With 9/14/09 marking the two year anniversary of Summorum Pontificum officially "freeing" the TLM, it seems a fitting time to review some recent news in connection with the SSPX. Recent news items include:
* Reports indicate that a SSPX priest was once again permitted to celebrate the TLM at St. Peter's a short time ago
* Reports indicate that a commission has been named for discussions between the Vatican and the SSPX
* Doctrinal discussions (or "negotiations") between the Vatican and the SSPX may start "in the next few days"
* One Cardinal (whose diocese seems plagued with liturgical abuse - described by at least one person as being "out of control") has been making waves by his recent claims concerning the SSPX that... [Note: Commentary may appear in italics]
* "It's not the case that Rome will let the Lefebvrists off easy for everything"
(Note: The SSPX has indicated that it will not compromise. For example, one SSPX leader has previously said "We will not make any compromise on the Council. I have no intention of making a compromise. The truth does not tolerate compromise. We do not want a compromise, we want clarity regarding the Council.”)
* The SSPX will have to accept "religious freedom as a basic human right"
[Note: While the Church has always recognized (private) religious freedom of the individual, the Church has traditionally condemned the idea that heretics should be able to publicly spread the poison of heresy, excepting cases where this evil had to be tolerated (click here for more on the Church's traditional teachings on religious liberty)]
* Some matters are to be considered "not negotiable" - As worded by one Jewish organization: "Respect for Judaism and other religions is mandatory for [the SSPX's] readmission into the mainstream Catholic fold"
[Note: If respect for Judaism and other (false) religions is mandatory to be a member of the Catholic fold, where does that leave the popes, saints, apostles, etc. who apparently didn't realize they should have such "respect" for religions that offend God? - For example St. John said not to even greet heretics or one would share in their evil works (see 2 Jn. 1:6-11) and Saint Paul said, "After a first and second warning, break off contact with a heretic, realizing that such a person is perverted and sinful and stands self-condemned." (Ti. 3:10-11)]
It is unclear how the Cardinal's implication that there was a "mandatory new position" could be reconcilable with previous Church pronouncements which have consistently forbid novel teachings. For example...
"If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema." (First Vatican Council)
"Those, therefore, who dare to think or to teach otherwise or to spurn according to wretched heretics the ecclesiastical traditions and to invent anything novel, or to reject anything from these things which have been consecrated by the Church: either the Gospel or the figure of the Cross, or the (representational) picture, or the sacred relics of the martyr; or to invent perversely and cunningly for the overthrow of any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church; or even, as it were, to use the sacred vessels or the venerable monasteries as common things; if indeed they are bishops or clerics, we order (them) to be deposed; monks, however, or laymen, to be excommunicated." (Second Council of Nicaea, 787 A.D.)
Furthermore, it is unclear how the Cardinal expects "full acceptance" of novel teachings of the Second Vatican Council as if they were infallible dogmatic pronouncements considering that Vatican II was merely a pastoral council which pronounced no infallible doctrines whatsoever. As the Pope who closed the Second Vatican Council said: "Given the Council's pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing in any extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility." (Pope Paul VI, General Audience, Jan. 12, 1966) As Cardinal Ratzinger, council father and the future Pope Benedict XVI has said, "There are many accounts of it which give the impression that, from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and that what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II. The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super-dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest."
Let's hope the discussions will prove fruitful for the Church and that they will provide some much needed clarification for all Catholics.
[Please Note: We do not encourage Catholics to attend unapproved Masses.]
[9/14]
Posts
