Another Mountbatten?

The General Chapter of the Society of Saint Pius X closed on the 14th of July, and with it the downfall of the resistance to the policies of the Superior General was virtually assured. The Chapter began with the last test of Bishop Fellay's current direction regarding Rome, for the question was broached as to the legitimacy of the exclusion of Bishop Richard Williamson from his position as capitular, that is, member of the chapter. Given that Bishop Williamson symbolized the former position of the Society towards the Holy See, this vote was a litmus test as to the success of the Superior General in turning from resistance to Rome toward a more open attitude to the authorities of the Church. The result was dramatic: 29-9. It spelled the end of any real possibility that Bishop Fellay could be turned aside from the new direction the Society was taking. From that point, the victory of Menzingen was assured.

It must not be imagined, however, that all resistance came immediately to an end. Discussion turned on the new policy, and in what sense there could be a rapprochement with Conciliar Rome. That, of course, was how it would have been put in former times. Now, it was simply a matter of relations with Rome. The change in terminology is not minor. Thus, began the discussions, and with it, the drafting of a Statement that included the Society's present position in the crisis of the Church, along with those conditions that needed to be present before any agreement could be reached. The fact that there were discussions bespoke disagreement among the capitulars, the resulting conditions bespoke defeat for Tradition. This will be made evident by a brief examination both of the Statement of the Chapter, and the two sets of conditions.

The title of this article asks whether there exists now another Mountbatten? This may seem rather outside our subject; but perhaps the figure of Lord Louis Mountbatten, First Earl of Burma, might provide a clue to the end of the Menzingen drama. This uncle of the present Prince of Edinburgh ruled as last viceroy over the jewel in the crown of the British Empire: India. After the Second World War, the Viceroy oversaw the independence of India, during which time he passed from being Viceroy the India, to being Governor-General. This transition period ended when the present Republic was formed, and he resigned all power on behalf of Britain in its former colony. It was the period of Ghandi and Nehru, of a British crisis of conscience over the existence of colonies or dominions, and the first great loss of British sovereignty over its oversees Empire. Lord Mountbatten stood as the figure that held the offices both of viceroy and of governor-general. He led India from being British to being an independent state. With him, the old order came to an end.

So we now enter a similar phase within the Society of Saint Pius X. With the General Chapter we enter a new phase in the history of the Society founded by Archbishop Lefebvre. This change is not balanced by the fact that no apparent agreement has been reached with the Holy See. In the Statement coming from the Chapter, there has already been a decision made to reach such an agreement. This marks an important change- a very public one at that. It is not now a question of whether such an agreement is possible, but in what circumstances an agreement can be made, an agreement already agreed to in principle:

"We have determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization."

This is the first important change in the position of the Society. That there should be a normalization in this present crisis of the Church is not even questioned. From this change of direction, the Statement makes three doctrinal affirmations:

1. The identity of the Roman Catholic Church with the unique Spouse of Christ and its necessity for salvation.

2. The monarchical constitution of the Church, and thus the position of the pope as Vicar of Christ.

3. The kingship of Christ over man and all societies.

None of these points are false. However, what is woefully absent is any application of these doctrines to the very real heresies that are universally effecting the Church. One looks in vain for any mention of the concrete errors of ecumenism, religious liberty, and collegiality, heresies that were perennially condemned by the Society by name.  It is a strange absence. If there is the doctrinal principle, why does it exist without any concrete opposition? The reason also points to a change within the Society. The errors are simply not mentioned for "political" reasons. The Pope's actions applying all three errors are ignored. They are doctrines without application.

This trend is even more obviously followed in the latter paragraph wherein it states:

"The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors, and also in regard to the reforms issued from it. We find our sure guide in this uninterrupted Magisterium which, by its teaching authority, transmits the revealed Deposit of Faith in perfect harmony with the truths that the entire Church has professed, always and everywhere." 

It sounds at first glance very much in the spirit of the past- that is, unless one looks for any concrete error that is condemned. They are ignored. Which are the errors or novelties? They exist but are not mentioned. Surely this is not because the capitulars do not know what they are. It is for another reason: the hunger for the approval of Rome by means of ambiguity. Even the attitude to the Council has undergone a subtle change. Before, we heard of the "errors of the Council". Now, we are told that the Council is "tainted with error." Isn't this the same thing? Certainly not. While it could take a meaning like unto the old, it could also take a completely different meaning in keeping with the new-found discovery by Bishop Fellay that there are things that we thought the Council taught that are not really in the Council at all! The Council may not be proposing error at all in this new understanding. An admission is made as to the Council being tainted, but this could be a merely accidental quality to the Council. For example, if a document was arrived at by two opposing parties, one orthodox and one modernist, the resulting document could be written in an ambiguous way, and thus be influenced by the modernist party. Thus, the ambiguity shows the document to be tainted, but this tainting does not mean that the document is erroneous. It remains capable of a perfectly Catholic interpretation as well as a modernist one. The point is that the document is not erroneous. This would contradict the entire position of Archbishop Lefebvre who stated that some of the documents could not be reconciled with Tradition and thus would have to be rejected- such as that on "Religious Liberty".

Lastly, we come to the question of the conditions before any acceptance could be made to a Roman agreement.  What is urgent for us to remind ourselves before a glance at these, is that no doctrinal agreement between Conciliar Rome and the Society of Saint Pius X is deemed necessary. This new phase of the Society envisages unity without doctrine. While this would not bother the pragmatist who only looks for a unity based on individual capacity to get done what needs gotten done, it must bother the Catholic. The Church is one because her doctrine is one, first of all. This is not the exclusive requirement for unity, but it rests as the necessary foundation to the unity of hierarchical subordination and unity of cult. One wonders even for the pragmatist, how is one to act if the two parties are acting according to two opposed sets of principles? Will it only be "live and let live"? This is doubtful. As the history of every "Ecclesia Dei" community shows, there will sooner or later a reckoning at which time Rome demands acceptance of the new religion. Let us look now at the conditions.

There are two sets of conditions agreed upon by the General Chapter: three are "sine qua non" and three are only hoped for. What do they reveal to us?


Of the first three, the first demands the freedom to pass on the Faith (imagine demanding such a thing from Catholic authority!) as well as the freedom to rebuke error publicly. Now if we examine the actions of the Society since the beginning of this pontificate, one notices the growing lack of criticism of the Pope's actions, especially when compared to the last pope. This writer noticed it some years back, and has been watching with concern, especially as he becomes more acquainted with the writings and speeches of this pope from the past and present. If the Society is so careful now as it views the deeds of the present pope, Rome has much to fear from criticism. One has only to see the anger when priests dare to be too vocal in their criticisms of the modernism in Rome. 


Secondly, there is the use of the 1962 Missal exclusively. Which 1962 Missal? The one used by the Society, or the one with the new Good Friday prayer, or the new one planned with "enrichments"? In any case, there is the demand to pray in a Catholic way. That is something, one supposes. Please let us pray as a Catholic and not as a heretic! We have to have at least that.


The last condition is that of a bishop. This is interesting. Who would be this bishop picked by the Pope? Who will he replace? One can be absolutely sure that such a bishop would be one of the current cheerleaders within the Society for a deal. Maybe the possibilities would extend to Bishop Rifan if would have time- or even Fr. Berg! One assumes that by this one bishop is meant another bishop, not the minimum of one bishop for the Society.


Then we have the three wishes. There will be no genie to grant them, however. They tell us much about what the Society is willing to bargain away.


Firstly, an ecclesiastical tribunal in the first instance. This would be like the marriage tribunal in a diocese, which is the first instance in marriage cases, though it would deal with other problems as well. This tells us that the Society only hopes that Rome would grant such a tribunal. If it says "no" then we may say "hello" to the good offices of the diocesan annulment tribunals, and we know how competent they are in most cases.


Secondly, there is the exemption of houses of the Society from the local bishop. Amazing. The older rumours spoke of houses less than three years old. Now it refers to any house. That is meant only to be a wish?! If there is not an absolute insistence on that point, then we will see a rapid extinction of the SSPX and many empty houses.


Thirdly, there is the Commission in Rome in which Tradition makes up the majority under the Pope. Who is "of Tradition"? Will the Fraternity of St. Peter or the IBP no longer be considered "of Tradition" by Rome? Will they be part of the Commission? Or will there be two "Ecclesia Dei" Commissions? And what Commission is to protect the Society from the Pope who teaches grave errors? or from the next pope who will be worse?


If one wanted to be like the boy who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes, he might point out that a Catholic does not make demands upon the Pope. One does not tell the pope what he must do before one agrees to be subject to him. The problem is that there must be demands. And why? Because everyone knows that the Pope is not Catholic, really. One needs to be protected FROM Rome, not by Rome. We know that conditions have to be laid down, because the hierarchy is the problem. Due to the fact that we do not preach the same Faith or pray according to the same Faith, all sorts of guarantees have to be met. It is absurd. That is not the unity of the Church. It is Anglicanism, in which every kind of that sect needs its own administration. Just like in Anglicanism, those who are more conservative need the protection of bishops outside their dioceses who have to be flown in for the needs of that special form of Anglicanism. That is not Catholicism. 


We fight the Council because it is not Catholic. Its teachings are not Catholic. Its New Mass is not Catholic. Its spirituality is not Catholic. That is the only reason we fight it. We do not agree to disagree. For the Catholic it is either unity of Faith or no unity. And the Novus Ordo has no real unity. It is an umbrella under which various contradictory spiritualities live under the protection of ecumenical, modernist Rome. We do not negotiate with a Catholic pope- we submit to him, because he actually believes the Catholic Faith. This one believes in himself, but as to the Catholic Faith, objectively speaking, he preaches a new faith. Everyone should read the 6th September, 1990 talk of Archbishop Lefebvre in which he lays out the whole problem, and its only solution.


Laying out useless conditions in order to be under an umbrella with heretics is not the solution. Let us try to live in a supernatural way- that is, recognizing that political maneuvering will not get us anywhere, but rather the conversion of the pope to... the Catholic Faith. Isn't that a novel thought- that the pope must be Catholic! 


So we ask the question: is Bishop Fellay the new Earl Mountbatten? Is he the last to hold the title in reality of the successor of Archbishop Lefebvre? It seems that he has left the path of the battle for Tradition in order to be one of the optional forms of Catholicism under the umbrella of Rome, Mistress no more of truth, but of neo-Modernism and unbelief.

New Wine in Old Wineskins

During the past week, we saw the appointment of Archbishop Augustine Di Noia as Vice-President of the Commission Ecclesia Dei. This appointment was an important one, for clearly since this Commission deals exclusively with the traditionalist problem, such an appointment, following upon the new Preamble given to Bishop Bernard Fellay on the 13 June, is meant to help facilitate a re-union between the Society and "Rome". Therefore, the two interviews granted by Archbishop Di Noia, in which he treats of the Society are very important. They give a clear indication both regarding his own mind on the subject of the Second Vatican Council, and the mind of the Holy Father. We will examine some aspects of these interviews here. The interview with CNS is less important, but it does speak of an issue taken up in greater detail in the interview given to the National Catholic Register. This issue is the infallibility of the Council. In the interview with CNS, he says:

"'Part of what we're saying is that when you read the documents (of Vatican II), you can't read them from the point of view of some liberal bishops who may have been participants (at the council), you have to read them at face value,' Archbishop Di Noia told CNS. 'Given that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church, the documents cannot be in discontinuity with tradition.'"

Now, this is very telling. The archbishop makes the common distinction between the two possible readings the documents from Vatican II can take: the liberal one, and the one in continuity with Tradition. This issue will be taken up again a bit later on. The second thing that is important treats of the fact that the documents cannot, in fact, be in discontinuity with Tradition. This is a key passage. There is a confusion here between the Church when it is teaching solemnly or making judgements in the extraordinary Magisterium, and what is merely something from a document that belongs to the authentic Magisterium. The archbishop tries to put infallibility as a mark in every instance- a slight of hand that is quite contrary to the reality of the Church's teaching. If everything was infallible, there would be no need to distinguish between a definition and an assertion in the Conciliar texts. One wonders if this archbishop would be quick to speak of the infallibility of the canons of Lateran IV condemning the Jews to wear a special dress or forbidding Christians to live with, or work for them. Then, we would hear of infinite distinctions that relegate this past Council to the dustbins of history. The Church operates on three levels. There are decisions of the Extraordinary Magisterium, such as the dogmatic teachings of popes or of Councils under the pope. These are infallible and binding in Faith. Then, there are decisions of the Ordinary Magisterium, which are also judgements or the popes or undefined teachings of Councils, and these are also infallible. Then, there are things asserted by the merely authentic Magisterium, which are teachings in a very limited sense, and are not by any means infallible. Now we have the word of Pope John XXIII that Vatican II was not to define any new teaching. This is important, since what is written is, in fact, not protected by infallibility. If the Holy Ghost guided the Church in every decision, then all decisions would, in themselves, be infallible. This, however is not the case. It is the case, however, that the archbishop is trying desperately to elevate Vatican II to the level of the earlier Councils. Again, this shows up a falsehood in his understanding.

In both interviews, it is pointed out that the documents of Vatican II cannot be in discontinuity with Tradition. This is the logical conclusion of the position that the Holy Ghost was in fact behind all of the documents of the Council. It is also a conclusion which is directly at odds with the entire position of the traditionalist movement, a movement so well summarized by the title of a book of Archbishop Lefebvre: "I accuse the Council". Between Archbishop Lefebvre and Archbishop Di Noia, there is a gulf which no man may cross. One accuses the Council of being unfaithful to the Church's teaching; the other denies that any error can be present in the documents themselves. When one looks at the dealings of the forces of Tradition with modernist Rome, one is always struck by the fact that on the part of the moderns, the question always returns to the inviolability of Vatican II. There may be false interpretations of it by theologians, or false manners in which it is put into practice, but the Council itself is the ultimate dogma.

Of course, Archbishop Di Noia admits the possibility of disagreements between the various theological schools. His work with the Anglicans even opens him up to the possibility of schools of theology and spirituality based on the heretical sects themselves that may remain in existence without being absorbed into Catholic schools. The only thing necessary is to accept the divinity of the Second Vatican Council and its teaching. Even the Society can keep a kind of Tridentine theology and spirituality as long as it submits to the Council and the Conciliar popes in their positions.

The question is asked as to why there are traditionalists at all. Di Noia's answer puts him back into the mindset of John-Paul II and its subjectivism:

"To say why people are traditionalist I’d have to say it depends on their experiences. The [reform of the] liturgy has been a factor; it was a terrible revolution and shock for people. Many of these people feel abandoned, like the Church left them at the dock with the ship. So the reasons are very complicated and vary from one type of traditionalism to another and from countries, cultures and contexts in which they have arisen. 


Another issue is there’s a failure to recognize a simple fact of the history of the Church: that all theological disagreements need not be Church-dividing."

We have here the basic psychological problems of traditionalists feeling abandoned, and then we pass on to the claim that this is all a theological disagreement like that between Dominicans and Jesuits. This fails firstly because it is precisely the Magisterium of the pre-Conciliar popes which mark the dividing line between them, not some school of theology. The modernists empty out the past papal and conciliar teaching in favour of a new theology and spirituality; in fact, a new religion altogether.

There are so many things meriting comment in the National Catholic Reporter interview that this article would be endless. There was the claim that the problem of the Council lay with an inauthentic reading of the documents, not of the documents themselves. But then, one discovers a very curious argument. The texts must not be read as they are in themselves, but a something growing; this strange claim undermines his whole argument that the problem lies outside the text, not inside it.

"I’ve tried to find an analogy for this. Let’s say the American Constitution can be read in at least two ways: Historians read it, and they are interested in historical context: in the framers, intentions of the framers, the backgrounds of framers and all of that historical work about the Constitution. So, you have a Constitution you can study historically and shed a great deal of light on the meaning of it. 
However, when the Supreme Court uses the Constitution, when it’s read as an institutional living document upon which institutions of a country are based, it’s a different reading. So what the framers thought, including not only experts upon whom they’re dependent — they are parallel to the bishops, and the experts are parallel to the periti [theologians who serve participants at an ecumenical council]. 


Those documents have an independence from all of them. I often say that what Council Fathers intended doesn’t matter because it’s how you apply it today that matters. It’s a living document."

Now in the text above, Di Noia makes a comparison between the texts of the Second Vatican Council and the American Constitution.  One would think that the archbishop would stress that the intent of the fathers are key to understanding the documents, since the Holy Ghost used them to created these documents. But like a true modernist, the past interpretation, even of the fathers of the Council, are ultimately useless. The document is a "living document" in which the intentions of the fathers is useless. In this we see the modernist who has taken the past documents and re-interpreted them so as to empty them of the original meaning. No longer must they be understood in the "same sense and meaning" which was the orthodox understanding of Church teachings. Now these documents are fluid. There meaning changes with the times. He shows himself to be a true modernist, despite his "friendliness" to Tradition.

The final point to be considered is a sobering one. The Society of Saint Pius X is necessary to the Church- to bring a certain increase of theological and liturgical richness- but most of all to validate the false and modernist understanding of the Council's continuity with Tradition.

"If they are accepted by the Church and restored to full communion, they will be a sort of living witness to the continuity. They can be perfectly happy being in the Catholic Church, so they would be a living testimony to show that the continuity before and after the Council is real."

 The very purpose of the approval of the Society is to demonstrate that there is no contradiction between the Council and the past. It becomes a living witness to the fact that there has never been any contradiction between the new teachings- religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality- and Catholic dogma. Welcome to Newchurch, where the only dogma is and will always be the Council, as understood in a fluid manner, and which the Society will be the proof that all is well. Welcome to the ecclesiastical world of 1984.