"Obedience is the surest way to sanctity, as is demonstrated through the Saints time and again. We have no other choice than to trust Mother Church. One can not separate themselves from the Pope and Magisterium without risking danger in our personal lives."
I would say, fair enough, this is true as long as Mother Church is the one really at work, and not renegade churchmen; as long as the Pope is teaching and practicing the Faith; as long as the Magisterium is in fact coherent with perennial doctrine and sound discipline.
Let's not forget that the "obedience above all things" mentality has been a major instrument in the dissolution of Catholic tradition and the sex abuse crisis. I am someone who tries to see things from all points of view, without committing myself definitively in any one direction. I like to say that I view the diocesan TLMs, the Society, the independents, and the Ecclesia Dei communities as being like Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. All are needed to win through to victory.
I view the rupture with Catholic tradition after Vatican II to be a metaphysical wound in the Church that must be healed if the Church is ever to flourish again. Moreover, I view the loss of it as a sharp and profound loss for the spiritual lives of all the faithful. Therefore, I regard the retention of the TLM as a life-and-death matter, as something more important than obedience to those who would crush it or who would treat the faithful attached to it as second-class citizens. And just as a homeowner can use lethal force against an intruder breaking in, though he couldn't do that in any ordinary situation, so I believe that there are times when bold steps need to be taken against those who are violating our rights and duties as Catholics.
It's clear that all of us agree about this to one degree or another, or else why would we ever bother having any attachment to an old rite that Pope Paul VI made very clear should be discontinued? The traditionalist movement exists only because it disagrees with the prudential judgments of several popes in a row.
Legal positivism is no way to live a coherent Catholic life, since it would mean putting on and putting off our practices like garments, depending on who happens to be in office. No sane person had ever thought or acted that way prior to Vatican II, but now it seems to be taken as a virtue. This is the mess that has to be cleaned up, and I pray that future popes and bishops will be equal to the task. They sure aren't right now.
May God protect the FSSP, ICKSP, and IBP. All three orders are doing so much to preserve the Faith throughout the world. The two IBP priests in North America are so kind and genuinely happy to bring the Faith to those around them. Cardinals in Rome are so far removed from this kind and joyful grassroots ministry; how could they possibly make just pastoral decisions regarding any of these orders. I pray that the Ecclesia Dei orders may be permitted to continue to offer only the Mass of the Ages, for they are truly the lifeline of the Church and her faithful.
Exactly. The absurdity of men thousands of miles away in Italy at their desks, canceling entire communities of Catholics, is patent and grievous - men who haven't shown a lick of interest in getting to know these people as people. It is the exact opposite of the high-falutin' rhetoric about accompaniment, "the smell of the sheep," and all that other stuff they claim to believe in.
Our Bishops need to understand their situation runs parallel to Henry VIII's England. They can be a St John Fisher and defend authentic Catholicism or forever have their reputations forever tarnished by following illicit and ungodly orders from the apostates in Rome. They wear red for a reason! Prayer helped us get a better president. We are well past time to start praying for a new pope.
At some point we really do have to start asking ourselves what 'being in communion' with what we are calling the 'local church' really means. When these people continually make public statements and perform public acts that clearly show that THEY are not in communion with the Catholic faith handed down to us from the Apostles then why do I want to be in communion with them? When their leader makes public statements saying that the hindu gods are as sure a path to the divine as Jesus Christ why do I want to be in communion with him? At what point am I liable to judgement for seeking to be in communion with these people?
The only solution to the problem of the diocese you wrote about here is for the actual bishop of Tyler, Texas to return to his diocese and reassert his authority.
I sympathize greatly, but at the end of the day, either we believe there is a visible hierarchy, or we do not. If there is one, then no matter how corrupt it is, we must retain some link to it, if only (as I suggest here) a votum or desire to be in communion with the successors of the Apostles, in spite of their crimes and errors. There are some interesting thoughts along these lines in a recent article by Dr Joseph Shaw:
I understand what you're saying and this is something that I have wrestled with mightily but my objection is very practical: how can I practically be in communion who publicly preaches a religion that is not Catholicism? Nor is this religion even any recognizable form of what could be called 'Christianity'. This is not simply a false opinion about some doctrine or another, such as the particular judgement, as bad as that would be: it is a denial of the fundamental necessity of Jesus Christ which is the absolute foundational principle of the Catholic Church, its purpose and its identity. How can I call that person a successor of the Apostles, no matter what robes they are wearing? How can I practically be in communion with that person?
This is not a denial of the visible hierarchy nor is it any acceptance of sedevacantism. I personally don't think there was all that much difference between Pius XII and John XXIII anyways so the sedevacantist worldview is ridiculous. But something has happened to the papacy and to the episcopacy and these issues have to be confronted head on.
I suppose my mentality is somewhat naive, medieval, and magical. What I mean is that I believe Holy Orders does something ontologically to a man, so even when he's a complete bastard and heretic, he is still objectively in a certain line of Melchisedek and (for a bishop) of the Apostles. So this is why the hierarchy can remain in existence from century to century, despite the bad behavior and false views of some of its members. In other words, just as Augustine said against the Donatists that it wasn't the morality or opinions of the minister that allowed a sacramental effect to take place, so too in the case of orders, and of the continuity of the visible Church. Thus, I am not in communion with their errors or crimes, but I am in communion with who and what they ARE by the "ex opere operato" effect of the sacraments. This may seem almost childlishly materialistic but then again, I think sacraments were made for us poor material children, so that we could hold on to something concrete and simple.
I don't say this clears up the mess or the confusion, but it helps me to clarify my thoughts as to how (e.g.) I am in communion with Pope Francis. In a sense, God is using him like a brick in a building, to maintain its structure, even if Francis's soul will be rejected by the builder when it comes time to sort out his personal fate.
I don't think your attitude is naive. I think it is quite correct and that is what makes this situation so confusing. I personally have received Communion from the hand of and had my sins absolved by priests who, judging from the content of their homilies, had little to no belief in the Catholic religion. Yet I knew that the effect of their sacramental actions was very real. That is what throws us into a quandry.
That said while the Sacraments are the lifeblood of the Church without the proper Confession of the Faith their effects become limited and ultimately counterproductive and deadening. It is ultimately the proper Confession of Faith that will sustain us. After all that line from the Roman Canon speaks of being in communion with those who preserve and hand down the orthodox and Apostolic Faith.
The purpose of Francis' office and that of his confreres, while it does have an extremely important sacramental role, is to teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ - and if they publicly defect from that role and teach a Gospel contrary to the Gospel of Christ then if I am going to be in communion with that I might as well say that I am in communion with the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran for all the good it will do me.
I think what you say is true of confessing the orthodox faith, and therefore, indirectly, over time, heretics and unbelievers will wear away the confession of that faith in the Church, regardless of the presence of sacraments. And needless to say, the #1 condition for the fruitful reception of a sacrament is to have supernatural faith (the #2 condition is to have supernatural charity, that is, to be "in a state of grace" as the shorthand has it).
You write, "I would say, fair enough, this is true as long as Mother Church is the one really at work, and not renegade churchmen; as long as the Pope is teaching and practicing the Faith; as long as the Magisterium is in fact coherent with perennial doctrine and sound discipline."
This is the tricky part though, isn't it? Who am I -- who are you -- to determine whether or not this is the case?
Any sophisticated Protestant or Orthodox will say that this is precisely why he rejects the Catholic faith: the Roman See, he will claim, departed from the straight way centuries ago, and has long ceased to guard and present the faith once delivered in an authentic and integrated manner.
I understand in principle the distinction between true and false obedience. But in practice, how do you prevent yourself from crossing the line into schism, perhaps half-wittingly and with the best of intentions? The fact that solid and thoughtful traditionalists come to radically different conclusions on this matter is itself evidence of the danger inherent in the "independent option," the "Lefebvre option," and similar courses of action.
I am very sympathetic to the gist of the article, and even in agreement with many of the details, but I admit that I am ultimately grasped by a great deal of wariness and even fear. If we neglect the instruction and direction of our bishops, we may keep the form of our religion, but just the form . . .
For my part Phillip I would answer that what the Protestants did was to depart from the Catholic religion and invent their own. They stated that because of the personal moral corruption of the Rennaissance popes that the entire office of the Papacy had never been valid which is completely ridiculous. Nobody here is doing that.
As to who I am to determine whether they are coherent with the perennial doctrine and sound discipline I will tell you: I am a baptized and confirmed Catholic who knows his religion. You do not have to be a Thomistic theologian with seventeen letters after his name to know that creating some ersatz blessing contrived to look like the 'marriage' of two men who are having ersatz sex with one another is not in keeping with sound discipline. Nor does one have to be a bishop or a cardinal to know that a man who publicly proclaims that the hindu gods are as sure a path to the divine as Jesus Christ is not keeping with the perennial doctrine of the Catholic Church.
"[W]hat the Protestants did was to depart from the Catholic religion and invent their own."
This comment proves my point, though. The original Protestants appealed to the fathers and the councils, and they asserted that the *Roman church* had departed from the ancient, orthodox, and universal religion to invent its own ("Romanism," "papism," etc.). This framework is maintained by many serious "magisterial" Protestants to this day: they aver that they are the real Catholics, that followers of the popes are apostates, and so on. Naturally, I don't find their arguments persuasive, nor do I think that the so-called reformation is a perfect analogue for our own situation. Nevertheless, we shouldn't be naive. Schismatics and heretics almost always regard themselves as the heirs and stewards of some true and authentic form of Christianity that has been neglected or perverted by the contemporary hierarchy, and particularly the Roman pontiff.
I can't emphasize enough how apocalyptically evil our current situation is. Catholics are already in danger of becoming Protestants, unbelievers, or agents of sacrilege *by following what Pope Francis teaches* or what many other prelates teach. I need not remind you of the Amoris Laetitia business, or of Fiducia Supplicans, or Abu Dhabi & Singapore & Pachamama, and on and on. We do not have the luxury of "just following the pope/cardinals/bishops" for, as Our Lady at Akita noted, we now have bishops against bishops, cardinals against cardinals - and, obviously, popes against popes, at least in the sense of a current pope dissenting from all his predecessors on, e.g., the death penalty.
There is no easy way around this crisis - you have to go straight through it, by knowing your Faith from sound, traditional, reliable sources, such as the unanimous witness of hundreds of preconciliar catechisms, which obviously voices the universal ordinary Magisterium, which is infallible. What worries me about your comments is that they strike a note of irrationalism: "We cannot know what Catholicism is EXCEPT by adhering to whatever the pope says it is at any given moment (and regardless of whether it was something different yesterday)."
The fact that some heretics and schismatics consider themselves the guardians of traditional doctrine does not change anything I have written above. The Protestant and Orthodox errors have been expressly and authoritatively condemned. And, frankly, the errors of the modernists have also been condemned. We are standing firm on solid rock.
Where mistakes can certainly occur is in the prudential domain - what to DO in a crisis situation. And there, no one has infallible judgment - not even the pope, whose infallibility does not extend to practical and prudential matters. Prelates should be given the benefit of the doubt to the extent possible, but there are times when one sees that they no longer deserve it.
I readily agree that we find ourselves in a most lamentable situation, and that the current pontificate is truly and even uniquely disastrous.
Yet I don't think I'm guilty of irrationalism. On the contrary, I'm searching for a consistent epistemological framework, a stable principle of knowledge. Traditionally, that meant and entailed thinking with the Church, a task made easy (modernly, at least) by the relative clarity and reliability of episcopal and especially papal teaching. As we both recognize, that clarity and reliability is substantially reduced today. Thus, I don't pretend to have located the object of my inquiry.
It seems, on the one hand, that we have to avoid an approach that pits the present magisterium against the past magisterium or vice versa. A trite remark, but indisputable, I think. After all, this is precisely the strategy of the hyper-papalists. On the other hand, it's increasingly difficult to achieve a synthesis of the two. Thus your frustration (and mine!).
It's just that I can't quite bring myself to wholeheartedly accept the proposition that cleaving to the teaching office of the Roman bishop will conduct one into the cesspool of heresy and sacrilege. Hence my wariness about certain remedies you advance with confidence. I understand how one arrives at this conclusion -- I just haven't arrived there myself (yet).
Perhaps my reluctance is simply an obstinate adherence to an imbalanced or under-developed doctrine of the papacy and, more generally, the episcopate and its magisterium. Still, you surely realize that you are advancing a startling notion that doesn't immediately sit well with a Catholic sensibility trained to grant the pontiff and the bishops immense deference and trust. (That doesn't mean that you're wrong, of course.)
I guess that's really the sum total of my contribution to the discussion: despondence and uncertainty. A sad state of affairs, indeed.
Everything you say resonates with me. It was a struggle for many years for me to see that this "Catholic sensibility" was in fact being manipulated by enemies of the Faith to undermine it. Yes, that starts to sound like heavy-duty conspiracy theory but there's actually plenty of evidence now that it's been happening for decades, with of course limited success - I do not believe that the Lord would allow His entire Church to be deceived - but with success nonetheless.
I think the difficulty is much worse than "reduced clarity." It is a case of real errors being propounded, as in the May 2, 2024 statement that I signed along with several others:
We cannot be seeking an Hegelian synthesis of "thesis and antithesis," which is very much how (regrettably) Ratzinger tended to approach difficulties. I don't think this is the same as St. Thomas Aquinas looking at an objection to find the grain of truth in it. It's a more evolutionary notion, whereby what Catholics in the past accepted or rejected may, over time, become something we now reject or accept respectively.
As you can see from this very Substack post, I insist very strongly on the papal and episcopal principles - but I insist on them as objective elements and standards, not as blanket justifications for however their incumbents wish to use (or rather, abuse) them. It is precisely because I am a hierarchalist (if I may coin a word) that I am compelled to hold our hierarches to account. They owe it to us to preach the Faith and to practice it, and they are not making it hard to see that they are failing in both regards.
I don't want to invent my own religion. I want to follow the Catholic religion. The same Catholic religion that was preached by the papacy all the way until the beginning of the twentieth century. And this is all very documented. We are not inventing anything new and claiming it was the religion of the first century or something like that. We are following the actual Catholic religion as the hierarchy consistently taught it throughout the centuries right up until the twentieth century.
In reading about the Latin Mass suppression in Tyler Texas I am filled with anger. It is the same sense that I have when praying outside the local abortion mill. The people running these places are pure evil, like those in the Vatican.
Yes, righteous anger is the only rational response.
Again, in the inspired words of the Psalms:
"O that you would kill the wicked, O God, and that the bloodthirsty would depart from me—those who speak of you maliciously, and lift themselves up against you for evil! Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you? I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them my enemies."
Strong words, but strong medicine is necessary for a potentially fatal illness. Although the chapel where I attend Mass long predates my conversion to the Faith, the stories I am told bear out what you propose. In the 1970s some of the faithful could not stomach the NO and its attendant ills. An old priest provided the Mass for some time, and the faithful even built an ostensible "garage" that was actually a chapel. Eventually the flock came under the care of the SSPX and today is a thriving community. Regarding relations with the hierarchy, while the bishop appears less-than-happy about the SSPX presence, the diocese works well on marriage and other canonical issues, so it doesn't have to be adversarial.
We have seen a number of dioceses where, in a genuine spirit of charity, the local bishop has entered into friendly relations with the SSPX, freely granting marriage permissions and collaborating in social and ethical outreach. This is how it should be.
This article has been incredibly helpful. I am an adult convert and kind of a bad Catholic, although perhaps poorly catechized might be more accurate. We moved to Tyler in 2022 and bounced around various Masses in the area, both TLM and NO. One of my young sons preferred the TLM and another preferred "the one in English" while I preferred whichever one had the priest with the greatest devotion to Christ in the Eucharist (it was Bishop Strickland, hands down, no comparison.)
Witnessing all of this BS coming from the Vatican has really shaken me. The Pachmama stuff was clearly wrong, but I naively assumed that the Pope just didn't know. As things became obviously worse, I was pretty ok with ignoring the Pope and just trying follow Jesus and follow the solid church teachings. This past year has felt personal. Like I was a college student coming home from break to find that my step dad was beating mom and some of my siblings and I was powerless to save anyone.
Recently, we have been taking shelter in a protestant church (again, bad Catholic) on the mindset that if we're mortally wounded, we wouldn't stop to ask what denomination the hospital was, but it became clear that we're now healthy enough to get a kick in the pants to go back out and fight. I've been grappling with questions that have no clear answers and talking to any Christian that has the fruits of the Spirit, mostly just racking up sympathy and prayers. I've been digging through articles and blog posts, mostly going around in circles. My unbaptized dad and I both came to the conclusion that the Pope is somehow heretical, but still the Pope. I've thrown myself on God's mercy and was led to renewed prayer and fasting and then, boom, yet another betrayal from the Vatican, and then, finally like storm clouds breaking up, answers pouring out from Dr. K! So thank you, thank you. I just subscribed today so that I could finish reading this article. I'm planning to read all the links and books and I'm prepared to support my local faithful priest however I can. Please pray for me and my family! Any advice is welcome, and please be patient if any of you Tyler people see us sticking out like a bunch of scruffy vagabonds amongst all of the regular beautiful people at Mass!
Thanks be to God you have found your way back to the Church in spite of the infidelities of some of her leaders. This is not exactly a new phenomenon, as we see in both the Old and New Testaments. Nevertheless, it is always a great trial, and we must bear it as Jesus bore His Cross. There is always a light at the end of the tunnel - it is God's light, He who IS light - and that light is at the end of our life as well as the end of time. Meanwhile, here below, it is ours to be soldiers of Christ and to wage the battle of virtue and tradition in the face of a hostile secular world and a secularized Church hierarchy. Be strong and keep the Faith!
These are dark days in the Diocese of Tyler. St. Joseph the Worker is a great parish with excellent, but overworked, priests. How the needs will be met for a growing traditional Catholic community in the diocese is yet to be seen. But, unfortunately, while your sound recommendation could meet the need of the hour, there is little possibility that even the fine orthodox priests in the diocese will have the courage necessary to meet the needs of the traditional community. Long formation in modernity, and unquestioning obedience to a hierarchy still clueless about the impact and effects of Vatican II is devastating to the soul of good diocesan priests—even those touched by the attraction of tradition. But, we pray.
This has been my experience: that seminary formation in a sense removes the spine from the men, so that they have no will anymore to stand up to evils. In fact, I have frequently heard of moments in seminary where the more traditional seminarians are literally forced to do things against their conscience - e.g., to stand for communion rather than kneel, or to receive in the hand, or to help distribute communion themselves - in order to break their resolve to be traditional. I know there are exceptions - men who retain all their wits and their fortitude - but seem, sadly, to be just that, exceptional.
I do not know much about the situation on the ground in Tyler. If only the priests affected would band together and refuse to comply with the new diktat, things could get very interesting. The idea is still very strong that a priest must always obey his bishop. Indeed he should when the situation is normal, but if anyone thinks the current situation is normal, he needs a head examination.
How profoundly sad. Every time I hear of this happening I think of the diocesan church my husband and I attended in Corpus Christ, Texas where TLM was celebrated every day. It was one of the liveliest churches my husband and I had ever attended and was bursting at the seems with families. There was a homeschooling group, a book club, a family life ministry, men’s groups and women’s groups, tons of prayer groups…I could go on…Shortly after we moved to NC on military orders, TLM at the church was stamped out with Traditiones Custodes. The priest left and the congregation scattered. I can’t help but tear up every time I think of the destruction…
Our diocese only permits TLM once a month, so that’s all we have for now, besides for one church that offers a reverent Novus Ordo. The monthly TLM is at a terrible time and over an hour away, but we became convicted that we should make the effort after reading your book Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness. I am so glad we did.
Thank you for giving a voice to all those yearn for the mass of the ages.
I wish I could "heart" this message a thousand times.
We are living in a dreadful period, where the men in the church with all the power are the ones with the worst, wooliest, wimpiest sense of theology and liturgy. The rest of us have to persevere until this old generation is gone (I know, it sounds awful, but it's true), and as the Church shrinks and becomes more militant (as will have to happen), the traditions will come flowing back. This I am sure of.
Great article, Dr. Kwasniewski. I believe, however, that we've moved beyond the realms of theology and any rational debate. Now, we are swamped in a political game. The current politburo are extremely deft at this game, and we have to get wiser, much more prudent than ever before if we want to escape the web: 'wise as serpents and simple as doves' (Mt. 10:16). Our Lord warned us that 'the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light' (Lk. 16:8). We rely on the gift of Counsel to perfect and enlighten the virtue of prudence to steer our minds and actions around every hurdle. If we act for God and of God, then it will succeed.
But be ready, Professor Kwasniewski, when they come for you.
In the UK on Catholic Unscripted, Gavin Ashendon made the comment that at the Reformation in England their actions indicated an utter hatred of the Sacrifice of the Mass, and fear of the Priests who who returned to make that available, and were executed and martyred in an appalling manner.
When we look at how the new mass is offered, and the dictates of the Vatican, the persecution of priests and bishops who strive to make the traditional Mass, available, and the shut down of churches and places of gathering in persecuting the laity - it is reasonable to assume the same hatred is here again. All I can do is to use the prayer for The election of a new Pope., and where appropriate, for a new Bishop.
Yes, there is something truly wicked about this, isn't there? I mean, surely, one cannot as a Catholic say that worshiping in the manner in which the Catholic Church worshiped for CENTURIES is somehow now wrong - unless you have really stopped believing in what the Catholic Church believed for all those centuries. And there is ample evidence that this is exactly the case.
This is the best presentation I’ve seen recently that answers my persistent question, “What is to be DONE?” This is a fine blueprint for action.
Far too many seem to say, “We must obey our bishop when he issues this unjust order, so give in, abandon God’s true worship as passed down to us, and enjoy the persecution.”
We've all grown flabby from decades of (relatively) decent treatment. People don't think about what it took in the 1970s to keep the TLM going (and to keep decent catechesis, and to keep out sex-ed materials, and on and on - there were so many battles). Now that the hammer's falling again, we need to look at the old playbook from our forefathers.
If you study the Ordinariate documents closely they’ve already set the stage for wiping out the trad calendar and the traditional offertories collects secrets and post communion prayers along with every other sacrament.
Can you explain more? It seems to me that the Ordinariate calendar is MUCH closer to the traditional calendar (e.g., has Septuagesima, time after Epiphany, Pentecost octave, time after Pentecost, etc.). They re-incorporated into the order of Mass as much of the TLM as the Vatican would let them.
Well, a longer reply is probably best suited for email, but let me give you a teaser. Regardless of Benedict's motivation and intent for originally creating the structure if you were presented this as an alternative to the TLM instead of a "better more reverent Novus Ordo" I think the sinister potential of using the structure by the Sinister Synodal Syncretists to corral the TLM becomes apparent.
The Ordinariate is FAR too small to make any difference in this equation. The Vatican doesn't really care about it much, it's under the control of compliant leaders, and they are not making any noise to bother the synodal way. Whereas the traditionalists are much more numerous and are making noise.
As a Catholic who lives in the Diocese of Tyler and attends Mass -TLM at the Cathedral and also on occassion daily Mass at St Joseph the Worker (FSSP) parish - Have to drive about 80-90 miles round trip each time. I will re-iterate your thoughts. The shear evil of removing a treasured and profitable worship via the Roman Rite Mass for over 1000+ of the faithful is truly difficult to fathom. I am completely at a loss for words. The church seems to be bent on destroying those who faithfully adhere to orthodoxy. This is a grave matter for those pursuing this course. Right now, It is very difficult to imagine praying for them but I will pray for God's enlightenment and mercy towards them.
ADDENDUM
What if someone made the objection:
"Obedience is the surest way to sanctity, as is demonstrated through the Saints time and again. We have no other choice than to trust Mother Church. One can not separate themselves from the Pope and Magisterium without risking danger in our personal lives."
I would say, fair enough, this is true as long as Mother Church is the one really at work, and not renegade churchmen; as long as the Pope is teaching and practicing the Faith; as long as the Magisterium is in fact coherent with perennial doctrine and sound discipline.
Let's not forget that the "obedience above all things" mentality has been a major instrument in the dissolution of Catholic tradition and the sex abuse crisis. I am someone who tries to see things from all points of view, without committing myself definitively in any one direction. I like to say that I view the diocesan TLMs, the Society, the independents, and the Ecclesia Dei communities as being like Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. All are needed to win through to victory.
I view the rupture with Catholic tradition after Vatican II to be a metaphysical wound in the Church that must be healed if the Church is ever to flourish again. Moreover, I view the loss of it as a sharp and profound loss for the spiritual lives of all the faithful. Therefore, I regard the retention of the TLM as a life-and-death matter, as something more important than obedience to those who would crush it or who would treat the faithful attached to it as second-class citizens. And just as a homeowner can use lethal force against an intruder breaking in, though he couldn't do that in any ordinary situation, so I believe that there are times when bold steps need to be taken against those who are violating our rights and duties as Catholics.
It's clear that all of us agree about this to one degree or another, or else why would we ever bother having any attachment to an old rite that Pope Paul VI made very clear should be discontinued? The traditionalist movement exists only because it disagrees with the prudential judgments of several popes in a row.
Legal positivism is no way to live a coherent Catholic life, since it would mean putting on and putting off our practices like garments, depending on who happens to be in office. No sane person had ever thought or acted that way prior to Vatican II, but now it seems to be taken as a virtue. This is the mess that has to be cleaned up, and I pray that future popes and bishops will be equal to the task. They sure aren't right now.
Yes, obedience to Christ before obedience to a prelate, when there is a fork in the road.
May God protect the FSSP, ICKSP, and IBP. All three orders are doing so much to preserve the Faith throughout the world. The two IBP priests in North America are so kind and genuinely happy to bring the Faith to those around them. Cardinals in Rome are so far removed from this kind and joyful grassroots ministry; how could they possibly make just pastoral decisions regarding any of these orders. I pray that the Ecclesia Dei orders may be permitted to continue to offer only the Mass of the Ages, for they are truly the lifeline of the Church and her faithful.
Exactly. The absurdity of men thousands of miles away in Italy at their desks, canceling entire communities of Catholics, is patent and grievous - men who haven't shown a lick of interest in getting to know these people as people. It is the exact opposite of the high-falutin' rhetoric about accompaniment, "the smell of the sheep," and all that other stuff they claim to believe in.
Our Bishops need to understand their situation runs parallel to Henry VIII's England. They can be a St John Fisher and defend authentic Catholicism or forever have their reputations forever tarnished by following illicit and ungodly orders from the apostates in Rome. They wear red for a reason! Prayer helped us get a better president. We are well past time to start praying for a new pope.
Amen. See this:
https://www.traditionsanity.com/p/can-we-legitimately-pray-for-a-popes
At some point we really do have to start asking ourselves what 'being in communion' with what we are calling the 'local church' really means. When these people continually make public statements and perform public acts that clearly show that THEY are not in communion with the Catholic faith handed down to us from the Apostles then why do I want to be in communion with them? When their leader makes public statements saying that the hindu gods are as sure a path to the divine as Jesus Christ why do I want to be in communion with him? At what point am I liable to judgement for seeking to be in communion with these people?
The only solution to the problem of the diocese you wrote about here is for the actual bishop of Tyler, Texas to return to his diocese and reassert his authority.
I sympathize greatly, but at the end of the day, either we believe there is a visible hierarchy, or we do not. If there is one, then no matter how corrupt it is, we must retain some link to it, if only (as I suggest here) a votum or desire to be in communion with the successors of the Apostles, in spite of their crimes and errors. There are some interesting thoughts along these lines in a recent article by Dr Joseph Shaw:
https://onepeterfive.com/the-problem-of-a-heretical-pope-a-reply-to-john-lamont/
I understand what you're saying and this is something that I have wrestled with mightily but my objection is very practical: how can I practically be in communion who publicly preaches a religion that is not Catholicism? Nor is this religion even any recognizable form of what could be called 'Christianity'. This is not simply a false opinion about some doctrine or another, such as the particular judgement, as bad as that would be: it is a denial of the fundamental necessity of Jesus Christ which is the absolute foundational principle of the Catholic Church, its purpose and its identity. How can I call that person a successor of the Apostles, no matter what robes they are wearing? How can I practically be in communion with that person?
This is not a denial of the visible hierarchy nor is it any acceptance of sedevacantism. I personally don't think there was all that much difference between Pius XII and John XXIII anyways so the sedevacantist worldview is ridiculous. But something has happened to the papacy and to the episcopacy and these issues have to be confronted head on.
I suppose my mentality is somewhat naive, medieval, and magical. What I mean is that I believe Holy Orders does something ontologically to a man, so even when he's a complete bastard and heretic, he is still objectively in a certain line of Melchisedek and (for a bishop) of the Apostles. So this is why the hierarchy can remain in existence from century to century, despite the bad behavior and false views of some of its members. In other words, just as Augustine said against the Donatists that it wasn't the morality or opinions of the minister that allowed a sacramental effect to take place, so too in the case of orders, and of the continuity of the visible Church. Thus, I am not in communion with their errors or crimes, but I am in communion with who and what they ARE by the "ex opere operato" effect of the sacraments. This may seem almost childlishly materialistic but then again, I think sacraments were made for us poor material children, so that we could hold on to something concrete and simple.
I don't say this clears up the mess or the confusion, but it helps me to clarify my thoughts as to how (e.g.) I am in communion with Pope Francis. In a sense, God is using him like a brick in a building, to maintain its structure, even if Francis's soul will be rejected by the builder when it comes time to sort out his personal fate.
I don't think your attitude is naive. I think it is quite correct and that is what makes this situation so confusing. I personally have received Communion from the hand of and had my sins absolved by priests who, judging from the content of their homilies, had little to no belief in the Catholic religion. Yet I knew that the effect of their sacramental actions was very real. That is what throws us into a quandry.
That said while the Sacraments are the lifeblood of the Church without the proper Confession of the Faith their effects become limited and ultimately counterproductive and deadening. It is ultimately the proper Confession of Faith that will sustain us. After all that line from the Roman Canon speaks of being in communion with those who preserve and hand down the orthodox and Apostolic Faith.
The purpose of Francis' office and that of his confreres, while it does have an extremely important sacramental role, is to teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ - and if they publicly defect from that role and teach a Gospel contrary to the Gospel of Christ then if I am going to be in communion with that I might as well say that I am in communion with the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran for all the good it will do me.
I think what you say is true of confessing the orthodox faith, and therefore, indirectly, over time, heretics and unbelievers will wear away the confession of that faith in the Church, regardless of the presence of sacraments. And needless to say, the #1 condition for the fruitful reception of a sacrament is to have supernatural faith (the #2 condition is to have supernatural charity, that is, to be "in a state of grace" as the shorthand has it).
Dr. K,
You write, "I would say, fair enough, this is true as long as Mother Church is the one really at work, and not renegade churchmen; as long as the Pope is teaching and practicing the Faith; as long as the Magisterium is in fact coherent with perennial doctrine and sound discipline."
This is the tricky part though, isn't it? Who am I -- who are you -- to determine whether or not this is the case?
Any sophisticated Protestant or Orthodox will say that this is precisely why he rejects the Catholic faith: the Roman See, he will claim, departed from the straight way centuries ago, and has long ceased to guard and present the faith once delivered in an authentic and integrated manner.
I understand in principle the distinction between true and false obedience. But in practice, how do you prevent yourself from crossing the line into schism, perhaps half-wittingly and with the best of intentions? The fact that solid and thoughtful traditionalists come to radically different conclusions on this matter is itself evidence of the danger inherent in the "independent option," the "Lefebvre option," and similar courses of action.
I am very sympathetic to the gist of the article, and even in agreement with many of the details, but I admit that I am ultimately grasped by a great deal of wariness and even fear. If we neglect the instruction and direction of our bishops, we may keep the form of our religion, but just the form . . .
In Christ,
Philip
For my part Phillip I would answer that what the Protestants did was to depart from the Catholic religion and invent their own. They stated that because of the personal moral corruption of the Rennaissance popes that the entire office of the Papacy had never been valid which is completely ridiculous. Nobody here is doing that.
As to who I am to determine whether they are coherent with the perennial doctrine and sound discipline I will tell you: I am a baptized and confirmed Catholic who knows his religion. You do not have to be a Thomistic theologian with seventeen letters after his name to know that creating some ersatz blessing contrived to look like the 'marriage' of two men who are having ersatz sex with one another is not in keeping with sound discipline. Nor does one have to be a bishop or a cardinal to know that a man who publicly proclaims that the hindu gods are as sure a path to the divine as Jesus Christ is not keeping with the perennial doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Eric,
"[W]hat the Protestants did was to depart from the Catholic religion and invent their own."
This comment proves my point, though. The original Protestants appealed to the fathers and the councils, and they asserted that the *Roman church* had departed from the ancient, orthodox, and universal religion to invent its own ("Romanism," "papism," etc.). This framework is maintained by many serious "magisterial" Protestants to this day: they aver that they are the real Catholics, that followers of the popes are apostates, and so on. Naturally, I don't find their arguments persuasive, nor do I think that the so-called reformation is a perfect analogue for our own situation. Nevertheless, we shouldn't be naive. Schismatics and heretics almost always regard themselves as the heirs and stewards of some true and authentic form of Christianity that has been neglected or perverted by the contemporary hierarchy, and particularly the Roman pontiff.
Philip
Philip,
I can't emphasize enough how apocalyptically evil our current situation is. Catholics are already in danger of becoming Protestants, unbelievers, or agents of sacrilege *by following what Pope Francis teaches* or what many other prelates teach. I need not remind you of the Amoris Laetitia business, or of Fiducia Supplicans, or Abu Dhabi & Singapore & Pachamama, and on and on. We do not have the luxury of "just following the pope/cardinals/bishops" for, as Our Lady at Akita noted, we now have bishops against bishops, cardinals against cardinals - and, obviously, popes against popes, at least in the sense of a current pope dissenting from all his predecessors on, e.g., the death penalty.
There is no easy way around this crisis - you have to go straight through it, by knowing your Faith from sound, traditional, reliable sources, such as the unanimous witness of hundreds of preconciliar catechisms, which obviously voices the universal ordinary Magisterium, which is infallible. What worries me about your comments is that they strike a note of irrationalism: "We cannot know what Catholicism is EXCEPT by adhering to whatever the pope says it is at any given moment (and regardless of whether it was something different yesterday)."
The fact that some heretics and schismatics consider themselves the guardians of traditional doctrine does not change anything I have written above. The Protestant and Orthodox errors have been expressly and authoritatively condemned. And, frankly, the errors of the modernists have also been condemned. We are standing firm on solid rock.
Where mistakes can certainly occur is in the prudential domain - what to DO in a crisis situation. And there, no one has infallible judgment - not even the pope, whose infallibility does not extend to practical and prudential matters. Prelates should be given the benefit of the doubt to the extent possible, but there are times when one sees that they no longer deserve it.
Here's a great article on this topic:
https://crisismagazine.com/editors-desk/does-pope-francis-deserve-the-benefit-of-the-doubt
Also, please recall this one:
https://www.traditionsanity.com/p/hyperpapalism-and-luther-strange
God Bless,
Peter
Dr. K,
I readily agree that we find ourselves in a most lamentable situation, and that the current pontificate is truly and even uniquely disastrous.
Yet I don't think I'm guilty of irrationalism. On the contrary, I'm searching for a consistent epistemological framework, a stable principle of knowledge. Traditionally, that meant and entailed thinking with the Church, a task made easy (modernly, at least) by the relative clarity and reliability of episcopal and especially papal teaching. As we both recognize, that clarity and reliability is substantially reduced today. Thus, I don't pretend to have located the object of my inquiry.
It seems, on the one hand, that we have to avoid an approach that pits the present magisterium against the past magisterium or vice versa. A trite remark, but indisputable, I think. After all, this is precisely the strategy of the hyper-papalists. On the other hand, it's increasingly difficult to achieve a synthesis of the two. Thus your frustration (and mine!).
It's just that I can't quite bring myself to wholeheartedly accept the proposition that cleaving to the teaching office of the Roman bishop will conduct one into the cesspool of heresy and sacrilege. Hence my wariness about certain remedies you advance with confidence. I understand how one arrives at this conclusion -- I just haven't arrived there myself (yet).
Perhaps my reluctance is simply an obstinate adherence to an imbalanced or under-developed doctrine of the papacy and, more generally, the episcopate and its magisterium. Still, you surely realize that you are advancing a startling notion that doesn't immediately sit well with a Catholic sensibility trained to grant the pontiff and the bishops immense deference and trust. (That doesn't mean that you're wrong, of course.)
I guess that's really the sum total of my contribution to the discussion: despondence and uncertainty. A sad state of affairs, indeed.
Let us pray, a lot.
Hope in Christ,
Philip
Philip,
Everything you say resonates with me. It was a struggle for many years for me to see that this "Catholic sensibility" was in fact being manipulated by enemies of the Faith to undermine it. Yes, that starts to sound like heavy-duty conspiracy theory but there's actually plenty of evidence now that it's been happening for decades, with of course limited success - I do not believe that the Lord would allow His entire Church to be deceived - but with success nonetheless.
I think the difficulty is much worse than "reduced clarity." It is a case of real errors being propounded, as in the May 2, 2024 statement that I signed along with several others:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2024/05/major-statement-crimes-and-heresies-of.html
We cannot be seeking an Hegelian synthesis of "thesis and antithesis," which is very much how (regrettably) Ratzinger tended to approach difficulties. I don't think this is the same as St. Thomas Aquinas looking at an objection to find the grain of truth in it. It's a more evolutionary notion, whereby what Catholics in the past accepted or rejected may, over time, become something we now reject or accept respectively.
As you can see from this very Substack post, I insist very strongly on the papal and episcopal principles - but I insist on them as objective elements and standards, not as blanket justifications for however their incumbents wish to use (or rather, abuse) them. It is precisely because I am a hierarchalist (if I may coin a word) that I am compelled to hold our hierarches to account. They owe it to us to preach the Faith and to practice it, and they are not making it hard to see that they are failing in both regards.
God Bless,
Peter
I don't want to invent my own religion. I want to follow the Catholic religion. The same Catholic religion that was preached by the papacy all the way until the beginning of the twentieth century. And this is all very documented. We are not inventing anything new and claiming it was the religion of the first century or something like that. We are following the actual Catholic religion as the hierarchy consistently taught it throughout the centuries right up until the twentieth century.
In reading about the Latin Mass suppression in Tyler Texas I am filled with anger. It is the same sense that I have when praying outside the local abortion mill. The people running these places are pure evil, like those in the Vatican.
Yes, righteous anger is the only rational response.
Again, in the inspired words of the Psalms:
"O that you would kill the wicked, O God, and that the bloodthirsty would depart from me—those who speak of you maliciously, and lift themselves up against you for evil! Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you? I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them my enemies."
Strong words, but strong medicine is necessary for a potentially fatal illness. Although the chapel where I attend Mass long predates my conversion to the Faith, the stories I am told bear out what you propose. In the 1970s some of the faithful could not stomach the NO and its attendant ills. An old priest provided the Mass for some time, and the faithful even built an ostensible "garage" that was actually a chapel. Eventually the flock came under the care of the SSPX and today is a thriving community. Regarding relations with the hierarchy, while the bishop appears less-than-happy about the SSPX presence, the diocese works well on marriage and other canonical issues, so it doesn't have to be adversarial.
We have seen a number of dioceses where, in a genuine spirit of charity, the local bishop has entered into friendly relations with the SSPX, freely granting marriage permissions and collaborating in social and ethical outreach. This is how it should be.
This article has been incredibly helpful. I am an adult convert and kind of a bad Catholic, although perhaps poorly catechized might be more accurate. We moved to Tyler in 2022 and bounced around various Masses in the area, both TLM and NO. One of my young sons preferred the TLM and another preferred "the one in English" while I preferred whichever one had the priest with the greatest devotion to Christ in the Eucharist (it was Bishop Strickland, hands down, no comparison.)
Witnessing all of this BS coming from the Vatican has really shaken me. The Pachmama stuff was clearly wrong, but I naively assumed that the Pope just didn't know. As things became obviously worse, I was pretty ok with ignoring the Pope and just trying follow Jesus and follow the solid church teachings. This past year has felt personal. Like I was a college student coming home from break to find that my step dad was beating mom and some of my siblings and I was powerless to save anyone.
Recently, we have been taking shelter in a protestant church (again, bad Catholic) on the mindset that if we're mortally wounded, we wouldn't stop to ask what denomination the hospital was, but it became clear that we're now healthy enough to get a kick in the pants to go back out and fight. I've been grappling with questions that have no clear answers and talking to any Christian that has the fruits of the Spirit, mostly just racking up sympathy and prayers. I've been digging through articles and blog posts, mostly going around in circles. My unbaptized dad and I both came to the conclusion that the Pope is somehow heretical, but still the Pope. I've thrown myself on God's mercy and was led to renewed prayer and fasting and then, boom, yet another betrayal from the Vatican, and then, finally like storm clouds breaking up, answers pouring out from Dr. K! So thank you, thank you. I just subscribed today so that I could finish reading this article. I'm planning to read all the links and books and I'm prepared to support my local faithful priest however I can. Please pray for me and my family! Any advice is welcome, and please be patient if any of you Tyler people see us sticking out like a bunch of scruffy vagabonds amongst all of the regular beautiful people at Mass!
Thanks be to God you have found your way back to the Church in spite of the infidelities of some of her leaders. This is not exactly a new phenomenon, as we see in both the Old and New Testaments. Nevertheless, it is always a great trial, and we must bear it as Jesus bore His Cross. There is always a light at the end of the tunnel - it is God's light, He who IS light - and that light is at the end of our life as well as the end of time. Meanwhile, here below, it is ours to be soldiers of Christ and to wage the battle of virtue and tradition in the face of a hostile secular world and a secularized Church hierarchy. Be strong and keep the Faith!
These are dark days in the Diocese of Tyler. St. Joseph the Worker is a great parish with excellent, but overworked, priests. How the needs will be met for a growing traditional Catholic community in the diocese is yet to be seen. But, unfortunately, while your sound recommendation could meet the need of the hour, there is little possibility that even the fine orthodox priests in the diocese will have the courage necessary to meet the needs of the traditional community. Long formation in modernity, and unquestioning obedience to a hierarchy still clueless about the impact and effects of Vatican II is devastating to the soul of good diocesan priests—even those touched by the attraction of tradition. But, we pray.
This has been my experience: that seminary formation in a sense removes the spine from the men, so that they have no will anymore to stand up to evils. In fact, I have frequently heard of moments in seminary where the more traditional seminarians are literally forced to do things against their conscience - e.g., to stand for communion rather than kneel, or to receive in the hand, or to help distribute communion themselves - in order to break their resolve to be traditional. I know there are exceptions - men who retain all their wits and their fortitude - but seem, sadly, to be just that, exceptional.
I do not know much about the situation on the ground in Tyler. If only the priests affected would band together and refuse to comply with the new diktat, things could get very interesting. The idea is still very strong that a priest must always obey his bishop. Indeed he should when the situation is normal, but if anyone thinks the current situation is normal, he needs a head examination.
It’s time for them to remember they serve Christ and Him crucified. As you have written true obedience is not owed to one who abuses his authority.
How profoundly sad. Every time I hear of this happening I think of the diocesan church my husband and I attended in Corpus Christ, Texas where TLM was celebrated every day. It was one of the liveliest churches my husband and I had ever attended and was bursting at the seems with families. There was a homeschooling group, a book club, a family life ministry, men’s groups and women’s groups, tons of prayer groups…I could go on…Shortly after we moved to NC on military orders, TLM at the church was stamped out with Traditiones Custodes. The priest left and the congregation scattered. I can’t help but tear up every time I think of the destruction…
Our diocese only permits TLM once a month, so that’s all we have for now, besides for one church that offers a reverent Novus Ordo. The monthly TLM is at a terrible time and over an hour away, but we became convicted that we should make the effort after reading your book Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness. I am so glad we did.
Thank you for giving a voice to all those yearn for the mass of the ages.
I wish I could "heart" this message a thousand times.
We are living in a dreadful period, where the men in the church with all the power are the ones with the worst, wooliest, wimpiest sense of theology and liturgy. The rest of us have to persevere until this old generation is gone (I know, it sounds awful, but it's true), and as the Church shrinks and becomes more militant (as will have to happen), the traditions will come flowing back. This I am sure of.
Yes, I quite agree. The Catholics of my generation are hungry for tradition.
Great article, Dr. Kwasniewski. I believe, however, that we've moved beyond the realms of theology and any rational debate. Now, we are swamped in a political game. The current politburo are extremely deft at this game, and we have to get wiser, much more prudent than ever before if we want to escape the web: 'wise as serpents and simple as doves' (Mt. 10:16). Our Lord warned us that 'the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light' (Lk. 16:8). We rely on the gift of Counsel to perfect and enlighten the virtue of prudence to steer our minds and actions around every hurdle. If we act for God and of God, then it will succeed.
But be ready, Professor Kwasniewski, when they come for you.
In the UK on Catholic Unscripted, Gavin Ashendon made the comment that at the Reformation in England their actions indicated an utter hatred of the Sacrifice of the Mass, and fear of the Priests who who returned to make that available, and were executed and martyred in an appalling manner.
When we look at how the new mass is offered, and the dictates of the Vatican, the persecution of priests and bishops who strive to make the traditional Mass, available, and the shut down of churches and places of gathering in persecuting the laity - it is reasonable to assume the same hatred is here again. All I can do is to use the prayer for The election of a new Pope., and where appropriate, for a new Bishop.
Yes, there is something truly wicked about this, isn't there? I mean, surely, one cannot as a Catholic say that worshiping in the manner in which the Catholic Church worshiped for CENTURIES is somehow now wrong - unless you have really stopped believing in what the Catholic Church believed for all those centuries. And there is ample evidence that this is exactly the case.
This is the best presentation I’ve seen recently that answers my persistent question, “What is to be DONE?” This is a fine blueprint for action.
Far too many seem to say, “We must obey our bishop when he issues this unjust order, so give in, abandon God’s true worship as passed down to us, and enjoy the persecution.”
We've all grown flabby from decades of (relatively) decent treatment. People don't think about what it took in the 1970s to keep the TLM going (and to keep decent catechesis, and to keep out sex-ed materials, and on and on - there were so many battles). Now that the hammer's falling again, we need to look at the old playbook from our forefathers.
If you study the Ordinariate documents closely they’ve already set the stage for wiping out the trad calendar and the traditional offertories collects secrets and post communion prayers along with every other sacrament.
Can you explain more? It seems to me that the Ordinariate calendar is MUCH closer to the traditional calendar (e.g., has Septuagesima, time after Epiphany, Pentecost octave, time after Pentecost, etc.). They re-incorporated into the order of Mass as much of the TLM as the Vatican would let them.
Well, a longer reply is probably best suited for email, but let me give you a teaser. Regardless of Benedict's motivation and intent for originally creating the structure if you were presented this as an alternative to the TLM instead of a "better more reverent Novus Ordo" I think the sinister potential of using the structure by the Sinister Synodal Syncretists to corral the TLM becomes apparent.
The Ordinariate is FAR too small to make any difference in this equation. The Vatican doesn't really care about it much, it's under the control of compliant leaders, and they are not making any noise to bother the synodal way. Whereas the traditionalists are much more numerous and are making noise.
As a Catholic who lives in the Diocese of Tyler and attends Mass -TLM at the Cathedral and also on occassion daily Mass at St Joseph the Worker (FSSP) parish - Have to drive about 80-90 miles round trip each time. I will re-iterate your thoughts. The shear evil of removing a treasured and profitable worship via the Roman Rite Mass for over 1000+ of the faithful is truly difficult to fathom. I am completely at a loss for words. The church seems to be bent on destroying those who faithfully adhere to orthodoxy. This is a grave matter for those pursuing this course. Right now, It is very difficult to imagine praying for them but I will pray for God's enlightenment and mercy towards them.
Agree and onward we fight to hold the faith of our fathers!! Excellent inspiration !
I think Padre Pio is kissing his ring.