Ex Excommunications?

For the record, Rorate is reporting that the Pope has on his desk, well you read it for your self...

On the Holy Father's bureau stands a prepared decree which will lift that of excommunion, of 1988, which applied to the consecrating [Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer] and consecrated bishops [Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Alfonso de Galarreta, and Richard Williamson]. I mean removing the decree, and not absolving of the excommunication.

The thesis of the subjective element, extenuating or mitigating of fault, and, therefore, of the penalty, according to Canons 1323, 4 and 7, and 1324, 1, 8, and 3, has prevailed.

What do you think, should the Pope do it?

What Do People Want?

I am curious about something. What is it that people really want? What type of liturgical reform do the traditional minded hope for down the road? Is it realistic to hope that some future Pope will do away with the Novus Ordo entirely and start from 1962 scratch? I don't think so.

So what is it that people hope will happen? What is it that YOU hope will happen?

Do think that Novus Ordo will be reformed to be more in line with Tradition? Will the two forms of the Rite eventually become one? Will the reforms called for by the council be applied to the Gregorian Rite resulting in a Reformed Gregorian Rite along side the Novus Ordo? Does the status quo of a more available Traditional Mass along side the use and abuse of the Novus Ordo continue for generations to come?

Tell us what you think? How will it play out? How do you hope it will play out? I know what I think, but what do you think? Let's hear it.

Trad bloggers finally touching the Third Rail

It is a subject that had to be addressed at some point; Cardinal Hoyos alluded to it when he filed his public complaints against traditional Catholics this past summer:

Cardinal Castrillon...said his office continues to receive letters requesting the Tridentine rite be used not just at one Mass a week but at every Mass, and that such Masses be available not just at one church in a town but at every church...Such people, he said, are "insatiable, incredible."

"They do not know the harm they are doing," Cardinal Castrillon said, adding that when the Vatican does not accept their demands immediately "they go directly to the Internet" and post their complaints.

...Asked about the status of those detailed instructions, Cardinal Castrillon told Catholic News Service that his office had completed its work and passed the draft on to the pope, who would make the final decision about its publication.

Is this the source of his frustration? Obviously, the delay in the publication of the PCED "clarification" comes from Pope Benedict XVI himself, not PCED or Cardinal Hoyos. Yet Cardinal Hoyos & the PCED have shouldered much of the blame for the perceived inaction of the Vatican in the face of recalcitrant bishops.

And some big guns in trad Catholic blogdom are daring to explore this reality, even if obliquely.

Damian Thompson at his Telegraph Holy Smoke blog writes,

Is Pope Benedict losing the confidence of the Latin Mass faithful?

Just over a year ago, Pope Benedict's decree liberating the traditional Latin Mass came into effect. But it contained so many loopholes that liberal bishops have been able to sabotage it - and a much-needed clarification from Rome has still not appeared.

But if the bishops of England and Wales (and of many other countries) are playing fast and loose with Summorum Pontificum, that's because Pope Benedict XVI is allowing them to.

The original document was not tightly drafted: it left plenty of room for confusion [...] they have not been clarified or amplified by Ecclesia Dei. Why not?

[...]there is still not the slightest indication that His Holiness will celebrate Mass in the Extraordinary Form publicly. Why? No one knows the answer.

Let us be blunt about this. If the Pope were to die tomorrow, he would be remembered for many fine achievements, most of all his encyclicals, but his liturgical reforms would peter out. Summorum Pontificum would remain on the statute book, but the Magic Circle in England and its powerful allies in the Vatican and Europe would quietly suffocate the work of Ecclesia Dei.

Even Fr. Zuhlsdorf is willing to grant now that the blame for any perceived delay lies with Pope Benedict XVI:

Holy Smoke: Are traditional Catholics losing hope? - Fr. Z responds

[...]Is Pope Benedict losing the confidence of the Latin Mass faithful?

Just over a year ago, Pope Benedict’s decree liberating the traditional Latin Mass came into effect. But it contained so many loopholes that liberal bishops have been able to sabotage it – and a much-needed clarification from Rome has still not appeared. [And it must be said that that is entirely the decision, or non-decision, of the Holy Father. The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei completed its part of the work a long time ago.]

There is only so much Cardinal Hoyos can do, when the delay in publishing the PCED clarification is at the sole discretion now of the Holy Father.

With the exception of the schismatics, most traditional Catholics have been loathe to criticize the present Holy Father. Its been the Third Rail that no trad blogger would touch. But with the Vatican's recent public criticism of the trad blogosphere, combined with few if any verified examples of Vatican intervention in favor of the rights of the laity and priests against intransigent bishops, these questions are going to increase.

Is it time to stop writing to PCED, and instead write directly to the Pope, begging him to put some teeth into what is now perceived to be his Summorum Pontificum toothless tiger -- at least in those dioceses in which the bishops are recalcitrant?

A bit of good news regarding bishops and Summorum Pontificum

I was commiserating with a friend recently about the seeming inaction of the Vatican in light of entrenched opposition to Summorum Pontificum.

He remarked that the Vatican IS taking action. Within the past year, at least one American bishop who had forbidden celebration of the TLM in his diocese received a call from "a Cardinal at the Vatican" instructing him, in no uncertain terms, that he was to permit the celebration of the TLM in his diocese.

He was also told that if he failed to comply, he would be receiving "a phone call from the Holy Father himself."

There are now several TLMs being offered in that bishop's diocese.

It is shameful that such would be necessary to convince bishops to obey the Pope, but that's the age in which we live. On the other hand, it is good for those of us in the trenches to know that the Vatican IS acting to enforce Summorum Pontificum, even if such interventions are not generally made public.

And given that such interventions are not generally being made public, but are occurring nonetheless, it is easier to understand the frustrations of Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos and other Vatican leaders. They may be well aware that such interventions are occurring, but are constrained from pointing them out.

Kudos to that "Cardinal at the Vatican" for correcting a recalcitrant bishop, and to our Holy Father for charging that "Cardinal at the Vatican" with taking action in this regard.

The New & Official PCED Summorum Pontificum Website

TNLM reports on an important new website from PCED:

Saturday, October 04, 2008

Official "Summorum Pontificum" Website of the Ecclesia Dei Commission Online

The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei now has an official website called Summorum Pontificum. The address is http://www.ecclesiadei-pontcommissio.org. So far it is mainly in Italian, but versions in English, German, Spanish, French and Portuguese are apparently being prepared. This is Card. Castrillón's introductory letter (click to enlarge):


NLM translation:

To the end of keeping bishops, priests, religious and faithful permanently informed about every aspect concerning the Extraordinary Use of the Roman Rite and every expression of the Gregorian liturgy, on this Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei inaugurates the "web" site Summorum Pontificum.

We will strive to incorporate into the structure of this website official documents, study material, information about events, comments and audiovisual instruments helpful for the understanding and performing of the liturgical celebrations.

We do not aim in any way at establishing an interactive website, but rather at offering information and materials in complete fidelity to the "mens" of the Holy Father, who has manifested the clear intention of preserving and keeping alive, in extraordinary form, the theological, spiritual, religious and artistic richness of the Gregorian Liturgy.

(Good thing Patrick Archbold renamed this blog recently ;-)

Concerning the Ultimatum from Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos

The September 27, 2008 edition of the SSPX's DICI has the text of a sermon of Bishop Fellay from August 15, 2008. Part of his sermon provides further details (from his perspective) regarding the "Five Conditions" (emphasis added):

I would like to take advantage of the occasion to give you some news about what is going on presently in Rome with regard to the Society. You probably heard that there was a question of an ultimatum? Where do we stand now? First of all, this ultimatum is strange, because, usually when this type of action is taken, there is an object. In our case, we really wonder what the point was. At the beginning of the month of June, I was summoned by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos because the latest Letters to Friends and Benefactors of the Society of Saint Pius X was reviewing the situation and clearly stated that we were not ready to swallow the poison found in the Council. The Roman authorities did not like this. What displeased them was the fact that we said that we would not change; that we would resist, and that we would not drink the poison. Consequently, I was summoned to Rome, and there, I was handed a typed sheet. The meeting took place in the offices of the Ecclesia Dei Commission -- as a side note, it was the first and only time I went to these offices. So, in the room were present the Cardinal, the vice president of the Commission, Bishop Perl, the secretary Msgr Marini, and the Cardinal’s private secretary. I was accompanied by Father Nély.

We were handed a written note, and the cardinal asked me to read it aloud in front of everybody. In this letter which really sounded like an ultimatum, it basically said: “Up to now, I stated that you were not schismatics, but henceforth I will no longer be able to say so. Today, you must accept the clear conditions which we are going to impose upon you.” After having read it, I asked the cardinal what were the clear conditions, since they were not written. The cardinal answered nothing at all. So I asked the question again, saying: “What do you expect of me?”; at that moment, almost under his breath, he answered: “If, in conscience, you think you must tell this to your faithful, do so! But you must respect the person of the pope.” To this I retorted that I had no problem with this. And the meeting ended upon this. How can I affirm that the reason for the meeting was truly the latest Letter to Friends and Benefactors? Because I asked him, since he was referring to it. I said: “Could you tell me what is wrong in this letter?” He read it over in front of me, and the only reproach he could come up with was the fact that I had written that convents and seminaries were empty. He told me: “This is not true.” That was the one and only reproach.

So, what is the point of the ultimatum? What is its object? After the meeting, I told Father Nély that I felt very much frustrated, because I had witnessed a stage rehearsal. They had put on a very emotional show with the cardinal declaring: “That is the end of it! I call a press conference. I give it all up!” As to what they were really expecting of me, I had not the faintest idea. Consequently, I sent Father Nély back the next day to ask the question once again: “What do you want?” That is when they had him wait for half an hour, enough time for them to write the famous five points which were broadcasted on the Internet.

The first of the 5 points says: “Bishop Fellay must commit himself to give an answer proportionate to the pope’s generosity.” What could be the meaning of this? The sentence is extremely vague and could mean everything and nothing. We were forced to suppose that the generosity of the pope was the Motu Proprio. And the proportionate response was to thank him for it, while acknowledging that it was not made for us, since it was for all the priests of the Church. Otherwise we do not see what it meant.

Next, I had to commit myself, in this same letter, to respect the person of the pope. I suppose it meant that he must not be insulted, but if you consider it an insult to say that he is perfectly liberal, right after a visit to the USA, during which he did nothing but praise the American State, declaring that religious liberty was great… Truly, you cannot find a statement more liberal than this. I see nothing insulting in my words.

The third point is more “touchy” because they ask me not to set myself up as “a magisterium above the pope, and not to place the Society in opposition to the Church.” Once again, this can mean everything as well as nothing at all. With this sentence, each time we would present an objection, we might be told: “You set yourself above the pope.” This point makes us clearly understand that Rome does not at all agree with the fact that we dare say something against the Council. That is where the problem lies.

Speaking of "drinking the poison," Bishop Williamson is back on his blog, this time pontificating about the grand unifying 9/11 conspiracy. It's so bad, even Angelqueen had to banish his thread off the front page to their "Off Topic" subforum.

It seems, regrettably, that the days of holding out hope for the return of the SSPX, with all the graces for the Church that would entail, are over.

Catholics have a juridical right to Gregorian Rite, priests & bishops “must accept” their requests

TNLM posted today the Press Release regarding the publication of The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described edited by Dr. Alcuin Reid:

September 26, 2008

Press Release: Vatican Cardinal commends Continuum Book on Old Rite Mass

Parish priests and bishops “must accept” the requests of Catholics who ask for the older (Latin) form of the Mass, a senior Vatican official has said. This is “the express will” of the Pope, “legally established,” which “must be respected by ecclesiastical superiors and local ordinaries [bishops] alike,” he insisted. Hoyos continued, stating that “all seminaries” should provide training in the old form of the Mass “as a matter of course.”

Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos ―the man charged with implementing Pope Benedict’s liberalisation of the Latin Mass and other rites as celebrated before the Second Vatican Council―made these remarks in a preface to the forthcoming edition of The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described, the standard English manual on how to celebrate the older rites, released yesterday.

Hoyos commended the book―the fifteenth edition since it was first published by the English priest Dr Adrian Fortescue in 1917―edited by the London based “distinguished liturgical scholar” Dr Alcuin Reid as “a reliable tool for the preparation and celebration of the liturgical rites” that Pope Benedict has authoritatively decreed may now freely be used. The volume is due for publication by Continuum/Burns & Oates by the end of 2008.

Alcuin Reid, speaking from London, said: “The honour that the Cardinal has accorded this book underlines the importance of the older forms of the Mass and sacraments in Pope Benedict’s overall renewal of the liturgical life of the Catholic Church.” He continued, “We’re at a critical moment in the history of the liturgy, and taking away restrictions on the celebration of the older rites enables them to contribute to, and even re-inform the quality of, Catholic worship worldwide.” Continuum’s London Publishing Director, Robin Baird-Smith, added: “We’re delighted that this title has returned to the Burns and Oates imprint, and to be publishing such an important volume at this time.”

Adrian Fortescue, J.B. O’Connell & Alcuin Reid, The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described will be published in October 2008 (December 2008 in the United States).

TNLM also posted the Preface:

From the new edition of the Ceremonies, here is Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos' preface:

It is a pleasure for me to present this fifteenth edition of Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described, the first edition to appear since the Motu Proprio of our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum, dated 7th July 2007, definitively clarified that the rites according to the liturgical books in use in 1962 were never abrogated and that they truly constitute a treasure that belongs to the entire Catholic Church and should be widely available to all of Christ’s faithful. It is now clear that Catholics have a juridical right to the more ancient liturgical rites, and that parish priests and bishops must accept the petitions and the requests of the faithful who ask for it. This is the express will of the Supreme Pontiff, legally established in Summorum Pontificum in a manner that must be respected by ecclesiastical superiors and local ordinaries alike. [NLM Emphasis]

The Holy Father is pleased at the generous response of many priests to his initiative in learning once again the rites and ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the other sacraments according to the usus antiquior so that they may serve those people who desire them. I encourage priests to do so in a spirit of pastoral generosity and love for the liturgical heritage of the Roman Rite. Seminarians, as part of their formation in the liturgy of the Church, should also become familiar with this usage of the Roman Rite not only in order to serve the People of God who request this form of Catholic worship but also in order to have a deeper appreciation of the background of the liturgical books presently in force. Hence it follows that all seminaries should provide such training as a matter of course. [NLM Emphasis]

This book, a classic guide to the celebration of the Church’s ancient Gregorian Rite in the English-speaking world, will serve priests and seminarians of the twenty-first century – just as it served so many priests of the twentieth – in their pastoral mission, which now necessarily includes familiarity with and openness to the use of the older form of the sacred liturgy. I happily commend it to the clergy, seminarians and laity as a reliable tool for the preparation and celebration of the liturgical rites authoritatively granted by the Holy Father in Summorum Pontificum.

I congratulate the distinguished liturgical scholar, Dr. Alcuin Reid, for his care and precision in ensuring that this revised edition conforms to the latest authoritative decisions with regard to these liturgical rites. As Pope Benedict XVI wrote in his letter which accompanied Summorum Pontificum: “In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture.” The Gregorian Rite is today a living liturgical rite which will continue its progress without losing any of its riches handed on in tradition. For as the Holy Father continued, “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.” May this book assist the Church of today and of tomorrow in realising Pope Benedict’s vision.

Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos
President
Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”
25 September 2008

Hopefully, this is a precursor to the type of language we can expect in the PCED "clarification" of Summorum Pontificum.

"The bishops are boycotting the pope."

There is a fascinating -- and surprisingly well-balanced -- article from CNS today:

Sep-19-2008

Two thumbs down? Implementation of Tridentine ruling frustrates some

By John Thavis
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- A year after Pope Benedict XVI opened the way to wider use of the Tridentine Mass, implementation of the papal directive is drawing mixed reviews from its target audience.

Catholic traditionalists remain grateful for the pope's document and say it has given them a certain legitimacy in local church communities, as well as greater practical access to the old rite.

But some -- backed by a Vatican official -- have complained that bishops and pastors continue to place obstacles in the way of groups seeking the Tridentine liturgy.

On a long-term issue, traditionalists are pleased at new efforts to instruct priests in celebrating Mass in the older rite. Meanwhile, those who envisioned Tridentine Masses popping up in every parish are somewhat frustrated.

"We're only looking at one calendar year, and we know that in the church these things take time. But the problem -- dare anyone say this? -- the problem is the bishops. Because you have bishops who aren't on board," said John Paul Sonnen, an American Catholic who lives in Rome.

Sonnen and about 150 others attended a small but significant conference in Rome in mid-September on the theme: "'Summorum Pontificum': One Year After."

"Summorum Pontificum" was the title of the pope's 2007 apostolic letter that said Mass celebrated according to the 1962 Roman Missal, commonly known as the Tridentine rite, should be made available in every parish where groups of the faithful desire it. In his letter, the pope said the Mass from the Roman Missal in use since 1970 remains the ordinary form of the Mass, while celebration of the Tridentine Mass is the extraordinary form.

The response to the papal letter varied around the world. In the United States, many bishops -- even those not enthusiastic about the new policy -- took steps to explain it to their faithful and put it into practice.

But in Europe and Latin America, conference participants said, there's been less favorable reaction.

"In Italy, with just a few admirable exceptions, the bishops have put obstacles in the way of applying ('Summorum Pontificum')," Msgr. Camille Perl told the Rome conference.

"I would have to say the same thing about the major superiors of religious orders who forbid their priests from celebrating Mass in the old rite," Msgr. Perl said.

Msgr. Perl is vice president of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei," which oversees implementation of the papal document, so his words carried weight. Italian newspapers reported his comments under the headline "The bishops are boycotting the pope."

Two Brazilian priests attending the conference complained that they're facing a similar situation in their country.

"I think there's a great desire on the part of young priests to learn the older rite. But we don't study it in seminaries, and the bishops don't cooperate on that," said Father Giuseppe Olivera of Sao Paolo.

Msgr. Perl said letters received by his commission indicate considerable interest in setting up local Tridentine Masses in France, Great Britain, Canada, the United States and Australia. He said there have been fewer requests for the older Mass in Latin America, Africa and Asia.

Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, who heads the "Ecclesia Dei" commission, said recently that Pope Benedict would eventually like to see the Tridentine rite offered in every parish. But for now, in the pope's own Diocese of Rome, a single church, Santissima Trinita dei Pellegrini, has been designated as a "personal parish" for traditionalists.

That's a solution that appeals to some dioceses, especially those that include large cities, but it tends to separate traditionalists from other local parishes. It also seems to put bishops in charge of the decision of where and when a Tridentine Mass is offered, instead of the local pastor, as indicated by "Summorum Pontificum."

Father Joseph Kramer, pastor at Rome's Santissima Trinita church, said that so far his parish is attracting a lot of younger people and those over 50, but not many in between and few young families.

In general, he said, it's important for traditionalist Catholics to make it clear that they accept the changes of the Second Vatican Council, in order not to frighten off "normal" Catholics who might be attracted to the older rite.

U.S. Father John Zuhlsdorf runs a blog -- "What Does the Prayer Really Say?" -- that's become a sounding board for reaction to "Summorum Pontificum" among traditionalist Catholics.

One recent comment on the blog began: "Frankly, I'm sick and tired. Tired of waiting. 'Summorum Pontificum' has been in force for one year now and, in spite of the fact that I live in a huge metropolitan area, there is no TLM (traditional Latin Mass) to which I can go" without driving at least an hour.

Father Zuhlsdorf, who attended the Rome conference, said he understands some of these frustrations but takes a generally positive view of the first year of "Summorum Pontificum."

One good thing, he said, is that the papal directive has deeply affected priests, especially younger priests, and their perception of "who they are at the altar." As time goes on and older priests and bishops retire, this interest will have a ripple effect on parish life, he said.

Another plus is that resources for the older rite, including beautifully bound missals, are being produced and published. These could appeal to Catholics and "help change the culture of participating at Mass," Father Zuhlsdorf said.

In addition, he said, some U.S. seminaries are beginning to introduce courses in celebrating the Tridentine rite. Private training programs for priests, workshops and Web sites also have been established.

He compared it to the Ford Motor Co. putting a new model into production.

"It takes a long time to construct the assembly plant, but once you get the thing built you can get the product out more quickly," he said.

In the more-to-be-done category, Father Zuhlsdorf said there are still some priests and bishops who have "a bit of a stingy attitude" about the legitimate requests of traditionalists.

He said Latin proficiency is an example of where a double standard seems to be used to create an obstacle to the wider offering of the older Mass. While it's true that a priest celebrating in Latin has to know what he's saying at the altar, he said, one could also ask about proficiency in English among priests coming from a foreign country to serve in the United States.

In any case, he said, the Code of Canon Law requires that all seminarians be well-trained in Latin. If that isn't being done today, seminary officials should be addressing the problem, he said.

Fr. Z. on Cardinal Hoyos' remarks

Fr. Zuhlsdorf has weighed in on Cardinal Hoyos' remarks:

Reflecting on Card. Castrillon’s remarks the other day

He summarizes the situation quite well:

Most of the time, I think, these expressions of frustration come from decades of being deeply hurt by their priests and bishops and other Catholics who showed contempt for their aspirations about the older form of Mass and the Sacraments and the expressions of doctrine and devotion that go hand in hand with them. Now, when they do have greater recognition of their rights, they are venting a little, of course… but when they sense that old treatment rearing its ugliness, when they receive that blow upon the bruise, they lash out as they did of old.

His commentary on the CNS article is worth reading:

Cardinal: Some not satisfied even after pope’s Tridentine Mass decree

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

ROME (CNS)—Rather than being grateful, some people have reacted to Pope Benedict XVI’s wider permission for the celebration of the Tridentine Mass with further demands, said Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos. [This sets a bit of a sour note at the start. Sure, as I said above, there are still some difficult folks out there. But there are also many who are grateful and irenic. I wish they would write to the Commission and their bishops to express gratitude!]

The cardinal, president of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei," spoke Sept. 16 at a conference marking the first anniversary of "Summorum Pontificum," the document by which Pope Benedict expanded access to the Tridentine rite, the Mass rite used before the Second Vatican Council.

Cardinal Castrillon, whose commission works with communities using the old rite, said his office continues to receive letters requesting the Tridentine rite be used not just at one Mass a week but at every Mass, and that such Masses be available not just at one church in a town but at every church.

He said he even got a letter demanding that Rome’s Basilica of St. Mary Major be dedicated exclusively to the celebration of the Tridentine-rite Mass.

Such people, he said, are "insatiable, incredible."

"They do not know the harm they are doing," Cardinal Castrillon said, adding that when the Vatican does not accept their demands immediately "they go directly to the Internet" and post their complaints. [Well… YAH! This is called freedom of expression. This is also the 21st century. The internet is now something that must be taken into consideration. It isn’t going away… any more than the Novus Ordo is going away. Alas, sometimes people make unreasonable requests and they can be pesky. They often don’t think things through very well. They often say things they shouldn’t. But let’s turn the sock inside out and see the other side. I don’t see the Holy See acting with lightning speed to respond to some serious concerns that need to be addressed. Some of the frustration being expressed through the alternative media and means of communication is rising because there is a perception that not a lot is being done to carry forward what we have been told is a desirable thing: .... Didn’t we hear from someone that the Holy Father desired that the older Mass be widespread, indeed that perhaps even many…. even every… parish might have it? So is it a surprise that people express themselves about that? ]

The cardinal and officials in his office have been saying for more than a year now that they were preparing detailed instructions responding to questions about how to implement the papal document, which said the Mass in the new Roman Missal, introduced in 1970, remains the ordinary way of Catholic worship. [And so the question is… where’s the document?]

Asked about the status of those detailed instructions, Cardinal Castrillon told Catholic News Service that his office had completed its work and passed the draft on to the pope, who would make the final decision about its publication.

In addition to responding to the desire of Catholics who wanted more frequent and easier access to Mass celebrated in the old rite, the pope’s 2007 document was seen as a major step toward reconciliation with the followers of the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was excommunicated when he ordained four bishops against the express wishes of Pope John Paul II. [I suspect that on the list of those who are not satisifed with what has been given, you might find some members of the SSPX.]

But the process of reconciliation broke down in late June when Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the Society of St. Pius X and one of the four bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre, failed to meet four conditions posed by Cardinal Castrillon for moving the process forward. [Hang on… I am not sure that they absolutely refused. Didn’t Card. Castrillon express a measure of qualified satisfaction that he received a response?]

"The Eucharist should never become a point of contrast and a point of separation," Cardinal Castrillon said at the Sept. 16 conference. "What is more important: the mystery of God who becomes bread or the language by which we celebrate the mystery?"

The cardinal said the Mass—in whatever language it is celebrated—must be a service motivated by love and "never a sword" used against other Christians.

By making it easier for priests to celebrate the older liturgy and for the faithful to have access to it, he said, "the vicar of Christ (the pope) was not just exercising his task of governing, but was exercising his task of sanctifying" the people of God.

"When we are before the greatest expression of love for humanity—the Eucharist—how can we fight?" Cardinal Castrillon asked. [While I agree entirely with that, it is not really too hard to grasp why people fight about it. It the Eucharist, the Sacrament and its celebration, are trully the fons et culmen as we have been told incessantly since Vatican II, then we shouldn’t be surprised that people get worked up over it, especially in climate where a venerable rite was virtually supressed, those who loved it were marginalized, and liturgical abuses reigned far and wide for years.]

I would be willing to bet that most of those writing to PCED (probably greater than 95%) have quite legitimate concerns, which have NOT been addressed over the 14 months that have passed since publication of Summorum Pontificum.

Advocatus Diaboli: Supply Reconsidered

[Note: This is the fourth in a series of articles. A proper understanding of the author's intent presumes a reading of the series as a whole. This would include the first, second, and third parts of the series.]

Upon leaving the office of President of the United States, the late Harry Truman commented on the fate which awaited his successor. It went something like this: "Poor Ike. He'll get in this job, and think he's still in the Army. He'll tell everybody, do this, and do that, and then wonder why it doesn't get done."

His Eminence Dario Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos is president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, which oversees the implementation of the Traditional Latin Mass for the Roman rite. Following his celebration of a Pontifical Mass at Westminster Cathedral in the UK earlier this year, he had the opportunity to remind the press (and by extension, anyone who didn't get it the first time), that the classical form of the Roman liturgy was not meant only for the few who get down on their hands and knees and beg for it, but for the whole Church. As if that were not clear enough, according to the Telegraph, he indicated that the Holy Father's wish for the Traditional Mass, was that it be celebrated in all parishes.

That's right. All of them.

Here's where the buzz continues on Angelqueen, CTN-GREG, and all the other internet fora, in which the huddled masses of armchair pundits will demand that this transformation take place by... well, how's next Sunday? No kidding. There are plenty of otherwise educated and informed people out there, who genuinely wonder out loud how this could not have happened immediately, simply because someone in charge wanted it to happen badly enough.

In our last installment, we covered some reasons why said transformation is not going to happen in quite the way that its adherents imagine. But even for those who are willing, there is the prospect of co-existing with those who are not.

For one thing, no matter how perfectly clear a leadership is, on that which is to be carried out, "prefectly clear" is never clear enough for someone who doesn't want to hear it. And you've got an entire infrastructure in the Church, that is accustomed to doing things a certain way, regardless of how necessary a change may be. To give you an example, I've got a dear old friend back in Ohio who's a priest, a very good and conscientious one in all respects, except maybe for one. He tells his parishioners that "the Latin Mass" simply will not happen on his watch, and that his parishioners who want it are free to attend old Father Fezziwig's place down near the water treatment plant. (Something like that.) All this is to say, that it is not enough for those who love the Old Mass to want it. Those who couldn't care less have to learn to live with it, and their collective hand has yet to be forced.

What we would require, in the end, is a dramatic series of events equivalent to that which happened in the five or six years following the Second Vatican Council, the one that culminated in the "Novus Ordo Missae" of Pope Paul VI -- in other words, that which supposedly unraveled fifteen centuries of unbroken tradition to begin with.

Even for those parishes that want the Traditional Mass -- and I mean really REALLY want it, every Sunday morning at the same more-or-less convenient time -- you need at least two priests in residence (or at the very least, two who are readily available) who are competent to celebrate it, to ensure that this will happen regularly. If Father Number One gets called away at the last minute, or is otherwise indisposed, you have to have a Father Number Two, or the best laid plans... you get the idea.

Next, and for the long haul (the one we never consider when wanting something immediately), you have to require seminarians to learn to celebrate the Traditional Mass. To do this, means not to make it an option, but to require it. That's "require," as in "learn this or don't get ordained." If you are successful at pulling this off starting -- er, uh, today, your mandate will bear fruit in six years.

But we all know that won't happen today, don't we? (See "not clear enough," above.) Any future clarification from the Holy See, if there is to be any "value added," will have to be explicit, not to mention take the form of a directive, in articulating what is to happen, and by what time. Anything short of a direct order will be met with resistance in some parts of the world. Indeed, it is possible that even a directive would be ignored in a few cases. Historically (and I'm stating this in terms of two millennia of history), this cannot be ruled out.

Now, getting past all that, we have roughly half a century of iconoclastic architecture for new churches, and really bad makeovers for older churches, around which we have to maneuver. That would be hard enough in a place originally built and/or functioning exclusively for the ancient form. But when both have to co-exist, the fact is that some situations facilitate co-existence better than others. If you have, say, a half-hour between the previous Mass and yours, you can expect to spend half of it re-arranging the sanctuary appointments, only to put them all back afterwards. (Try getting half a dozen boys to do that in a timely manner every Sunday. It's not as if these guys signed on to be furniture movers.) Once I served at a parish that had a huge free-standing altar sitting in the middle, while the priest would say Mass on the unconsecrated shelf behind it which was deemed "the altar of repose." It looked perfectly ridiculous, but depending on where what I like to call "the elephant in the sanctuary" is placed, it may be the only way. Even when it's NOT the only way, some of the rabble in the pews have a real thing about a free-standing altar, regardless of the orientation of the priest.

Of course, at the Basilica of Saint Peter in Rome, no one is complaining about a free-standing altar. Not in the last few centuries anyway...

And what about the faithful themselves, the ones who want the Traditional Mass badly enough that they'll drive across town for it? They can be a positive force in the life of the parish, especially older urban places that would otherwise close down or fall apart. A perfect case in point is St Mary Mother of God Church in Washington DC, east of Chinatown, with the traditional sanctuary and magnificent marble altar and reredos still intact, its view unencumbered by a fixed "people's altar." On the other hand, they can be just a group of malcontents that take over for two hours, complain about their limitations, then leave like a thief in the night when it's over, often after contributing nary a pittance to the financial health of the parish. (If you believe things like that never happen, click here.)

Some have a reason to complain, especially when they're treated badly by the host parish. I've never known this scenario personally, but I do notice that some parishes are "forced" to add a later time to their schedule, rather than replace a regularly scheduled (and more reasonably timed) Mass.

This is how you handle a situation that's meant for everybody. Uh-huh.

It comes down to this: It doesn't matter that a family threw their TV out in the trash, homeschools their kids, and spins their own cloth to make their matching outfits. That family is a product of the society in which they live, and like most of their neighbors, when they want something, they want it right now! There are some unavoidable reasons why that's not going to happen in most places, so they'd better learn to settle in for the aforementioned long haul. They need to look at the big picture, wherein may be found the brighter side, as reports are coming in from all over the country about the growing popularity of the "Extraordinary Form." (Does anyone else hate that term as much as I do?) As I've written before, and have said in different internet discussions time and time again -- tearing something down is much easier than building it back up again.

How that might happen, and what the faithful can do to facilitate it, is the subject of our fifth and final installment.

(UPDATE: While these segments have been appearing every two weeks, the fifth and final segment is expected.... whenever the author can possibly dig a crowbar into his schedule and get around to it.)
.

Systemic disobedience to Summorum Pontificum

It has been said that the primary hurdle of the present Pope is regaining to the Papacy the power and authority proper to his office, authority which had been dissipated by a false sense of collegiality over the past 50 years.

There may be no better illustration of the urgency of this aspect of Pope Benedict XVI's Papacy than the systemic disobedience to Summorum Pontificum coming to light during the conference on "Summorum Pontificum" currently taking place in Rome.

From RorateCaeli:

Perl: more comforting words

Besides the criticism levied against some Traditional Catholic faithful by the President of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, the conference on "Summorum Pontificum" currently taking place in Rome also included yesterday a presentation by the secretary of said dicastery, Monsignor Camille Perl. Vaticanist Andrea Tornielli reports (cf. also La Repubblica):

Rome- “In Italy, most bishops” have placed obstacles to the application of the motu proprio of Benedict XVI which liberalized the use of the ancient, pre-Conciliar, Missal in 2007.

…[Camille] Perl participated in Rome at a conference named “The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of His Holiness Benedict XVI: spiritual richness for the entire Church one year later.” “In Italy – the cleric said – most bishops, with few admirable exceptions, have placed obstacles to the application of the motu proprio on the Latin Mass. The same must be said about many Superiors who forbid their priests to celebrate the Mass according to the ancient rite.” Monsignor Perl provided a not very rosy picture of the situation also in other countries, recalling that “in Germany, for instance, the Episcopal Conference published highly bureaucratic directives, which make for a difficult application of the motu proprio”, while in France “there are lights and shadows”. Yet to consider Italy, the nation of which the Pope is the primate, as a nation in which bishops have impeded the papal decision, represents a serious judgment, coming from the lips of the number two of the Commission.

The words are interesting, but has something been done about these obstacles? Is some action being planned?

posted by New Catholic

Given this obvious, and now publicly admitted, systemic disobedience to Summorum Pontificum, Cardinal Hoyos' recent criticisms of the victims of this systemic disobedience seem even more dismaying.

Archbishop Burke to PCED?

Rocco Palmo is always good for rumors. Today he reports that Cardinal Hoyos has now twice castigated traditional Catholics for writing to PCED:

Trid-Head on Mass Hysteria: "How Can We Fight?"

More important, perhaps, is this tidbit:

Already retired from heading up the Congregation for the Clergy, the Colombian cardinal marks his 80th birthday next summer. With the Ecclesia Dei post normally a side-gig for a senior dicastery head, the buzzmill's already tipped the freshly-installed prefect of the Signatura, Archbishop Raymond Burke, as Castrillon's likely successor there.

This might be a good move for all involved.

Cardinal Hoyos seems to have become a bit impatient listening to the rightful aspirations of Catholics who are writing to PCED so that their rights as outlined in Summorum Pontificum might be actively protected and advanced.

Archbishop Burke is only too aware of the intransigence of many bishops who willfully misrepresented Cardinal Ratzinger's 2004 directive on Voting, Abortion, and Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion and continue to shirk their obligations under Canon 915.

Maybe the laity and Archbishop Burke could find a bit more common ground with him at PCED. He won't scoff at the idea that some bishops just don't get it. He knows it only too well.

Cardinal Hoyos: Some not satisfied even after pope's Tridentine Mass decree

Is the PCED really above criticism in its handling of Summorum Pontificum? As noted earlier on this blog,

We've had "clarifications" that the new lectionary can be imposed upon the Gregorian Rite Mass and that the readings can be done in the vernacular, that the Novus Ordo observance of Holy Days of Obligation can be imposed on the old calendar, we've heard opinions that the discipline of kneeling to receive Holy Communion on the tongue cannot be enforced in celebrations of the Gregorian Rite Mass, and we've had the whole "Good Friday Prayer" fiasco. So, why is the anticipated PCED clarification of Summorum Pontificum being delayed so long...?

Cardinal Hoyos seems to resent criticism and internet apologetics for the restoration of Traditional Catholicism:

Cardinal: Some not satisfied even after pope's Tridentine Mass decree

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service
Sep-16-2008

ROME (CNS) -- Rather than being grateful, some people have reacted to Pope Benedict XVI's wider permission for the celebration of the Tridentine Mass with further demands, said Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos.

The cardinal, president of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei," spoke Sept. 16 at a conference marking the first anniversary of "Summorum Pontificum," the document by which Pope Benedict expanded access to the Tridentine rite, the Mass rite used before the Second Vatican Council.

Cardinal Castrillon, whose commission works with communities using the old rite, said his office continues to receive letters requesting the Tridentine rite be used not just at one Mass a week but at every Mass, and that such Masses be available not just at one church in a town but at every church.

He said he even got a letter demanding that Rome's Basilica of St. Mary Major be dedicated exclusively to the celebration of the Tridentine-rite Mass.

Such people, he said, are "insatiable, incredible."

"They do not know the harm they are doing," Cardinal Castrillon said, adding that when the Vatican does not accept their demands immediately "they go directly to the Internet" and post their complaints.

The cardinal and officials in his office have been saying for more than a year now that they were preparing detailed instructions responding to questions about how to implement the papal document, which said the Mass in the new Roman Missal, introduced in 1970, remains the ordinary way of Catholic worship.

Asked about the status of those detailed instructions, Cardinal Castrillon told Catholic News Service that his office had completed its work and passed the draft on to the pope, who would make the final decision about its publication.

In addition to responding to the desire of Catholics who wanted more frequent and easier access to Mass celebrated in the old rite, the pope's 2007 document was seen as a major step toward reconciliation with the followers of the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was excommunicated when he ordained four bishops against the express wishes of Pope John Paul II.

But the process of reconciliation broke down in late June when Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the Society of St. Pius X and one of the four bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre, failed to meet four conditions posed by Cardinal Castrillon for moving the process forward.

"The Eucharist should never become a point of contrast and a point of separation," Cardinal Castrillon said at the Sept. 16 conference. "What is more important: the mystery of God who becomes bread or the language by which we celebrate the mystery?"

The cardinal said the Mass -- in whatever language it is celebrated -- must be a service motivated by love and "never a sword" used against other Christians.

By making it easier for priests to celebrate the older liturgy and for the faithful to have access to it, he said, "the vicar of Christ (the pope) was not just exercising his task of governing, but was exercising his task of sanctifying" the people of God.

"When we are before the greatest expression of love for humanity -- the Eucharist -- how can we fight?" Cardinal Castrillon asked.

It must be noted that all the problems of the past 40 years did not evaporate over night with Summorum Pontificum, and that much heavy lifting remains to be done. Some concrete action in the face of recalcitrant bishops would go a long, long way in defusing criticism of the PCED. If the Pope himself were to publicly offer the Gregorian Rite Mass, this too would help defuse the current frustration level among traditional Catholics. (It was not irrational to hope he would have done so within the first 14 months (!) of publication of Summorum Pontificum.)

But with both July 7, 2008 and September 14, 2008 coming and going with neither the publication of the PCED "clarification" nor the Pope himself offering the TLM, the criticism is indeed legitimate.

ADDENDUM:

RorateCaeli has posted a brief comment that seems to summarize the response of most reasonable traditional Catholics to Cardinal Hoyos' puzzling comments:

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Moving slowly

The first public confirmation of the document which should clarify "Summorum Pontificum" was made nearly a year ago, on October 12, 2007. Its publication has been delayed several times, and today Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", confirmed "that his office had completed its work and passed the draft on to the pope, who would make the final decision about its publication."

Regarding the rest of the article: while there may certainly be room for criticism of a few lay faithful who behave less prudently, we wonder if there has been any true action against bishops who still persecute Traditional Catholic priests and lay faithful around the world or who ignore their requests. Is "Ecclesia Dei" ready and willing to provide the oversight and to exercise the authority it has already been granted by Summorum, regardless of new general clarifications?

posted by New Catholic

A "Novus Ordo Catholic" reappraises Traditional Catholicism

Teófilo at Vivificat blog has posted a thoughtful entry,

Everyone has a place in the Church: a critical reappraisal of “traditional” Catholicism:
What I owe to my Catholic “traditionalist” brethren.

Here is an excerpt:

My one personal horror story and frustrations

To be charitable, we at least have to understand where this deep-seated suspicion, if not contempt, felt by Latin traditionalists comes from: it comes from the horror of years of liturgical “renewal” that often consisted in liturgical experimentation that often lacked a clear connection to what came before, accompanied by little or no catechesis, leading to extreme shortcomings in the celebration of the Holy Mass. If the traditionalists of this sort have taught me something, I owe them a heightened sensitivity to these disconnects, disorders, and abuses.

We all know the horror stories. Let me share one of my own.

In the early 1990’s I was stationed at a military base in San Antonio, Texas. I attended Mass regularly at the base chapel. One day a new priest arrived, an African American man I’ll call “Fr. Troy” – not his real name. His idea of “renewal” was to make the Mass “Afro-centric.” This entailed throwing everything out the window except for the Canon of the Mass which he left pretty much intact. For example, he replaced the Kyrie with Amazing Grace. If you feel that the hymnography put together by the OCP is banal and light, you ought to be thankful that they do not include songs by Whitney Houston. Some of her songs became staple post-communion hymns during Fr. Troy’s celebrations, often sung by guest singers from a local Protestant church’s choir. Fr. Troy himself at times discarded the Roman vestments that were indicative of his dignity as a Catholic priest, preferring to garb himself with the white robes of a Muslim mufti.

I was unable to verbalize a single protest against this priest’s actions for three reasons: I didn’t know how, I didn’t feel like it, and I didn’t feel I had any recourse. The Military Archdiocese is widespread and somehow reporting the priest to the Archbishop appeared to me as somehow short-circuiting the chain of command. What’s worse, I wasn’t well-educated on the origins, meaning, and end of the Liturgical Renewal, therefore, I thought this liturgical disaster was somehow a licit manifestation of liturgical renewal and that, therefore, I had no other resource but to go to a civilian parish off-base, which I did.

I went to St. Jude’s which had at the time a 4 PM Mass where the musical accompaniment was provided by a “mariachi choir”. It was very lively indeed, and culturally more intelligible to me. Yet I knew there was an inconsistency in my own thought, because, isn’t this “mariachi Mass,” I asked myself, but another valid manifestation of “inculturation” and of “diversity” within “unity”? In which way was this better than Fr. Troy’s “Afro-Centric” Mass? Then I answered myself that here, in this “Mexican Mass”, the priest did not violate the structure of the Mass, or changed the prayers, or dressed like an Aztec priest in order to reassert his “cultural heritage.” The choir responses captured the words of the prayers without modification. It was still a very recognizable novus ordo Roman Rite Mass.

On the other hand, Fr. Troy’s Afro-Centrism, besides his forays into Muslim dress, did not represent any given African culture, but African-American pop culture. The Mass at St. Jude’s captured the deeply-felt attitude of an entire Catholic nation, but Fr. Troy’s Mass was a pathetic effort to reshape the Mass into a pop culture psycho-drama which would then be “appealing” to a segment of the faithful long ignorant of the greater Catholic Tradition, East or West, Latin, Greek, or vernacular, or even truly African, and this is only if we focus on the material damage Fr. Troy inflicted upon the Liturgy, not to speak of the spiritual damage he inflicted upon others, the Church, and upon himself.

A critical reappraisal of “traditionalist” Catholics

My interactions with Latin traditionalists have made me want to reconnect with my Catholic roots, but that comes with a twist. You may be surprised to learn that I grew up attending the “new” Mass and that I did not attend what is now known as the extraordinary form of the Mass until my late thirties and even then I attended it more out of curiosity than of an unconscious need that I was somehow missing “something.” Today, my appreciation to the extraordinary form has increased and enjoy it thoroughly in the few occasions when I have been able to attend it.

The faith I reconnected with was the faith of my youth, which I first experienced within the post-Conciliar Church and the “new Mass”, ably led and celebrated by my local ordinary at the time, Bishop Juan Fremiot Torres Oliver of Ponce, Puerto Rico. I saw no abuses at Mass as I was growing up. Our bishop described himself as a “Vatican II conservative.” He had attended the last session of the Council, and although he placed no restrictions on the vernacular Mass, some things were clearly “leftover” and therefore, clearly connected with the usus antiquor. Under his leadership, the transition to the novus ordo was orderly and intelligible to me, more so than what I’ve found it in many places here in the U.S. Mainland.

Today, Latin traditionalists have helped me understand what a liturgical abuse consists of, and realize that the vague sense of uneasiness I felt when, say, Fr. Troy said his Mass, or when banal songs or hymns are used at Liturgy, or when I discovered that the sacred vessels were made of the wrong material, or when the church itself was rearranged in such a way that the Tabernacle was shoved into a corner and the altars were made into perfect squares and no longer occupied a central space in the Church; or when I heard the words of the Creed or of the prayers changed to satisfy a priest’s whim, that my uneasiness was justified, that I shouldn’t see all these things as somehow in accord with the post-Conciliar Liturgical Renewal, but that they were, and continue to be, clearly abuses. Foremost, I also became aware that I had recourse, that I had options, and that I deserved a hearing.

I owe to my relations with Latin traditionalists a more educated, more developed sense of a what a well executed Roman Rite ought to be in either of its two expressions, but even more so in the now “Ordinary Form” of the Missal of Paul VI. They have given me the conceptual apparatus and vocabulary from which I can critique shortcomings in the celebration of either expression of the Roman Rite.

In these my mature years I have become convinced of the wisdom of “say the black, do the red.” A simple obedience to this rubric would have made Fr. Troy’s liberties and in fact, all likely-minded experimentation, quite impossible.

That’s why I agree with the Pope that the Latin traditionalists need to be accepted and embraced as full Catholics, and not feared. We need to allow their spirit and finesse to reenter the entire Church. Of course, they have to wrestle with their own temptations and shortcomings too, as we have seen, but it will be better for them and for all of us that they do so within the Church and not in some schismatic outfit well outside of her.

Their effect is now being felt. I haven’t personally seen egregious abuses since the early 1990s during Fr. Troy’s experiments. But much remains to be done in terms of language, hymnography, music, and church architecture in order to bring to bear Pope Benedict’s idea of a “hermeneutic of continuity” in the full spectrum of the Church’s liturgical action.

True renewal will not be achieved without a living connection to what came before. I humbly submit to any one in a position of authority that Latin traditionalists have a just place in the Church, that they should not be discouraged, and that the full expanse of the Church’s treasures should be rediscovered and once again shared with all. Their contribution should be seen as an integral part of the Post-Conciliar renewal and not as something foreign or inimical to it.

Advocatus Diaboli: The Supply Side

[Note: This is the third in a series of articles. A proper understanding of the author's intent presumes a reading of the series as a whole. This would include both the first and second parts of the series.]

In the previous installment of this series, we dealt with the numbers of the faithful willing to attend a Traditional Latin Mass regularly. Obviously there must be priests who are able to celebrate this form of the Mass.

Contrary to what some chancery operative would have you believe, the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum does not require such a command of Latin as to recite the works of Cicero from memory; simply the ability to competently use the text of the traditional Roman Missal, to follow the Latin rubrics, and to pronounce the spoken text correctly, with sufficient comprehension. (Since much of the English vocabulary is based on Latin, it's not as arduous a task as certain people make it out to be.) And, just so there's no misunderstanding...

[T]he Roman Missal promulgated by St Pius V and reissued by Bl John XXIII is to be [...] given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage... It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated... [E]ach Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl Pope John XXIII in 1962... For such celebrations [...], the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary...

I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.

All over the country, all over the world, priests are flocking to houses of study and seminaries, to seminars and websites, ordering books and DVDs, all to learn the Traditional Mass. They can't very well return to the seminary to learn to say Mass all over again, unless their bishop sends them to a place like the Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary in Nebraska for a week (which many do). All told, the ancient rite is slowly making its way into the lives of mainstream Catholic parishes.

Too slowly, if the internet chatter is any indication. Beyond those situations where chancery bureaucrats set up arbitrary (if not illicit) roadblocks, for want of anything better to do, there are still some practical (there's that word again) considerations.

First and foremost, consider that without Summorum Pontificum ever seeing the light of day, the typical parish priest works six days a week. Let's repeat that: Six. Days. A. Week. Most of those workdays easily run from ten to twelve hours each. The shortest day for most, in terms of hours, is Sunday. Even that one starts early, and consists of several hours of meeting the constant demands of one person or group after the other -- all before lunch. If you've ever wondered why a rectory is the last place to find a priest on a Sunday afternoon, now you know.

I am not saying there are not priests who make the time. I am saying this is what they generally have to overcome when they make the time.

So let's imagine that a young family with several children in tow visit the pastor. They make a reasonable request along the lines of the aforementioned decree, for an additional Mass, to an already full schedule on Sunday morning. They are also able to assure Father that several dozen other families -- most of them from other parishes, whom Father does not normally serve, and over whom he has no pastoral authority -- will also be willing to attend. Now, Father cannot say more than three Masses on a Sunday except for an emergency. This is not an emergency. Father also knows that most of his parishioners (those whom he IS obligated to serve) like things the way they are just fine. God only knows why, but they do. Oh, it can't be too late in the day, Father, since little John Paul has to go down for his nap just after noon. Father is thinking about that already-crowded schedule, and how he would really like to accommodate these folks. In fact, he rather favors the Old Mass himself. Now, if only he could unbolt the altar weighing two tons from its location and move it back about six or eight feet...

At times like these, forty years of clowns and balloons and dancing girls and other worst-case scenarios that don't happen nearly as much as you wish they would to prove your point, aren't even an issue. It really comes down to the simple matter of adding another obligation to an already-full schedule -- all on the assumption that the person being prevailed upon has the same enthusiasm for the idea as does his petitioners.

But let's give ourselves some latitude for the moment. Suppose a change in the Sunday Mass schedule, rather than an addition, is actually on the table. After all, a pastor who is dedicated to Benedict XVI's vision for restoration of the sacred, cannot overlook the possibility, regardless of whether the pastoral council gets wind of it. This is also a big issue for families with young children. The best time for them to start seems to be anywhere from eight in the morning, to (maybe, just maybe) as late as ten. After that, the young ones tend to get cranky, as it is coming up on nap time. The parents could probably use a nap as well.

So why doesn't a parish schedule the Traditional Mass for an earlier time? The Pope says we're entitled to this, right?

Here's where thinking in a vacuum has its disadvantages. Let's say a typical parish has a Sunday Mass schedule with starting times at 7:30, 9:00, 10:30, and 12:00 (which is possible at a large parish with at least two priests available). Let's say the pastor is in a position to replace one of those with a Traditional Mass, as opposed to adding to the schedule. Why does he pick the 12:00 noon Mass for that purpose, as this would be inconvenient? Why not replace the 9:00 or the 10:30? It is here that we step out of the vacuum and consider how others are affected. For one thing, the alleged riff-raff of "novus ordo Catholics" who already attend the 9:00 and the 10:30 have children as well, who get just as cranky around nap time. Mommy and Daddy are also active parishioners who contribute financially -- one of the precepts of the Church, not exactly a "novus ordo" concept -- whereas the majority of attendees at a Traditional Mass, for the foreseeable future, may largely hail from neighboring parishes. Maybe they'll contribute financially; maybe they won't.

If you were the pastor, would you bet the ability to pay next month's bills on it?

Finally, a Traditional Mass, in particular a High Mass, can run over an hour quite easily, which can throw off the whole schedule afterwards. Does that mean we make the 12:00 Mass into the 12:30? Shouldn't those affected be considered? Coming from outside the parish, do we care? And if we don't, what does that say about us? What it says about a pastor, is that he is left with knowing that everybody is entitled to something, not just people who want the Old Mass. He also knows that his main obligation to the care of souls, is primarily in the area where he serves -- usually a geographic territory known as a "parish."

Okay. Say we've gotten past all that, and we have a regularly scheduled Traditional Mass, at a regular parish, on a Sunday morning. Now the real work begins...

There is not only the matter of the priest being trained to do so properly, but that of boys or men (not girls or women, as we are concerned with conditions under the older observance) who are trained to serve the Mass. The reformed Roman Missal does not require a designated clerk for assistance; the classical Roman Missal does. If the host parish uses albs for vesture, and you just can't imagine the sight of that*, it may fall to you to provide cassocks and surplices. The requirements for priestly vesture are also more demanding in the classical form. If the parish cannot fulfill those requirements, will your "stable group" be able to make it happen? If you want a High Mass at any one time, there has to be a schola, or at the very least, a cantor who is schooled in Gregorian chant**, and who is able to lead the chants of the Ordinary (Kyrie, Gloria, et cetera), as well as sing the propers for the Mass (Introit, Gradual, et cetera).

I know what you're all thinking...

A typical response to the above scenario at some point, is that special parishes should be established, dedicated solely to offering the Traditional Mass and Sacraments, and staffed exclusively by priests from Traditional orders like the Fraternity, or the Institute of Christ the King. Obviously the bishops are not willing to have them in their dioceses, or these orders would be setting up shop all over the place by now. And while no one admits it, this would appear to be a more convenient alternative than that other one. After all, with our own parishes, we can live happily ever after, and the rest of the "novus ordo church" can go to hell in a handbasket. Something like that, right?

It all looks so simple. Too simple, really.

That's why I spoke with a source close to the Fraternity, on the condition of their anonymity.

The major focus of such orders right now, is on the training of diocesan priests to celebrate the Traditional Mass themselves. While arguably a short-term solution, it has been determined to be the best one for the immediate future. As to the long haul, there are numerous requests from bishops to have these orders come to their dioceses and administer special parishes. This is where the short-term solution comes in, since these same orders currently lack the sheer numbers to fulfill the requests they are getting. Some dioceses have been informed that the wait could be as long as ten years! So, it's a great idea, but it won't happen tomorrow. And lest we forget, we're usually talking about starting a new parish in an area which may already have enough, if not too many. An enormous amount of financial and human resources are involved in the transaction, on the assumption of a demand that may or may not exist. Sufficient compensation for the order administering the parish must be negotiated (and things have been known to break down on this point). With any luck, a suitable parish in the inner city that is nearly abandoned but still serviceable, would be available for a Traditional order to take over. Maybe a few generous benefactors will step forward. Maybe people from the suburbs would be willing to drive into the city. Maybe they will have a safe place to park. It can happen, but this or something like it is what probably has to happen.

In the meantime, the Holy Father does not wish the Traditional Mass to be the exclusive domain of specially-created parishes, but ultimately be a component of the worship life of all Roman Rite parishes. In the larger context, he envisions the Traditional Mass as the spearhead of the eventual counter-reform of the Roman Rite, whatever set of books is used. (We keep forgetting that part, don't we?)

All told, the endeavor will still require diocesan priests to be trained to celebrate the Traditional Mass. It isn't happening as quickly as some people would like. Why it isn't happening, and a more detailed account of what it would take for it to happen, is a subject for our fourth installment.

---

* In Eastern Europe, the use of surplices over street clothes, without the use of cassocks, is not uncommon. In Australia, the use of albs instead of cassocks and surplices is not uncommon either.

** It is preferable that the schola consist entirely of men, as they are functioning as surrogates for minor clerics. In the event that only women are available, it is preferable that the schola be composed entirely of women. Either case would ensure what is known as "purity of sound." If you have to ask what that is, you are at a disadvantage in challenging this point.

Archbishop Burke discusses "The Holy Eucharist: A Right or a Gift?"

Catholic Action for Faith and Family has their new website up and running.

There is a good interview with Archbishop Raymond L. Burke by Thomas J. McKenna,

The Holy Eucharist: A Right or a Gift?
Examining the pastoral aspects of Canon 915 and respect for the Holy
Eucharist

Advocatus Diaboli: The Demand Side

[Note: This is the second in a series of articles. A proper understanding of the author's intent presumes a reading of the series as a whole. This would include the prelude, which can be found here.]

For those who experience difficulties in having the Traditional Mass celebrated in their locality -- the inclinations of church authorities notwithstanding -- much of that which they encounter may be strictly practical.

It is no secret that many parts of the country face a shortage of priests. We can safely assume that those available have more than enough to do. A return to Catholic tradition, including collective certainty of Her teachings, may alleviate that eventually, but not immediately. In the meantime, the sentiments of one devoted pastor in rural Ohio are neither insincere nor unusual: "I'm already in charge of three parishes, and they expect me to learn the Latin Mass?" In addition to the realities of supply, there are those of demand. Elsewhere in the Buckeye State is Cincinnati, where I was raised. We will use this jurisdiction as a case in point.

The Archdiocese of Cincinnati has an estimated 500,000 baptized Catholics. They are spread out over an area in the southwestern portion of Ohio that comprises nineteen counties. The territory is over fifty miles in length running east to west, and over one hundred miles running north to south. Sitting roughly in the middle is the city of Dayton, where a priest of the Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) offers the Traditional Mass every day of the week -- at convenient times, and in one location.

Hold that thought.

Of the half million baptized Catholics, let us suppose (for want of a better method) that ONE percent of them would drive for up to an hour to attend the Traditional Mass. That gives us a total of 5,000. However dedicated, they are nonetheless very small in number relative to the whole. With a central location devoted to them on a daily basis, and a second one in another high-population area for Sundays, one would ask if they are adequately served. Five thousand souls produces more than enough for two good-sized parishes. You would think that the number alone would justify making it available in more locations, wouldn't you?

To answer that question poses another: how is either meeting the demand? Well, this writer did a little homework. The Holy Rosary Latin Mass Community in Dayton has about two hundred attendees on average, and the church building they use is about one-third full. Sacred Heart Church in Cincinnati has about three hundred attendees on average for its Traditional Mass, and it is about half full. That would put the number at about five hundred, or ONE TENTH of one percent of the faithful. Both locations are served by the same priest, and both begin before noon. If the attendance were merely to double or to triple, you might have a good case for expansion, ergo the support of another priest. But for whatever reason, it has not, so...

Our discussion also begs the question, as to whether is it reasonable in the first place, to expect people to drive for up to an hour to attend the Traditional Mass. An answer to that question can be aided with some perspective. For Catholics of the Eastern Rites (who make up roughly TWO percent of the Catholic population in the USA), unless they live in either the northeastern states, specifically in blue-collar cities like Chicago or Detroit, such a weekly trek is not at all unusual. Such was the case at the Byzantine Rite parish I attended for many years, when roughly three hundred families in the parish (compared to the five thousand mentioned above) would travel for up to an hour to attend Divine Liturgy.

We can expect a chilly reception from local church officials, for the return of the Traditional Mass to such a locale. This writer has had occasion to encounter them over the years. They are at times disingenuous, if not altogether dishonest. And yet, in spite of many accounts of institutional connivance which our readers are all too happy to share, attempts to hire goons to physically block the faithful from attending either location for Sunday Mass have yet to be reported. This means that stories of "persecution" may be a bit exaggerated. Especially if no one is drawn and quartered.

In a 1983 interview with The Wanderer, the late Silvio Cardinal Oddi said that the Traditional Mass would be restored when people wanted it badly enough. (He said that. I did not.) Perhaps it will ultimately be when ENOUGH people want it badly enough. (Okay, I said that.) There will also need to be priests to celebrate it. That there may be fewer than are needed, and the reasons why, is the subject of the next essay in this series.

Steve Skojec Responds

Steve Skojec responds to Mark Shea at InsideCatholic.com

Attention Evil Traditionalists!

Mark Shea has something to say to you!

Mark Shea has an article on InsideCatholic.com in which he takes on "Those Angry Traditionalists." In this article Mark portrays "traditionalists"as unchristian wild-eyed conspiracy nuts who in their enthusiasm for the Latin Mass think that clown masses are the rule and that Novus Ordo is akin to a satanic black mass.

Here is the thing, I am a traditionalist (by my own definition) and a rather run of the mill one at that, I guess. However, I am a pretty happy guy I think.

Read the rest >>>>

Summorum Pontificum First Anniversary articles (con't)

From the Remnant Newspaper:

Summorum Pontificum One Year Later: An Interview with Fr. John Berg, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter

Excerpt:

Fr. Berg: I think that the old rite is certainly held up as a standard in that it has fixed norms. It doesn’t have a lot of options, so it is easier to hold it up as a standard in a certain way. I think the new rite could have some of those introduced.

If you go back and read Summorum Pontificum, I don’t think it was the intention of the Holy Father nor was it spelled out as to the meaning of mutual enrichment in either of the rites. I think we also could to some extent be slipping into a “spirit of Summorum Pontificum” similar to “the spirit of Vatican II” by taking liberties and making certain changes with regard to the rubrics in one direction or the other as something that was allowed or was intended or even the “vision” of the Holy Father.

Some liturgical “experts” like to think that this whole thing is ultimately about creating one rite way down the road. But I think that if you understand that one of the primary principles of the liturgy is to be subservient to the liturgy—not that it is something that is your own, but you being obedient to the liturgy and to the prayer of the Church, not your individual prayers, but the prayer of the Church.

What that involves is following the rubrics and the guidelines as they are written. So I think it would be disastrous if anyone were to take it upon himself, as you have already mentioned, to think they are going to take the first steps to move these two forms of the rite together.

Of course the document itself clearly says that the vernacular can be used in the readings, but just because that is allowed does not mean it is required or that there are a host of other things in the document that allow other changes.

...

B. Mershon: There has been much discussion, both online and elsewhere, on the issue of the so-called second (or third) Confiteor prayed by the altar boys prior to Holy Communion. Some have even gone so far to state that the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei has disallowed its use. How do you respond, and what has been the FSSP’s practice in this regard?

Fr. Berg: While I certainly think that the internet and the blogging world is a good source of information, I think it would be a real mistake to think that the Commission is going to hand down decisions on liturgical practice through blogs X, Y or Z. It is an abnormal world that we live in when we think that Rome is going to speak officially through internet blogmasters.

Those are some very pointed comments. Interesting...

Advocatus Diaboli: Prelude

The human condition is cursed with any number of failings; among them, the temptation to want something badly enough, as to become one's own worst enemy while trying to attaining it.

Recently, Father John Zuhlsdorf, author of the weblog WDTPRS (What Does The Prayer Really Say?), had a stern warning for those who use internet discussion forums and chat rooms for "publicly bad mouthing priests who have been celebrating the TLM and denigrating their ministry... They claim these priests [are] not Catholic enough, not fully or really Catholic. Not Catholic like they are..." The good Father is not overstating the problem. Such conduct has been with us from the days of the old bulletin board services and e-mail listservs, virtually dating back to the days of the original 1984 indult. It has been on the upswing since the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum. All this, thanks to a motley assortment of liturgical dilettantes who are doing considerable harm to their own cause.

There can be no dispute as to the bureaucratic stalling and dilatory measures being undertaken, throughout the Catholic infrastructure, to prevent the unrestricted celebration of the Mass of the Traditional Roman Rite. Despite the very clear wording of the papal decree, and despite the Holy Father's personal explanation accompanying it, the intelligence and the piety of countless souls continue to be insulted, by those for whom said decree does not suit their own plans. Even where celebration of the Traditional Mass is permitted, it is at times done so grudgingly, at inconvenient times and places, accompanied by unreasonable demands, and with very little if any means of financial or other support, either at the parochial or the diocesan level.

It is not the intention here to deny these things when we say that, while those who favor the Traditional Mass have little control over such minions, they must exercise some measure of control over themselves. However arbitrary or unjust certain conditions may be, they are what they are. It is not the hand we are dealt by which we are judged in this life, but how we play that hand. Those who expected immediate results from the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, however justified they may be, need to step back, get a good grip on their emotions, and take a more strategic approach to restoring Catholic tradition.

Such advice may seem inflammatory to those who have suffered from the effects that are described here. One might also consider a homily of Saint John Chrysostom on the Gospel of Matthew. This is not merely an exercise in pious talk. Consider the times in which he lived, when the Arian heresy consumed nearly every bishop, and threatened the resolve even of the man who was Pope at the time (in this case, Pope Liberius, the earliest Successor of Peter to never have been canonized). Consider this and more, when reading what follows:

As long as we are sheep, we overcome and, though surrounded by countless wolves, we emerge victorious; but if we turn into wolves, we are overcome, for we lose the shepherd's help. He, after all, feeds the sheep not wolves, and will abandon you if you do not let him show his power in you.

What he says is this: "Do not be upset that, as I send you out among the wolves, I bid you be as sheep and doves. I could have managed things quite differently and sent you, not to suffer evil nor to yield like sheep to the wolves, but to be fiercer than lions, but the way I have chosen is right. It will bring you greater praise and at the same time manifest my power." That is what he told Paul: My grace is enough for you, for in weakness my power is made perfect. "I intend," he says, "to deal the same way with you." For, when he says, I am sending you out like sheep, he implies: "But do not therefore lose heart, for I know and am certain that no one will be able to overcome you."

The Lord, however, does want them to contribute something, lest everything seem to be the work of grace, and they seem to win their reward without deserving it. Therefore he adds: You must be clever as snakes and innocent as doves. But, they may object, what good is our cleverness amid so many dangers? How can we be clever when tossed about by so many waves? However great the cleverness of the sheep as he stands among the wolves - so may wolves! - what can it accomplish? However great the innocence of the dove, what good does it do him, with so many hawks swooping upon him? To all this I say: Cleverness and innocence admittedly do these irrational creatures no good, but they can help you greatly.

What cleverness is the Lord requiring here? The cleverness of a snake. A snake will surrender everything and will put up no great resistance even if its body is being cut in pieces, provided it can save its head. So you, the Lord is saying, must surrender everything but your faith: money, body, even life itself. For faith is the head and the root; keep that, and though you lose all else, you will get it back in abundance. The Lord therefore counseled the disciples to be not simply clever or innocent; rather he joined the two qualities so that they become a genuine virtue. He insisted on the cleverness of the snake so that deadly wounds might be avoided, and he insisted on the innocence of the dove so that revenge might not be taken on those who injure or lay traps for you. Cleverness is useless without innocence.

Do not believe that this precept is beyond you power. More than anyone else, the Lord knows the true natures of created things; he knows that moderation, not a fierce defense, beats back a fierce attack.

(Hom 33, 1. 2. PG 57, 389-390)

This piece is the first of an occasional series meant to focus on the challenges posed, by those who would revive the Catholic tradition in sacred worship. If what you have read so far has already gotten under your skin, this series is definitely meant for you!

Stay tuned...

Worry is Wicked: On the SSPX and Divine Providence

Years ago I was talking to a patient about the vagaries of life, health, family and friends. A Christian woman of the Brethren denomination, she stated flatly, "Worry is Wicked!" By way of explanation, she quoted Matthew 6:27-29:

"Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these."

Worry to her was simply evidence of a lack of faith, hope, and trust in the Lord, and therefore, to her, worrying was a sinful preoccupation. That viewpoint may have been a bit extreme, but I am convinced that worry, i.e., a lack of abandonment to Divine Providence, plays a pivotal role in the anger and impatience of many within the SSPX fold.

One of the best explanations of Divine Providence from a truly Catholic perspective comes from Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. (He may be better known among traditional Catholics for his steadfast opposition to the nouvelle théologie.) In his book, Providence, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange summarizes Self-Abandonment To Providence (emphasis added):

Why we should abandon ourselves to divine providence

The answer of every Christian will be that the reason lies in the wisdom and goodness of Providence. This is very true; nevertheless, if we are to have a proper understanding of the subject, if we are to avoid the error of the Quietists in renouncing more or less the virtue of hope and the struggle necessary for salvation, if we are to avoid also the other extreme of disquiet, precipitation, and a feverish, fruitless agitation, it is expedient for us to lay down four principles already somewhat accessible to natural reason and clearly set forth in revelation as found in Scripture. These principles underlying the true doctrine of self-abandonment, also bring out the motive inspiring it.

...

These first three principles may therefore be summed up in this way: Nothing comes to pass but God has foreseen it, willed it or at least permitted it. He wills nothing, permits nothing, unless for the manifestation of His goodness and infinite perfections, for the glory of His Son, and the welfare of those that love Him. In view of these three principles, it is evident that our trust in Providence cannot be too childlike, too steadfast. Indeed, we may go further and say that this trust in Providence should be blind as is our faith, the object of which is those mysteries that are non-evident and unseen (fides est de non visis) for we are certain beforehand that Providence is directing all things infallibly to a good purpose, and we are more convinced of the rectitude of His designs than we are of the best of our own intentions. Therefore, in abandoning ourselves to God, all we have to fear is that our submission will not be wholehearted enough. [54]

In view of Quietism, however, this last sentence obliges us to lay down a fourth principle no less certain than the principles that have preceded. The principle is, that obviously self-abandonment does not dispense us from doing everything in our power to fulfil God's will as made known in the commandments and counsels, and in the events of life; but so long as we have the sincere desire to carry out His will thus made known from day to day, we can and indeed we must abandon ourselves for the rest to the divine will of good pleasure, no matter how mysterious it may be, and thus avoid a useless disquiet and mere agitation. [55]

...All theologians explain what is meant by the divine will as expressed: expressed, that is, in the commandments, in the spirit underlying the counsels, and in the events of life. [56] They add that, while conforming ourselves to His expressed will, [57] we must abandon ourselves to His divine will of good pleasure, however mysterious it may be, for we are certain beforehand that in its holiness it wills nothing, permits nothing, unless for a good purpose.

"...a useless disquiet, precipitation, and a feverish, fruitless agitation..."

Is it fair to say that we traditional Catholics are often guilty of this latter extreme? Does not our righteous anger at the injustices of the past 40 years often decay into unjust anger, bitterness, and impatience?

Fr. Zuhlsdorf, in his emphases and comments on the recent Angelus interview with SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson, notes:

Williamson: Had the Archbishop not consecrated? We would have seen some other marvel of the Lord God to ensure that the Faith and the Church continued. [An interesting observation. In other words they did not have to defy the Vicar of Christ, and persist in defiance. I think when people offer the argument that had Archbp. Lefevbre and the SSPX not done what they did, then we would not have the older Mass today, we should reject that premise, or at least scrutinize it closely.] There can be no doubt that the bishops of the SSPX have in fact made possible the continuance of the SSPX as one bulwark of the Faith in difficult times, but the Lord God’s arm is not shortened by the wickedness of men. [True!]

Q: Do you see the situation with Rome as more or less encouraging after these past 20 years?

Williamson: I am afraid the situation with Rome is still more discouraging than 20 years ago. [One would not think so, unless one has an abiding problem with the person of Papa Ratzinger. Perhaps the abiding problems is, in this case, fear. Williamson would not be capable of "winning" an argument with Papa if it really came down to the serious doctrinal dialogue the SSPX claim they desire. So, perhaps constantly kicking sand at the eyes of the "summits" is their best strategy right now.] As Our Lord says in one of His parables, “Some enemy hath done this.” Some enemy, very clever and cleverly hidden, is at work. [A diabolical conspiracy. Still, I find it ironic that he cites a verse from Scripture which Augustine used when refuting the theological positions of the Donatists, who set up altar against altar, defied legitimate Catholic authority, and believed in a Church of the pure only. Ironic.] Notwithstanding, the Lord God is in control. [For someone who makes statements about abandonment to divine providence, there sure is an extreme need to be in control, isn’t there?]
...
Williamson: The most important development of the last 20 years would seem to me to be no one event in particular, but rather the advance on every front of evil in general. We are surrounded. [I want to give him the benefit of the doubt here, but a close read might suggest to some that he has just including the election of Benedict XVI and the issuing of the Motu Proprio as part of the "advance of evil". I get the impression that this fellow thinks that the MP was a Trojan Horse. Bp. "Cassandra" is therefore warning against any close dealings with the "false Rome" or those at "the summits".] Humanly, we are going under. [Is there a bit of a dualism behind this statement?] But God is God! [Again the reference to divine providence.]

Fr. Zuhlsdorf makes an important point here. Bishop Williamson and other SSPX members routinely make reference to divine providence, but seem to be living the (non-scriptural) adage that "The Lord helps those who help themselves."

Dr. Brian Sudlow's recent post, Confessions of a Nobody or why I quit the SSPX milieu, examines what he views as the primary error of the SSPX theses:

...I began to recognise the one error that ran through all the SSPX theses: a kind of privatisation of judgment. I’ll say it again: they live by a privatisation of judgment in their canonical, theological and liturgical life which leads them into an autonomous situation with regard to these three areas of ecclesial life. It is well meant. It is an instinct of self preservation. It seems to be the most logical and the most effective means of keeping the faith in a time of serious disintegration. But it is, nevertheless, a line of thought and conduct which is self-authenticating.

Can this self-authenticating privatisation of judgment in canonical, theological and liturgical life be reconciled with the demands of Self-Abandonment To Providence?

Looking back to Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, we read:

These are the principles underlying the doctrine of trusting self-abandonment. Accepted as they are by all theologians, they express what is of Christian faith in this matter. The golden mean is thus above and between the two errors mentioned at the beginning of this section. By constant fidelity to duty, we avoid the false and idle repose of the Quietist, and on the other hand by a trustful self-abandonment we are saved from a useless disquiet and a fruitless agitation. Self-abandonment would be sloth did it not presuppose this daily fidelity, which indeed is a sort of springboard from which we may safely launch ourselves into the unknown. Daily fidelity to the divine will as expressed gives us a sort of right to abandon ourselves completely to the divine will of good pleasure as yet not made known to us.

A faithful soul will often recall to mind these words of our Lord: "My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me" (John 4: 34). The soul finds its constant nourishment in the divine will as expressed, abandoning itself to the divine will as yet not made known, much as a swimmer supports himself on the passing wave and surrenders himself to the oncoming wave, to that ocean that might engulf him but that actually sustains, him. So the soul must strike out toward the open sea, into the infinite ocean of being, says St. John Damascene, borne up by the divine will as made known there and then and abandoning itself to that divine will upon which all successive moments of the future depend. The future is with God, future events are in His hands...Daily fidelity and trusting self-abandonment thus give the spiritual life its balance, its stability and harmony. In this way we live our lives in almost continuous recollection, in an ever-increasing self-abnegation, and these are the conditions normally required for contemplation and union with God. This, then, is the reason why our life should be one of self-abandonment to the divine will as yet unknown to us and at the same time supported every moment by that will as already made known to us.

Obviously, we must abandon ourselves to the divine will in all things (and this includes the time and ways God chooses to restore traditional Catholicism):

In what matters we should abandon ourselves to divine Providence

Once we have complied with the principles just laid down, when we have done all that the law of God and Christian prudence demand, our self-abandonment should then embrace everything. What does this involve? In the first place, our whole future, what our circumstances will be tomorrow, in twenty years and more. We must also abandon ourselves to God in all that concerns the present, in the midst of the difficulties we may be experiencing right now; even our past life, our past actions with all their consequences should be abandoned to the divine mercy.

We must likewise abandon ourselves to God in all that affects the body, in health and sickness, as well as in all that affects the soul, whether it be joy or tribulation, of long or brief duration. We must abandon ourselves to God in all that concerns the good will or malice of men. [58] Says St. Paul: [59]

If God be for us, who is against us? He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how hath He not also, with Him, given us all things?... Who then shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulations? Or distress? Or famine? Or nakedness? Or danger? Or persecutions? Or the sword?... I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things to come, nor might, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Could there be a more perfect self-abandonment in the spirit ; of faith, hope, and love? This is an abandonment embracing all the vicissitudes of this world, all the upheavals that may convulse it, embracing life and death, the hour of death, and the circumstances, peaceful or violent, in which we breathe forth our last sigh.

...What is our practical conclusion to be? It is this, that in doing our utmost to carry out our daily duties we must for the rest abandon ourselves to divine providence, and that with the most childlike confidence. And if we are really striving to be faithful in little things, in the practice of humility, gentleness, and patience, in the daily routine of our lives, God on His part will give us grace to be faithful in greater and more difficult things, should He perchance ask them of us; then, in those exceptional circumstances, He will give to those that seek Him exceptional graces.

Few traditional Catholics would argue that the words and actions of Archbishop Lefebvre -- up till 1988 -- were those of an exceptional man working under and through the influence of exceptional graces under exceptional circumstances. The question then is one of the words and actions of the SSPX from the 1988 consecrations up to the present.

Anger and Impatience

For years, I've had an ongoing debate over the proper "role" of anger in traditional Catholic debates online with a dear friend who attends an SSPX chapel. In our most recent exchange, he stated,

I'd like for you to consider the following quote I found on one of the threads:

St. John Chrysostom wrote:

"Only the person who becomes irate without reason, sins. Whoever becomes irate for a just reason is not guilty. Because, if ire were lacking, the science of God would not progress, judgments would not be sound, and crimes would not be repressed.

Further, the person who does not become irate when he has cause to be, sins. For an unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices: it fosters negligence, and stimulates not only the wicked, but above all the good, to do wrong."

(Homily XI super Matheum, 1c, nt.7)

I replied,

As far as anger goes, I'm not saying that any person who gets angry is guilty. We know better than that. And your quote here really hits home. Just anger obviously has a big role to play in the defense of the Faith as well as the defense of the Faithful.

But a steady diet of anger cannot and will not sustain any apostolate or individual soul. Anger might be a good and just motive for Catholic action, but it cannot sustain it, and it will always destroy the soul. Other virtues must come into play once just anger plays its role.

The soul whose primary motive is anger is what they call in the spiritual classics a "retarded soul." And when anger is permitted to seethe and permeate the soul for long periods, it leads to real guilt, and destroys virtue in the soul.

In this latter case, the anger is a sign of refusal to accept God's Active and Permissive Will. Its a sign of refusal to abandon one's soul to Divine Providence. It is a lack of patient resignation to God's Holy Will.

[From] the old Catholic spiritual classics, and the lives of the saints, [you] realize real quick that anger was never a primary motive of any of the saints. It may be a transient motive that leads, by the Grace of God, to other motives and virtues. But left unchecked, by an act of the Will, it will shrivel up the soul and undermine good fruits and eventually lead to serious sin.

...The desire to "destroy" anything does not come from God, even if its the Devil and his lies that one desires to destroy.

Only God gets to determine when and how the Devil will meet his eternal reward. Only God gets to determine when and how traditional Catholicism will be restored.

We only need to worry about those things over which we have immediate control. If we try to affect or effect things beyond our control, we are doomed to failure -- and perpetual anger. Only the Devil wins in that scenario.

Tonight he responded (these are general statements and do not betray any confidences),

...I am, in general, EXTRAORDINARILY angry over what has been done to our Church and by extension humanity. I've wept over it many, many times. I read the same catechism and scriptures as you and others, but I can't make it go away or pretend that the anger doesn't exist. It’s there. It just is.

From a pragmatic standpoint, I'm not sure that I'd want it to go away or not exist even if that were possible. I've come to believe that there needs to exist a contingent, as large a one as possible, that is simply not going to stand for what has been stood for until now; a contingent that's not going to shut up, and is not going to be NICE.

Quote:
The desire to "destroy" anything does not come from God, even if its the Devil and his lies that one desires to destroy.

This statement is inconceivable to me.

Quote

1 All things have their season, and in their times all things pass under heaven. 2 A time to be born and a time to die. A time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted. 3 A time to kill, and a time to heal. A time to destroy, and a time to build. 4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh. A time to mourn, and a time to dance. 5 A time to scatter stones, and a time to gather. A time to embrace, and a time to be far from embraces. 6 A time to get, and a time to lose. A time to keep, and a time to cast away. 7 A time to rend, and a time to sew. A time to keep silence, and a time to speak. 8 A time of love, and a time of hatred. A time of war, and a time of peace.

Do I really need to list all of what the Church and Her sons and daughters have destroyed or sought to destroy over the last 2,000 years? The heresies, the Islamic incursions, the Roman Empire, communism, Abortion Inc., etc.

Come on Brian, really. If you don’t wish the apparatus that wrought this atrocity on us destroyed, perhaps I don’t know you as well as I thought I did.

Force Vs. Violence

I'm afraid my friend simply does not grasp the difference between the just use of force and an act of violence. At least he is failing to make this necessary distinction. And frankly, this refusal to make such distinctions is a hallmark of the online rhetoric of many SSPX defenders and supporters. Christian polemics are an integral part of preaching the Gospel. However, rhetoric itself can become a form of violence. So too, illicit episcopal consecrations.

In Catholic thought, violence is the illicit application of force in the pursuit of a good. The application of force itself is morally neutral. In our current debate, the dividing line seems to fall once again on 1988, and the point at which just anger becomes sinful, and whether the actions arising out of that anger do violence to the Church. The questions of proper obedience and the authority of the Pope come into play.

Who is to blame if the faithful resort to such "violence"?

In his article The Taproot of Violence the late Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, S.J. reflected on the nature of violence, and the culpability of negligent leaders in its escalation:

An allied, though external reason for the escalation of violence today is the failure of authority—that spiritual power—to exercise itself as a bulwark against criminal violence. This failure is due to the weakened adherence to truth and the loss of faith of both civil and religious authorities. The poet Yeats so well expressed this problem endemic in our days. "The best in society lack all conviction, the worst (the criminals) are full of passionate intensity." For violence proliferates with the breakdown of authority. And authority breaks down when Christian convictions are denied in theory or betrayed in cowardly conduct. When governors, superiors, lawmakers, administrators and teachers cease to believe that they have a body of truth to teach and a code of Christian holiness to live up to, inculcate into others and, yes, even die for, then the community is abandoned by its leaders and left a prey to professional inciters of murder and rapine. For once bereft of effective Christian leadership, the masses are pathetically prone to heed the siren call to revolution. When authority is confused, apathetic, fearful of performing its duty, then society falls into the hands of the most cunning and powerful who are usually organized and proceed to amalgamate ruthlessly communities into communes. When authority is weak it often succumbs to blackmail, thus becoming a catalyst to fiercer attacks of the revolutionaries. For successful violence inevitably calls forth greater, bolder, more frequent violence. What civil and especially religious authorities must realize is that the apologists for organized violence know no loyalty, reverence, reality but their own selfish goals. They are neo-nihilists, spiritually famished, deprived of mature person-hood by self-idolization. They are the waifs of a materialist, godless civilization that seeks a Utopia here and now. What they need is not coddling but discipline. What they admire and respond to is not capitulation but firm convictions and adamant enforcement of doctrinal, moral and civil laws. When authorities, civil and religious, are eaten up with a zeal for truth and holiness, when they show a courage that is the fruit of deep Christian convictions and conduct, when they demonstrate a love for wandering souls that stops at no sacrifice to bring them back to the Good Shepherd of all souls, then the rising tide of criminal violence will begin to fall to a low ebb. Then the spiritual starvelings who are fascinated with the violence of gangsters and of hucksters of false ideologies may be won back to the violence known as intensity of love, that zeal which conquers the kingdom of heaven and leads to a life of truth, holiness, peace and joy with God and man. "The truth will make you free," says Christ. And to be sure a society founded on adherence to truth and holiness will enjoy a peace and a freedom that are immune from the plague of criminal violence.

Obviously, many Church leaders over the past 40 years fall under the broad categories Fr. Miceli identifies as responsible for the escalation of violence.

The Triumph of Humility

In his book, Providence, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange quotes extensively from the book Abandonment to Divine Providence by Fr. Jean-Pierre de Caussade, S.J.

Fr. de Caussade magnificently illustrates the fruits of a humble Self-Abandonment To Providence:

SECTION XII.—The Triumph of Humility.

To the souls which are faithful to Him, God promises a glorious victory over the powers of the world and of hell.

If the divine action is hidden here below under the appearance of weakness, it is in order to increase the merit of souls which are faithful to it; but its triumph is none the less certain.

The history of the world from the beginning is but the history of the struggle between the powers of the world, and of hell, against the souls which are humbly devoted to the divine action. In this struggle all the advantage seems to be on the side of pride, yet the victory always remains with humility. The image of the world is always presented to our eyes as a statue of gold, brass, iron, and clay. This mystery of iniquity, shown in a dream to Nabuchodonosor, is nothing but a confused medley of all the actions, interior and exterior, of the children of darkness. This is also typified by the beast coming out of the pit to make war, from the beginning of time, against the interior and spiritual life of man. All that takes place in our days is the consequence of this war. Monster follows monster out of the pit, which swallows, and vomits them forth again amidst incessant clouds of smoke. The combat between St. Michael and Lucifer, that began in Heaven, still continues. The heart of this once magnificent angel, has become, through envy, an inexhaustible abyss of every kind of evil. He made angel revolt against angel in Heaven, and from the creation of the world his whole energy is exerted to make more criminals among men to fill the ranks of those who have been swallowed up in the pit. Lucifer is the chief of those who refuse obedience to the Almighty. This mystery of iniquity is the very inversion of the order of God; it is the order, or rather, the disorder of the devil.

This disorder is a mystery because, under a false appearance of good, it hides irremediable and infinite evil. Every wicked man, who, from the time of Cain, up to the present moment, has 92declared war against God, has outwardly been great and powerful, making a great stir in the world, and being worshiped by all. But this outward semblance is a mystery. In reality they are beasts which have ascended from the pit one after another to overthrow the order of God. But this order, which is another mystery, has always opposed to them really great and powerful men who have dealt these monsters a mortal wound. As fast as hell vomits them forth, Heaven at the same time creates fresh heroes to combat them. Ancient history, sacred and profane, is but a record of this war. The order of God has ever remained victorious and those who have ranged themselves on the side of God have shared His triumph, and are happy for all eternity. Injustice has never been able to protect deserters. It can reward them only by death, an eternal death.

Those who practise iniquity imagine themselves invincible. O God! who can resist You? If a single soul has the whole world and all hell against it, it need have no fear if, by abandonment, it takes its stand on the side of God and His order.

The monstrous spectacle of wickedness armed with so much power, the head of gold, the body of silver, brass, and iron, is nothing more than the image of clay; a small stone cast at it will scatter it to the four winds of Heaven.

How wonderfully has the Holy Spirit illustrated the centuries of the world! So many startling revelations! so many renowned heroes following each other like so many brilliant stars! So many wonderful events!

All this is like the dream of Nabuchodonosor, forgotten on awaking, however terrible the impression it made at the time.

All these monsters only come into the world to exercise the courage of the children of God, and if these are well trained, God gives them the pleasure of slaying the monsters, and sends fresh athletes into the arena.

And this life is a spectacle to angels, causing continual joy in Heaven, work for saints on earth, and confusion to the devils in hell.

So all that is opposed to the order of God renders it only the more to be adored. All workers of iniquity are slaves of justice, and the divine action builds the heavenly Jerusalem on the ruins of Babylon.

In the Homily of his Inauguration Mass on April 24, 2005, it was obvious that Pope Benedict XVI understands the nature of this battle, and the role that the impatience and anger of man plays in it all:

"How often we wish that God would show himself stronger, that he would strike decisively, defeating evil and creating a better world. All ideologies of power justify themselves in exactly this way, they justify the destruction of whatever would stand in the way of progress and the liberation of humanity.

We suffer on account of God’s patience. And yet, we need his patience.

God, who became a lamb, tells us that the world is saved by the Crucified One, not by those who crucified him. The world is redeemed by the patience of God. It is destroyed by the impatience of man."