Initial Thoughts on the Firestorm from the Ordinariate

Yesterday a firestorm of sorts erupted over the words of Mons. Steenson of the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter.  His words can be found at Rorate Caeli.

I see both parts of the argument, but in all honesty, I don't think that I can agree with Monsignor Steenson.  Here is my reasoning.

If there is to be a distinction and if it is not part of the patrimony, why the English/American Missal?  Why even, in some places, the Tridentine Mass, save Orders and validity in Anglo-Catholicism?  I don't understand how this can logically follow?

What I do see is that Mons. Steenson is acquiescing to the Novus Ordo.  If the Tridentine cannot be part of the Patrimony, how then can the Novus Ordo?  It seems as though Mons. Steenson is not keeping close what SP and AC has accepted.

Why shouldn't the Ordinariate be encompassed by the Traditionalist movement?  The TLM shouldn't be seen as a hampering of the Ordinariate, but rather as a help.  Some have said that they priests have a preference not to say the Novus Ordo, and have said that they would like to learn the TLM and were open to that.  From what I've seen, many of the Ordinariate priests and faithful are clamoring for a place where they can be who they are and not worry about the liberal influences which are not consistent with their views.  Yet, the leadership is backing away from this?  Why?

I did hear later last night that Rome is not happy with this statement and I am sure that in the next few days there will be a modification to it.

What I think, is that Steenson is being influenced by certain members of the Curia.  While I have respect for them, I can tell you that they are no friends to tradition.  They are neo-conservatives, sort of, who promote a brand of Novus Ordo conservatism which existed during the pontificate of John Paul II.  In other words they are moderates.  But this doesn't bode well for the traditionalist movement within or outside the Ordinariate.

How do I see this?  I see it as a re-position.  I see it is as a change in view from what was being sold to the faithful.  He does give a caveat though to say that if the faithful "truly" desire the TLM, then it "can" be said.  But that is few and far between, in his eyes.  I think that his eyes are cloudy.  Think about the conversations with the faithful that you've had thus far...how many want the status quo to continue through the Ordinariate?  Not many.  I think that those who are looking at the Ordinariate are looking for the ability to remain traditional, not adopt the neo-conservative view of Catholicism today.  Sure, they want to retain their Anglican heritage, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't or couldn't be influenced by Roman Catholicism.  As you said, this isn't sui juris....they are part of the Latin Rite, albeit under a provision.

Finally, this seems to move directly in opposition to Anglicanorum Coetibus III when it says:

Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared. 

 I think that there is being set up an exclusion of the TLM or EF, which is contrary to Summorum Pontificum 5.1 which says:

In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.

and Summorum Pontificum 5.4 which says:

Priests who use the Missal of Bl. John XXIII must be qualified to do so and not juridically impeded. 

 and Universae Ecclesiae 8:

The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum constitutes an important expression of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff and of his munus of regulating and ordering the Church’s Sacred Liturgy. 

I just don't see how Mons. Steenson's words jive at all with the express wishes of Holy Mother Church.  It seems an agenda is being applied where none should exist.

Perhaps I'm way off base, but I don't think so.  I know that I'm pretty new to the Ordinariate's way of thinking, but I just don't see the logic in it at all.  It seems to be more of the same politicking from American Prelates.

St. Ignatius of Loyola and a New Tridentine Reformation

Allegory of the Jesuits' Missionary Work by Andrea Pozzo, S.J., the ceiling of Sant'Ignazio, Rome, 1694

St. Ignatius of Loyola was probably the most influencial individual in sparking the reforms of the 16th century. The Catholic Encylopedia relates:

Then there appeared Ignatius and the Jesuits, so conspicuous in the new movement. And here it may be well to notice how very different the evolution of the Protestant Reformers (even of those who were most conscientious) was from that of the vocation of this Catholic leader. The monk Luther and many like him began by denouncing abuses. The abuses were serious, no doubt, but from the nature of the case abuses in matters or of matters themselves holy and laudable. Yet so violent did the accusers become that they gradually forgot any good there was connected with the object decried, though the good perhaps in reality far outweighed the evil. Then came attacks upon the persons who maintained or defended the thing impugned, or who failed to make the changes demanded, and they were almost always declared to have virtually or actually betrayed or deserted the Church itself. Finally the reformer, setting himself up as the true standard of orthodoxy, fell to self-exaltation, and at last rebelled and separated from the Church, which he had originally intended to serve.

The soldier, Ignatius, in the enforced leisure after his wound at Pampeluna (1521) bethought himself of serving Christ as a captain. The idea slowly took possession of him and aroused a lofty spiritual ambition. The imitation and service of Christ were to be most thorough. He would first educate himself as well as his age would allow, become a priest, induce the best of his companions to join him, and then go to the Holy Land and imitate the Saviour's life as literally and exactly as possible. This was a humble but sublime ideal, capable of appealing to and satisfying the most earnest souls, and sure to lead to great efforts. There was no preoccupation here about the reform of abuses, nor indeed any temporal concern whatever, even the most praiseworthy. For twelve years Ignatius, now a middle-aged man, laboured at the education and the sanctification of himself and of the few followers who threw in their lot with him, and the plan would have been completed as it had been conceived, had not war with the Turks kept him and his companions waiting for several months at Venice, unable to proceed to Palestine. Then he turned to Rome, which he reached in November, 1537, and never left again. The services of his small band of companions were soon in great request; they were the "handy men" of the hour, with heads and hearts ready for any work. In a short time they had been heard of and seen everywhere. Though few in number they had carried the Gospel to Abyssinia, India, and China, the ends of the known world. They had faced and fought the most redoubted heretics; they had preached to the poor and tended the sick in the darkest purlieus of the manufacturing cities. They had not indeed as yet the great colleges which afterwards made them famous, nor did people feel their force as a corporate body, but this only made their position as the pioneers, or advance guard of the Church, the more noteworthy. If so few preachers could do so much, their calls on others to join in the struggle roused multitudes to confidence, energy, and fresh efforts.

How many so called "reformers" today, no matter if they fall to the right or left, or belong to the progressive or traditional camp, are going down the road of Martin Luther and the Protestant "Reformers" who rejected Truth and the Church?

A new Tridentine Reformation, which is sorely needed, cannot happen without the simple piety that St. Ignatius of Loyola so exemplified. We are being called to reform our own hearts and minds, pray, fast and imitate the life of Our Blessed Lord. With these should we be primarily concerned.

The Altar of St. Ignatius by Andrea Pozzo, S.J. in the Il Gesù, Rome, 1699

The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius can be found online here: Catholic First, The Spiritual Exercises.

The moral dilemma of ectopic pregnancies

Please click over to The Remnant Newspaper to read my latest column concerning the moral dilemma caused by the tragedy of ectopic pregnancy. This is a subject with which my wife and I have had, unfortunately, a lot experience, and is the culmination of much research and spiritual reflection.

I was surprised to find so little material of worth, and a woeful amount of disinformation, bad advise and poor moral reasoning on the question. I hope that this essay will be of benefit for parents who sadly may be confronted with a tubal pregnancy, and for medical professionals who will have to react to the moral decisions of their Catholic patients.

Here's a teaser:

...An ectopic pregnancy is any pregnancy that occurs outside of the uterus. An ectopic pregnancy occurs when the movement of a fertilized egg is blocked or slowed in the fallopian tube, causing the egg to implant in the tube. This is commonly called a “tubal pregnancy”, but ectopic pregnancies can occur, on rare occasions, in the ovary, around or behind the uterus, or in the cervix.

There are various reasons why a fertilized egg can be blocked or slowed in the fallopian tube, to include a birth defect in the fallopian tubes, endometriosis (uterine lining tissue occurring in the fallopian tubes), complications caused by a ruptured appendix, and scarring from past infections or surgeries. The risk for ectopic pregnancies is significantly increased by age (over 35), in vitro fertilization, having multiple sexual partners, smoking, and getting pregnant while using certain intrauterine artificial contraception devices or after having a tubal ligation. Also reconstructive surgery to the fallopian tubes significantly increases the chances of an ectopic pregnancy.

An ectopic pregnancy is always a life-threatening condition to mother and child. Without the removal of the developing cells a rupture will occur, and the resulting hemorrhaging will kill the mother. Obviously, therefore, the baby cannot survive in such a condition, either. An ectopic pregnancy must be treated immediately in order to save the life of the mother, but the death of the unborn baby is always a consequence of all current ectopic pregnancy treatments.

The Catholic Church has always taught, since the first century (the Didache, II. 2), in fact, that every procured abortion is a grave moral evil, and this teaching has not changed, nor can it be changed. Any direct abortion, which is willed either as an end in itself or as a means to some other end, even to save the life of the mother, is grave matter that is contrary to the moral law (Denzinger, 1183f and 1890a-c). Thus, an ectopic pregnancy cannot be treated by a direct abortion, even if the abortion is performed to save the mother’s life.

Must the Mother Die? ...

To read more please head over to The Remnant.

San Francisco's new bishop

Bishop Salvatore Cordileone

Regarding Michael Voris and The Vortex

I've received a couple of emails and a few people have left comments about recent postings containing episodes of The Vortex by Michael Voris from ChurchMilitant.TV.

I decided not to allow comments relating to Mr. Voris' person or, as one commentator put it, his "legitimacy for a Traditional Catholic weblog." The fact that I did not allow the comments is by no means a negative reflection on those who left them. Thank you for visiting this blog and taking the time to express your opinion. Your opinions are valued. That being said, I didn't think it appropriate to discuss the character of Mr. Voris; rather, I would prefer there to be discussion regarding the content of his programs.

Regarding Mr. Voris' character or "legitimacy", a few things should be pointed out by way of justification. There were a couple of episodes of The Vortex that I found questionable on a theological and philosophical level, but, I admit, nothing Mr. Voris said in these episodes contradicted Church teaching. Furthermore, it is apparent that Mr. Voris has made significant progress in the recent past concerning the issues that I found troublesome. It is now common knowledge that Mr. Voris attends a Traditional Latin Mass on a regular basis, and while he may not be "traditional enough" for some readers, it is clear that his presentations are orthodox, supportive of the Traditional Latin Mass and traditional Catholicism, and they are rightfully critical of liberalism in the modern Church. There's no reason for me to presume he is not a devout and virtuous Catholic who loves Our Blessed Lord, the Virgin Mary and the Holy Catholic Church.

In short, Michael Voris is an ally of Tradition. That's how I see it, and I will continue to promote The Vortex from ChurchMilitant.TV just as I promote a variety of other traditional Catholic voices, such as Fr. Michael Rodriguez, and priests from the various traditional priestly societies, etc... Of course, if anyone wishes to provide criticism of the content of The Vortex here at Ars Orandi, I'm more than happy to post those comments.

Thanks again, and I do appreciate your understanding. God bless!

TradNews Roundup

UPDATE: If I had known about this earlier... Bishop Cordileone appointed to head up one of the most liberal diocese in the United States. I hope Cordileone is ready for the fight.

*Newly ordained Jesuit offers his first Solemn Traditional Latin Mass. (Yes, I said "Jesuit".)

*Vatican Secretary of State removes the right of the right of the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru to use the words “Pontifical” and “Catholic” in its title. The new head of the CDF has some close ties to this particular university. Will the appointment of Müller lead to more Vatican infighting.

*Obama: Businessmen are no longer allowed to be Catholic.

*Obama: No higher power than government.

*Obama: Teenagers have to be offered sterilization.

*Re-examining the socialist leanings of the post-VCII American episcopate.

*LCWR is "not in accordance with the teachings of the Church."

*Voris on the CRS scandal:


and

Killing Traditional Catholics: Why "conservative" bishops hate the Traditional Latin Mass

Did Archbishop Müller just say VCII inovations are dogmatic?

It appears that he at least comes very close.

In reference to statements contained in the documents of Vatican II regarding “Religionsfreiheit, Judentum und Menschenrechten” (religious freedom, Judaism and human rights), this is what he said, in German: “Die kann man nicht ablehnen, ohne den katholischen Glauben zu beeinträchtigen.” In English, this literally means, “one cannot refuse without compromising the Catholic faith.”

Is he saying that one cannot hold the Catholic faith if one rejects the Vatican II statements regarding religious freedom, Judaism and human rights, statements that are contrary, or at least appear to be in their ambiguity, contrary to the teachings of the previous Magisterium? It would appear that is indeed what Müller is saying. Is he saying that these Vatican II innovations are de fide teachings, or teachings that are revealed by God and require the unconditional assent of faith by all men? He states that they have “dogmatic implications” (dogmatische Implikationen), so he appears to fall short in stating overtly that they are dogmatic in nature.

However, can a teaching that cannot be rejected without compromising the Catholic faith be logically anything other than a de fide, dogmatic, teaching? It would be a stretch, to say the least, to hold that such a teaching is not, indeed, de fide, but it is not impossible. Not all things that must be believed are necessarily dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church, that is articles that have been formerly defined infallibly. We accept this without question since obviously the truth that God is Trinity had to have been believed by Christians long before the Council of Nicaea dogmatically defined it.

But the problem here is, once again, one of ambiguity, and this is what is at the heart of the Traditional Catholic critique of the Second Vatican Council. Allow me to demonstrate.

The innovations of the Second Vatican Council regarding religious freedom, ecumenism, etc. have not, it cannot be denied, been infallibly defined as dogmatic and de fide teachings of the Catholic Church, but yet prelates like Archbishop Müller insist that they must be held. It would be one thing if these innovations existed in a void of prior silence from the Magisterium, but they don’t. In fact these innovations that, according to Müller, “cannot be rejected”, must be held in contradistinction to traditional teachings that seem to be contrary to them. Not only that, but the Second Vatican Council fails to repudiate these prior teachings, and explicitly states the traditional teachings are still to be believed (“Therefore [the Second Vatican Council] leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ” Dignitatis humanæ, no. 1).

Thus prelates like Müller would like the Catholic in the pew to refuse to reject non-dogmatic innovations that appear contrary to prior teachings that have not been repudiated and must still be believed, and at the same time to hold that the innovations, while lacking dogmatic definitiveness, are de fide, nonetheless.

Confused?

Archbishop Müller and his fellow “Vatican authorities” have jettisoned Blessed John Henry Newman’s primary thesis at the heart of his Development of Doctrine, namely, that development of doctrine is always a movement, effected by the agency of the Church’s Magisterium, from lesser to greater clarity in regards to what the Church has always believed. It would seem that the modern "Vatican authorities" have taken the Magisterium to be an elite club of speculative theologians, whose sole job is to garner the admiration of us ignorant peons, admiration for their academic fecundity and intellectual brilliance. We, the ignorant, sweating masses, are to accept without question the authorities' equivocations, and to accept the claim that something cannot be contrary or contradictory for the sole reason that they, the brilliant Vatican elites, say it cannot be contrary or contradictory. There's more pride than service about these "Vatican authorities".

The teaching office of the Catholic Church does not exist so a group of elite theologians with cardinal piping and hats can fiddle away their time indulging in speculative theology while strolling through the Vatican gardens. The Magisterium’s teaching office exists for the sake of charity. God’s people are supposed to be given the truth in an ever more clearly presented fashion by the Church’s Magisterium as it expounds the doctrines taught by Christ and defends those same doctrines from error. This is so the people of God might know with certitude what they must believe and what they must do to gain eternal life with God in heaven. Ultimately the Magisterium exists for the salvation of souls. If our modern churchmen refuse to present the Church’s teachings clearly, if they fail to defend them against error, they fail in charity, and they fail in the salvation of souls.

Müller would like all Catholics to accept his theological authority, but he demonstrates little or no regard for charity or the salvation of souls. He doesn't seem to be interested in defending or expounding the Church's doctrine. Rather, he seems to be just another mouthpiece for the post-Conciliar confusion. This certainly does not bode well for the Church that the new head of the CDF is more interested in spreading the confusion than in safeguarding the integrity and the clear transmission of Catholic doctrine.

TradNews Roundup

*How insane do things remain in the novus ordo establishment? Well try this on for size: Hiring a "chief executive" who isn't even Catholic to take the place of a bishop!

*More insanity: Should the U.S. bishops have a fortnight of apologies for being hypocrites?

*Keeping with the theme of post-conciliar insanity, is this part of the "hermeneutic of reform in continuity"? Hard Rock mess.

*The insanity of appointing anti-traditionalists as bishops reflected in on-going scandals? Accusations of sexual misconduct against Bishop Michael Bransfield of the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston have resurfaced. Regardless of whether he's guilty in regards to the accusations, it is a known fact that Bransfield was friends with and associated with a convicted child molester! Shouldn't that be enough to ask for an early retirement?

*The Boy Scouts are refusing to be bullied by gays.

*Will Blessed John Paul II be canonized within the Year of Faith?

*Blessed Paul VI? Tell me they are kidding!

*President Obama is endorsed by a socialist comrade and good friend, President Chavez of Venezuela.

*Millions to be spent on bullet train that will happily link dozens of bankrupt, depressed Californian cities. This is a good example of Leftist fiscal policy at work.

*Pro-Life activist threatened and harassed by the FBI.

*More violence from the "tolerant", homosexual Left.

*As families avoid JC Penny's due to the company's new support for the militant gay agenda, stocks in the company take a nose dive.

*Excessive taxation in Socialist France may push French businessmen and investors across the channel.

Catholic and Socialist? There will be hell to pay.

“All Socialism is, is collective ownership and government control of the means of production.”

This came from a well-educated, young man, a self-avowed “Socialist”, who calls himself “Catholic”, straight out of one of the West Coast’s most prestigious institutes of higher learning. He said it in reply to my assertion that Socialism starts from a radical, metaphysical egalitarianism. His rebuff to my assertion was to reduce Socialism to its conclusion, conveniently skipping over the philosophical foundations of a divergent and complex ideology. This, sadly, is an exercise that liberal Catholics are particularly adept.

Perhaps liberal Catholics simply want to avoid the bigger questions for which they have no ready-made, mob like slogan to chant in reply. Questions such as: Why is it that a Catholic socialist would think that we would be better off without private property or private control of the means of production? Once that question is asked, then we get to the real nitty-gritty of Socialism. All Socialists, from Marx to Harrington, have to admit, and for the most part happily, that the eradication of private property and industry is to achieve a guaranteed, basic standard of living. Everyone must be equal in both nature (which is a given) and in accident (which is erroneous); in other words, everyone must be guaranteed equality of outcome. However, does this fit with Catholicism?

Catholicism entails a belief in a Divine Being, and a Divine Being flies in the face of radical, metaphysical egalitarianism. The existence of God bespeaks hierarchy, which entails, necessarily, a radical, metaphysical inequality. Marx, at least, was honest enough to jettison and ridicule belief in God. A Catholic socialist is unwilling to see the contradiction in applying such diametrically opposed distinctions upon himself. The Catholic socialist is merely a “cultural” Catholic, but he is also, just as disingenuously socialist; he's a mere “practicing” Socialist who accepts the conclusion, but not the philosophical foundation that gives any meaning to the conclusion. A Catholic socialist is unwilling to delve into the philosophical underpinnings of the slogans he’s chosen to apply to himself, being content to sail on the surface of a pseudo-intellectual sea of sophisticated words with Greek roots and long definitions. It is, to put it at bit differently, a belief system that is philologically highbrow, but philosophically pedestrian.

However, it’s comfortable, especially for the academic elite, who can’t be bothered with practical questions that threaten to topple their self-image and self-proclaimed cultural authority.

It should not come as a big surprise that every liberal Catholic or Catholic socialist I’ve ever met are at the same time “pro-abortion Catholics”. This is no accident. They are inseparable from each other. Some liberal Catholics simply enjoy and wish to justify their sexual immorality, which means they start out pro-contraception, and end up, inevitably, pro-abortion.

Others, however, see themselves as compassionate, and it is their compassion that makes them pro-abortion, pro-birth control, pro-population control. I once heard a liberal Catholic utter, “at least we won’t let a baby be born into poverty”.

At least we won’t let a baby be born…??

I often hear the term “bleeding-heart liberals” from my more conservative friends, but I have never actually met one. I’ve known no bleeding-hearts who were liberal. Why is it that a liberal’s “compassionate” solution to so many problems is mutilation of a woman’s body or the extermination of innocent and vulnerable human beings? All liberal compassion is basically the same as a Stalin’s compassion or Mao’s compassion or Hitler’s compassion. Their “compassion” is nothing more than mutilation and murder.

What are they really saying when they say they won’t let a baby be born into poverty? What the liberal, pro-abortion, socialist “Catholic” is saying is that it is far better to kill a baby than have to take care of that person if they should suffer. This is the moral roots of the socialist ideology. Radical, metaphysical egalitarianism, a utopia of equal results, without suffering or the redemption that can come from it, springs from a moral depravity, which is hate born of sloth, the opposite of love for neighbor. It is better to kill an innocent and vulnerable human being than to be bothered with having to show charity to it.

It is far easier to live in contraction, with appellations like "Catholic socialist" or "liberal Catholic", than to live convicted by faith. It is easier to rid one’s self of inconveniences, like babies born into poverty, and call it something intelligent sounding, than it is for one to practice charity and true compassion while getting their hands dirty with caring for the poor, the sick, and the disenfranchised. Servant of the poor may not sound noble or academic, but for that there will be Heaven to pay.

It was far easier for the crowds to mock Christ, than it was for Veronica to brave the rebuffs of the centurions to show compassion to the suffering Christ. Today’s liberal Catholic and Catholic socialist mocks Christ, and what's more he mocks Veronica. He shows no mercy to those who might inconvenience him. The liberal Catholic insults Our Blessed Lord with his easy, slothful, form of compassion that advocates mutilation and murder over self-sacrificing, true compassion, and for that there will be Hell to pay.

Tradtionalism With A New Breath in Des Moines, Iowa

I had a conversation last night with Father Seraiah of the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter. The new Anglican Use priest, in case you weren't aware of his name.

He is going to start having a regular Anglican Use Mass on Sunday mornings at St. Anthony's at 10:00am, in the crypt (basement) for now. If there is enough support, he will petition Bishop Pates for a more stable place, but for the time being, this is where he will start.

Father Seraiah would like to invite any and all to assist at this Mass. This does fulfill your Sunday obligation, it is 100% fully and completely Catholic. It is a different "rite," so there will be differences from both the Novus Ordo and the TLM, but like assisting at a Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgy, it is fully compliant with Holy Mother Church. Please feel free to come and support the Ordinariate as much as possible and as often as you wish.

Also, I do believe that Father Seraiah will be available to visit after Mass and talk about the Ordinariate.

On a personal note, I've been doing a lot of studying over the last several months, with regard to the Ordinariate. From what I've gathered and from the impressions that I have received, not only in conversations with Fr. Seraiah, but also in some contacts that I've made, this is a VERY traditional mindset. The mindset dates clear back to the Anglican separation from Rome, without the "royal heresy" influence. What am I getting at? Well, the mindset is almost a medieval Catholic mindset unencumbered by Modernism. So, parts feel very ancient, but at the same time, parts feel very in tune with what traditional minded Catholics are looking for in their search for orthodoxy.

This concept is very fresh. This concept is very old at the same time. While the Mass is in English, it is not modern. It is an Elizabethan English which is very high. And the liturgy itself, has the potential of being very high as well. It will just take some time to establish that. So, there must be a little patience as this takes off. The theology is 100% Catholic. The dogmas and doctrines of the Church are held from a traditional point of view. Much of the "ambiguity" which came after Vatican Council II is not present, because they have not been influenced by the theology which emerged after Vatican Council II. I will let Fr. Seraiah expound upon that more though, but those are the impressions that I received.

In short, I see this new venture of the Church having a slightly different feel. By that I don't mean a feel that isn't Catholic, but rather one which has a slightly different philosophy. And that, friends, is ok. What do I mean? Think of it this way...the Church from the time of Trent has really taken on a Thomistic philosophy (St. Thomas Aquinas). It embraced the scholastic methods and mentality of philosophy. And the theology of the Church followed. That is the way of things. With the mindset of the Ordinariate, it follows a much more Augustinian philosophy (St. Augustine of Hippo). And the theology has followed that. Is either view wrong? No, as long as both are in communion with the Holy See. Are both valid? Yes, as long as both are in communion with the Holy See. Are both licit? Yes, as long as they are in communion with the Holy See.

As I said, this is a new venture. This is something that will not be for everyone, but if I might be so bold...I think that this is something that everyone should try. Just as I think that everyone should try any of the other Uniate Churches (Sui Juris, if I must be politically correct) when they get a chance. Catholicism, by definition and by tradition, is universal. The Church should cater to all men, while holding on to the truths of dogma and doctrine, theologically. But the disciplines can certainly be diverse.

Please think about assisting in the coming weeks. Or even assisting this weekend. As I said, it is at St. Anthony's this Sunday at 10am, in the crypt (basement). It has to start someplace. And it has to start with someone. I think enough of each one of you that I am inviting you on behalf of Fr. Seraiah to come assist at his Mass and experience a new form of worship within Holy Mother Church.

The homeschool altar

Every Catholic home should have an altar. This is especially important for homeschoolers. The synchronization of academics with the liturgical calendar as well as daily times for prayer is essential to the foundations of a sound homeschooling experience as a Traditional Catholic. An altar does not need to be big or fancy. You can set up a small table in a corner of your study area (yes, even if you do your homeschooling in the kitchen). There should be ,at minimum, a crucifix , a statue of the Blessed Virgin, a candle, and access to Holy Water. You will need a Breviary or catechism or Bible there as well. If you have the means or space, you can add statues or pictures of family saints or favorite saints, a kneeler,incense and sacramentals. The family altar should reflect your family's devotions and it should be a central place in the home. The altar can be decorated to reflect the feasts and rhythm of the liturgical year asWesley as a place to give thanks for family successes and special prayers for family needs. So, how should the altar tie in with homeschooling? The homeschooling day should start with prayer. Again, the prayers should be directed at learning the prayers of the Church, strengthening and cementing prayer habits and doctrine. The altar serves as part of your lessons in the Faith. It is visual. It is participatory . It should establish habits of decorum and piety. When my kids were small, we began the day by taking them to the altar, lighting e candle, Sign of the Cross, and saying one Our Father, One Hail Mary and Glory be while they held their Rosaries. Then they were asked to pray silently to Jesus for a bit and we ended with the Sign of the Cross. As we progressed, we added the Creed and the Confiteor. The prayers then became lessons in Latin as we learned to say them in Latin. We eventually added family favorites such as the prayer to St. Francis or St Patrick's breastplate. At the end of the school day, we made the Sign of the Cross and made up a prayer of thanksgiving for all we had learned on that day. Once a week, the Athanasian Creed was recited. During the day we returned to the altar at noon for the Angelus. I hope this gives you an idea as to how to create a home altar and include it in your homeschool day.

We Are in Love!

Just a few months back we finished reading The Little House series. It was an amazing adventure, one that captured us all, but there was something lacking. My children enjoyed them, but wished there was a book like that with Catholic children and parents. We all thought how much cozier it would be to read familiar words, customs, and prayers. A few days ago I got the sweetest package in the mail. The children could not open it fast enough. It was from Little Flowers Family Press.
There they were: two books. The little ones could not wait until family reading time. Christmas at the Little Blue House opened for hours of enjoyment. We were drawn in from the beginning. There is no way we can now have sweet potatoes without thinking of momma and her family. We could see the characters, we could taste the split pea soup, and we could relate to their lifestyle.

The Angelus Prayer will never be the same as we picture the six Catholic children praying in the open field. How wonderful to hold such a gem of a book in these times, to read and see a Catholic family living their faith, celebrating and offering up sweet offering for our Lady and her Son! We flew through the book and were so sad when it was over, but the greatest part of a great book is that it is never over. The characters and places are forever in your heart. The next book is Growing with the Little Blue House. My older daughter especially loved this book. The struggle with friends who are different is only a bit of the new adventures that the children get into. When the entire family cannot wait to read the next chapter or when even the littlest ones ask for one more chapter, you know you have stirred their hearts. They have found something in which they can see themselves as part of a greater whole. Their minds are busy thinking out the way we live our faith in everyday situations and their hearts are touched by the beauty of their Catholic faith. We have discovered a diamond and we intend to hold on to it, and my children are already reflecting its beauty. These books are a must for every Catholic family. They will delight and charm you for many years. These are the books you would love to open over and over and read it to your children, grandchildren and (Lord willing) your great grandchildren!!!

Gaia is One Fickle Beast

(This article first appeared in The Remnant Newspaper, print edition.)

James Lovelock is an icon of the environmental Left. That is why Lovelock’s startling admissions in a recent MSNBC interview with Ian Johnston have set the environmental Left into a tailspin. Lovelock, a long and ardent proponent of man-made global warming and a future catastrophe in the offing, stated matter-of-factly that “the world has not warmed up very much since the millennium.” Lovelock, really, doesn’t have much of a choice, since this has been, indeed, the reality. Despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels in the earth’s atmosphere continues to increase, the world’s temperature has not. He has concluded, therefore, that he along with Al Gore and slew of other environmentalists have been “alarmists”. They were wrong, and the clearly evident and observable facts prove it (see Randal Hoven's recent article at American Thinker).

Lovelock laments in the interview: “We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now.” Well, we aren’t, and Lovelock and the rest of his “anti-humanist” friends aren’t at all happy about it. Nevertheless, Lovelock still holds with unshaking conviction his “scientific” views about the earth, man’s place in it, and an impending doom, all that despite the fact that he has just been plain wrong about global warming. With an unflappable faith that rivals even that of the Watchtower Society, Lovelock, in the face of this failure for the apocalypse to materialize, simply defers it to the future.

Lovelock, the child of working class parents with a noted dislike for authority and a penchant for masochism, didn’t have the opportunity or resources to attend prestigious schools in his youth. He had to settle for evening classes at Birkbeck College, but due to his tenacity he was later accepted to the University of Manchester to study chemistry. Lovelock’s mediocre academic background was supplemented by the fact that he did possess a certain kind of moxie, bordering on insolence and fueled by self-righteous ideological views, coupled with the imaginative mind of an inventor. These qualities, together, would propel him to great personal success. To his credit, Lovelock invented many important scientific instruments while working for NASA. His electron capture detector was probably his most important invention. This device was used to detect and study the effects of chlorofluorocarbon (CFCs) on the earth’s ozone layer.

Lovelock went on study the presence of CFCs in the atmosphere in the late 1960s, but he concluded that the presence of CFCs posed no threat to the environment. His conclusion, however, was challenged by other scientists who discovered a link between CFCs in the atmosphere and the depletion of the ozone layer. Lovelock quickly back peddled on his conclusions, and later claimed that he meant to say there was no threat of toxicity. This wouldn’t be, of course, the first time Lovelock would be forced to repudiate his “scientific” findings. He would be confronted with the scientific absurdity of his 2007 geoengineering proposal to transfer carbon dioxide to the bottom of the ocean, and, of course, he has had to recant his alarmist views about man’s impending doom due to man-made global warming. Lovelock is no stranger to back peddling and the use of clumsy equivocation for purposes of prideful self-justification.

Nevertheless, the discovery of stratospheric ozone depletion had to have had a profound influence on Lovelock’s view of the earth and man’s place in it. Man’s production of CFCs, and its adverse effects on the environment, proved an apt rationale for Lovelock’s festering hatred for his neighbor, hatred easily discernible in his later writings. Even before his studies on CFCs Lovelock was formulating a new and radical way of looking at the earth and the human race. In the 1960s while working for NASA, Lovelock invented the Gaia hypothesis, wherein living and non-living substances of the Earth, together, make up one living creature. Lovelock named this creature after the Greek goddess, Gaia, the personification of the Earth and one of the primordial gods. In a nutshell, the Gaia hypothesis looks at all individual living creatures as though they were cells in the body of one creature, Gaia. These living creatures process the inorganic materials of the Earth in order to sustain Gaia, in the same way that cells in an animal or a plant process inorganic matter to sustain itself.

The scientific community, including figures such as Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, rejected Lovelock’s hypothesis. As the scientific community pointed out, to accept Lovelock’s Gaia fantasy would be to reject everything we know about homeostasis (how living bodies maintain constant conditions), and everything we know about how the environment works. However, the scientific community had long ago, with the improvable hypothesis of macro-evolution, established the precedent of subjecting the scientific method to the prism of preconceived ideological assumptions. While most serious scientists rejected the Gaia hypothesis based, ironically, on their preconceived assumptions about evolutionary natural selection, the radical, environmental Left readily accepted it.

In environmental circles, and in popular culture, this hypothesis that had been rejected by the scientific community became the ideologically proven “Gaia theory”. Because it is such an apt paradigm for the radical Left’s vision of mankind, there was no need for the hypothesis to have to pass muster in regards to the scientific method. Like the hypothesis of evolution, the Gaia hypothesis need not be proven. There’s no need to subject it to the scientific method because it “fits” the particular world view of a certain class of liberals in positions of influence and power. Just like the “theory” of evolution fits the worldview of those who hate God, so too does the “theory” of Gaia fit the worldview of those who hate their neighbors.

Today’s proponents of Gaia view the human race as so many cancerous cells, whose carbon dioxide emissions have caused man-made global warming and is slowly killing the poor and defenseless Earth. Man is a greedy and destructive tumor, polluting, contaminating, and decimating Mother Earth by unnaturally raising global temperatures. From radical environmental Leftists like Al Gore and his off the wall documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, to more popular movies like The Day After Tomorrow or Avatar, the human race is viewed with disgust and deserving of nothing more than total annihilation, or, at the very least, long and protracted suffering. In his 2006 book, The Revenge of Gaia, Lovelock vents all his rage against the human race, imagining by the middle of this century a dire doomsday for man who is deserving of a perverse and twisted end at the hand a vengeful goddess, Earth. This man-made global warming doomsday is replete with vast expanses of tropical and uninhabitable, toxic deserts, poisonous air and dirty water (sound familiar?). Like in the movie Avatar, there is a certain enjoyment easily evident in Lovelock’s depiction of the delightfully deleterious apocalypse of man. It is a fantastic orgy of hatred for one’s fellow man, a hatred that delights in man’s suffering, death and final annihilation.

This hatred of neighbor is most discernible by Lovelock’s apparent inconsistencies with the environmental Left. One such inconsistency is his advocating for nuclear energy as a cleaner, more “sustainable” form of energy. Lovelock believes, perhaps correctly, that nuclear energy is a viable alternative to fossil fuels. However, most on the environmental Left oppose nuclear energy because of the problems posed by disposing of nuclear waste. Lovelock reveals in his book, The Revenge of Gaia, why he is not concerned about nuclear waste. That reason is that, according to Lovelock, wild plants and animals, while perhaps experiencing shorter life-spans, don’t seem to be affected in any significant way by radioactive contamination. He based this conclusion on, among a few other examples, the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl. Incredibly, Lovelock doesn’t even consider the extent or the horror of the human suffering endured by thousands, perhaps millions, due to the Chernobyl disaster. Far from his mind are those who suffered the horrific effects of radiation poisoning or the hunger caused by the destruction of contaminated livestock and foodstuffs. The human cost means nothing to Lovelock. The only consideration is his goddess, Gaia. Indeed, there is giddiness evident in his explanation, and in his insolent silence regarding human suffering, as though he were looking forward to the demise of man due to radioactive contamination from nuclear waste.

Lovelock’s hatred inspired fantasizing may have little or no self-imposed limits, but it can’t change the facts, and Lovelock’s recent admissions demonstrate that even he realizes this. To quote John Adams, “facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence”. There is at least one persistent fact that seems to have thrown a wrench into Lovelock’s dreamy fantasy world of man’s doomsday at the hands of the goddess Gaia, and that is the simple fact that this doomsday isn’t happening. Despite attempting in his 2009 book, The Vanishing Face of Gaia, to refute the evidence presented by emerging climate models and research that demonstrates the flaws in the man-made global warming hypothesis, Lovelock has been forced to conclude that he and his fellow alarmists were wrong. He has been forced to own up, yet again, to his absurdities based on the findings of those scientists who are actually parsing the evidence, revealing Lovelock’s ideas to be nothing more than ideologically fueled fantasies. The toxic and uninhabitable tropical deserts are failing to materialize. Global temperatures are not rising, and now there is disagreement in the scientific community on whether or not global warming is taking place, or will take place, at all. Geological history reveals that climate change has always taken place regardless of man’s “carbon footprint”.

While it is Lovelock’s ardent desire to see the spreading of the toxic deserts, the suffering of men, women and children, mass starvation, and the eventual annihilation of the human race, the methods by which he would like these things to take place, specifically at the hands of a vengeful Gaia, isn’t happening. While the MSNBC interview reveals yet another example of Lovelock back peddling due to him missing the obvious, Lovelock still clings to his fantasy of man-made global warming and the eventual expiration of humanity. It has just been deferred to the indefinite future. It would seem that, much to the chagrin of Lovelock and the rest of the anti-humanists in his camp, Gaia is a rather fickle beast.

Just one year ago we were all treated to the silly season inaugurated by Harold Camping, who claimed that the world would end on May 20, 2011. Camping was an object of ridicule long before May 20th, but his marketing was extensive and thorough. He played on the ideological presumptions of many non-denominational Christians, who were otherwise somewhat reasonable people. When May 21st dawned on a world unharmed by an apocalypse, Camping claimed that the end had simply been deferred to the future. Everyone, even those who had been caught up by Camping’s fantasies, rightly scorned him for the charlatan that he is.

Will the same be true for Lovelock, who fantasized about his own apocalypse that failed to materialize? Lovelock and his ilk aren’t much different from Camping and his ilk. Both are good marketers, playing on the ideological presuppositions of a certain group of people. Unfortunately, the group of people the likes of which Lovelock and Al Gore prey upon is much larger, and much more pretentious. They are the countless minions of modernity and progress, who have rejected belief in a God who cares about his creatures, whose laws ought to be respected, and whose Person ought to be worshiped. Unlike those who followed Camping, the minions of modernity aren’t, in their minds, simpletons who are persuaded by the bible or any other ancient “myth”, but are sophisticates, persuaded by “science” and “progress” and “technology”.

Perhaps sometime in the distant future most people will see Lovelock and Al Gore for the charlatans that they are, but for now their hatred of neighbor, coupled by the gravitas of pseudo-science, is shared by too many other people in our modern culture. This is obvious from the movies and television shows that depict, over and over again, a vision of man as nothing more than a cancer to be despised. Anti-humanism is a by-product of our post-Christian world. People have thrown off the yoke of Christ’s laws because they are a hindrance to progress, modernity and the quest for selfish pleasure. One of those laws that modern man has discarded is the law to love one’s neighbor. Unfortunately, without that law, man will ever be victim to the maniacal fantasies of Leftist charlatans like James Lovelock.

New York City, 2009... ravaged by global warming

TradNews Roundup

*For continuing news regarding the Rome/SSPX situation, please see the sidebar. Please pray for the success of the SSPX General Chapter.

*Choir from Cambridge England to sing Orlando de Lassus Mass at Brooklyn church tomorrow, July 14th.

*Masses for the Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel in the New York, NY area.

*Will the Institute of the Good Shepherd succumb to internal strife? A fiery General Chapter signals rough waters for the fledgling traditionalists fraternity.

*The FSSP General Chapter was much more serene.

*"Vatileaks" investigation is drawing to a close. More from Rome Reports, here.

*Why does Obama want women to sterilize themselves?

*Will the mainstream media get as excited about this religious sister's assessment of the CDF's criticism of the LCWR? Probably not.



This program is from ChurchMilitant.TV

Fr. Michael Rodriguez: The Truth About Homosexuality

St. John Gaulbert and the law of the salvation of souls

The life of today’s saint, St. John Gualbert brings to our attention one of those episodes from the Church’s history wherein two truths of the faith are brought into conflict, and when two holy and sainted men are brought to odds with each other due to the conflict.

In the 11th century, the Church in Italy was rife with simony, and St. John and his monks were locked in a struggle with Florence’s simoniac bishop, Peter of Pavia. The struggle had been reduced to bloodshed, as St. John’s monks in the monastery of San Salvi were put to the sword during their night office by soldiers sent by Peter of Pavia. St. Peter Damian was invested by the pope with authority, and sent to Tuscany to end the struggle. St. Peter, however, perhaps not being fully aware of the character of the Florentine bishop and the state of the situation, sided not with St. John Gaulbert and his monks, but instead with the simoniac, Peter. St. Peter Damian took up an indisputable principle that inferiors have no right to correct their superiors. As a result St. Peter Damian reproached the monks for their conduct, and even though the monks appealed their case to Pope Alexander II, who had pity on their plight, he affected no relief as most in the Apostolic College were inclined to agree with St. Peter Damian’s assessment. Only the holy archdeacon Hildebrand was entirely in favour of St. John Gaulbert and his monks.

It was, nevertheless, through ardent prayer and persistence that a miracle was effected to which no one could ignore, and which spoke a divine judgment on Peter of Pavia. In the end Rome deposed the simoniac, who ended his days as a penitent among the very same monks he persecuted.

In the end, even in the face of incredible opposition from churchmen occupying the highest offices of the Church, St. John Gaulbert prevailed over the scourge of simony in his own day, laying the foundations, by his prayer, persistence, and above all, his faith, for the great reforms in the following decades. It was that faith, that persistence, and that focus on a simple principle--the law of the salvation of souls--that prevailed in the end by the grace of God. All corruption in God’s vineyard has been overcome by saints who focused the force of their wills on this law.

This notwithstanding, holy men can, and often do, like St. Peter Damien, find themselves on the wrong side in these kinds of struggles. There are many holy men who are now coming to the defense of the indefensible in the case of Archbishop Müller’s woefully careless statements about the Holy Eucharist, Our Lady’s Perpetual Virginity, and the universal salvific nature of the Holy Catholic Church. It is from their desire to uphold the indisputable principle of the primacy of St. Peter and his Chair. They are inclined to defend Peter's choice of a careless and inadequate man to sit in one of the highest positions of authority in the Roman curia because they must, in their minds uphold the principle of Peter's primacy above all others. However, are they considering the law of the salvation of souls? Are they considering the faith?!

How does one parse this situation? The best method is the method employed by St. John Gaulbert, who in the face of the scourge of simony and corruption focused all his actions and thoughts and prayers upon the law of the salvation of souls. History tells us where the greater fruits were to be found in the struggle that pitted two saints against each other in the 11th century.

If we apply the law of the salvation of souls to today’s present struggle, can there be any doubt, judging from the fruits, which side is more focused on the faith rather than human agendas and constructs? While the novus ordo establishment crumbles in the wake of “accepting Vatican II in both form and content”, traditional communities continue to grow and flourish, with many more baptisms and ordinations and vocations to religious life, per capita, than the rest of the Roman Catholic Church. Like the children of St. John Gaulbert, we traditionalists cling to the faith in the face of corruption and stupidity, and like the children of St. John Gaulbert, we will be vindicated!

Arise, O Lord, and help us; arise, why dost Thou sleep, O Lord? Arise, O God, and judge our cause!

Müller continues his acrimony directed at the SSPX / Rumors of persecution

Update: Due to well placed criticism of this post, I have removed some content, and I would like to share with you the following that I received via email today:

There are a few issues that need to be addressed in regards to your latest post about “rumors of persecution”.

I haven’t heard anything in Germany to support the first rumor you posted. It is extremely difficult to prosecute individuals for holocaust denial. Someone would have to do something as stupid as saying as much on a taped interview that they knew would be aired in Germany . I would like to say that no priest or bishop in the SSPX would do something like that, but unfortunately, I can’t. Because of the difficulty in prosecuting individuals for holocaust denial, it is doubtful, at best, that the secular authorities in Germany could “be brought to bear” against the SSPX. I will admit, though, that the accusation of anti-Semitism is commonplace here in Germany against Catholic traditionalists, so it is used as propaganda, which limits in some cases the growth of traditional Catholic communities in Germany, especially among pew sitting, mainstream Catholics.

In regards to the second rumor, I think I know the source. However, you should know that the source is an irreparable one, and you shouldn’t pay any attention to it. There are bishops in France and Germany who would take exception to the unfair accusation, and you ought to remove this for charity’s sake.

I apologize if certain aspects of this post were over the top. Müller certainly needs to be criticized, but if that criticism is to bear any fruit, it must be free of sensationalism.

_____________________________________

We all knew Archbishop Gerhard Müller hated the SSPX. His past words and actions relating to the SSPX in Germany proved as much. In a recent interview, acrimonious statements regarding the SSPX reveals that he still hates the SSPX.

After reading this interview of the new Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, it is obvious that the negotiations with the SSPX are now at an end. Müller in this interview expresses his disdain for the SSPX quite clearly, and places an ultimatum on the table: accept Vatican II and everything about it, or away with you. It would seem that Müller already is busy tearing down bridges that were (it seemed) recently built, and he is doing so in order to end, once and for all, discussions between Rome and the SSPX.

There is now fear that Müller's appointment represents the inauguration of a new and insidious persecution of the SSPX and other traditionalists. I no longer feel obligated to avoid mentioning the rumors and speculations that others have shared with me, since it is now clear that the longed for rapprochement has been stamped out by Vatican insiders, perhaps even Pope Benedict XVI, himself. There's hardly anything I could write here that would damage that process at this point.

One such speculation a good friend of mine recently shared with me fears that the bishops, under the leadership of Müller, will accuse the SSPX of antisemitism. They will characterize the failure of the talks as a fundamental disagreement with the SSPX leaders on the question of the Jews. Quickly following on this, bishops and other church officials will accuse SSPX priests and faithful in Germany of antisemitism and "holocaust denial", which carries civil penalties, thus bringing the German state apparatus to bear on SSPX communities, closing them down, jailing their priests and confiscating their chapels and properties.

We could dismiss this as mere speculation, but there is ample evidence in overseas publications that antisemitism is being constantly hammered at in interviews and articles pertaining to the Society. The notion that the SSPX priests and faithful, and all other traditionalists for that matter, are antisemites is a seed which was firmly planted long ago, and is already starting to sprout for the schemers. I have noted in the past that the club that is being used, and will be used even more in the near future, to beat down traditionalism is the canard of antisemitism. We have seen evidence in the past that this is a fundamental piece of the post-conciliar establishment's criticism of traditional Catholics. Thus there is a ring of truth to this rumor that is hard to ignore.

[Removed]

Conspiracy theories are just that, conspiracy theories, so they are impossible to verify until they are uncovered or come to fruition. They may not be true at all. However, we would have to be fools to think there are no hidden enemies of the Church, or that they have no plans. You can be sure that they exist, and that they are plotting. Recent history demonstrates there are many of these enemies firmly entrenched in even the highest offices of the Church, and the destruction of the Traditional Latin Mass and traditional Catholicism, because these are the most authentic expressions of the Catholic faith, will definitely be their first priority, especially since the Traditional Latin Mass has made so many gains in the last few years.

Does this justify being an alarmist? YES. They have already met in the Vatican to plot how the Traditional Latin Mass can be changed to resemble more the disastrous novus ordo. Archbishop DiNoia has already said as much. It is up to traditionalists to safeguard what is left of the Traditional Latin Mass, the 1962 missal, because we have fewer friends in the Vatican than we were led to believe.

Parkersburg, WV Area

If you live in the Parkersburg, West Virgina area, on either side of the river, and if you are interested in finding a Traditional Latin Mass, please let me know as soon as possible. You can either leave a comment here or email me at davidtrad@sbcglobal.net .

Thanks!

TradNews Roundup

*For the latest on the SSPX-Rome fiasco... err... negotiations, please see sidebar. Please pray now more than ever.

*The SSPX continues to experience extraordinary growth in priestly vocations.

*FSSP is given the Basilica of Notre-Dame in Fribourg.

*Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller is appointed as new Prefect of the CDF. His appointment worries some traditionalists (like me).

*Can You Trust Medjugorje?

*Stolen ancient codex found by Spanish authorities.

*Pro-Life leader is assaulted by Tolerance.

*Robert's decision keeps Catholic in the fight against Obama. Was that his intent?

*The world belongs to Satan... It's time stop the dialoguing!

Pope turns on traditionalists... from near reconciliation to a return to exile in a matter of weeks

Today’s startling, and sickening, news of the appointment of Archbishop Gerhard Müller as Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith is just one more nail in the coffin of the hoped for inauguration of a new era of understanding between the Roman authorities of the novus ordo establishment and Catholic traditionalists. This marks a startling departure from an attempt on the part of Rome to understand better the traditionalist critique, and quite possibly sets aside any real reforms of the Catholic Church for, perhaps, years.

With the appointment of Müller, who is one of the harshest critics of the Society of St. Pius X in Europe, hopes for a reproachment and eventual recognition of the Society are practically dead. It is hard to believe that there could ever be an increase of understanding and good will between this man and the Society. It is not only due to Müller’s criticism of the Society in Germany (which is headed by one of the Society’s most moderate regional superiors, no less), but also because of Müller’s extremely liberal and Modernist theological opinions. This is a man who has quite openly denied the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, transubstantiation, the universal salvific nature of the Catholic Church, and is also an enthusiastic supporter of Liberation Theology.

Müller should be investigated by the CDF, not given control of it!

This fact will not be lost on the leaders of the Society in their upcoming general chapter, but more than this, Müller’s appointment ensconces a lock-step refusal to question any of the troublesome tenants contained in some documents of the Second Vatican Council. As a diehard ecumenist, who questions the universal salvific nature of the Catholic Church, only a naïve fool would expect any measure of openness to a criticism of post-conciliar ecumenism or religious freedom on the part of Müller.

The appointment of Archbishop Di Noia to Vice President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei gives no relief to traditionalists, either. Archbishop Di Noia characterizes traditionalists as a group of people with hurt feelings, as though we were children stomping our feet over the post-conciliar changes, immature infants incapable of understanding the wisdom of the liberal churchmen and Vatican II elites. This is a return to a characterization of former times, the characterization that shoved traditionalists and the Traditional Latin Mass into the margins of the Church’s life.

This question and answer from an interview of Archbishop Di Noia demonstrates well that the traditional critique is once again being pushed aside:

That being the case, why do you think some Catholics have decided to stick to “frozen” tradition, as it were, rather than coming into full communion?

I don’t honestly know; I can only speculate. To say why people are traditionalist I’d have to say it depends on their experiences. The [reform of the] liturgy has been a factor; it was a terrible revolution and shock for people. Many of these people feel abandoned, like the Church left them at the dock with the ship.

The question, itself, is stunning! It is incredible! How prideful and disdainful to characterize what the Catholic Church has taught and believed for centuries as “frozen” tradition! And how utterly unequipped is this man, Di Noia, to deal with traditionalists if he simply allows this comment to go by without correction! Instead of speculating, why doesn't he join us? Why doesn't he get know us? What a novel idea that someone given stewardship of traditional Catholics ought to know those for whom he has been given authority over! I'm impressed that he has read a few books. Good for him! But I'm sorry if his attitude and ignorance doesn't exactly instill any great measure of confidence from me due to his lack of... humanity?... yes, humanity.

We are stuck to “frozen” tradition?! We who are stuck to “frozen” tradition out-ordain and out-baptize, per capita, the novus ordo establishment year after year after year. We who are stuck to “frozen” tradition, with our growing communities of faith-filled, devote, and young Catholics, we who are "frozen" look out upon the bleak landscape of what is left of the rest of the Church and lament the obvious loss of faith, dwindling Mass attendance, divisions, heresies, dissentions, and disobedience. Quite to the contrary, the novus ordo establishment of Archbishops Di Noia and Müller, and Pope Benedict XVI, is that which is "frozen", stuck to the "frozen" Modernism of the 20th century, and the liberalism of the 1960s! After all, these are people who still insist that we take something like Gaudium et Spes seriously! Please!

And what are we to think of the “unfrozen”, elite Catholics like Archbishop Di Noia, his interviewer, and the likes of Archbishop Müller, communists who deny outright the dogmas of the faith?

I will tell you: Far better to be stuck on “frozen” tradition and truth, than to be unmoored among those like Müller and Di Noia whose obfuscations have fiddled away the faith for two generations of Catholics who are abandoning the Church in droves!

So what happened in just the course of a few weeks, from May to June? It seemed, but for a brief time, Tradition would be vindicated sooner rather than later. I’m not sure, but perhaps it was that a tiger simply doesn’t change his stripes. While I find the cliché a pessimistic denial of God’s grace, it does seem to pertain to those so obstinately in denial of the plain facts in front of them that they would rather see Rome burn than re-evaluate their ideology. Perhaps it would be better to wait until this tired old generation of misfit churchmen finally dies out altogether, and with them their fables.

In the meantime we continue as we traditional Catholics always have. We pray, we sacrifice, we strive for virtue, and we raise our children to do the same. We reject the world and it's god, Satan. We reject heresy, be it formal or material. We refuse to give an inch of our Catholic faith to the Modernist devils, be they in our parishes, in our schools, in our dioceses, or be they in Rome making their phylacteries broad and enlarging their fringes. And, oh yes! we will go right along ignoring the Second Vatican Council while we baptize, ordain and give countless religious vocations to Holy Mother Church!

Viva Cristo Rey!

Viva Tradición!