By the way Iosephus, I hope you’re happy ;)
Several days ago, discreet Iosephus decided to bully me into an argument over the latest interview with Bishop Rifan. He needn’t have gone to such exertion, since any one of his grating remarks on the subject is sufficient to throw my humours into disarray, and arouse my fighting spirit. Lest my oh-so-important opinion be lost in his already lengthy thread, I’ll post anew, and summon any like-minded persons to my cause.
These last few days, we’ve been discussing the SSPX more than usual. In fact, Bishop Rifan himself often makes a very good indicator for this quintessential traditionalist divide. Although both indultarians, Iosephus and I love to argue over the excellence of His Excellency, so to speak, and we rarely see eye to eye. So, before I address his specific questions, I’ll lay out my wider view on Bishop Rifan.
It is very, very clear that Rifan has softened greatly since his days as the firebrand of Campos. Not only has he toned down his tirades, in his so-called compromise with New Rome, but now, particularly in these two interviews, he takes traditionalists to task for doing the very things that made him famous.
Of course, many dismissed him from the moment he snubbed the SSPX, and proceeded to sell Campos and the work of Antonio de Castro Mayer for the episcopal office and a dirty, dirty deal. Others waited until the infamous simulating con-celebration incident to jump his sinking ship. Iosephus, it seems, likes to let his suspicions age a little longer before he shouts blunt questions at His Excellency.
As for the Campos deal, I am entirely unconvinced by such desperate arguments as those given by SSPX apologist David A. White. I am sick of good Catholics resorting to caricatures, and demeaning the Pontiff by suggesting one casually rebuff his goodwill. When the Vicar of Christ, in his great benevolence, offers you a golden handshake, even going so far as to not demand a specific and public apology, there’s just not much that you can do. There is always the option of schism, and so many friendly to the Society, if not willing to publicly take that step themselves, do so love to encourage others in disobedience, or at least in blatant discourtesy.
If we are willing to grant that perhaps Bishop Rifan felt bound to accept the terms of the Campos Agreement, and that, just perhaps, he has acted with sincerity throughout his ensuing reign, then what remains? We have in Rifan the world’s only “traditional” Bishop (I leave out all of the other characters). If we would merely assume that he is faithful, and pleading our case with Rome, then what else do we expect him to do? Is it not within the purview of his office to admonish his flock in their excesses, especially when they hurt their own cause? Or, do we expect him to exclusively cheer us on, with the toothy grin of a Nervous Disorder patient? It is pretty absurd when we who love to trumpet the classical image of Bishops as strong upholders of the Faith and mighty Lords unafraid to rebuke their enemies, complain in so juvenile a manner about anything a Bishop says that offends our sensibilities.
Or is the real heart of the matter that some loved the old Rifan, saw nothing wrong with his conduct, and suspect that this new Bishop Rifan is a pawn of the New Order? As I noted first, it is obvious that Rifan is a changed man. From his actions and his words, it is a good bet that he considers himself to have been corrected by the Church. Sensing this, we traditionalists want to know the whole story. On what issues has he compromised with New Rome? Can we still trust him? In fact, some have jumped past these entirely sensible questions, part of a healthy skepticism in this age of heresy, to dismiss this good Bishop without grounds. I understand that traditionalists have been wounded for many years by prelates telling them, in substance, the same thing that Bishop Rifan is in this and the “Cardinal Sins of Traditionalists” interview. But is there not some truth in what he says? And if there really are problems in traditionalism, and dangers from which souls must be protected - from whom will we accept the warnings? Must P. St. Pius X again walk the earth, clad in Tiara and Ermine, before we can listen to correction? If we must ignore every single Bishop on earth to guard our souls then where is our Church? My appeal may be an emotional one, but if we cannot place our trust and submit to the authority of Rifan, at the very least, who else is there in the visible Church?
——-
So far as I can tell, these are the important problems Iosephus sees in this latest Bishop Rifan interview: (And yet, Iosephus, for some reason, ignores the most obnoxious line, the one that was really, really wrong-headed and insensitive: when Rifan compares the clearly heretical Greek Orthodox to the SSPX.)
1. Rifan says that as part of any regularization, the Church must correct the doctrinal mistakes made by the SSPX (members, friends, adherents, whatever).
Isn’t this obvious? Why are we so resistant to the suggestion that perhaps the SSPX might not contain the whole and unaltered Faith of Rome? I’m inclined to believe that the doctrinal matters on which this pious Society of priests has gone wrong are very, very few. But we can’t assume that the Holy Spirit has protected this little disobedient (rightfully, or wrongfully) group in the Church from all error, just because the rest of the Church is so burdened with priests and Bishops who have lost the Faith. Although I don’t think it is necessary to point out which particular matters the Bishop has in mind, I’ll try to lend a hand. Iosephus mentions the most obvious issue, the illicit consecrations, and then pretends that these, and other matters of obedience, have no doctrinal implications. (I should mention that I don’t approve of his wishy-washy “I don’t know if the consecrations were a mistake” line.) Iosephus, I’ll ask you a question. What about telling the faithful not to go to Mass unless it be the Old Rite? Is there not a doctrinal problem here, and in other occasions where the Society has invented a new status for this Rite of Mass: where it skirts the border between sinful, ugly and stupid. However, I don’t think that the Bishop is hinting at some hidden dogma in the Council, which the Society has stubbornly refused to accept. The Council was a disaster, as everyone with eyes can see, and should be ignored. But are we free to degrade it completely? I know some of our readers like to consign this Council, because it is “pastoral”, to the ordinary magisterium - which I find highly suspicious. Regardless, would it be sound to accuse the Council of teaching heresy, as some are wont to do? And would not this accusation, made of a legitimately called Council, be a matter of doctrine in need of some correction? I can think of other mistakes the good Bishop might have in mind, most of which deal with these matters of “discipline”, which do, in fact, have doctrinal ramifications. The sooner we deal with them, and are all on the same page, the sooner we can go about the good work of restoring Tradition.
2. He uses the phrase: Supreme Power Dogma.
First, I sure hope this insulting expression, “Down, boy!” is not intended against a successor to the Apostles. It is also helpful that Iosephus reminds us that the Pope, and God, cannot make a square circle. Unlike Iosephus, I will cut directly to the point. How much power does the Pope have over the Liturgy? Now, I will readily admit, this is very difficult question. But I think it is fairly easy to see that Rifan intends by his brief statement no judgement on this complex matter. What, exactly, does he say?
[Why do we love and prefer the Traditional Roman Rite?] Would it be because we deny the power of the Pope to modify and promulgate liturgical laws? This would be against the Pope’s supreme power dogma!
I agree with Iosephus that “supreme power dogma” is an amusing little description. But we need not fear Rifan is overstepping himself by this phrase, just as your common protestant might fear Romish idolatry in “Queen of All Hearts”. Of course, as Iosephus says, this phrase is troublesome particularly because some modern Catholics ascribe to his liturgical office what I might term ultra-supreme power. And the modification and promulgation of liturgical laws hardly begins to describe the grand introduction of the New Mass. But, what exactly are the limits of the Pope’s powers to define the liturgy? Frankly, I’m not sure. In his near destruction of the Roman Rite and promulgation of the fabricated New Mass, acts without precedent in our glorious Church, did the late Pope Paul VI fundamentally overstep or misapply his God-given authority? This is a question to which I’ve yet to hear a cogent answer. However, regardless of their theological implications, we’d all agree that we don’t want to see these Papal actions repeated. Certainly the old priests of Campos never yearned for such a thing. And yet why does Iosephus see in this simple expression, not only Rifan’s endorsement of some ultra-supreme power thesis, but a suggestion that, counter to any kind of traditionalism, the Pope is free to do whatever he wants with Liturgy? Is there not a real problem that Rifan could be addressing here, and not just deliberately brushing aside the larger authority issue? There are certainly many traditionalists who make bold statements limiting the Pope’s ability to change the liturgy. Some suggest that they would not tolerate any changes to the Old Mass whatsoever. Or, deeper in looneyville, they refuse to recognize any modifications that might have been tainted by the seedy anti-liturgical underbelly of the 20th century liturgical movement - cf. the old, old Roman stuff.
For the ordinary Catholic, as opposed to the traditionalist audience, this is a point that we need to continue to emphasize. We do not deny the Pope his power over the Liturgy. We may wish that the wider Church consider how this authority has been excercised in the last 50 years, and by careful study, to reaquaint itself with a more traditional restraint when handling the Sacred Liturgy, but this desire must not become for us blanket disobedience and distrust of any and all change. Were the Roman Pontiff, for example, to modify the 1962 liturgical books, perhaps calling for an Epistle given in the vernacular and eliminating the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar - ignoring the obvious imprudence of such a step at this time - would we revolt? The Pope has granted us the favor of using liturgical rites that are frozen in time. Your run-of-the-mill traditionalist - like myself - thinks of this favor as absolutely essential, or even perhaps the natural state of a liturgical rite. But we mustn’t forget that the Pope retains this Supreme Power to, just as Rifan says, continue to modify and promulgate liturgical laws.
3. He refers to the Unity of Cult Dogma.
I think you answered yourself admirably here, Iosephus. Rifan is not referring entirely to the SSPX, but to all traditionalists, some of whom have been known to challenge the validity of the Mass, or to denigrate the sacred mysteries as performed using the Novus Ordo rite.
———–
I also went a-browsing on Angelqueen to see what criticisms they had brought up regarding this interview. The most interesting to me was the few who had siezed upon the phrase “Classical Roman Rite,” and seen in this diabolic aims. This name thing has always been a curious issue, and one day I’d like to treat it in more detail. I mean, traditionalists as a whole have fixed upon “Novus Ordo” as a perfect description of that Rite - I’ve known some to call the coining of this title as little short of miraculous, and certainly everyone would see the hand of Providence in it. The New Order: they call themselves by name! But, you might say, this only makes the job more difficult for us in choosing our own name (specifically, one in English). Of course, the “enemy” has chosen a name for us, and it is “Tridentine.” (Some are heard to whisper Pian, too.) Though association with the Council of Trent is no shabby thing, there are so many prejudices in this title that it is pretty much unacceptable. Then again, proving the old axiom that you are your own worst enemy, some traditionalists have been known to go about shouting “The Mass of All Time”, in imitation of the French. Or, in shortened parlance, the MOAT. Now if there is a better way to get yourself thought the liturgical fool I know not it. My Cornell fellows and I prefer “Traditional Roman Rite.” But this talk about the “Classical Roman Rite” intrigues me. I’ve always thought the traditional in TRR to seem more the self-congratulatory adjective, by way of party politics, than the real meaning it should have. Is “Classical” the solution here? On one hand, it conjures up some of the right images and avoids the much more loaded “traditional”. On the other hand it doesn’t really sound Catholic, and classical still has some pretty bad notes in it, from “I prefer classical music” to “I just plain flip for classic car shows.” Even worse, 4 out of 5 Angelqueen readers thought it reminded them of something stale, with a distinct hint of play-acting. That’s not to mention the clear scent of New Rome compromise. Can’t you smell it?
Some people are never happy.
go to main page
Loading ...
Look at Sandro Magister, never afraid to dish it out for people whom he loves, like Archbishop Piero Marini. Nor do his words seem afire with love for the Pope from Poland.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,