As soon as I finish writing this posting, I will leave the subject I approached in the previous article. I note that faithful of the SSPX (cf. Le Forum Catholique and Rorate Caeli) are disappointed by the nomination of Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller of Regensburg as the new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This bishop is alleged not to be very orthodox about certain aspects of dogmatic theology and to be sympathetic to liberation theology.
More importantly, Bishop Müller has expressed his position in regard to the Society of St Pius X, that it should be dismantled, the clergy processed individually and for the four bishops to lay down their episcopate. Quite frankly, I could see this coming. For years, the SSPX has played cat and mouse with Rome, hoping to bring Pope Benedict XVI and his advisers into line with Archbishop Lefebvre’s refusal of the Vatican II teaching on religious freedom, ecumenism and the line in regard to the Jewish people exonerating them of guilt for the Passion of Christ.
I do believe the Pope did all he could by issuing Summorum Pontificum to lift all restrictions from the celebration of the pre-conciliar Roman liturgy, and lifting the excommunications from the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer – excommunication imposed for illicit episcopal consecrations – only to be gobsmacked a day or two later by Bishop Williamson speaking as he did to Swedish television on German territory on the subject of the Nazi concentration camps during World War II.
Since then, Bishops Tissier de Mallerais and Galaretta have expressed their opposition to the plan of bringing the SSPX into full communion with Rome, perhaps by compromising on religious liberty, ecumenism and the Jewish question. I now hardly see how Rome can accept them whole and entire!
There are many internal problems, and I have known the SSPX for more than thirty years – having been received by them in 1981 and having disassociated myself from them two years later without ever having been to any of their seminaries. I met many men in France, Switzerland and Germany who had been to their seminaries, been ordained by their bishops, and many of the tales they told in the 1980’s were the same. They were stories of sectarian abuse and totalitarianism insofar as such is possible on a “micro” scale.
Thus I have no drum to bang on their behalf, but all the same I think that things would have been better had they not been dealt with in such a heavy-handed way by Paul VI, the French bishops and the Germans in the 1970’s.
The SSPX now has a choice of going through with a dismantling operation and trusting men they have not trusted until now – or to say “Thanks but no thanks” and run the risk of many of their praying, paying and obeying faithful leaving them for something in union with the Holy Father. Turning to overt sedevacantism as they search to affirm a still-credible “foundational myth” would surely discredit them with many of their own, and fragmentation worse than what we have seen in the Continuing Anglican world would ensue. Can they afford the risk?
I usually refrain from commenting on Roman Catholic affairs, but it seems pretty obvious why the Pope has chosen Bishop Müller. As when he chose the then Archbishop Levada, he was concerned with the discrediting effect of priests who abused children by paedophile acts or excessive punishment. The scandal spread to Germany, and much of the rot was in the Pope’s own diocese – Regensburg.
There is another threat, Austria. That is a powder keg waiting to go off, and Bishop Müller is German-speaking, located near the Austrian border, and with considerable knowledge of deconstructionist and Marxist-based theories of Christian interpretation. How do you deal with large numbers of clergy and laity who want all the things that are monnaie courante in the American Episcopal Church under the present presiding bishop? Perhaps by going to meet them half-way… Another cause of the “progressive” discontent is the perceived extent to which Benedict XVI would go to meeting conservative Anglicans and the SSPX.
Between a rock and a hard place? Between Scylla and Charybdis?
At the same time, they must be aware how few people still go to church and the fact that the recent Vatileaks scandal is seen as some surreal and ridiculous game at the beginning of the twenty-first century.
They all bring it upon themselves!
* * *
Coda: Here is an opinion by Professor Luc Perrin of Strasbourg University, someone I esteem for his historical knowledge and analytical mind. From the Forum Catholique: en cuisine même à Rome rien n’est absurde – In the kitchen, even in Rome – nothing is absurd. My translation from French.
It is even very Italian and ultra-clerical: it’s called la combinazione.
In fact, the Pope replaces an American Levada by an identical copy in German version. In the recipe for the Curial minestrone, all sorts of ingredients are put into the pot, and you stir it and let it simmer gently over a low fire.
Sometime, that produces something tasty with various harmonised flavours, but sometimes, it gives an indigestible mixture of stews.
The arrival of Messrs Roche (Bugninist with a vengeance and anti-traditionalist), Paglia (Sant’Egido and inter-religious) then now Müller (neo-conservative not as liberal as some say exactly like Cardinal Levada but more openly hostile to traditionalists than him), all that indicates either a 180° about-turn of the Pontificate: Benedict XVI would be denying J. Ratzinger. Alternatively the Secretariat of State wants to engage in clerical politics, la combinazione to “balance” the return to full communion of the SSPX.
The choice of Archbishop di Noia for the re-created post of vice-president of the C.E.D. seems to be a screen between the SSPX and the new Prefect Bishop Müller, who otherwise could want to throw the bathwater away with the baby by his detesting the SSPX and the traditionalists in general.
Are this balancing trick of Benedict XVI and this unstable Curia a good omen to advance towards reconciliation or intended to make it fail? Each of us will judge and we will find out quickly enough.
The long interview of Archbishop di Noia shows he is full of good will, wanting to succeed, that the Pope still wants this outcome, but who seems to be discovering the case and the problems, and which he has perhaps not understood, and is reading about them and deepening his understanding.
(…)
Also see Fr Zuhlsdorf’s take – New Prefect at CDF: Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Bishop of Regensburg.
The Blue Flower 
This is all very tiresome for us at the antipodes, what with the local clergy’s insensitivity to all things traditional. We don’t even have a proper ‘rubrical’ motu mass. However, there is one thing that I fail to understand. That obsessive fear of antisemitism, equated to sin. But not only that. Hatred of any race, of any human being can barely be justified. More than blatant antisemitism, the fear of any trace, I say trace, of criticism of the jews. What is your problem in the West? Should the events of World War II continue to define not only political thought and discourse but theology as well? Now,do please understand me. I am not advocating pogroms and genocide. As I see it, the events of World War II, especially the ones affecting the jews, function as sacrosanct founding paradigms in both the fields of politics and religion. This is baffling. The worst legacy of christianity may well be historicism. That wedded to the notion of election. Which in turn is linked to revelation. Revelation being a token of election, and election being the token of a unique place in history, unique destiny. I fear I cannot suscribe to either the prevailing judeomania or -philia or the fashionable right wing antisemitism. This is so irrelevant.
That seems to be the drama of the Roman Curia, and most people just fall away.
“Thus I have no drum to bang on their behalf, but all the same I think that things would have been better had they not been dealt with in such a heavy-handed way by Paul VI, the French bishops and the Germans in the 1970′s.”
Well, yes, although the irony here is that the way they were dealt with was terribly Tridentine, and through and through the old rubrical hierarchicalism.
What can we say? For “neo-cons” like me, there is an enormous danger in reconciling the SSPX, since it at once legitimises bishops without even titular sees (an alarming prospect in itself), but would also involve having in the fold both acceptance and rejection of an ecumenical council. Which for us strictly Aristotelian (that is, binary logic-obsessed) Romans, presents a serious problem. And the SSPX’s obsession with Vatican II as a “pastoral” council simply doesn’t cut it by way of an argument. Ultimately, it is not a question of the infallibility of the Church but by whom that infallibility is expressed: an ecumenical council called and presided over by the Bishop of Rome? Or Archbishop Lefebvre?
Of course, if you really wish to upset a Lefebvrist, try and get an answer to whether they agree with Article XIX of the XXXIX Articles, or not.
Many thanks for your good reflection. The whole “thing” with the SSPX is that it is fraught with problems whichever way you turn, and it would seem to me that the only way for Rome to do anything is invite the clergy to join the Fraternity of Saint Peter or a diocese, and upgrade the Fraternity of Saint Peter to some kind of ordinariate with one or several bishops nominated by Rome. Then dismantle the SSPX telling them they can do what they want with their property, but they’re “not bringing it with them”.
They will have their Chapter next week, and will say “no” to Rome. And that will be that.
Of course, personally, I was brought up in the Church of England and am thus an estranged Anglican, and only incidentally and briefly a “guest” in the RC Church. Ironically, here in France, the French hierarchy has authorised the giving of the Sacraments to expatriate Anglicans (pukka Church of England) who are too far away from an Anglican Chaplaincy. Therefore, no need to “convert”. I have not availed of this arrangement – being in a church that is not in communion with Canterbury. Nevertheless, the Diocese of Blois allowed my wife and I the use of a parish church to have our wedding blessed by Archbishop Hepworth in May 2006. I am sure the Vicar General made the appropriate enquiries…
It is all reminiscent of card-shuffling, and I come to the conclusion that there are better and more interesting things to do in life.
Precisely, Father, ‘there are better and more interesting things to do in life’. I’ve come to the same conclusion as well. Cf. Ezra Pound’s Credo. I’m not far from sharing the sentiments he voices therein.
An excellent analysis Fr. Anthony. Yes, much better and more interesting things to do in life than shuffle the same old cards.
Yes, I’m biased and can’t stand the SSPX, but I can stand Vatican politics even less. I’m glad not to be the one who makes the decisions. I suppose it’s like the death penalty – I’m against it – but there remains the question of what to do with a psychopath criminal who will kill again and again if given half a chance!
I won’t comment further on the SSPX subject per se either, but only on the broader theme of the relationship between belief and identity and religious comprehension. I thought the title “traditionalist disappointments” said lots. What, I asked myself, makes a person identify themselves as a “traditionalist”? Or something else? Reading the diverse comments from so many (on the links) on who made a wrong decision, on who does not believe the truth, it becomes patently clear to me, at least, that we are all, at least sometimes, engaged in the construction of a theological Babel.
Traditionalism is also very much in the eye of the beholder. How many would concede that they are traditionalists, not because they clearly see truth as God would see it, but because of their idiosyncratically-formed cultural, intellectual and aesthetic sensibilities? How many self-proclaimed “progressives” would admit the same? How much of our religious motivation derives from a need to belong, or to be different, and noticed, or even to be, ultimately speaking, loved?
Theological alliances are very fragile: it only takes one divergence to sunder them, as religious history shows. Again and again, it seems to me that if Christianity is to mean anything, it must at least mean ‘communion’ in that special sense where all preferences are recognised for what they might well be, projections of the ego. We should be, I suggest, free to worship, pray, meditate, relate our faith understandings in accordance with our instincts or sense of “fit”, but once we seek to impose that on others or require corrections, it seems we subordinate this notion of “communion” to variations on the themes of power and of “otherness”.
I note Father’s point about the psychopathic killer, but for the purpose of my questions, I make a distinction between religious belief and practice on the one hand and common morality on the other. The latter is often rooted in the former, but not necessarily so, and certainly not inevitably where any particular religion goes. We might consider time spent deliberating, even arguing, about what to do with a rapist or murderer or thief, well worth spending and even critical; it is much less clear that arguing – as opposed to personal sharing – over elusive ideas like the nature of God and whether Mary remained a virgin, or transubstantiation is the best formula for example, is a good thing to do.
There is a lot of food for thought here, and deepening our thought and understanding is the point of this blog.
I see everything resumed very simply. You either have a truly totalitarian Church is which absolutely no non-conformity is tolerated. You have absolute liturgical uniformity, conformity to doctrine, morals, social / political thought. You have the infallible leader and everything comes down through the hierarchical levels down to the praying, paying and obeying laity. The trouble is that it doesn’t work quite like that, and probably never has done apart from a few years in the 1870’s and then from 1903 until the early 1920’s. And even under the pontificates of Pius IX and Pius X there was legitimate and illegitimate difference. And then, especially in Italy, you had La Combinazione.
Alternatively, you have a Church that tolerates difference, and the problem is the extent of this difference. The extreme is the Anglican Communion in which, according to conservatives, anything goes. That is not quite true, because the extreme liberals find they encounter limits to their freedom, and some clerics leave the Anglican Communion to found so-called “vagante” churches. One such community in England has a “post-a-host” service – consecrated hosts sent by mail to those who request them!
Traditionalism is something I came to understand by spending years with priests who had been ordained in the 1940’s – yes, in the “good old days” of Pius XII and the pre-conciliar Church. One such priest, the one who was my Archdeacon for my ordination, said that “they (the SSPX traditionalists) are not what we were“. They have an idealised vision of how the pre-conciliar Church was. Actually, it was not totalitarian. The rules were strict, as in all walks of life in the early twentieth century, but there was tolerance and flexibility. One could “get by” if you stayed within the limits. The traditionalist / conservative mindset idealises the past and makes of it something it was not. In many ways, the pre-conciliar Church was less uniform and more tolerant of differences than present-day conservative dioceses.
One example is the way they treated clergy who fell short of the mark in all but the most serious matters (ie. committing a crime). There was always a solution, even if they were “auxiliary priests” in some city parish with a hovel to live in and almost no money. They were still priests and could celebrate Mass privately in the church and even give Communion to the early-morning faithful. Nowadays, they are purely and simply rejected. The bishop refers the matter to Rome. Rome can’t be bothered, and so the cleric concerned leaves the Church.
So traditionalism is an idealisation of the past. I know of a blog that almost “worships” the 1950’s, the cars of those days, gentlemen’s hats, old-fashioned safety razors and suchlike. I lived my childhood in the 1960’s, which up in the north of England were not very different from the 1950’s elsewhere. We had a bakelite telephone, which you picked up and asked the operator to put you through to a given number, my mother drove an old black Austin and we had steam trains puffing down the line on the railway embankment over the road from our front garden until 1968 when they brought on the first “diesel multiple unit”. I didn’t have the idea of living in an “ideal paradise”. We looked forward to the future with the mentality we had, and we simply lived in our time. Perhaps people one day are going to be nostalgic about the 2010’s, perhaps not. I look back to the 1970’s, 35-40 years ago, and have absolutely no nostalgia for those “old days”.
The old days were not good because they were old, so what do we look to? Beauty? Decency? Respect for authority? Law and order? The 1920’s were “old days”, yet they were the time of the “lost generation”, the Great Depression, a time when lovely old buildings were demolished and replaced by art-deco crap. Would we want to go back to a world full of cigarette smoke, social injustice and diseases you died from because there weren’t yet any antibiotics? We have antibiotics now, but if we read what the doctors are saying, they won’t work for much longer, and once again we will die from infections like before World War II.
Most of the hard-line traditionalists I came across are not motivated by liturgical rites or aesthetics, or beauty or love of music. They are mostly nostalgic for their perception of life and authority in the nineteenth century or in the 1950’s. I don’t see it as a desire to be “different”, but to have everyone adhere to a norm they call “truth”.
One thing that strikes me about our own times (since the 1960’s) is that the old constraint in religious matters is gone. Most people went to church before because they had to, and not because any truth had convinced them or transformed their lives. The empty churches are a testimony of reality – the masses were never “evangelised” in the first place. We can either bring back the constraint (and we won’t be able to) or seek to rethink the basis of our adhesion to Christianity.
Until we get these basics sorted out, the more those in the ivory towers of clericalism will isolate themselves, and the less anyone will be able to relate to the Church. The clericocracy will then run out of money and the system will implode. The genie is out of the bottle. We have become too critical. Traditionalists like progressives have something in common, reacting against the continuation of the Tridentine Church seeking to be the last totalitarian authority. Some traditionalists are aware that they ironically claim religious freedom, and with the honest and self-questioning ones, this fact changes the outlook somewhat. The very religious liberty the hard-liners condemn is exactly what enables them to have chapels, public worship and be free from physical persecution. Perhaps Archbishop Müller could change all that…
In Anglicanism, you have women priests and same-sex unions, but you also have the liturgy the clergy and laity agree to celebrate and in which they find their happiness. There is something to be said for comprehensiveness. When I was a young man in the Church of England, I should have counted my blessings instead of seeking something ever more “perfect” and not realising the le mieux est l’ennemi du bien – the better is the enemy of the good.
Very thought-provoking, Father. I think your definition of traditionalism as the idealisation of the past fits the bill. And, though shocking, the idea that despite outward conformity and a certain degree of higher religious fluency and habit, most people were not evangelised in preconciliar times, (were they ever?) rings true. Yes, lots to think about.
I.m not surprised by that. In my years as a Pentecostal preacher, with all its emphasis on personal experience, I was appalled to discover what a large percentage of active members seemed to have no idea what it really meant to follow Jesus. The seeds may be planted, but it appears that in the majority of soils they do not really grow.. Dogmatism, Traditionalism, Orthodoxy, Orthopraxy and suchlike may indeed be (I’m conservative, traditional, and often dogmatic, and conclude that they generally are are) ‘correct’ in their assertions, but none of them guarantee, and often they build walls against the warm-hearted acceptance of the Gospel of Christ.
Yes, acceptance of truth and keeping of law are essential, but It is attitude of the heart that Our Lord stresses as paramount, and it is reformation of our hearts that we need.
I’ve always been befuddled by the RC ‘Traditionalists”, ever since I first heard of Fr. Feeney so many years ago. How can one insist that the Roman Church speaks infallibly and yet elevate ones own interpretation of tradition overrule that of the legitimate authorities of that church? Ah, well, one thing we humans are not, no matter how much we assert the contrary, is a species of logical beings. We are almost always self-contradictory, and seem to lack the ability to extricate ourselves from that without supernatural intervention.