Helpful Texts

Johannes Röser

The Traditionalists and Our Council

From: Christ in der Gegenwart, 6/2009, P. 67 f.
webmaster's own, not authorized translation

Benedict's XVI decision to rehabilitate the traditionalist bishops, who in 1988 were consecrated by Marcel Lefebvre and thus excommunicated, causes irritations beyond the Catholic world.

The fierce reactions show that the readmittance of four traditionalist bishops of the Lefebvre movement into the communion of the Church does not only affect Catholics. The respective decree of the Vatican Congregation for Bishops signed by Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re gives as reason for the Pope's decision that he wanted mercifully to respond to the "spiritual distress" of the persons affected. Despite a papal prohibition they had been consecrated in 1988 by the apostate bishop Marcel Lefebvre and had thus automatically incurred the excommunication. The persons affected are Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Alfonso de Gallareta and Richard Williamson.

The decree runs verbatim, "His Holiness Benedict XVI in his paternal concern for the spiritual distress which the parties concerned have voiced as a result of the excommunication, and trusting in their commitment ... to spare no effort in exploring as yet unresolved questions through requisite discussions with the authorities of the Holy See in order to reach a prompt, full and satisfactory solution to the original problem has decided to reconsider the canonical situation of the bishops ... resulting from their episcopal consecration." The aim of rehabilitation was "to strengthen reciprocal relations of trust" and "to deepen and stabilize the relationship of the Society of St Pius X with this Apostolic See". One wanted to promote the Universal Church's unity in charity and to remove the scandal of division.

The decree was preceded by several discussions with the leaders of the traditionalist movement, who had asked in mid-December in a letter for the withdrawal of the excommunication. There it says, "We have the will and are determined to remain Catholics and to serve to the best of our abilities the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. We accept its teachings in filial obedience. We strongly believe in the primacy of Peter and his special position. And that is why we are greatly suffering from the current situation."

Unity Without the Last Council?

The decree does - as already in an earlier memorandum written by the Vatican but not signed by the traditionalists (see CIG No. 28/2008, p. 311) - not expressly demand of the traditionalist bishops to recognize without ifs and buts the decisions of the Second Vatican Council, although just the rejection of essential consensus statements of that Ecumenical Council was the reason why Lefebvre and his followers turned their back on the Universal Church. Does the passage about the teachings of the Church and the primacy of Peter also mean the recognition of the Council?

One can have serious doubts about it when one reads on "kreuz.net", the Internet mouthpiece of the Lefebvre people, the still triumphant messages which are sometimes downright scornful with the universal church. Immediately after the decision of the Pope the Superior General of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X wrote among other things in a letter to the Vatican as well as to the traditionalist faithful, "We are ready to write the Creed with our own blood, to sign the anti-modernist oath, ... we accept and make our own all the councils up to the First Vatican Council. Yet we can but express reservations concerning the Second Vatican Council." And only in October Fellay wrote, quoted in the "Tagesspiegel", The Second Vatican Council and the "new Mass" had "already caused the Church so much grief that we are allowed to say 'no'. We know quite clearly where we want: We do not want to drink this poison. And the German District Superior of the fraternity, Franz Schmidberger said in November that our faith is watered down and misrepresented by the new order of the Mass and the World Catechism for which Pope Benedict XVI is responsible. Not the traditionalists were disobedient "but those who arbitrarily change the unchangeable doctrine. In other words, the question is completely justified: How seriously are the traditionalists actually about the required recognition of all teachings?

Particular outrage was triggered by the fact that Richard Williamson, one of the bishops who were confirmed again as teachers of the Church, has only recently in an interview denied the Shoah, the extermination of the Jews; that's why he is prosecuted. Not only are the Germans appalled how it is possible that a German Pope again admits such a man to the episcopal pastoral office. The Vatican admittedly tried to limit the publicly caused massive damage by subsequent statements, but it is incomprehensible how the diplomacy in the run-up to such weighty decisions could fail so massively. For one knew, after all, by numerous former statements from the Lefebvre camp the latent anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism existing there. Only before Christmas Schmidberger had written an open letter of his community to the German bishops, in which he - in clear contradiction to statements by Pope John Paul II - said: The Jews were "not only not our older brothers in faith", they were "rather guilty of complicity in the murder of God,

68

as long as they do not dissociate themselves from the guilt of their forefathers by professing their faith in Christ's divinity and by receiving baptism". In the answer of the Bishops' Conference to a inquiry of the CIG editorial staff it says: The followers of Lefebvre were not a movement of the Catholic Church, that's why one did not feel compelled expressly to debate about it. Only a few weeks later the reality has outdated the then assessment.

According to "Vatican Radio" Williamson himself in reverse perspective assesses the current papal pardon in this way: The "problem of the church since the Second Vatican Council" had been "the separation of the Catholic authority from the Catholic truth". By issuing the decree the Vatican had now "taken a decisive step back towards its reunification". However, it certainly still needed time until the "Neo-Modernists in Rome" recognize "how they misunderstand the faith".

Against John Paul II?

The loss of reputation of the German pope, who four years ago was almost euphorically welcomed in the media, appears significant, particularly also with rather conservative believers. The "Frankfurter Allgemeine" writes, for the time being it remains "the mystery of the Pope why he now was so accommodating towards the most fanatical opponents of the Second Vatican Council that he in retrospect makes a laughing stock of his predecessor's John Paul II insisting on obedience to the teaching authority of the Church and to the Bishop of Rome." The "Neue Zürcher Zeitung" tries to understand but reaches the conclusion, "Surely, on the Pope's mind is the concern for the unity of the church. But this does not exclude another different motive. Benedict has espoused the cause of fighting against relativism and religious indifference, and that's why support from all sides, even from far right, can only be welcome to him."

In view of several documents, decisions and acts of this pontificate, the "Badische Zeitung" judges more sharply: Once again Benedict XVI succeeded in sending conflicting signals into the world ... - and to cause thus a new image problem."

A Jolt Against the Jolt?

The "Süddeutsche Zeitung" diagnoses a "fall from grace of the Pope". "Exactly fifty years ago a jolt went through the Catholic Church: John XXIII announced a Council. It was to make history as Second Vatican Council. The pope and the church opened their doors to the modern world ... Now again a jolt goes through the church, but it is a jolt backwards. Benedict XVI ... is very accommodating towards the followers of the late Marcel Lefebvre who caused a schism of the church. He does it although the Lefebvrists say 'no' to the spirit of the Council and want to turn back Church history one hundred years ... Many Catholics see it as a task of their church that it together with those of different faiths stands up for a humane world. They wish that their Pontifex builds bridges, e.g. to the Reformed Churches and to Judaism. But here Benedict is often lacking in the generosity with which he now embraces reactionaries."

The Freiburg moral theologian Eberhard Schockenhoff, whom one can certainly not accuse of progressistic views, draws our attention to a special inner-theological problem. In the lifting of the Lefebvrian schism he sees clear contradictions concerning the understanding of office and church: "It is now possible to be bishop of the Catholic Church without being in the full communion of its faith." This applies, inter alia, to central statements about the Revelation, as e.g. the conception of the church, the common priesthood of the faithful, the view on God's universal plan of salvation and the recognition of religious freedom and of all teachings of the last Council. Under Pope John Paul II to the negotiations with the traditionalists still the principle applied that the reintegration of the excommunicated bishops necessarily implies their recognition of the disputed statements. Schockenhoff fears: If the pope now "by his responsiveness gives the impression that central teachings of the church were at his strategic disposal, this damages the credibility of his office." The pope himself was then no longer a reliable guarantor of the faith that the latest council had proclaimed as binding.

The anti-Semitism problem just with one of the rehabilitated bishops triggered particular outrage, but it is only one point in addition to another one that is more serious and more dangerous for the situation of the church: that those who anyway are spiritually deeply disappointed by the ongoing massive build-up of reforms in theology and in the community of faith will now all the more go into an inner emigration or spiritually resp. mentally totally distance themselves, maybe even leave the church because they do no longer expect of it any ability to tackle religious affairs at present and in future. In comparison with that it seems - as bitter as it may sound - rather to be peripheral whether papacy itself becomes untrustworthy when it in such a way enhances theological and spiritual special worlds of religious special groups, and when it brings back the traditionalists into the middle of faith life without any condition, i.e. without asking for a sustained correction and reform in accordance with the last Council, our Council, the Council of the whole people of God. No matter how many subsequent attempts of appeasement and explanation are made, they cannot wipe out the fact that the recent papal decision in favour for the traditionalists has triggered tremendous dissonances within the Catholic Church - to say nothing about its loss of reputation both internally and outwardly. However, every conflict - even among devout people - gives the chance to reflect on the essential things and to a conscientious renewal in the loyalty to the message of Christ, the Alpha and Omega of our lives, our universe, and our history. According to our faith Christ is and remains the head of the Creation, and thus certainly also the principal of all secular and religious evolution.