Posted on 12/12/2005 8:56:21 AM PST by Pyro7480
Ping!
Catholic ping!
The Holy Father is offering what amounts to a generous face-saving opportunity for the SSPX, essentially stating this as an issue of obedience rather than schism.
If the SSPX is willing to accept this olive branch, this could go well. I would love to see more faithful orthodox traditional Catholics back in the fold. We NEED them to help keep the hippy-dippy New Agers under control . . .
Indeed! BADLY.
Liturgical abominations abound, and an extra-episcopal organization like the SSPX might be, could be a great way to force the hand of bishops who see no fruit from the Latin Mass movement.
This sentence says that the two things being requested by the Society is the lifting of the excommunication and the liberalization of the Latin Mass, according to the antique Tridentine Rite. I'm assuming antique means the Mass of Pope Pius V, right?
What is conspicuous by its absence is the demand regarding Vatican II, alluded to in the French interview with Bishop Fellay. That's a good thing, in my opinion. Because if anything will keep the reunion from going forth, it is the Society pressing for Rome to abandon, or even obliquely disavow the Council. If they do not accept it's authenticity, the split will remain, and grow worse, if that's possible.
>> If the SSPX is willing to accept this olive branch, this could go well. I would love to see more faithful orthodox traditional Catholics back in the fold. We NEED them to help keep the hippy-dippy New Agers under control . . .<<
Awwww, ya made me spit my coffee!
You have this so right!
Mother Angelica calls it the "Electric Church" Everytime you go, you get a shock!
God Bless her!
At the very least, a regularized SSPX will allow (hopefully) for a better geographical distribution of the TLM. With a wider availability, those wayward bishops know very well the fruits which will come about, and they will be on the losing end of that deal.
How wonderful it would be if the FSSP, SSPX, and/or the ICR were in Maryland. Such a presence would make my moving to NJ moot (well almost, I like Jersey for other reasons:) )
Anyone know why the SSPX never set up shop in Maryland nor DC? Especially considering that the SSPV has a mission church in South Baltimore.
Went to Mass at a different MA parish this week, and the priest actually mentioned Boston Mayor Tom Menino by name and raked him over the coals for some off-hand remarks about the faith, that were actually mild errors in comparison to what goes by without comment. The priest also ripped Menino over his stance on abortion.
My wife and I were pinching ourselves. It was soooooooo refreshing.
Not only will SSPX not demand that the Church disavow the Council, they themselves will be asked to accept it, in return for a lifting of excommunications and a granting of a universal indult.
This, IMHO, is the main stumbling block to reconciliation. A major part of the SSPX job description is trashing the Council. To have that taken away, would leave many of them with a feeling similar to that which afflicts the genuinely unemployed and would lead almost inevitably to a split in their ranks.
Media accounts always focus on the SSPX demands, mainly because the SSPX are so vocal about them. You can be sure that the Vatican also has its own conditions, but Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, being the class act that he is, does not bang a loud drum. He is discreet, charitable and unassuming and approaches this situation in a way that does not publicly constrain or embarrass the other party in the negotiations.
I think I said as much, when I said they must accept its authenticity.
I'm for the reunion. The Church could be strengthened by their re-incorporation. That being said, it is my opinion that the Society has not had astute men leading it. If they had been astute, they'd have lived the Faith without feeling compelled to tear down those they are at odds with. Renunion would have probably already concerned, if they'd understood that.
Cardinal Hoyos, who is very much a class act (he has the face of an a natural born aristocrat, doesn't he?) in his last communique before this one was asked about the crudeness of language that the Society employed when making their case against the things they considered wrong with the present Church, and he was very diplomatic about it. He basically said that where there's tension there's inflammatory rhetoric. The Society has a dear friend in Cardinal Hoyos, hopefully they will heed his counsel.
Finally, in addition to what we've spoken of concerning acceptance of the Council, they must drop the NO isn't valid bullshit (pardon my french?). As Kramer said to Jerry once: "that's kooky talk."
concerned=happened
I pray for a reconciliation. I would like to see the SSPX in full communion with Rome.
"Finally, in addition to what we've spoken of concerning acceptance of the Council, they must drop the NO isn't valid bullshit (pardon my french?)."
The SSPX recognizes the validity of the Novus Ordo missae. You are misinformed.
Well, it wouldn't be the first time.
I shouldn't have said the SSPX, I should have said some its adherents, and if I'm not mistaken, I've witnessed you arguing against the inanity of that claim.
Question though, if the SSPX doesn't advocate its invalidity, why does this claim arise so often from some of its adherents? Also, is the poison soup analogy that's bandied about something that emanates from the Society, or is that also something coming from the Society's members? Quesion is a serious one, not rhetorical.
Mershon,
Interesting article. A few comments:
1. To say that the SSPX is "in the body" but not "in the heart" seems to me a very harsh judgment. To be "in the heart" here refers to being in the state of grace: "The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a 'bodily' manner and not 'in his heart.'" (LG 14)
2. As far as I can tell, the notion of imperfect communion is predicated on the presumption of ignorance on the part of non-Catholics (UR 3). Thus Cardinal Journet remarks before the Council:
"Other things being equal—that is to say, supposing an equal intensity of charity everywhere—membership of the Church by desire possesses a greater and greater degree of perfection as we pass from the non-baptized just to those of the traditionalist Protestant Churches, and then to those of the Graeco-Russian Churches."
3. Is it really helpful to tell those outside the Church that they may be in greater communion with her than those who are "inside"? Besides finding this notion dubious, it seems to me to provide an excuse for them not to return.
A lot of the SSPX adherents on the internet cast doubt on the validity of the revised rite. I think this may have more to do with the kind of person who wants to argue about such issues on the Internet than with the position itself of the SSPX.
On the other hand, it's an easy jump from the SSPX position that the new rite is intrinsically evil to the position that it's invalid, since the arguments that it's evil are based on claims such as "the New Mass must be conceived as a meeting and a meal, centered around the people, and not a true sacrifice offered to God." If it's not a sacrifice to God, one wonders at the point of a token claim of validity. Likewise: "Indeed, the Novus Ordo Missae presents itself as ... A narrative of a past event (vs. PRINCIPLE 12). This told out loud by the one presiding (vs. PRINCIPLE 14), who recounts Our Lord’s words as read in Scripture (rather than pronouncing a sacramental formula) and who makes no pause until he has shown the Host to the people. ... The Novus Ordo Missae will no longer in and of itself guarantee that the celebrant has this intention. That will depend on his personal faith (generally unknown to those assisting, but more and more doubtful as the crisis in the Church is prolonged). Therefore, these Masses can be of doubtful validity, and more so with time. The words of consecration, especially of the wine, have been tampered with. Has the “substance of the sacrament” (cf., Pope Pius XII quoted in PRINCIPLE 5) been respected?"
Sorry, this link should be: http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novusordo.htm.
I thought so, but wasn't sure. But, if poison kills, what's he really saying?
A lot of the SSPX adherents on the internet cast doubt on the validity of the revised rite. I think this may have more to do with the kind of person who wants to argue about such issues on the Internet than with the position itself of the SSPX.
That's probably true.
On the other hand, it's an easy jump from the SSPX position that the new rite is intrinsically evil to the position that it's invalid, since the arguments that it's evil are based on claims such as "the New Mass must be conceived as a meeting and a meal, centered around the people, and not a true sacrifice offered to God." If it's not a sacrifice to God, one wonders at the point of a token claim of validity.
I guess that's the leap that I made, but it was the poison soup comment that made me think that validity hadn't really been 'settled.' It always rang hollow as an argument for it, like a technicality or something.
Anyway, insofar as reunion is concerned, I hope the Lord blesses them with an influx of sober leadership, so that it will come to fruition and be a true unity.
Maybe the crypto-orthodox feel emboldened to let fly under B16? I sure hope so! :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.