“Schism: refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” (CIC, 751; CCC, 2089)
We may sympathize with the SSPX, for who would not seek to flee the mediocrity, if not outright mayhem, all too frequently found in modern liturgy, and seek the beauty, reverence, flowing chant, silence, and all that comprises our Catholic Tradition?
Yet how do we do get there, or back there, especially in the liturgical realm? To allude to our recent post: any society has two defining characteristics: an end, and the means to attain that end. For the SSPX, we may agree with their end; it’s the means that raises controversy and, for many, presents a problem.
Schism is a moral problem before it is a legal and canonical one, having its roots in the mind and heart—in each one of us—and only become formalized when manifest. It may be posited that the SSPX as a society is not—at least, not any longer—in such formal schism. We may rather describe their situation as ‘irregular’, but, then, is not much of the Church in a such a state of ‘irregularity’? It is difficult in our chaotic milieu to discern what is regular—that is, according to the ‘rule’—and what is not.
The Pope and the Papacy
Let us take a step back for a moment from the current status of the Society, and return to its origins, which we have previously described very briefly. For a more detailed legal-canonical summary—prescinding from the motives of those involved—one may read Peter John Vere’s balanced summary.
Behind all the motives of those involved, we Catholics must hold that the principle of unity in the Church—at least in her earthly, hierarchical dimension—is the papacy. I do not say ‘the Pope’, which would confuse the office with the man, but the office itself. The man and the office are inextricably linked, sure enough, but they are distinct.
We need not heed, nor follow, everything the Pope—the man—says or thinks, and it would be quite mad to do so, a type of guru-ism, turning the Vicar of Christ into a Delphic oracle whose every word we must hold sacrosanct. As Peter Kwasnieski has cogently demonstrated, the Fathers of the First Vatican Council were quite clear that such is not what they meant in defining the charism of infallibility. On the contrary, their aim was to delineate and circumscribe the limits to which papal authority may bind us. We may disagree with the current pontiff’s opinions on climate change, the efficacy of covid ‘vaccines’, various ecumenical endeavours, and any number of his liturgical views. We may even wiggle around his laws and decrees, submitting insofar as its strict letter requires, exercising the much-needed virtue of epikeia—applying the law to real-life situations with rightly-ordered prudence. Just so may we act praeter legem, alongside the law, interpreting it, without breaking it, according to higher principles and truths.
But can we defy the Pope, and act contra legem, directly against his authority?
That raises any number of intriguing questions, for it would be difficult to distinguish such defiance, from a rejection of the very principle of the papacy itself.
Lefebvre and the Pope
Archbishop Lefebvre had the right aim in mind—to preserve Tradition, and to hold a center of sanity in the chaos after the Second Vatican Council, which is still reverberating through the Church. This is not so much the fault of the Council, whose decrees are conservative, even if ambiguous at times (none of it is heretical, as some members of the SSPX seem to claim). The problem, rather, is with the erroneous interpretation of the conciliar texts, or ignoring them outright according to the ‘Spirit of the Council’, which Pope Benedict rightly called a ‘hermeneutic of rupture’.
Lefebvre founded the SSPX in 1970 to counteract this revolutionary spirit, and to hold fast to Tradition, especially in Liturgy. His society went through a fractious few decades—one may peruse Vere’s article above for more details—with any number of controversies, but it was in 1988 that things came to a head.
To make a long story short, Vere documents that Pope John Paul II promised the SSPX a bishop, to which Lefebvre agreed, but then he backed out for reasons that are complex and controversial. He proceeded to ordain four of his own priests as bishops in June of 1988. He did not do so—again, as Vere points out—without the Pope’s permission, but rather contrary to a specific and direct command not to do so. He did not act praeter legem, but contra legem.
There are any number of proposed justifications for this act, from Lefebvre and others, but canonically it was an act of schism warranting latae sententiae excommunication. I have heard it proposed is that the Vatican, even the Pope and the Cardinal, were just buying time, with no real intention of ordaining any of his priests a bishop, waiting, presumably, for Lefebvre—then 83—to shuffle off this mortal coil.
Any narrative includes many sub-narratives, and this hypothesis requires one to accept either that both Pope John Paul and Cardinal Ratzinger were Machiavellian, duplicitous operatives—liars, in a word—or they were unable or unwilling to stand up to their own curia. Whatever differences one may have with their views, this is all a bit difficult to swallow.
Some supporters of the SSPX, meanwhile, paint Lefebvre in a hagiographical glow, with one devotee, Kennedy Hall, who has just written a defense of the society, comparing the Archbishop to Saint John the Beloved, the only Apostle to have stayed by the Cross (presumably symbolizing Tradition), while all the others fled (into the post-Vatican II-Novus Ordo outer darkness).
Lefebvre, Moses, and Meribah
Archbishop Lefebvre spent much of life as a missionary in Africa, and, from what I have read of him, seems to have been a holy and good priest and bishop. But the good are usually tempted with the good, for obvious evil has no real attraction for them. If the reader will bear with me, I wonder what would have happened if Lefebvre had had just a bit more trust, not just, or even mainly, in the Pope (the man), but in God working through the Pope (the office)?
Scripture may provide some allegorical antecedent, and here I think of Moses at Meribah, of which there are two accounts, referring to two separate incidents:
In Exodus (17:6) Moses is commanded by God to strike the rock once, and water would come forth for the thirsty Israelites wandering in the desert. This he does, water flows, and all is well.
Then, as later recounted in Numbers (20:7-11), Moses is told by God to speak to the rock, and water would flow. Instead, Moses strikes the rock—twice. Water does spring forth, but God is not pleased, with the implication that Moses took matters into one’s own hands, lacked trust, and did not wait for God to act.
There is much more that might be said of this, but, for now, consider the analogy between this act of Moses, and Lefebvre back in that fateful spring of 1988. In both cases, they desired what was rightfully theirs, and what they could rightfully expect from God. But both went about it too hurriedly, using their own power and authority.
Ponder how things might have unfolded had the SSPX been given a bishop. A personal prelature of the Traditional rite, with their own autonomy.
That is, more or less, what they now have, but grasped of their own accord, and not in full union with the papacy.
God still worked though Moses, and led the Israelites to the Holy Land, and we may hope He may somehow use Archbishop Lefebvre and SSPX to lead us back to Tradition, even if in both cases, the route may be more circuitous and difficult than it might have been. I don’t profess to see what God is doing—or permitting—in all of this, but we may hope something good in the end, even if the means be somewhat awry.
Final thoughts for the path ahead
I will close these few thoughts with a few caveats, that apply not just to the SSPX, but to all of us, and ones that I am trying to work through myself:
- One cannot have the Church with the papacy, and without submission to said papacy. But the pope is not infallible in his disciplinary decrees, and may at times be quite fallible. Such obedience—barring intrinsic evil—we should in general accept as penance for our sins, as well as a help to realizing what we have lost. As many saints’ lives attest, doing the less-perfect thing under obedience, rather than the (apparently) more-perfect thing without obedience, bears much good fruit in the end. Like the Israelites, we must wander in the desert for a time, or live in exile before the fulfilment of His promises. That is how I see the current liturgical landscape—a type of Babylonian captivity – and we hope for better days to come, as we seek what oases of beauty and splendor we might along the pilgrimage, and blessed are those that find them.
- There is the danger—as with any refusal of authority—of fissiparity, of breaking apart into ever-smaller splinter groups, all of whom think they have the ‘right idea’. Of the four bishops consecrated by Lefebvre, one—Williamson—has left to start his own society, considering the original SSPX not quite traditional enough. On a smaller scale, at a recent talk I gave, some of the attendees with traditional tendencies started an argument over the 1962 Missal, that we had to go back to 1955, before Pius XII sowed the seeds with his own liberal liturgical modernism. Who decides?
- We should keep our focus on the essentials. I agree with other authors that liturgy is not ‘all about validity’, but it is certainly about validity, as Saint Thomas discusses at length in this treatise on the sacraments (cf., ST., III. Q.60, ff.). Sacramental efficacy is primarily ex opere operato—the work of Christ—and not our own. Certainly, it is dulce et decorum to have beautiful, transcendent liturgy, but that cannot distract us from accessing the grace of the sacraments—not least, the Holy Communion, the Bread of Eternal Life—even if presented in less-than-splendorous garments. We must caution against the tendency to what may be called an ‘aestheticism’, placing more emphasis on beauty and reverence than on growing in holiness in the too-forgotten virtue of long-suffering. Some things must just be offered up in patience.
- Even more must we beware a kind of neo-Donatism, setting up a purified and holy ‘Church within a Church’, even to the extent that those in this small remnant (at least in their own estimation) become the Church, and the rest of the hoi polloi cast into the outer darkness. It is the practice of the SSPX to request permission to set up in a diocese and, if permission is not granted, they move in regardless. Not exactly a recipe for building communion with the Church. And in a recent interview, the official U.S. spokesman of the SSPX, a certain Mr. James Voegel, when asked whether the SSPX recommends that their members attend a Novus Ordo Mass on Sunday if they cannot attend one of their own Masses, replied ‘no’, making no distinction whether this be a reverent Novus Ordo or not. He even recommended—albeit, with less vigour—that SSPX members not attend other traditional liturgies, for, as he put it, they might ‘criticize his marriage’—presumably its canonical status (skip ahead in the video to 1:07 for his circumlocutory response). The Pope has now regularized that, so why is such still a problem? And is that reason to forego one’s Sunday obligation, which is, in any objective, legal sense, grave matter, the failure of which makes one a lapsed Catholic? I can only hope that Mr. Voegel’s opinions do not apply to all who are in some way attached to the SSPX.
Probably not, for the SSPX is, as they say, fluid, from die-hard adherents who would not set foot in a Novus Ordo church, never mind Mass, all the way to those who attend occasionally, often out of necessity. Whatever the status, may the whole society be brought back soon to full union. A crucial juncture will be whether the SSPX consecrates another bishop—the current three are nearing eternity – and whether they wait for the papal mandate this time.
One way or the other, may the Church once again rediscover and re-appropriate her Tradition, without which we are lost. To allude to the title of a book by a beloved and belated priest, we walk to heaven backwards—which gives a new, and more felicitous meaning to indietrism.
Although any given Pope can sow great confusion and scandal—and there any number of examples in history—it is through the papacy that God will correct and clarify what is needed. Without the papacy—the rock on which Christ built His Church—it is every man for himself. And the devil may take not only the hindmost.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Sorry Meenan. Who’s says SSPX was fleeing?
We know the ones who are fleeing. Using SSPX or any other non-flee-er (true stay-er), as a catch-point for the discussion is bound to make it go wrong and come out wrong.
Peace,
I don’t think I said anyone was fleeing – my main point is that unity in the Church must somehow be maintained.
+
Point appreciated thank you.
Unity is already in our Lord you know and the communion of saints. I believe “everything in everything” universalism is not our faith but it is nowadays being constructed and forced with a determined persistence. Neither SSPX nor Lefebvre is ever like that and there is an added tendency to make them look the opposite with a negative feeling to it.
Not saying it’s you.
Edit: ….. to make them look opposed to the opposite …..
Or, edit: ….. to make them look opposed to what they should be …..
As you will.
More rehash of things rehashed ad infinitum. These articles will not change any minds. Many people will continue to cry “schism,” and many others remain doubtful but cautious. The rest of us will continue to support the SSPX.
Meenan is basically confused and mistaken about what tradition means. His position here is that of traditionalism. He mainly equates tradition with what is a once and for all past reality that is frozen, and in many aspects dead. But tradition as the Church has lived it in two millennia is a living, growing, dynamic ongoing reality, and in many instances required reforming (like at Vatican II) which entail both continuity with the past and realtime change or innovation. Pelikan aptly summarizes this: “Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.”
All this is only speculative and theoretical. In practice, it is the winner takes all. If the SSPX succeeds in becoming the most powerful organized faction of the church, they will ultimately control the papacy and thus they will determine who is in schism and who is not.
So no involvement from God at all, eh? That doesn’t sound quite right, does it?
You will know them by their fruits. If the SSPX continues to grow in Priests and faithful who attend their chapels and they nourish the spiritual lives of the faithful, then can we say that their efforts are not from God?
Everywhere we see contraction in the Church. Parishes combined or closed. It is VERY rare that new, organic growth is happening anywhere outside of Africa.
VII was not organic growth. It was radical change, in every area of the church. It was NOT just the liturgy. The SSPX simply are continuing the faith as it had been for more than a thousand years. Consistency and continuity in faith are very attractive to many people. No worry about the next “innovation” or worry about compromising morals or integrity.
The SSPX Priory (Walton, KY) I joined recently is growing. 7 priests, 5 Sunday Masses, two side altars, the 6:30am Sunday Mass is only 2/3 full the remaining Masses set overflow in narthex. Large girls academy built and operating, a large boys academy is in the process of being built. The quiet reverence during Low Mass is overwhelming, so quiet that I struggle, at times, to remain focused on the Eucharist. Truly “You will know them by their fruits”
An essential question here is whether “Traditionis custodes” itself is a valid law, to say nothing of the subsequent enc-Roche-ments. For all that T.C. was supposed to bolster Vatican II and assert the rights of bishops, no bishops seem to be standing up for Lumen gentium 27 and they are mostly just rolling over. It is ironic that Francis has turned the papacy into Bismarck’s caricature. Is it the SSPX that is upsetting that constitution of the Church or … someone else?
Here’s my ‘weigh-in’ on this topic: No one, and I mean no one, can inherit the kingdom and be in the presence of God for all eternity, if he lacks humility. Christ tells us that He is “meek and humble of heart and to “Follow” Him. And so, whatever your liturgical position on this matter, a more important question to your eternal salvation is whether you are meek and humble of heart. (Hint: no one should move on too quickly from this question.)
You are of course very correct that humility is necessary for everyone. As a counterpoint, would it not be an act of hubris to have jettisoned the Church’s ancient liturgical tradition and, as Cardinal Ratzinger said, “to make the longing for it seem downright indecent”?
Yes, Only lack of humility could be the reason people will not admit that the Protestant inspired new Mass of Paul VI has only divided the Church for the last 50 years We were promised the old Latin mass in English but got a new rewrite and a new concept for it, Traditionalists are where the whole Latin rite once was. Should it take humility to just admit this clear fact.
But it’s the SSPX who are the Protestants. They reject papal authority
Dear Tina,
Perhaps you can explain how I might, like you, turn myself inside-out and upside-down in order to think like you do on this topic. You must be a firm adherent of the NO Mass and one that has little, if any, real appreciation for the fullness of Catholic Truth as, after 2,000 years+, it is still present in the SSPX theology and Holy Mass. I invite you to disengage yourself from the coccoon of your NO parish long enough to consider reading an historical account of the new mass crafted by “progressive” forces AFTER the council fathers mostly REJECTED the innovations that typify the NO mass. In this case, I would refer you to the trilogy of Michael Davies: “Cramner’s Godly Order”, “Pope John’s Council” and “Pope Paul’s Mass”. The failed experimentation of the 1960’s is not something to be “canonized”, but, something to be rejected and dust-binned. It’s fruits are empty churches, confused Catholics, an exodus of the consecrated, banal-stale architecture and trite, uninspiring musical compositions. The SSPX honor the Pope by honoring God with real Catholicism.
What specifically led you to conclude that this religious order of priests rejects papal authority? Who, what, when, where, how? All these questions form the foundation of factual reporting. Please enlighten me.
Thomas Raines,
Where exactly in the text of the Novus Ordo does it show it is “protestant inspired?” It has always been the traditionalist criticism of the Novus Ordo, but it has never been explained.
What is this “new concept” of the Paul VI Mass that you’re talking about? Is it really a “new” concept, or a development of what the Mass has always been about? Thanks for your explanations. God bless you.
Peter Kwasniewski is a good friend of our Community, and as often happens with good friends, he and I have expressed our differences on a coupe of matters. He has presented his understanding of obedience in various conferences and even a book. I have expressed mine in this article: https://wherepeteris.com/how-to-get-what-i-want/
So it’s not heretical to implicitly deny original sin, not to mention reality and sanity, by insisting that humanity just keeps getting better and better morally over time, as language in documents of VII clearly and unambiguously did?
Citation?
On the contrary:
And: “That the earthly and the heavenly city penetrate each other is a fact accessible to faith alone; it remains a mystery of human history, which sin will keep in great disarray until the splendor of God’s sons, is fully revealed.”
And:
And those are just three passages from “Gaudium et spes,” which is often accused of being the most ambiguous of the conciliar documents…
For the four thousandth time, the issue isn’t the V2 documents themselves but the implementation of certain practices under the guise of V2’s spirit, e.g., a blurring of sin wrt to certain practices to the point one wonders if said practices are even sinful anymore.
I hate articles like this because the real issue is that a majority of the curia are heretics including the pipe as predicted by Fatima, yet the one guy who tried to navigate such a situation is getting beat up.
The real problem is that V2 was a pastoral council, not a doctrinal one, as per Pius XII himself. Many of the writings are intentionally flufftastic and vague.
That’s a dubious distinction that I believe Bishop Barron dealt with and refuted.
Dear Natsuki Jitou,
The infallibility of the Church, the belief that the Holy Spirit preserves her from all errors, covers all ecumenical councils, whether doctrinal or pastoral. It is premised on the authority Jesus granted to the apostles to “bind and loose” and in particular the promises to Peter in regard to papal infallibility.
The Church holds this infallibility on Vatican II because Vatican II was approved by the Pope in union with all the bishops of the Catholic world.
Yes, in full agreement, but one can also hold that a festering ambiguity resides in a few other lines inserted into Gaudium et Spes (GS)…
…Lines which are elevated and exploited by many as being so axiomatic as to override other much more complete and countervailing passages. What Pope Benedict XVI referred to as the vulnerability of the “real” Council of the complete Documents to the breezy and “virtual” Council imbibed even today by ideological progressives.
The lines:
[surely recalling Teilhard de Chardin] “Thus the human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic, evolutionary one” (GS, n. 5).
And, “The Church further recognizes that worthy elements are found in today’s social movements, especially an evolution [!] toward unity, a process of wholesome socialization [?] and of association in civic and economic realms” (n. 42).
The early 1960ish optimism of “the joys and hopes” cancelling the “griefs and anxieties” [and original sin!] also included in the opening line of GS.
“Socialization” is a distinct Latin concept introduced by Pope John XXIII in his 1961 Mater et Magister, but conflated by functionally illiterate ideologues with socialism. Socialization—having to do with the “common good”—is clarified in GS, n. 63 and 74.
I agree that GS has some weak and even perplexing sections. It’s a rather maddening document, as it has some really remarkable and strong sections on a number of topics–but then goes on these little flights of almost hubristic optimism. But, to the point here, it’s very clear (as are other VII documents) about the reality of sin and the continuing battle against personal sin, evil, and so forth.
Yes, on a fine point I would propose that the “flights of almost hubristic optimism” came first, and that the “really remarkable and strong sections” often came second. As needed correctives.
The problem, then, would be that “fraternal collegiality” and political infighting prevented any use of the red pen. No deletions, but small points and larger counterpoints. And isn’t this part of the problem today with the current version of synodality? Contrary to the guidance of the International Theological Commission (2018), the Vademecum demotes the successors of the apostles (!) “primarily as facilitators,” tasked to “aggregate, compile, and synthesize”–but not to clarify and teach, skillfully and pastorally.
That step (only a step?), supposedly, comes later after some needed listening. So, maybe at the “continental assembly” phase? Nope. Or, in the later draft “instrumentum laboris” (IL) for October 2023, harmonized by twenty-two “experts”?
Nope.Instead, in the IL the adjective “synodal” shows up 317 times and the word “morality” zero. As with the 1960ish Marshall McLuhan (“the medium IS the message”); now “the process IS the message.”
And there is no other? The anchoring (retrograde?) language from the Council is surpassed? The dubia? What dubia? The Council? What Council?
Yes, Peter, yes.
A typical Canadian perspective. This gentleman must not have seen the new Church SSPX built in Kansas. Unfortunately, in Canada they regularly burn down Catholic Churches with little concern from their prime minister or government.
Yes, the “traditionalists” or those who prefer the extraordinary rite, seem to have forgotten obedience. To an even greater extent they have forgotten joy. I only ever hear complaining, and it gets really old. Grow up.
Peace,
My perspective is not particularly Canadian, I don’t think. And big churches don’t necessarily signify truth or God’s perfect will. After all, Mormons and Muslims build big churches as well. Not that the SSPX is in their camp – don’t get me wrong. Only that we must seek the truth – including the truth of full, traditional worship – somehow fully within the Church, and the hierarchy, as imperfect and difficult as that may prove.
Gratias, in oratione +
+
Okay, let’s get this straight:
“We may disagree with the current pontiff’s opinions on climate change, the efficacy of covid ‘vaccines’, various ecumenical endeavours, and any number of his liturgical views. We may even wiggle around his laws and decrees, submitting insofar as its strict letter requires, …”
And then:
“Although any given Pope can sow great confusion and scandal—and there any number of examples in history—it is through the papacy that God will correct and clarify what is needed.”
Maybe I need to read this article more carefully, but perhaps God is, at this time, correcting and clarifying what is needed through our current Pope, Francis. But if you insist that we can disagree with everything he says and skirt around his laws and decrees, etc., and you tell your students that, then perhaps you are keeping them from hearing what God is telling us through him. I mean, this is precisely the argument that theologians were making in the 60s with respect to Humanae Vitae, i.e., “we can disagree with the Pope when it comes to birth control and cohabitation, etc., and still be a good Catholic…Eventually the papacy will get it right, and God will finally reveal to us all what the truth is in these matters…etc.” And of course, many of these same people look to Francis as that Pope.
I find you “traditionalists” are just as disobedient and self-righteous as the liberal “progressives”. I know you don’t take vows, but ask any religious which is the hardest to live by: chastity, poverty, or obedience. It’s always obedience.
Not sure how you got the impression that anyone is suggesting skating around formal decrees and laws. The article, as I read it, clearly acknowledges the need to obey them even if one disagrees. Personal opinions on prudential matters are another thing altogether. They can be respectfully disagreed with. Or do you assume that matters such as the truth of climate change and the efficacy of medical treatments is a matter subject to dogmatic decree?
Artificial contraception concerns a doctrinal matter about which dissent is not permitted. There is no reasonable comparison between dissent on Humane Vitae and the respectful questioning of pragmatic judgments of the current pope, or any pope for that matter. One concerns a well defined matter of doctrine, the other does not.
Thank you, Mr. James, for your comment. In reply, we are living in strange times, in the culture and in the Church, and are perforced, like Saint Thomas More in his own fractious era, to use our wits and conscience more than we might have in previous, more stable eras. The Pope – or, more properly, the papal office – has been given authority by Christ over faith and morals (the Depositum Fidei), not in empirical science and medical treatments. The analogy with Humanae Vitae fails, for that was a matter of moral doctrine. Climate change is not. But proper ecology is, even if not quite as open to definition as contraception.
I hope this helps as an initial clarification.
Ad veritatem +
Dear JPM: I certainly do not mean to suggest that contraception and climate change are on a par. I don’t think the Pope should have chimed in on climate change at all, and there’s no doubt in my mind that humanae vitae is an infallibly proposed teaching. But the death penalty is a moral matter, and that proposed change leaves many scratching their heads. I do think we need to slow down and carefully think a bit more deeply before we diss this pope any further. Traditional Catholics seem to conclude too quickly that the cognitive dissonance they are experiencing with this pope is a sign that he’s wrong, and they’re right. I’m not so sure. Many on this forum are too sure of themselves.
Perhaps Mr. James, you should consider taking up an excellent read on the inner-workings of the watershed moment the Church in the Modern Era began unravelling: pick up the trilogy by Michael Davies. It is a must read for any Catholic who wishes to get a better grasp of the kinds of perplexing conditions that gave rise to the likes of AB Marcel Lefebvre in the first place. Deo Gratias!
Mark, provided proper form and matter, is Transubstantiation achieved at a Novus Ordo Mass?
Surely much food for thought. Like walking blind on a beam, the society must stay with the Church. Once off you become a protestant left on your own without leadership and subject to many divisions and subdivisions. Many saints and visionaries were misunderstand and persecuted by the Church only to be recognized and cannonized later long after their demise. The Church very much needs the society but does not realize it. The society must hunker down and ride out the storm in prayerful obedience, praying that they may truly love those they think are persecuting them. Too many “trads” are acting like spoiled children sitting on the floor in a screaming tantrum demanding immediate gratification. They cause so much chaos that they are swiftly silenced with a powerful blow on the behind. They then crawl off whimpering like abused martyrs unable to acknowledge their own willfulness. Unfortunately, a very few high profile proud, self righteous loudmouths have caused a lot of damage not only to the Society, but to all peace loving “Trads”. May God have mercy on us all!
I agree, Mr Connor. I found this article quite well-argued, eminently reasonable. It is exactly the example of maligned saints that gives me pause. To preach obedience to Tradition while wiggling around the demands of obedience in the present circumstance should trouble anyone. I attend the Vetus Ordo and would be loathe to worship elsewhere, but the essentials that I find lacking in the wider Catholic communion (orthodoxy, reverence, and most especially a call to reparation for the grievous status quo) can be practiced by any layman anywhere. It may just be that the remnant will be called to kneel within Novus Ordo chapels and offer up everything for the restoration of a more robust faith (and I don’t look forward to that) but the humility required to do that may be what Our Lord is asking for the sake of authentic renewal. I honestly don’t know, but as Mr Connors notes, there is much food for thought here.
“Behind all the motives of those involved, we Catholics must hold”. The authors opening volley. I find him presumptuous that he has decided to take upon himself the role of a dictator, telling me, a Catholic, what I must hold on to, while telling me I must discard my own liturgical history and accept the mass of a failed church. There are so few of us left who actually lived the Catholic experience of the Latin church. We had Brothers who taught in the schools, schools that required you to be Catholic to attend, schools where the mass was an integral part.. Catholic values were a part of our lives from the schoolhouse to the churchyard. These same values which guided our lives in books or movies that reflected core principles, are the values the SSPX family embraces. While the author thunders about must be held and the pews are vacant, thousands attend mass every Sunday at the new SSPX church in ST Mary’s Kansas.
Thank you, Mr. Begendahl, but why is it presumptuous to state that the papacy is the principle of unity in the hierarchical Church, which is itself a teaching of the Church? And I’d also like to know where I ‘thunder’. The point of the article – which, as all essays, is imperfect, and simply an attempt to continue the conversation – is to help move towards full unity, and I agree with you that ‘Tradition’ in its various forms is the way to go forward. As one priest put it in a title of a book on the Mass, we walk to heaven backwards. In Corde Iesu et Mariae +
Mr. Bergendahl, you write “There are so few of us who actually lived the Catholic experience of the Latin church.” I am one of them. Being female, I never had any Brothers teaching me, but I had the Sisters. As far as Latin goes, I had several years of it. I made my First Communion and I was confirmed in the pre-1963 rite. I consider myself a faithful Catholic, and I do not share the ideas of the SSPX. If you want to know my ideas, you can find them here: https://wherepeteris.com/author/sister-gabriela-of-the-incarnation-o-c-d/
God bless you.
Dear Mr. Bergendahl,
I, too, belong to your generation. The trouble is many of us think only the SSPX holds on to Tradition, which is not true. You may not have noticed it, but Vatican II is also steeped in tradition, as Pope Benedict XVI’s Letter to the Bishops (March 10, 2009) says:
“The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.”
The same letter says:
“In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.
“This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially DOCTRINAL in nature and concern primarily the ACCEPTANCE of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes.” (Capitalization of relevant words are mine.)
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
Unfortunately, little is known of the beautiful Novus Ordo Mass celebrated in Latin, held ad orientem, with the Ordinary (Kyrie, Gloria in Excelsis, Credo, Sanctus and Agnus Dei)chanted, and people receive Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue. If you ever find yourself in such a Mass, Mr. Bergendahl, you’d agree that Tradition is alive and well in the Church, and not just in SSPX.
A church in my area – St. Margaret Mary’s in Oakland, CA – celebrates both the Vetus Ordo and the Novus Ordo in Latin. And both are popular with the congregation. I haven’t heard any in-fighting or debates among the people during lunch/coffee hour. I believe unity is achievable.
Dear Margarita,
It would serve you well to remember that V2 was not a doctrinal council, rather, it was a “pastoral” council (whatever that means) and if some claim that it was (somehow) a doctrinal council, it utterly failed to address the most obvious enemy of the church at the time: Communism. The council of Trent was convened to address the protestant heresy and the teachings from that time are timeless – still just as relevant for the church today. I don’t doubt that the NO mass can be said with some reverence; but, it does not conduce to that reality most of the time. It is interesting that you ascribe the inherent elements of the VO to the NO when describing a “reverent” NO mass. Personally, I will never set foot in another NO mass parish. Too many insensitive and vulgar profanities against His holy body have taken place there. I won’t contribute to the tears shed by Our BV Mother at Lasalette who, in her profound sadness and through tears of sorrow described a time when “filthy feet would be trampling the precious body of her son.” I can imagine no other context within which that might take place than at a NO mass where Our Lord is handed out like a carnival ride ticket.
Dear Mark Tabish,
Vatican II council was deemed pastoral, but it was still covered by the infallibility of the Church under the protection of the Holy Spirit, as all other ecumenical councils of the past. This infallibility is premised on the authority Jesus granted to the apostles to “bind and loose” and in particular the promises to Peter in regard to papal infallibility.
The Church holds this doctrine of infallibility on Vatican II because it was approved by the Pope in union with all the bishops of the Catholic world.
Dear Mark Tabish,
I “ascribed the inherent elements of the VO to the NO when describing a reverent NO Mass” because they are the same Latin rite in two different forms. I suggest you read Pope Benedict’s motu proprio, “Summorum Pontificum.”
The abuses you described are not in the GIRM of the Novus Ordo.
The difference between the SSPX’s VO and the NO is, the SSPX’s VO, while valid, is illegal and has no canonical standing in the Church. Whereas the NO is both valid and licit.
I, too, love Our Lady of La Salette.
Margarita, Margarita, Margarita . . . Please note the following changes to the Latin Mass by the Protestant Revolutionaries:
1. Mass in the vernacular
2. Mass led by “presiders” (not priests)
3. Communion in the hand while standing
4. Communion under both species
5. Removal of the high altar
6. Introduction of a common table (sharing a common meal)
6. Removal of the altar rail
7. Mass where the President faced the people
8. Elimination of incense
9. Elimination of bells
10. Elimination of Priestly Vestments
11. Introduction of co-celebrants.
Now, ask yourself which Mass most resembles the Protestant “Prayer Service” as outlined above, the NO or the VO? The two are NOT contiguous. The NO is NOT a continuation of the former, it represents a complete break. It represents a destruction of the former precisely because there is a definite attempt to change the theology of the Mass. God Bless you! (PLEASE, read Michael Davies)
When the 1549 “catholic” Book of Prayers was published by Protestant Cramner and company in England, there arose an armed rebellion by the backwater farm hicks and plow boy “traditionalist Catholics” against what they knew were teachings clearly openly hostile and completely antithetical to the Catholic Church, i.e. the “rebels” wanted to pray for the souls in purgatory which were missing in the new missal, they wanted to pray for the Pope, they longed for prayers that referenced the sacrifice of the Mass and for the inclusion of references to the REAL presence of Jesus on the High Altar in the consecrated Host. They resented the fact that the high altars were being ripped out of the sanctuaries and placed as steps to be trodden on for the faithful to enter their churches. As Catholics in this age, we have yet to suffer a fraction of what the Catholic men of England in 1549 endured at a cost to their own lives . . . literally. We belly ache about “schisms” as if, based on the fruit of the SSPX, it’s even an issue at this point. The world is closing in on the church from every corner and it is going far beyond what is reasonable or holy in providing “aggiornamento”. I fear that what many fiercely loyal Catholic men were willing to die for yesterday; todays progressives will give away as if it means NOTHING. Perhaps, if we were more focused on what UNITES the SSPX to the church than a squabble over process from over 35 years ago, we would find little reason to cast aspersion or glances askew. Deo Gratias!
Dear Mark Tabish,
What will unite SSPX to the Church is its acceptance of Vatican II.
Here’s what the Pope Benedict XVI says in his letter of 3/10/2009:
“The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.
“In order to make this clear once again: UNTIL THE DOCTRINAL QUESTIONS ARE CLARIFIED, THE SOCIETY HAS NO CANONICAL STATUS IN THE CHURCH, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church…
“This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes.
“The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society.
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
Dear Margarita,
What doctrine specifically from V2 have the Society rejected? If you will simply take the time to understand what “progressive” chicanery occurred during – and especially AFTER – John’s council, you will find it hard to stomach the “new mass”. In every way, it removed, or deluded, all elements of distinctly Catholic worship and theology in order to appease our “separated brethren”. The NO mass is what is left after all Catholicism has been stripped away. Take the time to read the trilogy by Michael Davies: “Cramner’s Godly Order”, “Pope John’s Council” and “Pope Paul’s Mass”. By some strange (ecumenical) turn of logic, those in charge of what became the NO mass believed it necessary to model the NO mass after protestant prayer services. These same protestant prayer services were specifically designed to undermine the doctrine of the Real Presence. By imposing the equivalent of a protestant prayer service on the faithful, again, by some strange turn of logic, our Catholic hierarchy are (somehow) befuddled that the population of Catholics who still attend the NO find it difficult to believe in the Real Presence. It is no wonder that the NO church is trying to “revive” the eucharist. Meanwhile, in our SSPX Chapel, we are engaged in a Eucharistic Crusade. Don’t take these statistics lightly, please: 98% of those that attend the VO believe in the Real Presence, 20% (at best) in the NO. 98% of those that attend the VO abide by the teachings of Humanae Vitae, 20% or less do that attend the NO. So, in the end, who is actually following the doctrine of the church – the 98% or the less than 20%? Compound the problems outlined above with the upcoming sin-nod and more and more Catholics of good will will find it difficult to remain on the Barque of Peter as our papacy steers directly into the rocks. The only logical place to retreat will be to the Catholic Church as she has been understood for the last 2,000 years and that, for most faithful, will appear as a harried RETURN to tradition. Deo Gratias!
Dear Mark Tabish,
I am not familiar with SSPX, but from what I’ve read and from some friends who go to SSPX, the Vatican II doctrines that SSPX does not accept are basically, ecumenism and religious freedom.
And of course, as you yourself do, SSPX disapproves of the Novus Ordo Mass.
I lived through the new Mass and all its early abuses; a lot of it I actually saw and some more atrocious ones I’ve read about. But most of them have been corrected now, at least from what I see. In time, I hope and pray it will continue improving, especially the music. Still, it’s valid and legal, unlike the SSPX Mass which is valid but illicit. I don’t think it’s a good idea for SSPX to warn its adherents to avoid the NO, but I understand that they do.
I go to the TLMs that are valid and legal and thank God, there are quite a few in my vicinity: the FSSP in Sacramento, ICKSP in Oakland, and the diocesan TLMs in Santa Rosa, San Francisco, Vacaville, and Brentwood, CA. Thank God that the bishops of these dioceses and the Archbishop of SF are all promoters of the TLM and appear not to be affected at all by Traditionis Custodes.
I go to the TLMs on Sundays and holy days of obligation because I like chant music. Otherwise, I go to my own parish which has a really solid NO, ecellent confessors, and Eucharistic adoration on weekdays.
God bless you.
Dear Mark Tabish,
It seems you don’t approve of the papacy at this time. May I ask, if you don’t mind, which pope’s name does SSPX mention at the canon of the Mass?
Thanks and God bless.
Pope Francis, before him, Pope Benedict XVI, before him, Pope JPII and so on. You really should attend a Mass offered by the SSPX. They are under the umbrella of the church. I am grateful to the SSPX for many reasons and this one reason in particular deserves my admiration: sometimes, Popes need an exterior conscience to guide them in their Papacy. The SSPX have been that external conscience for the last several Popes. This particular Pope is very busy creating an “echo chamber”. He would otherwise have complete say over all matters of the church regardless; but for the existence and persistence of the SSPX in the church who continue to show him the REAL and AUTHENTIC way forward. If you must judge them, then do as the Lord says you should do: “judge them by their fruits”. Deo Gratias!
This below comment all quite apart from the whackadoodles on both sides who are schismatic and heretic who deny the total ancient deposit of faith AND tradition, and instead cherry pick teachings to include councils, where someone unchurched who loves God with ALL their heart, mind and strength is far more faithful a Catholic than them, no matter how many Masses attended or articles published….
But, if the SSPX is seen as schismatic or even heretic, then what of Paul when he vigorously contested and slapped down Peter when Peter was caving in to wanting to be liked by those who maintained that all converts must follow all Jewish practices to gain salvation and union with God?….which believers did not last very long and became extinct well after the time of the Apostles. We are the heirs of that moment of “schism”.
Was the “papacy” at this time to be followed mindlessly? Had that been done, Christianity would likely have gone the way of the temple and its Christian adherents.
Bob,
The papacy at this time is not asking to be followed “mindlessly.” All SSPX has to do is accept Vatican II, and they’re in. The SSPX in Campos, Brazil did that, and they were reunited with the Catholic Church.
Here’s what Pope Benedict XVI says in his Letter 3/10/2009:
“The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.
“In order to make this clear once again: UNTIL THE DOCTRINAL QUESTIONS ARE CLARIFIED, THE SOCIETY HAS NO CANONICAL STATUS IN THE CHURCH, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church…
“This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes.
“The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society…
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
Funny how all the SSPX have to do is embrace V2, while the church since V2 appears to have rejected all that went before. I’ll have to stand upside down and turn myself inside-out in order to appreciate that “logic”.
Many Clapping hand emojis are clapping for your remark, Mr. Mark.
Mark Tabish,
That’s how it appears to you, but that’s contrary to what appears to me. You are young and I am old, but both appearances are really just opinions. There’s no way we could arrive at the truth unless we discuss specific points, preferably with documental proofs to back them up.
Dear Margarita, I suspect you and I might be of similar age. At any rate, I was born into the church at the time of the upheaval. I received baptism at 2 months and from that point until my 57th year, I was unable to attend and enjoy the Latin Mass. There is a lot more going on in the Latin Mass than the pale comparison exemplified by the NO. In fact, the NO Mass is modeled after the prayer services that were crafted by the Protestants in the Mid-1500’s. You really should attend a High Mass, Margarita. It’s the only place this side of the veil that offers the soul a true glimpse of the paradise that awaits! God bless you – Deo Gratias!
Dear Mark Tabish,
I’m happy to know something about you. Glad to meet you! God bless you. You’re young, and I’m very old, probably older than your mother. I’m Filipino and didn’t learn how to speak, much less write, in English until late in life. I grew up with the Tridentine Mass and saw all the heartbreaking upheaval in the process of transitioning to the new Mass.
That said, I must tell you, the SSPX Mass, although valid, is not recognized by the Church, for the simple reason that SSPX is in schism and has no canonical standing with the Church.
All the Popes from Paul VI to Francis (except JPI who died early in his pontificate) tell people not to attend SSPX because it’s schismatic. Pope Francis himself says SSPX is in schism in his letter accompanying “Traditionis Custodes.” (Read fully the quotes below).
1. Pope Paul VI on the withdrawal of canonical recognition from the Society of Saint Pius X SSPX, June 29, 1975:
” … Our grief is even greater to note that the decision of the competent authority – although formulated very clearly, and fully justified, it may be said, by your refusal to modify your public and persistent opposition to the Second Vatican Council, to the post-conciliar reforms, and to the orientations to which the Pope himself is committed…
“Finally, the conclusions which [the Commission of Cardinals] proposed to Us, We made all and each of them Ours, and We personally ordered that they be immediately put into force.”
Source: PAUL VI, “Lettre de S. S. Le Pape Paul VI a Mgr. Lefebvre,” 29 June 1975, La Documentation Catholique, n. 1689, trans. in M. DAVIES, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, p. 113.
2. Here is what Pope John Paul II says in his Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, February 7, 1988:
“In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of CEASING THEIR SUPPORT IN ANY WAY FOR THAT MOVEMENT.
“Everyone should be aware that formal ADHERENCE TO THE SCHISM IS A GRAVE OFFENCE AGAINST GOD and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.”
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei.html
3. Here’s what the Pope Benedict XVI says in his Letter to the Bishops dated March 10, 2009:
“The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.
“In order to make this clear once again: UNTIL THE DOCTRINAL QUESTIONS ARE CLARIFIED, THE SOCIETY HAS NO CANONICAL STATUS IN THE CHURCH, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church…
“This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially DOCTRINAL in nature and concern primarily THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL AND THE POST-CONCILIAR MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPES.
“The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society.
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
4. Pope Francis did give SSPX the faculty to hear confessions legally and validly, because it does not contradict Canon Law. There have always been exceptional circumstances or instances of necessity in which the Church recognizes as valid and licit the reception of sacraments from priests who may be immoral, schismatic, irreligious, laicized, or even non-Catholic, provided their denominations have sacramental confessions.
Canon 844 §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
Canon 976. Even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he absolves validly and licitly any penitents whatsoever in danger of death from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.
While Pope Francis’ gesture of mercy shows an important precedent — for the good of souls, the Church has the power to grant faculties even to priests who are not in good standing — it is nevertheless NOT AN APPROVAL OF THEM – not an approval of SSPX, or their situation.
5. Pope Francis in his letter Misericordia et Misera, November 20, 2916:
“For the pastoral benefit of these faithful (who attend churches officiated by the SSPX) and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s HELP FOR THE RECOVERY OF FULL COMMUNION IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon.”
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-ap_20161120_misericordia-et-misera.html
Very clearly, Pope Francis’ motu proprio shows there is still the need for SSPX “to recover full communion in the Catholic Church.” Therefore, Pope Benedict’s statement on SSPX’s non-canonical status in the Church still stands.
6. Pope Francis’ letter, dated July 16, 2021, that accompanies Traditionis Custodes, he specifically mentioned SSPX to be in “schism.” Here’s the 2nd paragraph, fully quoted:
“Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty — granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 — was above all motivated by the desire to foster healing to THE SCHISM WITH THE MOVEMENT OF MONS. LEFEBVRE. With the ecclesial intention of restoring the unity of the Church, the Bishops were thus asked to accept with generosity the “just aspirations” of the faithful who requested the use of that Missal.”
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html
7. About the SSPX faculty to officiate in Catholic weddings (Letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dated March 27, 2017). It states that with the diocese’s permission, an SSPX priest may officiate in a Catholic wedding but only if there is no diocesan or religious priest available, and the documents must be forwarded to the diocesan curia. It should be remembered, too, that in the sacrament of matrimony, the ministers are the couple themselves. A priest is only there to witness for the Church and receive the couple’s consent.
Other than those limited faculties, the sacraments of the SSPX, although valid, are not recognized by the Church because, as Pope Benedict XVI writes, the Society has no canonical status and no legitimate ministry in the Church.
8. Many people, including bishops, who say SSPX is not in schism or has reconciled with the Church, should be able to produce a document similar to Pope John Paul II’s letter welcoming the SSPX in Campos, Brazil (now the Union of St. John Mary Vianney) into the fold, otherwise they should not be believed. Here’s the link to Pope JPII letter:
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4141
Thank you for reading. God bless you, Mark.
Dear Margarita, I value your earnestness and appreciate your efforts. With all that you have laid out to the contrary, I find my soul’s safe harbor at nothing other than the Mass of the SSPX, the fullest liturgical expression of authentic Catholic teaching and doctrine as handed down from generation to generation for the last 1,600+ years. I abjure you to keep an eye on the papacy of Francis as he and his fellow leftists extend their hand and offer to take yours as, with you, they intend to walk with the flock through the vagaries of the synod (sin-nod?). I was advised by my Spiritual Director, beware the devil who will take his place in the row boat with you and even appear to offer you help. From what I have witnessed over the last 50-years, the church is suffering an identity crisis and crying “schism” while committing ‘heresy’ and inculcating “unbelief” in the faithful are far greater atrocities against both peace in the church AND right worship we owe God. Deo Gratias!
You really must have been on fire to argue something/anything to take issue with my little comment aside from using it as a platform to continue a quotation blizzard. Might I suggest giving a listen to, or watching, the old Monty Python skit, “The argument room”?
The entire purpose of the religion is to have a loving and total union with God in this life which goes on into the next for eternity, since we are united in love with the eternal, who shares his eternity with us out of that love.
You make the call on what form or doctrines most surely pass that along to followers. In my opinion, both sides are sadly lacking in the majority, but I certainly know which one most helpful to me providing solemn and inspirational beauty and silence fostering that union.
This is a good article. Similar to what happened with Moses, Abraham at some point thought that God needed some help and produced an illegitimate son with his concubine instead of waiting for Sarah to conceive. The results of that lack of faith were disastrous.
Great analogies, Andrew Saucci. Thank you so much and God bless you!
Personally, I’ve been praying and thinking of what the second Beatitude means: “Blessed are the meek for they shall possess the earth.” Now I came to believe “meekness” really means “patience.” It’s the virtue I am most in need of!
He who waits (for the Lord to act) also serves.
This is a comment on some of the ideas posed in the essay, and not a barbed response to Mr. Meenan, who I sense is a very faithful Catholic man.
1. As to the documents of the Second Vatican Council, I think it is illogical and unpersuasive to say (as we hear continuously) that “even where the V2 documents are ambiguous, the problem is not the ambiguous documents, but the erroneous interpretation.” Unintended ambiguity can sometimes result from hasty speech and writing. However, the Second Vatican Council proceedings went on for years, so any ambiguity must be judged as deliberate. Indeed, “His Eminence” Walter Kasper has publicly stated that the documents of V2 were intentionally written to be ambiguous. And deliberate ambiguity cannot be a mark of the Holy Spirit. So, where such ambiguity exists (as many observers aver, among others, Cardinal Kasper, and Mr. Meenan) the problem is the ambiguity itself, because intentional ambiguity does not serve the Truth, but serves only what opposes the Truth.
2. As to the principle of unity, I believe that Jesus Christ is the principle of unity, as St. Paul put it to the Galatians (3:28) “you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Professor Farrow has written of this on these pages here at CWR. This principle seems to me to be a very urgent one in our day, because it seems to me that the intention and trajectory of our “Roman Catholic Church” is to establish an official “dirty schism,” overseen by the apostate Bishops and Cardinals everywhere established by the Pontiff Francis.
So in light of these two topics above, I think we are skating on very thin ice if we assert our hope in “the unifying principle of the papacy” if that principle delivers us up to paying lip service to the hierarchs who themselves reject the law-giver, Jesus Christ, and who appear to be busy engineering and intending to leave as their legacy a “dirty schism.” Indeed, it seems to me increasingly the case, observing the behavior the vast majority of Bishops and Cardinals, particularly those in major US and European cities (what they say and don’t say, and what they do and don’t do) that we are already members of a “de facto” a “Dirty Schism Church” right now. And that the purpose of the “Synodal Church” going forward is to officially marginalize the faithful laity, priests and Bishops who don’t “submit” to the authority of “the dirty schismatics” and their hierarchs.
As to the Church, we confess in the Creed our belief in “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.” I note that the phrase does not say “Roman Catholic Church.”
I don’t know the sum of what all of this amounts to, but I can only state that in all honesty, I do not think I can trust the spiritual welfare of my children to the care of the typical Bishop or Cardinal, nor the Pontiff Francis, as they don’t seem to be in a communion of faith with, for instance, John Paul II or Benedict XVI, to name but two faithful papal predecessors. I think that their main purpose now seems to be “legitimizing” sodomy by way of rejecting the 6th Commandment, etc.
In response to your first point, about “deliberate ambiguity,” let me reference a sort of x-ray provided by Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen, who during the entire council publishes an on-site news service in six languages for 3,000 subscribers in 108 different countries.
About the ambiguity in the key Lumen Gentium, he recounts that there were some operatives, and I would guess now that Kasper was the unnamed point man and writer (I used to think it was Schillebeeckx). In short, the ruse was discovered and with regard to the papacy and the “hierarchical communion” with his bishops, Pope Paul VI caused the International Theological Commission to draft a Prefatory Explanatory Note to Chapter 3, which he “explicitly extended…to the whole of Chapter 3 and not only to the [proposed and disputed] qualifications.”
According to Wiltgen, the Note was understood by the Council fathers to be an integral part of the Constitution at the time that the entire document was adopted (2099 to 46), rather than not. In his detailed account (“The Rhine Flows into the Tiber,” (1966/1978) of the entire council (1992-65), Wiltgen—our fly on the wall!—includes such as this:
“Then one of the extreme liberals [Kasper?] made the mistake of referring, in writing, to some of these ambiguous passages [in Chapter 3], and indicating how they would be interpreted after the Council. This paper fell into the hands of the aformentioned group [“thirty-five cardinals and the superiors general of five very large religious orders”], whose representative took it to the Pope. Pope Paul, realizing finally that he had been deceived, broke down and wept.
“What was the remedy? Since the text of the schema did not positively make any false assertion, but merely used ambiguous terms, the ambiguity could be clarified by joining to the text a carefully phrased explanation. This was the origin of the Preliminary Explanatory Note appended to the schema” [even so, appended by publishers at the very back of the Constitution rather than at the front of Chapter 3].
So yes, also, today the now aging termites and their spawned illiterati are still on course exploiting the ambiguity thing. Which is why, overall, Pope Benedict XVI distinguished between the fidelity of the “real” council of the Documents versus the “virtual” council of the detached spirit of Vatican II. Pope Paul VI also inserted 19 short but strategic and clarifying “interventions” into Dei Verbum.)
The Council as a whole dodged a bullet, but the moles and their next-generation spawn remain, substituting for the perennial Catholic Church (indwelled by the Holy Spirit!) only the synodal tune of today “walking together” (in the Holy Spirit?).
Substituting, not augmenting…
“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4).
JMJ+
Thank you, Chris, for your thoughtful comment.
Indeed, our trust is not in Pope Francis or any particular bishop, but in Christ, through the papacy and hierarchy, and He will eventually vindicate us in the truth. But we must suffer what we must in the meantime, and do the best we might within the Church, and with the light of our conscience.
Ad veritatem +
Well said, Mr. Meenan. And Chris from Maryland also, speaking the sad truth. The challenge that Mr. Meenan rightly notes is that we must bear this crisis from WITHIN the universal Church; not apart from it. The first is to acknowledge the real crisis infecting so many bishops and cardinals, including our pontiff. The second is that we must pray earnestly and lovingly for THIS pontiff, that he may realign with the Holy Spirit, and we must remain faithful, including in obedience to the magisterium, knowing that even as a seriously flawed Pope, he is our head on earth and we are the body. We NEED for the head of our Church to be well. We all depend on it. Jesus expects our prayers, intentions and fidelity, in order to intercede when He wills, through His Holy Spirit.
You are so spot on, Chris. All the best, to you, in the Holy Spirit.
Two articles on this matter worth sharing:
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/belgium-more-than-100-churches-at-risk-of-closure-under-archbishops-plan/88310.htm
-AND-
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2023/04/may-3-major-dedication-church-of.html
The so-called Traditionalist movement is growing.
The Vatican II church is dying.
“By their fruits you shall know them.”
My late husband and I, along with my daughters and my son-in-law, would never have come into the Catholic Church if the Mass had been said in Latin.
I know a lot of people love foreign languages, but I do not. I prefer my own dear heart-language that I was born into and raised with–English–I don’t understand foreign languages, and a translation means that I am spending a lot of brain power just trying to figure out what’s being said instead of internalizing and meditating upon what is being said. Some people say that after a short time, I will pick it up–I don’t think so. I have played piano and organ in churches since I was a child, and I have sung many hymns thousands of times over my 66 years–and amazingly, I can only sing a few of them without looking at the hymnal-I simply don’t memorize stuff well and whenever I’ve been in situations where people are speaking a foreign language and they try to teach me something, I can’t even remember how to say “Hello” and “Goodbye” at the end of the occasion, let alone anything else. And I like the singing (in English) of hymns, songs, and spiritual songs, and dislike chant of all kinds–I find it spooky and meaningless and very random because there’s no melody–jut random notes. To summarize, I’m just not a “traditionally-minded” Catholic or person (probably because I spent the first 47 years of my life in dynamic Evangelical Protestant churches that yes, I still miss. I don’t see the point of a foreign language. Now if the Extraordinary Form were said in the vernacular, in my case, English–now THAT would be just fine. So why isn’t it?
I’m very happy that there are legitimate options for Catholics who prefer a Latin Mass (e.g., Institute of Christ the King), and I have actually played organ for these Masses, and I have friends who are devoted to the Latin Mass (Institute of Christ the King). But please do not take away the vernacular Mass that many of us love and that gives us the amazing opportunity to worship and to receive the Lord Jesus in the Eucharist! And please consider not denigrating the Ordinary Form of the Mass or looking down on it. I hope that I have not denigrated the Extraordinary Form of the Mass in this post, and if I have, it was not intentional. I’m just trying to let you know how I think (and I think many others probably think the same I do).
Mrs. Whitlock, you are in excellent company. The reason we have the Latin Mass is because by the 5th century the Western half of the Roman Empire didn’t understand Greek. Up until then, the Mass was in Greek, the language of the New Testament, but Pope Damasus decreed that Christians in the West should be able to understand the Mass and to have it in their own language, which was Latin. So having the Mass in the vernacular goes WAY back in Church history.
Great point Sister. You’ve exposed the great irony in this movement towards the TLM. JPM actually said, quoting a beloved priest, that we walk to heaven backwards. Sheeesh!
I think your irony meter might be a little off. The problem is not with the language, which is not the only thing that changed in the 1970 Missal, but with the body of the Mass. In fact the language did not even change. The official language of the ‘gold standard’ Missal is still Latin and it is permissible not to say the Novus Ordo Mass in Latin. Even now, when new changes are made, they are changed in the Latin version and then translated into the various vernaculars.
From 1965 to 1970, per VII, the Mass began to be prayed in the vernacular language of the congregation, but the text of the Mass was nearly identical to the 1962 Latin Missal. Even that is vastly superior to the Missal released in 1970. What happened in those years was that a modernist contingent, in rather severe violation of the spirit of the VII guidelines, removed about half the prayers, the chants, nearly all the invocation of Saints, even mention of the Soul. This was a very deliberate protestantization of the Mass, even to the point of injecting lots of communal singing and hand clapping and guitar playing, in hopes of making Catholicism more modern and palatable to non-Catholics. They did succeed in attracting the Whitlocks (supra) but failed to recognize that the mainline Protestant denominations were already bleeding severely (and are nearly exsanguinated now). And yes, the Latin did inspire a sense of reverence and devotion that made Catholicism appealing. Just ask H.L. Mencken.
Respectfully, Sister, most of the Canon, the Our Father, the prayers at the most intimate portion of the VO Mass are said SILENTLY by the priest. Those that expected to actually hear the words spoken in their own language (or not) never did – they were not audibly loud enough to be heard. No, I prefer the silence, I prefer the priest confecting his art with his back to me while I mediate on the profound implications of the Sacrifice of the Mass in gratitude for the omnipotent humility of our good and gracious savior.
Mark Tabish, thank you for sharing your preferences. There is a piece of advice that I find very helpful: De gustibus non disputandum. God bless you.
Sharon, yours truly also attends the Novus Ordo and has no facility with foreign languages. Nevertheless, if you were not so young (!) you might remember as I do that the Tridentine Mass was accompanied (accompaniment!) by a missal in the hands of the laity, with the Latin and the English presented in parallel.
FIRST, no translation or concentration problem. Also, the purpose for Latin was (is?) that Latin is a “dead” language, meaning the meanings of words do not change over time. Which is to say that there was a clear and supporting ambience about the Latin Mass—where the consecration renews and extends in an unbloody manner the singular self-donation of Christ at Calvary, and is not a more ambiguous “memorial.” And, further, which is performed not by the assembly through the hands of the ordained priest, but by the Holy Spirit through the hands of the ordained priests (who are extensions of the bishops as successors of the apostles sent by Christ).
All of this is scriptural as well as tradition. Do parts of the Novus Ordo require a sort of “translation” forward (not backward!) into what is centerpiece in the Latin Mass?
SECOND, I’ve been rereading a book by one of the earliest Protestant scholars of scriptural “historical criticism”: W. Robertson Smith, (“The Religion of the Semites,” 1889), where he (a believing Christian) traces primitive Semitic (including Jewish) liturgies through the communion, the sacrificial and then the substitutional phases. About such ritualism, he concludes: “To free the spiritual truth from the husk was the great task that lay before the ancient religions, if they were to maintain the right to continue to rule the minds of men. That some progress in this direction was made, especially in Israel, appears from our examination.”
THIRD, and then, for Catholics, comes the incarnate Christ’s sacrifice and meal, both, in the Mass offered by the “spiritual” Word who has appeared in person (!) in history. Today’s Mass is a communion because invited and contained in the total self-emptying of the Second Person of the Triune One, and who spoke not merely the vernacular language of Aramaic, but also, and more important, the ritual language of natural and finite human persons in search of supernatural divinity. The infinite humility (!) of Christ before the infinite Father. Meanwhile, the banalization of the Mass—contrary to the decisions of the Second Vatican Council (Sacrosanctum Concilium)—leaves much to be desired. Kumbaya!
Which is why in 2007 Pope Benedict affirmed two valid forms of the one Latin Rite (not two rites)—in his judgment to foster a needed “cross”-fertilization with neither excessive nostalgia nor ambiguous dilution.
Peter D. Beaulieu, I remember very well the missal with the Latin and the English translation. As I wrote in reply to Mr. Bergdahl, I belong to that generation that grew up before Vatican II. I remember very well waiting with my missal open to a page until the priest turned around, faced us and said something that I could recognize on the Latin page. Then I would know if I was on the right page or not. I really didn’t think it was right to just read my English translation and maybe be ahead of the priest or behind him.
Later, of course, I had Latin in school, but the same thing applied: I didn’t know where the priest was in the Mass until he turned around and said something I could hear.
Of course, with or without a knowledge of Latin, there was always the possibility of just reading the missal and hope that I was somehow in sync with the priest.
Bet you would have if the “Novus Ordo” had never been. If you were so determined, that is.
Mrs Whitlock: you say, “I don’t see the point of a foreign language. Now if the Extraordinary Form were said in the vernacular, in my case, English–now THAT would be just fine. So why isn’t it?”
It is—in the Ordinariate. There, the Sarum Rite is completely in English, ad orientem, with all the prayers used by the Latin Mass (including the prayers at the foot of the altar). I don’t know where you live, but the Masses available are listed here:
ordinariate.net
I was delighted to find it, have attended a few Masses, but have none where I live. I don’t know why the Church doesn’t adopt this as their standard English Mass, the full expression of the Faith is evident immediately.
Well here is the opinion of a notorious Atheist and misanthrope:
“A solemn high [Latin] mass must be a thousand times as impressive, to a man with any genuine religious sense in him, as the most powerful sermon ever roared under the big-top by a Presbyterian auctioneer of God. In the face of such overwhelming beauty it is not necessary to belabor the faithful with logic; they are better convinced by letting them alone.”
I do not dispute the powerful impressiveness of the Latin high mass. I only wonder whether we’re getting off the track by concentrating on the liturgy’s audio-visual “impressiveness” instead of the unseen and unheard reality behind the gestures and sayings. After all, a mass conducted on a simple wooden table on a stinking, battle-scarred Pacific island during World War II was not very “impressive”–or at least not nearly as “impressive” as a high mass in a Cathedral. Does that mean the battlefield mass was inferior? It’s one thing to insist (properly) that the mass be celebrated reverently and not abusively. But it’s quite another to exalt the splendid over the simple in and of itself. The grand and glorious spectacle has its proper place, but then so does the simple and unadorned where the grand display may not be feasible. The man or woman who perceives that both are equally magnificent concerning the things which we cannot see or hear has, in my opinion, far stronger and deeper faith than the person who cannot be motivated by less than audio-visual splendor. The latter person can’t see the forest for the trees.
Larry Northon, Thank you for re-focusing our attention on the essential. My most memorable Mass was took place in 1958 (in Latin before any of Vatican II’s changes). It was celebrated in the Masonic hall of a tiny town in the Sierra Nevadas that had no Catholic church of its own since there were barely 20 Catholics living there. The Masons very kindly let us use their room since it was in the winter and the room had heat and light. The priest said Mass on a card table facing us who sat on folding chairs. I could have touched the table if I leaned forward in my chair. I remember thinking, “The Mass is itself.” Its value depends on itself and its splendor flows from what it is. This is true in every Mass.
Bless you, Sharon Whitlock!
To be playing the organ or the piano at Mass and still sing the words of the hymns from memory is commendable in itself. (I know several pianists/organists who know the tunes of 1,000 hymns and Mass settings but can’t sing the lyrics because it’s the music they concentrate on.)
Since you did not grow up with the Tridentine Latin Mass, no one should expect you to be able to hold a TLM missal with the Latin text on one side and the English translation on the other, and fool around with the ribbon bookmarks, while playing the organ. You’ll need four hands to do it, and that’s a bit too much.
I think sacred music alone is prayer. Thanks for your service with the choir. God bless you.
JSB: There is traditional movement within the Church right now, among the Ecclesia Dei and diocesan TLM communities. And yes, even in the Novus Ordo.
The Church is NOT dying.
JSB: From your location or if you only consume items from within your favored media bubble, this observation is true. But globally the radical traditionalist movement is just a tiny tiny but loud minority within the Church. Its loudness can give you the illusion that it is big and growing. Consider the numbers. The Vetus Ordo is celebrated in only around 1,700 out of the around 225,000 parishes worldwide. Of this figure, around 700 are in the U.S. out of the around 18,000 total nationwide. This number has plateaued since the reign of Pope John Paul II and is rapidly declining in this reign of Pope Francis. The radtrad movement is actually declining.
You’re right! The Traditional Church in the world and here in Portugal is slowly growing and expanding. It is clear from Portugal that the modern church is simply fading away. The future of the Portuguese church will be saved only by the strong faith of the people as they return to their roots and embrace once again the Traditional Catholic Church.
Whether their “disobedience” is justified or not, no one debates that the SSPX currently does not have an official canonical mission on the Catholic Church. The question, though, is: what does it even mean to say the SSPX is not “in good standing” when any number of priests, bishops and cardinals (to say nothing, alas, of the several doctrinal aberrations of Francis himself) are “in good standing” on paper, but have in fact denied or contradicted various Catholic doctrines? Since the basis of all unity in the Church is UNITY IN THE FAITH, it is certainly a very confusing time for the Catholic faithful when many members of the hierarchy (deliberately or not, culpably or not) undermine the unity of the Church through their false teaching, but we are still getting worked up about the canonically irregular SSPX. Not saying that two wrongs make a right, but still.
Well said. One might even say concerns about the SSPX is akin to a man insisting to remove a splinter from the eye of another, while neglecting the log in his own eye.
Peter: See my post below (posted June 22 @ 5:25 PM) that contains some very helpful references regarding the current status of the SSPX that is indeed irregular, but irregular does not equate with what it appears you mean in stating that the SSPX does not have an official canonical mission. The faculty to administer the Sacrament of Reconciliation on a regular, ongoing basis that was granted by Pope Francis is an official canonical mission.
I thought when Pope Francis signed the agreement with Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party, that this made the Chinese Communist Party Catholic Church in ‘full communion’ with Pope Francis? I have heard that the Chinese Communist Party Catholic Church has pictures of Xi Jinping that Chinese Communist Party Catholics have to worship right alongside Jesus. I have heard that the Chinese Communist Party Catholic Church Bishops are even changing scriptures to promote their secular agenda.
So how on earth could the Chinese Communist Party Catholic Church be in ‘full communion’ with Pope Francis, but not SSPX Catholics? Is there some sort of sliding standard in our Universal Catholic Church, which simply varies depending on whether or not Pope Francis likes you or not?
At least in terms of the Sacrament of Reconciliation (and some elements of celebrating the sacrament of Holy Matrimony), the Bishop of Rome has sent the priests of the SSPX as ministers of Christ to hear confessions on an ongoing and regular basis (not the same thing as what the Orthodox enjoy in urgent, non-regular situations), WHICH would be IMPOSSIBLE IF the SSPX was in SCHISM.
Regular, ongoing faculties can only be granted to Catholic priests that are not in schism. This is Church Law and Practice, period.
Good people of CWR, you can still criticize the SSPX for remaining outside of full communion and enjoying only an irregular canonical status, but don’t (ironically) reject Church teaching and practice because you wish to unreasonably maintain that the SSPX is in schism when it is not possible for them to be so for the reasons set forth above.
Hopefully, those who insist that the SSPX is in schism will not irrationally attempt to rebut the current reality by making the false claim that the priestly faculty to administer the Sacrament of Reconciliation was granted to the SSPX only for a particular time during the Year of Mercy, and it is no longer in effect. The faculty was indeed first granted to the priests of the SSPX for the Year of Mercy, BUT then the Pope extended the faculty Beyond the Year of Mercy for Ongoing and Regular use by priests of the SSPX. This is simply an objective fact.
As I have commented elsewhere, please note that I am not a member of the SSPX, nor do I attend SSPX masses, but like all good-hearted Catholics, I take a similar approach to that of the good Bishop Athanasius Schneider by hoping and praying for full reconciliation as soon as possible so that the SSPX can go beyond the incomplete/irregular communion they have now and soon enjoy full communion with Rome. More work by the SSPX remains to be done.
__
For those fair-minded people who want to look more deeply into the SSPX situation and arguments in favor of it currently enjoying a non-regular or “partially schismatic” (explanatory term only; not an ecclesiastical definition or official status), I urge you to carefully and honestly read the following articles:
A. Insights and comments by Bishop Athanasius Schneider (see Life Site News: March 8, 2022):
B. “Ask Father: What’s the Truth about the SSPX?” (see Fr. Z’s blog: April 16, 2020)
C. “Letter from Rev. Dr. Denzil Meuli, S.T.D., U.J.D., Ph.L., LL.B., Advocate for the Holy Roman Rota. “A Compelling Defense of the SSPX” (see The Catholic Monitor. December 3, 2022). ***
D. “When is it Okay to Go to an SSPX Mass?” (see Cathy Caridi’s Canon Law Made Easy: September 16, 2021)
***This letter by Reverend Dr. Denzil Meuli (a recognized super canon lawyer who died just a few years ago), is fascinating in part because he points out that Pope John Paul II was ill-served by his canon lawyers regarding the SSPX case, and as such he applied wrong parts of the canon law to wrongly find the SSPX guilty of schism when a different penalty was more appropriate based on what the SSPX actually did. Meuli does point out that a finding of schism was possible under that part of canon law that the Pope was actually obligated to use under the circumstances, but such would not be applicable to the SSPX situation, again based on what it actually did, and so a lesser penalty was appropriate under canon law. This should be taken very seriously into consideration when people cite the action of Pope John Paul II that was itself a violation of canon law. Meuli offered to discuss his conclusions and rationale with anyone who cared to challenge him, but it appears that nobody wanted to match wits, at least in public, with the redoubtable Reverend Dr. Meuli over a roughly 20-year period of time that they could have done so.
Just a bit more on this by way of an example: Imagine you are accused of X wrongdoing, and based on the nature of what you did, your alleged crime falls under law Z with possible penalties 1 and 2. However, the judge in the case, relying on his crack law clerks’ opinions, wrongly tries you under law Q with 1 penalty. You are found guilty by the judge of committing a specific crime you actually did not commit and the penalty imposed was unjust. Had you been properly charged under law Z, penalty 2 was the same as the one penalty under Q, but based on what you actually did, only penalty 1 that is lesser than penalty 2 was the just result. In essence, this is what happened to the SSPX and the wrongful judgment of Pope John Paul II influenced many others to come to the same wrong conclusion and perpetuate the erroneous claim that the SSPX is and remains in schism.
DocVerit:
The Church has the power to grant faculties even to priests who are not in good standing — it is nevertheless NOT AN APPROVAL OF THEM – not an approval of SSPX, or their situation.
Pope Francis did give SSPX the faculty to hear confessions legally and validly, because it does not contradict Canon Law. There have always been exceptional circumstances or instances of necessity in which the Church recognizes as valid and licit the reception of sacraments from priests who may be immoral, schismatic, irreligious, laicized, or even non-Catholic, provided their denominations have sacramental confessions.
Canon 844 §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
Canon 976 Even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he absolves validly and licitly any penitents whatsoever in danger of death from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.
As Francis states in his letter Misericordia et Misera: “For the pastoral benefit of these faithful (who attend churches officiated by the SSPX ) and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s HELP FOR THE RECOVERY OF FULL COMMUNION IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon.”
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-ap_20161120_misericordia-et-misera.html
Very clearly, Pope Francis’ motu proprio shows there is still the need for SSPX “to recover full communion in the Catholic Church.” Therefore, Pope Benedict’s statement on SSPX’s non-canonical status in the Church still stands.
Again, in Pope Francis’ letter, dated 7/16/2021, that accompanies Traditionis Custodes, he specifically mentioned SSPX to be in “schism.” Here’s the 2nd paragraph, fully quoted:
“Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty — granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 — was above all MOTIVATED BY THE DESIRE TO FOSTER THE HEALING OF THE SCHISM WITH THE MOVEMENT OF MONS. LEFEBVRE. With the ecclesial intention of restoring the unity of the Church, the Bishops were thus asked to accept with generosity the “just aspirations” of the faithful who requested the use of that Missal.”
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html
(I took the liberty of capitalizing relevant words in the papal documents quoted above. Please forgive me if I offended anybody.)
About the SSPX faculty to officiate in Catholic weddings (Letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dated March 27, 2017). It states that with the diocese’s permission, an SSPX priest may officiate in a Catholic wedding but only if there is no diocesan or religious priest available, and the documents must be forwarded to the diocesan curia. It should be remembered, too, that in the sacrament of matrimony, the ministers are the couple themselves. A priest is only there to witness for the Church and receive the couple’s consent.
Other than those limited faculties, the sacraments of the SSPX, although valid, are not recognized by the Church because, as Pope Benedict XVI writes, the Society has no canonical status and no legitimate ministry in the Church.
Sorry, Margarita: You were off the mark in March, and you are still off the mark today, because of the actions of Pope Francis that have current authority and status over what Benedict XVI stated in 2009 regarding the then status of the SSPX some 14 years ago.
Also, what Francis states in his 7/16/2021 letter that you mistakenly believe supports the notion of “current schism” is simply his recollection of the history of what occurred in the past WHEN the SSPX WAS in schism. It is not a declaration of the SSPX being in schism at that time of his writing in 2021, so you are reading things into it that are simply not there. The Pope’s recollection of the past also has no bearing on his actions that culminated in his granting of a few regular and ongoing faculties, particularly the regular and ongoing faculty to hear confessions that are definitively NOT the same things or equivalent to what is covered by Canons 844 and 976.
As I previously stated,…”Regular, ongoing faculties can only be granted to Catholic priests that are not in schism. This is Church Law and Practice, period.”
In particular, the regular and ongoing faculty to hear confessions was granted to the SSPX AFTER the Year of Mercy. It is still in effect, and since such a faculty CANNOT be granted to any priests in schism, and since such a faculty has nothing to do with Canons 844 and 976, this demonstrates that even though not in full communion, the SSPX is also not in schism.
QED
So the important question that every Catholic must, to his best knowledge, correctly answer is: who is the pope?
The book “No Crisis in the Church?” should cast, at least, strong doubt on those who claim to be popes and are associated with the alleged ecumenical council called Vatican II.
If there is anything “good” about heresy and schism it is that the crime can’t be concealed, so long as the written word is relied upon. If a statement coming from an alleged priest or bishop is heretical, one needn’t agonize over the likelihood of guilt.
SSPX is certainly schismatic. That said, they aren’t totally wrong about everything.
Awful. With all the problems in the Church today, suddenly it becomes so important to attack the SSPX. Really gives the game away.
The problem IS several documents of Vatican II that contain ambiguity, bearing modernist interpretations as they stand. This doesn’t mean they are heretical; not all modernist tendencies are overtly heretical. As Archbishop Lefebvre said, Vatican II needs “correction”. Even big footnotes will do. NOT Pope Benedict’s gospel of continuity of the mess he helped put together in the 1960’s.
Yet this article praises Kwasniewsky, who is less worried by the doctrinal defects of Vatican II than trying to “exorcise” “the spirit of Vatican ONE”. Kwasniewsky attacks the constitution of the Church in the name of “Traditionalism”. He wants an episcopal jurisdiction parallel to that of the Pope (says the Pope cannot fire or move a bishop without “due process”! What?), in the “spirit” of Vatican II. He is, in fact, a Gallicanist. This attack on the Church’s constitution is now becoming generalised among Conservative “traditionalists”, who commonly sprout alternative theories on what Peter “the Rock” now means, the autonomous jurisdiction of the episcopate and so on.
The Society of St. Pius X has never questioned the constitution of the Church as these goody two-shoes “obedient” “canonically regular” conservatives do (the list is long, not just Kwasniewski, but Vigano/Siffi, etc/.). The SSPX simply does what Catholics have always done in the face of hierarchs who want people to do what is problematic for the faith: recognise, but not follow, on the matters concerned.
JMJ+
Thank you, Mr. Cervantes, for your comment.
My point is not to ‘attack’ the SSPX, but simply point out certain caveats in their modus operandi. It is because they have so much good, that they may be tested even more. The crazies out in left field are so far out there that there is little point in arguing with them on the basis of Catholic principles. But I would like to see the SSPX fully ‘regularized’, and not drift away. My motive, I hope, is charity, and this discussion is ongoing.
I hope this helps.
Ad veritatem +
Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, your article cannot realistically discuss the Society of St Pius X because it insists that the chaos in the Church does not have a basis in the decrees of Vatican II. It also praises Qwasniewski, whose beliefs on the Church that are erroneous and dangerous to the faith. Therefore, your analysis of the problem (the problem which motivated the 1988 consecrations) is wrong, as is the solution you have suggested.
I would frankly urge you, in the interests of truth, to re-examine your position, and let the SSPX get on with their wonderful work in the meantime. Another Pius V, Leo XIII or Pius XII will find in this Society the most loyal collaborators in the restoration of the Church. What they would do with Kwasviewski and Vigano and their Gallicanism, vis another question altogether.
Thank you, Miguel Cervantes on explaining Kwasniewski. I’ve always thought he was just an expert on liturgical music and nothing else. But I once caught the start of a lecture by him on YouTube where he was discussing ecclesiology and I knew there was something wrong but which I couldn’t pinpoint. So I just turned him off. I really appreciate your explanation. Thanks, and God bless you.
One act does not a schism make. Archbishop Lefebvre always clung to the hope of resolution with Rome. He would not submit to what broke from two millennia of Doctrine and Sacred Tradition. This continual drum beating of “schism, schism, schism” is harmful to Holy Mother Church. Pope Francis talks of unity, but the reality is that there is no unity which has been amply demonstrated by the disastrous synods. We essentially have two Churches at present: the Church infiltrated by Modernism and Freemasonry and the Orthodox Church that clings to unchanging and unchangeable Dogma and Tradition. If anyone is in schism it is those promoting Modernism and an “anything goes” church.
I agree, Mary Ann.
The claim has also been leveled that no less a personage than St. Pope JPII did consecrate bishop/s without prior approval from Rome when he believed necessity and the good of the faithful required it.
No less a personage than Fr. Gerald Murray, canon lawyer, claims that Pope St. JPII did receive erroneous advice and did err in his initial charge against LeFebvre.
Meanwhile, the current German Church and the Synod support sodomy and communion for interfaith and divorced-remarried ‘Catholic’ couples. Meanwhile, has the Magisterium of PF raised more than a dialogic whisper to counter its erring brothers?
Whether it is the SSPX, or some other so-called schismatic, there is an inherent problem with how such a person or movement is defined. Fundamentally, by linking schism to a person (the pope) and not to an evaluation of to the propriety of any given philosophy or perspective, we avoid taking any responsibility for analizing and evaluating theological ideas based upon Scripture, the larger tradition and the consensus of the faithful. When a pope, no matter who that pope is, acts against previous conciliar documents he is wrong and renegade. He is to be rebuked, not respected. Certainly not obeyed. In short, the definition of schism is exceptionally Roman and excessively hierarchal. Taken at face value, as just one example, the entire Orthodox Church is schismatic — which, elsewhere, the Roman Catholic Church rejects. Bishop J. C. Ryle once wrote that, in cases of schism, who is at fault: the one who leaves or the one who forced them to leave? Bishops, including the bishop of Rome, who refuse to follow the documents of the Church are the true schismaticis. And, to be clear, this tension between pope and council has never been sufficiently addressed to universal satisfaction.
If I took a pagan idol like Pachamama, prayed before it, commemorated it, and then told my kids to do so are they bound to obey me? At that point I can’t tell my kids what dog house to build. My children’s obedience would stop at the faith. Their bond to me is material, and not spiritual at that point. I just lost authority to give them commands in the faith.
St. Gregory the Great said FAITH is what binds us and that if that is lost so is the authority over souls. Kind of makes sense.
But let me prove conclusively why this makes sense practically and how Catholics now believe. Obedience is not predicated on me deciding if I should obey or believe. Yet every faithful Catholic does this: a bishop will ask for us to follow their new catechesis and we don’t dive in joyfully, we now study the pages to see if we’ll assent. When Pope Francis publishes an encyclical, exhortation, etc. we don’t assent immediately, we now use our faith to see if we should assent. E.g. Communion for divorced and remarried.
Popes and bishops issue statements, Magisterium documents but we now decide if we’re going to follow them. I mean we’re all doing it. Rome declares, we decide. No matter what that’s not obedience in any meaningful sense.
The bond of unity of charity is pre-conditioned on FAITH, not legalism. If I can’t use my eyes or reason to reach these conclusions that I can’t also be asked to assent to my faith, merely follow it. I don’t need to know if praying before Pachamama in Rome is good by another authority other than the saints and my faith.
Read St. Robert Bellarimine, Cajetan, Torquemada, St. Alphonus, et. al.
It’s so simple, really. Look at the state of the Church today, post 1960’s. If you prefer, dig into the statistics of cliff dive on vocations. Or the repeated and massive confusion emanating from Rome on various issues, including grave sin (ie Homosexuality).
Was there ever a “pride”/hoverboard/rap/[insert any desecration] Mass before VII?
It’s OK, this is what is intended to happen: Sheep to the right, goats to the left.
Nobody escapes the Apocalypse.
I, personally, think that it may have been wrong for Archbishop Lefebvre to have consecrated Bishops but, he was a direct descendant/successor of the Apostles and, as we know, the Apostles of the original church did lay hands on their successors. Had they have not done so, the Church might not (God’s will not being questioned) have survived to this day. Any new enterprise tends to have growing pains. The birth of the SSPX would be no different. The Vatican had never intended to provide the SSPX with Bishops of their own. Archbishop being well versed in the politics of Holy Mother Church and given his advancing age, took the most logical step. Oh, the shock in Rome. It wasn’t our fault, it was his. In fact it was Romes fault because the Curial Cardinals wanted this blight on their authority to be gone, collapse, end.As for attending an SSPX Mass, in my own case, I asked my Bishop and he said ‘Yes’ I could go. He did not say I was fulfilling my responsibilities of attending Mass on Sunday. He just said ‘Yes’. It is the only such Mass of that Religious Body I have attended. And here the questions comes to mind….Would I do it on a permanent basis? My answer is ‘No’. And I say this because every once in a while our Archbishop gives his permission for a native Diocesan Son, who was ordained into the FSSP, who comes home to visit his family to say Mass on a daily basis for as long as he is on holiday BUT not upstairs in the Church only in the basement and only for his family members and friends. His family members, bless their hearts and souls,
transform that basement into a respectable venue. And you would be surprised how big the extended family can get on these occasions.
To me, as President of our unapproved (by the Archdiocese) Traditional Latin Mass Society, I have been appalled that we, as a community, cannot enter into an agreement with the FSSP to fly in a Priest, at least once a month and at our expense. Our Archbishop and his Priest Advisorary Committee have been opposed to any return of the Traditional Mass to our arch diocese and the reasons given (a) we are taking people away from their regular Parishes; and, (b) because we are taking money away from their regular Parishes. Now lets look at this realistically. When, under the authority given us by his Predecessor, we searched and found an available Priest (from the Diocese of Gaylord, Michigan) We made arrangements to pay his travel expenses, his housing and his meal expenses. We did not provide him with a car per se but we arranged for him to be driven to places of interest in our Province and the Province next door. Since he was picked up from his temporary residence and returned to it following the Mass, we saw nor could we justify renting him a car. Unbenown to the Committee, this Priest, as we found out later, was on a personal mission to seek incardination in our Archdiocese. He actually met with our Archbishop without the Committee membership, apparently put the question to the newly installed Archbishop and, we can only assume, the Archbishop and the Priest came to a mutual conclusion on the matter of incardination. He left for his home in the United States as he was scheduled to do.
I only reveal these details because (a) our records show that indeed, there were a trickle of parishioners (not a horde) coming to the Masses. The Society Directors understood that perhaps 10 visitors, in addition to the regulars, came on any particular Sunday. Some came out of curiosity at what all the fus was about and others in search of the Mass of the Ages which they attended as youngsters, or at any other stage of their lives; and, (b) there had been no request from the Archbishop that we had to pay a stipend to Archdiocesan funds as the regular Parishes did/do.
I cannot speak for other jurisdictions but in our Archdiocese, people are leaving the pews primarily in confusion on where the Church is and where it is going. And, as a consequences, our Archdiocese is being forced to close down any Parish Church which cannot meet its monthly expenses. Of course, when people leave, the money leaves and this was the crux of the complaint by the Priest Council of Advisors.
So! Our current situation is. If an FSSP Priest comes to visit family or friends, the Archbishop, upon request, will grant permission for the Priest to say his daily Mass in the Church basement.
As far as the FSPX is concerned, they have representation in this Archdiocese for some years. As in the horid days following Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, the FSPX had established a roaming Priest who on a designated schedule would visit Moncton, Newcastle and Yarmouth. Then the FSPX either acquired a dissolved Protestant Church in the Northwest area of the City near the Baptist University. Initially, the Priest was a member of the FSPX and then he broke with his Fraternity and as far as we know he is supposedly been incardinated by some Bishop in India. So! He is a Priest operating with a Church, who has no daily or monthly supervision and therefore can do whatever he wants. No, I have not attended his little Church because I have been unable to certify his credentials other than he was once a member of the FSXP.
And that, my friends, is the State of the Church in our Archdiocese.
AB Lefebvre refused Saint John Paul II the Great to give him a bishop and in defiance and disobedience to the Church and the Pope ordained four priests himself. Later he called JP II a liar and the devil and the holy sacrifice of the mass on the altar of the new mass deadly poison and from the devil. If I hear such hateful rhetoric and the SSPX advice if you cannot visit TLM then do not go to church at all!? If the deacon or anyone else but not the priest alone gives you holy communion then do not go to communion. This is contrary to the Church’s teaching and to Christ himself. They want the Holy Church to DIE to satisfy their self-righteous hunger for power. THE CHURCH CANNOT DIE; THE CHURCH IS CHRIST, THE HEAD IS CHRIST AND HIS MYSTICAL BODY. “Placing more emphasis on beauty and (outer) reverence …than in growing in holiness. Their is no post-conciliary church, there is only ONE CHURCH through the ages and all time belongs to HIM. Why did AB Lefebvre not seek permission from Pope John Paul II to continue the TLM in fraternity within the Church? What blessings would have come out of that. In rebellion he desired a church within the Church to amass onto himself papal power. Unceasingly we are reminded by the TLM members how gross and evil and sinful the rest of the Church has become and they lure away many young ones who are dissatisfied and hungry for the pure milk of truth and holiness in the following of Jesus Christ. “If you do not gather, you scatter” says the Lord Jesus. Saint Francis went to the sinful priest who lived with his mistress and to the astonishment of the people, he knelt down and kissed the hands of the priest who brings him the flesh and blood of the Incarnate God. The battle of evil is raging and we are asked to stay in our parishes and become saints and models of the life of Jesus Christ who praised the poor and the little ones and went about among the people. Trads want to be passive and enjoy a little heaven, peace and beauty. AB Lefebvre in a photo of the newspaper met Pater Pio and it said that Pater Pio told him that OBEDIENCE to the Church is everything because obedience to the Church is obedience to Christ. And I have to say it, many traditionalists do not have the love of Christ in them, only condemnation and prideful self-glory. The cardinal command of Jesus Christ is to love one another as He loves us. Without charity all is naught.
It’s sad you don’t realize that in saying most of trads have no love for Christ and have no charity that gives no charity to the people you believe are wrong. Irony is funny in such a way.
Maybe, just maybe, things are just more complicated that. Maybe your quote from Padre Pio is wrong, maybe the Archbishop was right. Or maybe the Archbishop was wrong but believed he was right. Maybe his “why” is complex and not so easily wrapped up in soundbites.
Anyways, obedience is tied to the faith, not faith tied to obedience. I can’t obey something wrong. I’m not supposed to. If the Church is trying to have us say Holy Communion for adulterers is right than my faith, not my obedience, opposes such a law.
I’m not defying Christ or the Church, I’m defending the Church and defending Christ.
And maybe St. Francis kissing the hands of a priest living in sin is different than a priest who is teaching us a faith different than our forefathers that St. Paul said no one could follow even if given by an angel. Maybe it’s not about their personal lives but the faith they want us to live. We don’t care about their personal lives, we care about the faith.
Maybe we believe that charity exists everywhere, even inside of you, if you maybe you saw charity in someone like myself. The problem is we don’t see Pope JPII the same way, or how you view the same history you believe is so clear. Maybe there is a gracious way of understanding that things have been murky for a long time and the only group today that is punished is traditionalists as homos and those who deny the faith are given promotions. Maybe there is something about that which gives us caution… if you could be so gracious in applying charity to us.
dear Mike, thank you for responding ; dialogue is precious, after all we are related, a big family in Christ. We both want to be followers of Jesus Christ and His holy Truth, so He can lead as to the heavenly home. I do not mention Bergoglio, he turns everything on its head. Yes, you are correct, there are ongoing things in the church that we have to disobey. But I do not see it murky, we find all truth in the faith of the Church; however if we detect anything other than the faith of the Church even from a pope who does not act like the Pontif than St. Paul says: anathema! Yes, your reply shows charity. A priest asked for prayers and one lady of our circle is traditional and she said: I only pray for traditional priests. Our priests work so hard for the kingdom of God and for God’s people. May the Lord Jesus Christ in divine intervention shower down His Mercy on His holy Bride. God bless!
correction: I did not say, trads have no love for Christ. I said they do not show the love of Christ.
Thank you, Edith Wohldmann, excellent comment. God bless you.
I agree with edith wohldmann above. Oe thing I’m surprised is that no one has pointed out that the SSPX operates like a cult. That alone is reason to see they cannot produce good fruits.
Dear Tina,
Perhaps you can define what you mean by “good fruits” when due to V2 the church has hemorrhaged a remarkable 50-70% of its Catholic adherents. The “progressive” forces in the church have tailored the new mass to appeal to the Leftists/Marxists and mostly social justice warrior types. I’m not comfortable with that mindset in my politics, I don’t seek out that type of company at my mass. I find that if belonging to a small remnant relives me of the company of such people, so be it.
The article mentions “St. John the Beloved, the only apostle to have stayed by the Cross.” There is some reason to believe that this person was also a cousin of Jesus of Nazareth. He was the only apostle who was acquainted with the high priest, and when Jesus was arrested, John had access to the high priest’s courtyard — where he was able to bring Peter. It was perhaps easier for John to stand at the Cross, since he was well acquainted with the high priest.
Simply put, Schism is when a Catholic joins another church that is not Catholic. Heresy is when a Catholic denies a Truth of the Catholic Faith that must be believed. So adherents of SSPX are schismatic because they place too much emphasis on their own interpretation of the Vatican II Documents and refuse to allow the theology of Vatican II to properly evolve in the timeless Traditions of the Catholic Faith. On the other hand Pope Francis is very likely a Heretic due to his scandalous disregard for the unchangeable Truths of the Faith that he and his heretic comrades in the Vatican and elsewhere perpetrate. Pope Francis is an anti-pope. The End is near my Catholic brothers and sisters if Bergoglio doesn’t die soon as I think he was elected under questionable circumstances. May God have Mercy on his soul. Then God will providentially grant the Church a legitimate successor to Pope Benedict XVI. What do I know? Nothing more than the reality that the Church is waiting for the Springtime of Truth and Hope.
This article, if I am not mistaken, locates Lefebvre’s key point of departure from obedience in the year 1988 with the illicit ordinations. However, it was in October of 1976 under Pope St. Paul VI that the then Archbishop Lefebvre was given various acts under obedience in a letter from St. Paul VI which can be read here:
https://www.wordonfire.org/paul-vi-lefebvre/
In my opinion this letter contains the whole case against the current traditionalist movement which bears many of its essential features in accordance with Lefebvre’s own views and actions after the Council.
Because of this I have begun to prefer to describe ‘trads’ as ‘Lefebvreite’. In any case, whatever designation we would like to use, we are dealing with some rather serious and I think obvious errors according to the clear teaching of Pope St. Paul VI in the above letter. Would you please consider reading it?
Thank you for your consideration,
Timothy
Dear Timothy,
The issues you bring forward are relevant in as much as it reveals a certain mindset of Pope Paul at that time. Where I disagree with your assessment is in using the same criteria for judging the issue now as was operable (and possible) then. I believe that both Pope John and Pope Paul would both be aghast at what has happened to the church since the Council and new Mass. Even now, Cardinal McElroy is suggesting that the synod will give the liberals in the church the opportunity to finish the revolution in the church that they began at Vatican II. The more I consider the fallout from after the council, what has become of the church since then and where the church is actually growing, I can’t help but think that “res ipsa loquitor” or the thing speaks for itself. At any rate, I will bring your holy intentions to the offering of the sacred victim on the high altar when I am next able to travel the over 2-hours to attend another Mass at my SSPX chapel. Deo Gratias!
It also reveals the mindset of Lefevre at the time: an obstinate, disobedient one that has been rife within the SSPX for years. Pope Paul VI was the authority at the time and Lefebvre thumb-nosed him because he thought he knew better. He made himself the authority. Did the same thing in 1988 to JP II.
The SSPX is the “new church.” They reek of Protestantism based on their actions.
No-one has shown that “traditionalism” of good and general description is responsible for the growing exodus from the Church and the widespread abuses of liturgy and in catechetics.
If anything the concerns around traditionalism at the time of VATICAN II can be seen to have been unfounded, unnecessary, distracting and misleading.
On the other hand, the concerns of people like Lefebvre have proven to real even to being prophetic and to have been both legitimate and wise at the time; and this would lend colour to their fidelity, animated spirits and possession of their faculties and their good sense.
What is so hard about that.
Before getting lost in the rabbit-hole of distinctions, circumstances, legalistic matters, etc. The 1st and only question is, should a Catholic obey the pope if the pope is destroying the very Catholic faith that one NEEDS to be saved? That is the foundation of the problem – some say the Novus Ordo is fine and good for fostering the Catholic faith – others have proven it is not a matter of preference, beauty, reverence – but rather of DOCTRINE. The Novus Ordo is woefully inept at communicating Catholic doctrine about the propitiatory nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass – this makes it antithetical to Catholic faith and the statistics prove it -70% don’t believe in the Real Presence. There are many more facts/surrounding items that have been cited in not a few well-written academic studies that support that the Novus Ordo is a non-Catholic rite and destruction to true Catholic faith. So, the question remains – should you out of obedience allow your Catholic faith to be destroyed as a “penance”? This is the height of spiritual suicide.