Saturday, June 27, 2009

Cogitati: Fourth Sunday After Pentecost

The Lord is my light and my salvation: whom shall I fear? The Lord is the protector of my life: of whom shall I be afraid? Mine enemies that trouble me have themselves been weakened and have fallen.

It is a truth of our faith that those who follow Christ will have to endure persecution. In no uncertain terms, St. Paul wrote in his second letter to St. Timothy, “All who will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution” (2 Tim. 3. 12). This, says the Gospel, is the way of the Christian religion, for we follow the suffering Christ: “The servant is not above his master” (Matt. 10. 24).

We should expect nothing more from the world than what the world gave Our Blessed Lord: a ignominious, painful death; buffets, scourging, mocking and jeering, a making into a public spectacle, a nailing to the cross. We should expect from the men of this world, those who seek their happiness from this world, to regard us as fools, as extremists, as public enemies. Make no doubt about it. If one lives his Catholic faith to the fullest, the men of this world will brand that person an intolerant fanatic and public enemy, number one. This is because the principles of this world, the principles espoused by the men of the world, are in direct and irreconcilable contradiction with those of Jesus Christ.

So why, then, bother with Christianity at all? Why follow Jesus Christ, an outcast of the men of this world, and suffer His same fate? Why be persecuted by the men of this world? Why not accept their principles, if it saves us from persecution and the derision of men?

We follow Christ, because the principles of the worldly are a delusion. The worldly look to the riches, honors, power, and pleasures of this present world for their happiness. The reasons for this are manifold. Some are weak minded, and can see little beyond the tip of their own noses. Others are ignorant and unlettered in the ways of the soul. Some have been deadened to lofty ideals by vanity, base entertainment, the crudities of mindless television programs and movies and pathetic, mind killing music, alcohol, drugs and other sinful distractions. Others seek power and prestige to fill a vacuous ego that is in desperate need of the adulation of others.

Still, others are following and obeying the will of their father, Satan, and delight in leading to perdition the rest, those weak in mind and spirit, the ignorant, those deadened by distraction, those who seek power. These men who avow Satan do so under the erroneous assumption that Satan will reward them in hell. These men understand eternity, but they long for an eternity of power in hell. Little do they know that there is no power in hell, not even for Satan. That there can be is a lie of Satan, the prince of lies. Such men do exist, though they have convinced the children of the world that belief in their existence is foolish and superstitious. They are out there. They are members of the secret societies and religions of Freemasonry, bent on the destruction of the Church and the perdition of even the elect, and don’t be surprised that they can be found in the highest places of government, even in our own country. Rest assured that wherever Satan and his demonic minions tempt the hearts of men, there are some who would be fooled into believing his false promise of eternal power in hell.

But these earthly desires of power, riches, honors, pleasures are all of them deceptions. The are like soap-bubbles, which reflect all the colors of the rainbow but are really only drops of water. They are hardly anything of substance, and if they are in the least disturbed, they burst and disappear, and those who depended on them are left with nothing, save regret, sorrow, and anger. At the time of Our Lord’s visitation, the Roman Empire was the most powerful nation on earth, the most wealthy, and her citizens enjoyed the greatest comforts the times could afford. Yet at this very same time suicide, abortion, infanticide, and homicide were common and even prevalent enough to be accepted without question. Among their worldly pleasures of wine and food, unabated sexual license, the distractions of the theater and arena, unmatched political and military power, the Romans were killing themselves, their children and their neighbors.

Why? The end of all worldliness is misery and death. Anyone who puts his trust in the passing and changeable things of this life, places his hope in a fleeting reality, as a result suffers nothing but anxiety and fear in losing what is so fragile. As the spider spins a web out of its own innards and in a moment the broom seeps it all away, so man labors for long years to obtain some honor, possession or office. Then he is taken by sickness, visited with some obstacle, or inflicted by financial misfortune, and all that for which he labored is swept away in an instant. The forbidden pleasures indulged by the powerful, by politicians, and by the elite of the world of entertainment inevitably bring them misery and ruin. All men know what can and probably will happen to whatever possessions, honors or pleasures they have accumulated for themselves in this world.

Ultimately all men know that death ends it all. “We brought nothing into the world, and certainly we cannot carry anything out of it” (1 Tim. 6. 7). Worldlings indulge in so many distractions, such as somotology, television and other mind-numbing entertainment, drunkenness and drugs, sexual license and hedonism, to distract themselves from the most fundamental fact of their material lives: they will die. The bodies that they so adorned in this life will rot and be food for worms. If those distractions should fail, they are left with utter anguish, psychic madness, suicide and death.

Can anyone convince that our modern world, becoming more and more denuded of true Christianity, is spiraling in a vortex of distraction and worldliness toward this anxiety, anguish, psychic madness, suicide and death? It is sometimes called “the culture of death”, but often this phrase is misinterpreted. The culture of death has more to do with a culture that is spiritually dead because it can no longer see past the fleeting and fragile material things of this world. Take for example the last presidential election in our country. The people of the United States have elected as president of the United States a socialist despot, a man thirsty for the blood of unborn children, a man bent on the destruction of the Church in America and abroad, a man entirely in love with power and prestige. And why? They elected such a man out of anxiety for the worldly things they fear losing due to the economic crisis, a crisis, mind you, engineered to consolidate the power of the worldly and lead away, even if were possible, the elect. If we are not now living in the shadow of the anti-Christ, we definitely are living the shadow of an anti-Christ, and spiraling ever more into the abyss of a madness that comes from living in a world that ignores God and denies the sovereignty of Christ.

This Sunday we beseech the Lord in the Collect to regulate the course of the world by His governance for our peace, and for the tranquility of His Church. In our current world, a world in which we teeter on the verge of the next great persecution of the Church, how urgent this prayer ought to be on our lips and in our hearts. But in the prayer is the realization of God’s providence. We understand that behind the Collect for today’s Mass is our faith in God who governs the world and permits even evil and misfortune to befall His children for their good. In all that happens to us, He has as His intention, our happiness. In this lies the key to happiness in this corrupted world, albeit not a complete happiness, but a far less fragile and maddening one as is the sham of happiness to which worldly men clings.

Our Blessed Lord tells the Samaritan woman concerning the well: “He who drinks of this water will thirst again.” But He offers her to drink of that which will truly satisfy, a living water: “He that shall drink of the water that I shall give him, shall not thirst forever” (John, 4. 13). And again Our Blessed Lord says: “He that cometh to Me, shall never hunger” (John, 6. 35). St. Augustine wrote, “unquiet is the heart of man until it rests in God.” The reason for this is that earthly sufferings do not render unhappy the man who follows Christ.

Our Blessed Lord tells us: “Every one that heareth My words and doeth them, shall be likened to a wise man, that built his house upon rock” (Matt. 7. 24). The man who trusts in God builds on solid ground. The patriarch Joseph derived advantage, not harm, from being persecuted, and King David was persecuted first by Saul, and then by his own son, Absolom. Despite his persecutions, King David was able to fathom the mystery of the true happiness that is found beyond tribulations when he wrote, “Many are the afflictions of the just; but out of them all the Lord will deliver them” (Ps. 33. 20).

Perfect happiness can not be achieved here on earth. All men, the good and the bad alike, can not escape sickness, suffering and death. This world, we pray in the Salve Regina, is a veil of tears, and the world contains as many sick men as there are men. Good fortune and misfortune come and go with the frequency and predictability as the storms and sunshine. If one enjoys prosperity now, it is a sure sign that there will soon be adversity and loss. Society, indeed, will be filled with all kinds of misfortunes and miseries. It is a lie of the liberals, like those who currently enjoy so much power in our government, and even in our modern Church, that these miseries can be eradicated or even merely minimized by their social engineering. The lie of liberation theology is the same lie that we are constantly bombarded with by the current power brokers in Washington, D.C. No, the truth is we are not meant for perfect happiness here on earth, and any happiness here on earth comes, not from socialism or welfare or social engineering, but from our total trust in God. Many liberals in religion and government will attempt to sell us on a false god that wants us to be happy in the vagaries, vanities and allurements of this world. The true God Who brings us happiness and true peace in this world is the God we learn about in the teachings of Jesus Christ, handed down to us from Holy Mother Church.

We learn from Holy Mother Church that even evil is permitted to befall the Christian for the Christian’s own good. The persecution of the early Christians in Palestine and in Rome was the means of making known the Gospel in the countries to which the Christians fled or were banished. Imagine Catholicism in America if it hadn’t been for the persecution of Catholics in Ireland. While we endure the evils, misfortunes and persecutions that we meet in our lives, be they trivial, or great, we must realize that we see from a very limited perspective the infinitely greater works of God. We are unable to gauge the depths of God’s judgments, nor discern the goods that will flow therefrom. For “how inscrutable are God’s judgments and how unsearchable His ways!” (Rom. 11. 33).

For this reason, the pious Christian must resign himself entirely to the will of God. In this is true peace and freedom from anxiety to be found in this world, and a sure means to the bliss of heaven after our sojourn here.

The Gospel from today’s Mass highlights this important fact. The boat in the Gospel reading symbolizes the Church, often tossed about on the stormy seas of this world, from which Our Blessed Lord teaches the multitudes, the nations. St. Peter doubted the words of Our Blessed Lord when he was told to launch out into the deep for a catch. However, the catch of fish was miraculous. St. Peter’s nets were breaking, and he needed the assistance of his partners. The ships were filled so high, that they were on the verge of sinking, and all were wholly astonished. Our Blessed Lord tells those first disciples: “Fear not, from henceforth thou shalt catch men.

Do not fear. Do not be anxious. We must not allow ourselves to be troubled about the arrangements God has made in His governance of the world and our lives. Who are we to dictate to God how such and such should work out, what desire of ours should be fulfilled or thwarted, what cross we should bear or not. Who are we to condemn God for the suffering of others? So few are those who see the existence of poverty or human suffering as an opportunity to practice charity and thus accomplish the works of salvation by God’s grace. No, they don’t see the suffering of others as opportunities to practice charity because these people are too busy blaming God for injustice. Such people speak platitudes about human suffering from places of comfort, and others (i.e. those who advocate liberation theology) resort to violence against neighbor because they do violence to God in their thoughts.

We can not alter the arrangements of God’s providence, and those who try, be they men of religion or politics, ultimately end in anguish, and lead countless others to the same end. The only means of achieving any degree of happiness in this world it to resign oneself to the will of God, in sickness, misfortune, financial difficulties or ruin, persecution, suffering, and finally death. In order to win the friendship of men, people adapt themselves to the humors and fancies of those men; they strive to find common cause. In order to win the friendship of God, one must adapt himself to what pleases God; to win God’s friendship, one must adapt himself to God’s will. The Christian in this life must strive to find common cause with God’s will. That is done by total resignation to His will.

The phrase, “be not afraid”, has been misinterpreted by a generation that seeks truth in slogans and emotionalism. Our Blessed Lord isn’t trying to comfort His disciples. He is giving them a moral command. “Fear not!” Be brave! Put away your anxiety about the things of this world, and look toward your heavenly homeland, toward the “revelation of the sons of God”, “for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body, in Christ Jesus our Lord”! Our Blessed Lord is commanding us to fear not by resigning ourselves to His divine will.

The man who cheerfully resigns himself to the will of God obtains true peace of mind, attains to perfections in this life, and is blessed by God. It is that person who is without fear. We know this from the lives of the saints, so many of whom enjoyed such blessed peace in this world that they were hardly moved even in the face of martyrdom. St. Ignatius of Antioch, and the early Christian martyrs, about to be devoured by the lions, looked up to heaven, and offered prayers to God and gave Him praise. St. Pio of Pietrelcina endured persecution, mocking and unjust censure, yet such sufferings did not dishearten or move him to passion. The meekness of St. Francis de Sales was legendary, and it won over many a heretic, even those who would viciously accosted him verbally. St. Francis of Assisi and his companions were beaten, mocked and humiliated by the Sultan’s men in Eygpt, but their serenity was so unmoved that St. Francis and his companions won the Sultan’s respect and admiration. We could on for hours listing the meekness and inner peace of the saints. Such saints were so meek, so mild, so unmoved, not because of some temperament with which they were born, but by continually striving to resign themselves entirely to the will of God.

Nor is this resignation something that we decide to do at the drop of a hat. One can not wake up in the morning tomorrow and say, “today I will be totally resigned to the will of God in my life.” Total resignation to the will of God is a virtue that must be grown and perfected by continuous practice and careful attention.

Dom Lorenzo Scupoli, in the spiritual classic, The Spiritual Combat, lays out a practical course to attaining the peace of mind that comes with the resignation of oneself to the will of God.

It begins by carefully cultivating a thorough distrust of the Self. “Distrust of the Self is so absolutely requisite in the spiritual combat that without this virtue we cannot expect to defeat our weakest passions, much less gain a complete victory.” Distrust of Self is a gift from heaven, cultivated in the soul by meditating upon our weaknesses, begging God to increase this virtue in us, accustoming ourselves to distrust our strengths, and thoroughly examining our consciences throughout the day, especially after committing some fault.

Distrust of Self naturally takes us, according to Scupoli, to cultivating an complete dependence and confidence in God. “To the distrust of Self, therefore, we must join firm confidence in God, the Author of all good, from Whom alone the victory must be expected,” wrote Scupoli. This confidence and trust in God is cultivated by fervent petition for this virtue, contemplating upon God’s immense power and infinite wisdom, meditating upon Our Blessed Lord’s promises in the Scriptures that no one who puts his trust in God will be defeated, and to recognize before attempting any endeavor our own weakness and the infinite power, wisdom and goodness of God. “Balancing what we fear from ourselves with what we hope from God, we shall courageously undergo the greatest difficulties and severest trials.”

Combining these efforts with ardent prayer, prayer in morning and evening, daily and sincere examinations of conscience, acts of reparation, mortification, and other pious acts as grace inspires, one will be able to execute the greatest plans and gain decisive victories. By frequenting the sacraments of Holy Communion and Confession, resignation to the will of God can become a reality, and serenity can come to reign in the soul even in this world of misfortunes and trouble. In this way we make Our Blessed Lord’s prayer in the Garden of Gethsemani our own: “Father, not My will, but Thine be done.

Scupoli adds in His Treatise on Peace of Soul:

“It is necessary, however, to undergo much toil before we acquire this serenity, for our inexperience inevitably exposes us to the assaults of powerful enemies. But once acquired, this peace will bring untold consolation to our souls in their fight against the disquieting elements of the world, and daily we shall perfect the art of quieting the turmoil of the spirit.”

How much more rewarding is this peace of soul gained by trust in the Lord than the vanities and anxieties of the worldlings. Worldly men grasp upon the changing and fragile realities of this world, which like so much drowse will be cast upon the fire and burned, reducing them to nothing more than smoke and ash.

So, as we worship according the ancient rites, Holy Mother Church provides us the profound words of our prayer in today’s communion verse. The psalmist, trusting in God, and now we, learning to trust, rightly proclaim this day, “The Lord is my firmament, and my refuge, and my deliverer, my God is my helper” (Ps. 17. 3).

Friday, June 26, 2009

A look at Gregorio Allegri's Miserere mei, Deus



Gregorio Allegri was born in 1582 and died in 1652. His life spans a period of time formed by the Tridentine reforms, and there is no doubt that Allegri was heavily influenced by the musical genius that blossomed in the Roman Church at that time. Allegri studied under Giovanni Maria Nanino, an influential teacher of the "Roman School" owing chiefly to Nanino’s close association with Giovanni Peirluigi da Palestrina, the greatest of the Tridentine composers. Nanino became maestro di cappella at St. Luigi de’ Francesi in Rome after Palestrina left that post. It was here that Allegri sang in Nanino’s choir.




Allegri composed motets and other sacred music, gaining the recognition of Pope Urban VIII, and Allegri was quickly given an appointment in the choir of the Sistine Chapel. The atmosphere of Rome at this time was one formed by the great reforming popes, Pius V, Gregory XIII, and Sixtus V, in which the intellectual climate had been shaped by St. Charles Borromeo and St. Robert Bellarmine, and fervent religiosity inspired by the spirituality of St. Ignatius of Loyola and St. Philip Neri. It was in this exciting time of Catholic revival, an historical period that bridged the Renaissance to the Baroque, that Gregorio Allegri composed quite possibly the most hauntingly beautiful piece of sacred music ever penned, his Miserere mei, Deus.


video


Allegri composed the piece in the 1630s for matins on Wednesday and Friday of Holy Week, and it quickly became the most popular of the falsobordone Miserere settings chanted for the purpose. The piece demonstrates the late developments of the Roman School, reflecting different strands of technique and style upon the prima pratica, such as from the Venetian polychoral style. While rather simple in basic composition, the embellishments added by the Sistine Chapel choirs made the piece so beautiful that the Vatican forbade publication of the music in an effort to retain the mysterious integrity of the piece.


The Miserere was written for two choirs, one of five voices and the other of four, spatially separated. One choir chants the simple version, while the other sings an ornamented accompaniment. This dialogue, as well as the ornamentation techniques, so closely guarded by the Vatican, succeeds in creating a profoundly sorrowful, timelessly mystical, atmosphere. In many ways Gregorio Allegri’s Miserere is the crowning accomplishment of the Roman School of polyphony.

Interesting day for news and rumor on the internet

UPDATED

A couple of information pieces are out there on the internet that are very provocative concerning the SSPX.

The first is from Fr. Z's blog. French article on upcoming Ecclesia Dei & SSPX Motu Proprio. I wasn't expecting much from this motu proprio, other than administrative details concerning the move of the PCED to the Congregation for Faith and Doctrine, and maybe some words concerning the theological discussions with the SSPX. Apparently the people at Golias are expecting much more:

According to our informations, and on the eve of the lefebvrist ordinations of next June 27th in Germany, the Pope wishes for the coming months to write a second motu proprio. Document to be spent this time not only to the liturgy in Latin, but to a more comprehensive reintegration of Lefebvre in the Church. By asking, of course conditions, but also by engaging the whole Church in this process. That’s serious!

In other words, the bishops will no longer be entitled to express openly their reluctance and even less to slow the return of the traditionalists. In fact one knows that the representatives of these currents regularly are complaining to the Pope about the obstacles to their reinstatement placed by the bishops and their entourage. Until then, Rome and the Ecclesia Dei commission bypassed the local bishops without, however, in general, openly disavowing them.

Thus, in 1988, the commission very quickly and very caringly get the situation of the Benedictine abbey of the Barroux Abbey sorted out, without informing or consulting the Archbishop of Avignon at the time, Archbishop Raymond BOUCHEX. More recently, Rome proceeded in the same way with respect to the Institut du Bon Pasteur, without informing the archbishop of Bordeaux, in which he sat. Recently, another signal was given by the Vatican which restored to her parish a traditionalist parish priest in dissent with his bishop in Calvados, so to remind the French bishops. Following such a new Motu proprio, a bishop considered too reluctant to welcome newly joined traditionalists will certainly be severely rebuked
The bishops no longer will be able to express their reservations

Benedict XVI and his advisers intend to enjoy the quiet summer to advance on the path of reconciliation. After the authorization to celebrate according all the old liturgical books (Motu proprio of 2007), after the lifting of the excommunication of the four schismatic bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre, a new stage is opening up, more delicate however: That is concerning the divisive theological background in particular with regard to Vatican II and the Magisterium of last popes.
(Translation provided by a reader at Fr. Z's site.)

There are also comments about Fr. Nicola Bux.

The second item is from Rorate Caeli: IMPORTANT INTERVIEW "Similar to Opus Dei?" Schmidberger responds: "Somewhat."

The piece is a excerpt from an interview conducted by the German Catholic New Agency (therefore, an unfriendly interview) of the SSPX Superior of the German District, Fr. Franz Schmidberger.

As the title of the post highlights, the most interesting rumor is the canonical structure that may be offered to the SSPX: a personal prelature "somewhat" like what Opus Dei enjoys. The prospect of granting a personal prelature to traditional Catholics is something that ought to be welcomed with joy.

However, there are other interesting tidbits to the interview that you will pick up by reading it.

I thought the most provocative thing Schmidberger said was: "Why do they [the German bishops, and you might as well as add all liberal and neo-conservative Catholics] demand that we obey canon law to the letter while at the same time they assert that we are outside the Church?"

Good question, Fr. Schmidberger. Will we get an honest answer? Will the German bishops, and liberal and neo-conservative Catholics, for that matter, admit that they don't want to make room for traditional Catholics under their big tent?

______________________

UPDATE

Mr. Brian Kopp, over at The Gregorian Rite, pieces together the thoughts of Dr. Robert Moynihan on the upcoming motu proprio. Mr. Kopp's synopsis is easier to follow.

Is it possible that this motu proprio will be bigger than Summorum Pontificum? Is a clear and definitive statement regarding the unique, non-dogmatic, non-infallible, nature of the Second Vatican Council going to be issued (again), this time by Pope Benedict XVI? (Remember that Pope Paul VI stated back in the sixties that Vatican II was non-dogmatic and non-infallible.) Will the pope make clear that Vatican II merely repeated already defined dogmas and set forth changeable pastoral provisions in their regard, and those pastoral provisions are now open to re-evaluation?

Hopefully.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Another incredibly beautiful picture

Fr. Michael Mary Sim F.SS.R offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass over the relics of St. Philip Neri.

Should Traditional Catholic laymen read the Bible?

Contrary to a minority opinion in some traditional Catholic circles and elsewhere, the riches of the Scriptures are not forbidden to the layman. In fact, the Church throughout history has painstakingly struggled to enumerate the Scriptures to her children, both the learned and the unlearned alike.

Part I: Some Historical Considerations

Reading Scripture Prior to the Printing Press

The Bible and biblical devotion and knowledge flourished in the medieval period on a scale the Western world has never seen again. This would be surprising to many brought up on the fables of the black legend. Catholic Europe during the medieval era, the Age of Faith, was a thoroughly biblical place. How can this have been when there were so few Bibles and such a large percentage of the population couldn't even read?

Before the printing press, the Scriptures were reproduced in biblical form (collections of various books of the canon) by groups of monks hand copying while one monk read to them. This method allowed a number of Bibles to be “mass” produced. It goes without saying that such “mass” production would still produce a rather meager number of copies, over the course of a very long time. This made an individual Bible a rather expensive book.

In the medieval period the Scriptures were produced in the West in the Latin language for the simple reason that anyone who could read would know Latin. It was the common tongue of the learned. Thus, everyone who could read had ready access to Bibles. In fact, the most widely circulated book, by far, was the Bible.


Not only were they readily available, but Bibles were incessantly used and meditated upon. Priests used a Bible to prepare their sermons. Monks in the scriptura copied and meditated upon the Scriptures everyday, all day long. Imagine the insights and meditative fruits gleaned from carrying out a profession that totally encompassed copying carefully, by hand, the words of the Bible! No biblical scholar today however learned or brilliant could have such an intimate relationship with the Holy Scriptures! Every parish had to have at least one Bible for use at Mass, but most had two or more, occupying a public area with free access. Because Bibles were such a costly expense for a parish, often with ornate and expensive bindings, they were chained to podiums, much like library dictionaries are today or telephone books at public telephones. The literate, laity or cleric, could use these Bibles at their leisure.

A study of late medieval correspondences attests to the degree biblical language infused the common languages of the day, even when these correspondences were carried out in the vulgar tongues. That Scriptural allusions are replete in these letters demonstrates not only the importance of the Scriptures, but also the ready and intimate knowledge the medieval laity had of the Bible. These people were, simply put, saturated with Scripture. There is absolutely no indication that the Church’s hierarchy disapproved of the laity’s use or knowledge of Scripture throughout the entire period. In fact, the Church was most concerned and worked to correct the sad fact that the illiterate did not have the luxury of knowing the Scriptures to the same degree as the literate did.

The Church was mindful of the evils of illiteracy, and was throughout her history concerned with education, mainly because illiteracy hindered the children of the Church from knowing the Sacred Scriptures. However, given the realities of life and history, the Catholic Church did everything in her power to infuse, even in the illiterate, knowledge of the Bible. Sermons were replete, to a much greater degree than homilies you would typically hear today, with Scriptural quotations. To the modern reader, the sermons of great medieval and Counter-Reformation saints can seem tedious due to all the Scripture quotations contained therein. Stained glass widows, church art, and even the architecture of the church, itself, all were primarily designed to convey to the unlearned (and the learned as well!) stories and the truths contained in the Bible.

Western medieval children were nurtured in a biblical environment, filled with daily re-telling of Bible stories, passion plays, feasts and festivals that marked important episodes in the Bible. Every great “holiday” was a Church feast with a specific Scriptural reference. So saturated were medieval peasants, that, without the luxury of knowing how to read, they knew accurately two things without fail – their given profession or trade, and the Gospel stories. We can hardly say that today about the average person (on either score, for that matter), even the literate ones!

Reading Scripture after the Invention of the Printing Press

Perhaps the greatest invention of all time was that of the printing press by Johannes Gensfliesch zur Laben zum Gutenberg in the year 1439. Actually, Johannes Gutenberg’s printing press was a conglomeration of a number of ingenious ideas such as moveable type, oil-based ink, and the use of a wooden press much like a wine or olive press commonly used in his era. What is important for our purposes isn’t the actual invention, but the year that it was invented, what the invention produced and when, and what this means to our understanding of reading the Bible and the Church’s attitude to the same.

It is often assumed that there is a natural connection between Gutenberg’s invention and the Protestant movement. However, this assumption is extremely inaccurate from an historical perspective. Gutenberg’s invention was around 1439, and the use of the machine spread quickly in the late 15th century. All of these events took place a full century before Martin Luther and the Protestant revolt of the 16th century. The assumption is also dispelled by the fact that the first Bible printed on Gutenberg’s invention, the Gutenberg Bible, was taken from the Latin Vulgate – the Latin Bible of the Catholic Church! In fact, Gutenberg, a Catholic (perhaps of questionable character, but a Catholic, nonetheless), may have had a second printing press used for the profane purpose of printing public documents, such as indulgences, an unfortunate abuse that Luther was to criticize a century later.


The immediate impact of the printing press was the fact that it made the printing of books much less expensive and time consuming. Bibles could now be “mass” produced, at least on a much greater scale than had previously been known. As a result there was a proliferation of Bibles published in the mid- and late 15th century. Most of them were Latin editions, as Latin still remained the common language of the learned in the late medieval period. However, there were also many editions in the vulgar languages. There were a few editions of at least parts of the Bible in the vulgar languages before the invention of the printing press. However, putting so much effort into hand copying a Bible that would be used by a comparably small number of people made copying vulgar language editions senseless labor at best. With the invention of the printing press, this obstacle to printing vulgar language editions was removed. Editions were printed in Italian, German, French, Flemish, Spanish, Slavish, and Bohemian, all before 1470, fifty years before Martin Luther began his satanic work.

What is also important to keep in mind is what the Gutenberg invention did not do. It didn’t teach people to read! There is no indication that the literacy rates among medieval people significantly increased during the late 15th or early 16th centuries. With the literacy rate remaining essentially the same, we know that roughly the same amount of people, of roughly the same social class and education, who read the Bible before the invention were the same amount of people, of the same social class and education, that were reading the Bible after the invention, at least in the years leading up to the Protestant revolt. Why is this significant? It is significant because of the common post hoc fallacy, put forward by Protestants and modernist historians alike, that the Protestant movement was caused by the printing press making the Scriptures more accessible to both theologians and the common people.

However, in actu the printing press did not make the Bible more accessible. Those who could read the Bible before were the same people who could read the Bible afterward, be it in Latin or the vulgar tongues. At any rate, the Scriptures saturated both theologians and the common people well before the invention of the printing press. The Protestant revolt did not spring from a reading of the Scriptures. History chronicles that it was born of diseased and psychotic minds that twisted the Words of Truth, and by greedy men who used heresy for worldly profit at the expense of Holy Mother Church.

During this period the Church’s hierarchy never condemned nor attempted to thwart the proliferation of these printed Bibles, either in Latin or the vulgar tongues. The proliferation of Bibles was natural and expected. In Pope Leo X’s bull condemning the errors of Martin Luther (Exsurge Domine, AD 1520), Leo does not condemn the reading of the Scriptures, nor does he insinuate that Luther’s errors arise from reading the Bible. Rather he makes clear that these errors arise from an evil interpretation. Leo wrote in said bull:

Some, putting aside her true interpretation of Sacred Scripture, are blinded in mind by the father of lies. Wise in their own eyes, according to the ancient practice of heretics, they interpret these same Scriptures otherwise than the Holy Spirit demands, inspired only by their own sense of ambition, and for the sake of popular acclaim, as the Apostle declares. In fact, they twist and adulterate the Scriptures.


A historical and logical analysis of the Gutenberg printing press and its impact on the Western world reveals not a single credible piece of evidence linking reading the Bible to the emergence of Protestant errors. Nor do we see at this time the Church’s hierarchy attempting to stop the proliferation of printed Bibles or condemning free and easy access to the Bible.

Reading the Bible after the Protestant Revolt

Martin Luther translated the New Testament from the Latin Vulgate in the year 1522, two years after he was excommunicated. The Church would rightly consider as suspect (to say the least) any translation of the Bible by a known heretic and excommunicate. How can a translator abstain from injecting his theology into such a translation? Indeed, all translations are subject to the translator’s biases. This is why the Church has always insisted that the Bible be translated only by those thoroughly imbibed with doctrinal knowledge, sound theology, and, above all, love for Christ and His Church.

There had always been intentional mistranslation by heretics prior to the 16th century, but the Protestant revolt gave the world intentional mistranslation of the Bible on a massive scale, due in large measure to the ease of printing books. This subtle method was used very effectively, over and over again, in the years and centuries following the Protestant revolt. An English example is William Tyndale who always substituted the word “congregation” for “Church” and “ordinance” for “tradition” in order to avoid and lead the reader away from the Catholic connotation attached to these words. The word “images” was substituted for “idols” in the verse “little children, keep yourselves from idols”. The goal was to create false premises in unfounded criticisms of the Catholic Church.

In order to protect those who wished to remain faithful to right religion the Council of Trent (Session IV) approved the Latin Vulgate as the most authentic Latin version of the Bible. The Council also forbade, in all common sense, individual interpretations of Sacred Writ at variance with the right and ancient teachings of the Church. Laws were set up, not to limit access to the Bible, but ensure that the utmost care would be taken to print the Bible as correctly as possible. In contrast to Protestants, the Catholic Church was concerned, not with ideology or a hidden agenda, but with accurately conveying and printing the Bible so the children of the Church would receive what God intended.

That the Scriptures needed to be protected is an obvious consequence of cherishing the truths they contain. It was also important for the Church to protect her children from harm, especially in an environment of growing hostility toward those truths and the Catholic Church. At no time, however, has the Church’s hierarchy ever recommended a general ban on the reading of the Scriptures. The Church has warned against the use of specious editions of the Bible, and that her children should be provided with Bibles approved by the Apostolic See, drawn up with annotations from the Fathers of the Church or learned and faithful Catholic scholars (Pope Gregory XVI, Inter praecipuas, 1844).

The Sacred Scriptures are not for “anyone”

Protestants have gotten a lot of mileage out of a couple of papal documents that they claim proves the Catholic Church officially sought to hinder the reading of Sacred Scripture.

For example, Pope Pius VII in his letter to the Archbishop of Mohileff (dated September 3, 1816) warns against the widespread proliferation of various translations “without discrimination”. He reiterated that Bibles in the vulgar tongues needed to contain explanations carefully chosen from the writings of the Fathers of the Church. Preference is given to reading the Bible in Latin. However, at no point does Pope Pius VII propose that all Catholics should refrain from reading Scripture, even in a vernacular language.

Even more poignant is the encyclical of Pope Clement XI, Unigenitus, The Errors of Pashasius Quesnel, dated September 8, 1713. Here are condemned as errors the following propositions:

79. It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture.
80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.
81. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it.


First, I will relate an unhappy antidote about this document. A Catholic “apologist” at EWTN a few years ago attempted to use this document to refute an Evangelical who said the Catholic Church hindered Catholics from reading the Bible. What the poor fellow didn’t realize was that these were condemnations, not precepts. He offered them as definitive proof that Pope Clement XI advocated that the reading of the Scriptures was necessary at all times and for all people. His Evangelical opponent, realizing with relish the apologist’s mistake, was quick to pounce, and it was embarrassing to say the least.

This antidote highlights the fact that many neo-conservative Catholics today accept without hesitation the Protestant notion that reading the Bible is a sine qua non for the Christian life. In order to be Christian, one must read the Bible. This unfortunate error has caused much pain and trouble recently. Simply put, the reading of Scripture is not for just anyone.

Take for example a fourteen-year-old boy educated at an average Catholic parochial school in the United States. In other words he hasn’t a clue about his catechism, let alone an education in logic, rhetoric, philosophy, literature or theology. Would we expect such a person to draw religious truth from Solomon’s Canticle of Canticles? The real circumstances of individual persons, such as education, ability, emotional and intellectual realities, station in life, time considerations, etc., all must be considered.

It can even be dangerous to the salvation of souls to fail in these considerations. How many instructors as part of the new RCIA process have pushed a Bible under the nose of someone who doesn’t even know the difference between the New and Old Testaments? How many times have people been told to read the Bible, and then come across an obscure passage, one that is difficult to understand? They draw a mistaken notion concerning that passage, and the mistake causes them to fall into heresy or forsake Christianity entirely. The attitude that just anyone can pick up the Bible and then suddenly become versed in Christian doctrine and morality is a ludicrous assumption born out of arrogance and folly. Mohommedans wouldn’t even think about giving a copy of the Koran to someone unless they were assured that it would be treated with respect and care. It is a sad reality that the modern Catholic catechist, like his Protestant counterparts, treats the Holy Scriptures with far less reverence.

It should go without saying that some Christians for physical or mental reasons lack the faculties to read or understand the complex concepts contained in the Bible. Individuals may opt with the guidance of their spiritual directors, pastors or confessors to ready only certain parts of the Bible. Others due to mental or emotional problems are hindered from drawing edification from the Bible. Still others are more apt to draw absurd or even dangerous conclusions from the Bible due to their personal ideologies and preconceptions. A good example of the latter would be Adolph Hitler who drew monstrous conclusions from the pages of the Bible.

Pope Clement is also making the point that one does not have to read the Scriptures in order to believe what is contained therein and gain spiritual profit thereby. Take, for example, the illiterate. Obviously there were Christians throughout history that were illiterate, and unfortunately there still are today. The Church has always striven to alleviate illiteracy, but the Church has just as adamantly upheld that an illiterate man can be just as much a Christian as the most learned.

Most importantly, though, Pope Clement’s condemnations make clear to us that salvation is not dependent on a man’s faculties to read the Bible. Man is saved by grace. Rightly then, the reading of the Bible is not necessary or fitting for everyone. However, it is very important to note that it is certainly not forbidden.

The Second Vatican Council added nothing new to the Church’s teaching regarding Holy Scripture, but echoed, albeit weakly, confusedly and without technical wording, what has already been pointed out, namely that Holy Mother Church wants all her children imbibed with the Holy Scriptures. Dei Verbum points out that “the Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures as she venerated the Body of the Lord” (21). Dei Verbum also echoes what the history and the teaching of the Church has always made plainly manifest, namely that Scripture “ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful” (22). However, Dei Verbum lacks an important warning to the individual Catholic to treat the Bible with reverence and fear, and to read it only with great care and guidance. This shortcoming, like so many contained in the Vatican II documents, has caused problems.

Sadly, circumstances, even in our modern, mostly literate, world, falls far short of the immersion in Holy Writ enjoyed by medieval men. The typical Catholic today, despite being exposed to a much larger array of readings at the new order of the Mass, despite the explosion of Catholic “apologists” and apologist literature, a plethora of media avenues, etc., arguably knows less about the Bible than any typical Catholic of any previous age.




The reasons for this are manifold, encompassing the state of the modern world, the mass media, theological confusion and the modern Church hierarchy’s inadequate responses. We live in an age of distraction wherein even when the Bible is read it is rarely read with prayer and reflection. The modern hierarchy has failed to address the grave consequences of the secular love for mindless media entertainment and rampant hedonism. The mass media is, by and large, intent on drawing the mind away from the things of God. Instead of demanding society turn away from hedonistic distractions and ideologies inherent to the modern secular world, the Church’s modern hierarchy attempted to engage in a decidedly unfruitful “dialogue” with the “nation that is not holy" (from the immortal Mass, Judica me, Ps. 42).

There is also a state of mass confusion regarding biblical theology, interpretation, exegesis, etc. One is exposed to all manner of errors in theology and exegesis, sadly even by those who call themselves Catholic, and the modern hierarchy has utterly failed to protect her children with sound teaching and guidance, allowing error to spread without check among bishops, priests, religious orders and catechists. Despite all the Church’s efforts to foster a greater openness to the Scriptures during and after the Second Vatican Council, there has not been anything resembling a “springtime” in devotional Scripture reading or greater knowledge among Catholics. There’s no doubt that the pastoral care shown by Pope Clement XI was more affective for the salvation of souls than many of the current policies of those who make up the modern hierarchy.


Should Traditional Catholics Read the Bible?

There are various reasons why traditional Catholic laymen should read Holy Scripture. With the apparent failure of the post-Vatican II experiment, the most important reason for traditional Catholics to gain an intimate understanding of Scriptures is to attempt the biblical saturation our medieval forefathers had achieved in their culture. Traditional Catholics are the better prepared to make this a reality in our homes and communities. In consideration of the individual, however, to what degree and for what purpose will be different from one person to the next. There are a number of considerations that should be worked out by each individual in conjunction with his spiritual director, pastor or confessor.


Of course, those who have received a classical education may read the Bible as literature, and as human documents having academic merit bearing on history and cultural anthropology. Not everyone, though, is equipped to do so. In this respect the Bible should be treated with the profound respect that academia affords all her primary sources. Likewise it should go without saying, Catholic scholars and theologians should practice the Thomistic method of prima Scriptura, which requires an intimate knowledge of biblical exegesis. These are the fields for experts, though. What is important to note is that the Bible is not a novel, and one should never promote it as “good pool-side, summer reading”.

Secondly, traditional Catholics should know the Bible well enough to defend the faith from the attacks of Protestants, other heretics, and even liberal and neo-conservative Catholics who often attack the Tradition and teachings of the Church by using the Bible. This is not what is commonly called “apologetics.” I’m not referring to actively parsing the Scriptures to explain or defend Catholic doctrine, though that is very laudable for those who have proper training and faculties. It is sufficient for the average traditional Catholic to know common errors, know how they are not supported by the Bible passages often sited in support, and be able to point out the relevant passages that refute those common errors. There are a number of “apologetic” resources, including books and pocket references that are handy for these purposes.

Lastly, the most laudable reading of the Holy Scriptures, by which is gained the most profit both for the individual and his neighbor, is the devotional reading of Holy Scripture. The traditional Catholic laymen can gain much spiritual benefit from practicing Lectio Divina. This will be treated in the next installment.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Canon lawyer gets it wrong

Ed Peters wrote recently about the SSPX ordinations in Winona on his blog, In the Light of the Law. This rather egregious blunder starts off his piece:

First, contrary to some reports, the Catholic Church does recognize these ordinations, by which we must understand, though, that 13 more men have taken the priesthood of Christ illegally from bishops acting in a schismatic manner.

This was a schismatic act? This statement begs the question: What canon states that prohibited participation in sacred rites is acting in a schismatic manner?

Peters mentions canon 1364 in the next sentence, seemingly linking his “schismatic manner” remark to this section of canon law, Penalties for individual dilects and Dilects against the unity of the Church. Canon 1364 mentions apostates, heretics and schismatics incurring latae sententiae excommunication, but does not provide in itself or in the following canons what constitutes schism or a schismatic act. This is because that definition is found elsewhere. This section does not deal with defining an apostate or a heretic or a schismatic.

Canon 1364 seems to be the relevant canon that has drawn Peters' attention. Canon 1365 reads: “A person guilty of prohibited participation in sacred rites (communicatio in sacris) is to be punished with a just penalty.” Notice, however, that no mention is made here of prohibited participation in sacred rites being schismatic. It merely states that it should be punished with “a just penalty.” If Peters insists on calling prohibited participation in a sacred rite a schismatic act his logic would have to carry through to the other canons in this section. Thus Peters is forced to conclude that those who throw away or preserve the consecrated species for sacrilegious purposes is acting in a schismatic manner; Catholic parents who baptize their children in another religion are acting in a schismatic manner; a person who commits perjury before an ecclesiastical authority is acting in a schismatic manner; those who utter blasphemy or incites hatred of the Church or religion is acting in a schismatic manner. Indeed, the meaning of acting in a schismatic manner loses all specificity to the point that it becomes meaningless.

Canon law, however, provides a very clear and specific definition of schism: “The withdrawl of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (CIC 751). Canon law does not provide a definition of what it means to act in a schismatic manner, but one can assume that doing so would entail acting in a way that demonstrates or appears to demonstrate a withdrawl of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

It is not at all clear that SSPX priestly ordinations are actions intended, with malice or culpability, to be acts that willfully demonstrate or willfully give the appearance of withdrawing submission to the Supreme Pontiff or communion with the members of the Church subject to him. Thus when Peters writes that the SSPX priestly ordinations “seem clearly to be new acts of schism under 1983 CIC 1364” he is completely misconstruing canon law by interpolating into the canon his personal opinion as to what constitutes a schismatic act.

What is clear is that this is Peters’ opinion, and Peters’ opinion doesn’t seem to the be the same opinion held by the Holy Father, as Peters, himself, admits when he wrote: “Indeed, I am hard-pressed to think of any canons that Rome appears willing to enforce against the SSPX.”

And this is really the point, isn’t it? Why would the Holy Father slap penalties on the SSPX and at the same time eagerly work to regularize them? The Holy Father isn’t schizophrenic, as so many conservative Catholic commentators seem to be. They will speak from one side of their mouths about how important it is that the SSPX be brought back into the fold, and how important unity in the Church is. Yet from the other side of their mouths they complain that the Holy Father isn’t slapping penalties on them for illegitimate ordinations. These people are, I’m afraid, only paying lip service to the whole idea of ecclesial unity.

If tomorrow the Patriarch of Constantinople would announce his intention of ending the East/West Schism by fully accepting everything that the Catholic Church teaches and by submitting to the authority of the Supreme Pontiff by the end of the year, who would start complaining bitterly that any ordinations of Orthodox priests between now and then would be schismatic acts deserving of ecclesial punishment? Who would call for the Holy Father to re-excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople? It should be obvious that such people would be acting in a way contrary to unity.

We all know what kind of illogic and malice fuels the German bishops who are threatening excommunications over SSPX priestly ordinations. They have always been upfront in thier vehemence over the possibility of the regularization of the SSPX. But what illogic and malice drives these conservative Catholic commentators is a mystery I don’t care to delve too deeply. It would appear that they are, under a veneer of faux traditionalism, really of the same mind as the liberals, modernists, and progressivists. I hope this is only an appearance. However, it does seem to me that when Peters wrote, “I thought lifting the SSPX excommunications was meant to bring them closer to Catholic unity; instead, it seems to confirm their drifting more distant,” he is being more than a little... hopeful?

Two treatments compared

Christopher A. Ferrara puts the SSPX ordinations in perspective: A comparison between the canonical situation of the SSPX and that of the PCA of China.

“The Vatican” and China’s Illicit Bishops

Only days ago Joseph Zen, the Bishop Emeritus of Hong Kong who was elevated to the rank of Cardinal by Pope Benedict in 2006, objected to any further compromise by “the Vatican” with the “Patriotic Catholic Association” (PCA) in China, the faux church created by the Beijing regime in 1958 to replace the Catholic Church in union with the Pope. The PCA has consecrated more than a hundred bishops without a papal mandate in violation of the same provision of canon law invoked against Archbishop Lefebvre and the four bishops he consecrated in 1988. Yet, thanks to the diplomatic initiatives of “the Vatican,” in particular the Vatican Secretary of State, these illicitly consecrated bishops—handpicked to be subservient to a communist regime that imposes forced abortion on women—have been treated with kid gloves, while the Society’s bishops are kept in a state of canonical limbo.

As Pope Benedict revealed in his Apostolic Letter of May 2007 on the situation of the Catholic Church in China, “the Pope” (it is not clear whether this means himself or John Paul II) has granted a number PCA bishops who requested recognition by Rome “full and legitimate exercise of episcopal jurisdiction to favour the reestablishment of full communion,” after considering “the sincerity of their sentiments and the complexity of the situation…” And yet it seems that the communist-controlled bishops so favored have abused this concession by refusing to give any outward sign of union with the Pope. As the Pope observes, “in most cases” neither priests nor the faithful are told “that their Bishop has been legitimized, [which] has given rise to a number of grave problems of conscience,” and “some legitimized Bishops have failed to provide any clear signs to prove that they have been legitimized.” While the Pope insists that “the legitimized Bishops provide unequivocal and increasing signs of full communion with the Successor of Peter,” this has not been forthcoming.

Yet “the Vatican” persists in its diplomatic policy even after Beijing thumbed its nose at the Pope by staging last year a celebration of the 50th anniversary of the first illicit consecrations, an event Cardinal Zen calls a “most disturbing episode, which goes against everything indicated by the pope” in his Apostolic Letter. The Cardinal fears “we are worryingly sliding down the slope of compromise” and that if slide continues “it would mean the end. I repeat: it would mean the complete waste of all the efforts made in the previous years and it would be an insult to the Holy Father.” That is, the legitimized bishops will exploit their canonical status to serve the ends of the Beijing regime, nothing will have been achieved for the unity of the Church, and the persecution of the “underground” Church will continue unabated. Yet another triumph for the diplomats of “the Vatican.”

One wonders why the four bishops of the Society, given their “sincerity” and the “complexity” of their situation, have not been granted “full and legitimate exercise of episcopal jurisdiction to favour the reestablishment of full communion.” Perhaps the Society should consecrate a hundred bishops and declare itself an adjunct of the PCA! Such is the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves. It seems the Code of Canon Law is no longer applied rigorously to anyone in the world except four traditionalist bishops and the priests they ordained in order to preserve the very Mass “the Vatican” wanted us to think had been abrogated de jure. In the midst of the “silent apostasy” only these traditionalist clerics are declared “illegitimate” and without any ministry in the Church, regardless of their unequivocal profession of loyalty to the Pope and their adherence to all the doctrines of the Faith. Meanwhile, the bishops and priests of a communist-created “official church” are fully recognized even though they fail and refuse to give any sign of communion with Rome and offer no resistance to China’s regime of forced abortion. Or so “the Vatican” would have it.

Read the whole article here: SSPX Ordinations and the Reign of “the Vatican”.

Modern Catholics are afraid of of the modern world..

Fr. Alfonso Galvez on the state of the modern Church:

"As I see it, the infirmity that the Church is suffering has to do with the fact that it is afraid of the modern world. This is a malady which derives, in turn, from another deeper evil: the crisis of Faith, which has caused Charity to grow cold. I think that there has been, on the part of the Church, an overvaluation of the world of technology, of the power of ideologies, and of the strength of totalitarian systems. Parallel with this, and as a consequence of it, the Church has fallen in to the simplistic attitude of undervaluing its own treasures; having lost faith in the supernatural content of its message of salvation, it is now trying to fall in behind the world, begging to be understood. It is not not that I underestimate the power of the system; far be it from me to do so. I concur with what Revel says about falsehood having made itself master of the world because the system needs it in order to survive. But the Church had no need to be afraid or to let itself be influenced by the powers which the Kingdom of Lies possesses. What it ought to have done was continue to believe in its own supernatural values because, in the last analysis, good will prevail over evil; and the Church knows that. But, as I already said, love grown cold leads inexorably to falsehood. Not in the sense that the Church has become a lair-it cannot do so-but in the sense that many of its children have either moved away from the truth or else silenced it or, in their cowardice, hidden it, allowing error full rein."
-From Love for the Truth; Part II. The Latin Mass, vol. 18, no. 2 - Spring 2009.

We can add, I'm sure you will agree, that many of the Church's princes have moved away from the truth or silenced it out of cowardice. I'm particularly referring to the cowardice of the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna who recently gave voice to dissenters in his diocese by presenting a petition to the Holy Father that was filled with the most filthy of heresies imaginable.

There is indeed a perceptible spiritual indolence among modern Catholics, as is evidenced by bumper stickers in church parking lots that celebrate religious indifferent ism (those "Coexist" bumper stickers), immodest and sloppy dress among those who attend the ordinary form of the Mass, and indifference in regards to matters of religion. There's more effort placed in fitting in, than being counter cultural.

This is born of cowardice. Modern Catholics are afraid to be truly Catholic, because if they are, they may stand out from the crowd and garner the mob's ridicule or condemnation. If the mob says there is no absolute truth, well then by all means the modern Catholic better paste a "Coexist" bumper sticker on his car!

Why do so many people who carefully dress for work throughout the week, put only a minimum amount of care in dressing for Mass on Sunday? It is because the mob has told them that religion is something that shouldn't be taken seriously. Getting dressed up in a suit and tie, a dress, or wearing a chapel veil, wearing our "Sunday best", demonstrates in the modern estimation an attitude that is too uptight in matters of religion. These Catholics are making a statement when they dress sloppy for Mass. They are doing it purposely. They are saying: "This is for holding hands, and for feeling good about ourselves, and is definitely not something we should take too seriously." For the same reason a quick bow in the direction of the altar/tabernacle has replaced the genuflection.

Modern American Catholics will often go to extremes to demonstrate just how not serious they are about the Catholic Faith. It is cowardice, plain and simple.

However, it's the cardinal virtue of fortitude to stand up as traditional Catholics, proclaiming the eternal and absolute Faith, and clinging without shame to the treasures of our religion. We will be ridiculed. We will be condemned. However, we will plant the seeds that, by the grace of God, will bring about the true reform the Church needs.

Restore traditional Catholicism, restore the Catholic Church!

Traditional Latin Mass on the Isle of Wight

Fr. Tim Finigan offers the Traditional Latin Mass for the Vigil of the Birthday of St. John the Baptist at St. Mary Catholic Church, Ryde.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Roman Juventutem Pilgrimage


Pictures and report of the Roman Juventutem Pilgrimage.

Traditional Latin Mass at St. Peter's Basilica II

Fr. Michael Mary Sim F.SS.R offers the Traditional Latin Mass at the Altar of St. Gregory the Great in St. Peter's Basilica, Rome.


What a stunning picture!

Fr. Sim offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass over the sarcophagus that contains the remains of Pope St. Gregory the Great (d. 604). The mosaic, the work of 18th century artists, Alessandro Cocchi and Vincenzo Castellini, illustrates the miracle of the bleeding linen from St. Peter's tomb. The mosaic is based on a picture painted by Andrea Sacchi in 1625.

See more pictures of this leg of Fr. Sim's Roman pilgrimage here: The Basilica and Catacombs of Saint Sebastian.

Traditional Latin Mass at St. Peter's Basilica

Fr. Michael Mary Sim F.SS.R offers the Traditional Latin Mass at the Altar of St. Michael in St. Peter's Basilica, Rome.


The mosaic above the altar is a faithful rendition of Guido Reni’s painting of St. Michael in S. Maria della Concezione. This duplicate was executed directly from the original, and it is so accurate that it was rumored the duplicate had been rendered in heaven by the original artist. We profoundly hope that someday we will meet Reni in heaven. However, despite the rumor, Bernardino Regoli and Giovanni Francesco Fiani were paid to execute the mosaic in the years 1757 and 1758.

Guido Reni's original St. Michael the Archangel in S. Maria della Concezione, painted in 1636

More pictures of Fr. Sim's Roman pilgrimage can be viewed here: More Pictures from Rome, Visiting Holy Places, Sung Mass at Holy Mary in Transpotina, Passing Shadow Beneath the Roman Sun.