Ratzinger on SSPX schism

[Era Might]

I came across some some interesting comments from then-Cardinal Ratzinger, given soon after the schism of Marcel Lefebvre. You can read it in its entirety here:

[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3032"]http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3032[/url]

First, of particular importance to the recent discussions here on Phatmass, Ratzinger notes that the rupture between the SSPX and the Holy See was, in fact, a schism:

[quote]If once again we succeed in pointing out and living the fullness of the Catholic religion with regard to these points, we may hope that [b]the schism of Lefebvre[/b] will not be of long duration. [/quote]

But he also presents a balanced look at schism in general:

[quote]One of the basic discoveries of the theology of ecumenism is that schisms can take place only when certain truths and certain values of the Christian faith are no longer lived and loved within the Church. The truth which is marginalized becomes autonomous, remains detached from the whole of the ecclesiastical structure, and a new movement then forms itself around it. We must reflect on this fact: that a large number of Catholics, far beyond the narrow circle of the Fraternity of Lefebvre, see this man as a guide, in some sense, or at least as a useful ally. It will not do to attribute everything to political motives, to nostalgia, or to cultural factors of minor importance. These causes are not capable of explaining the attraction which is felt even by the young, and especially by the young, who come from many quite different nations, and who are surrounded by completely distinct political and cultural realities. Indeed they show what is from any point of view a restricted and one-sided outlook; but there is no doubt whatever that a phenomenon of this sort would be inconceivable unless there were good elements at work here, which in general do not find sufficient opportunity to live within the Church of today.[/quote]

I think this explains his great openness to dialogue. He doesn't deny that the Society's schism (or any schism, for that matter) is rooted in certain ecclesial imperfections. The Church is always willing to reform herself where appropriate, and bend over backwards to accomodate everyone within the bounds of legitimate orthodoxy.

[Paphnutius]

Perhaps this would have been best posted in the already made thread concerning SSPX?

[Era Might]

I think it deserves its own thread.

The other thread was technically about Pete Vere's journey out of the SSPX.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 21 2006, 08:20 PM']The other thread was technically about Pete Vere's journey out of the SSPX.
[right][snapback]894331[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
True..it was just my quasi-OCD kicking in that wanted things organized.

[Cam42]

Pope Benedict's clarity is amazing.

[Resurrexi]

you know what, it doesnt matter if the SSPX are or are not currently in schism because they will be united with Rome on 23 March.

[Aloysius]

one can only hope.

[brendan1104]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 21 2006, 11:03 PM']you know what, it doesnt matter if the SSPX are or are not currently in schism because they will be united with Rome on 23 March.
[right][snapback]894384[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That's just another rumor that Bishop Fellay denied earlier this afternoon on the phone. Sorry.

Edited February 22, 2006 by brendan1104

[Era Might]

[quote name='brendan1104' date='Feb 21 2006, 11:20 PM']That's just another rumor that Bishop Fellay denied earlier this afternoon on the phone. Sorry.
[right][snapback]894402[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, he has said so publicly as well. I can't find the interview, but he says something to the effect of "Maybe there could be a reunion - in a decade".

I think all this hubbub is just smoke and no fire. The Holy Father certainly would like to heal the schism, for sure. But the idea that everything is imminent is just wishful thinking, IMHO.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 21 2006, 08:48 PM']Pope Benedict's clarity is amazing.
[right][snapback]894361[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I competely agree. I thank God for Pope Benedict, his clarity is probably one of the reasons The Holy Spirit guided the cardinals to vote for His Holiness.

[3n1]

Does anybody know what the the realistic demands of the SSPX? Clearly, we are not going to have all masses said in the Tridentine rite again, so what exactly are they asking for?

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='3n1' date='Feb 21 2006, 11:37 PM']Does anybody know what the the realistic demands of the SSPX? Clearly, we are not going to have all masses said in the Tridentine rite again, so what exactly are they asking for?
[right][snapback]894500[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

realistic has nothing to do with it. The Catholic Church does not meet 'demands'.

[Era Might]

Yah, that's part of the problem. They're not "asking" for anything. They're demanding.

If there is to be a reconciliation, there will have to be a willingness to accept the final judgement of the Church. This was part of the original agreement between Lefebvre and the Holy See, which he backed out on. The Church is willing to discuss the Second Vatican Council, but ultimately, the SSPX must obey her decisions.

[cmotherofpirl]

The flea does not dictate to the dog its demands.

[OLAM Dad]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Feb 22 2006, 07:26 AM']The flea does not dictate to the dog its demands.
[right][snapback]894612[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No, but the dog sure would like to get rid of the flea.

The Church should not feel obliged to cow to the demands of the Lefebvrites, true. Nonetheless, it already has, on its own, to some extent. The then Cardinal Ratzinger admits as much;
[quote]In recent months we have put a lot of work into the case of Lefebvre with the sincere intention of creating for his movement a space within the Church that would be sufficient for it to live.[/quote]

Although [i]most [/i]of us agree that what Lefebvre did was absolutely wrong, we can't at the same time ignore the obvious negative impacts that Vatican II had on the Church. We also can't ignore the fact that Lefebvre's actions have draw added attention to these problems and in some cases resulted in positive reform.

This is interesting, thanks for posting it.

[cmotherofpirl]

Evil does not result in good. By leading possibly very faithful Catholics astray and draining off fervant but misguided people, the Lefebvrites have damaged the Body of Christ.

[Brother Adam]

[quote]Although [i]most [/i]of us agree that what Lefebvre did was absolutely wrong, we can't at the same time ignore the obvious negative impacts that Vatican II had on the Church.  We also can't ignore the fact that Lefebvre's actions have draw added attention to these problems and in some cases resulted in positive reform.
[/quote]

Vatican II has not had a 'negative' impact on the Church. The Second Vatican Council is an official ecumencial council of the Catholic Church. It now lives only as 16 documents that are cut in stone and will live on as one of teh offical councils of the Church until the end of time. It is the excessive lack of catechesis that caused a negative impact after the council was over. The council is accomplishing what it set out to accomplish, slowly, over time, as all councils operatre.

[Ora et Labora]

What is said to happen on March 23??

[Ora et Labora]

Could y'all answer my question...whats supposed to happen March 23..?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Ora et Labora' date='Feb 24 2006, 08:00 PM']Could y'all answer my question...whats supposed to happen March 23..?
[right][snapback]897046[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Pope has called all the Cardinals to Rome to pray with him.

March 24th is the Consistory, where the new Cardinals will formally become Cardinals.