Gerry Matatics (sedevacantist)
"Traditionalists" beware, seriously ponder, and observe closely: he was once where you are now, and you may one day end up where he is now
[this person wishes to remain anonymous. When I refer to him I use the name "Bill"]
See the previous two installments:
Critique of Some Comments from a "Traditionalist"
The "Traditionalist" Counter-Responds
I also wrote the following three papers in reply (to some degree) to things that Bill wrote (the first two as a result of direct challenges):
Is It Dissent Against the Pope and the Church, and Downright Disobedient For a Catholic to Favor the War in Iraq?
Robert Sungenis' Denial of the Catholic De Fide Dogma of God's Immutability and Profound Confusion About Time and Eternity
The Catholic "Traditionalist" Derisive Term Neo-Conservative (Catholic)
His words will be in blue, as taken (I'll be citing all his words). My older cited words will be in green, his older words in purple.
* * * * *
First, it is necessary to note that Dave Armstrong has made apologies on his blog for points in which he might have been mistaken, or harsh and has edited his original posting, as I have done in kind with my first reply. I misjudged his character on this issue.
Thank you very much for nothing this upfront; also for your own editing. I'm very pleased that we can discuss these issues cordially.
I also want to say, now that I have been rethinking it,
I admire anyone who "rethinks" anything, and will admit it in public!
do I really want to include him in a polemic of those who accept novelties in Church practice due to Protestantism? I included him initially because I recall his polemics against Traditionalists about 8 years ago. But I do have to consider that my thesis is somewhat flawed in his case as he does attend a Latin Novus Ordo, which would suggest that he does in fact have an interest in preserving small "t" tradition. This is why when I get a chance later I will edit my initial posting to remove his name while I hash out my thought further on this.
Good. This is gracious; however, if the Novus Ordo is still shot-through with Protestant influences, as you and other "trads" habitually claim (though still valid), then how do I completely escape the charge? I'm still attending this Mass that you think is so woefully inferior to the Tridentine. My position is simple and easy to understand: folks ought to be able to go to whatever Mass they like; the Holy Father has made the Tridentine more widely available. I think that's wonderful.
That had been my position for as long as I can remember. Pope Benedict XVI has stated authoritatively that both forms of the Mass are good and helpful in the Church, and both to be encouraged (and John Paul the Great paved the way for this decision). Vatican II had stated that Latin should be retained (and my parish took that seriously and abided by it). Let everyone worship as they see fit, under God, in good conscience. Live and let live, or I should say, "worship and let worship". Your original statement was:
Karl Keating, and Jimmy Akin, as well as Dave Armstrong and Mark Shea, not to mention some others, who are converts separated from historical Catholicism by the modernism pervading the Church since the Council.I objected and object to this as untrue in any sense: I'm not separated from "historical Catholicism" at all; I defend it every day (so do these other men, as far as that goes). I'm liturgically quite conservative and traditional (as is my parish); I simply attend Novus Ordo rather than Tridentine Mass. I was mentored and received into the Church by the late Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J.: widely renowned and revered as a thoroughly orthodox catechist, whose cause is now being pursued. I also objected that mentioning someone's status as a convert had nothing to do with anything in this discussion.
[Bill later corrected himself as to Keating being a convert; he is not]
I also want to say that I hope to convince Dave of the efficaciousness of certain elements of the Traditionalist cause, and I am not arguing in vain or in an empty fashion.
Duly noted. And I will continue to explain why I disagree if I do, unless and until I am otherwise persuaded, which is always my approach in any interaction with opposing views.
The first thing I want to do is take up the issue of a "quasi-schismatic" label, because I don't think Dave understands my point here.
It means exactly what the literal meaning implies: "near-schismatic" or "resembling in some respects a schismatic." I would also note that this is also distinct from questioning someone's "orthodoxy" (how exceedingly sloppy your reasoning is here!). To be close to a thing (in this case, schism, not dissident heterodoxy) is not the thing. A woman could be close to being pregnant. I could come close to hitting a home run, but I didn't. It was a caught fly ball instead. I could be nearly Catholic as an Anglo-Catholic, but I ain't Catholic.Here is my problem: in Mr. Armstrong's position is that a Traditionalist who does not reject the authority of the Pope, the validity of Vatican II or the New Mass is a quasi-schismatic because by criticizing the prudential judgments of 4 Popes or of the prudence of the manner in which Vatican II is worded, or the extrinsic value of the New Mass, we resemble those who claim it is intrinsically evil. We go right up to the line but don't cross it, and are thus not true schismatics but close. This is my problem with that term. People do not go "too far to the right" or "too far to the left", they act in accord with first principles, and following those through lead them to a finality one way or the other.
Ah, but you are neglecting that there are degrees to these things. Precisely because there are such gradations and numerous disagreements amongst yourselves in the "trad" movement (e.g., David Palm denied on my blog that Robert Sungenis was a "trad" at all, whereas you regard him as of your party, albeit with some trepidation and qualification) , one like myself (an orthodox Catholic, period) can observe this from the outside and therefore strongly urge you to consider where the trajectory may possibly be leading down the line. You say that folks don't move right and left on the scale of these matters (however we each may define them and their frameworks)? Have you never heard of Gerry Matatics and Mario Derksen?
They once stood on the spectrum where you are (e.g., around 1999 or 2000 I convinced Mario to remove his links to The Remnant: a link that you still carry), but now they are sedevacantists. I interacted with them before they got to this point (far more, Mario, of the two). I tried to prevent it happening by critiquing the attitudes and arguments that (arguably) can lead to such a truly schismatic and even heretical position. I think there is something to be said (and very little can be!) for the internal coherence of the radical sedevacantist position. They argue (as you well know, I'm sure) that they simply take your reasoning to its logical conclusion. That's how they see it. They see you somewhat as you see me: compromised in some fashion, and not totally "aware" of the true reality in the Church.
From where I sit, it's just two different imbalanced positions on the spectrum: both too far out, but one much more so than the other. There are key differences, but in a large sense one can come very close to the other position and, due to a variety of influences, be compelled to cross over an important line one day into actual schism and perhaps heresy. Matatics and Derksen have literally done this before my eyes and our eyes. They kept sliding further and further out, so that now they are in the twilight zone. It was a slippery slope. Maybe there was a "safety latch" or rope of some sort (continuing the metaphor) before going over the edge, but sometimes those fail, don't they? If one hadn't been on the slope, and in an unstable position in the first place, then there'd be less chance of falling off, right? Along these lines I wrote in my last reply, right after what you cite above:
Likewise, a quasi-schismatic is not a schismatic, but shows aspects that might lead one to conclude that he may conceivably one day become one, if he follows the trajectory (just as Derksen and Matatics did: I've personally witnessed these things happen). One who rails against the Novus Ordo day in and day out is obviously closer to a position of denying its validity than one who does not constantly criticize it. Such a person may never cross the line, but that doesn't mean he isn't close to it and could conceivably cross over it. Same thing with Vatican II. Many have crossed these rather fine lines. The description "quasi-schismatic" is, therefore, intended as a wake-up call and warning.Others who are where you are now will move to the "center" (regular old orthodoxy without the "trad" trappings), while yet others will go further and further away from that compliance with the current Mind of the Church, to the SSPX or sedevacantism. You watch. It'll happen right before your eyes, just as I have seen it in now 17 years of observing these trends and fads and fancies. You don't have to take my word for it. Time will show you the truth of my observations. People will move; they will change their position by degrees: one way or the other. It's like the frog in the boiling water thing, where they never jump out, and die. The frog had no intention of changing its circumstance, but all of a sudden it finds itself dead.
"Trads" change as time goes by, in various ways, many times not even being aware of it, because the change is often so slow in pace. One either stays with the Mind of the Church as she moves through history or departs more and more from it, leading to all kinds of errors and warped priorities. But this sort of de facto "Catholic sectarianism" always leads to ever-shifting positions, by the nature of the beast. And so we observe that.
A liberal is not necessarily a heretic or a schismatic, if they accept that in principle they can never depart from the doctrine of the Church, but prefer things both Armstrong and I would consider banal or ridiculous in the liturgy.
How can one be a liberal simply by preferring liturgical mediocrity? One might call someone like this shortsighted, naive, gullible, insufficiently acquainted with the liturgical aspects of Catholicism, or even stupid, but liberal? I don't think so. They simply need to learn what is an abuse in the Mass and split to another parish if nothing can change for the better.
The liberal who says that we can have such things in the liturgy regardless of what authority says is heterodox, because of the principle that what the Church commands can be rejected.
Well, this is different. If the intent is to deliberately spurn what the Church declares about the rubrics of the liturgy, then it is disobedience and a schismatic attitude, but how is that essentially different from you dissenting against what the Church declares about the various things you don't like (ecumenism apparently being the biggest boogeyman)? That's why I've always said that in key aspects the peculiar "trad" outlook resembles liberal Catholics (pick and choose) and Protestants (exercise of private judgment in an unCatholic fashion).
It is easy for some who have accepted the ultra-trad position, one that I reject, that the Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil, are not far from Sedevacantism because they have accepted the principle that the Church can give us a serpent when we ask for a fish, something we know from scripture and Tradition is impossible. The SSPX who accept the said proposition, or other Trads who believe this, as well as the idea that Vatican II taught error explicitly, run right up to the line
The SSPX have already crossed the line, because they are formally in schism.
and those who go Sede cross it (e.g. Matatics). On the other hand, if one maintains that the Novus Ordo said according to the Church's intention and law is good, simply not as good as the Traditional Mass (something equivalent to saying the Rosary is not as good as the Mass, it doesn't follow that the rosary is evil on those grounds) and that our shepherds have erred prudentially with how they have practiced ecumenism, there is no position that takes us up to the "line" so called of schism. Following our first principles though can never bring us to the rejection of actual authoritative actions of the living magisterium (i.e. Vatican II and the New Mass), and as such it makes it impossible to "go too far to the right", something I hold to be a dubious line of argument anyway.
I think this is too simplistic of an analysis. You neglect to see, again, that "trads" often seem to talk out of both sides of their mouth, or contradict themselves or adopt beliefs that amount to a distinction without a difference (this could all be quite unconscious: folks are unaware of the logical outcomes and/or reductios of their positions all the time). What do they think of the Mind of the Church? That is a huge consideration.
For example, observe Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., in their notorious book, The Great Facade (that you favorably reviewed). They don't go over this line, either (in quintessential quasi-schismatic fashion), but they clearly reject the Mind of the Church and virtually any development since Vatican II. Thus, they talk out of both sides of their mouth (a central thesis in my book on "traditionalism"). So I contend that it is virtually a distinction without a difference. James Likoudis, in his review of the book, wrote:
Their volume is one long rant against any liturgical change in the Roman rite as well as against Vatican II's directives concerning ecumenism and interreligious dialogue. The authors write plainly:Likoudis summarizes the situation with Ferrar, Woods, and those like them in exactly the same way that I would, and have:
"The word ecumenism has no real meaning. It is a virus in the Body of Christ" (p. 79).. . . There is, however, one important value to be found in "The Great Façade" for all to see and ponder. It candidly states the "traditionalist" position:
"A traditionalist is someone who believes that the postconciliar novelties –especially the new liturgy and the new ecumenism– ought to be abandoned... Ecumenism and dialogue... together with the new liturgy, are the three basic unparalleled post-conciliar innovations of the Church... The central traditionalist criticism of Vatican II is that it fundamentally changed the Church's orientation in a direction that tended to undermine her divine mission" (pp. 14, 153).Traditionalists to this day have never embraced the post-conciliar reforms — above all the reform of the liturgy, which they regard as an abuse of papal authority which no pope before Paul VI would have dared to impose upon the Church:
"We propose that the time has come to consider whether the Church ought to close the book on Vatican II, thus beginning the process of forgetting that this confusing and divisive Council ever happened" (p. 326).It should already be evident — even though the authors would claim that traditionalists remain fully loyal to papal authority — that they are actually in direct opposition to the mind of the Church. They also fail to render that obedience traditionally given by Catholics to the doctrinal and disciplinary decrees of Ecumenical Councils. Typical of the "hermeneutics of suspicion" constantly displayed toward the Council and the popes is the obstinate refusal of the authors to distinguish between the Church's authentic teachings and the false "spirit of Vatican II."
The authors' rabid opposition to the Ordo Missæ of Paul VI with their litany of liturgical grievances and complaints finds its culmination in their linking "sexual predators" let loose in the Church with the "Novus Ordo"!
. . . Revealing their affinities for the "Society of St. Pius X" and its opposition to Vatican II, the authors deny, in effect, that Archbishop Lefebvre and the four bishops he ordained were lawfully declared schismatic by Pope John Paul II. [see the Decree of Excommunication and Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei: both from 1988]
The authors admit that:
This is the core of their defense that they cannot be regarded by their critics as schismatic or heretical. They may indeed be excused from the charge of being schismatics or heretics (charges they vehemently reject), but they cannot be exempted from being declared gravely disobedient to papal and conciliar authority, and by such disobedience causing great harm and damage to the Church. . . .
- "None of [Vatican II's] conciliar documents contains any explicit doctrinal error" (p. 88).
- Neither that Council nor the post-conciliar popes have imposed "as a matter of doctrine to be held by the faithful any explicit theological error" (p. 57).
This is identical to what I have been arguing above, except I wouldn't say that schism will always "invariably" occur (that's too strong). But I would say that there is a distinct danger of it happening if one remains within this erroneous, wrongheaded, disobedient mindset. I think we can say that the trend is towards schism, and that some or many in the movement will "invariably" go that route in due course. That much I will definitely assert (and perhaps it is what he meant in the first place). Near the end of his excellent, dead-on review, Likoudis opines:
It is an old story in the history of the Church: Those who distrust the Magisterium and refuse to be guided by its interpretation of what constitutes "Tradition" and what liturgical and ecclesiastical practices are in conformity with "Tradition", are invariably led to acts of disobedience, and later, open schism.
It was St. John Bosco who wrote during disastrous days for the Church in the 19th century:If you accept such dubious propositions, such as that Vatican II taught de facto error, then no doubt one is on the road to true schism, even if they don't quite get there.
"We must love the popes ... their counsels and even their wishes must be a command to us. My sons, regard as enemies of the faith those who belittle the pope's authority or who try to minimize the obedience and respect due to his teachings and directives."The saint, whose love of the supreme pontiff was great both in word and deed, also gave a practical rule of thumb for appraising a book such as "The Great Façade":
"If the author is somewhat unfavorable to the pope, don't read the book."
Your comrades Ferrara and Woods say we should all forget "that this confusing and divisive Council ever happened." I don't see a whole lot of difference there; do you? What is the practical difference between saying something has explicit error and saying it is so bad we should get rid of it and forget about it and pursue another course? I shake my head in befuddlement.
Your own opinions on Vatican II echo theirs, in good old-fashioned double-talk "trad" fashion. For example:
Good grief. Does anyone really believe Vatican II is bearing any fruits right now? There is only one way, silent or otherwise, where any fruit has been born anywhere, it has been in orders that foster the growth of Tradition, priests, monks and nuns who live according to the pre-Vatican II lifestyle, or else emmulate it as much as possible. That's where the reform of the reform is, its in getting rid of the non-reform which started the mess in the first place!
* * *
How about this, FORGET VATICAN II? Is that so much to ask? How hard would that be? . . . Would it really be that hard for Benedict to just say that's it, no more Vatican II? What did Trent say? Lets go back to Trent. That works best for me.
* * *
This book was written after Vatican II, in the beginning of the real insanity unleashed by the council.
* * *
This is because the thorniest issue will take years to solve: Vatican II. The Society has called for truly reconciling the Council with Tradition. That is an extremely difficult and thorny task. I know because I recently worked on a project that attempted to reconcile some of the most problematic documents. It will meet with a lot of resistance from those entrenched in the curia who will not give up Vatican II. It means essentially that John Paul II (of infelicitous memory)'s pontificate was a failure, since the second goal apart form ecumenism was to understand Vatican II. A move to reconcile the Council would be complete proof that he failed miserably. (Not to mention that his ecumenism was condemned even by Vatican II standards.) Various JPII loyalists will not be enthusiastic about that. Pope Benedict himself, has hinted in all of his writings for the last 40 years of being bound to the Council. The question of reconciling Vatican II with Tradition would be difficult for him, since many of his political opinions would be contrary to the Syllabus of Errors of Bl. Pius IX (Separation of Church and State, Relgious Freedom etc.)
There is no easy solution. It will take years.
* * *You claim that "trads" are not in schism (and I readily agree, for the most part), yet why are they obsessed with the SSPX, which is in schism? How is it that you could make a statement like the following?:
This is another area, where the problem lies with Chris Ferrera and the Remnant. Their position is that Vatican II contains serious errors, but that's okay because the council was only a pastoral council, and therefore not binding. This teaching has serious implications, namely that the gates of hell would triumph. Binding or not, the Church in the person of the Pope can not confirm the teachings of an ecumenical council if they are heretical! It can't be. Their position is opposed to Vatican I, and what the Church has always and everywhere believed.
However, this brings us to the question: Vatican II teaches what appears to be pretty novel things, and things that directly contradict previous Popes and Councils at that. Thus if one is a Sedevacantist the answer is simple, Vatican II is an apostate council and the Popes who convened it are not real Popes. . . .
The fact is liberals wrote ambiguous statements into the documents that allowed for them to reinterpret them in light of their modernism.
* * *
Horror of horrors! People might worship as Catholics have done for 1600 years, oh my gosh! Inconceivable! On second thought maybe Benedict shouldn't do anything, and we can politely forget all about Vatican II.
* * *
Its not gymnastics, its more ambiguous Vatican II stupidity, which drops short of denying dogma, but doesn't really affirm it either. It sucks but I believe its what we got.
* * *
That all being said, I think its a stupid move [recent developments concerning limbo, that I have written about]. Why the need for constant innovations, changes and alterations? Such is the Vatican II Church. Benedict is allowing the idea to be perpetuated that the Church can change her teaching, which liberals will use to kick open the idea of women's ordination (yet again), contraception, abortion and the whole nine yards. Quite foolish, in good Vatican II style.
* * *
The best apologist I can think of out there right now is Jacob Michael of Lumengentleman apologetics. Sadly he is very unpopular amongst trads at the moment because he stopped going to the SSPX.So those who are not in schism (I don't say they are, myself, if they don't attend SSPX) find a fellow "trad" very "unpopular" simply because he stopped attending a schismatic group that all the non-schismatics love? Makes a lot of sense, don't it? And you cringe at my very accurate term "quasi-schismatic". I can't think of a more accurate term to describe what you have told us about in this little vignette of "trad" likes and dislikes. Don't dare leave the SSPX! Then you'll be very unpopular by all those who are thoroughly loyal to the popes: one of whom stated in no uncertain terms that SSPX was in schism. One is supposed to be impressed with this tortured logic?
* * *
Again, your own opinions on SSPX (a schismatic group definitively declared to be such by the magisterium) are manifest:
. . . the SSPX are in schism. I don't particularly like the fact, but no one who claims belief in the validity of the Papal elections of John XXIII-Benedict XVI can possibly say otherwise. This is because of the supreme authority granted to Pope's under Vatican I's dogmatic constitution. Therefore, it doesn't matter that Cardinal Lara, Cardinal Hoyos, and Cardinal Cassidy don't consider the SSPX in schism. John Paul II explicitly said that the SSPX have created a schism. It doesn't matter that Canon Law doesn't list schism as a penalty for consecrating bishops without approval, and it wouldn't matter if every canonist in the world disagreed with the Pope. The Pope is the supreme authority in the Church, and he has the power to bind and loose at his will. That is the power of the keys. Vatican I doesn't allow us any other interpretation of John Paul's explicit declaration of a schism in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta.
* * *
The way of life so to speak of the Novus Ordo is man centered. . . . Another solution is plain resistance like the SSPX. That works for now, but it does not work longterm. Michael Davies' suggestion is bad because it separates the real Roman Rite, he patrimony of Western Tradition from the life of the Church, and makes us a marginalized little rite like the Eastern Churches, vying for life within the western Church. It also doesn't change hearts or protect from supression by a modernist prelate. The SSPX's solution as I said works in the short term. But in the long term, the visible Church is still packed with modernists saying don't go there.Claiming that Vatican II made a mistake by writing in essay format (contrary to every Catholic ecumenical council in history)
* * *
(again, setting aside the thorny issue of excommunications and schism, which I have recused myself from . . .)
* * *
Yet on the other hand I still have the problem with Vatican I, that the Pope does have supreme apostolic authority. Where is the point of departure?
When it comes down to it, dear reader, I am not smart enough to figure this out. Or maybe I am and I haven't found the answer yet. Either way I have a difficulty because my head tells me that whatever the Pope says officially goes, and my Sensus Catholicus says that the SSPX is carrying on Catholic tradition and doing good work for Christ and His Church.
When it comes down it, dear reader, I don't have a definitive answer to give you. I really don't know anymore what I should answer concerning the SSPX's status. All I know is, that I am willing to cut the society some slack, because they are doing good. I'm willing to say, if I was preaching the gospel to someone, rather than send them to the Novus Ordo Church where they can be a good protestant, I would rather send them to the SSPX Church. Maybe some of you will applaud me, some of you will criticize me, be that as it may, I don't know the answer to the question, I'm just following my Sensus Catholicus.
* * *
[Gee, ain't that why we have the pope and the magisterium in the first place, so we're not left to reason things through and figure it all out ourselves by a Protestant method of private judgment???!!! (scratching head) ]
I think it will take an act of the magisterium to clear all this up.
* * *
[Bingo! The solution!]
In my opinion conservative (conservative meaning a serious Catholic) Novus Ordo Catholics are Catholic inspite of the Novus Ordo, not because of it. That is you pray the rosary, profess the true faith inspite of the Novus Ordo which does nothing to uphold and build up that faith. That is the main argument for tradition.
The elect for Traditional Catholics, the SSPX and us are the same, All Catholics who profess and live the true faith.
* * *
Who cares? What's true is true.
and leaving certain passages ambiguous (e.g. Dei Verbum 11, Dignitatis Humanae)
According to you and your comrades-in-arms. The Mind of the Church is quite clear in interpreting and applying all the documents. I am to follow the Mind of the Church and the magisterium, not the opinions of mere layman, when they are opposed to said Mind and magisterium. But you want to call that "Catholic" and "traditional" and not at all like the liberal and Protestant approach to authority?
that it lent itself to interpretation toward error,
Nope; liberals deliberately distorted it for their own nefarious purposes. That says nothing about the documents themselves. I don't find them difficult to understand at all. But if one doesn't like what they read, and want to maintain a surfacey "obedience" to an Ecumenical Council, then we come up with the rationalizing, special pleading nonsense of the inveterately "ambiguous" texts. Y'all are just ditching what you don't like, regardless of what the Church says about it.
This is exactly what Luther did with Catholic tradition as a whole (though, admittedly to a much greater degree, but the principle of authority is very similar), when he defected and started up a new movement. I see little difference in principle at all. He claims that he was the "reformer"; bringing things back to the good old days; restoring the gospel that had supposedly been lost or at least deeply hidden, and getting rid of the crusty barnacles of mere traditions of men. You guys think you are the bearers of the authentic tradition, and if popes and councils disagree with you, so much the worse for them; they're wrong (just as Luther freely, breezily said that various councils were). That is Luther, through and through, my friend, and I know something about that because I have been researching and writing about the man for seventeen years, and just published a book about him.
such a position can hardly lead one to reject the council.
Then why do the two authors who all the "trads" go ga-ga over, recommend jettisoning it into oblivion? Is that not a rejection? If not, what is it? How can one follow a council while at the same time saying it should never have happened?
Even Dr. Scott Hahn holds that Vatican II's ambiguity has lead scripture scholars to falsely denigrate the inerrancy of the Bible.
Please provide an exact quote on that. Thanks. I don't deny that a few things here and there need to be discussed as to meaning. Of course (just as with the Bible). But the "trad" critique is sweeping and a lot more serious than one disputed passage here and there, that scholars then interpret variously.
I doubt he would be a candidate for "quasi-schismatic".
Me too.
I think describing Pope Benedict XVI as a "modernist" says quite a bit about you, too.I believe I explained that in your combox, but in case I didn't, Pope Benedict is a modern Pope. When he was Cardinal Ratzinger, many of the expressions he used appeared like those of modernism. Perhaps I should have said he was a quasi-modernist. One thing I will accept, is that Traditionalists bandy this term around way to much, and we need to circumscribe it, because often we apply it in a broad, non-canonical sense. If I were to speak of the "heresy of atheistic free market capitalism", it would likewise be posited in a broad non-canonical sense. Thus when the current Pope as Cardinal Ratzinger said that Vatican II was a "counter-syllabus", or that we must reconcile with the principles of 1789, or when in Introduction to Christianity he uses Kantian language (which is not surprising since he was teaching at Tubingen, the premier university of German idealism), it gives one a pause. When we look at Pope Benedict, he is not the grand inquisitor of media creation (if only he was!), he is a very modern man, very moderate in his interests and actions, who plays the piano, who loves cats, who has shown a love for old things, but in general a preference for many modern ideas.
Christianity was a very "modern" idea when it first came around, too, and lots of folks didn't like it and wanted to stick with the old traditions. Papal infallibility was supposedly a "modern" and innovative idea in 1870 and lots of folks (Dollinger and the Old Catholics) didn't like it and wanted to stick with the old traditions. Do I detect a pattern?
It is possible to be a liberal and remain Catholic
Please give me a good short definition of "liberal" then, and also, tell me why yours is an authoritative definition.
, and many Trads and conservatives have falsely claimed the Holy Father as being of the same mind with them, when in reality he is not.
Thanks for verifying my observation about the endless proliferation of factions within the "trads." Some are so confused that they think a "modernist" or "liberal" pope is actually one of them?! How can this be? Where do I go for the last word in what a "trad" is? And why is this person (or group) the standard? Who determines that? Do you just take a head count, like the Protestants?
So no, I do not think the Pope is a modernist in terms of heretic (I couldn't be Catholic if I did),
Sure you could, according to Gerry Matatics, whom as recently as 18 August 2006 you described as a "brilliant apologist".
but I do think he is a very modern and left leaning thinker with an appreciation for authentic liturgy and liturgical praxis.
Why is it, then, that you want to call the Holy Father either a "modernist" (in a later carefully qualified sense), yet you object to my calling "trads" "quasi-schismatics"? What's the huge difference in perspective? You wanna say he is close to modernism proper, and I say you are close to schism. I object to your characterization of the pope, and you object to mine of your mindset. But how is one (strictly relationally-speaking) different than the other? It's the same thing from a different perspective. It's like a guy standing on his head who claims the world is upside down. But observers say he is upside down, not the whole world. But he objects to anyone saying he is upside down; he can only describe the whole world as so. They're not allowed to say that maybe his perspective is off and the origin of the different perceptions.
Now when Dave Armstrong wrote his original post, he said in his combox:
In another paper, Bill asks:We seem here to be talking about two different things: 1) The Ecumenism I criticize and the conversion from apologetics are different things entirely.
All of the sudden, we are told by the directory of Ecumenism, by John Paul II in Ut unum sint, and by almost daily and endless pronouncements on Ecumenism that we must "dialog". Yet when we come to 40 years of dialog we see no fruits akin to those things our Blessed Lord called for. Where are the conversions? Where are the souls flocking to the true religion?
Has he not heard of all the thousands of conversions as a result of the current apologetics revival? I have seen scores of people myself, if not hundreds by now, who tell me that my writing has helped them convert or come back to the Church. I work with a ministry (Coming Home Network) that deals with a constant stream of converts. How many conversions has Bill seen that come about because of his writing, if his method is so supposedly superior to ours, in terms of persuading people of the One True Faith?
Ecumenical dialog, apart from being fruitless and a waste of time (otherwise name me one convert who became Catholic because of "dialog") . . .
Me. As a direct result of two cradle Catholics who took Vatican II seriously, and reached out to a Protestant in terms that I could understand, I became a Catholic. It was a direct result precisely because of ecumenical dialogues that I held in my own home. I began them as a Protestant and became a Catholic within a year. Several in my circle of friends also converted: a few of them as a result of this same discussion group. Many conversions have occurred because of dialogues on the Internet, including some where people read my own writings.
Ecumenism and apologetics are different, but they are not antithetical to each other. I've made this point a thousand times. Ecumenism is about looking for existing common ground with others and rejoicing in that. Apologetics is about defending and contending for one particular view as the best one to have. How is this contradictory? I can do both with Protestants and be perfectly consistent in doing so. I can be happy about common beliefs, or very similar ones, and build those bridges in Christ, and I can also argue that Catholicism is the better option of the two (just as my Catholic friends did with me, that led to my conversion). Charity and the biblical call for unity demands the ecumenical quest, and self-confidence in one's own position and the desire for robust intellectual debate demands apologetics.
Secondly, you neglect to see that all the most successful Catholic apologists today are also ecumenical and of the Mind of the Church regarding ecumenism. You want to praise the apologetics but run down the ecumenism, yet they go inextricably together, as they have in these last two popes. You can't divide people and get rid of the ecumenical part of them because then they wouldn't be who they are.
You want to imply that ecumenism somehow mitigates against apologetics and conversion, but this proves that it isn't so. What truly mitigates against both is the "trad" mindset, because all you guys have time to do is run down the Church and popes and Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass. You don't have much time to defend Holy Mother Church against her enemies or learn the worldview of non-Catholics so as to dialogue with them and attempt to persuade them to become Catholic. I've seen this dynamic literally occur in folks who become "traditionalists." At one time they were doing great work in apologetics, and then when they went "trad" they ceased almost entirely doing that and confined themselves to bickering about how rotten the Church is. A great victory for the devil. He takes out many potential apologists and evangelists and turns them into grumblers and complainers and eternal pessimists.
Where are all your converts in the "trad" movement? Show me the numbers. Where is your equivalent of Catholic Answers or The Coming Home Network? You're concerned about bringing people into the Church? You have to talk to them to do so, and take time away from the constant bickering and repressed rage and vicious attacks against "neos" that is rampant in "traditionalism." What is the appeal in (at least by most appearances) angry, disenchanted, grumbling people who can say very little good about the Church or popes? Why would anyone want to convert to that, pray tell? If they want to rail against Church and popes they can stay Protestant, where that goes on all the time. Why would they opt for "Protestant Private Judgment Lite"? Most Protestants, in fact, have far more respect for popes than "trads" do.
So it amounts to a situation where "trads" sit around talking about converts and how we should have a lot more, while doing little or nothing to help being this about" laboring in the vineyard, for the harvest, or assisting others to do so. But we "neo-conservatives" who accept the dreaded notion of ecumenism are doing this work seeing them come in by the hundreds and thousands. One side talks; the other has the fruit to show for what they've been doing (and believing). What do you think would be more pleasing to God?
The Ecumenism that I repeatedly criticize (practiced by JPII and his Cardinals and Bishops) is the Ecumenism where differences are washed over for the sake of some political unity.
You conclude that differences are washed over, but this doesn't necessarily follow. The pope is partly a diplomatic figure. It's important to build bridges for the sake of world peace, for one thing. You go after those like myself who support the war in Iraq, and appeal to the pope as a peacemaker. This is part of his diplomatic role. He talks about peace. It's not his job to determine what nation should go to war with what other nation. He's like Switzerland (and Jesus) in this way.
By the same token, ecumenism is the same sort of approach: looking for commonalities in order to avoid further misunderstandings and problems. But you laud one and condemn the other: again not realizing that it is foolish to do so. You yourself conceded that the Decree on Ecumenism taught that folks should become Catholic. There is no contradiction here at all. You end up creating more problems than we are already burdened with by constructing false dichotomies and thinking in "either/or" terms, exactly like Protestants do.
Pagans who worship false gods are given olive plants, Protestants are told their belief is equal to Catholics, Jews are told they need not worry about the salvific nature of Jesus Christ, the Orthodox are told they need not return to the true faith.
One must interpret all these things in context. If the Church had gone "Anglican" and actually started changing doctrines, then you would have a point, but that hasn't happened. We still teach the same thing we've always taught.
The work of Catholic apologists to the contrary, engages non-believers with the truth of the Catholic faith, convinces them of that truth from Scripture, Tradition and reason, and they convert.
Yes, exactly! So why doesn't your crowd do much more of that? Is there some law against defending the Church rather than always tearing her down? Is there some unspoken rule in "traditionalism" that would forbid you from interacting with atheists, as I do (with dozens of debates posted)? How about all the cults out there, or the Muslims? How about in-depth debates with Lutherans and Calvinists, as I've been doing for many years (I have the most extensive critique of Luther and Lutheranism online), in the attempt to show them the weakness of their positions, leading to conversions? What about dealing with the hundreds of myths and falsehoods of virulent anti-Catholics (I have several hundred articles along those lines)?
I have to look far and wide to find much of this at all in "traditionalist" environments. Yet I'll find plenty of apologetics-bashing. What sense does this make? You praise something out of one side of your mouth (speaking about "trads" as a whole, not you -- as I will often do, in replying), but refuse to do it yourselves, and trash most of its major, known proponents out of the other. Thus, you (reflecting this sort of thing) write hyper-critical observations like:
. . . neo-conservative apologists who are confusing more and more Catholics every day like Karl Keating? Likoudis?Or:
* * *
Keating, Shea and Sungenis are all in different places of the spectrum with regards to ecclesial politics, theological positions, and other things. The second question is about lay apologetics in general. The only real answer to your first question is that I dislike all three for different reasons. Keating has no background in Theology, rather in law and he has been a real jerk to people on a personal level. Second a lot of his reasoning is specious on a lot of matters. His best work, which is like a beginner's work in theology was "Catholicism and Fundamentalism". It is good and I still use it as a reference from time to time. . . . The few exceptions I can think of is probably Patrick Madrid and Dr. Scott Hahn. They may be wrong concerning the problems in the Church but its not an ego trip. They are both men who live by the truth and if they believe something, it is because they believe it is true. . . . The real danger in lay apologetics, running blogs, websites, or well anything in this age when we have no directors, no pastors and no real aids in our journey but Christ Himself, is the ego trip. Look at me, I am an apologist, listen to me or you are in schism. That is something that Karl Keating and Peter Vere suffer from horribly. So all in all they are a mixed bag.This is massively self-contradictory. If anyone is an unaccountable loose cannon, it is a "trad" who puts up a blog and then expects to be heard and heeded as he rails against popes and councils and liturgical abuses (real or imagined). All of the men mentioned are accountable to many others. Karl Keating is subject to a board and many bishops who advise and oversee Catholic Answers. Scott Hahn is a professor at a major orthodox Catholic university.
* * *
In my case (it makes sense to use my example, since I know quite a bit about it!) , I was mentored by Fr. Hardon (who advised Mother Teresa and Pope Paul VI). He strongly recommended my writings. I was published several times in The Catholic Answer magazine. My books have been published by Sophia Institute Press, which specializes in Catholic classics, and Our Sunday Visitor: the largest Catholic publisher (and The New Catholic Answer Bible has an Imprimatur). I work for the Coming Home Network. I'm directly connected in a partnership with John Martignoni and the Bible Christian Society. I write for the newsletter in my parish, where I have attended for 17 years. There are all kinds of checks and balances that would keep me in line if I were to go astray. But where are they in your case? A link to The Remnant?
What kept Gerry Matatics in check? He wanted to go his own way. He spurned every authority that was over him. Who was Mario Derksen accountable to? Robert Sungenis is now doing the same thing. He attacks his bishop and won't submit to him. This is what "trads" do: they go their own way. So the very thing you criticize mainstream apologists for, is far more characteristic of "trads."
If that is ecumenism then that is something entirely different from what John Paul II thought ecumenism was, and all those around them, especially Cardinal Walter Kasper who denies the need of Jews to accept Jesus as their Messiah, and declares there is no "Ecumenism of Return", (Address at the 17th meeting of the International Catholic-Jewish Liason Committee, New York, 1 May 2001) something completely contrary to the New Testament and the witness of Catholic Tradition.
Pope John Paul the Great's encyclicals are entirely in accord with Vatican II, which is entirely in harmony (as even you admit) with an effort to persuade people that the Catholic Church is the fullness of truth. The same people who are at the forefront of the apologetics revival, who love Vatican II and ecumenism, also loved Pope John Paul II (as I do, very much so). So it is yet another disconnect in your analysis:
1) Following the teachings and example of Pope John Paul II would suggest a lessening of apologetic zeal because he liked ecumenism (and the two supposedly don't mix).Furthermore, a year before that, he declared to L'Osservatore Romano: "Before [the council] the Church understood the reestablishing of Christian unity exclusively in terms of 'return of our separated brothers to the true Church of Christ...from which they nave at one time unhappily separated themselves. The old concept of the ecumenism of return has today been replaced by that of a common journey which directs Christians toward the goal of ecclesial communion understood as unity in reconciled diversity."
2) Yet the exact opposite has occurred. The apologetics revival has taken off from around 1990, with the emergence of Scott Hahn and This Rock and Catholic Answers.
3) And those who are doing a great proportion of the influential apologetics love both John Paul II and ecumenism.
4) The ones who despise or greatly criticize Vatican II and Pope John Paul II and ecumenism, on the other hand, have very little apologetic fruit and conversions to show for themselves. They hardly defend the Church at all, while talking all the time about how good and necessary it is to do so and how us "neo-conservatives" or "neo-Catholics" should do this.
This communion would be ultimately in the Catholic Church. But it can't be achieved overnight. It'll have to occur incrementally if at all. And so there is diplomacy and conciliatory talk as a necessary part of that process in the real world.
If the ecumenism practiced by Bishops and the last 4 Popes is ecumenism, then what is the Apologetics movement doing by trying to get people to return to the faith?
Same thing that the Decree of Ecumenism from Vatican II does.
You are obviously at variance not only from the practice, but the explicit statements of curial officials who canonically speak for the Pope unless he declares otherwise.
Obviously? No contradiction is present, as explained above. You assume that there is one when there is none. It's like saying that an apple contradicts an orange.
Secondly, your conversion story further illustrates this point. Catholics shared the true faith with you. They didn't say "Dave, you're okay". When I told my pastor that I wanted to re-convert to Anglicanism when I was 18 for the sake of the friends I had there, he told me it was a wonderful idea (lucky for me I didn't do it). Cardinal O'Connor gave a public blessing to a man who left the Catholic faith to become a Jew, and John Paul II organized two world days of prayer with non believers where he did not once mention the need for them to convert to Jesus Christ. He did not even do as Pope Benedict did recently, to say that we believe peace only comes through Jesus Christ!
The folks who are supposed to be at the forefront of apologetics and evangelism are us laypeople. Priests mostly dispense sacraments and offer the Sacrifice of the Mass. Popes have many other duties, including much diplomacy and "good will" missions. We're the ones who are out in the world day in and day out. Yet when lots of laypeople rise up and start doing it, you guys want to run them down, while providing no alternative at all.
The problem is illustrated by Dominus Iesus and the recent change to the Good Friday prayer, both of which are of recent memory.
Really? We reassert that there is no salvation outside the Church, and get blasted for it, yet that is a "problem"?
Concerning the origins of the crisis in the Church, Mr. Armstrong tried to maintain:
Because of lousy catechesis (and lack of apologetics) for a generation and the modernist crisis: the greatest in the history of the Church. We differ on the origin and solution to the crisis, and where the problems lie.Can this really be the case?
Yes.
Can the Novus Ordo really have nothing to do with it?
Abuses of the proper rubrics of the Novus Ordo Mass had a lot to do with it, I believe, by the fostering of irreverence, and a trivialized, secularized approach to the sacred liturgy in too many parishes, including mediocre architecture and music, etc. I reject all that utterly, which is why I attend where I do.
Is it all just teaching?
No; it is example (moral and liturgical). People are usually sheep: they follow whatever is around them.
As the maxim goes "Lex oriandi, lex credendi", the law of prayer is the law of belief. It is not merely a nice thing over quoted by Trads. It really means that how we pray informs and alters our belief. This was why the Book of Common Prayer was imposed with murderous force by the English revolutionaries, changing the people's belief was the only way to hold together the profits of the new class of millionaires who grew fat on the plunder of Church land.
I agree.
In the current situation we have a parallel, though not a perfect comparison. The Novus Ordo is not evil. It is not invalid. But it is extrinsically insufficient in many ways both in the original Latin and in the various vernacular translations. Its actual praxis (as experienced by 99% of Catholics) is contrary to the praxis of historical Catholicism but close to the praxis of historical protestantism.
I'm not gonna get into all this. It's just the usual boilerplate "trad" criticisms. The important thing is to do the liturgy correctly, whatever form is used. I don't buy the fact that one is so terribly inferior to the other. The pope has stated otherwise, and I accept his opinion, as a faithful Catholic. If my choice is between your opinion and that of Pope Benedict XVI, I choose him.
The priest faces the people, the vernacular is used
What's so terrible about the vernacular? If the Church from very early on deemed it important enough to translate Holy Scripture into all the languages, then by what principle do you assert that this ought not be done at Mass?
, in many parishes the suggestion of Latin gets you labeled a schismatic, even if it is the NO in Latin (this was my experience in Southern California in a "conservative" parish)
That's absurd, since Vatican II taught that it should be retained.
the reception of the chalice, a hallmark of Protestantism, is advocated by many priests, hymns which are heretical and straight from Protestant hymnals,
It was also advocated by Jesus at the Last Supper and has express NT sanction. There is nothing wrong with this at all, but of course, no one need take the cup. I have only done so once or twice in 17 years, I think: once on the day I was received, from Fr. Hardon.
lame neoteric architecture and vestments,
Agreed.
constant liturgical innovation which simply gets uglier and uglier
These are abuses, which I condemn as vigorously as you do. I've even advocated on my blog that if they continue and nothing is done, that people should vote with their feet and go to a parish that respects the rubrics.
not to mention the intrusion of laity into the sanctuary constantly, all of which reduce the belief in Catholic doctrines.
The rule, as I understand it, is to use all these "helpers" only for very large crowds. I think it is ridiculous. My friend, who helped me the most to convert, calls them "busybodies." I think that is perfectly descriptive.
If anyone can handle the Eucharist, if no one needs to genuflect but bows when some protestants kneel to receive what they believe to be bread, doesn't that undermine the belief in the Eucharist?
I think so; at least in some people.
Is it possible for someone to attend such liturgies and still believe in the Catholic faith? Sure. But look at the majority of Catholics who do not even believe that the Eucharist is the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, let alone that it is a sacrifice.
I think that varies somewhat according to survey. It may not be as high as you or I have supposed. Part of that is simply ignorance and lack of education, rather than liturgical nonsense.
None of that has anything to do with the liturgy?
It does, but it is not a basis to go after all the things you attack. If you'd stick to liturgical abuse alone and not go after the Novus Ordo itself, I think you'd get a lot further. It's because you go after the supposed root of the problem that is not the root, that problems arise.
It is just because they haven't read enough apologetics books or studied doctrine?
That has a lot to do with it, yes. That's why we all reminisce over the glories of the Baltimore Catechism, no?
The Bishops haven't spoken enough on Artifical Contraception and Abortion?
Certainly not.
Every election year the majority of Catholics will hear that. It is now acknowledged by an aide to Pope Paul VI that when he said that the Church was in auto destruzzione, and that the Smoke of Satan had entered the Church, he was talking primarily about the liturgy. While a lack of catechesis and teaching has its place, it is far from the source of the crisis. Rather it is an effect of it.
That's sheer nonsense. The liberal, modernist ideas date back at least to the Enlightenment, if not from Protestantism in some fashion. They have been growing stronger and stronger, and were starting to have their effect long before the 60s hit, and all the liturgical demolition. Obviously, it had to be going on, for Pope Pius IX and Pope St. Pius X to feel a need to write encyclicals to condemn modernism. Fr. Hardon used to say that the "revolution" in the Church began in 1940 in several seminaries. It didn't just spring out of nowhere. Clearly, the false ideas and heresies were not caused by the liturgy. Even you "trads" say that the liturgy was a nefarious plot by dissidents and Protestant-influenced conspirators. So how could the liturgy cause the crisis when it was itself (according to you) caused by liberal modernists? It's a vicious circle.
The crisis was caused by many more things than the usual post-conciliar confusion, that always happened in history. There was the Baby Boomers and the sexual revolution. There was the rise of a massive mass media: more than ever. Lots of factors. It can't be blamed primarily on one thing.
The dysfunction starts in liturgy and affects teaching. If one approaches liturgy with the idea that it is his show, that he needs to tailor it to create a message, then he will adopt the same principle in the teaching of Catechesis (if that word is ever used on the parish level in some places). If a priest adopts the view that he is the servant of the liturgy which comes from the Church then very likely he is going to approach doctrine and teaching the same way.
I agree. That implicates neither Vatican II nor the New Mass though.
This is made harder when the priest has nearly infinite options, as he does in the Novus Ordo. Between 8-12 Eucharistic prayers when you include children's Masses, dozens of prefaces, all sorts of options which range from interesting to inane. Then if one wants to use a Traditional option, such as the Apereges rite which was performed before every sung Sunday Mass in the majority of Churches for over a thousand years, in the Novus Ordo it omits the Kyrie Eleison. So to do one traditional thing you must lose another whose lineage goes back to the Greek Roman Liturgy.
Receiving the cup goes back to the early days, too (also, communion in the hand), yet you condemn both as innovations. So how do you decide when to apply the Rule of the Ancient Church and when to omit it?
Not to mention that a 1970 clarification from the Congregation of Rites declared that in the New Liturgy a priest may never presume the rubrics of the 1962 Missal. This means a priest may do virtually anything where the GIRM is ambiguous except what was done for 1600 years. On the other hand, the Traditional Mass in a far superior way creates the feeling that the Mass is from the Church and he is its servant. A priest, to say this Mass, must conform himself to as Christ did on the cross. Is it an absolute guarantee that there will never be heresy?
Obviously not, since all of these sewer scum liberal heresies that we deal with today began during the time when this Mass was universal in the Latin rite.
Of course not, only an idiot would say that since history is replete with heresies by priests who said this Mass, and the modernists said this Mass.
Yes, exactly.
But is it more likely to express the Catholic faith and inform the faithful? This is where I would argue yes.
I think the reverence with which it is done is more influential than the formulas. That is my opinion. The Old Mass is usually performed with reverence, whereas the New Mass often is not. So the latter is tainted by that association in fact. Your problem is that you equate the abuse and the bad practices with the rite itself, as massively inferior, and this doesn't follow.
I want to make another response with some material from Dave's blog on whether one wants to criticize the Pope, but I'll have to do it later since I need to go teach and enter grades.
There are times to criticize popes, as I have written about for many years. "Trads" do this, however, about 750 times more often than warranted and prudential.
Thanks for the cordial exchange. I have become passionate, as is my wont, but I assure you it is not out of any personal animosity or disrespect. I disagree strongly with ideas, but without intending to cast aspersions on people.
.jpg)
.gif)
.jpg)
