Religious Liberty, Traditionalists & Obedience

Posted on August 28, 2012 by Father Joe

The SSPX has made no secret of its opposition to the teachings about religious liberty both espoused at Vatican II and in the recent USCCB campaign against government intrusion.

We have faced many challenges to our religious liberty. At one time Catholics were forbidden entry into certain colleges like William and Mary. Catholic churches were burned and our worship was curtailed. Later there was the issue of public education and the reading of Protestant bibles. Catholic schools emerged to insure the faith of generations of children.

In more recent times there has been the issue of prayer in schools, the celebration of religious holidays and public symbols, and the status of the Sabbath or Sunday blue laws. The emphasis has shifted from a preference given to the Protestant faith over the Catholic, to an atheistic secular humanism that is hostile to all faith. Today, there is a concerted effort to force the Church to compromise on matters like homosexuality, artificial contraception, and abortion. Will the Church face charges of hate-speech for opposing same-sex unions and homosexual acts? Will the Church be forced to pay for contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilization in healthcare plans? How far will this fight go and how strong and courageous will we find Catholic churchmen. And will the Catholic people stand with their shepherds or with an anti-Catholic modernity? We would expect that traditionalists would be of one mind with conservatives on such matters; but such is not always the case.

The Church would not argue that religious liberty is absolute or that it “necessarily” applies to all creeds equally. However, the principle of religious liberty and freedom of conscience are critical to the Church’s understanding of human dignity. The more a religion reflects the objective order and spiritual truth, the more that faith must remain free from coercion. Mormons once taught polygamy and were rightfully corrected by the federal government. Satanism is restricted on military bases because occult services in the nude conflict with the military code of conduct. Sometimes peculiar things are tolerated in other religions so that the Church herself might benefit from non-interference, matters like the pacifism of Quakers and rigid alcoholic temperance. Then there are acts that cause quite a bit of debate, matters like snake-handling, the prohibition of blood transfusions (Jehovah Witnesses) and interdictions toward inter-racial dating. However, there are also clear limits as with ritual euthanasia, human sacrifice, bondage or trafficking, and the abuse of children.

Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.

These matters constitute the basic component of the common welfare: they are what is meant by public order. For the rest, the usages of society are to be the usages of freedom in their full range: that is, the freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary. (Dignitatis Humanae #7)

Given the persecution of the Church in England, the separation of the Church and state was interpreted as a way to protect our interests. While an ideal state is one where the Church and state are in harmony, history has proven that such unity is hard to achieve and even harder to maintain. There was also the unpleasant side-effect that with the Reformation, the creed of the land followed the local prince. While such was legally tolerated in Europe to prevent bloodshed, this arrangement was very unfair to Catholics who felt abandoned by Rome and a Catholic Europe. Religious liberty in the United States permitted the Church to expand at a rate that surprised even the Holy See. Marylanders rejoiced to be liberated from the penal laws. Our Catholic school system grew to be second to none. It must be added that the separation of Church and state never meant a disavowal of traditional religious values or culture. Such is the extreme that we see today from organizations like the ACLU and the liberal People for the American Way. The American state was viewed by many of our founders as a Christian one, not atheistic as some contend today.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right. (Dignitatis Humanae #2)

If everyone were Catholic, we might presume that the public values and laws would reflect this fact. But states that are largely Catholic do not always remain sympathetic to the Church. Mexico in the 1920’s would be a case in point. The rupture of the Reformation took place in what were formerly Catholic nations. Never underestimate original sin and the hunger of men for power.

While we might hope and work for the day when earthly realms would recognize Christ and his Church, we leave such eventualities to divine providence. Anything else would be a pelagian nod to earthly utopias. Our emphasis is always upon the kingdom of Christ which is ushered in by God’s grace.

Some critics, particularly within the SSPX, would criticize the model of religious liberty taught by the late Fr. John Courtney Murray. They go so far as to fault its promulgation at Vatican II as the source for global apostasy and secularization. However, Father Murray simply gave voice to what he saw as the American experiment. I would argue that it was not an ingredient in the subsequent conflict with modernity, Vatican II or no Vatican II.

It is simplistic to demonize the council or to give a heightened importance to the pre-conciliar Church that it did not possess. The council was an attempt by the Church to respond to a changing world. Not everything worked out and many purposely distorted the meaning and purpose of the gathering. However, the world’s bishops did gather, it was a legitimate council, and the Pope ratified it. Those who utterly reject it will find themselves in opposition to a crucial Church teaching— that the universal Magisterium so gathered is safeguarded by the Holy Spirit. It is no wonder that those who oppose the council are neither united to the majority of the world’s bishops nor in juridical union with the Holy See. There are only two options open to critics of the council. Either there was a misapplication of the council by those who invented a “spirit of Vatican II” or there is no supernatural agency protecting ecumenical councils, the Magisterium and the Pope. It is for this reason that castigating the council is a very dangerous thing for a “faithful” Catholic to do. It leads either to a Catholicized variation of Protestantism or to atheism.

It is true that Cardinal Ottaviani shared a number of concerns about the council and his view regarding Church/state relations. It is no secret that this holy prelate was unhappy, especially given that his schema for the council was brushed aside and replaced. But he was only one man and in the end he was obedient. The fact remains that the majority of the world’s bishops and the Pope signed off on the council documents. The issue here is clearly one of ecclesiology. Pope Benedict XVI was at the council and yet critics would try and tell him what was what. The arrogance in all this is insufferable.

Church social teaching cannot be merely theoretical but must reflect the pragmatic reality of the world where we find ourselves. While there are stable elements, the political teaching reacts to the world around us: the disappearance of monarchies, the rise of democracies, capitalism and the world economy, the threat of communism, and increased secularism. Today, we would also add the effect of technology and communication, as well as the rise of fundamentalist Islam and their lack of tolerance toward the Church. The Church is seeking for ways to grow and arguing for its right to exist, no matter how societies might change.

Some critics contend that the “post-Vatican II Church” is apparently afraid to sanction those teaching heresy or promoting immorality; however, it is quick to enforce “disciplinary rules.” They resent that Archbishop Lefebvre was disciplined for consecrating bishops without a papal mandate while heretical priests remain in “good standing” to teach heresy and to actively dissent. I would argue that it is no less scandalous for traditionalists to dismiss the guidance of the Holy See. More than discipline is at stake but a fundamental view regarding ecclesiology and divinely appointed authority. The scandal is worse for those who feign fidelity to the Holy See while failing truly to obey the successor of St. Peter. No one expects fidelity from the liberal dissenters. Their only deceit is that they might still claim to be Catholic; but that is a shallow lie through which all but the most ignorant can penetrate. I would also argue for a heavier hand by the Church but I am neither a bishop nor the pope. I am sure the shepherds have their reasons for what they do. I suspect that the most liberal dissenters just do not respond to sanctions. The issue is not whether leftist dissenters have been properly punished; but, rather have breakaway traditionalists displayed sufficient contrition to have the last of their sanctions removed? I would place the highest gravity or wrong with the SSPX. They should have known better. Who knows what good their presence within the Church would have merited these past forty years? Instead, they abandoned her and circled the wagons. The consecration of bishops against the will of the Holy See threatened a parallel church. It is no minor crime. It deserves penance prior to absolution. I think this is the ultimate holdup. They can quickly find fault in Rome but wrongly imagine that they are immaculate and had no other recourse. What they did was wrong. It was a grievous sin. The Pope removed their excommunication, not out of justice but from charity. Pope Benedict XVI is a gentle man where I would have given them ultimatums. I am not convinced that the SSPX will ever return to juridical unity. That is my opinion and I hope I am wrong. Those who too closely align themselves with them, even if just for an anachronistic love of the old liturgy, may find themselves ultimately outside the lawful Catholic Church. They will join the Orthodox churches of the East in their schism from Peter, the ROCK of the Church and Vicar of Christ.

Certainly the license to teach theology has been stripped from numerous liberal theologians. Many have faced discipline and censure, such as: Fr. Leonardo Boff, Fr. Charles Curran, Fr. Matthew Fox, Fr. Hans Kung, Sister Margaret Farley, and Sister Elizabeth Johnson. The latter two were quite recent and Sister Johnson was my academic advisor many years ago in seminary. I have read all her books and concur with the evaluation of the U.S. bishops about the improper use of metaphor. It is so peculiar that liberal dissenters grieve about their treatment from the “right-wing” Holy See and yet certain arrogant traditionalists cry like babies that they are the only ones getting rough treatment. I would give them all a swift kick in the pants!

While there is much talk about a silent schism and a liberal fifth column of bishops who oppose Rome while weak bishops look on passively, I would include all four of the SSPX bishops as still another column opposed to the Magisterial teaching office and the living Pope. Those who castigate the council and Rome will become sedevacantists, mark my words. Liberal bishops are dying off and yet many of them would still bend the knee to Rome. The SSPX bishops have made themselves autonomous and the arbiters of all things Catholic. They want Rome to bend to them! Only the Magisterium under the Pope has the authority to interpret past Magisterial documents. The wolves are coming from every side; yes even some of the so-called sheep-dogs may revert to their wolfish ancestry. Defenders of the SSPX are wrong to say that four bishops (who are even fighting among themselves) can trump the Pope and 5,000 bishops who teach and minister in union with him! Sorry, but they are very much mistaken.

Addressing traditionalists, the Pope has given you the freedom to worship with the Tridentine Mass. You should be satisfied with that, say your prayers, raise your families, and steer clear of critiquing a lawful council of Holy Mother Church and the Holy See. Do not join the renegades, no matter what pretense to holiness or devotion they might exhibit.

I love our traditions. I see continuity in our faith. There is no pre-Vatican II Church. There is no post-Vatican II Church. There are various disciplines and rites, but old or new, there is only the Mass— the sacrifice of Calvary from which we receive the “bread of life” and the chalice of salvation”— the real presence of the risen Lord.

But I have no stomach for trouble-makers on the left or right. Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope. He is Peter. He is the Vicar of Christ. If you want to be saved, be subject to him and to those bishops in union with him— period.

Filed under: Apologetics, Bishops, Catholic, Church, Faith, Fortnight for Freedom, Magisterium, Morality, Politics, Pope, Religion, Religious Liberty, Sin, Social Justice |

« The Scandal of Father Bob Pierson Cardinal Dolan’s Benediction Prayer at the DNC »

10 Responses

Ian Samuelson, on November 10, 2012 at 8:09 pm said:

Father, I stumbled across this blog without intention…thank you for responding.

Firstly, I am not a member of the SSPX. My brother is. One time when I visited with him, he went to Confession, and then I did. Is the sacrament valid? Did I receive absolution, in your opinion?

FATHER JOE: The code of canon law is very clear about this. Canon 966 states: “The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.” SSPX clergy do not have valid faculties. Since jurisdiction is required and the SSPX have no legitimate juridical standing in the Catholic Church, the sacrament was not valid. Both marriage and confession are cases where validity requires jurisdiction. Indeed, in the case of marriage, the priest must have faculties and, if he operates in another pastor’s parish, his permission as well. Otherwise, the marriage is both illicit and invalid. The case with the Eucharist is somewhat different. There is a genuine Eucharist. Canon 1248 states: “The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day.” This would seem to permit attendance. But it must be weighed with the interpretation of Ecclesia Dei: “The Masses the SSPX celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing.” The pertinent canon is 844 (2): “Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.” Just because one does not like the reformed rites would not be sufficient reason. One cannot fulfill the Sunday obligation toward the Church with the commission of an act of rebellion against said Church.

Secondly, while I am not a member of the SSPX, I have a strong sympathy for them, at least the ones I know. At least in my brother’s case, he started going and kept going because every Catholic church he attended, while going to graduate school in Nebraska, was utterly revolting to him. (Keep in mind that he and I attended a regular Novus Ordo parish with our family all our lives…) He found so many abuses, casualness, liturgical defects and other things that, in desparation, he heard about the one Traditional Latin Mass around and, having never been, thought he’d try it out. He immediately connected with it, his faith grew, (he had always been rather ho-hum about it), and he became a much better pray-er, reader, and more attunded to the moral life our Lord calls us to.

FATHER JOE: Casual believers sometimes leave the Catholic Church and become fervent Baptists, Pentecostals or even Moslems… however, I would not recommend such a move, no matter how the accidentals might better fit a person’s temperament or emotions. The SSPX is just as likely to make permanent their break and forge themselves formally into a separate church. If they become sedevacantists, as some already have, then your brother will be in a pseudo-Catholic church led by an anti-pope. Do we really want this? The Fraternity of St. Peter is alive and well in Lincoln, Nebraska (and scattered throughout the nation) and they offer the old Mass while remaining in union with the Holy See. Most places now have approved Tridentine Masses. There is no excuse to remain with the SSPX, especially given that the excommunication will probably be reimposed in the near future. They have expelled one bishop. If they make another as a replacement, the censure will be restored. Pope Benedict XVI was generous, but such generosity is not unlimited or foolhardy.

I understand your words on obedience – and that is why I am not a member of the SSPX. However, you yourself say:

“While not everything from Vatican II is of the same doctrinal weight, and there is room for discussion, there can be no quarter given to those who spurn it.”

So there’s room for doctrinal consideration as in some things have more “pull”, some have less?

FATHER JOE: There are central truths of faith and then there are corollary truths that flow from them.

From what and who I know, most people would be quite satisfied if the Church clarified her position in a way that said: “The Catholic Church is the One, True Church. She is the bride of Christ and she is the voice of God calling people to all they need for their salvation.

FATHER JOE: Read Lumen Gentium in the Vatican II documents. It says all this and more. It is also in the universal catechism. The truth is that some people will not be satisfied with anything.

Members of the Church are human; they fail and fall into sin. But all she teaches is free from error. She is essential for salvation.

FATHER JOE: Vatican II teaches that all the truths and ingredients for salvation subsist in the Catholic Church. This is where they find their proper home. The Catholic Church is the great mystery or sacrament of salvation.

“What would we know about Christ without her?” However, while no one has a divine right to be in error, no one can be coersed into obedience or to follow Christ. All must “choose you this day whom you shall serve.” So just as all posses free will and can use it for good or for evil, so too do all posses the choice on whether to follow the Catholic Church or not. Just as our Lord did not call down lightning upon the man who “went away sad because he had many possessions”, neither will or should those who walk past the Church be subject to earthly condemnation.

FATHER JOE: Remember though, the Church must proclaim the truth, which is objective, not subjective. What you write here is about religious liberty and freedom of conscience. The SSPX has problems with both of these themes as promulgated in Vatican II. They would emphasize a strict and uncompromising interpretation of the dictum, ERROR HAS NO RIGHTS. An attitude of arrogance has made dialogue with them very difficult. They think they know the Church better than the Church, herself. They tip their hats to the Holy See but refuse to bend the knee in obedience to the Pope or to a legitimate council of Holy Mother Church.

This life is the time for choosing Christ and being converted to Him. But we also know that there is no real freedom, there is no real liberty while in the bondage to sin, and removing one’s self from the fountains of grace, the Church’s sacraments, hinders all from alleviating themselves of this ghastly condition: “Unless you eat of the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you.””

That was much longer than I intended, but it seems to me that folks like my brother and others get angry when they see the way these divisive issues are interpretted by a Church who seem to sanction (through omission) acts that men and women of good will know are not part of our Faith. If a good deal more bishops and priests were serious about the Faith and instructed on it more clearly, and prayed the Mass with the correct demeanor and orientation intended, it seems as if a more alert, clear Church understanding and explanation of Church teaching would emerge that would head off many problems.

FATHER JOE: We need to focus more on the divine mystery and less on the failures of a few rogues around us. Along with the corrected translation, I see liturgical improvement every day. Pope Benedict XVI has put a premium upon orthodox teaching and praxis. And yet, his overtures to the SSPX are spurned. They prefer dead popes to living ones.

I find, from my reading of Vatican II, that the teachings presented COULD show a Continuity from pre to post council. But a more courageous, realistic view of human nature (it’s not as enlightened as some in the Council may have thought) needs to be expressed. The Novus Ordo, while certainly valid, does have omissions that are frustrating; i.e. the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the Offertory, the prayers before Communion. Many of these dissensions are fixable – these men and women that I know want to know that God is really present, that He’s really being prayed to and loved and that being a member of the Church is a really valuable and essential thing (if it’s not, why bother?)

FATHER JOE: The prayers at the foot of the altar were a later addition and were not an intrinsic or necessary part of the Mass. Using psalm 42, these prayers entered the liturgy in the eleventh century as an optional element. Today, if the priest wants to quietly pray these words as he comes down the aisle, he is certainly free to do so. Indeed, we used the psalm as a Processional Hymn at an ordination Mass several years ago. They did not become obligatory until the sixteenth century. The offertory was changed so that it did not seem to parallel the supernatural offering of Christ in the anaphora with what appeared to be a natural sacrifice that overly anticipated the sacrament and the holy victim that is Christ. Prior to Vatican II, personal prayers before communion were introduced into various missals with Latin-English texts, although such missals were forbidden until fairly recent times (Pope Alexander VI forbade side-by-side Latin-vernacular translations). This prohibtion was renewed by Pope Pius IX in 1857, and this situation would not change until 1898. The current Tridentine missals published by the SSPX would have been placed on the Index of Forbidden Books prior to that date. The dialogue Mass was authorized in 1922. I guess what I am saying is that the reformed Mass, properly translated, might not need any further fixing for awhile. Such cannot be said for the Missal of 1962 or earlier. We need to get past the problem of two liturgical calendars and the sanctoral list should be adjusted.

As a side, the references to Bishop Williamson are not helpful and in many ways serve as ‘ad-hominum’ attacks against the whole group of people. My brother, when he heard about some of the stuff that guy said was, “He’s ridiculous; I don’t agree with him at all…” So while perhaps convenient for the slaying of the SSPX dragon, it is not really releavant. I’ve met the three priests at my brother’s chapel, and none of them agree with that stuff, either. He, and I, in different expressions (with me not in the SSPX,) just want the Church to know who she is so that she can best work to save the souls of those caught in the torrents of this world. She can show she knows this not by pretending the Council didn’t happen, but by showing how it can square with the Church before it. After showing how it can, let’s see it pray as if it is clear about herself.

FATHER JOE: If Bishop Williamson had not been judged as ant-Semitic, would he still hold office in the SSPX? I think his views are very pertinent to this discussion because they are reflected in the attitude of many in the SSPX. The Holy Father is optimistic. I try to be. But I just do not think we are going to see any large movement on their part. They want concessions from Holy Mother Church. But they refuse to see their own shortcomings and the evil of their intransigence.
Paul Brann, on September 7, 2012 at 8:32 am said:

Dear Fr Joe,

I keep you in my prayers that your energy and dedication will continue, and even though I continue to struggle with ‘knowing’ what is right, I still yearn for the truth. I suppose I can more easily identify with Thomas when he said: “unless I see Him and touch Him, I will not believe” . That’s possibly a little better than Peter when he said: “believe me, I do not know the man!”

I also get some consolation from Jesus own teaching to the Samaratan woman, (I still struggle to know just how it became recorded as He was on His own when He spoke to her), but it went like this:

19 “Sir,” the woman said, “you must be a prophet. 20 So tell
me, why is it that you Jews insist that Jerusalem is the only
place of worship, while we Samaritans claim it is here at
Mount Gerizim, where our ancestors worshiped?”

21 Jesus replied, “Believe me, dear woman, the time is coming
when it will no longer matter whether you worship the Father
on this mountain or in Jerusalem.

24 For God is Spirit, so those who worship him must worship in
spirit and in truth.”

25 The woman said, “I know the Messiah is coming, the one
who is called Christ. When he comes, he will explain
everything to us.”

26 Then Jesus told her, “I Am the Messiah!”

I pray that your health and energy will allow you to keep going, I earnestly ask Almighty God to ensure that what you say really is the truth, and I hope that I may see everything just that little bit more clearly as the years go by.

With love, Paul
Paul Brann, on September 5, 2012 at 2:18 am said:

It is not the SSPX who tie up the strong man and enter his house and plunder his goods; quite the reverse in fact. It was and still is the Jesuits who operate in that way. It was these power hungry thieves and their lot who hobbled a series of Popes and corrupted what was once universal. Benedict has inherited the mess and is attempting to make something good from the remains, but to point a finger of judgment at the SSPX simply for remaining true to their beliefs and yet look with loving compassion and acceptance towards the East beggars belief. All the Orthodox Churches not only rejected the supremacy of the Pontiff, but also developed their own theology and Liturgy. To equate the SSPX to the Protestant Churches is totally without foundation. I would be more inclined to see similarities with the New Rite and the heretics who followed Calvin and Luther away from the True Faith and established a Eucharistic Service very similar to that which passes as ‘the Mass’ in many Catholic Churches today. But it’s your blog and you are in charge (and I hear you saying: “yes it is and yes I am”)

With love as always, Paul

FATHER JOE:

Yes, it is my blog.

The Catholic Mass, old or new is not comparable to a Protestant communion service where both the oblation of Christ and transubstantiation are denied. This is the slur that the SSPX often repeats in seeking to uphold its intransigence. If you share this sentiment with them, then yes, you are gravitating away from true Catholicism to a sedevacantist parallel church. If such continues, because the present impasse is unsustainable, then the SSPX will have to fabricate its own pope or antipope. I am sure that Bishop Richard Williamson would quickly volunteer for the job. He could canonize as his first saint, his friend the French Nazi collaborator and war criminal, Paul Touvier.

The Protestant reformation was a rebellion in the West. The SSPX is a rebellion in the West. My reasoning here is not strained. The SSPX is not simply being true to their beliefs; they are challenging the God-given and protected authority of the Catholic Church while claiming to be Catholic. They cannot have it both ways. The Orthodox churches of the East do not claim such allegiance to the Pope but only acknowledge him as “the first among equals” from the patriarchs. That is not sufficient and so they also are not in juridical union with the Holy See. I do not pamper them in my comments. They also exhibit a terrible obstinacy toward the West and bigotry toward Eastern rite Catholics. Who said there was only one “strong man” who would enter a house to plunder another’s goods? Jesus would not spare the SSPX from his analogy. While I will not deride the entire Jesuit order, I have known both dissenters and faithful saints from their ranks. The late Fr. John Hardon, SJ gave us a wonderful catechism. The late Fr. Avery Dulles, SJ was such an exceptional theologian that he was named a Cardinal-priest! Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ promotes tradition, including the old Latin Mass, and gave us the conservative Ignatius Press publishing company. The Jesuits died as martyrs to preserve the Catholic faith in England. Their Order suppressed, they preserved the faith in the colonies. Instead of attacking them, there should be expressions of gratitude.
Paul Brann, on September 3, 2012 at 1:04 am said:

But how else could you, as a Catholic Priest respond. I really admire your loyalty and resolute faith in everything that The Catholic Church teaches and if you are right and your obedience to The Holy Father well founded then there will be very many of us destined for Hell. Personally I believe that God is much, much bigger than that. He’s not a legalistic determinist – after all He loves us, not because of what we do but simply because he does. He loves us all, and I love Him. And His love, unlike ours, is truly unconditional. I have a little problem with the dogmatic certainties and legalities of the Catholic Church – sometimes. I can big up Jesus, but struggle to big up Benedict. He’s Ok and seems very genuine, but he certainly isn’t Jesus………nowhere near and I’m sure that he would be the first to declare that. And he seems far more concilatory towards the SSPX than many hard line modernists, but then he, like many of us oldies, grew up with Latin as the Universal Language of The Church and it was universally accepted and the Mass was universally identical no matter where ever one went.

FATHER JOE:

The Latin language is hardly the issue here. We currently have 16 locations in the Archdiocese of Washington where the traditional liturgy is celebrated. It is available and believers can attend valid and licit liturgies. The SSPX have officially told Catholics to avoid these Masses for their own. This is where I see a danger for souls. Without proper faculties, SSPX clergy do not have jurisdiction to hear confessions and to offer absolutions. Without delegation from proper pastors, marriages are invalid and baptisms are illicit.

If you really love Jesus then you (as a Catholic) would seek to obey him and to live as a faithful member of the Church. Does a child really love his mother if he mocks her in public and refuses to eat at her table? If you love Jesus then you must love the entire Mystical Body, the Church. The SSPX want to set up their own tables. They are prodigals who refuse to come home. If they should change their minds, I promise that I will not be the elder brother complaining to his father about receiving them.

Pope Benedict XVI is the Vicar of Christ. As a Catholic you need to give him religious assent and obedience. Failure of a Catholic to obey the Pope is resistance to Christ and to his teachings. If you do not believe this then you are more Protestant than Catholic. That is also an irony about the SSPX. They are in danger of becoming a Catholic variation of Protestants, not dissimilar from elements of the Anglican high church. I suppose they would prefer a comparison with the Eastern or Orthodox schismatic churches…or maybe not?

It is my hope that the devil is lonely, but hell is real and one cannot be forced to cooperate with divine grace. If one remains in mortal sin, then even the priest who celebrates Mass and gives out communion would remain a damned soul should he die in such a state. It is true that God loves us; indeed, he loves us so much that he is willing to let us go to hell. Such is the dark side of human freedom. Misused, liberty can become license and bring about spiritual bondage. God gives us what we want. Arrogance closes the door to repentance, reconciliation and conversion. The Pope has opened all sorts of doors and windows for the SSPX. These are avenues not only to juridical union in this world, but to help insure their admittance into the kingdom of Christ. While their sacraments are valid, they are illicit. The ignorant in the pews might know grace from these mysteries. However, just like the original Protestant reformers, this first generation of pseudo-Catholic bishops and priests will have a lot for which to answer when they meet God. KNOWING that the Catholic Church is the true Church, and appreciating that she is the vehicle or sacrament of encounter with our saving God, then being party to the formation of a parallel church might forfeit eternal life with Christ. It is a very dangerous proposition.

I respond as any OBEDIENT Catholic priest should. However, I am also entirely sincere in my view about this. Admittedly, it might come across as harsh, but for me the issue is cut-and-dry. Father Corapi angered me for similar reasons. One cannot claim to be more faithful or Catholic than the Church, herself. A renegade is a renegade. No spin suffices. My criticism of progressive or liberal revisionists is also severe. But, ironically, the point of dissent for those unhappy on the right or left remains basically the same, a matter of ecclesiology.
Paul Brann, on September 1, 2012 at 8:10 pm said:

You might well be able to regulate it and keep it under control in your Church and you might well not have the urges to go down the weird road, BUT many so called priests, urged on by some very peculiar parishioners, have become apostate.

At least the SSPX remain true, absolutely, to the rubrics and laws of the Church that was clearly defined and universal for hundreds of years.

If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it. I was just prompted by your rather provocative threat to kick ass.

FATHER JOE:

Apostates and heretics have emerged in the Church both prior and after Vatican II. There is also bigotry, as with Bishop Richard Williamson, SSPX. He has condemned Jews as “Christ killers” and “enemies of Christ.” He faults Jews along with freemasonry in the corruption of the Church after Vatican II. His anti-Semitism has led to denials of the Holocaust where millions of Jews were murdered. His chief legal counsel belonged to a neo-Nazi group, as well. He and his kind might follow the rubrics of the old Mass, but they are not authentic leaders in the Catholic community. The Roman Catholic Church would be far better off without their poison.

The old liturgy was wonderful but it was not perfect in every detail. However, both the old and the new ceremonies make present the one who is perfect, in his personal presence and in his saving activity.
Paul Brann, on September 1, 2012 at 12:39 pm said:

Just look at these terrible corruptions of the New Vernacular, and believe me they are not rare, they are heretical and an affront to the Divinity of Christ, they have betrayed the Catholic Church where pottery mugs are used instead of a sacred chalice, plastic packed sliced bread instead of approved hosts, and as for dress and music, well that is truly beyond contemplation.

FATHER JOE:

There were terrible “corruptions” in the older ritual as well. Priests sometimes rattled through the prayers in an unthinking way. This was also an affront to the sacred mystery and the divinity of Christ. Altar servers forgot their responses and spouted nonsense words instead. Clergy could hide a lack of piety or faith behind a mechanistic or slavish observance of the rubrics. While High Mass with talented sola is quite beautiful, the recited Low Mass was extremely disconnected from the churchgoers in the pews. While you said your Rosary or some other private devotion, the priest did his own thing. Internal participation might be active but (especially before the dialogue Mass of Pope Pius XII), almost nothing of external participation was exercised. Until about the last century, even English translations to follow along with the Latin prayers were discouraged and not printed in the people’s books. All the Modernist heretics in the priesthood condemned by the Syllabus of Errors offered the Tridentine Mass, even daily. Such practice did not prevent them from falling into serious error. Your estimation that everything was perfect prior to Vatican II is quite false. Indeed, you should know this from your own life and experiences.

Pottery mugs are forbidden as vessels for the altar. Such abuse is not the fault of the Church or her liturgy.

Even the approved hosts, before and after Vatican II, often came in plastic containers to help preserve them before usage. Glass was used before that technology came available.

The use of loaf-bread is forbidden at Mass. Indeed, a failure to follow the recipe for proper hosts renders the sacrament both illicit and invalid. Such abuse is not the fault of the Church or her liturgy.

As for dress, the Church rendered complaints, even in pre-Vatican II days, against plunging necklines on women and the use of powdered perfumes over regular bathing.

Dear friend, you complain too much.
Paul Brann, on August 31, 2012 at 11:30 am said:

You condemn the SSPX because it struggles to accept the terrible changes that have happened either in line with or possibly even outside the ideals of Vatican 2, and yet the plank in your eye might just possibly be these terrible changes and the Anglicization of this Mass that you talk of and claim but might just not see that it’s gone off cock eyed.

FATHER JOE: I do not condemn the SSPX; that they do to themselves by their intransigence to the Holy See and their superficial fidelity to tradition, minus the most important element, obedience to the successor of Peter. Along with most of the practicing Catholic faithful, we find spiritual nourishment in the reformed vernacular liturgy. At the same time, as with the Pope, I concur that people should have the freedom to enjoy the older ritual if they should so desire. However, what liberty I can grant them in conscience, the SSPX will not tolerate for the rest of the Church satisfied with proper liturgical reform. This is particularly the case in the English speaking world with the corrected translation for the Mass that came out this past Advent. Ultimately, any real condemnation will come from almighty God. Those who condemn the Mass, reformed or not, commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit who gives it efficacy. The Anglicans or Episcopalians share similarities in some of their rites but given that it is an English-speaking church, such similarities were bound to occur, even if more in accidentals than in substance. Those who enter into reconciliation with Catholicism have their clergy ordained “absolutely” and they follow a Romanized or corrected ritual called The Book of Divine Worship. It is not the same as the Roman Missal used by the rest of Roman Catholics. The Roman Missal (currently in use) replaced the Sacramentary and is a wonderful book filled with evocative and meaningful prayers and ceremonies.
Paul Brann, on August 30, 2012 at 1:11 pm said:

Dear Fr Joe, it was The Jesuits, originally The Popes Men, who secretly engineered the great apostasy, this who-hah about about the SSPX is more of a distraction considering the Society of Jesus had fingers in every pie, especially the promulgation of Marxism in the Latin Americas, and in direct but covert defiance of at least 3 Popes. They, or at least some of their members wanted the Holy Father to relent on Homosexuality as well as artificial contraception and abortion and accept their liberation theology. I would not be surprised for it to be eventually revealed that their hand was responsible for the death of John Paul 1.

The mote in the eye is the SSPX whereas the plank must be the Society of Jesus, especially with their checkered past. And yet I hear no condemnation from these pages, only a degree of self righteousness. It was the Chief priests of the time who whole heartedly condemned not only Peter and the gang for gleaning wheat and eating it on the Sabbath, but even Jesus Himself for healing someone on that day. Echos of puritanism and zealous righteousness I do declare.

FATHER JOE:

Liberation theologies that are based upon a Marxist analysis are indeed problematical. There were clergy in Latin America from various orders involved; but, there were many more priests and educators who espoused the orthodox Christian “preferential option for the poor” and argued for the dignity of persons in a just society. The broad brush strokes against the Jesuits border on calumny, especially the insinuation that they had a hand in murdering Pope John Paul II. I know you have health issues, but such arguments cross the line of decency.

I do not buy the conspiracy arguments. The modern Jesuits might often be very liberal, but I do not see them as plotting or engineering any great apostasy. I would insist that the SSPX defection is a grievous sin regardless of the stance of other groups within the Church. The question is not whether other entities or individuals should have been punished, but whether or not the sanctions against the SSPX were congruent with their rebellion against the Holy See and the accompanying canonical violation in consecrating bishops without required approbation? We should not underestimate the severity of their actions. Neither should we be presumptuous that just because they manifest outward signs of Catholicity, particularly in liturgy, that they are truly Catholic in substance. Where we find the papacy, we find the genuine Catholic Church.

The Jesuits are composed of good and bad like most or all religious organizations; however, as a religious order they are still in juridical unity with the Holy See. The SSPX was born out of rebellion and enjoys no such unity. Further, the assumption that they perfectly reflect the pre-Vatican II mind of the Church is false. Vatican II was not simply the wild idea in one lonely old pope, but was an aspiration of many religious leaders to better respond to modernity. Liturgical research and experimentation went back to the 1920’s (Germany). Mass facing the people was one of the experiments, as was the dialogue Mass (giving parishioners the altar server’s responses).

You charge me with being a “self-righteous” zealot. But my so-called “echoes of puritanism” are merely the pleading of a poor priest who is tired of people making traditionalist dissenters into heroes. They regularly trash the Mass I daily offer and thus blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. Given their dedication to traditional Catholicism and sacramental rituals, it might sound preposterous that the SSPX poses a risk to souls. But the most dangerous poison always comes sweetened and hidden in candy. Until or unless their situation is regularized, no one can be counseled to attend their churches or liturgies.
Paul Brann, on August 28, 2012 at 10:48 pm said:

Dear Fr Joe,

I don’t believe that John the Baptist ever gave up his life of austerity in the dessert and became one of Jesus’ followers before he had his head lopped off………and yet we are to suppose that he, and probably also his peculiar load of nomadic weekly bathers were also saved, but saved by what exactly? Certainly not by attending Mass and resting from servile works. They were a weird lot even by Jewish standards.

FATHER JOE: The baptism of John was not one of salvation but of repentance. In that sense, it anticipated and/or disposed one to God’s mercy and the new dispensation. A number of his followers became disples of Christ. Indeed, he encourged it. John the Baptizer is the hinge between the testaments. As the last of the Old Testament prophets, he is not unlike the righteous Jews who had come before him and points to the Messiah like Isaiah of old. He testifies to Jesus as the Christ: in the womb, in the theophany of our Lord’s baptism in the Jordain, and finally by his martyrdom for the truth.

What about Nicodemus? He was cowardly and weak and yet he was also considered as a regular guy.

FATHER JOE: He was careful and came by night to ask questions of Jesus. But why would we interpret this as cowardly? There were many other factors at play.

And the competing lot who were casting out devils in Jesus name but were not of his gang; even Peter got stroppy about that and tried to stop them, but what did Jesus say?

FATHER JOE:

When it comes to exorcisms, the saving name of Jesus has potency to expel the demonic, no matter if from a priest or an evangelical minister. This is a unique situation. However, in general, what Jesus said was pertinent. Look at Matthew 12: 29-31.

How can anyone enter a strong man’s house and steal his property, unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house. Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

By rejecting full juridical union with the Holy See and with various clergy suggesting that Pope Benedict XVI is not a true pope (because of a rejection of the revised ritual for his episcopal consecration), they are literally trying to “tie up the strong man,” so as to plunder the Church. This is precisely the danger that Rome has feared, a parallel church that would steal from the faithful flock. Further, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. How can one truly be with Jesus and repudiate his representative on earth? The only saving excuse would be ignorance, but unlike the Protestants, the traditionalists know better. Humility opens us to mercy and unity. Arrogance leads to intransigence in sin and rebellion. Finally, the repudiation of the reformed rites (ordination, the Mass, etc.) as dubious or invalid (argued by a number of the SSPX priests and fan-base), is “blasphemy against the Spirit.” While there is intransigence in such a stance, there can be no absolution. Vatican II, as a lawful ecumenical council, would also be regarded as a work protected by the Spirit of God. If such is true, the SSPX’s repudiation and derision of the council also constitutes blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
michelle abalos, on August 28, 2012 at 3:31 pm said:

I highly disagree with you, Father Joe. I am a faithful of the SSPX, and a former faithful of Vatican II.

FATHER JOE: You are free to disagree with me, the Pope and Jesus Christ. As for me, I stand with the true Church established by our Lord. The SSPX can become its own parallel church or it can reconcile and know juridical unity with the Holy See and the Roman Catholic Church.

The Masses of the SSPX are Holy and reverent and the same Mass has been said in the same manner for thousand’s of years!

FATHER JOE: Anglo-Catholics offer a similar liturgy although in English, Old Catholics and Feeneyites may also offer liturgies reflective of tradition. But they are still disobedient bishops and priests. Holiness is not obtained by man’s merits but by God’s grace in his Church. The traditional liturgy is liberated in the Church and is offered by many priests today in good standing. There is no need to go to renegades.

I don’t understand why you criticize the SSPX and not other religions!

FATHER JOE: Other religions do not claim to be Catholic.

After all Vatican II was composed by Cardinal Bugnini and PROTESTANT ministers, who don’t believe in the TRUE PRESENCE of Christ (Transubstantiation), and that is the true MYSTERY of our Faith.

FATHER JOE: Vatican II was instigated by Pope John XXIII and completed by Pope Paul VI. The world’s bishops discussed and voted on its teachings. While there are many critics of the Cardinal, it is wrong to say that the reformed Mass is the product of Protestant ministers. The reformed liturgy is wholly Catholic, the sacrifice of Calvary (albeit unbloody) and it gives us the real presence of Christ. His flesh is real food and his blood is real drink. The teachings of the faith are secure. Your calumny against a shepherd of the Church and your blasphemy against the efficacy of the Catholic Mass is not to your credit.

I for one love our Holy Father but Vatican II was a big mistake!

FATHER JOE: It is not important whether or not you love the Pope. Rather, you should respect his teachings and OBEY him. Anything less from a person who is purportedly Catholic is from the evil one. Further, if the Holy Spirit safeguarded the council, then you blaspheme against the Spirit of God. Who are you to judge the Church? Are you the Pope? Are you the Magisterium? No, and those who utterly repudiate the council will not find a place in the living visible Church. This is why I am dubious about any future reconciliation with the SSPX. While not everything from Vatican II is of the same doctrinal weight, and there is room for discussion, there can be no quarter given to those who spurn it.

How can you think that allowing hindu rituals and buddhas on our Lord’s Sacred Altar is ok? Doesn’t it go against the 1st Commandment of God?

FATHER JOE:

Such things are indeed terrible mistakes and they were criticized by Cardinal Ratzinger, i.e. Pope Benedict XVI. Organizers for faith gatherings were not always in proper sync with the Holy See and doctrine. However, such practices also fly in the face of the Vatican II teachings. It is one thing for religious leaders to gather seeking peaceful dialogue and cooperation; however, there can be no false worship or religious indifferentism.

Many things have happened after Vatican II which really had nothing to do with the council. Distinctions are required in justice and charity.