I have had emails asking about my thoughts and predictions for the SSPX and Holy See debacle.
Firstly, I am deeply saddened. I worked in the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” from its early years. I saw the birth and growth of “Ecclesia Dei” communities, the issuance of many celebret faculties, nasty fights with bishops and moving resolutions. The Commission was despised by the rest of the Curia. We were the “wailing wall” for traditional Catholics who had no shepherds who loved them enough, or were at least willing to obey what John Paul II wrote in Ecclesia Dei adflicta (1988).
John Paul, as I came to learn during my time, didn’t really understand why people wanted the old stuff. Of course he came from Poland which was stable and strong in faith because of their persecution. Even so, he commanded the world’s bishops by his Apostolic authority: to be generous to people who had legitimate aspirations.
In my little opinion, it was wrong for Pope Leo to relegate a meeting with the SSPX’s Superior Fr. Pagliarani to Fernandez, his office notwithstanding. But, then… relegate to whom else, Card. Roche? Of course the main points for the SSPX are doctrinal more than liturgical, which is why the Commission was folded into the CDF back in the day.
I hope and pray that Pope Leo will find in his heart a little room for the legitimate aspirations described by John Paul, and open his heart to these sons of the Church.
Leo’s arms bear the Augustinian Order’s “logo” of the heart aflame, pierced through with an arrow, resting on a book. Augustine’s conversion came through a kind of piercing of his heart by the Word. I note that in the Augustinian Order’s logo the book in modern times is usually – not uniformly – open rather than closed. I hope that the difference is not portentous.
There is still time for a meeting.
On the other side of things, I have gotten to know SSPX priests and learn about what they have done for regular diocesans priests in need. I have talked with them, exchanged messages. I’ve tried to understand what they are all about. I have even had the pleasure of a long social evening with their Superior in a group of both SSPX and diocesan priests. Since I speak Italian, we had lively conversation before and during our repast.
I understand things about the SSPX as a whole now that I did not understand lo those many years ago when I was with the Commission. Moreover, I saw the unlikely agent of Francis help them in Argentina and then give them faculties for confessions and a way to witness marriages, which seemed to confirm that they are not suspended. And as mentioned, I’ve seen what they have done for regular priests in need or mistreated by their bishops.
I was a bit dismayed by the Declaration that Fr. Pagliarani sent out. It right away struck me as being obvious… smack you in the face obvious… that such a text was not going to be understood by the relevant parties in the Holy See, in the DDF. The DDF types now may need a Rosetta Stone to decipher all those ideas, oddly familiar from some old book of yore.
However, one thing in the Declaration left me downhearted, the statement that baptism is the one means of being saved:
Consequently, every man must be a member of the Catholic Church in order to save his soul, and there is but one baptism as the means of being incorporated into her. This necessity concerns the whole of humanity without exception and embraces without distinction Christians, Jews, Muslims, pagans, and atheists.
This is something that the people in the DDF will simply freak out over. Also, it is not entirely accurate because, as St. Augustine correctly described, we cannot place limits on whom God chooses to save. When writing about the necessity of baptism Augustine affirmed the necessity of baptism while admitted that God can save whomever it pleases Him to save even though he, Augustine, didn’t know how. Hence, I would have preferred to see a line in there like: “Without placing limits on God, who willed the Sacrament of Baptism as the means by which He desires… etc.”
Politically, Pope Leo would lose nothing by being generous and fatherly toward the SSPX, with some personal TLC. I think the members of the SSPX would be willing to go to the wall for him and for the Church. It’s amazing what a little water on a blazing hot sunny day will do for my pot of basil on my little Roman patio.
On the other hand, Leo would not lose anything politically by being harsh to the SSPX, because the 99% liberal bishops will fall in line like lemmings to the sea. And the angels will weep.
That’s politics. It would a tragedy of epic scope were this to be handled by the Holy See as a matter of politics, factions, points.
It’s a matter of the heart, now, not arguing. Does Leo have that pastoral heart? Do the priests of the SSPX have hearts of sons?
I mentioned, above, when I was in the Commission, fights with bishops and moving outcomes.
Will you allow a personal anecdote? It’s about one of the most important things that ever happened to me in Rome and it has to do with the traditional Mass and with rigid positions.
When I was at “Ecclesia Dei“, early on, we had a really strained correspondence with an intractable American bishop, an infamous über-lib, who had a deadly feud going on with people in his diocese who wanted the traditional Mass. The people got us involved, the bishop got angry. It was awful.
Finally, the bishop wrote to us a letter that was seriously rude, even insulting. I had had it. “Basta!” I drafted a response for the Cardinal that was going to END the issue by bringing in the weight of the office.
My dear late mentor and boss, Card. Mayer, the holiest man I’ve ever known, called me to his office, as usual, to go over various drafts of correspondence. He had saved The Draft – my hammer on the bishop – until the end. He said that what I had written was correct and proper (like the “Declaration” in a way). “This is what we should write, of course.”
Then he asked about the first sentence.
“Here you wrote, X. Do you think perhaps we could write Y instead?”
“Of course, Your Eminence! It’s your letter”.
Changes were made in his carefully microscopic writing.
“And in this place, you wrote X. Could Y work here?”
“Yes, Eminenza!”, I responded.
We continued that way until there was literally nothing remaining of my Draft – the hammer – but a couple of “ands” and “thes”. We were actually laughing as my composition relentlessly disappeared under the black ink spiderweb of the Cardinal’s emendations, each one carefully and politely framed as a question, asking permission.
At last I said, “I obviously don’t have the right view of this. Help me out. Help me to understand how you want me to approach this.”
He paused a bit and looked at the crucifix on the wall of his office and said,
“At a certain point, we have to stop fighting and try to open up their hearts.”
With that, I went back to my desk and stared at the keys of the typewriter… yes, typewriter… and pondered.
“How do I open this bishop’s heart after all the bitter bridge burning? One of us has to give, and clearly it has to be us. Get off your high horse and keep it simple.”
I flashed out another draft and was back in the Cardinal’s office a few minutes later. He looked at my new version, approved it, and out it went in the evening mail bag.
What, you might be asking, did I write in that second draft to that bishop? It was not long. It was not complicated.
I apologized to him for our part in making the correspondence so difficult and then said along this line,
“Your Excellency, so many good people in your diocese simply want to have access to Holy Mass according to the 1962 Missale Romanum. Will you please, Your Excellency, not open your heart for them and give them what they want? They would be so happy. Sending prayerful best wishes for, etc. etc.”
Some time later we received a note from one of the faithful in that bishop’s diocese who had been involved in the feud and tension. He thanked us for what we did, and related that, not only had this über-lib, tradition-hating bishop given the required permission for the Traditional Mass, but he came to them and he said it himself.
I was stunned, but I don’t think the Cardinal was.
To this day, my heart gets chilly and I often fail in charity. But I am, I trust, a work in progress. But that was was an important life lesson. I learned that, in the matter especially of the dynamics of tradition, the heart is an important lens through which to view complicated conflicts. This is because, I am convinced, the Enemy knows that he cannot succeed if we succeed in renewing the life of the Church through a recovery of our traditional liturgical rites.
Hence, the Devil is going to fuel feuds, create strife, harden hearts. Moreover, Old Scratch and demons are the ultimate lawyers. If they can keep us quibbling and mired in the details, we are rendered ineffective.
Recovery of our identity is just as much a matter of the heart as it is a matter of stuff we can grind about in our heads.
I could tell story after story like the one above. I also have many tales about the zeal of good SSPX priests whom we helped out at Ecclesia Dei, and whom I personally got to know. What a lot of people today don’t understand is what the atmosphere of those times was like, especially in certain countries. The hostility and vindictiveness of bishops and priests in positions of power was nothing short of diabolical. It was far worse in Europe than it was in these USA back then. And, these days, especially in these USA, the situation is now very much improved after Summorum.
Hence, it is really hard, especially for the young who haven’t been in the trenches, newcomers, as it were, to take in all these matters, and especially for lay people, to understand these matters from within. Some whippersnapper pundits out there should put a sock in it for a little while.
Could you, please?
The situation of the SSPX is complicated. It is anomalous. It is evolving.
It is the beginning of the Pentecost Novena today. Here’s a page with novena texts HERE
For my part, I will say daily before 1 July:
Flecte quod est rigidum,
fove quod est frigidum,
rege quod est devium.
Bend what is inflexible,
warm what is chilled,
correct what has gone astray.
Thank you Father. Spot on.
I don’t think the SSPX statement that you quote is in any way an attempt to limit God. Their statement says much, but of course can’t say everything. [I almost wrote that very phrase.]
The sacraments (including the Church) bind us, but they don’t bind God – I don’t think for one second that Fr. Pagliarani would disagree with that. [I fully agree. However, “what he wrote, he wrote”.]
What an excellent post! It even melted this concrete heart of mine. Much to ponder.
So would God drag into heaven someone who doesn’t want to go? Being omnipotent, he could. But if he did it wouldn’t be love, which requires consent. That would require God to go against his own promise The person he dragged into heaven would be an automaton. No love involved. The SSPX is correct.
[You are confused. I did not mentioned anything about God saving people “against their will”. That’s ridiculous. And I am right and the way the SSPX framed that isn’t complete enough.]
Amen.
Father, a post on why you thought Cardinal Mayer was the holiest person you’ve ever known, and what made him so, would be edifying.
This gets to a larger problem that modern Catholicism [I know what modern and modernist Catholics are, but I don’t know what modern Catholicism is] has been unable to preach the Gospel without immediately reassuring people that explicit belief and conversion isn’t necessary because of invincible ignorance and implicit faith. I have no issue with Catholic teaching on this subject, but practically we [?] have but put the cart before the horse, announcing God’s extraordinary and theoretical means of salvation rather than His revealed and assured way.
Dear Father,
I thought that Fr Pagliarani’s Declaration was beautifully written, but our family attends a local Society chapel. Our local NO parish in Columbus IN is extremely liberal and preaches heresy. Another diocesan priest in our deanery told my wife and me that from what he knew about our pastor, he (other priest) did not think that Christ was really present in the tabernacle in our home parish—“or if He is, He is really PO’d.” direct quote. So we went to the next diocesan church up the interstate toward Indianapolis. The priest in Franklin IN was clearly a gay man who had his dog Reba on the altar with him during mass. He finished mass with a flourish “ya’ll come back now, ya’hear!” Again, direct quote. About 5 years later, Fr Steve absconded from the parish with his boyfriend. Despite our emails to our Archbishop, nothing visibly changed in either situation. Fr Steve apparently received full retirement benefits from the Archdiocese after he left that parish unexpectedly with his boyfriend.
The next church up the interstate was the Society chapel, and attending mass there has been nothing but positive for our family! It has been truly wonderful for our spiritual lives and we wish everyone had the chance to attend a traditional Catholic chapel.
If the Society’s discussion with Cdl Fernandez was pre-destined (perhaps designed) to fail because of the personnel involved, why don’t you and Fr Gerald Murray and Cdl Burke reach out to them, as a sort of imperfect (negotiating) council? I’ve never met Fr Pagliarani, but I suspect he and Bp Fellay would be willing to speak with anyone of earnest good will. If you think they are wrong and heading toward sin, perhaps, like St John the Baptist, in true charity you three could warn them and not renounce the means to save their souls? I suspect Fr Pagliarani would appreciate that, since he wrote it in his Declaration.
Cardinal Mayer obviously was a wise, humble, and prudent man. Let’s hope and pray the people in the Curia involved in this case will display those qualities in the time to come. Much depends on it.
Thank you for this post, Father. Very necessary reading, I believe.
I had missed the part in the declaration about baptism. You are correct that the way it’s worded can be interpreted problematically. It sounds very, very close to the Feeneyite heresy. Yes, their statement can’t say everything, but I think your anecdote with Cardinal Mayer clearly shows how we must be as wise as serpents, yet gentle as doves.
I remember you sharing that story elsewhere on your blog, but I forgot about the part that the “ultra-lib” bishop actually said Mass for the people who only desired the Usus Antiquior. That certainly melted my heart. I only wish the SSPX would’ve had someone like Cardinal Mayer directing them while writing that statement.
Someone in the comments on your blog post sharing the declaration asked, “What would Maronite Catholics think of the statement?” since the statement mentions only the “Roman Catholic Church”. The statement could’ve read a bit more clearly so that it didn’t discount Eastern Catholics, even though what was written was technically correct. Even Ukrainian Catholics in some sense belong to the ROMAN Catholic Church since we are all united with the Pope of ROME… but we need to put things in a more understandable way. Much like the statement with baptism. Baptism is necessary for salvation, but that doesn’t discount exceptions. And yes, there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, but it is for God to know who dies WITHIN the Catholic Church, even if appearances to our mortal senses make it seem like someone died OUTSIDE her. It’s simple (and true) enough to say that if someone is saved, it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church. All salvation comes from Christ the Head. So if they die in a state of grace, they die within holy Mother Church. As you showed, Father, there are better ways to say things differently, and in a way that will reach hearts.
Praying for reconciliation here. It would be a shame if these excommunications happened…
I am afraid missed the “rant” — with the richly textured story of Cardinal Mayer, this was an uncommonly beautiful post. There is much to reflect and pray on here.
I very much enjoyed the “rippling down” of a gentle, open-hearted response, from the Cardinal, to Fr. Z, to the American bishop, to the lay trads. I expect it could be traced much further, in both directions.
Having spent almost 8 years attending an SSPX chapel, I generally share your positive view of their priests. However, their love of the Church doesn’t seem to trickle down to their laity very well, among whom a schismatic and cult-like mentality is rife. Example: some years ago, our former Diocesan bishop, who maintained friendly relations with the large SSPX presence in his Diocese, met with their priests for lunch at their school. The majority of school parents withheld their children from school that day because they objected to the visit of a “Novus Ordo” bishop.
What a great post, Father. Thank you. Your description of the kindness of the priests of the Society is so true. So many people who attend our chapel describe situations where priests travelled across two states to reconcile a family member to the faith. It happened with my own sister in a nursing home when our pastor came to see her twice. She hadn’t been to Confession in decades but he was so kind she went and received the last sacraments. She died only a few months later. I will be forever grateful to Fr. John Carlisle for his concern and kindness. May the Society welcome many more such men into their warrior ranks. The devil must be trembling over the upcoming consecrations, he’s working so hard to create conflict.
What line does the ordination of bishops cross that priestly ordinations not cross?
This is easy for me to say from my layman’s armchair, but as I try to grope around outside the box for solutions, it seems that a problem of bishops could be solved by bishops… a few courageous bishops who could make an offering of themselves. For example, a Mutsaerts, a Schneider, a Strickland could stand up and say, “Holy Father, send us to the SSPX and avert this catastrophe.” There is precedent in the case of Vitus Huonder. If both sides are acting in good faith, how would they refuse such an offer? But is it already too late for everyone to climb out of their trenches?
I have two comments. The first is a series of questions that came to my mind after reading the opening statement of the Athanasian Creed, which was recited on every Trinity Sunday before Vatican II. “Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith unless every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.”
Is this why this creed is no longer said on Trinity Sunday? Does this mean that Church teaching has changed? Or does it mean that the Church in the past recognized that it has the means to help people who want salvation to indeed achieve it, whereas without being a member of the Church and thereby taking advantage of the Sacraments salvation is less likely. That is, how likely is it, that someone who has not learned to love the most Holy Trinity and the Holy Mother of God, would want to choose to be with God and his saints forever?
My second comment is that many of the critics of the SSPX statement (and of the group in general) are based on the presumed personal shortcomings of many of its clergy and many of the people who attend Mass at their chapels: in particular accusations of there being a cult-like atmosphere in particular, as if a secret cell of actively homosexual clergy and professors at seminary is not a cult of a different sort. At the same time they ignore the issues that concern the SSPX and the faithful who attend their chapels, which include the failure to remove heretics from seminary faculty while firing faithful seminary faculty, and the failure to insist that bishops and priests believe that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is indeed a true sacrifice and to believe that the offered bread and wine, once consecrated, are truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. So which is worse, being a schismatic who holds the Catholic faith or a heretic within the Church actively working to get believers to no longer believe the Mass is a true sacrifice offered in union with the continual Sacrifice of Christ’s Body and Blood in Heaven?
When the SSPX and those in authority in the Church have been battling for so long, it is hard to call a truce and calmly discuss the issues. Many on both sides have developed a “my way or the highway” attitude. To borrow a word from Pope Francis, they have become “rigid”. It is my hope that Pope Leo will directly intervene showing charity to both sides. After all, the mission of the Church is the salvation of souls not who wins or loses.
When I chose to return to the TLM, I was fortunate to experience the High Mass celebrated by a good and holy FSSP priest before I met some of the traditionalists that had also attended. If I had met these first, I would have left and never returned to the TLM. They had a most uncharitable view of those attending the Novus Ordo Masses that I did not care for.
As St. Paul wrote, “And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.” (1 Cor. 13:13)
Thank you for this post. It is a reminder to all of us that sometimes it comes down to more than I’m right and you’re wrong because hearts are closed and no one will yield. One catches more flys with honey than vinegar.
This was deeply moving to read. I’ve followed here a long time. I think it’s my favourite post you’ve ever written. Very often something has to give, and it’s nicer when it’s our kindness instead of our patience.
The SSPX has come out clearly against Feeneyism (that only Catholics are saved) so I believe that the statement ‘every man must be a member of the Catholic Church’ is misapplied/misunderstood. This is similar to the concerns the SSPX has with Vatican II’s approach to ecumenism and other religions. The Catholic Church is the only religious body/entity in the world today that was founded by the Lord and contains the complete Truth. So, while non-Catholics, be they Protestants, Jews, other religions, etc., may find salvation through the Holy Spirit guiding their individual consciences, the man-made entities they are a part of (Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, other religions) cannot bring them to salvation and should therefore not be placed on equal footing with the God-made Catholic Church. This part of the Declaration could have been worded differently but definitely should not have been left out as it is one of the primary elements of the sickness afflicting the modern Catholic Church.
The SSPX only stated the 2000 year old teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic Apostolic Catholic Church which one needs to believe in order to be saved. The faith countless missionaries risked and gave their lives for to carry out the command of Christ. Invincible ignorance was always taught, but in charity who wants to be purposefully left there as has been being done since V2??
Finally they are out in the open and going full stream ahead. Not only praying and promoting false religions, as all V2 Popes have done, they are now implementing their long held dream of accepting homosexuality as not only normal but a gift. Making excuses for these men who are about unleash unthinkable perversion in the parishes around the world and into the minds of children is mind boggling. Groveling or appealing to a false obedience to those who insult Our Lord and Our Lady with no qualms, and who have no respect for the Catholic faith is unthinkable.
Yes, the devil hates Latin, but he loves lukewarm faith, and V2 gave us lukewarm Catholicism so much so, people have become blind to the evil that will be rolled out with their full acceptance just so they can have a Latin Mass or on the otherside of this disaster their rainbow pachamama marxist celebrations.
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus have mercy on us!
Our Lady Mediatrix of all Graces and Co-Redemptrix pray for us!
I have an observation. In Japan the government mandates that employees can get a certain number of paid leave days per year. The government also mandates that each employee must take at least five of these days. Companies can make a rules that the company will set the first five days of paid leave and the employee can take the rest when they like. If a company mandates that they will set up to five days of paid leave on days of the company’s choosing thus creates an obligation to actually set those days. A company can not use this as a loophole to take paid leave from an employee by refusing to set the days.
I ask, if the Pope can mandate that he choose all bishops in the world, does this not then create an obligation that he actually do so?
The president can pocket veto legislation because the natural order is for the legislation to not go into effect. A Pope can not refuse to allow episcopal consecrations because they are in origin mandated by Christ.
And of course we could also point out that the Greeks and Copts openly reject and defy the need for a papal mandate and the Vatican is very desirous to be in communion with them.
Just saying.
What a great post
The story of Cardinal Mayer was very moving.
I wish all the whippersnapper pundits would be quiet.
Is this when you got to know Cardinal Stickler? Were you at his Mass in NYC?
Catholicgleaner, you make very good points. You’re right, the SSPX has come out strongly against Feenyism. I suppose that makes their wording of that portion of the letter all the more off putting
Buy I totally agree with everything in your comment, Catholicgleaner. Very well put. If someone who was part of a man-made religion is saved, it’s not because they practiced that religion, but rather, in spite of it.
Excellent, Father.
Francisco12 :
And yes, there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, but it is for God to know who dies WITHIN the Catholic Church, even if appearances to our mortal senses make it seem like someone died OUTSIDE her. It’s simple (and true) enough to say that if someone is saved, it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church.
I wrote BTL in Father’s original blog post that the “Church” in the Dogma as promulgated in Antiquity Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is what we call the Church Triumphant, outside of which there is no Salvation, against a Heresy at the time which held that multiple “salvations” and multiple “heavens” existed for the multiple religions, each having its own.
I’ve watched the movie The Catholics again (maybe my 4th viewing) and I’m saddened at the Church’s path as the Brothers were when Fr. Kinsella took off on the helicopter.
This movie makes sense of what we are living through, albeit more slowly…. “Vatican IV” is our continuous Synod and the real fight is the heart of the Church; the Salvation of Souls vs the salvation of the poor (liberation theology).
The SSPX are the brothers who will be betrayed by their non believing Father.
What are your thoughts at the end of the movie? Should the brothers stop believing because Vatican IV deemed it ok? Should they start saying thr new mass?
What should the SSPX do once they are excommunicated? Should stop attending their Mass?
Yes, the section you quoted on baptism and the surrounding paragraphs sounded very close to Feeneyism. It might not actually be that (being charitable here), but it’s going to create legitimate heartburn within even the most conservative circles within the Curia.
It seems to contradict the Holy Office’s position when dealing with Feeney, and if that’s the case, and they’re actually dead set on that position as written, reconciliation would be very hard.
Legispiritus mentioned Bishop Mutsaerts. I have some news about him that isn’t good. On Saturday last week, Bishop Mutsaerts was hospitalised after a car crash, which left him seriously wounded. He is in stable condition, that is all we know for now. Please pray for his recovery.
Legisperitus: there’s much in that. But probably fresher blood would be more effective, both as a gesture that it will be for the long-term, and because any existing bishop will have some sort of baggage that – rightly or wrongly – will get some of the people in SSPX pews very agited (see another comment about an ‘NO bishop’ – though I find that concept ridiculous).
If I may cite from an earlier comment, the Holy Father could for example also say ‘well, I recognize that my traditionally-inclined flock could do with bishops. So I have (e.g.) a great guy of the ICKSP, one from the FSSP, one from Le Barroux, and we’re going to ordain them and task them to administer to those attached to the vetus ordo around the world. We’ll gladly add two more names to that list from your SSPX ranks you wish to propose (subject to some obvious vetting – of the first 4, some results no-one wants to repeat)’.
I would not only be very pastoral, but also put paid to the ‘state of necessity’ argumentation for consacrations without papal mandate and remind everyone that while the SSPX is getting all the headlines, they’re not the only ones attached to the Vetus Ordo, so it would be smart politics as well.
I think I understand your thoughts better now, father.
I have to say I remain stunned by the development of these events. I really thought at first, when the announcement came out, that the SSPX was doing a great maneuvre to get Rome to move, and had gotten it! I even got excited about the possibility of important clarifications and discussions that could give closure to several of the VII things hanging over us… Rome was saying, ¿I think for the first time? “tell us what your minimums are, and we’ll work from there”… And then Fr. Pagliarani’s rejection letter was like a bucket of cold water. Where do you go after that? What do you do when the people on the other side tell you that no agreement is possible, and that dialogue is fine just to get to know each other and understand the differences, but nothing more? (so, basically, ecumenical dialogue).
And in that frame I do understand the DDF’s delayed response being more or less a notification that Canon Law will be applied. I do not understand, however, what this declaration from Fr. Pagliarani is for. What is it intended to accomplish? It is addressed to Pope Leo, but there is no call to action, no “Holy Father, grant us an interview” or anything else. At best I can imagine it as being “we are not heretics, and we should not be punished as if we were”… but that’s not the reason why the excommunications are being threatened in first place. If this is somehow the presentation of their minimums for that conversation the DDF proposed, this is a particularly strange and unhelpful way of presenting them (and contradictory with Fr. Pagliarani’s apparent conviction that no agreement is possible and no discussion towards that end something they want). I cannot come up with other good faith reasons, and the bad faith ones are not worth discussing because they also take us nowhere.
What I’m trying to say here is this… how can, realistically, the Holy See, respond to this? Even in the extremely unlikely hypothetical that the Holy Father were to do what, for example, +Schneider asked, and just give them full canonical status without any conversation or anything. Would they accept it or welcome it? I look at the evidence at hand and say they are as likely to accept it as he’s likely to give it to them. This conclusion makes me sad, but I cannot see it any other way.
I’m about half your age, and so I was very young in 2007-2009, but I do remember the sort of hope there was in the air back then, and how reconciliation seemed within reach, perhaps just a matter of time. It’s bitter for me to see the situation now; I cannot imagine what it is like for those who have been following it for much longer and with deeper insight than I have.
While past statements by the SSPX clearly rejected Feeneyism, it appears that rejection of that position may no longer be as strong.
A 2016 article from the Society’s web site by Fr. Nicolas Cadiet who is a professor of dogmatic theology and philosophy at the Society’s seminary of Zaitzkofen entitled “Do the Jews have a special place in salvation?” argues strongly that salvation without active conversion is not possible for observant Jews, going so far as to cite Aquinas to assert that “the observance of Jewish rituals [is] a mortal sin.”
It is hard to see where this leaves Pope Pius XII’s teaching regarding the effect of implicit desire in the doctrine of Baptism of Desire.
Following up EAW’s comment about Bishop Robertus Gerardus Leonia Maria Mutsaerts, I found a Dutch Katholieke Nieuwsblad article online, dated 11 May, and this was the result of running a passage through Google Translate:
“According to the report, Mutsaerts has broken his pelvis and elbow. In addition, his hip is dislocated. He also spent some time in intensive care. ‘He has various fractures; considering the circumstances, he is doing reasonably well now,’ reports the WhatsApp message, which also calls for prayers for the bishop.”
@Plourde – Baptism of Desire is associated with those who desire Baptism (i.e. have faith in Christ and His salvation and desire it). Not with those who specifically reject Christ and His salvation. And an article about Jewish rituals (aka the Old Covenant) having no salvific power in the New Covenant is not the same thing as Feeneyism.
@Phil_NL2 – It seems that the odds of the FSSP and ICKSP getting their own bishop are about as good as the SSPX getting an audience with the Holy Father – that is, I wouldn’t hold my breath. What TC and Francis and the response of many bishops and the continued course of Pope Leo seem to say (at least to me as a laymen observer) – we can only stomach the TLM if we have absolute and total control over it and the ability to manipulate, ostracize, ghettoize, and suppress it at will. There is no generosity or charity in their position. Their long term goal is still for it to eventually go away entirely or be so compromised by the “liturgical reform” that it is as varied and divergent as the NO. They would not want to have actual bishops dedicated to the TLM as part of the charism of their religious identity. It’s also why the SSPX are the biggest villains in their world.
In general, I think those who are so eager to castigate the SSPX for their current course of action are blinding themselves to the state of the Church. Somehow, after 1 year of Pope Leo not actually doing very much, they’ve convinced themselves that the Curia is more trustworthy, the good will towards Traditionalists has skyrocketed, and happy days are here again if only the SSPX would knuckle under and submit to whatever the Pope (via Tucho) tells them to do. Yet, the TLM is STILL under restrictions in many places, and even the NO Catholics are being punished in places like Charlotte for being “too traditional” – with nothing (not even a rumor) coming from the Vatican of relief on the way. The Cardinals couldn’t be bothered to talk about the liturgy at the consistory in January. Synodality (and its associated pro-homo reports) is still flourishing and a top agenda item. Roche is still in charge of the liturgy. Tucho is still in charge of the Faith. The ICKSP still can’t use their own building in Chicago, and Cupich is still in charge there. And the cries for “more illegal aliens” is still the most important issue for the pope and the bishops. And one of the first official decrees on the Faith of the Leo Papacy was to degrade the respect given to Our Lady.
What am I missing? How, exactly, is the Church’s position right now better than in 1988? How, exactly, are the SSPX in the wrong for not blindly trusting the Vatican and playing the “let’s dialogue for another 10 years or so while your current bishops get even older and even more overworked” game?
I understand wishing things were otherwise. I understand praying for a resolution. I understand being upset with everything. But I don’t understand how folks think the SSPX are the real villains in this scenario.
And, my disclaimer, I’m not a member of the SSPSX and have never even been to an SSPX chapel. Although, at this rate, if one opened up near me I’d probably switch as it’s been made clear to me that the only way I’ll ever get Confirmation in the Traditional Form for my younger daughters is through the SSPX.
I just wanted to say how much I appreciate your charity and well-worded wishes/prayers for hearts to change. Whenever I’m heated about an issue in the Church, your thorough explanations, generous interpretations, and touch of humor help me to view things more clearly and pray more effectively. And for the record, I had these thoughts before your amazing story, though that really sealed it for me.
Also, the Declaration said that we can be saved only through the Roman Catholic Church, which unfortunately leaves out my husband and friends who are Eastern Rite Catholics. But I think this was merely an oversight and overall liked his letter.
On the baptism of desire point, the Holy Office clarified that it did not have to be explicit:
“However, it is not always necessary that this hope be explicit as in the case of catechumens. When one is in a state of invincible ignorance, God accepts an implicit desire, thus called because it is implicit in the soul’s good disposition, whereby it desires to conform its will to the will of God.”
The Holy Office’s letter goes on to quite strongly defend the idea of implicit desire, citing several of Pius XII’s encyclicals and then describing the duties of Fr. Feeney as a priest to submit to the judgement of the Holy See.
We of course, cannot know if someone is invencibly ignorant, and thus maintain there is a real hope that even those who are not united to Christ in sacramental baptism might be saved.
The language of the SSPX’s profession, while it might not intend to be Feeneyism, is at best unclear on a point of settled doctrine.
Thank you Father. I sincerely hope something will give before July 1st, as I attend an SSPX for my weekday Masses, so I hope that is not forbidden in the aftermath. I fear Pope Benedict’s words where in lifting the excommunications on 2009 he stated: “At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate”. Would it not break the impasse if the Church leadership would go out any search out the lost sheep, in its eyes, and bring them close. The rough edges may well then start to smooth over (opinions such as the “evil” of the Novus Ordo in and of itself, sinfulness of attendance at the NO Mass, the doubtful intentions of the mainstream church, etc. etc.). The recent article on OnePeterFive (“Rome & the SSPX: Both at Fault”) was excellent.
The SSPX reminds of a modern day John the Baptist or Old Testament prophets, completely misunderstood by those around them, never toning down the message, always shooting with both barrels, perhaps only appreciated centuries later when it is too late.
bobba_dwj saying “as I attend an SSPX for my weekday Masses, so I hope that is not forbidden in the aftermath” makes me wonder have very many are pondering this matter, and reminds me of the vivid sense Froissart gives of what everyday life was like during the Western Schism (first met with thanks to a quotation by Johan Huizinga in The Waning of the Middle Ages). How many have in the past – how many would – continue to attend, in conscientious conviction that to do so is to be true and not (pace ‘the Vatican’) ‘schismatical’?
My Good Fr. Z –
I think you touched on something vital in your very interesting post.
As an outsider (I am a member of a Novus Ordo parish, pastored by a young, hard-working, and devotedly faithful priest – who is simultaneously the pastor of our sister parish, which includes a Diocesan-sanctioned weekly TLM Mass), [That doesn’t make you an “outsider”!] I admire your simply written and heartfelt request to the liberal bishop. It was a humble, clear plea for understanding and assistance.
This is what I think is missing in the ongoing SSPX saga, and in the interactions between the hierarchy and TLM community.
In a Church that has room for 24 Rites and many different Forms of the Mass and Divine Liturgy, I think there is room for the TLM and those who are devoted to it.
The antagonism that exists between the two sides of the same coin must delight the Evil One, who knows this is the way to destroy the Church. Attacking and insulting one another – no matter who initiates it – only serves to delay and possibly end any full support for the Traditional community and unity with all Catholics, who worship faithfully in many Forms.
I am greatly encouraged by Pope Leo and my good Bishop Malesic, who are quietly working, I feel, toward peace and acceptance for all Catholics. And, for myself, I am convinced that the only label that should matter for any Catholic is not Traditional nor Progressive, nor Liberal nor Conservative – but FAITHFUL.
God’s peace and blessings to us all, and particularly to you, Fr. Z.
[Thank you. Please note that the deeper conflict is not so much about use of the pre-Conciliar rites – although that is an obsession for some who oppose them – but rather doctrinal issues arising from the documents of the Second Vatican Council and some later, recent documents as well (cf. stuff under Francis). But, yes, you are correct: with all the rites in the Church you would think there would be room in the Roman Church for the Roman Rite.]
@Sportsfan “What line does the ordination of bishops cross that priestly ordinations not cross?”
Right. The theological answer is something to do with “jurisdiction” which is a concept which, as far as I can tell, was introduced in Vatican II. That is, in Vatican II, bishops (at the moment of their ordination..?) must have jurisdiction, i.e. be a bishop OF something. As a layman this seems tenuous, since it is quite normal for bishops and even cardinals to not have jurisdiction. For example, Raymond Cardinal Burke does not currently have jurisdiction. So it is not completely clear how being a bishop must necessarily involve jurisdiction.
The … “political” answer would be that SSPX bishops can continue to ordain priests, but those bishops will eventually die, and the SSPX with them. If the SSPX is to continue to exist, it must have bishops to ordain new priests. That then is the real question, legalistic questions about ordinations aside, it is, will the SSPX continue to exist. That is the underlying motivation that, in my opinion, would sway one to the SSPX side.