 |
| Marcel Lefebvre in Cordoba, Argentina, center (fifth from left or right) |
“Today, the Eucharist, which is supposed to be the sacrament of unity, is too often a battlefield between Catholics who support the Traditional Latin Mass and those who want to see it disappear. Both sides need to ask themselves whether the fight is worth something more important than Paris: the unity of the church.
“You must be my age to remember before the Second Vatican Council, when the liturgy was entirely in Latin in Catholic churches, except in those using Eastern Rite liturgies, where it was often in Greek. In Rome, it had been changed from Greek into Latin in the third and fourth centuries so the common people could understand it — a pragmatic decision, not a theological one.
“When I was young, we took it for granted that the Mass was in Latin. It was something that made us different from Protestants. We could go to the same Mass anywhere in the world. The Scripture readings were in Latin, although on Sunday the priest would reread the Gospel in English before giving his sermon. Otherwise, unless you had a translation, you had no idea what the readings were.
“The Eucharistic prayer was the priest' s prayer, which he said with his back to us. The altar boy would ring the bells to notify us when the priest raised the host and chalice for us to adore. The bell also rang to call us to Communion.
“Other than that, the priest did his thing and the congregation passively watched or prayed in silence.
“…for the most part, the liturgical changes were accepted and implemented with excitement and joy. They were the most visible reforms of Vatican II. And after a bit of confusion, they were accepted overwhelmingly by Catholics in the pews.
“But there were two groups of holdouts.
“First, there were those who found the change difficult because they were used to the old ways and the reforms were not well explained. Popes Paul VI and John Paul II wanted to deal with these people with pastoral sensitivity and patience, but the popes made clear that eventually, the old Mass was to fade away.
“The other group of holdouts was more problematic. They objected to the new liturgy in principle and felt it was blasphemous. In truth, these ideologues objected to all the reforms of the council, not just liturgy. They were divisive and contentious.
“Some of these dissenters were led into schism by French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, despite all the Vatican’s efforts to appease him. To undermine Lefebvre and win back schismatics to the church, the Vatican permitted more frequent celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass. This strategy was partially successful, as exemplified by Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, which celebrates the old Mass but is in unity with the pope.
“But there was an unanticipated side effect: Some who grew up after Vatican II began to attend these Latin Masses. Most were not ideologues, but pious, theologically unsophisticated Catholics who were attracted by the ritual and mysterious ceremony that allowed them to focus on adoration and private prayer without the distraction of communal participation.
“It is a mistake for liturgical reformers to lump this third group in with the ideologues who reject Vatican II. These are good, devout people who want to come closer to Jesus and find spiritual nourishment in the old liturgy. Their existence is a result of our failure to better explain the reforms and to make the new liturgy more appealing to them.
“…Henry IV compromised his faith to win Paris. Catholics of all stripes should be able to compromise on the liturgy to maintain the unity of the church. We must respect and love one another, despite our liturgical differences. And everyone should know that we are Christians by our love, not know that we are Catholics by our fights.”
https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/church-unity-worth-latin-mass
—Thomas Reese, “Is church unity worth a Latin Mass?” National Catholic Reporter (February 6, 2026)
The author of this article tries hard to take a reasonable, moderate approach. I especially like his exposition because he uses the term “ideologues,” which I believe is an accurate description.
What exactly is “ideology,” and by extension, “ideologues,” those who expound ideology?
Many definitions of “ideology” are available, so that it’s not a straightforward matter to pin down its meaning. I will cite here two definitions that I believe underscore what I hold to be its essential attributes.
Merriam Webster Dictionary
“Ideology has been in use in English since the end of the 18th century and is one of the few words whose coiner we can identify. The French writer A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy proposed it as a term to designate the ‘science of ideas’ [but]…the word today is largely used neutrally, most often to refer to a systematic body of concepts, and especially to the set of ideas and beliefs held by a particular group or political party.”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideology
Aquirow in Reddit, r/askphilosophy, 2022
“The basic definition I prescribe to ideology is that it is a system of beliefs, values, ideals that is raised to the status of absolute. Somewhat similar to a worldview but more adamantly concretised in the sense that it is not easily subjected to flexible change or re-adaptation. And I understand that ideology can be manifested in political ideology…”
Ideology has a systematic character. It is a more or less organized body of beliefs professed by individuals and, critically, by groups.
Also, ideology has a predominantly political character. It is a belief system—and insofar as beliefs are accorded value, it is also a value system—avowed by groups that engage in politics, namely, in the acquisition, exercise, use (necessarily, misuse and abuse as well) of power. Ideology thus functions as a political platform.
Ideology as such propounds absolute or nearly absolute principles. They are the beliefs strongly held by a group that govern their internal behavior and the political agenda pursued outside the group.
Not surprisingly, organized religion, with its profession of dogmas and its missionary character, is also ideological, especially when it operates as the vehicle for political engagement (which is inevitable).
Religious ideology is especially apparent among those doctrinally based groups that engage in power struggles internally and across society. They promote their beliefs in an absolute manner, deploying them as the ideological basis for their political agenda, which they pursue aggressively.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy sets forth the following enlightening points about ideology.
“[Ideology] may refer to a comprehensive worldview, a legitimating discourse, a partisan political doctrine, culture, false beliefs that help support illegitimate power, beliefs that reinforce group identity, or mystification. It is often used pejoratively, but just as often it is a purely descriptive term. When authors criticize ideology, they may be criticizing complicity with injustice, confirmation bias, illusions, self-serving justifications, or dogmatism. When authors identify ideology, they may locate it in forms of consciousness, propositional attitudes, culture, institutions, discourses, social conventions, or material rituals.
“…nearly all current uses pertain to partiality (preference or bias), partisanship (adherence to a faction or cause), or both.” [boldface mine]
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ideology/
—William Clare Roberts, “Ideology,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, March 7, 2025
The article identifies “ideology” in the negative sense of the term as a type of social dysfunction, abetted by a kind of harmful and insupportable dogmatism.
Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic religion is a very pliant vehicle for ideology.
We don’t need more ideologues in the Church. We have enough of them in political society.
Photo courtesy of Dr Doofenshmirtz
ReplyDeletehttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marcel_Lefebvre_in_Cordoba,_Argentina.jpg
Gonzalinho
A FAILURE OF DISCERNMENT?
ReplyDelete“For decades, the group [Society of Saint Pius X] has often been described as an anomaly within Catholic life, a community whose irregular canonical status places it at the edge of the church. [Cardinal] Schneider suggests a different perspective. Instead of viewing the society only as a problem to be solved, he proposes that the situation could become an opportunity for the entire church to examine unresolved questions about the interpretation of the council. In his view, reconciliation should begin with trust rather than suspicion. He argues that Rome should first integrate the society more fully into the life of the church and then continue theological dialogue afterward. Setting strict conditions before any progress can occur, he believes, risks turning the process into a demand for surrender rather than a genuine conversation. This argument leads Schneider to criticize what he sees as the current approach associated with Cardinal Fernandez. He describes that approach as unrealistic and harsh, suggesting that it lacks the pastoral sensitivity needed to address such a delicate situation. According to Schneider, insisting that every detail of the council’s texts must be accepted without discussion makes meaningful dialogue nearly impossible. The interview becomes even more controversial when Schneider draws a comparison between the treatment of the Society of St. Pius X and the Vatican’s diplomatic relationship with the government of China. In recent years, the Holy See has reached agreements with the Chinese Communist authorities regarding the appointment of bishops. Schneider argues that the Vatican has shown considerable flexibility in negotiating with a political system openly hostile to religion while at the same time placing strict barriers before priests and faithful who simply wish to preserve traditional liturgical practices.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdwW5azlXrA
—Catholic Heritage, “Tensions Rise as Bishop Schneider Challenges the Interpretation of SSPX & the Second Vatican Council,” YouTube video, 14:03 minutes, March 13, 2026
Dialogue is the correct approach, but ordaining bishops in opposition to the pope is schismatic and anti-dialogue.
The Society of Saint Pius X or SSPX looks like the Old Catholics, who have hardened into practically irreconcilable schism.
The case in Communist China is different in this respect—in some cases, the government has agreed to recognize the authority of the pope to approve a bishop’s ordination. In other cases, Chinese bishops operate in de facto schism. SSPX is conducting itself according to the latter instance.
“An agreement to keep apostolic succession intact and beyond dispute and to preclude and heal de facto schism.
“The historical problems that arose from the Anglican schism come to mind.
“At least two competing moral-theological imperatives—one edges out the other.”
https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2022/10/vatican-concordat-with-communist-china.html
To be continued
Gonzalinho
A FAILURE OF DISCERNMENT?
DeleteContinued
A very good case study in the discernment of the spirits—
I’d say the case of SSPX illustrates a failure of discernment because the decision of the society leads to schism and without sufficient cause.
Bad fruits, work of the devil.
The reason for the schism is the rejection of the teachings of Vatican Council II and its concomitant reforms, notably the implementation of the Novus Ordo.
While the teachings of Vatican Council II are not dogmatic (see below), they are set forth at the highest level of teaching authority, that of an ecumenical council, which includes the ratification of the pope.
“Did Vatican II define any new dogmas or condemn any heresies?
“No. Unlike many other ecumenical councils, Vatican II did not in an extraordinary way define any new dogmas of the Church or condemn any heresies.
“But it is not unique in this respect. In fact, three ecumenical councils—the First Lateran Council (1123), the Second Lateran Council (1139), and the Third Lateran Council (1179)—were disciplinary councils. Not only did these ecumenical councils not define any new dogmas, they did not address matters of doctrine at all.”
https://www.wordonfire.org/vatican-ii-faq/
—“Vatican II FAQs,” Word on Fire, 2026
So it is difficult to see an adequate basis for repudiating the teachings of the council.
SSPX over so many years has so far not been persuasive in its arguments opposing the teachings and reforms of Vatican Council II. The society’s arguments presented in the SSPX Asia website. They are too extensive and involved to take up here given the limited space. See:
https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2003_January/errors_of_vatican_II.htm
Gonzalinho
WHO ARE THE OLD CATHOLICS?
ReplyDelete“Old Catholic church, any of the groups of Western Christians who believe themselves to maintain in complete loyalty the doctrine and traditions of the undivided church but who separated from the see of Rome after the First Vatican council of 1869–70.
“…The steady process of centralization in the see of Rome and in the person of the pope, which has marked the later history of the Christian church in the West, has naturally led to recurrent opposition. This has taken a variety of forms—for instance, conciliarism in the 15th century and Jansenism in the 17th. A new wave of opposition was released by the plans for the First Vatican Council and the promulgation of the doctrine of the infallibility of the pope in 1870 (see Vatican Council, First). There was widespread hostility to these plans, the most notable figure being the church historian J. J. I. von Döllinger, who was one of the most outstanding Roman Catholic scholars of the period.
“After the council, all the bishops of the opposition one by one gave in their adhesion to the new dogma. Döllinger remained inflexible and in time was excommunicated by name. He himself took no part in forming separatist churches, but it was largely as a result of his advice and guidance that Old Catholic churches came into being in a number of countries—Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and elsewhere. As no bishop had joined any of these groups, recourse was had to the Jansenist church in Holland, which had maintained a somewhat precarious existence in separation from Rome since the 18th century but had preserved an episcopal succession recognized by Rome as valid though irregular.
“The first consecration of the new order was that of Joseph H. Reinkens, who was made bishop in Germany by a sympathetic bishop of the Jansenist Church of Holland, Bishop Heykamp of Deventer, on Aug. 11, 1873. Rather later and for similar reasons, though with a certain national emphasis, the Polish National Catholic Church came into being in the United States and Canada. The episcopal succession was transmitted to this church in 1897 by Bishop E. Herzog of Switzerland.”
—Laura Etheredge, “Old Catholic church,” Brittanica.com, September 9, 2010
The Old Catholic Church operates in schism but has a valid episcopal succession recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. The catalyst for the Old Catholic schism had been the doctrine of papal infallibility promulgated by Vatican Council I.
SSPX, which has always operated under valid episcopal succession, now intends, after being placed under irregular canonical status by the Holy See in 2009, to incite schism a second time by ordaining several (exact number not yet specified) bishops this coming July, consistent with past SSPX opposition to various teachings of Vatican Council II, besides repudiation of the postconciliar implementation of the Novus Ordo.
Gonzalinho
“GOOD” MODERNISM
ReplyDeleteSSPX is correct. Vatican II teaches Modernist doctrines.
What is Modernism? It was essentially a religious reaction against liberalism, a reaction prosecuted principally by Pio Nono and Pius X, the former beatified and the latter sainted.
The Modernist crisis of the Roman Catholic Church traces back to the ideological revolution wrought by the Enlightenment, which intertwined liberalism, science, and Kantian immanentism, all interrelated. They are the products of an intellectual upending that sought a new political order in order to operate according to what was understood as the intrinsic prerogatives of a new rationalism.
Today we know that liberalism is a mixed bag. There are varieties of liberalism, and several important principles that are rooted in liberalism have developed into authoritative teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Examples from Vatican II include upholding the right to religious freedom, the promotion of state protections for this right, the formal affirmation, late in the day, of the primacy of conscience, the categorical injunctions against slavery, and the repudiation of the longstanding, ancient, in fact, charge against the Jews—the Jewish people—of deicide.
And more.
SSPX is incorrect in this critical respect. They have turned all the anti-Modernist directives of Pio Nono and Pius X into dogmas, which they aren’t.
Vatican II exemplifies the theology of the development of doctrine expounded by the newest Doctor of the Church, Saint John Henry Cardinal Newman. Happily, the council advances official doctrine beyond reactionary anti-Modernism.
The bad fruit of SSPX's grievous, intransigent, and obtuse error is schism.
Gonzalinho