Year: 2016

April 4, 2016 Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church

The SSPX Regularization Saga Continues

Catholic outlets, mainstream news, and, of course, one notorious traditionalist web-log are all reporting that Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), met with Pope Francis on Friday. Rumors have been swirling for months that Francis would unilaterally regularize the Society without requesting the SSPX to sign-on to compromising doctrinal statement. Many will recall the collapse of the Vatican/SSPX talks in 2012 was largely over a so-called “Doctrinal Preamble,” which, inter alia, demanded the Society recognize the liceity of the Novus Ordo Missae and no longer openly dissent from certain problematic elements (by Society lights) contained in the documents of the Second Vatican Council (e.g., religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality). Since that time, Bishop Fellay has gone into extensive detail on the ups-and-downs of his dealings with the Roman authorities and the contradictions he was forced to face at that time. Unfortunately, some in the Society, including the now-expelled Bishop Richard Williamson, took the Vatican/SSPX talks as an excuse to both denounce Bishop Fellay’s leadership of the Society and to fire-up their own “Resistance” movement which, at this point, is practically sedevacantist in nature. What, I wonder, will happen this time should Francis move ahead with regularization?

For those aware of recent Eastern Orthodox history, a parallel scenario played itself out in 2007 when the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) reconciled with the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) after more than eight decades of estrangement. While ROCOR began as a continuation of the MP with the express desire to keep Russian Orthodoxy alive during a period of Soviet domination in the Russian homeland, decades of separation from not just the MP but large swathes of world Orthodoxy began to take their toll as clerics and layfolk alike began to see ROCOR as the “only true” part of the Orthodox Church left. Granted, ROCOR wisely expelled some of these voices from its ranks while making small strides on the ground to patch things up with other local Orthodox churches, but by the turn of the millennium stronger strides had to be taken. Under the courageous leadership of the late Metropolitan Laurus, ROCOR proceeded rapidly down the path of full unity with Moscow and, by extension, the whole Orthodox Church. Some in ROCOR, including a number of priests and bishops, objected to the plan and broke off into their own “Resistance” or “True Orthodox” sects, none of which have experienced significant growth on their own or borne much in the way of good fruit. As for ROCOR, none of the doomsday predictions came true. It still continues on as a conservative voice in world Orthodoxy, opening up new parishes and monasteries in the West while building closer ties with other Orthodox jurisdictions.

Now, some may point out that Orthodoxy is not Catholicism and that the crisis in the Catholic Church dwarfs the problems embedded in the MP (problems which have not fully abated in the decade since ROCOR reconciled with its mother church). However, this is no clear evidence to show that SSPX regularization will spell the downfall of the Society or lead to any sort of compromise. If anything, it will make the Society’s position in the Church stronger insofar as traditional and non-traditional Catholics who, for various reasons, feel uncomfortable drawing too close to the SSPX while it remains in an inrregular canonical position can comfortably rethink that position. Moreover, priests and bishops of the SSPX will no doubt have a greater opportunity to participate in mainstream Catholic discussions on matters of discipline and doctrine while ministering to a larger flock in need of Catholic truth. These possibilities are a cause for celebration, not fear mongering and worry. Still, some will no doubt reject all forms of regularization, preferring to hold to the idea of the SSPX being their Petite Église where only the most “hardcore” and “steadfast” are welcome. And what will come of that mentality? More splinter groups with a tiny audience, no core internal discipline, and little in the way of obedience, either to the lawful authorities appointed by Rome or the transit ones they erect for themselves.

April 1, 2016 Church

Longenecker’s Insincerity

A few weeks ago I posted a critique of Fr. Dwight Longenecker’s article on “Catholic fundamamentalism” which, in truth, was little more than a thinly disguised attack on traditional Catholics. You can read that post here. Since that time, Christopher Ferrara — longtime contributor to The Remnant and licensed attorney — dispatched a letter to Longenecker seeking a retraction of any statement from his piece on “Catholic fundamentalism” which implied that the editorial and writing staff of The Remnant — particularly its lead editor Michael Matt — are prone towards violence. Longenecker complied . . . sort of. Here, archived at The Remnant, is Longenecker’s original retraction, which was posted on March 31, 2016:

Continue reading

April 1, 2016 Wrestling

My Fourth Shameless Professional Wrestling Blog Post In Years: WrestleMania Edition

WrestleMania weekend has arrived in Dallas, Texas where World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) is banking on the distant hope that 100k fans will fill AT&T Stadium to watch one of the most underwhelming super-cards in years. Injuries and one forced retirement started adversely affecting this show’s prospects months ago. Terrible booking doesn’t help either. Instead of being treated to bona fide dream matches like John Cena v. The Undertaker and Seth Rollins v. HHH, we are being force-fed the McMahon Family Drama, one that has been playing out on WWE television for more than 15 years. The one bright spot to this weekend is tonight’s NXT Takeover show. For those unaware, NXT is WWE’s developmental program-turned-runaway success with a weekly show and occasional special events that have overshadowed the “big stage” WWE product for over two years now. Now well-stocked with indie, international, and home-grown talent, NXT now houses the best collection of in-ring talent in North America, if not the world. Even if WrestleMania doesn’t deliver, it’s all but guaranteed that NXT will.

For those curious, below are my NXT Takeover predictions. I will post my WrestleMania ones in due course.

Continue reading

March 30, 2016 Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, Theology

A Tale of Two Marks

Neo-Orthodox around the blogosphere and social media outlets have been offering up glowing praise for Moscow Patriarch Kirill’s recent Sunday of Orthodoxy homily. (For those unaware, the Sunday of Orthodoxy commemorates the Church’s triumph over Iconoclasm and is celebrated on the first Sunday of Great Lent.) The homily, which can be viewed over at the Byzantine Texas blog here, denounces “false union” with the Catholic Church while upholding Mark of Ephesus as a true champion of Orthodoxy. No doubt Kirill’s words were inspired in part by intra-Orthodox panic over his recent meeting with Pope Francis and the upcoming discussion of ecumenism which will be held at the Great and Holy Council this summer. According to the neo-Orthodox, Mark of Ephesus is a hero for his alleged anti-Latin stance and refusal to cave to “Latin innovations.” Mark, so the story goes, wanted nothing to do with the corrupt, heterodox Latin Church nor did he hold the Petrine Office in any particular esteem. While few neo-Orthodox have ever read a single word penned by Mark, almost all of them are 100% sure of what Mark stood for and why.

Complicating — or, rather, overturning — this simplistic and ahistorical image of Mark is Fr. Christiaan Kappes, professor at Ss. Cyril and Methodius Byzantine Seminary in Pennsylvania. Kappes latest effort to clarify Mark’s thinking for contemporary audiences, “Mark of Ephesus, The Council of Florence, and the Roman Papacy,” is included in the new SVS Press anthology, Primacy in the Church, and available online for free here. While Kappes stresses that Mark of Ephesus would have serious qualms about the nature of the present-day papacy and the over-centralization of ecclesiastical governance, Mark’s ecclesiology is hardly anti-papal. Moreover, as some of Kappes’s other studies on Mark make clear, the saintly bishop of Ephesus displayed a great deal of charity and respect toward the Latins during the tense debates at the Council of Florence, far more than many Orthodox feel compelled to offer toward their separated brethren today.

March 30, 2016 Church, Roman Catholic Church

Medaille Takes on The Remnant

John Medaille, distributist darling and armchair theologian extraordinaire, has parted company with the familiar terrain of Catholic social teaching in order to embroil himself in an ecclesiastical spat over at Ethika Politika, this time with the long-running traditionalist newspaper The Remnant. Medaille is incensed that the publication ran a piece by former First Things blogger Ann Barnhardt calling for the bishops to rise up and depose Pope Francis. At the heart of Medaille’s objections is his belief that Barnhardt’s is essentially crypto-Protestant since it relies on a “private judgment” about the Petrine office and Francis’s performance on the throne. That is a typical charge made against traditionalists who choose to speak out about the crisis in the Church. The dominant thinking among (neo-Catholic?) apologists for both the Pope and contemporary Church governance is that unless there is an official proclamation from the Vatican that there’s a crisis, then there is no crisis. If Pope Francis does not come forth and declare himself to heterodox, scandalizing, or personally unfit for the papacy, then no Catholic may form the opinion, rooted in reason, that Francis is heterodox, scandalizing, or personally unfit for the papacy. This is fideism parading as loyalty, and it’s a point of view often advanced by those with a vested interest in seeing Francis “revolutionize” the Church.

With that noted, there are other aspects of Medaille’s article that ought to raise some eyebrows. First, Medaille misleadingly subtitles his attack “The Remnant‘s call for Schism” even though Barnhardt’s piece does nothing of the sort. Moreover, Medaille should have directed his ire toward Bernhardt, not The Remnant. While that publication is certainly editorially responsible for the articles it chooses to run, there’s no indication that the newspaper’s entire editorial and writing staff endorses Barnhardt’s admittedly extreme views. Would it be fair to run a post declaring “Ethika Politika Denies the Physical Resurrection of Christ” if, for example, Medaille were to publish such an atrocious assertion under his own name? Of course not. Medaille’s views are his own, as are Barnhardt’s. To try and smear an entire publication simply because one disagrees with a particular piece that ran in it not only smacks of cheap sensationalism, but demonstrates a gross lack of charity and prudence as well.

Second, Medaille’s apparent agnosticism with regard to orthodoxy is disturbing. Following the logic set forth in the article, no individual has the competence to judge either the bishops or the pope  regardless of what they do or say. It seems that Medaille believes that the faithful should tie a rubber hose around reason and shoot up on complacency. What a novel turn of events that would be. If 2,000 years of Church history testifies to anything it is the need for faithful bishops, priests, and laity to rise up and defend orthodoxy during those unfortunate periods when the Church’s leadership jumps the rails of truth. The situation is not pretty. It can even be unsettling, but where would we be if mighty saints like Athanasius and Maximus had not spoken out against heresy? How long would the tragic period of Iconoclasm lasted in the East had it not been for the tireless witness of the faithful, even unto the shedding of their blood? While reasonable persons can disagree whether or not the Church has entered such a sorrowful period again, that is not what Medaille is up to. Instead he wishes to close-off discussion of the Church’s present situation out of what seems to be a distorted sense of fealty to the powers that be.

Last, it is ironic that Medaille of all people should choose to wag his finger at Barnhardt and The Remnant for sniffing out problems in the Church. Medaille has made something of a career out of going after churchmen who deviate from Catholic social teaching, particularly those papal encyclicals which focus on things economic. Why does Medaille get a free pass to call fellow Catholics on the carpet over the Church’s magisterium but The Remnant does not? Perhaps Medaille can offer up an explanation in a future article, or maybe — hopefully — he will go back to penning pieces on what he knows and stay out of these sorts of fisticuffs.

March 28, 2016 Eastern Catholicism

Can We Be Ourselves? – Preliminary

When it comes to the Eastern Catholic churches there are two extreme “schools of thought” on how they are “to be.” The first, which I will call the “Latin school,” holds that the Eastern churches ought to conform themselves fully to Western Catholic forms with some minimal space given to their unique, “exotic” elements. In other words, the Eastern churches should resemble the Latin Church in theology, spirituality, and ecclesiastical structure with “allowances” or “tolerance” given for certain liturgical elements and pious practices. On the level of doctrine, the Eastern churches ought to express themselves in a Latin idiom, removing all articulations which do not conform to Scholastic or semi-Scholastic formularies. Although the Latin Catholic Church has steadily drifted away from this “school of thought” over the past 50 years, many traditional Latin Catholics still hold fast to this belief out of chauvinism, ignorance, or both.

The other extreme, what I will call the “anti-Latin school,” holds that everything which appears to be rooted in Latin theology, spirituality, or ecclesiastical structure is not just alien to the East, but presumably defective as well. The East, according to this line of “thinking,” is essentially defined by being “not Western” (whatever that means) and has nothing to learn from Latin Christianity (though Latin Christianity has much to learn from it). On the level of doctrine, the “anti-Latin school” maintains a general agreement with the Latin Catholic Church on most first-millennium “essentials” while feeling entitled to ignore or discard any and all second-millennium doctrinal developments, particularly those associated with the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council.

Situated somewhere between these two poles is everyone else, though only Eastern Catholics are likely to give this reality any careful thought. Eastern Catholics, particularly those living in the geographic West, are compelled to live out the tension of existing in a “Latin normative” ecclesiastical space while also trying to retain their heritage — which is part of the heritage of the Universal Church — in full. Some claim there is a “golden mean” to be found, but it often seems to exist as a theoretical rather than a practical point. This raises the unsettling question of whether or not, at this moment in history, it is possible for Eastern Catholics to “be themselves” without compromises or contradictions. It is that question which I plan to probe in due course.

March 25, 2016 Church

Deus Crucifixus

The-Taking-down-from-the-Cross

The purpose of Christianity is not to help people by reconciling them with death but to reveal the Truth about life and death in order that people may be saved by this Truth.  … Christianity is not reconciliation with death.  It is the revelation of death, and it reveals death because it is the revelation of Life.  Christ is this Life.  And only if Christ is Life is death what Christianity proclaims it to be, namely the enemy to be destroyed, and not a ‘mystery’ to be explained.  Religion and secularism, by explaining death, give it a ‘status,’ a rationale, make it ‘normal.’  Only Christianity proclaims it to be abnormal and, therefore, truly horrible.  At the grave of Lazarus Christ wept, and when His own hour to die approached, ‘he began to be sore amazed and very heavy.’  In the light of Christ, this world, this life are lost and beyond mere ‘help,’ not because there is fear of death in them, but because they have accepted and normalized death.  To accept God’s world as a cosmic cemetery which is to be abolished and replaced by an ‘other world’ which looks like a cemetery (‘eternal rest’) and to call this religion, to live in a cosmic cemetery and to ‘dispose’ every day of thousands of corpses and to get excited about a ‘just society’ and to be happy! – this is the fall of man.  It is not the immorality or the crimes of man that reveal him as a fallen being; it is his ‘positive idea’ – religious or secular – and his satisfaction with this ideal.  This fall, however, can be truly revealed only by Christ, because only in Christ is the fullness of life revealed to us, and death, therefore, becomes ‘awful,’ the very fall from life, the enemy.  It is this world (and not any ‘other world’), it is this life (and not some ‘other life’) that were given to man to be a sacrament of the divine presence, given as communion with God, and it is only through this world, this life, by ‘transforming’ them into communion with God that man was to be.  The horror of death is, therefore, not in its being the ‘end’ and not in physical destruction.  By being separation from the world and life, it is separation from God.  The dead cannot glorify God.  It is, in other words, when Christ reveals Life to us that we can hear the Christian message about death as the enemy of God.  It is when Life weeps at the grave of the friend, when it contemplates the horror of death, that the victory over death begins.

– Fr. Alexander Schmemann, For the Life of the World (H/T Fr. Ted’s Blog)

March 24, 2016 Church, Eastern Catholicism, Roman Catholic Church

For the Western Triduum

Like many I have been eyeing the rumors that Pope Francis’s completed (but yet released) post-synodal exhortation will open the doors for “integrating” those in “irregular situations” back into the Catholic Church. No one expects the doors to be flung open, just cracked a bit. Even if that proves true, however, the chances are high that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Catholics living openly in various states of mortal sin will feel emboldened, and perhaps even encouraged, to participate in the sacramental life of the Church without repenting, amending their ill ways of life, and trying—like all of us—to sin no more.

Two years ago I found myself in a mild panic over what the first “Extraordinary Synod on the Family” might lead to. Following that sorrowful event, I felt convinced that the time had come for all Catholics of good will (traditional, conservative, whatever) to set aside their sometimes acrimonious differences in order to struggle for the good of Holy Mother Church and the upholding of her indefectible teachings on marriage, the family, and human sexuality. In an October 2014 post, “A Step Toward Disarmament,” I swore off using the polemical neologism “neo-Catholic” on Opus Publicum and hoped traditional Catholics might fully suit. Not surprisingly, that didn’t happen. A brief perusal of almost all high-profile traditional Catholic websites and blogs indicates that things are as bad ever as far as Catholic internecine strife is concerned. According to traditionalists, “neo-Catholics” are naïve, ill-informed, blind, dangerous, etc. because they continue to deny that the Church is in a state of crisis—a crisis exacerbated by the words and actions of Pope Francis. “Neo-Catholics” or, rather, contemporary conservative Catholics by and large believe that while the Church is facing serious troubles, traditionalist rhetoric, with its lack of charity and open hostility toward the Holy Father, is neither helpful nor accurate. Traditional Catholics are the “Chicken Littles” of the Church and their hyperbolic declarations need not concern a single serious soul.

While I too often find myself cringing at the vitriol pouring out of publications like The Remnant and One Peter Five, I can’t help but disagree with their overarching point—one often made by the leadership of the Society of St. Pius X—that the Mystical Body of Christ is undergoing its Passion and that like the Apostles themselves, we do not know what to make of it. How can it be that the Church should suffer so? Did not our Lord Jesus Christ promise that the gates of hell would not prevail? And yet if you look sobermindedly at the Church today, it is impossible to deny that the devil has crept aboard the Barque of St. Peter and is misleading it through a storm right into the rocks.

Some will say that the Church has always had trials, and this is true. The Arian Crisis, Iconoclasm, the Great Schism, the Reformation, and so on and so forth have presented great challenges to the life and integrity of the Church and yet in the end the Church prevailed. By faith all Catholics believe that the Church will prevail this time as well, but it is so incredibly difficult to see how. Traditional Catholics are right to remind all that demons are only driven out through prayer, repentance, and fasting, but they could stand to be reminded now and again that faith, hope, and charity rather than scorn, mockery, and derision are essential as well. With respect to conservative Catholics as a whole, I sympathize deeply with their desire to remain truly hopeful for the future and to work for the preservation of the Faith in the face of innumerable intellectual, historical, and political challenges, but there comes a point when it is necessary to call a spade a spade or, in this instance, a crisis a crisis and to fight—truly fight—against Christ’s enemies, no matter what guise they may appear in.

I occasionally wonder if Eastern Catholics feel the crisis in the Church as acutely as Latins do. Given that so many have fought, suffered, and died for the Faith for centuries, it is entirely possible that the present Eastern ecclesiastical consciousness is now hardened against the understandable fears and worries which plague many in the Church today. The Catholics of the Middle East haven’t the time to squabble over budgets, carnivals, and The Vatican II Hymnal. Their churches are not oriented around bourgeois values and petty pious posturing; they are literally built on the blood of martyrs. The Greek Catholic churches, many of which were nearly wiped out during the last century, produced some of the most outspoken voices for the Truth of Christ at last year’s painful installment of the “Extaordinary Synod.” Latin Catholics sometimes lament that they have been left without shepherds, but there are icons of the Faith in the East to be found to this day, lay and clerical alike. By their example—and by the prayers of their martyrs—the Church Universal can and will be saved.