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 11:13 pm
Dear Augistinus. Yu are a little late with your fear of infiltration by protestants.
I am still very suspicious (Tongue-in-cheekily) of all of the Jews who infiltrated the Catholic Church and assumed EVERY SINGLE position of authority right from the get-go; heck, Jesus even chose a Jew to be the first Pope.
I guess we were screwed right from the get go and don't tell me the soi disant traditionalists are going to save us; even the great Traditionalist, Dom Prosper Gueranger, in "the Liturgical Year," described Pentecost as The Jewish Pentecost
February 26, 2014 at 11:24 pm
Hey Harry, you owe Pat 50 dollars. I believe in Evolution – divinely planned and directed. Anyone who doesn't accept Evolution, has a weak science background in the Life Sciences. I was a biology and philosophy major in college. I am not a geo-centrist, either. As are as 9/11 being and inside job – wrong again! I am a scientist by education – therefore, I follow the scientific method. As a philosopher, I follow logic – and use reason and faith to inform my conscience.
And lastly, I am not an "SSPXer" – which I bet you thought I was. Being a traditionalist is to be Catholic. I attend both a couple N.O. parishes and a FSSP Parish. Although, I believe the N.O. is valid, it certainly has it's defects in my opinion. However, I wish it were reformed or abolished outright, admittedly.
February 26, 2014 at 11:30 pm
Dear Bornacatholic,
I wish a flood or Jews would convert to the one true Church. I welcome my Jewish brothers with open arms! I'm talking about Masons and Protestants that have succeeded in "Protestantizing" the majority of the Church.
February 26, 2014 at 11:36 pm
…As a matter of fact, I welcome every single person on this earth into the Church. I wish that ALL would convert – not subvert. I don't like it when people convert who don't accept it's teachings and try to change and subvert Her teachings.
February 27, 2014 at 12:02 am
Excellent article Thanks
February 27, 2014 at 12:43 am
This comment has been removed by the author.
February 27, 2014 at 1:24 am
""Hey Harry, you owe Pat 50 dollars.""
Actually, I had two 50 dollar bets and then doubled down. It's a good thing he didn't accept. I'd actually owe him $200.
Good thing you're not SSPX…so why are you so nuts about EWTN? Anyone with all of your smarts should be able to figure out exactly how that network runs…and why your conspiracy-mongering is stupid.
February 27, 2014 at 1:35 am
So, since Rorate is a bunch of little bitches who won't allow comments, let's just do it here:
Rorate Caeli posted:
""""""""In this case, not the Pope Emeritus, but poor Pat Archbold. EWTN's National Catholic Register and their intolerance just proved Benedict XVI right – one more time! It cannot be that Pentecostals have full presence in their paper, and their own Catholic brothers and sisters (whose priests are in an irregular situation, but are still priests, celebrating Catholic sacraments every single day) do not. How can unity ever be achieved thus? Curiously enough, we are pretty confident that Francis would be the first to reject this demeaning level of servility and sycophancy."""""
So, Pat suggested regularizing a group of priests who reject parts of an ecumenical council, and you don't think that's a big deal, because lots of other people are heretics. Great. That's some tight reasoning. Further, what is sycophantic is to say SSPX priests are 'celebrating Catholic sacraments every day' without noting the important part: Illicitly and without faculties!
That's like commenting approvingly on a loving couple, raising their children together every day, and neglecting to mention that they aren't married.
Well done Pat, for being a doofus again. Well done, Rorate, for humping the leg of the SSPX, again. Well done, EWTN and NCR, for apparently choosing your bloggers by throwing darts at a board blindfolded.
The only injustice here is that Pat's post got taken down, and all of Mark Shea's did not.
February 27, 2014 at 5:57 am
You're in danger of the fires of hell.
February 27, 2014 at 2:19 am
Harry, I've been in communion with the Church 7 years now. I'm what most would call a "revert" – only though God's great gift of Faith to me. Faith was the one cardinal virtue, I had never experienced. My science and philosophy studies refined and confirmed my agnosticism. Without faith, it is impossible by definition to believe in God. I had hope but no empirical evidence that would convince me that the Judeo-Christian God exists.
I have been following EWTN for the past seven years. There are solid "hosts" there to be sure. Fr. Pacwa, Johnnette Benkovic, and a couple others are pretty solid. I can't say that for everyone – mostly neo-cons. Especially the Catholic Answers hosts, namely Patrick Coffee, Jimmy Aikin, and Mark Shea. I would argue that Catholic Answers is the most influential and most anti-tradition minded of the bunch. Also, I find Raymond Arroyo pretty solid as well.
The fact that Pat's article got pulled by EWTN, provides more evidence of the clout the Neo-cons have within EWTN.
February 27, 2014 at 2:43 am
This comment has been removed by the author.
February 27, 2014 at 3:40 am
In honor of the St. Pius X Priests and all the truly, holy Priests preserving not only the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass but the whole Catholic Faith…
UPON THIS ROCK
Weary, weary,
On this earth
Shielding souls
Beyond their worth.
Few are grateful
Some regress
Others proud
They won't confess
When the waves
Break on the shore
Warning them
What is before.
Established
You stand on this rock
'Gainst the gales
Fore those who mock
Facing squalls
They cannot see
But all behold
Your bended knee.
Few will follow
Some deny
Oblivious
They won't comply.
Then a blue moon
Saffron sun
Come together
Almost one.
Fingers blessed
With Holy Oil
You lift the Light…
Sun moon recoil.
Blinding many
Opening eyes
Contradiction
Most despise.
But on this rock
Eroded-rife
You stand your ground
Opposing strife.
Between the storms
And sheep you block
The tempest winds
That hurt the flock.
With outstretched arms
The daily crux
You nail the Truth
So not in flux
Never will lie
Only can free
Upon this rock
Catholicity.
February 27, 2014 at 3:40 am
Yikes.. there is a lack of charity here, as usual from the "tradition bashers"like Harry Seldon
February 27, 2014 at 3:44 am
I'm impressed with Pat Archbold's charity and tolerance. It not only extends to his Catholic brothers in the SSPX, but to paranoid loopy nutcases like Harry Seldon. Can't say I would go quite that far.
February 27, 2014 at 4:01 am
I'll defend Harry a bit…Although he made the common error of making a few assumptions – which many of us are guilty, mind you – he did at least admit his mistake with me – and frankly, I appreciate it. I wouldn't go so far as call Harry a Nutcase – Culbreath… that's nothing more than name-calling – which is counter productive.
February 27, 2014 at 4:08 am
…and by the way, Harry. You too should refrain from name-calling. It detracts from the substance of your argument/opinion and lacks charity.
February 27, 2014 at 4:10 am
@Harry Seldon wrote: "There. That thoughtful enough for you?"
Actually, yes. I don't agree with the conclusion, but the exposition is solid.
Is granting absolution for past transgressions and bringing the SSPX into full communion with Rome without any pre-conditions within the Pope's power – as opposed, to say, changing the doctrine on divorce?
If so, do Catholics have a right to petition the Church for such things that are within it's power to grant?
I think the answer to those two questions is yes. Pat's article is bold, but reduced to its essence it is asking the Church to do something that is within its power to do. You can argue, Harry, that Pope Francis would be nuts to do it, but not that it isn't it within his power. At least I don't think you can do that and be correct.
Or –
Is Pat allowed, when he gets on his knees to pray, to ask God to reconcile the SSPX and the Church? Is a petition to God Our Father to touch the heart of the Pope to reconcile with our brethren a bad prayer, as compared to someone praying for a doctrinal change on divorce?
If that prayer is a valid one, how can you say that it is outrageous for Pat to ask our earthly father what we are validly allowed to ask of Our Father in Heaven?
Based on that alone, the Register's removal of the article is horrible editorial policy. What they should have done was ask a writer with an opposing view to lay out the reasons you gave earlier in this thread.
February 27, 2014 at 4:23 am
@Augustinus, @HarrySeldon
Good back and forth. Things can get overheated sometimes – I know I do – but compared to a combox on the really important stuff that can affect our salvation – like baseball's new homeplate collision rule – this place is very tame.
Harry, it's not an easy task to take on all comers. Good for you for standing your ground. But seriously, the comment on Rorate (little bitches) is way over the top. In all Christian brotherhood, an apology – unless it was meant as a joke and it went past me – might be a good idea. Sleep on it at least. Read it again tomorrow and see if that's not the right thing to do.
February 27, 2014 at 6:59 am
You're right, Weouro – we all are "in danger of the fires of hell." To think otherwise, is presumptuous. So, what's your point?
February 27, 2014 at 9:30 am
Speaking for myself, no-one is going to convince me that the council is in continuity by insult and intimidation. Thomas Pink and John Lamont may be on to something with religious liberty – I'll keep an eye on that debate.
In the meantime, I'd like to see people take more personal responsibility for the positions they hold and the potential consequences of those positions. I don't mind admitting there are some disadvantages to the SSPX stance, which Bishop Fellay himself alluded to in his letters to the three bishops. It does come with one major advantage, and that is that language retains its power to communicate meaning. The 'hermeneutic of continuity' enables us to breathe a huge sigh of relief, but when the dust settles we will realize that we now have the power to make words mean whatever we want them to mean. That smells like relativism to me.
February 27, 2014 at 10:54 am
If any pope had chance to bring back SSPX, it would be pope Benedict. The pope Francis is in completely different mindset. Because of his easygoing attitude towards everything, he is considered disrespectful towards his office, tradition and true faith.