jump to navigation

Michael Matt – Unite the Traditional Clans! August 26, 2019

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, fightback, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Restoration, sanctity, SSPX, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

I have learned over the past few months that I have missed an incredible amount of infighting between traditional/orthdox Catholics.  In fact I haven’t missed it at all, I’m glad I haven’t had to witness all that.  With Francis continuing to try to change the Bride of Christ into a pathetic, modernist worldly construct, a creation not of God but of men,  never has there been a greater need for unity among the most devout, believing Catholics, whatever they call themselves.  I have long been of this opinion, which I share with such stalwart defenders of the Faith as Fathers Michael Rodriguez and Isaac Mary Relyea, two men who have suffered more than most of us will ever have to for their rejection of the post-conciliar construct.

There are legitimate criticisms of, or concerns regarding, all branches of traditional Catholicism in these days.  That is one of the chief  coups of the modernists dominating the hierarchy of the Church, to use Catholics own faith and fidelity to the Magisterium against them.  By corrupting that magisterium, they have managed to put Catholics in a “damned if they do, damned if they don’t situation.”  While the SSPX seems to be slowly leaning towards some kind of formal recognition from Rome (and some would argue it already exists), there remains great hostility in the institutional Church to them, and much fussiness over their purported canonical status.  The Ecclesia Dei communities and diocesan priests offering the TLM forever have to live with the taint of ostensible accommodation, and the constant threat that all they have achieved and built over the past several decades could be snatched away in an instant by a hostile pope.

Each of the traditional groups has their strengths and weaknesses.  Certainly there is room for legitimate expression of these differences, but the constant internecine struggles between these various groups has long passed the point of ceasing to be productive, and is most often positively destructive. It is so easy for all of us to fall into tribalism and the belief that “our side” is not just the right one, but the only good and decent one.  From that belief can spring all kinds of animus and destructiveness.  It is the ultimate circular firing squad, and could not be more ill-timed or counter-productive, given the collective threats we all face from the current pontificate and the upcoming Amazonian synod. This should be a time of conciliation, not ever-increasing conflict and strife.

Thus, I heartily support Michael Matt in attempting to bring collaboration and commonality of purpose among all those priests, religious, and lay people struggling to live out the Faith in this time of unprecedented crisis within the institutional Church.  Every single growing, vibrant traditional parish is a beacon of hope for millions of those who call themselves Catholic, whether they realize it or not.  They are a hope for the present and the future, and, in my mind, represent the only real future the Church has, by returning to her roots and her real self.  And, if we continue to work together, we can hope for the coming restoration of Holy Mother Church, as Mr. Matt in describing how the FSSP taking over a dying Minneapolis parish has now totally turned the parish around.  He then lists some criticisms of the FSSP, presumedly coming from the SSPX, and proceeds to refute those.  I’m not certain if his piece was in response to something in particular, but the article could just as easily have been framed in the opposite way, defending the SSPX from FSSP criticisms.  I don’t think the particular framing is most important, I think what is most important is the overall message of looking for the good in all the various branches of traditional Catholicism and working together to maximize their effect in terms of saving souls and, even more importantly, giving all glory and honor to God.

I did, however, want to address a few points Mr. Matt raises, which I will do below:

Yes, okay. Fine!  But the FSSP does not condemn Pope Francis on a daily basis.

Again, true enough. But neither did Edmund Campion run around publicly condemning the tyrant and heretics of his day.  Instead, he chose to dress as a layman—a jeweler—and to call himself ‘Mr. Edmunds’ so that he could avoid arrest and carry on with the important work of preserving the old Faith in Elizabethan England. He wasn’t a coward. He was a strategist, who would eventually be starved, beaten, disemboweled and drawn and quartered for his fidelity the old Faith.

It’s called strategy. Maybe you’ve seen pictures. You know, Father Miguel Pro undercover, dressed in suit and tie, as he waged holy war in defense of the old Faith during the Cristero uprising. Dressed in disguise, was Father Pro afraid to ‘say it like it is’? Please!

There’s more than one way to get the job done, friends, and the job right now is to preserve the old Faith at all costs. ‘Sayin it like it is’ in times like these is sometimes just a really stupid thing to do! It’d be like Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg shouting condemnations of the psycho Nazis as he walked into the Wolf’s Lair with a bomb under his arm, preparing to assassinate Hitler. Not a good time for Claus to ‘say it like it is.’

Let’s not shoot ourselves (or the few good priests left) in the head by calling for recklessness when prudence and strategy are obviously working so well to save souls and to attach so many young people to the cause of Traditional Catholic restoration. [These are all fine points, but I will say that I have heard very strong condemnations of Francis from a number of FSSP priests.  And, I have heard similar condemnations from diocesan and other traditional or traditionally inclined priests.  I don’t know if condemnations of this kind are more frequent and severe from SSPX priests, but I will simply note that it would be a falsehood, in my experience, to declare Francis gets a pass from Ecclesia Dei priests.]

Yes, well, the FSSP priests don’t like the SSPX and vice versa.  Maybe that’s true in some cases, but so what!  The Dominicans and the Franciscans didn’t always get along, either……….. [This is the other point I wanted to touch on, it is true, there are some FSSP and other non-SSPX traditional priests who are extremely critical of the SSPX. Some of this criticism, to my mind, goes beyond the bounds of reason. I know the reverse is also widely true.  However,  many FSSP priests have quite warm attitudes towards the SSPX, and are well disposed towards them, generally speaking.  Like all organizations made up of hundreds of passionate, committed people, you’re going to see a variety of points of view.  That may be a milquetoast manner of speaking, but it’s true.  I wish all priests in all these groups were much more supportive and possessed of a common purpose, but at Mr. Matt notes immediately below, all priests are humans and as prone to human failings as the rest of us].

So, there are precedents. We’re all human…even priests.

Bottom line: When I was at Mass last Sunday at the local FSSP parish, I saw dozens of little children kneeling at the consecration, striking their breasts at the elevation, receiving Holy Communion on the tongue in the company of their mothers and fathers and rafts of siblings.

It reminded me of the little Japanese children I’d seen at the SSPX chapel in Tokyo the month before—kneeling at the consecration, striking their breasts at the elevation, receiving Holy Communion on the tongue in the company of their mothers and fathers and rafts of siblings………

…………I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Unite the clans! For God’s sake and the sake of those children facing the real possibility of the eradication of the old Faith from the face of the earth— unite the clans!

I couldn’t agree more, or close on a better note.  We have so much in common, and so much to fight for together, that the differences between us can really take a back seat for the foreseeable future.

By the way, Twitter drives people insaneJust sayin‘.  I can not advise anyone enough to stay off it.  None of my rapidly growing into adulthood kids are on it and, I pray, never will be.

 

Watch Michael Davies, William F. Buckley, and Malachi Martin Completely Dismantle Post-Conciliar Amchurch August 26, 2019

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, General Catholic, history, Latin Mass, Restoration, Revolution, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

The video below was recorded in 1980.  Michael Davies, God rest his soul, was a young and very charismatic man who had already written several books defending Archbishop Lefebvre and exposing the protestantizing changes in the Mass.  He had also developed ample evidence that the changes were deliberately made to change the belief and practice of believing Catholics in order to turn the Catholic Church into something other than the entity Christ founded our Holy Mother to be.

That evidence comes to the fore repeatedly as a certain Father Joseph Champlin repeatedly tries, in true post-concliar fashion, to so parse and muddy the Faith that not even licentiates in sacred theology could make heads or tails of what the Church was supposed to believe, what the current pope was promoting, or how the Church fell into the general post-conciliar mess.  Certainly it is true that there were a number of factors at work in, for instance, the total collapse in vocations in historically Catholic/Christian countries (lumping the US in that group for convenience), but to pretend that the loss of 50,000 priests and nearly 100,000 religious in a mere 10 years after the close of Vatican II had nothing, or very little, to do with the massive changes imposed on the Faith in the wake of that council is laughable, as Davies and Buckley repeatedly demonstrate. Fr. Champlin, who was part of the disastrously liberal Dioceses of Rochester and Syracuse in New York, repeatedly had to engage in what I found to be deliberate obfuscation and attempts to so parse matters of theology that virtually no one could rightly claim to know what the Church believed, at least beyond what the most recent pope had declared.  He had to do this because both the Council and the post-conciliar popes at various times and places made declarations in open conflict with the well defined, long-declared solemn Doctrine of the Faith.

This was a regular modernist ruse, reducing the Faith to meaningless or practical indeciperable nonsense that no lay person could hope to comprehend, in stark contrast to the clear belief of the pre-conciliar Church.

Anyway the debate is well worth your time and is a helpful time capsule in understanding how the battle over the mind and soul of the Church was fought in its early days. I would say that traditional critiques of the Council, and more particularly, that false “spirit” that came in its wake, have only sharpened and improved since then.

It is also interesting to point out how even at this point – more than 10 years after the implementation of the Novus Ordo – a large majority of Catholics polled indicated their preference in returning to the Mass of the ages.