Hell and the Sensus Fidelium

After having voice some initial objections to the "we can have good hope that there is nobody in Hell" theory, today I wanted to go on to look at the question from the point of view of the sensus fidelium of the Christian people, which deals with the Catholic "instinct" rather than with definitions and declarations. But, speaking of definitions, it could be argued that if the lack of any definitive Church statement that anybody is in Hell constitutes a real argument that it may be empty, then by similar logic, the decrees of canonization and the prayers of the Mass would signify that nobody is in Heaven except our Lord, the Blessed Virgin, and the canonized saints. After all, the Church has never offered "definitions" about anybody else.

I am being a bit facetious here. It could always be counter-argued that silence in the scriptures implies salvation, not damnation, but then again, that is begging the question, since that premise ("silence implies salvation") is exactly what is not proven.

But I digress. The teaching of the sensus fidelium of the laity is explained in Lumen Gentium 12, where it states:

"The holy people of God shares also in Christ's prophetic office; it spreads abroad a living witness to Him, especially by means of a life of faith and charity and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the tribute of lips which give praise to His name. The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One,cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples' supernatural discernment in matters of faith when "from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful" they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority..."

As far as I can tell, this is the first statement of the Magisterium where this concept is explicitly affirmed, but the teaching was commonly held and taught by Catholic theologians since at least the mid-19th century. Ludwig Ott mentions it, for example, in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. It was often referred to as the passive infallibility of the Ecclesia discens (the learning Church) in contrast to the active infallibility of the Ecclesia docens (the teaching Church). This is the sensus fidelium of Lumen Gentium. It constitutes a kind of "instinct" of the Catholic people. By virtue of the sensus fidelium, the faithful, in obedience to their pastors, are guided in the development of their traditions and intuitions, a kind of holy instinct exercised over a period of history. The notion is much abused now, such to suggest that we could positively establish what Catholic teaching is by means of opinion polls. Benedict XVI commented on this false opinion of the sensus fidelium - see here.

What does the Catholic sensus fidelium say about the idea of Hell throughout the entirety of Church history? There is no fast and easy way to answer this, for when we look at the sensus fidelium, we are not asking what the Church has taught, not looking for lists of definitions from the Councils or citations from Denziger. Instead of asking what the Church teaches, we are asking how the faithful have understood Church teaching. Essentially, we are looking at how culture has appropriated Christian truth. Thus, we are looking at things like artistic depictions of the mysteries of the faith, architectural designs, poetry and literature, popular devotions, and any other popular expressions or interpretations of the faith. Looking at all these expressions of faith collectively, and stretched out over the centuries, we can establish a fairly clear picture of the Church's sensus fidelium on a particular point of faith.

Eastern Iconography

In the Greek monastic tradition, it was understood that the wayward monk or careless layperson was in constant danger of being dragged off to Hell if they gave in to the temptations of the flesh. In the famous "Ladder of Divine Ascent" icon (12th century), monks who were insufficiently careful with the state of their soul are depicted being dragged off the ladder to heaven by demons with hooks and dragged down to Hell:

If this is the case with monks who were insufficiently careful with the state of their soul, what would be the lot of the sinning or wayward lay person? The instruction the viewer is supposed to take away from this image is that the way to salvation is difficult and it is easy to fall away; and, that falling away means being dragged to Hell. In other words, we have here a visual representation of our Lord's words that "Broad is the path that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it" (cf. Matt. 7:23). It also demonstrates that by this teaching, the Greeks understood that going to Hell was a very real danger, even for those reputed to be very holy.

In this Polish icon of the Last Judgment, we see a theme that we will see more of: Hell as a gaping mouthed monster swallowing the souls of sinners who flow into the mouth of the underworld through the "broad path":

Note the depiction of the torments of the damned in the dark area immediately to the left of the mouth of Hell. Again, the presumption is that Hell will have some human population.

In Illuminated Manuscripts

Moving to the west during the high medieval period, some of the most vivid depictions of the mysteries of the faith come from the vibrant illustrations of monastic illuminated manuscripts. Many such illustrations survive, many depicting images of Hell populated with human beings. Here is a particularly colorful illustration from around the year 1180:

In a later manuscript from Cleves around 1400, Hell is depicted as a gaping mouth swallowing up sinners. Note the demons at the lower left wheeling a basket load of damned sinners to dump into the frightening maw of the beast. This theme of Hell as a giant mouth grinding sinners was common in later medieval art.

It is worth noting that this particular picture was found in a Breviary used by lay persons. That is, this frightening image was meant to be contemplated as one prayer the Divine Office. Clearly, the lesson is meant to be hortatory - this could be you if you aren't careful.

One more example. In a Tuscan manuscript illustration that is doubly-offensive to the politically correct, a group of homosexuals is depicted walking with abandon along the path to Hell. The illustrations date from 1327-28. The text contains a version of Dante's Inferno detailing the punishments that await Sodomites:

Not only is it inferred that Hell will be populated, but a particular class of sinners is singled out as especially meriting Hell by their unnatural acts. Medieval man clearly understood Hell to be populated by human occupants in addition to the demons.

Last Judgment Depictions on Gothic Tympanum

With the 12th and 13th centuries, western Europe saw the rise and expansion of Gothic architecture. Pope Benedict XVI once called the Gothic cathedrals "Bibles in stone" and noted that in their resplendent artistic depictions, theology, art and daily life all come together to "reveal a synthesis of faith and art, harmoniously expressed through the universal and captivating language of beauty" (source).

One common feature in most Gothic cathedrals was the portal, the great door through which the faithful entered. In the high middle ages, it was common for the portals to feature depictions of the Last Judgment, usually above the door on a semi-circular surface called a tympanum. The purpose of depicting the Last Judgment on the portal was to call the faithful to recollect themselves before entering Mass; they were about to approach the altar of the Lord - was their soul sufficiently pure? They were about to enter to worship the eyes of the King and Judge before whom all secrets are laid bare, who would one day judge all men, sending some to heaven, some to damnation. Therefore, before entering Mass, one ought to recollect themselves and examine their conscience.

In this first picture, we see the tympanum above the portal of Notre Dame cathedral. At the center we see Christ seated as the Judge. Below on the left (our Lord's right hand), we see the blessed in the charge of an angel about to be led off to eternal life. On the right (our Lord's left), we see the damned in the charge of a demon, who has bound them all with a rope and is about to lead them off to damnation.

A similar portal from Bourges Cathedral in central France. Again, at the right hand of Christ we see the righteous, and at Christ's left the damned in the company of the demons being led off to damnation.

Both depictions, as well as numerous other Gothic portals, call to mind the parable of the Sheep and the Goats, in which our Lord says to those on His left, "Depart from me, ye accursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (cf. Matt. 25:41). Being that the purpose of the portal was to encourage the worshiper to recollect his mind and examine his conscience prior to Mass, the implication is that the portal images of judgment were meant to lead the worshiper to consider that this fearsome judgment could be his real fate if his life was not sufficiently pure and his conscience not sufficiently clean. In the portals, art meets praxis, leading the observer to contemplate his eternal destiny.

Other Literature

Earlier we mentioned Dante's Inferno. It has been stated in the past, most notably by Dorothy Sayers in her masterful introduction to the Divine Comedy, that no medieval literature so perfectly reflected the medieval mind as Dante's Divine Comedy. The whole structure of the Comedy presupposes a Hell in which sinners experience God's justice in punishment for their unrepentance. Far from being troubled about the idea of human beings in Hell, Dante sees it as a manifestation of the justice of God. In Canto III of the Inferno, the inscription upon the Gates of Hell reads:

Justice the founder of my fabric mov'd:
To rear me was the task of power divine,
Supremest wisdom, and primeval love.

Thus, far from being tormented in their conscience about how God could let anybody go to Hell, or about how the presence of sinners in Hell would mean that God and Christ "lost", Dante, and with him the whole medieval tradition, see a profound justice in the fact - not the hypothesis - but the fact of human damnation.

We could further cite the 15th century Biblia Pauperum, "The Bible of the Poor", a very unique picture-book of Germanic origin depicting the Bible completely in pictures with very brief Latin captions. In the Biblia Pauperum's depiction of the Last Judgment, the damned are taken to Hell by a demon who binds them with a cord and drags them off to perdition. Note that, as this book was meant for the illiterate, it's purpose was not scholarly but hortatory. The faithful are supposed to contemplate this reality and amend their lives in light of it, precisely because it is implied that this could happen to them.

Mystery Plays

Medieval piety was nourished by theatrical presentations. Passion Plays depicted the last week of the life of our Lord; Mystery Plays depicted some mystery of the Faith or taught a moral lesson, sometimes using allegory. A very common theme in medieval Mystery Plays was the Day of Judgment, in which the just were depicted being carried away to Heaven, while the damned were dragged away to Hell by actors dressed as demons, usually to a hidden chamber under the stage or make-shift monster head representing the gates of Hell.

These plays were meant to inspire morality in the people, and fear of a real possibility of damnation was a clear part of this message. Again, the warning, 'This could be you.' These plays continued right up into the early modern period and occasionally still take place in certain areas of Europe.

Renaissance Art

During the Renaissance, multiple works were composed which depicted the pains of Hell, many of them at the behest of clerics or even popes. The most famous, of course, being Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel illustration of the Last Judgment, which Cardinals are meant to contemplate as they select the successor to Peter.

Above is a close up of the damned being ferried into Hell by the classical figure of Charon. Can we imagine anything more offensive than to suggest that a depiction of the damned be carried to Hell on the wall of the Sistine Chapel is not an extremely powerful argument that the Church does in fact assume that there are people in Hell? Especially given that this image was requested by the pope himself?

What the People Thought

The sensus fidelium of the Christian people, from the earliest days of Christianity on up, was clearly that not only was Hell a real place, but that there was a real danger that one could wind up there; not only this, but that it was in fact easy to wind up there, and that this was a particular danger to those who were careless about their salvation. In all this it was simply presumed that Hell had a human population, that real folks ended up in Hell.

And if people believed this, it was no surprise. It is easily deduced from the Bible. Hagiographies, such as the Golden Legend of Jacob de Voraigne were replete with stories of people going to Hell, souls in Hell appearing in visions to warn people against making the same bad choices, visions of the torments of Hell, etc.

The spiritual books consumed by the more literate and pious classes contained the same message. Thomas a Kempis, whose famous Imitation of Christ has been the most popular Christian spiritual book other than the Bible, frequently asked the sinner to contemplate the pains and duration of Hell. In a famous passage he writes:

"Persons shall be punished most for those sins in which they have offended most. The slothful will be pricked with red hot spikes; the gluttons will be tormented with great hunger and thirst. The lovers of luxury and dissipation will be immersed in sulphur and burning pitch and the envious will wail and howl like mad dogs. No sin will be without its proper punishment...One hours of pain there will be more grievous than a hundred years spent in rigorous penance here. There is no rest or comfort for the damned. At least here we have periods of rest from work and the consolations of our friends...

And if you can endure so little pain now, how will you stand everlasting torments? If you lose your patience over a small suffering now, what will the fires of hell do hereafter? You cannot have two heavens: it is impossible to enjoy yourself here and afterward to reign with Christ." (Thomas a Kempis, Imitation of Christ, Book 1, Chapter 24).

Such passages are legion in devotional books of the late medieval and early modern periods. The hortatory value of such passages consists precisely in that the reader is invited to contemplate the pains of Hell as a very real possibility for their own soul. The knowledge that one's own soul can actually wind up in a state of eternal torment provides the impetus to do penance and cling to Christ. Note that the moral force of such arguments is drained considerably if the possibility of a soul winding up in Hell is not a real one.

Theological studies and popular sermons alike took for granted that people went to Hell. Both St. Thomas' Summa and his Compendium of Theology contain numerous passages on Hell, why its punishments are eternal, how the souls there suffer pain, of what nature is the "fire" that torments damned souls. St. Alphonsus Ligouri has many famous sermons on the pains of the damned and the nature of the punishments of Hell, as do many other saints, all of which were meant to be understood by the people as exhortations to avoid what was a real possibility - eternal damnation - and it was assumed that many others had already not managed to avoid it.

We must note an important distinction here: Christian sensus fidelium does not simply say it is really possible for someone to wind up in Hell; Balthasarians admit this as well. The sensus fidelium presumes that there are in fact already people in Hell, and that it is inevitable that people will wind up in Hell. In other words, Christians tradition views it as an impossibility that Hell is empty.

The truth is bound up with teaching, and teaching with learning. The Balthasarian can always retort that none of the evidence we have brought forward here are 'official Church teaching'. True. But there is more than the Church teaching; there is the Ecclesia discens, the Church learning, which reveals to us how the Catholic people, animated by the Holy Spirit and led by God, have understood and amalgamated the truths that the Church has taught them. In this case, the sensus fidelium of the Catholic people on the real presence of human beings in Hell is so weighty and universal as to render any arguments to the contrary entirely impotent.

The sensus fidelium is bound up with the development of doctrine and Christian Tradition. If the Balthasarian-Fr. Barron theorem is true, then all of these centuries of artistic, architectural and literary development, in fact the whole instinct of the Christian people, is without purpose. Our traditions are meaningless, and we might as well not even speak of a sensus fidelium or en ecclesia discens at all, because clearly the common understanding of the Christian people will have given way to the novelties of "experts."

To sum it up, Balthasar and Fr. Barron say it is "possible" that Hell is empty. The sensus fidelium presumes it is inevitable that Hell will not be empty; it is impossible for Hell to be empty. Balthasar says it is possible; the Catholic instinct says it is impossible.

Next time, we will examine the Fr. Barron-Balthasar empty hell theory as a denial of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

Fr. Barron and Mark Shea and Balthasar are Wrong

Michael Voris recently came out with a video entitled simply "Fr. Barron is Wrong", challenging the popular priest-evangelist on his repeated statements in favor of the theory proposed by the late Hans Urs von Balthasar in Dare We Hope? that it is acceptable for Christian to have good hope that Hell may be empty. Voris rightly notes that Christ Himself says some souls will definitely go to Hell on numerous occasions, and that the Church's alleged "silence" on the definitive presence of anyone in Hell is not due to any support for the empty-hell theory, but due to the fact that the definitive presence of any one soul in Hell is not part of Divine Revelation and therefore outside the pale of the Church's competence to define. Therefore, the fact that the Church has never "proclaimed" anyone in Hell provides no rationale whatsoever for asserting that Hell is empty.

At this point Mark Shea jumped in and accused Voris of smearing Fr. Barron wrongly with his "poison." It is not my intention here to comment on the antagonism between Voris and Shea; I am more interested in Shea's comments that the Fr. Barron-Balthasar "Empty Hell" theory is "perfectly within the pale of orthodox speculation" and that "at the end of the day, that’s all you have: two schools of opinion–both of which are allowed by the Church." Thus, the Balthasarian "Empty Hell" theory is granted a legitimate place on the spectrum of legitimate opinions upon which Catholics can disagree in good conscience, and the traditional opinion that people do in fact go to Hell is also placed on the spectrum as another legitimate "option."

This defense of Fr. Barron and Balthasar apparently goes back to Shea's position that Tradition itself has two "irreconcilable" aspects of the question of Hell that leave the issue fraught with a certain "tension", which I contest but will leave off for the time being. 

I am more interested in Shea's comments about "two schools of opinion-both of which are allowed by the Church." This is what I object to. Balthasar's "Empty Hell" theory is absolutely not a legitimate position on the Catholic spectrum, nor is the belief that some people actually go to Hell just one of various "schools of opinion." According to Fr. Barron, Shea, and Balthasar, even though it is heresy to say that we know that Hell is empty, it is not heresy to suggest that we can have a good hope that Hell is empty. How Fr. Barron and others can assert this is beyond me, since even this proposition is condemned as a heresy by Bl. Pius IX. Let us recall the Syllabus of Errors, number 17, in which the following proposition is condemned:

"Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ." -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

This is precisely what Fr. Barron and Balthasar assert, and what Mark Shea says is "perfectly within the pale of orthodox speculation." Fr. Barron says we can at least have a good hope that everyone makes it to heaven, and yet Pius IX specifically condemns this opinion. Not only proclaiming knowledge of universal salvation, but even allowing "good hope" to so much as be "entertained" is condemned. Period.

Our Lord teaches as much when He says, "Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in through it." (Matt. 7:13). He does not suggest that there are many for whom it is possible that they go to destruction but do not actually go; He says "many there are who go through it." Many means many. Many does not mean "nobody."

In discussions about this topic by apologists pushing the Balthasarian opinion, I seldom see any reference to Luke 13, when Jesus is asked the question point blank, "Lord, are only few people going to be saved?" to which Christ responds, "Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able." (v.23-24). You see that? Many shall seek to enter, and shall not be able. This is not the realm of the hypothetical.

Revelation 20:15 is cited by Voris in his video, which says, "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the pool of fire." Again, this is not presented as a hypothetical, but as a real vision of the situation at the Last Judgment. It could be countered that it only says that people not in the book of life get cast into the pool of fire, but does not imply that anyone was actually in this unfortunate position. We do know at least, however, that two individuals will be damned: the Beast and the False Prophet: "And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." (Rev. 20:10).

Furthermore, if nobody was actually thrown into the pool of fire, how would John have this knowledge that anyone whose name was not in the book would be thrown in the pool of fire? To put it another way: Suppose I say, "I was uptown yesterday, and I saw the police were ticketing everybody who weren't wearing seat belts." Then suppose you ask, "So how many people got ticketed?" and I say, "Oh, nobody" wouldn't you be utterly confused? The basic grammar of the statement "I saw the police were ticketing everybody who weren't wearing seat belts" implies an action completed in the past, not some hypothetical. This demonstrates the kind of contortions one has to put the Scriptures through to deny the obvious fact that some people will wind up eternally damned.

We could also cite Lumen Gentium 16, which says, "Some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the missions with care and attention."

Note that LG 16 says that "there are" some who wind up dying in final despair without God, and then goes on to cite this as one of the reasons for the urgency of the Great Commission, which is in accord with Tradition: the Gospel must be preached in order to save souls from Hell.

Fr. Barron and Shea both assert that the Empty Hell theory of Balthasar seems to be taught by Pope Benedict XVI in Spe Salvi. Having just completed a very thorough study of the late pontiff's encyclical, I dispute this fact, but that is for another post. But it is sufficient to say that, if we are reading the Magisterium in continuity with itself, Spe Salvi can simply not mean what Fr. Barron and Shea suggest, otherwise Benedict XVI contradicts Pius IX.

The "Empty Hell" theory is not one of many legitimate "schools of thought." It is a novelty, toyed with early on by Origen and then virtually abandoned until the modern era. The amount of legerdemain and re interpretive manipulation one has to do to Scripture, Magisterial teaching, history and tradition in order to breathe life into the theories of Fr. Barron and Balthasar on this question is appalling. The evidence in favor of the traditional teaching that there are people in Hell outweighs Balthasar and Fr. Barron's positions as a tidal wave overwhelms a sand castle. That this novelty is being defended by some as a legitimate position within the pale of orthodoxy is sad, especially in light of Syllabus of Errors number 17 which explicitly condemns it. It should also be noted, in case one wants to write off Voris, that very respected mainstream priests and theologians also consider Fr. Barron's opinions very troubling, such as Msgr. Charles Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington (see here) as well as Dr. Scott Hahn, who once stated that Balthasar's theory was absolutely without merit.

I'm not anti-Mark Shea. His book, By What Authority? helped bring me to the Church. But, as Voris said of Fr. Barron, Mark Shea is simply wrong here. I'm not "attacking" him, not "smearing" him, not calling him a heretic. I am just saying he is simply wrong.

Being that we are entering that period of the liturgical year when the readings direct our minds towards the Last Things, for the remainder of November all my posts will relate to this question of Hell, its reality, eternal duration, and the Church's Tradition on this important subject. Next time, I will examine the definitive presence of damned souls in Hell throughout Christian Tradition as established by the Christian sensus fidelium.

Fr. Castellani on the Kingship of Christ

In honor of the traditional Feast of Christ the King celebrated this week, we bring you a passage from the sermons of Argentine priest Fr. Leonardo Castellani, S.J. (1899-1981) on the kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ. Fr. Castellani suffered intense persecution from the Jesuit order during the forties and fifties for refusing to embrace the theories of Teilhard de Chardin and remaining faithful to St. Thomas Aquinas; he even suffered forcible confinement in Spain for two years and was eventually expelled from the Jesuit order as the sons of St. Ignatius began to embrace modernism. The following citations are taken from a collection of Fr. Castellani's sermons entitled Domingueras Prédicas:

"In front of Pilate, Christ affirmed three times that He was a King in the same sense that Pilate understood it. 'Then you are a King?' Jesus answered, 'You say that I am a King,' in other words, 'You are correct.' It is true that He told him, 'My kingdom is not of this world,' but He did not say, 'My kingdom is not here.' He used the adverb 'hinc' (Regnum meum non est hinc) which indicates movement and does not exist in English. This adverb 'hinc' meant three things at the same time, 'My Kingdom does not proceed from this world, My Kingdom is in this world; My Kingdom goes from this world to the other world.'

Apparently He is a 'poor King' who doesn't rule much these days, since if He were reigning, the world would be better. A large part of the world doesn't even know Him; another part knows Him and renounces Him, like the Jews, 'Nolumus Hunc regnare super nos' - 'We do not want this man to reign over us' (Lk. 19:14); finally, another part of the world recognizes Him in word but denies Him in deed; we are those cowardly Christians. But there is something else that Christ noted, that if a king's subjects rebel against him, he doesn't stop being king as long as he retains the power to punish them and to subjugate them once again. If he didn't have that power, that's another thing. And so today modernist heretics admit that Christ is King 'in a certain sense', but they deny the Second Coming of Christ. Then, yes, He would be a poor King. The modernists either entirely change the meaning of the Parousia, turning it into something else (as in the case of Teilhard de Chardin) or they say it will come in 18 million years - which is to say 'never.'

Pope Pius XI instituted the Feast of Christ the King against 'Liberalism;' Liberalism is precisely a form of cowardice. Liberalism denies the Kingship of Christ, His power by right over human society. This current Christian heresy is complicated..Liberalism eliminated the Kingship of Christ by saying something [ostensibly] 'innocent': that religion was a private matter, and therefore nations should respect all religions and the Church should not get involved in things that don't concern her--in other words, in public affairs. However, the great German philosopher Josef Pieper observes that if we make God a private matter (a matter within the conscience of each person), by the same token we convert the State into God; and we turn Jesus Christ and the Eternal Father into sub-gods. Indeed, this means that because the State is a public affair, religion would therefore be inferior to it and would have to submit to the State, since what is public is far superior to what is private and the private must submit to it.

In fact, history soon showed that 'liberal secularism', or supposed neutrality regarding religion, was n reality true hostility; and it ended up deifying and divinizing the State." (Leonardo Castellani, DominguerasPrédicas, pg. 327).

Pastoral Applications in Concrete Circumstances

There are many spiritual dangers that abound in the world today. Indeed there are so many that at times it feels like one is walking through a mine-field. Perhaps this is an appropriate image to use; after all, the Church Militant is engaged in a real war "against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places" (Eph. 6:12). In this war there can be no neutrality, no compromise, no quarter given and none received. Falsehoods must be destroyed by the light of truth, and sin by the power of holiness. There is no other way, and our eternal salvation is on the line.

So yes, dangers abound. Materialism. Atheism. Modernism. The sexual "revolution". Indifferentism. Every -ism that has ever reared its demonic head against the authority of God and His Church. The Church, of course, stands firm upon the promise of Christ, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). This promise is perpetuated and guaranteed by the special grace of infallibility granted to the successors of St. Peter, by which we understand that the Catholic Church, united under Peter and his successors, will never teach error. This guarantee is from Christ Himself, ratified in heaven by God the Father and upheld by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Therefore, we can rest easy, correct? Since Peter's successors will never fail, and since the Church will never teach error, we have no reason for concern about any of the troubling news coming from various quarters of the Church today, right? Everything we see going on around us is just par for the course, isn't it?

My friends, if we think so, we gravely delude ourselves. Yes, dangers abound. But these -isms are not the primary danger. The Church is guaranteed that she will never be ultimately teach these errors as truth. The real danger is not that the Church will teach error as truth, but rather, that the Church will tolerate error and allow deviations from Catholic discipline because it feels like it can't stop them anyway. Thus, the teaching will remain "on the books", so to speak, but like obsolete laws in many American states that ban drinking on Sundays but have not been enforced for decades, the teaching of the Church will remain a dead letter while aberrations and dissent will be accepted as the norm.

This is especially relevant to the Church's moral teaching. We can already see this line of reasoning rearing its head. It is not hard to find.  It can be found anywhere you hear a bishop or theologian saying that, while Church teaching has not changed, "pastoral applications in concrete situations", may have to be devised to "deal with" current realities. That is the code phrase - pastoral applications in concrete situations. What this means in practice is that people who find Catholic moral teaching too difficult for modernity will be given a pass on their behavior in the name of being pastoral, i.e., keeping them showing up to Mass on Sunday. It has the benefit of being able to leave doctrinal element intact, but destroy its application through appeal to "actual circumstances". Let us examine three examples:

(1) Homosexual Relationships: We have already seen plenty of examples of this. Without changing or denying Church teaching, some have stated that active homosexuals should be welcomed in the Catholic Church and even encouraged to participate in parish ministries. The Church does not approve of their sinful lifestyle, but nobody should ever act as if this is the case. This is seen to be an appropriate "pastoral response" to the "actual circumstance" or homosexual couples seeking to get engaged in parish life without renouncing their sin. Thus, the formal condemnation of such behavior is rendered meaningless by a refusal to act as if this condemnation means anything practically. We call to mind for our readers the example of Cardinal Schoenborn, who in 2012 overruled one of his parish priests and permitted a man in an active homosexual "domestic partnership" to serve on parish council.

(2) Divorce and Remarried Reception of Communion: The Church's position on the intrinsic impossibility of divorce and consequent sinfulness of any putative "remarriage" is well known. Because a putative "remarriage" is nothing other than adultery, those living in such unions are in an objectively sinful state and cannot receive Holy Communion. However, given the very, very large number of Catholics living in this state, it means many Catholics are barred from receiving Holy Communion. This may cause them to become "discouraged" and "leave the Church" (nevermind that a person who persists in a state of objective sin has already left the Church in their heart). Therefore, to keep them at least showing up to Mass, pastors should grant exceptions to this rule when "particular circumstances" demand it. Consider the teaching of Prof. Paul Zulehner, theologian and professor emeritus for Pastoral Theology at the University of Vienna. In an opinion published in 2010, he stated, "In principle the church bars divorced and remarried Catholics from the reception of communion, but in concrete situations it can and should act pastorally, like a caring head of a household." He then went on to cite a pastoral letter of the Austrian bishops, which states, "“According to the traditional practice of the church, they cannot participate in the full sacramental life, except when there are special circumstances that in each individual case will need to be clarified further in a conversation with an experienced priest.” So, "in principle" nothing has changed, but in actuality, anyone who can claim "special circumstances" in "concrete situations" may convince the priest to "act pastorally" by giving them Holy Communion despite Church teaching!

(3) Cohabiting Catholics: This is so common as to not need much comment. Catholics who are cohabiting are seldom challenged from the pulpit. Catholics who are cohabiting and present themselves for marriage are given a pass, if the priest even bothers to inquire about their living arrangements. With Bishops pressuring parish priests about falling "numbers" of weddings and baptisms performed, many priests are fearful of causing a problem in the Diocese and choose to look the other way and marry cohabiting couples rather than risk causing a breach which may lead them to marry in a Protestant Church or before a judge. Thus, while the official teaching has not changed, the Church's condemnation of cohabitation comes to mean absolutely nothing in the practical sense.

In each of these three situations, we see some common threads:

(1) Prioritizing keeping these people physically coming to Mass at all costs, based on an unhealthy focus on the "numbers" of people attending Mass and receiving sacraments.

(2) A disassociation of doctrine from the practical moral consequents that necessarily flow from that doctrine.

(3) A misguided notion of bringing order to the Church by means simply approving abuses; legalizing or at least sanctioning illegal acts "restores order."

(4) A definition of "pastoral" that means keeping people feeling good about the Catholic Church, as opposed to the traditional notion of "pastoral" as meaning leading people to eternal salvation.

The Bishops of the State of Kansas addressed this division between doctrine and practice in a 1998 letter on the subject of cohabitation, in which they stated that, if cohabitation was in fact morally wrong, that parish priests were obliged to actually act as if this were the case. They summarize the problem of the current approach appropriately:

"How can the priest preach the word of God and uphold the church's teaching on chastity and premarital sex with any integrity while at the same time allowing an unmarried couple to live together as if there is nothing morally wrong with that arrangement?" (Letter of Kansas Bishops on Cohabitation)

Actions are a manifestation of attitude. We cannot maintain that something remains morally wrong while refusing to confront it. To do so is to act "as if there is nothing morally wrong", and results in a practical nullification of the teaching. If something is wrong, we must not only profess it to be wrong in principle, but act as if it were wrong "in concrete circumstances." The same document goes on to correct misguided notions of "compassion" by reminding priests of the unity of compassion with truth, of pastoral principles with dogmatic principles

"Some priests sincerely feel they are acting out of compassion for the cohabiting couple, knowing how difficult it might be to challenge them to live apart. Compromising the full truth of the Bible, however, is really a disservice because Jesus teaches that the truth will set us free no matter how difficult the sacrifice may be."

Unfortunately, when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, even this document ends up waffling on the issue in the end. When addressing what a priest should do if he asks a cohabiting couple in marriage preparation to separate:

"If the answer to the question asked above is "No, we choose to not separate before marriage," then further considerations must be made. If the couple has shown that they are living together for the reason of convenience or financial benefit, and the engaged couple is planning a formal marriage, then the priest will explore with the couple on a deeper level the meaning of the sacrament in the marital bond and the commitment to permanence and stability."

It is unfortunate that the document does not simply say, "If they refuse to separate, then they cannot be married in the Church."

The problem of pleading "pastoral applications in concrete circumstances" as a means of avoiding the unpleasant implications of doctrine is another wonderful example of modern teachings proclaimed "ex voce", in other words, teachings we are meant to imbibe by a kind of unofficial osmosis; teachings not communicated through official, authoritative channels, but nevertheless truly communicated in low-level pronouncements, in the manner in which bishops act and what they choose to emphasize, and to the pastoral actions priests take (or do not take) when confronted with these situations. It is a subtle way to communicate new approaches to theology and morality without formally changing anything. Nothing has changed, but everything has changed.

In a 1994 document on the question of communion for divorce and remarried Catholics, Cardinal Ratzinger stated that "authentic understanding and genuine mercy are never separated from the truth" (source). Discipline, though logically distinct from doctrine, is nevertheless intimately related to doctrine and flows from it. As the world slides further and further into chaos, and as humanity continues to throw off all moral restraint, will we respond by insisting ever more firmly on the Church's morality and challenge Catholics to exemplify it, or will we respond the same way we responded to female altar servers and communion in the hand, by "baptizing" the abuse and calling it a day?

"Pastoral applications in concrete situations." Be on guard.

Consecration of "the World" this Weekend

This Sunday our Holy Father Pope Francis will consecrate the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Of course, there are no plans to mention Russia specifically, and the bishops of the world have not been asked to participate. It looks as if our current pontiff will be continuing in the trajectory set by previous pontiffs of performing generic world consecrations that do not fulfill Our Lady's request at Fatima.

This is a profoundly disappointing development, especially since with Francis' current popularity, such a consecration of Russia specifically, and in union with the bishops, would most likely be well received by the faithful and the hierarchy, the former of whom have expressed on more than one occasion their willingness to participate in a consecration of Russia when and if the Holy Father should wish to do it.

And what is the point of a consecration of "the world"? To consecrate something means to set it apart, dedicated to the service of God. Now, "the world" is really everything. How can you set apart everything? What is it being set apart from? Perhaps I am being a little simplistic here, and I will willingly receive correction on this point, but to consecrate the whole world seems like playing a game where everybody wins. And if everybody wins, then nobody does; if everything is consecrated, is anything consecrated? And if the entire planet is to be consecrated, why the necessity of repeating this consecration again and again over the past sixty years? Each subsequent consecration suggests and imperfection in the previous one; unless we take the position that consecrations periodically need to be renewed.

Who knows. The consistent failure of the last several popes to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart is one of the most disappointing aspects of modern Catholicism, and it does not look like it is going to happen anytime soon, although our Lady did state that it would finally happen, but "late." I am not one of those people who attributes every single ill in the world and the Church to the failure of the popes to consecrate Russia, but the way things are going, it is very difficult to not see a correlation between the darkness the Church suffers through and the ongoing failure to make the consecration.

On a positive note, I do know through several reliable sources that Fr. Gruner is in the Vatican this week, and that allegedly he will be meeting with Pope Francis prior to the consecration. It is known that Pope Francis, as Cardinal Bergoglio, had written to Fr. Gruner in the past. I do not know the nature of their meeting this week, but I pray it will be fruitful.

These are very strange times, my friends.

On the Cult of Bridget the Brave

I usually don't post with an aim towards addressing issues of a purely local interest, but I think today's post can be beneficial to a broader audience, especially anyone who has ever had to deal with the problems arising from lack of discipline with regards to private apparitions or the veneration of unapproved local "saints." In Plymouth, MI., which is practically my own backyard, there has been a little controversy going on over a young girl who died of a brain tumor last year. This girl was 9 years old at the time of her death and had battled cancer courageously for a long time. Sure enough, shortly after her death, the young girl was being venerated as if her sanctity were beyond doubt. Many Catholics locally are praying to her, and relics of her are even being circulated, all of course without the permission of the local Ordinary. She even has a title she is being invoked under; "Bridget the Brave."

First of all, condolences to the family on the tragic loss of their beloved daughter. Losing a child is terrible, and while I do not know the pain first hand, I have known several people who have lost children and I offer my sincerest prayers and affections to the family. It is not my purpose in this post to address any questions about the person of young Bridget or her sanctity, but rather to address the question of the appropriateness of the veneration being offered to her so soon after her death.

I do not do this on my own initiative, but on behalf of those who have consistently asked about the propriety offering this sort of veneration to somebody who has no official cultus recognized by the Church. In fact, I have had multiple inquiries just in the past 30 days on this case. I don't know who is perpetuating the cult of Bridget the Brave, or to what degree the family is involved or how widespread it is, but it must be substantial based on the sorts of inquiries and reports I have been getting. For example, a friend of mine was recently in a car accident, and some local Catholics showed up offering relics of Bridget the Brave to be kept by the girl's hospital bedside.

The simple question that keeps coming up is this: What degree of public veneration is appropriate for a dead individual without any public recognition from the Church? The correct answer is none.

It is certainly true that a saint does not need to be canonized to have a public cultus. In fact, the recognition of an existing cultus is one of the criteria for beatification and canonization; it is a recognition by the Magisterium that a cult of veneration to that individual already exists and that the faithful have already recognized their sanctity. Thus, it might seem counter intuitive to suggest that no public cultus can exist without some sort of formal recognition, when in fact the existence of a public cult is a prerequisite for ecclesiastical recognition. Is this not a contradiction?

What we must keep in mind is that a public cultus is called into being by the local Ordinary. This is done by the Bishop formally asking the Congregation for the Causes of Saints to open a cause for the saint. Once the Congregation accepts the petition of the bishop and opens the cause, the individual receives the title "Servant of God." This is the "documentary" phase of the process, when the Congregation is busy looking over the life and doctrine of the candidate.

"Servant of God" is the lowest "rank" a person on the path to canonization may have. What sort of veneration is permissible at this stage? The most recent declaration here is the Congregation's 2007 instruction Sanctorum Mater, which states:

"Any solemn celebrations or panegyric speeches about Servants of God whose sanctity of life is still being legitimately examined are prohibited in Churches. Furthermore, one must also refrain, even outside of Church, from any acts which could mislead the faithful into thinking that the inquiry conducted by the Bishop into the life of the Servant of God and his virtues or martyrdom carries with it the certitude that the Servant of God will be one day canonized."

While obviously liturgical celebrations and homilies about the Servant are forbidden, the instruction declares that "even outside of Church", any actions are prohibited which might mislead the faithful into thinking the Servant's sanctity was already declared or that their canonization is inevitable. This would preclude publicly offering the Servant titles like "Bridget the Brave", encouraging groups or individuals to ask for her intercession, and especially things like passing around alleged relics. In fact, the Code of Canon Law 1187, which addresses veneration of relics and images, states that no relic can be publicly venerated unless that individual has been officially recognized by the Church as at least a blessed. Passing relics around and distributing them in hospitals and calling them "relics" does constitute public veneration, in my opinion at least.

Please note this is not even appropriate activity for one who has been deemed a Servant of God. Bridget has not even been declared a Servant of God by the Congregation of Causes for Saints. In fact, the local Ordinary (Archbishop Vigneron of Detroit) has not even submitted a report to the Congregation yet; in fact, the Ordinary has not given any sort of recognition to the cultus of Bridget whatsoever. All that has happened so far is the family has consulted the parish priest about trying to get a cause established and some documentation has been collected. If the above mentioned activities are not appropriate for a Servant of God, it should be beyond doubt that they are not appropriate for someone of Bridget's status.

It is evident that there is nothing even remotely close to an officially recognized public cultus. Therefore, what sort of veneration is appropriate? If those who knew this girl want to promote her sainthood, the thing to do is to collect evidence of her sanctity, spread the word about her heroism, pray for the public recognition of her sanctity, and petition the local Ordinary to ask the Congregation to open a cause. But remember that the Congregation does not have to open a cause, and that there is no absolute certitude Bridget the Brave is currently in heaven, or that she exhibited heroic virtue in life. Therefore, public or private prayers addressed to Bridget the Brave are not appropriate; nor is it appropriate to pass "relics" of this young girl around as if her sanctity were already self-evident. It is for the Congregation to decide on her sanctity, not the laity at large.

We must keep in mind the decree of Pope Alexander III (1173), who, when he heard a bishop was allowing veneration of a man who had not been formally approved by the Church, declared, "You shall not therefore presume to honor him in the future; for, even if miracles were worked through him, it is not lawful for you to venerate him as a saint without the authority of the Catholic Church." (Lambertini, De Servorum Dei, "On Heroic Virtues", c. 1:21 and Gregory IX, Decretales, III, "De reliquiis et veneratione sanctorum").

We applaud the pious wishes of the folks involved in this case to promote an heroic example of Christian suffering and holiness. But all things must be done in proper order, and to publicly invoke the girl as if her sanctity were already beyond doubt and pass around relics are not appropriate actions at this point. If this sweet girl truly is a saint, may the Church recognize her sainthood! But we must wait on the Church before presuming to offer her the sort of veneration that can only come with the approbation of the Church. And in the meantime, as we wait for that day to come, continue to pray for Bridget.

For more information on the scrutiny that is meant to go into a canonization process, please see this article on the history of canonizations with relation to the office of the Devil's Advocate.

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.