The Communal Orientation of Priestly Life

It is not uncommon these days to hear a lot of criticisms about the discipline of priestly celibacy.Of course, liberals and anti-Catholics have always condemned the custom, so that is nothing new; rather, I am speaking of individuals within the Catholic Church itself who are increasingly stressing the reformable nature of the discipline and suggesting that there may be good reasons for altering it.

In my opinion this is nothing other than a collapse of Catholic discipline before the force of modernity pushing the artificially contrived "vocations crisis." I am not going to argue that point here. Rather, I want to examine one of the common complaints made against clerical celibacy and draw attention to a point that is very often neglected in contemporary discussions.

This common critique of celibacy is that it is too challenging, too much of a struggle to expect of the priest. As a result, by imposing this on our priests we are setting them up to fail, so the argument runs. I would immediately respond that this need not always be the case; many saints have practiced celibacy and have described it as a precious sweetness. When practiced holistically in union with fervent prayer, apostolic labors, and penitential disciplines, celibacy can be a sweet yoke.

But let us grant the premise for the sake of argument. Celibacy can indeed be a challenge. Being abstinent until I was married at age 20 was very difficult at times, especially in a world when all of my friends were becoming sexually active around age 14. I don't claim it was easy, but I do claim it was worth it. This sort of abstinence is not the same thing as clerical celibacy, but it does give the average lay person an insight into how difficult celibacy can be at times.

Thus, I do not deny that many priests may struggle with fidelity to the practice of celibacy. Even if a priest does not fall into a formal lapse, I can imagine it is a challenge to remain faithful to it in spirit and mind. Living without the caresses and intimacies of a woman can be difficult.

But the real question we should ask is whether fidelity to this discipline is any more difficult now than it used to be?

I contest that it is more difficult, that living celibacy in this culture is more challenging than in prior generations. Of course, moving from a society that glorified celibacy to one that denigrates it is one reason. This is what we all know. The discipline itself has not gotten more difficult, the conditions in which priests are compelled to observe it have. And many priests do in fact report in anonymous surveys that the celibate state is a real challenge for them.

I propose that one of the major reasons there is so much struggle is not because of cultural considerations, but because of the very simple and overlooked problem of living arrangements. The fact of the matter is, the modern priest is more than likely forced to live out his celibate vocation in solitude, whereas his spiritual ancestors centuries or even a few decades ago lived it communally.

Our parish is one of the oldest parishes in the state of Michigan; in fact, the oldest English speaking parish. The rectory our priest lives in dates from the Victorian era and is set up to house four priests. Even though our parish, even now, is out in a rural region, even though it was a mission parish for much of its history, even though it seldom had more than 1,000 active families at any one time, nevertheless, even this parish was staffed with multiple priests for much of its history.

You may have noticed the same thing at other pre-Conciliar rectories - living arrangements in place for multiple priests. In our priest-starved Church, it seems miraculous that seemingly every parish, right down to the most rink-a-dink rural mission, should have more than one priest. Yet this was in fact the case. The priests of yesteryear lived in community. Yes, they observed celibacy, but they were never alone in this. They were always walking the same path with some brothers-in-arms who were fighting the same fight and who could understand them.

Priests, even parish priests, were meant to live in community, and I think we have forgotten that fact, as we have gotten too used to our single-priest parishes, or even our parishes where a priest visits only occasionally. The fact that we have gotten used to the arrangement does not mean it is normal let alone desirable. The traditional community context of priestly life provides the priest with all the support he needs in living out his vocation. To remove a priest from this communal context and still impose celibacy on him leads to several consequences:

First, there is no support. The priest has nobody on hand who understands his struggles, whether with celibacy or with any other cross of the priestly life. He must drive to another parish to talk to another priest. Thus, the support structure is considerably weakened. A priest in this situation feels his solitude much more profoundly, is more likely to suffer in silence, and is less likely to find a sympathetic pillar of support who truly understands his struggle. And don't tell me that placing newly ordained priests as associate pastors for two year assignments before they take their own parish is sufficient. The support needs to be continuous. Which priest will have a better time, he who returns home in the evening to a rectory with three other priests gathered in the parlor reading, smoking their pipes and encouraging one another, or he who returns home to an empty, desolate house?

Second, a priest living in solitude has much greater oppurtunity for "shenanigans." We will not belabor ourselves here defining "shenanigans", but you can use your imagination. Let's just say that a priest with three other priests living in community with him is less likely to have opportunity for "shenanigans" than a priest who has lived alone for ten years.

Finally, lack of community means no accountability. Who will encourage the weary priest to get up and say the Divine Office? Who will ensure that he says his Rosary every day? Who will be on hand to speak to the bishop if there are any troublesome irregularities noted? If the priest lives alone, then the answer is nobody. There is no other person on hand to hold the priest accountable for his personal conduct and prayer life. If a priest living in community were, for example, to leave off saying the Divine Office entirely, would not his brother priests notice this immediately and be in the right position to correct him? But suppose a priest who lives in solitude gives up saying the Divine Office, perhaps even for many years. Who will notice this? Who will be able to correct him? And if the priest gets used to having no one who holds him accountable, will his lapses not turn into a general pattern of lukewarmness and compromise, and the whole Church suffer as a result?

The benefits are clear, and the practice is hallowed by tradition. But, it might be objected, this all sounds fine and good, but so long as we are not getting vocations, this is all pointless - kind of like explaining to a poor man all the things he could do if only he had a million dollars. Without solving the problem of how to get more priests, discussing about how we would arrange these priests is idle speculation.

True, to some degree. Placing priests in community supports vocations, buttresses vocations, and makes them more fulfilling, but it cannot in itself directly create them. But we traditional-minded Catholics already know the key to vocations; we already know what sorts of communities and dioceses are reaping a rich harvest of vocations. The vocations crisis could be solved tomorrow if our leaders wanted it solved. And as more vocations come in, our bishops need to rediscover the communal orientation of priestly life. It is this communal life which serves as the foremost buttress of clerical celibacy.

We need priests to live together, in a community, as they were meant to. Then celibacy becomes sweeter, vocations more fulfilling, priests in turn become better, and consequently better role models, and thus we reap more vocations, have more priests to live toegther, celibacy becomes still easier, and so on, until our rectories are full again, parishes are being built instead of closed or clustered, and the "earth is filled with the knowledge of God as water fills the seas." (Hab. 2:14).

Recent USC Articles - Luther, Greenland, Sedevacantism and more!

There have been a lot of great posts on USC in the past month, though I have not been able to post as much as I would have liked. There's some wonderful stuff on Luther, Sedevacantism, biblical contradictions, a new RCIA lesson plan, and much more. Please check it all out, forward to your friends, and if you are so moved, consider making a donation to the upkeep of this blog and website. I put countless man hours into it, not because I seek anything, but because the Lord says "my people perish for lack of knowledge" (Hos. 4:6). Donations help me pay for different plug-ins for the website, pay the hosting fees, and other things associated with maintaining a web presence. And where else can you find this much cool material?

Okay, I am tooting my own horn a bit, but please consider it. Click the button below to donate; anything is appreciated, and I will remember you in my prayer intentions before our Lord.

I also want to introduce a new addition to the team whom you will never see but who is vitally important: John from Edinburgh, Scotland. John, noting that most of my website articles are pitifully laden with misspellings, typos and other grammatical problems, volunteered to take on the thankless task of sloughing through all my material to clean it up a bit. From here on out, you should not be seeing the typos anymore - Lord willing. God bless John.

Articles

Glosses reveal a Gnostic Luther: A collection of notes and glosses in Luther's own hand, only recently compiled, reveal that Luther, far from being an Augustinian, despised Augustine and admired the Manichees.

Sedevacantism and the Alleged Loss of the Four Marks: Reprint of an old Sedevacantist rebuttal article from the now defunct Athanasius Contra Mundum.

The Distraction of That One Sin: Some meditations on what to do if you feel your spiritual life is dominated by a struggle with a single sin.

A Visit to Greenland's Hvalsey Church: Undoubtedly one of the most remotest churches of the Middle Ages, and one of the best preserved.

Contradictions in the Bible, Part 2: Another 65 alleged contradictions rebutted.

Protestant Implications for Doctrine and Unity: Without an authoritative, visible Church on this earth, what do terms like "doctrine" and "unity" ultimately come down to in Protestantism?

Roman Frescoes and the English Martyrs: One of my favorite historical articles I've ever written, the interesting story of how some old Roman frescoes helped in the beatification of the English martyrs.

Movie Reviews

Brother Sun, Sister Moon (1972)
Courageous (2011)

Other

Teaching the Second Vatican Council (RCIA Lesson Plan)

Catholic Identity Conference Synopsis

This weekend I was blessed to be able to attend the 2013 Catholic Identity Conference in Weirton, West Virginia. I normally don't go to these sorts of events, as usually the money and time are not available. But, thanks be to God, I was able to find some time and fund the cost of the trip entirely from the proceeds from the Unam Sanctam website (before you start thinking I am making a ton of money, let me rephrase that to say that attending this conference exhausted the proceeds from the website). And who could resist the lineup of speakers? Chris Ferrara. Michael Matt. Michael Voris. John Vennari. John Rao, and many more. I have neither the time nor the competence to comment on every talk I heard, but I will summarize a few that really stuck with me.

Michael Matt of the Remnant (pictured above) gave a very thought-provoking synopsis of the current state of the traditional Catholic movement. The crux of his talk was that we need to start moving from a subjective to an objective defense of the traditional Mass and traditional Catholic piety. Too often we are content to say that we "prefer" the traditional Mass because of its beauty, because of how it ministers to our spiritual needs, etc. These are all great reasons for loving the old Mass, but they are ultimately subjective. There are very real objective arguments for Catholic tradition, arguments that still maintain the validity of the Novus Ordo while pointing out that the equal validity of the new and old liturgy does not mean strict equality. These arguments have already been laid down in their basics by Fr. Ripperger and summarized here by my at-large co-blogger Anselm. He also argued passionately for traditional Catholics to close ranks with each other, despite differences of opinions on many important matters, as well as with any Catholic who can honestly profess the Creed, in the interest of promoting tradition in a more positive manner, so that, in his words, the traditionalist movement no longer resembles "a firing squad arranged in a circle."

John Vennari's talk was on something I have spoken of before, precision of language. He noted that in Catholic tradition, one spoke about man's condition on this earth and a struggle between two "kingdoms", the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Satan (or, per St. Augustine, the City of God and the City of Man). These cities are in irreconcilable conflict, and to be saved, one must be translated from the Kingdom of Satan to the Kingdom of God. He contrasts this precise language with the more common but vaguer notions of the "Civilization of Love" versus the "Culture of Death" and opined on the insufficiency of the latter formulations. There is nothing particularly Christian about the "civilization of love", and this phrase lends itself to misunderstanding as a kind of loose union of Christians with all people of "good will," which in turns lends itself to a diminishing of the idea of conversion and translation from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light.

Michael Voris of Church Militant TV gave a talk on the homosexual crisis within the Church. His presentation consisted of a crosscut view of several dioceses around the country and their respective problems with homosexuality. The picture he painted was appalling. He tells of one story, related to him by a priest of the Archdiocese of Detroit, who stated that he refused to attend the Archdiocesan Christmas parties anymore because "he was sick of getting introduced to priests' boyfriends." The situation in Detroit is not unique. His research, culled from countless interview with priests and diocesan employees from around the country, reveal a picture of diocesan bureaucracies firmly under the power of the homosexual lobby. Given this fact, the assertions that the Church is not in crisis or that there is no problem with homosexuality in the Church are laughable.

As a side note, I want to mention that during the intermission, my friend and I had the opportunity to buy Michael Voris a drink and sat chatting with him in the lounge for over an hour. He was wonderfully down to earth, gentle, extremely humble, and not at all the bitter demagogue he is reputed to be.

Chris Ferrara gave a talk on the current state of quantum physics and its relation to Thomistic philosophy. While this talk was far too technical for me to summarize adequately here, the gist of the message was that the current knowledge we have of quantum mechanics actually confirms an Aristotelian-Thomistic worldview. The problem of the "indeterminacy of matter" (that particles and the quantum level seem to fluctuate between being a wave or a particle, being here or there, moving or not) that plagues quantum physicists is due to the fact that physicists do not understand quantum particles in terms of the prime matter of Aristotelian hylomorphism - that is, matter in a state of pure potency without any act. This state of pure potency explains why they are so indeterminate; they do not have the "form" to put them into act. Science thus far as been unable to explain why matter at the quantum level is indeterminate but possesses stability at the classic-Newtonian level. Ferrara posited that this was due to the fact that form, which puts the matter into act, is not empirically verifiable, but is imposed on the matter by God.We had a chance to chat with Ferrara for awhile afterwards about Austrian economists ("slippery fellows", according to Ferrara) among other things.

James Vogel spoke representing the Society of St. Pius X. I do not follow what goes on with the Society, but I thought Mr. Vogel represented them very well. The crux of his talk was this question: The SSPX has been known over the past few decades for their criticisms of some of the documents of Vatican II, which the Society believes are problematic. Mr. Vogel stated perhaps 5% of the teaching of Vatican II was questioned by the Society. However, since more and more people are beginning to look more critically at the documents, even critiquing them for ambiguity or discontinuity (as Athanasius Schneider and Walter Kasper did), why is the Society still in an irregular status for affirming the same things that many people in good standing are beginning to affirm?

I also had the chance to meet a couple readers of this blog in person, which is always cool. I also snapped this funny picture of John Vennari sleeping in a chair during the intermission:

On the Term "Extraordinary Form"

Recently a reader of this blog sent me a message of concern regarding the use of the term Extraordinary Form to describe the Mass according to the Missal of 1962. The commenter wrote:

I have a concern on constant using the EF term on this blog. In a sense provided by Summorum pontificum, that the NO and TLM are different expressions of the same lex orandi, and two forms of the Roman rite each having its own value and without any defects in any of them, I consider it unacceptable for a Traditionalist in the positive sense because it automatically implies that the NO is in no way inferior to the TLM and that it contains no defects, which in itself is deeply contrary to the main tenets of Traditionalism. So I find it very strange for this blog, which according to all other contents, surely is traditional, to constantly keep forcing this term.

Thank you for voicing the concern!

I personally think Extraordinary Form is a legitimate phrase to use to denote the TLM, for various reasons:

First, the phrase does not denote that both rites are equal or that the Novus Ordo does not have serious issues. The term denotes only that there are two expressions of the Roman Rite, which is all Benedict XVI meant to imply by using the term "Extraordinary Form"; to say there are two versions does not imply that the Ordinary Form is without problems (although it does imply the Ordinary Form is valid and licit, which neither I nor most Traditionalists deny). Benedict XVI himself did not think this language was a problem. After all, he called the Novus Ordo a "banal, on the spot production." Since he never recanted or altered this opinion, we can presume that he still thought the same at the time he gave us the terminology of Ordinary and Extraordinary.

Second, just linguistically, "Extraordinary" can signify "out of the usual" or "not normative", but it can also signify "Better than ordinary", such as "This work is of extraordinary quality." Whether or not Benedict XVI meant the term in this latter sense, it demonstrates that there is no inherent equality in using the phrase Extraordinary Form. We could even argue that it implies an inequality.

Third, neither Traditional Latin Mass nor Tridentine Mass are any more accurate. "Tridentine Mass" seems to attach the Mass too much to the Council of Trent, when in fact we know it goes back to Gregory the Great. When we say "Tridentine Mass", we unintentionally injure our own arguments because we make the Mass a thousand years younger than it is. "Traditional Latin Mass" seems to suggest that the most distinguishing fact about the traditional Mass is that it was in Latin. If Latin is the fundamental point of contention, then there is no real objection against a Novus Ordo in Latin.

Now I know those who use the terms TLM and Tridentine Mass do not mean to imply these things, and I would not dream of suggesting you do. Similarly, when I use the phrase Extraordinary Form, I do not mean to deny or minimize any of the very real issues with the Ordinary Form, nor do I think did Benedict XVI when he coined the phrase while simultaneously maintaining that the NO was a "banal, on the spot production."

Finally, we could argue that because the Roman Pontiff has himself chosen this terminology after much reflection, this is the most appropriate way to refer to it. This terminology preserves the unity of the Roman Rite while acknowledging the very real distinctions between its two expressions.

And I think Extraordinary Form is preferable to Vetus Ordo. Just my opinion. I'm not going to insist on saying EF. Sometimes I still say TLM or Tridentine Mass. But it's good food for thought.

Help Build a Vibrant Parish

Since the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum, it has been more common for people to be able to attend the Extraordinary Form Mass at a parish which is not strictly devoted to the EF Mass. My primary exposure to the EF Mass is at my diocesan parish, which celebrates in the Extraordinary Form at least once a month as well as on special feast days and octaves. The parish is not dedicated exclusively to the Extraordinary Form, and though quite a number of parishioners attend the monthly EF Mass, I'd venture that more than half do not. It remains primarily a Novus Ordo parish.

But if less than fifty percent attend the EF Mass, that's not to say the EF Mass is not well attended. Every month at the EF Mass, I see a ton of people who I know come here just for that monthly Mass. Where they go the other three Sundays or for weekdays, I have no clue. I just know they are not parishioners of our parish.

Which leads me to reflect on the question of attendees of the Extraordinary Form and parish life. Unless you exclusively attend a parish specifically set aside for the EF Mass (like those run by the Fraternity), chances are you attend the EF Mass at a Novus Ordo parish. Perhaps you manage to attend only the Extraordinary Form by bouncing around between three or four parishes who each offer it once per month; perhaps, like me, you attend a mixture of the Novus Ordo and the Extraordinary Form. Perhaps you attend a Fraternity parish or an old indult parish but occasionally attend EF Masses at diocesan parishes.

There is no arrangement that is right and no arrangement that is wrong. But what I do want to stress in this post is that, whatever your Mass arrangements are, you need to be involved in parish life at some place. If you attend a parish exclusively devoted to the EF, then this is your home parish and it's probably not an issue. But if you are one of these folks who bounce around to four different EF Masses a month, I ask you to reflect on whether or not you engage in the parish in any other way? Do you attend the Labor Day or St. Patrick Day festivals? Do you volunteer at parish activities? Do you attend other liturgical devotions, such as Stations or First Fridays? Sign up for a Holy Hour? Go with the parish to the local soup kitchen? Volunteer to chaperone at a kids event? Help with VBS? Work at the Lenten Fish Fry? Put money in the collection basket? Attend the annual parish missions? Show up for the spring cemetery clean up?

There's a multitude of ways it can happen, but the bottom line is you need to be involved and engaged somewhere. There is a saying in the Church dating from the Council of Trent, "No cleric without a superior"; there is a similar corollary, "No parishioner without a parish." Were a person to simply bounce around to four EF Masses at four different parishes each month and never actually get involved or engaged at any particular parish, I think that person would be in the wrong. It's not for me to say where, or how this engagement must look concretely, but you must be engaged.

After all, how else shall we tell others about the beauty of Catholic Tradition if we can't make acquaintances and explain our love to them? I first fell in love with Catholic Tradition after another traditional-minded Catholic - one who was not above attending the Novus Ordo - had some very good conversations with me and gave me some of Michael Davies' books. Had he been exclusively attending the EF and been aloof from parish involvement, I would have never run across him. But he would occasionally go to the Novus Ordo, volunteered at the festivals, and was always seen at coffee and donuts, where some of our most formative conversations would take place.

So beside the question of obligation, I think there is a real evangelical motivation for us making sure we are truly engaged in the life of a parish. After all, we do not simply want the preservation of Tradition, but its restoration, and restoration implies engaging people who do not currently attend the Extraordinary Form and teaching them the beauty of Catholic Tradition. This can hardly happen if we keep to ourselves and do not get engaged. Yes, I know for decades when the very survival of tradition was in question, we resorted to establishing enclaves devoted to tradition for its preservation; but this ought not to be a normative approach, and now that the Extraordinary Form can be offered and frequently is offered in Novus Ordo parishes, there is less justification for an enclave mentality.

I am not suggesting you have to attend the Novus Ordo Mass, but I am suggesting that you need to also consider getting involved somewhere, perhaps in a Novus Ordo parish. Be a volunteer the pastor can depend upon, the first one ready to cheerfully put your name on the sign up sheet at the back of the church. Or if you are willing, occasionally attend the Novus Ordo and get to know the regular parishioners, and demonstrate by your joy and charity the formative value of Catholic Tradition. It is a great opportunity to have these important conversations about Catholic identity. Pastors are already afraid of "traditionalists" in many places; why give the pastors more occasion for mistrust by acting as if we don't give a damn about their parish festivals or food pantries or communities so long as we can get a monthly EF out of them? Blogging about Catholic Tradition does not excuse you. Fellowshipping with other traditional-minded Catholics who already see things your way does not excuse you. Saying the traditional Breviary in Latin does not excuse you. If you are not engaged in parish life somewhere, there simply is no excuse.

Show the parish that the "stable group" referred to by Summorum is not just dependable when it comes to showing up for the Extraordinary Form, but is dependable to be called upon for whatever task. Traditional minded Catholics should be the happiest of souls, the most dependable volunteers, and the hardest workers, and by their fortitude and charity, can show forth the glory of God.

Let each one examine his conscience, my friends.

What is the hermeneutic of continuity?

Ever since the pontificate of Benedict XVI, the term "hermeneutic continuity" has been proposed as descriptive of an interpretation of the Second Vatican Council that stresses continuity between pre and post-Conciliar teachings. This "hermeneutic of continuity" is generally opposed to a "hermeneutic of rupture", which sees Vatican II in terms of a break or rupture with tradition. Progressive are generally "rupturists", while conservative, orthodox Catholics favor the hermeneutic of continuity proposed by Benedict XVI and enthusiastically embraced by those advocating a reform of the reform.

But what exactly is the hermeneutic of continuity? Is it as self-evident as the simple definition I gave above would lead us to believe? In fact it is not, and while I support the concept of the hermeneutic of continuity, I must firmly insist that we begin by understanding what the hermeneutic of continuity is exactly - and what it implies.

To say that the hermeneutic of continuity stresses continuity between pre and post-Conciliar teaching is not sufficient, because there is two ways one can interpret what this means, and as we shall see, much is riding on which approach one prefers.

Two ways of interpreting "hermeneutic of continuity":

1) The teaching of the Second Vatican Council is already in perfect continuity with Tradition, and in proposing a hermeneutic of continuity, we are being asking to realize and appropriate this truth. The hermeneutic of continuity is simply recognizing what the Council "really taught" as opposed to what liberals drew out of it. In this interpretation, discontinuity is a myth that must be dispelled by proper catechesis.

2) The teaching of the Second Vatican Council presents a departure from Catholic Tradition, and in proposing for a hermeneutic of continuity, we are being asked to look for a way to reconcile Conciliar teaching with pre-Conciliar teaching. The hermeneutic of continuity consists in new statements or actions on the part of the Magisterium, bishops and priests to bring the Vatican II documents into synthesis with prior Magisterial teaching. In this interpretation, discontinuity is a fact that must be rectified.

Look at these for a moment and notice how different the two approaches are. While both call for an interpretive schema that stresses continuity, the former denies the existence of objective discontinuity while the latter actually takes it for granted. It might be objected that the latter interpretation actually puts one in the camp of the rupturists, since it presumes that there is a true divergence between Conciliar teaching and Catholic tradition - an objective rupture. But it is important to point out that a true rupturist interpretation not only acknowledges the rupture, but celebrates it and works to further it. We, on the other hand, acknowledge the fact of a rupture, but work to rectify it, to close the gap, to bring all things into harmony inasmuch as is possible.

It is in the second sense that I, too, believe a hermeneutic of continuity is vitally important for restoration. But this does not consist of simply returning to the documents, uncovering the "riches" of the Council, or stressing what the Council "actually taught" as opposed to how it was "implemented." I have written elsewhere on how the Council Fathers noted many problems with the Conciliar documents from the outset; I have also demonstrated that the theory of a council "hijacked" by the media and other outside interests is not tenable. We need, desperately need, a hermeneutic of continuity, but it does not simply consist in rediscovering the documents or returning to what the Council "really taught." These are dead ends.

It would be worth asking: if there really is an objective discontinuity, a real rupture of sorts, what's the use in trying to "bring it into harmony" with tradition? Discontinuity, by definition, means there is no continuity, and if so, how can we speak of "reconciling" or synthesizing it?

In acknowledging an objective discontinuity, I do not mean to say that the break is so grave, the chasm so wide, that it cannot be crossed. The majority of the Council Fathers, even men of unimpeachable orthodoxy like Marcel Lefebvre, ultimately signed off on the Council documents, which indicates that they must have believed that the documents were compatible with Tradition in some sense, even if only "with great difficulty." Vocabulary was novel, the manner of speech was different from prior Councils, different angles or aspects of questions were explored which previously had not been, the ends of the Council were pastoral rather than dogmatic, and the very "mood" of the Council was profoundly different from previous Councils. All of these things taken together signify an objective "change of direction" in the Church's understanding of itself - but, as Vatican II itself and Paul VI himself noted, this orientation was fundamentally pastoral, which ultimately means discretionary. If the Church wanted to, they could go back to its pre-Conciliar orientation or even adopt a new one without any change in teaching. So, when we speak of harmonizing or bridging the gap, we mean not the attempt to put a square peg into a round hole, but rather effecting a true metanoia, a change of direction, within the Church, such that her fundamental orientation is realigned with Tradition.

But this means we must confess that the orientation is currently not aligned. In calling for a hermeneutic, we are implicitly acknowledging that there is a discontinuity that needs to be addressed. Or, as Chris Ferrara put it recently, "What kind of Council needs a 'hermeneutic' just to understand Catholic teaching?" If the hermeneutic of continuity is more than just "rediscovering the riches" of the Council, then it is in fact something extrinsic that needs to be applied. It is something akin to a syllabus, or an explanatory note followed up by a rigorous campaign of implementation - a dedicated, intentional effort on the part of the Magisterium to impose continuity on the Council by stating definitively how the documents are to be interpreted and bringing them into harmony with Tradition.

Can this be done? A recent statement of the SSPX opined that the Council could only be brought into harmony "with great difficulty." But to counter that with Cardinal Newman, "ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt." So, yes, we need a hermeneutic of continuity, but paradoxically, this hermeneutic of continuity must begin from the premise of acknowledging an objective discontinuity. Only if you acknowledge where you are can you even begin to think about where you ought to be going.

Book Review: Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story

For the past two weeks, I have been immersed in what I am convinced is the definitive biography of the Vatican II, The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story, by Italian author Roberto de Mattei. Dr. Mattei is no meager polemicist, and though his book supports many of the ideas proposed by Catholic traditionalists, his book is by no means a traddy diatribe. Mattei's curriculum vitae is impressive; he is Professor of Modern History at the Faculty of Arts of the University of Cassino and is currently Professor of Modern History and History of Christianity at the European University in Rome. This scholarly background shows through in his work, which is probably the most academic and dispassionate treatment of the Second Vatican Council ever written.

Even so, The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story is a total vindication of the traditionalist critique of the Council and its relation to the current state of the Church. Using only documentary evidence - including records of Council proceedings, texts of interventions by the Council Fathers, personal correspondences of John XXIII and Paul VI, and personal diaries of the periti - Dr. Mattei reconstructs the tumultuous days leading up the Council and thoroughly documents the thoughts and aspirations of the Council Fathers as the event that was Vatican II exploded on the world stage.

This is where Mattei's book has its greatest value: in revealing the intentions, thoughts and opinions of the participants in the Council. Reading the words of the actual Fathers on this subject demolishes a lot of canards about the Council. For example, it is often asserted that the ambiguity of the Council documents is an accusation made by Traditionalists who seek to blame the Council itself for the Church's problems; however, the comments of the Council Fathers themselves reveal that even while the Council was in session, ambiguity and vagueness were serious concerns for many of the participants in the Council (see here).

Another example: it is commonly asserted that the Council itself was carried out in perfect continuity with previous ecumenical councils and the problems came only with a hijacking of its implementation. However, Mattei's book reveals that the participants in the Council viewed it even then as something revolutionary, from the first meetings of the first session when the Fathers revolted to throw out the documents prepared by the Theological Commission, to their replacement of the heads of all the commissions with liberals, to their setting up of a permanent body of four Cardinals that effectively served as a meta-commission to organize all the other commissions and push them towards liberal ends. We learn that it was not a liberal who first proposed interpreting the Council in light of its "spirit", but Paul VI himself who first referred to the "spirit of Vatican II" in his opening address of the Fourth Session in September of 1965; it was not dissenting bishops who did away with Latin, but Paul VI who first celebrated Masses in the Italian vernacular in 1965 and urged his bishops to imitate him. It was a dominant clique of the Council Fathers themselves who asked for vernacular, versus populum Masses, cultural Masses, and many other deviations. Yes, this book demolishes the argument that the problems did not come until implementation; the problems were present at the outset.

Also of note is the manner in which several theologians come off as not just questionable but as total heretics. Sure, we already knew about Kung and Rahner, but even some of the more "respectable" theologians are outed for the heretics they were. For example, Yves Congar, whom Scott Hahn has praised many times and often cites as a source, comes off as a radical heretic in his desire to undermine papal primacy and redefine the nature of the Church, even invoking Martin Luther at the tomb of St. Paul, "who had wanted to reaffirm the Gospel for which Paul had struggled" (pg.487). I was appalled at some of the statements from Congar's diary quoted in the book. Jean Danielou and Henri de Lubac also are revealed as hypocrites, dissenters and heretics - and this not by any insinuations of slander by the author, but by the words of these theologians themselves. Mattei as an author does not need to make any argument; he allows these periti to hang themselves by simply citing their own words.

We also see that the controversial issues today were not necessarily the controversial issues then. While post-Conciliar critiques have focused on the liturgy, there was really not that much debate at the Council about liturgical matters. The most controversial subject was undoubtedly the Council's teaching on "collegiality", which many conservative bishops believed was in flat contradiction of Vatican I and was plainly invented in 1962. More debate was held on this question than any other, with the concept of religious liberty as expounded in Dignitatis Humanae coming in second (a tidbit I found awesome was that Karol Wojtyla found grave problems with the religious liberty schema and thought the concept of truth found therein was too disassociated with Christ, who is truth). Communism also looms large in the debates, with the vast majority of the Council Fathers asking for a condemnation of communism and Paul VI categorically refusing it.

One of the fundamental themes of Mattei's work is the teachings of the Second Vatican Council as theology versus the Second Vatican Council interpreted as an event. Mattei argues that the failure of the conservative/traditional bishops to halt the liberal onslaught was due to the fundamental inability of the conservative bishops to understand that Vatican II as an historical event, a defining occurrence in the history of the Church that was widely viewed as the beginning of a new epoch. The conservative Council Fathers, naturally interpreting Vatican II in continuity with previous Councils, focused excessively on the strict theological meaning of the wording of various documents, ultimately making noble and profound objections to the ambiguities of the texts, but never fully grasping the nature of the revolution that the Council unleashed. They did not understand the manner in which the liberals wanted to use the Council, at least not until it was too late. And why would they? No Council in the Church's history had ever been used in such a way - what Benedict XVI referred to as a "meta-council." Paradoxically, the conservative bishop's view of the Council in continuity with tradition rendered them incapable of perceiving the vastness of the looming threat.

What we have is ultimately the fact that, while Vatican II may not be a total doctrinal rupture, it certainly was a historical rupture, and many of the liberal Council Fathers were content to maintain the semblance of doctrinal continuity if they could have historical discontinuity; discontinuity of fact was always the end game, even if we do not have a total discontinuity of teaching. Discontinuity de facto has been the golden apple, the liberal wet-dream, the "promised land of the Council", as Congar referred to Gaudium et Spes; conservatives can reconcile the documents and claim continuity of teaching till the cows come home - continuity de jure is an on paper reality, while the monstrous discontinuity de facto continues unabated.

Thus, the modern movement towards continuity cannot be content with merely proving it on paper or getting it authenticated in some document; there is no purely legal solution to the problem. The horses are out, and shutting the proverbial barn door now will do little good. To restore the Church, we must not only restore continuity on paper, but restore it in fact, in practice, in our lives. We must understand the Council as an historical event as well, and seek to reconcile not only documents, but lives and praxis.

This is why the book is both enlightening and depressing; it will make you mad as hell to see how things really went down, how Cardinal Ottaviani was blacklisted by the liberal elite, how the four Cardinals who dominated the Council (Frings, Konig, Dopfner and Suenens, the arch-villain) intentionally tried to dismantle the whole Catholic edifice, how the Council Fathers got us to exchange our heroes for ghosts and hot ashes for trees, in the words of Roger Waters. But it is enlightening as well, because it helps to bring into focus, glaringly, where the exact problems lie, and in doing so make the path to restoration seem more clear.

We all know there is a liberal narrative of the Council, what Benedict called the "Council of the Media"; but there is also a conservative narrative, one which tries to absolve the Council itself of all possible wrongdoing and place the blame squarely on post-Conciliar innovations. That narrative is no longer plausible after reading this book. I highly recommend it for any student of the Council, and I want to emphasize again that this book is not a polemic, not some Traditionalist attack - everything I said above is deduced simply from the speeches and writings of the Council Fathers, which this book reproduces en masse and hence becomes an indispensable resource for this important period in ecclesiastical history. It is not inexpensive, but it is certainly worth the money. When I finished the book, I was sorry it was over.  It was that good.

I also want to thank the blogger "I am not Spartacus" who brought the book to my attention and graciously sent a hard copy of it in the mail to me for my perusal. Blessings, my friend.

Click here to purchase Roberto de Mattei's The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story

Let us buy in Anathoth

This Sunday the Old Testament reading from the Book of Jeremiah recalls the infamous incident in which the Prophet Jeremiah was thrown into a cistern as punishment for preaching God's judgment against the corrupt leadership in Jerusalem shortly before that city's fall to Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. Let us look at he relevant passage, beginning in Jeremiah 38:4, when the princes of the city petition King Zedekiah to imprison the Prophet after Jeremiah had predicted the impending disaster about to befall Judea:

"And the princes said to the king: 'We beseech thee that this man may be put to death: for on purpose he weakeneth the hands of the men of war, that remain in this city, and the hands of the people, speaking to them according to these words: for this man seeketh not peace to this people, but evil.'

And king Zedekiah said: 'Behold he is in your hands: for it is not lawful for the king to deny you any thing.'

Then they took Jeremiah and cast him into the dungeon of Malachiah the kings' son, which was in the entry of the prison: and they let down Jeremiah by ropes into the dungeon, wherein there was no water, but mire. And Jeremiah sunk into the mire." (Jer, 38:4-6)

The leadership in Jerusalem were upset by the Prophet's words and, with the blessings of King Zedekiah, cast him into a cistern. But what was it about the words of Jeremiah that were so upsetting to the officials of Jerusalem? There are several reasons why the message of the Prophet upset them.

First, the princes and political leadership of Judea had invested themselves into a certain political vision, in which the safety and prosperity of Jerusalem would be safeguarded not by reliance of God alone, but by political alliances with other kingdoms. The leadership of Judah had rejected their special station as a people called of God in exchange for a lesser calling, that of a people wanting to be "like the nations", and of trusting in the nations to deliver them; one could say they wanted to "open up" to the world, and therein sought their salvation. The prophecies of Jeremiah condemned this policy, a policy the elites had spent a whole generation building up. Thus the condemnations fell upon them as a personal reproach. The manner in which the leadership had poured themselves into this failed vision blinded them to the truth which Jeremiah preached.

Second, the leaders thought Jeremiah's critique destructive of the morals of the people; one might say the judgments of the Prophet were counter-productive, or even giving aid to enemy, since they "weakened the hands of the men of war." Judah was at war with Babylon. Why then does the Prophet spend his words railing against the sins of Judah and its leaders? Is not Babylon the enemy? Is not Nebuchadnezzar the real threat? In saying that Jeremiah seeks the evil of Jerusalem, they in effect accuse him of being divisive, of sowing discord within the city. Can not we put aside this in-fighting and focus on the real enemy? When we point fingers at one another, we actually aid those enemies who want to destroy us! By constantly focusing on our own difficulties, we risk being too condemnatory and destroying our morale. We can imagine the princes of Judah saying such things.

Even so, they were in error, for their fundamental mistake was viewing the critiques mentioned by Jeremiah and the military threat posed by Nebuchadnezzar as two distinct, unrelated issues. The immorality and infidelity of the Judean leadership was an 'internal' problem, the Babylonian threat an 'external' one; but Jeremiah had the wisdom from God to see that the external threat only existed because of the internal problem; the fidelity of God's people is always related to the external judgments that may or may not fall upon them. Jeremiah knew the principle that St. Peter would later preach: "It is time for judgment to begin at the household of God" (1 Pet. 4:17). Jeremiah understood that whatever political expediencies Zedekiah resorted to, whatever sorts of dialogue with foreign princes he tried to engage in, whatever remedies were sought, they would all ultimately fail so long as the true problem - infidelity to God - remained unresolved. Jeremiah was not being a traitor by preaching against the sins of his leaders even as the city was being surrounded; on the contrary, he was making known to them their one path of salvation.

Finally, we could note that, even if some of the leaders were disposed to agree with the substances of Jeremiah's criticisms, they found it much harder to turn the ship around and change course at that late hour than to make the necessary reforms to avert God's wrath. The further one goes down a road, the further one commits to a certain vision or policy, the more difficult it is to turn back, and the more profound must be the penitence to effect that change in direction. Thus, Judah reached a place where reform had become not only inconvenient, but very difficult if not impossible from a pragmatic standpoint. Therefore Jeremiah's criticisms and prophecies of doom were that much more odious because the leadership knew it was too late. There was no way out but the trial of fire.

And of course the trial came. Jeremiah was vindicated, and the Word of the Lord established. Jerusalem was taken, the city and temple burned, and princes of Judah taken captive or slain, and King Zedekiah, who had allowed Jeremiah to be cast into the cistern, had his eyes gouged out, a fitting symbol of the spiritual blindness that had brought such a judgment. The people of Judah were taken into captivity.

But for God's people, the last word can never be one of despair. For those who trust in the Lord, even life's worst misfortunes are always characterized by a lively hope. Despite preaching the doom of the city and the impending slavery of his people, Jeremiah did an unlikely thing. Shortly before the fall of Jerusalem, Jeremiah went out and purchased a field in Anathoth (Jer. 32). What was the reason for this unlikely gesture? If you had infallible knowledge from God that your whole nation was about to be destroyed and taken into captivity, what is the point of making a real estate investment?

But Jeremiah realized that the purchase of the field was a sign from God ("then I knew that this was the word of the Lord", v.8). He purchased the field in Anathoth because he knew that despite God's judgments, the Israelites were still God's people, and He would ultimately bring them out of captivity. In the words of the Prophet Hosea, "He has torn, that He may heal us; He has stricken, and He will bind us up" (Hos. 6:1). God's judgment is remedial, medicinal - ultimately, for the purification of Judah. Jeremiah knew that the Jews would return from captivity someday, that the judgments would only be temporary. Hence he demonstrated his faith in the promise of God to bring the Jews back to their land by purchasing a field. He was in effect saying, "I know that we will be back someday, for God hath sworn it", and he demonstrated it by making a land investment.

And what application does this have to us in our own day? There are many things we could ruminate on relating to the attitude of the leaders of Judah and many of our own leaders today, between the blatant blindness of the king and his ministers to the problems of the kingdom and their direct correlation to the crisis engulfing Judah, and similar circumstances in our own age. These parallels should be self-evident.

But rather than dwell on these, let us reflect on this: despite the fact that God judges His people, do we have faith enough in His guidance of the Church to purchase our own field in Anathoth? Is our confidence in His goodness that lively? To buy a field in Anathoth may mean different things to different people, but the point is that our faith must be firm enough that it translates to concrete acts of faith and hope, even if our circumstances seem so bad that we feel like we are in the bottom of a cistern, "sunk into the mire." Even so, we must have confidence that God will restore; "He has torn, that He may heal us; He has stricken, and He will bind us up. After two days He will revive us; on the third day He will raise us up, that we may live before Him" (Hos. 6:1-2). Therefore, let us also buy in Anathoth. Christ is still on the throne. It is in Anathoth that I will plant my seed, even if I do not live to eat the fruit thereof.

Archaeologism, Mithraism, Labor and More on USC!

Good day and Blessed Feast of the Assumption of Our Lady! Please enjoy these recent articles from the Unam Sanctam Catholicam website! Please help this website by reading and sharing these articles with your friends.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank many, of you who have supported this site and linked up my articles, specifically: Noah at Alleluia Audio Books, Tantamergo at Veneremur Cernui (Blog for Dallas Area Catholics), Throwback at Popin' Ain't Easy (who writes most of the film reviews for USC), the Facebook group Catholic Faith In the Light of Tradition, who always faithfully share all of my articles, and last but not least, Rorate Caeli, who, though they don't link my articles directly, have sent me more traffic through linking me on the sidebar than any other site. God bless you all.

Novena to St. Bernard: Great way to prepare for this great saint's feast on August 20th.

What is archaeologism? Why Pius XII thought the modern fad of "returning to the sources" was such a dangerous train of thought.

On the Subjective and Objective Ends of Work: What is it about the West's approach to labor and value that leads to such excessive materialism? John Paul II explains it as an inversion of values relating to the philosophical understanding of human work.

Should we adopt the orans posture during the Our Father?: Another quod libet that pops up in the Novus Ordo; why this gesture is a liturgical aberration.

Christianity and Mithraism: Examining the common accusation that Christianity borrowed from Mithraism; in fact, it was most likely the other way around.

Explaining Indulgences (video): A 13 minute video explaining the history and doctrine of indulgences. Great for explaining the teaching to Protestants or ignorant Catholics.

Movie Reviews

Wolverine (2013)
The Conjuring (2013)
Pacific Rim (2013)

Sancti Obscuri

St. Emilian the Confessor
St. Kilian of Iniscaltra

Bulletin Inserts

Sunday Rest
Vatican II and Latin

Twelve ways a determined priest can renew a parish

Not long ago, I did an article on twelve realistic reforms the Catholic Magisterium could implement right now that would put the Church on the way to authentic reform. One friend opined that this article, while interesting from a speculative standpoint, is ultimately useless, because it means ultimately waiting for the Magisterium to do something. This friend suggested that reform was much more feasible at the parish level and encouraged me to look at ways that reform could be implemented from the bottom up.

Ultimately, my earlier article was nothing more than an intriguing thought exercise. This one, however, I propose as an actual model for how your typical, wishy-washy Catholic parish, under the administration of a properly disposed priest, could transform itself into a real bastion of orthodoxy and spiritual renewal. To that end, these twelve steps for parish reform are directed primarily at priests, specifically, young priests coming into a new parish where love for tradition has not hitherto been fostered. Thus, this post is aimed at a traditional-minded priest in a non-traditional Novus Ordo parish. The parish perhaps has a modern layout; Masses may have been characterized by guitar music and dull homilies devoid of any meaningful content; Eucharist is shoved off into a side chapel. You know the sort of place.
One last thing: while my previous post offered twelve suggestions in no particular order, these twelve are ordered sequentially, so this is my proposed order in which these reforms ought to be implemented. I know some will say to hell with sequence, do it all at once and be done with it, but we have to take into account our present realities and remember that our goal is to convert and sanctify lukewarm souls, not drive them out of the Church and turn the parish into a traditionalist enclave. While there are certain practices that should never be tolerated, there are other things that sometimes have to be let go for the time being to focus on larger issues. I propose a timeline of a year to two years for implementing all of the changes I describe below; some will happen parallel to others; some can be done at the priest's own initiative, others will require some planning and help of others, but all can be done and none are unrealistic.

1) Restore the Tabernacle to the Center of the Altar and Move the Altar Against the Wall: In most parishes which feature a table altar and a portable tabernacle situated in a side chapel, this would not be physically difficult to do. It can be done at the priest's discretion and can be the occasion of some catechesis on the Eucharistic sacrifice, worship ad deum, and the ends of the Mass. It need not take long, either. Announce it one week, do it the next, and preach on the above mentioned topics for the following two Sundays. Done. As for that old side-chapel, turn it into a Marian chapel, perhaps with an image of Our Lady of Czestochowa or Guadalupe within and promote it as a place for communal recitation of the Rosary. Mass ad deum with a tabernacle on the altar should be the first thing. Also, if the parish has a "Resurrectifix", this should be replaced with a legitimate Crucifix immediately.

2) Hire a Music Director Competent in Chant and Immediately Replace the "Entrance Hymns" with Chant, as well as "Communion Hymns" with Chanted Introits and Communion Antiphons: This, again, is within the pastor's discretion. It does not get us entirely where we need to be, but it introduces the congregation to Gregorian chant, promotes the practice of silent reflection and prayer during communion (since they will not sing along to the communion antiphon) and still allows them a few "hymns" to sing so the transition isn't so abrupt (the so-called "Offertory Hymn and the "Closing Hymn"). The Music Director should also work in conjunction with the pastor to throw out whatever junk hymnal the parish is probably using and replacing it with something much more traditional.

3) Preach the Sacrament of Penance: In most Catholic parishes, the sacrament of penance is under utilized, a fact which is reinforced by the priest's refusal to preach on it, publicize the sacrament, or insist that his flock make use of it. If, however, the necessity of penance is preached and confessions are made available, it is proven that people will go. Confessions should be made available at least two days a week, but ideally more, and for at least an hour and a half to two hours. Remember, "My people perish for lack of knowledge" (Hos. 4:6).

4) Weekly Exposition and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament: Parishes that have had the sacrament relegated to a side-chapel are usually not big on Eucharistic devotions. But, since the Eucharist is the heart of the faith, any restoration of faith must be accompanied by Eucharistic devotion. At first the bodies will not be there for a 24 hour exposition; that's alright. Expose around 5:00pm on Friday and do Benediction at 7:30pm. Exposition-Benediction also provides the priest with a little "laboratory" in which to test out Latin hymns and prayers on a smaller group of faithful without having to do so to the entire congregation. It gives the priest an idea of how difficult it will be for his particular flock to make the transition to Latin, and furthermore will identify the folks within the parish who are most sympathetic to traditional prayers and devotions. These folks will be the bulwark of his efforts.

5) Promote Marian Devotion: Heretics and progressives hate the Blessed Virgin Mary; and no wonder, for the DeMontfort prayer of total consecration says that Mary is the destroyer of heresies throughout the whole world. Promotion of Marian devotion, besides inculcating an appropriate love for our Blessed Mother, has the pedagogical effect of instilling in the faithful a lively awareness of the role of grace in the spiritual life. Hence, it can serve as an antidote to the prevalent activist, good-deed focused "Pelagianism" we have been hearing so much about lately. The kind of Marian devotion may vary from place to place; Rosaries after daily Mass, led by the priest, devotions to Our Lady of Perpetual Help on Tuesdays, May Crownings, enrollment in the Brown Scapular, offering the Total Consecration yearly, accompanied by appropriate homiletical catechesis on Marian devotion. The opportunities are numerous and the benefits vast.

6) Promote a Very Active Food Pantry: While most parishes have a food bank of some sort, very few have a really active food pantry. The parish priest should strive to instill a love of service in his people, but out of a sincere love for God and neighbor grounded in devotion to Christ, not any misguided humanist values. The parish food pantry should be a center of assistance for the poor, and the parish should cultivate a reputation for charity and care for body and soul. The priest can also use this as a means to catechize his people on how the corporal and spiritual works of mercy are meant to compliment each other and not be in opposition.

7) Adopt an RCIA Curriculum that Nourishes the Intellect and Spirit, not the Emotions: RCIA programs in most parishes are abysmal. Direct your RCIA instructor or DRE to transfer to a program that focuses more on intellectual and spiritual formation and less on sharing of experiences. This, besides being more in keeping with the Catholic Tradition, will make the RCIA experience richer for your catechumens and will actually result in more converts over time and of a better quality. If you don't know where do get good RCIA materials, you can begin here with Unam Sanctam's free RCIA notes and outlines.

8) Preach the Hard Stuff: While parishioners don't need to be beaten over the head with dense Thomistic homilies or theological ruminations about the procession of Persons within the Trinity, the priest ought to maximize the power of the pulpit by preaching on subjects that people desperately need to hear: the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, the reality of sin, the life of grace, the inevitability of judgment, the holy examples of the saints, the reality of angels, the necessity of entry into the Church, etc. I would also highlight the intrinsically disordered nature of homosexual acts and the incompatibility of active homosexual lifestyles with Christianity, as well as the unfittingness of homosexuals for the priesthood as required preaching.

9) Offer Your Parish Facilities to a Homeschool Group and Encourage Homeschoolers: You want to see your parish explode with vibrancy? Offer your facilities to the use of a local homeschool group of co-op, offer to say Mass for them once or twice a week, and let word get out that your parish is friendly to homeschoolers. Then just sit back and watch what happens once this leaven is added.

10) Pray the Eucharistic Canon in Latin and Teach the Congregation the Mass Parts in Latin: After the congregation has gotten used to hearing Latin in the Introit and Communion Antiphons, introduce them to it in the Eucharistic canon. Then, week by week, or maybe month by month depending on the degree of skill and/or resistance, teach them the Mass parts in Latin. Don't be apologetic about it; don't feel like it needs to be explained or beat to death - just be nonchalant; take the approach of, "This is what the Church, the popes, and Vatican II have asked us to do, so we're going to do it!" Though not strictly related to this, since we are talking about the Eucharist, I would also recommend dismissing all of the Extraordinary Ministers. You simply do not need them, and you are not doing anybody a favor by keeping them all around for fear of hurting somebody's feelings. And while you are at it, do whatever you can to restrict altar serving for boys; I say "do all you can" because in some dioceses the bishop specifically orders that girls be allowed and will not permit priests to dismiss female altar servers summarily. Do what you can.

11) Beautify (or De-Uglify) the Parish Sanctuary: After the priest has been there for awhile and the congregation knows what sorts of things to expect from him, it is probably time to look at raising funds for replacing those ugly, modern minimalist colored glass windows with some traditional stained glass. How about replacing the bland wooden pulpit with an ornate marble ambo? Begin a donor campaign to replace modern, cushy, kneeler-less pews with something more traditional that includes kneelers. Tear the carpet out of the sanctuary area around the altar and replace it with hardwood, tile, or marble. Consider purchasing some more ornate vessels. Or, funds and architecture permitting, get some communion rails. You don't need to use them right away. You can just install them for aesthetics and begin using them whenever you are ready. It also enables you to offer the Extraordinary Form.

12) Offer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass at Least One Sunday a Month and More During the Week and on Feast Days: Benedict XVI predicted that the broad availability of the old Mass would spill over into the celebration of the Novus Ordo and that the NO would thereby be enriched by the EF. Ultimately, this is where the whole restoration of parish life tends toward: the engagement of the faithful with the Mass of Ages, which will eventually lead on into whole new levels of spiritual growth and maturity if done properly. Growth in holiness through the Traditional Latin Mass.


Do you have your own suggestions? Please add them in the combox! And check out this series of articles on how parish renewal was brought about in a formerly liberal parish in Ann Arbor, MI.

CLICK HERE TO READ THIS ARTICLE IN PORTUGUESE

Letter to a Priest

Part of this blog's mission is to promote the creative endeavors of other Catholics outside the mainstream, of whatever medium. To that end, I present to you Letter to a Priest, a marvelously done short film by Clayton Long, a longtime friend and patron of this blog. This short, touching story about a woman's struggle to come to terms with Catholicism on the issue of marriage garnered a lot of attention and even premiered at World Youth Day on July 25th.

Letter to a Priest is a twelve minute film that tells the story of a young woman struggling to come to terms with the Church, particularly its teaching on a very sticky point: the validity (or invalidity) of marriage. The protagonist begins in a spirit of outright hostility to the Church's teaching but through a chance encounter with a priest, comes to a humble recognition of the spiritual riches hidden within the bosom of Mater Ecclesia. One strong point about this film is that the protagonist does not come to accept the Church in an intellectual, dogmatic fashion; rather, her conversion is presented in mystical terms, in context of an undeniable encounter with a supernatural reality - not in any miraculous sense, but in the simple weekly Benediction of a parish Church. This highlights the ordinary working of grace, which is often lost in modern apologetical approaches to the Faith that can place an undue emphasis on the work of the intellect at the expense of grace or mystical elements.

The video is currently making the rounds at the film festivals and is not yet available in its entirety on the Internet, but you can view the trailer here:

Stop Shooting the Messenger, Please

There is so much going on this week I don't know where to start.

Regarding the situation with the Franciscans of the Immaculate, I wanted to respond a fallacy I am seeing repeated on many Catholic blogs, so much now that I daresay it has become the party line on the situation. The fallacy goes something like, "Calm down! The Pope is not rolling back Summorum Pontificum. This action applies to a specific group and concerns internal issues particular to the Franciscans of the Immaculate. There is no general assault on Summorum Pontificum or the ancient rite."

Why do I call it a fallacy? Because it is a fallacious straw man argument. When I first reported on this story, I did not suggest there was any general attack or roll back of Summorum Pontificum, nor did Rorate or any of the other major blogs I know of. And why is it suddenly news that this concerns a particular group with its own specific, internal issues? We all already knew that. Sandro Magister reported that in his initial article.

But how is the fact that this has to do with the issues of one specific group supposed to be a consolation?

Look, I know Pope Francis has the authority, yes, yes. Plentitudo Potestatis. Yes, yes, I know. Please, popular Catholic commentators, let's get this right - The question is not whether the Pope has the power to do what he did. We all agree he does. The question is not whether this is a general attack or assault on the ancient rite. It's not; it is an action pertaining to a very specific situation in a particular order. We all understand that. The original Chiesa article by Sandro Magister said this clearly. These are not the issues, so let's stop restating the facts and pretending like this somehow solves or addresses the problem.

The issue is not even whether Pope Francis contradicted one of the provisions of Summorum Pontificum. Clearly he did. And he's within his right to do so. That's not in question.

As I see it, the real issue is that this establishes a legal corollary to the principle of free celebration of the EF laid down by Benedict XVI. While Benedict XVI stated, "Anyone can celebrate the Extraordinary Form without permission of the ordinary (or with the permission of their superior)", Pope Francis has added the proviso, "Unless there is a good reason to require permission." There may not have been a legal "contradiction" of Summorum, but there has been a drastic interpretive shift in how it is applied. In his decree regarding the Franciscans, Pope Francis has established that the provisions of Summorum can be set aside in particular cases if Rome judges there is good reason. We can debate the merits of this approach, but what is not debatable is that this is a new approach, one that Benedict did not seem to envision when he issued Summorum Pontificum.

If this is not a general attack on Summorum, then why is it troubling? Simply because it puts the existence of the EF Mass back under the aegis of authorities who can now suspend it if they feel there is just cause, and what sorts of "just causes" may potentially be brought forward in the future, no one can tell. In the case of the Franciscans, the mere allegations of disunity by one faction was enough. Now that the principle is established that the freedom granted in Summorum can be set aside for pastoral reasons, the question becomes how broad or narrow will these reasons be interpreted in future cases. It creates a precedent that strengthens the hands of every bishop who would like to extinguish celebration of the EF.

Regarding the divisions within the Franciscans of the Immaculate. Father Angelo Mary Geiger of the FIs in the United States, one of the leading voices of the anti-EF wing of the order, has further enunciated what the nature of these divisions are. As reported on Taylor Marshall's blog, he states that too many of the friars are gravitating towards "radical traditionalism." He defines radical traditionalism as:

a) the denial of the Jewish holocaust
b) the outright denial of Vatican 2 as a valid council
c) rhetorical style of the Rorate Caeli blog
d) the embrace of isolationist sub-culture of Catholicism or “Amish Catholicism”
e) the denial the charismatic gifts and the charistmatic movement
f) sympathy for the Bp Williamson’s style of traditionalism
g) disdain for Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis
h) the belief that Latin Mass Catholics are “A Team” and Novus Ordo Catholics are “B Team”
i) Gnostic ecclesiology – that “traditionalists” form the one true invisible Catholic Church

Okay. Let's look at these one at a time, because I think a lot of this is too vague or unfair:

a) the denial of the Jewish holocaust: While I agree that it is absurdly stupid to deny the reality and fact of the Holocaust, why does this keep coming up as if it is a liturgical issue? This is a historical question, not a doctrinal one. It just seems out of place, and I don't see the intrinsic connection between the Extraordinary Form and Holocaust denial.

b) the outright denial of Vatican 2 as a valid council: Not even the SSPX denies Vatican II is a valid council, let alone non-SSPX traditionalists. I fully affirm the validity of Vatican II. At worst, Traditionalists say that Vatican II can only be reconciled to Tradition with great difficulty; at best, they suggest that some of the documents are ambiguous or need clarification, as Cardinal Kasper and Archbishop Schneider recently did, and nobody accused the of being rad trads. This is a straw man attack.

c) rhetorical style of the Rorate Caeli blog: I don't know how a "rhetorical style" can be sufficient to lump one in as a radical traditionalist. There are many sorts of people in this world with many sorts of styles of writing. This is a vague non sequitur.

d) the embrace of isolationist sub-culture of Catholicism or “Amish Catholicism”: Traditionalists can be isolationist. I have to admit I have noticed this. But then again, perhaps if the EF was more widely available, this would not be the case. If the EF was offered in more than one parish within a seventy mile radius, maybe the conditions would not be so conducive to isolationism? We must also remember that it was not some traditionalist who said to not even eat with a brother who is a sinner, but St. Paul (1 Cor. 5:11); it was not the SSPX who said we should not let those who do not preach the same doctrine into our home "lest you share in his evil deeds", but St. John the Beloved Apostle (2 John 1:11); it was not Bishop Fellay or Rorate Caeli who admonished Catholics to "come out of" our sinful culture lest we share in its punishments, but the Lord Jesus Christ (Rev. 18:4). While we can never go out of the world, and while we must be lights to the world, all things must be done in moderation - we must not cast our pearls before swine. There has always been an isolationist element to Christianity. What is the life of the desert hermits or the early monks other than an isolationist sub-culture?

e) the denial the charismatic gifts and the charistmatic movement: This is interesting; is Father Geiger suggesting that denial of the charismatic movement is tantamount to denying the faith? There are many, many Catholics who do not subscribe to the charismatic movement, and by far not all of them are traditionalists. I find it supremely ironic that Father Geiger wants to deny the traditionalist movement because the traditionalists deny the charismatic movement. Both are legitimate expressions of Faith, although one is manifestly inferior to the other. Why should the charismatic movement be given pride of place and elevated to such a degree that to question or deny its legitimacy is put forward as a tenet of "radical" traditionalism? Furthermore, who is denying the charismatic gifts? Traditionalists acknowledge healings, miracles, visions, locutions, even the gift of tongues; SSPXers even acknowledge these - what they deny is that the things being reported in the Catholic charismatic renewal are the same gifts St. Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 12. No traditionalists deny that these gifts exist.

f) sympathy for the Bp Williamson’s style of traditionalism: "Sympathy" and "style" are too vague to make any response to. What does it mean to "sympathize" with a "style"?

g) disdain for Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis: I do not disdain Pope Francis, nor do I disdain John Paul II. I loved John Paul II and cried when he passed. I think many of his writings are very profound. But I question some of the things that he did. I think he made some serious mistakes. Does that equate to disdain? Do any of you have a brother or sibling who made some very bad choices? Do you "disdain" him or her because of them? Of course not. It is one thing to question the prudence of a person's actions, another to disdain the person. Let us hopefully be able to move past this very elementary distinction between a man and his deeds. Let us also note that, if disagreement with certain prudential actions of the popes constitutes "disdain", then St. Cyprian is guilty of disdaining Pope St. Stephen, St. Athanasius disdained Pope Liberius, and St. Paul disdained St. Peter. All foolish, of course. This sort of ridiculous reasoning only becomes possible when we have adopted the untenable position that every prudential action of a pope must not only be lauded as good, but as the best possible course of action.

h) the belief that Latin Mass Catholics are “A Team” and Novus Ordo Catholics are “B Team”: Again, too vague to be of help. If he means that "Latin Mass Catholics" believe they are superior to Novus Ordo Catholics, then this would certainly be problematic. We are to regard ourselves as the least of all, not a superior sort of Catholic. If we are blessed with greater knowledge or graces, it is only because we are so stupid and impoverished that we need more help; if we have greater graces, it is because we are so dense that we need them. But, on the other hand, there is a valid argument to be made that the Extraordinary Form may be more meritorious than the Novus Ordo, in the subjective sense. While both rites are equally valid, there are other things to consider besides validity, especially in the realm of graces received ex operate operantis; Fr. Ripperger, who I do not agree with all the time, has written extensively on this, and I think he has some valid points. But if we are going to discuss this, let's be precise with our terminology. Phrases like "A Team" and "B Team" do not help.

i) Gnostic ecclesiology – that “traditionalists” form the one true invisible Catholic Church: Aside from Sedevacantists, I don't know any traditionalists who actually believe this. It is objectively true, however, that the Extraordinary Form preserves much more of the Catholic Tradition than the Novus Ordo. To say this is not to make a statement of ideology, but a statement of fact. To deny it is to deny a point of history. Instead of denying simple facts, let's just acknowledge them and get them out in the open, because only then can we deal with them. To pretend that the Novus Ordo and the developments since Vatican II are these extraordinarily rich embodiments of Catholic Tradition is simply false. They contain some embodiment of Catholic Tradition, but not the most authentic embodiment possible. The sooner we acknowledge that there is a profound discontinuity, the sooner we can get on to fixing it.

Moving on but related to this last point, I think it is time that we vehemently protest against the "shoot the messenger" mentality that so often surrounds these issues. When I offered my opinion a few weeks ago that John Paul II's canonization at this time was imprudent because there were very real objections to his actions that had never been adequately answered for, many people got upset with me. One gentleman on another blog said, "Keep your doubts to yourself, Boniface!" and others suggested such commentary was not helpful to the salvation of souls, etc. Nevermind that Fr. Zuhlsdorf also suggested that the modern canonization process has resulted in a "shift in the criteria" of what constitutes sanctity. But in his case it is a thoughtful reflection; in mine, it is expressing a "doubt."

Let's clear the air: I have no doubts about the legitimacy of John Paul's canonization and I have no problem calling him saint, so I don't know what "doubts" I am expressing. Here's the thing, though - it is not bloggers pointing out scandalous activity that is the problem; the problem is the scandalous activity. Michael Voris reports that Cardinal Timothy Dolan called God "him or her"; Rorate Caeli reports that the same Cardinal Dolan told Muslims to "keep their faith" - and it is Voris and Rorate who are the problem for being mean spirited and negative? In both cases, it was the reporters who were accused of scandalizing the faithful! Is this right? No. Voris and Rorate are not the problem - the problem is a Catholic cardinal, the head of the USCCB at that, calling God "him or her" and telling Muslims to keep their faith. That is the scandal. That is the problem. The problem is not that I report on Cardinal Schönborn participating in a irreverent balloon Mass; the problem is that Cardinal Schönborn participated in a scandalous balloon Mass. If others are too blind or mentally lethargic to make this connection, then it is hardly the fault of those who are awake and alert for perceiving it.

It might be objected that it is not the reporting that is the problem, but the glee with which Traditionalists report these things, because to report such scandals proves their point. I can't speak for anyone else, but I do not report with glee that our Cardinals are embarrassments to the Church, that our pontiffs have actually invoked St. John the Baptist to protect Islam, that there is a gay lobby in the Roman Curia. What real Catholic could report these things with glee? I report them with tears, with consternation, with indignation, with righteous zeal, with fervent prayers to heaven that our exile will be mercifully ended, but not with glee. Never with glee.

So no more of this "shoot the messenger" nonsense. It's not Jeremiah's fault that he predicts bad news, and throwing him in the well because you don't like his prophesying isn't going to solve anything. The fact is that this farce that we are in the middle of a great restoration (the "New Springtime") is coming apart and everybody knows it. The Emperor has no clothes and everyone is scrambling to make sense of it.

Let us close with the famous quote of St. John Eudes,

"The most evident mark of God's anger, and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world, is manifest when He permits His people to fall into the hands of a clergy who are more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of devoted shepherds. They abandon the things of God to devote themselves to the things of the world and, in their saintly calling of holiness, they spend their time in profane and worldly pursuits. When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people and is visiting His most dreadful wrath upon them."