Traditional Believers: Beware!

In a recent post I said (slightly revised here for clarity):

Truly, since Tradition is a vehicle of Divine Revelation it is not Traditionalists in the FFI, FSSP, ICKSP, the Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney, the Institute of the Good Shepherd or the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer et al, who are a problem; nor is it the Diocesan priest who preaches the whole of Vatican II and sometimes celebrates with the Usus Antiquior, nor is it the laity of Una VoceFoederatio Internationalis. All of these accept Vatican II and happily co-exist with those who favour the Novus Ordo. It is liberals, clerical and lay, who focus only on the new and refuse the old who are problematic. Why? Bbecause they are in danger of erecting a new Church by cutting us off from our liturgical and doctrinal foundations. 

I am becoming more and more concerned that Traditional Catholics are under unjust attack by such liberals, and increasingly concerned that Pope Francis is not coming to our aid. Indeed (and though we cannot state that the Pope has actively instigated such persecution) he appears to stimulate the persecution with his comments about neo-pelagians and gnosticism. All the Traditional folk I personally know, and all the Orders/Fraternities that have happily existed in complete union with Rome under the two previous Popes, must now feel under threat because of the actions taken against the Franciscans of the Immaculate, and here’s why:

if I were to reject Vatican II and preached against it; and if I were to become so adverse to the Missa Normativa that I refused to use it, then I would expect to be placed under sanctions. I would not however, expect every priest of the Diocese who upholds Vatican II and celebrates in the Usus Antiquior yet happily co-exists with the Missa Normativa to have the same sanctions placed on them: one does not punish a whole family because of the crimes of the one or even the few. That is what has been done in the FFI: all the priests of the FFI have had been refused permission to live by Summorum Pontificum in that they must now apply to their superior to celebrate in the Usus Antiquior. I cannot help but think that if a whole Order/Fraternity can be placed under sanctions because of the actions/words of a few, then Rome could extend the sanctions to all Orders/Fraternities because of failures in one Order/Fraternity, the principle of extending sanctions to all because of the failures of the few having been established.

We must all pray hard that the situation with the FFI and Rome is resolved swiftly and justly, for the sake of us all and for ‘reconciliation in the heart of the Church’ (Pope Benedict XVI).

The Novus Ordo: An Authentic Expression of the Faith?

Leaving aside the altar-facing orientation of the priest; use of Latin/Gregorian chant and Communion on the tongue (which are the norms of the Novus Ordo; the people-facing orientation, the vernacular and Communion in the hand all being the legitimate options), could I take an oath to say the New Missal is an authentic expression of the Catholic Faith? I have to say I could, but I could not take one to say it is the best expression of the Faith. To be honest, the Novus Ordo leaves me feeling very unsatisfied by...

1. by omitting the prayers at the foot of the altar, since by omitting them we now walk onto the sanctuary as though we are there by right and not by grace

1. by a Confiteor that has me confess my sinfulness to other sinners but not to the saints who, being intimately united to God, are indirectly offended by my sins (it seeks their intercession at the end without having allowed me to make any confession to them)

1. by a Kyrie reduced to a three-fold repetition that gives many the idea that it is addressed to Father, Son and Holy Spirit respectively when in fact it is one of the few prayers in the Mass addressed to Christ alone

1. by so much scripture reading that one gets over-loaded and the force of each reading gets lost

1. by a ‘preparation of the gifts’ that does not prepare them for sacrifice but is a grace before meals (the Mass being a sacred banquet as well as the Sacrifice notwithstanding, since participation in the banquet depends upon the Sacrifice having been offered)

1. by an acclamation (the Mystery of Faith) interrupting the Canon in which the Lord is addressing the Father in His Church

1. by the out-loud Canon which makes it seem the prayers are said for the edification of the people rather than as an interceding of the Divine Son with the Divine Father for our salvation (we do not have a right to hear what passes between the Father and the Son)

1. by the frequent use of the phrase ‘sacrifice of praise’ which gives the impression that the sacrifice of the Mass is that of our time and effort given in order to honour God

1. by the lack of a genuflection before the elevations of the Host and Chalice and after the per ipsum

1. by the fact that Canons 2,3 and 4 make no distinction between the mode of offering in the ordained and lay states

1. by the Pater Noster having no ‘Amen’, which gives the impression that the doxology is part of the prayer as given to us by Our Lord

1. by the single proclamation of the Domine non sum dignus which diminishes its psychological force by the many options permitted: one goes to a Mass not knowing with what one will be presented. This destroys the unity of the Church’s worship in its concrete celebrations.

 The above said, how then could I take an oath saying the New Missal is an authentic expression of the Faith? Well, in addition to the affirmations of these in the General Instruction which I spoke of briefly here, within the Rite itself there are elements which even those who say it is not fully expressive of the core Doctrines of the Mass have to say it is at least consistent with those doctrines:

The Real Presence:

“that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ” (EP II)

“make holy these gifts we have brought to you for consecration that they may become the Body and Blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ” (EP III)

“recognising the sacrificial Victim by whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself, grant that we, who are nourished by the Body and Blood of your Son...” (EP III)

A re-present-ing of the Sacrifice of Calvary:

... “as we celebrate the memorial of His death and resurrection we offer you the Bread of life and the Chalice of salvation...” (EP II)

...“recognising the sacrificial Victim by whose death you reconcile us to yourself, grant...” (EP III)

... “as we now celebrate the memorial of our redemption....we offer you His body and blood, the acceptable Sacrifice which brings salvation to the whole world...look upon the Sacrifice which you yourself have provided for your church...” (EP IV)

The propitiatory value of the Mass:

... “may this sacrifice of our reconciliation we pray O Lord, advance the peace and salvation of all the world...” (EP III)

... “that they may become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ for the celebration of this great mystery which He left us as an eternal covenant” (EP IV)

The distinction between the ministerial priesthood and the lay state:

We must grant that other than in EP I (The Roman Canon) where this is made clear (“we, your people and your ministers”) this is found in the Orate fratres: “that my sacrifice and yours”.

There is a criticism made by some that while the new Eucharistic Prayers may be consistent with the Faith they are not fully expressive of it, and that what gives these prayers a sense of orthodoxy for such folk is a bolting-on to these texts their belief in the Real Presence and the Sacrifice. I have to say that is my own experience too, for while nothing in them contradicts our Faith but it seems quite muted in them. It seems very odd -even inconsistent with the Second Vatican Council (which recognised that liturgy also instructs cf. SC.33) that anyone should have to bolt-on to the texts they hear/proclaim their underlying understanding of the Faith: it would indicate some measure of failure in the lex ornadi/lex credendi of the New Missal.

I may be alone in saying the New Missal can be seen as an authentic expression of the Faith, but I find it hard to believe that sincere and holy Popes such as John-Paul II and Benedict XVI did not find the Novus Ordo poor enough to warrant significant alteration. Given the chance I would of course, use the Usus Antiquior far more often than I would use the Novus Ordo: I not only find it richer in its texts, but it gives me a far better experience of my union with the Church of the past.

Crypto-Lefebvrians?

Putting aside the difficulty surrounding the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate and the criticism Fr Volpi has received for his handling of the situation (a full and fair assessment of which can only be made after the investigatory process is completed and all is revealed) I cannot help but wonder what he means by "crypto-lefebvrian". We know the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre refuse to accept [a] the texts of Vatican II and [b] the Novus Ordo Missae; we also know some folk have some sympathy with the SSPX, so is this what he means by “cryto-lefebvrianism”? Indeed, many folk are problematic in their reading of Vatican II and in their choice of Missal, but I suggest that this is the liberals, not the Traditionalists, for Traditionalists happily exist in the Church of Vatican II and its Novus Ordo, while liberals reject the use of the Traditional Missal and manipulate Vatican II by emphasising certain phrases of the Council at the expense of the whole.

For example, liberals seem to pay lip-service to the text stating that the Saviour “instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of His Body and Blood...in order to perpetuate the Sacrifice of the Cross throughout the ages” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 47); preferring instead to present the Mass as a perpetuation of the Last Supper so as to promote Mass as a cheerful, affirming and fraternal gathering. They also ignore the text which says “the faithful should also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them” (ibidem, 54) and that which says “Gregorian chant is to have pride of place” (ibidem 116) when they refuse to use Latin and criticise those who do.

Further, they seem to play down the text which says “the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head” (Lumen gentium 23); speaking of collegiality in such a way as to imply that a majority vote among the Bishops can impose an obligation upon the Bishop of Rome to acquiesce.

Still further, they seem to focus on the text which says “significant elements and endowments which build up and give life to the Church can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church” while playing down the rest of that text which goes on to say “All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ”; that non-Catholic communities “derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church” (Unitatis redintegratio 3) and that “Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth, to which all who belong in any way to the people of God should be fully incorporated” (ibidem). Rather, they appear to tolerate conversion but not to see it as the best thing possible. It is not rare to hear that someone had been told “Just be a good Methodist...Presbyterian...Jew....Muslim”.

Liberals also ignore or play down the text which says “Religious freedom...which men demand as necessary to fulfil their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society...” omitting the rest of the sentence which states that this “leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ” (Dignitatis Humanae 1). They speak of religious liberty in such a way that they give the impression all religions have an equal right to exist and/or to adherence.

The same liberals stand up against the use of the Traditional Form of Mass, waving the flag of the Novus Ordo as a rallying banner by which Vatican II stands or falls. Truly, since Tradition is a vehicle of Divine Revelation it is not Traditionalists in the FFI, FSSP, ICKSP, the Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney, the Institute of the Good Shepherd or the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer et al who are a problem; nor is it the Diocesan priest who preaches the whole of Vatican II and sometimes celebrates with the Usus Antiquior or the laity of Una Voce Foederatio Internationalis who are a problem, since all the above accept Vatican II and happily co-exist with those who favour the Novus Ordo. It is liberals, clerical and lay, who focus only on the new and refuse the old who are problematic, because they are in danger of erecting a new Church by cutting us off from our liturgical and doctrinal foundations. 

On Fr Lombardi’s Defence of Fr Volpi

I feel I have to disagree with Fr Lombardi on what the letter calling for the ousting of Fr Volpi demonstrates. According to The News Tribune, Fr Lomardi has stated that,

"While the situation seems difficult and painful, it appears the letter is yet another demonstration that the naming of a commissioner was necessary and that he knows what to do with the powers he has.” 

With all due respect for Fr Lombardi, the letter (and the associations of lay Catholics collecting signatures to ask for the dismissal of Fr Volpi) can be equally seen as showing that there are concerns beyond the FI Order about the actions taken by Rome against the FI; that people perceive an overly punitive (and therefore destructive) attitude towards a fast-growing Order of younger people who are in fact living in full communion with the Holy Father and the Church’s Sacred Magisterium. That being so, unless the FI was to state as an Order (as do the SSPX) that they reject the Novus Ordo as a faithful expression of the Catholic Faith and that they do not accept the documents of Vatican II, no action needed to be taken in the arenas of liturgy, ordinations etc., but only in regard to (any) financial irregularities.

Further, any scandal goes beyond what is actually being done to the FI to the reasons behind it; reasons which may easily be seen by some as demonstrating two things; first, an aversion to Tradition (which is problematic since Tradition is a vehicle of Divine Revelation as Vatican II reminded us); second of all, a fearful, irrational over-protectiveness of the Novus Ordo.  Why may the actions be seen as demonstrating a fearful, over-defensive, irrational attitude? Because the Novus Ordo was not being criticised or rejected by the FI; rather, the Order was happily living in union with those who celebrate according to the Novus Ordo; was not denying its celebration to members of the Order, and was not writing or speaking against the Novus Ordo. Even if a majority of their priests were to celebrate using the Usus Antiquior it would not suggest anything other than a preference for the said Form. I prefer it, and I know many who do. We do not reject the legitimacy or validity of the Novus Ordo; we do not call for it to be banned; we simply enjoy the depth of the prayers, the expressive ritual and historical pedigree of the Usus Antiquior. What is wrong with that?

I repeat again what I have said before: those who, for whatever reason and whatever authority in the Church, would like to see the Usus Antiquior banned or re-restricted ought first to heed the Word of God in scripture: “Do not interfere with these men but let them go. If this movement of theirs is of human origin it will break up of its own accord, but if it is from God you will not only be unable to stop them, you might find yourselves fighting God." cf Acts 5.

A Comment Received...(copied and pasted as received) on the previous Post:

Reading the life and trajectory of Francis and his followers, the First Franciscans, I discovered a lot of detail and historical facts that lead to the conclusion that the Franciscan order since its early beginnings was full of contradictions and internal power struggles. And this has led to the formation few variations of the Franciscan order. 

Recently I read that there is a petition in support of this Franciscans that is being circulated in few blogs. A letter of petition in support of a particular order of the Catholic Church is perhaps not the best approach in this case. If the Pope decided to intervene is probably because there is a serious problem of internal fight among these Franciscans. If some Catholic Bloggers think they can use letters of petition in support of this Franciscans/, they are challenging Pope Francis. I am wondering to what extent it is the right thing to do? The issues of the Catholic Church cannot be dealt as if there were matters of Local government. The same approach has been advocated by those Relativists who demand abortions or women's rights to the priesthood. These are the same people who claim that the Church is old fashioned and should be reformed. The Dogma of Christ is clear on one thing: There is truth and the rest is error.

...and a Response:

I agree that the Franciscan Order has fallen into several variations since the time of St Francis. This may have arisen from internal divisions, but it is also possible that it arose being blessed with several charisms. 

A petitioning letter may or not be the best way to voice concerns, but it is very difficult to find another mode in which several (or numerous) persons can seek the same end on the same issue at the same time.  I personally cannot see this as a challenge to Pope Francis himself. If there are things which need to be sorted out in the FI --which would include the mishandling of temporal goods of the Order-- then it is clear someone had to be appointed by Francis to rectify the problems. However, Fr Volpi’s actions as they are currently being related to us might well be called 'draconian' by some, and as such, unhelpful to the overall situation. I have to add that if it is Tradition that is truly the bug-bear here, then the FSSP, ICKSP et al are all in danger of the same kind of intervention, to say nothing of Diocesan priests such as myself who faithfully celebrate both forms of Mass and preach according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I agree that the Church does not work as though things were a matter of local government alone, which is why talk of extending powers to Episcopal Conferences is worrying. That said, centralised power (as the summit and model of authority?) ought to be clear, firm and charitable. We can only wait to see if this charitable manner is indeed the case here; that Fr Volpi has acted and is still acting in sound charity. While the issue/situation is still in play, it is impossible to say.

That Oath to be Imposed upon the Franciscans of the Immaculate regarding the Novus Ordo

To take up the issue of the Franciscans of the Immaculate again, I’m sure they will have no problem in taking the oath recognising the Novus Ordois as an authentic expression of the Catholic Faith; after all (and despite the fact that the new Canons make no distinction between the role taken by the priest and the people and the distressing supplanting of the offertory prayers with a grace before meals) the Institutio Generalis contains statements that affirm the hierarchical nature of the Church (#16); the uniqueness of the ordained priesthood (#4, 72) and the propitiatory nature of the Mass as the renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary (#2, 72) the efficacy and dignity of the Mass even when celebrated without a congregation (#19) while the Rite itself contains a Confiteor which implores the intercession of the Blessed Virgin and of all the angels and saints and, above all, the ancient and venerable Roman Canon. The FI will have no problem affirming all of this –who would? They are not, when all is said and done, being asked to affirm their agreement with the way it has been manipulated in a myriad of ways in its concrete forms of celebration. Nor are they being asked to say it is the best expression of the Faith –indeed clergy who will only celebrate the Novus Ordo yet illicitly ad-lib (GI #24); who consistently refuse to follow the IG and rubrics which direct the Mass be celebrated versum apsidem (IG #157/8; rubrics 133/4), and who likewise consistently refuse to give pride of place to Gregorian Chant (#41) are those who are demonstrating that they do not think it is the best expression of the Faith. Why are not such priests being called to account?

Let us be clear: the oath should not be necessary at all in that the FI are happily existing in the Church and giving loyalty to Pope and bishops who celebrate the Novus Ordo. It is the so-called ‘Novus Ordo Church’ with which they are in union. Hence, the oath is meaningless and imposing it says more about those doing the imposing than it does about those upon whom it is imposed.

But an issue of justice and orthodoxy arises here: if the oath is being imposed because those who impose it believe the Traditional Form is being used as a flag waved against Vatican II, what about imposing a similar oath upon those who refuse the Traditional Rite and thereby wave the flag of the Novus Ordo against the whole of the Church’s past? Such an action would be more in tune with Catholic Faith since it would ensure that clergy do not deny the validity of the Church pre or post-Vatican II. After all, it is such folk who would therefore be setting up a new Church with new worship, new doctrine and new disciplines.

Why not simply add to the Profession of Faith taken before ordination and appointments that one accepts both forms of the Roman Rite? This will ensure equal treatment of all, liberty for all in the celebration of Mass and thereby retain fraternity within the Church. One may say (tongue in cheek) that the liberal, progressive Catholics will thus have a wonderful way of providing for liberty, equality and freedom  in the Church... 

Virginity, Chastity, and Celibacy –Gifts to the Consecrated but a burden in the Lay State?

I recently received an email from ‘Joe’ asking questions about the Church’s teaching on sexuality. Here is the central thrust of his email:

In his Apostolic Exhortation “Familiaris Consortio” Pope John-Paul II teaches, “Virginity or celibacy...bears witness that the Kingdom of God and His justice is that pearl of great price which is preferred to every other value no matter how great, and hence must be sought as the only definitive value“..."the Church, throughout her history, has always defended the superiority of this charism to that of marriage...”  I take that to mean that men who feel called to the Roman Catholic priesthood knowingly forgo any prospect of sexual intimacy. And it is likewise true that unmarried Catholic woman or men, gay or straight, are enjoined to live a lifetime of chastity, unfaltering in their resistance to libidinous temptations.

Single Catholics do not take a vow of chastity but they are held to its dictates with no warning or discernment as to whether or not they are have any talent or charism for a permanently virginal lifestyle. If total abstinence is so challenging for priests and nuns and religious men, unmarried Catholics might fittingly inquire why it is so automatically prescribed for their lives, especially in the cases where there is no “gift” and where, since there is no parvity of matter concerning sins against the Sixth Commandment, the consequence for any lapse is “grievous,” “grave,” mortal sin? 

I hope the writer will allow me to respond in a blog post since he asks questions of interest to many. While I’m happy to respond I’m not claiming to give ‘answers’, there are priests more theologically astute and more spiritually profound who can do that  far better than I. To the writer of the email I therefore respond with the following.

Joe, I think we must remember first of all that the ‘pearl of great price’ referred to by the Pope is the Kingdom of heaven, not celibacy; celibacy is that self-offering of a man or woman to God which bears witness to the fact that entering the Kingdom --where we do not marry cf. Mark 12v25-- is our ultimate goal and achievement. Our human relationships are an important aspect of life in this world; we are all made for relationship (ultimately with God for all eternity and in Him, to one another) and as such we should not be surprised by the experience of needing relationships with one another too.

Although those called to Catholic consecrated life knowingly forgo any prospect of physical intimacy and are gifted in grace by God so as to live the celibate life, this does not remove the struggle to remain celibate: grace allows us to enter into the struggle, but it is not magic and does not eliminate struggle. 

It is true that this gift is not seen as being given to those who are living their faith outside the consecrated life, but we need to note that there are many folk who live unmarried, chaste lives without religion as part of their world-view and who are not psychologically or emotionally disturbed by their chastity; they simply accept that they have not found a suitable life-partner. Such chastity is probably less common in today’s over-sexualised western culture but it is not absent from our history or from other cultures. As such, even though single Catholics are bound to chastity outside of marriage (as married folk are bound to fidelity within marriage) they are not thereby bound to something that is either entirely unnatural or impossible.

Since all human beings are share the flaw of a weak will, there will be failures in virginity before marriage; failures in fidelity within marriage and failures in celibacy by those in the consecrated life. These are more likely today in our over-sexualised culture.

It is from this the influence of this over-sexualised cultural that questions about the ability to live out chastity, celibacy etc arise. We should not underestimate the pervasive and powerful influence of this culture: it is one where physical intimacy for the sake of pleasure alone has been elevated to a status incongruent with the very nature of sex: its reproductive purpose of sex has been eliminated by contraception so that it becomes mere recreation, and its natural requirements for reproduction (male/female copulation) ignored to facilitate misdirected sexual urges (homosexual activity).

Failures to remain chaste outside of marriage and faithful within marriage do indeed constitute grave sin, but there are many ways in which we can fall into grave sin besides the sexual arena, and the wonder of our Faith is that we have a God who has loved us so much He has saved us from sin by His Passion, Death and resurrection, offering the forgiveness of sin to all who sincerely seek to leave sin behind and live in union with Him by the help of His grace.

The Situation of the Franciscans of the Immaculate

The saga of the Franciscans of the Immaculate continues, and the latest developments (which I’m sure all will have seen on the ever-vigilant and well-informed Rorate Caeli).

Upon reading the latest developments one cannot help but ask but what is happening in Rome since the election of Pope Francis: are those with an aversion to Tradition taking advantage of his liberal public image to attack and destroy Tradition? One may legitimately ask from where such aversion to Tradition arises: is it from lack of love for the Church; from a fear of (or an actual abhorrence of) Tradition, or from a disordered loyalty to Vatican II in which there is a simple inability to read the said Council in the light of all previous Councils?

Whatever the cause, anyone seeking to suppress Tradition is by that very fact seeking to establish a new Church cut off from Her past; a Church with its own (new) form of worship, its own (new) doctrine and its own (new) disciplines. Such folk may think they are developing ancient worship and doctrine, but they can only make such a claim if the said developments are in harmony with what has gone before. If they are not in harmony with what has gone before they are not developments but distortions; they are errors inspired by the father of lies.

Certainly it might be good to know the names of anyone directing, facilitating and approving attacks against Tradition, but names or no names I feel sure Rome will want to found bearing in mind the words spoken by Gamaliel and which can be profitably applied by Rome to her relationship with all the Traditional Communities:

"...take care what you do to these men. Some time ago, there was a rebellion under Theudas who became notorious. He claimed to be someone important, and even collected about four hundred followers; but when he was killed all his followers dispersed. And then there was Judas the Galilean at the time of the census. He also attracted crowds of supporters, but he too was killed, and all his followers dispersed. What I suggest therefore is this: that you not to interfere with these men but let them go. If this movement of theirs is of human origin it will break up of its own accord, but if it is from God you will not only be unable to stop them, you might find yourselves fighting God." cf Acts 5v34-39.

At the end of the day, since the Traditional communities are doing and teaching nothing that the Church has not done and taught for centuries they are doing what has always been regarded as holy, and the Church has no authority to suppress what is holy. Indeed those with authority will surely be taking into account the words of St Paul too: “Maybe I have taken rather too much pride in our authority, but the Lord gave us that authority for building you up, not for knocking you down” (2 Cor,10v8) and “That is why I am writing this while still far away, when I am with you I shall not have to be harsh, with the authority that the Lord has given me, an authority that is for building up and not for breaking down” (2 Cor, 13v10).