SSPX comment on Good Friday prayer for Jews: profound regret

Witha tip of the biretta  o{]:¬)  to Rorate we read a press release from the SSPX about the Pope Benedict’s new Good Friday prayers for Jews:

we read a press release from the SSPX about the Pope Benedict’s new Good Friday prayers for Jews:

The SSPX have a comment (my translation):

    Subsequent to pressure from outside the Catholic Church, the Pope believed himself obliged to change the very venerable Prayer for the Jews which is an integrating part of the Good Friday liturgy. This prayer is one of the most ancient; it goes back to around the 3rd century, and has consequently been recited through the whole history of the Church as the full expression of the Catholic faith.

    It must be noted that the commentaries of Cardinal Kasper – which one can consider authoritative – give to this amputation the appearance of a genuine transformation, expressing a new theology of relations with the Jewish people. It is in with the liturgical disruption which is the characteristic mark of the Council and of the reforms deriving from it.

    Although the necessity of accepting the Messiah in order to be saved has been preserved, one cannot but profoundly regret this change.

I respond saying

1) … that Cardinals can speak their minds part from official statements of the Holy See.  Card. Kasper is not the same as the Magisterium in this regard, though his observations must be listened to (and parsed) carefully, given his mandate.

Also,

2) I cannot square with reality the notion that the old prayer for the Jews is "the full expression of the Catholic faith".  That seems somewhat overwrought.  I also cannot quite make the leap to the idea that prayers cannot sometime be improved upon.  The older prayer didn’t say everything there was to say about Jesus, the Church, and the Jews.  Nor does the newer prayer.  However poetic, ancient and clear that older prayer is, it is not the be all and end all of Christian/Jewish relations, much less the "the full expression of the Catholic faith".

And,

3) Is it not possible for the Church to shift positions occasionally, given the circumstances of the Church and the world, concerning relations with and aspirations for some non-Christians?  I think so.

Finally,

4) The SSPX says "the necessity of accepting the Messiah in order to be saved has been preserved".  Isn’t that much closer to being the ""the full expression of the Catholic faith"?

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

63 Responses to SSPX comment on Good Friday prayer for Jews: profound regret

  1. TNCath says:

    What makes the SSPX uniquely qualified to say what is and what isn’t the “full expression of the Catholic faith”? Why does the SSPX even care what the Pope does or doesn’t do if they aren’t going to accept anything he says or does in the first place? I have come to the conclusion that the SSPX is not as anxious to achieve reunion with the Church as we might like to believe.

  2. Adrienne says:

    Why would anyone be interested in what the SSPX has to say?

  3. BK says:

    Unfortunately, the SSPX and its supporters will come out on the short end of this fiasco, and the restoration of traditional Catholicism, for all it “owes” the SSPX and its founder, will move forward without the assistance and cooperation of the SSPX — at precisely the moment the Church at large needs the positive influence that an influx from the SSPX would provide.

    Both sides are impoverished by this fiasco; there are no winners.

  4. wayne ratzinger says:

    Well said BK, there will be no winners with Gnat straining like this. The SSPX
    have done great work for the Church and will continue to do so I’m sure, but
    someone should have a quiet word over this, Michael J Matt over at The Remnant
    for instance.
    Fr Z your comments are fair, why not ivite Bishop Williamson round for a
    tinture or twain with Mr Matt, Shurely….something could be sorted out.

  5. prof. basto says:

    Most importantly, this “statement of regret” avoids the heart of the matter,
    that is, a confirmation about wether the Society, in spite of
    “regretting” the changed prayer, will abide by the command of the Holy Father
    and use it in place of the old one, or not.

  6. Vox says:

    I think BK (above) hit the nail on the head!

    We can thank the FSSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre for all that they have done–and now when we should be coming together they seem to be choosing on such a minor point, to show such poor judgement. What would it cost Tradition to simply do as the Transalpine Redemptorists have done? Nothing, it would cost nothing–but it would show that they wish to be part of the “interior reconciliation” to which our Holy Father referred in Summorum Pontificum. What do they fear? The Church needs this matter resolved, they need it resolved, this is an opportunity that I firmly and sincerely believe is from the Holy Spirit through the Vicar of Christ on earth.

    I believe the Pope changed the prayer for more reasons than the ADL–in fact, they were the least of the reasons if it factored in at all.

    The Extraordinary Form will expand in use, it will grow organically as the liturgy always has and in due time, those attending the SSPX chapels will come to realize that their Bishops will never bring them home.

    Sad…very sad indeed.

    But, as written, it does not say they “won’t” use it–there is still time–there is still next year.

    There are prayers!

    “Father, that they all be one.”

  7. Michael C. says:

    Note that no one said the SSPX wouldn’t be using this prayer, only that they question the prudential judgment of the Holy Father in this matter. The Transalpine Redemptorists said they would obey, not that they were enthusiastic about the Pope’s decision. Nothing uncatholic about that. If no one had questioned the prudential judgment of Paul VI, there’d be no Usus Antiquor.

  8. Stephen says:

    Personally I think too much time is spent worrying about what the SSPX thinks and feels about things. The Holy Father has released the older form of the liturgy and we should do what we can, in our own sphere, to move that forward. Let the SSPX go bananas over stuff and ignore them. Rome can work to regularize their situation but I think the rest of us should just ignore them and not give them any attention or press coverage.

  9. xathar says:

    Why do they say that this prayer goes back to the 3rd century? The earliest I can find is the Old Gelasian (7th century).

  10. Jamie says:

    Father, concerning your point number 3 – yes, it is possible for the Church to shift positions occasionally – I believe they did that when they allowed such things as communion in the hand, altar girls, and Eucharistic ministers. I am pretty sure you don’t like the idea of these things – so why is it different when the SSPX don’t like the new prayer for the Jews? It seems to me that many people posting here are in the same boat as the SSPX – they just have different points at which they will reject aspects of these “changes” – this calls to mind the Biblical text about the mote in our own eyes… No matter what anyone says, the SSPX is doing exactly what St Paul says to do times such as those that we are suffering – holding to tradition.

  11. I have a serious question. How close are the SSPX to being Orthodox (capital “O”)in their views? I almost feel as though they don’t accept development of doctrine after 1965, and in practice, they really don’t seem to follow or accept the authority of the pope.
    I’m not saying they are the equivalent of the Orthodox, but they seem to be leaning in that direction (especially as regards papal authority, even with popes they don’t “like”).

  12. David says:

    I agree. Too much is being said on this blog about the SSPX not accepting this prayer, and not enough about the far greater number of “mainstream”, non-TLM attending Catholics who have not accepted it for other reasons. Case in point would be the views expressed by Father Lawrence Frizzell of Seton Hall University who called the new prayer a “disappointment”. Like I’ve said before, from what I’ve read and heard there are far more novus ordo Catholics who are rejecting this prayer, a prayer that is a prayer of the Church whether or not they might hear it that the Mass they attend. What are you saying about those Catholics, Fr. Z?

  13. TNCath says:

    I wonder what God thinks of how we are phrasing this prayer to Him?

    The non-serviam attitude is getting old and, honestly, a little boring. Sometimes I think folks are forgetting that this is a prayer they are talking about, not a sales contract or a settlement between management and labor. The SSPX and anyone else who objects to the altering of the prayer have neither the authority nor the ability to do anything about it. Ironically, these are the same people that love to tout the phrase, “The Church isn’t a democracy,” and yet want to decry this perceived error by the Holy Father. In the end, they will only hurt themselves. Let’s move on.

  14. Matt says:

    I agree – who care’s what SSPX thinks?

    SSPX is just another ‘follow your own conscience’ group that does not deserve the free publicity.

    I think we have more important things to pray about and work on.

  15. Ottaviani says:

    I believe the Pope changed the prayer for more reasons than the ADL—in fact, they were the least of the reasons if it factored in at all.

    If the ADL hadn’t protested, would the Pope change the Good Friday prayers for the Jews anyway? Out of his own accord?

    I don’t think so…

    The Jewish protests and their threats to cancel “dialogue” was a major factor for the officials at the Vatican, despite what anyone says. You mark my words, when everyone will see that consistency will win the day and ecumenical officials will want the prayers for the conversion of pagans and heretics/schismatics changed to “reflect Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate

  16. schoolman says:

    How far the SSPX has strayed from the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre who accepted with humility all legitimate changes and developments of the Missal of Pius V. This SSPX rejection is contrary to the spirit of its founder. Do we need to look outside of the SSPX (e.g., Transalpine Redemptorists, GSI, FSSP, etc.) to find the true spirit and attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre in regards to liturgy and authentic liturgical reforms and development?

  17. Sid Cundiff says:

    This is, as I have said before, a delicate time, as negotiations between the SSPX, to whom we owe much, and the Holy See continue. I plead for prudent restraint in our comments.

  18. Breier says:

    Am I missing something? The statement from the SSPX said NOTHING about
    whether the priests are saying the prayer. It simply expressed regret,
    which is certainly a legitimate view for Catholics to have. I regret
    the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, that doesn’t mean I won’t attend
    it. I think you all are jumping the gun. It seems to me that there’s a
    certain level of animus here against the SSPX which is disproportionate.

    For example, where is the anger against Cardinal Kasper? Or we can just
    ignore what he says, despite his role? So what Cardinal Hoyos,
    or the Secretary of CDW says is golden, but Cardinal Kasper is ignored?
    Why is that? Why is one person above the above? Are you judging the
    Holy Father then, after all he hasn’t contradicted his point-man for Jewish
    issues.

    If people can dismiss Cardinal Kasper as being untraditional, thereby making
    their own private judgment of what’s traditional, stop being so catty about
    the SSPX.

  19. Christopher Sarsfield says:

    First, while I consider myself an ultramontane, that does not mean that I have to accept as inspired every word/decision that comes from the Pope. To be perfectly clear, I do not have a problem with someone expressing regret over this decision. That has never been the standard of orthodoxy or unity. If this were the case, we would all believe that the souls in heaven are not in the beatific vision, because that was taught by a Pope. Providentially, the theologians of the day stood against this novel teaching and the Pope retracted his statement, and the very next Pope condemned the position by defining the opposite.

    This has nothing to do with the development of doctrine (a principle I believe in, but that has never been defined, and any Catholic is free to reject). The argument of the SSPX seems to be that the Pope should not let non-Catholics dictate to the Church how to pray, and that the Church should not change prayers, without explaining what the new prayer means for the belief of Catholics.

    With regard to Cardinal Kasper’s interpretation of the prayer, an argument could be made that he was responding to different Jewish communities in his official capacity, and therefore this is the “official” position of the Holy See. I personally do not believe this, but I find nothing in the Cardinal’s statements to reflect that he is speaking in his capacity as a private theologian.

    I think all the critics would do well to read the CDF’s statement on the role of Catholic theologians, approved by the current Pope when he was head of the CDF. This clearly makes a distinction between theologians who are doing their duty in questioning statements from the Holy See, that seem to be irreconcilable with Catholic theology, and dissenting theologians who reject Catholic dogmas.

  20. Derik Castillo says:

    The Holy Father is concerned about the unity of the
    church, for example, how to finish the differences
    with the SSPX. It is important to understand what
    they have to say and regard them as fellow catholics
    to help the Pope in his intentions.

    On other thought, I have to ask. Where does the document
    from the vatican states that the change in the prayer
    is motivated by pressures from outside the Church? I
    believe it is entirely possible that the motivation
    lies in Catholic doctrine. Can we see a sign of continuity
    in this new prayer?

  21. schoolman says:

    “The argument of the SSPX seems to be that the Pope should not let non-Catholics dictate to the Church how to pray…”

    Well, if the Jews had truly dictated the change then I am sure it would have come out much differently. In reality, we don’t know all that motivated the Pope to make this change. I suspect there are other reasons of his own. Bottom line is that the prayer retains its substance while removing any pretext for its rejection by Jews or liberals. In this regard, the Pope has responded to the needs of the day (circumstances) — proving that we have organic development and a living liturgy governed by the supreme authority in the Church — rather than our own private judgement…

  22. Christopher Sarsfield says:

    Dear Schoolman,

    It is your “own private judgement” that Benedict XVI was responding to the needs of the day. For unless you have a private line to the Pope, you have no idea why he made this change. The SSPX is basing the reason for the change, on statements made by curial officials before the prayer was released, as to the reason for the change. You are also using your own private judgement with regard to this being an organic development. Did the Pope tell you this was an organic development? BTW I somewhat agree with your private judgement in this case. Clearly this change started under Pius XII when he added the genuflection and was ready to drop perfidious. It continued with John XXIII with the dropping of perfidious, and Benedict XVI may only be seen as carrying out their reforms of the prayer to the their inevitable conclusion. Finally, you are using your own private judgement when you say the prayer retains the substance. Here your private judgement differs with that of Cardinal Kasper, who seems to be acting in an official capacity. Who has given you the authority to bind other Catholics to your private judgement, especially, when that judgement contradicts a prince of the Church, who has competency in this matter??

    My point in all the above, is that very little of this is clear cut/black and white. No reasons have been given by the Pope, though members of Curia alleging to speak for the Pope have given reasons, and no official interpretation of the prayer has been given to my knowledge except from Cardinal Kasper. Does anyone know any officials that have given an explanation of the prayer that contradicts Cardinal Kasper? Here I would like statements specifically speaking about the prayer.

  23. schoolman says:

    Cardinal Kaspar’s interpretation is not to be considered “authentic” when it is at odds with the Holy Father’s own Catechesis on the matter of Jewish conversion:

    “With their very own existence, the Twelve – called from different backgrounds – become an appeal for all of Israel to convert and allow herself to be gathered into the new covenant, complete and perfect fulfilment of the ancient one. The fact that he entrusted to his Apostles, during the Last Supper and before his Passion, the duty to celebrate his Pasch, demonstrates how Jesus wished to transfer to the entire community, in the person of its heads, the mandate to be a sign and instrument in history of the eschatological gathering begun by him. In a certain sense we can say that the Last Supper itself is the act of foundation of the Church, because he gives himself and thus creates a new community, a community united in communion with himself.”

    BENEDICT XVI

    GENERAL AUDIENCE

    Wednesday, 15 March 2006
    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060315_en.html

  24. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Thank you, Bishop Fellay. The full (not partial) expression of the Catholic Faith was obviously better expressed in the unrevised version.

    Thank you, Baronius Press, for printing tens of thousands of 1962 handmissals just before the Shrove Monday abomination. They will last us for decades. Thank goodness that the law allows us simply to pray the 1962 words as the priest intones those of 2008. Most people, thanks to Baronius Press, won’t even realise that there has been a change.

    P.K.T.P.

  25. schoolman says:

    Fr. Z: I cannot square with reality the notion that the old prayer for the Jews is “the full expression of the Catholic faith”.

    Right on, Father. In fact the CCC says that no single rite of Mass (let alone a singe prayer) san possibly express the fulness of Catholic Faith in all of its splendor. The mysteries are too deep to be contained in any single human formulation.

  26. Malta says:

    Matt, we have more important things to pray about than the reunification of over a million good and holy Catholic souls? Like what?

    This, we must all agree, is true:

    “Subsequent to pressure from outside the Catholic Church, the Pope believed himself obliged to change the very venerable Prayer for the Jews which is an integrating part of the Good Friday liturgy..”

    Personally, I like the new prayer, but I find nothing wrong with the position, supra,, which, objectively, is true.

    It’s amazing to me, that while the Church is dismantling at the seams, there are Catholics who love to disparage SSPX; SSPX, remember, preserved the traditional rite, and was the main catalyst behind Summorum Pontificum.. Oh, but now that we have SP, we can just throw SSPX out with the bath water? Show an ounce of Charity, folks….

  27. Clayton says:

    Fr. Z,
    With all due respect, I do disagree with the notion that this change in the prayer can be so easily justified. It may not be BAD or it may not be CATASTROPHIC but it may still be undesirable.
    While I disagree with the SSPX that they are somehow allowed to ‘filter’ the pope, or whatever, it is worth saying that part of being the ‘fulness’ of the Christian faith involves an appeal to antiquity. That means a steadfast commitment to conserve the forms and even the ambiguity of the older forms. Think about the Roman Canon; it does not so nearly and explicitly have sacramental language that we have come to expect from Catholic Catechisms or explanations, but that is because it is older and reflects an older theological tradition. Surely we do not have to update IT to reflect new approaches to theology.
    No, I trust in the power of the Holy Spirit to create enduring rites and traditions out of each age, and I wish that the later ages would seek to recognize the Holy Spirit acting to keep us in union with them. Otherwise, we are divorcing our belief in Tradition from any of its reality and power, and replacing it with a sort of Papal or Magisterial Positivism that is NOT warranted by Scripture or Tradition. It reduces our theological tradition to a series of bodiless theological propositions, a tendency I call “the heresy of catecheticism” (yes, a horrific neologism).
    To this end, if the old prayer was deficient in some way, why could we not simply have entrusted priests and catechists to supply the faithful with the necessary knowledge, trusting that the gifts of the prayer might yet play out in a manner beyond our knowledge?
    The fight we ought to be having is against Papal Positivism and the formational immaturity that such attitudes encourage, and replace it with a healthy sense of the communion of saints.

  28. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Professor Basto is correct is saying that the statement issued does not tell us what the S.S.P.X will do. An e-mail sent to me on the matter makes it clear that they use the pre-1955 usages anyway for the Triduum Sacram, so it doesn’t to them. Whether they will adopt in time is still not clear. I pray that they do not.

    P.K.T.P.

  29. Christopher Sarsfield says:

    Schoolman,

    While my private judgement agrees with yours, I am sure that Cardinal Kasper would interpret the words of the Holy Father in the same way he does the prayer. This interpretation, while not my own, is not inconsistent with the text you quote. Notice the Holy Father is not speaking of the conversion of individual Jews, but the conversion of Israel. Perhaps, the next time you are speaking with the Holy Father, you can explain to him how his Cardinal in charge of dialogue and relations with the Jews is misrepresenting the Pope’s prayer, and that his interpretation is not authentic. For the Holy Father must be unaware of his Cardinal’s action, because he has done nothing to correct him, or insisted that the Cardinal correct his public statements.

    My point is that without a clarification coming form the Holy Father himself, you and I have no grounds to insist on our understanding of the prayer, and to condemn the Cardinal’s. Unless of course you have been given some authority by the Pontiff to speak in his name, and condemn his Cardinals, who have competency in these matters.

  30. schoolman says:

    “Whether they will adopt in time is still not clear. I pray that they do not.”
    P.K.T.P.

    So, what will you do if the SSPX does accept the prayer…stay home?

  31. “The Jewish protests and their threats to cancel ‘dialogue’ was a major factor for the officials at the Vatican, despite what anyone says.”

    That’s a serious charge. Do you have anything at all to back that up?

    “The non-serviam attitude is getting old and, honestly, a little boring.”

    What he said.

  32. schoolman says:

    “This interpretation, while not my own, is not inconsistent with the text you quote.”
    Christopher Sarsfield

    Of course it is. Kaspar attempts to interpret the eschatological aspect of the prayer as an exclusively “end times” phenomenon. Well, that is directly opposed to the Holy Fathers catechesis insofar as the “eschalogical” time arleady began when Christ instituted the Church. This is nothing really new, though. Cardinal Kaspar has been debating this point (rather publicly) with Cardinal Ratzinger for years. Finally, as Pope, Benedict XVI gives a catechesis regarding the “eschatological” (begus arleady with the establishment of the Church) call to conversion of all of Israel. It’s a done deal leaving nothing to debate. As to the discipline of Kaspar — I would not be so sure that has not already happened. There have already been reports of his replacement.

  33. techno_aesthete says:

    Malta: we must all agree, is true

    Why is that? Did Pope Benedict personally tell you what motivated him to change the prayer? If not, then I submit that you and others are merely projecting onto the Holy Father what you think motivated him to change the prayer. What you or others think may not be the actual reason he decided to change the prayer. What appears to be is not always what is.

  34. Matt says:

    I do think the SSPX is committing a form of idolatry here. Yes, none of us want change, but to insinuate ill will and heresy on the part of the Holy Father is a sin.

    It’s not up to Kasper OR FELLAY

  35. Malta says:

    techno_aesthete

    Hmmm. The ADL and others were tirelessly petitioning the Pope to change the prayers, and then weeks (not months or years) later he subsequently changed the prayer. That is called very circumstantial evidence that our Pope changed the prayers to be more palatable to general usage. But here’s the kicker: the prayer has lost none of its impart or theological significance. I am actually on the side of the Pope with respect to this change. I think it’s good, but I also understand reservations on the part of SSPX. I mean, these souls have suffered enough already. The modernist Church has become a farce in many parts of the country. I really, really, admire SSPX for adhering to Tradition while at the same time returning love and respect to our Pope. They are NOT sedevacantists, they love and serve our Pope, but refuse to cow-tail to modernism.

  36. Curmudgeon says:

    Hmm, and this, the second Saturday in Lent, is a good day to consider the issue, bearing in mind the readings of the day. Something is in danger here, and unfortunately too few clerical people outside the SSPX are aware of it, or if aware, are willing to identify it. Lots of folks who don’t regularly frequent or support SSPX apostolates are likely to find themselves at the SSPX chapel on Good Friday. The stance of the SSPX will preserve (or at least be influential in preserving) the integrity of the ancient rite. Godspeed to them. It seems that Kaspar’s siding with Esau; Fellay’s siding with Jacob, and Benedict is siding with, well, he’s still hoping that the old man will give a second blessing. Seems safer to be on the Fellay side of Ratzinger than the Kaspar side.

  37. mike c says:

    Bp Fellay is merely restating a valid point of view, viz., the prayer was changed to accomodate the “feelings” of non-Chritians. With ADL, it is not even a matter of belief but rather a cultural thing. Changing liturgy to conform to the zeigeist is a most dangerous course of action, because then, liturgy can be changed almost constantly, as in NewMass. Sir Perky is right in that those attending the Sacram Triduum will more than likely be using hand missals with the traditional prayer so it will not affect them. Here’s to you, Abe Flotsam

  38. vox borealis says:

    Malta: “Matt, we have more important things to pray about than the reunification of over a million good and holy Catholic souls? Like what?”

    Well, if they are good and holy Catholic souls, why do I need in particular to pray for them or their reunification? Meanwhile, I would think that the one billion not so good and holy Catholics are more in need of our prayers, no?

  39. Matt Q says:

    Curmudgeon wrote”

    “Hmm, and this, the second Saturday in Lent, is a good day to consider the issue, bearing in mind the readings of the day. Something is in danger here, and unfortunately too few clerical people outside the SSPX are aware of it, or if aware, are willing to identify it. Lots of folks who don’t regularly frequent or support SSPX apostolates are likely to find themselves at the SSPX chapel on Good Friday. The stance of the SSPX will preserve (or at least be influential in preserving) the integrity of the ancient rite. Godspeed to them. It seems that Kaspar’s siding with Esau; Fellay’s siding with Jacob, and Benedict is siding with, well, he’s still hoping that the old man will give a second blessing. Seems safer to be on the Fellay side of Ratzinger than the Kaspar side.”

    ()

    Well said, Curmy. Well said. Full summation of this entire thread.

  40. Curmudgeon says:

    …and as for the day’s readings, we’ll remember when the prodigal son returned there was a party and all that, but after the kid was eaten and the keg was emptied, the dutiful son (the Church) who never waivered still had claim to all that the father had, and we may presume that the prodigal one had to get to work. I’ll stand behind the dutiful son, Tradition, rather than get too caught up in the modernist party for the prodigal one, knee-jerk Pontifical fiat invoked for the placation of those outside the Church.

  41. C.M. says:

    Someone mentioned the Orthodox.

    Here is an interesting article from the Jerusalem Post, dated last year:

    Unlike the Catholic and Protestant churches, the Orthodox Church has never removed anti-Semitic passages from its liturgy, which still refers to Jews as Christ killers, said Dr. Dmitry Radyehsvky, director of the Jerusalem Summit, a conservative Israeli think tank that co-sponsored the visit.

    He said the anti-Semitic passages were most conspicuous during Easter services, and included statements such as “the Jewish tribe which condemned you to crucifixion, repay them, Oh Lord,” which is repeated half a dozen times, and “Christ has risen but the Jewish seed has perished,” as well as references to Jews as “God-killers.”

    “Orthodox Christianity lives up to its name: it’s extremely conservative – even more than Catholicism,” Radyehsvky said.

    I couldn’t find a link to an online source of the liturgy in question.

  42. Matt says:

    Malta,

    I think there are much more important things to pray for than SSPX. That’s the whole problem with that group, they think they are the most important thing in the whole world. It is absolutely sinful how inflated their egos are.

    What I suggest we pray for is that our Father’s will be done.

    Pray for the poor, material and spirtual.

    Pray for those who can not pray for themselves.

    Pray for the forgiveness of the whole world.

    Pray for humility.

    And pray for christian unity, especially your least favorite groups. Not the ones closest to you.

    Matt

  43. Pope Evaristus, Martyr says:

    I agree with many of these comments. Paying attention to the tantrums and so-called “official statements” of the SSPX does more harm than good.

  44. a Premonstratensian says:

    I’m not sure if anyone has underlined the point (and apologies if someone has) that Pope Blessed John XXIII altered the prayer for the Jews already. I think the reaction from SSPX could have been a lot worse, and while we may regret such a venerable prayer being altered, I think that once people calmly look at the new prayer, its basis in scripture and call for the conversion of the Jews, then things can be seen in proportion. Language which may be regarded nowadays as ‘offensive’ is certainly not a matter of doctrine, which is preserved intact in the new prayer. Altering a single prayer of the Church -without diminishing doctrine – is one thing. It would be a graver leap to start altering the New Testament. The clear New Testament (Pauline)basis of the new prayer underlines this. Personally I am sorry that the prayer has been further altered, but, in light of the above, and in obedience to the Holy Father, we should submit to his wishes.

  45. Victor says:

    When I was a boy, while waiting before the traffic lights, I used to count down to zero, and occasionally the lights changed to green exactly when I had finished the countdown. Was it my doing then? I don’t think so. Neither do I believe the ADL had any significant influence on the Pope’s decision. Of course it COULD be – and of course perhaps there was somebody watching me and changing the lights exactly when I said “zero”…

    One other thing: I am getting tired of people praising the SSPX for “Saving the liturgy”. God can make good things out of the worst, but that does not mean we praise those evil doings. We wouldn’t have had a Tridentine Council, if it were not for Dr. Martin Luther and his Reformation. Likewise, there wouldn’t be an American Independency without George III. And even our Salvation would not have been possible without the treachery of Jude.
    Please understand that I do not intend to draw false analogies. I am not comparing Archbishop Lefebvre with Jude, but I compare wrong deeds that were led to a happy outcome by the Lord.

  46. Malta says:

    I love the Orthodox, in fact, today I spent the afternoon with an Orthodox community, since they had a pot-luck. Their liturgy is much more pure than our silly Novus Ordo. Seriously, the concocted bugnini litury is a joke, and yet it is used by 99% of Catholics, (and the fruits are beginning to rear their ugly heads: priestly abuse, almost no belief in the True Presence, etc.)

    So, Matt, don’t tell me that the SSPX aren\’t worth praying for, or that, “there are much more important things to pray for,\” like, \”pray for the forgiveness of the whole world.\” Dude, that\’s plain stupid. Where are you coming from? Do you believe Yoga can also improve the world?

    Really, the Catholic church needs to get closer to the Orthodox. Catholicism has lost it\’s way, big time. Rod Dreher converted to Catholisism and then re-converted to Orthodoxy after learning that the altar in his local church had to be cleaned daily from KY jelly and other substances (from gay troists the night before). Really, our Church is a mess..

    So, don’t judge SSPX until you have all the facts.

  47. John says:

    A lot of energy is wasted dumping on the SSPX. Fellay’s regret pales compared to the outright hereseis commited by many many, 90% too high? — of so-called liberal hierarchs in good standing with Rome.

    There is a bit of Alice-in-Wonderlandish quality to the SSPX condemnations.

  48. John says:

    Bp Fellay is not the worst offender againts authority in the Church. For one, the Jesuits are worse.

  49. Tim Ferguson says:

    Bp Fellay is not the worst offender againts authority in the Church. For one, the Jesuits are worse.

    It’s good to know that someone else’s worse actions somehow legitimize someone’s not-so-good actions. It’s a good thing Traditionalists aren’t tainted by relativism or anything…

    TNCath says it well, The non-serviam attitude is getting old and, honestly, a little boring.

  50. CarolinaGeo says:

    Fr. Z recently did a review of the Angelus Press missal. I am curious as to whether future printings of that missal will include the 1962 prayer or the 2008 prayer.

  51. Matt says:

    Malta,

    Only Christ and his bride the Catholic Church can save the world. Anything else is human, and since it is human, it doomed to human failure.

    I think you have shown your true colors in last posting.

    I never said SSPX was not worth praying for, just that there are much more important issues. BTW, I pray for them regularly along with all other christian that are blinded to happiness is found in full communion and submission to Christ through his true church, the Catholic Church.

    If you don’t like your parish, get more invovled in it. Same thing goes for your diocese.

    Great parishes and diocese don’t just happen. It takes a lot of hard work and persistence.

    That’s is how and why we got the extraordiany form back, and how it will survive and thrive.

    I hope you find happiness and fufillment.

    Matt

  52. Stephen says:

    It’s amazing to me, that while the Church is dismantling at the seams, there are Catholics who love to disparage SSPX; SSPX, remember, preserved the traditional rite, and was the main catalyst behind Summorum Pontificum..

    I disagree that the SSPX were the main holders of tradition. The FSSP and others did that. They saw the problematic position of the SSPX and remained in a regular position in the Church. While the SSPX made the most noise, it was the others that were the most faithful in preserving the liturgy properly.

  53. Ottaviani says:

    I disagree that the SSPX were the main holders of tradition. The FSSP and others did that. They saw the problematic position of the SSPX and remained in a regular position in the Church. While the SSPX made the most noise, it was the others that were the most faithful in preserving the liturgy properly.

    This hardly makes sense. The only people saying the traditional mass publically in the wilderness of the 70s and early 80s were the SSPX. The FSSP was founded by former SSPX priests and seminarians who wanted to work in the official structures of the church. I hate to break it to you, but until the FSSP was founded, the only vocal group of priests who rightly refused to accept Paul VI’s unjust proscription of the Missal of St. Pius V were the SSPX – because they believed it was never abrogated. And Summorum Pontificum vindicates that.

  54. Matt says:

    Octaviani,

    There was a multitude of Catholics who lived with the ordinary form for years and worked to get the extraordinary form back as the indult. Then we worked to get groups like Institute of Christ the King and others started and finally, we got Summorum Pontificum.

    I have never heard of bishop, arch-bishop and cardinal ever say they are concerned with what SSPX thinks. If you look at western Connecticut (and it is not a hot bed of Catholism), there are 4 different parishes that offer the extraordinary form every Sunday.

    The people who worked to have those masses and make them successful are the reason we had the extraordinary form de-restricted.

    Matt

  55. Malta says:

    Matt: “I think you have shown your true colors in last posting.”

    What, just because I have the ability to get angry? Jesus, too, could get angry. There is nothing wrong with a little anger. I think SSPX has historically been given the shaft by our modernist Church. . They are some of the most holy and devout Catholics in the world, and yet many fellow Catholics throw mud at them and hold them in contempt..

    You have no right to judge me; you don’t know who I am. I have plenty of happiness and contentment (to wit: four beautiful children, who I hope will be Saints someday), but I find our Church in a sorry state. Explain this to me, why do only 30% of Catholics in the Church believe in the True Presence. That is a scary statistic and speaks of manifest Eucharistic abuse. . Maybe we need some righteous anger out there, and less of the attitude: “oh, everything is just fine in the Church..”

  56. David says:

    “I have never heard of bishop, arch-bishop and cardinal ever say they are concerned with what SSPX thinks.”

    Ummm… the PCED… ?

    Oh, what’s the use?

  57. Ottaviani says:

    Matt: There was a multitude of Catholics who lived with the ordinary form for years and worked to get the extraordinary form back as the indult. Then we worked to get groups like Institute of Christ the King and others started and finally, we got Summorum Pontificum.

    I acknowledge this and organisations such as Una Voce, etc are to be thanked for. The great figures in the traditionalist movement like Michael Davis, Dr. Eric de Savethanam, Alice Von Hildebrand, etc all fought against the odds (at times abysmal failure) to ensure the old rite would not be left to die out. Yet they all also acknowledge that it was also because the SSPX were one of the only groups that publically advocate that the older form of mass and sacraments were never (and can’t be) abolished in the 1970s, that created the spark for lay movements to campaign for the mass again more vigorously.

    The ICKSP and FSSP only sprang up after Rome saw they had to create an alternative to the SSPS. If the SSPX never existed, then Rome would not bother with approving of traditional socities of apostolic life – and why would they?

    There was only so much “Eccelsia Dei” communities could do – if a bishop stamped on them, they could get nowhere. This is where the SSPX won.

  58. Different says:

    Does anyone know how many people (laity) are “attached” to the SSPX? In other words, what are their numbers worldwide. I mean, they seem like a really really small group that gets a lot of attention.

    Malta,

    There is plenty of good fruit coming from orders and dioceses that use the Novus Ordo 99% of the time. In dioceses with good bishops, good vocations are rapidly increasing. The real presence issue is primarily an issue of catechesis…get better priests and the issue will resolve itself. It is not as though the Novus Ordo corrupts, it bears good fruit.

  59. jarhead462 says:

    Did anyone see this article in The Remnant?
    http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2008-a_papal_masterstroke.htm

    Sorry if somone already mentioned it.

  60. Legisperitus says:

    I agree with Breier and a Premonstratensian in that Bishop Fellay’s comments are interesting for what he does NOT say. For example, he does not cry betrayal, as many of the SSPX faithful have done. He doesn’t say “this shows that Summorum Pontificum was a fraud,” or that “Rome can never be trusted again.” He regrets the change, as one might have expected he would, but he is not rattling sabers or saying that this dooms the hoped-for rapprochement.

    Fellay is on record as saying his Society’s “irregular” situation cannot and should not last indefinitely. I don’t see him giving up on that position over one change to the Good Friday liturgy. He may even be grateful that this has been done up front, rather than “sprung” on them only after the expected withdrawal of the decree of excommunication.

  61. Arthur says:

    FSSPX–Protestants of a different stripe.

  62. Arthur says:

    FSSPX–Protestants of a different stripe.

  63. jack burton says:

    If that’s true then I commend them for their exemplary ecumenical spirit. The merging of Catholicism and Protestantism still has a little way to go so don’t fault them if their attempt is less than perfect. We can’t expect everyone to live up to the high standard of the champions of the 1960′s and 70′s.