Saturday, February 21, 2009

And We're Worried about the SSPX?

Judging from this bit from CathCon (which looks to be a pretty neat blog itself), we should be worried about the theologians from Charles University over in Prague. The whole shpiel is basically a letter about the SSPX situation and the Williamson comments in particular. In the midst of the theology faculty's statement, though, is this bit:

We welcome the effort of Benedict XVI at the Church unity. By this gesture he made a great step towards the Society of Saint Pius X which is now to react. It is the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council conclusions, still rejected by the Society in their decisive parts, which must be considered at most. The recognition of religious freedom and the freedom of conscience, as well as recognition of Judaism as an autonomous path of redemption, belongs substantially to the self-conception of the Catholic Church. The Society of Saint Pius X which excluded itself from the Catholic Church by the forbidden but valid consecration of four bishops in 1988 still stresses that the compliance is not possible until the Catholic Church persists in the conclusions of the Second Vatican Council.


Let's start with the first bit. Religious freedom and freedom of conscience "belong substantially to the self-conception" of the Church. Let's take the quoted part at face value for a moment, despite theologians' propensity to use big words for little meaning. In other words, they are saying that the Church cannot even consider Herself without including these "freedom" concepts. What then, of the Social Kingship of Christ? Or the fact that the Church has long thought of Herself without such concepts, and even condemned them outright?

This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. . . Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty. . .

Nor can We predict happier times for religion and government from the plans of those who desire vehemently to separate the Church from the state, and to break the mutual concord between temporal authority and the priesthood. It is certain that that concord which always was favorable and beneficial for the sacred and the civil order is feared by the shameless lovers of liberty. But for the other painful causes We are concerned about, you should recall that certain societies and assemblages seem to draw up a battle line together with the followers of every false religion and cult. They feign piety for religion; but they are driven by a passion for promoting novelties and sedition everywhere. They preach liberty of every sort; they stir up disturbances in sacred and civil affairs, and pluck authority to pieces.

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos

That's light stuff compared to the bit about Judaism, though. What the hell is that? Judaism is an "autonomous path of redemption"? What can we conclude from this except that Christ was an utter superfluity? Apparently, we could all renounce Christ, buy yarmulkes, and it wouldn't make one bit of difference.

And I'm supposed to be worried about the SSPX and one bishop's comments about the math being off on how many Jews died in the Holocaust (note again: not IF any died, but how many)? That is more important than theologians, who I am allegedly in communion with in the Catholic Church, denying that the Incarnation and all that goes with was just bells and whistles?

A large chunk of the Catholic world is up in arms about this Williamson stuff, yet blatant heresy is passed over. What is wrong with people?

No comments: