I am struck by the contrast between two different stories on the subject of Christian unity that I noted yesterday. The stories are of two groups, ostensibly seeking full union with the Holy See. One is a group that professes to be part of the Church although there exists some degree of mutually imposed separation. With that said, this group professes to be working ardently for the goal of unity This is the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). The other is a group that is clearly outside the church, a splinter group originally part of the Church of England that split from unity hundreds of years ago. They now seek full union with the Holy See. This is the Traditional Anglican Communion.
The first story (as I linked on SummorumPontificum.net) was about the response of the SSPX to the revised prayer for the Jews as promulgated by Pope Benedict just a while ago. Pope Benedict recently made a huge gesture toward the society when he released his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. This was one of the major “conditions” set by the SSPX as a pre-requisite to unity. When the Pope, for his own prudential reasons, decided to amend the prayer for the Jews, many in the traditionalist camps and those not so inclined turned their eyes to the SSPX to see how they would respond. Would they respond to the Pope’s decision with humility, submission, and respect and accept the Pope’s judgment on this matter or not? The answer, while not official, seems to be not. There have been some reported comments by Bishop Fellay seems to indicate that they will not be using the new prayer. This does not mean, as some would suggest, that this proves once and for all that the SSPX is schismatic. It doesn’t. What it does prove is that we have a long way to go to achieve the desired unity.
The other story I wrote about here yesterday. This story is about the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC). A break-away group of Anglicans who have come to realize what they have lost when they lost unity with Rome. Now they want it back. To this end, the Bishops of the TAC reportedly all signed a copy of the Catechism and sent a letter to the Holy See seeking full, corporate, and sacramental union with Rome. Since they have made the request, they await a response with promised silence and in what the Primate of the TAC referred to as “a prayer filled quietness.” Acknowledging that the path to unity requires toughness, patience, and above all humility.
As I look at the public disposition of these two groups that seek unity with Rome, I must admit that I have greater hope for the group that is on the outside than the one on the inside. I know that many people can and will defend the various SSPX positions from a moral or legal standpoint. I am no expert and so I will not claim that the SSPX is cutting itself off with such actions and responses. I suspect that many of their “demands” may be legitimate and I definitely have a soft spot for them as I too love the ancient liturgy and despise modernism. But my money, right now, is on the Traditional Anglican Communion. If you care to know why, my answer is very simple. It’s the humility, stupid.
February 21, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Very interesting. I think you are right on.
February 21, 2008 at 3:49 pm
The Trans-Alpine Redemptorists – which are affiliated with the SSPX – have already come out on their blog in support and filial obedience to the Holy See and have declared that in their continued celebration of the old rite, they will use this modified prayer.
It isn’t that hard, and no one is questioning the Fathers of Pappa Stransay’s “traditionalist orthodoxy” on this matter.
The SSPX have made their hearts hard, and are rather recalcitrant. Short of an amazing miracle, I largely suspect it is far to late for a corporate re-union with Rome saying “God bless this mess!” It has been for years. No one much likes to talk about it, but they have something like 500 ordinands out in the world no longer with them… Some re-uniting to Rome, some going sede-vacantist, some being, I dunno… yoga instructors…
With the SP, the FSSP, the Institute of Christ the King, Society of St. Vincent Ferrar, The personal prefacture of St. John Vianney in Brazil… Well with all of this it is getting harder and harder to justify the erection of chapels without – and certainly usually against – the blessing and approval of the local ordinary… the hearing of confessions without facilties… the likely consecration of additional bishops in the future… the review of marriages and granting of “annulments” internally…
They have been off reservation for so long, the mindset is probably too much to overcome.
I think Rome can call their bluff – they wanted a return to the Mass, they got it. But now they will likely demand more and more. Rome can only do so much to appease roughly 1M Catholics in canonical limbo served by 1,000 uncanonical priests in uncanonical chapels.
February 21, 2008 at 4:18 pm
This makes me think of two things. One, the old saying that fights within the family are the most bitter and the longest to heal. Two, this may just become a classic 90/10 issue, with 90% of the split taking 10% of the time to solve and the remaining 10% of the issues taking 90% of the time.
One does wonder what Abp. Lefebvre would have had to say at this juncture. Sometimes it is harder for the followers of an iconic leader to admit it is time to be done with the fight than it would have been for that same leader – they don’t want to be seen as giving up on the movement or insulting his memory. It will certainly take strength to get through this.
February 21, 2008 at 5:48 pm
I think that this post is comparing apples and oranges. I have been part of the Traditionalist Movement for many years now. I have never supported the S.S.P.X or attended its chapels (ever) but do support most of its goals. As for the TAC, I know some of those people well because I am a member of the Monarchist League of Canada, and we used to meet regularly in the TAC church’s basement in my area. Many of them are members of the League, which fights to keep Canada a monarchy.
I oppose the Good Friday revision by the Pope and have explained why all over the Internet by now. I accept that it is a valid act of the Supreme Legislator; however, we are not bound to receive or use the new prayer because current law does not (and cannot) require this. (I can explain this in detail for those who need to know why. The simplest but not only reason is that Good Friday is not a holyday of obligation or even a day on which priests must offer public prayers). The reason for opposing the change is not a matter of the text but the bad precdeent that it sets when a Supreme Pontiff amends the Sacred Liturgy of the Church, the Work of the Holy Ghost, specifically at the request of infidels. I can also expand on this, but not in this shorter post.
If you look at the Nota of the Secretary of State, you will see that the Pope only intended to amend the 1962 text. But the S.S.P.X, in an e-mail to me, explained that this does not apply to it in any event, since it uses the 1962 texts generally but has always used the 1955 texts for the Triduum Sacram. Put another way, by specifying that he was only amending the 1962 text, the Pope was deliberately excluding applicability to the S.S.P.X, probably so as not to jeopardise negotiations with it.
Regularised traditionalists rarely acknowledge that everything they have came from S.S.P.X resistance to liberalism and Modernism in the Church. The 1984 Indult came as a result of Archbishop Lefebvre’s refusal to stop ordaining priests after he was suspended a divinis, a suspension that was unjust because he was not given the recourse to an appeal and because his seminary was accepted by the visitation of the 1970s, led by Cardinal Gagnon.
The 1988 motu proprio would not exist had Archbishop Lefebvre not consecrated four of his priests to the episcopate. This also resulted in the foundation of the F.S.S.P., by far the largest traditionalist society of priests.
There would have been no Campos deal in 2001 had Rome not been trying to woo the S.S.P.X with an ordinary jurisdiction. And “Summorum Pontificum” would not exist had not the Society asked for it. In that document, the Pope de facto admitted that his predecessor, Paul VI, had abused his authority. He did so because the old Mass was never abrogated, and yet Paul VI claimed to have abrogated it in “De Missali Romano”, 1971, and because many priests were persecuted for resisting an abuse of power.
The leaders of the Society do not stand firm because they are haughty or proud, and you, Mr. Archbold, have no window into their souls. They stand firm because they love the Church and pray for the restoration of that which is good. For them, this is a sacrifice, not a joy.
More on my next posting!
Peter Karl T. Perkins
February 21, 2008 at 5:54 pm
I am being nice today and it is Lent. So I will skip over most comments with which I disagree. I would like to make a small correction to one poster’s information, however. The Campos was not given a personal prefecture or prelature but a personal apostolic administration. This is crucial. It is the structure that was needed for the Campos and which has been offered to the S.S.P.X. I believe that, once this offer was made to the S.S.P.X in 2000, its claim of supplied jurisdiction arising from an emergency could no longer be justified even ni theory.
P.K.T.P.
February 21, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Frial makes a good point. In fact, what Rome offered the S.S.P.X in 2000 was *FAR* more than what Archbishop had been prepared to accept in 1988. Bishop Fellay even admitted this, calling the 2000 offer a “Rolls Royce” structure. In other words, Archbishop L. would have taken the 2000 offer of a personal and international apostolic administration in a heartbeat. So why hasn’t Bishop Fellay? He and the other Society bishops say that conditions have changed. But, really, their worst objections today are those of 1988. I note that both 1988 and 2000 are years *following* the 1986 Assisi event, which is the Society’s greatest complaint. It is time for the Society to accept at least a provisional structure during its discussions with Rome over doctrine. The Pope needs the Society’s help. He needs its influence in a Rome still influenced very strongly by clerics who are liberals. Perhaps His Holiness will get some of that help from the TAC but the TAC is just too small to be an influenctial as the Society.
P.K.T.P.
February 21, 2008 at 6:25 pm
More on my first post: the TAC (no stops because it is an acronym, pronounced as a word).
I also know some of the TAC people fairly well. Like many of them here in Canada, I belong to the Monarchist League of Canada. We don’t want our country to end up as a republic, like the horrid French Republic or, even worse, the U.S.A.
Of course, the TAC is waiting in silence for Rome’s approbation. But the cause is not so much humility as fear. Mr. Archbold should check his facts before singing the TAC’s praises.
The fact is that the TAC is so small and so poor that it has few churches to worship in. Take Canada as an example. It has over sixty parishes and even more priests but only seven churches it can call its own, and several of these seven are in remote places such as Chapleau, in the wilderness of Northern Ontario. It has no parish at all in Toronto, by far the most important city in Canada. What sort of Canadian church can call itself serious with not even a parish (with or without a church building) in Toronto?
The story is the same in the U.S.A., where the TAC is wealthiest. It mostly worships in funeral homes, hospice chapels, military base chapels, and even livingrooms in private houses. Several of its parishes have no resident priest and rely on lay readers to organise priestless Sunday worship.
The great majority of its claimed membership of 400,000 is in India. What happened there is that a judge made a mind-boggling decision that the TAC was the successor of the old Anglican Church of North India and therefore gets its property. (The Church of North India was absorbed into a larger Protestant body but some of its members had refused the merger.) Many of its supporters there are just Christians who happened to live nearby those churches. They have no idea that they belong to a church which exists to oppose woman priests in the Anglican Church (although they would no doubt support such a church).
In England, the TAC is so small that it has only two parish churches for its more than fifteen parishes. It has no parishes and no churches and no clergy at all in Scotland. In Ireland, it has three parishes and zero churches. One of the three is in the Republic; the others are in the six counties. In New Zealand, the TAC consists of one parish at Auckland. It worships in a military chapel.
I am not attacking the TAC. I really like them and hope that they enter into union with Rome. If they do, they will have somewhere to worship while they grow, for they will then be able to ask the Roman ordinaries for use of their churches.
Another consideration is that many of the conservative Anglican bodies in Africa and the Third World, called the ‘Global South’ group, could join the TAC once it is united to Rome.
The TAC needs a firm source of authority and access to some churches. It is not growing much. Anglicans who are disgruntled with the homo wars in the Anglican Communion are not joining the TAC but are joining the Global South group. There is a reason for this. The Global South people reject homo blessings but accept womanpriest, whereas the TAC was founded in the 1970s by Anglicans who reject womanpriest (as well as rejecting homo blessings). Simply put,the new anti-homo Anglicans are too prideful to join the TAC because that would amount to an admission that they were wrong about womanpriest in the 1970s. We must never admit they we are wrong, now, right?!
P.K.T.P.
February 21, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Peter,
You wrote “The leaders of the Society do not stand firm because they are haughty or proud, and you, Mr. Archbold, have no window into their souls.”
I did not claim to have a window into their souls. I have not condemned them or judged them. So, respectfully Peter, I think you are objecting to a straw man.
I merely stated my opinion that unity with the TAC seems closer to me because of the humility evidenced by their behavior. I don’t see the same type of humility in the behavior or statements of the SSPX. I know they have different issues so I am not comparing the two. Once again, my premise is that humility builds the bridge and there seems to be a difference in the public attitudes of these groups.
February 21, 2008 at 7:51 pm
“I don’t see the same type of humility in the behavior or statements of the SSPX.”
The late Cardinal Gagnon, in visiting the SSPX, didn’t see “the same type of humility” among them either. You do not require a window into a man’s soul to render an opinion of his actions.
February 21, 2008 at 8:27 pm
I don’t see any lack of humility at all in the attitude of Bishop Fellay, Mr. Archbold. Where is this coming from? Bishop Fellay did *not* reject the legal right of the Pope to alter the Good Friday prayer. In his love for the Church and in a spirit of true humility, the sort that risks being criticised for the love of the Church, Bishop Fellay has pointed out why he thinks that this revision is unfortunate and why it sets a very bad precedent. I note that, in his recent conference at Ridgefield, those present, one of whom I know well, said that he seemed to be confused and troubled in his statements. That does not sound to me like the consequence of arrogance. I think that he is a very humble man.
The charge that the Society has rejected the revision is false. The Pope quite deliberately restricted the revision to the 1962 books. His advisors must have told him that this would not affect the S.S.P.X, since it does not use the 1962 books for the Triduum Sacram in the first place; it uses those of 1955. Keep in mind that anything that might affect relations with the Society would have been taken into account, since the Holy Father clearly wants a reconciliation with it. He does not want to jeopardise his negotations with the Society.
If this charge of a lack of humility is not coming from a reading of souls, where is it coming from? Where is the evidence for it? To whom are you referring? I find that Bishops Fellay, Tissier de Mallerais, and, in particular, de Galaretta, have displayed admirable patience and humility. They are the bishops who have taken this Cross upon their shoulders for the love of Christ, and not because they like disobedience–however rightful–to the Pope. Some might point to Bishop Williamson but he is not the superior-general or even in the current council of the Society.
In the case of the TAC, you see true humility in its pious words. I don’t doubt it. But I have pointed out that there is clear EVIDENCE of another motive for the TAC: need, even fear. The TAC is tiny and is not growing. It NEEDS Rome. If current conditions continue, it will die. It cannot even establish a parish in Toronto for its Canadian organisation. I really do love those people and want them in, but that is pathetic.
I would argue that the S.S.P.X also needs Rome, although it may not realise the extent of this need yet. Much of its need will follow from the success of “Summorum Pontificum”. As the old adage goes, Be careful what you ask for: you just might get it.
P.K.T.P.
February 21, 2008 at 8:28 pm
David,
Thanks. I agree. I fear that Peter was reading more into my statements than are really there.
Peter, you seem to be saying that because the TAC is poor, it is fear and not humility that drives them. Does this particular observation require a window into their souls? Is this supposition on your part or fact? I think the former.
You reprimand me for not checking my facts when singing their praises. Yes, I praised their public statements and behavior surrounding this issue. My praise is an opinion based upon facts in evidence. Your facts are opinion based upon facts not in evidence.
Pot=Kettle?
February 21, 2008 at 8:30 pm
PKTP does not see a lack of humility?
I wonder why? HAHAHAH
February 21, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Peter,
For clarification. I did not say that the SSPX “rejected” the prayer nor did I make any legal argument that suggested that the SSPX is forced to accept it. What I said was “Would they respond to the Pope’s decision with humility, submission, and respect and accept the Pope’s judgment on this matter or not? The answer, while not official, seems to be not.”
Humility, submission, and respect was the criteria I used. Obligated or not, they could have chosen to submit to the Pope’s judgment in the matter. It appears that that they haven’t. That is what I am referring to. I believe this to be an important distinction.
February 21, 2008 at 8:56 pm
I don’t see a lack of humility because there isn’t one. I wonder if some bloggers would deign to argue instead of emote. That might help.
Mr. Archbold claims that he doesn’t see into the souls of the Society leaders, and yet the title of his article is “It’s the humility, stupid”. I think that he is certainly inferring that there is a lack of humility in the Society leadership. That is his entire point in contasting the Society with the TAC. But he doesn’t identify who he means. Is he referring to Bishop Fellay, the superior-general?
Mr. HAHA does not seem to realise that Bishop Fellay has not taken on the leadership of the Society because he loves rebellion; nor is there evidence of him being proud or arrogant. His reasoning, however mistaken it might be on some points, has been consistent throughout. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to assume that his motives are good, not the reverse. Show me the evidence for his arrogance and then judge his actions.
At this time of Lent, we need to consider that every sin has a subjective element. No one can sin unless he intends evil. My reading of Bishop Fellay is that he is beset by arguers on all sides in the Society and wants to regularise the Society. But he wants to defend truth more, and he wants to protect the Faith and save souls above all. Would that we could say the same for so many regularised bishops, who can’t even protect children from predators in the priesthood; instead, they move them around and protect them so that they can rape even more children. Odd how we haven’t heard of such problems in the S.S.P.X.
P.K.T.P.
February 21, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Dear Mr. Archbold:
I regard to the TAC, if you read my post carefully, in regard to their supposed humility, I wrote “I don’t doubt it” but then went on to produce extensive EVIDENCE that they may have *additional* motives.
For example, they may be facing extinction. That often works as a motive, don’t you think? Note also that there is nothing immoral in wanting to join Rome so as not to become extinct. If you know your catechism, you know that fear of God is a legitimate motive for action, even if inferior to love. I am saying that there is evidence that fear is part of it. They have nowhere to worship and nobody is joining them. Except for India, most of their members are over the age of 60, and in the case of India (and Pakistan), it is unclear whether or not their members even know what it is they belong to. They just go to the nearest church, which a court awarded to the TAC.
You are the one who has not furnished us with evidence that the Society (who in the Society? Can organisations be humble, or just people?) is less humble. I suggest that true humility consists in more than humble words, such as those you’ve quoted from the TAC.
P.K.T.P.
February 21, 2008 at 9:07 pm
“I don’t see a lack of humility because there isn’t one. I wonder if some bloggers would deign to argue instead of emote.”
I was wondering the same thing myself. “I don’t see it because it’s not there” is not based on anything, ergo is not much of an argument, ergo it must be…
February 21, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Mr. Archbold writes:
“Humility, submission, and respect was the criteria I used. Obligated or not, they could have chosen to submit to the Pope’s judg[e]ment in the matter. It appears that that they haven’t.”
If someone does not oblige me to change my behaviour, does it follow that I am arrogant (the opposite of humble) because I have not changed it? You just don’t get it. Apart from the issue in hand, the Pope deliberately amended only the 1962 words knowing full well that the S.S.P.X uses the 1955 text. Read the Nota of the Secretary of State!
The Pope has never demanded that the Society use the revised prayer, but it should be noted that nor has he enjoined them to do so and nor has he asked them to do so. They decline to use it for very good reasons, some of which I have explained under this subject and others in your blog.
When a Pope does something that undermines the Church, it is not humility but stupidity to follow him blindly. God does not want this. He wants us to use the brains He gave unto us!
I keep seeing on this blog and others this Protestant notion of papal authority as a Hobbesian absolute tyranny. That is completely opposed to the teaching of the fathers and to all previous popes. The authority of the Pope was established by Christ to build up the Mystical Body and to save souls; and it is limited by the end for which it was established It is supreme and universal and plenary and immediate authority but not absolute authority!
We should not use the revised prayer because using it supports an action of the Pope which undermines his own authority. It is an abomination to set a precedent by which we reform the Work of the Holy Ghost in the Sacred Litugy specifically at the behest of two leading infidels from Palestine.
It is out of love for the Pope that I refuse to receive and/or use this 2008 revision. Fortunately, I am legally allowed to do so as well, but that is a secondarly consideration.
Bishop Fellay, I am sure, wants to work co-operatively wtih the Holy See. But the Pope keeps doing unnecessary and harmful things to prevent a rapprochement. He prays in synagogues and mosques and such. I pray that the Holy Father will stop listening to infidels from Palestine and, instead, will work with those who love the Church!
P.K.T.P.
February 21, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Oh. The TAC is poor? Forget them then. Jesus never wanted anything to do with the poor and neither will I.
February 21, 2008 at 9:36 pm
David Alexander, quoting me, writes:
“I was wondering the same thing myself. ‘I don’t see it because it’s not there’ is not based on anything, ergo is not much of an argument, ergo it must be…”
I was making an observation and adding a *just* assumption: since I don’t see any lack of humility in the Society leadership, therefore, in justice, I assume that it is not there.
This was in resonse to Mr. Haha, who simply emoted to the effect that there was obviously a lack of humility among the Society leadership, or else a lack of intelligence in me for not seeing it.
Really, though, I should not have bothered responding to Haha.
P.K.T.P.
February 21, 2008 at 9:37 pm
“It is out of love for the Pope that I refuse to receive and/or use this 2008 revision.” -PKTP
I love that philosophy. I’m going to try that on my wife. “Honey, it’s out of love that I’m not going to listen to a word you say.” Think she’ll buy it?