The Remnant And The Wanderer

[popestpiusx]

May I please ask people that if you are going to throw out term like "heterodox" and "schismatic" that you provide some proof of your accusation. The Wanderer and the Remnant are neither heterodox nor schismatic. I have no doubt that you can find an occasional questionable article (show me a publication where this is not possible) but do not paint the entire paper/periodical with the same brush, unless you can provide some evidence to support it. Otherwise, keep defaming remarks to yourselves. This is demanded by Christian Charity.

[BLAZEr]

[quote name='annie' date='Mar 14 2004, 11:24 PM'] Is Traces a newspaper? We get the National Catholic Register and enjoy it very much. Usually something spiritually uplifting, seems very orthodox, etc. I am interested in Traces, though, if it quarterly or weekly etc. (already have too much to read! Like to stick to the basics! ) [/quote]
Traces has 11 issues a year. It's monthly except fro July/August which is only one issue. It's the magazine of our movement, Communion and Liberation. It has articles about Culture, Politics, and Religion from a Catholic Perspective.

[BLAZEr]

Here is an excerpt from the Remnant, so you can get a taste of what its like:
You can find the whole article here: [url="http://ourworld.compuserve.com/HOMEPAGES/REMNANT/wstock.htm"]http://ourworld.compuserve.com/HOMEPAGES/REMNANT/wstock.htm[/url]

[quote][b]The Phenomenology of World Youth Day[/b]


        The spirit of Vatican II goes on and on in search of some epochal manifestation of itself, a kind of lost soul in search of its body.  Since 1985 we have been told that the World Youth Days the Pope invented are just such a manifestation. At World Youth Day 2000, Cardinal Stafford pointed to the throngs of youngsters gathered in Saint Peter’s Square and declared: “Here are the children of Vatican II!”  Here indeed they are.  But how many of these “children of Vatican II” could answer correctly ten basic questions about the Catholic faith?  And how many of the “children of Vatican II” from the first World Youth Day in 1985 are practicing the faith today, including the Church’s teaching on marriage and procreation, now that they have reached adulthood?  Such questions do not trouble the promoters of these spectacles.  For them, the emotion engendered by cheering crowds who make the Pope happy is sufficient evidence of ecclesial well-being. Stafford’s gushing over World Youth Day 2000 is typical of this mentality:



As Pope John Paul II looked out at the vast throng of joyful youth, hearing their shouts of “Viva il Papa” and “Giovanni Paulo” and “JP II, we love you!” ringing in the air—everywhere they gathered with the Holy Father—no wonder he wiped tears from his eyes, swayed with the young as they sang, waved his arms in the air, and let a glorious smile break through, again and again. Here he saw, before his very eyes, the fulfillment of the words of Vatican II to the young, in its blossoming and growth (since the first World Youth Day, over 15 years ago).



        So, an ephemeral outpouring of mass sentiment from a boisterous crowd is “the fulfillment of the words of Vatican II.” The crowd sways.  The Pope sways with them.  All is well. The phenomenon of feelings is the fruit of Vatican II. All empirical evidence of the actual condition of the Church is ignored in favor of a phenomenal event.

        It is not merely facile to say that World Youth Day is the Catholic version of Woodstock.  We have heard the same extravagant claim for both events: that the world can be changed for the better if only vast numbers of  young people—just because they are young—can be gathered together in one place for the promotion of love and peace.  Cardinal Stafford, quoting one youngster, enthused that WYD 1997 in Paris was nothing less than “a revolution of love.” But the “revolution of love” in Paris was evidently not accompanied by a revolution of honesty.  According to the Catholic World News service (CWN)) the French bishops’ conference was left with $5 million in debts because only about 100,000 of the 500,000 participants in WYD 1997 paid the registration fee.[v] Oddly enough, the proportion of gatecrashers at Woodstock was about the same. As Bishop Michael Dubost complained: “I see many of the youngsters buying T-shirts, Coca-Cola, and numerous unnecessary objects, but not [registration] badges which shows they are not prepared to help.” Neither was this revolution in love accompanied by a revolution in generosity to the Church.  A collection taken up from the 1.3 million people who attended the Pope’s outdoor Mass at a racetrack yielded $330,000—an average of 33 cents per congregant. The same people undoubtedly expended vastly more money for Parisian souvenirs.

        Nevertheless, WYD ‘97 was pronounced a “papal triumph” by CWN.  Had not the Pope attracted a huge, cheering crowd? What is more, “400,000 young people took to the streets of Paris, spreading out across the roads, and at precisely 10:50 am joined their hands in a human chain that stretched over twenty miles.” What was the point of this human chain?  According to CWN, the chain faced away from the center of Paris because “the organizers had sought to demonstrate the commitment of young people to be ‘open to the world,’ and a press statement explained that this was ‘a symbol of friendship, of gathering, and an overture to the five continents–a universal appeal for peace.’” Openness to the world, friendship, gathering and peace.  Secular aims for what was, in essence, a secular festival. As CWN notes: “Tolerance was also the theme of the papal message on Saturday. In the morning at the church of St. Etienne du Mont, speaking to delegates of the World Youth Day crowd—representing the 140 countries which sent contingents to Paris—the Pope said: ‘The Spirit of God sends you forth, so that you can become, with all your brothers and sisters throughout the world, builders of a civilization of reconciliation, founded on brotherly love.’” Nothing too terribly Catholic there. The crowd at Woodstock would have eaten it up.



[b]The Kingship of Christ Forgotten[/b]

        Of course, this “civilization of reconciliation” does not mean anything like the Catholic social order presented as the ideal in the teaching of the pre-conciliar Popes. That ideal has been replaced by something quite different. As the Pope would later observe in his Message for World Day for Peace 2001:



Dialogue leads to a recognition of diversity and opens the mind to the mutual acceptance and genuine collaboration demanded by the human family’s basic vocation to unity.  As such, dialogue is a privileged means for building the civilization of love and peace that my revered predecessor Paul VI indicated as the ideal to inspire cultural, social, political and economic life in our time…. The different religions too can and ought to contribute decisively to this process. My many encounters with representatives of other religions—I recall especially the meeting in Assisi in 1986 and in Saint Peter's Square in 1999—have made me more confident that mutual openness between the followers of the various religions can greatly serve the cause of peace and the common good of the human family.



There is no question here of making converts of the followers of other religions in order to save their souls, nor any mention of Our Lord’s admonition about the consequences of the world’s rejection of His Gospel and His Church: “Do not think that I came to send peace upon the world: I came not to send peace but the sword.” (Matt. 10:27) Also forgotten is the teaching of Pius XI in Quas Primas that there can be no peace worthy of the name without the Social Kingship of Christ over every man and every nation. That is not what World Youth Day and the “civilization of love” are all about. That is not the program of the post-conciliar Vatican apparatus.

        Yes, World Youth Days are filled with exhortations that young people who are already baptized Catholics “follow Christ,” but only in the context of a pan-religious brotherhood in which the beliefs of others are respected and even admired, not viewed as forms of darkness from which souls must rescued. And yes, there are outdoor Masses with pop-rock liturgical music, and an opportunity to go to confession, whereas Woodstock was simply and only a pagan festival. But trendy Mass liturgies and even confession can be had at any local parish. Clearly, it is not these things which draw the vast World Youth Day crowds. The rock music, the camaraderie, the chance to be close to a great celebrity—the Woodstock of it all—are what attract so many of the same youngsters who would, with equal alacrity, attend a performance by Britney Spears, Nine Inch Nails or the out-of-retirement Black Sabbath.

[b]The Sacrilege of Pop Catholicism[/b]
        There is great danger in this use of pop culture to entice Catholic youngsters to attend huge festivals in faraway places. Putting aside the Woodstockian temptation which arises when thousands of immodestly clad teenage girls are thrown together in a bivouac with thousands of teenage boys, there is the incalculable potential for sacrilege. Gerry Matatics attended WYD ‘93 in Denver.  The enactment of the Stations of the Cross with a woman in the role of Jesus was nothing compared to what he saw at the outdoor papal Mass:

We had camped out the night before on the ground to be sure that we would have a place for the papal Mass.  We all had grimy faces and ‘sleeping-bag’ hair. The assisting priests who were to distribute Holy Communion, implementing enculturation, accommodated themselves to the heat and humidity by wearing tee shirts, shorts, flip-flops and baseball caps along with their stoles.  Priests similarly attired were listening to confessions beforehand. 

The crowd had been roped off into quadrants, about a hundred of us in each one. When the time came for reception of Holy Communion I knelt at the front of my little quadrant in an attempt to receive the Sacred Host my knees. Hosts were being distributed from big, shallow bowls that could have been used for punch or potato chips.  People were reaching over each other’s shoulders to grab the consecrated Hosts from the priests. I saw Hosts falling into the mud, where they were being trampled on. I reached forward and rescued as many as I could and consumed them.

I had been going to the Tridentine Mass since the  Fall of 1992 and the Novus Ordo on weekdays. At that moment I realized that if this kind of sacrilege could occur at a papal Mass because of the Novus Ordo rubrics, I could no longer be a party to the new liturgy.  It was the last Novus Ordo Mass I ever attended.

        Michael Matt offers testimony perhaps even more horrific: “At the outdoor papal Mass in Des Moines during the papal visit of 1980, consecrated Hosts were being distributed from cardboard boxes.  A group of Hell’s Angels was given Holy Communion in the hand.  I saw them washing down the Body of Christ with cans of beer.  I was only a child then, but I will never forgot that awful sight as long as I live.”  (The practice of communion in the hand ensures that even the papal Masses in Saint Peter’s Square will result in sacrilege, including the spiriting away of Hosts by Rome’s many Satanists.)

        At Woodstock, thousands of people (myself included) degraded themselves by lying in the mud for the sake of rock music. But we did not watch God Incarnate fall in the mud and trample Him under our feet. The Hell’s Angels were at Woodstock, and they drank a lot of beer, but not as a chaser for the Body of Christ. Sacrileges unimaginable in 1965, even at Woodstock, are now commonplace on the Pope’s endless road trip in search of the civilization of love, the new humanity and the new Advent of the Church.  One must ask how any alleged spiritual good from these events can possibly outweigh the mounting insults to God which their very structure engenders. Who will make reparation for these sacrileges, heaped upon all the others made possible by the post-conciliar “reforms”?

        The grotesque attempt to fuse Catholicism with pop culture, to make a Woodstock of the faith, is perhaps a last desperate struggle by the spirit of Vatican II to find a place where it can be seen to live. Everywhere in the Church the awful experiment is being tried.  The Pope has allowed his personal (and suitably non-denominational) prayers to be recited on mass-marketed CDs by the likes of Britney Spears and the lead singer for Aerosmith, a Woodstock-era band still plying its trade on the concert circuit.  The Pope’s life has been made into a comic book which he heartily approves. (“Karol, Karol, look out!,” shouts one of Wojtyla’s friends as he runs after a soccer ball with an opposing player in hot pursuit.) There is even a Vatican-branded  VISA card (raising an interesting question about the application of Church teaching on usury). The Woodstock of the Faith is now complete with merchandising tie-ins.

[b]Catholicism for Morons[/b]
        In America the fusion of Catholicism and pop culture has already reached its absolute nadir.  One of the most striking recent examples to come my way is a magazine called Envoy, whose editorial policy seems to be that Catholicism must be pitched to the level of a moron in order to be attractive to young people.

         Envoy’s website has an animated cartoon that must be seen to be believed: It begins with a 98-pound weakling, a Catholic named Joe, being confronted at the beach by a Protestant Bible-thumper, who kicks theological sand in Joe’s face by quoting Scripture passages to support his attacks on the Catholic Church.  Having been embarrassed in front of his bikini-clad girlfriend (who is lounging on the sand with her belly-button in view), Joe goes home and bones up on Envoy magazine.  We next see Joe in front of a mirror admiring his now-massive physique, covered only by a pair of bikini-briefs, and exclaiming: “Boy it didn’t take me long to brush up on my catechism. Now I have a deeper understanding of my Catholic faith, and a deeper faith too!” (Joe’s deeper faith apparently does not include any sense of modesty.) In the next panel Joe is back on the beach quoting Scripture to the Protestant bully, as his bikini-clad girlfriend (still lounging on the sand and displaying her belly button) exclaims “Wow!”  The strip concludes with the girlfriend rubbing up against Joe and clutching his brawny bicep as she oozes: “Oh, Joe, you make me proud to be a Catholic.” In the background, another bikini-clad girl lounging on the beach says: “What a masterful grasp Joe has of the truth and beauty of the faith.”  To which her boyfriend replies: “He’s an Envoy reader.”

        Envoy is in trouble.  The website reports that Envoy cannot survive unless it immediately obtains 50% more subscribers. That is hardly surprising. Envoy can be expected to fail, along with the entire post-conciliar venture of debasing the Faith in a vain attempt to make it more appealing to an unbelieving world.  The same lack of subscribers is what plagues the Church throughout the world today. For those who now govern the Church have renounced the divine aloofness which makes Our Lord Himself, and thus His Church, so attractive to the world-weary soul in search of the narrow road that leads away from this place to eternal beatitude. Yes, Our Lord entered the world to be a friend to His fellow man, a friend par excellence.  But that friendship is premised on obedience to Him who is our King as well as our friend. And who would dare to slap this Friend on the back as one would some merely earthly companion!  

[b]A Contemptuous Familiarity[/b]
        The post-conciliar program of “openness to the world” is precisely an invitation to backslapping familiarity with the Bride of Christ: See? The Church is your friend. The Church can speak your language, after all.  After so many centuries of preaching to you, the Church now wishes to understand you and dialogue with you. The Church has come to recognize your good faith, even if, in the exercise of your religious liberty, you choose not to believe.  The Church no longer wishes to address you from on high or to frighten you with the prospect of God’s eternal punishment. The Church now wishes, instead, to accentuate the good in all people, all cultures, and all religions.  Look!, we have provided music and festivities for everyone, and even a new liturgy that will be more to your liking should you care to join us. Come, link your hands with ours in the human chain of peace, along with the members of every religion or no religion at all. Oh, and yes, we do invite you to consider the Gospel of Christ, which we now, at last, present to you in a non-threatening, less “ecclesiocentric” way. For the Church has discovered, after many centuries of presuming the contrary, that all or most of you are following the one path of Christ in your own way, whether you know it or not. Let us proclaim to you the good news of your salvation.

        And the world replies: Since you are now open to the world, to the good in all religions, to different points of view, since you no longer threaten us with hell if we reject what you teach, since you say that we are in good faith, why must we listen to you? And what, in the end, do we really need you for?

[b]Conclusion[/b]
        In 1973, four years after he had authorized the sacking of the Roman Rite, Paul VI gave a speech in which he lamented that “the opening to the world became a veritable invasion of the Church by worldly thinking.... We have perhaps been too weak and imprudent.”[vi]  As the Church continues to suffer through its self-inflicted Woodstock, we can say that the “perhaps” in Pope Paul’s remark ranks among the greatest understatements in human history.

        The Church will survive this crisis, just as she has all the others. And even in the midst of it there remain islands of sanity, many within the Church’s official structure. These havens of Catholic calm and sacrality remind me of the very ample tent in which my Woodstock companions and I were able to offer shelter and food to a starving hippie, who had crawled under the tent flap to escape a driving rain in the middle of the night. “Thank you, man,” he said.  Thank you, God, we say, in gratitude for the spiritual food and shelter we find in those few places where one can still worship as our fathers did, in peace and dignity, and pass on to one’s children an unreconstructed Catholic faith.

History demonstrates that the Church’s human element is all too fallible; yet it always learns from its mistakes and moves on, having undergone a true reform like that which followed the Council of Trent. The human element of the Church will outgrow its Woodstock, just as most members of the Woodstock generation managed to outgrow theirs. The post-conciliar debacle—which began in earnest, fittingly enough, in the year of Woodstock—will pass into history and assume its proper place and proportion in the scheme of things. Just as the “summer of love” in 1969 ended with fatal drug overdoses and the killing of rock fans at other rock festivals, so will the oft-mentioned but never seen “civilization of love” end in nothing but death and disillusionment over the false promise of world peace without submission to the Prince of Peace. The “opening to the world” at Vatican II will be remembered, if at all, with the mortification its ruinous results have warranted.

How much longer the Church’s mortification will go on, only God knows.  After all, Our Lord deigned to suffer the ultimate mortification of public execution on a darkening hill before He raised Himself from the dead in a blaze of heavenly light. Whether we have passed the point of the Church’s crucifixion in this crisis cannot be determined; for all we know, we have yet to reach Golgotha. What sustains us now is the certain knowledge that there will, in time, be a resurrection, a setting aright of all that has gone wrong in the Church.  Lord, may we see it soon.
[/quote]

[popestpiusx]

I may be a simple minded fool. I do not deny that. But what I asked for was evidence to support the claim that these periodicals were "heterodox" and/or schismatic. What you provided was an article that is certainly critical of many post-conciliar abuses, but is in no way heterodox nor schismatic. If my simple mind has failed to see what you were geting at, I beg you to show or point out where I am in error. You may disagree with their critique but you have not shown where they obstinately deny or doubt a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith nor have you shown that they have withdrawn submission "to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (Canon 751). Even this must be properly understood.

Until then, I maintain that these accusations are unjust.

Edited March 15, 2004 by popestpiusx

[popestpiusx]

Here is an article by the eminent theologian, Fr. Brian Harrison (who is Not himself a traditionalist) on what is and is not schism:

How Much Disobedience Constitutes Schism?

Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S.


In recent years, English-speaking Catholicism has witnessed some fierce internal polemics between traditionalists who denounce and resist many authorized changes in the Church since Vatican Council II, and others who zealously defend nearly all these official changes, although rejecting the outright liberal disobedience and dissent which have often accompanied them.

Not long ago, The Wanderer, a newspaper which takes the latter position, ran some strongly-worded attacks on Atila Sinke Guimarães and Marian T. Horvat (both of “Tradition in Action”), John Vennari (editor of Catholic Family News) and Remnant editor Michael J. Matt. These writers were accused of (among other things) falling into schism— at least materially, and perhaps formally as well — by publishing a jointly signed manifesto (We Resist You To The Face [Los Angeles: Tradition In Action, 2000]) which takes the literary form of a lengthy open letter to Pope John Paul II. (Its title is an allusion to Galatians 2: 11, where St. Paul speaks of how he “resisted” St. Peter, the first Vicar of Christ, “to the face” at Antioch, because of Peter’s faulty handling of relations between Jewish and Gentile converts to Christianity.)

Now, I want to make it clear from the outset that I am by no means in overall agreement with the aforesaid quartet. While I think their manifesto (which, for the sake of brevity, I will refer to from here on simply as Resist) does raise some legitimate and important questions about certain policies, orientations and emphases which the Church has been pursuing in recent decades, I think it goes too far in opposing these changes, and would have to agree with some of the criticisms that have been leveled at it. (Although I must also admit I can think of other genuine grievances against the post-conciliar regime that the authors might have included in Resist, but didn’t!) Particularly unfortunate — and I think unnecessary — is the authors’ professed dissent from certain conciliar and postconciliar statements of the Church’s Magisterium, or teaching authority, which I think can and should be understood in a way that does not conflict with traditional Catholic doctrine.

However, to go as far as accusing the Resist authors of schism is another matter altogether. It is a grave accusation, for this offence, when formal and culpable, incurs the Church’s extreme penalty, automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication, in accordance with c. 1364, §1 of the Code of Canon Law. Excommunication has the effect of excluding the offender from being entitled to receive or administer any sacrament, and from being able to hold any office in the Church.

So what exactly is schism? According to the Church’s law, it is “the withdrawal of submission [Latin subiectionis detrectatio] to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (c. 751). But this definition of schism (which in substance is the same as that found in the earlier Code of 1917) in turn requires further explanation. For it does not spell out exactly what kinds of specific behavior constitute this “withdrawal of submission”. In this article I hope to clarify this question, in the context of arguing that the aforesaid authors of Resist, whatever else might be said about their manifesto, are not in schism even materially, much less formally. Of course, my arguments will have more extensive application than to these four authors alone, and will also serve to defend many or most other Catholic critics of the post-Vatican-II changes from the charge of ‘schism’.

A. What do the four “resisters” actually mean?

Those who have charged Resist with constituting schism think they are justified in laying this charge against its four authors because of certain words in the manifesto which they think objectively express a schismatic position, regardless of what may be the inner intentions and culpability (or lack thereof) of the authors. But in fact the relevant words do not objectively express any position which is schismatic even materially — much less formally. The most that could be said is that Resist contains an ambiguous expression, which, if interpreted in the worst possible light, and out of context, would imply a schismatic position.

On p. 55, the authors first declare their “state of resistance” relative to those recent papal and conciliar “teachings and actions that are objectively opposed to the prior ordinary and extraordinary papal magisterium.” But “resistance” to, or dissent from, papal teaching does not in itself qualify as schism, whether formal or material. Even in the worst-case scenario wherein the “teaching” being “resisted” was of the most solemn category possible — namely, that proposed by the Church as divinely revealed (and thus to be believed with divine and Catholic faith) — such “resistance” would still not constitute schism. It would, of course, constitute heresy; but heresy is an offence against the faith of the Church, and is clearly something distinct from schism, which is an offence against charity.

Another bitter anti-traditionalist writer, Mr. Omar F.A. Gutierrez, is quite mistaken in asserting confidently: “Certainly, all heretics are schismatics.”[1] True, the two offences very often go together; but it would be quite possible (though perhaps not very logically consistent) for a professing Catholic to dissent stubbornly from just one or two defined dogmas while still accepting the current Pope’s authority in general and submitting to everything else the Holy Father and his local bishop told him to do. Such a person would be a heretic without being a schismatic. In any case, since nobody is even accusing the four Resist authors of heresy, it is unnecessary to defend them from that charge.

What about the authors’ “resistance” to papal actions (as distinct from papal teachings)? In the light of the concrete examples given by the authors earlier in their manifesto, they should be understood to mean nothing more than a retrospective disapproval of such actions. Schism, however, would have to involve “resistance” in the practical order, not the merely speculative (intellectual) order which evaluates the truth of doctrines or the appropriateness of past actions. That is, schism involves (among other things) persistently refusing to do things commanded by the Pope, or persistence in doing things forbidden by him. As St. Thomas Aquinas makes clear, heresy is an offence against the virtue of faith, while schism is opposed to charity (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIæ, 39, 1, ad 3).

So far, then, there is nothing in Resist that could be taken as schismatic. However, the authors continue, on the same page, explaining the implications of this initial declaration which we have just analyzed. They state that, among other things, their “resistance” includes “suspension of obedience to the aforementioned progressivist teachings, and the authorities who desire to impose them on us” (my emphasis). Here we see the critical ambiguity which I referred to above. The expression “suspension of obedience” will indeed ring alarm bells to a loyal Catholic on the look-out for indications of schism. But, at least in regard to the “progressivist” teachings in question, it is obvious that what the authors really mean by “suspension of obedience” is suspension of assent. In other words, dissent. And, as I have already pointed out, no amount of dissent from papal and/or conciliar teachings can ever, in itself, constitute schism. Nevertheless, the second part of the expression quoted above contains a more serious ambiguity: for “suspension of obedience” to “the authorities who desire to impose [the “progressivist” teachings] on us” could be schismatic, depending on what, exactly, the authors have in mind. They could mean one of two things:

(a) a general or ‘blanket’ suspension of all obedience to the ecclesial “authorities” in question, i.e., a repudiation (at least temporary) of their very jurisdiction over the authors of Resist. In other words, this would be a declaration by the latter that they no longer felt themselves bound to obey commands of any sort issued to them by the former. In that case, the final relative clause (“who desire . . . on us”) would have the purpose of identifying the “authorities” in question and trying to justify this rebellious decision against them. In other words, they would be anticipating the question, “Which ‘authorities’ are you referring to?”, and answering it by saying, in effect, “Those who desire to impose progressivist teachings on us; and it is because of this evil desire on their part that we reject their right to command us.”

On the other hand, the expression under discussion could mean:

(b) a suspension of obedience to the “authorities” in question only insofar as they “desire to impose” the “progressivist teachings” under discussion. In this case the final clause (“. . . and the authorities who desire to impose them on us”) would have the purpose of indicating the limits of their intended disobedience. That is, the authors would simply be expressing — albeit with rather imprecise English syntax — an intention to disobey these “authorities” on any particular occasions when they might happen to command the faithful in general, or themselves in particular, either to profess openly their acceptance of the “progressivist teachings” in question, or to act in such a way as to imply conformity with those teachings.

Now, if the four authors of Resist meant (a), then they would clearly be declaring themselves to be in a situation which could fairly be described as “materially schismatic,” for the “authorities” in question certainly include popes, right up to the present Supreme Pontiff. They would be in the same sort of situation, at least externally and objectively, as the Eastern Orthodox, or other communities who might still have all seven valid sacraments and perhaps in some cases even believe all the articles of Catholic faith, but who do not feel bound to obey any command whatsoever of John Paul II.

However, such an interpretation would be difficult to reconcile with the rest of Resist, which is presented in Chapter I (pp. 13-15) and in the authors’ “Final Words,” as a supplication to the Pope as their “Holy Father” — a supplication which makes clear their acceptance of his authority over them and their “communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (to quote the Code of Canon Law again). They say to the Pope, among other things, “We humbly beg the incarnate Wisdom to illuminate your intelligence and guide your will to do what should be done for the glory of God, the exaltation of Holy Mother Church, and the salvation of souls” (pp. 65-66). The authors also appeal, on pp. 56-58, to the authority of St. Paul and recognized doctors and theologians (Bellarmine, Suarez, etc.) who have upheld the legitimacy of “resisting” Peter or his successors, under certain circumstances and on particular issues, while still recognizing his legitimate position of authority over the whole Church on earth. No one, I am sure, will accuse these celebrated classical authors of schism (or even of “birthing” or “midwifing” schism). Gutierrez, (see footnote 1) denies that an appeal to the power of the Pope, such as that expressed in Resist, is sufficient to “relieve one from the charge of schism”. He argues that someone might hypocritically pay mere lip-service to papal authority in this way, while still being schismatic by virtue of “public and constant disobedience through action or inaction.” Maybe so, but this disobedience would still have to global and radical, not just partial or piecemeal, in order to reach the point of schism (as I will explain more fully below).

Thus, the fact that the Resist authors appeal so respectfully to the Pope’s authority is at least prima facie evidence of their sincerity, that is, of their genuine intention not to withdraw totally from submission to him. A fair reading of their manifesto would therefore require one to presume that they mean their “suspension of obedience” in the milder sense (b) above, until the contrary were demonstrated. For the record, I met with and spoke personally to all four of them at a conference in Phoenix, Arizona, on September 30, 2000, and they unanimously verified that this much more limited and less radical disobedience is indeed what they meant to express in their open letter to the Pope.

B. Are the four ‘resisters’ in schism?

I am claiming that the kind of limited disobedience we have just identified, as professed by the four authors, does not qualify as schism. Not even “material schism.” But on this point, certain critics of Resist think otherwise, arguing that since c. 751 does not say that schism requires total or complete “withdrawal of submission” to the Roman Pontiff, we are entitled to conclude that the kind or degree of “suspension of obedience” professed by the four ‘resisters’ is sufficient to qualify them as schismatics.

When I read this opinion, it struck me as representing a parallel with so-called ‘biblical fundamentalism’. Perhaps it could be called ‘canonical fundamentalism.’ If biblical fundamentalists (usually Protestants) err by interpreting certain passages of Scripture in a superficially literal way, without taking into account the literary and historical context, the treasury of Sacred Tradition which illuminates obscurities in Sacred Scripture, and other passages of Scripture itself, then canonical fundamentalists err in a similar way in their superficial approach to the Code of Canon Law. Here are a few pertinent observations.

1. In the first place, those who cry “schism!” against the four authors should take cognizance of the fact that by far the greater part of their “suspension of obedience” has to do with dissent from conciliar or post-conciliar doctrinal positions. And as is explained above, not even heresy, the worst kind of doctrinal dissent, can ever of itself constitute schism — formal or material. But once the strictly doctrinal concerns of the authors of Resist are subtracted from their ‘resistance,’ all that remains of it is their professed disposition to disobey certain possible or hypothetical commands of a practical nature, obedience to which would be seen by the ‘resisters’ as implying their assent to those “progressivist teachings” which they find unacceptable.

Suppose, for instance, that the Holy Father were to judge that too many Catholics are dragging their feet in regard to ecumenism, and so decided to prod them along by issuing a Motu Proprio ordering all of the faithful to assist, wherever feasible, at an inter-denominational prayer service for the reunion of Christians, to be organized each year during the ‘Octave of Christian Unity’ by the bishops and the clergy in each parish, in collaboration with local non-Catholic ministers. This would become a sort of ecumenical Holy Day of Obligation. Now, I think it reasonable to assume that the authors of Resist would disobey such an order, even though it came straight from the Pope. However, I used the words “possible” and “hypothetical” above, because, as far as I can see from their manifesto, the four authors have not given even a single example of any actually existing practical (as distinct from doctrinal) instruction of the Supreme Pontiff which they propose to disobey, or have already been disobeying. The text of Resist itself does not reveal any such actual or imminent disobedience. And the critics of the manifesto, to the best of my knowledge, have never even been able to accuse them of any such behavior. But a statement of merely potential disobedience to as yet non-existent papal commands looks like a very meager basis on which to build a case for schism!

2. Secondly, it is arbitrary and illogical to argue that since c. 751 doesn’t say that “withdrawal of submission” to the Roman Pontiff has to be total in order to qualify as schism, partial withdrawal therefore suffices for that offence to be committed. With equal or greater plausibility one could argue that since the canon doesn’t say that partial withdrawal of submission is enough to qualify as schism, we should presume that the withdrawal has to be total or radical in order for that offence to be committed. I say, “with equal or greater plausibility,” because this more lenient interpretation of c. 751 would be much more in harmony with a venerable canonical principle which reflects the charity of Holy Mother Church, in her desire to extend to her at times wayward children the benefit of the doubt, whenever a relevant doubt exists. This principle (which the critics of Resist seem to ignore) is expressed in c. 18 of the Code: “Laws which impose a penalty . . . are to be interpreted strictly.”[2] The word “strictly” here does not mean “severely,” as an uninitiated reader might suppose. On the contrary, a “strict” definition of any term will necessarily cover a smaller number, or a narrower range, of specific instances than a more “broad” or “general” definition of the same term. Accordingly, c. 18 means that whenever a penal law should require interpretation — as does c. 1364, §1 in prescribing excommunication for “schism” — the correct interpretation will be that which employs a strict, rather than a broad or general, definition of the offence specified in that law. The practical effect is that only those sorts of actions which clearly and indisputably qualify as instances of the offence are understood to violate the law in question.

A well-known application of this principle occurred a decade ago, when a group of traditionalist Catholics in Hawaii arranged for a bishop of the Society of St. Pius X to come and administer Confirmation to their children. Since the Holy See had declared this man excommunicated, and since the Pope had warned that others who associated themselves to the said Society would also partake in the “schism”, the Bishop of Honolulu and his canonical advisers judged that the said traditionalists, by their action, had lapsed latae sententiae into schism. So the Bishop issued a decree declaring the excommunication of these people. However, the traditionalists appealed this decision to the Holy See — and won! The Bishop’s decision was overturned by Rome — evidently in the light of c. 18, among other possible considerations.

3. Thirdly, the preceding canon (c. 17) should also have been given more careful attention by those who claim that Resist is a schismatic declaration. This canon states that when there remains some obscurity in the meaning of a law, “there must be recourse [on the part of the interpreter] to parallel places, if there be any, to the purposes and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.” Now, as regards “parallel places,” there are no canons other than 751 that set out to explain what schism is. However, there are plenty of canons — twenty-nine of them, according to my reckoning, between c. 1365 and c. 1397 — which clearly, although implicitly, explain what schism is not. So for present purposes these can certainly serve as “parallel places” in the Code. I refer to all those canons which prescribe lesser penalties than excommunication for multiple forms of disobedience to laws promulgated by the Supreme Pontiff. Since schism does incur excommunication, it follows logically that there are multiple forms of disobedience to the Supreme Pontiff which do not reach the very grave level of schism.

So if those who think Resist schismatic want to persevere with the claim that even partial “withdrawal of submission” (i.e., disobedience) to the Pope can be enough to qualify materially as schism, then the burden of proof will plainly be on them to find some canons in the Code which make it clear, explicitly or implicitly, as to just where the line is to be drawn between those graver forms of “partial withdrawal” which qualify as schism, and those lesser forms which don’t. But I submit that they will find it impossible to do this, if for no other reason than that schism is not even mentioned in any canons other than the two which we have already examined.

A concrete example will be helpful here. Many readers will remember that for twelve years, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre defied the Holy See’s declaration that he was suspended from the exercise of his priestly and episcopal functions, and yet was never accused by Rome of schism, or excommunicated. He offered Mass daily and ordained groups of priests for the SSPX every year from 1976 (when he was suspended) until 1988, but was never accused of, or penalized for, the offence of schism until the latter year, when he illicitly consecrated four bishops. Gutierrez’ reference to Lefebvre seems to imply that the latter was schismatic even before 1988; but the fact is that before that year, the Holy See’s own expert canonists were unable to find any offence committed by the Archbishop which, according to their reading of canon law, would either qualify as schism, or merit excommunication for some other reason.

4. Finally, canon 17 also stipulates, as we noted above, that in interpreting a given canon, one should have recourse “to the mind of the legislator.” Now, in the case of c. 751 it is manifest that the mind of the legislator is to follow closely the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas; for the definition of schism in that canon follows very closely that of the Angelic Doctor in the Summa Theologiæ, IIa IIæ, Q. 39, a.1: “schismatics are those who refuse to be subject to the Roman Pontiff and who refuse communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”[3] So the fuller context of this definition in the Summa itself is obviously highly pertinent for an exact interpretation of c. 751.

St. Thomas in fact makes it very clear that schism is not just any kind of disobedience. In this article he is showing that schism is really a distinct sin from other sins, and one of the objections to this position is that since schismatics are those “who do not obey the Church” (qui Ecclesiæ non obediunt), and since all kinds of sins involve some disobedience to the Church, there is not really any specific difference between schism and other offences. Aquinas replies (Q. 39, a.1, ad 2) that the essence of schism is in “rebelliously disobeying [the Church’s] commandments. I say ‘rebelliously’ because the schismatic shows obstinate scorn for the Church’s commandments and refuses to submit to her judgment. Not every sinner does that; and so not every sin is schism.” The concrete examples given by Aquinas make it clear that he means ‘rebelliously’ here in the strict sense of the term, as when subjects reject completely the authority of the lawful leader over them. He refers (Q. 39, a 2.1) to the incident recorded in the Book of Numbers, when Korah, Dathan and Abiram were swallowed up by the earth in punishment for their total rejection of Moses’ leadership, in a spirit of ‘democracy’ (“Power to the people!”). We read in Nm 16: 3 that these men “held an assembly against Moses and Aaron, to whom they said, ‘Enough from you! The whole community, all of them, are holy; the Lord is in their midst. Why then should you set yourself over the Lord’s congregation?’” (my emphasis). It was clearly Moses’ whole leadership as such that was being challenged by the rebels. St. Thomas, in the same place, also mentions the example of the ten northern tribes of Israel, who completely separated themselves from the south at the death of Solomon, with Jeroboam and his followers rejecting totally the authority of Rehoboam, king of Judah (I Kings 12: 26-33).

All the approved theologians after St. Thomas follow the same criterion. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, which I do not think anyone will accuse of being too liberal or ‘soft on schism’, affirms that: “not every disobedience is schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command” (vol. 13, p. 529a, s.v. “Schism”, my emphasis). Likewise, the magisterial Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (DTC), possibly the greatest compendium of orthodox Catholic theology ever assembled, explains as follows the difference between heresy and schism. (This is my own translation from the French and the quoted Latin original of Cajetan, with my emphasis)

Schism and disobedience: The two things are so evidently similar, so closely related, that many confuse the two, or find difficulty in distinguishing them. . . . Cajetan [in commenting on the passage from St. Thomas we have considered above] makes some very neat and satisfying precisions. He distinguishes three points of application, or three possible motives for disobedience. First, disobedience might concern simply the matter of the thing commanded, without calling in question the authority or even the personal calibre of the superior: thus, if I eat meat on Friday because I don’t like fish, that is not schism, but simple disobedience. Secondly, the disobedience might focus on the person who holds authority, denying for one reason or another his competence in some particular case, or judging him to be mistaken, . . . while still respecting his office. This still is not schism. . . . Schism does occur when someone . . . ‘rejects a command or judgment of the Pope by reason of his very office, not recognising him as a superior, even while believing that he is’ (cum quis papæ præceptum vel judicium ex parte officii sui recusat, non recognoscens eum ut superiorem, quamvis hoc credat).

It is worth noting, in passing, that Omar Gutierrez’ superficial understanding of canon law, and of St. Thomas, leads him into the error, warned against here by Cajetan and the DTC, of supposing that the second of the three types of disobedience mentioned above is grave enough to constitute schism. Gutierrez asserts that “a schismatic can claim that the Pope may have the right to command but has commanded poorly. Fr. Feeney did this very thing.” (Mr. Gutierrez errs yet again — historically this time — in supposing that schism was the reason given by the Vatican for the excommunication of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney. He was excommunicated rather for “grave disobedience”, after persistently refusing to go to Rome, at the command of the Holy See in the name of the Pope, in order to be examined in regard to his doctrinal views.)

The last clause in the above citation form DTC — “even while believing that he is [a lawful superior]”— might at first seem to make Cajetan’s definition of schism self-contradictory. But in fact, his evident intention in this clause is to make it clear that he is here talking about formal schism. In other words, material schism is committed by all those — and only those — who completely reject the authority as such of a lawful superior. But the offence becomes formal only in the case of those who do so with malice, i.e., knowing in their own heart that the superior in question is in fact lawful, but nonetheless refusing absolutely to submit to his authority in any way. Thus, someone born and brought up as, say, a Russian Orthodox Christian, who has never heard a positive word — perhaps nothing at all — about the Roman Pontiff and his role in the Church, would be a clear example of a merely material schismatic: malice could certainly not be presumed in such a person.

Conclusion

In the light of the foregoing discussion, I would conclude by simply summing up the consensus of all authoritative Catholic theologians and canonists. That is, the only kind of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff which constitutes even material schism is one which the authors of Resist (and other traditionalists who share their position) have certainly not fallen into, namely, that total repudiation of the Pope’s authority wherein one denies — at least by one’s actions, and probably in most cases by explicit affirmations as well — one’s own duty to obey anything at all which he might command. Then, in order for the schism to be formal as well as material (and therefore culpable before God), it would be necessary for the offender to be acting not in good conscience, that is, out of invincible ignorance of the Pope’s divine right to command, but rather, out of pride or passion which leads him to suppress and deny the Pope’s jurisdiction over himself, while knowing deep down that he is committing a sin in doing so.

Finally, I would like to suggest that it would be more accurate to translate the key expression in c. 751, subiectionis detrectatio a little more literally than “withdrawal of submission” (found in the 1983 Collins edition). The 1999 Canon Law Society of America edition has “refusal of submission”, but in the light of our observations which have shown that the “mind of the legislator” is to follow the Thomistic tradition in defining schism, I think it would be better to replace “submission” (for subiectionis) by the stronger word “subjection.” In English we speak of someone being ‘a subject of’ a certain civil ruler or ecclesiastical superior, with the understanding that he might disobey such a superior — perhaps in a gravely sinful manner — while still recognizing himself to be ‘subject to’ — i.e., ‘a subject of’— the authority in question. An English translation of c. 751 which defined schism as “refusal of subjection”, or “refusal to be subject”, to the Supreme Pontiff, would therefore be an accurate rendition of the Latin.

----------------

[1] This citation, and all others mentioned below in this article, are from Gutierrez’ article “Deceit, Sleight of Hand, and Ferrawood’s ‘Logic’”, The Wanderer, May 15, 2003, p. 9.

[2] This legal norm does not apply technically to c. 751, because the latter canon does not itself “impose a penalty”. However it is the basis for c. 1364 §1, which imposes the extreme penalty of excommunication, and so c. 751 should, at the very least, be understood in the spirit of c. 18.

[3] “Et ideo schismatici dicuntur qui subesse renuunt Summo Pontifici, et qui membris Ecclesiæ ei subiectis communicare recusant.” The 1917 Code (c. 1325) followed this definition even more exactly, reproducing it word for word, except that St. Thomas’ “and” was replaced by “or.”

[BLAZEr]

Ok, umm, actually I was ignoring your comments. I was not interested in arguing with you. In fact, from your name I just assumed you would be someone who was irrational. That may have been judgemental, but that's what I thought.

I posted that excerpt, not to "prove" that the remnant was heterodox but rather to demonstrate the tone and the direction of the Remnant. I still stand by the position that it is not a publication at the heart of the Church. The vile attacks against the Holy Father that are published in the Remnant are NOT what the Church is about. I would imagine that Padre Pio and St. Catherine of Sienna would caution against it too.

"Where Peter is, there is the Church." That should be a motto more magazines take into account, both liberal and traditionalist.

And, while I have read Fr. Harrison's article before, around 2 years ago, I still don't find it convincing. The 3 footnotes he uses are evidence enough that this is meant to be an opinion piece and not a scholarly critique.

[popestpiusx]

Let me get this straight. I choose the name of a canonized saint for my screename, and one to whom I have a great love and devotion. From that, you assumed I would be irrational. Does this seemed like a rational judgement to you??

Second,
There have ben numerous saints (St. Catherine included) who wrote scathingly of the Holy Father. St. Bernard of Clairviox actually wrote to the Pope and told him that if he (the pope) goes to hell it will be because he has failed to deal with bad bishops. Incidently, Bishop Bruskewitz sent a copy of that same letter to our present Holy Father. But I digress. If St. Pio and St. Catherine cautioned against The Remnant, it would be for something more than "the tone and the direction" of the paper. If they had a problem with it, they would base it on something substantial, like heterodoxy. People of past days were far less "emotional" than we are now and more thick skinned. They did not demonize someone for violations of the laws of "tone and the direction" unless these had doctrinal ramifications. Forgive me if I am a bit facetious. I am sure that what you intended to say was that the "tone and direction" of The Remnant are reflective of certain doctrinal positions which, in your opinion, are contrary to the faith. If that is your intention, then I would say again, where's the evidence? Let's be rational and provide well reasoned arguments.

Third,
I'm not sure what you mean by this: "The 3 footnotes he uses are evidence enough that this is meant to be an opinion piece and not a scholarly critique." Even in a scholarly critique he would be presenting what starts off as his opinion. He wrote the article as a defence again calumnous defamation of character. If someone is going to throw around the words "heterodox" and "schismatic" then thay beaver dam sure better know what they are saying and be able to back it up. Can you refute his argument?

I hope I have not been irrational. I am actually enjoying this discussion and would like very much for it to continue on friendly terms.

In Christo et Maria,
a sinner

[aByzantineCatholic]

Since when is being critical of the Pope ANTI-CATHOLIC? It's not like the Pope is Infalliable on everyday matters of the Church. If you believe the Pope is Infalliable in everything he does then you are an Idolatist and thus not Catholic.

Becareful of who you call Anti-Catholic!

Thank You Saint Catherine Sienna for putting Pope Gregory in his place.

[img]http://www.lifeteen.org/Images/Documents/SaintOfTheWeek/SaintOfTheWeek_levrk4_FS.jpg[/img]
Saint Catherine Sienna pray for us!

[BLAZEr]

Wow, I think you just evidenced my point. It's funny that you mention people used to be much less emotional. Because you're right. I can't imagine any of the saints flying off the handle like that.

First: I assumed that the name you chose, and your support for the Remnant were evidence of support for the Society of St. Pius X. I do not claim that this was an appropriate judgement, and I admitted as much. I have nothing against St. Pius X, in fact, I too have a devotion to him. However, he has been much maligned by the fact that a group of priests are in formal Schism and take him for their name.

Second: I know the definition of schismatic and heterodox and I find that the articles in Remnant lean in that direction. Certainly their stated position is that they are in full union with the Church and "merely" critical of some aspects, but I don't find this position to be backed up by the articles they print. I happen to know Christopher Ferrara and have worked with him, and a colleague and I researched his writings. I find his writings uncharitable and scathinly critical in way that does not evidence reverence but rahter disdain. This is not something you will find in St. Catherine's writings.

She was critical of the Pope because he was not in Rome. She, however, never impuned his decisions nor did she attempt to rouse people against him. She wrote to him directly and then eventually went to Avignon to disucuss it with him personally. She did not spend her days inciting others to think less of him.

Padre Pio used to caution against any criticism of the Pope or a Bishop. He was the saint who, despite the accusations levied against him by a Bishop and the penalties exacted against him by the Pope, refused to say one negative thing about either.

Third: If Father Harrison was actually making substantial Critique, he should have taken the time to demonstrate how the Church teaches what he is saying by demonstrating from her own voice (documents, bulls, encyclicals, papal statmetns, statements of the variosu congregations, canon law, etc). I find his arguement sound, but not entirely convincing. Part of the reason I don't find it entirely convincing is because he does not have a more thourugh use of primary sources to back up his claims. This is why I argue it is more of an opinion piece than a scholarly critique. I agree that both are opinions, but one certainly can carry more intellectual weight than the other.

[popestpiusx]

What point was that (and who evidenced it)?

[PedroX]

Really folks, go back and reread Blazer's original posts. (read mine too, but just because I'm very vain and like to think of people reading my posts!)

Blazer is perfectly with in his rights (and incidentally correct in this case!) to point out that the tone of the two publications is a bit harsh. Even if they are printing Gospel truth, its a bit shrill, don't you think?

I love, and mourn for, our traditionalist brothers and look with joy to our reunification. However, even I occasionally wish to see a cartoon in their publications. To know that they can share a good laugh with me would be a good thing.

Oh, and Blazer, quit inciting the traditionalists. Its not nice, and in these parts its too easy!

peace...

[popestpiusx]

pedro,

I understand what you are saying. I am not disagreing that they are at times a bit harsh. My point is that being harsh does not put one outside the Church. Read the writings of St. Jerome, St. Athanasius, St. Peter Damien, St. Bernard of Clairvoix. You want to see harsh. There you have it. St. Jerome was downright mean. He and St. Augustine nearly hated each other. I'm not saying it is ok. Just that we certainly cannot throw around these names (heterodox and schismatic) just because someone put something in a way that we find "harsh". Schism has a very precise definition and it does not include being "harsh". That is all I am trying to say. For the record, I would agree that there probably are a couple of individuals that write for the Remnant that would qualify as schismatic (in the true sense of the word) and some are just hotheads, but the same could be said of countless publications. One or two people do not make or break a publication.

Edited March 16, 2004 by popestpiusx

[BLAZEr]

Pedro, you're right . . . I'm itching for a fight . . .

I'll start practicing being meek and humble of heart again . . .