Wrong or right? Conditions for the SSPX’s future: A reply to Eleison Comments, #168

Wrong or right?
Conditions for the SSPX’s future
A reply to Eleison Comments, #168

Brian McCall

Recently, His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson opined in his weekly email commentary on the six conditions formulated by the General Chapter of the Society of St. Pius X applicable to any future official recognition of the Society by the Roman authorities. His Excellency concludes that these six conditions “demonstrate an alarming weakness on the part of the Society’s leaders.”

Although I have great respect for His Excellency and have benefited greatly from listening to his doctrinal conferences (which are a model of learning, clarity and wit), I believe his judgment on these practical matters is unjust and inaccurate. Before turning to consider his particular conclusions on each matter, it is necessary to establish several foundational principles.

First, the conditions established relate to action, the acknowledgment by the Society that the Vatican has corrected a grave injustice by recognizing the Society’s existence and work de jure and providing positive legal provisions for its continuation. The judgment of the General Chapter relates to the practical intellect rather than the speculative intellect. The speculative intellect judges the reality of things whereas the practical intellect judges the appropriateness of actions.

The public Declaration of the Chapter treats mostly of speculative matters, judgments as to the reality of Truth, the Church and the current crisis. As St. Thomas teaches[1] the nature of true judgments differs for the speculative and practical intellect. Since the speculative intellect judges the reality of things, due to the principle of non-contradiction there can only be one true judgment of something proposed to the speculative intellect.

To use a favorite example of His Excellency, two plus two either equal four (a true speculative judgment) or they do not (a false speculative judgment). Although correct practical judgments depend upon true speculative knowledge, since practical judgments relate to the election of means among a variety of contingent matter the nature of truth differs. For the speculative intellect truth is the correspondence of the intellect with reality. For the practical intellect it is the correspondence of a chosen action with a right appetite. A right appetite is directed to, or proportioned to, the true end or good of man.

Practical judgments involve the election of proportionate means to a right appetite. Although Man is not free to choose his end, freedom exists in the election among means suited to that end. There may be more than one means suited to a true end and thus more than one action proportionate to the right end of Man. The rightness of a chosen action (its correspondence to a right appetite for a true end) does not preclude the truth of other proposed actions which also can be suited to the end.

For example, when grading a child’s spelling test, the proffered answer is either correct or incorrect as this is a matter of conformity to reality. A part of Man’s proper end is to attend Holy Mass devoutly and efficaciously. Yet, there are a multiplicity of means suited to that end the election of which by the practical intellect will depend on many factors such as the temperament and age of the person involved. They may include saying the rosary, following a Missal, visually following the action at the altar or reading a devotional book. Certain actions are per se excluded as false judgments such as texting on one’s phone during Mass since this does not conform to a right appetite.

Yet, after such exclusions there often remains more than one action which is suited to a right end. Within this permissible set, the election of means is governed not by truth (which is already satisfied as all permitted means are suited to the end) but by prudence (assisted by counsel) which attempts to select among the means in light of existing and possible future contingencies. For a society, a unity of people working towards a common end, decisions among a variety of actions all conformed to a right appetite are entrusted to the lawful superiors of that society. Legitimate disobedience to decisions of lawful superiors is not only permissible but even virtuous if and only if the lawful superior selects false means or actions which require members of the society to violate the law of God. Any other election of lawful superiors may not correspond to the choice of all members, yet so long as it does not compel violation of the law of God it must be accepted.

The second principle is one of justice. The Society and her members have suffered a grave injustice. Although under Natural and Divine law they possess de facto and de jure the power and authority to exist and to perform their sacred offices, the way in which ecclesiastical law has been executed, or carried out, has unjustly denied them de jure legal recognition through the normal means although they possess it by virtue of exceptions to the written law due to a state of necessity.[2]

Certain authorities in the Church have unjustly denied this reality by treating the Society as if it lacked de jure and de facto legal recognition. This discontinuity of the actions of certain human authorities in the Church on one hand and the reality of Divine and Natural law as well as the operation of exceptions within ecclesiastical law on the other is a grave injustice, one which those in authority within the Church are obligated to correct by conforming present execution of the ecclesiastical law to reality. Since there is more than one action which can correct this legal injustice, the manner in which the Society should accept such a correction of the legal injustice is an action thus governed by the practical intellect.

Having established these two principles we can turn to His Excellency’s specific commentary. The General Chapter acknowledges that there exist more than one method of correcting the legal injustice and establishing recognition of the true legal reality. Yet, for the elected action to remain proportionate to a right appetite, the good of the Church, six elements are identified as either necessary, sine qua non, or desirable.

The first condition contains two elements. The Society must be guaranteed freedom to proclaim and transmit the fullness of Catholic Truth. Secondly the Society must be unrestrained “to prohibit, correct and reprove, even publicly, those who foment the errors or innovations of modernism, liberalism, the Second Vatican Council and their consequences.”
Translating this condition into our discussion, the General Chapter has judged that for any action of Rome to truly be proportionate to a right appetite, it must provide such a guaranty. Since the Society has been unjustly persecuted precisely for prohibiting, correcting and reproving those who promote the “errors or innovations of modernism, liberalism, the Second Vatican Council and their consequences,” it is necessary to legally provide a method for preventing unjust persecution on such account in the future.

Bishop Williamsons’ assessment of this condition is:

[N]otice how the Chapter’s vision has changed from that of Archbishop Lefebvre. No longer ‘Rome must convert because Truth is absolute’, but now merely ‘The SSPX demands freedom for itself to tell the Truth.’ Instead of attacking the Conciliar treachery, the SSPX now wants the traitors to give it permission to tell the Truth? “O, what a fall was there!”

His Excellency has misrepresented the first condition by only referring to its first half. Yet, the quoted language clearly addresses the need not only to preach the truth but to attack error, specifically the Conciliar errors.

His Excellency’s assessment of the first condition is not a true speculative judgment about the content of the condition because he ignores the second part. His Excellency’s criticism of this condition also claims that the condition lacks the necessary element of demanding the conversion of the authorities to Tradition. The condition does not deny the need for conversion to the Truth for the good of the Church or even for the salvation of the personal souls of the Roman authorities. In fact, the official Declaration of the General Chapter issued in conjunction with these six principles, and which must be read in conjunction with them, makes the statement of Archbishop Lefebvre quoted by Bishop Williamson the Chapter’s own. The Chapter reaffirmed that it is “waiting for the day when an open and serious debate will be possible which may allow the return to Tradition of the ecclesiastical authorities.” (emphasis added).

Essentially Bishop Williamson is stating that the Society cannot accept a correction of the injustice perpetrated on them until the perpetrators fully convert to Tradition. Yet, notwithstanding the necessity of the conversion of the perpetrators for their own sake and, given their position of authority, the good of the Church, such a conversion is not strictly necessary to address the specific issue at hand, the correction of an injustice. This demand would be equivalent to St. Thomas More demanding that before King Henry VIII overturn his unjust conviction and release him from the Tower, Henry VIII must renounce his schism and heresy and convert. Although St. Thomas would clearly have affirmed the need for such a conversion in itself, it is not necessary to the fulfillment of a duty in justice.

What is indispensable to the issue at hand, repairing past injustices, is assurance that the injustice will not be repeated. This first condition is not related to the speculative truth of the necessity of adherence to Tradition for the personal salvation of the Roman authorities or even for the restoration of the Church but rather to the correction of the legal injustice perpetrated against the Society, their persecution for attacking error. The Chapter judges that it is absolutely indispensable for a true correction of this legal wrong to be truly righted that those who perpetrated and continue to perpetrate the injustice make assurances that they will not correct the legal situation one day and commence persecution again the next.

Thus, the Society must be guaranteed freedom from persecution for both (1) preaching the truth and (2) attacking Conciliar errors. Put another way, any action of Rome which does not so guaranty this freedom from persecution does not truly restore the full official legal status of the Society unjustly denied to them. Rather than abstaining from “denouncing the Conciliar treachery” the Declaration and this first condition make clear that any correction of the legal injustice must not be conditioned on the Society refraining from denouncing error and those who promote error. His Excellency’s objection to the first condition does not accord with the facts.

The second indispensable condition is that the Society continue “use of the 1962 Liturgy” and must preserve “the sacramental practice that we presently have.” Bishop Williamson comments:

But do we not right now see Rome preparing to impose on Traditional Congregations that have submitted to its authority a ‘mutual enrichment’ Missal, mixing Tradition and the Novus Ordo? Once the SSPX were to have submitted to Rome, why should it be any more protected?

Yes, His Excellency is correct that it appears some Roman authorities may be planning to play with the Missal, mixing in Novus Ordo elements and options. Put another way, there appears to be a movement to replay the events of 1965-1969 all over again and gradually move the 1962 Mass to the Novus Ordo.

This real possibility explains the careful choice of wording by the Chapter. They state that the exclusive use of the 1962 Liturgy is to be guaranteed. They do not use the more ambiguous terms Latin Mass, Extraordinary Form, Ancient Rite, etc. which do not preclude a reissued 2013 Missal containing Novus Ordo intrusions.

The Chapter makes clear that it must have exclusive use of the 1962 Liturgy. They go on to clarify that this term includes all sacramental practices currently used by the Society. Since the Society does not currently use these yet-to-be promulgated changes and options apparently under consideration in Rome the condition makes clear the Society cannot be made to accept them. Again, His Excellency ignores the precise terms of the real condition and seems to be criticizing a differently worded condition, one that employs a less precise and more ambiguous terminology.

The Society’s sine qua non is that the 1962 version must remain in exclusive use by the Society. Again, since this very fact, refusal to compromise and in any way make use of any innovation dating after 1962 has been a source of persecution of the Society, the Chapter makes clear that the Roman authorities must foreswear future persecution on the basis of an exclusive use of the 1962 form of the entire Liturgy, including sacraments.

The third condition is the sine qua non that the Society maintain “at least one bishop.” His Excellency’s criticism of this condition is merely a reminder of history. In 1988, Rome in practice did not act according to this commitment and gave the Archbishop reasonable grounds for concluding that the promise of a bishop had not been and would not in any reasonable time frame be met. All the Chapter does here is repeat the same requirement of Archbishop Lefebvre. They do not in any way suggest that their action would differ from his if, in fact, the Roman authorities of today repeated the behavior of those in 1988 (recognizing that one of them is the same person, the present Holy Father).

The difference now is that the Society already has four bishops. There is no need at present to consecrate a bishop. That day will come and the Chapter adheres to the true judgment that to preserve the Catholic priesthood at least one bishop is absolutely necessary. There is no rejection of the course of action of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, but rather a repetition of his own condition which he held fast to when Rome in practice rejected it. The Chapter says nothing to indicate that it would not follow his example if Rome de facto broke her promise and refused to facilitate the fulfillment of this requirement at a future date. Again Bishop Williamson’s complaint is not rightly against this condition but merely a fear that in the future the Society will not act prudently in face of a possible breach of promise.

The fourth condition described as desirable is that the Society should possess its own “ecclesiastical tribunals in the first instance.” Bishop Williamson criticizes this condition as not demanding enough.

But if any higher tribunal is of the official Church and can undo the lower tribunals’ decisions, what Catholic decision of any Society tribunal will still have any force at all?

He is effectively claiming that the Society must not only have primary tribunals but its own appellate courts not subject to any legal review even by the Holy Father himself. Such a demand is not consistent with Catholic ecclesiology. It essentially demands that the Society possess the supreme jurisdiction in the Church not subject to any higher earthly authority. But such a demand is to demand the Society be the Pope, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

All legal jurisdiction in the Church flows from Christ through the Vicar of Christ. All courts are courts of the Church. The Society rightly recognizes that in light of the crisis there is a real danger of her clerics (and laity attached to her) being treated unjustly by diocesan courts. This is fair enough in light of the unjust treatment in the past and the current crisis. To demand absolutely no appellate review even to the Holy See is not consistent with the constitution of the Church. Not even non-Roman Catholic particular churches with their own canon law can exist in such a vacuum.

Bishop Williamson’s demand is essentially that the Society become a Church unto itself, a distinct legal entity completely severed from the legal entity of the Church. Such a demand is beyond the realm of possibility. The Society is not the Church but only a part of the Church. If for prudence an unusual legal situation is warranted, independent tribunals, that system must at some level respect the constitution of the Church.

Finally, we must note that the possibility His Excellency fears, incorrect legal decisions being made by courts of the “official Church,” exists at present. The Society does not possess strictly speaking independent legal tribunals of first instance at present. Due to the unjust legal situation of the Society, anyone subjected to a disciplinary decision of a superior has the de jure legal ability to walk away from the Society and enter a Church court system notwithstanding the imprudence or moral fault in doing so.

The request of the Society is a request that her legal decisions be given force of positive law in the Church by being rendered by legally recognized tribunals. No person under her jurisdiction could simply walk away and avoid official Church legal sanction. The Church authorities would be required under law to respect and enforce the just decisions of her courts. At present Church officials feel legally free to utterly ignore decisions of the Society’s superiors and to give asylum to violators of the Society’s statutes.

The fifth condition is a desire for “exemption of the houses of the Society of Saint Pius X in relation to the diocesan bishops.” Here is Bishop Williamson’s comment:

Unbelievable! For nigh on 40 years the SSPX has been fighting to save the Faith by protecting its true practice from interference by the local Conciliar bishops, and now comes the General Chapter merely desiring independence from them?

Bishop Williamson’s criticism here appears disproportionate to the actual condition. This criticism occasions a need to consider why the Chapter labeled the first three conditions sine qua non and the final three desirable. The first three conditions relate to specific pretexts for past and present persecution of the Society: (1) attacking errors of Vatican II, (2) adhering exclusively to the 1962 form and (3) consecrating bishops. Thus, to correct the injustice it is indispensable that the three pretexts for persecution be removed.

The three final conditions relate to circumstances that will make the healing of the wounds of persecution more efficacious. Strictly speaking they do not to correction of injustices but to the establishment of better future relationships. Since they do not touch upon the specific issues involved in the unjust persecution but rather to future conducive conditions for preserving the peace, they cannot be considered indispensable.

This distinction between addressing specific past occasions of injustice and addressing prudent circumstances for the future explains the difference of terminology. The final three conditions are prudential means to ensure compliance with the ends of the sine qua non conditions. Means cannot be insisted on with the same absolute necessity as ends, a principle of Thomism of which I am certain His Excellency is well aware. The Society in no way denies the fact that in light of recent history and behavior, the first three sine qua non conditions may be rendered null de facto if diocesan bishops have authority over Society houses. This has been the experience of a variety of groups who muzzle themselves so as to avoid disfavor of and expulsion by diocesan bishops.

The Chapter recognized the seriousness of this problem. As with Summorum Pontificum, the first two conditions could become dead letters if diocesan bishops hostile to Tradition are able to circumvent them by illegitimate exercise of their authority. A means of avoiding such a tyranny is to exempt the Society houses. This condition, unlike the first three, is a matter of prudence. There is something objectively wrong with not speaking the Truth and not condemning error. There is something wrong with using the flawed Novus Ordo liturgy. There is not something in principle wrong with authority being exercised by a bishop; there has only been something wrong in the way that authority has been abused. Thus, the condition is worded in a more qualified manner so as not to deny in principle the authority of bishops. In light of current difficulties this condition is deemed prudentially desirable but it is not a matter of principle since His Excellency cannot deny the principle of the authority of bishops even if a derogation from the principle is desirable in the current crisis.

The sixth condition is that there be established “[A] Pontifical Commission in Rome for Tradition answering directly to the Pope, with the majority of its members and governing board in favor of Tradition.” Again this is nothing but the demand of Archbishop Lefebvre. In fact it is even more rigorous than that of the Archbishop as it requests a majority of its members and not merely a representation come from Tradition. Having witnessed the operation of the Ecclesia Dei Commission over the past twenty years, it is true that the disposition of the members of the Commission towards Tradition is very important to the results produced.

In the past traditionally-minded groups have accepted being ruled by a Commission on which they have no seat. The point of such a Commission is to have an orderly forum for communication between the Society and the Holy See. One purpose of this Commission would be from the Society’s perspective to have a forum in which to continually echo the call for a conversion to Tradition at the highest levels of the Church. This is exactly what the doctrinal commission was designed to permit, the Society to present the case for Tradition in Rome. Yes, the doctrinal commission failed to convert the Roman authorities (at least to the best of our knowledge although it is possible some have been converted). This was not a fault of the forum or the Society but those listening to Truth. To believe otherwise would be equivalent to faulting Our Lord for the hardness of hearts of the Jews to whom he preached.
The presently reigning Ecclesia Dei Commission is nothing of the sort requested by this condition. It is a police force set over Tradition to regulate it often composed of a majority of clerics and hierarchs blatantly hostile to Tradition. The reason the Ecclesia Dei Commission was transformed from that requested by the Archbishop to its present one is that rarely do we hear the groups under its authority demand a fair representation on the Commission of members favorable to Tradition. After twenty years, not a single priest of any community favoring Tradition has ever sat on the Commission. Communication is thus a one way direction. Recognizing this failure of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, the Chapter renews and enhances the condition of the Archbishop by requesting majority representation.

To be fair to His Excellency, if his criticism of this condition had been merely that the formulation “a majority… in favor of Tradition” was not precise enough in its terminology. The phrase is open to some interpretation as to what it means to be favorable. Perhaps it might have been more clear to require membership coming from either the Society or a related group whose constitutions involve an adherence to Tradition. But, His Excellency’s criticism is not at this level of prudential detail but rather he focuses upon the fact that this commission is to be dependent upon the Pope.

Yet, Bishop Williamson objects:

Dependent on the Pope? But have the Conciliar Popes not been ringleaders of Conciliarism? Is Conciliarism no longer a problem?

Yet, all Catholic institutions must be dependent upon the Pope as the visible head of the Church. Bishop Williamson’s demand goes beyond Catholic ecclesiology. Any legal institution, and a Commission would be such, must be “dependent upon the Pope” to be Catholic. Otherwise it would not be under his authority. Even today the Society notwithstanding its unjust legal persecution is “dependent upon the Pope.”

Again, if this condition had accepted the current structure of the Ecclesia Dei Commission which has no requirement whatsoever to be drawn from people favorable to Tradition, Bishop Williamson could rightly object that this would ignore the experiences and betrayals of the past twenty years. If His Excellency had merely commented on a possible improvement in clarity by suggesting a more precise formulation of “in favor of Tradition,” his criticism would appear reasonable and even constructive. Yet, to criticize the chapter for acknowledging that an institution would be “dependent upon the Pope” misses the mark.

His Excellency’s criticism of this condition seems to indicate the root cause of his entire criticism of the Chapter’s decision. He appears to judge it to have been a mistake of groups which have accepted formal legal recognition from the authorities to be the mere fact of accepting formal legal recognition from them. He seems to make this assessment of the past a principle: To accept formal legal recognition under any circumstance is a betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre, utterly imprudent, and a prelude to compromise on matters of principle such as the Faith and the Mass. Yet, again this is an assessment of the past forty years that lacks an important distinction.

In retrospect it would be reasonable of His Excellency to point out that accepting legal recognition before establishing clearly the status of the key sine qua non conditions to avoid explicit or implicit persecution for criticizing errors, including those of Vatican II, and exclusively holding to the 1962 Liturgy poses a real danger. Likewise, it is reasonable to point out that unless provisions for the succession of a bishop are clearly agreed in advance, the Vatican will never appoint one. In other words, it is one thing to argue that the approach of assuming the Vatican will in fact treat formally recognized groups justly after formal recognition has been proven to be naive. It is quite another to argue that accepting formal recognition on any terms is per se a compromise of the Faith, an argument suggested by His Excellency’s criticism.

The problems faced by traditionally minded groups formally recognized today is not the mere fact of their formal recognition but the fact that they may have underestimated and thus failed to legislate for the challenges, including the duplicity of Vatican officials in dealing with them, before accepting formal recognition. It is one thing to allege that in the past some people may have rushed too rashly into their canonical status, it is another to be opposed under all circumstances as a matter of principle. What led to Bishop Rifan’s embrace of concelebration of the Novus Ordo is not simply the fact that his priests are formally recognized by Rome but the fact that he did not make clear prior to the recognition that he and his priests would exclusively use the 1962 Liturgy.

What muzzles many good priests with official recognition is that their status was accepted without stating they had every intention to denounce the errors of Vatican II and its progeny after recognition. They relied on an ambiguous agreement to be free to preach the Truth without clarifying the concomitant freedom to denounce error. The General Chapter appears clearly aware that such haste and lack of clarity leads to compromise. That is why they insist it can only be accepted if the sine qua non conditions are accepted and if the desirable circumstances are considered. In light of the first two conditions, to say nothing of the two year detailed presentation of the contradictions contained within Vatican II, any official recognition would come in the context of clarity.

The Society will continue denouncing error and will continue exclusively using the 1962 Liturgy and will continue to have at least one bishop. If the Roman authorities will not accept these facts, then the unjust persecution will continue. No priest or group officially recognized thus far has ever been recognized on the basis of the combination of all of these clearly worded conditions and following two years of clarifying the details of the Society’s critique of Vatican II but only on an agreement containing either only limited aspects of them or ambiguously worded permission to prefer saying the Latin Mass and teaching the old way and living the old discipline if they choose. His Excellency places the level of principle at the wrong point. It is not the fact of official recognition that is a road to compromise but the acceptance of such official recognition on any terms. The General Chapter has been clear, if the unjust wrongs of the past are to be corrected, they must really be corrected and clear conditions fixed for preventing immediate relapse.

His Excellency concludes his commentary by stating that these conditions are “excessively grave.” By which he must mean gravely wrong. Yet, they are nothing other than the conditions of the Archbishop: to proclaim truth and denounce error; to use exclusively the 1962 Liturgy and Sacraments; to have the full sacramental channel of grace through a bishop; to have legal protection through independence from diocesan bishops; to have their own initial courts; and to have membership in any legal structure meant to foster communication. To call these conditions which in several respects demand more than Archbishop Lefebvre gravely wrong is equivalent to saying the same thing of the Archbishop.

Finally, we have seen that His Excellency does not even give some of the conditions a fair hearing by ignoring the actual wording of at least two of them. Now could these six demands have taken different form? Are there other possible conditions to be considered? Obviously, yes. Yet, the conditions have been shown to conform to a right appetite, the desire to facilitate the correction of an injustice and provide a workable solution for the future good of the Church. They maintain the balance between what is essential and what is prudentially warranted in times of crisis. They maintain the balance between caution and avoiding denial of the truth about the monarchial constitution of the Church.

Finally, the General Chapter has shown itself to be keenly aware of the mistakes of others in this context in the past. It makes clear that a Neville Chamberlain approach of “peace at any price” is doomed to failure. Peace is not rejected out of hand but peace at any price is so rejected. Given that the Chapter’s judgment is a true practical judgment, conforms to a right appetite, it should be accepted as the decision of a governing authority. His Excellency possesses a keen mind capable of drawing such appropriate distinctions. It is unfortunate that this particular assessment failed to do so. It seems that even the Roman authorities themselves see the Society’s position for what it is.

Since the General Chapter, every indication coming from Rome suggests there will in fact be no rapprochement any time soon. If the conditions were as big a blunder and betrayal of principle as His Excellency observes, would not the Roman authorities have easily accepted them?

——————————————————————————–

Footnotes
1 See Summa Theologica, II, Q.57 Art. 5, Reply to Obj. 3.

2 See the ancient Roman law maxim: Necessity knows no law.

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2012/10/03/9183/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

22 comments on “Wrong or right? Conditions for the SSPX’s future: A reply to Eleison Comments, #168

  1. A very well written piece, logical in its arguements and scholarly in its presentation.

    Thanks, tradidi quod et accepi, for posting this.

  2. Yaley? Bad sign.

    Hit piece? Predictable.

    New “front” for the Remnant’s emerging* accordista line? Also, entirely predictable.

    * Or, would that be “re-emerging”, taking into account the long honeymoon in 2005 and beyond once Josef Cardinal Ratzinger took over the See of Peter?

  3. Scuzzi! That should have read “hit-back piece.

    Target of same: Obvious. English. Unreconstructed LeFebvrian.

  4. tradical on said:

    gpmtrad,

    When you use the label ‘accordista’ … what do you mean?

    • Hey, Ned! Super! Glad to oblige! I just rang Maryann Verbster, lexicographer extraordinaire, for the latest from her files and here’s what her nibs came up with…..

      Accordista, n. ( slang ) a neologism of recent vintage ( probably coined between 2010 and 2012 AD ) and used to refer to SSPX laity and clergy of the conviction that negotiations with Nova Roma ( once known as the Eternal City but, lately, well…. the only things “eternal” one finds there are hermeneuticism, innovationism, collegialism, ecumenism and the now seemingly endless parades of uber-leftist Austro-Germanic hierarchs ascending to high Curial offices ) are “good”, “necessary” and ( in rare instances, usually followed by institutionalization orders under a bench warrant ) “promising”.

      Synonyms: FSSP, ICK, The Papa Stronsay Lonely Hearts Club Band. Also, ( though rare – but darned accurate, nonetheless! ): La Chori Castrati ( Italian ).

      Antonyms: Catholic, Thomist, Realist, Literate. ( And almost anyone justly suspect of Modernists who speak platitudes to Traditionalists while appointing heretically-leaning Reichsmarshalls to significant Vatican offices. )

      And, Ned, this is all completely unofficial, of course. Off the record. Just betwixt thee and me, ok? With the world and the church in their current state, don’t want anything like common sense being hyped about, see? Folks just freak out when that happens.

      • Oh, one more thought. The EDC/FSSP’s record regarding leaderhsip “appointments” is normative.

        As Kenny Rogers would have put it, ya gotta know when to fold ’em – and know when to stay the hell outta the card game in the first place!

      • tradical on said:

        Well parsing your response

        Accordista, refer to SSPX laity and clergy of the conviction that negotiations with Nova Roma … are “good”, “necessary” and …“promising”.

        At first I was uncertain if I qualify. However, an event at Ignis Ardens (anyone who offered a reasonable argument concerning the FUD being spread by various members have been banned – en masse), has made me conclude that at least some people believe that I am an accordista.

        However upon further reflection, the definition that you have provided does not clearly reflect my opinion.

        I stick by the principle that Archbishop Lefebvre invoked in making his decisions, formulated by St. Thomas Aquinas and the same one that has been followed by Bishop Fellay.

        The discussions after the doctrinal discussion were neutral and not necessarily good/necessary – however for a while based on what we knew did appear promising.

        If I have been mistaken in being hopeful that Rome had somehow begun to change – so be it. If you lose hope, then you are in despair.

        That said, I continue to look at this crisis with the eyes of the faith confident in the knowledge that eventually it will end when the Pope (current or future) re-anchors the ship of the Church to the two pillars.

        • Ned, old boy, you do make it a pleasure to retort since I’ve not met the like in deportment, consistency and that certain flow of analytical expressiveness you possess. And, please, if not obvious by now, do not take the half of what I say seriously. I’m firing blanks most of the time as we all are in this mess. My comfort zone is restricted to matters with which I’ve had experience.

          And, for me, the SSPX/Rome flap has been opera buffa since the overture started. It had a clang to it even then and it’s just all become a din, now. As it began I was pretty confident that the Bp. Fellay I had seen in some videos would hold up. That wasn’t the case. He’s mismanaged the Society’s key asset: Consistency. We saw a complete flip flop on several issues of the gravest import concerning the non-negotiability of Tradition in the Catholic ethos. We can no more “negotiate” what has been handed on than we can “negotiate” the Scriptures or the words of sainted popes and doctors. They are what they are and they remain until the end of the world. To have even given the impression that such immense treasure could be trusted to the same crew of hijackers that have disemboweled the liturgy, the very structural integrity of the Ecclesia Herself, was an exceedingly risky undertaking. The words of Benoit XVI for decades have been clear for all to read. And, yet, there they went, even making “not coming under diocesan espiscopal authority” a “desirable but not essential” issue!

          ( Insert your favorite epithet, here…. )

          This kerfuffle went from being an ill-considered tete a tete and straight into a game of Russian roulette once it became ovious that the Vatican was not listening at all and was merely probing for weaknesses in the Society’s front lines. They found him. He was sitting right across the table from Levada all the time.

          As I said before, you NEVER send principles in to negotiate terms. At least Benoit XVI knew that much. IF a deal had ever come about, then there would have been some nice photos with HH, a glass of Kirsch or two and then – AND ONLY THEN – should Bp. Fellay have, put in an appearance.

          NONE OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE PERSONAL SANCTITY, NATIVE INTELLIGENCE OR “MOTIVES” OF BP. FELLAY, about which altogether too many nitwits, halfwits and ( here and there ) some pretty savvy folks have already had their moment to play Dr. Phil, both here and on the English web sites.

          My entire concern has been managerial. And, I submit, history will bear out that the presence of Bp. Fellay in Rome in a room full of men whose heads are full of mush was the very last thing the Society, the Church and, not to put too neat a point on it, the world needed.

          Look, I know that Euroweenies can’t take a you-know-what without a dissertation on it, before and after. It’s the way they are. And I also know that Uh-mer-ikens can be about as nuanced as a hand grenade when a touch of sophisticated discussion is the order of the day. And I give full marks to our Brit Allies in the Trad movement. It has been their studied conclusion that were it not for their entirely necessary ferocity in resisting a “deal”, the Society by now would have gone the way of the Papa Stronsay Lonely Hearts Club Band and its choral repertoire would be, forever more, restricted to alto and soprano renditions of “Go Tell It On the Mountain”. I agree with them. They stopped the Luftwaffe – cold. And they stopped Menzingen, Deo gratias!

          Unfortunately, in 1940 the German invasion’s being put off was a permanent reality but, this time around, the Reichsmarshalls in Rome and Menzingen will be back, all in good time.

          England, Our Lady’s Dowry. God save her and the Society ( or at least what will come out of it after this disaster. )

          By the way, Ned, I was sorry to be informed that you were banned in London, so to speak. I think you a gentleman and the other problems there probably just swept you up in the dust.

          And, by the way, Serv: You did manage to get the moderating of a major forum during this crisis just about as harmonically balanced as could have been, despite my own, once heated, concerns about that. And I appreciate your allowing me to sound off here. The Society matters because of its unique properties and this crisis, far from over, will only be resolved when those are not only recognized by EVERY serious Catholic – but massively returned to for the glory of God and His Church.

        • Tradical,

          When Gregorio Sarto made his so-called ‘announcement’ about his alledged reasons for no longer acting as a moderator, he secretly and vindictively went through and banned everyone he could recall who holds a position opposite his. Some of which have rarely been posting lately. Aside from yourself, I was also banned; as was St. Justin, Traditional Thomist (I think he may have been re-instated), Aquila, Mr. Baldwin and Anthony Malleus. I am sure there are others but you’ll have to recall their names and look them up individually. Sarto made no mention of banning anyone; he did it quietly and secretly. Now that it has been noticed by a few and they have questioned or commented on it, he has made no response.

          My guess is Patricius is not aware that Sarto did this. If he were, the only honest thing he could do would be to reinstate those who Sarto vindictively banned. Traditional Thomist must have found a way to contact him and have his banne revoked.

          • tradical on said:

            Hi NeelyAnn,

            I read a post by Patricius and doubt he will be reinstating anyone soon.

            For the fun of it, I removed my ‘BANNED’ label. It has been reinstated and access to that feature removed. This type of feature is usually at a lower level than the moderators.

            Either way, the IA forum, as it is now populated, is polarized against anything that Bishop Fellay does and polarized for anything that Bishop Williamson does. In a word, at least at that forum, the stage is set.

            I have one element of gratitude concerning the IA forum, it is a veritable lab for assessing the ‘cultural assumptions’ of the posters.

            • tradical on said:

              I decided to check IA for something and noticed the NeelyAnn was no longer banned.

              I checked my posts and surprise, I have also been rehabilitated.

              So it looks like NeelyAnn was right about Patricius.

              However, some of the other members

              • tradical on said:

                oops pushed post too quickly:

                some of the other members have not been reinstated.

                • Yes, Tradical, it appears that you and I were reinstated on IA. Traditionalist Thomas appears to have been reinstated prior to our reinstatements. Yet St. Justin, Mr. Balswin, Aquila, and Anthony Malleus all still remain banned.

                  I am not sure if our reinstatement is the work of Patricius alone, or if we had assistance from another member calling is attention to our bannings. If it was Patricius alone, I would have expected him to reinstate all who were unjustly banned.

                  The same day we were banned, Seraphim attacked Clare on another thread and yet he still remains. No one who was banned the other day was involved in anything that crossed the line so it really makes no sense to leave any of them banned.

                  I guess for now, we watch and see.

          • Haha, yes, the “hard-liners” at IA couldn’t take the heat from the excellent posts of tradical and John McFarland, among others. Big on bluster, short on brains, that lot. They took the typical coward’s way out and banned everyone who wasn’t on their “side”. They have simply become another CathInfo.

            Let them break away from the SSPX. Let them form their little cliques full of bitter and angry “traditionalists”. Let them pronounce their puny and powerless anathemas. When the Church stands once again, glorious and triumphant in Her glory and Tradition, once this terrible crisis of the Faith is over, they will no doubt be still scuttling about muttering their bitter lies and making up false dogmas. We will bury them.

            To quote the great Charette, who fought the satanic French Revolutionaries in the Vendee:

            “We are the youth of God! the youth of fidelity! And this youth will preserve, for its own and for its children, true humanity and liberty of soul”.

            • Nice to see you here, Aquila. Feeling all comfy-cozy after being bruited about by the big dogs? Well, we shan’t deny you your comforts, shall we? Hope you’re sticking to your medication schedule….

              Btw, reincarnating Nikita’s “most entirely empty threat in the history of the XX Century” was most apt – for you, most especially – to have made.

              After all, history does, in fact, repeat itself on occasion.

              • “Big dogs”? Are you referring to the same snivelling cowards on IA who can’t answer rational argument with rational counter-argument, but instead resort to name-calling and the hurling of anathemas? Who pray for the quick death of Bishop Fellay? Who whine about being persecuted, but have no problem banning fellow Catholics who do not share their opinions? I have no pity or sympathy for them.

                As for being all “comfy-cozy”, not sure what you mean by that. I have been a member of AQ for years, before I took the fight to the enemy on IA and CI. I just haven’t posted here in a while.

                As for my “threat”, it was merely a statement of fact. The Church will survive, long after the heretics of IA have turned to dust. We will, in fact, bury them.

                • Aquila,

                  Don’t let gpm get to you. His time spent on IA (I think he may be Anthony Benedict, though I am not sure) is having a rather negative effect on him. He tries to tone it down on here but is not always successful at it.

  5. chris torey on said:

    Having seen many hours of His Excellency Bishop Williamson in many situations including that famous one for Swedish TV I believe him. End of story.

  6. BRIAN MCCALL

    Associate Professor of Law
    B.A., Yale University, Summa Cum Laude, Phi Beta Kappa, 1991
    M.A. Kings College University of London, Fulbright Scholar, 1992
    J.D. University of Pennsylvania, Summa Cum Laude, Order of the Coif, 1997

    Email: brian.mccall@ou.edu
    Link: Course Syllabi and Handouts
    View Professor McCall’s scholarship: works.bepress.com/brian_mccall/
    Professor McCall teaches courses in Contracts, Secured Transactions and Payment Systems.

    After completing his Undergraduate and Masters degrees, Professor McCall taught English in a private high school for two years before commencing his law degree. He received honors for obtaining the highest grades over the three year law degree and for his specific work in Corporations, Torts and Wills and Future Interests. During his third year of law school, Professor McCall taught foreign lawyers studying for their L.L.M. a course in legal writing and research. He also served as a teaching assistant for a course on Law and Philosophy taught in the College of Arts and Sciences.

    After obtaining his law degree, Professor McCall joined the international law firm of Dechert LLP where he focused on cross border mergers and acquisitions and corporate finance transactions. In 1999 he transferred to the firm’s London office to further develop this practice and to oversee the merger with a London based firm of approximately 130 English lawyers. In 2004 he was elected a partner of the firm. Some of the clients he advised included Citigroup, JP Morgan, The London Stock Exchange, Comcast Corporation, Tate & Lyle Plc and Rabobank. He worked on many ground breaking transactions including one of the first public to private transactions in Germany and the first US company conducting a Regulation S offering on the London Stock Exchange’s AIM Market.

    Professor McCall has been a speaker at several conferences on consumer finance, corporate governance, legal philosophy, international securities offerings and private equity law. He is a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association. Professor McCall has published the following law review articles:

    Money, Money Everywhere but not a Drop to Secure: A Proposal for Amending the Perfection Rules for Security Interests in Money and Deposit Accounts, 74 Tennessee Law Review 669 (2007)
    Quas Primas and the Economic Ordering of Society for the Social Reign of Christ the King: A Third Perspective on the Bainbridge/Sargent Law and Economics Debate, 47 Journal of Catholic Legal Studies 369 (2008) (forthcoming; upon publication the article will be translated into German and republished in the German language journal Civitas)
    Unprofitable Lending: Modern Credit Regulation and the Lost Theory of Usury, 30 Cardozo Law Review 549 (2008)
    Learning from Our History: Evaluating the Modern Housing Finance Market in Light of Ancient Principles of Justice, 60 South Carolina Law Review 707(2009)
    The Architecture of Law: Building Law on a Solid Foundation, the Eternal and Natural Law, 10 Vera Lex 47 (2009)
    Exploring the Foundations of Law’s Empire: A Review of Exploring Law’s Empire, The Jurisprudence of Ronald Dworkin, 4 Journalof Law Philosophy and Culture 195 (2009)
    It’s Just Secured Credit: A Natural Law Case in Support of Some Forms of Secured Credit, 43 Indiana Law Review 7 (2010)
    Consulting the Architect when Problems Arise: The Divine Law, 9 Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy 103 (2011)
    The Corporation as Imperfect Society, 36 Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 509 (2011)
    The Church and the Usurers: Unprofitable Lending for the Modern Economy (Sapientia Press of Ave Maria University; forthcoming)

    Here is a question… why is the SSPX posting a reply to ‘Eleison comments’ by a law professor who is not even a member of the society?

    • tradical on said:

      The article is from the Remnant and it has happened before that the SSPX.org has cross posted articles.

      Ultimately, the article is for the faithful and not Bishop Williamson.

      I believe it’s a good article (although a little lengthy) and since it is from a third party, provides what can be construed as a more objective point of view.

  7. Marcel, a brief reflection on “he-who-shall-not-be-named” and his machinations, suitably lofted into the ethos on the wings of an MBA paid for by the SSPX ( which, like the government, has no visible means of support save for it “tax base” ), concerning one bishop of the Society’s legal defense against German Zionists, ought to shed a bit of light.

    The “NovuSSPX”: We’re All Lawyered Up & Ready To Rumble.

Leave a Reply