This is a very good commentary by Serre Verweij for Rorate Caeli—read the whole commentary by pressing the title:
Rome and the Econe Consecrations: a Dispassionate Analysis of What is at Stake
Polarization and Isolation:
What Can Be Expected of the Relationship Between Rome and the SSPX
MONEY BYTE, MY COMMENTS BELOW IT:
Under Leo, Vatican II appears to have been transformed primarily into a question of authority rather than of doctrine. The conflict with the SSPX is over schism, not heresy. The real dispute concerns who has the authority to determine when an emergency situation exists within the Church, and who can be trusted to address it.
Pope Leo has proved considerably firmer regarding authority and hierarchy than many initially expected. He is not despotic in the manner Francis could often be; he follows the law, but he follows it very strictly. The Germans are discovering this, as one project after another is quietly cancelled. Pope Leo does not tolerate public dissent. Whereas Francis would often tolerate de facto heresy among progressives so long as outward submission was maintained, Leo extends somewhat greater latitude to those to the right of the recent Magisterium, as evidenced, for example, by his platforming of Bishop Erik Varden. Yet more than Francis, Leo prizes unity and obedience, which have always been cardinal Augustinian charisms.
There is a certain irony in the conclusion that suggests itself: Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Pius X may ultimately get the last word on Vatican II, on religious liberty, and on dialogue with modernity — while the SSPX as an institution remains permanently isolated. Its positions are likely to become increasingly common within the Church over the coming decades. Its bishops and priests, however, will remain sidelined for having refused to be team players.
My Comments:
The line in the sand that Pope Leo has drawn in terms of the FSSPX disobedience isn’t so much their disagreements with Vatican II as it is with their obstinate decision to ordain new bishops. This was the line in the sand for Saint Pope John Paul II.
What the commentary above makes clear is that it wasn’t so much the FSSPX’s rejection of Vatican II’s on Vatican II and the Church’s dialogue with modernity, as well as the kind of post Vatican II reform of the Mass by Bugnini and approved by St. Pope Paul VI but rather disobeying the pope on the ordination of new bishops.
Perhaps the commentary should have touched upon the fact that for the FSSPX to get permission to ordain new bishops they would have to be more open to all the teachings of Vatican II which are normative even though not infallible.
Through this excommunication of the FSSPX, the pope is warning other bishops and their followers, clergy and laity, who might think they can get away with at least “ordaining” women deacons, not to mention women “priests and deacons” which they won’t; they’ll be excommunicated too.
I would go as far as to say that bishops who approve of formal same sex blessings or whatever they call it as being elevated to that of the “Sacrament of Holy Matrimony” will also face excommunication.
This, of course, it directed more toward Germany and its heretical and schismatic tendencies that they want approved. They are even more anti-Vatican II than the FSSPX, no? The line in the sand for Pope Leo is illicit ordinations and perhaps marriages, both of which would also be invalid.
29 comments:
"... BECAUSE WITH ALL THINGS CATHOLIC IT SHOULDN’T BE EITHER/OR BUT BOTH/AND WHEN WHAT IS DISCUSSED IS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CHURCH..."
Yes, such as the celebration of the Eucharist is both Sacrifice AND Sacred Meal, the altar is both the place of sacrifice AND the table from which we are fed, the priest is both servant AND leader, etc., etc., etc...
Wow! You've come a long way to include in your etc.,etc.,etc., the Ancient Form of the Latin Mass and the Modern Form of the Mass in Latin or the Vernacular. Who knew! Not either/or but both/and! TJM will be very pleased with you.
Father McDonald said..."The line in the sand that Pope Leo has drawn in terms of the FSSPX disobedience isn’t so much their disagreements with Vatican II as it is with their obstinate decision to ordain new bishops."
I do not wish to decouple the excommunications from the SSPX'S act of disobedience in question.
But Pope Leo XIV had emphasized that the Church's disagreement with the SSPX is very much rooted within the Society's war against Vatican II.
Pope Leo XIV comment regarding the SSPX:
“Certainly, division among Christians is always a painful point. But they refuse to accept certain fundamental elements of the Church, starting with several points from the Second Vatican Council."
"...starting with several points from the Second Vatican Council."
=======
Father Davide Pagliarani has made it clear that the SSPX's revolt against God and His True Church is rooted within the Council:
Father Pagliarani:
"It is true that the Council does not only contain errors...the New Mass, ecumenism, the dignity of man and religious freedom. They were the essential elements and the errors that changed the Church.
"They are the centerpiece of the real Council that changed the Catholic Church!
":Everything else in the conciliar documents – and I’m simplifying things a bit – all the quotations from the Church Fathers and the quotes from previous councils are simply the padding to go around the essential central elements..."
"The real Second Vatican Council, it must be rejected. The Catholic Church cannot regenerate herself if it is not rejected."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Pope Leo understands schism. It is the breaking of canon law by disobeying something the pope has ordered of a particular person or group. Schism is a break with the pope, not a break with doctrine—which would be heterodoxy at best and heresy at worst. Don’t mix apples and oranges. BTW, Pope Francis gave the SSPX permission for valid celebrations of the Sacraments of Penance and Holy Matrimony now rescinded. Thus Pope Francis, like Pope Benedict didn’t think the rejection of certain aspects of Vatican II more disciplinary than doctrinal, theology rather than dogma was a big deal.
Nice try, Fr. ALLAN McDonald, but no.
While the sacrifice/meal duality, the altar/table duality, the servant/leader duality are part of the nature of these things and have existed ab initio, the concoction of Pope Benedict, peace be upon him, of two forms of the one Roman rite is novel, never having existed in the history of the Church.
But, do try again...
Considering that it appears that most of the bishops, at least in the West, want female ordination and homosexual unions recognized by the Church could it be that Pope Leo's expectations for them, US and German bishops specifically, is so low that he is more tolerant of their activities than the ultra-orthodox SSPX?
Actual there are several more rites in the Roman Rite—look it up! Sheesh!
Fr. ALLAN McDonald - when you're deep in a hole, stop digging.
The Roman Rite is a rite in and of itself. The Ambrosian Rite is a rite in and of itself. The Hispano-Mozarabic Rite is a rite in and of itself. The Ambrosian and the Hispano-Mozarabic Rites are NOT forms of the Roman Rite. The same is true of the other rites, Dominican, Carthusian, etc., etc., etc.
Serre Verweij, for Rorate Cæli, has provided us with a bleak portrait of "conservatives." (Not surprisingly, Mister Verweij has supplied us also with his standard defamations of Pope Francis.)
Anyway, Mister Verweij claimed that Pope Leo XIV must placate "conservatives," or risk having "conservatives" look unfavorably upon His Holiness.
Should Pope Leo XIV bow to "conservatives," then to said folks the SSPX consecrations "will appear in retrospect to many as premature, impatient, and imprudent."
"If however, he (Pope Leo XIV) disappoints conservatives, many may find themselves returning to sympathy with the SSPX or even joining it."
What must Pope Leo XIV do to ensure support from "conservatives"? Serre Verweij has insisted that Pope Leo XIV must demonstrate...
"that he is not a second Francis — that he is in fact more traditional than John Paul II or Benedict XVI, that he liberalizes the Tridentine Mass and promotes bishops and cardinals of a traditionalist disposition..."
Hmmm...to win support from "conservatives," Pope Leo XIV must distance himself in various ways from Popes Francis, Benedict XVI, as well as Saint John Paul.
"Conservatives," as well as Serre Verweij, will determine whether this or that Cardinal and bishop promoted by Pope Leo XIV possesses a sufficient "traditionalist disposition."
Said folks will render judgment upon Pope Leo XIV to determine whether to remain in his corner.
Is the state of conservatism within the Church as bleak and confused as Serre Verweij has portrayed?
Are "conservatives" so confused that their decisions to side with the Vicar of Christ, or SSPX, depend upon their judgements, rather then their God-commanded obedience to the Bishop of Rome?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Oh my your 1980’s pre-Vatican II Mount is showing— always had a hard time with change and modern thinking like two usages of the one Roman Rite— I know that’s hard for you but therapy can help.
Our two resident trolls add nothing to the debate. Sheesh!
TJM - Were it not for your self-imposed myopia, you'd have recognized Fr. ALLAN McDonald's error regarding the differences between what constitutes a Rite and what constitutes a form of a Rite. His assertion that the Ambrosian and the Hispano-Mozarabic Rites are forms of the Roman Rite is an error.
he SSPX'S act of disobedience in question.
But Pope Leo XIV had emphasized that the Church's disagreement with the SSPX is very much rooted within the Society's war against Vatican II.
Pope Leo XIV has made it clear the SSPX's troubles extended far beyond the Papal mandate issue.
His Holiness has noted the SSPX's refusal "to accept certain fundamental elements of the Church, starting with several points from the Second Vatican Council."
=======
"...starting with several points from the Second Vatican Council."
=======
Father Kavanaugh said..."...the concoction of Pope Benedict, peace be upon him, of two forms of the one Roman rite is novel, never having existed in the history of the Church."
Numerous critics of Summorum Pontificum, even those disposed favorably toward Pope Benedict XVI, viewed his "two usages of the one Roman rite" unprecedented concoction ("lie," according to Peter Kwasniewski) as having contributed greatly to the view that said motu proporio constituted muddle thinking.
Certain folks termed the concoction more charitably as a "legal fiction," or "flawed compromise," that nevertheless had contributed significantly to Summorum Pontificum's failure.
AI Overview:
"Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), argued that Pope Francis's restriction of the traditional Latin Mass was a logical and predictable outcome.
"Rather than viewing it as a sudden shock, the SSPX leadership interpreted the restrictions as the inevitable breakdown of a flawed compromise.
"An Impossible Cohabitation:
"Pagliarani argued that Summorum Pontificum created an artificial "illusion" by placing the Traditional Latin Mass alongside the post-Vatican II Mass (Novus Ordo) as two expressions of the same rite.
"In his view, these two forms represent fundamentally incompatible ecclesiologies."
=======
Again, numerous folks who had good regard for Pope Benedict XVI, as well those who did not, have viewed Summorum Pontificum as a muddled failure.
Conversely, Pope Francis had recognized that said document, while having been hijacked, had represented a gallant effort by Pope Benedict XVI to obtain liturgical peace.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
But that novelty was only to address the novelty suppressing the historic Roman Rite and replacing it with a new concoction.
The Roman Rite historically has had multiple usages, both local and specific to particular religious orders.
You ignore that conservatives have legitimate complaints about the present satus quo. Those complaints should be addressed. Indeed, if they had been addressed 50 years ago there would be no SSPX.
Part 1. With Father McDonald's permission.
I have encountered almost universal rejection of Pope Benedict XVI's claim that the Masses of Popes Saint John XXIII, as well as Saint Paul VI, are "two usages of the one Roman rite."
But here are two articles that recognize Pope Benedict XVI's claim in question as "legal fiction" that nevertheless is legitimate.
New Liturgical Movement:
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2017/07/the-legal-achievement-of-summorum.html
By Gregory DiPippo
"...it is much harder to argue that the EF and OF share an identity. Historically, this is an absolutely anomalous situation; there has never been a case of two Rites or Uses which shared so much and yet were so radically different."
"Because of this, the identity of the two Forms of a single Rite as established by Summorum Pontificum has sometimes been described as a “legal fiction.”
"I submit that this is a wholly appropriate way of describing the situation, that the identity of the two Forms as a single Rite IS a legal fiction, and that this is a good thing.
"A legal fiction is not the same thing as a lie. Adoption, for example, is a legal fiction, which states that in terms of law, this person is the child of that person.
"This is most emphatically not a false statement, even though the adopted child is not the natural offspring of the parent."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Part 2. With Father McDonald's permission.
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2026/03/21/the-polar-unity-of-the-two-forms-of-the-roman-rite/
-- The ‘Polar Unity’ of the Two Forms of the Roman Rite
Saturday, March 21, 2026. Excerpts:
"Pope Benedict XVI...was at pains to insist that these are not two rites but two usages of the same lex orandi.
Benedict’s claim was juridical and pastoral, but its deeper import is theological. The coexistence of the two forms within one rite can be understood as a “polar unity” in the sense articulated by Hans Urs von Balthasar: a living tension of complementary principles whose unity is not the flattening of difference but its orchestration.
"Benedict himself rejected the hermeneutic of rupture that would pit preconciliar and postconciliar liturgy against one another.
"The two forms of the Roman Rite thus stand as a visible sign that tradition is not a museum piece nor a revolutionary program, but a living stream whose depth and breadth can be perceived only by holding together its historical strata.
"To interpret this polarity in a richer theological key, it is helpful to turn to Balthasar’s account of the Marian and Petrine dimensions of the Church.
"For Balthasar, the Church is first Marian before she is Petrine. Mary, in her fiat and her immaculate receptivity, embodies the Church’s contemplative, bridal, and receptive essence.
"Peter, in his confession and commission, embodies the Church’s apostolic, juridical, and governing mission.
"These two dimensions are inseparable; yet they are not identical. The Marian dimension grounds the Petrine; the Petrine serves the Marian.
"If one applies this polarity to the liturgy, the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms may be seen as sacramental embodiments of Marian and Petrine accents within the one Roman Rite.
"The Extraordinary Form, with its hieratic language, ritual density, and pronounced orientation toward transcendence, gives privileged expression to the Marian dimension: receptivity, silence, adoration, and the primacy of divine action.
"The Ordinary Form, especially as envisioned by the Council’s Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, gives heightened visibility to the Petrine dimension: proclamation, pastoral intelligibility, missionary outreach, and the gathered assembly’s audible participation in the apostolic faith.
"Both forms are Marian and Petrine; both are contemplative and apostolic. Yet each manifests a particular accent.
"In the Extraordinary Form, the priest’s orientation ad orientem, his subdued voice in the Canon, and the stability of the ritual gestures place the emphasis unmistakably on the divine initiative. The faithful are drawn into a mystery that precedes them and exceeds them. The silence of the Canon, in particular, is not an absence but a fullness – a sign that the Church receives from Christ what she cannot generate.
"Here the Marian fiat resounds: “Let it be done unto me according to thy word.” The liturgy unfolds as something given, to which the Church consents.
"In the Ordinary Form, by contrast, the expanded lectionary, the vernacular proclamation, and the audible Eucharistic Prayer render explicit the apostolic dimension of the Church’s life.
"The Word is proclaimed abundantly; the homily interprets it for the present; the intercessions articulate the needs of the world. The gathered community responds with acclamations that punctuate the Eucharistic Prayer.
"This visibility and audibility correspond to the Petrine office: to confirm the brethren, to speak the faith in history, to shepherd a concrete people in a concrete time.
"The liturgy becomes manifestly missionary, oriented not only toward the heavenly Jerusalem but toward the evangelization of cultures."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
But given that Vatican II did not define any new doctrine, rejection of elements of Vatican II does not constitute heresy and is not a just cause for exclusion from the life of the Church. This has been the great lie since the council and why Rome has adamantly refused to declare what is the precise theological authority of its various documents. In the meantime, you have priests and bishops publicly rejecting Church teaching who are still in good standing with the Church.
And there are many people who have viewed Summorum Pontificum as a success. If it had any shortcoming it was it did not go far enough in removing the restrictions on the old Mass. Why do you only highlight negative opinions?
Father, once again it must be said that Trad Catholics get the slap-down, whilst Heterodox and Heretical liberals in Germany and elsewhere-being closer to the mindset of Spirit of Vatican 2-get off scot free.Until that changes-Tradition and Orthodoxy will remain persecuted.
The true legal fiction is that the new Mass is the Roman Rite. It is not; it is a new rite that has replaced the Roman Rite. Honesty would acknowledge this.
And THEN there is the: The Society of Saint Pius V (SSPV; Latin: Societas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii Quinti) is a traditionalist Catholic society of priests, formed in 1983, and based in Norwood, Ohio, United States. The society's original headquarters was in Oyster Bay Cove, New York. The society was formed by a group of priests who broke away from the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) over liturgical issues."
I also notice that the most vocal critics against two form of the Roman Rite say not word against the Zaire rite, the Amazonian rite, the Australian rite, etc. Why is it that it is only the historic Roman rite that these critics object to?
Anthony says, "The Roman Rite historically has had multiple usages,..."
But we're not talking about "usages" here. We're talking about RITES. RITES stand on their own. The Mozarabic Rite is not a "usage" of the Roman Rite and neither are the Ambrosian, Lyonese, or the Bragan.
There is an Anglican usage is a variation of the Roman Rite as is the Dominican usage.
The "two forms of one Roman Rite" is a novel concoction.
Again, that novelty was only introduced to address the novelty of suppressing the Roman Rite and replacing it with something new. If you do not like the novelty of two rites, then let us get rid of both novelties and return to the historic Roman Rite as the sole rite. That would address your concern about novelties, no?
Anthony - The Church tells us that the New Mass is the ordinary form of the Roman Rite. If you disagree.....
It also tells us that there are two forms of the Roman Rite. If you disagree....
Anthony - I never claimed the mass in the form in which you celebrate it is not the Roman Rite. Nor did I claim that the Church - at least Pope Benedict - has not told us there are two forms. I have said that many, including many on the traditionalist side, have said the "One Rite Two Forms," as you seem to be saying as well when you say the New Mass isn't the Roman Rite.
"The true legal fiction is that the new Mass is the Roman Rite. It is not; it is a new rite that has replaced the Roman Rite."
I stand by my statement. The new Mass may be the rite presently used by the Roman Rite understood as a juridical body within the Church, but it is not the Roman Rite understood as a systematic form of the liturgy. This is a pure legalistic fiction. It is a new rite.
Post a Comment