Welcome back, SSPX?
June 24, 2008, 3:10 pm
Posted by Grant Gallicho
It appears the pope has made them an offer–can they refuse?
Contributors
- Thomas Baker
- Paul Baumann
- Matthew Boudway
- Eric Bugyis
- Anthony Domestico
- The Editors
- Rita Ferrone
- Lisa Fullam
- Grant Gallicho
- David Gibson
- Luke Hill
- KeriLee Horan
- Robert P. Imbelli
- Cathleen Kaveny
- Joseph A. Komonchak
- Paul Lauritzen
- John McGreevy
- Scott D. Moringiello
- Paul Moses
- J. Peter Nixon
- Mollie Wilson O'Reilly
- Eduardo Peñalver
- Michael Peppard
- Dominic Preziosi
- John Schwenkler
- Peter Steinfels
- Margaret O'Brien Steinfels
- unagidon
- Andy Whinery
- Gregory Wolfe
- Celia Wren
- Don Wycliff
-
Recent posts
- New Missal Survey Shows Most Priests Dissatisfied
- Introducing Dr. Baumann
- New issue, now live
- The Cammino concludes
- Last Breath … and First
- If you don’t live in Nebraska… UPDATE…or Kansas
- Chiacchiere e pettegolezzo
- Paul Baumann on George Weigel
- BREAKING: Catholic League ‘targeted’ by IRS.
- The wars of perception
-
Past months
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
-
Syndication
Copyright © 2013 Commonweal Foundation
I first heard about this earlier today but wondered if it were too far out to repeat. But the Society of St. Pius X has indeed confirmed the offer:
http://www.summorumpontificum.net/2008/06/sspx-confirms-proposal.html
More worrisome (IMO) is Andrea Tornielli’s update of the five “conditions,” posted today on his blog:
http://blog.ilgiornale.it/tornielli/category/uncategorized/
In short, the SSPX will not have to explicitly accept the reforms of the Second Vatican Council or the new mass. They principally have to assure the Vatican they will not criticize Pope Benedict XVI publicly not will they presume to promote a magisterium they consider more valid than that which the pope teaches. And they will pledge to act charitably and with respect to the Vicar of Christ. The final condition is that they will respond by June 28.
Odd that these conditions all center on their relations with the pope. I still doubt the conditions will be accepted, but if so, it would be a truly extraordinary special privilege to a schismatic group.
But I’ll believe it when I see it.
If you think that Summorum Pontificum caused a stir…
In a lengthy interview with L’Osservatore Romano on 28 March, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos claimed that Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers never rejected Vatican II, but only the interpretation of some of the council documents. “The biggest difficulties are of an interpretative nature or even have to do with some gestures on an ecumenical level, but not the doctrine of Vatican II,” the cardinal said. He maintained that there already existed in the Church “different interpretative discussions on the conciliar texts” and these could continue “with groups that return to full communion”.
Cardinal Castrillón also said SSPX was correct to maintain that the pre-Vatican II liturgy had never been abolished. “It is clear that it was never abrogated, even if before the ‘motu proprio’ not a few people maintained it was prohibited,” he said. Many liturgists and canon lawyers have disputed the cardinal’s claim, which was also made by the Pope in his “motu proprio”.
The cardinal also claimed that in restoring the Tridentine Rite, which was promulgated by Pius V in 1570, Pope Benedict had revived a liturgy that “had been used for 1,400 years”. He said this was not “a return to the past, but progress” because now there were “two riches rather than only one” – both the Old Rite and its reformed version.
If the Lefebvrists accept the five conditions that the cardinal has asked of them and the Pope then rescinds the excommunications, are we to expect a fresh debate over the meaning of the conciliar texts?
I guess the question is. . . why is it so important to bring them back–is it a combination of possibility and desirability (from the Pope’s perspective) or something else?
Robert Mickens wrote:
In a lengthy interview with L’Osservatore Romano on 28 March, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos claimed that Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers never rejected Vatican II
___Indeed, it is not only the Cardinal but the Society itself has always claimed that Vatican II was a true general council of the Church, but that it was pastoral in nature, not dogmatic. As such it did not bind Catholics in the same way as say Vatican I or Trent or what have you. Furthermore Traditionalist have claimed for years that the council must be understood in the light of Sacred Tradition, and that any interpretation or for that matter any document of the Council that contradicted previous magisterium, be it extraordinary or ordinary, could be and must be rejected. This hermeneutical principle, developed and accepted universally by every none sedevecantist Traditionalist theologian has come to be known by Traditionalist as the principle of Diachronic-Identity. Pope Benedict has in large part made this hermeneutical principle, albeit with a different name (the Hermeneutic of Continuity) the official way to approach, understand, and apply the decrees of Vatican II and of all subsequent Church documents.
Cardinal Castrillón also said SSPX was correct to maintain that the pre-Vatican II liturgy had never been abolished.
___This is one of the most important points of Summorum Pontificum, that is that Paul VI never undertook the canonical steps to suppress the Tridentine Mass. Not only did Paul VI grant permissions for the continual use of the Pre-Conciliar Missal after the publication of the constitution “Missale Romanum” albeit in a limited and restricted manner, but when asked to definitively suppressed the old Mass by the Concilium, he never did. The present Pope has on the other hand hinted at something else, something much more profound and interesting. In his Motu Proprio as well as in some of his talks on the nature of the liturgy; he seems to be saying that it is impossible for the Church to rid itself of a living liturgy. I have read in Traditional literature, and I am sure that the Pope is familiar with the same current of thinking, that the Church can no more disposed of a living liturgy than she can do away with the canon of scripture, and this because just as the canon of scripture is in itself a depository of revelation, so too every living liturgy is a primary source and depository of Sacred Tradition ie. revelation.
The cardinal also claimed that in restoring the Tridentine Rite, which was promulgated by Pius V in 1570, Pope Benedict had revived a liturgy that “had been used for 1,400 years”.
___Nothing new the GIRM of the Novus Ordo Missae states the samething.
He said this was not “a return to the past, but progress”
___If the Ancient Use of the Roman Rite has never been suppressed it is then current, so its use is not a return to the past. Its liberation is progress because now the Church has reached a new point in its Post-Conciliar life. She now seeks the correction of all things that do not correspond with the principle of Continuity. The spirit of Rupture must be expunged from the life of the Church (that will take another 40 years or so). This will happen liturgically by having seminarians educated in the traditional rites, and the celebration of the Mass itself in the parishes of every diocese of the Western church. With time, the passing away of the generation closes in time to the events of the Council, and the new formation of the clergy, it is expected and hoped by a number of people in the Church—the Pope himself one of these—that a gravitational pull on the new rites by the older rite can transformed the Novus Ordo form the failed liturgical reform that it is seen to be by some (Reform of the Reform types) into what, again in the estimation of some—the Pope included—it should have been.
I believe that the SSPX once rehabilitated into the Church will become the principal formators of the Church. The SSPX will bring with it into the Church not just the four bishops, priests and seminarians that make up the Society as such, they will bring in with them the many communities that have been formed around them. Dominicans, Franciscans, Benedictines, and a number of missionary and active community of sisters.
Fr.wtc
Here is the “Letter to Friends and Benefactors” sent out this Eastertide by the head of the St. Pius X group, which will give some idea of how they view things. And Fellay is among the more moderate in the group.
http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_ltrs/sup_gen_ltr_72.pdf
“I believe that the SSPX once rehabilitated into the Church will become the principal formators of the Church. ”
Okay, why?
Cathleen Kaveny wrote:
Okay, why?
__Because they would be at the this moment the most apt to communicate a correct sense of continuity to future clergy. I myself find that I think in categories rooted in rupture–I am a product of a seminary not unlike every other seminary in the Church that formes men to think and act as if a new ecclesiastical reality was created by the council and that the “old Church” somehow was flawed men like me are NOT ready to train the next generation of clergy. The most Conservative groups in the Church–Opes Dei and the likes have been formed in a similar manner, and have formed deep habits of thinking that according to the Magisterium of Pope Benedict are improper and alien to a true sense of of the Catholic understanding of the Faith. The Society of Saint Pius X has, because of its historical circumstances, been preserved from the ubiquitous spirit of rupture that infects every corner of the church. I am not saying that they are perfect, but given the vision of Benedict XVI, the reality of the state of the Church at the grass roots level and sheer numbers in the SSPX et al, it seems only logical that they will play the greater part in bringing about the reforms envisioned by the Holy Father, thats all.
Just curious if “beware of Greeks bearing gifts” has entered anyone else’s mind?
Allow a slightly deflated Catholic to vent for a moment.
As I follow this whole Novus Ordo/Tridentine Rite thing unfold, along with its related issues (SSPX, etc), I am becoming more convinced about a disheartening reality: Whoever the occupant of the Holy See is can pretty much do whatever he wants, and there’s very little that can be done to stop him. This is just as true of conservative as it is of liberal popes. There is enough literature in our tradition for the pope to cherry-pick from as justification for his own theological or liturgical predilections. How else to explain the various back-and-forthings we have seen over the decades?
So what, brethren, should we do (Acts 2:37)? Let them go and do whatever they are doing, and spend our energies trying our best to build the kingdom of God in our local neighborhoods, communitites, etc.
I think Cathleen Kaveny asked the perfect question “Why is it important to bring them back?” I believe it is definitely part of an agenda that’s been going on for a long time. It’s another nail in the coffin of Vatican II.
“In his Motu Proprio as well as in some of his talks on the nature of the liturgy; he seems to be saying that it is impossible for the Church to rid itself of a living liturgy. I have read in Traditional literature, and I am sure that the Pope is familiar with the same current of thinking, that the Church can no more disposed of a living liturgy than she can do away with the canon of scripture, and this because just as the canon of scripture is in itself a depository of revelation, so too every living liturgy is a primary source and depository of Sacred Tradition ie. revelation.”
I’m quite admittedly an amateur here… but didn’t the Council of Trent do this (do away with living liturgies that existed between 1370 and 1570)? That is, to all missals that were not dated before 1370? My next question is what missals existed between 1370 and 1570 (if any)? Sorry if this is elementary for some – I appreciate any insight offered here. I’m guessing those 200 years were pretty turbulent with a lot of heresy, however, do I have a legitmate question here?
Those who are suggesting that Benedict is somehow betraying his true Rad-Tradism and deep love for the SSPX through this move a) don’t understand the SSPX and b)aren’t reading the 5 “demands” carefully.
First of all, it is not clear what acceptance of these demands would then cause to happen. Lifting of the excommunications? What then?
There are many, many issues to talk about, but they really can’t be talked about until the excommunications are lifted – and with that in mind, it is perhaps most accurate to see this as a beginning, not an end.
Secondly, the SSPX is not going to accept this, and Benedict knows this full well. At least the leadership is not going to, which is then going to prompt a split in the SSPX. A de facto split, that is, since the group is already heavily divided.
In fact, if you read the truly Trad boards and discussion groups, they are seeing this as a sneaky end-run on Benedict’s part, offered precisely for the purpose of dividing and conquering.
Why are they not going to accept it? Because Williamson wants the freedom to be able to call the Pope “insane” or whatever he called him a while ago, and at the very least, these demands call for charity and respect when speaking of the Pope.
There are those in SSPX who will see Rome’s offer as a good, who ache under the excommunications and spectre of “schismatic.” There are others who see the Chair of Peter as empty as the only True Church really living within the SSPX. When the leadership rejects this (which I’m guessing they will), it will prompt a crisis among the many good and devout peoplew ho are a part of SSPX and not whack job anti-Semitic Sedevacantists.
Secondly, from the US perspective this is a non-issue, because the SSPX is pretty much off the radar, and is experiencing problems of its own. But in Europe it is not the case. The urban legend is that more people go to SSPX Masses in France on any given Sunday than “Novus Ordo” Masses For a taste of this, go to the blog of this British priest – who is not SSPX at all – who ran across an SSPX Mass at Lourdes and was blown away and saddened. Blown away by the beauty and devotion, saddened by the fact that these people are outside the Church. It’s an interesting blog post.
http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2008/06/multicultural-youth-mass-at-lourdes.html
So yes, it’s an issue there.
The running comments of Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos are truly revealing. I assume he serves in his present role at the pleasure of Benedict. What can one say?
The reason “why”: Christian unity is a huge part of the Pope’s job description. This particular Pope made ecumenism his #1 priority from the ve y beginning.
One of the antipopes was removed by a Council that reasoned, since the Church was in schism and he did nothing about it, he obviously was not the real Pope.
Speaking of Xian unity, the deadline of June 28 marks the opening of the Pauline Year. Patriarch Bartholomew will participate in the Vigil Vespers and (!) the Mass of the Day.
The Great Schism of 1054–that’s “why.”
“The Great Schism of 1054–that’s ‘why.’”
Answers.com has the most direct presentation of my question … is there any attention given this? –
“Some Orthodox commentators, however, object to the Roman Canon on the grounds that its epiklesis is too weak. When groups of Traditionalist Catholics have joined a canonical Orthodox jurisdiction with permission to celebrate the Tridentine Liturgy, they have been required to interpolate the epiklesis from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom into the Tridentine Mass in order to correct this perceived defect. No such difficulties arise with the additional Eucharistic Prayers introduced into the Roman Rite in its post-1969 form.”
http://www.answers.com/epiklesis
One thing I forgot to mention. Look how long the Vatican has apparently given the SSPX to consider this.
A week??
It’s very clearly a “put up or shut up” situation. As in: “Those who want the Tridentine Mass – you’ve got it. This should be an easy decision. Anti-Semites? Sedevacantists? Feeneyites? We’re thinking a week isn’t going to be long enough for you to consider this. Oh, well…”
“As I follow this whole Novus Ordo/Tridentine Rite thing unfold, along with its related issues (SSPX, etc), I am becoming more convinced about a disheartening reality: Whoever the occupant of the Holy See is can pretty much do whatever he wants, and there’s very little that can be done to stop him. This is just as true of conservative as it is of liberal popes. There is enough literature in our tradition for the pope to cherry-pick from as justification for his own theological or liturgical predilections. How else to explain the various back-and-forthings we have seen over the decades?”
If we had mature and courageous bishops and cardinals they could stop this drift to the extreme right. They could argue that the Pope is not above the law, that he is answerable to concerns of canonical validity and theological orthodoxy which have been trampled on by his Motu Proprio and by the extrapolations from it by Castillon Hoyos which appear to have papal backing.
Interestingly Fr W.T.C.’s answer to Cathleen Kaveny is all about “ the priests” only.
Indeed I live in the secular Europe and I see the Church idealized by BXVI, Card Castrillon, SSPX largely unable to dialogue with the world, to reach out men and women with strong secular beliefs, I see a Church only able to preach to a conservative choir .
BTW where are all these conservative and lovers of TM? In my Diocese nobody asks for TM. In Torino, the Diocese near to me, one TM is celebrated, already before the motu proprio, and every Sunday 100 people attend it. I live in a little town, about 2500 residents and every weekday among 30 people attend Mass, Torino and suburb have more a 1,200,000 of residents.
In France traditionalist people mix greatly faith and political reasons, they are monarchist and far Right ( often fascist), so the situation is different.
The problem is why this group–it’s a small group–it’s a group whose sensibilities, as Mary said, are alien to a large part of the Christian community.
I suppose there is no earthly reason that the Roman Catholic Church can’t be reduced to a marginal sect.It’s been shrinking and splitting in Europe for over five hundred years now. Now, in the U.S. too.
I’m concerned that our Roman Catholic Church will limit itself to being a 1300′s Marian sect instead of the one, holy, catholic (universal) apostolic Church, that has continuing revelation which deepens our understanding of God and drawing all to Him. We are The Church, for all times and seasons and all peoples and all cultures. We should act like that is true.
OonefromTobit wrote:
[B]ut didn’t the Council of Trent do this (do away with living liturgies that existed between 1370 and 1570)? That is, to all missals that were not dated before 1370?
___No, Pope Saint Pius V, sometime after the council of Trent, suppressed all rites that had exited for less then 200 years. The creation of new rites of Mass and the sacraments for individual diocese, cities, and religious orders had become, in the late middle ages and early renaissance, a problematic fad. The same thing would happen again in France in the 17th and 18th centuries (some would say that the New Rites of the late 20th Century follow in this tradition). It was obvious to the saintly Pope that a decadent mindset was behind the creation of liturgical rites that had no connection to patristic antiquity or tradition, but were the result of intellectual vanity and regional chauvinism. Cardinal Ximenezes breviary is an excellent example of this. You may ask then why did he not suppress the medieval rites of the Dominicans, Carmelites etc. These rites were derived almost completely from the ancient rites of diocese from where these particular communities first sprang up, and thus had a real connection to antiquity.
My next question is what missals existed between 1370 and 1570 (if any)?
___A number of missals and liturgical books existed, again just read the beginning of the GIRM to get an idea of this. But we are not speaking here of books, we are speaking of liturgical rites. The Roman Rite of Mass in its ancient form has existed albeit developed (organically) for millenniums, receiving its final substantive form during the Pontificate of Pope Saint Gregory the Great.
I think Elaine makes a good point about the political maneuverings behind this–with the motu proprio on, Benedict has been suspected of trying to peel away or divide the SSPX folks, and I think there’s something to that. And it has worked. I’m sure he’d be happy if they came back lock, stock and missals. But reading a bit of their remarks, esp Fellay’s, and they seem defined by their schismatic stance, which is what happens to most splinter groups, I think, eventually. To rejoin for many of them would be to deny themselves.
That said, as with many of Benedict’s initiatives–regarding ecumenism, interfaith dialogue, etc–this is as much about sending a message about where true orthodox Catholicism is (in his view) as much as it is trying to appeal to one outlier or another. It’s about re-centering, re-anchoring the church after the Council. IMHO, as we say…
PS: And can he welcome back Fellay et al with their anti-Semitic rants without addressing them? Not a very good signal to our Jewish brothers and sisters….
Father W. T. C. writes: “Any document of Vatican II that contradicted previous magisterium, be it extraordinary or ordinary, could be and must be rejected.” He says that this is the “principle of Diachronic-Identity,” basically the same as the hermeneutic “principle of continuity.”
Does this “principle” mean that if I can interpret a Vatican II document in such a way that it does not conflict with Trent or Vatican I documents, then all is well? But if I can’t, then I should disregard the Vatican II document?
If this is what this “principle” does mean, then what’s the difference between following it and engaging in intellectual dishonesty?
The liturgy, in both its formal structure and content is certainly NOT a mode of revelation. It can has and will continue to be adapted, changed. The Council clearly and unambiguously stated that the liturgy needed to be reformed. It (the Tridentine liturgy) is rooted in a historical period that is over – a historical period that carries virtually no resonances to our contemporary, pluralistic, secular (properly understood which is another topic altogether), subjective and democratic reality. Whether that change was in fact a sound one is a legitimate debate.
The issue for the SSPX is not the liturgy, it is the council. The liturgy is the clearest, tangible, expression of the Second Vatican Council and consequently serves as a symbolic point vierge for their critique. A critique by the way that is anti—intellectual, historically naïve, narrow and rooted in a ecclesial fundamentalism as opposed to a genuine authentic Catholic spirt.
Fr. Joe’s interpretation of the Council in the books he edited is far and away more rooted in history, depth and clarity. The interpretation “rings true” – unencumbered by any ideological baggage. All anybody need do is compare the content of analysis of Vatican II between Fr. Joe’s volumes and the SSPX and their fellow travellers and the difference in quality will be evident to any dispassioned observer.
Is bringing them back into the fold so to speak the right thing to do? Hard to say. Very risky. As long as we never go back to the kind of anti-Modernist purge (anathema sits, oaths against Modernism, etc.) and fear symbolized most vividly in the SSPX’s namesake we will be fine.
But the central issue is and remains the Roman Catholic institution’s response to Modernity. I agree with Mary retreat to a ghetto is not an option and never has been part of the impulse of the Catholic faith.
Whatever happened to “big-tent” Catholicism? Or does the tent open only to the left?
Kathy has got it right. The issue here is not rites, but ecumenism.
Since ecumenism is one of the SSPX’s bugaboos, I do not see them accepting this gesture. If they do, it will provide a template for acceptance of Old Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox, etc. (assuming theological disputes are resolved) That is the last thing they would want to do.
The current offer appears to be for SSPX. Accepting a group is different from accepting all the members individually, even though the salvific quotient (# saved) is the same.
The Nation of Islam is a good example. When Elijah Mohammed died, his son led a large majority of the members to traditional Islam as individuals. That left the group name, and a smaller portion of the members to the radical Louis Farrakhan. The latter appears to be the heir to ELijah M.’s legacy, but he is not.
Keeping the name “SSPX” prevents a splinter group from posing as the heir of Abp Lefbvre, or at least makes it harder.
On july 2007 here in Italy Card Bertone presented the Motu Proprio and said it involved less 1% of Catholics worldwide. He forgot to tell that among 1 per cent there were the Pope and Card Castrillon.
Now seminarists must learn how to celebrate TM for 99 per cent of catholics that don’t care about it and this to reform the liturgy.
The pope misused his power.
Kathy: I don’t think “big-tent” Catholicism opens only to the left. But neither do I think that the tent should be so big as to allow in groups that would seek to shrink the very tent into which they are entering. That’s why Jim McK’s comment is apt. I can’t see how SSPX will accept these terms. And neither can I see how Catholics inside the tent would be willing to welcome them with open arms. How do you embrace and pray with someone who considers you a heretic damned to hell?
Bernard Dauenhauer: wrote
Does this “principle” mean that if I can interpret a Vatican II document in such a way that it does not conflict with Trent or Vatican I documents, then all is well? But if I can’t, then I should disregard the Vatican II document?
If this is what this “principle” does mean, then what’s the difference between following it and engaging in intellectual dishonesty?
____First permit to correct what I have written. When I wrote: “Any document of Vatican II that contradicted previous magisterium, be it extraordinary or ordinary…”; I should have written rather: “…contradicted previous magisterium, be that same magisterium extraordinary or ordinary in its nature…etc.” sorry for the odd syntax.
Now to Bernard’s well thought out point.
The Second Vatican Council, not unlike other previous general councils of the Church was not called to advance, correct, or declare any new doctrinal issue. Vatican II form its opening understood itself to be only a Pastoral Council. At the opening address of the Council, [Gaudet Mater Ecclesia] October 11, 1962, Pope John XXIII set the parameters of the Council. He said:
“The salient point of this Council is not … a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians,
For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine … The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is…pastoral in character.”
The council was not called to define dogma, but rather to articulate in a manner more in keeping with the times the ancient and unchanging definitions of the faith already articulated in previous general councils that were dogmatic in nature. Since the Council then did not seek to address any new definition of the Faith, all its documents must be judged by the magisterium of earlier Popes and Councils. The principle of continuity here operates as a hermeneutical guide that helps us receive the documents of the council in the manner they were intended to be received by the Council Fathers.
Please let me remind all that it has already been clarified by the EDC that the Society is not in schism. Cardinal Catrellon has already said that the difficulties with the Society are an internal matter of the Church. The Society is in an irregular canonical state, its leaders are excommunicated, but it is not schismatic. This is why most probably the five points are not fundamentally doctrinal but rather disciplinary.
Mark,
There’s a lot of factionalism in the Church. Some people are called heretics and schismatics just because they like the old form of the Mass. Should everyone who calls someone else a heretic be kept out of the Church?
Fr. WTC
Not according to the SSPX. It is modernist Rome (or however they describe it) that is in an irregular (to put it most mildly) canonical state.
I wonder if their seminary professors will be required to sign a mandatum with the local Catholic Bishop?
“The principle of continuity here operates as a hermeneutical guide that helps us receive the documents of the council in the manner they were intended to be received by the Council Fathers.”
So there was continuity between the first three centuries and the fourth when Christians began killing other Christians. And it was the hierarchy that was doing it. All of a sudden soldiers became more important than example and mediocrity more welcomed than ascribing to the Sermon on the Mount.
Secondly, with your pronouncements on the liturgy is there any reference to the most respected scholar on the history of the Mass, J. A. Jungmann? Benedict has consistently chosen to ignore Jungmann. Do you agree with that position?
Why stop with the SSPX? why not the SSPV or even the SSPI:
Facts everyone NEEDS to know about the “Traditional” Latin Mass
FACT: Even the neotrad “Catholic Encyclopedia” admits the Latin Mass was a radical break with tradition!
The REAL Traditional Roman Mass is the Greek Mass of the first three centuries as described by the Apostolic Constitutions and the Apology of St. Justin Martyr. The “Catholic Encyclopedia” written and published in 1913 by diehard “pre-Vatican II” neotrads, was forced to admit that its oh-so-precious “Latin Mass” was a radical and unprecedented break from tradition unlike any that had ever gone before. Just read these shocking quotes from the article “Liturgy of the Mass”:
“The origin of the Roman Mass, on the other hand, is a most difficult question. We have here two fixed and certain data: the Liturgy in Greek described by St. Justin Martyr (d. c. 165), which is that of the Church of Rome in the second century, and, at the other end of the development, the Liturgy of the first Roman Sacramentaries in Latin, in about the sixth century. The two are very different.” “He [Justin Martyr] describes how the Holy Eucharist was celebrated in Rome in the middle of the second century…we have hardly any knowledge at all of what developments the Roman Rite went through during the third and fourth centuries…By the fifth century, we come back to comparatively firm ground, after a radical change.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1406639/posts
“To be any more “trad” you would have to be Jewish.”
But on a serious note, I wonder why it is often claimed that the SSPX, Tridentine Mass is more historically ‘rooted’ when I am want to find such traditionalists producing any historians of the liturgy.
An interesting quote is Theodor Klauser’s “the way in which the Latin Canon had arisen in the fourth century had in the meanwhile been forgotten and it was now looked upon as part of the most sacred apostolic tradition…during the Middle Ages…the Canon underwent yet further distortion.”
I hardly know anything about SSPX, but the link that Elaine posted — http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2008/06/multicultural-youth-mass-at-lourdes.html — had an interesting video that reminded me of what a miserable disappointment it has been attending mass in, well, just about every parish I’ve ever seen.
Before becoming Catholic, I had been a music undergrad and graduate student, and one of my first introductions to the world of Catholicism was through music history classes that delved deep into the rich Catholic musical heritage — stretching back to Pope Gregory and proceeding through the medieval and Renaissance periods, etc. After I saw a cathedral in Savannah, Georgia, I was convinced that the Catholic Church was an oasis of artistic beauty.
Little did I that in parish after parish, the music would turn out to be hideously insipid, mawkish, and amateurish tunes. I suppose most American Catholics are more familiar with Peter, Paul and Mary than with Palestrina, and we’ve got to be culturally relevant, right? Go for that lowest common denominator.
Mr. Mazzella– do you know what an ad hominem fallacy is?
Mr. Marischuk– the liturgy as celebrated in and during the Roman persecution, that is the Mass of the Catacombs as described by St. Justin Martyr is very likely the Roman Rite in an early form shaped by the historical conditions of the persecution. The Roman Rite developed organically from this no doubt. The lack of reference material is I suspect due to the destruction of so many manuscripts at the hands of pagan Rome.
A more important issue is your understanding of Tradition. Tradition is not what is Old but rather that which has been transmitted, given from one generation to another. each generation uses, benefits from, adds to, and hands on to the next generation that which it itself has received. Tradition is always New, always Fresh while at the same time being ancient and historical. When a rite of the Church dies it is no longer tradition it is an old thing an archaeological item.
“There’s a lot of factionalism in the Church. Some people are called heretics and schismatics just because they like the old form of the Mass. Should everyone who calls someone else a heretic be kept out of the Church?”
Of course not, Kathy. I was not talking about the idle chatter or impassioned opinions of people in the pews. If they want to throw stones at each other, they’ll have to answer to God for it later. I’m talking about an organization that has taken official positions.
For the record, I do not consider those who have an affection for the old form to be heretical or schismatic. Nostalgic, perhaps. Maybe even starry-eyed romantics. But not heretics.
Stuart,
I hope you are not knocking Peter, Paul, and Mary, who were quite wonderful. They are hardly “culturally relevant” today, though, since their heyday was in the sixties. (Although I would say many Peter, Paul, and Mary recordings are timeless.) Few things are sadder than attempting to be “hip” by referencing what is now outdated. I think that music at Mass should not be geared toward the elite, but on the other hand, in the good old days I think people (or at least those of us who went to Catholic school) were educated so that church music (for example, Gregorian Chant) became something we were familiar with. I used to know what a punctum and a podatus were. (They’re neums, right?)
NeumEs.
Not sure where this SSPX situation leads us or this whole interpretation of B16′s “Principle of Continuity!” It appears to be more about authority and power; not about the church. Two threads run through these blogs: a) immutable truth/dogma vs. how the church expresses this via regions; rites; eastern/western; language/dialects; liturgy; expressions tinged by generational times, cultures, etc.; b) the debate about councils – dogmatic, ecumenical, pastoral. Does it make a difference? John XXIII explicitly stated that Vatican II was a pastoral council – dogma was in place but the church needed to reach out to the world and update its expressions, its liturgy, its missionary zeal to include unity (internal); unity among Christians; and unity of humankind. Given this, the SSPX incident seems fairly trivial. Yes, the history of dogma development, I guess, can be seen as part of the principle of continuity. But to equate everything as continuous seems almost ridiculous. The Church by its nature is dynamic; we grow; we change e.g. The Jerusalem Council moved us from having to be Jewish Christians to the whole world. Why go through theological, theoritical contortions to deny that the Church changes. Cardinal Montini has two reflections that might add some significant influence to this thread:
Shortcut to: http://www.newcatholictimes.com/index.php?module=articles&func=display&ptid=1&aid=299
Shortcut to: http://www.newcatholictimes.com/index.php?module=articles&func=display&ptid=1&aid=307
Fr. WTC,
Notice that you prefer to be incognito while the people you address freely give their names. Continuity is when the gospel is proclaimed. Now that you cannot address criticisms you resort to irrelevancies.
But you might answer whether you are willing to bring back Private Masses with their windmill seven minute rendition while collecting stipends for a travesty. And maybe you want to bring back the “Gratiani” who existed just to say mass for stipends.
Liturgy is alive now more than it has been in centuries. It was dead before the Vatican Council. But you can defend a regime who presided over the worst scandal in the history of the church and was slow to handle it and still has not.
No wonder you won’t give your name.
“Why go through theological, theoritical contortions to deny that the Church changes.”
IMHO, as one says, the fear of change is a fear of having been wrong. Some changes are clearly developmental, moves from good to better, but some changes, say, in the thought of the “magisterium”, for lack of a better word, on usury and slavery and freedom of religion have entailed past mistakes. For some people the fear of having made a mistake is crippling. I suppose they reason, if we have been wrong about X, how about Y and Z?
Fr, W. T. C.
His name is Castrillon. Do try to get something right!
Joseph Gannon wrote:
“His name is Castrillon. Do try to get something right!”
___dear Mr. Gannon, my apologies for the error, and thank you for pointing it out to me.
For the record: when Benedict XVI, oversimplifying greatly, contrasted two ways of interpreting Vatican II, he described them as the “hermeneutics of rupture or discontinuity,” and the “hermeneutics of reform.” He did not use the phrase “hermeneutics of continuity”; in fact, when he illustrated the “hermeneutics of reform,” he spent a good deal of time on the need for the Church to adopt a new attitude toward the modern world and illustrated it by reference to the Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, which he contrasted to the bitter attitude of Pope Pius IX toward the developing modern world. In this talk he had this to say: “The Second Vatican Council, with its new definition of the relation between the faith of the Church and certain essential elements of modern thought, has revised and even corrected some historical decisions, but in spite of this apparent discontinuity it has maintained and deepened its inner nature and its true identity. The Church is, as much before as after the Council, the same Church, one, holy, catholic and apostolic on a journey across time.”
Before he became pope, Joseph Ratzinger referred to Gaudium et spes, Dignitatis humanae, and Nostra aetate (the three conciliar texts dealing with the Church’s relationship with the larger world) as a “counter-Syllabus,” a judgment that infuriated Lefebvre and continues to rankle his disciples.
For Lefebvre, the basic crime of the Council was that it introducted “the principles of 1789) into the Church, as he wrote: “Liberty is the religious liberty we spoke of above, which gives error rights. Equality is collegiality with its destruction of personal authority, of the authority of God, the pope, the bishops; it is the law of numbers. Fraternity, finally, is represented by ecumenism. Through these three words the revolutionary ideology of 1789 has become the Law and the Prophets. The Modernists have achieved what they wanted.” “All the popes have refused the Church’s marriage with the Revolution, an adulterous union from which can come only bastards.”
I haven’t seen any evidence that the disciples of Lefebvre are ready to give up such views. On the other hand, it is not accurate to say that the Pope does not believe the Church can or must change.
Fr.W.T.C,
I am sorry if you missed it but the quotation I posted was reference to a parody site of the SSPX (the SSPI, who are calling for a return to the ancient Greek among other things). This quotation from the parody should have been a clue as to it’s intention:
[i]Ask yourself–are today’s Novus Ordo neocons and Latin Mass neotrads REALLY holding fast to TRUE ROMAN tradition? DID they hold fast to the Greek liturgy that St. Peter and Paul brought to Rome? Or are they just too happily clueless in their little Gallicanized-Roman Rite and its “ecumenical” combination of Latin and Frankish?? [/i]
As I sit here typing though, I have Klauser’s A Short History of the Western Liturgy, Jungmann’s The Early Liturgy (which I stole from the seminary when I was a student there) and Seasoltz’s New Liturgy, New Laws before me. Jungmann states:
“The Liturgy was something of the people….That the liturgical language was understood by all participants was naturally a great advantage, not only immediately, for intelligent cooperation in worship, but also in other ways. The liturgy was thus enabled to exercise its function as teacher. In the worship of the ancient Church, there was much reading of Scripture…much more than today (1959)”
What we see in the above quote is that the Tridentine liturgy failed to adequately fulfill its role, hence the renewal of the liturgy under Paul VI. Certainly the modern liturgy is not perfect (in fact, no liturgy can ever be perfect throughout time as cultures evolve) but to artificially stop the development of the western liturgy, as what happened in the post-Trent Church, was a betrayal of the principles of the Christian liturgy. To call for the re-introduction of a foreign rite is sheer non-sense.
I’ll let Jungmann close: “True knowledge of our present liturgy is knowledge based on the solid rock of historical facts; it is by studying the past that we can best learn how to shape the future.”
Bill DeHass wrote:
“The Church by its nature is dynamic; we grow; we change…”
___The Church by its nature is dynamic; We Grow; We develop; We remain the same.
Christ is the same yesterday and Today and so is His Church. one question for you–does the Church in heaven change?
“[T]he debate about councils – dogmatic, ecumenical, pastoral. Does it make a difference? John XXIII explicitly stated that Vatican II was a pastoral council – dogma was in place but the church needed to reach out to the world and update its expressions, its liturgy”
___please understand, I do not mean any disrespect, but the difference is that your understanding of what the Council, of the thing in itself, is not the same as that of the Pope’s or mine or many other Catholics. I ask because my faith wants to understand that which I believe in. which leads me to a question? Do you believe that Traditionalist are Catholics?–do they believe in essence what you believe? Are we members of the same Church?
“Are we members of the same Church?”
Interesting question.
I’ve concluded that we have essentially the seeds of two churches under the Roman umbrella.
Adam
__I see your point and in principle I do not disagree. All liturgy develops, the Usus Antiquior has developed within the last year, for example–the readings can always be in the vernacular, the Good Friday prayer for the Jews has been changed. I personally like the idea of more vernacular in the Old Rite, but the primary role of the liturgy is not to educate the faithful. The liturgy is the work of the mystical body–it is the civic work of the citizens of the kingdom and is not primarily an act directed to us, but rather to God the Father. It is an act of corporate adoration and thanksgiving (Eucharistia), and only accidentally or better marginally is it pedagogical. In this light one can better understand the use of sacral language.
I disagree with you when you say: “Tridentine liturgy failed to adequately fulfill its role” The role of all liturgy is to bring about the worship of God, and make saints of sinners. The Council of Trent pronounced anathemas on anyone who said and/or believed that the rite of Mass was defective in any way.
Finally Its a sin to steal from seminary libraries–You will have to do translation work for ICEL in purgatory for that.
I can think of worse purgatories Fr., but I assure you that my stealing wasn’t from the seminary library but from a bookcase in the basement of the old residence and I asked the theology department head if I could “help myself” to a few books which would have otherwise rotted in the Chicago humidity. Perhaps a puragatory I would enjoy would be working in Borges’ Library of Babyl.
I think it is important to distinguish between the Liturgy of the Mass and liturgy in general, and I assume we are both speaking of Litrugy in the sense of the Mass. I think a quote from VII is in order:
56. The two parts which, in a certain sense, go to make up the Mass, namely, the liturgy of the word and the eucharistic liturgy, are so closely connected with each other that they form but one single act of worship. Accordingly this sacred Synod strongly urges pastors of souls that, when instructing the faithful, they insistently teach them to take their part in the entire Mass, especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation.
As to Trent, I again assume you are refering to “CANON VI On the Sacrifice of the Mass.–If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.” Though I doubt that applies to me.
About a year ago an article appeared in Commonweal about the MP and I got embroiled in a discussion. Allow me to quote myself again about certain concerns I had:
Firstly, the use of Latin. Latin is not the problem as at one time it was the vernacular language of the masses (pun intended). However, as Klauser noted, the original Roman rite was performed in Greek and only much later adopted Latin as the normative language. Klauser noted with some irony that it took the Roman church a few hundred years to change the liturgy from Greek to Latin, yet it took while he wrote in the 1950s Latin had ceased to be the vernacular 1000 years prior (or had never been the vernacular).
In addition to the use of Latin is the fact that the Novus Ordo can be performed in Latin. If the populace truly loved latin and demanded the language be implemented in the liturgy, that would be one thing. But the MP is not about Latin, it is about an antiquated liturgy reflecting an erroneous Medieval theological development, the concept of the private Mass.
Another point is Scripture. Without a doubt the Novus Ordo Mass exposes the populace to a wider breadth of Scripture; however, the idea of a cyclical change to the TLM is interesting. I doubt that the arch-conservatives would be satisfied with a TLM which has had the reading modified, just like so many are not satisfied with a TLM which has had prayers modified.
An interested Catholic not only should delve into Scripture outside of the Mass, but he or she should for the betterment of their soul. However, the very purpose of the Mass demands that this aspect be not neglected, as it was (numbers do not lie, only 1% of the OT, 17% of the NT in the TLM).
As to the theological justification, if we look back to the early liturgy, and the scholars at VII did just this, they noted that the liturgy as it had developed had abandoned several core principles, one which included the reading of scripture (see Jusitn Martyr), the pascal mystery and the communal reenactment of the Last Supper (the agape meal). VII attempted to reintroduce balance into the mass by noting that Christ is present in many forms during the Mass, and uniquely present in the Eucharist. This balanced perspective is not present in the TLM (I suppose the “L” in TLM is redundant).
Aside, the vestments. Klauser notes that the priests in the 1950s were not permited to wear even the Gothic chasuble but were required to wear the heavier Roman (Baroque) chasuble which resembled a bullet proof vest. The irony here is that the conservatives of the day demanded that the liturgy be identical everywhere, even in missionary territory where such vestments were nearly suicide. Today it is the conservatives begging for the right to perform the liturgy according to their own norms and taste without regard for the universality of a rite.
The article was: http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1977
“Are we members of the same Church?”
“They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops… The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter.” Lumen Gentium 14-5
So, if the SSPX “preserves unity of communion with the successor of Peter” and “accepts [the Church's] entire system”, they would be fully incorporated into the Church. The current offer seems to suggest that they do not meet these conditions. But “we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit…” LG 15
What do you think about your question? Have the SSPX’s activities alienated them from the Church?
Another sign of the way Rome is drifting right. On the canonical invalidity of the Motu Proprio, see Andrea Grillo at statusecclesiae.com.
Can a Motu Proprio reverse liturgical reforms that have behind them the authority and years of work of the universal episcopate in union with the Pope?
On the canonical invalidity of the MP see the Italian canonist Andrea Grillo at statusecclesiae.com.
Why do neocaths always presume that they are the only people who know about orthodoxy and tradition. Magisterial fundamentalists are not orthodox; in choosing a lex credendi that knowingly steps back from the fuller vision of Vatican II they are in fact making a “choice” (hairein) that is quintessentially heretical (exactly what Karl Rahner prophesied long ago). Time will show who the truly orthodox are — not the jumped up fundamentalists, many of whom are converts from Protestant fundamentalist groups, but those whose whole lives are steeped in deep and respectful study of Christian tradition.
I agree that the Alberigo History of Vatican II “rings true” as the interpretations that seek to reduce the Council to nothing do not. Sadly the Vatican seems to have adopted a negative stance to Alberigo’s work — was it Cardinal Ruini who compared him — outrageously — with Paulo Sarpi?
“I’m concerned that our Roman Catholic Church will limit itself to being a 1300’s Marian sect instead of the one, holy, catholic (universal) apostolic Church, that has continuing revelation which deepens our understanding of God and drawing all to Him.”
I share that concern and fear greatly that we are witnessing a fossilization process from which the Church will never recover. Yes, it will endure to the end of time, but fossilized, a bit like the Coptic Church or other such holy relics of the past. For Vatican II Catholics the only outlet will be our sister churches, as many have already concluded. In Catholic Ireland, four of the priests in the top Anglican Cathedral, including the Dead, are former RC priests.
“John XXIII explicitly stated that Vatican II was a pastoral council – dogma was in place but the church needed to reach out to the world and update its expressions, its liturgy, its missionary zeal to include unity (internal); unity among Christians;”
Mr. DeHaas,
Yes, Pope John said that Vatican II would be a pastoral council, but, as I see it, the Council did not turn out to be a purely pastoral council, For instance, consider its going from condemning non-Catholics to Hell to saying that not all non-Catholics are going to Hell, This seems to be not even a mere a development of a doctrine, it is an outright contradiction of what had been taught for many centuries.
It seems to me that such reversals (see also the teaching on the Jews) gave the SSPX enormous reason to conclude that the Church of Vatican II was indeed not the Church before Vatican II. Though I don’t agree with them that the Church cannot change fundamental interpretations of God’s word, I can certainly sympathize with their recognition that the Church had changed in some major ways,.
6-25 “John XXIII explicitly stated that Vatican II was a pastoral council – dogma was in place but the church needed to reach out to the world and update its expressions, its liturgy, its missionary zeal to include unity (internal); unity among Christians;”
Mr. DeHaas,
Yes, Pope John said that Vatican II would be a pastoral council, but, as I see it, the Council did not turn out to be a purely pastoral council, For instance, consider its going from condemning non-Catholics to Hell to saying that not all non-Catholics are going to Hell, This seems to be not even a mere a development of a doctrine, it is an outright contradiction of what had been taught for many centuries.
It seems to me that that reversal (see also the teaching on the Jews) gave the SSPX enormous reason to conclude that the Church after Vatican II was indeed not the Church before it. Though I don’t agree with them that the Church cannot change fundamental interpretations of God’s word, I can certainly sympathize with their recognition that the Church had changed in some major ways.
It would be nice if posters on this blog could follow through on their original posts, double checking to make sure their original interpretations were correct and whether or not there is more to the story.
So for example, Torrenelli elaborated that these “five points” were not for the SSPX in general, but for Fellay, specifically.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/06/tornielli-the-5-points-were-for-bp-fellay/
Pope Benedict writes: ““The Second Vatican Council, with its new definition of the relation between the faith of the Church and certain essential elements of modern thought, has revised and even corrected some historical decisions,”
JAK –
Decisions? A statement such as “All non-Catholics are going to Hell” is not a *decision* it’s a statement, a proposition, an expression that is true or false. So what was Pope Benedict talking about here? An earlier Pope’s having a little Jewish child baptized contrary to its parents wills? That was a decision. Reversals of teachings are not.
Elaine,
And then the priest who runs that blog commented that while the conditions may have been delivered to Fellay, the entire SSPX would have to accept them anyway.
Joseph S. O Leary states: “I share that concern and fear greatly that we are witnessing a fossilization process from which the Church will never recover. Yes, it will endure to the end of time, but fossilized, a bit like the Coptic Church or other such holy relics of the past.”
I respectifully hope that Mr. O’Leary typed this hastily; for I believe that my friends and colleagues in the Coptic Church would take umbrage with such a statement. The last time I attended a Coptic Divine Liturgy it was quite apparent that the worshipping community was engaged in ‘fully conscious, and active participation,,,which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy.” (SC #14). This community also has a vibrant school and carries its ministry of social justice far beyond the reaches of the local community towards a global ministry. I daresay that few, if any of my Coptic friends have ever read Sacrosanctum Concilium, but it seems as if the Coptic liturgy is the “summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows.” (SC #10) Hardly a fossil!
Ann:
“Decision” can mean a choice, but it can also mean a judgment, an opinion, a statement. Today the Supreme Court handed down its decision about gun-control laws in D.C.
Not so by the way, the judgment that non-Catholics can be saved did not have to await the Second Vatican Council. It was already taught by Pope Pius IX, and was authoritatively reaffirmed in connection with the Feeney case in the late 1940s. It was Fr. Feeney and not the magisterium who maintained that “all non-Catholics are going to Hell.”
Joe,
What was the judgment of Trent on non-Catholics and salvation? Do you know offhand?
Cathy
Cathy:
I don’t believe that the Council of Trent addressed the issue.
Joseph O’Leary, you asked, “Can a Motu Proprio reverse liturgical reforms that have behind them the authority and years of work of the universal episcopate in union with the Pope?”
From a conservative perspective, the answer is “Yes, if there’s no rebellion.”
From a liberal standpoint, the answer is “No, unless the bishops go along with the MP and the laity don’t give a da*n one way or the other.”
The operative word, of course, being “can.”
“May” the pope override a decision of the world’s bishops gathered together in a general/ecumenical council as you’ve described above?
I believe the answer is a loud “No!”
Thank you for the link. I’m going to check it out.
Joseph, no luck accessing the site you mentioned.
Is it off-limits to anyone not authorized?
Sorry, it is http://www.statusecclesiae.net/
Excerpt:
Soprassedendo ad altre perplessità non indifferenti, per esempio sul piano giuridico alla pretesa che il messale preconciliare non sia mai stato abolito, prenderei avvio da quello che ritengo il nodo teologico della questione. Il celebre adagio di Prospero di Aquitania – «Lex orandi statuat legem credendi» [La liturgia stabilisca la fede della chiesa] – sta sullo sfondo del Motu proprio. Esso, che praticamente fu ed è la bandiera del Movimento liturgico, stabilisce l’originarietà dell’azione liturgica per l’atto di fede. Dice insomma che il culto cristiano non è una conseguenza, tantomeno accessoria, del nostro credere, ma anzi che è matrice della nostra identità di credenti. Ebbene, di questo adagio il testo di Motu proprio propone una rilettura gravida di conseguenze: dice infatti che due usi (o espressioni, o forme) rituali sono in rapporto con una sola lex orandi. Introducendo questa novità, da un lato si allontana la lex orandi dalla concretezza rituale che la contraddistingue (ovvero si allenta di fatto il legame “biunivoco” fra una sola lex orandi e un solo ordo), mentre dall’altro si apre automaticamente uno spazio per avvicinare due usi diversi, pretendendo di conciliarli in un’unica lex orandi. Il Motu proprio vorrebbe così evitare che si configurino due diverse leges orandi, le quali implicherebbero due diverse professioni di fede (sarebbe esiziale!). Per questa operazione – valida in teoria, ma rischiosissima nella pratica – si paga un prezzo elevato: la lex orandi non è più identificata con il rito, ma con l’“espressione” (che peraltro si pretende duplice) del rito, ossia con il significato del rito stesso. Ora, se lex orandi non significa più il rito concretamente celebrato – un ordo specifico – bensì una sua dimensione essenziale, invisibile e/o concettuale, allora la funzione originaria del rito per la fede tende a passare in secondo piano. Chi non avesse la preparazione teologica e la sensibilità liturgica di Benedetto XVI potrebbe addirittura interpretare questa distinzione come la sostanziale subordinazione della celebrazione a evidenze puramente dogmatiche, di cui i due “usi” costituirebbero traduzioni pratiche per nulla originarie. In quel caso, articolare l’unica lex orandi in due “forme” non perfettamente sovrapponibili e alternative si rivelerebbe un enorme passo indietro.
Joe – thanks for expanding and articulating B16′s “hermeneutics of rupture and reform”. You also elucidated well that SSPX do not accept B16′s interpretation of Vatican II has the counter-Syllabus. But the B16 key phrase I continue to struggle with is: “The Second Vatican Council, with its new definition of the relation between the faith of the Church and certain essential elements of modern thought, has revised and even corrected some historical decisions, but in spite of this apparent discontinuity it has maintained and deepened its inner nature and its true identity. The Church is, as much before as after the Council, the same Church, one, holy, catholic and apostolic on a journey across time.” I have reviewed the debate around whether Vatican II was an abrupt reform or a re-capturing of the past. To make sense of this, I borrow from Hans Kung and his statement that the Church is both/and or already/but not yet. Vatican II is the same Church but on a journey. It recaptured and opened again the early church sensus fidelium without jeopardizing the immutable dogmas and truths (already) but needed to find a new way to express these (but not yet). Despite this, I find the current focus on the Tridentine Rite, SSPX, and other side issues (papal liturgy styles) to be counter to my understanding of the goals and worldwide outreach that Vatican II laid out. I am concerned that the Vatican II corrective to Trent’s and Vatican I’s papal infallibility and centralization is being turned back or lost….as some folks say: creeping infallibility impacts the church; and we are going back to a feudal, monarchical church.
““Decision” can mean a choice, but it can also mean a judgment, an opinion, a statement. Today the Supreme Court handed down its decision about gun-control laws in D.C.”
JAK –
True. But it seems to me that “decisions” in the legal sense are not primarily statements (i.e., judgments about what is thought to be true). They are that, but their very saying is also a binding. They are what John Austin called “performative u tterances” — their very saying is a doing. ( See also Aquinas on the sacraments.) The legal expressions do not just inform, they also bind. In other words, they are not simple statements of opinions in the ordinary sense of “opinion”. They are more.
(Also note the legal use of “opinion”. That seems to imply a certain humility on the part of at least common law judges about their role — as if, by calling their statements “opinions” they admit that their opinions are not written in stone, but are revisable. But the lawyers have to tell us about that.)
Nevertheless, it seems to me that the ordinary notion of “opinion” is relevant here in interpreting what Benedict meant, if, as you say, he intended his expression as in fact *only* an opinion, that is, a statement of what the speaker thinks is not entirely settled. If that is his meaning, then he is implying, if not outright saying, that what prior popes and bishops intended as statements of settled fact (e.g., Jews are all going to Hell) was really only just a statement of opinion by the prior popes and bishops.
The core of this problem, I think, is that popes have historically wanted to have their cake and eat it: they want to say that their teachings are statements of facts, but also that their teachings (those statements of facts) are also only opinions and hence revisable. But they can’t have it both ways. It seems to me that this is what leads to all the confusions about various levels of “the’ magisterium, and, e.g., John Paul II’s magisterium, and “definitive statements”, etc., etc.
So the next question is: how can the faithful tell the difference between a current pope’s statements that such and such is a fact and hence a teaching which may not be rejected by the faithful, as against statements (decisions, opinions) which really should be considered just matters of opinion?
P. S. I should add that that last question can’t be answered. So the claims of the bishops and popes to infallibility are groundless. Or maybe I should say, yes, some of their statements are infallible, but we have no what of telling which of their statements are infallible and which arent’.
Ann & JAK – your questions are my questions. It might be helpful to review some comments by Richard McBrien on the 25th anniversary of the US Bishops Pastoral Letter on Peace. In this article, he highlights the methodology used by the bishops that is articulated in four sections. This methodology goes far in helping us to define papal, church, or episcopal decisions and would be helpful in deconstructing “creeping papal infallibility”. Here is the link:
Shortcut to: http://129.74.72.9/rm/FMPro?-db=rm%5f&-format=record%5fdetail.htm&-lay=full&-sortfield=yyyy&-sortorder=descend&-sortfield=mm&-sortorder=descend&-sortfield=dd&-sortorder=descend&new%5fid=now&-max=15&-recid=34907&-find=
Bill,
I don’t have any problem with the bishops’ statement, except when they appeal to “universal” moral norms. If they are truly universal then there can be no exceptions to them. But the universality of moral norms, I think, is a very different, even more fundamental ethical problem. But there is much in ethics that is simply mysterious to me.
Ann:
In fact, some judicial decisions are determinations of fact: e.g., whether a person committed a crime; who owns a house; etc.
Magisterial statements can be as humble as those of judges, since (1) they rely on Scripture and Tradition, and (2) they are in the vast majority of cases in principle revisable.
You have gone on about the word “opinion,” when our discussion was on the word “decision”. Why you have done this is not clear to me. The Pope was referring to earlier magisterial “decisions,” that is, statements or determinations that needed to be revised or corrected. He was referring to documents such as the Syllabus of Errors. (In a text before he became Pope, he referred also to early twentieth-century decisions of the Holy Office with regard to scriptural questions.) Since he didn’t use the word “opinion” here, I’ll leave this matter aside.
You write: “So the next question is: how can the faithful tell the difference between a current pope’s statements that such and such is a fact and hence a teaching which may not be rejected by the faithful, as against statements (decisions, opinions) which really should be considered just matters of opinion?”
This is a very good question. Several texts are available for help: Lumen gentium 25; a CDF statement on the magisterium; etc. There also are several books that go into the question. In other words, there are criteria. But perhaps underlying your question is this: If one can’t infallibly determine which exercises of the magisterium are infallible, what use is the latter claim? But this is the same problem that arises with regard to the inerrancy of the Bible, a question that the Church has wrestled with for nearly two thousand years.
What needs to be avoided is the idea that there is an “objective” authority, that is, something like a yardstick that one can lay alongside a disputed opinion to determine whether it is true or not, and do so without one’s having to use one’s own mind. As Bernard Lonergan argued, that notion of “objectivity” is a myth: objectivity is the fruit of authentic subjectivity. Aquinas spoke of an “inner instinct of the Holy Spirit” that permits the faithful to discern what is in accord with the faith and what is not..
I wrote an article on “Authority and Conversion” to refute the idea that authority is given to us in order to free us from the burden of having ourselves to be alert, intelligent, reasonable, and responsible. Silly people trust people they shouldn’t trust and don’t trust people they should trust. In turn, if authority is trustworthiness, then authorities have also to be alert, intelligent, reasonable and responsible, and if they aren’t, they will sooner or later fail to enjoy the trust of those who in principle ought to be able to trust them. And, of course, in a Christian context, this also requires that we take into account what the transformation of what counts as “wisdom” and what as “folly” that was brought about by the Cross.
Mary argues:
Interestingly Fr W.T.C.’s answer to Cathleen Kaveny is all about “ the priests” only.
Indeed I live in the secular Europe and I see the Church idealized by BXVI, Card Castrillon, SSPX largely unable to dialogue with the world, to reach out men and women with strong secular beliefs, I see a Church only able to preach to a conservative choir .
Well, all right. That’s not the first time this argument has been made.
Mary notes that only one hundred people regularly attend the one TLM offered in Torrino. Of course we don’t know how accessible this mass is or how safe the neighborhood is; one presumes its attendees come in from some distance as it is. Certainly we all know that the traditional mass just isn’t the issue in Italy that it is in France or the U.S. (or even Germany) – so far. Be that as it may, however, she also notes that in her town of 2500, about 30 people attend the (apparently Novus Ordo) mass. 30 people?
It sounds to me like what Prof. Kaveny says is coming true no matter how you slice your sandwich: The Church on much of the West is becoming a small, marginal entity. But is there any sign that more progressive theology and worship can reverse this trend? Attendance rates and resort to the sacraments in general have cratered in much of Western Europe (and Canada, and even parts of the US) despite considerable liberalization of the the same. People don’t seem to find guitars and social justice platitudes any more enticing than Tridentien smells and bells. Or has the Church not gone far enough?
That would seem to be the only tenable position left to a progressive Catholic. If so, however, (s)he would have to reckon with the continuing rapid decline of Protestant mainline churches which have gone much further – not only with women ministry but even same-sex unions and radically deconstructed hermeneutics of scripture. The Anglicans/Methodists/etc. are having an even rougher time of it, no matter how trendy they try to be in engaging the secular culture.
So perhaps Pope Benedict’s leaner meaner Church can only preach to its small choir. But perhaps we’ve reached a point where that choir is going to be small for the time being regardless, and society at large radically secularized enough that it will, in its current materialist torpor, be unable to respond to any gospel message, liberal or conservative. If so, perhaps the Pope can’t be blamed for building up a choir that can at least still produce vocations and reproduce itself.
JAK –
“Decisions” in the legal sense are only opinons in the ordinary sense. Even the Constitution allows for the overturning of prior Supreme Court decisions, as in “The Court erred . . .”
I harp on the inadequacy of papal statements to convince us of any truth because they are also only opinions with more or less high degrees of probability for leading to the meanings of the Holy Spirit…
R.M. Lender
In my little town 30 people attended WEEKDAY NO Mass, on Sunday Mass we are among 600 people.
In Torino the TM is in downtown, the hearth of the town in Italy, with museums, theaters, shopping streets, restaurants, safe and easily accessible. But nobody care about it.