Traditionalism and its Dangers: Reflections of a Parish Priest

This is a thought-provoking essay by a NO Priest sympathetic to Tradition. It is rather anti-SSPX, calling Msgr Lefebvre a "sympathetic, heroic, and yet ... tragic figure." It's well worth reading.

From One Peter Five

By Fr Michael Brownson

Part I: Hermeneutics of Rupture and the Extremes

I am a parish priest who normally celebrates the Novus Ordo, but is quite capable of celebrating the traditional Mass and indeed prefers it. I am where God has placed me, working for the salvation of souls with the tools that the Church has given me. In doing so, I have taken my licks. In my ministry I have worked with English and Spanish speaking Catholics. I have worked with traditional Catholics, conservative Catholics, charismatic Catholics, private revelation Catholics, cultural Catholics, liberal Catholics, and modernist Catholics (almost like the seven churches of Asia).

The matters that I am going to discuss here do impact my parish ministry in a multitude of ways. Nevertheless, they are matters far beyond my control; all I can really do is make some feeble attempt to bring some order to the tiny portion of the Lord’s vineyard that has been entrusted to my care.

At the heart of the priesthood is obedience after the example of Jesus Christ who became obedient to death, even death on a Cross (Ph 2:8). That means obedience to God, even when it is through a human superior. While obedience can never require doing what is intrinsically evil or contrary to the faith, it can require submitting to injustice. At times it can be a challenge to discern the dividing line between passive submission to what is beyond our control and active collaboration with evil.

My sympathies are definitely with the traditional Catholics but, while I might almost wish that Vatican II and the reform of the liturgy never happened, I always find myself face to face with the blunt fact that it did. So, for better or worse, here we are and we are faced with the question, “What do we do about it?” Well, if we are not willing to stand with the Blessed Virgin, St. John, and St. Mary Magdalen at the foot of the Cross, nothing we do will make any difference.

With that minimum of personal background, I offer these reflections.

Introduction: Traditionalism and the hermeneutics of rupture and continuity

The “traditionalist movement” in the Catholic Church is characterized by adherence to the traditional Latin Mass, the whole of the traditional liturgy, and a criticism of Vatican II (centered especially on the themes of religious liberty, ecumenism, and interreligious dialogue). The movement has many subcurrents. On the extreme end are the “sedevacantists” who hold that there has been no valid Pope since Pius XII (though there are some new “sedevacantists” who reject the validity of Pope Francis). Then there is the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X (SSPX), founded by the leader of the “Coetus Internationalis Patrum”, the “conservative” opposition at Vatican II, the great lion of traditionalism, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The SSPX technically recognizes the validity of the Pope, even Pope Francis, but has no juridical status within the Church. Then there are various strands of the movement present within juridical structure of the Church (“in full communion” to use the Vatican II expression). Examples are the “Ecclesia Dei” communities like the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) and the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest (ICKSP), and lay led organizations such as “Una Voce” and “The Latin Mass Society of England and Wales”. Then, there are many priests and lay faithful who, in various ways, move back and forth between the traditional Mass and the new Mass.

Before I address the dangers of traditionalism it is important to take note of something traditionalists get right.

Pope Benedict XVI famously spoke of the two hermeneutics of interpretation of Vatican II: the hermeneutic of rupture and the hermeneutic of reform in continuity. He considered the hermeneutic of reform in continuity as the valid hermeneutic, while accusing both “liberals” and “traditionalists” as adhering to the hermeneutic of rupture. At the same time, through his motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” which gave the traditional liturgy “rights of citizenship” in the Church (until abrogated by Pope Francis’ “Traditionis Custodes”), Pope Benedict recognized a legitimate role in the Church of some form of “traditionalism”.

The gravity of the liberal “hermeneutic of rupture”, which – it must be said – is quite widespread and indeed seems at present effectively to occupy the See of Peter, must be recognized. Pope Benedict XVI did not go so far as to call it “heretical”; I think he only denounced it by implication. Rupture, at least in its full meaning, here means “rupture” with the Church’s tradition; it means that what was true before the Council is not true after the Council; it means finally that the post-conciliar Church is a different Church from the pre-conciliar Church; it means that “Catholic Church” applied to the visible reality before the Council and what appears to be the same visible reality after the Council is equivocal; it means then that in truth the Catholic Church has ceased to exist, that finally the gates of hell have indeed prevailed.

Traditionalism recognizes the gravity that such a rupture would entail. On the extreme end of sedevacantism, it fully accepts the hermeneutic of rupture as the correct understanding of Vatican II and holds the visible Church has ceased to exist in evident continuity with what was before, but continues now only in small remnants, groups of “resistance”.

A more moderate traditionalism would hold that, while the visible Church is in continuity with what went before, Vatican II cannot be altogether absolved of the widespread “de facto” rupture, that it at least opened the door for the currents of “rupture”, and that the reformed liturgy, at the very least, readily lends itself to those currents of rupture.[1]

In between the extreme and the moderate there are many shades, but I would hold that across the spectrum they are right to be concerned about the “rupture” and I would myself tend to favor the “moderate” form of traditionalism, as a priest who works within the reformed liturgy. 60 years later an honest evaluation of the “pastoral” success or failure of the Vatican II and the reformed liturgy is called for.

My own opinion regarding the Council is that Vatican II sought to restate the received tradition in contemporary fashion.[2] This led the Council to make its “pastoral turn” eschewing dogmatic precision and soft-pedaling errors, so as to focus on dialogue and mutual understanding. As a result, the Council emphasized subjective criteria, presupposing good-will and sincerity on the part of supposed and real interlocutors over objective criteria of error, heresy, and sin. This is key to understanding the Conciliar Magisterium and post-conciliar Magisterium in continuity with the tradition. It is the real explanation for the infamous ambiguities of the Council. The ambiguities involved in this pastoral turn are also what unwittingly opened the door to the influx of Neo-Modernism, which is why, in the end, I think the pastoral turn was mistaken. But that means the real “errors” of the Council are in the practical order, not the dogmatic order.[3]

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

As we begin to turn to what I call the “dangers of traditionalism”, it will be good to start with the sympathetic, heroic, and yet finally tragic figure, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

He crossed the Rubicon when he published his “Declaration” after the Apostolic Visitation of the SSPX that took place in November 1974. In the Declaration of November 21 he declared:

With our whole heart, with our whole soul do we adhere to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic faith and of the traditions necessary to maintain that faith, to Eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth. We refuse, however, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-modernist and neo-protestant tendencies that clearly revealed itself in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, all the reforms resulting from it. …

To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church—all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church.

This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever. (Emphasis added)

This is an unequivocal declaration of “rupture”. Yves Chiron notes that the Archbishop admitted that he wrote it “in a mood of undoubtedly excessive indignation” but would never redact or retract it.[4] The declaration led to the official suppression of the SSPX and the suspension of the Archbishop. Honestly, Pope Paul VI hardly had any other option, so long as the Archbishop refused to moderate his stance. Later in an audience with the Archbishop, the Pope asked him, “You condemn me, so what should I do? Should I resign and then you take my place?”[5] The Pope’s question, which apparently seemed flippant to the Archbishop, was really apropos. The Archbishop’s declaration really left no middle ground, no room for discussion; it amounted to a demand that the Pope admit, without qualification, that he was wrong and the Archbishop was right.[6]

Later, in his sermon in a large public Mass in Lille, after his suspension, he concluded with a plea to be allowed “the experiment of tradition.”[7] It was too late. The experiment of tradition would have required recognizing the fundamental legitimacy, or at least being willing to suspend judgment, on the general post-conciliar pastoral direction, in order to obtain the permission to pursue, within the overall framework of Vatican II, within a limited group, the traditional seminary formation, priestly ministry, and liturgy adopted in Écône. Again, it would have required a moderation of the criticism.

Yet, the Archbishop’s belated appeal to be allowed the experiment of tradition brings forth the tragedy of what might have been – what might have been if before his criticism had reached such a fever pitch, some avenue of communication to the Pope had been opened and some agreement reached, though it might have required the Archbishop to consent at least to concelebrate the new Mass one time with the Pope himself.

Dom Jean Roy, Abbot of Notre-Dame de Fontgombault and friend of the Archbishop parted ways with him. Indeed, Fontgombault would accept the new Mass, celebrating as best they could in the tradition of Latin Gregorian chant, until Pope John Paul II allowed them to return to the traditional liturgy. They remained faithful to the continuity of tradition and have remained a beacon of “moderate traditionalism”.

Dom Gerard Calvet, founder of the traditionalist monastery of St. Madeleine in Barroux, set out under the guidance of Archbishop Lefebvre and remained in association with him until the episcopal consecrations of 1988, at which point the monastery was fully reconciled with the Church. Later, something which shocked many in the traditionalist community, Dom Gerard even consented to concelebrate the new Mass, in order to open the door to new foundations in other dioceses. St. Madeleine has become another beacon of moderate traditionalism.

It is understandable that, in the confusion and “smoke of battle” that followed in the wake of the Council and the promulgation of the new Missal, such moderation might have been difficult, but even then there were “cooler heads”.

Archbishop Lefebvre was not publicly a sedevacantist, but I personally heard Fr. Bisig, one of the founders of the FSSP, who knew the Archbishop well, express his informed opinion that in his heart of hearts the Archbishop was indeed a sedevacantist, but had a sufficient doubt that kept him from making his suspicion public. Indeed, the SSPX, by the “Declaration of Fidelity” required for candidates to be ordained to the priesthood, upholds the validity of the Pope, but even so, according to Yves Chiron, there are priests in the Society who are privately sedevacantists, who do not name the Pope in the canon (recited silently), but who are tolerated so long as they refrain from a public affirmation (sermon, article, book).[8]

Sedevacantism

That leads us to consider sedevacantism, the most dangerous extreme of traditionalism.

The late Fr. Gregor Hesse, one time secretary to Cardinal Alfons Stickler, later “free-lance” traditionalist in the SSPX mold (except that he was evidently quite a “character”), affirmed that the sedevacantists had good arguments.

Really, the basic argument is quite simple. Before John XXIII the Church taught one thing, from John XXIII what “appeared” to be the Church started contradicting what the Church had previously taught. According to Church teaching that would be impossible. Therefore, from John XXIII it was no longer the Church. John XXIII and his successors must be antipopes.

There is a further, more severe step that is taken: the post-conciliar Church later changed the rite of consecration of bishops, and the new rite is invalid, therefore all bishops consecrated in that rite, and all priests ordained by them, are invalid priests and bishops. That would, at this point, leave only a few elderly, aging bishops and priests, while the entire Latin hierarchy of active bishops has become fake, and even Pope Francis would not be a true bishop, though he is presumably a valid priest. 

The basic argument is the foundation of plausibility, but the more severe step sets off alarm bells.

Without going into details, there are verbal and seeming contradictions – that does not mean the actual meaning is contradictory – between affirmations in conciliar and post-conciliar Magisterium that have never been given an official explanation. The teaching on religious liberty is the classic example. There have been unofficial attempts to reconcile these teachings,[9] showing real continuity of doctrine, but the official line final amounts to “trust us, it’s a development of doctrine.” Apparent contradictions could potentially be reconciled also by a recourse to different levels of Magisterium.

Further, important doctrines have certainly come to be downplayed (e.g. the reality of hell and the necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation), while the celebration of Novus Ordo, at least in widespread practice, downplays and even obscures the Tridentine dogma regarding the Mass as a sacrifice.

Those are the general lines. An anecdote will illustrate the degree of scandal. There was a man I knew, may he rest in peace, who lived in once Catholic Quebec during the 1960s and witnessed first-hand the beginning of the dissolution of the Church in Quebec. He told a story about one woman, who when the Friday abstinence was abandoned lost her faith, because if eating meat on Friday was now allowed, anything goes. The educated Catholic, of course, will readily respond, “But that was always just a matter of changeable Church discipline.” The educated Catholic misses the point. Friday abstinence, though merely a disciplinary matter, was in practice so bound up with Catholic identity, that the sudden dispensation was an objective, and predictable occasion of scandal. That was just a minor point in comparison with the wholesale liturgical changes, which apart from anything else, is the place where the ordinary Catholic most immediately and concretely encounters the reality of the Church. There was from 1960 to 1970 a dramatic change in the outward appearance of the Church, so great that one could easily think that the Church in 1970 was no longer the same thing she was in 1960. Pope Paul VI and the bishops seemed to have little appreciation for the difficulties involved in making such sweeping changes in every aspect of the life of the Church; the best of them might have had everything worked out theologically and reconciled in their mind, but they were oblivious to how the faith of ordinary Catholics, who are not theologically trained, is bound up with a whole fabric of particulars, which were changed practically overnight, with minimal preparation and explanation. Pope Paul VI, at least, seemed genuinely surprised by the scandal that was taken.[10]

Nevertheless, the argument of sedevacantism in the end destroys itself.

Fr. Gregor Hesse, after affirming that the sedevacantists had good arguments, as a good canon lawyer, noted that the strong presumption was in favor of the Pope. He said that he would rather go before the judgment seat of God, mentioning the Pope’s name in the Canon of the Mass and finding that he had been wrong, than omitting the name and finding that he had been wrong.

Why does the argument for sedevacantism destroy itself? Well, it does not destroy itself if it is meant to conclude that the Catholic Church no longer exists, that the gates of hell have prevailed, and so we might as well just give it all up. It does destroy itself because if it is right, following the logic of the hermeneutic of rupture, the visible institution in the world that is in evident continuity with the Catholic Church of 1950 is a fake. Yet, to my knowledge not one single Catholic bishop, who was in office when John XXIII was elected, has publicly followed the sedevacantist line; in effect the “apostasy” has been total.

That leaves us with the question: where then is the Catholic Church in the world today? By the very faith that the sedevacantists uphold, the Catholic Church must be a visible unity under the Pope.

They have no Pope, not for one year, not for two years, but 66 years! As a result, they have no Cardinals either. Further, they have no hierarchy. The visibility of the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church consists principally in the hierarchy of bishops beneath the Pope. The Church was without a Pope between 1268 and 1271, but it still had a hierarchy and Cardinals, desperately trying to elect a Pope.

There are sedevacantist bishops, but there is no formal unity among them; effectively they are all “free-lance” bishops, which is something of an anomaly, to say the least. It does not constitute a hierarchy. It also means that the bishops have no formal jurisdiction and sedevacantist laity are subject to them only insofar as they please.

It gets worse. Historically, in the wake of Vatican II, not a single bishop went sedevacantist. As the movement developed certain sedevacantist priests sought episcopal consecration by various “back-channels”. As a result, they came about their orders by dubious means at best. The most prominent group of sedevacantist bishops belong to the so called “Thuc line”, the validity of which has been questioned because of doubts regarding Archbishop Thuc’s mental competence, freedom, and intention.

In any case, the sedevacantist bishops, while rejecting the validity of current Roman rite bishops, must establish their own pedigree in the apostolic succession. No Catholic or Orthodox bishop must do so; how do we ordinarily know that a bishop is a valid bishop in the apostolic succession? Because the Church recognizes them as such. When a bishop must vindicate his apostolic pedigree that indicates that either he recognizes no Church and so is not recognized by them, or that he recognizes a Church, but is not in visible union with the recognized Church.

Further, while the sedevacantists reject the Latin hierarchy because of the change in the rite of consecration of bishops, they are bound to recognize the validity of the non-Latin rite bishops. So, now, we have a very strange situation – following their argument – the visible institution that is in continuity with the Church of 1950, consists of valid bishops and hierarchies of the various “ritual churches”, recognizing the “fake Pope” and “fake bishops” of the Roman rite, living in communion with them, and even concelebrating Mass with them, receiving Roman biritual priests and sending their priests to serve in Roman dioceses. There are many Syro-Malabar priests in the US serving in Latin dioceses, celebrating the Novus Ordo.

Well, now there is a new sedevacantism that does not recognize Pope Francis. Apparently, Archbishop Viganò now belongs to this group. One Matthew McCusker has argued on LifeSite News that Pope Francis is not a valid Pope and so Archbishop Viganò is not in schism.[11] McCusker’s argument rests on the claim that Pope Francis is a public heretic – which finally is the same foundation for the old sedevacantists. He also addresses the argument that Pope Francis must be the valid Pope because he is peacefully accepted as such by the whole Catholic Church. He disputes this “peaceful acceptance” on the grounds that, in fact, a number of Catholic bishops, those indeed who show themselves to be truly Catholic in their faith, do not “peacefully” accept Pope Francis, because they either ignore or reject his heretical teaching.

McCusker’s argument is stronger than that of the old sedevacantists because while it would have been hard to point to many bishops in the 60s and 70s who publicly disagreed with Pope Paul VI,[12] there are numerous bishops today who in some fashion publicly part ways with Pope Francis. Even whole episcopal conferences disputed “Fiducia Supplicans”.

Still, he runs into the same problem: if you are right, where is the visible Church? Despite the varied degrees of disagreement with Pope Francis, in matters where his Magisterium lacks authority, there is no visible Roman Catholic Church apart from the Cardinals and bishops aligned beneath Pope Francis. There is no other hierarchy.

The value of dwelling on the basic sedevacantist argument is precisely setting forth the basic, solid fact: the Church, and this is by all an admitted part of the faith, is a visible hierarchical unity, in continuity with the apostles; that unity cannot be found anywhere in the world today but in the hierarchy of the different ritual churches, including the Roman rite, beneath the Popes from Pope John XXIII to Pope Francis, inclusively.[13]

This basic fact is a problem also for the SSPX. It is a problem for the SSPX in that they theoretically recognize the whole hierarchy of the Catholic Church, but in practice ignore it.[14] They deny the “sedeprivationist” theory of Guérard des Lauriers but, given their practice, which holds the whole of the post-conciliar Magisterium in suspicion, it is hard to see why – except that they do not want to admit the consequences. Or, perhaps they perceive acutely the dilemma: on the one hand, they see what they regard as a heretical hierarchy (arguments towards sedevacantism), but on the other, they recognize that there is no other visible hierarchy. So, they must somehow adhere to that hierarchy, without letting themselves be seduced by the heresy.

To the contrary: the visible Catholic hierarchy is an evident fact; there is no other. If we take that as our starting point, then we must grant that whatever problems there may have been in Vatican II and in the post-conciliar Magisterium, that the Magisterium has not “de facto” ceased in either teaching authority or disciplinary authority. There has been no full “rupture”.

Continued next week.

Photo by Jeremy Huang on Unsplash

---

[1] One common accusation leveled against traditionalists is that their desire for the traditional Mass is “divisive.” At root the accusation is unfair because the real cause of the division has been the radical change in the liturgy that introduced an apparent rupture in the continuity of tradition. The root division is between the present and the past, the Church after the Council and the Church before the Council. Even if traditionalists appear to be a small, cantankerous minority, they are fundamentally at peace with the Church’s past, while much of the rest of the Church is either conflicted about the past or lives in ignorance. Either one must explain why we don’t do things that way anymore or one is ignorant that we are doing things differently.

[2] Cf. John XXIII, Opening address to the Second Vatican Council, Gaudet Mater Ecclesiae, October 11, 1961

[3] If I say that the Council unwittingly opened the door to Neo-Modernism that requires some explanation. Certainly there were Neo-Modernist currents present at the Council, which had even a strong influence in many Council texts, but the Council needs to be interpreted more according to the intention of Pope Paul VI. He seems to have been sincerely surprised by the chaos that came in wake of the Council, as evidenced by his famous “smoke of Satan” sermon on June 29, 1972.

[4] Yves Chiron, Between Rome and Rebellion: A History of Traditionalism, trans. John Pepino (Angelico Press, 2022), 251

[5] Ibid., 267. The words are reported both by Archbishop Lefebvre and by Archbishop Benelli, who was present at the audience.

[6] In this regard even “moderate traditionalism” does not always take cognizance of how delicate the matter is. I think that Vatican II is both a valid Council and open to some measure of criticism; it is hard enough to do this without any “official” standing, but for the Church openly and officially to criticize and revise the work of the Council – which I think will need to be done at some point – will be a very delicate matter. Further, the Pope’s question to Archbishop Lefebvre explains some of the hostility towards traditionalists, not from Neo-Modernists, but on the part of otherwise faithful Catholics. Even when traditionalists do not declare, like Archbishop Lefebvre, “It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever,” their criticism, even implied, of the new liturgy, often sounds like a condemnation of anyone who is content with the new liturgy. The message that is often given is, “You actually like the new Mass? You must be either heretical, or intellectually, or culturally deficient.”

[7] Ibid., 268. When the Archbishop speaks of “the experiment of tradition” he brings forth a fundamental ambiguity in the term “traditionalist”, which conveys one of the fundamental dangers of “traditionalism”. Basically, tradition, in the Church, has two meanings: sacred Tradition, which contains and transmits the revealed word of God, and ecclesial tradition, which is a complex of institutions, customs, and teachings that, while they are of human ecclesiastical origin, are nevertheless intertwined with sacred Tradition, because sacred Tradition does not really exist, except though being embodied in the complex of ecclesial traditions. Vatican II and its consequences, by introducing a wholesale revision of ecclesial traditions, introduced a discontinuity in ecclesial tradition that endangered the transmission of sacred Tradition. Nevertheless, insofar as the Church herself does not fail, sacred Tradition does not fail either. The Church must be traditional (defined by sacred Tradition) or she is not the Church. Traditionalism really defends the necessity of the former ecclesial traditions, especially the Roman liturgical rites, for the transmission of sacred Tradition, but tends in practice to so identify the two that traditionalists tend, at least implicitly, to accuse the Church of having abandoned sacred Tradition, which means that the Church, as a whole, has followed the hermeneutic of rupture.

[8] Ibid., 284

[9] Indeed the traditionalist monks of St. Madeleine in Barroux have done a major work of reconciliation of “Dignitatis Humanae” and the 19th century papal Magisterium.

[10] Mention should be made here of Pope John Paul II and the Assisi affair (October 27, 1986). To be sure, I think that the Assisi affair was a scandal. Nevertheless, I think the Pope meant well. In his explanation and interpretation of the event, he did not see it in any way as declaring an equality of religions or diminishing the uniqueness of the Catholic Church. In a general way, in the face of modern secularism, he saw “religion” as a force for the good and wanted to harness a sort of united force of religion in favor of world peace. It is important to remember that this took place during the Cold War when the threat of nuclear destruction weighed heavy on humanity (I think that the Catholic bishops, already at the Council, made the mistake, in the fear of nuclear destruction, of seeking peace apart from the peace of Christ, or without clearly distinguishing “avoiding destruction” from what can only be attained through Christ). Further, the Pope’s explanation at the time clearly insisted that they were not praying together, because that would be impossible given the divergence of belief, but only praying each in their own way, in the same place. The Pope looked more to the “sincerity” of the religiosity of adherents of other religions, than to their errors. He always wanted to respect their sincere religiosity.

So, the Pope meant well, but was apparently blind to the optic; he was apparently blind to the reality that whatever he said, the sight of himself in regalia, with all these religious leaders in regalia, in Assisi, sent the message “We are all one.” He failed to recognize how his words could not outweigh the photos. 

I also happen to think that the respect for the subjective sincerity of religiosity (or at least the priority put upon it) was misplaced.

[11] McCusker’s argument also is a good example of the sort of detailed argumentation found among certain traditionalists. It is very strong in citing pre-conciliar ecclesial sources, both Magisterium and “approved theologians.”

On the basis of these sources: it constructs an argument regarding heresy and its consequences. This forces reality to conform to the stated principles, rather than understanding the stated principles in conformity with reality. For example, if we consider past history, the doctrine of papal infallibility must conform to the reality of Pope Honorius, not vice versa.

Finally, the argument fails because there can be no demonstration of a particular.

It is possible to argue demonstratively that a particular proposition, with a particular meaning, is heretical, but to conclude that a certain person is heretical requires demonstrating the meaning of the proposition intended by the person. It is different to claim that Pope John Paul II was a heretic and to affirm that he made statements that were open to heretical interpretations or even positively lent themselves to such interpretations. In the case of John Paul II, I would suggest that any statement of his that, taken out of context, lent itself to heretical interpretation, would be correct if understood in the whole context of this teaching and thinking. In any case, the problem of demonstrating a particular is one reason why heresy properly needs to be judged not by an accusation, but by a competent tribunal, which must reach not demonstrative but moral certitude.

There is a further weakness in this form of argumentation. Theology terminates not in the text, but in the revealed reality: Trinity, Creation, Salvation. Further, at the root of the theological text is the apostolic doctrine. Very often, the mode of argumentation exhibits skill in handling “text” in a precise legal fashion, but shows a lack of grasp of both the text’s relation to the apostolic root and a failure to grasp the reality through the text. Robert Lazu Kmita gives an example of an argument that does not cite all the proper ecclesiastical sources but which tries to come to grips with the reality of the papacy, thrust before our eyes in the present pontificate. Note that while Kmita takes issue with the hermeneutic of continuity, he agrees with Pope Benedict XVI that both sedevacantists and Neo-Modernists follow the hermeneutic of rupture.

[12] There was public dissent by bishops and episcopal conferences from Humanae Vitae, but this was rejection of Catholic teaching, not rejection of heretical or questionable teaching of a doubtful Pope.

[13] Someone could claim that all this proves that the Orthodox are right and the Catholics wrong; ergo we should all convert to Orthodox Christianity. That would involve a whole other argument, though I would suggest that the Orthodox suffer the same problem as the sedevacantists in that they too believe in one visible Church, but their unity is – on different grounds – questionable. In any case, Catholic traditionalists of all stripes, so long as they still claim to be Catholic, still adhere to the Catholic argument over the Orthodox.

[14] Their official policy is to work with the local bishop and commemorate him in the Canon, but if the bishop commands their obedience on any matter, they disobey citing “supplied jurisdiction.”