The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Healing the schism with traditionalists
Sep. 18, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the Society of St. Pius X, ordains a priest during a ceremony in Econe, Switzerland, June 29. (CNS/Reuters)
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionFrom a strictly demographic point of view, one could argue that the intense interest surrounding relations between the Vatican and the Society of St. Pius X, popularly known as the "Lefebvrites," is terribly exaggerated. Worldwide, the society has a little under 500 priests, roughly the same number as the Diocese of Buffalo. It claims one million faithful, a number impossible to confirm but which, even if true, would represent less than one-tenth of one percent of the global Catholic population.
Yet for a variety of reasons, the Vatican's effort to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again by reconciling with the Lefebvrites carries a significance way out of proportion to those numbers.
In the first place, the rupture triggered in 1988 by the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre represents the only formal schism in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. (Some traditionalists reject the idea that the society is in schism, usually offering a version of Ronald Reagan's famous quip about the Democrats: "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, it left me." Yet Pope John Paul II's 1988 motu proprio "Ecclesia Dei" was about as clear as possible, asserting that the ordinations "constitute a schismatic act.")
Healing the schism has been a special priority for John Paul II and Benedict XVI, both of whom participated in Vatican II. Throughout history, popes have always tried to end schisms, since it's a core principle of Catholic theology that any validly ordained bishop can ordain another bishop, and hence a schism can become self-replicating if not nipped in the bud.
When it comes to the Society of St. Pius X, several other constituencies also feel an investment in which way things go:
- Dissidents of various stripes complain that the Vatican's outreach to the Lefebvrites has not been matched by similar solicitude for other disgruntled Catholics;
- Theologians, church historians and ordinary Catholics alike wonder about the implications of bringing the Lefebvrites back into the fold in terms of the teaching of Vatican II, especially on ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue and on religious freedom;
- Bishops and other church leaders grumble that offering the Lefebvrites too many concessions would mean rewarding them for disobedience;
- Experts in Jewish-Catholic relations worry about Jewish reaction to any deal, given the ambivalent track record of some traditionalists on anti-Semitism -- fears turbocharged by the recent cause célèbre involving Lefebvrite Bishop Richard Williamson and his comments on the Holocaust;
- Some liturgical traditionalists hope that readmitting the Lefebvrites, whose signature issue is the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass, will help tip the scales toward a more reverent, classical style of worship.
Not only are those perspectives different, they're usually put forward with more than a little bit of mustard. As a result, news that formal talks between the Vatican and the Society of St. Pius X are set for late October is inevitably a big deal, regardless of the society's demographic footprint.
The news was put into circulation on Monday by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna, Austria, a theological protégé (and former graduate student) of Pope Benedict XVI as well as a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In an interview with the German daily Passauer Neue Presse, Schönborn said that talks between the Vatican and the Society of St. Pius X would begin soon, and that the Vatican would make clear "what is not negotiable."
In particular, Schönborn said, the legitimacy of the church's "dialogue with Jews, other religions and other Christian faiths" is not up for discussion.
In that sense, the model for the talks with the Lefebvrites is not so much the Middle East peace process, with each side giving up some ground in order to get a deal. It's more akin to negotiating a friendly corporate takeover, ironing out how much autonomy the smaller operation will still enjoy and where it must toe the line of its parent company.
In light of those comments, reporters in Rome pressed Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesperson, for details. On Tuesday, Lombardi confirmed that talks will indeed take place toward the second half of October. He also identified three experts who will be participating for the Vatican:
- Swiss Dominican Fr. Charles Morerod, secretary of the International Theological Commission and rector magnificus of the Dominican-run Angelicum University in Rome;
- German Jesuit Fr. Karl Josef Becker, an emeritus professor at the Gregorian University in Rome and a longtime advisor to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith;
- Spanish Msgr. Fernando Ocáriz, the vicar general of Opus Dei and an advisor to the Vatican's doctrinal congregation since 1986. (For the record, Ocáriz was actually born in Paris but to Spanish parents, so let's not quibble about nationality.)
A wag might be tempted to say that the talks have thus already produced one miracle: the Jesuits and Opus Dei are on the same side!
These three figures appear to be carefully chosen. Becker and Ocáriz were both major contributors to Dominus Iesus, the 2000 document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, led by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, on religious pluralism. That text strongly upheld the uniqueness and the universality of the salvation won through Christ, thereby addressing one of the Lefebvrites' major doctrinal objections to Vatican II. Morerod is a veteran of Anglican-Catholic and Orthodox-Catholic dialogues, and a figure known for bringing a thoroughly orthodox approach to ecumenical efforts.
It would thus be difficult to argue that these three theologians suffer from a fuzzy sense of Catholic identity, or represent a sharp break with church tradition. In that sense, they're good interlocutors for the Society of St. Pius X, because they can't be accused of heresy (not credibly, anyway) when making the points to which Schönborn alluded, about dialogue with Jews, followers of other religions, and other Christians.
Ocáriz brings another bit of expertise that could be useful. One hypothesis occasionally floated about how to bring the Lefebvrites back into communion is to grant them a special canonical status, perhaps a personal prelature. To date, the only personal prelature in the church remains Opus Dei, so Ocáriz is in a position to evaluate the pros and cons of that idea.
As for the long-term prospects of these talks, all one can say is that the jury is still out. Speaking on background, Vatican officials generally say that they sense a division in the Society of St. Pius X between a "moderate" camp centered around the superior general, Bishop Bernard Fellay, which is seriously committed to reunion, and a more "hard-line" current that still thinks of the Lefebvrite movement as the Athanasius of the modern age, standing alone against the heresy of the post-conciliar church. That second group tends to view reconciliation with Rome in a more eschatological key.
If that diagnosis is correct, it remains to be seen which camp might prevail -- and whether the end result might actually be a "schism within a schism," with some elements of the society willing to accept reconciliation and others repudiating it.
* * *
Now, for a bit of rumor control.
Last week I was in São Paulo, Brazil, for a seminar on church communications, and while in town I made a point of meeting Fr. Marcelo Rossi, a famous Brazilian priest whose charismatic-style Masses in a former bottle factory in São Paulo routinely attract tens of thousands of enthusiastic worshippers. I suppose it's testament to Rossi's high media profile that during my last speech on Friday afternoon, a woman asked me if it's true that I'm writing a book about Padre Marcelo. (Someone later explained that a columnist for a paper in São Paulo had actually written that my next book would probably be about Rossi.)
Herewith, for the record, my reply: No, it is not true that I am writing a book about Padre Marcelo Rossi.
Among other things, the idea of my doing such a book is fairly comical, since I don't speak a word of Portuguese and Rossi doesn't really speak either English or, despite his last name, Italian. Being able to actually communicate with the subject of a book has always struck me as something of a sine qua non.
That said, somebody certainly ought to do a book on the guy. It's the stuff of great drama, complete with plenty of conflict. Rossi has drawn fire from at least three groups:
- Liberation theologians and their followers, who don't see a sufficient social consciousness in Rossi;
- Liturgical traditionalists, who regard Rossi's pop-style liturgies as an abomination;
- Critics of both a Catholic and secular stamp, who see Rossi basically as a media phenomenon, a rock star, and who question his spiritual (and intellectual) depth.
Those currents are still very much in circulation, which may help explain why I got a phone call before I left Brazil from Bishop Fernando Figueiredo of Rossi's Santo Amaro diocese, obviously anxious to find out what my impressions were after talking to Rossi and seeing him in action. Figueiredo has been a major backer of Rossi, even concelebrating his TV Masses.
For myself, I realize that because Rossi is a public face of the church in the largest Catholic country on earth, some degree of critical reaction is both inevitable and healthy. Yet I'm also conscious that it's easier to criticize than to build, and my own sense is that Rossi has built a remarkable community of faith, one that's very much alive. Whatever its imperfections, that's no small accomplishment -- and, in a journalistic sense, it's a terrific story to tell.
* * *
Pope Benedict XVI hits the road again next weekend, travelling to the Czech Republic Sept. 26-28. One highlight will be his participation in the Feast of St. Wenceslaus on Monday, Sept. 28, which is a national holiday. St. Wenceslaus is the patron saint of the Czech Republic.
In strictly capitalistic terms, if religion were a "product," the Czech Republic would arguably be one of the worst markets for that product anywhere in the world. Although secularization has spread all across Europe, Austrian sociologist Fr. Paul Zulehner reports that the former East Germany and the Czech Republic are really the only places where atheism has become in effect the "state church," meaning the conviction of a majority and the strongest culture-shaping force.
(The standard quip is thus that in East Germany and the Czech Republic, atheism is the only proven success of the erstwhile Communist regimes.)
Here's one sign of the times: The Prague Post, the country's leading English-language paper, has asked me to write an op-ed piece in advance of the trip, the working title of which is: "Does the pope still matter?" When the pope travels to other parts of the world, local media usually ask me to speculate on how he might try to deploy his influence. Only in some pockets of Europe am I asked to comment on whether he still has any.
Benedict XVI also faces several more immediate challenges.
For one thing, a draft concordat between the Holy See and the Czech Republic is still in limbo after being rejected by the Czech parliament in 2003, on the basis of objections from some politicians that it made too many concessions to the Catholic church. (Among other things, there are still church-state disputes over property confiscated under the Communists.) Czech President Václav Klaus, whom Benedict will meet on Sept. 26, is also a prominent Euro-skeptic and critic of claims about manmade global warming -- both positions tough to reconcile with the Vatican's official diplomatic line.
I'll be in the Czech Republic to cover the trip; watch the NCR Web site for my daily reports.
In the meantime, the Vatican says that Benedict XVI is considering a trip to Malta next April to commemorate the 1,950th anniversary of St. Paul's famous shipwreck on the tiny Mediterranean island. Officially, Malta is 98 percent Catholic, making it among the most Catholic societies on earth in terms of "market share."
John L. Allen Jr. is NCR senior correspondent. He can be reached at jallen@ncronline.org.
It would be incredibly
It would be incredibly valuable if Rome / the Vatican tried healing the unofficial "schism" they have created with the progressive segments of the Church in Europe and North America.
I think it is the progressive
I think it is the progressive segments who have created the "schism" instead of the other way around.
Yes incredibly valuable, but
Yes incredibly valuable, but unlikely. I hope I am wrong and Rome can come to understand just how broad the mystical body of Christ really is. This understanding is what was what was so wonderful about Vatican II. But,I fear that power, control and a need to feel certain about all things has lead some to believe that uniformity in all things makes a stronger church. I actually think it weakens it.
Not surprising that the
Not surprising that the Vatican would be anxious to heal the schism with the "traditionalist" Lafabvrites. He needs the right wing secure and on side to maintain his assault on the "left" and the "reform of the reform".
Personally, I think he needs
Personally, I think he needs their money. Not just SSPX, but Opus Dei, the Legionares, the Knights of Malta, and wealthy individual donors who are willing to pay for the continued existence of the type of clerical authority foisted on Latin America and elsewhere.
I often wonder how much money these interests 'donated' for John Paul II to wage his campaign on liberation theology and the Catholic Base Communities in Brazil. SSPX is also heavily connected to these same wealthy interests in Latin America.
I don't think it's about schism either, because SSPX is hardly the only schismatic Catholic body. The difference is these other groups practice a far more inclusive leadership and SSPX doesn't.
While the 1988 ordinations
While the 1988 ordinations did indeed constitute "a schismatic act," the Holy See has made clear, through a spokesman for the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, that no formal schism exists between the SSPX and Rome. That the discord has never been formal -- I believe the more proper description would be "material" -- may be evidenced by the refusal of the SSPX to erect jurisdictions equivalent to dioceses.
In any case, there is more than 0.1 percent to consider, as adherents of Catholic tradition around the world, whether papal loyalists or not, earnestly desire a healing of the current rift.
So a "material" schism isn't
So a "material" schism isn't quite a schism like a "formal" schism is?
Sheesh!
Of course, everyond wants a healing of this rift, but doesn't the SSPX have any responsibility in this regard? The Vatican for 20 years has bent over backwards, and the response has always been a swift kick.
The rift is very unlikely to
The rift is very unlikely to be healed considering the SSPX is unwilling to change their views about many damaging & highly controversial issues still carried on their official website http://www.sspx.org/
One such item concerns a particularly dark period of Church history, namely The Inquisition http://www.sspx.org/against_sound_bites/defense_of_the_inquisition.htm. Originally published in the November 1999 issue of The Angelus magazine, this article, according to SSPX, must be seen as a timely defence of a much misunderstood chapter of history in the Catholic Church. Thus if SSPX were accepted back into the fold, might we expect the return of public executions of all heretics and a renewed call for the next crusade to the Holy land?
One "constituency" that you
One "constituency" that you did not mention, which is likely to be keenly interested in the outcome of the discussions between the SSPX and the Vatican, are the Orthodox churches, who are not so very pleased with "Novus Ordo" liturgical riffs, but who recognize the traditional Liturgy of the Latin Church as something which is liturgically familiar and recognizable. And they are a very liturgically-minded set.
I remember hearing from one Orthodox member, who wondered (negatively) while pondering a photograph of "liturgical dancing" presided over by one USA western Cardinal, whether the Patriarch of Moscow would even consider being in communion with "that".
Pleasing Moscow? If it's not
Pleasing Moscow? If it's not one thing, it's another. The orthodox churches are always looking for something to "stick it" to Rome. To quote one cardinal, when dismayed by the luke warm reaction from the orthodox churches to JPII, he said "To hell with Moscow". And I agree.
in the meantime such good and
in the meantime such good and holy priests as the Reverend Father Miguel D'Escoto MM and the Reverend Father Ernesto Cardenal (former novice under the Reverend Father Louis Trappist Thomas Merton) et cetera remain removed form priestly practice, yet not schismatic, and ever Faithful, but in a state truly and unjustly rejected for hearing the just aspirations of the poor of God and acting upon this will of God for justice and peace in the face of oppression. These are not the proudly disgruntled but the true saints of our day, and still not embraced by this Vatican.
Ah, but under today's past
Ah, but under today's past few decades of Church Administration, excommunication and its various lesser punishments may well be a better, more genuine sign of holiness than canonization! So very sad.
Viva the brilliant and holy
Viva the brilliant and holy and very Reverend and wise Father Tissa Balsuriya!
Viva Father Phan and all companions!
Dupuis, Haight, Boff and Boff, and all those names so unjustly lost
I can't believe you guys. It
I can't believe you guys. It must really be a sad thing to feel so alienated from the Catholic Church and not be able to appreciate the great treasures it has (outside of Liberation Theology, and what is worthy in the latter).
Bravo, John! We look forward
Bravo, John! We look forward to your reports from the Czech Republic, as always when you travel with the papal entourage. I also hope to read on ncronline the article you've prepared for the Prague Post newspaper.
John, I agree that Ecclesia
John,
I agree that Ecclesia Dei offers some compelling evidence and yet your interpretation of it differs from that given by the Church. Who do you suppose I, as a faithful Catholic, should believe? You or the Church?
"put Humpty-Dumpty back
"put Humpty-Dumpty back together again"
see also, "Wells, the; poisoning"
Why not put it at the end of the article, where one's opinion or conclusion usually goes, so that you give your reader an opportunity to see your arrangement of facts, and what facts you choose to report (both of which are necessarily more or less biased with respect to your conclusion), before you tell him what they mean? Or at least be forthcoming in the beginning, instead of tucking your assertion away like you do with the Humpty-Dumpty remark: "Humpty-Dumpty (i.e. SSPX and the Church) is broken and can't be put back together, so don't even try."
This arrangement as it stands arouses suspicion at the outset and tends to alienate the reader.
Warm regards, sir.
"Dissidents of various
"Dissidents of various stripes complain that the Vatican's outreach to the Lefebvrites has not been matched by similar solicitude for other disgruntled Catholics."
Just like to point out that Bishop Fellay formally requested that the excommunications be lifted - he took the active role in seeking his own rehabilitation, though his canonical position is still irregular. Other "disgruntled Catholics" have generally either not been excommunicated (putting them in the same position Bishop Fellay is now), or have no desire to reconcile with Rome.
God bless Pope Benedict XVI
God bless Pope Benedict XVI for his attempts, his outreach, to the disaffected traditional Catholics who felt homeless and adrift after Vatican Council II. It is a clear sign of how seriously he takes his role as chief pastor of the Universal Church. I look forward to being able to welcome them home, with open arms!
If you want to welcome a
If you want to welcome a bunch of anti-semitic, pro-royalists with open arms, you can have them.
Steve
I do not know if the schism
I do not know if the schism among Catholics will ever be healed on any person or subject. We are a divide people of faith. Personally, I have a serious concern on where is the Church's moral compass on several issues. Health insurance reform is a moral issue but where is the Church's voice on this issue? For some strange reason she is silent.
Are you seriously saying the
Are you seriously saying the Church has been silent on health care reform???
The Novus Ordo is reverent
The Novus Ordo is reverent and classical . It is wrong for Mr Allen to claim otherwise.
Jesus warned against such exaggerated lavish trappings and showy vestments of priests, against doing the longest, loudest prayers, clergy taking the best seats and wanting the public to look at them in their fancy robes. He tells us to call no one father but our father in heaven.
The latin mass is not traditional, as it is rather new. Jesus did not speak latin and shared the eucharist do this in memory of me, no mention of canopies or berettas or cassocks or incense or turning to the east or turning away from the communion people or kneeling before Jesus, our servant leader. Latin mass is not traditional or ancient at all or more classical or reverent.
Seems the opposite of that and that the Novus Ordo is more classical and more reverent and closer to the way of Jesus at eucharist.
Jesus did not speak English
Jesus did not speak English -- but latin was certainly spoken within the realm of Pontius Pilate -- It was one of the languages on the Cross.... so if language is your criteria for determining what is more traditional -- give me a break.
Latin was despised by the
Latin was despised by the Jews of Jesus' time. It was the pagan language of the Roman occupiers of Jerusalem. It was also the language of the great persecutors Nero and Diocletian. During the first 400+ years Eucharist was in Greek, not Latin.
How about Greek, the original
How about Greek, the original liturgical language of the Rome diocese?
On the contrary. The New Mass
On the contrary. The New Mass is an invention of Annibale Bugnini and his consilium. On the other hand, the traditional Roman Rite really is traditional in the true sense. In all of its essentials it can be traced all the way back to St. Gregory the Great's sacramentary, which itself drew on even earlier liturgical tradtions, that is, from the tradtion of the fathers before him.
As for vestments and lavishly decorated churches, a proper understanding of liturgical theology helps. The sanctuary is an image of the heavenly tabernacle in all its glory (and the church as a whole, the new Jerusalem), and the priest, of course, is alter Christus, that is, Christ the high priest who ministers in the heavenly tabernacle.
Yes, Jonathan, the fanfare of
Yes, Jonathan, the fanfare of the Latin Mass is man made religion that has been elevated by some to a false sense of orthodoxy. You are further correct that a classical mass would have to do with each person being able to understand what is being said. When I studied Latin in High School, an uncle asked me why I would want to study a dead language. Well I still see some academic usefulness in several dead languages, but I do not feel them useful when I sit down to have a heart to heart contemplation with my God.
Yes Jesus did not speak Latin, nor was he Roman and all the Roman traditions of governance and dress certainly can not be attributed to Jesus but to administrators of the Church that were winging it in an attempt to be more influential in the times they lived. Now all the pomp and circumstance of this Roman organization coupled with its sense of authoritarianism causes Catholicism more trouble than benefit when it comes to the spirituality of those of us that identify with the organization.
Why our current leadership wishes to return to a glorious past, one that can never be relived or reimposed, is at the basis of the problem. Instead of realizing that the Holy Spirit will be with us until the end of time, ever helping us in our search for more truth and more Godliness, so many in the Roman organization fail to listen to Him as the Spirit expresses Himself trough all quarters of humanity. Those that listen and think about what He is saying are freely able to come up with new workable solutions. Those that do not listen wish to return to their own delusion of an infallible past. It is such a shame and certainly sinful not to pay attention to the whisperings of the Spirit.
Peace and understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
I go to the Novus Ordo Mass
I go to the Novus Ordo Mass and I can tell you that the new Mass is mostly irreverent. Sometimes it makes me sick so much so I vow not to return to it. If the Catholic Church is to survive, the only medicine will be the Traditional Latin Mass. There is nothing in the New Mass that gives me hope. I hate looking at priets for very shabby liturgical dressing, same for the bishops; I hate what happened to alter boys; I hate the introduction of Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers; I hate how people behave at Mass; and most of all, I hate the fact that no one is pointing out what is wrong with the New Mass.
In communities that promote the old Mass, priests and bishops at act and look like Catholic Clergy and the laity seem to take their faith with seriousness. In fact, only a serious Catholic would go to the Latin Mass. In the New Mass, anything goes, and that's not where we need to be.
That's a lot of hate!
That's a lot of hate!
I never knew the old Latin
I never knew the old Latin mass, only the new Englishversion, since Vatican 2. I am just as devout and love my church just as much as you. How dare you say I'm not a serious Catholic because I love the post-Vatican 2 mass. Get real. Focus on loving Jesus and your fellow mankind.
The "new" mass is over 40
The "new" mass is over 40 years old. I'm 78 and would never go back. Latin mass, what do you learn? Listen, in English, to the words and ponder it all. In the old days the priest did everything. No lay people to distribute communion you would be there for hours, oh, that's right at the 11 AM mass only 20 people of the 500 received the BODY AND BLOOD of Christ. You and I will be gone in a few and my kids have the mass they grew up with, and you and I can say we had both. The Holy Spirit knew what to do by Giving us John XX111. Keep the faith.
Boy Dozie, you hate alot, You
Boy Dozie, you hate alot,
You state:
I hate looking at priets (sp) for very shabby liturgical dressing...
I hate what happened to alter (sp) boys...
I hate the introduction of Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers
I hate how people behave at Mass.. and most of all,
I hate the fact that no one is pointing out what is wrong with the New Mass...
Wow, that's a lot of venom. You need Vatican II more than you realize.
Based on my historical
Based on my historical reading, I'd say the Novus Ordo is reverent and traditional (this is not to say that a liturgy, new or old rite, cannot be conducted in a less than gracious way).
The Tridentine mass, on the other hand, reflects the pomp and ceremony of the Roman civil administration in place when Christianity became legal under Constantine in 312/313 AD. At this time, the bishops were given various civil jurisdictional powers over their religious followers, not to mention appropriating the imperial "trappings" to go along with their new-found authority.
A humble Jesus who trod the roads of Palestine would be shocked to see the royal crap (episcopal rings, capa magnas, and ilk) taken for granted as "Christian" today by the powers-that-be in Rome and local chanceries. Such cultural artifacts would reflect the rise of the clerical culture and its elevation of the ordained and subordination of the laity. In such a picture, the laity would come to see their own priesthood reduced officially to a "common" one while the ordained would be seen as "ontologically different" (never mind that Jesus never established a priesthood or that the primitive Christian communities never had ordained ministry).
As they say, "the rest is history." Recent revelations of clerical sexual abuse of children, etc. can only be seen as the "tip of the iceberg," the iceberg in this case being the clerical culture. God only knows the horrific sins that will never be known by us because of an ecclesial culture that effectively put the laity in their place, i.e, at the bottom of the church's totem pole.
And to think we have a pope doing his level best to resuscitate these imperial trappings along with the "ontological difference" of the ordained clergy! If the institutional church has a chance at credible ministry (and I'm not at all convinced it does), it will be because of a laity that refuses to kowtow to Benedict or any of his lackey hierarchs. Unfortunately, I see too many Catholics continuing to feed the weekly collection plate as they punch their mass tickets each weekend.
It doesn't look good.
"And to think we have a pope
"And to think we have a pope doing his level best to resuscitate these imperial trappings along with the "ontological difference" of the ordained clergy!"
At this point, you're not really very coherent anymore. Firstly, the Pope isn't resuscitating the ontological difference between ordained clergy and baptised laity — a difference, it must be said, that also separated the baptised laity from the non-baptised. The Pope isn't resuscitating that because it never stopped breathing.
Secondly, and more importantly, you're lamenting the Pope for defending Catholic truths which you claim aren't Christian. But no doubt your dubious hermeneutic would deny any rationale for the papacy. So shouldn't your claim really read, "And to think we have a pope." ? That would make more sense according to the internal logic of your argument.
Dear Anonymous, there was no
Dear Anonymous, there was no so-called "ontological difference" in the primitive church. Everybody, male and female alike, was a priest by virtue of his or her baptism. If anything, a logical trajectory of Vatican II would see a return to this most ancient understanding of participation in the church's liturgy. We would see ordained ministry as successor to the primitive (unordained) ministry of the presider whose community leadership was the basis for his liturgical leadership/presidency. The ontological difference to which you gravitate would enter the picture only centuries later. In other words, it was a historical development not at all part of the primitive Christian communities. Even ordination itself would enter the scene roughly 200 years after the Resurrection.
Please clarify what you mean by your assertion that "[I am] lamenting the Pope for defending Catholic truths which [I] claim aren't Christian."
Also defend your view that I see no need for the papacy.
In light of all my comments posted both on NCR and elsewhere, I can only conclude --- so far --- that your comments lack "coherence."
Ball's in your court, dear Anonymous.
Oops, forgot an important
Oops, forgot an important point:
In his HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II (1966), our future Pope Benedict stated that history/facts trump "pure doctrine."
Would you agree with Ratzinger's viewpoint?
Or would you disagree with him on this point?
Jonathon: Either your a
Jonathon: Either your a student or maybe a leader of those very ones who wrecked the Church of Jesus Christ. Of which the Lebverists came as a result.
God in the Old Testament is the one who commanded lavish vestments in acts of public worship of him. Christ condemned those who used such Vestments for their own Glory. Today we have many priests who in the name of false humility wear the ugliest vestments possible in the public worship of God. God spoke of these priests to St Catherine of Sienna. He said, "My house they humble. but their own dwelling places they lavishly furnish."
Re: "The latin mass is not
Re:
"The latin mass is not traditional, as it is rather new. Jesus did not speak latin and shared the eucharist do this in memory of me, no mention of canopies or berettas or cassocks or incense or turning to the east or turning away from the communion people or kneeling before Jesus, our servant leader ..."
I fail to see how this comment has any relevance at all in a discussion about CATHOLICISM.
Catholicism has never been about anything even remotely like denying elements because they are "new" inasmuch as they follow Jesus Christ in time ...
Good Lord! Catholicism is all about evolving tradition, and this comment would seem to have pertinence only in some extremely radical sect of Protestantism focussed on getting back to the historical Jesus ...
As for John L Allen. God bless your inspired activity. Your books and writing filled with such fair and honest and searching reportage have been an inspiration and help for years ... THANK YOU.
So does rock star numbers
So does rock star numbers justify not looking critically at Rossi? Money triumphs all, just a repeat maybe of Legion of Christ fiasco where you do not look beyond the surface because Legion of Christ founder could shake a lot of money out of people. We need real investigative thinking, real interest in the welfare of Catholics, the world, society. Don't look, don't rock the boat is not the solution as far as I think.
The pope seems to make Opus Dei and SSPX too prominant in the church. Not good. Where is the balance, how really like Jesus is either of these groups? How much is the pope derailing the church.
What please is a "personal
What please is a "personal prelature" ? (says Opus Dei is one).
A personal prelature, as
A personal prelature, as defined by Canon Law, is:
Canon 294: "Personal prelatures which consist of presbyters (priests) and deacons of the secular clergy can be erected by the Apostolic See, after consulting the conference of bishops involved, in order to promote an appropriate distribution of presbyters or to perform particular pastoral or missionary works for various regions or different social groups."
In short, it is an organization that is under the immediate jurisdiction of the Holy See. To date, only the organization called "Opus Dei" enjoys this particular status - created in the 1984 Code of Canon Law with them in mind, apparently.
A "personal prelature" is the
A "personal prelature" is the equivalent of a world wide diocese, whose bishop is accountable directly to the pope. Members, accordingly, are not accountable to their local bishop.
Opus Dei, the Escriva cult,
Opus Dei, the Escriva cult, is the only "personal prelature" so far. It answers to the pope alone. The bishops of the dioceses in which the cult operates have no control over its activities, which often (always?) include seduction/recruitment on college campuses.
Opus Dei controlled John Paul II, and it controls Benedict XVI.
It controls the United States Supreme Court.
It controls Catholic University.
The cult's founder, Escriva, was canonized in spite of having PURCHASED a title of nobility, "de Balaguer". The office of Devil's Advocate was abolished to grease the skids for that.
Catholics unfamiliar with the cult that has taken control of the Church should ask, How much did the new headquarters cost?
Which Supreme Court Justices follow the directives of their Opus Dei handlers in all things?
How does the Escriva cult operate on college campuses?
It all really boils down to
It all really boils down to the right wing reactionary and fundamentalist Benedict negotiating with a group "Society of St. Pius X" which is further to the right than he himself is. It says just how much the Latin Rite Church has advanced in the process of decay. It's not just silly and irrelevant that such a "dialogue" is even taking place, it is so far from the teachings of the Second Vatican Council as to be rendered foolish and immature. The shills who will post their views of support for this spectacle are such a small minority of world wide Catholics that this will be but a small blip in the history of this dark and ignorant transition period of the Church.
What a beautiful expression
What a beautiful expression of Christ's charity. I can see you have a great vision not only of Vatican II, but how the Mystical Body should make Christ present in the world of today.
"In that sense, the model for
"In that sense, the model for the talks with the Lefebvrites is not so much the Middle East peace process, with each side giving up some ground in order to get a deal. It's more akin to negotiating a friendly corporate takeover, ironing out how much autonomy the smaller operation will still enjoy and where it must toe the line of its parent company."
I sure hope so, but the Lefebvrites have been making a point of saying their goal for the talks is to convince Rome of the error of its ways.
My main concern is that Rome will want to just whitewash everything, give them whatever they want and have them agree to some sort of vaguely-worded concession that downplays the importance of the Council. Then Rome can claim a victory for unity while the Lefebvrites will proclaim they have been vindicated. Lovely.
Memo to Mr. Allen Re: VISA
Memo to Mr. Allen
Re: VISA requirements to Czech Republic - as I suspect both airport and Customs officials there may not be as lenient as they were in Sao Paulo...
ENTRY/EXIT REQUIREMENTS: The Czech Republic is a party to the Schengen Agreement. As such, U.S. citizens may enter the Czech Republic for up to 90 days for tourist or business purposes without a visa. The passport should be valid for at least three months beyond the periods of stay. For further details on travel into and within Schengen counties, please see our Schengen Fact Sheet. All foreigners seeking entry in the Czech Republic must carry proof of a medical insurance policy contracted for payment of all costs for hospitalization and medical treatment in the Czech Republic.
p.s. Here's hoping the non-schismatic LCWR gets the same courtesies from the Vatican afforded to the schismatic SSPX!
LCWR will not get same
LCWR will not get same treatment as schismatic SSPX, because LCWR is heretical. Both are wrong and should submit to Rome as soon as possible for the sake of their eternal souls. For outside the protection of Holy Mother Church there is no salvation and by rebelling against Rome, one is cut off from the True Vine of Jesus Christ. Oh so much disobedience on all sides. Pray for true unity when all are united to the Bishop of Rome and therefore to Jesus Christ Himself. For it was Christ who instituted the papacy and placed the successor of Peter as His Vicar on earth.
No, the SSPX are not in
No, the SSPX are not in schism. In fact, I would quite easily give evidence from Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos and Pope Benedict XVI if you wish. But hey, if they are in schism, then the National Catholic Reporter is in schism with Tradition. And what is it with this fascination with inter-religious dialogue? All it has done is cause scandal among faithful Catholics.
I respond to your offer of
I respond to your offer of hard evidence that the officially declared schismatic splinter Lefebrevist group is not so, Knight Paul, by requiring of you the hard evidence revealing my life-long (or at least literate life from my father's knee) dearly beloved National Catholic Reporter in "schism."
Among THIS faithful Catholic all it has done is cause great joy, bring profound peace, instructing this wavering, consoling this down-hearted, strengthening the failing and other life-giving fruit of the Holy Spirit, for some half century now, and still going . . .
Jesus brought great scandal
even the scandal of the Cross
NCR brings the deepest Love, and peace, at last . . .
most gratefully
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Cardinal Castriilon Hoyos has
Cardinal Castriilon Hoyos has on at least half a dozen occasions publicly stated that the SSPX are "not in formal schism" and that there is "nothing schismatic about them". The Holy Father himself writes in is letter explaining the lifting of the excommunications that "Episcopal consecration without papal mandate means the danger of a schism". Never once does the Holy Father say that they ever were in schism, but that the lifting of the excommunications was a pastoral gesture to prevent them falling into one.
The NCR is clearly in schism with Tradtion. It promotes heresies such as the "ordination" of women and heretical theologians. This is hard fact, which anyone who reads the articles here and the comments of its supporters cannot deny. There is nothing Catholic about it except the name.
So engaging in critical
So engaging in critical thinking makes you a schismatic but rejecting Vatican II doesn't?
The SSPX do not reject the
The SSPX do not reject the Council per se, otherwise there would be no point in discussions. They do reject the way it has been interpreted though, the infamous "spirit" of Vatican II. Some of the texts also need to be clarified. In may places it's simply vague (probably deliberately so), and some of its language is questionable. What they are asking, therefore, is for clarification and interpretation in the light of Tradition. As reasonable demand, I think, as the faith remains the same. There can be no rupture with the past, only continuity.
Don't you dare invoke your
Don't you dare invoke your tired argument denouncing the (Holy) Spirit of Vatican II here, because you are putting forth the exact same argument to support your (wrong) position that SSPX is not in schism.
Your criticism of open-minded Catholics is that they have not exactly followed the documents of Vatican II. When you claim that some of the documents need to be "clarified" (read: changed) you are doing the exact same thing, except worse. You reject outright the actual text of the documents, and that is something the open-minded Catholics you criticize do not do.
It is your subjective opinion that Vatican II was a rupture with the past. Don't you spend most of your time on this website railing against subjectivity? If YOU would actually read the documents, you will find that the reforms of Vatican II put the Church in greater harmony with its early existence and its origins in Christ Jesus.
That's just rubbish. I am not
That's just rubbish. I am not saying the tests need to be changed. I'm saying that they need to be clarified because they are ambisguous in many places. This is undeniable. You say "the reforms of Vatican II put the Church in greater harmony with its early existence and its origins in Christ Jesus." Of course, you'd have to demonstarte this. And what reforms exactly are you refering to? And what about everything that went between? All you are doing is merely going back to an ideal early Church which never infact existed. This is exactly the same mistake the Protestants make. "Open-minded Catholic" is just a code word for rupture and dissent.
As a Korean American
As a Korean American Catholic, I find the Vatican's position on healing the schism deplorable. It seemed Popes John Paul II and seems Benedict XIV are interested in keeping the whole European Catholic "family" intact. One can only read this action as the "worthiness" of European Catholics,more traditonal than the Mother Church, are open to negotiation rappoachment rather than those of within the Liberation theology framework and the Asian model of Catholicism fostered by the late Cardinal Kim of Korea.
As a person of color, I feel insulted by the Vatican's position of reconciliation with fringe movements of a certain stripe are welcomed to the table, while others are not.
Cardinal Ratzinger is an European, as is Benedict XIV.
Are those only censured to be people such as Archbishop Romero, and Rutulio Grande?
Are the likes of Dorothy Day to be squelched as "liberal and lefties" in this country top be forgotten as fringe movements for socialism?
The Vatican will never get it, because it is a Eurocentric Church view bent on conformity and imposing a "catholc" thought based on the Assembly line model before Vatican II.
Dissapointing and very discouraging when negotiaiton is only offered to only European traditionalists.
Thank you, Mr. Moon, and
Thank you, Mr. Moon, and please let me recommend to you several decades of Orbis Books on this thought, way back to Water Buffalo Theology, although undoubtedly you have a far greater grasp of the bibliography than ever I shall
I am just hoping the USA Roman Catholic Church will face facts and the demographics and offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in each local vernacular, including Spanish (obviously) as well as Asian languages, rather than just running about shooting itself in the anglo-only foot
I pray that the Holy Spirit
I pray that the Holy Spirit guides these discussions to a fruitful conclusion. The regularizing of the SSPX's status within the Church would strengthen the mystical Body of Christ in so many ways.
Jonathaon, in answer to your
Jonathaon, in answer to your question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_prelature
At the risk of these comments
At the risk of these comments going off on a tangent, I'd like to say (as I have to my own family-members who"admire" the Soc. Pius X), just because we pray in our first language, doesn't make us any less reverent when we celebrate Mass. Some of my most profound , reverent, pious, prayerful moments have happened at Mass in non-"classical" settings. I'm okay with you prayinjg your way, all I ask is the same respect.
'Course the people to whom I speak probably didn't read your column anyway:). Thanks for your insights,& your very accurate proclamation of the "miracle" of Jesuits & Opus Dei on the same side.
In response to your opening
In response to your opening paragraph John:
The idea that the SSPX represents one-tenth of one percent of Catholics is misleading, and I fear is meant to make the traditionalist movement appear insignificant. A much better statistic would be to quote the size of the traditional movement with respect to "practicing Catholics". If only 10% of Catholics are "practicing" (which, we might say, as a rough rule, are those that go to Mass every Sunday - although I would be happy to modify the criteria used), then all of the formal SSPX members actually constitute 1% of all practicing Catholics. To that, you can add the tons of people attached to the movement, but not formal members. To that, you can then add the hoards of people (like me) who strongly sympathize with what they are doing, but who won't attend their mass centers because of their canonical status. Then you can add all of the other traditionalist movements in the Church. It is admittedly hard to say for sure, but you would probably be now over 10% of all practising Catholics that could be considered part of the traditional movement.
Why would the Vatican ignore such a big portion of its main base (i.e. those faithful that actually love and practice the faith)?
Heck, here's another criteria (unverifiable of course): add up all of the hours spent in prayer by all Catholics in the world over the last month say. What percentage of all of these hours where made by traditional Catholics? Or, add up all of the hours spent visting the sick and imprisoned, praying for the souls in purgatory, fasting, or any other authentically Catholic activity. My guess is that the rate would be about the same as before: about 10% of all of these hours would be actually carried out by traditional Catholics, if not more...
-Peter
That leaves the rest of us
That leaves the rest of us 90% faithful Catholics who not only attend Mass regularly but work at feeding and housing the poor (together with our Christian and non-Christian neighbors with whom we also dialogue), visiting the prisons, teaching the children who are not in Catholic schools and supporting missions at home and abroad. We are implementing the Church in the modern world envisioned by Pope John XXII and promulgated by Vatican II.
Catholics fed the hungry,
Catholics fed the hungry, housed the poor, visited the sick and those in prison long before Vatican II ever reared its ugly little head.
It seems to me that Rome is
It seems to me that Rome is interested in money & land ---- that's it!
Didn't Christ teach us to be
Didn't Christ teach us to be our brother's keeper?
This small group SSPX like most faithful Catholics in defense of the faith Felt obligated to safeguard the written word, Oral and Holy Traditions of the Church? And this nothing to you? They are more devout, lover of Christ than most of the modernist that infiltrated the Catholic Church?
The majority are not being made to cater to SSPX.the truth is our new mass either you believe this or not was composed partly by 6 protestant ministers
Headed by Bugnini.They even succeeded in changing the N.Creed of the mass
To mean that Christ became a man after birth and not at conception by the Holy Spirit? The result? The personhood of the unborn is gone? Maybe one reason why
Some Catholics and clergies felt right about abortions?
The majority like me are wishing for Pope Benedict to put the original Mass and
Our Holy Tradition back.
These heavenly treasures safeguarded by our Holy fathers that we as Roman Catholics are missing are beyond comprehension to some unwary, lukewarn religious.
We want it back! Pronto if you want to win this spiritual warfare that lot of them deny!
Folks,You can look at it this
Folks,You can look at it this way.Pope Benedict XVI for one knows what we are missing by not celebrating the true sacrifice of the Mass.
It is a common knowledge now about the protestants contributions in our New Mass.
I believe that Pope Benedict XVI is trying hard to correct the wrong,damages
that the Church suffered as the results of Vatican 2,the infiltration of Masons,and communist elements in the Church.The harm done by the modernist,rationalism among biblical scholars and many more.
I wonder,How many of your readers still believe in Hell,purgatory,angel,devil and Spirits and demons? Just a question.Don't forget these enemies and helpers are invisible to us but nevertheless directly influencing your thought,moods beliefs ect.Did we ever stop and think the cause of our division and confusions maybe?Anyone ever still pray to their guardian Angels?Your invisible helper that is ever ready to assist?
The closest to our time is Padre pio's experiences.Read it.
It is my hope that we acn all
It is my hope that we acn all be gathered again together in ONE Church founded by Christ.
The SSPX...
The Anglicans...
The Eastern Orthodox...
The priests who have left the Church for whatever reasons...
Our seperated protestant brethren...
...
All of us. Christ calls all of us to be ONE. Our Holy Father is working slowly for this to happen. I doubt we will see it in MY lifetime, but some of you younger people, maybe, JUST maybe you'll see it start to take shape...
We must all pray for this.
Don't forget those who who
Don't forget those who who have been separated because they felt the call to priesthood (and just happened to be women).
I agree with you; Christ does call all of us to be one. But "all" must truly mean everyone.
We must truly seek unity.
We must truly seek unity. HOWEVER, we can not seek unity at the expense of TRUTH. To do so, to compromise on Catholic teaching for the sake of trying to get everyone into the tent, will result in no unity at all.
Don't mistake my words: I am not saying that the Church should simply tell SSPX 'ok, you can go ahead and refuse to recognize the Second Vatican Council!' If the SSPX is to rejoin Rome, it must submit to Truth, it must submit to the Church. Just like Rome will never say "Sure ma'am, you can be a priest, just be sure to call yourself Catholic."
All must submit to the basic Truths and Teaching of the Church if they are to be one.
Post new comment