Happy Birthday Sentire Cum Ecclesia

At the end of January each year, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI remembers the feast of the Inauguration of Sentire Cum Ecclesia, and extends his blessings to this blog and all its readers.



Ta, Your Holiness. Your blessing is bearing fruit - January 2009 saw more than 7000 visits to this site. (Thanks to all our readers, and enjoy our feast day!)

Kevin Takes His Cue from Washington on OS Abortion Aid

Such an inspiring photo, nicht wahr?

Remember all those criticisms of (ex-)PM John Howard in the media for being in "lockstep" with (ex-)President George W. Bush? Remember the way in which Howard was criticised for following the American President's lead and taking Australia into a war in which thousands of innocents perished?

Well, read this ("Bid to end abortion aid ban", The Age, Jan 29) and this ("Decision soon on lifting ban on foreign aid for abortions", The Age, Jan 31)and weep. We're not talking about "thousands of innocents" in THIS war.

Update: A bit behind the times, I am reading yesterday's edition of The Age this afternoon. Here are the opening lines of their Pontificating Decree (sorry, I mean, editorial):

Australia must lift its ban on abortion aid

AUSTRALIA stands isolated now that President Barack Obama, acting with admirable swiftness, has scrapped the US ban on funding abortion advice or services from foreign-aid money. It is a pity the Rudd Government, which has more than enough time to overturn Australia's even more restrictive policy, has not been more immediately decisive. After all, the ban, imposed by the Howard government to appease an independent senator, Brian Harradine, was always seen as contentious and politically opportunistic, as well as hampering Australia's international health-aid schemes. Now that America has reconsidered, how long will it be before Kevin Rudd does the same? ...

Note the logic: President Obama has done X, therefore PM Rudd is morally obliged to do X.

And this comes from the same editors who railed against John Howard taking his orders from George Bush.

Happy Birthday Sentire Cum Ecclesia

At the end of January each year, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI remembers the feast of the Inauguration of Sentire Cum Ecclesia, and extends his blessings to this blog and all its readers.



Ta, Your Holiness. Your blessing is bearing fruit - January 2009 saw more than 7000 visits to this site. (Thanks to all our readers, and enjoy our feast day!)

Kevin Takes His Cue from Washington on OS Abortion Aid

Such an inspiring photo, nicht wahr?

Remember all those criticisms of (ex-)PM John Howard in the media for being in "lockstep" with (ex-)President George W. Bush? Remember the way in which Howard was criticised for following the American President's lead and taking Australia into a war in which thousands of innocents perished?

Well, read this ("Bid to end abortion aid ban", The Age, Jan 29) and this ("Decision soon on lifting ban on foreign aid for abortions", The Age, Jan 31)and weep. We're not talking about "thousands of innocents" in THIS war.

Update: A bit behind the times, I am reading yesterday's edition of The Age this afternoon. Here are the opening lines of their Pontificating Decree (sorry, I mean, editorial):

Australia must lift its ban on abortion aid

AUSTRALIA stands isolated now that President Barack Obama, acting with admirable swiftness, has scrapped the US ban on funding abortion advice or services from foreign-aid money. It is a pity the Rudd Government, which has more than enough time to overturn Australia's even more restrictive policy, has not been more immediately decisive. After all, the ban, imposed by the Howard government to appease an independent senator, Brian Harradine, was always seen as contentious and politically opportunistic, as well as hampering Australia's international health-aid schemes. Now that America has reconsidered, how long will it be before Kevin Rudd does the same? ...

Note the logic: President Obama has done X, therefore PM Rudd is morally obliged to do X.

And this comes from the same editors who railed against John Howard taking his orders from George Bush.

Captain's log, star date...

No, it isn't the Captain's seat on the Starship Enterprise. It's the cathedra in Detroit's Blessed Sacrament Cathedral. For more, see here.

Quoting in Context

I recently heard someone say that whenever someone quotes a proof-text at you, you should ask them to quote the four verses before the text and the four verses after it, just so that it is put in context.

A case of this appears to be in the following picture:


In his letter of 22nd of December to St Mary's pastor, Archbishop Bathersby put this quotation in its broader context:

4. Possibly to indicate that South Brisbane was on side with the Pope, St Mary’s filtered words from his address to the French Bishops on 14 September and printed them on a banner in front of the Church. It stated: “Everyone has a place in the Church. Every person without exception should be able to feel at home and never rejected.”

These words of the Pope were taken selectively out of context. Delivered to the French Bishops at Lourdes the Pope’s statement largely promoted harmony between Catholics seeking the vernacular Mass and others seeking the Latin Mass. St Mary’s would hardly applaud the latter.

In a paragraph adjacent to the words selected by South Brisbane the Pope stated: “It can never be said often enough that the priesthood is indispensable to the Church, for it is at the service of the laity. Priests are a gift from God for the Church. Where their specific missions are concerned, priests cannot delegate their functions to the faithful.” Those words are reinforced by the Catechism of the Catholic Church that states in no.1142 “The members of the Church do not all have the same function”. Certain members are called by God in and through the Church to a special service of the community. Those servants are chosen and consecrated by the sacraments of Holy Orders, by which the Holy Spirit enables them to act in the person of Christ the Head, for the service of all members of the Church.” Again such words would hardly be accepted by South Brisbane.

In the paragraph immediately following, the Pope writes, “The Church, which cannot oppose the will of Christ, firmly maintains the principle of the indissolubility of marriage while surrounding with the greatest affection those men and women who, for a variety of reasons, fail to respect it. Hence initiatives aimed at blessing irregular unions cannot be admitted.” Again, such statements would hardly be approved by South Brisbane and yet words of the Pope are selectively chosen from the very same statement for the benefit of South Brisbane.

Among the more serious abuses that the Archbishop asked St Mary's to correct was the use of invalid baptismal formulas. This too is relevant to the Archbishop's point regarding the misuse of John Paul II's words:

Despite St Mary’s boast that it welcomes all, its misuse of the baptismal formula has significant ecumenical implications.

The fact is that in the Catholic Church all ARE welcome - but please use the front door rather than the back door. The front door is entered (as the holy water stoop reminds us) through repentance and conversion, baptism and confirmation, faithfulness to the Church, and the call to discipleship. To all who enter by this door, we say: "You are welcome" to eat and drink at the table of the Lord with us.

Anglican reunion with Rome?

It was in The Age this morning, but I had already determined that I would believe the rumour of the imminent acceptance of the TAC (Traditional Anglican Communion) as a Personal Prelature of the Catholic Church when I read about it on WDTPRS.com.

Well, it's there now - but it cites as the source of the rumour the same source that I read yesterday afternoon (and the same source Barney uses in The Age): the Perth Diocese's "The Record" in an article called "Healing the Reformation's Fault Lines". I sent it to Marco yesterday for comment (since he is local Catholic expert on these things) and all I find on his blog this morning was a reprinting of an excerpt from the article in The Record.

Now it is no surprise that if news were to break of an imminent acceptance of the TAC back into the Fold, news would break first here in Australia, mainly because the world-wide primate of the TAC (Archbishop John Hepworth) lives here in Australia, in Adelaide.

But the fact is that the Record article cites no evidence other than the talks in the Vatican last October. I guess if you add those talks to the fact that the TAC is certainly going to be received into communion at some stage in the not too distant future, and add that to the fact that this is a really interesting story for those who haven't been following it, but my question is:

Is it news?

[P.S. The interesting thing if the rumour is true is that it seems to imply that the Holy See will accept Hepworth and the other 59 TAC bishops into communion despite the fact that most of them are married...]

Update 30th Jan: Not only has WDTPRS.com picked this "story" up, but now First Things is running it on their blog (having picked it up from "The New Liturgical Movement" who picked it up from...The Record!)

Captain's log, star date...

No, it isn't the Captain's seat on the Starship Enterprise. It's the cathedra in Detroit's Blessed Sacrament Cathedral. For more, see here.

Quoting in Context

I recently heard someone say that whenever someone quotes a proof-text at you, you should ask them to quote the four verses before the text and the four verses after it, just so that it is put in context.

A case of this appears to be in the following picture:


In his letter of 22nd of December to St Mary's pastor, Archbishop Bathersby put this quotation in its broader context:

4. Possibly to indicate that South Brisbane was on side with the Pope, St Mary’s filtered words from his address to the French Bishops on 14 September and printed them on a banner in front of the Church. It stated: “Everyone has a place in the Church. Every person without exception should be able to feel at home and never rejected.”

These words of the Pope were taken selectively out of context. Delivered to the French Bishops at Lourdes the Pope’s statement largely promoted harmony between Catholics seeking the vernacular Mass and others seeking the Latin Mass. St Mary’s would hardly applaud the latter.

In a paragraph adjacent to the words selected by South Brisbane the Pope stated: “It can never be said often enough that the priesthood is indispensable to the Church, for it is at the service of the laity. Priests are a gift from God for the Church. Where their specific missions are concerned, priests cannot delegate their functions to the faithful.” Those words are reinforced by the Catechism of the Catholic Church that states in no.1142 “The members of the Church do not all have the same function”. Certain members are called by God in and through the Church to a special service of the community. Those servants are chosen and consecrated by the sacraments of Holy Orders, by which the Holy Spirit enables them to act in the person of Christ the Head, for the service of all members of the Church.” Again such words would hardly be accepted by South Brisbane.

In the paragraph immediately following, the Pope writes, “The Church, which cannot oppose the will of Christ, firmly maintains the principle of the indissolubility of marriage while surrounding with the greatest affection those men and women who, for a variety of reasons, fail to respect it. Hence initiatives aimed at blessing irregular unions cannot be admitted.” Again, such statements would hardly be approved by South Brisbane and yet words of the Pope are selectively chosen from the very same statement for the benefit of South Brisbane.

Among the more serious abuses that the Archbishop asked St Mary's to correct was the use of invalid baptismal formulas. This too is relevant to the Archbishop's point regarding the misuse of John Paul II's words:

Despite St Mary’s boast that it welcomes all, its misuse of the baptismal formula has significant ecumenical implications.

The fact is that in the Catholic Church all ARE welcome - but please use the front door rather than the back door. The front door is entered (as the holy water stoop reminds us) through repentance and conversion, baptism and confirmation, faithfulness to the Church, and the call to discipleship. To all who enter by this door, we say: "You are welcome" to eat and drink at the table of the Lord with us.

A cool widget to help you follow Sentire Cum Ecclesia

I found this cool widget on Dan Woodring's anti-abortion blog from Feedburner, which allows you to subscribe to all the posts on this blog via your email address. Just fill in the box in the right hand column under my family shield and Bob's your Uncle!

Anglican reunion with Rome?

It was in The Age this morning, but I had already determined that I would believe the rumour of the imminent acceptance of the TAC (Traditional Anglican Communion) as a Personal Prelature of the Catholic Church when I read about it on WDTPRS.com.

Well, it's there now - but it cites as the source of the rumour the same source that I read yesterday afternoon (and the same source Barney uses in The Age): the Perth Diocese's "The Record" in an article called "Healing the Reformation's Fault Lines". I sent it to Marco yesterday for comment (since he is local Catholic expert on these things) and all I find on his blog this morning was a reprinting of an excerpt from the article in The Record.

Now it is no surprise that if news were to break of an imminent acceptance of the TAC back into the Fold, news would break first here in Australia, mainly because the world-wide primate of the TAC (Archbishop John Hepworth) lives here in Australia, in Adelaide.

But the fact is that the Record article cites no evidence other than the talks in the Vatican last October. I guess if you add those talks to the fact that the TAC is certainly going to be received into communion at some stage in the not too distant future, and add that to the fact that this is a really interesting story for those who haven't been following it, but my question is:

Is it news?

[P.S. The interesting thing if the rumour is true is that it seems to imply that the Holy See will accept Hepworth and the other 59 TAC bishops into communion despite the fact that most of them are married...]

Update 30th Jan: Not only has WDTPRS.com picked this "story" up, but now First Things is running it on their blog (having picked it up from "The New Liturgical Movement" who picked it up from...The Record!)

Pope Speaks about Excommunications - Reuter's Tom Heneghan doubts sincerity of SSPX - and BXVI!

Tom Heneghan at Reuter's Faith World Blog has opined that the SSPX bishops are not serious about the dialogue with Rome for full communion. He has the evidence that shows that at least Williamson may not be on the same page as his Superior, Bernard Fellay.

But meanwhile, Benedict himself has spoken on the issue at his general audience yesterday, pointing out (exactly as I and others have been saying) that the reason for lifting the excommunications was so that the process of dialogue might begin which will lead to the Society being restored to full communion with the Church. This is what the Pope said (with my emphasis):

In the homily delivered on the occasion of the solemn inauguration of my pontificate, I said that the "call to unity" is an "explicit" duty of the pastor and I commented on the Gospel passages about the miraculous catch of fish, saying: "Though there were so many fish, the net did not break." I continued after these Gospel words: "Alas, beloved Lord, with sorrow we must now acknowledge that it has been torn!" And I continued, "But no -- we must not be sad! Let us rejoice because of your promise, which does not disappoint, and let us do all we can to pursue the path towards the unity you have promised. … Do not allow your net to be torn, help us to be servants of unity!"

Precisely in fulfilling this service to unity, which determines in a specific way my ministry as the Successor of Peter, I decided some days ago to concede the remission of the excommunication incurred by four bishops ordained without pontifical mandate in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre. I have carried out this act of paternal mercy because repeatedly these prelates have manifested their sharp suffering in the situation in which they found themselves. I trust that following from this gesture of mine will be the prompt effort on their part to complete final necessary steps to arrive to full communion with the Church, thus giving testimony of true fidelity and true recognition of the magisterium and the authority of the Pope and the Second Vatican Council.

Tom Heneghan asks the question at the end of his coverage of this issue:

Will Benedict stand up for Vatican II? Or is he using this as another way to re-interpret it in a more conservative way?

The answer to these questions is "Yes, absolutely" and "Yes, quite probably".

There is absolutely no way that the Lefebvrists will be able to be received back into full communion without accepting "all that the Catholic church believes, teaches and proclaims to be revealed by God" - that INCLUDES the all the decrees and constitutions of the Second Vatican Council. This will be, of course, a huge hurdle for them to jump.

In all ecumenical dialogue, the magisterial documents of the Church are discussed and their proper interpretation is considered. Is it possible that in the discussions with the SSPX, interpretations of the Second Vatican Council will be proposed that are more conservative than has been the case in the past? Undoubtedly. And undoubtedly, the Holy Father would not see this as a bad thing. I would be surprised if his proposed "hermeneutic of continuity" did not get a real test out in these dialogues. If he can make it work for the SSPX, he can make it work for anyone.

Make no mistake. Pope Benedict is not going to admit any bishop into the fellowship of the Church who has reservations about the authority of the Second Vatican Council. But just as certainly, he will be more than happy to take this as an opportunity to rule out interpretations of that Council that are contrary to the tradition and faith of the Church.

And that ought to be good news to all faithful Catholics.

Leaders of Society of St Pius X apologise for scandal and take action against Anti-Semitism in their Society

The situation arising from the lifting of the excommunications of the four bishops of the Society of St Pius X at the same time as one of the bishops made remarks that amount to holocaust denial continues to cause confusion and scandal for the Catholic Church. On Tuesday, both the current Superior General and the past Superior (now District Superior in Germany) issued apologies and repudiations of the ideas proposed by Bishop Williamson.

The two letters are given in full below. (Thanks to Andrew Rabel for these texts).

Two observations:

First, it is appropriate that the leadership of the Society, rather than authorities within the Catholic Church, deal with this issue, as the Society has not yet been received back into full communion with the Catholic Church.

Second, this vindicates Pope Benedict's act of lifting of the excommunications in order that dialogue aimed at the restoration of full communion may be commenced. The leaders of the Society have understood that the process of reconciliation with the Catholic Church will be jeopardised if the anti-Semitic opinions of some of its leaders and members (see here for more history from John Allen at NCR) are allowed to continue without condemnation.

Communiqué of the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X,
Bishop Bernard Fellay

It has come to our attention that Bishop Richard Williamson, a member of our Society, granted an interview to a Swedish network. In this interview, he also commented on historical issues, especially on the genocide of Jews by the National-Socialist regime. It is obvious that a bishop speaks with religious authority solely on matters of faith and morals. Our Society claims no authority over historical or other secular matters.

The mission of the Society is the offering and restoration of authentic Catholic teaching, as handed down in the dogmas. We are known, accepted, and appreciated worldwide for this.

We view this matter with great concern, as this exorbitance has caused severe damage to our religious mission. We apologize to the Holy Father and to all people of good will for the trouble it has caused.

It must remain clear that those comments do not reflect in any way the attitude of our community. That is why I have forbidden Bishop Williamson to issue any public opinion on any political or historical matter until further notice.

The constant accusations against the Society have also apparently served the purpose of discrediting our mission. We will not allow this, but will continue to preach Catholic doctrine and to offer the Sacraments in the ancient rite.

Menzingen, January 27, 2009

+ Bishop Bernard Fellay
Superior General

________________


As District Superior of the Society [of Saint Pius X] in Germany, I am very troubled by the words pronounced by Bishop Williamson here in this country.

The banalization of the genocide of the Jews by the Nazi regime and of its horror are unacceptable for us.

The persecution and murder of an incalculable number of Jews under the Third Reich touches us painfully and they also violate the Christian commandment of love for neighbor which does not distinguish ethnicities.

I must apologize for this behavior and dissociate myself from such a view.

Such dissociation is also necessary for us because the father of Archbishop Lefebvre died in a KZ [concentration camp] and because numerous Catholic priests lost their lives in Hitler's concentration camps.

Stuttgart, January 27, 2009

Father Franz Schmidberger
District Superior of the Society [of Saint Pius X] in Germany
(Previous Superior General of the Society)

A cool widget to help you follow Sentire Cum Ecclesia

I found this cool widget on Dan Woodring's anti-abortion blog from Feedburner, which allows you to subscribe to all the posts on this blog via your email address. Just fill in the box in the right hand column under my family shield and Bob's your Uncle!

Pope Speaks about Excommunications - Reuter's Tom Heneghan doubts sincerity of SSPX - and BXVI!

Tom Heneghan at Reuter's Faith World Blog has opined that the SSPX bishops are not serious about the dialogue with Rome for full communion. He has the evidence that shows that at least Williamson may not be on the same page as his Superior, Bernard Fellay.

But meanwhile, Benedict himself has spoken on the issue at his general audience yesterday, pointing out (exactly as I and others have been saying) that the reason for lifting the excommunications was so that the process of dialogue might begin which will lead to the Society being restored to full communion with the Church. This is what the Pope said (with my emphasis):

In the homily delivered on the occasion of the solemn inauguration of my pontificate, I said that the "call to unity" is an "explicit" duty of the pastor and I commented on the Gospel passages about the miraculous catch of fish, saying: "Though there were so many fish, the net did not break." I continued after these Gospel words: "Alas, beloved Lord, with sorrow we must now acknowledge that it has been torn!" And I continued, "But no -- we must not be sad! Let us rejoice because of your promise, which does not disappoint, and let us do all we can to pursue the path towards the unity you have promised. … Do not allow your net to be torn, help us to be servants of unity!"

Precisely in fulfilling this service to unity, which determines in a specific way my ministry as the Successor of Peter, I decided some days ago to concede the remission of the excommunication incurred by four bishops ordained without pontifical mandate in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre. I have carried out this act of paternal mercy because repeatedly these prelates have manifested their sharp suffering in the situation in which they found themselves. I trust that following from this gesture of mine will be the prompt effort on their part to complete final necessary steps to arrive to full communion with the Church, thus giving testimony of true fidelity and true recognition of the magisterium and the authority of the Pope and the Second Vatican Council.

Tom Heneghan asks the question at the end of his coverage of this issue:

Will Benedict stand up for Vatican II? Or is he using this as another way to re-interpret it in a more conservative way?

The answer to these questions is "Yes, absolutely" and "Yes, quite probably".

There is absolutely no way that the Lefebvrists will be able to be received back into full communion without accepting "all that the Catholic church believes, teaches and proclaims to be revealed by God" - that INCLUDES the all the decrees and constitutions of the Second Vatican Council. This will be, of course, a huge hurdle for them to jump.

In all ecumenical dialogue, the magisterial documents of the Church are discussed and their proper interpretation is considered. Is it possible that in the discussions with the SSPX, interpretations of the Second Vatican Council will be proposed that are more conservative than has been the case in the past? Undoubtedly. And undoubtedly, the Holy Father would not see this as a bad thing. I would be surprised if his proposed "hermeneutic of continuity" did not get a real test out in these dialogues. If he can make it work for the SSPX, he can make it work for anyone.

Make no mistake. Pope Benedict is not going to admit any bishop into the fellowship of the Church who has reservations about the authority of the Second Vatican Council. But just as certainly, he will be more than happy to take this as an opportunity to rule out interpretations of that Council that are contrary to the tradition and faith of the Church.

And that ought to be good news to all faithful Catholics.

Leaders of Society of St Pius X apologise for scandal and take action against Anti-Semitism in their Society

The situation arising from the lifting of the excommunications of the four bishops of the Society of St Pius X at the same time as one of the bishops made remarks that amount to holocaust denial continues to cause confusion and scandal for the Catholic Church. On Tuesday, both the current Superior General and the past Superior (now District Superior in Germany) issued apologies and repudiations of the ideas proposed by Bishop Williamson.

The two letters are given in full below. (Thanks to Andrew Rabel for these texts).

Two observations:

First, it is appropriate that the leadership of the Society, rather than authorities within the Catholic Church, deal with this issue, as the Society has not yet been received back into full communion with the Catholic Church.

Second, this vindicates Pope Benedict's act of lifting of the excommunications in order that dialogue aimed at the restoration of full communion may be commenced. The leaders of the Society have understood that the process of reconciliation with the Catholic Church will be jeopardised if the anti-Semitic opinions of some of its leaders and members (see here for more history from John Allen at NCR) are allowed to continue without condemnation.

Communiqué of the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X,
Bishop Bernard Fellay

It has come to our attention that Bishop Richard Williamson, a member of our Society, granted an interview to a Swedish network. In this interview, he also commented on historical issues, especially on the genocide of Jews by the National-Socialist regime. It is obvious that a bishop speaks with religious authority solely on matters of faith and morals. Our Society claims no authority over historical or other secular matters.

The mission of the Society is the offering and restoration of authentic Catholic teaching, as handed down in the dogmas. We are known, accepted, and appreciated worldwide for this.

We view this matter with great concern, as this exorbitance has caused severe damage to our religious mission. We apologize to the Holy Father and to all people of good will for the trouble it has caused.

It must remain clear that those comments do not reflect in any way the attitude of our community. That is why I have forbidden Bishop Williamson to issue any public opinion on any political or historical matter until further notice.

The constant accusations against the Society have also apparently served the purpose of discrediting our mission. We will not allow this, but will continue to preach Catholic doctrine and to offer the Sacraments in the ancient rite.

Menzingen, January 27, 2009

+ Bishop Bernard Fellay
Superior General

________________


As District Superior of the Society [of Saint Pius X] in Germany, I am very troubled by the words pronounced by Bishop Williamson here in this country.

The banalization of the genocide of the Jews by the Nazi regime and of its horror are unacceptable for us.

The persecution and murder of an incalculable number of Jews under the Third Reich touches us painfully and they also violate the Christian commandment of love for neighbor which does not distinguish ethnicities.

I must apologize for this behavior and dissociate myself from such a view.

Such dissociation is also necessary for us because the father of Archbishop Lefebvre died in a KZ [concentration camp] and because numerous Catholic priests lost their lives in Hitler's concentration camps.

Stuttgart, January 27, 2009

Father Franz Schmidberger
District Superior of the Society [of Saint Pius X] in Germany
(Previous Superior General of the Society)

New "Year of Grace" entry

Every now and again, Anonymous leaves a comment on my "Year of Grace" retro-conversion blog to the following effect:

Well??? When are you going to finish the story?

We are almost there now, and one step closer tonight as I have just posted another installment.

If you haven't read my conversion diary before, you can find it here. Although now more than eight years old, it was a diary I kept of my day to day experiences while in the process of converting from Lutheranism to the Catholic Church - covering roughly from Easter 2000 to Easter 2001.

If you want to get it in the right order, you have to start reading at "Sunday 23rd April, 2000 – Easter Day". You will find the link to the archives in the left hand column.

It's hot, damn hot...

There aren't even any mad dogs or Englishmen outside at the moment.

It is currently 41.9 degrees Celsius out there, down a tad from a maximum half an hour ago of 42.9 degrees.

That would be all okay, but they are suggesting that we might have another two or three days of this weather coming up...

Statement from Cardinal Ricard of France about the lifting of the SSPX excommunications

While all sorts of silliness are being spread by the ignorant media to the ignorant masses, with the sole aim of creating more division and controversy among the peoples of the world rather than less, French Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard has issued a statement which corroborates the points which that Andrew Rabel and I have been trying to make. His Eminence also demonstrates that the lifting of the excommunications was an act of charity on the part of Pope Benedict, not an act of ignorance or disdain for the Jewish people. (Some people must think the Pope is an idiot...)

Here is the Google translation of Cardinal Ricard's statement:

Declaration Card. Ricard about the lifting of the excommunication

On 24 January, Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard, archbishop of Bordeaux and a member of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" made a statement regarding the lifting of the excommunication of the four bishops of the Fraternity of St. Pius X.

The decree, signed on 21 January 2009 by Cardinal Re, prefect of the Congregation of Bishops, at the request of Pope Benedict XVI raises incurred excommunication latae sententiae by bishops ordained June 30 by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 and formally declared by order of Cardinal Gantin, on 1 July 1988.

This waiver was requested more than once by Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, especially in a letter to Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, 15 December, on behalf of 4 bishops concerned. It was even, with the possibility for any priest to celebrate Mass with the Missal of St. Pius V, one of two prerequisites [set by Bishop Fellay] for opening a dialogue with Rome. He had his followers to pray for this purpose.

Pope Benedict XVI wanted to finish what he could do as a helping hand, as an invitation to reconciliation. The Pope, a theologian and historian of theology, knows the tragedy that is a schism in the church. He hears the question that is often raised in this history of schisms: Have all steps to avoid this schism really been taken? He himself felt invested with the mission to make every effort to reweave the torn son of church unity [I'm not sure of the right translation of that - DS]. Let us not forget that the pope is familiar with the case because he had been charged by Pope John Paul II to contact Archbishop Lefebvre and try to prevent him from committing the irremediable act of consecrating bishops. Anyone who was then Cardinal Ratzinger had been marked by the failure of his mission [again, you get the gist, even if the translation is rough - DS].

The lifting of the excommunication was not an end but the beginning of a process of dialogue. It does not have [deal with?] two issues: the legal structure of the Society of Saint Pius X in the Church and an agreement on the dogmatic and ecclesiological. But it opens a path to go [forward] together. This path will probably be long. It will require better understanding and mutual esteem. At one point, the question from the text of Vatican II as a magisterial document of major importance should be raised. It is fundamental. But all the difficulties are not necessarily of the doctrinal type. Others, such as cultural and political, may also emerge. The last thing unacceptable, Bishop Williamson, denying the tragedy of the extermination of Jews, is one example.

Yet one can think that the momentum created by the lifting of excommunications should assist in the launching of the dialogue called for by the pope.

At the end of Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, let us not forget that the surest path to walk to the unity of all Christ's disciples prayer.

In Bordeaux, on 24 January 2009

Cardinal Jean-Pierre Cardinal Ricard
Archbishop of Bordeaux
Commissioner
Pontifical "Ecclesia Dei"
Bishop placed at the head of an ecclesiastical province.

New "Year of Grace" entry

Every now and again, Anonymous leaves a comment on my "Year of Grace" retro-conversion blog to the following effect:

Well??? When are you going to finish the story?

We are almost there now, and one step closer tonight as I have just posted another installment.

If you haven't read my conversion diary before, you can find it here. Although now more than eight years old, it was a diary I kept of my day to day experiences while in the process of converting from Lutheranism to the Catholic Church - covering roughly from Easter 2000 to Easter 2001.

If you want to get it in the right order, you have to start reading at "Sunday 23rd April, 2000 – Easter Day". You will find the link to the archives in the left hand column.

It's hot, damn hot...

There aren't even any mad dogs or Englishmen outside at the moment.

It is currently 41.9 degrees Celsius out there, down a tad from a maximum half an hour ago of 42.9 degrees.

That would be all okay, but they are suggesting that we might have another two or three days of this weather coming up...

Statement from Cardinal Ricard of France about the lifting of the SSPX excommunications

While all sorts of silliness are being spread by the ignorant media to the ignorant masses, with the sole aim of creating more division and controversy among the peoples of the world rather than less, French Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard has issued a statement which corroborates the points which that Andrew Rabel and I have been trying to make. His Eminence also demonstrates that the lifting of the excommunications was an act of charity on the part of Pope Benedict, not an act of ignorance or disdain for the Jewish people. (Some people must think the Pope is an idiot...)

Here is the Google translation of Cardinal Ricard's statement:

Declaration Card. Ricard about the lifting of the excommunication

On 24 January, Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard, archbishop of Bordeaux and a member of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" made a statement regarding the lifting of the excommunication of the four bishops of the Fraternity of St. Pius X.

The decree, signed on 21 January 2009 by Cardinal Re, prefect of the Congregation of Bishops, at the request of Pope Benedict XVI raises incurred excommunication latae sententiae by bishops ordained June 30 by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 and formally declared by order of Cardinal Gantin, on 1 July 1988.

This waiver was requested more than once by Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, especially in a letter to Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, 15 December, on behalf of 4 bishops concerned. It was even, with the possibility for any priest to celebrate Mass with the Missal of St. Pius V, one of two prerequisites [set by Bishop Fellay] for opening a dialogue with Rome. He had his followers to pray for this purpose.

Pope Benedict XVI wanted to finish what he could do as a helping hand, as an invitation to reconciliation. The Pope, a theologian and historian of theology, knows the tragedy that is a schism in the church. He hears the question that is often raised in this history of schisms: Have all steps to avoid this schism really been taken? He himself felt invested with the mission to make every effort to reweave the torn son of church unity [I'm not sure of the right translation of that - DS]. Let us not forget that the pope is familiar with the case because he had been charged by Pope John Paul II to contact Archbishop Lefebvre and try to prevent him from committing the irremediable act of consecrating bishops. Anyone who was then Cardinal Ratzinger had been marked by the failure of his mission [again, you get the gist, even if the translation is rough - DS].

The lifting of the excommunication was not an end but the beginning of a process of dialogue. It does not have [deal with?] two issues: the legal structure of the Society of Saint Pius X in the Church and an agreement on the dogmatic and ecclesiological. But it opens a path to go [forward] together. This path will probably be long. It will require better understanding and mutual esteem. At one point, the question from the text of Vatican II as a magisterial document of major importance should be raised. It is fundamental. But all the difficulties are not necessarily of the doctrinal type. Others, such as cultural and political, may also emerge. The last thing unacceptable, Bishop Williamson, denying the tragedy of the extermination of Jews, is one example.

Yet one can think that the momentum created by the lifting of excommunications should assist in the launching of the dialogue called for by the pope.

At the end of Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, let us not forget that the surest path to walk to the unity of all Christ's disciples prayer.

In Bordeaux, on 24 January 2009

Cardinal Jean-Pierre Cardinal Ricard
Archbishop of Bordeaux
Commissioner
Pontifical "Ecclesia Dei"
Bishop placed at the head of an ecclesiastical province.

"New" sanctions for Roger Haight SJ.

Sandro Magister comments on the latest (six months old but only just revealed) sanctions against Jesuit theologian Roger Haight. He has many supporters in the area in which I work, namely interfaith relations. But is his theology the answer even in this context?

Pope Benedict and other curial officials (eg. Cardinal Tauran) working in the area of interfaith dialogue are strongly of the opinion that watering down the faith of the Church in the area of Christology is no more helpful in interfaith dialogue than is watering down the Church's ecclesiology in ecumenism.

Straightforward honesty and truthfulness is the first prerequisite for positive outcomes in any dialogue. Well, equal first anyway, along with respect for the honest and true beliefs of the dialogue partner.

Magister highlights one comment from another Jesuit, Gerard O'Collins - an Australian now working in Rome - with regard to Roger Haight's Christology:

O'Collins made a memorable quip after news came of Haight's first condemnation: "I wouldn't give my life for Roger Haight's Jesus. It's a triumph of relevance over orthodoxy."

That perfectly sums up the problem with Haight's Christology.

The Removal of Excommunications for "Lefebvrist" Bishops: What it DOES NOT mean

After seeing on last night's news some misreporting on this event, I prepared the following statement for our Ecumenical and Interfaith Newsblog and our Commission mailing list. I was ably assisted in this by Andrew Rabel's column in Inside the Vatican.

On 1 July 1988, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who had been suspended from episcopal duties largely due to his refusal to accept the authority of the Second Vatican Council, received latae sententiae excommunication for ordaining four bishops for the Society of Saint Pius X without permission from the Holy See.

Archbishop Lefebvre died in 1991, but the excommunication continued to apply to the four bishops. On January 24th, with the approval of Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops, issued a decree removing the excommunication of these four bishops.

The removal of these excommunications has caused a great deal of confusion and controversy, especially owing to the fact that one of the four, Bishop Williamson, has publicly and strongly expressed opinions of "Holocaust-denial". Some have seen the lifting of the excommunications as a papal endorsement of these extreme and anti-Semitic views.

It must therefore be made quite clear that the removal of excommunication does not mean that these four bishops have been received back into communion with the Catholic Church. In his decree, Cardinal Battista Re made it quite clear that this act is only the first "step" toward the "accomplishment of full communion with the Church of the entire Society of Saint Pius X".

The excommunications were lifted because the bishops fulfilled the five conditions the Congregation required of. All five of these conditions concern the acceptance of the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

Many other serious issues remain between the Catholic Church and the Society of Saint Pius X. The chief among these is alluded to by Bishop Bernard Fellay, the bishop who currently heads the Society, in his response to the decree. He writes: "We accept and make our own all the councils up to the Second Vatican Council about which we express some reservations." Those reservations are very serious, and include the Council's decrees on ecumenism, interfaith relations and religious freedom.

At this stage, the relationship between the Catholic Church and the bishops of the Society have returned to what they were before the 1988 excommunications, that is, when Archbishop Lefebvre had been suspended from his episcopal duties ('a divinis') and could not legally celebrate any of the Catholic sacraments.

Cardinal Kasper, the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and Chair of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews has explained the lifting of the excommunications as: "a gesture to favour the reconstitution of the unity of the Church. It is only a first step, because a series of themes must still be discussed. It is necessary to see in what way they accept the Council. It remains to be seem what will be the status of the SSPX. ... Benedict XVI expressed himself about this problems with extreme clarity. I understand that the opinions of Williamson can cast a shadow on relations with Judaism, but I am convinced that the dialogue will continue. We have good relations with them."

A dialogue will now begin between the Society of Saint Pius X and the Holy See. Before full communion can be restored, all of the bishops of the Society will need to accept, among other things, the Catholic Church's teaching on the relationship with the Jewish people.

"New" sanctions for Roger Haight SJ.

Sandro Magister comments on the latest (six months old but only just revealed) sanctions against Jesuit theologian Roger Haight. He has many supporters in the area in which I work, namely interfaith relations. But is his theology the answer even in this context?

Pope Benedict and other curial officials (eg. Cardinal Tauran) working in the area of interfaith dialogue are strongly of the opinion that watering down the faith of the Church in the area of Christology is no more helpful in interfaith dialogue than is watering down the Church's ecclesiology in ecumenism.

Straightforward honesty and truthfulness is the first prerequisite for positive outcomes in any dialogue. Well, equal first anyway, along with respect for the honest and true beliefs of the dialogue partner.

Magister highlights one comment from another Jesuit, Gerard O'Collins - an Australian now working in Rome - with regard to Roger Haight's Christology:

O'Collins made a memorable quip after news came of Haight's first condemnation: "I wouldn't give my life for Roger Haight's Jesus. It's a triumph of relevance over orthodoxy."

That perfectly sums up the problem with Haight's Christology.

The Removal of Excommunications for "Lefebvrist" Bishops: What it DOES NOT mean

After seeing on last night's news some misreporting on this event, I prepared the following statement for our Ecumenical and Interfaith Newsblog and our Commission mailing list. I was ably assisted in this by Andrew Rabel's column in Inside the Vatican.

On 1 July 1988, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who had been suspended from episcopal duties largely due to his refusal to accept the authority of the Second Vatican Council, received latae sententiae excommunication for ordaining four bishops for the Society of Saint Pius X without permission from the Holy See.

Archbishop Lefebvre died in 1991, but the excommunication continued to apply to the four bishops. On January 24th, with the approval of Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops, issued a decree removing the excommunication of these four bishops.

The removal of these excommunications has caused a great deal of confusion and controversy, especially owing to the fact that one of the four, Bishop Williamson, has publicly and strongly expressed opinions of "Holocaust-denial". Some have seen the lifting of the excommunications as a papal endorsement of these extreme and anti-Semitic views.

It must therefore be made quite clear that the removal of excommunication does not mean that these four bishops have been received back into communion with the Catholic Church. In his decree, Cardinal Battista Re made it quite clear that this act is only the first "step" toward the "accomplishment of full communion with the Church of the entire Society of Saint Pius X".

The excommunications were lifted because the bishops fulfilled the five conditions the Congregation required of. All five of these conditions concern the acceptance of the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

Many other serious issues remain between the Catholic Church and the Society of Saint Pius X. The chief among these is alluded to by Bishop Bernard Fellay, the bishop who currently heads the Society, in his response to the decree. He writes: "We accept and make our own all the councils up to the Second Vatican Council about which we express some reservations." Those reservations are very serious, and include the Council's decrees on ecumenism, interfaith relations and religious freedom.

At this stage, the relationship between the Catholic Church and the bishops of the Society have returned to what they were before the 1988 excommunications, that is, when Archbishop Lefebvre had been suspended from his episcopal duties ('a divinis') and could not legally celebrate any of the Catholic sacraments.

Cardinal Kasper, the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and Chair of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews has explained the lifting of the excommunications as: "a gesture to favour the reconstitution of the unity of the Church. It is only a first step, because a series of themes must still be discussed. It is necessary to see in what way they accept the Council. It remains to be seem what will be the status of the SSPX. ... Benedict XVI expressed himself about this problems with extreme clarity. I understand that the opinions of Williamson can cast a shadow on relations with Judaism, but I am convinced that the dialogue will continue. We have good relations with them."

A dialogue will now begin between the Society of Saint Pius X and the Holy See. Before full communion can be restored, all of the bishops of the Society will need to accept, among other things, the Catholic Church's teaching on the relationship with the Jewish people.

Blognic and Book Launch snaps

A small but enjoyable blognic last night in Melbourne. Pictured below are Lutherans Pastor Fraser Pearce and Stewart (who, with me and Cathy, is Godfather to Fraser's son Daniel), Catholics Joshua and Justin, and Anglican Clare (a last minute addition to our group).



We went to a local Pizza restaurant in Brunswick before heading to the opening of the Catholic Bioethics Conference and launch of Dr Adam Cooper's book "Life in the Flesh". Here below is Adam and Fraser.



(Apologies for the quality of the pictures, I took them on my new Palm Treo.)

Afterwards we went back to my office for pipes and coffees. A good night!

Australia Day or Invasion Day? The Schütz Solution

Happy Australia Day to all my fellow Australians. It's almost over, but it was a wonderful day. After attending morning mass for the local "Solemnity" the national day (Timothy and Titus got bumped to last Friday), my family and I went up to Warburton with two of my old seminary friends (local Lutheran pastors) and their families.

We found a patch of lawn and a shady tree alongside the Yarra River (about 15 metres across and 2 feet deep at that point) to spend the day. A picnic (not the traditional BBQ), a couple glasses of wine, some coffee and panettone (rather than the traditional lamintons) in glorious sunshine and light breeze, followed with a game of cricket (traditional) and a game of boule (not traditional).

The temperature today was around 26 degrees, but we are expecting temperatures for the rest of the week to be around 40 degrees with overnight minimums of about 25, so it won't be so pleasant for the next few days.

Anyway, all this is to reflect on the fact that today's public holiday, marking the anniversary of the hoisting of the Union Flag at Sydney Cove in 1788, is somewhat controversial, because it marks the beginning of the European colonisation, or (as it is called by our indigenous brothers and sisters) "invasion" into this country.

Of course, since then there have been other "invasions" - such as the invasion of the local Asian peoples in the last 40 years or so: an invasion which might well have been inevitable, given Australia's geographical location, in the long run even without the European colonisation (so the sole occupancy of the indigenous population was always doomed to end eventually one way or another).

Nevertheless, I have some sympathy for the indigenous point of view. January 26 is hardly a date which unites the whole nation in celebration. However, since the history of Australia lacks an single, stand-out, epochal, nation-forming event, it is very difficult to suggest an alternative.

The only possible contender would be the anniversary of the the Federation of our colonies into one nation on January 1st, 1901. But anyone can see the difficulty of having January 1st as a national day. For one thing, it is already a public holiday for New Year's Day (and ask any Australian and they will tell you that the main point of our National Day is that it is an extra public holiday), for another thing, most people are still on Christmas/Summer holidays at that point anyway - including our public officials.

Discussing the problem with my pastor friends today, there was at least one thing we agreed on: Australia Day should happen in the Summertime. Our national holiday is an outdoor event, it is an event for swimming at the beach, having a BBQ, etc. etc. It is a day for the national dress (shorts and thongs and wide brimmed hat). None of that would work in winter.

As such, Australia Day fits very well were it is. You couldn't have it in December. And by the end of January, everyone is back at work and school.

One more thing before I give my model for a solution to the problem of "Australia Day/Invasion Day". Rather like the modern Catholic Church here in Australia, which shifts major feasts like Ascension and Epiphany to Sunday's where they are more congenial to the populace, Australians like their public holidays on a Monday so that they get a "long weekend". Today, January 26 fell conveniently on a Monday. But if it fell on a Wednesday, the public holiday would be transferred to the previous Monday and we would all be at work on the 26th. (Can you imagine the Yankees doing that with July 4th?).

So, here is my suggestion. We could cut "Australia Day" free from the 26th of January (ie. cut it free from "Invasion Day") but still celebrate it at the same time of the year (which, as I have explained, is the best season for a traditional Aussie Long Weekend). The rule would be something like the rule for the Melbourne Cup (first Tuesday in November) or Easter (first Sunday after the first full moon after the Autumn Equinox): Our National Holiday will henceforth always be on the last Monday in January.

Problem solved.

Blognic and Book Launch snaps

A small but enjoyable blognic last night in Melbourne. Pictured below are Lutherans Pastor Fraser Pearce and Stewart (who, with me and Cathy, is Godfather to Fraser's son Daniel), Catholics Joshua and Justin, and Anglican Clare (a last minute addition to our group).



We went to a local Pizza restaurant in Brunswick before heading to the opening of the Catholic Bioethics Conference and launch of Dr Adam Cooper's book "Life in the Flesh". Here below is Adam and Fraser.



(Apologies for the quality of the pictures, I took them on my new Palm Treo.)

Afterwards we went back to my office for pipes and coffees. A good night!

Australia Day or Invasion Day? The Schütz Solution

Happy Australia Day to all my fellow Australians. It's almost over, but it was a wonderful day. After attending morning mass for the local "Solemnity" the national day (Timothy and Titus got bumped to last Friday), my family and I went up to Warburton with two of my old seminary friends (local Lutheran pastors) and their families.

We found a patch of lawn and a shady tree alongside the Yarra River (about 15 metres across and 2 feet deep at that point) to spend the day. A picnic (not the traditional BBQ), a couple glasses of wine, some coffee and panettone (rather than the traditional lamintons) in glorious sunshine and light breeze, followed with a game of cricket (traditional) and a game of boule (not traditional).

The temperature today was around 26 degrees, but we are expecting temperatures for the rest of the week to be around 40 degrees with overnight minimums of about 25, so it won't be so pleasant for the next few days.

Anyway, all this is to reflect on the fact that today's public holiday, marking the anniversary of the hoisting of the Union Flag at Sydney Cove in 1788, is somewhat controversial, because it marks the beginning of the European colonisation, or (as it is called by our indigenous brothers and sisters) "invasion" into this country.

Of course, since then there have been other "invasions" - such as the invasion of the local Asian peoples in the last 40 years or so: an invasion which might well have been inevitable, given Australia's geographical location, in the long run even without the European colonisation (so the sole occupancy of the indigenous population was always doomed to end eventually one way or another).

Nevertheless, I have some sympathy for the indigenous point of view. January 26 is hardly a date which unites the whole nation in celebration. However, since the history of Australia lacks an single, stand-out, epochal, nation-forming event, it is very difficult to suggest an alternative.

The only possible contender would be the anniversary of the the Federation of our colonies into one nation on January 1st, 1901. But anyone can see the difficulty of having January 1st as a national day. For one thing, it is already a public holiday for New Year's Day (and ask any Australian and they will tell you that the main point of our National Day is that it is an extra public holiday), for another thing, most people are still on Christmas/Summer holidays at that point anyway - including our public officials.

Discussing the problem with my pastor friends today, there was at least one thing we agreed on: Australia Day should happen in the Summertime. Our national holiday is an outdoor event, it is an event for swimming at the beach, having a BBQ, etc. etc. It is a day for the national dress (shorts and thongs and wide brimmed hat). None of that would work in winter.

As such, Australia Day fits very well were it is. You couldn't have it in December. And by the end of January, everyone is back at work and school.

One more thing before I give my model for a solution to the problem of "Australia Day/Invasion Day". Rather like the modern Catholic Church here in Australia, which shifts major feasts like Ascension and Epiphany to Sunday's where they are more congenial to the populace, Australians like their public holidays on a Monday so that they get a "long weekend". Today, January 26 fell conveniently on a Monday. But if it fell on a Wednesday, the public holiday would be transferred to the previous Monday and we would all be at work on the 26th. (Can you imagine the Yankees doing that with July 4th?).

So, here is my suggestion. We could cut "Australia Day" free from the 26th of January (ie. cut it free from "Invasion Day") but still celebrate it at the same time of the year (which, as I have explained, is the best season for a traditional Aussie Long Weekend). The rule would be something like the rule for the Melbourne Cup (first Tuesday in November) or Easter (first Sunday after the first full moon after the Autumn Equinox): Our National Holiday will henceforth always be on the last Monday in January.

Problem solved.

The Start of the Obama Presidency...

Reading in the papers the last few days, I must say I was very happy with many of the new President's first moves - especially in relation to Gaza and the middle east.

But the other side of the coin didn't take long in surfacing either.

See: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/vatican-criticizes-obama-on-abortion-issue/

Vatican YouTube Channel!

How cool is this! Fresh on the heels of Monty Python, the Holy See (with a little help from their friends at Vatican Radio and Centro Televisivo Vaticano) has launched its own YouTube channel at: www.youtube.com/vaticanit.

AND - streets ahead of L'Osservatore Romano which still has to catch up with the fact that most of the rest of the world DOESN'T speak Italian - there are English, Spanish and German versions of the site also. (English is at: http://www.youtube.com/vatican).

This is the best thing since sliced bread for Catholic bloggers! Here is Pope Benedict on the benefits of the Internet. (My one complaint is that embedding is disabled. Grrr. Copyright issues, I guess...)

Being "Right Wing" is not a heresy

Yesterday, I read this in our morning edition of The Age: "Pope clears right-wing bishops: One of Four is a Holocaust Denier" (the subtitle isn't on the web edition - I'll get to that in a moment).

Saturday's report was just a rumour at that stage - although one with good basis (the article was written by a journo from The Age citing Andrea Tornielli), but the reports this morning are coming in that the act has been accomplished: Pope Benedict has lifted the excommunication on the four Society of Saint Pius X bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. (If you like your papal announcements hot off the internet and in Italian, here is the link for the Holy See's official Bulletin: REMISSIONE DELLA SCOMUNICA LATAE SENTENTIAE AI VESCOVI DELLA FRATERNITÀ SACERDOTALE SAN PIO X , 24.01.2009 (and in English HERE on WDTPRS.com - see here for further comment by Fr Z.).

Now, as Brother Martin would have said, "What does this mean for us?"

I think the very first thing to note is that this is NOT a restoration of full communion between the Catholic Church and the Churches of the Society. It puts the Fraternity in a relationship with the Catholic Church which is in almost exact parallel to the relationship of the Orthodox Churches. You will recall that at the end of Vatican II, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras recinded the mutual excommunications of the Churches within one another's communions. Forty years later, full communion has still not been established between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches - but the relationship is at least one of fraternal brotherhood seeking full communion.

So, the removal of the excommunication does not mean there are not still issues of great disagreement between Rome and the Society. Those differences include differences with regard to how the teachings of the 2nd Vatican Council is received. THAT includes questions of the relationship of the Church to other world religions, and especially to the Jews. And THAT brings up the question of "Holocaust denial".

The Age report claimed that "One of four is a Holocaust denier". The evidence for this claim is in this interview given here in Sweden:



Whatever the evidence may or not be for the Holocaust, there is no doubt about one thing: the evidence that Bishop Williamson is a "holocaust denier" is undeniable. In response to this interview, Bishop Fellay (the head of the Society) has issued this letter (thanks to Fr Ray Blake via Fr Z.)



Bishop Fellay states that a bishop has no magisterium to declare on such matters of history. He clearly distances himself and the society from Bishop Williamson's ideas - but note (in line with his position that a bishop should have no position on this issue) that he does not take the opportunity to reject Bishop Williamson's claims outright.

Make no mistake about these guys: they are what The Age and other liberal media outlets would definitely call "right wing" and "ultra-conservative". But The Age journalist fails to exercise any distinction between the "crimes" of these right-wingers. It is, for instance, one thing for a Latin Christian to exercise their right and perogative to "conduct Mass solely in Latin". It is another thing to "categorically reject the validity of any other religions" (at least for a given meaning of "validity"). It is yet another thing completely to deny the historical veracity of the Shoah.

In her article, The Age journo tries to lump Pope Benedict into the same basket as the SSPX chaps by describing him as "energetically conservative". An interesting adjective, "energetically". Yes, for an 81 year old, the Holy Father is certainly "energetic" - but compared to the SSPX bishops, he is decidely "liberal". I don't think you would find either Bishop Fellay or Bishop Williamson ever visiting a synagogue, let alone ever offering a moment of prayer in a mosque...

The lifting of the excommunication does not mean that there are not still serious issues between the Society of Saint Pius X and the Catholic Church. It does not mean that the Catholic Church (or Pope Benedict) endorses the extreme and false opinions of some of these bishops. But being "conservative" and "right-wing" as such is not an offence against the Catholic faith.

And Bishop Fellay is right about one other thing too - we can only distance ourselves from the controversial and shameful opinions of holocaust deniers. The denial of the Holocaust is not offence against the Catholic faith - although it is an offence against the Jewish people, history and right reason. As such Holocaust deniers deserve censure, not excommunication.

Update:Fr Z. on the fact that juridcally "very little has changed" in regard to the SSPX

Update:Damien Thompson at the Daily Telegraph thinks the Bishop Fellay letter looks like a fake. And note well, Thompson has it wrong. The lifting of the excommunications do not mean that Fellay and Williamson now belong "to the same Church" as himself (except in the broader sense of being baptised members of the one Church of Jesus Christ). They are still in schism from the Catholic Church.

The Start of the Obama Presidency...

Reading in the papers the last few days, I must say I was very happy with many of the new President's first moves - especially in relation to Gaza and the middle east.

But the other side of the coin didn't take long in surfacing either.

See: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/vatican-criticizes-obama-on-abortion-issue/

Vatican YouTube Channel!

How cool is this! Fresh on the heels of Monty Python, the Holy See (with a little help from their friends at Vatican Radio and Centro Televisivo Vaticano) has launched its own YouTube channel at: www.youtube.com/vaticanit.

AND - streets ahead of L'Osservatore Romano which still has to catch up with the fact that most of the rest of the world DOESN'T speak Italian - there are English, Spanish and German versions of the site also. (English is at: http://www.youtube.com/vatican).

This is the best thing since sliced bread for Catholic bloggers! Here is Pope Benedict on the benefits of the Internet. (My one complaint is that embedding is disabled. Grrr. Copyright issues, I guess...)

Being "Right Wing" is not a heresy

Yesterday, I read this in our morning edition of The Age: "Pope clears right-wing bishops: One of Four is a Holocaust Denier" (the subtitle isn't on the web edition - I'll get to that in a moment).

Saturday's report was just a rumour at that stage - although one with good basis (the article was written by a journo from The Age citing Andrea Tornielli), but the reports this morning are coming in that the act has been accomplished: Pope Benedict has lifted the excommunication on the four Society of Saint Pius X bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. (If you like your papal announcements hot off the internet and in Italian, here is the link for the Holy See's official Bulletin: REMISSIONE DELLA SCOMUNICA LATAE SENTENTIAE AI VESCOVI DELLA FRATERNITÀ SACERDOTALE SAN PIO X , 24.01.2009 (and in English HERE on WDTPRS.com - see here for further comment by Fr Z.).

Now, as Brother Martin would have said, "What does this mean for us?"

I think the very first thing to note is that this is NOT a restoration of full communion between the Catholic Church and the Churches of the Society. It puts the Fraternity in a relationship with the Catholic Church which is in almost exact parallel to the relationship of the Orthodox Churches. You will recall that at the end of Vatican II, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras recinded the mutual excommunications of the Churches within one another's communions. Forty years later, full communion has still not been established between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches - but the relationship is at least one of fraternal brotherhood seeking full communion.

So, the removal of the excommunication does not mean there are not still issues of great disagreement between Rome and the Society. Those differences include differences with regard to how the teachings of the 2nd Vatican Council is received. THAT includes questions of the relationship of the Church to other world religions, and especially to the Jews. And THAT brings up the question of "Holocaust denial".

The Age report claimed that "One of four is a Holocaust denier". The evidence for this claim is in this interview given here in Sweden:



Whatever the evidence may or not be for the Holocaust, there is no doubt about one thing: the evidence that Bishop Williamson is a "holocaust denier" is undeniable. In response to this interview, Bishop Fellay (the head of the Society) has issued this letter (thanks to Fr Ray Blake via Fr Z.)



Bishop Fellay states that a bishop has no magisterium to declare on such matters of history. He clearly distances himself and the society from Bishop Williamson's ideas - but note (in line with his position that a bishop should have no position on this issue) that he does not take the opportunity to reject Bishop Williamson's claims outright.

Make no mistake about these guys: they are what The Age and other liberal media outlets would definitely call "right wing" and "ultra-conservative". But The Age journalist fails to exercise any distinction between the "crimes" of these right-wingers. It is, for instance, one thing for a Latin Christian to exercise their right and perogative to "conduct Mass solely in Latin". It is another thing to "categorically reject the validity of any other religions" (at least for a given meaning of "validity"). It is yet another thing completely to deny the historical veracity of the Shoah.

In her article, The Age journo tries to lump Pope Benedict into the same basket as the SSPX chaps by describing him as "energetically conservative". An interesting adjective, "energetically". Yes, for an 81 year old, the Holy Father is certainly "energetic" - but compared to the SSPX bishops, he is decidely "liberal". I don't think you would find either Bishop Fellay or Bishop Williamson ever visiting a synagogue, let alone ever offering a moment of prayer in a mosque...

The lifting of the excommunication does not mean that there are not still serious issues between the Society of Saint Pius X and the Catholic Church. It does not mean that the Catholic Church (or Pope Benedict) endorses the extreme and false opinions of some of these bishops. But being "conservative" and "right-wing" as such is not an offence against the Catholic faith.

And Bishop Fellay is right about one other thing too - we can only distance ourselves from the controversial and shameful opinions of holocaust deniers. The denial of the Holocaust is not offence against the Catholic faith - although it is an offence against the Jewish people, history and right reason. As such Holocaust deniers deserve censure, not excommunication.

Update:Fr Z. on the fact that juridcally "very little has changed" in regard to the SSPX

Update:Damien Thompson at the Daily Telegraph thinks the Bishop Fellay letter looks like a fake. And note well, Thompson has it wrong. The lifting of the excommunications do not mean that Fellay and Williamson now belong "to the same Church" as himself (except in the broader sense of being baptised members of the one Church of Jesus Christ). They are still in schism from the Catholic Church.

The Augustana Graeca and the Correspondence between the Tubingen Lutherans and Patriarch Jeremias II

I was knocking about on Orrologion's blog, and I came across some entries with regard to the Lutheran correspondence with Patriarch Jeremias II in the 16th Century.

It is a fascinating episode in history, and the Augsburg Confession in Greek merits its own study.

For two important sites on the Internet in this regard, see:

http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutheran-orthodox.html

and

http://www.acta-et-scriptura.dk/ (Which gives the Augustana Graeca in facsimile)

If you know of other sources and essays on the net on this subject, please link to them in the combox. I would be especially interested in an English translation of the full correspondence between the two parties.

My only comment here and now about the whole episode is that the fact that not only the Romans but the Greeks as well saw the Augsburg Confession as a heterodox statement of the Christian faith, should have caused the Confessors then (and their heirs today) to question their assurance that "That in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic".

Joshua, for instance (in an earlier comment), reacted in horror to the rejection of the intercession of the saints. He was not alone in this. Patriarch Jeremias II had a similar reaction.

The Patriarch was especially shocked by the twenty-first and last article, which says that, while congregations should be told of the lives of the saints as examples to be followed, it is contrary to the Scriptures to invoke the saints as mediators before God. Jeremias, after citing the special powers given by Christ to the disciples, answers that true worship should indeed be given to God alone, but that the saints, and above all, the Mother of God, who by their holiness have been raised to heaven, may lawfully and helpfully be invoked. We can ask the Mother of God, owing to her special relationship, to intercede for us and the archangels and angels to pray for us; and all the saints may be asked for their mediation. It is a sign of humility that we sinners should be shy of making a direct approach to God and should seek the intervention of mortal men and women who have earned salvation. [Source]

Telstra "Help" Line - a new defintion of the word "help"?

Having virtually no other avenue of protest, I would simply like to register the fact here that I have REPEATEDLY been frustrated by the Telstra "help" line.

This isn't the first time, but today I once again spent a hour on the phone to their "help" line, this time trying to register my new mobile phone account for their online services. I had to ring in four separate times, the first information I was given didn't work, the second got cut off, the third was to someone in the Philippines (after hearing Telstra's theme song "I am, you are, we are Australian") who could barely speak english and then cut me off, the fourth put me on hold for half an hour, then the last finally told me that their online services doesn't work for new accounts, and the account number they have for me isn't the right account number and I will only know the account number when I get my first bill.

Not happy, Jan.

What have your experiences been with Telstra or Bigpond "help" lines?

The Augustana Graeca and the Correspondence between the Tubingen Lutherans and Patriarch Jeremias II

I was knocking about on Orrologion's blog, and I came across some entries with regard to the Lutheran correspondence with Patriarch Jeremias II in the 16th Century.

It is a fascinating episode in history, and the Augsburg Confession in Greek merits its own study.

For two important sites on the Internet in this regard, see:

http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutheran-orthodox.html

and

http://www.acta-et-scriptura.dk/ (Which gives the Augustana Graeca in facsimile)

If you know of other sources and essays on the net on this subject, please link to them in the combox. I would be especially interested in an English translation of the full correspondence between the two parties.

My only comment here and now about the whole episode is that the fact that not only the Romans but the Greeks as well saw the Augsburg Confession as a heterodox statement of the Christian faith, should have caused the Confessors then (and their heirs today) to question their assurance that "That in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic".

Joshua, for instance (in an earlier comment), reacted in horror to the rejection of the intercession of the saints. He was not alone in this. Patriarch Jeremias II had a similar reaction.

The Patriarch was especially shocked by the twenty-first and last article, which says that, while congregations should be told of the lives of the saints as examples to be followed, it is contrary to the Scriptures to invoke the saints as mediators before God. Jeremias, after citing the special powers given by Christ to the disciples, answers that true worship should indeed be given to God alone, but that the saints, and above all, the Mother of God, who by their holiness have been raised to heaven, may lawfully and helpfully be invoked. We can ask the Mother of God, owing to her special relationship, to intercede for us and the archangels and angels to pray for us; and all the saints may be asked for their mediation. It is a sign of humility that we sinners should be shy of making a direct approach to God and should seek the intervention of mortal men and women who have earned salvation. [Source]

Telstra "Help" Line - a new defintion of the word "help"?

Having virtually no other avenue of protest, I would simply like to register the fact here that I have REPEATEDLY been frustrated by the Telstra "help" line.

This isn't the first time, but today I once again spent a hour on the phone to their "help" line, this time trying to register my new mobile phone account for their online services. I had to ring in four separate times, the first information I was given didn't work, the second got cut off, the third was to someone in the Philippines (after hearing Telstra's theme song "I am, you are, we are Australian") who could barely speak english and then cut me off, the fourth put me on hold for half an hour, then the last finally told me that their online services doesn't work for new accounts, and the account number they have for me isn't the right account number and I will only know the account number when I get my first bill.

Not happy, Jan.

What have your experiences been with Telstra or Bigpond "help" lines?

New Catholic directory: Catholiceverything.com

Check it out at: http://www.catholiceverything.com/

Augsburg Confession XIV and the meaning of "Rite Vocatus"

Lutheran readers - and others interested in understanding Lutheran theology - may be interested in a fascinating and frank discussion that took place on Pastor Weedon's blog a couple of years ago at http://weedon.blogspot.com/2006/04/ac-xiv-thoughts.html. The subject is the original intention and meaning of the phrase "rite vocatus", which appears in the Confessio Augustana at Article XIV: "that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called [rite vocatus]."

We've been most of where this goes before - such as the citation of Jerome's opinion re presbyters and bishops and Piepkorn's examples of non-episcopal ordinations and the old furphy that Lutherans only dispensed with episcopal ordination because the nasty bishops wouldn't ordain their candidates - but there is some new info, such as the fact that a phrase was dropped from the original text of one of the Lutheran Confesions in the 1580 Book of Concord. Viz, the final phrase in bold in the following quotation:

And in summary: “From this it is clear that the Church retains the right to elect and ordain ministers. Therefore, when the bishops are heretics or refuse to administer ordination, the churches are by divine right compelled to ordain pastors and ministers for themselves by having their pastors do it (Latin: adhibitis sui pastoribus).” (Melanchthon's Tractate on the Power and Primacy of the Pope 72)

Also new is the admission, on Pastor Weedon's part, that this was "something new" in the teaching of the Lutherans. Which is not news to us, but has been denied in the past by our Lutheran brothers and sisters (cf. previously mentioned citations from Jerome and Piepkorn).

Concerning this novelty, a commentator, Pastor Ben Mayes, says in the combox to Pastor Weedon's blog:

So the question is really, What do you do when you find a part of the Lutheran Confessions that you don’t think the best early church writers held to? You can either hold to the Lutheran confessional position on the basis of a higher authority, or you can revise the Lutheran confessional position on the basis of some early church fathers. It comes down to how this “catholic principle” is understood.

As our dear departed Fr Neuhaus would have said: Quite.

Chris Jones (another Lutheran - not a pastor - but a fairly cluey bloke nonetheless) gets this point, and sees it as the $64,000 question. He replies to Pastor Mayes:

If the Apostolic Tradition means anything, and if the Creeds, the Councils, and the Fathers are worthy of any credit at all as faithful witnesses to that Tradition, then it seems to me that we must see our Confessions as part of that tradition, and consistently read them in the context of that tradition. Otherwise how can we possibly claim to be the Catholic Church, rightly reformed? And if that leads us to the conclusion that our Lutheran fathers were mistaken about the necessity of episcopal ordination, then that ought to lead us not to put the "Catholic principle" out of court, but to repent of that error. If we have made a mistake, we ought to admit it -- not re-interpret Church history to make the mistake somehow not a mistake. After all, if one should never admit a mistake in doctrine or practice, there never could have been a Reformation.

Again: Quite.