Customer Reviews

More Catholic Than the Pope: An Inside Look at Extreme Traditionalism

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

"Faithful remnant, or fanatic schismatics?" That is a question posed in a large font at the top of the back cover. The conclusions that the author's of the book come to can be inferred from the title: "More Catholic Than the Pope: An Inside Look at Extreme Traditionalism". Extreme! That means bad, bad, bad in our modern ecumenically-toned, ever-so-moderate, religious language. Extreme equates to fanatic, fringe, and zealot. Obviously the authors are not going to come out defending these traditionalists that (?) think they are "More Catholic Than the Pope".

So far this seems like it will be a pretty entertaining, if one-sided, book. It even says "inside look," and tells us on the back flap that one of the authors was "a former adherent to the SSPX schism". Most people are probably preparing themselves for an expose' of the heretofore unrevealed facts and motivations and whatnot of these extremists.

However, If one will read the rest of the back cover, one will quickly realise that this is not what the book is about. This book is intended to be two things: history and canonical argument. It is also a third thing: dry as saw dust. I would not call it apologetic, as apologetical literature should be persuasive, and it's hard to persuade someone when your material is so boring that the reader is falling asleep.

On the other hand, I don't mean to be attacking the authors personally. I would guess that there really isn't a way of making this material enjoyable reading. But when I say "entertain" and "enjoyable," I don't mean in a simply profane sense. I mean that my attention constantly strayed, that while I could see the relevance of
each point made, I really didn't care a whit. The authors have shown that their subject is indeed the guilty party, but they've given us no reason to care whether they are guilty or not. They make a good (if dry and lawyerly) case, but it has no personal meaning to the average reader.

As an Orthodox Christian I felt especially distanced (in spite of my wife being formerly in the SSPX). This book came off as much more one-sided than the other things I've heard about them, though I guess that's the nature of such books. The most intersting thing I got out of the book was in the similarities I saw between the SSPX and our own Orthodox traditionalist groups. Some of the quotes and arguments from Lefevre could have come straight from the mouths of various Orthodox traditionalist Bishops and priests. The resemblance was quite frightening.

As far as enjoyability, I'd give this book 2 stars, but I think that's unfair given the material, and the fact that the authors did, in the end, provide a very thorough case (canonically anyway; their defense of Vatican 2 was very short). So, I'm giving the book 3 stars. If you are a Catholic and interested in the history of Catholic traditionalist groups, this book may be more to your liking than it was to mine.

you'll be disappointed. Essentially, this is a canon law brief against the Lefebvrist movement. As a lawyer and former medieval history graduate student, I found this mildly interesting, but no more than that. (Mr. Vere, one of the authors, is a canon lawyer, and one wonders whether this book is a slightly modified version of the equivalent of a master's thesis.) The book is typical of the "We're right, you're wrong" approach taken before by Mr. Madrid in his EWTN appearances.

For a short book, this volume contains too many grammatical and typographical errors.

Our Sunday Visitor Press, which has produced good work, markets the book misleadingly by using Mr. Vere's former attraction to "extreme traditionalism" to imply that this is an "inside look" at the movement. In fact, the book gives only the skimpiest outline, full of lacunae, of the history of Lefebvre's movement, and only hints at what attracts intelligent believers to it. One sighs with nostalgia for the author of ENTHUSIASM, Msgr. Ronald Knox, who, while expressing his disagreements cogently, treats earlier forms of "extreme traditionalism" with an insight, sympathy, and literary grace wholly absent from the current book.

I ocassionally enjoy e-mailing people like "pope" Michael (aka David Bawden), just to pick their brains and see what makes them tick. It's fun only in small doses and stops being fun when he starts spamming you with his rants. So knowing that there are people like him out there, people who consider themselves "true" Catholics and that who believe that the rest of the Catholic Church has gone serviously astray, I was eager to pick up this book to see what light it sheds on such folk.

The first half of the book was only decently written, It dwelt, I felt, far too much on Archbishop Lefebrve and his schism, and it didn't cover those that split off before him or after him, that still call themselves catholic. It treated the case in fact as if Lefebvre's people were the only ones that had split off. It quoted liberally from cannon law, but I felt that it was a circular argument, with valid points to make that were never really arrived at.

The second half of the book I felt was far more important, but sadly they spent less time developing it. In it they counter those arguments posed by "traditionalist" Catholics, but each argument only gets a very superficial treatment, maybe a quote or two to back up authentic Catholic teaching, and knowing the quality of Patrcik Madrid, I felt he could have developed each of these more in depth.

Lastly, I was a little sad that none of the anti-popes running around these days got any coverage at all. It could have added some humor to the situation, but perhaps someone elected by his parents and two other people is not worthy of much attention, sorry David.

During the course of my last 2 years, I suppose you can say that my views or perception of what it is to be a "Catholic" has run the entire span from traditionalism to liberalism. I was raised quite traditional and I must say it has had its long term benefits considering the implied lessons of "unwavering moral principles." I found it very difficult to reconcile the state of the Church today and its practices with that of what I did indeed read from sources prior to Vatican II. There is always a certain degree of allure with the possibility of "mystery" and "secrecy." I myself almost bought it, hook, line, and sinker. In a seemingly innocent act, I visited a "Catholic" Church in Colton, CA which went by the name of St. Joseph and the Immaculate Heart of Mary Roman Catholic Church. It seemed harmless enough. I had previously heard so much about the "beautiful Latin Tridentine Mass." The closest [official] one I found was 20 miles away in Rancho Cucamonga. But wait, I live in Colton and this "Catholic Church" which I found is literally miles away. I visited. Boy did it live up to what I have been told. It was mysterious. It was beautiful; the latin, the vestments, the incense, the candles, the reverence, the music. However, an awkward feeling was with me the whole time, like I shouldn't have been there. This "Catholic" Church was in actuality a community under the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Their founder, the late Arch. Marcel Lefebvre was excommunicated for consecrating four bishops without proper dispensation from the Holy See. They have a highly suspicious view of the Vernacular Novus Ordo Missae, indeed they reject much of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. This is where I said, hold on a second. The problems that arose after the Council was not the product of the Council itself, properly understood. But it was the problem of the Council being misrepresented and misused to justify aberrations to the Catholic faith, i.e. liturgical experimentation, theological experimentation, etc.

I finished the above book a few months ago. It settled much of my fears that I was in the wrong group of Catholics. This book systematically refutes the arguments of the SSPX. It discusses the history of its founder, the evolution of the anti-Vatican II mindset, and the genesis of its counter-attack, in the form of rejection of the Council itself, denying its infallibility and authority. Since reading this book, I have debated for about 2 months with members of this schismatic group, as well as a few sedavacantist which is a different group which actually believes that the Pope is not a valid Pope and the Chair of Peter is empty. Hence seda-vacant-ist. One need only reference the teachings of Vatican I, in a document called "Pastor Aeternus: Dogmatic Constitution of the Church" from a Council which they do in fact accept, to see that all Catholics are subject to the teachings of the Pope when he speaks as the universal Pastor of the Church in matters regarding: faith, morals, and church governance.

This is a great book for those who are in danger of being swayed into this highly suspicious group of Catholics. I could not help but sympathize with these loving and concerned Catholics. Coming from my study of Psychology we must see this as a valid crisis. Something is missing in our Catholic Churches which should be freely available to these groups. If it is the Latin Mass they want, give it to them. We are supposed to be the Catholic [Universal] Church. It pains me to see that nothing is being done to bring these good Catholic people back home. Schism and disobedience is never the answer. We as Catholics, faithful to the authentic Magisterium and the Holy Father must take it upon ourselves to learn the fullness of the faith, and transmit that faith and teachings, unbiased and undiluted, because the mission that Christ gave us to evangelize was not for appeals to our tastes and entertainment but for the salvation of souls.

St. Augustine wrote, "You arouse us so that praising you may bring us joy, because you have made us and drawn us to yourself, and our heart is unquiet until it rests in you" (Confessions, Book I).

Pax Vobiscum,
Laurence

It is obvious that traditionalism can sometimes become a blind ideology.

What is less obvious to many--such as these authors--is that those opposing traditionalist can also be ideolgues. More Catholic than the Pope! How?

The book was written in 2004 and is somewhat outdated, but the book uses tones, approaches, and arguments that are not made by Pope Benedict, nor even his predecessor--and certainly not Vatican II which could scarcely find anything really strong to say even against atheism! Indeed, Pope Benedict has had things to say about the abrupt imposition of the Novus Ordo as strong as any traditionalist has ever said! Moreover, Pope Benedict is attempting to bring SSPX fully back into the fold: knowing that they oppose the prudentiality of Vatican II, and will not cease speaking out. It is not clear that they are fighting a battle that he wants fought. And both Vatican II and Pope John Paul II (e.g., his gatherings at Assisi, and his kissing of the Koran) seemed to almost oppose any battles at all.

Since the book was written, Pope Benedict has clarified that the traditional Latin mass had been abrogated, and lifted the SSPX excommunications.

Traditionalism is not ordinarily a matter of private judgement, but rather a matter of basic reading comprehension..and seeing the fruits of changes that ALL acknowledged happened. Traditionalism is not just a mirror image of modernism: no traditionalist embraces views which can only lead to atheism. There is no equivalence. And yet the battle rages over such matters in many publications.

The authors are very good Catholic authors, but they have not seemed to really engage the issues. This increases, rather than decreases, Christian division.

The idea that the Society of St. Pius X is "extreme" is laughable. That is like calling all Catholics prior to 1969 "extreme". If you want an honest critique of the SSPX, Jacob Michael's "From Ecône to Rome: Leaving the SSPX Without Saying 'Schism'" is a better choice.

First of all, if you're of a traditionalist/integrist mindset, stay away from this book. You won't like it. More Catholic Than The Pope lays bare the trouble with traditionalism and the Lefebvre mess(Hint: Like it or not, he excommunicated himself when he defied papal authority and proceeded with ordinations and consecrations without permission.). Though perhaps a bit wordy and technical in some areas, this isn't a difficult book to read, even for a lowly housewife like me. What this book boils down to is this: devout Catholics who fall prey to the powerful attraction of groups like the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) are in danger of being drawn into defiance of the Magisterium of the Church. To be Catholic is to embrace three crucial concepts, poverty, chastity and obedience. Two out of three are not enough. Unfortunately, devout Catholics who become drawn into the integrist mindset expose themselves to a schismatic and disobedient spirit that also may lead them to follow Lefebvre out of the Church. This book clearly lays out the history and result of the Lefebvrite schism, and is an invaluable glimpse into the minds of those who, through pride in their Catholicism, grow increasingly scornful and disobedient of lawful Church authority. Many kudos to the authors, especially canon lawyer Pete Vere, who was once in the SSPX until his eyes were opened and he returned to full communion with the Magisterium. Fellow writer Patrick Madrid is an expert in Catholic apologetics; both write with clarity and charity. Highly recommended to help understand the inner workings of Catholics who have wandered into a jaundiced mindset of those who believe that they are true Catholics because they prefer the Tridentine liturgy to the Pauline one. This book is well worth the time and money invested. Truly, the most unsettling "novelty" to follow Vatican II is how even apparently devout Catholics have become disobedient to the lawful authority of the pope and the Magsterium in the name of "truth". We've wearily watched liberal abuses in our Church, especially in the highjacking of the council and the newer liturgy. It's sad to see those who know their faith so well fall into errors on the other side of the spectrum. Reading this book can help understand the roots of the integrist position, a position which, when followed to its logical conclusion, leads to the more grievous error of sedevacantism. Much gratitude to the authors for their work.
PS: The pope can err, unless he's teaching ex cathedra("from the chair"[of Peter]) on matters of faith and morals binding on all Christians, in which limited cases he's under the protection of the Holy Spirit.
PPS: It's the Paul VI liturgy; there hasn't yet been a Paul VII. As for Pope St. Pius X, I also recommend his Allocution of May 10, 1909---it's very enlightening.

The book is by and for Roman Catholics, and for what it is it is excellent. My only complaint/suggestion is that the arguments that the SSPX uses, this section is very poor considering one of the authors is an x-SSPXer. The only part of the book missing, that would be great in the future is cultural context. The SSPXers are not happy for more reasons than this book would suggest. For example, traditional and faithful Roman Catholics don't like the design of "modern" post Vatican II churches, they don't like the modern music, they don't care for the talking in the chappel. The design of the "church in the round" is horrible. Some of the wall hangings look un religious even. So there is more that the book ignores regarding the causes of SSPX disaffection with the Romans. This would be a good subject to be picked up by another author.

Although I disagree completely with the conclusion that the authors attempt to have the reader accept in their critique of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (the "SSPX"), the book itself is well-written and I believe the authors to be sincere and well-intentioned in their efforts to make their case. What I found supremely ironic, however,--even funny--about their empassioned "all-out" Canon Law argument against Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (the Founder of the SSPX), saying that he in effect had no leg to stand on by way of Canon Law or by any such recourse in justifying his actions before Rome, is that in laying out their "evidence" ever so methodically the authors actually ended up making a superb case for the existence of the "state of necessity" in the Church--which is precisely what Archbishop Lefebvre had been arguing all along! A Church that misuses its authority by trying to cut off every legal avenue for the perpetuation of its raison d'etre is indeed a Church in crisis. In their zeal to prove him wrong, the authors actually end up making the very arguments why Archbishop Lefebvre was compelled to act on his own. Far from being a book that should be shunned by SSPX members and adherents, I think it should rank quite high on their reading list. Why? Because one cannot truly adhere to a conviction, much less "defend" it, if one fears hearing what the other side has to say. Though I disagreed with the authors, I found the book an enjoyable read.

I've had this book sitting on my shelf for a while, but with the excommunication recently being lifted on the four SSPX bishops, I thought now would be a good time to get caught up the controversy. Although not written solely about the SSPX, the majority of this short book focuses on the history of the SSPX controversy and some of the major arguments they put forward. After giving the history of the SSPX and the excommunications, the authors take a careful look at some of the major problem points of Vatican II documents. For example, it is often claimed that Vatican II, being only a pastoral council, is not binding. It is true that Vatican II did not contain any anathemas. However, the authors are careful to note what the council itself meant when it referred to itself as a pastoral council and what level of authority they expected the council to have. Among other things, they quote part of Pope John XXIII's opening speech at Vatican II to prove their point.

It is true that the "spirit" of Vatican II created horrible abuses in the Church and that we are very far from recovering from all the evils that have been brought into the Church because of "progressiveness" taking things out of context as well as flat out making stuff up. It is also true (in my opinion) that the Novus Ordo is flat out UGLY compared to a TLM. But this book reminds us how important it is to stay humble and obedient to the Church. Part of that means suffering through an ugly mass and abuses within the Church while attempting to counter-reform the "spirit" of Vatican II which has been so grossly warped.