The End of Modernist Pretence

†J.M.J.†
So, unless you've been pretty much living under a rock in the Catholic world lately, you are aware that the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, or SSPX, has been in the news extensively. If you have in fact been living under a rock, it has pretty much gone down something like this: last Saturday, on January 24, the Pope released the much anticipated decree formally remitting the latae sententiae excommunications against the four SSPX bishops who were illictly consecrated bishops by Archbishop Lefebrve in 1988 not only without papal mandate, but in direct contravention of Rome's orders to His Excellency.

Naturally, just as they do everytime the Pope does something in violation of the Almighty "Spirit of Vatican II," just about everybody had a little tantrum about the Pope readmitting true Traditionalists to the fold. Granted, Bishop Richard Williamson ruffled more than a few feathers with his rather imprudent remarks concerning the Holocaust, but in classical Modernist style, the press, like a small child with a severe case of ADHD, is completely incapable of focusing on why the penalty of excommunication was imposed in the first place, let alone why it was lifted. Instead, it sees fit to run pieces fully based on nothing more than their very poorly formed opinion of the Catholic Church as long as the words "Pope" and "Holocaust denier" are in the headline.

And, like a cat waiting to pounce, many Modernists have not yet ceased in their shrill cries of "foul!" ever since word of the remission has came down. I say "waiting to pounce" because many Modernists have already expressed grave concern about Pope Benedict and his program of "reforming the reform," but have not yet seen an opportunity to show their true colors in regard to how they feel about Tradition. Naturally, they hated it when Benedict was elected in 2005, because they knew what he stood for. They hated it when he published documents from the CDF proclaiming the Catholic Church the sole "Church of Jesus Christ." And they definitely hated it when he finally refused to tolerate any further illicit suppression of the Traditional Mass by bishops in the publication of Summorum Pontificum. But, as any clever enemy, they have been patient; now they feel the time has come, however, to openly denounce His Holiness for the "backwards, medieval, mean" person that he apparently is. Moreover, however, I think we may be seeing the beginning of the end to the modernist pretence that they are even remotely interested in preserving any shred of authentic Catholicism as transmitted by the Apostles. I believe the following article from America magazine epitomizes what I am trying to express here: (my emphases and [comments])

Robert Mickens, the Rome correspondent for the London Tablet has a lengthy article on the SSPX saga in this week's Tablet.

He also sent us this much more personal reflection, which he has allowed us to post here:

Pope Benedict XVI said at his general audience on Wednesday that the four bishops of the Priestly Fraternity of St Pius X (SSPX) -- the so-called Lefebvrists -- will now have to show their "true fidelity and true recognition of the magisterium and authority of the Pope and of Vatican Council II". [SSPX has always accepted the fullness of the magisterium and the authority of the Pope. Vatican II, on the other hand, does not really have any authority because it made no definitions which can demand the assent of faith from Catholics.]

What does this mean?

In an interview the next day in the Italian paper "Corriere della Sera", Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, head of the "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, claimed that the head of the Lefebvrists had already recogised the Council and said confidently that he and his group would be eventually welcomed back into the Roman Church. [Soon!!] Conservative blogs quoted sources that said 2 February would be the day, [Not quite, obviously. I thought this was overly optimistic from the start.] though it seems extremely unlikely if not impossible. There have to be some discussions or at least a semblance of them. But...

"Full communion will come," said the cardinal, who heads the commission that deals with the Lefebvrists. "In our conversations, Bishop Fellay has recognised Vatican Council II, he has recognised it theologically. Only a few difficulties remain," he said, "such as ecumenism and freedom of conscience..." [These have pretty much always been the primary SSPX sticking points on VII]

But do not think the Lefebvrists will be made to budge. The Vatican is intent on finding a formula that they sign without denying anything they hold. [That would be ideal, yes.]

A young professor at the Legionaries of Christ's university in Rome, Fr Mauro Gagliardi, gave a clue of what to expect.

"The Fraternity of St Pius X can offer the Church an important contribution in applying the 'hermeneutic of continuity' [This would be perfect for them.] that must be applied to the documents of Vatican II," he said.

This apparent reference to Pope Bendict's hermeneutic for interpreting the Council is imprecise -- as Fr Joseph Komonchak and others have clearly pointed out -- but it is not altogether mistaken. And Fr Gagliardi is not just any professor in Rome. He was recently named as consultant to the papal liturgical ceremonies office and mixes in the circles that are currently in favour in the Vatican. He said, "The 'Lefebvrists' have a spirituality and charism that can be a richness for the life of the entire Church." This certainly is the view of Cardinal Castrillon and probably reflects, at least in some measure, the Pope's thinking, too.

There is no question that Pope Benedict wants the SSPX back in the Church. Up to now he has done everything to accommodate them on their terms. He will do so on the interpretation of the Council, as well. The two CDF documents in 2007 (on the nature of the Church on 29 June and on evangelisation on 3 December ) have already begun paving the way for this. The Lefebvrists will argue, and the Pope will agree, that, in substance, we have the same doctrine after Vatican II as we had before. [Actually, John XXIII said this when he told the Council that their mission was purely pastoral in nature, and that no doctrinal definition ought to take place. Moreover, even if Vatican II was a dogmatic council, no doctrine can contradict that which precedes it, and so any notion of "change" of doctrine is out of the question completely.] All "changes" were merely stylistic or operational, but not theogical -- i.e. none of the changes were essential, so none have to be adopted. [SSPX will probably insist on this and they will probably get it.] The Vatican and the SSPX will also say, together, that much of the Council was badly misinterpreted by theologians and bishops in the post-conciliar period, [Is there anyone who isn't excommunicated or shouldn't be who honestly still believes that it wasn't?] and they will even cite the long list of theologians the CDF condemned to prove that Rome never caved in. Despite everything to the contrary (i.e. the fact that the SSPX does not really buy or live Vatican II), they will find a way together to finagle a formula that helps them profess "true fidelity and true recognition" of the Council (in light of the constant Tradition) but allows them to continue living as if Vatican II never existed. [This is the crux of the piece. This is what truly has the author so upset. How dare they go on with their lives without submitting to the superdoctrine of Vatican II Modernism?] There are already a number of "Ecclesia Dei" communities in communion in Rome (off-shoots of the SSPX like the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter) that currently do this.

The formula that is produced will be just as disingenuous as the invented nonsense of "two forms of the one Roman Rite". [He hates Summorum Pontificum too.]

You are probably saying this scenario is an exaggeration and that this could never happen. Many have said it before. Not a few people called me strident, hysterical and worse back in 2005 when I started saying that the Pope was intent on issuing a universal indult for use of the Tridentine Mass. The motu proprio finally arrived in July 2007 and then most people tried to downplay it, saying it would have no practical effect in our parishes, etc.. Again I said they were. ["I told you so..."] It has only been eighteen months (!) and the changes are beginning to take place, especially in seminaries. [Well, we can't have young Priests being faithful to Tradition, can we? That would set back a lot of work by a lot of people.]

All of this should be a cause of great alarm to those of us who still believe that something monumental happened at Vatican II, that there were developments, reforms and -- yes -- points of rupture with the past [!!] (despite the Pope's unconvincing arguments to the contrary).

Joseph Ratzinger is completing, as pope, the work he began more than twenty-five years ago as prefect of the CDF. It is no less ambitious than the wholesale reinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council. [Hopefully!] And no one seems willing or able to stop him." [That's the beauty of the primacy of Peter, but he probably doesn't like that either...]-- Robert Mickens

James Martin, SJ

I think I can safely rest my case here.

Praise. Song. For. The. Day.

†J.M.J.†
This is what passed for poetry yesterday at the inauguration from Yale Professor Elizabeth Alexander. Hilarious:


"...picked the cotton and the lettuce?" Really? Not only does the poem demonstrate a startling ignorance of even the most fundamental elements of poesy, (I'm sure most children are born with a better poetic ear than this woman.) but her manner of reading it brought nothing to mind except the computerized recitation of "the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" from grade school typing classes, complete with all the awkward pauses of a voice entirely devoid of all human sense of ordinary empathetic elocution, let alone poetic declamation.
As if Obama wasn't enough, this woman was an embarassment to the entire nation yesterday, especially when it is remembered that the first poet to read at an American Presidental Inauguration wrote this:

Nature's first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf's a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
so dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.

...and this:

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

It was pretty good for a laugh though...

"And as you would that men should do to you..."

†J.M.J.†
Another very compelling video from the Fidelis Center's CatholicVote website. Like the previous videos during the campaign, it is moving both in its depth of vision and urgency of purpose, while maintaining the very useful rhetoric of pedagogy which hopefully wins many converts to the pro-life cause:

Lowery Mocks God With Racist 'Prayer' at Inauguration

†J.M.J.†
The 87 year-old celebrated civil rights leader Joseph Lowery gave the benediction today at Barack Obama's inauguration where he concluded with the following rhyme very popular among Black Protestants amidst the civil rights movement in the 1960s: (emphasis mine)

We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around. When yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen.

I found this all rather odd, considering especially that it was whites who, having already embraced what is right, led the abolitionist movement when blacks could not free themselves from the bonds of slavery. Even more odd, too, since without the tremendous support Barack Obama received from the white electorate in the United States, he could not have possibly even hoped for victory in November.
Sadly, I really can't say I'm surprised in the least by the character of those persons invited to participate today in the inauguration by Barack Obama; once again, he is known by the company he keeps. The way he totally botched the oath of office was embarassing too... If today is an indicator of the next four years, we're in for rough times.

Tradition!

†J.M.J.†
You already understand if you are a traditional Catholic or Jew. If you're not, it really can't be explained:

Mrs. Bush on the Importance of Catholic Education

†J.M.J.†
The outgoing First Lady made a visit recently to Little Flower School in Betheseda, Maryland. She had quite a bit of praise for Catholic education:

You have a long history of both academics and also of making sure American children in Catholic schools learn the values that are important to all of us and that are important to the people of the United States…

Read the rest here...

Hmmm... The values that are important to all of us, Mrs. Bush? I'm not too sure your husband's successor feels the same way, sadly.

A Stirring Santa Sermon

†J.M.J.†
Patrick Archbold of the light-hearted Catholic blog Creative Minority Report recently posted a very interesting story about a Priest who debunked the myth of Santa Claus in his sermon. Patrick has several small children and so perhaps it goes without saying that he was somewhat disgruntled about the whole affair. I got a little embroiled in the combox with some of his other regulars about the prudence of denouncing this Priest over his Santa sermon and of teaching the Santa Claus myth to children in the first place:

I think you read my comment in the wrong light. My point wasn't so much that Father has the right to run around telling all the neighborhood children that there isn't any Santa, but rather that you ought not to be furious with him for giving a sermon heedless of the large number of children assisting at the Mass. And why did I feel it necessary to make that point? Because, as Saint John Chrysostom tell us, "he who honors a Priest, honors Christ, and he who insults a Priest, insults Christ." I more or less live by that quote. In other words, if you are furious with a Priest, you have better have a better reason than "he debunked Santa Claus during a sermon." This is not the first time I have felt the need to comment on your rash treatment of Priests in your posts, who, lest we forget, take the place of God.
The question you really need to ask yourself before you decide to rebuke (publicly, as you have done here) a Priest, especially as a layperson, is "Would I rebuke Christ if He were to do the same?" And then, only if you'd be willing to stake your soul on your confidence that Christ would never do such a thing, should you procede to speak against a Priest or to rebuke him in public. Now, of course, it is a much lighter matter to simply take your concerns to Father in private. So, basically, my point is that, when it comes to rebuking a Priest, do it privately lest, in the words of Saint Thomas Becket, you "impale your soul" upon your own sword.

Read the rest at Patrick's blog... Also, read an excerpt from Saint Alphonsus Liguori's The Dignity and Duties of the Priest for some perspective on my position.