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 27, 2014 at 12:54 pm
Dear Long Skirts. Do you have children and do you teach them that they can reject an Ecumenical Council and do you teach them that, like Bishop Fellay said publicly, Pope Francis is a modernist; that is, a heretic?
Is that what you are teaching your children?
It prolly is for that is what the sspx is teaching the youth who go to their illicit masses; they are teaching them to reject an ecumenical council and they are teaching them the Pope is a heretic.
Given that reality, explain to me why youth, whose minds have been poisoned by this perverse schismatic propaganda (directly in opposition to Vatican I) would EVER accept reconciliation with the Holy See?
The sspx has raised two generations of young people who have been taught to reject an Ecumenical Council and who have been taught that at least one Pope has been, is, a heretic; they have been taught that Rome is the enemy and yet we are supposed to think a reconciliation is possible…
February 27, 2014 at 1:15 pm
Pat! Pat! what could you be thinking!
February 27, 2014 at 1:41 pm
There must have been a leftist storm over Archbold's report
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/there-must-have-been-leftist-storm-over.html#links
February 27, 2014 at 1:49 pm
I say what I say intentionally, and it provokes what I wish to provoke. It flushes the game from the underbrush. I like the contrast between thousands of priests lying to lay people about the validity of the absolutions they offer on the one hand, and me being warned of hell fire for use of 'bitches' on the other. It pretty much encapsulates what I think is wrong with Traditionalism, the ignorant, arrogant, overwrought, self-referential and competitive piety.
Pat used to have a solid readership of conservative Catholics who mostly attended solid NO masses, with a sprinkling of FSSP types. At this time and presumably for this reason, he and his brother were picked up by NCR/EWTN as bloggers.
Since the election of Francis, CMR and the pieces written for NCR has been on the move toward a much more radical Traditionalism (and away from humor, BTW). I used to wonder if anyone at NCR was awake, but apparently they are and they noticed this.
Is it within the power of the Pope to regularize the SSPX without any conditions? It would seem so. It's a juridical decision and the Pope is the highest juridical authority.
The point is that in the history of the Church (you know….tradition) Popes don't do that, because the substance of communion has always been more important than the appearance.
February 27, 2014 at 2:01 pm
I wonder if anyone at NCR is reading this blog, seeing that the Archbolds are not bothering to defend their publisher at all, and you could say even provoking a backlash against NCR via this post. I hope so. What Pat did here by re-publishing the article so quickly (and apparently without giving any time for consultation with his bosses at NCR) should get him the boot.
February 27, 2014 at 2:46 pm
So now Harry is openly calling for a man to be fired from his position because he disagrees with his opinion.
But don't dare call him a troll, or perhaps a little psychotic. Nah, that would be uncharitable.
February 27, 2014 at 3:14 pm
""Paul Zummo said…
So now Harry is openly calling for a man to be fired from his position because he disagrees with his opinion. ""
No, Paul, and your reading comprehension seems lacking. I'm saying that Pat acted thoughtlessly in re-posting here what his publishers deemed unfit and in doing so, bringing a backlash (intentionally?) against his publishers. That should get him booted, not the content.
Read more carefully next time.
BTW, I think you're a troll. Nobody sucks at reading that terribly.
February 27, 2014 at 3:18 pm
Long skirts wrote:
"""""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
(SNIP to remove some bad amateur poetry)
With outstretched arms
The daily crux
You nail the Truth
So not in flux
Never will lie
Only can free
Upon this rock
Catholicity."""""
Sheesh, why not just title it 'Non Serviam'.
February 27, 2014 at 3:36 pm
WHo did not see this coming from day one. I would like to be a poker game with anybody who has not seen Archbold's disdain for this "liberal" Pope. Pope Francis is Archbold's worst nightmare. He should just get on with and joing SSPX ..it is where is heart is. And according to Pope Francis that is what matters most.
February 27, 2014 at 4:40 pm
Harry, the reason you can call SSPX priests liars is that you believe in a distinction between telling the truth and telling a lie. I agree that that distinction exists – I don't believe the SSPX are liars, but I agree that it is possible to tell if someone is a liar, simply by analyzing what they say or write. Now there is a game afoot to challenge that basic assumption that you and I share. The game is to make words mean whatever we want them to mean. In the words of Roland Barthes, "Refusing to assign a 'secret,' ultimate meaning" to text "liberates what may be called an anti-theological activity, an activity that is truly revolutionary since to refuse meaning is, in the end, to refuse God and his hypostases—reason, science, law." (Death of the Author) To refuse meaning is to refuse God. That should send a chill down the spine of any Catholic, whatever rite they go to. It seems to me we should do all we can to defend plain interpretation of texts. Concerning the texts of the Council, I have read some excellent articles explaining how they are in continuity with Tradition. I say excellent, but they all depend on understanding words in their least obvious sense – words like liberty, person, religion, etc. This approach – the famous 'hermeneutic of continuity' – buys us obedience at the price of language, and in an age of postmodernism that is a heavy price to pay. Obedience depends on people being able to understand one another to function properly. I'm willing to listen, but I refuse to be Roland Barthes' accomplice.
February 27, 2014 at 4:50 pm
David Madeley said:
"The game is to make words mean whatever we want them to mean"
SACERDOS
“They have abandoned the Fort, those
who should have defended it.” (St. John Fisher)
Who held the Fort
Till the Calvary came
Fighting for all
In His Holy Name?
Who fed the sheep
As the pastures burned dry?
A few Good Shepherds
Heeding their cry.
Who led the charge
‘Gainst heresy’s Huns
Defending the degreed
To His lowliest ones?
Who battened down
The hatch of the barque
To warm cold souls
From shivering-seas dark?
“Who?” mocks Satan
Delighting in doubt
Fills you with questions,
Never lets you find out.
“Hoc est enum
Corpus meum…
and for many…” who kept
The dead words – Te Deum!
February 27, 2014 at 5:06 pm
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.
Dear Mr. Archbold. You do realise you are asking the Pope to ignore Tradition to gain the approval of those who reject Tradition, right?
Sadly, you make the common mistake of thinking that only that which has been infallibly defined must be adhered to; and you are not alone in that for, like your own self who described himself as a traditionalist, the vast majority of soi disant traditionalists think the very same thing not knowing that such an idea was formally condemned in the Syllabus of Errors.
The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. — Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863.
The Rise of the Online Trad Machine has sown error and reaped a false ideology before which a vast majority of soi disant traditionlaists genuflect before they rise to tell a Pope and an Ecumenical Council that he/it does not know the first thing about Tradition.
All of this would be hysterically funny were it not so serious and if it were not true that so many souls were being lead into mortal-sin-error.
February 27, 2014 at 5:21 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
February 27, 2014 at 5:22 pm
On a more positive note, people wondering about how the Pope might potentially recognize the Society might be interested in this article on the 'economy' of St Basil. He stressed the importance of avoiding certain controversial words, so long as equivalent circumlocutions could be substituted.
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/st_basils_economy_of_silence_in_the_face_of_heresy.htm
"Therefore, let us seek for nothing more, but hold out to the brethren who wish to be united with us the Creed of Nicaea; and, if they agree with it, let us require further that they must not say that the Holy Ghost is a creature, nor be in communion with those who say it.
But I think that we should demand nothing beyond this [i.e please don't make them say that the Holy Ghost is 'consubstantial' with the Father and the Son – see article]. In fact, I am convinced that by a longer association and an experience together without strife, even if it should be necessary to add more for the purpose of explanation, the Lord who makes all things work together unto good for those who love Him will grant it."
February 27, 2014 at 5:24 pm
The first comment was identical, except for the quotation marks.
February 27, 2014 at 5:32 pm
David, I think if the SSPX was open to that sort of solution, it would have been done under Benedict. My reading of SSPX materials, starting years ago with 'The problem of the liturgical reform" (The red paperback, the one that reads as if it was edited by a sixth-grader) has convinced me that they want all or nothing when it comes to the second Vatican council.
February 27, 2014 at 5:54 pm
bornacatholic, when Francis comes out and says Jesus was a sinner, twice, and that our sin is his sin, and that he likes it when we say that we will sin again, he is speaking as a Lutheran and outside Tradition. It is material, if not formal, heresy. It's also just offensive to all Catholic ears.
February 27, 2014 at 6:11 pm
Sigh. So much in-fighting all over: in the Church, in the world, in families and marriages. I ask the Lord what can I do? The answer was to do what I can in my own small sphere of influence: to lead parish programs, to visit the elderly, to be involved in pro-life work and to better live my vocation as wife and mother. That is what I can do to bring an attitude of peace.
Sadly, I am far from perfect with this as I get upset about things I cannot control. Let us pray for as much union as possible among all Christians and as much good will as possible among all peoples and do our little parts.
February 27, 2014 at 6:17 pm
Dear JB. Your comment has aught to do with what I wrote in response to what Mr. Archbold wrote and whose specific statement that I responded to had aught to do with what you claim our Sweet Jesus on Earth said.
February 27, 2014 at 6:19 pm
Harry, I agree – what I had in mind was the Pope making a unilateral statement that the SSPX are in communion, along the lines of St Basil. Not saying it's likely but if it were to happen it would probably be along those lines. My preference would be for an agreement that is as clear as possible so that all Catholics, not just the SSPX, understand precisely what is expected of them re: the council. What precise attitude should I adopt towards false religions? Tolerance I can get along with, raising it to the level of a 'right' is a much stronger claim and we need to know where we stand.