Product Description

Faithful Remnant or Fanatic Schismatics?

It can be difficult to distinguish defenders from defectors. Many traditionalist schisms that sprang up after the Second Vatican Council are filled with devotion to the Blessed Mother. They remain extremely conservative with regard to most moral issues afflicting the Western world today. They practice a strict reverence before the Blessed Sacrament during their traditional Latin liturgies.

It can be easy to sympathize with such seemingly devout but truly disaffected Catholics.

Now More Catholic Than the Pope examines one such group – the Society of St. Pius X – and explains how its prime architect and figurehead, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and his followers chose to cut themselves off from the Church.

Here is the history of the society, from its beginning in France, to its rise and fall within the Catholic Church, to Pope John Paul II’s fraternal but ultimately fruitless efforts at reconciliation.

Here, too, in a series of carefully chosen appendices, are the clear, concise, canonical answers to the issues Society members continue to raise, the arguments they still offer.

"We earnestly hope that the evidence we present in this book will help extreme traditionalists to see the mistakes made by the SSPX and similar groups, abandon them, and come home to the Church."

If your loved one is a member of an extreme traditionalist group … if representatives have been urging you to become involved … please read this book.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #714453 in Books
• Published on: 2004-09-30
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 186 pages

About the Author
Patrick Madrid is a noted apologist, EWTN television host, and author of Answer Me This! (Our Sunday Visitor). Pete Vere, JCL, is a canon lawyer, an author, and a former adherent to the SSPX schism.

Customer Reviews

Read this book if you are drawn in to extreme traditionalism...
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

Dry, Though Informative
"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.

If you're expecting history or even journalism . . .
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.