THERE IS A PASTORAL DUTY TO DEFEND THE TRUTH AND TRADITION By Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt, Editor, The Catholic Voice TRADITIO Traditional Roman Catholic Internet Site E-mail List: traditio@traditio.com, Web Page: http://www.traditio.com Copyright 1994-97 CV. Reproduction prohibited without authorization. [From Volume 12, Number 3, October 1996. Made available on the TRADITIO Internet Site with permission of The Catholic Voice, a publication of The Society of Traditional Roman Catholics.] Being a pastor of souls is not easy in this age. Yet, I'm sure priests of old had similar serious problems to face as they protected and nourished the flock of God. Consider, for a moment, the duties that a parish priest of today faces: Besides the usual duties of offering Holy Mass and dispensing the Sacraments, sick calls and visitations to the sick and elderly, counselling the doubtful, preparing couples for marriage and tending to the mundane affairs of the parish, there are real evils that must be combatted. A pastor must protect the faithful against the inroads of modernism, of secularism and of indifferentism. He must instruct the faithful of the errors of Protestantism and the myriad of other religions present in modern society. A tradition-minded priest must see that the time-honored decrees of Holy Mother Church are followed and that the faithful are instructed as to their value and importance. He must also be on his guard to preserve the faithful from the irreverences and errors of the modern church, maintaining all the while the "Sense of the Sacred" at Mass and in church. A priest of today must be a man of prayer as well as a man of studies. He has to be alert to danger, and, if God would grant it, possess a sixth sense which will warn him in sufficient time of certain errors and/or pastoral difficulties which may occur. He usually knows at which front the enemy will attack, and he must prepare himself and his flock for these dangers. There are two dangers that are hard to prepare for: vicious personal attacks from uncharitable "friends in the Faith" and continuous verbal assaults from the modern clergy against traditional priests, parishes and the unwary laity. The first of these attacks goes against our bond of unity. We see the Traditional Movement torn asunder by many "spiritual" people hell bent on maintaining "tradition" according to their own interpretations while engaging in personal and calumnious assaults on clergy and laity alike. They maintain an air of religious gossip (as if this somehow justifies their actions), working hard to destroy others, not necessarily on grounds of religion, but even descending to sins, real or imagined (more often the latter) of the person of a priest or lay person. One wonders if these people, who are the agents of evil, are aware that slander and calumny are sins? Frequent communicants that most of these people are, how long will they continue to be unresponsive to God's grace in their souls? And no, couching the terms of slander in religious ideals doesn't somehow sanctify gossip. The second of these attacks surfaces without warning. Perhaps it is not totally without warning, for our work in the Traditional Movement is diametrically opposed to the naturalism and indifferentism promoted by the novus ordo church. Where it com es without warning is the excessive personal concerns suddenly exhibited by the modern clergy toward those who attend the Tridentine Latin Mass. I don't mean to say by this that novus ordo priests don't have any pastoral care. They do show by their actions that they do. Yet, their pastorship extends to new bounds, not when a member of the parish is influenced by atheism, or Protestantism, or joins up with the abortionists or those who say we have a right to die -- no, they don't invite themselves over for dinner, or stop people after services to talk about these things -- rather, they go out of their way to help people who have become tradition-minded. My only guess for this flip- flop of pastoral care is because they have yielded in compromise to these anti-Catholic forces and do not wish to be reminded of where their true duty really lies. A key to understanding this fear of the conciliar clergy lies in the labels they use against those of the Traditional Movement. Indeed, labelling the actions of someone with powerful buzz words is a very weak form of argument. It is often used whe n the person throwing out the labels sees little hope of winning the argument. Those who argue in this manner are desperate. They hope that by appealing to the fear and/or ridicule the label implies the argument will end, at the very least in a draw. Those familiar with debate courses know that using labels as a defense without something substantial to back up these labels is an improper form of debate. It has as much value as the ad hominem argument, that is, the style which attacks the personal characteristics of the opponent rather than debating the substance of the matter. THE USE OF LABELS The use of labels is quite common. We use them in daily life: conservative, liberal, pro-life, pro-choice, and more. The label used indicates a set of ideals espoused by the person or people indicated. More often than not, the use of a label is backed up with valid points to substantiate the claim. The Church, too, has used labels from its beginning. People, one or many, have been labelled as heretical, schismatic or apostates depending on the degree of departure from the Faith. There are also various degrees of heresy, and even more terms (labels) are used to point out the error. Once again, whenever the Church has used these terms, a reason has come forth, based on authority and tradition, to show the error and the corresponding truth that has been either denied or perverted. They were set up as warnings to the faithful to avoid those in error and to offer their prayers for them. That the conciliar church uses the common labels of Catholicism -- the labels that strikes fear of separation from salvation in the hearts of every living and believing Catholic -- is our problem. The modern clergy knows just which words to use to keep the faithful loyal to conciliarism. In this case, they use traditional terms, but they use them in error. They are using them to keep the faithful in adherence to a host of modern errors which they (the clergy) will do nothing to correct. As we of STRC and many others who are faithful to the whole body of Catholic teaching, especially that found in tradition, have pointed out for 20+ years, these errors are contrary to Church teaching and no one can pass off as approved what the Church has already condemned. Thus, they use these labels in error, and by all laws of simple debating, we should pay no heed to them. Unfortunately, those weak in faith pay attention to these terms and cower in fear from the Masses offered by tradition-minded priests. What they need is "the rest of the story" which will put a lie to efforts of the modern clergy. SCHISM: A DEFINITION I had a parishioner approach me several weeks ago to say that he was being ganged up on, in sorts, by local, modern clergy to warn him against attendance at Mass in my parish. Among other things, they told him that I, and those who attend Mass at my parish, are "just like the Russian Orthodox". Since I do not use Russian at Mass, I have to assume that what these men meant was that we are schismatic just like the Russian Orthodox are. I disagree with this line of reasoning on several points. These will be made clear further on in this article. If we are going to talk about schism, we must first start with a definition. Since being called "schismatic" is a serious accusation, our definition must be one that is common among all Catholics and which the Church herself has even used. Moreover, rather than quote from some obscure theology book that is not readily available to all who wish to research this matter, I am using for my definition The Catholic Encyclopedia -- the 1910 version. That volumnious work, published after Vatican II, and which bears the same name, is incomplete and tainted. Under the heading SCHISM, we find this definition: "Schism is, in the language of theology and Canon Law, the rupture of ecclesiastical unity either by the act of one of the faithful . . . or to the state of disassociation or separation which is the result of that act." It is usually achieved through separation from authority and, as St. Irenaeus writes, by separating from "preserved Apostolic tradition". Thus, to determine if one is schismatic, it must be seen if he is disobedient to authority and if he has departed in error from the traditional teaching of the Church. Our definition assumes, then, that the one in authority is making efforts to preserve Apostolic Tradition. Departing from tradition will make one depart from wuthority. So, is it possible for the conciliar church, which has departed seriously from the tradition of the Apostles and the Sacred Councils, to call us schismatic in the true Catholic sense of the word? Do they have the authority to say this? I think not. CONCILIAR SCHISMATIC ACTS If anyone, or group of people, is to be labelled schismatic, it must be the clergy of the conciliar church and its tenacious adherents. Thirty years of experience shows us that what sprung from the ambiguities of the Second Vatican Council is a schismatic (and even heretical) organization which uses Catholic terms, occupies Catholic buildings, but is, in spirit and in fact, separated from the traditional Roman Catholic Church. While we cannot expect the modern clergy to make this judgment on themselves, we must constantly point out to them the error of their ways and pray that they see the seriousness of what they have done to the unity and sanctity of the Church of Jesus Christ. While it is possible for someone to be a schismatic in good faith, this good faith attitude only persists up until the time he or she is educated about the error that is being promoted. If Catholics of the Traditional Movement would take more time to point out to the modern clergy the grave errors against faith they have committed, we would have less time to fight among ourselves over matters which are often quite trivial. We would see greater success in our labors. But this has all been mentioned before. To be other apostles of the Traditional Movement, we need to be well armed and confident in our position. Don't worry, we can be both, even when these modern schismatics throw their labels at us. We must first of all understand that the conciliar church holds the schismatic mentality and not we of the Traditional Movement. Here are some examples of how the conciliar church, the organization which has given us a corrupted liturgy and a forced spirit of modernism and indifferentism, is schismatic in spirit and in fact: 1. A grave departure from Tradition. Examples are becoming quite numerous that the spirit of the conciliar church is based on the Second Vatican Council and very little on the traditions of the past. When the Novus Ordo Missae was introduced in 1969, the instructions stated that a new concept of the liturgy was coming forth, "previous decrees notwithstanding". These instructions make some token references to past popes, but showed that, no matter what their decrees, they were being swept away in favor of a new ecclesiology (a new, non-traditional term). Among the decrees so cavalierly set aside were Quo Primum and De Defectibus, which affect the validity of the Mass. Likewise, this departure is evidenced in the new catechism issued recently by the conciliar church. Over 60% of the catechism makes sole reference to the interpretations of the Second Vatican Council. This is not the catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, but it is a book of justification for the conciliarists. They couldn't quote from Tradition because this new volume smacks squarely against the centuries of consistent Catholic teaching. 2. The use of the condemned liturgy of Cranmer. It takes little research to understand that the Novus Ordo Missae bears striking resemblance to that which is in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. Should we be surprised? Six Protestant clergymen were among the members of the ICEL who gave us the modern mass. From its foundation, the Innovators have used the Novus Ordo as a catalyst for change. If, as St. Augustine remarks, "The law of praying is the law of believing", modern Catholics are praying in the spirit of naturalism and humanism and are adapting that form of spirituality for themselves. The worship of the cult of man is quite obvious in the language of the Novus Ordo. This is a grave departure from the traditional Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. 3. Wrongful changes of the matter and form of the Sacraments. The Church was given by Jesus Christ great power in heaven and on earth. However, the Church has no authority to change that which affects the validity of the Mass and the Sacraments. Tradition has given us those things which constitute the matter and form of each Sacrament. The conciliar church has taken upon itself to make changes that affect the validity of these important sources of grace. By doing this, they have set themselve s up as different from Tradition, and thus in opposition to it. 4. The modern church and collegiality. The foundation of the Church on St. Peter is one of our most important Apostolic traditions. This means that Peter and his successors have the primacy of authority. According to modern thought, the pope is an equal among equals, meaning that while he is a more glorified bishop than all others because he is the Bishop of Rome, in fact he has no more authority than what all the other bishops of the world give him. According to modern terms, a pope cannot speak infallibly unless he first consults and receives the approval of all the bishops. This is contrary to Apostolic Tradition and the decree on Infallibility from the Vatican Council of 1870. This is a basis for their new theology that past dogmatic decrees of the Church can, and oftentimes, should be changed. 5. The New Code of Canon Law. In 1917, Pope Benedict XV issued the first source which brought together in one volume the chief laws of the Church in matters of discipline. This compendium volume is known as Canon Law. In 1983, a new version of Canon Law was introduced. It was not an updating and addition of decrees from 1917 until then. Rather, it introduced radical change in the teachings and discipline of the conciliar church. It gave us one more proof that the conciliar church is decidedly against tradition. Here are some striking changes in theology and worship: 1) The penalty of excommunication is lifted for those Catholics who join Freemasonry or any of its offshoots [Actually, the Vatican later clarified that the excommunication still holds, even though it was not specifically mentioned in the New Code. --The Fathers]. Freemasonry has not changed its opinions of the Church, rather, the Bride of Christ has the appearance of becoming a modern harlot, embracing error. But note, if you belong to the Traditional Movement, you are to be considered excommunicated in some places. Are we worse than the Freemasons? If a non-Catholic approaches a priest for "the eucharist", and that non-Catholic gives evidences of piety, the priest must give that person "the eucharist", even though he or she has not been baptized. All Catholics know what the traditional teaching of the Roman Catholic Church is in this area.... 6. The use of a table instead of an altar. An altar is used to offer sacrifice, but a table is needed for a meal. Ripping the traditional altars out of the church in favor of a table in the midst of the people, and without the Communion Rail, falls right in line with the new definition of the mass: "The Lord's Supper, or mass, gathers together the people of God, with a priest presiding in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord...." Nowhere in Tradition do we find a similar definition of the Mass. Likewise, we cannot find anywhere in Church history the concept that a table was the preferred piece of furniture in the churches of the world. The table was needed so that the priest/presider/actor could perform before the people of God rather than having the priest/alter Christus offer sacrifice to God within the church facing toward this august act of worship. This new definition of the mass incorporates a new definition of the priesthood. The priest is a presider of an assembly of people and not a priest who offers sacrifice, which is the traditional meaning of the word. 7. The spirit of Ecumenism. Volumes could be, and should be, written on the spirit of false ecumenism which has taken over the conciliar church by storm. Ecumenism is a new definition, and it is supposed to outline an effort for all people of the world to be one in faith and religious practice. Modern efforts are geared more toward a compromise with other religions of the world as if we, as Catholics, must apologize for our traditional teachings. Among other teachings of the Church which can be cited as contrary to ecumenism, the chief is the infallible papal encyclical by Pope Pius XI on the subject. In this encyclical, the pope clearly condemns as dangerous to faith such efforts which would lead to a compromise of truth with error. WHAT IS OUR POSITION? The above listing is but a few of the departures from faith and tradition evidenced by the conciliar church. I would encourage Catholics to research these things I have outlined and see for yourself the extent of this schismatic attitude in the modern church. Our times are serious, and we must safeguard ourselves against the possibility of compromise with error. While none of us in the Traditional Movement has authority in the Church to label the conciliarists as schismatic with all the penalties that go along with this name, nothing prevents us from making the decision in conscience to avoid the conciliar church as an organization that has set itself up as counter-Church and of a different understanding of Faith. In this, the conciliar church is truly schismatic to us and our faith and we must avoid it. In addition, we can be sure that no one in the conciliar church can label us as schismatic with all the penalties attached to it either. Schism can only be declared in light of tradition, and the conciliarists are anything but traditional or evidence any love for the traditional teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Let us pray for and show great charity towards those who are confused by the conciliar use of strong labels. Let us be beacons of truth for them. Our actions will show that it is not we who are in error, for we imitate the meekness and mildness of Jesus Christ. Rather, it is the conciliarlists who err, and they err greatly.