Fr. Franz Schmidberger, the current number two official in the Society of St. Pius X, and the man who did the preparatory work for the Aug. 29 meeting between Fellay and the pope. Schmidberger was Lefebvre's first successor as Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X.

It was Schmidberger who preached the homily at Lefebvre's April 1991 funeral in Ecône, Switzerland.

In the lead-up to the Aug. 29 encounter, Schmidberger said he met in Rome with five cardinals and other officials of the Roman Curia, including Colombian Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, head of the Ecclesia Dei Commission created in 1988 to meet the pastoral needs of Catholics attached to the old Mass. Those five cardinals, he said, included three currently in the Vatican and two who are retired. Aside from Castrillón Hoyos, he declined to name the cardinals involved.

There's more at Speaking with Fr. Franz Schmidberger and following that section.

[siunevada]

Try this scenario:

Lefebvre dies, and the Vatican appoints now-Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles to head SSPX.

That would make the Vatican just a little bit slow out of the box.

It was Schmidberger who preached the homily at Lefebvre's April 1991 funeral in Ecône, Switzerland.

[siunevada]

Long article which does little more than review the history of the schism.

Schmidberger and Allen did get some of the disagreements SSPX has with Vatican II stated in the interview.

Then, Schmidberger said, "We have to have serious conversations about the Second Vatican Council."

"There are many points we simply do not agree with," he said.

Schmidberger cited the council's ecumenical teaching, which he characterized as, "The Holy Ghost has used other denominations as means of salvation." This, Schmidberger said, is unacceptable.

He said the same point applies to the council's teaching on other religions.

Schmidberger also said the society "cannot accept" the council's teaching on religious liberty.

"This is not because it is our position, or because we want to puff ourselves up with glory, but because it is in contradiction with what other popes have said," Schmidberger said. "It is in contradiction, for example, with what Pius IX said in the encyclical Quanta Cura. I really don't see how these two things can be reconciled."

Issued in 1864, Quanta Cura was accompanied by Pius IX's famous Syllabus of Errors, in which religious liberty was denounced as "liberty of perdition."

Finally, Schmidberger pointed to the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes, which in paragraph 12 says that "all things on earth should be ordained to man as to their center and summit."

"We do not agree," Schmidberger said. "The center and summit must be God."

"These are very substantial points," he said. "It's not just a matter of working out a few minor things."

I asked Schmidberger if, in his view, these theological debates had to be resolved before the Lefebvrites could be reconciled with Rome.

"No, but we have to be able to express our reservations about the council," he said. "We must have this liberty. We must be able to criticize the council. … It's for the welfare of the church. There are profound wounds coming forth from this, and those wounds must be healed."

Hence, Schmidberger said, it's not that Rome must renounce chunks of Vatican II before "normalization" can occur. It's rather that, from the Lefebvrite point of view, a right to challenge the council's teaching must be guaranteed.

[Mike Fieschko]

The article you quote is at Word to the Continuing Econians.....

Hmmmm... "The Vatican should stop referring to the 'excommunications.'" Schismatics, give me a break.

Whatever happened to calling a spade a spade?

Rocco's so pastoral. He reminds me of people who bring up, years later, mistakes someone made, character defects and wrongs. Friends in AA call this, resentment: re-feeling the anger or other emotion. It ain't healthy, whether someone's an alcoholic or not.

Ironic that he quotes 'stop referring to the 'excommunications' and then throws the 'schismatics' term into the discussion. A major reason for the meeting was to heal the division in the Church: how to get to a better place. Rocco? He's mired in the past.

[AnAmericanMother]

Both sides are going to have to give a little.

My impression right now is that the SSPX is "making demands" a little too stridently. You can't get a rapprochement that way.

[dsc]

"That would make the Vatican just a little bit slow out of the box."

Mahoney was alive in 1991. . .presumably.

[Conservative til I die]

My impression right now is that the SSPX is "making demands" a little too stridently. You can't get a rapprochement that way.

Agreed. The SSPX, in its usual arrogance, seems to feel it is the Catholic Church which will have to get its house in order and reconcile itself back to the SSPX. Objectively speaking, the SSPX is a disobedient sect who has left the Church.

Both sides are going to have to give a little.

Unfortunately, the SSPX seems to think that the Catholic Church is going to overturn the Second Vatican Council. Not gonna happen. Not in a million years.

[Teófilo]

This is an excellent report. Thank you for posting it! Sure, Allen works for the National Catholic Distorter, but that can't be held against him.

I found this quote interesting:

Hence, Schmidberger said, it's not that Rome must renounce chunks of Vatican II before "normalization" can occur. It's rather that, from the Lefebvrite point of view, a right to challenge the council's teaching must be guaranteed.

.You know, there are people out there holding a beef against the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon. Should they be readmitted to the Church even though they are Nestorians and Apollinarians?

Puh-lease. The discipline of the Church should not be subverted with the excuse to save it. The answer to this SSPX demand should still be "no."

-Theo

[siunevada]

Mahoney was alive in 1991. . .presumably.

Well, physically anyway.

I took this scenario as a future hypothetical, since 'dies' implied to me that he is still alive at present:

Try this scenario: Lefebvre dies, and the Vatican appoints now-Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles to head SSPX.

[siunevada]

Both sides are going to have to give a little.

One side may have to 'give' a little more substantially.

Have a look at Gaudium et Spes 12 and see if you think it says what Schmidberger implies here:

Finally, Schmidberger pointed to the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes, which in paragraph 12 says that "all things on earth should be ordained to man as to their center and summit."

"We do not agree," Schmidberger said. "The center and summit must be God."

[AnAmericanMother]

Sounds like a wilful misunderstanding to me.

God is in heaven - Christ has ascended. I suppose they could be quibbling that He is in the Blessed Sacrament . . .

[B Knotts]

Many of the Nestorians have indeed come back into communion with Rome.

I would also remind everyone of this tidbit:

Card. Ratzinger's 1988 Remarks to the Bishops of Chile

"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.

Certainly, one cannot condone (unless one accepts the SSPX's defense of "necessity," which IMO is problematic at best) Apb. Lefebvre's illicit consecrations. But there is at least as much dissent from the actual teaching of Vatican II (and following encyclicals) among many of those who claim to embrace it as there is from the adherents to SSPX.

How many of the people who vehemently attack these efforts at reconciliation even fully accept Humanae Vitae?

I used to get frustrated with SSPXers, but lately some of the most unreasonable rants I've seen are from so-called orthodox Catholics (although Rocco seems to be more of a "liberal" Catholic).

[sitetest]

Dear B Knotts,

" How many of the people who vehemently attack these efforts at reconciliation even fully accept Humanae Vitae?"

At least here at FR, I know of no Catholics who oppose the reconciliation of the SSPX to the Catholic Church.

However, there are more than a couple of us who don't take well to the SSPX defining the actions required by Rome as preconditions to starting talks on healing the schism between the Catholic Church and the SSPX.

"I used to get frustrated with SSPXers, but lately some of the most unreasonable rants I've seen are from so-called orthodox Catholics..."

I haven't seen these. Perhaps you could point them out to me.


sitetest

[B Knotts]

I'm not talking about FReepers, generally. I have seen some real vitriol towards reconciliation with SSPX coming from Rocco lately on his blog, though.

Personally, I pray that SSPX can be reconciled, as they will be a great blessing to the Church.