Breaking news: Vatican III opens today in Rome!
The liberals have been clamoring for another council. Be careful what you pray for. Here is the news, via the Vatican Information Service (my highlight in bold):
“On Monday 26 October in the Palazzo del Sant’Uffizio, headquarters of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, the study commission made up of experts from “Ecclesia Dei” and from the Society of St. Pius X held its first meeting, with the aim of examining the doctrinal differences still outstanding between the Society and the Apostolic See.
“In a cordial, respectful and constructive climate, the main doctrinal questions were identified. These will be studied in the course of discussions to be held over coming months, probably twice a month. In particular, the questions due to be examined concern the concept of Tradition, the Missal of Paul VI, the interpretation of Vatican Council II in continuity with Catholic doctrinal Tradition, the themes of the unity of the Church and the Catholic principles of ecumenism, the relationship between Christianity and non- Christian religions, and religious freedom. The meeting also served to specify the method and organisation of the work”.
Funny, I thought those issues had been settled by the Second Vatican Council. Just goes to show–the Church can change.
But seriously…The SSPX (and Benedict) have made it patently clear that the divides are too great to be bridged. Which seems to leave two options: One, they argue that it depends on what the meaning of “is” is. Or the meaning of a council, or Vatican II in particular, or the texts versus the spirit, etc. Two, Benedict offer the SSPX another exemption along the lines of a personal prelature. That’s what Bernard Fellay, head of the schismatics, says is under discussion:
Asked about the speculation that the Society of Pius X could be made into a personal prelature similar to Opus Dei, Fellay responded, “There is a lot of truth to that. I think the Vatican is moving towards that kind of canonical solution.”
Almost seems, well, relativistic…I do have to think that is wishful thinking by Fellay, but as we’ve seen stranger things have happened.
PS: Yes, there is a third option–conversion, though the work of the Holy Spirit in this ecumenical dialogue, given time.
UPDATE: Via First Things, canonist Ed Peters has this observation:
In any case, the idea of a “personal ordinariate” is another sign of the (I think) inevitable trend away from purely territorial jurisdictional units in the Roman Church and toward greater use of personal jurisdiction. This trend has been evident in western canon law at least since the late 1960s (see, e.g., 1967 Synod of Bishops, “Principles Guiding the Revision of Canon Law”, no. 8) and is reflected in the 1983 Code (e.g., 1983 CIC 372, 518). Provided this shift is pursued in an orderly manner, I think it a step in the right direction for people who are coming to see themselves as less identified with various locales, and more with social groupings. Certainly several other groups in the Church will be watching the Anglican project with an eye to applying innovative structures in their own spheres.
This seems to have historical antecedents (which you can always find in Catholicism), and also seems plausible. But, I would argue, it is also disturbing in that it fosters a kind of “free association” with whomever you find most agreeable. That seems more like the church shopping phenomenon of modern consumer Christianity, not to mention dreaded Protestantism!
Sorry to break it to you, but such a canonical structure as a resolution to the traditionalist schism (at least, in a kind of test case or as proof of principle) has already happened: Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney.
Odd. All the rest of us are commanded to bow before every scrap of paper that emanates from a Roman dicastery, no matter how our intelligence is insulted. But if you deny a Council of the Church, well then,the doors are open and you’re welcome to tea and cookies; let’s find a way around your objection. We’ll come up with some vague statement you can sign and then ignore.
I suspect this is because the Vatican believes that because the Lefebvrites are “traditional,” they are somehow kindred souls that can be accommodated and “brought along” so they can become eventual allies in the restorationist movement. Boy, are they in for a surprise. The Lefebvrites have absolutely no incentive to give an inch; in fact, they have actual incentives not to. But Rome will grovel before them and seek anything that looks even remotely like reconciliation, just to add to the number of ultraconservatives in the Church and to be able to declare the schism “healed.” It’s all about appearances, and that’s distressing.
No_milk, thanks for the example. Very interesting, though I believe the personal prelature for Opus Dei was the first, back in 1982 (I believe). Moreover, the Vatican had already allowed for a Fraternity of Saint Peter at the time of the 1988 schism that gave many Trads pretty much what they wanted liturgically, though not as regards V2. (I believe). There are in fact many iterations of Traditonalism–they are as fractious as regular Catholics.
This “free association” stuff gives new meaning to “church unity.”
I think you meant “Canonist” Ed Peters–he is a lay canon lawyer.
Church shopping is an ancient phenomenon. The medieval mendicant orders were bitterly criticized for “poaching” the faithful from their parochial churches–but the phenomenon predates the friars because Lateran IV already in 1215 required the faithful to confess to their parish priests at least once annually (the implication being that they were confessing elsewhere).
Having more folks “shopping” for the Catholic parish or chapel that is right for them is a problem I can certainly live with.
No_milk, thanks for the example. Very interesting, though I believe the personal prelature for Opus Dei was the first, back in 1982 (I believe). Moreover, the Vatican had already allowed for a Fraternity of Saint Peter at the time of the 1988 schism that gave many Trads pretty much what they wanted liturgically, though not as regards V2. (I believe).
Yes, but Opus Dei is rigorously non-traditionalist. To my knowledge, they have zero enthusiasm for the traditional liturgy. Conservative? Yes, if we must import political categories, but they are really a post-Vatican II phenomenon: emphasis on the laity and its work in the world, innovative canonical structure, vernacular liturgy, etc.
The FSSP is a society of apostolic life, like the Oratorians, the Paulists, the Maryknollers, or the Sulpicians, i.e., all the members are priests or lay brothers. They have taken the promotion of the traditional liturgy as their work, but they are not a canonical structure that encompasses the laity.
Compos was the first traditionalist canonical structure–at least in the Catholic church. The Russian Orthodox church, I believe, previously established a canonical structure to bring into communion with it a group of Russian Orthodox Old Ritualists (Old Believers), but I don’t have details to hand.
Thanks for the Canon/canonist correction. Now there’s a freudian slip.
Maybe ABC Rowan Williams could make special accommodations for these people within Anglicanism, allowing them to keep elements of their hymnal and liturgy, etc.
Be a lot of folks passing each other on their way to the opposite shores of the Tiber …
I do admit to being nervous about what will come out of these upcoming SSPX discussions, which are being held in private. They’ll find some way to let the SSPX back in, and why does this group, that willingly went over into schism in the first place, get to debate with curial officials about what Vatican II really meant … in private… while the rest of us don’t get that privilege?
Actually, you are bringing up one of my pet peeves. I wish there was no such thing as personal prelatures. Shouldn’t traditionalists themselves be concerned that they are a bypass on the normal structure of the hierarchical Church? Opus Dei should be subject to the local ordinary, just like everyone else. Isn’t the risk being run by personal prelatures (and now, ordinariates) very similar to that of groups that are in a state of schism? Independence from the local bishop and the broader Church, a sense of unique mission, and a sense of fidelity to a deceased founder tend to make the survival and interests of that particular group more important than the survival and interests of the Catholic Church as a whole. Granted, the same could be said of many religious orders and congregations, but this new sense of accountability to no one else but the pope alone is a troubling trend.
I do think there is much history–and canon law and theology and ecclesiology to parse here–many analogies and disconnects. But for me an apparent novelty is the creation of special places for groups that are at odds with other Catholics or Catholic teachings. This seems to be so inner-directed.
Burt Catholics already have the right to free association within the church–both the right to join existing organizations, like Sant’Egidio, Focolare, and C & L, and to form their own groups, such as private associations of the faithful. The innovation here seems to be that TAC people will now be able to associate *only* with like minded Anglo-Catholics. They will have their own pastors, bishops, and liturgies.
Doesn’t it seem that this could harm Catholic unity, creating virtual ghettoes within the church and hardening the lines of division among us? It’s bad enough that we have “Commonweal Catholics” and “Wanderer Catholics” who have a hard time speaking to each other. Now we will have canonically recognized traditionalists who will feel no need to work–let alone worship–with their brothers and sisters in Christ.
All this talk of peronal prelatures, personal ordinariates, and disassociating jurisdictions form localities gives me two concerns.
First of all, as some have noted, this allows people to ignore their own bishop and associate only with ideological peers.
Secondly, if the Curia is unable to undo the fact that local bishops head the church in their own areas and are local teachers and liturgists instead of curial water-carriers, then the next best thing is to create jurisdictions headed by bishops without dioceses, who can do whatever Rome wants wherever it wants. The bishop would no longer be married to the diocese and the head of a local church, but a jurisdictional functionary–who might not even be a bishop at all!
All of this is of course, quite literally, institutionalized Ultramontanism.
“All of this is of course, quite literally, institutionalized Ultramontanism.”
Precisely. Behold the new rule. Be loyalty to the holder of the Petrine office and do what you will.
The beginning of the end for many of the left, not liberal, Catholicism….
To borrow a phrase,
“So it goes….”
Apologies! “loyal” nor loyalty”.
Doesn’t it seem that this could harm Catholic unity, creating virtual ghettoes within the church and hardening the lines of division among us? . . . Now we will have canonically recognized traditionalists who will feel no need to work–let alone worship–with their brothers and sisters in Christ.
Again, I hate to break it to you, but this is already the status quo. What you have described, if rather brusquely, is the state of the Eastern Catholic churches in relation to the Latin church. But guess what? That’s what real diversity in unity looks like. That’s real ecumenism, living together in common faith but in diverse expressions.
I guess when push comes to shove, liberal Catholicism really isn’t that liberal after all.
That’s what real diversity in unity looks like. That’s real ecumenism, living together in common faith but in diverse expressions.
Except it isn’t diverse, it’s all skewed to the extreme right. Truely diverse, truly ecumenical, would mean B16 accepting those who disagreed with him on women’s ordination, on gays in seminaries, on same-sex marriage, on the worth of contraception, etc. How about Personal Ordinariates for the TEC, the British Quakers, the Swedish Lutherans?
My, my. There are just not identifiable heretics left. Means we will all have to be judged by our fruits and how much we love our neighbor and enemy. Now the true difficulties begin.
I’m a heretic!
Keep guessing, Nomilk. Or is it No_Milk? Got Klim?
What you have described, if rather brusquely, is the state of the Eastern Catholic churches in relation to the Latin church
Ummm…. NO! Eastern Catholic eparchies are geographically oriented. The problem we are discussing is setting up non-geographical judicial entities of immense variety that have nothing whatsoever to do with a place, i.e., a LOCAL church. A local church gathered around a bishop is our true tradition, which “traditionalists” are all to eager to toss aside in favor of a bishop of “everyone who thinks like me.” These ungrounded bishops will presumably be titular bishops of Hobbiton or Upper Narnia or whatever, who have no allegiance to a community, but are put in place by Rome as “branch managers,” charged not with building up the Kingdom of God in a particular place but with implementing rules drawn up by the Curia for a club of like-minded folks.
I am appalled that “conservatives” and “traditionalists” can be pleased with the breakdown of the apostolic order we have received from ancient times merely because it suits their needs at the moment. It shows a certain ecclesiological bankruptcy and an Ultramontane view of bishops as mere sacramental vending machines. If No_milk wants to dismiss the preservation of the ancient tradition of bishops as mere liberal whining, then he should consider who are the ones really pushing a radical agenda in this situation.
Joe,
You had me at “heretic.”
Oops, in above post “judicial” should be “juridical.” Apologies!
OK, No_milk is kein Milch is kine’s milk is cows’ milk, i.e., no milk and milk are one and the same thing, a yes and a no, being and nonbeing, is and is not, in other words that notorious hobgoblin RELATIVISM!
Ummm…. NO! Eastern Catholic eparchies are geographically oriented. The problem we are discussing is setting up non-geographical judicial entities of immense variety that have nothing whatsoever to do with a place, i.e., a LOCAL church.
Ahh, yes, but in what meaningful way? The Melkite eparch in the U.S., for example, has his seat in Newton, Mass., but his territory covers the entire United States–not exactly a local church. The Our Lady of Deliverance Syriac Catholic Diocese has jurisdiction over both the U.S. and Canada–talk about a mega-church! (And to leave the Eastern churches, one ought to mention the Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA–of which I was a member during my time in the Army–its territory covers the entire world.) And then there is the multiplicity of bishops: the archbishops of Philadelphia for the Ukrainians and the Latins or the archbishops of Pittsburgh for the Ruthenians and the Latins or the three Catholic patriarchs of Antioch (for the Melkites, the Syrians, and the Maronites)? Well, that breaks another traditional rule: one city, one bishop. But in these matters, the better rule is: cura animarum est lex suprema.
But actually I was addressing the charge that somehow it was unCatholic to worship in a different way from the Latin rite (“Now we will have canonically recognized traditionalists who will feel no need to work–let alone worship–with their brothers and sisters in Christ”). That’s a bit of sad, old Latinocentric thinking that I thought had gone out with the Second Vatican Council.
Ahh, yes, but in what meaningful way? The Melkite eparch in the U.S., for example, has his seat in Newton, Mass., but his territory covers the entire United States–not exactly a local church.
Knowing a few Melkite Catholics, I think they would disagree with you. They have eparchal synods, the bishop visits the parishes, they have diocesan legislation, they do no encroach on the territory of other eparchies. To say that dioceses are irrelevant because some cover large areas is disingenuous; the proper response then is not to entirely disregard diocesan structures, but to make them more local, not less so.
But in these matters, the better rule is: cura animarum est lex suprema.
Yes, to make dioceses more relevant, not less so. The cura animarum is entrusted to the local bishop, not to Rome. You are wrong in every aspect of church history and tradition to suggest that the care of individual faithful is best left to Rome rather than a local bishop of a particular church. That is a dangerous and un-Catholic proposition.
I find it amazing that I have to defend the role and dignity of the bishop in a Catholic blog. What has become of us? Where is the shock that such a vital foundation of our apostolic Tradition is being so casually tossed aside by “traditionalists” who care more for ideology than ecclesiology?
Truly, I fear for us all.
Eric – think about it. Many scholars would say that over the last 20 years we have seen the growth of the most centralized Catholic Church in history and the “creeping infallibility” only becomes more and more controlling. Think about the number of times you now see pastorals, announcements, documents that use the phrase “intrinsically evil” or “disordered.” These are terms that never really existed in catholic moral theology much less any type of pastoral theology.
Finally, even with Paul VI, Vatican II’s concepts of collegiality, the role of bishops, and subsidiarity were water-downed and emasculated by his own endeavor to please both sides.
Some have tried to explain this overall movement as a way of uniting the traditionalist believers against the enroaching securalists (seems to assume lots of things and to ignore Vatican II’s attempts to read “the signs of the times” and engage the world. It also looked upon the world not as the root of evil but as created by God and open to the church’s influence and impact using the gospel message.
No_milk:
As I understand it, the Eastern Catholic churches are autonomous churches that are nonetheless in union with the Bishop of Rome. These churches (note the term) have their own code of canon law, as well as their own synods. I think it’s quite a stretch to presume that this is what Rome is going to set up for the Anglo-Catholics–especially regarding the issue of autonomy. This is going to be an ordinariate, not a sui iuris, or “Particular Church.”
But much of this is guesswork. We won’t know exactly how this is going to work until the apostolic constitution is published. I can’t wait to see how busy this blog will be then!
As a Melkite, I am quite familiar with Melkite practice, thank you. I’m not sure how Saidna’s territory doesn’t encroach on other Catholic dioceses and eparchies in the U.S. when it is coextensive with ALL of them, but I’m sure you’ll tell me.
In any case, I think you’re shifting your goal posts. First you cite the preeminence of the “LOCAL church” and then you say it doesn’t matter how large the diocese is (provided it isn’t Roman universalism, presumably). Well, which is it?
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Personal Ordinariates will be. My guess is that they will be local para-dioceses, governed by a bishop or a kind of vicar apostolic, rooted in a particular geographic location, with a ministry to Catholics of Anglican heritage within that area. So, we can imagine the Ordinariate of San Antonio for Catholics of Anglican heritage, which might encompass the Anglican-Use parishes of Texas. Or perhaps the territories will be larger, but that is not a problem, correct? (I wouldn’t want to be disingenuous.) I take a cue from the CDF’s “Note” which speaks of the Ordinariates in the plural–meaning, perhaps, that there might be many local such jurisdictions. In fact, my reading of the situation is that it will be the very thing you support: a multiplication of local dioceses!
As for your claim that I “suggest that the care of individual faithful is best left to Rome rather than a local bishop of a particular church,” I frankly don’t know where that came from, as I have never thought or written such a thing and Patriarch Gregorios might be upset if I had!
I find it amazing that I have to defend the role and dignity of the bishop in a Catholic blog. What has become of us? Where is the shock that such a vital foundation of our apostolic Tradition is being so casually tossed aside by “traditionalists” who care more for ideology than ecclesiology? Truly, I fear for us all.
Lighten up, Francis. I assume you’re being ironical, so I’ll just reiterate that the Personal Ordinariates are going to be a kind of particular church, headed by a bishop. So you can sleep soundly.
So you’re a Melkite? Oops! Looks like I was lecturing an expert. Please forgive my presumption. But I would like to know how you would answer the issue of an ordinariate versus a particular church. Or do you see no practical difference? I would think that the Archbishop of the Military might view his role and place in the church differently than Patriarch Gregorios would. And which role would be closer to the new Anglo-Catholic bishops coming in?
I’m asking out of genuine curiosity, not out of a desire to play “gotcha.”
As I understand it, the Eastern Catholic churches are autonomous churches that are nonetheless in union with the Bishop of Rome. These churches (note the term) have their own code of canon law, as well as their own synods. I think it’s quite a stretch to presume that this is what Rome is going to set up for the Anglo-Catholics–especially regarding the issue of autonomy. This is going to be an ordinariate, not a sui iuris, or “Particular Church.”
I think the ordinariates are exactly going to be a kind of particular church, not sui iuris like the Eastern churches, but a kind of personal jurisdiction within the Latin church. There are already many kinds of particular churches–territorial abbacies, for example, as CIC can. 370 reminds me–the ordinariates are simply going to be a new type to which the faithful of a particular location and of a particular spiritual heritage will be aggregated. The execution may be radical, but the idea is almost humdrum.
@ Chrystal Watson
“Except it isn’t diverse, it’s all skewed to the extreme right. Truely diverse, truly ecumenical, would mean B16 accepting those who disagreed with him on women’s ordination, on gays in seminaries, on same-sex marriage, on the worth of contraception, etc. How about Personal Ordinariates for the TEC, the British Quakers, the Swedish Lutherans?”
Extreme right? C’mon now. Ypu seem to be confusing your politics with your faith. B16 isn’t George Bush. It’s dangerous to personalise this as if he was. It is the magisterium you appear to be having difficulty with, but that is the teaching of our Church, not a party platform being geared up for the mid-terms.
Catherine Harding, the SSPX are rotten with anti-semitism, which is an “extreme right” perversion. B16 dialogues with those who reject “the teaching of our Church” on Judaism and religious freedom, not with those who reject “the teachings of our Church” on contraception, gays, women priests. The latter teachings are upheld by the Pope and the CDF, the former by a General Council, so one would have thought dialogue would be easier to arrange on the former topics.
I do tend to conflate politics and religion ….. it’s hard to tell the conservatie/traditional part of the church from the GOP sometimes :)
t is the magisterium you appear to be having difficulty with, but that is the teaching of our Church
B16 seems to be turning his back on Vatican II, so I do think that I’m having a problem with him, not necessarily with the teachings of the Church.
Hello Eric Stoltz,
I find it amazing that I have to defend the role and dignity of the bishop in a Catholic blog.
Maybe it’s not so amazing in view of the fact that we have had so many low quality bishops.
Look – the simple reality is that if it were up to most bishops over the last couple decades, there would have been no traditional mass option available whatsoever in their dioceses. Scratch “if” and “would” because that actually has been the reality. Traditionalists, or even just non-traditionalists who had to suffer through truly banal liturgy and wanted another option were simply out of luck. And that’s the weakness of leaving all power in the hands of the local ordinary.
@ Father O’Leary:
“Catherine Harding, the SSPX are rotten with anti-semitism, which is an “extreme right” perversion. B16 dialogues with those who reject “the teaching of our Church” on Judaism and religious freedom, not with those who reject “the teachings of our Church” on contraception, gays, women priests. The latter teachings are upheld by the Pope and the CDF, the former by a General Council, so one would have thought dialogue would be easier to arrange on the former topics.”
Your point about the SSPX is, of course a valid one and I agree with you that it is a matter of real concern.
But, in my case, I have grown up and matured in my Catholic faith – not with the experience you have undoubtedly faced based on “extreme right” perversions, but with its mirror – grounded in the extreme left.
Anti-semitism is the flavour de jour of the Left, as you must agree has certainly been the upsweep of this past quarter century.
That being said, I fail to understand what you could possibly mean by referring to the teachings of our Church on “contraception, gays, women priests” in the context of anti-semitism.
You’ve failed to provide me an answer or arguable position capable of being addressed reasonably and in faith.
Instead, you’ve provided a straw…person.
“I find it amazing that I have to defend the role and dignity of the bishop in a Catholic blog. What has become of us? Where is the shock that such a vital foundation of our apostolic Tradition is being so casually tossed aside by “traditionalists” who care more for ideology than ecclesiology? Truly, I fear for us all.”
Eric,
You aint seen nothing yet. The so called apostolic succession leaves out Jews, Muslims, non-Catholic Christians. It may not be that solid. Recent substantial history is showing how
apostolic succession emerged as a power grab rather than anything the apostles ever set up. Show me the bishop in Corinth, for example?
The great thing about our present age is it is looking more like the early church where diversity was appreciated and where the emphasis is on the Way rather than orthodoxy. Benedict has no idea what he is feeding into. So the far right is correct in criticizing him. This furthers the erosion of orthodoxy which is a salient development in Christianity.
on the whole issue Vatican II-SSPX just a footnote about a book just published: Exkommunikation oder Kommunikation? Der Weg der Kirche nach dem II. Vatikanum und die Pius-Brüder, (Excommunication or Communication? The Way of the Church after Vatican II and the Lefebvrians), (Series “Quaestiones Disputatae” 236), Hrsg. Peter Hünermann, Herder: Freiburg i.B., 2009
(full disclosure: I am one of the contributors: “Die kulturelle und politische Relevanz des II. Vatikanischen Konzils als konstitutiver Faktor der Interpretation,” – ”The Cultural and Political Relevance of Council Vatican II As a Constitutive Factor of Interpretation”, pp. 153-174)
Because the Roman Catholic clergy framing these documents have no real personal investment as unmarried and allegedly celibate, they may find little to concern themselves with in the proclamations regarding human procreation e.g. Humane Vitae. By contrast, those Anglicans transferring might want to re-think their decisions, unless closeted gay, their thoughts about the discipline of the Roman Church and which of its proscriptions they are willing to abide. In that light I draw attention to the draft of the US Catholic Conference of Bishops on marriage dated next month: http://ncrnews.org/documents/marriage_divine_plan.pdf In particular the following statement on contraception at lines 360-362:
“Deliberately intervening by the use of contraceptive practices to close off an act of intercourse to the possibility of procreation is a way of trying to separate the unitive meaning of marriage from the procreative meaning. This is an intrinsically evil action. “
The Roman Catholic church does not offer the delicatessen of dogma options of the Anglican tradition. Benedict VI, first as head of the Congregation of the Faith, and with the Pope’s ear furthering his agenda, and now with his ordinariates and prelatures has been steadily coalescing those who would further his conservative theological agenda, not just in the statement of dogma but enforcement….a word some Anglicans now looking at Article 4 in the proposed Covenant might find appealing, but when some of actually seek protection across the Tiber, they might be somewhat less enthused.
Now that we know again that the world is flat, the irony of Rome creating cross-jurisdictional avenues to accommodate special interests undermining centuries of Roman Catholic ecclesiology is a wonder to watch. It will be interesting to see if its bishops wake-up to the implications.
Apologies for missing the end of my italics tag above
Oh dear, Benedict XVI…above again, regrets
Massimo Faggioli: The volume you refer to sounds interesting. Can you offer any insights from it that you could summarize as regards this discussion? Thank you.
Sure David!
As is well known, the small sect of the followers of Lefebvre has always rejected the council and denounced it as heretical and as the cause of everything they see as wrong with the church.
Benedict’s attempt to re-absorb this schism has revealed that the Second Vatican Council represents for the Catholic Church of the twenty-first century more than a “compass” for its future path, which is what John Paul II had hoped in Novo millennio ineunte, 2001.
There are two facts revealed by this “international theological case”. The first is that, in the horizon of the contemporary church, of contemporary politics, and of international public opinion, the Second Vatican Council has shown itself to be a “guarantee of citizenship” for the Catholic Church in the today’s world. The second is that this “guarantee” has been identified in public opinion, first with the definitive rejection of anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism as elements of a pre-modern and anti-democratic political culture, and, second, this “guarantee” has been identified with other specific elements in the way the council broke with the Catholic church of the “long nineteenth century”: religious freedom and freedom of conscience, ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue, collegiality and co-responsibility in church government. It is no coincidence that these core elements for the “political reception” of the council are exactly the ones rejected by the Lefebvrites as the heresies of the council.
The incident has shown how deeply the reception of Vatican II has taken root in what the world expects of the church. It has also underscored the “constitutional” features of Vatican II (to use the expression of Tübingen theologian, Peter Hünermann). Indeed, to reflect now on the reception of the Vatican II one must take into account the council’s “political” reception and its “constitutional core”.
As a result of Benedict’s decision, it has become ever clearer that the “political problem” with the four bishops was not only Williamson’s anti-Semitic remarks but the overall rejection of the Council, a rejection focused most particularly on the precise nucleus of documents that put the council most clearly in discontinuity with previous church pronouncements. This nucleus is not “constitutive” of the rich corpus of the council, but it is “constitutional” because these discontinuities are the new face of Catholicism not only for Catholics but also for the world at large.
It is thus evident that the epoch-making changes wrought by Vatican II have had an impact far beyond the inner life of the church itself. They established the church as a community in the modern world, where she is recognized as a political-cultural agent, which is considered an important part of her very identity. These changes represent precisely what the followers of Lefebvre reject, and at the same time represent the “constitutional” core of the council itself.
This means doing away with the simplistic “continuist” view of the relationship between the council and earlier pronouncement of the papal magisterium.
In this moment of political reception, it has become clear that, if the council can hardly be a constitution for the church in the juridically positive sense, those who reject its positions automatically put themselves outside the “constitutional” boundaries of modern Catholicism, especially in the eyes of external observers. It is in this sense that the Second Vatican Council undeniably works as a political and cultural “guarantee” for contemporary Catholicism, especially when the church tries to understand the global challenges of inter-cultural and inter-religious dialogue.
Massimo, many thanks. That is a meaty and excellent insight, I think. The next question, of course, is whether Benedict and the Vatican can accommodate the SSPX (or whatever reconstituted form it takes) within the framework you sketched out without of necessity breaking that frame…Without, I guess you would say, negating those guarantees.
10,000 SSPX followers heard a SSPX-sponsored and led Mass at Lourdes a few days ago. 10,000. In the US they are an insignificant force, but in parts of Europe it is not the case. In parts of Europe, the SSPX chapels are filled while the churches in communion with Rome are empty. Not a defense or an apologetic at all, but just one point to remember.
Both John XXIII and Paul VI declined to make the Second Vatican Council dogmatic. So why is anyone surprised there are still open issues a mere four and a half decades later?
There were radical departures from tradition as a result of Vatican II. Since all of the outcomes have been negative (numbers of priests, sisters, nuns, brothers, seminarians, practicing Catholics, etc.) it is completely natural to question the changes and restore what worked. The fact that most liberals are Baby Boomers and many traditional Latin Mass fans were born after Vatican II is something this pope — unlike the last one — surely has noticed.
frankly, I hope that some issues (like the rejection of anti-Semitism and religious freedom) are not open
Mr. Gibson and Mr. Faggioli – thanks for taking the time to outline the thesis of the book. Very interesting – would suggest connecting your thoughts/analysis to the thread above on Bishop Trautman and the new Roman Missal.
Given your analysis, this new Roman Missal is a move in the wrong direction in terms of both catholics and the world.
You might want to review the above thread and see if your analysis/book can contribute to that discussion? Thanks.
briefly: I think it is a signal that Vatican II is going to be reviewed “wall to wall”. Just like the liturgical reform was the beginning of Vatican II (1962-1963, but not only from a chronological point of view), the “reform of the liturgical reform” is the beginning of the “review of Vatican II” – I am afraid (in the last few months I have been writing about it)
Let’s say it clearly once and for all. Traditional Latin Mass fans constitute a very small portion of the church. Even Benedict does not say the old Mass. So most in the church use the new liturgy. Enough of this Latin Mass fiction.
There were radical departures from tradition as a result of Vatican II. Since all of the outcomes have been negative (numbers of priests, sisters, nuns, brothers, seminarians, practicing Catholics, etc.) it is completely natural to question the changes and restore what worked.
Kenneth: Post hoc ergo propter hoc much?
I just feel the need to defend Crystal.
She’s spot on.
Of course one can say her problem is with magisterium, but lots of us have complianed about and discussed here “maximal magisterium” as a major division issue in the Church.
Ms. Harding can hold her belief, but I hope not in a to self congratulatory manner, for many disagre.
And that’s why the GWB (and the Bush White House) analogy to BXVI and is curia has a major validity: they’ were supposed to be uniters but became great dividers.
So it goes…
Eric, well put!
In a similar propter hoc mode, I’m always interested to know why it is we’ve had more than three decades of JP2 and B16 and yet vocations, to cite one example, continue to decline. Maybe a visitation of the Vatican is required? On the other hand, the standard answer is that quality not quantity is the vital metric…
Vocations to traditional orders and societies are booming. (It is said the SSPX will be larger than the entire novus ordo in France in a few years at the current pace.) Even the conservative (not yet traditional) seminaries and convents are very healthy. So the answer is quite simple to the vocation problem — go right.
With respect to the Latin phrase, it should be noted that other councils were called to solve problems and did so relatively quickly. Vatican II actually created problems and did so relatively quickly. It should not be given a pass considering its ramifications and non-doctrinal status.
Kenneth: After every Council there was always a sizable group that felt the Council created problems. Every Council, as far as I know, resulted in some group that disagreed with the Council’s decisions; often they became schismatic. For example, after Vatican I there was this group called the Old Catholics. They also felt the Council only caused problems. After Vatican II, same thing, except these folks are called Lefebvrites.
So, the fact that some small group doesn’t like what a Council did is not an excuse to request a do-over on the Council. Honestly, sometimes I wonder where the right gets its church history and knowledge of logic. Methinks they just make it up as they go along.
This topic presents us with dissenters on gay marriage, contraception and the ordination of women objecting to having to share the same church with folks who dissent on religious freedom, respect for Judaism and liturgy. Who could dream this stuff up? :-)
Kenneth –
Under JPII and B16 has thecnet gain of onservative priests, INS and brothers been greater than the number lost since VII? Istm that unless and untill the conservatives’ numer is larger they cannot claim that they are the future of the Church. Why? Because during the reigns of John Paul and now Benedict there was also a hemorhaging of the laity — the group which prpduces future religious. Unless there is evidence that their children and grandchildren will become conservative religious, I don’t think you can claim that the conservatives hhave turned the tide. In fact, I have even read that the offspring of the post-council conservatives are also being lost to the Church.
Also, the condemnation of anti-Semitism, affirmation of religious freedom and ecumenism have all taken hold quite strongly. in all three groups: the liberals, many conservatives, and also the lapsed/lost Catholics. Not to mention the good effects on the Jews and other Christians.
It is much too soon to call VII a failure
Massimo, thank you very much for your insights. Very helpful!
There is another aspect that will be important in the discussions with SSPX. Continuity goes both ways, and the apparently new positions will be cited as rooted in the tradition. In essence, SSPX have misread our Tradition if they think it excludes ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue, religious freedom, etc. To the extent that they oppose these things and support anti-semitism et alia, they are supporting a strand of our history, but not our Tradition.
That is where they will turn inward, and confront the rejection of papal authority, the core conundrum for the Lefebvrists.
“Also, the condemnation of anti-Semitism, affirmation of religious freedom and ecumenism have all taken hold quite strongly.”
What does any of that have to do with the Roman Catholic Church?
In fact, the effects of the last two categories have greatly harmed the Church since Vatican II.
Kenneth W. -can you document the harm from the last two or are you just stating you’re unhappy with the church entering tyhe modern world then?
I’d really like to know what contributors think ecumenism with the Anglican communion means NOW, not as it was imagined and hoped for 40 years ago, but today, in the wake of the total disintegration of that once-recognisable body?
The Pope is beseeched by a number of Anglican off-shoots (a small number in the scheme of things) to offer them, as distinct and faithful Christian groups (as distinct from individually) – a path forward to communion with the Catholic Church.
And the response from a number of Catholics to him for performing his proper role as a good (albeit, German) shepherd, is uncharitable and unchristian and abusive to an extent that is otherwise unmatched except for the Guardian CIF pages and the Trumpet.
It’s sad to read some of these comments, particularly from those who should and do know better but who prefer to posit views that appear to play into political games of their own construct, and with outcomes in mind that have little to do with our faith.
Cynical stuff.
I see two broad trends:
1. The creation of various ecclesiastical groupings (call them what you will) based on ideology,
and
2. The growing distance between the laity, both young and old, on the one hand, and JPII
bishops and priests, on the other.
These groups, conservative/traditionalist in nature, cannot at all be compared with military ordinariates. The former are structured to reach out to people of a particular religious ideology whereas the military ordinariates are intended to coordinate provision of religious services to military, naval, diplomatic, and civilian personnel at various locations at home and abroad.
The growing distance between laity and ordained has been documented in longitudinal studies conducted by sociologists of religion James Davidson, the late Dean Hoge, and others.
JPII and now B16 have been ardent supporters of outreach to various groups that are seen as helping consolidate the conservative/traditionalist power base in Rome.
The growing division between laity and clergy, on the other hand, is a result of the Vatican’s efforts to consolidate power and centralize decision-making in the church.
Bob — harm from religious freedom includes an enormous number of Catholics choosing not to practice their faith with little lip from their bishops and priests. So, there are a few million lost souls. Harm from ecumenism includes a watering down of the Roman rite and a sentiment that indifferentism (a heresy, still) is okay as long as you believe something.
Pius XII (who was hardly a traditional pope) did not visit mosques and temples. He worked to get non-Catholics into the Church, including the chief rabbi of Rome. That has not been a priority with the last several popes — with very few conversions from Islam and Judaism. Which begs the question of the value of visiting mosques and temples.
Well, at least you’re up front, Kenneth!
Ecumenism is an effort for all to share in what God has given to each Christian community. With Anglicans that means recognizing how they have lived up to their heritage, preserving what is good from the days before the Reformation and reforming themselves to accept the gifts of all their members. It means listening and learning from them, especially their efforts to preserve common prayer despite disagreements, even when that looks like “relativism” or “watering down the Catholic faith”; and it means sharing with them our own experience of a centralized non-relativist authority.
A key feature of Anglicanism is their acceptance of a broad range of opinion on church and theology. High, law, broad, evangelical, latitudinarian, catholic — people with a range of opinions celebrated together with common prayer. Sometimes clashes arose between conflicting groups, violent clashes in the 15-18th centuries that threatened English government. Theological clashes that peeled off some splinter groups. Today’s disputes within and among the Churches of the Anglican Communion are like nothing compared to Oliver Cromwell’s time or even the years when Methodists split off, or when Africa threw off British imperialism.
Given that history, I cannot see what is so unique or difficult about today. Some have taken their rebellion against Anglican authorities to the point of schism; I am not sure why anyone would think those individuals and groups would be any more amenable to Roman authority than they were to the milder Anglican authorities. I have difficulty grasping how refusing to pray together fits with common prayer, so it is a bit difficult to see how their liturgical customs will translate into “communion with the Pope, but with distinct liturgy”. Their prayer was designed to be used by all, so they are taking it where only a few will use it?
So I guess I expect ecumenism with Anglicans to focus on their strengths and traditions, not on the rebels who are not really in tune with those things. There have been some, like the graymoor friars, who were led to Catholicism by prayer and deepening commitment to God, which seems more proper to me than political wrangling and confusion. I would have preferred if BXVI had played a conciliatory role, helping dissidents remain within the Anglican communion, rather than give them a place with us.
But God moves mysteriously. Perhaps this will pave the way for greater unity within the whole Christian Church, as well as within the different parts of it.
I thought that Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor’s address in the UK the other night titled “ARCIC: dead in the water or money in the bank” on just this topic was well worth the read.
Not sure about the blog moderators’ policy regarding providing links but for those interested in reading a very measured and considered address, the full text is to be found on the Independent Catholic News website.
I found a lot here worthy of deeper consideration, including this:
“The Catholic Church’s understanding does not start with the differences in order to reach unity but presupposes a given unity within the Catholic Church and its partial communion with the other churches and church communities in order to reach full communion with them. This full communion, unity, does not of course mean uniformity but unity within diversity and diversity within unity. For instance, the Catholic understanding of the unity of the Church has its concrete expression in the Petrine ministry as a sign and service to the unity of the Episcopate and the Local Churches. This position is a very great obstacle for other churches and ecclesial communities and can be emotionally charged with painful memories. But for the Catholic Church, the Petrine Ministry is a gift which serves to preserve both unity and the freedom of the Church from one-sided ties to certain nations, cultures or ethnic groups. This is why Pope John Paul II seized the initiative and issued an invitation to a patient fraternal dialogue with other Christians on this very issue in his document, Ut Unum Sint.”
And this too, being how the Cardinal views the status of the ecumenical dialogue “as a whole”:
As regards ecumenical dialogue as a whole, we have to recognise that there are still grave problems which face the ecumenical movement and that despite very encouraging progress, the way ahead still appears difficult and long. It is important for the Church to acknowledge that she lives in an intermediate situation between the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet’. Full communion in the complete sense can only be something that we strive for and hope for and perhaps will only be fully realised in the Kingdom of God. Here on earth the Church will always be a pilgrim church, struggling with tensions and schisms. As a church of sinners she can’t be a perfect church. So we have to fill the interim stage that we have reached in a real but not complete church unity with real life. There is the ecumenism of love and the ecumenism of truth and these must be complemented by an ecumenism of life. Churches’ ecclesial communities come closer together as they become accustomed to each other, pray together, work together, live together. But the ecumenism of life is not to be understood in a static way but it is a process of healing and growing.”
There is a great deal more of interest to be found in the address and I recommend it.