12 Realistic Reforms the Church Could Implement Right Now

We all have our own opinions about what ought to be happening in the Church. "If only the Pope would do this," or "If only Bishop so-and-so would excommunicate this guy," or "If only they'd make a rule about this." You know what I mean; our wish-list of things the Holy Spirit would get done to help move the Church along a little closer to where it needs to be.

In this post, I will share with you twelve realistic reforms the Church could implement right now that I believe would make a world of difference. I say twelve realistic reforms; I have intentionally omitted things that are so improbable that they will most likely never happen (abolishing the Novus Ordo, Pope firing every bishop in the world, and, sadly, the Consecration of Russia). The twelve reforms I am proposing here are very realistic and could theoretically be implemented at any time without too much of a shake up. These are things we could reasonably hope for.

I offer them in no particular order, but I do invite you to share your own ideas for realistic reforms in the combox.

1. Eucharistic Fast and Manner of Reception

The pope ought to issue a motu proprio regulating certain aspects of how Holy Communion is received. The first part of this motu proprio should extend the Eucharistic fast to three hours. The current one hour fast is so easy that, if you drive more than 25 minutes to get to Mass, you can pretty much eat right up until the moment you get in the car and still technically keep the fast. The fast ought to be extended to restore some discipline and remind people that reception of the Eucharist is something that needs to be intentionally prepared for.

The second aspect of the motu proprio should deal with the manner of reception. It should highlight abuses that have crept in due to irreverent reception of our Lord and proceed to revoke all the indults for reception standing or in the hand, regional episcopal conferences notwithstanding. Reception in the hand has only been the norm for thirty years or so, and it would not be a stretch to say that the experiment has failed and mandate the return to the older practice, with no concessions granted to any episcopal conference or region (though of course with personal concessions for the very elderly, handicapped, etc).

2. Latin

Rather than just saying that Latin is to be "retained", the Pope should mandate that Bishops see to it that every diocese provides at least a full two years training in Latin for all seminarians without exception to region. Furthermore, the language in Sacrosanctum Concilium about Latin being "preserved" should be strengthened and supplemented with another motu proprio that specifically says that Latin is to be exclusively utilized for all fixed parts of the Mass and for the Roman canon especially. There needs to be no ambiguity here, no phrases like "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved"; this motu proprio should say, "Latin is to be the exclusive language of the Mass", at least for the fixed parts.

3. Restoration of Chant (Again)

Pope St. Pius X famously restored Gregorian Chant with his famous motu proprio Tra Le Sollecitudini. Unfortunately, it needs to be restored again, since the "pride of place" envisioned for it in Vatican II has clearly no materialized. Basically, another authoritative instruction like Tra Le Sollecitudini needs to be issued, which specifically says Gregorian Chant is the official music of the Roman rite and simultaneously bans certain instruments by name, including and especially drums and guitars, but also keyboards and pianos. This document needs to not only say what the ideal is, but say what is forbidden as well. The Pope should also ask bishops to take the lead in implementing this directive in their cathedrals and encourage them to generously assist priests who need help implementing Gregorian Chant. For more on Tra Le Sollecitudini, see here.

4. Location of Tabernacle and Posture at Mass

A general instruction should go out giving every parish one year to move the tabernacle back to a central location, and this central location should be unambiguously identified as the center of the altar, preferably a high altar. The purpose of this should be stated as to encourage greater devotion to our Eucharistic Lord, but also to facilitate the ancient and venerable practice of offering Mass ad orientam, which the instruction should heartily encourage and declare to be the norm for the Roman Rite.

5. Reaffirm Episcopal Authority in Cases of Private Revelations

In 1978, the CDF under Pope Paul VI issued a document entitled "Norms of the Congregation for Proceeding in Judging Alleged Apparitions and Revelations." This document laid down the norm that "the competent ecclesiastical Authority can intervene to authorize and promote various forms of worship and devotion" within his diocese, and that "the foremost authority to inquire and to intervene belongs to the local Ordinary." This has generally been taken to mean that a Bishop is the final arbiter of the legitimacy of a private revelation within his diocese, unless he petitions the Vatican to investigate. Still, this instruction is much ignored and does not have real teeth. A reaffirmation of Paul VI's teaching should be issued with a greater emphasis on the role of the local Ordinary. I've even taken the liberty of composing the wording it should incorporate. The document ought to say, "The foremost authority to inquire and to intervene belongs to the local Ordinary, in such a manner that what the Ordinary approves is considered approved, and what he condemns is considered condemned by the Church." This would take the wind out of the sails of Medjugorje, Garabandal and a lot of these other false movements.

6. Cease Interreligious Events

This would be the easiest reform because it would simply entail that the Pope do nothing. In order to stop confusing other religions about how we view them, as well as to stop confusing the faithful and scandalizing other Christians, the Pope and Bishops should cease participating in any interreligious events. No more Assisi gatherings. No more messages from the Pope on the occasions of Hanukkah of Diwali.  No more visits to non-Christian shrines. The Pope should set himself off as the pastor of Christians alone and refrain from attending any more of these sorts of functions. If he insists on having representation at them, an official of Vatican City representing the Pope in a diplomatic sense as a head of state would be more appropriate.

7. Encyclical on Catholic Missions

An encyclical on Catholic missions is direly needed, as Catholic missions are in a terribly sorry state today, mainly because Catholic missionaries have no idea what they are out there for. This encyclical should emphasize three main points:

1) The Church has a universal missionary mandate that is still valid today. This was taught at Vatican II, but it needs to be reaffirmed, as well as expanded on, so as to say that

2) There is no people, no culture, no religion on the planet that is excluded from the Church's universal missionary mandate. This applies to Jews, Muslims, Orthodox, Protestants, whatever, and

3) The primary purpose of Catholic missionary activity is to win souls for the kingdom by formal entry into the Church through baptism as the normative means of salvation. This need no go back on anything the Church has taught prior about baptism of desire, invincible ignorance, but is should reinforce the traditional teaching of formal membership in the Church as normative for salvation.

8. Exorcists

Another encyclical should be written on the angels and the devils, affirming the literal existence of each as personal beings who are pure spirit. This encyclical should serve as a primer on classic angelology and should call for each Bishop to maintain not one but at least five exorcists per diocese and to have recourse to them when diabolical influence is discerned.

9. New Orders

I am not sure about the best forum for introducing this, but given the mass apostasy of the traditional orders, the Pope should make a sweeping call for a new generation of religious orders. He should emphasize discipline, celibacy, devotion to the Church and the Pope, and the wearing of traditional habits. Such a request from the Pope would result in thousands of new vocations in dozens of new orders and most likely reforms or reformed spin-offs of existing orders. When Vatican II and John Paul II called for new lay movements, we got a whole slew of them; a similar upsurge of enthusiasm would happen if the pontiff were to make an impassioned call for new religious who were faithful to the Pope and wore their habits. This call could even take place within the context of the encyclical on missions mentioned above.

10. Reinstate the Oath Against Modernism

Or at least some other kind of oath in which seminarians, theologians, pastors and anyone involved in teaching or theology pledge to avoid certain specifically defined errors endemic in modern Catholicism.

11. Bring out the Triregnum

Some may place this in the realm of the implausible, but I am not suggesting a full and immediate return to papal coronations, the sedia gestatoria and all that - not because it wouldn't be awesome, but because it just wouldn't happen like that. The Pope should begin wearing the triregnum on certain occasions just to bring it back into people's minds; perhaps the Feasts of Peter and Paul, the Chair of Peter and a few other select occasions. This would not be too controversial, and would in fact be quite appropriate and could set the stage for a hearty dialogue within the Church about the papal tiara. Ideally, its use would gradually be extended after the Pope had brought it out a few times.

12. Interpretive Norms for the Documents of Vatican II

I do believe this is probably the most important of all. Benedict XVI identified the hermeneutic of rupture as a major problem in how the modern Church views Vatican II. Towards the end of his pontificate, he even said that the true Council had been swallowed up by a "Council of the media" that obscured the true vision of the Council Fathers. If this really is the case, then why not issue some interpretive norms for the documents of Vatican II so there is no room for theologians to posit theories of rupture? The CDF already did this in their 2007 document on the phrase subsitit in from Lumen Gentium (see here). The purpose of this clarification was to ensure that Lumen Gentium was interpreted in continuity with previous teachings on the Church, such as Mystici Corporis.

Sadly, interpretive norms are needed not only for one phrase in one document, but for the entire Council. Dei Verbum on biblical inspiration. Gaudium et Spes on the Church in relation to the world. Dignitatus Humanae and Unitatis Redintegratio especially need to be clarified in a manner continuous with pre-Conciliar teaching, as does Sacrosanctum Concilium. Or what about Ad Gentes on the Church's missionary mandate? There needs to be a series of norms for reading these documents that say, "If you construe Dignitatus Humanae to mean X,Y, or Z, you are missing it." It is so obviously needed, and it is extremely frustrating that this has not yet been done, since Benedict XVI stated very clearly that the Council has basically been hijacked since day one. Such interpretive norms would provide pastors, bishops and everyone else the firm Magisterial standing they need to permanently lock up the Spirit of Vatican II with all the other evil spirits in the underworld.

And the Extraordinary Form?

I was hesitant of including anything about the EF Mass in here, frankly because I am just not certain how realistic it would be to expect anything more from the Magisterium in the near future about it. But, if I were to add something about the EF Mass, I suppose I would say that the Pope should ask bishops to see to it that every Catholic parish has an EF Mass made available at least once per month. With the average parish offering anywhere between 35-45 Masses per month, mandating that one of those be offered in the EF is not a very radical gesture. It would introduce many more people to the riches of the old Mass and would undoubtedly bear fruit.

What realistic reforms do you think could be implemented right now that would help Holy Mother Church? Remember, they must be realistic - things you could actually imagine a real Pope implementing.

Review: Heralds of the Second Coming

Some time ago, I created and posted a video entitled "Shortcomings of Catholic Eschatology", in which I lamented that I could not really find a decent book on Catholic eschatology. Many readers of this blog chimed in with their own sentiments, many echoing my own. Some authors stepped forward to present me with their own manuscripts, each hoping that their book would be the one to buck the trend.

One of the books I was sent was Heralds of the Second Coming by Stephen Walford (Angelico Press, 2013). Heralds of the Second Coming is no fly-by-night amateurish attempt at eschatology; it has a forward by His Eminence Ivan Cardinal Dias and was personally presented to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI last month, for which the author received a personalized note of thanks.

Heralds of the Second Coming succeeds where so many other modern eschatology books fail. One reason for this is the author humbly and wisely chooses a very restrictive scope; rather than seeking to present the Church's whole teaching on the end times or exegete the Book of Revelation, he focuses in on a very specific aspect of eschatology: the eschatological statements of the popes from Pius IX to Benedict XVI, with a special emphasis on Fatima, the Divine Mercy and Mariology in general. The book is subtitled "Our Lady, the Divine Mercy, and the Popes of the Marian Era from Blessed Pius IX to Benedict XVI", and this really sums up the book's true worth as a compendium of papal statements on the intersection of Mariology and eschatology, encompassing every sort of pronouncement from solemn declarations and encyclicals down to addresses, letters and even anecdotal stories. This treasure-trove of quotes is made more valuable by Mr. Walford's excellent writing style, which gives the book a nice flow.

The picture that emerges from these immense collection of statements is one of striking continuity. In weaving these teachings together, Mr. Walford demonstrates that the modern popes have had a very keen eschatological expectation. Every pope from Pius IX to Benedict XVI seemed to have had a lively sense that the Church was drawing near to the final consummation of all things, and each pontiff considered part of his specific vocation to be the preparation of the Church for this final conflict. Fatima plays a very large role in this expectation, as does the Divine Mercy devotion and the Second Vatican Council, which, rightly or wrongly, the post-Conciliar popes have viewed as a kind of purifying ecclesial event to prepare the Church for the coming of our Lord.

The popes of course never state how imminent they view this return, other than that is is approaching at that we are closer now than ever before. But when talking about an event in the future, these statements are always true. Saints in the 13th century spoke of the end being at hand as well. Mr. Walford is generally extremely conservative with how he presents the popes' teaching and what conclusions he draws from them, but a few times I found myself second guessing his interpretations. For example, in a chapter on the eschatological statements of John Paul II, he quotes the Holy Father as saying to a group of bishops, "The more faithfully and devotedly the religious in your Dioceses live out their commitment to Christ in poverty, chastity and obedience, the more clearly will the men and women of Ghana see that "the kingdom of God is at hand." Given this quote, Walford says that John Paul II "prophesied the imminent coming of the kingdom" (pg. 157-158). I found it a little hard to swallow that JPII prophesied the "imminent coming of the kingdom" just because he cited a passage from the Gospel of Mark that has no doubt been cited thousands of times by hundreds of pontiffs. But these sorts of stretches are few and far between; by and large Mr. Walford's interpretations are cautious, and his quotes are all meticulously documented.

His treatment of Fatima is interesting. While noting that the Fatima consecration has not yet been properly made, he does not get bogged down on this point. Many Fatimists will lock onto the Consecration of Russia as if it is the single most important aspect of salvation history. Mr. Walford is under no illusions about the consecration not having been properly performed, but neither does he waste a lot of pages beating a dead horse. His focus is more on the popes and their statements on the Fatima message rather than the act of consecration. He does take pains to remind us that Cardinal Ratzinger stated the Church was still awaiting the fulfillment of the Fatima message, contra what Cardinal Bertone laughably told us back in 2000.

One very valuable nugget I lifted from Heralds of the Second Coming is that the eschatological statements made by the modern popes leave no room for any posited "Era of Peace", which some Marian movements have proposed, led by Fr. Ianuzzi. In contradiction to those who see a lengthy era of worldly peace and a gradual triumph of the Gospel following the downfall of Antichrist, the eschatological timeline that emerges from papal teaching is clear: a gradual degeneration until the coming of Antichrist concurrently with a massive apostasy and persecution, then the defeat of the Antichrist and the Second Coming and end of the world immediately following the downfall of Antichrist. I was not certain of Fr. Ianuzzi's "Era of Peace" concept even prior to reading this book, but now that I have read it, the "Era of Peace" seems even more untenable. Thus, Walford's book serves as a valuable resource against resurgent forms of semi-Millennialism.

After I recorded my video last year, I threw out probably half of my collection of Catholic eschatology books. I am glad I did, because now I have room to permanently add Stephen Walford's Heralds of the Second Coming to my collection. It was excellently written, very responsible in its use of citations and interpretations, and responsibly narrow in scope. It provides a fascinating insight into a very important aspect of modern eschatology and I recommend it highly.

You can purchase Stephen Walford's Heralds of the Second Coming here.
 

Biblical Contradictions and more on USC!

Today is the Feast of St. Boniface of Germany, who is half-way the patron of this blog. I say half-way because my profile picture is actually of Pope Boniface VIII, not St. Boniface, and the blog title "Unam Sanctam" is a reference to the famous 1302 Bull of Pope Boniface VIII. But, since Dante put Boniface VIII in hell, I like to hedge my bets and claim St. Boniface as my co-patron.

I have been very busy lately, but have managed to get a few great articles posted over on the new website. I would especially like to draw attention to a post on alleged Contradictions in the New Testament that I worked for a long time on, and you will see why when you read it. I have made it a point over the years to address concerns about alleged contradictions of discrepancies in the Bible; whether synthesizing Resurrection appearances, dealing with the problem of genocide in the Book of Joshua, or whatever. I have noticed that it is a given among atheists and skeptics that the Bible is "full of contradictions", which is something I have always taken umbrage at, since in 19 years of intensive Bible study I have never run across what I consider to be a true contradiction. Well, earlier this week in a conversation with a friend about the uniqueness of the mediatorship of Jesus Christ, some smarmy skeptic posted some link to a site that claimed to find "194 Contradictions in the New Testament" and I thought, "That's it. I'm taking these down." I spent the next several days refuting every single alleged contradiction; the result is this post. Please share with all your skeptical friends. I will get Part 2 and 3 up when I can.

Here's what else is new:

The Exorcism of Nicola Aubrey: An exorcism of 29 demons out of a young girl in 16th century France proves the reality of our Lord's Presence in the Eucharist and converts scores of Protestants.

Dulling Disparity: A survey of how various cultures in the western tradition have attempted to deal with the problem of wealth disparity by cultural or legal structures that entrust the care of certain projects or individuals to the rich.

Contributions of the Cluniacs: Four important ways the Cluniac movement shaped the medieval Church and civilization.

Evaluating Private Apparitions: In an age when people are following absurd private apparitions of anonymous "prophets" on the internet, here is some sanity on how we are to judge whether a given private apparition has any legitimacy.

Can a priest and people 'dialogue' during a homily? Latest liturgical quod libet on an irritating modern trend.

"For the sake of our salvation": Revisiting the controversial passage in Dei Verbum 11 in the context of the reflections of Cardinal Bea (who actually wrote the document) proving that the Council Fathers intended the text to be interpreted in continuity with previous statements from Pius X, Leo XIII, etc.

St. Triduana (sancti obscuri)
Like Stars on Earth (movie review)

Also, in case you have not seen it or haven't had time to check it out, I have edited a book of St. Cyprian's writings for Arx Publishing, now available on the Arx website as well as on Amazon. The book is a complete compilation of all of Cyprian's works in English with apologetical footnotes (as opposed to the anti-Catholic footnotes in the Ante-Nicene Fathers). The introduction to the book was written by none other than Ryan Grant, formerly of Athanasius Contra Mundum.

Thank you for your continued patronage of this blog and website.

Retraction and Final Thoughts on Labels

A while back I published an article on the fittingness of utilizing labels in denoting certain trends within Catholicism; this was not the first time I have written on this subject, and my taking up of the question was in response to the statements of some that the term "traditional Catholic" is redundant because to be Catholic is to stand within the great stream of Tradition. Aside from the obvious problem that the vast majority (85% at least) of Catholics do, in fact, not stand in the tradition of the Church, some have pointed out that the utilization of labels is improper because it is divisive. I argued that this was the case, but that this division was sometimes necessary in times when there is great confusion over what it means to be Catholic, and cited in example the tumultuous periods after the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon as well as prior to Vatican I.

However, it has come to my attention that Pope Benedict XV had actually weighed in on this specific question in 1914, at which time he asked Catholics not to make use of modifiers. The pontiff stated:

"It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself." (Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum 24)

That being the case, I would like to retract my former posts on the appropriateness of labels; how can I call appropriate what such an august pontiff has said is not? I believe no other pontiff has spoken officially on this since then, so I assume he has the last word. However, I do have a few thoughts here:

The rise in the use of labels is a manifestation of the disorder in the Church. As I demonstrated in my previous posts, it is only in times of great disorder that these labels come to be used - and they are generally not used except when they serve a useful purpose in making a distinction.

Because of their proliferation now, and even a century ago, the Pope wished their usage to be curbed to maintain unity, which I can understand. However, in this day with its attendant problems, this is really addressing only a symptom. Rather than worry about the potential divisiveness caused by labels, we should be asking how we can rectify the condition within the Church so that the faithful will not feel the need to have recourse to labels. We cannot cure poverty by outlawing begging, and we cannot bring unity to the Church by outlawing the use of modifying labels. I concur with the Benedict XV and submit my judgment to his words, though I do think this is only a skin-deep remedy.

In Praise of Virginity? Anybody?

While the secular world continues its onslaught against the family with its relentless promotion of same-sex so-called marriage, the Church has been enduring a parallel attack against the discipline of celibacy. Both attacks are diabolical, both equally ferocious, and both based on the premise that human beings are absolutely and utterly incapable of moderating their sexual appetites.

On the homosexual question, conservative pundits, mostly Protestant and severed from Catholic Tradition, can offer no defense of traditional marriage grounded in natural law and largely stand by dumbly, protest on the grounds of biblical prohibitions, or else meekly acquiesce so they can be "on the right side of history." Similarly, as the discipline of celibacy is assaulted within the Catholic world, no one steps forward to boldly praise the ancient discipline. While liberal ecclesiastics clamor for its abolition, conservative clerics fumble about the practical difficulties of a married clergy or, even worse, meekly shrug and say "It's only a discipline. It could be changed," as if one of the Church's most ancient disciplines could be tossed aside with no consequences.

It is not surprising that the Faith is under attack; a reflective view of Church history reveals that the Faith is always under attack. But what is surprising with regards to celibacy is the lack of any truly zealous defenders of the discipline. Sure, we get apologetics and defenses of the reasonableness of celibacy, but when was the last time we really heard a bishop speak out boldly in praise of virginity, as the Fathers of the Church used to do? Arianism threatened the Church, and St. Athanasius opposed it with such rigor that the heresy was subdued; St. Augustine almost single handedly undid the Pelagians with his masterful exposition of the doctrines of grace; when Iconoclasm reared its destructive head, St. John Damascene slew the beast with his treatises in praise of holy images; St. Gregory VII, Anselm and Thomas Becket humbled kings and emperors who sought to define the Church as a functionary of the state, St. Thomas Aquinas put the nail int he coffin of Latin Averroism, and St. Francis of Assisi's life and message served as a stinging rebuke to the worldliness of his day, just as the holy life and teachings of St. Ignatius served as an antitode to the poison of the Protestant revolt and the bold defense of papal primacy made by Bl. Pius IX and St. Pius X served to combat the errors of modernism.

Where, then, are the zealous promoters of celibacy who will rise up in this hour and glorify the Church's teaching on holy virginity? Where are those ecclesiastics who, with their teaching, will not only meekly defend the legitimacy of the practice, but will actually show forth its splendor and praise it? Where are those who will speak of the radiant beauty of the consecrated soul, the many spiritual and temporal benefits that virginity bestows upon him who practices it, and the immense merit consecrated virgins accrue before the throne of God?

The silence is appalling. Oh, don't get me wrong, we have plenty of folks out there defending celibacy. We have plenty of priests who are willing to explain its reasons and its legitimacy and point out the possible difficulties we would run into if we had a married clergy. But to defend the validity of a discipline is not the same thing as to praise it, and to coolly remind the hostile world of the reasons behind the discipline is not the same thing as to heap glory upon a custom that is universally praised in the eastern and western traditions.

When Tertullian and Cyprian and Augustine write in praise of virginity, their goal is not to explain virginity to a hostile world, but to laud virginity among other Catholics, helping them to see the mystical reality behind the discipline. When the Church Fathers praise virginity, the praise it as men who have seen a vision of something truly beautiful, something gloriously resplendent, a pearl of great price that they do not offer a defensive apologetic for, but rather a glowing hymn in praise of.

The modern apologists attempt to convince the intellect to accept the reasonableness of celibacy; the Church Fathers attempted to move the will in order that their hearers would personally embrace celibacy themselves as a positive good to be sought.

It is difficult enough these days to find someone who will rigorously defend celibacy, let alone attempt to convince their readers to take up the discipline. Yet this is how the practice was first introduced to the faithful, not as a practice that the Church should accept, but as an ideal way of life that is actually superior to matrimony.

There are many facets to the vocations crisis - there is the man-made aspect of it, in which the crisis is artificially blown out of proportion for the purpose of creating lay-run parishes; like the canard of "religious liberty", there is the fact that most American Catholics cannot offer satisfactory answers to critics of the discipline. But can the major problem perhaps be that we have lost sight of celibacy/virginity as a treasure to be cherished? That in fighting so hard to defend it against a hostile world without and a skeptical Church within, we have contented ourselves with defending the existence of celibacy alongside of marriage when we should have been praising it as a superior vocation to marriage? As is the case with so many other issues in the Church today, can our problem be not that we are expecting too much, but that we have been habitually aiming too low?

"As a Church living in expectation of glory to be revealed she will find ever greater strength to proclaim the value of celibacy that is lived for the Kingdom of God." (John Paul II, ad Limina Address, "The Church of the Millennium Bears Witness to Christ with No Fear of Displeasing the World," L'Osservatore Romano English ed., April 25, 1988, 5,8).

The Fittingness of Labels (Portuguese)

Though officially I am still on hiatus, I wanted to do a little something special in honor of the Feast of Pentecost. I have always been amazed that, according to the analytics I have tracking this website, a sizable minority of the people who read this blog are Portuguese speakers - many from Brazil, but many from Portugal as well. Therefore, in honor of the Feast of Pentecost, when the Church spoke the languages of all nations, I am publishing an article in another language: Portuguese, which you can find below. The article is about these mainstream Catholics who talk about how using labels like "traditional Catholic" or "charismatic Catholic" are redundant because "just Catholic is enough." While I totally see where they are coming from, I disagree and think there is a utility for labels when discussing trends within the Catholic faith.

To read the article in English via Mediafire, please click here. If you choose to comment, please remember that I do not speak Portuguese; a friend of mine translated this for me.

Enjoy!

Quando eu li pela primeira vez o artigo “Católico. E tenho dito.” (“Catholic. Nuff Said”) por Marc Barnes sobre a superfluidade de se usar rótulos para designar grupos ou movimentos dentro do catolicismo, eu comecei a trabalhar numa exaustiva crítica ponto a ponto, mas eventualmente abandonei a ideia, porque minha resposta se tornou muito longa e me levou a muitas outras tangentes. Isso porque Barnes está correto em algumas coisas e errado em outras e sem querer enfastiar meus leitores com algo tedioso, decidi contrariamente. Eu recomendo que você leia o artigo do Barnes antes de ler isto; ele basicamente afirma que rótulos não têm lugar dentro da Igreja. Aqueles que dissentem ou espalham heresia, não deveríamos chamá-los “católicos liberais”, porque isso basicamente os legitimiza, sugerindo que ‘catolicismo liberal’ é apenas um tipo de catolicismo no espectro católico, quando de fato é um desvio total do espírito do catolicismo. Por outro lado, àqueles grupos que são fiéis à Igreja não se pode adicionar nada com adjetivos como “tradicional”, “fiel”, “ortodoxo” ou o que seja; ser católico é ser “universal” e não se pode adicionar nada ao universal, tanto quanto não se pode dividir a eternidade. Portanto, enquanto rótulos são úteis paracategorizar heresias fora da Igreja (arianos, pelagianos, calvinistas etc.), eles ou são inúteis ou danosos quando aplicados a movimentos ainda dentro da âmbito da Igreja. Barnes destaca “católico tradicionalista” como um rótulo que ele acha particularmente inútil, pois ele parece pensar que ele coloca muita ênfase na Missa como um monumento, e não o suficiente na Missa como uma realidade vida e presente.

Ao invés de examinar as declarações de Barnes ponto a ponto, eu decidi oferecer um ponto de vista contrário, que pode lidar com os pontos do Barnes aqui e ali, mas cuja intenção não é tanto uma refutação, quanto uma visão por outro ângulo, ultimamente vindicando o uso de rótulos em geral e o rótulo “católico tradicionalista” em particular.

Eu escrevi sobre este tópico anteriormente, em resposta a um artigo similar por George Kendall, que havia declarado no Wanderer que “Não existe catolicismo tradicional. Existe apenas catolicismo e não-catolicismo. Se você é católico, você é tradicional. Se não, você é não-católico.” (George A. Kendall.  "More on the Sacrifice of the Community to Progress". Wanderer, Feb. 2009). A minha resposta a isso pode ser encontrada  aqui. O que podemos dizer sobre isso? Façamos algumas observações, compreendendo que a principal questão é: pode qualquer palavra modificadora jamais ser aplicada ao substantivo “católico” que adicione qualquer real valor? Ou, como Barnes diz, “qualquer modificação limitadora na palavra ‘católico’ é uma contradição em termos”?

Primeiro ponto:  Rótulos devem ter algum tipo de uso significativo ou então pessoas não os usariam. Este argumento procede da forma em que pessoas usam as palavras de fato. Barnes argumenta que não deveríamos fazer distinções como “católico tradicional” e “católico carismático”, porque ambas são expressões da catolicidade da Igreja. Entretanto, na vida real, pessoas usam os rótulos “tradicional” e “carismático” regularmente e isto significa que esses rótulos têm algum significado real, ou então ninguém os usaria. Adjetivos criam distinções; “cadeira” é um conceito geral, mas nosso conceito de cadeira se torna mais refinado se introduzimos os termos “cadeira de madeira” ou “cadeira de aço” – eles denotam duas formas diferentes de ser uma cadeira e são ferramentas lógicas que ajudam a mente a se mover de verdade a verdade. Neste caso, “tradicional” e “carismático” refletem duas formas diferentes de ser católico; se as duas formas são de igual valor é outra questão, mas o ponto é que quando as pessoas usam esses termos, elas estão chegando às distinções concretas que nos auxiliam a falar sobre as realidade dentro da Igreja. Elas não são supérfluas ou sem significado, ou então não seriam empregadas tão frequentemente no vocabulário cotidiano.

Segundo ponto, mesmo quanto a distinção expressa por um modificador pode ser inferida no conceito que ele modifica, modificadores ainda podem ser apropriados a fim de enfatizar algum aspecto em particular daquele conceito. Por exemplo,  tomemos a frase “católico romano”. Bem, não está a  romanitas da Igreja expressa no conceito de catolicidade? Afinal, ser católico é estar em união com o Papa, o bispo de Roma, o sinal visível da unidade da Igreja na terra. O conceito de união com Roma é inerente ao conceito de catolicidade. Pelo raciocínio de Barnes, não deveríamos ter ocasião para jamais usar o modificador “romano” com a palavra “católico”, a não ser que talvez estivéssemos discutindo especificamente o Rito Romano. Porém, vemos que a frase “católico romano” é usada muito amplamente, como próprio sinônimo de “católico”, porque a frase ressalta a unidade da Igreja ao redor do bispo de Roma. Podemos similarmente notar os muitos títulos para Nosso Senhor e Nossa Senhora que se fixam em aspectos particulares de Suas pessoas, apesar de quase tudo que alguém poderia dizer em louvor a Jesus ou Maria poderia ser resumido em seus títulos “Cristo” ou ”Mãe de Deus”. Portanto um modificador pode às vezes ser usado não apenas para fazer uma distinção, mas também para elaborar um aspecto em particular de uma ideia maior.

Terceiro, católicos usaram outros títulos para eles mesmos através da história. Durante a controvérsia ariana, católicos ortodoxos referiam-se a si mesmos como homoousianos, para distinguir a verdade do ensinamento herético homoiousiano dos arianos. Apesar de que ser católico é ser homoousiano, os católicos daquela época pensaram que era uma distinção útil e necessária chamar a si mesmos “homoousianos” em adição a “católicos”, devido à confusão prevalente na Igreja naquele tempo.

Similarmente, no século V, sabemos que aqueles que recusaram o consentimento aos cânones do Concílio de Calcedônia foram subsequentemente conhecidos como heréticos monofisitas. Mas o que não é comumente lembrado é que aqueles que confirmaram Calcedônia e as duas naturezas também adotaram um título, chamando a si mesmos calcedonianos, de católicos calcedonianos, com o propósito de distingui-los do crescente cisma monofisita. Eles poderiam simplesmente ter dito que eram “católicos”, já que a crença nas duas naturezas de Cristo é algo essencial ao catolicismo. Porém, novamente, devido à confusão prevalente na Igreja, eles acharam que o rótulo “calcedoniano” era apropriado. Autores subsequentes sobre a história da Igreja também apropriaram os termos sem insinuar que eles diminuem em nada o termo “católico”.

No século XVIII, os racionalistas e opositores da Igreja adotaram o termo “ultramontanistas” para descrever aqueles que se opunham os movimentos das igrejas nacionais inspiradas no galicanismo. Embora originalmente um termo de escárnio, “ultramontanista” foi abraçado pelos fiéis católicos leais ao Papa como um termo de afeição, expressando lealdade à Santa Sé e “ultramontanista” foi adicionado à palavra “católico”, apesar de que, como a  Enciclopédia Católica diz, "[o termo] é aplicável a todos os católicos romanos dignos do nome...seria supérfluo perguntar se ultramontanismo e catolicismo são a mesma coisa: seguramente, aqueles que combatem o ultramontanismo estão de fato combatendo o catolicismo, mesmo que neguem seu desejo de se oporem.” De novo, devido a uma controvérsia na Igreja e aos cismas dos josefitas, febronianos e racionalistas, um modificador em particular foi adicionado ao conceito geral de “católico” para colocar em relevo um aspecto em particular da catolicidade da Igreja – a jurisdição suprema e universal do Papa sobre a Igreja.

Quarto,  apesar de várias práticas diferentes poderem ser encontradas sob a égide católica, nem todas são de igual valor ou refletem igualmente a catolicidade da Igreja e, portanto, rótulos são apropriados para diferenciar esses movimentos. Barnes diz que o uso de rótulos concede um tipo de legitimidade e igualdade a tudo que é rotulado; mas a ausência de rótulos também pode fazê-lo. Por exemplo, tomemos a distinção entre catolicismo carismático e catolicismo tradicional. A Forma Extraordinária da Missa, em sua essência, vem desde o tempo de S. Gregório Magno, foi um produto de um desenvolvimento orgânico do Rito Romano pela era patrística e tem sido usada pela Igreja por séculos e louvada pelos santos como o mais glorioso ato de louvor que o homem pode oferecer a Deus. A história do Rito Romano está enlaçada com o desenvolvimento e identidade a Igreja como um todo. A Renovação Carismática, por outro lado, data da  Renovação Protestante da Rua  Asuza em 1906, foi adotada pela Igreja Católica apenas nos anos 1960, não foi abraçada universalmente dentro do Rito Romano e tem sido permitida dentro da Igreja apenas sob forma de tolerância. Não se pode dizer, de forma alguma, que o catolicismo carismático goza da mesma linhagem, universalidade, louvor ou valor que o Rito Romano tradicional. Porém, se removermos nossos rótulos, dizendo que não podemos falar de catolicismo tradicional ou catolicismo carismático, mas apenas de “catolicismo”, então ambos tornam-se de igual valor e igual autoridade, quando de fato um é a prática histórica da Igreja e o outro é uma inovação que por alguma razão tem sido tolerada e embasada por alguns bispos. Portanto, o rótulo “tradicional” é útil para distinguir o catolicismo histórico de modas modernas.

Em suma, rótulos podem diminuir a catolicidade, mas eles não necessariamente o fazem. Rótulos dentro da Igreja tentem a se tornar muito úteis quanto há uma grande parcela de confusão sobre a identidade católica, como houve durante a controvérsia ariana, as controvérsias cristológicas do século V e as disputas entre o Papado e as igrejas nacionais nas décadas que levaram à definição da infalibilidade papal – eles entram em jogo quando a Igreja entra numa situação “remanescente”, onde a ortodoxia parece subjugada pela heterodoxia, situações onde “o mundo despertou e gemeu ao ver-se ariano”, nas palavras de Jerônimo – situações em que há disputas amargas sobre a identidade católica, como as que temos hoje, com a Igreja repleta de dissidentes que permanecem canonicamente em boa reputação com a Igreja (ao menos no que se refere ao foro externo), enquanto a atacam de dentro, com 85% dos católicos descrendo na Presença Real e praticando a contracepção, com mesmo católicos bem-intencionados perseguindo modas como Merjugorje ou introduzindo espiritualidades fundamentalmente não-católicas como a Renovação Carismática ou o movimento de oração centrante do monge Basil Pennington – com a própria tradição maldita por muitos e rejeitada até por aqueles que deveriam ser os seus mais ardentes defensores – em todas essas circunstâncias, simplesmente dizer “católico” não necessariamente convém toda  a informação necessária em um dado contexto. Um modificador como “tradicional” é apropriado às vezes e ao contrário do que Barnes diz, não são modificadores mas a falta deles que leva a uma igualdade inapropriada entre posições que não são de forma alguma iguais.

Claro, devemos recordar que qualquer rótulo emendado a “católico” é apenas uma convenção; nossa identidade não está ultimamente amarrada com um modificador. Se a Igreja Católica como um todo zelosamente abraçasse a tradição, retornasse à obediência e à disciplina e arrumasse a casa liturgicamente, então eu concordaria que um modificador não seria necessário. Entendo que aqueles que não abraçam a totalidade da Tradição da Igreja estão de fato diminuindo sua catolicidade e não a exemplificando. Ainda assim, enquanto essa situação persistir, rótulos continuarão porque eles continuam a ajudar as pessoas a fazer distinções reais. As distinções provavelmente não deveriam existir; não deveria haver um “movimento carismático católico” ou um movimento Medjugorje ou o que seja – mas essas coisas de fato existem, então a nossa linguagem deve tomá-las em conta e sua relação em respeito a católicos que apenas amam a liturgia
tradicional da Igreja – em outras palavras, católicos tradicionais.

On Hiatus

Good day!

I am going to be taking a little bit of time off from this blog. My life is insanely busy at the moment with the various duties I have due to my state in life. I expect probably a month or so, though I may have something posted for Pentecost.

I will continue to update the USC website as I can, however. Hopefully this month I can plug away at it and get a lot of things going that I have been brainstorming about.

Thank you all for your continued patronage of this blog.

Boniface
Founder, Unam Sanctam Catholicam

Crusading, Homiletics, Mysticism and More on USC!

I have not had a lot of time to write lately; a lot of things going on in my personal and professional life, but I have been doing a tremendous amount of reading and know that this will bear fruit in the near future as I get some more time to devote to writing, which is my favorite past time.

But, for now, here are some recent articles on the Unam Sanctam Catholicam website:

Books of the Liturgical Choir: The latest installation in our series on liturgical music and Gregorian Chant, examining the history and content of the Books of the Liturgical Choir of the Roman Rite.

Crusaders and Conversion: Historical inquiry into the question of whether, and to what degree, the Crusaders used violence or the threat of violence to bring about conversion of Muslims.

Introducing Liturgical Quod Libets: A new feature on the USC website in which we examine contested points in the Novus Ordo liturgy and attempt to resolve them using the Church's documents, history and common sense.

The "Wholesome Sweetness" of Good Homilies: A lesson in homiletics from St. Augustine of Hippo, taken from his classic work De Doctrina Christiana.

The Need for Theological Precision: A demonstration on the need for greater theological precision in modern Magisterial statements, using the example of the definitions of "scandal" given in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Revisiting the Cloud of Unknowing: A brief look at the spirituality of this classic work of late medieval mysticism.

St. Blane of Scotland (sancti obscuri)
St. Hybald of Bardney (sanci obscuri)

Movie Reviews
Masada (1981)
The Bourne Legacy (2012)
Act of Valor (2012)

Some other new things coming up:

I was unaware all this time that, despite the fact that my free RCIA outlines are viewable through the Mediafire site I am storing them on, they cannot be downloaded unless you install some very questionable and spammy looking software from Mediafire. Therefore, over the Spring I am going to be converting them from Mediafire over to Scribd so they can be not only viewed but downloaded as well. Hopefully this will be complete by summer.

In other news, my article on Cardinal Kasper admitting intentional ambiguity in the Vatican II documents became the most viewed page in the history of this blog, beating out long-standing champion Is Padre Pio Incorrupt? The article was linked up both on the Remnant website and on that of National Catholic Register, which no doubt helped with the hits.

Bless you for your continued patronage of this site.

Bergoglio contradicts pundits account

Why is there so much disinformation about Pope Francis' past as Cardinal Bergolgio? I ask this not coming from any perspective, but just from the view of a layman who is trying to figure out what sort of individual our new pope is. To this day people are still disputing the status of the Extraordinary Form in the federal city of Buenos Aires; conservatives insist Summorum Pontificum was implemented with zeal by Bergoglio while Rorate Caeli has brought forward very convincing evidence suggesting that it was not, which is still being denied by many in the mainstream Catholic blogosphere.

Then there was the rumor about Pope Francis refusing the mozzetta and telling Cardinal Marini, "You put it on; this carnival is over," followed by another rumor that that first rumor was unsubstantiated. There was the story about the Pope banishing Cardinal Law, followed by vehement statements by Fr. Tomas Rosica and Fr. Federico Lombardi that this story was completely made up.

Here is the most recent case of confusion-disinformation:

When Pope Francis was first elected, this picture was circulated around the Internet, suggesting that he had participated in an ecumenical prayer gathering and allowed himself to be "blessed" by a Protestant minister. The Remnant, as well as some more mainstream blogs, chimed in and stated that Bergoglio was not in fact blessed by a Protestant minister; what really happened, they said, was that Bergoglio knelt down to receive a blessing from Fr. Cantalamessa when the Protestant minister stepped in to add his 'two cents' and blessed Cardinal Bergoglio without his explicit knowledge or permission. Everyone breathed a sigh of relief.

Now we have Pope Francis in his own words contradicting the revisionist version of the story. With the appearance of Bergoglio's 2010 book On Heaven and Earth contains his own account of the event, which he discusses in the context of speaking about undue "rigidity":

At another stage, Francis warns of the dangers of “rigid religiosity” and “fundamentalism.”

“This type of rigid religiosity is disguised with doctrines that claim to give justifications, but in reality deprive people of their freedom and do not allow them to grow as persons,” he says. “A large number end up living a double life.”

Francis acknowledges that he’s felt the sting of that rigidity himself, especially in criticism of his pastoral style over the years.

He describes once attending an ecumenical service in Argentina that brought 7,000 Evangelicals and Catholics together, where the Evangelical pastor asked if it would be okay for everyone to pray for him.

Francis says he knelt down to receive the blessing (among other things, anticipating his now-famous gesture the evening of his election to the papacy,) and the next week a traditionalist magazine carried the shot under the headline, “Buenos Aires sede vacante: Archbishop commits the sin of apostasy.” (source)

So, Bergoglio knelt down to receive a blessing from Cantalamessa and the Protestant stepped in to add his own 'two cents', unbeknownst to the Cardinal? According to Bergoglio himself, it was the Protestant who asked him if he could receive a blessing, and Bergolgio knelt before the Protestant with full knowledge of what the Protestant minister was doing.

Thus, Bergoglio himself, in his 2010 book, contradicts the accounts of the pundits who were offering the Cantalamessa excuse to explain away the event.

It is not my point here to comment upon the propriety of Bergoglio doing this. My point is to ask why is there so much misinformation about this pontiff?  It is not that two sides are disagreeing on the meaning of the facts; it is tremendously difficult to get a straight answer on what the facts are. Why is it so hard to get the facts? Why so much misinformation, and who is behind it? Even his daily homilies are only being reported anecdotally, with out the published text.

I am not in any way blaming Pope Francis for any of these ambiguities. I am voicing my frustration that well-meaning Catholics who simply want to know what kind of man the pope is cannot get straight information. This is tremendously frustrating, and I suspect the answer is that a certain group of people have  a vested interest in putting a particular spin on things. Strange times, indeed.

Kasper Admits Intentional Ambiguity

Cardinal Walter Kasper made a stunning statement in the pages of L'Osservatore Romano this past Friday. In offering some reflections on the challenges facing the Church and the continued (perpetual) problem of the "true implementation of Vatican II", Kasper, speaking with reference to the documents of the Council, stated:

"In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction." (Cardinal Walter Kasper,  L'Osservatore Romano, April 12, 2013)

In the Cardinal's statements, we basically have an affirmation of a fundamental thesis of Michael Davies and most Traditionalists: that the Council documents themselves have ambiguities in them and are subject to a multitude of interpretations. This concept of Conciliar ambiguity has been denied by many conservative/pop apologists, who insist that the Council documents are plain as day and it is only the malice of dissenters pushing a false implementation that is responsible for our current confusion.

Traditionalists, however, and ironically, Kasper, too, have insisted, however, that the destruction that followed the Council can be read back into the documents themselves. Even if the Council Fathers did not intend for the disaster that followed the Council (and most agree they did not), the documents themselves were constructed in such a way as to permit progressive interpretations when put into the hands of progressive theologians or bishops. Contra the conservative mantra of "perfect documents - imperfect implementation", Kasper affirms the Traditionalist critique of "imperfect documents lead to imperfect implementation." Benedict XVI had made the same point. There is an intimate connection between the documents and their implementation.

But Kasper does more than just admit that "the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict"; he goes on to state that these ambiguities, these potential conflicts, were part of an intentional program. He does not simply say the texts will bear various interpretations, but that these ambiguous passages were "compromise formulas" brought forth to placate two opposing sides, in such a way that they can be interpreted in an orthodox manner, but just as easily can be twisted by the progressives to lend seeming support to their mischief.

These are what the late Michael Davies called the "timebombs" in the conciliar texts. Davies wrote, "These 'timebombs' were ambiguous passages inserted into the official documents by the liberal periti or experts - passages which would be interpreted in an untraditional, progressivist sense after the Council closed." (Michael Davies, Liturgical Timebombs, Rockford, Ill: Tan Books, 2004, pg. 23). Davies borrowed the phrase "timebombs" from Archbishop Lefebvre's book A Bishop Speaks, which had basically put forward the same argument. In Kasper's interview, we have nothing less than an admission that there were not only timebombs, but that they were placed there intentionally, and in this he and Lefebvre are in agreement. This is a stunning admission.

Kasper made many other interesting statements that undermine other aspects of the conservative narrative of the Council. For example:

“For most Catholics, the developments put in motion by the council are part of the church’s daily life. But what they are experiencing is not the great new beginning nor the springtime of the church, which were expected at that time, but rather a church that has a wintery look, and shows clear signs of crisis.”

This is contra to the prevailing mantra from the JPII era that we are experiencing a 'new springtime" and a candid admission that there is in fact a crisis, despite the fact that some, such as Cardinal Timothy Dolan, continue to deny this plain truth. This simple admission of fact, that the Church is in crisis and is not experiencing the promised post-conciliar springtime, is of considerable importance in moving forward, and whatever else we may think of Kasper, I appreciate his sincerity here.

Speaking of the confusion that ensued after the Council, Kasper said:

"For those who know the story of the twenty councils recognized as ecumenical, this [the state of confusion] will not be a surprise. The post-conciliar times were almost always turbulent. The [Second] Vatican, however, is a special case."

This important admission, which I have also stated elsewhere, really debunks the conservative Catholic talking-point that what we are experiencing in the modern Church is normal, since there is 'always confusion after a Council.' That may be true, but Kasper notes that the confusion that followed Vatican II is "a special case", different from the turbulence of previous periods. This, too, is a point that is often made by Traditionalists, who see in the Second Vatican Council not just another ecclesial event with the standard level of confusion after the fact, but rather a new kind of ecclesial event that cannot be so easily classed alongside the Councils of the past.

Cardinal Kasper affirms the positions of Michael Davies, Lefebvre and the Traditionalists? These are strange times, indeed.

There is a paraphrase of Kasper's comments here, or you can read the original through Google translate at this blog. As of yet, the L'Osservatore Romano Englsih site has not posted the articles from the previous week, but I will link it up when it becomes available.

Like this article? Please follow us on Facebook or consider subscribing to this blog!

The Flame of Endurance

I have a certain acquaintance from a few years back who was raised Protestant. He gradually came to see recognize the claims of the Catholic Church through independent study and was convinced that he needed to enter the Church. He knew very much about the "academic" part of Catholicism; that is, he could offer all the arguments in favor of the Church's claims, knew a lot about her history, and could explain Catholic theology better than most Catholics. He was willing to cross any river or burn any bridge necessary to come home to Rome. When he understood that Latin was the official language of the Catholic Church, he went off an enrolled in a two-year course in Latin to learn the language of his beloved. I was particularly moved by this; how many people, if confronted with a Church speaking a foreign language, would demand that the Church change rather than they change? But this individual's attitude was, "Well, if the Church of Christ speaks Latin, I'd better learn Latin." If only more people took this approach...

Unfortunately, the Church he studied his way into, the Church he fell in love with, in fact did not exist. He spent two years studying Latin because he thought Latin was the language of the Church - and in a technical sense it certainly is - but my friend gradually became saddened as he realized that Latin had been all but banished from Catholic liturgical usage.

The intellectual arguments he learned in defense of papal authority lost their edge as he witnessed the popes apparent embarrassment at the traditional teaching, and their subsequent consistent refusal to exercise the power that they spent centuries previously insisting upon. The boldness that characterized Gregory VII's interactions with Henry IV or Innocent III's dealing with King John had fled, or been banished, from the Vatican. The Church had insisted for centuries that it wielded a sword of spiritual power bequeathed to it by Christ - why now did it refuse to wield the sword that God gave it?

He was saddened and confused that the simple yet powerfully eloquent teachings of the saints found no parallels in modern writing or preaching, and could not understand why the beautiful structures that were the glory of Christendom were being replaced and in many cases destroyed in favor of ugly modern structures constructed on secular humanist principles. Most of all, he was distraught that the Church that had produced so many martyrs, who had suffered death in defense of the purity of the faith, was now no longer proclaiming the uniqueness of that Faith in undiluted purity, but seemed intent upon affirming non-Catholics where they were, implying to them that their own religious traditions were also salvific, and that there was really no need for formal union with the Catholic Church.

The fact that the above mention demolition of the traditions of the Church was not happening externally but was being aided and abetted by the Princes of the Church and the successors of the Apostles was especially devastating. He realized that the Church today is very weak, weak because it chooses to be. Weak because it will not clearly proclaim the message entrusted to it by Christ, weak because its people and prelates do not seek holiness, weak because the Church refuses to take up the weapons and armor our Lord left with it and instead tries to muddle through on its own.

I caught up with this acquaintance a few weeks ago. I honestly expected him to be the sort of person who would have gone over to the SSPX, but surprisingly enough he told me he was attending a standard Novus Ordo parish. We talked about the Church and the future of Christianity and what one could concretely "do" about the problems we are facing. He said that the Church ultimately belongs to Christ, and its destiny is in His hands, but when I asked him what he thought we should be doing to help restore our Faith, he said that years of anger and given way to a more peaceable reflection and realization that the only thing that would restore the Faith, the only thing that has ever restored the Faith, is saints. We need saints. "I am quietly striving for sanctity" he told me, "in my own way, taking the saints and the fathers as my guides, and in many respects, pretending like the current crisis is not happening."

He of course did not mean pretending the crisis isn't happening in the sense of denying it, but it did mean that whatever else is going on in the world, a person's life and destiny is between them and God alone. The path has been charted centuries ago, the road marks are all there, the saints are guiding us onward. This remains true whatever is going on in the Church. His attitude seemed to be, "If things are bad, well, this is another chance to practice detachment and another opportunity for holiness." In a certain sense, nothing has changed - the soul still must seek God, God still makes this grace available, and we still must respond to His grace as in every age.

I was heartened by this response, because too often the mess we see ourselves in can lead us to despair. I myself have been guilty of it- focusing so exclusively on the negatives and the things that are wrong that the virtue of hope gets eaten away until we have nothing left to go on. Ironically, the destruction caused by those who view the Church merely as a human institution to be reformed at will can have the effect of leading us to the same conclusion - the Church as a human institution whose restoration depends on human will alone.

This was part of the philosophy that led me to create this blog's sister site, a place where Catholic Tradition and history are studied and reflected upon, almost without reference to the modern crisis, inasmuch as that is possible. One can never escape the age one lives in, but it is helpful to remember that God put us here for a reason. He wanted us to exist here and now rather than in some other age, and this presumes that He has allowed us to live through these times with very good reason. It is reminder of His plan, which itself is a reminder that He is in control and that we have to keep alive the virtue of hope, by which we not only anticipate the triumph of God back actually appropriate it, making it real even now in a mystical way. This is the foretaste of heaven. This is the spark that vivifies the Church, the flame that gives endurance to the saints and will give endurance to those who remember to seek God's will in all things and desire Him above all things. We must persevere in faith, yes, but allow faith to nourish the virtue of hope, and through the fire of hope to take hold of charity.

I desire the liturgy to be restored as soon as possible. But I desire God's will above that, and if God has willed for us "seventy more years" of exile as He did for the Jews, then I love His will more than my preference. I desire the Church to be glorified and grow and win souls, but God's will. We know how it ends, and knowing this, we can enjoy true rest, true interior peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, even if the Church is in turmoil, even if the faith is forgotten everywhere other than in our own hearts, even if the very world itself collapses around us. In all this, God is in control, Christ is still on the throne, and "the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the coming glory to be revealed to us." (Rom. 8:18)

New Articles on Unam Sanctam Website

Sorry I have not been as prolific this past month as usual, but much of my spare time was understandably taken up following the Conclave and the first days of the ever-interesting Franciscan pontificate. I did manage to get a few things up though. Please take a look, and if you find anything of interest or edification on this blog or the sister-site, please share liberally with others. Blessed Easter to you all.

• Benedict XVI and the New Clericalism: Why attempts to make the Church more inclusive and less "clericalist" have actually led us into an era of unprecedented clericalism.
  
  
• Stercoranist Objections: Investigation into the obscure medieval objection to Transubstantiation that a real change in the substance means that our Lord's Body would pass through our digestive system and be defecated out.
  
  
• Humility and Station in Life: How humility was exercised by persons of high station in life, according to medieval thought.
  
  
• Can Drums be Used at Mass: Wading through the issues in this question of whether drums can or should be used in the Novus Ordo. You can probably deduce my answer, but I back it up from all the relevant documents.
  
  
• Homosexual and Heterosexual Household Studies: Hard science disproves the lie that children raised in homosexual households are just as healthy as those raised in heterosexual households.

Movie Reviews
Argo (2012)
Looper (2012)
The Watch (2012)

More Straw-Men: Fr. Longnecker on Pope Francis

I don't usually take other bloggers to task on here, but every now and then I see something that I can't resist. In this case, it is a recent post by Fr. Dwight Longnecker entitled "Is Pope Francis a Liturgical Liberal?" Let me preface this by saying that I usually read Fr. Longnecker with delight and have no real bones to pick with him. I respect him and I offer this critique in the spirit of charity. That being said, I do have to call this one like I see it. Let's take a look at Father's article and I will offer my concerns.

The point of Fr. Longnecker's article is to address concerns voiced by certain Traditionalists who are "grumbling" that Pope Francis may be a "liturgical liberal." Let's begin by keeping this thesis in mind: Father Longnecker's article poses the question, and he begins it by noting that some have accused Francis of being liberal liturgically, of being in favor of clown masses, puppets, balloons, etc. You know what I mean.

Fr. Longnecker begins by affirming his own traditionalist preferences. He says:

"Everyone should stop and take a deep breath and get a sense of priorities. I am myself, on the more traditionalist side of the liturgy wars. I dislike anodyne, sentimental church music, a game show host style of priestly celebration, tacky day-glo vestments and the whole modernist dumbed down liturgical style. I’m all for the Spirit of the Liturgy and reverence and beauty in the liturgy. I’m down on big round churches, sloppy servers and feel good homilies in the style of a Hallmark card."

Good. No problems here. Now he goes on to offer us, what is in my opinion, a straw man/bait and switch:

"However, there are permissible variations in the way Mass is celebrated. Pope Francis may well turn out to be more “low church” and folksy in his style. That doesn’t mean he is going to ban the Latin Mass. He may be more informal and personable in his celebration of Mass. That doesn’t mean he’s going to send his liturgical police to confiscate all the lacy cottas and birettas in the world. Just because he wears a chasuble with grapes and wheat on it doesn’t mean he’s going to make everybody sing Eagle’s Wings every Sunday."

Whoa! Who said anything about banning the Latin Mass or confiscating birettas or forcing a certain musical style? The initial question Fr. Longnecker set out to answer was whether Pope Francis himself is a liturgical liberal, not whether Pope Francis will try to force us to become liturgical liberals, or whether or not he will 'attack' tradition. I am not sure what traditionalist "grumbling" he was referring to at the beginning of his article, but as far as I know there is almost a universal consent among traditionalists and non-traditionalists alike that the Extraordinary Form is most likely safe, that Summorum Pontificum is not going anywhere, and that everything Benedict XVI did will remain in place. Fr. Longnecker is answering the question, "Whether Pope Francis come down on Catholic traditionalists", but the question he initially posed is "Whether Pope Francis is a liturgical liberal", which are two totally different questions. He is answering a question nobody asked.

Fr. Longnecker then goes on to make what I concede is an important point that many of us in the United States do often miss:

"There are a couple of things to remember here. First of all, in the United States the liturgy wars are part of a bigger cultural divide within the American Catholic church. Liberal liturgy very often also means liberal theology. Often the big box Catholic Churches with their praise bands and “gather them in” style are also full of cafeteria Catholics and left wing Obama-voting ideologues, while the traddy congregations are full of right wing members of the John Birch society with “You’ll get my gun when you pry my cold dead fingers from around it” bumper stickers on their cars. (I’m exaggerating to make a point). Naturally, therefore, the liturgy starts being about much more than the liturgy…

In the developing world however, the more informal modes of worship are much more of a general cultural phenomenon. An informal style there doesn’t necessarily carry all the baggage it does here. Just because a priest, bishop or pope is a bit more informal in his style of celebrating doesn’t mean he is a theological liberal or will compromise the faith. Indeed, everything about Pope Francis indicates that he is not only completely orthodox in theology and moral teaching, but that he has suffered for being so."

Good points. In the United States, liturgical progressivism goes hand in hand with theological dissent; the two are virtually identical. But in Latin America, it is a bit different. When I initially complained about many of the liturgies I was seeing in Latin America, a friend of mine who had lived there simply shrugged and said, "That's the way they do it there." Fr. Longnecker points out that the fact that a prelate in Latin America prefers an "informal" and "folksy in his style" does not mean he is necessarily theologically heterodox. Therefore, "everything about Pope Francis indicates that he is not only completely orthodox in theology and moral teaching, but that he has suffered for being so."

Well, fine, but we were not talking about whether Pope Franics is a theological liberal, heterodox, or whatever; we are not talking about theology, we were talking about whether or not Francis is a liturgical liberal, which again is a totally different question from whether or not he is heterodox. And, even if Latin Americans do prefer such liturgies, is that alright? Should we be happy about that? Fr. Longnecker seems to think it is no big deal, and by talking about the "permissible variations in the way Mass is celebrated", is he suggesting that the scandalous Latin American Youth Masses are just another "permissible variation"? I would hope not.

He goes on:

"What strikes me about Pope Francis so far is that he celebrates Mass reverently and beautifully, but that his simplicity of life and his example of poverty means that he may not be as concerned about the “finer things” in Catholic worship. That doesn’t mean he’s going to ban everything that is beautiful, sacred and reverent. The give back with his informal style is that his preaching is heart felt and immediate."

That is over the top, Father. Who suggested he is going to "ban" anything, let alone "everything" that is sacred or beautiful? Nobody is suggesting that or anything close to that. Why keep coming back to this question of "banning" and "outlawing" things? Can a person not be considered a "liturgical liberal" unless they are actively working to prohibit certain things?

After offering some reflections on Pope Francis' simplicity, Fr. Longnecker wraps up his article:

"The bottom line is this: it should not be a question of either good liturgy or faithful proclamation of the gospel. Indeed fine liturgy is an important part of proclaiming the gospel. However, if I had to choose between a happy clappy pope who was a vital and dynamic witness to the truth and beauty of the Catholic faith, and a liturgically “proper” pope who was a sour, self righteous hypocrite, I’d take the happy clappy pope every time."

I am glad he recognizes that there is no real opposition between good liturgy and faithfully proclaiming the Gospel. But a hypothetical "happy clappy" pope whose offers liturgies that are questionable is by that fact not capable of being a vital and dynamic witness to the truth and beauty of the Catholic faith. There is an intimate connection between the lex orandi and the lex credendi, and it is not reasonable to talk, even hypothetically, about a leader who is a "vital witness" to the "truth and beauty" of the Faith but who offers liturgies that are abominations. A liturgy is a witness to the truth and beauty of the Faith, and one who offers an ugly liturgy cannot simultaneously operate as a vital witness to the truth and beauty of the Faith.

Similarly, who is he thinking of when he references a hypothetical self-righteous, dour pope? Benedict was the humblest and gentlest of men; ditto Pius XII, and again for Pius X. We certainly could have a pope who is liturgically proper but personally dour, but when is the last time that has happened? Not in recent times, at least. The threat of this happening is so nil that positing it as a hypothetical counter to bolster the desirability of a "happy clappy" by liturgically folksy pope is silly.

So overall, there are several problems with Fr. Longnecker's approach:

1) He posits the question of whether Francis is a liturgical liberal but then seems to restrict the definition of "liturgical liberal" to only those prelates who actively seek to suppress the Extraordinary Form and actively attack tradition. This is a very odd and narrow definition; I have never heard "liturgical liberal" defined as someone who actively and formally seeks to throw out tradition. That can certainly be one portion of liturgical liberalism, but that alone does not constitute liturgical liberalism.

2) He seems to admit of a bigger division between the lex orandi and the lex credendi than is prudent. When he comments that clown masses, puppet masses and all sorts of this nonsense common in Latin American Masses (as here in this now famous video) have no bearing whatsoever on the theological orthodoxy of the ecclesiastics involved, he is positing a very radical separation between the lex orandi and the lex credendi, suggesting that the lex orandi can be manipulated and deviated from without any corresponding "baggage" to the lex credendi. Can't the lesson of the whole disaster since 1969 be summed up by saying we learned the hard way that you can't mess with the lex orandi without screwing up the lex credendi? This doesn't mean all who like "folksy" Masses are heterodox, but it means that heterodoxy is more likely to spring up in places where the lex orandi is not respected, like in Latin America, where "folksy Masses" are the order of the day, and where liberation theology is rampant.

3) Fr. Longnecker points out that Pope Francis is not a theological liberal, and then acts as if this proves that he is not a liturgical liberal. The original question was whether or not the pope is a liturgical liberal, not whether he is theologically heterodox. Simply consoling us that the pope is not heterodox (which nobody said he was) does not vindicate of the charge of liturgical liberalism. Fr. Longnecker has failed to answer the question he posed. Can it be the question is too painful to answer?

It is not my intention here to answer the question of whether Pope Francis is a liturgical liberal. But there does seem to be confusion on exactly what a liturgical liberal is. Liturgical liberalism does not mean one must necessarily work to overthrow or outlaw the Extraordinary Form or traditional garments, practices, etc., nor does liturgical liberalism equate to theological heterodoxy, though the two do bear some relation to one another.

Liturgical liberalism in a prelate means that the prelate prefers, enjoys, supports, participates in, allows, facilitates on in any other way promotes liturgies that deviate from the rubrics, are excessively informal, incorporate foreign elements into the Mass (puppets, drums, dancing, whatever), and generally emphasize community participation and folksiness over the adoration of God. A prelate is a liturgical liberal is he (a) supports these sorts of Masses, and (b) celebrates them himself. He is a liturgical liberal if the above two things can be said about him. It is a question of preference. It is not a question of whether a bishop fought to outlaw anything (though that can be added on, as well), or whether a bishop is heterodox. Simply approving of these loose Masses and presiding at them is enough

Some time ago, I wrote an article challenging a priest who had published a similar argument with regards to communion in the hand; to a woman who asked whether communion in the hand was direspectful, the priest answered by saying communion in the hand was not a mortal sin. I said this was a straw-man argument and called it as such. Here we have the same argument: Fr. Longnecker asks whether Francis is a liturgical liberal and answers by saying he will not ban the Traditional Mass and is not a heretic. Again, I respect Fr. Longnecker and mean him no offense by questioning him here, but I don't think his article really got to the heart of the problem.