Yesterday the excommunications of the four bishops of the Society of St. Pius X were lifted. So much to say on the article. Let's start with the Holocaust denier whose excommunication was lifted. This is in my mind a very bad political move for a pope who is already viewed with suspicion by Jews. They are quite right, Holocaust denial is not an excommunicable offense. But nothing obliges the pope to lift the excommunication for another offense. Put another way, while you can't excommunicate someone for being a Holocaust denier, I see no reason why you can't refuse to lift an excommunication for another reason, at least temporarily, even if that reason no longer stands. I fear this may do incalculable damage to Jewish-Catholic relations.
On the other side of the coin, and maybe some will accuse me of contradicting myself, I am frustrated by the Jewish kvetching about the old Mass. Part of this comes from the way the article was written; it says the Jews were "incensed by the rehabilitation of the old Latin Mass because it contained a prayer calling for their conversion." This makes it sound like every Mass contained the prayer! For crying out loud, it's on ONE day out of the year, which isn't even a day the faithful are obligated to attend Mass! (Good Friday) And even so, we believe that everyone should be converted to Catholicism, not just Jews, so we're not singling them out. And beyond even that, while I understand the Judaism is not a proselytizing religion, surely they can't expect religions to not seek converts? You can disagree with us, you can not want Jews to convert, but what right do you have to demand that we not pray for your conversion? I couldn't care less myself if my Protestant prethren pray for the conversion of Catholics. Excluding the interpretation that everyone needs conversion, to me this is an expression of love and concern, however misguided. Sure, it communicates the idea that we need conversion to their own faith, but I respect them that they believe in the truth enough to ask for that conversion. Moreover, I know that God will take that prayer and make it a right prayer and do the right thing. Maybe that will be answering it by helping Catholics grow deeper in their own faith. Maybe it will be even be by bringing Catholics who don't have real faith into a relationship with God through their own ministry and maybe they will convert and find grace that they wouldn't have encountered in the Catholic church — while this is not God's perfect will, I fully believe God allows people to join other churches because that's the only way he can get to them. In which case, glory be to God, he has done what he wills. If God wants to allow someone to convert to a Protestant church for some greater reason, I will not object. The point is, I see no reason to grouse about someone's prayers, especially a prayer used by an infinitesimal minority of Catholics on one day out of the year that isn't even obligatory or well attended.
The other thing that bugs me about this article is it says, "In lifting the excommunication decree, he answered the society's second condition for beginning theological discussions about normalizing relations." Huh? So lifting the excommunications is a starting point for normalizing relations? Shouldn't it be the last step since communion implies full unity? Benedict must want this reconciliation more desperately than the SSPX. That spells trouble to me.
I'll let the Pope make up his own mind about Roger Williams. By now I've grown accustomed to lacking respect for certain bishops.
I continue to be puzzled by the reaction to the prayer for the conversion of the Jews. I think it has more to do with the fact that in English the word "perfidious" sounds like "insidious" and that bothers people. After all, the Breviary routinely calls for the conversion of those of other faiths, and even names the Jews explicitly a few times. (I documented it on my own weblog a while back.)
I believe this is one of those famous "media spins". My understanding is that theological discussions have been going on for some time.
However, given the SSPX statement following the lifting of the excommunications, I am not optimistic regarding the future. I hope this was a strategic move on the Pope's part, to slowly peel the the SSPX laity away from their chapels. If so, I don't think it will work. I remember the "Catholic Doctrine Mailing List" all too well.
Oh yes, the good ol' CDML. How long ago did I leave that list? I wonder how Joe Buehler is doing now and I wonder if the list still exists. Can't find much on the web. That was my first real exposure to the wingnuts on the right. Oh, those were the days of my youth. At least my early youth. :-)
The Pope is being generous with these four, lifting their excommunication on the basis of their request and Bp. Fellay's expression of the suffering it has caused them. This is not exactly an admission of wrongdoing, but Pope Benedict is going beyond the call of duty to take away obstacles and remove excuses.
This decree does not remove other legal penalties on the bishops and other SSPX priests, so they all remain suspended, prohibited from exercising the priesthood. And it's not OK for Catholics to start attending SSPX Masses and receiving Holy Communion there as a substitute for regular parishes.
The theological discussion is going to lead to an agreement: the Church will make it plain that Vatican II didn't define any new dogmas, and that it is not heresy to question or disagree with some of the expressions of doctrine in the Council's documents.
That will ease things for the SSPXers, who question how the Council's document on religious liberty can be reconciled with earlier teaching on the right of the Church to pre-eminence in society as a teacher of revealed truth.
The Pope would like the SSPX to come back to Catholic unity in entirety, but it's possible Williamson may stay out. Because of his erratic pronouncements on non-doctrinal matters, he would have to be given a forced retirement; and who knows whether or how long he would shut up and remain so. I compare him to Milingo.
Zenit has an article, "What Is Not True About the Good Friday Prayer for Jews: Scholar Points to Errors in Understanding," based on an interview with Father Michel Remaud, director of the Christian Institute of Jewish Studies and Hebrew Literature of Jerusalem at http://www.zenit.org/article-24928?l=english
Zenit has an article, "What Is Not True About the Good Friday Prayer for Jews: Scholar Points to Errors in Understanding," based on an interview with According to Father Michel Remaud, director of the Christian Institute of Jewish Studies and Hebrew Literature of Jerusalem at http://www.zenit.org/article-24928?l=english
At Rorate Caeli (http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-fellay-interview-division-will-be.html)
a new Fellay interview, "The eventual separations will be minimal,"
wherein he "theologically" recognizes Vatican II:
Interview granted by the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, to French Catholic Magazine Monde & Vie. The noticeable line is Fellay's declaration that not all doctrinal positions have to be exhaustively discussed with no end in sight - what is needed is a "sufficient clarification" of doctrinal issues.
(This is Kat, by the by.)
Since several of you seem to be baffled as to why we Jews are offended by the Good Friday mass, let me use an analogy. Suppose a salesman is pitching a line of cosmetics to a group of women in the hopes that they will buy from him. None of the women in the group would be offended by that, even if they have no intention of buying. However, now imagine that he turns to one woman in the group and says, "Especially you...YOU really, really need this makeup!" What is that woman's reaction going to be now? Sure, he was trying to make a sale to all of them and quite possibly meant no harm by it, but singling her out in that context is obviously going to be taken as an insult. Same holds true with the Good Friday mass...we wouldn't be at all upset if you were praying for non-Catholics as a group. We would still think proselytizing is weird, but we wouldn't be offended. But by singling us out, you are sending the message that Jews are more desperately lacking in the religion department than other non-Catholics. It may not be the intended message, but it is the message being given nonetheless.
Furthermore, I think you are forgetting WHY the Catholic Church singles out Jews in their prayers on Good Friday. I'll give you a hint: what event does Good Friday commemorate, and what is the Jews' supposed role in that event? The Good Friday mass singles us out because, unlike other non-Catholics, we are (or were, at the time the mass originated) considered deicides and thus are even further from God's grace than other groups. With that in mind, can you understand why we might see that prayer as an insult?
Feel free to pray for non-Catholics as a group as much as you like, but singling us out on Good Friday is offensive.
Also, that Zenit article is totally disingenuous. Praying for Jews to accept Jesus as their savior is a prayer for Jews to become Christian (in other words, convert), whether the word "conversion" appears or not.