Catholic schismatics see return to Roman fold soon

Pope Benedict XVI celebrates the canonization ceremony of Italian nun Rosa Venerini, Mexican bishop Rafael Guizar, Italian priest Filippo Smaldone and Indiana nun Theodore Guerin in St. Peter's square at the Vatican, October 15, 2006. REUTERS/Giampiero Sposito

PARIS (Reuters) - After almost two decades of schism, Catholic traditionalists hope the Vatican will soon take them back into the fold by granting two key concessions and leaving unresolved the main issue that drove them away.

Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), says the expected revival of the old Latin mass that was replaced in the 1960s by modern liturgy in local languages would be a "grand gesture" meeting one of his demands.

The Swiss bishop, successor to the late SSPX founder French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, also expects the Vatican to lift the 1988 excommunications of Lefebvre and four bishops -- including Fellay -- whom he consecrated without Rome's approval.

"Things are going in the right direction. I think we'll get an agreement," Fellay told journalists in Paris at the weekend. "Things could speed up and come faster than expected."

Getting an agreement now would mean the Swiss-based SSPX and its 470 priests could return to the Roman fold without resolving a dispute over its opposition to the modernising reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).

Claiming a million followers, the SSPX is the vanguard of traditionalists among 1.1 billion Catholics worldwide. Its return would have no direct effect on most parishes but high symbolic value for arch-conservatives in the Church.

The excommunications by the late Pope John Paul created the first schism in the Church in modern times. Since his election last year, Pope Benedict has been trying to hold out an olive branch to the SSPX.

Fellay envisages the SSPX would be an independent group within the Church, free of control by local bishops, while it continued to advocate rolling back other Vatican II reforms.

"We would be a bit like the Chinese Patriotic Church, in the Church without really being there," he explained. "There could be a relationship between Rome and us, but it would not yet be a juridical relationship."

Speculation about an SSPX return arose last week when Vatican sources said Pope Benedict would soon allow wider use of the old Tridentine Mass in Latin that went out of favour when the Church switched to praying in local languages in the 1960s.

Priests can say the old mass if they get permission but few bishops grant it and demand for Latin rites is minimal. Most Catholics under 50 years old have never heard Latin spoken.

The SSPX thinks the post-Council liturgy, which stresses participation by worshippers in open praying and singing, has lost the sacred character and beauty of the traditional mass.

The Tridentine rite it prefers is solemn, with the priest and altar boys quietly reciting the prayers in Latin with their backs to the silent congregation.

The traditionalists also reject the Council decision that the Church, which long saw itself as the only path to salvation, should respect and work together with other faiths.

Echoing this, a senior SSPX official sparked controversy last year by urging the Pope to tell Jews and followers of other religions to convert from their "false systems" to Catholicism.

Fellay said the SSPX sought an "intermediate state" in the Church so it could continue to oppose what Lefebvre called "neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies ... in the Second Vatican Council and in all the reforms which issued from it."

"We don't want a practical solution before these doctrinal questions are resolved," he said. "The focus should be on these discussions."

Benedict, who sparked protest across the Muslim world last month with a speech hinting that Islam had been spread by the sword, has frequently stressed his support for Vatican II reforms including cooperation with other faiths.

To clarify, that particular sentence was honest and genuine praise of Pyro. His suggestion was that BAC and I find a room to swap homosexual affection, so to speak. I thought that UNworthy of his usual standard. Isn't that a compliment???? I have come to expect him to engage on issues which, if I understand correctly, is the preferred mode.

By analogy, if Shakespeare came back to life and wrote a new play in text-messaging language rather than in, ummm, Shakespearean English and happened to be available to hear my opinion, I might say: Gosh, Will, the grammar, spelling and syntax in that play was not up to your usual standard. I hope you'll do better next time.

As you probably know, I don't make a career of pestering moderators over ordinary slights but tend to handle them on my own. The two exceptions to date have been when a FReeper from Chicago became angry, claimed to know my address and threatened to physically attack me in my own home. I contacted you guys, asked if I should discuss the matter with State Police, took your advice not to and you banned that person under two different screennames. The other exception was privately asking you to delete a post made in error under the assumption that I was sending private Freepmail to someone in which, at 3 AM, I had included my address and phone number.

In post #131, I posted what I and, I am quite sure, bornacatholic regarded as a humorous post responding to bornacatholic's (hereinafter bac) posted praise of a previous post of mine.

In post #163, Pyro7480 butted in to suggest that bac and I (Catholic husbands and fathers as Pyro7480 well knows) get a room (presumably for a homosexual encounter) because he does not like to read posters with whom he disagrees posting praise or humor to one another here while disagreeing with pyro7480).

In #179, the quoted language ought not to be viewed as objectionable (although I will read the guidelines again after posting this post) and, indeed, is praise and not left-handed praise either.

If I am wrong, delete this post and #179, and I will find something else to do and somewhere else to do it for today because, for the life of me, I do not see what is wrong with telling pyro7480 that suggesting that I and bac are homosexuals is beneath his normal standard of argument.

Also, I would renew previous messages to the effect that when FR allows itself to be used for vitriolic religious attacks upon either Catholics or Evangelicals, two of your major constituency groups, the effect is not to enlighten, not to unite conservatives, not to weld an effective political movement but rather the contrary on all scores. Any question as to what is Catholic and what attacks Catholicism is easily resolved by the fact that the SSPX schism was excommunicated by Pope John Paul the Great (referenced by Marcel LeFebvre himself on 8/29/1987 as the anti-Christ as posted and highlighted by Slugworth's post #169, apparently affirming such an opinion). I would likely and gladly rise to the defense of, say, the Rev. Mr. Billy Graham, if he was attacked here as a fraud or as an anti-Christ. Should Catholics be expected to to accept such attacks upon our recently deceased pope from those whom he excommunicated???? If we Catholics are angry at schismatic attacks by SSPXers falsely claiming Catholicism after they have been excommunicated and therefore refuse to hold hands with the attackers, perhaps the fault lies with those excommunicated who shamelessly use FR to advertise their cult and deny its excommunication.

If you guys are willing to be religious referees, you have a stronger stomach than I care to have.

I know that JimRob is not a Roman Catholic. I have no idea of the religion of the Religion Moderator (nor do I care) and it ought not to matter what the religion of anyone in FR ownership or management may be, if I understand FR's purposes correctly. I have yet to start even one thread here. I respond only. I lack computer skills to bring in articles from other sources or even to start a post. People here who do start threads don't need my help in that respect.

We do have a LOT of threads from SSPXers or their Hallelujah Chorus claiming that the Vatican's surrender to the schism is imminent. What do such threads add to conservatism. For that matter, what do threads on evolution have to do with conservatism. They run a typically vitriolic 500+ posts of FReepers bashing one another.

I have tried to avoid controversy between the Catholic Church and other Christian churches (as years ago I did not) because I don't think:

a. That non-Catholic churches are any of my Catholic business unless (like SSPX) they falsely claim (see Ecclesia Dei and JP II) to be Catholic.

b. That those of us who actually are Catholic (according to diocesan bishops and the pope who have the authority and have used it to define such matters and status) have more than enough to keep us busy WITHIN Catholicism without trying to tell other religions how to conduct their affairs.

c. That I have concluded that Lutherans are the best judges of Lutheranism; Methodists of Methodism; Anglicans of Anglicanism; Evangelicals of Evangelicalism; Presbyterians of Presbyterianism; Pentecostals of Pentecostalism and that I should keep my uninformed and uninvolved attitudes to myself on such matters. After all, no one requires me to post on such matters. If someone in one of those categories insults Catholicism (calling popes Anti-Christs, referencing the Church itself as the Whore of Babylon or other Jack Chickian opinions) I may respond but generally refrain, figuring that such posts speak for themselves. If anyone actually believes such things (and some do), they are not going to change their minds on my say so. On the other hand, most of them do NOT claim to be Catholic.

SUMMATION: FR is JimRob's living room and the rules are his business and not mine. His delegations of authority are his choice. Ours but to comply or to leave. I do think that this is a case in which the only thing personal about that quoted language was disappointed praise and not attack. Also this exchange started last night with a huffy, jeremiad about how Pyro7480 had had enough of bac and me.

I apologize for taking this long to respond but one of my daughters called at length from school which has to take precedence.

BlackElk: have not heard your opinion of Slugworth's #169 containing (and even highlighting) Marcel's characterization of John Paul the Great as AntiChrist. Is that Catholic? Is that Salesian?????

On its face, #169 is worthy of condemnation.

On the other hand, my issue with you and BAC is your bully tactics. Your conduct has made it very clear that anyone who disagrees with you must be a closet SSPXer. Why must I prove TO YOU that I am not? Who made you the arbiter of who is Catholic on this forum? Why do honest Catholic like myself, narses, and TradicalRC have to be subject to your scrutiny when we fail to carry your water?

As for my #163, I'm sorry if you took it the wrong way. You and bornacatholic scratch each other's back so much that someone had to make a joke of it.

You and bornacatholic fancy yourself as "defenders of the Catholic Church and of Pope John Paul the Great" (or however you want to phrase it). I can tell you that in the process of acting as "defenders," you have stepped on a lot of toes unnecessarily. It is definitely not appreciated by many. I'm not the only one who has been critical of it.

As for your post #191, if criticizing your tactics is "preaching," then your going to have more "preaching," as long as you continue to use them.

First, this is not meant to be heard in confrontational tones, rather I am asking solely in the spirit of conversation.

I honestly don't see what constitutes "bully tactics." I do see a lot of passion, which I understand due to a lot of contact with SSPXers (with apologies to St. Pius). I mean, they claim that JP the Great is the anti-Christ, that the Mass said daily is sacrilegious, I have been called a "modernist heretic" for defending the Church. After enduring this kind of behavior both here and elsewhere, do you see why people might not be at their most gentle?

Christ was gentle and kind. He also ran the money changers out of the temple and told Peter "get behind Me Satan." To defend those in schism and to argue that they are not excommunicated is to defend falsehood. Isn't it more charitable to point out this error, rather than ignore it?

In all honesty, I don't know where Catholics in union with Rome can disagree about SSPX (with apologies to St. Pius). They are excommunicated and in schism. I can understand how Fr. FlannelVestments and his Broadwaylike theatrics could make you want to run for the hills, but it's just not an option. I admire, respect and sympathize with those who fought and still fight the good fight, from within the pews, in full communion with Rome. One thing I have learned is that you can find a good, orthodox parish in pretty much any city in the country. You don't runaway, like the apostles, when the going gets tough. (not you personally)

It's one thing to prefer the Tridentine Rite Mass. More power to you, that's great. But to defend schismatics is to assault the Church, even if it is just indirectly. At least that's how I see it.

Like I said, I'm just trying to chat here. I don't for a minute doubt your fidelity to the Church. But you have critiqued as unChristian behavior that I don't see as wrong. Perhaps its a shortcoming on my part, quite possibly it is. I guess I just don't know how I would handle it differently.

P: If you were alone, I would feel, somehow, less effective. I have been a Catholic all my life and will continue to the day I die. When a pope has excommunicated enemies of the Faith, that is good enough for me unless and until the excommunications are lifted. Old fashioned, I guess. Just the kind of guy I am.

Remember the archschismatic's letter of 8/29/87 to his followers, calling John Paul the Great "Antichrist." Those were not Slugworth's words, although Slugworth highlighted them. They were the words of the now dead excommunicated ecclesiastical criminal who founded the SSPX cult.

BTW, might the SSPX not call you a "bully" for condemning the words of the very man they apparently regard as St. Marcel the Disobedient????

Preach away and I shall respond.

It's the Church's water and not mine alone. Is it OK to be positively but not negatively judgmental. I disagree with your judgments.

Just how was I supposed to take the crack that bac and I should take a room????? I didn't notice your apology.

John Paul the Great is how he will be designated by the Church and by history, partally because he expelled the SSPX, partly because of his role with Ronaldus Maximus and Lady Thatcher in brnging down the Iron Curtain and mostly for being a magnificent witness against the spirit of a very bad age. But, hey, just my opinion, right????? You can bet that someone or other will not be known to history as Marcel the Great nor as St. Marcel nor as dying Catholic.

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.