An important theme for this blog is the scene in the New Testament where Jesus can be found FLOGGING the money-changers out of the temple. My header above depicts a priest FLOGGING the devils that distort the faith and assault believers. The faith that gives us consolation can and should also make us very uncomfortable. Both Divine Mercy and Divine Justice meet in Jesus. Priests are ministers of reconciliation, but never at the cost of truth. In or out of season, we must be courageous in preaching and living out the Gospel of Life. The title of my blog is a play on words, not Flogger Priest but Blogger Priest.
Having read Kevin Wells appeal to a SSPX priest to join the Novus Ordo Church out of a desire to care for souls, I penned the following reflection. He spoke from the heart but I suspect his cry will either go unanswered or be rebuked.
First, we need to appreciate that designations like traditionalist Catholics and Novus Ordo Catholics lack real substance. One is a Catholic or not, nothing more. There is the living Catholic Church under the Pope, and then there are those who are outside of it. We might debate the extent that a Protestant is affiliated with Catholicism through baptism and shared elements of the faith; but no Lutheran, Methodist or Presbyterian would regard himself as in any way a Catholic by extension. Nevertheless, the SSPX tries to make this argument because if they admit formal separation from the See of Peter then their house of cards comes tumbling down. They would either have to go the route of the sedevacantist breakaway churches and appoint their own Pope or to adopt the stance of conciliarism and shared communion as manifest between Orthodox autocephalous churches.
Second, the failure of any reconciliation rests squarely with the SSPX. They would arrogantly usurp for themselves an authority that belongs exclusively to the Holy See. Their path to reconciliation and regularization would be as follows:
The Pope would have to renounce Vatican II, especially teachings about ecumenism, religious liberty, freedom of conscience, and the inherent dignity of persons.
All liturgical changes would have to be repealed.
There would have to be a massive number of excommunications and expulsions to purge the Church.
Indeed, all new ecclesial initiatives would be revoked, including the permission for the Divine Mercy devotion as it was suspect and forbidden prior to Vatican II.
Such was never going to happen. Despite posturing, reunion with the SSPX was never in the picture. Despite high hopes for individual clergy, it is unlikely, except for maybe a few seeking incorporation into the Fraternity of St. Peter.
The fact that a priest cares for souls is the bottom line and should not be regarded as something exceptional. But this movement of the will and heart must also be in sync with a proper understanding of the truth by the mind. Otherwise, any fruits will be seriously inhibited or even blocked. A Protestant minister might be on fire to save others from perdition and to foster a saving faith relationship with Jesus. But he has neither the Mass rendered by priests nor the absolution given to these same ministers of Christ’s reconciliation. His efforts may bear some small fruit, but they are handicapped by his own deficiencies.
Many in the traditionalist camp would stamp such a Protestant minister and his flock as likely damned for being outside the boundaries of the visible Catholic Church. Opposed to religious liberty, they would like to erase the public non-Catholic churches and schools. Indeed, they eye with suspicion the Novus Ordo liturgy as dangerous and the orders of its priests as suspect. They renounce by “association” the larger Church for its ecumenism toward so-called “separated brethren.” They subscribe to a methodology of fear— risk no change, stay separate or risk going to hell— distrust the Pope, avoid Protestant contamination, and oppose the world.
If a traditionalist priest disavows the priesthood and ministry of priests in the juridical Church under the Holy Father, then why would he be concerned about his fatigue and making “the good fight”? As far as he is concerned, despite the many protestations to the contrary, the Novus Ordo priest is not his brother but the enemy. Note that the SSPX tells its lay participants that it would be better to miss Mass entirely than to attend a Novus Ordo liturgy. The living Church in union with Pope Leo XIV would regard this attitude as blasphemous. The SSPX clergyman with this sentiment might desire to save souls but despite all the trappings of tradition, he has become what he most detests, a Protestant. The ancient faith and the efficacy of the liturgy may still be fortuitous to believers, but not because of the rebel priest but despite his failings. Wherever we find the Pope, we find the Catholic Church. This is the quandary around which the traditionalists must dance. They acknowledge the validity of the Pope in theory, but in practice his authority over them is rejected. What is the old saying about a duck? Well, right now it is quacking away!
The true Church must courageously engage the world in the time and place where she finds herself. Confident in the charism of indefectibility, she must not retreat from the world like the SSPX. The living Church applies social teachings to the world as it is (not as it was). She acknowledges the organic development of doctrine from seeds planted in the Gospel. Saving revelation has ended with the apostle John, however teachings are not stagnant but grow in our understanding. However, the SSPX goes further in the wrong direction, rejecting (in practice if not in principle) the current Pope as the chief lawgiver and rejecting the historical fact that each successor of Peter is the living and breathing embodiment of the Roman rite. The way he says Mass is the way the rest of the Western Church says Mass. We follow living popes, not dead ones.
The charge of Modernism targeted against the post-Vatican II Church is particularly upsetting and wrong-headed. Modernism came into existence by priests who regularly celebrated the Traditional Latin Mass. Fr. Alfred Loisy even acknowledged that the rubrics of the old Mass allowed him to robotically celebrate the liturgy daily out of habit long after he had stopped believing. Further, it troubles me that anyone would caricature the Novus Ordo Mass as leaving the flock starving. It is the unbloody or clean re-presentation of the sacrifice on Calvary. It is a sacrifice that honors God and makes propitiation or satisfaction for sin. The Eucharist is the substance of the real body and blood of the risen Christ, whole and complete, given as our saving food. Accidentals have changed and no liturgy is perfect. But the substance remains. The Church saw revolutions, heresy and Mass defections before, even when the rituals of sacrifice were untouched. The problem is not the Mass but a secular world that is increasingly hostile to people of faith. While the Lord gave us the great commission, too many have allowed themselves to be converted by the atheistic and materialistic hedonism of our times. For all we know, the current situation might have been worse without Vatican II. But about this, we cannot know for sure. We live in an age where there is much dissent from the left and right. Violence against the Church from the right is somewhat surprising, but perhaps more perilous than that on the left or from progressives. But neither side can stand any attempted middle-course. That is what defines the post-conciliar Church. This tension needs to end. An ancient motto from the 17th century comes to mind, quoted by Pope St. John XXIII in his 1959 encyclical Ad Petri Cathedram, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.”
When mention is made of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), what comes to the mind of most is their insistence upon celebrating the Tridentine Mass. However, their divide with the Vatican is far more serious and complicated. If the problem were simply an attachment to the older ritual, there would be no excommunications and schism. The proof of this is the regularized status of the Fraternity of St. Peter. They offer the pre-Vatican II Mass exclusively and without hindrance. The crisis with the SSPX is over the direction and teachings of Vatican II.
A growing number of living Catholics were not around or were small children prior to Vatican II (1962-1965). At the request of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the Society of St. Pius X was established and canonically erected as a “pious union” on an experimental basis for six years by Bishop François Charrière of the Diocese of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg in Switzerland on November 1, 1970. His successor, Bishop Pierre Mamie, petitioned Rome and formally suppressed the SSPX’s canonical status on May 6, 1975. Archbishop Lefebvre refused to shut down the operation for the formation of seminarians and restructured the SSPX as a clerical or priestly organization. While Archbishop Lefebvre signed 14 of the 16 conciliar documents from Vatican II, he later renounced the Council and accused the post-Vatican II Church of modernism, liberalism, and adopting the “spirit of the modern world.”
The point of contention continues to be an interpretation of centuries old tradition and the extent of ongoing development. There are five areas of friction:
(1) HUMAN DIGNITY – As the root premise from which flow as corollaries the other areas of objection from the SSPX, we must begin with the most foundational principle of Catholic social doctrine. At the core of our belief in what Pope John Paul II called the Gospel of Life, is the conviction that every person is created in the image of God and as such, possesses an inherent, inalienable and incommensurate value that defeats every effort at quantification. Everyone has worth, even prior to the indwelling of divine grace. Even in the womb, human life is precious and irreplaceable. This valuation stems from humanity’s place as the steward of creation. This dignity is damaged by the primordial fall and sin but not destroyed. Human worth is not a measure that society can assign or reward to those it most favors. It is given immediately by God at the moment of conception. Most recently, this teaching emerges in Dignitas Infinita (2024) wherein Pope Francis speaks of “infinite dignity” grounded in the created order as a facet of our very being. He lists the violations against this dignity as including poverty, war, human trafficking, abortion, euthanasia, and gender theory. Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes (1965) makes human dignity a central component to Catholic teaching and outreach. This conviction places us at odds with any discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, color, social status, or religion. Such bigotry contradicts the will of God. Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae (1965) connected this dignity to freedom of conscience and religious freedom. Evangelium Vitae (1995) written by Pope St. John Paul II, focused on the value and inviolability of every human life, objecting to abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty. Pacem in Terris (1963) written by Pope St. John XXIII associated dignity and human rights with the pursuit of peace while respecting truth, justice, charity, and liberty.
The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) contends that human nature alone does not inherently possess any dignity that grants inalienable rights. Let that sink in, especially the consequences. They argue that true dignity belongs to the Christian, achieved exclusively through divine grace, rather than merely by being a human created in the image of God. It is no wonder that traditionalists constitute hawks in terms of military intervention around the world and are often rabid defenders of the death penalty. They refuse to acknowledge any doctrinal development about capital punishment. Indeed, some will even advocate for the Church’s past passivity for slavery, echoing ancient arguments— punishment for conquered peoples, a means to pay back debts, a manner to civilize savages with the faith and Western civilization. Indigenous culture is devalued. The traditionalist fraternity finds itself in conflict, not just with liberalism but with the Catholic mainstream.
The conciliar popes see human dignity as inherently rooted in creation itself, in nature (see CCC 1700). Human rights are first based upon natural dignity. By contrast, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre stated, “There is not a dignity of man; there is only the dignity of the Christian.” The SSPX argument is that Original Sin damages or corrupts human nature. The mainstream would also agree that it has been wounded, but not that it has become devalued. The SSPX repudiates the notion that unbaptized human beings (unregenerated and still in sin) possess any inherent incommensurate natural dignity. Where does the truth stand? There is no rift with tradition. But this is the great conflict that makes the regularization of the SSPX impossible. Our tradition is that human dignity is damaged but not destroyed. The “supernatural” or divine grace builds upon the “natural.” Baptism and saving faith transform creatures of God into adopted sons and daughters of the Father. Made in the “image of God,” divine grace makes possible our rebirth into the “likeness of Christ.” The implications of this even speak to the Church’s new interest in ecology. Why? It is because any abuse or neglect of our environment works to impoverish human persons. Our Christian anthropology looks to a creation where man stands at the center. The consequences of this understanding impact upon our understanding of the incarnation. Jesus comes into the world to save us and yet he also comes to resolve a metaphysical conflict. Christ as the Word is also the saving plan and the center of creation. You cannot have two centers. Thus, the Word becomes man. The consequence for fallen man is decisive; grace builds upon nature. While we would not reject the wonder that is man, a notion that comes down to us from the Enlightenment, it is that good seed from the natural order that grows by God’s intervention into something even more marvelous. Potency is actualized. Wired for God, that immeasurable dignity is used by God as a building block for his incarnation and the new man in baptism. That which is beyond evaluation is granted something of the infinite goodness that belongs to God.
(2) RELIGIOUS LIBERTY– The Council established religious freedom as a basic human right (see Dignitatis Humanae). No one should be compelled to violate his or her conscience about faith. But the response of the SSPX is an explicit objection. In its estimation, all must be subject to the Kingship of Christ and error has no rights. These traditionalists would reject religious liberty as an American imposition upon the universal Church.
Prior to the revolutionary War, Maryland as a colony had issued the Edict of Toleration (1649). This decree grated religious freedom for Trinitarian Christians. Maryland Catholics invited the Puritans persecuted in Virginia to join us in our colony. However, in 1654, Puritan rebels seized control of Maryland and revoked the colony’s groundbreaking Act of Religious Toleration. They quickly enacted sweeping penal laws that banned Catholic worship, prohibited Catholics from voting or holding public office, and severely restricted the religious freedoms of Jews, Quakers, and other dissenters.
As citizens, we know that freedom of religion is protected under the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It also established the separation of church and state. While we had to suffer the bigotries of the political Know Nothings and the prejudice of various early hate groups. The enactment of religious liberty would give us an even playing field wherein the Church in the United States could flourished.
American enthusiasts for the liturgies and spirituality of the SSPX might be less than pleased with this mentality toward our non-believing and Protestant neighbors. Our forefathers, Catholic and Protestant alike, came to this country to escape the oppression of state religions where institutionalized favoritism to one church came at the cost of persecuting all others. More than once the tables turned in Europe, and the Catholic Church suffered much in what were regarded as states favorable to Rome. But princes rose and fell and along with this movement also went the fortunes of the Church. One can certainly argue as a philosophical notion that the ideal state is one where there is harmony with the Church and concurrence with the truth. This is an ancient tradition. However, in practice, the subjective assessments of men lead to division. This particularly became the case after the reformation. The old mind about such matters allowed a king to steal the Church away in England where he made himself the head over the Pope. Even agreements of the Church to preserve peace in Europe often tolerated believers following the local prince, either into Catholicism or into the Protestant sects. The American notion of religious liberty severed this ability of the state to violate conscience and to compel a certain form of worship. Vatican II gives an emphasis to the nation of the new Israel or Christ’s reign over earthly kingdoms. Catholicism unlike the churches of the East is no national church. There is no American Catholicism or French Catholicism but rather as Roman it is, like the empire of old, international in scope. One can speak of the Catholic Church in America but never of an American Catholic Church. This distinction is often lost. Again, while in principle it would make sense that the Catholic political heads should have the moral duty to favor Catholicism and restrict error; the capriciousness of men and the changing state of the world made such imposition difficult or impossible to maintain. What was given by one monarch could just as easily be stripped away by the next. Did we really want to continue in a society where Catholics and Protestants conspired against one another and where both suspected the Jews of dark machinations? Certain Catholic traditionalists have argued, not only for the suppression of Jews to ghettos, but that Protestants should be restricted to home churches and forfeit their worship sites and schools. This is the mindset of the SSPX. But the world has moved on from such anachronism, or has it? It is precisely the mindset of militant Islam that forbids conversion to Christianity and in places like Saudi Arabia has outlawed the Church, altogether. The trouble with the shoe on the other foot is when it comes down to being kicked around. The Church’s teachings upon such matters must reflect the realities of the modern world. It makes no sense to speak of the divine rights of kings when such despots have disappeared. Toleration of false religions is not to posit faith or confidence in those creeds; no, it is rather a common respect for persons and a desire to live together in peace as brothers and sisters of a common homeland. This liberty allows us to persuade and to seek conversion through charity and dialogue, not through intimidation as through edict or decree.
(3) ECUMENISM – The Vatican Council urged dialogue over anathema. Pope John XXIII saw ecumenism as a manner to draw fallen away children back to the fold of Mother Church, not with scolding and threat of punishment but with affirmation of shared beliefs and the compelling power of the truth (see Unitatis Redintegratio, 1964). While we could never engage in non-Christian prayer, we might sometimes pray side-by-side and work together to improve the society in which we must live as neighbors. The SSPX wrongly condemns such efforts as the sin of indifferentism. But there is no pollution of true faith. Further, no one questions the ancient teaching from the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215: “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” The dogma of “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” is straightforward, since there is no salvation apart from Christ, and given that the Church is his mystical body, then the Church is the necessary vessel or great sacrament of salvation in Christ. It is for this reason that we seek to attract all to the safe harbor of salvation— the Catholic Church. However, teaching must be applied in a way that respects changing circumstances around us. While the great schism between the East and West had occurred in 1054 AD, the reformation rebellion did not occur until 1517 when Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-five Theses to Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. This signified a great fracturing of the Church in the West. The reformers absconded with many Catholic beliefs and most importantly, with the sacrament of baptism. Unfortunately, they forfeited the crown treasures of Priesthood, Eucharist and Penance. Many through no fault of their own have been born into the Protestant confessions. They are baptized, read the Bible, love Jesus and know him as the Second Person of the Trinity and the Word incarnate, and seek to keep the commandments. The SSPX would contend that these saving elements are for nought. But our hearts will not let us believe that a good God would spurn their cry. The post-Vatican II Church would argue that these elements cry out for Catholic unity. Our Lord will not abandon those who love him and place their faith in his saving Cross. While our unity is not what it should be, it is not utterly severed. The Catholic Church reaches out to them and intercedes for them to almighty God. We need to trust that the Church’s collective trust in Jesus and cry to heaven will grant hope and might be efficacious. The mystery of the keys may be impenetrable, but it is real and the authority is given to Peter. Unfortunately, the SSPX gives lip service to Rome but nothing of true respect and subservience.
The SSPX is frequently tagged for being antisemitic. Whether they are or not, it is a question I would leave to others. However, they are on the record for questioning whether the Jews today are one and the same with the Jews of old. They would insist that their covenant ended with the coming of Christ and that those Jews who failed to convert to Christianity are no longer the People of God. This is not the view of the living Magisterium (see Nostra Aetate, 1965 on relations with non-Christian religions). Yes, it is true that the Catholic Church does not subscribe to Zionism, as the prophesied new Israel or new Jerusalem is not the political state of Israel but is rather the Church, herself. We believe that Jesus Christ is the consummation of the old covenant, but that God keeps his promises, and the Jews remain God’s own and our elder brothers and sisters in faith. There are not two separate covenants but one. The old becomes something new in Jesus Christ. The natural religion of the Jews with its belief in one true God is given a further revelation in the new dispensation of God as a Trinity. This belief of one God in three divine Persons raises Christian faith to a supernatural religion. No matter whether all Jews know it or not, Jesus is the Messiah and our Savior. We believe that Jesus is the ultimate term of salvation. None are saved apart from him. But we also appreciate that God’s grace cannot be utterly contained. God will save whomever he wills. We leave judgment to God. The SSPX would outrightly condemn much of the planet to perdition. By contrast we do not teach universalism (that all will be saved). Indeed, even Catholics with a soured faith and in mortal sin might forfeit heaven. However, if we walk with the Lord, people of faith live in the sure and certain hope of their salvation in Christ. We pray and intercede for others. Again, we do not usurp a prerogative that belongs to the Almighty— we leave judgment to almighty God.
(4) LITURGICAL REFORM & THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE –
Vatican II called for a renewal of the liturgy. After much consultation and work, the reformed Mass of Paul VI was promulgated in 1969. While Latin was to have a preferred place, the vernacular quickly displaced it. Many lamented the loss of the many chants and our legacy of hymnody. While Society of Saint Pius X has objected to the changes, it has become abundantly clear that they would resist even the most modest alterations. They contend that the Novus Ordo obscures the sacramental aspect of the liturgy and waters down Catholic elements to appease Protestants. They will go so far as to castigate the reformed Mass as dangerous. It is my argument that they trespass in their critique into the moral area of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. If they believed that holy orders were truly conferred to priests of the living Church, why do they insist upon re-ordination when received into the SSPX? If they really believe the Novus Ordo Mass is valid then how can they urge against attendance, especially since the fruits prevail over any subjective aesthetic? No, they speak out of both sides of their mouths. Their arrogance destroys the humility necessary for a theologian and the posture of a Catholic who is one with Peter.
The changes in the liturgy were the result of a liturgical reform that in theory and small steps went back many decades prior to Vatican II— dialogue Masses, experiments with the orientation of the priest, the use of the vernacular, expansion of the Scriptures, the introduction of microphones, the permission for missal translations for the people, the reduction of duplication (as with the double Confiteor), etc. What surprised many people was the wholesale rewrite of the offertory and the addition of Eucharistic prayers. The latter is why some have suggested that the new liturgy signified a new rite and the loss of the Roman rite. However, the Roman Canon is still retained, and the liturgical pattern of the Roman rite remains the guide for our worship. What is this pattern?
THE STRUCTURE & ELEMENTS OF THE NOVUS ORDO (ROMAN RITE)
First, there are the Introductory Rites: 1. Introit (Antiphon /Hymn) & Kissing Altar, 2. Sign of the Cross & Greeting, 3. Confiteor & Kyrie Eleison & Absolution, 4. Gloria (Glory to God), and 5. Collect (Opening Prayer).
Second, is the Liturgy of the Word: 1. Reading(s), 2. Responsorial Psalm, 3. Alleluia or Gospel Verse, 4. Gospel, 5. Homily, 6. Creed (Profession of Faith), and 7. Prayer of the Faithful.
Third is the Preparation of the Gifts (Offertory): 1. Bringing Up the Offertory Gifts, 2. Blessing of the Bread, 3. Mixing Water into the Wine, 4. Blessing of the Chalice, 5. The Lavabo (The Washing), 6. The Orate Fratres (Pray Brethren), and 7. Prayer over the Gifts.
Fourth is the Liturgy of the Eucharist: 1. Introductory Dialogue & Preface, 2. Sanctus & Benedictus, 3. Eucharistic Prayer (Canon), and 4. Closing Doxology & Amen.
Elements of the Eucharistic Prayer or Anaphora: 1. Appeal to the Father or Plea for Acceptance, 2. Epiclesis (Invocation of the Holy Spirit), 3. Consecration (Words of Institution), 4. Memorial Acclamation, 5. Anamnesis (Memorial Prayer), and 6. Oblation to the Father.
Intercessions in Variable Order: 1. Intercession of the Saints, 2. Intercession for the Church, 3. Intercession & Memento for the Living, and 4. Intercession & Memento for the Dead.
Fifth is the Rite of Holy Communion: 1. Our Father, Deliver Us Prayer & Doxology, 2. Sign of Peace, 3. Fraction & Commingling, 4. Agnus Dei (Lamb of God), 5. Secret Prayer for Priestly Worthiness, 6. Ecce Agnus Dei (Behold the Lamb of God), 7. Communion & Antiphon (Hymn), and 8. Prayer after Communion.
Sixth, there are the cursory Concluding Rites: 1. Final Blessing and 2. Dismissal.
Finally, there is a truth that many seem to have historical amnesia about. Ultimately what makes the Roman rite, the Roman rite? There are many other liturgies that go back into antiquity. What gives singular value to this one ritual? The answer is simple and straightforward. The priests of the West wanted to do as the Romans do. In other words, they desired to imitate Peter or the Pope in Rome. The Holy Father is the living embodiment of the Roman rite!
The Holy Father is obligated to maintain the Church’s inheritance, but he can also rescue eclipsed traditions from the Church’s past treasure and build upon new insights that will add to the richness of faith for future generations. The Novus Ordo (the Vatican II Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite) restored several ancient liturgical elements that had been lost, obscured, or marginalized over time. These included expanded readings from Scripture (especially the Old Testament), the Prayer of the Faithful Bidding Prayers, multiple Eucharistic prayers, and concelebration. While many complain about the editing, the short Second Eucharistic Prayer borrowed from the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus. Communion in the hand was restored as an option that was normative for the first eight hundred years of the Church’s history.
Repeatedly, the hardliner traditionalists struggle with transition or development. One often feels more comfortable and secure with a staid tradition and dead popes than with a living tradition and breathing popes! Pope Francis was the symbol for everything a lover of tradition fears— novelty and uncertainty. I suppose that is why so many are hoping and praying that when the new cat, Pope Leo XIV, makes his final leap from the altar, that he will land on his feet and put all things right again— please, pretty, please!
(5) COLLEGIALITY & CHURCH AUTHORITY – Ultimately the fight between the SSPX and the Vatican is over ecclesiology or authority. The SSPX abhor Lumen Gentium (The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church) promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964. The document fundamentally reshapes the Church’s self-understanding in the modern world. Who speaks for the Church? Is it one dead archbishop and a few illicitly manufactured bishops against the thousands of bishops at Vatican II who remain in full union with Rome? Did our Lord promise Peter and his Church the gift of indefectibility or not? The SSPX has gotten so used to having its own way that it no longer knows how to concede to the papacy. It is an organization born from rebellion and its identity is tied up with its position as the opposition to reforms of any sort. It sees itself as the bastion of orthodoxy against a larger and universal Church which it has condemned as in the grips of the heresy of modernism. If it would not concede to Pope Benedict XVI, then it was highly unlikely that it would acquiesce either to Francis or now to Leo XIV. I suspect that is why the current Pope has said that it is time to let them go their way. We might get a few stragglers to return but like the Anglicans, they are set on their own path. Sadly, they will do so without Peter, which means that they have left the boat established by Christ on the sea of salvation history. Their stance over the last half century is becoming increasingly untenable. Do not be surprised when the day comes that one of their prelates will arise and be declared the great antipope of their confession.
While there is legitimate confusion about what constitutes the current synodal way, especially with the inclusion of select laity, the SSPX were not entirely happy with the college of bishops helping the Pope to govern the global Church, either. But the Church has grown too big for the small structures of the past to suffice. He needs people of varying expertise and learning. Mistakes will be made but the Church will be richer for the talents and wisdom of its saints, and yes even sinners who might become saints. While the SSPX might object that collegiality diminishes the supreme and monarchical authority of the Pontiff; it makes an exception for itself and has become querulous or whiny about being rebuffed by Rome. The SSPX tends to view sacred tradition as immutable and as a product from heaven against the dictates of shifting cultural opinions. However, just like Sacred Scripture, that is both the work of men and that of divine inspiration; tradition is a mixture of providence within the framework of human history. There is always both an immutable and a mutable component. The Church tolerated slavery but the egalitarian component of baptism and an extended reflection upon the dignity of the human person made such a concession or passivity to evil into something that could no longer be sustained or tolerated. The Church granted the state the right to execute the most dangerous criminals but here too, with the development of a more corrective penal system, the necessity of such an extreme measure was increasingly questioned. Pope John Paul II, who had known men to lose their lives under both the Nazis and later under Communist rule, distrusted the judgment of those who held the reins of power to make just decisions. Indeed, given the rise of abortion where innocent children were sentenced to death, he felt that a Western world in the grips of a culture of death had sacrificed the authority to condemn the guilty. Instead of concurrence with the world, we have witnessed the Church’s continuing moral ascendance as a sign of contradiction that challenges contemporary secular culture. The Church finds herself targeted as the enemy by the left and right. She is daily combating challenges to religious liberty, freedom of conscience, and crimes against human dignity. She is a Church in conflict, not only with the modern world, but with the world of old and the hardened traditions paraded by the SSPX. Today we are seeing this same clash or friction regarding warfare. The Church looks at weapons of mass destruction and the thousands of non-combatants in harm’s way and pleads for peace. This earns praise from the weak and recrimination from the strong. The weak look to the Pope and the Church as the voice for the oppressed and the marginalized. The strong tell Catholic leaders to stay out of politics and to mind their own business, or else.
The values of the Church are what they have always been. Homosexuality is still a disorientation, but we tell these people that we love them and desire to walk with them in the hopes that together we might “together” travel the path to conversion and holiness. We recognize a messiness and brokenness that touches many marriages and families these days. Instead of condemnation, we seek to bring healing and a path to regularization. We reach out to those who live for the flesh and remind them that there is a life in the spirit where one can find true happiness and something lasting. We plead that human beings should not be reduced to commodities— not in abortion, not in sweat shops, not in human trafficking— but persons who must be valued and loved. We are condemned for taking the cause of the immigrant. We are ridiculed for seeking to advance the poor. The same voices that might praise us for speaking up for the unborn child demand our silence about the prisoners on death row. The SSPX defenders add their voices to this worldwide ridicule. Notice how incensed they became when the Vatican library offered a small room for a few Moslems to pray privately in peace. It was no temple or public worship space, but still Vatican authorities were chastised for making a concession to the “Church of Satan”!
A man who would become a special prophet for Vatican II should be mentioned. Beloved by Traditionalists because of his orthodox television programs and a classic photo book on the Mass, Archbishop Fulton Sheen became a strong supporter for the Second Vatican Council. He praised the document Gaudium et Spes as “brilliant” in his book, Treasure in Clay. He advanced with zeal the Council’s directives. He delivered a strong and supportive speech to the Council fathers in November 1964 on our missionary outreach. He adopted the reforms of the council, including the Novus Ordo. At the beginning of the Council he remarked that Pope John XXIII was calling the Church to stop hiding behind closed doors and go out into the world because it was “waiting for salvation.” As Bishop of Rochester, Sheen fully implemented the ecumenical and pastoral directives of Vatican II. In September 1968, he became one of the first U.S. prelates to invite a Protestant leader to speak from his cathedral pulpit, aiming to make his diocese a catalyst for post-conciliar renewal and ecumenism. Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen preached at televangelist Rev. Robert Schuller’s Arboretum in 1972. Traditionalists were infuriated; how dare he speak for a Dutch Reformed minister and treat his congregation as real Christians! Archbishop Sheen also frequently used the story of Lutheran Pastor Richard Wurmbrand—who endured 14 years of brutal torture and solitary confinement in Romanian Communist prisons for his Christian faith—to illustrate the reality of modern Christian martyrdom and the redemptive power of suffering. Making the case for religious liberty and ecumenism in the same breath earned contempt from the likes of the SSPX.
The SSPX argues that the contemporary liturgical forms have done the following: (1) Obscured the sacrificial and propitiatory character of the Mass, (2) Fostered a democratic conception of worship, and (3) Protestantized liturgical expression.
A Mass with an Obscured Sacrificial & Propitiatory Character
The claim that the Novus Ordo Missae obscured the sacrificial and propitiatory character of the Mass is refuted by the text of the liturgy itself and official Church teaching. There is no refutation of Trent, rather, the reformed Mass retains, amplifies, and explicitly declares these realities throughout its revised structure.
The sacrificial nature of the Mass is proclaimed multiple times in every Novus Ordo liturgy. Most notably, in the Orate Fratres, the priest explicitly invites the faithful to pray: “Pray, brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.”
Further, the exact words of consecration restore an explicit expression of Christ’s sacrificial purpose. Take note of the phrase, “This is my body, which will be given up for you.” It directly emphasizes Christ’s redemptive offering.
The Roman Canon and the Eucharistic Prayers composed after Vatican II, all definitively state that the Church is offering Christ the holy Victim to God the Father.
Vatican II’s “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” affirms the teachings of Trent. So as there can be no confusion, it teaches that Christ is present offering Himself in the person of the priest, just as He did on the Cross.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church ensures that there can be no confusion on this matter. The Mass is identical with the oblation of Christ on Calvary. This sacrifice is “truly propitiatory” and is offered for the living and the dead.
A Democratic Conception of Worship
While the people are not mere spectators to the liturgy, they participate through a unity with the celebrant and thus with Christ whom he signifies. Proof of the hierarchical nature of the Church and the necessity of a priest at the altar is proven by the Church’s own official texts and the directives for pastoral implementation. The argument that the Novus Ordo introduced by Pope Paul VI in 1969 fostered an overly “democratic” conception of worship is a frequent point of critique among liturgical traditionalists. However, it is false in that the missal preserves the hierarchical nature of Catholic liturgy while furthering an ancient ideal of “active participation.” There is no majority rule. The role of the ordained priest is still essential— no priest, no Mass. The priest is sacramentally configured to act “in persona Christi” at the altar. Only the priest can confect or consecrate the Eucharist. He is more than a master of ceremonies. He is celebrant of Mass. Only a priest can offer Mass. Indeed, only a man in holy orders is permitted to proclaim and to preach the Gospel. Liturgical actions, prayers and rubrics are established by the universal Church, not through the popular vote of a congregation and not through the intimidation of a breakaway group like the SSPX. The liturgical reforms did not simply create something new but sought to recover something ancient to better confront modernity.
Participation of the laity at Mass is both external (responses and prayers) and internal (the right disposition). The notion of the faithful offering themselves with Christ was championed by Pope St. Pius X. It was not a notion new with Vatican II. There is a profound collaboration between the ordained priest and the laity who share a baptismal priesthood. Note that at baptism, children are anointed, “priest, prophet, and king.” This participation makes full discernment of the various presences of Christ: in the Word proclaimed, in the priest at the altar, in the Mystical Body of the Church, and in the sacrament. The orchestration of liturgy involves many playing their roles. But the ordering is not democratic but hierarchical. Christian worship is structured as a prayer to God the Father, through the sacrifice of Christ and made effective by the power of the Holy Spirit. Despite many cosmetic changes, the core structure of the Novus Ordo is the same as in the traditional Latin Mass. There is, in truth, no new or old Mass. The Mass is the Mass. The Second Eucharistic Prayer is rooted in the ancient liturgy of Hippolytus. Ancient texts went into the composition of the Third Eucharist Prayer as well. We do not celebrate ourselves in the Novus Ordo liturgy. Rather, we worship almighty God. We acknowledge his sovereignty over mankind. We invoke the Lord’s mercy upon us.
Protestantized Liturgical Expression
The argument that the Novus Ordo (promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969) “Protestantized” the Mass is a frequent criticism from traditionalists. However, our liturgical history and magisterial documents refute this stance. Indeed, the Vatican II rites sought to restore ancient Catholic traditions, not to succumb to Protestantism. The Protestants of the reformation rejected the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice. This hallmark of the Catholic Mass remains essential. While the number of Eucharistic Prayers were expanded, all of them explicitly state that the Mass is a sacrifice. Note Eucharistic Prayer III: “Look, we pray, upon the oblation of your Church and, recognizing the sacrificial Victim by whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself. . .” By comparison, Protestant reformers like Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer obliterated all mention of sacrifice from their liturgies. Simplification of the rites was not to make them Protestant. Rather, it was an effort to return to the primary sources and to the ancient Church fathers. There was a heavier emphasis upon Scripture in the reformed Mass. The full expression of the Sign of Peace and the option for Communion in the Hand were recovered, practices that disappeared in the Middle Ages (see St. Augustine and St. Cyril of Jerusalem). Transubstantiation was reaffirmed, something rejected by the Protestants. Liturgically, we can look to the genuflections after the consecrations and the significance of the “Amen” as a response to “The Body of Christ,” at communion time. Indeed, Eucharistic Adoration was raised from a faith devotion to an official liturgy of the Church. Even the purification of the vessels affirms the real presence of the Eucharist. The use of the vernacular made the prayers more accessible to the congregation and the priest was often turned around toward the people; however, this was to further participation, not to reduce the sacrifice to a mere community meal. The Mass is still wholly Catholic!
This statement is taken from the SSPX Profession of Faith . . .
Yes, I can affirm much about the opinions expressed in the statement. But, we must be careful of false caricatures. This is a serious problem. No liturgy is absolutely “perfect.” Every Mass has its supporters and detractors. When properly offered the Novus Ordo can have an order and solemnity that is every bit as meaningful as the traditional Latin Mass. Unfortunately, comparisons frequently resort to stereotypical problems or abuses. I have said it before, and I will say it again, the classical High Latin Mass is a beauty to behold. But except for the sacred silence, the Low Mass is not much to write home about. The spiritual effects are the same, but the execution is quite different. As for the Novus Ordo, there are fewer strict rubrics and over the years too many clergy took it upon themselves to improvise where they should not have done so. We must not judge a liturgy’s value based upon abuses in celebration! There should be no clown or puppet Masses. Priests should be properly attired. Sacred music should not be switched out for banal compositions with questionable theology. More needs to be done with plain chants. The discussion should continue about the orientation of the priest with a freedom to either face the people or toward the East. I read recently that there are composers developing litany chants for the Prayers of the Faithful. That is good. There is even speculation that some of the old offertory prayers might be restored for when the Roman Canon is said. The liturgy that came to us after Vatican II contains all the essential parts of the Roman Rite Mass. However, its configuration is comparatively new compared to the age of the Church. While its beginnings were abrupt, we can hope that over time it will mature and truly flourish. But such matters take time. It was for this reason that Pope Benedict XVI wanted the old and the new rituals to continue side by side, perhaps to cross-pollinate one another. However, this is anathema to the radical left and right. The left would utterly abandon the tradition and the right might make it into a cage.
The Second Vatican II shared many of these sentiments about the Eucharist and Holy Mass. It described the liturgy as the “summit” toward which the Church’s activity is directed, and the “fount” from which all her power flows. However, while the liturgy of the Church is permanent, this does not mean that all her elements or the structure of the Mass remains stagnant or immutable in its accidentals. The pious language of this professional statement sets up the SSPX argument that the Mass prior to Vatical II is essentially immutable. But all is not as it seems. This just is not the case. Further, the Mass is one element among many in the formation of believers. The old Mass formed saints but it could not forestall the emergence of great heresies like modernism or sinners who sought to manipulate or even destroy their mother, the Church. While the Missal was edited and formalized at Trent, it could not halt the reformation and a mass defection. The French revolution was not forestalled by the traditional Latin Mass. World Wars all happened during its time of greatest prominence. Vatican II and the reformed Novus Ordo liturgy are often faulted for the many challenges of modernity, but the Church was already starting to feel its effects prior to the gathering of the world’s bishops. The Second Vatican Council sought to revitalize the Mass and deepen the faithful’s connection to this divine source.
It is true that liturgy is what it is. However, we must not underestimate what we bring to it. Those who currently attend the traditional Latin Mass are particularly attuned to its rituals and meaning. But many if not most Catholics in the past attended out of duty and were detached from the liturgical actions. The reformed liturgy was to counteract this situation.
The elaborate traditional Latin Masses are a far cry from what many experienced prior to Vatican II. There were no microphones on altars. The altar servers gave the Mass responses to the priest. The boys frequently learned the required words and their pronunciation from 78 rpm records. Did they always understand the Latin. I hate to say how often the kids would garble the words and try to hide it by mumbling. The laity entered their pews and said the rosary or other personal prayers. Low Masses, especially on weekdays had no music and the priest quickly rattled off the prayers. My old pastor could say the old Mass with the long Latin Roman Canon in 12 minutes. It was far from beautiful, but men rushing to work wanted the graces. Many of the faithful attached to this liturgy were also fond of the Latin people’s missals. However, these books with translations were long forbidden by the Church. A late development, laypeople first saw the introduction of hand missals to follow along at Mass in the 1920s and 1930s. This was part of the broader liturgical movement leading up to Vatican II. Pope Pius XII explicitly promoted missals in the 1950’s.
Richness and beauty belonged to the old Mass, but it was often locked away behind the back of the priest and the silence of the altar. Clergy and professional theologians well appreciated its richness, but the liturgical movement itself was a recognition of a problem in translating this spiritual treasury to the People of God. While there were many changes in the Novus Ordo, the Roman canon was retained and new prayers were added. The short second anaphora was devised for the quick weekday liturgy so that the priest did not have to say the vernacular words of the Eucharistic prayer at machine gun speed. Prayers that belonged exclusively to servers became those of the congregation.
The Novus Ordo Mass is not dull or lacking imagination. The Scripture texts are far more representative of the Word of God, especially the Old Testament, than the old Mass. The prayers are rich and full of meaning. They are evocative, doing what they say. Few priests who regularly say Mass would say that it is hollow or empty. What the Mass is about is clear, not equivocal or vague. However, there are words and gestures that have a richness of meaning. The notion that the reformed liturgy is profane is a negative spurning that is a affront to God and a derision to the Magisterium that has approved it. It is the movement of God that makes it real. While there are elements that target the gathered community, the focus is always upon the worship of God. If the old liturgy emphasized the priest saying Mass for us; the new concentrates on how the celebrant makes possible our prayer with him. If there is anything mistaken for anthropocentric, it stems from the mystery of the incarnation where God becomes a man. The Mass never speaks to us exclusively regarding human values and perspectives. Any and every Eucharistic liturgy, calls us out of ourselves. We become what we were always intended, a parable people who put on the mind and heart of Christ. Every Mass makes possible our continuing transformation into Christ. As a priest who regularly says the Novus Ordo, my faith is strengthened, not weakened. I suspect that most who go to Mass would say the same.
The upcoming episcopal consecrations by the SSPX are rushing upon us and will result in a return to schism and the formal excommunications of those involved. Many think the matter is merely about the old versus the reformed liturgy, but the flourishing of the Fraternity of St. Peter proves this is false. The real issue is ecclesiology and obedience. While anachronistic about our Catholic past, the SSPX are “Protestant” in their attitude towards Rome. They have forfeited juridical standing in the Church, impugned the authority of the Pope, blasphemed the Holy Spirit about the Missal of Paul VI, and have cast the opinion of a few against the world’s many bishops in the Magisterium and have rejected a received ecumenical Council (Vatican II). The SSPX claims necessity for their July 1 consecrations of four new bishops due to an “unprecedented crisis in faith,” and yet, they fail to appreciate how they have contributed to this impasse. Fermenting rebellion, there has been a marked increase in belligerence to the living Church and to the Holy Father. Taking a page from their book, the discontent, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, has now both rejected Vatican II and the reformed liturgy. But he has gone even further, by denying the validity of Pope Francis’ papacy and thus meriting for himself excommunication. Posturing as an anti-pope with his letters against the Holy See, he says he intends to start his own seminary to make his own priests. Traditionalism is fragmenting just as did Luther’s reformational Protestantism. Such is inevitable once there is a break with the see of unity or Peter.
This morning, I read one online poster (known as a faithful Catholic) who announced that having to choose between Pope Leo XIV and Archbishop Viganò, he would follow the excommunicated bishop “outside the gates of the so-called synodal church.” The statement deeply troubled me. I wrote the following in response:
“I will keep you in prayer. Be careful what you say. The scandals have sadly cost us many souls. Remember, even good men can forget themselves and become lost. But if we find Christ and his Eucharist in the Church (no matter the form of ritual) then our course is clear. When the murmuring Jews walked away, Jesus said to the Twelve, ‘Do you also want to leave?’ And Peter responded, ‘Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.’ (See John 6:67-68) There may be much we do not understand or even find offensive, but it is then most of all that we must remain faithful. So many foolishly sin these days against Christ’s pledge of ‘indefectibility’ toward the Church. Some with a grade school understanding of their catechism would even challenge the doctors of the faith. Many blaspheme the Spirit of God by disparaging the Eucharist that makes available both ‘the real presence’ of Christ and his ‘saving oblation’ on Calvary. Others latch on to learned men more filled with themselves than the Holy Spirit and a docility to just authority. If I should soon die, I would hope to pronounce two ancient cries from my lips. The first is ‘Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia.’ And given the name of our current Pope, the second would echo the bishops at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, ‘Petrus per Leo locutus est.’”
Archbishop Viganò says in his recent letter to Pope Leo XVI that he hid his location for several years after his exposure about Cardinal McCarrick’s crimes, insinuating that he was afraid for his life and conjectured that his predecessor in Washington, Nuncio Pietro Sambi, might have been murdered. Are we to believe that Catholic churchmen hire hitmen? I think not.
Next, he begins his wholesale assault on Vatican II by attacking a host of theologians as in league with modernists, lumping together Küng, Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), Rahner, Schillebeeckx, and Congar. [It should be said that even Pope Benedict XVI reluctantly censured his friend Fr. Kung. Fr. Rahner was criticized more as a philosopher than a theologian; and was still trusted to investigate Schillebeeckx for the Holy See. Fr. Schillebeeckx, despite many just criticisms of his Christology, wrote a profound book about the Church as the sacrament of salvation.]
Denouncing postconciliar popes and rejecting pope Francis entirely, he then states the following: “In the face of the excommunication unjustly imposed upon me, I declare that I am not a schismatic!” Sorry, it just does not wash. Much of his overt piety is charming. I would further affirm his attraction to tradition and our rich past. But now is a time to build ties from modernity to antiquity, not to sever them. We need to find pathways to reconcile the last half century with the two millennium that came before.
I cannot fault the Pentagon for the reduction in recognized religions as the numbers had become unmanageable. We also had the problem of sharing an altar used for Mass and Protestant communion services with witches who conducted a so-called Black Mass. However, they were told that it could not be conducted in the nude as that violated the military code of conduct. The pentagram was the emblem for their chaplains. Both the Catholic and Protestant community subsequently had to rededicate the altar after its desecration. This sinister group were not regular worshipers but rather liked giving the finger to traditional believers.
The Department of Defense has significantly narrowed the number of religious affiliations it officially tracks for U.S. troops, cutting the list from more than 200 faiths down to just 31. It is unfortunate that it has caused backlash from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) or Mormons as they were no longer classified as Christian. Given the influence of evangelicals, I am surprised that Catholics were also not given a separate designation; however, there is a strong Catholic presence among officers, especially in the Navy.
The Catholic Church would be more restrictive than the federal government about this. While we do not regard the Mormons as true Christians, we also reject the Jehovah Witnesses, Quakers and Christian Scientists. We would generally accept Pentecostals if they were baptized with water in the name of the Trinity, and not merely in Christ’s name. Due to vast variations, we would be uncertain about so-called non-denominational Christians and non-specified faith communities.
The thirty-one faiths retained are as follows:
No Religion (NR)—around 29% of U.S. adults are religiously unaffiliated.
Agnostic (AN)—around 0.5% of Americans.
Christian—Evangelical (EV)—almost 25% of U.S. adults.
Christian—Catholic (CA)—around 20% of Americans.
Christian—Non-Denominational (ND)—around 6% of Americans.
Christian—Methodist (ME)—approximately 3% of Americans.
Christian—Pentecostal (PE)—around 3% of Americans.
Christian—Lutheran (LU)—approximately 1% of Americans.
Christian—Baptist (BA)—approximately 1% of Americans.
Christian—Presbyterian (PR)—about 1% of Americans.
Christian—Episcopal/Anglican (EA)—around 1% of Americans.
Christian—Church of Christ (CC)—approximately 1% of Americans.
Christian—Church of God (CG)—around 1% of Americans.
Christian—Orthodox (OX)—around 1% of Americans.
Christian—Assemblies of God (AG)—around 1% of Americans.
Christian—Church of the Nazarene (CN)—around 0.6% of Americans.
Christian—Seventh Day Adventist (SA)—approximately 0.5% of Americans.
Christian—Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW)—less than 1% of Americans.
Christian—Reformed (RE)—over 0.03% of Americans.
Christian—Brethren (BR)—slightly more than 0.03% of Americans.
Christian—Quaker (QU)—over 0.03% of Americans.
Christian—Scientist (SC) No data.
Christian—Other (CO) No data.
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (CJ)—around 1% of Americans.
Judaism (Jewish) (JU)—about 2% of Americans.
Islam (Muslim) (IS)—around 1% of Americans.
Hindu (HI)—about 1% of Americans.
Buddhism (BU)—approximately 1% of Americans.
Baha’i Faith (BH)—more than 0.05%.
Sikh (SI)—around 0.02% of Americans.
Other Religions (OR) No data.
The doctrines proposed by the Mormons or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are radically distinct from the basic tenets of Christianity. It is true that they have a high regard for Jesus, but their Christology is a strange variation of the early heresy of Adoptionism. While Catholicism defines the godhead as ONE divine nature (God) in three divine Persons, Mormons divide the Holy Trinity into three distinct deities. Catholicism teaches that God exists from all eternity outside of time and space as a perfect spirit and as the source for existence itself. He is the Creator of all. However, Mormonism teaches that God the Father was once a man who underwent an “exaltation” and that he still has a physical body. Jesus is defined as his glorified offspring. Teaching eternal progression, they believe that as offspring of God the Father and a Heavenly Mother, we can become gods, ourselves. This religion is polytheism. Genuine Christians are monotheists.
Two Utah lawmakers were angry about the non-Christian designation, even though it is theologically accurate. However, if other “churches” that were not Christian could be so designated by the military, then one must wonder about credibility or competence in making such official categorizations. Given the importance of the Mormons to the Republicans, it does not surprise me that today the broad CHRISTIAN designations have been quickly removed.
I had thought the man would remain a faithful son of the Church. I was wrong. Many still give him credit for exposing Cardinal McCarrick. But what happened after that? It is anyone’s guess. I have listed a few items taken from online. It hurts too much for me to add any personal reflections. It surprises me that the Vatican would elevate a man responsible for unauthorized leaks. Truth is important, but so is discretion. Many allegations were made against bishops and popes and others— so much of it a false narrative. He cut his ties to the living Church founded by Christ. Foolish Catholics clamor for his dissent against the Holy See and in placing right-wing politics over the Gospel. I find it all hurtful to my soul. I lament the damage that such men have brought to the Church, especially since I saw much hope for healing in his early intervention. But there was much going on behind the scenes that was terminal. There was a lack of respect— a lack of obedience— and a lack of charity. God save us!
Viganò spread numerous COVID-19 conspiracy theories in 2020, saying that populists and other conspiracy theorists wanted containment of the pandemic to establish a hate-filled technocratic tyranny and wipe out Christian civilization.
In June 2020 he wrote a letter to President Donald Trump, wherein he made “apocalyptic claims about a looming spiritual battle and a globalist conspiracy pursuing a one-world government.”
In a July 2020 interview, Viganò accused Pope Francis of following the “homosexual agenda of the New World Order.”
He has rejected the Second Vatican Council and the Mass of Paul VI. In June 2020, Viganò said that the Second Vatican Council ushered in a schism where a false church exists within the Catholic Church alongside what he considers to be the true Church. According to Viganò, the Council aimed to create the doctrinal premises to revolutionize the Catholic Church, making the Catholic Mass much more like Protestantism and trying to secularize Catholicism.
Viganò criticized the inter-religious activities of Pope John Paul II and especially of Pope Francis, seeking to link actions undertaken during their pontificates to what he perceived to be errors or ambiguities in the council.
He repudiated Dignitatis humanae (Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom).
He repudiated Nostra aetate (Vatican II’s Declaration on Non-Christian Religions).
In November 2020, he denounced the Mass of Paul VI as a “liturgical rite that seems to have been invented by Cranmer’s perverse mind.” By January 2022 he announced that he was exclusively celebrating the Tridentine Latin Mass.
Viganò described Pope Francis as a “false prophet” and a “servant of Satan.”
Viganò has been a vocal supporter of Russian President Vladimir Putin. In early March 2022, Viganò released a 10,000-word manifesto in which he pushed Russian disinformation. He adopted Putin’s justifications for attacking Ukraine, blamed neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine for the conflict, and asserted that the United States and Europe should “form an alliance” with Russia.
He announced plans in December 2023 to establish a “traditionalist” seminary outside of the Church’s jurisdiction.
In 2024, he was charged with schism and, after refusing to appear at a trial, was declared guilty and excommunicated. In April 26 it was announced that he had joined Trump in slamming Pope Leo XIV.
Slaves kneel in prayer before an idol of the pagan war god in Spartan armor.
As a contract priest to the Coast Guard for thirteen years and as a chaplain to the Knights of Columbus for over thirty, I can attest that there is sometimes a confusion in the minds of believers between the virtue of patriotism and the sin of nationalism. True patriots support their country when she is right and correct her when she is wrong. But nationalism is always unhinged and argues instead, “My country, right or wrong!” The distinction often shows itself in language. We are “Catholics in America,” part of a worldwide family that crosses borders. This aids us in appreciating the brotherhood of man. A spirit of nationalism is intimated in the expression, “American Catholics,” as if there is a national church distinct from international believers and even separate from Rome. Given that the current Pope is also an American, there are critics, especially in politics, who are perturbed that he does not subscribe to “America First” in his thinking and preaching. Despite the jargon of the current populism, Americans may be blessed by God, but they are not morally superior to others. The United States had Catholics involved with its beginnings, but in large part was the product of English values and a Protestant mindset. The Bible was given place of honor, but the individual was placed over it, not the Church. Individualism was prized. A desire for separation from the home country and freedom resulted in a revolutionary war. The conflict over the rights of states versus the federal government, along with making people of dark skin into commodities and not full persons, resulted in still another conflict, the civil war. Catholics found themselves mixed up with all this as well, and yes, sometimes infected with a Protestant over a Catholic perspective about things. When she could, the universal Church looked the other way; but there were levels of dissent that could not be excused. We seem to have forgotten that many Catholics came to this country as unwanted and reviled immigrants. Catholic churchmen like Bishop Hughes of New York opposed the public schools because he saw them as efforts to proselytize Catholics. Public schools in the United States, particularly in the 19th and early 20th centuries, frequently employed the King James Version (KJV) Bible as the primary text for reading instruction and moral education. Catholicism was distrusted. Bigots contended that so-called “papists” were conspiring to take over the nation for the Pope. It was a lie of course, but disinformation existed long before there was an internet.
It may be that some of our early worries were well founded because increasing numbers of Catholics sound like these Protestants of old in how they rebuke the Pope and dismiss the bishops of the Church. Indeed, I am shocked that some who currently tout themselves as solid Catholics have compromised their faith by embracing the fundamentalist mindset given place of honor in the Trump Administration. This sect views the state of Israel as the fruit of prophecy, thus negating any rights of Palestinians to their homeland. The Evangelical Protestant perspective in vogue here refashions Christianity into a BOOK religion. This is idolatry because we encounter Christ not in the dead words on a page but in the living Word proclaimed. There is nothing of the Church as “the great mystery” because the sacraments are rejected as sources for grace. They focus upon a rigid Old Testament morality as a model for today. The defense of Israel thus becomes paramount. They are quick to excuse atrocities in Gaza and the systematic destruction of Iran.
A wimpish Congress has largely surrendered its role in governance to executive orders, first in the Biden administration and now with Trump. Subordinates that disagree with the supreme leader or who prove ineffective in fulfilling autocratic demands are quickly dismissed or replaced. Here I am thinking of figures like Pam Bondi, General Randy George, and Carrie Prejean Boller. Boller was fired for stating, “I am a Catholic, and Catholics don’t embrace Zionism.” What she says about the faith is true as the New Israel or Kingdom is not the middle eastern political state, but the universal or world-wide Catholic Church. But as I said, the fundamentalist Protestant has no such notion for the Church as essential for salvation. Boller was roundly condemned as antisemitic and eliminated. Those who speak for our pretentious potentate must pander to incur his favor, either that or to fall upon their swords. Note that everything they say, from news briefings to prayer services, begin with heaping blame upon his predecessor and other enemies and next extolling praise and thanks upon him for his accomplishments. They even make up new awards to pamper his enlarged ego. Everything must be “bigger,” “greater,” and “like nothing before.” It is quite literally, too much.
Catholics should rightly be hesitant to embrace the archaic Protestant ethos which traditionally ruled this nation despite the constitutional separation of church and state. Make no mistake about it, these new Protestants like those of old distrust Catholics. (Note that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth held a Protestant-only Good Friday service at the Pentagon in-house chapel, specifying that there would be no Catholic services (like stations or veneration of the cross). While the constitution forbids the establishment of a national religion, this restraint is being severely strained, and I would not be surprised if it is challenged. What perplexes me is how these fundamentalists will carve a place for Jews in this proposed Christian state given their political mating with diehard Jewish defenders of Israel? A common hate or indifference for the Moslem or Palestinian (which includes Catholics and other Christians) might wear thin.
The Pope has been the target of “correction” from Karoline Leavitt (a Catholic), Pete Hegseth (a Christian nationalist), and Franklin Graham (a Baptist evangelist). Graham, true to form, cites David in the Old Testament, in defense of what the Pope rejects as prayers for blood. The Pope is concerned that anyone would adopt a diplomacy based upon the threat of military intervention. He is not of the mind that President Donald Trump is specially chosen or elected by God as a new David or even as a son of David, a title that belongs to Jesus Christ. The Holy Father’s position was the whole point of our opposition against Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Ironically, Trump gained office by opposing the military malfeasance of the Democrats. Catholics and others also found appealing his defense of religious liberty. Almost the entire pro-life movement applauded his stance against abortion. Many worried about rising crime rates and the danger of open borders. But throughout, the bishops warned us about the mistreatment of immigrants. Many of us wanted justice, but not devoid of compassion and charity. Despite promises that we would not police the planet, the president has ordered the invasion of Venezuela and the kidnapping of a head of state, collaborated over the destruction of Gaza, bombed Iran and killed its leadership, and now threatens Cuba with demands for regime change. Like the man or not, this administration is on the warpath. Islamic extremists pursue Jihad or holy war. Now evangelicals invoke God in favor of the president’s aggressive policies. Indeed, even worse, Paula White speaks of God and then praises Trump as if he is another Jesus Christ. Enough is enough!
The Pope may be an American, but he is also “Peter” and he governs a people for Christ the world over. The foot-washing on Thursday reminded us that he is “the servant of the servants of God.” He represents the Prince of Peace where “an eye for an eye” was replaced by the Lord who forgives his murderers. Why are we surprised that Pope Leo XIV preaches peace? Pope John Paul II did the same when we invaded Iraq.
Catholic morality views biblical laws through the prism of tradition, natural law, and the guidance of the Magisterium. We are not obliged to follow obsolete Levitical ceremonial or civil laws. We also speak about the theory of just war and proportional force. Military action might sometimes be required, but only in desperation and when diplomacy has failed. The American system is based upon checks and balances that seem to be currently bypassed for political expediency. This is dangerous. How long and far should such go on? Americans have been known, at least in our popular mythology, as on the side of “might for right,” not that of “might makes right.” There is an important difference. Gaza has suffered 169,000 injured (many requiring amputations) and 90,000+ dead (of which 20,000 were children). The current action in Iran has resulted in the deaths of 3,531 people, of which 1,607 were civilians and 244 were children. When politicians and aberrational Protestant clergy thank God for military victories and the death of enemies, why is the Pope such a lone voice in the wilderness shouting, no! Catholics who realize their faith with charity and who pray for the dead should cry out as well. Indeed, true believers among Catholics, Protestants, Jews and others need to speak with one voice for PEACE.
As one who regularly seeks to discern spirits, there was something intensely unsettling about a recent prayer service in Washington orchestrated by Paula White. Might there be something demonic taking place that threatens to spill over to the rest of the country and to infect our churches? Silence as much as wrongful praise might compromise us. I am no YES man, even to lawful authority. While I feel that obedience is the most crucial and most difficult promise a priest makes, my personality or character cringes against blind obedience. It is not in my makeup to join the lines of doting sycophants to any man, no matter how charismatic or popular. Over the years I have periodically gotten into trouble for speaking my mind and failing to toe the line. The most painful incident was when I argued with Cardinal McCarrick over his silence or even praising certain politicians opposed to the sanctity of life. He refused to change about this, saying that we might need them on other issues. I was later disciplined for being outspoken. It wounds me still because I love the Church. We belong to Christ, even when men in the Church fail and disappoint us. We belong to Christ and should not suffer bondage to any party or mere mortal. Too many fail to understand the lesson of the coin, as there can be no divided loyalty. Caesar may have his likeness on a coin, but Christ’s likeness alone must be inscribed upon human hearts. Yes, even Caesar belongs to God. There is no comparison. We must be careful of idolatry in all its devious forms.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth prayed at a recent Christian worship service for the military:
“Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation. Give them wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy.”
This might make a good pagan prayer to the false god Ares or Mars, but it is no prayer to the true God revealed in Jesus Christ. The Holy Father is under attack for his corrective response:
“God rejects the prayers of warmongers. . . This is our God: Jesus, king of peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war. He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them. ‘Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: your hands are full of blood’ (Isaiah 1:15).”
Tradition teaches that Pilate constantly washed his hands, particularly after the death of Christ. He lamented, will I ever get my hands clean? That should again be the question, today.
While I am only a dabbler when it comes to pondering significant questions in religion, I must wonder if the multitude of clergy in the SSPX are any better. Most priests who minister in the trenches, no matter whether juridically licit or not, are more comfortable with settled definitions and basic catechesis than with professional theological wrangling. Dialogue with divergent groups, even among the few learned on both sides, can be difficult for numerous reasons. The millennium long schism with the Eastern churches is a case in point where politics, language and basic philosophical concepts were at odds. The communities grew apart regarding preparation of the Eucharistic species, the inner life of the Trinity, the background to Mary’s sinlessness, the role of the bishop of Rome in the universal Church, etc. While we acknowledge the sacraments in Orthodoxy as valid, disagreements persist and reunion evades us. Similarly, behind mutual anathemas, the break with Protestantism was not only because of abuses and outright heresies but because of character clashing egos and a failure to understand each other. Mutual condemnations were often directed against straw-men arguments and not the actual ideas in contention. As evidence for this, I would point to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (1999) wherein a consensus was achieved between Lutherans and Catholics. It is proof that dialogue can resolve doctrinal confusion between faith communities. While Lutherans emphasized justification by faith, it was conceded that we are saved by “grace alone” and not strictly by “faith alone.” “Good works” constitute a vital result of genuine faith (that takes precedence). Both sides had been arguing for centuries at cross-purposes. Scholarship, honesty and goodwill were able to heal old wounds. But can we find these elements in the current stalemate between the SSPX and the Vatican? Where there is arrogance, windows are closed to the Holy Spirit and doors are locked to men of goodwill.
Bishop Robert Barron has observed that spokesmen for the SSPX not only reject Vatican II but do so while repeatedly mischaracterizing its genuine teachings. Further, their attacks upon the Novus Ordo liturgy focus upon aberrant abuses and fail to give a proper assessment of its potential to enrich believers even as it seeks to worship almighty God. Too much weight is given to innuendo and sensational gossip while little to no attention is given to what is “actually” taught by the Council and post-conciliar popes. I have argued that the Holy Father should continue a discussion about the liturgy and Vatican II, even if the SSPX should decide not to be a part of it. The Lefebvrites may have become too comfortable with their autonomy to want to surrender anything to Rome. Note that Pope Leo XIV, at this writing, is using weekly audiences to speak about Vatican II. If he should resolve the doctrinal reservations held by the SSPX and others, then he would reveal their dissent as just empty posturing. But do not expect his critics to give him a fair hearing or to honestly assess his views.
Just as Protestant-Catholic dialogue often suffers from a confusion in terminology and language, the hermeneutical shift in Catholic theology likely has apologists for the old and the reformed at odds to understand each other. Of course, there are exceptions and Protestants frequently have their own problems in speaking to other non-Catholic Christians. Fundamentalist Bible Christians are literalists and treat the Bible as a science book and morality manual. There is a huge gulf between churches of the Word and those of the Table. Those with an intellectual bent had previously embraced the historical-critical method and as with Catholic modernism, struggled with atheism. Many of the Evangelicals focus upon the existential experience. Increasingly Protestants are gravitating from the objective to the subjective, moving from facts to how God’s revelation engages and transforms the believer. Considering all this, are we to treat the dialogue between traditionalists and post-Vatican II Catholics as in-house dialogue or as ecumenical debate?
The Catholic hermeneutical shift in theology signifies a transition from static doctrinal propositions to an increasingly dynamic, contextual, and historical perspective. Certain teachings are infallible, but their formulations are not immutable. Other teachings are not understood as settled and we should avoid creeping infallibility. As an example, many authorities taught, even prior to Vatican II and the universal catechism, that the “limbo of the innocents” was a scholastic theory and not settled doctrine. A study of the fathers was always disconcerting in this regard because St. Augustine posited unbaptized infants who died as in hell and not in any abode where they might be ignorant of God but naturally happy. What is the truth? The most honest will admit that we are not sure, but we are optimistic given our Lord’s love for the innocent children. Pope Benedict XVI subscribed not to a hermeneutic of “rupture” but one of “continuity” or reform.
Faith is not ancient dictums locked away in dusty old texts but is a living tradition that engages modernity. We know both adaptation and development. There is movement from the theoretical or abstraction to the pastoral and realized. There is a renewed interest in Christian anthropology, inter-religious dialogue and cooperation, and appreciating our place within creation. However, not lost is the chief concern of soteriology as the Church is defined as the great sacrament or mystery of salvation through which we encounter Christ.
The reformed Protestant Karl Barth labeled Catholicism as the Church “of the great AND.” What he meant was that where historic Protestantism argued for only the Bible, Catholicism would add, “and sacred tradition.” Protestants asserted that we were saved by Jesus alone, and Catholics would add, “and within his holy Church.” Mention the mediation of Christ and Catholics inserted, “and with the intercession of Mary and the saints.” Protestants would echo Luther in saying that we are saved by faith, and Catholics would insist, “and by works.” Catholicism insured that classical Christianity would never allow crucial elements of faith to be forgotten or eclipsed. The Word is vital, but so is sacrament. Knowing the truth is crucial, but no less was the gift of charity. The Church would seek to reconcile all the dualities and not repudiate or leave them hanging. Similarly, today the SSPX must find a way to reconcile what they interpret as rupture or ambiguity between the historic faith and the Church in the modern world. It is the same Church, not two. The face we show the world may have changed but “the faith” remains the ancient faith.
While nothing is denied, there has been a hermeneutical shift away from reducing faith to a series of dogmatic, liturgical and moral propositions as found in the Catechism of Trent and in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The Catholic faith is, at its heart, not a philosophy text or a morality book, but a relationship of faith with Christ lived out in loving obedience. Many Protestants as Bible Christians make a similar mistake by reducing the new dispensation to a book religion. The saving faith or Gospel is not simply words written upon paper but a sacred encounter that penetrates minds and hearts. The law is still important, but the emphasis is how revealed truths bring us into a saving covenant with Jesus and his Church. Note that SSPX seminaries resort to reprinting centuries old religious manuals for the memorization of settled definitions. Many modern texts and even Vatican II documents are treated as Forbidden Books. By comparison, priests formed in schools sympathetic to Vatican II study the primary sources and seek to make fluid connections to the lived faith. Each does this according to his intelligence and gifts.
Revelation comes to us from both Scripture and Tradition, but we should be wary of any strict duality. An Analogy is sometimes made of God’s Word that is transmitted to us against the backdrop or parchment of Sacred Tradition. One always requires the other. The professional theologian, as St. Thomas Aquinas taught, is at the service of the Magisterium. It is not an adversarial relationship. When it comes to teachings, infallible or mutable, they are affirmed and passed down by the Pope and those bishops in union with him. Exacting dogmas wherein God reveals himself and the terms of salvation demand absolute assent as true. Teachings that belong to papal opinion or practical necessity are respected because of his office and require obedience. However, popes may disagree about the latter and change direction. For instance, instead of extending an amnesty that was typical, Pope Sixtus V ordered the execution of highway bandits in the Papal States. This is in an entirely different ballpark from Pope John Paul II who discouraged capital punishment and Pope Francis who rejected judicial homicide altogether. The authority of the Pope is respected throughout. There is a concurrence in faith. A distinction is made about those things that are always true and those that are maintained for practical expediency for the good governance of the Church. An example of this distinction is the doctrinal prohibition for women priests as compared to the discipline for celibate priests— the former is absolute— the latter is not. Reason, nature and experience constitute the prism for theological understanding and formulations about Christian doctrine. This horizontal movement must be complemented and affirmed by the teaching authority of the Church which is gifted by Christ with the protective guidance of the Holy Spirit. More than just the use of the Latin language is at stake. Indeed, while theologians are well-versed in Latin, Greek, French, German and other languages, the SSPX and the Vatican— are still at odds and seem to be speaking different theological languages. The manner itself is problematic. Where there should be mutual respect and dialogue there is distrust and enmity. You cannot expect much good fruit from that. Traditionalists tend to expand what they feel should be infallible. That is why some resist any change to the liturgical calendar, expansion of the readings or even the revised Easter Vigil from Pope Pius XII. Vatican II application of Catholic teachings or principles to intersect modernity are frowned upon or deemed as errors. While religious liberty as practiced in the United States allowed the infant Catholic Church to grow and flourish, the principle is rejected as heretical. It makes no difference that had it been practiced in England— More, Fisher and generations of Jesuits would not have been martyred. The ideal state is still regarded as wholly Catholic and monarchial, with the practice of other denominations either outlawed or restricted to private homes. It makes no difference to them that historic Catholic states would do much to persecute the Church and that Western democracies, Asian Communist dictatorships and Islamic theocracies are all that is left. The traditionalists in the SSPX camp would thus necessarily dismiss notions about freedom of conscience and Pope John Paul II’s teaching about the inherent dignity of the human “person.” They are resolute in the assertion that error has no rights and that the unregenerated person lacks genuine dignity. The post-Vatican II apologist interprets this as a recipe for oppression. While not denying the heightened value given by sanctifying grace to the baptized man or woman, Pope John Paul II also championed natural human dignity and rights from conception to natural death. His theology of the body expanded our appreciation of universal human rights, contending that human dignity is derived from our Creator God. The SSPX do not accept this expansion of the Gospel of Life.
The SSPX postures a “gravitas” and dignity, not against the best that the rest of the Catholic Church has to offer, but the worse. It defines itself through criticism of the aberrational, not the normative. The Masses it deplores are not well conducted Novus Ordo liturgies but clown Masses, liturgies with puppets, dancers and priests making fools of themselves. Every fumble a bishop and even the Pope makes is paraded for all to scorn and laugh.
The liturgies advertised by the SSPX are high Masses, celebrated according to strict rubrics with Latin masterfully articulated from the altar for all to hear. Chant and schola choirs sing with solemn beauty and professionalism. However, this is not how I remembered the old Mass from when I was a boy. The Masses were largely inaudible for congregations as microphones were forbidden on the altar. Altar boys mumbled half-remembered words, and the music was either absent or poorly done. Pope Benedict XVI said that the Latin high Mass was one of the most beautiful forms of worship ever fashioned; but he also lamented that low Mass (which was what most people experienced) was stylistically as bad as it gets. Yes, the supernatural reality was all present— sacrament and the risen Jesus— but artistically it was poor and not very moving. My old pastor had an early working man’s Latin Mass that was rattled off in about 13 minutes each workday morning. The words came out at machine gun speed. Sunday Mass might be 40 minutes. But without the choir, it was not much better. We came to church, said the rosary, took communion at the rail, and went home. Those with missal books followed the Mass as best as they could, essentially reading the Mass while the priest performed his deep mystery. Many who exalt the old Mass and criticize the new, do not remember or were not born when it was the only liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church. (By the way, in truth there is no new Mass, just a Mass with reformed elements.)
Fidelity to the Pope is Essential
There seems to be no breaking of the deadlock between the SSPX and the Vatican over the pending illicit episcopal consecrations. The Society and its defenders are quick to shift blame from themselves to the Vatican. Indeed, faithful Catholics who urge practical fidelity to the Holy See are accused of ultramontane excesses. No one is saying that popes can do no wrong, only that we should not sever juridical ties with the Vicar of Christ. However, those who regularly charge the Pope and other bishops with the heresy of modernism will likely delight in severing any residual ties with Rome. The SSPX says that it acknowledges Pope Leo XIV as the visible head of the Church, but their dissent and autonomy speak of a gravitation toward the sedevacantist stance.
Just as under Pope John Paul II, it is likely that Pope Leo XIV would allow the consecration of a bishop during the time of dialogue. However, such would demand a proper profession of faith and an end to derision against Vatican II. Disobedience to the Holy See and the repudiation of an ecumenical council strips the groundwork to any such concession. The SSPX already acknowledges the validity of the reformed liturgy, although they must be wary of questioning its spiritual effects or labeling it as evil.
While the Pope functions as an absolute monarch regarding temporal matters in the Vatican and many practical elements of Church governance, he is always the servant of the Word and not its master. He is the chief ecclesial lawgiver on earth. Regarding what constitutes the Roman rite, historically it was regarded as how the Pope celebrated the Mass and other sacraments. Lesser churchmen imitated him. It is in this sense that he is the Roman rite.
While foolishness and ambiguities in the Church, even from Rome, have been inflicted upon believers in recent years; we must not lose confidence in Christ’s Church. True reform must take place within and not outside the Church. It is not enough for a representative of the SSPX to talk with Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández. The two remaining bishops and the Superior General of the SSPX should request an audience with Pope Leo XIV. He is the one they need to trust if we are to move forward as a unified Church.
An Ecclesial Hermeneutic of Continuity
Both sides protest too much about one form of liturgical worship over another instead of fostering a mutual respect that would grant freedom for rituals old and new. Technically there is no “new” Mass, only a Mass with various liturgical forms. Liturgy contains elements both essential and immutable as well as accidentals open to revision. When it comes to doctrinal issues, Vatican II must always be viewed through the prism of tradition. The dogmatic teachings derived from Trent remain true. The teachings of Vatican II are meant to advance and not to renounce what came before. There remains one Church throughout, not one with loyalties to Trent that is usurped by a post-Vatican II Church. I am at odds to understand why a consensus on this truth, despite dissenters, would not suffice to heal a schism with traditionalists.
The charge given the Pope is both to preserve and transmit the deposit of faith as well as to sustain the legacy and identity of the Church from age to age. Development is necessary as faith is a living thing, but never at the cost of continuity. It is this avoidance of doctrinal rupture that distinguishes Catholicism from confessions like Anglicanism where the fads and fashions of the times sever the lifelines to perennial truths. The Pope points the way to the future while sustaining the Church in the present and always grounded upon a historical magisterium and the legacy of the saints.
Popes generally speak the mind of the Church and are careful about their personal ideas or speculation. The former is infallible and while the latter is not, there is a measure of religious assent given that it arises from the Successor of Peter. The latter is open to review as was Peter’s stance at the Council of Jerusalem about the reception of Gentiles. However, after the apostle Paul made his challenge, Peter as the one with the “keys” from Jesus ultimately agreed and the matter was resolved. It should be noted that no shepherd, not even the Holy Father, can force compliance to error or to sin. Fortunately, the Holy Spirit has largely protected the Church’s teaching office, ensuring the indefectibility of the Church promised by Christ.
Wayward traditionalists often make much about nothing. They are quick to enumerate on papal scandal or ambiguity and slow to acknowledge orthodox wisdom. What are some of these malicious gossip points that take us afield?
The Kissing of the Koran – Critics harp about this event as if this made Pope John Paul II an Islamist. Nonsense! The gesture took place in 1999 when a delegation from Iraq visited the Vatican. It included the Chaldean Catholic Patriarch, the Shi’ite leader of the Khadum Mosque, and the Sunni president of the Iraqi Islamic Bank. Gifted with the ornate book, the Pope bowed and kissed it as a sign of respect to his guests. Given that war was looming, the act was a symbolic gesture for peace and a sign of respect for the suffering people of Iraq. The act signified human respect and in no sense was a profession of faith. Nevertheless, pope bashers labeled it as syncretism and a denial of Christ’s divinity. It was an effort to show respect to “a people,” not to a religion. Admittedly, it was a gesture that backfired and should have been avoided because of possible scandal. But it should remain obvious that the Holy Father placed no faith in the Islamic book.
Conferences in Assisi – Despite traditionalist accusations, the various gatherings in Assisi with world religious leaders signified no syncretistic compromise of the faith but rather constituted efforts at fostering peace. There was no merging or blending of religion but rather, a coming together for dialogue and petitions for peace and harmony. The rejection of ecumenism is manifested by rigid traditionalists on every front. They still speak the language of indictment and curse. Instead of dialogue, there is anathema. Protestants are labeled as heretics, non-Christians as pagans, the oriental believers as demonic idol worshipers, and Jews as the murderers of Christ.
Natural religions may point to the Creator God, much as did the philosophy of the ancients, but Catholic Christianity is the true faith and the supernatural religion that reveals and worships the Almighty. All religions are not paths to God, especially those that disavow a deity or that worship demons. But elements of truth can be found mingled with the errors of other religions. Past statements must always be properly understood and clarified. A failure to do so is symptomatic of deliberate bias and absurdity.
The Pachamama at the Amazonian Synod – This was a definite misstep and debacle that came largely from ignorance of symbolism and a loss of control over events. But note that there was no effort to codify idolatry. Indeed, many voices within the Church rendered proper rebuke and commentary as it was happening.
Status of Those in Irregular Unions – While there has been much discussion about accompaniment and outreach to those in irregular unions, particularly the divorced and remarried, nothing about Catholic moral teaching has changed. Believers are still urged to receive Holy Communion in a state of grace and without mortal sin. Leadership should not be faulted for compassion regarding the alienated. This should especially be the case of the SSPX given their tenuous situation in the Church.
The Death Penalty – Too much is made about capital punishment, almost as if traditionalists suffer a bloodlust for revenge if not for justice. Pope John Paul II argued that leaders within a culture of death forfeit any right to take human life, even for those that are guilty of high crimes. Given the effectiveness of penal reform, what stake do we have in this fight? Compared to the numbers of lives lost through abortion and wars, we are talking about a very small number. Why should it grieve Christians that a few might live to repent? Can it not become a witness to God’s sovereignty over life as the Creator? Would the SSPX really refuse to rejoin the ranks of juridically approved movements in the Church over this issue?
Blessing Those with Same-Sex Attraction – While there are efforts within Western culture to welcome and walk with those suffering from same-sex attraction, it is true that we cannot bless immorality; however, we can pray that God’s healing and mercy will embrace these brothers and sisters. The African bishops forced clarification about this from the Holy See. Here again we find the power of correction within the Church as opposed to those who seek to do so from outside.
Need for Mutual Goodwill & Respect
While the motives of the Society might demand scrutiny, no one should doubt that most SSPX priests are acting from conviction and good faith. They are intensely concerned about the care of souls. Hopefully they appreciate that priests on the other side of the liturgical divide are also dedicated to their flocks. This is often a cause of great pain when SSPX chapels are set up near parishes and Catholics are told that they should never attend a Novus Ordo Mass for fear of spiritual detriment. Not only is this blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, but the juridical alienation of flocks from their appointed shepherds. Where there should be collaboration, there is rivalry. Pastors should function as shepherds, not as wolves or thieves of the sheep. This was a problem in the past, even with priestly societies recognized by the Church, like the Legionaries of Christ. They would frequently offer home Masses and spiritual programs for groups like homeschoolers without the permission of dioceses or even the okay of local pastors. While their enthusiasm was to be applauded, they overstepped their bounds by acting autonomously.
The true issue here is a lack of trust in the Pope and the universal Church. Admittedly draconian efforts to eradicate the traditional Latin Mass and to supplant it with the reformed liturgy have understandably strained confidence. Further, while the SSPX has faced various censures, often the worst of liberal dissenters were not only tolerated but pampered. I suspect this situation reflects no apostasy from Rome but rather an appreciation that most traditionalists will obey and take sanctions seriously while liberal dissenters will not. Tactics with the right are different than those used with the left, to forestall further fracturing of the Church. However, it may be high time to acknowledge what has and has not worked.
The minimal expectations of the SSPX by the Holy See, the continued ministry and expansion of the Fraternity of St. Peter (as a similar organization), and the availability of bishops in good standing to ordain priests according to the old form— all this undermines the argument of the SSPX that the episcopal consecrations reflect an emergency arising from pastoral necessity. Is there any reticence about apostolic succession and holy orders among the clergy outside the SSPX? They say, no, but one must wonder.
Arguably, the overture of the SSPX to the Holy See is less a “respectful request” for consent to the episcopal consecrations as it is an “arrogant demand” about their intent. The situation is one of intimidation or coercion, not benevolent or suppliant discretion. The SSPX wants the revocation of Vatican II and the comprehensive return of the traditional Latin Mass. The Society is angry that the universal Church with her Pope and 5,430 bishops in union with him will not acquiesce to the demands of the Society’s two remaining bishops, who were themselves, ordained illicitly.
Is there an Emergency Situation from Necessity?
The perpetuation of Latin Masses by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICKSP), as well as by various monastic communities and diocesan priests, is evidence that the SSPX need not fear the extinction of the old liturgy. Indeed, there are several bishops authorized to ordain clergy who celebrate exclusively the traditional Latin Mass. Further, there is no danger that those affiliated with the SSPX would spiritually starve should the pending episcopal consecrations not take place. As a preference, the traditional Latin Mass will not disappear, and the Novus Ordo is available most everywhere to make present the oblation of Calvary and Christ’s precious body and blood. I suspect the issue is less of a concern about the flock, which has been largely purloined from other shepherds, as it is to retain what they have built. There is a reluctance to trust the Holy See. They desire to keep authority and power for themselves. This places them on a course like that of the reformational Protestant churches. No good will come from this mentality.
This is the home of the AWALT PAPERS, the posting of various pieces of wisdom salvaged from the writings, teachings and sermons of the late Msgr. William J. Awalt.
Blogger Priest 