"More Catholic Than the Pope" — New Book Responds to Arguments Raised by Extreme Traditionalists

Envoy Encore Weblog ^ | 07-30-04 | Patrick Madrid

[Patrick Madrid]

Catholic canon lawyer Peter Vere and I have co-authored a new book critiquing the claims and controversies of extreme traditionalism that will come out in September, published by Our Sunday Visitor Publishing.

Written in a popular and accessible style, More Catholic Than the Pope provides a detailed analysis of and response to common arguments raised by extreme traditionalist Catholics (in particular, adherents of the Society of St. Pius X) against the Second Vatican Council, Pope John Paul II, the fact that the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre committed a schismatic act by illicitly ordaining four bishops in 1988, and more. Chapters include a history of the SSPX, a background on the controversy between the SSPX and the so-called "Conciliar Church," and answers to several standard canon-law and historical arguments often raised by extreme traditionalists.

Our hope is that, by God's grace, the evidence presented in this new 224-page book will inform, encourage, and strengthen Catholics who have been shaken or confused by the misguided arguments raised against the Catholic Church by some extreme traditionalists and, with regard to those who have adopted a schismatic mindset, that this book will help them recognize the errors of extreme traditionalist groups, help them to see why they should abandon those errors, and help them come home to the Catholic Church.

Additional details on More Catholic Than the Pope will be available soon at Envoy Encore weblog.

[ninenot]

have unambiguously pointed out the obvious, which is that the hierarchy of the Church has from top to bottom deviated from said Deposit of Faith

C'mon, admit it. You think you are Catherine of Siena.

Just in case, though, please provide documentation that the Hierarchy, from top to bottom (inclusive, I presume) has "deviated" from the Deposit of Faith.

It is more and more evident that despite your claims to the contrary, your membership in the Church of Rome is tenuous, at best.

Checking out the minor and leaky raft of the SSPX in preference to the Barque?

[pascendi]

"Then I strongly suggest your side stick to the topic at hand. Remember, our side did not raise the issue to begin with. Rather, it was your side that kept posting this false and malicious rumor in an attempt to undermine the credibility of one of the authors."

I'll state it again. I side with anyone who sides with the Deposit of Faith and proper liturgical practice.

If you're side isn't my side, this should indicate something. That is the topic, and I am sticking to it.

[ultima ratio]

Wrong. If any "excommunication" were declared, it would be a nullity which I would ignore without any culpability whatsoever. You are really saying that Rome has the power to say whatever it wants to say and can declare someone schismatic who isn't. But you are wrong. It can certainly say whatever it wants to say. But it has no power to make what is right, wrong, or what is true, false. In other words, no pope is supreme against Divine Law. Justice alone can determine the reality of an excommunication--nothing else.

[pascendi]

"C'mon, admit it. You think you are Catherine of Siena. Just in case, though, please provide documentation that the Hierarchy, from top to bottom (inclusive, I presume) has "deviated" from the Deposit of Faith."

You mean, you want me to provide documentation that the Church has deviated from the Deposit of Faith, in case I might think I'm Catherine of Siena? I don't get it.

"It is more and more evident that despite your claims to the contrary, your membership in the Church of Rome is tenuous, at best."

Judica me, ninenot. Tell you what. You provide evidence for this, and I'll provide you evidence that the hierarchy, from top to bottom, has been deviating in word and deed from the Deposit of Faith. In the great meantime, I'll just keep attending my Indult.

Deal?

[ultima ratio]

"Prithee"?

[Dominick]

Wrong. If any "excommunication" were declared, it would be a nullity which I would ignore without any culpability whatsoever. You are really saying that Rome has the power to say whatever it wants to say and can declare someone schismatic who isn't. But you are wrong. It can certainly say whatever it wants to say. But it has no power to make what is right, wrong, or what is true, false.

In other words, the Pope can say I am in Schism, but since I know better I am not. You get the prize for the weakest argument since Henry VIII said, "I really really really need this divorce!"

The point is if you recognize it or not, it is real. The Divine Law that is operative is that the Pope has the power to bind and loose, and the Pope has mad it clear the SSPX is not Catholic.

[pascendi]

"The Divine Law that is operative is that the Pope has the power to bind and loose, and the Pope has mad it clear the SSPX traditional Catholicism is not Catholic."

Is this what you really mean to say?

[Arguss]

"You discern a "flaw" in the Sacrifice? Prithee, demonstrate."

Don't take my word for it, rather read the words of Cardinal Ottoviani, in his much quoted 'intervention'. And that was against the much more pious Mass than the one we finally ended up with. If you two think the clown Masses we see today are as perfect as the Tridentine Mass, then even talking to you is a waste of time.

Bugnini was banished because of his ties to masonry, and your bringing up the conspiracy bugaboo doesn't change that. If you can't refute, then ridicule?

And Paul VI was 'banished' by Pius XII to a plum See because of his involvement, in secret, with communists, against strict orders not to. Pius never gave him his red hat, despite the importance of the See. He only got it because he had made friends with John XXIII. (This all happened before they were made Pope, obviously, but I just can't recall their pre Pope names at the moment)

So if you want to ridicule the conspiracy theory thing, you just show your own ignorance - or your true colors.

[sinkspur]

So if you want to ridicule the conspiracy theory thing, you just show your own ignorance - or your true colors.

You just continue to get further out there, Arguss.

Ottaviani rebuked his "intervention." Now, you'll come back and say somebody made him sign something against his will, but, see, I can always predict what a conspiracist will say.

One can never beat a conspiracist in an argument, because there's always another boogey man around the corner.

[ultima ratio]

"In other words, the Pope can say I am in Schism, but since I know better I am not."

OF COURSE I know better! Who knows my heart better than myself? This is exactly what the Pope was trying to claim regarding the SSPX--"I know better than Archbishop Lefebvre what was in Archbishop Lefebvre's heart." That is impossible on the surface. He COULD NOT know the Archbishop's heart better than the Archbishop who insisted he was not consecrating in order to deny the Pope's legitimacy, but to defend the traditional faith. If the Pope wanted to proclaim such a thing, he had a moral obligation to call a tribunal to air the issue openly. Instead he relied on a latae sententiae decree that was by its nature a matter of the individual's own conscience. The Pope has no access to the human heart in actions which are not inherently evil.

[sitetest]

Dear sinkspur,

"One can never beat a conspiracist in an argument, because there's always another boogey man around the corner."

Actually, the technical term for this is the non-falsifiability of a hypothesis.

Evidence for the conspiracy is taken as just that: evidence for the conspiracy. Evidence that tells against the conspiracy is re-interpreted as evidence that the conspiracy is all the more effective; the conspiracy is even able to produce "counter-factual evidence" ostensibly disproving the conspiracy.

When you've reached that point regarding any topic, it's time to resort to psychotropic drugs.


sitetest

[ultima ratio]

Let me give you an analogy. Breaking and entering a private house is unlawful in most circumstances. But if the house is on fire and some people are trapped inside, and if I break and enter in order to save those people, I am NOT guilty of any offense. If I am nevertheless accused by authorities of breaking and entering, whereas in fact I was entering to save the lives of people trapped inside, it would be the authorities who would be morally wrong, not I. They would be acting unjustly.

You are saying the Pope is right simply because he is the lawful authority, not because there is justice in his claims against SSPX. That is a narrow and unjust perception--the essence of Pharisaic thinking. Technically, there is an offense--but morally there is none.

[pascendi]

Sinkspur... are you still trying to use references to conspiracy theory to distract from the real issues of bad prelates, suppression of Catholic Doctrine, and suppression of the traditional Latin Mass?

[Arguss]

"One can never beat a conspiracist in an argument, because there's always another boogey man around the corner."

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't following me.

Just responded to your assertion that there were no Masonists. That's of course ridiculous. Haven't you ever seen all those clowns tumbling out of a volkswagon? ;^)

Just for the record, are you saying Bugnini wasn't a Mason? That Bishop Montini wasn't censured by Pius for conspiring secretly with communists? That these two facts might not account for something? That you are not a total socialist, trying to appear orthodox, denying that the true Church did not appear until 1962?

[sinkspur]

Sinkspur... are you still trying to use references to conspiracy theory to distract...

No. That would be Arguss.

[sinkspur]

Just for the record, are you saying Bugnini wasn't a Mason? That Bishop Montini wasn't censured by Pius for conspiring secretly with communists? That these two facts might not account for something?

No. They account for nothing to thinking Catholics.

But, to conspiracists, ah, they are the explanation for all evil.

[Dominick]

Let me give you an analogy. Breaking and entering a private house is unlawful in most circumstances. But if the house is on fire and some people are trapped inside, and if I break and enter in order to save those people, I am NOT guilty of any offense.

Except the owner of the house says there is no fire., he was BBQing out back. The fire department came out on a false alarm.

There is a crisis in the Church, people pick and choose. The Mass isn't the problem, it is people not believing that the Church is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic. If people really understood that as the Church is Unified in God's Grace, for all men everywhere, from the time of Christ, we would all act differently.

The SSPX is trying to run off with the property of the Church claiming it is no longer Holy, and that only the 1962 Missal is a Holy Mass. In that analogy the SSPX broke in thinking there was a fire and took property not belonging to it, then claiming it was destroyed in the fire.

You are saying the Pope is right simply because he is the lawful authority, not because there is justice in his claims against SSPX.

On the face, the SSPX is claiming something it isn't entitled to claim. You must have to Pope's consent to be in union with him. Only Christians in Union with the Pope can call themselves Catholic, that is, with the Church of Christ started by Christ for all mankind. Being in Union with the Pope requires not just lip service, but actual service.

Furthermore, the SSPX commits a fraud against frightened Catholic lay people, telling them the Church is no longer following Christ's plan, the Novus Ordo is flawed, and that the Pope is committing acts of paganism, without a shred of real proof. People are scared, and the SSPX depends on this fear, just like Satan depends on fear.

[Pyro7480]

I guess St. Maximilian Kolbe was one of these "conspiracists" too, since he believed Freemasonry was the origin of many of the evils of modernism....

From the Militia Immaculatae's website: TEN REASONS CATHOLICS CANNOT BE MASONS

[sinkspur]

Well, Mother Teresa didn't like communion in the hand either.

Saints are models for their exemplary spirituality, not their personal opinions.

There is a difference between saying that Catholics should not belong to an organization that's anti-Catholic, and saying that the Masons took over the the Congregation for Divine Worship.

Surely you see the difference.

[pascendi]

"Well, Mother Teresa didn't like communion in the hand either. Saints are models for their exemplary spirituality, not their personal opinions."

Here's another example of bait-and-switch. Mother Teresa is consistantly paraded out as an example of the pending saint of the new liturgy and theology. If any traditionalist dares ask a question or two concerning her, they would have experienced less of a backlash sticking their face into a hornet's nest.

But when it comes to Mother Teresa standing against Communion in the Hand, a stand in complete alignment with any traditionalist's litany of grievances... it's just her personal opiiiinion. Nothing to immitate, of course.