Debating the Relevant Issues…

Catholic

Answers

Attacks "Radical Traditionalists"…Again!

By Peter Crenshaw

Conclusion Neo-Catholic Obsession With SSPX’s Non-Existent "Schism"

Theduo then took a call from the Remnant’s own Chris Ferrara, otherwise known as "Chris in Richmond." As Staples tried to interrupt twice, Chris made clear that the vast majority of Traditionalists are not sedevacantists, and asked further clarification as to what extent the duo considered the SSPX to be "radical traditionalists." Staples then basically asserted the SSPX were all radical traditionalists for various reasons including their 1988 "schismatic act" before thanking Chris for his call and trying to politely usher him out of the door before the commercial break.

Unfortunately for Staples, Coffin didn't get the memo and offered Chris the last word. Chris stated that he thought Staples had exonerated the Society from charges of schism. As Staples exclaimed "Oh no!" in horror in the background, Chris continued. Chris stated that he had a problem with Staples labeling the SSPX as schismatic. To support his case, Chris noted that the Richmond diocesan newspaper recently had to correct their previous description of the SSPX as schismatic. Staples then responded that both on the last broadcast and now again he was saying that the SSPX is not in schism, especially since the lifting of the excommunications. The duo then let Chris go, promising to take up the topic in the next hour.

The next hour began with Coffin lamenting the fact that certain listeners still seemed to think they were attacking all traditionalists, while Staples added that the last caller incorrectly thought they were exonerating the SSPX. Never in this lamentation did the duo realize the confusion might be one of their own making. Regardless, any hope of remedying the confusion was lost as Staples then launched into a discussion of schism.

Staples stated that there was much confusion over whether the SSPX was in a state of formal schism after their bishops were excommunicated in 1988.

Staples then correctly pointed out that the case of the SSPX is distinguishable from the Orthodox schism as the Orthodox bishops had formal sees whereas Archbishop Lefebvre did not. Although Staples stated canonists "disagreed" as to whether the SSPX was in schism in 1988, Staples thought they were all "splitting hairs."

Staples then astonishingly asserted that in his opinion, the SSPX was in formal schism from the consecrations in 1988 all the way up to the remitting of the excommunications of the SSPX bishops in 2009. Staples justified this incorrect private opinion by quoting paragraph 2089 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church , which defines schism as "the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

Thus, Staples incredibly took it upon himself to divine a private interpretation of a Catechism paragraph in order to determine that an entire Society of priests were in "formal schism" for over two decades.

Of course this private opinion of Staples is wrong and provably so. In 2005, well before the excommunications of the SSPX bishops were remitted in 2009, the head of Ecclesia Dei , Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, stated the following in an interview with the highly respected 30 Days magazine:

Your Eminence, what was the nature of the audience granted by the Pope to the Superior General of the Saint Pius X Fraternity?

DARÍOCASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The audience is part of a process that began with a very important intervention by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, who signed a protocol of agreement with Monsignor Lefebvre before the latter decided to proceed to the episcopal consecrations of 1988.

Monsignor Lefebvre did not back off… CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism. (Emphasis added)

1

Thus, the "formal schism" question regarding the Society has been closed for at least eight years. Per the head of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, the very Commission set up by John Paul II to have competence over these matters in 1988, the episcopal consecrations of

1 http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-20051130-hoyos-30days.htm

Archbishop Lefebvre did not create a formal schism. If Staples still disagrees, he is putting his private interpretation above that of the Church, something he accuses "radical traditionalists" of doing incessantly.

Staples then stated that Catholics can technically attend Society Masses, though if they continue they may be in danger of "imbibing" a "schismatic attitude" (as if schism were a disease one could catch). Of course, it is not clear how one can "imbibe" an attitude of separation from the Roman Pontiff at Society chapels when the Society accepts Pope Francis as the Roman Pontiff and prays for him at every Mass.

Furthermore, Neo-Catholics are often the ones who refuse communion with fellow Catholics who attend Society chapels and not the other way around.

Mike in Mobile then called in, still asking the duo to clarify whether he was a traditionalist or a "radical traditionalist." It should have been clear to the duo by now that they were causing even more confusion than their first broadcast. Staples told Mike to call his local diocese to ask whether a particular chapel was "in union with the Church" in order to tell whether radical traditionalist lurked therein. Thus, by this logic, if Mike ever visited Frank’s parish in Tucson he could be assured it is a parish in "full communion" with the Church. In addition, if Mike were, God forbid, ever inclined to move in with his girlfriend, he could rest assured that he’d still be able to distribute Holy Communion with Frank.

Novelty as Disciplinary Law of the Church Next, Michael in San Diego called.

Michael pointed out that Pius V’s bull Quo Primum forbade any changes to the Mass. Staples then reverted to the "Mass is completely changeable according to the whims of the pope" argument addressed extensively in my previous article responding to the first broadcast.

One difference is that this time Staples compared the Fourth Lateran Council prohibiting new religious orders to Quo Primum’s prohibiting substantive changes to the Traditional Mass. This is like comparing apples to oranges.

The prohibition on new religious orders found in the Fourth Lateran Council is clearly listed among other purely disciplinary acts and was obviously meant to be temporary in nature. The same cannot be said of Quo Primum.

2

Staples then quoted from Pius IX and Leo XIII (and claimed to possess twenty similar quotes) to prove what traditional Catholics already believe: that the Pope has authority in disciplinary matters and not just matters of faith and morals. In the quotes Staples cited, Pius IX and Leo XIII were reinforcing this teaching against the liberals of their day who were furiously trying to concoct novel doctrines and practices in every area of the Faith not nailed down by dogma.

The underlying assumption of Pius IX, Leo XIII and indeed all popes before

2 See PC A vs. PP

C N P

C

The Translation Tragedy Revisited

In addition to

Quo Primum,

Michael also claimed that the mistranslation of

Vatican II, was that the pope was strictly bound to pass on the Catholic Faith he received as well as the received rites and ceremonies that expressed such Faith.

Thus the pope acted as a bulwark against novelty. It is no surprise then that Pius IX and Leo XIII would act to remind liberal Catholics that they are bound by papal decrees and acts meant to preserve the Faith.

Today the tragedy is that the innovators are inside the Church Herself.

In recent times, novel practices have been permitted through legislation, in many cases not even by the pope but by Vatican congregations and bishops’ conferences, that serve to undermine Catholic belief. On occasion, when the innovators are able to get papal allowance for their novel disciplinary practices, they then have the audacity to claim that the admonitions of pre-Conciliar popes meant to guard against novelty somehow divinely protect their own novelties from any dissent or criticism. Neo-Catholics then repeat these pre-Conciliar papal admonitions against traditionalists ad nauseam, having unwittingly "imbibed" the liberal premise. Thus, the delighted innovators now have conservative apologists giving their destructive novelties cover, all the while attacking defenders of Tradition as "radical" on Catholic radio shows.

pro multis as "for all", along with other changes to the consecration formula of the New Mass, invalidated it. Staples basically said that "the Church" says the translation is valid, therefore it is.

Even so, is it not apparent to Staples, or any other objective observer, that when the words of Christ Himself are changed in the Mass, not even by a pope, but by a committee of translators without a word of explanation or good reason to the Faithful, in direct violation of the command of Pope Pius V, that good Catholics may begin to develop questions and even doubts about that translation’s validity?

There is proof that many good Catholics did have such doubts. Since the first English translation was approved, Vatican congregations have been forced on two occasions (1974 and 2006) to issue statements assuring the faithful that the consecration of the New Mass in English is valid.

3 This, in and of itself, is an astonishing indictment of the translation. When in the history of the Church have the faithful had reason to doubt the validity of a Mass which uses mistranslations allowed by the Vatican?

Thus, the validity of the English Mass Catholics attended for almost forty years was not assured by 2,000 years of Catholic Tradition and the words of Christ, but rather by the authority of a bureaucratic wing of the legislating Church.

3 http://www.adoremus.org/Arinze_ProMultis.html

Neo-Catholic Revisionist History

Michael then stated that the intent of New Mass architect Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was to reduce the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to a memorial supper and that, "Paul VI had six Protestants formulating the New Order Mass." Staples then made the incredible claim that, "there were no Protestants that had input on the liturgy" before attempting to compare their presence to the presence of Protestants at the Council of Trent. Staples’ defense fails for two reasons.

First, it is beyond dispute that there were six Protestant ministers who were invited to be present at Bugnini’s "Concilium" during its creation of the Novus Ordo Mass. Though officially referred to as "observers," Michael Davies demonstrates in his book, I am With You Always, that the six Protestant ministers did have an active consultation role in the formation of the New Mass and were by no means merely passive observers.

4

Second, lest we forget, the Council of Trent was called primarily to resolve controversies regarding the new doctrines of Martin Luther and John Calvin, many of which had not yet been infallibly condemned. Martin Luther had previously declared that he submitted his ideas to the judgment of a future Council. As the controversies were causing a large fracture of the faithful, it was hoped that a Council could still make formal binding and infallible decisions that both sides could agree to follow. In this context, it was an understandable move to allow those proposing the new doctrines to at least have a hearing at a Council whose eventual decisions the Church expected them to adhere to. However, by the time Trent was finally called, the time in which Protestants would have obeyed a Council had largely passed. In fact, very few Protestants at the time took the pope up on his magnanimous offer, as they were already hopelessly wed to their errors.

In contrast, by the time of Bugnini’s "Concilium", Protestantism had already been condemned as a heresy for four centuries. The obvious intention of having six Protestant ministers involved in the creation of the New Mass was to gather their opinion as to which areas of the Traditional Mass they had problems with and what wording in the New Mass could they accept. The results of this consultation’s effects on the New Mass are obvious. Its creation even inspired one of those six Protestant ministers, Max Thurian, to observe "… With the New Liturgy, non-Catholic communities will be able to celebrate the Lord’s Supper with the same prayers of the Catholic Church." Similarly, M. G. Siegvalt, Protestant Professor of Dogmatic Theology at Strasbourg noted, "…nothing in the renewed Mass

4 Michael Davies, I Am With You Always: The Divine Constitution and Indefectibility of the Catholic Church , 1997.

5 need really trouble the Evangelical Protestant."

Staples then went on to mention that the word sacrifice is used in the New Mass. Although this is true, the problem is that when the word sacrifice is used in the New Mass it can almost always be interpreted to mean a sacrifice of praise, a sacrifice of thanksgiving or some other type of sacrifice besides a propitiatory sacrifice. This was done for ecumenical reasons as Protestants explicitly reject the notion that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice.

6

Coffin then interjected to recommend an anti-traditional book to Michael called, The Pope, The Council, and the Mass .

7 Staples then went on to praise its authors James Likoudis and Kenneth Whitehead. Unfortunately, for Staples and Coffin, the authors of this book were obstinately wrong regarding the very two issues on which Staples previously admitted traditionalists were right. The 2006 version of Likoudis and Whitehead’s book obstinately defended the mistranslation of pro multis as "for all", even stating that "some scripture scholars believe that 'for all' might even be a more faithful translation of the original sense of scripture."

8 In addition, the book defended the proposition that the Traditional Mass was indeed abrogated and forbidden, stating: "the celebration of the Tridentine Mass is forbidden except where ecclesiastical law specifically allows it."

9

Absolute Obedience Required

Next up was David from New Jersey.

David said that the duo made it seem as if the SSPX just didn’t want to follow the pope. In reality, David explained that Archbishop Lefebvre felt he had to disobey the pope out of conscience as the things he was asking him to do were against the Faith. Staples then amazingly compared the sincere rationale of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, a man who was made Apostolic Delegate to French Africa by Pius XII, who was appointed to the Preparatory Committee of Vatican II by John XXIII, and who was elected Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers in 1962, to the rationale of "Martin Luther" and "every schismatic in the history of the Church."

Although granting that he could not judge Abp. Lefebvre’s conscience or soul, Staples went on to say that what the Archbishop did was "objectively gravely sinful." Of course by stating it this way, Staples is clearly assuming

5 http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Sacraments/Masswhy- the-Traditional.htm 6 Trent, Session XXII, Chapter II: "…the holy council teaches that this [the Mass] is truly propitiatory and has this effect, that if we, contrite and penitent, with sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence, draw nigh to God, we obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid… For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits of that bloody sacrifice, it is well understood, are received most abundantly through this unbloody one, so far is the latter from derogating in any way from the former."

7 Chris Ferrara points out some of the errors in this book in his excellent article Turning Point from 2007: http:// www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2007-0715turning_point.htm 8 As quoted by Chris Ferrara at: http://www.

remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-0831-ferraracatholic_ tradition_vindicated.htm

9 Id.

that Abp. Lefebvre had no morally justifiable reasons to disobey the normal course of affairs by which a bishop gets permission from the pope to consecrate.

If the Archbishop did have such reasons, then his consecrations would not be sinful at all. However, Staples has apparently never considered such a possibility.

To the Neo-Catholic mind there is never a justifiable reason to disobey any ordinance, disciplinary law, or decree issued by competent Church authority and to do so is always gravely sinful. Thus any possible rationale one would have to do such a thing is simply considered the ravings of a schismatic.

Yet are bishops, superiors, and popes always infallible in their orders, decrees, and ecclesiastical judgments? Consider:

The trial for sorcery started in Rouen against Joan was iniquitous.

And yet it assembled the entire Establishment of the official Church.

One hundred and twenty men took part in it, including a Cardinal, a prince of the Church, a great number of bishops, dozens of canons, sixty doctors in Canon Law or Theology, ten abbots, ten representatives of the University of Paris, the brightest part of ecclesiastical science in the heart of Christendom… …Joan was condemned to death.

The sentence of excommunication is read to her with the solemn form that the representatives of the Church conferred upon it. She climbs up the steps of the platform where was located the fire that was to consume her, officially condemned by the Holy Inquisition whose guardians indicated to her in the verdict, with the hypocrisy that was to be expected, that they sincerely thought that she, Joan, should have "preferred to remain faithfully and constantly in the communion, as well as in the unity of the Catholic Church and of the Roman Pontiff." On her was placed a headgear on which the points of condemnation, that her detractors repeated unceasingly, were written: "heretic, schismatic, relapser"… …A quarter-century after her death, the cause of the heroine of Orleans was revisited and the Church rehabilitated her officially. Until then, the number of those who believed that it was forbidden to judge the verdicts of the representatives of the ecclesiastical Institution was large.

Pius XII celebrated this dignified end of a French heroine who was to one day obtain on earth, as she had in heaven, the crown of saints: "In the silence, the words of a martyr faithful to her vocation resonate, filled with faith in the Church, to which she appealed by invoking the sweetest name of Jesus, her only consolation.

Through the flames that rise up, she stares at the Cross, certain that she will one day obtain justice." 10 11

C N P

10 http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/01/600-joan-of-arcii- danger-of-ill.html 11 http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/01/600-joan-of-arciii- persecution-by.html