Friday, August 31, 2012

TradNews Roundup

*PCED interprets "legitimitas" from Universae Ecclesiae, n. 19, in the limited sense of ecclesiastical law, rather than divine or moral law. The PCED remains somewhat unclear on what this entails, but it is apparent that this interpretation of legitimitas leaves the door open for the traditional critique of the novus ordo, including the question as to whether certain aspects of the Ordinary Form are displeasing to God.

*Tradition-friendly, Archbishop-elect of San Francisco arrested for DUI in San Diego. Please pray for our bishops.

*Cardinal Brandmüller buries his head in the sand.

*The pope suggests irreligious "Catholics" should leave the Church. But Your Holiness, a suggestion won't do it, though; these people are getting a lot of mileage out of claiming to be Catholic. The scandal will continue until Rome decides to do more than just make suggestions.

*Cardinal Dolan is playing stupid partisan politics, ironically because he's trying so hard to look non-partisan. Who knows what is going on inside this guy's Modernist's brain, but there's probably no hope that he won't give scandal.

*Vermont couple sued over their religious beliefs, and lose to a couple of lesbians. A dangerous precedent is being set.

*Catholics and Princes:


*The Socialist, Anti-Catholic, Pro-Death record of Mr. Obama:

Sunday, August 26, 2012

Collect of the Day: Thirteenth Sunday After Pentecost

Christ in Glory with the Patron Saints of Cremona by Boccaccio Boccaccina, 1506

Thirteenth Sunday After Pentecost


Have regard, O Lord, to Thy covenant, and forsake not to the end of souls of Thy poor: cause, and forget not the voices of them that seek Thee.
(From the introit of the day's Mass, Ps. 73. 20, 19, 23)


Collect of the Day

Omnipotens sempitérne Deus, da nobis fídei, spei, et caritátis augméntum: et, ut mereámur ássequi quod promíttis, fac nos amáre quod præcipis. Per Dóminum…

Almighty everlasting God, give to us increase of Faith, Hope and Charity: and that we may deserve to obtain what Thou dost promise, make us love what Thou dost command. Through...



This day last week we were considering how important are faith and charity to a Christian who is living under the Law of grace. There is another virtue of equal necessity: it is hope; for, although he already have the substantial possession of the good things which will constitute his future happiness, the Christian is prevented by the gloom of this land of exile from seeing them. Moreover, this mortal life being essentially a period of trial, wherein each one is to win his crown, the struggle makes even the very best feel, and that right to the end, the weight of incertitude and anguish. Let us, therefore, pray with the Church, in her Collect, for an increase of the three fundamental virtues of faith, hope and charity; and, that we may deserve to reach the perfection of the good which is promised us in heaven, let us sue for the grace of devotedness to the commandments of God, which lead us to our eternal home. Let us remember how the Gospel last included them all in love.
--Dom Guéranger, O.S.B.

In the last part of the Collect for today’s Mass we ask God for the grace to love His commandments—to love His Law. Is this not a contradiction? How can we love what we are commanded to do? Surely, the most we can expect is to obey these laws, not to love them. The solution is in the first part of the Collect. Here we pray for an increase in faith, hope and charity, we realize that God’s Laws are not just rules forbidding what our fallen natures are inclined to. By loving God above all things, eventually we can come to love other things in an ordered way, that is, only so far as they lead us to God. With the help of God’s grace, we will reject those things which lead us away from God. We will come to see that God’s Laws aren’t just arbitrary do’s and don’ts, but rather signposts leading to heaven—to God whom we love.
--Fr. Brian McDonnell, F.S.S.P.






Epistle - Galatians, 3. 16-22

From
The Liturgical Year
by Dom Guéranger, O.S.B.


“Look up to heaven, and number the stars, if thou canst! So shall thy seed be!” (Gen. XV. 5). Abraham was almost a hundred years old, and Sara’s barrenness deprived him of all natural hope of posterity, when these words were spoken to him by God. Abraham, nevertheless, believed God, says the Scripture, and it was reputed to him unto justice (Gen. XV. 6). And when, later on, that same faith would have led him to sacrifice, on the mount, that son of the promise, his one only hope, God renewed His promise, and added: “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Gen. XXII. 18).

It is now that the promise is fulfilled; the event justifies Abraham’s faith. He believed against all hope, trusting to that God who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things that are not, as those that are (Rom. IV. 17, 18); and, according to the expression of John the Baptist, from the very stones of the gentile world there rise up, in all places, children to Abraham (Matt. III. 9).

His faith, firm and, at the same time, so simple, gave to God the glory (Rom. IV. 20), which He looks for from His creatures. Man can add nothing to the divine perfections; but—agreeable to God’s own words—though he sees them not directly here below, he acknowledge those perfections by adoring and loving them; he makes his faith tell upon his whole life; and this use which he freely makes of his faculties—this voluntary devotedness of an intelligent being—magnifies God, by adding to His extrinsic glory.

Following in Abraham’s steps, there have come those multitudes, born for heaven, the children of his faith (Rom. IV. 12). They live by faith (Rom. I. 17); and thereby in all their acts they give to God the homage of confession and praise, through His Son Christ Jesus; and, like Abraham, they receive in return the blessing of an ever-increasing justice (Rom. IV. 23, 24; Gal. III. 9). The magnificent development of the Church, which gives this new posterity to Abraham, is greater and more visible since the fall of Israel. In countries the remotest, in the midst of cities that once were all pagan, we see crowds of men, women, and children imitating Abraham (Gen. XII. 1), that is, leaving at heaven’s call, if not their country, at least everything that once made earth dear to them; and like him, trusting in the fidelity and power of God to fulfill His promises (Rom. IV. 20, 21), they live as strangers amidst their neighbours, yea, and in their very homes, using this world as though they did not use it. In the tumult of cities as in the desert, in the midst of the vain pleasures of the world, whose fashion and figure passeth away (1 Cor. VII. 31), they have no other thought than that of the unseen realities (Heb. XI. 1), no other care than that of pleasing God (1 Cor. VII. 32). They take to themselves the word that was spoken to their father: “Walk before me, and be perfect!” (Gen. XVII. 1). In truth, it was spoken to all of them; it was the condition in the alliance, concluded by God with those of His faithful servants of all ages, in the person of the grand patriarch, who was not only their progenitor, but their model too. And God responds also to their faith, either by private manifestations, or by the still surer voice of His Scriptures (2 Pet. I. 19), saying: “Fear not! I am thy protector, and thy reward exceeding great!” (Gen. XV. I).

Truly, then, the benediction of Abraham has been poured forth on the Gentiles (Gal. III. 14). Christ Jesus, the true Son of the promise, the only seed of salvation, has, by faith in His Resurrection (Rom. IV. 24), assembled from every nation them that are of a good will (Gal. III. 258; Luke II. 14), making them all one in Him, making them, like Himself, children of Abraham (Gal. III. 29), and, what is better still, children of God (Gal. IV. 5-7). For the benediction that was promised, at the beginning of the alliance, was the Holy Ghost Himself (Gal. III. 14), the Spirit of adoption of children that came down into our hearts, to make us all heirs of God and joint-heirs of Christ (Rom. VIII. 15-17). O mighty power of faith, which breaks down the former walls of division, unites nations together (Eph. II. 14-18), and substitutes the love and freedom of children of the Most High for the law of bondage and fear! (Rom. VIII. 2).

And yet, grand as was this spectacle of the Gentiles becoming incorporated into the chosen race, and being made sharers, in Christ, of the holy promises (Eph. III. 6), it did not please all people. The carnal Jew, who boasts of having Abraham for his father, though he cares little about imitating his works (John VIII. 39)—the circumcised who vaunts the bearing in his flesh the sign of a faith which dwells not in the heart (Rom. IV. 11)—these men who have rejected Christ now reject His members, and would fain destroy His Church, or, at least, trammel it. They are enraged at seeing crowding in, from every portion of the globe (Luke XIII. 29), that immense concourse, which their vile jealousy has vainly sought to keep back. Whilst their wounded pride kept them from going in (Luke XV. 28), the Gentiles were sitting down with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets, at the banquet of God’s kingdom (Luke XIII. 28); the last became the first (Luke XIII. 30). Even to the end of time, Israel—who, by his own obstinacy, has forfeited his ancient glory—will continue to be the enemy of this spiritual posterity of Abraham, which has supplanted him (Gen. XXVII. 36); but his persecutions against the children of the promise and of the lawful Bride will but result in showing that he is, as St. Paul says, the son of Agar, the son of the bondwoman, who, together with her child, is excluded from the inheritance and from the kingdom (Gal. IV. 22-31).

He prefers to refuse the liberty offered him by the Lord, rather than acknowledge the definitive abrogation of his now dead Law. Be it so! His hatred will not induce the children of the Church (who are prefigured by Sara, the freewoman) to reject the grace of their God, for the sake of pleasing their enemy; it will not induce them to abandon the justice of faith, and the riches of the Spirit, and the life in Christ, in order to go back again to the yoke of slavery, which, let the Jew do what he will, was broken into pieces by the cross he himself set up on Calvary (Gal. II. 19-21). Up to the last, the true Jerusalem, the free city, our mother—she that was once the barren woman, but now is so glad a bride with her children around her—will meet the superannuated, yet ever busy, pretensions of the Synagogue by reading to her assembled sons and daughters the Epistle we are having today. Up to the last St. Paul, in her name—speaking of the law of Sinai, which was made known to its subjects through the mediation of Moses and the angels—will prove its inferiority as compared to the covenant made by Abraham directly with God; each year, as emphatically as on the day he wrote his Epistle, Paul will declare the transient character of that legislation, which came four hundred and thirty years after a promise which could not be changed; neither was such legislation to continue, when the time should come for that Son of Abraham to appear, from whom the world was waiting to receive the promised benediction.

But what is to be said of the incapability of the Mosaic ministration to give man strength, and enable him to rise up from his fall? The Gospel on which we were meditating eight days back, and which formerly was assigned to this present Sunday, gave a symbolical and striking commentary on the uselessness of the old Law in regard to this; at the same time, it showed us the remedial power which resided in Christ, and was by Him transmitted to the ministers of the new Law. “Every portion of the Office of the thirteenth Sunday,” says Abbot Rupert, “bears on the history of that Samaritan, whose name signifies keeper; it is our Lord Jesus Christ who, by His Incarnation, comes to the rescue of man, whom the old Law was not able to keep from harm; and when Jesus leaves the world, He consigns the poor sufferer to the care of the apostles and apostolic men, in the house of the Church. The intentional selection of this Gospel for today throws a great light on our Epistle, as also on the whole letter to the Galatians, from which it is taken. Thus, the priest and the Levite of the parable are a figure of the Law; and their passing by the half-dead man, seeing him, indeed, but without making an attempt to heal him, is expressive of what that Law did. True, it did not go counter to God’s promises; but, of itself, it could justify no man. A physician who does not himself intend to visit a patient will sometimes send a servant who is expert in the knowledge of the cause of the malady, yet who has not the skill needed for mixing the remedy required, but can merely tell the sick man what diet and what drinks he must avoid, if he would prevent his aliment from causing death. Such was the law, set, as the Epistle tells us, because of transgressions, as a simple safeguard, until such time as there should come the Good Samaritan, the heavenly physician. Having, from his very first coming into this world, fallen among robbers, man is stripped of his supernatural goods, and is covered with the wounds inflicted on him by original sin; if he did not abstain from actual sins, from those transgressions against which the law was set as a monitor, he runs the risk of dying altogether.

It is on this account that the Gradual repeats the supplication of the Introit: Respice Domine, in testamentum tuum; for, as Rupert observes, it was the cry of the ancient people, who, sighing at the weakness of the powerless Law of Sinai, besought God to fulfill the covenant He had promised to Abraham’s faith. They cried out to Christ, as the poor creature might have done to the Good Samaritan, after he had seen the priest and the Levite pass him by, without an effort made to save.





Gospel - St. Luke, 17. 11-19

From
The Liturgical Year
by Dom Guéranger, O.S.B.

The Samaritan leper, cured of that hideous malady which is an apt figure of sin, in company with nine lepers of Jewish nationality, represents the despised race of gentiles, who were at first admitted, by stealth, so to say, and by extraordinary privilege, into a share of the graces belonging to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. XV. 24). The conduct of these ten men, on occasion of their miraculous cure, is in keeping with the attitude assumed by the two peoples they typify, regarding the salvation offered to the world by the Son of God. It is a fresh demonstration of what the apostle says: “All are not Israelites that are of Israel; neither are all they who are the seed of Abraham, children; “but,” says the Scripture, “in Isaac shall thy seed be called” (Gen. XXI. 12); that is to say, not they who are the children of the flesh are the children of God: but they that are the children of the promise are counted for the seed (Rom. IX. 6-8); they are born of the faith of Abraham, and are, in the eyes of the Lord, His true progeny.

Our holy mother the Church is never tired of this subject, the comparison of the two Testaments, and the contrast there is between the two peoples. We deem it our duty, before proceeding further, to explain how this is; for there are many persons who cannot understand what benefit can come to us Christians from hearing this subject preached to us. The kind of spirituality which, with many of us, has nowadays been substituted for the liturgical life so thoroughly lived by, and so precious to, our Catholic ancestors, gives a certain disrelish for the ideas which the church perseveringly brings before them during so many of her Sundays. They have become habituated to live in an atmosphere of very limited truth; it is all subjective, as well as little; and they consider it a very excellent thing, to forget all other teaching, except what they happen to possess, and beyond which it is a trouble to go. It is not surprising that Christians of this class feel puzzled at finding the Church continually urging them to take an interest in a long past, which they consider of no practical utility to them! But the interior life, truly worthy of the name, is not what these good people imagine. No school of spirituality either now makes, nor ever made, the ideal of virtue consist in indifference for those great historic facts which are evidently so precious in the eyes of the Church, and of God Himself. And from their mother’s most cherished appreciations? It is, that by thus determinedly shutting themselves up in their own private prayers, they, by a just punishment, lose sight of the true end of prayer, which is union with, and love of, God. Their mediation is deprived of that element of intimate and fruitful converse with God, which is assigned it by all the masters of the spiritual life; it soon becomes an unproductive exercise of analysis and reasoning, in which there is nothing but abstract conclusions.

Now, when God mercifully invited men to the divine nuptials by manifesting to them His Word, it was not by abstraction that He gave to our earth this the Son of His own eternal Substance. As to His Divinity, men could not, in their present state, see it in a direct way. Had God shown us, in this pretended abstract way, that eternal Son of His, in whom are found all beauty, and warmth, and life, the revelation would have been imperfect and cold. This He did not do; but, as St. Paul tells us, He manifested the great mystery of godliness in the flesh (1 Tim. III. 16); the Word became a living soul (Gen. II. 7); eternal Truth assumed to Himself a Body, that so He might converse with men (Baruch III. 38), and grow up like one of themselves (Luke II. 52). And when that Body, which eternal Truth was to hold as His own forever, was taken up in glory (1 Tim. III. 16), the Church, the bride of this Man-God, continued in the world this manifestation of God, by the members of Christ; she continued that historic development (Eph. I. 23) of the Word, which is only to cease when time is no more. This manifestation, this development, surpasses all human calculations, and reveals fresh aspects of the Wisdom of God even to the angels themselves (Eph. I. 23). Let due respect be paid to the axioms of learned men, who have arranged the principles of science in logical order, independently of history and of facts: but this lifeless reasoning has nothing in common with substantial truth which is ever fruitful and necessarily active. In the Church, as in God, truth is life and light (John I. 4), not a mere collection of formulæ. If our Credo rings out so triumphantly through the aisles of our churches, and seems to force the very gates of heaven, it is because each of its articles is presented before God steeped in the blood of martyrs; from age to age is has gathered ever fresh luster from the labours and struggles of so many holy confessors, chosen out of the human race to complete the body of Christ on earth (Col. I. 24, II. 19).

The subject is too full to be treated of here; but this we must say: after the master-fact of the Incarnation of the Word, who came upon our earth to manifest God, through the ages of time, by Christ and His members (2 Cor. IV. 10, 11), there is not one which is more important, not one which has been and still is so dear to God, as the vocation of the two peoples whom He successively called to the blessing of an alliance with Him. The gifts and vocations of God are, as the apostle expresses it, without repentance for regret on His part. Those Jews, who are now His enemies because they reject the Gospel, are still called charissimi; they are still the beloved and dearly beloved, because of their fathers (Rom. XI. 28, 20). For the same reason, a time will come—and the whole world is waiting for it—when the denial of Juda being revoked and his iniquities blotted out, the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, will be literally fulfilled (Rom. XI. 25-27). Then the divine unity of the two Testaments will be made evident; and the two peoples themselves will be made one, under their one Head, Christ Jesus (Eph. II. 14). The covenant of God with man being then fully realized, such as He had designed it in His eternal wisdom—the earth having yielded its fruit (Ps. LXVI. 7), the world having done its work, the sepulchers will give back their dead (Rom. XI. 15), and history will cease here on earth, leaving glorified human nature to bloom in unreserved fullness of life, under God’s complacent eye.

The truths, then, which are again brought before our notice by today’s Gospel, are anything but dry or old-fashioned; nothing is so grand; and, we must add—though superficial minds will wonder at it—there is nothing more practical in this season of the year, for it is the season consecrated to the mysteries of the unitive life. After all, in what, primarily, does union between God and man consist, but in unanimity of the divine and the human minds? Now, we know that the divine mind has manifested all its designs in the respective histories of the two Testaments and the two peoples; and that the final result which is to bring these two histories to their close, is the one only end which infinite love was in the beginning, and is now, and will forever be, proposing to fulfill. The Church, therefore, far from showing herself to be behind the age by recurring continually to truths such as these, is but clearly proving herself to be the most intelligent bride of Jesus, and evincing the changeless lovely youthfulness of a heart, which ever beats in unison with that of her Spouse.

Let us now resume the literal explanation of our Gospel. As we were observing on a previous Sunday, our Jesus here, again, wishes rather to give us a useful teaching, than to manifest His divine power. It is for this purpose that He does not cure at once these ten lepers who beseech Him to have mercy on them, as, on another occasion, He cured one who was suffering from the same misery. To this latter, who besought Him, He restored cleanliness by a few words. He said: “Be thou made clean!” and forthwith the leprosy was cleansed (Matt. VIII. 3). This was at the beginning of His public life. But the event of our Gospel took place in the latter portion of our Lord’s sojourn amongst men. The lepers are made clean only while on their way to show themselves to the priests. Jesus sends them to the priests, just as He had done in the previous case; and thus, from the beginning to the close of His mortal life, He gave an example of the respect which was to be paid to the old Law, so long as it was not abrogated. That Law gave to the sons of Aaron the power, not of curing, but of discerning leprosy, and passing judgment on its being cured or not (Lev. XIII).

The time, however, has now come for a Law far above that of Sinai. It has a priesthood, whose judgments are not to concern the state of the body, but, by pronouncing the sentence of absolution, are to effectually remove the leprosy of souls. The cure which the ten lepers felt coming upon them before they had reached the priests, ought to have sufficed to show them, in Jesus, the power of the new priesthood, which had been foretold by the prophets (Isa. LXVI. 21-23); the power which thus forestalls and surpasses the authority of the ancient ministration is sufficient evidence of the superior dignity of Him who exercises it. If only they were in suitable dispositions for the sacred rites, which are going to be used in the ceremony of their purification (Lev. XIV. 1-32), the Holy Ghost, who heretofore had inspired the prophetic details of the mysterious function, would enable them to understand the signification of the expiatory sparrow, whose blood, being sprinkled upon the living water sets free, by the wood, its fellow sparrow. That first bird typifies our Lord Jesus Christ, who likens Himself, in the psalm, to the lonely sparrow (Ps. CI. 8); His immolation on the cross, which gives to water the power of cleansing souls, communicates to the other sparrows, His brethren (Ps. LXXXIII. 4), the purity of the divine Blood.

But the Jew is far from being ready to understand these great mysteries. And yet the Law had been given to him that it might serve him as a hand leading him to Christ, and without exposing him to err (Gal. III. 24). It was a signal favour granted him, not from any merits of his own, but because of his fathers (Deut. IV. 37, IX. 4-6). The favour was all the more precious, inasmuch as it was bestowed at a time when the tradition regarding a future Redeemer was almost entirely lost by the bulk of mankind. Gratitude should have been uppermost in the heart of Juda; but pride took its place. He was so taken up with the honour that had been put on him, that it made him lose all desire for the Messiah. He could not endure the thought that a time would come, when the Sun of Justice having risen for the whole earth, the limited advantage which was given to a few during the hours of night was to be eclipsed by the bright noon of a light which all might enjoy. He, therefore, proclaimed that the old Law was definitive, though the Law declared itself to be but transitory; he, therefore, insisted on the perpetuity of the reign of types and shadows. He laid it down as a dogma that no divine intervention can ever equal that made on Sinai; that every future prophet, everyone sent by God, must be inferior to Moses; that all possible salvation is in the Law, and that from it alone flows every grace.

This explains to us how it was, that of the ten men cured of leprosy by Jesus, nine have not even the remotest thought of coming to their Deliverer to thank Him: these nine are Jews. Jesus, to their minds, is a mere disciple of Moses, a bare instrument of favours, holding His commission from Sinai, and as soon as they have gone through the legal formality of their purification they take it that all their obligations to God are paid. The Samaritan, the despised Gentile, whose sufferings have given him that humility which makes the sinner clear-sighted, is the only one who recognizes God by His divine works, and gives Him thanks for His favours. How many ages of apparent abandonment, of humiliation and suffering, must pass over Juda too, before he will recognize and adore His God, and confess to Him his sins, and give Him his devoted love, and, like this stranger, hear Jesus pronounce his pardon, and say: Arise! Go thy way! Thy faith hath made thee whole and saved thee!


The Institution of the Holy Eucharist by Federico Fiori Barocci, 1608

From
The Book of Morals (Reflections on Job)
by Pope St. Gregory the Great

We know that it is so of a truth, and that a man cannot be justified as against God. When God is put out of the consideration, a man may be considered to be just, but considered as against God, his righteousness vanisheth away. When a man measureth himself by his relation to Him, Who is the Author of all good, he doth thereby acknowledge that of himself he hath no good in him, but hath received from God whatsoever he hath. He that glorifieth himself because of good which hath been given him, fighteth against God with God's own gifts. It is just therefore that the grounds upon which he ought to have been humbled, but upon which he hath puffed himself up, should be used to humble his vain-glory. But an holy man, because he perceiveth that the worth of our own good deeds falleth short, when he considereth his own spiritual man, justly saith If He will contend with him, he cannot answer Him one of a thousand.

In the Holy Scriptures the numeral a thousand is used to be taken as signifying a generalization. Thus, the Psalmist saith The word which He commanded to a thousand generations Ps. civ. 8, whereas it is notorious that the Evangelist doth not reckon more then seventy-and-seven generations between the very beginning of the world and the coming of our Redeemer. What therefore is to be understood here by a thousand The general ripeness of the old generation to bring forth a new offspring. Hence also it is said by John And shall reign with Him a thousand years, because the reign of the Holy Church will be over all mankind made perfect.

When times one is ten, and ten times ten is an hundred, and ten times an hundred is a thousand. Observing therefore this connection between one and a thousand, what are we to understand by the one (in the text, connected as it is with the thousand whereby we understand perfection)? Is it not the beginning of a good life, even as the thousand representeth perfection? The contending with God (which is spoken of in the text) is the nonacknowledgment of that which is owed to Him, and the vain-glorying instead in our own strength. But an holy man should see, that even if one had received the gifts of perfection, and were to make them the grounds of self-glorifying, such an one would thereby lose all that he had received.

-From the Roman Breviary


Wednesday, August 22, 2012

We Are NOT Actors at Mass

It was about a week ago that I was having a conversation with a fellow Catholic about the Mass and how it is viewed.  You can read about that HERE.

During the course of that conversation another Catholic piped up and said the following:

You (the first Catholic I was speaking to) convinced me in the last long thread that your understanding of the term "acting" is valid, but it isn't exclusively so, and nothing prohibits its overlapping with a simultaneous use in Andy's sense in the Mass, and that is unfortunate. 
Given the ubiquity of performance art, especially in its televised and cinematic forms today, versus populum is going to strike a responsive chord in the congregation that is not at all desirable. Most of the congregation will have been socialized and conditioned by big and small screens to see versus populum through the filter of modern visual media that are heavily devoted to programming at odds with Catholic doctrine. It's inescapable, except perhaps for the blind, who are a very small segment of the population.
The very fact of turning the priest to face in the same direction of the population, on the other hand, will serve as an immediate visual cue that the Mass is fundamentally different from cinematic and other such experiences. 
My response to this is as follows:

I think that I agree with (the second poster) regarding the ad orientem position on one hand, but on another, I think that it can be developed a little more.

He says, "The very fact of turning the priest to face in the same direction of the population, on the other hand, will serve as an immediate visual cue that the Mass is fundamentally different from cinematic and other such experiences."

The Mass is fundamentally different from "acting." There is action taking place to be sure, but those in the sanctuary are not acting out a role. That is to over emphasize the idea of participatio activa. Are they merely doing something or are they completing an action? 

That's the real question here and one that has been ignored. The answer is that they are doing both, but that does not constitute that they are acting. Because I am writing this post doesn't mean that I'm a writer. It means that I am writing this post. I am completing an action.

However, the more important thing to understand in this is that the Mass shouldn't be seen as something akin either positively or negatively to the cinema, the stage, or television. No. The Mass is an action which is completed not by those playing a role, but rather by those who are genuinely completing an action. They are actually doing something, not just being active. And that is what is being misunderstood.

There is a fundamental difference in posture. The priest is mediator. That is precisely what he does when he acts in persona Christi. He is mediating between God the Father and the faithful worshipping in the pew. Nothing more, nothing less. He isn't presiding, he isn't proclaiming, he isn't acting. He is BEING a mediator. His soul is marked for this and for this primarily. He is not acting, he is being.

When the priest faces the same direction as the people, several things are happening...

1. He is leading the faithful as Moses led the Israelites.

2. He is offering on behalf of the faithful. Speaking to God the Father as one of them, but specially called to do so.

3. He is making an offering which is private. It is not for "all to see." It is the priest's offering on behalf of the faithful. It is not something which is necessarily seen as communal, primarily, but rather it is a time for the priest to gather the intention of the faithful and for him (in persona Christi) to offer the unbloody sacrifice.

The communal aspect comes from the fact that the faithful gather to worship as one while the priest offers the Mass. What happens outside the rail has little to do with the ritual action inside the rail. In other words, if my mother meditates on the Mass and I meditate on the life of Christ and my girlfriend meditates on the PDR and her sister meditates on the Immaculate Heart of Mary...we are all worshipping as a community, but that in no way changes what the priest should be doing on our behalf. It is how we unite to him prayerfully, not how he proclaims to us publicly.

The idea that the Mass must be a communal and cinematic experience is directly in conflict with the purpose of the Mass. The priest and his ministers are not acting. He is BEING and they are assisting. That is why it is most proper that we assist at Holy Mass, from the pew.  

Saturday, August 18, 2012

The Obama Invite: has Tradition made any progress?

In his reflections on the "Obama invite", Michael Voris speaks of a division in the Church. Traditional Catholics have been aware of this division ever since the early 70s, and many before that, including men like Archbishop Lefebvre, realized that something was dreadfully wrong in the Church Militant following very quickly upon the close of the Second Vatican Council.

This division, quite contrary to what wonks like Bill Donohue, Jeff Mirus, and a plethora of other "conservative" Catholic talking-heads have repeatedly assured us, hasn't been caused by a group who have "misinterpreted Vatican II". This rift has been caused by none other than the very architects of Vatican II and the churchmen who succeeded them. Those misguided reformers weren't hijackers who had been standing on the side-lines, and who took Vatican II as an opportunity to inflict their vision on the Church. The reformers were the bishops and priests who sat through the sessions of the Second Vatican Council and drafted and voted for the Council's documents. It was their vision, the vision of the Vatican II architects and the bishops, that was inflicted on the Church in the wake of the Second Vatican Council.

The division and crisis in the Church Militant today is, indeed, a problem. However, the problem is not one primarily of liberal theologians in the universities, feminist nuns on a bus, ignorant or heretical catechists, or hippie priests, though they have all definitely played their roles; rather, the problem is and always has been the bishops who accepted and then defended the ambiguity of the Vatican II documents and that Council's ambivalence to evil. Thus it has been bishops collectively that have acted as the primary catalyst of the crisis, giving place to radical leftist intellectuals in our institutions, destroying the clear transmission of the faith, and creating a sub-culture among priests and religious that is a mockery of everything the priesthood and consecrated life has ever stood for.

The "Obama invite", as Mr. Voris rightly points out, has once again highlighted this sad reality. Devout Catholics are pushed aside, just like traditional Catholics have always been pushed aside ever since the insane liturgical changes of the early 70s. It is becoming clear, at least to me, that the same vandals are still in control, and the same spirit of vandalism runs rampant among our churchmen and their "conservative" apologists. There's no reason for me to get into Archbishop Dolan's woefully inadequate excuse for the invite, nor to say again what has already been well written elsewhere; there's no reason for me address the same pandering apologies for "conservative" Modernism from all the usual talking heads and obfuscating blowhards. Michael Voris' most recent The Vortex videos regarding the invite and these issues, specifically, are posted below for your convenience.

Dolan's actions speak for themselves. His invite is at best hypocritical and stupid, demonstrating Dolan's willingness to cow-tow to powerful men in order to curry their favor; at worst, it demonstrates that Dolan is a Socialist in a collar, objecting only to those things he is obligated to object to, while agreeing in principle with the socialist and death-dealing agenda at the heart of Obama's policies. These things ought to be clear to any honest and objective observer.

However, what concerns me here is the question as to whether traditional Catholicism has really made any inroads over the last few years regarding the Catholic institutions of the Church Militant and the churchmen who occupy the high offices thereof. It is clear that those offices are still occupied by those sympathetic to the Modernist heresy. And make no mistake about it: traditional Catholicism remains vulnerable.

Despite Summorum Pontificum, we have been reminded over the last few days, that the Immortal Mass is still the target of the Modernists in the halls of our Catholic institutions. What happens to devout traditional Catholics when the Vatican promulgates an unacceptable "New Old Missal" that foists on the traditional Catholic communities and Ecclesia Dei fraternities all the liturgical and doctrinal errors that engendered the disastrous novus ordo Missae? Will traditional Catholics be forced out of "full communion" in mass when the Modernist churchmen force us to accept the new prefaces, adopt the new calendar, discard Latin, and turn our priests around to offer the sacrifice to the people instead of to God?

If anything the events of 2012 demonstrate that the crisis is far from a resolution. The appointment of Archbishop Müller as head of the CDF indicates that even the pope, the author of Summorum Pontificum, still embraces the ambiguity of the Vatican II generation. The apparent breakdown in the discussions with the SSPX demonstrates that the Vatican, which will accept the nuns on the bus who deny the divinity of Our Blessed Lord, is unwilling to accept those who wish to fully embrace the Catholic faith as it was understood and practiced for centuries before the ambiguities of the Second Vatican Council emptied our pews, spread dissension and misunderstanding throughout the Church, and gave rise to all manner of liturgical abuses.

The growth of traditional Catholic communities definitely indicates that, at least on the level of evangelism, traditional Catholicism is making striking progress. However, this is to be expected. Truth and beauty are contagious among hearts so disposed to cooperate with the graces that propose them. On the other hand, it would appear that Modernism is still thoroughly entrenched, and even in this hour, fighting back with a demonically renewed vigor.

Perhaps this "Obama invite" will come to nothing, or perhaps it will propel Obama to victory among Catholic voters in November. Either way, it demonstrates that our churchmen, unfazed by the growth and vigor of traditional Catholicism, are still embracing the enemies of Holy Mother Church and Our Blessed Lord. The fight within the Church Militant, between the faithful and the Modernists, is still raging as furious as ever.

_____________________________





Friday, August 17, 2012

Social Justice Isn't Just?

TradNews Roundup

*FINALLY! Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer (Transalpine Redemptorists) are recognized as an institute of diocesan right! Deo gratias!

*Is Rome planning to corrupt the Traditional Latin Mass and traditional Catholic communities? A ridiculous "Revised Traditional Missal" that focuses on destroying the Immortal Mass is in the works for next summer. What will the EC communities do? Should the SSPX get ready for a huge influx of faithful?

*Gabriele to be charged in Vatileaks scandal, claims he leaked the documents because of the corruption he perceived in the Church and by the instigation of the Holy Spirit.

*The CRS scandal demonstrates the failure of the American bishops. Is the CRS corrupt on its own account, or is it corrupt because the bishops are corrupt?

*LCWR response to CDF assessment reveals the hubris of these liberals. These crazy women, though, are in "full communion"!

*Was this the last earthly victory of the Church Militant before the end of the present world?

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

An Honest Look at Liturgy and Music


My mentor, Mons. Richard J. Schuler wrote the following article for Sacred Music Magazine in the winter of 1990.  It can be found in vol. 117 no. 4.  He addresses the reforms which came out of Vatican Council II.  I think that they are as salient today as they were when he wrote the article.  Mons. Schuler was one of the preeminent musicologists of the 20th century and lived in St. Paul, MN.

Read on:

 In all honesty one must make a judgement at various times in life when reviewing a project or development. The building inspector must judge whether the plans of the architect have been carefully and rightly carried out; the music critic must judge if the performers have artistically reproduced the intentions of the composer; the dressmaker, the cook, the barber and the teacher must all judge if their products are in conformity with the pattern or recipe or prospectus or order that was the model for working.
The judgement must be honest, or else we are like the emperor who had no  clothes. One cannot fool all the people all the time. The truth must be acknowledged. The blueprint, the pattern, the plan and the directions remain and the product must be compared to them. Humility, which is truth, must admit to conformity or lack of it.
For twenty-five years, we have had a pattern, a set of directions for reforming the liturgy and its music. The Second Vatican Council, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and with the full authority of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, has clearly indicated its will, and the Holy See has given the world the authentic manner in which these decrees are to be implemented. The pattern is certain and clear. How well does the product measure up? Can the inspector approve of the results? Are we fooling ourselves when we proclaim the reform to be a great success?
Evidence continually is making it clear that the decrees of the Vatican Council have not been successfully implemented in the United States, and this failure has, in fact, led to many unfortunate results harmful to religion and Catholic life. Studies of Mass attendance reveal a drastic drop in attendance at Sunday worship; decrease in vocations to the priesthood and religious life continues; school children know less about their faith than ever before; knowledge of right and wrong, no longer learned through sermons at Sunday Mass, has become confused; the artistic quality of liturgy and music has fallen to an incredible level in the majority of churches, even those which before the council had fitting worship; ignorance of liturgy in its history or in the demands of the present reform, even in so-called professional liturgists, musicians and composers, exceeds all bounds.
How can the Church in our country extracate itself from the mire into which its liturgy has fallen? Who can clean the Agean stables? Roman decrees will not accomplish it, since we have had decrees for twenty-five years which have been ignored and deliberately disobeyed. Those decrees depend on the bishops to implement. But the bishops give their obligations over to their "experts" who put into operation what they have learned in the propagandizing centers of liturgical study.
The process of reversal is an educational one. It must begin with the schools. This means that bishops must demand graduate centers for true liturgical studies and seminaries where the future clergy are will be correctly instructed about the intentions of the Church given by the council and the documents that followed.
Bishops must seek competent and true teachers for their institutions and seminaries. Pastors must hire only those who have been correctly and competently trained and who exhibit a willingness to "think with the Church." The unfortunate performers, the inferior compositions, the lack of reverence and open violations of liturgical law and spirit must all be removed from our churches. It will be a long path to implementation of the conciliar decrees, because we are beginning now from a position that is farther removed from the true goal than we were before the calling of the council. The last twenty-five years have witnessed an almost total collapse of the sacred liturgy, causing the problems cited above.
The regulation of the liturgy on the local level is the immediate task of the bishop. Especially in the seminary and the cathedral, but also in his parishes he must see to it that the requirements of the council and the documents following the council be put into careful observance. He may be assisted by properly trained musicians and liturgists. But therein lies the cause of the present debacle. Too many occupying posts in diocesan and seminary musical and liturgical establishments are poorly trained, victims of propaganda peddled by centers of liturgical studies and some periodicals, ignorant of the regulations called for by the Church for its liturgy. Until that situation is rectified, our liturgy will continue to disintegrate and with the liturgy, the practice of the faith.

As I said, Mons. Schuler wrote this in 1990.  The same issues which plagued him then, plague us today.  We are still in a vocational crisis, both in the priesthood and religious life.  We are still faced with drastic drops in attendance at Sunday worship.  We are still trying to find new ways to educate our school children, who are becoming increasingly ignorant of their faith, as witnessed by a lack of understanding between right and wrong.  We are still subjected to sermons and homilies which have less to do with the Sacred Scriptures and more to do with Aunt Molly down the street or her dancing poodle and how that dog makes us feel.  And the quality of Sacred Music is at an all time low, including the so-called "new arrangements."  The arrangements make us feel as though we're at a Broadway musical rather than at Holy Mass.

Mons. Schuler asks quite pointedly, "How can the Church extricate herself from the mire?"  He makes the assertion, quite properly that it must fall on the bishops and priests.  But that is a bit of a misnomer, because now that we are 40 years removed, there are fewer priests.  It must fall on us, the faithful to stand up and demand that we have proper liturgical actions and proper liturgical music.  Proper liturgical action is carried out by following the rubrics.  It is plainly clear.  We must implore, ask and even sometimes demand that our priests offer Holy Mass properly.  Follow what the rubrics say.  Don't deviate, don't improvise.  Just follow the rubrics.  There are some changes which must be made in order for this to happen, but they are not out of the ordinary (as far as the 2000 year history of the Church is concerned).

1.  Offer Holy Mass with all the ceremony that can be mustered
2.  Follow the rubrics
3.  Orient the Mass, so that the rubrics can be followed, properly
4.  Sing the Mass
5.  Follow the rubrics
6.  Do the red
7.  Say the black
8.  Use the proper language for Holy Mass
9.  Follow the rubrics
10.  Do what the Church asks

When the priests and bishops start properly celebrating the Mass, with no deviation from the rubrics, then we will start to see a renaissance.  Until then, we will be mired in mediocrity.  To be valid is not enough.  To offer the Mass both validly and licitly is what the faithful have a right to expect.

With regard to music, the Church is clear.  The organ is the proper instrument for use during Holy Mass, to support that which is most proper, the human voice.  Chant has pride of place.  It should be afforded as such in the churches we assist at.  To not avail ourselves to Gregorian chant is to NOT fulfill that which the Church asks of her parishes.

There are instruments and styles which are forbidden.  They have been documented within the last century and affirmed by Popes as recent as John Paul II and Benedict XVI.  What I cannot understand is why these Popes are being ignored.  If Pope St. Pius X states that bands (guitar, drums, bass) and pianos are forbidden and John Paul II affirms this, why do they persist?  Why wouldn't the bishops, priests, and liturgists simply comply?  What is the motivation?  I can think of only two.  First, pride.  To not follow the direction of the Holy Father, when the request is legitimate is prideful. It sets up the parish church as being "more Catholic" than the Pope.  This is an argument which liberals often times levy against conservatives, but in actuality, when one acts in defiance of the teachings of the Church who is really walking outside the lines?  Second, is ignorance.  And that is really the big problem.  If the liturgist in the parish is ignorant of the teachings of the Church on music and the liturgy, why are they there?  Are they there to forward an agenda or are they there to do what the Church asks?  If they are there for the latter, then it becomes incumbent upon them to know what the Church expects.

We as the faithful, have a right to the Mass celebrated properly.  We have a right to the Mass of Paul VI celebrated according to the rubrics and in the style and language in which it was intended.  We must ask ourselves, do we know what that is?  If we don't, why not?  If we think we do, does it line up with what the Church actually teaches?

We also have a right to the Mass according to the 1962 Missale Romanum.  However, in today's churches, by and large we are not being afforded that right.  Priests are saying that the faithful don't want it.  I disagree.  What is the fastest growing movement in the Church today?  Traditionalism.  What Mass is being attended with a growing number every week?  The TLM, the 1962 Missale Romanum.  When parish churches are emptying in droves, the TLM is growing.  Why would we not want to cater to that?  Why wouldn't the leaders of the Church recognize that unless there was an agenda afoot?  Some argue that these priests are not able to celebrate the Mass in Latin.  I call BS.  Every one of these men have advanced degrees.  They are not unintelligent men.  They have the capacity to learn.  Every one of them.  This is a matter of agenda.  If the younger priests can learn the TLM, why can't the established priests?  This is a matter of agenda.

As Mons. Schuler points out, "...until [this] situation is rectified, our liturgy will continue to disintegrate, and with the liturgy, the practice of the faith."

He was right in 1990.  He is right today.

Monday, August 13, 2012

For Whom is the Mass Offered?


I was in a conversation recently with a fellow Catholic who made the following statement:

When the mass is celebrated, there are four "actors." Christ, the Church, the Priest, the Congregation. For whom, among these four, do the elements become the Body/Blood of Christ? Who is the "us" in the "for us"?
Bread and wine do not become Christ's Body and Blood for Christ. They do become the Body/Blood for the Church, the Priest, and the Congregation - for our salvation. (They become these elements for the same reason Christ sacrificed Himself on the cross.)

I must take issue with this view.  Here is how I responded:

  With all due respect, I cannot agree to the premise. He says:
"When the mass is celebrated, there are four "actors." Christ, the Church, the Priest, the Congregation.""
I cannot agree with this sentiment. There are no actors. There is a celebrant. The priest and there are those who are there to worship. The faithful. There is nothing more, nothing less. Why make it more complicated than it needs to be? There need be no more than two persons, a priest and one layman to have Holy Mass. Yet, you start making things immediately more difficult by including Christ as an actor? The Church as an actor? No Father, the Church is present insofar as the Church militant gathers, but the Church doesn't have an acting role. And Christ, while present in an unbloody way, is not an actor, He is the sacrifice.

He then asks:
 "For whom, among these four, do the elements become the Body/Blood of Christ?"

I knew he would disagree 100% with this, but the answer is, for God, the Father. That is who the Mass is offered for. It is not offered for man. That is the change in theology which has burdened the Church. Holy Communion is not a necessity save once a year for the faithful. The sacrifice, in an unbloody way, is for God the Father. And the faithful worship God, the Father at Holy Mass while the Sacred Host is being immolated. Once the sacrifice is complete, we may share in it, through Holy Communion. But it is in our joining to God, the Father that we are able to share in that sacrificial banquet.

He then states:
 "Bread and wine do not become Christ's Body and Blood for Christ. They do become the Body/Blood for the Church, the Priest, and the Congregation - for our salvation. (They become these elements for the same reason Christ sacrificed Himself on the cross.)"

This is true, but the re-presentation of the sacrifice at Calvary in an unbloody way is first a sacrifice to God, the Father. Why would we sacrifice something to ourselves? That makes no sense, from any sort of religious point of view.

Yes, Christ sacrificed Himself for us on the Cross. But that happened one time. He doesn't die over and over and over. The unbloody re-presentation of Calvary is a commemoration of that event, on our behalf to God, the Father.

I'll spell it out as clearly as I can. The sacrifice of the Mass is not "for us" in the manner that it is being presented. It is for God the Father. We participate in that sacrifice insofar as we worship. But, to presume that it is for us is to misunderstand the intention of the Church.

How does the Canon start again? We come to you Father....

The whole of the Canon is aimed not toward us, but toward God. Where it rightly belongs. We worship. We lay our prayers at the foot of the altar. The priest gathers those prayers and he takes them to the altar and offers them on our behalf, as he offers (celebrates) the Mass.

I can't be any clearer. Sure there are parts of the Mass where we recognize what we are doing, but the Mass is not "for us" it is "for God." If that were not the case, then there would be no need for a heavenly liturgy. Yet there is one. And the Mass is the re-presentation of that heavenly liturgy on Earth.

Saturday, August 11, 2012

Equating Catholic teaching to "partisan politics", and other things

The Archdiocese of New York, the same archdiocese headed up by the most outspoken bishop against the Obama administration's "contraception mandate", has invited President Obama, the most pro-abortion, anti-Catholic president in history, to speak at the the Al Smith Dinner, an event organized by and for the Catholic Archdiocese of New York.

This act of blatant hypocrisy, of course, ignited a firestorm. However, will the equivocating and disingenuous defense of the invitation by the archdiocese's Director of the Safe Environment Program and Family Life/Respect Life Office, Mr. Ed Mechmann, ignite equal indignation? If it doesn't then faithful Catholics are missing the obvious when it comes to the novus ordo establishment currently in control of our Catholic institutions.

Mr. Mechmann's response to the archdiocese's critics can be read here. This piece is probably the most over the top example of equivocation I've seen in a long time, but more troubling is the theological and philosophical attitude at the root of Mr. Mechmann's defense of the indefensible.

First, his equivocations.

Mr. Mechmann claims that this is not a "religious" event; it is, he says, merely, a civic event.

No, the Al Smith Dinner is not a religious event like Mass or Vespers, or, to get closer to Mr. Mechmann's brand of Catholicism, a Communal Reconciliation Service. It is, however, obviously a Catholic event. In fact, there's no way to argue this dinner is not a Catholic event by looking at the facts. This event is organized by a foundation that is headed by Cardinal Dolan who is the Archbishop of New York; the money raised by the event is given to the Archdiocese of New York; the event, itself, is intended as a celebration of the first Catholic to run for the Office of the President of the United States, Al Smith. It is Catholic from inception to completion, thus to characterize the dinner is as just another "civic" event is worse than disingenuous; it is an outright lie.

Mr. Mechmann insists that unlike the treason perpetuated at the University of Notre Dame in May of 2009, the Archdiocese is not giving an award or honoring President Obama, thus any comparison between the two is invalid.

To say that Obama is not being honored is to ask us to re-define the word "honor". If you told me I was invited to speak at the Al Smith dinner, I would consider that a great honor. Does anyone doubt that President Obama and his anti-Catholic staff are snickering at the fact that Obama, who hates the Church, is going to be honored by the Archdiocese of New York and Cardinal Dolan? Obama's campaign advisers are at this very moment thinking up ways to use the images of Cardinal Dolan laughing it up with Obama, shaking his hand and slapping him on the back at a Catholic fundraiser. Ed Mechmann by the use of his twisted and dishonest logic might not interpret it as an "honor", but no one else is as twisted or dishonest as Ed.

In what situation can someone be invited to speak at a Catholic event, to be one of the keynote speakers, no less, and it not be considered an honor? Every honest person clearly sees a similarity between this and what happened at the University of Notre Dame. For Cardinal Dolan to condemn one and then do the other is the height of hypocrisy.

There's no way for Mechmann to get around the issue. Despite his equivocations, the Obama invitation amounts to nothing less than yet another treason against Holy Mother Church and Catholics everywhere. Mechmann scoffs at the possibility that inviting Obama to the Al Smith Dinner will somehow soften the Church's teachings regarding the sanctity of life, marriage and the conjugal act, or the freedom and exaltation that ought to be enjoyed by the Holy Catholic Church (or as Mechmann more than likely waters it down, "religious liberty"). But that is not the point the critics are making. The critics realize, like all faithful Catholics, that nothing Mechmann does or says or nothing that his bishop does or says will ever change what Holy Mother Church teaches about life or marriage. However, it most definitely is the case that Mechmann's and Dolan's words and actions are inappropriate in light of the Church's teachings, and, in fact, undermines the Church's teachings in practice, and causes scandal. From a base marketing standpoint, these words and actions cause the world and its media to jeer at the “hypocrisy of the Church”, not that the Church is hypocritical, but the media wants and easily equates Dolan's hypocrisy to the Church he governs. In fact, the media in New York has already made the connection between the Notre Dame treason and Dolan's treason. And, no matter Mechmann's equivocations, so do we.

Mr. Mechmann says that the invitation is a sign of "civility".

Showing “civility” to our enemies isn’t the goal, though. Nowhere does Our Blessed Lord tell us to “show civility to your enemies”. Rather, He tells us to love our enemies. How can inviting Obama over for supper, giving him a pulpit to espouse his position, glad-handing him, wining him and dining him, all the while giving him the impression that belief in what the Church teaches regarding life, marriage and the conjugal act, and the freedom and exultation that ought to be enjoyed by the Catholic Church ("religious liberty" if you will) can be put on the back-burner to achieve a higher goal of dissipating "toxic politics", be construed as loving our enemy? It can't! Cardinal Dolan is telling Obama a lie, and under no circumstances can telling lies for the sake expediency be considered an act of love.

If the likes of Mechmann and Cardinal Dolan want to treat President Obama with “civility”, by all means they may. Perhaps while their lawyers are fighting over the rights of Catholics in the courts, Mechmann and Cardinal Dolan can refrain from calling Obama a whitened sepulcher, or perhaps they can refrain from calling Obama a blind guide. If that level of civility helps Cardinal Dolan sleep at night, then fine. However, when this "civility" passes the boundaries of common sense and the dictates of our faith, when it goes to the level of endorsing a man who is pro-abortion, anti-Catholic, and an avowed Socialist, in short, when this "civility" stoops to endorsing a public enemy of the Church of Christ, then Cardinal Dolan's "civility" is just plain foolishness, and it is repulsive to faithful Catholics everywhere.

But all these equivocations are facial excuses for something else: an attitude straight out of the Modernist heresy that is espoused by Mechmann and too many of our churchmen. We see this attitude in Mechmann's concern about being "non-partisan". Mr. Mechmann characterized the criticism of the Obama invitation as "partisan". In reality the critics don't care what party President Obama comes from or how the invite relates to any given person's political party affiliation. The only thing that matters to the critics is that President Obama and his administration, never mind their party affiliation, is the most pro-abortion and anti-Catholic the country has ever had, and this enemy of the Church is being honored by Cardinal Dolan.

Mechmann, I'm sure realizes this, but characterizing the critics as partisan demonstrates where Mechmann and his ilk are really coming from. He insists that the Al Smith Dinner is a "break" in the partisan and "toxic politics". If that is the case, though, then what political Party does Mechmann assign the defense of the unborn, the defense of marriage, the defense of the Catholic Church and Catholics?

If putting aside this "debate" for an evening of "civility" is a break in partisan politics, then Mechmann is saying that the Catholic objection to the mandate is merely partisan politics! Incredible! I'm not sure Mechmann realizes that this is what he is saying, but he most certainly did, and he did it so easily because at the root of his thinking is religious indifferentism. Mechmann, along with the rest of the novus ordo establishment's intelligentsia consider this whole thing as a debate between equals. Instead of framing the Church's arguments around actual Church teachings about the evils of artificial contraception, abortion, and the achievement of the freedom that the Church and Catholics ought to enjoy, the novus ordo churchmen have framed their side of the debate in terms of a faulty "religious liberty" argument that assumes that what the Church teaches is just one voice among many, not necessarily right or wrong, and is no better than any other belief or moral system.

In this world of religious indifferentism, Obama's moral conclusions regarding human life, marriage, and the freedom of the Church is just as valid as what the Church teaches. While Dolan and other Catholics might disagree with Obama, that's a Catholic problem, not a problem for the rest of the country. The only thing that these churchmen ask is that Obama leave them alone on these issues. In the meantime, the churchmen will slap Obama's back, and beg his friendship for those things they admire or agree with him on.

Which leaves us to guess what it is that Mechmann and Dolan admire about Obama. Is it Obama's statist Socialism that seeks to rob from the rich and put in the pockets of his cronies? Are they vying for a piece of that pie if Obama should win a second term? Whatever it is, they certainly aren't treating Obama as the enemy of the Church he has proven himself to be.

My children are at an age when they are striking out on their own and starting to make friends outside of our family's immediate circle. I constantly have to remind them that they have to choose their friends carefully, and that not everyone, no matter how popular, bright, attractive or smart he might be, makes for a suitable friend, and this is especially true when it comes to the supernatural. If someone hates our Catholic faith, he hates us! If someone hates our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, he hates us! If someone hates God and His Law, he hates us! There's no getting around this. I tell the kids, "Jesus said that we should love our enemies, but He never told us to make our enemies our friends."

Mechmann and Cardinal Dolan want to be friends with Obama, but unless Obama converts, he will always hate the Catholic faith, Christ, and God's law. If Mechmann and Cardinal Dolan are true to their Catholic faith, then they have to realize Obama hates them just as much. What then is over-riding their common sense? I suspect that Cardinal Dolan and Ed Mechmann desire the company and companionship of President Obama because they desire to be in the company of power and prestige. I also suspect that Cardinal Dolan and Ed Mechmann are in agreement with many of Obama's statist, liberal and Socialist policies.

Simply speaking, Cardinal Dolan and Ed Mechmann want to bask in Obama's glow, and the rest of us Catholics be damned.

Friday, August 10, 2012

TradNews Roundup

*Catholic Identity Conference 2012, in Weirton, West Virginia, with speakers Mike Matt, Chris Ferrara, John Rao, John Vennari and James Vogel, slatted for September.

*Growing number of TLMs in Arkansas.

*Is there a thaw in the long Vatican II winter, or something more?

*Sign the petition and urge Archbishop Dolan, stop being a hypocrite!

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Oh...The 60s....What a Disaster....


A priest acquaintance was recently speaking about the merits of Vatican Council II, as he saw them:

It is easy to see the fly in the ointment concerning some of the deleterious practices that developed out of the wrong implementation of the splendid documents of Vatican II. So there is plenty wrong with the wrong-headed, liberalizing, false egalitarianism of spirit of Vatican II ecclesilogy. Music in the reformed Liturgy has been the biggest sore thumb and the iconoclasm that went with what was proposed as renewal. But with that said, this is what has been good about Vatican II.
1. Catholic adults are asked to be Catholic adults and to live their lives as adults, responsible for their faith and their salvation. Gone are the days when only the priests and religious were understood as "church" and everyone else as inferior children who needed a paternalistic approach to them from priests and sisters. What many are doing here in terms of offering ideas and even challenging the authority of the Church is a result of Vatican II, but I would say some have gone to the extreme in that they reject a council which is anathema!
2. People are taking ownership in the local parishes, contributing as adults, and appreciate Catholic Stewardship and the Church's call that they use their talents for building up the Church and local parish, such as in ministries like Daybreak, Fam, St. Vincent de Paul, the RCIA and numerous other ministries and people are empowered to do these things. This would not have happened in pre-Vatican II times except for running bazaars and fund raisers.3. The RCIA as we have it today provides for a recovery of an early Church practice with all the liturgies and prayers associated with it. This was totally lacking in the pre-Vatican II Church.4. More pastoral flexibility and understanding the human condition a little bit better, more mercy than punishment. 5. Liturgy that is more accessible and without having to do cartwheels and handstands to understand it. I attribute this to the vernacular and I do feel that for the Mass itself, a total revamp was not necessary, but vernacular was/is and the expanded lectionary. I simply do not buy that a one year cycle was all lay Catholics need. That is a red herring to say the least and no one should lament the loss of the one year cycle, although I wouldn't mind it as a particular year.

I responded thusly:

1.  I also have to disagree with your assessment of Catholic adulthood.  It is elist to think that Catholics prior to Vatican Council II were somehow oppressed children who left their faith to priests and nuns.  I disagree 100%.

The role of the priest and the nun is to guide Catholics through their faith and to help them understand it.  But we don't have to have a perfect knowledge of that faith.

There is something to be said about having the faith of a child.  We should be able to look to the Church as our mother.  We should be able to look to the Church in a way where her priests and religious are leaders and we shouldn't have to rely on strict "freedoms" and "adult thoughts" to get us through.

We can and we should speak to the Church as adults, when we are so, but we should always look upon her with the wonderment and eyes of a child.  To lose the sense of mystery and the sacred is to lose a great portion of what it means to be Catholic.  Sure, one can understand that a Sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to bring about grace.  But is there more that needs to be known, or is that enough?  For centuries, that idea of sacrament is what got billions to heaven.  But since the Council, it isn't enough?  There is a real problem in that way of thinking.

2.  People took ownership in their parishes.  The Knights of Columbus.  The building of 1500 seat parish churches out of stone and mortar.  The advent of various clubs and organizations.  The ownership in parish life is not just the spiritual, but the temporal working with the spiritual in harmony.  There is so much more to ownership than just the things...it is knowing that the parish church is home.  It is where we go to bury, to marry, to baptize, to cry, to laugh and to love.  It is a place in heart, mind and deed.  But is not just what Vatican Council II babies think, when it comes to "ownership."  This all existed well before the Council and it has largely dried up since.  The world has taken the place of the parish for the center of Catholic life and that is a huge problem.  Schools are closing.  Parishes are closing.  Membership in service organizations are dwindling....not because of what happened before the Council, but after.

3.  Interesting to note that the "early Church" references that keep popping up sure seem like archealogicalism.  What about development?  What about the definition of dogma and doctrine which happened in the two millinea between the early Church and Vatican Council II?  And where does one start defining "the early Church?"  100? 325? 1000? 1054? 1570? 1854? 1961?  It is a complete misnomer and misleading to use the "early Church."  The Church has grown since then and there have been organic and necessary changes.    The education that Catholics got catechetically prior to Vatican Council II puts to shame any RCIA program today.

4.  More mercy than punishment?  I don't ever recall my mother or grandmother being punished for being Catholic.  Archbishop Sheen taught mainly before the Council...and he was full of merciful teaching....As was Pius X, as was the Cure D' Ars, as was Therese of Liseiux.  But they also understood that there were consequences for actions.  Something we have lost in this generation.

5.  Cartwheels to understand the Mass.  The Mass doesn't need to be literally understood, but I can guarantee you that most traditionalists understand the TLM a lot better than Catholics understand the Novus Ordo.  This is about language.  And the idea that if it "ain't in English" it "ain't good."  I call BS on that.  The Mass particular is where the priest communes with God on behalf of the faithful in the pew.  It matters not whether the faithful hear one word of what the priest says, Latin, English, Russian or Greek.  He should be focused on worshiping God the Father through the sacrifice of the Mass.  That can be achieved by any number of means, meditating on the Life of Christ, the Stations of the Cross, the Nativity, or following along in the hand missal, which allows a person to (gasp) understand.

Bottom line Father....the destruction wrought after Vatican Council II wasn't because of Vatican Council II.  It was because Vatican Council II opened the stage for men to hijack that which was beyond them.  They took the Divine and made it profane.  And now it falls on my generation to pick the pieces up and start re-building brick by brick.  And we are none too happy about the fact that our glorious Church is in shambles, because aggiornamento needed to rule the day...how?  By tuning in, turning on, and yes, Father....dropping out.

We're not dropping out...we're coming back...but we don't want the banal and on the spot.  We want authenticity as the Church gave it to us from time immemorial through all of the Councils, including today.

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Circle the Wagons


Over at Southern Orders, Fr. McDonald makes the following assertion:
"However, the Church prior to Vatican II had a "circle the wagons" mentality to protect it from the Protestant Reformation. But the type of godless secularism that is much more dangereous for Catholics needs to be acknowledged and protection from it is necessary. There should be a greater fear of godless secularism compared to Reformed Protestantism."

I must disagree with the good Father.  The godless secularism is easy enough to deal with...the Church conquered that once before, you know.  However, reformed Protestantism is a completely new concept which has wrought upon God's creation so much strife and disdain for the Church which Christ gave to the whole of humanity.

When we look at modern godless secularism, it comes directly from reformed Protestantism.  For ultimately what is Protestantism if it is not humanism veiled with the trappings of religion.  The so-called enlightenment found it's roots in Protestant Europe and gained it's foothold not by causing Catholics to abandon Catholicism, but rather by coercing Protestants to stop believing in that which is true.  In other words to take off the veil of relgious trappings and expose humanism in it's fullest sense.

As I see it, Vatican Council II, addressed nothing.  All it did was to allow the liberals a forum in which they could complete their ideology.  John XXIII gave them the stage and Paul VI let them dance on it.  Thankfully, the dance is winding down.

We, as Catholics, should be circling the wagons.  We should be protecting the Faith, because that is what we are called to do.  We are called to catechize the Catholic and the Protestant.  We are called to be ecumenical with the Orthodox and we are called to evangelize the non-Christian (pagan).  This is how we have circled the wagons in all of history.  It is how we should do it today.

Vatican Council II, while being a Council did nothing to further Catholicism.  It simply was.  It did nothing to help the Catholic achieve the 3 ends of which I just spoke.  In the end, Vatican Council II was a non-starter, because there was nothing started...except the liberal mindset being forced upon the average Catholic during the reforms after the Council.  And that was harmful.

Father also says,
"The Church has had a two thousand year history and there is always great fomment and great strife after Ecumenical Councils and when there is religious, political and social upheaval."

There was no foment and strife after most Councils.  The path was straight and the vision was clear.  Dogma was defined and Doctrine was made to be understood.  While there was a curve to application, because of the correspondence of the time, that does not equate to foment.  There was a clear understanding of what must take place.  And a new Catholic Renaissance became the norm, until the need for another Council in 1870.

Father, don't misunderstand, I think that Catholics should be Catholics.  I just think that Protestants should be too.  That is our goal and Vatican Council II just didn't account for that.  And that is the great downfall of the latest Council.

Monday, August 6, 2012

Seeing the Expectation of Holy Mother Church

I spent Saturday and Sunday in the Twin Cities. Most of you know that I went to college at the University of St. Thomas, in St. Paul. What many of you may not know is that I lived in the rectory at St. Agnes, in St. Paul for most of my years at St. Thomas.

It was a glorious time and it was a time that set me on the path to becoming a traditional Catholic. I came to first understand my faith and I came to first know what the Church expects, not only from her priests, but also from her laymen. I was witness to arguably the greatest liturgical musicologist in the USA during the 20th century and he became my mentor, Mons. Richard J. Schuler. I got to know some men who have become the beacon of Catholic thought, in the Church today. I got to know Raymond Card. Burke, while he was bishop of LaCrosse. I got to know Bishop Alexander Sample, while he was a priest of the diocese of Marquette. I got to know Bishop Paul Sirba, while he was a priest of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneaoplis, I got to know Bishop John LeVoir, while he was a priest of the same diocese. I got to know Fr. Paul Marx, OSB; founder of Human Life International. I got to know Frs. John Echert, Robert Altier, Robert Fox, Thomas Dubay, S.M., Adian Nichols, O.P., John Hardon, S.J., and the ineffable Fr. John T. Zuhlsdorf. These men helped to form me and gave me perspective on what it means to hold the Catholic line at all costs.

Yesterday, I had the wonderful privilege of being able to assist at St. Agnes again for the first time in several years. The new pastor, Fr. Mark Moriarty sang his first Missa Cantata in the Extraordinary Form. I have been witnessing Mass sung at St. Agnes for years and years. This past Sunday was a reminder to me that if a parish holds the line, there is no need for anything more or anything less than the expectation of Holy Mother Church.

Fr. Moriarity understands that the faithful clamor and want the Mass celebrated properly. He understands that the role of the celebrant is to commune with God for the laity worshiping in the pew. He understands that he is charged with doing the very best the Church expects. And he expects the same from all who assist at St. Agnes.
This has been the expectation of the pastors of St. Agnes from her inception in 1888. It is the expectation of the pastors today. As I was reflecting while Fr. Moriarty was singing the Mass, I couldn't help but put my hand missal down and just take it in. Take in the splendor and revel in the fact that this is how Holy Mother Church wants it done. She wants it done in Latin. She wants it done oriented toward God with the priest leading. She wants it sung. She wants all the ceremonies. She wants the faithful to be free to worship while experiencing the full beauty and majesty of the liturgical action carried out to it's fullest. She wants the faithful to approach the rail, to kneel, and to receive the Blessed Sacrament with humility and a true sense of need, both spiritually and temporally.

I know that I am biased. I know that I am "a homer" for St. Agnes, but I can tell you honestly, that there is no other diocesan parish in the world who has been so UN-affected by modernism. This was accomplished because the long line of pastors starting in 1888, moving through Mons. Bandas and Schuler and now being continued by Fr. Moriarty lead one to know the sacred. Had every parish been as diligent as St. Agnes, the troubles of the Church would not exist to the extent they do today.

St. Agnes isn't perfect. No place is. There are quibbles and there are peccadilloes, to be sure...but when it comes to the life of Holy Mother Church brought forth through the liturgical life of the Church, St. Agnes puts them aside for the GREATER GLORY OF GOD. Now you know why I sign off AMDG+.

God Bless Fr. Moriarity. God Bless St. Agnes Catholic Church. May her patroness continue to look down upon her and shine upon her majesty and greatness.

Friday, August 3, 2012

TradNews Roundup

*Confraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) pilgrimage to Fatima.

*Italian pilgrimage with the Monks of Norcia.

*Liberation Theology: A Tool of Subversion.

*Western powers and western media are ignoring the voice of the Syrian people in favor of rebels who are radical Muslim extremists.

*There is a complete lack of consistency in our bishops. Why? The answer, in summary, is Vatican II.

*CCHD tries to make a pro-homosexual group accept $40,0000 against the group's will. How unbelievable is that?! DON'T GIVE ANY MONEY TO CCHD!!!!!!

*US Bishops helped fuel the Obama nightmare.

*... and now so many of them complain about the world they helped create!

*This relativism is as much a product of VCII as it is the secular world which has been given a free reign ever since. If error is unopposed, Your Excellency, and is rather propped up by churchmen like yourself, what did you think would happen??

*Michael Voris touches on the issue of the American bishops and Vatican II causing this whole terrible mess:


God save us from the scourge of corruption within the Catholic Church!

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

More on Mons. Steenson's views...

Yesterday, I commented on the firestorm which was set ablaze by Mons. Steenson with his comments regarding the TLM and traditional Catholicism.  Today, from the blog Catholic in the Ozarks comes some more interesting commentary, some of which I agree with, but most of which I am questioning.  Some key excerpts,  the rest can be found via the link above.

 Mr. Campbell is correct in his assessment of Anglicanorum coetibus and Summorum Pontificum. Ordinariate priests do have the unrestricted right to celebrate the sacraments according to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. However, I should point out here that this unrestricted right applies to private masses primarily. Public masses on the other hand, are a different story, Summorum Pontificum stipulates that if a small but stable group of the faithful request such a liturgy, they cannot be denied. The necessary size of such groups has never been stipulated, to my knowledge, but my understanding is that in all cases the bishop (or in this case, Ordinary monsignor) should be generous. This is after all a matter of canon law now. 

A key component missing is Universae Ecclesiae.  I think that as Mr. Schaetzel develops his mode of thinking, he speaks to two of the three aspects of this, which I touched upon yesterday, but leaves out the application of Summorum Pontificum.  And that is big omission.

 Two years later, the Holy Father released Anglicanorum coetibus, which provided for the establishment of ordinariates for Anglicans within the Catholic Church. These ordinariates specifically fall under the Roman Rite, though the liturgy will effectively serve as another "form" of the Roman Rite. In the past this "form" was called the "Anglican Use of the Roman Rite." Some have inaccurately referred to it as the "Anglican Rite." There is no "Anglican Rite" in the Catholic Church as of yet, but that has not been entirely excluded from possibility in the distant future. For now however, the Anglican ordinariates operate within the canon law of the Roman Rite, and the Anglican liturgy operates as another "form" of the Roman liturgy that is exclusively Anglican in nature. Unfortunately, this Anglican "form" has not been officially approved by Rome yet, and this only serves to complicate matters. In the United States however, ordinariate priests are permitted to use the "Book of Divine Worship" which is a prototype version of a Vatican approved "Book of Common Prayer." It is supposed to serve as a temporary liturgy for the U.S. ordinariate until the official ordinariate liturgy is approved by Rome.
[...] 
Here is the sticky situation Monsignor Steenson faces as I personally see it. The U.S. ordinariate is new. It is still in a malleable phase of its development. The official ordinariate liturgy hasn't even been approved by Rome yet. (This is a problem Rome should remedy, as an approved ordinariate liturgy would help tremendously in this situation.) New Anglican communities are still coming into the ordinariate, and still more are expressing interest. The ordinariate is in the process of ordaining priests and the number of ordinariate parishes is still very small. All the while, the voices of Anglican critics, outside the ordinariate, are constantly ringing with the warning that the whole ordinariate scheme is a "trap." They criticise that Rome is attempting to "lure" Anglicans into the ordinariate so they can "Romanize" them. The ordinariate, on the other hand, promises to be a place where Anglicans can be fully united with Rome but not absorbed by Rome, as the mantra goes "united but not absorbed." The U.S. Anglican Ordinary is faced with the prospect of not only fostering the Anglican patrimony, but championing it aggressively, so as to demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the ordinariate is a safe refuge for Anglicans to continue their traditions under the pastoral protection of the Bishop of Rome. He must effectively prove that the Vatican is not out to absorb or "Romanize" them. Lest the Anglican critics of the ordinariate gain more fuel to add to their fire. 
This is a fairly big problem as I see it.  Rome should have addressed this point before accepting them into the Church.  Otherwise it would seem to follow that they should have to submit to the Roman way until such time as they have their own liturgy.  This is obviously not how it has been handled and what we have is confusion. We now have Latin Rite priests who are being told they should not view the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite as being "an integral part of their patrimony."  This constitutes in my mind a big problem in the logic of the Ordinariate.  Perhaps this will work itself out.  For the sake of the Ordinariate, I hope so.

I too, realize that this is a new concept and that there must be time to grow, but I certainly cannot see the logic in it.  I must be missing how a Latin Rite priest cannot find the Roman Rite integral, especially considering the widespread use of the the same said Rite in the Anglican Communion.

Mr. Schaetzel makes the following comment:

Father Chori Seraiah over at The Maccabean Blog has done a wonderful job explaining what the word "integral" means in Monsignor Steenson's official statement. This has helped me understand the statement on a much deeper level, and I find myself totally agreeing with that line from the statement now. Thank you Father Seraiah for that wonderful pastoral insight!

I am a collaborator with Fr. Seraiah.  As a matter of fact, he and I just finished speaking on the telephone.

I can certainly see his point about integral.  I understand it and I accept it.  The question though which remains, from one who is a traditional Catholic looking into and seriously considering the Ordinariate (I cannot yet say that I am part of the Ordinariate), is how do I reconcile the vast usage of various Tridentine models within  Anglican patrimony?  Models which are so ingrained into the worship of many "disaffected" Anglicans through the wide use of the Knott Missal or even the Missale Romanum, how do they reconcile the fact that they now seemingly don't have a voice, if they so wish to enter the Ordinariate?  I am thinking specifically of parishes such as Ascension and St. Agnes in Washington, DC or the like.  Would this become a barrier, because the use of the Missale Romanum or the Knot Missal is not integral?

For as much of a perceived threat as it is for the Anglicans and their patriomony, I can also see it as as a threat to those disaffected Anglicans and Roman Catholics who are genuinely searching for an outlet to Tradition.

So, perhaps Mons. Steenson is correct, it isn't integral, but it is certainly desirable, to attract those who would want to enter.  And I think that this is perhaps where the disconnect and the question of logic is.  Run of the mill Anglicans are not going to necessarily be interested in the Ordinariate.  It is going to the be the Traditional Anglican.  And by practice, it will be the Traditional Catholic who will gravitate toward this movement.  Wouldn't it make sense to see those Anglicans and those Catholics united through a shared use of the forms which are now being questioned, specifically the Missale Romanum/Knot Missal v. the Missal of Paul VI (ed. 3) and the Book of Divine Worship?

In the end though, I think that those who are part of the Ordinariate must be obedient to Mons. Steenson.  Both those who are in it and those considering it.  I think that this needs to be seen from all sides, not just one side or the other.  Obedience, however doesn't mean that we cannot question the logic of a particular statement.  Ultimately, this will fall where Mons. Steenson and the Curia want it to and obedience will rule the day, which is proper, but to hash out the logic isn't an improper mode of action.

What this will come down to isn't whether the TLM is accepted or rejected.  This will come down to how Traditionalism is perceived in the Church today.  Now that the Ordinariate is part of the Church, they would do well to embrace it, which I think that they are doing, by and large, but I don't see how ambiguous statements regarding patrimony and an integral nature will do anything to help the Ordinariate's cause.  They came back the Church, because the Anglican Communion was too liberal.  They wanted a place where they could authentically be Catholic, not only in name and spirituality, but in practice and sign.  This doesn't exclude the TLM, but rather, according to Summorum Pontificum, Universae Ecclesiae, Anglicanorum Coetibus, and the Holy Father, himself...is specifically included.