A Voice Crying in the Wilderness

The Catholic Blogosphere

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 16:42:00 +0000

One Catholic blogger has drafted an interesting piece on what he calls "The Vocation of the Catholic Blogger", which I have found to be quite interesting, and worthy of note. Therefore, I would like to encourage our audience to peruse this post for its interesting perspective on publishing opinions via the internet, especially by Catholic bloggers, namely traditionalists.

On Limbo

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:28:00 +0000

The following excerpt is offered to further elaborate the classic doctrine of a third state, whence a soul may find itself, contingent on the circumstances of life, when the state of heaven nor hell can not have been justly deserved, for souls that may not have been capable of meriting either of the former, namely unbatized infants who pass on prior to the age of reason. It does not serve to advance a comprehensive treatment of the subject, however, I believe that it is a good read.

"To demonstrate what is here advanced, let us, first of all, scan the pages of the Old Testament. We shall there find abundant evidence corroborative of our position, which necessarily presupposes the belief of a middle state. For, be it observed, and let it be constantly borne in mind, that during the period of the old law, none ascended into heaven, 'the way of the holies,' as the Apostle says, ' being not yet made open.' Christ Himself was to dedicate that new and living way,' and begin the entrance in His own person, and by His passion and death to unlock the gates which had been closed against Adam, and all his posterity : ' He alone was found worthy to open the seals and to read the book.' Hence the language used in the Old Testament with regard to even the best of men is, that dying, they went down ad inferos, or ad infernum the lower hell so that they descended not to the grave, which received only their bodies, but ad inferos, ' into hell' the common receptacle for their souls. As exemplifying our meaning, let us bring a few instances in point.

We read, in the book of Genesis, that Jacob, while lamenting the loss of his son Joseph, whom he thought a wild beast had devoured, cried out in the bitterness of his grief, ' I will go down to my son into hell mourning.' The royal Psalmist also makes continual allusion to such a belief. In one of his Canticles he declares, ' Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell ;' and in another he exclaims, ' Thou hast delivered, Lord, my soul from the lower hell;' and again, he asks, ' Shall he deliver his soul from the hand of hell ?' Now, that the hell mentioned here cannot be the abode of Satan and the wicked spirits, is indubitably certain ; since it is incredible that Jacob could have supposed that the soul of his young almost infant son, Joseph, had been consigned to that dungeon. And David would neither have said, ' Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell,' had it been the hell of the damned ; since out of that dreadful region there is no coming forth ; nor would he have spoken of his soul's deliverance from the ( lower hell,' unless he believed that there was a ' lowest hell.

St. Jerome, speaking of the Patriarchs and Prophets, says, If Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were in hell, who were in the kingdom of heaven ?' Again, he writes, ' Before the coming of Christ, Abraham was in hell ; after His coming, the thief was in Paradise. ' Lest it, then, might be urged that Lazarus, being in Abraham's bosom, beheld the rich glutton afar off in hell, and that therefore both Abraham and Lazarus seem to have been in heaven, the same holy Doctor dilutes entirely the difficulty by observing, that these also were in hell, but in a place of rest and refreshment ; and therefore at an immense distance from the wretched glutton who lay in torments in the lowest hell the hell of the damned....

Moreover, there is a passage in the Book of Ecclesiasticus which seems to harmonise with our ideas of a middle state. In chap. vii. v. 37, we read, ' And restrain not thy favour from the dead.' Now, we may be permitted to ask, what favour is this, which can be conferred upon the dead? It is to no purpose, in good sooth, to praise them it is no favour to erect a monument to eternise their memory, since they receive no possible advantage the only favour is the suffrages which the living offer up in their behalf. The learned commentator, Estius, in his Scriptural Annotations, explains the citation in this sense, and gives it as a probable opinion that Ecclesiasticus recommended prayers and oblations for the dead a practice very prevalent among the Jews, in opposition to the heresy of the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection. It would appear that Ecclesiasticus was contemporary with the Maccabees, and the writings of the latter serve to throw an additional light upon the passage in question, thereby corroborating this interpretation. Now, no argument could possibly be more luminous, or cogent, in attesting the Catholic dogma of a middle state, than what is derived from the second book of the Maccabees. We there read that the valiant Judas Maccabeus, 'making a gathering, fice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may he loosed from their sins.' Here is an unquestionable proof of the practice of praying for the dead, under the old law, by God's chosen people. From this extract, we have the most minute and circumstantial evidence that the custom of praying for the dead obtained among the Jews for more than a century and a half anterior to the coming of our blessed Saviour ; that such a custom was not confined to any particular sect, but was practised by the whole Jewish nation, being observed by the people as well as by the priesthood
an especial sacrifice being appointed for that purpose to be offered up in the temple of Jerusalem ; and, finally, that this sacrifice, and these supplications, were expiatory, since the end for which they were instituted was, that the dead might be loosed from their sins. The Jews therefore believed, as is obvious from their practice, that the dead could be succoured by the prayers of the living, and, to use their own language, 'be loosed from their sins.'

- Excerpt from "Limbo: or, An apology for purgatory and prayers for the dead; being the sequel to "the state of the blessed dead" by John Stewart M'Corry, D.D.

Bp. Williamson Controversy

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 21:21:00 +0000

At about the same time the excommunications were lifted from the SSPX, an interview initially recorded several months prior broke onto the scene, sending shockwaves throughout the Catholic community. Included in this interview was a piece concerning the Bishop's views on the holocaust, which section can be viewed at this link [1]. The Vatican was quick to denounce this burst of perceived antisemitism when Cardinal Kasper, the liaison for Vatican-Jewish relations, said in an interview with Italian daily La Repubblica, concerning Bp. Williamson's opinions "These are unacceptable words. To deny the Holocaust is stupid and is a position that has nothing to do with the Catholic Church." The bishop is informed that he is not to function as a cleric of the Church until he recants his statements[2] British bishops were no more sluggish than the Vatican when a spokesman for the bishops said “The views of one of the bishops of SSPX in denying the reality of the Holocaust are totally unacceptable.”[3] Meanwhile, on behalf of U.S. Bishops, Cardinal Francis George condemned the words of the bishop with these comments “Bishop Williamson has denied historical facts about the Shoah, in which six million Jews were cruelly annihilated, innocent victims of blind racial and religious hatred. These comments have evoked understandable outrage from within the Jewish community and also from among our own Catholic people. No Catholic, whether lay person, priest or bishop can ever negate the memory of the Shoah, just as no Catholic should ever tolerate expressions of anti-Semitism and religious bigotry...”[4] The Society of St. Pius X wasted no time in distancing itself from Bp. Williamson in a statement issued by the Superior General "Bishop Williamson’s statements do not in any way reflect the position of our Society."[5] Superior General of the SSPX, Bp. Bernard Fellay is reported to have ordered Williamson to correct his statement, saying "As soon as I saw this interview I told him to correct this nonsense... The sooner, the better," and said the Society didn't understand how the bishop could have been so mistaken.[6] Less than a week later, Bp. Williamson accepted Fellay's decision to relieve him of his post as rector of La Reja Seminary in Argentina.[7] According to the head of the Argentinian organization "National Institute Against Discrimination (INADI)", Maria Jose Lubertino, Williamson could potentially face legal charges in Argentina, and a prison sentence of up to three years.[8] In Europe, the French organization "International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism" publishes threats of pressing charges against the bishop for "contesting crimes against humanity". [9] In Germany, where denial of the holocaust is a crime, punishable with up to 5 years imprisonment, a German district attorney has instigated a criminal investigation against Bp. Williamson. Regensburg District Attorney Guenther Ruckdaeschel said authorities are investigating whether his remarks can be considered to be "inciting racial hatred."[10] Amidst concerns of being extradited to Germany and tried in criminal courts upon returning to the EU, Bp. Williamson was received into England on the 24th of Feb, now residing in London.

Endnotes:
[1] Inclusion of this link does not imply endorsement by VITW or its authors.
[2] adnkronosinternational, "Vatican: Cardinal slams bishop for Holocaust denial", Jan. 26, 2009
[3] Times Online, "Britain's Catholic bishops denounce anti-Semitism", Jan. 27,2009
[4] Catholic News Agency, "U.S. Catholic bishops condemn comments by SSPX bishop", Feb. 3, 2009
[5] Superior General Bernard Fellay, General Statement, Jan. 27, 2009
[6] Spiegel Online, "Head of SSPX Calls on Williamson to Correct 'Nonsense'", Feb. 10, 2009
[7] Rorate Caeli, "Confirmed: Williamson Removed", Feb. 9, 2009
[8] Deutsche Welle News, "Holocaust Revisionist Put Under Pressure by Church, Courts", Feb. 17, 2009
[9] JTA, "French Group will charge bishop", Feb. 11, 2009
[10] CNN News, "Holocaust-denying bishop loses court battle"

Vatican Removes Excommunication on Society of St. Pius X

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:58:00 +0000

On January 24th of this year it was reported that the sentence of excommunication imposed upon the Society of St. Pius X in July of 1988 was "lifted". An English translation of the decree was published by Rorate Caeli as follows:

Decree of the Congregation for Bishops

CONGREGATIO PRO EPISCOPIS

By way of a letter of December 15, 2008 addressed to His Eminence Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Mons. Bernard Fellay, also in the name of the other three Bishops consecrated on June 30, 1988, requested anew the removal of the latae sententiae excommunication formally declared with the Decree of the Prefect of this Congregation on July 1, 1988. In the aforementioned letter, Mons. Fellay affirms, among other things: "We are always firmly determined in our will to remain Catholic and to place all our efforts at the service of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. We accept its teachings with filial disposition. We believe firmly in the Primacy of Peter and in its prerogatives, and for this the current situation makes us suffer so much."

His Holiness Benedict XVI - paternally sensitive to the spiritual unease manifested by the interested party due to the sanction of excommunication and trusting in the effort expressed by them in the aforementioned letter of not sparing any effort to deepen the necessary discussions with the Authority of the Holy See in the still open matters, so as to achieve shortly a full and satisfactory solution of the problem posed in the origin - decided to reconsider the canonical situation of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta, arisen with their episcopal consecration.

With this act, it is desired to consolidate the reciprocal relations of confidence and to intensify and grant stability to the relationship of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X with this Apostolic See. This gift of peace, at the end of the Christmas celebrations, is also intended to be a sign to promote unity in the charity of the universal Church and to try to vanquish the scandal of division.

It is hoped that this step be followed by the prompt accomplishment of full communion with the Church of the entire Fraternity of Saint Pius X, thus testifying true fidelity and true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope with the proof of visible unity.

Based on the faculties expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, in virtue of the present Decree, I remit from Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta the censure of latae sententiae excommunication declared by this Congregation on July 1, 1988, while I declare deprived of any juridical effect, from the present date, the Decree emanated at that time.

Rome, from the Congregation for Bishops, January 21, 2009.

Card. Giovanni Battista Re
Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops

VITW Bulletin

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:05:00 +0000

Notice:

For our regular readers: We apologize for the lack of material produced in the last few months [again] and regret to announce that the hiatus may last just a little bit longer. A lot has happened in the last few months apart from the internet and so it currently continues, and, as the majority of posts are composed by myself, I am become recently booked with lots of work which keeps me off of the internet much of the time, and therefore, postings have become much more infrequent, and therefore, at least for the present time, the posting schedule here at VITW is suspended, but there is hope that posts will resume soon with the continuation of commentaries on relations between the NO and tradition, particularly between apologists and spokespersons, namely concerning Mr. Shea's recent article on the topic.

For our newer readers: there is an archive of several dozen posts that will hopefully suffice for the duration of the hiatus.

And now, the News:

Original posts of a theological or philosophical nature are being suspended, at least as far as we can tell, indefinitely, however, posts of a cyclopedic, speculatory, or reportial nature will resume as ordinary upon the lifting of the hiatus.

However, you can still visit some of our friends, contributors or colleagues listed in our links lists.

Thanks to all and God Bless.

Rev. Haydock on the Language of the Liturgy

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:03:00 +0000

"Did the word of God first come out from you? This he says, to check these new preachers, by putting them in mind, that they are not the first, nor the only Christians, and so must conform themselves to the discipline practised in other Churches, especially since, as their apostle, he hath delivered them the commandments of the Lord. And if any man know not, will not acknowledge, and follow these rules, he shall not be known; God will not know, nor approve his ways. The pretended reformers, from the expressions with which the apostle blames the abuse some new converts made of the gift of tongues, think they have found a plausible argument to reprehend Catholic, for using the same Latin tongue in the Mass, and in the public liturgy. They consider not, whether they have the same reasons to find fault with the present discipline of the Church, as St. Paul then had to blame the Corinthians: whether the circumstances be the same or different: they think it enough that Latin, which is used in the Mass, is a language not understood by a great many ignorant people, and therefore they can say with St. Paul, that an idiot, or an unlearned man, knows not when to say Amen to what he hears. Two things offer themselves here to the consideration of every man, who is disposed to judge impartially. 1. Whether the same reasons and motives now subsist for blaming the Catholics. 2ndly, whether the conveniences and inconveniences, duly examined, it be found more commendable to perform the public liturgy, in those, which are the most general languages, as in Latin or Greek, or to have all liturgies turned into as many tongues, as the ignorant people understand and speak in different places. As to the first, St. Paul does not absolutely forbid the use of this gift of tongues, that were not understood, even by any one (as hath been already observed). All that he blames is, that many, who valued themselves on this gift, spoke at the same time altogether strange tongues, which none understood, but those who had another gift of the Spirit, called the interpretation of speeches, on which account in these meetings there was nothing but confusion, without any profit, edification, or instruction, at a time, and in such circumstances, when instructions were absolutely necessary, both for the new converted Christians, and also for the infidels, who flocked thither as much as the Christians. The case is now quite different, when none but Catholics meet, (especially at the Mass) who have been instructed from their infancy, what they are to believe, as to the mysteries of faith, and what they ought to practise, as to the commandments, the sacraments, prayer, and other points, which they have in their catechisms, or which have been delivered to them by catechetical discourses and instructions. And if they have been happily converted, or are upon their conversion, they are always carefully instructed in the tongue which they understand, as to what they ought to believe, and in the duties of a Christian life. Besides this, all present are frequently instructed by sermons and exhortations, not only on Sundays and holidays, but daily in Advent and Lent, as it is the custom in Catholic countries. I know some of our adversaries have been persuaded, that we preach in Latin to the people; to be convinced of the contrary, let them come and hear us; it is the worst I wish them. As to the sacrifice of the Mass, which none but they who are priests, can offer for the people, of which also a great part, according to the institution of the Church, as the Council of Trent observes, (session 22. cap. 5.) is said with a low voice: it is not performed in Latin in the Western Church, or in Greek in the East, that the meaning of the words may be concealed, since the same Council has laid an express injunction upon all pastors, and upon all that have care of souls, that they frequently, and especially on Sundays, and holidays, expound to the people, what is contained in the Mass, to wit, the parts, and the ceremonies. See 22nd session, cap. 8.) And this command is again repeated, (session 24. cap. 7.) that they instruct the people in their mother tongue concerning the divine mysteries and sacraments. All that can read, may find the Mass translated into their own language, and the most ignorant are taught and instructed, that by the different parts are represented the death and sufferings of our Saviour, Christ: they are taught how to offer up at the same time their intention, their heart, and their prayers: to confess themselves sinners before God, as the priest does, how they ought to endeavour to praise, and adore Christ with the blessed spirits in heaven; how they ought to beg graces of God, by saying the Lord's prayer; how they ought, at the same time, at least in spirit and desire, to receive the holy sacrament of the eucharist, with a sincere repentance, with humility and devotion. Cannot all things, then, be done to edification, as St. Paul requires, though the words of the Mass, and public liturgy, be in a language which the ignorant do not understand, but which, of all others, is the most general! Now the second thing to be examined is, whether, all things duly considered, it be better to retain the public Church-offices in Latin, and in those ancient dead languages, as they are called, or to turn the liturgy into as many tongues, as are spoken in different places and countries! Our adversaries, by this new alteration which they have made, have gone against the judgment of all Christian Churches, both in the West and East, and in all parts of the world. For as Mons. Simon takes notice, in his Critics, all other Churches (the Protestant only excepted) have judged it expedient, to stick to the words and languages of their ancient liturgies, the Grecians to the ancient Greek, which now the ignorant among them do not understand; the like is to be said of the ancient Syriac, Arabic, Coptic, &c. And it is also observed, that the Israelites continued the reading of the law and the prophets, in the ancient Hebrew, which the common people of the Jews did not understand after their return from the Babylonian captivity. It is well known that Latin in this part of the world, is more generally spread and known, than any other language whatsoever. It is taught every where in all public schools. It is learnt, not only by the ministers of the Church, but by almost all gentlemen, and by persons of all conditions, the poorer sort only excepted. There is this great convenience, that the same priest can perform all the public Church-offices, in all places and kingdoms where he travels. All the faithful, whithersoever they have occasion to go, meet with the same Mass, and liturgy in the same words abroad, which they were accustomed to hear at home. The same uniformity is every where preserved without change or confusion. But according to the method introduced by the Protestants, the liturgy must be changed into as many different tongues, as there are countries and places, and in almost every century, as we see by experience, languages are liable and subject to considerable changes and alterations. From hence arises a danger of changes, as to the doctrine and belief of the faithful: errors and heresies are the consequences, that follow such frequent changes, especially, when by another false principle of the said reformers, every private man and woman has a right to expound the hard and obscure place of the holy Scriptures, which make up the chief and greatest part of all public liturgies in all Christian Churches. I might ask of the Protestants, whether the ignorant people at lest, and idiots, as St. Paul calls them, understand the meaning of the Psalms, when they are sung in Hopkins's rhymes; though they may perhaps know when to say Amen, with the rest. Nor yet does every ignorant man know what the word itself, Amen, signifies, and therefore knows not what he answers. I cannot but here take notice of an unfair way of proceeding, even in the best Protestant translation, by sometimes adding in this chapter the word unknown, and sometimes omitting it. All Catholics are willing to allow, that by the gift of speaking tongues, St. Paul means tongues unknown, though the word unknown is not found so much as once, neither in the Latin, nor even so much as in any one Greek manuscript. The Protestant translators, for tongues, have put unknown tongues, in all the verses, where St. Paul blames the abuse of this gift; to wit, ver. 2. 4. 13. 14. 19. 27. but they make no such addition, where St. Paul either commends, or permits the speaking in tongues not understood, as ver. 5. where he says, I would have you to speak tongues; and ver. 29. where he says, forbid not to speak tongues. It is evident, that there is the very same reason for the addition, or the omission equally in all these verses. Is this to translate faithfully? I would by no means judge rashly, even of any adversary; but it looks as if both the addition and omission was with a design of making this popular objection seem to be of greater force against this point of discipline, and practice of the Catholics, and indeed of all Christian Churches." (Witham)

- Haydock Bible Commentary on I Cor. Ch. XIV, Ver. 36-38.

Old Fashioned Ecumenism: St. Francis Xavier

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:50:00 +0000

St. Francis Xavier: “...God, most Faithful and True, held the misbelievers and their prayers in abomination, and so willed that their worship, which He rejected altogether, should come to naught.”[1]

“When all are baptized I order the temples of their false gods to be destroyed and all the idols to be broken in pieces. I can give you no idea of the joy I feel in seeing this done, witnessing the destruction of the idols by the people who lately adored them…When I have done all this in one place, I pass to another… In this way I go all around the country, bringing the natives into the fold of Jesus Christ, and the joy I feel in this is far too great to be expressed…”[2]

“For my part, it does not astonish me that the bonzes [the false, pagan religious leaders in Japan] are covered with so many and so great sins. They are a set of men who have the Devil in place of God, and it is a matter of necessity that they should commit crimes innumerable and abominable… I earnestly beg all who read this letter of mine… to pray that Our Lord Jesus Christ will give us the victory over these two demons Xaca and Amida [the false gods of the Japanese], and over the others like them, especially since at present their credit is waxing weak at Amanguchi, not without the special providence of God.” [3]

“These children [converted to Christ]… show an ardent love for the Divine law, and an extraordinary zeal for our holy religion and imparting it to others. Their hatred for idolatry is marvelous. They get into feuds with the heathens about it… The children run at the idols, upset them, dash them down, break them to pieces, spit on them, trample on them, kick them about, and in short heap on them every possible outrage.”[4]

___________
Endnotes:
[1] St. Francis Xavier, Sept. 18, 1542; Colridge, Life and Letters, Vol. 1, p. 116)
[2] St. Francis Xavier, +1545; Colridge, Life and Letters
[3] St. Francis Xavier, Jan. 29, 1552; Ibid.
[4] [St. Francis Xavier, +1543; Ibid.

Old Fashioned Ecumenism: St. Martin Of Tours

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:19:00 +0000

"But in a village which was named Leprosum, when he [St. Martin D'Tours] too wished to overthrow a temple which had acquired great wealth through the superstitious ideas entertained of its sanctity, a multitude of the heathen resisted him to such a degree that he was driven back not without bodily injury. He, therefore, withdrew to a place in the vicinity, and there for three days, clothed in sackcloth and ashes fasting and praying the whole time, he besought the Lord, that, as he had not been able to overthrow that temple by human effort, Divine power might be exerted to destroy it. Then two angels, with spears and shields after the manner of heavenly warriors, suddenly presented themselves to him, saying that they were sent by the Lord to put to flight the rustic multitude, and to furnish protection to Martin, lest, while the temple was being destroyed, any one should offer resistance. They told him therefore to return, and complete the blessed work which he had begun. Accordingly Martin returned to the village; and while the crowds of heathen looked on in perfect quiet as he razed the pagan temple even to the foundations, he also reduced all the altars and images to dust. At this sight the rustics, when they perceived that they had been so astounded and terrified by an intervention of the Divine will, that they might not be found fighting against the bishop, almost all believed in the Lord Jesus. They then began to cry out openly and to confess that the God of Martin ought to be worshiped, and that the idols should be despised, which were not able to help them." [1]

"At that time... the most blessed Martin then began to preach in the Gauls, and he overcame the unbelief of the heathen, showing among the people by many miracles that Christ the Son of God was the true God. He destroyed heathen shrines, crushed heresy, built churches, and while he was glorious for many other miracles, he completed his title to fame by restoring three dead men to life."[2]

___________________
Endnotes:
[1] Suplicitus Severus, Life of St. Martin, Ch. XIV
[2] St. Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks, Ch. 39

Related:

Luther's Mass: A Comparison

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Fri, 16 May 2008 05:53:00 +0000

An Examination of the Shocking Similarities Between the New Mass and Luther's "Mass"
by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

Ladies and Gentlemen,
I wish to speak to you this evening about the evangelical Mass of Martin Luther, and of the striking resemblance between his Liturgical innovations of more than four centuries ago, and the recently promulgated new order of the Mass, the Novus Ordo Missae.
Why are such considerations of significance? Because of the prominent role, according to the President of the Liturgical Commission himself, accorded to the concept of ecumenism in bringing about these reforms. Because, further, if we are able to ascertain that a close relationship does indeed exist between Luther's innovations and the Novus Ordo, then the theological question, that is the question of the faith, must be asked in terms of the well known adage, "lex orandi, lex credendi"; the law of prayer cannot be profoundly changed without changing the law of belief.
It is well, in order to assist our understanding of the present liturgical reforms, to examine carefully actual historical documents on Luther's reforms.
To grasp Luther's goal in bringing forward his reforms we must briefly recall the Church's doctrine with respect to the Priesthood and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
The 22nd session of the Council of Trent (1562) teaches that Our Lord Jesus Christ, wishing His Priesthood to continue after His death on the Cross, instituted at the Last Supper a visible Sacrifice destined to apply the salutary effect of His Redemption to the sins of mankind. Christ therefore, instituted Holy Orders, and choosing His Apostles and their successors to be the priests of the New Testament, marked them as such with a sacred and indelible character.
This Sacrifice instituted by Christ is performed on our altars by the sacrificial action of the Redeemer Himself, truly present under the species of bread and wine, offering Himself as a victim to His Father. And by partaking at Communion of this Victim, we unite ourselves to the Body and Blood of Our Lord, and offer ourselves also in union with Him.
Thus, the Church teaches, first, that the Priesthood of the priest is essentially different from that of the faithful, who do not have the Priesthood but who belong to a Church which essentially requires a Priesthood. It is deeply fitting that this Priesthood be celibate, and that its members be differentiated from the faithful by clerical dress.
Secondly, the essential liturgical act performed by this Priesthood is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, different from the Sacrifice of the Cross only in that the latter was a bloody sacrifice, and the former is an unbloody sacrifice. The Sacrifice of the Mass is accomplished by the sacrificial action of reciting the words of the Consecration, and not simply by reciting a narrative, or by a remembrance of the Passion or of the Last Supper.
Thirdly, it is by virtue of this sublime and mysterious act that the effects of the Redemption are applied to the souls of both the faithful on Earth and the souls in Purgatory. This doctrine is most admirably expressed at the Offertory of the Mass.
Fourthly, the Real Presence of the Victim is thus required, and comes to pass through the change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of Our Lord. Accordingly, we are required to adore the Eucharist and reserve for it the very highest respect, whence comes the tradition that priests alone distribute the Holy Eucharist and see to Its custody.
It follows, finally, that although a priest celebrates the Mass and takes Communion alone, yet he performs a public act, a sacrifice equal in value to any other Mass, and of infinite value to both the celebrant and the entire Church. Privately celebrated Masses, accordingly, are highly encouraged by the Church.
The above principles are the basis of the prayers, the music and the ceremonies which have made the Latin Mass of the Council of Trent a veritable liturgical jewel. The Council of Trent's deeply moving doctrine on the Canon, the most precious element of the Mass, states:
"As it is becoming that holy things he administered in a holy manner and of all things this Sacrifice is the most holy, the Catholic Church, to the end that it might be worthily and reverently offered and received, instituted many centuries ago the Holy Canon, which is so free from error that it contains nothing that does not in the highest degree savor of a certain holiness and piety and raise up to God the minds of those who offer. For it consists partly of the very words of the Lord, partly of the traditions of the Apostles, and also of pious regulations of holy Pontiffs." (Acts of the Council of Trent, session 22, chapter IV).
Let us examine the manner in which Luther achieved his reform of the liturgy, that is implemented the "evangelical Mass", as he himself called it. Of particular interest in this effort are the actual words of Luther himself, or of his disciples, with respect to the reforms. It is enlightening to note the liberal tendencies which inspire Luther:
In first place", he writes "I would kindly and for God's sake request all those who see this order of service or desire to follow it: do not make it a rigid law to bind or entangle anyone's conscience, but use it in Christian liberty as long, when, where, and how you find it to be practical and useful."(T,C. Tappert, ed., Selected Writings of Martin Luther, vol. 3,p. 397). "The cult", he continues, "was formerly meant to render homage to God; henceforth it shall he directed to man in order to console him and enlighten him, Whereas the sacrifice formerly held pride of place, henceforth the most important will be the sermon". (from Léon Christiani, Du luthéranisme au protestantisme (1910), p. 312)
Luther's Thoughts on the Priesthood In his work on privately celebrated Masses, Luther seeks to demonstrate that the Catholic Priesthood is a creation of Satan. He bases this assertion On the principle, henceforth fundamental to his thinking, that what is not in Holy Scripture is an addition of Satan. Accordingly, for Luther, since Scripture makes no mention of the visible Priesthood, there can be but one priest and one Pontiff, Christ. With Christ we are all called to the Priesthood, thus making the Priesthood at once unique and universal. What folly to seek to limit it to the few. Similarly, all hierarchical distinctions between Christians are worthy of the Antichrist; "Woe therefore, to those who call themselves priests". (Christiani, Ibid., p. 269)
In 1520, Luther wrote "To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian State", in which he attacks the Romanists and urges the convocation of a free council:
"The first wall built by the Romanists is the distinction between the clergy and the laity. It is pure invention that pope, bishop, priests, and monks are called the spiritual estate while prince', lords, artisans and peasants are called the temporal estate. This is indeed a piece of deceit and hypocrisy. All Christians are truly of the spiritual estate, and there is no difference among them except that of office... The pope or bishop anoints, confers the tonsure, ordains, consecrates, and prescribes garb different from that of the laity. He might well make a man into a hypocrite in so doing, but never a Christian or a spiritual man... Whoever comes out of the water of baptism can boast that he is already a consecrated priest, bishop, and pope, although of course it is not seemly that just anybody should exercise such office". (Tappert, Ibid., vol. 1, 23-65)
It was from this doctrine that Luther concluded against both clerical garb and celibacy. He and his disciples, in fact, showed the way by marrying.
How many of the reforms of Vatican II reflect Luther's own conclusions? The abandonment of clerical and religious dress, widespread marriages of the religious sanctioned even by the Holy See, the suppression of distinctions between priest and layman. This egalitarianism is further manifested in the sharing of liturgical functions formerly reserved to the Priesthood.
The abolition of the minor orders and the sub-diaconate, and the creation of a married diaconate, have also contributed to the purely administrative conception of the priest, to the detriment of his essentially priestly character, Thus one is ordained primarily to serve the community and no longer for the purpose of offering Christ's Sacrifice which alone is the justification for the Catholic concept of the Priesthood.
Worker priests, priests in labor unions, or in positions remunerated by the State similarly contribute to the blurring of distinctions between Priesthood and laity. In fact, the innovations go much further than those of Luther.
Luther's second grave doctrinal error flows from the first and is founded upon its guiding principle: salvation comes from faith and confidence in God alone, and not from good works. thus negating the value of the sacrificial act which is the Catholic Mass.
For Luther, the Mass is a sacrifice of praise, that is an act of praise, of thanksgiving, but most certainly not an expiatory sacrifice which recreates the Sacrifice of Calvary and applies its merits.
Describing the liturgical "perversions" he observed in some monasteries, he wrote: "The Principal expression of their cult, the Mass, surpasses all impiety and abomination in that they make of it a sacrifice and a good work. Were this the only reason to leave habit and convent and abandon the vows, it would be amply sufficient". (Christiani, p. 258)
For Luther, the Mass, which is meant simply to be a communion, has been subjected to a triple bondage: the laity has been deprived of the use of the chalice, they have been bound as to a dogma to the Thomistic opinion on transubstantiation, and the Mass has been made into a sacrifice.
"It is, therefore, clearly erroneous and impious", he declared, "to offer or apply the merits of the Mass for sins, or the reparation thereof, or for the deceased. Mass is offered by God to man, and not by man to God". (Christiani)
"With respect in the Eucharist, since it ought first and foremost to move one to the Faith, it is fitting that it be celebrated in the vernacular in order that all may comprehend the grandeur of God's promise to man". (Christiani, p. 176)
The logical consequence of this heresy was for Luther to abolish the Offertory of the Mass, which expresses unequivocally the propitiatory and expiatory aims of the Sacrifice. Similarly, he abolished a major part of the Canon, retaining only the essential passages as a narrative of Christ's Last Supper. In order better to emphasize the latter event, he added to the formula of the Consecration of the bread the words "quod pro vobis tradetur" ("which will be given up for you"), and deleted both "mysterium fidei" ("the mystery of faith") and "pro multis" ("for many"). He considered that the passages which both immediately precede and follow the actual Consecration of the bread and Wine were essential.
For Luther, the Mass is firstly the Liturgy of the Word, and secondly a Communion. For us that fact that the current liturgical Reforms have adopted precisely these same modifications is nothing short of astounding. Indeed, as we well know, the texts in use by the faithful today no longer make reference to the Sacrifice, but rather to the Liturgy of the Word, to the Lord's Supper and to the breaking of bread, or to the Eucharist. Article VII of the instruction which introduced the new Liturgy reflected a clearly Protestant orientation. A corrected version which followed in the wake of the outraged protests of the faithful remains sadly deficient.
It goes without saying that, added to these substantial alterations, the large number of lesser liturgical modifications have contributed further to the inculcation of Protestant attitudes which seriously threaten Catholic doctrine: the suppression of the altar stone, the use of a single altar cloth, the priest facing the people, the Host remaining on the paten rather than on the corporal, the introduction of ordinary bread, sacred vessels of less noble substances, and numerous other details.
There is nothing more essential to the survival of the Catholic Church than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. To play it down is to threaten the very foundation of Christ's Church. The whole of Christian life, and the Priesthood, is founded upon the Cross, and upon the re-enactment of the Sacrifice of the Cross, upon the altar.
LUTHER DENIES TRANSUBSTANTIATION AND THE REAL PRESENCE AS TAUGHT BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. For Luther the substance of bread remains. Consequently, in the words of his disciple Melanchton, who strongly opposed the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, "Christ instituted the Eucharist as a memorial of His Passion. To adore It is therefore idolatry".
It follows that Communion is to be taken in the hand and under both species, which reinforces the denial of the presence of Our Lord's Body and Blood; it is thus normal to consider the Eucharist as incomplete under a single species.
Once again we note the strange resemblance between the present renewal and Luther's Reform. Every recent promulgation on the Eucharist tends towards a lessening of respect, a retreat from adoration: Communion in the hand and its distribution by lay men and lay women; the reduced number of genuflections, which many priests have discontinued altogether; the use of ordinary vessels and ordinary bread, all of these innovations have diminished belief in the Real Presence as taught by the Catholic Church.
One cannot but conclude that, principles being inseparable from practice ("lex orandi, lex credendi"), the fact that the Liturgy of the present day imitates Luther's reforms leads inevitably towards the adoption of the very principles propounded by Luther. The experience of the six years which have followed the promulgation of the Novus Ordo is sufficient proof. The consequences, of this so-called ecumenical effort, have been nothing short of catastrophic, primarily in the area of faith, and especially in terms of the perversion of the Priesthood and the serious decline in vocations, in the scandalous divisions created among Catholics the world over, and indeed in the Church's relations with Protestants and Orthodox Christians.
Protestant concepts on the essential questions of the Church, the Priesthood, the Sacrifice and the Eucharist are irrevocably opposed to those of the Catholic Church. It was for no idle purpose that the Council of Trent was convened, and that the Church's Magisterium has spoken so frequently on these very questions for more than four centuries since Trent.
It is impossible in psychological, pastoral and theological terms for Catholics to abandon a Liturgy which has always been the true expression and sustenance of their Faith, and to adopt in its place new rites conceived by heretics without exposing this Faith to the most serious peril. One cannot imitate Protestantism indefinitely without becoming Protestant.
How many of the faithful, how many young priests, how many bishops even have lost their Faith since the adoption of the new liturgical Reforms? One cannot expect to offend both Faith and nature and not expect that these in turn should reap their own vengeance.
In order to grasp the striking analogy between the two Reforms, it is well worth reading contemporary accounts of the early Evangelical Masses. Leon Christiani's descriptions remain vivid:
"During the night of December 24/25 1521, large crowds began arriving at the parish church... The evangelical Mass was about to begin; Karlstadt goes to the pulpit; he is to preach on the Eucharist. He claims that Communion under both species is obligatory and that prior Confession is not required. Faith alone matters. Karlstadt approaches the altar in secular dress, recites the Confiteor, and begins the Mass proper in the usual manner, up to the Gospel. The Offertory and the Elevation, that is those parts which express the idea of the Sacrifice, are omitted. After the Consecration comes the Communion. Many of the congregation have not been to Confession and many have not fasted, not even from alcohol. They approach the Communion table with the others. Karlstadt distributed the hosts and offers the chalice. The communicants receive the consecrated bread in the hand and casually drink from the chalice. A host falls to the ground and Karlstadt beckons to a lay person to pick it up. The layman demurs, and Karlstadt allows it to remain where it is for the time being, cautioning the congregation, however, not to step on it." (Christiani, p. 281-83)
That same Christmas day another priest in the same district gave communion under both species to about fifty persons, of whom only five had gone to Confession. The rest had received a general absolution, their penance being the recommendation to resist sin.
The very next day - December 26 - Karlstadt announced his engagement to Anna de Mochau. Numerous priests followed suit.
In the meantime, Zwilling, having left his monastery, was preaching at Eilenberg. He had discarded the habit and was now bearded. Dressed in lay clothes, he fulminated against privately celebrated Masses. On New Year's Day, he distributed Communion under both species. The hosts were passed from hand to hand. Several were pocketed by the communicants. One lady, while receiving, allowed fragments to drop to the ground. No one appeared to notice. The faithful helped themselves generously to the chalice.
On 29 February 1522, Zwilling married Catherine Falki. By this time there had occurred a rash of marriages of priests and monks. The monasteries were beginning to empty. Those monks who remained removed all altars save one, destroyed statues and images and even the Holy Oils.
Among the clergy, Anarchy reigned. Each priest celebrated Mass in his own fashion. It was resolved finally to prescribe a new Liturgy with a view of restoring order and consolidating the Reforms.
The order of Mass was set to include the Introit, the Gloria, the Epistle, the Gospel and the Sanctus, followed by a sermon. The Offertory and the Canon were both abolished. Henceforth the priest was to simply narrate the institution of the Lord's Supper, reciting aloud in German the words of the Consecration, and distributing Communion under both species. The Agnus Dei, the Communion prayer and the Benedicamus Domino were sung to end the Mass. (Christiani, p 281-85).
One of the preoccupations of Luther at this time was the institution of a repertory of appropriate hymns. With considerable difficulty he was able to enlist the efforts of lyricists. The Saints feast days were abolished. Generally, however, Luther attempted to minimize out-and-out abolitions. He directed his efforts to retaining as many of the ancient ceremonies as possible, seeking rather to orient their significance toward the spirit of his Reforms.
Thus for a time the Mass retained in large measure its external appearances. The churches retained the same decor and the same rites, with modifications but directed towards the faithful, for henceforth much more attention was to be paid to the faithful than formerly, in order that they, might be conscious of a more active role in the Liturgy: thus, they were to participate in the singing and in the prayers of the Mass. And, gradually, Latin gave way definitively to the German vernacular.
Even the Consecration was sung in German, in these words: "Our Lord on the night He was betrayed took bread, rendered thanks, broke it and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take you and eat of this for this is My Body given up for you. Do this, as often as you shall do it, in memory of Me. In like manner, when the supper was done, taking also the chalice saying; Take you and drink of this for this is the chalice of the new covenant, of My Blood which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. Do this, as often as you shall drink of this chalice, in memory of Me."
Thus were added to the Consecration of the bread the words "which is given up for you", and deleted from the Consecration of the wine, the words "the mystery of faith" and "for many".
Do these considerations on the Evangelical Mass not reflect our very feelings towards the reformed liturgy since the Council?
All of these changes which comprise the new Liturgy of the Mass are truly of perilous consequence, especially for younger priests. Not having been nourished with the doctrines of the Sacrifice, of the Real Presence, of Transubstantiation, these no longer have any significance for young priests who, as a result, soon lose the intention to perform what the Church performs. Consequently, they no longer celebrate valid Masses.
Older priests, on the other hand, even when they celebrate according to the Novus Ordo, may still have the Faith of all time. For years they have celebrated Mass according to the Tridentine rite, and in accordance with the intentions of that rite, we can assume that their Masses are valid. To the degree, however, that these intentions disappear, even their Masses may become invalid.
It was intended that Catholics and Protestants draw closer together, but it is evident that Catholics have become Protestants, rather than the reverse.
When five cardinals and fifteen bishops participated recently in a "Council of Youth" at Taizé in France, how were young people to distinguish between Catholicism and Protestantism? Some received Communion from Catholics, others from Protestants.
Recently Cardinal Willebrands, in his capacity as the Holy See's Envoy to the World Council of Churches at Geneva, declared solemnly that we shall have to rehabilitate Martin Luther!
And what has become of the Sacrament of Penance with the introduction of general absolution? Is it truly a pastoral improvement to teach the faithful that, having been granted general absolution, they may receive Communion provided, should they be in the state of mortal sin, that they take the opportunity to go to Confession within the following six months, or year? Who will suggest that this is indeed a pastoral improvement? What concept of mortal sin are the faithful to retain from this argument?
The Sacrament of Confirmation is in a similar situation. A common rite today is to pronounce simply "I sign you with the Sign of the Cross. Receive the Holy Spirit." In administering Confirmation, the bishop must indicate precisely the special sacramental grace whereby he confers the Holy Ghost. There is no Confirmation if he does not say, "I confirm you in the name of the Father..."
Bishops frequently reproach me, and remind me, that I confer the Sacrament where I am not authorized. To them I answer that I confirm because the faithful fear that their children have not received the grace of Confirmation, because they have a serious doubt as to the validity of the Sacrament conferred in their Churches. Therefore, in order that they might at least be secure in their knowledge of the validity of the sacramental grace, they ask that I confirm their children. And I respond to their plea because it appears to me that I may not refuse those who request that their confirmation be valid, even if it may not be licit. We are clearly at a time when divine natural and supernatural law takes precedence over positive Church law when the latter is opposed to the former, when in reality it should he the channel leading to it.
We are living in an age of extraordinary crisis, and we cannot accept its Reforms. Where are the good fruits of these Reforms, of the Liturgical Reform, the Reform of the seminaries, the Reform of the religious congregations? What have all of these General Chapters yielded; what has become of their congregations? The religious life has all but disappeared: there are no more novices, no more vocations!
Archbishop Bernardin of Cincinnati recognized the problem clearly when he declared to the Synod of Bishops in Rome, "In our countries" - he was speaking for English-speaking countries of the world - "there are no more vocations because the priest has lost his sense of identity," It is essential, therefore, that we remain loyal to Tradition, for without Tradition there is no grace, no continuity in the Church. If we abandon Tradition, we contribute to the destruction of the Church.
I have had occasion to say to the Cardinals, "Do you not see that the Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom is a contradiction? Whereas the Introduction states that the council leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine, the body of the document is entirely opposed to Tradition: it is opposed to what has been taught by Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, and Leo XIII."
We are now faced with a grave choice: either we agree with the Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom, and thus oppose the teachings of the Popes, or we agree with the teachings of the popes, and thus disagree with Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Freedom. It is impossible to subscribe to both. I have made my choice: I choose Tradition. I cling to Tradition over novelty which is merely an expression of Liberalism, the very Liberalism condemned by the Holy See for a century and a half. Now this Liberalism has penetrated the Church through the Council, and its catchwords remain the same; liberty, equality and fraternity.
The spirit of Liberalism permeates the Church today, though its catchwords are thinly veiled: liberty is religious freedom; fraternity is ecumenism; equality is collegiality. These are the three principles of Liberalism, the legacy of the 18th century philosophers and of the French Revolution.
The Church today is approaching its own destruction because these principles are absolutely contrary to nature and to faith. There is no true equality possible, and Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical on freedom clearly explained why.
And fraternity! If there is no Father where shall we find fraternity? If there is no Father, there is no God, how then shall we be brothers? Are we to embrace the enemies of the Church, the Communists, the Buddhists, the Masons?
And now we have word that there is no excommunication for Catholics who become Freemasons. Freemasonry nearly destroyed Portugal; Freemasonry was with Allende in Chile, and is now in South Vietnam. Freemasons see it as important to destroy Catholic States. Thus it was during the First World War in Austria, thus it was in Hungary and in Poland. Freemasonry seeks to destroy the Catholic nations. What is in store for Spain and Italy and other countries in the near future? Why does the Church feel compelled to open her arms to the enemies of the Church?
Now we are bound to pray, to redouble our prayers! We are witnessing an assault by Satan against the Church, as has never been seen. We must pray to Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary, to come to our assistance, for we can have no idea what horrors tomorrow may bring. It is not possible for God to tolerate indefinitely these blasphemies, these sacrileges which are committed against His Glory and Majesty! One need only reflect on the horror of abortion, on rampant divorce, on the ruin of moral law and of truth itself. It is inconceivable that all of this can continue without God punishing the world by some terrible chastisement.
This is why we must beg God's mercy for ourselves and for all mankind, and we must struggle, we must fight. We must fight fearlessly to maintain Tradition, to maintain, above all, the Liturgy of the Holy Mass, because it is the very foundation of the Church, indeed of Christian civilization. Were the true Mass no longer to be celebrated in the Church, the Church would disappear.
We must, therefore, preserve this Liturgy, this Sacrifice. Our churches were built for this Mass and for no other: for the Sacrifice of the Mass, and not for a supper, a meal, a memorial or a Communion. Our ancestors built magnificent cathedrals and churches, not for a meal or a simple memorial, but for the Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ which continues upon our altars.

Conservative or Liberal?

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Fri, 02 May 2008 21:36:00 +0000

One of the games liberals like to play is the name-calling game. They call you a name and suddenly nothing you have to say has any merit or makes any difference. They create a dichotomy between two sides by proposing a position, and opinions regarding it, then denouncing both opinions as somehow extremist, all the while never regarding the positions. A Right-wing and a Left-wing, liberals take the "middle" option, so they say. The "Left wingers" are radicals, and the "right-wingers" are extremists. Generally, the case is an either-or case, as opposed to a both-and, but the game's goal is to turn the either-or into a both-and, it's a game where the rules are based on relativism, whatever opinions there are, they are all placed on the same level, you see, all opinions are equal, and no opinion has any more merit than the other save the amount of people who accept a given side, as a rule.

Let's say the left-winger says water is dry, and the right-winger says it's wet. The "moderate" liberal" proceeds to say both are wrong, water is both dry and wet, calling one side the "dryists", because they insist that it's dry, and the other "wetans" because they insist that it's dry. And the liberal has discarded the other two opinions besides his own because he called them a name. Another case would be one where let's say the majority thinks spiders have six legs, and the minority thinks it has eight. The liberal will denounce the minority "eightists" because their opinion conflicts with the majority. Now, let's say we put these two cases together, the "dryist sixists" hold that the spider, who had six legs, went up the water spout, down came the rain and crushed the spider out, because let's say they think that the water is hard because it's dry. The "wetist eightists" hold that the spider, who had eight legs, went up the water spout and was washed out by the wet rain. But the Liberal denounces both of these without even considering their logic, in his, and probably the majority's view, the spider, who had six legs, went up the water spout, down came the rain and pelted the spider in.

The whole problem with the liberal's view is that his opinion is completely and totally sophistry, his whole view and logic is based on the erroneous principle that there is no absolute truth, but only a relative truth. His thinking is illogical, it has no concept of the principle of contradiction [that a thing cannot both be and not be]. The Liberal is a modernist, his logic is not logical, his logic is one that divorces premises from conclusions, judgments from judgments, amounts from totals. His key principle is that there is no definite conclusion about anything, he denies the central act of the mind. The object of judgment is a conclusion, the whole logical process of the mind is one which is aimed at discerning the truth, at coming to a conclusion, at logically drawing a conclusion from a logical premise. And therefore his mind is stunted epistemologically and psychologically. And so his conclusions cannot help but be erroneous, because his interest is not in ascertaining the absolute truth, but on the possession of a convenient relative fact.
His aim in an argument is not to find the truth, but to win the argument, argumentation for him is not a resolution, it is not about finding out what opinion is right, but towards winning a battle, which for him is no battle at all, his argumentation is the argumentation ad hominem et ad populum. His argument is all about avoiding the issue, he finds that he does not want to face the issue, so he dismisses it by calling it a name, by blindly denouncing it as "radical", or "extreme", he hopes to avoid having to logically and honestly consider his opponent's position, he merely wants to push his own agenda.

So the liberal regards Catholicism and its adherents. He asserts that either one accepts the common opinion or he is a radical extremist, there are no truces, no agreements, no concessions, there must be complete and whole submission to the common view or else. And the common view is usually one which implies that while there is no absolute truth, one must hold the common non-truth. It is a cowardly manner of argument.

The fact is that it is the liberal's opinion which has strayed far left, not the traditionalist's, marking the decades, one may notice that each generation progressively declares the last one to be "radically conservative", no matter how liberal it might have been. It is, in fact, the liberal who has embraced the opinion of the extreme left, no matter how many adherents it may have, it remains the radical left, and no matter how many times the truth is declared to relative, the truth remains the absolute and pure truth, and it holds the primacy over all errors, which have no rights at all.

VITW's First Anniversary

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:56:00 +0000

As of this month, April 2008, VITW turns one year old, brandishing over 65 posts and nearly 5,000 page views, bringing to the internet the story of Traditional Catholicism. A big thanks to what regular readers are left hanging after the long interims between posts.

Behind the Council: An Introduction to Vatican II

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:53:00 +0000

We've introduced a few prominent Traditional Catholics, and will continue to do so, so to familiarize our readers with some of these key figures and what they did, and what it means. This is the history aspect, the history of Traditional Catholicism, ever since it became known as "traditional" so as to differentiate itself from the changes and modernizations and syncretism of Vatican II and its champions. And before actually telling the whole story we thought it best to introduce some of the characters and events involved in an effort to facilitate a fuller understanding of it, to avoid putting the cart before the horse. But in truth, the only real way to present the history is to tell what it was all about, this story actually begins with the Protestant Revolutions of the 16th century, but the immediate concern is Vatican II and fissure that resulted, is to describe what caused it. The Ottaviani Intervention has been described en pase, but to appreciate it fully, one must understand what was actually being proposed, and why those clerics opposed these changes, and what prompted their actions. This requires an understanding of modernity, the council, and its authors. What happened that there came a need for a movement for a return to or preservation of tradition? What was either incompatible with, or hostile to, that tradition? And so I've resolved to provide a brief introduction to the the thinking behind Vatican II as the Council Fathers and theologians saw it, and as historians have recorded it, which will soon be followed with the story of the Council and its opposition.

Ushering in a Reform

In order to be a witness to the truth, inflame the faith of Christians, and to minister to the welfare of the modern world, Pope John XXIII announced that he would summon a general Council. From the time of his election he had sought a new way of interacting with the world, as well as a renewed Church, a new direction, for the Church, and in particular to papal and Curial affairs. The "Pope"1 would assume a "pastoral" role in the Church, he would be humble and simple, and so the pontiff chose to be referred to as simply "John". He worked to change the atmosphere of veneration for the office he had assumed, and to limit the length of pontifical ceremonies and to reduce the forms and titles by which popes are addressed. The Church was seeming to be stuck in the Renaissance, there was too much undue pomp and celebration for the ceremonies of the Church, and it was thought that it was unappealing to Modern world, almost as though the Church were trapped in one point in time and could not move on.

The Council was to operate on the theme "aggiornamento", a "bringing up to date", or "modernization" of the Church, it was to be a going back to the simple and pure practices of the early Church. There was to be, as Cardinal Bea put it, "a reassessment of the doctrines of the Church", as well as internal ecclesiastical affairs, which meant that the Roman Curia would have to be reorganized, and a move away from the condemnatory character of the Office. The Sacraments would have to be reformed, especially the mass, liturgical ceremonies and the laws regarding education, the seminaries, and marriage. The practices of the Church had to be updated to accommodate the modern world in the spirit of the pure faith of the Early Church.

Ever since the Protestant Revolts in the 16th century the Church had been in a "Counter-Reformation" mode, leaving the Church with a suspicious view towards all things new. The Church had been on the defensive from the vicious attacks of dissenters, but that was four centuries [almost five] ago, and the world had moved on, and now it was time for the Church to move on, and to heal this schism. The Fathers at Vatican II saw the exclusiveness and rigidity of the Church, and failure to acknowledge its own many other indigences, as a barrier to this. Instead of condemning the modern world, it needed to dialogue with it. It needed to open up and work with it, instead of against it.
The Church could never be one as long as it remained at variance with its separated members, and like a good shepherd, it needed to go to them and seek to bring them back into the fold, it needed to accept that they had issues with the Church, and that these things needed to be resolved. The Church could never keep up with the world as long as it insisted that the modern world was evil, as long as it insisted on dwelling on its glory days, it needed to move into the modern world, and keep itself abreast of modern achievements if it was ever to accomplish its goal to unite all peoples in Christ.

To realize this, they vied for a redefinition, a reformulation, of the rights of laymen and bishops in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. They wanted a change in the apparel, the vestiture, of clerics and prelates. The time had come, it was perceived, when a re-evaluation of the mission of the Church was in order, as well as her responsibilities. It was thought that the Church was too pyramidal, too hierarchical. The Pope was seen as being idolized, and the power of the Church was too centralized, it seemed that the rights of the college of bishops were being depreciated, as each of the Apostles had equally received the charism to preach, to teach, and to baptize all men everywhere, including Peter whose position was, to serve his brethren, not to be an autocrat.

Over the Course of history, it was thought, the Western Church had several times had "adopted" the features of the political societies with which it was allied, as all as worldly institutions do, adopting the legal structure of the Roman Empire, in the Fourth and fifth centuries, and becoming a feudal power, in the Middle Ages, the monarchical power of the Pope had been overemphasized until that power was so centralized, as if he alone governed the Church, a centralization which had led to Josephism and Gallicanism as a reaction against this centralization of power within the Church, until gradually the rights of the bishops seemed to have been belittled, that the supremacy of the pope had been so over emphasized and there had been such a shift away from the original constitution of the Church on the College of the Apostles, that the Church was becoming totalitarian, and this, as they saw it, was not the will of Christ. They perceived that this would hamper the assimilation of dismembered Christians and the spirit of ecumenism in the Church. And so there was needed a restoration of the theology of the episcopate, the teaching of Vatican I was to be set in a pastoral and ecumenical formation. To fully explain "the bond joining the head of the Church and the apostolic college" in order to preclude the "danger of misunderstandings" among the Protestants and Orthodox. This restoration would curtail the notion of a pyramidal Church and emphasize the fact that bishops, laity, and religious, were all part of the people of God and that all the members of the Church were equal by virtue of their baptism.

When the First Vatican Council was called, the schema was not, rather, to "disassociate" the Pope from the bishops in defining his supremacy, this only occurred because of political upheaval which had brought the Council to an abrupt end, leaving its work incomplete. This abrupt end, as a result, caused the development of theologizations concerning the nature of the Church which was, in large part, one-sided and not true to the original vision of the Redeemer. In more recent times, it was thought, this notion of almost totalitarian rule had been exaggerated until the need to reform this imbalance had become incumbent upon the summoning of another Council.

To add to this "imbalance" in the structure of the Church, they reasoned, there was judgementalism and suspicion of new ideas and methods, following the condemnation of Modernism in 1907. Every thinker, theologian, and scholar, who did not conform to the Curia's "litmus tests", as it were, were suspected of heresy. It was like a new Spanish Inquisition, where the writings and teachings of Catholics in every field were subjected to a kind of inspection by the rigid and closed-minded clerics in the Curia. Because of this, the works of eminent orthodox historians and theologians such as Msgrs. Louis Duchesne, Le Chartier, and Pierre Batiffol were put on the Index Prohibitorum and "unfairly" charged of Modernism and of promoting relativism. And so even a minor slip in doctrine, dogmatic or moral, came to be the end of many an ecclesiastical career.
A contributing factor to this rigidity was that most of the Curials had never really been acquainted with an other religious experience except through textbook caricatured propositions in seminary. It was, the problem that is, the jealousness of doctrine, and almost fear for them, and for conformity in practice which would lead to a very suspicious and condemnatory perspective of the Modern world.

And thus this "backward" attitude, which resisted the new spirit of ecumenism and unity, prompted Roncalli, soon after his elevation, to bring the Church to terms with that new spirit and to bring the Church out of the Middle Ages and Counter-Reformation and into the Modern world. The Church needed to gather its members who were separated by historical prejudice and misunderstandings, such as the Greek Orthodox and the Protestants, The Church needed a Reform, it was time for the Church to be born anew and to re-assume its position and mission in the world, it was time for a "new springtime".

______________
Footnotes:

1. A reference to the office of "the Papacy", not rather, to the person, as the Papacy would thence forth be considered in a more pastoral light, as a father, and no longer as if he were a monarch.

An Introduction: Michael Davies

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:45:00 +0000

Michael Davies (March 13, 1936 - Sept. 25, 2004) was an English Author, teacher, and international lecturer, authoring seventeen books concerning the liturgy, most notable are his triple-volumed sets "The Liturgical Revolution": Cranmer's Godly Order; Pope John's Council; and Pope Paul's New Mass, and "Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre", and his short work "Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II—The Destruction of Catholic Faith Through Changes in Catholic Worship". Born in 1936 and raised in Somerset England, he served in the regular Light Infantry (1954-1960) in the Malayan emergency, Suez Crisis, and the EOKA campaign in Cyprus. A convert to Catholicism in 1956, he taught for three decades in Catholic schools[1] before retiring in 1992. In addition to his published books, he was the author dozens of pamphlets and articles relating to the Catholic Faith and liturgy, and served as president of the International Una Voce Federation for the preservation of the Latin Mass (1995-2003), traveling to Rome & abroad holding discussions with members of the Roman Curia, including the then Josef Cardinal Ratzinger[2]. He died suddenly of a heart attack on September 25, 2004.

______________
Endnotes:
[1] Holding his first teaching position at St. Ignatius Loyola Prep. School, Buckhurst Hill (1964 – 1967), and then in St. Mary’s Primary School, Beckenham, Kent (1967-1994) until retiring.
[2] On October 24, 1998, Cardinal Ratzinger held an audience with about 3,000 indult Catholics from various areas of the globe; Michael Davies represented the English-speaking world.

An Introduction: Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga (1899-1976)

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:20:00 +0000

Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga, S.J. (Oct. 12, 1899 - April 28, 1976) was a Mexican Doctor of Philosophy, Theology and Canon Law, international author and lecturer, authoring about five dozen books concerning the errors of modernist theology and philosophy which were rampant in the Church of his day, including "The new Montinian Church", "Sede Vacante: Paul VI is not a legitimate Pope", "For Christ and Against Christ," "Apostolate," "The New Mass Is Not the One Catholic Mass" and "Vacant See.". He was ordained to the priesthood a Jesuit, an order which he had joined in 1916 in Barcelona, Spain, and which he would leave 36 years later, on April 30, 1930, celebrating his first mass on May 2nd.

When the changes of Vatican II were administered, he led a resistance to them and promoted what became known as "sedevacantism", that the Roman Catholic Church had been modernized with modernist errors and had been infiltrated by its enemies, that the claimants to the papacy post Pius XII were invalid claimants due to their modernist conduct. As a result of this, in 1972, he was excommunicated by the Roman Catholic bishops' conference of Mexico. Fr. Sáenz died on April 28, 1976, after which his work was continued by Frs. Adolfo Zamora and Moisés Carmona in Mexico and Frs. Francis E. Fenton and Fr. Burton Fraser, S.J. in the United States.

_______________

Related Posts:

VITW 2.0

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:08:00 +0000

We apologize for the lack of posts here recently at VITW. You may notice that several posts have been pulled from the main page. These have been pulled for editing and revision to improve readability and update them as new information becomes available, or moved to more appropriate pages. Reposts of some of these were intended to be available on New Year's, but things have been more complicated lately, some of us are kind of bogged down with the hectic struggle of having everything working for the holy days, and then taking it all down again, relocating, taking care of newborns, working jobs, education, ect., so we ask that our readers be patient as we work, as much as time allows, towards a few more posts for the '08 edition of Voice in the Wilderness. We're planning to come out with some new articles soon: the Cassiciacum thesis, the conglomeration of similar posts, a series on Lefebvre and the SSPX, and an article describing in-brief the case of Fr. Leonard Feeney and more, plus the above mentioned revisions, hopefully the first of which will be as soon as the second week of February.

An Introduction: Ngô Đình Thục (1897–1984)

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:10:00 +0000

Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục, was Roman Catholic Archbishop of Huế, Vietnam. He was born in Huế, on October 6, 1897, the eve of the Feast of Our Lady of Victory, in Phu-Cam, Vietnam, Archdiocese of Huế. His family was of some distinguishment, though some of them, later on, met with an undesirable end.[1] Thục became a minor seminarian at age twelve in An Ninh, where he studied for about eight years, and became a major seminarian at the major seminary in Huế, where he studied philosophy. Thục was ordained to the priesthood by the Apostolic Vicar of Huế Bishop Eugène-Marie-Joseph Allys on Dec. 20, 1925, and taught at the Sorbonne in Paris for about a year before he went to Rome to study theology, where he was awared three doctorates, from the Pontifical Gregorian University, in philosophy, theology, and Canon law. He then returned to Vietnam, two years after his ordination, where became a professor at the College of Vietnamese Brothers in Huế, a professor at the major seminary in Huế, and Dean of the College of Providence.

On January 8, 1938, Fr. Thục was chosen by Pope Pius XI to direct the Apostolic Vicariate at Vinh Long and act as bishop. His Holiness sent, as his emissary, Archbishop Antonio Fernand Drapier, Apostolic Delegate to Indochina, to consecrate Thuc as Bishop for this position[2], in which Thục may have also been delegated special faculties to consecrate bishops without a mandate[3]. Nineteen years later, Bishop Thục founded the Dalat University and in 1960, Thục was delegated, by John XXIII, successor to Archbishop Jean-Baptiste Urrutia, who resigned his post after dozen years, as Archbishop of Huế. After the Council, Archbishop Thục was not allowed to return to Vietnam and thus began his life in exile, first in Rome, then on in Toulon, France.[4]

Five years after the Palmar de Troya incidents, May 7, 1981, Bishop Thục consecrated Fr. Michel Louis Guerard des Lauriers, O.P. a principle theologian and author of the Ottaviani Intervention. Later on that year, october 17, while in Munich, Germany, bishop Thục consecrated Fathers Moises Carmona, and Adolfo Zamora from Mexico.
About a year later, Thục conditionally consecrated the former Old Catholic bishop, Christian Datessen. Earlier that year[1982], Thục issued a declaration pronouncing his sedevacantism, after which he departed Germany for the United States at the invitation of Bp. Louis Vezelis O.F.M., a Franciscan former missionary priest, who was consecrated in the Thục line, with whom he took up residence.[5] Archbishop Thục then fell into the hands of a group of Vietnamese priests, while in New York, and was taken to a Vietnamese Roman Catholic monastery [the Vietnamese American religious Congregation of the Mother Co-Redemptrix] in Missouri, where he was inaccessible, and eventually died, for an uncertain reason, perhaps, on December 13, 1984.

________________
End Notes:

[1] His brother, Ngô Đình Diệm, was the first president of South Vietnam, and was later assassinated on Nov. 1, 1963, his nephew was Cardinal François Xavier Nguyễn Văn Thuận; Thục's brother, Ngô Ðình Khôi, was buried alive for refusing to be minister in the communist regime. Thục's other brothers Ngô Đình Nhu and Ngô Đình Cẩn were assassinated as well. Thục and Luyen were the only members of the family who escaped assassination, Luyen by serving as ambassador in London, and Thục was in Rome for the second Vatican Council.

[2] After Archbishop Drapier had consecrated Thục, he [Drapier] neglected to consecrate the other candidates as bishops and thus appointed Thục to do so. Philippe Nguyen-Kim-Dien was among those candidates whom Thục, in turn, consecrated as Bishop of Can-Tho right after his own consecration, and who acted as Thục's successor as Archbishop of Hue; he [Nguyen-Kim-Dien] is also thought to have been a Communist sympathizer.

[3] It is believed that when in Rome, Thục had a private audience with His Holiness Pius XI and obtained from him, and some years later again from Pius XII, an apostolic mandate to consecrate bishops in times of dire necessity when communications would be nearly impossible or the flock in danger. This is recorded in the Dec. issue of the"The Seraph" in 1983 where is written his advice to the Vietnamese bishops, whom he had consecrated, of what to do if ever the Communists took power, "not to publish the names of newly ordained priests; request from the Holy See the faculty for each Bishop to name one or two successors without having to request authorization from the Holy See in case of breakdown of communication with the Vatican." Pope Pius XI is supposed to have granted Thục a motu proprio stating "'In virtue of the fullness of powers of the Holy Apostolic See, we institute as our legate Pierre Martin Ngô-Dinh-Thục, titular Bishop of Saigon, for purposes known to us, with all the powers required.' Given at Rome, near Saint Peter, on March 15, 1938, in the seventeenth year of our pontificate."

[4] According to the logs, Archbishop Thục was Archbishop of Huế from 1960 to 1968 when he was forced to resign by Paul VI. Thục recorded "Paul VI had bad feelings toward my family, and especially towards myself going to the extent of even imposing my resignation as archbishop before the fixed age for the age for retirement of bishops. In my stead, he named one of his favorites imbued with the political philosophy of 'opening to the East.'"
[5] Bp. Vezelis operates a friary in Rochester, NY, where Thục resided from December 1982 until January 1984.
[P. S.] Thục was the principal consecrator of Bishops Antoine Nguyên Van Thien (born 1906) and Michel Nguyên Khác Ngu (born 1909), the oldest living Catholic bishops in Vietnam.

________________
Related Posts:

________________
External Links:

Abp. Thục: A Brief Defense by Bp. Daniel Dolan
The Validity of the Thục Consecrations by Fr. Anthony Cekada
Declaration of Archbishop Thục
Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc Wikipedia article

The Oath Against Modernism

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:19:00 +0000

Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910. To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .

A reader comments on the Links Policy

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:35:00 +0000

Regarding a recent Comment:

Anonymous said:

"Even though you provide the links and (as other bloggers have stated) it is up to the individual to ascertain its relevance and whether the content is Catholic, why have this type of stuff? My question is, what is the purpose of providing "linked" material? I might add that it seems bloggers get caught up in the "newness or fun" of putting info out there and just get giddy, posting all sorts of stuff. They distance themselves from linked material, however,just as you outline, however, one can not escape even the slightest degree of connection or association with unacceptable and inappropriate information.

You might ask - how did I participate in this endeavor - I got there by YOUR link.

First off, I prefer that commenters give themselves some sort of a name, whereby they can be addressed more conveniently, even if it is just one alphabetic letter, please identify. Second: Links are posted that might have some material on that site that might have some relevance, at least, to Traditional Roman Catholicism, usually, this is done via the interesting posts from other sites section, where certain topics of interest bearing relevance to some topic of Traditional Catholicism is posted, those can be so targeted, they are the ones that the reader is directed to because they illustrate one or more points or contentions of one or more perspectives of one or more factions within the traditional Catholic movement. We sometimes post other links, such as to other blogs, other blogs that might be considered Traditional Catholic, or just plain Catholic, or who frequently posts posts that bear relevance toward the same. They are posted so to catalog certain opinions that some people have regarding Traditional Catholicism, not because we agree with them.

We don't always distance ourselves from linked material, but simply expound that we are not responsible for their material, because we have no control over it, and secondly, we post a disclaimer to illustrate this, and also the fact that we do not regularly read all of the linked sites, that's over a hundred links, and a lot of material, material that I know that I do not have time always to screen, so I advise readers to be prudent; it's why I say "viewer discretion is advised".

I offer this only as a constructive comment. Personally, you are a dedicated and informed writer.

You set blogging rules - why not set rules of engagement? There are links you provide that take a person to novus ordo, counterfeit church sites. Is that where you want readers to go? I have a suggestion. Have no "blog" links and only provide links that pertain to your objective. Christ's Church is currently diminished, would you not agree? But She exists still. Help Her shine for all mankind. Appreciating your hard work, Thanks

We set them because of the reasons mentioned above. It is where there are sometimes some information that is relevant to Traditional Catholicism, but is not always the case, though we do try to moderate them as best as we have time, clearly because most of us here run more than one blog, which we have to keep track of, regular readers may have noticed that such has been done, and is also the reason why we do ask readers to inform us of the status of a link linked from this web log, sometimes they go dead or something worse happens. I'll expand on the issue of links to other blogs some time in the future.

Well, we don't just link sites that agree with us, many are posted that some of us at VITW vehemently disagree with, and some that we do agree with, but our personal opinions are not what are always posted here, mainly, the doctrines, histories, morals, and contentions of Traditional Catholicism. One may notice that we have links from one extreme end of the spectrum and then from the other end of that same spectrum, but are present to demonstrate that spectrum, and to provide witness to some of their contentions and some of the views are espoused by some Traditionals, however, we do try to keep the links relative. Thank you for your interest and your thoughts,

Leo

Devotion to the BVM

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:00:00 +0000

St. Louis De Montfort (+1710): “Where Mary is, there the evil spirit is not. One of the most infallible marks we can have of our being conducted by the good spirit is our being very devout to Mary, thinking often of her and speaking often of her.” (True Devotion to Mary #166)

“Saint Bonaventure said (in his Psalter) that whoever neglected Our Lady would perish in his sins and would be damned… If such is the penalty for neglecting her, what must be the punishment in store for those who actually turn others away from their devotions!” (The Secret of the Rosary, p. 30.)

“… many others have proved invincibly, from the sentiments of the Fathers (among others, St. Augustine, St. Ephrem, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Germanus, St. John Damascene, St. Anselm, St. Bernard, St. Bernardine, St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure), that devotion to Mary is necessary to salvation, and that… it is an infallible mark of reprobation to have no esteem and love for the holy Virgin.” (True Devotion to Mary # 40)

“This [true] devotion [to Mary] consists, then, in giving ourselves entirely to our Lady, in order to belong entirely to Jesus through her. We must give her (1) our body, with all its senses and its members; (2) our soul, with all its powers; (3) our exterior goods of fortune, whether present or to come; (4) our interior and spiritual goods, which are our merits and our virtues, and our good works, past, present and future… and we must do it, further, without pretending to, or hoping for, any other recompense for our offering and service except the honor of belonging to Jesus Christ through Mary and in Mary…” (True Devotion to Mary #121)

“Let us conclude this point by giving the gist of all that has been said so far. He who prays is certainly saved. He who does not pray is certainly damned.” (St. Alphonsus, The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection, p. 30)

St. Cyprian on Perseverence

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:58:00 +0000

"And that we may more fully understand, beloved brethren, that patience is a thing of God, and that whoever is gentle, and patient, and meek, is an imitator of God the Father; when the Lord in His Gospel was giving precepts for salvation, and, bringing forth divine warnings, was instructing His disciples to perfection, He laid it down, and said, "You have heard that it is said, You shall love your neighbour, and have your enemy in hatred. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, and pray for them which persecute you; that you may be the children of your Father which is in heaven, who makes His sun to rise on the good and on the evil, and rains upon the just and on the unjust. For if you love them which love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans the same? And if you shall salute your brethren only, what do ye more (than others)? do not even the heathens the same thing? Be therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect."(1 Matt. 5:43-48) He said that the children of God would thus become perfect." (Treatise 9, # 5)

"But if we also, beloved brethren, are in Christ; if we put Him on, if He is the way of our salvation, who follow Christ in the footsteps of salvation, let us walk by the example of Christ, as the Apostle John instructs us, saying, "He who says he abides in Christ, ought himself also to walk even as He walked." (ibid, #9)

"It is the wholesome precept of our Lord and Master: "He that endures," says He, "unto the end, the same shall be saved; " (Matt. 10:22) and again, "If you continue," says He, "in my word, you shall be truly my disciples; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."(Jn. 8:31-32) We must endure and persevere, beloved brethren, in order that, being admitted to the hope of truth and liberty, we may attain to the truth and liberty itself; for that very fact that we are Christians is the substance of faith and hope.
...But if we hope for that which we see not, then do we by patience wait for it.(Rom. 8:24-25) Therefore, waiting and patience are needful, that we may fulfil that which we have begun to be, and may receive that which we believe and hope for, according to God's own showing. Moreover, in another place, the same apostle instructs the righteous and the doers of good works, and them who lay up for themselves treasures in heaven with the increase of the divine usury, that they also should be patient; and teaches them, saying, "Therefore, while we have time, let us labour in that which is good unto all men, but especially to them who are of the household of faith. But let us not faint in well-doing, for in its season we shall reap. ..."Hold that which you have, that another take not your crown." (Rev. 3:11) Which word exhorts us to persevere with patience and courage, so that he who strives towards the crown with the praise now near at hand, may be crowned by the continuance of patience."(Ibid, # 13)

"...it behoves us, in this bodily frailty and weakness, always to struggle and to fight. And this struggle and encounter cannot be sustained but by the strength of patience. But as we are to be examined and searched out, diverse sufferings are introduced; and a manifold kind of temptations is inflicted.... Nor does anything distinguish between the unrighteous and the righteous more, than that in affliction the unrighteous man impatiently complains and blasphemes, while the righteous is proved by his patience, as it is written: "In pain endure, and in your low estate have patience; for gold and silver are tried in the fire."(Ibid, #17)

"It is patience which firmly fortifies the foundations of our faith. It is this which lifts up on high the increase of our hope. It is this which directs our doing, that we may hold fast the way of Christ while we walk by His patience. It is this that makes us to persevere as sons of God, while we imitate our Father's patience."(Ibid, #20)

"Let us rather press onward and labour, and, watching with our whole heart, and steadfast to all endurance, let us keep the Lord's precepts; so that when that day of anger and vengeance shall come, we may not be punished with the impious and sinners, but may be honoured with the righteous and those that fear God."(Ibid, #24)

"Moreover, in the Gospel the Lord speaks, and says: "He that shall endure to the end, the same shall be saved."(Matt. 10:22) And again: "If you shall abide in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (Jn. 8:31-32) Moreover, forewarning us that we ought always to be ready, and to stand firmly equipped and armed... Also the blessed Apostle Paul, that our faith may advance and grow, and attain to the highest point, exhorts us, saying: "Do you not know, that they which run in a race run all indeed, yet one receives the prize? So run, that you may obtain. And they, indeed, that they may receive a corruptible crown; but ye an incorruptible." (1 Cor. 9:24-25) ...And again: "We are children of God: but if children, then heirs; heirs indeed of God, but joint-heirs with Christ, if we suffer together, that we may also be glorified together." (Rom. 8:16-17) And in the Apocalypse the same exhortation of divine preaching speaks, saying, "Hold fast that which you have, lest another take your crown; " (Rev. 3:11) which example of perseverance and persistence is pointed out in Exodus, when Moses, for the overthrow of Ama-lek, who bore the type of the devil, raised up his open hands in the sign and sacrament of the cross, and could not conquer his adversary unless when he had steadfastly persevered in the sign with hands continually lifted up. (Treatise 11, #8)

This would be more on the fact that only those who persevere to end shall reap a reward of glory, and goes to show all the more that the Protestant view of Justification is simply not the view of St. Cyprian, and is not the view espoused by the Apostles.

On the number of the elect

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:11:00 +0000

"Be one of the small number who find the way to life, and enter by the narrow gate into Heaven. Take care not to follow the majority and the common herd, so many of whom are lost. Do not be deceived; there are only two roads: one that leads to life and is narrow; the other that leads to death and is wide. There is no middle way."

"The number of the elect is so small - so small - that, were we to know how small it is, we would faint away with grief: one here and there, scattered up and down the world! " - St. Louis De Montfort

"I see around me a multitude of those who, blindly persevering in error, despise the true God; but I am a Christian nevertheless, and I follow the instruction of the Apostles. If this deserves chastisement, reward it; for I am determined to suffer every torture rather then become the slave of the devil. Others may do as they please since they are [...] reckless of the future life which is to be obtained only by sufferings. Scripture tells us that "narrow is the way that leads to life" [...] because it is one of affliction and of persecutions suffered for the sake of justice; but it is wide enough for those who walk upon it, because their faith and the hope of an eternal reward make it so for them. [...] On the contrary, the road of vice is in reality narrow, and it leads to an eternal precipice." - St. Leo of Patara

"The majority of men shall not see God, excepting those who live justly, purified by righteousness and by every other virtue." - St. Justin the Martyr

"Nor should we think that it is enough for salvation that we are no worse off than the mass of the careless and indifferent, or that in our faith we are, like so many others, uninstructed." - St. Bede the Venerable

"If you want to be certain of being in the number of the Elect, strive to be one of the few, not one of the many. And if you would be quite sure of your salvation, strive to be among the fewest of the few; that is to say, do not follow the great majority of mankind, but follow those who enter upon the narrow way, who renounce the world, who give themselves to prayer, and who never relax their efforts by day or night, so that they may attain everlasting blessedness. " - St. Anselm

"If you wish to imitate the multitude, then you shall not be among the few who shall enter in by the narrow gate." - St. Augustine

"So that you will better appreciate the meaning of Our Lord's words, and perceive more clearly how few the Elect are, note that Christ did not say that those who walked in the path to Heaven are few in number, but that there were few who found that narrow way. It is as though the Saviour intended to say: The path leading to Heaven is so narrow and so rough, so overgrown, so dark and difficult to discern, that there are many who never find it their whole life long. And those who do find it are constantly exposed to the danger of deviating from it, of mistaking their way, and unwittingly wandering away from it, because it is so irregular and overgrown." - St. Jerome

"It is granted to few to recognize the true Church amid the darkness of so many schisms and heresies, and to fewer still so to love the truth which they have seen as to fly to its embrace." - St. Robert Bellarmine

"That those who walk in the way of salvation are the smaller number is due to the vice and depraved habits imbibed in youth and nourished in childhood. By these means Lucifer has hurled into Hell so great a number of souls, and continues thus to hurl them into Hell every day, casting so many nations from abyss to abyss of darkness and errors, such as are contained in the heresies and false sects of the infidels." - Ven. Mary of Agreda

"I do not speak rashly, but as I feel and think. I do not think that many priests are saved, but that those who perish are far more numerous." - St. John Chrysostom

"It is as though Jesus said: "O My Father, I am indeed going to clothe myself with human flesh, but the greater part of the world will set no value on my blood!" - St. Isidore of Seville

"Notwithstanding assurances that God did not create any man for Hell, and that He wishes all men to be saved, it remains equally true that only few will be saved; that only few will go to Heaven; and that the greater part of mankind will be lost forever. - St. John Neumann

St. Alphonsus on salvation

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:37:00 +0000

"The greater number of men still say to God: Lord we will not serve Thee; we would rather be slaves of the devil, and condemned to Hell, than be Thy servants. Alas! The greatest number, my Jesus - we may say nearly all - not only do not love Thee, but offend Thee and despise Thee. How many countries there are in which there are scarcely any Catholics, and all the rest either infidels or heretics! And all of them are certainly on the way to being lost. "

"The greater part of men choose to be damned rather than to love Almighty God."

"What is the number of those who love Thee, O God? How few they are! The Elect are much fewer than the damned! Alas! The greater portion of mankind lives in sin unto the devil, and not unto Jesus Christ. O Saviour of the world, I thank Thee for having called and permitted us to live in the true faith which the Holy Roman Catholic Church teaches. [...] But alas, O my Jesus! How small is the number of those who live in this holy faith! Oh, God! The greater number of men he buried in the darkness of infidelity and heresy. Thou hast humbled Thyself to death, to the death of the cross, for the salvation of men, and these ungrateful men are unwilling even to know Thee. Ah, I pray Thee, O omnipotent God, O sovereign and infinite Good, make all men know and love Thee!"

"In the Great Deluge in the days of Noah, nearly all mankind perished, eight persons alone being saved in the Ark. In our days a deluge, not of water but of sins, continually inundates the earth, and out of this deluge very few escape. Scarcely anyone is saved."

"We owe God a deep regret of gratitude for the purely gratuitous gift of the true faith with which he has favored us. How many are the infidels, heretics and schismatic who do not enjoy comparable happiness? The earth is full of them and they are all lost!"

“(St.) Robert Bellarmine relates that having gone to assist a certain dying person, and having exhorted him to make an act of contrition, the man replied that he did not know what contrition was. Bellarmine endeavored to explain it to him; but the sick man said: ‘Father, I do not understand you; I am incapable of these things.’ And thus he died, ‘leaving clear signs of his damnation,’ as is recorded in the writings of Bellarmine. The just punishment of the sinner, says St. Augustine, will be, that having forgotten God in his lifetime, he shall forget himself in death.”

The Fewness of the elect

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:28:00 +0000

Most Catholics go to hell

Being Catholic is the first and necessary step toward salvation, but it is not the only one. As a Catholic, your salvation is not guaranteed. Just as good works without the Catholic faith is dead (cannot give you eternal salvation), the Catholic “faith without works is [also] dead.” (James 2:26)

Jesus says that only few men attain eternal salvation. He says, “Enter ye in at the narrow gate… How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!” (Mt. 7:13-14) These few men are only Catholics. The Athanasian Creed of 361 infallibly teaches that “Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith.”[1]

But not all Catholics will be saved. Jesus also says that only few Catholics attain eternal salvation. Commanding His disciples to evangelize, He says, “Go ye therefore into the highways; and as many as you shall find, call to the marriage [evangelize]. And his servants going forth into the ways, gathered together all that they found, both bad and good: and the marriage was filled with guests [good and bad Catholics]. And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment [a bad Catholic]. And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? But he was silent. Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness [hell]: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called [Catholics], but few are chosen [saved].” (Mt. 22:9-14) Jesus, speaking of the Catholic congregation at Sardis, says, “Thou hast a few names… which have not defiled their garments: and they shall walk with me in white, because they are worthy.” (Apoc. 3:4) That is why St. Paul tells Catholics to “work out your salvation in fear and trembling,” (Phil. 2:12) and St. Peter says, “If the just man [a good Catholic] shall scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” (1 Pt. 4:18) St. Leonard of Port Maurice, in his sermon “The Little Number of Those Who Are Saved,” gives a fearful account of how few Catholics are saved. He says, “One day Saint John Chrysostom, preaching in the cathedral in Constantinople and considering these proportions, could not help but shudder in horror and ask, ‘Out of this great number of people, how many do you think will be saved?’ And, not waiting for an answer, he added, ‘Among so many thousands of people, we would not find a hundred who are saved, and I even doubt for the one hundred.’ What a dreadful thing! The great Saint believed that out of so many people, barely one hundred would be saved; and even then, he was not sure of that number. What will happen to you who are listening to me? Great God, I cannot think of it without shuddering! Brothers, the problem of salvation is a very difficult thing; for according to the maxims of the theologians, when an end demands great efforts, few only attain it. That is why Saint Thomas, the Angelic Doctor, after weighing all the reasons pro and con in his immense erudition, finally concludes that the greater number of Catholic adults are damned…
“The following narrative from Saint Vincent Ferrer will show you what you may think about it. He relates that an archdeacon in Lyons gave up his charge and retreated into a desert place to do penance, and that he died the same day and hour as Saint Bernard. After his death, he appeared to his bishop and said to him, ‘Know, Monsignor, that at the very hour I passed away, thirty-three thousand people also died. Out of this number, Bernard and myself went up to heaven without delay, three went to purgatory, and all the others fell into Hell.’”

You should now have an idea of how very, very, very few Catholics attain eternal salvation! This truth ought to rid you of any false confidence and make you aware of the fact that every day you live your salvation is in danger. Dear Catholic, if every day you do not sincerely work, by God’s grace, to obtain salvation, you will lose it. Salvation, then, comes only by faith and persevering labor. Jesus says, “Labour… for that which endureth unto life everlasting.” (Jn. 6:27) St. Paul says, “Labour as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim. 2:3) “We labour, whether absent or present, to please him.” (2 Cor. 5:9) “Being mindful of the work of your faith and labour and charity: and of the enduring of the hope of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Thess. 1:3) And St. Peter says, “Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time.” (2 Pt. 1:10) From St. Alphonsus Marie de Liguori’s book The Dignity and Duties of Priests, we read, “St. Bernard says that the solicitude of the devils for our destruction should make us solicitous in laboring for salvation.”[2] For Catholics to gain eteral life, St. Paul says they must finish and win the race for the salvation of their immortal souls. He says, “Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? So run that you may obtain.” (1 Cor. 9:24) The Haydock Commentary on his passage says, “It is true in our case many obtain the crown for which we strive, but every one is in danger of losing it, and so must use all his endeavours to obtain it.”

Blog Updates

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:54:00 +0000

Voice in the wilderness has just passed 60 posts since its conception back in April. There have been some recent updates, one of the most notable of which was the decision to invite Philip Candido, AKA: Athanasius, of Athanasius Contra Mundum to contribute to VITW a series on Archbishop Lefebvre and the origins and development of the SSPX from the indult/SSPX perspective, which will be coming up sometime soon, hopefully, considering that we've left it at his discretion as to the date of its production. Also, there has been the addition of a few posts to the series on the Ottaviani Intervention, which is still somewhat in the works, that has been one of the major post series's and objectives of VITW in its topic of the Traditional Catholic movement. We have also the addition of several posts regarding Protestant beliefs, such as sola scriptura and sola fide, which has bearing on the modern ecumenism of Vatican II and its subsequent theologies and exegesis, two Protestant heresies that must be as G. K. Chesterton says, "whatever may be said for it [error], the most important thing to be said about it is that it is erroneous", described as the errors that they are. There was also the coverage of the Motu Prorio, back in July, and the reaction of bishop Fellay, superior general of the SSPX, and the document on the clarification on the doctrine of the faith also produced in July, including a commentary on it and its effects. This being to keep you up to speed as to what's been going down and, also to introduce what is about to transpire out here in the wilderness.
In Christo,

Leo

Heresy and Liberalism

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:54:00 +0000

Liberalism is a heresy in the doctrinal order because heresy is the formal and obstinate denial of all Christian dogmas in general. It repudiates dogma altogether and substitutes opinion, whether that opinion be doctrinal or the negation of doctrine. Consequently, it denies every doctrine in particular. If we were to examine in detail all the doctrines or dogmas which, within the range of Liberalism, have been denied, we would find every Christian dogma in one way or another rejected--from the dogma of the Incarnation to that of Infallibility.

"Nonetheless Liberalism is in itself dogmatic; and it is in the declaration of its own fundamental dogma, the absolute independence of the individual and the social reason, that it denies all Christian dogmas in general. Catholic dogma is the authoritative declaration of revealed truth--or a truth consequent upon Revelation--by its infallibly constituted exponent [the Pope]. This logically implies the obedient acceptance of the dogma on the part of the individual and of society. Liberalism refuses to acknowledge this rational obedience and denies the authority. It asserts the sovereignty of the individual and social reason and enthrones Rationalism in the seat of authority. It knows no dogma except the dogma of self-assertion. Hence it is heresy, fundamental and radical, the rebellion of the human intellect against God."

"When we come to the practical order, Liberalism is radical immorality. Morality requires a standard and a guide for rational action; it postulates a hierarchy of ends, and therefore of order, within whose series there is a subordination of means to the attainment of an ultimate purpose. It therefore requires a principle or fundamental rule of all action, by which the subject of moral acts, the rational creature, determines his course and guides himself to the attainment of his end. In the moral order, the Eternal Reason alone can be that principle or fundamental rule of action, and this Eternal Reason is God. In the moral order, the created reason, with power to determine its course, must guide itself by the light of the Uncreated Reason, Who is the beginning and end of all things. The law, therefore, imposed by the Eternal Reason upon the creature must be the principle or rule of morality. Hence, obedience and submission in the moral order is an absolute requisite of morality. But Liberalism has proclaimed the absurd principle of the absolute sovereignty of human reason; it denies any reason beyond itself and asserts its independence in the order of knowledge, and hence in the order of action or morality. Here we have morality without law, without order, freedom to do what one pleases, or what comes to the same thing, morality which is not morality, for morality implies the idea not only of direction, but also essentially demands that of restraint and limitation under the control of law. Liberalism in the order of action is license, recognizing no principle or rule beyond itself."

"But its most fatal shaft is in its plea for "liberality of mind." This, in its own eyes, is its cardinal virtue. "Intellectual freedom from dogmatism" is its boast, a boast in reality the mask of ignorance and pride. To meet such an enemy requires no ordinary courage, which must be guarded by a sleepless vigilance. When encountered, it is obligatory upon the Catholic conscience to resist it with all the powers of the soul. Heresy and all its works are sins; Liberalism is the root of heresy, the tree of evil in whose branches all the harpies of infidelity find ample shelter; it is today the evil of all evils."
(Liberalism is a Sin, Ch. 3)

"In this latter case, sin against faith, so grave in itself, acquires that degree of gravity which constitutes heresy. It then contains all the malice of infidelity and becomes an express protestation against the teachings of faith or an express adherence to a teaching which is condemned as false and erroneous by the Faith itself. Besides the deadly sin against faith itself, it is accompanied by hardness of heart, obstinacy, and the proud preference for one's own reason over the reason of God Himself. Hence, heretical doctrines--and works inspired by them--constitute the greatest of all sins, with the exception of formal hatred against God, of which only the demons in Hell and the damned are capable. Liberalism, then, which is heresy, and all the works of Liberalism, which are heretical works, are the gravest sins known in the code of the Christian law." (Liberalism is a Sin, Ch. IV)