Readers of Chant Café have probably been following
the news reports of a possible reconciliation between the Vatican and the Society
of St Pius X with interest. Given
that the SSPX has been the most vociferous proponent of the classical Roman
liturgy and its music, it has been a source of consternation and sorrow that
they have been out of visible communion with the hierarchical Church for going
on twenty-five years. In 1988, the
fateful decision of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop De Castro Mayer to
consecrate four bishops on their own initiative resulted in those bishops’
excommunication, and was the result of a long process of mutual alienation that
went back to the 1970s.
On the side of the
SSPX, there are those who realize that it is an untenable situation to remain
outside the visible communion of a Church whose very essence requires visible
communion. The peculiar situation
of the SSPX, to them, was necessary because of what they perceive to be the
crisis in the Church, but none of them I think wants to be separated from
Rome. On the side of the Vatican,
throughout this tortured history, there have been so many different postures
taken vis-à-vis the Society, and those who have returned to full communion with
the Church over the years, that it is hard to discern one line of thought on
them. Pope Benedict XVI, who has
been particularly solicitous for bringing into the fold those whose hearts
belong to Rome, has very wisely chosen to adopt a policy of encouraging
reconciliation without trying to straitjacket either the SSPX or the Vatican
into a position which would only harden the division.
What has been
interesting to note, however, is that resistance to this movement of the Holy
Father has come from opposing quarters.
There are some self-styled progressive Catholics who fear that the
reconciliation of the SSPX is a move in a sinister plot to “turn back the
clock” to a pre-Vatican II Church.
They have raised the usual objections of anti-feminism, anti-Semitism,
anti-modernism, and more, in an effort to turn the opinion of many Catholics,
whose knowledge of the SSPX is often very scant, against this exercise of the
ministry of unity of the Roman Pontiff.
But there have also been cries of disbelief and discomfort from
Catholics who count themselves faithful to the Magisterium and to Pope Benedict
XVI. They seem not to be able to
understand why he is doing this and fear, like the progressives, that the Pope
is determined to return the Catholic Church to a status quo ante 1962.
So what are we to
believe about all this? The
acerbic discussions over the SSPX have revealed much about the contemporary
topography of Catholic thought and practice. And in particular about two questions: the interpretation of
an ecumenical council and the role of authority in the Church.
First of all, we
must point out that it is obvious to any historian of Councils that Vatican II
is markedly different in some ways then the other twenty ecumenical councils of
the Church. While the idea of having
a council was floated around during the pontificate of Ven. Pius XII, it was
decided against. But Bl. John
XXIII had no such qualms, and with his ebullient optimism sought to put a
Council whose implementation he knew he would never see into motion.
The personality and
intention of Bl. John XXIII is not irrelevant to a proper understanding of
Vatican II. He wanted a council
that was different. He purposely
called what he wished as a “pastoral” council, as a means of discerning how to
better proclaim the timeless message of the Gospel to modern man. The “pastoral” character of the council
has been one of the chief sources of the problematic as to its
interpretation. Bl. John XXIII was
confident that council could be had which would promote a sincere dialogue towards
the truth, and as such, no anathemas were needed or desirable to excoriate
opposing views. The Pope also
intuited that the mentality of modern man (which as a category is rather
ambiguous itself) was hardly suited to heeding anathemas anyway.
But of course,
Vatican II was not just a council which dealt with pastoral life. In some ways, it reflected the
theological development latent in the encyclicals of Pius XII and the various
biblical, liturgical and theological movements of the day. It dealt with dogmatic issues as
well. Yet, even before the end of
the Council, it was apparent that there was a “spirit of Vatican II” which was
emerging, but was hard to put into words.
What was it, exactly? The
implementation of the Council has been particularly difficult due to its
declension through the prism of this spirit of Vatican II.
When dealing with
all of the other councils of the Church, the fact that their formulations were
often pithy, directly dogmatic or canonical in language, meant that what it meant
to assent to those formulations and to the council as a whole tended to be
clear. Now, of course, any council
is an end to a period of reflection as well as a beginning, so those
formulations often opened up more discussion and reflection. But can we expect the same level of
assent to a council which in its very inception was meant to be different than
that kind of council, and whose language does not lend itself to
anathematizing those who disagree with it?
Vatican II does
contain dogmatic statements of fact.
It also contains indications for the reform of ecclesiastical
discipline. But there are also
passages which are not as easily classifiable into either category.
The manualist
tradition on the eve of Vatican II had developed a system by which statements
of the Magisterium could be weighed, as it were, according to the weight of their authority. Not everything could be
considered as having the same weight.
The divinity of Christ, for example, could be classified as divinely
revealed, and if you reject that teaching, you can hardly be considered an
orthodox Christian. The assertion
that St Joseph had no other children other than Jesus from a possible previous
marriage to the Blessed Mother is a pious thought, and as such, there can be
legitimate disagreement as to it. There
are those things which lie in between, some of which can be classified as theologoumena. These can be described as statements which flow from
doctrinal truths, but are themselves not the object of the same kind of assent. As such, they are not irreformable as
such.
The SSPX, immersed
in that manualist tradition, used the classification system to present a very
nuanced view of Vatican II, one which would come to flatly reject certain
formulations. Progressive
Catholics, who by and large rejected that system, still were aware that there were
these different levels, and used their existence to argue for the reformability
of certain teachings of the Church.
The increasing confusion and the breaking of visible bonds of communion
and mutual charity throughout the Church led some Catholics to argue that
ecclesiastical authority alone could decide these things.
Now, any convert
from Protestantism knows that the issue of authority is one of the big issues
which brings someone to the Catholic Church. But the exercise of that authority is not all the same, on
every level and in every occasion.
One interesting phenomenon to watch in the post-Vatican II period has
been on the one hand, the development of a perceived right to resistance to the
institutional Church (affirmed by SSPX and progressives alike for different
things) and on the other, the attitude that authority is the most important
category in theology and the Church’s life.
This is important
for understanding, not only contemporary life and theology in the Church, but
also liturgy and music. Many
people who insist that the Church maintain her treasure of liturgy and music
appeal to the authority of Church documents. But this appeal has produced some odd juxtapositions. There are those who classified
aficionados of the Extraordinary Form as schismatics before the 1988 indult on
the basis that it was not allowed, and after Summorum pontificum have loudly criticized those who refuse to
implement it. Progressives and
traditionalists alike have produced tenable yet also mutually exclusive
interpretations of liturgical law based on the torrent of verbiage which has
issued from the Vatican in the post-Vatican II period.
Yet, the life of
the Church cannot be reduced to authority alone. The SSPX have rightly insisted that custom and culture have
weight, and that the well-meaning whims of popes and bishops and priests and
laypeople cannot be automatically translated into authority which must be
accepted on all kinds of different levels. The situation is more complicated. Now, their view of how that authority should be accepted has
been different than that of conservative and liberal Catholics.
So the thorny
question becomes: what does it mean to accept Vatican II? How does the acceptance of an
ecumenical council determine one’s communion with the Church? There are those who argue that the SSPX
“should not be accepted back into the Church” because “they still reject
Vatican II.” But should they be
excommunicated, anathematized and excoriated all in the name of a Council which
intentionally avoided excommunications, anathemas and excoriations, even if
some SSPX adherents would like to see excommunications, anathemas and
excoriations thundered from the Throne of Peter?
We are reminded
that there are two notably discernable trends in the traditionalist critique of
Vatican II and its aftermath. On
the one hand, we have the personality and heritage of Archbishop Lefebvre. But we also have that of Giuseppe
Cardinal Siri, the long-time Archbishop of Genoa. It is well known that Siri held many of the same views that
Lefebvre did. But he also knew
that communion in charity and with legitimate ecclesiastical authority had to
coexist with a critique which respected the varying levels of weight that apply
to any papal document as much as to an ecumenical council. Anyone who has read his book Gethsemane is aware of a profound
critique of the life and theology of the Church after Vatican II. But for all of that, he refused just as
much to break the bonds of communion.
We are reminded by
all of this that, just as Catholics are not biblical fundamentalists, we are
also not conciliar fundamentalists.
Pope Benedict XVI, whose ministry as Peter is to confirm the brethren
and foster unity, has told us that the interpretation of Vatican II has been
travailed. The legacy of the
hermeneutic of rupture vs. the hermeneutic of continuity is a torturous
one. Continuing to level accusations
of schismatic tendencies against an SSPX whose firmest desire is to be deeply
united to Christ and to Peter is unhelpful, at least until the various
components of a proper interpretation of Vatican II in the Church’s life are
all put into sharper focus. Once
that happens, and if any glance at the Church today is an indication, it is far
away, charity and communion and dialogue is the safest bet for the unity of
Christians. We must care about the
union of the SSPX in visible communion of the Church, not because we want to
foist a status quo ante on the
Church, or even because we agree with them, but because Jesus prayed, ut unum sint.
