Number CCLXIX (269)   8 September 2012

APRIL AMBIGUITY


In mid-April there was submitted to Rome on behalf of the Society of St Pius X a confidential docuмent, doctrinal in nature, of which it was said that it laid out Catholic principles that all the SSPX authorities could subscribe to. In mid-June Rome rejected the docuмent as basis for a Rome-SSPX agreement. Thank goodness, because it contained a supremely dangerous ambiguity: in brief, does an expression like “The Magisterium of all time” mean up until 1962, or up until 2012 ? It is all the difference between the religion of God, and the religion of God as changed by modern man, i.e. the religion of man. Here are some of the principles, as summarized for SSPX authorities:--

“1/ ...Tradition must be the criterion and guide for understanding the teachings of Vatican II. 2/ So the statements of Vatican II and of the post-conciliar papal teaching with regard to ecuмenism and interreligious dialogue or religious liberty can only be understood in the light of Tradition complete and uninterrupted, 3/ in a manner that does not clash with the truths previously taught by the Church’s Magisterium, 4/ without accepting any interpretation opposed to, or breaking with, Tradition and that Magisterium...”.

The 1962 or 2012 ambiguity lurks here in the words “Tradition” and “Magisterium”. Are these two words being taken to exclude doctrines of the Council (1962-1965) and its aftermath, or are they including them? Any follower of Tradition will read the passage so as to exclude them, because he knows that there is a huge difference between the Church and the Newchurch. But any believer in Vatican II can so read the passage as to be able to pretend that there is a seamless continuity between the Church before and after the Council. Let us take a closer look at how the Traditionalist and the Conciliarist can each read the passage in his own way.

Firstly, the Traditional reading:-- “1/ Pre-conciliar Tradition has got to be the measure and judge of Council teachings (and not the other way round). 2/ So Conciliar and post-conciliar teaching must all be sifted according to the whole of Traditional teaching prior to the Council, 3/ so as not to clash with anything that the Magisterium taught prior to the Council, 4/ accepting no interpretation or text that breaks with the pre-conciliar Tradition or Magisterium.”

Secondly, the Conciliar reading (certainly that of the Romans in charge of today’s Church) :-- “1/ Tradition from before and after the Council (because there is no difference) must be judge of the Council. 2/ So Conciliar teaching on controversial subjects must be sifted according to the Church’s one complete pre- and post-conciliar Tradition (because that alone is the “completeness” of Tradition), 3/ so as not to clash with the Church’s pre- or post-conciliar Magisterium (because they teach the same), 4/ accepting no interpretation that breaks with pre- or post-conciliar Tradition or Magisterium (because there is no break between all four of them).”

This Conciliar reading means that the Council will be judged by the Council, which means of course that it will be acquitted. On the contrary by the Traditional reading the Council is utterly condemned. Ambiguity is deadly for the Faith. Somebody here is meaning to play games with our Catholic minds. Let whoever it is be anathema !

Kyrie eleison.

Another good issue of EC from Bishop Williamson.

in brief, does an expression like “The Magisterium of all time” mean up until 1962, or up until 2012 ?

Exactly what I thought when I read that phrase too.

Ah, finally! Thank you Matthew.

Now Bishop Williamson's great Eleison Comment can be in effect unhindered again. :-)

Fine, Seramic, you have been banned as well.

Any other Accordistas anxious to be shown the door?

Because you're not welcome here. CathInfo is a hotbed of the Resistance, faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson and all the faithful priests of the SSPX.

We want "yes" to be "yes" and "no" to be "no".  We want simplicity and straight talk.

We are interested in keeping the Faith untarnished; we want the Truth.

Not what comes from the mouth of Bishop Fellay, Fr. Rostand, etc.

Unlike some weaker members of the SSPX (including many in the highest positions), we want no part with Modernism, Vatican II, or NewRome!

Bishop Williamson says that there is an ambiguity in the use of tradition in the leaked excerpts that he cites, and ends by coming 99% of the way to stating that Judas Fellay, First Assistant Judas and Second Assistant Judas are deliberately deceiving...

...well, I'm not exactly sure who they're deceiving, since this is still another leaked docuмent (or rather, excerpts from a leaked docuмent), the docuмent presumably being one given to the capitularies at the Chapter. Did the leadership think that the other capitularies were too dumb to recognize the alleged ambiguity?  Or were the other capitularies in on the deceit?  If so, who was being deceived?  The Vatican?  This is not computing....

But let me get to the real issue.  Bp. Williamson's argument doesn't stand up to examination of a quite public docuмent: the July 14 Declaration of the Chapter.

The Declaration reaffirms the Society’s duty to profess the Catholic faith in all its purity and integrity.  It refers to “the novelties of Vatican II that remain tainted [entachées]  with error”, and gives a series of remarks making quite clear that it stands firm on the unicity of the Catholic Church [so much for ecuмenism], the papal monarchy [so much for collegiality], the universal kingship of Christ [so much for Dignitatis humanae], and the traditional doctrine of revelation [so much for Dei verbum].  

Now presumably even +W and his supporters don't think that the Society believes that  the errors of Vatican II are part of tradition.  (For those who do, I can only say that I know that you really like the way you feel when you don't take your meds, but you really should start taking them again.)

So could anything in Vatican II be part of tradition?  

Sure: anything that simply restates tradition as it stood prior to Vatican II.  For example, ++Lefebvre admired the docuмent on the priesthood.  We can fight about the details some other time; that's the principle.

So what's left?  I guess all that stuff in Gaudium et spes about the wonderfulness of the modern world and the like.  I think we can safely ignore these ripe and savory fruits of a "pastoral" council.

So where's the ambiguity in the Declaration, which has been published and presumably widely read, unlike the leaked excerpts?

(Yes, I know you thought the Declaration wasn't sufficiently rock 'em sock 'em.  But that's not relevant here.  Being a sissy (by your standards, at any rate) is  not the same as deliberately deceiving whoever it is that the leaked quotes were supposed to deceive.)

If I were as suspicious a man as Bp. Williamson and his followers, I might argue that +W was writing in bad faith.  But actually, I think I need to say something worse.  I think that Judas Fellay (and Heroic Williamson) have become so engrained in His Lordship's thinking that any stick is good enough to beat him with; and if the arguments don't jibe with fact and/or logic, so much the worse for fact and/or logic.







   

It appears that John McFarland is volunteering to be the next accoridsta to be banned.

I'll second the motion. He belongs on Rorate Coli with the neo-trads, not here.