But the fact that the SSPX has not returned to full union with the Hoy See proves Benedict’s point in the Motu Proprio. There are other issues or they have other bones to pick with the Church.
He subtly points the finger at them by saying “look there are others who also loved the old missal and they never broke with the bishops and with the Pope, they held the teachings of Vatican II as authoritative”.
The Motu Proprio was not writen for SSPX. It was written for the Bishops. Pope Benedict reminds the bishops that the unity with the Bishop of Rome cannot be broken over any issue, not even the form of the mass.
He also reminds them of the authoritative nature of Vatican II.
He reminds them that until the roman missal is abrogated, it is still lawful and needs no special indult. This is a point of law that he is bringing up. No one will disagree with that.
The problem that people have with the SSPX is that they have flown the Tridentine Mass as their flag. Now that this has been clarified and rectified, they still are not back.
This is like the wife who leaves her husband because he drinks, but now he’s sober and she still does not come back home. One has to question, what else is the problem?
You said you were leaving becasue he’s a drunk. He’s sober and functional and you’re still away.
This causes confusion for many lay people and for bishops too. People are asking, what’s the problem now?
Suddenly you start getting complaints from the SSPX that they don’t agree with permanent married deacons.
The NO looks like the English Mass.
They don’t agree with the Catholic Church’s Ecumenical activities and procedures.
They don’t want the Of at all.
They acknowledge the Primacy of Peter and the legitimacy of the papal elections since Vatican II, but they feel the moral obligation to disobey Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
If you acknoledge their legitimacy as Vicars of Christ, but you do not feel morally compelled to obey them, who is your temporal leader? This sounds like early Lutheranism. He argued that he was a Catholic trying to save the Church, not against the Church. He too saw conspiracies all over the place. Today there are questons as to Luther’s mental health and at the same time, there is agreement with some of his positions. The SSPX is looking like a repetition of the Lutheran reform.
So we have an OF that looks like the English liturgy. OK, so what? It doesn’t mean that it is. Is it possible that we can learn something from the Anglican Church and preserve our Catholic faith at the same time?
Have we forgotten that we also borrowed much from the Greeks, Romans and Jews?
Have we forgotten that something as simple as a Pope dressed in white was introduced into the Catholic Church by a Dominican Friar who was elected pope, but did not want to leave his order. Therefore, he insisted on wearing his Dominican habit, St. Pius V? He was so holy that his successors started to wear the Dominican habit, hence the white cassock, kipa, and cape tha the Pope wears today.
Have we forgotten that the Byzantines are an integral part of the Catholic Church and that they preserve many ancient customs and disciplines that they inherited from the apostles, such as a married deacon and married priest. If they are integral to the Church, to borrow from them the permanent deaconate is not a deviation in faith, because we are borrwoing from ourselves.
Did we forget that the Bible in the language of the people was a Protestant idea, not a Catholic idea. We followed their lead on this.
Do we remember that we excommunicated many scientists during the Renaissance and now we have one of the largest and finest scientific centers of study in the world located right within the Vatican.
Finally, have we forgotten that Ecumenism is not a dirty word and that it was practiced by the Jesuits, Franciscans, Maryknoll and Missionaries of Charity long before Vatican II. The Vatican made a deal with the Palestinian government, before it was Israel to allow the Franciscans to work together.
Now we have some from SSPX that say that all of this is wrong. On what authority, if they have no central voice of authority and the only authority they recognize is the Pope, but they feel morally obliged to disobey.
This is what radical liberals did too after Vatican II and they claimed it was their conscience they were following. Traditionalists have rejected their claims, as well they should.
Why should I or any other Catholic accept the claims of someone who sounds like Luther? “I’m going to save the Church from herself.”
JR
Go JR…Go JR Go JR