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.