Traditionalists, Tradition, And Private Judgement

Since the end of the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent promulgation by Pope Paul VI of the new rite of the Mass, there has been a growing division among those Catholics generally known as "orthodox" or "traditionalist."

The Wanderer itself suffered from the divisions and upheavals following the council.

In 1967 editor Walter Matt left the newspaper over a dispute about the meaning of Vatican II. He saw it not so much as a reform and a renewal of the Church but as a revolution that threatened to undermine the Church herself (in that same year, Walter Matt founded The Remnant). His brother, Alphonse J. Matt, Sr. (the present writer's father), took over the reins at The Wanderer and reminded its readers that the real intent of the council was a renewed evangelization of the world for Christ and a personal renewal of every individual Catholic.

For The Wanderer , the council was not a rejection or an abandonment of Tradition, but a development of that Tradition, safeguarded for 2,000 years by the Holy Spirit, to better enable the Church to bring the Gospel to all men.

Those "traditionalists" who view the council as a break with Tradition — who blame the council's teaching itself, not the subversion of, and departure from that teaching, by modernists and progressivists — are becoming increasingly hostile to the See of Peter and its present occupant.

The late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who broke with the Holy See in 1988 over the issue of appointing bishop successors from his Society of St. Pius X, tends to be the hero of these traditionalist Catholics.

This past April, an angry, aggressive statement authored by Atila Sinke Guimarães, a former member of the Brazil-based TFP (Tradition, Family, Property), titled We Resist You to the Face was published in The Remnant, Catholic Family News, and other traditionalist organs.

The statement was signed by Mr. Guimarães and Marian Horvat, both members of Tradition in Action, Inc., Michael Matt, editor of The Remnant, and John Vennari, editor of Catholic Family News.

We Resist You . . . is described by its signatories as "A Public Statement of Catholic Resistance" (in which) "Lay Catholic journalists respectfully suspend obedience to the Pope and remain inside Holy Mother Church."

" We Resist You to the Face analyzes the consequences of the adaptation of the Church to the modern world, and the consequences of ecumenism, as applied since the Council — including by the present Pontiff. The authors declare themselves in a state of resistance 'relative to the teachings of Vatican Council II, Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, and to your teachings [of John Paul II] that are objectively opposed to the prior ordinary and extraordinary Papal Magisterium'."

One can conclude after a careful reading of We Resist You . . . that its authors and supporters are on a schismatic trajectory that can only have tragic consequences.

We have asked Stephen Hand, no stranger to traditionalists, to examine We Resist You . . ., its premises and conclusions in order to provide some guidance and counsel to those traditionalist Catholics who are troubled and confused by current developments within the Church and the kinds of analysis of such by the likes of We Resist You. . . .

The result of his effort is: "Traditionalists," Tradition, and Private Judgment. Two important addenda are included: Pope Paul II's Credo of the People of God and Cardinal Ratzinger's remarks in 1988 to the bishops of Chile regarding the Lefebvre schism.

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln has graciously provided a preface to the work.

We recommend this commentary to every Catholic who seeks a better understanding of the controversies which continue to spread fear, doubt, and confusion within the Church. It will prove to be an effective instrument to strengthen one's faith.

Stephen Hand has done a distinct service by his fine monograph pointing out by means of careful research as well as by personal and anecdotal experience the reality of removing a cinder in one's eye when such is there, but keeping the eye intact and not removing the eye out of exasperation, because of the annoyance and sometimes serious pain the cinder can cause.

It has been an axiom for many years in historical theology that what oftentimes begins or is declared to be a "return to tradition," in other words, a reaction, ends as being an innovation, that is, a schism or a heresy. There are people who suffer from intense headaches, and find themselves utterly incapable of mastering the horrible pain that they frequently endure. In moments of frustration, such people will sometimes say, "I wish I could cut off my head to cure my headache." But they, and all who are rational and reflective in their presence, would always realize that the so-called cure would be far worse than the continuous enduring of even the most tragic pain. It takes a faith-filled and prayer-filled discerning Catholic life to distinguish liturgical abuses, doctrinal and moral aberrations, and grave disciplinary infractions occurring in the lives and practices of people within the Church, from the Church herself, which despite being composed of sinful members, remains the spotless Spouse and Bride of Christ, not a Church of Cathers or Albigensians, but a Church of those who carry within themselves the sad effects of original sin while at the same time bearing the grace of God, which is to say, the seeds of eternal happiness. St. Thomas Aquinas calls pride the queen and mother of all vices, and oftentimes those who perhaps rightly perceive grave faults and defects in people in the Church, even sometimes in people with positions of clerical authority, forget their own creatureliness and sinfulness, and the ability they themselves have to fall into serious error.

At the time of the Jansenist crisis, for instance, the archbishop of Paris, speaking of the Jansenist nuns at Port-Royal, said they were as pure as angels but as proud as devils. Down through the centuries there have been countless sects, denominations, cults, and churches which have broken off from the Catholic Church under the pretense of being "holier than thou." We are witnessing the same occurrence in our time. Ironically, these groups are most often unknowing and indeliberate allies of the bitterest enemies of Christ and His Church, in effect, denying the abiding Presence of the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Church and the promises that Christ bestowed on His Mystical Body from its inception.

In his masterful work, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, John Henry Newman points out how in the course of the Church's history she occasionally appears to fall into a deliquium, from which, under God's grace, she emerges victorious and stronger than ever. Many of those who defy the Church and even leave the Church in the name of "tradition," thus contradicting the very word by which they choose to define themselves, are ignorant in their despair regarding the Church's future or the realities of the Church's history through 2,000 years. This work of Stephen Hand undoubtedly will assist those who are loyal to Christ and to His Church, and to His Vicar on earth, the Bishop of Rome, to labor zealously within the boundaries of the Church herself for her growth in holiness, and willingly, even joyfully, do all possible to eliminate doctrinal, moral, liturgical, and disciplinary aberrations, but, at the same time, conceding nothing to those who wish not to remove a cinder from the eye, but to remove the eye itself and perhaps replace its empty socket with cinders and decayed matters.

The Venerable Servant of God, Abbot Joseph Columba Marmion, who is scheduled to be beatified on September 3, 2000, once reminded his readers that "God resists the proud," and he added: "Is it not terrible to be alienated from God? But how much more terrible it must be to be 'resisted' by God Himself."

May his rhetorical question echo in the minds and hearts of those who make use of this fine work of Stephen Hand.

The most wonderful thing about being Catholic is that the Church's saving Tradition is a "given," something which we can only receive from the hands of Christ's ministers, who extend in time through the apostolic succession all the way back to the empty Tomb, and who first heard the stunning words:

The Church is not some esoteric gnosis which men must try to discern, decipher, and then keep jealously under a bushel. Rather, she is, following the Incarnation itself, astonishingly visible, a "light to the world" and the "salt of the earth," the continuation through time of Him who was "made flesh and dwelt among us."

From that moment when earth's history was split into a "before" and an "after," no one has had to look or wait for another Messiah, another teaching or "Way." For He is "with us," "always," (Isaiah 9:6; Matt. 28:20) and is the God who comes, the God who seeks us out, and who offers forgiveness and reconciliation to a world which will never again have to grope to find Him. He is there, in His Church, where, until the very end of the world are heard the simple words of consecration which are the substance of the Mass. St. Paul tells us what that substance is:

Should she deem it necessary or good, the Church could reduce her liturgy to these words and acts, the "substance" around which all the ritual "accidents," which change through time, adhere. For only she is given to participate in and dispense the divine authority — the great and undemocratic "whatsoever" (Matt. 16:20) — until the Bridegroom returns to receive His Bride at the end of time. It is left for us to only "Hear the Church" which changes only in her "accidents" through the ebbs and flows of time, the "substance" perduring to the consummation.

Teaches that Mary pre-existed in Heaven - a heresy

From the Spiritual Writings of Saint Louise de Marillac

SAINT LOUISE DE MARILLAC'S DREAM

Dream of the eve of 8 December

"On the vigil of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, after having heard the reading from the epistle for that day, I had a dream in which I saw a great darkness arise in the middle of the day. It started off small at first, but it then turned into a very dark night which astonished and terrified the whole world. My own feelings, however, were simply those of submission to divine Justice. Once the darkness had passed, I saw daylight return, and in a certain place high up in the sky I saw a figure like that represented in the scene of the Transfiguration, but the figure seemed to me to be that of a woman. I was seized with great astonishment and experienced such a sense of gratitude towards God that my body suffered as a result and, after the pain had woken me up, I continued to suffer for some while longer. Unlike the ordinary run of my dreams, that image has always remained in my mind, inspiring me to believe that this initial grace bestowed upon the Virgin marked the commencement of the light that the Son of God was to bestow upon the world.

"In my meditation on the subject of the epistle I noticed how Holy Church suggested that the Blessed Virgin possessed Her being from before the Creation of the world. My mind acquiesced in this idea, and it occurred to me that not only had She been in the mind of God from all eternity through His foreknowledge, but that She had been so to a greater degree than any other creature on account of the dignity which God destined Her for as the Mother of His Son. It (Her being) knew that it was willed before the creation of any earthly thing capable of witnessing to the sin of our fathers. God wished to make a specific act of His will in order to create the soul of the Blessed Virgin, and this may also have been an effective act. I submit such thinking entirely to Holy Church, only making use of it the better to honour the Blessed Virgin and as a means of renewing our Society’s general dependence on Her, being Her most wretched daughters who regard Her nonetheless as our most worthy and unique Mother. May Jesus and Mary be loved.

(Écrits spirituels de Louise de Marillac, ed. 1983, p. 730)

<> Typical duplicity from a schismatic. He claims to submit to the Magisterium but he only agrees to submit if the Magisterium agress with his private judgement.

Look, I already provided you with a magisterial Decision condemning the pre-existence of souls in Heaven. It was a decision taken against Origen. Sheesh....One would think such an "expert" as the Abbe would know. I do...and I am not even a Pope like the Abbe.

The Magisterium does not have to restate it for this suspended priest, you, or any other whack job that rolls around in schismatic swamps.

Roma Locuta est, CAUSA FINITA EST. Rome has ALREADY CONDEMNED THE DOCTRINE THAT SOULS PRE-EXIST IN HEAVEN.<>

"I have followed many, many discussions on FR, and I consistently see a pattern of traditionalists asserting that they are right, that they know better than the Pope. I truly think that they consider themselves "more Catholic than the Pope". I have never seen an orthodox Catholic [on this forum] say that they knew better than the Pope."

Your argument is bogus on the surface of it. Since by definition traditionalists follow Catholic Tradition, the problem has been that this Pope does not--and, in fact, this has been demonstrable. Instead he forces us to choose--between him and previous popes and councils and doctors of the Church. It is he who has frequently departed from his predecessors--while traditionalists follow them faithfully.

Check out the Angelus Press. It publishes classic Catholic works, not private doctrine. There is nothing we state or teach or write about publicly that is not simply traditional Catholic doctrine. You can't say this about the regime in Rome, however, which routinely pours out novelties by the truckload--which people like yourself dutifully swallow simply because it is Rome saying these new things, however odd they should seem to Catholic ears.

<> Typical duplicity from a schismatic. He claims to submit to the Magisterium but he only agrees to submit if the Magisterium agress with his private judgement<>

Ah, but again you distort the truth. We accept the Magisterium--when it adheres to Tradition. If it contradicts the perennial teachings of the Catholic Church, however, we reject such novelty in favor of what has always been taught by previous popes and councils and doctors of the Church. That is known as keeping the faith. Magisterial teachings, after all, are not binding if they are novel.

You, on the other hand, would have no trouble believing in flying green elephants if the Vatican put out the word. It troubles you not at all that flying green elephants are not found anywhere in either Scripture or Catholic Tradition. You only worry about submitting to the Pope--without worrying about how much he departs from his predecessors. To you the Pope trumps everything--even the faith itself.

Thus, we follow St. Paul's admonition to the Galatians: if even an angel should come down from Heaven to preach a new gospel, let him be anathema. New doctrines have no divine protection--as Vatican I affirmed: "For the Holy Spirit was not given to the Successors of Peter that by His help they might disclose new revelation."

"Please demonstrate for me where this Pope has parted from Catholic Tradition."

When was the last time a pope entered a synagogue to pray with the Jews their own prayer for the coming of their messiah--someone other than Jesus? When was the last time a papal institute declared the Jews had no need for Christ's redemption? When was the last time a pope elevated to the cardinalate a man he knew doubted the Resurrection or Christ's divinity? When was the last time a pope canonized close to five hundred so-called saints, many of them doubtful? When was the last time a pope presided at a Youth rock-concert/Mass in which the Holy Eucharist was allowed to fall in the mud to be trampled upon or elsewhere washed down with swigs of beer? When was the last time a pope refused to take the traditional papal coronation oath swearing to uphold Tradition? When was the last time a pope kissed the Koran and apologized to Islam for the Church's Crusades? When was the last time a pope allowed a buddha to be place on the holy tabernacle or poured libations to animist spirits in a sacred Togo forest?

All this is just for starters.

Francisco ... quoted me to him without pinging or responding to me. I guess I am being shunned for making an observation.

Intellectual arguments will be responded to. Posters that are notorious liars will be treated with appropriate disdain. For example, Catholicguy, insinuating that there was a theological discussion of the preexistence of souls in heaven, when it was in fact theological speculation regarding only the pre-existence of the Blessed Virgin. Perhaps Catholicguy thinks the Catholic Church erred in canonizing SAINT LOUISE DE MARILLAC? After all, the Catholic Church had her writings thoroughly studied before making the decision to canonize her.

So traditionalists post material such as:

"But Holy Church goes further : she considers that the Blessed Virgin possessed «Her being from before the Creation of the world». What does that mean? To understand it, one need only follow the liturgy for the feasts of the Blessed Virgin and repeat the inspired texts: «The Lord created me when His purpose first unfolded, before the oldest of His works.» (Pr 8.22) The Latin says possedit me, «possessed me», but the Hebrew verb qanani is translated by the Greek as «created me». Furthermore, the Book of Ecclesiasticus clearly states that «before all other things Wisdom was created» (Si 1.4). It is this personified Wisdom which the liturgy so often identifies with the Blessed Virgin, proclaiming: «He who created me fixed a place for my tent. He said, "Make your dwelling in Jacob, and receive Israel as your inheritance." From eternity, in the beginning, He created me, and for eternity I shall remain.» (Si 24.8-9)

In the Proper of the Mass for 8 December, the reading, taken from the Book of Proverbs, continues : «From everlasting I was installed, from the beginning, before the earth came into being.» (Pr 8.23) The Hebrew verb nâsak is the same as that found in Psalm 2, referring to the Messiah : «It is I who have installed my king on Zion, my holy mountain». (Ps 2.6)

«The deep was not when I was brought to birth (et ego iam concepta eram).» (Pr 8.24) The same Hebrew word hûl reappears in the following verse: «When there were no springs gushing with water, before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I was brought to birth (ego parturiebar).» (Pr 8.25)

"Applied to the «being» of the Blessed Virgin, this text read in Latin by Saint Louise expresses first Her «conception» (et ego iam concepta eram) and then Her birth (ego parturiebar). It was Saint Jerome who introduced this nuance, involving two different uses of the same Hebrew verb."

The Neo-Catholic posts "whack job". Gee, what a towering intellectual. If the Neo-Catholics choose to embarass themselves, they are free to do so. However, the thought of entering into any type of correspondence with such an individual does not appeal to me.

Additionally, posters of assertions such as "I have never seen an orthodox Catholic [on this forum] say that they knew better than the Pope", will not be responded to directly. It is a willful distortion of the traditionalist position. I have read the traditionalists here thoroughly refute this distortion 100 times. I will not waste my breath with such an individual.

Do you believe we are obliged to obey absolutely everything coming out of Rome, even when it contradicts past teachings?

That's part of the deal. It's not like it hasn't happened before.

I hardly think so.

Personal opinion again.

Rome has the obligation to show where it is in line with past Catholic doctrines whenever it introduces novelties. If it cannot do this, it must be disobeyed--especially in the present crisis.

[big sigh] The church moves at glacial speed, you know that. Actually, in the end, in the current context, this is the biggest obstacle. The fixes and repairs aren't happening fast enough for various people. The dissent didn't set in overnight and it's going to take a while to repair the damage. Rather than drastic quick fixes, the church has opted to take the long deliberate route, which is a lot more work, takes ten times longer and lasts far better. Kind of like using carved granite for a facade rather than aluminum siding.

For example, it is making odd noises about the Jews not needing the same redemption as other men. This is novel--and found nowhere in either Scripture nor in Tradition. It must be rejected.

Last I heard, this wasn't official as you've stated it. I thought the talk was on eccumenism. That probably means that there's some discussion going on behind closed doors. We won't know till it's all over.

It's part of no deal. There is no deal to deny the faith. When Bugnini, by means of a weak and unwise pope, foisted his Protestant Mass on the Catholic world, he created an earthquake. Traditionalists might have survived Vatican II with our noses out of joint, but the New Mass was a false worship and had to be rejected. It represents a new religion and a clear denial of Catholic doctrines. You may not think so--but perhaps you need to study the problem more. This is not a minor issue. It is offensive and harmful to the Catholic faith and must be rejected.

Trust in a pope is admirable. But there are limits. True, the statement on the Jews from a papal institute is not finally official--but it reflects clearly the policy and thinking of this papacy which places a heretical ecumenism before Catholic Tradition itself. That is what I find most damnable about Rome's current agenda. It goes about destroying Tradition, but doing so as Cranmer did in England--by subterfuge and suppression. Do you think it will come out and deny the Real Presence? Not on your life--but it won't defend it either and allows apostate bishops to have their way and deny kneeling before communion and the shunting aside of tabernacles. It knows what's happening--and won't lift a pinky to stop it.

The priest-noderator of Traditio.com recently wrote something I wholeheartedly agree with, especially when dealing with people like "catholic"guy who is invariably unchristian and nasty towards traditional Catholics in his posts. The level of vitriol is always high with him. Here is what this traditionalist priest said:

"The worst thing that you can do against the Novus Ordo is to speak the truth. Since it is in essence based on a lie, a 'New Order,' it hates the light of truth. Therefore, it ruthlessly attempts to suppress the truth. And this organization that likes to call itself the Church of Love barbarically puts down those who speak the traditional faith by threats and defamations.

"The New Order is basically a schoolyard bully, who backs off when you confront him. His power lies in people's fear of confrontation. That is why the Traditional Catholic Movement must confront Novus Ordoism at every turn and, in doing so, will win far more battles than it loses."

I believe this comment is right on the mark. Traditionalists are armed with the truth--and the Catholic faith.

<> Of course, you are right, Desdemona. It is proved every day on these threads. Schismatics have usurped Divinely-Constituted Authority. They decide for themselves, using "rational" means, what is and isn't "tradtion" and they will obey the Pope only to the extent the Pope agrees with them.

Of course, that is precisely the identical orientation to the Papacy the Protestant has. The Protestant will agree with the Pope - provided the Pope agrees with what the Protestant has determined using "rational" means. Sola Scriptura and Sola Traditio are the Twin Enfant Terribles of Jejune Private Judgement.

Both the Protestant Protestant and the Protestant Schismatic have made themselves the ultimate authority. "The Pope must agree with me" before I obey him is the, unspoken, standard of Judgement. The Self,Intellectual Pride, and Will ALL come before the Divinely-Constituted Authority of the Papacy.

How hard is it to "obey" and in what way is it commendable, or even Christian, if one only "obeys" what one agrees with? Can a child said to be obedient if he only obeys that with which he agrees?

Jesus, we are told, was "obedient" to His parents, yet, schismatics refuse their obedience to the Pope. Of course, that is not a fair comparison. Jesus was humble. Kids, now-a-days, know so much more than Dad does.

Obedience is illustrated when one "obeys" when the authority decides against his personal opinion.

All the other "explanations" and rationalisations and citing this and that Saint in opposition to Divinely-Constituted Authority are just the actions of spoiled children throwing tantrums while their endless quibbling, explicating, and cavilling over ancient Bulls and Documents represent efforts to Role Play they are Dad.

Mebbe, some day, they will grow-up and act like a Christian adult, but don't hold your breath. That is what they are doing - holding their breath, thinking themselves true blue, - and thinking their schismatic tantrums will be rewarded by having Dad hand them not only the Keys to the famiy car, but the Keys to the Kingdom.

Real, adult, Catholics know that won't happen. Dad has a Boss he will NOT disobey and the Boss has sent the Holy Spirit to help Dad deal with these unruly, self-willed children.

How long with Dad's patience last? The tantrum-throwers think forever... Mebbe, mebbe Dad's patience will last...but, how about the patience of Dad's Boss?

We shall see...<>

Traditionalists might have survived Vatican II with our noses out of joint, but the New Mass was a false worship and had to be rejected. It represents a new religion and a clear denial of Catholic doctrines.

How? And please provide doctrinal specifics. Violations of CANON LAW. Not preferences.

That is what I find most damnable about Rome's current agenda. It goes about destroying Tradition, but doing so as Cranmer did in England--by subterfuge and suppression. Do you think it will come out and deny the Real Presence?

I don't know where you live, but you need to get out more. There has NEVER been a denial of the Real Presence in official church teaching. There are some bishops suppressing it, I suppose (not where I live). But this has never been denied in any way from the Vatican.

Not on your life--but it won't defend it either and allows apostate bishops to have their way and deny kneeling before communion and the shunting aside of tabernacles.

You haven't been paying attention. This is in the process of being fixed. Bishops have been warned. No, their heads aren't rolling, but they've been corrected, and, yes, they are resisting. It might take retirements before some dioceses change. The reversal is going to be gradual.

Now, would you kindly give us ONE, just ONE, example of an OFFICIAL piece of Canon Law, Doctrine, not Mass rubrics, either, which has been contradicted under the current Magisterium.

Intellectual arguments will be responded to. Posters that are notorious liars will be treated with appropriate disdain. For example, Catholicguy,

<> LOL I am deeply wounded. I cited the decision of the Magisterium against Origen condemning the pre-existence of souls in Heaven. I thought the pre-existennce of souls was held by Mormons, New Agers and whatnot. Who knew the poor, confused Abbe would resurrect the idea? And what in the world is the purpose of resubmitting to the Magisterium a Doctrine previously condemned?

Besides, the Abbe is already on record as identifying the Magisteriumn Heretical. So, a suspended priest asks a Heretical Magisterium if a previously condemened heresy is acceptable and the devotee of that suspended priest identifes others as liars and idiots. Makes sense to me:)

As to Saints, Good Lord...has anyone EVER thought that every opinion, idea, speculative thought ect a Saint had was true? LOL That is sub-pitiful as Catholicsm. Some of the positions held by St. Augustine, among other Saints, were condemned. Good Lord. Some Schismatics are arrogant and ignorant. That is not a good combination. They publicly display ignorance of RUDIMENTARY CATHOLICISM yet presume to Judge the Pope a heretic. Sheesh...<>

First of all, take your matters up with CatholicGuy.

<> The Bengals have a better chance against Tampa Bay:)

P.S. Note the "trads" will not attack the resurrection of that heresy. Francisco has previously posted that heresy and not a single "trad" has confronted it. That is indicative of what (well, not what, who) the real object of the attack is. It isn't heresy..it is the Papacy that disagrees with their personal opinions as to what does and does not constitute tradition.

It had to fall to little ol' neo-catholic me, a lying, idiot, to confront a heresy:)<>

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.