Invalid Input

Invalid Input

Search the Remnant Newspaper
Thursday, September 26, 2013

The Defense Rests

Rate this item
(7 votes)

The Bizarre Case of Catholic Answers Live vs. “Radical Traditionalists”


On May 31st, Catholic Answers Live radio host Patrick Coffin and apologist Tim Staples launched a two-hour attack on “radical traditionalism” which I responded to here. Apparently, the overall response to the show was not favorable. In a July 12th blog post entitled “Meet the Mad-Trads” host Patrick Coffin described the reaction as follows:

We found ourselves on the business end of a nasty backlash. Of all the hot-button issues we’ve tackled head-on with me behind the mic (start the list with abortion, sexual sin, feminism, and homosexuality) no previous topic generated the kind of vitriol from (some) listeners. [1]


 Coffin then exposed the “vitriol” by posting excerpts from e-mails he received after the show. Some examples are as follows:

“Amazing! Wow! I am deeply disappointed by this apparent arrogance.”

“That show was an embarrassment to all Catholics.”

“I was extremely annoyed with the . . . program criticizing the “radical traditionalists,” which is a reference that in and of itself makes no sense whatsoever” (sic).

“I finally turned the radio off in disgust.”

“To treat anyone in such a manner—much less our fellow Catholics—is a serious failure in justice and charity, and I seriously doubt you would indulge in this kind of careless and misleading attack on any other group.”[2]

If this is what Coffin considers “vitriol” it is no wonder he and Staples consider any real criticism of Vatican II and the New Mass as “radical traditionalism.” Except now, Coffin has a new moniker for those who disagree with him: “Mad-Trads.” Realizing that there are a growing group of traditional Catholics who are in “full communion” with the Church, but reject the automatic defense of all things novel, these faithful Catholics must, of course, be marginalized. Hence, they are now caricatured as angry troglodytes who dare to question the following Neo-Catholic sacred cows: an ambiguous pastoral Council that defined no dogma, a novel liturgy manufactured by committee in 1969, a new “charismatic” movement with roots in Pentecostalism, and a supposed 1984 consecration of Russia that never mentioned the word “Russia.”

Coffin then refers to the “com boxes” of traditional websites functioning as “echo chambers of depression and disenfranchisement,” as if the proper response to the unprecedented tragedy we are now witnessing in the Church should be one of joy and elation. The irony is that while Traditional forums and “com boxes” are typically welcoming of debate; Catholic Answers’ own forum is rife with authoritarian moderators who act to snuff out all serious criticism of any post-Conciliar novelty. The result is exactly what Coffin criticizes, an “echo chamber.” However, instead of echoing “depression and disenfranchisement,” Catholic Answers forum echoes a deliriously optimistic vision of the current state of the Church coupled with deafening silence when it comes to criticizing dissident bishops and priests who are helping to destroy Her.

Coffin’s post finally ended with an announcement that Catholic Answers Live would devote yet another two-hour show to “radical traditionalism”:

Because of the intensity of the reactions to the May 31 show, we are going to revisit radical Traditionalism on Monday, August 12, again with Tim Staples. Perhaps some of our unhappy interlocutors will call the show and debate the issues directly on the air, instead of relying again on third-party reports and then firing off outraged emails based on them. We’ll be happy to take their calls.[3]

Still Trying to Define “Radical Traditionalism”

As promised, the dynamic duo returned for an August 12th show. The show began with a brief recap of a conference where the duo recently spoke. Apparently 4,500 Catholics paid money at this conference to watch Coffin and Staples conduct an “offbeat unplugged interview of each other” followed by Coffin’s “first large-scale magic show” on opening night. Thus, from the get go, the duo were able to prove, albeit unintentionally, that there is a serious crisis in the Church.

At that point, Coffin and Staples again tried to explain what they mean by “radical traditionalism.” Staples then went on to say that the positives from the last show far outweighed the negatives. What positives he was referring to, we are not told. Staples then made pains to explain that neither he nor Coffin was attacking “traditionalism” in the last episode. As for the term “radical traditionalists,” Staples said he used the term because it would not be fair to lump all traditionalists in one group.  He again resorted to the nebulous term “full communion” as the apparent dividing line between traditionalists and “radical traditionalists.” After lumping both the sedevacantists and the SSPX in the “radical traditionalist” camp, Staples did point out that there was a “qualitative difference” between sedevacantists and other “radical traditionalists.” He said that the sedevacantists are arguably in “formal schism” under canon law. Staples then pointed out that the SSPX has, in contrast, recognized the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and that Pope Francis is the successor of St. Peter. Staples then went on to say that he and Coffin made all of these distinctions in the last broadcast and that any misunderstandings were perhaps due to listeners “tuning in late.”

Despite Staples’ assertions to the contrary, the last broadcast did not make such distinctions. If I recall, in that broadcast Staples tried to define “radical traditionalists” as those who reject the infallible Catholic teaching of Vatican I, that the clergy and faithful must submit to the Pope not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church. The problem with this definition, as I previously pointed out, is Staple’s own interpretation of this teaching, which consists of all Catholics being bound to absolutely accept and positively approve of every liturgical novelty allowed by a Pope or bishop as “tradition.”

Thus, Staples’ previous definition was broader than he claims and lent itself to the very confusion that resulted. For there are a growing number of Catholics “in full communion with Rome” who oppose such novelties and yet still abide by Vatican I. Further, Patrick Coffin, had included as “radical traditionalists” those who participate in “endless bitter complaining about the Second Vatican Council” and “sarcastic recriminations against the Novus Ordo.” He even referred to these attitudes as “pernicious” and “against the Gospel.”

Thus, in order to square their new definition of “radical traditionalism” with their previous one, Coffin and Staples would have to believe that every Catholic who does not accept with docility all post-Conciliar novelties is somehow not in “full Communion” with Rome. This strange view, which would exclude most Traditional Catholics from the Church while still maintaining that groups like the “nuns on the bus” remain in the Church, severely tests the principle of non-contradiction. In any case, one can clearly see why the previous broadcast created confusion on the issue. It was hardly the fault of the listeners.

Staples’ New Vatican II Definition of “Rad Trad”

Staples’ new and improved definition of “radical traditionalists” includes those who “separate themselves from ‘full Communion’ with the Catholic Church as it is defined in Lumen Gentium, paragraph 14…” The part of paragraph 14 Staples is most likely referring to reads as follows:

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion.[4]

Apparently Staples is assuming that the priests of the SSPX, and possibly other Traditional laity, are not united with the Church as a part of Her “visible bodily structure” or bonded to Her by “ecclesiastical government.” But is this true? The SSPX was instituted with full approval from the local bishop in 1970 and its ministers are currently under no censure of excommunication, but simply lack a canonical status. Rome has readily admitted that their situation is not like the Orthodox in that they are still considered subject to the Code of Canon Law and are not schismatic. Pope Benedict even went so far as to say in 2007 that the situation of the SSPX is, “a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church.”[5]

Of course, if Staples would look at paragraph eight of Lumen Gentium, he would learn that the “Church of Christ” merely “subsists in” the Catholic Church. Thus, even if the SSPX were not in “full Communion” with the Catholic Church, they could, according to Vatican II, still belong to the “Church of Christ” and thus contain “many elements of sanctification and truth.” Furthermore, even if the SSPX were formally schismatic, as Staples claims the sedevacantists are, paragraph fifteen of Lumen Gentium makes this seem like a pretty good state to be in: 

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God. They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power… [6]

Thus, according to Lumen Gentium, even if the SSPX is not “fully incorporated into the Society of the Church” they can still “in some real way” be joined with the Catholic Church in the Holy Spirit, receiving gifts and graces whereby God “is operative among them with His sanctifying power.” If this is the case, what is the real importance of full incorporation “into the Society of the Church?” As this exercise demonstrates, trying to pin any precise definition on the shifting, ambiguous, and contradictory language of Vatican II documents is a recipe for utter disaster; hence, the Traditionalists’ critique of the Council texts themselves.

Staples then proceeded to give a one-sided presentation of the history of the SSPX, before erroneously stating the SSPX does not accept the “full authority of the pope in matters of discipline and Vatican Council II.” [7] In reality, the SSPX not only accepts the full authority of the pope, but also believes the pope has more authority than Staples or Vatican II is willing to grant him. As the Society’s founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, stated:

They have collegialized the pope's government and that of the bishops with a presbyterial college, that of the parish priest with a lay council, the whole broken down into innumerable commissions, councils, sessions, etc. The new Code of Canon Law is completely permeated with this concept. The pope is described as the head of the College of Bishops. We find this doctrine already suggested in the Council document Lumen Gentium, according to which the College of Bishops, together with the pope, exercises supreme power in the Church in habitual and constant manner.  This is not a change for the better; this doctrine of double supremacy is contrary to the teaching and Magisterium of the Church. It is contrary to the definitions of Vatican Council I and to Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Satis Cognitum. The Pope alone has supreme power; he communicates it only to the degree he considers advisable, and only in exceptional circumstances. The pope alone has power of jurisdiction over the whole world.[8]

Any cursory inquiry into the matter would have revealed that the SSPX has always accepted the authority of the pope. Indeed, why would Bishop Fellay, and Archbishop Lefebvre before him, devote countless hours of time and energy in discussions with Benedict XVI and John Paul II if they did not believe them to have authority over the Church. The position of the Society, there for all to see on their website and all of their writings, is that even though the pope has supreme authority in the Church, there are situations where a Catholic is bound under the moral law to legitimately disobey lawful authority. This fundamental moral principle is a Catholic one and is confirmed by none other than the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas.

In addition, the SSPX has always accepted Vatican II as a Council of the Catholic Church. However, as the former Cardinal Ratzinger admitted in 1988:

The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.[9]

Thus, while the SSPX accepts Vatican II as a Council of the Church, there are clearly problematic elements of this Council, which apparently contradict the previous infallible Magisterium. Thus all Catholics, not just the SSPX, have an obligation to ask the Pope that these ambiguities be clarified for the sake of the faithful to clearly demonstrate how they are in conformity with previous Church teaching. This is, in fact, precisely what the SSPX tried to do during the doctrinal discussions from 2009 until 2011, without any success. After two years of doctrinal discussions on the proper interpretation of Vatican II, Cardinal Levada simply demanded that Bishop Fellay sign a very short doctrinal preamble which failed to officially clarify any of Vatican II’s problematic sections.  Such a clarification is now being  sought by not only the SSPX, but also such distinguished Church figures as Bishop Athanasius Schneider, the auxiliary bishop of Astana in Kazakhstan and Msgr. Brunero Gherardini, canon of the Vatican Arch-basilica and director of the international theological periodical Divinitas. [10] [11]

Thus the SSPX and all Catholics are left in the unenviable position of wondering what this unprecedented Council even says, much less whether what it says should be assented to.  In the meantime, the SSPX clearly adheres to unchangeable traditional Catholic teaching on ecumenism, religious liberty and collegiality. Can adherence to the Pre-Vatican II teachings on such subjects ever be grounds to call a Catholic a “radical traditionalist” or not in “full communion” with the Church? To do so would be to declare the Church’s own Tradition “radical” and not in “full communion.” This is why no member of the SSPX has ever been canonically sanctioned by Rome for reasons of faith or morals. The suspensions of Society priests in the 1970’s and the excommunications of Society bishops in 1988 were all solely in response to lesser disciplinary matters regarding prior Vatican approval for ordinations and consecrations.

In fact, if one reviews all of the disciplinary acts of the Post-Vatican II Church, one will find very few canonical sanctions against any bishops, priests or laymen for teaching error or spreading poisonous heretical doctrines. This simply goes to highlight the upside down priorities of the post-Conciliar Church which allows heretical clergy to spread their errors almost unabated, while cracking down with full canonical authority upon those clerics who violate mere disciplinary laws.

Indeed Dietrich Von Hildebrand’s observation from 1973 is just as true today as it was then:

…it is now especially infuriating when certain bishops, who themselves show this lethargy toward heretics, assume a rigorously authoritarian attitude towards those believers who are fighting for orthodoxy, and who are doing what the bishops ought to be doing themselves![12]

This exact same attitude can be attributed to Staples and Coffin. The inordinate amount of time they devote to condemning “radical traditionalists” while refusing to speak out against the fifth column of bishops and priests in the Church today is telling.

Frank from Tucson: Casualty of the Crisis

The duo then took their first caller, Frank from Tucson.  Frank complained of problems with his sister who was causing separation in his family. She started attending a mission chapel of the SSPX and started “changing.” Frank felt this is unfortunate since diversity is accepted at his local parish. So accepted, in fact, that Frank and his live-in girlfriend have been Eucharistic ministers at their parish for years! Coffin and Staples then stumbled over each other to cut Frank off. Staples then admitted that Frank’s apparently “radical traditionalist” sister was correct in saying his relationship was not acceptable to God and that his parish priest (who is in “full communion” by the way) was wrong. Frank then defiantly told the duo that things are going to change in the Church as they have been for the last couple of years.

Coffin then asked Staples an odd question as to whether the sexual morality of the Church was rooted in “traditionalism” or the Bible and the teaching of Jesus Christ. That Coffin thinks the sexual morality of the Church is not based in Catholic Tradition is telling, as apparently, in his mind, the Church is reduced to basing Her morality on Sacred Scripture alone. This is an interesting concept as the morality of certain acts, including abortion and contraception, are not explicitly condemned in the Bible nor spoken of directly by Christ, though the earliest Christian Tradition, including the Didache of the Apostles, condemns them.

Staples then went on to assure us that the Church’s moral law is infallible and unchangeable, quoting the novel teaching of Vatican II that the twofold purpose of the conjugal act is both unity in marriage and being open to life. In contrast, the Traditional teaching of the Church has always been that the bearing of children is the sole primary purpose of the conjugal act, any unitive purpose being clearly secondary. As a result of Vatican II “equaling” the two ends of marriage, and the Conciliar Church’s de facto inverting them through primary emphasis on the unitive[13], we have seen the almost universal use of artificial contraception by Catholics along with growing Catholic acceptance of homosexual “marriage.” For the arguments against these things, from both a Catholic and natural law perspective, flow from the propagation of children being the primary end of marriage. If this end is somehow downgraded to secondary or even placed as a co-equal end alongside the unitive, then one could argue that contraceptive and homosexual acts, though not open to life, are still unitive and therefore can still fulfill an end of marriage. Thus, Vatican II’s attempt to equal out and/or invert the Traditional Catholic teaching on marriage is a good example of how, by Conciliar standards, the infallible Catholic moral law can apparently change.

We have seen recent examples of this phenomenon in the post-Conciliar Church and not just from the far left. For example, after Pope Benedict’s comments regarding condom use in Africa, a moral theologian of Opus Dei made the case that the use of condoms may not be immoral in some circumstances.[14] Also certain bishops recently allowed for the use of the potentially abortifacient “morning after” pill at Catholic hospitals.[15] In addition, Pope Francis recently called for a new discussion of whether divorced and remarried Catholics should be denied Communion.[16] As these examples demonstrate, once the Traditional teaching of the Church is modified to account for modern sensibilities, a whole host of unintended consequences ensue.

Staples then asked Frank to please leave his contact information so that Staples could call his parish and then get back to him, presumably to correct Frank’s erring pastor. Not to be cynical, but does anyone familiar with the Church over the last fifty years think for a second that Frank’s priest will be swayed by the opinion of a Catholic Answers apologist? The perennial problem in these cases is that priests like Frank’s are allowed to spread error with absolutely no discipline by their bishop. Even worse, often times the bishop agrees with the erring priest. Thus Frank has become yet another casualty of the Vatican II aggiornamento, which rejects condemnation of modern error as too negative preferring only the positive affirmation of what is true.

After Frank closed his call by comparing traditionalists to the Taliban (which neither Staples nor Coffin responded to), Staples then promised to call Frank’s parish before publicly questioning Frank’s veracity on the air. Ironically, the surprise here is not that Frank’s pastor approves of his openly sinful relationship, but that Tim Staples actually has serious doubts as to whether the pastor of a modern Catholic parish approves of such a thing. This is yet another small reminder that while traditionalists live in reality, Neo-Catholics apparently live in a dream Church of their own making.

Conciliarizing Tradition

The next caller was Dee from East Tennessee. Dee stated that Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors, condemned propositions that the Church today advocates. He then asked on what basis Catholics should reject what Pius IX literally says in favor of a post-Conciliar interpretation, which contradicts what he literally says.

Staples then asked Dee what he would think it meant if he asked him to “put the kitty on the table.” Dee then said that it meant for him to put a feline on the table. Staples then asked, “but what if we are at a poker game?” Dee then said he’d have to ask Staples to define “kitty.” Staples then defined what a poker “kitty” is. Yes, this is the point to which Neo-Catholic apologetics has evolved since 1965.

Staples apparent point was that Dee was taking Pius IX “out of context.” Of course by “out of context” Staples did not mean Dee was taking words out of the context of the Syllabus, but that Dee was taking Pius IX out of the context of Vatican II. For instead of interpreting Vatican II through the lens of Tradition, as Pope Benedict advocated, Staples and other Neo-Catholic apologists prefer to interpret all past Papal documents through the lens of Vatican II. In doing so, they turn Vatican II into the very “superdogma” Pope Benedict XVI condemned. Staples went on to argue that only the Magisterium gets to say what Pius IX meant in the Syllabus and not Dee. Of course by Magisterium, Staples is referring to the post-Conciliar Magisterium, giving short shrift to the Magisterium of Pius IX under which the document was issued.

Staples then proceeded to explain what Pius IX really meant by his writings on religious freedom. In doing so, Staples happened to mention that by time of Vatican II, “there were no more Catholic countries.” This statement would be a shocking surprise to the many countries that recognized Catholicism as the state religion at the time of Vatican II, only to be pressured by the Vatican to change such laws in deference to the Council’s “new” teaching on the matter.

Having already responded to Neo-Catholic religious liberty arguments in a previous article , I will refrain from repeating myself here.[17] However, it should be noted that such arguments may not even be necessary for Traditionalists to make anymore. For according to Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, Emeritus of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Science, the Vatican II document on religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, does “not have a binding doctrinal content.”[18]

Catholic Answers Redefines Conciliar Teaching on Salvation of Non-Catholics

Dee then asked how the following proposition, condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors, could be reconciled with post-Conciliar teaching:

Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.[19]

Staples, to his credit, did a fairly good job of explaining the Traditional teaching on this subject, which can be found in paragraphs seven and eight of Pius IX’s own encyclical, Quanto Conficimaur Moerore.[20] However, is this the same teaching of Vatican II and the Post-Conciliar Church? Do the previously quoted paragraphs of Lumen Gentium really convey the same urgency of belonging to the Catholic Church for salvation as the Syllabus? Didn’t Lumen Gentium tell us that “in some real way” non-Catholic Christians are “joined with us in the Holy Spirit” and that God “gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power?”

Furthermore, what Conciliar document can Staples point to that binds all Catholics to hold the Traditional position on the salvation of non-Catholics? In reality, the Conciliar Church allows extreme positions on both sides of this issue, apparently making the issue an open question. As evidence of this, John Paul II, whom Staples and Coffin refer to as “The Great”, allowed for the possibility of universal salvation; a position in direct contradiction to what Staples just held out to Dee as Catholic teaching. During a Wednesday audience in 1999 John Paul II stated (emphasis added):

Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it.[21]

On the opposite side of the issue are The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, a religious congregation, approved by the Church. They are allowed by the Vatican to hold the view of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney on the salvation of non-Catholics. Namely that no one at all can be saved unless they are first water baptized into the Catholic Church before death.[22] [23] This position is obviously in contradiction to Staples’ Traditional view of Church teaching on the matter as well.

Thus Dee is correct in that the position of the Conciliar Church on this issue has seemed to change. The Conciliar Church has taken what was once a uniform and clear Traditional teaching and has made it ambiguous. Ambiguous to the point where a Catholic can either believe that all people are saved or that none but the water baptized can be saved, and both positions can apparently somehow be reconciled with the teaching of Pius IX. This is not a “development of doctrine” as Staples alludes, but devolution of doctrine. When a legitimate development of doctrine takes place, it elucidates and further clarifies an already existing Catholic Truth. It never makes such a truth more ambiguous and open to wider interpretation under the guise of a “deeper understanding.”[24]

At this point the show cut to commercial including an interesting ad for Russell Shaw’s new book, American Church: The Remarkable Rise, Meteoric Fall, and Uncertain Future of Catholicism in America. The narrator stated in an alarming tone that, “Russell Shaw provides ample evidence of the absorption of Catholics into the secular culture of our nation that now threatens the Catholic identity of millions of faithful.” Any traditionalist listening to the show could not help but notice the irony. On the one hand, Catholic Answers promotes the Vatican II aggiornamento, which attempted to update the Church in order to be accepted by secular society. On the other hand, they also advertise a book documenting the “meteoric fall” which occurred as Catholics left the Faith in droves for the very secularism the Vatican II aggiornamento was attempting to embrace.

The “Rad-Trads” Keep Getting it Right!

The duo eventually returned and took a call from Tom in California. Tom pointed out that he used to be against “rad trads.” He used to argue against their positions that the Traditional Mass was never abrogated and that “pro multis” had been mistranslated as “for all” in the New Mass. But then the “rad trads” were proven right by Pope Benedict on both counts! Thus Tom wondered whether the duo would consider Benedict to be a “rad trad.”

Staples, then pointed out that no pope could be a “rad trad” because no pope could be “out of union with himself.” This statement demonstrates the fundamental flaw of Neo-Catholicism: that whatever policy or practice a pope allows, even if it is novel and contradictory to his predecessors and Tradition, must be accepted as the new standard of orthodoxy. This reasoning amounts to mere legal positivism, as it is not tied to any objective doctrinal standard. For example, under this definition, Staples could have held that any Catholic before the Motu Proprio in 2007, who insisted that the Traditional Mass was never abrogated was a “rad trad.” Yet after the 2007 Motu Proprio, Catholics could hold this exact same position, and yet not be “rad trads.” Thus, Neo-Catholicism’s vision of orthodoxy is constantly in flux, dependent on personal papal preferences, while traditionalists’ view of orthodoxy remains constant, regardless of who is pope.

Staples then commented on how he always disagreed with the translation of “pro multis” as “for all.” Yes, who in Catholic circles can forget the loud, consistent, and outspoken charge of the Neo-Catholics against this diabolical changing of the words of Our Lord; a change that afflicted a vast majority of all Novus Ordo Masses for over forty years? If you don’t remember it, that’s because it never happened. Neo-Catholic apologists like Tim Staples may have muttered from time to time that it is not their preferred translation, but all the while they preached calm acceptance of the erroneous translation. Instead it was the reviled “rad trads” who consistently spoke out against this travesty ever since it was foisted upon English speaking Catholics by ICEL in the 1970’s. [25]

Unlike the Traditionalists, the Neo-Catholic establishment possessed large influential voices, periodicals and newspapers with wide circulations during these years, not to mention friends in the curia. Yet none of this impressive power was ever brought to bear against the tragic mistranslation of the New Mass. Instead the Neo-Catholics acquiesced to this novelty, as they did all the others, so as not to be “divisive” or “disobedient.” They then attacked the traditionalists for making such a big deal over the matter and ended up defending the mistranslation.

Staples then admitted that canon 212 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law gives Catholics the right, and sometimes the duty, to make our spiritual concerns known to the hierarchy of the Church, as long as it is done respectfully. Whether Staples himself or any other Neo-Catholic apologist took advantage of this canon regarding the pro multis scandal was not stated. What was stated, however, is that “radical traditionalists” who utilize this canon and “don’t get their way” end up leaving full communion with the Church and “doing things that are illicit.”

First, it is curious that the refusal of Vatican authorities to correct a glaring mistranslation of the words of Our Lord in the consecration for almost forty years is seen by Staples as traditionalists “not getting their way” rather than an injustice being done to all Catholics.  Second, faced with such an unprecedented and clearly erroneous translation of the New Mass in English, many pious souls preferred to continue to assist at the then “illicit” Tridentine Mass.

The irony here is that a canon on the same page as the one Staples quoted, canon 214, states that Christ's faithful have the right to worship God according to the provisions of their own rite approved by the lawful Pastors of the Church. As we know from immemorial Tradition, Quo Priumum of Pius V, and Summorum Pontificum of Benedict XVI, these souls had the legal and moral right to assist at the Tridentine Mass all along and did not act illicitly in doing so. Thus, in the final analysis, the truly “illicit” act was the deliberate mistranslation of the words of Our Lord in the consecration, not faithful Catholics assisting at the Traditional Mass.

Staples then went on to explain that if you, as a Catholic, point out through proper channels to your bishop atrocities against Our Lord and His Faith taking place in the Church on a daily basis and your bishop ignores you in perpetuity, you are simply to be silent, “have Faith in God,” and believe that “God is going to take care of things.” What a very different approach this is compared to the Traditional approach, beautifully stated by Dietrich Von Hildebrand, a man Pius XII called “The Twentieth Century Doctor of the Church”[26]:

...what is fitting at a time when no heresies occur in the Church without being immediately condemned by Rome, becomes inappropriate and unconscionable at a time when uncondemned heresies wreak havoc within the Church, infecting even certain bishops, who nevertheless remain in office.

Should the faithful at the time of the Arian heresy, for instance, in which the majority of the bishops were Arians, have limited themselves to being nice and obedient to the ordinances of these bishops, instead of battling heresy? Is not fidelity to the true teaching of the Church to be given priority over submission to the bishop? Is it not precisely by virtue of their obedience to the revealed truths, which they received from the Magisterium of the Church, that the faithful offer resistance?[27]

Neo-Catholic Obsession With SSPX’s Non-Existent “Schism”

The duo then took a call from the Remnant’s own Chris Ferrara, otherwise known as “Chris in Richmond.” As Staples tried to interrupt twice, Chris made clear that the vast majority of Traditionalists are not sedevacantists, and asked further clarification as to what extent the duo considered the SSPX to be “radical traditionalists.” Staples then basically asserted the SSPX were all radical traditionalists for various reasons including their 1988 “schismatic act” before thanking Chris for his call and trying to politely usher him out of the door before the commercial break. Unfortunately for Staples, Coffin didn’t get the memo and offered Chris the last word.

Chris stated that he thought Staples had exonerated the Society from charges of schism. As Staples exclaimed “Oh no!” in horror in the background, Chris continued. Chris stated that he had a problem with Staples labeling the SSPX as schismatic. To support his case, Chris noted that the Richmond diocesan newspaper recently had to correct their previous description of the SSPX as schismatic. Staples then responded that both on the last broadcast and now again he was saying that the SSPX is not in schism, especially since the lifting of the excommunications. The duo then let Chris go, promising to take up the topic in the next hour.

The next hour began with Coffin lamenting the fact that certain listeners still seemed to think they were attacking all traditionalists, while Staples added that the last caller incorrectly thought they were exonerating the SSPX. Never in this lamentation did the duo realize the confusion might be one of their own making. Regardless, any hope of remedying the confusion was lost as Staples then launched into a discussion of schism.

Staples stated that there was much confusion over whether the SSPX was in a state of formal schism after their bishops were excommunicated in 1988. Staples then correctly pointed out that the case of the SSPX is distinguishable from the Orthodox schism as the Orthodox bishops had formal sees whereas Archbishop Lefebvre did not. Although Staples stated canonists “disagreed” as to whether the SSPX was in schism in 1988, Staples thought they were all “splitting hairs.”

Staples then astonishingly asserted that in his opinion, the SSPX was in formal schism from the consecrations in 1988 all the way up to the remitting of the excommunications of the SSPX bishops in 2009.  Staples justified this incorrect private opinion by quoting paragraph 2089 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which defines schism as “the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." Thus, Staples incredibly took it upon himself to divine a private interpretation of a Catechism paragraph in order to determine that an entire Society of priests were in “formal schism” for over two decades.

Of course this private opinion of Staples is wrong and provably so. In 2005, well before the excommunications of the SSPX bishops were remitted in 2009, the head of Ecclesia Dei, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, stated the following in an interview with the highly respected 30 Days magazine:

Your Eminence, what was the nature of the audience granted by the Pope to the Superior General of the Saint Pius X Fraternity?

DARÍO CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The audience is part of a process that began with a very important intervention by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, who signed a protocol of agreement with Monsignor Lefebvre before the latter decided to proceed to the episcopal consecrations of 1988.

Monsignor Lefebvre did not back off…

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism. (Emphasis added)[28]

Thus, the “formal schism” question regarding the Society has been closed for at least eight years. Per the head of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, the very Commission set up by John Paul II to have competence over these matters in 1988, the episcopal consecrations of Archbishop Lefebvre did not create a formal schism. If Staples still disagrees, he is putting his private interpretation above that of the Church, something he accuses “radical traditionalists” of doing incessantly.

Staples then stated that Catholics can technically attend Society Masses, though if they continue they may be in danger of “imbibing” a “schismatic attitude” (as if schism were a disease one could catch). Of course, it is not clear how one can “imbibe” an attitude of separation from the Roman Pontiff at Society chapels when the Society accepts Pope Francis as the Roman Pontiff and prays for him at every Mass. Furthermore, Neo-Catholics are often the ones who refuse communion with fellow Catholics who attend Society chapels and not the other way around.

Mike in Mobile then called in, still asking the duo to clarify whether he was a traditionalist or a “radical traditionalist.” It should have been clear to the duo by now that they were causing even more confusion than their first broadcast. Staples told Mike to call his local diocese to ask whether a particular chapel was “in union with the Church” in order to tell whether radical traditionalist lurked therein. Thus, by this logic, if Mike ever visited Frank’s parish in Tucson he could be assured it is a parish in “full communion” with the Church. In addition, if Mike were, God forbid, ever inclined to move in with his girlfriend, he could rest assured that he’d still be able to distribute Holy Communion with Frank.

Novelty as Disciplinary Law of the Church

Next, Michael in San Diego called. Michael pointed out that Pius V’s bull Quo Primum forbade any changes to the Mass. Staples then reverted to the “Mass is completely changeable according to the whims of the pope” argument addressed extensively in my previous article responding to the first broadcast. One difference is that this time Staples compared the Fourth Lateran Council prohibiting new religious orders to Quo Primum’s prohibiting substantive changes to the Traditional Mass. This is like comparing apples to oranges. The prohibition on new religious orders found in the Fourth Lateran Council is clearly listed among other purely disciplinary acts and was obviously meant to be temporary in nature. The same cannot be said of Quo Primum.[29]

Staples then quoted from Pius IX and Leo XIII (and claimed to possess twenty similar quotes) to prove what traditional Catholics already believe: that the Pope has authority in disciplinary matters and not just matters of faith and morals.  In the quotes Staples cited, Pius IX and Leo XIII were reinforcing this teaching against the liberals of their day who were furiously trying to concoct novel doctrines and practices in every area of the Faith not nailed down by dogma.  The underlying assumption of Pius IX, Leo XIII and indeed all popes before Vatican II, was that the pope was strictly bound to pass on the Catholic Faith he received as well as the received rites and ceremonies that expressed such Faith. Thus the pope acted as a bulwark against novelty. It is no surprise then that Pius IX and Leo XIII would act to remind liberal Catholics that they are bound by papal decrees and acts meant to preserve the Faith.

Today the tragedy is that the innovators are inside the Church Herself.

In recent times, novel practices have been permitted through legislation, in many cases not even by the pope but by Vatican congregations and bishops’ conferences, that serve to undermine Catholic belief.  On occasion, when the innovators are able to get papal allowance for their novel disciplinary practices, they then have the audacity to claim that the admonitions of pre-Conciliar popes meant to guard against novelty somehow divinely protect their own novelties from any dissent or criticism. Neo-Catholics then repeat these pre-Conciliar papal admonitions against traditionalists ad nauseam, having unwittingly “imbibed” the liberal premise. Thus, the delighted innovators now have conservative apologists giving their destructive novelties cover, all the while attacking defenders of Tradition as “radical” on Catholic radio shows.

The Translation Tragedy Revisited

In addition to Quo Primum, Michael also claimed that the mistranslation of pro multis as “for all”, along with other changes to the consecration formula of the New Mass, invalidated it.  Staples basically said that “the Church” says the translation is valid, therefore it is. Even so, is it not apparent to Staples, or any other objective observer, that when the words of Christ Himself are changed in the Mass, not even by a pope, but by a committee of translators without a word of explanation or good reason to the Faithful, in direct violation of the command of Pope Pius V, that good Catholics may begin to develop questions and even doubts about that translation’s validity?

There is proof that many good Catholics did have such doubts. Since the first English translation was approved, Vatican congregations have been forced on two occasions (1974 and 2006) to issue statements assuring the faithful that the consecration of the New Mass in English is valid.[30] This, in and of itself, is an astonishing indictment of the translation. When in the history of the Church have the faithful had reason to doubt the validity of a Mass which uses mistranslations allowed by the Vatican? Thus, the validity of the English Mass Catholics attended for almost forty years was not assured by 2,000 years of Catholic Tradition and the words of Christ, but rather by the authority of a bureaucratic wing of the legislating Church. 

Neo-Catholic Revisionist History

Michael then stated that the intent of New Mass architect Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was to reduce the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to a memorial supper and that, “Paul VI had six Protestants formulating the New Order Mass.” Staples then made the incredible claim that, “there were no Protestants that had input on the liturgy” before attempting to compare their presence to the presence of Protestants at the Council of Trent. Staples’ defense fails for two reasons.

First, it is beyond dispute that there were six Protestant ministers who were invited to be present at Bugnini’s “Concilium” during its creation of the Novus Ordo Mass. Though officially referred to as “observers,” Michael Davies demonstrates in his book, I am With You Always, that the six Protestant ministers did have an active consultation role in the formation of the New Mass and were by no means merely passive observers.[31]

Second, lest we forget, the Council of Trent was called primarily to resolve controversies regarding the new doctrines of Martin Luther and John Calvin, many of which had not yet been infallibly condemned. Martin Luther had previously declared that he submitted his ideas to the judgment of a future Council.  As the controversies were causing a large fracture of the faithful, it was hoped that a Council could still make formal binding and infallible decisions that both sides could agree to follow. In this context, it was an understandable move to allow those proposing the new doctrines to at least have a hearing at a Council whose eventual decisions the Church expected them to adhere to.  However, by the time Trent was finally called, the time in which Protestants would have obeyed a Council had largely passed.  In fact, very few Protestants at the time took the pope up on his magnanimous offer, as they were already hopelessly wed to their errors.

In contrast, by the time of Bugnini’s “Concilium”, Protestantism had already been condemned as a heresy for four centuries. The obvious intention of having six Protestant ministers involved in the creation of the New Mass was to gather their opinion as to which areas of the Traditional Mass they had problems with and what wording in the New Mass could they accept. The results of this consultation’s effects on the New Mass are obvious. Its creation even inspired one of those six Protestant ministers, Max Thurian, to observe "…With the New Liturgy, non-Catholic communities will be able to celebrate the Lord’s Supper with the same prayers of the Catholic Church." Similarly, M. G. Siegvalt, Protestant Professor of Dogmatic Theology at Strasbourg noted, “…nothing in the renewed Mass need really trouble the Evangelical Protestant."[32]

Staples then went on to mention that the word sacrifice is used in the New Mass. Although this is true, the problem is that when the word sacrifice is used in the New Mass it can almost always be interpreted to mean a sacrifice of praise, a sacrifice of thanksgiving or some other type of sacrifice besides a propitiatory sacrifice.  This was done for ecumenical reasons as Protestants explicitly reject the notion that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice.[33]

Coffin then interjected to recommend an anti-traditional book to Michael called, The Pope, The Council, and the Mass. [34] Staples then went on to praise its authors James Likoudis and Kenneth Whitehead. Unfortunately, for Staples and Coffin, the authors of this book were obstinately wrong regarding the very two issues on which Staples previously admitted traditionalists were right. The 2006 version of Likoudis and Whitehead’s book obstinately defended the mistranslation of pro multis as “for all”, even stating that “some scripture scholars believe that ‘for all’ might even be a more faithful translation of the original sense of scripture.”[35] In addition, the book defended the proposition that the Traditional Mass was indeed abrogated and forbidden, stating: “the celebration of the Tridentine Mass is forbidden except where ecclesiastical law specifically allows it.”[36]

Absolute Obedience Required

Next up was David from New Jersey. David said that the duo made it seem as if the SSPX just didn’t want to follow the pope. In reality, David explained that Archbishop Lefebvre felt he had to disobey the pope out of conscience as the things he was asking him to do were against the Faith. Staples then amazingly compared the sincere rationale of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, a man who was made Apostolic Delegate to French Africa by Pius XII, who was appointed to the Preparatory Committee of Vatican II by John XXIII, and who was elected Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers in 1962, to the rationale of “Martin Luther” and “every schismatic in the history of the Church.”

Although granting that he could not judge Abp. Lefebvre’s conscience or soul, Staples went on to say that what the Archbishop did was “objectively gravely sinful.” Of course by stating it this way, Staples is clearly assuming that Abp. Lefebvre had no morally justifiable reasons to disobey the normal course of affairs by which a bishop gets permission from the pope to consecrate. If the Archbishop did have such reasons, then his consecrations would not be sinful at all.  However, Staples has apparently never considered such a possibility.

To the Neo-Catholic mind there is never a justifiable reason to disobey any ordinance, disciplinary law, or decree issued by competent Church authority and to do so is always gravely sinful. Thus any possible rationale one would have to do such a thing is simply considered the ravings of a schismatic. Yet are bishops, superiors, and popes always infallible in their orders, decrees, and ecclesiastical judgments? Consider:

The trial for sorcery started in Rouen against Joan was iniquitous. And yet it assembled the entire Establishment of the official Church. One hundred and twenty men took part in it, including a Cardinal, a prince of the Church, a great number of bishops, dozens of canons, sixty doctors in Canon Law or Theology, ten abbots, ten representatives of the University of Paris, the brightest part of ecclesiastical science in the heart of Christendom…

…Joan was condemned to death. The sentence of excommunication is read to her with the solemn form that the representatives of the Church conferred upon it. She climbs up the steps of the platform where was located the fire that was to consume her, officially condemned by the Holy Inquisition whose guardians indicated to her in the verdict, with the hypocrisy that was to be expected, that they sincerely thought that she, Joan, should have "preferred to remain faithfully and constantly in the communion, as well as in the unity of the Catholic Church and of the Roman Pontiff." On her was placed a headgear on which the points of condemnation, that her detractors repeated unceasingly, were written: "heretic, schismatic, relapser"…

…A quarter-century after her death, the cause of the heroine of Orleans was revisited and the Church rehabilitated her officially. Until then, the number of those who believed that it was forbidden to judge the verdicts of the representatives of the ecclesiastical Institution was large. Pius XII celebrated this dignified end of a French heroine who was to one day obtain on earth, as she had in heaven, the crown of saints: "In the silence, the words of a martyr faithful to her vocation resonate, filled with faith in the Church, to which she appealed by invoking the sweetest name of Jesus, her only consolation. Through the flames that rise up, she stares at the Cross, certain that she will one day obtain justice." [37] [38]

Staples then unfortunately continued unabated in this vein to the point where he compared the actions of the SSPX to that of rabid feminist Catholics picketing for women priests.  Then, a few minutes later, Staples strangely denied that he made any such comparison and kindly preached that we should indeed make “distinctions” between the SSPX and women priest supporters. One clear distinction that Staples failed to make is that those Catholics who defy infallible teaching on women’s ordination, such as members of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), are still in “full communion” with the Church according to Staples, yet the Traditional priests of the SSPX, who deny not one Catholic dogma, are not.

Vatican II is Infallible….Except When it’s Not

Travis from Anaheim then rang in asking what level of authority Vatican II possesses. Staples then correctly pointed out that when John XXIII called the Council he stated that it was to be pastoral and would not make condemnations. Of course, Staples immediately gutted the words of John XXIII by stating Vatican II was also dogmatic because two documents of Vatican II are called “Dogmatic Constitutions.”

Regardless of the title “Dogmatic Constitution,” however, neither of these Council documents declared any new dogma. Thus, Staples is in effect saying that a Council that declared no dogma was somehow dogmatic. Apparently one of the advantages of Neo-Catholicism is that the principle of non-contradiction is optional.

Staples then went on to state that although there were no infallible declarations in Vatican II (aka no new dogmas) and no anathemas, this doesn’t mean that nothing in it is infallible or that adherence to the Council is optional. Staples then stated that Vatican II is, at the very least, on the level of the ordinary Magisterium and demands our assent.

Traditionalists agree, of course, that wherever Vatican II restated infallible Catholic teaching, it is infallible.  However, Neo-Catholics and even some traditionalists have a bad habit of referring to any act of the Vatican, Pope, or every part of a Council as part of the “ordinary Magisterium.”  This is not the case.

In contrast to the Extraordinary Magisterium whereby the pope declares infallible ex cathedra dogma, the term “ordinary Magisterium” should instead be more properly called the “ordinary and universal Magisterium.”  This latter Magisterium is also infallible because it consists of what was everywhere and always believed by Catholics. In other words, the “ordinary and universal Magisterium” is Tradition.

In contrast, there also exists an “authentic Magisterium.” The authentic Magisterium consists in papal statements, encyclicals, etc. that genuinely come from the Church and that are normally authoritative. However, the authentic Magisterium is not infallible and is therefore liable to error.

Since Vatican II deliberately chose not to invoke the infallibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium, only the texts of the Council documents that are in accordance with the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church (Tradition) are infallible. Thus, if there are any novel teachings in the Council, even though they came from a legitimate and thus “authentic” source, they are not protected by infallibility and thus can be in error.  This understanding of Catholic authority is well laid out by Dom Paul Nau, O.S.B. (Solemnes) in An Essay on the Authority of the Teachings of the Sovereign Pontiff written in 1956. [39]

As further evidence of this proposition, even Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, Emeritus of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Science, stated in May of 2012 that two of the most controversial documents of Vatican II for traditionalists, Nostra Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae, “…do not have a binding doctrinal content.”[40]

The Tragedy of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate

Miles in Arizona then called in, bringing up the tragic injustice that the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate (FFI) are now suffering at the hands of the Vatican. Miles correctly pointed out that the FFI are currently being forbidden to say the Traditional Mass unless given specific permission. This, of course, is in direct violation of Summorum Pontificum, which recognizes the right of each Catholic priest to say the Traditional Mass.

Instead of recognizing this obvious fact, Staples cited a National Catholic Register story entitled, “Francis Has Not Contradicted Benedict’s Reforms Says the Franciscans of the Immaculate.”[41] What Staples did not point out, is that this article was based on the word of two Friars, neither one of whom had any authority to speak on behalf of the order, and both of whom were part of the progressive contingent within the order protesting against the use of the Traditional Mass.[42] [43]  The FFI even released an official statement following news reports like the Register’s, stating that “the only official spokesman of our Institute, especially in this very delicate situation, remains our Procurator General, Fr. Alessandro Apollonio.”[44] Despite this fact, the Register story, still to this day, inaccurately states that Father Alfonso Bruno is an FFI spokesman.

In contrast to the two unauthorized spokesmen of the FFI, highly respected Catholic historian Dr. Roberto de Mattei did see this prohibition of the Traditional Mass, purportedly approved by Pope Francis, as a direct contradiction to Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum. So much so, that Mattei urged the Friars to ignore it because it is an unjust law. [45]

True Obedience is the Solution

I would like to conclude by quoting the words of Dr. Mattei addressing the situation of the FFI. These words go beyond the FFI situation to the very heart of the conflict between Neo-Catholicism and true Catholicism: the issue of obedience. Here Mattei gives a true understanding of Catholic obedience, free from all Neo-Catholic spin to the contrary. My hope is that as many Neo-Catholics as possible read these words. In doing so, I hope they free themselves from the self-defeating ideology of Neo-Catholicism that protects and preserves novelty through a false notion of obedience, while attacking adherence to the Church’s own Tradition as disobedience:

…Today there is a purely legalistic and formalistic conception which tends to see the law as a mere instrument in the hands of those who have power (Don Arturo Cattaneo, 2011). According to the legal positivism, which has infiltrated into the Church, what is considered correct is issued by the authority... The law is only seen as the will of the rulers and not the reflection of the divine law, according to which God is creator and foundation of every law. He is the living and eternal law, the absolute principle of any law (jus divinum, ed. Juan Ignacio Arrieta, 2010).

For this reason, in a conflict between human and divine law, God and not the people is to be obeyed (Acts 5:29). Obedience is owed
to superiors because they represent the authority of God, and they represent it, because they keep the divine law and apply it. St. Thomas Aquinas affirms that it is better to fall into excommunication and exile to foreign lands where the earthly arm of the Church does not reach, than to obey an unjust command: ille debits potius excommunicatione, sustinere (...) vel in alias regiones remotas fugere (Summa Theologiae, Suppl, q. 45, a 4, 3 Upper)…

The resistance to unlawful commands is sometimes a duty to God and to our neighbor…The Franciscans of the Immaculate had obtained from Benedict XVI the extraordinary goods of the so-called "Tridentine" Mass, accepted and celebrated again today by thousands of priests lawfully throughout the world. There is no better way to express their gratitude to Benedict XVI and at the same time to express their protest against the injustice done to them, than to continue to celebrate in the serenity of a clear conscience, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the traditional Roman Rite. No law can force their conscience. Maybe only few will do this, but compliance to prevent greater evil, will not help to avert the storm that goes beyond their Order and the Church.


[1] The original blog post ( has since been deleted. A copy of the text can be found at: Mr. Christopher Ferrara has penned an excellent and thorough response to the post here:

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] For the other side, see Davies’ excellent trilogy on the subject:

[12] The Devastated Vineyard (Franciscan Herald Press, 1973), p. 4

[13] Conciliar documents list the unitive purpose first, as did Staples. Thus, even though the text says the two are equal ends, the Conciliar emphasis is consistently on the unitive.

[24] “The meaning of Sacred Dogmas, which must always be preserved, is that which our Holy Mother the Church has determined. Never is it permissible to depart from this in the name of a deeper understanding.” [Vatican I, Session III, Chap. IV, Dei Filius]

[25] ICEL is the acronym for the International Commission on English in the Liturgy.

[27] The Devastated Vineyard (Franciscan Herald Press, 1973), p. 5

[31] Michael Davies, I Am With You Always: The Divine Constitution and Indefectibility of the Catholic Church, 1997.

[33] Trent, Session XXII, Chapter II: “…the holy council teaches that this [the Mass] is truly propitiatory and has this effect, that if we, contrite and penitent, with sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence, draw nigh to God, we obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid… For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits of that bloody sacrifice, it is well understood, are received most abundantly through this unbloody one, so far is the latter from derogating in any way from the former.”

[34] Chris Ferrara points out some of the errors in this book in his excellent article Turning Point from 2007:

[36] Id.

[39] Dom Paul Nau, O.S.B. (Solesmes), "An Essay on the Authority of the Teachings of the Sovereign Pontiff" (July 1956), available in the book, Pope or Church?  Essays on the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, translated by Arthur E. Slater, (Angelus Press, 1998).

[46] (Some minor grammatical corrections, which did not change the meaning of the text, were made to the cited translation for the sake of readability.)


Last modified on Saturday, October 26, 2013