Torkay, one of our American bloggers, has been on the mailing list of a new group calling itself RealCatholicTV.com. RCTV puts out internet videos exposing various points of clerical corruption, usually connected with the American bishops’ conference, the USCCB. A couple of weeks ago, RCTV did a week-long series about “progressives,” defining them and detailing the dangers they present to the Church. They were excellent – as RCTV’s productions usually are – but Torkay noticed a strange omission. Nowhere did these videos mention the role of “progressives” at Vatican II and afterward, including their masterminding and implementing of the radical changes in liturgy, theology and discipline that have so poisoned the Church ever since.
Torkay wrote in to express his concerns, and so began a brief but intense (and ultimately futile) discussion between himself and an official of RCTV, who shall remain nameless. In the thread below this one, you can read Part 1 of the conversation. This thread contains some additional excerpts from their exchange, in Part 2 of 2…
TORKAY: “Union between the SSPX and Rome have been and continue to be imperfect.” I believe the word Rome uses is “irregular,” and yes, I think this is a demonstration of the advanced nature of this crisis, the advanced state of penetration of the “smoke of Satan,” and the advanced nature of the “diabolical disorientation” within the hierarchy. That is, here we have a Catholic society whose position is unwavering fidelity to Tradition, but not in full union with Rome, who is the guardian of that Tradition, but who seems to have fallen victim to some very clever and unprecedented novelties since Vatican II. Only the enemy could think this one up. (Well, the novelties aren’t really unprecedented: many pre-Vatican II Popes warned us about them.)
“Not unlike what could be said about most Protestant denominations.” Actually, not an apt comparison, since the Protestants ARE in formal schism. They reject the authority of the Pope, of the Magisterium. The Orthodox Churches are also in schism: again, not an apt comparison (oops, I just noticed the end of your note, where you do state that they are in formal schism. Sorry.). Now, I hear you say, “But the SSPX also rejects the authority of the Pope!” Which leads me to ask: the SSPX, i.e. Abp. Lefebvre, disobeyed the Pope once. Yet everyone acts as though this disobedience is a permanent state of rejection of his authority. My understanding is that it is not. Does one act of disobedience make for a permanent rejection of Papal authority? Are you aware, for example, that the SSPX prays for the Pope and the Church continuously?
“All statements that I have read coming from SSPX leaders reject some teachings contained in the documents of the Second Vatican Council, most frequently the Declaration on Religious Liberty, but others as well.” I think “reject some teachings” is accurate, most specifically, as far as I can tell, certain statements on religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality (I think I left one out), as well as the Novus Ordo. However, it is important to add one word: they reject NOVEL teachings, i.e. those which contradict tradition, i.e. those which contradict the Magisterium.
“Many express more than a mere preference for the Traditional Latin Mass, suggesting the invalidity of the Novus Ordo Mass and other sacraments.” As far as I know, the official position of the SSPX, derived from Abp. Lefebvre, is that the NO is valid, but a danger to the faith because of the Catholic theology that has been stripped from it (see: Ottaviani Intervention). I have never seen any SSPX statement to the contrary, or that suggests inherent invalidity (unless the conditions of validity are not met – which, as we agreed, is highly likely to occur). By the way, who is this “many” who are expressing “more than a mere preference”?
“The mere fact that the SSPX even feels the need for discussion of doctrinal issues with Rome is a sign that the leaders, and probably most members, do not feel they are in union with Rome.” I think the leaders are probably acutely aware of this lack of union, or irregularity, or whatever you want to call it. However, what is driving them, in my perception, is a zeal to restore the health of the Church, not any regrets about their own status. Now, what about the other side of the coin? Why does Rome feel the need for doctrinal discussions? Is that a sign that perhaps the Pope thinks the SSPX may be correct in its doctrinal analyses? If the SSPX is wrong, in other words, why invite them for discussions? Why not just reject their positions out of hand?
“SSPX sophistry etc.” I don’t pretend to understand the canon law argument, but I’ve been told that many canon lawyers do not consider the excommunications valid since Abp. Lefebvre correctly invoked Canon Law, which allows for what he did in cases of perceived necessity: i.e. a bishop is permitted to take whatever action he deems necessary to preserve the faith. My personal reaction, though, is that if Canon Law does indeed permit such cases, I think it gives the bishop too much power. But the whole argument is way over my bald head. Are you familiar enough with Canon Law to comment?
“You cannot claim conditional submission to the authority of Rome.” What if Rome contradicts tradition? Didn’t St. Robert Bellarmine write about this subject? (But don’t ask me where!) In that case, where is the authority? With the human being who contradicts tradition, or with tradition?
“You cannot, as the Protestants say, proclaim the infallibility and the inerrancy of Scripture and then qualify that statement with ‘rightly interpreted.’” But rightly interpreted, to a Catholic, means the authentic teaching of the Magisterium on Scripture, doesn’t it? I didn’t understand where you were going with this statement.
“I could be wrong, but my impression is that the SSPX believes not that they have separated themselves from Rome but that Rome has separated itself from the Tradition and that this Tradition is now under the protection of the SSPX.” I’d say your impression is correct, as far as I understand the situation, but I would use “preserved,” rather than “protect.”
“SSPX priests do not submit to the authority of the local Bishop and, therefore, cannot be said to be in union with Rome.” Aren’t there religious orders who are not under the authority of the local Bishop? Anyway, everyone already agrees, I think, that the SSPX is not in full union with Rome.
“Their only heresy, if there is any, is their rejection of the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff as manifested in their rejection of authoritative teachings of the Church. I don’t understand how one can say “we are in union with Rome except” and be considered in full communion with Rome.” You’ve switched targets here: you’ve gone from “rejecting the authority of the Pope” to “rejecting the authoritative teachings of the Church.” Why? Also, you are incorrect in claiming that the SSPX rejects the authoritative teachings of the Church, for the following reasons: one, they embrace and defend the entire Magisterium; two, none of the documents of Vatican II are “authoritative teachings,” because both Council Popes declared the Council to be pastoral, not dogmatic (thus making the Council a historical aberration). Pope John XXIII did that because he knew that the “Progressives” were about to wreak havoc at the Council, and that was how he thought he could head them off. That means that Council documents are not binding on the faithful, despite two of the documents bearing the word “dogmatic,” thus disobeying the Pope.
[SIDEBAR: Uh-oh! Who gave those 2 documents those titles and disobeyed the Pope? And why didn’t they by their actions excommunicate themselves?] (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)
The Council documents do repeat Magisterial teaching, in their vague, frequently inconsistent, and even self-contradictory way, but as stand-alone documents, they cannot be said to be part of the Magisterium. I’ve heard some prelates, by the way, try to sneak around this by proclaiming something called a “post-Conciliar Magisterium,” but that is a completely transparent and specious ploy. How can there be two Magisteria?
And the third reason why the SSPX has not rejected the authoritative teachings of the Church is that there is no such thing as a “new teaching,” such as those contained in various Council documents. The SSPX judges the Vatican II documents against the infallible yardstick of the Magisterium, as taught by all the Popes before Vatican II, and finds them wanting. That yardstick is not their personal yardstick, it is the yardstick of the Church! What else could we –or they – possibly have to rely on?
But, I hear you say: “You (like the SSPX) have imposed your personal interpretation on Vatican II and its documents! You are acting like a schismatic Protestant! You think you know better than the Church!” To which I would reply: “No, all I have done is to recite the facts. Pope John decreed that the Council was pastoral, not dogmatic, so that its modernist/liberal/progressive errors, which he clearly saw coming, would not be binding on the faithful. This status was affirmed by Paul VI. Therefore, no Vatican II document can be considered to be binding on the faithful. Therefore, none of them can be considered Magisterial. Q.E.D.”
“It may not be a formal sin to participate in the life the SSPX in any way. It is, in my opinion, to place oneself in a “near occasion of sin” because of a pervasive “culture of doubt” that accepts conditional submission to the authority of Rome. Even the most devout Traditionalist who rejects the authority of Rome plants a cancer of disobedience in their soul. If you think I’m exaggerating, just look at the history of the Protestant Reformation: once they rejected the authority of Rome, all manner of doctrinal aberrations became thinkable, then possible, then doable.” You have set up a straw man argument here. First of all, the Vatican has given express permission to attend SSPX Masses to fulfill our Sunday obligation, so where is this “near occasion of sin”? Then, you once again compare traditionalists to Protestants, which is not valid – you can compare sedevacantists to Protestants accurately, but not any traditionalist who is guided by the Magisterium (and if they are not guided solely by the Magisterium, then they are not traditionalists, and lay false claim to that label). Then, you once again unjustly compare the SSPX to schismatics, after you’ve already had to backtrack and admit that they are not schismatic! Sorry, but I think you got carried away with yourself, allowing one false assumption to lead you into an entire 3-story house of false assumptions. Are you aware that you did that?
“I reject the claim that Rome has abandoned the Tradition as inconsistent with the indefectibility of the Church.” In that case, the onus is on you to read the encyclicals of previous popes, to read Pope St. Pius X Pascendi, the Syllabus of Errors, and many more, and to then demonstrate how these are not contradicted by Vatican II. And as for the indefectibility of the Church, John XXIII’s decree making the Council pastoral has preserved that indefectibility, since the errors contained in the documents are not binding on the Church.
But here’s a thought I had while typing the above paragraph: in a strange sense, you are correct in claiming that Rome has not abandoned Tradition, because, thanks to John XXIII, no Vatican II error is binding on the Church. Which means the problem really is this: Rome acts as though it has abandoned Tradition in several areas, by acting as though the false new ideas of Vatican II have legitimately replaced Magisterial teaching. So, if I have my Latin correct, it is a de facto abandonment, not a de jure abandonment. Example: remember Joseph Ratzinger’s “Countersyllabus,” a description of one of the VII documents (which one was it, Lumen Gentium?) he made when he was a young, and very progressive, peritus? So let’s see: the Syllabus is Magisterial. What then would a “Countersyllabus” be? Could it be…..ANATHEMA????? [accompanying image: Dana Carvey as the Church Lady on Saturday Night Live]
This reminds me of something else: I’ve read in a couple of places that the Novus Ordo was never really promulgated, and for two reasons: one, Paul VI’s apostolic letter (?) introducing it was deliberately mis-translated, and two, the Pope himself stated that he only intended to offer the Novus Ordo as an alternative. If this is true, we have the well-placed enemies of the Church acting as though, once again. The tragedy, and the heart of the crisis, therefore, is that acting as though, the sleight-of-hand of the progressives, has been made to obscure the truth.
RCTV: Before going much further, I want to invite you to visit this page in our online “Amazon Partner Store” and, whether you order the books from our site or not, purchase and read “More Catholic Than the Pope: An Inside Look at Extreme Traditionalism” (by Pete Vere and Patrick Madrid) and “I Am With You Always” (by Michael Davies). The first book, “More Catholic etc.” is co-authored by a former member of the SSPX and currently a Canon Lawyer. It addresses each and every SSPX argument from Canon Law and, to my mind, dismantles them as “selective articles taken out of context and without regard for the historical record.” The second book, “I Am With You Always” is written by the premier apologist and sympathizer of the SSPX and, again to my mind, successfully refutes all the standard SSPX arguments, both moderate and extreme, advancing what amounts to a charge of defectibility of the Church. If all you do is read the comments entered for each of these books, it will raise and answer a lot of questions.I have probably, already, spent over $100 of my own money seeking satisfactory answers to every issue you have raised. I have talked with a priest of the FSSP. I have spent considerable personal time thinking about “The Traditionalist Critique of the Contemporary Church” and all its implications: theological, philosophical, psychological and sociological. I have learned an enormous amount, been blessed plentifully by all this. My faith has been questioned and strengthened in the process. I am truly grateful that you have crossed my path as one obviously in love with the Church without an agenda. I will not begin to question the sincerity of your search for Truth and the integrity of your conscience: those are rare qualities in any man.Nonetheless, I must invite you to do more of the heavy lifting on your own behalf. You have found a “pearl of great price” that brings you joy, happiness and peace. It is extraordinarily difficult to engage in a serious, objective search for a Truth that risks robbing you of so much that brings you joy. “It can’t be wrong when it feels so right” can be sung about religious as well as romantic matters. When we are invested in a “pearl of great price,” only God can make us move to another investment which, if true, will bring us even more joy than we think possible from where we are. If our current investment is making us rich, it’s hard to believe that another could make us even richer or, if it could, why we would need more than we have.I am convinced from everything I have read that the SSPX is far more right than wrong. What it is wrong about, however, is more important than everything it is right about. The SSPX critique of the contemporary Catholic Church is in the finest traditions of the prophets. Where it strays is in the arena of action, where critiques demand that they be expressed concretely. Riddled throughout the SSPX “ideology” is the belief that, somehow, Rome has strayed from its divinely mandated role to protect the Tradition and SSPX is called to protect that Tradition. It absolutely violates all understandings of the indefectibility of the Church to hold that position. The Church is protected by God Himself from teaching errors of divinely revealed faith. It is not protected from bad management, ineffective articulation of the faith or poor pastoral decisions. Absolutely every apparent contradiction of the faith can and must be resolved in a way that maintains the Supremacy of the Petrine Office and the indefectibility of the Church.The Office of Peter is the “ultimate legislator,” the judge whose judgments are not subject to appeal, the one whose interpretations of Canon Law are final and definitive. The SSPX apologetic is, as I wrote earlier, self-serving casuistry and sophistry.There is no articulation of divine Truth that can ever be considered fully adequate. Transubstantiation, for example, is not an object of faith but an explanation of the Truth to which it points. No articulation of what we believe about the divine mystery of the Mass, the Eucharist, can ever be complete or perfect. But no attempt to better articulate that Truth can ever contradict it and be True.Transubstantiation, however, is of an order of Truth quite different from the Truths articulated in “The Declaration on Religious Liberty” where we wrestle with issues like “the human conscience,” “coercion” and “the right of a human being to be wrong.” These are issues which are truly subject to understandings heavily conditioned by historical realities that change over time. Pope Leo XIII, for example, may have said, very explicitly, that the divine Truth of the Catholic faith gives it certain prerogatives in the natural order by virtue of its divine origin. That may be true, and the examples he uses may be valid, but a growing understanding of the radical love of the Father for each of His children may lead to a “new Truth”: that our respect for human beings demands that we respect them as much as God, who never coerces, does. “Divine prerogatives in the natural order for the Catholic Church” may no longer be an adequate articulation of divine Truth. The “new Truth” may logically contradict some parts of the old, but it’s because we now have a better articulation of the Truth. It’s called “Development of Doctrine” and any such “development” will render some parts of earlier articulations wrong. Final example: Jesus is traditionally defined as the final, complete, self-revelation of God. Nothing more can be said, in human terms, about the nature of God that was not said in the Incarnation. This is why Catholics believe that there can be “no new divine revelation” because everything has already been said in the person of Jesus. However, we are also told, in Scripture, that Jesus will leave with us the Paraclete who will lead us into all Truth. That means Jesus knows that we will need the assistance of the Holy Spirit, over time, to come to the knowledge of Truth. We have the Holy Spirit to both protect and reveal the Truth of God, not Truth that at one time was false and now is true, but Truth proportionate to our ability to understand, Truth we are better able to grasp now than before. When we were children, we spoke and understood as children. It’s expected that we will grow and that our level of understanding and articulation will mature. Firm belief in the Supremacy of the Roman Pontiff and the Indefectibility of the Church are capable of providing the necessary guidance for addressing issues of disagreement with Rome. Any belief that suggests that the Holy Father may one day wake up and realize that the SSPX had it right all along is just not compatible with Supremacy and Indefectibility. I’m not going any further with you on this journey. I’ve learned a lot. I also know where I cannot go. It is my judgment that you ought to know where must go.
TORKAY: I can’t say that I’m surprised at your decision to terminate this discussion without responding to any of my original points. Instead, you have raised one straw man after another and tried to turn this into a referendum on the SSPX. You apparently cannot face the fact that the crisis in the Church is the deliberate, planned creation of progressives, both at Vatican II and in its aftermath, from liturgy to theology to discipline, so you engage in evasive behavior. That’s a real shame. This would be the equivalent to our federal government warning us about Arab terrorists, but then carefully scrubbing from its warnings all references to the fact that 9-11 was perpetrated by….Arab terrorists.
It might interest you to know that I never even heard of the SSPX during my original phase of reading about Vatican II – though I did read about Abp. Lefebvre’s efforts to counter the liberal alliance that had taken over the Council, while the Council was still in session. My initial opinion of the Council was formed by Father Wiltgen, Dietrich von Hildebrand, and Michael Davies. This initial opinion was confirmed, later on, when I came across various SSPX articles, as well as Abp. Lefebvre’s book “Against the Heresies,” and other books.
Your thinking tends to be not only imprecise, but quite Modernist: orthodox one moment, heretical the next. Here is a classic example of the Modernist pattern from your post above:
“But no attempt to better articulate that Truth can ever contradict it and be True.” That’s the orthodox part. But then you say this:
“The “new Truth” may logically contradict some parts of the old, but it’s because we now have a better articulation of the Truth. It’s called “Development of Doctrine” and any such “development” will render some parts of earlier articulations wrong.” Not only do you contradict yourself, but you have produced sheer heresy. Your note contains several other contradictory statements.
I’m sorry that you cannot face the real cause of the crisis. That being the case, kindly remove me from your mailing list. However, should you ever decide to aim for the bull’s-eye, instead of flailing around on the outer circle, then you may once again send me your videos. END.
since I’m not very learned in liturgical and theological matters). I wrote because I did not, and still don’t, understand why you spent a week exposing progressives, but failed to address the activities and schemes of these same progressives at Vatican II and in its aftermath. That is, you failed to address the heart of the crisis. That said, I’ll move on to some specific points.