Posted on 04/15/2016 4:54:19 AM PDT by Legatus
I. The Church is a mystery. It is the mystery of God's presence among us, our Savior, God, who does not want the death of sinners, but be converted and live. The conversion requires our collaboration.
II. The Church is infallible in its divine nature; but it is run by people who can make mistakes and even make mistakes. We must distinguish the office of the person. The latter remains a certain amount of time in office and then out-either by death or other circumstances, but the office remains. Pope Francis today has the papal ministry and the primacy of authority. Within an hour, we do not know,he could resign and another pope will be elected. However, while he has the Papal See, we recognize it as such and pray for him. We do not say that he is a good pope. On the contrary, he provokes with his liberal ideas and he creates a great confusion in the Church. But when Christ founded the Papacy, He saw the whole series of Popes of the whole history of the Church, including Pope Francis. And yet He allowed his ascent to the papal throne. Similarly, our Lord established the Sacrament with His Real Presence, though He foresaw the many sacrileges in the course of history.
III. Archbishop Lefebvre founded the SSPX amid these confusing times for the Church. She is called to give a new generation of priests to the Church, to preserve the true Sacrifice of the Mass and proclaim the kingship of Jesus Christ throughout society, even against the liberal popes and prelates who have betrayed the faith. So I had to come necessarily conflict: in 1975 the Fraternity was sent into exile. There he not only survived, but grew and has become for many people is a sign of contradiction against the destruction of our day. This opposition became clear to the world on June 30, 1988 when for reasons of necessity, were consecrated four bishops Msgr. Lefebvre.
IV. However, Msgr. Lefebvre always had the conviction to seek a canonical solution for the fraternity and did not avoid the conversation with the Roman authorities, who wanted to back off. He continued his efforts even after the consecrations of bishops, despite that in its realism had little hope of success. He asked, using ad hominem arguments, to let him "make the experience of Tradition". He fully accepted the fact that the Brotherhood was in an exceptional situation and this was no fault his own, but his opponents. The situation remained until 2000. Since then Rome has sought a remedy for the situation, sometimes so clever, sometimes with honest intention, depending on who was in care of the problem on the Roman side.
V. The decline of the Church since the simultaneous and constant development of the fraternity, brought some bishops and cardinals who agreed totally or partially, though not readily confessed. Rome was gradually lowering its demands and recent proposals no longer speak of recognizing the Vatican nor the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo Missae. So it seems the time to normalize the situation of the fraternity has come, and this for several reasons:
l) Any abnormal situation lends itself to standardization. This is in the nature of things. 2) We must not lose sight of the danger that the faithful and some brothers used to the abnormal situation and see it as a normal . The opposition here and there against participation in the Holy Year, and the total disregard for the assignment of ordinary jurisdiction by Pope Francis (we always appeal to the state of necessity and have resorted to extraordinary jurisdiction according to the law) It is causing a stir. If the faithful or the fraternity brothers feel comfortable in this situation of freedom from dependence on the hierarchy, then this implies a gradual loss of sensus ecclesiae. We must never argue: we have sound doctrine, the true Mass, our seminaries, priories and our bishops, we lack nothing.
3) We have sympathizers among priests and cardinals, some of whom would like to call on us to help them, they would give us a church building and possibly confide a seminary to our care. But currently, due to our situation, it's impossible for them to do this. In any case, barriers which the faithful but fearful have will come down. In the news media and everywhere we are regarded as schismatics or separated from the Church, we dismiss these accusations.
4) In the coming years, we urgently need new bishops. It is certainly possible to consecrate them without pontifical mandate in case of emergency, but if possible to consecrate bishops with the permission of Rome, the said permission must be sought.
5) Modernists, liberals and other enemies of the Church are very concerned with respect to the canonical solution for the fraternity. Discernment of spirits in this regard, suggests not what is the right and best way?
6) How will the Church will overcome this crisis? One sees that in the present state of affairs there is not even glimmer of hope. In contrast, the official act of recognition of the Fraternity trigger a healthy turmoil within the Church. The good would be encouraged, the malevolent will suffer a defeat.
VI. Answers to some objections:
1) How can we aspire to a recognition by Pope Francis?
Answer: We have already referred above to the necessary distinction between the office and the titular of the office. There is no doubt that the current pope exercises his role established by God . But we must keep in mind what the council really was and the consequences it brought to the Church: confusion, the dictatorship of relativism, pastoral over doctrine, friendship with the enemies of God and enemies of Christianity. But precisely this is one of the mistakes of the council: separate the the cause from the effects. Some were infatuated with the person of Benedict XVI, instead of regarding the papal office first and person second, making his resignation like a cold shower for many. We must not make the same mistake of infatuating ourselves too close to the person rather than the divine institution! Perhaps only the pope Francis is able to take this step (normalization), by unpredictability and improvisation. The media may have forgiven him for having taken this step, but would never have forgiven Benedict. In its authoritarian, not to say tyrannical style of government, he would be able to implement this measure even for the Resistance.
2) But what do people say of the Resistance?
Answer: We can not guide our actions for people who obviously has lost the sense of Church and love for the Church in its concrete form. As it stands now, they are fighting each other.
3) In the future we will have to keep silent about all current errors.
Answer: We will not be silent, more over, we will point out the errors by name. Before and after our normalization. We would like to return from our"exile" in which we are today. 4) The reputation Pope Francis has among Catholics is so bad that recognition for their part would harm rather than benefit the SSPX.
Answer: Since the beginning we differentiated between the office and the person. If Francis is pope , which he is - then he also has the primacy of jurisdiction over the church. Whether he uses (jurisdictional primacy) it for the good of the Church or not. We must follow the path of usefulness for the Church; orient our actions not by human will and God will bless us.
5) But this integration of the SSPX in the conciliar system will cost you your profile, maybe even your identity.
Answer: It all depends on how strong we are and who converts whom. If we act strongly, based on the grace of God, then our situation may be a blessing for the entire Church. Where else could be the Fraternity be in order to make possible such a conversion? Of course we should not count on our own abilities and powers, but God's help. Think of the fight between David and Goliath. For this we make an analogy: as Christians we are in a wicked and corrupt world, and we need to prove ourselves here. The danger of contagion is great; but we can and must escape it with the grace of God. One thing is clear: a new situation does not facilitate our position as it will stand, it will be complicated, and yet, it will make it thrive more.
6) All Congregations which were subjected to Rome adapted to conciliate or even perished within the system.
Answer: Our starting position is not the same: In our case it is Rome who pressed for a solution and approached us. In other cases, these “Fraternities” are the applicants, often went to Rome with guilt. Moreover, none of them has bishops outside the Apostolic Administration Saint John Vianney in the Diocese of Campos in Brazil, where the bishop RIFAN is willing to make any compromise. Of course solid protection by an appropriate ecclesial structure is required. This appears to be guaranteed by the personal prelature. This structure has not been offered to another congregation. Finally, the objection raised has been true only in part, with some exceptions in the German - speaking region. However, insurgency has been the life of the SSPX.
VII. Conclusion
If God wants to help His Church indeed He has many means. One of them is the recognition of the SSPX by the Roman authorities. Isn’t the SSPX consecrated to the Blessed Virgin, who will protect and guide its work in this new situation? -Dignare me laudare te, Virgo sacrata; da mihi virtutem contra hostes tuos - Grant me to praise thee, Holy Virgin; give me strength against your enemies.
Zaitzkofen, February 19, 2016 P. Franz Schmidberger Rector
Something is happening and looks to be happening quickly.
bump to read later
I’ve wondered if more individual bishops couldn’t supply faculties to sspx priests within their dioceses al la Campos.
>> I’ve wondered if more individual bishops couldn’t supply faculties to sspx priests within their dioceses al la Campos. <<
Yes, it’s called the FSSP. SSPX consists of those Lefebvrites who rejected such accomodation.
OK, I understand the point you are trying to make, but as one who is well familiar with people on both sides, your comment doesn’t address the actual situation which exists on the ground. Many Catholics have no access to the FSSP, and my post was addressing those Bishops who would want to formalize a relationship.
bump
Well, the FSSP is doing more than merely providing priests where demand is high and supply is present. They are also training those who are already priests of various dioceses or other religious orders. But my point wasn’t that FSSP priests and others trained by them were so plentiful as to render no further need of Latin-mass priests necessary, but that it’s not as simple as merely accommodating SSPX: SSPX wouldn’t accept mere accommodations without additional demands being met. However, if there are further developments where SSPX would now accept such accommodations, great.
I agree, further accommodations would be great and resolve a difficult/confusing situation. Until then, there are certain places the SSPX can go that the FSSP cannot.
Also one of the issues is that the FSSP still have no bishop. If appointed one, this would hopefully ease some of the trepidation the SSPX have.
Mark my words: if the SSPX is regularized, it will become just another indult like the FSSP or ICKSP...just another place to go to the TLM.
I think some in the SSPX are totally fine with that. I think others think they will be able to change Rome on the most important issues: doctrinal issues (i.e. Vatican II).
No, Rome will change them...and that is exactly why Francis is trying to lure them in.
“Mark my words: if the SSPX is regularized, it will become just another indult like the FSSP or ICKSP...just another place to go to the TLM.”
Oh, no! The horror of it all! You mean they’ll. . . they’ll. . . become. . . (gasp). . . obedient Catholics!
Right now all the info I can gather is that the regularisation will be declared by the pope with no strings attached... which I think is suicidal for the post-conciliar Church... and Divine intervention for the western Church as a whole.
I believe in God’s Providence, they will change Rome... well otherwise we’re screwed.
Yeah... I was trying to express that the SSPX weren’t necessary unreasonable in their refusal to be accommodated, because I remember thinking that one or more of their “demands” (I hate that that makes them sound like terrorists or union negotiators) were quite reasonable. I think that’s one of them: without an ordinary (a bishop is the ordinary of a particular diocese), FSSP remain largely at the will of outsiders to their organization.
I believe in God’s Providence. That’s why I know that the SSPX isn’t necessarily the only way God can fix things.
Keep in mind, we may also very well be in the end times.
They are Catholic. They will become Modernists.
They do have their own bishops, and as the letter states, they are starting from a different point then the rest of the Church.
I must disagree with your characterization of the FSSP. While I only go to one FSSP parish- I can tell you they are heroic in defense of the Faith. If the Bishop (who tolerates them, but is in now way conservative or a fan of the FSSP) has told them to do something which would be detrimental to the faith of the people in their charge they have ignored him and have continued to care for the flock.
Frankly, I firmly believe that if the Bishop did order them to push a line contrary to the faith they would refuse to the point of being kicked out of the diocese. These are brave men- no wilting flowers here!
Do they defend the Faith by preaching against Vatican II? No. They aren’t allowed to do so. This is what will happen to the SSPX too.
I’m not sure exactly what your opinion is of the SSPX, however based on your comment I would like to humbly offer this for your consideration.
I believed at one time that the SSPX while having good intentions was just a form of Protestantism in the other direction. They disobeyed the Pope and even though they had what they thought were good reasons, this disobedience put them outside the Church.
Then I met some of them through my work. When talking about the faith I was surprised that they did not spend most of their time ranting about the Pope or the evils of Vatican II. They were too busy living out their faith, raising children, enjoying being what they are- Catholic.
If the Pope or the excesses of Vatican II or modernism in the Church came up as a topic they had firm opinions which I almost always agreed with. (Note these are people in real life, not on the internet. I would never judge a group of people based on the small number who tend to rant on the internet). They didn’t bad-mouth or denigrate the Pope. If anything they expressed mostly sorrow that so many souls were and are being misled.
This being so much different than my initial ideal of the SSPX I attended a few masses at the local SSPX parish. I honestly figured that while the parishioners I met might be one way, surely the SSPX priest would be raving about how evil the Pope and certain Bishops are.
Again, I was surprised. Respect for the Pope while at the same time disagreeing with the confusing teaching coming out of Rome and educating the faithful. Affirmation of things the Pope got right. I was also surprised to find that some of parishioners at the SSPX also attend the FSSP parish. The situation is more fluid than most people realize.
I know that a few of the SSPX priests and at least one Bishop have wandered into sedevacantism, however the SSPX itself has been very diligent in weeding those persons out and preventing them from having any influence in the organization. They are VERY aggressive in protecting against this and maintaining a desire to regain a formal canonical jurisdiction with the Pope providing they don’t have to agree to things which they believe go against the Faith. Things which any honest theologian admits pose a problem to the continuity of the Faith from before Vatican 2 to after.
I agree they are disobedient, however, they are disobedient in a very particular, very strange way. A way not at all in common with Protestants at the time of the reformation, or even with modernists within the Catholic Church in our time.
I’ve read the reasons they give for this disobedience. I used to think that they were exaggerating the danger presented by modernism to the Church. Given all that has happened I now find myself in agreement with them about this danger and how widespread this is.
I just can’t condemn them, not with what I’ve seen in my lifetime with my own eyes. Not knowing them and how they live for the Catholic Faith despite struggles and hardship for the path they have taken. Rather they should be accepted back in without any demands for what are non-doctrinal issues. There is nothing to be gained by keeping them in canonical limbo.
So does this mean there should be demands made that they accept religious liberty and ecumenism (for example)?
They have discussed confusion coming into the Church after Vatican II. They preach against the errors. They preach the Faith. They preach against modernism. They preach against a false ecumenism. They preach against relativism. They speak about the confusion in the Church and how to counter it. They spoke out against the sacrilegious light show on Climate Change at St. Peter’s Basilica (and the word sacrilege was used).
I’m not sure if you are expecting some specific word formula from them, but from all that I’ve seen they are on the side of the Angels.
That’s actually good to hear. The only problem is no one who can remove the errors have done so. It seems they only get bigger and bigger.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.