The Merit of a Mass

The Merit of a Mass
by Father Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P.
The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture 12.3 (Summer 2003)

Among the traditional faithful there appears to be a kind of intuitive sense that the old rite of Mass is more efficacious than the new rite. Many believe that they derive more spiritual gain from the old rite of Mass than from the new. However, to give a more precise expression to the intuitive sense of which is more efficacious, the new or the old rite, it is necessary to make several distinctions. Since the purpose of this article is very specific, i.e. to ascertain which ritual is more meritorious or efficacious, certain issues regarding the value or efficacy of the Mass will be avoided.

Yet, to answer the question of whether the old rite of Mass is more efficacious than the new is of paramount importance. It is the point of departure between priests of the respective rites, since each holds that he is saying the Mass that is best for the faithful. Nevertheless, the question is a key one since, in the end, which ever ritual is more meritorious ought to be the one that the Roman authorities encourage. Since one of the primary obligations of those in authority in the Church is the glory of God through the salvation of souls, they have the obligation to encourage and, in some cases, require the ritual of the Mass which is most efficacious...

After reading that introduction how could anyone not want to read the rest of the article? Unfortunately, I've not been able to locate the whole article online (other material by Fr. Ripperger is available at Sensus Traditionis). If you don't have this particular issue of the Latin Mass Magazine on hand it is easy to acquire back issues. I'm going to spoil the ending for those who haven't read this: the old rite of Mass is more efficacious than the new.

As regards intrinsic merit of course any valid Mass is infinitely meritorious. But we finite creatures are unable to receive infinite grace. Therefore, the fruits of the Mass actually communicated to us are finite and they will be greater or less based on a number of factors. The holiness of the Church who offers the sacrifice affects the merit of the Mass - there is no distinction here between old and new rites, the Church is always spotless. The priest merits graces for us in offering the Mass inasmuch as he is a priest - here again there is no difference between old and new. The priest also merits as a private person - here we have fruits of the Mass ex opere operantis.

The faithful can similarly increase the merit of a Mass by their holiness - this means that being present at Mass in a state of mortal sin (even if you do not receive Communion) actually decreases the grace communicated to everyone else. Of course, this doesn't mean you should not go to Mass. It means you should go to confession. Fitting decora also serve to increase the merit of a Mass, whereas unsuitable decora decreases it. To quote Fr. Ripperger: "Ugly things please God less and thus merit less." What refreshing bluntness!

And finally, the merit of the ritual itself - which I must leave to another post! Please offer a prayer for me this week as I wade through exams. Deus miserere me!

The King on the King

This video is kind of cool: it's a recording of Elvis singing Silent Night set to a montage of images from the Nativity Story and some other Christmas themed art. At the end is just a bunch of pictures of Elvis, and I'm not sure what the big Star of David at the beginning is all about, but overall it is kind of nice to listen to. Thanks to blogger Maurus for bringing it to my attention:

Homo Videns

I was just listening to a very engaging CD series by Dr. Lawrence Feingold called "The De-Christianization of Western Civilization" in which he mentions the work of a certain Italian sociologist named Dr. Giovanni Sartori. This Italian wrote a fascinating and much controversial work entitled Homo Videns: Teledirected Society, in which Sartori makes some very pertinent warnings about the effects of too much exposure to television and the Internet on the human mind.

Before I go into Sartori'a argument, let me say that many have always spoke out against too much television. That is nothing new. There are two main arguments traditionally put forth against an excess of television:

The "It's a Beautiful Day" argument: "Why do you spend so much time in front of the TV? It's a beautiful day outside! Go ride your bike, play with your friends, get out and do something active for a change!"

The "Tool of Satan" argument: "My kids don't watch TV because the programming is so immoral these days that I can't in good conscience let them watch it."

Both of these arguments are valid, but weak, because they refer to things extrinsic to the television itself. In argument 1, one is encouraged to go outside and do something active. But suppose one has already done something active that day? Or suppose it's not a beautiful day, but rather it is a dreary, miserable Michigan January? In those cases, the argument seems to fall apart because it is based not on the disvalue of the television but on the existence of a better good outside of it. But if there is no better good outside at that time, it would seem that vegging out in front of the tube would be acceptable.

In argument 2, a similar mode of reasoning is taken up. TV is bad because too much immoral things come through it. But suppose that there exists a lot of programming that was good and moral, then would you not object to kids watching it four hours a day? Again, the argument against television in this case refers to something besides the act of TV watching itself (i.e., the shows that happen to be coming through the TV).

Now, there has been a third, vague and undefined argument against too much TV, and it is precisely this argument that Sartori takes up: the old "TV rots your brain" argument. I don't think most of us have given any thought to what this means, but we may have repeated it to our kids and had it repeated to us. Does TV "rot your brain?" If so, this would pertain to the act of TV watching itself, regardless of what was on or how the weather was outside.

Sartori points out that man has always been characterized as a rational animal, a homo sapien ("thinking man"). This means that his mental life is characterized by symbolization, the uttering of meaningful sounds and words that stand for abstract ideas. Sensory input gives information to the brain which then interprets the input in the form of ideas, and thus we come to grasp reality primarily through the intellect.

Now, since the advent of the television and the Internet, Sartori warns that most of our experience of the world and of abstract ideas (things like justice, love, etc.) are coming to us primarily through visual input alone. An excess of TV watching has turned men from beings who think about the world to beings who simply see it. This is what he calls the "involution" of man from homo sapiens ("thinking man") into homo videns ("seeing man"). This is even worse with the advent of the Internet: in television, man sees real images, but online he sees a lot more synthetic images that do not even reflect reality at all.

When man apprehended the world through reading, discussion, contemplation, etc., the reasoning faculty of man was fully engaged and he was more easily able to make logical connections and grasp meanings beyond the bare external. But what characterizes homo videns? Here is Sartori's definition: "tires of reading, prefers the abbreviated flash of a synthetic image. It fascinates and seduces him. He renounces logical links, reasoned sequences and reflection. By contrast, he yields to the immediate, heated, emotionally involving impulse." Reading, on the other hand, requires solitude, concentration, discriminating ability, appreciation for conceptualization and reasoning.

Essentially, Sartori says that TV has made the brain "softer" with the consequence of turning mankind into a being that primarily relates to the world through the visual medium only. For Sartori (an evolutionist), he puts this phenomenon in terms of actually reversing human evolution; hence the phrase "involution." We have become an age that values seeing over being. This criticism of television is more fundamental and important than the other two mentioned above, because this criticism actually concerns itself with the act of watching TV itself. I think Sartori puts into words what a lot of us suspected about TV for a long time but were unable to put into words: that it does indeed "rot your brain."

Click here for an article on Sartori

I tried to find this book, but it is currently only available in Spanish and Italian.

At the Crossroads of Ecumenism

Cardinal Avery Dulles has an interesting article in the latest issue of First Things in which he discusses the ecumenical movement fifty years after the Oberlin Conference of 1957, where the Catholic Church first entered into the ecumenical dialogue with other Christian bodies. He has many pertinent and fascinating things to say about ecumenism, but ultimately I think his conclusion that he draws from his observations is way off.

First, he mentions what everybody interested in ecumenism already knows: that it is scandalous that so many different Christian communities exist. While affirming the truth that the Church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church, he makes sure (like a good ecumenist) to mention that there nevertheless exists means of grace and sanctity in other Christian bodies. It seems that anytime anybody says the Catholic Church is the Church, they always feel obligated to "balance" it by pointing out the fact that there exists elements of grace and truth in other denominations. But I digress.

Interesting is his take on why many of our traditional doctrines have been downplayed in the ecumenical movement. He says it is because the Church, since Vatican II, has attempted to use a Protestant method of exegesis in explication of its doctrine. In our anxiousness to show Protestants how like them we are, we started emphasizing the scriptural roots of our faith over the traditional or theological roots. It is not bad to know the scriptural roots; that is a good thing. But what about the doctrines that are not stated explicitly in scripture? Cardinal Dulles says that in dialogue with "Bible only" denominations, these uniquely Catholic doctrines tended to fall into the background. He says (my highlights):

Many of the twentieth-century dialogues have opted to take Scripture, interpreted by the historical-critical method, as their primary norm. This method has worked reasonably well for mainline Protestant churches and for the Catholic Church since Vatican II. But many Christians do not rely on the critical approach to Scripture as normative. Catholics themselves, without rejecting the historical-critical method, profess many doctrines that enjoy little support from Scripture, interpreted in this manner. They draw on allegorical or spiritual exegesis, authenticated by the sense of the faithful and long-standing theological tradition. As a consequence, certain Catholic doctrines, such as papal primacy, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and purgatory, have been banished to the sidelines. Unable to cope with doctrines such as these, the dialogues have treated them as an ecumenical embarrassment.

It is interesting that Cardinal Dulles identifies this kind of "scripture-only" emphasis as the historical-critical method, that same nefarious method that was so soundly denounced by Pius IX and St. Pius X. But since Vatican II, Cardinal Dulles says that it has "worked reasonably well." But nevertheless, this method has led to our most cherished doctrines being "banished" as an "ecumenical embarrassment." Is that working reasonably well?

Cardinal Dulles says that traditional ecumenism, until now, has revolved around a "convergence" method. This simply means finding out that we all really believe the same thing about something and the perceived differences are only matters of semantics and terminology. He cites the Catholic-Lutheran Joint Declaration on Justification as an example. By ecumenical convergence, denominations come together with the Church on every issue that they can possibly agree upon: pro-Life issues, the inerrancy of Scripture, the immorality of certain acts, etc.

However, the Cardinal rightly points out that this can only take you so far. Inevitably, you are going to run out of things that can be agreed upon and will be left with only the differences, stark and immovable. Clearly, mere "convergence" cannot deal with these obstacles. A new method is needed at this point. Now, to any Traditionalist Catholic, the idea that we attempt to convert the other party immediately comes to mind. We have exhausted every means of convergence, now comes the time to proclaim why our interpretation of Revelation is proper and what is lacking in the doctrines of the other communities. This is the place we are at with the ecumenical movement today, a kind of ecumenical crossroads. But does the Cardinal propose that we now attempt to convert the other party? Not at all. He proposes "deeper conversation" and a sharing of experiences:

[T]o surmount the remaining barriers we need a different method, one that invites a deeper conversion on the part of the churches themselves. I have therefore been urging an ecumenism of mutual enrichment by means of testimony. This proposal corresponds closely, I believe, with John Paul II’s idea of seeking the fullness of truth by means of an “exchange of gifts.”

In other words, we are going to transfer the ecumenical dialogue onto a completely subjective plane. Instead of discussing or debating the merits of certain dogmas, we are just going to talk about what they mean to us and how they make us feel. Don't laugh! That's really what he means. Listen to this:

With this mentality, Catholics would want to hear from the churches of the Reformation the reasons they have for speaking as they do of Christ alone, Scripture alone, grace alone, and faith alone, while Catholics tend to speak of Christ and the Church, Scripture and tradition, grace and cooperation, faith and works. We would want to learn from them how to make better use of the laity as sharers in the priesthood of the whole People of God. We would want to hear from evangelicals about their experience of conversion and from Pentecostals about perceiving the free action of the Holy Spirit in their lives. The Orthodox would have much to tell about liturgical piety, holy tradition, sacred images, and synodical styles of polity.

In other words, we are going to ask them to preach to us! That is what is boils down to. We are going to ask them to help us "learn from them" and teach us "about their experience." Grr..Nowhere does the Cardinal say they ought to convert. In fact, he only toys with the idea of conversion very tenatively, but makes sure to mention that he does not share the "negative" or "polemical" view of Protestantism that characterised the pre-Vatican II Church. The Cardinal is fully cognizant of his break with tradition here. Listen to his words and note how they exemplify a rupture with Catholic Tradition. Pay close attention to his language and to the comparison he draws between then and now:

Vatican II, therefore, represents a sharp turn away from the purely negative evaluation of non-Catholic Christianity that was characteristic of the previous three centuries...Regarding the ecclesial status of non-Catholic Christians, Pius XII had taught as late as 1943 that they could not be true members of the Church because the Body of Christ was identical with the Catholic Church [what does he mean by saying "as late as 1943?" This seems to imply that this teaching is no longer true]. Such Christians could not belong to the body except by virtue of some implicit desire, which would give them a relation that fell short of true incorporation. From a different point of view, Vatican II taught that every valid baptism incorporates the recipient into the crucified and glorified Christ, and that all baptized Christians were to some extent in communion with the Catholic Church...Relying on the new ecclesiology of communion, Catholic ecumenists now perceived their task as a movement from lesser to greater degrees of communion. All who believed in Christ and were baptized in his name already possessed a certain imperfect communion, which could be recognized, celebrated, and deepened.

So, while the three previous centuries, in which the Church had a "purely negative evaluation" of Protestantism, we are now going to suddenly adopt a "new ecclesiology of communion" in which the divisions in Christianity that the Cardinal just finished saying were scandalous are to be "celebrated." So, what used to be viewed as a definite negative (division in Christendom) as now going to be celebrated as a positive good and a source of mutual enrichment (*barf*).

The end goal of any ecumenism ought to be reconciling non-Catholics into full communion with the Church, to make Catholics out of them. Does Cardinal Dulles think his proposal of "sharing experiences" will actually work in the end? That is the most amusing thing. He does not even think his proposed program will work. He says:

The process of growth through mutual attestation will probably never reach its final consummation within historical time, but it can bring palpable results. It can lead the churches to emerge progressively from their present isolation into something more like a harmonious chorus. Enriched by the gifts of others, they can hope to raise their voices together in a single hymn to the glory of the triune God. The result to be sought is unity in diversity.

It's a beautiful image, but unfortunately it is not the scriptural one. Our unity is not to be a unity found in diversity (what kind of double-talk is that anyway?), but a unity based on the unity of the Father with the Son, in which we are "neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance." The saddest thing about this is that the Cardinal proposes this new method precisely because he sees the shortcomings of the standard "convergence" method. But he proposes his "growth through mutual attestation" because he fears a return to polemical (i.e., dogmatically based) ecumenical debate that characterized Protestant/Catholic relations in the post-Tridentine period. For him, it is good enough that we come to accept and understand each other, making a "harmonious chorus." This is a far cry from the one sheepfold spoken of by Christ.

And they were scattered, because there was no shepherd: and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were scattered. (Ezekiel 34:5)

But is this an acceptable vision of Christian unity? Let's give St. Athanasius of Alexandria and Pope Pius IX the last words:

Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the catholic faith. For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost forever...This is the catholic faith. Everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly; otherwise He cannot be saved. Amen.

The following proposition is condemned in # 17 of the Syllabus of Errors: "Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ."

Click here for the complete text of Cardinal Dulles' article.

Pope Condemns Climate-Change Prophets of Doom

I love Benedict more and more every time I read stories like this! For the upcoming World Peace Day on January 1st, Benedict prepared a talk that acknowledged global warming as a fact (which I think he is dead wrong on), but stressed that efforts to combat the phenomenon had to be based on solid, scientific evidence and not on dubious ideology. The text of his speech was released early, as delegates from all over the world convened in Bali, Indonesia for UN climate change talks. The author of the article (Simon Caldwell of the UK Daily Mail) called Benedict's comments on global warming a "surpise attack."

You can find several excerpts from Benedict's speech here. I am glad he finally came out and drew attention to the fact that this global warming issue is overhyped and baded on ideologically driven pseudo-science. It is about time somebody stood up to these eco-terrorists.

On Epiky

This weekend in my spare time I was browsing through an old commentary on the 1917 Code of Canon Law by an Archbishop Giovanni Cicognani, Professor of Canon Law in the Pontifical Institute of Canon and Civil Law at St. Apollinare's in Rome, published 1935. By the way, in case you entertained any uncertainty as to how much of a dork I really am, knowing that I read commentaries on Canon Law during the weekend should take the last bit of doubt away. This is a truly massive tome, at least 800 pages. It was formerly used as a first year textbook for those beginning their seminary education and was the required reading for a class called "Introductions," which was a one semester course that attempted to cram the concepts of Canon Law, the history of the sources of Canon Law, a commentary on the 1917 Code and some supplementary info on natural, eternal and positive law into a single class. The stamp in this book says it was from Duns Scotus College in Detroit (opened 1930, closed in 1979). By the way, that is the actual book in the picture to the left.

I know they still offer Canon Law classes today in seminary, but I doubt they are as thorough as what is covered in this one introductory book for beginners. It is amazing the amount of scholarship and erudition we have lost; it reminds me of Aquinas' comment that the Summa is meant to be "instruction for beginners." There are so many great points in the one chapter that I read that it would be burdensome to enumerate even half of them; but I can say that if our priests and bishops had the type of formation in Law (of all types) that the author of this work seems to attempt to inculcate in his students, many subsequent problems regarding obedience and proper interpretation of documents would have become moot. Let me give you two examples.

Interesting to me from a Traditionalist standpoint was the section on custom. Cicognani starts with the premise that established custom is in fact a form of law and gives it the name Consuedtudinary Law (from the Latin word consuetudinarium, which is best interpreted as "customary). He does not just state that it is a supplement to written law (positive law), but says that it has the force of law itself. In other words, it is equal with positive law, but just of another type.

But he goes further and states that the origin of all positive law is originally from custom; positive laws are simply customs written down and legistlated upon. "There were no human laws in the beginning of human life, for mankind was ruled by manners and customs" (p. 639). Based on this reality, he says that it is false to take the positon that customs/traditions are merely supplementary to written laws. On the contrary, it is written laws which appear as supplements to custom. Written laws are handmaids to custom, constructed and called upon only when custom is ambiguous or ill-fitted for a certain question at hand. But through most of human civilization, customary law has been the norm and crux of all legal systems.

Now, Catholic Canon Law is an outgrowth of Roman customary law. Speaking now of ecclesiastical Canon Law (in the context of custom), the great canonist Gratian (c. 1150) says in the Decretals, "Custom is that certain law established by usages in observance for a long time, which is accepted as law where there is no law" (c. 5, D. I). This later became part of the 1917 Code in Canon 29, "Custom is the best interpreter of the law" (consuetudo est optima legum interpres) and was retained in Canon 27 of the 1983 Code. This reality is what Traditionalists have tried to get through to conservatives for a long time regarding such issues that were mandated by the 1917 Code but not mentioned in the 83' one (e.g., the law commanding women to wear veils in Church, mandated in canon 1262.2 of the 1917 Code but not mentioned in the 83 Code). When no law is in place, as Gratian says, "where there is no law," then custom is to be looked to. But in what capacity is it to be looked to? As guidance? As a suggestion? No; as Gratian says, it is to be "accepeted as law where there is no law." This is even taught in the 1983 Code of Canon Law in Canon 21: "In a case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them." Custom has the force of law.

The second issue which I found fascinating was the notion of epiky. I confess, before I picked up this work, I had never so much as heard of this word, but Cicognani treats of it in the introduction to the book as a fundamental principle of Canon Law. Epiky comes from the Greek epieikeia and translates literally as equity. But in Canon Law, it means much more than that. Cicognani defines it thus:

A human lawgiver is never able to foresee all the individual cases to which law will be applied. Consequently, a law, though just in general, may, taken literally, lead in some unforseen cases to results which agree neither with the intent or the lawgiver nor with natrual justice, but rather contravene them. In such cases the law must be expounded not according to its wording but according to the intent of the lawgiver and the general principles of natural justice. Law in the strict sense is, therefore, positive law in its literal interpretation; equity, on the contrary, consists of the principles of natural justice so far as they are used to explain or correct a positive human law if this is not in harmony with the former. Epiky is therefore defined: The benign application of the law according to what is good and equitable, which decides that the lawgiver does not intend that, because of exceptional circumstances, some particular case be included under his general law (p. 15).

I know that is a lot to swallow, but essentially he is saying this: it is possible to misapply or misinterpret human laws and decrees for a variety of reasons; or, we can discover that what seemed like a good idea in general turns out to be unworkable when the law is applied to the nitty-gritty scenarios of everyday life. In such situations where the outcome of enforcing the law actually runs counter to natural justice, we are to interpret and enforce the law in keeping with the intent of the lawgiver, even if this means neglecting or contravening the actual wording of the law. As St. Thomas says of such cases, "In such cases judgment should be delivered not according to the letter of the law, but according to the equity which the lawgiver has in view" (STh, II-II, q. LX, 5).

Let's apply this to the current situation in the Church. We have a bunch of documents and decrees from the Conciliar and post-Conciliar period that, in the least, suffer from a degree of ambiguity both in their original promulgation and in their subsequent implementation. Such ambiguity ("timebombs" as Davies calls them) have led to interpretations and implementations of the law that are not only not as good as they could be but are actually destructive to faith, morality and justice. Now, what are we to do? Let's apply the two principles we have enumerated regarding epiky and customary law.

Knowing that positive law is a supplement to custom, we ought to first look to the custom of the Church. An example is Pope Leo XIII's using of custom and precedent to render his judgment on Anglican orders in 1896. Custom, found in all of the words of the popes, councils, fathers and saints, but more importantly in their actions and judgments, tells us how the Church has always acted in such cases and thus gives us an intepretive principle for how she ought to act now. But what if the customary solution runs contrary to the law now in force? Well, if the inplementation of such a law is unjust or leading to the destruction of faith, then the principle of epiky comes in to play. Even if we must ignore the letter of the law, we interpret the law in the spirit of the lawgiver.

Here you probably cringe when I say to intepret something in the "spirit" of a lawgiver. But, I did not say in the spirit of a majority consensus of liberal periti; no, I said the spirit (i.e., intent) of the lawgiver. The lawgiver is the Church, promulgating law as a juridical person. So, when we apply epiky, we temper the letter of the law with the intent of the Church, whose universal mission is to save souls. This mission of the Church is referred to in Cicognani's books as the Supreme Law. In brief, if some law is prohibiting the Church from fully exercising her mission to proclaim the truth and save souls (e.g., a prohibition against kneeling in a certain diocese), then to hell with the letter of the law. Even though the law may say one thing, those who act more in accord with justice are actually the ones keeping the higher law, while those insisting on an unhealthy application of the law are guilty of contravening the higher law.

Now, this is a very coarse paraphrasing of Cicognani's statements, and I certainly do not mean them to be taken in the sense that we can simply be disobedient if we don't like the rules in place. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking, but rather of justice. As the author points out, there are times when laws are found to be harmful when applied. Abraham Lincoln had a famous quote that said "The best way to get an unjust law overturned is to enforce it strictly." Epiky tells us how we are to react to such a law; custom what to do in the case when there is no law.

This is a wonderfully interesting subject and very pertinent to today's Church. If the princes of our Church were thoroughly grounded in these concepts, I don't think they could have so easily chucked out our long and venerable traditions in favor of the illusive phantom-utopia church envisioned by the liberal prophets of the 1960's.

It was kind of difficult, but I found a copy of Archbishop Cicognani's book for sale for $12.00 on Biblio. It is a great find and I heartily recommend it. Click here for it.

Prof. never heard of Unam Sanctam

I just wanted to follow up on Anselm's post from yesterday on the Professor of the history of the Greek churches who claims to have never heard of the famous 1302 bull Unam Sanctam (by the way, is it any coincidence that this blog is called Unam Sanctam Catholicam and that my name on here is Boniface? It is a direct reference to this very bull).

First of all, I think it is horrible that this professor claims to have never heard of the document. If you are any type of Catholic or Orthodox, then you ought to be familiar with the doctrinal, historical and ecumenical issues that exist between the two churches. To be a historian of the Greek churches and yet be unfamiliar with Unam Sanctam is simply inexcusable; it is like a Mariologist saying he never heard of Ineffabilis Deus. I am only a lay theologian, and only an amateur one at that, since my degree was in history. But when I read Anselm's post, even before I got through the whole thing, I just instinctively by virtue of my sensus catholicus thought, "But what about Unam Sanctam, which specifically mentions the Greek churches by name and says that their lack of submission to the pope puts them outside of the flock?" If me, a lay theologian, automatically thought about the bull, I am shocked that a specialist in the history of the Greek churches did not think of it; worse, that he had never heard of it and then declared that it must be wrong automatically (he must have great mental powers to declare something wrong that he never heard of).

The last aspect is particularly troubling since, as Anselm pointed out, the bull was an exercise of ex cathedra infallibility by its use of the formula "We declare, we proclaim, we define..." It is usually taken that only the statement to which the formula is appended is infallible in the ex cathedra sense, but it has always been maintained that bulls/encyclicals represent the teaching authority of the ordinary Magisterium and consequently must be adhered to with divine and Catholic faith in everything that they affirm pertaining to faith and morals. In more concrete theological terms, I would say that the ex cathedra statement in the bull regarding extra ecclesia non salus is ex cathedra dogma, de fide, while the other statements that it makes regarding the Greek churches are sententia fidei proxima, a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium that because of its close connection with a truth of revelation cannot be denied without denying revelation itself. The truth of revelation it is connected to is the primacy of the papacy and the necessity of being in union with the Bishop of Rome, as explicated at the end of the bull. The sententia fidei proxima is the conclusion which comes from that; i.e., that the Greek churches, by virtue of their refusal to acknowledge the papal primacy, are therefore not in full union with the Church. You cannot contest the latter without denying the former.

I agree with Anselm's judgment that this Professor's reasoning for saying the Greeks were neither heretics nor schismatics are "nonsense" and "hogwash." I may possibly be persuaded that they are not heretics, but they are certainly schismatic, no doubt about that. If they are not in schism, may I ask what exactly did happen in 1054? If they are not in schism, what was the point of the ecumenical dialogues undertaken in the Councils of Florence and of Lyons? Why the lifting of the excommunications by John Paul II? Why all the regulations for under what circumstances you can receive sacraments in an Orthodox church? Why then, in all the 23 approved rites of the Church, is Greek Orthodox not listed as one? If they are not in schism, why do all these other things exist that clearly point to the fact that they are in schism? Furthermore, professor, if they are not in schism, just what are they? In full communion with Rome and under the authority of the Pontiff of Rome? Just ask any Greek Orthodox patriarch is he is in communion with Rome under the authority of the Pope and see what he says.

One last thought on this. In the 1896 bull of Leo XIII Apostolicae Curae regarding Anglican orders, the Pope came to his judgment on the nullity of Anglican orders by looking at the historical practice of the papacy with regards to Anglican clergyman. Since the popes had always in practice treated Anglican orders as invalid, he came to the conclusion that they therefore were (with some theological treatment on form and intention in sacraments as well). This principle of precedent is how the papacy has traditionally decided how it was going to act in contemporary situations. Now, to the question of whether or not the Greeks are in schism, we look only to how the Church has always in practice treated the Greek Churches, and there can be no doubt that the traditional praxis of the Church establishes beyond all doubt the reality of the schism.

In Leo XIII's day, ecumenism and reunion were brought about by overcoming obstacles and objections to arrive at the truth. Nowadays it is brought about by denying that there are any obstacles to begin with.

Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Tota pulchra es, Maria. Et macula originalis non est in te. Tu gloria Jerusalem. Tu laetitia Israel. Tu honorificentia populi nostri. Tu advocata peccatorum. O Maria, virgo prudentissima, mater clementissima, ora pro nobis. Intercede pro nobis ad Dominum Jesum Christum.

The Nature and Social Implications of the Liturgical Act

Shawn Tribe of The New Liturgical Movement yesterday posted an article under the title, The Nature and Social Implications of the Liturgical Act, wherein he gives convincing and succinct answers to two common objections often raised by conservative Catholics who don't understand why we traditionalists think that liturgical form and beauty are so important.

The first objection Shawn deals with is: "As long as Christ is present in the Eucharist, these other liturgical issues really do not matter so much and we shouldn't focus upon them / we don’t need to worry about them."

The second goes as follows: "It is more important that we work toward meeting the needs of the poor / toward working to make our society pro-life / etc. than focusing on matters of ritual, music and so forth."

Fellow blogger Boniface and I talked about this second objection early this last summer and came to the same conclusion as Shawn. If you have ever run into these arguments from your conservative Catholic friends please do follow the link and read the post (it's not very long).

Unam Sanctam mentioned in recent lecture in Austria!

No, not the blog, the papal bull issued by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302. Two nights ago (Feast of St. Nicholas), the International Theological Institute in Austria hosted a lecture by Prof. Christoph Suttner, one of the world's leading historians of the Greek churches.

Although it will force me to make gross simplifications of all he had to say, I'm going to keep this very short. Bascially, he said that the Orthodox are neither schismatics nor heretics.

1. There is no schism because Vatican II said that wherever the Eucharist is celebrated there is a true particular church. If they are true particular churches then they are in the one Church of Christ, hence no schism.

2. Furthermore, if they are true churches, and the church is infallible, then they can't be heretics, and you are a heretic if you say they are.

To the first I reply: Nonsense. Although Vatican II does recognize Orthodox churches as true particular churches, the whole point is that their union is imperfect inasmuch as they refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff. To the extent that they are true churches they are already Catholic; to the extent that they refuse obedience to Rome they are in schism.

To the second I reply: Hogwash. Infallibility certainly does not apply to particular churches. On this account even the Arians wouldn't be heretics. The only real leg that he had left to stand on after a few pointed questions is the fact that the Orthodox church hasn't really taught anything ever since the Council of Florence (1439) where they agreed to the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Spirit's procession from the Son, the legitimacy of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, the existence of Purgatory, and the primacy of the Pope. This is the last official Orthodox teaching because the emperor (Caesaropapism was always a problem in the East) was eliminated in 1453 when Constantinople was taken by the Turk. Well and good, but if the denial of a dogmatically defined doctrine of the Church (such as the Filioque clause or the Immaculate Conception) doesn't make for heresy nothing does.

In the question period following the lecture one of the students present raised on objection to the Prof.'s lecture, referencing the following from Unam Sanctam: "Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.'

Believe it or not, the Prof's answer was that he had never heard of the document, but if it really said what is says he is sure it is simply wrong. What is also interesting in this connection though is that the words that imply the exercise of infallibility, "We declare, we proclaim, we define..." occur at the end of the document with only this following: "...that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Clearly, we have here an infallible statement to the effect of extra ecclesia non salus. My question is, what does this mean for the rest of the document? It seems that it would be hard to argue that what precedes is also infallible (which, of course, does not mean that it must be any less true). I would love to hear some other people's thoughts on this.

Obscure Anglo-Saxon Saints: St. Edmund the Martyr

The Abbey of Bury St. Edmund's, last resting place of St. Edmund of East Anglia

St. Edmund the Martyr was King of East Anglia from 855-870. Though his life was brief (840-870), he accomplished many great things and ruled in the tradition of the great Anglo-Saxon monarchs like St. Edward the Confessor and Alfred the Great, both his successors to the English throne. Though only fifteen when he took the throne, he showed a disposition towards justice and equity towards all his subjects. He turned a deaf ear to the words of flatterers and dismissed dishonest informers.

His zeal for the faith was so great that he hid himself away in Hunstaton for an entire year in order that he might learn the entire Psalter by heart, a deed which he accomplished with skill. Though this pious king desired solitude for prayer and penance, it was not to be. In 870, the Danes under Hinguar and Hubba invaded his realms and were only beat back with great effort. But they soon came again with overwhelming forces and forced St. Edmund to come to terms with them. Though he struck up a peace treaty with the Danes, on the way towards Framlingham he was waylaid on the road and taken in chains to the cruel Viking chief Hinguar. Hearing of Edmund's piety, he attempted to get the king to worship the Danish gods, but Edmund declard that his religion was more dear to him than life itself. At this, Hinguar ordered his martyrdom.

St. Edmund's martyrdom was as cruel as the Danes themselves. He was taken to Hoxne in Suffolk where he was beaten senseless by oaken cudgels. Then he was tied to a tree and whipped until his flesh hung in tattered shreds from his body. Still clinging to life and calling upon the holy name of Jesus, Hinguar ordered Edmund shot with arrows until he resembled a porcupine. Enraged at his constancy and still finding the breath of life in him, Hinguar finally ordered his head struck off.

His relics were at first buried at the place of his martyrdom, but in the 10th century they were transferred to Beodricsworth, ever since known as St. Edmundsbury. It was at this location that the famous monastery of Bury St. Edmund's sprung up and flourished. The feast of St. Edmund is kept on November 20th.

How much land does the Church own?

Have you ever been standing around the water cooler at work and, regardless of the conversation, somehow had the Catholic Church brought into the discussion? You think to yourself, "Oh boy. Let's see where this goes." Then some know-it-all says something like, "Of course, the Catholic Church is so rich and owns more land than anybody else on earth," or something like that. Everybody else nods in ignorant agreement and you try to resist the urge to throw your coffee on him. Well, I don't know about you, but I frequently hear people complain about "all the land" the Church supposedly owns and the supposed great masses of wealth that it contains. We all know it is not the case; anybody who has been involved in a parish for even one week knows that most parishes are either broke, operate at a break-even level, or (many cases) simply operate on a deficit. But, I decided to do some research and put some numbers behind the truth that we all already understand.

So, how much land does the Church actually own? Well, what do we mean by "the Church"? The first thing we have to understand is that there is no such concept as "the Church" owning land. The Vatican does not have centralized land holdings all over the world like, say, the Church of Scientology does. The dozens of parishes in any given county all over the country are not in any way owned by the Vatican, and the Vatican has no claim or title to them.

Parish land is owned by the diocese in which a local church is situated. Usually, the parish itself will own the buildings on the land. Catholic schools are private organizations whose land is either owned by the parish they are affiliated with or by a holding group or corporation set up in that school's name. So, instead of asking how much land "the Church" owns, you have to ask how much land does any given diocese own, and even then it is confusing since the diocese may own only the land, but not the buildings upon which the land is situated. Monastery lands are owned by those religious communities, and seminaries are owned by the diocese. Oh, and keep in mind that probably in any given parish, a sizable chunk of its land holdings (sometimes up to 50%) are cemeteries.

In order to figure out how much land these many organizations own collectively would be a very burdensome task. You'd have to figure out how much land and buildings are owned by every parish in the world - there is usually only one Catholic Church in every city of average size, and many more in larger ones. Then you'd have to figure out how much land each individual diocese owns - and there are 2,797 dioceses and archdioceses in the world, and each of them is completely independent. That's a lot of dioceses, and potentially a lot of land, although any given diocese rarely owns more land besides the land immediately adjacent to the land that the parish sits upon. Then you'd have to figure out how much land each religious order owns, how much land held by private Catholic schools not affiliated with a parish, etc. These are all independent; they are not agents of the papal government or in any way under the legal authority of the Vatican as regards property ownership. The only benefit the Vatican gets from the dioceses of the world is an annual collection called Peter's Pence that is voluntary.

But even if you could do this math and add up the land owned by every Catholic diocese and parish, it would be a meaningless number, because it would not tell you how much land "the Church" owns, but rather, how much land is owned by an artificial hodgepodge of thousands of organizations. To ask the question of how much land "the Church" owns is like asking how much land blond haired people own - there simply is no collective organization that centrally owns land on behalf of blond haired people, and even if you could add up all the land owned by individual blond haired people, you'd have just a number that didn't reflect anything in the real world.

This answer no doubt does not satisfy you. You are convinced that "the Church" owns more land than anyone else and want to prove it. If we were to take 'the Church' as being just the Vatican, what would the answer be?

The Vatican itself owns only the 108 acres it happens to be on and some other small sites outside of Rome. So, if we insist on interpreting "the Church" to mean the Vatican, then there is your answer: the Vatican owns 108 acres plus some smaller sites outside Rome.

Okay, you say, so maybe the Vatican as a central authority doesn't own all the land mentioned above, but the Catholics collectively do, and this is "the Church" in some degree, even if it is extremely decentralized. When you add up all of the parishes, monasteries, seminaries and diocesan owned buildings, surely the Church must be the single largest landowner on the earth? Not so. Not even close. Who are the biggest landowners?

By category, the largest public landowners in the world are the governments of various nations who own things like roads, airports, public parks, etc. The largest private landowner in the world is CNN”s Ted Turner, who own 1,800,000 acres. The other top ten landowners are all ranching families (sources: Forbes magazine, Oct. 6, 2003). The largest single landowner on the whole planet: LAND VALUES-GUINNESS BOOK OF WORLD RECORDS: “As of June 30, 1966, the world's largest land owner was the United States Government, with a holding of 765,291,000 acres (1,185,787 square miles) including 529,000 acres outside of the United States. The total value at cost was $69,357,000,000.” I’d imagine this is still true, though I'm sure the dollar value has gone up.

By the way, please don't tell me that the Queen of England is the world's largest landowner or that she owns 1/6 of the earth's surface or any of that nonsense. The Queen only "owns" those properties that are specifically designated as holdings of the House of Windsor, her family. Even then, some of these holdings are not in her power to disposes of. You will say that there are millions are acres of "crown lands" around the world; for example, 89% of Canada is crown land. But the Queen does not own it personally in any meaningful sense. She cannot dispose of it as she pleases. It is basically government land. It is true 1/6 of the earth's surface is certainly made up of countries that claim the Queen as the head of state, but that does not mean she "owns" that land. The queen does not "own" Canada or Australia. That is way too simplistic.

But back to the Catholic Church. Even if the Church is not the world's largest landowner, with all of the tithes and offerings that come through it, surely it must be the world's largest financial institution then? This is very untrue, and one which many non-Catholics are confused about. They seem to think that the Church is financed from the top down, as if things at the diocesan and parochial level are paid for by the Vatican or something. But we know that the Church is financed from the bottom up: the diocese is supported by the community of parishes, and Rome is supported by the dioceses, as well as from collections like Peter’s Pence, etc. The Church is actually quite poor, because statistically most parishes are in Third World countries and have very little to contribute. The problem is that people tend to confuse the artistic treasures of the Vatican (the Michelangelos, Bernini architecture, etc.) with financial wealth. This is simply not the case. The world’s largest financial institution is Japan Post, the privately owned Japanese postal system, whose assets are estimated at $3.1 trillion. The second largest is Citigroup, with only half those assets. The Vatican, by contrast, has a revenue of only $355 million, hardly even close to the largest financial institution in the world.

I hope this provides you with some food for thought, and ammunition against those who arrogantly claim that the Church is the world's biggest landowner or biggest financial institution. The Church is not the biggest land owner because there is no centralized Church to own the land. It is not the biggest financial institution because it is funded solely by donations from a people who by statistical majority are located in the Third World.

Educate yourself.

Dictionary of Dissent

Thanks to the poster who brought this to my attention. This Dictionary of Dissent over at Fisheaters is very extensive and hilarious, but sadly true. Check it out.

Protestant & Catholic Lyrics

Protestant artist Keith Green (d. 1983), who though an anti-Catholic managed to write songs whose lyrics more faithfully expressed the truths of the Gospel than the garbage put out by Haugen, Haas, OCP and Spirit & Song. Why is that?

We often say that the Mass, as it is offerred in most Catholic parishes around the country, is being "Protestantized," but what do we mean exactly by this. Well, in general it means a shift in emphasis from the sacred Mystery to the person of the pastor and the participation in the congregatipn and an entertainment based "what do I get out of it" type of liturgy. But what do we mean more specifically in when we refer to Protestantizing in reference to our music? Curiously enough, this is one area of the liturgy that is not being Protestantized.

What do I mean by this? Are not the introduction of guitars, drums, clapping, dancing, and an excessive use of the pronoun "I" in the music characteristic of Protestantism? Maybe so, but only in an accidental way. If we simply compare on that level, of course we will say that our Catholic music is "Protestantized." But my intention here is to go beyond the mere external form that the music takes and look directly at the message being conveyed in the Catholic and Protestant "worship" songs. Unfortunately, we will see that the Catholic songs written and "performed" in liturgies around the world are actually worse than the songs the Protestants are using.

First off, let me say that there are a few Catholic parishes that simply use Protestant praise and worship music in their Masses, many of them from the Charismatic Renewal. Now, just for the record, I am against using any contemporary music in Mass at all, but I think we have to appreciate that in some sense, the parishes that use the Protestant songs are probably better off than the ones that are invested in the sorry ideological agenda behind the Catholic drivel of the OCP and Spirit and Song.

Let me explain. Most Catholic parishes who use contemporary music do not make use of Protestant praise and worship (with the exception of the Charismatic Renewal parishes). What they do use is the modernist, liberal self-affirming stuff by Haugen, Haas, Tom Conry, Michael Joncas, Daniel Schutte, etc. What are the messages conveyed by these groups of artists?

Let's look at three examples of Protestant praise and worship (some sung in church, some not) and compare it to the Haugen-Haas garbage.

First, we have "Open the Eyes of My Heart, Lord" by the Protestant band "Sonicflood" that is well known to anybody who has ever been around Charismatic churches, Protestant or Catholic. The refrain says, To see You high and lifted up-Shining in the light of Your glory-Pour out Your power and love-As we sing holy, holy, holy. Now, if this were a liberal Catholic hymn, the writer would never call God powerful and glorious, much less "holy, holy, holy." The writer of this song is not expressing anything other than a desire to see God glorified and lifted up, "shining in the light" of His glory. In the Catholic Church, this would be considered too "vertical." If this were Catholic, it would say, "Open the eyes of my heart Lord, to see the poor oppressed around me, to see that I am Christ to the world, to see the plight of the immigrant."

Next, let's look at "Heart of Worship" by Protestant Matt Redman. Redman is a devout British evangelical who believes that man is sinful and needs Jesus' forgiveness. He believes the Bible is the literal Word of God (do Haugen and Haas believe in these tenets?). Let's look at the refrain from "Heart of Worship": I'm coming back to the heart of worship-And it's all about You-All about You, Jesus-I'm sorry, Lord, for the thing I've made it-When it's all about You-All about You, Jesus. This refrain ought to be sung by every bishop and priest who has ever fiddled with the liturgy. No matter how deficient the Protestant's forms of worhsip are, here Redman is saying that worship at its heart is all about Jesus, not about us. In the modern Catholic Church, parishes get criticized for making the worship too much about Jesus and not enough about man and community. Modern Catholic hymns tend to draw attention away from the man-God dynamic of worship and towards the man-man aspect, the exact opposite of what Redman is saying here.

Finally, I'd like to look at an oldie, but a goodie, from Protestant artist Keith Green , who died in 1983. Green was a very virulent anti-Catholic, but check out the lyrics to his song, "O God our Lord": Who you gonna throw in the lake of fire, O God our lord? Who you gonna throw when the flames get higher, O God our lord? The devil and the man with the dark desire, O God our lord.The devil and the man with the dark desire, O God our lord. My, my, my lord.I’m crying out to you master, Oh lord,Don’t you know I need you, oh lord. Have mercy on a poor sinner like me, oh jesus. Don’t you know I need you, oh lord. "Who you gonna throw in the lake of fire?" Do any Catholic songs even reference hell anymore? Do any modern Catholic songwriters even believe in it? This song, though written in first person, references God as "master," refers to the singer as "a poor sinner" and says repeatedly that hell awaits "the devil and the man with the dark desire." Would Haugen of Haas say anything like this in a million years?

So, in the three Protestant songs we looked at (and I think these are representative of the whole), we see a confession of man's need for God's mercy (My, my, my lord.I’m crying out to you master, oh lord,Don’t you know I need you, oh lord.Have mercy on a poor sinner like me, oh jesus.Don’t you know I need you, oh lord), we see an acknowledgement that worship at its heart is only about God (I'm coming back to the heart of worship-And it's all about You-All about You, Jesus) and we've seen a desire that God be magnified in power and glory (To see You high and lifted up-Shining in the light of Your glory-Pour out Your power and love-As we sing holy, holy, holy). These are all good and venerable things to contemplate.

Now let's look at a few "Catholic" songs. First and foremost on the list of offenders is Tom Conry's "Anthem": We are called, we are chosen. We are Christ for one another. We are promise to tomorrow, while we are for him today. We are sign, we are wonder, we are sower, we are seed. We are harvest, we are hunger. We are question, we are creed. Aside from not making any sense ("we are creed"?), these lyircs completely glorify man. Gone is the centrality on worship of Jesus, gone is any acknowledgement that man is a sinful being in need of Redemption. Everything is man centered. Though this song comes from a "Catholic" writer, it leaves out everything distinctively Catholic. Furthermore, the Protestants we mentioned (Sonicflood, Keith Green and Matt Redman) all firmly believe in the Gospel (as they know it), thoroughly believe in their own unworthiness and take the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. But we know that men like Conry, Haugen and Haas believe that the some of the moral teachings of the faith are no longer true, that doctrine can change, etc. To put it blankly, the Catholic songs are driven not just by an anti-Catholic agenda but by an anti-Christian agenda.

Have you ever noticed that Catholics will borrow Protestant songs, but you never hear Haugen and Haas in Protestant churches? Protestants would never stand for that drivel! They would see through it. Let's look at Haugen's "Gather Us In": We are the young - our lives are a mystery, We are the old - who yearn for your face. We have been sung throughout all of history, Called to be light to the whole human race. Gather us in - the rich and the haughty, Gather us in - the proud and the strong. Give us a heart so meek and so lowly, Give us the courage to enter the song. Again, it is all self-affirming, feel-good type stuff that is all man focused and has absolutely no reference to man's sin and the need for grace. Now, it could be argued that all of the Protestant songs I referenced were written in the first person "I" just as much as the Catholic ones. True, but when the Protestant songs use "I," they do so in relation and opposition to God, who is always sung of as being infinitely more exalted, powerful and glorious than the "I." Like Keith Green's lyrics, My, my, my lord.I’m crying out to you master, oh lord,Don’t you know I need you, oh lord.Have mercy on a poor sinner like me. There is no confusing the "I" and the Lord there. Or Sonciflood sings, "Open the eyes of my heart, Lord." So it is in first person, but why are they asking for their eyes to be opened? "To see You high and lifted up-shining in the light of Your glory." But when the Catholic songs sing in first person, it is always to glorify the people, not to confess sin. Two statements both made in first person can have a world of difference. "I need You, Lord! Have mercy on me!" versus, "I am the light of the world. I am Christ to the world." These have very different meanings.

Let's take a quick glance at David Haas's "Blessed are They": Rejoice and be glad! Blessed are you, holy are you, Rejoice and be glad! Yours is the kingdom of God! I think the comparison is clear.

So, what is my conclusion? What is the point I am trying to make by all this? That we should all use Protestant praise and worship? Absolutely not. Only this sad fact: Protestant praise and worship music by contemporary Protestant artists is more in keeping with the Gospel than the latest crap from OCP/ Spirit & Song. It is horrible, but I have come to realize that if our music was being Protestantized, that would not be as bad as what has actually happened to it. This was brought up to me by blogger Lisa, who commented on my NCYC post. I had said that I expected there to be lots of Protestant praise and worship there, and she said, "no, that would be much too Christian." She was right! The contemporary music being churned out of the modern Catholic music scene is not just un-Catholic but un-Christian; by this I mean that it is offensive to all forms of Christianity. That is why you'd never in a million years see the crap of Haugen and Hass being used in a Protestant church.

It is a sorry thing that an anti-Catholic writer like Keith Green can write a song that more faithfully expresses man's relationship to God than a supposedly Catholic artists like Tom Conry. One mor ereason why we need a return to Tradition.

"I always wanted to be a June bride."

Remember Gene Robinson? He was the first openly-gay (non) bishop to be consecrated in the Episcopal Church back in 2004. On November of this year he made an announcement during a speech at Nova Southeastern University that he intends to enter into civil marriage in June of 2008 with his longtime partner Mark Andrews. The union will take place in New Hampshire, which will recognize such unions come January, 2008. "I've always wanted to be a June bride," Robinson told the group of 200 who had come to hear him. His statement was greeted with laughs and warm applause. Robinson’s address concluded the 2007 Goodwin Symposium on Sex, Morality and the Law sponsored by Nova Southeastern University’s Shepard Broad Law Center. The four-part lecture series began Oct. 11 with Suzanne Goldberg, a leading attorney on lesbian and gay rights issues, who discussed how the U.S. Supreme Court addresses sexual orientation issues.

During his talk, the Episcopalian (non) bishop made the following comments: "It may take many years for religious institutions to add their blessing for same-sex marriages and no church, mosque or synagogue should be forced to do so. But that should not slow down progress for the full civil right to marry... The greatest single hindrance to achievement of full rights for gays and lesbians can be laid at the doorstep of the three Abrahamic faiths-- Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It’s going to take people of faith to end discrimination."

His language reveals a glaring misunderstanding of the nature of marriage in a few different areas. First, no religious institution can give its "blessing" to same-sex marriages and this terminology ought never to be used. This implies that the homosexual couple is already married and simply seeks the legal (or what we would say, canonical) recognition of their churches. No religious body can "bless" a same-sex marriage because no such marriage can exist ever, no matter what civil government declares. Let us never use this language of "blessing" same-sex unions. Any attempt at a homosexual so-called marriage is invalid from the beginning (sacramentally, we could say due to "defect of matter"; ie, lack of one man and one woman).

Second, Robinson says that it will take a long time for religions to accept homosexuality, but that it should not impede the progress of gay rights in the civil arena. Essentially he believes that the religious aspect of matrimony is completely divorced from the civil aspect, the same way people assert that faith and morality are "private" issues and cannot be brought into the public. He fails to recognize that marriage is fudnamental to the existence of the state, both in the mathematical sense that the state is built of many smaller units called families, and in the sense that the good of the family is the good of the state and that broken or abnormal families are bad for the state. It is precisely because of this reality that states have historically taken it upon themselves to legislate regarding marriage. If homosexual so-called marriage is something we cannot sanction religiously, why on earth would we sanction it civily? Why would we approve something politically that we understand to be sinful morally? Can something be simultaneously bad for piety and good for the state? For the Catholic, the answer is a resounding "no." These two spheres are united and compenetrate each other, though of course the civil is subordinate to the spiritual. For Gene Robinson and his ilk, the civil is completely divorced from the spiritual and it is the spiritual that must take a backseat to the progress of the civil. And don't talk about "compenetrating" around Robinson; it might get him excited (okay, that was uncalled for).

By the way, what justification does Robinson, a professing Episcopalian, find for his position in Scripture? It so turns out that it is the same liberal-relativist Scripture scholarship that gave us the NAB that gives Robinson his biblical "foundation" for his position. He said that "scripture must viewed in its historical context" and compared the prohibitions on homosexuality with the prohibitions on pork eating; i.e., something binding at one time but that have since passed away as cultural traditions have changed.

First, this should demonstrate why modern biblical criticism is not the friend of the Catholic Church. Second, Robinson obviously fails to pick up on what I was taught in my first semester of my freshman year of theology at Ave Maria: that the ceremonial precepts of the Mosaic Law were binding only on the Jews of the Old Covenant while the moral precepts (like the prohibition of homosexuality) are binding for all men for all time. Third, even given the fact that we no longer follow the Jewish ceremonial code, it is not the case that we don't follow it simply because times have changed. We don't follow it because it was finally and definitively abrogated by Christ, not because times and cultural sensitivities have evolved.

"We changed our mind as a culture, as a nation, as a church about something we have been very sure about for a couple thousand years," Robinson said. Whatever culture and nation say, the Church, the true Church that is, can never "change our mind." But that is what happens when you belong to a ecclesial community that rejects Catholic Tradition in favor of modernist innovations and fads. The Episcopal-Anglican communion rejected Tradition in favor of a novel marital issue back in 1535, and again marital issues are dividing this community.

Of course, there were several asinine comments reported from people attending this conference. Nova law student Brian Kirlew, a professed Catholic, said he opposes discrimination against anyone, and thinks people often cloak it with religious justification. "The essence of Christianity is helping the less fortunate", he said. The debate over homosexuality is distracting. "Jesus’ predominant message is taking care of the poor," Kirlew said. Taking care of the poor is the "essence" of Jesus' teaching?

This is probably a result of the Catholic Church's excessive focus on "horizontalism" that this Catholic could make the comment that care of the poor is the "essence" of Jesus' mission. What about the redemption of humanity? What about the revelation of God as Trinity? What about the self-giving reality of God's divine love? What about the recognition of Christ as the Messiah? No, those are all too exclusivistic because they immediately create a divide between you and somebody who does not accept it, and because it is too "vertical." No, it is much easier to say that Jesus is all about compassion and love of the poor. Jesus certainly preaches these things, but to say that they are the center of His preaching is to radically miss the point.

This whole sorry affair is just another effect of modernism in contemporary religious life.

Old Pro-Lifer Dies

Last week former Illinois Representative Henry Hyde passed away at age 83. Are you saying to yourself, "So what? Who the heck was Henry Hyde?" Let me elaborate.

To those familiar with pro-Life history, Hyde's legacy is monumental. He was first elected to the House in 1974, only one year after the Roe vs. Wade decision. In 1976 he made a name for himself by attaching an amendment to a spending bill banning the use of federal funds to carry out abortions.What came to be known as the "Hyde Amendment" has since become a fixture in the annual debate over federal spending, and has served as an important marker for abortion foes seeking to discourage women from terminating pregnancies.

He was also a leader in passing the ban on partial-birth abortions, which he saw as an extension of society's duty to defend the weak. "The people we pretend to defend, the powerless, those who cannot escape, who cannot rise up in the streets, these are the ones that ought to be protected by the law. The law exists to protect the weak from the strong" (from a 2003 debate). As a devout Irish-Catholic, fighting abortion was simply a matter of conscience for Hyde, who never deviated from his pro-Life roots.

Perhaps more famous is his tenure as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in 1998 that oversaw the impeachment case against Bill Clinton.

Hyde was well respected by legislators on both sides of the aisle, and seemed to many to be a throwback to an earlier time, a time when wit and civility counter for something in the legislative process and helped make things run more smoothly.

Hyde was born in Chicago on April 18, 1924. After serving in the Navy from 1944 to 1946, seeing combat in the Philippines, he graduated from Georgetown University in 1947 and returned to Chicago to earn a law degree from Loyola in 1949.

Spe Salvi, part 2

One of the most profund aspects of the new encyclical Spe Salvi is the way the Holy Father distinguishes the Christian virtue of hope from the secular concept. Christian faith is not simply a looking forward to the future, but something that we interiorize and allow to change us here in the present. It is not simply information about doctrines and dogmas and events that we intellectually believe will occur in the future. As Benedict says, Catholic faith and hope are "not just "informative" but "performative" (SS 4). It is a vibrant hope that the Catholic (by the very act of faithful hoping) actually changes himself in Christ and brings himself closer to the very object of his hope. We do not hope for heaven in a merely future looking way, but by hoping for heaven we actually bring heaven closer to us and in a way participate in it here and now. Consider this quote:

"Faith is not merely a personal reaching out towards things to come that are still totally absent: it gives us something. It gives us even now something of the reality we are waiting for, and this present reality constitutes for us a “proof” of the things that are still unseen. Faith draws the future into the present, so that it is no longer simply a “not yet”. The fact that this future exists changes the present; the present is touched by the future reality, and thus the things of the future spill over into those of the present and those of the present into those of the future" (SS 7).

Constrasted to this theological, substantial hope is the prevalent secular hope, which is an empty, forward looking hope that can be reduced to a longing for something that at present does not exist. In secular culture, this "hope" is manifested in the cult of progress, the belief that man will by his own ingenuity find a solution to all of the world's problems through science and politics. While Christianity has been criticized by many for focusing men's minds too much on the future and not enough on the world's present ills (Nietzsche), Benedict says it is actually the other way around: it is modern man who by his focus on an illusive better world to come actually loses sight of the giftedness of the present. The Catholic, though seeking a heavnly homeland, is not in the least way unconcerned with what happens in this world, as the atheists argued. Benedict says:

"Even if external structures remained unaltered, this changed society from within. When the Letter to the Hebrews says that Christians here on earth do not have a permanent homeland, but seek one which lies in the future (cf. Heb 11:13-16; Phil 3:20), this does not mean for one moment that they live only for the future: present society is recognized by Christians as an exile; they belong to a new society which is the goal of their common pilgrimage and which is anticipated in the course of that pilgrimage" (SS 4).

Christian hope changes its possessor and allows the goodness of heaven to spill out into this life, manifesting itself in the joy of the Christian life and in the way that joy in Christ's salvation procured for us is allowed to transform all of society even as it transforms our own souls.

Another good point of Spe Salvi is that it disentangles Catholic hope from the slang way in which the term is used. For example, "I hope to win the lottery," can be translated as "That would be nice if I won the lottery, but you and I know it will never happen." In the slang usage, the word "hope" almost is used as an antithesis to "certainty." If I were certain I would win the lotto why would I hope? I only hope because it is far from certain. Not so with Christian hope. Hope, Benedict tells us, has a real "substance" to it, as the Epistle to the Hebrews tells says (Heb. 11:1). It is not opposed to certainty but in fact establishes our certainty, though in an embryonic form:

"Est autem fides sperandarum substantia rerum, argumentum non apparentium—faith is the “substance” of things hoped for; the proof of things not seen. Saint Thomas Aquinas, using the terminology of the philosophical tradition to which he belonged, explains it as follows: faith is a habitus, that is, a stable disposition of the spirit, through which eternal life takes root in us and reason is led to consent to what it does not see. The concept of “substance” is therefore modified in the sense that through faith, in a tentative way, or as we might say “in embryo”—and thus according to the “substance”—there are already present in us the things that are hoped for: the whole, true life. And precisely because the thing itself is already present, this presence of what is to come also creates certainty: this “thing” which must come is not yet visible in the external world (it does not “appear”), but because of the fact that, as an initial and dynamic reality, we carry it within us, a certain perception of it has even now come into existence" (SS 7).

For me, this is one of the most profound parts of the encyclical and I know I will be studying and rereading it many more times to make sure I really get it. But it is so important for us to be able to define Christian hope as being very different from worldly, empty hope. Our hope has substance and establishes our certainty in the promises of God; worldly hope is said to be hope precisely because it has no certainty. Our hope is a proof, "not only a reality that we await, but a real presence" (SS 8).

In paragraphs 10-15, Benedict then goes into a very interesting and pertinent discussion on hope in its relation to eternal life and whether or not Christina hope is too individualistic. I will examine these parts of the document next time.

Spe Salvi, Part 1

I have spent the entire weekend attempting to digest Benedict XVI's new encyclical Spe Salvi on the theological virtue of hope. I am going to spend a few posts dissecting this very interesting letter, but here will only say a few general comments. The first thing I want to point out (and that I have said before but it bears repeating) is that Benedict's encyclicals are a welcome repose from the more weighty tomes churned out by John Paul II. John Paul's encyclicals were always worded in the terms of personalist philosophy and were very dense; whether or not they were actually longer I'm not sure, but the philosophical jargon in them often made them difficult to read and at least gave the impression that they were longer. By contrast, Benedict clearly writes as a theologian and not so much as a philosopher.

One more note on philosophy. I have noticed that many post-conciliar papal documents take on a more philosophical rather than theological tone (especially those of JPII). Perhaps this is one factor in the present confusion in the Church, for philosophical language, unlike traditional ecclesiastical theological language, is nebulous and ambiguous by its very nature; it tends to take on whatever meaning the philosopher intends for it. Theological language on the other hand is precise and employed for the sake of clarifying terms and distinguishing with razor precision exactly what a thing is and what it isn't. A papal document becomes more nebulous and up for interpretation to the degree that it is full of philosophical language. Likewise, a document is clear and concise to the degree that it employs traditional theological terms. Traditional language safeguards the dogmas of the faith against misinterpretation. Whatever else one may have to say about him, I am glad that Paul VI made this point in his encyclical Mysterium Fidei (in that case, with reference to the word transubstantiation).

Now, on to Spe Salvi. Spe Salvi quite rightly points out the salvific power of the virtue of hope, its connection with the virtue of faith, and then goes on to point out different reasons the Christian ought to have hope over and against the secular world. In the beginning of the encyclical, in paragraph 2, Benedict talks about the place of hope in the early Church and how Catholic hope is contrasted with the hopelessness of the world without God:

We see how decisively the self-understanding of the early Christians was shaped by their having received the gift of a trustworthy hope, when we compare the Christian life with life prior to faith, or with the situation of the followers of other religions. Paul reminds the Ephesians that before their encounter with Christ they were “without hope and without God in the world” (Eph 2:12). Of course he knew they had had gods, he knew they had had a religion, but their gods had proved questionable, and no hope emerged from their contradictory myths. Notwithstanding their gods, they were “without God” and consequently found themselves in a dark world, facing a dark future.

From the Traditionalist point of view, this paragraph is quite excellent in that it points out that depsite the fact that the pagans had their own gods, nevertheless their religions were not adequate and not able to give them any reason to hope. This is a welcome change from too many documents that tended to overemphasize the "elements of truth" found in the other religions; this statement serves as a counterbalance to the errant belief that all religions are somehow ways to the true God. Benedict brings us back to sanity here by reminding us that these other religions and their gods are "questionable" and that no hope can come from them. Benedict here says this with reference to pre-Christian paganism, but it is just as applicable to post-Catholic heathenism.

There is so much more to be said about this document, and I will be doing more segments on it, but I unfortunately am very busy now (my wife is about to give birth to our third child any time now); I will try to get to it soon. In the meantime, check out Spe Salvi here.

The Evangelical Power of the Faith

I want to offer a brief reflection on an aspect of the faith that I think often gets overlooked in some traditionalist circles, and that I myself tend to forget sometimes. Too often I emphasize traditional Catholicism from a standpoint of, "This is the way we have always done it," or, "This is the way the rubrics say it ought to be done," or from any other varying viewpoints that all revolve around the obligation of Catholics to live the traditions of the faith. I guess you could call this the legal or canonical aspect of Traditionalism. It is a very valid point: doing something because its always been done is an extremely important reason for doing something in the Church; indeed, it is often the best reason. And it is no less important to stress conformity with known regulations and canonical measures over and against unrestrained creativity and liturgical dabbling.

But here I want to dwell for a moment not on the legal/canonical side that we are obliged to keep, but on the evangelical power of Catholic Tradition. The Catholic Faith, in all its fullness and splendor, is the most powerful tool of evangelization we have. It is a paradox: the Faith is what we want to bring people to (faith in the Person Who is Christ), but the Faith is the tool that we use to bring people to the Faith. The Faith is Truth, and when we fearlessly teach the truth, it has a power behind it (a power that Benedict in his new encyclical calls "performative"). The Catholic Faith is like a lion: all we have to do is let it out of the cage and it will do the rest for you. How beautiful the Faith is! How interesting and powerful, inbued with the grace and power to transform lives and purify souls! I recall my brother-in-law, who is coming into the Church, tell me that the Mass was the most beautiful thing he'd ever seen (and he said this about a tolerably well done NO!); if the Faith is ever presented in its fullness, it cannot help but win people to it. The Mass is our Faith acted out; by attending Mass (especially the TLM), one does not simply learn about the articles of the faith but one lives and experiences the Faith; it is inhaled and basked in, culminating in the great Mystery of the altar.

I was told today about a couple who went through RCIA in a very liberal parish. The DRE would not explicitly state that Jesus was the only way to God; he himmed and hawed on the question of homosexuality, he tacitly accepted and even encouraged dabbling in other religious traditions. Needless to say, the liturgical life of the parish was a nightmare. RCIA sessions did not impart instruction but instead consisted of "group sessions" where people were encouraged to talk about their "feelings." Guess what? Within a year after Easter, that couple were no longer practicing Catholics. Maybe they just decided to stay home; maybe they are Protestants, maybe they are Hindus or athiests. I don't know, but it is certain that the soppy, weak, milky-cereal Catholicism they were given did not hold them. But the true Faith is so unlike that! The watered down faith makes only excuses and apologies; the true Faith makes martyrs and confessors.

Somebody asked me recently about the Church and Judaism. To make a long story short, I responded by pointing out that the rituals of the Jews were never salvific, even in Old Testament times, and that everybody, Jews not excepted, needed to come to God through Jesus. The person thanked me for my answer and went their way satisfied. It took five minutes to explain. Then I thought ot myself, "There are people in the Church, even members of the hierarchy, who would never in a million years give that answer. They would set up committees, exchange letters, have dialogues, issue ambiguous and useless documents and beat around the bush for a hundred years before saying that Jews needed Jesus." Not to pride myself on my statement, but isn't it true! The lengths they go to in order to avoid saying the simple truth!

The Faith is so simple if we let it be itself, and so powerful to attract, transform and save if we simply trust it and trust Jesus to do what He promised. We were simply called to preach; He'll take care of the rest. If we take Him at His word, then away for ever with any Catholicism that denies the fundamental truths and traditions of the Faith, for not only is it disobedience, but it will not win any converts. It will actually drive them away. Why do you think so many people are leaving the Church while the traditional parishes are exploding in membership? We all know, for it is self-evident. It takes an intentional act of intellectual dishonesty to not see the connection. Bring back Catholic Tradition in all its fullness, burn these modernist bastards at the stake (figuratively speaking, of course) and watch the converts flock in.