the only bit you need to read is ‘So what am I to feel now when Pope Benedict XVI…’

Actually, I disagree with the pope’s action as well, the difference being that admit my ignorance of the juridical intricacies of the situation.  I also see that good is coming out of it: the head of the SSPX, (unlike Williamson, the media’s current obsession) is beginning to clean out the anti-semitism that has infected the movement all along. As to signing an “ambiguous statement”... well, it wouldn’t be the first time.

The problem is, Mr. Wilkins appears to value his take on Vatican II apart from the dynamic process with which the Church is integrating what was a difference sort of Council into it’s on-going life. Ignore the ethereal “spirit of Vatican II”, which is mostly the fantasies of western modernists, and look at what the pope is trying to say: Vatican II, for all it’s unique qualities, is not a rupture in the life of the Church, but must be interpreted as a continuity of the whole life of the Church.  Clearly, Mr. Wilkins feels threatened by the possibility that the SSPX might jeopardize what he thinks Vatican II did. Whether it would undo the Council, or his fantasies about the Council, is the real question.

Mr. Wilkins has more in common with Bishops Fellay, Williamson, and Lefebvre than he does the Pope.  Both the followers of the “Spirit of Vatican II” and the “Rad-Trad” movement follow a “hermeneutic of rupture” in reading the conciliar documents of Vatican II.  This causes both groups to see Vatican II as a break with Tradition, they just disagree whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing.  Meanwhile the Pope and the rest of Catholicism rightly sees the council within the context of the OTHER ecumenical councils and decrees of the Church by following a “hermeneutic of continuity”.

I hesitate to interrupt, since I know little about the circumstances of the matter.  But I couldn’t help but notice this very ironic part:

But how could they ever do that? The only practical possibility would be an ambiguous formula that would allow them to sign while continuing in the same belief and practice as before.

Sounds like Anglicanism, and any number of Primates communiques or General Convention resolutions.

I hate to be clueless, but is this the same John Wilkins that frequently posts on this blog?

R4 has good reason to be suspicious of Anglican-fudge in the Catholic Church, but the truth of the matter is that Vatican II was a pastoral council.  It did not define any new dogmas.  It did, however, in some instances, re-read Catholic doctrine in a context that in many cases was foreign to the way that many Catholics, including the Lefebrivsts had read them up to that time, hence the “modernist” charge.  Moreover, many of the Vatican II documents don’t teaching doctrine at all, but represent the opinion of the Council Fathers on the “signs of the times” as they saw it.  Vatican II itself recognized that Catholic teaching had a “hierarchy of truths,” and so we should be surprised if everything that Vatican II ever said should be raised to the highest level of that hierarchy.  And, Catholic theology did provide some space even before the Council for theologians to withhold internal assent from non-infalliable Catholic teaching for serious reasons and to communicate the reasons to their bishops and to others with a professional interest in the matter, i.e. theologians with expertise and competence in the area.  So, the issue is more complicated than Vatican II, thumbs up or down.

So, where does that leave the SSPX?  Sometimes, it’s hard to tell from their extremist rhetoric, but it appears that the crux of the dispute over Vatican II is centered on the Declaration of Religious Freedom, the Declaration on Ecumenism, the Declaration on non-Christian religions, and the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.  The issue is, to what extent do those statements represent Catholic teaching, and, if so, on what level of authority.  Frankly, it is difficult for me to see how the Council intended to raise everything in these documents to the level of Catholic dogma or infallibly-taught doctrine.  Certainly, one can think the liturgical changes called for by the Council to be ill-advised.  And, much that is said in the ecumencial and religious freedom realm could be ascribed in part to historical contingencies - - in just the same way that one could describe the SSPX’s radical anti-Enlighentment, anti-separation of church and state, and anti-republicanism as based in part on historical contigencies.  But, which parts?  What’s essential and what isn’t?  And, even if the SSPX withholds assent from certain aspects of Vatican II, how is that to be lived out in practice within full communion of the Church.  In other words, is it consistent for a clerical body to be in full communion with the church when its lack of assent (or even dissent) is part of its organizing principle?  These are tricky and difficult questions.

John Paul II, through Cardinal Ratzinger, came to an agreement with Archbishop Lefebvre which, in part,  stated “With regard to certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which seem to us able to be reconciled with the Tradition only with difficulty, we commit ourselves to have a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Holy See, avoiding all polemics.”  The Archbishop, regretfully, reneged on the agreement, and went onto perform the schismatic consecration of bishops, including the infamous Richard Williamson.  But, as one can see, the previous Pope did not require the SSPX to agree with everything that Vatican II stated, but they were asked not to be close-minded, but to remain in communication with the Holy See over their reservations and concerns.  Perhaps a similar agreement will come to pass.  In any event, I don’t see such an agreement as repealing Vatican II as John Wilkins fears.

Unfortunately, I suspect John Wilkins defines backtracking on Vatican II as allowing priests in the Church’s midst who are unwilling to sign on to everything that is said in all of its documents.  I, too, was able to become Catholic in large measure because of Vatican II, but, unlike Mr. Wilkins, I am not in fear of the Church turning into a kind of ecclesiastical fascist enterprise once the camel’s nose of the SSPX allowed under the tent.  I do not like the SSPX at all, but I do not see their lack of assent as inherently inconsistent with full communion with the Catholic Church, depending on what their sticking points are and how they propagandize their reservations.

#5, For our John Wilkins was not “was born in Cheltenham, in the English West Country, in 1936”