Sistine Chapel Mass

Yesterday the Pope celebrated a Novus Ordo Mass in the Sistine Chapel using the old altar and celebrating ad orientem. The story was picked up by Reuters (here is original, which is of limited usefulness). It is sad that the pope celebrating a Mass ad orientem is so rare that it is newsworthy. But this is a great example for Novus Ordo priests. Benedict is saying, "Hey, you don't have to be doing the Traditional Latin Mass to celebrate ad orientem. It is for both forms of the Roman rite." Many often forget that the rubrics of the Novus Ordo call for an ad orientem posture (which the article ignorantly calls "turning his back on the congregation"). This may be part of the much talked about spill-over theory: that the return of the Tridentine rite will spill over into the Novus Ordo and cause more dignified celebartions of the Mass of Paul VI. We shall see. Here's some pics of the Sistine Chapel Mass, at which 13 babies were baptized personally by the pope using a golden sea shell.

UPDATE! Click here for more pics of the Sistine Chapel Mass

Baptismal Liturgies

Prior to having baby Boniface baptized yesterday in the old rite, my parish priest asked me to prepare a little booklet with English translations of the Latin prayers to help facilitate a better understanding of what was going on in the sacrament, especially to those non-Catholic family members present. As I put together this little booklet, I was struck by some marked differences between the old baptismal liturgy and the post-Vatican II liturgy. Now, before I go any further, let me say what I am not going to assert: I am not in any way of the opinion that the new baptismal rite is invalid or insufficient, as some Trads have gone so far as to claim (like the anti-pope Pius XIII, a.k.a. Lucian Pulvermacher).

The old and new rite express the same reality in different ways. The new rite of baptism tends to explain the sacrament in terms of the postive: what the child is being brought into. The old rite tends to emphasize the negative: what the child is being delivered from. This is the most general difference between the two rites. In the old rite, one is being delivered from Satan, loosed from the bonds of sin and washed of the stain of Adam. These points are emphasized a little more than in the new rite (quite a bit more, actually). In the new rite, one is becoming a child of the light, being welcomed into the Christian community, being called to Christ's nuptials, etc. Again, there is some crossover between these two ideas in the respective rites, but this is the overall theme. Now let's look at some specifics.

First, the old rite underscores the role of the godparents to a much greater extent. In the old rite, the godparents answer every question posed by the priest, even the most fundamental ones. The parents do not say a single word. In addition, every question posed by the priest is addressed directly to the infant, not the parents. For example, in the new rite, we have the following:

Celebrant: What name do you give your child?
Parents: Name.
Celebrant: What do you ask of God's Church for N.?
Parents: Baptism.

Now, look at the difference in the old rite:

Priest: (Name of infant), what do you ask of the Church of God?

Godparent: Faith.

Priest: What does the faith offer you?

Godparents: Eternal life.

The role of the godparent is a legal role, not a sentimental one. In the old rite, the godparent even holds the child while the water is being poured on the infant. All of this involvement of the godparent underscores the fact that the godparent has a true responsibility to the formation of the child's faith. The godparent is a legal witness, much like the witnesses to a marriage. He promises, in the sight of God, to fulfill the duty of every Catholic to raise their child in the faith. But some may wonder: why does the godparent swear this? Isn't it the parent's responsibility? Aren't parents the primary educators of their children? Why then are they left out in the old rite?

I imagine it is because the parents already swore such an oath when they took their vows of Holy Matrimony. There, they vowed to see to the raising of their children in the faith of the Church. Therefore, at baptism, this is taken as a given, and the godparent is invoked as an additional witness to take the same vow in the event that the parents fail in their responsibility.

Looking at the exorcisms of the two rites, there are two points to be made. First, there are simply more exorcisms in the old rite. In fact, it is pretty much one long exorcism. There is an exorcism of the salt, a threefold exorcism of the infant, an exorcism of his senses. And let us not forget that bapstim itself is a kind of exorcism, where the child is delivered from a state of sin (bondage to the devil) and translated into the kingdom of the sons of God. The new rite has a single exorcism, and it is so frequently dispensed with (because it is optional) that it has really been effectively dropped from the rite de facto. Modern parents are uncomfortable with an exorcism being performed on their child. If they better understood the gift of God that was being given, many more I think would beg for more exorcisms prior to any sacramental reception.

Not only ther number but the nature of the exorcisms is different. In the old rite, the exorcisms follow the Scriptural/traditional form of abjuration of the devil by name. The devil is called out and named directly and ordered to flee. Look at these prayers:

First exorcism: Depart from him unclean spirit, and give place to the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete.

Second exorcism: I exorcise you, unclean spirit, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, that you go out and depart from this servant of God...therefore, accursed devil, acknowledge your sentence, and give honor to the living and true God.

Third exorcism: I exorcise you, every unclean spirit, in the name of God the Father Almighty...that you depart from this creature of God.

Ephpheta rite: Be thou, devil, begone; for the judgment of God shall draw near.

The priest speaks directly to the unclean spirits with the power and authority of Christ and commands them to leave, just as the disciples cast out spirits in the New Testament. But look at how the exorcism of the new form of the rite is worded:

Almighty and ever-living God, you sent your only Son into the world to cast out the power of Satan, spirit of evil, to rescue man from the kingdom of darkness, and bring him into the splendor of your kingdom of light. We pray for these children: set them free from original sin, make them temples of your glory, and send your Holy Spirit to dwell within them.

This is a very emasculated exorcism. The priest here does not take up the authority he does in the old rite. He does not command the unclean spirits, and, if you look carefuly, he doesn't even do an exorcism at all. He simply recalls the fact that Jesus came into the world to cast out the devil, and then he prays that the child be set free from original sin. But that is not an exorcism, that's just what happens ex opera operato in the sacrament. Of course you get set free from original sin when you get baptized! Gone is any calling out and abjuration of the devil from the infant. The priest doesn't command the unclean spirits to leave: he simply recalls that Satan was defeated by Christ and then asks for the graces proper to baptism.

Does the child really need the exorcism? The old rite seems to assert this. It actually takes it for granted that there are already unclean spirits hanging around the newborn. Otherwise, how can the first exorcism say, "Depart from him unclean spirit, and give place to the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete"? In the new rite, every hint that the child might be oppressed by the devil is avoided.

But isn't that exactly what it means to be unregenerated? It means you are still in bondage to sin and in the dominion of the devil? Why then hide this fact from those bringing their child to the holy font?

Finally, the old rite mentions specifically in the second anointing that baptism saves: "May...our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has regenerated you by water and the Holy Ghost, and who has given you remission of all your sins, may He Himself anoint you with the Chrism of Salvation, in the same Christ Jesus our Lord, unto life eternal."

The prayer of the new form in the same spot says: "God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has freed you from sin, given you a new birth by water and the Holy Spirit, and welcomed you into his holy people. He now anoints you with the chrism of salvation." But the wording is a little bit more ambiguous. It says that Jesus "has freed you from sin." When did He free us? In this sacrament? Or is it referring to His death on the cross, of which the sacrament is merely a reminder? A Protestant would have no problem with this prayer, because linking baptism with being "freed from sin" is not specific enough. Protestants make the same claim when they baptize, but for them the baptism is a profession of faith that the sin has already been remitted by faith alone. In the old rite, the word "remission" of sin is used, and it is linked with the sacrament by the phrase "Who has regenerated you by water and the Holy Ghost." Thus, no Protestant/symbolic interpretation is possible in the old form. (There is a reference to water and the Holy Ghost in the new rite, but it comes much later, as a blessing attached to the end of the liturgy).

As with many other comparisons between older and newer forms in the Church, in this case as well it is the case that the prayers of the older form speak more explicitly and clearly about what is occuring in the sacrament and take a much more authorative tone in the way they abjure Satan. In the old form, we are casting down Satan and rescuing one for whom Christ died, admitting him into the glorious kingdom of our God by remission of sins. In the new rite, we are joyously welcoming him into the Christian community where he will be a child of the light. The older rite is so much more masculine and powerful in its form, while the new one uses emasculated language that is free from any reference to battle, warfare, and (ooh!) the possibility that the devil may be trying to claim your child.

There's much more that can be said, but that's enough for now.

Anselm's Pictures of Roma

Here are some of my favorite pictures from a recently concluded week long trip to Rome (with a day trip to Orvieto) in no particular order.

First up, Il Duomo - the centerpeice of Orvieto built to house the corporal stained with the Blood of Christ from the eucharistic miracle of nearby Bolsena in 1263 (said to have inspired the feast of Corpus Christi instituted for the universal Church in 1264). The facade is a masterpeice of mosaic, surely one of the most beautiful in Italy, perhaps in the world.

Next is a shot of a memorial to Card. Stanislaus Hosius in Santa Maria in Trastevere. Card. Hosius (Catholic Encyclopedia) was a leading figure at the Council of Trent and the leader of the Polish episcopate's fight against Protestantism in the 16th century. The inscription is pointed and succinct.

This is the interior of the best restaurant in Rome (perhaps in the world). When in Rome my wife and I eat bread/cheese/fruit and drink wine from the grocery stores as often as possible in order to afford a few good meals at this place.

Bernini's colonnade form inside Piazza San Pietro

Detail from the columns of St. John Lateran, the Cathedral of Rome. "The Holy Lateran Church Mother and Head of All the Churches of the City and of the World."

Next to the altar of St. Ignatius in the church dedicated to the Most Holy Name of Jesus (Chiesa Gesu), the headquarters of the Jesuits in Rome, is this piece entitled, "Religion Triumphs over Heresy," in which religion personified thrashes a couple of heretics (Protestants) while a child rips the pages out of their heretical books.

Does the devil hate latin?

Many Trads are familiar with the following phrase: "Don't worry, the devil hates Latin, too." It is a humorous little jab at those who in the past four decades have effectively pushed for the de facto outlawing of Latin in the Latin Rite and have treated those who adhere to the Church's perennial and universal language as reactionary inquisitors from a bygone age. But, beyond the obvious implication in the statement (that those who want to do away with Latin are in league with the devil), we must ask ourselves, does the devil really hate Latin?

I have seen some interesting articles on the fact that Latin, when used in exorcism rites, seems to upset the demons more than the vernacular. I guess there are some theological reasons why the devil would be opposed to Latin, but the fact of the matter is that we have no way of knowing what Satan really thinks about the issue. However, while doing some research on Satanism recently, I found out some interesting things about what the Church of Satan does.

The Church of Satan, founded by Antony LaVey in the 1960's, uses for its service a parody of the Catholic Mass called the black mass. For many years, the black mass was a combination of English, Latin and French (the first black mass called the Missa Solemnis was promulgated in 1970). This earliest black mass used several Latin phrases, such as "In nomine Domini Dei nostri Satanae Luciferi Excelsi." What is more interesting is that in 1986, the Church of Satan promulgated a new order of the black mass called the Missa Niger which is done entirely in Latin. That's right, the Church of Satan does their liturgy entirely in Latin! The mass ends with the words, "Ave Satanas!" and inversion of Christ's words to Satan in Matthew 4:10 ("Vade, Satanas!). Apparently, the devil does not hate Latin as much as we thought!

This is in fact a backhanded compliment to Latin. The devil does not imitate false things: he imitates true things, so as to more easily deceive people. There is no "black praise and worship service to Satan" based on Protestant models, but there is a black mass, which is a parody of the Catholic Mass, because the devil only apes that which has some substance to it. The fact that the Satanists value Latin ought to show us that there is true power in a Latin liturgy, otherwise the devil would not want to make use of it.

Interestingly enough, the Wikipedia article on Satanism makes the following observation regarding desecration of hosts:

Given the modern practices of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, which permits parishioners to receive the host in the hand, it is possible to steal a host in that manner. Though priests and eucharistic ministers are cautioned to be on the look out for persons who do not immediately consume the host, there are usually too many parishioners at any given Mass or Communion Service to ensure that no hosts are stolen in this manner.

Protestant Soteriology

In all the ecumenical dialogue that has occured in the past 40 years, there is endless emphasis on what Protestants and Catholics share in common and in being able to unite and gather around the dogmas that we do hold in common. One of these doctrines that Catholics and Protestants supposedly agree on is the atoning death of Christ on the cross for the sins of mankind. This is all well and good, until we stop and ask what each side means when it refers to Christ's atoning death. This is of paramount importance. For example, if you ask Mormon missionaries, they will say that they believe in the Holy Trinity. However, according to LDS, the Trinity refers to a triumvirate of three separate gods, one called the Father, one called the Son and one called the Holy Ghost. Mormons are quite adept at using orthodox words but attaching different definitions to them.

As the beginning of any enquiry or discussion between two diverging parties ought to begin with a definition of terms, we ought to look at what Protestants mean when they talk about Christ's atoning death on the cross (leaving a little bit of wiggle room of course for the fact that not all Protestants believe alike; in fact, you are hard pressed to find even two who do). Anselm has already delved into this topic quite a bit, but a little more couldn't hurt.

The essence of Protestant soteriology is this: that Christ took our place on the cross.We deserved punishment for our many sins, and Christ stepped in between us and God and took the full measure of God's wrath that we justly merited. After God had expended all of His wrath, He had no more left for us and thus we can be saved because Christ took the punishment that was ours. In a sense, when we sin, God wants to punish us, but we say, "Don't do it God! Remember, You took ou all of Your wrath on Christ!" Then God looks at Jesus and remembers that He took our punishment and we get off scot-free with no reprecussions whatsoever.Remember this famous quote from Luther:

Sin cannot tear you away from him [Christ], even though you commit adultery a hundred times a day and commit as many murders (Luther to Melancthon, no. 99, 1521).

For Luther, sin bears virtually no reprecussions for the sinner because Christ has taken all the punishment. Therefore, there is no need for penance, perseverance (certainly not Purgatory) and struggle against sin. All the believer need do is realize that Christ has paid the price for him in full and he is thereby justified with no consequences remaining whatsoever.

This is very far from the Catholic belief, or I should say, from the official Catholic belief, because as Anselm has demonstrated in his post linked above, many Catholics (even some apologists) seem to hold the Lutheran penal-substitution view of the atonement. This view is contrary to Catholic teaching and contrary to reason for a view reasons.

The biggest problem is that the penalty due to sin is eternal separation from God. Because Christ is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, He always enjoys the beatific vision and cannot be separated from God. It would be easier to tear apart the binding fabric of the cosmos that for Christ to be separated from God, even more so for the Father to turn His back on Christ, as some Protestants put it.

But, perhaps you will say, Christ could endure eternal separation from God becaus He is an infinite, divine Person. Let's put it this way: what is the difference between a finite being suffering infinite punishment or an infinite Man suffering finite punishment? Since Christ is infinite, He could subsume in Himself in a temporal timespan of a few hours the sum total of pains of eternal separation from God. Perhaps we can solve the difficulty this way?

It is a novel argument, but I think it fails because of this: the pain of eternal separation from God, the pains of hell, are primarily a pain of loss, and only secondarily a pain of sense. No matter how intense Christ's pains were, they cannot be the pain of loss, which is the pain of exclusion from God's presence with the knowledge that it could have been prevented. It implies reprobation, and we come back to the same dilemma: God the Father turning His back on Christ and Christ being separated from Him. Since this is impossible, we know therefore that Christ cannot have endured our punishment for sin. Not because there was too much sin and punishment for Him to bear (God forbid!), but because our punishment differs not just in degree but in kind. Christ can never suffer the punishment due to a sinner in this sense because a sinner's punishment always involves exclusion from God's presence and loss of grace. If we assert the Protestant view, we end up with the absurd notion that He who was the fullness of grace fell from grace and that He Who is in the bosom of the Father was actually excluded from Him. Sounds more like Lucifer than Christ.

There are other differences between the Catholic and Protestant views on the matter, but this should suffice to demonstrate that we do not believe the same thing. For the Catholic, Christ's sufferings are not the essential focus but the perfection of His offering. It is noty simply the fact that Christ suffered, but that the One who suffered was a perfect sacrifice. The Catholic is not mired in the difficulties of trying to equate Christ's sufferings with our own because we understand that they are of a completely different nature. We need to think a little bit harder about what we are uniting around before we go ahead to assert that we all believe the same thing.

Religious relativism & syncretism in America

I just read a good article on religious relativism in America from USA today by Kathy Lynn Grossman. The article is pretty good because it causally mentions how silly religious relativism is by pointing out that people often accept multiple religious systems which contradict each other. Here's the full article below with my commentary:

A new survey of U.S. adults who don't go to church, even on holidays, finds 72% say "God, a higher or supreme being, actually exists." But just as many (72%) also say the church is "full of hypocrites" [People who accuse the Church of being full of hypocrites demonstrate that they do not understand ecclesiology at all. If by hypocrite you mean somebody who fails to live up to what they profess, then of course, everybody is guilty! 1 John 1:8 says "If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." Jesus did not say that the Church would be full of the perfect (this is actually a heretical idea held by Cathars, Quakers and Manicheans) but that it was a field full of wheats and tares. People who refuse to attend Church because of other "hypocrites" are really just being prideful because they are saying that they are too good to mingle with their fellow man].

Indeed, 44% agree with the statement "Christians get on my nerves" [What kind of objective polling is this? Can you think of a more ambiguous question?]

LifeWay Research, the research arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, based in Nashville, conducted the survey of 1,402 "unchurched" adults last spring and summer. The margin of error is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

The survey defines "unchurched" as people who had not attended a religious service in a church, synagogue or mosque at any time in the past six months.

More than one in five (22%) of Americans say they never go to church, the highest ever recorded by the General Social Survey, conducted every two years by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. In 2004, the percentage was 17% [ I bet the number would be a lot higher if they asked how many do not go to Church weekly].

Many of the unchurched are shaky on Christian basics, says LifeWay Research director Ed Stetzer [Duh].

Just 52% agree on the essential Christian belief that "Jesus died and came back to life" [Kudos to this author for at least realizing that the essential Christian belief is in the death and Resurrection of Jesus and not in being tolerant or non-judgmental].

And 61% say the God of the Bible is "no different from the gods or spiritual beings depicted by world religions such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.," although Buddhist philosophy has no god and Hindus worship many [I love the way this last sentence tacitly points out the absurd contradiction in such syncretist beliefs].

Non-churchgoers "lean to a generic god that fits into every imaginable religious system, even when (systems) contradict one another," Stetzer says. "If you went back 100 years in North America, there would have been a consensus that God is the God in the Bible. We can't assume this any longer [Even from the standpoint of reason alone, wouldn't you be suspicious of a god who fit all the desires and whims of the public? Wouldn't that seem a bit contrived?].

"We no longer have a home-field advantage as Christians in this culture" [Catholics never had the home-field advantage in this country].

Most of the unchurched (86%) say they believe they can have a "good relationship with God without belonging to a church" [That's great that they "believe" that, but what doe sit have to do with what the truth is? It's like saying I can have a good relationship with my family without ever going to visit them], And 79% say "Christianity today is less about organized religion than loving God and loving people" [Okay, so the people who just a few sentences ago admitted they were "shaky on Christian basics" are now telling us what Christianity is about?] .

"These outsiders are making a clear comment that churches are not getting through on the two greatest commandments," to love God and love your neighbor, says Scott McConnell, associate director of LifeWay Research. "When they look at churches … they don't see people living out the faith" [And so they're going to live it out better by not going at all? Chesterton famously said that if something was worth doing, it was worth doing badly].

But despite respondents' critical views of organized religion, Stetzer is optimistic. He cites the finding that 78% would "be willing to listen" to someone tell "what he or she believed about Christianity."

They already know believers — 89% of the unchurched have at least one close friend who is Christian, Stetzer noted.

And 71% agreed that "believing in Jesus makes a positive difference in a person's life."
"What surprised me is the openness of the hard-core unchurched to the message of God and Christianity — just not as expressed in church," Stetzer says [The knee-jerk reactions against "Church" and "organized religion" seem to be manifestations of rebellion against authority, a fruit of the Protestant Reformation. Everybody is open to hear about what someone else believes, just so long as you don't try to insist that they have to give up their sin. That's when it gets ugly!].

"It's a personal thing, not an institutional thing. It's a matter of starting conversations" [Sounds like Cardinal Dulles' vision of Catholic evangelization!] .

Still, most of Christian belief has seeped into popular culture outside church walls and denominational tethers, says Philip Goff, a professor and director of the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University in Indianapolis.

New forms of community, such as Internet Bible study and prayer circles, also mean some people don't believe they need a church, Goff says [Seems that most persons falsely think the Church exists solely to serve them; if they don't "feel" they need it, it is therefore dispensible].

"Is there a workshop for churches in being less annoying, less hypocritical?" asks Arthur Farnsley, administrator for the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion and a fellow at Goff's center [Why was this comment included? Would they include a comment that said, "Is there a way to make Muslims less murderous, less fanatical?" Again, anti-Christian bigotry is accepted while any criticism of other faiths is intolerant].

"So much of American religion today is therapeutic in approach, focused on things you want to fix in your life," he says [That should be a warning sign to anybody seeking objective truth. Do people even believe in objective truth anymore?].

"The one-to-one approach is more attractive [Me n' Jesus] . People don't go to institutions to fix their problems [They don't seem to comprehend the possibility of going to God through and in an institution].

"Most people have already heard the basic Christian message [Or they think they have. Clearly they need to hear it again]. The question for evangelism now is: Do you have a take that is authentic and engaging in a way that works for the unchurched?" [It's not about what "take" I have on religion; it is about the Way, the Truth and the Life Who is a Person and Who has revealed the truth through His Church]

After I read this article, the pervading thought in my mind was, "What a nation of fools we are!"

Excellence is not "showing off"

How often have you heard the accusation that Trads want to "show off" by insisting that liturgy be done well? I have heard it several times: if a priest wears beautiful and costly vestments, he is accused of being showy; if liturgical utensils are made of precious metals, the accusation is that the priest/parish is wasting money on something non-essential when it could have been better spent elsewhere ( echoing Judas' complaint in John 12:5); if homilies are preached that communicate the pure doctrine of Christ, they are too exclusive, academic, divisive, etc. If liturgical music is executed beautifully and according to the tradition of the Church, the music director is accused of wanting to "show off." In short, anybody who thinks that liturgy ought to be done well is looked down upon as having a "holier than thou" attitude.

This complaint does not just come from progressives; conservative Catholic commentator Mark Shea takes the same approach regarding people who insist that the liturgical rubrics be followed and that the dignity of the liturgy be upheld. He says, "Some people are hypochondriacs who imagine injury where there is none or who grossly exaggerate small irritations into great big ones" and that frustration about the problems with the Novus Ordo are simply due to "oversensitivity" (click here for Shea' entire article).

It is not at all about being holier than thou. In fact, quite the opposite. To insist on doing the liturgy well is an act of humility, for several reasons (1) It acknowledges the profound humility of man before the awesome mystery taking place on the altar (2) It is humility because it graciously accepts what was handed on from the Fathers and does not presume to arrogantly change and alter it to fit with the spirit of the times, and (3) It is always humility to obey rather than to find fault, which is what the 1970 Reform was: a finding fault with the traditional liturgy of the Church and the assumption that modern man could do better than what was in place for 1500 years. This is arrogance and holier than thou, for modern man asserts that he is holier and wiser than the saints and doctors of the Church's history.

Besides, were the Jewish priests showing off when they overlaid the Ark with pure gold? When they fashioned the High Priests' breastplate with costly jewels? When they expended enormous sums of money for the construction of the Temple? Of course not; in the Old Testament, it was God Himself Who demanded such things, for the simple fact that what is most costly and precious to man is what most adequately reflects the awesome glory and purity of God. It's not about showing off anymore than overlaying the Ark with gold was about showing off. It was about a simple statement of what the reality was that these costly liturgical items were speaking of.

Question on Custom

From a concerned blogger:

Boniface, sorry, but this question is a bit long and complicated: for at least twenty years in our parish, we have had a summer festival every year out in a parish-owned piece of property near the Church. As part of the festivities, the parish priest has always said an open-air Mass outdoors on the big day of the festival, with no major abuses except the ones common to the Novus Ordo. I always questioned whether or not we ought to be doing this (since the Church was close by and there was no pressing need to have a Mass outdoors except for novelty).

Anyhow, we recently got a new priest of a more conservative persuasion who cancelled the outdoor Mass and moved it into the Church. Many of the more liberal-minded persons of the parish were upset by this move, and a certain gentleman parishioner who claims to be an expert in canon law claims that the priest cannot lawfully move the Mass back to the Church because since the custom of observing the Mass outdoors has been done for over twenty years, it therefore has the force of law and cannot be altered by the priest.

Is it true that anything done for over twenty-years has the force of law? He showed me in the Code where it said this, but something still seemed fishy. Can you offer any clarification? (anonymous)

Thanks for the question. This is indeed a tricky point, but your suspicions are well-founded; this guy who claims to be a canon law expert is completely off. Fortunately, this situation is easy to resolve because the Code of 1917 and the Code of 1983 are in agreement on the matter, so there is no room for ambiguity.

First, your friend was probably referring to Canon 26 of the 83 Code, which says, "A custom...aquires the force of law only when it has been lawfully observed for a period of thirty continuous years." So, what does thirty continuous years mean? Well, Cicognani in his commentary on Canon Law writes that "the years must be in continuous succession; the years must not be interrupted, even by one contrary act, because continuous time according to Canon 35 [26 in the new Code] means a space of time which does not suffer any interruption. And the years must be completed, that is, completed in duration-not even one particle of time should be wanting" (pg. 652).

First, you will notice that the canon calls for thirty continuous years, not twenty. In your situation, this means that the priest, by canceling the custom and removing the Mass back to the parish Church, has already nullified the possibility of using the argument from thirty-continuous years, since even one contrary act nullifies the succession of years. Thus, if it takes thirty-years to establish custom with the force of law, and the priest alters the custom in the twenty-ninth year, in the following year you must start over from one, so that "not even one particle of time should be wanting."

But, I would say you do not even have to have recourse to this argument, because there is a more fundamental one that is against this gentleman's opinion. Canon 25 (26 in the 17 Code) reads: "No custom aquires the force of law unless it has been observed, with the intention of introducing a law, by a community capable of at least receiving a law." There are two elements here (1) intention of introducing a law, and (2) the only community who can introduce legally binding custom are those who are capable of receiving an ecclesiastical law.

Regarding the first point, the commentary footnotes of the 1983 Code says, "Custom must be observed with the intention of introducing a norm." Cicognani says of this same canon, "Moreover, the members of the community are to perform these acts with the intention of obligating themselves" (pg. 648). In otherwords, the custom of the outdoor Mass could only acquire the force of law if, from the beginning, it was being performed with the intention of establishing a binding custom, which it seems you'd be hard pressed to be able to prove.

Regarding the second point, that only those who are capable of receiving a law can establish a binding custom, it is clear that only a community who can receive a law is able to likewise bind themselves to a customary law. The commentary on the 83 Code is silent on who can receive a law, but Cicognani says of the same canon in the 17 Code: "The following communities are capable of receiving laws: an ecclesiastical province, a diocese, a body of clerics, the province of a religious Order, monasteries that are sui juris and convents of nuns also" (pg. 648). We must point out that parish churches, festival planning committees or parish councils are not listed. In fact, all of the above bodies are either religious orders or ordained clerics. Thus, this man is misapplying canon law in attributing the power to establish customary law to parish churches or festival planning committees.

There is one final reason why this gentleman is errant in his assertion that the parish is obligated to hold the festival Mass outdoors. Canon 24 of the 83 Code states that "No custom which is contrary to divine law can acquire the force of law." The corresponding canon in the 1917 Code (Canon 27:1) is much more explicit: "No custom can in any way derogate from the Divine Law, either natural or positive; nor does a custom prejudice an ecclesiastical law, unless it is a reasonable custom and lawfully prescribed..." Both Canon 27 of the old Code and 24 of the new Code speak about the reasonableness of the custom, and though the 1983 Code speaks only of custom being unable to contravene Divine Law, it points out in the footnote that this includes "ecclesiastical discipline" as well. So, is it against divine law (either natural or positive) or ecclesiastical discipline to hold an outdoor Mass in a field within walking distance from a parish Church?

The answer is yes. Canon 932 of the 1983 Code states: "The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in a sacred place, unless in a particular case neccesity requires otherwise; in which case, the celebration must be in a fitting place." In case anyone has any qualms about what constitutes a "sacred place," Canons 1205 and 1210 clearly define them as "those which are assigned to divine worship" and where "only those things are permitted which serve to exercise or promote worship, piety and religion." Clearly a field adjacent to the parish does not qualify as a sacred space, and the 1983 Code seems to envision nothing other than a church, oratory or private chapel by the phrase "sacred space."

So, unless there is "particular necessity," a Mass must be said in a consecrated Church (a consecrated cemetary is also permitted, provided there is a suitable place for the Sacrifice). Now, we must ask ourselves, is there necessity in having the Mass outdoors against the order of Canon 932? The answer must be no, for three reasons: (1) There is no emergency; it appeared to be done just for "novelty," as the anonymous questioner pointed out (2) The parish Church was very close-by, making it pointless to needlessly have a Mass in a field when it could easily be done in the Church (3) The fact that the new priest did in fact move the Mass to the Church proves that it is reasonable and feasible to have the Mass in the Church building and that doing an outdoor Mass is uneccesary in this case. Therefore, Canon 932 remains in force. Cicognani says that the introduction of custom "cannot arise from error or ignorance" (pg. 648); in this case, it seems that both error and ignorance were the source of this dubious custom of celebrating Mass out in the field.

It is a long-winded answer, but I can summarize it in a few short points:

1) Mass cannot be celebrated in the field with good reason because it violates Canon 932, which requires Mass to be said in a consecrated Church unless there is particular necessity, which it has been proven that there is not.

2) Even so, a parish-body is not a competent legal entity to establish legally binding custom because it is not capable of receiving a law (Canon 25); furthermore, there was no demonstrable intent of the parish to bind itself to this custom.

3) Even so, thirty-continuous years have not been observed, the parish priest having interrupted the succession the past year (Canon 26).

I hope this helps. As is the case with many other things, Canon Law becomes very tricky when people attempt to take individual canons out of context and without reference to canonical tradition.

Epiphany

The word "Epiphany" means "manifestation." The church in the Mass commemorates a triple manifestation of Christ: to the Magi, that is, to the Gentiles; in His Baptism, when the Voice from heaven declared: "This is My Beloved Son"; and in the miracle of changing water into wine at Cana.

Ecce, advenit Dominator Dominus: et regnum in manu ejus, et potestas, et imperium. (Psalm) Deus, judicium tuum regi da: et justitiam tuam Filio regis.

(Behold the Lord the Ruler is come: and the Kingdom is in His hand, and power, and dominion. (Psalm) Give to the king Thy judgment, O God: and to the king's Son Thy justice.

Latest statement on Medjugorje

Msgr. Ratko Peric, Bishop of Mostar, Herzegovnia

This is still a few years old (2004), but I thought it worth linking to. Here is the most recent statement by the Bishop of Mostar (Msgr. Ratko Peric) regarding the alleged apparitions at Medjugorje. For those who, after 26 years, are still saying that full approval for the Medjugorje messages is right around the corner, this letter certainly puts that notion to rest. These messages will never be accepted as authentic. Bishop Peric points out in this statement how it took the Church 4 years to accept the messages of Lourdes and 13 years to accept Fatima. If the Vatican has not accepted Medjugorje after 26 years, it seems unlikely that they ever will, especially since there is so much disorder, schism and falsehood surrounding the so-called "seers." Here is an excerpt from Bishop Peric's statement on the schism, disobedience and even heresy that have come from Medjugorje:

There are at least 6 or 7 religious or quasi-religious communities, just initiating or already established, some of diocesan right, some not, which have arbitrarily been installed in Medjugorje without the permission of the local Diocesan authorities. These communities are more a sign of disobedience than a real charisma of obedience in this Church!

There exists a problem in this diocese of Mostar-Duvno which in recent years has practically precipitated into a schism. At least eight Franciscan priests, who have rebelled against the decision of the Holy See to transfer a certain number of parishes administered by the Franciscans to the diocesan priests, have been expelled from the Franciscan Order and suspended 'a divinis'. In spite of this, they have occupied at least five parishes through force, and continue to exercise sacred functions. They invalidly assist at marriages, hear confessions without canonical faculties and invalidly confer the sacrament of confirmation. Three years ago they even invited a deacon of the Old-Catholic Church who falsely presented himself as a bishop, to preside at a confirmation and he "confirmed" about 800 young people in three parishes.

Two of these expelled priests sought after episcopal consecration from Swiss bishop of the Old-Catholic Church, Hans Gerny, yet without any result. So many invalid sacraments, so much disobedience, violence, sacrilege, disorder,irregularities, and not a single "message" from tens of thousands of "apparitions" has been directed towards eliminating these scandals. A very strange thing indeed! The Church, from the local to supreme level, from the beginning to this very day, has clearly and constantly repeated: Non constat de supernaturalitate! [No evidence of supernatural activity] No to pilgrimages that would ascribe a supernatural nature to the apparitions, no shrine of the Madonna, no authentic messages nor revelations, no true visions! This is the state of things today. How will things be tomorrow? We'll leave them in God's hands and under Our Lady's protection!

I recommend you all read over this document in full. It summarizes the position of the Chuch (both the local bishops and the Vatican) on the phenomenon at Medjugorje and exposes many of the falsehoods surrounding the alleged apparitions and the seers. Here's one final excerpt from Bishop Peric on the real danger of Medjurgorje:

Regarding Medjugorje, there's a real danger that the Madonna and the Church could be privatized. People could start contriving a Madonna and a Church according to their own taste, perception and deception: by not submitting their reason as believers to the official Magisterium of the Church, but rather forcing the Church to follow and recognize their fantasy.

Naive believers could easily then leave the living fountains of grace in their own parishes to mosey on down to Medjugorje or follow the "seers" around the world, who by the way, thanks to the "apparitions" have good homes and a comfortableexistence - at least that's what the mass-media say.

69 year old gets bones broke counseling against abortions

What a horrible story to ring in the New Year with! But, unfortunately, it is all too true. I picked this up from World Net Daily the other day, courtesy of blogger Maurus:

World Net Daily: January 1, 2008

Pro-life activists are calling for an investigation into – and possibly prosecution of – police officers who responded to a severely injured abortion clinic sidewalk counselor, but then allowed his suspected attacker to leave the scene.

"It is unbelievable that an officer would allow an attacker to go free after inflicting life-threatening injuries on an elderly gentleman, then threaten to arrest the witness to the crime," said Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue.

"That was not only unprofessional conduct, but it showed a fundamental lack of respect for Mr. Snell's life and beliefs. She should face serious discipline."

The attack happened just before Christmas, as Ed Snell, 69, was trying to counsel women entering the Hillcrest Abortion Center in Harrisburg, Pa., according to witnesses at the scene.
According to a report by the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, the work of counselors such as Snell had been so effective at Hillcrest that the abortion business had built a 7-foot-tall privacy fence to prevent counselors from speaking to women entering the business.

So counselors started bringing ladders to see over the fence. Snell, however, built a platform on top of his vehicle in order to have a more stable location to stand.

John McTernan, a witness to the incident, said Snell tried to counsel a woman who got out of a vehicle and was going towards the abortion business with a man.

However, the man suddenly jumped the fence, "leaped on the vehicle with Ed and catapulted him off of the vehicle and onto the ground," he said. Snell landed on his back and head and was knocked unconscious, he said.

Pro-Life Activist Ed Snell (right)

He was hospitalized with multiple trauma, bleeding in his head, compression fractures of four vertebrae, two broken ribs and a broken shoulder, the report said.

The problem escalated when three police officers who arrived on the scene to investigate allowed the attacker to leave, the report said. Even though the assailant still was in the business when officers arrived, and they were able to talk with him, they allowed the assailant and his companion to drive away, the report said.

The report said the following exchange then developed:

McTernan to police: "What are you doing? That's him! That's the assailant!"

Officer: "It is none of your business."

McTernan: "I am making it my business. Ed Snell is my good friend."

The officer then threatened to arrest McTernan, and he responded. "I want to know why the assailant walked away from this scene where an elderly man was left unconscious."

That was followed by another threat to arrest McTernan by the officer, who then drove away.
It wasn't until after the extent of Snell's injuries were documented by the hospital that the assailant was arrested, the report said. A WND call to the Harrisburg police department was referred to the mayor's office, and officials there did not return messages seeking a comment.

"I cannot imagine me [as a pro-lifer], striking someone connected with Hillcrest [Abortion Center], knocking them unconscious, the police coming, the injured person being taken away in an ambulance and the police letting me go," McTernan said. "There is something wrong with that."

The report also said pro-lifers asked the abortion business receptionist about the incident, and were told, "He got what he deserved."

Operation Rescue said the incident was another in a "growing list" of attacks on pro-life advocates in recent months.

Where'd it go?

Ever wonder what happened to all the altars, altar rails, ambos, reredos and things that they pulled out of the churches in the 1960's? Many of them have been located, salvaged and are for sale on the Internet now. Check out this website for some amazing architectural items that would help spice up our iconoclastic-modernist parishes (they're a bit pricy, however).

No alliance with Muslims

Because of his trust in God, Gideon is able to defeat a vastly superior number of Midianites with only 300 warriors (Judges 6-8)

I want to address a certain attitude that I have seen among some Catholics in the popular conservative wing of the Church regarding Islam and Secularism. This is the notion that though Secularism and Islam are both ideologies opposed to the Church, we have much more in common with the Muslims, and therefore we ought to "unite" with Islam in combating Secular Humanism (I capitalize it because, like Islam and Catholicism, Secular Humanism is a religion). The argument usually put forth is that Islam and Catholicism are both monotheistic and have fixed moral values. Therefore, we are natural allies against Secular Humanism, which regards no deity and has no fixed moral values. Peter Kreeft wrote a book promoting such an alliance, and I have heard it on Catholic radio as well. Even certain Vatican statements seems to imply that such a moral alliance is ddesirable

As an example of this view, listen to this quote from author William Cinfici, found in his commentary on Chesterton's Lepanto (Ignatius Press, 2004):

While Catholics and Protestants are finding themselves as allies trying to stem the degeneration of the West against a new Muslim aggression, they may ultimately have to forge and alliance with the Muslim world against the degeneration of the West (pg. 75).

So, in Cinfini's view, instead of being opposed to Muslim aggression, we ought to ally with Muslims in order to stop the degeneration of our own society. Islam, in this view, is a natural ally against Secularism because both of our peoples are "religious."

I say poppycock! This is an insane view, and those who promote it are guilty of seeing things as men see, not as God sees. The Church does not need allies. The Church stands alone. If we were a merely human, political institution, this would seem to be arrogance; but the promise of the Church's indefectability comes not from political consensus or social trends, but from her Divine Founder. Now, two arguments that refute this "Muslim-alliance" idea.

First: the fact that Muslims have "values" and "morality" is no ground for unity at all. So they have values? So what!? The issue is not whether or not someone has values, but rather what kind of values they have. Even the Nazis and the Communists had morality, but the wrong kind of morality. It is not enough to just have morality if it is Nazi morality. And Muslim "morality" is not the type of morality we want to ally with.

Second: God's word says: What concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? (2 Cor. 6:15). Let's see what Scripture says about allying with powers antagonistic to the Gospel.

First, look at the story of King Asa of Judah from 2 Chronicles 14:9-16:14. This story recounts two different attitudes towards meeting one's enemies. Notice which is condemned and which is condoned:

Zerah the Ethiopian came out against [Judah] with an army of a million men and three hundred chariots, and came as far as Mareshah. And Asa went out to meet him...and Asa cried to the Lord his God, "O Lord, there is none like You to help, between the mighty and the weak. Help us, O Lord our God, for we rely on You, and in Your name we have come against this multitude. O Lord, You are our God, let not man prevail against You." So the Lord defeated the Ethiopian before Asa and before Judah, and the Ethiopians fled...for they were broken before the Lord and His army (2 Chr. 14:9-13).

See how the Lord delivered Asa in his time of trouble? But let's see what happens later in his reign when Asa begins to lose faith:

In the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Asa, Baasha king of Israel went up against Judah, and built Ramah, that he might permit no one to go out or come in to Asa king of Judah. Then Asa took silver and gold from the treasures of the house of the Lord and the king's house, and sent them to Benhadad, king of Syria, who dwelt in Damascus, saying, "Let there be a league between me and you..behold, I am sending you silver and gold; go, break your league with Baasha king of Israel, that they may withdraw from me." And Benhadad listened to King Asa, and sent the commanders of his armies against the cities of Israel...

At that time, Hanani the seer came to Asa king of Judah, and said to him, [this part is important!], "Because you relied on the king of Syria, and did not rely on the Lord your God, the army of the king of Syria has escaped you. Were not the Ethiopians and the Libyans a huge army with exceedingly many chariots and horsemen? Yet because you relied on the Lord, he gave them into your hand...You have done foolishly in this; for from now on you will have wars (2 Chr. 16:1-4,7-9).

And how did Asa end his days? In sstubbornnessand bad faith:

In the thirty-ninth year of his reign, Asa became diseased in his feet, and his disease became severe; yet even in his disease he did not seek the Lord, but sought help from physicians. And Asa slept with his fathers, dying in the forty-first year of his reign (2 Chr. 16:11-13).

What a pathetic end for a king who initially had such great promise and who had trusted the Lord to deliver him! It was only when he put his trust in other princes that he began to have problems. Now let's look at another story, this time regarding King Ahaz of Judah, who was attacked by the kings of Syria and Israel:

Therefore the Lord his God gave [Ahaz] into the hand of the king of Syria, who defeated him and took captive a great number of his people and brought them to Damascus. He was also given into the hand of the king of Israel, who defeated him with a great slaughter (2 Chr. 28:5).

What did Ahaz do when beset with enemies all around? Did he call on God, as Asa had once done against the Ethiopians and Libyans? Nope; he relied on men:

At that time King Ahaz sent to the king of Assyria for help...[but] Tigleth-Pileser king of Assyria came against him, and afflicted him instead of strengthening him. For Ahaz took from the house of the Lord and the house of the king and of the princes and gave tribute to the king of Assyria, but it did not help him. In the time of his distress he became yet more faithless to the Lord-this same King Ahaz (2 Chr. 28:16,20-22).

When the devil presses against the Church from the left, we do not ally with another devil on the right! To say we ought to ally with Muslims against Secularism is like allying with Egypt against Babylon or Syria against Edom. It simply ought not to be done. Instead, let us use the example of faithful Gideon, to whom the Lord said, "The Lord is with you, you mighty man of valor!" (Judg. 6:13), and who, because of his faith in God, defeated a tremendously massive force of Midianites with only 300 men. Forget the admonitions of men like Kreeft and Cinfini who say we need to make an alliance with the worhsipers of the false-god Allah (and he is a false god). Let us remember the admonition of the Psalmist:

Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help...happy is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord his God who made heaven and earth...It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in princes (Ps. 118:8-9, 146:3, 5).

Related: Mundabor: The First, Second and Third Enemy is Islam

Pope John's Council (part 2)

In an earlier post (here) I began to write about Volume 2 of Michael Davies' Liturgical Revolution series entitled Pope John's Council, in which the author provides a history of the event that was Vatican Council II by which (intentionally or not) the windows of the Church were thrown open to the smoke of Satan.

Blitzkrieg

Most of the bishops came to the Council without any clear idea of why they had been called there (there was after all no major crisis in the Church). But a group of liberal bishops and their periti from the Rhineland countries came with a definite plan and effected a veritable coup d'etat from the very first session.

"A Key aim of the European avant-garde (obsession might be a more accurate word) had been to replace the true concept of Catholic ecumenism, as laid down by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, with a policy of 'unity at any price.'"

At the first session (13 Oct 1962) the Rhine Group went immediately into action to obtain control of the ten conciliar commissions, which would mean effective control of the whole Council. The established method of voting was overthrown within the first fifteen minutes of the first session, and a new method, proposed by the Rhine Group was accepted.

Mopping Up

The new electoral procedures enabled the Rhine Group to campaign their own members in large numbers onto each and every commission. "Our first victory," according to one Dutch bishop. Before a single document is put on the table, the Rhine Group, whose numbers are now swelled thanks to bandwagon jumpers, is in control.

Liberal Shock Troops

The editor of the Tablet remarks: "For in a sense this Council has been the Council of the periti, silent in the aula, but so effective in the commissions and at bishops' ears." A single "expert" could, and often did, impose his views on the whole Council by gaining the ear of one or two of the German bishops. Prior to the Council Pope John initiated a two year effort undertaken by 871 scholars to prepare schemas for the Council that were totally orthodox and traditional. One Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre was a member of the Central Preparatory Commission giving him a unique vantage point in being able to assess both what the final documents say and what they don't say. Remember, Leo XIII determined Anglican Orders to be null and void based in part on what was removed from the ordinal.

"On 13 July 1962, Pope John decreed that the first seven preparatory schemas should be sent to the Council Fathers throughout the world. The first four were dogmatic constitutions entitled: 'Sources of Revelation" [note the plural! What we got instead was On Divine Revelation, or Dei Verbum], "Preserving Pure the Deposit of Faith", "Christian Moral Order", and "Chastity, Matrimony, the Family, and Virginity". The titles alone were sufficient to send any self-respecting liberal screaming to his psychiatrist! The fifth schema came into a very different category. It concerned the liturgy and had been prepared by a commission dominated by bishops and periti from the Rhine countries who had inserted their own ideas into it. The first four schemas were anathema to the liberals who resolved that they should not even be discussed."

Needless to say, they were successful in throwing out the hated shemas and beginning instead with the Constitution on the Liturgy which has come down to us as the first document of Vatican II. Now able to draft new documents the liberal periti are able to insert ambiguous formulas into them without the notice of most of the conservative bishops. The periti were then also able to take control of the post-conciliar commissions charged with interpreting and implementing the Council documents. One only has to think of the consilium headed by Bugnini...

The upshot of all this is that a handful of liberal "experts" who had the ears of the German bishops were able to draft the documents in such a way as to allow for multiple interpretations (the very definition of ambiguity!) and then the same men were given authority to act as the interpreters of these documents to the world!

Octave-Day of the Nativity

In the Old Law, by the rite of Circumcision, every male Jew became a member and shared in the privileges and blessings of the chosen people of God. A Jew who failed to be initiated by the ceremony was excluded. Our Lord was Son of God by nature, and absolutely sinless, and therefore did not need adoption into the membership of God's children. Yet, He submitted to the law. The Church also honors on this day the holy name of Jesus, given to the Divine Child at the Circumcision.

Today is especially important for two reasons: on the eighth day the Christ Child received the Holy Name of Jesus, and on the eighth day He first shed His Precious Blood for us, of which the Church teaches that one drop would have sufficed for our salvation. For this reason, the whole month of January is dedicated to the Holy Name and Childhood of Jesus (tomorrow is the Feast of the Holy Name). Why the Novus Ordo Calendar moved the Feast of the Motherhood of Mary from Oct 11 to Jan 1 is a mystery to me; I wonder if anyone has seen/heard a justification offered for this move? Practically speaking, it would be hard to dispute that this move has led to a neglect of the salvific significance of the Circumcision and the Holy Name.

I highly recommend the wonderful source of traditional Catholic information that is Fish Eaters for their page on the Feast of the Circumcision, and on the practice of (or avoidance of) circumcision.

And after eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised, his name was called Jesus, which was called by the angel, before he was conceived in the womb (Luke 2:21).