Changes at my alma mater, The Pontifical College Josephinum

My six and a half years at the Pontifical College Josephinum was the best and worst time of my life. Too young, ignorant and naive to know what happened to the Church, but old enough to start realizing something was amiss, my journey toward traditional Catholicism started there. Thus, there’s still a soft spot in my heart for the old alma mater, even though distance, both physical and intellectual/spiritual, has kept us apart over these past fifteen years.

I was in attendance in 1989 when an iconoclastic wind swept through the Josephinum, carrying with it much that was noble and beautiful. The white-washing of the main chapel was the first of many revelations in my seminary career that something was terribly amiss in the Catholic Church. I remember staring at the three arches in what was left of the sanctuary shortly after the wreck-o-vation, and pleading with my friend, “certainly they aren’t going to leave it like that, are they?” Msgr. Fete, the master vandal whose own life soon became the reality for which his chapel was the allegory, when he was done with his destruction, left to us nothing more but a desolate windswept house.

However, a different wind, it would seem, is blowing through the Josephinum. There has been a rather dramatic change in the main chapel, which prefigures, I understand, even greater aesthetic changes. To give you an idea of the scope and nature of the change, here is a picture of St. Turibius chapel, post-Msgr. Fete:


This picture really doesn't do justice to what it was like back in 1990, nor does it do justice to the tiny black cube of an altar. Back then there weren't even statues.

Now, this is the new altar just recently consecrated:



Particularly, notice that in the depiction of the Last Supper, Our Blessed Lord distributes the Eucharist on the tongue of the kneeling St. John:


The "Benedictine" arrangement, a common feature of the "Reform of the Reform" has been embraced:


St. Turibius still appears cold and barren, and those awful unfinished looking arches are still back there looming like a skeleton that is belief without faith. However, the new altar is a mile long leap in the right direction, and bodes well for the future. Further renovations of the chapel are being planned, and hopefully these will include a full restoration of the late Gothic revival style mural, by Gerhard Lamers, that once occupied the wall of the sanctuary. (Of course, that would mean those arches will have to go!!)

While the Josephinum still doesn't offer a regular practicum for the usus antiquior, the Traditional Latin Mass was recently offered there. We should pray that the new rector, Rev. James A. Wehner, will soon comply with the Holy Father’s wishes by ensuring his seminarians are prepared to meet the needs of those Catholics attached to the Traditional Latin Mass.

Please write him to encourage him to do just that, and to thank him for the new altar in the main chapel.

Rev. James A. Wehner
7625 North High Street
Columbus, OH 43235

Also, please offer a rosary for all the seminarians at the PCJ.

TLM in Birmingham, Alabama

Short videos of the Traditional Latin Mass in Birmingham can be viewed at the New Liturgical Movement, here.

Courageously Catholic

Cogitati: The Thirteenth Sunday After Pentecost

Leviticus, chapter fourteen, lays down a complete set of ritual laws for the purification of a person healed of leprosy. When Our Blessed Lord sent the ten lepers away to show themselves to the priests, He was instructing them to fulfill the religious prescriptions of their religion and way of life. On the way, realizing that they had been healed, only one returned to glorify God with a loud voice. This one was a Samaritan. Perhaps a biblical anthropologist or archeologist could answer, but I’m not sure what the Samaritans practiced as purification rituals in regards to leprosy. One thing is for sure, the other nine went and did as their religion required, and, it must be admitted, they obeyed what Our Blessed Lord commanded them to do. However, it was the Samaritan and not the other nine who were commended.

This can be kind of confusing. I even once heard, to my horror, a homilist state that Our Blessed Lord “set them up for failure.” Clearly, though, Our Blessed Lord doesn’t set anyone up for a fall. On the contrary, this episode from the life of the Redeemer demonstrates that Christ was heralding a new rule of faith for the Jewish people and the Gentiles alike.

Much is written about why the Jewish leaders sought and effected the death of Christ. One of the reasons was that Jesus didn’t fit their expectations for the Messiah. When it became obvious that He was not going to re-establish the temporal kingdom of Jerusalem and overthrow the Romans, they turned on Him. This is true, but it is not the whole story. There was another reason. Christ taught a new rule of faith, gave new commandments, and established a new means of bestowing grace. He taught the mystery of the Blessed Trinity, His own divinity, the Last Judgment. He gave the two precepts of love, extended the Ten Commandments to include forbidding of rash anger and harsh words, and He instituted the Mass and the seven sacraments, and He taught us the Our Father. The fulfillment of the law marked in many ways a radical departure. One can understand the hesitancy and even rejection of the Jewish people if Jesus were an ordinary man. However, Christ was no ordinary man, and the Jewish leaders knew it.

Christ proved His divine mission and the truth of His doctrine by many miracles, by His knowledge of all things, and by the holiness of His life. Christ referred to His miracles when He said, “though you will not believe Me, believe the works” (Jn. 10. 38). Nicodemus was convinced of the divine mission of Christ when he said, “no man can do these signs which thou dost, unless God be with Him” (Jn 3. 2). “He hath done all things well” (Mk. 7. 37). The raising of Lazarus was the sign that pushed the Jewish authorities over the edge. At that point there was no mistaking that He was the Messiah. If Jesus were an ordinary man, then why would the Jewish authorities be so bent on His public humiliation and destruction? If He were an ordinary man, they would have handled Him in the same way they handled all the pretenders who came before. However, Jesus was no pretender. No, Jesus’ miracles, His life, His holiness, His very presence demonstrated to them that He was indeed the Messiah. This Messiah was not what the Jewish leaders wanted. This Messiah called the Jewish authorities hypocrites and whitened sepulchres (Matt. 23. 27), and children of the devil (Jn. 8. 44). Jesus was the Messiah, and He was going to end the established order these carnal men so loved. This Messiah was turning their religion and, therefore, their power over the people, upside-down.

The same was true for the lepers. All ten lepers knew that Jesus was the Messiah. All ten appealed to Him because they knew Jesus could heal them. However, all but one immediately, after having been healed, fell back into the familiar habits of their religious and cultural ways. It was not the priests of the old law who healed them, but Jesus the Messiah. Only the Samaritan acknowledged that everything had changed with the advent of the Jewish Messiah.

“If then any be in Christ a new creature, the old things are passed away, behold all things are made new” (2 Cor. 5. 17).

What this episode recorded by St. Luke demonstrates is an encounter with the Redeemer, and the response this encounter elicits. The response of the Samaritan was to return and give glory to God, to fall at the feet of the Redeemer. The response of the other nine was to go back to their way of life, to keep grasping onto the familiar. This is the encounter we all experience, upon innumerable occasions, in our faith lives. We pray for an increase of faith, hope and charity, the bedrock theological virtues of our religion, but at the same time we are confronted with a fundamental choice in how to respond to the gifts that God will not fail to give. Do we return glorifying God and fall at the feet of the redeemer, or do we turn back to the familiar?

The other day I heard that old canard: “Catholics think they can do anything they want, then go to Confession and that makes everything alright again.” First of all, this is a myth. Bad Catholics, in my experience, seldom go to Mass and never go to Confession, and mainstream Catholics rarely go to Confession, anyway. Those who spend their Friday and Saturday nights in drinking and fornication aren’t in the confessional on Saturday morning or at Mass on Sunday morning. They are at home sleeping it off. For the most part, this canard is nothing more than another facet that has evolved from the Black Legend, a collection of lies fabricated out of hatred for Catholics and the Catholic Church.

But there is a sliver of truth in the lie. Too many Catholics hide their Catholicism while at work or with friends. There were people that I had known for years who turned out to be Catholic without me ever having known it. The revelation of their Catholicism came as an utter and complete shock, especially since it isn't too difficult to figure out that I'm Catholic. These Catholics confuse me. What is the point in calling oneself Catholic if one does nothing Catholic at all, save show up in shorts and tee-shirts at a Catholic Mass on Sundays or a couple of holidays a year? They seem to me to be like the nine lepers. After receiving the healing grace of the Eucharist, they immediately go back to their former way of life, back to the social mores and norms of the City of Man.

However, to some degree we are all guilty of this. It is our duty to strive for perfection, to be perfect, as Our Heavenly Father is perfect. Such a task isn’t accomplished by commencing arguments with our spouses on the way home from Mass, or yelling at the children, losing our patience with our neighbors, using fowl language at work or home, impatience with an altar boy who makes an honest mistake, etc., etc. We play the hypocrite and the ingrate whenever we fail to make ourselves better people. Giving glory to God and falling at the feet of the Redeemer includes waging the spiritual combat, overcoming of our sins, vices, and weaknesses with God’s help. Saying our prayers, going to Confession and Mass bear fruit for us when we strive to cooperate with the graces they bestow. Constant effort is required to effect continual conversion. We have to resist our own propensity to carnal desires. Every day we have to pray for the graces to struggle against those particular vices that separate us from God and make us horrible examples for our neighbors. Highly recommended is the Spiritual Combat by Dom Lorenzo Scupoli. St. Francis de Sales read this book every day, and its contents can be especially fruitful for us in our modern struggles.

We are called to lives of prayer. Absolutely essential and necessary is a desire to pray always. An excellent way to begin the day when first waking up is to sincerely pray with the psalmist, “O God, come to my assistance; O Lord, make haste to help me.” Setting aside time in the morning for prayer and mediation, adopting one or two or three devotions that particularly suit one’s personality and spiritual needs, praying the missal and reading the epistle and Gospel for the day’s Mass, and frequent examinations of conscience are all laudable practices. However, the most fruitful practice for the family that renders glory to God is praying as a family. Especially important is grace before and after meals, and, of course, the family rosary. There is nothing more pleasing to Our Blessed Lord in our homes than the family praying the rosary together. Finally we should keep an image of Our Crucified Lord and the Blessed Virgin Mary near us at all times, even at work.

People will know that you are Catholic when you make an attempt to live out your Catholicism to the full. Not everyone will like you for it. In fact, many may even despise you for it. However, it is no secret for those on fire with faith, hope and charity that our Catholicism, especially traditional Catholicism, brings with it an immeasurable joy and peace, no matter our misfortunes, calumnies, or falls due to personal weaknesses. Our religion brings us happiness, even when we mess up. This is hard for the worldlings to understand, as for them happiness is something they know as fleeting carnal pleasures for now, and their fantasy dream of the new world order in the future. The nature of evil is emptiness, and those who are empty can not fathom the fullness that comes from faith, hope and charity.

But, so be it, if that must be for now. As for us, we will give glory to the Redeemer, by courageously living out the fullness of our Catholic faith.

The passing of Ted Kennedy: the end of an era, or the beginning of a new?

Commenting on the death of Ted Kennedy is like shouting into a hurricane, one's voice is immediately lost in the din. But it seems that a lot of people are missing the point in regards to the death Sen. Ted Kennedy. Conservative Catholics are showing their annoyance at all the lauds being heaped upon the Lion of the Senate, and many are even calling that he be denied a Catholic funeral. Those heaping lauds are busy using those lauds to promote their agendas. What is being missed is the fact that his death, no matter what one's thoughts about Ted Kennedy might be, marks the end of a particularly sad era of American Catholic history.

For six decades the Catholic Church in the United States has been held in a strangle hold by the Kennedy clan, but whatever the nature of that unholy alliance, which put them in such a position of power, it eventually tore that family apart, and the Church still stands despite their sacrifice. The damage done by these people to the Church in the United States was considerable, but not irreparable. Even though cafeteria Catholicism was practically invented by the most popular President and Catholic ever, popularity and public opinion could not sway the Catholic Church to disavow her staunch pro-life stance, even though the Church's leadership seemed to be situated squarely in the deep pockets of the Kennedy family. Instead of forcing the Church to accept abortion, homosexuality and contraception, the Kennedys came up against a brick wall. While they led many astray, they failed to tear down the edifice. What’s more with the overturning of Joe Kennedy’s annulment, the obvious ineptitude of Caroline Kennedy, and now that the Lion of the Senate has gone to his eternal reward, may God have mercy on his soul, the days of the religio-politic maneuverings of the Kennedys has come to end. It appears that whatever part they played in the destructive changes to the Church in the pre- and post-Vatican II years, the curtain has closed on their role in the drama.

Perhaps we can now turn a corner? Or maybe the Kennedys have simply fulfilled their purpose, and new power brokers have moved in to take their place?

One thing is for certain, though. All religious and political puppets eventually outlive their usefulness. The Kennedys have gone the way of Bernardin, and are now no more.

Please offer a rosary for the soul of Sen. Ted Kennedy and his grieving family.

Mass at St Erik’s Cathedral in Stockholm

From Rorate Coeli.

Browser woes

It seems that I'm having nothing but problems in Firefox after the last couple of updates.

Christ the King Traditional Latin Mass Parish, Sarasota, Florida

Another chuckle

From Fr. Z:

The Holy Father issued Summorum Pontificum.

du-dum!

Card. Castrillon of the PCED offered the SSPX a list of conditions.

Du-Dum!

The Holy Father lifted the excommunications.

DU-DUM!

The PCED has been placed under the CDF.

DU-DUM!!

... and next????

Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta chairman of the SSPX commission.

? Umm... yawn?

Must have been a slow news week.

(Posting as I'm toasting, of course.)

A chuckle

From CNA:

The Press Office of the Holy See today denied reports in the Italian press that Pope Benedict is poised to make changes to enhance the sacredness of the liturgy...

Is it just me, or could they have worded that better?

Allow me to beat some of my friends to the punch: "Business as usual?"

St. Louis, Glory of France

St. Louis had a pleasant and kind personality, was a loving husband and father of eleven children; he was a strict ascetic, given to much fasting and mortification, and a zeal for piety and the sacraments. Here was a man who could afford himself all the finest, but opted for the worship of God, piety, and family. He knew more than the value of things; he understood their purpose. A picture of the Christian gentleman, the glory of the laity, skilled in his profession, brave in battle, a man of action, just in politics, gracious and polished at feasts, a man of prayer and self-denial. There is much to be learned here.

Cogitati: Twelfth Sunday After Pentecost

The whole story of the Redemption is symbolically represented by the ceremonies of the Mass. The prayers at the foot of the altar are emblematic of the 4000 years during which man was distanced from God and searching for redemption. The nine lines of the Kyrie and the Gloria represent the songs of praise sung by the nine choirs of angels at Bethlehem. The Orationes represent the youth of Our Blessed Lord, which was passed in humble prayer and seclusion. The Epistle, the crossing of the missal, the Gospel and the Creed symbolize the ministry of Christ and the announcement of the Gospel to the Jewish people. The Offertory is emblematic of Christ’s preparation for the Sacrifice of Calvary, and the Sanctus, His entrance into Jerusalem. The prayers for the living remind us of Christ’s prayer for the Church before the Last Supper, and the five crosses that the priests signs over the oblation represent the five times that Our Blessed Lord was mocked before Annas, Caiphas, Pilate and twice before Herod. The elevation of both species reminds us of His being lifted up upon the Cross. Five more crosses signed by the priest now remind us of Our Blessed Lord’s five most sacred wounds. The breaking of the consecrated Host symbolizes Our Blessed Lord’s death, and the Agnus Dei and the priest striking his breast three times reminds us of the Roman soldiers who amazed at the convulsions of nature struck their breasts in fear. The Communion should bring our minds to the burial of Christ, and at the Dominus vobiscum we should be reminded of Our Blessed Lord’s glorious resurrection and appearance to His apostles and disciples. The Ite, missa est is symbolic of his His Ascension when Christ sent His apostles forth to evangelize the world. The Last Gospel represents the propagation of the Gospel after Pentecost. Before us the entire life of Christ is symbolically presented.

Bearing the story of our redemption in mind, we turn to the Gospel story of the Good Samaritan.

A lawyer stood up to tempt the Lord with the question, “what must I do to possess eternal life?” It is insinuated from the passage that the lawyer already knew full well what the answer would be. Our Blessed Lord, indeed, invites him to give answer to his own question, which he does. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind: and thy neighbor as thyself.” The real point of the lawyers tempting, however, was the question: “And who is my neighbor?”

It appears this was a celebrated controversy among the doctors of the law; some probably affirming, that the Jews only were so; while others maintained that their friends alone were their neighbors. Our Blessed Lord’s answer was meant to categorize Him, to place Him in a theological camp. However, Our Blessed Lord can not be bottled up so easily. With this in mind, we approach the story of the Good Samaritan. Jesus couldn’t be pigeon holed into one or another camp, because He was announcing a completely new way that supersedes all that came before.

On the surface, the story demonstrates that anyone who has need of our assistance is our neighbor, and at the same time it demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Levite and the priest. The Jewish priests were scrupulously observant in all the externals of their religion, but neglected mercy, piety and the duties incumbent due to the spirit of their religion. St. Paul reminds us today, “not in the letter but in the spirit, for the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth.” Religious duties can not be reduced to outward practice alone. Our outward practices must overflow from a sincere piety.

However, there is a deeper meaning to the story of the Good Samaritan—a meaning that answers the tempting question of the lawyer by revealing a new way that transcended the squabbling of the lawyers and Pharisees. The great Fathers of the Church, Origen, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine all explained this deeper symbolic meaning. The man that fell among robbers represents Adam and his posterity. Jerusalem represents peace and innocence, and Jericho a place of trouble and sin. The robbers represent the devil and his demons, which stripped Adam of his supernatural gifts, and wounded him in his natural faculties. The priest and Levite represent the old law. The Samaritan represents Christ, and his beast, Christ’s humanity. The inn means the Church, the wine, the blood of Christ, and oil, his mercy. The innkeeper signifies St. Peter and his successors, the bishops and priests of the Church.

Fallen humanity is unaided by the old law, but is cared for only by Our Blessed Lord, who by taking on human flesh, carried the weight of man’s sin to and on Calvary. The Church has displaced the former Temple worship as the place on earth that still cares for recovering man. Already redeemed by Christ’s passion and suffering, the Church continues to help man along the road of salvation by the agency of the sacraments, especially the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that re-presents the Sacrifice of Calvary in an unbloody manner. Church overflows by virtue of the sacraments with God’s mercy, governed by a special charism possessed by the pope and all the bishops. The pope and the bishops are given charge to continue caring for man, even though redeemed, still in need of help due to man’s wounded nature.

Our Blessed Lord in the process of saving humanity brings humanity to His Church, the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church alone gives salvation, because Christ so willed it to be so. The Catholic Church alone possesses those means which lead to salvation, such as the doctrine of Christ, the means of salvation appointed by Christ, the sacraments, and the teachers and guides of the Church who were established by Christ. The parable of the Good Samaritan teaches us that the very nature of salvation includes an important role for the Church. In fact, every man is bound to become a member of the Catholic Church. To do otherwise would be akin to the man who fell among robbers refusing a place in the inn. If he had done so, he would have undone all the care the Good Samaritan had shown him, and would have died in the wayside. So too the sinner who accepts Calvary, but rejects the Church. So much so, that whoever through his own fault remains outside of the Church will not be saved, but instead will perish on the roadside, outside the inn.

In today’s collect, we pray the Lord enable us to “run without stumbling towards the attainment” of His promises. In the introit we beseech God to come to our assistance, to make haste to help us. “O Lord, the God of my salvation, I have cried in the day and in the night before Thee.” We all long for the salvation that has been offered to us, but how many reject the saving ointments that Our Blessed Lord offers us in the Catholic Church.

However, we now live in an age that mocks Christ’s Church, disparages of her teachings, ridicules her saints, and subtly persecutes her children. How often do we hear the new, and ridiculous, adage, “love God, hate religion”? One who would say this may have Our Blessed Lord’s Name on their lips, but they are not of His fold. “Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 7. 21). To reject right religion, to reject, specifically, the Catholic Church, is to reject the salvation Christ has won for us.

The evolution of this attitude is rooted in error and heresy. Wherever error has flourished, alongside it has flourished a hatred for the Church. Ever since the Protestant revolt of the 16th century, man has more and more rejected the Catholic Church, and in doing so, society has suffered more and more by degrees. The Church is an essential factor in promoting the welfare of the State and society in general. The Church has always taught obedience to authority, prevented many crimes, incited men to noble endeavors, and united nations. The Church has always rendered invaluable service to society by restraining men from crime by her teachings, reconciling enemies, promoting works of mercy and neighborly care, founding institutions for orphans, the sick, the blind, the deaf. Prior to the insanity of the Protestant revolt, all good statesmen supported the Church because the Church ensured a merciful and right order to society and concord between nations. However, since the Protestant revolt, the world began a decline into violence and madness, culminating in the bloodiest, most war torn century in history. The horrors of genocide and mass annihilation is the defining characteristics, not of some savage age long past, put of our most recent history, the twentieth century. Never before has man been so inhumane to man than our generation and the generations of our fathers and grandfathers.

The liberation of man from the Catholic Church has enslaved man. The Protestant revolt gave way to rationalism. Once one freed himself from the “fetters” of the Church, it was a small step to free himself from the “fetters” of religion all together. Rationalism gave way to atheistic humanism, in which man was exalted without reference to God, and man exonerated himself from original sin. But the stain remained and could not be ignored. So, instead of placing the blame for the stain on man’s sin, the blame was placed on certain segments of society, people with disabilities and certain races or economic classes. Thus was born eugenics and the horrors of Nazism and Stalinism. Today, this humanism is still thriving, bathed in the blood of millions of murdered, unborn babies, and it now threatens to once again spread it’s dark wings over infants, the aged, and those who suffer mental or physical handicaps. When Stalin and Hitler died, the humanism that gave birth to them lived on, and the horrors of the coming storm will make its younger children seem insignificant. Modern generations have refused to enter the inn; they have rejected the mercy of the Good Shepherd, and as a result what is left of Western civilization is languishing on the roadside. The robbers are approaching, bent on finishing what they started.

However, no matter the dark of night, God does not abandon His children. Even in this day of doctrinal and liturgical confusion, when the Devil has wrecked such damage within the very confines of Christ’s Church, there are still valid sacraments, there is still right teaching, and there are still good pastors left to us. There is a tendency toward pessimism, but we must remain optimistic. We have no choice, for we are children of the Promise. The darkness wrought by the Protestant revolt, for example, gave way to the Tridentine Reformation with all of its saintly heroes, such as Ignatius of Loyola and Philip Neri. There is much for us to learn from the men and women of that time.

On such man was St. John Eudes whose feast we celebrated on Wednesday. St. John Eudes promoted the fervent devotion to the Hearts of Jesus and Mary, and on Saturday we celebrated the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. One can never say too much about the very holy and venerable devotion to the Hearts of Jesus and Mary. In this devotion we are invited to practice humility, meekness and piety, and charity, and we enter into an ever deeper understanding of the work of our redemption wrought in the union of these two Hearts.

In the seventeenth century St. John Eudes organized the scriptural, theological, patristic, and liturgical sources relating to the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary and popularize them with the approbation of the Church. At the time, Europe was being ravished by the Protestant revolt, and error and heresy had become commonplace. God provides for His Church by His saints. St. John Eudes gave the Church a spiritual treasure by promoting and clarifying this devotion, and thus provided an important defense against heresy. While learning and sound preaching are necessary to combat confusion and heresy, they are not enough. Even more, prayer, devotion, and piety is required. Ever a reformer, St. John Eudes was convinced that by a devotion to the Hearts of Jesus and Mary great things could happen. The Sacred Heart of Jesus is the source of holiness. The Immaculate Heart of Mary is the model of the Catholic life.

The power of this devotion is in its Scriptural foundation.

In St. Matthew’s Gospel we read Our Blessed Lord’s words, “learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart.” Our Lord invites us to emulate the humility and meekness of His human heart. What ineffable humility is it that God the Son should hide His splendor and lower Himself to the condition of men? What ineffable meekness that the God-Man should live in obscurity for 30 years, and that His public ministry should require such charity in the healing of believers and nonbelievers alike, the gracious and the ingrates alike. What humility and meekness Our Blessed Lord had to suffer such ignoble and bitter agonies and a death on the Cross?

We are called to the same humility. In regards to humility, St. Vincent de Paul wrote:

We ought always to consider others as our superiors, and to yield to them, even though they be our inferiors, by offering them every kind of respect and service. Oh, what a beautiful thing it would be, if it should please God to confirm us well in such a practice.

We are called to the same meekness. Concerning meekness, St. Francis de Sales wrote:

Resist your impatience faithfully, practicing, not only with reason, but even against reason, holy courtesy and sweetness to all, but especially to those who weary you most.

Both humility and meekness are essential elements of charity, and play crucial roles in the manner we live out our Catholic religion among our fellow man. Those who forget humility and meekness in their dealings with others sorely lack charity.

Twice St. Luke refers to the Blessed Virgin’s Immaculate Heart. After relating the nativity narrative of Our Blessed Lord, St. Luke relates to us that “Mary kept all these words, pondering them in her heart” (Lk. 2. 19). Likewise, after telling of the finding of the Child Jesus in the Temple, St. Luke relates to us that “His mother kept all these words in her heart” (Lk. 2. 51). Mary is the consummate disciple, keeping and pondering, meditating and contemplating upon the great mystery of our salvation. In the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mary is referred to as Vas insigne devotionis, Singular vessel of devotion, Vas spirituale, Spiritual vessel, Domus aurea, House of gold, and Fæderis arca, Ark of the covenant. All of these titles make reference to Mary bearing God in her womb. She is Theotokos, God-bearer. However, they also refer to the fact that she keeps all the mysteries of salvation in her heart.

We are called to emulate the Blessed Virgin’s Heart by lives of fervent prayer. More specifically, we are called by this consideration of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to engage in prayer that accustoms the soul to being in the presence of God. Prayer, be it vocal, meditative or contemplative must be intimate and simple. This is accomplished by always placing ourselves in the presence of the Almighty, and by considering His greatness and our lowliness. We must make the prayer of Mary our own: “My soul doth magnify the Lord; and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour; because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid” (Lk. 1. 46, 47).

“But one of the soldiers with a spear opened his side, and immediately there came out blood and water” (Jn. 19. 34). St. John tells us in his Gospel that Mary, the Mother of Jesus, at the foot of the cross witnessed the opening of the Savior’s Heart. From that Heart there flowed not just blood and water symbolizing the sacraments of the Church, but the blood and water that are the affect and origin of the sacraments. As Our Blessed Lord’s heart was opened, and out flowed the instruments of our redemption, Mary’s heart was pierced as well, fulfilling the prophesy of Simeon in St. Luke’s Gospel: “And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed.”

In this we apprehend the mystical union of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary in the work of our redemption. This union was begun when Mary gave her blessed fiat, and she conceived of the Holy Ghost. The Heart of Jesus was conceived there, just below the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The work of our redemption is consummated when both of these Hearts, Mary’s now below Jesus’, are immolated together on Calvary hill. At the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass we unite our prayers to that of the priest’s prayers by meditating upon this immolation of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

This devotion provides a sure remedy in these times, for in troubling times it is best to always remember that true reformation begins with a sincere reformation of one’s own heart.

“A good man bringeth forth good things from the good treasure of his heart.”

Mass of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

From the Transalpine Redemptorists, Mass of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 2009.

Bartolucci's bombshell interview

This is a must read: A bombshell of an interview. Mons. Domenico Bartolucci on the liturgical reforms and the reform of the reform.

Here's a choice offering:

On the deformers of the Roman Rite: "I beg your pardon, but the reform was done by arid people, arid, arid, I repeat it. And I knew them."

On the deformation of the liturgy: "It became a kind of fashion. Everybody talked about it, everybody 'was renewing', everybody was trying to be like popes (tutti pontificavano) in the wake of sentimentalism, of eagerness to reform. And the voices that raised themselves to defend the two thousand year old Tradition of the Church, were cleverly hushed. There was the invention of a kind of 'people’s liturgy'..."

Concerning the Traditional Latin Mass: "Look here, to defend the old rite is not the same as being a worshipper of ancient times; it is to be 'eternal'. You see, when one gives the traditional mass names like 'Mass of Saint Pius V' or 'Tridentine' one is wrong, it makes it seem as if it is a mass belonging to a certain epoch. It is our Mass, the Roman universal Mass, valid everywhere and in all times, a single language spoken from the Oceania to the Arctic’s."

On the "reform of the reform": "The question is rather complicated. That the new rite had deficiencies is by now becoming evident for everybody, and the Pope has many times said and written that we must 'keep what is ancient' (guardare all'antico). However we must beware of the temptations of introducing hybrid measures. The liturgy with a big 'L' is the one that comes to us from centuries back, it is the reference, it is not the debased liturgy which holds so many compromises 'that make God sad and the enemy happy'... All this only to say that when one distances oneself from the liturgical context those voids become difficult to fill and you can be sure they are noticed! In front of our liturgy of many centuries we should contemplate it and venerate it and remember that in our mania for 'improvements', we only risk doing great damage."

On the state of sacred music: "I cannot deny that there some signs of restoration, but I still can see that there persists a certain blindness, almost a complacency for all that is vulgar, coarse, in bad taste and also doctrinally temerarious. Most important, do not ask me, please, to make a judgement on the guitar-players and on the tarantellas which are sung during the Offertory.….The liturgical problem is serious, do not listen to the voices of those persons who do not love the Church and who oppose the Pope and if you want to cure the sick then remember that the merciful doctor makes the wound purulent (fa la piaga purulenta)."

Msgr. Bartolucci's interview is intriguing, especially in relation to the points brought up in my responses on this post: Who's misinterpreting the statistics? The statement was made that we can not expect a wholesale return to the Immortal Mass.

My response was: why not? We already went through a radical liturgical U-turn with the introduction of the commitee created novus ordo in 1969-70. Then we rejected a Mass that went back to Pope St. Gregory the Great and was codified just after the Council of Trent in the 17th century. If the Church could allow that, then there's really no reason why we can't fathom making another liturgical U-turn and rejecting the commitee creation that is only 40 years old.

Msgr. Bartolucci seems to agree. His wise caution in regards to the "reform of the reform" is a breath of fresh air. It has always been the suspicion of many traditional Catholics that the "reform of the reform" was just more of the same modernism that brought us the novus ordo in the first place. This isn't to say that the "reform of the reform" is a bad thing, properly understood and utalized. As a means to ease Catholics toward an eventual return to the Immortal Mass, the "reform of the reform" is doing a great service to the Church. However, if it is merely more "improvements", there is a very real danger of repeating the mistake of 1970 by increasing confusion. The "reform of the reform" then becomes nothing more than just one more option out of many. In such a relativistic world, no liturgical "style" is wrong, but then no liturgy is the right one, either.

As Msgr. Bartolucci says: "The liturgy with a big 'L' is the one that comes to us from centuries back, it is the reference, it is not the debased liturgy which holds so many compromises 'that make God sad and the enemy happy'."

Who's misinterpreting the statistics?

It is often said that traditional Catholics misinterpret the statistics, blaming the priest shortage, demise of religious orders and poor Mass attendance on the post-VCII “reforms”. The real culprit, it is often argued, isn’t the post-VCII reforms, but the modern world that is drawing Catholics away from the Church despite the noble efforts of the Church to modernize. While the traditional Catholic critique blames the reforms, the counter argument points to the crisis in the Church as a “sign of the times”, a reasonable, understandable occurrence given the current state of modern society.

This false line of reasoning is common in the modern Church. In 2002 conservative Catholic commentators and apologists, bishops and a fair number of Catholics in the pews used a similar “sign of the times” argument to explain away the priest-sex-abuse scandal. This familiar argument starts with a bemoaning of the demise of sexual mores in our modern society, and then quickly moves to pointing out that in comparison a very small percentage of Catholic priests were indulging in illicit and illegal sexual activities in comparison to the general public. The argument usually ended with accusing the media of sensationalizing a relatively minor problem, and by pointing child molestation and abuse in different institutions, such as the public school system, or even other religions.

This argument with all of its puerile equivocations and excuse making simply ignores the problem and shifts responsibility from those responsible to some amorphous societal disease. It attempts to exonerate the responsible organs of the Church, namely priests, bishops, seminary faculty and staff, and vocation directors. I’m sickened to hear Catholics lamenting multi-million dollar law suits and even going so far as to accuse victims of child sexual abuse of attacking the Church. Bad people in the Church, bad people who are priests, bishops, seminary staff and faculty, and vocations directors did very bad things, victimized thousands, and it had nothing to do with “society.” It had everything to do with mentally and morally sick men and their mentally and morally sick ideologies.

In the same way the shifting of the blame for the disastrous lack of vocations to the priesthood and religious life from the responsible organs of the Church to some amorphous societal disease is nothing more than puerile equivocation and excuse making. Human society has always been morally sick and disease ridden, as St. Augustine so well pointed out in his City of God. Historically the Church has never suffered due to the sickness of society, but she only suffers when there is dissent and corruption in her own ranks, most notably in her magisterial organ.

The history of the Church bears this out. The Church grew and prospered despite the fact that the first Christians were placed by God in the middle of a society dominated by a pagan empire, among licentious and perverse pagan religions, a system of thought opposed to the Incarnation, mass public immorality at the coliseums and theaters, and child abuse, abortion and infanticide. Within the span of 350 years the Christian Church had so transformed this society that Christianity displaced paganism and became the predominate religion of the empire. The Church formed the highly civilized society of the medieval period, which ended only when the influence of the Church was severely limited by her enemies. Only when the Church was infested by dissent and corruption has there been internal decay and theological and liturgical confusion, such as during the Arian heresy and the time of the Great Western Schism. From the Protestant revolt, down to our own times public morality has steadily declined as society moved further away from the Catholic Church. However, despite the rebellions of godless men and social tragedies, the Church has always rebounded with the resurgence of devotion and fervent vitality. One such era was that of Pope Gregory the Great and his liturgical reforms, and the period after the crumbling of the Roman Empire when the monks of the Catholic Church preserved the intellectual wealth of the classical world. Another was the Clunaic reform of the 10th and 11th centuries, and the Tridentine Reformation in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries after the Protestant revolt. Amongst the ravages of rationalism and the emergence of a brutal humanism that ultimately led to Hitler and Stalin, the Church emerged as a rock of stability in the years following the first Vatican Council. Was there ever a time when the Church could boast such hero popes as Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, Benedict the XV, Pius XII? This, despite a world veering out of control into the most bloody century of human history.

What are we then to make of the current crisis in the Church? Can we honestly point the finger to some boogieman we call “society”? Can such an argument be taken seriously given what we know about the Church’s history? There’s no way that a negative 1.3% growth rate in the American priesthood can be blamed on a sudden shift in social mores that occurred in the late 60s and early 70s. There’s no doubt that there was social pressure acting against the Church, as there always has been. Never has the Church been without her enemies. However, it is only when her members, specifically her bishops and priests, give up the battle and adopt the wayward ways of the City of Man that the Church suffers decay and corruption within. The post-VC II reforms amount to just that, and this is the only reasonable conclusion for one who is honest.

The fact that traditional Catholics are spot on in blaming the crisis in the Church on the post-Vatican II reforms are articles such as this: New Nuns and Priests Seen Opting for Tradition. Wherever there is tradition and a strong Catholic identity, there’s an abundance of vocations. Wherever there is a rejection of the post-VC II mentality, there’s an abundance of vocations. The New York Times, and thankfully a growing number of Catholics, are no longer ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the living room.

There is now a new and legitimate reform beginning in the ashes of the illegitimate post-VCII reform. The new reform is much more akin to the Tridentine Reform of the 16th century, and it is gaining momentum. Traditional Catholic communities are popping up everywhere. In Cleveland, Ohio there will soon be four different Traditional Latin Masses offered on Sundays (five if you include Akron), each offered by diocesan priests. This is just one city in the United States. Traditional Catholics have an abundance of priestly and religious vocations. In just one generation the Traditional Latin Mass Community in Fort Wayne, Indiana has had three vocations, their current chaplain being one of them. Only one year after the St. Mother Theodore Geurin Traditional Latin Mass Community was established in South Bend, Indiana there are now two prospective priestly vocations. The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter has enjoyed an incredible 86.25% annual growth rate in its first twenty years of existence. If the decline of mainstream Catholicism continues apace with the growth of traditional Catholic vocations and Traditional Latin Mass Communities, it will be the Extraordinary Form, and not the Ordinary Form, we will see offered in the average Catholic parish. At this pace in just twenty years the sickly novus ordo Mass will be all but gone except in a few marginalized corners of the Church.

If the only statistics we were looking at were the declining vocations and Mass attendance, and the mass exodus of "fallen-away" Catholics plaguing the mainstream Church, there might be some teeth in the argument against the traditional Catholic critique. However, comparing these dismal numbers to the numbers that indicate the staggering growth of traditional Catholicism, we are forced to admit that the emperor is, indeed, naked.

Caritas in Veritate revisted

Not that long ago I commented on the Holy Father’s new encyclical, Caritas in Veritate. I stated that after having read it four times that I was giving up finding anything of relevant value in it. Simply speaking, despite a promising title, it was a tremendous waste of time. Like all 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council, this new document merely restated what has been said better elsewhere, presented nothing new, and was vague enough on certain important issues to cause a fair amount of confusion.

Now that the media frenzy over the “true world political authority” comment has died down, and conservative spin masters have for the most part smugly stowed the controversy into the “Settled” draws of their filing cabinets, it might be good to revisit this failure of a papal document. Thomas Woods has done just that here. It is worth a read through.

Thomas Woods wrote:

Caritas in Veritate strikes me as at best a relatively unremarkable restatement of some familiar themes from previous social encyclicals. At worst, it is bewilderingly naïve, and its policy recommendations, while attracting no one to the Church, are certain to repel.

Woods’ critique points out some new insights into this document, particularly how Pope Benedict XVI repeats the mistake of Pope Paul VI’s Populorum Progressio in regards to aid to developing nations. Woods' analysis demonstrates that, concerning certain core issues, Pope Benedict XVI is still a child of his age, still sold on the same old tired social progressivist theories that so tarnished the post-WWII generation. These theories have not been met with success, but men of Pope Benedict’s age and ilk stubbornly cling to them either out of ignorance or naiveté, or perhaps a long life of social conditioning.

All this goes to remind us that we are still dealing with a generation of prelates who, in the face of the 20 million-person holocaust in Soviet Russia refused to even mention Communism at the Second Vatican Council. For a Council that’s sole objective was to enter into "dialogue" with the modern world, ignoring the most violent and oppressive aspect of the modern world leaves one bewildered, once, of course, one realizes that this whole generation of prelates was more concerned with appeasement and compromise than the truth. It was a lack of trust in that truth, and too much trust in all the methodologies of the modern, secular world, that today seems to blind them to the current crisis in both the Church and the geo-political theater.

Economic and modern social theory replaced the sound principles of the Gospel because churchmen thought that in doing so they would gain the trust and respect of the modern world. That elusive goal was never reached. In the wake of 40 years of appeasement to the modern world, the modern world has never detested the Church more, and based on the actions of these churchmen, their disdain is understandable.

Cardinal Ratzinger once wrote about a false optimism he detected in the Dutch Church, wherein every one was all smiles while people disappeared from the pews, from religious life, and from the priesthood. The Dutch Church was crumbling, but the priests and bishops were smiling and hailing a new, robust age for the Church. It would seem that Pope Benedict clearly identified the problem then, but lost sight of it now. Caritas in Veritate contains much of the same type of false optimism. Pope Benedict XVI writes about former papal documents and rehashes flawed human solutions of the past, meanwhile a new class of power brokers are dangerously close to crushing what little remains of our Western heritage, ushering in a new tyranny that will make Stalinism seem like pacifism. The last great superpower is now on the verge of decline and fall, and the pope offered nothing to fill the coming vacuum, leaving the field to the tyrants.

While the pope has, to some degree, a pulse on the Church's inner decay, he seems oblivious to the social disaster that is in many ways already upon us. While he seems to have a well thought out plan for the restoration of the sacred within the Church, he, like most liberals before him, seems dependant on the community of man, even the United Nations (!), to solve our modern social ills. One thing we know for sure: instead of a call for the universal recognition of the social Kingship of Christ, he called for a world political authority. This only gives teeth to a recent criticism that Pope Benedict XVI is a "perfect liberal".

If anything this encyclical may demonstrate that when it comes to geo-political matters and the economy the Holy Father still does not trust the sound principles of the Gospel, but looks in vain for respect by adopting the systems of men. Unlike the usus antiquior, the systems of men don’t age very well, and they never reveal the splendor of truth. Instead of addressing the dire circumstances that the modern Catholic finds himself, the Holy Father reiterates dependence on failed human ingenuity. At a time when he could have proclaimed the message of the Gospel and could have been a prophetic voice in the cacophony, Pope Benedict XVI chose to become irrelevant.

We have seen great things from Papa Ratzinger, and I suspect that we will see more great things before his end. Yet it must be admitted there is a certain hesitancy, born I believe from the conditioning of his time and place, that sets him at odds with his own principles.

Extremely Important New York Times Article: Opting for Tradition

Article found here. Here is a link to the actual study.

My commentary will be forthcoming.

For now it's extremely important that you get this article out there in as many places as possible. Print it out and send it to your pastor, bishop, family members and friends. Send it to internet bloggers, post it on your Facebook and MySpace page.



New Nuns and Priests Seen Opting for Tradition



A new study of Roman Catholic nuns and priests in the United States shows that an aging, predominantly white generation is being succeeded by a smaller group of more racially and ethnically diverse recruits who are attracted to the religious orders that practice traditional prayer rituals and wear habits.
Skip to next paragraph

The study found that the graying of American nuns and priests was even more pronounced than many Catholics had realized. Ninety-one percent of nuns and 75 percent of priests are 60 or older, and most of the rest are at least 50.

They are the generation defined by the Second Vatican Council, of the 1960s, which modernized the church and many of its religious orders. Many nuns gave up their habits, moved out of convents, earned higher educational degrees and went to work in the professions and in community service. The study confirms what has long been suspected: that these more modern religious orders are attracting the fewest new members.

The study was already well under way when the Vatican announced this year that it was conducting two investigations of American nuns. One, taking up many of the same questions as the new report, is an “apostolic visitation” of all women’s religious orders in the United States. The other is a doctrinal investigation of the umbrella group that represents a majority of American nuns, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.

The new study, being released on Tuesday, was conducted by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University, for the National Religious Vocation Conference, which is looking for ways for the church to attract and retain new nuns and priests. It was financed by an anonymous donor.

“We’ve heard anecdotally that the youngest people coming to religious life are distinctive, and they really are,” said Sister Mary Bendyna, executive director of the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate. “They’re more attracted to a traditional style of religious life, where there is community living, common prayer, having Mass together, praying the Liturgy of the Hours together. They are much more likely to say fidelity to the church is important to them. And they really are looking for communities where members wear habits.”

Of the new priests and nuns who recently joined religious orders, two-thirds chose orders that wear a habit all the time or regularly during prayer or ministry, the study found.

The study also showed that whites account for 94 percent of current nuns and priests but only 58 percent of those in the process of joining orders.

Asians and Pacific Islanders are disproportionately represented among the newcomers, accounting for 14 percent, far above their 3 percent share of the Catholic population in the United States, Sister Bendyna said.

Hispanics are 21 percent of the newcomers, compared with only 3 percent of the current priests and nuns.

Of women who recently entered religious orders, the average age is 32; for men, it is 30. But retaining new recruits is a challenge. About half of those who have entered religious orders since 1990 have not stayed, and almost all who left did so before making their final vows.

“People come to religious life because they feel they’re being called,” said Brother Paul Bednarczyk, executive director of the National Religious Vocation Conference, adding that the purpose of the church’s training process “is to discern that call before a commitment is made.” So “it’s not surprising,” he said, “that you would have people that would leave.”

Holy See to release TLM training materials

Fr. Zuhlsdorf reports that the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei is preparing to release material in the form of DVDs intended to train priests on how to offer the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

Cogitati: Tenth Sunday After Pentecost

I say to you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: because every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

There are four ways in which a man is sinfully prideful:

1. By thinking he possesses some good from his own ingenuity and powers alone.
2. By thinking that he possesses some good due to his own merits, rather than possessing some good by the graciousness of God alone.
3. By boasting of a good he does not possess.
4. By desiring to be thought the only persons that possess the good qualities of which he prides himself.

The pride of the Pharisee in today’s Gospel consisted in two things: boasting of a good he did not possess, and attributing to himself alone the qualities of which he boasted. These qualities for which the Pharisee boasts is the practice of religion, or better, the purity therein.

There’s no doubt that the practice of religion is noblest and most necessary of human acts. Religion consists in knowledge of God and a life corresponding to the will of God. It is not a matter of feelings or emotions or intuitions. It is something concrete. Religion is a matter of the will and of real action, and it consists in following out the principles that God has laid down. Mere knowledge of God’s principles does not constitute religion. Even the Devil knows God’s precepts.

Rather, religion consists in the service of God—knowing the will of God and doing it. Just because I know the rules of football certainly doesn’t make me a good choice to quarterback an NFL team. Just because a young man has a natural aptitude for baseball, doesn’t mean he instantly becomes a great one. He needs to hone those aptitudes by practice, and physical and mental conditioning. The same is true for religion. God gives all men the necessary aptitude by freely giving all the graces necessary. However, it requires our effort to cooperate with grace to achieve perfection. Unlike aptitude for sports, however, God keeps generously giving more. Every step of the way God increases the graces. The object of religion is perfection. No one can be the perfect baseball player or football player. Excellence, not perfection, is the goal of those endeavors. However, perfection is indeed the goal of religion, and it is impossible for man, by his own powers, to attain perfection. Thus we must rely entirely on grace not only to get us started, but to sustain every effort we make in the practice of religion.

The Pharisee’s pride did not consist in practicing religion, or endeavoring to attain perfection. We can be reasonably assured that the Pharisee was, indeed, not an extortioner or an adulterer or unjust in all the obvious ways. He probably didn’t extort his neighbors by all the methods common in his time, such as was the practice of the tax collectors. He probably didn’t indulge in illicit and sinful pleasures of the flesh, and he probably rendered what was due to his neighbors. As a Pharisee, he was part of a class of Hebrew people who lived his life in strictest accordance with all the precepts of both the written and oral laws of his religion. As a Pharisee, the rest of the people, the publicans, would have looked up to him as a paradigm of religious purity. The Pharisees taught both by word and example.

But his pride is the particular danger of those who are called by God to teach religion by both word and example. There is a great temptation for these people to believe they have already reached perfection, or at least a relative perfection. The simple fact of the matter is that man in this world will not achieve either perfect happiness or perfect righteousness. All men no matter how practiced in religion they may be must still struggle against vice and a wounded human nature. The Pharisee boasted of a good, that is perfection, he did not possess. He was blinded to how he was unjust to others. All of these things are evident in the way the Pharisee treats the publican.

Remember that it was the special charge of the Pharisees to teach, by word and example, the publicans. We have as our supreme example of a teacher Our Blessed Lord, Who is characterized by compassion for those whom He teaches. The Pharisee had no compassion for the publican. He looked upon the publican with disdain. Thus he was unjust. By pointing out the faults of his neighbor, he injured the publican’s character, and by judging only by appearances, the Pharisee demonstrated that materialism, which is the root of sensuality.

The Pharisee isn’t condemned for speaking a few words of commendation for himself. There are other examples in Sacred Writ of individuals who did so, and even more. For example, Job spoke often of his own righteousness, and indeed it was foolish for Eliphaz to suggest Job suffered because of some hidden fault. Indeed Job was a righteous man, and he knew he was. At every Mass, the priest prays Psalm 25, and repeats the words of the psalmist which seem very similar to what the Pharisee in today’s Gospel says: “Take not away my soul, O God, with the wicked: nor my life with bloody men. In whose hands are iniquities…”

However, that for which the Pharisee is condemned is for praising himself with the only intention of indulging his own vanity and extolling himself over the publican, the very person for whom a Pharisee is supposed to teach and for which the Pharisee is to have compassion. This Pharisee trusted only in himself and despised his neighbor, thus forsaking his responsibilities and his calling. Because of his station in life, it was particularly grievous and a great scandal.

There is no good in religious practice if it is done for vanity. What good is the Pharisee’s tithing and fasting, if he is unjust, uncompassionate, deceives himself and God, and forsakes his vocation?

It is true that one ought to have a healthy disgust for, and one ought to condemn, irreverent acts before the Blessed Sacrament, and it is perfectly laudable to avoid occasions of sin and those who bring us to sin or scandal. It is another thing entirely to lack compassion for those who commit these acts. Traditional Catholics are often condemned by mainstream Catholics for spiritual pride, an overly critical attitude, and a separatist mentality. These criticisms are often both unjust and misplaced and are born from an inability or unwillingness to distinguish the object of the traditional Catholic critique, which ought to always be ideas and actions that are contrary to our Catholic religion.

However, there is a real danger that the critique, which is good in and of itself, becomes a play thing of man’s vanity and a badge of honor construed to place the traditional Catholic above others. In doing so the traditional Catholic becomes isolated in his own self-righteous seeking for religious purity. His religion becomes a wholly personal affair. These so-called traditional Catholics are vain and petty. They speak with contempt of “novus-ordo-catholics” (which in writing they seldom capitalize), and “new-church” or “nuchurch”, and foster hatred with those who do not agree with them. They are so accustomed to consider these “novus-ordo-catholics” as enemies that they come to see conspirators every where, and soon sink into a world of paranoia and fear.

This is not in the least Catholic. Our Blessed Lord, it is true, lamented the sins and folly man. We read last week how Jesus wept for the city of Jerusalem and her people, the very same people who would call for His execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate. However, despite lamenting their folly and sin, still Our Blessed Lord had nothing but compassion them. He didn’t belittle them. He didn’t hate them, or call them enemies. He didn’t treat them as a cabal of conspirators. And He certainly did not fear them. Our Blessed Lord came to their city, healed their sick, and taught them by word and example. A real traditional Catholic follows the example provided by Jesus Christ.

One such example is when a city of Samaria refused to receive Our Blessed Lord, James and John asked, “Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them?” St. Luke tells us that Jesus, rebuked them with the words “You know not of what spirit you are. The Son of man came not to destroy souls, but to save” (Lk. 9, 54-56). There is nothing here but compassion. The first priority of every devout Catholic must be the salvation of souls, starting with one’s own, and not the destruction of souls, and certainly not the belittling, ridiculing, or hating of our neighbors, no matter how offensive their acts of irreverence may be.

While remaining true to our practice of religion, we must have compassion and patience with our neighbors, not condemnation, disdain, or paranoia. It is an easy thing to condemn and dismiss others as lost, and to ridicule them for their shortcomings and faults. It is much more difficult to follow the example of Our Blessed Lord and have compassion for them, and guide them by our words and actions. We need always be mindful that we are neither perfect nor yet acceptable for life in heaven, and our primary way of teaching ought to be our sincere and humble struggle to become so.

However, it would be completely unfair to give the impression that traditional Catholics are the only Catholics who indulge in spiritual pride. Spiritual pride is very common, and at times it is very subtle. There are many mainstream Catholics who despise traditional Catholics, and I would venture to guess there are more. There are, every day, new divisions being forged by the folly and pride of man, and the separatists are numerous every where in the Church. Those who make traditional Catholics out to be the only spiritually prideful people in the Church are playing the role of the Pharisee in today’s Gospel. No one is above spiritual pride. It is a danger for all those who take their religion seriously, and it is indifferent to ideology, agenda, or liturgical form. Wherever there is piety, the Devil is also hard at work.

Spiritual pride can also be very subtle, and can be found more often amidst people of like mind.

Spiritual pride often manifests itself in an idea or attitude that raises one’s own way of living his religion above another equally legitimate way. If one were to point out a particular admonition to take away from today’s Epistle and Gospel, it would be this very point.

In today’s Epistle, we read the following words from St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians: “Now there are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit: and there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but the same God, who worketh all in all.”

Each of us are given different vocations, natural aptitudes and unique graces, all of which works together, along with all the different vocations, aptitudes and graces granted to our neighbors, to bring about the will of God. Therefore, it is the sin of pride to think one’s vocation, aptitude and unique graces constitute a better way of living our Catholic religion.

This not to say that all vocations, talents and graces are equal. The highest vocation is the priesthood. Some are endowed with extraordinary natural abilities, and still others are given graces that are miraculous and heroic in scope. However, all vocations, all graces, and each talent from each individual is no greater than the will of God that they, all working together, are intended to make manifest. As St. Paul says: “All these things one the same Spirit worketh, dividing to every one according as He will.” Those endowed with a calling to the highest vocation, those endowed with extraordinary talents, those given graces to perform miracles are nothing in isolation from all the other unique gifts that the Holy Ghost works among our fellows in religion.

A concrete example will help make clear just how subtle and even how acceptable spiritual pride can be.

Universally condemned throughout the modern Church, amongst those who attend both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is the proverbial little old lady who prays her beads at Mass. Apparently there is now nothing worse than praying the rosary while assisting at Mass. It has been judged anathema.

This is such a pity because this condemnation is utterly without merit.

Modern people today are so worried about active participation, that they would have us become mindless automatons at Mass, replete with set blocking and rigid verbal prayer. Even at the Traditional Latin Mass, some insist that the only proper way to assist at Mass is to read every word from the hand missal that the priest recites at the altar. However, in this attitude is a fundamental misunderstanding of how we are to assist and participate in the sacrifice of the Mass.

Widespread literacy and the proliferation of hand missals are good, but at the same time, it must be admitted, hand missals are a rather new liturgical innovation. The wide spread use of hand missals dates back only to the late 19th century. Prior to the use of hand missals, the laity relied on being educated as to how they could unit their own prayers to the prayers of the priest at the altar. Their education, it would seem, was more thorough.

When assisting at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass the first and primary concern we should have is to unite our supplications with those of the priest. This is done by having a thorough knowledge of the Mass and each of its parts, but most importantly, to accomplish in the heart what is accomplished by the Mass, we must know the fundamental purpose of the Mass: to honor God, give thanks, entreat favor, and make propitiation. It is not, however, necessary, nor is it always most beneficial, to use the same prayers as he does. Merely reading the words of the prayers from their missals in a formal manner, all the while trying desperately to read the words at the same time the priest recites them in Latin, is hardly a fruitful way to assist at Mass. In fact it can be rather frustrating for everyone concerned.

Whether one uses the hand missal or not, the best method of hearing the Mass is to meditate on Our Blessed Lord’s Passion, because in the Holy Mass the sacrifice of the cross is re-enacted, and it was instituted as a commemoration of the death of the Redeemer. Aside from three particular parts of the Mass wherein our attention should be especially drawn toward the altar (the Gospel, the Sanctus, and the consecration) engaging in mental prayer, particularly meditating on the Passion, is laudable and ought to be encouraged.

Thus the five sorrowful mysteries of the Rosary are a very suitable devotion for Mass, because in them Our Blessed Lord’s Passion is set before us. Many are under the erroneous impression that in order to worthily assist at the Mass one must slavishly follow along in their missals. Slavishly following along in the missal, reciting them to one’s self hurriedly and without thought, is not at all meritorious. It may look as though those who are feverishly flipping the pages of their missals, or responding from rote in a language they do not know, are fully and actively participating in the Mass. In reality they are far surpassed by the proverbial little old lady who by praying the five sorrowful mysteries on her beads has sweetly joined her supplications to the sacrifice at the altar, with the smile and gratitude of our Heavenly Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary. To look askew upon such a legitimate way of hearing the Mass comes from ignorance and spiritual pride, and it has harmed souls by drawing people away from this laudable practice.

There are a plethora of devotions that help direct our prayers toward the altar and toward God at Mass, just as there are a plethora of devotions that can fill our days. While some practices are highly recommended because of their efficacious nature, such as the Rosary, the morning offering and frequent examinations of conscience, everyone’s prayer life will differ according to their own unique needs, vocation, station in life, and promptings of the Holy Ghost. How one ultimately forms his prayer life is a deeply personal affair that takes shape according to the prompting of the Holy Ghost and the guidance provided by confessors and spiritual directors. One should never consider their own Franciscan spirituality as superior to the Carmelite or Dominican way adopted by a neighbor. To do so is spiritual pride, and can harm souls by drawing them away from a more suitable prayer life.

Of all forms of pride, spiritual pride is the most dangerous and the ugliest. It takes the noblest aspect of man, religion, and twists it into something destructive of both the self and the neighbor, and a mockery of God. Wherever religion is practiced earnestly, we can be sure that the Devil will be hard at work, attempting to use man’s pride to lay waist true and right religion. Therefore, the traditional Catholic, especially, must brace himself for the battle. The traditional Catholic needs to heed the advise of St. Mary Magdalen de’Pazzi:

Prayer ought to be humble, fervent, resigned, persevering and accompanied with great reverence. One should consider that he stands in the presence of a God, and speaks with a Lord before whom the angels tremble from awe and fear.

Vanity vanishes in the blinding light of God’s splendor. Therefore, let us fervently pray for an increase in faith, that we may fully appreciate Who it is that comes to visit us in this Eucharist. With a deep faith, we are given to ever-greater reverence, resignation and humility. The best way to foster a true humility, the best antidote against spiritual pride, is to delve ever deeper into prayer. St. Teresa of Avila wrote:

In my opinion, we shall never acquire true humility unless we raise our eyes to behold God. Looking upon His greatness, the soul sees better her own littleness; beholding His purity, she is the more aware of her own uncleanness; considering His patience, she feels how far she is from being patient; in fine, turning her glance upon the divine perfections, she discovers in herself so many imperfections that she would gladly close her eyes to them.

Vigilance is required. The traditional Catholic must have no confidence in himself. He can not trust the self. He must be resigned, careful and considerate. Nothing that comes from the traditional Catholics faculties is to be trusted at all. The traditional Catholic must put all his trust in God, and must come to depend on God entirely. The traditional Catholic must be engaged in fervent prayer. He must take as his mother the Blessed Virgin Mary, asking for her prayers and beseeching her to wrap him in her blue mantle. The traditional Catholic must apply himself to the duties of his station in life, and concern himself with diligence to the things God has entrusted to him. Above all, the traditional Catholic must consider all his words and actions, especially those words and actions that he might direct toward his neighbor, as being done in the sight and under the judgment of God. Without this distrust of self, and complete trust in God, prayer, and conformity to the will of God, the traditional Catholic will make a mockery of the great icon entrusted to his safe keeping, and will expose it to the ridicule of the degenerate and those who hate the true religion.

There’s a maxim of Thomas á Kempis that sets everything into proper perspective in regards to spiritual pride, but only those who pray often and are accustomed to a fear of the Lord understand its full meaning:

“One is as much as he is in the sight of God, and no more.”

Response to Thaddeus Kozinski

Thaddeus Kozinski was kind enough to visit Ars Orandi and post a defense of his article that was the indirect subject of my post, Response to Stuart Reid.

Dr. Kozinski said:

“It is simply dishonest of you to say that anything I have written implies that ‘traditional Catholics’ are gnostics. That is simply not true, and I can't see how you do not see that it is not true.”

I’m not attempting to imply that you hold that ALL traditional Catholics are Gnostics. I’m repeating Kozinski's position that some, many, most, a fraction, whatever, are Gnostics, and on that point I vigorously disagree and think that in Kozinski saying some, many, most, a fraction of traditional Catholics are Gnostics does damage to traditional Catholicism in general. Not to mention it does damage to Kozinski's own reputation.

As I have already stated, and as was stated in the editorial reply to Kozinski's article in the New Oxford Review, what Kozinski is attempting to describe is not Gnosticism. His definition of Gnosticism is not only inaccurate, but it is so vague that can be applied to any person of faith.

Implying that some traditional Catholics are Gnostics has the same affect as the long-standing implication that some traditional Catholics are disobedient separatists. The general impression among mainstream Catholics became that all traditional Catholics are disobedient separatists. This is born out by Archbishop Nichol’s comments in the Catholic Herald, wherein he seems to be entirely caught up in treating that old canard. The simple fact of the matter is that traditional Catholics are far less disobedient and separatist in attitude than mainstream Catholics whose overwhelming majority practice artificial contraception, vote for pro-abortion politicians, and form their consciences by using values clarification. In light of the deplorable state of the Church, it’s completely unreasonable for bishops to be concerned by the disobedience of such a small number of people who are careful to embrace all the dogmas of the Church. The only reason for this phenomenon has to be the old canard of “traditionalists are disobedient separatists.”

In Kozinski's NOR article he attempted to forge another untrue canard about traditional Catholics: some, many, most, whatever number of traditional Catholics are Gnostics. The affect? Well, read the comments on Fr. Z’s blog and the NLM. There are surprisingly a lot of commentators who accepted Kozinski's erroneous definition of Gnosticism without question, and equally that there were some, many, most, whatever number of traditional Catholics who are Gnostics.

But as I’ve said already, and will continue to say, there are no Gnostics at the Traditional Latin Mass! To keep maintaining the use of the terms “Gnostics” and “Gnosticism” in this debate is dishonest, because we all now know what the term means and we all now know Kozinski is not using it correctly.

As the New Oxford Review editorial reply to Kozinski's article asked:

You say… “there is no other alternative but to accept the one, post-conciliar Church, and to think there is some escape from that, as many traditionalists do, is to adopt a gnostic stance." Why is this gnostic? What does this have to do with esoteric knowledge? Most of us know the traditionalist viewpoint; it's not a secret. And what does this have to do with cosmic dualism?

The answer is absolutely nothing. It has nothing to do with Gnosticism in the least, and it is dishonest to continue insisting that it somehow does. It does Kozinski's reputation no credit to misuse this term in this fashion.

The same editorial reply to the article rightly stated:

You say, "Ultimately, gnostic traditionalism is a manifestation of pride and is tantamount to the sin of schism [is it or isn't it?], which has its ancient origin in Lucifer…." But are you not full of pride? You indict gnostic traditionalists as being "puffed-up," but are you not puffed-up? You accuse the traditionalists of being "neurotic," "Donatists," "spiritual poison," "spiritually sick," "Catholic Pharisee," "insane," of "digging a deeper and deeper hole to a self-created Hell," of being "malignant," "anti-tradition," of "daily immersion in the Luciferian regimes," "psychological and spiritual disorders," "sin of schism," "paranoia," "Jansenism," "smoke of Satan," "ancient origin in Lucifer," and "lead us only to suffocate." From what pedestal do you speak? These types of wild accusations smack of pride to the max.

Their point is clear, and I echo it. Kozinski bemoans the pharisaic traditionalist while being, himself, just as pharisaic.

Moving on:

Dr. Kozinski wrote: “I think that traditionalist Catholicism had become something of a sect.”

I’m sure there are some, even many, traditional Catholics who simply want nothing to do with mainstream Catholicism. This isn’t sectarian or separatist. It’s insulation from all the things Amerio catalogued in Iota Unum. No one seems overly concerned about mainstream Catholics who want nothing to do with traditionalists. But, at any rate, it’s a canard. Given that the vast majority of mainstream Catholics have a sectarian attitude when it comes to central issues such as the proper veneration of the Eucharist, the use of artificial contraception, voting for pro-abortion politicians, dissenting from central teachings of the Church, it’s hard to fathom why so many people seem so concerned with such a small group of traditionalists wishing to insulate themselves from this sorry state of affairs.

That may be overstating the case. I don’t wish to pass judgment on any Catholic, traditional or mainstream. I do recognize that there are tasteful and reverent offerings of the new order of the Mass. I used to attend such on weekdays, and would again if one were offered at a convenient time in my area. However, I also realize, as I’ve already stated, the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is far superior than the Ordinary Form, no matter how it is offered, when considering them both according to their own merits. Likewise, traditional Catholicism is a way of life far superior than all the problems inherent in mainstream Catholicism, as cataloged by Amerio in his book, Iota Unum. If there were no way to completely escape the psychological and spiritual damage (which I’m pretty sure I agree with you on that score), I would rather be suffering in Amerio’s faithful remnant:

The second conjecture about the future of the Church is the one Montini began as a bishop and completed as pope. The Church will continue to open itself to the world and to conform itself to that world, that is, it will continue to undo its own nature; but its supernatural life will survive, restricted to a faithful remnant, and its supernatural end will continue to be pursued faithfully by that part of it which is left in the world. The misleading well-being of a Church that is dissolving itself into the world will be matched by the progressive contraction and wretchedness of a small number of people, a tiny minority that seems insignificant and doomed to die, but which in fact contains the concentration of God’s elect, an indefectible witness to the true faith. (759)

At the end of Iota Unum, Amerio is an optimist—not the kind of optimist that paints a rosy picture. It must seem that his considerations came to a "conclusion that amounts to a negative", but, I contend, only to those in the mainstream. He is an optimist that understands reality: “From abasement to exaltation; this the old road familiar to faith… The divine action runs form one extreme to the other, so that creation touches the lowest point of evil and then rises to the height of all good” (761).

It was recently pointed out to me that we can’t expect the Church to rid herself of the new order of the Mass. Concessions must be made. These concessions are exactly what Amerio was bemoaning when he pointed out the emergence of a multiplicity of ritual forms and rubrics and local disciplines resulting from a renunciation of authority. The spirit of concession comes from a spirit of pessimism. The spirit of pessimism is the defining characteristic of the generation that lived through the tragedy of 1970.

My friends, my age and younger, aren’t afraid to look forward to the day when the new order of the Mass will be abrogated, and the Mass will finally start down the road of organic reform. We are able to say this with a smile and while keeping our good humor, because we didn’t live through 1970. We are free of the previous generation’s pessimism. Yes, we are abject… for now. But the new and emerging generation of traditional Catholics doesn’t see traditional Catholicism as a counterpoint. Traditional Catholicism is what is real, and nothing else will do, not because we want it, not because it is the better argument, but because it is what it is: the truth.

Response to Stuart Reid

UPDATED: Moved Dr. Kozinski's reply into the main body from the comments section.
________________________

There’s a scurrilous article floating around on the internet by Stuart Reid, a weekly columnist for the Catholic Herald. It has appeared on Fr. Zuhlsdorf’s blog, What Does the Prayer Really Say, and the New Liturgical Movement. I invite you to read the article at either site.

Reid’s article begins:

Let me throw caution to the wind and suggest that the Archbishop of Westminster was right last week when, in his interview with The Catholic Herald, he said that traditionalists who reject the ordinary form of the Mass are "inexorably distancing themselves from the Church".

The Archbishop in question is, of course, His Excellency, the Most Rev. Vincent Nichols, who as proven in the past be somewhat of a friend to traditional Catholics in England.

Here’s Archbishop Nichol’s complete comment that he gave in the referred to interview:

Most troubling of all to my mind is the mindset that somebody might get caught into, because perhaps they don't like some aspect of how the Mass is being celebrated or the music that's been chosen or something, that they begin to turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer, the ordinary form of the Mass and say: 'I can't accept that.' That's really quite serious, because if they can't accept that then they are inexorably distancing themselves from the Church.

This was a rather regrettable remark, because it simply doesn’t hold water. This extremely cryptic comment simply doesn’t make any sense. What is meant by “I can’t accept that”? Is he saying that all Catholics must accept anything and everything that happens at the new order of the Mass? If a Catholic says, “I can’t accept that rock band in the sanctuary during this celebration of the Ordinary form” that Catholic is somehow “inexorably distancing” himself from the Church? There’s a lot of things that have happened, and continues to happen, in the context of the Ordinary Form that aren’t acceptable. If pointing it out distances someone from the Church, then I’m sorry to say, but everyone who is calling for the “reform of the reform” is lumped in with all the traditionalists who are distancing themselves from the Church’s ordinary pattern of prayer.

What does the Archbishop mean by not accepting, or to use Reid’s word, “reject”? If not accepting the Ordinary Form means rejecting that the Ordinary Form is licit and valid, then he is speaking of a very small group of people. The vast majority of people who style themselves traditional Catholics agree and firmly hold that the new order of the Mass is both licit and valid.

If what he means by not accepting is a refusal to attend the Ordinary Form, then I'm really at a loss. Every single Catholic has the right to worship according their legitimate and recognized Catholic rite. If one wishes to only attend the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, would Archbishop Nichols say that that person is distancing himself from the Church because he does not accept the Extraordinary Form? If a Maronite Catholic refuses to attend both forms of the Roman Rite, and will only attend a Maronite liturgy, is that Maronite Catholic distancing himself from the Church because he does not accept the Roman Rite? Does a Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic distance himself from the Church by refusing to attend a Greek Byzantine liturgy?

If what he means by not accepting is leveling criticism at the new order of the Mass, then what do we call the impetuous behind the “reform of the reform”. By holding that a reform of the current state of the liturgy is needed, one is affirming that there are deficiencies that need reforming. If the new order of the Mass is above criticism, then how can anyone call to reform it? If one is not accepting the Mass by criticizing the new order of the Mass, then we must conclude that every one seeking to “reform the reform” is distancing himself from the Church.

The concept simply does not hold water, but I’m inclined to think that this isn’t really what the Archbishop was trying to say. An interview isn’t a prepared statement, and I think that if given more time to choose his words more carefully, His Excellency would have said something quite different. He was, after all, speaking in the context of episcopal authority and the need for traditional Catholics to stay faithful in their obedience to their local ordinaries.

However, instead of treating the faulty logic of His Excellency’s off the cuff statement, the kowtow episcopal placaters jump on the traditional Catholic bashing bandwagon. Anyone who uses the phrase “the new New Mass” has no business saying that anyone has something about them that is modernist. That phrase exemplifies the modernist lust for all things new, as Amerio pointed out with due clarity in Iota Unum. New new Mass? If that doesn’t work, will there be a new new new Mass? Or how about fifty years from now we get the new new new new Mass?

Reid turns to Thaddeus Kozinski’s ridiculous article in the New Oxford Review, which, if memory serves me correctly, the editorial staff did not agree with Kozinski's argument, wherein he described the phenomenon of “Gnostic Traditionalism”. In a nutshell, Kozinski insinuates that most “traditionalists” have become Gnostics, according to Kozinski’s definition of Gnosticism, which is “the attitude that leads one to believe he possesses an irrefutable insight into the truth of matters of great importance, whether natural or supernatural.”

This definition of Gnosticism, however, is utterly preposterous. This isn’t Gnosticism. On the contrary, Gnosticism was a many faceted heresy in the early Church, characterized by a dualistic cosmology wherein human souls are trapped in a material world that was created by the inferior god of the Old Testament. The Gnostic, through a process of mystical experiences, gained secret knowledge that would ultimately liberate his soul from the material world.

There are plenty of Gnostics running around today, but they are the people who have crystals hanging from their rear view mirrors, treat Halloween as a high-holy feast day, and sell cheap bead necklaces at Glastonbury Tor. Unless they are there to steal a consecrated host, Gnostics aren’t attending the Traditional Latin Mass, nor will you find Gnostics among ultra-orthodox adherents of the Novus Ordo.

And what of Kozinski’s definition? Well, if you think about it, his definition would have to include any person of faith. A man for example, who holds by faith that there is a God, indeed, has an irrefutable insight, for he holds it by faith, into a truth that relates to a matter of great import. What is more important than God? It is the same with every other truth that Holy Mother Church proposes for our belief by faith. His definition also would have to include anyone who believes anything. By Kozinski’s definition every religious person is a Gnostic.

Kozinski’s definition Gnosticism is a handy tool for the intellectually lazy. It goes like this:

Person A thinks concept “T”, and person B disagrees with concept “T”. Instead of treating the merits or demerits of concept “T”, Person B concludes that Person A is clearly wrong based on Kozinski’s definition of Gnosticism. In thinking concept “T”, Person B states that Person A thinks she “possesses an irrefutable insight into the truth of matters of great importance, whether natural or supernatural”; therefore Person A is clearly a Gnostic, so we don’t need to bother ourselves with concept “T”. Both Person A and concept “T” are summarily dismissed.

Reid points out that Kozinski is now finding Gnostics among the ultra-orthodox adherents of the Novus Ordo. I’m sure he will, no doubt, soon find Gnostics among liberals, neo-conservatives, bill collectors, and the valet service that left a scratch on his car. And he styles the traditional Catholic as paranoid? The fact that Kozinski is beginning to find his Gnostics in more corners of the Church should be an indication to the rest of us that maybe Kozinski is simply person B disagreeing with person A.

What Kozinski and Read are so quick to condemn as Gnosticism is something far less exotic, and much more common among Catholics of all stripes. It’s called spiritual pride. It does, admittedly, run rampant in traditional Catholic circles, and there is some merit to Kozinski’s concerns about paranoia and a lack of meekness. Traditional Catholics at their best are absolutely wonderful people. They are generous, welcoming, full of good cheer and good humor. They possess an unyielding love for Christ. However, traditional Catholics at their worst are paranoid, angry, and even intimidating. I’ve seen it and heard of it, and it is shameful.

This fact, however, does not change the objective fact that the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is superior to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite when considered on their merits alone. When considering the two forms in their prayers, form, postures, rubrics, theology, the Extraordinary Form out strips the Ordinary Form as a more complete expression of what the Catholic Church teaches, and exemplifies in a more complete way the Catholic identity.

If traditional Catholics are the modern depository of this form of the Roman Rite, just like the monks who hid the icons during the years of Iconoclasm in the East, then doesn’t it make sense that they are some of the primary targets of the Devil. The Immortal Mass is unshakable. The emergence of the usus antiquior after these past four decades is proof enough of that. However, man is weak and frail. The Devil is taking aim at the Extraordinary form by attacking the not so extraordinary human beings around it.

At any rate, its not about an “ism”. As a traditional Catholic, I’m not an adherent of “traditionalism”. I’m someone following Christ, loving Christ, longing to give fitting worship to Christ. And just like those who level accusations of “Gnosticism”, I need God’s grace in my life to become a better, more charitable, person. The spiritual combat is my primary concern, and I strongly believe that the same can be said for all my traditional Catholic friends, notwithstanding our countless faults and frailties.

St. Ignatius of Loyola, pray for us!

____________________________

It would seem I struck a nerve? I recieved a response from Dr. Kozinski, which deserves space in the main post.

_____________________________

Dr. Kozinski's response:

I see no persuasive argument in Mr. Werling's post showing that my basic point is wrong. On the other hand, the many supportive comments about my article I have seen on the blogosphere suggest to me that my basic point is right, that it is not "ridiculous" as he says. I do admit that other points I make in the article, and the way I make them, including not the least of which being my use of the term “gnostic,” might be somewhat off the mark, but I can't find a better word for this phenomenon. In any event, I don’t think my basic point is off.

Perhaps it would help to read the words of none other than Romano Amerio, who made a similar point to mine over ten years ago. He writes:

It is obvious that uncertainty about the law, which has become something very changeable and which is in practice applied diversely in accordance with the differing opinions of differing people,has had the effect of increasing the importance placed on private judgment, and of producing a multiplicity of individual choices in which the organic unity of the Church is eclipsed and disappears (Iota Unum, 157).

What I would add to Amerio's insight is that the emergence of the availability of a choice for or against traditional liturgy and doctrine made possible by the Vatican II event (but now completely diffused by the brilliant move of Benedict XVI in the Motu Proprio) produces adverse consequences— regardless of which choice is made. If someone chooses to remain loyal to Tradition, even if the choice is made with the deliberate goal of placing oneself in a ecclesial environment in which private judgment is not paramount and in which liturgical, doctrinal, moral, devotional, etc. choice is no longer a pertinent issue, it is still the case that the very exercise of this choice is psychologically and spiritually damaging, for the reasons I try to articulate in my article. To me, this dynamic indicates the gravity of the evil that seeped into the Church through the Vatican II event.

The only sure way to counteract some of the evil and avoid the worst of the damage is, I think, first to be aware of it, and then to realize that one can not altogether counteract or avoid it. As it seems to me, and this is my main point, being a traditionalist—and precisely the kind of traditionalist I try to describe in the article—can have the effect of rendering one impervious to this awareness and realization (and it is certainly not only sedevacantists who fall into this category). Of course, being a non-traditionalist can render one even more impervious to this realization, but that is not at issue here. My essential point is that being a traditionalist does not necessarily render one impervious to the evil, and that there is something about the post-Vatican II ecclesial context (especially before Benedict's motu proprio) in which traditionalist identity is formed that can make one think it does, and, even worse, preclude awareness of any spiritual and psychological danger to one’s soul in this regard.

to finish: In short, I think that traditionalist Catholicism had become something of a sect (I could have titled the article “sectarian traditionalism,” gaining in accuracy what I lose in provocativeness), whether Indult traditionalism or not. Of course, the sectarianism is intensely worse in the pre-moto-proprio, non-Indult traditionalist milieus, being present among a relative few in the Indult chapels, becoming much worse within the SSPX environs, and finally becoming downright pathological among the sedevacantists. But this is not the fault of the good, loyal, non-sectlike Indult and post-moto-proprio traditionalists or traditionalism per se! Rather, the danger of becoming sectlike, with all the spiritual ramifications that go with it, is the price we had to pay to remain loyal to Tradition, and not seeing, or being able to see, that a price has been paid is the greatest price. I say it is a price we “had” to pay, because Benedict has now “marked down” this price by officially “desecting” traditional Catholicism with the great motu proprio. Traditionalism is now free. If we traditionalists keep up a sectarian attitude now, then it will be our fault.