SSPX stuff
Someone in SSPX says "heck no, we won't go along with B16!":
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-0228-cfn-remnant.htm
Someone else responds:
http://thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/2006/03/one-traditionalist-responds-to.html
The "powers that be" in the Church now, both lay and religious, were young and enthusiastic when the post-V2 reforms and interpretations happened. They have emotional attachments to the way things happened and accuse those who want even a modest regular use of Latin, chant, priests facing “ad orientem”, etc. of sabotaging the mission of Vatican II. Similar objections are raised against assertions that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, there is no salvation outside Christ, etc. The “hermeneutics of discontinuity” is the status quo.
The younger generation, though, doesn't have those emotional ties. Young people now are able to look at the 1962 Missal as a novelty, a curiosity that piques our interest with its foreign (to us) rites, different prayers, etc. In other words, we look at this the same way the 1960s reformers looked at St. Justin Martyr's account of ancient liturgy and say, "what was good about this that might help us today?" We look at the strongly worded statements of pre-V2 popes (and the Catechism of Trent) and ask, “how come this sounds so different from what I learned?” I’ll confess, it’s fascinating to me.
I'm a little divided whether I think reconciliation with SSPX will happen. On the one hand, future generations of non-SSPX Catholics will have less emotional attachment than the current powers-that-be to the "Spirit of Vatican II" to which the SSPX crowd so strongly objects. This will help foster reconciliation. On the other hand, future SSPX Catholics will have a stronger self-identity as being part of a "different" group of people than an average devoted non-SSPX Catholic, which will make reconciliation harder.
posted by Cantor @ 11:02 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
The real problem that I see with SSPX is their (missing) concept of obedience. They might have valid points regarding the liturgy, or the emotions involved, or the language, or any other number of things. But the Church is still the Church, and it's authority was granted by God. Regardless of how wrong the Roman Catholic Church does at promoting the Gospel message (and the abuses of many Church leaders in the middle ages was much worse than the use of the Novus Ordo Mass), it is still God's Church, and when they say that the "true lineage" of Popes stopped at St. Pius X, or anywhere else for that matter, they might as well be Free Masons.
Brandon, SSPX do accept the validity of current Popes. They regard as flawed the teachings of Vatican II, rightly pointing out that the Council was not a dogmatic one; therefore, if anything it said contradicted existing Church teaching, it is invalid, ipso facto.
SSPX actually objects more strongly to Dignitatis Humanae, religious freedom, etc. than to the liturgy, I think; FSSP are the “analogues” of SSPX who do think Vat2 was ok, but just prefer the old-skool Latin Mass.
What we need is a point-by-point illustration of how the documents in question are consistent - or, giving the benefit of the doubt, inconsistent - with Tradition and dogma.
I do agree that there is a good deal of hypocrisy these days with Church leaders and laypeople who give more regard to various Protestant groups than to sedevacantists; at least the latter group believes there *should* be a Pope, that Mary was immaculately conceived, that there is a judgement even for those baptized.....many of these people, I think, embody our faith more strongly than do we who are in union.
Post a Comment
<< Home