Many people were disappointed that the SSPX failed to sign an
agreement with Rome last year because it meant the Church remains divided and suggested
Tradition has little or no place in the hearts of some who currently lead the Church
–which is worrying since Tradition is the
transmission of Divine Revelation which cannot be abandoned. The failure to
sign an agreement is worrying also in that it can lead the SSPX to become
hardened in their position, maybe even to becoming a separate ecclesial
structure as happened with the Old Catholics after Vatican I.
On the other hand many were pleased that the SSPX did not sign an
agreement since it leaves the Society as a thorn in the side of all those who downplay
Tradition. The failure to sign also serves to remind us that if the Church did
not change her Doctrine at Vatican II (and as She cannot have done) there is no reason why the TLM cannot be
celebrated or pre-Conciliar catechisms used*,
since these must be as consistent with Vatican
II as they are with Vatican I, Trent, et al. To claim the TLM and
pre-conciliar Catechisms are not compatible with Vatican II is to claim the Council
abandoned the Faith as it has been handed on, in which case we would have to
abandon the Council (Vatican II may have developed
our doctrine, but development is consistent expansion, not contradiction.)
Given that the SSPX denies no revealed Truth and recognises the
legitimacy of the post-Vatican II Popes, the Society could be given canonical
recognition today. We may wonder what prevents this. Is it that Rome cannot permit
the SSPX to see ambiguities in Vatican II texts? Cardinal Kasper has publicly admitted that such ambiguities exist.
Is it that the Society sees the Council as having brought about a rupture of
the Church from her past? Popes John-Paul
II and Benedict XVI both acknowledged that the Church has suffered from a rupture
since the Council.
I suspect (though I may be wrong) that at least to some degree the
SSPX expected to have certain texts repudiated, while Rome simply expected to
have rehashed Vatican II formulas deferentially accepted. If the SSPX and Rome
could have demonstrated together how Vatican II ambiguities can (and must) be read in continuity with
Tradition, with Rome issuing an authoritative document detailing that continuity,
then all division might have come to
an end. Such a document could ensure that Traditionalists assent to the fact that
our doctrine remains intact, and that liberals read Vatican II in line with
Tradition and not as a new beginning.
Since we are now 50 years on from Vatican II, any hope the Society
had that Rome would repudiate the Council has gone, especially since it has
been accepted by five successive Popes and the by all the world’s bishops over
that 50-year period. The only hope now is to have Rome present the Council in a
hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition and abandon any activities inconsistent
with that Tradition. Such a goal is possible; repudiation of the Council is not.
Nor however, is continual marginalising of the SSPX: they retain valid Orders, hold
to all dogmatic truths and recognise the legitimacy of the post-Vatican II
Popes. Their “sin” is simply that they do not accept the rupture that occurred with
Vatican II. The question is, do we accept that rupture? Have we become
desensitised to ambiguity and its offspring -error? Vatican II can be read in continuity with Tradition;
we must insist that it is. We are blessed with eternal, objective Truth -Jesus Christ-
and a doctrine which is always and everywhere valid for man’s salvation. As
such our dialogue with others must be a presentation of that Truth; we cannot
afford to diminish it by implying there are truths outside the Church that we
do not possess: we possess “the fullness of grace and truth”,
said Vatican II; not a portion of it.
_________________________________________________________
*Use of the TLM and “Penny” / “Baltimore”
Catechisms cannot harm our relationship with other faith communities since Vatican
II affirmed the Catholic Church as the one True Faith, stating that other
faiths “derive their efficacy [to save]
from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church”; which it
described as “the one Body of Christ on earth” into which “all should be fully incorporated who belong
in any way to the people of God”. Dignitatis Humanae simply sought to establish good relationships with those
of other faiths from respect for them as persons of good will, with “Religious freedom...to do with
immunity from coercion in civil society”, which “leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of
men and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ”. Yes we seek dialogue today, but dialogue
should be cordial discourse in which non-Catholics speak honestly about all they believe and why, with Catholics doing the same.
Truth will win out; it cannot if we simply talk about that upon which we agree and
ignore the rest. Truth that is not acknowledged is truth that is hidden –the
desire and goal of the father of lies.
What prevents the canonical recognition of the SSPX is quite simple: they unequivocally reject the new Mass as a Trojan horse, destructive to the Faith, and they will never celebrate it. In fact, their goal is to destroy it. Do not mistake their unwavering fidelity to Tradition as "hardening" - that smacks of the party line, and it is a dishonest and shallow smear.
ReplyDeleteThe new Mass is the platform upon which the Vatican II revolution has been erected; to reject it is to threaten the revolution. Therefore, the rejection must be quashed (see: Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate). But think about it: the stated purpose of the new Mass is to avoid offending Protestants. Who in their right Catholic mind could consider, even for a moment, that such a debased cowardly purpose could be pleasing to Our Lord? Yet, apparently, the disoriented secularized hierarchy thinks so, and will continue to think so, I suppose, until the Consecration of Russia is performed.
The SSPX see the resemblance to the Protestant Communion Services in the new Form of Mass, and it is something many in union with Rome also find disturbing. I think what keeps such folk going is their understanding that while the Rite may be near-Protestant so as to avoid offending Protestants, the Sacrifice is Catholic; and indeed, neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor the SSPX deny the validity of the New Rite.
DeleteIt is always a possibility that when we fight so hard from one angle for so long that we become entrenched and unable to move on; there is surely that possible danger for the SSPX since they are not beyond human frailty.
As for the ‘secularised hierarchy’, perhaps many are among those who have become desensitised to Truth in their desire to get on with the world (which isn’t working; the world is now actively persecuting the Faith), but there are signs of hope in an increasing number of more faith-filled bishops and priests. In the end, Truth (Christ) will win out.
The sacrifice is Catholic? The Consecration is Catholic, despite being changed from an action into a narrative, but the sacrificial nature of the Mass, including at the Consecration, has been almost completely obscured. The validity of the Novus Ordo is not the issue (assuming the conditions of validity are met, which could be increasingly up for debate). The real issue is, what surrounds the [presumably valid] Consecration? Where is the Catholic theology of the new Mass? And does a valid Consecration really matter in transmitting and teaching the Faith and pleasing God, when everything around it has been altered to please Protestants? Thank you for your reply, I agree that Christ will win out. You might find this article interesting: http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/mass.html (click on "Read an excellent article").
DeleteOne other thing, if I may: the "angle" from which the SSPX fights is simply this: Tradition. It is not a political ;position, not an ideological position, not an angle - it is the Truth. How does one become "unable to move on" from that? And "move on" to what? Losing the Faith?
DeleteThank you again.
DeleteThe sacrifice (validity confected) cannot be other than Catholic; it brings to us the same Lord offering the same Sacrifice and obtaining for us the same graces. The liturgy which surrounds the Sacrifice is not the best but cannot be entirely Protestant in that it contains the Roman Canon.
And yes, the SSPX fights from and for Tradition, but like Dollinger et al after Vatican I, might become entrenched. We can still fall off the Barque of Peter port or starboard, after all.
God bless you and yours.
Father,
ReplyDeleteI was disappointed the SSPX did not sign the agreement.
However, they are not schismatic, their doctrinal and liturgical position is pre-Vatican II, and therefore sound.
The Vat II documents contain Catholic thinking in Continuity. Doctrine was not changed. But, they also contain deliberately inserted ambiguities and implicit, though perhaps not explicit, errors. This was kept quiet for some decades, but no sensible thinker in the Church nowadays, would deny this.
The SSPX reservations about some of the documents could so easily be accommodated. That they are still kept outside the Church is a profound scandal, and the guilt lies with the Vatican authorities involved.
Yes, some of them are a bit difficult, I believe, but they are angels compared to the hordes of objective sinners and unashamedly heterodox and therefore schismatic “Catholics” who receive Communion, routinely, each Sunday.
The greater scandal now, is that the liberal wing of the Church, in their pride, continue to exert such influence, and the Hierarchy are silent.
Thank you for the comment, Jacobi.
DeleteI agree with you; if the SSPX is suspended it cannot also be in schism; we don’t suspend schismatics! As for the ambiguities, these have now been acknowledged by Cardinal Kasper of all people, and have become known as Vatican II-speak (double talk) and they are very regrettable.
Finally, the liberals do seem to exert great influence; I think this is the result of all of us –hierarchy and laity- becoming desensitised to truth to varying degrees.
God bless you and yours.
I am amazed ...speaking the truth so clearly and fully. Very few priests do so, and those who do are often persecuted.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Lynda.
DeletePerhaps I'm seen as an eccentric not to be worried about, or perhaps there is more sincerity of heart and respect for truth than many think. Perhaps it is a bit of both!
God Bless.
'the fulless of grace and truth entrusted to the Church'. who would believe this is vii the way the truths found outside the Faith idea is promoted? i think we are becoming 'dessensitized to truth' and lies in equal measure. things have come along way in a short time if there are Catholics who really believe the penny-catechism is harmful to one's spiritual health.
ReplyDeleteGod bless, all who work to re-sensitize us to truth and cut through the haze trying to separate us from our foundations and scatter us.
Thank you, viterbo.
DeleteMay God bless and guide all who are working for the truth, on both sides.
God bless.
"Given that the SSPX denies no revealed Truth and recognises the legitimacy of the post-Vatican II Popes, the Society could be given canonical recognition today. We may wonder what prevents this."
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid it isn't a 'given' that the SSPX denies no revealed truth.
Indeed, the position of Rome is that their stance effectively denies the doctrine of the primacy of the Pope. This was made clear by Pope John Paul II in 'Ecclesia Dei' I wonder how many people are aware that in condemning Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, Pope John Paul II cited Vatican One!
Thank you for your comment.
DeleteRome may hold that the SSPX is denying the Primacy of the Pope, but I suspect the SSPX would say they reject the way that primacy is being exercised, which is a different matter altogether. The heavy-handed way in which Rome has dealt with the FFI has only given the SSPX something to hold up, should they wish to, as an example of the oppressive way the Roman Primacy is being exercised today.
God bless.
The point I was trying to make is that the claim that the SSPX hold to all dogmatic teachings is the position of the SSPX, it is NOT the position of Rome. This was made clear by Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II and more recently Pope Benedict. It is a misconception that the 'SSPX question' is simply about Vatican Two or the New Mass. Bertrand.
ReplyDeleteThanks again for this.
DeleteI still cannot see which doctrine the SSPX is said to have denied, since we are told Vatican II proclaimed no new doctrine. It still appears to me that the SSPX is simply rejecting new pastoral disciplines, and even though they may be in dispute with some teachings upon which those disciplines are based, the teachings are not dogma.
I admit that I have not read any declaration from Rome which specifies the dogmas over which they are in error over; if you can provide a source or link I would be grateful to have it.
God bless.