Removed "True Restoration" from the blog roll...

... Because it is evident that poor Stephen Heiner has gone off the sedevacantist cliff. Too bad, as he has often proven himself to be a reasonable, albeit, hardline traditionalist with a knack for critical observation. The Church of Christ will miss him.

Marian Procession on Stronsay Island

More images of the Procession on Stronsay Island, coordinated by the Transalpine Redemptorists of Papa Stronsay, can be seen here.

Prayer and Donations Needed for Traditional Catholic Family

Please keep the Hamils in your prayers. This traditional Catholic family from Peidmont, Oklahoma, was left devastated by a tornado that destroyed their home, and killed two of their children. This tragic story can be read here.

Please consider sending a donation to help the Hamils in this, their time of need:

The Hamil Family
C/O St. Damien of Molokai Catholic Church
Fr. Casavantes, FSSP
8455 NW 234th Street
Edmond, OK 73025
http://www.stdamiens.org/contactus.html

Also, please consider having Masses offered for the Hamils, and for the repose of the souls of their children who lost their lives.

Requiém ætérnam dona eis, Dómine.
Et lux perpétua lúceat eis.
Requiéscant in pace.
Amen.

The Symbolic Purpose of Lifting the Rim of the Chasuble During the Elevations

Bumping this article due to this (which is a good example of how the lifting of the chasuble should NOT be done) and this (which seems to imply that any symbolic significance is nonsense, and, of course, such an impression would be, well, nonsense).

_______________________

The ceremony performed by a deacon at solemn Mass.

In the Ritus servandus of the 1962 Missale Romanum, the deacon is required to lift the edge of the chasuble during solemn Masses. Other ministers at the altar, such as altar boys do so at low Masses in imitation of that ceremony, but it is not required by the rubrics. However, this is a very long standing custom for the altar boy to also lift the rim of the chasuble at low Masses. I think it's a good thing to retain the custom because it has deep symbolic significance. This symbolic significance has often been lost in recent investigations of the prayers and rubrics of the Mass, even by those of a traditional disposition, due to an over emphasis on "organic development".

The historical evolution of the ceremony is an important consideration in understanding the "Why?" of the practice, but it should not be the only, or most important, consideration in our understanding, especially in debates on whether certain customs should be retained. Studying the prayers and actions of the Mass becomes a sterile and spiritually void exercise if all that is considered is the organic development and history of the liturgy. Like all the elements of Catholic ritual, this particular ceremony, of course, goes back to practical considerations. Conical vestments worn in the past (think of something very similar to a Byzantine vestment) would hang down and cover the arms. At the elevations the priest would have to bunch the vestment up on the shoulder, and the deacon or other minister would lift some of the weight of the chasuble. A similar problem occurred with heavy Roman vestments during the Tridentine Reformation. But practicality is never an entirely thorough element in our understanding of this ceremony.

Elevation without the ceremony of lifting the chasuble.
The rubrics do not call for the altar boys to lift the chasuble.

It is important to keep in mind that not only was it practical, but also heavily invested by symbolism. This symbolism remains today, even though the practical purpose for its evolution in history may not apply in modern times. The lifting of the chasuble, part of the rubrics for the deacon at solemn Masses, has unique symbolic meaning for us today, and it is this symbolic meaning that is hardly ever discussed or even known, even in traditional Catholic circles.

There are two clues to the symbolic meaning of this ceremony. One comes from the ordination Mass wherein the chasuble is said to signify charity. The second comes from the vesting prayer the priest recites when he puts on the chasuble before Mass wherein the chasuble is referred to as the "yoke of Christ".

In the ordination Mass, when the bishop bestows the chasuble upon the priest he says: "Receive the priestly vestment, which is signified by charity." The chasuble, therefore, is a symbol of charity.

At the moment of the elevations, all are called to adore the God-Man, really present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar. As those assisting at Mass adore the Blessed Sacrament, a minister at the altar lifts the rim of the chasuble, symbolically signifying that from which all charity flows, namely the God Who dwells among us, Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

Altar boys performing the ceremony at low Mass.

Secondly, when putting on the chasuble before Mass the priest recites this vesting prayer: "O Lord, Who hast said, 'My yoke is sweet and My burden light,' grant that I may so carry it as to merit Thy grace. Amen." Thus, as well as being symbolic of charity, the chasuble is specifically referred to as the "yoke and burden of Christ" in the Church's rites. When the deacon lifts the rim of the chasuble at the the elevations he symbolically signifies that the God-Man's "yoke is easy and His burden light" (Matt 11:30) specifically because He dwells among His people in the Eucharist.

These more important symbolic reasons for the ceremony can bear much meditative fruit for those assisting at Mass. For this reason, even though the rubrics do not call for the altar boy to perform the ceremony at low Masses, it is a good and upright custom for the faithful. Because of the rarity of solemn Masses today, if it were not for the custom of the altar boy imitating the ceremony at low Masses the faithful would needlessly be denied the ceremony and the symbolic significance attached to it.

Ancillary reasons:
1. The people expect it. While continuing the ceremony will not disturb, stopping it suddenly when it is expected will.
2. When altar boys imitate the ceremonies of an ordained minister it is both an inspiration to consider a possible calling to ordained ministry, and preparation for ordination.
3. The ceremony has its own unique and aesthetic mystique, which contributes to the faithful's adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.

A note on how to properly lift the chasuble:
At the moment of each elevation the rim of the chasuble is lifted vertically, not outward or away from the priest. The chasuble should only be lifted four or five inches, and no more. The chasuble should not be tugged or pulled. The altar boy should make no other gesture (sign of the cross, striking the breast, bowing or nodding, etc.). The chasuble is gently released the moment the Host or Chalice is replaced on the altar. The gesture should never be dramatic. Less is more. If the priest knows the chasuble has been lifted, then the altar boy has done it incorrectly.

If there is one server, he should kneel to the right of the priest on the edge of the platform. After the first genuflection the altar boy should take hold of the chasuble at the middle of the lower rim with his left hand, and ring the altar bells with his right hand. If there are two altar boys, they should kneel on either side of the priest and both should hold the lower rim of the chasuble, one with his right, the other with his left hand. Care should be taken that both altar boys hold the chasuble at the same height.

My Response to Fr. Cavalcoli, O.P. Published in The Remnant

I would like to thank Mr. Michael Matt of The Remnant for publishing my essay, Why Not the Univocal? A Response to Fr. Cavalcoli in the Ongoing Debate Regarding Vatican II and the Traditionalist Critique. Please click on the link and give it a read through, and maybe consider buying a subscription to The Remnant Newspaper.

The Council of Trent, a more than univocal Ecumenical Council
(by Pasquale Cati da Iesi, 1588)

If you aren't familiar with this spontaneous internet debate, here are the relevant links:

Francesco Arzillo's criticism of the traditionalist critique (as presented by Roberto de Mattei and Brunero Gherardini) that appeared on Sandro Magister's blog: On Continuity.

My essay in response to Arzillo's essay that appeared in The Remnant: Traditionalist Attacked... Again: A Response to Francesco Arzillo's Essay on Continuity.

Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli's Response to the traditionalists of "The Remnant," in defense of Francesco Arzillo, which appeared, again, on Sandro Magister's blog.

The not so univocal Second Vatican Council

Harold Camping: Shadow of Antichrist

What we expected has come to pass: Nothing.

So why give this non-denominational Evangelical the time of day here, on a traditional Catholic blog dedicated to the Traditional Latin Mass and traditional Catholicism?

Well, because people like Harold Camping harm true religion and those who practice the true religion. Sincerely following Our Blessed Lord in honesty and truth is under attack, not just by secularists, militant agnostics and atheists, and the irreligious, but by people like Harold Camping who provide the irreligious an excuse to hate true religion and the virtue of religion.

We should expect this kind of thing in the fringes of the heretical, Protestant world, where an off-the-rails Christianity has over the years spiraled even further into the abyss of error and darkness. It is these end-of-the-world scenarios that pass for religious experience in the spiritually bankrupt, modern, non-denominational Evangelical communities. Most non-denoms didn't believe Harold Camping, but none of them know the spiritual depth of a real, sacramental, relationship with Our Blessed Lord, and thus they are all to one degree or another spiritually bankrupt, leaving a vacuum filled by charlatans like Camping, Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggart, etc.

We've all had a good laugh, but the not so good laughs will now commence. In the comedy, perhaps we are over looking the tragedy, not just caused to those who trusted Camping and exhausted their life savings on his lies, but the damage that this does to the virtue of religion in our society, and the sacrileges that will follow.

This sad little man, Harold Camping, false prophet and charlatan, is anything but a harmless, comedic figure. He has, and I believe wittingly, opened up a Pandora's box of ridicule that has already gone to fever pitch on the late night comedy shows, and will spew forth from the sewer of the modern media for the rest of this week and perhaps longer. He has opened the floodgates of Satanic derision, not just directed toward himself, but toward religion, and specifically toward Christianity, and Our Blessed Lord.

Harold Camping is a shadow of Antichrist, because his charlatanry has led, and will lead, to the ridicule of Our Blessed Lord and mockery of His Holy Name. He has provided a convenient excuse for those who hate God to wag their heads and jest at the expense of Christianity. These people make no distinctions between the Campings of this world and his fantasies, and sincere believers and right doctrine. More to the point, these secularists, agnostics, atheists, and the irreligious perceive Catholicism and traditional Catholics as no better, as fringe "fundamentalists", and they will, we can be sure, try their best to convince the world that the practice of the Christian religion is for "wackos" and frauds.

That pales in comparison, however, to the shameless mockery that Our Blessed Lord now endures by the Godless, who won't let pass a single opportunity to express their contempt for the Holy Name of Jesus.

That is no laughing matter. We ought today, and for the rest of this week, endeavor to undo the damage that Harold Camping has done by prayer and acts of reparation for the mockeries directed toward our holy religion and the Holy Name of Jesus.

SSPX Assessment of Universae Ecclesiae

The SSPX assessment of Universae Ecclesiae can be read at this link.

One troublesome aspect of this statement, in my opinion, is the following:

Indeed, it is because of the serious failings and omissions of the Novus Ordo Missae and of the reforms introduced under Paul VI that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X seriously questions, if not the validity in principle, then at least the “legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria” (n. 19), since it is so difficult, as Cardinal Ottaviani had already noted in 1969, to consider the Mass of St. Pius V and that of Paul VI to be in the same “apostolic and unbroken tradition” (no. 3).

It seems to me that the statement is misconstruing the meaning of the term "legitimitatem" in the instruction. It refers to the legality of the novus ordo, not the difficulty in considering it an authentic development of Catholic worship. There is a clear distinction between the two concepts, one being purely legal in nature, and the other being analogous and moral in nature. There can be no question that the pope has the legal right and authority to promulgate liturgical law. It is another question whether or not he has a moral right to do so in given cases and circumstances, or whether any given liturgical law promulgated is a prudent act.

New Question and Answer added to the Q&A: Am I censured under UE n.19?

In light of the discussion and controversy swirling around UE n.19, I added a new question and answer to the blog's Q&A.

[As lead-in:

Does the author of this blog attend the novus ordo Mass as well as the Traditional Latin Mass?

No. Why should I? Why would I want to? If I want kitsch in my life, I'll purchase a garden gnome.]

Because of that answer, does the author of this blog fall under the censure of Universae Ecclesiae, n. 19?

Of course not. I do not impugn the legality of the novus ordo, and I believe the novus ordo is a valid Catholic Mass. That, however, does not mean that I have to like the novus ordo, or that I can't criticize it, or that I have to participate in it. It certainly doesn't mean that I think the novus ordo is doctrinally sound or pastorally prudent or a fully authentic expression of the Catholic faith.

If anyone wants to argue these points, they are welcome to do so. But just because one doesn't like the novus ordo does not mean that that person has abandoned the main body of Catholicism. Rather, the recent instruction document makes clear that those people have, not just a place in the Church, but a cherished place at that.

Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae demonstrate that things are changing in the Church. Modern mainstream Catholics are going to have to face up to the fact that things are changing because the novus ordo and all the other post-Vatican II liturgical changes are manifest failures.

EWTN and the Extraordinary Form

Apparently there has been a rumor circulating that EWTN was instructed (I'm presuming by the local ordinary) not to televise the Traditional Latin Mass. The New Liturgical Movement has posted, emphatically, that this rumor is not true.

O.K.

However, this doesn't change the fact that these kinds of rumors have definite and real causes. In the case of EWTN it is well known that a number of priests belonging to the Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word were formally trained to offer the Traditional Latin Mass, but to date not a single one of them has actually done so for broadcast.

What is the reason for this?

I've attempted to contact EWTN and have written two letters asking this very question. My phone call was not returned, and no one at EWTN has yet to answer my letters. However, they do send me various mailings asking for contributions. I figure if they won't answer me, I certainly won't answer them!

I urge you to write EWTN and ask why they do not regularly broadcast the Traditional Latin Mass.

Universae Ecclesiae Roundup

UPDATED 5/15/11, 6pm: Updates highlighted in red.

The LMS communique regarding the Instruction can be read at Rorate Cæli.

The document can be read here: Official Latin version and the various languages in which it has been translated.

Christopher Gillibrand, of Catholic Church Conservation, has a paragraph by paragraph with his commentary. His commentary is an excellent European, traditional Catholic perspective. Mr. Gillibrand also posts about the instruction's lukewarm reception among German bishops.

Christopher A. Ferrara & Michael J. Matt of The Remnant have a rather enthusiastic review of the instruction here.

Fr. Zuhlsdorf has blogged extensively on the instruction so far. He comes at the document from a traditionalist friendly, conservative mainstream perspective.

• The English translation softens the official Latin version's favorable approach to the Traditional Latin Mass, especially in regards to the training of seminarians.
• How the instruction does not allow for modern novus ordo practices to invade the Extraordinary Form.
• Does the instruction make the use of chapel veils mandatory?
• Fr. Z has links to more posts that you might find interesting.
• Msgr. Pozzo's, secretary of the PCED, analysis is translated by Fr. Z.
  

This article at CNA about a novus ordo priest's personal journey with the Traditional Latin Mass has quickly become popular throughout the Catholic blogasphere.

Fr. John Boyle of Caritas in Veritate comments on the instruction here. Fr. Boyle, a canon lawyer, celebrates both the novus ordo and the Traditional Latin Mass, and is known for his balanced and fair analysis of the modern Church.

Sandro Magister, which you should always read at your own risk.

Shawn Tribe and the "Reform of the Reform" folks over at the New Liturgical Movement have this commentary about the instruction. This commentary is well rounded and balanced.

Damien Thompson announces that the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is now part of the "mainstream". Depends on what you consider the mainstream, I suppose, but that would be watering down the term. I doubt the Traditional Latin Mass will ever find a home amid the general tone and tenure of what is understood as the novus ordo mainstream.

St. Louis Catholic offers a helpful blueprint for recourse to the PCED.

I will add more links to this post as more commentary on the web is forthcoming. Please note the equally significant gesture from the Vatican which has announced that a Traditional Latin Solemn Pontifical Mass will be offered by Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera at the Altare della Cattedra in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. This will be the first time in nearly 50 years that the Immortal Mass will be offered from the main altar of St. Peter's Basilica.

What do I think?

I may or may not put together a post about my thoughts regarding the instruction document. I really have to work through the official Latin version, as I do not trust the English translation is accurate. That will take some time for me.

My initial reaction to the English translation is that this instruction, which speaks for itself for the most part, is a mixed bag with more good nuts than bad. There are definite strengths that traditional Catholics should be encouraged by and rejoice in. There are some weaknesses that could cause "interpretive" problems with the mainstream (yes, Damien, I'm referring to that part of the Church populated by people who don't like the Traditional Latin Mass and never will no matter how many instructions come out).

Why I haven't responded to Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli

I received an email today. The author of said email asked why I hadn't responded to Fr. Giovanni Cavalocoli's rebuttal (Response to the traditionalists of "The Remnant," in defense of Arzillo) of an article of mine that was published in The Remnant a few weeks ago (Traditionalists Attacked... Again). Fr. Cavalocoli's essay appeared on Sandro Magister's blog, Chiesa, along with another reference to my article here, "The Church is Infallible, But Not Vatican II".

Well, the short answer is, I didn't know about it.

I really wish you guys would tell me these things sooner!

I've read over Fr. Cavalocoli's reasoned response. It was good, and an important contribution to the debate. I enjoyed reading it, even though I had to walk away from the laptop a couple of times flailing my arms, which garnered some strange looks from the wife and kids, and am currently at the mumbling stage of formulating a response. I've even gone so far as to crack open Newman's essay on the development of doctrine. For me to do that, you know I'm serious. God willing, when I do get around to finishing my research and writing a response, I will submit it directly to Sandro Magister, in addition to posting it here.

In the mean time, please do read Roberto de Mattei's essay, which I'm getting ready to read over a second time.

And consider that this debate is a positive development. This debate isn't solely concerned with the question of whether or not the Second Vatican Council was a disaster for the Church, but it also indicates a new willingness on the part of theologians, members of the Magisterium, and the lay faithful to consider the merits of the Council in light of the traditionalist critique.

When I was a seminarian back in the late eighties, no one would have thought that the traditionalist critique would ever be taken seriously, much less spark a debate among members of the Magisterium, serious and respected theologians, and the lay faithful. Yet here we are today seriously discussing what would have been considered back then as nothing short of radical traditionalism. So, whether or not one agrees with new hermeneutic of continuity proposed by the Holy Father, we can thank him, sincerely, for initiating a renewed respect for the traditionalist critique, but most importantly for the traditional Catholic who now, I believe, is starting to find a welcomed place in the Church after so long being treated like the red-headed step child.

Traditional Solemn Pontifical Mass At the Altare della Cattedra

Cardinal Brandmüller offered the Mass in substitution for Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera as was announced.

The basilica was full; many in attendance weren't even able to see the Altare dell Cattedra because they were in the nave on the other side of the papal altar. While seating was arranged between the Altar of the Chair (where the Mass was offered) and the papal altar, a standing crowd, I've been told, filled the nave beyond the papal altar, and only began thin in the back of the basilica, roughly even with the chapels of St. Sebastian and the Presentation. That's a lot of people!

More pictures can be viewed at Orbis Catholicus Secundus.

No I didn't mention it...

... but everyone else has. We'll take a long look at it on Friday, and comment on Saturday or Sunday.

For now, we pray.

God bless!

The Landscape of Modern Anglicanism and the Ordinariate

Guest Article

The Landscape of Modern Anglicanism and the Ordinariate; An ex-Anglican Ordinand's perspective

by Kenneth Robinson

It seems that many do not know much about the complicated history of the Church of England - more especially about the various 'Anglo Catholic' groups. The reaction to the setting up of the 'Ordinariate' is overwhelmingly positive, but I have been more circumspect in my reaction and that is not just due to the fact that my (yes my) previous Anglican ‘patrimony’ and former ‘theological convictions’ – which actually compelled me to view the ‘Church of Rome’ as having ‘erred’ in important matters - such that separation from Rome was an absolute necessity. But even trying to see things through the eyes of Anglicans more sympathetic towards visible reunion with Rome, I am hesitant to view this as something that would be acceptable to many of those it was aimed at.

1662 Book of Common Prayer, the Black Rubric

I don't for a minute doubt our Holy Father Pope Benedict's sincerity in this and I certainly don't see this as some underhanded scheme. Rather, Pope Benedict is responding to pleas by individual Anglicans and sincerely laying his cards on the table and saying, "come and join us if you can". In the scheme of things this is a sizeable step for the Catholic Church to undertake. The significance of Rome approving structures whereby former Anglicans can run their own churches with their own (married) clergy according to their own distinct liturgies with their own lines of authority distinct from (but not entirely independent of) ordinary diocesan structures is extremely generous. Previously, Rome's call was essentially "we're the True Church, the one Christ founded and you're not so come and join us for the riches of the Catholic faith, giving up what you currently have in Anglicanism". Now Rome's call is slightly more akin to "while we're the True Church founded by Christ, God has blessed you too and is now calling you to come and join in the fullness of the Catholic Faith while retaining some aspects particular to your Anglican heritage." When viewed in this light, I would accept that this is a more generous offer than Rome had previously been making.

However, Anglicans are simply not a monolithic bloc and (so-called) Anglo-Catholics (the only group of Anglicans who will make the move to Rome under this offer; most other Anglicans are not terribly interested in joining the Church of Rome) are no less monolithic. For evidence of this just compare the differences between 'Forward in Faith' in the UK and the US or indeed the differences among many of the "continuing" Anglo-Catholic groups. The following "field guide to Anglican churchmanship" provides an enlightening look at the differences that exist within (so-called) Anglo-Catholicism. In the opinion of that author we have:

a. Anglo-Papalist -- Tridentine
b. Anglo-Papalist -- Modern (a peculiarly English breed of cat, he uses the Novus Ordo, the current RC services)
c. Payer Book Catholic (a contradiction in terms!)
d. The modern version of Prayer Book Catholic, not papalist and using the Anglican prayer book that's the standard where he is (Common Worship, US 1979 BCP, etc.)
e. Anglo-Orthodox. Rare as hen's teeth, more so than Tridentine ACs, but they're out there. Also, c and d often see themselves as 'Western Orthodox' analogues to the Eastern Orthodox.

Groups (a) and (b) are basically already Roman Catholic in all but name and with the exception of Rome's views on married clergy would have little pangs of conscience moving to Rome -- with or without any "apostolic constitution" for former Anglicans. They have long since given up on most of their Anglican liturgical "patrimony" (to use Rome's choice of language) and are already using Roman liturgies. Groups (c), (d), and (e), on the other hand, have retained much more of their Anglican liturgical heritage and my main interest is in where they would fit in the scheme of things.

The problem for Anglicans joining the new Anglican ‘Ordinariate’ is, as I see it, at least twofold.

First, there are matters of doctrine. Unlike groups (a) and (b) there are still a few significant differences in doctrine between (c), (d) and (e) Anglo-Catholics and Rome. I'm not saying that an individual in one of these groups could not in good conscience join the Church of Rome. What I am saying is that many will not be able to. The Apostolic Constitution sets out that for all those joining the new Ordinariate -- i.e. clergy and laity -- the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith professed by members of the Ordinariate. Many Anglo-Catholics will have problems with some of its provisions and may not in conscience be able to join!

Secondly, there is a question of just what aspects of the Anglican liturgical "patrimony" will be retained. My initial thoughts were that much of the 1662 Prayer Book -- especially the Order for Holy Communion -- would not be acceptable to the Church of Rome and would have to be heavily edited which leaves one asking whether what is left still expresses their Anglican patrimony in a way acceptable to them. You could not simply have a formerly-Anglican-now-Roman priest run a Book of Common Prayer 1662 Communion Service since it would offend against the doctrines of the Church of Rome.

It's not just a question of cutting out a few phrases such as "by his one oblation of himself once offered" or "Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving". The eucharistic theology of the Book of Common Prayer doesn't just arise from the words that are said; rather, it also arises from the structure of the service and this structure would also have to be altered in some respects for use in the Church of Rome.

A good example of a Roman Catholic liturgy approved for former Anglicans is available here (this liturgy is for former Anglicans in the United States and has not arisen out of the current announcement to set up personal ordinariates for former Anglicans). Looking at this service there are of course some clearly Anglican resonances in the wording, but unsurprisingly there are also some recognisably Roman words that offend against Anglican doctrine (which is not such an issue if you overcome the first problem I mentioned and assent to Roman doctrine). More importantly, the structure of the service has departed significantly from the classical Cranmerian approach. For some this won't present much of a problem, for others it will. One thing I would be interested to see is whether those who make the move can convince Rome to adopt an order for Holy Communion basically akin to the 1549 Order or indeed the Sarum Missal (since the Eucharistic Theology of the 1552, 1559 and 1662 Prayer Books is more explicitly Reformed than that of the first English Prayer Book of 1549 and its predecessor the Sarum Missal). Beyond Holy Communion, however, I think former Anglicans will have more success in keeping distinctive Anglican liturgy. I can imagine the Church of Rome giving permission for former Anglicans to run services of Evening Prayer with very few alterations rather than requiring them to run a Roman service of vespers. Will we see services of choral evensong in the Church of Rome? Who knows? It's a complete mess - I know that for certain.


[Mr. Kenneth Robinson has taught in Britain and France, and is currently teaching in Płock, Poland. I'm grateful for his contribution regarding this important subject.]

Guéranger: Saturday of the Second Week After Easter

Christ Appears to His Mother by Guercino, 1630

From

The Liturgical Year

by Dom Guéranger, O.S.B.

 
This being Saturday, let us once more think of Mary, and of the joy she feels at the Resurrection of her Son. She had been his companion in his sufferings; there was not one that sh had not endured, and suffered as far as a mere creature could suffer: so, too, there is not a single glory or gladness of the Resurrection in which she i not now made to participate. it was meet that she, to whom God had granted the grace and merit of sharing in the work of the Redemption, should take her part in the prerogatives which belong to her Jesus, now that he is risen. Her soul is raised to a higher state of perfection; grace loads her with new favours; her actions and sentiments become more than ever heavenly.

She was the first to receive a visit from Jesus after his Resurrection--the first, consequently, to receive from him his own new life. Can we be astonished at her receiving from him his own new life. Can we be astonished at her receiving it wen we remember that every Christian, who, being purified by his having compassionated with Jesus in his Passion, unites himself afterwards with holy Church, in the sublime mystery of the Pasch, becomes a sharer i the life of his risen Lord? This transformation, which in us is weak, and often, alas! of short duration, was perfect in Mary, for her high vocation and her incomparable fidelity deserve that it should be so; of her, then, far more truly than of us, it may be said that she was indeed risen in her Jesus.

The thought of these forty days, during which Mary still possesses her divine Son on this earth, reminds us of those other forty of Bethlehem, when we paid our affectionate homage to the young Virgin-Mother who fed her divine Babe at her breast; we heard the angels singing their Gloria, we saw the shepherds and the Magi; all was exquisite sweetness. What mainly impressed us then was the humility of our Emmanuel; we recognized him as the Lamb that had come to take away the sins of the world; there was nothing that betokened the Mighty God. What changes have happened since that dear time! What sorrows have pierced Mary's heart before her reaching this blissful season of Paschal joy! The sword foretold by Simeon is now, indeed, sheathed, yea, broken for ever, but oh! how sharp and cruel have been its thrusts! Well may Mary now say with the Psalmist: "According to the multitude of my sorrows in my heart, thy comforts, O Lord, have given joy to my soul!" The Lamb, the gentle little Lamb, has become the Lion of the tribe of Juda; and Mary, the Mother of the Babe of Bethlehem, is equally the Mother of the glorious Conqueror.

With what delight does he not show the glories of his victories to his Mother! His work is done, and now he is the beautiful crowned King of Ages; yes, this is he whom she held for nine months within her womb, whom she fed at her breast, and who, for all eternity, will honour her as his Mother. He honours her during these last forty days on earth with every possible mark of affection; he satisfies her maternal love by frequently visitin her. How admirable must not these interviews be between such a Son and Mother! How delightedly must not Mary look upon her Jesus now? the same dear one, it is true, but oh! so changed from what was a few days ago! That face, so familiar to Mary, beams with a light which is new even to her. The Wounds that remain in his hands, feet, and side, dart forth a brightness which effaces every recollection of sadness. But how shall we speak of the joy wherewith Jesus gaze upon Mary, his Immaculate Mother--his companion in the work of man's salvation--the creature who is more perfect and more worthy of love than all other creatures put together? Who could describe the conversations of such a Son with such a Mother, during these days preceding his Ascension, when another long separation is to follow? Eternity will tell us what they were; but, even now, if we love the Son and the Mother, we can imagine some little of what passed between them. Jesus would offer to Mary some compensation for the prolongation of her stay on earth, which is required of her by her ministry as Mother of men; more privileged than has heretofore Martha's sister, she hears his every word, and feeds on its sweetness in an ecstasy of love. O happy hours, to be followed by long years of absence, flow slowly by! Give this blessed Mother time to satiate her love with the sight and caressesof this dearest and most beautiful of the sons of men! O Mary! by these hours of joy which repaid thee for those long bitter ones of thy Jesus' Passion, pray to him for us, that he permit us to feel and relish his presence in our hearts during this our exile, wherein we are absent from him. Thus shall we persevere in our devoted service until the arrival of that blissful moment when we are to be united with him in heaven, never again to be separated from him.

Reading between the lines: Jesuits up to their dirty tricks again, this time with the Bible

I receive, and sometimes enjoy, reading Dr. Robert Moynihan's (Inside the Vatican Magazine) e-letter. While I disagree with Moynihan's take on many things, and while I think much of what he writes in the e-letter is sensationalism and name dropping intended to sell his magazine, he does have his moments of genuine sincerity and interest.

One such moment is found in today's e-letter, in the course of a short word about the most recent meetings of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, which has as their topic the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.

Here is what Moynihan wrote:

Eating lunch today, I had another interesting conversation, this time with two members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, which has just ended several days of meetings here.

The commission's main focus for this 5-year period -- founded more than 100 years ago, in 1909, the commission studies a single issue for five years at a time -- is the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. In short, what does the inspiration of Scripture really mean about the truthfulness of the text.

The two said some sessions of the meeting were heated -- that there was intense debate.

One of the men made an interesting observation.

He said he had been trained by Jesuits, for many years, and appreciated that training enormously, but that he fears the Jesuit order is in precipitous decline.

He said he thought that the single most important task for any Pope in this period of history would be the restoration, the renewal, of the Jesuit order.

But he also said that we was not sure a renewal would be possible.

It's not hard to read between the lines here. Moynihan is clearly blaming the Jesuits on the Commission for the heated and contentious sessions. When the "precipitous decline" of the Jesuit order is brought up in a discussion about these heated debates, it obvious who the commentators are blaming for the problems.

It isn't much of a stretch to see the Jesuits on the Commission striving to change, subtly or otherwise, the Church's traditional teaching about the inspiration and inerrency of the Bible, nor would it be surprising for Jesuits to make the argument that Darwinism and Evolution are the only sure means of interpreting biblical cosmology in the modern age. Would anyone be surprised if modern Jesuits would call into question the historical certitude of Our Blessed Lord's ministry, His bodily Resurrection?

Church leaders are today beginning to turn back toward the traditional practice of the Catholic faith, but this trend is still only in its infancy. And while the Jesuits are experiencing a "precipitous decline", many Jesuits still hold influence over the organs of the Church's Magisterium, and other Catholic institutions. Because a reform of the order is probably out of the question barring a miracle, we still have a long and protracted struggle against the Modernist, albeit aging, intelligentsia of the modern Jesuit order.

The conclusions of this particular meeting of the Pontifical Biblical Commission may present the emergence of a new and devastating struggle for the Church against these internal threats. That there should be "heated debate" at these sessions should give all of us pause. Has what the Church has always taught concerning the inspiration and inerrancy of Holy Scripture been attacked during these proceedings? We can be sure they have. Will the evil machinations of the modern Jesuits and other Modernists be allowed to sow confusion in the Church? Judging from the last half century of confusion and crisis, it would be wise for traditional Catholics to start preparing themselves for a fight by prayer, fasting and study.

Blessed John Paul II

The cause of John Paul II has advanced. He has been beatified, and, therefore, we can be reasonably certain he is in heaven, or at the very least purgatory (in which case he very well could be right next to Blessed John XXIII, perhaps discussing the third secret of Fatima and whether the Council was worth it.)

This has happened despite the at times rather loud outcry of Catholic traditionalists around the world. Traditionalists have pointed out not a few troublesome issues concerning the actions of Blessed John Paul II as pope. These concerns were not just mere nitpicking.

*Traditionalists pointed out the troublesome gesture of reverence John Paul made toward the Koran that looked very much like a kiss, and other actions, such as the pan-religious prayer meeting in Assisi that seemed to favor the error of indifferentism.

*Traditionalists pointed out that during John Paul's long pontificate corruption was allowed to spread throughout the ranks of the ordained, culminating in the priest-child abuse and sex scandal that has continued to the rock the Church for nearly a decade now.

*Related to the former, traditionalists pointed out Blessed John Paul's trust of, and close personal relationship with, Marcial Maciel, the founder of the the Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi, even after credible accusations had become well known in the Vatican and even to John Paul that this man was a degenerate and sexual pervert.

*Traditionalists pointed out that Blessed John Paul, himself, observed a silent apostasy in the Church, and observed that the Church had sunk, during the very years of his own pontificate, into an unprecedented state of turmoil and crisis.

The Congregation for the Causes of the Saints, however, did not turn a deaf ear to these concerns, as is obvious by their staunch determination to separate the pontificate of John Paul II from the reason for his beatification, which is personal holiness. Traditionalists can take some measure of consolation in the fact that their concerns were taken seriously enough for the Vatican to make this distinction.

However, is this distinction a valid one? Fr. Zuhlsdorf asks the question over on his blog, can one separate personal holiness from the performance of one's vocation?

The facial answer to that question is, of course, no, and that is a more than reasonable answer. A bad father of a family, who does great harm to his wife and children, even though he had the best of intentions, wouldn't be considered a man of heroic virtue, especially by the wise of this world. However, perhaps this isn't a good enough example. Perhaps it isn't "real" enough to explain a pope like Blessed John Paul II, that likable, lovable, brilliant, genius level, never grown up child from Poland.

There is such a thing as a man completely ill prepared, mentally and spiritually, to be a husband and a father, but, nonetheless, forced into husbandry by circumstances he has no control over. There are men who lack the skills and the natural aptitude to be a husband and father, and that inability is such that if left to his own devices, the damage he does to his family would be without remedy. However, such a man, by personal holiness and the practice of heroic virtue, manages not just to do less damage than what he could have done if he were given to vice, but actually manages to do the will of God for his family despite his many failures and falls.

Blessed John Paul II was this ill equipped, unskilled pope, forced into his position by circumstances beyond his control, and probably beyond his understanding. He was elected by a cabal of Modernists primarily because they thought him ill equipped, unskilled, to them childishly pious, spiritually immature, ecclesiastically naive, and, most importantly, witless enough to be harmless to their agenda.

For much of his pontificate, Blessed John Paul was just such a pontiff. In many ways he was the picture of the bumbling absent minded professor, driven by a tunnel vision that genius often creates. But his tunnel vision was also tempered by his ardent love for others, no matter who they were or what they believed. It was also narrowed by his unwillingness to look beyond the dignity of the human person and seriously consider the reality of concupiscence. His greatest weakness, blind trust in others, was born of, perhaps, his greatest strength. He pandered to others, striving to say what they wanted to hear, not because he was a bad person, but because he desired to be loved as much as he loved others.

It was this simplicity of heart that was both the key to his personal holiness, and the cause for so much damage. For example, how could Blessed John Paul pander to both the Modernists who put him in power, and the traditionalists that those same Modernists had betrayed and were persecuting? His inaction and half measures concerning the legitimate aspirations of those attached to the Traditional Latin Mass and its commensurate spirituality was caused by this very conflict between two groups, completely opposed to each other, the individuals of whom Blessed John Paul loved and desired to be loved by. He was holy, but confused; ill equipped to be the pope who could right the barque of Peter. However, he was also the pope whose holiness made it impossible for him to be the pope the Modernists thought they could make him be.

The traditionalist must not forget, it was this holiness, this glimmer of light in that quarter of Rome that had virtually ceased being Catholic, that caused a distinct uneasiness for the Modernists, and because it was born of that spirit that Our Blessed Lord spoke of in the Gospel of St. Matthew, chapter eighteen, verse three, a pure childlike spirit, it managed to chip away at the edifice of unholy power the Modernists had erected in Rome long before the pontificate of John Paul had even begun.

The turning point in John Paul's pontificate was the year 1988.

First, in that year he excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer, along with the the five men they had illicitly ordained bishops for the Society of St. Pius X. Despite a horde of heretics, an entire religious order virtually given over to heretical doctrines (the Jesuits), the abandonment of Catholicism by "Catholic" institutes of higher learning, Catholic priests taking up guns and running for political office, John Paul refused to allow Lefebvre to ordain his choice of bishops for his society, thus refusing to allow traditionalists a peaceful and sane corner of a Church being ransacked by Modernists and Liberals from which the Church might be strengthened. Instead, and for many inexplicably, John Paul chose to excommunicate traditionalists for disobedience while he, himself, floated in a raging ocean of disobedience and disrespect for Catholic institutions and the papacy.

Blessed John Paul looked to the Modernists, especially the Jesuits, for appreciation. But these men, especially the Jesuits, are ravaging wolves. They saw an advantage and pressed it. Instead of showing appreciation for excommunicating their sworn enemy, they complained that the same document, Ecclesia Dei, which carried the excommunication, acknowledged as legitimate the desire for traditional Catholic worship and practice.

In the face of betrayal, especially from the Jesuits, John Paul could not turn to the traditionalists he had excommunicated and relegated to a dark corner. Instead he turned toward Opus Dei, and, unfortunately, toward Maciel and the Legion of Christ. How different things would be today if only Blessed John Paul had realized the ravaging wolves for what they were before he had excommunicated the Lefebvrites!

Also, when confronted by the betrayal of the Jesuits, John Paul perceived a spiritual vacuum caused by waning devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. He turned to his native country for a solution in devotion to the Divine Mercy. He turned toward Marian devotion and invigorated devotion to Fatima. How these devotions would have thrived and spread throughout the Church if carried by traditionalists, if only Blessed John Paul had realized the nature of the ravaging wolves before the events of 1988!

However, 1988 was also the year that Blessed John Paul II released Mulieris Dignitatem, his apostolic letter on the dignity of women. John Paul had expected that this document would appease modern feminists, but he was surprised that shortly after its release he was greeted by feminists protests in the countries he visited. He did not understand why they were so opposed to him and his apostolic letter. He was incapable of seeing beyond innate human dignity to the monster created by concupiscence and sin. Even after he allowed female altar servers in 1992, the protests did not subside. The feminists still hated him. Their desire was not an acknowledgement of their innate dignity, but the wholesale rejection of Catholic doctrine regarding the all male priesthood. They wanted an end to the Church and the sacraments!

It was in the 1990s that Blessed John Paul began to pull away from the policy of appeasement toward the Modernists who had put him on the Chair of Peter. The radical nature of the left, of the feminists and Modernists had finally broken down his unrealistic optimism.

There was still inaction concerning the traditionalists, but a new sympathy for them because John Paul came to realize that they knew all along what he had refused to acknowledge for much of his pontificate: because of Satan, sin and concupiscence there is no "level playing field" for truth in this world, as neo-conservative Catholics like George Weigel still contend there can be. John Paul realized, as did others in his Vatican, that Truth is not democratically achieved as long as a "level playing field" can be maintained. It is granted by God and passed down through Holy Mother Church, and that is the only way man can come to know ultimate Truth. The document Dominus Iesus, promulgated in 2000 demonstrates that Blessed John Paul II had changed his mind about how man apprehends truth, but neo-conservative Catholics like Weigel prefer the former Pope John Paul, and ignore Dominus Iesus.

It was also in this time that John Paul's health began to fail. To the end he bore his sufferings as he had conducted his life: with a childlike simplicity and acceptance.

He never lost his love for others and his desire to be loved by others, but in the last decade of his pontificate, it is evident he had a clearer, albeit, brokenhearted, view of man and the modern Church that accompanied, not coincidentally, his deteriorating health. In 1994, realizing that the feminists desired the wholesale destruction of the Church's sacraments, he released the more level headed, and observably more sober Ordinatio sacerdotalis. His writings and Angelus addresses and his homilies reflected more and more on man's fallen condition and dependence on the Divine Mercy and the intercessions of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

At the end of the day, which it now is in Rome, we are left with the image of the holy, childlike man, unskilled and unequipped to be pope, but who despite the circumstances of his life and failed pontificate triumphed in the only way that really matters.

Pope John Paul II is now Blessed John Paul II. Whatever the peripheral personal or political motives for Pope Benedict XVI to beatify John Paul, despite such a papacy fraught with corruption and scandal, despite a papacy that watched the rampant proliferation of heresy and practical schism, despite a papacy that stood by and allowed the wholesale slaughter of the piety of so many traditional Catholics, it should be obvious that it was that childlike piety and holiness of John Paul that primarily motivated this beatification.

Pope John Paul II is now Blessed John Paul II. While objectively a failure as a pope, nonetheless he is a declared blessed of the Church.

Glory be to God! Because that means there's hope for me and for you!