Discussions on Traditionalism: Implementing the Council
So we've talked about the Mass a little bit, we've talked about the history of Vatican II, and we've talked about some of the specific documents.
Quite an interesting ride, isn't it? Things have been anything but "normal" in the Church for the past 40 years or so.
I cannot argue with that. You said something earlier, though, about the problem not being so much with the council, but with its implementation. Can you elaborate?
Sure. Our current pope, Benedict XVI, just made mention of this phenomena in his Christmas Address to the Roman Curia last year, 2005.
In that address, he asked the question: "What has been the Council's result? Has it been received properly?"
His answer, in part, was to point to "the description that the great doctor of the Church, Saint Basil, gave of the Church's situation after the Council of Nicaea: he compared it to a naval battle in the darkness of a storm." (Christmas Address to the Roman Curia, Dec. 22, 2005, Asia News Online, emphasis mine)
Granted, the pope wasn't willing to say that this was a perfect description of the post-conciliar Church, but he did have to admit that "some of what has happened does reflect itself in [St. Basil's description]."
And what is the cause of this "naval battle in the darkness of a storm"?
The pope spoke of false interpretations of the council, which he described as "hermeneutics of discontinuity and rupture", and which, he admitted, "was frequently able to find favour among mass media, and also a certain sector of modern theology." (ibid.)
His description of this false hermeneutic is actually very accurate:
This is that ambiguous "spirit of Vatican II" that became the justification for so much innovation in the Church after the council.
Do you think your current pope is a Traditionalist, then?
Actually, no, he's just a milder and less radical Modernist, in my opinion. And that's all part of the package of Modernism, really.
How so?
Pope St. Pius X described how Modernists practice what they call "evolution of dogma," and how this evolution - in order to work - has to make advances and innovations, but not too quickly, or else it completely separates itself from its foundation.
Here's how St. Pius X explained it in his encyclical against Modernism:
Our current pope seems to be more on the side of "the conserving force" in the evolution of dogma, which is precisely why he speaks out against the "hermeneutics of discontinuity and rupture" - those words he uses are no accident.
John Vennari summed it up well:
So ultimately you think Benedict XVI is in favor of progressivism and evolution of dogma?
Ultimately, I think he is. He has stated quite clearly in the past that there can be no turning back the clock and returning to the old ways - but he also knows that we can't just run forward recklessly, so he's trying to exercise a little conservatism.
Still, his evaluation of the "spirit of Vatican II" is correct, even if I don't think he's against it for the same reasons Traditionalists are.
How, then, does this "spirit of the council" show itself in everyday life?
Just watch the news; read the headlines.
To take a few examples, a handful of cardinals and some three-dozen priests recently went to a "Modern Orthodox rabbinical school" in New York to study the Torah with the Jews. (see Jennifer Siegel, "Cardinals Study With Orthodox Students", Forward, March 31, 2006) This is all part of the new "evangelization" and "ecumenism" that springs from the "spirit of Vatican II."
Which you think Benedict XVI is trying to stop?
Apparently not! One of the cardinals in attendance was Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard - the article says:
So while Benedict XVI speaks out against the false spirit of the council, he still approves events like this.
That seems to be a contradiction.
The popes since Paul VI have all been walking contradictions - I think I mentioned it earlier, but Pope Paul VI was reduced to tears many times in his pontificate over that "auto-demolition" of the Church, and yet he certainly took an active role is assisting that destruction.
Then you have the comments made even more recently by a priest in Florida:
Again, there's that false ecumenism: "we were not looking for everyone to become Catholic"?! That's completely out of line, but that's the standard view among the clergy these days.
So why doesn't the Vatican crack down on priests like this?
Because the bureaucrats running the Vatican are in full support of priests like this. Cardinal Walter Kasper said:
Now keep in mind that Cardinal Kasper is the president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity - this is the guy in charge of "Christian Unity," and he's saying that the Church has moved past "ecumenism of return" - that is, seeking unity by seeking the conversion and return to the Catholic Church of those who are outside Her.
How did someone with these kinds of ideas get into such a high position of importance?
Pope John Paul II put him in that position, and John Paul II is the same pope who elevated Kasper to the position of Cardinal back in the late 90s.
So his ideas would appear to have even the pope's approval ...
That's the appearance that is created, yes. Of course, who knows why the pope made him a cardinal and put him in charge of the PCPCU? Maybe he just likes the guy, or maybe he was cajoled into rubber-stamping this appointment - but the surface-level evidence would lead the average Catholic to believe that the pope must agree with Kasper's views.
Even more distressing is what was said in the Balamand Statement in 1993.
What's the "Balamand Statement"?
A joint-statement drawn up between representative Catholics and Eastern Orthodox at the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. The sessions were held at the Balamand School of Theology in Lebanon, hence the declaration is known more commonly as the "Balamand Statement."
And what did this statement say?
The same thing Kasper said.
This is all terribly confusing, of course, because this is a document drawn up (in part) by official representatives of the Catholic Church - and yet, this obviously isn't a binding document on the faithful. Strictly speaking, it's nothing more than the (wrong) opinions of individual prelates in the Church.
But no one is going to view it that way.
That's the problem. It has all the outward appearances of being an official statement of the Church, and it has all the outward appearances of being authoritative - after all, the pope never denounced it, did he?
I wouldn't know.
Well I can tell you: he didn't. In fact, without going so far as to publicly approve every single statement in this declaration, he gave his general approval in his encyclical on Christian Unity:
He didn't say anything about the "out-dated ecclesiology" of trying to convert the Orthodox, as was stated in the Balamand Statement, but yet he says that these "joint affirmations" (supposedly including the Balamand Statement) form the "basis for Catholics and Orthodox to be able from now on to bear ... united common witness in our time."
So it would appear that, without the Eastern Orthodox ever having returned to the Catholic Church, we are now suddenly able to bear a common witness to the gospel.
And again, this is Kasper's position on Protestantism as well:
And what does the pope have to say about that?
I don't know that John Paul II ever addressed this statement of Kasper's directly, but again, we only have to remember that he was the one who elevated Cardinal Kasper to his position.
And he did indicate, in that encyclical on Christian Unity, that he was open to rethinking how the papacy operates in order to achieve this new vision of unity.
There's more of that classic Vatican II-style ambiguity! What does he define as "essential" to the "mission" of the papacy? And what does he mean by "new situation"?
Do you think a future pope will one day renounce his claim to primacy?
It's quite possible. Scary, but quite possible. I mean, in practice, that has been the method of operation for the popes for the last 40 years - not ruling the Church like they should, letting "collegiality" be the guiding principle, etc.
And this is an example of the false spirit of Vatican II?
Certainly. Vatican II nowhere said that "ecumenism of return" was "out-dated ecclesiology," and it certainly never said that the pope should consider a "new situation" with regard to his primacy. It's quite obvious that the council is being abused badly in this respect.
Are there more examples of this kind of abuse?
Yes, plenty - one of the most obvious ones is the New Mass itself. The council said nothing in the document on Liturgical Reform about: the priest celebrating Mass facing the people; all-vernacular Masses; making the Old Mass obsolete and refusing priests their permission to celebrate it; replacing Gregorian Chant with all-new contemporary music; the laity distributing communion; altar girls; or receiving communion in the hand.
In some of those areas, in fact, the council said exactly the opposite of what is being practiced today - so in a very real way, you could say that the New Mass in itself constitutes an abuse of the council.
Can you demonstrate that the council taught the opposite of what is being practiced in the New Mass?
On some of those points, yes. As far as priests facing the people, laypeople distributing communion, altar girls, and communion in the hand, the council was silent. It never said "don't do these things," because it never occurred to the council fathers (at least not the conservative ones) that anyone would even suggest them!
However, on the subject of all-vernacular Masses, the council said, "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36, 1)
On the subject of Gregorian Chant, the council said that chant is "specially suited to the Roman liturgy," and thus, "it should be given pride of place in liturgical services." (ibid., 116) In fact, the council specifically decreed that "steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them" (ibid., 54) - such as the Gloria, the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei, and other such prayers (probably also the Pater Noster and Confiteor were intended here).
On a related note, the council also said that "the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies." (ibid., 120)
So the council said that Latin is to be retained, that it should be taught to the people so they could use it in the Mass, that Gregorian Chant has "pride of place," and that the pipe organ "is to be held in high esteem." None of that is being done today in your average Catholic parish.
And what were you saying about the Old Mass?
It's been suppressed today, for the most part. In 1984, Pope John Paul II granted an "indult" for priests to say the Old Mass, but only with permission from their bishop, and only under certain conditions. In 1988, he asked for a wider and more generous application (his words) of that "indult," but it still seems as though there is a lot of animosity on the part of bishops towards the Old Mass and those who want to celebrate it.
How so?
Again, just look at the news headlines from time to time.
Most recently, Fr. Phillip Bourret, S.J., was commanded by his superior to stop saying the Old Mass at a private chapel in Santa Clara, CA. (Anthony Gonzales, "Jesuit Priest Commanded to Stop Saying Traditional Latin Mass!", St. Joseph's News Service, March 23, 2006)
In 2004, Fr. Stephen Sommerville was suspended by his bishop for saying the Old Mass. ("Passion priest suspended for Latin Masses", U.S. Catholic, Nov. 1, 2004)
In 2003, Fr. Stephen Zigrang was suspended by his bishop for announcing to his congregation on June 29 that he would no longer be celebrating the New Mass, but would be exclusively using the Old Missal of Pope St. Pius V. (Peter W. Miller, "Texas Pastor Removed Over Latin Masses", Seattle Catholic, Jul. 4, 2003)
In 2005, Mr. Allen Cain passed away, leaving behind his stated wish that his Requiem Mass be celebrated according to the Traditional Rites. His bishop refused, despite the fact that two priests in the diocese expressed their willingness to honor the deceased's request. (Michael Matt, "In the Gullet of a Wolf", The Remnant, January, 2005)
In 2004, Bishop Tod Brown of Orange County, CA, summarily pulled the plug on the Indult Mass in his diocese after the parish priest, Fr. Daniel Johnson, retired from his ministry. (Steven Greenhut, "The Catholic Church's great divide", Orange County Register, May 16, 2004)
In 2000, after Bishop Fellay of the SSPX had been meeting with John Paul II to negotiate the freedom of the Old Mass, several bishops and cardinals threatened rebellion. His Excellency describes the event:
Wow! They were ready to revolt?
Apparently some very high-ranking prelates in the Church are absolutely against the Old Mass.
And this is, as you said, an abuse of the council.
Absolutely! The council fathers, I contend, would never have signed off on that document on the Liturgy if they had known that the intention was to abolish the Old Mass and then create a brand new one from scratch.
In actual fact, the document says "holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way." (Sacrosanctum Concilium, par. 4)
So the wish of the council was that the Old Mass - which was certainly one of the "lawfully acknowledged rites" at the time this document was written - should be "[preserved] in the future." Six years later, snap, we've got a brand new Mass created out of whole cloth, and the Old Mass is now an occasion of ecclesiastical penalty.
Are there any other examples of how the council has been wrongly implemented?
Well, let's stick with the example of the Liturgy. I said earlier that, for example, altar girls and communion in the hand were never mentioned by the council.
Right. So how did those things come about?
By disobedience - and this is one of the most deadly aspects of what has gone on in the past 40 years ... disobedience is continually rewarded when that disobedience leans towards progressivism. Of course, if the disobedience leans towards Traditionalism (like those priests I mentioned who decided to say the Old Mass without first asking permission), then suddenly the bishops snap into action and start imposing penalties.
So, for example, in 1970, just a year after the New Mass was promulgated, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship issued a document that said:
But that didn't stop certain disobedient bishops from allowing the practice in their dioceses, and so 10 years later, the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship again had to issue a corrective instruction. The purpose of this document was to single out and correct "the varied and frequent abuses being reported from different parts of the Catholic world ... especially regarding the priestly ministry and the role of the laity."
The Congregation pointed out that "Undue experimentation, changes and creativity bewilder the faithful, reminded the bishops of the teaching of the council that "No person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority," and recalled the words of Pope Paul VI: "Anyone who takes advantage of the reform to indulge in arbitrary experiments is wasting energy and offending the ecclesial sense."
Obviously, then, the abuses listed in this document were being perpetrated on a grand-scale, such that they caught the attention of the Vatican and required correction! In specific:
This was in 1980, you said?
Yes, 10 years after the first instruction from the Congregation. So it would appear that in the intervening 10 years, parishes were using altar girls anyway - and so the Congregation condemned the practice again.
But it didn't stop.
Of course not! This is the conciliar Church we're talking about. The Vatican issues instructions and warnings from time to time, but remember: the pope has abdicated his primacy and authority (at least when it comes to dealing with liberals), so there's rarely any "teeth" to these documents.
In 1982, a letter was sent to the Apostolic Delegate in Washington, DC, complaining about the continuation of this abuse. The letter laments that, "far from the abuse ceasing ... it has proliferated, providing another indication of the schismatic attitude of the Bishops of the United States of America, and the complete inability of the Holy See to exercise any control over them." ("Letter to the Apostolic Delegate", The Angelus, Dec. 1982, Vol. V/12)
The letter even details specific cases. St. Catherine of Siena Church in Miami "invited girls to volunteer for training as altar servers." The bishop of Columbus, OH, publicly admitted that "some [parishes] in our own diocese, do have altar girls." A parishioner in Oakland, CA, wrote to his bishop to complain that his parish priest "had announced his intention of using altar girls" in a parish newsletter. The bishop responded, "Father Danielson's allowance of young women who already have been taking part in the Mass is sensible ... I agree with him, and with the authority I have, can approve of his decision."
So what happened?
In 1994, the same Congregation approved the use of altar girls. In response to the question of whether "the liturgical functions which ... can be entrusted to the lay faithful, may be carried out equally by men and women, and if serving at the altar may be included among those functions." The Congregation answered in the affirmative.
A year later, in an Angelus Address given the day before the beginning of the Fourth World Conference on Women, Pope John Paul II said:
So he totally reversed himself?
Basically. He forbid altar girls in 1980, and then in 1995 he said that feminine service at the altar is one of the "gifts that enrich ecclesial life."
And what about communion in the hand?
Same situation. Just about a month after the promulgation of the New Mass (which was in April of 1969), the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship issued a document under the title Memoriale Domini (Memorial of the Lord), dealing with the issue of the faithful receiving Holy Communion in their hands, instead of the traditional manner, which is to have the priest place the host directly in their mouths. The document is dated May 19, 1969.
The document laments that "in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately." So apparently the practice sprung up rather quickly - in just a little over a month's time. Of course, it was an abuse, because Rome had not permitted it.
So the Congregation (at the request of Pope Paul VI) submitted a survey of sorts to some of the national conferences of bishops, asking their opinion on the matter. On the question of whether the practice should be admitted, 57% of the bishops said no, and only 26% said yes. Another 15% said yes, but with reservations. So the clear majority was not in favor of the practice.
On the question of whether the practice should be tried as an experiment in a few small locations, 60% said no, and 37% said yes. Again, the majority was not in favor of the practice.
Based on this input, the Congregation declared that "in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful." (emphasis added)
If the Congregation nixed the practice, then, why is it in use today?
Because apparently the Vatican wishes to reward disobedience to its own commands. The document left a loophole, as is apparently the common practice these days. It said that, in those places where communion in the hand had already become the prevailing practice, bishops in those areas could submit a request to Rome to have the practice allowed in their dioceses. Then it goes on to detail some normative guidelines for implementing the practice in those few select territories, where bishops had been given permission by the Holy See.
Uh-oh. I can see where this is heading.
It's not difficult, is it? When the document says "no, don't do this thing," but then essentially says, "however, if you are going to do it, here's how it should be done," it's implicitly admitting that this is going to become common practice. It's a strange anomaly: it's like saying, "don't commit this abuse, but if you're going to, here's the correct way of committing the abuse."
And so what was the outcome?
The abuse continued. Even though Rome had forbid the practice, it flourished, even in dioceses where it had not (according to the condition set by the Congregation) previously been a prevailing practice, and even though the individual bishops had not appealed for or received permission from Rome.
Eventually, these bishops started submitting their requests, and Rome just basically rubber-stamped them all so that communion in the hand became the norm.
The abuse became lawful?
That's what it boils down to. Rome essentially said, "the best way to make you stop disobeying is to make the illegal thing legal, and then it's not disobedience anymore."
And how does this relate to the council?
I think it ties back into the ambiguity regarding collegiality. None of the authorities wanted to upset the new prevailing democratic model of authority, so no one wanted to step on anyone else's toes. The trouble is that, once entire national conferences of bishops voted to allow the practice, the individual bishops who may not have liked the idea succumbed to the pressure - you don't want to be the lone opposition to the voice of the majority, even if you do possess the rightful authority to make your own decisions as a bishop in your own diocese. So they all caved in.
What, in a nutshell, is wrong with this practice?
It erodes the unique dignity of the priest. St. Thomas Aquinas devoted an entire question in his Summa to this issue. He concluded that there were three reasons why only priests should distribute communion, and the third reason is especially pertinent today:
[quote]Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, q. 82, art. 3, emphasis added)[/quote]
Similarly, Pope John Paul II addressed this subject in an Apostolic Letter. He deplored the fact that, after the practice of communion in the hand had been permitted, "cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported," and beyond this, that "the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized." The liberal gestapo basically started imposing the practice, even on those of the laity who didn't want to receive in this way.
So John Paul II wrote, echoing St. Thomas Aquinas:
[quote] ... one must not forget the primary office of priests, who have been consecrated by their ordination to represent Christ the Priest: for this reason their hands ... have become the direct instruments of Christ. Through this fact ... they have a primary responsibility for the sacred species ... How eloquent therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary! (John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, Feb. 24, 1980, emphasis added)[/quote]
So this new practice of letting the laity freely handle the Eucharist chips away at this special dignity of the priest, and at the sacramental significance of Holy Orders. It also erodes faith in the Real Presence, because, as has been said before, who will believe that the Eucharist is a holy object if anyone and everyone can handle it? The fact that the Church for so long forbid anyone but the priests from touching the host really underscored the fact that this Sacred Host was something special and holy, and it increased the reverence of the faithful.
So John Paul II was against the practice?
He was a walking contradiction, actually. He appeared as though he couldn't make up his mind on the subject, because he would speak out against it from time to time, but then he himself would actually distribute communion in the hand at his papal Masses, especially the larger Masses at which larger numbers of people were in attendance (such as at World Youth Days).
So, for example, he declared on one occasion:
[quote]I did not revoke what one of my predecessors has said about this ... only Communion on the tongue and kneeling is allowed ... I say this to you as your bishop! (John Paul II, Sermon of March 1,1989, quoted in Br. Alexis Bugnolo, "At the Name of Jesus", Seattle Catholic, May 2, 2003)[/quote]
And on another occasion, he said:
[quote]There is an apostolic letter that the existence of this special permission is valid. But I tell you, that I am not in favor of it ... neither will I recommend it! (quoted in 101 Times, Vol.4/2, 1992)[/quote]
And yet he did it himself.
Several times. And people noticed. In the same way, our current pope gave communion in the hand (and to a well-known Protestant at that!) at Pope John Paul II's funeral Mass; he also gave communion in the hand to two cardinals at his first Mass - which is even more confusing. The cardinals, above all people, should be leading the way by example.
So Rome appears to be speaking out of both sides of Her mouth on this point.
Very interesting. When we pick up this discussion again, I want to ask you some questions about Archbishop Lefebvre and his Priestly Society of St. Pius X - I've heard a lot of conflicting reports.
That's because a lot of conflicting reports have been given, even at the Vatican level. But as you suggest, this is a large topic for another time.
Quite an interesting ride, isn't it? Things have been anything but "normal" in the Church for the past 40 years or so.
I cannot argue with that. You said something earlier, though, about the problem not being so much with the council, but with its implementation. Can you elaborate?
Sure. Our current pope, Benedict XVI, just made mention of this phenomena in his Christmas Address to the Roman Curia last year, 2005.
In that address, he asked the question: "What has been the Council's result? Has it been received properly?"
His answer, in part, was to point to "the description that the great doctor of the Church, Saint Basil, gave of the Church's situation after the Council of Nicaea: he compared it to a naval battle in the darkness of a storm." (Christmas Address to the Roman Curia, Dec. 22, 2005, Asia News Online, emphasis mine)
Granted, the pope wasn't willing to say that this was a perfect description of the post-conciliar Church, but he did have to admit that "some of what has happened does reflect itself in [St. Basil's description]."
And what is the cause of this "naval battle in the darkness of a storm"?
The pope spoke of false interpretations of the council, which he described as "hermeneutics of discontinuity and rupture", and which, he admitted, "was frequently able to find favour among mass media, and also a certain sector of modern theology." (ibid.)
His description of this false hermeneutic is actually very accurate:
[The false interpretation] asserts that the Council texts as such would still not be the true expression of the spirit of the Council ... the Council would be revealed ... in the drive toward newness that underpin the texts: only this would represent the true spirit of the Council ... because the texts would reflect only imperfectly the true spirit of the Council and its novelty, it would be necessary to go courageously beyond the texts, making room for the new ... In short: it would be necessary to follow not the Council texts, but its spirit. (ibid.)
This is that ambiguous "spirit of Vatican II" that became the justification for so much innovation in the Church after the council.
Do you think your current pope is a Traditionalist, then?
Actually, no, he's just a milder and less radical Modernist, in my opinion. And that's all part of the package of Modernism, really.
How so?
Pope St. Pius X described how Modernists practice what they call "evolution of dogma," and how this evolution - in order to work - has to make advances and innovations, but not too quickly, or else it completely separates itself from its foundation.
Here's how St. Pius X explained it in his encyclical against Modernism:
... it is to be noted that Evolution is due no doubt to those stimulants styled needs, but, if left to their action alone, it would run a great risk of bursting the bounds of tradition, and thus ... would lead to ruin instead of progress. Hence ... evolution is described as resulting from the conflict of two forces, one of them tending towards progress, the other towards conservation. The conserving force in the Church is tradition ... The progressive force, on the contrary ... lies in the individual consciences and ferments there ...
Now it is by a species of compromise between the forces of conservation and of progress ... that changes and advances take place. The individual consciences of some of them act on the collective conscience, which brings pressure to bear on the depositaries of authority, until the latter consent to a compromise, and, the pact being made, authority sees to its maintenance. (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 27)
Our current pope seems to be more on the side of "the conserving force" in the evolution of dogma, which is precisely why he speaks out against the "hermeneutics of discontinuity and rupture" - those words he uses are no accident.
John Vennari summed it up well:
This is why, to give a contemporary example, a warning from a progressivist such as Cardinal Ratzinger does not trouble an extreme-modernist like Hans Küng. Both are serving the opposing sides of the dialectic that Modernism accepts. Küng is the ultra-progressive force, and Ratzinger is merely the conserving force at this stage of the evolutionary process. In time, the views of Küng might be acceptable to Vatican officials, but not yet, since Ratzinger's present duty is one of conservation: to keep the continuous aggiornamento from moving too fast. (John Vennari, "Modernism in a Nutshell", Catholic Family News, August, 2003)
So ultimately you think Benedict XVI is in favor of progressivism and evolution of dogma?
Ultimately, I think he is. He has stated quite clearly in the past that there can be no turning back the clock and returning to the old ways - but he also knows that we can't just run forward recklessly, so he's trying to exercise a little conservatism.
Still, his evaluation of the "spirit of Vatican II" is correct, even if I don't think he's against it for the same reasons Traditionalists are.
How, then, does this "spirit of the council" show itself in everyday life?
Just watch the news; read the headlines.
To take a few examples, a handful of cardinals and some three-dozen priests recently went to a "Modern Orthodox rabbinical school" in New York to study the Torah with the Jews. (see Jennifer Siegel, "Cardinals Study With Orthodox Students", Forward, March 31, 2006) This is all part of the new "evangelization" and "ecumenism" that springs from the "spirit of Vatican II."
Which you think Benedict XVI is trying to stop?
Apparently not! One of the cardinals in attendance was Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard - the article says:
"I should have been in Rome," Ricard told the audience through a translator. "The pope is to receive the new cardinals, but I wrote... him about this meeting in New York City, [and] he said, 'Of course you can go.'" (ibid.)
So while Benedict XVI speaks out against the false spirit of the council, he still approves events like this.
That seems to be a contradiction.
The popes since Paul VI have all been walking contradictions - I think I mentioned it earlier, but Pope Paul VI was reduced to tears many times in his pontificate over that "auto-demolition" of the Church, and yet he certainly took an active role is assisting that destruction.
Then you have the comments made even more recently by a priest in Florida:
"The document on ecumenism published by the bishops at the Second Vatican Council was so inspiring," Father Wallace said. "One idea put forth was that we call members of other Christian churches our brothers and sisters in Christ and not heretics. We were not looking for everyone to become Catholic, but rather brothers and sisters in Christ; family in Christ. I am thankful to have been a part of spreading this good news." ("Bishop-emeritus Dorsey is among this year's jubilarians", The Florida Catholic, Mar. 6, 2006)
Again, there's that false ecumenism: "we were not looking for everyone to become Catholic"?! That's completely out of line, but that's the standard view among the clergy these days.
So why doesn't the Vatican crack down on priests like this?
Because the bureaucrats running the Vatican are in full support of priests like this. Cardinal Walter Kasper said:
In dialogue we can learn from each other. The result will not be a united new super-church ... This is not a so–called ecumenism of return, not a way back, but the Christ- and future-oriented guidance of the Holy Spirit into all truth. (Cardinal Walter Kasper, "The ecumenical movement in the 21st century: A contribution from the PCPCU," online source)
Now keep in mind that Cardinal Kasper is the president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity - this is the guy in charge of "Christian Unity," and he's saying that the Church has moved past "ecumenism of return" - that is, seeking unity by seeking the conversion and return to the Catholic Church of those who are outside Her.
How did someone with these kinds of ideas get into such a high position of importance?
Pope John Paul II put him in that position, and John Paul II is the same pope who elevated Kasper to the position of Cardinal back in the late 90s.
So his ideas would appear to have even the pope's approval ...
That's the appearance that is created, yes. Of course, who knows why the pope made him a cardinal and put him in charge of the PCPCU? Maybe he just likes the guy, or maybe he was cajoled into rubber-stamping this appointment - but the surface-level evidence would lead the average Catholic to believe that the pope must agree with Kasper's views.
Even more distressing is what was said in the Balamand Statement in 1993.
What's the "Balamand Statement"?
A joint-statement drawn up between representative Catholics and Eastern Orthodox at the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. The sessions were held at the Balamand School of Theology in Lebanon, hence the declaration is known more commonly as the "Balamand Statement."
And what did this statement say?
The same thing Kasper said.
Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church ... no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox ... To pave the way for future relations between the two Churches, passing beyond the out-dated ecclesiology of return to the Catholic Church ... special attention will be given to the preparation of future priests and of all those who ... are involved in an apostolic activity carried on in a place where the other Church traditionally has its roots. Their education should be objectively positive with respect to the other Church. (Balamand Statement, nos. 22, 30)
This is all terribly confusing, of course, because this is a document drawn up (in part) by official representatives of the Catholic Church - and yet, this obviously isn't a binding document on the faithful. Strictly speaking, it's nothing more than the (wrong) opinions of individual prelates in the Church.
But no one is going to view it that way.
That's the problem. It has all the outward appearances of being an official statement of the Church, and it has all the outward appearances of being authoritative - after all, the pope never denounced it, did he?
I wouldn't know.
Well I can tell you: he didn't. In fact, without going so far as to publicly approve every single statement in this declaration, he gave his general approval in his encyclical on Christian Unity:
In a positive spirit, and on the basis of what we have in common, the Joint Commission has been able to make substantial progress ... these joint affirmations represent the basis for Catholics and Orthodox to be able from now on to bear a faithful and united common witness in our time, that the name of the Lord may be proclaimed and glorified. (Pope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, 59)
He didn't say anything about the "out-dated ecclesiology" of trying to convert the Orthodox, as was stated in the Balamand Statement, but yet he says that these "joint affirmations" (supposedly including the Balamand Statement) form the "basis for Catholics and Orthodox to be able from now on to bear ... united common witness in our time."
So it would appear that, without the Eastern Orthodox ever having returned to the Catholic Church, we are now suddenly able to bear a common witness to the gospel.
And again, this is Kasper's position on Protestantism as well:
The old concept of ecumenism of return today has been replaced by that of a common journey, which directs Christians towards an ecclesial communion comprised as a unity in reconciled diversity. (Cardinal Kasper, The Common Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification: A Reason for Hope, quoted in Society of St. Pius X, From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy, online source)
And what does the pope have to say about that?
I don't know that John Paul II ever addressed this statement of Kasper's directly, but again, we only have to remember that he was the one who elevated Cardinal Kasper to his position.
And he did indicate, in that encyclical on Christian Unity, that he was open to rethinking how the papacy operates in order to achieve this new vision of unity.
I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility ... in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation. (Ut Unum Sint, 95)
There's more of that classic Vatican II-style ambiguity! What does he define as "essential" to the "mission" of the papacy? And what does he mean by "new situation"?
Do you think a future pope will one day renounce his claim to primacy?
It's quite possible. Scary, but quite possible. I mean, in practice, that has been the method of operation for the popes for the last 40 years - not ruling the Church like they should, letting "collegiality" be the guiding principle, etc.
And this is an example of the false spirit of Vatican II?
Certainly. Vatican II nowhere said that "ecumenism of return" was "out-dated ecclesiology," and it certainly never said that the pope should consider a "new situation" with regard to his primacy. It's quite obvious that the council is being abused badly in this respect.
Are there more examples of this kind of abuse?
Yes, plenty - one of the most obvious ones is the New Mass itself. The council said nothing in the document on Liturgical Reform about: the priest celebrating Mass facing the people; all-vernacular Masses; making the Old Mass obsolete and refusing priests their permission to celebrate it; replacing Gregorian Chant with all-new contemporary music; the laity distributing communion; altar girls; or receiving communion in the hand.
In some of those areas, in fact, the council said exactly the opposite of what is being practiced today - so in a very real way, you could say that the New Mass in itself constitutes an abuse of the council.
Can you demonstrate that the council taught the opposite of what is being practiced in the New Mass?
On some of those points, yes. As far as priests facing the people, laypeople distributing communion, altar girls, and communion in the hand, the council was silent. It never said "don't do these things," because it never occurred to the council fathers (at least not the conservative ones) that anyone would even suggest them!
However, on the subject of all-vernacular Masses, the council said, "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36, 1)
On the subject of Gregorian Chant, the council said that chant is "specially suited to the Roman liturgy," and thus, "it should be given pride of place in liturgical services." (ibid., 116) In fact, the council specifically decreed that "steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them" (ibid., 54) - such as the Gloria, the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei, and other such prayers (probably also the Pater Noster and Confiteor were intended here).
On a related note, the council also said that "the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies." (ibid., 120)
So the council said that Latin is to be retained, that it should be taught to the people so they could use it in the Mass, that Gregorian Chant has "pride of place," and that the pipe organ "is to be held in high esteem." None of that is being done today in your average Catholic parish.
And what were you saying about the Old Mass?
It's been suppressed today, for the most part. In 1984, Pope John Paul II granted an "indult" for priests to say the Old Mass, but only with permission from their bishop, and only under certain conditions. In 1988, he asked for a wider and more generous application (his words) of that "indult," but it still seems as though there is a lot of animosity on the part of bishops towards the Old Mass and those who want to celebrate it.
How so?
Again, just look at the news headlines from time to time.
Most recently, Fr. Phillip Bourret, S.J., was commanded by his superior to stop saying the Old Mass at a private chapel in Santa Clara, CA. (Anthony Gonzales, "Jesuit Priest Commanded to Stop Saying Traditional Latin Mass!", St. Joseph's News Service, March 23, 2006)
In 2004, Fr. Stephen Sommerville was suspended by his bishop for saying the Old Mass. ("Passion priest suspended for Latin Masses", U.S. Catholic, Nov. 1, 2004)
In 2003, Fr. Stephen Zigrang was suspended by his bishop for announcing to his congregation on June 29 that he would no longer be celebrating the New Mass, but would be exclusively using the Old Missal of Pope St. Pius V. (Peter W. Miller, "Texas Pastor Removed Over Latin Masses", Seattle Catholic, Jul. 4, 2003)
In 2005, Mr. Allen Cain passed away, leaving behind his stated wish that his Requiem Mass be celebrated according to the Traditional Rites. His bishop refused, despite the fact that two priests in the diocese expressed their willingness to honor the deceased's request. (Michael Matt, "In the Gullet of a Wolf", The Remnant, January, 2005)
In 2004, Bishop Tod Brown of Orange County, CA, summarily pulled the plug on the Indult Mass in his diocese after the parish priest, Fr. Daniel Johnson, retired from his ministry. (Steven Greenhut, "The Catholic Church's great divide", Orange County Register, May 16, 2004)
In 2000, after Bishop Fellay of the SSPX had been meeting with John Paul II to negotiate the freedom of the Old Mass, several bishops and cardinals threatened rebellion. His Excellency describes the event:
... we saw very quickly the reaction of a certain number of bishops and cardinals: they were furious, furious to the point that some of them (I am speaking of French bishops) threatened disobedience. ("Interview with Bishop Fellay", The Angelus, August 2001, Vol. XXIV/8)
We must consider the Pope's difficult situation ... We learned from Bishop Ricard that in 2000 he himself, along with Cardinal Lustiger and the Archbishop of Lyons, rushed to Rome to forestall concessions to the Society, brandishing the threat of rebellion. We know that the German bishops acted in the same way at the time of the World Youth Conference in Cologne: "It is us or them." By this is meant: "If they are recognized, we will leave the Church and create a schism." ("The Meeting", The Angelus, October 2005, Vol. XXVIII/10)
Wow! They were ready to revolt?
Apparently some very high-ranking prelates in the Church are absolutely against the Old Mass.
And this is, as you said, an abuse of the council.
Absolutely! The council fathers, I contend, would never have signed off on that document on the Liturgy if they had known that the intention was to abolish the Old Mass and then create a brand new one from scratch.
In actual fact, the document says "holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way." (Sacrosanctum Concilium, par. 4)
So the wish of the council was that the Old Mass - which was certainly one of the "lawfully acknowledged rites" at the time this document was written - should be "[preserved] in the future." Six years later, snap, we've got a brand new Mass created out of whole cloth, and the Old Mass is now an occasion of ecclesiastical penalty.
Are there any other examples of how the council has been wrongly implemented?
Well, let's stick with the example of the Liturgy. I said earlier that, for example, altar girls and communion in the hand were never mentioned by the council.
Right. So how did those things come about?
By disobedience - and this is one of the most deadly aspects of what has gone on in the past 40 years ... disobedience is continually rewarded when that disobedience leans towards progressivism. Of course, if the disobedience leans towards Traditionalism (like those priests I mentioned who decided to say the Old Mass without first asking permission), then suddenly the bishops snap into action and start imposing penalties.
So, for example, in 1970, just a year after the New Mass was promulgated, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship issued a document that said:
The traditional liturgical norms of the Church prohibit women (young girls, married women, religious) from serving the priest at the altar, even in women's chapels, houses, convents, schools and institutes. (Liturgicae Instaurationes, 7)
But that didn't stop certain disobedient bishops from allowing the practice in their dioceses, and so 10 years later, the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship again had to issue a corrective instruction. The purpose of this document was to single out and correct "the varied and frequent abuses being reported from different parts of the Catholic world ... especially regarding the priestly ministry and the role of the laity."
The Congregation pointed out that "Undue experimentation, changes and creativity bewilder the faithful, reminded the bishops of the teaching of the council that "No person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority," and recalled the words of Pope Paul VI: "Anyone who takes advantage of the reform to indulge in arbitrary experiments is wasting energy and offending the ecclesial sense."
Obviously, then, the abuses listed in this document were being perpetrated on a grand-scale, such that they caught the attention of the Vatican and required correction! In specific:
There are, of course, various roles that women can perform in the liturgical assembly: these include reading the Word of God and proclaiming the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful. Women are not, however, permitted to act as altar servers ... If anything has been introduced that is at variance with these indications it is to be corrected. (Inaestimabile Donum, 18, 27)
This was in 1980, you said?
Yes, 10 years after the first instruction from the Congregation. So it would appear that in the intervening 10 years, parishes were using altar girls anyway - and so the Congregation condemned the practice again.
But it didn't stop.
Of course not! This is the conciliar Church we're talking about. The Vatican issues instructions and warnings from time to time, but remember: the pope has abdicated his primacy and authority (at least when it comes to dealing with liberals), so there's rarely any "teeth" to these documents.
In 1982, a letter was sent to the Apostolic Delegate in Washington, DC, complaining about the continuation of this abuse. The letter laments that, "far from the abuse ceasing ... it has proliferated, providing another indication of the schismatic attitude of the Bishops of the United States of America, and the complete inability of the Holy See to exercise any control over them." ("Letter to the Apostolic Delegate", The Angelus, Dec. 1982, Vol. V/12)
The letter even details specific cases. St. Catherine of Siena Church in Miami "invited girls to volunteer for training as altar servers." The bishop of Columbus, OH, publicly admitted that "some [parishes] in our own diocese, do have altar girls." A parishioner in Oakland, CA, wrote to his bishop to complain that his parish priest "had announced his intention of using altar girls" in a parish newsletter. The bishop responded, "Father Danielson's allowance of young women who already have been taking part in the Mass is sensible ... I agree with him, and with the authority I have, can approve of his decision."
So what happened?
In 1994, the same Congregation approved the use of altar girls. In response to the question of whether "the liturgical functions which ... can be entrusted to the lay faithful, may be carried out equally by men and women, and if serving at the altar may be included among those functions." The Congregation answered in the affirmative.
A year later, in an Angelus Address given the day before the beginning of the Fourth World Conference on Women, Pope John Paul II said:
The Church is increasingly aware of the need for enhancing [the role of women]. Within the great variety of different and complementary gifts that enrich ecclesial life, many important possibilities are open to them ... To a large extent, it is a question of making full use of the ample room for a lay and feminine presence recognized by the Church's law. I am thinking, for example, of theological teaching, the forms of liturgical ministry permitted, including service at the altar, pastoral and administrative councils, Diocesan Synods and Particular Councils ... (Pope John Paul II, Angelus Address, Sept. 3, 1995, emphasis added)
So he totally reversed himself?
Basically. He forbid altar girls in 1980, and then in 1995 he said that feminine service at the altar is one of the "gifts that enrich ecclesial life."
And what about communion in the hand?
Same situation. Just about a month after the promulgation of the New Mass (which was in April of 1969), the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship issued a document under the title Memoriale Domini (Memorial of the Lord), dealing with the issue of the faithful receiving Holy Communion in their hands, instead of the traditional manner, which is to have the priest place the host directly in their mouths. The document is dated May 19, 1969.
The document laments that "in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately." So apparently the practice sprung up rather quickly - in just a little over a month's time. Of course, it was an abuse, because Rome had not permitted it.
So the Congregation (at the request of Pope Paul VI) submitted a survey of sorts to some of the national conferences of bishops, asking their opinion on the matter. On the question of whether the practice should be admitted, 57% of the bishops said no, and only 26% said yes. Another 15% said yes, but with reservations. So the clear majority was not in favor of the practice.
On the question of whether the practice should be tried as an experiment in a few small locations, 60% said no, and 37% said yes. Again, the majority was not in favor of the practice.
Based on this input, the Congregation declared that "in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful." (emphasis added)
If the Congregation nixed the practice, then, why is it in use today?
Because apparently the Vatican wishes to reward disobedience to its own commands. The document left a loophole, as is apparently the common practice these days. It said that, in those places where communion in the hand had already become the prevailing practice, bishops in those areas could submit a request to Rome to have the practice allowed in their dioceses. Then it goes on to detail some normative guidelines for implementing the practice in those few select territories, where bishops had been given permission by the Holy See.
Uh-oh. I can see where this is heading.
It's not difficult, is it? When the document says "no, don't do this thing," but then essentially says, "however, if you are going to do it, here's how it should be done," it's implicitly admitting that this is going to become common practice. It's a strange anomaly: it's like saying, "don't commit this abuse, but if you're going to, here's the correct way of committing the abuse."
And so what was the outcome?
The abuse continued. Even though Rome had forbid the practice, it flourished, even in dioceses where it had not (according to the condition set by the Congregation) previously been a prevailing practice, and even though the individual bishops had not appealed for or received permission from Rome.
Eventually, these bishops started submitting their requests, and Rome just basically rubber-stamped them all so that communion in the hand became the norm.
The abuse became lawful?
That's what it boils down to. Rome essentially said, "the best way to make you stop disobeying is to make the illegal thing legal, and then it's not disobedience anymore."
And how does this relate to the council?
I think it ties back into the ambiguity regarding collegiality. None of the authorities wanted to upset the new prevailing democratic model of authority, so no one wanted to step on anyone else's toes. The trouble is that, once entire national conferences of bishops voted to allow the practice, the individual bishops who may not have liked the idea succumbed to the pressure - you don't want to be the lone opposition to the voice of the majority, even if you do possess the rightful authority to make your own decisions as a bishop in your own diocese. So they all caved in.
What, in a nutshell, is wrong with this practice?
It erodes the unique dignity of the priest. St. Thomas Aquinas devoted an entire question in his Summa to this issue. He concluded that there were three reasons why only priests should distribute communion, and the third reason is especially pertinent today:
[quote]Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, q. 82, art. 3, emphasis added)[/quote]
Similarly, Pope John Paul II addressed this subject in an Apostolic Letter. He deplored the fact that, after the practice of communion in the hand had been permitted, "cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported," and beyond this, that "the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized." The liberal gestapo basically started imposing the practice, even on those of the laity who didn't want to receive in this way.
So John Paul II wrote, echoing St. Thomas Aquinas:
[quote] ... one must not forget the primary office of priests, who have been consecrated by their ordination to represent Christ the Priest: for this reason their hands ... have become the direct instruments of Christ. Through this fact ... they have a primary responsibility for the sacred species ... How eloquent therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary! (John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, Feb. 24, 1980, emphasis added)[/quote]
So this new practice of letting the laity freely handle the Eucharist chips away at this special dignity of the priest, and at the sacramental significance of Holy Orders. It also erodes faith in the Real Presence, because, as has been said before, who will believe that the Eucharist is a holy object if anyone and everyone can handle it? The fact that the Church for so long forbid anyone but the priests from touching the host really underscored the fact that this Sacred Host was something special and holy, and it increased the reverence of the faithful.
So John Paul II was against the practice?
He was a walking contradiction, actually. He appeared as though he couldn't make up his mind on the subject, because he would speak out against it from time to time, but then he himself would actually distribute communion in the hand at his papal Masses, especially the larger Masses at which larger numbers of people were in attendance (such as at World Youth Days).
So, for example, he declared on one occasion:
[quote]I did not revoke what one of my predecessors has said about this ... only Communion on the tongue and kneeling is allowed ... I say this to you as your bishop! (John Paul II, Sermon of March 1,1989, quoted in Br. Alexis Bugnolo, "At the Name of Jesus", Seattle Catholic, May 2, 2003)[/quote]
And on another occasion, he said:
[quote]There is an apostolic letter that the existence of this special permission is valid. But I tell you, that I am not in favor of it ... neither will I recommend it! (quoted in 101 Times, Vol.4/2, 1992)[/quote]
And yet he did it himself.
Several times. And people noticed. In the same way, our current pope gave communion in the hand (and to a well-known Protestant at that!) at Pope John Paul II's funeral Mass; he also gave communion in the hand to two cardinals at his first Mass - which is even more confusing. The cardinals, above all people, should be leading the way by example.
So Rome appears to be speaking out of both sides of Her mouth on this point.
Very interesting. When we pick up this discussion again, I want to ask you some questions about Archbishop Lefebvre and his Priestly Society of St. Pius X - I've heard a lot of conflicting reports.
That's because a lot of conflicting reports have been given, even at the Vatican level. But as you suggest, this is a large topic for another time.
<< Home