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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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! : )

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.

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. :)

Do you use the word similarly?

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.

Well, it sounds like something I might say!

“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.

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.