![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
SSPX prospects and my ruminations
Our friends over at Rorate have picked up on Paolo Rodari’s note on Palazzo Apostolico about the Five Conditions posed by the Holy See to the SSPX. The Holy See is requiring a response by the end of the month.
Here is my translation of Rodari’s item:
First consideration: I don’t know if the Lefebvrites will accept the conditions of the Holy See. I know that another, similar occasion probably will not happen ever again. And I know that, if they don’t accept, they would probably lose quite a few of their followers, principally because they want to participate in Masses with the old rite. But this Mass, today, can be found also elsewhere, thanks to the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.
[Right. Pope Benedict, understanding all the angles here, knew when it was time to pose the unavoidable question. Will you accept union with Peter and his role or will you be like the others, way over on the other side of the road. Remember: Ceteris paribus, people would rather be with the Church than against her! With the local bishop than against him!]
Second consideration: A very small indication concerning the fact that, probably, the Lefebvrites will accept the conditions posed by the Holy See (or that at least they are seriously thinking them over) came to me from a telephone call I made yesterday to Ecône, headquarters of the SSPX. As at other times in the past, I asked to speak with Bishop Fellay, Superior of the SSPX. Usually, especially when he wanted to reassert that there was nothing new concerning their reentry into the Church, he answered me quickly. Instead, yesterday he made it known that he had nothing to say. Perhaps this is because he is seriously thinking about accepting the Vatican’s conditions – but doesn’t want to say it?
I think Rodari has hit the nail on the head both times.
Even if we consider that the conditions were probably put directly to Bp. Fellay, maybe, rather than the whole SSPX. Still, he is their Superior.
First, if there is a viable option, I think that people in their goodness and their native Catholic instincts, unless they have been somehow terribly hurt or perhaps twisted in their thinking or their hearts, would by far rather be in union with the local Church and with Rome. That is why I wrote ceteris paribus… all things being equal. Also, most people want a reverent Mass and sound preaching. They care little for the loftier theological arguments. They need the spiritual nourishment neccessary to get through their days and weeks according to their vocations.
Second, were Bp. Fellay to say that he was considering accepting these conditions, the pressure on him would ratchet up beyond what it must be now. Frankly, I think this is probably a mirror of what happened to the late Archbp. Lefebvre that night after he signed the concordat in 1988 in Card. Ratzinger’s office at the CDF. I imagine the pressure on the old man was tremendous. It could be that these young men, perhaps Bernard Fellay, desired that it go the other way and the old man finally caved it. Speculation on my part, perhaps. But it seems just about right. So, what goes around comes around. Now it is Fellay’s turn, though he is not in the same role that Archbp. Lefebvre had in the SSPX as its founder.
I really don’t envy this poor chap. He must be under tremendous stress, hounded by a hundred shrill voices.
He needs our prayers, friends.
I will say Mass for Bp. Fellay’s intention this afternoon, as a matter of fact.
The identity of the SSPX is at stake now.
What do they stand for? Who are they?
I think they could by their reunion send a magnificent message not only to many on the left in the Church, but also many non-Catholics who in their hearts look to the Church with hope.
Also, within the Church I think they could be an incredibly effective leaven. I always call to mind what our good friend His Hermeneuticalness says, Fr. Finigan. He looks foward to the SSPX men joining their deanery meetings! Their integration into the fuller life of the Church, with all its strains and factions and problems, will be real pastoral work, friends.
The setting of a broken bone is painful, as is the knitting – tedious, inconvenient and worrisome. But Holy Church needs the strength his knitted bone will have. A broken bone can wind up a stronger.
I wonder if many readers of this blog have read Evelyn Waugh’s great war trilogy Sword of Honour. In the final book the protagonist’s father sends him a letter scolding him for his bitterness about the Church’s 70-plus years of accommodation with the now-collapsed Piedmontese usurpation and latter-day Fascisti. I think that passage from the novel is strikingly applicable to the present situation:
“Of course in the 1870s and 80s every decent Roman disliked the Piedmontese, just as the decent French now hate the Germans. They had been invaded. And, of course, most of the Romans we know kept it up, sulking. But that isn’t the Church. The Mystical Body doesn’t strike attitudes and stand on its dignity. It accepts suffering and injustice. It is ready to forgive at the first hint of compunction.
“When you spoke of the Lateran Treaty [read: an accord between Rome and the SSPX] did you consider how many souls may have been reconciled and have died at peace as a result of it? How many children may have been brought up in the faith who might have lived in ignorance? Quantitative judgments don’t apply. If only one soul was saved that is full compensation for any amount of loss of ‘face’.
I pray someone puts Waugh’s words before Bishop Fellay’s eyes.
Comment by Romulus — 25 June 2008 @ 1:40 pmIndeed, Father Z, we really must pray. We need the SSPX back in the Church, at our deanery meetings, Parishes, Seminaries, and Diocesan Offices. Can we use your blog to promote the possibility of everyone joining their Masses and Communions—perhaps on the Vigil of St. Peter and Paul—to pray for this intention, for the union of the SSPX with the Church, for Bishop Fellay and for all in the Society? And then can we all offer our Masses and Communions on Sunday, the glorious Feast of St. Peter and Paul to pray for Our Holy Father? Just a thought.
Comment by Fr W — 25 June 2008 @ 2:03 pmI hope and pray for the full communion of the SSPX, but let’s not jump the gun. Their USA website is still full of articles which say to stay away from FSSP Masses, the “Novus Ordo” Mass, the new Catechism, etc. I think all this needs to be dealt with. The SSPX needs to undergo a conversion, otherwise orthodox Catholics such as myself will always be suspicious them, even if they are in full communion.
Comment by Geoffrey — 25 June 2008 @ 2:11 pmI imagine that the faithful of the SSPX really don’t care about religious liberty or ecumenical dialogue. They just want to practice the Traditional Catholic faith unhindered—which really centers around the Gregorian Rite. Secondly, after reading the monthly bulliten here in the US, it appears that many of the SSPX “parishes” aren’t really typical parishes. In other words, an SSPX priest shows up on Sunday to celebrate the Mass and then is gone for the rest of the week to another part of the state or even another part of the country. It is hard to establish a true parish life if this is the case (and it seems to be the case if you look at Mass times for many of their locations). Maybe being re-integrated into the Church would help solve this problem. Add to this fact that I believe they are losing many vocations to the FSSP and ICKSP gives them even more reason to re-enter (there are no priestly ordinations this year for USA branch of the SSPX).
Comment by Greg Hessel in Arlington Diocese — 25 June 2008 @ 2:26 pmOne point I think that is lacking in the commentary I have seen, is the desire of Rome to have all the bishops come back and not only some. The Church needs to be able to control the power of conferring the priesthood especially its fullness in the power to consecrate bishops. I do not think Rome is too keen on a deal that would let Bishop Williamson loose from all authority. This of course makes the regularization much more difficult. Fellay must get a deal that allows him to save enough face to keep the SSPX mostly intact to take away the incentive of a bishop jumping ship and starting fresh with a significant group of followers. The position of the Church and the SSPX is very difficult.
Comment by Christopher Sarsfield — 25 June 2008 @ 2:37 pmI have no doubt The Holy Father understand Angels, and there are plenty around during this time (Deo Gracia). He also knows the angles, like a good natural philosopher. (wink).
I have one word for this – babysteps. This is a call for a very definite step, though small. But a journey of a thousand steps begins with just one.
Comment by Tzard — 25 June 2008 @ 2:37 pmTheir identity is indeed on the line. If they take this step toward Rome (May God grant them the strength for this), they will have to abandon their entire language of “Conciliar Church” and “New Mass.” They will have to turn their backs on the attitude captured perfectly in the words of Archbishop Lefebvre:
“We are not of this religion. We do not accept this new
religion. We are of the religion of all time, of the Catholic
religion. We are not of that universal religion, as they call it
today. It is no longer the Catholic religion. We are not of that
liberal, modernist religion that has its worship, its priests, its
faith, its catechisms, its Bible.”
Are they ready to do this? Perhaps some are. Some certainly are not. But one way or the other, it looks that this whole “separation” may be very clearly defined and resolved in the near future.
Comment by Patrick T — 25 June 2008 @ 2:40 pmIn other words, an SSPX priest shows up on Sunday to celebrate the Mass and then is gone for the rest of the week to another part of the state or even another part of the country.
This is the situation at S. Jude’s in Eddystone, a suburb of Philadelphia. The pastor, I believe, lives in Ridgefield, Connecticut, and comes down on Sundays and Holy Days to say Mass. I cannot understand how that is tenable as a long-term solution. For a time I believed that this was anomalous, but I understand that it is the common way of operating for most Society chapels in the U.S., outside of a very few places.
Comment by Paul Goings — 25 June 2008 @ 2:51 pmMy thoughts and prayers are with Bishop Fellay because he has a tremendous responsibility to shoulder and the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, as well as from the blogosphere, are already being dispatched in his direction. Father Z shows his graciousness by offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for Bishop Fellay’s intention and I encourage everyone to join in praying for that intention. May Almighty God be with Bishop Fellay as he ponders what sort of response to make to the proposal before him.
Comment by Paul Haley — 25 June 2008 @ 2:54 pmI believe the same situation perdures at the SSPX’s St. Anthony of Padua Mission in N. Jersey. Aside from very obvious issues, such as sick calls, it would seem to leave laypeople in charge of the “parish” for a majority of the time.
Comment by dcs — 25 June 2008 @ 2:56 pmI’d beg to differ. I’m not FSSPX and I do care for the grave consequences of the falsely understood ecumenical dialogue, which too often means putting aside Catholic doctrine and identity and is indeed based on a flawed concept that all churches are made equal – or that the one universal Church is a mystical entity present in all churches to some degree but in none of them fully. I don’t understand, for example, why the Church won’t extend his hand to those in the Anglican Church who want to come back to the only true Church?
In other words – SSPX has one more thing that attracts traditionalists: ardent clarity. They indeed follow the yes-yes-no-no principle when it comes to values in their preaching. Too many bishops and priests in the Church now want to be nice, warm, likeable guys so they don’t want to offend anyone – so they don’t speak with this clarity. There are noble exceptions, but this is the every day norm.
But this very clarity and pastoral zeal could be SSPX’s gift to the Church if they come back. I just wish they could be more humble and have more charity – and have enough self-criticism to accept this offer which basically says exactly that: be more humble, don’t call Holy Father names.
Comment by Andy — 25 June 2008 @ 2:57 pmThis issue became clearer to me this morning when I compared it with the Good Friday Prayer controversy.
Sure, there were some trads who said that he shouldn’t have changed any thing—but the pope did and the Mass could no longer be said to be an irrelevant fossil. The liberals went bizzerk. The neo-cons were silent. They could defend a hundred imprudent moves by JP2 but when this pope was called a Nazi they weren’t exactly rushing to sign The Remnant petition of support.
Now, Benedict has given the SSPX that chance to avoid irrelevancy. Pride may make them hesitant but consider how those who despise them are reacting (I know as most of my friends are NOT trads).
Most libs are either ignorant of these events or grinding their teeth. Now consider the neo-cons. Their arguments against the SSPX haven’t always been as reasoned as Fr. Z’s. No, the SSPX are: “schismatic, “extreme traditionalists” etc because of : X, Y, and Z. It’s always the same script.
But X, Y, and Z are not to be found among the things they must repudiate to enjoy full communion. Therefore, people can hold to those things.
The battle against the libs will be won, demographics will see to that as they aren’t breeding.
However, the battle against the neo-cons has just begun! Welcome home SSPX, can you get to work for us on Monday?
Comment by Tom in Columbus — 25 June 2008 @ 5:33 pmA