Amidst an uber-ecumenical atmosphere, there is strangely an almost universal disdain, arrogance and uncharitable attitude toward the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, also known as the SSPX. Are they not also our brothers in Christ? Do they not believe in the real and substantial presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist? I could obviously extend the list, but that should suffice.
I have no fear of saying that I have always had a great attentiveness to the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X. Lest anyone be startled, let me state unequivocally that I am by no means an adherent to this society. No, I am just a transitional deacon who prays the new Liturgy of the Hours in Latin and attends the Mass according to the revised liturgical books after the Council. So what is it with this Society?
I have no fear of saying that I have always had a great attentiveness to the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X. Lest anyone be startled, let me state unequivocally that I am by no means an adherent to this society. No, I am just a transitional deacon who prays the new Liturgy of the Hours in Latin and attends the Mass according to the revised liturgical books after the Council. So what is it with this Society?
First, they have a piece of the truth; the Church is in an undeniable crisis. This is evinced clearly by the warnings of Paul VI, John Paul II and now Benedict XVI. There response is also partly correct; clinging to the most proven parts of the Tradition during a time of great uncertainty; I am thinking of the traditional Roman liturgy and the discipline of priestly asceticism and communal life.
While this is all granted, my deepest desire is for them to do all in their power to be obedient to the desires and wishes of the Holy Father. The Church militant is never purified by moving away from the Holy Father and the bishops; despite the disappointments that the Bishops often bring upon the Church for various reasons. It is true, we are amidst an unprecedented crisis in the Church’s life, but we must heal and reform from within the life of the Church.
I offer the words of Blessed John Henry Newman to my friends in the SSPX and hope that it offers them some encouragement to find and embrace traditional communities in full union with the Pope.
“This is a world of conflict, and of vicissitude amid the conflict. The Church is ever militant; sometimes she gains, sometimes she loses; and more often she is at once gaining and losing in different parts of her territory. What is ecclesiastical history but a record of the ever-doubtful fortune of the battle, though its issue is not doubtful? Scarcely are we singing Te Deum, when we have to turn to our Misereres: scarcely are we in peace, when we are in persecution: scarcely have we gained a triumph, when we are visited by a scandal. Nay, we make progress by means of reverses; our griefs are our consolations; we lose Stephen, to gain Paul, and Matthias replaces the traitor Judas.“(John Henry Newman, Historical Sketches, Volume 2, Introduction)
Friends in the SSPX, please come home. Come home to the See of Peter.
Friends in the SSPX, please come home. Come home to the See of Peter.
19 comments:
Campion,
Thanks for this post! I definitely agree that there is a very harsh attitude my many in the Church against the SSPX ... obviously, they are in a bad state; clearly, there is much need for healing in their hearts; certainly, there is grave error ... however, why is it that "all tolerance stops here", to quote B16 ...
Peace to you, brother. And Merry Christmas!
I would be careful calling the SSPX a heretical movement, ronconte. It is one that is not canonically approved by the Church, and those involved are still in an act of schism (sort of, and even then, that is a strange circumstance that many in the Church disagree on...)
So, above all else, watch your words against them. They are not in union with Rome, that we are sure of. But calling them heretics? That is a line I don't think any in the Church would cross...
Roconte,
Schism yes - which is a terrible sin and the primary reason for which we should pray for them - but what exactly would corroborate your claim that they are heretics? I am actually interested in your thought on this.
Second, if this is your tone toward the sins of the SSPX, I can't imagine how you would speak against the Orthodox and the Protestants...
Third, although there may be sedevacantists within the SSPX, I know for a fact that the SSPX does not condone sedevacantism.
We do know that the SSPX holds doctrinal positions at odds with the magisterium since Vatican II. The purpose of the ongoing dialogue is to overcome the differences, however, the differences are docrinal none the less (both sides say this openly). For example, we do know that the SSPX has been accused by the Popes (beginning with Pope Paul VI) of holding a false view of sacred Tradition. It is likely debatable whether or not this amounts to heresy. In any case, one hopes that this will all be resolved soon.
thanks for the stimulating post. I went to college just down the hill from an SSPX Seminary. It's rare that I hear of this group but I did have a chance to meet a few along my life's path.
As you consider how to best relate to this group consider this approach. A 92 year old is part of a Bible Study I lead sometimes. As a younger man he was fiercly determined to fend off heresy. He was raised in a church in which, "a defrocked priest came to tell us everything that Rome had wrong."
Now when he looks at other churches he says that he sees brothers and sisters more clearly than he can see any heretics. Today he says he laments the many ways that all the divisions that pre-date all of us have been exploited to drive us further apart.
The question today I encourage anyone to consider today is, "How do you embrace Christ fully recognizing the others around you, who are different from you, who are also seeking to embrace Jesus with their whole being?"
We could fight over errors without end; but to use Pauls concept to the fullest in Christ all baptized believers are a new creation through baptism into Christ's death and resurrection. It is only seeing the other as a brother or sister in Christ that we can have the most fruitful conversations.
Pax
John
K Gurries,
I am a bit nervous with your reference to "the magisterium since Vatican II" ... there has been no new doctrine proposed in Vatican II (at least that is what Paul VI said).
Hence, I would say that the doctrinal differences between us (the Catholic Church) and the SSPX involve not merely modern doctrinal developments, but them denying certain aspects of the Tradition of the Church.
The real problem with the SSPX is that they are disobedient, offer their criticisms in an overly polemical manner, and presume to act without proper mandate. The doctrinal positions they hold to are properly Catholic.
As to doctrinal positions of the "magisterium since Vatican II", this would be something the SSPX would definitely find to further their cause. If there really is a "pre-Vatican II" Magisterium and a "post-Vatican II" Magisterium that are at odds with each other, then there really is a huge problem.
It would seem, however, the real problem is not that there is such a dichotomy but that the powers-that-be since Vatican II have emphasized some things and downplayed others such that this dichotomy appears to be real. There has also been an unfortunate lack of disciplinary measures against those who truly did/do work to make such a perceived dichotomy a reality.
Add to that the seemingly overblown disciplinary attention the SSPX have received in that same time and one can see why they don't much care to trust the proper authorities to come up with a real solution.
Dear Campion,
I read your post while recalling one you previously posted in June. It was, as I recall, a paper you wrote on the Hermeneutic of Continuity. No need to summarize as all can refer back to it. It causes me to ask in my mind whether Archbishop Lefevre seperated because of the developing split of liturgical camps as it may. Perhaps he could not continue as Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange did by penning what he saw as wrongs occurring within Holy Church. And Lagrange wrote and debated long and hard to defend sound doctrine. It is amusing that he help shape the theology of John Paul II. The whole unfolding of Novelle Theologie and the further development of Concillium and Communio camps affected much of where we are today as Holy Church, right or wrong, good or bad. It certainly makes for heated and lively discussion at parish liturgy meetings.
Also, I think anyone must consider the continuing saga of the SSPX under Holy Father John Paul II and now Holy Father Benedict XVI. Further is the need to consider Benedict XVI's ecumenical effort and reshaping of Holy Church. In my circles I've often remarked that with the elevation of Card. Joseph Ratzinger to Pope thru the Holy Spirit dramatic changes would occur in Holy Church. Just reflect on all that is taking place. I just marvel at what is wrought perhaps by God's hand. We have to remember, if I am correct in my theology, that this Church, this Catholic Church, is His bride.
I do have one question, and I am asking out of ignorance, does Holy Church consider those bretheren separated from the Catholic Church (Protestants et al) to be heretical?
I will keep you in my prayers. Please pray for me.
Reginaldus, by "Magisterium since Vatican II" I am referring to those authentic acts of the Magisterium since the council. For example, the the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is such an act -- yet the SSPX reject the Catechism on doctrinal grounds.
K Gurries,
Thank you for the clarification.
Still, we must admit that, if the SSPX is at odds with the Catechism, then they are at odds with the Tradition and not merely the magisterial acts since Vatican II.
I think that you and I are essentially in agreement, I only want to emphasize that the SSPX's problem is not simply with Vatican II, but with certain aspects of the Church's 2000 year old Tradition.
I think you hint at this same point when you say that "the SSPX reject the Catechism on doctrinal grounds."
Blessings to you in Christ!
Reginaldus, yes I don't mean to imply any opposition between the sources of revelation (Scripture and Tradition) and the Magisterium. We can't really have one without the others. To attack the Magisterium, as such, is to attack Scripture and/or Tradition. I think we certainly agree on that.
Is the CCC actually an act of the Magisterium though? It would seem that a catechism in and of itself is not magisterial, however, what is contained therein is often magisterial.
Andrew, the CCC was promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum. The Catechism (and it's subsequent compendium promulgated by Pope Benedict XVI) are intended for the the Universal Church to provide an authoritative and "sure norm for teaching the Faith." I think we can safely say that the promulgation of the Catechism is an authentic act of the Magisterium.
Perhaps if Rome would cleanse its own "stables" first, it would be in a better position to discuss things with SSPX. The strongest man in the Vatican today is Cardinal Burke.
Is the promulgation of the CCC different than the actual authority of the CCC itself? I think so. Regardless, the main point is that one cannot be required to "affirm" what is in the CCC exactly how it is in the CCC.
Anyway, it is not as if the CCC is a list of dogmas that must be believed or something of the sort that it is often made into in common use. I find it verbose, muddled and much less helpful than the Roman Catechism it basically superseded.
To affirm the Catechism of the Council of Trent is to affirm the new Catechism of the Catholic Church. The two cannot be substantially different. The SSPX is most definitely NOT is schism and the Church has declared such on several occasions. Charges of heresey are ridiculous. Name a single dogma of the Church that the SSPX denies. Disobedience to authority is not heresey or schism. It is disobedience, and can be legitimate.
Bernardus,
Thanks for your comment and your question. The short answer concerning whether or not protestants are heretics is yes. Any one who rejects or obstinately doubts after Baptism something revealed by God (Truths of the Catholic Faith - Trinity, Divinity of Christ, the Holy Eucharist, existence of hell, etc...) is a heretic. They are material heretics if they don't believe or obstinately doubt on account of invincible ignorance. If they are not invincibly ignorant, they are formally heretics.
I hope that helps and perhaps I could write more on the topic with a fuller description if that would be of help.
Campion,
Not to be too picky, but I don't think I would say that "Any one who rejects or obstinately doubts after Baptism something revealed by God is a heretic".
Thomas tells us that the heretic is the one who corrupts the dogmas of the faith, rather than completely denying them.
Your statement is a bit too broad, since it would include apostates, who are not heretics, for they are far worse.
Obviously, your distinction between material and formal heresy is quite appropriate.
Would you agree that many so-called "Catholic" scholars today, those of the liberal bent, are material heretics and formal idiots?
Peace to you, brother!
Interesting...however, since the 2nd Vatican Council the Church has allowed numerous heretics to openly teach heresy and hold high office within the Church with hardly a word said. Even Hans Kung was never defrocked, much less excommunicated. And yet, Archbishop Lefebvre and others who hold to the traditional beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church have been ostracized and even excommunicated. If it had not been for the stand taken by Lefebvre, the Latin Mass would not exist today. His view that the TLM had never been abrogated has been vindicated and his excommunication lifted. Who knows? Maybe one day we will have St Marcel Lefebvre.
Post a Comment
If you want your comment to be published: Use a name or pseudonym, and keep it short (generally, less than 100 words), to the point, and civil.
All comments must be approved by a blog-administrator. If your comment is deleted, please don't take it personally.