Bp. Williamson Controversy

At about the same time the excommunications were lifted from the SSPX, an interview initially recorded several months prior broke onto the scene, sending shockwaves throughout the Catholic community. Included in this interview was a piece concerning the Bishop's views on the holocaust, which section can be viewed at this link [1]. The Vatican was quick to denounce this burst of perceived antisemitism when Cardinal Kasper, the liaison for Vatican-Jewish relations, said in an interview with Italian daily La Repubblica, concerning Bp. Williamson's opinions "These are unacceptable words. To deny the Holocaust is stupid and is a position that has nothing to do with the Catholic Church." The bishop is informed that he is not to function as a cleric of the Church until he recants his statements[2] British bishops were no more sluggish than the Vatican when a spokesman for the bishops said “The views of one of the bishops of SSPX in denying the reality of the Holocaust are totally unacceptable.”[3] Meanwhile, on behalf of U.S. Bishops, Cardinal Francis George condemned the words of the bishop with these comments “Bishop Williamson has denied historical facts about the Shoah, in which six million Jews were cruelly annihilated, innocent victims of blind racial and religious hatred. These comments have evoked understandable outrage from within the Jewish community and also from among our own Catholic people. No Catholic, whether lay person, priest or bishop can ever negate the memory of the Shoah, just as no Catholic should ever tolerate expressions of anti-Semitism and religious bigotry...”[4] The Society of St. Pius X wasted no time in distancing itself from Bp. Williamson in a statement issued by the Superior General "Bishop Williamson’s statements do not in any way reflect the position of our Society."[5] Superior General of the SSPX, Bp. Bernard Fellay is reported to have ordered Williamson to correct his statement, saying "As soon as I saw this interview I told him to correct this nonsense... The sooner, the better," and said the Society didn't understand how the bishop could have been so mistaken.[6] Less than a week later, Bp. Williamson accepted Fellay's decision to relieve him of his post as rector of La Reja Seminary in Argentina.[7] According to the head of the Argentinian organization "National Institute Against Discrimination (INADI)", Maria Jose Lubertino, Williamson could potentially face legal charges in Argentina, and a prison sentence of up to three years.[8] In Europe, the French organization "International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism" publishes threats of pressing charges against the bishop for "contesting crimes against humanity". [9] In Germany, where denial of the holocaust is a crime, punishable with up to 5 years imprisonment, a German district attorney has instigated a criminal investigation against Bp. Williamson. Regensburg District Attorney Guenther Ruckdaeschel said authorities are investigating whether his remarks can be considered to be "inciting racial hatred."[10] Amidst concerns of being extradited to Germany and tried in criminal courts upon returning to the EU, Bp. Williamson was received into England on the 24th of Feb, now residing in London.







Endnotes:
[1] Inclusion of this link does not imply endorsement by VITW or its authors.
[2] adnkronosinternational, "Vatican: Cardinal slams bishop for Holocaust denial", Jan. 26, 2009
[3] Times Online, "Britain's Catholic bishops denounce anti-Semitism", Jan. 27,2009
[4] Catholic News Agency, "U.S. Catholic bishops condemn comments by SSPX bishop", Feb. 3, 2009
[5] Superior General Bernard Fellay, General Statement, Jan. 27, 2009
[6] Spiegel Online, "Head of SSPX Calls on Williamson to Correct 'Nonsense'", Feb. 10, 2009
[7] Rorate Caeli, "Confirmed: Williamson Removed", Feb. 9, 2009
[8] Deutsche Welle News, "Holocaust Revisionist Put Under Pressure by Church, Courts", Feb. 17, 2009
[9] JTA, "French Group will charge bishop", Feb. 11, 2009
[10] CNN News, "Holocaust-denying bishop loses court battle"

Vatican Removes Excommunication on Society of St. Pius X

On January 24th of this year it was reported that the sentence of excommunication imposed upon the Society of St. Pius X in July of 1988 was "lifted". An English translation of the decree was published by Rorate Caeli as follows:

Decree of the Congregation for Bishops

CONGREGATIO PRO EPISCOPIS

By way of a letter of December 15, 2008 addressed to His Eminence Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Mons. Bernard Fellay, also in the name of the other three Bishops consecrated on June 30, 1988, requested anew the removal of the latae sententiae excommunication formally declared with the Decree of the Prefect of this Congregation on July 1, 1988. In the aforementioned letter, Mons. Fellay affirms, among other things: "We are always firmly determined in our will to remain Catholic and to place all our efforts at the service of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. We accept its teachings with filial disposition. We believe firmly in the Primacy of Peter and in its prerogatives, and for this the current situation makes us suffer so much."

His Holiness Benedict XVI - paternally sensitive to the spiritual unease manifested by the interested party due to the sanction of excommunication and trusting in the effort expressed by them in the aforementioned letter of not sparing any effort to deepen the necessary discussions with the Authority of the Holy See in the still open matters, so as to achieve shortly a full and satisfactory solution of the problem posed in the origin - decided to reconsider the canonical situation of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta, arisen with their episcopal consecration.

With this act, it is desired to consolidate the reciprocal relations of confidence and to intensify and grant stability to the relationship of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X with this Apostolic See. This gift of peace, at the end of the Christmas celebrations, is also intended to be a sign to promote unity in the charity of the universal Church and to try to vanquish the scandal of division.

It is hoped that this step be followed by the prompt accomplishment of full communion with the Church of the entire Fraternity of Saint Pius X, thus testifying true fidelity and true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope with the proof of visible unity.

Based on the faculties expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, in virtue of the present Decree, I remit from Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta the censure of latae sententiae excommunication declared by this Congregation on July 1, 1988, while I declare deprived of any juridical effect, from the present date, the Decree emanated at that time.

Rome, from the Congregation for Bishops, January 21, 2009.

Card. Giovanni Battista Re
Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops

Interview with Fr. Cekada on Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX

Interview Posted at True Restoration II with Fr. Anthony Cekada

An Interview with Fr. Cekada Regarding Archbishop Lefebvre and the 1983 Split with the SSPX

This interview originally appeared in the October 2008 issue of The Four Marks

Fr. Anthony Cekada is a priest at St. Gertrude the Great in Cincinnati. He is a well-known author of many articles regarding the Traditional movement. He is currently working on finishing two books, one on the Mass, and one on the question of sedevacantism.

Stephen Heiner is the owner of Get Smarter Prep, a test prep company based in Overland Park, Kansas. He occasionally freelances for various secular and religious magazines and newspapers and has interviewed more bishops and priests in the traditional Catholic movement than any layperson to date.

VITW Bulletin

Notice:

For our regular readers: We apologize for the lack of material produced in the last few months [again] and regret to announce that the hiatus may last just a little bit longer. A lot has happened in the last few months apart from the internet and so it currently continues, and, as the majority of posts are composed by myself, I am become recently booked with lots of work which keeps me off of the internet much of the time, and therefore, postings have become much more infrequent, and therefore, at least for the present time, the posting schedule here at VITW is suspended, but there is hope that posts will resume soon with the continuation of commentaries on relations between the NO and tradition, particularly between apologists and spokespersons, namely concerning Mr. Shea's recent article on the topic.

For our newer readers: there is an archive of several dozen posts that will hopefully suffice for the duration of the hiatus.


And now, the News:

Original posts of a theological or philosophical nature are being suspended, at least as far as we can tell, indefinitely, however, posts of a cyclopedic, speculatory, or reportial nature will resume as ordinary upon the lifting of the hiatus.


However, you can still visit some of our friends, contributors or colleagues listed in our links lists.

Thanks to all and God Bless.

Rev. Haydock on the Language of the Liturgy

"Did the word of God first come out from you? This he says, to check these new preachers, by putting them in mind, that they are not the first, nor the only Christians, and so must conform themselves to the discipline practised in other Churches, especially since, as their apostle, he hath delivered them the commandments of the Lord. And if any man know not, will not acknowledge, and follow these rules, he shall not be known; God will not know, nor approve his ways. The pretended reformers, from the expressions with which the apostle blames the abuse some new converts made of the gift of tongues, think they have found a plausible argument to reprehend Catholic, for using the same Latin tongue in the Mass, and in the public liturgy. They consider not, whether they have the same reasons to find fault with the present discipline of the Church, as St. Paul then had to blame the Corinthians: whether the circumstances be the same or different: they think it enough that Latin, which is used in the Mass, is a language not understood by a great many ignorant people, and therefore they can say with St. Paul, that an idiot, or an unlearned man, knows not when to say Amen to what he hears. Two things offer themselves here to the consideration of every man, who is disposed to judge impartially. 1. Whether the same reasons and motives now subsist for blaming the Catholics. 2ndly, whether the conveniences and inconveniences, duly examined, it be found more commendable to perform the public liturgy, in those, which are the most general languages, as in Latin or Greek, or to have all liturgies turned into as many tongues, as the ignorant people understand and speak in different places. As to the first, St. Paul does not absolutely forbid the use of this gift of tongues, that were not understood, even by any one (as hath been already observed). All that he blames is, that many, who valued themselves on this gift, spoke at the same time altogether strange tongues, which none understood, but those who had another gift of the Spirit, called the interpretation of speeches, on which account in these meetings there was nothing but confusion, without any profit, edification, or instruction, at a time, and in such circumstances, when instructions were absolutely necessary, both for the new converted Christians, and also for the infidels, who flocked thither as much as the Christians. The case is now quite different, when none but Catholics meet, (especially at the Mass) who have been instructed from their infancy, what they are to believe, as to the mysteries of faith, and what they ought to practise, as to the commandments, the sacraments, prayer, and other points, which they have in their catechisms, or which have been delivered to them by catechetical discourses and instructions. And if they have been happily converted, or are upon their conversion, they are always carefully instructed in the tongue which they understand, as to what they ought to believe, and in the duties of a Christian life. Besides this, all present are frequently instructed by sermons and exhortations, not only on Sundays and holidays, but daily in Advent and Lent, as it is the custom in Catholic countries. I know some of our adversaries have been persuaded, that we preach in Latin to the people; to be convinced of the contrary, let them come and hear us; it is the worst I wish them. As to the sacrifice of the Mass, which none but they who are priests, can offer for the people, of which also a great part, according to the institution of the Church, as the Council of Trent observes, (session 22. cap. 5.) is said with a low voice: it is not performed in Latin in the Western Church, or in Greek in the East, that the meaning of the words may be concealed, since the same Council has laid an express injunction upon all pastors, and upon all that have care of souls, that they frequently, and especially on Sundays, and holidays, expound to the people, what is contained in the Mass, to wit, the parts, and the ceremonies. See 22nd session, cap. 8.) And this command is again repeated, (session 24. cap. 7.) that they instruct the people in their mother tongue concerning the divine mysteries and sacraments. All that can read, may find the Mass translated into their own language, and the most ignorant are taught and instructed, that by the different parts are represented the death and sufferings of our Saviour, Christ: they are taught how to offer up at the same time their intention, their heart, and their prayers: to confess themselves sinners before God, as the priest does, how they ought to endeavour to praise, and adore Christ with the blessed spirits in heaven; how they ought to beg graces of God, by saying the Lord's prayer; how they ought, at the same time, at least in spirit and desire, to receive the holy sacrament of the eucharist, with a sincere repentance, with humility and devotion. Cannot all things, then, be done to edification, as St. Paul requires, though the words of the Mass, and public liturgy, be in a language which the ignorant do not understand, but which, of all others, is the most general! Now the second thing to be examined is, whether, all things duly considered, it be better to retain the public Church-offices in Latin, and in those ancient dead languages, as they are called, or to turn the liturgy into as many tongues, as are spoken in different places and countries! Our adversaries, by this new alteration which they have made, have gone against the judgment of all Christian Churches, both in the West and East, and in all parts of the world. For as Mons. Simon takes notice, in his Critics, all other Churches (the Protestant only excepted) have judged it expedient, to stick to the words and languages of their ancient liturgies, the Grecians to the ancient Greek, which now the ignorant among them do not understand; the like is to be said of the ancient Syriac, Arabic, Coptic, &c. And it is also observed, that the Israelites continued the reading of the law and the prophets, in the ancient Hebrew, which the common people of the Jews did not understand after their return from the Babylonian captivity. It is well known that Latin in this part of the world, is more generally spread and known, than any other language whatsoever. It is taught every where in all public schools. It is learnt, not only by the ministers of the Church, but by almost all gentlemen, and by persons of all conditions, the poorer sort only excepted. There is this great convenience, that the same priest can perform all the public Church-offices, in all places and kingdoms where he travels. All the faithful, whithersoever they have occasion to go, meet with the same Mass, and liturgy in the same words abroad, which they were accustomed to hear at home. The same uniformity is every where preserved without change or confusion. But according to the method introduced by the Protestants, the liturgy must be changed into as many different tongues, as there are countries and places, and in almost every century, as we see by experience, languages are liable and subject to considerable changes and alterations. From hence arises a danger of changes, as to the doctrine and belief of the faithful: errors and heresies are the consequences, that follow such frequent changes, especially, when by another false principle of the said reformers, every private man and woman has a right to expound the hard and obscure place of the holy Scriptures, which make up the chief and greatest part of all public liturgies in all Christian Churches. I might ask of the Protestants, whether the ignorant people at lest, and idiots, as St. Paul calls them, understand the meaning of the Psalms, when they are sung in Hopkins's rhymes; though they may perhaps know when to say Amen, with the rest. Nor yet does every ignorant man know what the word itself, Amen, signifies, and therefore knows not what he answers. I cannot but here take notice of an unfair way of proceeding, even in the best Protestant translation, by sometimes adding in this chapter the word unknown, and sometimes omitting it. All Catholics are willing to allow, that by the gift of speaking tongues, St. Paul means tongues unknown, though the word unknown is not found so much as once, neither in the Latin, nor even so much as in any one Greek manuscript. The Protestant translators, for tongues, have put unknown tongues, in all the verses, where St. Paul blames the abuse of this gift; to wit, ver. 2. 4. 13. 14. 19. 27. but they make no such addition, where St. Paul either commends, or permits the speaking in tongues not understood, as ver. 5. where he says, I would have you to speak tongues; and ver. 29. where he says, forbid not to speak tongues. It is evident, that there is the very same reason for the addition, or the omission equally in all these verses. Is this to translate faithfully? I would by no means judge rashly, even of any adversary; but it looks as if both the addition and omission was with a design of making this popular objection seem to be of greater force against this point of discipline, and practice of the Catholics, and indeed of all Christian Churches." (Witham)

- Haydock Bible Commentary on I Cor. Ch. XIV, Ver. 36-38.

Ax Grinding and Novus Ordo Apologists, Pt. III

"Those Angry Apologists!" The last time it was Mr. Armstrong's diatribe over traditionalists and the liturgy, this time it's Mr. Shea, which is no surprise, given his track record. Mark Shea recently published an article in the InsideCatholic, titled "Those Angry Traditionalists". Shea begins his article with an immediate ridicule on traditionalist opposition to liturgical abuse and change.

"But there is also the danger that we can forget that the Mass is God's before it is ours. We can start to regard it as our property. Certainly liturgical abusers are doing this. But "saviors of the liturgy" can forget in their own way as well. They can come to relish liturgical abuses because, well, it's gratifying to one's pride to be the Savior of the Liturgy, isn't it?"[1]

It may seem that Mr. Shea has some kind of flout over pointing out symptoms of a certain problem, i.e. Vatican II, which traditionalists commonly engage in to demonstrate why the "Vatican II reforms" were not, in fact, a good thing, nor, were they, necessarily "reforms". Either that or he simply doesn't understand his subject.
As long as there is a disagreement over a given topic, the opposing sides will inevitably parade their polemics in an attempt to demonstrate the error of the other side and justify one's own. Of course, one who disagrees with the "reforms" are going to present those reforms as being bad, and of course, those who agree with them are going to present them as good a holy. We would appear to have a pretty good case of this dichotomy illustrated for us by Mr. Shea and a few of his colleagues. Rather than apologetics, we have received an invitation to battle polemics.

"Ever attended a clown Mass? Me neither."

Presupposing my answer would be negative aren't we? Yeah, those things aren't a reality, they're fringe wackos committing abuses which are few and far between, right?
Wrong, they happen all the time and the NO hierarchy does not lift a finger to put a stop to it, usually. But guess what would happen if a priest said an unauthorized Latin Mass?
Yeah, you guessed it, they'd be closin' up shop this time tomorrow.
Just to substantiate my point, I'll bring up a recent testimony posted on a popular traditionalist forum:

"So on the way home from work today I decide to stop off at a Church that was having Mass. First off it's NO shaped like a triangle the inside is completely empty no decoration statuary etc. except for an abstract Crucifix behind the "alter". The alter cloth was done in rainbow colors as was the cloth over the pulpit and the podium where the cantor/screamer stands. Mass started out pretty much the norm in the NO. Everyone was talking some kids were running around the church and the little boy next to me was playing with his toy truck with out a care from mom.
The Priest came prancing in during the "gathering song". And ad libbed the penitential prayers to remove any mention of sin. Then the usual went on with the exception that in the "prayers of the people" we were to pray that "our Gov't stop harassing "migrant workers".
Now it gets odd. Their was no offertory none, zippo not even the Non/offertory offertory of the NO. The Priest said at the "pray that this sacrifice may be...." He said "pray sisters and brothers that our gifts may be acceptable to God" The response" may the lord receive our gifts".
The Priest did not elevate the host just the Paten. There were no kneelers so I knelt anyway and got some major condescending looks from a very mannish looking short haired womyn and everyone around me. At the "ecce agnus dei" the Priest said" behold Jesus who reconciles all women and men, may we come to this table joyfully to partake of the lords holy supper of bread and wine" At communion time I tried to get into the line where the Priest was but was shoved into the "proper" line by an usher.

Are these just super duper abuses or was this crap even valid. I was so pissed on the way home I ran a stop sign." [2]

And Need I post a video of the Sydney Papal Mass?
Or of the Yankee Stadium Mass here in the US?
It would seem that these kinds of things are not only permitted, but condoned by the NO, I can cite a few examples of NO Cardinals doing just that.
This should demonstrate sufficiently that these are not just rare abuses being trumped up by traditionalists with an agenda, these are real problems and they affect real people and they happen all the time.

"To be sure, I've seen lovingly photographed liturgical bizarrenesses from time to time chronicled on the Internet. And I've seen some enthusiasts for the Latin Mass often talk as though such stupid liturgical antics are happening everywhere all the time and that they alone stand between the Church and the complete and utter circus-ization of the Mass. But have I been to an actual clown Mass? Nope. Never saw one -- and I live in the Archdiocese of Seattle."

Okay, so Mr. Shea says that since he hasn't seen that, they aren't all that common, and, what's more, those "angry traditionalists" are exploiting this stuff, when it actually does happen, and hyping it up to build up their own platform.
Mr. Shea says he's never seen this stuff, so how in the world is this man supposed to be able to relate to what is going on? How is he supposed to pretend that he can respond to something he's not even seen, and therefore can't fathom why someone would be all up in the air about it? I think the question that needs to be asked is "have you ever seen a reverently celebrated Novus ordo mass?", me neither. The thing is that this stuff does happen all the time, and it happens in a lot of places, I can get Mr Shea a couple of dozen examples from real live people who are subjected to this stuff right here and now off the top of my head if he should be so interested.

"We have an obligation to do our best to celebrate the Mass reverently and worthily."

This is, I think, the point traditionalists strive to make, we are obligated to give unto God our best, to treat Him reverently and humbly, not to make a party out of it. I'm not so sure that most novus ordos know that; in fact, most novus ordos don't even go to mass, so why even ask?

"...the Mass is God's before it is ours."

I concur, and I think most traditionalists do too, it is not ours for the changing, it's not ours to improve, it belongs to God, it is His property, and thus we should respect it. This is what traditionalists try to stress, the taking of the mass, and wholesale reinventing of it by modernist innovators has demeaned the liturgy, it has tried to make it a thing purely natural, a thing which belongs to the people, to change and "adapt" to suit the people's every whim. It is an attitude which abhors a respect for tradition, a thing which disdains a static truth, which was the programme of the modernist innovators at the Council. It would seem that most novus ordos don't know who the mass belongs to.

"We can start to regard it as our property."

This was a primary error of the modernists, they regarded the deposit of tradition to be a thing wholly subject to change on a whim. They regarded it as a thing belonging to mankind, that should be suited to him and his every desire, which is why it turned out to be such a disaster, it's aim was to please men, and not God, quite simply, the aim was one of apostasy [see this post].

"But "saviors of the liturgy" can forget in their own way as well. They can come to relish liturgical abuses because, well, it's gratifying to one's pride to be the Savior of the Liturgy, isn't it?"

Lo, and behold, we have been given a new name to add to the growing list [I dislike the labelling, even the label of "traditionalist", it introduces a hermeneutic of discontinuity, that those who defend tradition must differentiate themselves from just "Catholicism", a traditionalist is a Catholic, pure and simple, not some disgruntled, nostalgic, and ignorant dissenter, he holds to Catholicism as it was before it was regarded as merely human, and thus subject to wholesale change. This sort of thing is marginalization, an attempt to cast an opponent in a bad light]. We are now "saviors of the liturgy". And I guess that makes Mr. Shea the "savior of truth", then, doesn't it? "Defending the Church's truth against the evil traditionalist schismatics and the Protestants." [New taglines made while U w8]. Mr Shea admittedly does not have any experience with some of these things, so what makes him think he's qualified to go about judging the disposition and/or motives of traditionalist Catholics?

"When I entered the Church I heard of the dreaded Clown Mass. I got the impression that such things were endemic, and that I was entering a war zone where I would have to struggle every day with unspeakable outrages against the Eucharist. It's been 20 years and the worst I've had to put up with is listening to "Anthem" now and then."

Maybe Mark should get out more. If I go right down the road, I get to behold some wonderful singing, jumping and dancing, spiky hair, rock n' roll, and whatever you like, in what purports to be a Catholic liturgy, in a diocesan "church", which is built like an aquatic complex. What, shouldn't I be angry about that? You might ask, am I angry about that stuff happening? Of course I am, and I'm sure the angels and our Lord are quite fumed about it too.

"That note sums up why I have no interest in becoming a liturgical fussbudget."

Not only are we "saviors of the liturgy", we are also "liturgical fussbugets",
ain't that sweet.

"the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness and self-control, not bitterness..."

I whole-heartedly agree. If I do love God, am I supposed to not be angry at sacrilege?
And he speaks of charity while slinging the accusation of "liturgical fussbudget" around?

"People who act and talk like this are going to have to figure out how to be fully Catholic or they are going to disappear."

I guess we can agree on this point. It's so inspiring to see Mr. Shea echo this sentiment when he calls Catholic "liturgical fussbudgets" and "saviors of the liturgy". Such consistency and harmony... it's inspiring, it really is.

"A true Catholic faith evangelizes; like it or not, this is not evangelizing, but shouting "Repel boarders" and then pouring boiling oil on your own archers. Such treatment of brother and sister Catholics is, well, evil..."

Once again, I agree with Mr. Shea, but what I find fascinating is the lack of "apologetics" towards traditionalists by NO apologists, it's usually negative accusations, "traditionalists are this and that, or this". If he wants some evangelizing, why not agree to come together and do some friendly discussion about the matter over a coffee and some donuts with a primary traditionalist spokesman? Or, at least, a debate?

"Here's the thing: In the early Church, Christians did not huddle up and demand that those around them understand the things they care about. That's because the command they had been given was "Go therefore into every nation, teaching them to observe what I have commanded." They were a missionary Church conquering the world with love, not a Fortress desperately fighting to bring back the good old days."

Uh oh, Mr. Shea has just violated the hermeneutic of ecumenicity. That's the whole goal of ecumenism, to "understand" and to be friends with those who are not already in the fold. Why not follow John Paul the Great's example here?
By the way, His Holiness Pope Pius said there was no going back to the early days of the Church.

"But that is often the impression I have gotten from many (though certainly not all) Traditionalists. Like it or not, discourse among a great many Traditionalists is filled with anger and contempt for Catholics who do not share their burning interest in traditional forms of piety."

This, however, has ring of truth to it, there are those who are not too charitable towards those who are not already in agreement to them, but I don't think that they are "a great many", it's really a bad example of what a traditionalist is. And, one more thing, why not criticize traditionalism as it, the actual claims and principles of the movement, instead of picking out poor examples? It works both ways, I can litter my page here with liturgical abuse and all kinds of scandalous behaviour by novus ordos, but that ain't gonna get nothin' done, if I want to hash the NO I'd go right the source of novusordoism. Not only does that serve my goal, to evangelize the NO, but no one could claim that my examples are just occasional bad examples if I could demonstrate it from the primary NO voices. It would honest, clear, and incontestable. We'd be playing on a level playing field, and that's fair enough.

"So while I've never seen a Clown Mass, I have encountered lots of angry Trads who have compared the Paul VI rite to a Black Mass, made clear that "Novus Ordo types" are second class Catholics, spent a great deal of time obsessing over Jews, sneered at John Paul II and Benedict "Novus Ordo Popes" who have compromised the Tradition..."

Once again, Mr. Shea does not even know why the trads would be angry anyway, so why's he so angry about the "angry trad", when he can't even relate? If he can't understand what makes a trad tick, what makes him think that he can criticize their dispositions?
Perhaps Mr. Shea would like some examples of NO pontiffs committing such a compromise? There are many examples one could bring to mind.

"...threatened people in my parish physically, smeared good priests with nasty rumor campaigns..."

Now I've never heard of this stuff happening, when's the last time a trad physically threatened you or someone you know? Now don't get me wrong, I ain't justifying this kind of behaviour, it's unCatholic, for which no excuse is to made, Catholics pray for others in charity, not exhibit this kind of behaviour, but what's this got to do with the issue at hand?
What if I posted examples of ticked off novus ordos? Why is this even brought forward? What is this supposed to accomplish? What's this guy's deal here? Why are we even talking about this? Is he trying to imply that we're supposed to generally be like that or what? I mean that's just not right. Mr Shea apparently is unaware of the frequency and extent to which these NO liturgical abuses happen, so obviously, his entire gyst here is off, because his whole complaint here is that we're trumping up some kind of extremity to accomplish our selfish agenda, but excuse me, traditionalists ain't the only ones complaining about this stuff, even the Protestants are scandalized by it, the indult NO's are ashamed of it, and traditionalists are appalled by it. Naturally, because all of these people believe that sacraments and worship are sacred things to be treated as such. So, obviously, this stuff is seen as sacrilege and is abhorred. So is this reaction to the abuse of holy things supposed to characterize us all as "angry fussbudgets"?
This guy admits that he's never seen this stuff, but yet he feels that he's qualified to criticise others who may actually have been subjected to it, and he's the one acting like traditionalists don't know what they're talking about? Instead of Criticising others for not being charitable and modest in their undertakings, why doesn't he practice it and at least demonstrate to us what a good example of Christian charity and humility really are, and then at least have a leg to stand on when he does criticise like that.
I think Mr. Shea, and some of his colleagues, should stick to his area of expertise and dazzle us with wonderful arguments in favour of the truth, instead of haphasardly criticising other Catholics as they try to cope with the spiritual disaster of Vatican II.




Endnotes:
[1] Mark Shea, Inside Catholic, "Those Angry Traditionalists", August 13, 2008
[2] Baskerville, Fisheaters Forum, "Was this a valid Mass?", Sept. 20, 2008

Strike One, Strike Two, Strike Three...

About this time last year, the CMRI lost some of their religious when some 15 of their nuns defected to the novus ordo. And now, Rorate Caeli has recently reported, and others have echoed, that the Transalpine Redemptorists of the SSPX in Scotland have defected to the NO as well. The father Michael Mary, of the same order, states that his petition for the lifting of the canonical censures on the priests to be suspended had not only been heard but granted, and that now the order is in "undisputed and peaceful posession of Communion with the Holy See".

The news is expected, given the issuance of Summorum Pontificum and the "negotiations" between the society and Rome, most recently the Vatican's "ultimatum", putting some pressure on the society and its parishioners, who have for some time longed to be able to be in communion with Rome.
Some follow the society because they can't stomach the modernism and changes since the council, others do so because they like the old mass better than the new one, and some because they believe in the spirit of the society, and others for a whole host of reasons, but they pretty much all have immense respect for Benedict.
Given this and the broadened access to the Latin Liturgy, the society is taking some losses as those who followed the society primarily for reasons of liturgy flock to the new "motu masses", where they can go to mass in communion with Rome while avoiding "schismatics", as the case of the transalpine Redemptorists demonstrates. Recent events such as these may lead to the possible further fracturing of the Society. Only time will tell.