Biblical Foundations of the Primacy of St. Peter

This post is essentially a digging up of past information I used to employ against anyone who doubted the primacy of St. Peter. Basically I quote authors and Catholic apologists. One you might recognize, for example, is Dave Armstrong. He and I would not see eye to eye on Traditionalist matters (inferiority of the new Mass, ambiguity in Vatican II, JPII should not be canonized due to his scandals, etc.) but he does an excellent job in apologetics against non-Catholics.

I put this one together because someone I know needed the relevant information. I have however taken it a step further.

The question was about St. Peter being called “rock” and its context within the Greek and Aramaic. Hopefully I have enough information here to cover that. For the sake of the Primacy of St. Peter though I have included information about the “keys” Christ gives to St. Peter and some info on binding, loosing, and a few other things. In my opinion an argument from the Keys is just as strong as from the Rock.

You’ll see what I mean. I will post snippets that will hopefully help. Most of the quotes have the original links if anyone wants to read them in context.

The Rock

First, let’s take a look at what “Rock” means.

From Catholic Answers:

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).

Link

From Tim Staples in Envoy Magazine, this one is written in a format as if one was actually debating another person:

"Well, what would you say if I told you that even Protestant Greek scholars like D.A. Carson and Joseph Thayer admit there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra in the Koine Greek of the New Testament? [Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996), 507; D.A. Carson, "Matthew," in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), vol. 8, 368.] As you pointed out, petra means a 'rock.' It even usually means a 'large rock.' And that's exactly what petros means, too — large rock. It does not mean 'pebble' or 'small stone,' as you've been told. The Greek word for 'pebble' or 'small stone' is lithos, not petros.

"In Matthew 4:3," you continue, "the devil cajoles Jesus to perform a miracle and transform some stones, lithoi, the Greek plural for lithos, into bread. In John 10:31, certain Jews pick up stones, lithoi, to stone Jesus with. In 1 Peter 2:5, St. Peter describes Christians as 'living stones,' lithoi, which form a spiritual house. If St. Matthew had wanted to draw a distinction between a big rock and a little rock in Matthew 16:17-19, he could have by using lithos, but he didn't. The rock is St. Peter!"

Link

Tim Staples again:

[Matthew 16 -

8 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.]


"notice Matthew used the demonstrative pronoun taute, which means 'this very,' when he referred to the rock on which the Church would be built: 'You are Peter, and on taute petra,' this very rock, 'I will build My Church.'

"Also, when a demonstrative pronoun is used with the Greek word for 'and,' which is 'kai,' the pronoun refers back to the preceding noun. In other words, when Jesus says, 'You are rock, and on this rock I will build My Church,' the second rock He refers to has to be the same rock as the first one. Peter is the rock in both cases.

"Jesus could have gotten around it if He'd wanted to. He didn't have to say, 'And,' kai, 'on this rock I will build My Church.' He could've said, 'But,' alla, 'on this rock I will build My Church,' meaning another rock. He would have then had to explain who or what this other rock was. But He didn't do that."

Link

That should do it. I think I covered what Rock actually means.

The Power of the Keys

But now let’s take a look at the Keys. The Keys are one of the strongest arguments for the Papacy. It entails both singular authority and stewardship (or being like a prime minister in the Kingdom of God).

Dave Armstrong writes:

"The power of the "keys," in the Hebrew mind, had to do with administrative authority and ecclesiastical discipline, and, in a broad sense, might be thought to encompass the use of excommunication, penitential decrees, a barring from the sacraments and lesser censures, and legislative and executive functions. Like the name Rock, this privilege was bestowed only upon St. Peter and no other disciple or Apostle. He was to become God's "vice-regent," so to speak. In the Old Testament, a steward was a man over a house (Genesis 43:19, 44:4, 1 Kings 4:6, 16:9, 18:3, 2 Kings 10:5 15:5 18:18, Isaiah 22:15). The steward was also called a "governor" in the Old Testament and has been described by commentators as a type of "prime minister."

In the New Testament, the two words often translated as "steward" are oikonomos (Luke 16:2-3, 1 Corinthians 4:1-2, Titus 1:7, 1 Peter 4:10), and epitropos (Matthew 20:8, Galatians 4:2). Several

Protestant commentaries and dictionaries take the position that Christ is clearly hearkening back to Isaiah 22:15-22 when He makes this pronouncement, and that it has something to do with delegated authority in the Church He is establishing (in the same context). He applies the same language to Himself in Revelation 3:7 (cf. Job 12:14), so that his commission to Peter may be interpreted as an assignment of powers to the recipient in His stead, as a sort of authoritative representative or ambassador.

The "opening" and "shutting" (in Isaiah 22:2) appear to refer to a jurisdictional power which no one but the king (in the ancient kingdom of Judah) could override. Literally, it refers to the prime minister's prerogative to deny or allow entry to the palace, and access to the king. In Isaiah's time, this office was over three hundred years old, and is thought to have been derived by Solomon from the Egyptian model of palace functionary, or the Pharaoh's "vizier," who was second in command after the Pharaoh. This was exactly the office granted to Joseph in Egypt (Genesis 41:40-44, 45:8).

One can confidently conclude, therefore, that when Old Testament usage and the culture of the hearers is closely examined, the phrase keys of the kingdom of heaven must have great significance (for Peter and for the papacy) indeed, all the more so since Christ granted this honor only to St. Peter"..

Link

Armstrong again (quoting authors to boot):

One can confidently conclude, therefore, that when Old Testament usage and the culture of the hearers is closely examined, the phrase keys of the kingdom of heaven must have great significance (for Peter and for the papacy) indeed, all the more so since Christ granted this honor only to St. Peter. The following commentary is all from Protestant scholars, with the exception of the final two selections:

[The steward is] the king's friend, or principal officer of the court (1 Kings 4:5; 18:3; 1 Chronicles 27:33, the king's counsellor) . . .

Keys are carried sometimes in the East hanging from the kerchief on the shoulder. But the phrase is rather figurative for sustaining the government on one's shoulders. Eliakim, as his name implies, is here plainly a type of the God-man Christ, the son of "David," of whom Isaiah (ch. 9:6) uses the same language as the former clause of this verse [and the government will be upon his shoulder].

(Jamieson, Robert, Andrew R. Fausset & David Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1961 [orig. 1864; Fausset and Brown were Anglicans, Brown Presbyterian], 536 -- on Isaiah 22:15,22)



In the . . . exercise of the power of the keys, in ecclesiastical discipline, the thought is of administrative authority (Is 22:22) with regard to the requirements of the household of faith. The use of censures, excommunication, and absolution is committed to the Church in every age, to be used under the guidance of the Spirit . . .
So Peter, in T.W. Manson's words, is to be 'God's vicegerent . . . The authority of Peter is an authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community. His decisions will be confirmed by God'

(The Sayings of Jesus, 1954, p.205).

(New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1018)

Link

Bertrand Conway writes:

The symbol of the keys, in the East, always implied power and authority, and the giving of the keys the transfer of that authority. Even in our day when we wish to honor a visitor of prominence we give him the keys of the city . . .

'The gift of the keys,' writes Lagrange, 'is, therefore, an investiture of power over all the house. The owner still keeps the sovereign power, but delegates its exercise to a major-domo . . . Christ has the keys of David (Rev 3:7); He gives St. Peter the keys. St. Peter's authority, therefore, is the authority of Jesus, which He ratifies in heaven' (Evangile selon S. Matthieu, 328).

(Bertrand Conway, The Question Box, NY: Paulist Press, 1929, 146)

Binding and Loosing

Here is some context on binding and loosing which was also given to St. Peter in Matthew 18. David Palm writes (I can’t seem to find a source for this quote anymore):

In rabbinic usage the terms [bind and loose] mean ‘to forbid’ and ‘to permit’ with reference to interpretation of the law, and secondarily ‘to condemn’ or ‘place under the ban’ and ‘to acquit.'

Of course the authority to bind and loose (but not the keys) is also given to the other Apostles in Matt 18:18. But the context of Matt 18:18 suggests that disciplinary matters are in view and thus (to bring it into modern parlance) the local authority of a bishop in his diocese. The lack of the keys is conspicuous. In Matt 16:19, however, the mention of the keys, with their dynastic and official connotations, suggests plenary authority to bind and loose.

A. C. Myers, ed. Eerdmans Bible Dictionary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987], 158

...

The biblical foundation of papal infallibility, then, boils down to this. An office of "steward" or prime minister was devolved upon St. Peter and his successors. The authority attached to this office is characterized by the authority to "bind and loose" that is, "to determine the rules for doctrine and life (by virtue of revelation and the subsequent leading of the Spirit; Jn 16:13) and to demand obedience from the Church, reflecting the authority of the royal chamberlain or vizier in the Old Testament." This is a plenary authority given separately to the "steward" which suggests that it can be exercised independently of the other "ministers" of the Kingdom. Heaven itself will ratify these solemn decisions made by the steward of the King ("will be bound in heaven...will be loosed in heaven"). It follows, then, that the Lord would not allow a successor of St. Peter to make a solemn decision, binding on the entire people of God, that was in error, else the entire Church would be led into error, violating the promises of our Lord to protect His Church from error.

“Feed My Sheep”

St. Peter was told to "feed my sheep:"

Gospel of St. John 21 –

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." 16 A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.

Commentary:

The commands in John 21:15-17 use two Greek verbs for ‘feed’ in the sequence: boskein, poimainein, boskein . . . poimainein covers a somewhat broader field of meaning, for it describes not only feeding the flock, but also guarding and guiding them; equivalently it can mean ‘to rule, govern.’ (II Sam 7:7; Ps 2:9; Matt 2:6). Note the distinction in Philo , Quod deterius VIII 25: ‘Those who feed [boskein] supply nourishment. . . but those who tend [poimainein] have the powers of rulers and governors.

{R. E. Brown, K. P. Donfried, and J. Reumann, eds., Peter in the New Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1973), 142-3}

St. Peter Singled Out to Strengthen His Brethren

Gospel of St. Luke 22 –

31 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

What the word “first” entails when it’s used in referring to St. Peter

Matthew 10- 2 The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb'edee, and John his brother

A commentary on the word “first:”

“Whenever the Apostles are enumerated in the Gospels, St. Peter is invariably named first. St. Matthew expressly calls him ‘the first’ (x. 2), the same Greek word (protos) being rendered ‘chief’ in chapter 20:27, and other passages. Mr. Allies remarks: ‘Now, that second and third do not follow, shows that “first” is not a numeral here, but designates rank and pre-eminence. Thus in heathen authors the word “first” by itself indicates the more excellent in its kind: thus in the Septuagint occur, “first friend of the king,” “first of the singers,” “the first priest,” i.e. the chief priest (Nethem. Xii. 46; 2 Chron. Xxvi. 20). So Our Lord: “Whichever among you will be first” (Matt. Xx. 27); “Bring forth the first robe” (Luke xv. 22); and St. Paul: “sinners, of whom I am first,” i.e., chief (1 Tim. 1. 15) Thus “the first of the Island” (Acts xxviii. 7), means the chief magistrate; and “first” generally, in Latin phraseology, the superior or prince.’ –St. Peter, His Name and Office, p. 95, 2d. edit.”

Charles F.B. Allnatt, ed., Cathedra Petri—The Titles of Prerogatives of St. Peter, (London: Burns & Oates, 1879). 47.

Ambiguity Series - Problems with Unitatis Redintegratio

In this post I will try to, albeit at an amateur level, point out the specific problems in the Vatican II document Unitatis Redintegratio (decree on Ecumenism), namely the ambiguities and questionable instances. Here we will see how the liberals have managed to “highjack” the true meaning of ecumenism through their own errors and exploitations of Vatican II’s weaknesses. I will also post some good parts of UR near the end.

Keep in mind that the translation I use is straight from the Vatican’s website and is most likely done by the ICEL. Essentially then some criticisms of the document could be moot because of a simple translation problem. I would be happy to correct any such instances if they come to my attention.

To start off I would say there are generally three types of ecumenism.

Let us examine how Pope Pius XI talks about the first type, which is true ecumenism. Pius XI statements are in the wake of a phenomenon that was happening in even his time, that of the protestant ecumenical movement. Here he states in a clear and concise manner what ecumenism for Catholics mean:

“...the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it..

it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head...

in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.

Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is "the root and womb whence the Church of God springs," not with the intention and the hope that "the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government...

Let them hear Lactantius crying out: ]The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind.'”

Mortalium Animos

However Modern day ecumenism is ambiguous and varying. There appears to be several errors and/or wrong ways that have been adopted when engaging in ecumenism. One person that surprises me the most is Cardinal Kasper. Why? Because he is the head of the Pontifical Council of Christian Unity – a John Paul II appointment by the way. Kasper adheres to the second type of ecumenism – false ecumenism:

“Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.”

Kasper is, of all people, the head of a commission that would seek (according to orthodox interpretations) the return of Christians to the Catholic Church as converts. Now compare the two statements - one from Pius XI and one from Kasper. There are two things here.

First he justifies this so-called “change” by falling back on the same old liberal Catholic excuse; Vatican II. Again I will stress – should a modern day council be able to be so twisted and manipulated like Vatican II? Of course not. It once again proves the ambiguity in this council. Can Kasper take Mortalium Animos and do the same thing? No, because it’s very clear.

Second, he displays his Modernism by stating that “we no longer understand” as if to say the previous understanding has been changed. Classic Modernism declares an evolution in doctrine. Kasper, while obviously not a full blown Modernist, displays Modernistic tendencies within this statement.

Back on topic. The third kind of ecumenism is “ambiguous ecumenism.” This kind is usually practiced by modern prelates and Popes (John Paul II) who unlike Kasper do not explicitly say that a return is not necessary. However in their ecumenical meetings they do not explicitly evangelize those into the faith like the Apostles did. Therefore we have an ambiguous middle ground so to speak. One that purposes that being nice and showing people how friendly and willing to dialogue with them (comparing how similar we are to them etc.) will somehow compel them to convert even though no explicit mention of the necessity to be Catholic is made.

But again back to Vatican II. Let’s examine the problems with Unitatis Redintegratio. The first paragraph could be considered a minor point but I would like to draw out attention to it regardless:

“The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided. Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.”

The Council stops sort of saying that the one true Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. Why leave this out? Instead we have a paragraph that can be interpreted by orthodox Catholics and protestants to mean different things precisely because a few words are left out.

A protestant can admit that Christ founded one Church and could admit that it is visible. They could further interpret “but differ I mind” to be several things. The paragraphs hints that all Christians should be of one mind. Catholics would say “yes, this means doctrine and discipline” but a protestant could say “this means that we must dialogue with each other and form common ground, slowly removing things that separate us as nonessential.” In other words Rome can drop doctrines or declare them superfluous for the sake of unity.

The problem would be then defining the nature of the Church and salvation? Probably. Unitatis Redintegratio gives us a hint to where it is placing the interpretation of what the Church is first of all and gives us insights on salvation and membership to the Mystical Body of Christ.

First let us explore the issue of the nature of the Church as UR tries to put together. In doing this is harkens back to a Vatican II document that was released on the same day:

“The Sacred Council gladly notes all this. It has already declared its teaching on the Church, and now, moved by a desire for the restoration of unity among all the followers of Christ, it wishes to set before all Catholics the ways and means by which they too can respond to this grace and to this divine call.”

The “already declared teaching” was in reference to Lumen Gentium and its famous ambiguity “the Church of Christ… subsists in the Catholic Church.” Where instead of clearly stating that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church it ambiguously uses the word “subsists.” Although proper interpretation can render an orthodox conclusion the word in itself is not a good choice. No one would say “Christ subsists in the Eucharistic” as if to indicate that Christ is within something – like the bread and whine (hence He is subsisting in it). Rather one would say that Christ is the Eucharist.

However LG, shortly after the “susbsits in” states quite clearly (I’ll give the whole thing for context):

“This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.”

What we examine here is that the thrust of ecumenism should be “catholic unity.” This is a good statement and we would read this as the return of heretics and schismatics into the Church. However its orthodox interpretation can be destroyed if someone uses the ambiguity contained in the paragraph and in Unitatis Redintegratio (which we’ll get to shortly). Again the “subsists in” and “many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure” are the culprits.

An erroneous conclusion would be thus: “Subsists in,” as explained above, has been twisted to mean that the Church of Christ can “subsist” elsewhere and as far as LG goes it uses the succeeding sentence to further justify this claim. Since sanctifying elements (which belong to the Church as the text states) exist outside the “visible” boundaries that must mean the Church can subsist – in an invisible way – with protestants who utilize these elements for sanctification processes.

This is very loaded. We know that the idea of an invisible Church has been condemned. We also know that protestants do indeed, by accident, use sanctifying elements that belong to the Church. I am thinking of infant Baptism here as an example. What is incorrect is that the Church would subsist within these other sects and groups as if it were really an invisible entity that more fully manifests itself in the Catholic Church compared to let’s say the Lutheran Church down the road.

But what about “impelling towards catholic unity?” This one is obviously harder for the liberal to twist. However his foundation rests upon what was discussed above. So then “catholic unity” could mean anything since the Church only “subsists” in the Catholic Church and apparently can be found elsewhere. “Catholic unity” then, according to the liberal Catholics could be merely a unity between lets say the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod and Rome in terms of several declarations of common beliefs, working together on social issues, and ecumenical worship gatherings; eventually possibly leading to each church dropping certain nonessential doctrines and disciplines in favor of a more deeper unity. They would be viewed as “being in union” with Rome because of all the undertakings that were and are currently being employed.

Again, I know there is an orthodox way to interpret the paragraph in LG and I am not saying that it is declaring error – I am just showing how liberals can use the ambiguity to twist and distort Catholic teaching.

Further, if anyone says that I am over doing it and the text is perfectly fine just see how changing a few words or adding a sentence or two clears up everything;

“This is the one Church of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church, which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, is the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found and implement These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.”

Notice how “subsists” is changed to “is,” how some parts that stated “Church of Christ” (a continued ambiguity) was changed to “Catholic Church,” and how “unity” was removed in favor of “return of all Christians to the Catholic Church herself” for a clear indication of what ecumenism really is. Ask yourself why it was so hard for theologians and bishops at the council not to render it this clearly and yet someone like me (or even you perhaps – I’ve seen lots of people interpret hard parts of the council in a traditional way) who is not formally trained nor is in a position of authority has rewritten the paragraph to be more concise. And no, that’s not boasting, rather I’m trying to point out how ridiculous it is.


So already the foundation is ambiguous. However, going back to UR, we actually see some pretty good statements in there that appear quite clear. Their clarity however is destroyed by the other more problematic statements in UR and of course LG as I explained above.


But before we go to the better of UR let’s finally see what is really the problem contained in this document.

UR 3 reads:

“The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection.”

The problem here is calling people outside the Church “brothers” or “sisters” because this would imply that they are apart of the “family” or rather the Body of Christ which they are not. Now of course if a protestant sect performs a valid baptism on an infant then the infant would be a member of the Church. However the text states that these people are at the same time “separated” and “brothers.” This makes no sense. As for the last part, we would generally see Christian dominations and have some kind of “respect and affection” for the things they hold to be true that are true but at the same time we would have contempt and shun the errors they adhere to as well. Neglecting to mention how the Catholic Church is also displeased with their errors leaves a doorway for a liberal to say “see the council says we have respect and affection for other Christians, stop trying to convert them” or something to that effect.

“For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.”

This is one of the bigger UR oddities. It declares that people outside the Church, through a valid baptism are in an imperfect communion. A valid baptism puts a permanent mark on the soul – whether a protestant or Catholic does it. It has been speculated on what kind of degree that a protestant may truly belong to the Church who has received a valid baptism. Obviously an infant up until somewhere beyond the age of reason is a member of the Church. However the adult protestant who receives a valid baptism is another story. He could possibly be joined to the Church at that moment but a conscious denial of the Church just minutes later could kill that. Or the baptism could just leave a mark since he is already in a state above the age of reason and consciously rejects the Church. Then of course there is the problem of ignorance, culpability, etc.

It is all very speculative. However UR doesn’t try to differentiate between various protestants and their beliefs; explicitly denying the Church or the person’s state. It rather says ALL who believe in Christ and who have received a valid baptism. We know it’s not “all.” A protestant who explicitly rejects the Church is not in any type of communion because they are not members of the Body of Christ. “But it says ‘imperfect.’” Again, ambiguous. What does that even mean? Could it mean that infant in a protestant Church who has received a valid baptism and is apart of the Church but is not an enrolled member of a parish? Could it mean that because a protestant has the mark of baptism on his soul he is in imperfect communion? Most people say that both are true especially the latter.

Simply having the mark of baptism does not mean that they are “in communion though imperfect.” If you are not in communion you are not in communion. “Imperfect communion” is another ambiguity that anyone can twist to mean several things. If it actually means “not in communion” then why render it “imperfect communion” as if to indicate some kind of partial communion – as if to say that they are 50% joined to Christ? Having the mark rather means that they are in “potential communion” and this is how I read “imperfect communion.” They share in many similar doctrines and have the mark of baptism – hence they are closer than many other and potentially can become in real communion.

Once again this part of UR is a joy to liberals because they can take it, based on the foundations of LG and the other parts of UR (that I am about to get to) and twist it to their liking.

“The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles.”

A small point to mention; what is the “ecumenical movement?” Because the protestant version, which started way before Vatican II, certainly does not say “he let’s all come together and return to the Catholic Church.” And how could a liberal interpret “overcoming” the obstacles of doctrine, discipline and structure of the Church? Through constant dialogue to where each side submits to each other to the point where certain articles of doctrine and discipline is made unnecessary?

“But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”

This is perhaps the most damaging and hardest text to interpret in all of Vatican II. It is foundation for all those who cry that salvation is possible outside the Church.

First we recognize that a valid baptism done on certain individuals within non-Catholic sects can render them members of the Body of Christ – like infants.

The text however speaks to us as if it is talking about those who are not Catholic. How? Because the last sentence says that they “are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” Where the children of the Catholic Church are accepting the brothers of “the children that are born in these communities” as the first sentence of this entire paragraph I am writing about states.

The context is therefore talking about people who are not inside the Church as being members of the Body of Christ. This is not possible. The only ones who achieve membership who are not formally on a parish enrollment list within these non-Catholic sects are those in special circumstances like infants or the mentally disabled for example. But if it is in fact talking about those people (infants, mentally disabled, etc.) then they wouldn’t be separated in the first place; they would actually be members of the Church.

Further it implies that people outside the Church have faith when the council of Trent clearly states that the Catholic faith is only faith pleasing to God. The supernatural virtue of faith is in fact that Catholic faith.

I have no good interpretation of this text except to say that it is only talking about those special circumstances I described above. It is one area of the council where if error could exist due to its pastoral natural and its usage of words (non-binding) this would be it.

As you can guess liberals quite easily take this and declare all Christians as members of the Body of Christ – hence they say that a “return” is not needed because they already of “elements of sanctification,” they are in “communion though imperfect,” and they are members of the “Body of Christ.”



The next paragraph reads:

“Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.”

The first bolded part is troubling. What is the “life of grace?” Is this actual grace or sanctifying grace? Sanctifying grace would be a life with the sacraments. Since people outside the Church only have baptism and marriage one could employ mental gymnastics here and say that it must mean that: baptism and marriage. However can these sacraments alone constitute and entire life of grace? Again, infants and children through a valid baptism yes. But the council makes no distinction like that and clumps all non-Catholic Christians in “the life of grace.” Further it states that they have “faith” as a gift from the Holy Spirit. Yet again, “faith” is the Catholic faith. One could perhaps say that it is not talking about the true theological virtue and merely some kind of “I trust God, I believe in God” type of faith (fiducial faith). But does that really work when the council declares them as gifts of the Holy Spirit like the real theological virtues?

Ah but the Eastern Schismatic communities have more than two sacraments. Very true but other problems arise over “faith” and the fact that the council makes no distinction here between protestant and Eastern Schismatics, hence ambiguity.

Lastly the second bolded part would be very clear if the words chosen were “Catholic Church” and not “one Church of Christ.”


The next paragraph reads:

“The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.”

The second sentence is clearer by indicating that different communities have different degrees of grace given to them through valid sacraments (more for the Eastern communities compared to protestants of course). However the last sentence reeks of ambiguity by declaring that these liturgical actions can “give access to the community of salvation.” The liberal is eager to declare yet another part of the council stating that salvation is possible outside the Church.

Orthodox Catholics however can render the sentence to mean that certain people outside the Church can benefit from the “liturgical action” (what does that mean – sacraments?) that might aid them in salvation. Meaning that it would compel them back into the Catholic Church or perhaps it might aid them (such as a Eastern Schismatic receiving valid sacraments through their liturgy) in becoming united with the Church before they die in order to be saved (of course purely speculative on if and how God can do this).

The liberal however may counter that the text states that their liturgical actions – whether Eastern or protestant can “give the community – the whole community access to salvation because after all the above UR text states that they are members of the Body of Christ and are justified by their baptism.”



The next paragraph reads:

“It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.”

The good thing here is that it states (finally) they have deficiencies but it suddenly employs more ambiguity by stating that “by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.”

One would think that they are deprived because they are outside the Church but of course not totally deprived because they have some valid sacraments and hold many of the same truths.

The liberal again can jump all over this to declare salvation outside the Church.

“For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.”

The liberal again would declare “the council has stated that separated Christians are a means of salvation, hence salvation outside the Church.” However the Orthodox catholic could render the sentence as saying that Christ uses them towards salvation – meaning towards the Church by employing a valid baptism and teaching people truths of the faith – but however at the same time they will teach error as to hamper conversion. Although Christ could use the good that they have as a means to drive them towards the Church.


UR continues:

“Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.”

You’re probably asking yourself what the problem here is. Well again, this is a very good statement in UR if you read it with orthodox Catholic interpretation. However the statement is still not clear enough and if you combine it with the other ones I am about to post you will see what I mean.

For starters this paragraph had a chance to proclaim that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Catholic Church are one and the same and all must become Catholic but it does not state it in such a clear and concise manner. Rather the text tells us “," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation.” What does that even mean? That if they are not in the Catholic Church they will only benefit partially from salvation? It reads as if they can be saved without the Church but not have a good chance because they don’t receive all the benefits. The sentence could have said “For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is ‘the all-embracing means of salvation,’ that salvation is achieved.”

You see how just changing a few words or adding a sentence (in other cases) can eliminate ambiguity? I make this point because so many people say that since it’s a pastoral council it need not be super-precise and scholastic in all areas or that “Scripture is hard to read too but we don’t criticize it.”

This is modern council with almost 2,000 years of developed doctrine and developed means of clearly explaining the faith to people. It should not be like this.

“However, it is evident that, when individuals wish for full Catholic communion, their preparation and reconciliation is an undertaking which of its nature is distinct from ecumenical action. But there is no opposition between the two, since both proceed from the marvelous ways of God.”

Excuse my constant repeating of the same terms and phrases but this is yet again another ambiguous paragraph that can go both ways.


Two interpretations are possible basing this on both the bad points of UR as we are examining right now and the good points of UR which we will examine later.

An erroneous interpretation by someone could make this say a non-Catholic converting to the Catholic faith is entirely different from ecumenism with non-Catholics and therefore a non-Catholic does not need to convert because UR states that dialogue to hash out differences and come into a general unity is what is desired. Or rather that since the paragraph says that both of these actions are distinct in nature there is no connection and hence ecumenism does not need to lead to conversion.

An orthodox Catholic on the other hand could say that this paragraph simply means that if someone is already converting there is no need for ecumenism because they have already overcome any difficulties they have with Catholicism. Because after all ecumenism is dialogue that attempts to have each side understand each other and become closer with the explicit indication on the Catholic side that everyone must be Catholic; they must convert to the Catholic faith and becomes members of the Body of Christ.

“Nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from attaining the fullness of catholicity proper to her, in those of her sons who, though attached to her by Baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full catholicity in all her bearings.”

Two problems here. First is that it is saying to us that the Catholic Church cannot attain “full catholicity” without non-Catholics becoming united with her. Why? Since the beginning of the Church there have been people who have severed themselves from the Body of Christ (heretics and those in schism); this means then that the Church has never had “full” catholicity?? What is “full catholicity” anyway?

This paragraph makes more sense if one thinks that these separated Christians are actually members of the Body of Christ. For in the twisted world of the liberal the Body of Christ can exist in divided entities that are not in subjugation to the Pope and at the same time be whole. Yet the Church somehow still lacks by not being full in catholicity with these entities.

The second problem is where it says that these Christians are “attached to her by Baptism.” This may be minor, but it is yet another sentence where the manipulator can declare that these people are in fact members of the Body of Christ but not full communion. Sort of like a partial membership. Though the Orthodox Catholic could render this as saying that they only “have a link” to the Body of Christ. That is to say they are not actually members, they are not “attached,” but they have a link in so far as they have the ability to be reattached easily because the mark of Baptism is still on their soul.

“Attachment” denotes they are apart of something. This is obviously false if we consider past teaching and Tradition. However a using a different word here, like “link,” or a better explanation in general could perhaps help clear up the mess.



Now we are at UR chapter II, I will continue to quote just the troublesome areas.

“Yet worship in common (communicatio in sacris) is not to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of Christian unity. There are two main principles governing the practice of such common worship: first, the bearing witness to the unity of the Church, and second, the sharing in the means of grace. Witness to the unity of the Church very generally forbids common worship to Christians, but the grace to be had from it sometimes commends this practice. The course to be adopted, with due regard to all the circumstances of time, place, and persons, is to be decided by local episcopal authority, unless otherwise provided for by the Bishops' Conference according to its statutes, or by the Holy See.”

A few problems again. What grace is to be obtained through worship in common? It is good that the beginning of the paragraph indicates not to do this but then it turns around and says it yields grace. What kind of grace? Supernatural grace? Actual grace?

Soon after saying “no” to worship in common it then vaguely states that “the course to be adopted” is to be decided upon by the bishops in accordance to the Holy See. It simultaneously appears to be saying “nope” then says “yes, with certain conditions etc.”

There should absolutely be no worship in “common” ever. A protestant worship service is founded upon heretical theology. Taking part in worship with a protestant on any level would at least indicate to observers that we are in agreement about that heretical theology when in pertains to worship. This fuels the pest of indifferentism both explicitly and even if guarded by extreme circumstances and guidance of the bishop it can communicate it implicitly.

“In certain special circumstances, such as the prescribed prayers ‘for unity,’ and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such prayers in common are certainly an effective means of obtaining the grace of unity, and they are a true expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to their separated brethren. ‘For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them’.”

The council claims that these prayers will help restore unity. But how? We are only allowed to pray with the “separated brethren” in so far as there is “prayer in common.” Essentially this means that we can pray with heretics now as long as the prayers do not contradict the Catholic faith such as the Pater Noster or perhaps a general prayer for unity as the text states.

But the ecumenical movement among protestants is entirely different among Catholics. To an orthodox Catholic it means conversion, to a protestant not so. Read carefully then; the text states that when non-Catholics pray for unity we can join in. But what are they praying for? “O Lord, help me to become Catholic” or “O Jesus please help us to become one?” If it is the latter then what do they mean by unity? If I pray with a protestant and both of us say “O Lord, help us to be one” I could be thinking “conversion” and the protestant could be thinking “general unity around only ‘the essentials.’”

Already most of this document tries to describe the Catholic Church as “the Church of Christ” or simply “Church.” Why all the less explicit euphemisms?

“Sacred theology and other branches of knowledge, especially of an historical nature, must be taught with due regard for the ecumenical point of view, so that they may correspond more exactly with the facts.

It is most important that future shepherds and priests should have mastered a theology that has been carefully worked out in this way and not polemically, especially with regard to those aspects which concern the relations of separated brethren with the Catholic Church.”

This is actually quite frightening. Is this saying that theological language must change to become more ecumenical? Is this saying that the past Popes who have elevated scholasticism as the primary means of teaching the faith are wrong?

Pope Pius IX and X have explicitly condemned those who regard scholasticism as an obsolete system and that new means must be used. Sadly our current Holy Father does not regard scholasticism as the best means to communicate the faith at all and it seems Vatican II agrees. At least on the surface.

One could read this in a way that says theology and other branches of knowledge must have an alternative explanation for them when talking to protestants who might not be familiar with heavy scholastic terms. At the same time scholasticism is to be retained.

However this particular part of UR does not say “use both means” but rather has a blanketing statement that all theology and branches of knowledge must now be taught with an ecumenical bent i.e. drop scholasticism.

With the time bombs set in place earlier in the document a weak bishop or Modernist theologian (to name some examples) could easily now have an excuse to change the way he teaches theology and philosophy by adopting ambiguous, vague, or even erroneous ways of explaining everything so both Catholics and non-Catholics can compromise. Whereas the weak bishop would be doing it because he thinks he is following the Church and wants to embrace the spirit of the council, the Modernist has explicit intentions to change Catholic teaching. This is extremely evident in all branches of Catholic teaching today from simple catechetics to the seminarian level.



UR Chapter III.

“We now turn our attention to the two chief types of division as they affect the seamless robe of Christ.”

We once more see the clever language that is employed to put across a view that Christ’s Body could actually be divided. As if to say that these entities – the schismatics and the heretics - are all at once members of the Body of Christ and at the same time be divided amongst themselves and the Catholic Church. How can they affect Christ when past teaching states they are not members of the Body of Christ? The ambiguity here sets up for the Modernist or liberal to proclaim that these separated entities are in fact members of the Body of Christ and that our “earthly divisions” (the nonessentials as they would call them) is what is affecting the “seamless robe of Christ” not that they somehow don’t hold to the same faith.

Now one could mental-gymnastic this and proclaim that all men who are not members of the Church affect Christ in so far as God loves us and wills the salvation of all. But the context of the whole document is about other Christians; hence the ambiguity here can easily be manipulated.


You may think I am blowing this out of proportion? Let’s take a look at the succeeding paragraphs about the Eastern schismatic communities:

“Hence, through the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in each of these churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature and through concelebration, their communion with one another is made manifest.”

The problem here is extremely evident. Somehow the celebration of the Eucharist in these communities grows the ever vague concept of “the Church of God.” The Orthodox Catholic would read “Church of God” as “the Catholic Church.” This highly ambiguous passage could be taken to mean several things. The ever persistent liberal could easily manipulate this text and proclaim that the Eastern communities are in the Church because their Eucharist grows the “Church of God.”

A faithful though could say “No, it only means they have a valid Eucharist.” This is correct but how did the Catholic Church grow for centuries within communities that are in material schism? How did the Catholic Church grow through let’s say the Russian Orthodox Church through their liturgy? I can see how someone could gain some graces through the Eucharist depending on their state and disposition etc. but I can’t figure out how the Catholic Church actually grew through this.

“If this cause is wholeheartedly promoted, the Council hopes that the barrier dividing the Eastern Church and Western Church will be removed, and that at last there may be but the one dwelling, firmly established on Christ Jesus, the cornerstone, who will make both one.”

A perhaps more minor quibble with this sentence; the language here alludes to two churches of the Body of Christ not being visibly one. I would again stress that I wish I had an accurate Latin translation of the council text. Therefore this particular sentence could possible have no problems in the Latin. This does mean that other more major instances I am quoting are likely to be fine; certainly in cases like were we examined “subsists in” the Latin is rendered as such.


UR now moves to the protestants in the second section of chapter three:

“In the great upheaval which began in the West toward the end of the Middle Ages, and in later times too, Churches and ecclesial Communities came to be separated from the Apostolic See of Rome.”

It is funny to note that Pope Benedict has now declared that protestants cannot be properly called “Churches.” Is he then going against the council? Or can we still call them churches but not a “real” Church (capital C)?

“Whenever the Sacrament of Baptism is duly administered as Our Lord instituted it, and is received with the right dispositions, a person is truly incorporated into the crucified and glorified Christ, and reborn to a sharing of the divine life, as the Apostle says: 'You were buried together with Him in Baptism, and in Him also rose again-through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead'

Baptism therefore establishes a sacramental bond of unity which links all who have been reborn by it. But of itself Baptism is only a beginning, an inauguration wholly directed toward the fullness of life in Christ. Baptism, therefore, envisages a complete profession of faith, complete incorporation in the system of salvation such as Christ willed it to be, and finally complete ingrafting in eucharistic communion.”

Once again ambiguity has set the tone for multiple interpretations. The comprising commissions of the liberals versus the conservative at Vatican II are extremely evident in this entire document.

Here the vague description of Baptism can leave the reader to believe that protestants (all of them without exception as the context of the document shows) are members of the Body of Christ simply by being baptized. There is nothing indicting of whom or how one can become a member by receiving a valid baptism and how long they retain that. Earlier I proceeded to try and give an explanation how who and how it is done – therefore I won’t repeat it here.

“The daily Christian life of these brethren is nourished by their faith in Christ and strengthened by the grace of Baptism and by hearing the word of God.”

Suddenly the phrase “separated brethren” is dropped and simply “brethren” is used. There is again no explanation regarding supernatural faith or fiducial faith. The sentence simply says “faith in Christ.” To a Catholic faith can mean both supernatural and fuducial. That is both as “the act of the intellect assenting to a Divine truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the grace of God" which is supernatural faith as St. Thomas explains and as merely a trusting and hoping in God for something, which is fiducial faith.

By not differentiating properly (which can be done in one simple sentence) a Modernist or liberal theologian can easily make this say that protestants possess supernatural faith.
Further the text states they can be strengthened by “the grace of their Baptism.” Recall again the earlier attempts in trying to explain how people outside the Church gain grace through Baptism and might become members of the Church (albeit under certain conditions and probably only for a certain amount of time). What grace is this sentence talking about? Since there is no distinction on what the disposition, culpability or state the said protestant is in the grace they receive here is anybody’s guess. If it was a child under the age of reason we could say supernatural grace. If it was an adult – what could we say? Actual grace? Does baptism, which effects have now been cut off through dismemberment in the Church increase actual grace?


Finally another missed opportunity:

“The Council moreover professes its awareness that human powers and capacities cannot achieve this holy objective-the reconciling of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ.”

Once again this could read:

“The Council moreover professes its awareness that human powers and capacities cannot achieve this holy objective-the reconciling of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ; the Catholic Church, under the Vicar of Christ on earth the Pope. It is because of this that the Council rests all its hope on the prayer of Christ for the Church, on our Father's love for us, and on the power of the Holy Spirit.”

By simply adding 12 more words the ambiguity here could disappear. But not so, in order to foster ecumenism certain language must now be used to please all sides; being as vague as allowable in order to achieve so-called “unity.”



Good Parts of Unitatis Redintegratio

There are some good parts of UR which could arguably help the bad parts in rendering an orthodox interpretation. Although in turn the bad parts could easily be used to manipulate the good parts.

Some nice areas include describing Eastern thought, liturgy and theology; exhorting them to hold fast to their good traditions. There are also good parts describing protestants and their devotions and what we have in common; especially the area where it describes that our dialogue (evangelization) with them would first center around the Scriptures. This is obviously true since protestants hold to various forms of sola Scriptura including “prima Scriptura.” By proving Catholic beliefs through Scripture it would help in their conversion.

Let’s explore some more because I know you all are clamoring for this post to be as long as possible.

UR explains the desired results of ecumenism:

“This is the way that, when the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion have been gradually overcome, all Christians will at last, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, be gathered into the one and only Church in that unity which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning. We believe that this unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.”

The desired unity subsists then in the Catholic Church. This is probably the closest thing in UR to saying people must become Catholic. However the pesky “subsists in” appears once again. Why not say “this unity is in the Catholic Church?”

The liberal can once again grab the foundations in Lumen Gentium and say that unity can subsist elsewhere. They could even take the bad parts of UR an twist them to mean that unity is simply “being in union” with the Catholic Church; a vague and meaningless union that does not subject themselves to the Pope or Catholic doctrine but rather a peaceful pact – kind of like nations being in an alliance – that focuses on “nonessentials.”

What I mean is that the extreme liberal and Modernist theologians have taught that Vatican II has changed Church teaching regarding salvation and the nature of the Church. Hence unity in the Catholic Church could entail the embrace of said changed teachings and therefore a protestant sect could continue to hold to the same errors free from Church authority.

The orthodox Catholic once again can counter with the usual and say that unity must result in conversion to the Catholic faith. Hence that is why true unity “subsists” in the Catholic Church.

“The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded.”

This is excellent to the ears of the faithful Catholic. However this paragraph succeeded the one about how theology and other branches of knowledge must be changed to an ecumenical bent.

Sadly then a clear orthodox interpretation is clouded by the previous paragraph. The liberal is quick to say that the teaching that is now to be followed is the theological formulations based on ecumenism. This could easily be twisted into the false theology that has penetrated the Church since the council. For example, my previous blog post on Schillebeeckx stating that Church teaching has changed through Vatican II and he then proceeds to spout error and heresy. The liberal then can easily, using other parts of the council, say that teachings have changed. Thus what UR says here about Catholic doctrine to a liberal mind means nothing.

“Their ecumenical action must be fully and sincerely Catholic, that is to say, faithful to the truth which we have received from the apostles and Fathers of the Church, in harmony with the faith which the Catholic Church has always professed, and at the same time directed toward that fullness to which Our Lord wills His Body to grow in the course of time.”

What is good here is perhaps an antidote to the previous two examples. UR tells us that the ecumenical actions must clearly stay faithful to the truth that the Church has always professed. Meaning that past teaching is the same as it is today. The Modernist notion that doctrine changes and evolves is almost refuted here. The only wiggle room here is to declare that past teachings on salvation and the nature of the Church were in fact wrong and not apart of the deposit of the faith.


The only thing left now to mention is the various changes and compromises that were made to UR. That is, what was inserted by request to salvage it from being any worse and what was taken out that was “too orthodox.” That is altogether another post and I am sure you are sick of reading by now (all three of my loyal fans).

And so my longest post ever has come to an end. I apologize for any spelling and grammar mistakes. This one drained my mind a bit.

Modernism’s Influence on the Liturgical Revolution and the Novus Ordo

The more I read Pascendi Dominici Gregis the more I understand why St. Pius X and his writings largely seem to be ignored. I don’t know if it’s the fact the neo-conservative does not like to talk about St. Pius X or his works for fear of being seen as sympathetic towards the FSSPX or whatever but it always feels as if St. Pius is ignored in our times in favor of other modern Popes' ambiguous post-Vatican II endevours.

As previously mentioned, Modernism in its fullest would entail the denial of the Divinity of Christ and proclamation that Sacraments are just merely symbols among other many attributes. With that said it is clear that the New Mass is not Modernism in its fullest. At most, where Catholic doctrine is mentioned, it’s watered down enough to pull out erroneous interpretations that can be Modernistic as we have already seen with the positive protestant reaction.

Rather this post will try to show how, at least in my opinion, the beast that is Modernism as influenced the liturgical revolution and the construction of the New Mass. There is obviously a link between liturgical abuse (whichever rite or form) and modernism. But what I am trying to do here is link legal forms, prayers and what have you with the influence of Modernism.

First as quoted in the last post the Modernist would like “the number of external devotions” to be “reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase” with regards to worship. Already we have seen the reduction of external devotions in the New Mass when compared to the TLM. These are either completely removed or simply made optional.

Let us dig deeper though. As some of you might know, simply how the New Mass came into existence was a break from the Traditional way a liturgy develops. Namely that is was invented by a commission (with protestant input) and not done through organic and slowly developing means. This was done under the premise that the Mass be made more “accessible” to the people and that this is what everyone was clamoring for. This is arguably not true. What I have read is that the people did not want any dramatic changes rather it was brought upon them slowly and bishops, priests, and other theologians would routinely mention to them that every change was good for them and to their benefit. Drastic change in the Mass was simply stated as being the wisdom of the Church, and updating to the needs of today’s laity and a good thing for you even if you didn’t know it yet.

St. Pius states about the Modernist’s chief stimulus of evolution:

“The chief stimulus of the evolution of worship consists in the need of accommodation to the manners and customs of peoples, as well as the need of availing itself of the value which certain acts have acquired by usage. Finally, evolution in the Church itself is fed by the need of adapting itself to historical conditions and of harmonizing itself with existing forms of society. Such is their view with regard to each. And here, before proceeding further, We wish to draw attention to this whole theory of necessities or needs, for beyond all that we have seen, it is, as it were, the base and foundation of that famous method which they describe as historical.”

What we see here could be the explanation of the legalization of abuses that occurred during the liturgical revolution (such as communion in the hand and EMHC). Communion in the Hand and lay people handing out the Eucharist was an abuse that persisted even when Rome said no (Dutch Bishops). But for one reason or another they were later legalized (or rather permission was given to certain areas where Bishops could decide). Could this example be something similar to “accommodation to the manners and customs of peoples?” But in this case the people did not ask for it, it was imposed upon them until they became accustomed to it and it spread causing Rome to act. Either way there seems to be some kind of Modernistic influence here, at least in my opinion. Except the accommodations of most people is, so I am told, a generated phenomenon by leaders and theologians where they are told that abuse X is good for them.

Listen again to St. Pius X describing the Modernist doctrine on change and evolution which is eerily similar to what we see in the legalization of abuses:

"Already we observe, Venerable Brethren, the introduction of that most pernicious doctrine which would make of the laity the factor of progress in the Church. Now it is by a species of covenant and compromise between these two forces of conservation and progress, that is to say between authority and individual consciences, that changes and advances take place. The individual consciences, or some of them, act on the collective conscience, which brings pressure to bear on the depositories of authority to make terms and to keep to them."

Again is this another link between Modernism and the legalization of abuses? Modernism puts emphasis on consciousness to the point where it replaces Revelation. The Church, to them, should change and evolve (doctrinally as well as in discipline) based on the collective consciousness of the entire Church (hence their obsession with a democratic Church). This of course is not referring to an organic development or some pious devotion that cultivates from the laity on up but rather a progressive force that seeks change and evolution towards the errors of Modernism as St. Pius defines.

In other words consciousness here is the idea that when a certain notion is brought forth by individuals in the Church it can penetrate the collective conscience to where most of the Church will adhere to this notion; hence change will come. These notions would be the heresies and other errors of Modernism and the change it brought about would be through the authorities in the Church. These authorities (the Pope and Bishops) would subjugate themselves to the collective conscience of the whole Church (hence a democracy) to bring about said evolution.

There is a parallel here when we examine the liturgical revolution. Certain people in the Church were practicing and forcing their liturgical abuses, even when Rome said no, to where finally Rome (Pope Paul VI) caved in and legalized them. Did these individual consciences act on the collective conscience to bring change? Sort of. The whole Church wasn’t crying for communion in the hand just because people started to do it in European countries. But their persistence sure did change the “conscience” of Rome on this issue.

Another question is on the use of vernacular. Did the liturgical revolutionaries create the phenomenon that vernacular was needed and necessary? If so, and I believe they did, could this need (which was supposedly from the people or rather imposed upon them as “good for them,/you need this”) reflect the evolution of the Church “adapting itself to historical conditions and of harmonizing itself with existing forms of society.” Where the needs of the society were to break free from Latin because “no one understands it” and that in our day we need to have the Mass more accessible to people because after all that’s what they need and that’s what they demand – or so says the liturgical revolutionary.

This leads to the next and perhaps most crucial point. St. Pius explains on the Modernists treatment of a Sacrament:

"For them the sacraments are the resultant of a double impulse or need -- for, as we have seen, everything in their system is explained by inner impulses or necessities. The first need is that of giving some sensible manifestation to religion; the second is that of expressing it, which could not be done without some sensible form and consecrating acts, and these are called sacraments. But for the Modernists, sacraments are bare symbols or signs, though not devoid of a certain efficacy -- an efficacy, they tell us, like that of certain phrases vulgarly described as having caught the popular ear, inasmuch as they have the power of putting certain leading ideas into circulation, and of making a marked impression upon the mind. What the phrases are to the ideas, that the sacraments are to the religious sense, that and nothing more. The Modernists would express their mind more clearly were they to affirm that the sacraments are instituted solely to foster the faith but this is condemned by the Council of Trent: If anyone says that these sacraments are instituted solely to foster the faith, let him be anathema."

A Sacrament to the Modernist is merely the expression of the religion due to inner impulses or necessities within the individual. What does this mean for the New Mass and the liturgical experiments inserted into the Traditional form during the mid 60s?

One of the main trusts of the liturgical revolution was to make the Mass more accessible to the laity and to rid of unnecessary repetitive prayers and other rituals. Our focus here would be more of the accessibility part or “active participation” as it is erroneously translated and interpreted from Vatican II.

Now it was recommend by Popes that the laity engage in “actual participation” where first and most importantly you would follow along in mind and heart uniting yourself to the priest at the altar. Secondly there was also an encouragement that the people, even in the TLM, would recite the Latin responses and sing when appropriate. There is a stark difference within the liturgical revolution where the thrust here was that physically doing something was also important; Communion in the hand, minister of the Eucharist, lay lectors, laity sign of peace, people bringing up the gifts (to a lesser extent), etc. And yes I know some of these were done in the early Church but they were simply stopped being used for good reasons or a result of development; Pius X and XII warned about returning to simpler forms. It is potentially a “reverse-development” so to speak.

Even the priest facing the people with vernacular could be considered a boost for “active participation.” The people now get to face the priest as he faces them and the responses appear more like well, responses to the priest and less like prayers. The Mass is brought to their level with full vernacular all the while the priest and the laity both face the altar - sort of surrounding the altar – the people see what’s going like the priest instead of having their vision “obstructed” by looking at his back. This appears to achieve the erroneous “active participation” where the goal is to make everyone feel more involved by the positioning and vulgar tongue.

What’s my point? Well Modernism’s influence spawned this sudden need to “actively participation.” I don’t mean to say that the GIRM actually professes that sacraments are merely symbols and expressions of religion due to inner impulses or necessities within the individual but rather the thrust for such lay participation is certainly, in my opinion, influenced by Modernism. If a sacrament is an expression of the inner impulse of religion then logically everyone must be able to participate in a sacrament because everyone has that inner impulse.

And since the sacrament is merely a symbol then it follows that the Modernist would believe that the graces brought about by a sacrament itself are either brought about by the individual (since it is after all only a manifestation of an inner impulse from that individual) or that is confers some type of lesser graces when compared to what the Church actually says they confer. As a result there is no need to confine the laity to such restricted roles at Mass; the sacrament is an expression of religion due to their inner impulse, having external ritual and “restrictions” for reverence (like kneeling to receive the Eucharistic and on the tongue) is irrelevant since the individual is producing the need. Therefore more physical “active participation” must follow. The New Mass then accomplishes this better than the Traditional Latin Mass.

Further if Sacraments are merely symbols then Transubstantiation is false. If that is the case then the Real Sacrifice at Mass is also not a real and substantial one. We already know (or at least we should) that the new liturgical forms help to diminish Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Real Sacrifice. Hence one could argue that Modernism’s influence on bishops, priests, laity, and theologians of that time could somehow allow these new forms to happen in the first place. A devaluing or watering down of one’s belief on Transubstantiation and the Real Sacrifice due to Modernism could in fact help to bring about such inferior prayers and horrible options contained in the Novus Ordo.

Think about it; if Jesus Christ, the King of the Universe, was really there in the Eucharist what is the most realistic posture you can assume at Mass to receive Him (I’m going back to this example to make a point)? It would be kneeling because this shows both reverence and humility. If one truly believed in Transubstantiation they would rather kneel instead of stand; this makes complete and logical sense (of course I am not talking about people who cannot kneel due to a physical disability). YET standing is now permitted. Why? Did they think Christ was not really there? Or perhaps they did and their notion of it was skewed, clouded somehow. Or maybe it’s because the priest communicates himself while standing so why can’t we – people want to participate more like the priest? Again Modernism’s influence seems to have in one way or another penetrated into the Church in some areas particularly the liturgy.

And of course I do not mean that the constructors of the New Mass are full Modernists whom adhere to errors like denying the Divinity of Christ or believing that Sacraments are merely symbols. But I do think they were somehow influenced, directly or indirectly, by Modernism. It certainly does show. Again, (just to rant some more) why on earth would one butcher such beautiful Traditional prayers that explicitly convey Catholic doctrine or push for options that are less reverent and less humble then their superior traditional counter parts? It makes no sense unless they of course were somehow at most heretics or at the very least influenced by them.

It also doesn’t help to be caught up in false ecumenism that started to catch on in the 60s and was one of the reasons the New Mass was created in the first place– though not explicitly admitted by Rome but rather admitted in some way by Bugnini, the Novus Ordo’s chief architect. I am now treading into another area altogether; about how ecumenism was one of the main reasons that the New Mass was such a watered down mess, more easily interpreted into error and more favorable to a lot of protestants. Though one could argue that this was a result of another error that grips the Church currently – that of declaring other Christians sects as members of the Body of Christ and subsequently you could even link this error's sudden surge to Modernism itself! These elements (false ecumenism, non-Catholics being touted as members of the Body of Christ, and the influence of Modernism) are the key ingredients (either implicitly or explicitly) that were in the heads of the men whom constructed the New Mass. Otherwise, I have no earthly idea how one could invent a liturgy that is so inferior in pray, form, and symbolism.

Whoops

Thanks to the magic of the buggy new blogger I have messed my blog design up. It will be corrected when I have time. So don't all three of my readers go nuts now.

Modernism’s Influence on the Modern Church

Too often you will read or hear something from extreme traditionalists or sedevacantists that labels the modern Church, modern Pope X, the New Mass, etc. as “Modernist.” On the other side however (the neo-conservatives) we have a total denial of any Modernism or even its influence on modern Popes, officials who constructed the Vatican II documents and the New Mass. Both are wrong. There are clearly modernist priests and probably a few Bishops out there that fall into that category as well, but what of the rest of the things I am talking about?

First Modernism is, in its fullest form, a synthesis of all heresies. So when one would like to declare John Paul II as a Modernist Pope it is very easy to refute because Modernists believe the following: Sacraments are merely symbols, Christ was not Divine, Scripture is not inerrant and it is not to be categorized as history properly so-called, Petrine Primacy did not exist in the beginning of the Church, consciousness and revelation are synonymous.. I could go on. Clearly then we see that labeling modern Popes or the New Mass as Modernist is going quite too far. JPII for example did not deny the Divinity of Christ or say the Eucharist was merely a symbol.

However the effects of Modernism have permeated the Church within the last 50 or perhaps more years. St. Pius X spoke of the reform mania that is seated within the mind of the modernist:

From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten [reformed]. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live.

They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized. The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified. The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles?

Does any of this sound familiar? These desires were obviously not fully fulfilled but we do see the effects, the mindset of Modernism, on the Church. What has really not been reformed? Even the New Rite of Ordination was “reformed” (or rather butchered and watered down). Why reform the Rite of Ordination? It’s not something that needs to be “brought down” to the laity’s level (as if we are all stupid) it’s for men who have had years and years of philosophical and theological training. Why water it down for highly trained men? There are many more useless “reforms” such as with the liturgical calendar and practically the rest of the Sacraments (like the prayers at Baptism or Extreme Unction).

We have also seen the use of modern philosophy in seminaries as St. Pius warned about. The call for more democracy in the Church has been partially fulfilled; the modernists did not succeed in full blown democracy as they would like it but one can witness their influence on the modern Church. Namely Collegiality and the many local councils and meetings were people or religious of any rank like to gather and try to be involved. Other similar attributes is the fact that the Index was not simply modified but abolished as well as the cry for celibacy to be destroyed by many in the Church.

Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to he reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head.

A reduction of external devotions in worship; I do not think I even need to comment on how this has actually happened. I will most likely in the future make a post about Modernism and its effects on the liturgical revolution the 60s.

Finally:

Therefore, as God is the object of religion, we must conclude that faith, which is the basis and foundation of all religion, must consist in a certain interior sense, originating in a need of the divine. This need of the divine, which is experienced only in special and favorable circumstances, cannot of itself appertain to the domain of consciousness, but is first latent beneath consciousness, or, to borrow a term from modern philosophy, in the subconsciousness, where also its root lies hidden and undetected.

It may perhaps be asked how it is that this need of the divine which man experiences within himself resolves itself into religion? To this question the Modernist reply would be as follows: Science and history are confined within two boundaries, the one external, namely, the visible world, the other internal, which is consciousness. When one or other of these limits has been reached, there can be no further progress, for beyond is the unknowable. In presence of this unknowable, whether it is outside man and beyond the visible world of nature, or lies hidden within the subconsciousness, the need of the divine in a soul which is prone to religion excites -- according to the principles of Fideism, without any previous advertence of the mind -- a certain special sense, and this sense possesses, implied within itself both as its own object and as its intrinsic cause, the divine reality itself, and in a way unites man with God. It is this sense to which Modernists give the name of faith, and this is what they hold to be the beginning of religion.

This seems all too familiar. Though perhaps not exactly identical, how many times have we heard or read something similar to this? The constant proclamations that people who do not hold the Catholic faith somehow have “faith” without any distinction between supernatural faith or natural faith. Rather what I am trying to say is that it appears that to them the word “faith” has assumed multiple meanings and all these meanings are at the same time true.

Resisting President Hussein

Straight to the point: This man says the first thing he will do is sign the Freedom of Choice act. I don’t know if it actually will be the first thing this guy does but we know he will do it regardless unless, by the Grace of God, he has a change of heart. This act will prevent any restrictions a state may have on abortion (including partial birth abortion).

Planned Parenthood states about this act:

“FOCA will supercede anti-choice laws that restrict the right to choose, including laws that prohibit the public funding of abortions for poor women or counseling and referrals for abortions.”

That’s right. Even more of our money going towards murdering people.

“FOCA prohibits states from enacting laws intended to deny or interfere with a woman's fundamental right to choose an abortion. Minors have long been included within the protections of Roe. Parental consent or notification statutes have been used as a tool to deny access to abortion services for minors. When such laws deny or interfere with the ability of minors to access abortion services, they would violate FOCA.”

Parental consent and/or notification gone.

In related topics, here is a proposition from President-elect Hussein’s change website:

“Barack Obama is an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.”

Insurance Companies can no longer “discriminate” against contraceptives. Where’s the “choice” there? If I run an insurance company I would have to comply with something I hold is evil. Where is the so-called “liberalism” here? I thought they like to drown us in choice and indifferentism.

There is obviously only one answer to fight this; the immediate answer is to pray, do penance, and act (in whatever capacity you can – active participation in pro-life causes and Catholic education or donations to organizations like these) and of course this country needs to be Catholic – someday hopefully. The Social Reign of Christ the King must take place. A minor chastisement (or whatever kind of chastisement) sadly might be the only thing left to do this; pray and do penance that this goal can be accomplished without that.

Why the TLM is Extrinsically Superior to the Novus Ordo

Lately I have seen a number of people who consider the TLM vs. NO debate to seem rather useless. They could not understand why people like me are so adamant about TLM claiming that the NO can be just as reverent and it just needs a few reforms (a recent debate that Athanasius (the blogger) had shown these sentiments).

This post then will be a summary of reasons of why exactly the TLM is extrinsically superior to the Novus Ordo. There have been numerous times where I have presented these reasons to people with the same convictions as described above and they either ignore me or simply fail to understand. I am sorry if there is any confusion or if I do not word things quite well but I will try to make this simple. This is by no means a full and detailed synopsis of the extrinsic inferiority of the Novus Ordo but it merely summarizes the details. I will divide the reasons into four parts:

1. The Prayers
2. Symbolisms and Forms
3. Options
4. Development

Part 1 - Prayers

Quite simply put; the Traditional Latin Mass’ prayers are richer, fuller, and convey Catholicity better than the New Mass. First is the positive Protestant reaction to the New Mass one can find in my previous post here. These Protestants are pleased with the revisions because there is less emphasis on Sacrifice and other Catholic concepts.

Obviously better prayers which convey our Faith more perfectly will help in guarding against error, abuse, and heterodoxy. Here are some examples comparing the TLM’s prayers with the Novus Ordo’s:

The Offering of the Host-

Novus Ordo:

P: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.

R. Blessed be God for ever.

[The celebrant pours wine and a little water into the chalice saying quietly:]

P: By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity.

TLM:

P: Receive, O Holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my countless sins, trespasses, and omissions; likewise for all here present, and for all faithful Christians, whether living or dead, that it may avail both me and them to salvation, unto life everlasting. Amen.

[The priest goes to the Epistle side and pours wine and water into the chalice.]

P: O God, Who in creating man didst exalt his nature very wonderfully and yet more

wonderfully didst establish it anew: by the mystery signified in the mingling of this water and wine, grant us to have part in the Godhead of Him Who hath vouchsafed to share our manhood, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God; world without end. Amen.

It should not take much to see which prayer sounds more Catholic and communicates the Catholic faith better. Notice that in the TLM the host is offered explicitly living for obtaining salvation, for the dead (purgatory) and for sins. There is also a bit about man’s nature and how Christ has restored it here.

Here is the Offering of the Chalice-

Novus Ordo:

P: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink.

R: Blessed be God for ever.

[Bowing, the celebrant says quietly:]

P: Lord God, we ask you to receive us and be pleased with the sacrifice we offer you with humble and contrite hearts.

TLM:

[At the middle of the altar, the priest says:]

P: We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the chalice of salvation, beseeching Thy clemency that it may ascend as a sweet odor before Thy divine majesty, for our own salvation, and for that of the whole world. Amen.

P: Humbled in mind, and contrite of heart, may we find favor with Thee, O Lord; and may the sacrifice we this day offer up be well pleasing to Thee, Who art our Lord and our God.

P: Come, Thou, the Sanctifier, God, almighty and everlasting: bless (+) this sacrifice which is prepared for the glory of Thy holy name.

Notice here that the Novus Ordo ambiguously mentions sacrifice and that the TLM clearly demonstrates what exactly this sacrifice means. Someone could easily take the Novus Ordo text and interpret it to mean something superficial; a symbolic sacrifice for example. The TLM text mentions the efficiency of the sacrifice towards salvation, to find favor with God and asks God to bless the sacrifice – all missing in the Novus Ordo text. Which sounds more Catholic? Which would help convey Catholic doctrine better?

One last example.

The Lavabo-

Novus Ordo:

[Then the celebrant washes his hands, saying quietly:]

P: Lord, wash away my iniquity; me from my sin.

TLM:

[Going to the Epistle side, the priest washes his fingers and says:]

P: I will wash my hands among the innocent, and will cleanse compass Thine altar, O Lord. That I may hear the voice of praise, and tell of all Thy wondrous works. I have loved, O Lord, the beauty of Thy house, and the place where Thy glory dwelleth. Take not away my soul, O God, with the wicked; nor my life with men of blood. In whose hands are iniquities: their right hand is filled with gifts. But as for me, I have walked in my innocence; redeem me, and have mercy on me. My foot hath stood in the right way; in the churches I will bless Thee, O Lord. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be; world without end. Amen.

[The priest returns to the middle of the altar and bowing slightly, says:]

P: Receive, O holy Trinity, this oblation offered up by us to Thee in memory of the passion, resurrection, and ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and in honor of blessed Mary, ever a virgin, of blessed John the Baptist, of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, of these, and of all the saints, that it may be available to their honor and to our salvation; and may they whose memory we celebrate on earth vouchsafe to intercede for us in heaven. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.

I do not think I have to even give an explanation for this example. Clearly the TLM is superior here in conveying and demonstrating Catholic doctrine as well as being overall more reverent and proper to God.

A simple side by side comparison of both missals can reveal a serious deficiency in the Novus Ordo texts. These were just some examples.

Part 2 – Symbolisms

Athanaius (the blogger) summed this up very well:

All of the rites, symbolism and ritual present in the ancient liturgy have been suppressed. For example the numerous signs of the Crosses, all with theological meaning, were reduced to 3. All the rites governing the use of incense were suppressed. Ritual symbolism such as the altar boy moving the missal from the epistle side to the gospel side which symbolizes the old law passing from the Jews to the gentiles was removed, as well as the actions of the priest, outstretching his hands as Christ on the cross, or how he bows down at the confiteor to symbolize Christ weighed down by the world's sin. These things were all completely excised from the Novus Ordo.

That is it in a nutshell. Symbolisms and rituals also provide for a disciplined and consistent liturgy where the priest and sometimes everyone present in performing these rituals are demonstrating their fidelity towards the Church and God by humbling themselves through obedience. Through this it shows that what is going on at Mass is a solemn and sacred event and of course this can help against abuse and error.

Part 3 – Options

Options in the New Mass have helped to destroy the sense of an unchanging faith and more importantly they implicitly communicate the notion that the Mass is about pleasing people present. By having all sorts of options in prayers, forms, languages, etc. it diminishes the value of the Mass being a sacrifice and helps to transform it into a mere communal gathering. The TLM has some optional things as well but it is dwarfed by the numerous amounts of options that the Novus Ordo contains. Some of these options were adopted into the TLM after 1964 (thus killing its “Traditional” aspect off).

Now some optional items in the Novus Ordo range in their degree of severity. I will name, in my opinion, the three most devastating things that are allowed in the Novus Ordo that have helped to destroy the faith.

They are:

1. The priest facing the people.
2. Handling of the Eucharist by laypeople (Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and Communion in the hand).
3. Vernacularization.

First of all a Novus Ordo Mass by Law can be celebrated entirely in Latin without EMHC, without reception in the hand and use the ad orientem posture (or Versus Deus as some like to call it). But what percentage of Novus Ordo Masses are done like this? Very, very few. And that is one of the reasons why these options should be eliminated.

Each of these three options has the same effects tied to them; they help in destroying the sense of the sacred and holy at Mass. They aid in killing off any sense of mystery and solemnity.

The notion of sacrifice is severely hampered when the priest offers the Mass facing the people. In the ad orientum posture the priest is facing God; symbolically while facing the crucifix and in reality when facing the tabernacle if it should be there. When the priest is not facing you and is in prayer it communicates more perfectly that he is offering up a sacrifice because it does not appear that he is speaking to you like in the Novus Ordo but is facing God and interceding for us in offering a sacrifice. With the sacrificial reality of the Mass more emphasized it can in turn help in safeguarding other truths like Transubstantiation and the Sacramental Priesthood. With these effects in place the Mass takes on more of a holy and solemn character and hence more safeguards against abuse and error are born.

An almost identical argument can be made against the handling of the Eucharist by EMHC and reception in the hand. If everyone is touching Christ and receiving Christ in their hand it helps to communicate to us that what is being done is not as sacred or as holy compared to reception on the tongue by the priest alone. It is only common sense that in the presence of Christ Himself in the Eucharist before us and in Calvary brought to the present that we kneel and receive on our tongues from the priest alone as a sign of humility, reverence and solemnity. Externals help communicate spiritual realities. Therefore reception by an EMHC and in the hand should be eliminated (as well as reception standing of course).

Finally vernacularization has also had a negative effect. First of all a liturgical language helps to unify the Church. I can go to a TLM in France for example and I would have no trouble knowing what is going on. This assists in binding the Church together as it is a true and real Society keeping us close and more importantly keeping the Mass from abuse – which is my next reason against vernacularization. It fights against add-libbing and mistranslations but the biggest thing of allthat it does is that it transforms the Mass into an otherworldly environment and from this the sense of the sacred is elevated once again and as a result a safeguard against abuse is put into place.

Latin assists in signifying the Mysteries of God. The priest is praying in a language most do not speak, hence it is mysterious. It also helps to emphasize the priest’s role as an intercessor in offering up the Sacrifice because he is performing yet another task most cannot do. In having this otherworldly sense one is taken out of their normal everyday life in which they use their native tongue and into a place where the sense of the God and the sacred is brought forth through the many forms, symbolisms, and postures as well as the language that the Mass is offered up in itself – Latin (for us Latin Rite people).

Part 4 – Development

Archbishop Bugnini, who is touted as the chief architect of the New Mass (by being the head of the commission that constructed the New Mass) has been quoted saying:

"We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants."

L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.

This should be alarming to any Catholic. Here is an explicit admission from the head of the commission that constructed the Novus Ordo that he wants to destroy Catholic notions in the Mass and make it more protestant friendly; the very thing I have been demonstrating the whole time.

What is a stumbling block for protestants? Transubstantiation and the Real Sacrifice of the Mass to name two. Did Bugnini succeed? Not entirely, but as we have seen here it certainly managed to water it down and made any reference to Catholic doctrine either vague enough to interpret away or optional (like Eucharistic prayer number 1 which basically is the Roman Canon itself).

We must ask ourselves if the removal or watering down of Catholic doctrine from the Mass is correct and constitutes a true and organic development. Unless you are modernist the answer is obviously “no” and I think even the “neo-conservative” Catholics would also agree (I hope).

A true and proper development of the Mass also does not constitute a commission that constructs one; it is a slow and organic development. This commission also took into account the advice of six protestant observers (see Davies’ booklet “The Roman Rite Destroyed” or his book “Liturgical Revolution: Pope Paul’s New Mass” for details). Again, what true and proper development of the Mass asks for the input of people who deny what the realities of the Mass are in the first place? That is maddening, it makes no sense.

What we have now is a Mass that has not gone through centuries of slow and organic development but one that was fabricated by a commission whose head had the explicit goal of removing the Catholicity from it all the while listening to the input of heretics. Is this right? I think it is scary.

That’s it. That was my crude summary (I let it get rather long though - please excuse grammar and spelling mistakes) of why the New Mass is extrinsically inferior to the Traditional Latin Mass. The biggest hurdle when explaining these reasons to other people is that of the Latin. A lot of people do not want to go to a Latin Mass because they cannot understand what is going on. Rest assured though – after going for a few months you’ll be able to follow fine and you might discover that you are involved way better at the TLM (actual participation) over what you could ever achieve at a Novus Ordo.

The Reform of the Reform should end in the Death of the Novus Ordo

In a blog post a while back at Ignatius Insight Scoop Fr. Pacwa of EWTN posted his analysis of the liturgy talking about the TLM and the so-called reforms of the New Mass.

This was also posted at the New Litrugical Movement (that's where I read it) and the full text is here.

I made a comment over at NLM and I will reprint it here (with a few alterations). Essentially I talk about how the Reform of the Reform would, if carried out correctly, be the death of the Novus Ordo.

Fr. Pacwa wrote:

I do not think that the Novus Ordo is itself the cause of the problem but rather the occasion for the abuses that have occurred.

This is the main problem with his statement.

The many options in the Novus Ordo, it’s watered down prayers (even in the Latin) and removed symbolisms at least help to spawn abuse as well as the other things he mentioned.

Fr. Pacwa, like many others, correctly identifies the source of abuses and lack of reverence in the Mass by focusing in on the catechetics problem, social turmoil, etc. But what is not admitted is that the Novus Ordo is problematic in that its prayers are watered down or ambiguous (a side by side comparison with the TLM clearly shows this) and that it contains so many options which help to cause abuse and the sense of formlessness. This sense of formlessness in worship can spill over to what we believe. We should worship how we believe. A Mass with an enormous amount of options could possibly help to portray the perspective that what we believe has an enormous amount of changing progression and evolution, God is not unchanging etc.

When a prayer is watered down or the Catholic doctrine of sacrifice is not as clear as it is in the TLM the sense of the sacred plummets and the Mass is taken less seriously. Therefore abuses and lack of reverence rise. To a lesser extent the same can be said of the removed symbolisms that exist in the TLM but are lacking in the Novus Ordo. But of course we must admit that other factors are involved which are basically the ones Fr. Pacwa names in his piece – the problems he lists and the problems I list about the Novus Ordo collectively help to fuel this trouble.

I see here a call to reform the so-called reform. That is the removal of all these banal options and forms and the use of traditional forms in their place.

Further (to echo this once again), if the "reform of the reform" took place, eliminating most of these options and making standard the traditional forms , you might as well use the TLM or at least TLM dialogue Mass with some vernacular (which I wouldn’t attend but its way better than a Novus Ordo Mass). Even if one can argue that the Novus Ordo has something superior contained within it that is not a novel fabrication or a hindrance on Catholic doctrine (like maybe – just maybe – the petitions of the faithful, albeit reformed to where they are read by someone ordained only) these things could be incorporated into the TLM which already has superior prayers, structures, forms and superior symbolisms.

A true reform of the reform would end in with the eventual death of the Novus Ordo and a restoration of the organic developmental process of the TLM.

New Blog

Yes, I do indeed exist and I will be trying to post something shortly. In the mean time I am linking a new bog. I know this guy from Steve Ray’s message board and he has good knowledge on the workings and history of Vatican II (which he should post more about hint hint):

Popin’ Aint Easy.

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 its 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 forms 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.

Ambiguity Series - Vatican II and 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.