Please find the original NCR story below.
. . .
Pope Francis and the SSPX:
An Opportunity
An Opportunity
By PATRICK ARCHBOLD
By now, many of you have
probably seen the Tony Palmer video last week that was so exciting to many.
probably seen the Tony Palmer video last week that was so exciting to many.
At a Protestant conference,
Tony Palmer, an Anglican priest, brought along an iPhone video of greeting from
Pope Francis. The subject of the presentation and of the Pope’s recording was
unity of Christians.
Tony Palmer, an Anglican priest, brought along an iPhone video of greeting from
Pope Francis. The subject of the presentation and of the Pope’s recording was
unity of Christians.
In his remarks, Pope Francis
made the following statements to our separated brethren regarding the
separation: “Separated because, it’s sin that has separated us, all our sins.
The misunderstandings throughout history. It has been a long road of sins that
we all shared in. Who is to blame? We all share the blame. We have all sinned.
There is only one blameless, the Lord.”
made the following statements to our separated brethren regarding the
separation: “Separated because, it’s sin that has separated us, all our sins.
The misunderstandings throughout history. It has been a long road of sins that
we all shared in. Who is to blame? We all share the blame. We have all sinned.
There is only one blameless, the Lord.”
It is certainly true.
Regardless of the truth of Catholic doctrine, the Church has accepted its share
of the blame for the misunderstanding that were allowed to deepen and harden,
leading to centuries of separation.
Regardless of the truth of Catholic doctrine, the Church has accepted its share
of the blame for the misunderstanding that were allowed to deepen and harden,
leading to centuries of separation.
When I heard this, something
else written by Pope Francis’ predecessor came immediately to mind. In 2007,
along with the issuance of the “motu proprio” Summorum Pontificum,
Pope Benedict XVI issued a letter explaining his reasoning. In that letter, he
made the following statement.
else written by Pope Francis’ predecessor came immediately to mind. In 2007,
along with the issuance of the “motu proprio” Summorum Pontificum,
Pope Benedict XVI issued a letter explaining his reasoning. In that letter, he
made the following statement.
Looking
back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have
rent the body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical
moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s
leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression
that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the
fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes
an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who
truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a
sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: “Our mouth
is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us,
but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts
also!” (2 Corinthians 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context,
but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let
us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith
itself allows.
back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have
rent the body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical
moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s
leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression
that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the
fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes
an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who
truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a
sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: “Our mouth
is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us,
but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts
also!” (2 Corinthians 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context,
but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let
us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith
itself allows.
It strikes me that this may
be one of those critical moments in history to which His Holiness refers.
be one of those critical moments in history to which His Holiness refers.
With the breakdown of
discussion between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X at the end of the
previous pontificate, the public mood during this first year of the current
pontificate, and other internal events, traditional Catholics, both inside and
outside the Church, have felt increasingly marginalized. Whether fair or true, I say
without fear of contradiction that this is a prevailing sentiment.
discussion between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X at the end of the
previous pontificate, the public mood during this first year of the current
pontificate, and other internal events, traditional Catholics, both inside and
outside the Church, have felt increasingly marginalized. Whether fair or true, I say
without fear of contradiction that this is a prevailing sentiment.
This perception of
marginalization has manifested itself in increasingly strident and frankly
disrespectful rhetoric on the part of some traditionalists and their leaders.
marginalization has manifested itself in increasingly strident and frankly
disrespectful rhetoric on the part of some traditionalists and their leaders.
I have great concern that
without the all the generosity that faith allows by the leaders of the Church,
that this separation, this wound on the Church, will become permanent. In fact,
without such generosity, I fully expect it. Such permanent separation and
feeling of marginalization will likely separate more souls than just those
currently associated with the SSPX.
without the all the generosity that faith allows by the leaders of the Church,
that this separation, this wound on the Church, will become permanent. In fact,
without such generosity, I fully expect it. Such permanent separation and
feeling of marginalization will likely separate more souls than just those
currently associated with the SSPX.
I have also come to believe
that Pope Francis’ is exactly the right Pope to do it. In his address to the
evangelicals, he makes clear his real concern for unity.
that Pope Francis’ is exactly the right Pope to do it. In his address to the
evangelicals, he makes clear his real concern for unity.
So here is what I am asking.
I ask the Pope to apply that wide generosity to the SSPX and to normalize
relations and their standing within the Church. I am asking the Pope to do this
even without the total agreement on the Second Vatican Council. Whatever their
disagreements, surely this can be worked out over time with the SSPX firmly
implanted in the Church. I think that the Church needs to be more generous
toward unity than to insist upon dogmatic adherence to the interpretation of a
non-dogmatic council. The issues are real, but they must be worked out with our
brothers at home and not with a locked door.
I ask the Pope to apply that wide generosity to the SSPX and to normalize
relations and their standing within the Church. I am asking the Pope to do this
even without the total agreement on the Second Vatican Council. Whatever their
disagreements, surely this can be worked out over time with the SSPX firmly
implanted in the Church. I think that the Church needs to be more generous
toward unity than to insist upon dogmatic adherence to the interpretation of a
non-dogmatic council. The issues are real, but they must be worked out with our
brothers at home and not with a locked door.
Further, Pope Francis’
commitment to the aims of the Second Vatican Council is unquestioned. Were he
to be generous in such a way, nobody would ever interpret it to be a rejection
of the Council. How could it be? This perception may not have been the case in
the last pontificate. Pope Francis is uniquely suited to this magnanimous
moment.
commitment to the aims of the Second Vatican Council is unquestioned. Were he
to be generous in such a way, nobody would ever interpret it to be a rejection
of the Council. How could it be? This perception may not have been the case in
the last pontificate. Pope Francis is uniquely suited to this magnanimous
moment.
I believe this generosity is
warranted and standard practice in the Church. We do not insist on religious
orders that may have strayed even further in the other direction sign a copy of
Pascendi Dominici Gregis
before they can be called Catholic again. So please let us not insist on the
corollary for the SSPX. Must we insist on more for a group that doctrinally
would not have raised an eyebrow a mere fifty years ago? I pray not.
warranted and standard practice in the Church. We do not insist on religious
orders that may have strayed even further in the other direction sign a copy of
Pascendi Dominici Gregis
before they can be called Catholic again. So please let us not insist on the
corollary for the SSPX. Must we insist on more for a group that doctrinally
would not have raised an eyebrow a mere fifty years ago? I pray not.
Give them canonical status
and organizational structure that will protect them. Bring them home, for their
sake and the sake of countless other souls. I truly believe that such
generosity will be repaid seven-fold. Pope Benedict has done so much of the
heavy lifting already, all that is required is just a little more.
and organizational structure that will protect them. Bring them home, for their
sake and the sake of countless other souls. I truly believe that such
generosity will be repaid seven-fold. Pope Benedict has done so much of the
heavy lifting already, all that is required is just a little more.
Please Holy Father, let us
not let this moment pass and this rift grow into a chasm. Make this generous
offer and save the Church from further division. Do this so that none of your
successors will ever say, “If only we had done more.”
not let this moment pass and this rift grow into a chasm. Make this generous
offer and save the Church from further division. Do this so that none of your
successors will ever say, “If only we had done more.”
February 26, 2014 at 3:06 pm
""Can EWTN/NCR even perform a Mea Culpa large enough to regain their credibility after this idiotic decision?""
For the 14 people who noticed? No. Probably not.
February 26, 2014 at 3:13 pm
Come on, are you saying you've never been to confession with a priest who's given you some dodgy advice? If so you are very lucky – don't assume it's common or will carry on for the rest of your life. And don't assume you can innoculate yourself against bad advice by good reading. You are far more suggestible when in the confessional or listening to a homily.
February 26, 2014 at 3:16 pm
But let's back up a bit, Harry. What's your hermeneutic of continuity? How does Dignitas Humanae square with the Syllabus of Errors? If you have an idea, I would genuinely like to hear it.
February 26, 2014 at 3:27 pm
I think we ought to be very careful of ever saying "It is too late for mercy" lest that be true for ourselves.
February 26, 2014 at 3:29 pm
If you're interested, there are some excellent articles on this topic by Thomas Pink and John Lamont. I'm still skeptical but it's a start.
February 26, 2014 at 3:30 pm
David –
So, you fail. Be more careful in your comments in the future, lest people notice how vacuous they are.
February 26, 2014 at 3:40 pm
Fail? At what?
February 26, 2014 at 3:45 pm
If you're saying I need to be more precise – re: confession – I can be more precise. But it means going into a lot of detail about 20th century personalism and I thought it would be better to get you to dwell on your own experiences.
February 26, 2014 at 3:46 pm
@Seldon: "Pat is advocating for the SSPX being regularized without accepting an ecumenical council."
The SSPX is being punished for being forthright in their rejection of 5% of Vatican II. At the same time, modernist clergy are being rewarded for being covert in their rejection of the remaining 95%. Tu quoque, granted. But still. Let's not be disingenuous here.
Having said that, I wouldn't expect the SSPX to agree to regularization along the lines suggested by Mr. Archbold. Their big gamble was to insist on doctrinal dialogues with the Vatican, in the hope that their interlocutors would be converted to their view of tradition. By all accounts, the dialogues were a fiasco.
The SSPX could possibly act as traditional leaven in the Church, once regularized, but they have consistently insisted that regularization would be predicated on the Church's return to tradition beforehand, not afterwards. It's a classic rock-and-a-hard-place, and a tragedy on all sides.
February 26, 2014 at 3:49 pm
I find it very odd that NCR pulled this (or refused to post it) – Its very charitable…. But then again, the "soft-Sede" and Ultra-Modernist" side of "Catholicism" will set their sites on the Combox, and NCR may have not wated to deal with it.
Waht better way than to bring SSPX into full communion, than to get rid of the ultra modernists and sedevavatists, which are the real problems. Right now they just hide in plain site.
February 26, 2014 at 4:47 pm
The Pope's video to the Pentecostals was very heart-felt and moving and I think a great step in the right direction. I believe that it takes both time and a loving attitude from both sides to heal that division. And it will take time, lots of time. I have conversed with some Pentecostals online, and from the sound of it, there has been in some places an environment of hate for the Catholic Church there.
I believe that the love from Christ softens hearts and makes full communion possible. In time, it could be that Pentecostal's hearts are softened, and then true dialogue can happen. But the bottom line is, that Pentecostals, just like anyone else, need to accept both the Truth of the Catholic Church and her authority. The only way they get there is by first turning to us with loving hearts and learning.
Allowing the SSPX to not accept Vatican II is not the way to reunite them. They also need to turn in love toward the Church. From what I understand, traditional teaching is powerful, and I have listened to a lot of it (nearly every homily given by the priests at AudioSancto) and I consider myself a more traditional Catholic, and I love tradition. But I have also a feel for some traditional persons and their attitudes, and they insist more on doctrinal agreement and would outright reject this approach to coaxing anyone into communion. It's more black and white to them, it seems, and less the loving grey. And in a sense they are right to insist on doctrinal agreement. And so should we. And that is why the Church absolutely SHOULD NOT allow the SSPX back in and not having to accept Vatican II. It would create real problems from within the Church. It's not worth caving on that for the sake of superficial unity. The people in the SSPX probably wouldn't want to be a part of a pussilanimous church that caves in to the demands of others for the sake of said "unity" which is not unity at all. We should be bold too, but with a heart that listens. And they need to do the same.
So I disagree with your article Matt. We just have to be patient. The Lord alone can heal this rift. Compromise in this way is a fleshy means to solve a real spiritual problem. It doesn't work that way.
February 26, 2014 at 4:50 pm
Don't fret too much, Pat. No one mistakes the National Catholic Register for a real newspaper. It's a a Church propaganda rag, and powerful Church leaders want part of peace with the SSPX.
February 26, 2014 at 4:50 pm
Correction: Want "no" peace…
February 26, 2014 at 4:56 pm
Catholics are not bound to accept anything novel in the Second Vatican Council.
Pope Paul VI himself declared VII a non-Dogmatic Council.
The only parts of the VII documents that are binding on all the faithful are those parts which the Council just restated, that the Church always and everywhere taught.
The SSPX have always believed this.
His Excellency, Bishop Fellay, in a fairly recent interview said as much.
February 26, 2014 at 6:05 pm
"For the 14 people who noticed? No. Probably not."
Harry, you're probably right. The only poor saps to have taken notice are those few, silly souls that are still left trying to practice Catholicism.
Will the last person left please turn off the lights?
February 26, 2014 at 6:13 pm
Dear Mr Hunter. That is simply untrue. Christian cCatholics must accept everything decided by a council and they must accept it with a religious submission of mind.
Here is Yves Congar contrary to the claims made by the enemies of an Ecumenical Council that one does not have to accept any new teaching:
The only passage of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church that could be considered a truly dogmatic declaration is the one that concerns the sacramentality of the episcopate (LG III, n. 21): in fact, it settles a question that until now had been freely disputed by theologians. At the same time it is proposed as a teaching on the same level with the others, without the use of the emphatic, repeated and solemn formulas that normally introduce a ‘definition….
All of the false claims made by those who oppose the Popes, Council, and Mass were systematically answered long ago; just google
A Prescription against Traditionalism
and as for those who demand a specific formulation of Dogmatic/Infallible formulations, see Bishop Vincent Gasser warning about how many problems would result from that demand (I posted his entire Relatio at Vatican 1 on my crummy blog).
The sad and pathetic reality is that the soi disant traditionalists have the most novel reasons for opposing the solid Catholic Tradition of accepting the teachings of an Ecumenical Council (Catholic Encyclopedia notes that those who reject any teaching of an ecumenical council are rejected by the Church)
The Rise of the Online Trad Machine has resulted in a huge chasm between the Church and those who claim authority to teach the Church what Tradition is; and down through that chasm one can hear the same false charges endlessly echoed.
February 26, 2014 at 6:23 pm
Bishop Vincent Gasser at Vatican I (I presume most are still jake with this council)
030. But some will persist and say: there remains, therefore, the duty of the Pontiff – indeed most grave in its kind – of adhering to the means apt for discerning the truth, and, although this matter is not strictly dogmatic, it is, nevertheless, intimately connected with dogma. For we define: the dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff are infallible. Therefore let us also define the form to be used by the Pontiff in such a judgment. It seems to me that this was the mind of some of the most reverend fathers as they spoke from this podium. But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here.
Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?
031. Perhaps someone will say: if we don't have a law, let us make one. But let us not do this lest we run up against that already condemned law which said that the council was above the Pope. Furthermore, of what use would be such a law? Would it not be completely useless, since it would never be able to be verified by the faithful and the bishops scattered throughout the world? Even more, it would be a very dangerous thing since it would offer the opportunity for innumerable foolish objections and anxieties. Therefore, let Peter gird himself according to the word of our Lord Jesus Christ, since Peter does not grow old while the world grows old but rather renews his powers like the eagle.
So, contrary to the innumerable claims issued sine the Rise of the Online Trad Machine, ther have been THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF INFALLIBLE JUDGMENTS MADE BY THE HOLY SEE
And, as Bishop Gasser wisely noted, demanding a specific formula would just lead to the very trouble we see in any com box on any Catholic Blog any day of the year.
February 26, 2014 at 6:26 pm
@Harry Seldon –
Harry, I used to read worthy comments from you. Even if I disagreed, I always thought, "gee, what he says needs to have a thoughtful response."
Now, you just seem to be trolling. I have never attended an SSPX chapel or mass. I'm fuzzy on their status. Many comments from those that do attend resonate with me. Some don't.
To treat a group of people that accept every jot and tittle of every council except the most recent, self-described non-dogmatic one with such derision, whilst bear-hugging out-and-out heretics, is a cause for cognitive dissonance for many.
February 26, 2014 at 6:54 pm
We already have the National Catholic Distorter, now this. Pray Pray Pray
February 26, 2014 at 7:09 pm
David,
On the desperate insanity of the "hermeneutic of continuity," see this essay:
The Oath Against Modernism vs. the "Hermeneutic of Continuity," by John Vennari