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 23, 2008 at 2:34 am
Mr Perkins, you do indeed that some human agent does enact the work of the Holy Spirit in composing the Sacred Liturgy. We have that assurance in this case then. The Holy Spirit, regrettably, forgot to check with certain others in the blogosphere. So there is the risk we will beg to differ.
That’s where humility comes in.
February 23, 2008 at 3:17 am
I do not see any lack of humility in the SSPX. I believe that Archbishop Lebebvre was a truly humble man who reluctantly did what he saw he had to do to save tradition – and it worked. If he had not consecrated the four bishops and stood firm in the faith, I fear that we would have nothing but the worst VII nightmare now for a church – I don’t even know if I could take it. The SSPX has walked a fine line for many years- as Catholics they must be loyal to the Pope, but their reticence has influenced Popes much for the better in the past. They have a HUGE responsibility to their million or so of faithful, but even more so to all Catholics, Christians, and humans in the world. They need the Catholic faith in its fullness. For many years it was the SSPX who preserved just that. Others did their parts and God bless them for that – but without the Society I am not sure that we would be turning back to tradition as we seem to be now (may God will that it continue). What I am saying is: don’t be too hard on them if they don’t act quickly on this – there is a lot at stake. For better or worse – what they do matters. They have done so much good. I am absolutely thrilled about the prospect of the Anglicans coming back where they belong. I don’t know why we have to compare the two groups. I pray that we will all be one in the end (soon I hope).
February 23, 2008 at 5:37 am
I’m not sure what Mr. Alexander’s last post means. There is a verb missing there somewhere. (I’m not being nasty about this: it is an honest omission, a mere typo, but it leaves me in the dark about the meaning). The Holy Ghost inspires (breathes into) those who are prepared to receive His message. They are prepared by their own prayer and fasting; moreover, God chooses them for His own reasons and in accordance with their own gifts. As St. Augustine taught, everything begins with God, even our yearning for Him. The use of holy prayers over many centuries hallows them. The very fact that generations have found them to be efficacious and uplifting helps to make them so.
I am not sure what you mean. Are you denying the constant teaching of the Church that the Sacred Liturgy is the Work of the Holy Ghost? Is that what you are saying?
As for the Holy Ghost checking with people on blogs, I am a tad confused. Have I inadvertently proposed a prayer in place of one that is a part of the Sacred Liturgy? If so, I withdraw it.
Once again, I do not and have never doubted the Pope’s power or right to make small changes to the Liturgy. Obviously the Vicar of Christ himself is an agent of God’s holy work. The problem does not lie there; it lies with the precedent of making a change specifically at the request of infidels or heretics. If you don’t see that as a problem, I can’t help you, except in my own prayers. If you simply fail to see how that is a danger to the faith then, yes, we can simply disagree and move on.
Please clarify what principle it is you reject but I embrace.
P.K.T.P.
February 23, 2008 at 6:09 am
David Alexander refers to a morass. What morass? The argument I have raised against the new prayer was simply and directly put. I have written on other topics here, such as the situation of the TAC. That is another subject. You don’t have to wade through anything. Just keep one post separate from another.
(1) Yes, of course it’s only an opinion that the change was a mistake. What else could it be but an opinion? But opinions can be correct, and they become arguments when furnished with evidence or reasons. I have provided very good reasons for my position. Let me guess. Now you are going to argue that, as a Catholic subject to the Holy See, I do not have a right to question the prudential decisions of the Holy See on matters of liturgy. More Protestant and Hobbesian notions of the kingly power of the Pope as being absolute rather than plenary. A pope cannot be a tyrant and nor can a Catholic king.
Why not address my arguments rather than merely point out the obvious fact that they represent opinions.
(2)
“If a decree was legitimate issued that says we are to use it, then we are to use it. No, Good Friday is not a day of obligation. But if a priest is celebrating the Presanctified Liturgy on that day in the Extraordinary Form, and the Holy See obliges him to use it, he must as a matter of obedience use it.”
Again, you have failed to interpret my very clear words on this. You must make distinctions.
First, there is the distinction between the case of a priest and that of a laic. A priest can choose to use the 2008 revision or not say Good Friday Prayers at all. A diocesan priest may not, however, choose to use the 1962 words during a Good Friday Service, although he could use them in private prayers led by him on Good Friday. So I agree with you on this point. However, you lump yourself in with the priests. You might be a priest, but I am only a lowly university professor. I am a laic. And, for laics, the obligation of the law is different.
(2) In the case of the laic, he can entirely avoid the 2008 words, as I have explained in detail over and over and over again on this blog. There is no law forbidding us from using the 1962 words when the priest intones those of 2008, &c., &c. Need I repeat it all again? There are several other escapes: going to Eastern Catholic Good Friday services, staying at home, saying the old words in private but perhaps corporate prayers, even going to a S.S.P.X Good Friday Service (completely legal on a day which is not a holyday of obligation).
(3)
“We do not dream up prayers.” Well, where do they come from? Like manna from heaven, or does some mere mortal at some point in time compose them? Let’s make this simple: YES OR NO???
Specifically liturgical prayers properly come by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost; they are not composed ad hoc by man. At any time, we don’t know which those are. That’s why we wait. Those that are found to be necessary and beneficial are then given approbation by the Holy See. The Holy See does not set up committees of Bugninis to concoct the liturgy. Unless, that is, we are talking about Protestant churches, which substitute their own unwisdom for the wisdom of the Holy Ghost as manifested by the adherence of generations of saints, scholars, and fathers over time.
But this is a red herring, once again. I have never said that the Holy Father’s prayer is illegitimate. There is a difference between a reform that smashes a rite and a small change. Bugnini’s reforms smashed a rite and were illegitimate; the 2008 revision is not that radical (in the literal sense here: to the root). The question is not if the Pope has the power to make the change but if we should receive it. We needn’t, in law, and we shouldn’t and I won’t. If it were a change I needed to accept as a Catholic, I would, however regrettably, accept it in complete obedience. But my lord and master the Pope rules by a rulership of service to the Truth; he is not an Eastern potentate or a Protesant absolute monarch. His rule is absolute under certain conditions on matters of faith and moral, not on matter of liturgy.
On this point, once again, you need to make a distinction. We must accept the validity of the new prayer (meaning, for example, that we shouldn’t complain if it’s used and we shouldn’t oppose someone who complains that the 1962 words were used illicitly). But we needn’t receive or use the prayer, because the law does not require it.
This distinction is not that subtle. Please consider it carefully before posting a reply.
P.K.T.P.
February 23, 2008 at 6:17 am
On our lAst anonymous poster, in regard to Archbishop Lefebvre’s humility.
This was well put. I have never supported the S.S.P.X or attended its chapels. However, some semi-traditionalists and neo-conservatives like to fulminate against the S.S.P.X without due consideration. They forget that we would have no 1984 Indult without the S.S.P.X, no 1988 extension of that Indult, no F.S.S.P. or I.C.R. or any of our current 30 traditionalist societies or orders, no Campos arrangement for a personal apostolic administration, and no “Summorum Pontificum”. None of it would exist were it not for the Society of St. Pius X and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. So, all you neo-conservatives out there, thank the Archbishop every night for all that you have. Without him, you’d all be chanting the Divine Liturgy of the Ukrainian Catholic Church or looking for one of those rare Novus Ordo Masses in Latin.
P.K.T.P.
February 23, 2008 at 11:00 am
“I am not sure what you mean. Are you denying the constant teaching of the Church that the Sacred Liturgy is the Work of the Holy Ghost? Is that what you are saying?”
No. I said that it WAS the work of the Holy Ghost, if through human agents.
“As for the Holy Ghost checking with people on blogs, I am a tad confused. Have I inadvertently proposed a prayer in place of one that is a part of the Sacred Liturgy?”
No, you have proposed nothing. But that it be so, is a conclusion that may be drawn by your challenge to the Pope.
“Once again, I do not and have never doubted the Pope’s power or right to make small changes to the Liturgy…. it lies with the precedent of making a change specifically at the request of infidels or heretics.”
Actually, doubting his power or right is all you have continued to do with respect to this decision. As to the precedent, you have no proof that this was done at the behest of non-Catholics.
February 25, 2008 at 11:25 pm
David Alexander writes of me:
“Actually, doubting his power or right is all you have continued to do with respect to this decision. As to the precedent, you have no proof that this was done at the behest of non-Catholics.”
I don’t need proof, only reasonable evidence. This is not a scientific investigation. The evidence that he reacted to the publicly-announced letter of the two chief rabbis of Palestine, and the timing of that reaction, make it quite obvious. The Vatican would also have been aware of the appearance of a reaction owing to the timing. Get real.
P.K.T.P.
February 26, 2008 at 1:33 am
“The evidence that he reacted to the publicly-announced letter of the two chief rabbis of Palestine, and the timing of that reaction, make it quite obvious.”
No, it makes it a coincidence. You don’t have to worry about being accused of conducting anything scientific, Mr Perkins. “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” is not a maxim for establishing a causal relationship, only for acknowledging that one event followed another. You have not a shred of evidence that complaints by Jewish leaders were the cause of the Pope’s decision. And even if you did (and that’s a really big IF), the results did no harm to the Faith, and was still within his rights.
We’re done, mister. I don’t have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the challenger, not the status quo. You haven’t met the burden. YOU get real.