What Are the Clans of Traditionalism? (Trad Godfathers, Pt. III)

The "Clans of Traditionalism" range from "Indulters" to Sedevacantists. The underlying cause of division is making the perfect the enemy of the good.

From One Peter Five

By Timothy Flanders, MA

Part I: Traditionalism at Sixty
Part II: What are the Non-Negotiables of the Trad Movement?
Side note: Does this Mean that Non-Trads are Heretics?

Part III: What are the Clans of Tradition?

So, having said all this, let’s hazard a general summary of the various “clans of Tradition.” At the risk of oversimplifying, I’m going to break the clans into three. The reason is that this is a helpful historical framework, because it provides a general historical concept, which then allows us to identify various subsets, or “families” which fall under each clan.

As I said in part II, “a traditionalist will resist this effort [to suppress the Latin Mass] as far as his Catholic conscience will take him.” Every clan is doing this, but each clan will do so only to a certain point, according to the formation of their conscience.

There are various schools of philosophical and theological thought which diverge among the clans: Thomists and Augustinians, Scotists and Eastern Catholic allies. And of course, everybody has their favourite traditional devotion. The point is, the overthrow of traditional faith, morals and devotions is the aim of Neo-Modernism (which forms but another wing of New Iconoclasm) and therefore the traditionalist Catholic resists this with all his strength, defending the Faith in order to pass it down to his children.

These three classifications do not mean that the subdivisions of “families” within each clan have any relation to each other historically. Their relation as families within one clan is a result of their historical circumstance, and may or not mean they had a relationship within the same clan. Finally, I’m going to organize all these in their historically chronology, based on what came first, as a means to organize this summary of our Trad godfathers and their clans. Historical chronology does not correspond their own historical significance. (The fact that the SSPX does not come “first” is just a chronological claim, not a claim about historical significance.)

1. The “Original Trad Godfathers & Godmothers”

Sr. Wilhelmina at one of her two TLM parishes before founding the Benedictines of Mary

You might also call these the “OG Godfathers” if you want to sound “cool” with the kids these days. These Trad godfathers were mostly members of the laity, who vocally opposed the New Iconoclasm from the beginning and sought to promote the Latin Mass as best they could in the diocesan context.

• This is, first, the lay group Fœderatio Internationalis Una Voce, which had its origins in 1964 and was led by Dr. Borgchild Krane, His Serene Highness Duke Filippo Caffarelli, Dr Erich Vermehren de Saventhem, and others.
• Dietrich von Hildebrand is key figure here, whose books in 1967 and 1973 were fundamental, as well as his founding of the Roman Forum, as well as the great Michael Davies, who scholarship has been critical to the traditionalist movement.
• But our Trad godmothers are the real pillars of this clan, especially Madre Pascalina and Cristina Campo (the godmother of “The Ottaviani Intervention”) with the German scholar Ida Friederike Görres.
• Later Alice von Hildebrand who would rebuke Pope John Paul II to his face in the early 1980s (apparently leading to the first TLM 1984 indult).
• Meanwhile, Sr. Wilhelmina would begin attending the diocesan Latin Masses in DC in the 1980s and Baltimore in 1992.[1]
• The “Reverent Novus Ordo”: Many of these Trad godfathers, like the Hildebrands, attended a “reverent Novus Ordo” because that was simply their only option in order to receive Sacramental grace and save their souls.
• “Eastern Catholic”: other took refuge among our Eastern Catholic allies.
• “Anglican-Ordinariate”: still others, like Charles Coulombe, were help by the Anglican Catholics.
• Others, like the Michael Matt family, found a diocesan Latin Mass by means of one of the rare indults after Quattuor abhinc annos. (Michael Matt confirmed to me that this Latin Mass was one of the first in the country which his father requested after this 1984 indult).[2] 
• The priests who serve this clan are primarily diocesan clergy, and thus would hardly identify themselves as “Trad” for the reasons I explained in my response to Fr. Brownson.
• This group has varying philosophical backgrounds from none (Sr. Wilhelmina) to Augustinian Phenomenology (Hildebrands) and also varying opinions about Vatican II from hermeneutic of continuity (Hildebrands) to very critical (Davies).

2. The “Zealous Papists”

Fr. Joseph Bisig, co-founder of the FSSP

• Marcel Lefebvre (before 1988) and
• Antônio de Castro Mayer (before 1988, after 2001)
• With other bishops and priests like the FSSP, FSVF, ICKSP et al.
  • Especially Frs Joseph Bisig and Louis-Marie de Blignières and other such founders of TLM priestly order
• Later Bishop Licinio Rangel and his Campos priests in full canonical regularity.
• This group is generally Thomistic and is “hermeneutic of continuity” in regards to Vatican II.
• This group accepts the validity and the legitimacy of the Reverent Novus Ordo

I will call these Trad godfathers “Zealous Papists.” The leaders of this clan are not lay people, but clergy. (As I said, I do not think clergy should ever identify as “Trad,” but in this and the following clan, these clergy are more likely to do that.) This clan pushes for all the non-negotiables we discussed in part II, but they add another non-negotiable: canonical regularity. Why? Their zeal for the Pope causes them to oppose the Conciliar Popes because of the Pian Magisterium Popes. Read Lefebvre’s “Summa” (They Have Uncrowned Him) and his biography. See how the SSPX was only created because Lefebre was zealous for full canonical regularity?Do you see how much the Archbishop was devoted to the Popes’ teaching? This is the only reason he opposed Paul VI and his successors – because they seemed to be contradicting their predecessors! Nevertheless, in 1988 (and later in 2001 in the case of +Rangel) this clan stood fast on the solid ground of the traditional teaching of the Papacy that the episcopacy must, by its very nature, “adhere to Rome” (as St. Irenaeus put it).

3. The “Defensores Fidei”

• The SSPX (1988-present) and
• Campos (1988-2001) clergy and faithful
  • Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX are the leaders of this clan worldwide
• This group is strictly Thomistic and very critical of Vatican II, asserting that Vatican II contains positive errors.
• The SSPX warns against attendance even at a “Reverent Novus Ordo” Mass calling it “a poison harmful to the faith.”[3]

These are made up of the Zealous Papists and share all the same characteristics the prior clan. Nevertheless, in 1988 this clan stood fast on the solid ground of the traditional teaching that the Papacy is the primary defensor fidei, and therefore (if I might ironically quote Vatican II here): “This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on” (Dei Verbum, 10). Thus on the contrary, this clan is zealous for the precise and definitive defence of the faith against Neo-Modernism, and thus maintains a dialogos with Rome, winning from the Holy See more and more clarity against the heretics.[4]

The Papists and the Defensores: Bad Blood and Reconciliation

The most bitter feuds always occur within families, between brothers. This is why, as Fr. James Mawdsley expertly demonstrates, the Torah is a story of fratricide and brotherhood.

It is not surprising that the man who called the Trad movement to “unite the clans” is a member of the first group of laymen. The heart of a layman sees the world differently than the clerical brotherhood – and this is by God’s design.

But the bonds of brotherhood between priests run very deep. Latin Priests do not marry. They are married to their parish, and they are strengthened by the brotherhood of the priesthood. Perhaps one day Archbishop Lefebvre will be called the “Doctor of the Priesthood.” One of the things he did was insist that his priests live in community. That is why, to this day, the SSPX has “priories” where all priests live, and then they drive out to their chapels – sometimes a significant distance. This fraternity of the priory is essential to a priest’s identity, and especially for the group of priests in Europe who led the traditionalist movement, namely the SSPX.

Therefore because this brotherhood is so deep, the cleavage within this brotherhood between the SSPX and its various daughter fraternities – hinging upon pious hearts troubled in their Catholic conscience – is very bitter indeed.

I think many lay faithful of the Trad movement fail to see the concern of the FSSP clerics. This is because the heart of a priest is obedience to my father in the most intimate way outside monasticism. For lay people, we do not – and need not – obey bishops like priests obey their bishops and the Holy Father. But this is why some saints have praised a blind obedience or at least a servile obedience of clerics to superiors, since this is a safeguard of humility and a special character of the priesthood (as distinct from the laity). No doubt, even those who praised blind obedience would never have obeyed Pope Julius II to invade the Kingdom of Naples, but that’s not the point. The point is that a priest’s obedience to his Bishop and the Pope is very intimate to his heart, and it is the raison d’être of priestly brotherhood.

• I am a priest because I have surrendered in obedience to my father, the Bishop, who “begot” me in ordination. You are a priest for the same reason.
• Therefore, we are brothers, ready to die together for Christ and His Church.

This is the heart of a priest.

But this mode of obedience is traditional, and that is why the pain and bitterness between the clerics of the SSPX and the FSSP, and all the others is so bitter. The Defensores are grieved to disobey, and that is why the SSPX has continually attempted to gain and maintain canonical regularity in every diocese, and persevered in their dialogos with Rome.

The key to unite the clans is to realise that the main division between the Papists and the Defensores was created by both sides holding to traditional doctrines and the formation of Catholic consciences.

Both the Papists and the Defensores are correct in principle.

• The FSSP is correct that canonical regularity is traditional.
• The SSPX is correct that blind obedience cannot be irrational or anti-Tradition.

The difference is that their Catholic consciences – both formed properly – are coming to different conclusions regarding the concrete situation since the beginning of the New Iconoclasm. According to the Catholic doctrine of conscience, a properly formed conscience which makes an error in judgement, yet follows that error in good faith, does not sin.

As I have learned from Michael Matt, we as lay people should respect the consciences of our priests who fall on different sides of the SSPX/FSSP debate. We should not even ask them where they stand. Just ask them to celebrate the Latin Mass and let the clerics figure out clerical questions.

Instead, in order to unite the clans, we need to start by having reverence for our Trad godfathers. That’s the point of all these words. Therefore we make the call again for submissions to show reverence and piety for our Trad godfathers – from whatever clan they come – and help us pass down the militant zeal for the faith which caused them to fight in darker times than these.

One of our greatest gaps at OnePeterFive is a lack of English content about Campos, as well as the great Michael Davies. Surely someone reading this can share about Davies! Maybe you have something to share about any of the Trad Godfathers listed above, or maybe you want to share about someone else not listed. Click the links above on different names in order to see what we have in mind.

T. S. Flanders
Editor
St. Rita

---

[1] Benedictines of Mary, The Life of Sr. Mary Wilhelmina (Charlotte, NC: TAN Books, 2023), 81.

[2] Private correspondence.

[3] The quote is from Lefebvre himself and is contained in the relevant sections in the official positions of the society. See the SSPX, Most Asked Question: a Brief Summary of the Positions of the Society of Saint Pius X, 3rd ed. (Angelus Press, 2024), 151-157.

[4] On the concept of dialogos, see Flanders, City of God vs. City of Man (Our Lady of Victory Press, 2021), passim. On the positive fruits of the SSPX dialogue with Rome, see Dr. Maike Hickson, “Abp. Pozzo on SSPX: Disputed Vatican II Documents Are Non-Doctrinal,” OnePeterFive (Aug 9, 2016); “This dissertation on Vatican II influenced Rome’s decision to lift the excommunications of the SSPX bishops,” LifeSite News (Feb 18, 2022).