The Remnant and Catholic Family News: The Pro-Schism Party

Kevin Tierney ^ | 03/01/2006 | Kevin Tierney

[bornacatholic]

The cat is out of the bag! One could say that in a joint statement authored by both magazines, they were unexpectedly candid. Normally they at least attempt to give some token support to Ecclesia Dei and traditional Catholics within the bosom of the Church. However, in a statement officially rejecting any concept of negotiations between the SSPX and the Vatican, these two traditionalist publications have revealed their “true colors.” One does not know where to begin with such candid admissions by the Remnant and CFN.

First this can hardly be called a “joint statement.” With the exception of the fact that they have two different editors, the two magazines share a good majority of their columnists. Rather than showing true diversity within the traditionalist movement, what we rather see is intellectual inbreeding. The same people give each other the same pats on the back as they spout the same talking points. I hereby propose to the big 3 Traditionalist publications (The Remnant, Catholic Family News, and the Fatima Crusader) to officially merge and become The Remnant of Catholic Crusaders, rather than pass off the charade that this is somehow 3 different publications. (Fr. Gruner manages to run two of them, something which is normally not disclosed.)

First the joint statement (from now on known as the statement) says that many people on who talked about a reunion between the SSPX and Rome were being ignorant, not having full possession of the facts. Rest assured they tell us, they have all the facts, and know for certain there will be no rapprochement between Rome and the Society anytime soon. While I tend to think this is an accurate assessment, how can they say this, but offer no concrete “facts”, which they whine everyone else who disagrees with them on this lacks? Then again, for anyone who has followed the Remnant over time, knows very well that it is never concerned with facts, but ideology and advancing the party line. As we now know, that party line is firmly SSPX.

After this little inconsistency, the plot thickens. They, like many other supporters of the Society, breathed a sigh of relief, because afterall “the SSPX is the counterweight to the entire “approved” traditionalist movement.” You hear that loyal traditional Catholics who attend through the Indult yet read these publications thinking they are your friend? Does one hear that Indult centers that distribute copies of these two magazines to parishioners after Mass? You are the enemy. You are not fighting to restore tradition within the Church according to them, you are not to be trusted to act objectively, and hence you need the SSPX to “counterweight” you. It’s never said the SSPX needs Ecclesia Dei, but rather we need them. Don’t think you can succeed on your own Ecclesia Dei traditionalist. You are a “necessary evil” until Rome admits that it didn’t mean what it said about the Society of St. Pius X.

“No Innovations Outside of Tradition, as we see it”

First the writers of the statement, quoting Bishop Fellay of the SSPX, mandate that in order for them to even consider talking with Rome, “There must be no innovation outside of tradition.” Who decides what is and isn’t Tradition? I am going to call a hostile witness to my case here that this proves all along that the SSPX, and their shills at the Remnant/CFN are in schism, is none other than the sedevacantist Fr. Anthony Cekada. When considering this notion of “tradition” he states:

Mr. Ferrara advocates essentially the same position as the Society of St. Pius X, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, and countless others: You claim to “recognize” Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI as true popes. At the same time YOU decide which papal teachings, laws, sacramental rites, or commands are good, and which you’ll reject, resist or publicly denounce.

Under this system, a pope no longer possesses the supreme authority to “bind and loose” on earth. A New Jersey lawyer, the Superior General of SSPX, the CEO of the Fatima Industry, the editor of Catholic Family News, or, generally, any traditional Catholic whatsoever, does the final review for him.

The New Mass? A sacrilege, intrinsically evil, or the pope didn’t promulgate it correctly anyway. Ecumenism? No thanks, the pope’s wrong. Consecration of Russia to Immaculate Heart? The pope didn’t do it right. Excommunicated or suspended? Invalid, no matter what the pope and his curia say. Consecrate bishops against the pope’s explicit will? Necessity lets me do it. And so on.

Who needs to visit the Throne of Peter? You give the final thumbs-up or -down from your easy chair.

The pope speaks. You decide… From this standard nugget of spiritual wisdom, Mr. Ferrara, SSPX and countless others have drawn several rather generous practical conclusions about what the Angelic Doctor is supposedly endorsing:

(1) Catholics are free to decide for themselves on a case-by-case which teachings, laws, sacramental rites and commands emanating from the Roman Pontiff they will accept (very few, thank you) and which they will “resist” and publicly denounce (just about everything).

(2) Catholics are free to pursue this “resistance” to the Successor of Peter on a continuous basis — so far, forty years and counting, with no end in sight. (Fr. Anthony Cekada, Sedevacantism and Mr. Ferrara’s Cardboard Pope)

According to what the Remnant defines as “tradition”, this automatically means Vatican II must not be considered. Says who? Why should their opinion be any more valid than what I say as an Ecclesia Dei traditionalist or the average anti-traditionalist demagogue states? This is why we have a Church, to settle such disputes. But the Remnant and CFN state the Churches ruling has no bearing on the matter. One is reminded of what Our Blessed Lord said in Matthew 18, which in my revised Traditionalist version states the following:

But if thy brother, especially if he is a prelate shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between in public in your magazines, even if you are not an expert in the area being covered. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican, unless of course the church in your mind is going against tradition, then you are free to disregard what they say. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven, unless you are able as a layman to determine it contradicts tradition, then you are free to ignore it.

Under the standard presented here, tradition loses any objective meaning, becoming the definition of what everyone else thinks tradition means. So on what basis should anyone accept the idea that tradition means “No Vatican II” over the pope who says tradition means “All of the Churches teachings, from Nicea to Vatican II”? How does one avoid anarchy, and indeed how is this any better than the crisis we are currently in? The authors Michael Matt and John Venarri begin to realize the dead end of this system when they state:

Thus, the question forms on the lips of concerned Catholics: How would a “reconciled” SSPX be able to operate freely under the aegis of the modernist New Theology, when the entire reason for the SSPX’s existence is to publicly oppose this destructive New Theology?

Indeed it is a very telling question. Yet they themselves recognize this, that the answer is if the SSPX is set to reject Vatican II en toto, there can be no reconciliation with the Vatican. This much is understood by all sides. Now the pertinent question is, on what basis do we trust Bishop Fellay’s analysis of tradition over anyone else’s? Have not schismatics always complained about how the Church is “losing her way” hence it justifies what they are doing? Have not schismatics like the Jansenists proclaimed that the Council of Trent contained errors, and hence one had to analyze what of Trent to keep and what to reject? The authors are correct, as long as the SSPX says that they are the ones who define what tradition is, there can be no negotiation. Soon enough they have to resort to authoritarianism to hold everyone in line, since they will rightly recognize that their assessment of tradition is no more valid than anyone else’s. Ironically, soon Luther had to result to similar authoritarianism when he relegated to himself to determine authoritatively what the Scriptures mean.

You ask the Impossible

Next we turn to what the Remnant believes is necessary for the Society to even consider giving Rome the time of day. When one examines these conditions, it becomes firmly evident that there indeed can be no reconciliation, primarily because the statements are ludicrous, and clearly involve that of a schismatic spirit.

Condition One: Every Priest has always had a right to say the Latin Mass without the permission of the Bishop

We now know that even if Benedict were to grant the “universal indult” allowing all priests to say the Latin Mass, for these publications, that wouldn’t be enough, since there has never been permission needed. However, as the evidence demonstrates, this is clearly wishful thinking. The Popes have explicitly stated that it is not for individual priests to choose which liturgy to celebrate. Every Pope since Pius XII has affirmed this principle explicitly. Therefore, it was not within the rights of priest to reject the changes Pius XII made to the Holy week liturgy. (Interestingly enough the SSPX priests have been known to reject even these changes at times, rejecting even the official rules of the Society. Disobedience breeds more disobedience.) Paul VI and John Paul II have also explicitly stated “in virtue of their supreme authority” the only way one may celebrate the Latin Mass is by permission from the local ordinary or indult from Rome. (The conditions upon which the local ordinary may grant usage of the Mass was expanded twice by John Paul II, most recently by Ecclesia Dei Afflictica of 1988.) Yet these words mean nothing to the Remnant, CFN, and the SSPX, who state that no matter what the Pope says, they will do the opposite. They will (in clear violation of the statements of Pius XII in mediator Dei) choose for themselves which liturgy to celebrate, especially when the Supreme Pontiff in the person of Paul VI said that choice is contrary to Catholic law, speaking as the Supreme Legislator of the Church. Agreeing with papal primacy only when it agrees with you is not agreement, its convenience. Accepting papal primacy means even doing so when one might not like that outcome. Unless the Remnant is willing to state the Latin Mass is a matter of Church dogma, the Church is free to regulate how that Mass is celebrated. To reject this is to reject papal authority in regards to the liturgy explicitly affirmed by Pius XII in Mediator Dei:

It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.

As we can see, it is not just the “Novus Ordo” Popes they dissent from, but “traditional” Popes as well. Notice this is also the opinion of every “True Catholic.” Therefore, if one grants that one needs permission (as does the FSSP and other loyal Ecclesia Dei Catholics, and presumably the Roman Pontiffs as well) they are not “True Catholics.” Once again, perhaps it is time we Ecclesia Dei traditionalists rethink our allegiance to these publications.

Condition Two:

The SSPX was never excommunicated.

If the first request is absurd and wishful thinking, this is absurd and wishful thinking squared. The simple fact is, despite their wishful distortions, no canonist accepts the idea that the SSPX is not excommunicated. (Count Neri Capponi comes close, but with the consecration of a Bishop for Campos by SSPX bishops even though Rome had already chosen a Bishop, he views this as schismatic.) The simple fact also is that after 18 years, the Society has not been able to demonstrate that the “state of necessity” can be objectively verified, or that the mind of the Roman Pontiff was unknown on this matter. If the mind of the Pope is known, he directly tells you not to do so; you are required to not do so. Unless Lefebvre was willing to argue that when he was gone so were any Catholic Bishops with authority (and many of his disciples believed this, becoming sedevacantists), then there cannot exist a state of necessity for consecrating Bishops after being specifically told not to. As I have detailed elsewhere, Rome has never come close to saying that the excommunications have never existed. It is once again clear that they care little what Rome says, even if Rome exercises her rightful authority in stating such. As a result, that can qualify for the definition of schism. Those who defend that position is also indicted I would argue it is very possible to qualify that as “formally adhering to the schism” that John Paul II warned about.

Next the statement goes through what they view as bad appointments for Bishops and bad positions that were taken. In this aspect the statement is fully within its rights to criticize these stances. However, no Pope has been perfect, and Popes have made what many consider to be bad solutions. (I.e. many were not particularly thrilled with Pius V’s Quo Primum for example.) Yet nowhere does that justify disobeying them when they do command something lawfully. It’s a nice rhetorical flourish, an attempt to get the readers to sympathize with the SSPX, but it is ultimately meant to obscure the meaning of the debate. They should not be allowed to play this game. They must prove that it isn’t lawful for the Pope to decide who can and who cannot be a Bishop for the SSPX’s argument to even be considered. (This they have never done, nor do they even attempt to, since one could say implicitly they recognize that to reject this is to be a schismatic.) One could deal with the rest of the arguments they cite (The Hawaii Six for example) but suffice to say, others have dealt with these issues time and time again, and they do not help the Society. I also do not care to deal with the fact because the statement acknowledges it is irrelevant in the end, since even those who in the Vatican might rule in favor of the Society, we must not trust them because they will ultimately betray them.

Having it both ways

The statement’s position in regards to the Society goes from incoherent do downright conspiracy mongering when they discuss Cardinal Hoyos, prefect of the Ecclesia Dei Commission. I believe it is here it is demonstrated that these authors simply make things up as they go along, and would like nothing more than the past of what they have said to be concealed. “We have always been at war with Eurasia…” Giving an enticing lead in they say “Enticing Words but can the Cardinal be trusted.” The Cardinal is Cardinal Hoyos. They question whether or not Hoyos can be trusted in dealing with the Society. In other words, Rome is a bunch of sniveling dishonest crooks, while the Society is squeaky clean. Very objective!

However this sudden dose of skepticism towards Cardinal Hoyos is a rather interesting one. For just a few months ago (3 in regards to the publishing of this paper) the words of Cardinal Hoyos were to be accepted as near infallible, and indeed a case of “Roma locuta est”, Rome has spoken, the case is closed. When outlining why they believe Cardinal Hoyos is worth listening to when he states the “SSPX is not in formal schism” (something he never said, but was a misrepresentation of his words as I demonstrated) we see the following from Michael Matt:

Just like that, a highly contentious issue that’s been dividing Catholics since 1988 was settled. And it’s impossible to believe that a man in the Cardinal’s elevated position, with his closely guarded reputation for discretion, could have acted in this regard without the Pope’s foreknowledge…. End of story! Traditionalists win! We don’t pretend to know why Cardinal Castrillón elected to make these statements which are now part of the permanent record, but, clearly, the debate is over. It is up to us now to try to use them to mend fences with those neo-Catholics whose polemic against traditionalism has just been totally annihilated. Perhaps this startling development will also lead to a ceasefire between traditional Catholics, allowing us to direct our ideological weaponry away from each other and toward the myriad enemies of the old Faith that need so desperately to be driven out of our Church.

Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos is to be credited and heartily thanked for his refreshingly honest clarifications. (SSPX Not in Schism: Rome Has Spoken, November 2005, The Remnant)

Those sound like words which states that the Cardinal is unassailable on this point. That because of what he said, “the debate is over.” It appears not, because 3 months later, the statement has this to say about how valuable Cardinal Hoyos’ word is:

But there is also serious cause for concern that beneath these enticing words is an intent to embrace the SSPX only in order to suffocate it. Consider the fate of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, which is composed of priests who left SSPX after the consecration of the four bishops by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988. The Vatican assured these ex-SSPX priests that their right to offer the traditional Mass and to pursue a traditional priestly formation in the seminary would be respected. But that is not exactly how it has worked out.

The statement then goes on to cite Protocol 1411, and what they viewed as Cardinal Hoyos acting cruelly to the FSSP. In their assessment, everything leading the FSSP to Rome was really a Machiavellian plot hatched by Hoyos and Rome to entice people with words only to later intentionally go back on them. However, this raises an interesting question. Why should we take what Michael Matt said seriously previously about Hoyos. If indeed Hoyos is known to be a liar and a deceiver according to them, why do his statements have any bearing on this debate? Or is the statement, like the Society it defends, engaging in it’s notorious duplicity.

When attacking “Neo-Catholics”, the words of Cardinal Hoyos mean everything. However when speaking to their base, the words mean nothing. Lefebvre did the exact same thing. When writing to John Paul II he talked about how the Novus Ordo Missae was valid and licit. When writing to his base, he referred to the New Mass as a “bastard Mass”, whose Eucharist “we cannot know if it provides grace.” Other examples are provided in abundance. Could it be that in attempting to defend a Society whose opinion changes based on who they are speaking to, their defenders are adopting the same mentality?

Next with great surprise they state in regards to possible SSPX “criticisms” of Vatican II:

The Cardinal even went so far as to say that “critical contributions of that sort that can come from the [SSPX] can be a treasure for the Church.” One may ask, why didn’t they say so before?

Now we know that the authors are just being dishonest. In the agreement between Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger signed in 1988, the SSPX would have been allowed to engage in a respectful discussion on Vatican II, and raise objections where they felt they needed to be raised. This isn’t some new policy Rome has adopted. Cardinal Hoyos doesn’t view this as something new because indeed it has always been Rome’s position! One could again interact with what they said in regards to Cardinal Hoyos, but why? It’s not like they take anything he says seriously anyways. As I noted before, they are simply practicing duplicity. So here’s the question one must ask the statement:

“Based on your assertion that Cardinal Hoyos might be risky to trust, how can we trust his assessment back in November in regards to the SSPX, the assessment which you say “settles the debate?”

The confusions, ambiguities, defenses of schism and outright falsehoods continue again and again throughout this statement, but I think the reader gets the picture. So the question must be asked: Why should faithful Catholics who attend the Indult give one cent to a magazine that views them in such a negative way? The Remnant and Catholic Family News have clearly taken sides on the SSPX issue, this much is certain. They have officially allied themselves with the Society, and oppose loyal Indult Catholics, unless of course they trade recognition by the Remnant for their silence on the Society matters. (Ironically enough the Remnant accuses Ecclesia Dei members of the very same thing!) Let us now call them what they are, the magazines which endorse schism, and view with disdain anyone who follows what Vatican I and the Church Fathers said about the authority of the Roman Pontiff and Bishops.

[bornacatholic]

The sspx cannot be trusted. They are protestants in Fiddlebacks. They claim to be doing good, "preserving Tradition," but they employ evil, starting a schism, to do good and one may never do evil that good may come of it

Tradition is preserved by the Church Jesus established not by the enemies of the Church Jesus established - those in a schism

[bornacatholic]

Mr. Tierney makes some great points re the sspx and its supporters

[Teófilo]

An excellent article. Thank you for sharing.

-Theo

[nickcarraway]

Well, it's nice of you to start to trouble, and display true charity? But as long as your more Catholic than Pope Benedict, I guess you are free to work against him however you want. I hope you'd tell the Holy Father to his face how little respect you have for him, and how you know better than him.

[wideawake]

Indeed. Call the SSPX what it is: Lutheranism in Latin.

[wideawake]

Your post is a nonsequitur. The article does not contradict the Pope's policy in any way.

[Scotswife]

I recently read More Catholic Than the Pope by Patrick Madrid.
He does an excellent job of exposing the error in thinking among these groups.

What it comes down to is they believe they have the authority to properly interpret church teaching and canon law...and the pope doesn't.
Only problem is...canon law states the pope has the final say in interpretation.

[Teófilo]

In fact, I'll say something more.

From the pages of Vivificat!

Commentary. Guys, you know I don't like the liberal, "progressive" wing in the Church that wants to dilute the Gospel, compromise with the dominant culture, and water down the liturgy so much that in the end, there would be no "value" in being a Catholic. These upset me, but those who go into schism, open disobedience, and often recurr to mock and ridicule the Successor of Peter and the Church because, they allege, the Church has abandoned Tradition and they, but only they, are the true keepers of Tradition, these anger me.

In my eyes they are as much a threat to the Church as the other extreme, for, if their golden concept of Church and Tradition were to prevail, we would be left with a Church engaging in ponderous, condescending monologues, always wagging her finger, always condemning, never engaging; always speaking Latin and not Greek, or Slavonic, or Aramaic, as they reduce Tradition to the Latin Tradition alone. This alone, in their eyes, would deserve the title of "universal" and everything else would be "exceptions to the rule," not the product of the Spirit in the Church. It would be an entrenched Church, a fearful Church, a prideful Church, far from Christ and from men.

These so-called "traditionalists" in schism, militants of the SSPX, are not from God. The Spirit is not in them. Their rule will impoverish and weaken the Church further.

I am OK with the "reform of the reform," I think it is urgently needed. But a blanket Tridentine "restoration"? I don't think so. Did the Spirit abandon the Church at Vatican II? It's absurd and impossible; it entails calling the Lord a liar when He stated that the "powers of hell and of death" would not prevail against the Church.

Could someone please teach some fundamental theology to these blind guides? For they seldom reach the logical conclusions of their arguments, that the Church under the Successor of Peter is dead, and only the "traditionalists" under the SSPX are "alive" and the true Catholic Church. Their stance is weak, and preposterous.

Let us pray for those who live their faith within the SSPX, that they hear the call of the Good Shepperd, that we become again One Flock, under One Shepperd, Jesus Christ Our Lord and his Vicar, the Successor of Peter and Bishop of Rome.

-Theo

[Claud]

I have been deferential to the SSPX, I have gone to both SSPX and independent chapels, I have attended a Catholic Family News conference, and I have written an article for the Remnant.

Although now I am firmly in the indult camp of traditionalism, I have been quite willing to give all these folks the benefit of the doubt--I may have thought some of them (many of them) were kooky and a bit extreme, but I despise infighting between traditionalists and have hoped that when the situation in the wider church got cleared up a little, we would see people begin to put down the bayonets and be once again one Church. It was easy to look at such groups as holding tradition in trust until everyone else came to their senses and realized what they were losing by abandoning it.

I suppose it was naive to think that way. It seems to me now that many people in the above groups simply no longer want any communion with their brothers and sisters in the Church at large, unless it be on their own terms. Any charity they may have had towards their fellow Novus Ordo Catholics is fading, fading like a dim memory. For the "Conciliar Church"--and they use that term almost in an ontological rather than a historical sense--they have very little love remaining.

We are watching, my good friends, the birth of a schism. It is a sad, sad thing.

[bornacatholic]

Nick, baby. Try reading the piece. It isn't critical of the Pope. It is critical of..well, read it

I have repeatedly made my thoughts known about every Pope since I have been alive. I was born d.ring the Papacy of Pius XII> I really don't rememeber much about him. As to the others succeeding him...I think I am blessed to have lived during this time. I think the modern Popes are FANTASTIC. They have been exceedingly intelligent, experienced, well-formed, holy, and excellent eaxmples of Christians.

I think Johannes Paulus Magnus was incomparable; a living Saint

And I expect to say the same of Pope Benedict, who, I pray, will have a long and successful Papacy. I remember when I heard the news he had been elected. I actually yelled "Yeah" and pumped my fist (I was on a golf course at the time). I was absolutely joyous and thrilled and I thanked God he heard my prayers for his election.

So, I think you might be responding to some other thread, right?

[bornacatholic]

Amen, sister.

Can. 16 The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting.

[OLD REGGIE]

They are protestants in Fiddlebacks.

Please explain what is meant by this. Is it hate? Derision? Insult? Love? Understanding? What? What?

[bornacatholic]

We are watching, my good friends, the birth of a schism. It is a sad, sad thing.

* I suppose that is one way to put it. brother.

I, not surprisingly, have a different take. This is an full-grown, adult schism. It is a schism on stilts walking around a carnival while thinking it is being borne to "eternal" Rome on a sedia gestatoria of Tradition while the flabella are manned by Pope St. Pius X and Marcel Lefevbre

[bornacatholic]

Inside joke, brother. No offense intended to those not born a catholic

[Campion]

The "fiddleback" term refers to an old-fashioned "Roman" or "fiddleback" chasuble (outer priestly vestment for Mass, of an antique style not seen much since the 1960's).

IOW, he's calling the "more Catholic than the Pope" schismatic folks Catholics on the outside, but Protestants on the inside.

[jrny]

"Therefore, it was not within the rights of priest to reject the changes Pius XII made to the Holy week liturgy. (Interestingly enough the SSPX priests have been known to reject even these changes at times, rejecting even the official rules of the Society. Disobedience breeds more disobedience.)"

Unfortunately, this is one more occurrence to which I can personally attest. As an MC, I had to serve Masses with certain priests who were notorious for mixing and matching rubrics of different Missals to suit their tastes. These may have amounted to minor mistakes to the eye of a casual observer, but I knew full well that these were intentional. All this while the SSPX statutes mandate the 1962 Missal. Common examples include:

Using an altar Missal that is pre-1962 and following the rubrics contained therein.
Having a bishop employ full Pontificals (Maitre, etc.) when he is not celebrating a Pontifical Mass.
Inserting the name of Bishop Fellay in the Canon instead of the local Ordinary.

These may be technical, but instances such as these and others discredit their whole argument of preserving Tradition and liturgical sanity. It is no different than the ad-libbing that priests do at the NO.

So, the point made about disobedience stands true.

[bornacatholic]

*Sadly, liturgical anomie was the tradition of the schism

'Isn't this Liturgy of John XXIII the one in which you priests were trained and ordained at Ecône?'

The answer is no. We received no appreciable liturgical training whatever at Ecône, and until the September of 1976 the Mass was that of the early years of Paul VI. (Indeed, concelebration was permitted in our first statutes.) The celebrant sat on the side and listened to readings, or himself performed them at lecterns facing the people. The only reason the readings were done in Latin and not in French, we were told, is that the seminary is an international one! (Interestingly enough, the Ordinances of the Society, signed by Archbishop Lefebvre and currently in force, allow for the reading of the Epistle and the Gospel in the vernacular - without reading them first in Latin.)

"It would be difficult to say what liturgy was followed at Ecône, because the rubrics were a mishmash of different elements, one priest saying Mass somewhat differently from the next. No one set of rubrics was systematically observed or taught. As a matter of fact, no rubrics were taught at all.

"The best I can say is that over the years a certain eclectic blend of rubrics developed based on the double principle of what the Archbishop liked, and what one did in France.

"These rubrics range rather freely from the Liturgy of St. Pius X to that of Paul VI in 1968. It is simply the 'Rite of Ecône,' a law unto itself...

"As for our seminary training, we were never taught how to celebrate Mass. Preparation for this rather important part of the priestly life was to be seen to in our spare time and on our own. The majority of the seminarians there seem never to have applied themselves to a rigid or systematic study of the rubrics, as may be seen from the way in which they celebrate Mass today ...

"At one time we were taught to reject the Vatican Council II entirely..."

The Roman Catholic, by Fr Daniel L. Dolan, June 1983.

[jrny]

For the sake of all reading these posts - I would point out that Fr. Dolan was one of the original 9 priests who broke away from the SSPX in 1983 to form the SSPV.

Regardless, his observations are true, even though they led him to embrace sedevacantism. This lack of study of and proper application of the rubrics would partly explain why some of the SSPX priests were quite negative towards me when, at the age of 14, I was already teaching myself the correct rubrics of praying the 1962 Office. Those lay folks, especially a teenager, cannot know these things, otherwise they will be too smart for us.....

[bornacatholic]

Lefevbre, This conciliar church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church of the centuries ..This conciliar church is schismatic because it has taken as the basis for its updating principles opposed to those of the Catholic Church. The church which affirms errors like these is both schismatic and heretical. This conciliar church is thus not Catholic."

*When the founder of the schism you are part of says stuff like this, it starts to sink and and sedevacantism seems a better option (short of reconciliation with the local Ordinary and Pope) than continuing in the schism

[pravknight]

The liturgical decree of the Second Vatican Council was non-infallible matter, only affecting the Western Church. The Western Church is a component of the Universal Church, but it alone is not the sum of the Catholic Church.

The Second Vatican Council, on this matter was no more infallible than the Council of Arles held in 314 or the Council of Frakfurt of 794

The Catholic Encyclopedia says a council of Patriarchal, national, and primatial councils represent a whole patriarchate." In this liturgical matter, the bishops represented the Latin patriarchate alone, not the entire Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is a communion of particular Churches of different liturgical and spiritual traditions whose consensus of faith expressed through the pope, patriarchs, bishops and people is preserved and nurtured by the Holy Spirit. A conciliar action is only infallible if it is a matter of faith or morals representative of the entire Church, not just a major component therof.

I am not accusing Vatican II or the Latin bishops of heresy here, but of an exercise of poor judgment. The council gave no directive on how to implement its decree, but left the matter up to religious bureaucrats in the Vatican and elsewhere. Religious bureaucrats are still bureaucrats, and you get what you pay for. Even if the council erred, it doesn't mean the Holy Spirit left the Church.

As a Byzantine, I find it a cause of arrogance to say the Western Church, acting alone on a matter of discipline cannot err, both in judgment and in fact. It's no different than saying my Melkite patriarch's liturgical reforms would be infallible or the Maronite patriarch's for that manner.

Liturgical reform following the council was done in a haphazard manner that failed to maintain continuity with 1,500 years of Roman-rite liturgical tradition.

Vatican II's liturgical reforms continued the Tridentine spirit of liturgical uniformity, which in the end has created the present schism.

I find calling the Traditionalists "Lutherans that use Latin" downright hillarious, considering they reject everything Lutherans believe in.

There probably is a better parallel with the 17th century Russian Old Believers who broke communion with Patriarch Nikon for revising the Russian usage of the Byzantine rite.

There is no reason why the New Order and Old Order cannot co-exist, just as the various usages of the Roman rite once co-existed. The fact the "Reform of the Reform" is even being considered shows theologians are realizing the Latin bishops erred in their implementation.

Even St. Pius V didn't mandate the suppression of the pre-Tridentine rites that were 200 years or older, which accounts for the survival of the Braga, Lyonnaise, Dominican and other variants of the Roman rite until the council The Byzantine Church, by contrast, tolerates a variety of different usages and doesn't mandate uniformity. The spirituality of the post-Vatican II era has far more in common with Lutheranism and Protestantism than prior to Vatican II. The Neo-catechumenal Way, Focolare and the Charismatic Movement come to mind. Is the following image Lutheran or Novus Ordo Catholic, you tell me?

From a Byzantine perspective, the liturgy is a bulwark against heretical teaching.

Who could doubt that the Mass was a sacrifice when Psalm 42 was said at the foot of the altar in the various usages of the Roman rite? It served the same purpose in the Roman rite as the Hymn of Justinian serves in the Byzantine rite as a refutation of the various Christological heresies.

From an Eastern perspective, the liturgy is a catechetical tool that serves to teach the faith. If there is a "reform of the reform," I pray they don't botch the job."