Parallels Between the TAC and SSPX
May 12, 2012 8 Comments
Are there? Writes Deborah Gyapong:
The letter reminds me of some of the objections and hardened positions and insistence that Rome repent or change or recognize “we’re already Catholic” etc. that I encountered among those in the Traditional Anglican Communion who have decided to refuse the offer of Anglicanorum coetibus…
Of course the TAC is nothing compared to the SSPX in size and any other Catholic standard. I’m just saying the parallels struck me.
Do give the piece a read here.
About Fr Stephen Smuts
Ms Gyapong stayed in the TAC for a very long time. She was always at liberty simply to ‘convert’ to Rome but waited until Rome came up with something she could find herself at home in. She should learn not to judge other people’s choices in this delicate matter of conscience. I pray that I won’t judge, whichever side of the fence I or other people wind up on.
Just to note, (off base somewhat here) I have gotten a few e-mails and even one snail-mail, from people (both British and American), that like the new Anglican liturgy, used in the now Roman Catholic for the Anglican Ordinariate, over the Roman Catholic liturgy. Indeed the Anglican Liturgy (like The Peoples Anglican Missal, Society of SS. Peter and Paul of London, etc.), with the BCP (1662, with amendments, 1964, 1965, 1968), still affect many Anglicans. One person (in the English Ordinariate) said, they were sure they could never give-up the BCP! This person (a woman btw) said, the Anglican High Church Mass was simply superior! But she is going with Rome for ‘the authority and guidance of the Pope’, her words. Sad people have to choose this kind of thing! Of course I give people like her my support somewhat (i.e. her conscience) though my convictions lie differently.
There is a very important difference between the SSPX and the Anglican Churches. The SSPX put itself into a schismatic position in our lifetime. Anglicans have been in schism for half a millenium.
Thus, I would make a distinction between those living SSPX clerics who made a personal decision to put themselves in conflict with the Church and, worse, encouraged those under their leadership to do the same and those Anglican clerics (and a fortiori their flocks) who bear no personal responsibility whatsover for a schism brought about so long ago.
While all Christans have a duty to work for unity, it seems to me that for someone in the Anglican Church and brough up in that faith, the obligation to take the positive step of reconciliation with the Catholic Church only kicks in at the point where conscience dictates that this is the right thing to do. Only at that point does taking the step become something necessary for salvation.
Of course this problem comes from Vatican II, which Rome has yet to fully “theologically” define! One thing, it surely won’t happen in my lifetime! (I’m 62) I can remember Vatican II in Ireland as a lad and young teen, certainly big changes and mostly for the good. But there still are theological probematic issues, like salvation.. outside of Christ? or a Christological acceptance. To my mind, the greatest weakness of the Council!
I too have some memories of Vatican II since I am somewhat older than our once Catholic Irish Anglican. One of them is the memory of two Irish clerics who came up from the Apostolic Delegation to deliver to an Iraqi friend of mine an invitation to attend the Council as an observer. They spend much time over tea expressing the view that it was not a good idea to celebrate Mass in the vernacular rather than Latin – the ancient language of the Church. My friend pointed out that in his rite (Chaldean), the Aramaic language was still used and that since this was the language used by Our Lord, perhahps Aramaic should be a compulsory subject at Maynooth and other seminaries in the West.
The problem with the SSPX schism does not come from the work of the Council Fathers at Vatican II. There can be no schism without ther presence of disobedience and pride on the part of one or more clerics who think they know better than Holy Mother Church and the person to whom the Keys are entrusted.
Fortunately, it seems that with God’s grace, schisms can be healed even after a half millenium!
@Mourad: I know there are people out there in blog-land that are older than me, but it is good to hear those. I am not so sure I understand your point, at least with my statement about Vatican II?
Fr. Robert – I don’t believe that the Catholic Church’s position was ever “Salvation outside of Christ”! However, you struck a cord here–that perhaps your matter of “Christology” may possibly have something to do with the mass confusion and disruptive nature that the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ loosely translated down to a parochial level. I was a teen then as well and have only come to learn much later in Life that “The Documents of Vatican II” were ‘Interpreted’ very shoddily and even erroneously–especially in Catechesis and Liturgy–to the Faithful by word and deed. I recall (at least here in the U.S.A.) a mass exodus of vocations from diocesan and religious Life (my own sister and brother were products of this). The Lay Faithful then stared at each other in great consternation, consequently a spiraling ‘crisis of Faith’ among them as well. The mooring was loosened and the foundation shaken–from “The Vine”, yielding bad fruit which we are reaping even now, some forty years later. Much of it was a poor attempt at “Ecumenism” but because so much was left open to ‘creative interpretation’, it did NOT reflect what Vatican II was truly about! I think it was Pope Paul VI that said: “the smoke of Satan has entered the Church”. Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict view all of this in hindsight and have/are making brilliant strides to ‘set things right’. An ‘Infallible Proof’ that The Holy Catholic Church will be around…until ‘the last letter of God’s Law is fulfilled’…when Christ will Come Again!
@Margaret: Yes, I too lived thru this time in both Ireland and England. It was the Dutch Catechism in the 60′s and ran into the 70′s (in English), that pressed much of this from Vatican II. But because of this many Roman Catholics have either gone on to other Christian Churches, or sadly some have simply left the faith itself. Also much of this has allowed the divergent sexual problems in the RCC church, with some nuns and priests, themselves! We have seen this “iceburg” also. Myself, I just don’t see any infallibility in the church here! I liked Pope John Paul II myself, and certainly Benedict/Ratzinger, but again ever “infallible” as Popes? Not for me! This is a position I just cannot intellectually or certainly biblically-theologically accept!
I am sure the RCC will be around until the Eschatological-end, but I am not certain myself, that it will be soteriologically centred? Indeed ‘the smoke of Satan’ is in almost every Christian (so-called) genre! We can see the fulfillment of 2 Tim. 3 in the postmodern church, as never before! Btw, for me, the “rock” of Peter was his revelation and faith in Jesus as the Christ…Son of God! (Note, Matt. 16:20)