Loading ...
As usual, a very interesting interview with Luc Perrin at Rorate Caeli. This portion, towards the end, seems especially well-said:
So we are left to face all the other thorny questions as listed by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: religious liberty, ecumenism, Christian spirit of sacrifice, social kingship of Christ; curiously, the problems raised by inter-faith dialogue is not cited. But to be able to work with Roman theologians on these crucial issues, the SSPX would need some qualified experts and to be able to evaluate the achievements of the Church in the past decades with something more accurate than “John Paul II did nothing to rebuild the Faith” or, speaking of Ecclesia Dei communities, “These poor people (priests, religious, lay people) are liberals and pragmatics” (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais).
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Interesting: when I saw this, I thought the Doctor must have posted it, because he sent that same quote to me just a couple of hours ago. Which in turn he thought I’d like because I was expressing a very similar thought the other night. The SSPX has correctly identified some areas about which theological discussion/clarification is needed. But if they have any thinkers who are subtle and sophisticated enough to carry on such a dialogue, I haven’t seen much evidence of it.
Yes, well, I think that you have said similar things on the blog. I, too, was thinking of what you had said when I read this.
I just don’t see why they won’t stop kicking against the pricks and accept a personal prelature; they’d be answerable to, basically, the pope. All the Novus bishops in the world could go rot, but that wouldn’t have to affect what they’re doing.
Exactly. They’d be honor-bound not to trash-talk the Holy Father, but they could still go to town on false ecumenism, EENS, liturgical abuses etc etc. Detailed theological negotiations are not what they’re equipped for.
I think in the end there is an anti-intellectual environment in the SSPX. Even taleneted priests who show intellectual potential are not given any opportunity to go on after seminary to pursue further studies. (Indeed, when I was in seminary, many of my confreres were fresh out of high school.) Even the professors are not generally well educated, except those who already had an education before they entered. (Our canon law professor, for example, was a lawyer before he entered the seminary.) While they might admit that this is a problem, they don’t really do anything about it. It’s more important that the priests be “Mass machines”.
Sorry, that was “talented”. It’s been a long day.
During this time many have applauded the SSPX for keeping the traditional Liturgy alive by their actions and determination and this may well be true. I think the this time to be outside if you will is past. They would be far more effective inside rather than out. Although another large order of priests were founded to combat heresy and prided itself on ots members intellectual standing, it has recently lapsed in terms of at least its collective membership. I speak of the Society of Jesus. It still requires twelve years of training to be a priest. Although one can point all to readily at its members who are less orthodox , I have known and know many who remain orthodox in their teaching particularly the ones I had in College.
The approach of Mass machines is dubious since one of the key reforms of the Counterreformation was the education of priests. One needs to have an intimate knowledge of any opposing arguments on a question in order to do battle on an intellectual level.
JPG
What qualifications would one need…an advanced degree in modernism?
I think that was intended to be snarky, but actually, yes, an intimate knowledge of modernism certainly helps. As JPG correctly observes, you need an intimate knowledge of the opponent’s position to successfully engage in intellectual combat. I’ve certainly encountered a lot of people who call themselves opponents of modernism, but for whom “modernism” seems to mean, in effect, “everything I don’t like or that seems wrong with the world.” Actually I think modernism is responsible for a lot of what’s wrong with the world, and maybe for (get ready… I’m going to say it…) John and Mary Trad a vague, intuitive understanding of the problem is good enough, but you need better than that if you’re going to engage in theological discussions.
What’s really terrible about men like Tissier and Williamson is that, lacking as they do both the authority and the intellectual acumen to “compete” with the Holy Father, they start seeing him as more and more of an enemy the more good he does. You saw that in those recent interviews they gave: they talk about the SSPX being on attack from all sides etc etc. And they’re snarkier than ever about the Holy Father. Does anybody doubt that a lot of this relates to them losing many of their people to… Rome? Things are starting to look bad for the SSPX, and meanwhile are getting better and better for the Church as a whole. The more good the Holy Father does for traditionally-minded Catholics, the less these SSPX bishops are inclined to like him, because he’s stealing away their little soap box.
Clara wrote (my emphasis):”…an imtimate knowledge of modernism certainly helps. As JPG correctly observes, you need an intimate knowledge of the OPPONENT’S POSITION to successfully engage in intellectual combat…What’s really terrible about men like Tissier and Williamson is that, lacking as they do both the authority and the intellectual acumen to “COMPETE” with the HOLY FATHER…”
To successfully combat Modernism one does need to know it inside and out. One also needs to know Revelation and Tradition inside and out to refute what is being passed on as religious teaching. A favourite modernist approach is to place no supernatural credence on any of the miracles of Our Lord. Explaining the loaves and the fishes as something that occured when Our Lord inspired all those present to share their hidden stash. I heard this once in a sermon. To those who have modernist feelings an appealing explanation. To anyone with a brain how can one arrive at this halfbaked idea except from the vantage point of wishing to sell books orachieve tenure with the obvious assumption that no supernatural event occurred or is possible. Add to this the very fact that anyone who holds this theory was not there during the event only makes the modernist explanation all the more foolish. The person giving the sermon clearly acquired this from some modernist exegete since he himself although a fairly pleasent person lacked such imagination. Modernists and those who are trained by modernists fail to grasp the assumptions which underly their positions. In this example that there are no possible supernatural explanations being a cardinal rule for a modernist. Thus knowing the assumtions will allow even the average parish priest to refute this at face value.
The problem now is that modernism is such an amorphous heresy that is easily breathed by our secular culture since it by its very nature denies absolute truth.
Clara is right to stress compete with the Holy Father since we have all seen traditional people and more I think notoriously and liberal wack job priest seemingly set themselves as being above the Pope. This seems a more severe infraction on the right than on the left because of the people involved.ie would not expect it from a Trad. Far more damaging is the Richard McBriens and the Jesus Seminar as well as in our culture Christian seems to mean evangelical Protestant which we know by Scripture and Tradition to be an aberration not Christianity. The Holy Father has been given the task to explain to combat the attacks from the Enemy on all sides. It is our ancient enemy who is the ultimate source of such dissent on the right and the left.
JPG
JPG, I guess I was too subtle in my last post. I wanted to point out the fact that Clara, in her attempt to argue against the SSPX, stated that Pope Benedict XVI is a modernist.
Heh heh, I got your point the first time, Alex, but no, I didn’t state that the Holy Father is a modernist, nor even imply it, though I was wondering whether you would come back at me with that claim. I said that a knowledge of modernism was useful and even necessary for engaging in theological discussions, and I then lamented that the SSPX bishops foolishly view the Holy Father as their enemy. But see, this latter conclusion is a terrible mistake — one you are apparently very ready to share. The Vicar of Christ is not in fact the enemy; he is a fellow soldier in the fight, and a very good, brave and authoritative one at that. More like the general, perhaps.
So, you might say, if the Holy Father is not a modernist, how does modernism get into the conversation at all? Where are “the enemies” in a conversation between the SSPX and Rome? It is as JPG said — modernism is an amorphous heresy. What it really is is a philosophical shift that has affected the entire way that modern people think about the world. You can reasonably cast the entire history of the past few centuries of the Church as an ongoing effort to figure out how to deal with this problem, and it still most definitely has not been “fixed” — modernist assumptions have penetrated so deeply that fighting them becomes a little like fighting the air we breathe.
So, do I think that the theological issues about which the SSPX is concerned are real problems? Absolutely. Do I think that modernist influences in Vatican II documents are part of the trouble? Yes, I do. But to do serious battle with such a complicated and subtle opponent — like the Holy Father has been doing for quite some time — you need a real understanding of what that opponent is, not just a fairly vague conviction that there’s trouble in River City. The SSPX leaders have shown time and again that they don’t really understand what they’re dealing with, and so, in their confusion and pride, they turn their energy against the man who should be their greatest ally — the Holy Father.
Well said Clara. I would suggest reading the encyclical Dominis Gregis Pascendi to those who have not yet realized the depth of the problem. Pius X of blessed memory stated it quite well. I would like to see the oath make a comeback. Modernism is in the very air we breathe and has its origins in the enlightenment and the Reformation. From it stems indifferentism , all sorts of moral laxity and as the current Holy Father stated well the tyranny of relativism. Namely if you stand up and say this is the truth stated by Christ to His divinely instituded Church with Peter and his successors as its visible head you will be hooted down not only in Academia but in the public square.
JPG
Clara, you’re the first person who has ever made me want to defend Bishop Williamson’s views on women and education. Please don’t let THAT happen!
13 year and counting, very dissatisfied FSSPer here, by the way.
Pascendi is indeed must-read material for all Catholics, and particularly for anyone seeking to better understand modernism. St. Pius X had a very deep and subtle understanding of the problem of modernism; it’s almost ironic in some ways that the SSPX name him as their patron.
But you know, even St. Pius X couldn’t work out a really satisfactory way of dealing with the problem… whatever you think about loyalty oaths in the abstract, they don’t seem to have worked in the long run, do they? It’s an ongoing struggle. The SSPX are invited to jump on board.
Anon,
How is Clara supposed to stop you from being an idiot?