Rorate Caeli

"The revolution inside the Catholic Church was on the part of the clergy"

Fr. Joseph Kramer FSSP, parish priest of SS. Trinità dei Pellegrini (the personal parish for the Traditional Latin Mass in Rome) speaks on the prospects of Tradition in the Catholic Church:

Catholic News Service's companion piece to this video: New generation, old rite: the enduring appeal of Catholic tradition. 

H/t Orbis Catholicus Secundus

57 comments:

Henry said...

The most remarkable feature of this video is that it was produced by the Catholic News Service (CNS) or the USCCB (U.S. Catholic bishops). Even more remarkable is the full CNS article it accompanied:

New generation, old rite: the enduring appeal of Catholic tradition
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201739.htm

Such a CNS article so sympathetic to the TLM might have been hard to imagine just a year or two ago.

Alan Aversa said...

Read the full article here.

Tradical said...

While the video is quite good, as I scanned the article (I haven't read it completely yet ...) three points at the end caught my attention.

"... have a benign attitude to the documents of the council ..."

This seems somewhat counter-cultural in light of a (seemingly) persistant maglignant attitude towards the pre-Conciliar teachings/documents of the Church.

"...it's time to follow the Holy Father in an attempt at integration within Catholicism..."

This evoked a cultural-dissonance. Almost a borg-like 'resistance is futile' sort of feeling. If Traditionalists have retained a strong Catholic identity and cultural assumptions, then how can we be 'integrated within Catholicism'?

"... Catholic identity, to know your religion, practice it well, but on the other hand, be an influence within the church at large and then within the world."

Again a slight cultural dissonance. I agree with the latter part, however IMO Traditionalists have wanted to practice our faith etc and for that we've been ostracized.

I'm a little wary the water temperature at this point in time.

Francis said...

Very nice video. As a member of the confraternity of the FSSP I'm glad to see this. Tradition will return to the whole Church alot faster (Though it will take many, many years to restore the whole Church to tradition) when and if the FSSPX are "regularized" and come into "full communion" with the Holy See.

Picard said...

yes, Tradical - the viedo-interview is better than the whole written text.

"For most of the half-century since Vatican II, traditionalist Catholics have been "trying to find a niche in which they can survive," Father Kramer says. "But now I think it's time to follow the Holy Father in an attempt at integration within Catholicism."

That´s unbearable!

And then this positive attitude rer the 2. Vat. (yes, Brian, you are right!) - here the Rev. Fr. (and the FSSP) seems to be not up to date and more "trad" and "conservative" than others: they fail to recognise that since some years it is more and more "en vogue" to have a very critical stance re the 2. Vat. - like Gherardini, de Mattei, Bf. Fellay ;-) etc. have.

The church can't have a council that contradicts previous councils. That just can't happen in Catholicism.

No, sorry - I know that there are more hyper-magisterial-gyes out there, also on Rorate - but to repeat it again and again:
Non-infallible texts can entail error, can contradict old catholic teachings (esp. if the non-infallible teachings declare themselfes as "pastoral"!)
We have examples for that.

It can happen in Catholicism. Only an infallible text can not contradict an other infallible text. Only this can not happen in Catholicism.

Giovanni A. Cattaneo said...

I wonder if this video is code for those inside or in the know that pretty much as far as V2 is concerned "enough is enough." Full on with getting the stuff out of the Church.

Jognn said...

Why do people continue to make use of YouTube instead of things like gloria.tv?

>:(

Marsaili said...

This is one of the things that I find refreshing about the FSSP. By way of intellectual, thoughtful, and charitable reasoning, they are able to get a point across without playing the blame game.

Marsaili said...

Picard wrote:

"Non-infallible texts can contain error, can contradict old Catholic teachings (esp. if the non-infallible teachings declare themselves as "pastoral!"
We have examples for that."

Please cite examples for this which are from authoritative magisterial sources (as opposed to private opinion, which doesn't count).

JWDT said...

Need to look at this from a different point of view...I am wondering why at this time is the CNS posting positive stories with this side of the Catholicism? A thought is, maybe they are positioning themselves for the future (i.e. those who continually say they are attached to ALL of Rome instead of this partial attachment business)...time will reveal..

Eomer said...

Nice, but no cigar!

Robinhoodwascatholic said...

This is a remarkable video not because it is a positive story about traditional faith but the quotes from John XXIII and Paul VI. As someone who is in communion with the Pope I can not help but wonder why after successfully engaging the culture for almost 2000 years did the Church need to change the language it used to engage the modern world. And why did Paul VI say we needed to sacrifice what we loved about the faith to do this.

The fundamental problem for those of us inside the Church is we need to come to some understanding of Vatican II. The old paradigm was to accept it, then it was a blessing, now rationality is setting in and we now are looking to interpret it correctly. To ignore it is not possible and is avoiding a profound problem.

So the problem remains: What do we do with a council that is fundamentally flawed but has all the proper trappings of other councils? I believe under Benedict XVI we are now beginning to see this idea even discussed but the resolution of this problem is years or even generations away.

Gratias said...

Wise words. Verbum sapientae. The FSSP is dedicated to the good of the Church and we should be very grateful.

Anil Wang said...

Robinhoodwascatholic,
Simple, VII must be understood within the context of Tradition. Whatever is declared within VII cannot contradict Tradition, so where a contradiction appears one of two things must be assumed:
(1) A nuance is added to existing Tradition
(2) The point of contradiction is one of policy and not doctrine.

Take the issue of religious freedom as an example. It is very clear that it is a doctrine that there is no such thing as moral relativism. It is also very clear that historically, Jews, Muslims, and non-Catholics were not hunted down and forced to convert or die and that Justin Martyr appeals for tolerance from the Emperor of Rome. Non-Catholics in Catholic kingdoms were far better treated than people from other religions/denominations were treated in Protestant and Muslim kingdoms. So it appears there is some nuance on religious freedom.

What would be extremely helpful is if troublesome aspects of the documents of Vatican II were clarified in light of Tradition by adding footnotes to the original documents, so that when someone reads that virtuous pagans may be saved (which is consistent with Augustine "And how many sheep are inside, how many wolves without!"), it is an expression of our ignorance and acknowledgement that God is not bound by the Church rather than revelations.

Adding a sobering quote to the documents such as one from Saint Vincent Ferrer would be extremely helpful (Saint Vincent Ferrer relates that an archdeacon in Lyons gave up his charge and retreated into a desert place to do penance, and that he died the same day and hour as Saint Bernard. After his death, he appeared to his bishop and said to him, "Know, Monsignor, that at the very hour I passed away, thirty-three thousand people also died. Out of this number, Bernard and myself went up to heaven without delay, three went to purgatory, and all the others fell into Hell." -- 5 out of 33,000)

Neil Obstat said...

Robinhoodwascatholic said...

So the problem remains: What do we do with a council that is fundamentally flawed but has all the proper trappings of other councils? I believe under Benedict XVI we are now beginning to see this idea even discussed but the resolution of this problem is years or even generations away.

29 April, 2012 04:02


Error: Vatican II most definitely did NOT have "all the proper trappings of other councils."

What was missing? It contains NO CANONS. Why not? Because from day one, John XXIII proclaimed that no condemnation of error would be part of the council.

Without anathema, there is no protection of the Holy Ghost, and no infallibility. So it's the first council in the history of the Church that threw away that power. The common misconception that Vatican II had the protection of the Holy Ghost has deluded too many for too long.

Lest we overlook the obvious, other councils were not "fundamentally flawed" like Vat II, so that's not one of the "proper trappings" they have in common.

So what to do? The answer seems to me rather simple. And fast. Simply re-convene Vatican I, without any mention of Vatican II.

Vatican I was indefinitely postponed with the understanding that it would be resumed at an opportune time. Vatican II never did that, in fact, Vatican II pretended to IGNORE Vatican I, and even dared to utter contrary doctrine. Erstwhile Cardinal Ratzinger truthfully observed that it was a "counter syllabus." The Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX was in perfect harmony with Vatican I and in diametrical opposition to Vatican II.

Therefore, resume Vatican I, and get down to business. Vatican II is a dead end road and we should "move on." Enough is enough.

JTLiuzza said...

robinhood said:

"I can not help but wonder why after successfully engaging the culture for almost 2000 years did the Church need to change the language it used to engage the modern world. And why did Paul VI say we needed to sacrifice what we loved about the faith to do this."

Indeed. What does "change the language" mean anyway? It's modernist gibberish. The language is what it always has been: the truth. And "sacrificing what we love about the faith" means throwing away what the world doesn't like about the faith in order to capitulate to the world.

I often think about the suffering of just men who lived before Christ and had to endure this exile without the Church and all we have; the Word made Flesh. The world in all it's confusion is all they had save for the truth written in their hearts.

We are spared that. But after 2,000 years the very men who were ordained to guard this treasure of treasures talk about giving it up for the sake of the "modern" world, in language that is embarrassingly stupid.

How can you be handed the greatest treasure in the universe and decide that it is not up to your standards so you have to reinvent it in your image, because you are smarter and wiser than anyone who ever lived, and then hand it to your children in it's tarnished, subverted state and expect us not to notice once we come of age?

Jonvilas said...

Sorry guys, but I just wonder, how many of you have read all the documents of Vatican II. I have not. I have read Sacrosanctum Consilium, some abstracts from other, but not all. Yet I have read Dominus Iesus, which is truly in accord with Tradition and it explains a lot. Thus, although agreeing in principle with your idea "enough is enough", I still cannot but wonder all that childish snort against any at least neutral mentioning of V2. Well, I am also the member of Confraternity of St. Peter (CSP). I appears that you expect Holy Father to have a kind of miraculous wand with which he changes everything in a moment. He has not. What he is doing, is patiently changing the corrupt post-conciliar mentality. Therefore, instead of constant complaints, oremus pro pontifice nostro Benedicto!

Clinton R. said...

To sum it up, Vatican II is a complete failure in defending and promulgating the Catholic faith.

Neil Obstat said...

Jonvilas said...

Sorry guys, but I just wonder, how many of you have read all the documents of Vatican II. I have not. I have read Sacrosanctum Con[c]ilium, some abstracts from other, but not all.


You've really got the cart before the horse. You have no business reading Vatican II documents before you have taken the time, trouble and effort to study a few much older council documents, such as Trent, Vatican I and a few of the landmark encyclicals like Quanta Cura, Syllabus Errorum and Pascendi Dominici Gregis. Only then will you have some historical foundation by which you can measure the documents of Vatican II.

In case it makes any difference to you, yes, I have read all the documents of Vatican II, again and again, different translations, and that was 30 years ago.

Hugh said...

Therefore, in truth, it does not need changing to suit modern man. Leave it as it is because it embodies The Roman Catholic Faith.

And, Jonvilas, you need to read the VCII documents in context of the discussions surrounding them on liturgical matters because it is plain to see the liberals were going to have field day once they were in a position to impose their vision on the Mass. Moreover, read too what the so-called liturgical restoration trend under Arbp Bugnini were doing. Remember all of the three years pre-conciliar preparations by Pope John XXIII were effectively trashed from the outset of the councils. This cleared the way for the well-organised modernist onslaught.
Once you wade through all that now historically documented material you will understand why the NO emerged and the modernists attempted to fossilise Sacred Tradition in the liturgy. The VCs were the mdium for this revolution. We have to read about The Councils with our eyes wide open.

Cquiduc said...

"I still cannot but wonder all that childish snort against any at least neutral mentioning of V2."
You really can't understand that? I find that hard to believe.

Henry said...

Why are so many totally fixated on Vatican II, continually obsessing over its validity (or lack thereof) and that of its documents and detritus? Vatican II was fifty years ago. How many years has it been since anyone heard anything new or worthwhile said about it? Why not just forget about it, get over it, and move on?

Knight of Malta said...

Henry, it's hard to move on since SC essentially gave carte blanche authority to butcher the TLM.

Thank God that didn't happen. Paul VI actually ignored SC, and with his henchman Bugnini scrapped the TLM and concocted a witches brew of his own.

Actually, that last bit was a joke; I do think the NO is valid. But it confuses rather than renders the sacrifice as it is: a SACRIFICE. To give but one example. The offertory in the TLM is one of preparing for sacrifice; the offertory in the NO is one of preparing for a Jewish grace before a meal.

Marsaili, I'll cite you just one of many of the errors of VII which, prima facie, is correct, and then I will explain why you won't find "authoritative magisterial" sources citing the errors of VII. But, first to a prima facie error in VII:

NA says that Hindus are on a "loving, trusting flight towards God." It capitalizes "God" in the original text. Hindus don't believe in a "God", but thousands of gods.

So why wouldn't, say, Benedict XVI and JPII call out errors in VII? Because they were perti at Vatican II--they were the major players!

JFM said...

"how many of you have read all the documents of Vatican II. "

You are kidding, right? For years I have watched people beg for someone to explain Vatican II, to make sense of the documents. Meanwhile, clergy continually extol them without being able to explain what is so helpful about them outside of a social justice paradigm. There is no book the explains V2 in a positive matter and also upholds consistently classical Catholic teaching, because such a feat is impossible. If documents are that hard to justify, there is a problem, plain and simple. People accuse Traddies of being slavishly pro-authority, but only people blindly insisting on Rome's prerogatives could ever push the V2 case. The papal celebrations of the event are always impossibly opaque prose where you wonder what they hell they are saying.

Marsaili said...

In the companion piece written by Francis X. Rocca, he writes:

"Thanks to Vatican ll," Father Kramer says,"We're not celebrating the old rite as it was celebrated in the 1950's, which tended to be a very mechanical, perfunctory way of saying Mass, a bit cold and legalistic."

I think that Fr. Kramer is on to something here. When the TLM is celebrated by the priests of the FSSP, or SSPX, it's obvious how much they love the Mass. If this was not so much the case before the Council, I can see why our Lord, and the Holy Ghost, allowed it go go somewhat into exile, until such a time that it could be loved and appreciated for what it really is - the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven.

dcs said...

Without anathema, there is no protection of the Holy Ghost, and no infallibility.

Source?

Kevin B. said...

Henry,

I'd be happy to forget all about that Council and move forward toward the restoration of Holy Mother Church as if the Council had never happened.

But if I had a nickel for every priest or "lay minister" who has told me "Oh we don't do that anymore because of Vatican II," I could buy myself a nice steak dinner.

If you think the denizens of Rorate focus on Vatican II to an unhealthy degree, you should follow the comments on the National Catholic Reporter's website for a week.

A.B. said...

"The revolution inside the Catholic Church was on the part of the clergy"

Given the fact that the Sacred Liturgy is one of the most tangible expressions of the faith (lex orandi, lex credendi), the way the Novus Ordo Missae was foisted upon the faithful was indeed revolutionary. The revolution inside the Church was accomplished by priests, bishops and dare I say a Pope (Pope Paul VI) who approved of this revolutionary act.

Think for a second, a Liturgy which organically developed for over 1500 years was with one fell swoop effectively abandoned. True, there were heroic priests (and a few bishops) who resisted this revolutionary act but now that it is "free" isn't there a danger that we are going to accommodate revolutionary ideas with Tradition?

Isn't there a danger that Traditional Catholics, tired of fighting, will settle for a certain quietist attitude?

One last point - Why do many think that we cannot constructively criticize the Second Vatican Council? I think one of the blessings of this Crisis (God drawing good out of evil) is that many of the laity are thinking about the Church in a way that they would have never done before. The time for blind obedience is over.

dcs said...

So why wouldn't, say, Benedict XVI and JPII call out errors in VII? Because they were perti at Vatican II--they were the major players!

Karol Wojtyla was a bishop at the time (and temporary administrator of the Archdiocese of Krakow from 1962-1964, when he was named Archbiship), so no, he was not a peritus at Vatican II.

Jordanes551 said...

What was missing? It contains NO CANONS. . . . Without anathema, there is no protection of the Holy Ghost, and no infallibility. So it's the first council in the history of the Church that threw away that power.

The first council in the Church's history was held at Jerusalem around A.D. 50. Guess what? That council had no canons and no anathemas either. Neither did most of the councils in the next three centuries. The traditional teaching instrument of canon and anathema at formal church councils is a development in the Church's life, and the Church has never believed or taught that without anathema a Council enjoys no protection of the Holy Spirit and no infallibility. That is your private judgment or personal opinion, but you will be very hard pressed to demonstrate that it is anything but an opinion.

The common misconception that Vatican II had the protection of the Holy Ghost has deluded too many for too long.

It's hardly a misconception. The Catholic Faith has long maintained that when the Pope and the Bishops formally teach in unison, whether at a Council (extraordinary universal magisterium) or through some other medium, (ordinary universal magisterium), they teach infallibly.

Lest we overlook the obvious, other councils were not "fundamentally flawed" like Vat II, so that's not one of the "proper trappings" they have in common.

It's by no mean evident that failing to propose teachings in the form of canon and anathema deprives the Church of her charism of infallibility, and as I've note, Vatican II was not the first time a council has not issued canons and anathemas.

So what to do? The answer seems to me rather simple. And fast. Simply re-convene Vatican I, without any mention of Vatican II.

Yeah, that would be amazingly simple. . . .

Erstwhile Cardinal Ratzinger truthfully observed that it was a "counter syllabus." The Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX was in perfect harmony with Vatican I and in diametrical opposition to Vatican II.

Pope Ratzinger never said Vatican II was a "counter syllabus." He referred specifically and only to Gaudium et Spes. And as has been noted before, his "counter-syllabus" reference was not a statement that Gaudium et Spes contradicted the Syllabus of Errors on any point of doctrine, but rather that it took an opposite approach. The Syllabus compiled the chief errors of modern times, but G&S addressed modern society positively, seeking out and encouraging the good things and true ideas of modern times instead of identifying and condemning errors.

Peterman said...

I'm not sure what to think about the FSSP. On the one hand they offer the TLM which is fantastic and I have known some great priests from the FSSP. On the other hand they suffer under the yoke of the conciliar church which limits their ability to do confirmations and can kick them out of a diocese or prevent them from setting up shop in the first place.

jac said...

Jordanes 551,
There was at least an anathema that was issued as a preamble before VATII's opening by Pope John: Indeed John XXIII strictly forbade anyone to address the issues of Communism and communist atheism during the council. Everybody knows which were the reasons the Pope had in doing so, but these didn't legitimate in any way that abuse of power.
Given that the Communism was the main and fiercest challenge the Church actually was facing, the Pope's prohibition made the VATII council to begin under flawed omens.

Henry said...

Knight of Malta: it's hard to move on since SC essentially gave carte blanche authority to butcher the TLM.

To illustrate what I meant .... The high Mass I attended today was not affected by Vatican II, unless one attributed to the Council the fact that the propers were chanted more beautifully than I ever heard in a pre-Vatican II parish Mass. But this was hardly due to Sacrosanctum's call for "pride of place" (whatever that means) for Gregorian chant.

Surely tVatican II cannot be credited for the fact that the TLM is typically celebrated better now than I ever saw then, no more than SC is to blame for all-vernacular, versus populum, gutted, offertory, handshake of peace, standing communion in the hands, altar girls, EMHCs, etc., none of which were even mentioned at the Council. In short, Council gets neither the credit for the good, nor the blame for the bad. Vatican II is just not the center of the universe for me.

Tradical said...

"ordinary universal magisterium"

It is important to understand what is meant by this phrase from the First Vatican Council and reaffirmed in the Second Vatican Council.

`... authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held... whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith...`
Lumen Gentium

Conclusion: To be protected by infallibility they (episcopate) have to definitively propose a teaching of the Church to be held with divine faith in accordance with the above statement.

Second, the object is the deposit of faith.

Third, the `proposition` cannot contradict prior teaching.

We know the Second Vatican Council did not invoke Extraordinary Infallibility because the Pope made this clear before-during-after the Council.

We (I) can conclude that the Second Vatican Council did not add anything new to the deposit of faith since (from what I`ve read so far) there are no new definitions and no `changes` to the doctrine of the faith.

Hence we have the difficulties (40years and counting) trying to find the correct interpretation of the Council.

Jordanes551 said...

Conclusion: To be protected by infallibility they (episcopate) have to definitively propose a teaching of the Church to be held with divine faith in accordance with the above statement.

Or they have to repeat what has been held everywhere, always, and by all.

Third, the `proposition` cannot contradict prior teaching.

Unless that prior teaching was fallible and reformable.

We (I) can conclude that the Second Vatican Council did not add anything new to the deposit of faith since (from what I`ve read so far) there are no new definitions and no `changes` to the doctrine of the faith.

Nothing new is ever added to "the deposit of faith." Developments of doctrine and new dogmatic definitions are not additions to the deposit of faith, nor are they changes to "the doctrine of the Faith" strictly speaking.

Knight of Malta said...

Henry, I too agree that it is just best to ignore Vatican II. Here is what Charles Coulombe says:

So, you might ask your author whether or no Vatican II was really an Ecumenical Council. Well, all the Catholic bishops were gathered to solemnly deliberate; the fact that it was all for naught in terms of dogma is beside the point. Those who demand that the Holy See one day openly disavow it ignore history. What is more likely to happen is that, after the present crisis is surmounted, it will be flushed down the memory hole with Constantinope II, Constance, and Basel. Present on the lists forever as: “21st Ecumenical Council: Vatican II, 1962-65, Dealt with pastoral problems.” There safely filed, scholars in 2567 will breeze over it to look at more impressive and important Councils, just as we breeze by Lateran V to look at Trent.

Paul VI was not unaware that things were out of control at the Council. He took decisive action there: he wept.
[Puritan's Empire, 513-514.]

Vatican II is like an ugly step-mother with a wart on her nose. She may annoy you, the wart may make you want to vomit, but she is still your ugly step-mother, and always will be.

No, but seriously, there are beautiful passages in Vatican II, and I mean that with all sincerity. But liberals love to put it into a class unto itself, and outside itself--or outside its intended purpose.

If you haven't read Msgr. Gherardini on whether the Holy Spirit protected the Council or not, you should. Essentially, so says this preeminent theologian, their arises the possibility that a Council may even fall into error regarding faith and morals.

One can look at Lateran IV. I would submit that it was immoral for that Council to require Jews to wear distinctive dress.

Not every statement uttered at a non-dogmatic council should be treated as Holy Writ. Remember, revealed Truth ended 2,000 years ago, and as Jordanes aptly points out, since that time we can only turn over new pages to the truth already revealed and more finely-tune our knowledge of the truth (e.g. dogmatic truth--doctrines can change, which means the teachings of Vatican II may change.)

Ma Tucker said...

I think this is a little weak. Many people have suffered far worse that the world wars and economic depression. Since when did discipline engender rebellion? Here in Ireland we had starvation and genocide. This did not keep us from the faith.

No doubt it was a coup within the Church. God permitted it. The so called disciplined generation did little to defend the gates. Of course the media and in particular t.v. was a rather novel and very effective battering ram. Please God we are nearing the end of this particular horror.

Henry said...

Knight of Malta: That is an excellent statement by Charles Coulombe, saying eloquently what I was getting it. Do you have a link for it. And yes, though I try to disavow any obsession with Vatican II, I must admit that I've read the excellent book by Msgr. Gherardini.

Mr. Tucker:I think it was in part the discipline of that generation--in the sense of inculcated obedience--that is responsible for its failure to defend the gates.

Hugh said...

Marsaili

Dietrich von Hildebrand said as much about the many priests who lost their love for saying The Holy Mass.

Fortunately, as a young lad, I served Holy Mass for many good priests and some poor. I was a Gregorian chorister with laymen who loved and gave up most of their free time for the chant. This gave me a tremendous sense of Christ's Presence in the liturgy. St Pio of Pietrelcina has done the rest.

Let us not over-generalise - many priests did love The Holy Mass but when it came to the critical time to choose between the new pauline liturgy and what they knew already, they opted mistakenly for "obedience". Many others, that is about 32,000 eventually left the priesthood altogether.

While Pope Benedict XVI will never propagate The Latin Mass as a sole liturgical form, he certainly has placed it as a central liturgical issue in our times. This definitely corresponds to his sincere liberal outlook which is rooted in his traditional Catholic origins. He is a very intelligent and complex man. I know personally some priests from The SSPX who hoped back in 2005 he would be elected as they knew he would probably do this sooner or later. Both forms would be placed side by side and then people would have to choose.
This is where we are now - the NO has run its natural course and is unsustainable as it stands today. The Holy Father discerned the latter several years ago. The Latin Mass remains as the alternative to those who have tired of modernism and those who have remained faithful to it notwithstanding.

It is up to us to keep pressing home this advantage given to us - to love The Holy Mass more than anything else on Earth and to go to it as often as we are able in a state of grace. This way it will spread as widely if not wider than it was before. However, there are still immense barriers to be overcome and an entire generation of those fixed upon liturgical novelty to pass away. The greater the congregations, the greater the number of holy vocations if we beg Our Blessed Lord to send us only those. The greater the congregations and the greater the number of priests, the more rapidly we will witness the rechristianisation of a perilously disorientated secularised westerndom.

Let us respectfully but firmly insist everywhere upon The Holy Mass in Latin and nothing else. It should be spreading but in effect it is not as much as we might wish to believe. Let us pray for our traditional priests and give them the support they deserve. Let us pray for and respectufully press our bishops to see sound liturgical sense and restore Sacred Tradition in the liturgy. Let us beseech Almighy God to give to us a truly traditional pope to succeed the current one who has reopened the liturgical door that was never really closed. It is without doubt that which we will remember him for.

Henry said...

Hugh: However, there are still immense barriers to be overcome and an entire generation of those fixed upon liturgical novelty to pass away.

This is the unfortunate reality. Although the number of TLM's is growing steadily, with many offered beneath the radar screen and not showing up on listings such as those kept by a prolific commentor here, after SP some of us were overly optimistic, not about bishops and priests but about our fellow laity.

Within driving range of me are 5 priests who would like to celebrate the TLM more regularly. However, there are not enough laity wanting to attend it. Though progress is steady, and we have no problem with publicity, TLMs are still more sparsely attended than OF Masses.

Marsaili said...

Hugh,

In response to your thoughtful post, I'd like to comment by saying that, since you mentioned that we should go to Holy Mass as often as possible in a state of grace, there's one other thing that we need also when we go to Holy Mass, if it is to spread. We must have humility. We go to Mass with love for God and in a state of grace, but if we have not humility and love of neighbor, then what example are we giving to those who attend the Ordinary Form?

Of what good is our beloved and beautiful Latin Mass if it causes us to think that we are somehow better Catholics than those who do not attend the Latin Mass? Perhaps this is the reason that God has witheld the spread of the TLM.

Hugh said...

Henry
"Although the number of TLM's is growing steadily..."

Do we have the statistical evidence that such a claim is so? While the number may be increasing it is clear that Holy Mass in Latin on Sunday may not be represented justly due to episcopal opposition or indifference. Saturday at 11am or Tuesday at 7pm is fine but we need to see more positive proof of increasing Sunday Masses in latin at the usual times. rates of increase year-on-year would an interesting and revealing comparison.

Hugh said...

You are right about the importance of humility. Without humility Marsaili we cannot be properly prepared for Holy Mass - this is why we have to make a full and complete Confession. To do this demands humility.
To laud and raise up The Holy Mass in latin as the best liturgical form for Catholics is not a proud boast. It is a humble admission that Sacred Tradition is right and we would be wrong to neglect this great privilege the church has guaranteed to all Catholic priests and lay throughout all Chrisitian times. Its doctrinal guarantees certainly go back to at least St Gregory The Great's liturgical codification. St Pio of Pietrelcina insisted on it and lived it out his entire life. The Holy Mass in Latin embodies Roman Catholicism in every possible sense.
Slowly but surely it will be restored once the unsustainability of the NO has played itself out. This is why we must do everything we can to help traditional priests.

Marsaili said...

Hugh, I agree that the Holy Mass in Latin embodies Roman Catholicism, but the Mass, in and of itself, for most of us, cannot make us holy. If it were only the Mass which makes us holy, we would not have need of the sacrament of Penance. Certainly there are graces given to us at Holy Mass, but it's up to us to use those graces wisely.

If we respond to those who do not attend the TLM in an arrogant or superior manner (and I'm not saying that you are doing this at all) then we are not using these graces wisely.

I'm a huge fan of Saint Padre Pio, too. He was amazing for many reasons, but his humility, and practice of supernatural obedience, and willingness to suffer by uniting his sufferings with our dear Lord on the Cross were among his most outstanding qualities, IMO.

Neil Obstat said...

Anonymous Marsaili said...

...Of what good is our beloved and beautiful Latin Mass if it causes us to think that we are somehow better Catholics than those who do not attend the Latin Mass? Perhaps this is the reason that God has witheld the spread of the TLM.


Naahh. God's punishing us for all the wrong notes we sing in choir. And for Marty Haugen.

Neil Obstat said...

dcs said...

Without anathema, there is no protection of the Holy Ghost, and no infallibility.

Source?




From Vatican I:
Therefore,

faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
to the glory of God our saviour,
for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
for the salvation of the christian people,
with the approval of the sacred council,
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

>>>Why the last sentence? Why the anathema? Why not omit the anathema? Would it have the same authority without the anathema? What, then, would prevent anyone from having the "temerity to reject this definition" without the anathema?<<<

I didn't notice this until a good priest pointed it out to me. He explained that by setting aside the power of condemnation of error, John XXIII (at the Opening Speech of Vat II) effectively stepped aside, and was no longer "standing in the way" to prevent the spirit of Antichrist from attacking the Council. Therefore, the unclean spirit of Vatican II seeped into the Church "through some crack." It was the "smoke of satan." A pestilent breath wafted about. "Some enemy has done this."

It's far too much work to deal with the implications of attempting any interpretation consistent with Tradition. The very language of Vatican II is a break with Tradition. The best thing to do is simply leave it behind and move on.

Jordanes551 said...

There is, obviously, nothing in that passage from Pastor Aeternus that supports the remarkable claim that without pronouncement of anathemas, a council is not protected by the Holy Spirit from formally teaching error.

Henry said...

Hugh: "Although the number of TLM's is growing steadily..." Do we have the statistical evidence that such a claim is so?

The plural of anecdote is data, on which statistics are based. Enough anecdotes are readily available on the internet to suggest a conclusion.

With driving range of me (in a not particularly hospitable diocese) are three Sunday TLMs. And (confident that my bishop is far from a likely Rorate Coeli reader) I might remark that not enough TLM attendees are currently available for anyone to ask with a straight face for an enhancement of our status. It would hardly be sensible to ask for a prime parish Mass slot unless a TLM would attract attendance as large as the current NO attendance. This won't happen in most places familiar to me.

Although there are of course inhomogeneities of coverage, some places due to reluctant bishops, other places due to lack of TLM celebrants, I suspect the overriding problem in many places is insufficient TLM-desiring laity to justify as many TLMs as our growing cadre of fine young priests would like to offer. A realistic approach does not involve incessant yammering about what bishops or the pope should do, but more concentration on what we ourselves need to do.

Henry said...

Marsali: Of what good is our beloved and beautiful Latin Mass if it causes us to think that we are somehow better Catholics than those who do not attend the Latin Mass?

Not sure of the precise answer to your question as stated. But I'm pretty confident what you'll hear if you ask any parish priest who celebrates the TLM to compare those parishioners who attend it with those who don't, as to their knowledge of the Catholic faith and fidelity it.

Hidden One said...

Dear Henry,

Knowledge is nothing next to sanctity. Pride destroys the latter and is a great temptation for those who either know or believe that they have a good deal of the former. I'm with Marsaili on this matter.

I would also submit that if humility and charity were the defining qualities of TLM attenders worldwide, they would hardly be the minority for long.

Marsaili said...

Henry, what I was trying to get at, but not explaining it very well is this, I think: if attending the TLM causes us to think we are better or more holy than Catholics who not attend the TLM, then there's a problem with pride.

When we say the act of contrition at Mass...Domine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tecum meum: sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea...do we really take this to heart and understand our real unworthiness, and what an amazing priviledge it is that we are allowed even in our unworthiness to partake of the precious Body and Blood of our Lord? If we are not able to understand our unworthiness, and still think we are better than the NO Catholics, then what use is the TLM really?

If the TLM mainly lends itself to pride and arrogance, then I, for one, do not want to see it mainstreamed. I'd rather attend a clowns, balloons, and guitar mass!

The last sentence in Merry del Val's Litany of Himility (which I try to read frequently, as a reminder) reads as thus:

"That others may become holier than I, provided that I become as holy as I should, Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it."

You may also want to consider listening to Fr. Ripperger's excellent sermon (at audio sancto) regarding the problems in the trad movement. I'm not the only one who sees a problem.

Hugh said...

Henry

On the contrary - anecdotal evidence is not objective but subjective. It is unreliable by definition.
The most important time for Holy Mass is Sunday obviously - evidence for this increasing by any significant amount is not forthcoming as such. there are many "one-offs" we hear of but media reports can amplify the actual quantity that this represents.
While anecdote is good to hear about when it concerns reports of The Holy Mass in latin this cannot replace objectively collected data.

Hugh said...

Unfortunately Marsaili in attending balloon masses and the like you risk attending an invalid Mass since these often contain invalid forms, matter and or intention.
You cannot write off the authority of 1500 years and more of Sacred Tradition in the liturgy to make what amounts to a personalised interpretation of what equates with humble and proud attitudes at Holy Mass. Such a comment reveals itself for what it is.

I would prefer to obey and follow the liturgical advice of almost all the holy fathers on the liturgy and all the most authoritative statements on the liturgy by Roman Catholic theologians and liturgical writers.

It is pride that leads priests to believe that they are presiders over a form of entertainment which is a significant component of such liturgies as the ones we often read about or even attend in the modern church. there are rubrics that must be humbly followed regarding the liturgy. The Latin Mass follows this pathway best of all.

St Pio of Pietrelcina, we know from relaible sources, did not approve of the new experimental liturgy and quickly obtained permission from the pope to continue saying The Holy Mass in Latin. He did so because he knew from the inside that this was the best way to attend Christ's unbloodied sacrifice which he always offered on behalf of the people. I humbly submit to his authority on the matter.

NIANTIC said...

I am still very much amazed, and disturbed as a matter of fact, that our Holy Father Benedict XVI so far never has offered the True Mass in public (or in private as seems to be the word). He has written in the past negatively about the NewMass as banal and man made, as well he should. He also knows that the NewMass is based upon a theology which is opposed to the Traditional theology. Yet he sticks to offering the NewMass everywhere. This is confusing to me and I do not know what to make of it. What is the message here?

Henry said...

Marsali and Hidden One,

My reference was not to how people see themselves, but to how their priests (or others) would see them, and hopefully how they really are.

I myself would not think anyone especially holy and faithful to their Catholic faith if they not only practiced but exhibited the deadly sin of (spiritual) pride, contrary to the virtue of humility.

Mar said...

Marsaili,
I agree with very much of what you have to say, and also that it has to be said. However, there exists an even more essential "problem" than the one you point out and it is this. You cannot switch on "humility" and "charity" just like that, as if by pressing a button. Neither can you switch off "pride" in the same way.

Unfortunately, rejoicing and publicly asserting how you would act when confronted by the temptation to pride - "I, for one,... I'd rather" - is also a form of pride, as is an affirmation of "knowing" where humility is and where it is not, and who has it and who hasn't.

Now, if someone had publicly asserted that they would willingly undergo all the humiliations imposed upon them by those prideful and arrogant "others" for the glory of God and for the fortification of His Church and the restoration of His Holy Mass -
that would be another matter!

Fallen human nature being what it is and the assaults of the Evil One so strong, we often fall into the traps that he has laid - precisely when we think we are avoiding them. Great spiritual advisers say that that can be a good thing too, because by falling when we least expect it we see that our goodness is not of ourselves - and that can lead us to true humility.

At Mass when we say ...Domine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tecum meum: sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea... we beg Him who is truly Humility and Charity to give Himself to us and thus help to heal our pride.

Anonymous said...

I love the Latin Mass. Please support our FSSP/SSPX priests. May our Mother Mary intercede for us and for our priests. Deo gratias.