July 5, 2012
The Vatican continues to expose its intentions concerning the SSPX in an unabashed and frank manner. Archbishop Di Noia and Bishop Muller have made no bones about their monumental task of converting the SSPX to conciliarism.
Archbishop Di Noia states “Nobody can deny that Karol Wojtyla’s pontificate marked a major shift in the theological understanding of Judaism within the Catholic Church.”
I would counter that there is nothing about the theology of Judaism that has escaped the Catholic Church for the past 2000 years. What the Wojtyla pontificate exposed was how that particular pope (mis)understood Judaism and the Old Covenant in contrast to how the church, as early as the Florentine Council taught. Somehow, that misunderstanding has become de fide in the oxymoronic “living tradition” which modernists have created to justify conciliar clashes with the Deposit of Faith.
The Archbishop goes to state “Our difficulty with the SSPX is that they isolate passages of Vatican II documents from the context and main message of the Council. In Jewish terms, the error is similar to trying to interpret a Biblical passage without referring to the centuries of oral and written rabbinical commentaries on its meaning. The message becomes distorted and problematic … This is a new concept which we know the Traditionalists will not be able to accept .. convincing them will take time”
Apparently Roman Catholic terms are inadequate to describe how Vatican II documents support the traditional faith or the unspoken main message of the Council to the extent that it has now become necessary to explain it in Jewish terms. I guess the analogy is lost on me since I am not a Jew. I would ask my attorney but I just don’t know if I can trust his answer. Most important here is that arduous job of “convincing” the SSPX.
Bishop Muller easily raises the small hairs on the back of one’s neck. He states “The Congregation (CDF) has the task of supporting the pope in his Magisterium. We must guide ourselves based on the emphases he makes in his pronouncements.”The obvious intent is that this pope owns a different Magisterium from his predecessors. We should all be grateful for his candor – it is a great gift to us, so to speak. Apparently, according to CathCon, the SSPX German District today called on Bishop Muller to make a statement on his controversial (read heretical) statements and correct his positions. Torpedoes away!
He goes on to say “[The] Second Vatican Council was a wonderful event, albeit from a somewhat different type than some previous councils. It was its legitimate intention to respond not only to certain errors and correct them, but to provide an overall view of the Catholic faith. It was not so much concerned with individual elements, but with the big picture..”. This is from the man now in charge of the congregation protecting the faith and bringing the SSPX into regularity.
So day by day it appears that we get more discouraging news both internally from SSPX via sermons that equate ANY attempt at reconciliation as a doomsday deal with Satan or externally from those who will take new positions in the Vatican hierarchy and are challenged with bringing this obstinate problem child into compliance.
The prelature is apparently a done deal and even has an official title. Aside from the requirement to get diocesan permission to open new missions, it apparently contains none of the other alleged bogeymen of closing three year old chapels or turning over deeds to properties. The former requirement, if true, is not insignificant. But it is also not insurmountable. The SSPX, in my experience, has been the opposite of weak-kneed lukewarm prelates. If they were to call me up (which they have never done to date) and ask my opinion on what to do about a non-cooperative bishop, I would say, do it anyway. The bishop would have to take the Society to (Roman) court. That might take a few years and expose some troublesome bishops. I would bet they wouldn’t much like the publicity. Can you conceive of a creditable response to “Excellency, why would you deny a chapel to a stable group of faithful “attached” to the E.F. when you do not have to pay for the chapel nor provide a priest to support it?”
So, if the prelature is not an insurmountable problem, that would leave the preamble which apparently has some old language reinserted, most likely concerning the SSPX ‘treatment’ of the Novus Ordo. The SSPX has held that the Mass of Paul VI contains a valid Consecration assuming the matter, form, and intent are in tact. Since it has been promulgated by a valid Pope, we usually do not argue whether it is licit as it does not conflict with canon law and the sole arbiter of canon law is the pope. What about its legitimacy? There are those that will argue this point but this term does not enjoy the precise definition that ‘valid’ and ‘licit’ do. Is the Novus Ordo intrinsically evil? The confection of the Blessed Sacrament is not evil although it may certainly be abused for evil purposes. The intent behind the construction of the Novus Ordo may be intrinsically evil if it was intended and designed to conform or deform the Catholic belief in the True Presence to the heretical views of Luther and Calvin. If it is allowed to continue with the intent of achieving the same goals, then its toleration is intrinsically evil.
Then, Quo Vadis, SSPX? What shall we do? Do we shun the pope and the visible church in fear that we will not be able to withstand the conversion they are planning?
Will we likely draw more adherents to the True Faith as a regularized and militant defender of the faith both from within and from without the church? Are we more effective challenging the likes of Bishop Muller as part of the Visible Church or as an outsider looking in?
Conversely, if we avoid regularity at any cost and are declared “schismatic” by the pope, will more non-traditional Catholics or converts be attracted to us? In essence, what path benefits our missionary charism assuming we would never compromise on an article of the faith?