There was a comment recently in one of my posts on Bishop Williamson of the SSPX that got me thinking. (dangerous, I know) I have seen this comment here before and on many other blogs that comment on either the traditional liturgy generally or the motu proprio SummorumPontificum specifically. The comment comes in various special forms but all belonging to the same genus. The comment goes something like this.
—Stop criticizing the SSPX [or its leaders] because without the SSPX there would be no motu proprio Summorum Pontificum and there would be no Latin Mass. If they hadn’t done what they did, the traditional liturgy would have been lost forever. We should all be grateful to the SSPX—
Many accept the above comment as obviously true and it is rarely challenged in the places I have seen it. However, is it really axiomatic that without the SSPX we would have no Latin Mass? Is it possible that the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre specifically and the SSPX generally were in fact counter-productive for those seeking the restoration of the Latin Mass? Is it possible that if they had submitted humbly and worked within the church that we would have seen the renaissance of the traditional liturgy much earlier?
Before I delve too deeply into this post, let me take a moment to stipulate that I realize that the issues with the SSPX go beyond the liturgy itself and that the intent of this post is not to criticize the SSPX but to ask some simple questions. Further, I am focusing exclusively on the restoration of the freedom to say the Latin Mass and not on all the other issues, legitmitate or otherwise, raised by the SSPX. With that said, now back to the post.
I think that it is without question that without the SSPX we would not have had a Summorum Pontificum. The larger question is whether, without the SSPX, would we have needed it? It is beyond question that the the TLM became the most recognizable and identifiable aspect of the SSPX. Their trademark if you will. During the last decades, to be identified with the Latin Mass meant, to some degree, to be identified with the SSPX. After the illicit consecrations performed by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer, to be identified with the Latin Mass meant to be identified with that ‘schismatic act.’
In response to that ‘schismatic act’ , on July 2, 1988 Pope John Paul II issued motu proprio the document Ecclesia Dei. It is also without question that the application of Ecclesia Dei by many Bishops was stingy at best (I am being charitable). Frankly, Bishops were stingy even after Quattuor abhinc annos in 1984 and this was before the consecrations of 1988. However the consecrations of 1988 seemed to harden the lines between the two camps dooming us to two decades of trench warfare with little movement of the lines. Here comes the “what if.”
Of course it is impossible to know what would have happened had the illicit consecrations of 1988 had never taken place. Would the battle lines have hardened the way that they did? What if the SSPX had submitted humbly? (Caveat: Again, I know there are issues here beyond the liturgy) Would an SSPX more in the mold of the FSSP or ICKSP have done more good than SSPX seen to be on the outside? If they had stayed clearly within the church, might we have seen the restoration of the TLM sooner? Might some diocesan Bishops been more open to Quattuor abhinc annos over time if not for subsequent identification with ‘schism.’
Obviously, this is a lot of questions without any answers. “What if” scenarios are by their very nature paths of which we cannot see the end. However, this my point. The concept that we would never have seen the restoration of the TLM were it not for the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX is an equally unknowable “what if” scenario. We simply cannot be sure. We can however speculate on the likelihood of a given outcome. I base my opinion on this likelihood on a few things. The first is my experience here in my diocese.
In my diocese (Rockville Centre) we have a priest who is a long time devotee of the traditional liturgy. Monsignor James Pereda has served his diocese and his Bishop with dedication and humility for years travelling thousands upon thousands of miles to serve the indult community here. A recent report on Rorate Caeli on the recalled some of the history of the Latin Mass on Long Island.
Long Island has always demonstrated a definite interest in the Latin Mass that probably cannot be matched by any other diocese in the U.S. – a statement that can be illustrated by recalling Long Island’s role in the history of the the traditional resurgence, including the unapproved variety. The late Father Gommer De Pauw set up his “Catholic Traditionalist Movement” and Ave Maria Chapel here immediately after Vatican II without local episcopal approval.
The irregular Society of St. Pius X was quick to establish a chapel here, and SSPX founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was a frequent visitor, celebrating mass confirmations in large rented venues. It was also on Long Island that the Society of St. Pius V was founded in a break with the SSPX. Other independent chapels dot the area, making Bishop Murphy’s solicitude for Traditionalists of his diocese – the seventh largest in the U.S, — especially valuable for the future.
In my mind, it is beyond question that the influence of the SSPX and SSPV here hampered the development and greater use of the TLM within the diocese. I believe that the humble and loyal Msgr. Pereda has done much more for those devoted to the traditional liturgy than any of these other groups. In fact, his position and that of the entire indult community has likely been immeasurably more difficult because of the presence of the SSPX and SSPV. I think that Bishop Murphy’s openness to the traditional Latin Mass community post motu proprio is in large part due to the humility, loyalty, and steadfastness of good priests like Msgr. Pereda.
My thoughts on this matter are simple. If the Holy Spirit desires the eventual restoration of the the traditional liturgy, He does not need a ‘schismatic act’ to achieve that end. Submission in humility is much more likely to achieve the desired end ever more promptly than any act of disobedience. It is for these reasons that I do not accept as axiomatic the concept that “without the SSPX (as it is now) and those consecrations, we would have no TLM.”
Again, this should not be seen as an attack on the SSPX or on the legitimate aspirations of the many faithful who attend their masses. Rather, it should be seen as my questions and thoughts on this matter. I write it simply in the desire to delve into these questions a little further. I look forward to any discussion on this topic as long as it stays respectful. Respectful of each other, the Pope, the Church, the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre.
Additional Note: None of the comments on this post should be longer than the post itself. (You know who you are 😉
April 8, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Look, Mr. Alexander, it was you who levelled a serious accusation to begin with, not me. You suggested, by way of a question, that the Holy Ghost could not be inspiring those in the S.S.P.X on the grounds that there have been sedevcantist schisms from the S.S.P.X. Frankly, the fact that the S.S.P.V was kicked out of the S.S.P.X suggests just the opposite: it suggests that that the Society leadership is part of the Church and has therefore expelled the sedevacantist-tolerant S.S.P.V. Would you say that Rome is not guided by the Holy Ghost on the grounds that various movements and schisms have come out of Rome? Hardly.
Then you wrote this unfair statement:
“The Lefebvrites are Anglicans in disguise – they pick and chose out of pride and vanity.”
How do you know that they pick and choose out of “pride and vanity”? And what do they pick and choose? They only remain faithful to the teachings of the Church which remain the same “yesterday, today, and tomorrow”.
But you do suggest, at least, how it is that they are unfaithful: it is their disobedience: “Forceful assertion of our canonical rights is one thing, disobedience to the Holy Father is quite enother.”
It was you who raised the matter of disobedience. As a result, I explained that there is such a thing as rightful disobedience. I also explained the elementary difference between subjective and objective disorders to show that they only need honestly to believe that their disobedience is rightful: we needn’t agree. We all understand that one every time we prepare for confession. I see nothing jesuitical about such explanations.
Once again, I am saying that these statements of yours were unfair: unfair to the S.S.P.X. If you had the humility you accuse others of lacking, you would not accuse Society leaders or members of “picking and choosing out of pride and vanity”. If you can show evidence which points to their motives, do so by all means; otherwise, stick to the facts.
P.K.T.P.
April 8, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Mr. Kradcliffe writes:
“You suck all the joy out of debate.”
Well, yes, when someone loses a debate, it tends to find that his opponent has sucked all the joy out of it.
Peter Karl T. Perkins
Victoria, Canada
April 8, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Kradliffe, in a moment of charity, writes this of me:
“You come across as a long-winded pompous bore who is in love with the sound of his own voice. There is nothing in your posts that could not be written in one brief post.”
On his first point, I should like to point out that I have gone to a great deal of trouble, for the benefit of bloggers here, to explain some complex issues fully. This does take space. I did this for the benefit of others on this blog. But if someone does not appreciate this, or if someone already knows this information, he is free simply not to read it. Nobody is forced to read anything I write on this blog. This sort of cruelty on the part of Mr. Kradliffe is not consonant with Christian charity. However, I am not asking for an apology: I think that all this apology nonsense is a tad overdone.
On his second point, my posts are often long not because they could be shorter but because I have imparted a great deal of statistical information to support my points. That takes space. I have worked for years at compiling statistics for our movement and have assisted in two on-line sites which list our Masses for the benefit of travellers. I do this because I am trying to help those who are attached to tradition. I thought that some on this blog would appreciate knowing the statistics in order to give them a better understanding of the state of our movement. Apparently, I was wrong.
The intent of most of my posts in irenic. I am, once again, trying to suggest that attacks on the S.S.P.X, such as Mr. Alexander’s, are not constructive. Without the S.S.P.X, the evidence suggests that we would not even have a movement. On the other hand, I do not agree with the Society’s intransigent attitude since 2000. I am hoping for a peaceful resolution which can benefit everyone. Somehow, I think that that is what our Lord would want.
P.K.T.P.
April 8, 2008 at 7:07 pm
“Then you wrote this unfair statement: ‘The Lefebvrites are Anglicans in disguise – they pick and chose out of pride and vanity.'”
No, I didn’t. Nor did I write anything about sedevacantism, or the SSPX vis a vis the SSPV. I did refer to behavior resembling a cult in some instances, and the need for humility, concessions having been made to them.
This is what happens in a lop-sided conversation. One side is so busy pontificating that he loses track of those to whom he is pontificating. Now, you’ve got some good stuff in your comments, I’m not too proud to concede that, sir. The statistical study is good. But your focus should be on the central point that Mr Archbold is making, without going off on a million tangents.
Confine yourself. Be brief. Be very very brief. And write as if you are starting anew. I’ve read the same $#!† from you at least half a dozen times already.
THAT is what sucks the joy out of this. Winning and losing is irrelevant. A mutual seeking of the Truth is relevant. At least when I lose, I learn something.
April 8, 2008 at 7:49 pm
On David Alexander’s last post:
Dear Mr. Alexander: if I have confused you without another blogger here, I apologise without reserve. However, any confusion was not caused by ‘pontificating’ but simply by a misreading of labels. Were you not the first respondent on this topic, who wrote the following?:
“Without Martin Luther, we wouldn’t have had Trent”. Probably true enough, but that does not mean that the Reformation was a good thing.
Forceful assertion of our canonical rights is one thing, disobedience to the Holy Father is quite enother.
How could the Holy Spirit be supporting a movement that has led to several sedevacantist movements such as the SSPV? No one remains in communion with the Church unless sustained by the Holy Spirit. Many of us have remained in full communion with the Holy Father and numerous ancient, orthodox Eastern churches, we have got our Mass back, and IMHO, God is working through Benedict XVI to restore the Church.
The Lefebvrites are Anglicans in disguise – they pick and chose out of pride and vanity.
April 8, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Mr. David Alexander writes:
“But your focus should be on the central point that Mr Archbold is making, without going off on a million tangents.”
I did not go off on any tangents. All my points were included as a thorough support to a counter-argument; namely, that, without the S.S.P.X, we would not even have a movement. If we would not even have a regulaised movement without the S.S.P.X, it makes no sense to speculate how well our non-existent movement would have fared had the S.S.P.X never existed.
To reiterate, but without repeating the details, the 1984 Indult and, in particular the 1988 E.D. which made our movement viable, both came as a result of S.S.P.X activity; so did the Campos arrangement, the thirty-some approved traditionalists societies and orders, and S.P.
Benedict XVI has never preferred the 1962 Missal. What he clearly prefers is a traditionalised N.O.M. So, to paraphrase Mr. Archbold, had the Society submitted from the outset, the most we’d have today would be that. We’d presumably have the Adoremus Mass or not even that. The Pope would not have regularised the 1962 Missal had there not already been thousands of regularised traditionalists pining for this and/or a desire to regularise the S.S.P.X.
I am asking that we be fair. We don’t need to agree with the S.S.P.X position. But it is unfair not to acknowledge that, without the S.S.P.X, there would be no traditionalist movement today and no S.P. It is absurd to suggest that the Pope would have issued S.P. one fine spring day when the spirit moved him. He had to get S.P. through a hostile curia and past hostile bishops. They are still hostile. Today, it is widely reported that the new traditionalist chaplaincy for Maine will have to ante up U.S. $72,000 a year to pay for the chaplain’s expenses and even to rent sacred places.
P.K.T.P.
April 8, 2008 at 8:10 pm
All please refrain from polysyllabic words in lengthy arguments. I passed out twice.
April 8, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Dear Mr. Archbold:
To put it more simply: no S.S.P.X, no 1988 pope letter. No 1988 pope letter, no tenfold increase from 7 to 70 dioceses with old Mass every Sunday in U.S.A. and same stuff in other places. No big increase from 1988 to 1993, no old Mass movement blessed by pope. No old Mass movement blessed by pope, no pleas for S.P. with Pope who prefers N.O.M. with smells and bells. No pleas for S.P. but pleas againt it from bishops everywhere, no S.P.
As a result, no S.S.P.X., no nothin’. I’ve tried to keep the syllable count down. I hope that everyone gets it now. Sorry for many syllables. I teach at University. I no teach at kindergarten (whoops, too many syllables in last word).
Take this lightly, Mr. Archbold. Lighten up.
P.K.T.P.
April 8, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Anonymous…
Wonderful!!! Well Done!!! Kudos!!!
Steve Sanborn
PS. Perhaps you and I could stray a bit on the fact that there has never been an obligation to say the N.O., while there is an obligation to say and/or assist at mass. While many arguments focus on the rights of traditionals (which I do not disagree with) less focus is placed on the fact that it was the transition to the N.O. that created much of the problem.
Since Lefebvre perceived (and I believe correctly) that moving to the N.O. would have been sinful… he could not say it. One man’s humble submission is another man’s path to Hell.
What say you? …and I can take or leave the articles in your sentences…
April 8, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Mr. Sanborn makes good points. He is right that, as we now know (cf. S.P., Article 1), the old Mass was never abrogated and therefore never forbidden in principle. It follows logically that all attempts to forbid priests from celebrating the old Mass were unlawful and, as such, abuses of power. In particular, “De Missali Romano” (not to be confused with the apostolic constitution, “Missale Romanum”), 1971, was a nullity ab ovo. It is null and void because it violates the precepts of Moral Law.
One has the right in Moral Law to resist an abuse of power. It follows that those priests who joined the S.S.P.X to protect their rights acted properly; they acted morally.
However, in 2000, the situation changed when Pope John Paul II offered the S.S.P.X priests a way out. At that point, the Society’s argument from a state of necessity ceased, and I think that the I.P.B. and the Campos group werre right to accept regularisation.
As regards laics, the situation was a bit different. One has the right but not necessarily an obligation to resist the abuse of power being imposed on someone else. So laics are free to support or not support the S.S.P.X. The Society admits this and has said on many occasions that it does not claim to be the entire Church, only part of it.
When I write that the Society now has an obligation to accept regularisation, I am speaking objectively. It remains possible that it declines to accept regularisation owing to an honest opinion that this would endanger souls. Only God can judge the motives of each Society member. Only God can say if its members are motivated, as one blogger wrote here, out of “pride and vanity”.
Still, I think that it would be best both for the Society and for the entire Church if there were now a rapprochement. And I think that the means of achieving this are present. Therefore, let us pray for that.
Notice that I am not the attacker here. I am defending the Society position but I am not a Society supporter and never have been one. I am only trying to be fair and just. It seems to me that some contributors to this blog are determined to argue that S.P. likely would have been published even if the S.S.P.X had never existed, or if it had submitted to Rome from the beginning. That is absurd. The evidence simply does not support this hypothesis; on the contrary, it directly contradicts it.
I don’t say that bloggers need support the Society position. But it is another thing entirely to try to remove the credit we all owe the Society for the present conditions. Justice means giving every man his due.
P.K.T.P.
April 8, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Anon,
Well stated.
I differ with you on the “regularization” issue primarily because this currently requires that the SSPX compromise on the issue of the N.O., i.e., that it should not exist, and specifically that it is intrinsically evil…(so I believe that it is for them very specifically an issue of endangering souls) and also the mass is not the only issue at hand.
In all of the comings and goings, the swaying and the swooning, there has been one organization (though fractured at times to the right and left – SSPV and FSSP)that has stayed in one place. That’s SSPX.
SSPX would likely resolve to “reunify” (boy I hate that word), but in a very real way it is not the SSPX that must resolve to make a return to something… it is Rome. She must resolve to return to the Catholic Faith in its entirety.
Were the SSPX to “come back” now, who would stand as a beacon for the eternal truth regarding salvation of souls, particularly those that are not Catholic?
How can the SSPX trust Rome at all, when Rome has effectively taken herself out of the equation for non-Catholic souls? And to a large extent Catholic souls.
If the world were inside out, and one place continued to dangle in the proper atmosphere, who is on the outside and the inside? Is this really a case of “one of these things is not like the others”? As I see it, it is the other way round.
To recognize the old mass is normal – not extraordinary, not heroic, not saintly per se. What about the rest? Who stands at the helm if the SSPX comes in out of the rain?
SS
April 9, 2008 at 1:20 am
“All please refrain from polysyllabic words in lengthy arguments. I passed out twice.”
Only twice? Must be nice. (Hey, I made a rhyme. And just in time…)
April 9, 2008 at 2:04 am
Dear Mr. Sanborn:
I fear that you are coming from the other extreme, opposite to that of these ‘conservative’ papolaters.
The point about the New Mass being “intrinsically evil” is interesting (and controversial) but I am not aware that the Society has specified that it must be abolished before it will reconcile. To my knowledge, the Society has said that three pre-conditions must be met before it will accept regularisation.
The first is that Rome recognise that every priest in the Latin Church has a right to celebrate the old Mass. The second is that the declarations of excommunication and other penalties be withdrawn. The third is that doctrinal issues be resolved through negotiations. Now, I suppose that you could include the nature of the New Mass under your third point here.
However, it seems to me that obedience to the Holy Father is a moral norm for Catholics. We are not in a cafeteria. Rightful disobedience, therefore, can only exist as a last resort in a state of necessity to preserve the higest laws, to build up the Church and save souls. But it would be possible for the Society to further her mission to save souls without having the New Mass declared to be intrinsically evil as s pre-condition of this.
What I have suggested, to get around all difficulties, is that the Society at least accept a provisional (ad experimentum) jurisdiction during the period of discussions. If Rome would accept this (and I think that she would in a heartbeat), it seems to me that the Society must accept it too. Rome has already offered a permanent structure of this kind. The only reason for making it provisional would be to safeguard the third pre-condition. The third pre-condition would become just a condition.
I am suggesting this not only to build up the Church and show proper respect to the Holy Father but also because it is in the interest of the Society.
Once again, I know a great deal about the statistics of our movement. I would just hate to bore some bloggers about this, so I will skip to the conclusion and then they can ask me to prove my assertions and I will be happy to do so. The ‘he and the she of it’ is that, should the Society not make an arrangement with Rome over the next few years (and preferably as soon as possible), it is facing decline and then decimation. I just don’t think that this will help its mission.
The Society asked for freedom for the old Mass and the Holy Father complied. Now, as a result of this compliance, we are seeing a growth of T.L.M.s that makes even the huge increase of 1988-1993 seem small my comparison. For example, in the last nine months, more every-Sunday Traditional Latin Masses have been approved than were approved for the previous ten years in the U.S.A. It is hard to overestimate the effect of S.P.
In fact, the effect has been so great that it has easily fooled conservative bloggers into thinking that, perhaps, the S.S.P.X was not needed all along. Those prone to papolatry and wild fits of fancy immediately reach the most bizarre conclusions, conclusions which entirely ignore the statistics from the previous four decades.
The S.S.P.X can now do something wonderful, something to parallel what it did with S.P.: it can make a charitable gesture for the whole Church by asking that Rome’s offer of an international diocese be conferred not on the Society alone but for all of us. The Society, as a society of apostolic life, would then be a part of this flexible new structure. In order to interest and excite fellow bloggers, I have formulated a canonical solution for this. But I fear that this only bores bloggers here. But I will explain it in my next post if people ask for this.
P.K.T.P.
April 9, 2008 at 4:12 am
Anon,
I do not deny that obedience to the Holy Father is a Catholic norm. And I was not asserting that the SSPX requires the abolition of the novus ordo mass prior to a regularization.
The SSPX has been clear with Rome that it will not accept the novus ordo mass. Their belief that it should not exist cannot be changed. They would continue to spread this message after they kiss and make up.
Pope BXVI states in his letter to the bishops – “…it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy.”
Also… “It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.”
Also… “There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal.”
And finally… “Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.”
Anon, is it me, or do you see a road block here?
The SSPX will not abide by this. They cannot.
It isn’t a matter of its total abolition prior to a reunion. It’s a matter of being told to sit down, eat the poisoned crap and tell us how good it is…
Sorry to be crude, but after 40 years of destruction… the political nature of this is getting old.
SS
April 9, 2008 at 5:25 am
On Mr. Sandborn’s last comments.
I’m not really sure that there’s a roadblock there at all. The positions of Rome which he states are not infallible and most of them are not even doctinal in nature, but disciplinary. The Pope’s claim that the New Mass is the ordinary form of the Roman Rite is not even a doctrinal statement, not even a non-infallible one; it is only a finding in law, and the Pope can be dead wrong in his interpretations of law.
For the S.S.P.X, the main problem of the N.O.M. is its lack of clarity on the nature of the Sacrifice and the extent to which the New Mass is open to heretical interpretations. There are a few other concerns but this is the big one.
I have reason to believe, as Bishop Fellay has stated, that Pope Benedict XVI has formed a committee to work on a ‘project’ to fix the New Mass. Abp. Ranjith has denied that there are plans in the works but this is clever side-stepping. Rome never plans things; she works on projects, which are then vetted by various dicasteries. (I know this because I was consulted in this process on one occasion.)
I think that the Pope will alter the New Mass so that it clarifies that the Sacrifice is primarily a Sacrifice of our Lord by our Lord to the Almighty Father, done in an unbloody way to make available to the living and the dead the merits earned by Christ at Calvary; and that it is only secondarily that it is a sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise and only thirdly a joining of our own sacrifices to those of Christ at Calvary. He may also alter the N.O. Confiteor to restore the Indulgentiam (absolution for venial sins) and a petition in both parts of it to our Lady and the saints.
I think that His Holiness will meet enormous opposition if he should try to abolish Eucharistic Prayers. But he might restore the traditional Words of Consecration and make the Memorial Acclamation optional, introduced by a formula such as ‘Let us proclaim our faith in Christ’.
More practically, I hope that he will abolish the N.O. Offertory and restore the traditional one. Other changes could be restoration of most of the priest’s old gestures and an affirmation that any priest may celebrate versus solem orientem. Next would be a return to kneeling to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.
These sorts of changes would still allow the liberals to avoid an altered Confiteor by using one of the other penitential rites; they could still have their Memorial Acclamation, Eucharistic Prayer Number Two, and the wild and crazy hug of peace. They could also keep their banjos and so on. They might even be allowed, for an intermediate period, to keep their N.O. Offertory *as an option*. Lente, lente: slowly and gradually their options would be reduced and the clown Masses forgotten.
Hence I think that the Pope will traditionalise the New Mass but slowly and, at first, often through the making available of options.
Such changes would remove the Society’s objection that the New Mass is ‘intrinscially evil’, a charge which is very controversial in Anglophone countries because, in English, the term ‘evil’ always carries subjective connotations which were not intended by the S.S.P.X (or were they?!).
P.K.T.P.
April 9, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Here is a much better source for the information.
http://remnantnewspaper.com/archives/archive-2007-0715-bishop_fellay_on_summorum_pontif.htm
April 9, 2008 at 2:41 pm
http://remnantnewspaper.com/archives/archive-2007-0715-bishop_fellay_on_summorum_pontif.htm
April 9, 2008 at 2:42 pm
ok… well i’ve tried to post the link but it doesn’t seem to want the whole thing.
It’s a Remnant article. My email address is sjsanborn@gmail.com if you’d like it.
SS
April 9, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Dear Mr. Sanborn:
Thank you for the excellent link. I urge everyone on this blog to read it. It is very interesting.
My first reaction to Bishop Fellay’s comments is that, at first, he seems to be open to a provisional structure while negotiations ensue, for he writes that doctrine must be resolved before the conclusion of a “final practical canonical agreement”. Note the term “final”. But then he seems to close this door, when he uses the phrase “any sort of practical agreement”. Still, I sense from his tone that he is at least open to a provisional structure during discussions.
One problem, however, is that Bishop Fellay does not seem to be interested in making any sort of formal response to move the process forward. He seems to accept the idea that S.P. fulfils his first pre-condition but their is no sense that he plans to thank the Holy Father in any public or private letter. It may be that he will wait to see how S.P. is implemented.
I also noticed that, when the questioner asked why the S.S.P.X did not accept what the Campos and I.P.B. had accepted, he did not answer the question but changed the subject.
If Bishop Fellay has not had any discussions with Rome since November of 2005, we might ask why. It would be good for the Church for us to move forward.
P.K.T.P.
April 10, 2008 at 4:07 am
Anon,
I would like to drop back to a previous point you made regarding the SSPX. You mentioned that unless they made some sort of agreement (and I am paraphrasing here out of laziness) that eventually they would face decline and then decimation.
How do you arrive at this conclusion? Everywhere I look in the Catholic world I see decline and decimation, with rare exception and of course those exceptions are tradition based groups.
The SSPX has done nothing but grow at a pace they can hardly keep up with. Much of this growth has been the result of the Novus Ordo Church attempting to build a Burger King across the street from McDonald’s, only to realize we like McD’s burgers better… lots of free publicity and advertising.
Even offshoots such as the Fraternity of Saint Peter (which must make the SSPX good according to the logic of a previous post… since the SSPV somehow makes them bad…) have helped to bring many to the SSPX… or more appropriately traditional Catholicism in the raw.
As for Bishop Fellay’s comments… I think it’s fair to say they are based (in my own view)on the fact that there is no ability to compromise with something intrinsically evil… and to follow up on your previous “evil” comment… of course they mean lacking a due good. You are fully aware of that I’m sure. I know the word evil conjures up witch’s brew and pitch forks…
The Novus Ordo lacks a due good in the same way a catechism that omits the Holy Trinity lacks a due good.
It is the Novus Ordo that will decimate itself in time.
And not to be flippant, but if the SSPX were to simply follow all of the example of the truly disobedient, if they’re to take anything from them… their’s is simply a waiting game. And of course it’s no game, but surely if the once schismatic are now brethren… if heretics now simply lack the fullness of truth… perhaps Rome will give up on its own auto-demolition and its completely illogical position on the SSPX.
And then the Force will be in balance again…