There was quite the uproar a few weeks ago— at least among those who follow the travails of the traditionalist group SSPX — when Bishop Richard Williamson in his weekly column ostensibly called Pope Benedict XVI an anti-Semite for changing the prayer for the Jews in the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite.
This outlandish statement by Williamson — the latest in a long line of outlandish statements — caused quite a stir among comboxes here around the blogosphere. This statement apparently prompted the Catholic Herald to do a feature piece on Bishop Williamson attempting to prove that it is Williamson who is, in fact, the anti-Semite.
I do not wish to wade into the morass of debating Williamson’s possible antisemitism but I was interested to see if he addressed the uproar over his comments in a subsequent article. He did indeed.
In fact his next article is entirely dedicated to the topic. He starts by congratulating anyone who has the wisdom to agree with him.
I congratulate them, because they had to be thinking with their Catholic minds instead of merely emoting with their (objectively) vile media.
One can be forgiven if one suspects that Bishop Williamson is not prone to introspection. He retreads some of the same ground from his previous column and insists that it is really he and not the Pope who loves the Jews. Just in case you need a refresher course in who the Jews are, Williamson reminds us that the Jews…
were responsible for the crucifying of Our Lord Jesus Christ — “His blood be upon us and upon our children“, Mt.XXVII,25 — they have as a race and as a religion, always with noble exceptions, continued to reject him down to our day. Thus St. Paul observed that they not only “killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets”, but they also prohibited St. Paul himself from “speaking to the Gentiles so as to save them”. In brief, their behavior was such that “they please not God and are adversaries to men” (I Thess. II,14-16). Closer to our own time, it is a matter of historical record that the designing and launching of, for instance, Communism, to wrest mankind away from God and to replace his Heaven with a man-made paradise, was largely their achievement.
Jesus Christ Crucifying Commies. Yeah, that helps.
In his most recent column, Williamson responds to readers questions about the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. The reader wonders whether the Church is really returning to its tradition or if this is merely a trap designed to dismantle the SSPX. Short answer: Trap. No worries mate, Bishop Williamson will steer the safe passage around it even if the Pope won’t.
So any apparent benevolence shown by Benedict XVI towards the true Faith or the true Mass can only mean that he wishes them to be reconciled with the Conciliar religion and all other religions! Therefore if he is not a conscious agent of truth-dissolving Freemasonry, at any rate he has no understanding of the true Faith, and so he cannot grasp how absolutely opposed it is to the man-centered religion of Vatican II.
Agent of freemasonry or an idiot. Yeah, that helps.
In a rare moment of lucidity, Williamson admits that the SSPX has no divine promise of indefectibility. This admission raises some interesting questions.
However, I have often made myself unpopular with colleagues in the SSPX by recalling the obvious fact that the SSPX does not have the guarantee of indefectibility that the Catholic Church has. The SSPX could fail. That is why, given what service it has rendered since 1970 to the Universal Church in guarding the Faith, and what service it can still render, Catholics must pray for it, especially for the leadership, that it may not fail.
While I am quite sure that there are myriad reasons that Williamson might be unpopular among many groups, I will leave that aside. What interests me is the admission that the SSPX has no divine promise of truth and his acknowledgment that the SSPX may very well fail in its mission. If, as Williamson puts it, the Church of Rome has “departed the true Faith” and the SSPX might fail in its mission would that not mean that the “Gates of Hell” had prevailed against the Church? I am pretty sure that somebody pretty high up on the food chain promised that would not happen. Williamson attempts to evade the logical conclusion of his own statements with this little escape clause:
[God] would offer to all sheep of good will, in some other form, all the guidance and support they would need to save their souls.
Yes. He would. He has. The Church, imperfect as it may be sometimes. If Williamson could learn this one lesson and have the humility to accept it, Williamson and all who look to him for guidance would be much better off. This one lesson. Yeah, that would help.
March 12, 2008 at 1:31 pm
So any apparent benevolence shown by Benedict XVI towards the true Faith or the true Mass can only mean that he wishes them to be reconciled with the Conciliar religion and all other religions! Therefore if he is not a conscious agent of truth-dissolving Freemasonry, at any rate he has no understanding of the true Faith, and so he cannot grasp how absolutely opposed it is to the man-centered religion of Vatican II.
When I read something like this, it makes me wonder why Bishop Williamson is even relevant to anyone interested in remaining Catholic. I’ve long taken a position of “sympathy, but not support” of the SSPX, but this is ridiculous.
Why not just go whole hog and proclaim the Pope a heretic? If the Holy Father doesn’t have any understanding the true faith, how in the world can he stil be acknowledged to be in charge of it?
March 12, 2008 at 2:04 pm
David,
Psalm 132.
March 12, 2008 at 3:17 pm
132. Is that the Vulgata numbering, or the one we borrow from the Protestants?
March 12, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Hey, bnwied, I just looked it up. You win the holy card. In the BCP, it is entitled “Ecce, quam bonum.” I’ll have to make a note of that for the next time I check the Vulgata.
March 12, 2008 at 4:13 pm
With respect to Schism—
Do you mean that the SSPX doesn’t consider themselves in schism, or that the Church doesn’t?
Because since it’s considered sinful to attend a Pius X Mass
(http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX.HTM ) that seems to say that they are, in fact, in schism.
And the Protestants thought that they were merely “keeping tradition alivE” in the face of a corrupted church….
Also, I find you really undermine your arguments when you insist on acting like Vatican II wasn’t a legitimate council….
I’m sure the Arians felt the same way about Nicea–
By arguing that a council you don’t like was not legit, you seem to be saying that you ARE in schism.
I guess I might be less sympathetic because I live near Chicago–and I’ve met people who INSIST on sticking with SSPX even when John Cantius is a perfectly respectable parish……
March 12, 2008 at 4:48 pm
David,
I just noticed that you said that Papal masses under JPII had “lots of bare boobies!”
How did I miss that. I can take bad vestments and bad music if we can have nudity!
March 12, 2008 at 5:09 pm
“David, I just noticed that you said that Papal masses under JPII had ‘lots of bare boobies!'”
In his dreams, perhaps. I believe this only happened one time, maybe twice (but I doubt it), in a part of the world where women attired in such a fashion would have been quite normal. That’s a far cry from a burlesque show every time JPII was in town.
That would make a total of two, maybe four, bare…. you get the idea.
He’s right about this business of calling him “John Paul the Great,” though. It’s a couple centuries too early for that, it’s not official — couldn’t we at least canonize him first??? — and they’re already naming a new high school in northern Virginia that way. What if, 20 or 30 years from now, we learn something about his handling of the clerical sexual abuse scandal that was… well, not downright sinister, but not so Great either? How many set of stationary are going to have to be reprinted?
And why don’t these idiots consult me sooner about things like this? Oy vey…
March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm
“Do you mean that the SSPX doesn’t consider themselves in schism, or that the Church doesn’t?”
Strictly speaking, the SSPX is not in formal schism. HOWEVER, the consecration by Archbishop Lefebvre of four new bishops for the Society was described in the 1988 motu proprio Ecclesia Dei as “a schismatic act,” and the current pope, while still a cardinal, made at least one reference in an interview to “the Lefebvrite schism.” To sum up, no, they’re not in schism, but some of their actions bear the characteristics of one.
As to fulfilling one’s Sunday obligation at an SSPX chapel, a private correspondence with Msgr Perl of the PCED revealed a two-part answer. One, there are circumstances where one’s obligation can be fulfilled in such a way, and two, it really isn’t recommended. Most people (including the guy who got the letter) don’t get past the first part. That’s because they forget one canonical principle, over which even the PCED has no control:
One does not use an illicit means to accomplish a licit end.
March 12, 2008 at 5:33 pm
In his dreams, perhaps. I believe this only happened one time, maybe twice (but I doubt it), in a part of the world where women attired in such a fashion would have been quite normal.
I’m not buying. The woman was obviously competent enough to read the epistle, so she was capable of reading a dress code.
(You can see a photo from the Mass here. I personally enjoy the expression on the face of the prelate in the front row, just behind her to the right.)
This was a massive failure on the part of the Vatican – whoever was planning the liturgy – and it led to widespread scandal, something too common under that papacy.
March 12, 2008 at 6:15 pm
About attending a S.S.P.X Mass:
(1) It is definitely not sinful to attend one, unless one thinks it to be sinful and does in a spirit of rebellion. After the Council, the laws restricting attendance at non-Catholic services were relaxed. One used to be able to attend only to fulfil a social or a state function, and then required to avoid kneeling in prayer there. If one can attend a Protestant service under the new rules, one can certainly attend an S.S.P.X Mass.
(2) The issue is one of fulfilling the obligation, not a right to attend. The P.C.E.D. did indeed rule that one could fulfil the Sunday obligation there and even put money on the plate, provided one did not have a schismatic intent. However, since then, some canonists have said that the P.C.E.D. did not have the competence to make this determination and that this is incorrect. It all turns on the *canonical* meaning of the term ‘Catholic’ as used in Canon 1248.1
One could go to a Society Mass every Sunday and then attend a Byzantine Divine Liturgy every Sunday to fulfil the obligation, and one would be ‘covered’–by going to two Masses every Sunday. On Good Friday (for instance) one could attend only a S.S.P.X Service to avoid the 2008 revision to that Service. That is because Good Friday is not a holyday.
The S.S.P.X is not in schism. According to Rome, only its four bishops are certainly in schism and excommunicated; however, priests and supporters risk falling into schism over time, as they imbibe a schismatic attitude. This is the position taken by the Holy See. Of course, it is not infallible but it is authoritative.
P.K.T.P.
March 12, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Mr Perkins:
Concerning item 2, I was indeed confining myself to the issue of fulfilling one’s Sunday/Holyday obligation. I took care not to deal with issues of attendance, or of financial support. I also mentioned the two-part response with which I am sure you are familiar, and that most people do not get past the first part.
In this rare instance, you’re like most people. Unless you can reconcile what you have stated with the canonical adage with which I closed my last post. I’ll repeat it here:
“One does not use an illicit means to accomplish a licit end.”
The gauntlet has been thrown, sir.
March 12, 2008 at 7:21 pm
“I’m not buying. The woman was obviously competent enough to read the epistle…”
…in her own language. It is reasonable her sense of a dress code would have risen out of the same culture. The planners should have taken some responsibility here, if only out of respect for the guests from out of town (including the poor old fellow in the good seats). But to blame the woman herself is unfair. For all we know, that’s more white guys than she’s seen in her entire life.
It’s a big world out there. Not everyone lives the way you and I do. But we are obliged to spread the Gospel to them all.
March 12, 2008 at 7:31 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 12, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Dear Mr. Alexander:
There is also the adage that, under Moral Law, a doubt gives consent; it does not forbid. There are two questions here. The first is whether or not a Society Mass fulfils the obligation. I do not have the answer on that one and, since the matter is doubtful, I *choose* not to attend Society Masses to fulfil the obligation. However, in Moral Law, this is merely my choice. Others could choose to attend without sinning.
While it is true that a Protocol of the P.C.E.D. only affects the addressee in positive law, it can affect everyone in Moral Law if the recipient makes the letter public (even though he should not have done so). In other words, there is no guarantee that the attendance of someone other than the recipient will be able to fulfil his obligation at a Society Mass; nevertheless, because the publication of the letter creates a doubt, such attendance can be done by others without committing sin, provided they do not have any evil intent.
Whether or not one has fulfilled the obligation is an objective matter. Whether or not one sins by not fulfilling the obligation must include the subjective factor. People constantly confuse this. Let us suppose, for example, that Mass is too far away to attend in order to fulfil the obligation. You will hear many people say that not attending it still fulfilled the obligation, since fulfilling it was impossible in law. That is incorrect. One should say that one did not fulfil the obligation–that one failed to do so–but that this was not sinful, since fulfilling it would have been impossible. One needs to separate the objective and subjective considerations.
To reiterate, whether or not attendance at a Society Mass fulfils the obligation objectively (in cases other than that of the addressee of the Protocol) is questionable in any particular case. However, because the publication of the Protocol created a state of doubt, one does not sin by attending such Masses to fulfil the obligation, even if one is, in fact, failing to fulfil it objectively.
The P.C.E.D. obviously knew that the recipient of the letter might publish it. I wonder if the Commission was creating a ‘back door’ for traditionalists who do not live near a regularised T.L.M. This is only speculation.
My own view is that, while doubt allows rather than forbids in Moral Law, we can still have a good choice generally to avoid those things which might give scandal to others. It is important in general for faithful to make clear that they do not disrespect the Holy Father or the Church. This can be done by avoiding unregularised Masses. This is a general norm, not an absolute principle. However, so far, I have never attended a Society Mass in my life.
P.K.T.P.
March 12, 2008 at 7:34 pm
(had a problem – repost)
…in her own language. It is reasonable her sense of a dress code would have risen out of the same culture.
What’s the literacy rate among tribes who haven’t even reached the level of civilization where clothing is no longer optional?
I’ve heard – though I can’t verify because the rumors come from a translation of a magazine that cited another magazine, in Italian – that this woman was a college student from Holy Trinity in Mount Hagen, Papua New Guinea.
Regardless, this is taking Sacrosanctum Concilium #38 a bit too far.
Bringing the Gospel to them is one thing. Having a papal nudie Mass is another. I’m sure the Jesuits found a way to include proper attire in their catechetics lessons to the “savages” of the world.
March 12, 2008 at 7:48 pm
On this issue of chest-exposure, the photograph one blogger posted was not the one I had seen before. There is another one in which John Paul the Small is consecrating an enormous Host (it is the size of a small dominos pizza) right in front of topless African dancing girls, whose breasts are bouncing up and down.
Presumably, the recollection needed by the celebrant might have meant that he did not notice. But some priest at that Mass should have said, “Stop the music”. Noboday did. It was a very grave scandal, although not nearly as bad as the one in which the Holy Father actually kissed the unholy and blasphemous Qu’ran.
P.K.T.P.
March 12, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Addendum in response to Mr. Alexander.
As a practical norm, Mr. Alexander, I like to adhere to the dictum that one should prefer to err on the side of caution. Since the matter of fulfilling the obligation at a Society Mass is at least doubtful, I avoid it.
However, it is important to recognise that this practical rule-of-thumb is not a Moral precept. Moral Law is more permissive here. When in doubt, in Moral Law, the action is allowed, provided that no evil is intended.
It follows that, if one thinks that one can fulfil the obligation at a Society Mass–or even if one thinks the matter is uncertain–one can attend a Society Mass to fulfil the obligation without committing sin, even if, objectively, it turns out that attendance does not fulfil the obligation.
This also respects knowledge in intent. I’ll give you an example. There is a widespread belief today that attendance at a ‘Liturgy of the Word’ fulfils the obligation. It does not. However, those who honestly believe that it does do not commit any sin by attending one for this purpose. (By the way, what the law says is that *if* one can *not* fulfil the obligation, it is recommended that you attend a Liturgy of the Word, but you are never obliged to do so.)
P.K.T.P.
March 12, 2008 at 8:22 pm
“There is also the adage that, under Moral Law, a doubt gives consent; it does not forbid. There are two questions here. The first is whether or not a Society Mass fulfils the obligation. I do not have the answer on that one…”
…but the Church does, through her disciplinary laws concerning the Sacraments.
You have raised some good points. One Sunday, many years ago, it was a snow blizzard, and I had to attend Mass. The nearest one was a Romanian Orthodox church, so I went there. Due to the weather, I might have stayed home. But it was no less a “Catholic rite” than any SSPX chapel would have been (the contrary of which would come as a shock to the 2 percent of all Catholics who belong to Eastern churches).
That said, I think there’s a danger in overcomplicating the issue here. I mean, do you think your average Joe Sixpack Catholic is going to split canonical hairs in the way we just have here? That may be acceptable on an academic level, but when it comes to the day-to-day living, one has to have clarity at the offset, then work from there.
We cannot doubt that a Catholic church operates within the law of the Church if it is to function… well, lawfully. That means it is in communion with the whole Church. An SSPX chapel, for all the trimmings and all the talk, is not. It does not answer to a bishop who is in communion with Rome. An SSPX bishop may say all the right things, but to stand before Peter and say “non serviam” is not one of them.
I admit there are situations where the only choice is between a parish which uses invalid matter for Mass, and the independent chapel down the road. It is those situations that were being addressed in the correspondence. They are not the norm. And the norm, is where we have to start.
March 12, 2008 at 8:27 pm
“I’m sure the Jesuits found a way to include proper attire in their catechetics lessons to the ‘savages’ of the world.”
I’m sure they did too. Which is why I take the organizers of the events in question to task. But not having access to the rumors that you do concerning the identity of the woman, I’m inclined to give her (and only her) the benefit of the doubt.
And Mr Perkins, I don’t think it’s necessary to use this forum to refer to the recently deceased Pope as “the Small.” For all we know, wherever he is, he might not even LIKE being called “the Great.” Will you blame him because others do?
March 12, 2008 at 9:05 pm
I will respond to Mr. Alexander point-by-point.
“You have raised some good points. One Sunday, many years ago, it was a snow blizzard, and I had to attend Mass. The nearest one was a Romanian Orthodox church, so I went there. Due to the weather, I might have stayed home. But it was no less a “Catholic rite” than any SSPX chapel would have been (the contrary of which would come as a shock to the 2 percent of all Catholics who belong to Eastern churches).”
This is the point of dispute after the issuance of the letter of the P.C.E.D. Some canonists have said that the P.C.E.D. had no competence in this matter and erred in law: only the P.C.L.T. (or a tribunal, or the Holy Father himself) has the competence to answer the dubium. According to many, “Catholic” in “Catholic rite” in Canon 1248.1 means a rite that is in communion with the Catholic Church. It is not only a liturgical referent. Hence your attendance at the Romanian Orthodox Church did not fulfil the obligation. However, if you did not know that or even if it were doubtful to you, it would not be sinful to attend the R.O.C. church in *any* event–even if there were regularised Catholic Masses available to you. (In your case, there was no question of sin because the snowstorm posed a unreasonable barrier to your attendance at a Catholic church).
Another consideration is that we must not forget about the sin of negligence. If someone is unsure, for example, whether or not attendance at a Liturgy of the Herd (as I call it) fulfils the obligation, there is an obligation to inquire about this as soon as practicable. You may attend the Liturgy of the Herd that is celebrated tonight–you are not obliged to pore through telephone directories to find canonists–but you cannot continue using doubt as an excuse perpetually.
In the case in hand, of the S.S.P.X Mass, the state of doubt is perpetual until this matter is resolved by competent authority.
“That said, I think there’s a danger in overcomplicating the issue here. I mean, do you think your average Joe Sixpack Catholic is going to split canonical hairs in the way we just have here? That may be acceptable on an academic level, but when it comes to the day-to-day living, one has to have clarity at the offset, then work from there.”
But that is precisely why Moral Law is so permissive. Joe Sixpack may not know what on earth to do. The law is as easy as possible on him. Incidentally, the principle of Moral Law which I mentioned, that doubt gives consent, is written into the 1983 Code as Canon 14. But even were it not there, it would still apply because Moral Law is above Canon Law–ALWAYS.
“We cannot doubt that a Catholic church operates within the law of the Church if it is to function… well, lawfully. That means it is in communion with the whole Church.”
We may have reason to suppose that some churches’ Masses are illicit. In such cases, we have not only the right but the obligation to avoid them to the extent that we realise this. Serious departure from the rubrics makes a Mass illicit. For example, I once attended a Mass in which a Franciscan priest composed his own Eucharistic Prayer on the spot (I was young and stupid in those days). Since I did not expect this in advance, I obviously did not sin by attending the Mass for the purpose of fulfilling the obligation. But it would (in my case: given my knowledge) to attend his Masses for that purpose–or for any purpose–again.
“An SSPX chapel, for all the trimmings and all the talk, is not. It does not answer to a bishop who is in communion with Rome. An SSPX bishop may say all the right things, but to stand before Peter and say “non serviam” is not one of them.”
This consideration does not enter into the question directly. The faith is proper not to buildings or legal structures but to people. The Society priests, deacons, and supporters and even its bishops, whether excommunicated or not, are certainly Catholic.
The Society does celebrate Masses in a Catholic rite in the general sense but not necessarily in the sense meant in Canon 1248.1. The Society tries to get around this by arguing for supplied jurisdiction in a state of necessity. I think that it had a very strong case for this until 2000, when the Pope offered them complete independence from the local bishop in what is really an ‘international diocese’ of their own. When they turned this down, in my view, the argument from necessity disappeared.
“I admit there are situations where the only choice is between a parish which uses invalid matter for Mass, and the independent chapel down the road. It is those situations that were being addressed in the correspondence. They are not the norm. And the norm, is where we have to start.”
There may be cases in which both the parish church down the road and the Society chapel down the road are to be avoided, and one must stay at home. When we say that doubt permits an action, it works both ways. It also permits us to avoid Masses–whether regularised or not–if we doubt that they are licit or valid. Some traditionalists may find that they may, without sin, abstain from both the Society Masses AND certain regularised Masses.
P.K.T.P.