TradNews Roundup

*Please see sidebar for news pertaining to Rome/SSPX negotiations.

*Important new appointments, including the re-created post of PCED Vice-President.

*An overview of Archbishop Di Noia, the new Vice President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.

*Historic Masses in both Mexico and the Dominican Republic.

*Traditionalists attacked by anti-trad bigots in Kinkora, Canada.

*Fr. Brian McDonnell, FSSP, is assigned to the Diocese of the Fort Wayne-South Bend. (This is big news for me, personally.)

*Friend to the Traditional Latin Mass, Fr. David Grondz, is appointed pastor of St. Mary Catholic Church, Kalamazoo, MI. (This is big news for me, personally.)

*Queen visits Catholic Church in Northern Ireland, meets with former IRA commander.

*First lawsuit filed against a Catholic institution over gay-fake-marriage. And so the persecution begins.

*Historic criminal trial finds Msgr. Lynn of Philadelphia guilty of child endangerment. Still waiting for indictments of public school administrators...

*Hatred of Pope Pius XII: "This is a Jewish sin".

*Communists rears it's ugly anti-Catholic head, promotes gay-fake-marriage as a means of attacking the Church.

*SCOTUS upholds Obamacare. Bill Donohue's comments.

*Freedom of Religion:

Solemn High Traditional Latin Mass at the Blessed Sacrament Cathedral (May 5, 2012)

A Gentle Reminder for Trads...

This was picked up from Mons. Pope's blog via my friend Fr. Ramil Fajardo:

I recently had an interesting discussion with a traditional Catholic who questioned me about a Traditional Latin Mass Wedding I did. He seemed concerned that the couple was permitted to be married at the foot of the altar. In other words they were inside the altar rail, along with their best man and maid of honor.

He said that such a thing was not allowed, and that the presbyterium (sanctuary) was only for the clergy and servers.

I explained that it was a long practice of the Church, at least in America, that a bride and groom who were both Catholic would be married inside the rail, at the foot of the altar, and that they would kneel inside the rail for the duration of the nuptial Mass. (See photo of my parent’s 1959 wedding at upper right).

He did not seem impressed with my explanation an countered that the “problems” had begun in the 1950s and even as early as the 1940s. He further explained that the liturgical movement was already exerting influence and introducing “aberrations” into the liturgy. He thus reiterated that I had done something wrong.

Sadly our conversation ended and I didn’t get the chance to ask him the question I really wanted to ask: “What was the golden year of liturgy? When was everything, according to him, done “right?” When was the year when there were no aberrations?” When were the rubrics “pure” and when was the liturgy free of what he considers improper allowances, such as a couple being married inside the rail? Apparently the 1950s were not that time for him. Then what was?

I have been saying the Traditional Latin Mass for all 23 years of my priesthood, long before most priests were widely permitted to say it. I had permission of the Archdiocese from day one to assist with traditional Catholics in this manner, under the tutelage of the Pastor of St. Mary’s in Washington DC. In “those days” there weren’t a lot of resources and many of the rubrical books that have since come back into print were hard to find. Thus I learned a lot from Fr. Aldo Petrini and some of the other “old guys.”

Under their instruction I learned not only the rubrics, but also the customs of the “old days” wherein certain permissions existed, by way of indult or custom, to do some aspects of the Sacraments in English. Among the customs of the time was that, though the faithful were generally not allowed in the Sanctuary, weddings, confirmations, and even First Communions were conducted at times within the rails.

Were these “abuses?” I am not enough of a rubricist to know. I just know and (obviously) have evidence that they were done.

As for weddings there was the custom of doing mixed marriages only in the rectory. But somewhere in the 1950s permission was granted to move these to the Church, but outside the rail and without Mass.

Click HERE to see a photo of a 1960 Wedding conducted outside the rail since of the couple was not Catholic.

At any rate my question remains. What was the golden age of the Mass? What year did the “troubles” begin as traditional Catholics see it? Was it 1963, 1955, 1945? Perhaps even earlier?

Please understand, I ask these questions not without sympathy for the traditional view. It is clear that in the late 1960s a floodgate opened where liturgical change occurred in a way that was in no way organic and there was a great rupture of continuity. And, although I am quite comfortable with the Ordinary Form of the Mass, I also love the Extraordinary Form, and am sympathetic to the concerns of the traditional Latin Mass community.

That said, at times I wince when a kind of particularism sets up within sectors of the Traditional Mass community. And it is odd, when I, a priest who has celebrated the Latin Mass for 23 years, am dressed down by someone who is denouncing something that was clearly done long before the liturgical changes from the Council.

It is too easy for us to savage one another over such things. A layman was telling me recently how he got the evil eye from some pew mates when he made the responses to the priest along with the servers. Those sorts of changes had also come along in the 1940s when clergy started to encourage the faithful to be more involved in the Mass. But once again, it would seem changes of that sort were “too late” to be authentic for some. Hence, though we use the Missal of 1962, it would seem that 1962 is not the year for some.

It was common 25 years ago for Traditional Catholics to call the old Mass the “Immemorial Latin Mass.” And the phrase was used to suggest that the Mass had been unchanged for centuries. Of course any serious study of the Mass reveals that it had undergone not insignificant changes all along and there there were not a few local customs, especially around the reception of the Sacraments. Though, to be fair, the changes were organic, not the rupture with tradition we experienced in the late 1960s.

But again, I wonder, what was the “Golden Year” when traditional Catholics agree all was as it should be. I ask this question sincerely, not rhetorically. But I DO ask it with some sadness for there can often be what I consider an unkindness that can be exhibited by some who wish to restrict things, where freedom is allowed, even within the old norms.

I fear at times that we, who love tradition, fail to manifest the joy and glad hearts that should bespeak those who know the Lord and love the beauty of the Extraordinary Form. We should seem more as people in love with God and the beauty of God, than as technocrats arguing each point. There is a place for precision, but there is an even greater need for joy and mutual love.

US Catholic needs your help

Please visit US Catholic and let them know what you think of the Second Vatican Council.

They allow you to write in your own comments, and I found that experience to be rather cathartic.

This calls to mind some sage advice I once received from a now retired Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic priest: "Vatican II? Useless! Just ignore it! Live your Catholic faith like it never happened!"

Do, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La and St. John the Baptist

The science of music is particularly indebted to the feast day of St. John the Baptist’s Nativity.

In the eighth century a monk of Monte Cassino, Paul the Deacon, composed the hymn that is sung at first Vespers for the feast. He composed the hymn in thanksgiving for a miracle he attributed to the intercession of St. John the Baptist. One year he was honored to sing the Exsultet at the Paschal vigil, but he had lost his voice. Greatly disappointed that he would not be able to fulfill the high office he had been honored with, Paul besought St. John the Baptist’s prayers, for it was by John’s birth and naming that his father, Zachary, had found his voice. The son of Zachary’s prayers were heard for Paul, and Paul regained his voice in time to intone the sacred Paschal chant. In thanksgiving, Paul composed the hymn, Ut queant laxis in honor of St. John the Baptist, and it came to find a home in the sacred Office for first Vespers.

Paul the Deacon’s composition contained a certain particularity: the initial syllable of each hemistich rose one degree higher than the preceding on in the scale of sounds. These notes became the fundamental notes of the musical scale, and to denote these fundamental notes, they were named by the first syllable of the Latin words which were sung in Paul’s hymns, thus rendered: Ut, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La. The musical scale has been taught in this manner ever since.

St. John the Baptist was the voice crying out in the desert. How fitting, then, that this voice of the Precursor should be the inspiration for the organization of man’s songs and melodies and harmonies.

Ut queant laxis resonare fibris / Mira gestorum famuli tuorum, / Solve polluti labii reatum, Sancte Joannes. / Nuntius celso veniens Olympo, / Te patri magnum fore nasciturum, / Nomen et vitæ seriem gerendæ Ordine promit.	Since thy servants desire to sound forth, with vocal chords well strung, thy wondrous deeds, from all uncleanness free the lips of the guilty ones, O holy John! Lo, a messenger coming from the heights of heaven unto thy father, announces that thou who are to be born wilt be great; thy name and life’s scope be foretells, in order due.
Ille promissi dubius superni, / Perdidit prompt modulo loquelæ; / Sed reformasti genius peremptæ Organa vocis. / Ventris obstruso recubans cubili, / Senseras regem thalamo manentem: / Hinc parens, ati meritis, uterque / Abdita pandit.	Dubious he of heavenly promises, the power of fluent speech he sudden forfeits; but when born, thou promptly dost restore the organs of his voice extinct. Yet lying in the secret of the maternal womb, thou perceives the King reposing in the bride-chamber: thus both parents, by the merits of their child, come to know hidden mysteries.
Sit decus Patri, genitæque Proli, / Et tibi, compar utriusque virtus / Spiritus semper, Deus unus, omni / Temporis ævo. Amen.	Glory be to the Father, and to the only-begotten Son, and to thee, O Power eternally equal to them both, O Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Stop what you are doing and read this from DICI

Some much needed, and rational, perspective on where we stand. I learned a lot from this little piece. Please share it with your friends.

Also, there is word that a portion of the doctrinal preamble has been leaked to a Brazilian blog. At least one English language blog has picked it up. I have read it, but I can't vouch for either the source or the contents, so it will not appear here. At any rate, it's nothing earth shattering, be it true or false.

Continuing Discussion on Participation

So....maybe I'll catch some flak for this, maybe I won't, but I feel that it needs to be said.

I think that how the word participate is being used is exactly how the Holy Father doesn't want it to be used.  That is part of the misconception of Vatican Council II.  The way that it is being used in the post assumes that the faithful are somehow sharing in the ministerial action of the Mass, that they are somehow participating in the celebration of the Mass.  That is participatio activa. And that is not to be the primary function of the Mass for the faithful.

I think that properly speaking one shouldn't talk about participating as if it were a verb, but rather one should speak about HOW one participates.  What is it that the faithful do in the nave?  They do more than just participate.  They worship!  That is what they do.  To simply say that the faithful participates is to sell their inner action short.  It is to bring it to the level outward actions only.  To say that one worships is to give a fuller sense of the word and to be demonstrable in how the faithful participate.

I have been going round and round for almost 20 years trying to figure out what the issue was with the term participation.  It has never really sat right and we're seeing that now with how it is being addressed by some high powered theologians.  One of the big issues that has existed since the Council with regard to participation is how to properly state what one is doing?  Is it inward, is it outward, is it both?  The amount of confusion which exists because of that word is immeasurable.

If we stop using the word as an action verb and use it as a passive verb, then I think that it becomes much easier to deal with.  So, rather than say, "The nave is the location where the laity participate in the Sacred Mysteries."  Isn't it much more complete to say, "The nave is the location where the laity worship during the sacrifice of the Mass."  Because that is their proper role.  That is what they are called to do, before anything else.  Worship is the proper term for full, conscious and active participation.  But the term "worship" is so outdated that the liberals decided to come up with a much more complex and convoluted way of describing what they actually do.  Participatio actuosa = worship for the laity.

The same thing can be applied in our application of the clergy and lesser clergy.  I think that to speak about participation is to level the playing field, where the playing field shouldn't be leveled.  The ministerial role of the priest is not the same thing as the role of the faithful.

I think that we have to rethink how we speak of participation.  I don't think that it serves the proper purpose to simply state that we are participating that then turn around and talk about the clergy participating.  What is the difference?  Where is the distinction?  But, if we talk about the faithful as worshiping and the clergy as offering or celebrating.  It is just a more complete and clear view of how we participate.

As an aside, the term presider just chaps my chiggers.  To call a priest a presider assumes that the faithful celebrate the Mass and the priest is merely the president of the assembly.  The priest is not.  He offers the Mass, his role is not equal to the faithful.  He is not presiding, he is ministering and the Mass is his offering.  He celebrates and offers the Mass on behalf of the faithful.  One of the best ways to look at it is that as the priest celebrates the Mass, the faithful take their petitions and place them at the foot of the altar and the priest collects them at the collect and the offering begins....but that is an outdated view, right?  ;)

TradNews Roundup

*Two pilgrimages, one Traditional Catholic Movement, the last line of defense for the family in the culture war.

*Congratulations to the newly ordained priests of the Society of St. Pius X and the Benedictines of Our Lady of Guadalupe monastery.

*"A great deal has been achieved..."?? Is the Holy Father referring to hand holding and banally bad folk "liturgical" music? Is the Holy Father referring to the clown Masses and Rock Masses? Is the Holy Father referring to the empty churches, or perhaps the closed churches, or maybe the dilapidated and abandoned parish schools? If that's achievement, we could do with at least a little bit of failure!

*Liberal Sr. Carol Keehan and the CHA backpedals, now opposes Obama's Contraception Mandate. Cardinal Dolan's influence starting to come to fruition?

*Uncovered: Soros-funded group responsible for attacking the Church.

*General Mills enters the culture war on the side of the perverts and godless socialists. Question for Acton U... why is it that all these big business, free trade, corporate giants always side with the liberals? Are these really the fellows you want for friends?

*The tail wagging the dog over Syria.

*Is Syria to WWIII what Spain was to WWII?

*Michael Voris buckles under pressure and re-names Real Catholic TV, ChurchMilitant.TV.

*Mantilla woes? Not to worry the expert is here!

Anglicanorum Coetibus in Iowa? YES!

I received the following correspondence from Deacon Chori Seraiah yesterday.  I have been given permission to pass this along.  I have my own thoughts to follow!

Please check his blog at:  The Maccabean

Andy,
I wanted to let you know that both Bp. Pates and Msgr. Steenson have encouraged me to begin working to form an Ordinariate community here in the Des Moines area. If St. Aidan's eventually chooses to join, we will just merge the two together, but for the time being, we can begin meeting as soon as we have just a few people who are interested. Feel free to get the word out to whomever you wish.
Also, I will be saying my first couple of Masses (Anglican Use) at St. Anthony's on Monday, July 9th at 10:00am, and Tuesday, July 10th at 6:00pm. All are invited to this as well (and it may be a good introduction for folks who are curious about an Ordinariate community).
In Christ,Chori Jonathin Seraiah

I cannot express to you how many prayers are being answered.  I know that God works in his own time, but this is providential.  Des Moines is in need of a Traditional outlet, and this very well could be it.

Fr. Seraiah and I have talked extensively and he will be starting a mission for the Ordinariate in Des Moines area. This means a couple of things. 1. He'd like to invite as many Catholics to assist at his Mass and see what the Ordinariate is all about. 2. There will be another option for receptions of the Sacraments, albeit in a different, but more traditional way. 3. Think of this as something akin to an Eastern Catholic Church for the time being. It has it's own traditions, it has it's own heritage, but it is 100% Catholic and it is 100% within the scope of Holy Mother Church. 4. For those who are curious as to how the Mass is celebrated, the best way to describe it is that it is like the Tridentine Mass, only in English, but the English is High English...a lot of thee's and thou's. It isn't like going to your typical Novus Ordo parish.

A couple of other things, the Seraiah's homeschool. They REALLY are interested in attracting other homeschooling families, not only because of the shared interest, but also because it can be a way of fostering a unified form of traditional worship which remains 100% Catholic, through a new and fresh lens. It also opens the door to dialogue and fellowship. While I've done a lot of talking about the Mass, there is more to the Ordinariate than the Mass. The Seraiah's would really like to see the homeschooling families have a place to call their own and Father feels able to provide that, if it be God's will.

Finally, what is there to lose? If it is too much or if it is not enough, taking a couple of weeks and seeing the universality of Holy Mother Church at work can bear fruit. This is 100% traditional. This is 100% unique. An invitation has been given, by +Pates and by Mons. Steenson to get in on the ground floor of a new expression of orthodoxy within Holy Mother Church. Will it be for everyone? No. But, it is a new option where one didn't exist before.

God's love does reign supreme. He has put the Ordinariate in Des Moines for a reason. I believe that it is to give traditionalism a start on life in an area where it is very hard to find. Please come and support Catholicism in both a new and traditional way. Who knows...maybe you'll be like Mikey....you might just like it. I know I'll give it a try.

I will be giving a running commentary on what is going on with this mission.  I can tell you though, that if you have a Ordinariate parish near you, I strongly encourage you to check it out.  I have been more than pleasantly surprised by it and I think that the Church at large is better for it.  Proper catechesis is a key in all of this, but from what I know of them, they are as traditional as the traddy's in the Latin Rite and they feel closer to the TLM than the Novus Ordo.

Please pray for the new mission.  Please pray that the adherents find the Church to be all it promises.  Please pray that they keep an open mind as they transition.  The Church is large enough for all of humanity.  The members of the Church need to be large enough in their hearts to accept them.

Fr. Arnaud Rostand's Interview: Part III

God is giving His Church to the Traditionalists!

The Society of St. Pius X ordained six new priests for the Society in Winona, Minnesota on Friday, June 15th, the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. In addition, two new priests for the traditionalist monastery of Our Lady of Guadalupe were ordained, and, even more significantly, the Society ordained an incredible number of new deacons: twelve, just from North America alone!

It has been repeated ad nauseam, but still bears repeating until it finally sinks into the thick skulls of our modern, novus ordo establishment, episcopate: an abundant number of vocations to the priesthood and religious life is a sign of spiritual health, and the most vocations per capita are found in traditional Catholic communities, and these vocations are to traditional Catholic societies, fraternities, monasteries, etc.


The picture above is a picture of the Catholic Church's future, whether the Modernists, liberals, or the Neo-Catholic "Hermeneutic of Continuity" Conservatives like it or not. They are failing to provide the vocations and the growth required to carry their ideologies into the future. But this is not the case in traditionalist Catholic communities. Year after year traditionalists experience surprising and unrestrained growth.

And this growth isn't just in vocations to the priesthood and religious life. It is particularly evident by the wondrous chorus of crying babies on Sunday morning. This is evidence of many and strong vocations to the Catholic married life, and I'm not referring here to some watered down, novus ordo establishment, notion of married life marked by "planned" small families, the result of willful disobedience in the use of artificial contraception or NFP contraception. These traditionalist Moms and Dads are living the fullness of--living authentically!--their vocations as Catholic Mothers and Fathers. This form of growth, authentically Catholic vocations to marriage and the resulting large, vibrant and happy families, even though it isn't given the attention or measure it ought, is extremely significant. These families are another sign of spiritual health, and this form of spiritual health you just don't see very often at novus ordo Masses.

To put it frankly, traditionalists are out-ordaining and out-baptizing the rest of the Church. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what this foretells. God is giving His Church to the traditionalists! Deo Gratias!

Congratulations to the newly ordained priests and deacons of the Society of St. Pius X. May God bless you and keep you, and may the Holy Ghost grant you a particular and all-consuming love for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the faithful who will be fed the Eternal Food from your sacred hands!

TradNews Roundup

*Please see sidebar for the all the latest headlines concerning the Rome/SSPX negotiations.

*Alabama TLM workshop slated for July.

*Christopher A. Ferrara: The rise of the legislating Church.

*It's all wrong: Duncan Stroik on the Crystal Cathedral.

*CDF meets with dissident women religious from the LCWR.

*Vatican is doing its job in censuring the LCWR.

*LCWR conflict is decades old.

*For Greater Glory: "A gem in the mire of Hollywood."

*US State Department is engaging in an attempt to cover up persecution of Christians, especially in the Middle East during the so-called "Arab Spring".

*Obama redistributing the wealth, but not as promised... he's redistributing the wealth to the wealthy!

*Big Government is the enemy of religion... the Orwellian utopia of the godless socialists.

*France is falling off... no, rather, jumping off the cliff.

*The Eurodisaster is likened to the Titanic hitting the iceberg:

Fr. Arnaud Rostand's Interview: Part II

Hook, Line, and Sinker

The reformers wanted to do away with anything which might cause scandal to the Protestant mind.  And they succeeded.  There is nothing that the reformed churches have in them which is difficult for a Protestant to accept.

That being said, the bishops of then and now have taken the bait; hook, line, and sinker.

When vertical theology left the building (literally with Elvis in his film, Change of Habit) in favor of horizontal theology, the idea Catholicism went right along with it, for the most part.  Oh sure, we keep some of the language, we keep some of the devotions, we keep some of the trappings, but by and large, the faithful lost faith. 

How can I say that?  Where are they? Churches are empty, the faithful stopped assisting at Holy Mass.  Convents are empty, the nun's became radical feminists.  Seminaries and rectories are empty, the priests have quit their vocation.  And by quit, I mean quit.  They had vocations to the priesthood, but the reformers talked them out of it and the bishops just let them go.

The reformers told the priests that they were no different than a Protestant minister.  Not in so many words, but by their actions.  They took the Mass away from the priest and put it in the hands of the faithful.  They took the priesthood away and put it in the hands of the faithful.  They took the churches away and put the people in their place.  The role of the priest was reduced to that of presider.

I'll elaborate.  When they changed the Mass, after Vatican Council II, the priest ceased to celebrate the Mass.  He now presides over the assembly who celebrates.  This is most evident in the Liturgy of the Word.  Prior to the reforms, the priest did everything in the Mass of the Catechumens.  He prayed the prayers at the foot, he prayed the confiteor, he prayed the kyrie, he prayed the gloria, he prayed the collect.  Now all of those things are either optional or they have been taken over by the faithful save the praying of the collect, which is all the priest does in the entirety of the Liturgy of the Word.  The priest, prior to the reforms proclaimed the epistle, the gradual/tract/alleluia, and gospel.  After the reforms, the priest does none of that if there is a deacon and none of that save the reading of the gospel if there is no deacon.

Quite literally, the faithful have taken over the celebration of the Liturgy of the Word and the priest sits passively and allows it to happen.  He is the President of those assembled.  Nothing more.  So, his role after the reforms was reduced from celebrating the Mass to presiding over the assembly.  With the priest left with nothing to do and half of his role removed, is it any wonder they left?  Quite literally the priest lost his identity and his vocation was lost, it was ripped away, like a teddy bear on the first day of school.

Secondly, they took the idea of ministerial priesthood and took that from the priest too.  By a deliberate and exacting change, the royal priesthood was thrust into the role of ministerial priest.  Laymen who had no business in the sanctuary were put there.  They have been inserted into all phases of the Mass.  And they have diminished the role of the priest, not only in the Liturgy of the Word, but also in the Liturgy of the Eucharist.  They are EMHC's.  They are commentators, They are ministers of the sick.  They have literally invaded all of the roles which properly belong to the priest.  Oh sure, the priest still consecrates the host and wine, but that is out of necessity.  The rest of the Mass has been rendered optional for the ministerial priest and has been squarely put in the hands of the royal priesthood.  There is a big difference.  The role of the faithful is to worship.  The role of the priest is to minister.  Not vice versa.  To thrust the faithful into the role of minister is to...well...Protestantize the Mass.

The Mass went from being celebrated at the altar to being presided from the chair.  The altar of sacrifice has been lost to the assembly.  The altar of sacrifice has been reduced to a mere table and the Sacrificial offering is now just a meal.  The theology has changed.  And it shows by the lack of faithful, the lack of priests, and the lack of religious.

The reformers vision has all but been accomplished.  This can largely be contributed to two men.  Paul VI and John Paul II.  Paul the VI implemented the changes and John Paul II perpetuated them.  It has fallen upon Benedict XVI to try and sort the liturgical mess.

We can talk about architecture, but architecture is just a symptom of a larger problem.  And it is a visible symptom.  The move from a Catholic theology with regard to the Mass (vertical) to a Protestant one (horizontal).  There is nothing different between the modern Catholic churches and a Lutheran church or even a Methodist church.  However, if you walk into a traddy chapel, it is clearly Catholic and it is very distinct.

My long winded point?  Fix the architecture.  But implore priests to fix the Mass.  It is in their privy to do so.

Finally, I will say this.  Which seminaries in the US are the fastest growing?  Our Lady of Guadalupe in Denton, NE (FSSP) and St. Thomas Aquinas in Winona, MN (SSPX).  Which orders of women are attracting vocations? (traditional and conservative orders such as the Nashville Dominicans).  And which segment of the Mass is gaining the most attendance through growth each and every week?  The TLM.  It is no mystery.  The Catholic faithful want to be Catholic, priests...let them be Catholic.

Holy Father's Response to Bishop Fellay's Clarification to be given Today

La Stampa is reporting that the Holy Father's response to the requested clarification regarding the "doctrinal preamble", the same clarification requested from Bishop Bernard Fellay of the SSPX, will be delivered today, Wednesday June 13th.

Rorate Cæli provides a translation of the La Stampa article here.

If Bishop Fellay agrees to adhere to the Holy Father's response to his clarification, there could be an announcement of an agreement to regularize the Society soon.

It is providential that this news should surface today, the Feast of St. Anthony of Padua. St. Anthony was known, especially in France, as the "Hammer of Heretics", and he is popularly known as the patron saint of finding lost things. We turn to St. Anthony is this our time of need, when the Church has been so sorely sown with the cockle of the heresies of modernity, and when so many who call themselves Catholic have lost the true way to live their lives as authentic Catholics.

Let's pray to St. Anthony of Padua, and entrust to loving prayers and concern this matter of the regularization of the Society of St. Pius X, that by a regularization of the Society a new and potent "hammer" might be found to squash all the heresies of modernity that are rife in the Church today, and that Catholics may once again find and enjoy the beauty, heritage, culture and spiritual fecundity of traditional Catholicism.

The Miraculous Responsory

If ye seek miracles, lo! death, error, calamities, the demon and the leprosy, flee all away; the sick also arise healed.

Sea and chains give way: young and old alike ask and receive again the use of members, as well as things lost.

V. Dangers vanish; necessity ceases; let those who have experienced such things relate these facts; let the Paduans repeat:

Sea and chains give way: young and old alike ask and receive again the use of members, as well as things lost.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning is now and very shall be, world without end. Amen.

Sea and chains give way: young and old alike ask and receive again the use of members, as well as things lost.

V. Pray for us, O blessed Anthony.

R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

Let us Pray. May the votive solemnity of blessed Anthony, thy Confessor, give joy to thy Church, O God; that it may be ever defended by spiritual assistance, and deserve to possess eternal joys. Through Christ our Lord.

Amen.

LCWR Meets with Vatican Officials

I picked this up from Catholic News and World Report.

Today the president and executive director of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious met in Rome with Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Archbishop Peter Sartain of Seattle, the Vatican delegate overseeing the reform of the LCWR. 

The statements released by the Vatican and the LCWR reveal little of went on behind closed doors. It is expected that more will come to light in August, when the LCWR holds its annual assembly in St. Louis and will “determine its course of action in response to the CDF assessment,” according the group’s statement about today’s meeting. 

From the LCWR statement:
The meeting had been requested by the LCWR to address what the conference considered deficiencies in the process and the results of the doctrinal assessment of the organization released by the CDF in April. 

“It was an open meeting and we were able to directly express our concerns to Cardinal Levada and Archbishop Sartain,” said Sister Pat Farrell. 

Sister Pat Farrell, the president of the LCWR, told reporters after today’s meeting, “We are grateful for the opportunity for open dialogue, and now we will return to our members to see about the next step.” 

The Vatican statement about the meeting was also brief:
The meeting provided the opportunity for the Congregation and the LCWR officers to discuss the issues and concerns raised by the doctrinal assessment in an atmosphere of openness and cordiality. 

According to Canon Law, a conference of major superiors such as the LCWR is constituted by and remains under the supreme direction of the Holy See in order to promote common efforts among the individual member institutes and cooperation with the Holy See and the local conference of bishops (cf. Code of Canon Law, canons 708-709). The purpose of the doctrinal assessment is to assist the LCWR in this important mission by promoting a vision of ecclesial communion founded on faith in Jesus Christ and the teachings of the Church as faithfully taught through the ages under the guidance of the Magisterium.

My analysis of the events:

Interesting to note a very big divide in the two statements.  The nun's representatives say,  “We are grateful for the opportunity for open dialogue, and now we will return to our members to see about the next step.”

While the Vatican report states, "The meeting provided the opportunity for the Congregation and the LCWR officers to discuss the issues and concerns raised by the doctrinal assessment in an atmosphere of openness and cordiality."

What I glean from this that the nun's representatives still view themselves with some sort of power and ability to sway the decision of the Holy See.  This simply isn't the case.  "Dialogue" constitutes a form of negotiation and movement from one position to another.  This is confirmed by the idea that they have a "next step," other than to fall in line with what the Holy See asks of them as consecrated Catholic religious.

The Vatican's position is very clear that while they were, "nice" that the discussions were not a form of "dialogue" as defined by liberal-speak.  Rather that it was a way for them to express their concern and for the Vatican to take what they will under advisement.  But the Vatican also clearly states the bottom line, "According to Canon Law, a conference of major superiors such as the LCWR is constituted by and remains under the supreme direction of the Holy See in order to promote common efforts among the individual member institutes and cooperation with the Holy See and the local conference of bishops (cf. Code of Canon Law, canons 708-709). The purpose of the doctrinal assessment is to assist the LCWR in this important mission by promoting a vision of ecclesial communion founded on faith in Jesus Christ and the teachings of the Church as faithfully taught through the ages under the guidance of the Magisterium."

This is not to be seen as allowing for them to continue to operate in a manner which in inconsistent with Church teaching and remain Catholic.  The sooner the nun's realize this, the better.  And it will save everyone a lot of pain and un-needed angst.

It remains my prayer that the LCWR falls in line with the Holy See and that Cardinal Levada and Archbishop Sartain continue to catechize these nun's in accord with sound Church teaching.

Sacred Arts and Traditional Catholicism

Hello - my name is Mary and I will be writing a weekly post on the subject of the sacred arts here at Ars Orandi. My education and training is in art history and I have a personal interest in traditional Catholicism, particularly in relation to the Latin Mass*. These two interests will be woven together in the weeks to come, and perhaps other topics will arise, too!

I hope that you will enjoy reading my posts as much as I will enjoy writing them. In my academic work I have not had the opportunity to incorporate traditional Catholicism with art history and therefore I am excited to do so here at Ars Orandi. These posts will–Deo volente–be a means to develop my thoughts on Catholicism and to share my knowledge of the arts — something that I hope you will find interesting and entertaining. 

I look forward to ‘looking’ at the visual arts in this beautiful way with you.

*Nota bene: for consistency in the future I will use the term Latin Mass, however I am aware the Mass is also referred to as the Traditional Latin Mass, Extraordinary Form, etc.

Juan Carreño de Miranda, Mass of St. John of Matha, 1666

Fr. Arnaud Rostand's Interview: Part I

An Historical Event

This past weekend an historical event took place in Des Moines, Iowa.  (Father) Chori Jonathin Seraiah was ordained to the deaconate.  Some might wonder why the significance, well, he is one of the first Americans to enter into Orders under the provisions of Anglicanorum Coetibus.  You see, (Father) Seraiah was an Anglican priest.

Reconciliation with Rome is a monumental event, when anyone does it, but there is special significance related to this.  The true meaning of religious tolerance and catechesis really shines forth.  It has always been the goal for the Church to convert the masses, but it has had varying success over the years and since the Protestant Revolt (some call it a Reformation), it has been very difficult.  This is a watershed moment and the reverberations will be heard for all time!  A Protestant ecclesial communion is in the process, very real process of reuniting with Holy Mother Church.  And (Father) Seraiah couldn't be happier about it.

Over the last year or so, I've had the distinct pleasure of getting to know him and his family quite well.  They are God-fearing and their devotion to right thinking and the proper melding of faith and reason is admirable.  They are searchers and they have found their way home.  When I first met (Father) Seraiah he was finishing up saying an Anglican mass.  I was struck by two things,

1.  How similar it was to the TLM and
2. the devotion by which he celebrated the service.

Upon speaking with him, I learned that his devotion as an Anglican minister was more Catholic than many priests I know.  He has a strong devotion to the Eucharist and a very strong devotion to Our Lady.  His devotion to the Blessed Sacrament was what really captivated me and to be honest it perplexed me a little.  I had never seen a Protestant believe with such ferocity about a dogma which is so fundamentally Catholic.  As I continued to get to know him I found that his Catholicity was genuine and that his understanding of religion was in tune with Catholicism 100%.

Yesterday, (Father) Seraiah was ordained a deacon in the Catholic Church.  He will be ordained priest on July 8.  As I was speaking with him yesterday, I was struck by the humility that he embodied.  He truly sees his ministry within Holy Mother Church as one which is of service.  He understands what it means to be deacon.  He understands that as he finalizes his preparation to become a priest, that his role is being fully realized.  (Father) Seraiah is meant for the work he is about to undertake.  I strongly pray that he embraces the ideal which is found through Melchizedek.  Hebrews 7 and 8 speak about this considerably and I know that as the days approach, (Father) Seraiah will reflect upon the awesome endeavor he is about to undertake.

I pray for (Father) Seraiah.  I pray for his wife Catherine.  I pray for his children, Ajha, Ransom, Rook, Blaze and Winter.  I pray they understand that as a Catholic priest they must share their familial leader with the Church.  They will.  This family is an embodiment of charity (in the true sense), love (agape), and clarity of purpose.

While it seems as though I'm singing the praises of (Father) Seraiah, what I am really doing is showing Catholics that there are those who need to be catehcized and evangelized.  There are those who we must be ecumenical with in the Orthodox Church.  We can and we should recognize the signs and the markers of those who genuinely want to be Catholic and we should support them and praise them.  We should help them along their search to find Catholicism and the truth which lies behind it.  I met (Father) Seraiah when his journey was more or less complete.  I met his family when their journey was more or less complete.  But their family gives me hope that there are others.  There are others out there when presented with the truth will accept it.  The Seraiah's are a model.  (Father) Seraiah is an example of what proper catechesis and what proper acceptance can bring.  It can bring fruit.  We all should redouble our efforts and we should realize that we can, as a Church, bring about the reconiliation of ecclesial communions.

I will have pictures in the next several days.  I will blog again about this on (Father) Seraiah's ordination to the Sacred priesthood.

If you would like to read some of the views of (Father) Seraiah, I would point you to his blog, The Maccabean.

UPDATE:

TradNews Roundup

*Dr. John Rao points out Cardinal Brandmuller's egregious error in equating the SSPX to Old Catholics and dogmatic teachings of the First Vatican Council with the purely pastoral teachings of the Second Vatican Council.

*HHS Contraception Mandate is an attempt to remove religion from society, says Denver Archbishop.

*De Mattei criticized by the thought police for telling the truth about homosexuality.

*The CDF's censure of heretical woman religious meets with dissent from her religious superior and a slew of other Leftists.

*Leftist study laments the fact that smart people are more likely to be skeptical of man-made global climate change. The Leftist answer? Make people dumb!

*Bishops prepare the faithful for civil disobedience in face of the HHS Contraception Mandate.

*Obama's socialist third-party affiliation revealed despite Obama's best efforts to lie his way out of it. Obama is a liar.

*"Conservative" Donald Trump, friend of "conservative" presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney, is going to sue Miss Pennsylvania for resigning her title based on the pageant allowing a transgender pervert to compete? Just how "conservative" are these wonder boys of the Republican Party?

Why No TLM, A Mentality, That's Why

I stumbled across this blog entry on the interwebz this morning and I thought I would share my comment to it with you:

I received the following very cogent and legitimate comment. Please read it and my response below it:Anonymous said...June 5, 2012 5:01 PMThis debate is frustrating to read because it presumes the laity to be a lazy, addled, ignorant bunch of quasi-Catholics. Those of us who go to mass every week go because we are called to, and that time at church is sacred to us, and we work hard to teach our children respect for the host (and yes, they are "naughty" sometimes and don't "do it right" sometimes, and we have to deal with that among many things they do "wrong" on a regular basis), and we are in awe at the miracle that happens before us when the priest consecrates the bread and wine. The above debate belittles our "ordinary" mass experience and the prayer and worship we throw ourselves into. Perhaps you can find a way to criticize the church without patronizing the church militant who are in our pews doing our best to do what we are told. 

Blogger Fr. X said...June 6, 2012 5:19 AMGranted there are some who comment on this blog who would prefer only the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. I feel for them that we don't have enough priests to allow this form weekly. It could have happened here if there were at least 150 to 200 people desiring this Mass weekly. As it stands at our 2:00 PM monthly Mass we have about 40 parishioners--that does not justify turning one of the 4 Sundays Mass we have in the Ordinary Form into an Extraordinary Form Mass. Now we do have another parish in the city that only has one Sunday morning Mass and certainly another Mass in the EF could be held there weekly, but that is out of my hands.I do not share the antipathy that some here have toward the Ordinary Form Mass. However, that doesn't mean that the Ordinary Form Mass doesn't need to be protected and improved. There are many ways to do this and Pope Benedict is modeling the primary two ways, directing prayer of the priest and congregation toward God, not toward one another and kneeling for Holy Communion. These are minor revisions and about a 1500 year precedence in the Liturgy of the Latin Rite.Also I do not share the antipathy of those who love the Ordinary Form and have an antipathy towards the Extraordinary Form Mass, but I do recognize that this Mass needed and needs revision, minor revision, such as more flexibility and more vernacular.I firmly believe too, that Pope Ratzinger believes that both the 1962 missal and now the current missal fall short of what both could be and thus having both missals available will point out the strengths and weaknesses of both and allow for a more organic renewal of the Mass with the advent of yet another missal in the future to be the Ordinary Mass of the Latin Rite. In other words I believe the 1962 missal will always be the Extraordinary Form of the Mass but the 1970 missal and its 2012 revision are temporary and that it (the Ordinary Form Missal) will be replaced by something new that will be a combination of the 1970 and 1962 missal and probably and more of a 1962 feel and look and spirituality. As for the first line of the the comment above: "This debate is frustrating to read because it presumes the laity to be a lazy, addled, ignorant bunch of quasi-Catholics," the same could be said of a certain percentage of the clergy. Never before though, have the laity be able to write their comments or create their own blogs on Church issues for others to read and make comment. I think most priests do want to know what the laity are thinking. This does two things, it helps us to hear their thoughts and if within the context of our faith and tradition to confirm them. If, though the thoughts expressed fall outside of our faith and tradition and even outside our academic understanding of such, then it allows the priest and now other laity to critique what is said and hopefully move the conversation forward. But another thing also happens, laity have corrected me on this blog and that's something new too! I think it is a two way street!Finally, I would hope our discussions on this blog that go beyond liturgy, although the liturgy is the source and summit of our Catholic lives, will help us all to grow in our faith and understanding of our faith and the morals of the Church, especially those morals which today are hotly contested by both Catholics within the Church, Catholics who have left the Church and the non-Catholic community, especially those who have joined the new, modern religion of the USA, Godless Secularism. 

Father,
I'd like to make a couple of comments.  I really think that your point about 150-200 people is short sighted.  You're not fulfilling the concept of what the Holy Father intended by saying that because there aren't 150-200 people we can't have the TLM.  No.  The Holy Father wants the TLM in every parish.  That much is clear.  It shouldn't matter that a Novus Ordo Mass is replaced.  To the contrary, I think that is exactly what the Holy Father intended in his writing on the subject.  The restoration of the TLM isn't contingent upon the "consensus fidelium."  The restoration of the TLM is based upon the desire of the Holy Father to restore the TLM.

It is my contention that if the TLM is made available at a more "normal" time, 2:00pm is not "normal" for Mass on Sunday, then it would get a greater foothold.  I know that I'm just one person and that ultimately my personal view doesn't amount to a whole lot, but there are many people like me who are thinking the very same thing, but are not willing to say something about it.  So, what is there to lose by replacing the 7:00am Sunday Mass with a TLM low Mass?  Or since there is this idea that the TLM has to be a High Mass, which is not absolutely necessary, why can't there be a Sung Mass at 9:00am?  Here's the shocker...the real reason is that the pastors are afraid of losing revenue.  Right now, more people go to the Novus Ordo and pastors are afraid that they won't go to the TLM and therefore they will lose money.  Well, here's the rub of that...do the pastors have so little faith in the people that go to the 7 or the 9 that they will just stop going to Mass altogether?  Assuming they don't just remain and accept the TLM (which I think they would, btw with proper catechesis), I would think that they'd go to another Mass and THAT Mass's collection would go up.  But, in the meantime, the parish would be gaining the dollars from those who assist at the TLM who don't normally go to Mass at your parish.

Bottom line, this whole 150-200 people issue isn't anything other than the abject fear of losing money.  And that is not the point.  It never has been.

As for the argument regarding revision of the TLM, why?  Why is it so hard to catechize the faithful on the spirituality of the TLM?  Why is there this overriding need to insert the vernacular?  The words of the Mass are irrelevant to the faithful.  They are there to worship.  Their worship should be internal first and foremost.  This idea of participatio actuosa being a blend of external and internal participation is an erroneous view of the concept.  Participatio activa speaks more to the blending of the two.  Participatio actuosa speaks firt and predominantly internally participating by uniting one's soul to the liturgical action.  So, what the priest says is irrelevant.  So, it should be in Latin for a great many number of reasons which I will not take the time to list, but are easy enough to find.  This idea of the vernacular is horizontal theology at best and Protestant theology at worst.  In any event, it is not Catholic (Latin Rite).

I tend to disagree with the idea that most priests want to know what the laity are thinking.  The majority of priests that I know (and I know a lot) are not interested at all, because it means more work for them.  My experience in trying to engage priests in a theological discussion usually leads to frustration on both parts, because the priest won't catechize mainly because he wasn't taught how to in seminary.  So, he just dismisses what the faithful has to say and simply goes about his own business....too bad, because there are a great many of us (I do include myself) who study and are genuine about our love for the Church (from all time, not just 1962 onward).

I won't comment on taking the blog past the liturgy other than this.  It's your blog.  You can write about whatever you want.  So, you call the shots.  If you want it to be more than just a liturgical blog, write about some theological issues.  However, I think that today, the most pressing issue is the liturgical action, because it is how 99.9% of Catholics view themselves, exclusively and they should.

Ultimately it comes to this, priests need to embrace the TLM.  Priests need to start listening to the Holy Father and they need to embrace the TLM.  The reason they don't is money.  These men are some of the smartest men in the world and they can't learn a new language?  I call BS.  They're learning Spanish.  The languages are similar.  This has everything to do with antipathy toward the TLM and traditional Catholic thought.  Oh, sure, it's nice to say that one is traditional, but that is sort of "bad boy en vogue" right now, but ultimately when these priests are pushed, they won't change their tune.  It remains the same..."We don't have enough people to attend (not assist)." Although the TLM is the fastest growing segment of the Church.

"We can't learn Latin, it's too hard."  How's that Spanish coming, Father?

"I've tried this fight in the past and I lost."  This isn't the past.  The rules of the game have changed, 5 YEARS AGO!

"My bishop doesn't allow it."  It isn't up to the bishop any longer.

This isn't an issue of anything other than abject denial of the immemorial aspects of the Church.  99% of priests today will only go back as far as 1965 with regard to the Mass.  Sure, they'll quote older stuff, when it is in their best interest to do so, but by and large...

By and large we need to stand up and tell our priests what we want.  Fr. X says that he wants to hear what we have to say...so I say let's tell him.

Guéranger: The Time After Pentecost I

Time After Pentecost, Chapter I

THE HISTORY OF THE TIME AFTER PENTECOST

The solemnity of Pentecost and its octave are over, and the progress of the liturgical year introduces us into a new period, which is altogether different from those we have hitherto spent. From the very beginning of Advent, which is the prelude to the Christmas festival, right up to the anniversary of the descent of the Holy Ghost, we have witnessed the entire series of the mysteries of our redemption; all have been unfolded to us. The sequel of seasons and feasts made up a sublime drama, which absorbed our very existence; we have but just come from the final celebration, which was the consummation of the whole. And yet we have gone through but one half of the year. This does not imply that the period we have still to live is devoid of its own special mysteries; but, instead of keeping up our attention by the ceaseless interest of one plan hurrying on to its completion, the sacred liturgy is about to put before us an almost unbroken succession of varied episodes, of which some are brilliant with glory, and others exquisite in loveliness, but each one of them bringing its special tribute towards either of the development of the dogmas of faith or the furtherance of the Christian life. This year’s cycle will thus be filled up; it will disappear; a new one will take its place, bringing before us the same divine facts, and pouring forth the same graces on Christ’s mystical body.

This section of the liturgical year, which comprises a little more or little less than six months according as Easter is early or late, has always had the character it holds at present. But, although it admits only detached solemnities and feasts, the influence of the movable portion of the cycle is still observable. It may have as many as twenty-eight or as few as twenty-three weeks. This variation depends not only upon the Easter feast, which may occur on any of the days between March 22 and April 25 inclusively, but also on the date of the first Sunday of Advent, which is the opening of a new ecclesiastical year, and is always the Sunday nearest the Kalends of December.

In the Roman liturgy the Sundays of this series go under the name of “Sundays after Pentecost.” That title is the most suitable that could have been given, and is found in the oldest sacramentaries and antiphonaries, but it was not universally adopted even by those Churches which followed the Roman rite; in progress of time, however, that title became the general one. To mention some of the previous early names: in the Comes of Alcuin, which takes us back to the eighth century, we find the first section of these Sundays called “Sundays after Pentecost”; the second is named “weeks after the feast of the Apostles” (post natale Apostolorum); the third goes under the title of “weeks after St. Laurence.” (post Sancti Laurentii); the fourth has the appellation of “weeks of the seventh month” (September); and lastly, the fifth is termed “weeks after St. Michael” (post Sancti Angeli), and lasts till Advent. As late as the sixteenth century many missals of the western Churches have us these several sections of the Time After Pentecost, but some of the titles varied according to the special saints honoured in the respective dioceses, whose feasts were taken as the date-marks of this period of the year. The Roman missal, published by order of St. Pius V, has gradually been adopted in all our Latin churches, and has restored the ancient denominations to the ecclesiastical season we have just entered upon; so that the only name under which it is now known amongst us is “the Time after Pentecost” (post Pentecosten).

Opens Today!

TradNews Roundup

*For updates on the Rome-SSPX negotiations please see the sidebar.

*The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, North American District, ordains five. Congratulations, and Deo Gratias!

*Apparent PCED about-face causes confusion regarding the SSPX and Sunday obligation. It turns out that the chapel in question is not part of the SSPX.

*CDF issues norms for discerning apparitions. Is this a precursor to an announcement concerning the on-going commission's investigation of Medjugorje?

*The scandal and allegations of in-fighting and corruption in the Vatican continues to grow. The Vatican denies rumors that a cardinal was involved.

*The Holy Father speaks, events have "brought sadness".

*It is time to stand in full solidarity with the pope.

*St. John of Avila and St. Hildegard of Bingen will be proclaimed doctors of the Church on October 7th.

*The little antichrist in the White House, along with the rest of his Democrat demons in the House, support killing unborn baby girls just because they are girls.

*The Obama Administration refused to take Catholic University of America seriously. The HHS Contraception Mandate proves that not only does the Obama Administration refuse to take Catholics seriously in general, the reason for it is that the Obama Administration hates the Catholic Church specifically.

*The Obama Administration is trying to shove their state religion down our Catholic throats.

*The HHS Contraception Mandate is an affront to Catholic morality and the natural law.

*The little antichrist in the White House honors his own.

*Homophobic? Homophobia is word made up by homosexual radicals.

A Fresh Idea and Conversation On Being Traddy

I am melding two posts together from other sites which I participate in....but I want to hash this out. I think that what I'm about to say is a very fresh idea on Traditionalism....The following is a conversation I had recently regarding the traditional notions of Catholic thought and what it means to be conservative and liberal in a traddy sense.  I am speaking via the white text, my counterpart is speaking via the red text.

There is room for traditional and liberal Catholics, but worship is not a place for politics. What I am advocating isn't political, it is simply a return to what Vatican Council II envisioned. Show me where any of the things that I have mentioned previously in this [site] were explicitly stated to be removed or replaced in the Mass, using the documents of Vatican Council II. You won't be able to do it, because they are not there. Everything I have advocated is fully supported by Vatican Council II and everything I have put forth in this post is 100% apolitical. There isn't one thing political about it, unless the liberals who don't like it make it so. Because I can guarantee you there isn't a traditional Catholic who has one iota of trouble accepting what the Church wants liturgically.

So, liberals be liberal, but don't project liberalism onto the Mass or any other liturgical or Sacramental action. My call for a return to what the Mass should be isn't political, it is anti-political. I am literally trying to take the liberal agenda away from the Mass and restore the patrimony to what it has been intended to be. Liberals bemoan this and say it is political, because that is how liberals operate. Traditionalists usually don't, they are mostly apolitical or anti-political, trying to eliminate the politics of the modern world from those things which are Catholic and have no political meaning or need.

Yes, but liberalism in the Church prior to the Ecclesiastical and Social revolutions of the 1960s meant something different.

Political liberalism, as defined today (rooted in 1950s and 60s socio-theological circles) in the Church was not the same type of ecclesiastical liberalism that existed in the times of Benedict XV and Pius IX. Their brand of liberalism was largely one of theological hypothesis, as opposed to the truly liberal who has distorted and maligned great works such as Rerum Novarum, etc...

I think that the brand of liberalism TODAY is what was Modernism (the heresy) then.

My point is that liberalism wasn't the same thing then as it is today. Looking at how Newman defined liberalism, I have no problem with. It is different than how I view things, but the times were different. And the ideologues were different.

It was once said that Paul VI made the grievous error of "eliminating" heresy from Catholic nomenclature, when he wouldn't condemn certain actions that were taking place during the 1960s and 1970s, which his predecessors were quick to control. I think that I agree with that.

I also think that Catholic liberalism and the ensuing shift to Modernism with regard to the Church in the 1960s and 1970s was strongly influenced by the Kennedy family and the East Coast cardinals and bishops, who followed Paul VI model.

Finally, I think that the biggest problem with the shift to Modernism from authentic liberalism was the idea of aggiornamento. It was this mindset which set the Church leaders down the path they have taken over these last 50 years. So much so that cardinals like Bernadin and Mahoney and Keeler; and bishops like Gumbleton and Clark and Weakland are perfectly legitimate in promoting the errors they promoted and still promote, yet bishops like Lefevbre and Castro De Mayer are demonized for holding on to Catholic tradition.

I said recently, that my call for a return to what the Mass should be isn't political, it is anti-political. I am literally trying to take the liberal agenda away from the Mass and restore the patrimony to what it has been intended to be. Liberals bemoan this and say it is political, because that is how liberals operate. Traditionalists usually don't, they are mostly apolitical or anti-political, trying to eliminate the politics of the modern world from those things which are Catholic and have no political meaning or need.

This can be applied to all aspects of the Church, not just Sacramental theology, it's just that Sacramental theology is the most visible. I firmly believe that. The polarization has come from the left. Those of us who are traditional just want the Church to be viewed in the same light it always was.

There are humans who choose by their actions to refuse redemption. The Catholic revolt of the 1960s (not revolution) didn't keep things the same. There was a rupture or break in Tradition. This much is perfectly clear.

I stand firm in saying that Modernism (heresy) poisoned authentic liberalism in the 1960s and 1970s for the reasons listed above.

Yes, I'll pray for those who are Modernist, but the prayer is that they recant the Modernist heresy and return to an authentic liberal ideologue. By their choice to adhere to the Modernist heresy, they aren't irredeemable, but rather they refuse redemption.

Again, like I said below, aggiornamento (thank you John XXIII and Paul VI), led Pope Paul to make the now famous statement, "It is as if from some mysterious crack, no, it is not mysterious, from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God."

Response:  As you seem to acknowledge, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have different meaning in different contexts. People may be morally conservative, but politically liberal. Politically conservative but morally liberal. Theologically conservative but politically liberal. Etc. The terms have also meant different things at different times and in different places.


I've know Catholics who worship under the Ordinary Form who fall under most of these various meanings of "liberal" or "conservative".


My knowledge of Catholics who worship under the Extraordinary Form is much less extensive, but I have yet to meet one who is politically liberal (at least in the context of American politics). So, that being the case, I would have reservations about your statement that "Traditionalists ... are mostly apolitical or anti-political, trying to eliminate the politics of the modern world from those things which are Catholic and have no political meaning or need." 

Rebuttal:  Let's see if I can make the distinction a little clearer...

Traditionalists = those who want conserve the patrimony of the Church, by adhering to those things which have authentically been taught through the ages including the authentic teachings of today.

Liberals = those who seek change for the perceived betterment of the Church through a constant and continual updating of the teachings of the Church as they are applied today, with some, little, or no regard for the patrimony and authentic teaching of the Church.

Conservatives = those who want to conserve the patrimony of the Church by adhering to those things which tradition can apply, through an updated teachings of the Church, melding today's applications with those of the past.

Modernists = those who seek change to suit their agenda of change. There is no regard for the patrimony of the Church, except that it gives a basis to substitute their agenda and appear to hold some semblance of tradition, while having no real expectation of any traditional ideologue other than what will support their new position. This is characterized with a clear rupture with the past. There is a clear refusal to define themselves by Pascendi Domenici gregis, but their tendencies clearly follow that pattern of behavior.


Do not look at this from a socio-political view. I'm not talking about Republicans and Democrats. I am not talking about the any particular secular world view.

The ideas that I am talking about deal strictly with Religious Liberty and Tolerance. These two ideas as they existed prior to the Catholic revolt of the 1960s. For it wasn't until the emergence of the Kennedy's as a Catholic world power that the American ideals of Liberal and Conservative, as defined by the American political system, were really applied. (The heresy of Americanism was not related to this movement, btw).

Response:  I am glad you make the distinction from "Democrat" and "Republican". I would not consider "Republican" to be conservative (possibly liberal, but in a different way!). Good to see people with a gaze toward the bigger picture...

Rebuttal:  That's the problem with putting secular political limits on Church matters. There really isn't any gray. There are two sets of laws which guide the Church. Canon Law and Liturgical Law. Neither are negotiable, so the way that politics works is much more subtle. To be two bulls in a china cabinet, such as the two party system in America, is an unfair comparison.

The only real way to view things are that of heterodox and orthodox. While it may seem that I am being legalistic and rigid, the reality is that there isn't anything else. Either one accepts the Church fully, or he doesn't and it is from there that the definitions become real.

One can be orthodox, but be lobbying for change and that is one who is truly and authentically liberal.
One can be orthodox, but be lobbying for conservation and that is one who is truly and authentically conservative.
One can be heterodox, lobbying for change and that is one who is illicit.
One can be heterodox, lobbying for conservation and that is also one who is illicit.

But the terms liberal and conservative don't apply in the same way as they do in secular politics.

The key is authenticity when dealing with the Church. That is why "liberalism" is and should be tolerated in the Church, but not to the detriment of the Catholic ideal and mindset.  To be liberal can be to help in the development of doctrine, but to be liberal in order to be political is a detriment to what it means to be Catholic.