The Remnant; the pro-schism party

 The Remnant and Catholic Family News: The Pro-Schism Party

Kevin Tierney ^ | 03/01/2006 | Kevin Tierney

Posted on 05/11/2006 9:38:01 AM PDT by

The cat is out of the bag! One could say that in a joint statement authored by both magazines, they were unexpectedly candid. Normally they at least attempt to give some token support to Ecclesia Dei and traditional Catholics within the bosom of the Church. However, in a statement officially rejecting any concept of negotiations between the SSPX and the Vatican, these two traditionalist publications have revealed their “true colors.” One does not know where to begin with such candid admissions by the Remnant and CFN.

First this can hardly be called a “joint statement.” With the exception of the fact that they have two different editors, the two magazines share a good majority of their columnists. Rather than showing true diversity within the traditionalist movement, what we rather see is intellectual inbreeding. The same people give each other the same pats on the back as they spout the same talking points. I hereby propose to the big 3 Traditionalist publications (The Remnant, Catholic Family News, and the Fatima Crusader) to officially merge and become The Remnant of Catholic Crusaders, rather than pass off the charade that this is somehow 3 different publications. (Fr. Gruner manages to run two of them, something which is normally not disclosed.)

First the joint statement (from now on known as the statement) says that many people on who talked about a reunion between the SSPX and Rome were being ignorant, not having full possession of the facts. Rest assured they tell us, they have all the facts, and know for certain there will be no rapprochement between Rome and the Society anytime soon. While I tend to think this is an accurate assessment, how can they say this, but offer no concrete “facts”, which they whine everyone else who disagrees with them on this lacks? Then again, for anyone who has followed the Remnant over time, knows very well that it is never concerned with facts, but ideology and advancing the party line. As we now know, that party line is firmly SSPX.

After this little inconsistency, the plot thickens. They, like many other supporters of the Society, breathed a sigh of relief, because afterall “the SSPX is the counterweight to the entire “approved” traditionalist movement.” You hear that loyal traditional Catholics who attend through the Indult yet read these publications thinking they are your friend? Does one hear that Indult centers that distribute copies of these two magazines to parishioners after Mass? You are the enemy. You are not fighting to restore tradition within the Church according to them, you are not to be trusted to act objectively, and hence you need the SSPX to “counterweight” you. It’s never said the SSPX needs Ecclesia Dei, but rather we need them. Don’t think you can succeed on your own Ecclesia Dei traditionalist. You are a “necessary evil” until Rome admits that it didn’t mean what it said about the Society of St. Pius X. 

“No Innovations Outside of Tradition, as we see it”

First the writers of the statement, quoting Bishop Fellay of the SSPX, mandate that in order for them to even consider talking with Rome, “There must be no innovation outside of tradition.” Who decides what is and isn’t Tradition? I am going to call a hostile witness to my case here that this proves all along that the SSPX, and their shills at the Remnant/CFN are in schism, is none other than the sedevacantist Fr. Anthony Cekada. When considering this notion of “tradition” he states:

Mr. Ferrara advocates essentially the same position as the Society of St. Pius X, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, and countless others: You claim to “recognize” Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI as true popes. At the same time YOU decide which papal teachings, laws, sacramental rites, or commands are good, and which you’ll reject, resist or publicly denounce.

Under this system, a pope no longer possesses the supreme authority to “bind and loose” on earth. A New Jersey lawyer, the Superior General of SSPX, the CEO of the Fatima Industry, the editor of Catholic Family News, or, generally, any traditional Catholic whatsoever, does the final review for him.

The New Mass? A sacrilege, intrinsically evil, or the pope didn’t promulgate it correctly anyway. Ecumenism? No thanks, the pope’s wrong. Consecration of Russia to Immaculate Heart? The pope didn’t do it right. Excommunicated or suspended? Invalid, no matter what the pope and his curia say. Consecrate bishops against the pope’s explicit will? Necessity lets me do it. And so on.

Who needs to visit the Throne of Peter? You give the final thumbs-up or -down from your easy chair.

The pope speaks. You decide… From this standard nugget of spiritual wisdom, Mr. Ferrara, SSPX and countless others have drawn several rather generous practical conclusions about what the Angelic Doctor is supposedly endorsing:

(1) Catholics are free to decide for themselves on a case-by-case which teachings, laws, sacramental rites and commands emanating from the Roman Pontiff they will accept (very few, thank you) and which they will “resist” and publicly denounce (just about everything).

(2) Catholics are free to pursue this “resistance” to the Successor of Peter on a continuous basis — so far, forty years and counting, with no end in sight. (Fr. Anthony Cekada, Sedevacantism and Mr. Ferrara’s Cardboard Pope)

According to what the Remnant defines as “tradition”, this automatically means Vatican II must not be considered. Says who? Why should their opinion be any more valid than what I say as an Ecclesia Dei traditionalist or the average anti-traditionalist demagogue states? This is why we have a Church, to settle such disputes. But the Remnant and CFN state the Churches ruling has no bearing on the matter. One is reminded of what Our Blessed Lord said in Matthew 18, which in my revised Traditionalist version states the following:

But if thy brother, especially if he is a prelate shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between in public in your magazines, even if you are not an expert in the area being covered. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican, unless of course the church in your mind is going against tradition, then you are free to disregard what they say. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven, unless you are able as a layman to determine it contradicts tradition, then you are free to ignore it.

Under the standard presented here, tradition loses any objective meaning, becoming the definition of what everyone else thinks tradition means. So on what basis should anyone accept the idea that tradition means “No Vatican II” over the pope who says tradition means “All of the Churches teachings, from Nicea to Vatican II”? How does one avoid anarchy, and indeed how is this any better than the crisis we are currently in? The authors Michael Matt and John Venarri begin to realize the dead end of this system when they state:

Thus, the question forms on the lips of concerned Catholics: How would a “reconciled” SSPX be able to operate freely under the aegis of the modernist New Theology, when the entire reason for the SSPX’s existence is to publicly oppose this destructive New Theology?

Indeed it is a very telling question. Yet they themselves recognize this, that the answer is if the SSPX is set to reject Vatican II en toto, there can be no reconciliation with the Vatican. This much is understood by all sides. Now the pertinent question is, on what basis do we trust Bishop Fellay’s analysis of tradition over anyone else’s? Have not schismatics always complained about how the Church is “losing her way” hence it justifies what they are doing? Have not schismatics like the Jansenists proclaimed that the Council of Trent contained errors, and hence one had to analyze what of Trent to keep and what to reject? The authors are correct, as long as the SSPX says that they are the ones who define what tradition is, there can be no negotiation. Soon enough they have to resort to authoritarianism to hold everyone in line, since they will rightly recognize that their assessment of tradition is no more valid than anyone else’s. Ironically, soon Luther had to result to similar authoritarianism when he relegated to himself to determine authoritatively what the Scriptures mean.

You ask the Impossible

Next we turn to what the Remnant believes is necessary for the Society to even consider giving Rome the time of day. When one examines these conditions, it becomes firmly evident that there indeed can be no reconciliation, primarily because the statements are ludicrous, and clearly involve that of a schismatic spirit.

Condition One: Every Priest has always had a right to say the Latin Mass without the permission of the Bishop

We now know that even if Benedict were to grant the “universal indult” allowing all priests to say the Latin Mass, for these publications, that wouldn’t be enough, since there has never been permission needed. However, as the evidence demonstrates, this is clearly wishful thinking. The Popes have explicitly stated that it is not for individual priests to choose which liturgy to celebrate. Every Pope since Pius XII has affirmed this principle explicitly. Therefore, it was not within the rights of priest to reject the changes Pius XII made to the Holy week liturgy. (Interestingly enough the SSPX priests have been known to reject even these changes at times, rejecting even the official rules of the Society. Disobedience breeds more disobedience.) Paul VI and John Paul II have also explicitly stated “in virtue of their supreme authority” the only way one may celebrate the Latin Mass is by permission from the local ordinary or indult from Rome. (The conditions upon which the local ordinary may grant usage of the Mass was expanded twice by John Paul II, most recently by Ecclesia Dei Afflictica of 1988.) Yet these words mean nothing to the Remnant, CFN, and the SSPX, who state that no matter what the Pope says, they will do the opposite. They will (in clear violation of the statements of Pius XII in mediator Dei) choose for themselves which liturgy to celebrate, especially when the Supreme Pontiff in the person of Paul VI said that choice is contrary to Catholic law, speaking as the Supreme Legislator of the Church. Agreeing with papal primacy only when it agrees with you is not agreement, its convenience. Accepting papal primacy means even doing so when one might not like that outcome. Unless the Remnant is willing to state the Latin Mass is a matter of Church dogma, the Church is free to regulate how that Mass is celebrated. To reject this is to reject papal authority in regards to the liturgy explicitly affirmed by Pius XII in Mediator Dei:

It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.

As we can see, it is not just the “Novus Ordo” Popes they dissent from, but “traditional” Popes as well. Notice this is also the opinion of every “True Catholic.” Therefore, if one grants that one needs permission (as does the FSSP and other loyal Ecclesia Dei Catholics, and presumably the Roman Pontiffs as well) they are not “True Catholics.” Once again, perhaps it is time we Ecclesia Dei traditionalists rethink our allegiance to these publications.

Condition Two: 

The SSPX was never excommunicated.

If the first request is absurd and wishful thinking, this is absurd and wishful thinking squared. The simple fact is, despite their wishful distortions, no canonist accepts the idea that the SSPX is not excommunicated. (Count Neri Capponi comes close, but with the consecration of a Bishop for Campos by SSPX bishops even though Rome had already chosen a Bishop, he views this as schismatic.) The simple fact also is that after 18 years, the Society has not been able to demonstrate that the “state of necessity” can be objectively verified, or that the mind of the Roman Pontiff was unknown on this matter. If the mind of the Pope is known, he directly tells you not to do so; you are required to not do so. Unless Lefebvre was willing to argue that when he was gone so were any Catholic Bishops with authority (and many of his disciples believed this, becoming sedevacantists), then there cannot exist a state of necessity for consecrating Bishops after being specifically told not to. As I have detailed elsewhere, Rome has never come close to saying that the excommunications have never existed. It is once again clear that they care little what Rome says, even if Rome exercises her rightful authority in stating such. As a result, that can qualify for the definition of schism. Those who defend that position is also indicted I would argue it is very possible to qualify that as “formally adhering to the schism” that John Paul II warned about.

Next the statement goes through what they view as bad appointments for Bishops and bad positions that were taken. In this aspect the statement is fully within its rights to criticize these stances. However, no Pope has been perfect, and Popes have made what many consider to be bad solutions. (I.e. many were not particularly thrilled with Pius V’s Quo Primum for example.) Yet nowhere does that justify disobeying them when they do command something lawfully. It’s a nice rhetorical flourish, an attempt to get the readers to sympathize with the SSPX, but it is ultimately meant to obscure the meaning of the debate. They should not be allowed to play this game. They must prove that it isn’t lawful for the Pope to decide who can and who cannot be a Bishop for the SSPX’s argument to even be considered. (This they have never done, nor do they even attempt to, since one could say implicitly they recognize that to reject this is to be a schismatic.) One could deal with the rest of the arguments they cite (The Hawaii Six for example) but suffice to say, others have dealt with these issues time and time again, and they do not help the Society. I also do not care to deal with the fact because the statement acknowledges it is irrelevant in the end, since even those who in the Vatican might rule in favor of the Society, we must not trust them because they will ultimately betray them. 

Having it both ways

The statement’s position in regards to the Society goes from incoherent do downright conspiracy mongering when they discuss Cardinal Hoyos, prefect of the Ecclesia Dei Commission. I believe it is here it is demonstrated that these authors simply make things up as they go along, and would like nothing more than the past of what they have said to be concealed. “We have always been at war with Eurasia…” Giving an enticing lead in they say “Enticing Words but can the Cardinal be trusted.” The Cardinal is Cardinal Hoyos. They question whether or not Hoyos can be trusted in dealing with the Society. In other words, Rome is a bunch of sniveling dishonest crooks, while the Society is squeaky clean. Very objective!

However this sudden dose of skepticism towards Cardinal Hoyos is a rather interesting one. For just a few months ago (3 in regards to the publishing of this paper) the words of Cardinal Hoyos were to be accepted as near infallible, and indeed a case of “Roma locuta est”, Rome has spoken, the case is closed. When outlining why they believe Cardinal Hoyos is worth listening to when he states the “SSPX is not in formal schism” (something he never said, but was a misrepresentation of his words as I demonstrated) we see the following from Michael Matt:

Just like that, a highly contentious issue that’s been dividing Catholics since 1988 was settled. And it’s impossible to believe that a man in the Cardinal’s elevated position, with his closely guarded reputation for discretion, could have acted in this regard without the Pope’s foreknowledge…. End of story! Traditionalists win! We don’t pretend to know why Cardinal Castrillón elected to make these statements which are now part of the permanent record, but, clearly, the debate is over. It is up to us now to try to use them to mend fences with those neo-Catholics whose polemic against traditionalism has just been totally annihilated. Perhaps this startling development will also lead to a ceasefire between traditional Catholics, allowing us to direct our ideological weaponry away from each other and toward the myriad enemies of the old Faith that need so desperately to be driven out of our Church. 

Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos is to be credited and heartily thanked for his refreshingly honest clarifications. (SSPX Not in Schism: Rome Has Spoken, November 2005, The Remnant)

Those sound like words which states that the Cardinal is unassailable on this point. That because of what he said, “the debate is over.” It appears not, because 3 months later, the statement has this to say about how valuable Cardinal Hoyos’ word is:

But there is also serious cause for concern that beneath these enticing words is an intent to embrace the SSPX only in order to suffocate it. Consider the fate of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, which is composed of priests who left SSPX after the consecration of the four bishops by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988. The Vatican assured these ex-SSPX priests that their right to offer the traditional Mass and to pursue a traditional priestly formation in the seminary would be respected. But that is not exactly how it has worked out.

The statement then goes on to cite Protocol 1411, and what they viewed as Cardinal Hoyos acting cruelly to the FSSP. In their assessment, everything leading the FSSP to Rome was really a Machiavellian plot hatched by Hoyos and Rome to entice people with words only to later intentionally go back on them. However, this raises an interesting question. Why should we take what Michael Matt said seriously previously about Hoyos. If indeed Hoyos is known to be a liar and a deceiver according to them, why do his statements have any bearing on this debate? Or is the statement, like the Society it defends, engaging in it’s notorious duplicity.

When attacking “Neo-Catholics”, the words of Cardinal Hoyos mean everything. However when speaking to their base, the words mean nothing. Lefebvre did the exact same thing. When writing to John Paul II he talked about how the Novus Ordo Missae was valid and licit. When writing to his base, he referred to the New Mass as a “bastard Mass”, whose Eucharist “we cannot know if it provides grace.” Other examples are provided in abundance. Could it be that in attempting to defend a Society whose opinion changes based on who they are speaking to, their defenders are adopting the same mentality?

Next with great surprise they state in regards to possible SSPX “criticisms” of Vatican II:

The Cardinal even went so far as to say that “critical contributions of that sort that can come from the [SSPX] can be a treasure for the Church.” One may ask, why didn’t they say so before?

Now we know that the authors are just being dishonest. In the agreement between Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger signed in 1988, the SSPX would have been allowed to engage in a respectful discussion on Vatican II, and raise objections where they felt they needed to be raised. This isn’t some new policy Rome has adopted. Cardinal Hoyos doesn’t view this as something new because indeed it has always been Rome’s position! One could again interact with what they said in regards to Cardinal Hoyos, but why? It’s not like they take anything he says seriously anyways. As I noted before, they are simply practicing duplicity. So here’s the question one must ask the statement:

“Based on your assertion that Cardinal Hoyos might be risky to trust, how can we trust his assessment back in November in regards to the SSPX, the assessment which you say “settles the debate?”

The confusions, ambiguities, defenses of schism and outright falsehoods continue again and again throughout this statement, but I think the reader gets the picture. So the question must be asked: Why should faithful Catholics who attend the Indult give one cent to a magazine that views them in such a negative way? The Remnant and Catholic Family News have clearly taken sides on the SSPX issue, this much is certain. They have officially allied themselves with the Society, and oppose loyal Indult Catholics, unless of course they trade recognition by the Remnant for their silence on the Society matters. (Ironically enough the Remnant accuses Ecclesia Dei members of the very same thing!) Let us now call them what they are, the magazines which endorse schism, and view with disdain anyone who follows what Vatican I and the Church Fathers said about the authority of the Roman Pontiff and Bishops.