"More Catholic Than the Pope" — New Book Responds to Arguments Raised by Extreme Traditionalists

Envoy Encore Weblog ^ | 07-30-04 | Patrick Madrid

[Patrick Madrid]

Catholic canon lawyer Peter Vere and I have co-authored a new book critiquing the claims and controversies of extreme traditionalism that will come out in September, published by Our Sunday Visitor Publishing.

Written in a popular and accessible style, More Catholic Than the Pope provides a detailed analysis of and response to common arguments raised by extreme traditionalist Catholics (in particular, adherents of the Society of St. Pius X) against the Second Vatican Council, Pope John Paul II, the fact that the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre committed a schismatic act by illicitly ordaining four bishops in 1988, and more. Chapters include a history of the SSPX, a background on the controversy between the SSPX and the so-called "Conciliar Church," and answers to several standard canon-law and historical arguments often raised by extreme traditionalists.

Our hope is that, by God's grace, the evidence presented in this new 224-page book will inform, encourage, and strengthen Catholics who have been shaken or confused by the misguided arguments raised against the Catholic Church by some extreme traditionalists and, with regard to those who have adopted a schismatic mindset, that this book will help them recognize the errors of extreme traditionalist groups, help them to see why they should abandon those errors, and help them come home to the Catholic Church.

Additional details on More Catholic Than the Pope will be available soon at Envoy Encore weblog.

[ninenot]

I would find it odd if someone suggested the best way to counteract the idea that there was an anti-Catholic secret society conspiracy to suppress the Tridentine Latin Mass is to continue to suppress it.

What does logic have to do with conspiracy theories?

It's a given: whether you are for or against the Old Rite, you, too, can be in the conspiracy.

Have a Mason jar in your house?

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

No idea what your point is. What does logic have to do with conspiracy theories?

Theories may be interesting or entertaining. History is replete with conspiracy FACTS. I follow Leo XIII on this.

The Jesuit university where I spent my career had anti-Catholic secret society members on the faculty!

[saradippity]

Why does anyone need your advice on how to play dumb little games in order to preserve what the wreckers of the liturgy and the Deposit of Faith are looking to destroy?

Let me have a stab at answering:

Because the only two things that are unchanging are God and human nature.

Because God's God and we're not.

Because technology has made much information available that is far beyond the capacity of man to understand most of it.

Because there is only one Truth and it is contained in Revelation but is also discoverable through reaason or science,but it will be the same.

Because words and languages are imperfect purveyors of Truth.

Because Faith is necessary to to fulfill God's plan for us.

Because reason pursues Truth through science and science will increasingly confront God;however,man with his human nature will often try to claim ownership of the Truth he discovers.

Because God's plan for us is for us to know,love and serve Him in this world so that we may live in heaven with Him forever.

Because God is a loving Father,He wants those of us who have the Faith to help bring everyone home to Him and while we are at it,make the world more beautiful,true and good for as many others as we can.

Because the Catholic Church contains everything necessary to bring all home to the Father.

The above facts and little pieces of Truth commingle,combine,build on and temper one another. But to me,taken in total,make clear that we have an obligation to try to do God's will and we waste time arguing about a lot of points,some that are of little matter,not understood completely and even more important,at this point are not under our control. Because people on this forum have received innumerable gifts from God;that we are Catholic,live in the US, can read and write are just a few of them. The real dumb games are when we stomp on each other rather than deal with the "progressives" who want to wrest control of the Church from God and put it under the control of man from within or the secular world who wants to sieze it from without. Those are the enemies aligned with their friend Satan fromthe other world.

While I think that one group on these threads respects the beauty and integrity of the Tridentine Mass,they do not like to be told that there is no hope unless it is in universal use,nor do they want to have every move that the Pope makes come under microscopic scrutiny. That his words and his actions are denigrated,called into question,ridiculed,derogated, and dismissed is very hurtful to me and harmful to the Church in general.Catholics know that he has not changed the Dogma and Doctrine of the Church,they know he is not changing the teachings of the Church and he is safeguarding the Deposit of Faith. If he emphasizes one aspect of Truth over another in these times,they understand and don't want to reinvent the wheel with the other side all over again.

They know he is not impeccable,they also know Christ gave Peter the Keys and gave him governance(among other responsibilities) of the Church,and the flock.They also accept that they (we) don't know what the Pope knows. We just trust that what Jesus said was true. We also know that the Pope has the ear and guidance of the Holy Ghost.

OTOH,when the radical traditionalists (as they often call themselves) accurately describe a problemm,we should not distract from focusing on it and uniting to solve it,by accusing them of being schismatic or sede vacantists. most of them are not and bristle at being wrongly accused. On their side is the brutality and deceit that was used by prelates in high places to try to extinguisth the Tridentine Mass and the concomitant destruction of the teachings of the church by these same infiltrators and imposters. They have some very cogent and factual points. The biggest difference is that they hold good,holy Catholic prelates responsible for introducing this poisen into the Body of Christ,but we believe that the good Successors of the Apostles were just like we wre,unaware of the enemy who dressed as shepards.That is why we stand with the Pope in trying to drive out the false apostles,who have disguised themselves as Catholics.

One final thought for especially the radical traditiionalists (as they call themselves) In the early 1500's the Pope issued a Papal Bull called Sublimus Deus (or close). He said clearly that taking men's property or using men as propery (slavery) was a terrible sin and was not to happen.It was issued to Bishops all over the world. Who ever heeard of it,as recently as two years ago in some adult ed class provided by Jesuits,I heard the same-o,same-o. "Until after the Second WW the Church remained silent on the sin of slavery." I brought up that particular Bull and it was embarassing to him,the young Jesuit had no idea that such a thing had been promulgated by a Pope.

I use this example to point out to those of you who seem to look to the past for the idyllic days of the Church,you know back when people obeyed the Pope and he acted to implememnt his teachings,to show those times never were. No,we sinners,who never change our basic nature must just go on stumbling and falling and picking ourselves back up,and with Peter,(who God in His Mercy gave us) keep the Barque afloat and on a straight course. God Bless and excuse the sporadic and random incoherence.

[pascendi]

Let me get this straight. I said this:

"It's about suppressed doctrine and the suppression of the kind of liturgy which is pleasing to God. You know this."

And you say "Horsehockey", and then complain about a bunch of wackytracts on pews. Somehow this is supposed to argue the case that the culprits aren't the ones who process us with the suppression of doctrine and proper liturgy practice, no, but it's a couple loose-screwed trads that are ruining everything? Baaaaah!

"If you're subject to that sort of rule, my prayers are with you, and you're going to do LESS time in Purgatory for it."

IF you meant to refer to the rule of bad prelates, then yes, I am subject to them. I would agree with you as to the question of having to be subject to legitimate position and authority in the Church.

But that doesn't mean I have to be gullible enough not to be able to identify my opposition. And when I do identify it, it doesn't mean I have to smooch and pretend like they're ready and willing to assist me in promoting the true aims of Holy Mother Church. Nobody said I had to work with those who work out my demise; in life, I must merely keep the Faith and suffer what is not within my power to remedy. But there's so much more a person does have power to accomplish towards the assistance of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is most clearly suffering in both it's head and it's members.

The aim of the Church is first and always foremost the salvation of souls; that aim is perennially in contradition to with the ends of the world. Anything contrary to these aims demands stiff resistance. These people who offer you hope will hang you out to dry.

[saradippity]

Now that (the post Iam responding to #581)is packed with fact and truth. Only a couple of points that I might need to further discuss and discern.Thanks.

[pascendi]

The Church is the bride of Christ, awaiting the bridegroom Christ. The Church is to remain faithful until the marriage feast.

In so far as any understanding of yours corresponds to the above essential analogy of the Church, then I am in agreement with you, and with you. But in so far as anything violates what it means to be truly faithful to Christ, then I wash my hands of it.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Now that (the post Iam responding to #581)is packed with fact and truth. Only a couple of points that I might need to further discuss and discern.Thanks. 605 posted on 08/04/2004 12:16:46 PM PDT by saradippity

Thanks. Those points are all worth keeping in mind especially among those seeking to promote orthodoxy and correct presentations of Catholicism. It's a shame the kooky and goofy things happen. But they happen in religion as they do in politics, business, the military, sports, etc.

Even those seeking to promote orthodoxy are subject to fallen nature.

[saradippity]

Could you say this in another way,I can't figure it out.

I would find it odd if someone suggested the best way to conteract the idea that there was an anti-Catholic secret society conspiracy to suppress the Tridentine Latin Mass is to continue to suppress it.

Help.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

One of the familiar refrains in complaints about the schismatic groups in the traditionalist movement is that they make claims that Vatican II was part of a conspiracy by anti-Catholic secret societies. That, for instance, the Latin Mass was suppressed as part of an anti-Catholic conspiracy.

The critics of such claims go so far as to imply that there are no anti-Catholic organizations or anti-Catholic conspiracies against the Church. That is entirely untrue just as a matter of historical record and fact. But while liberal modernists make a lot of noise complaining about Latin Mass groups, they continue to try to suppress the Indult Masses and keep people from finding out where they are celebrated. That doesn't exactly quell the conspiracy allegations.

It's simply a fact that there has been a conspiracy or conspiracies to suppress the Latin Mass. How one wants to explain the motivations for that...opinions differ depending upon ideology and how knowledgeable the people are about church affairs. That queers, dissenting liberals, and anti-Catholic types have participated in this is just a fact. That has indeed happened.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

In general, the Ottaviani/Christopher Dawson/Evelyn Waugh position on the Mass was correct. There never was any mandate to eliminate the Tridentine rite entirely. This is a wrong interpretation even just of the documents of Vatican II. Now, how one wants to explain what happened to the Mass in the wake of the council, that's a wild complicated mess.

[pascendi]

Here's the pitfall, though. What's happening is that most people out there are firing on their friends and being cooperative with their enemies.

To posit that our doctrines and liturgy are being suppressed is not really up for debate so much as it is an obvious fact. But what happens is that so many who would want to help the Church are concentrating on the quirks of fallen human nature among their allies, while ignoring the hidden motives behind the accomodating smooth-talk of the very people who are undermining the assets of the Church.

[saradippity]

Thanks for the explanation. It is true and I have thought that myself. I just couldn't figure out who you thought the players were. Now I see and yes,I agree.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

I don't support the vitriolic diatribes that take place between the allegedly "orthodox" defenders of Vatican II and the schismatic traditionalists. There are a number of valid points in the traditionalist movement which are worthy of attention by all Catholics.

But there are just as many "kooky" and "goofy" things going on in the official church under Vatican II and John Paul II and, indeed, among the allegedly "orthodox" champions of this pontificate. Silliness is not limited to the liberal modernists, wacko dissenters, and homosexuals.

[ninenot]

The Jesuit university where I spent my career had anti-Catholic secret society members on the faculty!

You mean the Jesuits?

[ninenot]

I don't have a problem with the contention that secret societies exist which aim to destroy the Church, and some of their members are ranking officials within the Church.

Makes perfect sense, as a matter of fact.

But I have a problem with those who construct a Byzantine complexity-of-conspiracy theory which in the end makes EVERYONE a member of one conspiracy or another.

It gets a little silly, you know?

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

This is within the realm of my empirical observations and experience. Look, when I sat in a room of a top-level adminstrative meeting of a Catholic university and there are inidivuals in that room, some of whom are not even baptized Roman Catholics, flashing secret society hand&finger signs at each, whispering, and giggling, and then in my presence in my office state their objectives to promote a homosexual-friendly agenda throughout the institution I don't need some kooky fringe newsletter from a schismatic group to inform me about secret societies in the Catholic Church causing problems.

I am a layman. And I have never been a member of or associated with schismatic groups.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

sub specie aeternitatis...

[saradippity]

So as long as my understnding corresponds with your definition,everything is A-O.K.,is that what you meant? Earlier on this thread I responded to you quite simply,in post #511 I completed what I thought the Catholic Church was,who was in charge and what it meant. It was probably the fourth post in a series wherein you kind of sarcastically claimed deficits in my understanding,both of what you wanted and of what I provided. Since you didn't respond to the last one I did feel that you agreed,silence is assent. Did you agree or did you not agree? See post #511.

Imagine my surprise when about one hundred posts later,you come up with a definition,which if I agree with,puts us in accord. Well,I say to you, if it says what I said than you and I agree and what's more we are right.. But I read it and was kind of stricken with a quality of "Jesuiticalism" in the statement. My particular concern is with your statement:The Church is to remain faithful until the marriage feast.

I see that statement as enabling anyone to cut off anything certain folks don't/didn't like that the Pope and Magisterium taught,whenever they chose. With a statement like that it would have been easy for illiterate Catholics to reject Scripture when it was collected,affirmed and codified, preferring to be guided by the traditions that had been handed down orally for several hundred years. Certainly some gospels that were not includd had been transmitted to groups of people before the Bible was put together. Maybe some folks like some of the gnostic gospels that could have been making the rounds and were pretty p'o'd about their removal. Maybe some of the included ones had never been heard before,maybe they felt it was too constraining to use what was now the Bible.

So if you would explain what this faithful means with regards this ongoing war of words that goes on,on these threads I would be very happy. Thanks.

[Dominick]

Just because you speak Latin, doesn't make you a Traditionalist, or Catholic.

But we all knew that here, didn't we?

[pro Athanasius]

Yes that is true but the Vatican did little about any of it. Look what is happening at the Fatima Shrine- who is slapping Msgr Guerra's hand??? Don't hold your breath. The enemy is within the walls.