SSPX Update - Redux

[QuestingKnight]

Summorum Pontificum was a motu proprio. The revision of the English missal had nothing to do with the pope. This was initiated by the Congregation for Worship. Anglicanorum Coetibus was the pope’s initiative, not Vatican II’s. The investigation of the LCWR was not the pope’s initiative. It was Cardinal Levada’s initiative. The pope wants nothing to do with it. He has already said that he will not interfere in the affairs of religious life. He made this statement when the problem with the Legion of Christ broke. He handed the Legion to a prefect to take care of it.

I would say they were a correction of what many Catholics think V2 and the novus ordo implied e.g. that the old mass was abrogated, that ecumenism without conversion was normal, that the religious could go ‘beyond Christ’ and into social activism etc.

Is not that easy.

Yes. It seems to hard to get to such a mass. But it’s hard for an actor to learn the lead in a Shakspeare play and he doesn’t have prompt cards. So it’s not rocket science to learn it nor is it a huge mountain to climb. Priests are supposed to learn Latin in seminary. If the laity have the means and the bishop has a priest willing and able to say it, then there should be no problem.

 

[Moore11]

More updates!

Positive ones!!

wdtprs.com/blog/2013/01/is-pont-comm-ecclesia-dei-building-a-bridge-to-the-sspx/

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/01/di-noia-sends-letter-to-sspx-priests.html

 

[JReducation]

I would say they were a correction of what many Catholics think V2 and the novus ordo implied e.g. that the old mass was abrogated, that ecumenism without conversion was normal, that the religious could go ‘beyond Christ’ and into social activism etc.

Why do you keep referring to the Ordinary Form of the mass as the “novus ordo”? Novus Ordo was the title on the inside cover of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI. But the outside clearly said, Roman Missal. Pope Benedict and the Sacred Congregation for Divne Worship have clearly called it the Forma Ordinaria or Ordinary Form.

As to your other point, SP was a correction of a mistake regarding the Tridentine form. Anglicanorum Coetibus was a continuation of what Bl. John Paul had already started when he opened the door for non-Catholic ministers to become Catholic priests. Except this document included the entire Anglican congregation. It was not correcting anything. It was amplifying something that had been started already.

No one has ever said the ecumenism without conversion is the norm. What has been said is that ecumenism has to preface conversion and that we are not to proselytize to Jews and Muslims. This has not changed. Pope Benedict and the Roman Curia remain adamant on this. They spoke about it again today.

The case of the LCWR is a very unique case, because it’s the leadership of a conference that has been derailed, not all women religious. The fact that the leadership is off course does not mean that the sisters are all of course. It certainly is the result of a very poor understanding of religious life. I’m not so sure that it’s just a misunderstanding of Vatican II. I think there is more misunderstanding that a misunderstanding of Perfectae Caritatis.

The Legion of Christ is one of the most traditional religious communities in the Church. It’s issues have nothing to do with Vatican II or with tradition. There is no correction of misunderstanding there either. Its problems are disciplinary.

Both the LCWR and the L of C have disciplinary problems. But is this new? Was there ever a time when religious life did not have disciplinary problems? Bigger ones than these.

Yes. It seems to hard to get to such a mass. But it’s hard for an actor to learn the lead in a Shakspeare play and he doesn’t have prompt cards. So it’s not rocket science to learn it nor is it a huge mountain to climb. Priests are supposed to learn Latin in seminary. If the laity have the means and the bishop has a priest willing and able to say it, then there should be no problem.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

we are not to proselytize to Jews and Muslims.

I obviously am obedient to the Magisterium. Much smarter men than me.

I find this a tad odd, particularly with regards to our elder brothers in the Faith. Did not the Church have its very beginnings proselytizing to the Jews? What am I missing?

 

[JReducation]

I would say they were a correction of what many Catholics think V2 and the novus ordo implied e.g. that the old mass was abrogated, that ecumenism without conversion was normal, that the religious could go ‘beyond Christ’ and into social activism etc.

Yes. It seems to hard to get to such a mass. But it’s hard for an actor to learn the lead in a Shakspeare play and he doesn’t have prompt cards. So it’s not rocket science to learn it nor is it a huge mountain to climb. Priests are supposed to learn Latin in seminary. If the laity have the means and the bishop has a priest willing and able to say it, then there should be no problem.

More updates!

Positive ones!!

wdtprs.com/blog/2013/01/is-pont-comm-ecclesia-dei-building-a-bridge-to-the-sspx/

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/01/di-noia-sends-letter-to-sspx-priests.html

I believe that this is a fair letter. It does not judge them or condemn them. It invites them to do what the rest of us do. From my perspective, if you invite me to sit at the table and behave like the rest of the family, you’re paying me a compliment. You’re including me because you consider me family.

 

[Lormar]

:hug3:

:hug3:

 

[Mrs_Sally]

More updates!

Positive ones!!

wdtprs.com/blog/2013/01/is-pont-comm-ecclesia-dei-building-a-bridge-to-the-sspx/

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/01/di-noia-sends-letter-to-sspx-priests.html

Reading down through the comments, I saw this:

Rorate is saying that “it is not exactly a new/urgent letter, but that it was sent in early December 2012″. Bishop Fellay gave his speech in Canada on 28 December. Was his speech in response to this letter?

Is that reasonable for a timeframe? If so, that’s not a very positive sign. I will continue to pray…

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Also noticed the Zenit article about a new booklet on how the Mass should be - thread on it over in Catholic News.

Cardinal Antonio Cañizares is quoted as saying this during his talk a couple of days ago:

In regard to the case of Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, the cardinal said that Benedict XVI offered a healing measure, but that the archbishop’s followers did not respond. To “think that Tradition stops with Pious XII is also a break,” he noted.

I wonder if the healing measure was this letter from Archbishop Di Noia, or if he is referring to the general situation?

 

[JReducation]

Also noticed the Zenit article about a new booklet on how the Mass should be - thread on it over in Catholic News.

Cardinal Antonio Cañizares is quoted as saying this during his talk a couple of days ago:

I wonder if the healing measure was this letter from Archbishop Di Noia, or if he is referring to the general situation?

If you look at the article it says

An outline of the concrete solution is left, surely on purpose, somewhat uncertain by Abp. Di Noia. He recalls en passant that Rome expects from Bp. Fellay a response to the document that was given to him last June 14.

The Holy Father is still waiting for a formal response to the Preamble written by Bishop Fellay, not an announcement made urbi et orbi.

I believe that this why they are putting as one of the conditions that the SSPX start acting like other institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life and stop telling the laity, the Internet, the bloggers, the press and whoever else will listen all about its issues with the Church and its discussions with Rome. This was also mentioned in the letter, in a more polite manner. Many of us who are superiors have been asking this forever. When are they going to learn to keep their affairs between them and the Vatican, as do the rest of us?

- abstains as a matter of principle from [discussing them in] the mass media;

The laity complains about the Jesuit university that did this or that. The Vatican calls in the superior general of the Jesuits and asks about it. He explains their situation. The Vatican gives its feedback to the superior general. He goes back to his men with it. No one else even knows that the superior general met with the Holy Father. Making it public is just not done.

I’m glad that they’re doing it. It’s about time that the laity got out of the middle. The business between an institute, be of religious or of apostolic life is with the Holy See, not a triangle between the Holy See, the institute and the laity. In essence, the institute is building up what can be called a constituency or its own church, take your pick.

I also found this, very interesting.

- bases all its analyses on deep and wide theological bases.

In contemporary theological language, this means that you do not narrow your theological arguments to Aquinas and the scholastic school. There are other very good theologians in the Church’s past and present.

I also like this condition.

- always presents the objections in a positive and constructive manner

One of the problems that you often have with groups to the extremes is that they are very negative. They don’t just identify a problem, they complain and they accuse. They never give a compliment for something well done and they rarely offer a constructive solution to what they feel is a problem. By constructive, I mean one that is doable and that is appropriate. If they offer a solution it’s either not practical or not appropriate for the situation.

It’s like those people who say that we need to incorporate women into positions of leadership in the Church. Everyone says that we agree and then we ask for suggestions. They come back with women priests. Common’ give us a break. We’re giving you an opportunity to find a solution that is beneficial. Pick one that is doable.

The same here. If you think that we’re doing ecumenism incorrectly, make some constructive suggestions. Don’t go out and embarrass yourself and the Church by calling a particular faith the enemy of the Church. Name calling is not exactly constructive.

 

[Aramis]

I obviously am obedient to the Magisterium. Much smarter men than me.

I find this a tad odd, particularly with regards to our elder brothers in the Faith. Did not the Church have its very beginnings proselytizing to the Jews? What am I missing?

“Not one jot nor tiddle of the old law shall pass away.”
“I come not to destroy the old law, but to fulfill it”

Observant jews have a covenant with God, and live up to it.
The New covenant is the fulfillment, not the replacement, of the Old Law. Jesus gets to confront them about it at the end of time.

The Church has come to realize that those who will convert from Judaism and Islam will convert not from being preached at, but by seeing the living examples of Christ’s love amongst Christian people. Preaching at them tends to cause them both to react by closing their minds and hearts, and retreating to their rituals.

 

[JReducation]

“Not one jot nor tiddle of the old law shall pass away.”
“I come not to destroy the old law, but to fulfill it”

Observant jews have a covenant with God, and live up to it.
The New covenant is the fulfillment, not the replacement, of the Old Law. Jesus gets to confront them about it at the end of time.

The Church has come to realize that those who will convert from Judaism and Islam will convert not from being preached at, but by seeing the living examples of Christ’s love amongst Christian people. Preaching at them tends to cause them both to react by closing their minds and hearts, and retreating to their rituals.

While the above is true, there is more to it than just that. There are several things at play here.

1. To begin with, preachy people can be very annoying rather than convincing. Usually, those who most want to preach are the ones who should not say a word. They tend to be overly pontifical, which is a big turn off.
2. Jews and Muslims do not proselytize. The don’t take to well to being at the receiving end. It’s not part of our culture. To us, this looks very Evangelical, Jehovah Witness or Mormon, all of which have a track record for being antisemitic.
3. The Catholic Church does not have a tradition of proselytizing anyway. We have a long and noble tradition of preaching by missionary work. But our missionary work has always been coupled with corporal works of mercy, not just wordiness. There already are religious assigned to work among the Muslims and the Jews: Franciscans, Trinitarians and Carmelites.
4. There is an agreement between the Catholic Church and the Muslims that dates back to 1219. It was brokered by St. Francis of Assisi and accepted by Pope Gregory IX. The Franciscans would be allowed to take custody of the Christian sites in the Holy Land, provided that promised that the Catholics would not attempt to convert Jews or Muslims. Francis promised and the popes have upheld that promise since then.
5. If a Jew or a Muslim approaches us, there is nothing that prohibits our teaching them and inviting them to discern.
6. The Holy See is also very concerned about the ignorance of most Catholics regarding Islam and Judaism. Many Catholics are very offensive toward Jews and Muslims, even alleging that they are nor worshipping the same God, when the Church has already decreed that we worship the same God. The difference between us is that the Jews and Muslims do not have the full understanding of the nature of God. Therefore, the Trinity is not part of their theology. But no one has to acknowledge God as Trinity to worship him. This has never been a prerequisite for worship. Some people make it so.
7. When Catholics offend Jews or Muslims, they create problems for other Catholics. The Catholics in the Middle Eastern countries are a minority. Given the current state of affairs, the last thing they need is loud mouth Latin Catholics calling negative attention to Catholicism. At the end of the day, it’s the Eastern Catholics who are targeted by their fellow countrymen, not us in the Latin Church. Rome is very aware that we Latin Catholics are very careless when it comes to the Eastern Catholics. We need to admit this to ourselves. We live in our own bubble and we forget that words have consequences for innocent people in places where we will never have to live and work, but they do.

 

[Lormar]

When are they going to learn to keep their affairs between them and the Vatican, as do the rest of us?

Funny you should write this because the past week I finally realized that this. It suddenly dawned on me that no one else in the Church airs their grievances in such a public manner. Sure, there is always one here and there, but on the whole, private matters are kept private. And it wouldn’t occur to most Catholics in the pews to demand to know every dash and dot of what is going on at every moment.

What I am trying to say is that no matter how bad things got at any one time the past fifty years, most conducted themselves in a dignified and respectful manner. Not to say that the SSPX higher ups haven’t, but some of their priests and lay supporters can be a little over zealous.

 

[Lormar]

… Preaching at them tends to cause them both to react by closing their minds and hearts, and retreating to their rituals.

This holds very true as well for those who attend either the SSPX or sedevacantist chapels.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Funny you should write this because the past week I finally realized that this. It suddenly dawned on me that no one else in the Church airs their grievances in such a public manner. .

Except Michael Voris, I suppose. I also doubt the higher ups don’t know what’s going on, and surely could stop it if they wished. They don’t. That indicates an agenda, advertising at the very least for people to follow them. That’s creating dissent. Not a good thing.

 

[choliks]

This is not an update, but it’s an illustration of what working within the Church can do.

From Mr. Karl Keating’s Facebook wall post today:
Karl Keating:

St. Anne Church is the parish for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass in San Diego. It is staffed by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, with three priests in residence.

The parish was established in 1921, when many of the parishioners were engaged in what then was a lively tuna fishing trade (long since disappeared). The Cristero War in Mexico (1922-1929) caused many Mexicans to flee that country, and of the ones who settled in San Diego, many gathered around St. Anne Church, which is in a district call Logan Heights that today is almost exclusively Hispanic. It’s a poor area and used to have a reputation for a high incidence of crime. Let’s just say that it’s not a part of town that people aspire to move to.

In 2006 St. Anne’s was disestablished as a parish because of declining attendance; it became a mission church of a neighboring parish, its doors closed more often than not. Then, in 2008, the FSSP was invited to take over the parish. Considerable restoration work was needed: a new floor for the nave, a new floor for the sanctuary, a Communion rail, even a new dome. An organ was donated by some parishioners.

Today the parish has four Sunday Masses, all in the old form: a low Mass, a sung High Mass, a chant Mass, and another low Mass in the evening.

Logan Heights remains chiefly Hispanic. The congregation is a mixture of Spanish-speaking locals and English-speakers from elsewhere in town; the parish bulletin is in both languages. The most recent bulletin contained average attendance figures:

2009: 479
2010: 524
2011: 575
2012: 629

That’s 31% growth over three years. It’s likely larger, as a percentage, than any other San Diego parish enjoyed in the same period, but total attendance remains a minuscule portion of the total diocesan population.

The Latin Mass community is growing, but it would be a stretch to characterize the old Mass as a runaway success. It may become that someday, but such a day appears to be far off.

 

[Dee_S]

If you look at the article it says

An outline of the concrete solution is left, surely on purpose, somewhat uncertain by Abp. Di Noia. He recalls en passant that Rome expects from Bp. Fellay a response to the document that was given to him last June 14.

The Holy Father is still waiting for a formal response to the Preamble written by Bishop Fellay, not an announcement made urbi et orbi.

I believe that this why they are putting as one of the conditions that the SSPX start acting like other institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life and stop telling the laity, the Internet, the bloggers, the press and whoever else will listen all about its issues with the Church and its discussions with Rome. This was also mentioned in the letter, in a more polite manner. Many of us who are superiors have been asking this forever. When are they going to learn to keep their affairs between them and the Vatican, as do the rest of us?

- abstains as a matter of principle from [discussing them in] the mass media;

The laity complains about the Jesuit university that did this or that. The Vatican calls in the superior general of the Jesuits and asks about it. He explains their situation. The Vatican gives its feedback to the superior general. He goes back to his men with it. No one else even knows that the superior general met with the Holy Father. Making it public is just not done.

I’m glad that they’re doing it. It’s about time that the laity got out of the middle. The business between an institute, be of religious or of apostolic life is with the Holy See, not a triangle between the Holy See, the institute and the laity. In essence, the institute is building up what can be called a constituency or its own church, take your pick.

I also found this, very interesting.

- bases all its analyses on deep and wide theological bases.

In contemporary theological language, this means that you do not narrow your theological arguments to Aquinas and the scholastic school. There are other very good theologians in the Church’s past and present.

I also like this condition.

- always presents the objections in a positive and constructive manner

One of the problems that you often have with groups to the extremes is that they are very negative. They don’t just identify a problem, they complain and they accuse. They never give a compliment for something well done and they rarely offer a constructive solution to what they feel is a problem. By constructive, I mean one that is doable and that is appropriate. If they offer a solution it’s either not practical or not appropriate for the situation.

It’s like those people who say that we need to incorporate women into positions of leadership in the Church. Everyone says that we agree and then we ask for suggestions. They come back with women priests. Common’ give us a break. We’re giving you an opportunity to find a solution that is beneficial. Pick one that is doable.

The same here. If you think that we’re doing ecumenism incorrectly, make some constructive suggestions. Don’t go out and embarrass yourself and the Church by calling a particular faith the enemy of the Church. Name calling is not exactly constructive.

:thumbsup:a good summary, thanks Br JR. Like Lormar, I just wonder about the time frame, and about Bishop Fellay’s unpleasant comments on the Jews & that Vatican II was “for them” - was perhaps a deliberate rudeness in response to this letter

"…In the letter he sent to Fellay before Christmas, asking the superior of the SSPX to send it on to all the Fraternity’s priests, Di Noia proposed a method for resuming dialogue, in a final attempt to break the deadlock and banish the problems which appear objectively difficult to overcome.

According to authoritative French Vatican correspondent Jean Marie Guenois, it was Benedict XVI’s idea to send the letter which he apparently re-read and authorised.

The eight-page document touches on three key points: the current state of relations, the spirit of these relations and a method for resuming the interrupted dialogue between the Church and the SSPX.

In terms of the interpretation of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council, one of the most controversial points in the dialogue, Di Noia considers relations still “open” and “full of hope”, despite some recent declarations by the Lefebvrians."

"The second part of the document underlines the importance of unity in the Church and therefore of the need to steer clear of “pride, anger and impatience.”

The “disagreement over certain key points” must involve the discussion of controversial questions in a “spirit of openness.”

Finally, the third part of the letter proposes two ways of getting out of the current deadlock.

The first involves recognition of Mgr. Lefebvre’s charisma and the body he founded for the “training of priests”. Mgr. Lefebvre’s work was not about “counterproductive rhetoric” or “justifying and correcting theology” or even “publicly correcting others in the Church.”

The second – which is mentioned in the Donum Veritatis document published in 1990 with regard to the dissidence of progressivist theologians – considers theological diversions within the Catholic Church as legitimate, whilst recalling that objections must be made internally, not publicly, in order to “stimulate the magisterium” and formulate its teachings better. They should never therefore become a parallel magisterium.”
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebvrianos-21496/

 

[Snowball7]

“The Latin Mass community is growing, but it would be a stretch to characterize the old Mass as a runaway success. It may become that someday, but such a day appears to be far off.”

It won’t become a success without directed, purposeful support from the clergy.
The vast majority of priests are NO priests who need “a push” if they are going
to learn the OM. Also, the Church could make an effort to instruct seminarians
in the OM. I live in a state with over 500,000 Roman Catholics, yet there are
only two parishes which offer the OM. It cannot grow if it is not nourished by
the hierarchy. If it was nourished, we would see more participation.
And if the SSPX would sign on to acceptance of the NO, doors would
be opened for them to expand vigorously, providing a far greater service
to the millions of Catholics who are interested in the OM. They claim the NO
is a disservice to souls, but their intransigence is a greater disservice.
Fellay knows this, and it appears reconciliation is in the works, the splinter
of the SSPX-SO group is important because it separates the great number
of SSPX clergy who truly want reconciliation from the much smaller number
that does not.
In the meantime, we need to see more promulgation and support. I realize
quotas cannot be set, but there could be a program to achieve a level of
availability, at least 3-4x greater than presently.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

The first involves recognition of Mgr. Lefebvre’s charisma and the body he founded for the “training of priests”. Mgr. Lefebvre’s work was not about “counterproductive rhetoric” or “justifying and correcting theology” or even “publicly correcting others in the Church.”

Interesting thought related to the direction given in VII for religious to return to the charism of their founder. If the SSPX saw itself again as an educational group meant to properly prepare men for Holy Orders, they could indeed be helpful to the wider, secular church (ie, not religious orders). However, as they seem to see themselves now - as the only group retaining “eternal Rome” - they are too negative and divisive to help anyone.

 

[Lormar]

Except Michael Voris, I suppose. I also doubt the higher ups don’t know what’s going on, and surely could stop it if they wished. They don’t. That indicates an agenda, advertising at the very least for people to follow them. That’s creating dissent. Not a good thing.

I keep forgetting the people here can"t read my mind!

I should have been more specific. What I was referring to are cardinals, bishops, priests and religious, not the laity.

I agree with you though about steering clear of Catholic lay bloggers and others who stir up discontent among Catholics. Many of them think they are doing a good thing but, to my way of thinking, they are causing scandal.

If you mean that the SSPX can stop their laity from speaking out, no - they can’t. Most of them passed obedience to anyone by decades ago and made their opinions their own magisterium. They mean well. Pray for them.

 

[Lormar]

I wasn’t sure if I could post the link to where the following letter is, so I am copying it here for all to read. It is an absolutely beautiful letter written by Archbishop DiNoia. It is long, so I may have to make it into several posts:

Advent 2012

Your Excellency and dear Priestly Brothers of the Fraternity of St. Pius X,

Our recent declaration (28 October 2012) affirmed in a public and authoritative manner that the Holy See’s relations with the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X remain open and hopeful. Until now, apart from its official pronouncements, the Holy See has for various reasons refrained from correcting certain inaccurate assertions regarding its conduct and competence in these interactions. A time is rapidly approaching, however, when in the interest of truth the Holy See will be compelled to address some of these inaccuracies. Particularly dolorous are statements that impugn the office, and person, of the Holy Father and that, at some point, would demand some response.

Recent assertions by persons holding significant positions of authority within the Fraternity cannot but cause concern about the realistic prospects for reconciliation. One thinks in particular of interviews given by the District Superior for Germany, formerly General Superior of the Fraternity (18 September 2012) and by the First Assistant General of the Fraternity (16 October 2012), and a recent sermon of the General Superior (1 November 2012). The tone and content of these interventions have given rise to a certain perplexity about the seriousness and, indeed, the very possibility of straightforward conversation between us. While the Holy See patiently awaits an official response from the Fraternity, some of its superiors employ language, in unofficial communications, that to all the world appears to reject the very provisions, assumed to be still under study, that are required for the reconciliation and for the canonical regularization of the Fraternity within the Catholic Church.

What is more, a review of the history of our relations since the 1970s leads to the sobering realization that the terms of our disagreement concerning Vatican Council II have remained, in effect, unchanged. With magisterial authority, the Holy See has consistently maintained that the documents of the Council must be interpreted in the light of Tradition and the Magisterium and not vice versa, while the Fraternity has insisted that certain teachings of the Council are erroneous and are thus not susceptible to an interpretation in line with the Tradition and the Magisterium. Over the years, this stalemate has remained more or less in place. The three years of doctrinal dialogues just concluded, though permitting a fruitful airing of views on specific issues, did not fundamentally alter this situation.
In these circumstances, while hope remains strong, it is clear that something new must be injected into our conversations if we are not to appear to the Church, to the general public, and indeed to ourselves, to be engaged in a well-meaning but unending and fruitless exchange. Some new considerations of a more spiritual and theological nature are needed, considerations that transcend the important but seemingly intractable disagreements over the authority and interpretation of Vatican Council II that now divide us, considerations that focus rather on our duty to preserve and cherish the divinely willed unity and peace of the Church.
It seems opportune that I should introduce these new considerations in the form of a personal Advent letter addressed to you as well as to the members of the Priestly Fraternity. Nothing less than the unity of the Church is at stake.

The Preservation of the Unity of the Church

In this context, the words of St. Paul spring to mind: “I, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, striving to preserve the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace: one Body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph 4:1-6).

With these words, the Apostle Paul admonishes us to maintain the unity of the Church, the unity that is given by the Spirit and which unites us to the one God “who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph 4:6). True unity is a gift of the Spirit, not something of our own making.

Nevertheless, through our actions and decisions we are able to cooperate in the unity of the Spirit, or to act against the Spirit’s promptings. Therefore, St. Paul exhorts us to “live in a manner worthy of the call you have received” (Eph 4:1) to live so that we may preserve this precious gift of unity.

In order to persevere in the unity of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas notes that, according to St. Paul, “four virtues must be cultivated, and their four opposite vices shunned” (Commentary on the Letter to the Ephesians §191). What gets in the way of unity? Pride, anger, impatience, and inordinate zeal. According to Aquinas, “the first vice which he [St. Paul] rejects is pride. When one arrogant person decides to rule others, while the other proud individuals do not want to submit, dissension arises in the society and peace disappears. … Anger is the second vice. For an angry person is inclined to inflict injury, whether verbal or physical, from which disturbances occur. … The third is impatience. Occasionally, someone who himself is humble and mild, refraining from causing trouble, nevertheless will not endure patiently the real or attempted wrongs done to himself. … An inordinate zeal is the fourth vice. Inordinately zealous about everything, men will pass judgment on whatever they see, not waiting for the proper time and place; and a turmoil arises in society” (ibid).
.