I agree with this. I think obedience is of the upmost importance. Of all the books I have read on the lives of the Saints this idea of obedience really stands out in their lives. I would never want to deviate from the faith in any way and I hate to see groups who rebel against legitimate authority in the Church and try to turn it into a sort of relativistic democracy. I know this may sound almost hypocritical coming from one such as myself who takes the position I do, but the point I was trying to make is that the SSPX feel that what they are doing is necessary for the faith and their dissention on certain issues since Vatican II is legitimate. I am not asking anyone else to accept this idea, but I was just trying to let people know what the situation looks like from my perspective. Some paint it all too black and white when it is a more complex issue. If you look at what I was saying before about the Mass; people say “what was the problem? The Pope said the traditional rite was never suppressed”etc – when this does not accurately describe the situation traditional Catholics have found themselves in since Vatican II.
Also, many Catholics have been upset and confused with their experiences in diocesan parishes since Vatican II. Take my own parish for example. I will not say where I am from, but the Current parish priest teaches classes on the Scriptures. He is currently teaching that “there is no such thing as Mortal Sin”. Someone objected in the class and he was told “that was the old understanding we understand sin differently now”. He asked the Priest enough questions to know what he was teaching. Now another person in this class wrote to the Bishop and got a reply basically to the effect that the priest taking the classes is competent and perhaps those objecting misunderstood.” This is a paraphrase of course, but you can see how people take issue. The same applies to other issues. Some Catholics genuinely felt they had no other option but to stop attending these Chapels and started attending the traditional Mass, be it SSPX or another. The problem was, in the beginning the “other” was rare so most went to the SSPX. It was not a case of “lets reject the priests legitimate authority over us” but rather “the priest has the authority, but he is not teaching the faith correctly – therefore we reject those things which are in error and accept the rest”. Perhaps if the traditional Mass was allowed from the start things would be different. The SSPX may not even have been in the countries it is in now if that were the case.
So regarding the “How” issue, those like myself feel that there is no other way. Many have exhausted all avenues, asking nicely for permission, organising everything, making compromise etc only to be told; “no, you don’t need a Latin Mass or traditional catechism”. How then does one proceed? Either go along with all the changes and attend the New Mass, or continue going to the traditional Mass said by SSPX priests. I know it may seem like were joining the protestants or leaving the Pope, but people such as myself feel there is no other “how” to practice the faith in this day and age. I wish things were different. Often traditionalists become disheartened when they see the way Masses are said in the diocese, hear the priest teach things the opposite of the catechism they memorised as a child or see the text books used in Catholic Schools approved by Catholic Bishops (some of the things in there you would not believe unless you seen it in person). This is not an accusation against any particular priest, parish, or bishop but it is just an insight into how Catholics like myself feel about the situation.
I get that. I don’t think however that the SSPX would say there is error in the New Missal - translation perhaps (e.g. pro multis = for all) yes, but I think there are theological critiques of the new rite which are now being written by mainstream priests in Rome and even from bishops which are very much in line with what the SSPX have been saying and seem to be acceptable by the Vatican. I don’t think one could ask to stop this sort of criticism. It would be different if the SSPX were saying the new Mass teaches errors and that it is invalid - this sort of criticism only happens when say a priest or bishop adlibs the words of consecration or attempts to consecrate cakes and juice etc, but even then the SSPX realise this is a departure form the ordinary text and rubrics.
Regarding Vatican II – the criticism of the SSPX is well known. Now they admit most is good, but say there are some suspect parts we are not bound to accept. My point before was that if the Vatican are to say; “you must accept all of Vatican II, new or not, without question” then I feel the Vatican must give official interpretation to some of the “difficult” passages. This, I think is only fair. After all, If it can be understood with a true hermeneutic of continuity then we have an agreement on all sides. I personally feel this is yet to happen – at least what has been disclosed of the talks.
Help me understand. Are you struggling with the fact that Archbishop DiNoia, who was hired precisely because he has experience with traditionalists has said that the SSPX will never be allowed to make any critical comment regarding the OF and that full acceptance of every item in the Vatican II documents is not up for discussion? He’s not willing to even discuss the documents with the SSPX. He has also said that the SSPX must learn from the Dominicans, that there can be two co-existing theological opinions that contradict each other, while neither is wrong.
Are you struggling with the fact that Archbishop Mueller has said that he is still sees the possibility for reconciliation without Rome having to make any more accommodations or offer any more explanations, because as he sees it, the pope has bent over backward to accommodate and it was the pope who changed his mind at the last minute and decided to change the preamble to say that no criticism of the OF would be tolerated from the SSPX and Vatican II must be accepted in its totality, not parts of it and that is is binding on all Catholics, because it is part of the Ordinary Magisterium and it even contains dogmatic statements. Also that in the past, dogmatic decrees were made in forms of anathemas, but that’s not the way we speak today. Archbishop Mueller laid it on the table, that this was Pope Benedict’s idea.
Contrary to what everyone else was saying that the cardinals had sandbagged the documents and that Cardinal Levada has substituted a false document behind the pope’s back and now the pope’s number one man comes out and says, “Nope, not so. The pope changed his mind at the last minutes. He ordered the changes.”
The reason that I mention these points is because if one could read what is not being said is that others are allowed to ask questions about Vatican II and express their thoughts on the OF, because they are recognized as legitimate theologians and have been given legitimate freedom to do so, but the SSPX does not have this. Maybe someday individuals within the SSPX will, but that’s yet to come.
I also get the sense from many who attend the SSPX chapels that they are feeling left out of these discussions. They felt very much a part of the SSPX family. Now, as it turns out, the SSPX is not focusing on the laity. It’s focusing on the society, as it should. The Vatican is not focusing on the laity, but it too is focusing on the society,as it should. Whatever happens,the laity will have to fall in line with whatever the Vatican decides.
If the SSPX comes in, the laity is free to use their services. If the SSPX is not in, the laity will no longer be allowed to use their services or risk falling into schism. In either case, neither the SSPX or the Vatican are asking the laity for their feelings or opinions. I have not seen much of this on CAF. I have seen a lot of this griping and whining other trad sites. There are laypeople who are furious with both the SSPX leaders and the Vatican, because they have not been factored into the equation. They have not been consulted and the documents going back and forth, as well as within the Society, do not mention their interests and concerns at all. Personally, I believe that these folks fail to see that whatever benefits the SSPX will benefit its friends.
Fraternally,
Br.JR, FFV
