Jesuitical Fr. James Martin, SJ sees the Church as an inclusive country club where there is no judgment on the sinner, only therapeutic acceptance without codicils. Todas, todas, todas is not accompanied by repent, repent, repent! Thus, using the twisted logic and ideology of Jesuitical Father James Martin, SJ, todas, todas, todas, as he understands it, should be applied to the FSSPX: Come as you are, we embrace you and your sins and your vision of the Catholic Church and her liturgical life.
It is safe to assume that the FSSPX more than likely will not be fully reconciled to the Church if they have to accept all of Vatican II in an “uncritical” way or in its so-called “spirit.” I think the three issues that concern them the most are the documents of Religious Liberty and Ecumenism, not Christian religions and with the world.
They disagree with Bugnini’s version of implementing Sacrosanctum Concilium. More than likely, Lefebrev would have been happy with the 1964/65 Roman Missal but Bugnini destroyed the good will of those who were open to what Sacrasanctum Concilium actually requested verses what Bugnini shoved down the throat of Pope Paul VI and subsequently the entire Latin Rite.
This is from AI and would be great for Pope Leo XIV to embrace as a hermeneutic of outreach to those who dislike how Vatican II was implemented:
but he distinguished between binding dogmatic teachings and pastoral directives, allowing for criticism of the latter's implementation. He emphasized a "hermeneutic of reform" in continuity with tradition, opposing a "hermeneutic of rupture" or a loose "spirit of Vatican II".
- Hermeneutic of Reform: Benedict argued that Vatican II should be interpreted in light of the Church’s Tradition, rather than as a break from the past.
- Criticism Allowed: He established that faithful Catholics could, in good conscience, criticize certain pastoral applications or "limitations" of the council, while accepting the essential doctrinal teachings.
- The "Spirit" vs. The Texts: Benedict criticized the "bad interpretation" or the so-called "spirit of the Council," which he felt created a false, revolutionary narrative that ignored the actual documents.
- Necessity of the Council: Despite his critiques of its implementation, he consistently maintained that the council itself was necessary and meaningful.
5 comments:
The sticking point for me is this (as someone who doesn't go to the SSPX, but wishes he could), will the Pope come out and admit that TC was a mistake. As a younger millennial who came into the Church aged 19 in 2008 I don't carry the baggage of the attempts to suborn the Church's doctrine in the 70s through 90s.
What I do want first and foremost is the Mass, the ancient Mass which unlike the slop served up in the average NO parish actually nourishes me, I want to be able to assist at it every week on Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation (at the very least).
I don't want the gas-lighting of 'its still Jesus' spouted by those who make out that obedience is the highest virtue, I don't want slop sermons given out by Father Happy Heretic and I don't want to be abused for worshiping as my Ancestors did.
Yes I'd like to back to the liturgy before bugnini got his mitts on it i.e. mid 50s but I'm not greedy.
Spot on!!!
Speaking of Archbishop Lefebvre and his choice of Roman Missals:
His favoring the 1962 A.D. Missal has run into more and more resistance among trads who view the 1962 A.D. edition as the "Bugnini Missal".
Example: Peter Kwasniewski: New Liturgical Movement:
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2022/12/why-1962-must-eventually-perish-case-of.html
-- Why 1962 Must Eventually Perish:
"Such topsy-turvy rubrics and grave omissions point up the feebleness of the editio typica of 1962...1962 is a half-dismantled building waiting for the demolition crew called the Consilium."
"1920 is the safe editio typica from which to begin the restoration; any editio post typicam until about 1948 will present no great difficulties."
=======
Peter Kwasniewski has insisted that Pope Venerable Pius XII inflicted "violence" upon the Roman Liturgy. Said Pope had employed Monsignor Bugnini to ram tainted liturgical reforms down the Latin Church's throat according to Mister Kwasniewski.
Chapter 12 of Peter Kwasniewski's book, The Once and Future Roman Rite, promotes his argument against the 1962 A.D. Roman Missal.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
FSSPX Actualités
https://x.com/FSSPXFR
Official international page of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X.
"It is possible that the Holy See might say to us: “Very well, we authorize you to consecrate bishops, but on condition that you accept two things: first, Vatican II; and second, the New Mass. And then, yes, we will allow you to perform consecrations.”
"How should we respond? It is simple.
"We prefer to die rather than to become modernists. We prefer to die rather than to renounce the integral Catholic faith.
"We prefer to die rather than to replace the Mass of Saint Pius V with the Mass of Paul VI."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
To the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre's opinions are unassailable. He favored the 1962 A.D. Roman Missal.
Therefore, I question whether the SSPX would throw in with such trads as Peter Kwasniewski who have argued against the use of the "Bugnini/Modernist" 1962 A.D. Roman Missal.
But here is an AI Overview look at Peter Kwasniewski's arguments against the supposed Bugnini-tainted 1962 A.D. Roman Missal:
=======
"Peter Kwasniewski argues that the 1962 Roman Missal is not a "safe island" because it contains the seeds of the subsequent liturgical revolution and lacks the fullness of the Roman tradition found in earlier editions.
"...Kwasniewski and other traditionalist scholars highlight several critical issues with it:"
"Kwasniewski contends that the liturgical "devastation" did not begin with Vatican II but with the 1948–1962 reforms under Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII.
"The 1955 Holy Week Reforms: He identifies the redesign of the Holy Week rites as a major rupture that introduced modernistic principles into the liturgy.
Simplified Rubrics:
"The 1960 Code of Rubrics and changes in the 1962 Missal altered the calendar and removed various feasts and traditional elements.
"Kwasniewski argues that viewing the 1962 Missal as a final, untouchable refuge is a mistake because it was always intended by its reformers to be a transitional step toward the Novus Ordo.
"He suggests that accepting the 1962 changes can be seen as validating the same principles (rationalism and pastoralism) that eventually led to the 1969 Missal.
"While he has previously defended the 1962 Missal as a living rite, his later work emphasizes that it must eventually "perish" or be reformed back toward its pre-1948 forms to truly recover what was lost.
"He points to the loss of ancient practices like the Octave of Pentecost, the Vigil of the Epiphany, and specific parts of the Roman Canon that were modified or removed.
"He argues that remaining fixated solely on the 1962 edition can prevent the Church from reconnecting with the deeper, millennial-old tradition that preceded the mid-20th-century "liturgical tinkering".
"Kwasniewski laments the loss of ancient rituals between 1948 and 1962, such as numerous genuflections, signs of the cross, and the traditional vigil of Pentecost."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Post a Comment