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.

The Authentic Catholic Example?

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:28:00 +0000

One thing that has received a lot of focus over the life of this blog is criticism of the novus ordo and the intentions of the Vatican towards tradition. This tone echoes, in large part, a lot of what has been happening within traditional Catholicism itself, in that there is no hindrance at lashing out against non-traditionalists when they do something that we deem to be “un-traditional” or offensive in one way or another, but the lack of self criticism and examination is, at least to me, deafening. The following post is not meant to describe traditionalism as a whole, but is designed to provide a balanced criticism of some unhealthy trends found in some circles of traditional Catholicism, and be an exhortation be more than “traditionalists” but to be the best Catholics.

It is true that the novus ordo is not always the best place to grow in the faith and learn how to be saints ourselves, but as a traditionalist Catholic, what message does traditional Catholicism portray to the average person? Does it echo the sanctity, discipline, and faith of the Catholic Church founded by Christ? If so, then why are there some who squabble and babble like the Protestants and novus ordos? A real path towards sanctity is lacking in so much of modern Christianity, including some circles of traditional Catholicism. What I mean by all of this is a lack of Catholic attitudes and virtue.

It is easy to point fingers at the novus ordos like they don’t know and practice the faith. But is that criticism always necessarily honest, or accurate, while there are many traditionalists who themselves cannot always agree on various points of dogma and discipline.? It is easy to loudly shout down novus ordos for immorality and scandals in their midst, but are we always that golden standard of faith and morality, or are we just ignoring our own problems, like the Pharisees of old? Unfortunately, we have in our midst those who can raise all kinds of doubt and uncertainty about novus ordo validity, while ignoring the problems of the same sort that sometimes occur within traditionalist circles.

If I wanted to convert a non-Catholic to traditional Catholicism, of course he would need to come to accept the Catholic faith. Okay, that’s great, but for them to experience Catholicism the way it was for nearly 2,000 years, they need to undergo yet another conversion, because Catholicism as found in most novus ordo parishes is largely not that held by the saints. But what does traditional Catholicism have to show that it really does practice Catholicism right, and the novus ordo does not? Does it possess the miracles, the saints, the holiness, the virtue that was possessed by the Church which produced St. Francis of Assisi? Does it really? And this does not include the fact that a suitable mass is become nearly as rare as hen’s teeth. “Yeah, you can be a traditional Catholic, you just won’t have any place to worship, and little or no traditional Catholic culture to become part of, save that which you find on the internet. “ Needless to say, that’s not really very attractive to a convert.

The point of my post is that if we really are true to the traditions of the Catholic faith, then it is our duty to be good examples of what a Catholic should be. That it is our job to know and practice the faith the way it ought to be, and to understand that the times we live in are not the most peaceful, or the clearest times that the Church has seen, and that since there is so much confusion about what Christianity really is, that we ought to be able to understand even more so that it is only by the grace of God that we are where we are, and that were it not for this, we may be in the same place as many whom we criticize so easily. It is our place to be beacons of light in a dark world, it is we who, if we really are distinct from all the rest, ought to be more zealous about prayer, virtue, and morality, and that we should be pioneers of these things in an age which has all but forgotten them. We should be conscious of the image that we project to the rest of Christianity, and to the world. The road to salvation, not just for ourselves, but for the rest of the world, begins and ends with personal sanctity. We can’t be responsible for the novus ordos and the Protestants, in end, we will answer for ourselves, and whether or not we were following in the footsteps of the saints, whether or not we were a good example, and by the level of charity we had towards God and our neighbor. Are we doing all that we can do to be authentically Catholic?

More on Limbo

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

The following excerpt is provided merely to further position the 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 merited, and generally reserved for souls that may not have been capable of meriting either of the former, namely unbatized infants who suffer death before the age of reason. It does not serve to advance a comprehensive treatment of the subject, however, I believe that it is an interesting piece and worthy of consideration.

"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.

Ax Grinding and Novus Ordo Apologists, Pt. III

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:18:00 +0000

"Those Angry Apologists!" The last time it was Mr. Armstrong's diatribe over traditionalists and the liturgy, this time it's Mr. Shea, which is no surprise, given his track record. Mark Shea recently published an article in the InsideCatholic, titled "Those Angry Traditionalists". Shea begins his article with an immediate ridicule on traditionalist opposition to liturgical abuse and change.

"But there is also the danger that we can forget that the Mass is God's before it is ours. We can start to regard it as our property. Certainly liturgical abusers are doing this. But "saviors of the liturgy" can forget in their own way as well. They can come to relish liturgical abuses because, well, it's gratifying to one's pride to be the Savior of the Liturgy, isn't it?"[1]

It may seem that Mr. Shea has some kind of flout over pointing out symptoms of a certain problem, i.e. Vatican II, which traditionalists commonly engage in to demonstrate why the "Vatican II reforms" were not, in fact, a good thing, nor, were they, necessarily "reforms". Either that or he simply doesn't understand his subject.
As long as there is a disagreement over a given topic, the opposing sides will inevitably parade their polemics in an attempt to demonstrate the error of the other side and justify one's own. Of course, one who disagrees with the "reforms" are going to present those reforms as being bad, and of course, those who agree with them are going to present them as good a holy. We would appear to have a pretty good case of this dichotomy illustrated for us by Mr. Shea and a few of his colleagues. Rather than apologetics, we have received an invitation to battle polemics.

"Ever attended a clown Mass? Me neither."

Presupposing my answer would be negative aren't we? Yeah, those things aren't a reality, they're fringe wackos committing abuses which are few and far between, right?
Wrong, they happen all the time and the NO hierarchy does not lift a finger to put a stop to it, usually. But guess what would happen if a priest said an unauthorized Latin Mass?
Yeah, you guessed it, they'd be closin' up shop this time tomorrow.
Just to substantiate my point, I'll bring up a recent testimony posted on a popular traditionalist forum:

"So on the way home from work today I decide to stop off at a Church that was having Mass. First off it's NO shaped like a triangle the inside is completely empty no decoration statuary etc. except for an abstract Crucifix behind the "alter". The alter cloth was done in rainbow colors as was the cloth over the pulpit and the podium where the cantor/screamer stands. Mass started out pretty much the norm in the NO. Everyone was talking some kids were running around the church and the little boy next to me was playing with his toy truck with out a care from mom.
The Priest came prancing in during the "gathering song". And ad libbed the penitential prayers to remove any mention of sin. Then the usual went on with the exception that in the "prayers of the people" we were to pray that "our Gov't stop harassing "migrant workers".
Now it gets odd. Their was no offertory none, zippo not even the Non/offertory offertory of the NO. The Priest said at the "pray that this sacrifice may be...." He said "pray sisters and brothers that our gifts may be acceptable to God" The response" may the lord receive our gifts".
The Priest did not elevate the host just the Paten. There were no kneelers so I knelt anyway and got some major condescending looks from a very mannish looking short haired womyn and everyone around me. At the "ecce agnus dei" the Priest said" behold Jesus who reconciles all women and men, may we come to this table joyfully to partake of the lords holy supper of bread and wine" At communion time I tried to get into the line where the Priest was but was shoved into the "proper" line by an usher.

Are these just super duper abuses or was this crap even valid. I was so pissed on the way home I ran a stop sign." [2]

And Need I post a video of the Sydney Papal Mass?
Or of the Yankee Stadium Mass here in the US?
It would seem that these kinds of things are not only permitted, but condoned by the NO, I can cite a few examples of NO Cardinals doing just that.
This should demonstrate sufficiently that these are not just rare abuses being trumped up by traditionalists with an agenda, these are real problems and they affect real people and they happen all the time.

"To be sure, I've seen lovingly photographed liturgical bizarrenesses from time to time chronicled on the Internet. And I've seen some enthusiasts for the Latin Mass often talk as though such stupid liturgical antics are happening everywhere all the time and that they alone stand between the Church and the complete and utter circus-ization of the Mass. But have I been to an actual clown Mass? Nope. Never saw one -- and I live in the Archdiocese of Seattle."

Okay, so Mr. Shea says that since he hasn't seen that, they aren't all that common, and, what's more, those "angry traditionalists" are exploiting this stuff, when it actually does happen, and hyping it up to build up their own platform.
Mr. Shea says he's never seen this stuff, so how in the world is this man supposed to be able to relate to what is going on? How is he supposed to pretend that he can respond to something he's not even seen, and therefore can't fathom why someone would be all up in the air about it? I think the question that needs to be asked is "have you ever seen a reverently celebrated Novus ordo mass?", me neither. The thing is that this stuff does happen all the time, and it happens in a lot of places, I can get Mr Shea a couple of dozen examples from real live people who are subjected to this stuff right here and now off the top of my head if he should be so interested.

"We have an obligation to do our best to celebrate the Mass reverently and worthily."

This is, I think, the point traditionalists strive to make, we are obligated to give unto God our best, to treat Him reverently and humbly, not to make a party out of it. I'm not so sure that most novus ordos know that; in fact, most novus ordos don't even go to mass, so why even ask?

"...the Mass is God's before it is ours."

I concur, and I think most traditionalists do too, it is not ours for the changing, it's not ours to improve, it belongs to God, it is His property, and thus we should respect it. This is what traditionalists try to stress, the taking of the mass, and wholesale reinventing of it by modernist innovators has demeaned the liturgy, it has tried to make it a thing purely natural, a thing which belongs to the people, to change and "adapt" to suit the people's every whim. It is an attitude which abhors a respect for tradition, a thing which disdains a static truth, which was the programme of the modernist innovators at the Council. It would seem that most novus ordos don't know who the mass belongs to.

"We can start to regard it as our property."

This was a primary error of the modernists, they regarded the deposit of tradition to be a thing wholly subject to change on a whim. They regarded it as a thing belonging to mankind, that should be suited to him and his every desire, which is why it turned out to be such a disaster, it's aim was to please men, and not God, quite simply, the aim was one of apostasy [see this post].

"But "saviors of the liturgy" can forget in their own way as well. They can come to relish liturgical abuses because, well, it's gratifying to one's pride to be the Savior of the Liturgy, isn't it?"

Lo, and behold, we have been given a new name to add to the growing list [I dislike the labelling, even the label of "traditionalist", it introduces a hermeneutic of discontinuity, that those who defend tradition must differentiate themselves from just "Catholicism", a traditionalist is a Catholic, pure and simple, not some disgruntled, nostalgic, and ignorant dissenter, he holds to Catholicism as it was before it was regarded as merely human, and thus subject to wholesale change. This sort of thing is marginalization, an attempt to cast an opponent in a bad light]. We are now "saviors of the liturgy". And I guess that makes Mr. Shea the "savior of truth", then, doesn't it? "Defending the Church's truth against the evil traditionalist schismatics and the Protestants." [New taglines made while U w8]. Mr Shea admittedly does not have any experience with some of these things, so what makes him think he's qualified to go about judging the disposition and/or motives of traditionalist Catholics?

"When I entered the Church I heard of the dreaded Clown Mass. I got the impression that such things were endemic, and that I was entering a war zone where I would have to struggle every day with unspeakable outrages against the Eucharist. It's been 20 years and the worst I've had to put up with is listening to "Anthem" now and then."

Maybe Mark should get out more. If I go right down the road, I get to behold some wonderful singing, jumping and dancing, spiky hair, rock n' roll, and whatever you like, in what purports to be a Catholic liturgy, in a diocesan "church", which is built like an aquatic complex. What, shouldn't I be angry about that? You might ask, am I angry about that stuff happening? Of course I am, and I'm sure the angels and our Lord are quite fumed about it too.

"That note sums up why I have no interest in becoming a liturgical fussbudget."

Not only are we "saviors of the liturgy", we are also "liturgical fussbugets",
ain't that sweet.

"the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness and self-control, not bitterness..."

I whole-heartedly agree. If I do love God, am I supposed to not be angry at sacrilege?
And he speaks of charity while slinging the accusation of "liturgical fussbudget" around?

"People who act and talk like this are going to have to figure out how to be fully Catholic or they are going to disappear."

I guess we can agree on this point. It's so inspiring to see Mr. Shea echo this sentiment when he calls Catholic "liturgical fussbudgets" and "saviors of the liturgy". Such consistency and harmony... it's inspiring, it really is.

"A true Catholic faith evangelizes; like it or not, this is not evangelizing, but shouting "Repel boarders" and then pouring boiling oil on your own archers. Such treatment of brother and sister Catholics is, well, evil..."

Once again, I agree with Mr. Shea, but what I find fascinating is the lack of "apologetics" towards traditionalists by NO apologists, it's usually negative accusations, "traditionalists are this and that, or this". If he wants some evangelizing, why not agree to come together and do some friendly discussion about the matter over a coffee and some donuts with a primary traditionalist spokesman? Or, at least, a debate?

"Here's the thing: In the early Church, Christians did not huddle up and demand that those around them understand the things they care about. That's because the command they had been given was "Go therefore into every nation, teaching them to observe what I have commanded." They were a missionary Church conquering the world with love, not a Fortress desperately fighting to bring back the good old days."

Uh oh, Mr. Shea has just violated the hermeneutic of ecumenicity. That's the whole goal of ecumenism, to "understand" and to be friends with those who are not already in the fold. Why not follow John Paul the Great's example here?
By the way, His Holiness Pope Pius said there was no going back to the early days of the Church.

"But that is often the impression I have gotten from many (though certainly not all) Traditionalists. Like it or not, discourse among a great many Traditionalists is filled with anger and contempt for Catholics who do not share their burning interest in traditional forms of piety."

This, however, has ring of truth to it, there are those who are not too charitable towards those who are not already in agreement to them, but I don't think that they are "a great many", it's really a bad example of what a traditionalist is. And, one more thing, why not criticize traditionalism as it, the actual claims and principles of the movement, instead of picking out poor examples? It works both ways, I can litter my page here with liturgical abuse and all kinds of scandalous behaviour by novus ordos, but that ain't gonna get nothin' done, if I want to hash the NO I'd go right the source of novusordoism. Not only does that serve my goal, to evangelize the NO, but no one could claim that my examples are just occasional bad examples if I could demonstrate it from the primary NO voices. It would honest, clear, and incontestable. We'd be playing on a level playing field, and that's fair enough.

"So while I've never seen a Clown Mass, I have encountered lots of angry Trads who have compared the Paul VI rite to a Black Mass, made clear that "Novus Ordo types" are second class Catholics, spent a great deal of time obsessing over Jews, sneered at John Paul II and Benedict "Novus Ordo Popes" who have compromised the Tradition..."

Once again, Mr. Shea does not even know why the trads would be angry anyway, so why's he so angry about the "angry trad", when he can't even relate? If he can't understand what makes a trad tick, what makes him think that he can criticize their dispositions?
Perhaps Mr. Shea would like some examples of NO pontiffs committing such a compromise? There are many examples one could bring to mind.

"...threatened people in my parish physically, smeared good priests with nasty rumor campaigns..."

Now I've never heard of this stuff happening, when's the last time a trad physically threatened you or someone you know? Now don't get me wrong, I ain't justifying this kind of behaviour, it's unCatholic, for which no excuse is to made, Catholics pray for others in charity, not exhibit this kind of behaviour, but what's this got to do with the issue at hand?
What if I posted examples of ticked off novus ordos? Why is this even brought forward? What is this supposed to accomplish? What's this guy's deal here? Why are we even talking about this? Is he trying to imply that we're supposed to generally be like that or what? I mean that's just not right. Mr Shea apparently is unaware of the frequency and extent to which these NO liturgical abuses happen, so obviously, his entire gyst here is off, because his whole complaint here is that we're trumping up some kind of extremity to accomplish our selfish agenda, but excuse me, traditionalists ain't the only ones complaining about this stuff, even the Protestants are scandalized by it, the indult NO's are ashamed of it, and traditionalists are appalled by it. Naturally, because all of these people believe that sacraments and worship are sacred things to be treated as such. So, obviously, this stuff is seen as sacrilege and is abhorred. So is this reaction to the abuse of holy things supposed to characterize us all as "angry fussbudgets"?
This guy admits that he's never seen this stuff, but yet he feels that he's qualified to criticise others who may actually have been subjected to it, and he's the one acting like traditionalists don't know what they're talking about? Instead of Criticising others for not being charitable and modest in their undertakings, why doesn't he practice it and at least demonstrate to us what a good example of Christian charity and humility really are, and then at least have a leg to stand on when he does criticise like that.
I think Mr. Shea, and some of his colleagues, should stick to his area of expertise and dazzle us with wonderful arguments in favour of the truth, instead of haphasardly criticising other Catholics as they try to cope with the spiritual disaster of Vatican II.

Endnotes:
[1] Mark Shea, Inside Catholic, "Those Angry Traditionalists", August 13, 2008
[2] Baskerville, Fisheaters Forum, "Was this a valid Mass?", Sept. 20, 2008

Strike One, Strike Two, Strike Three...

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:17:00 +0000

About this time last year, the CMRI lost some of their religious when some 15 of their nuns defected to the novus ordo. And now, Rorate Caeli has recently reported, and others have echoed, that the Transalpine Redemptorists of the SSPX in Scotland have defected to the NO as well. The father Michael Mary, of the same order, states that his petition for the lifting of the canonical censures on the priests to be suspended had not only been heard but granted, and that now the order is in "undisputed and peaceful posession of Communion with the Holy See".

The news is expected, given the issuance of Summorum Pontificum and the "negotiations" between the society and Rome, most recently the Vatican's "ultimatum", putting some pressure on the society and its parishioners, who have for some time longed to be able to be in communion with Rome.
Some follow the society because they can't stomach the modernism and changes since the council, others do so because they like the old mass better than the new one, and some because they believe in the spirit of the society, and others for a whole host of reasons, but they pretty much all have immense respect for Benedict.
Given this and the broadened access to the Latin Liturgy, the society is taking some losses as those who followed the society primarily for reasons of liturgy flock to the new "motu masses", where they can go to mass in communion with Rome while avoiding "schismatics", as the case of the transalpine Redemptorists demonstrates. Recent events such as these may lead to the possible further fracturing of the Society. Only time will tell.

Old Fashioned Ecumenism III

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 II

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:

Updated: No Crisis of Faith?

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:15:00 +0000

A recent poll consensus shows that 4/5 of the Catholic Populace of the US believe that other religions lead people to heaven besides Christ's. So much for the scriptures, they've been tossed out the window in favour of ecumenism, since, apparently, the way ain't narrow anymore, and it sure ain't restricted to Christ anymore.

"The Catholic bishops of the United States appeared to agree on June 23 with the results of a survey... some 35,000 US adults were surveyed.

...Reflecting an American tradition of dissent and diversity, the study also concludes that most Americans have a non-dogmatic approach to faith and that the majority of those affiliated with a religious tradition agree that there is more than one way to interpret the teaching of their faith.

For example, 79 percent of the Catholic[s] polled agreed that many religions, not just their own, lead to eternal life, as compared to 66 percent of Protestants overall, 57 of Evangelicals, 83 percent of mainline Protestants, and 59 of historically Black congregations. As for Jews, 92 percent agreed while Muslims stood at 66 percent. The Pew Forum study also found that only among Mormons (57%) and Jehovah’s Witnesses (80%) do majorities say that their own religion is the one true faith leading to eternal life"

It seems that Protestants have a better conception of which way leads exclusively to heaven than professing Catholics! Amongst all of the figures in recent times, these are among the most disturbing... Let there be no doubt, there is a crisis of faith within the Catholic Church, the numbers prove it! This study seems to mirror Mr. Boyd's findings about this same doctrine with regards to "Catholic" dioceses.

"For Rev. J. Brian Bransfield, specialist in the Secretariat of Evangelization and Catechesis of the USCCB, “it is hard to quantify the tremendous thirst for truth among families and people of all ages, as demonstrated by the overwhelming response to the recent visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the United States.”

The priest continued, “This thirst is sometimes misdirected through the effects of secularism, with its focus on individualism and consumerism. Prior to his election as Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said, 'God does not count in large numbers.' In the face of any measure, the steady and ongoing response of the Church is an ever renewed commitment to robust catechetical efforts."

As to political and theological obedience to the Church, CWN reported:

"The Pew survey found widespread dissent from Church teaching and a massive exodus from the Catholic Church, concluding that "roughly released earlier this month, the Pew Forum explains that "roughly one-third of those who were raised Catholic have left the church, and approximately one-in-ten American adults are former Catholics."

But even though CWN, a major reputable Catholic News Service, reports these statistics, some of our novus ordo friends pretend that all of this stuff about apostasy from the faith is just a fairy tale... the report goes on:

"In its follow-up report, comparing the beliefs and practices of America's major religious groups, the Pew Forum found that 48% of Catholics respondents favor legal abortion (16% in all cases, 32% in most cases), while only 18% agree that abortion should always be illegal. A substantial majority of the Catholics polled-- 58%-- said that society should accept homosexuality."

The statistics are very revealing. Reports like these have been popping up here and there in the major news networks for the last 30 years, how is that so many pretend like events like this don't, and haven't happened?

"In fact, 48% of the respondents who identified themselves as Catholics said that they attended Mass "a few times a year" or even less frequently.The Pew survey demonstrated an apparent liberal tilt in the political views of American Catholics...."

Having mass their way in their language is very appealing, no? Our wonderful aggiornamento has such an excellent retention rate. Having the mass with chips, cookies, cokes, and a priest facing them simply failed as a form of worship to God, or as a form of communion with Catholics. All the rap and tye-dye didn't keep 'em, and it certainly didn't bring 'em.

The Vatican Ultimatum: An Offer of Unity to the SSPX

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:02:00 +0000

Recently, the Vatican published an ultimatum in which Rome invites the SSPX to return to the NO fold, as covered by numerous news agencies, it is reported that Fellay has declined the offer:

The Five Conditions

"Catholic rebel snubs pope's call to rejoin Rome"

"PARIS (Reuters) - The leader of a breakaway traditionalist Catholic group has rejected a Vatican offer to rejoin Rome, accusing Pope Benedict of trying to silence dissenting voices.

Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) that broke with Rome 20 years ago, said conditions set by the Vatican amounted to muzzling the traditionalists who claim to be the only true Catholics since Church reforms in the 1960s."

One of the things I first take note of is that, like the novus ordos, the secularists define traditionalists as "dissenters" as well, and also makes the claim that traditionalists "claim to be the only true Catholics" since Vatican II, an opinion shared amongst novus ordos as well. Now, since we're talking about the SSPX here, I assume that those traditionalist who are said to have made such a claim are SSPXers [those who participate in the SSPX liturgies and spiritual guidance/retreats and seminaries], the only thing is, I don't remember the SSPX explicitly making such a claim. I think it to be one example of unnecessary generalizations; as varied as traditionalists are, putting one big label on 'em all becomes quite difficult when it comes to specific premises.

"Keen to end this schism, Benedict agreed last year to their demand to restore the old Latin Mass."

A curious statement... so, are we to conclude that the whole Motu thing was a cave-in by the Vatican to the demands of this group of "dissenters"? That's a possibility... the Vatican does have a recent history of doing things like that, as the Good Friday controversy demonstrated.

"But he insists they must accept the reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) before he can lift excommunication decrees against them."

Naturally...

"Rome is telling us, okay, we are ready to lift the excommunications, but you cannot continue this way," Fellay said in a sermon last Friday now posted as an audio file on the U.S.-based Voice of Catholic Radio website."

Well, of course Rome would say that, why ever would they want a society of priests acting independently of them?

"So we have no choice... we are continuing what we've done," the Swiss-born Fellay said in English at an SSPX seminary in Winona, Minnesota. "They just say 'shut up' ... we are not going ... to shut up."

For what purpose? Is there some special reason why it is imperative to remain independent of Rome?

"The Milan daily Il Giornale reported on Monday the Vatican had told the SSPX it must pledge to respect the pope and accept him as the Church's final doctrinal authority."

I thought they already did that? I mean, with all of the humongous images of Benedict in their Churches and on the website, and the atmosphere of respect for him amongst SSPXers, how does this come as some special condition?

"Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi told the Paris Catholic daily La Croix: "The pope wants to extend his hand so they can return, but for that to happen, this offer must be received in an attitude and spirit of charity and communion."

Lombardi did not spell out the consequences of rejecting the offer, but Il Giornale's well-informed Vatican expert Andrea Tornielli wrote: "Such favorable conditions for a return to full communion will in all probability not come again."

Of course there's gotta be some pressure to hurry up take the offer, I mean, this kinda deal might not be available again, "don't wait!, if you accept within the next ten days, we might remove those penalities..."

"TIP OF THE ICEBERG

The SSPX claims about a million followers worldwide, many of them in France. It split off when its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, consecrated four traditionalist bishops -- including Fellay -- in 1988 against orders from Pope John Paul.

Since then, it has regularly appealed to the Vatican to withdraw the excommunications and allow it to return to the 1.1-billion strong Church. But its leaders often publicly denounce the pope."

I wonder why?

"Fellay said the pope must restore other Church traditions besides the old Latin Mass before the SSPX could return. It is particularly critical of the Vatican Council's reconciliation with Judaism and call to cooperation with other Christians."

Could there possibly be some motive behind that? Of course not, it's not like that stuff has been an excommunicatible offense for 1900+ years...

"The new Mass is the tip of the iceberg of Vatican II and of these modern ideas." Adding the old Mass to the "iceberg of Vatican II" did not change the reforms hidden below, he said."

Well of course the Mass is not all there is to it, V2 did more than change the mass...

"Vatican watchers say the ultimatum could split SSPX into a hard core of rebels and a larger group ready to return to Rome now that it has allowed wider use of the old Latin Mass."

As we predicted post motu proprio last year...

"Most people want a reverent Mass and sound preaching. They care little for the loftier theological arguments," Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a prominent conservative Catholic blogger, wrote in an analysis. "The identity of the SSPX is at stake now."

The ultimatum's deadline of June 30 is the 20th anniversary of the bishops' ordinations that sealed the schism."

They're after that in the SSPX because it's soooo haarrdd to find in the parish nowadays, now that guitars and soft drinks typify the mass, and sermons become like oprah winfry or Montel Williams: Gossip conventions...

And So again, the situation presents itself, what will happen to the SSPX now that the NO has a Latin version and is presently devoid of guitars and rappers, and Rome is offering reunion?

Ax Grinding and Novus Ordo Apologists, Pt II: A Response to Dave Armstrong

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Sat, 17 May 2008 04:26:00 +0000

Well, Dave has decided to critique me now... how interesting. But before we get into my post and this new blog conflict, let's have some context, here.
I composed a post, dealing with the "anti-trad" tendencies of mainline novus ordos, in this case of Novus Ordo apologists, using two examples to illustrate my thesis, Mark Shea's criticism of Dr. Gerald Matatics, and Dave Armstrong's criticism of the same and of Ryan Grant.
Gerry Matatics, someone whom I consider a friend of mine, has taken some sharp criticism, and he is what is classified nowadays as a "traditional Catholic", a term which practically embraces the entire world of traditional Catholicism when considering the sweeping generalizations out there, one particular perspective can be presented as the common traditional viewpoint, usually by non-traditionalists. I really don't have much concern for Gerry's criticism, Gerry's criticism is his ordeal, and I'm not in the habit of making any response to it, except in the case where it affects VITW. I composed a post in response to some of this criticism because the criticism did not just affect him, it affected VITW because VITW featured a post about a radio program he had appeared on, in order to illustrate that position, and was criticized with him. It started when some novus ordo attempted to leave a comment wherein there was a link, which I followed, to where my post was quoted, and there was a criticism there of it and Dr. Matatic's position, which also led to a work which Mr. Shea had composed about the same radio appearance, to which I referred. I made reference to Dave Armstrong in that post because of the interesting events taking place with Athanasius, and how the two criticisms seemed to coincide. Dave happened to follow a few of my comments and found VITW through my profile, and subsequently that particular post. Dave took my post as a criticism specifically of him, which it was not, wherein I am "railing" against him. First of all we'll consider his response and secondly we'll consider some of the comments about Dave and his enterprise which he apparently has a beef with.

Dave starts off his critique with the misconception that the post was somehow "centered" around criticizing him. It would seem that his object is to "defend" himself from an alleged belligerent criticism. He takes comments not even referenced to him as if they were criticisms of himself, which is untrue; I'll review his retaliation here. Dave begins:

"This is the latest stuff I have found that has come about as a result of my interactions with "traditionalist" Ryan Grant (Part One / Part Two). One "Leo" commented on Ryan's blog under his latest paper, and I followed his profile to his blog, only to discover that he was railing against me over there. . . ."

He starts out quoting me:

Novus ordos consider anyone who thinks the way Catholics did a hundred years ago as an apostate [maybe it's more profound than this?], . . .

And responds:

[utterly false in my case, and I am one of these whom he calls a "Novus Ordo" or "NO"]

I'm not sure why Mr. Armstrong is talking about "his case", since no one mentioned him, yet. So far, we're talking about NO's and their condemnations of traditionalists, I'd hardly call this a criticism of Mr. Armstrong. But that is not to say that this is completely alien to him, since his criticism of Mr. Grant is a fairly good illustration of my thesis in that post, as well as Armstrong's quick retaliation to that criticism.

Dave quotes my post again:

NO's don't generally take into consideration the fact that there is a crisis in the Church . . .

And responds thus:

[utterly false in my case; to the contrary, I have always held, following my mentor Fr. John A. Hardon. S.J., that modernism is the greatest crisis in the history of the Church. Man, the generalizations are pretty bad, if they supposedly typify "NO's", cuz they don't typify me at all]

Again, why are we even talking about "his case", and whatever he has held? Dave's not a part of that statement, his name or his works are not mentioned anywhere around that quotation, Mr. Armstrong is not even an implied object. Now, the object was the position of many novus ordo's, including apologists, who think that the idea of a crisis in the Church, like the one Trads assert, is ludicrous, they must think everything is fine and dandy, or that if there's a crisis, we trads are the ones creating or abetting it. Again, I don't know why Mr. Armstrong is so concerned with what "typifies" him with this comment. And I'm not sure why he responds to it as a criticism of his beliefs, unless this is his belief.

Again, Dave quotes my post:

". . . and that perhaps there might be some merit in someone's criticism of the NO's inability to sense it, . . ."

NO's [Novus ordos that is] generally assume malice or ill will on the part of someone's criticism of Vatican II, at least from my experience, or the crisis it has been instrumental in instigating, as pointed out by Mr. Grant[1]. That is the context of this quote.

Dave Responds:

[obviously untrue in my case. The disagreement comes not as to whether there is a crisis, but on its origins and solutions to the mess]

What is it the matter that he keeps talking about "his case", I wonder? We're talking about novus ordos who don't consider criticism of Vatican II or the actions of the Vatican over the last 50 years to ever have a valid or honest motive behind them, they must usually, again in their opinion, be sinister or with a mind to schism; Dave himself considers this criticism "quasi schismatic"[2], seeming to either be overlooking this or simply ignoring it, and then re-construing it as though it were some scathing attack on himself, to which he feels that he must respond, which I believe unnecessary.

Dave quotes my post, again:

"strange for an ecumenical NO, how fast the warm and fuzzy feeling wears off when you start talking about Trads".

Allow me to clarify: NO's are very ecumenical, they give the red carpet treatment to schismatics and heretics, B16 and the actions of numerous bishops illustrate this fact, which I'll document if Dave wants to take me to task on it. But, when one starts talking about traditionalism, that reverence and ecumenical feeling rapidly wears off... the trad is an schismatic, while Benedict, still a Catholic, is hailing "Orthodox" Patriarchs.

Dave responds:

"I approach "traditionalism" just as I do any other error..."

It would seem that Dave thinks "traditionalism" is an error, remember this:

IF Traditional Catholicism of nowadays is apostasy, then what was Pius XII? An Apostate? What's the real Catholic religion then?, the new ecumenism of Vatican II, is it a new religion? Or was the Catholic Church wrong all this time?

I'm not sure how to take Dave's response, but it does leave me with more questions. While my quote is not exactly in line with what Mr. Armstrong says, it still follows that same train of thought, that traditionalism is something uncatholic; be it schismatic, heretical, apostate, or just plain erroneous.

Dave continues:

"...We shall shortly see that Leo is almost infinitely more uncharitable towards myself and "NO's" than I have ever been toward "trads"'

Shall we?

Dave quotes my post:

"Apparently, kissing the koran is perfectly Catholic to Mr. [Mark] Shea. We can go tell people not to convert, and we're not heretics or schismatics, but, if we do the opposite, then we are."

And then replies: "Huh??!! I can't say that I follow this reasoning."

Dave says he doesn't know what I'm writing about here, allow me to oblige: JP2 kisses the Koran[3], he is seen as being perfectly Catholic and wholly within the Church's parameters. Novus ordo bishops actually tell people not to convert and actually state that it is not an obligation to proselytize[4], and they are still seen as Catholic bishops. Catholic traditionalists convert people because they believe that that conversion is necessary... and they are seen as apostates and/or heretics and schismatics. It leaves us with a question, exactly what "Catholicism" the apologists profess if the first is Catholic and the latter is not. That is the gist of that statement [which probably needs reworking], which I believe Mr. Armstrong has overlooked.

Dave continues:

"It is my life's work to bring about more conversions to the Catholic Church and to educate people as to our true teachings. Of all the things that an apologist could be criticized for, this has to be one of the wackiest I've seen."

He says it's "wacky" because he cannot see the gyst of the comment, he can't understand it, so he "rails" against it. Allow me, once again, to add some context: JP2 kissed the Koran [which claims it's blasphemy to assert Christ's divinity], and he is considered Catholic, indeed, a great Catholic; Dr. Matatics is considered a "non"-Catholic. What does this entail?
That you may honour false religions and still be Catholic; you can reject that kind of honour towards them and be considered an schismatic, do you follow? If you stress pre-Vatican II traditions, you can be considered an schismatic or heretic, even if you are not sedevacantist[5], but if you stress interreligious dialogue and anti-conversion rhetoric and endeavors, you may still be considered "Catholic". My point is that this is a backward principle and it is, furthermore, unjust and untrue. My beef is with what seems to me to be a double standard, not so much the actual positions of either JP2 or Matatics.

Dave continues:

"The only "trads" I call heretics or schismatics are those in SSPX (schismatics) and sedevacantists (schismatics and heretics.

Unfortunately, Dave neglected to define exactly what "heresy" those in the SSPX or sedevacantist camps are guilty of. Allow me to guess: if you hold that a public heretic cannot teach in the Catholic Church, you are a heretic? I would definitely like to know which dogma that denies, since, as far as I know, that's a Catholic principle.

Dave quotes me again:

"Do these gentlemen, novus ordo apologists, seriously believe that there is no scandal coming from Rome? Do they seriously believe that there is no merit to any criticism of that scandal? Or any honest reaction to it? No, they do not."

And responds "One can quibble with some decisions and strategies, but "scandal"? No."

I don't understand his statement, is he saying that there are not scandals emanating from Rome, or that one can't quibble with those scandals, or what?
How many have apostatized because of something they saw in the NO in the last 50 or so years? Is Dave going to tell me that the Assisi meeting was the best representation of Catholicism and the necessity of belief in Christ?

Dave quotes me again:

"Amongst them, one might note that they are the first ones to say that not everything is all black and white, but when it comes to traditionalism, it suddenly goes that way, either you're ok with V2 ecumenism or you are a schismatic."

Dave responds:

"that's funny. I've never said that. This is why I specifically use the term quasi-schismatic. I don't call anyone a schismatic unless they formally cut ties to the Catholic Church. But there are plenty of warning signs before that happens, and that is what I critique, so as to warn people not to take that fatal step"

Who ever said that Dave said that? I know that I didn't. It's good to know you don't consider trads schismatics, then, Dave. But you do leave us somewhat confused, because you said this:

"The only "trads" I call heretics or schismatics are those in SSPX (schismatics) and sedevacantists (schismatics and heretics."

Which happen to be the bulk of "trads", by the way.

Dave quotes me again:

"Oftentimes novus ordo critics don't really care to find out what people are actually saying, it's the motive to make some sort of cynical remark concerning someone or something, disregarding the facts, as liberals do."

Dave responds "Like I'm doing right now; quoting many of Leo's words . . ." Yes, quite interesting, but you see, I'm not referencing Dave, he is not the object, those who like to patsy a traditionalist as a wacko schismatic for thinking the priest ought to face God in the tabernacle instead of the congregation, among many other things, or who come up with false issues, or put words in people's mouths by building up strawmen, that is false arguments and premises, and then knocking them down, and all traditionalists with them, are. Yes, they are my words alright, but the meaning is not conveyed.

Dave quotes:

"Mr. Shea is treating his former colleague as if he had the plague, or were some enemy to be attacked, and where is there any apologetics to reach out to either him or those who believe like him? None... they're enemies, why would we ever try to understand them?"

Dave responds:

"Mark is not always as charitable as he could be; I agree. I have criticized him myself in this regard."

Yes, I've noticed that.

Dave quotes me again:

". . . dissent from Vatican II theology represents schism and dissidence, it is apostasy to reject it and schism to prefer the traditional theology to it, criticism of V2 theology is heresy."

Dave responded "no; it's just plain wrongheaded, self-defeating, and foolish. And Pope Benedict XVI has explained why..."

He then makes this quote:

It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him

It is?

Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils . . .

Really?

Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself...

And how has it "understood itself"?

...at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils...

Really?

. . . It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I but against Vatican II.

They say you learn something everyday... I'm working on V2, and will go over all of this later.

Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called 'traditionalism,' also in its extreme forms. Every partisan choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can exist only as an indivisible unity.

What did I say? The feeling wears off quick, real quick, and they resort to these assertions, which will considered in future observations. Notice it got all black and white with the terms? Consider this comparison:

Amongst them, one might note that they are the first ones to say that not everything is all black and white, but when it comes to traditionalism, it suddenly goes that way, either you're ok with V2 ecumenism or you are a schismatic.

"To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council. It is our fault if we have at times provided a pretext (to the 'right' and 'left' alike) to view Vatican II as a 'break' and an abandonment of the tradition. There is, instead, a continuity that allows neither a return to the past nor a flight forward, neither anachronistic longings nor unjustified impatience. We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them . . ."

This is very ambiguous to me, for various reasons which I'll examine later.

I see no future for a position that, out of principle, stubbornly renounces Vatican II. In fact in itself it is an illogical position. The point of departure for this tendency is, in fact, the strictest fidelity to the teaching particularly of Pius IX and Pius X and, still more fundamentally, of Vatican I and its definition of papal primacy. But why only popes up to Pius XII and not beyond? Is perhaps obedience to the Holy See divisible according to years or according to the nearness of a teaching to one's own already-established convictions?[6]

Talk about missing the point, this person seems to me to be missing the whole issue. But anyhow, thank you for illustrating my point, Dave.

Dave quotes again:

"These and more are some of the threads running throughout novus ordo apologetics, and they are by no means friendly towards the eternal traditions of the Church."

But let's see that in context: "Jews are our "older brothers in the faith", and if you question that, then you are treading on dangerous ground and bordering on heresy. All are saved via Christ's incarnation, He took the nature of us all, and we are all united to Him because of this glorious event, by which He achieved our salvation. Question that, and you are nearing heresy. The Eucharist does not really become our Lord, He is just present in it in a special way. Question that and you are a heretic. The Novus ordo Missae was produced and implemented by the authority of the Church, and thus it requires one's assent and love as a true and holy sacrifice, question that, or prefer the old mass to it, and you are a schismatic. These and more are some of the threads running throughout novus ordo apologetics, and they are by no means friendly towards the eternal traditions of the Church."

Dave responds:

"Really? I guess that's why I spend all day, working for relative peanuts, defending them"

Then do you pretend that the doctrines above mentioned are compatible with those traditions?

Dave quotes "So, we're similar to Liberals!" and responds "in some ways, yes; most notably, in picking and choosing what one wants to believe in Church teaching: the "cafeteria Catholic" mentality".

Not quite, my good sir, the principle here illustrated is one that depends on the context, which is that post Vatican II doctrines are, at least in some cases, contrary to the traditions of the Church before Vatican II. Now, let's see, rejection of the acceptance of consubstantiation, in favour of transubstantiation, which [doctrine of consubstantiation] is running rampant in some novus ordo circles, is "cafeteria catholic" mentality? So, it's "liberal" to reject such an opinion? There are a lot of non-Catholic doctrines nowadays in novusordoism, are we to just gobble them all, tongue talkers & all? I don't think so, and I don't think you do either.

Dave says: "I think traditional Catholic doctrine, as documented in Denzinger, Ott, Trent, VI, VII, and the Catechism, is the standard of orthodoxy".

That's interesting to hear.

Dave quotes: "We're Protestant, because we honestly recognize and criticize the neo-Protestantism of the Novus ordo."
and responds "no; you have some resemblances to Protestantism; particularly in how you exercise private judgment, just as they do; but of course it is fine for you to call us advocates of "neo-Protestantism". We're not allowed to dare criticize you"

Let me see here, you're inferring that those doctrines named above can be held and one can remain Catholic. Consubstantiation is Catholic, then, and because we pick them out and choose not to accept them we're "Protestant". Sir, and you're calling me, after a fashion, a Protestant? Some of your own colleagues, as named in the post, are completely in good standing, making judge, jury, and executioner of themselves towards other Catholics by their own judgment are completely free of this charge? I see. I don't accept Assisi as an expression of authentic catholicism, and that's "Protestant", in your opinion? I think consubstantiation is neo-Protestantism, er, eh, old fashioned Protestantism, at least. so, if I criticize this liberalism, I'm Protestant by exercising "private judgment" ...I see.

Dave quotes me again:

"They're soooo nice to eastern schismatics and Protestants and all ecumenical with them, calling them separated brothers and all, but they quickly come out with the name-calling when it comes to a traditionalist, oh, we're schismatics, or apostates, or heretics because we believe like Rome did a century ago, I wonder who apostatized then?"

And responds:

"again, for the thousandth time: I have called no "trad" any of these three names unless they formally espouse a heresy or enter into schism, according to canon law. Gerry Matatics is an example. He is no longer a Catholic; not because I say so, but because according to canon law he has excommunicated himself, and because he himself says he is no longer in communion with Rome, and says ridiculous, wacko stuff"

But you do call SSPXers and sedevacantists those names, even when you don't find a heresy in it all, and support Benedict in his doctrine of "separated brethren"[7], Gerry's opinions are "Wacko" and those of the Orthodox are "venerable". I would appreciate some consistency in this regard.
Let's see, What Benedict does in synagogues is perfectly Catholic, what he does with the Eastern Schismatics, by "dialogging" with them, is perfectly Catholic. Eastern Schismatics are considered "separated brethren" [brothers in Christ, in fact], they get nice cozy treatment from the Vatican.
Sedevacantists, and SSPXers, are considered "schismatics", and are treated as though they were unmitigated enemies to be avoided, while we're all encouraged to "Experience" the oriental religious "experiences" by attending their services, and that's ok?
It sounds like a double standard to me.
Another thing, you said "sedevacantists", at least, and SSPXers were heretics, might you clarify that for us, please?

Dave quotes "How hypocritical is this attitude amongst NO "apologists". and responds "only if we're caricatured and our positions poorly understood, as in your case".

Really? how have I misunderstood the Vatican's relations with the Orthodox? And the treatment of traditionalists, at least by the mainstream? Can it be denied that Novus ordo apologists accept Benedict XVI and his doctrines, which includes the Vatican's current affiliations with the Orthodox, and rejects those same principles in regard to traditionalists? They themselves do not honour B16 in his doctrine when they do not abide by it as well by tolerating and venerating the traditions and religious convictions of those who conflict with their own beliefs. They can't defend B16's doctrines and treat them as Catholic, while at the same time refusing to uphold them as legitimately Catholic principles without appearing to be hypocritical, and employing, themselves, the practice of "cafeteria catholicism", and thereby appearing Protestant, by picking and choosing which doctrines of the current magisterium they will and will not honour. If they accept B16 and the new ecumenism, if Benedict is the pope and thus his faith reflects that of the Church[8], then why don't the NO apologists do the same? According to the current Vatican consensus, and the opinion of Benedict XVI, the Church has moved on, it is progressing with the modern world, the old condemnations are no longer the practice of the Church, the Church seeks unity now, it's goal is now one of ecumenism, and of respect for differing opinions and beliefs[9], so, why don't NO apologists move on with the Church, with the Vatican?

Dave quotes "Mr. Armstrong says we're "extremists", and calls Bob Sungenis, a moderate "moderate", an extremist traditionalist!" and responds:

"I think he has extreme and untrue positions, yes. Challenged by Ryan Grant to show where he denied any Catholic doctrine, I showed last night how he ditches God's omniscience and immutability. That is heresy. But even so I didn't call him a heretic. He's a Catholic. I said (at the end of the paper) he seems to be confused and guilty of poor logic, and doesn't intend to deny what the logic of his position leads him to in fact deny"

Hmmm... so Sungenis' holding to something Dave sees as a heresy does not make Sungenis a heretic, and Dr. Matatic's position, which Dave also see as heresy, apparently, makes him a heretic. This is quite interesting. Sungenis is just not adding things up right, Matatics is obstinately denying some heretofore unnamed dogma and is undoubtedly guilty of heresy. Very interesting.

Dave quotes:

"Bob Sungenis will do backflips to defend the NO and also labels trads as "extremists", and Bob, good ole Bob, is an extremist himself! Armstrong is so dizzy he can't tell the right from the left if he thinks that we're similar to the liberals, or that Bob Sungenis is an extremist."

And responds "a guy who thinks God can change His mind and who thinks the earth doesn't rotate sure is an extremist in those regards. And that is only the beginning of the man's errors"

You know, I just finished a debate with two gentlemen who told me that God could change His mind about His own covenants, notably the New one, and act even contrary to it. That God can positively act contrary to what He has revealed to us as His truth, because He can change His mind. They were indulters. I agree, Sungenis has his issues, but he does have, like yourself, some good apologetics.

Dave quotes:

"Let's get this all straight here. A "liberal" is a leftist. A "traditionalist" is considered an extreme "rightist", but they're alike according to Armstrong... that's like saying a monarchist is similar to an anarchist!"

We are criticized for being conservative radicals by many liberals, so to be seen as a liberal is somewhat of a new experience, to say the least.

Dave quotes again: "I think Mr. Armstrong needs to stop and catch his bearings." And responds "I think you need to calm down, take a deep breath, and read my positions (twice or three times) before you make a fool of yourself again, as you are now doing"

But, Dave, You said we were similar to liberals, and failed, I believe, to clarify that you thought we were only liberals in the sense which you've since detailed.
You say, now, you've since edited it: "I've long noted, in any event, how Catholic "traditionalists" are similar in many ways in their outlook to both Catholic liberals and Protestants..... "

It once read: ""I've long noted, in any event, how Catholic "traditionalists" are similar in their mentality to both Catholic liberals and Protestants..."
You said our mentality was similar to that of a liberal. I think you failed to clarify in what manner. This resembles, in my mind, that prejudice against converts which is found amongst many nowadays, they accuse converts of "being similar in their mentality to Protestants", since they were once Protestants, and therefore have or had Protestant thought patterns. So, the treatment of Trads, I think, is pretty much the same.

Dave quotes ". . . it seems that no matter which side you take, if you oppose V2, you're a non-Catholic."

Hmm.. Let me add some context: "And of course it's the same old attitude towards anyone who tries to make sense out the utter confusion and chaos of the novus ordo, clown masses and ecumenism and brother Protestants... same train of thought as Shea employed about Matatics... Even Athanasius is an "extremist" and is "unbalanced", it seems that no matter which side you take, if you oppose V2, you're a non-Catholic."

Dave responded:

"Right. Now, having stated this asinine conclusion, why don't you prove it for a change, with documentation from my writing? The only persons I've stated were no longer Catholics, are sedevacantists like Matatics and Mario Derksen, which is what canon law says"

I made a comparison. I compared this reaction to Traditionalism to the more common opinion amongst NO's, that who ever does not accept Assisi ecumenical theology is an apostate or schismatic, and Mark Shea's treatment of Matatics. Allow me to clarify:

"And of course it's part of the same old attitude towards anyone who tries to make sense out the utter confusion and chaos of the novus ordo, clown masses and ecumenism and brother Protestants, [that is those who make what appear to be logical conclusions from these things], it is [seen as] the same train of thought as Shea employed about Matatics; which was: ...it seems that no matter which side you take, if you oppose V2, you're a non-Catholic."

Allow me, once more, to clarify my assertion:

"Matatics Completes His Transition Back to Protestantism" - Mark Shea
"...Gerry Matatics, shilling his latest assault on Holy Church..." - Mark Shea
"...So while advocating a sedevacantist position, Matatics prefers not to *name* that position too loudly. ...The refusal to give things their proper name is always one of the marks of hell at work." - Mark Shea

Shea, unfortunately, did not properly label Matatics, what does this betoken, then? Dave says:

"Traditionalists" try so hard to come off not looking extreme and unbalanced, but they just can't do it, because their absurd beliefs always shine through..."[10]

Speaking of generalizations....

"Gerry Matatics is one sterling example. He became so "Catholic", er, Protestant..."[11]
"to cross over an important line one day into actual schism and perhaps heresy. Matatics and Derksen have literally done this before my eyes and our eyes. They kept sliding further and further out, so that now they are in the twilight zone...." [12]

Looks much like Shea's comments to me. Dr. Matatics rejects this new ecumenical theology, and he's seen as a protestant, do you follow?

Dave quotes:

"Armstrong and Shea habitually condescend almost anyone who disagrees with them, be it a Catholic or a Protestant, that is when it's a Catholic anyways, they tend to be a little nicer with "separated brethren"."

And responds: "More nonsense. I guess this is why the anti-Catholics absolutely despise me..."

Allow me to oblige:

"Traditionalists" try so hard to come off not looking extreme and unbalanced, but they just can't do it, because their absurd beliefs always shine through... Gerry Matatics is one sterling example. He became so "Catholic", er, Protestant..." - Dave Armstrong

"Thanks for the respectful attitude towards Orthodoxy (Big "O" as in Eastern Orthodox) without hiding our differences..." -Orthodox layman

Allow me to quote myself:

"Armstrong and Shea habitually condescend almost anyone who disagrees with them... that is when it's a Catholic anyways, they tend to be a little nicer with "separated brethren"."

Thank you for illustrating my point, sir.

Dave quotes: "They see traditionalism as some sort of non-Catholic religion and anyone who becomes a trad is an apostate." and responds "another lie, Note how this is a direct claim made about myself and Mark Shea. Leo can't prove this. I challenge him to do so in any case other than with sedevacantists... I don't even say that a formal schismatic is necessarily a heretic or apostate."

Now when did I start "lying"?
I don't think I did clarify myself thoroughly, allow me to quote myself again:

novus ordo apologists waste no time in labeling a traditionalist a "dissident", trads from all groups take the criticism, be he an SSPXer or what have you; dissent from Vatican II theology represents schism and dissidence, it is apostasy to reject it and schism to prefer the traditional theology to it, criticism of V2 theology is heresy.

Now, allow me to make an comparison:

"They see traditionalism as some sort of non-Catholic religion and anyone who becomes a trad is an apostate."

First of all, this is the result of sloppiness on my part, I should've added "novus ordos", to the end of it. When looking at these two statements, one notices the parallel, and what they imply, that is how the statement has "expressed and understood itself" in context with the schemata of the post.
Dave then goes on about my comments, which have since been removed for lack of clarity, which will be considered as well.

Allow me to recapitulate this whole ordeal:

Dave starts out responding to things not even relevant to him, and who knows why he continues to do that all throughout the first two-thirds of the post, which have nothing to do with him.
Dave sees "traditionalism" as an error, and SSPXers and sedevacantists as schismatics and/or heretics, but Dave neglects to name this alleged "heresy".
Dave fails to account for the essence of my entire commentary.
Dave asserts a continuity hermeneutic about V2.
Dave asserts that I'm "Protestant" in my mentality by accepting the traditions of the Church while rejecting modern novelties.
Dave says that sedevacantism is "wacky", while accepting Benedict's hermeneutic for Orthodoxy's "venerable" traditions, and John XXIII's principle of enriching the faith with different religious "experiences"; Orthodoxy is a venerable religious tradition, while sedevacantism is "wacky".
Dave again asserts heresy, but again fails to name the heresy.
Dave calls Sungenis an extremist and a potential, or "quasi", heretic.
Dave calls trads, in a general statement, "extreme, unbalanced, and absurd".
And then asserts that he's been mis-generalized.

I'd like to see some consistency, a resolution of what appears to be a double standard, perhaps one way would be a response to the comparison: which one is the separated Brother? the Patriarch of Greece, or Dr. Gerald C. Matatics? Which one has venerable traditions to be experienced to enrich our faith traditions, and which one is a heretic undermining the faith?

This concludes my commentary on Armstrong's reply to my post. Now, to my commentary on the comment controversy:

I wrote, in a comment, which has since been removed due to the amount of unwarranted controversy, the following:

"Thanks for the interest and comments, the sad fact is most people don't want the truth, it's simply too inconvenient. People don't add things up because they're afraid of what they might have to admit, or believe, it might be something they don't like or perhaps don't agree with, and so they refuse to put two and two together, they go on in their deceptions because it's what they want. As the scriptures tell us, the people have been given over to a reprobate mind because they have recieved not the love of truth.

The truth does not govern their lives, honesty and goodwill do not prevail, and that's why there is so much deception and and such little willingness to see beyond it, because the deception is convenient, it's comfortable. This is the case with Armstrong and Shea, they don't like the truth, and they capitalize on furthering deceptions, they make money from it, so they're actually in business to avoid or ridicule the crisis in the Church.

You know, I've been working on a piece about Vatican II and modernism, as the bulletin on the right says, and one of the main ecumenical themes was that "the Church must recognize her shortcomings and failures", which is totally bogus, the Church is pure and always will be, but Shea and Armstrong accept this spirit of V2, but they're not in the habit of admitting the failures and errors of Vatican II. I think for these men to be truly consistent and honest, they should adopt the theology they pretend loyalty to, and practice it. He can't say trads will go to hell because the theology of his church says we all go to heaven, JP2's universal incarnation theology and that response from Syracuse, NY diocese demonstrate that. It's bad will to impugne the truth, and that's what many do today, they won't have it."

Now, I'll review and try to clarify them:

"Thanks for the interest and comments, the sad fact is most people don't want the truth, it's simply too inconvenient."

Most people don't like to hear the truth, they like warm and cozy fantasy lands. For instance, most people don't like the idea that there is only one true Church, if you tell people that only the Catholic faith can save people from eternal damnation, they simply will not hear it. It's the truth, it's an inconvenient truth for many, but they don't want to hear it. That is the gist of that statement, most people don't want the truth, they like universal salvation, it's a nice sounding doctrine, wouldn't it be nice if everybody could go to heaven? People are comfortable, they like being comfortable, and anything that disturbs that comfort, they don't like, and most of the time will not have if they can say anything about it, this is just one illustration of that statement.

"People don't add things up because they're afraid of what they might have to admit, or believe, it might be something they don't like or perhaps don't agree with, and so they refuse to put two and two together, they go on in their deceptions because it's what they want. As the scriptures tell us, the people have been given over to a reprobate mind because they have recieved not the love of truth."

This is true of pretty much any popular opinion, people don't add things up about the war in Iraq, the economic crises, or even religious crises. They don't want to face the fact that there are problems nowadays. Because they're unsettling, so they simply don't take any road of logic which might lead them to that unsettling conclusion. Isn't it nice to know that everything is fine and dandy, "I'm ok, you're ok, everybody's ok, everything is fine, I don't have to worry..." while it might not always be as bad as that, some people will only accept that the problem is just this serious or this bad, but will not accept the full scope of the problem. There is a crisis in the Church, people are leaving it, people are falling to the wayside, people are going to Hell, it might even be your neighbor... now tell me that's a settling thought... It's not, and that's why people simply ignore it, it's a disturbing, but true, thing to think about, and so people simply ignore or deny the crisis in the Church, or simply say that "it's not really as bad as it is, it's only a problem in Rome, or it's just a problem in this or that diocese, it's not as serious as all that." Which is the notion that these words were intended to convey, the fact that there is a crisis in the Church, and most people, I think Dave to be one of them, don't consider the fullness of the crisis, I simply don't believe that Dave is considering just how bad things have gotten, I don't know whether or not this is of his own choosing, but that is how I see it.

"The truth does not govern their lives, honesty and goodwill do not prevail, and that's why there is so much deception and and such little willingness to see beyond it, because the deception is convenient, it's comfortable. "

These really need no explanation, the fact is, a lot of people willfully blind themselves to the truth, at least to some extent.

"This is the case with Armstrong and Shea, they don't like the truth, and they capitalize on furthering deceptions, they make money from it, so they're actually in business to avoid or ridicule the crisis in the Church. "

Now, I'll admit here that I failed to conditionalize that statement, and that's definitely an error on my part, and if Dave takes offense at these words, I apologize, but I do think that he is not operating as though he has considered all of this. He does heavily criticize traditionalists, and proceed to label them heretics and, at least quasi, schismatics, as is the case with Dr. Matatics, and, recently, Mr. Derksen:

"...to cross over an important line one day into actual schism and perhaps heresy. Matatics and Derksen have literally done this.... They kept sliding further and further out, so that now they are in the twilight zone.... Maybe there was a "safety latch" or rope of some sort (continuing the metaphor) before going over the edge... If one hadn't been on the slope, and in an unstable position in the first place, then there'd be less chance of falling off, right?"

He criticizes these and other traditionalists, such as myself and Mr. Grant, and he has written books in the same spirit[13], so he capitalizes on doing this, not that I mind the criticism, but he does sometimes argues strawmen and red-herring arguments and accusations which are not justified or defined in his own writings, which, generally, are not actualities. So, I may safely say that he is furthering deceptions, probably unintentionally, about traditionalists and the crisis in the Church and capitalizing from it.

"You know, I've been working on a piece about Vatican II and modernism, as the bulletin on the right says, and one of the main ecumenical themes was that "the Church must recognize her shortcomings and failures", which is totally bogus, the Church is pure and always will be, but Shea and Armstrong accept this spirit of V2, but they're not in the habit of admitting the failures and errors of Vatican II. I think for these men to be truly consistent and honest, they should adopt the theology they pretend loyalty to, and practice it. He can't say trads will go to hell because the theology of his church says we all go to heaven, JP2's universal incarnation theology and that response from Syracuse, NY diocese demonstrate that. It's bad will to impugne the truth, and that's what many do today, they won't have it."

Now, Armstrong, and I'm sure Shea, criticize criticism of V2 as something either heretical or schismatic, or at least wrong or sinful or at least disobedient[14], and they fail to admit the failures and shortcomings or ambiguities or errors of Vatican II; and one of the primary forces behind V2, in furthering ecumenism, was to stress a kind of sorrow for alleged "failures" or "errors" of the Church, and yet they inconsistently fail to also admit the failures and errors of Vatican II, and what's more, they criticize others who criticize or reject those failures and errors of Vatican II, just as Vatican II has done with all of the alleged "failures" and "errors" of the traditional Catholic Church. So, by the very standard of the Council's members and periti, this criticism is perfectly legit. And so I think for Armstrong and his colleagues to be properly consistent and honest, they should adhere to the very principles of the theology and standards which they supposedly uphold and defend.

Now, to my central original thesis, the criticism of traditionalists by the mainline novus ordos:

Dave apparently has a beef with traditional Catholicism, he thinks it's wacky, absurd, or "nutty", as he illustrated in a comment: "The "reasonable" or self-perceived "moderate trad" always tries to differentiate himself from the nuts. That in itself shows that it is a widespread problem... In my recent traversing of "trad" sites, I've seen again and again this sort of disclaimer that there are lots of wackos and nuts among trads."[15]

And then there's the really Ironic comment here:

"Protestants argue the same way. One makes a critique and they say, "ah, but that ain't me; it's those dumb Protestants over there . . ." It's always the slippery fish; the moving target."[16]

Remember this statement by Dave Armstrong:

"...obviously untrue in my case."

And this one:
"utterly false in my case, and I am one of these whom he calls a "Novus Ordo"'

And this one:
"utterly false in my case; to the contrary, I have always held..."

It's "Oh, this ain't how I am, that's gotta be those wacky judgementalists, or someone else, or... I dunno what you're talkin' about..."

I've seen novus ordos, such as right here, differentiate themselves from others, let's face it, pretty much any religious sect is going to have its wackos, Protestants, Novus ordos, and of course trads. Yeah, it's always a problem and always embarrassing that there are nuts and lumps in the cake, but the mere existence of them does not intrinsically betoken that the entire cake is nothing but nuts and lumps. Am I supposed to assume that the NO is nothin' but a bunch of tongue-yackin' fruitcakes because they happen to be a fad in NO circles? What about all those liturgical "abuses"? I might conclude that last week's clown mass was the actual and true liturgy of the Church, were I to act on such a premise. Yeah, there are a lot of fruitcakes in traditional Catholicism, there's a lot more of them in NO circles, they're in there for a lot of reasons, some are there because it's different, or because it's uncommon, or for whatever amongst a thousand other reasons. They're there, but their presence does not intrinsically indicate that what they are present in is likewise intrinsically fruity. Again, this is that same tactic of not dealing with the actualities, of avoiding the issue, but of building up strawmen; arguments stand on their own merit and that's what they are judged by.

"Oftentimes novus ordo critics don't really care to find out what people are actually saying, it's the motive to make some sort of cynical remark concerning someone or something..."

Now, according to Mr. Armstrong, we traditionalists are quasi-schismatics in error, and, by this latest reasoning, wackos, at least by association, or, he might be trying to implicitly attach the tag-line "Traditionalists: Generally wacky, and maybe even a little fruity, with a slight chance of nuttiness". Getting right back to my previous observation "Armstrong and Shea habitually condescend almost anyone who disagrees with them... that is when it's a Catholic anyways....", though, I might add "...that is when it's a traditionalist anyways...."

What I would like to see would be a debate between Matatics and Armstrong, that would be very interesting, especially since Armstrong is apparently willing to do some kind of debate:
"Actually what would truly interest me would be a book where a "trad" and a guy like me debated these things back and forth , and where one could get a goo[d] presentation of both sides of the argument about liturgy. It is in comparing arguments that one can make a better decision as to who has a better case."[17]

This seems fair enough...

"It [The NO Liturgy] is often abused, and I think a lot of folks confuse the thing with the abuse of the thing, just as they do with Vatican II."[18]

Just like the preservation and living of the traditions of the Church pre-V2 is often abused, and it would seem to me that many, Dave, I think, included, confuse this with the actual thing. I think now we're getting somewhere.

The whole issue, I think, is Dave's swallowing of Vatican II ecumenism whole and of the unnecessary doubt case upon the Catholic doctrine of Limbo by him. Dave asserts in his next reply to Ryan that V2 ecumenism and the Assisi meeting were Catholic and that we trads are just not seeing it right: "Your disdain for it (as a good, typical "trad") is apparent in how you deal with the Assisi meetings and the Koran incident... I don't think you understand the principles behind it..."[19], and his, so far, unjustified criticism [that of heresy and "quasi-schism"] of Catholics who may be honestly trying to cope with admittedly serious issues within the Church right now, and apparently not getting any real help from the mainstream, either.

Epiloguery considerations:

What's wrong with Ecumenism? See this post, this post, this post, and this post.
What about Limbo? See this post.
What about the Novus Ordo Missae? See this post, this post, and this post.
What about the Principles of Vatican II? See this post.

_______________
Footnotes:
[1] Ryan Grant, A.K.A. "Athanasius", "Dave Armstrong, Round 3", May 19, 2008: "in many parishes the suggestion of Latin gets you labeled a schismatic, even if it is the NO in Laitn (this was my experience in Southern California in a "conservative" parish)." This illustrates my point that the mere mention of traditional practices obtains for you the condemnatory label of "schismatic".
[2] Dave Armstrong, "Leo the Lion Roars against Hapless non-"traditionalist" (Me!)", May 13, 2008: "...I specifically use the term quasi-schismatic."; Dave Armstrong, Comment to post Yet More "Anti-Apologetics" Rhetoric: This Time From a "Traditionalist" ("Athanasius"), May 3, 2008: "Since "traditionalists" exercise private judgment, much like Protestants, and indeed, this is a strong characteristic of their quasi-schism..."
[3] On May 14, 1999, JP2 kissed the Koran at the Vatican.
[4]“There is no proselytism as a directive on the part of the Holy See, nor is there any intention to convert Russia to Roman Catholicism.”-Igor Kovalevsky, Secretary General of the "Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops" of Russia, Itar-Tass News Agency, May 7, 2004, which is a contradiction to our Lady's demands at Fatima, I might add.
[5] See footnote 1
[6] The Ratzinger Report, San Francisco: Ignatius, 1985, 28-29, 31
[7] Benedict XVI, Message for the Enthronement of the New Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church, September 27, 2007
[8] Benedict XVI, Address to La Sapienza University in Rome, January 17, 2008: “...The Pope speaks as the representative of a community of believers in which a particular wisdom about life has evolved in the course of the centuries of its existence..."
[9] Benedict XVI, Address to a group of International politicians, September 21, 2007: “...religious liberty, which is a fundamental, irrepressible, inalienable and inviolable right rooted in the dignity of every human being...The exercise of this freedom also includes the right to change religion, which should be guaranteed not only legally, but also in daily practice... That is why all authentically religious traditions must be allowed to manifest their own identity publicly, free from any pressure to hide or disguise it…”
[10] Dave Armstrong, "Yet More anti-apologetics Rhetoric, this time from a "Traditionalist" later changed to "Critique of Some Comments from "Traditionalist" Ryan Grant (aka "Athanasius")", May 3, 2008, since edited by the author.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Dave Armstrong, "Third Reply to 'Traditionalist' Ryan Grant", May 22, 2008
[13] Dave Armstrong, Ibid: "they talk out of both sides of their mouth (a central thesis in my book on "traditionalism").
[14] Dave Armstrong, Ibid: "...they clearly reject the Mind of the Church and virtually any development since Vatican II... I would say that there is a distinct danger of it [schism] happening if one remains within this erroneous, wrongheaded, disobedient mindset."
[15] Dave Armstrong, Comment to post "Are Traditionalists on the Road to Schism: The Continuing Dialogue with Apologist Dave Armstrong", May 30, 2008.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Dave Armstrong, Comment to same post, June 1, 2008
[18] Ibid.
[19] Dave Armstrong, "Fourth Reply to "Traditionalist" Ryan Grant", May 31, 2008.

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.

Old Fashioned Ecumenism

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:17:00 +0000

St. Vincent Ferrer and the Jews

"St. Vincent's mission was not less fruitful among the Jews than among heretics. He converted an incalculable number of them. God seemed to have accorded him a special grace for the coversion of people who are proverbially hostile to the Christian name. There was at that period a population of the Jews both numerous and powerful in Spain. The process of his canonization shows that in the space of thirteen months he converted twenty thousand in Castile alone; that in the 1415, within six months, more than fifteen thousand were led to embrace the true faith in Aragon and Catalonia, and that on another occasion in the same country over thirty thousand were baptized at the close of his preaching. The historians of the sect do not hesitate to confirm these facts by their own testimony. In a work titled Juehasin, it is related that in the year 1412, a Friar name Brother Vincent, having preached to the Jews, the latter renounced their law to a number of more than two hundred thousand. The saint had an ardent zeal and tender love for these unhappy wanderers... they presented themselves in a body to receive Holy Baptism. Thus, at Perpignan seventy families embraced the Christian Faith. In other places whole synagogues abjured their errors. Their place of meeting was changed into a Church. In Castile, they were so unanimously converted that none remained...." [1]

Modern Ecumenism: Benedict XVI and the Jews

“Distinguished Chief Rabbi, you were recently entrusted with the spiritual guidance of Rome’s Jewish Community... I offer you my heartfelt good wishes for your mission, and I assure you of my own and my collaborators’ cordial esteem and friendship.” - Benedict XVI' address to Chief Rabbi of Rome [2]

“For almost 20 years now the Italian Bishops’ Conference has dedicated this Judaism Day to furthering knowledge and esteem for it and for developing the relationship of reciprocal friendship between the Christian and Jewish communities, a relationship that has developed positively since the Second Vatican Council and the historic visit of the Servant of God John Paul II to the Major Synagogue in Rome… Today I invite you all to address an ardent prayer to the Lord that Jews and Christians may respect and esteem one another…” - Benedict XVI in a General Audience [3]

"My visit to the United States offers me the occasion to extend a warm and heartfelt greeting to my Jewish brothers and sisters in this country and throughout the world. A greeting that is all the more spiritually intense because the great feast of Pesah is approaching. ...At this time of your most solemn celebration, I feel particularly close ...In addressing myself to you I wish to re-affirm the Second Vatican Council’s teaching on Catholic-Jewish relations and reiterate the Church’s commitment to the dialogue that in the past forty years has fundamentally changed our relationship for the better. Because of that growth in trust and friendship, Christians and Jews can rejoice together in the deep spiritual ethos of the Passover, a memorial (zikkarôn) of freedom and redemption. ...With the passing of time the Covenant assumes an ever more universal value, as the promise made to Abraham takes form... Indeed, according to the prophet Isaiah, the hope of redemption extends to the whole of humanity... Within this eschatological horizon is offered a real prospect of universal brotherhood on the path of justice and peace, preparing the way of the Lord (cf. Isaiah 62: 10). Christians and Jews share this hope; we are in fact, as the prophets say, “prisoners of hope” (Zachariah 9: 12). This bond permits us Christians to celebrate alongside you, though in our own way, the Passover of Christ’s death and resurrection, which we see as inseparable from your own, for Jesus himself said: “salvation is from the Jews” (John 4: 22). Our Easter and your Pesah, while distinct and different, unite us in our common hope centered on God and his mercy. They urge us to cooperate with each other and with all men and women of goodwill to make this a better world for all as we await the fulfillment of God’s promises. With respect and friendship, I therefore ask the Jewish community to accept my Pesah greeting in a spirit of openness to the real possibilities of cooperation which we see before us as we contemplate the urgent needs of our world... May the memory of God’s mercies, which Jews and Christians celebrate at this festive time, inspire all those responsible for the future of that region—where the events surrounding God’s revelation actually took place—to new efforts, and especially to new attitudes and a new purification of hearts!"[4]
____________________
Endnotes:
[1] Fr. Andrew Pradel, O.P., St. Vincent Ferrer: The Angel of Judgment, pp. 80-81
[2] Benedict XVI in an address to the Chief Rabbi of Rome on Jan. 16, 2006
[3] Benedict XVI in a General Audience on Jan. 17, 2007
[4] Benedict XVI's visit to the UN, Message to the Jewish Community, April 14, 2008

The Novus ordo and the "Who can be saved Controversy"

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Thu, 08 May 2008 01:02:00 +0000

Mr. Boyd over at My Catholic Blogger asks some dioceses some questions and gets some interesting, and unbelieveable, answers. Mr. Boyd asks the diocese of Syracuse, NY about whether or not Christianity is exclusive and gets an answer somewhat like this:

"You have posed a controversial question. Unfortuantely, it's not possible to make any statement that will apply to all the people in any one group. The teaching of the Catholic Church is that everyone can be saved. ...It seems as though very few things in life are clearcut and simple. This question is not an exception. I believe that we all go to heaven and yet, I believe that Hell exists. There remains, in my opinion, the possiblity that some do not go to heaven. I believe that is rare, if it happens at all. Forgiveness is always possible and, I believe, probable. ...we do not all need to believe the same thing to be members of any one religion. It would be more harmonious if we all did. That's just not the way it is. Each one of us was given a brain and free will. We all have access to a plethora of information and ideas. It's up to each of us to investigate and draw conclusions with the benefit of divine inspiration through prayer, meditation, and the counsel of others. We won't always come to the "right" conclusion, but we'll do our best and isn't that good enough?"

And from the Diocese of Rockville Center:

"The only persons who are excluded from heaven are those who do not want tobe with God forever. This means that a person who dies unrepentant ofserious, mortal sin may be in this category yet we do not know thedisposition of that person's soul at the moment of death.That person,unaware to us, may be seeking reconciliation with God in some way and wetherefore commend this person to the mercy of God. It is God's will thatall people come to be saved and come to the knowledge of His truth. This isthe reason that God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to the human race. Should aperson earnestly strive to seek God, even through a life of virtue withouta formal recognition of belief on their part, we also believe to commendthis person to the mercy and goodness of God at the time of their judgmentas well. We know Hell exists from the teachings of Christ. The only personswho may dwell there are those who adamantly choose to deny God through sinand the exercise of their will to prefer eternity without God as opposed toeternity with God; i.e., heaven. Hope this helps. God Bless!"

In the first reply one may notice a hesitancy to provide an answer concerning a general Catholic truth, in stark contrast to authentic Catholic ministry. And also that the deacon testifies that it is his belief that everyone goes to heaven! Deacon then proceeds to add that doctrine is basically unimportant in religion. While it's not an indicator of all novus ordo clergy, as the reply from the Rockville center shows, it does reveal an apostate current in some novus ordo theology.
A few other replies appeared to be ambiguous, but these two in particular show us where the liberal novus ordo clergy is headed if it doesn't get a grip: universal salvation and a one-world dogma-less religion. In short: apostasy. While I don't agree with Mr. Boyd's method of misrepresenting himself to obtain these replies, I believe they are quite indicative of a dark future for the liberal Catholic.

Ax Grinding and Novus Ordo "Apologists"

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Sun, 04 May 2008 22:45:00 +0000

A very interesting turn of events has occured recently, some real ax grinding. A Novus ordo attempted to post a comment, not the first time, but let's just say it wasn't "productive". Novus ordos consider anyone who thinks the way Catholics did a hundred years ago as an apostate [maybe it's more profound than this?], but I checked out his site, which was full of the same old anti-traditionalist stuff, that they're schismatics, or they're nutty, or something like that, primarily in response to Gerry Matatic's latest radio appearance, and a link from there took me to Mark Shea's blog, a NO "apologist", where I found exactly the same thing, only exercised in reference to Gerry Matatic's position, NO's don't generally take into consideration the fact that there is a crisis in the Church and that perhaps there might be some merit in someone's criticism of the NO's inability to sense it, or the honesty in someone's intellectual or religious conviction, strange for an ecumenical NO, how fast the warm and fuzzy feeling wears off when you start talking about Trads.

For instance, Mark Shea's response to Matatic's radio appearance:

"The ad informs us that Matatics only "grudgingly" uses the term "sedevacantist" to describe himself. Is that because he doesn't deny that the Pope is the Pope. No. He denies it alright. The name for people who deny that the Pope is the Pope is "sedevacantist". So why deny what he in fact professes? I suspect it could have something to do with the fact that, as the ad says, "Prior to Gerry's adoption of sedevacantism ... he was one of the most highly sought after Catholic apologists in America, and was one of the most highly praised contemporary defenders of the Catholic Faith." Now that he has chosen to regard himself as smarter than Holy Mother Church and to do radio shows aiding and abetting professional anti-Catholics, it's hard to persuade Catholics that he isn't the best person to turn to for information on the Church. "Sedevacantist" doesn't help enhance that reputation. So while advocating a sedevacantist position, Matatics prefers not to *name* that position too loudly.

The refusal to give things their proper name is always one of the marks of hell at work... Gerry Matatics has apostatized into nutty sedevacantism..."

And Again:

"...the frequent sedevacantist hatred of joy is but one of the things that marks the sect out as despising the True Faith. My advice to sedevacantists: Repent and return to the True Church or you will go to Hell. You, of all people, know well that there is no salvation outside Her. Your responsibility and culpability for schism is far greater than the garden variety Know Nothing who splits with the Church..."

Apparently, kissing the koran is perfectly Catholic to Mr. Shea. We can go tell people not to convert, and we're not heretics or schismatics, but, if we do the opposite, then we are. Do these gentlemen, novus ordo apologists, seriously believe that there is no scandal coming from Rome? Do they seriously believe that there is no merit to any criticism of that scandal? Or any honest reaction to it? No, they do not. Amongst them, one might note that they are the first ones to say that not everything is all black and white, but when it comes to traditionalism, it suddenly goes that way, either you're ok with V2 ecumenism or you are a schismatic.

"The ad informs us that Matatics only "grudgingly" uses the term "sedevacantist" to describe himself. Is that because he doesn't deny that the Pope is the Pope. No. He denies it alright. The name for people who deny that the Pope is the Pope is "sedevacantist". So why deny what he in fact professes?"

Oftentimes novus ordo critics don't really care to find out what people are actually saying, it's the motive to make some sort of cynical remark concerning someone or something, disregarding the facts, as liberals do. Does Gerry Matatics profess sedevacantism? According to Gerry, no, his position is not so much that the See of St. Peter is vacant, sede vacante, but that Joseph Ratzinger does not occupy it. Let's say, for sake of argument, that we're in 1411 in France, and someone denies that Benedict XIII, that is deLuna, is the pope, is that person Sedevacantist? um, perhaps not, look a little closer and they might say the guy from the Pisan line is the pope. Are they sedevacantist? No, they merely deny that a papal claimant is the real pope. This is the case with Dr. Matatics. Mr. Shea has completely ignored this in regards to what Matatics professes, since we are talking about what he professes, right? So why the the ax grinding?
Matatics sees and honestly recognizes a real problem in the Church and acts accordingly, according to apparently valid Catholic principles that is, do we see any kind of move on Shea's behalf to give his former colleague even the benefit of the doubt, or any spirit of understanding at all? Nope, what crisis?, he implies, kissing the Koran is cool!, we should all do it. Let's go tell the Muslims they worship God too, and tell them they're gonna go to heaven too!
If Mr. Shea believes that Matatics is wrong, why is he not trying to reach out a helping hand to someone he sees as an erring brother? Why? because Gerry's not a "brother" to him, he's an apostate because he thinks that he's more catholic than the pope because he failed to kiss a koran, perhaps. His charity, he is an apologist, after all, is the model for non-Catholics, Shea puts himself up there as a model Catholic for non-Catholics in his work to convert them, he is supposed to be showing them what a Catholic is, he should be the first to show what Catholic charity is by lending a helping hand to a former colleague, does he?.......

"Now that he has chosen to regard himself as smarter than Holy Mother Church and to do radio shows aiding and abetting professional anti-Catholics, it's hard to persuade Catholics that he isn't the best person to turn to for information on the Church."

Now, I've never seen or heard of Gerry claiming to be "smarter than Holy Mother Church", but I have seen him defend its holiness against the scandals of novus ordo clerics...
IS Gerry one to look to about info on the Church? Gerry says no, he tells people to look to the saints of the Church and magisterium. The problem is that professed Catholics are not showing any charity to each other, Mr. Shea is treating his former colleague as if he had the plague, or were some enemy to be attacked, and where is there any apologetics to reach out to either him or those who believe like him? None... they're enemies, why would we ever try to understand them?

"The refusal to give things their proper name is always one of the marks of hell at work."

So we see that according to Mr. Shea, traditionalists are working with the forces of "Hell"...If Shea claims to be an apologist, and can't find any more charity in his heart than this, then I think he should reexamine himself and his vocation to be an apologist. I don't exactly call this as a model of the Church's charity at all.

"...the frequent sedevacantist hatred of joy is but one of the things that marks the sect out as despising the True Faith."

I guess it must be that hatred of the "joy" of praying in synagogues...

"Repent and return to the True Church or you will go to Hell."

Mr. Shea should define which Church that is, which one is the true Church? According to the Vatican, the true Church subsists in the Catholic Church, and in other Christian churches who share "elements" of the truth, which is sufficient for them. Which means that even for those who dissent from the novus ordo there is salvation, because they have elements of truth in their religion. And therefore, they will not go to Hell, because God uses those religions as a means to save them. Therefore, if Gerry has left the true Church, which is debateable, he can still be saved because he has elements of the truth in his religion, right? I mean, Mr. Shea does accept Benedict's theology, right?

"Your responsibility and culpability for schism"

Ah, so Gerry is a schismatic and the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Greece, hailed as a pastor in the Church by Benedict, is not? What a new twist in novus ordo theology, where Catholics are schismatics, and heretics are brother "Catholics". I think Shea needs to follow in Benedict's footsteps if he truly wants to represent it to non-Catholics, he needs to hold true to the theology he claims to espouse.

Aside from the whole sedevacantist thing, novus ordo apologists waste no time in labeling a traditionalist a "dissident", trads from all groups take the criticism, be he an SSPXer or what have you; dissent from Vatican II theology represents schism and dissidence, it is apostasy to reject it and schism to prefer the traditional theology to it, criticism of V2 theology is heresy.
Jews are our "older brothers in the faith", and if you question that, then you are treading on dangerous ground and bordering on heresy. All are saved via Christ's incarnation, He took the nature of us all, and we are all united to Him because of this glorious event, by which He achieved our salvation. Question that, and you are nearing heresy. The Eucharist does not really become our Lord, He is just present in it in a special way. Question that and you are a heretic. The Novus ordo Missae was produced and implemented by the authority of the Church, and thus it requires one's assent and love as a true and holy sacrifice, question that, or prefer the old mass to it, and you are a schismatic. These and more are some of the threads running throughout novus ordo apologetics, and they are by no means friendly towards the eternal traditions of the Church.
After Vatican II, all condemnations ceased, Protestants and Eastern "Orthodox" were no longer under the anathema of the Church, the Counter-Reformation was ended with the "new Springtime", the "second Pentecost" of Vatican II; except for the resounding condemnations of those within the fold who would not accept the changes. Those condemnations were new ones, and they continue to this day.

Anyways, over an Athanasius' blog: Athanasius composed an article about the novus ordo apologists denigrating the traditions of the Church. And Dave Armstrong happened to find it an left a comment. Following his link to his own post about it, one notes the comments on his post, and the vitriol there towards traditionalists, where here is an excerpt:

"I've long noted, in any event, how Catholic "traditionalists" are similar in their mentality to both Catholic liberals and Protestants...."Traditionalists" try so hard to come off not looking extreme and unbalanced, but they just can't do it, because their absurd beliefs always shine through... Gerry Matatics is one sterling example. He became so "Catholic", er, Protestant, that he now no longer believes that Pope Benedict XVI is pope. Robert Sungenis is another. "

So, we're similar to Liberals! These guys are sooo far in outerspace, they think the moderate centre is "liberal"! We're Protestant, because we honestly recognize and criticize the neo-Protestantism of the Novus ordo. They're soooo nice to eastern schismatics and Protestants and all ecumenical with them, calling them separated brothers and all, but they quickly come out with the name-calling when it comes to a traditionalist, oh, we're schismatics, or apostates, or heretics because we believe like Rome did a century ago, I wonder who apostatized then? How hypocritical is this attitude amongst NO "apologists". Mr. Armstrong says we're "extremists", and calls Bob Sungenis, a moderate "moderate", an extremist traditionalist! Bob Sungenis will do backflips to defend the NO and also labels trads as "extremists", and Bob, good ole Bob, is an exteremist himself! Armstrong is so dizzy he can't tell the right from the left if he thinks that we're similar to the liberals, or that Bob Sungenis is an extremist.
Let's get this all straight here. A "liberal" is a leftist. A "traditionalist" is considered an extreme "rightist", but they're alike according to Armstrong... that's like saying a monarchist is similar to an anarchist! I think Mr. Armstrong needs to stop and catch his bearings.
And of course it's the same old attitude towards anyone who tries to make sense out the utter confusion and chaos of the novus ordo, clown masses and ecumenism and brother Protestants... same train of thought as Shea employed about Matatics... Even Athanasius is an "extremist" and is "unbalanced", it seems that no matter which side you take, if you oppose V2, you're a non-Catholic.

At least one reader of Armstrong's had the honesty to recognize the gyst of Athanasius' post:

"What I am merely trying to show is that people have real concerns over things like Vatican II or the New Mass. We simply see that there is an obvious problem with say the prayers of the New Mass (not counting that it has a large amount of options and has adopted inferior forms like the priest facing the people or standing for communion) and that the small t traditions – namely that of organically developing the Mass instead of fabricating a new one and watering down the prayers is a problem."

Armstrong and Shea habitually condescend almost anyone who disagrees with them, be it a Catholic or a Protestant, that is when it's a Catholic anyways, they tend to be a little nicer with "separated brethren". They see traditionalism as some sort of non-Catholic religion and anyone who becomes a trad is an apostate. This leaves us with several questions: if Traditional Catholicism of nowadays is apostasy, then what was Pius XII? An Apostate? What's the real Catholic religion then?, the new ecumenism of Vatican II, is it a new religion? Or was the Catholic Church wrong all this time? Was this new Pentecost the Pentecost of a New Church? Does this signify to us that a new evangelism has been conceived, and the world is now being re-evangelized in this new gospel of Vatican II? Are these apologists, the new apologists of a new theology? These novus ordo apologists just leave us scratching our heads...

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 novus ordos regard traditional Catholicism and its adherents. The Traditionalist's opinion conflicts with the more common opinion, so he must be wrong, never mind the logic.
The Traditionalist is at odds with the liberal, so he dismisses the traditionalist and turns away their argument by calling it "extremist", thereby bringing down upon it all kinds of denigration and condemnation on the account that it is "extreme", or "radical". He seeks to marginalize the traditionalist, to seek a popular denunciation of it without ever having to take him head-on.
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 names he may call the traditionalist, they remain, in fact, the real moderates, 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.

Burying the Hatchet

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:48:00 +0000

"I'h say, let's bury the hatchet, boy; but not in anyone's head... head, that is".

I think one of the things that tends to stick in the craws of a lot of people is the lack of charity, not to mention unity, amongst traditionalists. Trads are so ready to denounce, convict, and anathematize each other at the drop of a hat. An SSPXer might denounce an indulter for this or that reason; an indulter might just as soon condemn the SSPXer as a schismatic. And any trad who recognizes Benedict XVI is just as ready to condemn anyone who does not, or maybe just has doubt about it, as a schismatic. And then they turn around and convict and sentence the recognize and resist crowd as odious heretics undermining the Church and owing allegience to an heresiarch who is likewise destroying the integrity of the Faith. And then there is the "Feeneyite" crowd, who believes that modern ecumenism is bad and thinks it should be abandoned. Both the SSPXer, indulter, and sedevacantist accuses, convicts, and condemns and reproves, anathematizes, excommunicates and proscribes the Feeneyites for being "strict" about the constitution of the Church and the possibility of salvation outside of it as the worst of all heretics. And then there is the old prejudice against any kind of convert, if you convert to the faith, you're looked down upon as being weak in the faith, or whatever, and communion is shaky at best. And then there are the homealoners, who see all those who attend mass as being outside the communion of the faith for going to masses that are perceived as "illicit". And of course the novus ordo condemns all of the above as schismatic. There you have the crisis in the Church in a nutshell. Catholics fighting and excommunicating each other categorically. And of course there are other disputes, controversies, and prejudices, but these might serve to illustrate our point.
Most of these condemnations are not in the spirit of the Church, the Church condemns and reproves for a number of reasons, but mostly to preserve the integrity of the faith and to encourage those who do not preserve that integrity, or who have severed communion, to return to that faith and communion. Most modern-day traditionalist tribunals are not in that spirit, it's almost as though it's all done in the spirit of preserving the integrity of a clique, a sect of some sorts. Traditionalism has begun to devolve into a sort of sectarianism, where traditionalists, like the Protestants, bicker, anathematize, and start a new trad sectarian movement. This is the crisis within the fold of traditionalism, but it's not much better in the novus ordo, there's the whole new-age "catholics", the quasievolutionist "catholics", who believe in evolution, as opposed to the literal truth of the scripture, the Liberation theologists, the tongue-talkers, animist "catholics", the ones that like masses with clown priests, rapping priests, superman priests, cheese head priests, the liberals, the conservatives, etc. In both cases, they all condemn each other, the way the Protestants have done. This is the problem the Church faces. The cause, I am convinced, is the lack of discipline and unity, both in government and faith, and last, but not least, an apostasy from it.

The lack of unity in government started decades ago, when liberal "ecumenical", actually modernist fits the bill a bit better, bishops almost altogether stopped governing their dioceses and let anything slide, except conservatism. The lack of unity in faith is due to the same, the bishops let anyone who professed, and even some Protestants, the Catholic name teach theology without any opposition. Of course some perverted theologies resulted, naturally. Now, all of this was on the local level, but when Pius XII breathed his last, it became universal, as it is said "when the shepherd is struck, the sheep will scatter". After Vatican II, Rome stopped proclaiming the Catholic Faith, and began a campaign to unite all the religions of the world with the nouvelle doctrine of "ecumenism". Rome ceased its apostolate for the one faith, and now anything and everything was "cool", as long as it was "ecumenical". All condemnations ceased, except of those who would not conform to the new "reforms". Anyhow, when some clerics and laymen did not accept those reforms, they began to operate independently of the local ecclesiastical authorities and began their own apostolates for the preservation of the traditions that were being abandoned wholesale by the new administration.
Of course these new movements could not claim any real authority, having no formal ecclesiastical mandate, and so when disagreements arose, they split, and they continue to split. And without that unity in government, and in faith, they were bound to end up all scattered and split up here, there, and yonder, all unconditionally condemning each other. And so here we have the crisis of the faith, made all the worse by the dissidence and condemnation which is mostly nothing but an itchiness to sling some anathemas around. The spirit of these is not one of bringing people to the true faith, it lacks understanding, prudence, and charity, for the condemnations serve a more, well, condemnatory purpose, rather than one of reproval. It's not so much that there is so much of a zeal to promote the faith and make converts, but that zeal but that zeal to push one's own opinions. There is lacking the spirit of understanding, we all know there is a crisis, is there that much of a surprise that people have erroneous views today? Is it that much of a surprise that people are mislead and tread the path of perdition? Is it really that expedient to condemn, rather than proselytize those who might be in error? It is that many believe that what the believe is that faith which has been handed down to them infallibly by the Church, if they are conservative enough to believe that the Church is infallible and the rule of faith untainted, so that the notion that they might think that what is shown them is error should not be much of a surprise, after all, Protestants do a fine job of substantiating their own errors with an infallible rule of faith, should it be that shocking that people would not, perhaps, accept the truth when it is shown them, especially if that truth has been ridiculed and calumniated consistently for so long? Many find it so, they hold that a sedevacantist has no excuse reject their Holy Father, and then the sedevacantist holds that the novus ordo has no excuse to recognize him. Many belittle converts, for whatever reason, I still can't figure it out, and many condemn "Feeneyites" for their certainty, while they condemn the others for their uncertainty. Many condemn SSPXers for their separation from the NO hierarchy, and they the many for being "liberal". The point is that there is a terrible crisis in the Church, and that no matter which case it might be, lest we be devolved to the state of the Protestants for sure, our job as Catholics is to ascertain and promote the truth unconditionally and resolutely, but most of all in charity, but not least, in firmness and conviction, as St. Augustine put it "in necessary things unity, in doubtful things liberty, in all things charity".

Gerry Matatics on Protestant Radio, Again?

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:14:00 +0000

Gerry Matatics was on a Protestant radio broadcast (Iron Sharpens Iron), again, on April 21st, to explain the position that the See of Peter is not occupied by Benedict XVI. Because of long introductions and frequent station breaks there was not a whole lot of time to discuss the issues, unfortunately. It was comprised of the inconsistencies of Vatican II theology and the unorthodox opinions and scandals of Benedict XVI, Allah as God, and various precedents in history, i.e. the English Apostasy of the 16th century, etc. It is a standard intro to Gerry's presentation[1] on the occupancy of the See of St. Peter. He also answered some Protestant objections to both Sedevacantism and the Catholic Faith [sola fide, etc.]. That being said, the information that Matatics was able to present was very informative.

____________
Endnotes:
[1] Gerry performs a presentation all over the nation titled "Counterfiet Catholicism vs. Consistent Catholicism".

See Also

væ homini illi, per quem scandalum venit

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:44:00 +0000

"Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh." - Matt. 18:7

Benedict XVI's mass in the Washington stadium was basically a demonstration that either the show of tradition of the past year was a farce, or else the motive was one of pleasing everybody and displaying a show of ecumenism, a little bit of something for everyone, it was a simple appetizer. The mass was full of many different liturgical abuses, with Benedict sitting in his chair, displaying a modernistic Star of David, smiling about it all. The musik was Protestant for the canon after the Te Igitur, and up until that, it was in some jazzy Latin American noise. He stood there and handed out NO communion in the hands of an American populace, and some anti-Catholic politicians also recieved, i.e. Rudy Guliani and other great American standard setters. Mass was said in a sports stadium, the music, again, was the most inappropriate thing for a Divine worship service that could be conceived, styled, as it was, after a multicultural entertainment concert, displaying exactly which tradition is being returned to. Reverence was not to be found, the people were appareled as though they were attending a concert, the heads of the women were not covered, and it demonstrated to the world that Catholics don’t really believe in the Real Presence, considering the manner in which it was treated, not to mention the scandal of this ridiculous display, all performed with the staff of H.H. Pius IX.
This display was what the world saw as "Catholicism", this mass was to demonstrate to the World what the Catholic Church worships, and display its spirituality, the spirituality of Latin American beat music. Popes represent the faith of the Church, there masses set the standard for the rest of the Church, apparently, jazz masses are just as cool as a Latin mass, maybe even more preferable, taking into consideration the "young people".

It seems that this Church is a Church for everyone, every tradition, every taste, if you like guitars at mass, cool, if you like Latin masses, cool, if you're a Jew, cool, if you're a pagan, that's fine too, you don't need to convert, you have your own venerable traditions too. This is the mentality that Benedict XVI sets in people's minds, this is the Catholic faith, in the eyes of the world, this is the gospel message, as demonstrated by Benedict XVI.

"Shalom! It is with joy that I come here, [to the Park East Synagogue] just a few hours before the celebration of your Pesah, to express my respect and esteem for the Jewish community in New York City. The proximity of this place of worship to my residence gives me the opportunity to greet some of you today. I find it moving to recall that Jesus, as a young boy, heard the words of Scripture and prayed in a place such as this. I thank Rabbi Schneier for his words of welcome and I particularly appreciate your kind gift, the spring flowers and the lovely song that the children sang for me. I know that the Jewish community make a valuable contribution to the life of the city, and I encourage all of you to continue building bridges of friendship with all the many different ethnic and religious groups present in your neighborhood. I assure you most especially of my closeness at this time, as you prepare to celebrate the great deeds of the Almighty, and to sing the praises of Him who has worked such wonders for his people. I would ask those of you who are present to pass on my greetings and good wishes to all the members of the Jewish community. Blessed be the name of the Lord!" - Benedict XVI to NY Jewish Community [1]

Nothing could be more profane or scandalous. This Church holds all faiths with equal respect [including Christ-rejecting ones], "your god is just as good as mine, your interpretation is just as good as mine, your guess about what John 6 means is just as good as mine. You're good, I'm good, we're all good, we'll all go to heaven. Let's let the Jews know that God does not expect them to convert to Him, to be His people, let's meet them in their houses of iniquity, let's all be buddy buddy with everybody"!

"My visit to the United States offers me the occasion to extend a warm and heartfelt greeting to my Jewish brothers and sisters in this country and throughout the world. A greeting that is all the more spiritually intense because the great feast of Pesah is approaching. ...At this time of your most solemn celebration, I feel particularly close ...In addressing myself to you I wish to re-affirm the Second Vatican Council’s teaching on Catholic-Jewish relations and reiterate the Church’s commitment to the dialogue that in the past forty years has fundamentally changed our relationship for the better.

Because of that growth in trust and friendship, Christians and Jews can rejoice together in the deep spiritual ethos of the Passover, a memorial (zikkarôn) of freedom and redemption. ...With the passing of time the Covenant assumes an ever more universal value, as the promise made to Abraham takes form... Indeed, according to the prophet Isaiah, the hope of redemption extends to the whole of humanity... Within this eschatological horizon is offered a real prospect of universal brotherhood on the path of justice and peace, preparing the way of the Lord (cf. Isaiah 62: 10).

Christians and Jews share this hope; we are in fact, as the prophets say, “prisoners of hope” (Zachariah 9: 12). This bond permits us Christians to celebrate alongside you, though in our own way, the Passover of Christ’s death and resurrection, which we see as inseparable from your own, for Jesus himself said: “salvation is from the Jews” (John 4: 22). Our Easter and your Pesah, while distinct and different, unite us in our common hope centered on God and his mercy. They urge us to cooperate with each other and with all men and women of goodwill to make this a better world for all as we await the fulfillment of God’s promises.

With respect and friendship, I therefore ask the Jewish community to accept my Pesah greeting in a spirit of openness to the real possibilities of cooperation which we see before us as we contemplate the urgent needs of our world... May the memory of God’s mercies, which Jews and Christians celebrate at this festive time, inspire all those responsible for the future of that region—where the events surrounding God’s revelation actually took place—to new efforts, and especially to new attitudes and a new purification of hearts!"[2]

The whole US visit was one great big scandal against our Church, our God, our Redeemer. And nothing less than an abomination.

Lord, Have Mercy!

_____________
[1] Benedict XVI, Meeting with Representatives of the Jewish Community, Park East Synagogue, NY, April 18, 2008
[2] Benedict XVI, visit to the UN, Message to Jewish Community, April 14, 2008

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.

SSPX & The GF Prayer

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:58:00 +0000

Concerning the new Prayer for the Good Friday Liturgy, the SSPX responded as follows:

Following pressures foreign to the Catholic Church, the Pope considered himself forced to change the very venerable Prayer for the Jews which is a full part of the Good Friday liturgy. This prayer is one of the most ancient; it dates from around the 3rd century, and has thus been recited, throughout the history of the Church, as the full expression of the Catholic faith.

It must be mentioned that the comments by Cardinal Kasper - which we may consider as authorized - give this amputation the aspect of a true transformation, expressing a new theology of the relations with the Jewish people. It is part of the liturgical upheaval which is the characteristic mark of the Council and of the reforms it entailed.

Even though the need to accept the Messiah in order to be saved has been preserved, one cannot but deeply regret this change.1

So far, the word is that the SSPX is not accepting the new prayer.2 That is, until a more explicit comment is published.

________________
1. Reuters, "Rebel Catholic say Vatican Caved in on Latin Prayer", Feb. 24, 2008; DICI, Feb. 27, 2008;
2. Denis Giannelli, "Bishop Fellay at Ridgefield", Feb. 17, 2008

Vos estis qui justificatis vos coram hominibus

noreply@blogger.com (Leo) — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 21:13:00 +0000

"And he said to them: you are they who justify yourselves before men, but God knoweth your hearts. For that which is high to men is an abomination before God." (Luke 16:15)

This event caught me somewhat off-guard, but it's happening is not surprising given the history of the recent "age of Ecumenism", as it should be labeled, and Rome's willingness to compromise its practices for the satisfaction of persons of other faiths, or for the ambiguous purpose of "unity". As rumours grow of a new statement regarding it, to keep abreast of current events, it became prudent to produce a quick commentary, and because of this "shock" and backlog it won't be as thorough as I would prefer.

There's been a lot of talk recently about the new Good Friday prayer which Benedict XVI has proposed for the 1962 Liturgy on the Easter Triduum. The prayer came out just six months after the long-awaited Summorum Pontificum, which granted an indult to celebrate the 1962 Latin Liturgy, which was hailed as a return to Tradition by many who are looking for a return to pre-Vatican Catholicism, but this alteration of a prayer on the one of the most important days of the Liturgical year indicates anything but that. Almost immediately after the Summorum came out, it was met with criticism from the ADL and the Media of being anti-semitic and a set-back to ecumenism because of the text of a prayer contained in the liturgy for the conversion of the Jews. In answer to this criticism, and to aid ecumenical efforts, Benedict XVI has proposed his new prayer.

The prayer in question has been altered numerous times over the past 60 years of Liturgical change and upheaval. Initially, the original prayer read

"Let us pray also for the faithless Jews: that our God and Lord would withdraw the veil from their hearts: that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ.

Almighty and eternal God, who drivest not away from Thy mercy even the faithless Jews: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people: that acknowledging the light of Thy truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same Lord. Amen."

John XXIII changed the prayer to read as follows
"Let us pray also for the Jews: that our God and Lord would remove the veil from their hearts: that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ. Almighty and everlasting God, who drivest not away from Thy mercy even the Jews: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people: that acknowledging the light of thy truth, which is Christ, they may be rescued from their darkness. Through the same Lord. Amen."
This change is the omission of the word faithless. By which, could one conclude that Jews are, in fact, faithful?
By the standards of the new religion of universal faithlessness, commonly called "ecumenism", I suppose that it could, and may in fact be meant to be open to its interpretation in this manner, so that any consideration of it in opposition to the ecumenist agenda could be licitly ruled out.
But the fact is that the Jews do not have the faith, which is why they do not acknowledge Jesus Christ already, otherwise we need not pray for their conversion. This omission precludes the moral necessity of the Jews to convert, since, if they are already faithful, why would they need to convert? Obviously not because there is a true need to do so in order to be "faithful". Clearly then, this seemingly minute change in the text of a prayer is more than an alteration in a prayer, it is the alteration of theology, with the liturgy being the battlefield once again.

In 1970 the prayer was altered again:

"Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your Church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen."

This has been the prayer used in the Novus Ordo Missae ever since. Although it does not appear in the rite of the Latin Missal of the '62 Liturgy, it is a significant shift in prayer and theology. This time the reference to the conversion of the Jews is omitted completely. And now, the New prayer reads:

"Let us also pray for the Jews: that God our Lord might enlighten their hearts, so that they might acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Savior of all mankind. Let us pray. Let us bend our knees. Please rise. Almighty and eternal God, whose desire it is that all men might be saved and come to the knowledge of truth, grant in your mercy that as the fullness of mankind enters into your Church, all Israel may be saved, through Christ our Lord. Amen."

This new prayer is somewhat ambiguous in its object, in that, acknowledging Christ as the saviour of mankind does not necessitate conversion, so that if the object of the prayer were granted, the same problem would present itself, the Jews are still Jews and, consequently, non-Catholics. Secondly, it states "grant in your mercy that as the fullness of mankind enters into your Church, all Israel may be saved". This begs the question: What is "Israel"? Is it the Jews? Believers? Mankind????

Firstly, what hit me was that this is a change in the liturgy even before it is a change in the prayer or the theology. Benedict XVI has again altered the Liturgy, and what's more, it was done not so much to make it better, or for spiritual purposes, but to appease the criticisms of outsiders. Catholics fell under the criticism that they were unoecumenical, or anti-semitic, and so to justify the return to the '62 Liturgy, and at the same time, appease critics, he alters the prayer in the manner shown above. In the Summorum, we saw that the Liturgy promulgated under John XXIII was granted permission to be celebrated, but under two conditions: That the variable readings of the Novus Ordo Missa be included, and that those priests celebrating this "extraordinary form" would also celebrate the "ordinary rite" so as to also honour the new traditions of Vatican II, and that during this time of the Liturgical year [the Easter Triduum] the Novus Ordo Missae was to be celebrated exclusively. So if a priest ordinarily celebrates the Motu Mass, he still says the Novus Ordo Missae during the Easter Triduum, so the1962-John-XXIII version still is not repeated, so what's the deal? The Alteration, then, was undoubtedly what we've suspected it was, i.e. motivated by the will to appease anti-Catholic criticisms. The John XXIII alteration, and the 1970 Renovation simply were not enough for them, they really had to have more, but since when did the Catholic Church change her law of prayer to appease anti-Catholics? This course of action has always been condemned by the Catholic Church, but as things go with a change in leadership and government, things change. And with this change of administration, what was condemned as abominable is now the norm. This alteration in this prayer indicates that Benedict XVI is not going to leave the Traditions of the Church unaltered as long as he is in charge, so in fact, this shows us that there is not going to be a "return to Tradition" as so many have hoped for as long as the goals of ecumenism remain on the agenda. It is an indicator that whatever traditions are retained, they will not be kept unadulterated.
This alteration shows us the cowardice, also, of Roman Authorities in the face of opposition, they are not afraid to either change or dispense with whatever things in Catholic practices the world dislikes. This practice is abominable to a Catholic, the Catholic Church is the bride of Christ, and She keeps her practices pure and alters them only for Her sanctification, to make herself perfect for her Bridegroom, Jesus Christ, not the World, much less the Jews who've been her adversary all during her life-span. What else this indicates is that the changes of Vatican II are not over, they will continue until the ecumenical utopia has been achieved.

What the new prayer does and does not do:

The new prayer indicates that the hearts of the Jews should be enlightened, but still, this does not necessarily give us the same impression that the old prayer did, that they were faithless, the new prayer gives us the impression that they simply do not acknowledge Christ. It indicates a desire that the Jews should acknowledge Christ, but even if they did, they are still Jews and not converted. And it asks for the salvation of "All Israel", and Israel is what, now?

What the prayer does not do:

It does not indicate that the Jews have not faith, an integral part of Catholic theology. It does not indicate that they need to be converted. It does not indicate that by acknowledging Christ they may be delivered from their faithlessness and thereby converted to God's Truth. It is pointless, it is futile, it is a waste of breath, and it is abominable, silencing our faith in order to justify it to faithless men.

What this change does is imply that the critics are right in criticizing that it was "anti-semitic", it tells the world that hitherto, the Church has been anti-semitic, along with all of the other "crimes" which the novus ordo has confessed to over the last several decades, adding this to the list of bloodthirstyness, forced conversions, robbing people of their venerable religious traditions, keeping the Bible from people, condemning heretics, ect, and now Anti-semitism, and that the Church is "cleaning up her act", so to speak.

Thus the New prayer is not a good sign, the new prayer demonstrates that Rome is just as itchy about Tradition as it was in the '60's , this Good Friday prayer scandalizes the Church, it tells the world, and especially the Jews, that conversion is not necessary, that non-believers can dictate to the Church how to form its own practices. This prayer demonstrates that as long as such a practice as this and an unchecked passion for modernity and ecumenism reign, Tradition and Faith will suffer, giving us the incentive to pray all the more: for the conversion of the faithless Jews, and for the Conversion of Rome.

Notre Dame de LaSalette, Ora Pro Nobis,

S. Paul, ora pro Nobis,

S. Joseph de Palestine, Ora Pro Nobis