A Lumen Gentleman

The Day the Website Died

2006-06-02T13:25:00.000-07:00

Apparently my web site domain has expired.

Some kind of advance warning would have been nice.

As I do not, at the moment, have the extra money to renew the site domain, it may be several weeks before it is back up and running.

If you'd like to make a donation to help speed up this process, please click here:

Help Get LumenGentleman Back Online!

Episcopal Consecrations, et al

2006-05-08T12:17:00.000-07:00

It's been a busy weekend! After engaging in the rather cathartic, yet also deeply disgusting job of cleaning out our mini-pond in the back yard (the previous owners let it sit stagnant all winter - it had collected thousands of leaves and about 2 inches of green much on the bottom), there was much reading and writing that took place.

The first and most controversial essay deals with the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration, contra Fr. Anthony Cekada's tract on the same subject. Read Nothing Lacking for Validity: A Response to Rev. Anthony Cekada

The second is part two of Jonathan Field's mult-part series on Mary as Mediatrix, viewed from a Trinitarian perspective. Read Mary as Mediatrix of Grace: A Trinitarian Approach (Part 2)

And finally, the third essay is on the underlying or "double" meaning behind the death of Judas. Some fun surprises in this one! Read Double-Meaning in the Death of Judas

Here's to clean ponds!

Get the Dames off the Altar, and Get my RSS Feed

2006-05-04T12:19:00.000-07:00

What's wrong with this picture? Would you be able to give a reasonable response, other than, "This sort of thing has never been done in the Church before!"

My latest essay, Women at the Altar: An Answer from Scripture and Tradition, attempts to deal with subject from what we learn in Scripture about women, gardens, and temple sanctuaries.

Scratching your head yet?

Read the essay.

Also, the web site now has an RSS feed, thanks to the inspiration given by GFvonB's inquiry in the comment boxes below. I don't know why I didn't do that sooner.

Get the RSS Feed here

A Truly Feminist Feast Day

2006-05-04T06:23:00.000-07:00

Today is the Feast of St. Monica. Unless you are an exceptionally well-read individual, you will probably not know this saint except by her relationship to one of the great saints of the early Church: St. Augustine. And that fact says everything.

Imagine the conversation! To the question, "who was St. Monica," you probably will not hear the response, "She was holy wife of Patritius the pagan, who made her suffer greatly for her faith."

Likewise, to the question, "who was St. Monica," you will probably not hear the answer, "She was the holy woman of Tagaste, whose example of patience with her husband and mother-in-law was a great inspiration to the other women of the city."

I would imagine that, to this question, "who was St. Monica," very few would even give the answer, "She was the holy mother who prayed unceasingly and shed many tears for her son's conversion."

No, in fact, to the question "who was St. Monica," the overwhelmingly common answer will simply be, "she was the mother of St. Augustine."

And so she was. But she was more.

As the wife of Patritius the pagan, she had to maintain constancy and fidelity in her Faith against his mocking opposition, terrible temper, and infidelity. Worse, she had to put up with his pagan mother, who likewise found her Faith to be ridiculous. She suffered greatly when her husband refused to allow their children to be baptized.

Thanks be to God, her patient and pious example, her silent acceptance of her suffering, eventually merited the conversion of her husband, shortly before his death. Thus St. Monica stands as a shining example of what can be accomplished by a wife who is dedicated to holiness. Precisely in her role as wife, she won an eternal salvation for her husband.

As the mother of St. Augustine, she suffered still worse. Her son was a rebel and a great sinner. When he went off to Carthage to study, he indulged himself in very grave sins, sired a child, and embraced the heresy of the Manicheans. All of this broke his mother's heart.

He went to Italy to continue his wayward lifestyle, and it would be some 15 years before she would see him again. Nonetheless, she prayed, she sacrificed, and she hoped.

It was in Milan that Augustine met the great bishop and future saint, Ambrose. Anyone who knows the story of St. Augustine knows that it was St. Ambrose who taught him the faith, and eventually administered baptism to him. Imagine the delight of the suffering mother, to finally receive word from her son after 15 years, inviting her to Italy to witness his baptism at the age of 33 on Easter Sunday.

So it was that St. Monica, this time as mother, obtained another conversion for the Kingdom of God. She spent a blissful few months with her son in the unity of the Holy Faith, and then she passed on from this earth. In 1586, her relics were moved to the church of St. Augustine, where they were laid beside the relics of her son, for whom she had prayed so patiently.

And this is true feminism: St. Monica accomplished the greatest work that can be accomplished on this earth, by securing salvation for her husband and her son. Thus, she now enjoys one of the greatest honors the Church can bestow: she is "sainted," and her memory is honored on this 4th of May every year.

How did she do it? Not by pursuing worldly power or money; not by disparaging men and complaining about "male dominance"; not by claiming a false liberty, or by asserting her independence. She did it by being a wife and a mother. She used these two offices, these two responsibilities - faithfully carried out - precisely as the tools of conversion. Her son went on to become a spiritual and intellectual giant, whose name and writings have become respected, even by those outside the Church. This is what a mother can accomplish.

How entirely appropriate, then, that her feast is celebrated in May, in such close proximity to Mother's Day.

And so, while it is a shame on us for not knowing her life story better, she is no doubt quite content (and even proud) to hear us say today: "Who was St. Monica? She was St. Augustine's mother."

O God, the consoler of them that mourn and the health of them that hope in Thee, Who didst show Thine acceptance of blessed Monica's pious tears in the conversion of her son Augustine, grant us, by the intercession of them both, to deplore our sins and find the mercy of Thy grace. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God Forever and ever. Amen. (Collect, Roman Missal)

Scattered

2006-05-03T12:25:00.000-07:00

I'm resting now. Trying to recover from the weekend blitz over the Bishop's interview and its subsequent fallout.

Got some books at home, a few articles in the hopper, and a serious need to refresh myself with some good reading and general quiet.

A new essay will be published tonight/tomorrow at Stephen Heiner's site, on the subject of Our Lady's titles in the Litany of Loreto.

Look for another controversial essay coming near the weekend - I'll be breaking the silence and finally addressing the subject of the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration.

Meanwhile ... check out a great new site for Traditional Catholic Entertainment Reviews - includes reviews of books and movies (although, things seem to be a bit heavily slanted towards movies at the moment, alas).

Also, take a moment to check out what's going on at Gonzaga University with regard to Sodomy ...

My 200th Post: How I Spent My Weekend

2006-05-01T05:45:00.000-07:00

It's been a whirlwind of a weekend. Stephen Heiner's interview with Bishop Tissier de Mallerais (SSPX) went live on the web, as did all of the various commentaries on this interview (including my own contribution).

All of this took place while my own Internet connection at home remained defunct, so I was forced to spend pockets of time at various Internet cafes and the like. C'est la vie.

I will almost certainly have future reflections on the "fallout" from this interview, reactions to the reactions, and so on.

Meanwhile, life goes on, and there are two new articles posted to the web site:

1) Jon Field offers some reflections on the meaning of the number 153 as it is found in St. John's Gospel, and as it relates to Our Lady of Fatima - be sure to read In this Number "153" the Woman will Conquer: Fatima's Ecumenical Peace Plan

2) I went digging this weekend in search of a possible Scriptural/Apostolic source for the words Mysterium Fidei in the Consecration of the Chalice. The Tridentine Council said the Canon was composed by Our Lord and by Apostolic Tradition; Innocent III said these words come from the Apostles themselves. I think I can show chapter and verse that proves the Scriptural case, but as always, the discipline of the secret makes it a challenge to illuminate what is purposefully obscured. Read A Note on the Origins of the Phrase Mysterium Fidei

Summer Projects

2006-04-28T07:53:00.000-07:00

It's that time of year again, when I start farming out my web design and programming talents for short summer projects.

If you or someone you know has a web site that needs updates, or wants a brand new web site, I'm looking for some work on the side. I, of course, built my own web site, as well as Kevin Tierney's web site, if some kind of portfolio is required. Unfortunately, the real "pizzazz" of those web sites is what goes on behind the scenes - both sites are extremely dynamic and well-automated. For example, I built an administrative module at my site that allows me to simply post a new article, and the main page automatically gets updated to add the new article to the menu.

Anyway - if you need some web work done and have a few hundred dollars to invest, drop me an email.

My Head Hurts

2006-04-28T07:44:00.000-07:00

I'm exhausted, and that's all there is to it.

The last three days have been spent in preparation for a rather in-depth article I will be posting this weekend. That preparation included having to plow my way through 350+ pages of a book written by Benedict XVI when he was then Father Ratzinger. I can't exactly describe how or why, but that kind of writing (that is, Modern theology) hurts my head.

I was reading 80-100 pages of this per night for the last few nights. When I finished it, and reached for an older manuscript on Catholic Theology to supplement my research, I literally felt my mind clear up as I read the older text.

It was a strange phenomenon.

On the other hand, by the end of the book I felt like I was finally starting to "click" with Ratzinger, and become more familiar with his thought process. It actually made me want to move on to one of his other texts, as long as I'm in the "mode" of reading Modern theology - perhaps I'll take up his book on the liturgy next.

At any rate - the long nights of reading and writing are finally at an end (for now), and I can now return to whatever it was I wanted to pursue. Keep an eye on the web site for the new article on Ratzinger.

Customer What?

2006-04-26T05:25:00.000-07:00

SBC/Yahoo can take a flying leap. They told us last week, as we were hauling boxes and furniture out of the old house, that they would have our phone lines and internet connection transferred by the 25th.

As of 6:00 PM on the 25th, still no internet.

So we called them. Somebody forgot to put our order through, and now it's going to take until May 3 to get the internet connection up and running again.

And do you think they offered any kind of compensation or reparation for the inconvenience? Of course not. They'll be kind enough to not charge us for the past two weeks. Of course, that's a lie - they will charge us for it, and then I'll have to be back on the phone with them in two weeks, arguing to have the charges removed.

Meanwhile, I'm tearing through Joseph Ratzinger's 1968 offering, Introduction to Christianity. The man is impossible to follow sometimes. He is a consummate modernist, at least in terms of his language of choice.

Much, much more on that at a later date.

Here are the five latest essays at the web site:

Mary as Mediatrix of Grace: A Trinitarian Approach (Part 1)

Known in the Breaking of the Bread: Emmaus and the Eucharist

Seven Deadly Sins of Spiritual Piety: The Necessity of the Dark Night of the Soul

The Deficient Prayers of the New Mass: Easter Sunday

The Deficient Prayers of the New Mass: Low Sunday

Something Old, Something New

2006-04-20T10:01:00.000-07:00

The actual moving part of the move is complete. The old house has been emptied and the new house has been filled. Now begins the laborious process of unpacking everything and trying to get settled in.

Meanwhile, I have finally finished the work on the Second Edition of my little manuscript, 100 Scripture Verses Every Catholic Should Know. A few minor changes were made, and one major change was made. In the area of "minor changes," I added a table of contents and a charming little cover for the book. In the area of "major change," I went back through and supplied - for each of the 100 verses - a quote from one of the saints, doctors, popes, or Fathers of the Church relating to the verse and/or subject at hand.

It's still primarily a Scripturally-based work, but at least now it has some solid grounding in Tradition as well.

The manuscript is being distributed as a PDF file, which I will be happy to email to you. Suggested donation is $10.00, but free copies are available upon request.

I Want a Copy!

Another Essay Completed!

2006-04-18T08:24:00.000-07:00

After many, many months of chipping away at it, I have finally finished and posted my essay on Sacramentalism in St. John's Gospel.

I've always been impressed by the sacramental vision of St. John, and the way he sees the sacraments presented in the ministry of Christ, both in His words and actions. But I've never actually sat down to identify them and draw them out. This essay accomplishes that task, to a large degree.

Alleluia, Alleluia - Blessed Easter Monday!

2006-04-17T09:43:00.000-07:00

Resurrexit sicut dixit! Alleluia!

What a weekend. What a Holy Week. What a Lent in general.

And what a glorious thing, to be up to the neck in Easter week, along with all of the special graces which are available in this liturgical season.

Even nature appears to be enjoying the resurrection of her Redeemer - it's a sunny day, warm, blue skies ... wow.

Busy week this week, so the blog and web site might fall a bit silent for a bit. The house is covered with half-packed, half-stacked boxes - we're nearly ready to begin the big move on Wednesday.

Then, of course, we'll be a few days without phone or internet service ... so what can you do?

New postings at the web site include an essay on the footwashing ritual of St. John's Gospel and its connection with the sacrament of Holy Orders.

Read up!

Discussions on Traditionalism

2006-04-11T12:52:00.000-07:00

The next installment, Discussions on Traditional Catholicism: Enter Lefebvre, has been posted at the web site.

I can smell the hate mail coming from here ...

Transition and the Fading of this Blogspot

2006-04-10T09:22:00.000-07:00

As I continue to make developments on my web site that bring it into closer conformity with what you'd expect to see at a "blog," this particular blogspot will slowly fade from existence - or, more accurately, it will blend with the web site and the two will become one.

On that note, please see my latest posting on the web site, The Pope and the Liberation of the Old Mass, as well as the more recent postings made over the weekend.

Discussions on Traditionalism: Implementing the Council

2006-04-08T10:02:00.000-07:00

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:

[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.

Pope to Release Document on the Holy Mass Next Thursday

2006-04-07T14:52:00.000-07:00

The blog site Archivum Liturgicum has posted this tid-bit:

La Radio Vaticana annuncia il documento papale sul Rito della Messa

Oggi la Radio Vaticana ha annunciato che la Santita di Nostro Signore BENEDETTO PP. XVI ha firmato un documento avente come argomento il Rito della Messa, cosi come preannunciato da questo blog. Il documento verra con ogni probabilita reso pubblico
in occasione del Giovedi Santo.

Which translates into this provocative news:

Vatican Radio announces papal document on the Rite of Mass

Vatican Radio has announced today that our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI has signed a document concerning the Rite of Mass, which was announced in advance on this blog. The document will in all probability be released to the public on the occasion of Holy Thursday.

Is this it?

Is this the long-awaited document which will grant universal freedom to every priest to celebrate the Tridentine Mass?

The tension mounts ...

Anything but RadTradism!

2006-04-06T19:10:00.000-07:00

Michelle Arnold has posted a follow-up to her lament about having to "survive" the Sunday Mass - the very idea of which still boggles my mind.

I'm still unclear as to how Michelle can see her way clear to rebel against the approved liturgy of her parish - I didn't see anything in her post that indicated that her diocesan bishop disapproved of such liturgies as the one she was forced to "survive," so I'm not sure where she gets the idea that it's ok to complain about it (assuming for the moment the validity of her arguments against "RadTradism," that is).

Still, undaunted by this contradiction, she goes on.

What is my definition of radical Traditionalism? Unlike a devotion to the ancient Catholic customs and disciplines of the Church, radical Traditionalism is when a Catholic allows himself to become so disillusioned with genuine problems in the Church, such as liturgical abuses, and begins to reject the Church’s authority to regulate the Church’s customs and disciplines.

Methinks Michelle still hasn't seen past the tree she's wrapped around in order to see the forest around her. There are "genuine problems in the Church," but "liturgical abuses" don't even begin to scratch the surface.

A larger problem, and one which I would like to see her tackle if she's really interested in addressing the sources of disapproval amongst "RadTrads" and offering solutions, is the problem of why the local ordinary allows the liturgy to be abused.

I personally know a number of Traditionalists who can in no way be termed “RadTrad,” who simply prefer the Tridentine liturgy, and who dislike the black eye given the movement by RadTrads.

This being the case, why can't Michelle come to appreciate her "RadTrad" brethren who prefer, not just the Tridentine liturgy, but all of the rich traditions of the Church (such as the old rites of Holy Baptism complete with their powerful exorcisms, or of Confirmation), and who "dislike the black eye" given to the Church at large by those who suffer no qualms at abusing Her sacred liturgies and customs on a regular basis?

But I can say that the RadTrads are likely to be at least part of the reason many bishops hesitate to expand permission to celebrate the indult Tridentine or to form indult Tridentine parishes.

Oh, Michelle ... how blind we can be when we choose to ignore the facts. Does it not occur to her that the only reason the pope granted an "indult" at all was because of the growing influence of Archbishop Lefebvre and his priestly society that refused to give up the Tridentine Mass?

In 1980, John Paul II invited the bishops of the world to report back to him on, among other things, "possible resistance that may have arisen" to the "Missal promulgated in 1970 by authority of Pope Paul VI." The bishops reported back that "the problem of priests and faithful holding to the so-called 'Tridentine' rite was almost completely solved." (Quattuor abhinc annos)

It was in response to this "problem" that the original Tridentine indult was granted.

Further, it was in direct response to the 1988 consecrations of four new bishops for the Society of St. Pius X at the hands of Archbishop Lefebvre that the pope called for "a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See, for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962." (Ecclesia Dei adflicta)

In the practical realm of the bishops actually carrying out this wish of the Roman Pontiff, it must be acknowledged that indult Masses have been established primarily in dioceses where there already exists chapels run by the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, or some other independent priest. A quick scan of the Latin Mass Directory (www.traditio.com) reveals that only one out of the 50 states has a diocesan indult Mass that does not also have a Mass offered by one of the above groups.

In my own diocese, as also in many other dioceses, the indult was set up precisely to counter-act the popularity of the SSPX or other such Traditional groups.

To say that "RadTrads are likely to be at least part of the reason many bishops hesitate to expand permission to celebrate the indult" just demonstrates a lack of insight into the reality of the situation.

If it were not for the efforts of Archbishop Lefebvre and those like him, we would all be "surviving" the Sunday Mass.

I believe that a sharp distinction must be made between Catholic Traditionalism (which is a spirituality allowed by the Church) and RadTradism (which is a movement of Catholics who have allowed themselves to become so angry that it has disturbed their spiritual peace).

Interesting way to frame the issue. Catholics who have allowed their "spiritual peace" to be disturbed? On the contrary, it is precisely by finding the safe harbors offered by the SSPX and independent chapels that "RadTrads" have preserved their sanity, when staying in their abusive Novus Ordo parishes would have ruined not only their "spiritual peace," but perhaps also their faith.

Or is Michelle simply unaware of the statistical facts that reveal a massive decline in faith, vocations, ordinations, morality, and Mass attendance in Novus Ordo circles?

Pope Paul VI lamented that the Church was in "auto-demolition" mode ever since the council, and the numbers show that the faith of millions has been destroyed by the New Mass - are we really to accept this state of affairs and go on putting our souls in harm's way, all for the sake of avoiding "RadTradism"?

It would appear so. Michelle's advice is:

Don’t church-shop. Recently, a gentleman contacted Catholic Answers asking if he could register at a parish outside of his diocese because “all of the parishes in his diocese” were allegedly so problematic that he felt could not worship as a Catholic in his own diocese.

Let's stop and think about that for a minute: this poor gentleman "could not worship as a Catholic in his own diocese." That is a serious, serious problem. What kind of advice is it, then, to tell someone like this that they need to "be at home" in such a parish by "simply ... attending long enough to become part of parish life"?

Sorry, Mr. Johnson, but you're just going to have to accept the fact that you can't worship as a Catholic in your own parish - our advice is that you learn to worship as a Lutheran in your Catholic parish, and more importantly, get more involved in your parish life. That should work wonders for your faith and salvation. At the very least, it will keep you from falling into "RadTradism," which everyone knows is the only mortal sin left these days.

I also found this statement to be particularly damning:

Parishes are rarely static -- pastors are reassigned, liturgy committees change hands, DREs come and go -- and a parish you think will satisfy you could shift toward laxity within a few years. If you too easily throw in the towel and move on, where will your roaming end?

Now, let me get this straight: pastors get reassigned, liturgy commissions shape-shift, and DREs come and go - and this should be expected to affect the immutable and unchanging faith, particularly as it is expressed in the parish liturgical life, how?

But it does, doesn't it? Michelle is essentially admitting that Catholic parishes have become Protestantized - the faith and worship of the community is subject to personalities now.

This sad state of affairs is the real problem in the Church today. It's not that liturgies get abused, it's that the liturgy and the faith it manifests is so easily shaped and molded by the whims of individuals, and that diocesan bishops are doing little if anything to stop the tragedy.

That is a disease which deserves an inoculation, if ever there was one.

Get to know your priests and religious. When a priest or religious is just a face on the altar or in the classroom, it is easy to depersonalize them into cogs in a “Vatican apparatus.” When you invite them to a meal, bring them Christmas cookies, get to know them on a person-to-person basis, you are inoculated against a tendency to believe the worst about people with whom you might disagree.

Humanitarianism before righteous indignation, eh? I wonder if Michelle will take this advice to heart and bake a nice batch of cookies for her local SSPX priest? Maybe she'll discover that she has less about which to disagree with them.

And finally, there is this:

Examine your conscience. ... If your parish disappoints you, first examine your own conscience to see whether you are yourself a part of the problem.

This is just too scary ... isn't this the diseased mentality which plagues abused children today? Daddy beats me, and Daddy is never wrong, so perhaps I should examine myself and consider whether I deserved this abuse?

That's twisted reasoning, but it seems to translate very well into our current Church situation. My priests are abusing me and my faith by their abuse of the liturgy, and the bishops aren't stopping it; but the Church is always right, so perhaps this is really all my fault? Yes, that's it. I'm the reason behind the abuses in liturgy and teaching in my parish - if only I would repent, all would be well.

Someone inoculate me against that kind of mentality ...

Discussions on Traditionalism: The Council Documents

2006-04-06T17:44:00.000-07:00

Before I ask you questions about the council, I wanted to mention that I went to the New Mass this last Sunday to observe.

Not at all like you remembered the Mass, was it?

No! It really seemed much more ... I don't know ...

Laid back. Relaxed. Like "Catholicism Lite," right?

I guess so ...

It's no wonder Mass attendance is down 50%. The New Mass is boring and uninspiring. The solemn chants and majestic organ music have been replaced with folk guitarists singing hippie songs from the 70s and 80s (many of which, by the way, were written by Marty Haugen, who is a Lutheran).

The beautiful vestments that the priests used to wear have been replaced by those bland robes that look like horse blankets.

The glorious high altar has been replaced with a common table, and even the vessels - the gold chalice, the gold paten, etc. - have often been replaced with clear-glass cups and dishes.

I did see quite a bit of that.

Well, there you go - that's the fruit of the council's intention to make the mysteries of Faith more relevant to Modern Man. They brought everything down to Man's level, instead of raising Man up to heaven, and in the process they stripped from the Mass whatever was mysterious and beautiful. Now it's just plain bland.

Anyway, we were going to discuss the council some more.

Yes, I wanted you to back up your previous statements about the documents being ambiguous.

No problem. But first, I want to step back and set the historical scene for you, so you get an idea of how these documents were created and how the ambiguities slipped in.

Ok.

Pope John XXIII announced his intention to call the council in 1959. The council didn't actually open until October of 1962. In the two or so years that came between, there were several Commissions that were given the task of drawing up schemas that would be the basis for the council's official documents.

Like rough outlines?

More or less, yes. So the various Commissions came up with 70 schemas that

... renewed the anathemas of Trent and Vatican I, as well as the wholesale denunciation of the contemporary world already found in Pius IX's "Syllabus of Errors." (Gary McEoin, book review for "History Of Vatican II, Volume IIII", National Catholic Reporter, Sept. 22, 2000)

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, a very conservative and orthodox man, was on the Central Preparatory Commission that was in charge of reviewing the schemas. His recollection was that

... in them the Church’s doctrine is absolutely orthodox. They were adapted in a certain manner to our times, but with great moderation and discretion. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, online source)

Ok, so what's the point?

When the council opened, a liberal faction in the council managed to have those original schemas tossed out the window. Lefebvre tells the story of how the matter came to a vote, and the liberals didn't get the required two-thirds majority - but they did come out on top, 60% to 40%.

So they complained to the pope that, basically, 60% was close enough, and they shouldn't be forced to go forward with something that the majority wasn't in favor of - and the pope agreed. So he intervened and that was the end of the 70 schemas.

So they started from scratch?! Ugh.

Yes, basically. It really caused a lot of confusion for the bishops, because they weren't working with the prepared material which they had all had a chance to review before coming to Rome. So for the rest of the council, documents were being drafted for discussion, and then the bishops were being asked to vote before they'd had a chance to really review the new material.

I don't know if you've seen the documents of Vatican II, but they're quite dense. A bishop can't be expected to read and digest so many hundreds of pages, and then cast a responsible vote. Many of the bishops voted in favor of documents of which they had only read parts, and they just trusted the majority - kind of a "go with the flow" scenario.

So who drafted the new documents?

Various commissions, but usually there was some principle architect behind each document. So, for example, the document on Religious Liberty was drafted by the liberal bishop from America, John Courtney Murray; the two documents on the Church, Lumen Gentium and Gaudiem et Spes were mostly the work of Karol Wojtyla, later Pope John Paul II; the document on the Liturgy was drafted by Annibale Bugnini, who - neatly enough - also ended up being the one largely in charge of implementing the document.

There was definitely a liberal force behind the drafting of the new documents, and Archbishop Lefebvre commented on this:

Anyone who has experience of either civil or clerical meetings will understand the situation in which the Fathers found themselves. In these new schemas, although one could modify a few odd phrases or a few propositions by means of amendments, one could not change their essentials. The consequences would be serious. A text which is biased to begin with can never be entirely corrected. It retains the imprint of whoever drafted it and the thoughts that inspired it. The Council from then on was slanted. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, online source)

I think I'm beginning to get a better picture of what went on ...

It was a blitzkrieg. Most of those 2,400 bishops came to Rome expecting to rubber-stamp the prepared schemas, and suddenly they were broadsided by the liberal faction who - it cannot be stressed enough - had really done their homework. The rest just stumbled through the council blindly, looking for some kind of guidance - they didn't know what had hit them.

So the bishops were working with tainted documents to start with.

Right, and mostly documents drawn up by men with progressivist ideas - like Murray, Bugnini, Wojtyla, etc. But these men couldn't just come right out and embed heresies in the documents - they had to craft their statements carefully, with a great degree of ambiguity.

Even still, they raised a lot of red flags. Archbishop Lefebvre was only one of many who stood up and presented "interventions" (formal objections to the documents) during the periods of discussion, objections in which he often complained of how proximate to heresy some of the statements were. He ended up publishing his interventions in a book after the council was over, called I Accuse the Council!

Ok, so we've established that the documents were created with the ambiguities already in them. Can you give some examples?

Yes, I can. Let's start with the first document promulgated by the council: Sacrosanctum Concilium, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

Sounds foreboding.

Funny!

This was the document that called for the revision of the Mass; and since it's pretty safe to say that the council fathers had no idea that the New Mass was what was going to result from this document, this is a pretty good place to start looking ambiguity.

Cardinal Heenan once made the comment that neither the council fathers nor the pope foresaw just how radical the liturgical reforms would be, based on the document they approved:

Subsequent changes were more radical than those intended by Pope John and the bishops who passed the decree on the liturgy. His sermon at the end of the first session shows that Pope John did not suspect what was being planned by the liturgical experts. (John Cardinal Heenan, A Crown of Thorns [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1974], p. 223)

So obviously there must have been enough ambiguity in the document on the Liturgy to warrant the views of the conservative council fathers, as well as the radical plans of the liberals.

So what does this document say, exactly?

Many things. It begins by saying that the liturgical reform is intended "to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change." (SC, 1) Of course, it never defines exactly which "institutions" are "subject to change."

In a similar way, it says a few paragraphs later that "where necessary, the rites [should] be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, [so] that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times." (par. 4) Again, no mention is made of what specific "circumstances and needs of modern times" are being referred to in this paragraph - nor does it define what constitutes "necessity" in the question of revision of the rites. At what point does a particular revision become "necessary?"

The council states that the laity should become more involved in the liturgy by "fully conscious, and active participation" (par. 14), and - incredibly - that "In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else." (par. 14)

What did they mean by "full and active participation"?

That's a very good question, to which this document never once gives a clear answer. And that's pretty amazing, considering that this "full and active participation" - whatever it might mean - is declared by the council to be "the aim to be considered before all else"! You'd think if this was going to be the paramount guiding principle for the reform, it would have received a little more definition.

So who ends up deciding what it means?

Apparently, the Consilium that was later appointed (after the council) to put this document into practice and give it some flesh.

Then this document serves as kind of a "blank check," of sorts?

Exactly. And then it goes on to say that "the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it." (par. 21)

A whole flurry of questions arises from this paragraph: which of the "elements" are "subject to change"? What is the benchmark for deciding if any of these elements has "suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy"?

For that matter, what is this "inner nature of the liturgy"? What makes an element in-or-out of "harmony", suited or "unsuited", to this "inner nature"?

I mean, here the document says that anything out of "harmony" with this ill-defined "inner nature" of the liturgy "not only may but ought to be changed" - but it becomes up to the Consilium to determine what is or is not in harmony with the "inner nature" of the liturgy, so that pretty much leaves everything open to the fate of being revised.

Sounds like a free-for-all.

That is exactly what it turned into. And it didn't help that the very next paragraph accomplished a kind of bait-and-switch: on the one hand, the regulation of the liturgy "depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop." Which is to say that such regulation "belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established." (par. 22, 1-2)

So this power of regulating the liturgy belongs to Rome first, then to the bishop and "territorial bodies of bishops." Got that?

I think so.

Ok, so then the council says, "Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority." (par. 22, 3)

Which is probably as it should be, don't you think?

Yes! Except for one problem. After the council had finished declaring its ambiguous teaching on "collegiality," the pope and bishops began acting in a much more democratic fashion - so Rome conceded authority over the liturgy to the bishops, and the bishops in turn conceded that authority to ...

Let me guess: the priests and laity.

Uh-huh. And the document actually foresees this eventuality, because it says much later, "It is desirable that the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2" - that's the groups of bishops - "set up a liturgical commission, to be assisted by experts in liturgical science, sacred music, art and pastoral practice."

So the bishops own the liturgy; but the council wants those bishops to set up liturgical commissions and seek the help of "experts" - whoever they may be.

Then it says:

So far as possible the commission should be aided by some kind of Institute for Pastoral Liturgy, consisting of persons who are eminent in these matters, and including laymen as circumstances suggest. (SC, par. 44)

Ahhh ... this is something entirely different, isn't it? The bishops set up commissions, the commissions are run by experts - and this "[includes] laymen as circumstances suggest," which means it always includes them, because circumstances always suggest it.

Then comes the blitz: "Under the direction of the above-mentioned territorial ecclesiastical authority" - who, of course, is going to roll over and play dead like a good democratic bishop should - "the commission is to regulate pastoral-liturgical action throughout the territory, and to promote studies and necessary experiments [!!!] whenever there is question of adaptations to be proposed to the Apostolic See."

Promote experiments?

You heard right.

So keep in mind that whenever the document says "competent territorial ecclesiastical authority," it means these lay-led liturgical commissions.

That becomes rather important in statements like this: "The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority ... must ... carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship." (par. 40, 1)

This is what started the liturgical "inculturation" craze. And with no one to regulate the madness except for the liturgical commissions spread from here to kingdom come ... well, now you know why American parishes have Masses that feature folk guitars. That's part of our "culture" ever since the 60s, so it must be considered appropriate to "be admitted into divine worship."

But by that logic, what wouldn't be considered "cultural", and therefore appropriate for the Mass?

Ask the "competent territorial ecclesiastical authority." What the liturgical commissions say is what becomes normal practice.

Moving on ...

Yes ...

Another paragraph says: "The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity." Again, no definition whatsoever is given for what is to be considered "noble simplicity" - that becomes a relative measuring stick which manifests itself in different ways depending on who's in charge.

It goes on: "[the rites] should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people's powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation." (par. 34)

But what does "useless repetitions" mean? There are plenty of repetitions in the Old Mass - the Kyrie is repeated, the mea culpa is repeated, the Domine non sum dignus is repeated ... the genuflection at the consecration is repeated, and there are dozens of repetitions of the sign of the cross throughout. Who's to say which of these repetitions is "useless"? What makes a thing "useless" or not?

Let me guess: the document doesn't tell us.

No, it doesn't. So one council father might have been perfectly orthodox and would have been thinking one thing when he read "useless repetitions" - maybe he was thinking of just one or two parts of the Mass - but the liberal who reads this (and later gets to help implement it) is thinking about a bunch of things that he's planning on removing from the Mass!

Have you seen enough examples of ambiguity in this document?

Sure. Let's move on to another.

Alright, we'll look at the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, called Lumen Gentium.

Where do they get these goofy names for the documents?

The official Latin document names are taken from the first few words of the document. This one begins, "The Light of nations is Christ ..." - and "light of nations" is lumen gentium in Latin.

Ok - just curious. Carry on.

LG was written to "unfold more fully to the faithful of the Church and to the whole world its own inner nature and universal mission." (par. 1)

It then goes on to review salvation history in a series of paragraphs that are pretty well saturated in Scripture - nothing too out of the ordinary there. In fact, much of what is said in these first six or seven paragraphs is quite orthodox, and worth reading.

However, after doing such a marvelous job of explaining the nature of the Church, the document says, "This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him." (par. 8)

This one sentence has caused much consternation, because it is very difficult to say what the council meant by the word "subsists." When Pius XII described the relationship between "the Church of Christ" on the one hand, and "the Catholic Church," on the other hand, he used the verb "is":

... this true Church of Jesus Christ ... is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church ... (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 13, emphasis added)

For whatever reason, the council chose the word "subsists in" to describe that same relationship.

What does the phrase mean - how is it different from what Pius XII said?

It may well not be different at all. But some theologians assumed that it was. Fr. Bouyer is quoted as saying that this phrase

... [proposed] again the idea of the one Church, even if it is presently divided among the diverse Christian Churches, as if among many branches. (quoted in Rev. Donald Sanborn, "A Critical Analysis of Ratzinger's Dominus Jesus", online source)

In the same article, Fr. Congar (another liberal peritus at the council) is quoted as saying:

Thus they are telling us ... that the Church of Christ and of the Apostles subsistit in, is found in the Catholic Church. There is consequently no strict identification, that is exclusive, between the Church of Christ and the "Roman" Church. Vatican II admits, fundamentally, that non-Catholic christians are members of the Mystical Body and not merely ordered to it. (ibid.)

So the "subsists in" phrase could mean that the "Church of Christ" is a larger entity that encompasses more than just the Roman Catholic Church?

That's how some theologians interpreted it. Others disagreed. Just recently, in fact, the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity released a document trying to correct this error:

The Council ... wished to do justice to the fact that there are found outside of the Catholic Church not only individual Christians but also "elements of the church" ... Understood in this sense "subsistit in" encompasses the essential thrust of the "est" [the word Pius XII used]. But it ... takes account of churches and ecclesial communities ...

Accordingly it is a misunderstanding of "subsistit in" to make it the basis of an ecclesiological pluralism or relativism which implies that the one church of Christ Jesus subsists in many churches, and thus the Catholic Church is merely one among many other churches. (Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, The Decree on Ecumenism – Read Anew After Forty Years, Nov. 11, 2004, emphasis added)

So as you can see, the very fact that there is still this argument going on over this phrase proves that there is a lot of ambiguity in the phrase itself.

It would appear so!

The council document goes on to say that "many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of [the Catholic Church's] visible structure." (par. 8)

What are these "elements" that are found outside the Church?

Most likely this refers to things like Sacred Scripture and the various sacraments that are still found in a valid form outside the Church - Protestant baptism, for example, is a valid sacrament, and the Eastern Orthodox still possess valid sacraments of Holy Orders and the Eucharist.

But nevertheless, a statement like this can only lead to confusion - if "elements" of sanctification and truth can be found outside the Church, is this sufficient for salvation? Is the Church still necessary for salvation?

That's why I think it's important that the document immediately adds, "These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity." (par. 8)

So it still affirms that the Catholic Church is the sole source of the sacraments, and that wherever they exist outside the Church, they are intended to lead souls back into the Church ... but it's still a bit ambiguous, taken as a whole, and then combined with other statements in the document.

Such as?

Such as this statement:

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (LG, par. 15)

That's ambiguous at best. In "many ways" the Church is "linked" with those outside the unity of the papacy? What does this mean? In what way are they "linked"? In past ages it was more precise: those outside the Church are, objectively speaking, heretics who have no hope of salvation.

That doesn't appear to be the council's position!

Well, but the Church has always said that there is such a thing as "baptism of desire," meaning that some people - through no fault of their own - are not aware of the Church or their obligation to belong to it. But they follow the Divine Law as best as they know it, and are of sufficient good-will such that - had they known better - they would have gladly been a part of the Catholic Church. These souls can be saved because they belong to the Church implicitly - by way of desire.

Pope Pius XII spoke of this when he said that there are those who are outside the Church who "by an unconscious desire and longing ... have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer," but he was more precise than Vatican II, because he immediately added, "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church," and he pleaded with the separated brethren to "correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation." (Mystici Corporis Christi, 103)

So even Pope Pius XII acknowledges that non-Catholics have a "certain relationship" to the Church, but that in their separated state they "cannot be sure of their salvation." Not that their salvation is impossible, but it is by no means guaranteed, especially considering that they are "deprived of ... many heavenly gifts and helps which can only enjoyed in the Catholic Church."

So what did the council say that Pius XII didn't say?

The council simply emphasized the "maybe" aspect of this relationship between the Church and non-Catholics, without as forcefully stating that they are in a gravely deficient situation.

I do have to add, though, that the council did state rather clearly in this document that "the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation ... Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." (par. 14)

It just seems like what the council gives with the left hand, it takes away with the right, and vice versa.

And we haven't even touched on the question of those who aren't even professing Christians.

Why, what did the council say about them?

Regarding the Muslims, the document says:

... the plan of salvation also includes ... the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. (LG, par. 16)

Obviously, this statement needs a lot of clarification before it can be given full assent of faith.

Obviously! Is the council saying that Muslims will be saved too?

Not if you read closely - it only says that the plan of salvation includes them - which is true. The plan of salvation includes all men; redemption is not withheld from anyone who desires it.

But what does it mean that the Muslims "along with us adore the one and merciful God?" Can we really say that the Muslims worship the same God as we do?

Do they?

Only in the sense that they're monotheists who believe in the God of Abraham. But the true God is a Trinity, and so it would seem that in order to worship the true God, one would have to accept the Second Person of the Godhead, Jesus Christ.

But notice that the council didn't say "the true God." It just said "the one and merciful God." Like I said, this needs serious clarification. The statement is too open-ended as it stands.

But enough about salvation - let's move on to that question of collegiality.

Please do.

The fundamental teaching of the Church is that the pope possesses supreme authority in the Church, and that each bishop possesses a similar "monarchical" authority in his own territory - an authority that is derived from the papacy.

The First Vatican Council declared the following:

If anyone therefore should say that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspecting or directing, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in matters concerning the discipline and rule of the Church throughout the world; or that he has merely the principal part and not the full plenitude of this supreme power; or that his power is not ordinary and immediate, whether over each and all the churches, or over each and all the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. (On the Church of Christ, Canon III)

At Vatican II, what happened is that two conflicting factions collided and ended up producing a statement that was a hybrid of the two opinions. On the one side was the traditional view: the pope possesses supreme authority in the Church; this authority can and is sometimes extended by the pope to the college of bishops when he convenes an Ecumenical Council. On the other side was the progressive view: the pope, in union with the college of bishops, possesses supreme authority, and the pope only exercises this authority as the representative head of the college of bishops.

That sounds very similar to the Eastern Orthodox position.

I believe it is quite close. It tends to view the pope as merely a figurehead, or a "first among equals."

The resulting council document somewhat blended these two views. The entire third chapter of Lumen Gentium goes back and forth on these points - it's far too lengthy to quote, but a few representative passages should give a decent idea of the conflict:

Jesus Christ ... willed that [the Apostles'] successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion. (LG, par. 18)

Notice the order: Jesus established the college of bishops, willed them to exist until the end of time, and secondly, in order to preserve unity in the college, He placed the pope over them.

The Lord Jesus ... appointed twelve to be with Him ... and these apostles He formed after the manner of a college or a stable group, over which He placed Peter chosen from among them. (LG, par. 19)

Again, the order is reversed: the apostolic college was formed, and then Peter was placed over them - "chosen from among them" - you can almost hear the echo of "first among equals" here. This New Testament model is then applied to the modern-day Church:

Just as in the Gospel ... St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together. (LG, par. 22)

The emphasis appears to be on the college of bishops here - is that right?

It certainly appears that way. But then the council - as if now speaking with the voice of the traditional council fathers - emphasizes the role of the pope:

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head ... In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. (ibid.)

So far so good, but then the council takes away with the left hand ...

The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. (ibid.)

Which statement receives the emphasis here? That the college of bishops "is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church," or that "we understand this body together with its head ... and never without this head"?

Yeah, that doesn't seem to be quite so clear as it was in the First Vatican Council.

It was meant to be ambiguous. And then it meanders into the question of the college of bishops acting as a college - that is, a democratic body of bishops having authority over a single bishop's territory, when really that bishop has authority in his own proper diocese(s).

Archbishop Lefebvre foresaw this problem, and warned the council of it in one of his many interventions:

The national assemblies with their commissions would soon - and unconsciously - be feeding and governing all the flocks, so that the priests as well as the laity would find themselves placed between these two pastors: the bishops, whose authority would be theoretical, and the assembly with its commissions, which would, in fact, hold the exercise of that authority. (Archbishop Lefebvre, I Accuse the Council, quoted in Michael Davies, "Random Thoughts," The Angelus, Dec. 1984, Vol. VII/12)

And did that come to pass?

In many ways, yes it did. It seems more and more than individual bishops don't feel right about exercising their rightful authority in their own diocese(s). You hear stories all the time about how a national synod of bishops will meet together to decide on some practical matter, and all of the bishops will go along with it - even if they individually don't want to.

A good example is communion in the hand - a national conference may approve it, and so an individual bishop will approve it in his diocese, even though he personally is against it, because he doesn't want to contradict the national conference. It works much more like a democracy now.

And all because of some ambiguities in the document ...

That's the story of the whole council. Almost every one of these documents can be neatly chopped up and sorted into two categories: statements that are cleanly orthodox, and statements that are, at best, ambiguous and bordering on the edge of heterodoxy.

The real problem came after the council, when the various synods of bishops starting implementing the council, and the liberal theologians who were at the council as periti began spreading their ideas publicly, citing portions of Vatican II as their justification.

Why didn't the pope put a stop to it?

That may be one of the most difficult questions of all. And that question can be asked of both Pope Paul VI and John Paul II - they both lamented the problems in the Church, but then they both continued to make practical decisions that only exacerbated the problem.

I sense another topic coming up for discussion.

The conciliar popes? Sure. They're a huge part of this, as is the role of Archbishop Lefebvre and his Society of Saint Pius X that sought to counter-act the revolution.

Ok, maybe we'll hit those subjects some other time then.

Whenever you're ready.

Discussions on Traditionalism: The Council

2006-04-06T10:39:00.000-07:00

So you were going to tell me a few things about Vatican II and why you oppose it.

I think it would be inaccurate to say that I "oppose" the council.

But you believe it was a bad thing for the Church, right?

I think the evidence proves that the results of how the Council was implemented are unquestionably bad. The raw data does not lie.

And what raw data is that?

Kenneth Jones wrote a book in 2003 called Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II - and in this little book he pulled together and reported on all the data that describes what's been happening in the Church since the council.

Without going into every single boring statistic, I'll just throw a few major figures out there:

1) The number of priests in the US is down 35% (and steadily declining)

2) The number of new ordinations in the US is down 70%

3) The number of men studying for the priesthood is down 90% (and thus, 60% of the seminaries have closed their doors)

4) The number of nuns went down 60%

5) Catholic Marriages are down 30%

6) Annulments, on the other hand, are up by the unbelievable rate of 14,700%

7) Attendance at Mass is down 50%

8) The number of conversions (adult baptisms) is down 35%

In addition to those grim numbers, consider these facts about the Modern Church: 90% of Catholics think contraception is ok; 53% of Catholics think abortion is ok; 77% of Catholics think not going to Mass on Sunday is ok.

Wow! What's happening to the Catholic Church?

I think it's safe to say that the Church since the council is deteriorating at an incredible rate. In fact, I know it's safe to say this, because I'm only repeating the words of Pope Paul VI himself. In 1968, just three years after the close of the council, he gave a speech at the Lombard Seminary in Rome, and he said:

The Church finds herself in an hour of anxiety, a disturbed period of self-criticism, or what would even better be called self-destruction. It is an interior upheaval, acute and complicated, which nobody expected after the Council. It is almost as if the Church were attacking itself. We looked forward to a flowering, a serene expansion of conceptions which matured in the great sessions of the council ... It is as if the Church were destroying herself. (Pope Paul VI, Address to the Lombard Seminary of Dec. 7, 1968, printed in L'Osservatore Romano, Dec. 19, 1968)

If the pope can say that the Church is in the process of "self-destruction" and "attacking itself," certainly I can echo that same sentiment - and the numbers are there to substantiate that claim.

I can see that.

And Pope Paul VI wasn't the only one who publicly admitted that the council was a failure.

Fr. Louis Bouyer, who was certainly in favor of the council, and was in fact invited to attend the council as a peritus (an "expert" who served as a theological advisor), wrote:

Unless we are blind, we must even state bluntly that what we see looks less like the hoped-for regeneration of Catholicism than its accelerated decomposition. (Louis Bouyer, The decomposition of Catholicism [Chicago, IL: Franciscan Herald Press, 1969], p. 3)

And no less an authority than our current pope, when he was still a Cardinal in 1984, said that the results of the council seemed

... cruelly opposed to the expectations of everyone ... expected was a new Catholic unity and instead we have been exposed to dissension which - to use the words of Pope Paul VI - seems to have gone from self-criticism to self-destruction ... we find ourselves faced with a progressive process of decadence which has developed for the most part precisely under the sign of a calling back to the Council ... The net result therefore seems negative. I am repeating here what I said ten years after the conclusion of the work: it is incontrovertible that this period has definitely been unfavorable for the Catholic Church. (Cardinal Ratzinger in L'Osservatore Romano, Dec. 24, 1984; quoted in Michael Davies, "God Bless Archbishop Lefebvre!", The Angelus, November 1985, Vol. VIII/11)

And remember, Ratzinger, like Bouyer, was at the council as a peritus, and all in favor of the council. So basically everyone who was in a position to know what was going on, from the inside, says the same thing: the council was a disaster.

So what does this mean for you?

It means I'm going to steer clear of the council and anything that resulted from the council (including the New Mass). If the pope himself looks and says, "the Church is in a process of self-demolition," and I see that the undeniable trend in the Modern Church is loss of faith and holiness, then I need to find a safe harbor until this storm is over.

"Storm" is one way to put it. "Crisis" is another way to put it, as our current pope actually did put it some years ago. Listen again to what he says, and how he ties the crisis in precisely with the liturgy:

I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part upon the collapse of the liturgy, which at times is actually being conceived of ... as though in the liturgy it did not matter any more whether God exists and whether He speaks to us and listens to us ... the community is only celebrating itself without its being worthwhile to do so. (quoted in Paul Likoudis, "Cardinal Ratzinger Blames Church Crisis on Liturgical Collapse", The Wanderer, May 8, 1997)

Let's go back to the council, though. You never did explain how it is that you don't "oppose" the council. It sounds to me like you oppose it very much!

Here's the question, though: which teaching of the council, solemnly promulgated and proposed for the assent of faith, do I reject or oppose?

None of them. Because there are none.

That's the trick of this whole deception! It was an Ecumenical (in the sense of "worldwide," not in the sense of "put aside all your religious differences") Council of the Church, and under normal circumstances those councils are infallible. But under normal circumstances, those councils define very clearly some proposition to be believed as a dogma; and then they state the reverse of the dogma and say, "if anyone believes this, he is accursed."

So you see, the other 20 councils of the Church all explicitly taught and defined some dogma, and required it to be accepted as part of the faith. Vatican II simply did not do that.

How can a council come together for three years and not teach anything?

Oh, the council documents have plenty to say - no doubt. But nothing in those documents is explicitly defined, or proposed as a dogma - and it goes without saying that there are no anathemas in there either. So I can't really be accused of being a "Vatican II heretic" if there are no anathemas in the council.

You know what I mean? The Council of Trent said, for example, "if you don't believe that Jesus is substantially present in the Eucharist, you're a heretic" (I'm paraphrasing, of course); but Vatican II never once says, "if you don't believe that the Muslims worship the same God as we do, you're a heretic," or, "if you don't believe that holding ecumenical services with Protestants is right, you're a heretic."

The council defined nothing, and it anathematized nothing.

So what did it do, then? It must have done something, if it caused all this trouble.

Yes, it did. It promulgated 16 documents - which, I think it was Michael Davies who cynically referred to them as "sixteen essays" - that wax quite poetic on a number of subjects. The problem is that the documents are so ambiguous and imprecise that you walk away doing one of two things: either you're scratching your head and thinking, "huh?", or you're walking away with a vaguely warm and comfortably fuzzy feeling about religion - which probably means you weren't reading it carefully.

You said earlier that the New Mass' biggest problem was that it's ambiguous - now you're saying that Vatican II was ambiguous as well?

What, are you beginning to sense a theme?

Pope St. Pius X wrote an encyclical against Modernism in 1907 called Pascendi Dominici Gregis, and he said in this encyclical - and I'm really paraphrasing here - that the fastest way to unmask a modernist is to get his opinion on the scholasticism championed by St. Thomas Aquinas.

Modernists hate scholasticism. St. Pius X said - no paraphrasing this time - that Modernists "show ... contempt for scholasticism," that they "recognise that the three chief difficulties for them are scholastic philosophy, the authority of the fathers and tradition, and the magisterium of the Church," that they "have only ridicule and contempt" for scholastic philosophy and theology, and finally, that "the passion for novelty is always united in [Modernists] with hatred of scholasticism." (Pascendi, 41-42)

Then he says what I alluded to a moment ago:

... there is no surer sign that a man is on the way to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for this system [of scholasticism]. (Pascendi, 42)

Why the Modernist hatred for scholasticism? This gets to your question about ambiguity. Scholasticism is precise. It doesn't leave big question marks or room for a thousand varying interpretations. Modernism literally thrives and feeds on ambiguity.

Again, St. Pius X put it best, when he condemned the Modernists in France:

[Our Apostolic Mandate] requires ... that We protect the faithful from evil and error; especially so when evil and error are presented in dynamic language which, concealing vague notions and ambiguous expressions with emotional and high-sounding words, is likely to set ablaze the hearts of men in the pursuit of ideals which, whilst attractive, are none the less nefarious ... such are even today the theories of the Sillon which ... are all too often wanting in clarity, logic and truth. (Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique, 1)

You don't have to read too far into the Vatican II documents before you find precisely this "dynamic language" which conceals "vague notions and ambiguous expressions with ... high-sounding words," but which most definitely lacks "clarity [and] logic."

So the council was Modernist?

It certainly appears that way from the outside. Probably a more accurate way to say it is this: there was a large faction in the council made up of Modernist bishops and/or bishops who were too trusting of their Modernist periti, to whom they turned for answers. The result is that these 16 documents are loaded with ambiguous phrases which may at first glance look Catholic, but on second glance could actually support a liberal interpretation. The reverse is also true: some phrases look blatantly liberal at first pass, but the more you look, you realize you could understand it in a Catholic way.

And that was entirely on purpose.

Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx was yet another liberal peritus at the council, and he once said something that revealed both the purpose of the ambiguities, as well as the critical role played by the periti:

We have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards. (quoted in Archbishop Lefebvre, An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, online source)

So the liberals at the council snuck a few things into the documents in an underhanded way? You're saying they fooled everyone?

Some were probably fooled by the ambiguities, thinking, "that sounds strange, but I guess it could be interpreted in a Catholic sense"; some were not fooled, but they were in the minority and were simply out-voted.

So much for your idea of the infallible ecumenical council then!

Whoa, there. Who said anything about the council teaching positive error?

Well, come on - all these ambiguities being sneaked in under the cover of deceit ... I thought the Holy Spirit protected the Church from stuff like that.

The Holy Spirit did protect the Church from Vatican II. With all of those liberals at the council, how on earth do you think the council managed to run its course without once promulgating as dogma some heresy?

The Holy Spirit showed His protection for the Church in this case in a very unforeseen manner: by ensuring that the council would not be a dogmatic council at all.

What's that mean? How can a council be anything but dogmatic?

Well, this is definitely a first, that's for sure. With the previous 20 councils it was assumed that they were being held for the purposes of defining dogma. That's what a council is for. But there really was no purpose for Vatican II.

Cardinal Pellavicini once expressed a very wise sentiment when he said, "To convoke a General Council except when absolutely demanded by necessity is to tempt God." (quoted in New Jersey Catholic News, Summer 1984, p.1)

So this council was entirely different from the rest. It was called at a time when the Church was doing well, when conversions were up, vocations were on the rise, etc. There was no pressing need, and the one dominant heresy of the age (Communism) wasn't even condemned at the council!

Anyway, we were talking about how a council can be non-dogmatic, and I guess I'm saying that it's a strange contradiction - because "council" is synonymous with "dogmatic" in a lot of ways.

Then why are you saying it wasn't dogmatic?

Because that's what the pope and council fathers said. Once again, I'm not inventing things here, I'm just repeating what the ecclesiastical authorities have said.

Cardinal Felici said at the council:

We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters [of the council documents] those which have already been the subject of dogmatic definitions in the past; as for the declarations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations. (quoted in Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, online source)

"We have to make reservations"?

What else are you going to do? Some of these teachings had a "novel character" about them, but since they were not dogmatically defined ... what are the faithful supposed to do?

Why do you keep saying that these teachings were not dogmatically defined?

Because that's what the popes said who ran the council. John XXIII opened the council and said this at his opening speech:

The Church has always opposed ... errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She considers that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations ... The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character. (John XXIII, Opening Speech at the Council, Oct. 11, 1962)

According to Pope John, the council had no intention of condemning anything, but only of "demonstrating the validity" of the Church's teaching by revising "the way in which it is presented." So he labeled the council as "pastoral."

Then, in the year immediately following the council, Pope Paul VI (who closed the council and promulgated its 16 documents) said this at a General Audience:

There are those who ask what authority ... the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium ... given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility. (Pope Paul VI, General Audience, Jan. 12, 1966)

There's that word again: "pastoral."

Yes, and here Pope Paul VI sets "pastoral" in contrast to dogmatic - he said the Council "avoided pronouncing ... dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility."

No dogmatic pronouncements. No exercise of the charism of infallibility. Just 16 documents that very ambiguously re-packaged the teaching of the Church, sometimes doing so with a "novel character," about which we must "make reservations."

So this is how you can say you don't oppose the council.

I can't oppose what hasn't been proposed first. These 16 essays are riddled with obscurities and equivocations, so that's the first problem: someone would have to go through the whole council and formulate, with some precision, exactly what these statements mean and what exactly is being proposed; then the pope would have to make it clear that these things were being defined dogmatically, and that anyone who refused to believe them is a heretic.

But I can't be accused of rejecting something that hasn't even been defined.

Ok, this is a lot of extra information to digest, so let me deal with this first, and then we'll talk about some of the specific problems with Vatican II - I want to see proof of some of these "ambiguities" you keep talking about.

As you like it.

John Paul II: The Saint-Maker

2006-04-06T06:34:00.000-07:00

Zenit carried an interesting article on Tuesday which they called Why John Paul II Proclaimed so Many Saints.

The article - which was actually an interview with Cardinal José Saraiva Martins - noted that John Paul II had canonized 480 saints. The number of beatifications was in the thousands.

Side Note: the decree of beatification awards the title of "blessed" to the person in question - Blessed Pius IX, Blessed Jacinta Marto, etc. - and means that they may be privately venerated, or publicly venerated in certain locations; the decree of canonization awards the title of "saint" to the person, and means that the Church is obliged to venerate the person in a public fashion and universally.

The Cardinal candidly admitted what many of us already knew - that the number of canonizations and beatifications made during John Paul II's pontificate exceeded the number of canonizations and beatifications of all the other popes combined (counting from the founding of the Congregation for Sainthood Causes in 1588). That's a lot of beatifications and canonizations!

Many Catholics complained that John Paul II was cheapening the act of beatification and diluting the sacredness of canonization. There can be too much of a good thing - and if everyone's a saint, then no one is a saint.

Richard McBrien was quoted in USA Today as having said, "What's the rush? If someone is really in heaven, we'll find out in time." (Cathy Lynn Grossman, "John Paul II is history's champion saintmaker", October 2, 2002)

The fact that the canonization/beatification process was "streamlined" (as the newspapers continually remind us) during his pontificate certainly made it easier for John Paul II to run "St. McPeter's" (as the JP2 Vatican was so dubbed by a cartoon in The Remnant). In the new Code of Canon Law which he promulgated in 1983, the role of the Devil's Advocate (the person whose job it was to raise objections to a given person's canonization) was eliminated. Regarding the requirement for miracles, Chris Ferrara writes:

It was not until 1983 that John Paul II reduced the requirement of miracles from four to only one for martyrs and two for other candidates for canonization, dispensing altogether with the requirement for the beatification of martyrs. (Ferrara, "Miracles? We Don't Need No Miracles!", The Remnant, August 2005)

So what was the pope's big rush? Why did he insist on beatifying and canonizing so many?

The answer, contained in Zenit's interview with Cardinal Martins, is really not that surprising - more of what we've come to expect, really:

The second reason is the extraordinary ecumenical importance of holiness.

In "Novo Millennio Ineunte," the Pope said that the holiness of the saints, blessed and martyrs is perhaps the most convincing ecumenism, these are his words, because holiness, he said with even stronger words, has its ultimate foundation in Christ, in whom the Church is not divided.

Therefore, the ecumenism we all want calls for many saints, so that the convincing ecumenism of holiness is placed in the candelabrum of the holiness of the Church. ("Why John Paul II Proclaimed so Many Saints", Zenit, April 4, 2006)

There you have it, then. More canonizations and beatifications, please, because we must pursue ecumenism.

But I wonder? Do you think the non-Catholic religions and sects can't see through this? Do you think they take "St. McPeter's" any more seriously than we do? If even a bleeding heart like Richard McBrien smells the cheap glue that holds this veneer in place, are we really to think the separated brethren are going to be fooled by it, that they're going to think, "Wow! You've had 480 saints declared in your Church in just the past 25 years alone! What a convincing ecumenism! This must be the true Church, because, look at all the saints you've cranked out recently!"

Somehow I doubt it.

Discussions on Traditionalism: The Mass

2006-04-05T20:25:00.000-07:00

So this parish you're going to, it's one of those 'pre-Vatican II' parishes?

Yes, it's a parish that only celebrates the Traditional Latin Mass.

What's so important about having the Mass in Latin? Is English really so evil?

It has nothing to do with English. Latin is important for a couple of reasons: first, it's been universally recognized as the language of the Church for centuries; second, because it has been the "ecclesiastical language" for so long, it has become a sort of sacred tongue of sorts - you hear Latin, you think "Catholic Church"; third, because it was so universally used within the Church, it stands as a very powerful sign of the Church's unity - it used to be that you could walk into a parish anywhere in the world, Denmark, Switzerland, Africa, China, wherever, and you could assist at the Mass. It was the same everywhere. Now that everything is in the vernacular, you can't do that; you can't see that visible sign of unity anymore. What you see instead looks more like the Tower of Babel. And finally, because Latin is a "dead language" which is not subject to change or development, it is the perfect language for the Church to use when expressing doctrine - because the doctrine cannot change either.

It just seems a bit extreme - refusing to go to any of the parishes in the diocese just because they say the Mass in your own language.

Well, wait a second. Latin is important, don't get me wrong. But ultimately, it's a peripheral issue. Even if all the priests in my diocese started saying the Mass in Latin, I still wouldn't go to any of them.

Ok, now I'm confused. What is the issue, then?

The New Mass changed a lot more than just the language in which it was celebrated! The whole form of the Mass changed, so that it now breathes an entirely different spirit - the whole tenor has changed.

Go on ... be specific.

Just look at the externals - for example, even architecture itself used to point you right to the Eucharistic Presence of Christ. The rows of pillars leading up the side aisles would draw your eyes right to the main high altar, which was right in the middle of the sanctuary wall; in the center of the altar, and just above it on the wall, was a crucifix whose very angles (especially the downward-pointing "V" shape created by the figure of Christ on the Cross) pointed you to the focal point of the sanctuary: the tabernacle, in which was reserved the Blessed Sacrament.

Yeah, I can see that. Interesting.

Yes! And then when the priest would come out with his altar servers, the first thing he would do is stand at the foot of the stairs leading up to the altar and begin confessing his sins, facing the tabernacle. Except for a few points during the Mass, he would maintain this posture and position of prayer: facing Jesus in the tabernacle, and addressing all his prayers in that direction. The priest and the people were united in that respect - all facing the same direction, all pointed towards their common Love.

And they don't do that anymore?

When's the last time you were at a Catholic Mass?

Oh ... I don't know, probably not since I was a kid, sometime in the early 60s

Yeah, right before everything changed. Well, check it out for yourself sometime. The priest comes out for Mass now and the first thing he does is talk to the people. In the Old Mass, the first words out of the priest's mouth (not counting the sign of the cross) were "Judge me, O God." Now the first words from the priest (again, not counting the sign of the cross) are "The Lord be with you!"

As far as the architecture goes, he really can't face the altar anymore, because the altar has been moved off the wall and brought closer to the people. The priest now stands behind the altar and faces the crowd for the duration of the Mass.

But he's still facing the tabernacle ...

No! That's just it ... when various liturgical committees got their encouragement from the Vatican commissions responsible for the "renewal" of the liturgy, most parishes had the high altars torn out and thrown away, and replaced them with the more common table-altar you'll see today. There is no tabernacle on the altar anymore.

Where did it go?

It's different from parish to parish. I've seen parishes where the high altar was left untouched and a new table-altar was simply installed several feet in front of it - in which case the tabernacle is still on the high altar, but the priest celebrates the Mass with his back to it. In many, many other parishes, the tabernacle has been moved out of the sanctuary altogether and put in a private "prayer chapel" somewhere else in the building.

I've heard my share of horror stories about this; people who go into parishes and can't even find the tabernacle, people who have found the tabernacle stuffed off in some tiny room on the side where it's not even clearly labeled - it's the old "Jesus in the broom-closet" syndrome.

Ok, so the tabernacle is gone, and the priest now faces the people.

Right. He is much more in the position of "entertainer" now, because he spends the entire Mass facing the people, having to look at them, having to engage them. It makes for a very uncomfortable situation sometimes! I mean, what would you do if someone suddenly dropped you on center stage, in front of 250 people?

Panic!

Exactly. So these priests get all nervous, and they deal with nervousness like most people do: they try to make jokes, they get innovative, they try to get the laity to get more involved so the pressure isn't solely on them.

Which leads to the next point: the New Mass has been completely overrun with laity. In the Old Mass, the priest had a special and unique role to play, which corresponded to the dogmatic fact that a consecrated priest has a sacramental power which the laity does not possess. That's dogma - and the Old Mass emphasized this by creating a distinction between priest and laity.

What kind of distinction are we talking about, though?

For example, the priest was the one who proclaimed the Word of God in the readings; he confessed his sins before God before the people did in the liturgy; and he alone was permitted to handle the Eucharist.

In the New Mass, a layperson handles the reading from the Old Testament and the Epistles (the Gospel reading is still reserved to the priest), as well as the responsorial Psalm, the people and priest make a common confession of sins, and the Eucharist can be distributed by "Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist."

So the laity have a more active role to play in the worship - so what?

It's eroding the dogma. Today's priests much more resemble a non-Catholic minister who merely "presides" over the assembly; he's more of a facilitator than he is the anointed representative who offers sacrifice to God. And since more and more priests are taking a "day off" in the middle of the week, you have the situation in some parishes where the congregation still gets together on a week day and has a "communion service," where they have a few readings and then a layperson distributes pre-consecrated hosts.

That's odd. So they really don't need the priest at all, do they?

Well, they do - but only to do the consecration. What's really dangerous in all of this is that women are getting the idea from the New Mass that they can be ordained as priests - there's quite a movement among feminist Catholics to get the Vatican to reverse its ruling on women's ordination.

What's causing the confusion?

Because in the New Mass, women can do just about everything else! They can lead the Psalms, they can read the Old Testament and Epistle readings, and they can distribute communion right along-side the priest. I once attended a "communion service" in which a woman retrieved the hosts from the tabernacle, brought them back to the altar, elevated the host for the congregation to see, and recited the Ecce, Agnus Dei prayer ("Behold the Lamb of God, etc.") - and the congregation dutifully responded with the "Lord, I am not worthy ..." Talk about skating on thin ice!

So the architecture changed, the outward gestures changed - what else?

The prayers. If you compare the Old Mass to the New Mass, you'll find that there is hardly a prayer in the Old Mass that didn't get either re-written or dropped from the liturgy completely.

What was the point?

I can't say - it's awfully difficult to judge motive. All I can do is point to the end product and say, "this is not quite right." I will say this: one of the phrases in the council's decree on the Liturgy explicitly said that the liturgy had to be revised in order to "foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ." (Sacrosanctum Concilium, par. 1)

So it's not out of line or reading into things to say that the changes made to the Mass were specifically made for ecumenical reasons - to break down barriers between Catholic and Protestant worship styles.

Now that's interesting. How do you change a Catholic Mass so that it doesn't offend Protestants anymore, when the Mass itself is so distinctly Catholic?

That's just it - you remove the parts that make it "distinctly Catholic."

But how can you? The thing that makes the Mass so Catholic is that it pretends to turn bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. You can't get rid of that.

You can do everything but. In the case of the New Mass, what they did was to re-write or remove any prayers that were too explicit with regard to the nature or purpose of the Mass.

Nature and purpose?

Right. The nature of the Mass more or less means that Jesus is substantially present in the Eucharist, and the purpose of the Mass is that it is a propitiatory sacrifice offered to God in order to atone for sins. In fact, this is explicitly spelled out in one of the prayers in the Old Mass. The priest prays:

Receive, O holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I ... offer unto Thee ... for my own countless sins, offenses and negligences, and for all here present ... [and] also for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may avail both for my own and their salvation unto everlasting life.

Sounds pretty Catholic to me.

It is. But this prayer no longer exists in the New Mass. It was dropped completely from the liturgy and replaced with this:

Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.

That still sounds pretty Catholic, talking about this bread becoming the "bread of life."

But what does that mean? It certainly doesn't have to mean anything about a propitiatory sacrifice, and it says absolutely nothing about atonement for sins or the benefits that this sacrifice bestows upon both "the living and the dead."

Still, I would have a problem using that prayer in a Protestant service.

Others have not. Bugnini (the head of the commission that created the New Mass) records in his book The Reform of the Liturgy that the Protestant Taize Community asked for permission to use one of the Eucharistic Prayers drawn up for the New Mass before it was even released to the public.

Wait, you lost me. How did the Taize Community even find out about the prayers?

Because they were there as observers when the Consilium was doing its work. Again, Bugnini records that there were six Protestant observers who attended the various meetings: Rev. Canon Ronald C. Jasper, D.D. (Anglican), Rev. Dr. Massey H. Shepherd, Jr. (professor at Church Divinity School), Professor A. Raymond George (Methodist), Pastor Freidrich Wilhelm Kunneth (secretary of the Commission for Worship and Spiritual Life at Geneva), Rev. Eugene L. Brand (Lutheran), and Brother Max Thurian, subprior of the Taize Community. (see Bugnini, Reform of the Liturgy [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990], p. 200)

And these Protestants had something to do with helping to create the New Mass?

Bugnini swears they didn't, that they were only there as observers - although he does admit they were asked their opinions concerning the cycle of readings. But the fact that they were even there shows that there was an ecumenical dimension to the whole thing. Probably the most damning admission came from the philosopher Jean Guitton, an observer at the Second Vatican Council and a close friend of Pope Paul VI.

This is what he said in a radio debate:

The intention of Paul VI with regard to the liturgy, with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy ... But what is curious is that Paul VI did that to get as close as possible to the Protestant Lord's Supper ... But I repeat that Paul VI did everything in his power to get the Catholic Mass, beyond the Council of Trent, closer to the Protestant Lord's Supper ... I do not think I am wrong to say that the intention of Paul VI, and of the new liturgy that bears his name, was to require of the faithful a greater participation at Mass, to make more room for Scripture, and less room for all that some would call "magic", others substantial, transubstantial consecration, and for what is of Catholic Faith; in other words, there was with Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax what was too Catholic, in the traditional sense, in the Mass, and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass. (Broadcast by Radio-Courtoisie, 61 bd Murat, 75016 Paris, December 19th, 1993; quoted in Rev. Br. Gerard, "Abbey Newsletter", The Christian Order, October 1994, p. 454)

That is a rather damning admission, I'll give you that.

I don't think they're trying to hide it anymore, honestly. They're proud of the fact that they've Protestantized the Mass to the point where certain Protestant communities are no longer uncomfortable with it.

So is that your main gripe with the New Mass - that it no longer offends Protestants?

That's not quite how I would put it! The reason it offended Protestants to begin with is because it so clearly portrayed, by word and by gesture, the dogmas of the Catholic Faith; if it doesn't do that anymore, then there's a serious problem internally, because the way a man prays is what determines his belief system.

I think you're giving a bit too much credit to the liturgy - don't you think the official teachings of the Church or the Pope are what determine how Catholics believe?

Not as effectively as the liturgy, and believe me, the popes of yesteryear knew this full well.

For example, Pope Pius XII wrote, "In the sacred liturgy we profess the Catholic faith explicitly and openly ... The entire liturgy, therefore, has the Catholic faith for its content, inasmuch as it bears public witness to the faith of the Church." (Mediator Dei, 47)

He went on to say, using a slightly different wording, exactly what I just said a moment ago about prayer determining belief. These are his words:

... whenever there was question of defining a truth revealed by God, the Sovereign Pontiff and the Councils ... have not seldom drawn many an argument from this sacred science of the liturgy ... Similarly during the discussion of a doubtful or controversial truth, the Church and the Holy Fathers have not failed to look to the age-old and age-honored sacred rites for enlightenment. Hence the well-known and venerable maxim, "Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi" - let the rule for prayer determine the rule of belief ... But if one desires to differentiate and describe the relationship between faith and the sacred liturgy in absolute and general terms, it is perfectly correct to say, "Lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi" - let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer. (Mediator Dei, 48)

His predecessor, Pope Pius XI, knew this truth as well. When he wanted to impress on the faithful the doctrine and teaching concerning the Social Kingship of Christ, he didn't just issue an encyclical on the subject - he instituted a liturgical feast that commemorated the Kingship of Christ.

This is what he says about how the liturgy influences belief:

For people are instructed in the truths of faith, and brought to appreciate the inner joys of religion far more effectually by the annual celebration of our sacred mysteries than by any official pronouncement of the teaching of the Church. Such pronouncements usually reach only a few and the more learned among the faithful; feasts reach them all; the former speak but once, the latter speak every year - in fact, forever. (Quas Primas, 21)

So when the primary prayer of the Church, namely, the Mass, is so drastically altered that it - how did Guitton put it? - removes, corrects, or relaxes what is "too Catholic, in the traditional sense, in the Mass," and deliberately intends to "get the Catholic Mass ... closer to the Protestant Lord's Supper," then it only follows that the beliefs of the faithful are going to undergo a gradual-yet-definite change as well.

But you just showed me from one of the prayers that the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is still in the Mass - remember, "it will become for us the bread of life?"

Those words most certainly do not state the Catholic dogma of transubstantiation. Would it come as a shock to you that the Anglican community includes this very prayer, nearly word-for-word, as an optional "preparation prayer" in its liturgy?

That would be rather surprising.

Then consider yourself surprised. The prayers of the New Mass are sufficiently imprecise that they do not require a Catholic interpretation; they may be able to be understood in a Catholic sense, but that would require that the person hearing them already be a Catholic with a good understanding of his faith. If he's a new-comer to the faith, there is no reason why he should interpret these prayers in an exclusively Catholic way. In the Old Mass, it was pretty clear what was going on and why.

You mentioned earlier something about the "gestures" in the Mass as well as the prayers.

Yes, that's right. You can start just by looking at the orientation of the priest and congregation. As I said, in the Old Mass, the priest and congregation looked in the same direction - towards God, towards Jesus in the tabernacle. Now the congregation looks towards ... a man. The priest. Our new pope, when he was known as Cardinal Ratzinger, said that this new arrangement signifies the new idea about the Mass - that it is primarily a "community meal."

But he roundly criticized this viewpoint, and rightly so - what he says here is absolutely correct, and indicates part of the problem, the wrong-headed ideas that are being spread and absorbed about the Mass:

In reality what happened was that an unprecedented clericalization came on the scene. Now the priest - the "presider", as they now prefer to call him - becomes the real point of reference for the whole liturgy. Everything depends on him. We have to see him, to respond to him, to be involved in what he is doing. His creativity sustains the whole thing. Not surprisingly, people try to reduce this newly created role by assigning all kinds of liturgical functions to different individuals and entrusting the "creative" planning of the liturgy to groups of people who like to ... "make their own contribution". Less and less is God in the picture. More and more important is what is done by the human beings who meet here and do not like to subject themselves to a "pre-determined pattern". The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself ... [in past times] it was much more a question of priest and people facing in the same direction, knowing that together they were in a procession toward the Lord. They did not close themselves into a circle; they did not gaze at one another; but as the pilgrim People of God they set off for the Oriens, for the Christ who comes to meet us. (Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy [San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2000], pp. 79-80)

So in other words, it's become more humanistic.

That is exactly what it has become. The Sacrifice of the Mass has become a community meal that has the function of uniting the community together, and as a meal, it becomes a less-important afterthought in the liturgy. This is why the reception of Holy Communion is preceded by so much human-to-human interaction in the New Mass - the priest speaking primarily to the people, the lectors reading to the people (often indulging in over-the-top dramatics to make the readings more exciting), the congregation holding hands during the Our Father, the "handshake of peace" ritual that takes place - incredibly - right after the consecration of the bread and wine.

That's the one moment in the Mass when it becomes clear where the focus lies. Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, has just descended and made Himself substantially present on the altar, and what does the celebrant do? He invites everyone to "share with one another the sign of peace," and off they go, shaking hands with each other, hugging each other, sometimes meandering all across the aisles to greet the people across from them.

Where's the focus? It's on the people. It's on the community. Jesus just came into the room, but ... hang on, I have to go say hello to all my friends and wish everyone "peace," so that we all get a nice warm feeling before we go share this meal together.

And I take it that this sort of thing doesn't happen in the Old Mass?

Absolutely not. During the prayers surrounding the consecration, the consecration itself, and the prayers that come after the consecration, there is near-total silence in the church so that the faithful can recollect themselves and prepare to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion.

You go to the New Mass, and the first thing you notice is that you don't have 15 free seconds to pray in silence, to prepare your heart for that monumental moment when you will be united with the Divine Redeemer.

Well, don't you think it's a good thing that there's more of a sense of community in the New Mass? It sounds like maybe that aspect was missing from the Old Mass.

It's a false sense of community, because it is community based on humanism, on a purely natural level; there's more of a sense of community in the Old Mass, precisely because everyone is united in a common action - thoughts and attentions are directed towards God, and the entire service has Him for its object.

There's so much "community" in the New Mass that it's actually a distraction and a nuisance, unless you came there to celebrate Man.

And this is, according to you, the effect of the New Mass?

It is. Everything is directed at Man; Man takes center stage. In many, many parishes now, the tabernacle is gone from the sanctuary, and the "presider's" chair has been set up in the middle of the sanctuary instead. So, quite literally, Man has de-throned God in the New Mass.

So it really isn't about Latin at all, is it?

Well, like I said, Latin is an important element, but it's certainly not the most important point.

Now that you mention it, though, the issue of Latin does more-or-less touch on the major issues we're discussing.

Latin was considered a "sacred" language - again, not because it in itself is somehow more holy than, say, Swahili or Japanese, but because it was hallowed by so many centuries of Church usage. Therefore, it didn't matter so much that the rank-and-file layman couldn't understand the language; that wasn't the point of the Mass.

I know that's hard - very hard - to understand in this day and age when the Ego reigns supreme, and Man's foremost concern in worship is that it should "minister to me," or "what I get out of church," but that just wasn't the concern in the Catholic Church in ages past. The more important question is, "what is God getting out of this service from me?"

So you didn't understand the Latin? So what? You knew what was going on (generally speaking) at the altar; you knew the priest was offering a sacrifice on your behalf to God the Father; you could revel in the mysterious silence and engage in contemplative prayer, and direct your thoughts to God.

The point was, even if you didn't understand the language, God did, and this service was all about Him, not about you. That's a healthy lesson that Modern Man would do well to learn today.

But now? It's all about Man. If he doesn't understand what's going on, then hey, stop everything - we'll reconstruct the whole liturgy and tailor-make it to fit your needs.

All of this is very interesting. But, if you're a "pre-Vatican II Catholic," does that mean you don't accept the teachings of the Second Vatican Council?

Don't "accept" them? I don't know that I would go quite that far.

Well, ok, but you've obviously got some issues with the council, right?

I have issues with the way it's been interpreted by liberals in the Church, and with the way it's been applied to the Church by those same liberals.

So you're saying the council didn't really change anything of the Church's teachings?

Oh boy ... this is another can of worms altogether. Let's put this discussion off for a bit and we'll come back to it later, alright?

Good enough.

A Note on the Liturgy as Passion

2006-04-05T07:59:00.000-07:00

At the beginning of the Mass, the priest stops at the foot of the altar to recite the Judica me Deus - taken from Psalm 43 (or 42, if you use the Douay Rheims).

This Psalm was used as the Introit of the Mass last Sunday (Passion Sunday), and thus, it was displaced and not recited at the foot of the altar.

In his work on The Liturgical Year, Dom Prosper Gueranger says that this Psalm normally is spoken as the priest's own prayer (and by extension, the prayer of the people), but that on this particular Sunday it becomes a prayer on the lips of Christ. It is Passion Sunday, and thus the keynote is sounded by the Introit precisely by placing these words in Our Lord's mouth:

Judge me, O God, and distinguish my cause from the nation that is not holy: deliver me from the unjust and deceitful man.

We hear certain overtones here that evoke the plotting of the Jews to kill Jesus ("the nation that is not holy"), and of Judas' betrayal of Jesus ("the unjust and deceitful man").

Indeed, as the Psalm progresses it becomes more and more apparent just how much of the Passion is embedded in these stanzas. Viewed through the lens of Calvary, a kind of reversal of meaning takes place with the words, "I will go in to the altar of God." In its original context, it refers to the one who worships God, and goes up to Jerusalem to offer Him a sacrifice; in the context of the Passion, as a prayer on the lips of Christ, it refers to His voluntary offering of Himself - He, the priest and victim - on the "altar of God."

Gueranger is right to point out this fact; but if he is correct, and these words can be understood on Passion Sunday to be the words of Our Lord (in a mystical way), then certainly they can take on this same meaning at any other Mass. The fact that the priest recites them at the foot of the altar does not diminish the meaning, nor does it detract from his status as an alter Christus - he, the priest, acts in the person of Christ. When he speaks the words, "this is my body," he speaks as Christ - why should the same not hold true at the foot of the altar, albeit in a more limited way?

With this in mind, it is more than a little interesting to find in this Psalm at the Foot of the Altar certain echoes, not merely of the Passion in general, but of the Garden of Gethsemane in specific.

Then he saith to them: My soul is sorrowful [perilupos] even unto death. (Matt. 26:38)

And he saith to them: My soul is sorrowful [perilupos] even unto death. Stay you here and watch. (Mk. 14:34)

And being in an agony, he prayed the longer. (Lk. 22:43)

Now is my soul troubled [tetaraktai]. And what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour. But for this cause I came unto this hour. (John 12:27)

The Gospel accounts of the agony in the Garden contain this element: Our Lord, before going to His Passion, was in His soul "sorrowful even unto death," "in agony," and "troubled."

These words harken back to the Judica me Deus, in which the priest confesses:

For thou art God my strength: why hast thou cast me off? and why do I go sorrowful whilst the enemy afflicteth me? ... why art thou sad [perilupos], O my soul? and why dost thou disquiet [suntarasseis] me? (vss. 2, 5)

Can we see the priest, as he makes his prayers at the foot of the altar, confessing his sorrow and distress of soul while he contemplates going up to the altar of God, as a type of Christ in the Garden?

I believe we can, and I believe this rich imagery is very useful at the beginning of the Mass to help set us in the right frame of mind: this is the Holy Sacrifice, the re-enactment of Calvary. Why shouldn't the prelude and preparation to this re-enactment begin with an action that is reminiscent of Christ's prelude and preparation for Calvary, namely His agony in the Garden?

It might be stretching things a bit to say that the altar servers are a picture of the select few disciples which Jesus brought with Him into the Garden, for there the disciples slept, and here the altar servers actually pray with the priest. But by and large the image is reasonable, and perhaps we would do well to hear the words of Our Lord in the Garden as being spoken to us, here and now, at the beginning of Mass: "Watch and pray, that you fall not into temptation."

The Original Novus Ordo: the "Experimental Mass" of '67

2006-04-04T18:15:00.000-07:00

A most interesting peek back into history, to a time when the New Mass was just being constructed and tested out on various observers.

The date was October 24, a Monday in 1967 - just about a year and a half before the Mass was officially promulgated, and almost exactly two years to the date of the Ottaviani Intervention.

The Mass was celebrated "experimentally" in the Sistine Chapel before about 75 Fathers; all participants were given booklets containing the prayers and chants - the goal was meant to be full and active participation, after all! At this Mass, Eucharistic Prayer III made its first debut - a debut which, apparently, required the permission of the Pope. But since it was his personal wish that this prayer be used, permission was readily granted.

The following report on the experimental Mass is taken from the mouth (or pen) of Bugnini himself:

It must be said flatly that the experiment was not a success and even that it had an effect contrary to the one intended and played a part in the negative vote that followed. Few of the Fathers were disposed and ready for the experiment; this was even more true of those who had grasped the value and essential character of the normative Mass. The majority of the Fathers entered the Sistine Chapel with their minds made up and ill-disposed to the new Mass. (Annibale Bugnini, The Reform the of the Liturgy: 1948-1975 [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990], p. 349)

Now watch as Bugnini has to furiously backpedal in order to play down the fact that his beloved pet project went over like a lead balloon:

The ceremonies and chants had been worked out in the smallest detail, and as far as these were concerned the celebration went very smoothly. The setting, however, was completely unsuitable. In the first place, the Sistine Chapel lends itself to elitist, not popular celebrations. (ibid., p. 349)

Ahhh ... interesting admission, isn't it? The Novus Ordo Mass was too "popular" (a more descriptive and suggestive synonym might be "vulgar") to be effectively celebrated with success in such an "elitist" setting as the beautiful Sistine Chapel.

There was an apparent clash; perhaps like trying to model a "popular" pair of jeans in the "elitist" setting of a ballroom dance?

Most important of all, the congregation was in a false position. The Fathers of the Synod had to imagine a fine assembly of ordinary people present in the hall, for it was with such a congregation in mind that the songs, rites, language, and tone of the homily had been chosen. Instead, the Fathers saw around them a gathering of illustrious Church dignitaries. The Italian language and the many sung parts were a further obstacle to participation. (ibid., pp. 349-50)

Don't you just love it? Once again, the New Mass was - by Bugnini's own admission - so dumbed down that it was only going to work with an "assembly of ordinary people"; it just didn't work with "illustrious ... dignitaries." Perhaps it was too undignified, too banal? Beyond that, the very things that were supposed to encourage active participation - "many sung parts" for the congregation to join in, and the vernacular "Italian language" - ended up being "a further obstacle to participation."

I'm just trying to envision the scenario wherein these stately, "illustrious Church dignitaries," who were used to assisting at or celebrating the mysterious, hushed, reverent Tridentine Mass, were suddenly assaulted with a Mass in a language they couldn't all understand, being made to sing "many ... parts" that they didn't know.

If that doesn't sum up the Novus Ordo ... the celebrant and his gaggle of cantors, lectors, Eucharistic Ministers, etc., effectively in your face at every moment challenging the audience, "come on, everybody, let's participate! It will be fun!" ... and all the people want to do is pray and be left alone.

The celebration must therefore have left many of the Fathers with the impression of something artificial, overly pedantic, and quite unparochial. (ibid., p. 350)

You don't say? This is too rich. For the full effect, and that none of the beauty of this be lost, I add:

Artificial: humanly contrived often on a natural model

Pedantic: of, relating to, or being a pedant ("one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge")

Parochial: of or relating to a church parish (remember, Bugnini said his New Mass was perceived as unparochial - i.e. something not related to a church parish - something profane?)

Some of them thought that such a Mass could not possibly be celebrated in a parish. The very term "normative" suggested, incorrectly, that all the parts sung in the Sistine Chapel would have to be sung always and in all circumstances in every parish. Other Fathers, accustomed to individual celebration, found this Mass to be impoverished by omission of the priest's private prayers.

It just gets better and better. The Fathers could not envision this Mass being at home in a parish. Quite naturally, they thought it "impoverished" in comparison to the Tridentine Mass. But this is the best part of all:

Still others, incited by the dogma of the real presence [sic], looked with concern on any reduction in gestures and genuflections and on the lengthening of the liturgy of the Word. In short, the changes in the Mass seemed too radical. (ibid., p. 350)

There you have it. The New Mass was too vulgar, too profane, not dignified enough, "impoverished" in comparison to the Old Mass, apparently seen as a danger to the dogma of the "real presence" - in a word, "too radical."

And somehow it made it through the bureaucratic process, didn't it?

This is where the Ottaviani Intervention picks up, with the relation of this event: "In October 1967, the Synod of Bishops which met in Rome was asked to pass judgment on an experimental celebration of what was then called a 'standard' or 'normative' Mass ... The international press spoke of the Synod's 'rejection' of the proposed Mass, while the progressive wing of the religious press passed over the event in silence."

The basis of the Ottaviani Intervention was the fact that the Synod hated this Mass, but even so, despite this rejection, "we now find that the same 'standard Mass', identical in substance, has reappeared as the New Order of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) recently promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969). In the two years that have passed since the Synod, moreover, it appears that the national bishops' conferences (at least as such) have not been consulted on the matter."

Now go read the rest of the Ottaviani Intervention in light of this historical context ...

Pierre Plantard and The Da Vinci Code

2006-04-04T12:46:00.000-07:00

Once upon a time, March of 1920 to be exact, a man by the name of Pierre Plantard was born in Paris, France. Alright, he wasn't born as a man, and he wasn't born with a name; he was born as a baby, and the name was given to him to by his parents - but you get the idea.

One hardly knows where to begin documenting the bizarre activities of this colorful character.

Plantard set up several fictitious organizations in his lifetime that were anti-Semitic and anti-Masonic. He was sentenced to serve a few months in prison at the end of WWII for setting up organizations without permission, and for "breach of trust."

In June 1956, Plantard founded the Prieure de Sion, an association founded to defend the rights of "the low-rental housing sector." The organization dissolved in 1957.

In the late 1950s, a meeting between Plantard and Noel Corbu (heir to Abbe Berenger Sauniere - yes, "Sauniere") stimulated Plantard's imagination. Corbu had concocted a fantastic story about the priestly Sauniere, involving mystery, treasure, and secret documents hidden in the parish church which contained clues to finding the treasure. The story had been invented out of whole cloth in order to entertain and attract customers at Corbu's restaurant.

But Plantard loved the idea, and so began hatching his own legend surrounding Sauniere. In the mid-60s, Plantard deposited several forged documents with the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris. These forgeries were lodged under the title of "Dossier Secrets," belonging to Henri Lobineau - a false name invented by Plantard.

These forged documents included fake genealogies of the Merovingian kings, which purported to be copied from ancient parchments belonging to - guess who? - Abbe Sauniere. The genealogies - which, it cannot be stressed enough, were faked - proved a blood-relationship between King Dagobert I and, conveniently enough, Pierre Plantard.

These documents also contained records of the founding of the Prieure de Sion, not in the 1950s (as was the historical reality), but in 1099. Included in these lists were records of supposed Grand-Masters of the Prieure, dating all the way back (snicker, chuckle) to the 12th century. Who made the list? Leonardo Da Vinci, Victor Hugo, Debussy, and Isaac Newton, among others.

The Prieure, suggested these forged documents, held the guardianship of the secrets relating to Saunier's treasure. Is any of this sounding familiar yet?

It wasn't until 1984 that Plantard's little fantasy game was exposed by the author/historian Jean-Luc Chaumeil. Having thus been humiliated in print, Plantard let his elaborate game die.

However, for some unknown reason, the insane Frenchman revived the Prieure myth again in the late 1980s. He was quickly stopped in his tracks by Judge Thierry Jean-Pierre; you see, Plantard had actually tried to bring these myths, legends, and false documents to bear upon an actual court case in the early 1990s. He claiming to have evidence that the defendant had been a Grand-Master of the Prieure - I am not making this up.

However, under oath, Plantard admitted to making the whole thing up, and was let off with a severe warning to quit playing games.

That was the end of the Prieure de Sion, because Plantard died in 2000.

Or was it the end of Prieure de Sion, otherwise known in English as the "Priory of Sion?"

In the preface to his best-selling novel, The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown writes: "The secret society of the Priory of Sion was founded in 1099, after the First Crusade. In 1975, parchments referred to as 'Dossiers Secrets' were discovered at the Bibliothèque Nationale, which mention the names of certain members of the Priory, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo and Leonardo Da Vinci."

The book begins with the strange murder of a man named ... [drum-roll] ... Jacques Sauniere, who happens to be a Grand-Master in the Priory of Sion.

Yes, folks, what began as a crazy story, and what later developed into a bizarre fantasy (complete with forged documents) in the hands of a crazy Frenchman, is now the basis for the plot of a best-selling novel - soon to be a blockbuster movie, due out in 2006, directed by Ron Howard.

The tragedy of this is that Brown wrote such a great story around this falsehood, added a myth about Jesus Christ being married to Mary Magdalene, tacked on some lies about the Catholic Church's power-hungry motivation for suppressing "the truth," and has thus succeeded in causing thousands (millions?) of Protestants and Catholics to scratch their heads and think, "Gee ... is this true?"

Well, not exactly. Brown failed to get his history straight on the Priory of Sion, and that was something that had happened within the last 50 years, right there in France (where Brown spent a majority of his time researching for the novel). How far should we then trust this man to accurately report the story of the Nicene Council, the Gnostic Gospels, and the role of Emperor Constantine, events and persons which date back to 1,600-1,700 years ago, in ancient lands?

Stay tuned. More on Brown's version of early Church History later ...

Inside Look at the Neo-Catechumenal Way

2006-04-04T12:22:00.000-07:00

This is a lengthy article by Mark Alessio on the Neo-Catechumenal Way (to which I made reference in my last post), but it's worth slogging through.

Some of the most salient points:

Carmen says "the sacrament is not only the bread and wine but also the assembly, the whole Church which proclaims the Eucharist." Ahem. "Without this assembly proclaiming the Eucharist there can be no Eucharist."

!!!

Kiko says, "Nor do we have priests in the sense of people whom we pick out from among men so that in our name they may get in contact with the Godhead. Because our priest, who intercedes for us, is Christ. And since we are His Body we are all priests."

Thank you, Martin Luther.

Of course, liturgical abuses are the norm for the NCW. Cardinal Arinze had to issue a letter of rebuke to the group a few months ago, insisting - among other things - that:

1) The homily must be reserved to the priest

2) The NCW has two years to make the transition from their peculiar style of communion ("seated, with a cloth-covered table placed at the center of the church instead of the dedicated altar in the sanctuary") - which is a lot like the Baptist version of the Lord's Supper - to the method used by the rest of the Church

3) The NCW needs to stop using Eucharistic Prayer II exclusively

We'll see what comes of it.

Michelle is Mad, but at Least She's Not RadTrad

2006-04-04T10:49:00.000-07:00

A few comments on a post by Michelle Arnold over at Jimmy Akin's blog, called Surviving Sunday Mass.

Already I'm amused by the title. "Surviving Sunday Mass" is a great description of what I did for weeks and months on end before I sold out to the reverence and respect of RadTrad Masses.

I think Michelle and I could probably get along, if we were to sit down for coffee sometime and swap liturgical horror stories. I despise all the things she despises, and probably for the same reasons - even before I read Jimmy's book Mass Confusion and could actually attach a canonical document name or paragraph number to my frustrations, I had a gut-level reaction to the general ambience of and specific actions carried out during my parish's regular Mass.

Holding hands during the Our Father? Sure, that's an easy one. Or listening to half the congregation brazenly impose their gender-neutral and anti-clerical values on the rest of us by mucking up the Gloria ("... and peace to God's people on earth"), the Creed ("who for us men and our salvation ..."), and the Orate Fratres ("May the Lord accept the sacrifice at our hands, for the praise and glory of God's name ... for the good of all God's Church") ... that was another favorite of mine.

But more than this, it was the attitude of this regular parish Mass - and of every Novus Ordo Mass I've ever been to (and believe me, I traveled all over my diocese looking for a good one). And it was not until I heard about those "radical Traditionalists" that it finally made sense - why all those little abuses angered me, why the whole ambience of the Novus Ordo got under my skin, why I seemed doomed to a lifetime of barely surviving Sunday Masses.

Are you ready, boys and girls? The answer is community-centered Mass. Put more harshly, the problem is the cult of Man is replacing the cult of God. And the Novus Ordo Mass just invites this sort of abuse.

I used to think the problem was that priests abused the New Mass. After spending six months attending nothing but the Tridentine Mass, and then having to go back to the New Mass for one Sunday, I realized that the New Mass is the abuse - it's an abuse of the Old Mass, and an abuse of the trust of the council fathers who unwittingly signed the death warrant for the Old Mass when they approved Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Michelle says, "I sympathized with the outrage radical Traditionalists feel when liturgical rubrics intended to safeguard the dignity of the Mass are treated as menu options at Cafeteria Catholicism."

To which I say: Michelle, dear, take another look please. The "menu options" are an officially approved part of the Mass. Shall I use Greeting Form A, Penitential Rite C, Eucharistic Prayer II, Memorial Acclamation A, and Blessing Form C? Or will it be Greeting Form B, with Penitential Rite A, Eucharistic Prayer IV with Memorial Acclamation B, finishing out with Blessing Form B? No! I got it! We'll use form B for both the Greeting and Penitential Rite, add Eucharistic Prayer I (do I use the option to invoke all the saints, or just some of them?) with Memorial Acclamation D, and close with Blessing Form A.

Michelle, are you listening? The do-it-yourself, piece-it-together-on-the-fly form of liturgy is the essence of the New Mass. The priest has options out the Bugnini - and after he's spent years on the job, learning how to get creative with this kind of spontaneous liturgy, tell me how on earth can we expect him to not take spontaneous liberties everywhere else in the Mass?

He's been trained to tinker! Everything about this Mass screams sure, go ahead, fiddle around and fine tune, and nothing in the rubrics of the Mass cultivates the sense that this liturgy is too sacred to be tampered with on a whim. Nothing.

So, I really do feel bad for those folks who are scandalized (as Michelle obviously was) by liturgical abuses, but on the other hand, I don't feel sorry for you - just like I don't feel sorry for someone who goes out to play mud football and ends up coming back dirty.

Folks, you know this New Mass is broken - not merely abused, but essentially broken. It was "fabricated" as a "banal on-the-spot product" (those are Cardinal Ratzinger's words, not mine), specifically designed to please the Protestants and eliminate obstacles to ecumenism (the council said in Sacrosanctum Concilium, par. 1, that the reform was undertaken "to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ").

Of course it's going to be offensive to a Catholic at a gut-level. It ought to be. Why are you so constantly surprised and/or upset by this? You keep going back to it!

What is amazing to me is the spiritual sadomasochism of some Catholics - such as Michelle, well-meaning though she may be. Here she is, having her sensus catholicus trampled upon, and she's forced to engage in a series of exercises meant to counteract the natural frustration she's feeling. Why?

Because this is a cross from Christ, a kind of meritorious suffering that must be endured? I don't think so. I did at one time, but then it dawned on me - isn't it more offensive to God that I'm actually participating in this nonsense?

And what's so sadly amusing about all of this is that people who get so frustrated over liturgical abuses end up becoming the very thing they hate - Michelle alludes to this in an oblique way in her post.

The priest skipped the Creed. So what did she do?

While the congregation was busily singing a hymn of repentance (I kid you not), I flipped to the Creed and, sotto voce, read it aloud. (I’ve found that even a memorized prayer is hard to recall when everyone else is singing a song.)

So she broke with the unity of the congregation, rebelled against the prevailing tide of the current liturgical direction, and did her own thing.

The priest "cordially invited" the congregation "to extend their hands to the elect and pray along with the priest. Then we were to 'welcome' the elect with a hearty round of applause."

Humanistic, anti-clerical nonsense. Michelle knows this. So what did she do?

I prayed but did not extend my hand and settled for aiming a bright smile of welcome to the elect rather than applaud.

Make no mistake about this, folks - what she did in response to these liturgical innovations was come up with a few liturgical innovations of her own. Sure, she felt hers were a bit more on the side of orthodoxy, but that's rather a bit relative in this case, don't you think?

Michelle is so bent on not getting infected with the disease of "radical Traditionalism" that she doesn't realize she's already caught the disease. She's become a liturgical maverick who refuses to play by the rules of her priest, who rebels against the accepted direction of the liturgy when she decides that an "abuse" has occurred, and who spontaneously invents her own liturgical novelties in order to counter-act what she perceives as innovation in the liturgy.

How is this any better than what the liturgical innovators are doing?

It isn't. That's why I quit going. Because I used to do those same things; I'd emphatically say "I believe in one God ... " at the Creed because I knew that's what the Latin text of the Novus Ordo said; I'd change the Domine non sum dignus so that I was saying, under my breath, "Lord I am not worthy to receive you under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed," because - again - I knew that's what the typical text of the Novus Ordo called for; I would close my eyes and clasp my hands during the Our Father because I didn't want to hold hands; I would remain the lone person still kneeling until the final sung "Amen" was over after the consecration, even though everyone else would get up as soon as the singing began; I refused to turn my back on the altar during the sign of peace, and if someone behind me reached up for my hand, I would ignore them.

Basically, it boiled down to this: why was I still attending a Mass whose rubrics I could so little stand that I was barely following any of them any more? Why even go, if at every turn you have to lapse into Liturgical Lone Ranger mode and deviate from what the congregation is doing?

If you're going to go mud-wrestling, expect to get dirty and don't complain. If you're going to go to the New Mass, expect spontaneity, innovation, and a lot of signs and gestures geared towards making the community feel all warm and fuzzy - expect to hold hands during the prayers, expect to be asked to applaud for people, expect to be asked to simulate the priest's gestures and prayers - and don't rebel against this because you are, in fact, a guest in this house. Don't be rude. If you don't like it, stop going.

So Michelle asks:

How do we avoid going rad Trad when the temptations to do so can sometimes be overwhelming?

Apparently she does this by creating her own on-the-spot liturgies, and rebelling against the congregation as she sees fit - all to keep her head above water while participating in the one activity of her week that should bestow peace upon her. Does this not smell a bit funny?

She asks again:

How do we prevent righteous anger at genuine problems in the Church from eating away at our souls like dropped acid and turning us into bitter, disaffected souls isolated from the mainstream of Catholic life?

Ah, but Michelle, this is entirely the wrong question. The first and most obvious question is "why am I likening my local parish Mass to something which drops acid into my soul?"

The problem is that she's already decided the case. After describing several abuses at her local Novus Ordo parish which made her mad enough to have to rebel against her parish's liturgy, she immediately turns her attention to ... finding a "cure, or even an inoculation, to radical Traditionalism"?! Excuse me?!

I don't think Traditionalism is what needs the attention right now. Maybe start with your priest, and since he's not going to listen to you, go to the bishop. Now, he's not going to listen to you either, so you might just want to cut to the chase and write to the pope, who will - I promise - take less severe action than he took against the Neo-Catechumenal Way, who for their abominable liturgical abuses and heretical teachings have earned a stern rebuke from Rome and have been given two years to knock it off, before they receive another warning.

Michelle, here's a better idea and a much better use of your time (assuming you're on this earth to save your soul, and you recognize that you have a limited time in which to do so): find the nearest Tridentine Mass and drop the Novus Ordo like the acid-dispenser that it is. I don't care if that Tridentine Mass is an Indult Mass, a Mass offered by the Fraternity of St. Peter, or a Mass offered by the Fraternity of St. Pius X (which everyone ought to know by now is an option which incurs no penalty for the lay-faithful).

Alternatively, you can continue doing the maverick thing at your own parish, ironically enough, engaging in the same kind of so-called disobedience for which you are trying to find a cure - or at least, an inoculation.

St. Cyril on "One Holy Catholic Church"

2006-04-04T08:37:00.000-07:00

Here's an appropriate message for all the catechumens out there whose baptism is now only eleven days away.

St. Cyril: Catechetical Lecture on the Church

"I believe ... in one Holy Catholic Church ... "

Now then, let me finish what still remains to be said for the Article [of the Creed], "In one Holy Catholic Church," on which we will speak only briefly, though one could say many things.

It is called Catholic because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge, regarding things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; and because it brings into subjection under godliness the whole race of mankind, rulers and those ruled, educated and uneducated; and because it universally gives treatment for and heals the all kinds of sins, whether committed in soul or in body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which has a name, both in works and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts.

And it is rightly named Church because it calls forth and assembles together all men; just as the Lord says in Leviticus, And make an assembly for all the congregation at the door of the tabernacle of witness. Take note that the word assemble is used for the first time in the Scriptures here, at the moment when the Lord puts Aaron into the High-priesthood. And in Deuteronomy also the Lord says to Moses, Assemble the people unto Me, and let them hear My words, that they may learn to fear Me. And he again mentions the name of the Church, when he says concerning the Tables, And on them were written all the words which the Lord spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the Assembly; as if he had said more plainly, in the day in which ye were called and gathered together by God.

The Psalmist also says, I will give thanks unto Thee, O Lord, in the great Congregation; I will praise Thee among much people.

Long ago the Psalmist sang, Bless ye God in the congregations, even the Lord, ye that are from the fountains of Israel. But after the Jews were cast away from His grace because of the plots which they made against the Saviour, He built a second Holy Church out of the Gentiles, the Church of Christians, concerning which he said to Peter, And upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And David prophesying of both of these Churches, said plainly about the first Church, which was rejected, l have hated the Congregation of evil doers; but of the second Church which is built up, he says in the same Psalm, Lord, I have loved the beauty of Thy house; and immediately afterwards, In the Congregations will I bless thee, O Lord.

For now that the one Church in Judaea is cast off, the Churches of Christ are increased over all the world; and of them it is said in the Psalms, Sing unto the Lord a new song, His praise in the Congregation of Saints. This agrees with what the prophet also said to the Jews, I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord Almighty; and immediately afterwards, For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, My name is glorified among the Gentiles.

Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

But since the word Church is applied to different things (it is also used to describe the crowds in the theatre of the Ephesians, And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the Assembly), and since one might properly and truly say that there is a Church of evil doers - I mean the meetings of the heretics, the Marcionists and Manichees, and the rest - for this reason the Faith has securely delivered to you now the Article, "And in one Holy Catholic Church;" that you may avoid the wretched meetings of heretics, and forever remain with the Holy Church Catholic in which you were regenerated.

And if you are ever traveling in cities, do not ask simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor should you ask merely where is the Church, but ask where is the Catholic Church? For this is the specific name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God (for it is written, As Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself for it, and all the rest) and is a figure and copy of Jerusalem which is above, which is free, and the mother of us all; which before was barren, but now has many children.

For when the first Church was rejected, in the second Church - which is the Catholic Church - God has set up, as Paul says, first Apostles, secondly Prophets, thirdly teachers, then miracles, then gifts of headings, helps, governments, divers kinds of tongues, and every sort of virtue - I mean wisdom and understanding, temperance and justice, mercy and loving-kindness, and patience unconquerable in persecutions. She, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, by honour and dishonour, in former days amid persecutions and tribulations crowned the holy martyrs with the varied and blooming chaplets of patience, and now in times of peace by God's grace receives her due honours from kings and those who are in high places, and from every sort and kindred of men.

And while the kings of particular nations have limits set to their authority, the Holy Church Catholic alone extends her power without limit over the whole world; for God, as it is written, has made her border peace. But I should need many more hours for my lecture, if I wished to speak of all the things which relate to her.

In this Holy Catholic Church, receiving instruction and behaving ourselves virtuously, we shall attain the kingdom of heaven, and inherit eternal life; for this reason we endure all toils, that we may be made partakers thereof from the Lord.

The Impact of the Council - By Document

2006-04-04T07:31:00.001-07:00

Document Name: Sacrosanctum Concilium

English Name: Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy

Date: December 4, 1963

Council Document 1 of 16

“We had struggled for a century and a half to bring our opinions to prevail within the Church and had not succeeded. Finally, there came Vatican II and we triumphed. From then on the propositions and principles of liberal Catholicism have been definitively and officially accepted by Holy Church.” (Monsignor Prelot, Le Catholicisme Libéral)

The Central Preparatory Commission had worked for two years prior to the council, drafting the schemas which would be the foundation from which the bishops would work. But already, prior to the opening of the council, there was tension.

Quotes from two of the men who served on the Preparatory Commission should suffice to sketch an outline of the internal struggle that was already brewing.

Archbishop Denis Hurley represents what could be called the more "progressive" faction in the Church at that time. Of the 70 original schemas drafted for the council, he says:

By April/May of 1962 I was in despair and suffering a lack of faith in the Holy Spirit. How could the Council commence with the papers (called ‘schemas’) in such a condition? This was confirmed in conversations I had with several leading cardinals like Liénart, Alfrink, König, Frings, Döpfner and Suenens ... Only the schema on the liturgy was in a presentable state. This was due to the work of the Secretary of The Preparatory Commission on Liturgy, Annibale Bugnini. He was a brilliant liturgist and had brought together all the finest brains on liturgy to prepare the schema.

Another presentable document was that produced by the commission under Cardinal Bea, the German Jesuit who was the antithesis of Cardinal Ottaviani, Secretary of the Holy Office. Cardinal Bea became the figurehead for the progressive tendency within the Council. ("Council Reminiscences", Symposium at the Fortieth Anniversary of Vatican II)

Hurley was in distress over the original schemas because they read too much like the classical theology books of old. Or, to use the words of the man who was then known as Fr. Joseph Ratzinger:

The text was written in a spirit of condemnation and negation ... the content of the text was new to no one. It was exactly like dozens of text-books familiar to the bishops from their seminary days: and in some cases, their former professors were actually responsible for the texts now presented to them. (Theological Highlights of Vatican II, p.20)

The only texts that Hurley says were worth anything were the two texts written by Bugnini (later to become the principle drafter of the Novus Ordo Missae) and Bea - both of whom were progressivists.

Contrast Hurley's remarks with the remarks made by another man who served on the Preparatory Commission, namely Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - a staunch defender of the Church's orthodoxy by anyone's measure, a constant thorn in the side of the progressivists:

I still possess the seventy-two preparatory schemas; in them the Church’s doctrine is absolutely orthodox. They were adapted in a certain manner to our times, but with great moderation and discretion. (Open Letter to Confused Catholics, chapter 14, "Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church")

What happened to the original schemas is well-known to students of the council. Within moments of the council's opening, an extremely well-organized group of liberal bishops - through the mouth of Cardinal Liénart (mentioned by Archbishop Hurley above) - made a motion to have the schemas dismissed - and somehow succeeded in accomplishing the task, despite the failure to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority vote.

Since the schema on the Liturgy was one of the few original schemas deemed by the progressives to be in a useable state, it was retained and became the first topic for discussion.

The Evolution of the Revolution

The subject of reforming the liturgy was not new to the council fathers. Beginning with St. Pius X at the beginning of the 20th century, and so brilliantly undergirded by the great historian of the liturgy, Dom Prosper Gueranger, liturgical reform continued right up to the eve of the council.

Of course, this is not to say that "liturgical reform" has always meant the same thing. Under Pius X and Abbot Gueranger, it meant restoration; what was being called for was not so much change as active participation - and by this latter term was meant interior participation.

Pope St. Pius X complained openly that the faithful were treating the parish building as a place to come on Sunday mornings and say their own private prayers, while in the distance the priest was busy saying his own private prayer - the Mass. It was not uncommon during this time to see the layfaithful receiving Holy Communion before Mass had begun, so that neither their prayers nor the ritual of the Mass itself would have to be interrupted by the distribution of Holy Communion.

Pope St. Pius X put an end to this by encouraging people to receive communion during Mass, and to make frequent (even daily) communions. He restored the place of Gregorian Chant in the liturgy. He called for greater teaching and instruction of the faithful, so that they would begin to understand the Mass in all of its parts, and be able to follow along with it. His famous exhortation comes to mind: "Do not pray at Mass; pray the Mass."

Minor modifications to the liturgy continued at a walking pace, and then broke into a steady jog during the pontificate of Pius XII. In 1945, the liturgical Psalter was revised. In 1948, just three years later, a permanent commission, the Pontifical Commission for the Reform of the Liturgy, was established - with none other than Annibale Bugnini as its secretary. In 1953, the Eucharistic Fast was relaxed to three hours under special circumstances - it was later relaxed in 1957 so that the fast was fixed at three hours prior to any Mass. Also in 1953, a provision was made for evening Masses on Holy Days of Obligation.

In 1955, Pius XII reformed the rubrics of the Mass and the Divine Office. Rev. Francesco Ricossa writes:

For now it is enough to say that the reforms tended to shorten the Divine Office and diminish the cult of the saints. All the feasts of semidouble and simple ranks became simple commemorations; in Lent and Passiontide one could choose between the office of a saint and that of the feria; the number of vigils was diminished and octaves were reduced to three. The Pater, Ave and Credo recited at the beginning of each liturgical hour were suppressed; even the final antiphon to Our Lady was taken away, except at Compline. The Creed of St. Athanasius was suppressed except for once a year. (The Liturgical Revolution Before Vatican II, online here)

Perhaps the greatest change that took place under Pius XII was the reform of the Holy Week liturgy in 1955. That this reform served as kind of a precedent for the New Mass is attested to by no less an authority than the man who promulgated the New Mass, Pope Paul VI:

The beginning of this renewal was the work of Our predecessor, this same Pius XII, in the restoration of the Paschal Vigil and of the Holy Week Rite, which formed the first stage of updating the Roman Missal for the present-day mentality. (Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, April 3, 1969, emphasis added)

Ricossa points out the similarities between the reform of the Holy Week liturgies and the introduction of the New Mass. In both reforms, the reading of the Last Gospel was suppressed; in both reforms, the Psalm Judica Me Deus was suppressed; the role of the priest was greatly diminished in both reforms, many of his duties (chanting the lessons, epistles, Gospels) being taken up by ministers instead; in both reforms, the role of the subdeacon was either eliminated or severely suppressed (for example, the choir took over the subdeaon's chant during the Good Friday Adoration of the Cross).

Other novelties of the new Holy Week reform included: introduction of the vernacular during the Baptismal Promises; the suppression of the Miserere in the Divine Office; alterations in the Exultet; the suppression of eight prophecies on Holy Saturday; the distribution of communion on Good Friday.

With the election of John XXIII, the changes continued, like a steady trickle. In 1960 he cut back the number of lessons during the Office of Matins; he reduced the number of saint's feast days that took precedence over the Sunday to only nine (it was once more than thirty); Ricossa estimates that John XXIII effectively eliminated approximately 80 feasts of saints through various means - suppressing some completely, demoting others in rank so that ferial offices would take precedence, etc.; he eliminated the second Confiteor from the Mass in 1960.

As if to prepare the way for the conciliar reform of the Mass, and to send a message to the council fathers that not even the Canon of the Mass was off limits (the Canon had not been altered since the days of Pope St. Gregory the Great in the 5th century), he added the name of St. Joseph to the Communicantes prayer in the Canon - this was done almost exactly one year before the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was completed.

To be continued ...

On (or Against) Capitalism

2006-04-03T14:06:00.000-07:00

Stephen Heiner takes aim ... scores a pretty nasty hit.

And for those of you just tuning in, no, being anti-Capitalism does not ipso facto make you a Socialist or a Communist. There is a third option, you know ... you can read about it in Chesterton's The Outline of Sanity.

Universal Indult?

2006-04-03T13:44:00.000-07:00

Is the pope going to liberate the Traditional Latin Mass?

If he does, will it really make much of a difference?

A few comments are in order ...

The Mass is a very important piece of the puzzle; the Novus Ordo is so elastic, so watered down, so deficient that it is certainly correct to locate in this Mass the source of much of the current apostasy and crisis.

Ohhhh, you can't say that!

The heck I can't. I'm just repeating what the pope himself said years ago in his book My Life: "The drastic manner in which Pope Paul VI reformed the Mass in 1966 provoked extremely serious damage to the Church ... I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy."

But as important as the Mass is, it most certainly is not - to borrow a phrase from Luther, of all people - the articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae (colloquially, "the be-all and end-all"). Restoring the Tridentine Mass will not bring orthodoxy to the average diocese.

On the contrary, it is the "Novus Ordo World" - the universal embrace of modernity by mankind - that makes the "Novus Ordo Missae" possible. If men and women were living like true Catholics, the Novus Ordo could never survive. For that matter, it would have never been successfully promulgated - there would have been such an immediate uprising against it, a universal rejection of it, that Pope Paul VI would have backed down faster than you can say "Bugnini."

Alas, this is a Novus Ordo World. So the Novus Ordo Mass isn't going anywhere.

What will happen is that certain benevolent priests who fancy themselves broad-minded will begin to offer the Tridentine Mass as an "option" in their parishes - probably in the evening on Sunday, or in the afternoon.

But since they have had no training - and let's face it, the rubrics of the Old Mass are infinitely more complex and demanding than the rubrics of the New Mass - they will of necessity be either butchering the Tridentine Mass, or will be skipping the difficult bits as they see fit.

This already happens at Indult Masses all over the country. The priests offering the Mass have no special attachment to or reverence for it, so they have no inclination to do it well or to enforce the rubrics. Want to receive communion in the hand while standing? No problem. Want to wear jeans and a sweater, or shorts and sandals to Mass? Go for it! Or, as I have seen happen from time to time, the priest will have put all of his mental energy into preparing a homily based on the Novus Ordo readings for the day, and since he won't have time to prepare anything based on the Traditional readings, he'll simply substitute the Novus Ordo readings instead.

Seen it happen.

On the other hand ... this has got to be a good thing for all of those poor priests who have felt convicted and conflicted over the New Mass, who have desired strongly to be able to say the Old Mass, but who do not wish to cause any trouble with their local ordinary. This will be a great relief for them, no doubt, and certainly the Masses they are eventually allowed to celebrate will be done well, and with reverence.

But what is most frightening is the thought of setting these two Masses side by side and letting the people cast the final vote. I fear that, because we live in a Novus Ordo World, the majority of layfaithful will not want to assist at the Old Mass. It's too demanding. It's too "out there" and unreachable for them. So they'll stick with what's easy and comfortable, and then the liberal bishops will have made a point: the people have spoken, and they don't want your silly old museum piece of a Mass.

Mass Readings for Monday of Passion Week

2006-04-03T08:58:00.000-07:00

Epistle: Jonah 3:1-10

And the word of the Lord came to Jonas the second time saying: Arise, and go to Ninive, the great city: and preach in it the preaching that I bid thee. And Jonas arose, and went to Ninive, according to the word of the Lord: now Ninive was a great city of three days' journey. And Jonas began to enter into the city one day's journey: and he cried and said: Yet forty days and Ninive shall be destroyed. And the men of Ninive believed in God: and they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least. And the word came to the king of Ninive: and he rose up out of his throne, and cast away his robe from him, and was clothed in sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published in Ninive, from the mouth of the king and of his princes, saying: Let neither men nor beasts, oxen, nor sheep taste anything: let them not feed, nor drink water. And let men and beasts be covered with sackcloth, and cry to the Lord with all their strength, and let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the iniquity that is in their hands. Who can tell if God will turn, and forgive: and will turn away from his fierce anger, and we shall not perish? And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and God had mercy with regard to the evil which he had said that he would do to them, and he did it not.

Gospel: John 7:32-39

The Pharisees heard the people murmuring these things concerning Him: and the rulers and Pharisees sent ministers to apprehend him. Jesus therefore said to them: "Yet a little while I am with you: and then I go to Him that sent Me. You shall seek Me and shall not find Me: and where I am, thither you cannot come." The Jews therefore said among themselves: Whither will He go, that we shall not find him? Will He go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles and teach the Gentiles? What is this saying that He hath said: You shall seek Me and shall not find Me? And: Where I am, you cannot come? And on the last, and great day of the festivity, Jesus stood and cried, saying: "If any man thirst, let him come to Me and drink. He that believeth in Me, as the scripture saith: Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." Now this He said of the Spirit which they should receive who believed in Him: for as yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Today's Gospel reading contains a cryptic reference to the Passion, just as today's Epistle contains a cryptic reference to the judgment and desctruction of Jersualem after the Passion.

Nineveh was given 40 days to repent of their sins. This city was the capital city of Assyria, the nation chosen by God to be the scourge with which He would strike Israel and scatter them in exile.

But first, that nation would have to be purified. They would have to do penance for their sins and thus avert their own coming chastisement.

Little wonder, then, that Jonah resisted his mission to Nineveh.

Let's put this in perspective: anyone who had studied the Message of Our Lady of Fatima knows that Russia has been chosen by God to be the world's scourge, and that Russia is going to end up annihilating several nations. Some of us suspect that America might be one of the first to feel Russia's sting.

Now suppose that God appeared to you and said, "In 40 days I will destroy Russia, so I want you to go to Moscow and tell them to repent so that their destruction can be avoided."

Would you heed the voice of God? Think that one through carefully before you answer. Option 1: I refuse to go to Russia and preach, they don't repent, and God destroys them, thus ultimately saving America from potential annihilation in the future. Option 2: I go to Russia, preach, they repent, and then they're home-free to come and wipe out my country.

That was Jonah's situation, and that was the choice he had to make. No wonder he decided to run away instead.

Notice that there are three parts to the King's message, once he declares that a national repentance must take place:

1) Let neither men nor beasts, oxen, nor sheep taste anything: let them not feed, nor drink water.

2) And let men and beasts be covered with sackcloth, and cry to the Lord with all their strength

3) and let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the iniquity that is in their hands.

The king declares a national repentance that consists of fasting, wearing sackcloth, and turning away from evil. This is the essence of Lent - fasting afflicts the belly, and sackcloth irritates the skin, so that these two actions can be thought of in general as "mortifying the flesh." But these things are not enough! What God really and truly wants to see is a turning away from sin - or in other words, a firm purpose of amendment.

The mortification is a good beginning; it puts us in a better position to beg God for forgiveness. After all, how seriously is He supposed to take you if you simply lie there, covered in your own filth, making no attempt to move but asking for mercy? Then, having mortified ourselves, we must actually turn away from the sin we have loved, and promise to do everything in our power to avoid those sins in the future - even if that means making permanent lifestyle changes.

Nineveh did those things, and God spared them. But His sparing of them simultaneously means destruction for Israel, because Israel would not repent.

Hundreds of years later, as the God-Man walked the earth, the situation had changed very little. He found Himself having to compare Israel of His day to Assyria of old when He said, "The men of Ninive shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they did penance at the preaching of Jonas. And behold a greater than Jonas here." (Matt. 12:41)

The words of today's Gospel echo the story of Jonah: the Jews ask, "Whither will He go, that we shall not find him? Will He go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles and teach the Gentiles?" Indeed He will. Just as Jonah ceased prophesying to Israel and instead went to "teach the Gentiles" in Assyria, so also will Jesus and His Church soon leave Israel to damnation and go to the Gentiles instead.

And so once again history would rhyme with itself; 40 years after the Passion, another Assyria was sent to chastise the Jews - this time, it was Rome, and this time it was a permanent destruction of the temple, a complete closure of the Old Covenant in favor of the New.

Lent is the 40-day period of grace which Nineveh was granted, replayed in the individual soul. The One who is "greater than Jonah" is here among us - present in His Mystical Body, the Church, and substantially and sacramentally present in the Holy Eucharist - and He is calling us to permanent repentance. The 40 days are almost over now. It is time to buckle down and make the last two weeks of Lent truly mean something - let us resolve to increase our discipline and mortify even more mercilessly the concupiscence of the flesh.

In the Gospel, we are shown the remedy: Jesus cried out at the feast, "If any man thirst, let him come to Me and drink. He that believeth in Me, as the scripture saith: Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

As discussed elsewhere, the punctuation of this verse should cause it to read like a poem of parallels:

A1 - If any man thirst
B1 - Let him come to me
B2 - And drink
A2 - He that believeth in me.
C1 - As the Scripture saith, Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water

The one who thirsts is parallel to the one who believes; and the one who comes to Jesus is parallel to the one who drinks. In this arrangement, the words "As the Scripture saith, etc." belong to a new sentence and refer to Christ, not to the believer.

The word "belly" is in Greek koilia, which refers to the heart or to the innermost being of a man; there is both a forward and a backward-reaching application of this text.

It reaches backwards to Ezekiel's vision in which he saw that "waters issued out from under the threshold of the house [temple] toward the east," and "the waters came down to the right side of the temple to the south part of the altar." (Ezek. 47:1)

But Ezekiel's vision reaches forward to find its fulfillment - it looks to the Passion of Christ, when His sacred Body (which He spoke of as being the temple in John 2) was pierced with a lance, and blood and water flowed from the right side of the New Temple - when rivers of living water flowed out of His koilia, His Sacred Heart.

St. John Chrysostom is only one of many Church Fathers who saw the blood and water as symbols of the two great sacraments: Baptism and the Holy Eucharist.

Beloved, do not pass over this mystery without thought; it has yet another hidden meaning, which I will explain to you. I said that water and blood symbolized baptism and the holy eucharist. From these two sacraments the Church is born: from baptism, “the cleansing water that gives rebirth and renewal through the Holy Spirit”, and from the holy eucharist. Since the symbols of baptism and the Eucharist flowed from his side, it was from his side that Christ fashioned the Church, as he had fashioned Eve from the side of Adam ... God took the rib when Adam was in a deep sleep, and in the same way Christ gave us the blood and the water after his own death.

Do you understand, then, how Christ has united his bride to himself and what food he gives us all to eat? By one and the same food we are both brought into being and nourished. As a woman nourishes her child with her own blood and milk, so does Christ unceasingly nourish with his own blood those to whom he himself has given life. (St. John Chrysostom, The Catecheses, quoted in the Divine Office readings for Good Friday)

These two sacraments, then, are the living waters which flowed from Christ's Sacred Heart, and which must be our remedy against sin - Baptism, which removes Original Sin and makes us children of God and heirs to heaven, and the Holy Eucharist, which St. Ignatius of Antioch (110 A.D.) called "the medicine of immortality, the antidote against death." (Epistle to the Ephesians, 20)

Protestant Scholarship and Matthew 16:18-19

2006-04-01T13:50:00.000-08:00

Jesus speaks to St. Peter in Matthew 16:18-19:

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matt. 16:18-19)

This passage is used by Catholic apologists as a proof-text for the papacy - in fact, two of the phrases in this passage ("you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church," and "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven") are found etched into the high walls at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, as if to say that the Bishop of Rome who rules from this place, as well as all his predecessors and future successors, are heirs to the Petrine promise.

Further, at papal installation ceremonies, when a new pope ascends to the throne of St. Peter, the choir always chants the traditional anthem, Tu es Petrus ("Thou art Peter") - words taken directly from this text.

A rather common objection to this Catholic interpretation, put forward by Protestants, is that the "rock" upon which Christ promised to build His Church was not St. Peter, but rather, the confession made by St. Peter. Alternatively, they will argue that the "rock" is Jesus Himself, so that Jesus was saying, "You are Peter, and upon myself I will build my church."

Here are just a couple of examples:

The rock of which the Lord speaks is that common confession made by all who are part of the Church: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. This is seen, I believe, in the fact that while the Lord is addressing Peter directly, He changes from direct address to the third person, "this rock," when speaking of Peter's confession. He does not say, "Upon you, Peter, I will build my church." Instead, you have a clear distinction between Peter, the Petros, and the demonstrative pronoun preceeding petra, the confession of faith, on which the Church is built. (James R. White, The Roman Catholic Controversy [Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1996], p. 118)

Though Peter's name means rock (petros), Jesus did not say, "You are Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petros) I will build my church." What He said was, "You are Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church."

The word Jesus chose to use for rock ... is a feminine noun that refers to a mass of rock.

...

What Jesus said to Peter could be translated, "You are Stone, and upon this bedrock I will build my Church."

...

The context argues for interpreting "this rock" as referring back to the revelation and its content. In other words, the Lord Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the living God" ... would be the solid rock upon which the Christian faith would rest.

...

The cultural context of the passage also supports interpreting "this rock" as referring to Jesus and His identity as the Son of God. (James G. McCarthy, The Gospel According to Rome [Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1995], pp. 239-240)

Imagine my delight, then, at discovering that there seems to be something of a consensus among Protestant academic scholars that is actually at variance with the opinions of the Protestant apologists. I present here below just three samples of some interesting evidence I found recently while surveying various commentaries on St. Matthew's Gospel ... this kind of intellectual honesty is refreshing, to say the least.

I emphasize again that none of the three scholars quoted below are Catholic. They are decidedly Protestant. They simply know when the evidence stands against them, and how to admit it somewhat gracefully.

P. Lampe's argument ... that both kepa and petros originally referred to a small "stone," but not a "rock" (on which something could be built), until Christians extended the term to explain the riddle of Simon's name is baseless. True, the Greek petros commonly means "stone" in pre-Christian literature; but the Aramaic kepa, which underlies the Greek, means "(massive) rock" ...

... "Rock" now becomes petra (feminine); and on the basis of the distinction between petros ... and petra (here), many attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere "stone," it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the "rock," as Peter himself attests (1 Peter 2:5-8) ... Others adopt some other distinction: e.g., "upon this rock of revealed truth - the truth you have just confessed - I will build my church" ... Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken "rock" to be anything or anyone other than Peter.

... Moreover, the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepa was used in both clauses ("you are kepa and on this kepa"), since the word was used both for a name and for a "rock."

...

The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.

...

Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been lithos ("stone" of almost any size).

...

The objection that Peter considers Jesus the rock is insubstantial because metaphors are commonly used variously, till they become stereotyped ... Here Jesus builds his church; in 1 Corinthians 3:10, Paul is "an expert builder." In 1 Corinthians 3:11, Jesus is the church's foundation; in Ephesians 2:19-20, the apostles and prophets are the foundation ... and Jesus is the "cornerstone." Here Peter has the keys; in Revelation 1:18; 3:7, Jesus has the keys. In John 9:5, Jesus is "the light of the world"; in Matthew 5:14, his disciples are. None of these pairs threatens Jesus' uniqueness.

(D.A. Carson, The Expositor's Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995], pp. 367-70)

Rock (Aram. Kepha). This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times ... Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community ... Jesus, not quoting the OT, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose.

In view of the background of vs. 19 ... one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence ... The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence.

...

Isa xxii 15 ff. undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority, and Roland de Vaux ... rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel ... It is of considerable importance that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are being discussed (cf. xviii 18; John xx 23) the symbol of the keys is absent, since the sayings apply in those instances to a wider circle.

(W.F. Albright, Matthew: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, Anchor Bible, vol. 26 [Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1971], pp. 194-197)

The word "you" in this second clause has strong emphasis, just like the "you" in verse 16 that it echoes. Jesus' meaning is "because you have confessed me as the Christ, you are Peter," that is, a rock.

...

It is well known that the Greek word (petra) translated "rock" here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros ("Peter") to petra is that petra was the normal word for "rock." Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man's name, however, Simon was not called petra but petros. The word petros was not an exact synonym of petra: it literally meant "stone." Jesus therefore had to switch to the word petra when He turned from Peter's name to what it meant for the church. There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the church. The words "on this rock [petra]" indeed refer to Peter.

...

Before this time Jesus alone had had the authority to admit people into the kingdom ... But looking toward the future, He delegated this authority to His disciples. Naturally they had to exercise it in constant subjection to Him and were always accountable to His mandate. Jesus therefore was granting His disciples an office.

...

The rabbis used the words "bind" and "loose" as technical terms for "forbid" and "permit," and, in connection with this, for "pronounce judgment (anathema)" and "absolve from judgment."

...

If the apostles did all this in obedience to Jesus' mandate, then whatever they bound or loosed "on earth," that is, by their word, would truly be bound or loosed in heaven, that is, by God's judgment. Exercising the keys of the kingdom therefore consists not only in making general pronouncements, but also in applying them to individual cases, even to the point of imposing the anathema to preserve the church's holiness.

(H.N. Ridderboss, Matthew [Grand Rapids, MI: Regency Reference Library, 1987], pp. 302-306)

Forberg: Peter - the High Priest of the new covenant?

2006-04-01T11:38:00.000-08:00

A most interesting article ... lots of possibilities to go running off down various other rabbit trails as a result of this.

Peter - the High Priest of the new covenant?
Tord Forberg
Published in the East Asia Journal of Theology, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1986

We read the words Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et tibi dabo claves regni coelorum from Matt 16:18-19 in letters two meters high, under the cupola in St. Peter's Church in Rome. There they express the thought that Peter is the first in the series of popes over the world-wide Catholic church.¹ However, the question whether Peter can also be connected with the high priest in Jerusalem has seldom been raised. After having studied three texts, all o which are localized to the territory surrounding Mount Hermon (Matt 16:13-19, 1 Enoch 12-16 and Test. Levi 2-7), George Nickelsburg has recently drawn a cautious conclusion: "... I am seeking an interpretation that is consonant with the character of Enoch - Levi - tradition, other parallels to which we have found in Matt 16. We may press our inquiry further. We have noted in both 1 Enoch 12-16 and T. Levi a disaffection with the Jerusalem priesthood. Is there any evidence that in ascribing priestly or quasi-priestly functions to Peter, the tradition(s) in Matt 16:13-19 may have viewed the apostle as a counterpart to or replacement of the Jewish high priest?"² It is especially striking that Levi received his call to the priesthood in a vision near the site of one of the shrines of the northern kingdom (Test.Levi 2-7):³ "You shall be his priest and you shall tell forth his mysteries to men" (2:10), and "Levi, to you I have given the blessing of the priesthood until I shall come and dwell in the midst of Israel" (5:2).⁴

My purpose in this paper is to search for additional arguments supporting the hypothesis that Peter⁵ is presented as some kind of successor to the high priest in traditions used by the final redactor of Matt 16:13-19. He worked in early Jabnean times and stood in opposition to the emergent Rabbinate of the Shammaite type.⁶ Against such a background Peter stands out as a kind of Chief Rabbi who binds and loosens, in the sense of declaring something to be forbidden or permitted.⁷ This redactional layer is also clear in Matt 23:13: "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut (kleiete) the kingdom of heaven against men ..." The vitriolic attack on Pharasaism in Matthew 23 shows us a Matthew who is attacking (and being attacked by) "the synagogue 'across the street.'"⁸ Our task, however, is to examine the treatment of Peter in the pre-redactional material.

There is a considerable discussion on the pre-redactional character of vv17-19. These verses are often dealt with together, something which has been vigorously defended by Joachim Jeremias arguing from the poetical structure of the passage.⁹ It may, however, be that v17 is redactional, and that Matthew has rephrased vv13-17 to prepare for vv18-19.¹⁰ These verses contain several Semitisms. The most important one is of course the world-play Petros - petra.¹¹ The tradition on how Peter got his name has a parallel in John 1:40-42. The common roots for these two texts must lie very far back in the gospel tradition.¹² Our task is not to pursue the earliest traceable layer of this tradition but a far more modest one: How was Peter looked upon in the material used by the final redactor who made Peter into a kind of Rabbi making decisions on halakic questions?

This will be done through an examination of some important topics in vv18-19: the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the (temple) rock, and finally the links between our text and the Day of atonement. This will lead us to some concluding remarks.

First we will deal with the keys of the kingdom of heaven, mentioned in Matt 16:19. Keys were often looked upon as a sign of authority.¹³ An early example, often quoted, is Isa 22:22, "And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."¹⁴ Isaiah speaks about the key of the house of David, i.e. of the palace. Later on the Jonathan Targum to this text has a cultic reference, "And I will give the key of the temple and the rulership of the house of David into his hand."¹⁵ The Davidic Messiah seems to have been associated with the temple already in Ps.Sol. 17 where we find him purifying Jerusalem and its polluted temple, mentioned in Ps.Sol. 2:2-3 and 8:11-12.¹⁶ In addition, the keys of the temple seem to have a quite concrete background, which we find in 1 Chron 9:27:¹⁷ the Levites "lodged round about the house of God; for upon them lay the duty of watching, and they had charge of opening (literally "and they (were) over the key"¹⁸) it every morning."

The keys are mentioned later on in two Mishnaic texts.¹⁹ Thus we read in m. Middot 1:8-9, "The Chamber of the Hearth ... there the eldest of the father's house used to sleep with the keys of the Temple Court in their hand (thus far = m. Tamid 1:1) ... And there was a place there, one cubic square, whereon lay a slab of marble in which was fixed a ring and a chain on which hung the keys ... When he had finished locking (the gates) he put back the keys on the chain and the slab in its place, put his mattress over it, and went to sleep."

When dealing with Rabbinic texts dating is always a difficult but important problem. Can we take for granted that the keys of the temple were kept in a box in the temple rock itself²⁰ in New Testament times or earlier? We are hardly in a position to answer that question. But all those texts which tell us how these keys were given back to God when the temple was destroyed²¹ indicate at least that the priestly possession of the keys of the temple was of great importance as a sign of authority as long as the temple was in existence. The oldest of these texts is probably 2 Apoc.Bar 10:18, where we read how Baruch urges the priests (at the fall of the temple in 587 B.C.) to throw the keys of the temple up to heaven to God with the words, "Guard your house yourself, because, behold, we have been found to be false stewards." This text as well as Par.Jer. 4:4-5 and Pesiqta Rab. 26 give us a theological interpretation of the events of the year A.D. 70.²² Josephus also wrote in Contra Apionem 2.108 that the priests kept the keys, "others (sc. priests) ... take over from the outgoing ministers the keys of the building (claues templi) and all its vessels ..."

The words in 2 Macc 2:4-8, a work from the first century B.C., describing how the prophet Jeremiah deposited the tabernacle and the ark on Mount Nebo²³ takes for granted that he was looked upon as the keeper of these keys. Otherwise he would not have access to the holy objects. This supports the hypothesis that 2 Apoc.Bar 10:18 (where we read that Jeremiah's co-worker Baruch initiated the giving back of the keys from the side of the priests) and Par.Jer. 4:4-5 (where Jeremiah as high priest²⁴ speaks in plural on behalf of his fellow priests, "for we have not been found worthy to keep them, because we have been unfaithful stewards") go back to an early tradition, according to which Jeremiah as high priest kept the keys.²⁵ In all these texts the giving back of the keys to God is a direct consequence of the fact that God had taken his hand from the temple, when it was burned by Titus' soldiers.²⁶

It is further evident that the metaphorical language in Matt 16:18 fits the Pharisees badly. The words which describe Peter as the rock on which the church is to be built, and which will not be suppressed by the gates of the realm of death²⁷ fit the high priest much better, being the highest representative of the temple aristocracy on Mount Zion.²⁸

Already in the OT we find the temple mountain described as a cosmic rock²⁹ or as the naval of the world (Ezek 38:12), a metaphor which we also find in intertestamental literature.³⁰ Isa 28:14-22 about the corner-stone which God has laid in Zion is a most important text for our understanding of the Zion-theology. The people in Jerusalem are accused of having made a covenant with the realm of death. However, the corner-stone, laid by God, will not be swept away by any deluge. This Isaiah-text is alluded to by several NT authors.³¹ The most important of these passages is 1 Pet 2:4-10. Here Isa 28:16 is quoted together with Ps 118:22 and Isa 8:14 (all three passages with lithos = "stone" as a key-word) in a context about the readers as a holy priesthood offering spiritual sacrifices. It is thus clear that OT-passages like Isa 28:16 were read with a cultic frame of reference.³² This of course strengthens the possibility of such an interpretation of Matt 16:18-19 as well. This Isaiah-text was read in a similar way by the Essenes about their community in Qumran. This is described as "that tried wall, that precious corner-stone, whose foundations shall neither rock nor sway in their place" (1 QS 8:7-8). In 1 QH 6:26³³ we read that the community is founded by God on the rock, where the author is saved from "the gates of death" (6:24). The community in Qumran and the church are thus described with similar metaphors which have their roots in the OT Zion-theology. In both cases the message is the same: The priestly hierarchy in the temple of Jerusalem is being replaced by the Essenes in the Judaean desert headed by the Teacher of Righteousness or by the church headed by Peter.³⁴

In post-biblical Judaism and in Islam we find many traditions about the temple rock.³⁵ It is looked upon as the gate to heaven as well as to hell (cf. "the Well of the Spirits" in Muslim tradition), as the point of departure for the creation ('aebaen shetijah, m. Yoma 5:2),³⁶ as the centre of the world, and as the rock which restrains the waters of chaos (thus already in Isa 28:16). Under this rock we find the primeval depth, tehom (this m.Para 3:3). Heaven has even been created from the temple rock (thus b. Yoma 54b, a baraitha). It is not possible to date all this material back to the time of the second temple. It seems clear, however, that the Zion-theology was so developed already in the time of Jesus that the words in Matt 16:18-19a easily led a Jewish reader's thoughts to the temple mount.

The introductory words of the pericope on the transfiguration of Jesus give us a third argument that the text had a cultic frame of reference on the pre-redaction level. Matt 17:1 as well as its source in Mark 9:2 date the transfiguration six days after the Petrine confession and the discussion on suffering and martyrdom. This is striking, since the Synoptic gospels contain very few exact chronological notes outside the passion story. The fact that the transfiguration is firmly linked to the Feast of tabernacles³⁷ places our text on the Day of atonement. This opens up new ways of understanding details in Matt 16:17-19.³⁸ Peter may be addressed as "Simon Bar-Jona" in parallelism to Sir 50:1 where the high priest is called "Simon ... son of Onias", and Simon's new name Kefas may be chosen not only because of its meaning but also because of its similarity with the name of the then high priest, Kaiafas. Simon, not Kaiafas, is the mediator between heaven and earth. And certainly it is no coincidence that Peter is declared successor of the high priest on the very Day of atonement. On that day the sins of the people were atoned for. This now becomes the task of Peter, to bind or loosen from sin - a distinctively priestly task.

Before A.D. 70 the temple on Mount Zion was the very centre of the Jewish world. Pious Jews from all over the diaspora made the pilgrimages there, and the sins of the people were expiated. After the year 70 the situation changed. We read about this in a Rabbinic tractate: "... Rabbi Joshua ... beheld the Temple in ruins. 'Woe unto us,' Rabbi Joshua cried, 'that this, the place where the iniquities of Israel were atoned for, is laid waste!' 'My son.' Rabban Yohanan said to him, 'be not grieved. We have another atonement as effective as this. And what is it? It is acts of lovingkindness.'"³⁹ This story mirrors how the temple was replaced by the Rabbinic house of teaching and the synagogue. The importance of the academy at Jabne can hardly be exaggerated. As stated above the final redaction of Matthew took place early in the Jabnean period, when the Shammaites still dominated Pharaisaism. The redactor's frames of Judaism, the importance of which had grown much during the first century A.D.⁴⁰ Peter is now looked upon as a counterpart to the emerging Rabbinate in Jabne.⁴¹ In Matthew we find two scribal "schools" opposing each other, the Matthean one and the Pharisaic one. This situation is mirrored in two pericopes preceeding our text, Matt 15:1-20 and 16:5-12, where v12 explicitly warns the reader for the teaching (didache) of the Pharisees and Sadducees. In these two texts Matthew makes Jesus repudiate the Jewish magisterium. This prepares the way for our pericope about the Petrine magisterium.⁴²

The redactive work did not result in a total harmonization of the gospel material. Instead, a lot of material which reflects older situations was used without extensive re-writing, such as the particularistic statements in Matt 10:5-6 and 15:24 and the pericope on temple tax in Matt 17:24-27. The tension between tradition and redaction is also clear in the trias on worship in Matt 6:1-18.⁴³

It is now time to summarize the thesis proposed in this paper. In the material which was used by the final redactor Peter was looked upon as a counterpart to the high priest. He is the highest representative for the people of God, for a church metaphorically said to be built on the temple mount.⁴⁴ Thus the frames of reference for this tradition are priestly. This influences our interpretation of the contrasting words "bind" and "loose" in v19. If this verse is to be interpreted in the light of the priestly frames of reference which we have found in Enoch - Levi-tradition, it deals with binding in and loosing from sin, i.e. a priestly function given to Peter instead of to the temple priests under the high priest.⁴⁵ This interpretation of the pre-Matthean material in vv18-19⁴⁶ is supported by John 20:22b-23 and Matt 18:15-21, where the Matthean text of course is the most important one. Here the evangelist has "inserted his doublet of 16:19 into a Q saying about forgiveness and where Peter himself brings up a question about forgiveness."⁴⁷ Further research must deal with the links between this pre-redactional layer of Matthew and John 1:41-42, something which I have not tried to illuminate in this paper.

Footnotes

¹ For difficulties in seeing the historical Peter as a monarchial bishop with authority over the whole church, see Mc Cue 1974 and especially Brox 1976. Ludwig 1952 deals with early church exegesis of Matt 16:18-19

² Nickelsburg 1981, quotation from pp. 595-96

³ Ibid., p. 589

⁴ Stendahl 1962, 787: "An Aram. fragment to Test.Levi 2:3-5 found at Qumran may give an astonishing complex of parallels to this passage and even to its connection with the country around Caesarea Philippi ... "

⁵ The scholarly debate on Peter is dealt with in Rigaux 1967 and Brown et al 1973

⁶ Fornberg 1984

⁷ This is the normal interpretation, see, e.g., Beare 1981, 355-56. According to Basser 1985 such an interpretation of the words "bind" and "loosen" cannot be shown until the Gaonic period. For a totally different interpretation connected with exorcism see Hiers 1985.

⁸ Stendahl 1968, xi.

⁹ Jeremias 1926, 68-69

¹⁰ Vogtle 1973, supported by Hahn 1977. See also Kahler 1976.

¹¹ See, e.g., van Cangh and van Esbroeck 1980, 320-21. For the contrary view see Wilcox 1976, 79-81

¹² On this see Brown 1966, 302

¹³ Jeremias 1965a. NT texts are Matt 16:19, Luke 11:52, Rev. 1:18, 3:7, 9:1 and 20:1. In 3 Apoc.Bar. 11:2 Michael is called "the holder of the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

¹⁴ Cf. Rev 3:7, "... the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens."

¹⁵ Dahlberg 1975, 78. This Targumic text reflects a time when it was no longer self-evident that the keys of the temple had been in the hands of the priests, i.e. a time after the fall of the temple in A.D. 70. The keys of the temple seem to have been unknown to the men behind the Babylonian Talmud. The only relevant passage is b. Ta'anit 29a on how the keys were handed back to God.

¹⁶ Nickelsburg in a letter to the author, Sept. 17, 1985

¹⁷ Dahlberg, op.cit. 76-77

¹⁸ The LXX reads "keys" in plural

¹⁹ Gerhardsson 1963, 59

²⁰ Emphasized in Gerhardsson ibid. We may find some support for this idea in a Coptic Jeremiah apocryphon (published in Kuhn 1970), where we read in ch.29: "He (sc. Jeremiah) took all the keys and put them in the tower. He said: 'I tell you, tower, receive the keys of the house of the Lord and keep them until the people returns from captivity.' Then the stone opened its mouth and received them from him." Cf. ch.41 where we read how "the pillar" gives back the keys. The earliest Coptic manuscript dates from the 7th cent. A.D., Kunh op.cit., 104

²¹ 2 Apoc.Bar 10:18, Par.Jer. 4:4, Abot R. Natan A4 and B7, y.Shekalim 6:3, b.Ta'aint 29a, Pes.Rab. 26:6, Lev.Rab. 19:6, 2 Targ.Ester 1:3 and a Coptic Jeremiah apocryphon (see Kuhn op.cit., 95). For these texts see Bogaert 1969:1, 234-41 and Gry 1948.

²² Bogaert op.cit., 241. 2 Apoc.Bar and Par.Jer. seem to go back to an early source known to the author of 2 Macc, thus Nickelsburg 1973.

²³Goldstein 1983, 182-84. See also Jeremias 1965.

²⁴ Thus Bogaert, op.cit., 238

²⁵ This also seems to be taken for granted in the Coptic Jeremiah apocryphon ch.41, where we read that Jeremiah entered the Holy of Holies. The relevance of these texts about Jeremiah may be supported by the fact that he is mentioned in Matt 16:14

²⁶ The destruction of the temple in fire is mentioned explicitly in Abot R. Natan B7, b.Ta'anit 29a and 2 Apoc.Bar 10:19 and is taken for granted in Abot R. Natan A4. For the symbolism in what happens to the keys cf. Ezek 11:22-23 and 43:1-5 on the glory of the Lord.

²⁷ The expression "gates of hell" is widely used: Ps 9:14, 107:18, Isa 38:10, Job 38:17, Sir 51:9 Hebrew, Wisd 16:13, 3 Maac 5:51, 4 Ezra 4:7 and Ps.Sol 16:2. See Jeremias 1968, 924-28

²⁸ It is unlikely that Matthew wants to direct the thoughts of the readers to the rock in Banyas with the cave of Pan and the spring of Jordon as an antitype of the church. This is argue by, e.g., Immisch 1916; cf. Milik 1955, 405. The symbolism holy rock - temple - cave - may, however, be the same, Jeremias 1926, 73

²⁹ For the mount of Zion see Isa 2:2-3 (with parallel in Micah 4:1-2), further Ps. 15:1, 24:3 and 99:9, Isa 57:13 and Zech 8:3. It is explicitly described as a rock in Ps 27:4-5, 61:3-5 and Isa 30:29 MT. For Zion-theology see Ringgren 1966, 161-63.

³⁰ 1 Enoch 26:1-2, Jub 8:19 and Josephus, War 3.52

³¹ E.g., Matt 21:42, Luke 20:17, Rom. 9:33, 10:11, Eph. 2:20, 2 Tim 2:19 and 1 Pet 2:4,6

³² Nickelsburg 1981, 596 and a letter to the author, Sept 17, 1985

³³ For this text and its relationship to Matt 16:13-20 see O. Betz 1957

³⁴ Schmidt 1933, 100-2 emphasizes the parallelism between Peter and the temple rock. The possibility that the names Kefas/Peter shall lead the thoughts to the temple rock is supported by the fact that it cannot be shown conclusively that they were used earlier than our text. But Fitzmeyer 1979 presents a possible example of kp' as a personal name in one of the Elephantine papyri.

³⁵ For what follows see Jeremias 1926, a most important work. See further Bohl 1974, Donner 1977, Schmidt op.cit, Vogt 1974 and Keel 1978, 118-20. For OT times see Keel op.cit., 179-83

³⁶ Cf. Jeremias op.cit., 66

³⁷ Riesenfeld 1947

³⁸ For what follows see van Cangh and van Esbroeck op.cit

³⁹ Abot R. Natan A4

⁴⁰ Neusner 1979. For the different gospels and the historical situations taken for granted see Smith 1979

⁴¹ Most of Matthew reflects this emergent Rabbinate. See Fornberg op.cit. and, somewhat differently, Davies 1964

⁴² Meier 1979, 100-6, 113-14

⁴³ See H.D. Betz 1985

⁴⁴ Scholars have often referred to Isa 51:1-2 where Abraham is mentioned as a rock, from which the Jewish people has been hewn out. We find this metaphor later on in a reworked form in Pseudo-Philo 23.4. See also a still later text (dependent upon Matthew 16 according to Lampe 1979, 229-30), Jalqut 1 sec. 766 (a quotation from Midrash Tanchuma to Num 23:9), where we read, "When God looked at Abraham who should appear, he said, 'Behold, I have found a rock (ptr'), on which I can guild and found the world.' Thus he called Abraham a rock." The hypothesis that Peter is looked upon as a second Abraham, thus Chevalier 1982, must be rejected, because the metaphorical use of the rock is different in Isaiah 51 and Pseudo-Philo compared to Matthew

⁴⁵ Cf. the central role of the high priest during the Day of atonement: Leviticus 16, Sir 50:1-21 (?) and m. Yoma

⁴⁶ Cf. Peter's binding of Ananias and Sapphira in sin in Acts 5:1-11

⁴⁷ Nickelsburg op.cit., 594-95

Fr. Gommar de Pauw's Letter to Pope Paul VI

2006-03-31T19:55:00.000-08:00

This letter was sent to Pope Paul VI in 1967 by Fr. de Pauw, one of the early leaders of the Traditionalist Movement ... it's a slice of history, to be sure.

--------------------------------------

Your Holiness:

I still vividly remember that December 1, 1965 evening when Your Holiness personally blessed me and my work with the traditionalist Catholics who selected me to be their spokesman. I shall never forget the crushing handshake of Your Holiness after I had candidly stated that we, traditionalist Catholics, were ready to collaborate most loyally with Pope and bishops for the implementation of the decisions of the Second Vatican Council, but would continue to oppose the false interpretations of those decisions which were already then causing so much confusion in the minds and hearts of our Catholic people.

I equally remember how Your Holiness literally begged me to urge the Catholics I was to lead in their fight for "truth and tradition" not to lose faith in the Church. And Your Holiness justified that request by stating: "Once the dust stirred up by the recent Ecumenical Council will have settled down, the Church will come out of all this with renewed strength and vigor."

May I humbly submit that during this past year and a half I have labored as hard as any human individual could to do precisely what Your Holiness asked me to do: to keep the faith in our Church alive among those Catholics who had justifiedly become alarmed to the point of publicly asking themselves and others: "What, in the name of God, is happening to our Catholic Church?!" And may I add that one of the principal aspects of my efforts to keep that faith in our Church alive has consistently been the stressing of belief in the divine foundation of the Roman Papacy and respectful loyalty to its present incumbent, Your Holiness, Paul VI.

Already then, December 1, 1965, Your Holiness asked me to realize that our Church was going through "one of the gravest crises in its history." If such a description of our Church's condition was true then, how much more can the same be said of our Church today! To say that it has gone from bad to worse would be the understatement of the century.

Today's condition of the Catholic Church is beyond the point of doctrinal heresy, factual schism and even apostasy. It is in a state of chaos and utter collapse resulting from the systematic destruction of first our liturgical and other traditions, and now our very beliefs and morals.

In 1965 we respectfully petitioned Your Holiness to ensure that our American bishops correctly implement the newly promulgated Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, and to permit the retention of at least one Latin traditional Mass a day for the millions of Catholics of the "Latin" Rite who continued to find much deeper spiritual satisfaction in the traditional Mass than in any of the novelties now made available in their churches.

We also begged Your Holiness to urge the greatest moderation upon certain members of the post-conciliar Liturgical Commission in Rome, and to prevent the unbelievably radical and useless changes which they were then fanatically preparing and which were bound, we pointed out, to increase the confusion and despair which the first liturgical changes had already produced among the Catholics, priests as well as lay persons.

Not only have our 1965 requests been ignored, but those of us who dared to publicly submit them have been ridiculed, maligned, defamed, ostracized, and, yes, persecuted. (I need not remind Your Holiness of what I personally have suffered at the hands of our "liberal" Church Establishment under the leadership of the same Baltimore archbishop whom your advisors placed on your list of new cardinals at the very time he was being investigated by your Holy Office on charges of heresy.)

In open violation of all past and present liturgical directives, the Roman Catholic Liturgy, once the envy of all other religions, has for all practical purposes been destroyed. And it gives us very little personal satisfaction to know that all those responsible for this destruction were in advance irrevocably anathematized by the still valid solemn decree of the Council of Trent: "If anyone says that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only, let him be cursed." (Canons of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, n. 9.)

Coercive changes have subrogated our traditional practices with the "litniks" of our Church Establishment daily intensifying their attempts to subjugate the "people of God" to becoming "Protestant" Catholics.

Our churches are no longer Catholic in appearance, atmosphere or aim. Tables looking like butcher blocks or ironing boards have replaced our altars in perfect harmony with the 16th century Protestant Reformation directives bent on destroying the belief in the dogma of Transubstantiation and the sacrificial nature of the Mass and replacing it with a symbolical transignification-communal meal.

Our Holy Mass has disappeared an in its place our people are offered a holy mess of vernacularized vacuum stripped of the surety, serenity, uniformity, and dignity of our traditional Latin liturgy.

Hymns associated with the anti-Catholic rebellions of Luther, Calvin and Wesley have unceremoniously uprooted our cherished Catholic hymns to our God and the Blessed Mother, while our uniquely Catholic Gregorian and polyphonic music has been discarded for sounds and instruments sometimes borrowed from the decadent milieu of young human animals.

Communion rails are ripped out and Holy Communion is refused to the "people of God" unless they stand (not kneel) to receive Him at the mention of Whose name all knees should bend, if one is still to trust the text of the "unrevised" New Testament we were given at one time in our Catholic institutions.

The Most Blessed Sacrament, to be reserved in "the central place of honor" according to the legitimate liturgical directives, is relegated to an obscure shoe box-type niche, playing much less than second fiddle to the throne-type chair of the presiding clerical Buddha set up in dead center of a religious flavored discotheque-barn from which the traditional statues and Stations of the Cross have been shipped to the nearest auction gallery or antiques shop.

A steadily increasing number of once unsuspecting Catholics are suddenly realizing that, as we predicted more than two years ago, they are gradually, first with subtle and then with increasing bold changes in the liturgy, being ushered into a humanistic rite of a universal brotherhood meal expressive of the existentialist pantheistic concepts of an illuminated "one-world-religion" preparing the way for a communist controlled "one-world-government."

But, not only our liturgical traditions have been destroyed. The very beliefs and morals of our Catholic heritage are now up for grabs in our so-called "Church of the Aggiornamento." Steadily, day in and day out since Vatican II, silt has subversively been shunted in to the minds of the Roman Catholics in America.

Our "Catholic" universities, seminaries, and colleges are bluntly rejecting the religious character that justifies their existence, and their teachers of the "new theology" are calling into question, if not outright rejecting, every tenet of our doctrinal heritage. Not only are they now ridiculing the objective and historical value of both Scripture and Tradition, but they are even eliminating such fundamental Christian beliefs as the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour, His virgin-birth, as well as the belief in the Blessed Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost now very nonchalantly replaced with the unholy trinity of Marx, Freud and Teilhard de Chardin.

Sunday after Sunday our traditional dogmas and moral precepts are denigrated with pseudo-modern preachments of Socialism or worse emanating from our pulpits occupied by "new breed" clergymen whose pathological obsession with sex has brought them to the low point of not only advocating the end of clerical celibacy, but even of condoning fornication, homosexuality, trial marriages, artificial birth control, divorce, and abortion.

Our Church Establishment's press and radio and television presentations are totally captured by the same heretical forces. And our once respected nuns not only have become nonentity "nones" with absurdity of demeanor and dress, but are sabotaging the religious instruction of our youngsters and children by replacing our traditional catechisms with brain-washing religion (?) books subtly poisoning the minds of our coming generations into gradual acceptance of first a unitarian, then a pantheistic, and finally an atheistic philosophy of life.

While some of our American cardinals and bishops are way in front of these apostatic hordes of religious rioters, the rest of our hierarchy are burying their heads in the sand, rocking their consciences to sleep with the proverbial "Everything will be O.K.!" or trying to compensate for the trust and respect they no longer command among their own Catholic people by hob-nobbing with those

outside-the-fold merely to produce nothing but a superficial inter-faith harmony built on the swift sand of doctrinal compromise and false hopes.

Your Holiness, we traditionalist Catholics, see the evil visibly extant and reject any portion of that evil!

Your Holiness knows better than any other person how we of the C.T.M have bent backwards to remain loyal and obedient to both the spirit and the letter of the recent Ecumenical Council, including those of its non-doctrinal decisions of which we could understand neither the necessity nor the usefulness. However, taking a closer look at the "Conciliar" church forced upon us in the name of Vatican II, and simply judging the tree by its fruits, we are tempted to agree with one of your own immediate collaborators in Rome who has been quoted as characterizing the recent Vatical Council as "a sinister farce acted out by a number of good-for-nothings, some of whom, despite the gold crosses on their chests, don't even believe in the Holy Trinity or the Virgin."

Your Holiness, we were, we are, and we intend to remain members of the Catholic Church, and we refuse to become absorbed into any new conciliar church! We condemn and reject the conciliar church!

In spite of all the gigantic and expensive promotional techniques used to "sell" it, the "Conciliar" church fails to fascinate the public, and refuses to spiritually refresh the individual. Instead it is repugnant to the point of rejection so tragically evident in the all-time low of our conversion rate and religious vocations, and the pathetic trek of our most loyal and devout Catholics transferring the almost snuffed out candle of traditional Catholic beliefs and practices from our desecrated churches to the underground sanctuary of their hearts and homes.

Your Holiness, if no immediate action is taken by you, the public reality of the Catholic religion will phase out very soon. Already the memory of a "real" Mass is fading away from the minds of our younger generation, while their elders are growing indifferent or bitter over a Church which, if all her former beliefs and practices were so irrelevant as to be replaced so quickly and drastically, they prefer to forget as the biggest hoax ever on record.

Your Holiness, take one last, hard look at the dying embers of your Church and ours! And decide, bluntly and honestly, whether you wish to be a pope, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Supreme Pontiff of the one true Church, or to perpetuate your current image of the bishop of Rome, the first among equals, with a place of honor but without authority within the ranks of a so-called "college" of bishops.

With no personal offense meant, we must truthfully confess that we are not the least interested in Bishop or even Patriarch Montini. The true affection and obedient respect which we still have for you goes to you only as Pope Paul VI, Vicar of Christ, Supreme Pontiff, with true power of jurisdiction over all Catholics, including patriarchs, cardinals, and bishops. Only a pope who is willing to exercise his God-given prerogatives can save the Church now from further disintegration!

Does Your Holiness remember how you enthusiastically took my hands in your that December 1, 1965, when I respectfully but candidly told you that we, traditionalist Catholics, do not believe in two thousand five hundred little popes but rather in two thousand five hundred bishops and one Pope?

This statement of policy of our C.T.M. still holds today with this difference: But for a few exceptions which we can count on the fingers of one hand, we no longer believe in our bishops who betrayed you and us, but we still believe in a Pope! We even still believe in Pope Paul VI if he starts doing immediately what he failed to do so far: act like a pope!

Your Holiness, may I most respectfully but with the candidness of a grown-up son who loves his father deeply tell you, that, contrary to what your entourage of flatterers tells you, your image to the traditionalist Catholics, your most loyal sons and daughters, has been one of a very weak Pope who contradicts today what he affirmed yesterday, and wastes his energy in trying to reconcile the irreconcilable: water and fire, error and truth, modernism and traditionalism.

We of the C.T.M. still refuse to join the increasing number of Catholics all over the world who accuse you of being part of the team out to destroy the Church we once knew, and of being less interested in remaining the Supreme Pontiff of Christ's one true Church than in becoming the Chief-Chaplain of a new one-world religion in the service of a one-world government.

We of the C.T.M. still have pent up in the reserve of our hearts the enthusiastic loyalty we, traditionalist Catholics, exclusively set apart for our Supreme Pontiff. And we would like nothing better than to forget the past four years and shower our loyalty on a Paul VI turned into a new Saint Pius X who had the courage to face the reality of enemies within our own ranks and the integrity to condemn them. The first four years of your pontificate, Your Holiness, have been disappointing to the most loyal of your sons and daughters. But, late as it is, you still have the opportunity to once more be capable instead of culpable.

May we, the traditionalist Catholics whose unworthy spokesman I am, help Your Holiness out of the impasse your enemies cornered you into, by humbly submitting to you the following two requests:

1) Publicly announce via all available international public media that you are again exercising the prerogatives of the Supreme Pontiff of Christ's One True Church, and that the interregnum of Vatican II is over.

Let the world know that the Second Vatican Council started as an honest try on the part of a wonderfully sincere but shamefully abused old man, the unforgettable "good Pope John," but turned out to be a horrible mistake.

Maybe it was precisely the fear of this horrendous possibility that caused the Holy Ghost to have Pope John declare from the very start that Vatican II, unlike all previous Ecumenical Councils, was not a doctrinal Council but simply a pastoral one, thus leaving the door open for any future Pope to eradicate it from the records.

Your Holiness, when honest people commit a blunder they admit it and try to undo it as quickly as possible. Vatican II has so far produced nothing but confusion and disunity among the people of God's Church. It takes humility and courage to admit that even a Pope, outside the realm of his infallible ex cathedra definitions, can commit a blunder. But it is this kind of humility that endears a truly great leader to his subjects. Even so, you know better than all of us together that to lose face is nothing compared to losing souls.

Rescind that falsely interpreted and abused "Collegiality" decree immediately and permanently. The burden of the Papacy cannot be shared and was never intended to be. To Peter and to him alone were given the keys of the Kingdom. Peter and Peter alone was appointed to strengthen the faith of "his brethren," the first bishops who governed the primitive Church not just with but under Peter. Stop wearing that bishop's mitre and place the papal tiara back on your anointed head where it was placed the day you accepted to serve as Christ's Vicar and Supreme Pontiff. You accepted the job; you have tasted the privileges -- now, taste the responsibilities; they are the two sides of the same coin. Give us another opportunity to let the world know once again that: "Habemus Papam! We have a Pope!"

Stop accepting decisions made by your alleged "advisors." Stand on your own two feet! These advisors have led you and the Church into the abyss of their anti-Christ activity. They have forced you into a world position of being apparently at ease in such impossible situations as your praying at the pantheistic monstrosity of the United Nations' "meditation room," your denying to the favorite visionary child of Fatima the favor granted to publicly known, unrepentant examples of degraded womanhood, your hobnobbing and exchanging symbols of religious authority with leaders of what still are heretical or schismatic sects, and above all, your lending respectability to the leaders of international Communism, which is still out to destroy our Church and all other religious bodies for that matter.

Stop listening to the politically attuned and diabolical-oriented "advisors" who have infiltrated the highest echelons of our Church, exactly as Our Lady foretold in her last message of Fatima which has been unjustifiedly withheld from our Catholic people for seven years now.

Stop listening to the red and purple-clad crypto-atheists who are readying your Alitalia jet for another melodrama in Moscow, of all places!

Listen instead to the genuine Roman Catholic, the traditionalist "man and woman in the pew" who want their Pope to act like a Pope; the same Catholic who continues to kneel when receiving his living God in Holy Communion; who still prays the Rosary to his Mother in Heaven; who still genuflects at the words "And the Word was made flesh by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary: and was made man"; who still reads the Last Gospel of St. John in his or her worn-out missal; who still says the Leonine prayers after Mass for the conversion of Russia; who still abstains from meat on Fridays; who still goes to church on Sundays instead of Saturdays; in one word, the traditionalist Catholics who refuse to turn their backs on the Son of God for any son of man, despite the red or purple he proudly preens.

2) Establish a new "Vernacularist Rite" for those interested in it, and publicly revitalize our now dormant centuries-old Latin Rite by eliminating from it the prelates and priests who planned its destruction.

If there are still persons who prefer to continue in the now de facto existing "non-Latin" rite, we certainly do not wish to deprive them of that satisfaction. We would only suggest to them that they in turn request Your Holiness to do some spiritual cleaning in their non-Latin sector of your Church, and clean house of such cancer spots as Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, San Francisco, Atlanta, Oklahoma, San Diego and other Worcesters which coercively infect the whole. Friends on the surface, the heretical pseudo-cardinals and bishops in command of those dioceses are your enemies behind your back, Your Holiness.

We, traditionalist Catholics, however, can no longer have anything to do with an Establishment that has completely betrayed the traditions and the beliefs of the Church of our Fathers.

We have received information that the upcoming Synod of Bishops scheduled for next month in Rome is at last willing to recommend the celebration of one mass in Latin each Sunday in each parish for the benefit of those of us described as older Catholics who failed to adapt themselves to the so-called "aggiornamento."

While we might have gratefully accepted this arrangement two years or even one year ago, today we must sorrowfully label such proposal as "too little and too late!" We are no longer part of the conciliar church establishment, and no belated Latin Mass left-overs can now satisfy the spiritual hunger of the traditionalist Catholics. We just could not stand the smell of a dwelling where we would have to live again under the same roof with the Shehans, the Deardens and other Codys of an Alfrinkitis-infected Conciliar church which has "entered into a league with death, and made a covenant with hell." (Isaias, 28, 15.)

Your Holiness, I fully realize how presumptuous it would be for me to approach Your Holiness on matters of this nature in simply my own personal behalf. However, may it please Your Holiness to accept the following concrete proposals as coming from the millions of distressed and suffering loyal Roman Catholics whose spokesman I have become in the United States of America, as well as from the countless other Catholics with whom our Movement has coordinated its efforts in twenty-eight other countries.

It is in the name of those millions of loyal Roman Catholics that I now formally request Your Holiness to establish a new "vernacularist rite" for those interested in it, and publicly revitalize our now dormant centuries-old Latin Rite by eliminating from it the prelates and priests who planned its destruction.

This rejuvenated Latin Rite will, of course, incorporate the doctrines of the traditional "Profession of Faith" as well as its concomitant Anti-Modernistic oath, and will live by the laws and liturgy that existed on October 9, 1958, the day the saintly Pope Pius XII went to his eternal reward.

The Mother that generously allows some of her children to keep their Abyssinian, their Alexandrian, their Antiochian, their Armenian, their Byzantine, their Chaldean and other rites, should do no less for her Latin Rite children, who are tired of being treated as the proverbial stepchildren and feel equally entitled to this public acknowledgement of their maturity and love of our Faith.

We respectfully request that Your Holiness personally and immediately, without going through any of the customary red-tape delays, allocate to the "vernacularists" certain churches, rectories, schools, convents, and seminaries to fill their needs, while at the same time solemnly reaffirming the established property rights of the Traditionalist Roman Catholics of the Latin Rite over all other Roman Catholic church buildings and properties in the U.S.A.

We respectfully request that Your Holiness appoint the Moderator of the C.T.M., the Most Reverend Bishop Blaise Kurz, the principal Ordinary of the Traditional Latin Rite in the U.S.A., and empower him to proceed with the immediate consecration of new bishops selected from the list of one hundred and fifty-six American priests who have joined me in this last all-out effort to save our Church.

May I also inform Your Holiness that these priests, the cream of the crop, have also been joined by fifteen Sisters, eleven Brothers, eleven seminarians, and two thousand one hundred and twenty-eight American families, who are ready to immediately organize and support our renovated centuries-old Latin Rite for the spiritual benefits of millions of other Catholics who have secretly expressed their support to us and are only waiting for Your Holiness' public seal of approval to publicly join our ranks.

Your Holiness! In the name of Jesus Christ, your and our Lord and Saviour, have the courage to disperse the false shepherds and listen to your own conscience! Prove once again to friend and foe alike that the Gates of Hell did indeed not prevail. Stir the embers of a dying Church and, with gallant despair, make her once more a House of Refuge in lieu of a house of refuse. Bind instead of grind the gnawing wounds of Christ's Mystical Body.

Holy Father! We beg you to leave the dead-end Appian way into which your advisors steered you. We do not want you to grace the pages of future history books as one of our weak Popes and your picture in them captioned with "Paul, the Weak" rather than "Paul, the Great." Let history recount Paul VI as the Pope who put the Church on guard again, the Pope who, after one of the gravest crises in her history, gave back to the Church her attributes of Greatness, Uniformity, Authority, Respect, and Dignity.

Your Holiness! It would indeed be most inconsistent for the spokesman of loyal traditionalist Roman Catholics to become the sender of ultimata in his dealings with the Supreme Pontiff of his Church. However, I would be remiss in my responsibilities to you, our Pope, and to the people I represent, if I did not state unequivocally that the patience of the traditionalist Catholics has reached the breaking point.

We can no longer remain part of an Establishment ready for the final ravishment of our Holy Mother the church. We must and will break the chains that still keep us forcibly tied to a system of negating Christ, trampling on sacred traditions, lampooning once-revered liturgical and penintential practices, destroying the faith and morals of future generations, and perpetuating a hierarchy and clergy publicly committed to replacing once voluntarily accepted responsibilities with a life of fulfilled personal ambitions and moral duplicity.

Your Holiness! If we do not receive a satisfactory answer from Your Holiness or at least are given an opportunity to discuss our requests and proposals with Your Holiness personally-within the next month, we shall consider our requests denied and our proposals rejected, and draw the sad and tragic conclusion that Our Mother the Church has temporarily abandoned the best ones of her children.

I pray to God and to His blessed Mother whose Assumption we commemorate today -- and millions all over the world are joining me in this prayer -- that such a dark and tragic day will never come. But, if we have no other choice, we will jealously protect the small but still burning candle of our traditional Catholic Faith, and patiently carry on our spiritual "Resistance" movement without the hoped-for papal approval.

I owe it to Your Holiness to herewith honestly state that, in the full realization of our responsibility to God, to our Church and to the souls entrusted to our care, we are ready for any eventuality to the point of having taken the measures necessary to guarantee the valid apostolic succession within our ranks.

Holy Father! Do no reject the best and most loyal ones of your sons and daughters! But, even if Paul VI would close his soul and heart to us -- Quod Deus avertat! -- We will not reject the papacy!

Abandoned by you, we would sorrowfully pray and wait for the day a new successor of St. Peter would open his arms again to those of his children whose only crime it was to live up to the admonition of your patron saint: "Even if an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be cursed." (Gal. 1, 8), or of those other early Church leaders who taught us: "We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5, 29).

Dear Holy Father, at one time I was warned by my friend-turned-traitor, your former Delegate in Washington -- now Cardinal Vagnozzi! -- that you could well be swayed by your "advisors" into replacing your 1965 blessing to me and the C.T.M. with even the sternest of disciplinary measures. He was unable to scare me because I still have enough of the simple faith of a child to believe that no Vicar of Christ could ever capitulate into that kind of abyss.

Meanwhile I shall continue to resist any self-styled "little pope" who tries to intimidate me into surrender, and continue to cite to him the words of St. Thomas More who forfeited his earthly life in defense of the true Church. When the prosecuting Shehan of his days asked this man for all seasons: "Come on, More! Do you wish to be considered wiser and of better conscience than all the bishops and nobles of the realm?" St. Thomas replied: "My Lord, for one bishop of your opinion I have a hundred saints of mine; and for one parliament of yours, and God knows of what kind, I have all the general councils of the Church for a thousand years!"

Dear Holy Father! Permit me to summarize this long letter to Your Holiness by redirecting to YOU the anguished cry you directed to US, the loyal traditionalist Catholics, on September 1, 1963: "The day is growing late. Become convinced that it is necessary to work today, immediately, that not an hour can be lost. The need is immense and most urgent. Come and help us to tell the world where is truth and where is error!"

Prayerfully expecting Your Holiness' fatherly reply to this final anguished cry of today's "Suffering Church" I beg to remain.

Your loyal and devoted son in Jesus Christ,

Father Gommar A. DePauw

The Catholic Underground

2006-03-31T14:37:00.000-08:00

Finally returned some seriously overdue books to Calvin's library, humbly paid my fines, and checked out a few new books. It's good to be back in the stacks again.

One title, which has really quite intrigued me, is called The Smoke of Satan (Michael Cuneo, Oxford University Press, 1997) - obviously the title alone is provocative enough to catch the attention of a Traditionalist such as myself.

Cuneo explores (over the course of six chapters) the fact that, underneath the surface of American Catholicism, a surface made up by the majority of (so-called, say I) Catholics who are more American than Catholic (read: liberal to the core), "there exists a sort of Catholic underground made up of people who are in rebellion against the new comforts and freedoms of American Catholicism." He goes on:

Far from being a place of legitimate faith, in the view of such people, the church in the United States today is an outright disaster zone. Its theologians are traitorous, its bishops derelict in defending traditional truth, and its schools breeding grounds of heresy. Pampered and complacent, its laity are mostly ignorant (or altogether dismissive) of fundamental doctrine and morals. Its once-great ritual life is enfeebled and disgraced, and many of its priests seem enamored less by the sacraments than by the prospects of gay sex and left-leaning political action. (p. 4)

I suppose that's as concise and accurate a description of the problems in the Church today as any, not to mention a seminal charter for the existence of the Traditionalist resistance.

This underground, Cuneo goes on to say, is more or less divisible into three sub-groups, "each with its own specialized world view, its own spirituality, and its own particular take on what must be done to save authentic Catholicism in the United States from outright extinction." (p. 4)

These groups are identified as follows:

Catholic Conservatism

... mostly made up of disaffected laypeople who are committed to revitalizing the church through a campaign of moral militancy. Fiercely loyal to Rome, and just as fiercely opposed to the moral flabbiness of the broader culture, Catholic conservatives want to create a newly masculinized Catholicism: a Catholicism that's tough and defiant, stripped down and ready for battle. And the prime testing ground for this toughened-up Catholicism is on the frontlines of America's current abortion wars. Fighting abortion, in the conservative view, is far more than simply a political undertaking. It's the final frontier of faith, the last opportunity for Catholics in the United States to recapture the zeal and spiritual prowess of their religious ancestors. (pp. 4-5)

Catholic Separatists

... are considerably more pessimistic. For the past thirty years, according to separatists, the institutional church in America and elsewhere has undergone a process of almost complete spiritual meltdown, and its prospects for recovery seem exceedingly bleak. In Rome no less than in America, they claim, the institutional church has become mainly a sham of faith; and trying to reform it from within is no longer a viable strategy. Indeed, the only strategy worth pursuing today is one of strict isolationism. If authentic Catholicism is to be kept alive, Catholics still loyal to the traditions of the past are compelled to withdraw altogether from the institutional church and create alternative communities of their own. It's only within such alternative communities (or theological utopias-in-exile), separatists claim, that a newly sanctified Catholicism - completely unadulterated by the perversities of the historical present - can be nurtured into being. (p. 5)

Catholic Marianists

... turn instead to the more exotic realm of miraculous apparitions and mystical prophecy. In these desperate times, they contend, the Virgin Mary has re-entered history with new messages of hope (and warning) for the suffering faithful. These messages, transmitted directly by the Virgin herself to specially appointed seers, spell out the precise steps that must be taken for Catholics to attain salvation, and also the punishments awaiting anyone foolish enough not to take heed. For Catholic Marianists, the messages and their accompanying apparitions are more than just a spiritual consolation; they also a powerful vindication. In an age that treats virtually every expression of religious passion as a laughingstock, here's live-wire evidence that miracles still happen and that forces greater than nature and the human will still rule history. And for anyone who persists in scoffing, the Vengeful Virgin will be back on the scene soon enough to set matters straight. (p. 5)

That's fairly insightful, I'd say. I'm not exactly sure where the defining boundaries are for each of these groups, as Cuneo defines them, and I won't know until I get further into the book. Traditionalism seems like it might encompass a little of Separatism and Marianism, but I'm not sure if Marianism as defined by Cuneo is more a group of private seers than, say, those generally devoted to the cult of Fatima, Lourdes, LaSalette, etc.

Time will tell.

The Heavenly Senses

2006-03-30T15:39:00.000-08:00

Grant, we beseech Thee, O almighty God, that the devotion which makes us punish ourselves by this yearly fast, may also make us rejoice; to the end that, suppressing in ourselves all earthly affections, we may more easily receive Thy heavenly inspirations. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

You’ve got to give the Catholic Church credit; She has some of the most efficient, simple, and beautiful prayers the world has ever seen.  This one quoted above is the Collect for today’s Mass, Thursday, the Fourth Week of Lent.  Yes, it really has been that long – though it hardly seems so.  This Sunday will be Passion Sunday; the next will be Palm Sunday; and then Easter, in all of its boundless glories, will be upon us.

But back to the prayer.  It so nicely sums up what the Lenten disciplines are meant to accomplish.  Why go through all this suffering and mortify our bodies, denying them the licit pleasures they are so used to enjoying?  That “we may more easily receive … heavenly inspirations.”

How many times during the day, during the week, during the rest of the year when we aren’t being vigilant about keeping our lower impulses under control, does God try to communicate with us, only to find us spiritually drowsy and unable to hear Him?

A few days of fasting, a bit of hunger, and slight growl in the belly … and suddenly we can hear things more clearly; we can see things we didn’t see before.

I still haven’t wrapped my head around this mystery.  I don’t know exactly why it is that the soul follows the body, and vice versa.  I only know that when I’m pampering myself, seeking comforts and avoiding crosses, I grow dull in spirit.  My spiritual senses are blocked, and I walk around (spiritually speaking) as though half-awake.

I’m actually kind of sad that Lent is ending.  Perhaps the spirit of Lent will endure beyond Easter this year … God knows we all need it.

Test

2006-03-30T15:15:00.000-08:00

Test post from Word … this could be the coolest thing ever.

HaloScan Comments Added

2006-03-30T14:45:00.000-08:00

Let the free discussion begin.

And let the spam cease before it ever commences.

Amen.

What Are You Reading Now?

2005-05-25T09:12:00.000-07:00

Currently on my reading list for the summer - or at least the first part of the summer. I have no delusions of grandeur, and I'm certain that I won't get through all of these books. But I want to at least try.

I've also come to a personal decision regarding the literature I read: I will try to read the "classics" of literature, but if I find them uninteresting, boring, dry, etc., I will not bother myself with them any longer. Let the literary snobs scorn me if they must, but I see no sense in trudging through a rough read just so I can be able to say "yes I've read that" the next time someone asks.

Chesterton, G. K. The Catholic Church and Conversion. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1926

This is my third attempt at this book, and it grows on me a little more each time, although I've never read it straight through. I think I was initially disappointed because I expected this to be an "apologetics" book, according to the more modern meaning of that word - something along the lines of what Patrick Madrid, Scott Hahn, or Karl Keating would write. It is an apologetics book, but Chesterton doesn't really talk about specific doctrinal issues - he looks at a somewhat bigger picture, and his commentary is more social, historical, and even pragmatic than it is theological. Now that I know this, I know what to expect and what not to expect, so I'm enjoying the work more than before.

Newman, John Henry. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1974

This is another title that I've started and stopped several times. You have to be in the mood for a very long discussion on some very abstract concepts if you want to get through the first several chapters. But his mastery of the patristic corpus is impressive, and very useful for future research. He makes some rather good points viz. the patristic witness (such as it is) to the later Nicene dogma of the Trinity, as compared to that same witness to the dogma of the papacy. The writings of the Fathers are not as explicit or unified as we might think, and so there must be room for "the development of Christian Doctrin" - the "historical space" in which a basic teaching (like the Trinity) is allowed to mature and develop as various minds consider it, meditate on it, and try to make its formulae clearer.

Waugh, Evelyn. Brideshead Revisited. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1951

I'm not far enough into this book to tell whether I like it or not. I'll give a few more chapters, and if it doesn't grab me, I'll put it away.

Belloc, Hilaire. The Path to Rome. Chicago: H. Regnery Co., 1954

Haven't started this title yet, but I've heard it's interesting, as Belloc recounts his pilgrimage (literally, not spiritually or metaphorically) to Rome and describes all the sights and sounds.

Belloc, Hilaire. The Great Heresies. Virginia: Trinity Communications, 1987

Very well written. I'm about half-way through, and I especially appreciate Belloc's attention to the issue of the Muslims.

St. Augustine. Confessiones. New York: Vintage Books, 1998

I'm putting this one back down. I've tried about four times to read it, but I find it rather dry - and maybe a tad boring, because in this day and age, St. Augustine's litany of personal sins is rather tame.

Carroll, Warren. The Founding of Christendom. Virginia: Christendom College Press, 1985

Carroll, Warren. The Building of Christendom. Virginia: Christendom College Press, 1987

Absolutely fantastic. I started with the second volume because I wanted to hear Carroll's account of the Crusades, and I was so impressed with both his content and style (his history is very, very well-written) that I decided I wanted to read the other three volumes in the set. I have not been disappointed, and his brilliant weaving of secular with ecclesiastical history makes for a very interesting, very well-rounded portrait of what's been happening in the world since the dawn of time.

Day, Thomas. Where Have You Gone, Michelangelo? The Loss of Soul in Catholic Culture. New York: Crossroad, 1993

Another winner from Mr. Day. His first book focused more on the issue of music in the Church since the Second Vatican Council - this one is a little more broad, encompassing music, art, architecture, and so on. The book is written in a very scattered kind of way - lots of little stories, random thoughts, and mini-essays, but he manages to pull it all together thematically. It's a lot like having a conversation with the author.

I Contracept Because I'm Selfish

2005-04-29T04:52:00.000-07:00

Strange thing. A co-worker was asking me how many kids I had. I told him: two, and one on the way in September. Then the conversation went a bit like this:

"Wow, three kids. How old are you?"

"Twenty-six, same as you."

"I just wouldn't even know what to do with kids."

"What's to know? You play with them!"

"I guess I'm just too selfish; I'm not ready to give up my free time and extra money."

"You wouldn't regret it, trust me."

"Well, you're a better man than me; I'm too selfish."

At that point I jokingly/not-jokingly chided him, "Then perhaps you better work on that, eh?"

Now, this guy isn't a professing Christian. But he at least sees the picture clearly: he's not having kids (despite being married for several years) because he's too selfish with his time and money. He's willing to admit it!

I just wish more pseudo-Catholics and Protestants would have the guts to admit this; then maybe more of them would stop contracepting, because presumably, they (unlike my co-worker) would at least realize the impossibility of claiming to be a Christian (or a "good person" at all), while simultaneously cultivating/nourishing selfish behaviors.

The Council in Light of Tradition, 1.1

2005-04-27T13:15:00.000-07:00

Statement: "All however, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and set forth into the world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God." (Unitatis Redintegratio, 1)

Objection: The council implicitly admits to the heresy that "the one visible" and "truly universal" Church does not yet exist, since "all ... long for" it, including the Catholic Church itself.

Reply: The council admits no such thing, for it elsewhere explicitly declares that Our Lord "has called and gathered together the people of the New Covenant, who are the Church, into a unity of faith, hope and charity"; that He "entrusted all His sheep" to St. Peter "to be confirmed in faith and shepherded in perfect unity"; that He "perfects His people's fellowship in unity." (UR, 2)

The council boldly proclaims that "the Church ... is God's only flock; it is like a standard lifted high for the nations to see it." (UR, 2)

In contrast to this, it notes that in the case of both individuals and entire groups, non-Catholics "are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body." (UR, 3)

The key to understanding the language of the council here is to understand that non-Catholics who have received the Sacrament of Baptism - which is valid, even if administered by a non-Catholic - are, from the moment of that Baptism, joined to the Mystical Body of Christ. When they die, they will be judged as Catholics, because they bear the indelible, sacramental mark of that Baptism which belongs to the Catholic Church.

Thus, while the Catholic Church enjoys perfect unity, there is another sense in which there is a rift: those who are joined-by-Baptism to the unity of the Church are not visibly joined to the Church's unity. The inward reality does not correspond to the outward reality. This kind of visible unity - the harmonization of the interior truth (a baptized non-Catholic is part of the Church) with the exterior truth (getting that same non-Catholic to come back to the visible Church) - is the "unity" for which everyone longs.

When the council speaks of a "truly universal" Church, it does not mean to deny that the Catholic Church is already the one, true, universal Church. In context, the document has been talking about the multitudes of people who claim to be part of "the Church of Christ," but who all differ and disagree with each other. Specifically, the council is concerned with what this message sends to the world: a Baptist comes forward and says, "I'm part of the Church that Christ founded," but he disagrees fundamentally with the Lutheran who comes forward and says the same; then comes the Catholic, professing to be a part of Christ's Church, but disagreeing with both the Baptist and the Lutheran; all three of them disagree with the Charismatic and Seventh-Day Adventist, both of whom insist that they, too, are part of Christ's one Church.

The council puts it this way: "Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided." (UR, 1)

What does the World say to this? It laughs and says, "Ha ... some unity." Or, as the council put it, "Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature." (UR, 1)

So the Catholic interjects: "No, World, you must understand - I am the only true member of the Church, and these are all pretenders! They aren't really part of the Church!"

"Come now," says the Baptist, "that's nonsense! I'm the one who belongs to the Church, and perhaps also the Lutheran (but not the Seventh-Day Adventist), and it is you who are not part of the Church, for you preach a false gospel!"

"We should cease fighting, brothers," says the Charismatic, "and focus on the joy of the Spirit that unites us - we're all part of God's family!"

The World continues shaking its head. Some unity.

This is what the council is addressing when it says that everyone longs for a Church that is "truly universal" - not truly universal in fact or in essence alone, but also in the eyes of the world.

In Festo Sancti Marci Evangelistae - April 25

2005-04-25T15:50:00.000-07:00

Today is the feast of St. Mark the Evangelist, author of the second Gospel, disciple of St. Peter. St. Mark is signified in religious art by the figure of the Lion (just as St. Matthew is signified by the Man, St. Luke by the Ox, and St. John by the Eagle).

St. Mark is honored today under the triple-title of Evangelist, Apostle, and Martyr. His martyrdom took place in 70 AD, and his body was eventually taken to Venice - he remains the patron of Venice to this day.

The following hymn (which scans much better in Latin) was composed in the ninth century by St. Paulinus, himself a successor to St. Mark as bishop of Aquileia. The hymn contains just enough biographical information about St. Mark's labors to give us a rough sketch of his life.

(The Feast of St. Mark is honored by the chanting of the Greater Litanies, which can be found here]

************************

Already throughout the whole earth there brightly gleams the light which shines from the Father's throne: the light which is the fount and source and splendour of the golden light: the light that never fails, beautifies heaven, and expels darkness from the world

Blessed Mark, the Evangelical teacher, received into his heart a lovely ray of this sparkling sacred light. He became as a lmap reflecting that great light and dispelling the gloom of this world by his brilliant flame

He was one of the seven fair pillars, and one of the seven golden candlesticks whose brightness shines as a star throughout the universe. He was one of the foundations that support the lofty structure of the Church

He was one of the favoured living creatures seen of old by the holy prophet Ezechiel, and by John, the disciple that leaned on Jesus' breast. Mark was prefigured under the type of a lion, whose wild roar is heard in the wildnerness

He was sent by blessed Peter to Aquileia, that city of ancient fame. There he sowed the seed of the divine word, and with joy garnered into heaven a hundred-fold of fruit

There he speedily raised a Christian Church. He gave it solidity of unshaken faith by building it on that faultless Rock, against which the billows and storms and floods vent their rage in vain

The soldier of Christ returned, wearing a wreath of fair lilies, with palm and laurel and roses: and thus crowned, he joyfully entered Rome, led thither by Christ

This done, he sets out for Alexandria, and filled with the Holy Ghost, traverses the ever fertile land of Egypt, preaching that the only begotten Son of the Father Almighty had come into the world for the world's salvation

[this stanza is so beautiful in the Latin, it is worth transcribing here; smooth as silk ...]

His ita gestis pergit Alexandriam
Sancto repletus Spiritu, laetissimos
Fines per omnes jugiter Memphiticos
Patris tremendi praedicabat unicum
Venisse mundi pro salute Filium

A cruel mob, enraged against the soldier of Christ, prepared various torments for him: he was bound with chains, pierced with arrows, and after his holy flesh had been torn with scourges, he was thrust into a dismal dungeon

Mark was the first that taught Alexandria to know the true God. He there built a church, which he dedicated to Christ, consecrated by the shedding of his own blood, and fortified by the solidity of holy faith

Glory, praise and empire be to the Father! To thee, O Jesus, who reignest in heaven above, and to the Holy Ghost, be honour and power! To the undivided Trinity be adoration paid for endless ages! Amen.

[likewise, worth repeating in the Latin ...]

Gloria Patri, decus et imperium
Sit Nate semper tibi super sidera
Honor, potestas, Sanctoque Spiritui
Sit Trinitati virtus individuae
Per infinita saeculorum saecula.
Amen.

***********************

Propers of the Mass

Introit

Protexisti me, Deus, a convéntu malignántium, allelúja: a multitúdine operántium iniquitátem, allelúja, allelúja. Exáudi, Deus, oratiónem meam cum déprecor: a timóre inimíci éripe ánimam meam. v. Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancti sicut erat in principio et nunc, et semper, et saecula saeculorum. Amen.

(Thou hast protected me, O God, from the assembly of the malignant, alleluia: from the multitude of the workers of iniquity, alleluia. alleluia. Hear, O God, my prayers, when I make supplication to Thee: deliver my soul from the fear of the enemy)

Collect

Deus, qui beátum Marcum Evangelístum Tuum evangélicæ prædicatiónis grátia sublimásti: tríbue, quæsumus; ejus nos semper et eruditióne profícere, et oratióne deféndi. Per Dóminum nostrum ...
R. Amen.

(O God, Who didst endow blessed Mark, Thine evangelist, with the grace of preaching, grant us, we beseech Thee, ever to profit by his teaching and be defended by his prayers. Through our Lord Jesus Christ ...)

Epistle

Léctio Ezechiélis Prophétæ. Similitudo vultus quátuor animálium: fácies hóminis, et fácies leónis a dextris ipsórum quátuor: fácies autem bovis a sinístris ipsórum quátuor, et fácies áquillæ désuper ipsórum quátuor. Fácies eórum, et pennæ eórum exténtæ désuper: dum pennæ singulórum jungebán-tur, et duæ tegébant córpora eórum: et unumquódque eórum coram fácie sua ambulábat: ubi erant impetus spíritus, illuc gradiebántur, nec revertebántur cum ambulárent. Et similitúdo animálium, aspéctus eórum quasi carbónum ignis ardéntium, et quasi aspéctus lampadárum. Hæc erat vísio discúrrens in médio animálium, splendor ignis, et de igne fulgur egrédiens. Et animália ibant, et revertebántur in similitúdinem fúlguris coruscántis.

(Lesson from Ezechiel the Prophet. As for the likeness of the faces of the four living creatures; there was the face of a man, and the face of a lion on the right side of all the four; and the face of an ox on the left side of all the four; and the face of an eagle over all the four. And their faces and their wings were stretched upward; two wings of every one were joined, and two covered their bodies; and every one of them went straight forward; whither the impulse of the spirit was to go, thither they went, and they turned not when they went. And as for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like that of burning coals of fire, and like the appearance of lamps. This was the vision running to and fro in the midst of the living creatures, a bright fire, and lightning going forth from the fire. And the living creatures ran and returned like flashes of lightning. Thanks be to God.)

Alleluia

Allelúja, allelúja. V. (Ps. 88: 6) Confitebúntur caeli mirabília tua, Dómine: étenim veritátem tuam in ecclésia sanctórum. Allelúja. V. (Ps. 20: 4) Posuísti, Dómine, super ca-put ejus corónam de lápide pretióso. Allelúja.

(Alleluia, alleluia. V. (Ps. 88: 6) The heavens shall confess Thy wonders, O Lord; and Thy truth in the Church of the saints. Alleluia. V. (Ps. 20: 4) O Lord, Thou halt set on his head a crown of precious stones. Alleluia)

Gospel

In illo témpore: Designávit Dóminus et álios septuagínta duos: et misit illos binos ante fáciem suam in omnem civitátem et locum, quo erat ipse ventúrus. Et dicébat illis: "Messis quidem multa, operárii autem pauci. Rogáte ergo Dóminum messis ut mittat operários in messem suam. Ite: ecce ego mitto vos sicut agnos inter lupos. Nolíte portáre sácculum, neque peram, neque calceaménta, et néminem per viam salutavéritis. In quamcúmque domum intravéritis, primum dícite: Pax huic dómui; et si ibi fúerit fílius pacis, requiéscet super illum pax vestra: sin autem, ad vos revertétur. In eádem autem domo manéte edéntes, et bibéntes quæ apud illos sunt: dignus est enim operárius mercéde sua. Nolíte transíre de domo in domum. Et in quamcúmque civitátem intravéritis, et suscéperint vos, manducáte quæ apponúntur vobis: et curáte infírmos, qui in illa sunt, et dícite ilis: Appropinquávit in vos regnum Dei."

(At that time, The Lord appointed also other seventy-two; and He sent them two and two before His face into every city and place whither He Himself was to come. And He said to them, "The harvest indeed is great, but the laborers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that He send laborers into His harvest. Go, behold I send you as lambs among wolves. Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes; and salute no man by the way. Into whatsoever house you enter, first say, Peace be to this house: and if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon him: but if not, it shall return to you. And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they have: for the laborer is worthy of his hire. Remove not from house to house. And into what city soever you enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you; and heal the sick that are therein; and say to them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.")

Offertory

Confitebúntur caeli mirabília tua, Dómine, et veritátem tuam in ecclésia sanctórum, allelúja, allelúja

(The Heavens shall confess Thy wonders, O Lord, and Thy truth in the Church of the Saints, alleluia, alleluia)

Secret

Beáti Marci Evangelístæ tui solemnitáte, tibi múnera deferéntes, quæsumus, Dómine; ut, sicut illum prædicátio evangélica fecit gloriósum: ita nos ejus intercéssio et verbo, et ópere tibi reddat accéptos. Per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum ...
R. Amen.

(Bringing Thee gifts, O Lord. on the festival of blessed Mark, Thine evangelist, we pray Thee, that, as the preaching of the Gospel made him glorious, so his intercession may render us in word and deed acceptable to Thee. Through our Lord Jesus Christ ...)

Communion

Laetábitur justus in Dómino, et sperábit in eo: et laudabúntur omnes recti corde, allelúja, allelúja.

(The just shall rejoice in the Lord, and shall hope in Him: and all the upright in heart shall be praised, alleluia, alleluia)

Post-Communion

Tríbuant nobis quaesumus, Dómine, contínuum tua sancta praesidium: quo, beáti Marci Evangelístae tui précibus, nos ab ómnibus semper tueántur advérsis. Per Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum ...

(May Thy holy things, we beseech Thee, O Lord, bring us continual protection, so that, through the prayers of blessed Mark, Thine evangelist, they may ever guard us from all evils. Through the same Lord Jesus Christ ...)

Against the Heresies: A History of Dissent (part 1)

2005-04-25T08:58:00.000-07:00

"There shall be among you lying teachers who shall bring in sects [haireseis] of perdition." (St. Peter the Apostle, Second Epistle, 2:1)

"Heresy differs from apostasy. The apostate ... abandons wholly the faith of Christ either by embracing Judaism, Islamism, Paganism, or simply by falling into naturalism and complete neglect of religion; the heretic always retains faith in Christ." (Catholic Encyclopedia, "Heresy")

"The word heresy as stated in the first objection denotes a choosing ... there are two ways in which a man may deviate from the rectitude of the Christian faith ... Secondly, because, though he intends to assent to Christ, yet he fails in his choice of those things wherein he assents to Christ, because he chooses not what Christ really taught, but the suggestions of his own mind." (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-IIae, quest. 11, art. 1)

The Church that Jesus Christ founded was born on the Day of Pentecost. On that day, the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles and hovered over them in the form of tongues of fire; the "over-shadowing" action of the Holy Spirit in that event parallels the over-shadowing action of the same Spirit upon the Virgin Mary at the Annunciation. On that occasion, it was Christ who was conceived under the hovering of the Spirit, as the Head of the Mystical Body; at Pentecost, it was the Body that was conceived under the hovering of the Spirit.

It was this Spirit whom Jesus had promised to His disciples, the Spirit who would "be with you forever" (cf. John 14:16), who would "teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (cf. John 14:26), and who would "guide you into all the truth." (cf. John 16:13)

With this Divine promise of a permanent, supernatural Guide who would keep them within the confines of "the truth," the Church set out into history to carry out the mandate entrusted to Her by Her Divine Husband: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." (Matt. 28:18-20)

From the moment of Her "conception" in the Upper Room, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, the Church had everything She needed to successfully carry out the Bridegroom's mission: His instructions to Her were grounded precisely in the "all authority in heaven on earth" that He possessed; She thus shared in His "all authority" from the beginning, and was promised His continual assistance in carrying out Her three-fold mission: to make disciples of the nations, to baptize them, and to impart to them the Divine Law. The Church would later summarize this mission in the following catechetical formula: "Question: Why did Christ found the Church? Answer: Christ founded the Church to teach, govern, sanctify, and save all men." (Baltimore Catechism, no. 2, q. 120)

The Church thus had every reason for confidence, for She had several Divine guarantees: the ongoing presence of Jesus, the ongoing presence of the "Spirit of Truth," the promise of always being guided "into all truth," a share in Royal Messianic authority of the King and Son of God, and the promise that "the gates of Hell will not prevail" against Her (cf. Matt. 16:18-19).

In the early years of Her work and ministry, She showed that She was fully conscious of possessing these charisms. Peter (whom subsequent generations would recognize as the head of the Apostles, the foundation of the Church, and source of the Church's visible unity) did not hesitate to declare - with the full authority of the Church behind him - that the Old Covenant requirement of circumcision was no longer binding (cf. Acts 15). Paul would go so far as to declare that the Church was nothing less than "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (cf. 1 Tim. 3:15); drawing upon the Divine authority possessed by the Church, he would tell his successors Titus and Timothy to "exhort and reprove with all authority, let no one disregard you" (Titus 2:15), "command and teach these things, let no one despise your youth" (1 Tim. 4:11), "keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach" (1 Tim. 6:14), "guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (2 Tim. 1:14), "preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort" (2 Tim. 4:2).

So confident was the Church in Her possession and protection of the truth that Jude could exhort the faithful to "contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 3) He described the enemies of the Church, those who "reject authority," as those who "perish in Korah's rebellion" (vss. 8-11). In like manner John, the Apostle of Charity, did not hesitate to tell his readers to shun anyone who "does not bring this doctrine," to "not receive him into the house or give him any greeting." (2 John 10-11)

Such was the infant Church's stance towards heresy and those who professed it, towards those who - like Korah, who rebelled against Moses - preferred their own authority over the Divine authority of the Church. Thus Paul instructed Titus, "as for a man who is factious [hairetikos], after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him." (Titus 3:10)

The Church entertained no delusions - although entrusted with "the Spirit of Truth" and consoled with the promise of continual guidance "into all truth", it was also understood that heresy would be an ubiquitous and perpetual threat. The power wielded by the "gates of Hell" was precisely the power wielded by the Prince of Hell: the lies and errors that find their source in "the father of lies" (cf. John 8:44). And though the Church had been promised that the heresies of Hell would never fully prevail over Her, She understood that constant conflict and war with error was also implied in this promise. If eventual victory was guaranteed, then assault was a foregone conclusion.

Thus, Paul understood that "there must be heresies among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized" (2 Cor. 11:19). The Church would ever be occupied with the task of exposing and then uprooting heresies, with the unfortunate (but necessary) result that those who obstinately clung to the errors would have to be excommunicated as well. Her Divine Husband had already warned Her of this sad reality when He instructed that the man who "refuses to listen even to the church" should be regarded "as a heathen and a tax collector," adding that this juridical authority was nothing less than Divine: "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (cf. Matt. 18:15-18)

The Church, then, regarded heresy as a grievous sin. Paul did not hesitate to class it among the "works of the flesh," on par with some of the worst sins known to the Christian: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, heresies, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like." Following the teachings of Jesus, he did not hesitate to add that heresy, along with these other sins, was enough to keep a soul out of heaven: "I warn you ... that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (Gal. 5:19-21)

In this manner, and with this understanding, the Church set out on the long path of history: possessing the pure truth in its totality, the perpetual assistance of the "Spirit of Truth" to guarantee Her success in preserving the faith unstained, the abiding presence of Her Lord and Husband, a share in His own Divine and all-encompassing authority over heaven and earth, the duty of exposing heresy and placing heretics outside of Her borders, and the Divine promise of victory over (but also constant war with) the lying powers of Hell.

It would not be long before the first heresy reared its ugly head, and the Church would be faced with the task of confronting it head on and driving it out - a task that would take many years to accomplish.

Double Feast of Ss. Soter and Caius

2005-04-22T14:44:00.000-07:00

Today the Church celebrates the feasts of Ss. Soter and Caius (also "Gaius"), both popes, and both martyrs for the Faith. Pope St. Soter reigned from 166-175, the 12th pope of the Roman Catholic Church; Pope St. Caius reigned from 283-296, the 28th pope of the Church.

Pope St. Soter is notable for having written a letter to the church at Corinth (yes, the same Corinthian church which received two epistles from St. Paul and one from Pope St. Clement), which St. Dionysius said - as quoted in the Church History of Eusebius - was read in the church during the liturgy.

The following is taken from the Roman Breviary.

*******************************

Soter was born at Fondi, in Campania. He passed a decree, forbidding virgins consecrated to God to touch the sacred vessels and palls, or to exercise the office of thurifer in the Church. He also decreed that on Maundy Thursday the Body of Christ should be received by all, excepting those who were forbidden to do so by reason of some grievous sin ... He was crowned with martyrdom under the reign of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, and was buried in the cemetery which was afterwards called the Cemetery of Callixtus.

In the month of December, according to the custom observed by his predecessors, he ordained eighteen priests, nine deacons, and eleven bishops for diverse places.

Caius was a native of Dalmatia, and a relation of the Emperor Diocletian. He decreed that the following ecclesiastical Orders or honours should precede the ordination of a bishop: door-keeper, lector, exorcist, acolyte, subdeacon, deacon, priest. He concealed himself for some time in a cave, in order to escape the cruelty exercised against the Christians by Diocletian: but after eight years, he, together with his brother Gabinus, received the crown of martyrdom.

He governed the Church twelve years ... He ordained in the month of December twenty-five priests, eight deacons, and five bishops. He was buried in the Cemetery of Callixtus, on the 10th of the Kalends of May (April 22).

Urban the Eighth revived his memory in Rome, restored his Church, which was in ruins, and honoured it with a Title, a Station, and the relics of the Saint himself.

*******************

"O holy Pontiffs! ... Baptism has numbered us among the soldiers of Christ; confirmation has given us the spirit of fortitude; we must then be ready for battle. It may be that, even in our own times, a persecution may rage against the Church; at all events, we have to fight against ourselves, the spirit of the world, and Satan; support us by your prayers. You were once the Fathers of the Christian people; you are still animated with the pastoral charity which then filled your hearts. Protect us, and make us loyal to the God whose cause was so dear to you when here on earth." (prayer taken from The Liturgical Year, vol. 8)

Protestants and the New Pope

2005-04-22T09:17:00.000-07:00

The Roman Catholic Church has a new pope in Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now and ever-more to be known as Benedictus Decimus Sextus - how is the Protestant Evangelical world reacting to this news?

We can begin with the reaction of our ostensibly "evangelical" president, George W. Bush: "Laura and I offer our congratulations to Pope Benedict XVI. He's a man of great wisdom and knowledge. He's a man who serves the Lord ... We join with our fellow citizens and millions around the world who pray for continued strength and wisdom as His Holiness leads the Catholic Church."

Not too shabby! The evangelical president admits that the new pope "serves the Lord," and does not shrink from referring to Benedict XVI as "His Holiness." But the president is a politician first and foremost, not a theologian - can we get a second opinion?

President of the 700 Club, Pat Robertson stated, "I am delighted that the College of Cardinals has selected a Pope who is dedicated to carrying forward the initiatives of the beloved John Paul II. I believe that Pope Benedict XVI has an emphasis on moral relativism which speaks to the culture of Europe and America with brilliant clarity. I will support him prayerfully in this overwhelming task that has been thrust upon him."

Sounds familiar. Evangelical Pat Robertson, like President Bush, promises to pray for the pope - not for his conversion from Catholicism, as one might expect from an "old-school" Evangelical, but for success specifically in his role as a leader of the Catholic Church. Odd, isn't it?

In like manner, David DeFreese, the current bishop of the Nebraska Synod of the ELCA (Lutheran Church of America), called upon all Christians to be "united in prayer that God may bless, strengthen and guide the new pope as he offers leadership."

Christianity Today reported that Bishop Wolfgang Huber (described by CT only as "the leader of the mainline Protestant Churches in Germany") expressed his desire for "God's blessings in all [of the pope's] decisions, actions and his leadership."

Working our way up the food chain, so to speak, we come to the comments of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams. The Archbishop wished the pope "every blessing in the immense responsibilities he is about to assume on behalf of Roman Catholics round the world." He stated that Benedict XVI's election "is also of great significance to Christians everywhere." He further expressed his eager desire to work with the new pope "to build on the legacy of his predecessor, as we seek to promote shared understanding between our churches in the service of the Gospel and the goal of Christian unity." Not to be left out of the prayer chain, the Archbishop - like Bush, Robertson and the rest - affirmed that the pope "will be in much in our prayers in the days and weeks ahead."

Now, as a Catholic of the "traditionalist" (read: ultra right-wing extremist) stripe, I am certainly pleased to see so many leading lights of Protestantism pledge their support to the new Roman Pontiff. But I really have to wonder: do these guys have any idea what they're talking about? Have the lines of distinction between Catholicism and Protestantism become so blurred?

Even close friends have expressed similar sentiments - one individual told me that the only important criterion by which we can judge a person is whether they "reflect Jesus Christ," and this friend affirmed his opinion that there is "every indication ... that [Benedict XVI] is doing just that."

I would be more than happy if all of these Protestant Evangelicals were truly feeling impelled by the witness of the Supreme Pontiff to return to the one true Church, but somehow I don't think this is what's happening. I think what's happening is that people have forgotten what this pope believes and will certainly uphold in his public teachings - what he is bound to teach always without alteration.

As Cardinal Ratzinger, Benedict XVI was for some 20 years the head of the Congregationis pro Doctrina Fidei (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or the "CDF"), formerly known as the "Office of the Holy Inquisition." As the head of that office, Ratzinger was charged with the duty of protecting the Church's teachings (positively) and opposing doctrinal errors where they might arise in certain sectors of the local church (negatively). He is no stranger to confronting "heresy" (a term for which he confesses to have little affinity), and has had many years of experience with drawing lines in the sand and insisting that individuals conform their beliefs to the Church's teaching.

How will that affect the way he rules as pope?

He gave some indication of his papal agenda on April 20th, during his first papal Mass before the college of cardinals. In the homily for that Mass, Benedict XVI read an address to the cardinals in Latin, expressing some of his current thoughts and future visions. He spoke in glowing terms of the papacy of John Paul II, and promised to pick up right where the late pope left off. He admitted to feeling "two simultaneous discordant sentiments," one of "inferiority and human turmoil" over being elected pope, but also "profound gratitude to God" for this "gift of divine mercy" - a gift of grace that he attributed to the intercession of his predecessor: "I consider this a grace obtained for me by my venerable predecessor, John Paul II ... I seem to see his smiling eyes and listen to his words, addressed to me especially at this moment: 'Be not afraid!'"

Recalling the events recorded in Matt. 16:18ff, wherein Jesus gave to St. Peter the "keys of the kingdom," the new pope said "I am reliving this very Gospel scene; I, the Successor of Peter, repeat with trepidation the anxious words of the fisherman ... and I listen again with intimate emotion to the reassuring promise of the divine Master ... the divine power on which I can count is surely immeasurable: 'You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church'."

Near the end of his homily, he invoked "the maternal intercession of Mary Most Holy, in whose hands I place the present and the future of my person and of the Church," adding to this a request for the prayerful intercessions of "the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and all the saints." Already, then, he has implicitly affirmed his belief in several of the Church's teachings: the divinely-willed existence of the papal office, the communion of the saints, the role of the dearly departed in obtaining favors and graces for the living, the prayers of the saints, and the role of "Mary Most Holy" as a "maternal intercessor."

In the middle of his homily, he proclaimed his intention to take up the cause of the Second Vatican Council, saying "I ... wish to affirm with force my decided will to pursue the commitment to enact Vatican Council II," but he quickly added that he would undertake this task only "in faithful continuity with the 2,000-year-old tradition of the Church."

This is wholly in keeping with the principles that he, as head of the CDF, continually expressed: "If by 'restoration' is meant a turning back, no restoration of such kind is possible ... there is no going back, nor is it possible to go back ... there is no 'restoration' whatsoever in this sense ... by restoration we understand the search for a new balance after all the exaggerations of an indiscriminate opening to the world, after the overly positive interpretations of an agnostic and atheistic world ... In this sense it can be said that the first phase after Vatican II has come to a close." (The Ratzinger Report, pp. 37-38) The new pope has no intention of stopping the process of reform, nor does he have any intention of "going back" to pre-conciliar ways; he intends to go forward, but to do so with "new balance," that is, "in faithful continuity with the 2,000-year-old tradition of the Church."

What about ecumenism? Will he continue to reach out to Protestants (and, for that matter, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.)? In his homily he did indeed speak of "that full unity for which Christ longed in the Upper Room." He affirmed that "the current Successor [of St. Peter] assumes as his primary obligation that of working without reservation of energy towards the reconstitution of the full and visible unity of all Christ's disciples. This is his ambition, this is his compelling obligation."

The pope declared further that, in the work of ecumenism, "expressions of good sentiments are not enough," and that "concrete gestures are required to penetrate souls and move consciences." What "concrete gestures" does he have in mind? We will wait to find out. He did give a broad idea, however vague, of his agenda for ecumenism: "Theological dialogue is necessary. A profound investigation into the historical causes of past choices is also indispensable."

Like his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI intends to "do all in [my] power to promote the fundamental cause of ecumenism," and also "to cultivate any initiative that may seem appropriate to promote contact and agreement with representatives from the various Churches and ecclesial communities."

What he means by all of this is quite another question.

Protestant Evangelicals who have been quick to express their approval of the new pope should recall what he once wrote while still known as "Cardinal Ratzinger." In the year 2000, in response to the "Asian situation" (i.e., the developing relationship in Asia between the Catholic Church and various other religions), Cardinal Ratzinger - writing in his official role as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - penned the document Dominus Iesus.

The document drew immediate criticisms from the Jews, the Anglicans, the Lutherans, and even some ostensibly "Catholic" theologians. Cardinal Cassidy, head of the Pontifical Commission for Christian Unity, quickly distanced himself from the document by claiming that it was "not addressed to the ecumenical world," but rather, "to the academic world" and "to some Asian Catholic theologians." Why the negative reaction to this document? Because it affirmed a very controversial, but very ancient teaching of the Church.

I would encourage today's Protestant Evangelicals to pay attention to this document - the man who wrote it is now the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, with the highest level of judicial authority in the hierarchy.

Dominus Iesus, the document begins, suis discipulis mandatum contulit nuntiandi Evangelium cunctis hominibus omnesque populos baptizandi - "The Lord Jesus ... commanded His disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all men, and to baptize the nations." From this first fundamental "seed," to which the Gospel testifies, flowers the rest of Ratzinger's conclusions about the role of the Church in the world.

The Church, he affirms, has a "universal mission" that is "born from the command of Jesus Christ" to the apostles. That mission is evangelization, and the cardinal (now pope) believes this is a unique mission given especially to the Catholic Church by no less than the God-Man Himself. While "inter-religious dialogue" is a tool utilized by today's Church, Ratzinger insists that it "does not replace, but rather accompanies the missio ad gentes."

Ratzinger expresses his concern that the Church's mission "is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism," a relativism that immediately threatens fundamental truths which Ratzinger believes are non-negotiable. Among these truths he includes "the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ," the "inspired nature of the books of Sacred Scripture," and the "personal unity" - that is, the hypostatic union - "between the Eternal Word and Jesus of Nazareth."

In dialoguing with other religions, the cardinal insists that the truth must be firmly believed - and stated - that "Jesus Christ ... Lord and only Saviour ... through the event of his incarnation, death and resurrection ... brought the history of salvation to fulfilment." With force he declares, "solutions that propose a salvific action of God beyond the unique mediation of Christ would be contrary to Christian and Catholic faith."

Evangelical Protestants should certainly applaud the cardinal's stance on these issues - and these are the very issues for which he is now, as pope, being lauded by Evangelicalism's spokesmen. However, Ratzinger also insists on other non-negotiable truths, doctrines with which Evangelicalism has historically disagreed: for example, "the universal salvific mediation of the Church," the "inseparability ... of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, and the Church," and finally, "the subsistence of the one Church of Christ in the Catholic Church."

On this last point, that the Church of Christ "subsists in" the Catholic Church, the cardinal explains that the phrase "subsists in" is a phrase that attempts to reconcile and "harmonize two doctrinal statements," namely: on the one side, that the "Church of Christ," the Church which Christ founded, "continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church"; on the other side, quoting the Second Vatican Council, Ratzinger affirms that "outside of [the Church's] structure, many elements of sanctification and truth can be found." Continuing to quote from the council, he quickly adds that "with respect to these" elements of sanctification and truth found outside the Catholic Church, "they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church."

The cardinal affirms that those "Churches which ... remain united to [the Catholic Church] by means of ... apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist" - namely, the Eastern Orthodox - "are true particular Churches." Turning to the Protestant denominations, he states that these "ecclesial communities" which lack valid priests and a valid Mass, "are not Churches in the proper sense." This, no doubt, was the statement that raised the ire of the then-Archbishop of Canterbury.

Ratzinger did affirm, however, with regard to individual Protestants, that "those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church."

Recalling a previous document (Mysterium Ecclesiae) issued by his Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger reminds the reader that a Catholic is "not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection ... of Churches and ecclesial communities," and neither is a Catholic "free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach."

For Ratzinger - for Pope Benedict XVI - there really is one true, visible, universal Church of Christ, and it "subsists in" the Catholic Church. Quoting again from the Second Vatican Council, he reminds us that "these separated ... communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation," since "the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation" - however, if these Protestant denominations are sometimes used to mediate salvation, they "derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church." Thus, in a loose way, Ratzinger affirms (then and now) that "there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church."

In fact, he all but states this explicitly, by quoting again from the Council of Vatican II: "it must be firmly believed that 'the Church ... is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself ... affirmed ... the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door.'"

Going further, Ratzinger declares that the Church "has, in God's plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being." For those who are "outside the Church" in a formal and visible sense, "salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation."

How precisely God "mysteriously" grants grace to some of those who are formally outside the Church - yet are still "imperfectly united" to Her in a material way - is unknown, he admits, and is a subject for future inquiry. Whatever the case, however, he concludes that "it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions," because "God has willed that the Church founded by [Christ] be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity."

To put it in another way, "it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace," yet at the same time "it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation." Not that this by any means indicates that all Catholic in the Church will be saved, because "their exalted condition results, not from their own merits, but from the grace of Christ," and if these Catholic Christians "fail to respond in thought, word, and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be more severely judged."

To sum up the position of the cardinal - which is certainly still his position as Pope Benedict XVI - and to give us an idea of his future papal agenda vis-a-vis Evangelicals, we may quote these concluding words: "the Church ... must be primarily committed to ... announcing the necessity of conversion to Jesus Christ and of adherence to the Church through Baptism and the other sacraments, in order to participate fully in communion with God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

This will undoubtedly be the personal conviction that motivates his future actions as pope. As he believes, so he will certainly act: other religions must be told of their need for Jesus Christ, and other denominations (having already encountered Christ) must be told of their need to adhere to the Church, "through Baptism and the other sacraments."

But the memory is a fragile thing. Perhaps Bush, Robertson, Williams, and the rest have simply forgotten - in the five years that have passed - that the hand which recently gave the new papal blessing to the crowd in St. Peter's Square on April 19, 2005 is the same hand that signed the document Dominus Iesus, affirming again the Church's ancient teaching: voluit Deus ut Ecclesia ab eo condita instrumentum esset ad salutem universi humani generis - God has willed that His Church, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, be the instrument of salvation for all men.

[Note: as was stated, there was much heated debated that arose in the aftermath of the promulgation of Dominus Iesus. Catholic World Report published a short piece on the world's reaction to the document, and the section of the article relating Cardinal Ratzinger's response to the hostility is worth reproducing here:

"Finally, Cardinal Ratzinger weighed in, defending the document which had appeared over his signature. The cardinal indicated that he was 'very much upset' by the charges that Dominus Iesus was a triumph of 'fundamentalism, Roman centralism, and absolutism.' He remarked that Protestant leaders had no reason to be offended by the notion that the Church is the sole means to salvation, since this has been the constant teaching of the Church for centuries.

Responding to critics who have suggested that the language of Dominus Iesus was too harsh, Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out that 'the words of Jesus are often terribly harsh and formulated without much diplomatic prudence.' While conceding that the language of the statement is quite different from the language generally used in the mass media, the cardinal suggested that Catholic teachers should take pains to help others understand the Church teaching. 'The text should be explained rather than disdained,' he said."]

April 21: The Feast of St. Anselm

2005-04-21T14:38:00.000-07:00

Today the Holy Church commemorates St. Anselm, Doctor and Bishop of the Church during the 11th-12th centuries. He was declared a Doctor of the Church by Pope Clement XI in 1720.

We beseech Thee, O Lord, that heavenly grace may give increase to Thy Church, which Thou wert pleased to make illustrious by the glorious merits and teaching of blessed Anselm Thy confessor and bishop. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen. (Collect Prayer of the Mass)

This reading is taken from the Divine Office of the Church for today.

******************************

Anselm was born at Aosta, a town on the confines of Italy, of noble and Catholic parents, by name Gondolphe and Hermenberga. From his early childhood he gave great promise of future holiness and learning by his love of study and his longing after a life of perfection.

The ardour of youth (juvenili ardore) made him indulge for a while in worldly pleasures; but he speedily returned to his former virtuous life; and then, leaving his country and all that he possessed, he repaired to the Monastery of Bec, of the Order of St. Benedict. There he made his religious profession, under the Abbot Herluin, a most zealous lover of monastic discipline, and Lanfranc, a man of great repute for learning.

Such was the fervour of his piety, his application to study, and his desire to advance in virtue, that everyone held him in the highest veneration as a model of holiness and learning.

So mortified was he in eating and drinking, and so frequent were his fasts (Abstinentiae et continentiae tantae fuit), that he seemed to have lost the sense of taste (ciborum sensus in eo videretur exstinctus).

He spent the day in the performance of monastic duties, and in giving answers, both by word of mouth and by letters, to the several questions proposed to him concerning matters of religion. He passed a considerable portion of the time allotted to sleep in nourishing his soul with holy meditations, during which he shed abundant tears.

When he was made Prior of the Monastery, certain of his brethren were jealous at his promotion; but he so far gained them over by charity, humility and prudence, that their jealousy was changed into love both of their Prior and their God, to the great advantage of regular discipline.

At the death of the Abbot, Anselm was chosen to succeed him, and reluctantly accepted the office. It was then that his reputation for learning and virtue began to spread far and wide, and secured him the respect of kings and bishops.

Not only so, but even Gregory the Seventh, who at that time was suffering much from persecution, honoured him with his friendship, and wrote to him letters full of affection, begging of him to pray for him and the Church.

At the death of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, who had been his former master, Anselm was compelled, much against his own will, to accept the government of that See. William, king of England, the clergy and the people, all urged him to it. He immediately set himself to reform the corrupt morals of the people.

By word and example, first, and then by his writings, and by holding councils, he succeeded in restoring ancient piety and ecclesiastical discipline. But it was not long before King William attempted, both by violence and threats, to interfere with the rights of the Church. Then did Anselm resist him with priestly courage, for which his property was confiscated, and he himself banished from the country.

He turned his steps towards Rome, where Urban the Second received him with great marks of honour, and passed a high encomium upon him at the Council of Bari, where Anselm proved against the Greeks, by innumerable quotations from the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers (innumeris Scripturarum et sanctorum Patrum testimoniis), that the Holy Ghost proceeds also from the Son.

After William's death, he was recalled to England by King Henry, William's brother. Shortly after his return, he slept in the Lord.

He was justly venerated on account of his miracles and his virtues, among which latter may be mentioned his great devotion to the Passion, and to the Holy Mother of Jesus (insignem devotionem erga Domini nostri Passionem, et beatam Virginem ejus Matrem).

He moreover acquired a high reputation by his learning, which he used in the defense of the Christian religion, and for the good of souls. He first set the example to those theologians who have followed the scholastic method in treating on the sacred sciences. The works he has written prove that his wisdom was a gift bestowed on him by heaven.

V. Anselmus mansuetudine agnus, fortitudine leo, caelesti doctrina supereffluens, mentes hominum illustravit, alleluia

R. Beatus Anselmus saeculi principes docebat, dicens: Nihil amplius diligit Deus in hoc mundo, quam Ecclesiae suae libertatem, alleluia

Pope Benedict XVI: Will He Restore the Church?

2005-04-20T04:08:00.000-07:00

Been reading a few different works by the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger ... trying to get an idea of who this new pontiff is, what things he believes are important, what sorts of papal activity we can expect during his reign. In the stack of "things to read" are the following:

The Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church. Ignatius Press, 1985.

Many Religions - One Covenant: Israel, the Church, and the World. Ignatius Press, 1999.

The Spirit of the Liturgy. Ignatius Press, 2000.

Salt of the Earth: Christianity and the Catholic Church at the End of the Millenium. Ignatius Press, 1997.

So many things to say about all of this. So many conflicted feelings.

Thank God it's Ratzinger, not Kasper. Thank God it's Ratzinger, not Lustiger. Thank God it's Ratzinger, not Mahoney.

But let's not get crazy-dizzy and think that Ratzinger, as Pope Benedict XVI, is going to be another Pope St. Pius X.

A few excerpts that I found interesting ... regarding the SSPX's existence, he says:

"Similar absurd situations have been able to endure up to now precisely by nourishing themselves on the arbitrariness and thoughtlessness of many post-conciliar interpretations. This places a further obligation upon us to show the true face of the Council: thus one will be able to cut the ground from under these false protests." (Ratzinger Report, p. 33)

True enough. What makes life so difficult for the neo-Catholic of today is that his SSPX opponent only has to point to the awful fruits of the council: the Clown Masses, the dissenting priests, the decline of the dogmatic faith ... all of which, I believe, Ratzinger is willing to file as abuses under the category of "arbitrary and thoughtless post-conciliar interpretations."

If these wild abuses can finally be eradicated from the Church (no small request, given how wide-spread they are), it will be more difficult for a Traditionalist to point to objective evidence and say, "See? This is what the council hath wrought, and therefore my resistance is justified."

And apparently Ratzinger thinks, or thought (as long ago as 1985), that it is possible to accomplish this - that his "obligation" is to "show the true face of the Council." I say that's a wonderful idea - Traditionalists have only been asking for 40 years for someone to finally define what this "true face" of the Council is. Perhaps Pope Benedict XVI will do precisely that, simultaneously cutting the ground out both from under the liberals who abuse the conciliar documents and - as a consequence - the Traditionalists who point to these liberals as justification for their positition of resistance.

Like I said: this is no minor thing. The liberal problem is universal in the Church at the moment, from the laity to the priesthood, from the university professors to the ruling cardinals. If Pope Benedict XVI thinks he can somehow get this problem under control, he certainly has my prayerful support.

For those Traditionalists who think Benedict XVI is going to turn back the conciliar clock, however, and attemp a restoration of Tradition by sweeping Vatican II under the rug, I have some bad news ...

"If by 'restoration' is meant a turning back, no restoration of such kind is possible. The Church moves forward toward the consummation of history, she looks ahead to the Lord who is coming. No, there is no going back, nor is it possible to go back. Hence there is no 'restoration' whatsoever in this sense. But if by restoration we understand the search for a new balance after all the exaggerations of an indiscriminate opening to the world, after the overly positive interpretations of an agnostic and atheistic world, well, then a restoration understood in this sense (a newly found balance of orientations and values within the Catholic totality) is altogether desirable and, for that matter, is already in operation in the Church. In this sense it can be said that the first phase after Vatican II has come to a close." (ibid., pp. 37-38)

Again, that's a tall order indeed. Can the new pontiff curb the "indiscriminate opening to the world" that is going on in the Church today, or counter the "overly positive interpretations of an agnostic and atheistic world?"

Not unless he's willing to fight hard for his desires. And, as former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (trivia note: formerly known as "The Office of the Holy Inquisition"), he's no stranger to confrontation with dissenters. He's already familiar with what it takes to censure or silence those who require such measures.

Maybe he's battle-hardened enough to bring about, with his new-found authority as Pope Benedict XVI, the kinds of changes he was envisioning while still a cardinal.

Of course, John Paul II said a lot of things about the need for reform, too. He admitted openly the problem of liturgical abuse. He even wrote encyclicals and apostolic letters to correct those things - but he really didn't put any teeth behind his commands.

So, while Ratzinger says good things, it remains to be seen whether his experience as head of the CDF will prove to be the "missing ingredient" that makes his pontificate different from that of his predecessor.

I'm certainly curious to find out. There is a great sense of anticipation here. Ratzinger had very clear ideas on what needed to be done to stabilize the Church, and now he has the papal authority to put his theories into practice. It will be interesting to discover 1) if he has the strength to make them into practical and disciplinary decrees, 2) if he has the backbone to put teeth behind his words, and 3) if his theories-turned-practice will actually work.

As someone already mentioned elsewhere, he has the added graces that come with the papal office - anything is possible at this point.

Perhaps it might be safe to dream again ...

Habemus Papam!

2005-04-19T09:11:00.000-07:00

News just in ... the cardinals have elected a new pope.

Now we wait for about an hour for them to announce their choice to the rest of the waiting world.

Tension is seriously high here.

Will it be Lustiger?

Tettamanzi?

Ratzinger?

Stay tuned ...

*******************************

UPDATED

The words rang out at St. Peter's Square at around 6:45 pm ...

"Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum. Habemus Papam! Eminentissimun ac reverendissimum dominum Iosephum Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem Ratzinger qui sibi nomen imposuit Benedicti Decimi Sexti."

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is our new pope, under the name Benedict XVI.

Much to say, but later.

First, there must be prayer.

Stay with Us, Lord ...

2005-04-18T14:04:00.000-07:00

V. Mane nobiscum, Domine, alleluia
R. Quoniam advesperascit, alleluia

These words, chanted by the religious in the Divine Office during this liturgical season of Paschaltide, are taken from the account of the Emmaus Road, recorded in St. Luke's Gospel.

As the two travelers walked and talked with the Christ they did not recognize, evening fell, and they bid Him to stay with them for the night:

"Stay with us, because it is towards evening and the day is now far spent." (Luke 24:29)

Mane nobiscum, quoniam advesperascit et inclinata est iam dies. (Vulgate)

We are now in that period after Easter, but before Ascension Thursday, during which time - the same St. Luke tells us - Jesus "presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to [the apostles] during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God." (Acts 1:3)

It is a touching gesture, then, that during this time when the Church liturgically relives these 40 days, She presents us with this recurring refrain to be sung after daily prayer: stay with us, Lord, alleluia; because it is towards evening, alleluia.

Before you ascend to the Throne, O mi Jesu, stay with us just a little while longer; the evening is coming fast, and we find such consolation in your presence! Indeed, as the princes of the Holy Church are even now in conclave, in the process of electing the next successor of St. Peter, who - by all accounts - may be the pope who reigns over (even assists in?) one of the darkest periods of human history, surely the "day is now far spent."

Now is a very appropriate time to utter the words with an intensity perhaps never felt in the Church's history: mane nobiscum, Domine.

The relation of this narrative to the Eucharist also makes its presence felt:

"When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight ... Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread." (Luke 24:30-31, 35)

Stay with us, Lord, as you have stayed with us for so many centuries - here, in the tabernacle atop the high altar.

Perhaps, then, this would be an especially good time to pay a visit to Our Lord; if there is a chapel of adoration nearby, why not stop in for a Holy Hour? If there is a church nearby where you can at least pray before the tabernacle, why not do so tonight?

Stay with us, Lord, but most of all ... grant us the grace to stay close to you in these days. The Passion of the Mystici Corporis is about to begin, Domine Deus, and so we pray anew: ne permittas me separari a te!

Triple-Feature in Today's "Collect"

2005-04-18T07:53:00.000-07:00

Here are three beautiful prayers taken from today's Mass - beautiful, and also politically/ecumenically incorrect in today's world.

Deus, qui errántibus, ut ín viam possint redíre justítiae, veritátis tuae lumen osténdis: da cunctis, qui christiána professióne censéntur, et illa respúere quae huic inimícaè spurnè sunt nómini; et ea quae sunt apta sectári. Per Dóminum nostrum, etc.

R. Amen.

(O God, who to the erring, that they might return to the way of justice, Thou dost show the light of Thy truth: grant to all who are enrolled among the professing Christians that they may spurn all that is inimicable to that name, and follow what is becoming [to that name])

It's so strange and foreign-sounding to have a prayer actually mention that mythical category of peoples known as the errantibus. But as I understand it, they do exist, and there is a God who extends to them the light of His truth in order that they should leave the path they are on, and return to the path of righteousness (justitia).

Conversion is like that, unfortunately. The very verb convertere means "to turn around"; but turning implies a preceding recognition that the current "forward" direction is a bit off-course.

And what is involved in that recognition of error? Here is the most complex and tangled web: humilitas. The essence of salvation is the process of conversion, but conversion requires humility, which itself is the precise opposite of pride.

How appropriate that the essence of salvation should be the opposite of the essence of sin. "I was wrong" is the salvific counterpart to Lucifer's non serviam.

This is why hardly anyone converts today - it's not primarily an intellectual thing, it primarily an act of the will.

Concéde nos fámulos tuos, quaesumus, Dómine Deus, perpétua mentis et córporis sanitáte gaudére: et, gloriósa beátae Maríae semper Vírginis intercessióne, a praesénti liberári tristítia, et aetérna pérfrui laetítia. Per Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum, etc.

R. Amen.

(Grant to us, Thy servants, Lord God, in perpetual mental and bodily health to rejoice; and, through the glorious intercession of blessed Mary ever-Virgin, to be liberated from present sorrow, and to partake of eternal joy.)

This one just flies in the face of ecumenical sensitivies, with it's very familial and well-worn path "to Jesus through Mary." These objections make the least amount of sense to me, though - how can you reject so loving a Mother?

I've always had a special appreciation for motherhood, I guess, so it just seems second-nature at this point to look to Mary for help; I don't understand the dichotomy that says you can only go to Jesus or Mary, as though the two were mutually exclusive. I certainly never experienced this in my home when I was growing up: I had a relationship with both my mom and my dad, and in some areas, my relationship with my mom was better than it was with my dad.

And you know something? My dad never got mad at me for going to my mom with requests; he never once voiced his fear that somehow I was detracting from his role as a father by asking my mom if I could do this, that, or the other thing.

So I go to Jesus; and when I go to Him, I find Him just as the shepherds and wise-men found Him: with His mother (cf. Matt. 2:11, Lk. 2:16).

Or, said another way, when I go to Mary, I find her just as the disciples at Cana found her: standing at His side and saying, "Do whatever he tells you." (Jn. 2:5)

I get that some people are innocently unaware of the Church's true teaching on Mary (I am thinking here of those people who heard from someone who heard from someone that the Church thinks Mary is divine, etc.), and that's just a necessary-yet-unfortunate part of Genesis 3:15 being played out in history (inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem ...) - but I do not understand those people who are fully aware of the Church's teaching, more-or-less comprehend it, and still rail against it.

Flailing away at the world's Mater purissima et Mater pulchrae dilectionis is just plain perverse. It's as unnatural as watching that three year old in the store screaming at his mother that he hates her.

Ecclésiae tuae, quaesumus, Dómine, preces placátus admítte: ut, destrúctis adversitátibus et erróribus univérsis, secura tibi sérviat libertáte Per Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum, etc.

R. Amen.

(The prayers of Thy Church, we beseech Thee, O Lord, mercifully to receive; that, having destoyed all adversity and all error in every place, securely and with liberty she may serve Thee.)

This prayer affirms something that 98% of Americans violently denounce: that true religious freedom and liberty comes at the price of first destroying all adversity and error, in every place. True religious liberty is not possible in a climate of religious pluralism and so-called tolerance.

Side note: we do not practice tolerance today. Tolerance is leaving other religions in peace while still acknowledging and giving preferential treatment to the one true religion. Our Americanist version of tolerance presupposes (at least implicitly) that there is no such thing as "one true religion."

And so what we have today is religious slavery for all, freedom for all that is irreligious, and the occasional permission granted to non-Christian religions to do their thing.

I would share with you what they prayed in the Novus Ordo Mass today, but too much sugar is bad for you.

A Pope Truly Worthy of the Title "Great"

2005-04-10T19:04:00.000-07:00

Today is the feast day of Pope St. Leo the Great.

****************************************

Leo the First, a Tuscan by birth, governed the Church at the period when Attila, the king of the Huns, surnamed the Scourge of God, was invading Italy. Attila pillaged and burned the city of Aquileia, which he took after a three years' seige. This done, he rushed on Rome like a wild firebrand.

He had reached the place where the Mincio joins the Po, and was on the point of ordering his troops to pass the river, when he was met by Leo, who was moved with compassion at the misfortunes that were threatening Italy. Such was his superhuman eloquence, that he induced Attila to retrace his steps.

When asked by his people how it was that, contrary to his custom, he had yielded such ready obedience to the demands of the Roman Pontiff, the king answered, that he beheld, whilst Leo was speaking, a personage clad in priestly robes, who stood near, with a naked sword in his hand, and threatened him with death unless he obeyed the Pontiff. Whereupon he returned to Pannonia.

Leo was welcomed back to Rome amidst the exceeding joy of all. A short time after, when the city was invested by Genseric, the Pontiff's eloquence and reputation for sanctity had such influence on the barbarian, that he abstained from setting fire to the buildings, and forbade his troops to insult or massacre the inhabitants.

Seeing the Church attacked by several heresies, and mainly by the followers of Nestorius and Eutyches, he called the Council of Chalcedon, in order to remove the error and vindicate the Catholic faith.

Six hundred and thirty bishops assisted at this Council, in which Eutyches and Dioscorus and Nestorius were condemned (the latter for the second time). The decrees of the Council were confirmed by the authority of Leo.

The holy Pontiff then turned his attention to repairing and building churches. It was through his persuasion that a pious lady called Demetria built the Church of Saint Stephen on her own land on the Latin Way, three miles out of the city. He himself build one on the Appian Way, and dedicated it to Saint Cornelius.

He repaired several others, and refurnished them with all the sacred vessels needed for the divine service. He built vaults under the Basilicas of S Peter, S Paul, and S John Lateran, and a monastery near the Vatican.

He appointed guards, to whom he gave the name of Cubicularii, to watch at the Tombs of the Apostles. He ordered that these words should be added to the Canon of the Mass: Holy Sacrifice, spotless Host.

He decreed that a nun should not receive the blessed veil unless she had observed virginity for forty years.

After these and similar admirable acts, and after writing much that was replete with piety and eloquence, he slept in the Lord, on the fourth of the Ides of November (November 10). He reigned as Sovereign Pontiff twenty-one years, one month, and thirteen days.

(Taken from the reading at Matins for April 11)

Help Your Son Commit Sin

2005-04-05T07:22:00.000-07:00

A survey by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, found that there was a significant decline in the number of teen boys who are having sex -- from 55 percent in 1995 to 46 percent in 2002.

However, more and more teen boys and girls are engaging in oral sex, either because they think they can't get pregnant, AIDS, or both. While pregnancy may not be a concern, your son needs to know that oral sex also carries a high risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. So though he may not be doing "it," he is doing something, and talking to your son about using a condom, and maybe even giving him condoms, is probably a smart move. (Doug Donaldson, "10 Things Your Teen Son Won't Tell You...but He Did Tell Me", MSN 4/5/2005, source

Here you go, son, here's a condom for you to use the next time you engage in oral sex. That should protect you from the disease factor.

Now ... if only I had a "condom" that could protect you from the sin factor ...

Hey Mr. Donaldson, here's an idea: try telling your teenage son that pornography, fornication, oral sex, self-abuse, etc. all cut off the life of grace in his soul, and offend Jesus greatly. Try telling him what Our Lord revealed in a private apparition to one of His saints, that the scourging at the pillar which He received was primarily to atone for sins of the flesh - such as pornography, fornication, etc.

Try telling your teenage son that real men have mastery over their fleshly desires, and aren't wimps who are bound to obey every beck and call of their carnal impulses. Try passing on the time-tested devotional exercises that will strengthen him against lust, so that he can save his soul.

Then maybe, just maybe, the next time a girl offers to do him a "favor," he won't say "hang on, let me get the condom my dad gave me," he'll say "that would be an offense against Almighty God, and you really should think more highly of yourself than that anyway."

Better yet, he won't be hanging around those kinds of girls to begin with.

1905: Fathers teach their kids to avoid even the near occasion of sin

2005: Fathers surrender to the assumption that their kids will sin, and begin teaching them how to do so without having to incur any physical consequences

Congratulations, Modern Man, you've arrived.

Religion of the Cranky

2005-04-05T05:52:00.000-07:00

The Dimond "Brothers" are at it again ...

The Catholic Church goes by the external forum. Thus, if an apostate such as John Paul II gave no evidence of conversion in the external forum - and John Paul II gave none - then he is presumed to have died as he lived (as a non-Catholic) and therefore to have been damned. No Catholic can pray for him. The Catholic Church only prays for the faithfully departed. Those who say that John Paul II can be prayed for contradict the practice of the Church.

What can you even say to such hard-heads?

These are the same guys that are teaching on their web site that you can't even eat a holiday dinner with your family if your family is non-Catholic.

It's all so inviting, isn't it? Just makes you want to convert right now, doesn't it?

Discontent attracts the discontented. The Dimonds and their groupies deserve each other.

Good Time to Die

2005-04-04T06:10:00.000-07:00

Few have noticed and made mention of the timing of the pope's death.

Just as it was significant that Sr. Lucy died on the 13th of February (the chosen day of each of the six months during which Our Lady appeared to Sr. Lucy at Fatima: May 13, June 13, July 13, etc.), so it must be considered significant that the Holy Father - so often called "Mary's Pope" for his very public devotion to Our Lady - died on a First Saturday.

JP2 attached great importance to the Five First Saturdays devotion, personally leading the Rosary prayers on the First Saturday of each month for many years of his pontificate.

Also notable is the fact that the Holy Father died shortly after the Vigil of the Feast of Divine Mercy had begun. The Feast of Divine Mercy falls on the Sunday immediately following Easter - a Feast, not coincidentally, that was instituted by John Paul II himself, the same year that he canonized Sr. Faustina (the visionary who received the messages from Jesus about the Divine Mercy).

If sacred time counts for anything (and I think it does), it seems to bode well for the pontiff that he was taken from this world on a day that witnesses the overlapping of both a Marian Saturday and a Feast that honors Our Lord's Mercy.

Another random thought: did you ever notice that people seem to always die in threes? Famous people, that is. Well, it happened again, but oddly enough, this time all three people were Catholic: Sr. Lucy (February), Terri Schiavo (March), and John Paul II (April).

JP2 the Great?

2005-04-04T05:56:00.000-07:00

"John Paul II, or better still, John Paul II the Great, thus becomes the herald of the civilization of love ... " (Cardinal Sodano, homily at the pope's Funeral Mass, as reported by Zenit ["130,000 Attend Mass for John Paul II's Eternal Rest," 4/2/05])

I don't think suffix is going to go away. I mean, I expected the modern crop of e-pologists to be using these titles prematurely (and there's a certain arrogance in that: "the Church's opinion be damned, [i]I[/i] know he was a saint, and to [i]me[/i] he is John Paul the Great - and my opinion is all that matters, so I'm going to keep calling him that publicly"), but I didn't expect Vatican officials to be calling him "John Paul II the Great" this early.

Now, I know some of us Traditionalists are trying hard to be reserved and respectful here in this period of mourning; we had our differences with the man, but he was still our Holy Father, and this is hardly the time - barely even days after his passing - to start in with talk of Assisi, liturgical changes, strange encyclicals, meetings with the Jews, etc.

Now is a time to mourn and to pray.

But if the neoCats are going to insist on shoving this "St. John Paul II the Great" nonsense down our throats at every turn, things could get ugly fast.

The Conclave Hotel

2005-04-04T05:43:00.000-07:00

In centuries past, papal elections took place inside the Sistine Chapel. Actually, everything took place there. The cardinals would assemble, the doors would be locked from the outside, and there would be no leaving the capella until the Church had a new pope.

The cardinals ate in the chapel; they slept in the chapel; the chapel was their new residence until the elections were complete.

A smart idea, I think - it provided some healthy motivation to elect the new pope in a timely fashion.

Alas, this is no longer the case:

The cardinals will live in the Santa Marta residence, a $200 million building constructed in 1996 to provide them with more comfortable living conditions than their predecessors had, and they will vote in the Sistine Chapel. (Andrew Nagorski, "Awaiting White Smoke," Newsweek 4/4/05)

This changes everything, of course. The papal election, once a private event shrouded in secrecy, is now modernized and rather "open." As mentioned, the chapel doors used to get locked when the cardinals assembled - locked from the outside - so that no one could get in or out until the election was over (this is where the term "conclave" came from - from the Latin con clave, "with a key"). No communication with the outside world was possible, because it was not allowed. The men in red simply disappeared into the dark chambers (even the windows were sealed off) and didn't reappear until they could say habemus papem!

Now they're going to be relaxing in luxury suites, commuting back and forth to the chapel. There would be no sense in locking the doors really (although I'm sure they still will - like so much in the post-V2 establishment, the outward ceremony is retained, but emptied of any substance), since they're just going to have to unlock them again to let the cardinals go back to their "hotels."

It will be interesting to see how this modification affects the upcoming election.

Requiscas in Pace, Papa

2005-04-04T04:45:00.000-07:00

Iohannes-Paulus II has departed.

I am amazed at the wide range of reaction - apart from the majority "middle-road" report that we're hearing from most media personae ("A man of faith," "great leader," "most influential pope," "an evangelist," etc.), there are also some extreme opinions on both sides:

"St. John Paul II the Great --may he be received into glory with angelic choirs!" (a "Message from Steve Ray" here [4/4/05])

"I wonder...how many evangelical leaders will honor God rather than men and say what needs to be said? 'Unless the Pope believed the gospel, he, like any other person on the planet, died under the wrath of God, outside of the only way of salvation God has provided in Jesus Christ!'" (James White, blog post for 4/1/05, here)

"Enter into the Joy, Pope St. John Paul the Great!" (Mark Shea, blog post for Saturday, April 02, 2005, here)

"Antipope John Paul II was struck so that he was completely unable to speak even a word just a few days ago. Today, very shortly after being completely unable to speak a word, Antipope John Paul II died in great torment, suffering from multiple organ failure. (He then descended into the eternal flames of Hell.)" (The lovable Dimond Brothers, "Our Thoughts on the Death of Antipope John Paul II and more," here)

"We need to pray for our Holy Father John Paul II (soon to be St. John Paul the Great IMHO)." (Art Sippo, post at Planet Envoy discussion forum, 4/2/05, here)

I'm reading all these news reports wherein Catholics (laity, priests, bishops, etc.) have been expressing their firm belief that John Paul II went straight to heaven - and I've heard rumors that the Vatican is planning on opening the case for JP2's canonization pretty much right after he's buried.

One of the first questions my brother-in-law asked me when he saw me on Friday: "Do you think the pope is going to heaven?"

He's St. John Paul the Great. No, he's the precursor to the Antichrist, and is currently burning in Hell. No, he went straight to heaven and skipped Purgatory. No, he wasn't trusting in Jesus for his salvation.

Here's a thought: suspend judgment. And pray for his soul.

What Are You Reading?

2005-03-31T06:20:00.000-08:00

I have a lot of friends that are bibliophiles, and whenever we talk I always get asked that question: "So what are you reading lately?"

My problem is that I'm so A.D.D. that I always have 30 different books in my "currently reading" stack, and although I have a generally vague sense that what I've been reading this week has been "good stuff," I can never recall specifics (until I sit down to write an article, of course; then, somehow, I remember names, phrases, page numbers, etc.).

So here's a current list of what's on my reading menu for the next few weeks.

Soskice, JM. After Eve. London: Marshall Pickering, 1990. A collection of essays on religion and feminism, feminist readings of Scripture, etc. This book is way too liberal (and even hostile) for my tastes, but there is one very interesting article in here by S. Brock on the concept of a "feminine" Holy Spirit in the early Syriac Fathers of the Church.

Rofé, Alexander. Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretations. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2002. This promised to be a good read, judging from some of the chapter subject titles, but it turned out to be very dry and technical. Too much time spent discussion source-criticism and not enough time on the texts themselves.

McConville, JG. Grace in the End: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1993. A much better read on Deuteronomy, and I especially enjoyed the way he traced "Deuteronomistic thought" from Dt. all the way through the books of the Kings.

Brock, Sebastian. The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of Saint Ephrem. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1992. Fascinating book, I have to say. Lots of selections from St. Ephrem's hymns, a good discussion of theology-as-poetry, and I'm really looking forward to the last chapter (or at least "latter" chapter) on St. Ephrem as a unique Father among the Greek/Latin Fathers.

Wenham, Gordon. Genesis 16-50. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1994. One of the best modern commentaries on Genesis I've come across. Wenham pays attention to literary structure (chiastic passages, word-order, syntax, etc.) and is able to explain a lot just based on this analysis; he's also good at showing the continuity between the major sections of Genesis and the minor "interruptions" (e.g., the interruption of Genesis 38 and Judah/Tamar in the midst of what would otherwise be seen as a "Joseph cycle). I appreciate that, because he's not as quick (like many modern scholars) to just simply write off those anomalies as the fault of some faceless editor.

Allison, Dale. The New Moses: A Matthean Typology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. This book is absolutely fantastic. I would take notes on it, but it might be faster just to photocopy the whole thing. Allison shows so many parallels within the Old and New Testament narratives: Joshua's parallels to Moses; Gideon's parallels to Moses; David's parallels to Moses; John the Baptist's parallels to Moses and Jesus; Jesus' parallels to His own disciples; and, of course, Moses' parallels to Jesus. He even goes further and shows various parallels between Moses and later Christians persons, such as St. Peter, St. Stephen, and even Church Fathers such as St. Cyprian - and these are not parallels he necessarily thought up on his own, so much as they are parallels that he found being referenced in other early writers. Fascinating, fascinating work.

St. Thomas Aquinas (Larcher, tr.). Commentary on Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. Albany, N.Y.: Magi Books, 1966. Classic stuff. It's St. Thomas Aquinas, so what can you say?

Strauss, Mark. The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. I can't really say anything about this book just yet, since I haven't done anything more than skim it to check chapter-subject headings. However, since this is one of my favorite subjects (the Messiah and Davidic Kingship in the NT), it promises to be good.

Dunn, James D.G. Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990. Contains the famous essay on "The New Perspective on Paul," along with some very interesting essays on the meaning of "works of the Law" in Galatians, and related issues. He ends up in the wrong place, ultimately, but some of his insights into Galatians are quite good.

Boyd, Gregory. God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2000. A very short book, very non-technical and non-scholarly (I don't recall if I saw even one footnote - but there must have been), written at a popular level. It's good for what it promises: a quick introduction to the "openness of God" theology that's becoming so popular these days. He summarizes the classical view of St. Augustine/John Calvin (his equation, not mine) that God knows exactly what the future holds, then contrasts it with his own view (the "biblical view") of a God who does not know the future, because the future itself is "open" to possibilities. Not a very satisfying book, but mostly because I need something a little more scholarly and academic if the author is going to be making such serious challenges to classical theology.

Boyd, Gregory. God at War: the Bible and Spiritual Conflict. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997. A much larger and more technical book on the same basic subject as above: it all boils down to the problem of evil in the world. Bad things happen - but do they happen because God planned them or willed them? Did He even know about them? Is He as surprised by them as we are? Does He know they're going to happen, but chooses to allow them? If so, why? Boyd's proposed solution, that the future (or at least, parts of it) is still "open" to God (i.e., unplanned and even unknown) - and therefore bad things happen as the result of our choices, not as the result of His pre-ordained plans - doesn't really solve any problems. It just pushes the problem back a few steps. Boyd says God can know certain things about the future because certain things have been fixed and cannot change - but this only changes the question: now, instead of asking, "Why did God let my friend die in a car wreck if He knew it was going to happen," or "Why did God pre-ordain my friend to die so young," now the question becomes, "Why didn't God choose to make Himself aware of this event, so He could have done something about it?" Ultimately, if Boyd is going to convince me to deep-six the classical theology of St. Augustine, he's going to have to come up with a better reason than "bad things happen, and it's just unthinkable to accept that God had any control over them."

Westermann, Claus. Genesis 12-36: A Commentary. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Pub. House, 1985. So-so commentary. I didn't enjoy this nearly as much as I have been enjoying Wenham.

Feast or Famine

2005-01-05T05:08:00.000-08:00

When I'm making regular contributions to the Blog, the actual web site seems to get ignored. On the other hand, when I'm writing regular essays for the web site, the Blog seems to get ignored.

I haven't posted here since December 28, so that can only mean one thing: the web site has been updated several times.

Be sure to check it out - the whole site got a major design over-haul, and several (i.e., between 5-8) new articles were added.

Hope yours was a Merry Christmas and will be a Blessed New Year.

Great Big Backwards World

2004-12-28T05:20:00.000-08:00

So I come into work this week (Dec. 27-31), and guess what everyone is talking about?

That's right - everyone is talking about how they can't wait to get rid of their Christmas trees, or, how they've already purged their house of Christmas decorations.

This is a brief reminder to those who are still interested in remaining sane:

1) Christmas began on Dec. 25th, it didn't end then
2) Christmas did not begin the day after Thanksgiving - that would be Advent
3) Christmas more-or-less concludes with the Feast of the Epiphany, which is January 6 - a full twelve days after Christmas

Of course, the secular world - in true Luciferian form - inverts this completely and does it backwards. It starts celebrated Christmas 30 days before Christmas, instead of going through the due preparation and mortifications of Advent. Then it shuts down Christmas as soon after the 25th as it can, and begins the Advent-like purifications of the New Year's resolutions (usually having to do with dieting).

[The sad symbolism here is that Advent is an image and foreshadowing of our preparation for Jesus' Second Coming; the secular world is doing now exactly what they'll be doing at the Second Coming - scrambling. Once He comes, however, it will be too late for repentence and resolutions]

I mentioned this to someone recently, and their response was amusing: "Well, I'm not a Catholic, so I don't follow their liturgical calendar."

Too much.

Of course, the reality is that the Church fixes or has already fixed the date of all the major religious feasts: Easter and Christmas being the most prominent among them. And, believe it or not, the secular world does follow the Catholic liturgical calendar on those days.

So anyway, keep the decorations up and keep the celebration of Christmas alive at least until Jan. 6. If you need help, email me and I'll send you the daily liturgy that my family is using every night.

(oh, and today is the Third Day of Christmas - three French hens and all that)

Some Christmas Humor

2004-12-21T08:04:00.000-08:00

This is an annual Yule-tide classic ... far be it from me to fail to share it with you during this week of Christmas!

***************************

'Twas the nocturnal segment of the diurnal period preceding
the annual Yuletide celebration, and throughout our place of
residence, kinetic activity was not in evidence among the
possessors of this potential, including that species of domestic
rodent known as Mus musculus. Hosiery was meticulously suspended
from the forward edge of the wood burning caloric apparatus,
pursuant to our anticipatory pleasure regarding an imminent
visitation from an eccentric philanthropist among whose folkloric
appellations is the honorific Saint Nicholas.

The prepubescent siblings, comfortably ensconced in their
respective accommodations of repose, were experiencing
subconscious visual hallucinations of variegated fruit confections
moving rhythmically through their cerebrums. My conjugal partner
and I, attired in our nocturnal head coverings, were about to take
slumbrous advantage of the hibernal darkness when upon the
avenaceous exterior portion of the grounds there ascended such a
cacophony of dissonance that I felt compelled to arise with
alacrity from my place of repose for the purpose of ascertaining
the precise source thereof.

Hastening to the casement, I forthwith opened the barriers
sealing this fenestration, noting thereupon that the lunar
brilliance without, reflected as it was on the surface of a recent
crystalline precipitation, might be said to rival that of the
solar meridian itself--thus permitting my incredulous optical
sensory organs to behold a miniature airborne runnered conveyance
drawn by eight diminutive specimens of the genus Rangifer, piloted
by a miniscule, aged chauffeur so ebullient and nimble that it
became instantly apparent to me that he was indeed our anticipated
caller. With this ungulate motive power traveling at what may
possibly have been more vertiginous velocity than patriotic
sagacity predicates, he heralded loudly, expelled breath musically
through contracted lips, and addressed each of the octet by his or
her respective cognomen--"Now Dasher, now Dancer . . ." et al.
--guiding them to the uppermost exterior level of our abode,
through which structure I could readily distinguish the
concussions of each of the 32 cloven pedal extremities.

As I retracted my cranium from its erstwhile location and was
performing a 180 degree pivot, our distinguished visitant
achieved--with utmost celerity and via a downward leap--entry by
way of the smoke passage. He was clad entirely in animal pelts
soiled by the ebon residue from oxidations of carboniferous fuels
which had accumulated on the walls thereof. His resemblance to a
street vendor I attributed largely to the plethora of assorted
playthings which he bore dorsally in a commodious cloth
receptacle.

His orbs were scintallant with reflected luminosity, while his
submaxillary dermal indentations gave every evidence of engaging
amiability. The capillaries of his malar regions and nasal
appurtenance were engorged with blood which suffused the
subcutaneous layers, the former approximating the coloration of
Albion's floral emblem, the latter that of the Prunus avium, or
sweet cherry. His amusing fleshy outer region of his oral orifice
resembled nothing so much as a common loop knot, and the hirsute
facial adonment juxtaposed vertically with his oral orifice
appeared like small tabular and columnar crystals of frozen water.

Clenched firmly between his incisors was a smokingpiece whose
grey fumes, forming a tenuous ellipse about his occiput, were
suggestive of a decorative seasonal circlet of holly. His visage
was wider than it was high, and when he waxed amiably mirthful,
his corpulent abdominal region undulated in the manner of
impectinated fruit syrup in a hemispherical container. He was, in
short, neither more nor less than an obese, jocund, multigenarian
gnome, the optical perception of whom rendered me visibly
frolicsome despite every effort to refrain from so being. By
rapidly lowering and then elevating one eyelid and rotating his
head slightly to one side, he indicated that trepidation on my
part was groundless.

Without utterance and with dispatch, he commenced filling the
aforementioned previously dorsally transported cloth receptacle.
Upon completion of this task, he executed an abrupt about-face,
placed a single manual digit in lateral juxtaposition to his
olfactory organ, inclined his cranium forward in a gesture of
leave-taking, and forthwith effected his egress by renegotiating
(in reverse) the smoke passage. He then propelled himself in a
short vector onto his conveyance, directed a musical expulsion of
air through his contracted oral sphincter to the antlered
quadrupeds of burden, and proceeded to soar aloft in a movement
hitherto observable chiefly among the seed-bearing portions of a
common weed. But I overheard his vociferation beyond the limits of
visibility: "Ecstatic Yuletide to the planetary constituency, and
to the selfsame assemblage, my sincerest wishes for a salubriously
beneficial and gratifyingly pleasurable period between sunset and
dawn."

2004-12-17T04:01:00.000-08:00

Philly Court Orders Four Christians to Trial; Emergency Appeal Likely

Clip

In October, 11 Christians were arrested as they were praying and reading scripture during the annual "gay pride" event known as "Outfest" in Philadelphia. Those in the group were charged with three felonies (criminal conspiracy, ethnic intimidation, and riot) and five misdemeanors. On Tuesday, charges were dropped against seven of the individuals; but Philadelphia Municipal Court Judge William Austin Meehan ordered the other four to stand trial on the charges. They were also banned from doing any type of evangelism within 100 yards of any "gay and lesbian event."

Full Story

**********************************

This is truly frightening.

Notice the progression ... the Sodomites started out years ago by saying "just leave us alone and let us be evil in peace." Then they said, "recognize us as equals and give us marriage benefits." Now they're saying "if you express opposition to what we do, we'll call it 'hate-speech' and throw you in prison."

The last step in this process? You will find it in Genesis 19.

"... the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.' Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, 'I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.' But they said, 'Stand back!' And they said, "This fellow came to sojourn, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.' Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door." (vv. 4-9)

Pretty soon the tides will turn, and we'll be the oppressed ones who are begging to just be left in peace.

O Immaculata

2004-12-08T11:21:00.000-08:00

For the feast of the Immaculate Conception, which is celebrated today ...

*********************

Most glorious and immaculate virgin Mary, the Mother of the Redeemer, how priviledged we are to greet you this day!

It was 150 years ago today that the dogma of your Immaculate Conception was defined and promulgated by Holy Mother Church, and we are pleased to celebrate this occasion by offering you our praises.

From the first moment of your conception, you were preserved from the stain of Original Sin by Our Lord. That foul venom of the ancient serpent could not touch you, for where the First Adam failed in his duty to protect his bride, the New Adam was determined to succeed.

In you was fulfilled in a unique way the prophecy of old, which was spoken to the serpent, "I will put emnities between you and the woman."

You are the greatest masterpiece of grace among the many works of the Divine Artist. We render homage and adoration to Him by admiring the spotless beauty of your soul, and by confessing you to be indeed the most blessed among women.

It was of you that the ancients spoke when they praised Judith as blessed among women and the glory of Jerusalem; it was of you that the prophetess spoke when she praised Jael as blessed among women and the crusher of Sisera's wicked head.

It was your pure soul that God the Father had in His mind's eye when He gave to Moses the blueprint for building the Ark of the Covenant.

It was of you that the Holy Ghost spoke, through the pen of Solomon, when He praised you as His fair spouse, "in whom there is no stain," (Cant. 4:7) you who are the "lily among the thorns." (Cant. 2:2)

You are the Seat of Wisdom, upon whose lap, as like to a throne, the King of Israel sat and learned His first words.

Be praised and adored, O Queen of Angels and Saints, for God in His wisdom desired you and only you to bear the Christ, to be the cause of salvation for all men by bringing forth the blessed fruit of your womb, Who would redeem the world.

Hail Mary, who said, "I am the Immaculate Conception," all filled with grace - the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mater Dei, pray for us sinners, both now and at the hour of our death.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.