Today is an ordinary Saturday in the liturgical cycle, but here in the United States it is also the 4th of July more properly known as Independence Day – a remembrance of the point in time when the colonies declared their independence from England. All this led to what is known in the U.S. as the Revolutionary War – or at the time in England as “the rebellion.”

We’ll eventually get to the readings, but this was an interesting week for the Church. Depending on one’s perspective, this week marked a war of independence or rebellion within the Catholic Church. On Wednesday July 1 the leadership and adherents of the Pius X Society (SPXX) were declared as excommunicated and formally in schism. Technically their actions were latae sententiae. That means an automatic excommunication occurred the very moment a person commits a specific, grave offense against canon law, without the need for a church court or bishop to issue a formal judgment. Some would argue that has been true since 1988 when SPXX consecrated bishops without the required papal mandate as did again on July 1st. Pope Leo simply and formally declared that they were schismatic and had separated themselves from the Catholic Church. 

A summary of the underlying reasons might be simplified as falling into three areas all stemming from the Second Vatican Council.  One might read in other places that the SPXX does not hold that council to be ecumenical or validly called, but such is not the case. During the council, there were approximately 250 bishops who shared Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s concerns and voted together as a block. This is as opposed to the approximately 2,200 voting bishops who did not share his concerns.  For example, on the topic of Religious Liberty 97% of the bishops voted in favor. In the end, almost all of the “traditionalist” block ultimately chose canonical obedience once the council ended. Because Pope Paul VI promulgated the Council approved documents, the vast majority of the traditionalist block accepted the results under papal authority. After the Council only Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer, of the Diocese of Campos, Brazil, publicly stood with Lefebvre and was later served as the co-consecrator alongside Lefebvre during the unauthorized ordination of the four SSPX bishops in 1988. 

Today and back then, the SPXX agree that the Council was validally called, but they hold that certain documents of the Council contain doctrinal errors and object to specific teaching:

• Religious Liberty: Vatican II teaching that individuals possess a right to religious freedom. SPXX argues that contradicts historical church doctrine that “error has no rights” and that states should recognize the Catholic Church as the only true religion.  
• Ecumenism and Interreligious Dialogue: Church’s efforts to build bridges with other Christian denominations and non-Christian religions (such as Judaism). SPXX holds that this implies all religions are equally valid paths to salvation, which dilutes Catholic identity. 
• Collegiality: SPXX critiques the shift toward shared governance between the Pope and the bishops’ conferences, which they argue weakens the traditional, centralized authority of the papacy.

The SSPX only celebrates the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Latin Mass – but that is not a point of contention. They do not celebrate in local languages because they consider the Novo Ordo mass as flawed and weakened.

The readings are taken from the Prophet Amos and the Gospel of Matthew and they seem particularly appropriate for today. When Amos says, “On that day I will raise up the fallen hut of David…” (Am 9:11) he is not promising a return to the golden days of David and Solomon. History cannot simply be rewound. Instead, God promises to fulfill his covenant in a way Israel could never have imagined. Likewise, Jesus says: “New wine is poured into fresh wineskins.” (Mt 9:17)  Jesus does not reject Israel. Nor does Amos promise to restore the past. Both point toward renewal, not nostalgia.

As people we often long for “the way things used to be.” Older folks might long for the days they lived and remembered. Younger folks might long for the days about which they have only heard stories. Either way, God’s promise is rarely: “I’ll take you backward.” His promise is: “I’ll take you forward.”

The temptation for Israel was to dream of another David. The temptation for us is to dream of another “good old days.” But God consistently surprises his people. The Exodus was greater than anyone expected. The return from the Babylonian exile was different than anyone imagined. The Messiah came not as a conquering king but as a suffering servant. The Kingdom arrived not through military victory but through the Cross and Resurrection. God’s future always exceeds our imagination.

Sometimes we ask God to restore what we have lost. We pray for our health to return, for relationships to be repaired, for our parish to become what it once was, for our families to recover happier days. Those are good prayers. But today’s readings gently remind us that God rarely works by simply turning back the clock. Amos speaks of rebuilding, but Jesus speaks of new wine. God is not simply interested in restoring yesterday. He is preparing tomorrow. The question is not whether God is doing something new. The question is whether we are willing to become new wineskins, ready to receive the surprising future he has prepared.

One of the admonitions of St. Francis to his followers concerned the conviction of one person. Francis taught that if one friar was convinced of the movement of the Holy Spirit within him to take action, that was not a signal or permission for him to take that action. The friar was to take the idea, plan, etc. to the fraternity of brothers through whom the Holy Spirit was also active. The friar was to submit himself to the wisdom of the fraternity which was to submit itself to the movement of the Holy Spirit. 

We are called to believe that Christians of good faith and intention will be led forward by the Spirit both in our individual and communal life…and let God surprise us.