+
JMJ
So, CMTV has now published Bishop Schneider's "clarifications". What is lacking is the questions that were presented to Bishp Schneider.
Unfortunately, CMTV is attempting to spin this by not asking specific questions such as "is the SSPX in formal schism), making assumptions about the SSPX position and the comments provided by various supporters of the SSPX who exerted the energy to comment on CMTV's site.
Here's a link to the original interview, my previous post in the topic and CMTV's immune response to the interpretations of the Bishop Schneider's words.
Now what did the SSPX officially state with regards to Bishop Schneider's visits?
Auxiliary Bishop Schneider has affirmed the SSPX thinks with the Church's mind. Hence, there should be no serious reason for denying the priestly society full canonical recognition.(sspx.org)That seems to be pretty clear and concise. The rest of the post on SSPX.org is simply a quote of the remainder of the interview.
Nothing earth shattering there eh?
So now, what is the problem?
I guess some people implied that the SSPX is not in schism and that CMTV will have to eat their respective hats / mantillas when the SSPX is regularized 'as they are'. This of course goes against the CMTV narrative and their interpretation of the phrase 'not full communion'.
Now I've already gone through and demonstrated that, when asked a very specific question as to whether or not the SSPX et al are in formal schism, the CDF simply falls back to the statement 'not in full communion'. This did not specifically answer the question - so one cannot state that the SSPX et al are in a state of schism because if it was then the CDF would have clearly made that statement.
Now here's the 'clarification' straight from CMTV's site with my comments and observations.
CMTV: DETROIT, August 14, 2015 (ChurchMilitant.com) - Bishop Athanasius Schneider is urging caution on the part of those jumping to conclusions about his recent comments about the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), a schismatic [Tradical: As noted earlier, CMTV is assuming that the moniker 'not in full communion' is code for schismatic. They are also ignoring the statements made by those bishops who were competent in stating that the situation is not precisely one of schism. ] group whose priests are suspended a divinis and exercise no legitimate ministry in the Church according to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. [Tradical: No problem here, they can only offer the sacraments in a situation of necessity - which following the continual diatribes issued by CMTV appears to be the case.]
In a wide-ranging interview last week, His Excellency made brief comments in response to a question about the SSPX. Those sympathetic to the Society ran with the comments and inflated their significance, assigning to them a far greater certainty than Bishop Schnieder intended. [Tradical: It would have been nice if CMTV had given a summary of the 'inflated significance'. Frankly, accepting them (SSPX) as they are is pretty significant.]In exclusive communications with ChurchMilitant.com, His Excellency states:
Bishop Schneider: I have not said that there are no reasons which would hinder a canonical recognition of the SSPX, but I said more cautiously, "To my knowledge there are no weighty reasons ... ." [Tradical: This is what the SSPX noted ...]
Bishop Schneider: I have not said that the current canonical situation of the SSPX is OK. The contrary, because of ... their uncanonical status it is necessary that they receive the recognition from the Holy See. ... [Tradical: The SSPX has never stated that they have a 'canonical' status per se. They state that their status was illegally withdrawn because of their adherence to the Teachings of the Church. Something that I suppose CMTV (Michael Voris?) would have a problem understanding that some would actually see an illegal suppression of the SSPX as being an attack on the Faith. I know that CMTV will cite the FFI and I would counter that they need to see the situation from the perspective of the SSPX in 1974, 1988, 2000, 2012. Either the SSPX is right about their understanding of pre-conciliar church teaching or they are not. If they aren't that creates a problem because all of their positions are based solidly upon the understanding of the Church that existed PRE-COUNCIL. ]
Bishop Schneider: I never said that I support the positions of the SSPX about Vatican II. ... [Tradical: I never got that from his interview either ...]
Bishop Schneider: Of course, the SPPX has to make their critics [sic] with more respect towards the supreme authority of the Church and has to avoid incorrect and exaggerated expressions and judgements. One has to act with the principle veritatem facientes in caritate (to defend the truth with love). This I often told to the representatives of the SSPX. [Tradical: A little hard when you're not treated with love. Simply put the SSPX is where it is canonically because it did what CMTV won't do: be obedient to pre-conciliar magisterium to the point of realizing that it would be false obedience to obey an order from the Pope (read: consecrations etc) and doing what they see as necessary to maintain that loyalty to the teaching of the Church. If the Pope is being disloyal to the pre-conciliar magisterium - then only a modernist will go along with the 'new program'. ]
Bishop Schneider: One has to have enough intellectual honesty and objectivity as to admit that the SSPX makes some theological criticism of some not strictly dogmatic affirmations in the texts of Vatican II and of some postconciliar documents, which have to be taken seriously. Unfortunately their criticism lacks sometimes the due respectful form. [Tradical: See above ]
CMTV: Those statements can hardly be construed as gushing support for the SSPX as his earlier interview had been portrayed. Bishop Schnieder sees the current situation as extremely lamentable and greatly desires that the SSPX come back into communion with the Church, as all faithful Catholics do. [Tradical: Now this is interesting. I don't see this in either the original interview or this 'clarification.]
CMTV: When ChurchMilitant.com inquired of His Excellency about his alleged sympathy for the SSPX and their concerns (many of which are legitimate) being used to portray him as a backer of their current status, he responded, "Regarding the different commentaries of my words about the SSPX I have sent you already my clarifications and the words of my interview have to be red [sic] carefully and in a fair manner. I am really not so much anxious about what people speak about me. All my public pronouncements are transparent and can be red [sic]. Sometimes we have to tolerate or to suffer calumnies in order to be closer to the eternity and to loose [sic] human fear." [Tradical: I didn't see that the SSPX call him sympathetic ... see above ... others may see a prelate with whom they can relate (unlike Cardinal Kasper et al) ]
CMTV: In a recent official video posted by the SSPX, the organization said that Catholics should never attend the Novus Ordo Masses except for rare exceptions, characterizing it as "an offense against God." The SSPX goes so far as to say Catholics have no duty to fulfill their Sunday obligation at a Novus Ordo Mass, even if it is the only option available. "In such cases," the SSPX suggests, "the Church recommends the faithful to sanctify Sunday by dedicating a time for prayer, alone or in the family: One could read the Mass of the day, pray the Rosary, and make a spiritual communion."[Tradical: Let's put this in a little perspective. A. Communion in the Hand results in sacrilegious treatment of the Eucharist. B. This is prevalent at practically all Novus Ordo Masses. C. So following the logic above Catholics must participate at a Mass where sacrilege is on going? Right - get me a tin foil hat.]
CMTV: The Church has always taught that failing to fulfill one's Sunday obligation when options are available is a mortal sin. The video above expresses the official position of the SSPX as it has been released on their website by the U.S.A. District.[Tradical: This is one of their opinions, that the attendance at the Novus Ordo is a danger to the faith because of the deficits of the Novus Ordo as promulgated. This is even more extreme in how the Novus Ordo is practiced. We believe this so strongly that we will drive hours to get to a Traditional Tridentine Mass. Personally, I know how my children would react when they saw snippets of 'approved' Novus Ordo Masses. Horror and confusion. ]
CMTV: The issue with SSPX sympathizers who support schism and their attempts to portray Bp. Schnieder as supportive of their cause is that it would place His Excellency at odds with Rome itself and with the Magisterium — a claim he totally rejects. [Tradical: Here we have a re-affirmation of the CMTV mantra that the SSPX is in schism. Heck they're just NIFC, get over it.]
CMTV: Bishop Schnieder's comments — as he himself says — are his own subjective evaluations, and must be read cautiously. He is walking a tightrope, trying to keep a balance between the two opposing camps. He desires reunion. He understands there are problems of confusion with some of the documents of Vatican II and desires those confusions to be clarified. He has great sympathy for the SSPX in many of their observations about problems in the Church and the liturgy, as do many faithful Catholics.[Tradical: This seems to be the editorial opinion of CMTV.]
CMTV: By his own admission, however, he does not support the full extent of their claims regarding Vatican II — that there are heresies present in the documents. [Tradical: This is not what the SSPX claims. They claim that there are doctrinal ruptures in the documents. Period. I think that Michael is mixing the SSPX with the Sedevacantists.] He does not support their position that the Novus Ordo Mass is "an offense against God," and that Catholics may refuse to fulfill their Sunday obligation [Tradical: Odd, I didn't see that in the clarification. Of course this is just a different topic that does nothing to remove the 'accept them as they are ' statement.] by staying home instead of attending a Novus Ordo Mass, as the SSPX claims. He does not support what he calls "the exaggerated expressions and judgments" of the Society. He does not support their dismissiveness and disrespect toward the supreme authority of the Church. [Tradical: Here was have an imposition of Michael's (or author) perspective. The editor is making a judgement that the SSPX demonstrates dismissiveness and disrespectful towards the Pope. Although, following the Second Vatican Council, the College of Bishops, along with the Pope also are a 'Supreme Authority' of the Church - so Michael needs to stop his dismissive and disrespectful behavior towards the Princes of the Church (Bishops)]
CMTV: He admits, as do many Catholics not supportive of schism [Tradical: You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means ...], that there are serious problems in the Church, some emanating from an incorrect reading of Vatican II documents[Tradical: Yes, I know Bishop Schneider called for a Syllabus of Errors on the interpretations of V2. I agree with the SSPX that it goes a little further to a rupture.], and these problems need to be addressed — and when the SSPX speaks of this in a limited fashion[Tradical: That is cute. What has CMTV done to speak about the real issues aside from crying about the bishops etc. All they do is point out the problems and don't get to the root of the problem. The SSPX has grown well past the stage of grief that Michael et al appear to be stuck in], it raises legitimate concerns.
CMTV: The problem is that the SSPX goes over the line oftentimes, as Pope Benedict said. The Supreme Pontiff explicitly noted that the matters of concern for the SSPX are doctrinal, and until these are resolved, all SSPX clergy remain suspended a divinis, and they lack any legitimate exercise of ministry within the Church.[Tradical: I guess CMTV doesn't go over the line? For some reason they feel that it is perfectly permissible to attack the local bishops who have jurisdiction in their dioceses, but watch out for the SSPX.]
CMTV: For SSPX supporters to portray Bishop Schnieder as an unquestioning ally is something to which His Excellency objects.[Tradical: Didn't quite see that in the SSPX or the commentary]
Full Text of Bishop Schneider's email:
The full text of Bp. Schneider's initial message to ChurchMilitant.com follows:
Dear Michael Voris, here are some clarifications about the issue of the SSPX:1. I have not said that there are no reasons which would hinder a canonical recognition of the SSPX, but I said more cautiously "To my knowledge there are no weighty reasons".2. I have not said that the current canonical situation of the SSPX is OK. The contrary, because of the their uncanonical status it is necessary that they receive the recognition from the Holy See.3. I said that the SSPX should be received as they are, meanwhile. My thought is this: for pedagogical and pastoral reasons they should be meanwhile accepted as they are, in order to correct by time those things which have to be corrected in the SSPX.4. I never said, that I support the positions of the SSPX about Vatican II. I only said, that there is on both sides, i.e. the Holy See and the SPPX an over-evaluation and overestimation of Vatican II, yet on opposing points of views. The question is the right measure, i.e. we must have an estimation and a good evaluation of Vatican II, but not in an exaggerated manner. We have not to make Vatican II a Council isolated from all the previous Councils or a kind of super-Council.5[Tradical: This is a quote of Cardinal Ratzinger immediately after the consecrations of 1988. ]. This is the tragedy of the history, that in confused times as this is our time, the good forces in the Church, which want to restore the true faith and Divine worship often fight one against the other, to the detriment of the true renewal and to the joy of the enemies outside and inside the Church
[Tradical: Just a little clarification here. Until CMTV decided that it needed to whip the SSPX at every available moment, the FSSP and SSPX had toned down their rhetoric, as with the other Traditional groups. Aside from that it has always been the Sedevacantists or the Liberals who have been attacking the SSPX ... until now. ].6. Of course, the SPPX has to make their critics with more respect towards the supreme authority of the Church and has to avoid incorrect and exaggerated expressions and judgements. One has to act with the principle "veritatem facientes in caritate" (to defend the truth with love). This I often told to the representatives of the SSPX.7[Tradical: This appears to have been the approach over the last decade to put their objections forward in a rational manner. However, the SSPX is rarely if every treated rationally. See the Pope's own words to the Bishops when he lifted the excommunications.]. One has to have enough intellectual honesty and objectivity as to admit that the SSPX makes some theological criticism of some not strictly dogmatic affirmations in the texts of Vatican II and of some postconciliar documents, which have to be taken seriously[Tradical: This is good]. Unfortunately their criticism lacks sometimes the due respectful form. Nevertheless, some theological objections of the SSPX can be a constructive contribution for a more mature theological explication of certain themes, as for example the collegiality, religious liberty, the liturgical reform8. Each true catholic should only be glad and thank God, when the SSPX with all their priests and Catholic families, from which the majority are faithful Catholics, would be recognized by the Holy See[Tradical: Interesting - I guess CMTV didn't ask if Bishop Schneider believed the SSPX et al to be in formal schism.], so that there would be a new considerable force for a renewal of the Church according to the mind of the Saints, of our forefathers and of the true intention of Pope John XXIII, the intention which is demonstrated in his speeches and especially in the document drafts (schemata) which this Pope ordered to prepare and which he personally approved.9. The current situation of the Church is similar to that of the Arian Crisis in the 4.thcentury: there is a naval battle in the night, where the enemies of the Church attack vehemently the big ship of the Church, whereas in the same time little ships of several true Catholic groups attacks one another,[Tradical: At this point, the only ones that I see doing the attacking is CMTV] instead of make a common defense against the enemies.I give you the permission to use these my clarifications and to spread them. God bless you, + Athanasius Schneider
I think that the last point is really the take home message:
Who is attacking whom?
The SSPX to my knowledge has never been the instigator of these attacks involving CMTV.
So how about we just be adults and stop the name calling please, we have real work to do.
P^3
PS. Ultimately, Michael neglected to ask the important 'elephant in the room question' does Bishop Schneider believe that the SSPX is in a state of formal schism??? Ah for the missed opportunity.
Comments
Post a Comment