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

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.