Posted on 10/16/2006 8:27:21 AM PDT by NYer
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
By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor
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."
"INTERMEDIATE STATE"
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.
Somehow I got drug into this, so I will attempt a moderate reading of things. I think that one could perhaps give a somewhat more charitable reading to the Archbishop's letter. The main statement is: "The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs..." I do not read this as necessarily stating that John Paul the Great (I use that term sincerely) is an anti-christ, but rather that Rome was (according to his way of thinking) occupied by anti-christs, who could be cardinal types or even others in the Curia, I suppose, as he would see it, wielding the power perhaps in spite of the Holy Father. That is a view that I do not share, but it is a possible reading of the letter, I believe.
On the subject of anti-christs itself, there is an interesting tape by Fr. Robert Bradley SJ, entitled Fatima and the Anti-Christ (maybe still available from the Blue Army), in which he makes the point that scripture foretells that there will be many anti-christs on earth before the coming of THE Anti-Christ. He said that the first Christians considered that several of these lesser anti-christs had already come, in particular Herod the Great and Julian the Apostate, of those that I remember; and of course later, Napoleon, not to mention Hitler, Stalin, et al., were considered by many to be anti-christs.
All the best to everyone.
Dear Theophane,
"'The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs...'
"I do not read this as necessarily stating that John Paul the Great (I use that term sincerely) is an anti-christ,..."
That is kind of you, but I believe it is an unsupportable interpretation.
The sentence you cite indicates that the See of Peter, as well as posts of authority in Rome, are being occupied by anti-Christs. A see can only be occupied by its ordinary.
The ordinary of the See of Peter is the pope. Not his assistants, helpers, aides, etc. It is the pope who occupies Peter's See, not cardinals or other bishops.
Thus, Archbishop Lefebvre called Pope John Paul II an anti-christ. There is no other reasonable interpretion of his remarks.
It's perfectly reasonable that actual Catholics would take objection to that remark.
sitetest
All minus that one :)
I am talking abut the schism and its leaders
I thoroughly agree with your entire second paragraph.
However, you are, I believe, overly generous in searching for Catholic meaning in Archbishop Lefebvre's letter in the first paragraph. The burden was on Archbishop Lefebvre, in writing and publishing his thoughts by letter, to make it clear that he was not referencing Pope John Paul the Great as an antichrist. Rank has privileges but ecclesiastical rank has obligations as well, particularly that successors of the apostles have the obligation not to give scandal. A higher obligation even than that of Caesar's wife. I did not think he was referencing the pope as THE Antichrist. The late archbishop lacked the virtue of clarity. Also, he was quite justly excommunicated for violating the direct orders of Pope John Paul the Great not to consecrate his four partners in ecclesiastical crime (including Fellay, de Mallerais, Wlliamson and one other) and facilitated the excommunication of the elderly and otherwise holy Bishop Castro de Mayer of Brazil who acted as co-consecrator.
The Barque of Peter has been tossed and threatened by far worse than Marcel and company can devise but, as guaranteed by Christ Himself, He will be with it to the end, whether Luther thought so or not, or Calvin or Zwingli or Marcel. All are dead. All were excommunicated. All died excommunicated. Each willed that outcome.
I'll be back later.
*Post an example of what you consider bullying tactics.
*I really think the objection to strident, florid and incendiary rhetoric has to do with personal tastes. Frankly, I never read such complaints from other men. The men I know argue passionately and are quick to reach for any apt arrow in their rhetorical quiver. Arguing over/about the Faith is a very masculine pursuit and such masculine pursuits includes rhetorical masculinity.
* Honestly, there are not a few times when I will be responding to a post when a particular pun or turn of phrase will pop into my mind and so I work it into the arguement. I think arguements about the Faith should be pointed, passionate, poetic and persuasive. And FUN. Dammit, is there ANYTHING more FUN than fighting over the Faith?
*Far more objectionable, in my eyes, were the actions of Lefevbre in creating a schism and the actions of those who support the schism and attack the Pope, the Mass and the Council. I think what BE , may his back never itch but if it does may Allah make it stop, does is not only defensible, it is praiseworthy.
You and bornacatholic fancy yourself as "defenders of the Catholic Church
*Isn't that the very same duty you freely undertook when you decided to accept the Sacrament of Confirmation?
The Vatican itself has said that the SSPX has an "irregular" canonical status. The consecrations that were in 1988 were a schismatic act.
That SSPX adherents are excommunicated? (Ecclesia Dei)
What do you mean by "adherent?" The bishops are excommunicated. The priests of the SSPX truly receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but have suspended faculties.
That excommunicated schismatics are NOT "fellow Catholics"?
Agan, who do you mean by this? The clergy? The laity who attend their chapels?
That John Paul the Great never lifted the excommunications or declaration of before his death?
True.
That Benedict XVI has not lifted the excommunications or the declaration of schism during his papacy to date?
True.
That you are rising to the defense of SSPX?
Where have I done so? I asked you in #194, and you still haven't answered it.
That Catholics ought not defend John Paul the Great from the tons of vituperation heaped upon him by those whom he justly declared schismatic and excommunicated?
When these people spread calumnies, we should defend the reputation of the Pope. However, when the actions of Pope John Paul II are legitimately examined, for example, in an article that I posted months ago, there's a knee-jerk reaction in response.
Yes, but there's a right way and a wrong way.
Ping me when you decide to defend the Pope, the Mass, the Council. Not only have I not seen you illustrate the "right" way to defend the Chuch against attacks from the schismatics, I don't remember you defending the Church against the criticisms/attacks of the schismatics at all.
Did you not read #194 or #208? It's not my fault if you didn't read/see them.
I stand corrected. Your droplet of opposition was obscured by the tsunami of criticism about our rhetoric.
Why? Are you my spiritual director? My superior? My parent?
I do agree it is preferable to have the schismatics return one at a time. It is clear Fellay and the lefevbre cult have no intention of ending their war against the Church Jesus established. They are quite mad in thinking this Pope will invite them back en masse so they can wage war inside the Body of Christ.
Were I Pope, there is no way I'd approve use of the old liturgy for those who thought the normative mass evil because such an idea suggests more serious problems with the Living Magisterium and its protection by the Holy Spirit
Nah. None of those. I am your Christian Brother trying to call you home
No, I think the "confusion" started earlier than that. Referring to the Pope as an anti-Christ is a calumny.
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.