Response to Dr. Mirus #3: The Magisterium

The Magisterium according to Mirus vs. the Magisterium according to his Catechism

Mirus’ understanding of the Magisterium is overly simplistic and incomplete. In another commentary Mirus states: “We may be certain that every Magisterial teaching is true.”

What does Mirus mean by this? I’m going to make some assumptions, granted, but his statement is so vague and unspecific, one is forced to make assumptions. I have to admit that my assumptions are based on past, and personal, correspondences with Dr. Mirus.

By Magisterial teaching, I’m assuming that Mirus is referring a public pronounce of the Church’s teaching organ concerning faith and morals. I must also assume that by “true”, Mr. Mirus means to say “free from error”. Mirus apparently believes that all Magisterial pronouncements are endowed with infallibility. He fails to make the necessary distinction between the ordinary Magisterium and the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I’m sure, occupies a prominent place of Dr. Mirus’ desks reads:

“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith – he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals… The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, the exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council [a near direct quote from the First Vatican Council, Denzinger, 3074]. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed” [from Dei Verbum (VCII), the CCC loves quotes Dei Verbum, which simply regurgitates already established doctrines], and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith” [from Lumen Gentium (VCII), another favorite recycling source in the CCC]. (para. 890).

A fairly decent summation of the Church’s extraordinary Magisterium, but following is the part of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that Dr. Mirus ignores:

Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter [AND the VICAR OF CHRIST!!… this is why I don’t use the CCC], and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. [Emphasis added by me.] (para. 890).

Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church makes a very clear distinction between an extraordinary exercise of the Church’s Magisterium, and an ordinary one. We will return to this last quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church later. For now, we need to file away that there are at least two kinds of Magisterial pronouncements: ones that are the product of the extraordinary and ones that are the product of the ordinary exercise of the Magisterium. In none of Mirus’ commentaries or articles does he demonstrate in the least a knowledge of this important distinction.

In the new Code of Canon Law we read: 749 §3. "No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident."

Why? The faithful have the right to know if the Church is teaching infallibly. The faithful are required to make an assent of faith to all the dogmas of our religion. It would be supremely uncharitable and unjust if the Church did not make absolutely clear those teachings to which the faithful are required to make an assent of faith. We will return to this concept as well.

What is the nature of those pronouncements that come from the ordinary Magisterium? We turn to our present Holy Father. Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1998 commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem, which states:

The third proposition of the professio fidei states: "Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the college of bishops enunciates when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act".

To this paragraph belong all those teachings on faith and morals presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings ...require religious submission of will and intellect....

A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore "tuto doceri non potest." [Cf. Canons 752, 1371; Eastern Churches Canons 599, 436 §2]

Note that Ratzinger states clearly that there are Magisterial teachings on faith and morals that are presented as true or at least as sure. That’s a little different than Dr. Mirus’ contention that all Magisterial teachings are true. He also states that contrary propositions can be qualified as erroneous, not that they must be qualified as erroneous. Clearly, the Holy Father recognizes that while pronouncements of the ordinary Magisterium are endowed with divine assistance and require of the faithful “religious assent” [from CCC para 892, once again quoting from Lumen Gentium], there is room for sincere discussion. It would be perfectly legitimate for the faithful to make requests for the teaching organ of the Church to clarify its own teachings if necessary. There is nothing disobedient about maintaining reservations regarding a Magisterial teaching until such a time that the Church clarifies the teaching. This, I would imagine, would be especially true in matters concerning things that are changeable disciplines, such as liturgy, and even more changeable disciplines such as pastoral strategies regarding contemporaneous circumstances.

Perhaps a couple examples will help to clarify. If a pope were to publicly state that those who die in a state of grace do not enjoy the beatific vision until the consummation of time, he is making a public pronouncement, regarding faith and morals, and therefore, by Mirus’ standards, he would stating the truth. Obviously, this can’t be correct, especially since this actually did happen, and the Church’s Magisterium repudiated that proposition. Or take for example the recent papal criticisms of the death penalty. Is not the killing of a human being a moral act? Would then the public criticisms of the death penalty be endowed by infallibility according to Mirus’ standards? Would Dr. Mirus be willing to concede that the Church’s Magisterium has infallibly condemned capital punishment?

The most striking example that shreds Dr. Mirus’ contention, however, is the present situation of the Institute of the Good Shepherd. The Institute of the Good Shepherd, a society of priests, was recently given canonical recognition by the Holy See, and all of its priests entered into full communion with the Church, possessing all of their ministerial faculties. At the same time most of the priests of that society have confided with the Holy See that they maintain reservations and question what Vatican II teaches about ecumenism and religious liberty. Even though they maintain reservations and seek clarification regarding Magisterial teachings, they are still in full communion with the Church and enjoy canonical recognition. Obviously the Holy See understands the distinction between the extraordinary and ordinary exercise of the Magisterium.

Finding understanding?

Now to return to that second quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (I beg forgiveness from many of my traditional Catholic friends who are certainly annoyed by now). Note these words: “…they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals…” The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that it is the Church’s job (via the Magisterium) to provide a better understanding of Revelation. Is Dr. Mirus in agreement with that Catechism when he states the following?

When any Catholic notices an appearance of conflict [between one or more Magisterial teachings]… the Catholic’s understanding of the “plain meaning” of tradition [does he mean to capitalize that “T”? I don’t know.] is, in fact, incorrect. To correct it, he [the Catholic that is] must adjust his understanding in such a way that all statements of the Magisterium which bear on the question at hand are acknowledged to be true.

The Catechism states that providing a better understanding is the responsibility of the Church. Dr. Mirus states that it’s the individual Catholic’s responsibility. According to the Catechism sitting on Dr. Mirus’ desk, the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or the form of Tradition, is entrusted to the teaching office of the Church (para. 85). However, Mirus claims it must be exercised by individual Catholics. Isn’t it ironic that Mirus suggests that individual Catholics ought to be engaged in interpreting everything, engaging in personal interpretation, and at the same time accuses traditional Catholics of being Protestants?

No doubt, all Catholics must exercise prudential judgment when it comes to the application of the truths of our faith in our daily lives, but no Catholic need fashion an understanding of those truths for himself. That is the responsibility of the teaching office of the Church. It should be obvious to Dr. Mirus that a teaching office exists for the very purpose of teaching. However, what is obvious to traditional Catholics, apparently is not to Mirus. He libelously writes that Traditionalists reject the Magisterium simply because Traditionalists point out apparent contradictions and insist that individuals in the Church’s Magisterium do their jobs and teach the faithful, instead of confusing and going beyond the obedience of faith. Traditional Catholics realize that they can not prefer one Magisterial teaching over another, because they know all authentic Magisterial teachings are endowed with divine assistance and require religious assent. For this reason traditional Catholics look to the teaching office of the Church to provide clarification and understanding. It isn’t our fault if individuals, who ought to be teaching, aren’t.

When individuals that ought to be speaking for the teaching office of the Church (the pope and the bishops) fail to teach, or use conflicting or contradictory language, or go beyond the deposit of faith, those individuals no longer can be said to serve interests of the Church. The Arian heresy is evidence enough that the Church has gone through periods wherein the bishops forsook their responsibility to teach the faith. Would Dr. Mirus contend that the Arian bishops were exercising the legitimate teaching office of the Church? Would he contend that the Arian bishops were making true pronouncements concerning Our Blessed Lord’s human and divine natures?

The metaphysical basis for infallibility is the fact that what the Church teaches, either by Pope, ex cathedra, or an Ecumenical Council that chooses to do so with absolute authority, is that what is pronounced corresponds to reality. In other words, it is true, a priori to the solemn pronouncement. A pope or Ecumenical Council does not create truth. They are intended to lead the faithful to the Truth. The deposit of faith isn’t created by fiat by some body of bishops. Rather, the teaching office of the Church is the guardian and dispenser of the faith. In the preface to Alcuin Reid’s book, The Organic Development of the Liturgy, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

The pope is not an absolute monarch whose will is law; rather, he is the guardian of the authentic Tradition and, thereby, the premier guarantor of obedience. He cannot do as he likes, and he is thereby able to oppose those people who, for their part, want to do whatever comes into their head. His rule is not that of arbitrary power, but that of obedience in faith.

[Hopefully I will have one more brief post that broaches the issue of Dr. Mirus’ hermeneutic before the end of the weekend.]

Response to Dr. Mirus #2: What do Traditional Catholics Really Reject?

Dr. Jeff Mirus defines Traditionalism as a rejection of the “contemporary exercise of the Magisterium in favor of a prior understanding of what the Catholic Tradition demands.” Notice that in doing so, Mirus claims that Traditionalists reject the current Magisterium, and that the Traditionalist position is based on an understanding of Magisterial teachings, as opposed to being based on actual teachings.

First of all, Traditionalists do not, by a more accurate definition, reject the Magisterium of the Church, nor do they by nature reject any exercise of this ecclesial organ, be it ancient or contemporary. No doubt there are self styled Traditionalists who in fact do just that, but that is not on account of Traditionalism. Just because some Traditionalists reject the Church’s Magisterium, does not mean that all Traditionalists do. Indeed, just because some non-traditional Catholics reject the teaching authority of the Church, does not mean that all non-traditional Catholics do. Quite to the contrary, all legitimate traditional Catholics have a deep respect and love for the teaching office of the Catholic Church.

What then, do traditional Catholics, by and large, reject? Since the more accurate definition of Catholic Traditionalism is an affinity for the Traditional Latin Mass and a commensurate spirituality, it can be safely assumed that traditional Catholics reject modern innovations that depart from these things. What traditional Catholics reject is a modern interpretation, or to use Mirus’ terminology, understanding that departs from what has always been taught by the Church.

For example, in the long years when people like Dr. Mirus contended that the Traditional Latin Mass had been abrogated, traditional Catholics rejected this as a modern innovation. Indeed, how can something sacred, true and beautiful, something that had been at the heart of the Church since before even St. Gregory the Great, suddenly be abrogated? Traditional Catholics rejected this notion as a modern innovation at odds with that very Traditional Latin Mass and the piety and spirituality that accompanies it. On this score, Pope Benedict XVI vindicated our position by espousing it, in a magisterial pronouncement, no less. Certainly traditional Catholics aren’t rejecting that contemporary exercise of the Magisterium, are they?

Also, consider the traditional Catholic’s attitude toward the New Order of the Mass. Traditional Catholics, for the most part, do not attend the New Order of the Mass. I suppose one can view this as a rejection, though what it really is, is an affirmation of the Traditional Latin Mass, no different in substance than those who affirm the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in the Eastern Catholic Churches. One can not accuse a Byzantine Catholic of rejecting the Magisterium of the Catholic Church based solely on the fact that she refuses to attend the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, opting instead for the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. The argument that the New Order of the Mass is a modern innovation is in no wise a rejection of the Church’s authority in liturgical issues, nor is it a rejection of the Church’s Magisterium. It is fundamentally an affirmation of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, and it has unequivocally been established by the motu propio, Summorum Pontificum, that such an affirmation is not only legitimate, but also laudatory. Only secondarily is it a criticism of innovation. Such criticism, as long as it respects the authority of the Church and is done in charity, is allowed, and can be fruitful. Even if we should contend that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite be abrogated, this is not a rejection of the Church’s authority. In fact, it is a request for the Church to exercise her authority.

Dr. Mirus equates Traditionalists with Protestants based on his definition of Traditionalism. Perhaps this is the most honest piece in his commentary. Indeed, his faulty definition of Traditionalism logically would include Protestants of all stripes, all of whom have rejected the “contemporary Magisterium” for their understanding of, at the very least, the Magisterium that produced the New Testament. However, the real basis of Mirus’ equivocation is to brand traditional Catholics as people who reject the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Such an assertion, as is demonstrated above, is unjust in scope and inaccurate in application. Traditionalism, taken in and of itself, as an affinity for the Traditional Latin Mass and the spirituality that accompanies, fosters a love and respect for the Church’s Magisterium, and anything to the contrary would be an aberration, no different than when one finds the same dissent among non-traditional Catholics.

[Part #1 here: Catholic Culture website bashes Traditionalism (again). The next installment will investigate Mirus' statement: “We may be certain that every Magisterial teaching is true.”]

Catholic Culture website bashes Traditionalism (again)

Dr. Jeff Mirus is at it again. He recently penned this attack on traditional Catholics: On Waffling, Tradition, and the Magisterium.

This isn’t the first time Dr. Jeff Mirus has chimed in on the “Traditionalism” debate, and true to form, his efforts not only miss the mark, they are so far out in left field that I considered not even giving him the time of day. However, what Mirus puts on the Catholic Culture website has a tendency to influence many mainstream Catholics who mistake the website as a sound source for Catholic information. For this reason, his treatment of Traditionalism should not go without refute.

The last time I came across Mirus’ ramblings about Traditionalists was last year, and we traded a half a dozen or so emails concerning the nature of the Vatican II documents. In the end, Mirus was unable to refute the facts that I presented, nor the conclusions drawn therefrom. We ended our correspondence in cordial terms, and I had hoped he went away from that correspondence with a new appreciation for the traditional Catholic position in general. Apparently that isn’t the case, as his latest treatment contains the very same over-simplifications and incomplete, erroneous definitions, lacking in necessary distinctions, that he demonstrated in our correspondences last year.

What is Traditionalism?

Mirus gives a faulty definition of “Traditionalism”:

Knowing from past correspondence [We discussed this. Could he be referring to our email correspondence? If so, he learned nothing!] that not everyone uses the term “Traditionalism” in the same way, I hasten here to define it as a position that rejects the contemporary exercise of the Magisterium in favor of a prior understanding of what the Catholic Tradition demands. In other words, I am not referring to those Catholics who, in complete fidelity to the Magisterium at all times, believe that a greater emphasis on traditional ideas and disciplines will be far better for the Church. These, among all others who hold different but equally obedient views, I call simply “Catholics”.

Traditionalism is a rejection of the contemporary exercise of the Magisterium? This is a completely inadequate, unspecific, and useless definition. If the only criteria in determining Traditionalism is a rejection of the contemporary exercise of the Magisterium in favor of some prior understanding, we would necessarily have to include in that distinction the Eastern Orthodox, and the Old Catholics. Indeed, Protestants of all stripes, such as Lutherans, Anglicans, etc, would have to be included as well, since they all accept, at the very least, the Magisterium of those bishops and evangelists who wrote the New Testament. Is Mirus seriously proposing that we consider Traditionalists to be the Eastern Orthodox, along with the Old Catholics, as well as Protestants?

Mirus’ definition of “Traditionalism” amounts to little more than a handy cudgel with which to beat down people like myself who identify themselves as Traditionalists or traditional Catholics. From the very outset Mirus casts Traditionalism and Traditionalists in a negative light, placing the Traditionalist at a disadvantage. At the same time, Mirus’ definition immediately pits traditional Catholics against the Church’s Magisterium. This certainly is not the case for the majority of traditional Catholics who have both a profound love and respect for the teaching office of the Catholic Church.

In order to Avoid this trap from the outset, such a definition must be reasonably rejected for being unspecific and unjustly biased.

Mirus ignores the most obvious and only adequate definition of Traditionalism: an affinity and a pious disposition for the Traditional Latin Mass of the Catholic Church (now called the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite) and a commensurate spirituality.

This definition specifically identifies everyone who would call himself or herself a Traditionalist or traditional Catholic. It is also a positive definition carrying no negative connotations (unless, of course, one is disposed to despise the Traditional Latin Mass of the Catholic Church). In fact, Traditionalism has at its core the embodiment of Pope Benedict’s words in the letter that accompanied the motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum: “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.”

While this definition is specific, it, however, remains broad enough to include a wide range of ideologies (some legitimate, some not), life styles (some legitimate, some not) and devotional practices (some legitimate, some not). This is no different, however, from the mainstream Catholic Church, which includes a dizzying array of ideologies, life styles and devotional practices, from Opus Dei to the Neocatechumenal Way, from Catholics for Choice to Priests For Life. In the mainstream Church one can find orthodoxy and dissent, schismatic attitudes, heresies of all kinds, sound preaching from the likes of Fr. John Corapi, and scandalous funerals by the likes of Patrick Cardinal O’Malley.

In traditional Catholicism there is also room for diversity, both in ideology and devotional practices. In fact, there is a wider variety of devotional practices among traditional Catholics than there are among mainstream Catholics. But, just like in the mainstream Church, there are some ideologies that are problematic. Everyone knows, of course, about the highly publicized, but relatively small percentage of Traditionalists who have adopted a sedevacantist or schismatic position, and some reject the validity of the sacraments. However, for a mainstream Catholic to point a finger at this is like the pot calling the kettle black. Remove the log, please!

[In the second installment (probably coming this weekend) I will treat how Mirus uses his faulty definition to build a case against Traditionalism that is a complete misrepresentation of the traditonal Catholic position, and I will refute Mirus’ oversimplification of the Magisterium.]

Please Pray for the Holy Father

Once again the Holy Father is being attacked by extremely powerful and evil forces both outside and inside the Catholic Church.

Please offer an extra rosary today for the Holy Father.

Let us pray for our Sovereign Pontiff Benedict.

The Lord preserve him, and give him life, and make him blessed upon the earth, and deliver him not up to the will of his enemies.

Another treatment of Ember Days in the blogosphere

The New Liturgical Movement, online magazine, has a treatment of Ember Days, by Mr. Shawn Tribe, that you can read here:

Ember Days: Explanation and Two Proposals

"...it would seem meritorious if Catholics of the Latin rite, particularly those who follow the calendar of the more ancient Roman use, but even those who don’t, were to mark these Ember seasons by resuming what was formally obligatory now at least as a pious and devotional exercise; namely by personally resuming the tradition of observing fast and abstinence on these days and uniting it with the requisite spirit of prayer that should accompany such sacrificial acts."

____________

The Challenge: Live as a traditional Catholic for just one month and your relationship with Our Blessed Lord will be so enriched, your prayer life so inflamed, your life so elevated that you will forever want nothing less than Traditional Catholicism.

FSSP in Ars, Mass offered by Bishop Brouwet

From the New Liturgical Movement: His Excellency Nicolas Brouwet, auxiliary bishop of Nanterre; Low Mass for a bishop at the high altar in Ars, before the incorrupt body of St Jean-Marie Vianney.

Several Excellent Methods of Hearing Mass: Four

Several Excellent Methods of Hearing Mass
By Lady Lucy Herbert

A Manner of
Hearing Mass,
When we consider it as the Sacrifice of praise only; purely to adore and worship the greatness of God, for which intention we must offer it.

At the beginning, having placed yourself with great respect and humility in the presence of God, and made an act of contrition for your sins, imagine that an angel says to you, as one said to St. John, “ascend, and I will shew you what must be done.”

Represent to yourself the spectacle which was shewn him; who, wrapt in spirit, saw in heaven a throne, and a person seated on it, and round it a rainbow like unto an emerald; which throne was surrounded by twenty-four others, on which were seated as many seniors in white garments, with crowns of gold on their heads. And there were also four great animals which never ceased day and night to repeat continually, “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Almighty Lord, who was, who is, and who ever will be.” And whilst the heavens echoed the praised and benedictions uttered by those animals, all the seniors prostrated themselves, laying their crowns at His feet, and crying out, “You deserve, O Lord our God, to receive glory, honour, and power, for you have created all things; and it was because you would have it so, that they have received a being and were made.”

Then reflect that this great God has His eyes first upon you, to receive the divine sacrifice you are going to offer by the hands of the priest; and that an innumerable number of angels, with due respect and fear, surround the priest and the altar. With this idea assist at Mass to acknowledge in infinite greatness of God, and to render Him all due honour.

Affections.

Sovereign Lord of heaven and earth, Master of all creatures; before whom all kings of past, present, or future ages, together with all their subjects, are but as a drop of water, or a grain of sand! You whose Majesty fills the whole universe and whose lustre dazzles the most sublime intelligences, whose power makes hell to tremble, and whose charms ravish the blessed. Who, with one only word, have drawn all created beings out of nothing; and without the least diminution of your treasures have furnished them with all the goods they have.

Behold me your unworthy creature prostrate at your feet, begging that, together with the Sacrifice of your dear Son, you will please to accept that of my unworthy self, and the promises made for me at baptism, and those I made at my profession, which I here again renew.

I adore you my God: I believe in you; I expect and hope all from you; I acknowledge all my love is due to you; I place all my felicity in loving and serving you.

How sweet is it to have for a Father, so amiable and so powerful a God! When I reflect that you are willing to be my Father, I grieve that my understanding is so narrow as not to conceive so inestimable a benefit; and that my heart is not capable to love you as I ought. I adore you, with respect, as my sovereign; I embrace you with tenderness, as my Father; and I consecrate myself wholly to you, as my Creator and bestower of my being.

At the Offestory.

Consider Christ as the only victim that can worthily honour the greatness of God. Offer Him all His merits to His eternal Father, and so by His means render Him all the honour He merits and deserves, and as much as you owe Him, or He can justly exact from you. This must also mind you to offer yourself; that is, the sacrifice of your liberty: for he that gives his liberty, gives all, and can no more possess any thing.

Affections.

Take possession of me, my God; for I am wholly yours. Imprint in my memory the remembrance of your presence, and divine perfection in my understanding the knowledge of you, and in my heart your love; and grant me the grace to submit my will to all your laws, and to each point of order for your sake. Destroy, and make me overcome whatever may dispute your right in me. I desire to depend wholly on you: it is you alone, my God, that I desire to serve, and to have no other end in all I do, than the accomplishment of your holy will, and your greater glory: grant me by that, and I will desire no more.

At the Elevation.

It is at that precious moment, that God showers down a deluge of graces into the hearts of those that are disposed to receive them; and a deluge of sanctity for the just, and of penance for sinners. And it is then that we obtain of the eternal Father all we ask Him by the death and passion of His Divine Son.

Adore our Saviour in the Host, and consider Him as a true model of a perfect Holocaust. he has spared nothing, but has sacrificed all for the glory of His eternal Father: thence learn what you ought to do; resolve upon it, and beg grace for that effect.

Affections.

My soul, behold the afflicting state which your dear Saviour was reduced to upon Mount Calvary, and you shall not find the least thing, neither in soul nor body, which He has not sacrificed for His eternal Father’s glory and your salvation.

Sovereign Lord, what obligations have I to you! who not content to have sacrificed yourself on the cross for me, do daily renew the same sacrifice for me. I believe you as really present here, as I do that you are seated at the right hand of your eternal Father. If on Calvary you had the goodness to promise Him that I should one day sacrifice myself with you, the day is now come; be pleased then to offer me to Him united with yourself, for I am so base and unworthy of His acceptance, that I dare not offer myself alone; but united to you, and offered by you, and despicable as I am, I shall be agreeable to His Divine Majesty.

O eternal Father, behold here your dear, your Divine Son, and for Hi sake look upon me who He has redeemed with His precious blood; since, together with my dear Saviour, I consecrate myself to you, to be disposed of, as it shall please your Divine Majesty, for time and for eternity.

At the Commuion.

Jesus Christ present on the altar, has an ardent desire to be received by you, that He may adore, praise, and worship His eternal Father in you, and pay Him, in your behalf, those homages you owe Him; and together with Himself, offer you up in Sacrifice to His Divine Majesty. Be sure therefore to communicate spiritually, making acts, as if you were sacramentally to receive Him, as of humility, contrition, and a great desire to receive Him.

After which, consider Him in your heart, adore Him there, and offer first yourself to Him: and then offer Him His eternal Father, and His adorations to acknowledge the supreme dominion He has over you all creatures, and beg Him to receive the same in lieu of all the honour and homage due to His sovereign greatness from you and all creatures. If you desire that your offering may be pleasing to God, you must unite your heart with the heart of Jesus; for all your tears and sighs, if not united with His, will not touch the heart of God.

Penetrate, if you can, the sacred heart of Jesus, when He offers Himself in Sacrifice on the altar of your heart to His eternal Father. What flames of love will you there discover! It is there that He contemplates His eternal Father, and profoundly adores Him; offering His body, soul, and all His merits, for the sanctification of your soul, and inflame it with His love.

Of all other means, this of Holy Communion is the most powerful. At Mass never fail to communicate spiritually when you are not permitted to do it sacramentally. And beseech Him, who came down from heaven, to enflame your heart with His holy love, that He would please even more to enkindle that flame in it, and to teach you the true method of loving Him. For if you know that, you know all; and provided He bestows that upon you, let Him exact what He pleases, tell Him you are content. In short, beg Him so to unite your heart with His, that you may be one with Him, according to His divine will, for time and for enternity.

Mainstream John Allen on the SSPX Talks

I'm not particularly fond of John Allen. He gets a lot of mileage out of appearing to be moderate. However, he did write about something of interest to traditional Catholics, and Fr. Z gave his piece a pretty good parsing.

If you're interested, here is Allen's article with Fr. Zuhlsdorf's comments: John Allen on upcoming SSPX Summit.

Further revelations about Schonborn?

Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, the once darling of neo-cons worldwide, falters on what most neo-cons thought was his strongest leg: pro-life.

See the GloriaTV exclusive at Cathcon.

Schonborn was recently in the news in regards to his strong, albeit inaccurate and most likely unjust, words concerning the SSPX.

An object can appear very different when cast under a different light. For a very long time Cardinal Schonborn sparkled in the light cast by Pope John Paul II, but now under the light cast by Pope Benedict XVI, perhaps a truer and more natural light, Cardinal Schonborn is being revealed for who and what he is.

Who would he be in a Malachi Martin novel?

So what Malachi Martin character do you think Cardinal Christoph Schonborn would be?

I'm thinking Jay Jay O'Cleary from Windswept House.


CWN: Vatican talks with SSPX to begin in October, not this week

Rorate Coeli: Cardinal Schonborn out of the loop?

What we already know...

... young people are the mainstay of the Traditional Latin Mass.

CWN:

In an interview with Vatican Radio on the 2nd anniversary of the implementation of Summorum Pontificum, Father Joseph Kramer, FSSP, emphasized that the average age of those attending Mass at his parish is 30. Reacting to a lack of discipline, the younger generation, he says, is drawn to the prayerfulness, silence, order, and symmetry of the Mass.

The average age should trend downward over the next couple of decades as traditional Catholics now entering into their 30s will have the average number of children for traditional Catholics, five to seven.

Couple this with the incredible vocation rate to the priesthood and religious life among traditional Catholics, it is clear that that which is extraordinary today will be ordinary in the not too distant future.

Catholic-Russian Orthodox Unity within a few months?

NCRegister is reporting remarks made by the Catholic Archbishop of Moscow, Paolo Pezzi that unity with the Russian Orthodox Church could occur within months.

Pezzi states that there is general agreement between the Vatican and the Russian Orthodox on social and doctrinal issues, but concedes that papal primacy still remains an sticking point. According to the article:

“There remains the question of papal primacy,” Archbishop Pezzi acknowledged, “and this will be a concern at the next meeting of the Catholic-Orthodox Commission. But to me, it doesn’t seem impossible to reach an agreement.”

The article goes on to state:

Relations have also been greatly helped by the election of Patriarch Kirill I earlier this year as leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is by far the largest of the national churches in the Orthodox Church. As the former head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s department for external relations, Kirill met Benedict on several occasions before and after he became Pope, and the Russian Orthodox Patriarch is well acquainted with the Roman Curia and with Catholicism.

It should also be noted that Patriarch Kirill is a liturgical traditionalist in the Russian Orthodox Church. The current state of the western liturgy has often been a ready criticism leveled against Rome by Orthodox theologians and prelates.

SSPX talks to start not before Mid-October

Our Friends at Rorate Coeli bring us a translation from an article in the French Le Figaro, stating that the planned talks between theologians chosen by Pope Benedict XVI and the Society of St. Pius X will not begin before the middle of October. (Fundamentalists: No discussions with Rome before mid-October)

The reason given for the delay, if it is a delay, is that the "assembly of two delegations... has not been completed." I would expect more delegates from the Vatican will be announced in the coming weeks. These will be interesting to watch. The three delegates chosen so far indicate the nature of the doctrinal discussions, which will (so far) seem to focus on ecumenism and ecclesiology.

In my opinion it is more crucial to watch who the Holy Father chooses, rather than to see who the SSPX chooses. Who the Holy Father chooses indicates his thinking. So far the Holy Father's thinking is oriented toward making the Second Vatican Council palatable for the SSPX without limiting the importance of the VCII documents for the modern Church. This is a pope who remains dedicated to the documents, even though he seems (rightly, I might add) to favor a "pastoral" rather than doctrinal interpretation. How successful this project will prove, only time will tell.

Please pray for the Holy Father and for the complete restoration of traditional Catholicism.

Pilgrimage for Restoration, NY

A Great way to spend this year's Michealmas Emberdays:

Fourteenth Annual Pilgrimage for Restoration.

September 23 - 26, 2009

Pilgrimage

to the

Shrine of Our Lady

of the North American Martyrs

St. Isaac Jogues & Companions

Auriesville, New York

Restoring True Devotion to Mary,

Mother of the Priesthood

The Church and culture

Of central importance for me are our traditional Catholic faith, my family and the world that is being formed in which my children will live. These things are not separate. They do not belong in different categories. Religion informs and shapes the family, communities, and the world. The various spheres of society in which we move, the world, will be determined by the predominate religions of those who share those spheres of society.

One of those distinguishing marks of a traditional Catholic family is that neither religion or politics are anathema at the dinner table, in fact both subjects are embraced and relished as topics of conversation. This is for a reason, as traditional Catholics understand like no one else the centrality of religious truth to everything, especially society and politics. Our social and political lives are integral parts of our culture, and as the word culture plainly implies, cult is at the root. When the cult suffers society and politics suffers exponentially.

Over the years I’ve read Pat Buchanan from this perspective. As a traditional Catholic, his political analysis is often studded with this truth realized in such away as only a traditional Catholic could.

In regards to American society, politics and culture, Pat Buchanan had this to say:

The European-Christian core of the country that once defined us is shrinking, as Christianity fades, the birth rate falls and Third World immigration surges. Globalism dissolves the economic bonds, while the cacophony of multiculturalism displaces the old American culture.

"E pluribus unum" -- out of many, one -- was the national motto the men of '76 settled upon. One sees the pluribus. But where is the unum? One sees the diversity. But where is the unity?

Is America, too, breaking up?

My first reaction to this statement was that America has gone through various struggles and divisions in the past, the most obvious one being the Civil War that Buchanan even mentions in the same article. However, Buchanan has touched on the root of our modern dilemma as only a traditional Catholic can. What makes our modern circumstances different is a complete and total lack of rootedness due to the loss of a religious soul. Without this religious soul, unity of culture and consequently society is impossible. Disagreement becomes division. The Civil War was painful and bloody, a great tragedy, but it was the birth pangs of a nation. Our divisions today are of a completely different sort. They amount to a death agony, and already a new global order, one that is impersonal, immoral, and inhuman is emerging from the decaying victim.

What has changed in the last half century?

Not that long ago I was reminded of a curious historical fact. The cultural revolutions that shook the Western world, that transformed cultural mores to their very core, took place not before, but after the Second Vatican Council. Cult is the root of the word culture.

The center of our world, the center of humanity, is the Catholic Church, which is the Church of Christ. The traditional Catholic understands the drama of this world as a shadow of the eternal struggle. As the Catholic Church suffers dissent and liturgical confusion, the world and all its cultures suffer equally. We’ve all heard the slogan, “Save the Liturgy, Save the World.” For this reason traditional Catholics must redouble their prayers for a complete restoration of the Traditional Latin Mass and traditional Catholicism.

Please offer a rosary for the complete restoration of the Traditional Latin Mass and traditional Catholicism.

SSPX Mass in St. Peters?

Our friend, Mr. Gillibrand at CathCon is reporting that an SSPX priest from Germany recently offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.

This may not have been intentional on the part of the basilica sacristan, as the priest did not request the honor in writing before hand. However, on the other hand, there's equal reason to believe that it could have been.

All the pope's men: Vatican's side of the table in the SSPX discussions

Our friends at Rorate Coeli have published some names that are being floated in the Roman rumor mill as participants, on the Vatican side of the table, in the upcoming discussions with the SSPX.

Here is my take on the three names that surfaced there.

Fr. Charles Morerod, O.P.

He wrote a book entitled Ecumenism and Philosophy, which discusses the philosophical (and perhaps, philological) roots of the divisions in Christianity. (I’ve never read the book.) He has given a number of talks on ecumenism, and has written a number of essays on the topic. His presence demonstrates the ecumenism piece of the discussions. Morerod will present a sober and orthodox approach to ecumenism, as is demonstrated by these words:

The Eucharist, the source and sign of unity par excellence, is also a sign of division. This paradox is found in all the key points of the faith. Cardinal Giovanni Battista Montini noted, on 25 January 1963, that "we come to realize that a strange phenomenon exists. What should lay the foundations of union — thought, doctrine, our common faith — instead of being a subject of union is an impediment, an obstacle to unity. Faith divides us".

First of all, it is Christ himself who divides people even in families, Christ, the maximum principle of unity! And how many people, even in the realm of the profane, are divided in the name of love? The most unitive things are also the most divisive, even if the dynamism that impels them toward union may come first. Today the Eucharist is first and foremost the ultimate instrument and sign of Christian unity, the action of grace for unity that is already real.

From Reflections on Ecclesia de Eucharistia

Fr. Morerod will present an approach to ecumenism that is line with traditional Catholic doctrine, but this may not jive with SSPX hardliners (or even moderates), who will insist on nothing short of abandoning the entire post-VCII venture. It will be interesting to see how the SSPX handles Fr. Morerod's Thomistic ecumenism.

Fr. Karl Becker, S.J.

Fr. Becker is a right of center theologian thoroughly entrenched in the Ratzinger school of the “hermeneutic of continuity”. He had done extensive work on the “subsistet in” controversy of the VCII document “Lumen Gentium”. He wrote:

The phrase subsistit in is intended not only to reconfirm the meaning of the term est, that is, the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church. Above all it reaffirms that the Church of Christ, imbued with the fullness of all the means instituted by Christ, perdures (continues, remains) for ever in the Catholic Church.

From An Examination of Subsistit in: A Profound Theological Perspective

Like Pope Benedict XVI he insists on an interpretation of the VCII documents in line with traditional Catholic doctrine, but could find himself at loggerheads with the SSPX, not so much over the nature of the council documents, but in regards to their value to the Church. He will insist, like the pope, that the documents are critically important and will brook no “poison cake” positions.

Mgr. Fernando Ocáriz (Opus Dei)

One need go no further than the words “Opus Dei” to see a possible stumbling block in these talks. The unflinching, and as many have criticized, the blind, obedience of Opus Dei to the Roman Pontiff is legendary. This is the pope’s man, and his involvement is obviously to be sure the interests of the papacy will be served by these discussions. Mgr. Fernando Ocáriz is the vicar-general of Opus Dei, the number two guy. The SSPX need tread lightly on this ground if these talks are to be successful.

Ocáriz is more than just a well pressed cassock, however. He was a main contributor to the 2000 document Dominus Iesus, and is an erudite theologian in his own right. Of particular note to the purposes of these discussions, however, is the fact that Ocáriz also published an article in the L'Osservatore Romano concerning the nature of the Church and subsistet in (The Church of Christ, the Catholic Church and churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church, Italian edition). Published within a few days of Becker’s treatment in the English edition, his conclusion was consistent with Becker’s, indicating that they were both writing under the direction of the Holy Father.

The presence of both Becker and Ocáriz demonstrates that these discussions will focus in large part on the nature and interpretation of the VCII documents. As stated already, there will be considerable agreement between the two parties on the nature of the documents and their interpretation. This could bear much fruit for the Church if the contents and conclusions of the discussions are made public. However, there may be considerable disagreement over the value of the documents.



The Vatican side of the table will be peopled, not so much with enthusiastic supporters of the SSPX, but men firm in belief that the VCII documents need to be read in accordance with Tradition, and an orthodox and sober approach to ecumenism. What’s more, the Vatican side of the table demonstrates the utterly doctrinal nature of these discussions. So far, no expert in liturgical theology was announced, and the absence of that says more than anything else.

Glen Beck on Van Jones... "silly season" was inaugurated by Obama

On September 8th, President Obama will be piped into every public school classroom across the country. Mr. Gibbs, the administration spokesman, says that the criticisms regarding this watershed event is evidence of a "silly season".

My concerns regarding this President being piped into every public school classroom across the country is silly? Has Mr. Gibbs never read 1984? Has Mr. Gibbs ever took a good look at the people he works with in the White House?

Questions:

Does Mr. Obama think that white people are poisoning people of color?

Why would Mr. Gibbs think it silly that I'm concerned about a man who possibly holds this opinion and this much power being given the opportunity to address and garner the adulation of tens of thousands of impressionable children?

Solemn Mass and Enclosure at Elysburg Carmel

Solemn Mass and Enclosure at Elysburg Carmel, brief description at NLM, here. All the pictures can be viewed here.

Public Schools to become indoctrination camps on Sept. 8

UPDATED

Gibbs says this is silly season. Two word rebuttal to Mr. Gibbs: Van Jones.

__________________
UPDATED


The Obama administration has backed off on its suggestions to teachers for student assignments on how to "help the president." Link to news story.

The White House blog states that Obama's address directly to the children of the country, given legitimacy by the endorsement of the authorities in charge of the children, is an attempt to get students "to take personal responsibility for their own education".

No it is not. It was intended from the beginning to foster in America's youth an adulation for this president, which in the future will become an adulation for this president's politics and his plan for society. With or without the "help the president" line in the Department of Education's preparation materials, piping the Fuhrer into all the public schools across the country will accomplish the intended nefarious purpose.

________________________


There was a really bad movie from the 80s called Red Dawn. After the Soviets and Cubans invaded the United States they set up indoctrination camps. I remember being spooked by the scene wherein inmates were subjected to watching on huge television monitors their new communist leaders set out the virtues of the new order and the vices of a capitalist past.

Well, on September 8th The One will turn every public school in the US into one of these indoctrination camps. Never thought it could happen here? It did, and it didn't take the Cubans or the Soviet military. All it took was a healthy dose of engineered civil ignorance on polling day.

The incredible lengths of the Obama propaganda machine, here and here.

Make no mistake. The new order is being established with speed and precision. Please consider home schooling your children.

Several Excellent Methods of Hearing Mass: One

Several Excellent Methods of
Hearing Mass
With Fruit and Benefit

According to the Institution of that Divine Sacrifice,
and the Intention of our
Holy Mother the Church.

With Motives to induce all good Christians, particularly Religious Persons, to make Use of the same.

Collected Together
By the Right Honourable
Lady Lucy Herbert of Powis,
Superior of the English Augustinian Nuns.

Printed in the year 1791

Advertisement

The motives proposed before each Mass will very much contribute to raise esteem and devotion in time of that august Sacrifice. Therefore, it is advisable and much recommended to all to allow so much time before Mass as to read the Motives which preceded the Method you then intend to make use of, and also from time to time the Fruits which may be drawn from Holy Mass.

Motives and Methods
to assist devoutly at
Holy Mass

General Motives to raise esteem and devotion to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

The most sublime action that the Church militant can offer to God, is that of the Holy Mass, because the victim offered to His Divine Majesty is of an infinite dignity: Christ therein the priest when he pronounces the sacramental words of Consecration, and dies again a mystical death. The Holy Ghost is the sacred fire which, by the victim then offered, sanctifies the Church, and all that assist at the Sacrifice as they ought.

Nothing ought to rejoice us so much as the advantage we have to assist daily at Holy Mass, in which we may enrich ourselves with the merits of Christ. Nor can we do any action during our lives comparable to that of every day offering to the eternal Father, by the hands of the priest, the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of His only Son.

All things are infinite in the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass. The victim that is offered is infinite. The God to whom it is offered is infinite. Jesus Christ being the principal Priest and Sacrificer, sacrificing Himself in person, to his eternal Father, by the hands of the priest. It is He who by His minister pronounces the sacramental words which operate this great mystery. Therefore one Mass, though celebrated by a wicked priest, renders more glory to God than all the homages which men and angels can pay Him.

God ordained the Holy Mass, in which the history of His passion and death is mysteriously acted as a real but unbloody representation of that bloody Sacrifice of His death, which was the greatest benefit God could give to man, or man receive from God, it being the highest expression his omnipotent love could make; which deserves not only all our love, but all we have or can have. And that this might make a deeper impression in our hearts and minds, He appointed this Divine Representation, to which we are invited as spectators, and ought to come to it well furnished with love and compassion.

Holy Mass being the same Sacrifice that was offered upon Mount Calvary for our redemption, we ought to assist thereat with gratitude and love, with reverential fear, and with an extreme devotion and attention, it containing the mysteries of our Saviour’s death and passion, which we know was the greatest and most solemn action that ever was performed, when in the midst of the world and view of the people, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, suffered death, dying on a cross by the hands and for the Redemption of His creatures; a spectacle so full of dreadful Majesty, whether we consider the person, the end, or the manner, that it astonished the Angels, and was a spectacle worthy of God.

This holy Sacrifice being the representation of our Saviour’s bitter death and passion, we are, as it were, indispensably obliged to apply ourselves to it, especially after the command that Christ gave, saying, “Do this in memory of me”. It is then His will that we should renew those dolorous mysteries, as it was for the end he instituted the sacrifice of Holy Mass.

This being, it seems, that though we may entertain our selves with other pious thoughts during the time of Mass, yet none but those of the Passion appear entirely conformable to the intention of Jesus Christ. And how can we, at Mass, behold Christ immolated, as truly as He was upon Mount Calvary, and His Precious Blood crying to us from the Altar, that He dies and is again sacrificed, and entertain any thought but of His infinite love which deprives Him of His life?

To reap the full profit of this Divine Sacrifice, we must not only have an intention to hear Mass, but a formal application to what Christ does who is our Head, and offers us His members in Sacrifice. We do not hear Mass as we ought when we omit to unite ourselves with Him. We should join with Him by uniting our intentions with His, and by our application to what He therein does, the Sacrifice of Holy Mass being the mystery of our reconciliation and sanctification. Many fools that are now in hell might not have been there, if they had but once heard Mass as they ought to have done. For by means thereof they might have received such efficacious graces for their entire conversion, and such strength for to have withstood and overcome temptations, that they would never have come to that misfortune.

When we hear Mass, we should always reflect that Christ acts as Priest, and that the priest is but His minister.

Secondly, that He is also the victim that is offered, as well as the Priest that offers it.

Thirdly, that it is for us He offers it; so that we cannot do better in time of Mass than to keep ourselves united to Him who is pleased to perform all our duties for us.

We must observe another thing when we hear Mass, which is to communicate spiritually when we are not allowed to do it sacramentally. And this practice is of so great a value that it supplies for Sacramental Communion, and is as acceptable in the fight of God (who sees our heart and the desire we have to receive Him) when, for just reasons, we cannot sacramentally do it. And these frequent Spiritual Communions will be a good preparation for Sacramental Communion.

The greater purity of soul we bring to Holy Mass, the more capable we are of sharing in the fruits of this adorable Sacrifice. Therefore, we must first humble ourselves in the presence of God, and then, making an act of contrition, beg pardon for our sins. The following prayer may serve for that effect.

O My God, prostrate before your Divine Majesty, I acknowledge myself the most ungrateful and most unworthy of your creatures. I accuse myself before you and your Angels, of all the sins of my life past; of all my negligences in your service; of my neglects in complying with your blessed will and holy inspirations; of my sloth and tepidity in your service; and in the exercise of your Divine Love: in reparation of which, I offer you all the merits of Christ, who will soon render himself present for me upon the Altar. Receive, Lord, His death and passion in satisfaction, and for the remission of my sins; His indefatigable labours to repair my negligences; His prompt obedience in complying with all your wills to satisfy for my sloth therein. Look not on my unworthiness, but upon your Son, who, by the excess of goodness, gives himself to me to satisfy for all my debts. Respice in Faciem Christi tui.

Several Excellent Methods: Introduction

I’ve decided to reproduce an old book by Lady Lucy Herbert of Powis called Several Excellent Methods of Hearing Mass with Fruit and Benefit.

Some people I know who were interested in the concept of “hearing Mass” spurred this little project. Methods of hearing Mass used to be a rather common devotional exercises for the faithful. They were intended to better unite those assisting at the Mass to the Sacrifice being represented.

These pious and fruitful devotions, however, were looked down upon even by the earliest of reformers in the 20th century liturgical movement. In a pitched frenzy that rivals in intensity the the iconoclasm of the seventh century, those involved in the liturgical movement, even in the early years of the 20th century, became obsessed with a single phrase written by St. Pius X, "full and active participation". A misinterpretation of the saint's words, and a misapplication of a single phrase, used constantly out of context, has caused the unfortunate perception that those who are not astutely following every prayer and gesture at the altar are somehow not participating in the Mass.

This attitude took an extreme turn just prior and especially after the Second Vatican Council. The “dialogue Mass” came into vogue in the decades prior to Vatican II. After the Second Vatican Council the laity were given a very rigid set of rubrics and responses in the new order of the Mass. Those who did not follow these strict rubrics or say the responses were considered to not be “fully and actively participating” in the Mass. The fruits of the Mass came to be gauged by how much the laity did at Mass, not so much how they prayed. Externals like rote responses, and set postures and gestures, and eventually, “liturgical roles”, usurped reverence, piety, worship and communion. Under the new liturgical regime that had taken over the modern Church, people had to make the correct responses, do the correct postures, and serve as lector or “cup minister” once a month in order to fulfill the dictates of "active participation" manifesto.

The dialogue Mass and the new order of the Mass so emphasized the externals that Catholics forgot that there is a very important need to maintain an internal recollection. Prayer and mediation are crucial in order to unite oneself internally to the Sacrifice of the Mass being offered. As the Honorable Lady Lucy Herbert wrote: “We should join with Him by uniting our intentions with His, and by our application to what He therein does, the Sacrifice of Holy Mass being the mystery of our reconciliation and sanctification.” Without this internal application to Our Blessed Lord’s intentions, efficacious graces that may be gained by devoutly assisting at the Mass are all but lost to the individual soul.

Regrettably, as the Traditional Latin Mass starts to gain traction, a variant of this attitude can now be found among those who assist at the usus antiquior. There are those who think they must slavishly follow all the words and gestures of the priest in their missals, or that they must make all the responses that the servers make, even though they don’t know Latin. If they fail to follow every word of every prayer, they think they are not "fully and actively participating". This is unfortunate, because such an attitude causes the soul more distraction and frustration than edification. Hurrying over the words of the Mass leads one to miss the beauty and majesty of those prayers. Being too concerned about keeping up with the priest actually draws our attention away from the purpose of the priest’s prayers and actions.

Because there seems to be no little confusion about this matter, it’s high time to broach the topic of devotional Methods, and what better way than to look at a venerable spiritual work such as Lady Lucy Herbert’s collection. This little book contains some excellent methods that can act as a spring board to enriching our experience of the Traditional Latin Mass.

I was particularly drawn to this book because the author is not a priest. There is a wealth of information on the web about the rubrics, the theology of the Traditional Latin Mass, and liturgical etiquette. However, there is very little that concerns specifically how the faithful are to gain spiritual benefits by assisting at the Holy Mass. The Mass is, after all, offered by the priest for the good of the Church. If all we are concerned about is the rubrics and the role of the priest, we miss the most important element of all! how the Mass benefits the soul!

As a cloistered nun, Lady Lucy’s perspective is much closer to that of the laity than would be the perspective of a priest. Her ease in speaking to the Father, our Blessed Lord, the Virgin Mary and the Saints is fraught with simple and pure intention, and a familiarity that remains humble and yet awestruck. She speaks with candor to God, but at the same time is filled with the fear of the Lord. She gives us a glimpse into the heart of a pious, sincere soul. While she is a cloistered nun, her insights into the spiritual fruits of the Mass remain practical, perfectly so for the practical everyday lives of the modern laity. This book provides for universal holiness, not in some facial external participation, but by a mystical participation, the kind of full and active participation intended by Pope St. Pius X.

As far as I know the last time this work was printed was in the late 1800s, edited by Fr. John Morris, S.J. in his book, The Devotions of the Lady Lucy Herbert of Powis. The edition that I’m reproducing here was printed in 1791. The book can be viewed on line at Google Books.

I am making no changes to the content, save using modern script and changing the punctuation and capitalizing in places for ease of reading. Since the book is out of print, it is part of the public domain.

Hopefully this little book will open up discussion and imagination, and fuel a desire to enter more fully into the august Sacrament of the Altar.

Change! Change! Change!... except for the tactics

From Pascendi Dominici Gregis, On the Doctrine of the Modernists, an encyclical letter by Pope St. Pius X, paragraph 43

And here we have already some of the artifices employed by Modernists to exploit their wares. What efforts do they not make to win new recruits! They seize upon professorships in the seminaries and universities, and gradually make of them chairs of pestilence. In sermons from the pulpit they disseminate their doctrines, although possibly in utterances which are veiled. In congresses they express their teachings more openly. In their social gatherings they introduce them and commend them to others. Under their own names and under pseudonyms they publish numbers of books, newspapers, reviews, and sometimes one and the same writer adopts a variety of pseudonyms to trap the incautious reader into believing in a multitude of Modernist writers. In short, with feverish activity they leave nothing untried in act, speech, and writing. And with what result? We have to deplore the spectacle of many young men, once full of promise and capable of rendering great services to the Church, now gone astray. It is also a subject of grief to Us that many others who, while they certainly do not go so far as the former, have yet been so infected by breathing a poisoned atmosphere, as to think, speak, and write with a degree of laxity which ill becomes a Catholic. They are to be found among the laity, and in the ranks of the clergy, and they are not wanting even in the last place where one might expect to meet them, in religious communities. If they treat of biblical questions, it is upon Modernist principles; if they write history, they carefully, and with ill-concealed satisfaction, drag into the light, on the plea of telling the whole truth, everything that appears to cast a stain upon the Church. Under the sway of certain a priori conceptions they destroy as far as they can the pious traditions of the people, and bring into disrespect certain relics highly venerable from their antiquity. They are possessed by the empty desire of having their names upon the lips of the public, and they know they would never succeed in this were they to say only what has always been said by all men. Meanwhile it may be that they have persuaded themselves that in all this they are really serving God and the Church. In reality they only offend both, less perhaps by their works in themselves than by the spirit in which they write, and by the encouragement they thus give to the aims of the Modernists.

Bishop Martino's resignation sparks discussion of division

Bishop Joseph Martino's resignation as bishop of the Diocese of Scranton for health reasons, has sparked discussion in the media and blogasphere of divisions in the Catholic Church. Quoted at the American Papist (this is not Thomas' opinion!):

Whatever the ins and outs of the internal church maneuvering, the upshot is that a leading voice in the anti-Obama wing of the church hierarchy has been silenced while both Obama and Biden continue to take center stage.

..."By the world's standards perhaps I have not been successful here," Martino concluded. "But I did what I thought was right."

Clearly not everyone agreed with that self-assessment, from Martino's fellow bishops on up to the pope. Where the hierarchy, and American Catholics, go from here is the question that remains unanswered.

That there are profound divisions in the Catholic Church since the early sixties is a foregone conclusion. That those divisions have been spotlighted and accentuated by the Obama administration in order to use already forged divisions in the Church to tear the Church down is equally obvious. Martino is the newest victim of these evil powers inside and outside of the Church.

The solution, of course, is to forge a new and stronger traditional Catholic identity by restoring the Traditional Latin Mass and traditional Catholic devotions and culture, and ultimately setting aside those post-Vatican II initiatives that have brought internal divisions to the Church.