A Priest You May Recognize Starts to use the Ad Orientem Posture

Over at Fr. Longenecker’s blog, Standing on My Head, he posts about his experiences about starting to use the Ad Orientem posture in worship. Fr. Longenecker is by no means a Traditionalist but his experiences with using Ad Orientem for the first time are excellent observations to go along with the other arguments for its use:

After celebrating Mass facing the Lord I can report these favorable effects from the priest's point of view:

1. I don't have to worry about where to look
2. I don't have to worry about what my face looks like
3. I can weep at the beauty and wonder of it all without concern
4. I can worship more freely and fully
5. I feel more at one with the people of God
6. I am on a journey to God with the people
7. I am not the focus of attention
8. The elevation of the host and the Ecce Agnus Dei have become more of a focus
9. I feel more part of the great tradition
10. I can't see who's not paying attention and feel I have to do something to get their attention back.

Okay, subjective feelings on my part, but I thought some readers might be interested.

What is great about this is that even Catholics who do not profess to be Traditionalists can start to see the many positive benefits of Ad Orientem posture even to the point of perhaps recognizing its superiority over the novel posture of facing the people. These are again excellent observations coming from a priest who is using them in the Novus Ordo Mass and has been trained under in a Novus Ordo environment (what I mean by this is that he did not attend FSSP or Christ the King seminary and the like).

Interreligious Dialogue a Failure?

Recently the controversial Good Friday prayer was changed again under Pope Benedict. In it we see a clear call for the conversion of Jews mixed with an ambiguous ending portion that people can twist to mean an “end of time” conversion.

Whatever the Pope’s context may mean who knows, but it is fascinating to watch people's reactions, especially Jewish ones, to the revised prayer and it instantly tells us that Interreligious Dialogue is a failure, at least with the Jews. I'll site some examples. It is at least a failure because some prominent Jews could not grasp the real reason why “dialoging” is being done; to end in their conversion. At least that’s what the orthodox interpreters of Vatican II, John Paul II, etc. are telling us. As for myself I would try to interpret Vatican II that way to save it from the twisted interpretation of the liberals whom feed upon its ambiguity.

I was typing this up today and strangely Rorate Caeli posted a report from The Jewish Chronicle with the following:

The Pope’s British envoy is to visit West London Reform Synagogue on Shabbat amid what its rabbi calls the “most acute crisis” in Jewish-Catholic relations in the past 20 years.

Rabbi Mark Winer will publicly bring up the controversy sparked by the Pope’s endorsement of a Good Friday prayer which openly calls for the conversion of the Jews.

...

In the draft of an address to be delivered tomorrow [yesterday, April 5], Rabbi Winer says that “expressions of Jewish anger” over the prayer “have reached a level I do not recall in my lifetime of dialogue, as a rabbi, with the Catholic Church. Rabbinical bodies in some countries have forbidden their rabbis from participating in dialogue with representatives of the Holy See. Antisemitic riots and incidents have occurred in more than a few places.”

New Catholic at Rorate Caeli is questioning whether riots have really broken out over this or not. That is besides my point here in this post. Let’s continue.

Now take a look at Abe Foxman’s reaction to it:

"It is less offensive in its language but it still is in contradiction to changes that the late Pope John Paul brought about," said Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti Defamation League in the United States.

"John Paul taught that the Jewish people are the older brothers of Catholics and that Judaism has its own merits and viability. The language is better but it's still troubling," he told Reuters by telephone.

Source.

Finally a poster at Rorate Caeli posted this a few months ago from the TimesOnline:

Rabbi David Rosen, chairman of the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations, said: "It is a disappointment.

"While I appreciate that the text avoids any derogatory language towards the Jews, it is regrettable that the prayer explicitly aspires for Jews to accept the Christian Faith, as opposed to the text in the current universal liturgy that prays for the salvation of the Jews in general terms.

"All I can hope for is that through further dialogue, the full implications of the Second Vatican Council's affirmation of the eternity of the Divine Covenant with the Jewish People might lead to a deeper understanding of the value of Torah as the vehicle of salvation for the Jewish People." [!!!]

David Gifford, chief executive of the Council of Christians and Jews, said: "I am saddened. They could have gone much further and built on the work of the Second Vatican Council."

He said this will add to the "suspicion and dismay" already created by the restoration of the Tridentine Rite, which can now be celebrated without permission of a bishop. "I am extremely sad that another opportunity has been missed."

Now notice a trend? This is a “crisis” and it supposedly departs from the outreach of John Paul II and Vatican II. How can this be a rupture in Jew-catholic relations when the end goal of Jewish-Catholic relations is their conversion? Something must of happened to confuse them.

This is yet another example of how the ambiguity of the Second Vatican Council and the strange and sometimes scandalous actions of John Paul II result in these Jews reacting negatively to a conversion prayer. They could not see that Interreligious dialogue was suppose to be about conversion. This is not their fault. When certain popes visit a Synagogue or “dialogue” with Jews and never try to evangelize but merely try to be friendly it sends the message that this is about just merely being friends, having good relations, and the “I’m okay where I’m at and you’re okay where you’re at” attitude. And when certain Councils use ambiguous language it can be interpreted to say many things contrary to the evangelizing message of Our Lord.

How many years of dialogue with the Jews have we had and some of them get angery about us wanting their conversion? That should be the basic foundation of all of this dialogue and yet it was missed. Were John Paul II’s actions too confusing for them to draw the right conclusion (sometimes it seems he thought they would be saved as being Jews - I can't figure him out here)? Were Vatican II’s words twisted to them to mean something else due to tis ambiguous nature? I say the answer is yes.

FSSP finally and officially in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati

Our Lady of the Rosary Church in Dayton Ohio or “Holy Rosary” as many people call it (thanks for the primer Frank) has now officially launched its new Latin Mass Community. Transitioning from its old name “Dayton Latin Mass Community,” the new establishment is now dubbed “Holy Rosary Latin Mass Community” in thanks to Our Lady’s intercession through dedicated members praying of the Rosary, most specially in October.

Prayers went up for a resolution to the issue of what was going to happen to the Latin Mass community in Dayton once Fr. Wojdelski of the FSSP had to stop driving all the way from Brookville Indiana to offer Mass – then of course drive to Cincinnati’s Sacred Heart Church in Fort Washington to offer the 11:30 a.m. TLM then back to Indiana.

After long and somewhat strange negotiations (the good kind of strange) Archbishop Pilarczyk has given us a resident priest of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, which would be Fr. Wojdelski, to offer up daily TLMs and administer the sacraments and rites according to the Traditional forms.

This is fantastic news for this Archdiocese, when was the last time daily TLMs where offered as well as traditional sacraments and forms available (well, aside from the SSPX and SSPV in the neighborhood)? The Mass schedule is as follows; Sundays at 8:45 a.m., Monday through Thursday at noon, Friday at 7:00 p.m., Saturday at 9:00 a.m. and on Holy Days 7:00 p.m. And of course confessions everyday before Mass.

Basically Holy Rosary Latin Mass Community is “renting” Our Lady of the Rosary’s facilities out so that the FSSP may use them in serving the needs of the folks who want these traditional forms. Unlike the parish in Brookville Indiana this is not an entire parish that the FSSP is assuming but nonetheless it is an excellent step up from the previous setup.

Hopefully this will help permeate this Archdiocese with the Traditional forums of the Sacraments and Mass to where, maybe someday, more priests will offer up TLMs at their parishes.

Also remember that even though I attend TLMs in Dayton this blog has no affiliation to the Holy Rosary Latin Mass Community. So if I say something that someone finds too traditionalist for them don’t go blaming Holy Rosary.

Humility in the Traditional Latin Mass

Excuse me for posting about the TLM so often. I just feel that I must convey my thoughts. I produced this post rather hastily so I apologize for the potential sloppiness.

As one approaching the altar of God at Mass we must recall that the Mass is primarily the sacrifice of Calvary brought to the present. This is more explicitly clear in the texts of the Traditional Latin Mass. The Sacrifice of Christ is perpetuated through the priest as he acts in the Person of Christ. This is why the Mass is full of prayers for the living and the dead. The sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is thus applied to many things to obtain both pardon for sins and transgression and to obtain graces – both actual and sanctifying.

For instance, a Mass may be offered up for a deceased person. When the Mass is complete the sacrifice of Calvary is applied to the person in purgatory thus aiding them in their purgation. Most importantly though the Mass is offered up for our sins. The sacrifice of Calvary is brought to the present and offered up to God for our transgressions.

The two paragraph refresher here is a setting us up for looking into the humility factor at Mass. I am of course going to compare the Traditional Latin Mass to the New Mass. As one fulfilling their obligation to go to Mass one is approaching God Himself as he offers Himself up in the brutal manner of 2,000 years ago but in an unbloody way in the present. You would automatically want to assume a more humiliating disposition at Mass because of this fact alone and more over because you will receive God Himself in the Holy Eucharist – this disposition would carry over to your appearance, your postures and of course you submissiveness to Christ in the priest.

We however have a problem in the New Mass with all of its options carried over from the liturgical revolutions from the 1960s.There is more physical lay participation; lay people can read the readings and if necessary become Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. There is more of a verbal role going on as well.

And of course there are the many options that strike at humility such as the priest facing the people, communion in the hand, communion standing, a bow instead of a kneel at the “et incarnatus est,” and the loosing of many symbolisms – mostly through the priest.

What then would a person want to do to humble himself before the sacrifice of Calvary and the transubstantial presence of Christ in the Mass? The most logical decision is to use superior forms, gestures and prayers – this is achieved more perfectly in the Traditional Latin Mass rather than the Novus Ordo.

At the TLM one assumes more positions of humility. Take kneeling for example; there is simply more of it. Kneeling is done at the “et incarnatus est,” kneeling is mandatory when receiving God Himself in the Holy Eucharist.

One does not dialogue with the priest on the level that is done in the New Mass and even in some cases lay people say nothing at all (as is my preferred method). You are in essence submitting yourself to the priest and secondarily to the servers. You unite yourself to the priest as he prays for all present and offers up the sacrifice – you are submitting yourself then to Christ. The cry for lay physical participation in the sanctuary and with the priest is not a factor in a TLM. One can verbally say little or nothing because they can assume a role of submissiveness to the priest and in turn to Christ. Thus it is more humble to submit to the priest in his prayers over assuming you must dialogue with him back and forth on the level the Novus Ordo has achieved.

Much of the same can be applied to the priest facing God instead of the people. In this way we are all facing the most Holy Trinity and Christ on the Cross, even the priest because he leads us in prayer and sacrifice. Hence the ministerial role of the priest is more emphasized. We are humbling ourselves before God by focusing our attention more towards Him and away from a repetitive dialogue where the priest sometimes appears to be talking to us and of course praying with us in vernacular.

Other areas include receiving the Eucharist on the tongue and from the priest alone (in ordinary instances). This more perfectly achieves humility by not touching the Sacred Species with unconsecrated hands and from the priest who is in the person of Christ.

One can point to the Latin itself. The majority of people who regularly attend a TLM can in fact follow along in their minds. That is they know where the Mass is at almost any given point in time by remembering familiar phrases in Latin or positions. However the majority cannot understand the Latin being said by the priest (even though they can have a prayer memorized in the vernacular and follow in their mind and heart with the priest). In this way we again submit ourselves to Christ in the priest because he prays in a way most of us cannot do – in ecclesiastical Latin. Hence we assume a more humble role at Mass; we rely on the priest to intercede for us. We humbly submit ourselves to Christ in the priest and to Him truly Present in the Eucharist as Calvary is brought before us.

Finally of course, as mentioned briefly above, the prayers of the Traditional Latin Mass are fuller, more explicit and convey Catholic doctrine better compared to the New Mass. These fuller prayers portray the sense of humility that one must assume more perfectly at Mass. There are prayers before the priest approaches the altar, there are fuller prayers that ask God for forgiveness, for people in purgatory, fuller prayers to the saints for assistance, and more explicit prayers pertaining to the Real Sacrifice that happens at Mass and its affect.

The Ecumenical Revolution

Recently I read a book review from "HalJordan" (a username of an online acquaintance) and I asked him if I could post his review at my blog. He graciously gave me the okay and I will share it with you right now. The book is The Ecumenical Revolution: An interpretation of the Catholic-Protestant dialogue by Robert McAfee Brown a protestant observer at the Vatican II council.

I'll let you read the review - it is yet another source confirming the strange ongoings at Vatican II. Take a look:

When I can find them, I still try to pick up whatever books I can find on the history and events of Vatican II. This particular item was a good find as Brown was a Presbyterian minister and one of the more big-to-do Protestant observers at the Council. Anyways, his was an interesting perspective.

The book basically shifts back and forth between Protestant and Catholic notions of ecumenism and the history of each. The history of Protestants on this bit was very informative and I picked up a lot that I didn't know, especially on the bigger WCC meetings and stuff like that. This was the first part of the book, and I give it a big thumbs-up. You have to look past the semi-shots that Brown takes at guys like Pius XI. He really does try to be objective, but considering that ecumenism is THE big issue he's working on, the guys who oppose the movement are naturally going to come off not so well.

Brown then shifts gears and deals almost exclusively with Vatican II from that point on. Not surprisingly, he confirms pretty much everything that Wiltgen, Amerio, etc. have written on the topic, though he doesn't delve so much into the actual intrigues that were taking place. He confirms that Leinart's initial intervention scrapped the entire course of the Council and that the commissions drawn up in its aftermath were stacked to give a louder voice to progressives and to diminish the more orthodox voices like Cardinal Ottaviani.

He is very honest about how he and the other Protestant observers, after their presence became less of a novelty, were regularly asked for input and advice by the conciliar participants.

He confirms that the Council was very shaken by the papal actions that were of a more orthodox nature (Mary as Mother of the Church, modifications to UR, suspension of the vote on DH, the nota praevia for LG, etc.).

Then the funny stuff starts. Brown is clearly very fired up by all the doors being opened at Vatican II for ecumenical dialogue. However, he is forced to admit on numerous occasions that even he doesn't know what some of the language actually means. He thinks that "subsists in" is a huge leap of progress, for example. Yet he has no idea how to interpret it. "Elements of sanctification" sounds very nice, and it's good to know that Protestants can claim to have them, but he can't really say with any details how they operate. He's often left just saying how this is a great start.

I must add that, in the items he feels he can affirmatively interpret, such as the shift in terminology of Protestants "returning" to a notion of all churches/ecclesial communities "converging" into the actual Church of Christ, he seems pretty convinced that Catholicism has actually begun incorporating Protestant theology. He mentions Kung's ideas about Trent agreeing with Luther as another example, albeit one that is an indication of big things on the horizon rather than the Magisterium at work. He praises the Dutch bishops willingness to scrap transubstantiation as another item of the same sort.

He gives some very valuable input as to what Protestants liked and disliked about UR and DH specifically. This was good. He also pointed out specific language that was inserted/deleted at the requests of the respective conciliar factions.

Anyways, like all big ecumenical pushes, Brown winds up just paying lip service to the potential damage to the Truth. He'll mention that it's really bad for people to forsake dogma just to claim unity, but these sections are almost always followed immediately by something like "But wouldn't it be great if we could find a way for everyone to accept everyone else's ministers as valid and capable of confecting a real Eucharist (whatever that may mean)?"

Still, I would recommend this book to all here. The history of the movement is very good. It also provides yet another source demonstrating why the documents of Vatican II must be read very carefully, due to the forces that were attempting to deform Church teaching. It's inclusion of an on-site Protestant perspective and the ensuing Protestant responses to the documents isn't something I've been able to find anywhere else.

Possible Joyful News for my Archdiocese

From the Dayton Latin Mass Community's Monthly Newsletter:

If this possibly works out we would have daily TLMs in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, at least in Dayton, and easier access to the Traditional forms of the sacraments. This is the next step from having Fr. Wojdelski drive from another diocese just for the weekend Masses and a step away from the FSSP being given their own parish here. Perhaps someday that may happen.. through the Grace of God and the intercession of Our Lady of Good Success.

Some Thoughts On The New Mass vs The TLM

I had the misfortune today, due to the weather, of attending a Novus Ordo Mass. This is a parish I used to frequent a lot so the normal abuses (only a few) and banal atmosphere (lack of images, bad music, etc.) where all expected.

For months I have soaked myself in the TLM and its prayers and structure. Basically I noticed two things about the Novus Ordo that really stood out because I haven’t been in so long.

First off I really had a chance to be reminded of why the prayers of the New Mass are watered down or altered in such a way that Catholic doctrine and the Catholic mindset is less emphasized. This is one of my main arguments against the New Mass which when presented to its defenders is either ignored or denied.

Second is the enormous amount of options that a priest can use in a New Mass; several Eucharistic prayers, several versions of the act of confession (like fusing it with the Kyrie), which way the priest faces, etc.

Afterward I began to think about the many options implanted into the New Mass and how these options mixed with the inferior prayer structure is harmful. These multiple options and the relaxation of forms, symbolisms and the watering down of prayers can help in hampering the sense of the sacred at Mass for all present and as a result we see a minimalistic thought process start to take affect.

Let me try to explain. At the Traditional Latin Mass there are no multiple options for major things either through physical actions or through prayers. For instance, which way the priest faces can make a large impact and of course using totality different Eucharistic prayers over the one that has been mostly used in the Western Church for over 1,000 years – that is using number 3 one week and number 4 the next or perhaps your parish uses number 2 all the time then you visit other parishes and they use different ones (I think you get the point).

The TLM is more consistent; this consistency in having very little options sends a message to the lay people. First it implicitly states that God never changes and doctrine never changes. Only that in reviewing the history of the Mass (including other properly developed rites which excludes the Novus Ordo) we see slow and organic development akin to how God slowly and organically does other things like cultivating a people together through multiple covenants to bring about the Christ or a development in several doctrines in the Church. Thus emphasis is placed on how God will take something and make it better through development instead of wildly going back and forth and making up things out of thin air (like through a committee for example).

The Traditional Latin Mass then reflects and aligns itself to the development of salvation history far better than the Novus Ordo and its development better parallels itself with the development of the Church and Her doctrines. Because it is of course born from the Church through Christ Himself and it will reflect the Church and God’s work through human history because it is after all the Sacrifice of Calvary brought to the present for the salvation of men.

Once a solid entity within the Church can be shaken, changed, and made so flexible it will help chip away at the great defenses the Church has built up to protect doctrines of faith and morals. Once flexibility, change and options are utilized in the Mass it will start to help effect some (if not most) of faithful’s perceptions about the Church. It will soak into their minds and they will more easily fall prey to developing a mindset that other things in the Church can be changed or made flexible or even optional. Other large factors of course play into the crisis of faith we are seeing today (such as ambiguity from Vatican II and other papal texts, weak bishops and popes, bad education, etc.) but in my opinion the New Mass has helped to lower the Church’s defenses in some way.

It also helps breed abuse; the more options, flexibility and watering down that is available the more people will perceive that what is happing is not as holy as they are suppose to perceive it to be. Once minimalism and laxity soak into a parish people will automatically be less respectful and revert at Mass.

An option to use a prayer or form that is emphasizes Catholic doctrine less over a better one will communicate to them that either option is equally fine – when in fact it is not – since both are Church approved. So rather than do one that helps to secure Catholic doctrine better they might do one that emphasizes it less. This permeates the mind to perceive that externals are not important. Thus when externals are not important a minimalistic approach is used. After all why do something more complicated? After all since externals are not that important we can have much more lay participation – we can dress more casually, we don’t have to genuflect, we don’t have to use incense, we can remove that pesky altar rail and receive standing, etc. etc.

If you don’t believe me then imagine a Novus Ordo Mass with no abuses but all the bad options. Let’s say the church building is as bear of images and sacred things that raises people’s minds and hearts to God as possible, they teach all to receive Christ standing and in the hand - thus most everyone does this, they use the most watered down and banal form of the NO as possible (the worst of the Eucharistic prayers, etc.) , no Latin at all, priest faces the people, tabernacle is off to the side in a chapel, altar girls, and of course the most dry and unsacred music that is legally possible.

Image all of this; let it soak into your mind (try not to get sick).

Now image a Novus Ordo with no abuses but all the best options. A church building with traditional images and structure, receiving on the tongue is encouraged, an altar rail is in place and people are encouraged to receive kneeling (for the sake of this comparison image people at this NO receiving on the tongue and kneeling), they use the best prayers possible (like Eucharistic prayer number 1, etc.), it is entirely in Latin, the priest does not face the people but symbolically faces God as if he is offering up a sacrifice and in reality facing Christ in the tabernacle which is placed front and center on the altar, altar boys and never altar girls, and finally the best chanting and sacred music you can find at a Mass.

These two Masses are perfectly legal in the Catholic Church but if you examine them it seems like both are expressing a similar but different religion.

With that kind of drastic difference what kind of message does this tell people? That God is less caring of the external actions, prayers, building structure, sacred images, music, etc. than the accomplishment of the Mass? When in fact to better grasp what the Mass is and to instill it the hearts and minds of the faithful the sacrifice of Calvary and the love of God these Traditional forums and options help to do this tremendously! Not to mention the fact that the superior forms and better prayers gives better worship, reverence and glory to God!

Such a drastic difference which can be used in saying the Mass in the “ordinary” form speaks volumes. Mix this with the ambiguity that has penetrated the Second Vatican Council on such issues as salvation outside the Church and the nature of the Church it can help stir up a crisis of faith. The Mass can be drastically changed and be filled with options – now doctrine is made cloudy and up for multiple interpretations. Mix this together and people can more easily fall into error about many things, thinking doctrine can change or “evolve” the way the Mass and seemly the whole attitude of the Church has done over the past 45+ years.

Some updates - FSSP in my Archdiocese, etc.

It has occurred to me that talks of establishing the FSSP in my Archdioceses as been revived. So I will retract any negative personal comments I may have made about Archbishop Pilarczyk.

We will wait and see what happens. If the FSSP is let in then that means someone had a change of heart or perhaps there was enough lay support for it.

Also I have not been posting much because I have been very busy and I have also not been feeling well for a while. Prayers are most appreciated.

TLM Surpressions

It is with no surprise that the TLM is being resisted by many bishops and even priests in some areas. For instance, the FSSP has been denied their own parish in my Archdiocese. They have more than once requested it. An FSSP priest will drive from their parish in Indian to Dayton and finally Cincinnati to say TLMs every week until finally returning to their parish in Indiana. They say the TLM magnificently and give the homilies that top any Novus Ordo priest I have ever heard in this area; even the conservative ones.

But their access has been denied and my sources tell me that there are two general reasons for this (as in perhaps not exactly these reasons but something similar). The first is the fact that Archbishop Pilarczyk does not want a full-time TLM parish(es) that could help spread the TLM’s appeal to priest and laity in the Archdiocese. Imagine a full-time Traditional Parish that does ALL the sacraments and Masses in the Traditional forms all the time – not just isolated times once per week. This could help spread these rites and uses. The next reason is that FSSP priest’s give such traditional homilies. Some of the ones I have heard were about the proper roles of men and women in work and family and other hot-button issues that would make liberals, moderates and even some neo-Catholics get riled up. It seems that this may be the second reason; the Archbishop does not like these things.

Couple this with the requirements that Archbishop Pilarczyk has put in place for a priest to say the TLM and his misinterpretations of some parts of the Motu Proprio (like for example I believe he interprets the “one such Mass may be said on Sunday” part into saying that only ONE TLM may be said per Sunday) and you have a sort of suppression of the Traditional rites in my Archdiocese.

The good news is that the Archbishop in close to retirement. Also it has been confirmed that the Holy Father does not like how some are reacting to his Motu Proprio and a Directive is going to be issued on the proper interpretation of Summorum Pontificum. This is what I have been hoping would happen for a while now. Hopefully this clarification will help to stop some bishops from suppressing it.

There are two surprising cases I have heard from all the reactions (not counting the positive ones like Bishops offering to say TLMs and implement it in seminaries). One is the case in Naples where a Bishop totally stopped a TLM form happening which he has no power to do because he would be disobeying a direct order from Pope. Should we declare him a schismatic? Or perhaps we should wait until he disobeys the Pope in the right way before that can happen.

The next is the case at the Franciscan University in Steubenville. Fr. Z has all the details. It appears that even with a 155 signatures the friars there have denied an on campus TLM but have instead offered transportation of students to the parish which can do it a few miles away.

Now why have the students take transportation there instead of having it on campus where they can walk to it? Think about it very carefully. Which situation would help spread the TLM more to the students there? Having them go in transportation that is provided or having it on campus where any curious student who perhaps didn’t have time to travel or even think about it could just walk right in and experience it for himself?

This is just another form of suppression; have the TLM off campus where students who cannot drive or have cars on campus must travel by someone else’s provided transpirations (and who knows if they will have enough transportation for everyone) instead of having it on campus where the curious and anyone else who is willing to give it a try can more easily access it. One poster commented that the University “bent over backwards” for 15 French students to give them a French Novus Ordo Mass. Why can’t they have a TLM on campus for everyone with a demand that 10 times exceeds the French Novus Ordo demand? Again, it appears that some people are trying everything they can to suppress this Mass – even in little ways.

The most absurd statement from this incident is that the Motu Proprio “does not apply to Catholic universities.” That’s insane. The plenary council of T.O.R friars who told them that is just making stuff up.

I always viewed FUS as neo-Catholic or even “Catholic-Charismatic” or some type of mixing of the two. In any case, from talking to people that go there, listening to the Radio and TV show they put out (which I cannot stand now) and just the overall feel and information that pours out of the University all seems to scream “we obey the Holy Father” in a way Athanasius the Blogger describes it; Papalatry. However I do not know what to make of them anymore.

Perhaps I am just ranting now because I am angry that the FSSP will no longer, at least for now, be in my archdiocese after the year is finished. It would seem to make sense to let the FSSP in because they could offer the TLM and train others to do so because they have the experience and the knowledge. This would help alleviate the Archbishop from trying to find priests and train priests (and servers I might add) for the sufficient demand we have here. But I guess that just makes too much sense; we can’t have common sense get in the way around here.

Ambiguity Series - Authoritative Testimony

I seem to be very busy right now. I will be formulating posts not about the "reforms" of the 1960s in the future just to let you know if you are getting sick of them by now. But since now is not the time I will give you some interesting information. Here is some testimony from people who either worked on the council documents, were experts at the council or theologians and/or clergy alike that attest to and confirm the ambiguity in the Second Vatican Council.

Notice this first one from the "main writer" of Lumen Gentium:

Bishop Gerard Philips of Louvain:

The phrase [LG 37a]. which begins "Like all Christians, the laity," is the example of a declaration that can be read with very different sentiments and interpreted in contradictory ways.

Gerard Philips, La Chiesa e il suo mistero nel Concilio Vaticano II - Storia, testo e commento della Constituzione Lumen Gentium (Milan: Jaca Book, 1975), pp. 13f.

Fr. Laurentin, a conciliar peritus, one of the best known chroniclers of Vatican II and journalist of La Croix:

In some difficult cases, solutions went only half way, or even less. Formulas were wisely calculated to leave the road open to opposing opinions. Hence a certain fluctuation [in the texts].

R. Laurentin, op. cit., p. 357

Msgr. Luigi Sartori, President of the Italian Theological Association, professor of theology, and consultant to the Secretariat for Non-Christians:

With Vatican II comes an end to the era of "cloistering," of the defensive belt, of the (esoteric)[sic] technical language, of uniformity. The Foundations have been laid for the catholicity of Church language. In order to attain that, Vatican II committed itself to the arduous work of achieving a synthesis that seemed impossible. In a large number of cases it was necessary to resort to compromise, as always happens with texts prepared in collegiality.

The difficulty in reading (Vatican II), the obstacle created by the evident promiscuity of language, find a clear explanation in the three reasons mentioned above..

....

Therefore, in the language of Vatican II one should expect a desired, intentional and conscious plurality.

The Council has preferred the imperfection of patched-up, worked over, incoherent, promiscous texts in spite of the initiating this attmept at achieving a suerior synthesis of diverse perspectives.

L. Sartori, "Il linguaggio del Vatican II." (Milan: Ancora, 1970)

Fr. Rene Laurentin again:

Another ambiguity went through the whole council itself: the one involving the word "pastoral." This adjective, launched by John XXIII, was a success... Its usage remained vague and pragmatic during the first session. But, beginning in the second session, some fell into the trap of understanding "pastoral" as unrelated to "doctrinal..

Rene Laurentin, L'enjeu et le bilan du Concile - Bilan de la quartrieme session (Paris: Seuil, 1966), pp. 359f.

Fr. Brian Harrison of Rome's Nepomucene College wrote:

It seems to me essential for the leaders of the Church to honestly recognize the ambiguities we have inherited from the Council. It frequently happened, in the council, that a traditional, orthodox proposal would be approved with modified language or placed in the footnotes because of the strong resistance from the liberals.

Brian Harrison, Se a trompa emite um som confuso..., in 30 Giorni (Portuguese edition), July 1989, p. 82)

Fr. Laurentin again on LG:

In some difficult cases, solutions went only half way, or even less. Formulas were wisely calculated to leave the road open to opposing opinions. Hence a certain fluctuation [in the texts].

R. Laurentin, op. cit., p. 357

Fr. Anton on LG:

If the post-conciliar Church does not show considerable progress in this participation of the laity in respective directive organs in the Church, one must also look for the cause of this doctrinal ambiguity of the council's decrees on important points of theology on the laity.

We find this ambiguity in the purely descriptive notion of lay person that Lumen Gentium left us...

A. Anton, op. cit., pp. 433f.

Guimaraes quoting Cardinal Bea:

He criticizes the presence of "improper terms joined with rather obscure expressions... The ambiguity," he adds, "derives from the effort to use classic Latin.."

Augistin Bea, "Comments on the 13th Schema in the Conciliar Assembly." in Giovanni Caprile, "Il Concilio Vaticano II" (Rome: La Civilta Cattolica, 1969), vol. V, p. 70

Archbishop of Palmero at the time, Cardinal Ruffini writing on the XIII Schema:

..it contains several expressions so obscure and confusing as to become unintelligible and presents, furthermore, some rather inexact, not to say false statements!

Ernesto Ruffini, "Comments on the 13 Schema in the Conciliar Assembly," vol. V, p.74

Cardinal Henriquez:

The expression, "Pastoral Constitution," should be suppressed because it is ambiguous

Raul Silva Henriques, "Comments on the 13th Schema in the Conciliar Assembly," vol. V, p. 69

Fr. Henri de Lubac, S.J., conciliar expert honored and made Cardinal in 1983:

The title of the first part (GS), even more so in French than in Latin, has an ambiguous tone, and undoubtedly this ambiguity was necessary in order to enable it to cover the whole field of the explanation.

Henri de Lubac, Atheisme et sens de l'homme - Une double requete de "Gaudium et Spes" )Paris: Cerf, 1968), p. 92

Fr. Laurentin on GS wrote:

..ambiguity was cultivated as an escape from inextricable oppositions. One could lengthen the list of such wordings encompassing opposing tendencies, because they could be looked at from both sides just like those photographic tricks whereby you see two different people in the same picture depending on the angle you look at it. For this reason, Vatican II already has given, and will continue to give rise to many controversies.

R. Laurentin, op. cit., p. 357

All of these I extracted from the book In the Murky Waters of Vatican II which I provided their references to the quoted material as well.

More Protestant Reaction

If you recall, one of my early posts was about Protestant reaction to the New Mass. That post set out to demonstrate how Catholic doctrine was blurred or watered down in the New Mass by showing positive protestant reaction to it.

RORATE CÆLI recently posted some negative reaction of Italian protestants. To what? Well to the motu proprio and the semi-clarification the Vatican gave over “subsist est.”

Here is the translated portion RORATE CÆLI provides:

"-considering the ecumenical situation created following the recent motu proprio entitled Summorum Pontificum, of Benedict XVI, which has restored the position of the Latin Mass according to the Roman Missal of Pius V (1570), characterized by the denial of all that the Reformation had affirmed on the matter of the renewal of public Christian worship, and the document entitled Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the doctrine on the Church...of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith , in which, among other things, it is affirmed that the only Church of Christ 'subsists exclusively in the one Catholic Church' of Rome and that the churches born out of the Reformation of the 16th century 'cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called 'Churches' in the proper sense'."...

"-We thank God for having liberated us, for eight centuries as Valdensians and for five centuries as Protestants, from submission to the Roman Pontiff, whom we recognize as a brother in Christ, but not as a teacher of the faith, realizing additionally, once again, that the Papacy and the Roman Curia are today, as in the 16th century, an obstacle to Christian unity"...

This just speaks volumes. It shows that these particular protestants preferred the New Mass to the Classical Rite and ambiguity that surrounded “subsistit in” instead of clear affirmation that protestants where not apart of the Church.

Their reasons are not to surprising. They saw the watering down of the Mass and the ambiguity that gave rise to their false interpretations as either a positive affirmation of their beliefs or something they might consider not quite perfect but a step in the right direction (their direction obviously). They even compare the recent documents to the Catholic counter-“reformation." Meaning that they view it as countering a protestant concept; which according to them these concepts would be the New Mass and their erroneous interpretation of “subsistit in.”

And notice at the end it speaks of Rome hampering Christian unity through all of this. It appears that these protestants view ecumenism as some kind of mere brotherly unity instead of conversion to the Catholic Church.

This all too well further demonstrates the ambiguity that resides in the council texts and to a certain extent the reforms that followed.

Medjugorje

I generally did not get into any analysis of Medjugorje in the past. I kept an open mind and even known people who have went and they communicated to me their positive experiences. However a while ago I ran across a book written by Michael Davies, who has been deceased for a few years now, on Medjugorje. It has basically pushed me from neutrality into rejection of it. It is a free book you can download at Davies’ Medjugorje page.

Mr. Davies references very well in fact he had access to the official documents of the Diocese of Moster-Duvno:

Michael's wife Marija, who is Croatian, and his son Adrian, who is bi-lingual, have given him considerable help by translating material from the original Croatian, and the two bishops of the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno during the past twenty-years have made all the necessary official documentation available to him.

Essentially the book demonstrates lies, contradicts, and scandalous activities from the seers as well as the mixed fruit.

Here is a long expert from the book:

22 June 1997
What Kind of "Fruits" are These?


A very important statement on Medjugorje was published by the Catholic Information Agency in Zagreb on 22 June 1997. It documents the extent to which the Franciscans in Herzegovina are now beyond the control of the legitimate Church authorities. I was informed in Rome in 1996, at a very high level, that no progress is being made on the matter of Medjugorje because the Franciscans, who control the alleged seers, refuse any co-operation. It is hard to imagine how any Catholic could believe that Our Lady is involved with the litany of disobedience related by Don Ante Laburic, chancellor of the diocese of Mostar, who has summed up the situation perfectly by stating: "Medjugorje has become a place of religious disorder, disobedience, and anti-ecclesial activity." The full text of his statement follows.

On 14 May three bishops from Uganda came to visit Medjugorje and from there went to visit Bishop Ratko Peric of Mostar (their former classmate from Rome) in order to inquire on the local Church's position on the so-called events of Medjugorje. The undersigned was also present. The bishop gave his former classmates some documents, which clearly show that from 1981 to 1991, three qualified commissions in the service of the local bishop and the bishops' conference have investigated the events. Ten years ago, in 1987, Bishop Pavao Zanic, formally and officially declared that, in the parish of Medjugorje, the Madonna had not appeared to anyone. In 1991, the bishops' conference did not only declare that the apparitions were not authentic, but also stressed that: "It is impossible to confirm that the events involve supernatural apparitions or revelations at all." From 1981 onward, "messages of peace" have been sent out to the world from Medjugorje. Yet in our local Church these messages include the following "fruits":

—The administration of the Franciscan province of Herzegovina, which was punished in 1976, has, from 1982, been given the further penalty of being at the level of ad instar, due to its unwillingness to implement the decisions of the Holy See regarding pastoral services in some of the parishes of the diocese of Mostar-Duvno.

—Many churches have been built by the Franciscans through the help of the faithful and the benefactors, which they blessed themselves, without even informing the local bishop, which goes against canon law and the charisma of St. Francis. A church in the parish, Ljuti Dolac, was blessed this way on 23 April of this year. In Medjugorje itself, many ecclesiastical buildings have been erected without any permission from the proper Church authorities.

—More than ten Franciscan priests do not have canonical faculties to hear confessions in the diocese of Herzegovina. Some due to their own fault, while others, due to the fault of their religious community which is not fulfilling the papal decree.

—More than 40 Franciscans have not received the necessary faculties to work pastorally in Herzegovina, yet they do not even bother with the decisions of the legal Church authorities. Some of them are currently in Medjugorje.

—Many religious communities are living and working in the parish of Medjugorje without the permission of Church authorities, such as: "Beatitudes," "Kraljice mira, potpuno tvoji," "Cenacolo," "Oasi di pace," and "Franjevke pomocnice svecnika." Hence, Medjugorje has become a place of religious disorder, disobedience and anti-ecclesiastical activity.

—Last year, some "Catholic faithful," with the knowledge of the Franciscans, built a brick wall over the entrance doors of the church in Capljina and the cathedral's affiliated church in Miljkovici. Two Franciscans who are without canonical faculties for the parish of Capijina, are currently working in the enclosed church. Everything they are doing is unlawful and the marriages performed there are invalid!

—Some of the Franciscans in Mostar are ignoring the legally established cathedral church and the other four diocesan parishes in Mostar dedicated to the four evangelists, while they continue to organize religious services with the people on their own, against the specific decisions of the Holy See and the head of the Franciscan Order.

—The Provincial ad-instar has, on many occasions, warned his brothers in writing, that serious measures of the Franciscans’ General Administration are being considered for the entire province due to their disobedience,

—In Medjugorje, the periodical Glas mira and "Press Bulletin" are published without the necessary permission from Church authorities. These same periodicals proclaim the "authenticity of the apparitions" and speak of the "shrine"—even though no responsible Church statement has ever claimed "authenticity" or proclaimed any "shrine."

—The counter-Church organization "Mir j dobro" (Pax et bonum) was allowed to borrow the shield and motto of the Franciscans, who have not distanced themselves from their group's illegal activities, even when this was asked of them.

—Hence, these are some of the "fruits" of those who are using Medjugorje to "sell shady peace" to the world, and who have hardened themselves in their disobedience towards the Holy See and the Franciscan charisma.

—On May 15, there appeared a dispatch from Medjugorje in Slobodna Dalmacija, regarding the Ugandan Bishops, whereby the "seer," Ivan Dragicevic, transmitted the Madonna's message, who on that occasion, said that she is "very pleased that the bishops are in Medjugorje." Ivan had been in the seminary in Visoko during 1981-1982. The commission investigating the "apparitions" questioned him once in Visoko. On 9 May 1982, he wrote: "A sign shall occur in June." Nothing happened in June!

—Later on, he was expelled from Visoko due to poor grades. He continued on in Dubrovnik from 1982-83. During his two-year stay in the seminary, he said that he was seeing the Madonna and that she told him that he would be a priest. Yet he was expelled from Dubrovnik for poor grades. In 1994, he found the former Miss Massachusetts, Loreen Murphy, whom he married in Boston (Slobodna Dalmacija, 9 November 1994). On the day of the wedding, the groom "had an apparition" in Massachusetts. The Madonna seems to be following him around the world as with some of the other "seers" of Medjugorje. Now he presents the Blessed Virgin Mary as being "very pleased that bishops are in Medjugorje." This type of "message" is not only a clear advertisement for Medjugorje, but a simple invention aimed at making the naive "avert their ears from the truth and turn to extravagant tales" (2 Tim 4:4).

Don Ante Luburic, Chancellor
Mostar, 16 May 1997.

(Michael Davies, Medjugorje after Twenty-One Years, pages 94-96)

The whole book is online and you can find it by clicking here.

Canonizing John Paul II

Our pal Athanasius has an excellent piece about why John Paul II should not be canonized. He writes this piece around some of the information he has already stated in past blog posts regards to JPII's actions, etc. which can be found on the right side of his blog by scrolling way down. It is not one of those “100 heresies” of JPII type of articles that sedevacantists like to put out, it is a very fair article without malice that demonstrates both positives and negatives. I highly recommend it. You can read it by clicking here.

Hello

Instead of my usual random disappearances without any explanation I actually have a reason for not posting. It was the beginning of the school year so I was very busy. So now let's see how long I'll go on consistently posting this time around...

Salvation Outside..

If you ever looked deep into the issue of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus or Outside the Church there is No Salvation you will find a lot of debate surrounding it. You maybe even sick of it by now, but I have found that some people who formulate this issue do it in a way that can lead to confusion. Why? Because they are explaining it using “Vatican II language;” that is to say language similar to or verbatim with Vatican II documents and post-conciliar documents that reference Vatican II like the new Catechism.

First let us read the new Catechism’s explanation of Salvation ”outside” the Church:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Notice first the part. “Re-formulated positively” as if the past ones were formulated negatively? That phrase always seemed strange to me. Just thought I take the time to point it out.

Can one reformulate “no salvation outside the Church” into “salvation comes from Christ through the Church?” The problem seems to be that this reformulation is not specific enough. The previous formulation indicates that you must be inside the Church; you must be Catholic. The new one appears to read as if salvation merely flows from the Church and reads as if you do not need to be Catholic but yet can receive salvation because it emanates from the Church to you. Perhaps I am overanalyzing this, that could be. Let’s keep going though to read the rest of the paragraph instead of picking on the first part:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

This seems decent. Although I would have the word “faith” more explicitly defined. This paragraph, which is quoting Vatican II, should explain what true faith is.

The council of Trent declares that the only faith pleasing to God is Supernatural Faith. And this Supernatural Faith is the Catholic Faith – all of the Dogmas etc.

That is why faith – Supernatural Faith – is necessary.

It would also probably be better to include an explanation about how men can lose their chance at salvation if they go against natural law (the law written on their hearts which they are accountable for) and commit mortal sins.

Leaving out these two bits of information is not a wise move in my opinion; it is throwing away clear and concise terminology and explanations that are crucial in understanding this issue.

Let’s move on to the next two paragraphs:

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

848 is the key to unraveling the ambiguity here. Notice in 847 a very important and crucial piece of information is left out, namely that those outside the Church who may be saved must be incorporated in the Church before they die, even in ways only known to God. In other words they would become Catholic.

But the referenced Vatican II document in paragraph 847, Lumen Gentium, does not indicate this. What you have to do now is go to another separate Vatican II document, Ad Gentes, and go to section 7.

Even then it’s still ambiguous!

AG, which paragraph 848 references, speaks of God leading those to the faith “which is impossible to please Him” with. The reference is Hebrews 11:6 which states: “And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.”

Even with this reference, what true faith is remains muddled. If LG or AG would just include the Council of Trent’s explanation on what faith is, which I have explained above, this would be a whole lot easier.

Instead what we have here is no explicit explanation of what faith is in either document and in LG no explicit explanation that these people must be incorporated into the Church before they die even in ways only known to God.

But if we look deep (which is what this post is about) you can probably see by now how to unlock the mystery. 848 states that God can lead these people to “faith,” we know now that “faith” is Supernatural Faith which the Catholic faith. Therefore Vatican II is saying, although not explicitly and after a lot of digging through the ambiguity, that people outside the Church – if they are saved – would be incorporated into the Church in some way.

I hope this all makes sense, because I tried to reconcile the council with Tradition here and attempted to strike at dissenters that hijack these passages and misinterpret it.

But why must one jump to the middle of an entirely different Vatican II document to gain context on this issue? Even then there is no explicit explanation of what faith is and one must shake from their mind the protestant concept of faith which has been hammered into us all, and go to another non-Vatican II source to finally understand it all. Sounds like a pain if you ask me and it could all be avoided if clear and concise definitions were used and placed in the right areas.

This leads me to another gripe I have. I constantly witness on Catholic radio or other Catholic publications the same formula for the possibly of salvation of those outside the Church the way Vatican II explains it.

For example, last Friday Colin Donovan on EWTN’s Open Line did a great job of explaining this issue BUT he left the part out about how a person must be incorporated in the Church in ways only known to God in order for them to be saved. He listed all the regular norms such as culpability, following the dictates of conscience, invincible ignorance, etc. but left this one piece of information out. He in essence left the formula ambiguous. I can easily interpret his explanation to mean that a man can be saved without the Church because he fulfills all of these prerequisites. Careful formulation and caution must be used especially in these horrible times of ours.