Another new article appeared on the SSPX.org website titled "What Comes First: Obedience or Fidelity" by Brian McCall.
It is an exercise in convergence and bridge-building between two formerly adversarial positions (with the SSPX moving towards the FSSP, rather than vice-versa).
While McCall portrays the FSSP/indult groups as "rigid" for their refusal to allow their laity to attend SSPX Masses, he speaks approvingly of the SSPX's "more nuanced" approach with regard to SSPXers attending indult Masses.
McCall cites the official SSPX position: "We think it is not advisable to regularly attend the “extraordinary form” offered by the diocese or under the aegis of the Ecclesia Dei Commission."
Already, there are two distinct problems with this position:
1) The SSPX now refers to the true Mass as the "extraordinary form?"
2) The SSPX apparently now thinks it is OK to occassionally attend indult Masses?
The first of these issues represents a major concession to the Conciliarists: The implicit acceptance of the Novus Ordo Missae as the normative form of Mass in the Latin Rite. It has been dealt with sufficiently elsewhere.
The second error is more subtle, and deserves some attention, since it represents an incremental loss of opposition to indult attendance (and therefore reflects a change in mindset in the SSPX leadership):
The issue of SSPXers attending indult Masses has been "downgraded" from a prohibition on indult attendance (save cases of necessity), to merely being "unadvisable to regularly attend."
Certainly, this is a serious dilution of the traditional SSPX position regarding attending FSSP Masses (the reasons for which can still be found on the SSPX.org website).
Here is a sample from the SSPX.org archives of what the SSPX
used to teach about attending FSSP Masses:
"They are therefore Conciliar Catholics and not traditional Catholics.
This being so, attending their Mass is:
Accepting the compromise on which they are based;
Accepting the direction taken by the Conciliar Church and the consequent destruction of the Catholic Faith and practices, and
Accepting, in particular, the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the Novus Ordo Missae and Vatican II.
That is why a Catholic ought not to attend their Masses."
(
http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q13_fraternity_of_st_peter.htm)
Now I have not regularly read The Remnant in years, but I seem to remember Brian McCall as a columnist for that indultarian flagship.
Perhaps Mr. McCall has become an SSPXer. Or perhaps he simply senses the SSPX is moving in the direction of The Remnant, and desires to encourage that slide.
But with his championing of this allegedly "prudent and nuanced" position of the neo-SSPX, I wonder if he would have crossed the threshold of an SSPX chapel, had it maintained the militancy which has subsided in so many areas since the branding campaign ceased fire on Vatican II?
And if the SSPX leadership would point to that example as proving their point about the benefits of the branding campaign (i.e., it will attract more people to tradition), one must be allowed to question whether the gain in numbers offsets the dilution in tradition. As Archbishop Lefebvre observed, it may open tradition to a wider apostolate, yes, but one formed in ambiguity which will end by destroying us.
But I digress...
Mr. McCall recounts some of the traditional SSPX objections to attending indult Masses, but conveniently leaves out the "grand-daddy" of all objections: The nagging doubt surrounding the new rite of episcopal consecration (which obviously causes a doubt regarding the priestly ordinations in the FSSP and other indult groups).
I do not profess to know with certainty (or even probability) whether those consecrations/ordinations are valid or invalid.
But it is alarming to me that the SSPX no longer seems to take the matter seriously, and one cannot help wondering whether the silence on this point in recent years (along with the refusal to require per se conditional ordinations for all priests serving SSPX chapels) is simply because Rome looks upon such ordinations disapprovingly.
Interestingly enough, the second to last paragraph of McCall's article is a total condemnation of the branding campaign, though he seems unaware of it. He points out the dangers of submerging yourself in an environment in which long periods of time pass without ever hearing about the errors of Vatican II, and the loss of faith (or increased potential to lose the faith) such an environment fosters.
In essence, the entire tenor of the article is to praise the flexibility and lack of rigidity in the SSPX, and condemn the rigidity of the FSSP.
But let me ask: Given those two conditions, which of the two is more likely to move in the direction of the other? The one that is rigid and intransigent, or the one who "takes a more nuanced approach?"
The appearance of a congratulatory article on the SSPX Polish District website regarding priestly ordinations for the various PCED communities last summer ought to answer that question for you (It can still be viewed at TheRecusant.org).
Do not be convinced that the branding campaign is simply a matter of style or approach. Such a thing would have been unthinkable 10 years ago. And now, apparently we are lightening our opposition to attending FSSP Masses.
Like liberalism, the branding campaign is a lense from which all things are viewed and affected. Pope John XXIII tried it in 1962, "opening the windows" of the Church, and condemning the "prophets of doom," preferring a positive approach that would be more relevent and attractive in the modern world.
But if past history is the best predicter of future performance, we know how this will end: Campos.
In conclusion, I will end with Mr. McCall's words which, while not his intention, spell out precisely why the branding campaign is a threat to the preservation of the faith:
"The danger that this silence brings is a risk of erosion of fidelity to the Faith. We are creatures of habits. Habits build virtues or vices. To continually accept through silence offenses against the Faith leads to a habit of becoming accustomed to them. We lose the sensitivity for the honor of God and His truth that should motivate our charity. Obviously attending a single Mass where a sermon does not touch on such matters will not destroy one’s faith. Obviously Society priests do not explain such matters every week or even regularly each month. Yet, a prolonged period of silence and covering scandal with a veil will have its corrosive effect. That which shocked our sense of the faith becomes routine because our sensitivity is not enforced with prudential warning. The danger is not of one Mass but of a habit. Scandals such as Assisi need not be discussed at every moment. Each thing has its proper season. Yet, to hide the danger to the Faith prevents defenses against it."
Pax tecuм,
Sean Johnson
Topic: New SSPX.org Article on FSSP Mass Attendance: (Read 6955 times)