The Pope revokes the sentence of excommunication upon the Lefebvrists

[fpb]

I am horrified. Of all the unwelcome, untimely, ill-conceived, unnecessary, insulting and disastrous measures Pope Benedict could have taken, this is the worst. On the very week that the most anti-Catholic and pro-abortion President has taken office in Washington DC, the Pope seems to indicate that open flirtations with Le Pen and Pinochet, notorious sympathies for Petain, open Jew-bashing of the vilest sort, are no obstacle to reconciliation with Rome. Thos of us who try to fight on a principled opposition to abortion and murder in all its forms have now had a ton of banana oil poured under our feet; any opponent of Catholic teaching will be able to raise the ugly spectre of Marcel "Marechal a nous!" Lefebvre, and the horrible living presence of Richard Williamson, whose moral and intellectual sins go even beyond his obscene denial of the Holocaust and belief in the Protocols. And what about Catholic leadership among Christians? For the last few decades, the mere force of events had driven many Christian bodies closer together, to discover that they shared so much of morality and belief, and against that dictatorship of relativism against which the Pope himself spoke such memorable words. And now, for the sake of a few hundred thousand obstinate, wilful and often bizarre schismatics, who never did anything on their own to earn or even encourage reunion, and who positively insulted the last two Popes, all this common ground, all this real and verifiable growth together, is endangered; because most Christians will see the Lefebvrists for what they are. Just because Richard Williamson is such an ugly caricature of the worst sort of traditionalists, real conservatives, let alone middle and liberals, will want nothing to do with him. How many Protestants and Anglicans in search of a decent Christian centre away from the various heresies and schisms of their own confessions will have seen this as confirmation that everything they had been told about Rome was in fact true? I am willing to bet that the conversion of adults will slow down considerably. And what about the Church itself? This act has been taken as much on the Pope's own decision as the famous Motu Proprio that sought to reinstate the Latin Mass. If the one can be described as reactionary, ill-advised, insensitive to Jew-bashing and admiration for tyrants, then so can the other. Far from strengthening the conservative side of the Church, the Pope has just delivered them a vial of poison. And at the same time, he has done nothing to please liberals, many of whom will read this to mean that one hard-right soul is more important to the Pope than one left-wing one, and either leave or reinforce even further their "inner schismatic" position. I will not leave the Church - I know how many like Williamson there are already; but many others may. There is absolutely no upside to this decision; every aspect of it is completely mistaken.

God help the Church. Mother of Victory, pray for us.

Comments

[lyssiae.livejournal.com]

I have to say, Dr. Peters at least cites sources, which you do not. He's also concise and uses paragraphs.

I'm not sure there's anything to suggest that the SSPX have held the views you accuse them of. You certainly don't provide anything to support your opinion. And you certainly seem to think you know better than the Holy Father. Where were you in 1988?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

In 1988, I was taking my second year of university here in London. That is beside the point, The nature of Lefebvre and his movement is a known matter. If you want to know what he was about, google "Lille sermon" or "Lille speech". To me, your questions are like someone asking what evidence I have that the BNP is Fascist.

[mentalguy.livejournal.com]

I hate to bring this up, but I don't think that will work. While I'd like to think my google-fu is fairly strong, after an hour or so I've not been able to locate the text of the Lille sermon, or really many details at all about it online (I am assuming it was the one given at Lille on August 29, 1976). Unlike a number of his other sermons from the same period, it does not appear to be reproduced anywhere that is easily accessible on the English-language web.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Which is significant in itself. Whatever you think of it, it was a historical sermon. Why should it not be accessible?

I'll try and come up with a few links, but I can't promise anything. I am extremely busy about now with a couple of major projects well behind time, and right now it is night in London and I feel sleepy.

[mentalguy.livejournal.com]

In case anyone reading this thread is wondering if the sermon was really so historical if it is so hard to find information about it, here is what traditionalist writer Michael Davies had to say about its importance -- this is from his 1976 article in The Remnant:

It would not be unreasonable to claim that the post-conciliar Church reached her moment of truth at Lille on Sunday 29 August 1976, at about 11:30 a.m. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre turned from the altar to address an immense congregation, possibly the largest congregation ever addressed by any priest during the course of his Mass. Those actually present certainly constituted the largest congregation assisting at any Mass in the world that day. There were seats for five thousand in the vast auditorium of the International Complex here at Lille. Every seat had been taken well before the Mass began and thousands more had crammed themselves into every available inch of space; at least eight or nine hundred had been unable to inch their way into the auditorium and hence were crammed into a long passage leading to the exit, outside of which stood many who could not even get a foot inside the door. There were at least seven thousand present here.

But on this Sunday, Mgr. Lefebvre was able to address himself to the world – television companies from many countries recorded the event, as did radio networks and reporters from innumerable journals. The number of reporters alone ran into hundreds....

The Mass at Lille on 29 August 1976 is certainly one of the most important and decisive events to take place within the Church since Vatican II. Indeed, it could be the most decisive event, as it provided the moment of truth which would enable Pope Paul to reverse the movement away from tradition...

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, you seem shocked that I should rebuke the Pope on a matter of policy. The number of saints who did so when they thought right is surely in triple figures. I myself wrote a letter of protest to John Paul II of blessed memory when the Church decided to support Pinochet at the time of his arrest: http://fpb.livejournal.com/221123.html. And in the end, Galatians 2.12. If Peter himself could be rebuked, and rightly so, for failings due to considerations of human policy, how much more his successors! I do not presume to leave the Church; I have no intention to lecture the Pope on the faith; but where a decision is made that strikes me as wrong and damaging, it is my duty, more than my right, to raise my voice so far as it can be heard.

[dustthouart.livejournal.com]

He's also concise and uses paragraphs.

Oh, low blow!

You can go onto the SSPX website, sspx.org, if you want their views from the horse's mouth. You will find it laid out there quite clearly, neatly and with plenty of paragraph breaks. Check out the FAQ question "Are the Jews guilty as a race of deicide" for starters. (SSPX sez: yes.)

Just because some liberal dissidents think they can utterly dismiss the Holy Father and personally attack him does NOT mean that all criticism of a pope's actions are sinful. I still love and honor Pope Benedict XVI, but it is my consideration that he is being extremely imprudent.

Then again, God can turn all things to good. Who will be unhappy if the lifting of the excommunications results in more souls going to heaven? I just think the result is likely to be the opposite.

I doubt whether she will read anything

[fpb.livejournal.com]

You see, the point is that some people simply do not want to be told that the SSPX stinks of Petainism and Jew-bashing. This would mean that there can be such a thing as bad Traditionalists, and that is of course unacceptable to certain sensibilities. It is the party spirit - which I cursed again and again; the thing that makes us stupid, blind and arrogant, that destroys our sense of proportion and criticism, and that associates us with evil. It is the spirit that has led Republicans to defend Cheney when he said that there was nothing bad about torture, and that led Catholics to vote for Obama even though everyone had been warned in advance about his views. Our people cannot possibly be bad, even when they are; their people cannot possibly be good, even when they are. Curses, and curses again, on the party spirit; I will never tire of damning it.

Re: I doubt whether she will read anything

[tibba.livejournal.com]

But I've nowhere said that the SSPX are the best thing evar, or that all Traditionalists are the bees' knees. In fact, the only direct (well, it was online) contact I've had with an SSPX priest was quite unpleasant: he was very forthright about how Catholics should infiltrated mosques and hide miraculous medals in them in an effort to convert them. Moreover, his tone wasn't so charming. But he didn't exhibit Jew-bashing tendencies and I've nothing, other than your rant, to suggest that he might.

I think my shock at your piece here is mainly because even on the "traditional" blogs (etc) I read, there has been a real mix of opinion to yesterday's news. From the wildly enthusiastic to the cautious. Even the most "liberal" of Catholics I know have been more "Uhhh, ok, I don't like the SSPX and they need to do lots of work now" than "Nothing good can come of this."

I suppose my question here is: why are you so absolutely certain that no good can come of this decision?

Re: I doubt whether she will read anything

[fpb.livejournal.com]

First, it has given the best ammunition to the anti-Catholic forces since the KGB started spreading the "Hitler's Pope" lies about Pius XII; and this while anti-Church forces are triumphant in the USA, most of Latin America, and much of Europe. Every newspaper in the world has spun the news as follows: "Pope forgives Holocaust denier", and nearly every newspaper has put it on the front page. Second, it has done and will do nothing to convince the Lefebvrites that there was anything wrong with rejecting a Universal Council of the Church, charging four Popes with heresy, and, in the case of their founder, denying the validity of his own signature at the bottom of the Vatican decrees. Third, if we re-admit the Lefebvrites as a body, they will come in with their own arrogance and self-importance intact; and this may help damn quite a few souls, if that is of any importance. Fourth, it will put off the moderate and liberal wings of the Church without doing anything for the Trads; in fact, it will damage the Trads, since people like me will from henceforth look not with less but with more suspicion on parishes with Latin masses, being afraid of finding a Lefebvrite presence there. Fifth, it will convince the left that a Trad soul matters more to the Pope than a Liberal one; there are left-wing as well as right-wing schism, such as Dignity in the USA, but no such courtesy has been extended to them. Sixth, it will raise the smouldering suspicion of the Church in Hebraic, secular and Protestant breasts; this is exactly the sort of thing that enemies of the Church suspect it of. Seventh, it will demolish the moral leadership that the Church had been establishing among Christian bodies; and eighth, it is sure to discourage Protestants and other Christians who seek a safe doctrinal and religious harbour but are brought up to fear authoritarianism and anti-democracy. Does that seem enough for you?

Incidentally, I have heard from people, including Catholics, who agree with me. I am not alone in this.

Re: I doubt whether she will read anything

[luckymarty.livejournal.com]

FWIW I, as a Catholic, am one of those who pretty much agrees with you. I hope your complaints are overstated but fear they probably are not.

Yes, I have two LJ accounts and I use them interchangeably.

[tibba.livejournal.com]

It was one of the points which struck me when I viewed the page *shrug*

I think fpb's statement: "There is absolutely no upside to this decision; every aspect of it is completely mistaken" sounds very much to me that he claims he knows better than the Pope on this matter. Hence why I asked him where he was in 1988. I was at school, myself. I think the Holy Father has a better background in the events. There is valid criticism, but common sense would demand that for criticism to be valid, it should be based upon relevant experience. I don't think fpb has that experience, unless he perhaps has had a personally very hurtful run-in with some SSPX folk - in which case this rant might be understandable.

God can use everything for good, even perhaps that which is intrinsically bad. But fpb seems to think this act is intrinsically bad ("There is absolutely no upside...."), and whilst Popes aren't necessarily the prefectestestest of people around, I believe Benedict XVI's actions here do indeed have an upside - both intended, and hopefully, unintended.

It's not unreasonable to ask for sources when someone makes a claim, and I'm happy that fpb at least provided a link to Dr. Peters' blog for comparison. I'd definitely appreciate actual direct links - at least then I can be sure that I'm reading what the other person actually wants me to read.

(As for the Deicide thing: I'm reminded of the line in the Gospel about "His blood be on us and on our children." I'm also aware that a Pope has declared that (despite that?) the Jews are not to be held responsible for the murder of Christ. Was that Papal decision infalliable? If not, then strictly speaking a difference of opinion - just like fpb's - would be permissable. It might not be sensible or reasonable, but would it be absolutely necessary to "deserve to be part of the Church"?)

Re: Yes, I have two LJ accounts and I use them interchangeably.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

To ask for evidence that the SSPX are Jew-bashers and fascists is like asking for evidence that the sea is salt. Visit their own websites, google them and see what they have said and published, find out what their founder thought about Petain, about Pinochet, about Videla, about Francisco Franco. I should not have to teach you about this. I have followed the career of Archbishop Lefebvre since 1978, not 1988. You are talking of what you do not know, and what is more, of what you do not want to learn about.

Re: Yes, I have two LJ accounts and I use them interchangeably.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

To deserve to be part of the Church, you need to not have gone out of your own will; to not have insulted and charged with heresy four successive Popes; to not have rejected the workings of an Ecumenical Council; to not have done that as adults, in recent year, of your own free choice; and finally to have given the slightest signal of contrition. These people have done absolutely nothing to show that they even begin to regret the schism they have carried out, the heresies they have taught, and the insults they have thrown at Popes and conciliar Fathers. The meanest club would not take back former members who had behaved in such a way.

Re: Yes, I have two LJ accounts and I use them interchangeably.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Oh, and funny how you seem to think that a Papal decision is not to be questioned when it amounts to lifting the condemnation on a schismatic sect, but may quite happily be questioned when it amounts to removing the charge of Deicide from the Jews. Place these two positions you have taken side by side, and they have a most unfortunate effect. Besides, you are grossly wrong: it is not "a Papal declaration", but the Conciliar constitution Nostra Aetate, ratified by Pope Paul VI. Which means that anyone who states that the Jewish nation/religious group as such is guilty of Deicide is in plain violation of the workings of an Ecumenical Council. I suggest you do a little thinking on the matter.