Why Be Catholic (2)

BE CATHOLIC BECAUSE CATHOLICISM MAKES SENSE OF LIFE, SUFFERING AND DEATH

None of us is free of suffering in this world. Whether we believe in a loving God or not we all have trials and tribulations in life, and all of us will ultimately die. Catholicism may not make these tribulations and death easier to get through, but it does provide an understanding of them and give a purpose to them beyond the random chance with which the atheist must content Himself.

[a] Catholics believe suffering and death came into the world by the hand of the devil who, by tempting man to self-rule, turned man away from God who alone is life, happiness and peace. It was by turning us to self and away from God and His life, happiness and peace that the devil brought us all the opposites to God: sorrow, suffering and death (Gen.3v1-19); with all the sickness, suffering and tragedies that now invade our lives. Christ entered suffering and death with us so as to rise again for us, and make of them a new path to eternal life, happiness and peace through Him.

[b] We believe that when people suffer serious illness no effort is to be spared to bring about relief from anxiety and pain -but without killing the person (we are to eliminate problems, not people). Those who suffer in any way, health or social oppression, are seen as sharing in the cross of Christ and as such, bringing great graces into the world that help and sustain us all. As St Paul says, we make up in our flesh that which is lacking in Christ’s afflictions (Col.1v24). What lacks is nothing intrinsic to His sufferings, but our participation in them, so that by sharing His Good Friday we can also share His Easter Sunday.

[c] On the Person of God, while Hollywood says “The Force be with you”, Catholics say “The Lord be with you”, for we know the living life-force of the universe to be the Living God. Further, the Living Life-Force (whom we call ‘God’ for want of a better word) has told us He is a Trinity: one God in three equal Persons; God the Father; God the Son and God the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28v19). Each of these Persons is fully God, a bit like an equilateral triangle has three equal sides -only in God each Person is the complete God whereas in the triangle each side is not the whole triangle.

[d] Catholics believe the God the Son became one of us -became Jesus Christ- (Jn 1v1-4; 11) so that by dying with us then rising for us, He could make death the door to Heaven for all who will follow Him (Jn1v12).

[e] We believe Jesus Christ is God because He claimed to be God (John.5v23 & 10v30) and proved it by rising from the dead. We believe in His Resurrection from the dead because those who witnessed it (His disciples) died torturous deaths rather than deny it.

We believe that Christians on earth, the holy souls in Purgatory and the saints in Heaven (Rev.7v9;14) form the ‘Mystical Body of Christ’ (Rom,12v4-5), those in heaven being ‘a great cloud of witnesses’ spurring us on (Heb.11v39-12v1) and praying for us (Rev.7v14).

[f] We believe the Supreme Saint is the Blessed Virgin Mary, for she is

the enemy of the devil (Gen.3v15);

the Mother God in His Human Incarnation (Lk.1v43);

sinless (Immaculate) from her conception in her mother’s womb: full of grace (Lk.1v28);

the spiritual mother of Christ’s disciples (Jn.19v27; Rev.12v17)

our intercessor (Jn.2v3);

blessed above all women (Lk.1v41)

and Queen of Heaven (Rev.12v1 -it was always the mother of Israel’s kings who reigned as their Queen, 1 Kings 2:10-25, not one of their [many!] wives).

[g] We believe in Heaven and Hell because Christ spoke of them (Matt.25v46), and because there has to be a place in eternity for those who have chosen God and for those who have rejected God.

[h] Heaven is the enjoyment of God’s eternal life, love, happiness and peace; hell is all opposites: a situation of eternal hatred, turmoil and despair. That said, we believe God does not ‘send anyone to hell’; those who go to Hell are those who reject God by choosing to live contrary to His Ten Commandments. God’s judgement is the ratification of a decision they made by their ‘lifestyle choices’  -their refusal to conform their character to His.

[i] We believe grace is the indwelling of God in the human soul (1,Jn.2v24); that it is an intimate, spiritual union with Him. Grace is built by the Sacraments, prayer, purity and good deeds; sin is built by self-direction and by ungodly entertainments which feed the mind on promiscuity, vulgarity, violence, the occult etc. Prayer is essential because it is our conversation with God: we cannot be on good terms with someone to whom we do not speak. 

Oh What A Mess...

Since the heart attack, minor stroke, Atrial Fibrillation and COPD made me useless to the people of the parish and forced me to move into a warden-assisted flat for retired folk, I have been trying Novus Ordo (N.O.) parishes in the locality for a decent act of worship. Unfortunately all I have found is acts of community celebration: affirmation of the people; applause for children after their separate liturgy of the word, and homilies focused on social justice rather than on God lovingly calling sinners to individual repentance and conversion of life. The Masses I have attended have anything but prayerful; more a community get-together than the adoration and propitiation of God which the General Instruction of the Missal sets before us. Indeed the ethos of every N.O. I have attended recently has been one in which the Mass is presented as something to be enjoyed and the folk are to be affirmed. Further, I have found in conversations at such Masses a common rejection of long-standing Catholic dogma (for some the Mass is about attending the Last Supper, not the making present of the sacrifice of the Cross; for some there is a questioning of the Church as the One True faith, leading to religious indifferentism, and for others there is a serious questioning of ordaining males exclusively). As a result I feel many who attend the N.O. are in a state of material heresy. Truly, every N.O. Mass I have attended has left me desperate for a celebration of Mass in the Traditional Form.

Sadly, if those who attend the N.O. veer towards heresy and self-adulation, among those who attend the Traditional Form (Usus Antiquior) there are some who seem to suffer from pride and a lack of charity (wherein Popes, Bishops and priests are judged as lacking and even wicked because “they deliberately ignore defined articles of faith and turn the liturgy from the adoration of God to the affirmation of man”). While N.O. folk are happy seeing more and more jollity in the Mass, hard-core Traditional folk become more and more entrenched in their narrow doctrinal understandings.

The Church, I submit, is in a mess in all facets of its life today: doctrinally, liturgically and pastorally. I am more and more convinced that what is required is a return to the Traditional Catechism in schools, colleges and seminaries, and a liturgy that is solemn and directed towards the Lord (with ad orientem posture, the use of Latin for the Ordinary of the Mass, and reception of Holy Communion on the tongue from the hand of the priest), be that Mass celebrated in the N.O or the Usus Antiquior. Unless we get back to upholding defined teaching and liturgy that is God focused, the Church will never be ‘Fit for Purpose’: the saving of souls. 

Why would the Church ‘Not Fit For Purpose?’ Because ignoring defined teaching is ignoring Christ the Truth (the enemy of whom is the father of lies) and because liturgy that is focused on the affirming and jollying-up of the folk is thereby man-centred and thus, idolatrous. Lies and idolatry do not lead to heaven. Nor does a narrow interpretation of doctrine held in uncharitable manner. For the sake of souls, let us get back to teaching the Catechism, worship that is God-centred, and charity in all things.

Why Be Catholic? (1)

One of my young nephews asked me “Why I do you go to Church when we don’t?”  I responded simply: “Because I’m a Catholic”. He came back with, “Well, why are you Catholic and we aren’t?”  I gave the simple reply that “It’s the only Church that Christ started, and so I trust it to teach the truth.” But his question started me thinking: how did my conversion to Catholicism come about? I was eight years old when I first asked to become a Catholic, and several factors were responsible for this desire.

                                                                              

The first was noticing that the family across the street went to Church every Sunday. When I asked the same question as my nephew, “Why don’t we?” and I received the same answer: “Well, we aren’t Catholics so we don’t have to”. I instinctively realised that “Well, if God is GOD, then we should have to”.

The second factor was seeing the film, “The Song of Bernadette”. I developed a great love for the Lady of Massabielle; a love that continues to this day, and always hoped that one day I would to have the opportunity of visiting the Lady’s chosen grotto.

The third was doing history in school when I discovered that the Church of England to which our whole family nominally belonged, had been started by Henry VIII so he could get a divorce –that did not sit well with me; I wanted to be part of the Church Christ started, not one Henry VIIII started.

A fourth factor was noticing that there was a lot of bullying in our school and a lot of what we now call ‘dysfunctional” families in our area. It occurred to me that unless people had a higher authority to account to (God) then we would stay bullies and family life would always be disrupted by alcohol and violence.

The fifth factor was the desire to become a priest. Knowing that few people took God, heaven and hell seriously, I stood in our garden one day contemplating how I could bring people to consider them. I wanted to erect a huge cross in the garden but knew that was out of the question -and at that moment that Father Smith passed our garden and I thought, “That’s it! I’ll be a priest, then when people see me they will have to think about God!”  My family advised me to “be a Vicar because then you can be a priest and get married”, but I remember saying, “No. I want to be a proper in priest”. I was 8 years old when seeing Father Smith stirred my vocation that day, but I did not become a Catholic until I was 20 and my mother booked me and her on a pilgrimage to Lourdes with the local Catholic parish: I simply decided that if I was going to Lourdes I was going as a Catholic, which I did. I am very grateful that I was instructed by the local priest using an abbreviated version of the Penny Catechism, wherein Catholic teaching was clear and precise. It spurred me on to buying F J Sheed’s Theology and Sanity and Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, both of which stood me in good stead for discerning good and bad teaching in the seminary. 

At any rate, having been asked the question by my nephew, I thought a short series of posts on ‘Why Be Catholic’ might be a good idea. Part 1 follows.

WHY BE CATHOLIC (1)

BE CATHOLIC BECAUSE CATHOLICISM HANDS ON GOD’S SELF-REVELATION ON TO US

[a] I am a Catholic because Catholicism alone has unbroken lineage of pastors and teaching back to Christ, and thus hands on to me (to us) the self-revelation of God: Who He is, and what His plans are for humanity. It gives mankind an understanding of the world, ourselves and our destiny; an understanding that surpasses man’s intellectual explorations of the world, ourselves and the meaning of life.

[b] God is the Supreme Being in whom life and existence originate. While we can say “I have life; I have existence, we cannot say “I am life; I am existence” -only God can say that, because life and existence are His nature: He does not ‘have’ life and existence; He IS life and existence. Existence and life can have only one point of origin (there are not two origins to the universe). Existence and life thus arise together in the same ultimate cause of all that exists: God. I might encapsulate this by saying ‘God is Living Existence’.

 [c] Everyone has an in-built instinct for God; it is an instinct meant to propel us toward union with Him and with His life, happiness and peace. Some express this instinct in overtly religious ways, as do Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims etc., others express it in misdirected ways by believing in such things as fate, luck, karma, superstition, astrology or the occult, all of which are belief in ‘unseen forces’ -and therefore substitutes for God. Without connection to God as the source of our being we can never be truly content, because the foundation of our being is absent. Depressions can only be worse without connection to our foundation; anxieties more intense without connection to our foundation.

[d] The human person instinctively seeks perfect life, happiness and peace, but we can never find it in this imperfect world. Yet the drive to find it is powerful. What religion brings is knowledge of and a hearing of the call to seek God. It also calls us to be the best we can be; the kind of person who, when we die, will have people saying “the world is poorer without”. What the chasing of pleasure (via alcohol, drug use and sexual license and easy money through criminal activity) brings, will be people saying “the world is better off without him”.

[e] I am Catholic because it is the home of science. Science being the enquiry into what creation consists of and how it works, goes hand in hand with Catholicism -which has pursued scientific enquiry for centuries: the scientific method being formalised by Rev. Roger Bacon; the Big Bang discovered by Rev. George Lemaitre; the Mercalli scale for measuring earthquakes (still used today) developed by and named after Rev. Mercarlli. In medical science the laws of genetics were discovered by Rev. Gregor Mendel; cell cytology pioneered by Rev. J. B. Carnoy; chemical digestion in human physiology first described by Rev. Lazzaro Spallanzani; the fallopian tubes named after the anatomist Rev. Falloppio; the glandular-lymphatic system first described by Rev. Niels Stensen (who also founded the science of geology by developing the correct theory of sedimentary rock, geological strata and the origin of fossils).

Although many assume there is a conflict between science and religion this isn’t the case: science tells us how the world works; religion tells us why we are here –and how to live in the world and make use of its resources in moral ways that lead to God. Conflict only occurs between religious bodies and scientists when the scientist says “Because we can do A, B or C, we should”, making no reference to God’s revelation of what is right and wrong.

N.B. the ‘Big Bang’ so clearly points to God that when first discovered it is reported that the Quantum Physicist David Bohm said its discoverers had “turned traitor to science to find answers convenient to the Catholic Church” (cf. Why Does the World Exist?: One Man's Quest for the Big Answer By Jim Holt, American philosopher, author and essayist). Further, while the Big Bang describes how the universe was created, the (unproved) theory of Evolution simply posits how creation developed over time (akin to the Bible’s poetical ‘seven days’ which simply describe huge amounts of time for, “To you Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day” (ps.90v4; 2.Pet.3v8). So neither the Big Bang nor Evolution contradict the Bible.

The Novus Ordo Missae

Those who know me well know I do not like the New Order (Novus Ordo) of Mass. I have no difficulty saying the Novus Ordo is legitimate (it is, after all, built from the elements of the Traditional Mass) and valid (it has been promulgated by the Church’s Supreme Authority).  But whereas Vatican Council II asked for noble simplicity in the Mass, what we have in the Novus Ordo is banal and skeletal.

I hold however, that the Norvus Ordo Rites cannot be invalid, since if the New Rites (for Mass, Ordinations, Anointing of the Sick etc) are indeed invalid, [1] God has been failing to feed His flock for the last fifty years, and [2] Christ has failed to keep His promise that His Church will not fail. I believe we cannot accept that the new Rites are invalid unless we also hold that that God has failed to feed His flock and Christ has failed to protect His Church.

That does not mean the New Rites are good, however. To be good a Rite should express clearly the reality is holds, and the New Rites do not always do this. In that sense the New Rites can be said to be entirely ‘fit for purpose’. Still, when compared to the Traditional Rite, the Novus Ordo Missae does not come off too badly in that:

1.    Both contain an entrance antiphon (Introit)

2.    Both contain a Confiteor which actively seeks the intercession of the angels and saints

3.    Both contain the misareatur

4.    Both contain the Kyrie

5.    Both contain an Epistle

6.    Both contain the Gospel

7.    Both contain the Credo

8.    Both contain the ancient Roman Canon

9.    Both contain the Our Father

10. Both contain the prayer for peace (Libera nos)

11. Both contain the Agnus Dei

12. Both contain the Domine non sum Dignus before distribution of Holy Communion

13. Both contain a final antiphon

14. Both contain a blessing and dismissal.

Sadly however, we have to recognise that though much as has been retained, it is the significant elements that the Novus Ordo omits that disturbs, for it omits:

1.    The seeking of God’s grace before we dare to enter His sanctuary (Judica me),

2.    The Indulgentiam (minor absolution)

3.    The genuflection during the Creed by which were honour the Incarnation

4.    The genuflections given to the Blessed Sacrament before and after every time the priest touches the Sacred Host

5.    The Offertory (the prayers preparing for a Holy Sacrifice having been replaced with a prayer based on the Jewish Grace before Meals, thus giving lie to the central reality of the Mass as His Body given up and His Blood being shed: “every time you eat this bread and rink this cup you are proclaiming the lord’s death” 1.Cor.11v26).

6.    The prayer to the Holy Trinity (Placeat tibi) asking that the Sacrifice offered may bring forgiveness for all for whom it is offered, yet forgiveness (mercy) is at the core of the Gospel.

Indeed, even in what has been retained there was an unnecessary meddling with the texts. For example:

1.    The Kyrie has been reduced from nine invocations to three, and re-ordered so that it now sounds like a plea to the Trinity rather than to Christ alone, who in the Traditional form was named in each of the three stanzas, thus making clear that the whole of the Kyrie is addressed to Christ and not to Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

2.    There has been a interpolation into the Roman Canon of an acclamation said by the people, using the words ‘ Mysterium fidei’ as its introduction. This is an unwarranted (and ill-mannered) interruption of the prayer of the Son to His Father, and for no other reason than to give the people something to say. It is also a sneaky way of undermining  the priest’s unique, irreplaceable and singular role in the recitation of the Canon and the confecting of the Consecration.

3.    The very words of the consecration have been changed, despite the injunction of Vatican II that “there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them” (SC #23). There was no ‘genuine and certain need’ for the words of the consecration to be changed. This can only have arisen from a political ideology (such as diminishing  the role of the priest by introducing a people’s acclamation of the Mysterium Fidei).

The Novus Ordo also fails in its concrete celebrations, in that it

(a)  most usually ignores Vatican II’s injunction that Latin be retained:

“In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and the common prayer, but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution. (cf. 36. 1: Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.)

(thus)…steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed (that is, that the permission of Rome is sought and obtained -GD).

(b)  has opened the Rite of the Holy Eucharist –the Most precious Gift Christ gave us- to novelties:

(i)   Communion in the hand (a Protestant invention long abandoned by Rome) despite the ruling by Paul VI that this may not be introduced after 1969 –cf. Memoriale Domini, 1969) and can be permitted only in those countries which prior to 1969 had illicitly begun the practice: Holland, then Belgium, France and Germany).

(ii) Lay Extra-ordinary ministers of Holy Communion (which destroys the priest’s role as he who stands in the place of Christ who ‘took, blest, broke and gave’).

(iii)  Ladies acting as Extra-ordinary ministers of Holy Communion (Christ established only males as ministers of His Body and Blood)

(iv) A people-facing orientation of the celebrant (making the Mass a dialogue between priest and people rather than a pilgrimage of priest and people toward the heavenly Jerusalem of the spiritual East).

None of the above novelties are found in the documents of Vatican II, and indeed, and this is very important, they are not found in the N.O.M promulgated by Paul VI as the faithful implementation of Vatican II’s liturgical decree.

All in all, while there is indeed a significant similarity between the 1570 and 1970 editions of the Missale Romanum, there are also striking divergence, and it is this divergence that leaves one’s soul seeking more. What is truly sad is that those who refuse to welcome the Traditional Rites demonstrate an antagonism to their own roots, and cut off from their roots they die, as is seen in the massive lapsation, the dearth of vocations and the closure of schools, parishes and convents that has followed this rejection of Traditional Liturgy and the Tradition of the Catechism.

Manner of Receiving Holy Communion

In briefly reflecting upon the Novus Ordo Missae in my last post (and I shall reflect on it in more depth in a later post), and recalling the experience of a gentleman at a Novus Ordo Mass where Holy Communion on the tongue was refused by a Bishop who lifted the man from his knees to a standing position, I am brought to consider the moment of contention in the Mass: that moment wherein a celebrant is faced with a communicant who absolutely refuses to receive on the tongue, or becomes a priest who refuses to distribute on the tongue. It has happened to me only once that reception on the tongue was refused, and the lady in question had the charity and humility to telephone me later that day to say she was wrong and shouldn’t have refused to receive the Lord or put me in a such bad position publicly for simply following the liturgical law of the Church.

I think it is worth reminding ourselves that the Reception of Holy Communion on the tongue remains the Universal Norm (Redemptionis Sacramentum #92); it can be received in the hand only where the Bishops of a country have requested this from Rome and have been given Rome’s permission or ‘Recognatio’  (ibid, 92); thus there is no absolute right to receive in the hand. In the Ordinary (new) Form of Mass people may indeed choose between receiving in the hand or on the tongue, and the celebrant cannot refuse a person rightly disposed because of the method chosen (ibid, 91), but in the Extraordinary Form Rome has declared the bindingness, in celebrations of the Extraordinary Form, of the liturgical law in force in 1962, with Holy Communion distributed only on the tongue (cf. Universae Ecclesiae  2011  #24., 28). 

From Universae Ecclesiae:

24. The liturgical books of the forma extraordinaria are to be used as they are. All those who wish to celebrate according to the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite must know the pertinent rubrics and are obliged to follow them correctly…

28. Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962.

                   (emphasis added)

Thus the priest has no choice about this. The people however, do: they can choose to receive on the tongue or not to receive at all. Obviously the former is to be preferred! Why refuse to receive Our Lord because we feel humbled (not humiliated) by the method? Why as priests would we refuse to distribute on the tongue? Are we more committed to affirming the laity in their dignity than affirming the Lord in His? Why would we demand that Our Lord be received in the hand as a common bus ticket or biscuit when before Him every knee shall bow and every tongue confess?

Thoughts on the SSPX, The Church and the Crisis of The Faith

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SSPX AND OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE

Those who know me know I am grateful to God for the presence of the SSPX in the world in that I believe they have promoted Tradition and thus been a thorn in the side of Rome for several decades. It is my personal belief that Archbishop Lefebvre was an instrument of God in the forming of the Society, and I do not underestimate the courage this great man needed to stand against the might of the Church of Rome, Mother and Mistress of Truth, when she veered from her true course.

Bishop Fellay, the current Superior General of the SSPX, is one of the few courageous, sound, balanced Episcopal voices of today, and I am delighted he holds the office he does in the Society, since I think he continues very much in the mould of the great Archbishop.

The priests of the SSPX whom I have met have been, on the whole, very balanced men very much in the mould of Bishop Fellay and Archbishop Lefebvre, with one or two slips that have disturbed me (such as a homily in which a priest said, “N, whom Rome today would have us believe is a saint…” –which suggests a rejection of the legitimacy and authority of the post-Vatican II Papacy and is thus a contradiction to the said priest offering Holy Mass and praying for ‘Francis our Pope, and N., our Bishop’ (that bishop being the Ordinary of the Diocese in which their Mass centre is situated).

CONCERNS ABOUT THE SSPX AND ITS LAY ADHERANTS

I do however, have serious concerns about a number of SSPX lay adherents whose positions seem to me to be more reminiscent of Bishop Williamson than of the Society per se. these concerns arise from the fact that from a number of the SSPX laity I hear convictions that 'the Novus Ordo Missae is evil', and that 'the priestly ordinations and epsicopal consecrations according to the post-Vatican II Pontificale are invalid' (sadly, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais has all but aligned himself with this latter position, if reports of his sermon during the ordinations on June 29th 2016 are correct).

My concerns is that there is a growing attitude among SSPX laity that the Catholic Church no longer exists except in the SSPX, since the Church of Rome and all those in Communion with her have lost valid Orders over the last 50 years by use of a invalid Rituals. If the Rituals are in fact invalid, there can be no valid Bishops and priests in the Roman Church, but that leaves the SSPX laity heading toward a sedevacantist position since only a validly consecrated bishop can in fact hold the See of Peter and there are, they say, few if any valid bishops left in the Catholic Church. Thus, very soon there can be no Pope. This begs two questions: first, if the Papacy has been lost, why are the SSPX seeking union with Rome at all? Second, if Rome is the Rock of the Church and it has been destroyed, in what way can they claim to have faith in Christ who declared that His Church would NOT be overcome? They follow a Christ who is either too weak to protect His Church, or a Christ who has not bothered to keep His promise.

THE CRISIS OF THE FAITH

Yes indeed there is a deep and profound crisis in the Church of today that we cannot deny: there is little or no Catechesis worthy of the name in Catholic schools today; we celebrate a liturgy that focuses on affirming man and are part of a dying post-Vatican II Church, as indicated by a precipitous fall-off in baptisms, marriages, Mass attendance, religious vocations and ordinations -all of which has Bishops the world over establishing projects focused on the ‘renewal of structures’ that are really about managing decline rather than promoting the Faith, no matter how they dress it up (and it is usually dressed as ‘the Holy Spirit providing us with the opportunity to utilise the gifts of the laity in ecclesial ministry’, yet Vatican II -the Council on which they purport to base their changes- clearly stated that the laity were to be engaged as the leaven in the world. Vatican II never once used the term ‘lay ministry’ (a term which is an elephant in the room that the contemporary Church never acknowledges), the Council only spoke of lay mission.

Of great concern to me is how a number of people I have spoken with, and this includes young people, are losing their faith. One reason why their faith is being lost is that they see the Church is in a woeful situation and that the bishops appear to refuse to acknowledge this, either because they have not the humility to admit they were wrong; are too blinded by error to see that they are wrong, or are wilfully following their own designs rather than the direction of Vatican II (which stands in direct contrast to today’s man-centred liturgy, religious indifferentism and use of the laity as ministers). We are certainly in a time of crisis; a crisis that is pushing people to opposing extremes: a large portion of the official Church pushing its distorted application of Vatican II further and further while the SSPX appears to harden in one limited understanding of the pre-Vatican II Church. A second reason that faith is lost is that many are fighting a political corner in the Church, be it liberal or Traditional, when they should be fighting to overcome their personal vices; to acquire personal virtues and to promote social virtues.

Many folk seem to have forgotten that there have been times huge crisis before in the Church before. One thinks of the Arian Crisis, of Augustine’s battle against the Donatists, of the split between East and West, and of the Protestant Revolt. Today’s crisis is not something that has no precedent -and just as Rome has always triumphed by the hand of God in the past (since He is indeed faithful to His promise that the Church will not fail) we can believe that Rome will triumph again today (it may not be in our lifetime –and I doubt it will be during the Pontificate of Francis- but it will come).

OVERCOMING THE CRISIS

It is my firm conviction that the Church must [1] restore the Penny Catechism (the English equivalent of the Baltimore Catechism) to schools (since unless the faith has been changed this cannot be objectionable to the Bishops), and [2] order that the Novus Ordo be celebrated according to the directives of Vatican II (Latin for the Ordinary with Gregorian Chant as its proper music) and according to the rubrics approved by Pope Paul VI (which favour ad orientem for the Liturgy of the Eucharist and presuppose Holy communion received on the tongue); rubrics he saw as embodying the reforms required by Vatican II. Until these are restored we must pray for grace for the Church, and challenge respectfully wherever we see Rome and the Bishops making pastoral, liturgical or teaching errors. As an encouragement to readers who are dismayed by the state of the Church and consider leaving the Faith I want to conclude with part of today’s second reading from the Novos Ordo Divine Office. It is a reading from St Augustine:

Our Holy Scriptures do not promise us peace, security and repose, but tribulations and distress; the Gospel is not silent about scandals, but ‘he who preservers to the end will be saved’…

You find men complaining about the times they live in, saying that the times of our parents were good. What if they could be taken back to the time of their parents, and should complain? The past times that you think were good, are good because they are not yours here and now…

have we forgotten those burdensome times of famine and war [of the Arian Crisis, of Donatism, of the Protestant Revolt? –Fr GD]. What times those were!

Francis Versus Islam

Francis has made remarks that the recent spate of violent acts by Muslims are ‘not a religious war’; that the Muslim religion is ‘one of peace’, and that Catholics too can be violent. According to Francis “the world is at war…it’s not a religious war…It’s a war of interests, a war for money. A war for natural resources and for the dominion of the peoples…Every religion wants peace”

 In saying such things Francis can be said to be showing that his opinions are based more on secular PC (politically correct) values, than on Gospel values (thus his aversion to Traditional Catholics and his desire to accommodate cohabitation, civilly ‘re-married’ divorcees and active homosexuality etc. While orthodox Catholics have long decried his statements and leanings toward cohabitation, civilly ‘re-married’ divorcees and homosexual activity, an Isis Magazine has now corrected his statements on Islam and Muslim violence. According to Brietpart.com the Isis article apparently states that:

“This is a divinely-warranted war between the Muslim nation and the nations of disbelief,”

“Indeed, waging jihad – spreading the rule of Allah by the sword – is an obligation found in the Quran, the word of our Lord,” 

“The blood of the disbelievers is obligatory to spill by default. The command is clear. Kill the disbelievers, as Allah said, ‘Then kill the polytheists wherever you find them.

“The gist of the matter is that there is indeed a rhyme to our terrorism, warfare, ruthlessness, and brutality…

The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah [tax for infidels] and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you.”

CathNews notes that Patriarch Ignatius Joseph III Younan of the Syriac Church has noted that by saying Islam is non-violent Francis is not in tune with the experience of Christians in Syria. Has the Patriarch got it wrong? Have ISIS got themselves all wrong, or is Francis wrong and we are being attacked for religious purposes? I would like to think Francis is right; but he appears to be either incredibly naïve or too PC for the good of his souls and ours.