The Coming Debacle

In another thread, about communion, divorce and remarriage, I claimed that "Pope Francis' efforts in this area have the makings of a first-class debacle." John wondered why. Here's why.

Before I go on, although the argument here is also being articulated on the Catholic right, I want it understood I disagree with them on the doctrinal issue. That is, I think the church can and should explore and enact measures to bring Catholics back to the sacramental table. Understand?

Here's the recipe for debacle:

1. Francis is at least sympathetic to a "Kasper-ian" solution. First, after saying nice things about him as a theologian, the Pope had Kasper give the two-hour long keynote at the last consistory, in which called for second marriages to be "tolerated, though not accepted." Second, it's clear that the Pope made that call to the Argentine woman, told her she could receive communion--and, contra some whackos, did not grant her a special Papal annulment. Third, he's said a half-dozen or so off-hand comments favoring such a move and indeed going farther--calling for the synod to consider the Orthodox theology, which not only allows but blesses second marriages in a penitential, non-sacramental rite.

2. It's similarly clear that large segments of the Curia, episcopate and Catholic public are dead-set against this, and not-small segments consider Kasper's proposal outright heresy.

This isn't restricted to Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Caffarra, Father Z or the SSPX. Major pieces in the Catholic Herald, Crisis, EWTN, Catholic Register echo these sentiments. Today I noticed the Diocese of Lancaster in the UK reposting the latest article in Crisis, "A Rival Good to God’s: On Cardinal Kasper’s Divorce Proposal" which all-but accuses Kasper's proposal of heresy. John Thavis in a piece on curial discontent at the Pope's phone calls quotes another official opining that, if Kasper's view is taken on board "we’ve crossed the line into heresy,” one official told me." Or take the NYT's Ross Douthat—a moderate conservative catholic, as he himself states—raising the prospect of schism. If you descend to blogs, well, you will find many prominent Catholic blogs echoing these sentiments.

3. Even if the Pope has no clear end in mind, Francis has raised expectations. The word has got out though the under-nuanced media that there's going to be a change. If nothing changes, we'll see disappointment across the Catholic world. In other words, this is birth control all over again.

4. If Francis backs off in the face of opposition, the topic will become an ongoing sore spot between the wings of the church. In any such fight, Francis will become the leader of one team, his opponents of another.

5. If change is imposed, Francis risks a similarly dire polarization, and indeed outright schism.

The bad stuff is already brewing. Across the whole landscape of the internet I see blooming what I warned about back in September--the emergence of a coherent, unified and "dug in" conservative counter-reaction to Francis. Typical is this piece in the The Week (not some conservative rag) on how "Catholics must learn to resist their popes." This stuff is moving out of the fringe.

Overall, I worry that Francis made a terrible pick for an early reform. It's possible that--years down the line, when he's replaced half the bishops--he could move in this direction. But many in the church hierarchy and its more conservative side are not going to allow what many ordinary Catholics already expect is going to happen. In other words, hang onto your hats.

Disagree? What am I missing?

I suspect the Pope might find himself getting rolled on his proposed changes. I also think much of the blame must be placed at the feet of Cardinal Kasper - Surely we could have had a proposal which was not so intellectual lazy (the lazy part was when he pretended the relevant sin was the divorce, which could be forgiven, rather than the subsquent ongoing unrepented adultery caused by "remarriage").

Also, as a more conservative Catholic, I would say we should always "explore and enact measures to bring Catholics back to the sacramental table".

I just think we need to do so ways that do not directly contradict what, based on scripture interpreted with Tradition, are clear dominical teachings. Particularly when I think we can address the very real pastoral issues without heresy (as I briefly outlined on the other thread).

* On a related note, I think the Pope might start distancing himself from Cardinal Kasper, after his clown act regarding the LCWR / Doctrine of the Faith discussions. The poor Cardinal basically declared that he was a heretic and quite pleased with the fact.

The Pope might not be a great thinker, but he is a holy man, and can "Sentire Cum Ecclesia" far better than Cardinal Kasper.

>1 timspalding: Thanks, Tim. I still find "debacle" rather a strong word. That there is disagreement within the Church is taken for granted, and it's a good thing that there is, as Church fathers, theologians and laity read the signs of the times so that our Tradition continues to develop with both continuity and reform. I doubt very much whether there will be a schism, at least no more than there was when Lefebvre and his ilk upped and left, or our friend Joansknight and the Sedevacantists developed their conspiracy theory, or those who have branched out and "ordained" women priests - small and irrelevant splinter groups. We have one in Kenya, "Legio Maria", with married priests and its own pope. Perhaps I'm not as connected to the internet world as you are, but I don't think blogs are the be-all and end-all, and even you use the word "descend" in that context.

Francis was elected by the cardinals in order to bring change; that seems fairly clear. Basically the same cardinals who elected a safe pair of hands a few years ago realised that now we have to venture into unsafe territory. The Church has been described as the Barque of St Peter, and ships tend to sail in dangerous waters. We are a Pilgrim Church, to use another common term for the Church, wanderers on a journey. I have confidence in the Spirit who blows where She wills, who has guided the Church thus far and is probably not about to down tools and go on strike.

I don't follow the more reactionary wing of the Church. However although my own personal tendency is towards the more progressive wing, I have spent the last thirty-odd years working professionally for the Church, not a wing thereof, and I just don't see a negative reaction from this mainstream. I see bishops, priests, laity, men, women, Catholics, Christians, other faiths, atheists, just about everybody, appreciating the new breath of the Spirit which Francis brings. He models a way of being Church which is not unique but which has not been so visible recently. It is not "clear that large segments of the Curia, episcopate and Catholic public are dead-set against this", at least not unless we have different understandings of the word "large". If you were to replace "large" with "small but visible and vocal", I would agree.

On the specific instance of communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, it is already happening, perfectly licitly, in a large but unknown number of cases as a result of the internal private forum, through discernment between the individual and her confessor. At least in the circles where I move an extension and clarification of this would be welcomed. But whatever happens, I hardly see it as something which will cause a schism.

Cardinal Kasper is not a heretic when he reminds us (in something posted by Les Miserables in a parallel thread) that love and mercy are part of the essence of God. I've heard Kasper speak and found him impressive, not a clown, >2 hf22:.

I worry that Francis made a terrible pick for an early reform

Whatever Francis had picked for an early reform would have been opposed just as vehemently by those who don't want to see any reform at all.

John,

No, he is certainly not a heretic when he says that. But that was not what I was referring to, and it would be rare person (let alone a Cardinal!) who never said anything true.

I am surprised you, and so many others (including the Pope), find Cardinal Kasper impressive. I find his thought shallow and lacking insight.

Even amongst so called progressives, with whom I often disagree, I would rank him as a lesser light.

At the moment I am finding his limitations particularly annoying, hence my grumpy comment, as I feel they are endangering the ability of the Church to make sensible and orthodox pastoral revisions in its practice around the "remarried". Reforms which our orthodoxy should impel us to make, because they are required to reflect other changes in our variable practices (cf the rather novel combination of frequent communion and private confession), and will save souls.

If we end up sticking with the status quo, which almost no one thinks is ideal (even the most traditional regarding annulments etc), just because we tapped the wrong person to come up with proposals for changes ... I will weep.

But I do apologise for the grumpy comment. I really should not go around called bishops heretics.

>4 hf22: it would be rare person (let alone a Cardinal!) who never said anything true

And it would also be a "rare person (let alone a Cardinal!) who never said anything" a trifle dodgy from time to time.

Very true!

Had a good chuckle too.

Thanks.

Thanks for your thoughtful outline of the problem at hand, Tim. I don't think debacle is too strong a word; indeed, I think we may be seeing a repeat of the situation that preceded Humanae Vitae: a widespread expectation of change in Church doctrine that led to a disregard of Church teaching when that change didn't happen.

I find myself generally wary of the prospect of changing the Church's teaching on divorce and remarriage. I really don't see how we can do so without contravening the Church's clear understanding of marriage, to say nothing of the pastoral implications: does the Church accept any and all divorces? Does that mean if a man just up and leaves his wife for a younger woman the Church should accept it? If not, who determines what is a "valid" divorce and what is not -- and what does that process look like?

(I haven't read +Kasper's thoughts on these questions; if he addresses them I'd love to know.)

Cardinal Kasper really does not address the Church's clear understanding of marriage. He basically takes it as a given.

If you read his interview in Commonweal, his proposal for change in more about the Church's practice on admitting sinners to communion. That is, Cardinal Kasper asks so what if a person with a prior valid marriage is civilly married to another (i.e. where annulment is never going to help and no future Church wedding could ever be provided), why should it stop them receiving communion? If as a person in a state of mortal sin they can receive "spritual communion" why not the real thing?

The problem is, having made the issue the reception of communion rather than the indissolubility of marriage, he then fails to address the basis of the Church's teaching in this area, which is St Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:29: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.” (Douai-Rheims Bible).

That is, communion is in itself not the right medcine for a person in a state of mortal sin, but the source of even greater judgement.

However, this issue can be dealt with in an orthodox manner, if we don't just pretend it does not exist like the good Cardinal.

This can be done not by pretending the reception of communion is a good thing or a source of grace for people in this state, but by realising that keeping people in the Church is a good thing and a source of grace. And if, in an environment of frequent communion and private confession, that requires allowing people to resort to their conscience and sometimes for them to make further mistakes, so be it.

You know, the same approach we take with every other type of sin, where there is not a piece of paper involved.

Ed Peters is fulminating over the claim that 50% of marriages are invalid:

http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/even-if-the-pope-said-it-it-was-rec...
http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/cdl-kaspers-claim-cannot-be-ignored...

I find the notion both right and wrong. It gets at the nugget of the thing--something is wrong. There is something crazy and anti-Christian about some of the cases out there--a woman who had a whirlwind marriage, divorced soon after when they discovered the husband was abusive, remarried in her 30s and raised six children in the faith, and yet can't approach any of the sacraments or even serve as a godmother because she's in a state of public mortal sin. I can't believe Jesus would see it that way.

The notion that half of marriages are actually invalid, however, is also weird. It's probably true that many who are married in the church today don't really "get" the Catholic theology of marriage. They probably don't really understand that marriage is, as the USCCB puts it, the "total gift of self that husband and wife freely offer to each other." But consider history. Until relatively recently, marriage was an arrangement between two men--the fathers. The daughter--often a mere girl--had to "consent," but only that; in high-status marriages, the girl might not meet their husband until shortly before the wedding. Marriages were not lifelong unions of head and heart, they were social (and often political) necessities of a poor, unstable and deeply unfair world. Physical violence was a normal feature of married life. Did people in the past "get" the theology? I doubt it. I suspect they had no other options. But somehow we've declined from that, and more marriages are invalid now? I don't buy it.

I'm afraid all of this is stepping past the obvious--that the New Testament words about marriage--aren't an absolutely blanket, definitional fact about marriage, forbidding the church from getting involved and requiring Catholics to put quotes around "remarriage" to huffily emphasize the impossibility of it. That view is deep in Catholic theology, but it doesn't really grasp Jesus on divorces on account adultery. And it's hard to make that mesh with the Petrine and Pauline privilege. It also makes a hash of Catholic teaching on tradition, as the eastern practice is of undoubted apostolicity and long use by non-heretical churches.

>8 hf22: the same approach we take with every other type of sin

But I don't think we do. You have no idea what mortal sins the people receiving communion with you have committed. Neither do you have any idea whether they have subsequently come to an arrangement with their confessor in the internal forum or whether they are merely blithely receiving communion without even realising there is a potential problem therein. The only ones you know about are the ones involving, er, a piece of paper.

>9 timspalding: 50% of marriages are invalid

50% is no doubt a guess, and "invalid" might be a strong word to use, but if a sacrament is an effective sign of God's grace (and love), then I think we can fairly say that many, many marriages do not reflect that. The sacrament may be valid in form, ie all the correct hoops were jumped through and the exchange of vows which sealed the covenant of marriage may have been given sincerely and correctly, but in practice they are no longer truly sacramental.

John,

Except, even with the piece of paper, I don't really know. They might be living as brother and sister, they might in conscience convinced their previous marriaged was invalid etc.

I still think we get overly caught up by the piece of paper - It creates a distinction sure, but not one which should be determinative.

Tim,

The words of the New Testament, interpreted with the Tradition, are clear enough. We have to work with the indissolubility of marriage.

Trying to run away from some of the clearest teachings we have recorded as coming directly from Chirst is a bad look. If Christ wanted us to be able to remarry, he would have left in place the law of Moses in this regard.

We also can not assume Jesus did not know his teaching was result in hard cases. The hard results of unbreakable oaths was something of a mythological trope in ancient times after all.

Also put me down as doubting the apostolicity of the Eastern practice. It clearly has patristic support, but my understanding is that it flows from Byzantine civil law, rather than earlier apostolic tradition.

>11 hf22: even with the piece of paper, I don't really know

Precisely. So why worry? If more people than you or I realise are finding solutions, why oppose exploring further solutions?

We have to work with the indissolubility of marriage

Of course. But to paraphrase your question in 8>, why get so hung up on one single teaching? There are all sorts of other teachings in Scripture and Tradition which we recognise ("love thy neighbour" being the most important) but we don't refuse people communion if they fail to live up to these ideals. We demonstrate love, mercy and forgiveness and encourage people to do the best they can in their imperfect lives, and to participate in the Eucharist as a primary source of the grace they need to do so.

John,

I think we are talking at cross purposes. I am precisely saying "remarriage" should not be singled out because of a piece of paper, over and above other unrepented sins.

I am not opposed to solutions, I just think we need solutions which respect the teachings of Christ (there is after all no mercy without truth, and no truth without mercy). And given I think orthodox solutions exist, people proposing heretical ones are driving me to distraction. It is almost like heresy for the sake of heresy.

On a related note, like Cardinal Kasper, you are making an error in assuming the Eucharist is automatically a source of grace for everyone. St Paul's teaching, which I cited above, is clear on this point.

God's grace is available to all people, and we should help all people to find their way to accepting his grace, but the Eucharist qua Eucharist is not where it is to be found in all cases (specifically unrepented mortal sin).

That said, if denying communion is going to hinder people from accepting the grace God offers them in other ways through the Church, lets not deny it. Advise against it, let them know it may be to their judgement, but not deny it.

Ulimately, I think more people are going to come to live Christ desires of them if we do so, and the salvation of souls is the highest law.

>12 hf22:

I'm not exactly disagreeing with you, but I find the western position puzzling to maintain as inflexibly doctrine, especially in light of the eastern example. To hold to it would be to hold that the very center of Christianity, four of the five apostolic and canonically-established patriarchates and any number of saints and actual doctors of the church taught serious doctrinal error, performed heretical services and led many millions into dire sin, both of adultery and profanation of the eucharist.*

It's a hard case to make and maintain a Catholic ecclesiology. If people are going to call Kasper or Francis heretics for contemplating non-sacramental remarriage, then everyone from John Chyrsostom to the Cappadocian fathers were too. The unity of the church, the reality of its saints and the integrity of its tradition are facts just as central to Catholic belief as the indissolubility of marriage. You can't just step back and wave away the tradition of half the church as being something about Byzantine law. (And it's not like anyone is willing to accept that Latin attitudes might also be historically conditioned!)

And—honestly—what do you do with Matthew 5:32 and 19:9? I'm not asking a leading question but an honest one. What do you do with it? Ditto the two privileges.

More generally, I think this rather good summary of the Orthodox position hits the nail on the head with regard to communion:

"It is the precise goal of economy that the weak person not be irrevocably banned from the church communion, according to Christ’s example, who came, after all, to save the lost." - http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/athenagoras_remarria...

That's what this comes down to. Can the lost be still part of the Christian community? Did Jesus dine with sinners? Did Jesus die for sinners? Or did he die and dine only for ex-sinners?

---

*Now if we were talking about the church's then-teaching on owning slaves, I'd agree with that.

Albeit from my limited understanding of the scriptures, it does seem clear to me that Jesus is unambiguous about marriage as an indissoluble contract.

Except for adultery or if one spouse wants to put away a pagan wife...

Tim,

The ecclesiology issue does not do the work you seem to want it to. Saints taught all kinds of errors, and that is OK, because they are not infallible. It is the overall witness of Tradition which we need to take into account, as accepted by Popes and Councils.

In terms of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, the thing to remember is we are not the first people in 2000 years to think about this stuff. These teachings are also embodied in the Tradition, and can't be used as a bat to knock it down. Exceptions prove the rule and all that.

Also, from your link, I think the biggest difference between east and west is in fact this statement:

"A question we can ask ourselves is whether Christ considered marriage as being indissoluble? We need to be very clear in this as when Christ teaches that marriage may not be dissolved that does not mean that He is stating that it cannot occur."

I think in the west we would give the opposite answer. That you can no more be unmarried then you can be un-baptised - Sacraments create permanent ontological changes.

>14 hf22: people proposing heretical ones are driving me to distraction

Who is doing this? The synod of bishops who will make the decision with the pope? Bloggers? Reactionaries who are accusing progressives of doing so whether it is true or not? A storm in a teacup, in my view.

you are making an error in assuming the Eucharist is automatically a source of grace for everyone

Am I making that assumption? Did I say "everyone"?

That said, if denying communion is going to hinder people from accepting the grace God offers them in other ways through the Church, lets not deny it

So where do we disagree, then? Because it seems that I agree with you in 15>.

In Jesus's day, a woman depended on male relatives' support. I always thought he was trying to be kind when he portrayed marriage as indissoluble. But in administering marriage, the church became so rigid as to withdraw support from people just trying to live their lives--the opposite of his intent?

A European history of marriage described the church (in 1200s?) increasingly inserting itself into what was until then a civil matter. Or at least it was for the upper class. The irregularity of regular folks' affairs was the driver for greater church involvement, if I recall correctly.

The legalistic approach has a thrice married, twice annulled deacon openly serving, while people with much simpler stories who can't or won't seek annulment are not welcomed. WWJD?

> 19

John,

Like I said, we might be speaking at cross purposes. I am not sure we do disagree.

Also sorry if I read that assumption in. Cross purposes again.

In terms of proposals based on error rather than truth, two of the main ones fall under this category as far as I can see.

First is those which deny the indissoluble nature of marriage, which might include the Eastern Orthodox solution, if the view I quoted at > 18 about what indissolubility means in that tradition is generally held (not sure if it is though - I have heard different things from different people).

Second is those who ignore St Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:29, which seems to include Cardinal Kasper at the moment, though like I said that can be fixed without losing his desired result.

I suspect Synod of Bishops will avoid both of these errors however, and start off by adopting something less radical then even I am proposing (such as changing some canon law presumptions and procedures), with a later round of reform if that ends up being insufficient (which I suspect it will be).

It seems to me that the difference between >1 timspalding: and >3 John5918: is the same difference of perspective that showed up between me and John in last year's thread on Women's leadership in the early Church -- for example, in this post I warned against the extremely serious ecclesiological problems that women's ordination would create, and John subsequently found my comment a bit overwrought. I think part of the difference is that John sees many of the issues through pastoral eyes, to which theological quibbling can often seem more pharasaical than pastoral, a la Matthew 15, where Jesus castigates the Pharisees for thinking that they are freed from the obligation to care for their parents because they have fulfilled their other religious duties to the letter.

>22 nathanielcampbell: John sees many of the issues through pastoral eyes, to which theological quibbling can often seem more pharasaical than pastoral

Thanks, Nathaniel, for that insight.

>18 hf22: The ecclesiology issue does not do the work you seem to want it to. Saints taught all kinds of errors, and that is OK, because they are not infallible. It is the overall witness of Tradition which we need to take into account, as accepted by Popes and Councils.

Right. I see where you are coming from, but this is a lot of church teaching to throw out. We are, as I said, talking about what was, for the first millennium or so, the majority of Christendom and the vast majority of its intellectual and spiritual resources. If what the eastern church did and taught about marriage for 1,000 years is heresy, then everything falls apart. Fortunately, it can't and didn't. Nobody then talked this way; -the Roman church didn't excommunicate all the eastern bishops. Indeed, the issue has never been a major one in Catholic/Orthodox ecumenical talks too.

As I noted before, this is a very unusual issue between the churches. There aren't a lot of doctrinal questions the east and west disagree on, going right back to the first centuries. Of course, the Orthodox would insist it isn't a disagreement at all--true sacramental marriage can only exist once, but some rescue short of permanent childlessness and celibacy exists for those whose marriage has absolutely died.

>18 hf22: Sacraments create permanent ontological changes.

Unless I'm mistaken, the theology is that baptism, confirmation and holy orders create ontological changes. This is why they cannot be repeated. Marriage does not create that same ontological change, and can be repeated--you can do it 20 times if 19 of your wives die.

If we're going to insist on ontological changes, then I'm afraid you're taking the side of the Pharisees, who wanted to know to whom a woman will be married to at the resurrection, when she had six husbands die (Luke 20:27ff). Surely an ontological change survives death.

Lastly, however, the conversation here illustrates my point in the OP—we're in for some rough sailing. Even if the western church can eventually resolve the issue in a Kasper-ian or Orthodox direction, it's not going to do it without intense struggle.

It strikes me that issues of this sort can be resolved in a multi-year council. Vatican II's change of heart of the Jews and on other Christians strikes me as a far larger change--and indeed one without the example of the eastern church. But the Council involved thousands of bishops in a theological crash course and hashing things out together in charity for years. A fly-in-fly-out synod isn't the same sort of thing at all.

>24 timspalding: Tim, could I prevail upon you to use the great new tool which you have recently created which allows us to see to which post you are referring?

>25 John5918:

Done. Apologies.

>24 timspalding:

Tim,

I don't think we are that far apart. Part of the issue with the Orthodox is they are not strong on giving absolute and consistent reasons for their practices - And they (and I) could likely find good reasons for their practices if required.

Also I accept "ontological" was a step to far. The rejection of digamy did have a place in early Christianity, but it was only amongst the heretics :).

Long America interview with Cardinal Kasper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYcXT0UhZUI&feature=youtu.be

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/3128/the_confounding_and_curious_pontifi...

This article discusses some of the furore around Card. Kasper's 'two-hour-long address to an extraordinary consistory on the family at the Vatican'.

I'm really not up to speed on these matters and have little knowledge of the doctrinal issues, therefore post this as a curiosity.

Nevertheless, from what I gather, what is at stake here is whether or not the church in a local sense can use pastoral practice to interpret cornerstone Catholic teaching?

>29 LesMiserables: In practice the Church has always done so, often in the internal forum, often unofficially without fanfare, often at the level of individual priests and people. Maybe that in itself is a form of praxis theology and it is now time to acknowledge it publicly?

It's worth noting perhaps that for a theologian to be controversial and to explore a theme from a novel and even inconvenient direction is not heretical. It's what theologians do.

I'd never come across that particular website but it does seem to have a right wing agenda.

30

Hi John, I know nothing of the website, so you may be right, as you are sure to spot the key elements of factional politics in the Church much more readily than I am.

I'm showing my ignorance here so forgive me, but I was not aware that there was doctrinal autonomy at a local level. I can see though that cultural variances demands moderation in method employed by the Church.

But surely there are issues that are sacred and not open to local interpretation?

> 30

John,

Regarding theologians, such an approach does not make you automatically heretical, but that approach is more or less required for a new heresy to be created.

I always get a laugh from people in NCR or the Tablet saying they can't be heretical because they are theologians or highly educated. I always wonder who they think comes up with heresies.

>31 LesMiserables: I don't think it is so much doctrinal autonomy as pastoral practice. But in a way doctrine does develop with to pastoral praxis - lex orandi, lex credendi. You're right to say that not all doctrine is open to local interpretation, but the pastoral practice surrounding the doctrine may well be.

>32 hf22: I think the point is that it is not heretical unless it is declared so. Theologians test the waters; that's one of the ways in which the Church develops. Mind you, I too would get a huge laugh if anything heretical came out of the Tablet, as it is a very cautious, middle-of-the-road pro-establishment magazine.

> 33

John,

Oh, I agree with all your points (including regarding the Tablet). I just think we need to remember that, if you are going to test the waters, a lot of the time you are going to find them to be unhealthy.

Forgetting that seems to be the reason why we get people in a huff when the Church tells them they are wrong, as if their training or vocation puts them above such criticism, when in fact their training and vocation requires it.

I think Pope Francis has the best attitude in this regard, when he said as you do the job you are called to do, you might sometimes fall into error and get a call from the CDF. When that happens, you adjust accordingly because that the job they are called to do, and then you keep doing the job you for which you are called.

That is, fraternal correction should neither be rejected or feared, but looked on as a source of help which allows us to carry out our mission in truth and charity.

* I should note my reference to the Tablet and the NCR does not suggest only the "left" come up with errors. The "right" however just have different reactions when getting in a huff about being called on their errors (like declaring Popes not to be Popes, or to be communists, or other such nonsense).

A good article by Michael Sean Winters over at NCR, at http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/pope-francis-authority, which I will be keeping in mind as the Synod of Bishops approaches.

More…

Ross Douthat, Against Walter Kasper (I)
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/against-walter-kasper-i/?_php=true&a...

36

50%

If that figure is based on immaturity then there is no hope. I do not speak for all, but there is a wise old saying that a fool at forty is a fool forever.

The fact is, folk marry young. They wisen up as they age and by their fourth decade they should carry the armoury of experience around them. Or there or thereabouts.

I married at 28, 18 years ago. I did not consider the weighty spiritual elements of the sacrament but understood the responsibility and grave vocation of the partnership. I was spiritually ignorant but was a practising Catholic attending mass.

I baulk at the notion that my marriage is invalid.

I baulk at the notion that my marriage is invalid.

I married my wife in front of an Episcopal minister, and it was convalidated the next morning at a Catholic church.

With my current canonical goggles, I can see that the original marriage didn't exist, for although I wasn't yet a Catholic, my wife was (officially), and so could not have a valid marriage except in the church. So our marriage did not actually exist at all until the next day.

You know what? I can bullshit. It would be one thing if Catholics had always believed this. But in fact the requirement for canonical form is relatively recent. So marry that way one year, it's a sacramental union that can't be dissolved by any power on earth. Marry that way another year, and you aren't married at all.

Suuuure. And anyone who questions this? Heretic.

38

I guess that we live in age like all of those before us where there have been certain elements to our faith that have been contentious and potentially devastating to our unity.

I might just close with something humorous Peter Kreeft said in a speech (This gives me comfort...)

How could any merely human institution, without supernatural help, manned by such idiots as us, possibly be the institution that has lasted for two thousand years and been faithful to its traditions without changing them? When Napoleon kidnapped the pope, he said, "We will destroy you." The pope said, "Ha. We haven't been able to destroy ourselves for two thousand years. You won't be able to do it, either."

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/catholic_stories/cs0610.htm

And by the way, if you have the time, watch the video. I think he is a great advocate for our Church.

Someone called you a heretic for questioning canonical form? Canonical form is a recent solution to a problem which does not really exist any more (secret marriages).

It is just a canon law thing, an exercise of authority. Just like SSPX priests can not hear confessions.

You could change these requirements every day for a week and not create any doctrinal issues.

>38 timspalding:

I'm afraid I don't buy that the validity—which is the actual existence—of millions of marriages can be changed by a stroke of a congregational or papal pen.

As you put it, the "you could change these requirements every day for a week and not create any doctrinal issues." Well, what if they did just that? From now on Catholics who marry non-Catholics on even-numbered days have sacramental marriages, and those on odd days did not. That is, what if the sorts of flips the church has seen recently, and which are apparently fine on account of their "authority," came every day? The former individuals would be absolutely forbidden "by the very words of the Savior" to divorce or remarry; Catholic commentators would put "marriage" in quotes when speaking of them; and Cardinals who wanted some accommodation if they divorced and remarried would be called heretics. The latter would have no marriage, would be in mortal sin for having sex with a spouse not their own, should be refused communion by priests, but—since the lack of a marriage cuts both ways—are free to marry another on account of "lack of canonical form."

Better still, since Tametsi made it clear that new rules for validity were true even when the rules were not published or known, let us suppose that these daily changes were not known to any of the participants. On Monday, Wednesday and Friday and Sunday, the Pope signs one degree alone in his office; on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday he signs the other.

These are absurdities. The validity of marriages going on today simply cannot be changed by a document published in Rome yesterday. That isn't authority. That's voodoo. Authority would be issuing an order on how marriage is to be done, and considering those who knowing break it to have sinned against the church's legitimate authority. But authority would not imagine it could, on its own steam, flip the ontology of human relationships, and with it the whole universe of sin and sacraments for the people in those relationships.

>41 timspalding: what if the sorts of flips the church has seen recently, and which are apparently fine on account of their "authority," came every day?

But they don't, and what you have written is hyperbole.

I think there are many marriages valid today which the Church doesn't officially and publicly recognise as such but which are recognised in the internal forum by the couple themselves and their bishop, priest or confessor. A gradual development of canonical (not doctrinal) policy to recognise them publicly is not the rather hysterical process that you describe.

Obviously the point is hysterical. It's taking something to its logical conclusion. It's what follows if you think "You could change these requirements every day for a week and not create any doctrinal issues." It's what happens if you think that the validity of marriage is truly dependent not only on details of form, but on whether someone in Rome has decided these details matter or not--something that has indeed changed. Put simply, you cannot change these requirements every day. It's not so much that you can't change the requirements, it's that your requirements changes cannot change reality like this. To think otherwise is to give the church a truly bizarre authority.

>43 timspalding: To take the other example: the doctrinal implications of the canonical (il)licitness of confession to an SSPX priest. Does the fact that an SSPX priest does not have the canonical faculties to hear confessions and grant absolution mean that a person who confesses their sins to one with true contrition of heart is refused the grace of absolution? The doctrinal implications of the canonical policy take us right back to Luther's 95 Theses.

(Which is to say: canonical regulations, despite their quotidian variability, do have doctrinal implications.)

>44 nathanielcampbell:

Here your infinitely superior theological training is perhaps important. But with my limited understanding, I'd give these two reasons.

First Confession is at root a reconciliation to the Christian community and to the shared communion table. It's origin as a sacrament in acts of confession and penance by which someone who was cut off from them by grave sin could be readmitted. (Only latter did the idea of confessing smaller venial sins come about, and indeed one need not confess them at all to this day.) The community did the readmitting, and the bishop as the head of the community acted and spoke for the community. For someone to absolve someone of their sins and readmit them to the community's sacred communion apart from and against the pastor of that community is a sort of contradiction.

Second, the part about "a person who confesses their sins to one with true contrition of heart is refused the grace of absolution" oversteps what sacraments are and aren't. Sacraments are instances of God's grace. But God's grace is not confined to them by any means. So the lack of a sacrament is not necessarily the lack of a grace. We may trust God that those who are truly penitent are forgiven. And to say that confession among Anglicans, Unitarians, or priests without faculties, or whatever, is not a sacrament is not to say that God's grace may not be present. Anyone who's been a non-Catholic Christian should attend to this point. In a recent post at First Things, a Presbyterian made the point that:

"If I were to become Catholic or Orthodox, I would have to conclude that I have never participated in a full Eucharistic service."

One some level, this is true; the communion service could never be "full." On another, the Catholic does not need to believe that "nothing is every going on" when non-Catholics do as Jesus commanded. Indeed, no Catholic with experience in such services could do other than believe God's grace was indeed sometimes or always present.

>44 nathanielcampbell:

Nathaniel,

I would say the person confessing is beyond God's promises, though not his grace and mercy. And it would be presumptuous to rely on God's mercy, rather than his promises.

BTW, I would like to hear your views on the doctrinal implications of variable canon law, or perhaps some suggested reading. It seems like an area which might be more relevant in the next few years then it has been for a while.

> 43

Tim,

It is the authority of the keys, give to St Peter by Christ, and I think it really can change reality (within the limits allowed it).

I am happy to be corrected on this, but your examples don't make this authority seem bizarre to me, just capable of being abused. And there is no authority exercised by men which can not be abused.

And like Nathaniel suggested, when you throw out authority on the basis it can be abused, you might find yourself in a similar place to Luther.

It is the authority of the keys, give to St Peter by Christ, and I think it really can change reality (within the limits allowed it).

I don't know. The Catechism defines it as:

The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church.

Does "disciplinary" really mean that the church may change what marriages are in their very nature valid or invalid? How often can it do that? Does the power of the keys admit of nanoseconds?

It seems to me that "discipline" is not ontology, but the rules above them. It is, for example, admitted that the Orthodox priest and bishop are defying legitimate authority whenever they say mass or create new bishops. But the church does not have the power to unmake their sacraments--to say that, from now on, the eucharist is just a piece of bread unless the priest is in communion with Rome. And those priests and bishops know what they're doing--they know they're not in communion with Rome. How much less can the church decide that two distant and uninformed laypeople's marriage doesn't or does exist, because of a document signed in Rome the day before? With respect, that's crazy. That's O'Brien telling Wilson that two fingers are three if the Party says so.

Or take another example. The church holds that a wrongful excommunication is no excommunication at all. (See even the Catholic Encylcopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm). If the power of the keys was truly ontological, whether just or not, surely the unjustly excommunicated person would be excommunicated in truth.

> 49

Orthodox bishops, in Catholic thought, do have real dioceses and authority (even though they are in schism). Therefore, unlike SSPX priests, we do consider their confessions to be valid.

The nature of whom the Church authority is in fact one of the limits generally acknowledged to the power of the Church to make rules.

For example, when the Church provides indulgences for say visiting the place of your baptism, it does not extent to those who were baptised in say an Anglican or Lutheran place of worship because the Catholic Church does not have jurisdiction over those physical places.

Also, while I am talking beyond my actual knowledge of canon law, I seem to recall things like canonical form only apply to Catholics (rather than all others) precisely because the Church knows the limits of its jurisdiction.

>50 hf22:

Speaking of the SSPX, where are their bishops bishops "of"? Lefebvre of course was a real bishop of a real place. What of the others?

Canonical form has been required of non-Catholics in ages past.

We are both, perhaps, our of our depth. Nathaniel? :)

>51 timspalding:

Tim,

I second us being out of our depth!

But in terms of the SSPX, my understanding is that their bishops are not "of" anywhere.

In another place, it has been put thus:

"The SSPX bishops are an anomaly unheard of in Christian tradition: bishops without no diocese, either actual/real or titular. They are like husbands without wives. They have orders but no jurisdiction."

I wonder why they didn't declare themselves bishops of some extinct town in Tunisia.

I think it was an unsuccessful attempt to manage the contradictions of their position.

The SSPX did not want to found a new or separate Church, and still thinks of itself as merely a priestly society within the RCC, and so did not think it could claim any particular diocese (even a titular one in Tunisia).

They still get sniffy when they are identified as in schism, though I think they clearly are.

Not a real traditional solution however, despite episcopi vagantes having a reasonably long and disreputable history in American Anglicanism.

I have to confess I'm really struggling to follow this thread.

:)

And this makes sense to me without undermining the serious issues at hand

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2q1qbqP3EI

> 57

LesMis,

It is a good response, and one I think Pope would endorse.

>58 hf22:

I suspect he would to. And I hope that, if the Pope does indeed create new space for the divorced and remarried to participate in the life in the church, the people now calling Kasper a heretic and implying the Pope is heading toward heresy will look at the fundamental questions and convictions of the church, the discipline of the life of the church and then, from the inside, this may lead them to an understanding which undoes the harm of their present superficial understanding, and releases them from their present ignorance, misunderstanding and unreason.

Notice how weird that sounds. This particular rhetorical toolkit generally only goes "one way." The advocate for female ordination doesn't "understand." The traditionalist who questions Vatican II or the new mass stands up for his principles, or defies authorities. He's not treated to patronizing avoidances and implications of ignorance.

The right word here isn't to fail to understand. The right word is disagree. To use the term isn't by any means to concede that all positions have equal value. Nor does it preclude disciplinary measures. We're not disagreeing about barbecue sauces; there's a truth here. But it doesn't start by framing disagreement as a question of ignorance.

> 60

Tim,

It does not sound strange to me. I also believe we need to address these issues because of our orthodoxy, not in spite of it.

I just don't think Cardinal Kasper proposal manages to provide an orthodox solution, though orthodox solutions clearly exist.

In any event, I trust the Synod process will settle on such an orthodox solution, though I accept that is unlikely to implement precisely the solutions I would recommend.

>61 hf22:

I hope it comes up with a pastoral solution. I'm not actually sure that orthodoxy comes into it, as the basic doctrine that marriage is for life is not challenged, only how we respond pastorally to our less-than-perfect ability to live up to that doctrine in a fallen world. After all, we also fail all the time, habitually and continually, to live up to the far more important doctrines of love God and love thy neighbour, but we have found pastoral solutions which do not exclude us sinners from communion.

> 62

John,

Oh, Cardinal Kasper does not challenge the doctrine of marriage. I think he has cleared that up sufficiently in his recent interviews, though it would be helpful if he spoke more plainly on this point.

The concern that remains for me is St Paul teaching on the reception of communion in a state of serious sin, as I have mentioned before.

Now, I think that can be addressed, by merely saying one should not (rather than can not) receive as a "remarried" person. This is, in fact, what we say to pretty much every other sinner (who do not have a problematic bit of paper).

Further, in an age of private confession and frequent communion, I think it is precisely what we should be saying to sinners. Otherwise, like in the article you posted at 59, we risk pushing people out of the Church and further endangering their souls (and our own if insist on doing that).

But that is not what the good Cardinal has in fact said so far, preferring instead to ignore the issue. But I am hopeful the Synod process will fix that, and that we will therefore get a result which is both pastoral and orthodox (not that a solution could be one without the other).

With a new Synod of Bishops comes a new chance to do things right (NCR)

> 64

Because what we need to do is abandon the Council of Trent and implement the Reformation?

Sigh.

Well at least VII is not the only council which still faces unacceptable rejection with the Church today ;)

>64 John5918: Interesting to review US bishops' circulation of survey to laity (mostly NOT it seems, including my diocese): http://ncronline.org/us-dioceses-response-vatican-questionnaire-synod-family . It supports my non-RC, non-US dad's suspicion that the next schism will occur in the US, because the hierarchy is out of step with the people. Rather than schism, future could be be more like Quebec's Quiet Revolution, in which the Church went from dominant to irrelevant in peoples' lives? Hope Synod finds another way.

>65 hf22: Because what we need to do is abandon the Council of Trent and implement the Reformation?

Is that really how you interpret this?

>66 margd: the next schism will occur in the US

Interesting thought, which perhaps partly explains my reaction against Tim's use of the word "debacle". It doesn't look like a debacle from Africa or Europe, but maybe it does from a pre-schismatic USA!

Will Durant sees The Reformation continuing to unfold in the US. As he saw it, there's much unfinished business exemplified in many unaffiliated, fervent churches. Religion is serious business!

For most American Catholics, though, I think "Quiet Revolution" (= dropouts and cafeteria Catholics) is more likely outcome than schism, if no change in US bishops' tone, at the very least.

> 67

John,

Yes, that is how I interpreted Sr. Joan's article. I am really not sure how else it could be interpreted - Even the potentially reasonable commentary about the need for asking questions / having discussions seem to be to that end.

What is your alternative take?

>69 hf22: It seems to me that she is pointing out that there are two ways of dealing with challenges. One is denial, circling the wagons and creating a fortress mentality. But the result of this, as she says, is that "the need for change and real renewal never went away". The other option is to accept the challenges and to question one's actions - and to accept the risks that come with that questioning.

I'm staying in a house belonging to the Missionaries of Africa this week, and after evening prayer they recite a beautiful prayer of their own. It includes the words:

Grant us the grace to remain faithful to the inspiration of Cardinal Lavigerie {their founder} while taking the risk of imagining the future with audacity and wisdom...

It goes on to ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten us in discerning the way forward. This really speaks to me of the openness which our Church, and a Council or Synod thereof, needs to display in the face of challenges. It is that blend of continuity and reform which I believe Benedict XVI spoke of (can't find the reference) and which I have heard Cardinal Kasper say.

> 70

Ah, but real change to what! I think it is fairly clear Sr. Joan and Benedict XVI have different ideas about that.

For example, if I was going to do good works, it is pretty clear just trying to replicate what Cardinal Lavigerie did may well be silly. The world and its needs have changed.

It would also be silly to try and rerun the Council of Trent - It was required by a different time with different issues.

But the Council of Trent defined and defended many beautiful and eternal truths, and there is no point questioning them again now, though not a few are keen to do so.

And I really do get the impression, even after rereading Sr. Joan, that she brings old and discredited solutions to new problems.

I think we rather need, as expressed the lovely prayer you have quoted, new and creative expressions of eternal truths as they apply to the signs of the times.

>71 hf22: I think we rather need... new and creative expressions of eternal truths as they apply to the signs of the times.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that. I wouldn't interpret her comments as necessarily disagreeing with it.

But the Council of Trent defined and defended many beautiful and eternal truths, and there is no point questioning them again now, though not a few are keen to do so.

The Council of Trent was refuted the Protestant notion of divorce. But it did not go so far as to refute (or even mention) the Orthodox theology. As the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law puts it:

"The council, nevertheless, studiously avoided condemning Eastern Christians whose discipline allowed for remarriage after divorce because of adultery." (see http://books.google.com/books?id=6YCpraE-7xcC&lpg=PA1237&ots=ZfBAowuvYs&...

As stated before, the church simply cannot declare that the Orthodox practice is equivalent to adultery, and other opinions are heresy. To do so would be to declare the Eastern Churches to have been heretical from the earliest days, and for centuries when the churches were in union. It would mean that the a number of councils, but especially the Council of Florence, should never have inked reunion with the eastern churches because, although compromise was found on purgatory and similar issues, no compromise was found on the theology of marriage. It would mean that the theology of marriage should jump to the top of all discussion of reunion--the necessity that the Orthodox ditch almost two millennia of theology becoming a sine qua non for any reunion, when previously it was rarely mentioned at all. And it would mean that Francis was flirting with heresy when he said that the Orthodox theology of marriage is something the synod should consider.

Right?

>73 timspalding: Seems to me your last sentence is at odds with the rest of your post. If no council has ever condemned something, how can it be heresy to consider it?

Incidentally, talking of heresy, at mass this morning the priest reminded us that Joan of Arc was excommunicated and burned at the stake as a heretic, and was later rehabilitated and is now a great saint of the Church. He mentioned others as far apart as Origen and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who were condemned but are now considered pretty fine chaps. So I don't think it's very helpful to throw around polarising terms like heresy every time someone tries to explore new approaches which they believe to be consistent with tradition, while others doubt it. Time and the wisdom of the Church will tell. Of course over breakfast we discussed Cardinal Kasper in this light. Not surprisingly, the pastorally-minded missionary priests I was breakfasting with tended to be rather sympathetic to his views on mercy.

>73 timspalding:

Hmmm. That was my point. If the church declared that Orthodox practice was adultery, it would mean X, Y, etc. But it can't declare that.

To get off one bus and take another, what of the Pope's recent reiteration that those who divorce and remarry are not excommunicated. I want to pick that apart a bit. What does it mean? I'm asking for real, not rhetorically.

What, in other words, is the theological difference between the excommunicated person and the person who cannot take or be given communion? Both can attend church--indeed are encouraged to. Both can turn over a new leaf, confess their sins to a priest and be readmitted to communion. And neither can take communion. What does it mean to say that someone is prohibited from taking communion, but is not excommunicated. On the level of root linguistic meaning they are the same. What's the theological difference?

> 73

I am not sure avoidance of this issue, say at the Council of Florence because Venice had some Greek islands, can be given this import.

The other issue your position needs to deal with, if the Greek practice is acceptable, the Latin one might need to be declared heretical. Which, on your logic, is no more possible than declaring the Greek practice so.

We would therefore need to work out how both practices can be made theoretically consistent. Now this might might be possible, as I have mentioned before, but getting everyone to agree both East and West on the same logic would be difficult.

Maybe it can go on the agenda at the proposed ecumenical “gathering” between the East and West in Nicaea in 2025, which is currently in the news.

> 75

I still think we believe Origen held heretical ideas - That's why he is not recognised as a saint. Much of his modern support seems to come from the fact his works were "edited" by ancient heresy hunters, and his worse excesses have not survived (though are suggested in the works of this critics which we still have).

Also, I am not sure how far apart Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is from Origen. As far as I understand him, Teilhard de Chardin very much based his thought on the surviving works of Origen.

In fact, I have been recommended in the past to just read Origen instead of Teilhard de Chardin, as the similar ideas are better expressed by a superior thinker. Plus, you get to avoid Teilhard de Chardin's love of coining strange words which got him in trouble in the first place (noosphere etc), which are now so beloved by modern gnostics and new age types.

> 76

The old Catholic Encyclopedia* notes the effects of excommunication as:

Res sacræ, ritus, communio, crypta, potestas,
prædia sacra, forum, civilia jura vetantur.

i.e. loss of the sacraments, public services and prayers of the Church, ecclesiastical burial, jurisdiction, benefices, canonical rights, and social intercourse.

Whereas one who is "remarried" is merely not allowed to receive communion. Therefore for example a person who is remarried is still welcome / required to come to mass, where as one who is excommunicated may not be.

* It might now be different under the current version of canon law.

>77 hf22:

Can. 1331 §1. An excommunicated person is forbidden:

1/ to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever;

2/ to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments;

3/ to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.

A 75 year old woman was ordained this weekend in Michigan and RC authorities warned that anyone witnessing the event would be excommunicated. !!! Why the strong reaction, I wonder? There's no such penalty I assume for witnessing ordination of Anglican priests, even if female? Must be special potency in ordaining a woman somewhat in the RC tradition? Or fully--is that why?

> 78

Thanks John!

> 79

Margd,

The main difference is that the Anglicans "ordain" individuals into their own church, rather than presuming to ordain them into the Roman Catholic Church.

If the Women Priest movement treated itself as its own church, rather than an unauthorized activity within the Roman Catholic Church, I think it would get treated on a more ecumenical basis (more friendly), rather than as a matter of internal Church discipline (less friendly).

More on Second Marriages among the Orthodox:

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350806?eng=y

Not sure I agree with everything in this article, but interesting none the less.

>77 hf22: if the Greek practice is acceptable, the Latin one might need to be declared heretical... We would therefore need to work out how both practices can be made theoretically consistent. Now this might might be possible

Indeed it might be possible. Not everything has to be either/or; it could be both/and. For one position to be right does not automatically require a different position to be wrong. They could both be right.

All that despite the old Catholic maxim that whatever is not forbidden is compulsory!

>79 margd: I think excommunication is used not for sins per se but when someone is seen to be attacking the institution of the Church. Thus someone might be excommunicated for something which appears relatively minor in the grand scale of things (like the ordination you mention), and someone else will not be excommunicated for what is clearly a very evil sin (like genocide). The only exception seems to be abortion, which is not an attack on the institution but which is excommunicable as a sin.

But I agree with you that this case appears to be an overreaction.

> 82

John,

Yes, it could be "both/and", but someone has to do the hard work which shows that to the satisfaction of all concerned (particularly the Orthodox). And I have certainly not seen any contribution that has managed to do that to date, though we are starting to see some attempts (the article I linked to at 81 does this in part).

My point was merely that Tim's shortcut, that any Orthodox practice pre-dating the schism can be assumed to be OK, does not really work as a shortcut.

Such practices might be OK, but they can not be automatically assumed to be, as they might really be in an "either/or" relationship to be a pre-schism Latin practice.

>83 hf22: Are we in a glass half full v glass half empty scenario? I look at the possibilities with hope and joy, and trust that Church Fathers and theologians will negotiate them and come up with something acceptable. You seem only to see the potential difficulties.

> 84

Oh, I just don't want to get ahead of myself. When I identify a possiblity, I like to remember the answer might be that it does not work.

Someone once said, with great wisdom I think, that God answers every prayer. It is just that sometimes, his answer is no*.

That said, I share your hope and trust that an answer for our unity will be found if we have goodwill. I just don't know if this specific example will be part of that answer.

* This might have been from an episode of the TV show MASH. I still like the thought however.

The other issue your position needs to deal with, if the Greek practice is acceptable, the Latin one might need to be declared heretical. Which, on your logic, is no more possible than declaring the Greek practice so.

On the contrary--the nature of the thing prevents that. Second, non-sacramental marriages are not a sort of right, still less a sacred necessity. They are allowed by economy and as an act of mercy. While it would be heresy to deny that the church can exercise discretion and mercy in a given situation--marriage, or anything else--it is not heresy to withhold that.

We would therefore need to work out how both practices can be made theoretically consistent. Now this might might be possible, as I have mentioned before, but getting everyone to agree both East and West on the same logic would be difficult.

Well, obviously some on the Latin side disagree, but the theoretical consistency is in-built--the eastern churches do not sacramentalize the union.

If we're going to get into this, consider masturbation. By long tradition, it is a sin--indeed, by tradition, a mortal one. Yet studies have shown that some 98% of priests masturbate, and one may confidently expect the percentage of lay people is not much less.(1) And of course it's a habitual one--not unlike sex in marriage--making it very difficult to imagine anyone many are truly "sincerely contrite" and have a "firm purpose of ammendment" about the thing they do every second night or so and twice on Saturday. Add this all up, and I'm unclear how more than a percent or two of men could ever be worthy to approach communion.

Even so, I think, most spiritual advisors would say, if it can't be avoided, it's better for a 22 year-old man to jack off now and then therapeutically than have sex at the absolute center of his thoughts all the time. Any of you remember what it was like to be 22? And of course it should be remembered that the age of sexual maturation has decreased and the age of marriage has skyrocketed, leading most in western societies with two or more decades of sexual maturity without a spouse.

Orthodox second marriage is like that--a concession to human weakness and something less than the ideal. It is simply too much to expect that everyone whose spouse runs out on them at 20 never again experience the emotional support and physical affection of married life, not to mention--often--never having a shot at a family. Christianity is a religion for humans--humans with wives and husbands, children and grandchildren. Such marriages falls short of the ideal and is therefore not sacramentalized--communion wine being replaced with a shared cup of ordinary wine, to symbolize a shared life. The rite is penitential in character, and is at the church's discretion. The church is merciful--showing people the ideal, but meeting people where they are too.

I think excommunication is used not for sins per se but when someone is seen to be attacking the institution of the Church.

Right. And to be clear, it's not merely the institution. The Catholic church--rightly or wrongly--thinks that its unity is both real and morally necessary. Every member is a member of the same community. Every priest is a equally an alter Christus at the service of that community. Illicit ordinations disrupt that. While there are additional things said about the ordination of a woman, the church takes a similar line with other schismatic acts. Take the greatest, most orthodox male layperson in the world, or the greatest, most orthodox priest, and confer on him the sacrament to make him a priest or a bishop, and you're just as immediately excommunicated.

---

(1) Mary Doria Russel used the statistic--authentic, but I won't go looking--in her Sparrow. A priest, asked about it, repeated the statistic:

"I can tell you that in a survey of five hundred celibates, four hundred and ninety-eight of them said that they masturbated."
"What about the other two?"
"Elementary, dear Watson. From their response we may deduce that they have no arms."

> 87

Tim,

Unfortunately, it is not at all clear that "eastern churches do not sacramentalize the union".

While visiting a Russian Orthodox priest friend on the weekend, and after spending 2.5 hours standing up at the Divine Liturgy he celebrated, it was pointed out to me that the Orthodox "Rite of Second Marriage" is also used for widows and widowers entering into a second union (which we would clearly accept as a sacrament).

Further, it was also pointed out to me that the Orthodox do not necessarily see any distinction between sacraments and sacramental blessings, such the distiction sought to be made in the article I linked to at 81 does not make sense from the perspective of many Orthodox (i.e. if they bless it, it is a real sacramental marriage).

Later reading on the internet seem to bear out that these views are not only held by my friend and his parishioners.

On your other example, not sure it makes any sense to me. It sounds a lot like you are saying because we inevitably sin, it can't really be sin?

And yes, I really am sometimes not in a fit state to receive communion, and therefore sometimes do not do so. This helps me be aware of my sinfulness, and assists me to reach a "firm purpose of ammendment". One of my temptations might even be related to your example (well, is your example, but moving on).

The fact that we struggle with sin is not a problem in my view, it is in fact what we are called to do by Christ if we wish to join the saints.

* Liked your joke though. Funny cause its true.

>87 hf22: I think there's a huge difference between you or me deciding that we are not in a fit state to receive communion from time to time and so deliberately abstaining on certain occasions, and someone being refused communion for the rest of their lives because of their circumstances.

> 88

John,

Very different, certainly. Sorry if I conflated them - Not helpful to do so.

Indeed, I think there is a very real difference between deliberately abstaining and being refused, even if both were for an extended period.

I am still having difficulties accepting Oikonomia as a viable concept however. In my further reading, I have found an article by a Fr Dylan James which sums up my views pretty much at this point, which can be found at: http://fatherdylanjames.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/divorce-and-remarriage-oikonomia...

There a number of issues in relation to which, on the eventual reunion of the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy, I believe the Catholic Church should and will give way (i.e. the removal of the Filioque from the creed, even if only on the basis it is unnecessary and can be misunderstood etc). This however seems to me one issue which will need to go the other way.

>89 hf22: Thanks for the clarification. And let me clarify that I am not arguing in favour of oikonomia as the only possible solution. I will be happy with any pastoral solution.

But having read the link, I would say that it is a very legalistic argument, at odds with pastoral concerns.

Do we really think that such a pastoral and liturgical practice will satisfy those in the West

The good father may not have noticed that most Catholics do not live in "the West", if that is taken to mean north America and Europe.

> 90

John,

No problems, and I agree with you regarding "the West".

However, I will only be happy with a solution if it is both pastoral and orthodox. I think we both agree our current practice falls down on the pastoral side, such that we do need a new solution, and that we will get one.

In terms of oikonomia, the key passage in the article which resonated with me was:

"To summarise the key Roman-Orthodox difference: in the Roman understanding, the Church is the servant of what Christ has commanded and has no authority to ‘dispense’ someone from the moral law, rather, it is her duty to call people to live it as the path to life."

I think that sums up my difficulty with oikonomia, even though I would agree the Church has a more limited "care and maintaince" power over the divine and moral law (such that might be used if we ever meet the Martian the Pope referred to the other day, whose biology might not map neatly to the black letter of various parts of these doctrines).

All that said, I note Cardinal Kasper is quoted today at NCR as saying "To say we will not admit divorced and remarried people to holy Communion? That's not a dogma. That's an application of a dogma in a concrete pastoral practice. This can be changed."

I think the good Cardinal's statement in this regard can be defended, and agreed to, assuming difference between "admitting" people to Holy Communion and advising them that it would be a spiritually beneficial to receive is respected (being the difference between abstaining and being refused we have just been discussing).

I think it is on that basis one possible pastoral solution exists, though I will be more than happy in the Synod Fathers or others come up with further ideas I have not considered.

>90 John5918:

I think it goes back to the deepest issues of the Christian faith. You can spell out the tension—an age-old tension—on many different levels and in many different incidents:

* Did Christ "do" something to and for sinners qua sinners, or only to sinners who "make good"?
* Did he dine with actual sinners, or only "past" ones?
* Did he tell the woman caught in adultery to "go and sin no more" before or after he saved her life?
* Did he have a general concern with legalism, or only with legalism based on Jewish law?
* Did Jesus favor mercy to sinners who repent, or does it extend past that?

Lastly, as said, my biggest problem with the argument against oikonomia—here and elsewhere—is historical. This is the practice of the Eastern churches. They were undoubtedly in communion with Rome for many centuries. They were—frankly—the intellectual center of the church for most of that time, when Rome was a benighted backwater. To go after oikonomia is to cut the church off at the knee, or even thigh. It nulls out so much of the history and theology of the church, it's almost a Protestant solution.

> 92

Tim,

I don't want to harp on this, and you are perfectly free to disagree with me, but I still find your historical argument deeply unpersuasive.

If we assume for a minute that oikonomia is irreconcilable with pre-schism latin thought, though this is not in fact certain*, what we would have is inconsistent traditions from which we would have to choose.

And in making that choice, the evidence of the early Church seems to suggest to me that the Roman tradition would have to prevail, assuming all other things were equal (which, again, they are in fact not#).

For example, the Quartodeciman controversy seems to bear this out, where a practice which seems on all accounts to have had direct apostolic authority from John, was supressed partly on the basis Rome's apostolic authority from Sts Peter and Paul had to be preferred.

Further, Rome's reputation as a protector of Orthodoxy seem to have arisen precisely because it was an intellectual backwater. Unlike the east, where all the clever things were going on, it did not keep coming up with novel heresies which needed to be rejected.

Therefore I would think the main reason you have raised in support of the Eastern churches, is in fact one of the main reasons against their authority in this regard.

* I remain open to the possibility that someone, more learned than myself, can show how these traditions can be reconciled. Further, I also note oikonomia has not been explictly condemmed by any great council of the Church, with consideration of it deferred at Florence and Trent. Therefore it remains open for discussion and disagreement, in a way some other matters are not.

# As noted previously, I think the Latin practice has a far better basis in scripture and reason.

And in making that choice, the evidence of the early Church seems to suggest to me that the Roman tradition would have to prevail

But isn't this just Protestantism or a Protestantism-of-the-early-church? The eastern and western churches disagree on a number of things. What if we applied your rule to those? Take the significance of Rome. Rome has opinions on the topic which differ from the east, and which also have no good grounding in the early church, although they can be defended as a legitimate development. Doesn't that suggest the eastern church has the answer?

Further, Rome's reputation as a protector of Orthodoxy seem to have arisen precisely because it was an intellectual backwater. Unlike the east, where all the clever things were going on, it did not keep coming up with novel heresies which needed to be rejected.

Meh. "The untutored are the real smart ones" is an old thought pattern. From an eastern perspective, Rome came up with plenty of novelties--the whole notion of papal primacy, the doctrine of purgatory, a new system of legalism, textual changes to an ecumenical creed, etc. The one side "conserved" and the other changed can't be maintained. That one side developed licity and the other illicitly requires a prior decision about the correctness of the outcome.

* I remain open to the possibility that someone, more learned than myself, can show how these traditions can be reconciled. Further, I also note oikonomia has not been explictly condemmed by any great council of the Church, with consideration of it deferred at Florence and Trent. Therefore it remains open for discussion and disagreement, in a way some other matters are not.

A stumbling block here is that the Quinisext Council, which explicitly allows second marriage, and indeed refers to oikonomia, is regarded as ecumenical in the east, but not in the west. Changing their mind on such a thing is a hard pill for either side to swallow.

Tim,

A couple of points:

1. I don't understand your charge of Protestantism. Protestantism how?

2. I don't agree Rome's view of itself has no good grounding in the early Church. From 1 Clement on, itself possibly the earliest Christian text we have outside the New Testament, it seems to shine through.

3. If I came to agree with the Orthodox in respect of a lot of the matters you list, I would have no choice but to become Orthodox. But I don't, so I remain in communion with and under the authority of Rome. What decision I have made on the correctness of outcome should be clear.

4. I would agree with the Venerable Bede's view of the Quinisext Council - Reprobate. In any case, given the Quinisext Council tried to impose local eastern practices on the whole world, I am not sure what place it could have in any reunification of east and west anyway, as respect for legitimate local customs will need to be paramount.

5. Unity will likely require a number of bitter pills for all concerned - No arguments there.

In any case, we don't seem to be making much progress to a consensus on this, and as I said I don't want to harp on.

Maybe it would be best to agree to disagree?

1. Protestantism is—among other things—the denial of the continuing development of doctrine. Protestantism says "this matters but nothing after." To deny centuries of development in the undivided church, because it does not (allegedly) accord with the practice of the early church, is to make the same move with a different stop date.

3. Well, that wasn't my point. My point was that doctrine developed just as certainly in Rome as it did in the East. One may think that papal primacy all the way up to Boniface VIII's notion that "it is a absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" is a valid development, presumably as some sort of unrolling of what what inexplicit, but you have to admit that development.

5. I'm not entirely sure it must--that what we need is love, not pill-swallowing.

Consider if you will the situation before the schism with the east. By your reckoning--tell me if I'm wrong here--the eastern two-thirds of the church embraced heresy for much of its history, for its embrace of second- and third-marriages, and of relaxation of even the moral law by oikonomia. But the church was undivided, wasn't it? Or are we to say the church was divided and nobody knew? That most of Christendom had sunk into heresy but the Roman pontiff didn't realize? Surely that sort of thinking doesn't make sense in a Catholic context. Surely we have to agree that, despite the disagreements, the church was indeed undivided. Why can't we return to that? No council has declared definitely against oikonomia—and a good thing, since the eastern Catholic churches support the concept.(1) Are we really to insist that the church must be split on doctrinal questions that did not spit it for half a millennium or more?

Or consider the church before the Council of Jerusalem. Were James' party in schism with Paul's true church? Doesn't schism require agreement on everything? Or is it something deeper—a commitment to being the body of Christ, and to disagree and agree within that, not without it.

In sum, if we are to insist that every such disagreement is so basic that it compels division, then we can be sure the church will never again be made whole. And indeed it never was whole.

Maybe it would be best to agree to disagree?

No need to keep arguing. But I think we're making some headway, perhaps only in clarifying our own thinking.

---

1. For some interesting reading see this online translation of The Melkite Greek Church at the Council and it's chapter on marriage and the family https://melkite.org/tag/eastern-catholics . The full book is here https://melkite.org/faith/faith-worship/introduction .

> 96

Tim,

Ok, I think your comment clears some things up for me.

My response:

1. I understand what you’re driving at now. I am certainly not trying to say doctrine can't develop. Instead I am trying to see how we can choose between two competing developments, using some ideas on the logical limits of doctrinal developments. And in this regard, the tradition which is more consistent with the early Church, and does not seem to try and make black white, is more likely to be legitimate.

3. Ok, I agree Rome also developed doctrine. But, as above, there has to be criteria available to assess the legitimacy of these developments.

5. Love is a better way to put it. I agree with you here.

In terms of the nature of the undivided Church, I think I would distinguish between heresy and schism, which I think you might be confusing. Just as in relation to the tradionalists we are talking about on the other thread, they have been and continue to be plenty of people who hold errors and heresies, who do not end up in schism (i.e. physically separated from the Church).

Therefore, just because the Church was undivided, does not mean it did not include heretics. Further, if we assume one position or the other on remarriage must be wrong / heretical, the lack of schism does not get us anywhere either way.

On your broader point, about acceptable and unacceptable differences in belief, which category oikonomia falls into remains open for me (I would include this in my concept of the traditions maybe being reconcilable at 93 above).

However, in terms of have a wider view of what might be included in the category of acceptable differences in belief, I tried that when I was an Anglican. It just does not work - Most of these matters are just too important to ignore.

You are either married or your not. You can't be both.

This is why the Papacy and Councils are so important - It gives us a way of reaching agreement beyond endless debating.

I think your point about heresy and schism is important. The usual Catholic follow-up is to say that schisms always degenerate into heresies. Be that as it may, if they are different, then we must ask what the reestablishment of communion requires. If it only requires the healing of a schism, and if an undivided church can include heretical sees, then why do reunion talks involve doctrinal discussions at all?

This is why the Papacy and Councils are so important - It gives us a way of reaching agreement beyond endless debating.

I completely agree. In that connection, however, I would note that the Orthodox practices here have not been repudiated by an ecumenical council—indeed, by their view, they were confirmed by one! On some other topics, there is more trouble—western ecumenical councils that have decided against the absent orthodox. But not in this case.

However, in terms of have a wider view of what might be included in the category of acceptable differences in belief, I tried that when I was an Anglican. It just does not work - Most of these matters are just too important to ignore.

Again, it doesn't retroject. It's a nice idea, but you can't run it backward through church history with success. The church we belong to solemnly proclaimed in ecumenical councils the eternal perfidy of the Jews and the necessity for them to wear special clothing and be exempted from normal legal rights and protections. A recent pope solemnly declared a new heresy--the perfidious notion that a government could be secular, or that Catholics could cooperate with such a monstrous affront to God. And don't even get me started on slavery. If you don't accept a lot of "give" to acceptable differences of belief, and a lot of what you called "loopholes" to seemingly definitive pronouncements, you can't simultaneously know the whole tradition and make sense of where we are now.

> 98

Tim,

1. I think reunion talks involve doctrinal discussions because, while an undivided church can include heretical sees, it is less than ideal. Therefore it is best to deal with all the issues at once. Further some heresies, if not all or even most, are so closely related to what being in communion means that they must be taken together.

2. And I agree with your comments. That is where the issue sits with reference to the statements of the various councils.

3. That is a different and longer debate! My short answer is the hermeneutic of continuity. My long answer is, well, longer and includes a number of prior assumptions.

Without laying that all out here, I would say some things are reformable (i.e. we can decide that we previously got them wrong), some things are the contigent application of doctrine rather than doctrine itself (i.e. what causes or does not cause scandal in the world), some things can be reconciled / synthesized, some things are just pious opinion / speculation on which people can differ (i.e. limbo) etc.

If I can find the time, I might start a new thread outlining my thoughts in more detail, but it will end up more like a mini-essay.

1. I don't disagree. But I suspect that much of what I've read on the topic presumes what needs to be shown and may not be fully right—that doctrinal discussions are the heart of the thing. I'm not entirely sure we know what "being in communion" really means, especially since Vatican II took notice of partial and injured communion.

2. On the topic of councils and so forth, it's also worth saying that there's a difference between declining to define and disagreeing with. Many of the theological debates between the churches involve that. The assumption of Mary, purgatory, the licitness of dual procession aren't so much disagreed with by the Orthodox as they are things the Orthodox have avoided defining--and which they won't consider defined without an ecumenical council! The same applies in the other direction. The Orthodox have lifted their marriage rules into the sphere of an ecumenical council. Catholics have not definitively decided on that. The situation is anyway better than if both had fully decided the matter doctrinally, and that was that!

3. Well, I'd be interested in that continuity. Of course I believe in the deepest and most important continuity. (No one actually believes in rupture—it's just an accusation leveled against others.) But any notion of continuity needs to have this retrojectability to it--the ability to work at every age of the church. This is commonly ignored, or the practical problem obscured by a willingness to overlook the dead-branches of Catholic theology.

Mini-essay would be fun. :)

> 100

Tim,

All good points.

I will put that mini-essay on my to do list.

I have just watched a video that has almost brought me to tears. It is a recognition of where the Church is in this modern world. It is dying. Christ will intervene. We need strong leadership. We need articulated specific guidance. We need much more silence.

I agree I think with everything on this video. I also know that I am just coming back, but Tim's use of the word debacle is apt. I know in my heart that we have went down the wrong road. I can just feel it sense it. I pray for the Church and its Leader that we find the strength to resist the popular path, but instead go back to our traditions.

http://sspx.org/en/media/video/bishop-fellays-interview-about-rosary-crusade-304...

>102 LesMiserables:

Well, I must object in the most strenous terms, and I will state my personal opinion without making this about you.

The SSPX are a wretched and immoral society, guilty of not only gross disobedience but of demonic hatred. Their well-known antisemitism is not restricted to having one of their four bishops a public and unreprentant Holocaust denier. Their founder was anti-semitic through and through, and their official writings are full of statements against Jewish conspiracies, Jewish ideologies and actual Jews that no one with a conscience should tolerate. Their noodling about Masonic conspiracies and Protestant cabals at the Council is laughable, their theology grotesque. But for pure hatred, the anti-semitic stuff ends the conversation for me.

I will state my flat conviction that anyone who embraces the SSPX is better off an atheist. For someone who has seen Christ to hate as they do denies Him far more deeply and definitively than any mere atheist can imagine.

103

Well Tim, thank you for your frank response though I'm at a loss to find the evidence for it in the video.

The interview for me was one of both sadness and hope for the Church to return to a true path. My take on it of course.

Thanks.

>102 LesMiserables: I usually can't watch videos because of internet connectivity problems so I haven't seen this, but I would disagree entirely with anyone who thinks the Church is dying. The Church is thriving.

The mother parish of the chapel where I worship on Sundays has just completed a large new church to replace the small old one. I was at the main parish on Palm Sunday and the new church was full to overflowing, with hundreds more people following the mass from outside. The archbishop commented that we never seem to be able to build enough churches nor big enough churches; as soon as we build one it immediately becomes too small. (A bit like the M25 motorway, an analogy that British readers may appreciate).

But it's not just the increase in numbers (which I know is not the case in the secularist western world). The Church is vibrant. Read modern theology and spirituality books. Walk the Camino. Attend a retreat at a mainstream monastery. Follow (and join in and help to develop) the Church's stand on social justice issues. Join a prayer group or bible study group. Sit with involved and committed Catholics and just talk about life, the universe and everything.

Christ will intervene. We need strong leadership. We need articulated specific guidance. We need much more silence.

Christ is intervening. We have strong leadership, particularly in Pope Francis, but in many cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests and laity who guide the Church, often at great personal hardship and danger; I feel privileged to work closely with some of them. We get guidance: from them, from the Church's Councils and Synods (one of which is about to take place soon; we in Africa are benefiting now from the two African Synods, particularly the most recent one), from reading the signs of the times (Gaudium et Spes), and above all from the Holy Spirit. But I do agree with you that more silence would be a good thing. Ever since I made a 30-day retreat twenty years ago I have had a great appreciation for silence.

> 103

LesMis,

The SSPX are very good at taking things which are true, good and beautiful, and using them as a hook for the most ugly falsehoods. Its the Devil's work.

Now, I would not be as strong as Tim in condeming the SSPX. However everything good in them is already represented inside the Church by people like Pope Benedict, without their serious errors.

I would actually suggest reading more of Pope Benedict's writing, to get a better sense of what things actually did not go to plan after the Council.

It was not a debacle, the Church was not lost. There was just a struggle to ensure babies were not thrown out with the bathwater.

Christ will not, and has not, abandoned his Church! The gates of hell have not, and will not, prevail against it!

105

Yes I might have qualified than dying comment to plunging attendance's outside Africa, which is a bright light in otherwise a European West which is hard to deny is sanitising itself of religion.

John, I'm putting my cards on the table here and admitting openly, and I have come to this conclusion myself and not under the influence of YouTube, that Pope Francis is confusing me. I don't like ambiguity. I prefer clear moral guidance, not something that is off the cuff later to be clarified and contextualised by a Vatican official.

But he is my Pope and I pray for him and hope he grows in strength and wisdom.

I have stated previously that I am conservative by nature yet politically left of centre. So I am encouraged to hear things expressing outrage with youth unemployment but on the other hand killing babies in a global epidermic of abortion is and should be at the top of the Church's agenda, to say otherwise is ... I don't know what?...malpractice?

106
The SSPX are very good at taking things which are true, good and beautiful, and using them as a hook for the most ugly falsehoods. Its the Devil's work.

Can you give me an example? Thanks

>107 LesMiserables: I don't like ambiguity. I prefer clear moral guidance

I understand that, and it is a plea I have often heard. But in reality life is just not that simple. There are always moral ambiguities if not in the doctrine at least in how it is implemented in individual cases. Nobody can give me absolute instructions about the minute details of my life; however unambiguous the moral guidance, its practical implementation still has to be interpreted day by day. Religion in general and Catholicism in particular do not provide such a convenient crutch. Catholicism recognises the primacy of individual conscience, and I often quote Pope Benedict XVI on that.

So I am encouraged to hear things expressing outrage with youth unemployment but on the other hand killing babies in a global epidermic of abortion is and should be at the top of the Church's agenda, to say otherwise is ... I don't know what?...malpractice?

But what if you live in a place or on a continent where abortion is a relatively minor cause of the killing of babies? In Africa children are still valued and abortion is generally against cultural norms (and is illegal in many countries), so the Church here does not see it as being at the top of the agenda. Instead, babies are being killed in their hundreds of thousands by war, poverty, ignorance, illiteracy, lack of health care, climate change, by the fact that international pharmaceutical companies see no real profit nor urgency in developing new malaria drugs, and a host of other factors, some passive, some active, most preventable. So these top the agenda in our struggle to prevent babies from being killed. It's not "malpractice" to say so. It's a recognition of different and complex realities in the world and of the need to interpret Church doctrine and implement it according to the needs of time and place; again, reading the signs of the times.

103

Tim, I'm sorry, but I forgot to ask you if you watched the video in #102 and listened to the conversation?

Thanks

109

Then John, they should be raising a storm in Australia or the US about abortion and whilst they're at it they might ask Western Leaders to rip up 3rd World debt and ask their TNCs to stop raping Africa and other places of their natural resources.

> 108

LesMis,

Using the beauty of the old mass as a cover to excuse unrepentant Nazi mass murders like Erich Priebke would be one. Whose victims included Catholics trying to fight evil mind you, who may well be numbered with the saints.

Long discussions of their loyalty and obedience to "Eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth", while ignoring any living Pope who can argue back against having his words twisted, would be another.

Seriously, these guys would have lasted about 5 minutes under most of the Popes they apparently idolise. Not least Pope Pius XII, who was trying to save the people Erich Priebke killed.

>111 LesMiserables: Well, I'm not sure who you mean by "they". The western bishops are raising a storm about abortion as far as I am aware. And the Church, particularly in the developing world, has been active in calling for debt relief and campaigning against transnational corporations. Cardinal Rodrigues has just made a statement supporting Pope Francis' calls for economic justice, both of them being Church leaders from the developing world. Of course more can always be done, but I don't think the Church has been silent on any of those issues.

112

Didn't Archbishop Lefebvre’s father die in a Nazi death camp?

113

Hi John
I'm referring to Pope Francis' comments

...We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.

>115 LesMiserables: Well, I think Francis is right for a number of reasons. One is that there's no point in talking about something all the time in a context where it is not really relevant. They don't talk much in the USA about the danger of being bitten by a puff adder, but there are other parts of the world where it's a daily reality. Likewise abortion. It's not an issue of equal priority throughout the globe, as I explained earlier. Secondly, by speaking all the time about only one issue, however important that issue is, the result is often that attention is drawn away from other extremely important issues. Thirdly, if we want to succeed in influencing and changing behaviour we have to do it in a way that actually has some impact. Clearly insisting on it the way we have been doing has not had much impact and babies are still being killed in large numbers. That surely demands a rethink about methodology.

> 114

I believe so, though it seems the Archbishop himself supported the pro-German Vichy regime, at least later in life.

The Lord only knows how the Archbishop managed to square that circle in his mind.

115 / 116

I think the Pope's key insight on abortion etc is that we need first to bring more people to Christ and his Church, to do evangelization.

Moral teachings are secondary in order as, putting the natural law to one side, they are much easier to accept once one has already accepted Jesus as Lord etc.

I think that is where the Pope's other big quote on this issue comes from:

"The church's pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently."

The only blind spot I see in the Pope's thinking in this regard, is that his insight applies just as much to that other big set of moral teaching based heavily on the natural law, Catholic Social Doctrine.

Then again, he seems to be getting plenty of people to pay attention to the gospel by talking about the poor, so maybe it is just the right emphasis for this time in history. If so, talking about the poor might stop more abortions, then would talking about abortion directly.

And as the Holy Spirit allowed him to be Pope, rather than I, I have no desire to try and replace his judgement with my own.

>118 hf22:

I basically agree with you, but I'd eschew some of the semi-utilitarian or pragmatic aspects.

The mission of the church is to proclaim the good news of the risen Christ. Period. Full stop and read it again! You can find a million places in the New Testament where it says this, or some variation of it.

Morality is also central, of course. You will find many places where Jesus or Paul says that something is immoral. Morality is deeply interlinked with the core Christian message. Jesus died for our moral failings--he died for our sins. We can't repent of our sins if we don't admit them. Okay?

What don't we find? You will not find a lot of places where Jesus says to go out an tell people they're wrong about morality. Nor will you find a lot of stories of apostles and saints doing that either.

Why not? Consider a case study. Forget abortion. Jesus and the early Christians lived in a world that allowed actual infanticide--the exposure of infants to the elements and wild beasts, so they would die.(1) The Jews and early Christians were dead-set against the practice--they were known for (and respected for) that stand. But there wasn't a lot of agitation against the practice, except within an explicitly Christian context. That is, when Jesus and the early-church moralists talked about the evils of infanticide it was wholly within the message of Christian witness, not as something Christians told pagans not to do, and let's leave the Christ-stuff to the side. There were no ancient apostles who made agitation against infanticide their main mission or first message.

Does this make sense? Because I think this is what Francis also sees.

Now, I can see that modern society with its democratic structures and free speech allows moral protest in ways that weren't possible in antiquity. So I don't think Christians should avoid anti-abortion or anti-slavery groups unless they are focused on Christian witness. But the church itself is about that witness, and must always put that at the center. In an age that hasn't heard the gospel, that generally means the act of witness take precedence in emphasis and order-of-presentation to anything the church has to say about morality. And, incidentally, I think that applies to "left" issues (immigration and social-justice stuff) just as much as it applies to abortion.

---

1. In fact, a lot of exposure was a legal fiction for adopting a child into slavery, but exposure-until-death was by no means unknown.

>119 timspalding: Thanks, Tim. Very thoughtful.

> 119

Tim,

That is a much better way to put it - I like it more than my attempt. 100% agree with you.

Agreement on the left and right—I should run for office! ;)

> 122

LOL :)

119

Spreading the Good News of the Gospel, right.

But Faith and works, Tim.

That's why we have instruction through the catechism.

Why instruction? So we can live a Catholic life in our Societies dealing with day to day issues.

Otherwise we are protestants in all but name?

> 124

LesMis,

I think it is an ad intra, / ad extra thing, as well as a proper order of teachings.

The Good News comes first, and then the ethical teachings.

Therefore the ethical teachings need to be understood and lived by Catholics, but not treated as a political campaign.

For example, in Sydney Australia where I am, the lay faithful are very good IMO on living Catholic teaching on abortion. Examples of witness in this regard are often in say the newspaper put out by the local Church.

However we are not running political campaigns to change the abortion laws in NSW, though they are sadly permissive.

125

Yes and I agree, for the Church has limitation on social intervention but has a duty to speak out on certain issues if nothing else to provide moral guidance to her flock.

Australia- case in point, the vilification of asylum seekers.

But when Tim says to you...

The mission of the church is to proclaim the good news of the risen Christ. Period. Full stop and read it again!

That full stop is bordering on Reformed Calvinist Theology.

>125 hf22:, >126 LesMiserables: I didn't realise until now that you are both in Australia!

The mission of the church is to proclaim the good news of the risen Christ

A lot depends on how you interpret the word "proclaim". If it only means preaching by words, then I understand Stephen's reservations (is it St Francis to whom the saying "Preach the gospel all the time; use words if necessary" is attributed?) But if one interprets proclamation as living the Good News, then Tim is also correct.

John,

Great place it is to!

And yes, witness and living the gospel are vital as well. Faith without works are dead after all (even if Luther did try and remove it from scripture).

>128 hf22: If I'd been younger when I first discovered Australia I might have emigrated there, as I was very impressed indeed, and parts of it reminded me of Africa. Unfortunately it gets more complicated (and expensive) to be a new immigrant once you're over 45 (as I was at the time) and anyway Kenya is also a great place!

John,

I am sure it is!

105 johnthefireman

I usually can't watch videos because of internet connectivity problems so I haven't seen this

Hi John, here is the transcript

http://sspx.org/en/publications/newsletters/transcript-bishop-fellays-11-2013-in...

103 TimSpalding

I will state my flat conviction that anyone who embraces the SSPX is better off an atheist.

Tim, I just don't know what to say in reply to this, only that as someone I respect, I think in this case you have uncharacteristically erred gravely.

>131 LesMiserables: Thank God for transcripts! I'll have to read it properly before responding fully, but as I skip through the first few sections I see a lot of unspoken assumptions, half-truths and attempts to claim that the dissatisfaction of a few "conservatives" represents the state of the faithful at large. I'll comment on it in more detail later when I have more time.

I will state my flat conviction that anyone who embraces the SSPX is better off an atheist.

Do you want to go into the SSPX's history of antisemitism and Holocaust denial? I will, but I'd really rather you spent the effort. I think there's ample cause for you to get into the weeds of it, given what anyone can see on the surface--unrepentant, public Holocaust denial by one of their bishops, recent statements about Jews being the enemies of the church, etc. They scrubbed a certain amount of it when the Williamson affair hit, but there's a lot out there, going back to the start. It's all apiece—the church had bad problems with antisemitism before Vatican II, and some of Vatican II's sharpest words were in repudiating that. Therefore, Vatican II was in service of the Jews, etc.

With that granted, read the Sheep and the Goats again some time. Being Catholic is not going to save anyone if they do not recognize Christ in others, and especially the vulnerable. Those who say they know Christ, but do not see him in those people, do not know him at all. And indeed, although the parable doesn't say it, such people are worse off than those who do not know Christ in the first place, for the latter are not hypocrites or a source of scandal. Either way, those who do not thinking they know Christ, may indeed know him in their love for the needy. We can, of course, never know a man's soul. But, yeah, a Catholic who can't recognize Christ in the gas chamber is worse off than an atheist who may love Him without knowing it.

133

I'm not sure who you're talking about, but even if you were right about a certain individual that doesn't tar all with the same brush, otherwise I would call you a mass murderer for being American (Truman - H Bomb), or a paedophile (any number of paedophile Catholic US priests) etc etc

So I guess you can see my point that to say I will state my flat conviction that anyone who embraces the SSPX is better off an atheist. is just crazy.

And are you seriously saying that someone who goes on choice to an SSPX chapel, worships God and goes about his business in a good Catholic way is better to be an atheist?

Come on! What makes that person less than good before Gods's eyes? Or their priests for that matter?

This reminds me of the derision Sinn Féin candidates and their voters get when they stand forward nowadays and are accused of supporting murderers because people like Martin McGuinness was in the IRA. Whether MMcG was in the IRA or not doesn't make a hoot of a difference to the electoral policies of Sinn Féin.

Edited to add last paragraph

>134 LesMiserables:

No, you're right. You'd need to do so willingly and with some knowledge of who they were to achieve full culpability. But it's hardly a matter of an individual here or there. It's much more akin to an organization that's rotten to the core. There were no doubt some who joined the KKK because they like the manliness and secrecy, or Nazis who liked the part about German nationalist and didn't really pay attention to the rest. But then the mere atheist—not, of course, the atheist whose ideology is fundamentally rooted in hated—doesn't have these problems of needing to be ignorant of the evil of an organization.

132

Glad you have access to at least that John but I would recommend if possible the video as the body language is important. As you know its hard to really get he full picture when its only sanitised words out of context. But still the openness and candid bat re is still there.

>131 LesMiserables: Let me begin commenting on that linked articles while I have a few minutes:

The arrival of a new pope can be rather like resetting our odometers to zero.

I beg to disagree with the good bishop. This pope is in continuity with the Tradition and previous popes. That of course does not make him the same as previous popes. The Conclave, guided by the Holy Spirit, chose him for a reason.

the Franciscans of the Immaculate

I think this is a huge red herring. As has been explained elsewhere, they have been censured for abuses which have little to do with the Tridentine Mass. As the bishop himself admits, "This provoked a very strong reaction on the part of Rome, already during the pontificate of Benedict XVI — it is necessary to make that clear. Nevertheless, the conclusions, the disciplinary measures were taken under Pope Francis". So Benedict XVI was equally unhappy with them, but he resigned and so it fell to Francis to finish what Benedict had begun.

The new pope arrives with different positions, attacking almost everything. Everyone understood: Benedict XVI is forgotten!

I think Francis has been very careful not to attack nor forget Benedict. He arrives with different positions because that's why the Conclave (and the Holy Spirit) elected him.

by his words he has irritated almost everyone, not just us, but all conservatives in general

You see here the attempt to imply that the "conservatives" are "almost everyone"? In fact Francis has not irritated "almost everyone"; he has provided hope and encouragement to "almost everyone" except a handful of "conservatives".

It is difficult to arrive at a judgment about his words because a little later on, or almost at the same time, you find words about the faith, about points of faith, about points of morality, which are very clear and condemn sin, the devil

Precisely. Francis is doctrinally quite conservative. It's in pastoral praxis that he perhaps differs from the previous more academically-inclined pope.

they have taken away much of the credibility of the Supreme Pontiff

On the contrary. This pope has greatly enhanced the credibility of the pontificate.

I see a man of action. This is the primacy of action, no doubt about that; this is not a man of doctrine. An Argentine said to me: "You Europeans will have a lot of difficulty understanding his personality, because Pope Francis is not a man of doctrine, he is a man of action, of praxis. He is an extremely pragmatic man, very close to the ground."

Precisely. As I said above, he is a man of pastoral praxis, of action. He has been an active pastoral archbishop. He is conservative in his doctrine ("not a man of doctrine", ie very cautious about any doctrinal change). And it's very true that the minority of the Church who are European (and north American) may well have difficultly understanding this praxis-based approach, which would be more familiar to the majority of Catholics in the world.

he is close to the people and that is perhaps what makes him very popular, because what he says touches everyone. He also irritates everyone a little, but he is very close to the ground. There is not much theory. You see this clearly: this is action, pure and simple.

Again the attempt to equate "conservatives" with "everyone". Francis does not irritate "everyone".

The Council is a reinterpretation of the Gospel in light of contemporary or modern civilization... how can we reread the Gospel in that light?

Because we are not bible literalists and to some extent the Church has always interpreted the Gospel in the light of its current understanding and capability. There's no point in interpreting the Gospel in the light of a civilisation which no longer exists; it has to be relevant to today.

For the moment, nothing is being done to heal the Church

That's his opinion, but it flies in the face of reality. Already the pope is making moves to deal with the sexual abuse scandal, financial irregularities in the Vatican, bishops who overspend, the dysfunctionality within the Curia, and much more. His writings and statements have been welcomed by almost everyone, and he has called a Synod for the Church Fathers to reflect on some key issues.

Passion of Christ, Passion of the Church

I think Francis is indeed concerned about the Passion of the Church, but the Church, the Body of Christ, is the sum of its members, many of whom are suffering every day, as a good pastoral archbishop in Latin America would be well aware.

The attitude of the faithful - First of all, they must keep the faith... informed by charity... It is not enough to make great professions of faith; it is not enough to attack or condemn errors... Charity is what gives form to faith. Charity is the love of God and consequently the love of neighbor. Therefore it is about a faith that turns toward this neighbor who is certainly in error and reminds him of the truth, but in such a manner that, thanks to these reminders, the Christian will be able to sow the faith, reestablish someone in the truth, lead this soul toward the truth. Therefore it is not a bitter zeal; on the contrary it is a faith made warm by charity.

Seems to me that Francis would agree 100% with this.

The role of the Society of St. Pius X - Its primary concern is truly what keeps the Church alive: the Mass

Fine. No disagreement about the importance of the Mass, but...

There is absolutely no comparison between the New Mass and that Mass

Ah, so he doesn't mean "the Mass", he means one particular form of the Mass.

yet the most profound problem, I am convinced, is the loss of the Christian spirit. Christians have tried to become like the world. They said so the whole time, it was the purpose of the Council to accommodate itself to the modern world. Well, no: that is not possible!

Agreed. It's not possible. But he misrepresents Vatican II when he says "it was the purpose of the Council to accommodate itself to the modern world". Reading the signs of the times, living and ministering and witnessing within the modern world, is certainly not the same as accommodation to it.

it is necessary to avoid sin and to do good. Both.

Again, I can't see Francis disagreeing with this. Both.

I'm not sure who you're talking about

Besides that speech you apparently like, in January Fellay gave a speech calling Jews "the enemies of the church" and claiming that "Vatican II is their thing, not the churches." ( start with http://vox-nova.com/2013/01/05/sspx-and-anti-semitism/ )

If you ask me, that should end conversation. I don't care whether or not there's a nice speech by Pol Pot out there. I don't care if you want me to admire Hitler's paintings. If you harbor obviously anti-semitic views, and refer to an ecumenical council as a Jewish plot, you place yourself outside of the church, not to mention the society of people who aren't disgusting monsters. That this even needs to be said stumps me. I've got an idea for a religion—it starts with "don't be a disgusting monster."

Fellay aside, however, I suppose the most obvious example is Bishop Williamson--for 24 years one of four SSPX bishops, but, in fairness, recently, expelled for continual disobedience. Here is one interview denying the Holocaust.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6C9BuXe2RM#t=29

Anti-semitic statements were a regular feature of their newsletters until the Williamson affair, when many of them were removed. One of the better known essays, "The Mystery of the Jews in History" is picked apart here:

http://farfromrome.blogspot.com/2009/02/antisemitism-of-sspx.html

Other worthwhile links:

http://archive.adl.org/nr/exeres/0b9e6310-7a85-4b7b-a295-ff8442b219ee,db7611a2-0...
http://joodsactueel.be/2009/02/23/pius-x-anti-semitism/
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/pontifications/2009/02/sspx-a-pattern-of-ant...
http://www.romancatholicism.org/sspx-jews.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/05/can-the-society-of-st-piu... (First Things)
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1304352.htm
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2010/03_04/2010_04_02_Hellman_AlumnusSa...
http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2011/01/former-student-of-sspx-bishop.html
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/01/13/the-society-of-st-pius-x-and-antisemitis...
http://billcork.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/the-sspx-and-antisemitism/ (some of the removed links work if you use Webarchive)
http://fogbankperspectives.blogspot.com/2009/01/more-anti-semitism-among-sspx-fr...

My favorite examples in the last two years are stepping in to offer a funeral mass for an SS captain, convicted of murdering 335 civilians, who died publicly unrepentant and was denied a Catholic funeral by the local bishop. Oh, and the protest at a commemoration of Kristallnacht. Now that was classy!

But, hey, isolated incidents. No pattern.

137

John, you're cherry picking! ;-) Kidding.

On the point of the Mass, I think the Latin thing is important but it's not the foundation stone of what is implied in the vetus ordo.

I think it's the theocentric nature of it with the charge that the new rite is anthropocentric: sacrifice as opposed to celebration.

138

Thanks Tim. I can't find in your links the actual script or footage of the comments. Sorry if I've missed them.

He doesn't come across (to me) as someone who hates people. In a religious sense, do any false religions that purport to be the true religion, leave themselves open to be attacked by Catholics as enemies of Catholicism? Well I suppose logically they would wouldn't they unless one wasn't sure that Catholicism was the one true religion of God or they held the erroneous position that we all worship the same God but with different guises.

I have no time for any Holocaust deniers, paedophiles, embezzlers etc. But I guess you will find those in all walks of life.

Stalin happened to be an atheist but I don't blame atheism for his evil. He was just a nut-job.

I'm not sure how many links you need. I shall discuss the matter no further.

141
January Fellay gave a speech calling Jews "the enemies of the church" and claiming that "Vatican II is their thing, not the churches..

You give a link that reports on a report Tim. Not a source.
I'm not doubting you, merely interested to see the actual evidence, not a reference to it. I think that is fair.

But I really feel a straw man is built here.

This is irrelevant to what you said in #103 about anyone embracing the SSPX is better off being an atheist.

But no matter, we will leave it at that.

No hard feelings.

Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uZrOMMfW5n0#t=4698

Transcript:
http://www.therecusant.com/fellay-conf-dec2012

143

Thanks Tim.

Yes, and I can't really see the problem in what he is saying. I mean there is a very big difference between saying that another religion like Judaism is an enemy of the Catholic Church and being antisemitic.
Judaism attacks the faith of Catholicism by promoting it as an erroneous ideology based on their denial of Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

And on the point of the 'Their Vatican II' that is quite clearly a remark linked to those external enemies of the Church who favoured the modernist reforms of Vatican II.

It is not saying "SSPX vs Catholic Church" as I think you implied. If I am wrong in this I apologise but I think you are clearly looking to find something in Bishop Fellah's words that are schismatic. It is easier to find a defence of the Church.

138

Sorry Tim, just noticed the part you mention about the funeral of the SS Captain.

You nor I nor anyone but Christ will ultimately judge him. As long as he was baptised and had taken sacraments, then I believe regardless of his heinous crimes, he has a right to a Christian funeral. (I stand open to correction on this issue regarding Canon Law if I am wrong here)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think as well we need to draw things back into perspective regardless of our views on SSPX.

Given that 2 years ago the Vatican offered Personal Prelature status to SSPX speaks volumes about how Rome views the SSPX...NOT way out there, but very close enough to talk details.

>144 LesMiserables: And on the point of the 'Their Vatican II' that is quite clearly a remark linked to those external enemies of the Church who favoured the modernist reforms of Vatican II.

Anyone who favours the reforms of Vatican II (whether you call them modernist or whatever) is, by definition, not an enemy of the Church since those reforms are the official teaching of the Church.

On the SS bloke's funeral, I seem to recall at the time that I disagreed a bit with the majority on that one. In principle I think we should bury any and all sinners (ie all of us); they will all face judgement soon enough and we don't need to judge them. However I believe there were other issues around the (mis-)use of the funeral for propaganda, so it's not completely clear cut.

I'd point out that Pope Francis is only a successful pastor insofar as he does, in fact, irritate all of us, at least a little. That is to say: we are all sinners, and it is part of his job to shake us out of our comfortable complacency with that sin and deal with it.

The Gospel is a fundamentally radical document (edited: or better, message), completely counter-cultural, and a cattle prod to complacency. Pope Francis embraces that radical energy.

(For what it's worth: so did Pope Benedict, just from a different angle. The two men really do work as a diachronic team, the one leading the Gospel's theological explication, the other putting that theology into practice. The more I look at the both of them, the more I see their symbiosis: far from antithesis, I see synthesis and harmony.)

>147 nathanielcampbell: Thanks, Nathaniel. You're right about both the irritant ("a fundamentally radical document, completely counter-cultural, and a cattle prod to complacency") and the synthesis.

On the SS bloke's funeral, I seem to recall at the time that I disagreed a bit with the majority on that one.

Yes, but your point was general—that nobody should be denied. As a matter of consistency, however, the church regularly refuses a funeral mass for such individuals, for example for mafia kingpins. Canon law instructs them to. It's one thing to say that everyone should receive a funeral no matter what. It is quite another thing to uphold canon law on the matter generally—as the SSPX surely do, as indeed they do in withholding communion far more broadly than the church as a whole--but affirm that this publicly unrepentant perpetrator of genocide should receive a funeral.

149

Tim, I have looked into this a little just for clarification.

It appeared that he did in the end repent and receive the sacrament of confession and absolution before his death.

The archdiocese of Rome have not denied this. This has been confirmed by his lawyer and obviously the Priest who took the confession is bound to silence. It seems to me quite clearly that this did happen.

What then happened was that the Bishop of Rome decided that on the basis of public order and protest (which I thought was a strictly Police and Civil authorities matter) refused permission for his priests to conduct a funeral rite.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10/15/erich-priebke-nazi-war-criminal-gets-fun...

Now as I stated above this does not deflect us from the fact that his crimes are hideous beyond any shadow of a doubt.

But what it does show that the Church authorities seemingly undermined Canon Law.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P4C.HTM

Can. 1184 §1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:

1/ notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;

2/ those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;

3/ other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful.

§2. If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed.

Can. 1185 Any funeral Mass must also be denied a person who is excluded from ecclesiastical funerals.

So it is quite clear that Canon Law was broken.

Now this leads us on to your comments Tim which attack the SSPX for offering to give funeral rites to Priebke.

It is clear cut. The SSPX Order of the Catholic Church attempted to maintain Canon Law and give a funeral according to the Catholic religion, whilst the Bishop of Rome, Cardinal Agostino Vallini, decided to break Canon Law.

Pope John Paul II said To work for the proper implementation of the Code is to work for the upbuilding of the Church herself. It is to work for the salvation of the world. It is to play an extraordinarily constructive role in continuing the redemptive mission of Christ himself.

http://www.canonlaw.info/a_popetalk.htm

Therefore what can only be concluded in this case is that the SSPX upheld Catholic Morality and Canon Law by offering a Christian funeral for this man.

On the contrary Tim to using this as an attack against the SSPX, you must surely see that what happened was an act of Charity and Mercy from the Society of Saint Pius X.

I completely agree with you that the man's crimes were abominable. Nonetheless I think you need to reassess whether or not you have blinkers on towards the SSPX Tim.

All the best.

Edited:

Just wanted to add that this Charity and Mercy ties in with Pope Francis'
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION EVANGELII GAUDIUM
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-fran...

To quote

37. Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that the Church’s moral teaching has its own “hierarchy”, in the virtues and in the acts which proceed from them.39 What counts above all else is “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6). Works of love directed to one’s neighbour are the most perfect external manifestation of the interior grace of the Spirit: “The foundation of the New Law is in the grace of the Holy Spirit, who is manifested in the faith which works through love”.40 Thomas thus explains that, as far as external works are concerned, mercy is the greatest of all the virtues: “In itself mercy is the greatest of the virtues, since all the others revolve around it and, more than this, it makes up for their deficiencies. This is particular to the superior virtue, and as such it is proper to God to have mercy, through which his omnipotence is manifested to the greatest degree”.41

In light of our reading of Kasper, I thought this was worth adding.

It appeared that he did in the end repent and receive the sacrament of confession and absolution before his death.

Priebke did not die silently. Apart from interviews in his last months, justifying the murder of Jews and denying the Holocaust, and of course his crimes, he left a videotaped "testament" to be aired after his death. ( http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/nazi-war-criminal-erich-priebke-unrep... ) It is unrepentant. He also left a seven page testament, also unrepentant and denying the holocaust. If he was able to speak a confession, he was able to ask that his final testimonies be suppressed. He did not. That speaks volumes.

As to his alleged confession, I don't know if we know whom he confessed to, but Priebke was--of course--an SSPX regular, and specifically a close personal friend of SSPX priest Fr. Florian Abrahamowicz, who said his funeral mass. Given that Fr. Abrahamowicz himself denies the Holocaust, given that Priebke left a testimony to be aired after his death, and given that he did not cancel it, I'm unmoved by the repentance of a Holocaust denier confessing to a Holocaust-denying priest. It is hardly enough to cancel Canon 1884. And in any case, Canon 1884 indicates that, in cases of doubt, the local ordinary is to decide "and his judgment is to be followed."

If the SSPX's story is that he repented and then, perhaps, forgot to pull his final video and written testament, it follows that he was a unrepentant notorious sinner until a deathbed confession. If so, they would have been obliged to refuse him the eucharist for years. But instead, he was a regular communicant, even as he denied the Holocaust and his guilt. It's not surprising. The SSPX clearly does not consider Priebke to be a notorious sinner before or after whatever confession he may or may not have made.

I'd love to drop more links about this guy and his non-repentance, but I find myself unwilling to post links to Stormfront, the "USKKK" and so forth that come up when you Google this.

The conversation turns my stomach.

151

The conversation turns my stomach.

'The' conversation around the whole episode or 'this' particular one (or both)?

Don't engage in it then.

Furthermore, I sense that you cannot find it in yourself Tim to throw off the disability of your prejudice that you clearly stated in #103 above.

I'll remind you of it. I will state my flat conviction that anyone who embraces the SSPX is better off an atheist.

Your words not mine. I have unambiguously made it crystal clear that the crimes of Nazis or Stalinists are abominable.

What you do Tim is fall into the dark pit of hatred by way of an Association Fallacy.

It's not an association fallacy when anti-semitism—often Holocaust-denying—is directly attested by the founder of the order, the current superior of the order, by at least three of the four of the bishops they've ever had(1), by numerous priests and and at seminaries, by numerous laypeople, by organizational newspapers, by organization books, by organizational websites, and by numerous actions.

If such an organization cannot be fairly branded anti-semitic, then I'm not sure what could. I'm sure there were a handful of merely ignorant or venial SS men, who didn't pay attention to their leaders and colleagues. But it is not guilt by association to say that the SS was an anti-semitic organization.

---

1. Easy-to-find-evidence:
a. Williamson is a Holocaust denier.
b. Fellay's speech about Jews as the enemies of the church.
c. Tissier de Mallerais's statement that "the Jews are the most active artisans for the coming of Antichrist"

153

a. Williamson is a Holocaust denier.

The society's superior general, Bishop Bernard Fellay, repudiated those statements at the time, saying that "anti-Semitism has no place in our ranks" and that the "position of Bishop Williamson is clearly not the position of our society. You seem to ignore (unsurprisingly) that Williamson was kicked out of SSPX. http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201985.htm

b. Fellay's speech about Jews as the enemies of the church.

I read the speech. Did you? Are the Jews (and we need to be careful what we mean by this, just as when people rage against 'Americans' for military atrocities around the world, they don't mean Mr and Mrs America, they mean the US Administrations.) supportive of the Catholic Church in any way? No, like protestants, they undermine it. That's not anti-Semitism my friend. I also note you don't mention the other enemies mentioned like Freemasons and Communists in the same sentence that you quote. Why omit those Tim?

c. Tissier de Mallerais's statement that "the Jews are the most active artisans for the coming of Antichrist"

Tim, context please. Pulling out just what you want gets us nowhere. What was said was ""The church for its part has at all times forbidden and condemned the killing of Jews, even when 'their grave defects rendered them odious to the nations among which they were established.'

Kind of makes a big difference doesn't it?

And you say...But it is not guilt by association to say that the SS was an anti-semitic organization.

Oh Lord! What do you want me to say to that?

But on your persistence in trying to build a case against the SSPX and their Catholic congregation by appealing to nonsensical anti-Semitic accusations I will only say a couple of things.

I could say that history is pretty clear on how the Jews have persecuted Christianity. But it is not fashionable to say so. In fact its almost impossible to criticise anything about the Jewish faith or Israel without being branded a rabid anti-semite. Have you forgotten the Jewish texts that viewed Christianity as a blasphemy against God and a perversion of their faith? In third-century rabbinic texts, Jesus was described as a magician in league with Satan, Mary as a prostitute, and the apostles as criminals who deserved death? (CERC)

Do you think that Judaism wants to promote Catholicism? Do you think Judaism would like to see the Catholic Church maintain its status quo as the largest Church? OR - Do you think Judaism would prefer to see a decline in the power of the Catholic Church?

These are fundamental questions that can't be avoided, unless of course you join the certain brand of Catholicism that defines Ecumenicalism as some friendship group where we will all end up in some kind of friendly monotheistic cub-scout cult. How many Catholic prayers will we change to keep a false religion happy? How about nulling Pope Bendict's Summorum Pontificum on the Latin Mass?

Naivety and pandering to subversive forces is evil in action.

-----------------------

Look Tim, you have made up your mind that the Traditional Church...

(and let me define this for you. Tradition is not some holding onto to customs or habits or the past, its is adhering to the truth which was witnessed by the Apostles and transmitted orally - Yes it even pre-dates the Gospels. It has been faithfully passed on by the Church fathers and Popes. It cannot be modified or repudiated. What John left us in Revelations is the end. Everything we have as Catholics, transubstantiation, Ascension of Mary etc, even though they came to the forefront much later , was all in Scripture. That is Church tradition)

...especially when advocated through the Society of Saint Pius X, is not your world-view. That's fine. But please don't try and brand good Catholics as deviants. That is an easy game to play. You can find EVERYWHERE, individual cases where societies have been embarrassed by an individual. I can start with the Vatican if you like, or Washington DC or anywhere else.

I'm beyond furious Tim that you continue to peddle your nonsense about Nazis and Anti-Semites and all the other rubbish concerning the SSPX since your statement in #103 above.

AGAIN I'll remind you of it. I will state my flat conviction that anyone who embraces the SSPX is better off an atheist.

Well that makes you a pretty isolated figure in the Catholic Church considering that despite their differences, the SSPX are not in schism, are not ex-communicants nor are they protestants. Figure than one out.

I will finish by saying that by attacking the SSPX Tim you are being anti-catholic.

Hatred corrupts Tim.

> 154,

LesMis,

There is a non-sequitur in your logic.

Judaism is outside the Church. To pray for, and encourage, Jewish people to accept Christ and his Church is a good thing. To think that your Jewish neighbour is better off to just be Jewish, and for them to remain outside the Church, is to reject love for both Christ and your neighbour.

However, that does not make Jewish people enemies of the Church, it just makes them people requiring evangelisation in this and every age.

To speak of them as enemies of the Church seems to me to require the addition of something extra. Like the nonsensical conspiracy theories which the SSPX accepts and spreads, about dark and secret power wielded by Jews / Freemasons / Communists etc.

* BTW I would not accept anyone is better off an atheist, nor I do I think the Church would take that view. I would say they would be better off conforming to the teachings of the living magisterium.

If nothing else, many Eastern Orthodox Christians and Muslims would also fall into the same category as the SSPX, in terms of anti-semitism.

>154 LesMiserables: Stephen, early on is this post you say that Judaism is not monolithic. Then you appear to contradict yourself and speak of "the Jews", when you appear to mean "some Jews at certain points in history".

No, like protestants, they {the Jews} undermine it {the Catholic Church}

Is it your experience that "the" (ie all) Jews and "the" (ie all) protestants undermine the Catholic Church and are its enemies? That's certainly not mine. Many are very supportive. I've even heard Muslim leaders encouraging a Catholic bishop to increase evangelisation in the area.

the Traditional Church

The Catholic Church is the Traditional Church, ie all of us. It's one of our identifying features, that we see divine revelation in Scripture and Tradition, not in Scripture alone; "mirrors" of each other, as Dei Verbum teaches.

I don't think it's helpful to use SSPX as a shining example of the Catholic Church, though. They repudiated the traditional teaching authority of the Church, publicly, visibly and with full intent. Benedict XVI showed a remarkable spirit of generosity and reconciliation in tempting them back, even though they hardly demonstrated a spirit of repentance and humility.

155

Are you saying that I am calling them out as enemies of the Church?

No more than any other false religion.

Do I need to quote the Creed on a Catholic forum?



Are we so postmodern and liberal that we can sing the above inside our Churches but dare not outside.

But here we see a classic straw man argument constructed by Tim which is perhaps worthy off canonical status.... He is wholly prejudiced against a brother fraternity of our Catholic Church which is not in schism, which conducts itself according to the tradition of the Church fathers, but slanders it in the most hideous way to drive his scandalised views.

Not just the SSPX but every faithful Catholic who goes to an SSPX Mass which are completely Canonically valid and legal.

I don't know where the roots of this venom have come from, but I have lost total respect for Tim on this issue.

I only need to reread #103 above to justify this position.

156

John, my answer in #b in 154 where I qualify Jews and Americans is pretty obvious that I'm referring to pernicious elements.

156 John

I don't think it's helpful to use SSPX as a shining example of the Catholic Church, though. They repudiated the traditional teaching authority of the Church, publicly, visibly and with full intent.

I can only quote St Thomas here...It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly.

>157 LesMiserables: Fair enough. So there are "pernicious elements" within any faith community and indeed any other institutions which are "enemies" of the Church. Agreed. However the communities and institutions themselves are not necessarily enemies of the Church.

I'm not very comfortable with the language of "enemies of the Church". It turns things into a war, which I don't think is the reality. It also encourages a fortress mentality, a defensive mindset (which can include a pre-emptive or retaliatory offensive attitude). I don't feel that my Church is under attack, nor do I feel a need to defend it. I do feel a need to try to live a good Christian life and love my neighbour (and my enemy), something I utterly fail to achieve but which ultimately will have better results than defensiveness.

Let me add that I am also uncomfortable with hyperbolic language such as Tim's. Only God can judge whether it is better to be a good atheist or a member of SSPX. I agree with Tim however that overall SSPX is not a very nice organisation.

>159 LesMiserables: But the faith was not endangered and SSPX repudiated not its prelate but teachings endorsed by the entire college of bishops in union with the pope (two popes in fact, John XXIII and Paul VI). They were not too keen on John Paul II either, even though most consider him rather conservative.

160

Yes hyperbolic and I reacted defending going on towards a million Catholics in the next few years I imagine.

161 John

I would suggest that Paul VI and his predecessor forgot something.

St Pius V

He said no one can alter the mass missal

Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

This was a solemn act, a perpetual indult.

In 157

I meant to quote the Creed, it didn't show/I didn't paste it in.

So for completeness...

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ

But the Gloria can do just as well

For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord,
you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ

Anyway, I'm spent on this subject.

For the record I'm not a member of the SSPX, not a sedevacantist and certainly not a protestant.

I object strongly to a slur on close to a million catholics who should rather be atheists than associated with the Catholic Society of Pius X.

I reject all the strawman arguments about anti-semitism, nazism and fascism.

I mean, what a joke.

And John, yes I agree love your neighbour, even your enemies but at times we are sorely tested.

>163 LesMiserables: I think we would have to look at the exact context of that statement by Pius V as well as what degree of solemnity it had. I would imagine that the two popes, the Council Fathers and the periti at Vatican II did look into the matter.

My guess is that he was referring to any unauthorised altering of the missal, ie no individual bishop or priest can do so. Such a prohibition would not apply to a Council like Vatican II.

Interesting figure of a million members of SSPX. Where does that figure come from? It would also be interesting to see a geographical breakdown of the figure.

Edited to add: I've just looked them up on their own website and they say that they are a "priestly society". Its own statistics show that it has 575 priests, 198 seminarians, 76 sisters and 102 brothers, so I'm not quite sure where the million comes from. A thousand seems to be closer to the mark. The vast majority seem to be from France, Germany, Switzerland and the USA, with a bit of a blip in the Philippines and a few extra seminarians in Argentina.

Out of interest I tracked down the LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CONCERNING THE REMISSION OF THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF THE FOUR BISHOPS CONSECRATED BY ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE. It states that "Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church"; this is "not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons".

Benedict also states, "I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility. Precisely for this reason I thank all the more our Jewish friends, who quickly helped to clear up the misunderstanding and to restore the atmosphere of friendship and trust". Hmm, who are the "enemies" of the Church and who are the friends?!

> 164

Yes, Christ is Lord, we must never forget. But with the Jewish people we are talking of His lost sheep.

Just as, not so long along, you and I were His lost sheep :)

Now some are more lost than others, and some will remain lost until the end, even to the eternal fire. But they are merely lost, and as such have no power over us, either in this world or next.

But maybe we are talking at cross purposes? Error is the enemy of truth - Perhaps this is the sense of which you are speaking (rather than in relation to specific flesh and blood Jewish people)? I would be much more comfortable with that.

167

I have never once claimed that the Jews are enemies of the Church. I have never once gone on a rant about Jews or Muslims. The only rant that has developed on this thread has been against Catholics who had the audacity to think that Vatican II might have erred in some places and so decided to stick to what they know; that what had been taught through the ages especially around the theology of St Thomas Aquinas.

The only thing I have stated is that any religion that is not the Catholic church is wrong.

So yes error is the enemy of the truth. The truth is the Church.

If you look carefully through this thread it is Tim who has created this anti-Semitic straw-man which of course like every successful deflecting strategy has taken the discussion towards that.

I do not hate any jew, muslim or homosexual. I don't even hate Rangers. (You kind of need to be brought up in Scotland to get that last one)

Have I hated in the past? Yes. Margaret Thatcher, Tony Abbott, George Bush II, Benjamin Netanyahu, Augusto Pinochet. I still hate Turkish Delight, Crab Sticks and Pernod.

> 168,

LesMis,

Ok, looks like we might have been talking at cross purposes. The extent to which one should accept VII is a different conversion perhaps, which can be conducted with some nuance.

For example, some (but not all) of its teachings are clearly time limited, as they relate to a "modern" world which no longer exists. Some teachings need, as discussed by Pope Benedict, to be intrepreted carefully with an eye to older teachings which were not rejected by VII. And so on and so on.

Perhaps a new thread which outlines which teachings of VII you personally have issues with would be helpful. We might be able to work through them, to see if we get anywhere?

BTW, what is "Pernod"? Another Scottish thing?

I personally have never liked Turkish Delight since I read The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe as a child.

169

BTW, what is "Pernod"? Another Scottish thing? No. Just a aniseed alcoholic evil that I fell pray to one night, which put me off aniseed for life :-)



Perhaps a new thread which outlines which teachings of VII you personally have issues with would be helpful.

I haven't in fact raised any particular issues around Vatican II that I'm aware of, unless of course my attraction to the old rite and support of continuity in that manner is seen as an issue.

I'm really quite happy to be a struggling follower of Jesus Christ and be as true to his teachings as I can be. I obviously have in this case fallen into the trap of anger over attacks on fellow Catholics and so I will work on patience and tolerance more.

166

Various sources estimate the adherents of the Society of St Pius X alone at 1 million.

The order itself is growing quickly

http://laportelatine.org/quisommesnous/statistiques/stat.php

It's kind of obvious that the SSPX is growing quickly. The laity I guess actually are practising Catholics too.

What is sad most of all in this whole affair is the plunge in diocesan ordinations and seminarians. France where the SSPX are largest, has a diocesan priesthood with an average age of around the mid seventies. I think the last official figures were +75 years, but with retirements running at 8 times the number of ordinations, you can see something is wrong, especially when the SSPX seminaries are increasing.

You seem to ignore (unsurprisingly) that Williamson was kicked out of SSPX

Actually, I mention it explicitly ("for 24 years one of four SSPX bishops, but, in fairness, recently, expelled for continual disobedience"). But he was a public holocaust denier and bishop in good standing with them for years. They kicked him out because he opposed all negotiations with Rome, and--I speculate--because his Holocaust denial was really bad PR.

Tim, context please. Pulling out just what you want gets us nowhere. What was said was ""The church for its part has at all times forbidden and condemned the killing of Jews, even when 'their grave defects rendered them odious to the nations among which they were established.'

Oh, clap! clap! clap! The antisemite is not actually in favor of killing Jews. He just cites their "grave defects," how they're "odious to the nations among which they were established" and calls them "the most active artisans for the coming of Antichrist." But he doesn't want them killed. Someone give the Jew-hating Frenchman a medal.

But on your persistence in trying to build a case against the SSPX and their Catholic congregation by appealing to nonsensical anti-Semitic accusations I will only say a couple of things.

Nonsensical? Really? Again, three of the four bishops Lefebvre ordained is on record with shocking anti-semitic statements, one of them a holocaust denier. (Williamson too claims he's against killing Jews. Medal number two.)

Meanwhile, I'd like you to repeat yourself clearly.

Here the Antidefamation League's page on the SSPX: http://archive.adl.org/main_interfaith/society_saint_pius_x.html#.U5eW_BaCqD4

And here is the Southern Poverty Law Center:
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/02/26/behind-the-bishop-the-anti-semitism-of-...

Now, to repeat, you contention is that accusations against the SSPX for antisemitism are "nonsensical"? It would follow that the ADP and SPLC make nonsensical allegations too. Right? Now, I would accept the logic here if you were to go a step further and claim--with the SSPX--that this is all a Jewish plot (with an assist by the blacks, perhaps). I don't think you'd go that far. So what is it?

I read the speech. Did you? Are the Jews (and we need to be careful what we mean by this, just as when people rage against 'Americans' for military atrocities around the world, they don't mean Mr and Mrs America, they mean the US Administrations.) supportive of the Catholic Church in any way? No, like protestants, they undermine it. That's not anti-Semitism my friend. I also note you don't mention the other enemies mentioned like Freemasons and Communists in the same sentence that you quote. Why omit those Tim?

Actually it was the "the Jews, the Masons and the Modernists." I suppose he is entitled to his theological opinions about "modernists"--Fellay recently called Pope Francis one too, of course. As for the masons, I didn't mention it but would be glad to do so now.

For Pete's sake, what century is he living in? In the eighteenth century freemasonry served as a sort of focus for anti-clerical, pro-enlightenment types in France and elsewhere. They were never the grand conspiracy some imagined, but that was centuries ago even if they were. Today in the US they are a dwindling elderly social club, on par with the Elks and somewhat beneath the VFW. In France there are apparently 11 lodges, many not recognizing each other, down from more than 1,000 in the 18th century.

To claim the masons today are one of the three most important "enemies of the church" is complete unhinged. The claim belongs alongside the internet's many claims that the Masons staged the moon landing, planned 9/11 and a secret reptile aliens--or Hitler's claim that the masons were the tools of the world Jewish conspiracy. It's loopy. I suppose it's better to be a loopy Christian than an atheist, but it speaks to a weird, reality-denying darkness at the center of the SSPX project.

I will finish by saying that by attacking the SSPX Tim you are being anti-catholic. Hatred corrupts Tim.

One of us is defending a society marked by antisemitism, fascism and holocaust denial.

172

Tim we are past discussing this. You obviously have hardened hatred towards the SSPX and their Catholic lay congregation.

In #103 where you said I will state my flat conviction that anyone who embraces the SSPX is better off an atheist.: that really said it all.

As it is a conviction of yours, then you have obviously put a tremendous amount of thought into it over the years to be able to condemn these Catholics as damned.

Well I'll leave you to your hate. I am now disengaging from this poisonous thread.

Period. Full stop and read it again!

>171 LesMiserables: Thanks, Stephen. I have looked at those links, and I think you have misread the Wikipedia one. SSPX does not have a million adherents; it is "the Fraternity of St Peter, the Society of St Pius X and similar groups" which do, ie the "traditionalist" groups which are still within the bounds of the Church. It's worth noting, perhaps, the number of "traditionalist" groups which are in good standing with the Church, which again suggests that the problem with SSPX is not simply that it is "traditionalist", but something deeper. The Church is not against all "traditionalists".

When you set the figure of "close to 1 million" who adhere to "traditionalist" groups against the 1.2 billion Catholics in the world (around 0.08%, I believe) it demonstrates that it is rather a minority sport.

I'm not sure that the second link demonstrates that it is "obvious that the SSPX is growing quickly". Looks to me rather static, with a sharp decline in new seminarians over the last three years.

the plunge in diocesan ordinations and seminarians

That is, of course, true in France and a number of other western countries but is far less obvious in many other parts of the world.

174

Hi John, it seems pretty clear to me from the link I sent you...

Various sources estimate the adherents of the Society of St Pius X alone at 1 million.

Anyway, other than to clarify that point, I'm withdrawing from this discussion. I'm simply not arguing with a concept that says Catholic laity - who by Rome under Canon law, are fulfilling their holy day obligations under the Catholic rite - are better off being atheists.

See you on another thread.

>175 LesMiserables: My apologies - I missed that. Although it does go on to say that this is just a guess as there have been no surveys.

I'm sorry you're giving up on this conversation. Only one poster (Tim) suggested that they are better off being atheist. The rest of us are trying, I think, to pursue an interesting conversation about SSPX and "traditionalists".

Catholic laity - who by Rome under Canon law, are fulfilling their holy day obligations under the Catholic rite

Another statement that needs unpacking, I think. There are indeed many "traditionalists" who are in good standing with the Church, as the Wikipedia demonstrates. But those who adhere to SSPX are not in good standing. And SSPX describes itself as a "priestly society", ie no laity. So while your statement is true in general, it is not necessarily true of SSPX.
.

Yes, and I think that opinion is worth serious consideration. Hatred, especially hatred of the defenseless, is hatred of Christ. To do that and justify in the name of Christ is an exceedingly serious offense against God. An atheist may truly know and respond to Christ's call. Someone mired in religious justification for hatred has turned his back on that call. I will concede that one might attend SSPX masses unaware of the full range of their views, but to get in deep with them is to mire yourself in an organization deeply rooted in antisemitism.

Another thing that happened is that a notorious antisemitic organization—an organization whose antisemitism is basic, well known to those who track such things, and demonstrable to anyone who examines the issue—was called what it was. One member disagreed and defended them, even going so far as to reverse the charges. The others stood by and watched, noncommittal.

>177 timspalding: I will concede that one might attend SSPX masses unaware of the full range of their views, but to get in deep with them is to mire yourself in an organization deeply rooted in antisemitism

I don't think many of us will disagree with that. I'm sure there are "nostalgics" (as opposed to ideological "traditionalists") who will look for a Tridentine Mass wherever they can find one and not pay much attention to the society from which the priest comes.

The others stood by and watched, noncommittal

I wouldn't put it like that. I would say that while you (rightly but hyperbolically) criticised SSPX from one direction, others criticised it from another.

Fair enough. I agree that I'm very passionate about this.

> 174

John,

If people on pews in SSPX chapels next Sunday can not be counted in the tens of thousands, rather than hundred of thousands or millions, I will eat my hat.

I think the experience of the Traditional Anglican Communion, for which memberships of up to 500,000 were claimed before they started to transition to the Ordinariate, shows how much credence can be given to these kinds of numbers.

> 179

Tim,

We were trying to talk him out of it. That said, my approach did not work either, so I can't say it was any better :(

If it makes you feel any better, while I am not really in the business of ranking evils, if I were the SSPX's antisemitism would be pretty high on the list.

180

Well why don't you go and find bout on Sunday? Or would that be too risky to the ideology purtpored here?

This short video sums in every thing up for me. Dare to watch it
The Remnant Forum: The False Charge of Anti-Semit…: http://youtu.be/IKcW3h0DDXA

>181 LesMiserables: Well why don't you go and find bout on Sunday?

Well their drop down map menu doesn't even feature South Sudan or Sudan, and indeed they don't seem to have much of a presence anywhere on the continent, so I'm afraid I'll have to pass on that offer. In their general statistics SSPX claim to have seminarians from Kenya and Malawi, sisters from Kenya and Ghana, and brothers from South Africa and Gabon.

Kenya seems to be fertile ground for forming breakaway independent churches, including at least one Catholic sect, Legio Maria (which began before Vatican II, interestingly). I think there's also a branch of the Reformed Catholic Church, so SSPX might find a niche there. Zambia has Archbishop Milingo, of course. Uganda has the Catholic Apostolic National Church.

I wouldn't be averse to experiencing a Tridentine Mass again if one came my way, bringing back nostalgic memories of my time as a wee altar boy over half a century ago, but on the other hand I wouldn't go out of my way looking for one and would attend a normal Mass by choice.

The SSPX have no presence in northern New England (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire). The only one in Massachusetts is an apparently tiny basement "mission" chapel in a commercial office building in a Boston suburb. About the only reference to it I could find online is a a blog about one of its attendees that calls the St. Barbara Catholic church up the road "Sexy Babs Novus Ordo Temple." There, I suspect, soul bands in Boston with more members.

My diocese does offer a traditional Latin mass, offered in the Cathedral by a priest with faculties for doing so, as does the Boston archdiocese. (The priest is, interestingly, a bi-ritual Melkite Greek Catholic.) The availability of licit masses—the SSPX masses are valid but not, in fact, legal—has done much to draw people away from the SSPX. It remains to be seen if the church is pulling people back in, or creating a space for schismatic and often heretical sentiment to build. Despite being within our cluster, the Latin mass community has no contact with the rest of us. They appear to do everything separately.

I have, incidentally, attended Latin masses. I find them fun on one level—I've had almost a decade of Latin, so I can follow along pretty well, if the speaking is clear. But I also find them cultish. It's very odd being one of the few—or perhaps only—person in the room who understands a language which everyone else is eagerly parroting. Perhaps pentecostal "speaking in tongues" feels the same way to an outsider. I am by no means against a good hymn in a language I don't understand--a good percentage of the hymns at my church are in Kirundi. But I confess I don't see the point of absolutely everyone praying in a dead language. A local Catholic friend of mind from Ethiopia feels much the same way now. Having grown up in Ethiopia, his masses were all in Ge'ez—the ancient common language of the region, which nobody now understands. He tells me he's effectively switched rituals, to Latin masses in English, because he prefers understanding the mass.

OP posits that somebody will "lose" regardless of outcome, e.g., no change, communion by permission of parish priest, 2nd marriage possible (Orthodox example). Are there other possible outcomes?

I wonder if some divorced & remarrieds have been "beyond the pale" so long that it would be difficult to accept anything other than a heartfelt "welcome back".

(A friend who helped her brother with his annulment told me it cost thousand(s) of dollars. Some people don't have the money. What is the going price/practice elsewhere? Like my friend's brother, a surprisingly large number of people can't navigate bureaucracy. Wonder how they manage current process?)

182
John the offer was clearly posited to hf22 who lives in Sydney.

That was just uncharacteristic of you John.

Au revoir.

Regarding the Legality of SSPX Mass

Remind me which Pope abrogated the Bull Quo Primum ?

But if still in doubt Canon: 23 In doubt the revocation of the former law is not presumed but later laws are to be considered in connection with earlier ones and as far as possible to be reconciled with them

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Sacraments/Mass-Legal.htm

-----------------------------

The charge of anti-Semitism is of course not a new one. Tim is trotting out polemic along with other people who have an agenda against the traditional movement.

They don't actually think the traditionalists are anti-Semitic (quite evident by the straw clutching, the association fallacies and all the rest of the shameful attacks on good Catholics) but they use the anti-Semitic drum as a way to attack the Traditionalist movement which seeks to restore the Church, first through the liturgy, in what is the worst crisis in the Church's history.

You know what, my recent descendants all hail from Ireland and not so long in the history of the Church the English banned Mass: they made it illicit, illegal. So they stole out at night and had Masses in Caves, Rocks, Woods. All on pain of death.

Whether you think its legal or licit or valid or not, you have forgotten that you are debasing good Catholics simply going about their business in the manner it had been done for centuries.

I really am done with this.

God help you in your torment.

Regardless of what sick vile is posted here about fellow Catholics, I am ignoring this thread from here on in.

--------------------------------------

> 181

There is an SSPX chapel in Rockdale, which is a bit far for me to travel with my daugther with the traffic on a Sunday.

I have however previously been to an EF Mass offered by the Priestly Society of St Peter (who remain in the Church), at Petersham, when I used to live closer to there.

All the people were nice, and I enjoyed attending. Would not do so regularly however, as it is not my local parish, and I have no objections to the new rite used everywhere else.

> 184

The cost and time involved in annulments are a real issue, which needs to be fixed, and will be fixed.

And all people should always expect a large Welcome when they come to or return to the Church! But equally, all people are called to repent.

If being a member of the Church makes no demands on you, what would be the point? I can be as I am at home, plus I would get an extra sleep in on Sunday morning.

>185 LesMiserables: My apologies. It wasn't clear to me. I thought it was an offer you were making to all of us, since I had also questioned the statistics.

>186 LesMiserables: I would go back to Benedict XVI's letter which I linked to and quoted above. The personal excommunication of members of SSPX has been lifted but the society has no canonical status, so sacraments performed by it are valid but not licit, which I think was Tim's point in 183>.

They don't actually think the traditionalists are anti-Semitic

I think the point is not that "traditionalists" are anti-Semitic; it is that SSPX is anti-Semitic. As has been said often, there are many "traditionalists" (including many in good canonical standing with the Church) who are not SSPX. These other "traditionalists" are not being criticised. This is not a broad attack on the "Traditionalist movement which seeks to restore the Church, first through the liturgy", it is a recognition that something is wrong within a particular society, namely SSPX. And as Benedict's letter suggest, it is something doctrinal, not merely discipline.

you are debasing good Catholics simply going about their business in the manner it had been done for centuries

Tim can speak for himself, but to me it's not about good Catholics simply going about their business in the manner it had been done for centuries. There are any number of them, affiliated with the "traditionalist" societies and organisations which are in good canonical standing with the Church, or attending Tridentine Mass presided at by priests licensed to do so by the Church. As I said above, this is not criticism of "traditionalists" or the Tridentine Mass; it is criticism of one particular society, namely SSPX, which has chosen to distance itself from the Church. I think you're being a little disingenuous here by keep harking back to "traditionalists" in a general sense and apparently failing to note that the criticism is aimed at SSPX in particular.

the worst crisis in the Church's history

Now, to be fair, I think you are the one using hyperbole here! Firstly, many would say that this is not a huge crisis; the Church is thriving globally, and the problems we are facing are the result of external societal dynamics to which the Church needs to respond. But even those who see a crisis would be hard-pressed to demonstrate that this is worse than the Great Schism with the eastern Church, or the protestant reformation, or some of the mediaeval periods when we had several rival popes.

>188 hf22: If being a member of the Church makes no demands on you, what would be the point?

I know what you mean, and I agree with the sentiment that there is a cost, but I don't like the implication of the way you phrase it. The point of being a member of the Church is not the demands on you; the point is being a member of the Church, witnessing and bringing about God's Kingdom. There is a cost (or demands) which go with that, but it is not the point in itself.

> 190

John,

Yes, agreed. Poorly phrased.

More thinking needed before I post!

>191 hf22: It's extremely difficult to get everything across unambiguously and clearly in a short post, as I find all too often myself!

Demands. Repent.

One woman's story: her first husband left her for another woman when my friend was six months pregnant. There was no time, no money and certainly no emotional energy for pursuing an RC annulment. For her, an annulment meany her precious little one was illegitimate, which may not be official church spin, but perhaps is understandable given the recently revealed story of the Irish babies. Anyway, Baby was baptized in a Presbyterian church, which my friend attended for a couple years. She no longer attends any church, though her second husband is a regular (Anglican). I doubt she thinks the RC church was there for her in her hour of need.

>193 margd: Over 30 years ago I worked in an inner-city multi-ethnic Catholic parish in west London, where over 60% of heads of household were of recent immigrant background. We received many requests from young Caribbean single mothers to baptise their babies. Although nominally Catholics, most of them were not church-goers. Fresh from the seminary and full of canonical zeal, I reminded the parish priest that parents are supposed to have at least some connection with the Church in order for their children to be baptised. He replied that many of these recently-arrived young women were already receiving rejections right, left and centre in all aspects of their new lives, and he didn't want their first interaction with the Church to be the same; he wanted them to feel welcomed. So we baptised the babies and I learned a lesson in humility and mercy which has stayed with me to this day.

> 193,

Margd,

I am with Pope Francis on this one (and Pope Benedict). If someone wants their child baptized, we should ensure they get baptized, and perhaps the grace provided will do some good for all the family.

The situation of the parents, while often not ideal, is neither here nor there.

After all, if someone is willing to seek baptism for your child, that is enough for me to have a founded hope the child might be raised in the faith (the current canon law requirement).

Well, I've clearly got under @LesMiserables skin, and for that I do apologize. I have a point--a sincerely believed and, I think, quite correct--about antisemitism and the SSPX. But I do not intent to cause the personal anguish I clearly did cause. I would like to make it clear I in no way accuse LM of antisemitism.

As far as antisemitism within the traditionalist movement, my points were indeed all about the SSPX, but it is both more and less than the SSPX.

LM is probably right that many of those attending SSPX masses minimize the problem. It would be very hard for someone to have any sort of commitment to them without knowing about the Williamson affair, but one can, perhaps, chalk that up to one crazy within an otherwise healthy society. Much of the rest requires a deeper examination--really reading their stuff--and given a small-group belief that everyone misunderstand you and is out to get you, it is not hard to imagine how many could blind themselves to the facts. Blinding yourself to the signs of antisemitism is not as bad as being antisemitic.

In traditionism generally, there is no necessary connection to antisemitism. But it does follow fairly easily from traditionalist principles and the reality that the Catholic church and the papacy were in prior centuries confirmedly antisemitic. It's not just one bull that has fallen by the wayside. All manner of church and papal documents, even including ecumenical councils, have lashed out at the Jews, requiring distinctive dress (e.g., yellow stars), forbidding them to hold political office, forbidding their books, confining them to ghettos, etc. Rome was in fact the last European city to get rid of its ghetto--demolished by the new Italian Republic, under protest by the newly enfeebled Papacy. All of this should be balanced by the fact that, at least during the Medieval period, the Papacy was far better to Jews than the rest of Catholic Europe. Jews within the Papal States were second-class subjects, but they did have legal rights. And they did not suffer the expulsions and pogroms that were common in much of Europe.

Anyway, many traditionalists hanker for this, as they hanker for other things that have fallen by the wayside in Catholic history and theology, from Catholic monarchy to papal litters. And for various reasons the movement also got tangled up with European fascism, especially in France, Spain and Italy. The result is a strong link between European traditionalists today and contemporary far-right parties and ideologies, and strain of antisemitism within the "movement" in the US and Canada, including popular figues such as Michael Vorris (The Vortex) and John Vennari (Catholic Family News). Those absolutely outside the church--sedevacantists such as Mel Gibson and JoansKnight's "Most Holy Family Monastery"--are at the extreme end of it, as in all things.

>196 timspalding: papal litters

Billy Connolly tells a story about two Glaswegians in Rome for a football match (that's soccer to those of you across the pond). After the match they go for a celebratory drink. "Let's have whatever the Romans drink." They ask the barman what the pope drinks. "Well, I think he likes a taste of creme de menthe," he replies. "Well, gi'e us two pints of that then!" cries Jimmy. Sixteen pints of creme de menthe later, they are unconscious. When they wake up in the gutter the following morning covered in their own (green) vomit with stinking hangovers, Jimmy exclaims, "If that's what the pope drinks it's nae wonder they have to carry him around in a litter!"

I remember a 9th grade party rather like that. We had just discovered drinking, and someone discovered the only liquor not locked up--a carafe of creme de menthe.

In hindsight, I can't figure out what sort of people would have a glass-stoppered carafe of the stuff out or not.

Worth a read:

First Things / Is Spain Regaining Its Faith: And Why isn't Anyone Else?
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/06/is-spain-regaining-its-faith

"Recently, however, the downward trend has stopped and is recovering. According to Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas (CIS), the proportion of Spaniards attending Mass has increased from 12.1 to 15 percent between 2011 and 2012. In absolute terms, the number of Spanish Catholics attending Mass weekly grew by an astonishing further 23 percent between 2012 and 2013, according to CIS. Meanwhile, between 2007 and 2013 the number of Spaniards contributing part of their taxes to the Church rose from eight to nine million."

Deacon's Bench / The myth of Catholic “decline”—UPDATED
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2014/06/the-myth-of-catholic-decline/

>199 timspalding: Thanks, Tim, for those links.

At mass this morning the priest was a South Sudanese Missionary of Africa (what they used to call a black White Father until the society changed its name) currently on home leave in Juba from his mission in Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo. Last week in Washington DC I stayed with a Missionary of Africa from Burkina Faso. The two Missionaries of Africa working in Khartoum are from west Africa. East Africa has its own missionary society, the Apostles of Jesus, as does Nigeria. A sign of how the Church is thriving in Africa and sending out missionaries.