|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Sept 4, 2015 14:22:54 GMT
We’ve all heard the “one, faithful bishop” narrative and while it is a good story, it is not true even within the terms of the SSPX alone. It may be argued that the EF would not be as extensive as it is today without Archbishop Lefebvre, but that is a non-quantifiable and we’re not in a position to tell.
From the SSPX side of the argument alone, it is not true that the EF Mass owes its survival to Archbishop Lefebvre alone among the bishops of the world for two reasons. The first is that the Archbishop was not a diocesan bishop when he founded the SSPX in 1970; he relied on his friend, Bishop François Charrière of Lausanne, Fribourg and Geneva to allow the establishment of the SSPX in his diocese. Mgr Charrière retired in 1970 and the SSPX continued as a legitimate organisation until 1975 when his successor Mgr Pierre Mamie suppressed it at the prompting of the Holy See (I am not here to argue about the justice or legitimacy of this act; only to state the fact and one fact is that for five years the SSPX seems to have endured without any incident with Bishop Mamie). Archbishop Lefebvre deliberately chose Switzerland as a location for the seminary. Secondly, from 1984, Archbishop Lefebvre was joined by the Bishop Emeritus of Campos in Brazil, Mgr Antonio de Castro Mayer. Bishop de Castro Meyer had been Bishop of Campos between 1949 and 1981 and up til his resignation was accepted in 1981, the diocesan priests in Campos were celebrating the EF exclusively. He did not forbid the OF, which is what the religious orders in the diocese were using. His successor, Bishop Navarro tried to clamp down on this, so Bishop de Castro Mayer reacted and from 1984, he was allied to Archbishop Lefebvre. That means that on SSPX terms, we can speak of two or three bishops. Having read the biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, I doubt he would have established the SSPX without Bishop Charrière, but the main reason for the choice was Switzerland, but I imagine there were many other sympathetic bishops he could have approached. His Holy Ghost Missionary confrere, Archbishop John Charles McQuaid, comes to mind.
As we are not talking about the SSPX, I will list a number of movements in favour of the OF Mass which operated independently of the SSPX:
- There were a great many sedevacantist movements which continued to say the EF Mass without reference to the SSPX or Archbhishop LeFebvre and who still do. Without the LeFebvre/SSPX focus, these would have been a lot more serious than they ever became;
- Very quickly after the Council, a network of independent priests developed from coast to coast in the US. This happened without reference to the SSPX. Some, for example the movement established by priests in connexion with Mgr Gommar de Pauw, a Belgian-born priest of the Baltimore archdiocese. Mgr de Pauw died in 2005. Some independent chapels still exist; some were transferred to the SSPX; some to the FSSP and otherwise within the canonical church;
- Priests continuing with the EF Mass acting alone still existed in European countries right into the 21st century;
- The Opus Sacerdotale in France was an association of French priests committed to saying the EF Mass from the 1960s. These had a relationship with Cardinal Siri in Genoa who acted as a protector for students to the priesthood wishing to say the Mass. Among these were the founders of the Institute of Christ the King, Fathers Wach and Mora, who did postgraduate studies in Rome (staying in the Pontifical Irish College), before going to Gabon where Fr Wach was a vicar general. Cardinal Siri facilitated this until his death in 1987, three years after the initial Indult “Quattuor Abhinc Annos” legitimised the EF in the church;
- The Herminidad Sacerdotale de España served a similar function in Spain; and
- Beginning in 1964, Una Voce associations of laity were springing up in several countries across the world (Norway first). These acted as a support for many of these initiatives, Mgr LeFebvre’s included. The most successful of these prior to 1988 was the Latin Mass Society of England & Wales, which played a role in getting the indult for England & Wales, which was an effort Cardinal Heenan was greatly supportive of. This was done in 1971, while the SSPX was embryonic.
This is not an exhaustive list, but I believe it is sufficient to show that the argument that the survival of the EF is down to the work of Archbishop LeFebvre alone is not the case.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Sept 4, 2015 22:40:45 GMT
Thank you for the fascinating history! I had imagined it would have taken more than just the one small movement given the scale of EF attendance nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Sept 5, 2015 21:56:42 GMT
After posting this, I realised I left out the biggest bastion of EF Mass attendants anywhere in the world. The Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association was excommunicated in the 1950s and did not participate in the Second Vatican Council. As such, they continued to use the older liturgical books until the late 1990s, over thirty years after the council and after the EF was recognised. There could be as many as 12 million Chinese Catholics and the Chinese Church still uses a lot of Latin and more traditional liturgy than elsewhere. The reason they adopted Chinese was because the German bishops went to the expense of having the Chinese missals printed and distributed throughout China from 1995 or so on. But the basic answer to Ranger's original question is that the EF certainly would have survived without Archbishop LeFebvre. Maybe not to the same extent, but it would have survived. We’ve all heard the “one, faithful bishop” narrative and while it is a good story, it is not true even within the terms of the SSPX alone. It may be argued that the EF would not be as extensive as it is today without Archbishop Lefebvre, but that is a non-quantifiable and we’re not in a position to tell. From the SSPX side of the argument alone, it is not true that the EF Mass owes its survival to Archbishop Lefebvre alone among the bishops of the world for two reasons. The first is that the Archbishop was not a diocesan bishop when he founded the SSPX in 1970; he relied on his friend, Bishop François Charrière of Lausanne, Fribourg and Geneva to allow the establishment of the SSPX in his diocese. Mgr Charrière retired in 1970 and the SSPX continued as a legitimate organisation until 1975 when his successor Mgr Pierre Mamie suppressed it at the prompting of the Holy See (I am not here to argue about the justice or legitimacy of this act; only to state the fact and one fact is that for five years the SSPX seems to have endured without any incident with Bishop Mamie). Archbishop Lefebvre deliberately chose Switzerland as a location for the seminary. Secondly, from 1984, Archbishop Lefebvre was joined by the Bishop Emeritus of Campos in Brazil, Mgr Antonio de Castro Mayer. Bishop de Castro Meyer had been Bishop of Campos between 1949 and 1981 and up til his resignation was accepted in 1981, the diocesan priests in Campos were celebrating the EF exclusively. He did not forbid the OF, which is what the religious orders in the diocese were using. His successor, Bishop Navarro tried to clamp down on this, so Bishop de Castro Mayer reacted and from 1984, he was allied to Archbishop Lefebvre. That means that on SSPX terms, we can speak of two or three bishops. Having read the biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, I doubt he would have established the SSPX without Bishop Charrière, but the main reason for the choice was Switzerland, but I imagine there were many other sympathetic bishops he could have approached. His Holy Ghost Missionary confrere, Archbishop John Charles McQuaid, comes to mind. As we are not talking about the SSPX, I will list a number of movements in favour of the OF Mass which operated independently of the SSPX: - There were a great many sedevacantist movements which continued to say the EF Mass without reference to the SSPX or Archbhishop LeFebvre and who still do. Without the LeFebvre/SSPX focus, these would have been a lot more serious than they ever became; - Very quickly after the Council, a network of independent priests developed from coast to coast in the US. This happened without reference to the SSPX. Some, for example the movement established by priests in connexion with Mgr Gommar de Pauw, a Belgian-born priest of the Baltimore archdiocese. Mgr de Pauw died in 2005. Some independent chapels still exist; some were transferred to the SSPX; some to the FSSP and otherwise within the canonical church; - Priests continuing with the EF Mass acting alone still existed in European countries right into the 21st century; - The Opus Sacerdotale in France was an association of French priests committed to saying the EF Mass from the 1960s. These had a relationship with Cardinal Siri in Genoa who acted as a protector for students to the priesthood wishing to say the Mass. Among these were the founders of the Institute of Christ the King, Fathers Wach and Mora, who did postgraduate studies in Rome (staying in the Pontifical Irish College), before going to Gabon where Fr Wach was a vicar general. Cardinal Siri facilitated this until his death in 1987, three years after the initial Indult “Quattuor Abhinc Annos” legitimised the EF in the church; - The Herminidad Sacerdotale de España served a similar function in Spain; and - Beginning in 1964, Una Voce associations of laity were springing up in several countries across the world (Norway first). These acted as a support for many of these initiatives, Mgr LeFebvre’s included. The most successful of these prior to 1988 was the Latin Mass Society of England & Wales, which played a role in getting the indult for England & Wales, which was an effort Cardinal Heenan was greatly supportive of. This was done in 1971, while the SSPX was embryonic. This is not an exhaustive list, but I believe it is sufficient to show that the argument that the survival of the EF is down to the work of Archbishop LeFebvre alone is not the case.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 22, 2015 21:04:24 GMT
I recently bought a little book of THE SPIRITUAL WRITINGS OF RAPHAEL MERRY DEL VAL, published by the mainstream English Catholic publisher Gracewing and edited by Harriet Murphy, a SSPX supporter. Whatever about the value of the text, the editorial material shows some of the tendencies that worry me about the SSPX. Much of it is devoted to lamenting the ways in which Popes Benedict XV and Pius XI pulled back from the intransigent policies associated with St Pius X and Cardinal Merry del Val, and Ms Murphy expresses deep regret that MErry del Val did not become Pope in 1914 or 1922. On pp15-16 we find the following: EXTRACT The historical record confirms that Masonic France benefited from this new alliance with Gasparri [PIUS XI'S FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE] since Gasparri and Pope Pius XI went on to condemn Action Francaise in 1926. This was the single most powerful body of opposition to the French government, and it it was composed largely of monarchists, traditionalists, integral and intransigent Catholics. It had a unified voice and excellent, adversarial journalism of the first order under the leadership of the great Charles Maurras... The Vatican condemnation was a gift to Masonry in France and it liquidated, in one fell swoop, intelligent, passionate, organized Catholic opposition to Masonry's plot to destroy the Church and Catholicism". END OF EXTRACT I notice that MS Murphy does not bother to inform her readers of the highly relevant point that Maurras and to a considerable extent Action Francaise advocated a Catholic confessional state in the same way that Cicero and his contemporaries advocated a confessional state - that is, the populace were to be encouraged to believe in traditional religion in order to keep them in line and uphold society, but the rulers would be above all such things. Maurras was completely explicit about his unbelief (though he may have been reconciled on his deathbed in the late 1940s). Either Ms Murphy does not know this, or she is not willing to face up to it, or she does not want her readers to face up to it. In any case, this does not say much for her judgement - not to mention that it is grossly unfair to Pius XI and Gasparri,
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 22, 2015 21:10:39 GMT
wdtprs.com/blog/2015/09/sspx-not-in-schism/Fr Zuhlsdorf argues the case that while the canonical position of the SSPX is unsatisfactory, they should not be described as schismatic - apparently this has become a live issue in the US at present because Michael Voris has started a campaign saying that they are schismatic, in response to a web video which the American SSPX has put out saying that people should not attend the OF because it is spiritually damaging. (One of the combox debaters in the comments on Fr Z's post provides a link to this video, which IMHO is very unhelpful.) Draws some interesting distinctions.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 22, 2015 21:15:09 GMT
wdtprs.com/blog/2015/09/sspx-not-in-schism/Fr Zuhlsdorf argues the case that while the canonical position of the SSPX is unsatisfactory, they should not be described as schismatic - apparently this has become a live issue in the US at present because Michael Voris has started a campaign saying that they are schismatic, in response to a web video which the American SSPX has put out saying that people should not attend the OF because it is spiritually damaging. (One of the combox debaters in the comments on Fr Z's post provides a link to this video, which IMHO is very unhelpful.) Draws some interesting distinctions. Indeed. It's ironic that Voris chose to critique the SSPX now, seeming as Pope Francis has now given them faculties for confession. Surely Voris would better spend his time by criticising the Resistance, which is undeniably schismatic, if not worse.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Sept 23, 2015 8:19:29 GMT
I agree that the Resistance is a much bigger problem than the SSPX, but that doesn't mean that the SSPX is not a problem. It is. The position of the Holy See at the time of the Econe consecrations was that one wasn't condemned for attending the SSPX, one was condemned for going there with schismatic intent. A lot of people took that as a licence to go. This underestimates a few decades (almost three) of constant preaching against the pope and bishops in communion with him. If the Resistance are worse, it is not because there is a shortage of problems in the SSPX and there are many hardened souls there who will not attend an EF Mass with episcopal approval, mainly because the ciborium at communion may be taken from the tabernacle and contain hosts consecrated at an OF Mass.
The past three popes have made many overtures to the SSPX, but so far all have been rebuffed. Right up til the latest initiative of Francis I. Whether one uses the word schism or not, the SSPX are still irregular.
If I collapsed on the street in extremis, I might be grateful for the ministration of an SSPX priest, but I am not inclined to go to an SSPX church to confess during the year of Mercy.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Sept 23, 2015 8:22:56 GMT
I met Dr Harriet Murphy some time ago, when she had reaffirmed traditional Catholicism after sometime as an agnostic/atheist. She was very nice, but already was tending towards hardened traditionalism.
A lot of US traditionalists blame Cardinal Gasparri for selling out the Christeros in Mexico in the 1920s too, but I agree with Hibernicus on Catholic Action. Maurras was no model for anyone. One hopes he did reconcile on his deathbed though.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 23, 2015 18:16:38 GMT
I agree that the Resistance is a much bigger problem than the SSPX, but that doesn't mean that the SSPX is not a problem. It is. The position of the Holy See at the time of the Econe consecrations was that one wasn't condemned for attending the SSPX, one was condemned for going there with schismatic intent. A lot of people took that as a licence to go. This underestimates a few decades (almost three) of constant preaching against the pope and bishops in communion with him. If the Resistance are worse, it is not because there is a shortage of problems in the SSPX and there are many hardened souls there who will not attend an EF Mass with episcopal approval, mainly because the ciborium at communion may be taken from the tabernacle and contain hosts consecrated at an OF Mass. The past three popes have made many overtures to the SSPX, but so far all have been rebuffed. Right up til the latest initiative of Francis I. Whether one uses the word schism or not, the SSPX are still irregular. If I collapsed on the street in extremis, I might be grateful for the ministration of an SSPX priest, but I am not inclined to go to an SSPX church to confess during the year of Mercy. Alaisdir, I'm not saying that the SSPX doesn't have problems. I just think that Voris' timing is rather odd given the overtures that Pope Francis has been giving them. I get the impression that many Irish trads attend SSPX chapels without understanding the implications of their actions, seeing it as just another trad group. This doesn't exist in America (or Britian for that matter) because their bishops have been very accomodating towards trads in general, hence strengthening Voris' hand here. Of course, you are right to point out the danger that this mindset can lead to the one you describe. I too would be slow to go to confession at the SSPX, but it does solve the dilemma that many of their supporters find themselves in, albeit temporarily.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Sept 24, 2015 9:06:45 GMT
To be honest, I don't have a great deal of interest in Voris per se. But Francis' initiative is in keeping with papal policy since the promulgation of Ecclesia Dei Adflicta. Now let me clearly say that the SSPX have always had enemies in the Vatican, but to dwell on that would be to overstate the case; generally the Holy See has been generous towards the SSPX. Indeed the most serious rupture, the Econe consecrations came seven weeks after the Protocol of Accord which Archbishop LeFebvre signed and then repudiated, which was very generous. The SSPX argument was that the offer was half-hearted. But they could look at groups that took up papal generosity - the FSSP in 1988; the Campos apostolic administration in 2001; the Institute of the Good Shepherd in 2007 - none of these have regretted this. Much has been made of the investigation of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, but this was established by Benedict XVI and there are two sides to the story. Indeed, few of the traditional congregations are without some controversy or other.
There are a couple of observations now. First of all, the SSPX are no nearer to reconciliation now than at anytime since 1988, or perhaps more accurately since the Archbishop's death in 1991. Secondly, if there have been any positive signals from the SSPX, I have not seen them. Their priests and even bishops continue in the same polemics as ever. Yes they're not as bad as the Resistance, but though marijuana is not as bad as heroin, I would not like to see my kids smoking it (not that I regard the SSPX as the moral equivalent, just that arguing that there is worse out there doesn't remove the problem). Thirdly, there is a lot of wishful thinking in relation to those who inhabit the fringes of the EF movement looking at the SSPX. I've been there; I've also been to the Eastern Catholic liturgies, but I am realistic not to attend in the hope of being in one big happy family with the Orthodox. Not that I don't hope "ut unum sint", which the SSPX and Moscow Patriachate are more realistic than the Anglicans or Lutherans, let alone the other Protestant groups.
I think the nub of the problem is schismatic intent. The Holy See is reluctant to call "schism", even in reference to the Resistance. But there is plenty of schismatic intent among the pixies (and the SSPX conveniently disown their faithful when they become embarrassing - like the late Ian Paisley's relationship with certain loyalists). Dancing on the threshold of St Kevin's in Harrington St while looking admiringly at St John's on Mounttown with a catelogue of rationalising rhetoric is a dangerous game. More so to those listening. Pray for reconciliation by all means, but it is realism and not rationalising that is required. It is fair to say that the SSPX remain in an irregular position vis-a-vis the visible Church on earth.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 24, 2015 10:31:32 GMT
I actually think we agree more here than we disagree on this. Yes, the SSPX have indeed spurned most opportunities to regularise their position thus far, and that is most unfortunate. I'm certainly not saying that the they don't have serious problems which we must be wary of. Nor am I trying to rationalise for those who continue to attend their chapels, nor would I go to Mounttown or Cork myself until there is reconciliation, less still Athlone. I suppose I was looking at the situation from too much an Irish angle, where the SSPX has been heavily weakened to the point where they are no longer the threat they once were and only the fact that they own churches here is keeping them in existence. I'm under no illusions though that the road to reconciliation will be very hard and difficult to swallow for some in their ranks.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Sept 24, 2015 15:36:32 GMT
I would say that the danger in them though lies in the fact that they are drawing many good members of the laity who are frustrated and worried about the times we live in into their extremist ideologies; a lot of this I think is actually the influence of the internet and SSPX/Resistance bloggers in the US and perhaps elsewhere rather than here in Ireland. I have seen this happen in a number of cases and if those genuine Catholics (particularly a younger generation) don't have a close social group of more moderate Catholics around them then they can easily be sucked into the extremist positions and all that go with them.
(A small addendum: what worries me most about those influenced by the SSPX is how much the society stokes the fires of a very unhealthy anger in them.)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 24, 2015 22:13:45 GMT
To be fair to the SSPX, Alasdair, there have been occasional conciliatory noises from Bishop Fellay (the Resistance are typically propagating conspiracy theories to the effect that he plans to be made a cardinal as reward for selling out SSPX) though he has also made some very dubious statements. The question is which statement represents his real position and which is diplomatic camouflage, and we just don't know. I think there's a generational divide as well - older people who remember when the SSPX was closer to the Church and when the trad landscape was less thickly populated are more inclined to be receptive than those of us who only encountered the SSPX when its position had hardened. (I must say I was really shocked when I first came across actual SSPX literature after reading the somewhat idealised description of the SSPX put out by Michael Davies.) As I said, I wouldn't go near a SSPX chapel myself, I think they have dangerous aspects, and I am still bitter over the way they threw Pope Benedict's attempts at reconciliation back in his face after he had gone out on a limb for them (and had Bishop Williamson's looney statements, made when Williamson was still prominent in the SSPX, used as sticks to beat him). But I think we ought to be as conciliatory as possible to people who still have hopes for reconciliation.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 13, 2015 18:21:05 GMT
A very nice conciliatory discussion between a SSPX priest and Fr Zuhlsdorf, in which the latter explains that those SSPX priests who cast doubt on the validity of OF sacraments have mostly been weeded out or left, at least in North America: wdtprs.com/blog/2015/12/an-interesting-sspx-thought/
|
|
|
Post by gabrielsyme on Dec 16, 2015 22:42:09 GMT
the SSPX are no nearer to reconciliation now than at anytime since 1988, or perhaps more accurately since the Archbishop's death in 1991. Hello Alaisdir (and all), I am a former lurker who has now signed up! I would often peek into the forum to read opinions on the SSPX / traditional Catholicism more widely, as well as see what's happening with Irish Catholicism in general (I am Scottish myself). I was struck by your comment that we are no closer to a resolution of the canonical status of the SSPX than we have been for decades. I wonder if that is not an overly pessimistic view? I myself discovered traditional Catholicism some 3 - 4 years ago now. I will be upfront and say that I attend an SSPX Church myself, but I also give support to traditional leaning Diocesan priests, as well as other traditional groups such as the FSSP. (In my experience, they are all in cahoots to some degree behind the scenes anyway). The traditional faith has been a revelation to me, it is beautiful, compelling, inspiring. There is a real substance to it, compared to the saccharine post-V2 faith I grew up with (and lapsed from, as soon as I was able). To give an analogy, I feel like I have been eating buns all these years, but now I have a burger in my bun! I have been greatly encouraged (and, I admit, surprised) by the progress which has been made regarding the SSPX situation under the pontificate of Pope Francis (which has been disappointing/concerning in other regards). It seems to me that all the "ingredients" (if you will) are already there for a formal canonical recognition of the Society, namely: - the Holy See has repeatedly confirmed (at least 3 times, that I am aware of) that an SSPX mass fulfills the mass obligation of Catholics - there are no remaining canonical penalties hanging over the SSPX Bishops, thanks to Pope Benedict - The Society is officially listed as an organisation of the Catholic Church, in the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires (the fruit of a relationship begun under Cardinal Bergoglio, now ripened under his successor); this is a local recognition of Catholicity, not a universal one - though its illogical to say that a group is a recognised part of the Church in one area, but not in another. - Following visits to several SSPX seminaries with Cardinal Brandmuller, Bishop Schneider stated there was "no weighty reason" why the SSPX should not be granted a canonical status (and so be universally recognised) - Pope Francis has recently granted ordinary jurisdiction to the Society to absolve sins during the year of mercy; though of course the Society has always maintained they had emergency jurisdiction under canon law - and, important to note, a lunatic fringe has been purged from the SSPX - namely Bishop Williamson and his "resistance" You probably knew all this already - and so, other than a rubber stamp to draw all of this together, what exactly is missing? And surely all of these factors represent positive developments since the low point of SSPX-Rome relations in the wake of the Econe consecrations? My own feeling is that the Society will ultimately be recognised, without any modification of its own positions. I think progress is slow and measured so as not to "frighten the horses" as it were. I hope this recognition occurs sooner rather than later and I expect it to, God willing, later on during this "year of mercy". Certainly, it would be a rather miserable and mean-spirited end to a "year of mercy" if this did not happen. The SSPX is relatively small in the UK, as it traditional Catholicism in general. But there are encouraging signs - in my own locale (Glasgow area) we are starting to see a few more TLMs crop up in the Dioceses, which can only be a good thing. The inaugural mass of one such initiative recently drew over 200 people, which surpassed all expectations. I know the SSPX has given encouragement and support to Diocesan priests interested in the traditional mass. And earlier this year, a special one-off TLM was held to mark the 400th anniversary of the martyrdom of St John Ogilvie - the organisers expected 20 people, but drew nearly 4 times that. The celebrant - himself a convert - had travelled specially from his parish on the island of Benbecula (Diocese of Argyll and the Isles) and gave such a rousing homily that I almost got up and cheered. (he can also say mass in gaelic, interestingly, though I wouldnt change from latin ) So, I think we have every reason to be positive and optimistic, regarding the SSPX and traditional Catholicism more widely All the best!
|
|