"[...] the new arrangements (to come into force from 14 September) will not bring the Lefebvrists ‘into the fold’ – their problem has never been liturgy but ecclesiology – they just do not believe in the same Church."Pope Benedict is a little more intelligent than that. As he said himself:
"We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level."I wouldn't be so sure that Pope Benedict will fail with the SSPX. Within the Society, there is some recognition that the present situation cannot go on for ever and Bishop Fellay has spoken generously about Summorum Pontificum. It is true that the "hermeneutic of continuity" idea has been criticised by the SSPX but Pope Benedict is using it to emphasise that we do believe that post-conciliar Catholic Church is the same as the pre-conciliar Catholic Church and that Vatican II did not introduce a "new constitution". The SSPX speak of "Conciliar Rome" and "Eternal Rome." Pope Benedict's "hermeneutic of continuity" could be seen as an effort to meet this criticism.
Hot on the heels of Summorum Pontificum came the "subsistit" document which addresses one of their key criticisms of the SSPX about the ambiguity of the language of Vatican II. I was recently reading Fr Schmidberger's "Time Bombs of the Second Vatican Council" and this is indeed one of the points he raises.
With two of the concerns of the SSPX unambiguously addressed inside of a week, a full regularisation may not be as far-fetched as it was only a month ago. (Notice please that I am trying in Tridentine Council style to avoid taking one side or another in a dispute between orthodox Catholics on the "are they in schism" question. Can I say "regularisation" without offending anyone?)
Rather than settling down with the idea that Summorum Pontificum won't change anything because there are plenty of old rite Masses already, it might be worth engaging in the thought experiment of imagining one's diocese, some time in the not too distant future, encompassing one or more SSPX Mass centres to which the faithful can have recourse without scruple. It might make Deanery meetings more lively too.
16 comments:
While I have always sympathized with those who like the Mass in Latin, I personally, would not hold my breath on the SSPXers coming back into the fold? Why? Because they are only permitted ONE extraordinary mass on a Sunday.
They will still claim it was outside the pope's authority to say that Mass in the vernacular was okay. There is no pleasing some people.
The "one Mass per Sunday" is for parishes with a stable group who request the old Mass. Art 3 provides for institutes and societies established to use the older rite. They can have only the older rite in their own oratories.
The SSPX in France actually have the readings in the vernacular (while the priest reads them quietly at the altar). They are only obliged not to exclude the new Mass "in principle".
Pope Benedict is stretching out a massive olive branch. And the reactions have been more positive from the SSPX than to any previous initiative.
But I agree that holding one's breath would be injurious to health. We have to wait quite a while for the Motu Proprio :-)
Father,
Regarding the vernacular readings in France. I think you may be referring to what has been seen on the video of a Missa Cantata in Saint Nicolas du Chardonnet in Paris.
The Priest actually reads the Epistle sotto voce, while a Lector (an Ordained one most likely). The Gospel is chanted as normal in Latin.
This practice, which I read about somewhere else on the internet, is isolated only to Paris by Indult, granted quite a while before the Council (30s I believe...).
I may be mistaken however, if anyone knows of the details of this, feel free to add to what I wrote or correct me. It was a very long time since I read about it on some obscure trad. blog.
I would be careful not to give in to a reading of the MP that says it's all about bringing back the SSPX and other such groups. Many find it useful to ignore other aspects (or may just have not read the thing.)
As we know, the MP is also about failures in the practice of the Novus Ordo and the inherent worth of a Rite that has ‘nourished the saints for centuries’, irrespective of the schism.
And yes, they (at least the bishops and priests) are in schism. No offence was taken by me.
I suppose the Tablet ('The Pill') would know all about not being in communion with Rome, after having over 30 years experience with it.
I support the SSPX, and "regularisation" is fine by me! Thank you, Father.
Are New Rite priests obliged not to exclude the "Extraordinary form" on principle?
I would also point out that the phrase "conciliar church" actually does not come from the SSPX as many think, but from a letter written by Archbishop Benelli on behalf of the Holy See to Archbishop Lefebrve on the 25th June 1976.
Fr. Tim,
Just picking up on Karen's point, the Motu Proprio won't necessarily lead to a speedy reconciliation with the SSPX but, by extending the use of the extraordinary form, traditionally-minded Catholics won't have the pretext they might have had before to defect to the SSPX.
I am watching events closely as there is an SSPX chapel in the parish immediately to the south of mine. It will be interesting to see how it fares if the parish church starts to have EF masses.
I don't honestly think there is any
alternative to the use of the word "regularisation", so there is no point in anyone taking offence at it.
I thought of "rapprochement", but that seems almost to have been reached.
"Reconciliation" would be a good word, but does not mean quite the same thing as "regularisation",in this context.
Indeed, the one is dependent on the other.
From what I've seen, the SSPX initial reaction to the CDF's substitit document is less positive. I get the impression, however, that this is more a matter of taking up a negotiating position than a real engagement with the theological issues.
I am not sure that behaving in a hostile manner to the SSPX is going to help matters.
In fact conservatives or neo-conservatives are more hostile towards the SSPX than even liberals.
Surely it is the Holy Father's intention to effect reconciliation and we need to move on from previous held resentments and prejudices.
Anon - I agree that we should not make SP only a question of the SSPX. But it is clearly part of the aim of SP to regularise relations and so I think we should begin to look at that positively.
On the use of words: I was once told off by a lady who usually went to the SSPX Masses for speaking of "reconciliation". It can have a positive and acceptable meaning, I think, but it could also have an insulting meaning. So I'll stick with "regularisation" for now at least.
Clare - good point!
Andrew - thank you for the origin of the expression "Conciliar Church". However I have heard SSPX priests use the terms "Conciliar Rome" and "Eternal Rome" so I presume it is a common expression. (Happy to be corrected if it is frowned upon by the SSPX.)
Clare - PS. Just enjoyed reading the thread on Ignis Ardens about the 99 names protest and its ecumenical character :-)
Fr
What number of people would you consider a "stable group"? over 10?
Dominie
Thank you Fr Tim, for your objective comments on SSPX. Finally, a fair and informed blog on the subject.
Very good point made by Andrew. There are plenty of Catholics technically "in communion with Rome" who protest Humane Vitae: pro-contraception, pro-choice, pro homosexual union/adoption. Those are positions one will never encounter with SSPX Catholics. Yet they are the ones alleged to have “strayed”. The bottom line is: it’s not really about the niceties around legal definitions of “excommunication” and “schism”, or a smugness about subjective opinions over loyalty to Rome, but about those who uphold the Truth on faith and morals. Rome does - and SSPX has never disputed that. They are not sedevacantists. While there may be technical breaches of loyalty, in substance, SSPX is not disloyal.
Well, here's my prediction:
The MP was the big issue, the excommunications will be a much smaller issue, and the theological and "ecclesiological" (puh-lease!) issues aren't real issues anyway. (The theology has only ever been a rather feeble attempt by the SSPX to justify why they don't like Vatican II and the New Mass.) On the first issue they've already won, after a very long struggle. On the second they'll win very easily. (The Ecclesia Dei commission has already offered to nullify to the excommunications.) On the third, neither side will really win.
Bishop Fellay (or maybe Bishop Williamson will draw the short-straw -- like Norman Lamont on Black Wednesday) and go out and say something namby-pamby about "interpretting Vatican II in the light of the Tradition". (Has this already happened? Does anyone know?) Ecclesia Dei will then issue a document that annuls Ecclesia Dei. And then the bishops will get on a 'plane, fly to Rome and be photographed kissing the Pope's ring. The media will say that the Pope has hoodwinked the Society back "into the fold". In reality everyone sensible will know that the SSPX has won and Vatican II has lost.
To be honest, I think the Pope has been planning this for a long time. One thing we now know about Ratzinger the man is that he is a strategist. He is also unlikely to be deflected from his objective.
Post a Comment