Last week I touched on the change of direction from Vatican II onward towards a "social action" agenda which, sadly, has diminished the importance of upholding the absolutes of faith and morals. It has given power to "liberal Catholics" or "Modernists" or "Progressivists" as they are called in some circles. These groups are for ennacting more reforms from women priests to relaxing sexual mores; from choosing their own bishops to collegiality where the Primacy of Peter is greatly diminished. As we can all see from the parish level to the diocesan level to the state of the world today, everything seems to be in disarray and it is the persons called 'Traditionalists' who seem to be pointing this devastation out the most, clamoring for a return to what worked before and made the Roman Catholic Church so noble and respected.

    One might wonder, therefore, with all the devastation which is clearly visible, why the grand experiment of Vatican II is allowed to proceed. Cannot souls see what is happening? That this is playing into the hands of dark and diabolic forces? God, after all, gives eyes to see and ears to hear, and we must pray that He gives these graces to all of us. But He also clouds the vision of some, and we must pray that this is not the time when He clouds the vision of the many, particularly those in authority. In fact I do not know whether this is the time or not. I can only say, charitably, concerning the juggernaut of Vatican II, that perhaps it perpetuates itself because old ideas die hard. A number of the Vatican II fathers are still alive, or their memory is revered by their students who are still alive, and for these people, who are in power, to admit that Vatican II was a bit of a colossal failure is unthinkable for them. It would be to admit that they had a hand in the ruining of millions of lives, and the damning of many people to hell that has quite probably occurred as a result of the huge loss of faith. Vatican II is the work of their lifetime; they birthed it and nurtured it. It is the rare man or woman who will admit that they gave birth to a gigantic failure. And therefore the Church goes on with the Vatican II experiment. Like President Hoover these people believe that prosperity is just around the corner, that a joyous "Springtime" in the life of the Church will commence imminently.

    One might say to all this: "Well so what, eventually they or their successors will see reason." First of all we have the salvation of souls to think of, the loss of Heaven and the pains of hell. That is the main reason why a return to the old emphasis is needed immediately. Furthermore it’s not so simple to expect eventually a simple return to the ancient, to the emphasis of Tradition, by the Vatican and Her prelates. Because there is an alternative hypothesis – that Roman officials will swing entirely in the other direction and embrace, unwittingly, the view that all religions can be equal and good in the sight of God, which is actually Masonic in origin. We know that the Pope has kissed the Koran and prays in Mosques and Synagogues, and that parishioners of non-traditional parishes are encouraged to pray with peoples of other (i.e., false) religions. Now what kind of example is this to Catholic peoples? Are they expected to know, somehow, mysteriously, where to draw the line and how to evangelize others should they desire to follow in the Pope’s footsteps and kiss the Koran and pray in Mosques and Synagogues? Rubbish! With no catechetical training, with no concept of Catholic dogma, such a move is doomed from the start, and should not even be considered in the first place by those who have knowledge of the holy faith.

Conservatives or Neo-Catholics

    Now, in contrast to the sorry state of the post-Conciliar, the non-traditional parishes described above, we can speak of Traditional Roman Catholics as those persons who, while Roman Catholic, are not entirely accepting of the change in emphasis that was implemented by mandate of the Vatican II Council. The phrase "not entirely accepting" is written in a purposely vague manner, because the concept itself is vague. To some persons it means: "We liked the old ways, but we wholeheartedly embrace the new ways, because the Pope, and many of the bishops and priests, ask us to." We would call such persons "conservatives" (as it pertains on the theological spectrum to Roman Catholicism).

    The aim of conservatives is to see that every wind which blows inside the Church comes to fruition, but that it does so in a holy manner, if that were possible. For example there is the group "Adoremus", whose aim is to act as watchdog to see that the Vatican II texts are entirely implemented, particularly with respect to the Mass, and that they are implemented in the way that was intended by the Council Fathers. A problem with this concept is that it assumes that the Council Fathers all agreed on how the texts should be implemented, and also that all of the Council Fathers had nothing but the best interests of the Church in mind when they set about to change the rules with their new Vatican II texts. However, there is no reason why this should be so – humans, even Catholic prelates, are fallible, make mistakes, can be ignorant, or can be just plain evil.

    Since no new dogma was defined during Vatican II, none of the Council texts, other than quotations of dogma previously defined by the Church, are binding on Catholics to believe and uphold as revealed truth of the inspired Word of God. Rather, the Church throughout Her history has always sent out a caution concerning radical changes, novel ideas, and sweeping alterations in emphasis. All of the changes that She had undergone previous to the Vatican II Council had come about slowly, over centuries, considered prayerfully by many holy men and even women of many ages, and were implemented only with the aim of perfecting the relationship between Jesus Christ and His bride, Holy Mother Church, through the continued interpretation of Holy Scriptures, by the power of the Holy Ghost, that more truth might be revealed and set down as Catholic dogma and doctrine.

Indult or Semi-Traditionalists

    Another group, a little further to the right on the theological spectrum shall we say, is "not entirely accepting" of the tenets of Vatican II in the sense that although they believe that these tenets are holy and are a perfectly acceptable means of attaining salvation, they personally are predisposed to continue following the old emphasis on Tradition and the ancient Mass. They do this with the permission of the Vatican and the local bishop, through the Holy Father’s declaration "Ecclesia Dei" of 1988, which grants an "Indult", or privilege, that those Catholic souls who wish to follow the old emphasis may do so with the local bishop’s permission. The 1962 Missal of Pope John XXIII must be used. There is the belief that the ancient Mass codified by Pope St. Pius V, which generally ended after the implementation of the New Mass following the Vatican II Council, is usually said in the Indult parishes and communities. There are, however, stipulations to this privilege: that the people are entirely accepting of the new emphasis inspired by Vatican II, even to the point of sharing in the new customs as well as the old. For example, the priests serving the Indult must usually concelebrate with their bishop in the new rite at various times during the year. And parishioners may be given the Holy Eucharist consecrated at a new Mass rather than the ancient mass. Typically they follow the new discipline which transfers certain of the Holy Days of Obligation to a Sunday, effectively removing the obligation to attend an extra Mass during a weekday to honor the Lord, the holy saints, or the Blessed Virgin as the occasion arises. They may also follow the relaxation of the law which forbade the eating of meat on all Fridays. These depend on the individual Indult community.

Independent Traditionalists and Members of the Society of Saint Pius X

    Further yet on the right are those who follow the concept that to accept the tenets of Vatican II without reservation is unconscionable. Therefore, that one must separate oneself from the Vatican II philosophy, although, as Roman Catholics, it is imperative to communicate with Rome, in the sense of abiding by what the Church has always taught and said, praying for and respecting the Pope, and obeying him in matters Catholic when what he says and does is in accord with all Tradition and the ancient ways. Among the most well known of these souls was Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who founded the Holy Brotherhood of St. Pius X (the SSPX), with permission of the pope at the time, Paul VI. His Grace had been vocal at the Vatican II Council against the sweeping changes, and the goal of his new order was to provide a Traditional training for young men wanting to study for the priesthood in the ancient way, and to restore Tradition within the Church. In parallel with his work, there were hundreds or even thousands of diocesan priests and members of religious communities who were not accepting of many of the Vatican II changes because they felt they were of potential harm to the faith and perhaps even a danger to the salvation of souls. We can hear all of these persons described, more or less, as "Lefebvrists", that is, agreeing with the concept, along with Archbishop Lefebvre, that true obedience to God includes resisting novel emphases and doctrines which are at odds with or serve to denature Catholic dogma.

    Many of those among the conservatives or Indult persuasions suggest that the Lefebvrists and those in accord with them are "excommunicated" because they have "separated themselves from the Church". Archbishop Lefebvre and those in agreement with him counter that they do obey and reside within the Church; that is, with regard to all that is right and holy. And also, that it is in fact the responsibility of every layman and cleric not to obey that which goes against the traditions of the Church. Besides, Rome itself - in talks between the Society and Cardinal Hoyos of the Ecclesia Dei Commission - has admitted that the "excommunication" was not done legally and also that the Latin Mass was never abrogated. Yet, according to the Cardinal, Rome is afraid of the reaction of the world's bishops if Rome were to admit that publicly.

Sedevacantists

    At furthest right on the theological spectrum of Roman Catholicism are the Sedevacantists, who believe that the Chair of Peter is currently vacant; that is, there is no pope presently, and there has not been a pope since Pius XII fell asleep in 1958. The Sedevacantists have separated themselves entirely from modern Rome, and they expect that God, perhaps through the Mother of God, will set things aright when pleased to do so. The Sedevacantists also, follow all Tradition, but will have none of the words of the pope and bishops of the present day, whom they sometimes call, not so affectionately, the "non-pope" and "non-bishops". To ordain priests, the Sedevacantists, and the Lefebvrists for that matter, must have bishops who are willing to do so. One might wonder how this can be, since they are at odds with Rome in certain matters; therefore Rome will certainly not willingly provide bishops to ordain their priests. However, according to some theologians at least, under certain conditions a bishop may consecrate new bishops and ordain new priests without the permission of Rome, and this is how the Lefebvrists and Sedevacantists have sustained their clerical ranks. Sometimes also, a non-traditional bishop or priest will join their societies.

Summary

    We can say that those who follow the Indult permission, the Lefebvrists, and the Sedevacantists are alike in that they hope for the complete return to Tradition, and the pre-Vatican II, that is the ancient, emphasis. All of these groups believe, I think it is fair to say, that such a restoration would bring about a true revival in the life of the Church, a new beginning, so to speak, in which the emphasis would be on the Church’s traditional role in salvation, in guarding the faithful, and in converting the heathen. And as a result, that there would be an immense move toward holiness with the result that many more souls would be saved; all Heaven would rejoice. One would think, therefore, that these groups might work together, or at least that there should be a lack of hostility between them, yet unfortunately this is not often presently the case. Sometimes the worse enemy of the Indult participant will be the Lefebvrist and vice versa, and the worst enemy of the Lefebvrist is the Sedevacantist, and so on. This would seem unfortunate and counterproductive, an inefficient use of time for souls who call themselves Traditional Roman Catholic.

    And so dear friends, it is hoped that this missive has provided some background by which one may examine further the mysteries of our faith through the concept of Traditional Roman Catholicism. In my experience, rather than focus on debate with others, for the good of one’s soul we can expect that the study of Tradition itself will be most rewarding and strengthening as we journey toward the prize to which we have been called. The more we know our Faith, truly know it, the better we will be able to understand and respond as God wills. Judica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta, "Judge me, O God, and distinguish my cause against an ungodly nation."
www.DailyCatholic.org