As long as you….. then you’re one of us
I would like to take a whole different tack on the little Roman Catholic reconciliation that took place this weekend. The Bishop of Rome un-excommunicated four bishops from the Society of St. Pius X. What fascinates me about the whole thing is the level to which the Bishop of Rome will go to reconcile certain folks, while adamantly keeping others at bay.
Of course the SSPX believes in the office of the Pope as defined by the Roman Church. They hold lots of other beliefs in common, especially certain “dogmas” much of the rest of Catholic world rejects
The document lifting the excommunications makes that point clear:
With this act, it is desires to consolidate the reciprocal relations of confidence and to intensify and grant stability to the relationship of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X with this Apostolic See. This gift of peace, at the end of the Christmas celebrations, wishes also to be a sign to promote unity in the charity of the universal Church and to try to end the scandal of division.
It is hoped that this step be followed by the prompt accomplishment of full communion with the Church of the entire Fraternity of Saint Pius X, thus testifying true fidelity and true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope with the proof of visible unity.
It even paraphrases the letter, allegedly from the SSPX bishops, requesting that the excommunications be lifted, clearly making the point that the SSPX has differences which must be “discussed:”
His Holiness Benedict XVI … faithful in the effort expressed by them in the aforementioned letter of not sparing any effort to deepen the necessary discussions with the Authority of the Holy See in the still open matters, so as to achieve shortly a full and satisfactory solution of the problem posed in the origin
So the Bishop of Rome brought folks who express less than full adherence to the Roman Church’s teachings, folks who have open questions that still need discussion, and an acknowledged (in writing) imperfect communion (lacking “true fidelity and true recognition”), back into full communion. It boggles the mind.
The Roman Church is defining this as an act of charity, and I’m sure that it is for some the faithful who attend SSPX chapels
Where’s the bright line to be crossed to achieve unity? We all know of course – believe in the Pope (as we define him) and the other recent innovations in dogma. As long as you do that, the rest is up-for-grabs (and not all that important).
If Benedict was trying to reach out to the Orthodox and the other Catholic Churches in his moves toward stricter standards, this sends the opposite message. It says that the standards are whatever you declare them to be at the moment. The spirit of VII — arbitrary and capricious fits and starts — continues to be the cause celeb. The rules are different at different times, as long as Rome if filling in the blank “As long as you….. then you’re one of us.”
On a funny note, this blogger mentions the PNCC as one of a group of options for “uber-liberal” Roman Catholics who may wish to desert the Roman Church. Of course anyone can find a home with us, and all are welcome to come to our Lord and Savior with us, but he knows little to nothing about the PNCC, its Catholic nature, its history, its life, and what it teaches. He paints everything with the broad “us versus them” brush. Unfortunately (at least from his perspective) the Roman Church can’t even define what full communion really means. For all the Te Deums being sung on conservative Roman Catholic blogs, take a moment to think about the totality of what was done. Further, those bloggers and apologists see the Church as coming into agreement with their perspectives, with their way of thinking. They too have the spirit of VII — the Church is me, and I am the Church, I get to tell the Church what’s right and wrong. Pater nostrum indeed.
The SSPX believes every jot of RC doctrine including on the Pope; Archbishop Lefebvre of blessed memory never intended to start another church and Rome has never said it was one. Vatican II’s teachings on religious liberty and ecumenism, which however badly put I agree with, the real sticking points with the SSPX (It’s. Not. About. Latin.), are not defined doctrine.
Their holy orders and the society itself aren’t ‘regularised’ yet but… they’re in the RC Church.
So Rome’s not being hypocritical.
The PNCC is different.
Of course I know the PNCC is more complex than the caricature that person wrote but the facts are: Bishop Hodur meant to set up a different church, and did, and he rejected RC doctrine, being a universalist and iffy on confession and even on the Trinity (IIRC he veered towards modalism, making him a kind of unitarian as well). I think in practice he was very much held in check by his conservative Polish followers so on the parish level no, it wasn’t liberal Protestantism or unitarianism but more or less Tridentine Catholicism in Polish. (And today it’s much like good conservative Novus Ordo.)
The doctrinal teaching opposing the Pope was issued after the split (adopted from the Old Catholics whom the PNCC joined) to justify it but IIRC it’s still official PNCC teaching.
Throw on top of that disciplinary differences not only with its Roman parent but with the East – marrying the ordained and married bishops, not doctrine so not insurmountable but still a spanner in the works – and yes, the PNCC’s situation is more difficult in Rome’s view.
And besides, after four generations apart, how many Nats want to go under Rome? ISTM not many.
As to the SSPX I think it is a lot deeper than that. A quick review of their website, which contains many of their statements on errors in the Roman Church (their term) reveals deeper divisions than defined doctrine (for instance, look at the opposition to the Roman Church’s understand of the diaconate). Yes, they agree with defined doctrine — and I made that point. That would by ok if the Church were only defined doctrine. Then their agreement would be enough, but we know it is more than that. The Church is a way of living, acting, thinking, perceiving, a totality of teachings that expound on defined doctrine. It is a combination of Tradition and tradition built upon Holy Scripture and the Fathers.
Founding a separate Church is never really the intent, at the beginning. I would think that Abp. Lefebvre never had that as an intent. Yet the split becomes ingrained — and I think that is evolving in the SSPX. There’s the cognitive dissonance SSPX members must go through. Rome is right but not? Of course such thinking leads to the SSPV and the fringes of sedevacantism. We’ll see how it plays out in the end and who leads in which direction.
As to the points about Bishop Hodur and the PNCC — I do not believe the assessment is correct. My study of his writings, homilies, the synods, and the various works analyzing them, do not lead to the same conclusion. In fact I think just the opposite. As to our understanding of the Pope’s role, it is exactly in line with Orthodox thought. It isn’t about “opposing the Pope,” but rather about opposing the Roman Catholic understanding of the Pope’s office and power. If you happen to want one, I can have a copy of Rev. Dr. WŁodarski’s book (a really comprehensive analysis of PNCC history), sent to you. Just let me know off-line.
The desire to “go under” Rome — that’s just the problem, the very same problem experienced by the Orthodox and Oriental Churches. The issue of the Roman understanding of the Pope’s role and office (noted above) are, at least to our perspective, insurmountable. From the perspective of this Narodowiec (National), our Church is far more in line with Orthodoxy anyway, particularly theologically. I think that talks in that direction would be far more fruitful.
Thanks for your answer. Yes, that’s what I meant by ‘opposing the Pope’ but was short of time. Not ‘opposing the Pope’ like Protestants and their secularist progeny do but the position that his is a man-made rank of the divinely instituted episcopate for the good order of the church, the irenical opinion one finds in the Eastern churches. As the Episcopalians today for example claim that position as well, it often still requires some explaining. As we understand each other I thought I’d omit it for brevity.
I see your point about unity but the church is not monolithic as the depth and breadth of real pre-V2 RC shows! (Everybody from Franco to Dorothy Day.)
You may think I’m too optimistic but based upon Bishop Williamson’s statement after the announcement (people often have said he’d bolt rather than go under Rome) I don’t see another sedevacantist (like the SSPV – nine SSPX priests tried to hijack the society in the US but lost in court so they had to change their group’s name) schism a-brewing.