Via Media

Via Media


Big doings in France?

posted by awelborn

Rocco reports on a confab being called for Wednesday in France…go read if SSPX doings are of interest. Very interesting.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(61)
post a comment
Socius

posted January 30, 2006 at 9:12 pm


I once spent several days in retreat in Flavigny. Flavigny, a small hilltop town in Burgundy of around 500 inhabitants, is where the movie “Chocolat” starring Juliette Binoche, was filmed. It was the site of an old monastery (now in private hands, except for the parish church). The monks of Flavigny manufactured a famous Aniseed candy, which is still produced there. It is the site of a remarkable recent monastic foundation. It is also the site of the Séminaire Saint-Curé-d’Ars of the Society of St. Pius X.
Having been founded in the town of Clairval in Switzerland, The Abbey of St. Joseph of Clairval was established in Flavigny in the 1970’s in the former house of a nobleman, which had become an Ursuline convent. http://www.clairval.com/index_en.htm
The founding abbot–a widower, former member of the Resistance, and captain in the Gendarmes–having provided for his children, entered a Benedictine monastery that specialized in giving a five-day version of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. When a new abbot of that monastery decided to cease the practice of the Exercises, he gave his blessing to a group of monks to make their own foundation, which they did in Clairval, Switzerland. They elected the former captain and père de famille abbot. The first priestly ordinations of the community were performed by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre–these being done before the excommunications. The founding abbot of Clairval parted ways with Lefebvre long before the schism. Although I believe the Abbey of St. Joseph de Clairval was originally established in Flavigny without the blessing of the Archbishop of Dijon, eventually it was recognized by the archbishop and reportedly enjoys good relations with the current scholar Archbishop Msgr. Roland Minnerath, who has ordained priests for the Abbey. http://www.cedrerouge.net/nta/nta49/flavigny.htm Minnerath, reportedly close to the Pope, served as special secretary to the recent Synod on the Eucharist.
The Abbey celebrates all its liturgies in Latin: the monastic office using the books published by the Abbey of Sainte-Madelaine du Barroux (though slightly shortened to makes possible the exercises); private Masses according to the 1962 Missal (Tridentine) after Lauds in oratories throughout the abbey; a sung conventual Novus Ordo Mass, that is not concelebrated). Through its practice of giving the five-day Ignatian exercises, the Abbey has attracted many monastic vocations and led many young men to discern vocations to the diocesan priesthood. The Abbey is known to many through its spiritual letter that it circulates in English as well as French to all who would receive and read it. Close in practice in many ways to Solesmes and Fontgombault, the Abbey is independent of the Solesmes congregation due to its unique practice of giving the Exercises. There is one American priest in the Abbey, so those who speak only English will have there spiritual needs met there.
Pray that a few young Americans would enter the Abbey so that they might make a foundation in North America.



report abuse
 

Richard

posted January 30, 2006 at 9:33 pm


This SSPX split between Williamson and Fellay has seemingly been in the works for a long time now. This isn’t surprising.
It was pretty much impossible that they would all come back. I’m not sure even a total repudiation of the Council would do it.



report abuse
 

Jason

posted January 30, 2006 at 9:56 pm


I’m don’t understand. The excommunications will be annuled by who? Is the Pope gonna be there? His representative…? The way he put it, it’s just a meeting of SSPXers.



report abuse
 

John B

posted January 30, 2006 at 10:02 pm


This road has been traveled before, a supposed breakthough in Roman-SSPX relations, only to go nowhere. There were rumors last year of a breakthough, as there were in 2003 and 2001, and nothing came of this.
The SSPX has gone beyond what Abp. Lefebvre said “All we want is the mass”, and now, at least the Williamson wing is saying, is a repudiation of Vatican II. It seems to me too many in the SSPX enjoy being the king of their own little hill.
Its sad the venom Bp. Williamson has injected into the society is the cause of so much harm, since if the SSPX reconciled with the Rome, the graces would be massive, access to the Latin mass would be far greater than t he current use of indults, and as for Vatican II, the Holy Spirit protected overt error form getting into the texts of Vatican II, so t he SSPX can have a “counter spirit” of Vatican II to interpert the texts to be traditional.
That said, I will not believe there will be any change in the status-quo untill I see it.



report abuse
 

Pauli

posted January 31, 2006 at 12:51 am


I converted in 1994, Latin Rite. Started going to the Latin (indult) Mass shortly afterward. There I met another convert who basically came running in one door of the church and straight out another into schismo-land. Pretty soon he was at an SSPX seminary. Later I met some others who came to the indult for awhile, then went back to the SSPX for awhile – couldn’t decide what to do.
I always got the feeling that some of these people needed a psychiatrist pretty badly, but some of them were really sensitive and they had been scandalized by priests and bishops over what I felt, even with my newly-forming piety, were fairly trivial matters. They would adopt not just an anti-clericalism but an anti-ecclesialism which rivaled the lowest of low-church Protestants. I used to be more judgmental of them, but now that I understand them a little more I’m just intrigued…
By the way, don’t tell them they remind you of Protestants, they don’t like that. I found this out the hard way.



report abuse
 

Lawrence King

posted January 31, 2006 at 12:51 am


Jason wrote:

I’m don’t understand. The excommunications will be annuled by who? Is the Pope gonna be there? His representative…? The way he put it, it’s just a meeting of SSPXers.

Well, if it’s legitimate, then I would guess some representative of the Pope will be there. Presumably he would be authorized to grant X but not Y during the negotiations.
I fear that John B. is correct that some of the schismatics actually prefer to be schismatic.
But: I have noticed recently how the typical SSPX supporter spends a lot of emotional energy insisting that the SSPX is not in schism (it reminds me of how modern Mormons insist they are Christian, but that’s a digression). Well, suppose a lot of SSPXers have concluded that some of their leaders actually prefer schism. Maybe that’s the key thing that will turn the moderate SSPXers back towards Rome!
The “mass in private” thing is weird. What does “private” mean? If it means anything less than 100% of the SSPX’s current membership will be allowed to attend, why would they agree? But 100% of the membership must be tens of thousands of people — how is that private?



report abuse
 

Keith

posted January 31, 2006 at 6:25 am


By the way, don’t tell them they remind you of Protestants, they don’t like that. I found this out the hard way.
Of course they don’t like that. It’s like hitting them with a 2 x 4 of truth between the eyes. Many become quite angry especially when you start pointing out the similarities between the way the SSPX behaves and how Martin Luther behaved.



report abuse
 

charles R. Williams

posted January 31, 2006 at 6:57 am


The elements of a reconciliation with SSPX are clear:
1) A definitive interpretation of V2 in continuity with tradition.
2) Provision for the entire liturgy of 1962 to be celebrated everywhere that traditionalists are willing to support it.
3) The lifting of excommunications and validation of acts like annulments, marriages, confessions, etc. for which the SSPX lacked jurisdiction.
4) Some kind of permanent juridical structure that protects traditionalists and their institutions from unsympathetic or hostile bishops.
I think Pope Benedict is willing to offer this and the ball is in the SSPX court.



report abuse
 

Christopher Sarsfield

posted January 31, 2006 at 8:28 am


I think by private Mass, is meant that a priest at the parish level will not be able to offer the traditional Mass in the place of a scheduled New Mass. This is essentially the same requirement that exists to say the New Mass in Latin. It maintains the power of the local bishop to protect his flock from the evils of latin and chant. There is no way that an agreement will allow a local bishop to suppress the traditional Mass in an SSPX chapel.
Also, I can not imagine that most bishops that have an SSPX chapel in their diocese will not allow more traditional style Masses in their churches. Unless the bishop is willing to lose all the people that prefer the “sense of the sacred” to the local SSPX chapel. Considering the local parishes in my area, I would guess that more than half of the conservative/orthodox Catholics would attend the SSPX if they had a choice (ie the SSPX were regularized). I also think a number of young zealous priests that have had enough with their liberal pastors and bishops might be looking to join the Apostolic Administration of the SSPX. In the short term this could make it worse for the average American parish, but in the long run this will be a great blessing to the Church.



report abuse
 

Maureen O'Brien

posted January 31, 2006 at 9:14 am


Whether or not this is something to get excited about, it’s certainly something to pray about. It can’t hurt, it could help, and besides, Jesus told us to do it.
“Ut unum sint.”



report abuse
 

fbc

posted January 31, 2006 at 9:30 am


Pauli wrote: I always got the feeling that some of these people needed a psychiatrist pretty badly, but some of them were really sensitive and they had been scandalized by priests and bishops over what I felt, even with my newly-forming piety, were fairly trivial matters.
You pegged it, Pauli. There are a great many people at traditionalist chapels who display what might be termed paranoid tendencies. A fellow traditionalist explained it this way: these people are like children who’ve grown up with an abusive father — so it is sad but not surprising that they exhibit some quirks.



report abuse
 

Simon

posted January 31, 2006 at 9:42 am


I think by private Mass, is meant that a priest at the parish level will not be able to offer the traditional Mass in the place of a scheduled New Mass. This is essentially the same requirement that exists to say the New Mass in Latin.
Huh? Since when are parish priests not permitted to offer regularly scheduled Masses (novus ordo) in Latin?
Someone better tell my pastor, since the main Sunday Mass at my parish is all Latin (except readings and homily).



report abuse
 

Patrick Rothwell

posted January 31, 2006 at 9:52 am


I sure hope that Bishop Williamson is NOT part of any reconciliation deal – or if he is part of it, that he is ordered to retire and cease writing.



report abuse
 

chris

posted January 31, 2006 at 9:59 am


Man…I just got my new Baronius 1962 Missal just yesterday. Really. Even though I liked the Angelus Missal a bit better, I didn’t want to give money to a Schismatic publishing house. Don’t tell me I could have just waited 3 more days…



report abuse
 

Papabile

posted January 31, 2006 at 10:21 am


The elements of the reconciliation would be directly related to the ability to accept Vatican II in accord with Sacred Tradition.
This is precisely what Lefebvre demanded from the beginning, not just the Mass as John B asserts.
The December 22 speech by Benedict to the Curia went a LONG….LONG….LONG….. way toward creating an environment that will make this possible.
The meeting in Flavigny will be to get all the SSPXers on one page and then move forward.
Now, with respect to the in privato requirement for the Mass, that is related to any diocesan Priest. It would legitimize public Masses at all the Lefebvrist chapels.



report abuse
 

John Heavrin

posted January 31, 2006 at 10:23 am


chris, ever bought a book published by a Protestant publishing house? I believe that they are in overt schism from Rome, and have been for centuries.
This scrupulous hair-splitting is not very ecumenical, sir…:)



report abuse
 

charles R. Williams

posted January 31, 2006 at 10:36 am


“I sure hope that Bishop Williamson is NOT part of any reconciliation deal – or if he is part of it, that he is ordered to retire and cease writing.”
I imagine they will treat him like Bishop Gumbleton, ignoring his nonsense and and isolating him from any real influence.
The real issues here will arise at the diocesan level. Imagine LA sprinkled with SSPX parishes in communion with Rome teaching what seems radically different from Mahony-style Catholicism and competing for the same flock.



report abuse
 

francis

posted January 31, 2006 at 10:41 am


Charles – it wouldn’t just SEEM radically different. Mahoney is liberal even by ECUSA standards. And perhaps even less orthodox.



report abuse
 

Kevin Miller

posted January 31, 2006 at 10:43 am


Unfortunately, when some of the Trads talk about accepting Vatican II in continuity with Tradition, they don’t mean by that the same thing that Pope Benedict does. They mean effectively pretending that it didn’t say some of what it clearly said. (And this isn’t true only of the SSPXers and other schismatics, by the way – it’s true also of folks like Brian Harrison.)



report abuse
 

Christopher Sarsfield

posted January 31, 2006 at 11:31 am


Mr. Miller,
I am sure you meant to say Fr. Brian Harrison, but in your alarm at seeing your *private* interpretation of Vatican II being thrown out the window, I can understand how you could have missed that. Finally, we are going to have a debate on what Vatican II means, this can only be good for the Church. Maybe then some one with authority (unlike myself, and Mr. Miller, and Fr. Harrison) can say exactly what the Council meant. I hope Mr. Miller has the docility to the Church’s authority, that I am sure Fr. Harrison will have when the Church tells us what Vat. II meant.



report abuse
 

Tony A

posted January 31, 2006 at 11:37 am


Equating Gumbleton with Williamson? Excuse me? Not only is a a successor of the apostles, but Gumbleton is a good man doing God’s work. His opposition to nuclear weapons is more in line with catholic moral theology (a la Anscombe) than Catholics who ignore this teaching for reasons of political expediency (much as many leftist Catholics ignore abortion– the reasoning is identical). And even on issues of war that allow for more prudential considerations, he has more often than not been on the side of the Vatican (Gulf War 1, Gulf War 2).
On the other hand, Williamson and Fellay are schismatics. Nothing more to be said really.



report abuse
 

Christopher Sarsfield

posted January 31, 2006 at 11:46 am


Simon,
Your priest obviously has the permission of the Pastor (if he is not the pastor) and the bishop. Let me explain how a bishop ensures there are no Latin New Masses in his diocese. First he makes sure that every daily Mass is a scheduled English Mass (the priest can only say one Mass a day on weekdays). Then the bishop makes sure that the priest’s two Sunday Masses are again an English Mass. After all the people will not understand the Mass if it is in Latin, so the bishop must stop the priest at all costs. This is what the document that came from the CDW said:
[112.] Mass is celebrated either in Latin or in another language, provided that liturgical texts are used which have been approved according to the norm of law. *Except in the case of celebrations of the Mass that are scheduled by the ecclesiastical authorities to take place in the language of the people.* Priests are always and everywhere permitted to celebrate Mass in Latin.
-Redemptionis Sacramentum: On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist
The portion in asterisks assures that a bishop if he wishes can effectively ban the Novus Ordo in Latin at all diocesan parishes.



report abuse
 

AquinasShrugged

posted January 31, 2006 at 11:56 am


Many become quite angry especially when you start pointing out the similarities between the way the SSPX behaves and how Martin Luther behaved.

Just as many Novus Ordoites don’t like the fact that the modern Mass resembles a Lutheran service more than the former Mass.



report abuse
 

Christopher Sarsfield

posted January 31, 2006 at 11:57 am


Dear Tony A.,
I believe people are referring to Bishop Gumbleton’s seeming to reject certain teachings with regard to sexuality. I do not think anyone is criticizing his stance against nuclear weapons and both Gulf Wars.
BTW I am almost certain that both Bishop Williamson and Bishop Fellay were against both Gulf Wars and nuclear weapons.



report abuse
 

AquinasShrugged

posted January 31, 2006 at 12:05 pm


Unfortunately, when some of the Trads talk about accepting Vatican II in continuity with Tradition, they don’t mean by that the same thing that Pope Benedict does. They mean effectively pretending that it didn’t say some of what it clearly said.
Sort of like Amchurch in practice pretending that Sacrosanctum Concilium doesn’t say what IT clearly said.



report abuse
 

John B

posted January 31, 2006 at 12:15 pm


The SSPX does not disagree with the core dogmas and doctrines of the faith, the problem is with the disciplines, in terms of the authority Rome has to change the mass, and in terms of how the church is governed. That said, serious issues still arise the longer the Bp. Williamson wing hearts continue to grow harder.
To Tony A, just because someone is not in formal schiam, does not mean they are not indeed in material schism. Bp. Gumbelton is indeed in material schism, or at least comes very close to going across the line on issues from gay marriage to womens ordination, to contraception and so on. Yes, the progressives have not been formally dealt with, but that in large part has been due to in action on the part of Pope Paul VI when progressive dissent started to rear its head in an overt manner in the late 60s more than anything else.
To Papabile, I read a quote from Lefrebvre saying that “All we want is the mass”, of course I also have read he argued that he wanted Vatican II to be interperted within tradition, of course Bp. Williamson has now gone a bit beyond that.



report abuse
 

Jason

posted January 31, 2006 at 12:18 pm


chris, ever bought a book published by a Protestant publishing house? I believe that they are in overt schism from Rome, and have been for centuries.
But Protestants don’t claim to be good Catholics loyal to the Pope. They don’t pretend to be within the Catholic Church. They’re fine where they are.
The SSPX, on the other hand…



report abuse
 

charles R. Williams

posted January 31, 2006 at 12:28 pm


Gumbleton is ignored and marginalized by the rest of the bishops. Whatever you think of him, I think that’s a fact.
Williamson is a successor of the apostles just like the Patriarch of Constantinople, no matter what you think of his extreme and intemperate statements.
God will judge the successors of the apostles – all of them – by the strictest standards.
The issue is should Williamson’s attitude and personality stand in the way of a reconciliation with the SSPX. I contend that the Vatican’s abhorrence of formal schism and tolerance for crackpot bishops says that they will not insist on his resignation. I believe this would be the prudent course. However, they might invite him to spend a couple of weeks in “therapy” with Cardinal Hoyos to soften him up a bit. They might also put him “under” some other bishop in the traditionalist structure that emerges who can deal with him.



report abuse
 

Seamus

posted January 31, 2006 at 1:18 pm


But Protestants don’t claim to be good Catholics loyal to the Pope. They don’t pretend to be within the Catholic Church. They’re fine where they are.
That’s because they hold that loyalty to the pope is not part of the faith taught by the apostles. I don’t how the fact that they hold to *less* of the Catholic faith than SSPX makes them *more* worthy of the patronage of faithful Catholics.



report abuse
 

Kevin Miller

posted January 31, 2006 at 1:27 pm


Christopher:
The Church has done a quite decent idea of telling us what Vatican II meant – beginning in the Vatican II documents themselves (and continuing, as Pope Benedict has said, in Pope John Paul’s writings). Saying that a document very explicitly says such-and-such is not offering a “private interpretation” of that document. Harrison simply ignores some of the very specific things that documents like DH very explicitly say (and that John Paul and – again very recently – Benedict have explicitly said that they say). You can’t simply fudge that away.
John:
There are plenty of SSPX folks who dissent from clear doctrines, like on religious freedom – they don’t simply disagree with current disciplines.



report abuse
 

Christopher Sarsfield

posted January 31, 2006 at 1:58 pm


Dear Mr. Miller,
I would suggest you re-read Pope Benedict’s address to the Curia. You seem to be raising “religious freedom” to a “metaphysical level:”
“Basic decisions, therefore, continue to be well-grounded, whereas the way they are applied to new contexts can change. Thus, for example, if religious freedom were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge.
“It is quite different, on the other hand, to perceive religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence, or indeed, as an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction.”
I do not know anyone who is a traditionalist who believes that it is okay to covert someone with the end of a sword, or believes that in a non-Catholic world you are not going to have to deal with non-Catholic states. However, I do know many Catholics who pretend that Vatican II taught that people are not “bound to this knowledge (the truth about God)” or that man is not capable of knowing the truth concerning God with certainty. Members of the Curia at the highest levels in the last pontificate had very different ideas about what Vatican II meant concerning religious freedom. Could you be unaware of the very real disagreements between men like Cardinal Kasper and then Cardinal Ratzinger in this area? Or did you believe that whoever agreed with you was correct, and giving the authoritative meaning of “religious freedom.” I have never read anything that Fr. Harrison has written that goes against what the Holy Father said above. Perhaps you could tell us what Fr. Harrison believes that “ignores some of the very specific things that documents like DH very explicitly say?”



report abuse
 

Kevin Miller

posted January 31, 2006 at 2:04 pm


Christopher:
1. Ponder the implications of Pope Benedict’s reference to religious freedom as “an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction.”
When he says you can’t raise religious freedom to a “metaphysical level,” he’s talking – as he says – about those who try to ground it in “relativism.” He doesn’t say you can’t otherwise ground it in the nature of religious truth and of the human person. He explicitly says you can.
You’re fudging.
2. Harrison claims (in his book on religious freedom and contraception) that DH would allow repression of non-Catholics in situations in which there’s a very large Catholic majority. That’s expressly at odds with what DH explicitly says.
Suppose someone were to say, “Sure, I assent to Evangelium Vitae, since, after all, it doesn’t go so far as to teach that direct/intentional abortion is always morally unacceptable.”
Harrison is in the same position vis-a-vis DH as that hypothetical person would be vis-a-vis EV.
The claim is wholly untenable. It’s incompetent and/or dishonest.
And to point that out is not to engage in “private interpretation.”
You’re fudging.



report abuse
 

Kevin Miller

posted January 31, 2006 at 2:06 pm


… And, for the record, I’m done with this thread – I have no desire to go around in circles.



report abuse
 

Jason

posted January 31, 2006 at 2:29 pm


With the quote above by Charles:
“I imagine they will treat him like Bishop Gumbleton, ignoring his nonsense and and isolating him from any real influence.”
In a way, that can be a big problem, whether it is Gumbleton, SSPX, or any other ‘authoritative entity.’ If the Church just sweeps these under the rug and ignores, we may not see them affecting true Church authority, but the damage they do among the faithful is enormous. You look at people who are grasping for a purpose in life or to come back to the church/grow in their faith – it seems these outer fringe authorities cause people to gravitate towards them, and in a way steer them in the wrong direction towards the True Faith.
Jason



report abuse
 

pablo

posted January 31, 2006 at 2:41 pm


On the other hand, Williamson and Fellay are schismatics. Nothing more to be said really.
Apparently Cdl. Castrillon Hoyos would disagree with you. But hey, some lefties in America probably know better than him anyways.



report abuse
 

John B

posted January 31, 2006 at 3:32 pm


Kevin, while you are done with the thread, I suppose you have heard this arguement before, Vatican II defined no doctrines or dogmas, so while one is not to ignore the documents of Vatican II, they are only useful if and only if they are interperted in line with traditional teachings of the church.
As for religous liberty, two things must be taken into account. One, when Vatican II took place, it was the peak of the Communist Empires, where Catholics had their liberty to be Catholics denied, two, I see the documents of religous liberty to be an extension of what Pope Pius IX termed “invincible ignorance”, also how no one can autentically be forced to convert to the church. Yes it does go around in circles because the documents of Vatican II are not exactly clear cut.



report abuse
 

Keith

posted January 31, 2006 at 3:40 pm


Just as many Novus Ordoites don’t like the fact that the modern Mass resembles a Lutheran service more than the former Mass.
Oh, thanks for the laugh. Some days one needs absurity from Pope-wannabees just to make it through. My eternal thanks.
P.S. BTW, what are we suppossed to think of the Tridentine Rite (Rite is the proper term here, not Mass) as compared to the Rite offered years before Latin became the language of the Church?



report abuse
 

Margaret

posted January 31, 2006 at 3:51 pm


Well, Keith, someone’s already beat you to that one…
The Society of St. Pius I



report abuse
 

tim

posted January 31, 2006 at 3:57 pm


One thinks that the people made unhappiest by the prospect of reconciliation are many so-called “conservative” Catholics who will be deprived of their favorite terms to describe the SSPX members– Schismatic, and Excommunicated (and no, I am not a member of their group). What excuse now to bad-mouth traditionalist Catholics? Perhaps a loud whisper campaign of “You know, they WERE excommunicated………Be careful…….”
Not the same ring, but maybe it will act as a balm to their hurt feelings.



report abuse
 

Christopher Sarsfield

posted January 31, 2006 at 3:58 pm


Dear Mr. Miller,
I am not fudging. I admit that you can not force the faith on someone. As I said I do not know any traditional Catholics who believes you can, do you? I agree with what the Pope says, but I am saying that many people in the Church (including bishops, cardinals, etc) have done what the Pope is saying you can not do.
As to Fr. Harrison, I believe you might be fudging now. DH said that:
“The Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Freedom of this kind means that all men should be immune from coercion on the part of individuals, social groups and every human power so that, *within due limits*, nobody is forced to act against his conscience in religious matters, nor impeded from acting in accordance with it, in private or in public, alone or in association with others.”
So freedom of religion is not an absolute right without any limits. When the American Indians want to use peyote as part of their religious ritual, the State can say no, in the interest of the common good. If a particular sect was causing a great harm to the common good, for example a sect that practiced human sacrifice, that sect could and should be suppressed. Also there is nothing in DH that would stop a country from being a confessional state. So let me recap my questions:
Do you know any traditional Catholics that believe a state can compel/force people to convert?
Do you expect us to believe that there has been no contradicting explanations of Religious Freedom coming from prelates in the Church over the last 40 years?
Do you really believe that there are no circumstances where the state to ensure the common good could repress a false religious sect?
Finally, I would add that the comments form the SSPX that I have read concerning the Pope’s statement on religious liberty have been positive.



report abuse
 

Christopher Sarsfield

posted January 31, 2006 at 4:00 pm


Mr. Miller,
I am sorry I did not see that you were done when I posted last. So consider my last post to the list.



report abuse
 

John B

posted January 31, 2006 at 4:02 pm


The oldest rite that is still in use, albiet in a very modified form is the Maronite rite. It really isint that similar to the way the Novus Ordo is celebrated in the vast majority of parishes. Only in a handful of parishes, such as Assumption Grotto in Detroit is the Novus Ordo celebrated in a way in line with tradition, and with the exception of the fabricated offertory, one could make the arguement that it resembles the pre Gallacian influence Roman Rite.
To Atlas Shurgged, I know how fustrating it can be to see clergy and self appointed laity rob just about all tradition and reverence from the mass, I know its fustrating seeing Catholic theology stripped away, and it is fustrating seeing typical parish life becoming a bad copy of mainline Protestantism, but plese, comments like your have done much to seriously harm the cause for the traditional mass. I cringe every time I see comments like this, so please, hold your fire and act with reason.



report abuse
 

AquinasShrugged

posted January 31, 2006 at 4:26 pm


BTW, what are we suppossed to think of the Tridentine Rite (Rite is the proper term here, not Mass) as compared to the Rite offered years before Latin became the language of the Church?
I believe that Pope Pius V addressed this in
Quo Primum.



report abuse
 

Jason

posted January 31, 2006 at 4:26 pm


I don’t how the fact that they hold to *less* of the Catholic faith than SSPX makes them *more* worthy of the patronage of faithful Catholics.
It’s not about holding to the Catholic faith. It’s about how you define yourself.
If you define yourself as a Catholic organization, as the SSPX does, then you are going to be treated like Catholics when you disobey the Pope. You will be “handed over to Satan”.
It’s like the parable where one son says he would not serve, but later repented. His brother said he would serve, but didn’t. Who is to be judged more harshly?



report abuse
 

Jason

posted January 31, 2006 at 4:27 pm


ps: the comment from Jason at 2:29 was a different Jason.



report abuse
 

AquinasShrugged

posted January 31, 2006 at 4:31 pm


comments like your have done much to seriously harm the cause for the traditional mass. I cringe every time I see comments like this, so please, hold your fire and act with reason.(sic)
It is Aquinas, not Atlas. I have no idea what comment you are refering to. I am acting reasonably, can you?



report abuse
 

Patrick Rothwell

posted January 31, 2006 at 4:47 pm


“Do you know any traditional Catholics that believe a state can compel/force people to convert?”
This is a very devious manner of phrasing the question. So, I will turn the question around on you. Does the SSPX believe that the State has a duty to prevent non-Catholic churches from operating in predominately Catholic countries AND/OR that the State has a duty to punish Catholics who decide to leave the Church and practice another religion? Does the SSPX believe that the State has the right to banish and exile non-Catholics who refuse to convert – since arguably that is a case of non-compulsion?



report abuse
 

Dan Crawford

posted January 31, 2006 at 4:55 pm


After reading the lead-in and the comments, I’m still in the dark as to why I should find anything about SSPX “interesting”, let alone “very interesting”.



report abuse
 

Christopher Sarsfield

posted January 31, 2006 at 5:04 pm


Dear Mr. Rothwell,
I am not a member of the SSPX, but I would say:
The state does not have a duty to prevent non-Catholic churches from operating in a Catholic country as long as the common good is not effected.
The state does not have a duty to punish Catholics who decide to leave the Church and practice another religion.
I believe a state could have a right to banish or exile non-Catholics not for refusal to covert, but I could see cases where the common good would demand it.
That said I do not believe that DH gives the person a right to proselytize for a false religion. A group that went door to door trying to drag other people out of the Church could be suppressed I believe.



report abuse
 

Patrick Rothwell

posted January 31, 2006 at 5:54 pm


Fair enough, Christopher. I know that you can’t speak for the SSPX as a whole.



report abuse
 

Jehan Mecier

posted January 31, 2006 at 6:36 pm


If Rocco’s post is to be believed, the Vatican is going to backdown and compromise a great deal to make this agreement with the SSPX. To admit that the Tridentine Latin Mass was never supressed is anathema to the handful of aged liberals in the Vatican that still cling to some power. Fortunatly younger more traditional and enlightened men in the Curia far outweigh them in the corridors of the Vatican.
What is most hopeful is that Pope Benedict XVI I believe is on the side of Catholic tradition. By His Dec. 22 speech to the Curia He proved as much. It was a triumph and a masterpiece.
Nothing but good will come from a return to the Tridentine Latin Mass, and a reconciliation of the SSPX with the Church. Within a few years after an accord is reached all the SSPX seminaries and religious Orders will be bursting with vocations, and the mainstream Church will finally start to think that “Maybe these guys had the right idea all along”.



report abuse
 

Christopher Sarsfield

posted January 31, 2006 at 8:05 pm


To be fair, I just found this link:
http://www.cfnews.org/bw-dec22.htm
It is an interview where Bishop Williamson is ripping into the Pope’s address to the Curia that I quoted from above. Bishop Williamson puts the absolute worst spin on this address. He completely distorts what the Holy Father has said. It seems clear that the Bishop is trying to sink any agreement with Rome. It also seems desperate, which gives me hope that the SSPX is very close to union with Rome.



report abuse
 

Michael Hugo

posted January 31, 2006 at 9:03 pm


Lawrence wrote:
“I have noticed recently how the typical SSPX supporter spends a lot of emotional energy insisting that the SSPX is not in schism”
I have only gone to one latin mass since I was eight years old, and have never even met someone from SSPX. That being said, it takes a serious lack of objectivity to mention the efforts of SPPX to counter and correct misinformation, and not mention the MASSIVE expenditure of energy exerted by those wrongly accusing them of schism.
Arch Bishop Hoyos’ recent comments confirm what JPII has said on several occasions.
So the misinformation continues, here on this site. Whether you like it or not, the SSPX is NOT in schism. And, if you continue to disagree with the Church on this point, won’t that make you…uh, a protestant?



report abuse
 

Michael Hugo

posted January 31, 2006 at 9:08 pm


Pauli,
What’s up with dissing the SSPX folks by suggesting they need psych help?
I don’t doubt you, but WE should not be throwing stones while our Cathedrals of glass are being sold our from under us because of some seriously funky “non-schismatics”.



report abuse
 

Michael Hugo

posted January 31, 2006 at 9:11 pm


Hey, while your all smugly bad-mouthing traditionalist Catholics, read this. Maybe you’d like to take a few cheap shots at Mother Teresa:
“I will tell you a secret, since we have just a thousand close friends together, and also because we have the Missionaries of Charity with us, whom the Holy Spirit has sent into the world that the secrets of many hearts might be revealed. Not very long ago I said Mass and preached for their Mother, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and after breakfast we spent quite a long time talking in a little room. Suddenly, I found myself asking her-I don’t know why-“Mother, what do you think is the worst problem in the world today?” She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat, and so on. Without pausing a second she said, “Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.”4



report abuse
 

Michael Hugo

posted January 31, 2006 at 9:23 pm


For those of you “real” Catholics, read this before you start dissing the Tridentine Liturgy.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html
What the average Catholic experiences on sunday bears little resemblance to what it says in here. As one raised Novus Ordo, I was pretty shocked, actually.



report abuse
 

Lawrence King

posted January 31, 2006 at 11:10 pm


Michael Hugo wrote:

…..the MASSIVE expenditure of energy exerted by those wrongly accusing them of schism.

I’m not sure I understand your meaning here. Let me ask a question that I think will help clarify where we agree, or where we differ: Since 1988, has the Vatican considered the SSPX to be in schism?
Unless you can show evidence to the contrary, I believe that the answer is yes. Therefore I am not myself accusing the SSPX of schism. I am merely repeating the accusations which I have heard from the leadership of my own church.

So the misinformation continues, here on this site. Whether you like it or not, the SSPX is NOT in schism. And, if you continue to disagree with the Church on this point, won’t that make you…uh, a protestant?

I don’t care whether they are in schism. And what I “like or not” is irrelevant. If I am convinced that the Vatican considers the SSPX in schism, I will consider them in schism. If I am convinced that the Vatican considers the SSPX to be in communion with Rome, I will consider them to be in communion with Rome.



report abuse
 

Pauli

posted January 31, 2006 at 11:48 pm


Michael Hugo wrote:
Pauli,
What’s up with dissing the SSPX folks by suggesting they need psych help?
I don’t doubt you, but WE should not be throwing stones while our Cathedrals of glass are being sold our from under us because of some seriously funky “non-schismatics”.

Suggesting that someone needs psych help is not “dissing” them any more than suggesting they need financial help is dissing them. (What is “diss” short for anyway, I forget…)
I love the Latin Mass – that’s why I ended up at the indult. I sang in the choir for a year-and-a-half. I went to their business meeting which is another whole story. I experienced great beauty and joy in the liturgy and I witnessed incredibly disturbing behavior, mostly from the SSPX reverts. Maybe their behavior was no more disturbing than in a novus ordo parish, but in a self-selecting crowd with some real “holier-than-thou” types it really stands out.
I guess to me the craziness can be summed up as a lack of logic; part of their belief system appears to involve a blind acceptance of non sequiturs, e.g., I’d ask them if the Novus Ordo Mass was valid and they would not answer yes or no – this happened on multiple occasions. Sometimes they would launch into a long overview of church history starting with St. Teresa of Avila. Other times they would stand silent while a vein in their forehead would begin to throb.
Why didn’t they just answer my question like this: “Of course it’s valid, but it’s irreverent, kitschy and ugly! That’s why I’m here.”? I would have partially agreed with that; although describing the Novus Ordo Mass would be a little like the “blind men and the elephant” (Mother Angelica’s Novus Ordo Mass on EWTN is a far cry from Mass at the suburban church a mile from my house which is utterly painful.) And even if I had totally disagreed, it’s a valid opinion. But somewhere down deep the really crazy ones believed that the Roman Church had totally failed God’s people. One told me “Millions of souls are going to hell because of Vatican II.”
But even those extreme types would not say the novus ordo was invalid. That’s why I say I’m still intrigued by them.
On the topic of “funky non-schismatics”: if you want to talk about kitsch and glass cathedrals – stones are fine for SSPX folks but I’m tempted to say bullets would be better for the bastards who write the mediocre musak in the missalettes. Those folks are beyond psychiatric help, they need a miracle or something, let alone guys like Father McBrien et al who are still trying to learn the sign of the cross.
Well, chuck a stone at me, lads; I’m off to take my meds.



report abuse
 

Papabile

posted February 1, 2006 at 12:10 am


I would have to say that anyone who claimed that DH attained a certain doctrinal level of authority has little background in dogmatics.
1. DH was simply a Declaration, a far cry from a Constitution of the Council.
2. Much has been written about DH. It is interesting to note that, only in North America is DH accepted in a universal way. By this, I meanvirtually in the same way by all theologians.
3. John Paul II (who was integral in the drafting of Gaudiam et Spes) and Benedict XVI (who was integral in drafting Dei Verbum) each had/have differing interpretations of what DH meant in the conciliar context.
4. Specifically, Ratzinger endorsed an approach to DH that would reconcile Mortalimum Animos with it. (Note: The Lefebvrists hated that he did this and refuse to acknowledge he did. Note also: The liberals hated that he did this too.) This was put forth by a daughterhouse of Solesmes.
5. The typical interpretation of DH as accepted by many bishops in the US enters into an area of near material heresy as defined by the CDF rescript in 1985.



report abuse
 

Patrick

posted February 1, 2006 at 12:19 am


Kevin,
Harrison claims (in his book on religious freedom and contraception) that DH would allow repression of non-Catholics in situations in which there’s a very large Catholic majority.
Really? I don’t have his book, but in this article from 1987, written about the same time as Religious Liberty and Contraception, he writes:
“Vatican II, however, in highlighting another aspect of divine law – the natural right of all men to be left free (within due limits) to practice their own religion without human interference – has in effect substantially changed this earlier ecclesiastical law (not doctrine). In the same way, the Church has often changed many other aspects of her previous legislation or discipline when they no longer seemed appropriate, or appeared to be giving rise to injustices in practice. Since Vatican II, understood especially in the light of how the Holy See has applied the conciliar Declaration, the new law is that even in the most predominantly Catholic countries, the right of at least the more moderate and upright non-Catholic groups to immunity from government interference takes precedence over the right of Catholics not to be ‘led into temptation’ towards sins against their faith, as a result of the public diffusion of heresy or infidelity. …
In other words, even in a strongly Catholic country, the public diffusion of non-Catholic ideas or practices should not now (according to Vatican II) be considered a punishable threat to the common good simply insofar as they are non-Catholic. Rather, in order to merit that classification they would usually have to be the kinds of anti-Catholic propaganda which also assault or threaten (by virtue either of their content or their methods) those norms of truth, honesty, civic responsibility, sexual morality, and respect for other persons which can be validly argued and established on human and rational grounds alone, without appealing to the supernatural authority of divine revelation.”



report abuse
 

Bradamante

posted February 1, 2006 at 11:03 am


Many of these people wouldn’t have left if Vatican II hadn’t been handled so ineptly. Those of my aquaintance were of a generation that emmigrated here largely because of religious oppression. Having left family, home and culture and then losing the mass they were familiar with was just too wrenching. It’s really all so sad.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

There is nothing I shall want
A couple of weeks ago, a memorial Mass for Michael was held here in Birmingham at the Cathedral. The bishop presided and offered a very nice, even charming homily in which he first focused on the Scripture readings of the day, and then turned to Michael, whom he remembered, among other things, as on

posted 9:24:16am Mar. 05, 2009 | read full post »

Revolutionary Road - Is it just me?
Why am I the only person I know..or even "know" in the Internet sense of "knowing"  - who didn't hate it? I didn't love it, either. There was a lot wrong with it. Weak characterization. Miscasting. Anvil-wielding mentally ill prophets.But here's the thing.Whether or not Yates' original novel in

posted 9:45:04pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Books for Lent
No, I'm not going to ask you about your Lenten reading lists...although I might.Not today, though. This post is about giving books to others. For Lent, and a long time after that. You know how it goes during Lent: Prayer, Fasting and Almsgiving, right?Well, here's a worthy recipient for your hard-

posted 9:22:07pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Why Via Media
How about....because I'm lame and hate thinking up titles to things? No?Okay...how about...St. Benedict? Yes, yes, I know the association with Anglicanism. That wasn't invovled in my purpose in naming the joint, but if draws some Googling Episcopalians, all the better.To tell the truth, you can bl

posted 8:54:17pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Brave Heart?
I don't know about you, but one of effects of childbirth on me was a compulsion to spill the details. All of them.The whole thing was fascinating to me, so of course I assumed everyone else should be fascinated as well in the recounting of every minute of labor, describing the intensity of discomfor

posted 10:19:45pm Mar. 03, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.