Katholisches.info strives to present those things necessary for internal church discussions which don't officially take place and are in part also not desired. These include the guest comments by Clement Victor Oldendorf, some of which met with strong opposition, while the author felt misunderstood. Most recently, he set out in an essay about the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, "The letter concluded" (Pope Francis) - attempt to overcome barriers of understanding, in the search for ways to counter the modernist innovation by theological reflection. The present article does not have the modernists in its sights, but the Society of St. Pius X. Ultimately, it is Odendorf by his own admission to engage in reasonable debate in all of his contributions to tradition and its orientation in the debate within the Church.
Guest commentary by Victor Clemens Oldendorf
Last Sunday of the Church year, at our view of the world and the end of the eschatological return of Christ. This eschatological orientation is prepared in Advent, in which we relive the expectation of the first coming of the Messiah and celebrate Christmas is in the liturgical calendar of the Novus Ordo, which is also characterized by the displacement of the feast of Christ the King on this Sunday. But the liturgy of the 24th and last Sunday after Pentecost in the traditional Roman Rite clearly shows this character - especially in the Scripture readings.
There is talk of false Christs, which one should not chase into the desert and not in the chambers and of the signs of the times, in which they are recognized. With that the Antichrist becomes the topic and also the question of whether and in what sense he is condensed in a person and if it is not already present and atmospheric - has his precursor - in all trends, and movements. The great exegete Erik Peterson (1890-1960) spoke for that reason of the "eschatological proviso" under which the whole story is already complete and remains with the first coming of Christ.
I heard Holy Mass in a Priory of last Sunday Society of St. Pius X recently. There, too, the preacher dealt, inter alia with these issues.
In addition to what I report below, I'm emphatically not engaging in a criticism of this Father. That's why I won't deliberately reveal his identity and the place where I've heard the sermon. Also, there is general finding that not every preacher a good preacher, yes certainly every preacher can not be a good theologian, is not restricted to the SSPX, and vice versa you meet there, even often, equally successful rhetorical and theological preaching.
FSSP a Forerunner of the Antichrist?
After introductory remarks about the Antichrist and his predecessor suddenly remembered the sudden remark that "the FSSP is unacceptable for the Catholics" because they had accepted the "errors of Vatican II" or at least remain silent. The consequence of that, in the words of the priest, that the Masses of FSSP and those other priests who celebrate it under the provisions of Summorum Pontificum, are "unacceptable for Catholics" remained unspoken to the best of my memory yet was unmistakable.
My basic point is not aimed to even challenge that position. I think you can argue it and justify it. But not so, as in this case. While it is true that there is a theological problem of consciousness in relation to the Second Vatican Council in circles around Summorum Pontificum, for they often only pronounce privately or not at all, and there is no full understanding given as to why the "Old Mass" is favored and what's more, should practically avoid the "New". Nevertheless, the SSPX does not have binding magisterial authority about statements of the Second Vatican Council, which it sees problematic as "errors", which means that it identifies the theological positions of the SSPX with the Catholic faith, ultimately, I am deliberately formulating a provocative alternative identification of the "Lefebvre-follower" and "Catholic." This was never done in this way or supported by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. It is not only to participation in the "New Mass" that is to be rejected, but also at every Mass in the traditional Roman Rite, not celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X.
Why do I run with this rigamarole? Because there is an actual mistake that I notice in parts of the SSPX. Namely, to see the difference that stands between fidelity to the disclosed and traditional Catholic faith and judgment with which it evaluated by this criterion, for example, controversial statements of the Second Vatican Council, or the new liturgy.
Despite Differences of Opinion Equally Faithful
What I want to say for sure is very easily illustrated in 1988 with a flashback. The situation at that time was undoubtedly as complicated and confused as it was unmanageable. Thus it was come to a conclusion without a doubt that one was entitled or even obliged to consecrate bishops, but just as convinced this is not to be allowed, without the consent of John Paul II. Both convictions included in my opinion, does not exclude that both supporters of the consecrations, as well as those who believed they had to distance himself from it, in spite of the disagreement, were equally Catholic and remained faithful.
Similarly, it is my concern with the appreciation of religious freedom by the SSPX and its connection with a certain political theories or political ends, that are not presupposed theologically to underlie this position, which I believe it is by no means incompatible with the Catholic faith to take this position, but the SSPX can not also claim or demand (especially not necessarily prove) that one must share this vision, to be considered a faithful traditional Catholic.There have always been different positions in the Church on details and in particular with practical assessments of theological and pastoral problems on the basis of common unity in orthodoxy. If one does not see or bears with this, he succumbs to an illusion or fiction.
"Not even the Son", "but in the last 80 years"
When I come back to the sermon, which has pushed me to these considerations, it is fairly harmless when compared with this fundamental error, because the preacher, although related to Matt 25:13, where it is noted that we have neither the day nor the hour of the Second Coming know Christ, but three times he emphatically said, "in the last eighty years." What you have to grin admit is that it speaks for someone to announce the date of the Last Judgment, for a certain shrewdness to choose such a time: With the exception of infants who did not follow the sermon with understanding, virtually none of the listeners can verify the accuracy of this statement, nor refute it.
The view of the preacher on the Advent let him weave the proper admonition to commit this period as a time of collection and seclusion. He exhorted them to give up television and recommended obviously seriously, best to "rip out that plug". Whoever does not own pliers, can ask the preacher.
Not Autonomous, but Responsible
The very negative attitude of Society to television seems to me to be such a practical example where catholicity is not decided. It's also not that the believer, so to speak, is entirely self-determined, without distinction to consume all, or may, without asking for measures of value, but in this particular case, the values must be taken into account and act responsibly. The principle position which expects a traditional Catholic to refrain entirely from television, is followed by a bit of convincing logic, which would insist that one can not read anything, because there are bad books.
Text: Victor Clemens Oldendorf
Link to Katholisches...
Link to Katholisches...