Loading ...
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.
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,
Shame on Bishop Rifan…how dare he criticize traditionalists! This is what gives the traditionalist movement such a black eye. You have guys like Chris Ferrara and Tom Drolesky who constantly criticize everything the Pope and the Vatican does. But when someone criticizes them, they scream and cry like 2-year olds. Traditionalists don’t have very thick skins.
I believe you guys have been reading too much traditio.com if you refer to the Vatican as “New Rome”.
I’m using that term sarcastically here, Legion of Mary. It is a stupid, stupid phrase for traditionalists to use. However, it does more perfectly capture the attitude many have towards the Vatican (I wasn’t even thinking of the crackpots at Traditio, but of the Archbishop himself, upon occasion).
Legion of Mary, you never know what we’re going to say next: sometimes we mean it, sometimes we say it sarcastically, and a word with one tone in the mouth of one author here will have a different one in the mouth of another.
That may be frustrating and it will certainly require careful reading. But that’s one of the reasons I like this blog and signed a contract to write for it regularly (for some decent pay). We’ll be making fun of traditionalists one minute and then praising or lambasting Bishop Rifan or the Archbishop the next.
Or at least that’s my side of it. Ambrosius, when he condescends to write for the blog, publishes stately pieces redolent of poetical sophistication and the insights of a liberal but disciplined mind.
Iacobus, who are you fooling? In my presence, you have always referred to it by this long and distinguished title:
“The Mass of the Ages, that is, the Mass according to the Missal and Rubrical Indications of our Most Holy Lord, then known as the Patriarch of the West, the Supreme Pontiff, theSaint Pius, Fifth of that name (pontiff not saint), Scourge of Musselmen, of blessed, immemorial and glorious memory.”
So that’s a mouthful, but I appreciate the class of that title - and it’s so long, it’s sorta like a prayer each time you say it.
according to the Rubrical indications
Well, it sounds like something I might say!
I just don’t want you guys to end up like Drolesky…bitter old men.
First, Iacobus, I have absolutely no problem saying that Rifan is acting with good intentions. Even if I’m much more a SSPX supporter, impugning Popes and Bishops and Priest with evil will does no one any good. Still, for us to be in the situation we are in there must be more than a few with truly evil wills, and others that are just not brave enough, or not given enough intellectual grace to see the problems.
That said, I must take issue with your statement:
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?
I don’t want to delve into the rest of the debate here, but here is part of the problem, Iacobus.
First, he is not the only “traditional” bishop, and whatever you think of the SSPX, the four bishops are really bishops. In fact they share the same lineage as H.E. Rifan (whose co-consecrator was consecrated by three SSPX bishops, and they in turn by the venerable Archbishop Lefebvre). You dismiss these men as “characters”, yet the Pope himself recognizes them as bishops and treats them as such, even if there is an irregular divide. Disagreements aside, I think you ought to respect these men at least as much as the Pope and his Curia does.
Secondly, Bishop Rifan is not the bishop over you, I or any traditionalist Catholic. He is the bishop over the SSJV, and his territory is limited to the Diocese Campos in Brazil.
Now, I’m not saying he shouldn’t speak to anyone else, but you said flock, and he patently is not the shepard of the traditional flock. Just as my bishop is not Msgr. Fellay, but Msgr. Finn, so too, Rifan is just a bishop. He may make some good points, but in a way what he says is no more important than the latest interview with Msgr. Williamson. Both are bishops, both say the Traditional Mass, neither have us as part of their flock. You would have no problem pointing out the problems with what Msgr. Williamson would say, yet you expect Msgr. Rifan to be free from criticism. That’s a mighty fine double standard you have there.
Finally, we cannot merely assume that he is faithful, because we see him doing such things as the concelebration of a shameful paganized Mass, then trying to save face, professing to have not said the words of consecration (which ammounts to the serious sin of simulating a sacrament). I’m not looking for a bulldog of a bishop, but he acts like a little puppy that doesn’t want to offend anyone (or especially give bad impressions).
I hope the man does have good intentions, but from what I have seen he’s done too much political posturing for me to be comfortable with him.
Rifan is not like the man who ordained him, nor like he was ten years ago. I’m not going to attribute evil motive to him, but I’m not going to say he’s a great example of a good bishop, or truly a good authority on what the SSPX and Rome must do.
His society’s regularization came without a need to “correct doctrinal problems”, and even without some declaration renouncing their schism. Perhaps you can explain then how he has the cahones to come out and say that the SSPX must correct their doctrinal problems. The SSJV was much more close to schism than the SSPX ever was. The SSJV operated only in one diocese, seemingly as the continuation of a former ordinary’s lineage, while a new bishop had been appointed. In effect, if not absolutley, they claimed real juristiction over the Campos diocese, at least much more so than the SSPX, who claim no real juristiction, but supplied juristiction. Canonically, an in spirit that makes the SSJV much more schismatic than the SSPX, yet again, the SSJV had no “doctrinal problems” to “correct”. Thus my irritation with his words.
On a tangent: my younger brother, for some time, has been making a distinction between “indultarians” and “traditionalists,” as the former separates those who are loyal to the Church, pope, etc., from those who are sedavacantists, sspx-ers, or simply not loving and obedient servants of the Church (slanderers of the pope, for example) - it disassociates the bad connotations and diffuses the ‘we have tradition-you have herasy’ mentality just a wee bit.
Do you use the word similarly?
“Ambrosius, when he condescends to write for the blog, publishes stately pieces redolent of poetical sophistication and the insights of a liberal but disciplined mind.”
Yes, we keep Iosephus around for quantity and Ambrosius for quality. Now you see why we pay the former 2.5 cents a word and the latter a monthly stipend. :)
Ian, thank you for those very good remarks. Very much along the lines, or I flatter myself to think so, of what I had written when Iacobus first put up this post.
I repost those comments now:
An admirable reply, Iacobe! Of course, I completely disagree with everything you said, only because it wouldn’t be right sporting of me to roll over. ; ) Wait, not everything: I like that part wherein you admonish me for failing to mention the ridiculous remark of Rifan’s comparing to the SSPX to the Greek Orthodox. There, you have hit the nail on the head! : )
Contra Iacobum, we do have other traditional or traditionalist bishops, namely the bishops who were consecrated by the Archbishop.
Now how is my line unfair when I say that I do not know whether the consecrations were a mistake? Indeed, I don’t know that anyone alive can now judge the matter: John Paul could have signed the document in wonderful good will, but not have been acquainted with all the facts, or have misunderstood them, or some such thing. Whether a state of necessity existed seems to be something which only God can judge and which the Archbishop had to answer in conscience.
I tend to think that there was such a state of necessity, for I see not how we would have the Mass of the Ages today if it had not been the heroic actions of the Archbishop. But happily, these are not matters I have to judge. By God’s providence, we live with the good fruit that God brought from that good or evil event, I know not which. Ambrosius said something to me one time about God drawing with crooked lines and all that. That really touched me. ; )
My criticisms of the so-called “supreme power dogma” were spot on, and you know it. You say my point is a red herring - hardly! It’s the very question which must be asked: what power does the pope have to change the liturgy? You contradict yourself by saying: “Msgr. Gamber may look at it as an open question, whether or not the Pope has the authority to replace one Liturgy with another, but, you know what, P. Paul VI did just that” and then you say, “Or even that Paul VI had the ‘authority’ to do what he did in the first place.”
Either he had the authority or he didn’t. Now look, what he might have done is promulgate an alternate rite, which, of course, we have quotations of his saying just that. Things about how he never meant to abolish the old rite only offer an alternative. De facto it was nearly abolished; but de iure may not be one of the options in the cards.
Finally, I like your point about the traditionalist perspective on bishops versus what many traditionalists will often dish out, in terms of harsh language and criticisms, to bishops. We want the bishops to teach us, not the other way around. And some of us can get uppity, proud, and cross the line.
But what I hoped to be asking here, in a time of rampant heresy, as you say, which makes us suspicious, or at least careful, is which doctrines, in particular, Bishop Rifan is concerned that the Society repent. The Society is not denying the Supreme Power Dogma (SPD) or the Unity of Cult Dogma (UCD) or the Indefectability of the Church Dogma (ICD) - catchy abbreviations I’ve come up with, eh? - so what’s the story?
If, as you suggest, Bishop Rifan does feel himself to have been corrected, how and on what points was he corrected? Was it on the Desiring to be Close to the Supreme Pontiff Dogma (DCSPD)? Sure, anyone in the position of Econe or Campos, for as long as it has been, and for as bitter as the fight has been, might need a fresher, morally speaking, in this dogma. That is, they have it intellectually, but have been unable or unwilling (for maybe bad, maybe good reasons) to live it fully for a time.
But what is this about? As pope, as the holy father, as the supreme pastor of the Church, there’s no fool out there who doesn’t want to be close to the guy. But as Koran-kisser, layman-dressed-as-heretic-archbishop-ring-kisser, as allower-of-altar-girls, etc., etc., they want a little distance, you know, a little breathing room, enough space to say, “Papa, please, consider what you’re doing.”
I think the traditionalist beef with Rifan is that they hear him saying, “Shut up! shut up! shut up! it’s time for the rest of you to play nice with Rome, just like I learned to do, and now we all march in lock-step with the Supreme Pontiff.” This is a criticism which Bishop Fellay mentioned in an interview with the Latin Mass magazine, I think, last year, and to which one of the priests of the FSSP in Colorado responded. Fellay said: the FSSP and Institute must be as quiet as church mice - or else! His thought being that though the SSPX and FSSP priests are educated in the same way, read the same old school theology, know the same old school texts, yet the SSPX can speak and remind the Church and bishops of these things, while the FSSP has to keep quiet lest they get cut from dioceses or shut down altogether.
I don’t have a bad word to say about the priests of the FSSP, but I can respect what Fellay is saying. The old stuff needs to be voiced, and I’m glad someone is saying it. If Rifan is saying, “The Holy Father is not talking about Mortalium Animos right now, and so neither should we”, then I’d say to Rifan: go fly a kite. You know, it’s that whole ICD (Indefectability of the Church Dogma): the Church can’t change her doctrine, and if some yahoo bishops are going to pretend that She has, so much the worse for them.
Finally, Iacobus knows that he has plenty of respect for Archbishop Lefebvre. When I refer to him as the Archbishop, this is only in imitation of the language used by a certain priest in a certain parish in Scranton, PA.
We tried to pay Clara, too, but even at a $1 per word, we can barely get her to write a thing.
Dear Deirdre, I can’t in good conscience use the word “indult” until Iacobus can explain to me - and I allude to the discussion in Msgr. Gamber’s The Reform of the Roman Liturgy - how the Supreme Pontiff could have had the authority to make the so-called Novus Ordo Missae the normative form of the Roman Rite, thus necessitating an indult for, as Iacobus would say, the Mass of the Ages, that is, the Mass according to the Missal and Rubrical Indications of Saint Pius and Pope, Fifth of that name, His Holiness, etc.
But I agree that “traditionalist” sounds kinda, I don’t know, bad somehow. If someone were a sedevacantist, the theology of which was so admirably given to us by St. Robert Bellarmine who, as Iacobus will be happy to tell you, also gave us some important theological insights into the position of the Earth relative to that of the Sun - or is it the other way around? - I would just call them a sedevacantist, since a Holy Seat (putatively) semi-permanently unsat upon is not a very traditional view of things.
Thanks very much for the reply, Andrew.
You take issue with my supposed dismissal of the SSPX Bishops as “characters”. Of course, I didn’t mean just them, but all the various traditional Bishops.
However, I am of the opinion that the Bishops of the SSPX, at least in regards to my own spiritual concerns, can be dismissed as such. Rome says, at least for now, that they are excommunicated. Not only that, but I’ve heard Williamson and Tisserais say some really, really stupid things. You say that Rome treats them with more respect than I do. Well, that is the prerogative of Rome, who respects them, I imagine, not as Bishops per se, but more because they are the spiritual leaders of so many endangered souls.
In fact, the visible arrogance that they continually exhibit towards the Holy Father, in particular, is so disgusting to myself that I have a hard time reading any of their speeches or writings.
This talk about me having a double standard is pure nonsense, though. Perhaps I’ll try my hand at insensitivity. The Eastern Orthodox are Bishops too, and why do you hold a double standard with them? It is obvious why I am willing to assume the best of Rifan before the Society Bishops. Not only did he not do things that upset me (the consecrations, their continued speeches, etc. ) but he was also, get this, never excommunicated by the Holy Father. I understand you having questions about this matter, and sympathize with wanting to trivialize this stain on their reputation, but you can’t imagine that everyone else is going to buy it.
Lastly, why do you think anyone is going to come over to your side with a line like “concelebration of a shameful paganized Mass”? You can keep claiming that these things are true, accusing the Bishop of simulating a sacrament, and using silly adjectives like “shameful” and “paganized”, but that does not make them true. What does paganized even mean to you?
On the point about the SJV not needing doctrinal correction, and yet being “more schismatic” than the SSPX, I’m not so sure I can agree. Do you really think that Rifan means some formal doctrinal correction, where all of the Society’s false views are trotted out in public, and then condemned. I don’t know the exact particulars of Campos, and how much exactly was done, though. And this stuff about the SSPX being a mere religious order, canonically, starts to get a littly silly thiry two years later. Maybe in 1980 things were dandy, or maybe so in 1985. But look at what the Bishops are saying today, so many years after the consecrations. Are they treating themselves a mere order of priests, or, does it seem that they want to be something just a little bit more? Practically, they operate as a separate church.
I don’t mean to seem the anti-SSPX firebrand here, but I do think someone needs to stand firm, lest Iosephus bury our blog in post after post glowing about St. Nicolas du Chardonet and Fellay homilies.
Ian, since you mention Bishop Finn, do you have any idea how the bishop (who by all accounts seems to be one of the best diocesan bishops in the U.S.) gets along with the SSPX in Kansas City?
Don’t be obtuse about “indult”, Iosephus!
I’m not being obtuse (deliberately). I understand that it’s called the “indult”, and it has this further sense, often, when we apply it only to diocesan priests saying a Sunday old rite and not to FSSP parishes, though they are, according the broader sense.
Look, any “indulter”, at least, ought to agree that there are two forms of the Roman Rite: this is the description given by Cardinal Hoyos. One Roman Rite, two forms of it. Now if the pope doesn’t have the power to supplant the Mass of the Ages, though he might well promulgate other, alternative forms, just as he recognizes/supports eastern rites, one can say in all sincerity that this is what happened in 1970 or whenever it was. The pope promulgated an alternative rite, adopted by almost all parishes, but it was never in the cards to overturn the other, older form of the Roman Rite, because such a thing can’t be done.
What’s wrong with this story?
If you’re willing to concede that it is merely a theological opinion that such an overturning cannot be done, I’ll agree with what you said.
I don’t see why the Pope is “incapable” of banning the old Roman Rite. I do not hold that Quo Primum had binding authority over future Sovereign (it isn’t merely a decorative title) Pontiffs. The Roman Rite did not exist in the age of the Apostles, so it is not an intrinsic part of the Church, which means it is subject to the discipline of the Church. It would not in any sense be good to abolish the old rite, and I believe it would be legitimate to protest if it should be done, but it can in fact be done, legally speaking.
I am also leary of people who claim that any priest can adopt the Tridentine Rite without informing his bishop. The actual state on the ground is that the typical parish employs the Novus Ordo. If a priest refuses to do so at Sunday Mass, what is a bishop to do? He is not going to make that parish Tridentine-only, and it is simply nonsense to think otherwise. Unless there is a significant body of people who want a Tridentine Mass in that parish, this priest has effectively told his bishop, “Sorry, sir, I don’t want to run a parish, not the way things are.” So why should we be surprised when these priests are disciplined? One of the problems of the traditionalist movement, and I don’t know if Bishop Rifan has addressed it, is this encouragement of Novus Ordo priests simply to walk away from their assigned posts. Morally is that okay? I can’t say, but canonically speaking it is sheer chaos. Perhaps most of the responsibility for this chaos rests with the Vatican’s failure to specify the precise legal status of the Novus Ordo vis-a-vis the Tridentine Rite, but I don’t see how that automatically justifies priests walking away from their assigned parishes.
Tobias Petrus, I’m not speaking of Quo Primum in particular, though that possibly has some bearing. Rather, I’m alluding to a discussion in Msgr. Klaus Gamber’s The Reform of the Liturgy, a discussion to which Iacobus was so kind as to have first introduced me.
To Iacobus: indeed, a theological opinion, and one about which I have neither the authority nor the learning to judge. I have written only to point out, though, that some people think it worthy of mention, e.g. Gamber and, in some form or other, Ratzinger himself, as indicated by The Spirit of the Liturgy passage some posted a few days ago.
Living in the midst of all this liturgical chaos, no one of us, obviously, can give the last word, but it may be of interest to remark possible interpretations, which may be by the authorities in the future to sort through things.
Francis,
As I can’t reveal specific details of the happenings here, due to a promise I made and propriety, I must be a bit vague.
Bishop Finn has met with some of the faithful who go to the SSPX Mass here and a few others as well, who are somewhat more officially part of the SSPX.
My impression from what I have been told is that he is not directly hostile to the SSPX, and provided some regularization happens, would be happy to welcome the priests here into some kind of normal situation.
Generally there is a good amount of support for Msgr. Finn among those who attend mass with the SSPX. Last year at the first Corpus Christi procession in 50 years (one of his first acts) a large contingent joined that procession. Finn seems to be doing some very good things for the diocese, and many of us are quite hopeful.
That said, he is my ordinary, and when morally possible I obey him and I pray for him whenever possible, even if I wish that he would do more.
Iacobus,
In the words of a friend, “Control the thread population, have your straw men neutered”.
You comment about the Orthodox is a straw man. They explicitly deny Papal Supremecy and refuse Rome any authority. The SSPX bishops obey the Holy Father when it is morally possible, and certainly do not deny Papal Supremecy. If you don’t understand the difference you have no business commenting on the issues here at all.
As regards the Campos situation and the excommunications, if you can’t understand what actually happened in 1988 you again have no business commenting. The bishops were not excommunicated by the Pope, but the Pope said that they had excommunicated themselves (latae sententiae). These supposedly excommunicated bishops then consecrated Msgr. Rangel (the co-consecrator of Msgr. Rifan and head of the SSJV). If the Pope was right, Rangel was excommunicated as well. He and Msgr. de Castro Mayer before him exercised juristiction over the Campos diocese, who had a legitimate bishop. Their apostolate was in a single diocese. Canonically this is much closer to schism than the situation with the SSPX. You can claim actions and words and comments all you like, but the legal situation is proof positive that the SSPX is not schismatic, nor that the bishops are excommunicated.
Campos provides the example as at the regularization they had no doctrinal errors to renounce, no excommunications to have absolved, and no schism to mend (as they did get official juristiction, without asking pardon for pseudo schism).
But then you say that you don’t know the particulars of Campos. Perhpas you ought to do some study on the matter before you malign others, and perhaps, for a moment you can put aside you hatred of the SSPX and at least consider what they have to say in the matter, not just reject it because of your own bias.
As far as the “Paganized” Mass, one need only view the video of Msgr. Rifan’s “concelebration” (and then his subsequent denial) to see what “Paganized” means. I don’t couch my words, so yes, they may be shocking, and maybe I won’t win many people to my side, but I’m not going to pussy-foot around the truth just to make it sound nice.
The truth is that Holy Mother Church deserves nothing less than our humble obedience. Calling instituted liturgy “paganized” is sacrilegious. Transubstantiation occurs and sins are forgiven. The Novus Ordo rite is still valid.
Your attitude towards the Novus Ordo Rite raises the question: Why do you attend a Traditional Latin Mass? Is it because you think you have a better idea of the way the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass should be celebrated than the Church’s idea? I would like to think that one would attend a TLM
because virtues and graces that are not obvious in a current Novus Ordo celebration are expounded more clearly in the Traditional Latin Mass. Virtues like humility and sacrifice for our redeemer in response to his infinite love, for example. Why might there be a discrepancy? Because the bigger issue at hand is that very seldom is the Novus Ordo liturgy celebrated as the Church intended. Not that the Novus Ordo liturgy is invalid. Also, I am not doubting that sacrilegious masses do happen. As responsible Catholics, we need to be vigilant and informed as much as we can about the circumstances the Mass is being said. We cannot fall into
traps that would bring about complacency in the faith. When attending the TLM, this become less of an issue. I just want the emphasize the distinction that the graces and virtues present in both liturgies are the same, but are less obvious in the current execution of one than the other.
So then how do we resolve the plight of the traditionalist, namely, How do you promulgate the Traditional Latin Mass and the virtues and graces that come with its devotion? Certainly not by dissident attitudes towards
Holy Mother Church, but rather by a desire sustain the good that it has remained for us for more than 2000 years. How this will play out will only be through God’s providence.
Ian, your recent posts bring about issues of greater scope that must beresolved before any more discussion can continue. Your views on the role of the indults for the Traditional Latin Mass are not correct and fostering such attitudes is dangerous.