Expert: Griff Ruby - 12/28/2004

Question
Hi,

I just finished reading your excellent book on the Traditionalist movement. I wrote a brief review at amazon.com, however "0 of 3 people found it helpful" :-)
My question concerns a remark you made toward the end of the book (sorry, I don't have it with me) on the TFP, or one of its primary spokesmen.  Since I did not recall your addressing any major concerns with this group earlier in your text, and since you treated almost all of the traditionalist groups with a remarkable degree of tolerance, I was wondering what is about the TFP that you find objectionable. Thanks!

Answer
I looked.  Thank you for the glowing review.  If no one else found your review useful, I can only assume that it means that the "bad guys" have found where my book is now available online and elsewhere.
As to TFP.  Bp. de Castro-Meyer and Plinio de Oliviero were once great friends and allies, back in the 1960's and at least well into the 1970's.  However, there was some falling out between them, as documented in Dr. White's "Mouth of the Lion" book.  Apparently, Bp. de Castro-Meyer had some concerns raised as to some things going on in the TFP camp.  Apparently it was becoming something slightly cultish, with its members denying that Plionio had died (when he had), and bizarre initation ceremonies.  I don't know how true such reports are, whether they are absolute fabrications, pertained only to some one or few local chapters gone awry, or may have been TFP-wide policy, perhaps only in the past, or perhaps even now.  His Excellencie's suspicions were raised, and so therefore were mine.
For my own observations however, the "position" of TFP seems at times just a little too close to that of the Abbe de Nantes.  While the Abbe was certainly quite capable of some valid and worthy criticisms of the new religion (I believe he served on the commission that produced the text of the Ottaviani Intervention (the cardinal having only ordered such a paper to be prepared, and then written a short cover letter)), he takes a position critical of what few real and authentic hierarchical bishops the Church has today, namely those in the episcopal successions from Archbishops Thuc and Lefebvre and Bishops de Castro-Meyer and Mendez.
Apparently, he is only one small step removed from the heretical home-aloner, since only what very few remaining priests who have been ordained back in the good old days (before 1968) and who have been and are faithful to tradition are counted as "legitimate" by him and his non-clerical followers.  Interestingly, he himself is one of these precious few remaining priests (Fr. Grommar dePauw would be an example of another) from whom lawful and valid sacraments can be obtained, according to his "lights."
The position is borderline heretical, denying the Church any real legitimate and truly Catholic hierarchical existance (yet claiming such status for the heretics of the Vatican, which is also self-contradictory), and furthermore means that he has recourse to no real bishop, and that makes him autocephalous ("his own head").
I consider such an influence among us traditionalists truly nefarious, as it blinds its followers to the true and legitimate bishops of the Church, leaving them capable of no positive action (apart from the secular realm) but merely the negative "action" of criticism.  In effect, it is exactly the manner in which the Novus Ordo would love to neutralize the traditional Catholic movement, preying on the fear and distrust they themselves prompted in the first place.
The Abbe de Nantes has some number of "bright young men" who have trained ready for the priesthood, but who have not recieved so much as even the tonsure, since he awaits some mythical time when the Vatican would permit it.  So there his followers remain, trained but not provisioned, for the harvest where the fields remain as white as they ever were.  They live in a kind of spiritual stasis, unable to pursue the priesthood, unable to pursue a vocation to marriage and a family, unwilling (it seems) even to join a conventional monastery.
The TFP (by several independent reports) does the exact same thing, discouraging marriage, monasticism, and the priesthood to its followers.  A minescule handful of priests (perhaps the same as "approved" by the Abbe de Nantes?) seem acceptible to their use, and are the only (rare) priests seen at any TFP functions.  And I seem to recall a number of "friendly" references back and forth between them, i. e. the Abbe "praises" the TFP; the TFP quotes (as an authority) the Abbe.
The revised edition of my book added some comments regarding the Abbe and the rather dim position I take towards his opinions (recall that the complete home-aloner I reject as flat-out heretical).
But this does not obviate the good done by some of their likes in the secular arena, in politics, the media, and so forth.  They are worthy of some limited positive mention, as are (for example) the followers of Fr. Feeney, but I cannot endorse them fully, as there are serious errors associated with their position.