...We also must confess ourselves confused, to say the least, regarding your recent statements about Benedict XVI. It has been said that nobody in the SSPX has a right to refuse if the Pope insists on a canonical accommodation. You yourself have spoken of him in terms of his being our leader in the fight for Tradition:Read the rest here
“But we are not alone in working to defend the Faith … It’s the Pope himself who does it; that’s his job. And if we are called to help the Holy Father, then so be it.” (CNS, May 2012)
May we remind you that this is the very same man (as Cardinal Ratzinger) whom Archbishop Lefebvre felt he could not trust in 1988? That this is the same man who has professed heresies that he has never retracted, as Bishop Tissier de Mallerais has pointed out on several occasions? That in the mind of this same Benedict XVI, the idea ‘defending the Faith’ appears to include speculating about the non-existence of Limbo, about the possible moral probity of contraception when used by the depraved, and that he appears to believe that conversion, baptism or the confession of Christ are not necessary for Jews to be saved?
This is exhibit A for why it is imperative that the SSPX regularize itself with the Roman Church without further delay. The people who signed this are schismatics. And it is the nature of schism that the longer it lasts the harder it is to end. I really and firmly believe that this is the last chance for the SSPX. They either go back now or they might as well just declare themselves their own little true church like our various old calendarist schismatics. As it stands it's very likely that the three bishops will bolt. And I expect them to take a good chunk of the clergy and hard core lay people with them.
2 comments:
As a practical matter I agree with your assessment. But I have to wonder how you come to this conclusion from an Orthodox perspective.
You write The people who signed this are schismatics and so they are; but from an Orthodox point of view, is the Pope any less so? And if they are standing against the Pope in defense of what they believe to be the orthodox faith that they have received, are they not doing what Orthodoxy would call the faithful to do when hierarchs have fallen into heresy?
There seems to be a hierarchy of schism in your mind: Rome is in schism, but those who are in schism from Rome are somehow even more in schism. Speaking as a Lutheran (with deep sympathy with the Orthodox, but a Lutheran still), I disagree. I can't really speak about the SSPX, not knowing their teachings in any detail, but as for us, if we are in schism from Orthodoxy then I don't think we are more in schism than Rome is. If anything, we are less so, to the extent that we have repented of some (though alas, not all) of Rome's errors.
Chris,
I used to be closely associated with the SSPX many years ago (mea culpa mea culpa). And yes there is a hierarchy of schism. In this case I am applying the term more from a catholic (small 'c') perspective, and the Roman Catholic POV. But your point is quite valid. Rome is at the very least in schism from the Church and I suspect most Orthodox would argue that Rome's schism is compounded by heresy.
Post a Comment