Am not sure mercy is the way I'd say it, but yeah, the question of "What would they talk about?" has to be raised. Just as much as "and what happens when Leo inevitably says no?" Because on the question of if he could tolerate a second generation of episcopal lineage done in defiance of the Roman Pontiff... how could the answer be anything but no? That's one way, at least, on paper, the China deal (scandalous as it is) gives more: they at least try to have some type of legal recognition from Rome as being important.
Now if I'm Leo I'd honestly still do it, but for entirely different reasons: going on offense to shore up defense. Just as the SSPX should dialog with the likes of Fernandez (even if they don't trust him), Leo should seize the opportunity to meet, if only to throw hot coals on them if/when the consecrations happen.
But that's an "accelerate to decelerate" approach that is inherently risky and dangerous, and you wouldn't want someone only halfway committed to it.
I think they've successfully been able to portray themselves as "hey we just want some clarification on Vatican II" reasonable to a lot of people, if you drill down they're actually really out there. Constantly pushing stuff through official channels that the novus ordo order of sacraments is of questionable validity etc. It's a longer way to get them back than a lot of people think, I fear.
More than likely, the pope knows more about this than any of us. Therefore in my mind, his decision to not meet likely has a very good reason. I don't imagine to know why. I'm sure he doesn't meet with everyone who wants to (because I certainly would want a private meeting too!), but in this case it seems to be a very intentional "no."
If excommunication is supposed to be medicinal, I'm not sure that meeting which would lead to schism and then excommunication would not therefore actually be the healthier option. Stop treating an infection with band-aids and Tylenol. Give the bad tasting antibiotic so healing can begin.
I suppose that if the knife has not come to cut the hand yet, one might still hope for the hand to avoid the knife. Once the hand is cut, time is come to treat the wound. The question is, how do we help the hand to avoid the knife? In the Pope’s stead, I don’t know. For the layman that I am, praying for unity might be a good first step.
I enjoyed this excellent article and I see the SSPX situation as somewhat parallel to the Protestant Reformation. Like Luther, the SSPX frames defiance of Church authority as fidelity to authentic tradition, while simultaneously claiming the benefits of Catholic communion they are working to undermine. The Traditional Latin Mass itself isn't the issue — the Church has made ample provision for it. What the SSPX can't seem to accept is that the Church, not the SSPX, gets to make that determination.
I might get flamed for this but after listening to a lot of ex-SSPX stories, I have come to believe they could reasonably be identified as a cult; at minimum they display many cult-like tendencies. This behavior probably will only metastasize if they go into full schism. Just look at the SSPV and other sedevacantist groups--they are 100% cults. It's horrible imagining the thousands of children growing up in such environments where religious authorities foster an atmosphere of doom and paranoia towards Mother Church and demand unconditional loyalty in following them into grave sin. Imagine what that does to your relationship to God. We need to pray that this doesn't happen.
This is exactly what a colleague of mine has told me about some individuals who left a particular small community of the laity associated with the SSPX: that they exhibited post-cult-like symptoms.
Should they persevere, I wonder where SSPX will be some generations from now? Remember the Utrecht schism started as a conservative (Jansenist) movement and now is on what is considered the liberal side of many issues.
Consecrating the bishops and the excommunications that result from that act seem pretty cut and dried.
I think the more important thing is to communicate to the people in the pews of the SSPX that they are part of a schismatic movement. To that end, shouldn't the Pope meet with the head(s) of the SSPX, get all their schismatic positions on the face-to-face record. Then issue a communication to all the SSPX faithful that the positions taken by their leaders are indeed schismatic and that they should, personally, leave their SSPX leaders and come back to the Church. These SSPX leaders are, basically, a lost cause - we know this. The Pope can exhort them as well as the people in the pews. But at least try to save as many of the sheep as you can. And by having the face-to-face, there can be no accusation of "misunderstanding our position" or anything like that.
Yes, that would be a great tact for Rome to take on this issue. Unfortunately, precision and clarity haven't been a priority in regard to disagreements in the church.
Leo meets with the left wing head of the Church of England but not SSPX. Guess he will excommunicate then meet with them. Oh and what about all the disobedient left wing clergy? Oh, Leo just looks the other way. Tired of the Vatican’s hypocrisy as are most faithful Catholics. SSPX may become the fastest growing denomination if Leo continues down this path.
Arguably not meeting with the SSPX at this time is looking away. I see your point to some extent, but the situations really are different. The Church of England doesn't claim to be in unity with Rome: the SSPX does. This changes the dynamic considerably. Even radical lib (heretics?) in Germany won't consecrate bishops without the Pope's approval.
I am really puzzled at the requirements set before the SSPX. There is the assertion that “the texts of the Council cannot be corrected". This is a strong claim, since the Council's texts ranged from apostolic constitutions down to documents that were functionally exhortations. Are all Catholics required to affirm that every jot and tittle of "Inter Mirifica" is irreformable? And to go further: "nor can the legitimacy of the liturgical reform be challenged": what kind of legitimacy is being asserted here: only legal, or also pastoral and historical? Is it automatically illegitimate to say with Pope Benedict that the liturgy which evolved over the course of centuries was exchanged for something "made" which was "the banal product of the moment"?
"QED, because the Church’s ordinary ministry is salvifically ineffective, the society is justified in whatever means it chooses to continue its work. "
I'm trying to reconcile this with the fact that over 8 Catholic kids leave the faith for every convert in. Empirically speaking, the average parish's ordinary ministry isn't very effective, both relative to other religions and also in contrast to ICKSP and FSSP parishes. Maybe the above is a technical statement that I don't understand, but the SSPX seems to be going beyond claiming the average Novus Ordo mass/parish is ineffective at passing on the faith (arguably empirically true) to believing that it is illegitimate (a clearly schismatic idea).
Either way, this is an interesting take. My gut reaction would have been that the Pope should speak clearly about the potential consecrations. Maybe this is the more pastoral route. One hopes that is the goal of Rome's dealings with the SSPX. My own experience with a handful of members has been that they are sincere but coming from a position of hurt or scandal and not thinking entirely rationally but emoting in a sincere but misguided effort to save their souls or their kids' souls. I think if an FSSP or ICKSP parish had been available, the vast majority would not have left.
Yeah, I think it is actually technical: "in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation" is a very different statement than someone like "the typical American parish is doing a poor job of forming people to be saints". Because the ordinary means of salvation are the sacraments and the sacrament of the church. Those are available validly in a typical parish church, even if they don't come with the other "supports" which can help us profit from them, but aren't themselves said means of salvation (sound preaching, beauty that draws the mind to God, a genuine sense of community, etc)
Cally, Thanks for the clarification. That makes more sense. That was the one part of an outstanding article that left me scratching my head and wondering what was meant.
I found that quote in the original. It adds clarification as to what the SSPX priest means.
"It is sad to acknowledge, but it is a fact that, in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation. Missing, in particular, are both the integral preaching of Catholic truth and morality, and the worthy administration of the sacraments as the Church has always done. This deprivation is what constitutes the state of necessity."
I'll risk a theological comment, hoping to be corrected if wrong. Don't the sacraments work ex opere operato; that is, without any dependence on the worthiness of the celebrant? Proper preaching is necessary for good disposition, but the Eucharist celebrated with proper form and matter will become the Body and Blood of the Lord and confer grace on the recipient, whether or not he is open to receiving it. So if I have all that right, isn't Pagliarani's statement bad sacramental theology, implying that poorly celebrated Novus Ordo Masses somehow override the inherent nature of sacramental grace and/or the changes post-Vatican 2 rendered all Masses since then invalid and billions of people left without the bread of life by the Lord?
Probably the best explination I have seen on this subject. Once again, Ed knocks it out of the ball park with this!!
Agreed. It is quite good.
Am not sure mercy is the way I'd say it, but yeah, the question of "What would they talk about?" has to be raised. Just as much as "and what happens when Leo inevitably says no?" Because on the question of if he could tolerate a second generation of episcopal lineage done in defiance of the Roman Pontiff... how could the answer be anything but no? That's one way, at least, on paper, the China deal (scandalous as it is) gives more: they at least try to have some type of legal recognition from Rome as being important.
Now if I'm Leo I'd honestly still do it, but for entirely different reasons: going on offense to shore up defense. Just as the SSPX should dialog with the likes of Fernandez (even if they don't trust him), Leo should seize the opportunity to meet, if only to throw hot coals on them if/when the consecrations happen.
But that's an "accelerate to decelerate" approach that is inherently risky and dangerous, and you wouldn't want someone only halfway committed to it.
That statement is breathtaking. The stiff necked pride in claiming that I will probably be dammed if I carry on attending my parish is a doozy.
I think they've successfully been able to portray themselves as "hey we just want some clarification on Vatican II" reasonable to a lot of people, if you drill down they're actually really out there. Constantly pushing stuff through official channels that the novus ordo order of sacraments is of questionable validity etc. It's a longer way to get them back than a lot of people think, I fear.
More than likely, the pope knows more about this than any of us. Therefore in my mind, his decision to not meet likely has a very good reason. I don't imagine to know why. I'm sure he doesn't meet with everyone who wants to (because I certainly would want a private meeting too!), but in this case it seems to be a very intentional "no."
If excommunication is supposed to be medicinal, I'm not sure that meeting which would lead to schism and then excommunication would not therefore actually be the healthier option. Stop treating an infection with band-aids and Tylenol. Give the bad tasting antibiotic so healing can begin.
I suppose that if the knife has not come to cut the hand yet, one might still hope for the hand to avoid the knife. Once the hand is cut, time is come to treat the wound. The question is, how do we help the hand to avoid the knife? In the Pope’s stead, I don’t know. For the layman that I am, praying for unity might be a good first step.
I enjoyed this excellent article and I see the SSPX situation as somewhat parallel to the Protestant Reformation. Like Luther, the SSPX frames defiance of Church authority as fidelity to authentic tradition, while simultaneously claiming the benefits of Catholic communion they are working to undermine. The Traditional Latin Mass itself isn't the issue — the Church has made ample provision for it. What the SSPX can't seem to accept is that the Church, not the SSPX, gets to make that determination.
Such an odd war of choice for the SSPX. Prayers for unity of the Church and all to submit to Rome.
I might get flamed for this but after listening to a lot of ex-SSPX stories, I have come to believe they could reasonably be identified as a cult; at minimum they display many cult-like tendencies. This behavior probably will only metastasize if they go into full schism. Just look at the SSPV and other sedevacantist groups--they are 100% cults. It's horrible imagining the thousands of children growing up in such environments where religious authorities foster an atmosphere of doom and paranoia towards Mother Church and demand unconditional loyalty in following them into grave sin. Imagine what that does to your relationship to God. We need to pray that this doesn't happen.
This is exactly what a colleague of mine has told me about some individuals who left a particular small community of the laity associated with the SSPX: that they exhibited post-cult-like symptoms.
After reading parts of the linked interview, I'm way less sympathetic to the SSPX than I previously was.
Same.
Should they persevere, I wonder where SSPX will be some generations from now? Remember the Utrecht schism started as a conservative (Jansenist) movement and now is on what is considered the liberal side of many issues.
Indeed
Consecrating the bishops and the excommunications that result from that act seem pretty cut and dried.
I think the more important thing is to communicate to the people in the pews of the SSPX that they are part of a schismatic movement. To that end, shouldn't the Pope meet with the head(s) of the SSPX, get all their schismatic positions on the face-to-face record. Then issue a communication to all the SSPX faithful that the positions taken by their leaders are indeed schismatic and that they should, personally, leave their SSPX leaders and come back to the Church. These SSPX leaders are, basically, a lost cause - we know this. The Pope can exhort them as well as the people in the pews. But at least try to save as many of the sheep as you can. And by having the face-to-face, there can be no accusation of "misunderstanding our position" or anything like that.
Yes, that would be a great tact for Rome to take on this issue. Unfortunately, precision and clarity haven't been a priority in regard to disagreements in the church.
Leo meets with the left wing head of the Church of England but not SSPX. Guess he will excommunicate then meet with them. Oh and what about all the disobedient left wing clergy? Oh, Leo just looks the other way. Tired of the Vatican’s hypocrisy as are most faithful Catholics. SSPX may become the fastest growing denomination if Leo continues down this path.
Arguably not meeting with the SSPX at this time is looking away. I see your point to some extent, but the situations really are different. The Church of England doesn't claim to be in unity with Rome: the SSPX does. This changes the dynamic considerably. Even radical lib (heretics?) in Germany won't consecrate bishops without the Pope's approval.
I am really puzzled at the requirements set before the SSPX. There is the assertion that “the texts of the Council cannot be corrected". This is a strong claim, since the Council's texts ranged from apostolic constitutions down to documents that were functionally exhortations. Are all Catholics required to affirm that every jot and tittle of "Inter Mirifica" is irreformable? And to go further: "nor can the legitimacy of the liturgical reform be challenged": what kind of legitimacy is being asserted here: only legal, or also pastoral and historical? Is it automatically illegitimate to say with Pope Benedict that the liturgy which evolved over the course of centuries was exchanged for something "made" which was "the banal product of the moment"?
"QED, because the Church’s ordinary ministry is salvifically ineffective, the society is justified in whatever means it chooses to continue its work. "
I'm trying to reconcile this with the fact that over 8 Catholic kids leave the faith for every convert in. Empirically speaking, the average parish's ordinary ministry isn't very effective, both relative to other religions and also in contrast to ICKSP and FSSP parishes. Maybe the above is a technical statement that I don't understand, but the SSPX seems to be going beyond claiming the average Novus Ordo mass/parish is ineffective at passing on the faith (arguably empirically true) to believing that it is illegitimate (a clearly schismatic idea).
Either way, this is an interesting take. My gut reaction would have been that the Pope should speak clearly about the potential consecrations. Maybe this is the more pastoral route. One hopes that is the goal of Rome's dealings with the SSPX. My own experience with a handful of members has been that they are sincere but coming from a position of hurt or scandal and not thinking entirely rationally but emoting in a sincere but misguided effort to save their souls or their kids' souls. I think if an FSSP or ICKSP parish had been available, the vast majority would not have left.
Yeah, I think it is actually technical: "in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation" is a very different statement than someone like "the typical American parish is doing a poor job of forming people to be saints". Because the ordinary means of salvation are the sacraments and the sacrament of the church. Those are available validly in a typical parish church, even if they don't come with the other "supports" which can help us profit from them, but aren't themselves said means of salvation (sound preaching, beauty that draws the mind to God, a genuine sense of community, etc)
Cally, Thanks for the clarification. That makes more sense. That was the one part of an outstanding article that left me scratching my head and wondering what was meant.
I found that quote in the original. It adds clarification as to what the SSPX priest means.
"It is sad to acknowledge, but it is a fact that, in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation. Missing, in particular, are both the integral preaching of Catholic truth and morality, and the worthy administration of the sacraments as the Church has always done. This deprivation is what constitutes the state of necessity."
I'll risk a theological comment, hoping to be corrected if wrong. Don't the sacraments work ex opere operato; that is, without any dependence on the worthiness of the celebrant? Proper preaching is necessary for good disposition, but the Eucharist celebrated with proper form and matter will become the Body and Blood of the Lord and confer grace on the recipient, whether or not he is open to receiving it. So if I have all that right, isn't Pagliarani's statement bad sacramental theology, implying that poorly celebrated Novus Ordo Masses somehow override the inherent nature of sacramental grace and/or the changes post-Vatican 2 rendered all Masses since then invalid and billions of people left without the bread of life by the Lord?
Hmm... but doesn't FSSP accept Vatican II etc etc? And Rome allows them to use the 1962 rubric, ad orientem, etc? What's SSPX problem?