"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.

[Arguss]

"Well, we have to choose between following Pope John Paul II and following a dead French archbishop who has been formally excommunicated from the Church."

I don't think that is the choice at all. And I don't think that choice is consciously on the minds of any who question where the Church has gone, or is going.

The choice is apostacy or not, and whether one will take the narrow, hard to navigate path, or follow the lemmings off the cliff.

The other lemmings are certain to call out that you are going in the wrong direction, but their only view is the butt of the lemming ahead of them as they dash on the rocks below. Apostacy loves company.

[sinkspur]

You, of course, set yourself up as the arbiter of who is a "lemming" and who follows the "straight and narrow path."

Martin Luther did the same thing, Arguss.

[pascendi]

If somebody were to even ask you who the SSPX were, you'd fail a distinction and give the wrong answer, probably something along the lines of "Duh, I guess, uh, anybody that assists at an SSPX Mass?"

What a complete waste of time. Maybe you really are better off listening to the lay magistrium of lay apologists, who have no office in the Church, and who were never appointed by Rome to handle these matters... they tell you what you want to hear, and that's all you want to anyways.

[Salvation]

Here is a quote from St. Peter Julian Eymard to ponder"

Our Lord gives to souls of prayer a deep understanding of Himself.
He never deceives them. -St. Peter Julian Eymard

So, the question is: "a deep soul of prayer"?

Let us follow Christ and go to a secluded place and pray.

[pascendi]

Are we just coming to this conclusion now?

[pascendi]

Q: Do you think that the devil and his agents have no interest in destroying the Church?

A: Yes. But seeing the devil in John Paul II indicates some sort of pathology.

Who said John Paul II had the devil in him? Nobody.

This is just the standard kind of spin to draw people away from manifest truth that the hierarchy of the Church from top to bottom has most clearly distanced itself in word and deed from the Deposit of the Faith; and, in the Latin rite, also suppresses any kind of liturgy which would adequately reflect the sublimity of the Blessed Sacrament.

Pointing out the obvious is equated with saying the Pope is possessed and therefore some sort of pathology involved? That's amusing.

[sinkspur]

This is just the standard kind of spin to draw people away from manifest truth that the hierarchy of the Church from top to bottom has most clearly distanced itself in word and deed from the Deposit of the Faith; and, in the Latin rite, also suppresses any kind of liturgy which would adequately reflect the sublimity of the Blessed Sacrament.

Talk about spin!!!

[ultima ratio]

I've just finished saying I don't decide these things, the Church does. I am not judging the Pope's motives, only his actions--and they are not orthodox, they are heterodox and scandalous. But popes and councils decide these things for the rest of us, not me. The Pope is bound by these doctrines, same as everybody else. And he is also bound by the first commandment, same as everybody else.

I'm sure you have prayed with non-Catholics in some public places. But have you prayed as the Pope has done, in a Jewish synagogue--reciting JEWISH prayers for the coming of a Messiah other than Jesus? Have you joined your Catholic prayers in a formal ceremony alongside Voodoo priests or witchdoctors praying simultaneously to their gods? How are these actions not syncretic or indifferentist?

You may call me schismatic for the thousandth time--it won't make you any more right--or me any less so. I am certainly a Catholic, whether you or others on this site say so or not. In fact, you do exactly what you claim I am doing: behaving like a pope, excommunicating others, deciding who's in and who's out of the Catholic Church. This is ridiculously pompous--but typical of you, and what I've come to expect from your posts.

[ninenot]

There's a BIG difference between the two: while the Republican Party has become just another Party of Government, (with largesse directed to people OTHER than the NEA and AFSCME,) the Roman Catholic Church has not changed.

Fortunately, the Pubbies do not have any dogmatic authority, and little, if any, Constitutional authority for their excesses.

[pascendi]

"Well, we have to choose between following Pope John Paul II..."

Ask anybody what it means to follow the pope and they'll give you blank look. Ask for specifics, and the look will go from there to confused.

Exactly where are we going? If the contemporary Church is going in a certain direction, I'd like to know what the destination is. Somebody ought to be able to lay it on the table.

Don't tell me it's heaven, because the "direction of the Church" is always packaged in terms of progress in this life, not ordered towards the next. So it can't be that.

Where we going? Had this crazy idea that truth was immutable; wonder where the heck that idea came from.

[pascendi]

That ain't spin; that's the obvious.

[sinkspur]

You continue to spin and obfuscate. Since you're not an SSPXer or a sedevacantist, I assume you're a traditionalist Catholic who doesn't like some of the excesses in liturgy and catechesis.

Fine. At least you're arguing in the tent.

[ninenot]

If somebody were to even ask you who the SSPX were, you'd fail a distinction and give the wrong answer, probably something along the lines of "Duh, I guess, uh, anybody that assists at an SSPX Mass?"

The FIRST error you make here is your assumption that GS is kinda stupid.

The more significant one MAY be regarding exactly who is excommunicated.

Settle the second question in your own case first. I am certain that GS will wait for your apology, after you are morally certain that you are not an excommunicandi.

[pascendi]

"In fact, you do exactly what you claim I am doing: behaving like a pope, excommunicating others, deciding who's in and who's out of the Catholic Church. This is ridiculously pompous--"

Bingo.

[ultima ratio]

Rank doesn't matter to God. If a pope behaves badly and harms the faith, while an archbishop opposes him to defend the faith, then the archbishop would be right and the pope wrong, regardless of who has the higher status.

[ninenot]

Well, for those who in this world cannot acknowledge an Authority, there WILL be no Authority.

Nor right nor wrong.

Whaddya suppose the Tower of Babel story was all about, anyway?

[ultima ratio]

"But seeing the devil in John Paul II indicates some sort of pathology"

Nobody sees the devil in JPII. We only judge his actions, what he says and does, not him personally nor his motives.

[pascendi]

"Fine. At least you're arguing in the tent."

Notice that in your use of the word tent that you've conveniently switched away from the ecumenical tent of subsistence and back over to the Church's traditional use.

You switch back and forth at your convenience. If you're going to be talking with the other religions, the ecumenical tent gets pitched. If it's the traditional Catholics you're talking to, out comes the tent of Mystici Corporis Christi.

Whatever suits your purposes, eh.

[Dominick]

. In fact, you do exactly what you claim I am doing: behaving like a pope, excommunicating others, deciding who's in and who's out of the Catholic Church.

For the thousandth time, it isn't me, it is the Church who expelled you. I simply quote the applicable document.

[sinkspur]

Notice that in your use of the word tent that you've conveniently switched away from the ecumenical tent of subsistence and back over to the Church's traditional use.

I notice that you're pathological in your need to assign sinister motivations to anyone you're speaking with.

Have a conversation, pasci. Stop trying to play Padre Pio.