SSPX Interpretation of Vatican II

The main issue in the discussions between the SSPX and Rome is what sort of interpretation is to be given to Vatican II. The Holy Father has proposed reading Vatican II in light of Tradition, which is a good idea but sometimes difficult to do in practice (where the two appear at odds). The SSPX basically seeks a statement that Vatican II is not a binding doctrinal Council, which is probably correct. The question then becomes what level of assent the faithful must give to this anomalous pastoral Council, as it is the only such council in Church history (although there have been prior ecmenical councils that basically did nothing - like the Fifth Lateran Council).

The following demonstrates the thinking of Bishop Williamson, SSPX, on the ambiguities of interpreting Vatican II. It also points out an important characteristic for any future agreement reached between the SSPX and Rome: there can be a proper method of interpretation for these documents and that method must be chosen over a modernist interpretation.

Bishop Williamson (with my additional comments following):

CONCILIAR AMBIGUITY

Imagine a strong and well-armed foot-soldier who in hot pursuit of the enemy walks into a quicksand. That is what it is like for a brave Catholic armed with the truth who ventures to criticize the documents of Vatican II. They are a quicksand of ambiguity, which is what they were designed to be. Had the religion of man been openly promoted by them, the Council Fathers would have rejected them with horror. But the new religion was skillfully disguised by the documents being so drawn up that they are open to opposite interpretations. Let us take a clear and crucial example.

From section 8 of Dei Verbum comes a text on Tradition which John-Paul II used to condemn Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988: “A/ Tradition...comes from the Apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. B/ There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are passed on. This comes about in various ways. C/ It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. D/ It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. E/ And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession to the apostolate, the sure charism of truth.”

Now true Catholic Tradition is radically objective. Just as common sense says that reality is objective, meaning that objects are what they are outside of us and independently of what any subject pretends that they are, so the true Church teaches that Catholic Tradition came from God, and is what he made it, so that no human being can in the least little bit change it. Here then would be the Catholic interpretation of the text just quoted : “A/ With the passage of time there is a progress in how Catholics grasp the unchanging truths of the Faith. B/ Catholics can see deeper into these truths, C/ by contemplating and studying them, D/ by penetrating more deeply into them, and E/ by the bishops preaching fresh aspects of the same truths.” This interpretation is perfectly Catholic because all the change is placed in the people who do indeed change down the ages, while no change is placed in the truths revealed that make up the Deposit of Faith, or Tradition.

But see now how the same passage from Dei Verbum can be understood not objectively, but subjectively, making the content of the truths depend upon, and change with, the subjective Catholics : “A/ Catholic truth lives and grows with the passing of time, because B/ living Catholics have insights that past Catholics never had, as C/ they discover in their hearts, within themselves, newly grown truths, D/ the fruit of their inward spiritual experience. Also, E/ Catholic truth grows when bishops preach things unknown before, because bishops can tell no untruth (!).” (In other words, have the religion that makes you feel good, but make sure that you “pay, pray and obey” us modernists.)

Now here is the huge problem: if one accuses this text from Dei Verbum of promoting modernism, “conservative” Catholics (who conserve little but their faith in faithless churchmen) immediately reply that the real meaning of the text is the Traditional meaning first given above. However, when John-Paul II in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta used this text to condemn Archbishop Lefebvre, and therewith the Consecrations of 1988, obviously he can only have been taking the text in its modernist sense. Such actions speak far louder than words. Dear readers, read the text itself again and again, and the two interpretations, until you grasp the diabolical ambiguity of that wretched Council.

Kyrie eleison

There are a couple of interesting things being mentioned here: the first is the proper interpretation of this vague statement, which has been the lurking problem with the Vatican II documents for a very long time. Note, though, that Bishop Williamson is not discussing one of the “big four” points at issue, but the larger issue of Tradition itself. He is doing so in presumably the manner that would be permitted by any eventual agreement with Rome – I cannot imagine the SSPX will enter into any agreement that prevents them from attacking the perceived errors of Vatican II (nor should they, in my opinion). And that brings me to the final point: Bishop Williamson directly says Vatican II was a “wretched Council” and mentions its “diabolical ambiguity”. Not only that, he espouses a critique of Blessed John Paul II and so-called “conservative” Catholics (which are usually ultramontanist and seem to worship everything a pope says or does).

Is Rome prepared to allow a bishop to publicly espouse such views? I hope they are because these views need to be espoused. Even looking at this situation objectively, Rome presumably has very little problem with most bishops who daily espouse liberal views in the realm of Church doctrine. Perhaps the Holy Father wishes to bring some balance to the discussion by having an actual voice for Catholic Tradition at the discussion table. My guess (and my firm hope) is that the Holy Father’s views about the nature of Tradition and the proper interpretation of Vatican II in light thereof are much closer to those of Bishop Williamson than to liberal bishops.