"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.

[dsc]

"Of course, it would be a challenge to prove that..."

Luckily, I weaseled out with a "JMO."

[Maximilian]

He's screwed me personally, viciously, and wilfully.

Considering Weakland's proclivities, perhaps an unfortunate choice of words :-)

[Maximilian]

I would hope that the book addresses the truth issues, not personalities, just as we do on this forum, religiously (cough) all the time.

Let us hope so. But the title and the advance publicity are not encouraging. Nor is the track record, e.g. Stephen Hand's attacks in The Wanderer, Msgr. Calkin's direct attacks on prominent individual traditionalists, Keating's atacks on Gerry Matatics. And as you point out, on this forum there is a pattern of personal attacks on traditionalists. To give one example, someone recently responded to one of my posts with a message that used derogatory references to "Marcel" at least a dozen times despite the fact that my post had made no mention of the SSPX or Archbishop Lefebvre whatsoever.

[Dominick]

How do you know the Pope "has the confidence of the Holy Spirit? Such an assumption is ridiculous. Pope Alexander kept a mistress. Did he also have a pipeline to the Holy Spirit--or does it only work for popes who pray with animists?

The peccablity of the Pope has nothing to do with his competence to establish a Rite of Worship. To Paraphrase, Man was not made to say Mass, Mass was made for Men.

It is debatable whether any pope has the authority to demand the acceptance of the Novus Ordo

Debate what you like, but he has the authority to impose discipline on the Priests and Bishops. We are all painfully aware that theologians have all the right to debate anything, but to responsibility to be right.

Once again, ad nauseam--the Pope can say anything he damn well pleases. He can excommunicate Mother Teresa and beatify Cardinal Mahoney if he wants. So what? This would not make what he did true in such cases. It might make some legal sense to people like you--but if what he said was not actually based on facts, on reality and truth, what he does and says would be mere nullities.

Why don't you use the accepted formula, "I know what you are but what am I?" You are basically repeating the same thing, it isn't true because I don't believe it.

Logic and reason are essential when determining what is a lawful order, and you misuse it to usurp the authority from the Pope, and go like most Modernists, and pick and choose what you would like to believe. Well it is Christ's Church, and Christ left John-Paul in charge, there is no disputing that fact.

[Arguss]

Here's another real secret: Weakland was the "celebrant" at the trial run in PaulVI's chapel.

Bugnini was exiled at the same time Weakland was sent packing to remain forever in Milwaukee as an archbishop because the two of them were caought en flagrante,in a very embarrassing tryst by the Italian police.

Wow! I've never heard those things.

One of my pet theories is that Weakland got set up by the Vatican to take his big fall because of his refusal to stop the de-construction when they told him to.

I know, I know, it was the gay lover who dropped the bomb - but I'm convinced it was the Vatican that set it all in motion. That's the kind of subtle "get even" tacttcs they are famous for. Don't think for a minute they didn't know the whole story, including the misappropriation of funds.

[Arguss]

But it IS the Perfect Sacrifice. No "flaws"--kapische?

Prithee LOL

"Flaw" was admittedly my word - but I was being kind. Cardinal Ottaviani was not so kind. He likened the new mass to heresy. Are we reading different cover letters?

"The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery. 2. The pastoral reasons put forth to justify such a grave break, even if such reasons could still hold good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem sufficient."

[ultima ratio]

I ask again--what makes you think the Pope has a pipeline to the Holy Spirit? You don't answer this. You simply repeat your belief that a pope can do anything he pleases--even invent a Mass. You seem to think popes have magical powers, that they spend their time taking dictation from God personally. In fact, they are not even always holy men.

As to your contention that the divine liturgy is nothing more than a discipline, you should know the preconciliar Church considered such a notion an absurdity. This is because the Creator Himself is involved here, as well as the deposit of faith and how it is expressed. The whole issue of how God Himself wishes to be worshiped is intimately connected to the Church's own understanding of what the Crucifixion actually represents. In this regard, the Council of Trent spoke for the Church, particularly in its emphasis on the need for propitiatory sacrifice. This matters profoundly. It is not a pope's right to ignore any of this as modernists like to pretend.

Finally, you correctly assert logic and reason are essential in determining what is a lawful order. But it is also true a lawful order can never be a command to harm the Church, as even the great doctors of the Church have taught us. No pope may issue such a command. If he does, it would be lawful to disobey since the command would have absolutely no legitimacy. The pope, in other words, may not abuse his ecclesiastical power by issuing such a command. Divine Law precludes this. Remember, while Christ may have given John Paul full legal power, that power was still limited from above. Nor did Christ take away from John Paul his ability to judge wrongly and act unjustly.

[Arguss]

"But I fear that the lovers of the Ancient Tradition will soon be 'playing outlawed tunes on outlawed pipes.'"

Soon has already passed. Not only is the Mass of all time outlawed in most diocese, some have not even heard of it.

While my diocese does have an indult Mass which I attend, my wife does not. She brought this up to our parish NO Priest, and he didn't even know what she was talking about.

[Dominick]

You simply repeat your belief that a pope can do anything he pleases--even invent a Mass.

Yes he can totally change tha Mass. That isn't a dogma of the church. The Missal of 1970 kept some things, and let some other things go, but it is still the Mass. The rest of this is your spin. Thats all you do, misquote and spin the results, just like the DNC.

Bishop Fellay in witing has stated a Schism exists. You say it doesn't, making you more of an extremist than the head of the SSPX. All this boils down to that. You are wrong even on the word of the head of the SSPX.

The SSPX admits there is a Schism, the Pope says there is a schism, except Pope Ultima Ratio, and his Triple Tinfoil Crown.

[ultima ratio]

Your posts are getting increasingly incoherent. There is no such statement by Bishop Fellay.

[GratianGasparri]

Dominick, I think you might be confusing it with a statement made by Fr. Paul Aulagnier during his interview with the Wanderer. Fr. Aulagnier is the priest who, while still a seminarian, co-founded the SSPX with Archbishop Lefebvre. He has held most of the highest offices in the SSPX, but not Superior General. He stated that the SSPX was in danger of psychological schism, which is why he felt obliged to break ranks with Bishops Fellay and Williamson.

[Dominick]

QUOTE:
Msgr. Fellay: "It is difficult to have foreseen the human actions. It is clear that the Church cannot continue much longer in the current state - one day she will have to return to the Tradition, if she does not want to completely lose credibility. Msgr. Lefebvre thought that it would arrive earlier. Unfortunately, many years have passed and we are still considered outside of the communion."

and more amusing:
And if the Pope calls you? Msgr. Fellay: "IF he calls me, I go. Right away. Or rather, I run. This is certain. Because of obedience. By filial obedience with regard to the head of the Church."

Look like he would do more than the prideful Bp. Lefebvre...

[GratianGasparri]

Looks to me like your forte is trying to win debates by discrediting the opposition ("cranky lot," traddy," "traddy knickers," "traddyland," "conspiracy theories") rather than on the merits.

I'm just making a few observations. I'm not trying to win any debate. I've already won it. There is no indult in our diocese.

[ultima ratio]

First, here is what you said: "Bishop Fellay in witing has stated a Schism exists. You say it doesn't, making you more of an extremist than the head of the SSPX. All this boils down to that. You are wrong even on the word of the head of the SSPX."

The statement you quote does not admit this. Bishop Fellay only states that "we are still considered" outside communion. You have a problem thinking clearly. This is far from an admission of schism.

Second, the statement about obedience is simply a fact. You, like others, believe falsely that Archbishop Lefebvre was disobedient. But, in fact, he never disobeyed. This is because when the faith is threatened--even by a command of the Pope--there is an imperative to protect the faith before all else.

[pascendi]

"I'm just making a few observations. I'm not trying to win any debate. I've already won it. There is no indult in our diocese."

When you first came into this thread, the NeoCatholics patted you on the back like an ally.

Perhaps between their fits of public piety they'll find honesty enough to admit that your statement above is manifest dissent against the will of the Holy Father, who without a doubt commanded that the traditional Mass be made widely and generously available.

[pascendi]

You call that support for what you said?

It's simply a failure on your part to even comprehend what was said in the very quote you provided. You're not even making sense.

[Dominick]

You're not even making sense.

I guess I am not, along with the rest of the Catholic Church. You are welcome back anytime. The schism is reality.

[pascendi]

"I guess I am not, along with the rest of the Catholic Church. You are welcome back anytime."

You're losing. Miserably. You see Dominick, I attend the indult, and I'm not even outside the Church using your own inaccurate formula of what inside/outside really consists of.

Now that's pretty funny. Telling an Indulterer he's welcome back to the Church anytime when he's already there by even NeoCatholic standards.

By all means don't quit trying to kick me out of the Church though; I'm getting a real kick out of this!

[Dominick]

My assumption is that you were an SSPX person. My position, which is the one of the Church, that the SSPX is out, and this is confirmed by writ of the Pope. I agree that an Indult Mass is not a schismatic act, far from it, and it should be widely available. I like the Tridentine Mass when they have them here. I think the best defense from the schismatic mentality of the SSPX is the indult.

The statement I have the most problem with is that the Novus Ordo Mass is not giving the faithful what they need to be good Catholics. I would put say to anyone that a failed CCD process is far more damaging, and that is a direct result of our failed educational system. I find the abuse of the doctrines of the Church occur no matter the rite of Mass you attend.

I don't send my children to Catholic school, because I would like them to grow up Catholic, and my own cathachesis satisfies me that they are learning the faith. I wish there was a widespread CCD program for Adults, but the "Bible Studies" we are offered are far short of what I think is needed.

I apologize to you, but in the debate of one liners that is the internet, one makes a bad assumption when there is a three way fight. Mea Culpa.

[ninenot]

Weakie had already submitted his age-mandated resignation, which was languishing someplace in Rome.

When the scandal broke about his payoff to the grifter, a MAJOR Archdiocesan donor called a Significant Figure at the Papal residence and told him about it. The article was emailed immediately, and JPII, on vacation at the time, decided to accept the resignation then and there.

Finis, Rembert.