About Saint Benedict Center's School of Thought
What does Saint Benedict Center hold in regard to the liturgical revolution in the Church?
We hold that the Novus Ordo (New Mass) is inferior to the traditional Roman Rite. It is clearly and explicitly a protestantization of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Such a deliberate mutilation happened as a result of false ecumenism, and such false ecumenism results from the denial of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Thus, the "liturgical revolution" is causally related to "our issue." For this reason, and for the reason that inferior worship should not be offered to God, we oppose the New Mass and will not allow it in any house of our congregation. The same applies to the other liturgical rites of the Church (the Divine Office and sacramental rites).
Does this mean you think the New Mass is invalid or sinful to attend?
No, it does not. The necessary form for the consecration of the sacred Body and Blood of our Lord are present in the Missa of Paul VI. Therefore we cannot deny its inherent validity as a sacramental rite. Neither do we have the authority to "forbid" any lay person from attending it, nor to determine that a rite approved by the Church is sinful to attend. Of course, those under religious obedience — First and Second Order members — do not attend it. Anyone wishing our counsel on the matter is advised: "Avoid the New Mass." Those without access to another rite — even a reverent Eastern Catholic Rite — to satisfy their Sunday and Holy Day obligations are encouraged to relocate to a place where they can find the traditional Roman Mass or a traditional Eastern Rite. People who regularly attend the New Mass while bemoaning the the abuses are like the farmer in Æsop's fable: He put a serpent dying of cold on his bosom so as to warm it. The farmer trusted the serpent out of pity, but when the serpent warmed up, he delivered a lethal bite to his benefactor.
People who regularly attend the New Mass while bemoaning the the abuses are like the farmer in Æsop's fable: He put a serpent dying of cold on his bosom so as to warm it. The farmer trusted the serpent out of pity, but when the serpent warmed up, he delivered a lethal bite to his benefactor.
What about Vatican II and the conciliar popes? Are they real popes? Was that council a genuine ecumenical council?
John Paul II is the presently reigning Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church. His predecessors (Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul I) were also validly elected popes who retained their pontifical offices. The liberalism, ecumenism, indifferentism, etc., that they have tolerated and even promoted are causes of great concern to us, but no man can depose the Roman Pontiff. We pray for him and leave the personnel changes to God. The same applies to the bishops. The Second Vatican Council was a true ecumenical council since it took place under the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff. (See Question 7 for more on Vatican II.)
Are you in communion with the pope and your local bishop?
Yes. We are in communion with the Holy Father because we are baptized Catholics who hold the Catholic faith. The congregation is not presently, nor has it ever been, nor are any individuals in it cut off from the Catholic Church by excommunication. Since Pope John Paul II is the present visible head of the Church, we are in communion with him. We pray for him as well as for our local bishop, Bishop John McCormack, in all of the Masses in our chapel.
Of course, we realize that legitimate authority can be abused, and that the occupants of even the highest office in the Church can fail on a number of points. Therefore, we can distinguish between what we are bound to obey and what we are bound to reject. In both the case of our local bishop and the Holy Father himself, we have major points of disagreement, none of which call into question the Holy Father's infallibility or primacy of jurisdiction, or the fact that both he and Bishop McCormack actually do occupy the offices they claim to occupy.
We do not reject the authority of the hierarchy. We respect their offices and do what we can to obey, short of betraying our principles, which are based on fidelity to the Deposit of Faith. Obedience is a moral virtue based on justice; it is not above the theological virtue of Faith, but is inferior to it.
Father Feeney's policy and ours is that our congregation will willingly submit to a bishop who believes extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Until then, we respect the authority of the hierarchy, but will openly oppose its liberalism.Have you ever tried to work with your local bishop?
Yes. We have tried to do so all along. When we first came to New Hampshire, we met with the Ordinary, His Excellency, Bishop Odore Gendron. He tolerated us in a kind and paternal way, but knew that "our issue" is with the Holy Office and not with him. His Excellency became angered when his priests began to denounce us, and he forbade them to do so in the future. Since his retirement, the two subsequent administrations have been openly hostile to us.
What about Rome? Have you ever tried to work with the pope or the curia to achieve an official status in the Church?
Yes. We even went to Rome to meet every cardinal and bishop who would listen to us. Some of them encouraged us in our work. We could not meet with the Holy Father, but we did manage a very frank meeting with Cardinal Ratzinger. We were promised a formal answer from the Holy Office. That was about fifteen years ago; we are still waiting.
Back to Vatican II: Didn't it teach heresy?
We do not have the authority to judge the decrees of an ecumenical council. Ultimately, it is left to the authority of the Church — that is, the pope — to separate the wheat from the chaff in the confusing, long, often tortuous (and torturous) documents of that Council. Although we do not have the formal authority to judge the decrees themselves, we can say that IF any proposition contained in them contradicts what has already been taught by the Solemn or Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, THEN it is heretical. The principle of noncontradiction ("a thing cannot be and not be" or "a thing cannot be both true and false in the same sense") must be applied in these cases. If Vatican II stated or implied that there is salvation outside the Church, THEN it was wrong. IF it stated or implied that Masonic "religious liberty" is a good thing, THEN it is in contradiction to previous magisterial decrees and, therefore, wrong. IF it taught that the Holy Ghost inspires other religions, THEN it uttered heresy. Formal and final judgment is up to the sovereign pontiff.
It is naive to say that the only problem lies in the infamous "spirit" of Vatican II, which goes beyond the conciliar decrees; clearly there are problems in the texts themselves.
It is naive to say that the only problem lies in the infamous "spirit" of Vatican II, which goes beyond the conciliar decrees; clearly there are problems in the texts themselves.Concerning the message of Fatima: Do you think the consecration of Russia has been done as our Lady commanded?
No, simply because the promised conversion of Russia — conversion to Catholicism — has not happened. The Fatima message made it clear that the consecration of Russia would effect a conversion of that nation. Since our Lady does not lie, we must conclude that the consecration was not done.
And the Third Secret? Do you think that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) gave us the real thing in "The Message of Fatima"?
We agree with informed Fatima scholars that there are probably two texts which are referred to as "the Third Secret." If what the CDF gave us is genuine — and it probably is — then there has to be more to the message. Concerning the CDF's interpretation of the part of the Secret revealed, it is deficient at the very least. We strongly suspect that there is an additional part of the great Secret that has not been revealed, and it is a continuation of the Blessed Virgin's words, "In Portugal, the dogma of faith will always be kept... ."
Many traditionalists have an anti-patriotic attitude towards the United States. Others think that the U.S. Constitution represents the ideal form of government. Where does Saint Benedict Center stand on the U.S. Constitution and the Social Kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ?
Our position is that the U.S. Constitution, although Masonic in many of its underlying principles, could be made conformable to the Social Kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ. Catholic republics, such as Salazar's Portugal, Dollfuss' Austria, and Moreno's Ecuador have existed for the glory of Christ the King and could exist here. Our first duty as concerns our nation is to make it Catholic by evangelizing our neighbors. We thank God that the Church is at liberty here to do so.
When the majority of this nation's citizens are Catholic, the full social Kingship of Christ may be inaugurated by conforming its laws, including the Constitution, to Catholic principles of government.