Criteria for Determining Liturgical Music

I recently had a chat with a parish priest regarding how to determine when a hymn is suitable to use in Mass (reference note: using "hymns" is somthing foreign to the Traditional Mass; the music of the Mass was simply the prayers of the Mass set to Gregorian Chant. Having "hymns" is a Protestant invention that was only introduced, illicitly, into the Mass of Paul VI after 1969). The hymn in question was the hymn "This Day God Gives Me", the text of which is based on the Breastplate of St. Patrick and the music organized by (ugh) Marty Haugen.

First of all, I, personally, reject out of hand anything by Marty Haugen. However, the priest in this discussion said that because the text was drawn right from the prayer of St. Patrick, there was nothing objectionable in it and could be safely used. I thought this argument fallacious for several reasons.

When we examine what music to use in the Divine Liturgy, we must look at three criteria: the text itself, the musical composition, and the intent of the author. Now, in this particular case, there is no problem with the text (the dignity of the English translation notwithstanding). It is lifted right from St. Patrick's Breastplate and, interpreted in light of Tradition, is doctrinally sound.

Next, musical composition: herein is where many people who are musically inclined (myself included) object to writers like Haugen, Haas and Michael Joncas. Musically, the pieces do not elevate the mind to contemplate heavenly realities but are modeled after secular music. Pope Pius X in his 1903 motu proprio Tra le Sollecitudini declared that "musical compositions of modern style which are admitted in the Church may contain nothing profane, [must] be free from reminiscences of motifs adopted in the theaters, and be not fashioned even in their external forms after the manner of profane pieces." So even in its external forms sacred music must not imitate profane music. This is what the sappy music of Haugen does regularly. Therefore, this piece should have been ruled out by this criteria alone.

But perhaps the third criteria is the most important and most neglected in evaluating hymns to use in the Mass: intent of the author. We know, from many statements and from lyrics of several of his songs, that Marty Haugen is a heretic who believes in women's ordination, denies the Real Presence and adheres to all of the other modernist errors. Therefore, even though Haugen can (and usually does) quote directly from Scripture or prayers of the Saints, we must look not just at the text but at what he means by the texts he quotes. For example, when he quotes the Gosepl of Luke in his communion song "Blest Are You", he says, "Come and know the one who brings you life / In the breaking of the bread, in the breaking of the bread." Now, this is lifted directly from the Scriptures (the disciples on the road to Emmaus meeting Christ and knowing Him in the breaking of the bread). However, we know what Haugen intends when he says "breaking of the bread." He does not mean the Real Presence of Christ as taught by the doctrine of Transubstantiation, but a spiritual presence of Christ that is found in the community breaking bread (just bread) together in memory (just memory) of Christ. Therefore, though the text is licit, the intent is laced with heresy. This is what the Church defines as ambigua or suspecta de haeresi, errorem.

This principle is the reason why it is not fitting to use Protestant hymns, no matter how noble, in the Mass. For example, in Amazing Grace by John Newton (which is unfortunately sung in Catholic parishes more than Panis Angelicus nowadays), Newton says, "Amazing grace! How sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me! I once was lost, but now am found; was blind, but now I see." There is nothing wrong with these words; they are actually a rather beautiful meditation on the goodness of God's grace. But, being a Protestant influenced by New England Calvinism, we know that Newton's idea of what grace is was profoundly different from that of Catholic orthodoxy. Grace, for him, implies predestination, irresistable grace, sola fide and all of the other Protestant errors. Therefore, this song should not be used in Mass because it fails our third criteria (and, our second as well, perhaps). It is not an allowable practice to take a song heretical in meaning and simply reinterpret it in a Catholic way.

Therefore, don't be fooled just because the texts of Haugen and Haas are lifted from Scripture. The text is not all that matters. But of course, this whole conversation should be moot because we should not even be singing these kind of hymns in Mass at all. As Sacrosanctum Concilium says in article 116, "The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services."

Well, was it abrogated or not?

In continuing our discussion from yesterday on some of the odd points of "Summorum Pontificum", we come to the issue of whether the old Mass was ever abrogated. Now, it is obvious to all parties that for the past forty years there has been a de facto supression of the old Mass; that much is beyond doubt. We are concerned here with whether there has ever been a de jure supression.

Pope Benedict seems to be saying that it was never abrogated de jure. Look at article two of the motu proprio, which says, "It is therefore permissible to celebrate the sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church." Here, Benedict clearly states that the Mass of John XXIII was never abrogated.

However, if it was never abrogated, why the need of the indult "Quattuor Abhinc Anno"? Look at Benedict's language just a paragraph up: "...in 1984 the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, moved by a concern for the pastoral care of these people [those attached to the TLM], with the special indult 'Quattuor Abhinc Anno,' issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted permission to use the Roman Missal published by Blessed John XXIII in 1962." So, here we have Benedict referring to the 1984 indult as granting "permission" to again use the 1962 Missal. Now, why do we need "permission" to celebrate something that was "never abrogated?"

Let's look at the original indult. It says: "...the Supreme Pontiff, in a desire to meet the wishes of these groups [those attached to the Missal of 1962], grants to diocesan bishops the possibility of using an indult whereby priests and faithful, who shall be expressly indicated in the letter of request to be presented to their own bishop, may be able to celebrate Mass by using the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition..." So here, we have John Paul II "granting" to the bishops the "possibility of using an indult." Now, the definition of an indult, generally, is a "dispensation; privilege granted for something not permitted by Church." Again, if an indult is required to celebrate the old Mass, doesn't that imply that it was formerly supressed if a dispensation is required in order to celebrate it?

There is still much that is unclear about this issue, and perhaps this document, like so many others, will require nine more documents interpreting it for us. In this I concur with Fr. Chad Ripperger on his statement that the Magisterium in the past forty years has gotten use to making sloppy statements without either watching their language or checking previous documents to make sure there is no ambiguity. Click here to read this article by Fr. Ripperger on the post-Vatican II Magisterium and its statements.

Click here for "Summorum Pontificum"

Click here for Quattuor Abhinc Annos

Well, is there one rite or two?

The "Summorum Pontificum" of Benedict XVI states two points that are a mystery to me: the first is that it states that the Mass of John XXIII was never surpressed when the words of John Paul II's Ecclesia Dei and Quattor Abhinc Annos seem to strongly indicate that it was indeed surpressed (we will examine this question tomorrow). The second mytsery of the document (that I propose to deal with today) is why Benedict asserts that the Mass of Paul VI and the Mass of John XXIII are two expressions of the same rite when Paul VI clearly says that the two are different rites. Consider the words of the motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum, which say:

"Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi' (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extradordinary expression of that same 'Lex orandi," and must be given due honor for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi" (Law of belief). They are, in fact, two usages of the one Roman rite."

So there we have it in the last sentence: "They are, in fact, two usages of the one Roman rite." Now, let's look at Pope Paul VI's General Audience, Changes in Mass for Greater Apostolate, given on November 26t, 1969:

1. We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass. This new rite will be introduced into our celebration of the holy Sacrifice starting from Sunday next which is the first of Advent, November 30


2. A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. It seemed to bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past, which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead...This change will affect the ceremonies of the Mass. We shall become aware, perhaps with some feeling of annoyance, that the ceremonies at the altar are no longer being carried out with the same words and gestures to which we were accustomed...

4. We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits. We shall notice that pious persons are disturbed most, because they have their own respectable way of hearing Mass, and they will feel shaken out of their usual thoughts and obliged to follow those of others. Even priests may feel some annoyance in this respect... So what is to be done on this special and historical occasion? First of all, we must prepare ourselves. This novelty is no small thing. We should not let ourselves be surprised by the nature, or even the nuisance, of its exterior forms. As intelligent persons and conscientious faithful we should find out as much as we can about this innovation... As We said on another occasion, we shall do well to take into account the motives for this grave change. The first is obedience to the Council. That obedience now implies obedience to the Bishops, who interpret the Council's prescription and put them into practice.

And later on, he speaks of the loss of the Latin language:8. It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant.

9. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church's values?

This document is amazing. Notice that, in contradiction of Benedcit XVI, Paul VI in article two clearly calls the Novus Ordo a "new rite of Mass" and calls it a "liturgical innovation." The new Mass is twice called an "innovation." It is a "change in a venerable tradition." Perhaps most amazing of all, it is described as a "many sided inconvenience," a "novelty," an "annoyance," a "nuisance." He refers to the Novus Ordo as a "grave change." After expressing the beauty of Latin, Paul VI says those who alter the Latin terminology are like "profane intruders."

Now, if Paul VI (who by the way, is the one who promulgated the Novus Ordo that is named after him), if even the promulgator of the Novus Ordo calls it a "new rite", a "grave change"and a "liturgical innovation", what are we to make of Benedict XVI's bold assertion that it is not a new rite? It looks like he is trying to pull the liturgical wool over our eyes. There can be no true reform until there is some kind of admission of the failure of the Novus Ordo and the acknowledgement that the Mass of St. Pius V (the Mass of Gregory the Great, really) is the normative Lex orandi of the Church. One thing is certain: this bunk about the Novus Ordo faithfully preserving the riches of Catholic Tradition is just that: bunk.

Click here to see Summorum Pontificum.
Click here to see Paul VI's General Audience

Is Liturgy Really That Big A Deal?

Uzzah is Struck Dead for Touching the Ark of the Covenant

Since the release of Summorum Pontificum, many have criticized Traditionalist Catholics for their perceived uptightness about liturgical matters. "Why be so finicky about the liturgy?" they say. "There are more important issues to get upset about! Issues like poverty, war, abortion and social justice! Why get all worked up about liturgical reform? It is just a matter of aesthetics anyhow!"

While the above topics certainly are worthy of attention, liturgy takes a special place because in the Divine Liturgy we worship God Himself. Remember when Judas was indignant with Mary of Bethany for anointing the feet of Jesus? "Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?" Jesus said, "Let her alone...the poor you have with you always, but you do not always have me" (John 12:5,7). When we adore and worship Jesus, we are performing a supremely important action; in fact, it is the action we were created to do.

One way of telling how important something is to God is seeing how many people He has struck dead over it. I'm serious about this! Consider the following facts: God did not strike Adam dead when he committed the first sin, nor did He smite Cain for murder. He did not smite Noah for drunkenness, nor did He kill Joseph's brothers for selling him into slavery. Aaron was not even smitten for making the golden calf and David was not struck down for his adulterous and murderous affair with Bathsheba. Even wicked Manasseh of Judah was not killed by God when he sacrificed babies to Moloch in the Valley of Hinnom. However, here are some people who were smitten by God in divine anger:

Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, are consumed by divine flame for offering unholy fire before the Lord, fire "such as the Lord had not commanded them" (Lev. 10:1-3).

A man is put to death under God's Law for not honoring the day of rest by picking up sticks (Num. 15:32-36). The day of rest was supposed to be the day on which God was worshipped.

Korah, Dathan Abiram and their party are consumed by fire and swallowed up into the earth because they sought to usurp the priestly role of Aaron. Their heresy was that they asserted that "all the congregation is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them" (Num. 16:1-40).

Hophni and Phineas, the two wicked sons of Eli the High Priest are marked out for death by God because they partook of consecrated meat from the offerings made to the Lord at the Tent of Meeting (1 Sam. 2:12-4:11).

King Saul offers a sacrifice because the priest Samuel is late in arriving for the ceremony. As a result, God rejects him from being King, he becomes tormented by evil spirits and is slain on Mount Gilboa (1 Sam. 13:8-14).

Uzzah is struck dead because he touched the Ark, the supreme object of Israelite liturgical worship (2 Sam. 6:7).

King Uzziah of Judah is smitten with leprosy "to the day of his death" for trying to offer incense in the Holy Temple in violation of the law permitting only priests and levites from doing so (2 Chr. 26:16-21).


St. Paul warns the Corinthians that improper reception of the Holy Eucharist can merit death by profaning Christ's Body (I Cor. 11:27-33).Judging by all of these examples, it would seem that God's wrath was more provoked by Korah and Dathan usurping the priestly role of Moses than by Manasseh slaughtering infants. We know from Scripture that Manasseh was taken into captivity, had time to repent, and indeed did repent of his wickedness. But we know that Uzzah, Dathan, Korah, Nadab and all the rest on this list were slain immediately without time for afterthought or repentance. All of the people on this list died because they violated Old Testament prescriptions regarding the proper worship of God in one way or another.
Therefore, let anybody who is tempted to think that the proper worship of God is not important (supremely important!), that it does not matter whether we use Gregorian Chant or guitars and bongos in Mass, that "slavishly accurate" liturgucal translations are not vital, that God is not outraged by Clown Masses, Guitar Masses and all the rest of the abominations we hear about, let them remember St. Paul's admonition in the epistle to the Hebrews: "A man who has violated the Law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of Grace. For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge His people." It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb. 10:28-31).

Hope in Latin America?

Ever heard statements by Catholics that "the future of the Church is in Latin America" and that we ought to give up on Europe and look to places like Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina for our future popes, bishops, priests and theologians? Let's have a look at an average "gathering" of Catholics in Sao Paulo, Brazil by New York Times journalist Larry Rohter (USC commentary in blue):

"On a cool and cloudy Saturday morning in late April...representatives of 50 base communities ["base communities" = parishes. The phrase sounds more "proletarian" than the term "parish", which reminds one of yucky authoritarian medievalism] gathered at the St. Paul the Apostle Church on the east side of this sprawling city, in an area of humble workers' residences and squatter slums.

With four priests present, readings from the Bible alternated with more worldly concerns: criticisms of government proposals to reduce pensions and workers' rights under the Brazilian labor code. The service ended with the Lord's Prayer and then a hymn [it would be interesting to know how many of these people, so zealous for this Saturday meeting on political issues, regularly attend Sunday Mass the next day]. The congregation sang:

In the land of mankind

conceived of as a pyramid

there are a few at the top

and many on the bottom

In the land of mankind

those at the top crush those at the bottom
Oh, people of the poor, people subject to domination

what are you doing just standing there?

The world of mankind has to be changed

so arise, people, don't stand still!

Not exactly Salve Regina! This sort of thing is especially prevalent in Latin America, where liberation theology has deeply penetrated the Church, but there are some who would propose this bunk for the universal Church. Rohter continues:

Afterward, discussion turned to other social problems, chief among them a lack of proper sanitation. A representative of the left-wing Worker's Party [Workers = Marxist] discussed strategies to press the government to complete a new sewer project. Congregants agreed to organize a campaign to lobby for it.

Five Brazilian Priests Pose for Photos with their Congregation

In other areas here, liberation theology advocates have strong links to labor unions. At a May 1st Mass to commemorate International Labor Day [wait a minute, aren't they supposed to be celebrating the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker that day?], they draped a wooden cross with black banners labeled "imperialism" and "privatization" and applauded when the homily criticized the government's "neoliberal" economic policies, the kind Washington supports.

"We believe in merging the questions of faith and social action," said Valmir Resende dos Santos, a liberation disciple who brings base communities and labor groups together in the industrial suburbs here. "We advise groups and social movements, mobilize the unemployed, and work with unions and parties, always from a perspective based on the Gospel."

Article courtesy of Larry Rohter, New York Times, May 7, 2007 (source)

[*gasp* these people sound almost like Marxists! Somebody should let them know that Marxism was condemned by the Church in the 1937 encyclical Divini Redemptoris of Pius XI. I'm sure they just haven't heard about it! By the way, the Vatican did recently impose sanctions on the liberation theologians Gustavo Gutierrez of Peru, Leonardo Boff of Brazil and Jon Sobrino, S.J., of El Salvador. Leaders of the movement still remain defiant.]

Yep, as long as this kind of stuff goes on in the Church in Latin America, I wouldn't put too much hope in them. We'd make better use of our time preaching the Gospel to the Mongolians. (Click here to read the 1937 encyclical of Pope Pius XI Divini Redemptoris, which condemns Marxism.)

Hans Kung Honored...By the Freemasons!

Dissident theologian Hans Kung was recently awarded the "Kulturpreis Deutscher Freimaurer" (Culture Award of German Freemasons), for a "lifetime of service to the Craft" and for being a "free and brave thinker." Kung lost his mission canonica, the faculty to teach Catholic theology, in the 1980's. Kung rejects the Church's infallibility, posits that any baptized person has the power to confect the Holy Eucharist, denies that bishops receive their teaching authority from Christ, and denies that Christ is "consubstantial" with the Father. In his book On Being a Christian, Kung denies the bodily resurrection of Jesus (p. 350), denies that Christ founded the institutional Church (p. 109), denies the divinity of Christ (p. 130), dismisses the miracles of the Gospel (p. 233), and denies that the Mass is the representation of Calvary (p. 323). If ever there was a man deserving of an award for a "lifetime of service to the Craft," it is Hans Kung!

Bishops Worthy of Mention

Bishop John Nienstedt

Archbishop Raymond Burke, St. Louis- Archbishop Burke resigned as board chair of the Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center because of pro-abortion singer Sheryl Crow's appearance at an organizational fundraiser. "It's very painful for me," he said, "but I have to answer to God for the responsibility I have as Archbishop. A Catholic institution featuring a performer who promotes moral evil gives the impression that the Church is somehow inconsistent in its teaching."

Bishop John Nienstedt, New Ulm, Minn. - Long known for challenging Hollywood, stem-cell research and people who chat in church before liturgies, Bishop Nienstedt will succeed Harry Flynn as Archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis. As Bishop of New Ulm, Nienstedt condemned the heterodox theology of his predecessor Bishop Raymond Lucker, prohibited cohabitating couples from being married in Catholic churches and barred female pastoral administrators from leading prayers at a semiannual leadership event. He once disciplined a priest for holding joint ecumenical services with a Lutheran congregation. In his monthly diocesan column, Nienstedt wrote that people become gay or lesbian as a "result of psychological trauma" when a child is between the ages of 18 months and 3 years. Homosexuality, therefore, "must be understood in the context of other human disorders: envy, malice, greed, etc." He further advised parishioners to avoid the movies Brokeback Mountain - "a story of lust gone bad" - and The Da Vinci Code, based on a novel that is "pure evil in its intent."

Bishop Frank Dewane, Ft. Myers, Fla. - After a concerned parishioner brought Bishop Dewane photographic evidence of an occultic Yoga class being carried out around the altar in her parish chapel, Bishop Dewane immediately ordered the offensive classes discontinued.

Though we may not approve of some (uh, that is, much) of what our bishops say and do, those who truly stand up against heresy and false doctrine in the spirit and power of Elijah (who ordered the false prophets of Baal slain) deserve our commendation.

Kudos to Cardinal Kasper ( ! )

Walter Cardinal Kasper

Though I am shocked and amazed by it, the statement that Walter Cardinal Kasper made recently regarding the document on Lumen Gentium seems pretty orthodox! Given his history of idiotic statements with regards to Catholicism and Judaism (like his famous foolish assertion that Jews did not need Jesus because the Old Covenant was enough to save them), I was expecting him to say something equally stupid with regard to the Protestants. However, he took the position of defending the document and firmly held to traditional Church teaching. Perhaps the only thing wrong with his statements is his overuse of the word "dialogue", though he does of good job of pointing out that dialoguing assumes those involved define their positions, which is all that the CDF did with their document. Though Kasper's position on Judaism makes my skin crawl, I have to give praise where praise is due. Good job Cardinal Kasper! Read the his statements here on the Zenit website.

St. Louis IX on Interreligious Dialogue

There is much talk on religious dialogue these days, especially in light of the CDF document on Lumen Gentium and the Motu Proprio's eliciting of (in my opinion, misplaced) concerns by Jews worried about anti-Semitism. All of the groups offended by the Vatican recently have made the claim that the Church's statements are destroying the unity and togetherness that has been built up since the Second Vatican Council.

This begs the question, what are we uniting around? What is the source of our togetherness? What is the point of having any "religious dialogue" if we are not going to boldly proclaim our faith? In the old days, the Church spoke of evangelizing the nations. Now, the word "evangelization" has been robbed of so much of its content that it hardly means anything anymore other than being a "living witness" and totally leaves out the notions of proclamation, apologetics, argumentation and conversion. There is no point having dialogue with Jews, Muslims or Protestants unless our goal (in the end) is to show them the truth, goodness and beauty of the Catholic faith.

Here is a famous old story told by the great medieval saint, King St. Louis IX of France (1215-1270) about interreligious dialogue between a Jew and a rugged old knight, as found in the Life of St. Louis by Joinville:

"King Louis also spoke to me of a great assembly of clergy and Jews which had taken place at the monastery of Cluny. There was a poor knight there at the time to whom the abbot had often given bread for the love of God. This knight asked the abbot if he could speak first, and his request was granted, though somewhat grudgingly. So he rose to his feet, and leaning on his crutch, asked to have the most important and learned rabbi among the Jews brought before him. As soon as the Jew had come, the knight asked him a question: 'May I know, sir,' he said, 'if you believe that the Virgin Mary, who bore our Lord in her body and cradled Him in her arms, was a virgin at the time of His birth, and is in truth the Mother of God?'

The Jew replied that he had no belief in any of those things. Thereupon the knight told the Jew that he had acted like a fool when -neither believing in the Virgin, nor loving her- he had set foot in that monastery which was her house. 'And by heaven', exclaimed the knight, 'I'll make you pay for it!' So he lifted his crutch and struck the Jew such a blow with it near the ear that he knocked him down. Then all the Jews took to flight, and carried their sorely wounded rabbi away with them. Thus the conference ended.

The abbot went up to the knight and told him he had acted most unwisely. The knight retorted that the abbot had been guilty of even greater folly in calling people together for such a conference, because there were many good Christians there who, before the discussion ended, would have gone away with doubts about their own religion through not fully understanding the Jews.

'So I tell you,' said the king, 'that no one, unless he is an expert theologian, should venture to argue with these people. But a layman, whenever he hears the Christian religion abused, should not attempt to defend its tenets, except with his sword, and that he should thrust into the scoundrel's belly, and as far as it will enter."

Now, whatever we may think today about sticking swords into people's bellies, notice the wise words of the knight in the third paragraph. The knight says that the abbot was wrong in even calling such an interreligious meeting, because (a) Christians hearing it would be liable to call their own faith into doubt (b) they would gain no real understanding of the Jewish faith, and (c) though Louis did not mention it, I would say that the Jews would not have converted anyway. This insight is so true! How many Jews, Muslims or Hindus have converted to Catholicism because of interreligious dialogue? None. But how many Catholics have had their faith shaken, watered down, or thought it was okay to mix religious practices with non-Catholics because of this "dialogue"? Their number is legion.

Detroit News Article on CDF Statement

Well, it looks like my prediction about Protestants getting angry about the CDF's document clarifying Lumen Gentium was well founded, as all across the nation Protestant clergy protest what they see as the belittling of their faith by the Pope. Below I have the whole article by Gregg Krupa (USC commentary in red). I have included his emal address and phone number at the bottom; please contact him and let him know what you think of the article.

The pope's 'true faith' remark causes stir
Protestants say he discounts validity of other denominations
Gregg Krupa / The Detroit News

Protestant leaders in Metro Detroit fear that a recent pronouncement by Pope Benedict XVI about their denominations will discourage decades of ecumenical efforts and calls into doubt whether he desires a constructive dialogue ["dialogue," one word I despise] between Catholics and Protestants.

"When I heard on the television and saw it in the paper, I was surprised, because there was so much freedom and a coming together of Protestants and Catholics through the 40 years of my ministry," said John Huhtala Sr., director of connectional ministries, for the Detroit Conference of the United Methodist Church. "Will these cooperative ventures cease or will they continue on with partnership in the local churches? It is a concern." [Yes, but "coming together" around what? This guy talks as if unity was in itself a good thing. What is the basis for the unity? If there is no common ground of unity, then it is just false, feel-good "togetherness" and not the true unity envisioned by Christ when He said that the Church should be one "as I and My Father are one."]

In issuing a statement Tuesday from the Vatican to clarify church policy on other Christian faiths, Pope Benedict XVI referred to the Protestant congregations as defective and not true churches [Pope Benedict didn't make this up; Vatican II, which these liberals love so much, is the source of these statements. Benedict is just reiterating Church teaching.]

The statement said, in part, "These separated churches and communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives that fullness of grace and truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church" [Again, this is a direct quote from Vatican II's Unitatis Redintegratio. Also, notice how much good stuff he says about Protestantism here. The bottom line is that the Protestants, like the Muslims and the Jews, will not be satisfied until the Church declares that their faiths are just as good as that of the Roman Church, which has simply never been Church teaching and never will.]

Some Catholic clergy interpret the document as a clarification of the status quo, and say it will have no effect on years of interfaith work, dialogue and worship.

"I think the statement is not saying anything radically new and different and was not meant to be offensive," said John Zenz, moderator of the curia for the Archdiocese of Detroit. "It just says the Catholic Church would have the fullness of the teachings and (the Protestant denominations) would enjoy elements of it." [Good so far]

But even some Catholics say [Uh oh. Here comes the liberal theologians!] they fear the Pope's view may stifle interfaith cooperation.

"It is a very rigid understanding of the faith that doesn't leave any room for the kind of friendship that people of faith can provide, that will enhance the truth as we understand it," said Bob Bruttell, who teaches religious studies at the University of Detroit Mercy. ["Irenicism": a belief that unity is more important value than truth. This concept was condemned Pope John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint] "The pope is putting our Catholic faith into a place that is going to be very difficult for us to work out of."

Protestant clerics also objected to the document. "No one has the lock on the truth just because of a title or name," said the Rev. David Eberhard, pastor of Historic Trinity Lutheran Church in Detroit. "I think that it's a step backward for the Roman Catholic Church. The term Catholic is not the sole property, ownership and title of the Roman Catholic Church [What? Where does he get this notion from? What else to people think of when you say the "Catholic Church?]. It is a universal church that believes in Jesus Christ as the savior."

The stated purpose of the document was to clarify church positions about Christian denominations first asserted by the Second Vatican Council, a three-year conference ending in 1965 that changed some policies of the church [Policies, yes, but not doctrines. And the doctrine that the Roman Catholic Church was founded and established by Christ, and as such is the only authentic Church, is a dogma of our faith that will never be changed].

In his tenures as both pope and a cardinal, when he led the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Benedict has been perceived as in the vanguard of a conservative [secular media can only view the Church in terms of conservative vs. liberal. It is much more complex than that!] view that some of the reforms of the seminal conference were not intended as significant change. Whether re-authorizing the "old, Latin Mass," as many Catholics call it -- which he did last week -- or issuing a clarification on the status of Christian faiths, the pope is seen as stressing the continuity of the reforms with earlier church dogma.

Catholic clergy say, most emphatically, that the pope is not saying that salvation is unavailable except through the Roman Catholic Church. The other denominations provide a path to salvation, too [the document acknowledges this, although I wouldn't say the other denominations provide a "path to salvation", as if there were more than one path. Rather, what the pope means is that it is possible for Protestants to be saved; but, if they are saved, it is because of graces that come through the Catholic Church, not through their own].

But many Protestants say they believe the pope has discounted their faith for a second time in seven years, since he issued a similar statement when he was Cardinal Ratzinger. When asked if he feels there is a forum in which the issues can be addressed, Huhtala was not hopeful.

"I don't even know what the avenue would be," he said. "I have always assumed that there was a sense of camaraderie and togetherness [But again, togetherness around what? The togetherness has to be around something and the "dialogue" has to tend towards something. We are not just talking for the sake of talking!] . But a couple of his comments seem to diminish anyone but the Roman church."

Catholic leaders sought to reassure other Christian denominations that the Pope has done nothing to discourage the interfaith work, which they assert he has long championed. The document serves as instruction to Catholics involved in ecumenical efforts "to make sure they properly represent the church in the dialogue," said the Rev. James Massa, executive director of the secretariat of Ecumenical and Inter-religious Affairs of the U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops.

"Catholics are not pulling out of the dialogue," Massa said. "We will continue to minister to inter-church families, continue to cooperate with our Protestant partners at the local level, continue to pray with them, continue to engage in works of charity and justice with them and continue to study with them ways in which we can advance the cause of religious unity," Massa said.
Some Protestants say they perceive a return to the old days, in the middle of the last century, in which some Christian clergy perceived a pitched battle among the congregations to attract new congregants. [Of course! The end goal for Catholic "dialogue" is for all people involved in the "dialogue" to become Roman Catholics!]

"I think that Benedict is probably taking that as an opportunity to bring people into one true church," [I'll say! Good insight!] said John Keydel, canon for ministry and development for the Episcopal Diocese of Michigan. "I don't see it impacting the Episcopal church, at all -- unless we get disaffected Romans who want something very much like what post Vatican II liturgy has been like. We're not looking to take advantage of it, but we're certainly offering people a spiritual home" [Oh, I see! You don't mind if your denomination attracts new members, but God forbid we assert that people should convert to ours!] .

Other Protestants said Benedict might be appealing to his conservative base of supporters [There's that tired old political analogy again; "conservatives" and "base of supporters." A College of about a hundred or so chooses who will fill the Papal throne, not a "base of supporters"] . "I do understand that he has pastoral challenge or debate within the Roman church and he is leaning towards the pre-Vatican II interpretation," said Gustav Kopka Jr., a pastor of the Lutheran churches in Metro Detroit, long active in ecumenical affairs. "The document will encourage those who have been wanting to have something more rigidly understood, all along" [Wow! The Protestant commentator understands the situation better than the liberal Catholic theologian quoted above! *sigh*] .

You can reach Gregg Krupa at (313) 222-2359 or gkrupa@detnews.com. [Contact him!]

No Ambiguity in Pre-Vatican II Documents

Catholic Theologian Attempting to Read the Mountains of Post-Conciliar Magisterial Statements

As a Church whose foundations are historical and based on the words and deeds of Christ and the Apostles in history, our faith must continually look backwards towards the life of Jesus; indeed, towards the crucifixion, the pivotal moment in human history. One generation in the Church continually succeeds another, each looking back for the authentic interpretation of contemporary events to the constant teachings and expressions of Tradition. As a historical Church, we ought to (and have for many centuries) interpret the present in light of the past.

However, since Vatican II there has been a shift in the way the Church looks at history, espeically its own. Rather than seek understanding of the chaotic trials of the day in the timeless wisdom of the past, the current trend has been to re-interpret the past in light of the present, as if this present moment was somehow superior to the entire past Tradition of the Church. This is a phenomenon that Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P., has called "temporal nationalism"; i.e., the assumption that modern man is so much more enlightened and knowledgeable than his predecessors that he can sit and pass judgement on the past with arrogant abandon.

This view is seen at work in the Church by the sheer volume of magisterial statements put out since Vatican II; since the 1960's, the Church has sought to issue new documents on every aspect of the Christian faith, as if the old documents were unable to stand on their own. Two factors that especially aggravate this is first, that the new documents are infinitely longer than the old statements. The average pre-Vatican II document, like Humani Generis of Piux XII, for example, is about 6 to 10 printed pages long, sometimes shorter, sometimes longer. The average post-Vatican II document is anywhere from 50 to 130 printed pages long. This is partially due to the pastoral and philosophical nature of newer documents - where older documents sought primarily to give declarations and issue decrees, newer documents are geared towards explaining why the Church believes and does this and that. This is not bad, by any means, but it is evidence that the Church has changed the way it views itself and its mission to the world, and that the result has been a post-conciliar corpus that is much more difficult to navigate through.

Second, the theological language of the new documents is sometimes sloppy and prone to ambiguous interpretation. Take the famous example of Dei Verbum 11, which states that the Bible "teaches, without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation."

Now, it can be interpreted in one of two ways: (1) the Bible is immune from error in everything it says, and everything it says God wanted there for the sake of our salvation, and (2) The Bible is immune from error in so far as it teaches about salvation, but can err when it treats of other topics. Post-Vatican II teaching is ambiguous on the proper resolution, and seeking to be "modern" and "scholarly", many theologians, even well-meaning otherwise orthodox theologians, have accepted the second position. Now, how is the Catholic to solve this dilemma, given the relative silence of the modern Magisterium on the matter? Catholics ignorant of Tradition would simply sit down and wait for another ambiguous Magisterial document to interpret the first ambiguous statement. But remember our principle: we interpret the present in light of the past. Now, let's see what Tradition says on the matter of inspiration. I will let the Popes and Councils speak for themselves.

• 
  
  
  Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, no. 20f: “It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred... For all the books which the Church receives as Sacred and Canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the Supreme Truth, can utter that which is not True. This is the ancient and unchanging Faith of the Church... [T]hose who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error.”
  
  
• 
  
  
  Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, no. 11, condemns the following proposition: “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.”
  
  
• 
  
  
  Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, no. 13: “[T]he immunity of Scripture from error or deception is necessarily bound up with its Divine inspiration and supreme authority.”
  
  
• 
  
  
  Ibid., no. 19, condemns the following proposition: “[T]he effects of inspiration - namely, absolute truth and immunity from error - are to be restricted to that primary or religious element.”
  
  
• 
  
  
  Ibid., no. 21: He also teaches that Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text.
  
  
• 
  
  
  Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, no. 3: “It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.”
  
  
• 
  
  
  Pius XII, Humani Generis, no. 22, condemns the following proposition: “[I]mmunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.”
  
  
• 
  
  
  Vatican Council I, Sess. III, cap. ii, DE REV: “The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the Decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as Sacred and Canonical. And the Church holds them as Sacred and Canonical not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her Authority; nor only because they contain revelation without errors, but because, having been written under the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their Author.”
  

So we see how a look at Tradition and pre-Vatican II Magisterial statements (all of them wonderfully concise and precise) we can easily get a proper interpretation of Dei Verbum 11: that the Bible is immune from error in everything it says, and everything it says God wanted there for the sake of our salvation. This is the constant Tradition of the Church. An interpretation other than this would be a radical break with Tradition and constitute a change in the Church's dogma, which is impossible. Finally, if even that is not enough to convince the die-hard fans of modernism, the Council Fathers let it be known how they intended this phrase to be interpreted by referencing in its footnote various writings of St. Augustine, all of which endorse the total inerrancy of Scripture.

Tradition has been and always shall be the most sure norm for interpreting the Church's current teaching. Regarding Tradition, let us remember the famous quote of G.K. Chesterton: "Tradition means giving a vote to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about" (Orthodoxy, 4).

New CDF Document on Lumen Gentium Today

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith today published a short explication of several articles of the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium. The document deals with several questions about the nature of the Church, especially pertaining to the statement made in Lumen Gentium that the true Church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church. The document is brief (I hope this becomes a standard aspect of documents issued under Benedict XVI in contrast to John Paul II's 95 page encyclicals) and is layed out in a simple question and answer format. Some of the pertinent points of the document:

First, in the phrase that the Church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church, "subsists" is taken to mean "perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church" and as such, the word "subsists" can apply properly to the Catholic Church and to it alone.

Second, Eastern Orthodox Churches are rightly called churches because of their preservation of valid ordination and therefore valid sacraments. Nevertheless, because they lack communion with the Bishop of Rome, the symbol of the earthly unity of the Church, they still are not Churches in the fullest sense of the word. Unity with the Bishop of Rome is not accidental, but is essential to the identity of the true Church.

Third, Protestant ecclesial communities are not to be called "Churches" because they lack valid Holy Orders and have not preserved the continuity of Sacred Tradition, especially with regards to the Holy Eucharist, which is the center of the Church. Thus, while grace is found within certain Protestant communities in relation to their degree of unity with the Catholic Church, they are nevertheless not true Churches.

In short, this document basically reaffirms the age old teaching that the Catholic Church alone is the Church of Christ founded by Him. This is nothing new, but the interpretation given here on the word "subsists" is meant to curb some heretical impulses within certain sectors of the Church which say, errantly, that thet Catholic Church is but one "expression" of the True Church and that other Protestant and Eastern Churches are other different but equally valid "expressions." This proposition is denied by the document.

The Vatican sure is on a role this summer: when Benedict XVI changed the procedure for electing Pontiffs a few weeks back, he angered the liberal Bishops; Summorum Pontificum angered the liberals and, apparently, is stirring up some kind of agitation amongst the Jews; now this document will probably anger the Protestants because it teaches that their "communities" are not true Churches. If the Vatican continues this trend, we can expect the next document to anger the Muslims! Let is be so, Lord, let it be so!

Click here to read the Vatican Document on Lumen Gentium.

Summorum Pontificum

Praise and thanks be to God for the document Summorum Pontificum released this Saturday. I think I speak for many when I say that this document exceeded many of our expectations. The Mass of 1962 has been completely freed and any priest who wishes to may use it without the permission of his Ordinary. Furthermore, the old usages for all of the sacraments have been allowed as well. Perhaps the most rewarding thing about this document is the vindication it gives to those who claimed that the Mass of 1962 was never abrogated and that it has always been allowed (the actions of local bishops in surpressing it notwithstanding).

The Holy Father has explicitly declared that the Mass of Bl. John XXIII was in point of fact never abrogated. This is just another step towards what has been rightfully called "the reform of the reform." Perhaps now we can move away from the kind of horrendous liturgical abuses that we have all been subject to for so long.

Liturgical Abuse: Just say No

While there is much to do from here on out, I cannot help but pondering the next step. This is a long and slow process, and one marked by many small steppingstones. The Indult of 1984 and its expansion in 1988 are two previous steps, and this is another one. What should come next? When will it be enough? I will tell you what I would like to see next:

(1) The old usage be declared the "normative" form of the Latin rite instead of the extraordinary form.

(2) The gradual phasing out of the Novus Ordo.

(3) Some kind of official acknowledgement that the hoped for "riches" envisioned by Sacrosanctum Concilium have not materialized and that the implementation of the Novus Ordo has been an abject failure.

The end we ought to be aiming at should be, in the words of Msgr. Klaus Gamber: "In the final analysis, in the future the traditional rite of the Mass must be retained in the Roman Catholic Church...as the primary liturgical form for the celebration of Mass. It must become once more the norm of our faith and the symbol of Catholic unity throughout the world, a rock of stability in a period of upheaval and neverending change" (from : "Reform of the Roman Liturgy, pg. 114).

Is this too much? I don't think so. I do not want the Mass of 1962 just to satisfy my own private aesthetic or spiritual "taste"; I honestly think this usage is better for the Church Universal, and therefore I think we ought to, as a final goal, will that it be used by the Universal Church, as it had been for 1500 years. Well, the next several months should be exciting to say the least!

Motu Proprio Tomorrow

With it virtually certain that the MP will be out tomorrow, I thought it prudent to simply restate here what was posted by Shawn Tribe today on The New Liturgical Movement regarding our expectations concerning this document and how we ought to react to it. Here is the post from TNLM:

1. Think about Pope Benedict's liturgical teaching. It would be good if people really stop and think about Pope Benedict's vision for the liturgy and the Church, which sees liturgical co-existence, but one which attempts to address the Council and might eventually lead to synthesis. Get your mind into that mode and read Summorum Pontificum in that light, understanding it from that perspective as the seeds of a 'corrective' of the hermeneutic of rupture.

2. Forget about what you've heard about the document and simply read it for what it is. Consider this as well: if this document came as a complete and total surprise with no lead up to it these past months, how would you respond to it then? Respond to it accordingly as such.

3. In the same vein, think not about what you personally would like to see happen, but rather think about the present state of things and ask, regardless of my own opinion of what would be for the best, how does this motu proprio change the landscape for the better (for both the ordinary and extraordinary forms of the Roman rite)? How does it help in the process of reclaiming our tradition from the margins of ecclesial life? How does it build for the future?

4. Realize as well that Benedict may also have had to make a prudential decision about precisely what he thought he could promulgate with a reasonable chance of being successful in the here and now, building for the future. Think of this as another step in a process rather than the "end game". Think about what was released in 1984, which was very restrictive; then the loosening of 1988 with Ecclesia Dei, and now this next step in the process.

5. Be aware, now, before you read it tomorrow, that you probably won't get everything you hope for in one document. Don't expect magical juridical solutions, nor one's that implement all of your own desires.

6. Presume that there no document can absolutely safeguard against those who determined to foil it, but, again, how does it make it that much harder to do so, or that much freer where such a situation doesn't exist, and how does the document build for a better future by redefining attitudes?

7. At the end of the day, your wish-list aside, take real note of the proverbial "new toys" that this motu proprio provides and that you didn't have as of today and be thankful for yet another step back toward our tradition, toward a hermeneutic of continuity, and toward a sensible implementation of the Council.

8. Finally, before you even read the document tomorrow, might I recommend you place it before yourself, and then go through this list of considerations one more time.

Scott Hahn's Holy Spirit Thesis

Much controversy has come of late regarding the assertion Dr. Scott Hahn (Professor of Scripture and Theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville) of the so-called "motherly role" of the Holy Spirit. This teaching is first formulated in Chapter 10 of Hahn's book "First Comes Love" (Doubelday Books, 2002) and Hahn has developed and spoken more on the idea since then. Opponents suggest that the teaching of Hahn introduces a femininty into God that will sanction such practices as calling God "Mother" and giving more ground to the radical feminist sect within the Church. Hahn says that his assertion is backed up by the Fathers, Scripture and the Popes and that, if understood rightly, is completely in line with Tradition and orthodoxy.

Having been profoundly influenced by the teachings of Dr. Scott Hahn in my own spiritual life, I decided this issue merited looking into and got the book for myself. Hahn begins with the premise that Catholics have a hard time identifying with the Holy Spirit because the images of Him in the Scriptures are so impersonal (Wind, Fire, Dove, etc). I would argue this point, but nevertheless, he uses this as a jumping off point to suggest that the Person of the Spirit needs to be further explored in the familial terminology, the type of which that has made Hahn so popular and his theology so understandable to the layman. Hahn frequently draws parallels between the community of Persons in the Blessed Trinity and the family community and quotes John Paul's statement that "God in His deepest mystery is not a solitude, but a family, since He has within Himself fatherhood, sonship, and the essence of the family, which is love." He goes on through Scriptural examples to show how the "love" that the Holy Spirit is is often displayed in Scripture in maternal terminology: the Spirit nurtures, gives birth ("born of Spirit and water..."), gives spiritual milk, teaches us to walk and talk in the Spirit, and teaches us to cry "Abba, Father!" None of this is in dispute.

There is a problem when it comes to support in the Church's Tradition. Hahn lists some tenuous Patristic quotes to give credence to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit, who is revealed by His actions, and since some of His actions are maternal, ought to be understood as the feminine aspect of the Trinity; the "mother" of the Church.

Hahn knows he is departing from the traditional theological understanding here: first, he prefaces his arguments by acknowledging (and rightly so) that his "explorations" must be "cautious" and "tenative" and that "if the Magisterium should find any of them unsatisfactory" that he will be the first to "rip the following pages out of the book and gratefully consign them to the flame" (pg. 128-29). Such an assurance is laudatory on Hahn's part and demonstrates his fidelity to the Church and his willingness to stand with the Church's tradition. Yet such a disclaimer also demonstrates the novelty of his position; if it were simply part of Tradition, as Hahn claims, why would he need to be so cautious and tenative in his "explorations?"

Second, he acknowledges on page 139 that his familial understanding clashes with the traditional view of the Trinity (expounded by St. Augustine and St. Thomas, whom he quotes). Hmm...the formulations of Augustine and Thomas have worked fine for 1500 years; why mess with them now?

Thirdly and most shocking, he prefaces the last section of his chapter by saying, "It seems almost blasphemous to say this, but Christians can place too much emphasis on Christ" (pg. 143). Too much emphasis on the one we are going to be adoring for all eternity? That seems a bit far fetched. The point of these three examples is to show that Hahn is fully aware that he is treading in dangerous water, which ought to give us pause.

Hahn quotes a lot of proof for his position, and (to his credit), he constantly hedges in his comments by saying that this does not mean we can call God "mother", and states "nor do I imply that there are masculine and feminine qualities within the Godhead," and "the analogy of bridal-motherhood here is relational and familial, not physical or sexual. Therefore there is no...justification for goddess worship" (pg. 138). That is fine and good - but why so many warnings if the position could not lead to errant interpretation?

As to Hahn's evidence, the following needs to be observed:

1) His Scriptural evidence is inconclusive, because though the Spirit has some feminine aspects attributed to it, so do the other Persons of the Trinity (Jesus saying "How I would have gathered you as a mother gathers her chicks" and the Psalmist saying that his repose in God the Father is like a child on it's mother's lap (Ps. 132:2). Maternal imagery is common to the entire Trinity, yet we know that God nevertheless not chosen to reveal Himself in as a mother in any way.

2) John Paul II's statement, identifying the Trinity as family, (using even in the familial context Hahn likes to use so much) does not make reference to motherhood. The Father is called Father, the Son connected to Sonship, and the Spirit to love, not motherhood.

3) His patristic sources are obscure; Ephrem, Aphrahat and Narsai hardly constitute "some of the greatest" of the fathers, as Hahn asserts. While all saints ought to be considered, if it came down to it, would not Aquinas and Augustine "outweigh" Aphrahat and Narsai?

4)Hahn's quoting of the progressive Cardinal Yves Congar on pg. 134-35 as a supporter does not give any more weight to his theory since Congar was known as a liberal theologian and together with Rahner and Schillebeeckx, one of the architechts of the ambiguous documents of Vatican II.

Scott Hahn is not teaching heresy, which is defined as a knowledgeable and obstinate denial of some dogma of the faith. He clearly professes obedience to all the Church teaches and demonstrares a willingness to recant if his views should be impugned by the Magisterium. Yet they need not be openly heretical to be troubling. In the old days of the Church, heresy was taught to have certain "degrees" or grades. Hahn's thought is not outright heretical since, if taken strictly within the confines that he sets for it, there is no explicit denial of any article of faith. However, there are propositions called suspecta de hæresi, errore (suspected of heresy or error) which the Catholic Encyclopedia defines as "Propositions thus noted may be correct in themselves, but owing to various circumstances of time, place, and persons are prudently taken to present a signification which is either heretical or erroneous." Thus, because of the problems with feminism and New Age goddess worship in the world today, though Hahn has the best of intentions (and because of his over 20 year record of distinguished service to the Church, we ought to assume the best of intentions), his theory would be subject to immediate misinterpretation by anybody with less pure motives than himself.

Therefore, I say his position might be considered suspecta de haeresi and for the sake of the integrity of the Church, ought to be kept quiet. As the encyclical of Pope Paul VI Mysterium Fidei said regarding safeguarding theological language: "Once the integrity of the faith has been safeguarded, then it is time to guard the proper way of expressing it, lest our careless use of words give rise, God forbid, to false opinions regarding faith in the most sublime things." The Trinitarian language has been in place since Nicea. Should we alter it at the speculations of Dr. Scott Hahn

Latin Mass Resources

The Pittsburgh Latin Mass community has 'server training tapes' on their website. Check it out at: http://pittsburghlatinmass.org/sblm/resources.htm

Thanks for the tip, GCC Catholic!

"Numchuck skills, liturgical skills..."

I have come to realize recently that while it is so enormously important to conform to proper liturgical rubrics, it is also very important that the execution of the rubrics be done with skill and grace. What good is it to have a choir chanting Gregorian chant if they cannot sing in key? Or a priest using the universal language of the Church if he stumbles over any Latin word with more than two syllables? How about sloppily dressed altar boys, priests with their albs on crooked and wristwatches showing while they are holding up the Sacred Host at the elevation? How about the choir rehearsing before Mass and interrupting people trying to pray? How about sound systems that continually malfunction causing the priest to have to dash away into the sacristy in the middle of the liturgy to try to fix the problem?

Fortunately, these things seldom happen at my parish, but I see them happen all of the time in other places. Even if we do get the liturgy right, let's make sure we do it good! It is not worth doing something unless you are going to set your mind to doing it with excellence and beauty. Of course, the Mass has an intrinsic value apart from how well it is executed. But from a pastoral standpoint (and everybody wants to be "pastoral" these days!), whether or not a liturgy is done with excellence is of tremendous importance. It is the beauty of the Tridentine rite that so many say they miss when comparing it with the Novus Ordo, and it is that same beauty that will attract people back to the traditional rite. As Dostoevsky once said, "Beauty will save the world." So, to all of us who may in one way or another be involved in liturgical matters, or may be offering the Holy Sacrifice, let's bone up on our liturgical skills and do this thing right if we are going to do it at all.

Motu Proprio: Practical Considerations

Please take our survey at the bottom regarding the Tridentine Mass

With the Vatican saying that the Motu Proprio liberalizing the use of the Tridentine Mass of St. Pius V will be out any day now(or I should say, the Tridentine Mass as modified by Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1962), many parishes are getting ready to implement the anticipated changes. There has been much written on the merits of the old Mass versus the Novus Ordo, with much especially insightful commentary on the three blogs listed on our links (Athanasius Contra Mundum, Fr. Zuhlsdorf and New Liturgical Movement).

However, I decided to write here on the practical aspects of the switch to the old rite. As a DRE, part of my job is helping my priest to prepare for the transition and he has asked me to help compile a list of practical things that will need to be done for the old Mass to be celebrated in our parish. Thank God I don't have to tackle the pastoral end! Here is the list myself and my colleague Anselm came up with:

1)The first thing that comes to mind is a Missale Romanum. I've seen these going on the net for $150 at the cheapest and $350 at the most. We were fortunate enough to have a donation.

2)In the Church itself,the reinstallation (or new installation)of the communion rails comes to mind. My parish is fortunate enough to still have its old ones, though they are not installed. Father estimates it may cost $1000 to have them properly reinstalled and brought up to snuff. This price would obviously be higher in a parish that did not still have the originals.

3)As far as vestments go, he will need a dignified chasuble and maniples (about $600).

4)Altar cards, as well, and booklets with the translations for the congregation to follow ($75 for the cards and about $250 for the booklets).

That comes to at least $2000 for just the hardware. That does not even take into account the intense training that will need to be implemented:

5)For the choir, who will need to learn Gregorian Chant.

6)For the altar boys, who will need to learn the Latin responses. We found an excellent little book called "Learning to Serve" that was used to train altar boys in the pre-Vatican II days.

Buying the hardware is simple [by the way, you can get all this stuff from the Coalition Ecclesia Dei]; but it will take hours of training to get the choir and altar boys ready, not to mention the weeks of catechesis on the liturgy that the parishioners will need. We also must take into consideration the training your priest will need. Deo gratias to the FSSP for their Tridentine "Boot Camps" they have been hosting (click here for an excellent write up of one of these boot camps from The New Liturgical Movement. It's about half way down the blog).

Let's not imagine that come Saturday, everything will be right with the world. To pull this off correctly, it is going to take months of training, probably years of catechesis and decades of faithful adherence to the liturgy to undue the harm that has been done. But when all is said and done, this whole sorry period of the past forty years will be but a little blip, a historical footnote, in the glorious history of the Church.

CUR DEUS HOMO?

Bishop, Confessor, and Doctor of the Church

St. Anselm, the famous Archbishop of Canterbury, was a Benedictine monk, who fought intrepidly for the faith and liberty of the Church. He is one of the greatest philosophers and mystics of the eleventh century. He died on 21 April in 1109.

As Dr Ludwig Ott summarises it in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

"St. Anselm of Canterbury in his dialogue: 'Cur Deus Homo' has speculatively penetrated and built up to a systematic theory of Redemption the idea of the vicarious atonement of Christ which is based in Scripture and tradition. While the Fathers, in the explanation of Christ's work of sanctification, proceed more from the contemplation of the consequences of the Redemption, and therefore stress the negative side of the Redemption, namely, the ransoming from the slavery of sin and of the devil, St. Anselm proceeds from the contemplation of the guilt of sin. This, as an insult offered to God, is infinite, and therefore demands an infinite expiation. Such expiation, however, can be achieved by a Divine Person only. To be capable of thus representing mankind, this person must be, at the same time, man and God."

The Catechism of the Council of Trent (The Roman Catechism) has this to say on the doctrine of the atonement:

"The pastor should teach that all these inestimable and divine blessings flow to us from the Passion of Christ. First, indeed, because the satisfaction which Jesus Christ has in an admirable manner made to God the Father for our sins is full and complete. The price which he paid for our ransom was not only adequate and equal to our debts, but far exceeded them. Again, it (the Passion of Christ) was a sacrifice most acceptable to God, for when offered by His Son on the altar of the cross, it entirely appeased the wrath and indignation of the Father."

I have chosen St. Anselm as my patron and (pseudonym) here as it my conviction that a renewed understanding of the Catholic doctrine of the atonement, so admirably ennunciated by St. Anselm, is imperative to regaining a proper understanding of the sacrificial and propitiatory nature of the Mass, which is indeed nothing other than the re-presentation of that self-same atoning sacrifice. I am further convinced, with then-Cardinal Ratzinger, "that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy." In short, understanding the atonement will help us to understand the sacrificial nature of the Mass, which will lead us back to the traditional rite of Mass which so well expressed that sacrificial nature, which in turn will bolster the faith and hence the morals of the Catholic people. Of course there is much more to be said here, especially as regards the assertion that the Traditional Latin Mass will bolster the faith and morals of the Catholic people. But I have gone on long enough for now. Perhaps another post. Sancte Anselme, ora pro nobis!

Democratization of the Church

It is not hard to point out many of the changes in the past forty years that have contributed to the current state of doctrinal apathy and moral confusion in the Church. One could cite the liturgical reforms forced on the Church in the name of the spirit of Vatican II (which find no justification in the documents of Vatican II), or one could point to the abandonment of traditional ecclesiology that emphasized the subsistence of truth within the Catholic faith for a newer, more ecumenical ecclesiology which waters down the distinctive nature of the Church and adopts an "I'm okay, you're okay" attitude towards Protestantism. One could point to the tragic decline in biblical scholarship in the past century, characterized by the general acceptance by scholars of anti-supernatural bias, as well as the heretical Documentary Hypothesis and the "Q" Theory (also called the "Two Source" Theory). In this vein, I could point to the ambiguitites created by such documents as Sacrosanctum Concilium and Dei Verbum (chapter 11 in particular). Couple all of these factors with the strange phenomenon of the Popes since John XXIII renouncing much of their authority and adopting a more "pastoral" in place of an authoritative position, and we have a recipe for the present chaos in the Church.

I am not the first one by far to point this out, and volumes have been written on these issues. However, I think they are but instrumental causes of the Church's present state. I notice that they all presuppose another, more foundational tenet which is not discussed or debated so much as it is taken for granted: this is the tend towards democratization in the Church. To be sure, the Church is not a democracy, nor has it ever proclaimed itself to be; but these days it acts more and more like one. Popes no longer wear the triple tiara; rather, they delegate their authority to commissions and congregations; bishops make no move without the advice of committees of lay advisors, and even parish priests work hand in hand with "worship teams" and other useless bodies of individuals who contribute very little to the common good but do foster much confusion and disillusionment.

One reason why the Middle Ages is considered by many to be a Golden Age of the Church is that the Church and State both followed the same model in their structure. Everybody knows that God's kingdom is not a democracy; Christ is the King of Kings and rules absolutely. It is a divine monarchy. In the temporal sphere, the Church functioned as a monarchy as well, with the Pope ruling as the physical head of the Church Militant and the bishops acting as the princes or prelates of the ecclesiastical kingdom. Likewise, civil society was ordered on the monarchic model, with the king reigning in the name of God and exercising the authority vested in his person by divine order.

Following the social changes of the past two centuries, we now have a different situation: Christ, of course, who is unchanging, is still the same and is still King and His kingdom is still a divine monarchy. But civil society has cast off monarchy in favor of democracy and liberal government. Now, the Church is in the middle. As part of Christ's kingdom, she must conform to His order; but more often than not she finds herself instead influenced by the existing socio-political framework. Thus, democracy is seen by the Church as something inherently meritorious, an attitude that is novel to the Church's tradition. The Church had frequently been pressured to submit to a popular will of the people before (as the 17th century French bishops clamored for their so-called "Gallican liberties" and the 19th century liberal Biblical scholars asserted that the papacy had to assent to their heretical views on the Sacred Scriptures, whose views were condemned in Lamenatbili Sane in 1907); the difference is that in ages past, the Popes vigorously asserted their unique prerogatives against those who insisted on the Popes bending to the will of the people. Now, the popes and bishops cave in or go soft when they are confronted with a "majority opinion" (by the way, check out Numbers 16:1-50 and I Samuel 8:1-22 to see what God thinks of majority opinion).

It is clear that to fix anything in the Church it will take authority. And no authority can be exercized until the Popes and Bishops rise up and take the authority that is rightfully theirs and reject this devastating trend of "democratization."