"Benedict XVI - SSPX: Quarter to midnight" (Rorate Caeli, February 20, 2013):
... What threats can the hotheads on the SSPX side make? They have been expelled, or have excluded themselves.Update (2/21/2013): "Society of Saint Pius X: Benedict XVI to pass on the dossier to successor" (Rorate Caeli, Feb. 21, 2013) [was not an "ultimatum"]
What threats can the extremist liberals on the Rhine basin side make? Threaten schism, as they repeatedly (reportedly) did to John Paul II? Ask for the Pope's head, as they did in 2009? The Pope has delivered his head! On a tray, like the Precursor: the German-speaking and French-speaking Salomes cannot demand anything else.
From religioblog, the blog of the usually very well-informed religious writer of French daily Le Figaro:"A quarter to midnight, Bishop Fellay." This parody of the title of the film dedicated to Dr. Schweitzer, a great Protestant, is badly chosen to recall the very Catholic Lefebvrist question, but it happens that this dossier, that seemed lost, could mark the last days of the Pontificate of Benedict XVI. Discussions, late [discussions], are taking place between Rome and Écône... Up to the end the Pope tries to reach an agreement...." Read more >>
7 comments:
Enough already! Who do these people think that they are spurning the HF? Thanks to him we now securely possess the TLM and even the NO is being reformed in the direction of Tradition, so that one day, I believe, it will simply morph into its venerable predecessor. But these changes simply cannot occur overnight. Younger Catholics in great numbers are also embracing the TLM and other traditions. Our future, thus, looks bright. It can only be obdurate, sinful pride keeping the members of the SSPX from joining this movement as a regularized society instead of remaining subversive, supercilious outsiders. Let it go.
Not so, my pugnacious friend. The Holy Father has made a number of remarkable overtures toward Catholics who prize tradition, true. But it is far from the case that he has "secured" the TLM for them. In fact, in an interview with Osservatore Romano, he referred to his motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum as a mere matter of "tolerance" for a small minority of those still enamoured of the TLM. He assured his readers that it would not affect the fundamental revolution in the Church effected by Vatican II.
In fact, if it were NOT for the SSPX, there is not a shred of doubt that there would have been no "Indult" under the pontificate of John Paul II or a motu proprio by Benedict XVI.
If our future looks "bright," this can be only in light of the eschatological hope of Christ's victory in Eternity, not because of any human hope inspired by the current machinations of the Vatican, which is as thoroughly corrupt as it ever was. Saying that our future "looks bright" in those terms is about as "insightful" as the leftist media and the majority of Americans in their last Presidential election saying that the future of America "looks bright" because of the "brilliant" policies of the Obama administration. You let it go.
Again you miss my main point, which is that the SSPX is inching perilously close to causing a schism. They have no business defying the HF, who, by your own admission, has addressed their liturgical concerns. No Catholic in good conscience can defend further intransigence on their part.
I also didn't say my temporal hope had anything to do with the Vatican (although I wouldn't presume to know, as you do, how much corruption it contains). I cited the appeal the TLM and other Catholic traditions hold for younger members of the laity. You also have no way of knowing the motives of the pontiffs you mention in issuing their directives. There were plenty of traditional Catholics not affiliated with the SSPX clamoring for the TLM. Benedict's later remarks can be charitably construed as intended to forestall fears of another cataclysmic change in the Church.
The NO is not so abhorrent that doing away with it is worth alienating millions of Catholics. It's easy for those not entrusted with preserving unity in the Church to counsel revolution. In effect they are asking its current leaders to repeat the very mistake they once rightly denounced.
Please cease referring to me as your friend (if you are even being sincere). I am your brother in Christ, but I don't like you one whit. Nor do I have to let anything go, as I am in full communion with Rome, despite what you and other inexperts in this forum contend. It is the SSPX, in its sinful pride, that refuses to join the Holy See in rooting out the "corruption" of which you speak.
Dear PP,
Please change 'inexperts' in my most recent post to 'inexpert commentators' Thank you. RFA
Greetings, Mr. Allen:
Readers will see what you intend by your message above. I regret to say that Google's "Blogger" program doesn't allow for convenient editing of posted comment. I could copy your comment, correct it in another program, then re-post it under your name, but it would lack your signature link.
Kind regards,
PP
RA,
I have been watching this 'debate' between you and others on this blog for some time, and if I were you I would stick to the issues and quit mucking around the bottom of the fish tank sniffing at "motives," especially when you repeatedly seem to want to pass yourself off as a beautiful angel fish swimming gracefully near the moral high waters of the tank.
The SSPX is not "inching close to causing a schims." It is actually in formal schism, even though Vatican officials (including the former Ratzinger) have repeatedly denied this (read the definition of "schism").
It is not, however, materially in schism, since the beliefs of its members are far more orthodox than those of the mainstream. In fact, in certain respects, one could argue that the doctrinal tendencies of the mainstream since Vatican II have "inched toward" something other than traditional Catholic doctrine at various points.
The concerns of the SSPX are far from being merely liturgical. That is merely the most visible tip of the proverbial iceberg. Its concerns have always been primarily doctrinal, and if you examine these you will see that there are a number of points where their concerns are at least legitimate: it is they who are questioning whether the mainstream has not departed from orthodoxy on such issues as "freedom of conscience," "religious freedom," "nature of the priesthood," etc.
You are certainly correct in asserting that many other traditionalists have been clamoring for the TLM besides the SSPX. However, the question is whether any of this clamoring would have had any impact at all apart from the growing influence of the SSPX. It certainly did not seem to under Pope John Paul's pontificate. His "indult" was completely ineffective, granting bishops the right of first refusal to any TLM that the faithful asked for in any diocese. It was only under Benedict that the formal change in law was effected, despite the near monolithic resistance of bishops. The question is why under Benedict? The answer seems obvious. One of the principal objectives of his pontificate has been to work quietly behind the scenes to bring about unity. Think of his lifting of the excommunications on the SSPX bishops. Why all these gifts to traditionalists if it weren't for the SSPX, whose numbers and seminaries and priests he has repeately cited with pastoral solicitude?
Your remarks about the NO show little appreciation of the damage it has inflicted on the masses of the faithful over the past half-century. Those wishing for a restoration of traditional Catholic culture (including the TLM and traditional devotions and disciplines) are hardly itching for "revolution." They are counter-revolutionaries, seeking merely to preserve the Catholic faith for themselves and for their children.
I have fastidiously avoided referencing your motives or impugning your character. Lets see you try to do the same.
So the SSPX had something to do with Benedict's SP. That victory in no way justifies further defiance and denigration of the Vatican. I know full well their concerns and share every single one. But I do not sit here presuming to be more Catholic than the pope. I work WITHIN the HMC to restore tradition, mindful always that I must obey its leaders. It IS sinful pride that caused the SSPX to spurn the HF; his "solicitude" only makes their disobedience even more shameful. If you have another explanation, let's hear it, instead of telling me what I can and cannot assert. I put my cards on the table around here, full name and all. But welcome to the ranks of those offering non sequiturs: I've never portrayed myself as a paragon of virtue, just a devout Catholic opponent of racists, bigots, and (now) schismatics. You also might want to take a look at my opponents' posts to see if you can find any ad hominens there as well. That way I wouldn't have to label you unfair.
Post a Comment