Musings of a Pertinacious Papist

Extraordinary Community News

2012-05-28T11:10:00.001-04:00

Tridentine Community News (May 27, 2012):

First Friday Mass to Debut at St. Josaphat

One of the oldest and most enduring devotions in the Catholic Church is the First Friday devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. A concise explanation of this devotion is found in the 1956 Marian Sunday Missal:
St. Margaret Mary Alacoque was born in France in the year 1647, and died in 1690. She was canonized in 1920, and her feast is celebrated on October 17.

Our Lord appeared to St. Margaret Mary several times during her life as a nun in the Visitation Order. Sometimes our Lord showed His Most Sacred Heart afire with love for men; while at other times His Heart would appear torn and bleeding because of sin and indifference.

In 1675 the great revelation was made to St. Margaret Mary that she, in union with Father de la Colombière, S.J., was to be the chief instrument for instituting the Feast of the Sacred Heart and for spreading devotion to the Sacred Heart throughout the world.
The Great Promise of the First Friday

All who receive Holy Communion on nine consecutive First Fridays have been blessed by Our Lord with the grace of a most wonderful promise. We should listen carefully. It is our Saviour, Himself, Who speaks to us through St. Margaret Mary:
‘I promise thee in the unfathomable mercy of My Heart that My omnipotent love will procure the grace of final penitence for all those who communicate on nine successive First Fridays of the month; they will not die in My disfavor, or without having received their Sacraments, since My divine Heart will be their sure refuge in the last moments of their life.’
Our Lord also told St. Margaret Mary of the following additional blessings:
1) I will give them all the graces necessary for their state of life. 2) I will establish peace in their families. 3) I will comfort them in all their afflictions. 4) I will be their secure refuge during life, and above all in death. 5) I will bestow a special blessing upon all their undertakings. 6) Sinners shall find in My Heart the source and infinite ocean of mercy. 7) Tepid souls shall grow fervent. 8) Fervent souls shall quickly mount to high perfection. 9) I will bless every place where a picture of My Heart shall be exposed and honored. 10) I will give to priests the gift of touching the most hardened hearts. 11) Those who shall promote this devotion shall have their names written in My Heart – never to be blotted out.”
In the February 19, 2010 edition of The Michigan Catholic newspaper, Archbishop Allen Vigneron called for a restoration of the First Friday devotion:
“I have in mind that we should consider working together for a renewal of our practice of devoting the First Fridays especially to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, with a particular emphasis on joining together – priests and people – to ask the Lord to give our archdiocese priests ‘after his own heart,’” the archbishop said in a Feb. 12 letter to priests, in which he cited language from Jeremiah 3:15.

“I see this approach as a particularly effective way to pray for holy priests: for those of us already ordained; and for those whom God is calling to join us, both the men in our seminary and the men who are being invited to enter formation.”
In response to this call, Fr. Darrell [Roman] has decided to inaugurate monthly Masses in the Extraordinary Form at St. Josaphat Church on First Friday evenings at 7:00 PM, the first Mass being this Friday, June 1. We hope you will find time to attend this opportunity to gain graces.

Corpus Christi Masses & Processions

The Feast of Corpus Christi always falls on a Thursday, this year on June 7. The Church offers the “External Solemnity” option of moving the Feast to the subsequent Sunday, to permit a larger number of people to participate in the traditional Eucharistic Procession that follows Mass. Participation in a Corpus Christi Eucharistic Procession is enriched with a Plenary Indulgence, under the usual conditions.

Here in metro Detroit and Windsor, both options will be available to you: On Thursday, June 7 at 7:00 PM, a High Mass for Corpus Christi will be held at St. Josaphat Church. A procession will follow; weather permitting, it will go outdoors, where four altars will be prepared for stops for adoration along the way.

On Sunday, June 10 at 2:00 PM, the External Solemnity of Corpus Christi will be marked with a High Mass and procession at Windsor’s Assumption Church. This procession, too, will go outdoors, weather permitting.

Please note that on Sunday, June 10, a Tridentine Mass will be held as usual at St. Josaphat Church at 9:30 AM, for the Feast of the Second Sunday After Pentecost.

Tridentine Masses This Coming Week

Mon. 05/28 7:00 PM: High Mass at St. Josaphat (Pentecost Monday)

Tue. 05/29 7:00 PM: High Mass at Assumption-Windsor (Pentecost Tuesday)

Fri. 06/01 7:00 PM: High Mass at St. Josaphat (Pentecost Friday/Ember Friday) [First Friday]

Sun. 06/03 Noon: High Mass at St. Albertus (Trinity Sunday)

"I will go in unto the Altar of God
To God, Who giveth joy to my youth ..."[Comments? Please e-mail tridnews@stjosaphatchurch.org. Previous columns are available at www.stjosaphatchurch.org. This edition of Tridentine Community News, with minor editions, is from the St. Josaphat bulletin insert for May 27, 2012. Hat tip to A.B.]

You gotta love this girl!

2012-05-26T18:04:00.000-04:00

Great sense of humor, and she takes herself lightly, like an angel.
[Hat tip to A.B.]

Pope betrayed by his butler

2012-05-25T22:41:00.000-04:00

A holdover from the Wojtyla pontificate, Paolo Gabriele, the butler of the Pope Benedict, is the "source" that passed on the secret letters of His Holiness, violations of the correspondence of a Head of State, which, if substantiated, could lead up to "30 years in prison." See "Life imitates fiction The source of the Pope's secret letters? His butler" (Rorate Caeli, May 25, 2012).

Related: Butler arrested ...

OMG, like totally!

2012-05-25T21:40:00.000-04:00

[Hat tip to A.B.]

The secret of our President's innovative genius

2012-05-25T21:07:00.000-04:00

Some insist he hasn't worked for an honest day's wage his entire life. Hmmm ... Well maybe, maybe not. But he sure knows how to build himself a reputation for resourcefulness, for milking the cow for every last drop -- well, no, that would require too much effort. Check it out, especially the part about his contributions to his earlier 'communities' as an INNOVATOR! 'nother round of golf, Mr. Prez?

The lighter side of SSPX-Rome détente

2012-05-24T19:00:00.001-04:00

So ... SSPX Bp. Fellay calls the Vatican and says ...

Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, striking a diplomatic pose, writes in the above-linked post:

Yes, this is an exageration, but there is a grain of truth in it, no?

A while back I read a comment that if some members of the SSPX have turned Vatican II into a “Super Heresy”, some liberals have turned it into a “Super Dogma”.

We need to read every Council in the light of the others, but especially Vatican II in light of those that went before. Vatican II cannot be properly read apart from the other Councils and the Church’s Magisterium

We need a hermeneutic of continuity and not a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture – in either direction.

As my old pastor used to say, you can go into the ditch on either side of the road.

Obama-- "Gay Marriage" is NOT Marriage. Here’s Why

2012-05-23T22:39:00.000-04:00

By Monica Migliorino Miller, Ph.D.
Guest column

As a pro-life leader, theologian, wife and mother I feel it is necessary for me to finally weigh-in on the issue of so-called “gay marriage” in light of Obama’s recently-declared support for same-sex so-called “marital” unions. This article is not a full-blown treatise on the subject. I intend here to provide a concise argument as to why same-sex sexual activity is not the moral, social, cultural equal to heterosexual marital unions—and thus should not be granted equal status in law. In addition, I will also explain who or what is to blame for the moral and intellectual break-down on the subject of marriage represented by the current advocacy for “gay marriage.”

Legal recognition of homosexual bonds as marital bonds ultimately means that gender, human sexuality, being a husband or a wife, motherhood and fatherhood have no objective moral meaning. This also means that the family itself has no objective moral meaning. The moral law rooted in nature is completely dissolved. There are no longer any natural familial moral bonds, thus no longer any natural moral ties and thus no natural moral responsibilities arising from the very nature of the family.

If the bond between two men or two women may be considered the equivalent of the one-flesh marital unity between a man and a woman, a bond that gives rise to the family, we are then saying that all human ties are strictly a matter of the will—only when persons choose to be connected to one another—by emotional, legal or artificial contrivance— that they are then connected. And if the fundamental building block of society, namely the family, is essentially a matter of choice, those choices can be undone by personal will. The family simply becomes an arrangement of the will—no one is in essence a mother, a father, a husband or wife. The family unit is turned into a mere fragile arrangement of personal volition. Indeed, being a husband or wife, mother or father is nominal, not real.

The family is no longer a unit cemented by innate natural familial bonds that actually cause persons to be mother and child, brother and sister—essential identities embedded in nature itself that produce innate responsibilities to which persons who have such identities must be held accountable. Nothing here should be interpreted to mean that sterile couples who adopt children are not parents. Their heterosexual marital unity, unlike “gay marriage” participates in the truth of marriage and is a public sign of that truth. Their sexual unity is oriented towards life in a way that “gay marriage” can never be.

It is simply a lie that lesbian or homosexual sexual activity is equivalent to sexual activity between a wedded man and woman. I will even go on and say that making them equivalent is an insult to the very meaning of marriage and the family. Gay sex, is self-enclosed, of itself sterile and a societal dead-end. Since the family cannot come from such sex—the government does not have a compelling interest in protecting such unions.

Why must the law protect marriage—and when I say “marriage” I mean, of course, the lifelong bond between a man and a woman upon which the family is built? Sex between a married man and woman is categorically different from gay sex. It is sex that confirms the meaning of masculinity and femininity—and it is sex that confers responsibilities that arise from the commitment of husbands and wives, especially when, from such sexual acts, new human beings are conceived. Society, indeed the entire future of the world, depends on these kinds of stable sexual unions that provide the necessary innate security for children. For this reason alone, the government has an interest in protecting marriage.

Society is not the consequence of arbitrary self-willed human relationships. Marriage is the first building block that creates, not only brothers and sisters, but future marriages that produce cousins, nieces, nephews, uncles, aunts, grandfathers, grandmothers, great grandfathers and mothers, as well as great uncles and aunts. Laws do not create these worlds—innate natural bonds create these worlds—worlds that of themselves cause human identity and human responsibilities. Absolutely nothing can replace such natural world-building! And the law cannot create the moral responsibilities that come from such bonds—it can only call persons to live up to them! Again, for this reason, government has an interest in protecting marriage.

How did we come to this point—that homosexual bonds should be considered the equivalent of marriage? The truth must be told. It is indeed the heterosexual community that is to blame, not homosexuals. Heterosexuals have given up on the meaning of human sexuality. Heterosexuals are the ones who no longer believe in marriage. We have said so with 50 years of contraception, unquestioned sexual activity outside of marriage, living together without marriage, rampant divorce, including no-fault divorce, rampant out-of-wedlock pregnancies, artificial reproduction—and then add to this— 40 years of abortion. Heterosexuals have already said that sex, marriage and the family have no meaning—they become what we subjectively, privately, by a sheer matter of the will, say they are—and nothing more. We simply have no moral, cultural place to stand upon which we may say that homosexuals can’t call what they do “marriage.” After all, most heterosexual activity isn’t marriage either! It too is dead-end sex that cannot carry the world into the future.

What is the answer ultimately? If we really want to fight a battle against “gay marriage” the heterosexual community needs to get its act together. We can’t carry on the way we have—we cannot privatize our sexual ethical behavior and then claim that the government needs to publicly protect what’s left of the institution of marriage. This healing of the sexual ethic is primary the work of the Church—a Church that greatly contributed to the cultural moral demise by remaining silent on contraception and by allowing Catholic politicians to support legalized abortion with ecclesial impunity. Is it any wonder that the likes of Catholic Nancy Pelosi, who supports legalized killing of the unborn contrary to the teachings of the Church, lauds Obama’s support for “gay marriage” also contrary to the teachings of the Church and, like Obama, even dares to say that this is the Christian thing to do!

And in some ways this is the most odious and insulting aspect of the entire debacle. Obama justified his position that “gay marriage” should be legally recognized by wrapping it in the Christian religion. He said that his so-called evolution on the subject was the consequence of his Christian faith and he told ABC News: “It's also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated." So with such deep critical thinking—how can we deny homosexuals access to a right that heterosexuals enjoy? It just isn’t fair.

Unfortunately Obama failed to quote Christ’s own doctrine on marriage: “Have you not read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female and declared: ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and the two shall become one’ Thus they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, let no man separate what God has joined” (Mt. 19: 4-6). Jesus, in the next passages, even dares to forbid divorce and remarriage.

For Obama the Golden Rule is real doctrine and Christ’s view on marriage merely His opinion that may be set aside. I mean, if the president is going to quote the Bible in an attempt to dismantle the God-given meaning of marriage it would only be truly fair and honest of him to acknowledge Christ’s specific view on the subject.

Obama’s application of the Golden Rule in this case is completely misplaced. Of course Christ called us to: “treat others as you would wish to be treated.” But if society seriously accepted Obama’s invocation of the Golden Rule we would have to advocate all sorts of irrationalities. After all, saying gays have the right to marry as do heterosexuals is like saying that not only those who excel at running the 100 meters but even poor runners have just as much right to compete in the Olympics—since all that matters is that the poor runners also love the sport and wish to participate in it as much as the good runners. Obama’s application of the gospel is like saying those who are tone deaf should be allowed to sing at major concert halls, since such persons may actually love and have an appreciation for music—even more than those who actually have the ability to sing. After all, if Obama really put his version of the Golden Rule into practice then track stars and great vocalists must allow poor runners and bad singers to do what they do since Christ said: “treat others as you would wish to be treated.” Obama’s Golden Rule is not about love and acceptance at all, rather it’s a means by which the truth is distorted. Thus Obama’s gospel is not the Wisdom of Christ, but an invitation to insanity.

We must recognize that we are in a war for the truth, and it is a moral battle. This is not a time to be afraid to speak the truth. But speak always the truth in love—recognizing that homosexual persons have God-given dignity and basic human rights—and those rights must never be denied. But they simply do not have the right to marry—they do not have the rights to the privileges of marriage. Those who publicly defend marriage are going to be misunderstood, called names, mocked, belittled and derided. Nonetheless, those who understand what is at stake cannot hold back—the truth must be defended and marriage fought for—as civilization itself depends upon this sacred institution.

Dr. Monica Miller is the Director of Citizens for a Pro-life Society — an activist pro-life group that she founded in 1986. She is also an Associate Professor of Sacred Theology at Madonna University. The present article is published here by kind permission of the author. [Brief bio]

Tolerance applies only to persons ... never to principles

2012-05-23T21:40:00.000-04:00

"There is no subject on which the average mind is so much confused as the subject of tolerance.... Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to principles. Intolerance applies only to principles, but never to persons."
-- Archbishop Fulton Sheen (via Voris, May 23, 2012)

Freak extreme: Hans Küng becomes Sedevacantist

2012-05-23T20:04:00.000-04:00

"Freak extremes meet: Hans Küng becomes a Sedevacantist, declares Benedict XVI schismatic over SSPX" (Rorate Caeli, May 23, 2012). Sometimes you just couldn't make this stuff up!

Citing an article published today in the Südwest Presse, entitled "HANS KÜNG - Papally provoked disobedience" (for which he offers his own translation), Rorate Caeli editor writes:

No, this is not May Fools' Day: heresiarch Hans Küng, who, "in his writings, has departed from the integral truth of Catholic faith, and therefore ... can no longer be considered a Catholic theologian nor function as such in a teaching role" (Declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dec. 15, 1979), has lost all notions of basic sacramental theology - and takes from this the most hilarious consequences. [Read more >>]

Non-binding?

2012-05-22T22:57:00.000-04:00

Referring to Nostra aetate and Dignitatis humanae, Walter Cardinal Brandmüller, Emeritus of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, in an interview on Radio Vatican yesterday. [Source]

John Lamont on Liturgical Pluralism

2012-05-22T22:48:00.000-04:00

Another well-informed and provocative reflection by Prof. Lamont:

John Lamont, "Liturgical Pluralism and the Traditional Latin Mass" (Rorate Caeli, May 22, 2012):

The international federation Una Voce has recently released its sixth position paper, 'Liturgical Pluralism and the Extraordinary Form'. The paper makes assertions and raises issues that call for further discussion.

Several commenters, including myself, have been hard on this paper, so it should be acknowledged at the outset that it provides a conclusive answer to one objection that has indeed been commonly made against the practice of the traditional Roman rite (abbreviated henceforth as TLM). This objection is that unity among Catholics demands that they share the same form of worship, and hence that it is wrong to allow use of two forms of worship, the TLM as well as the Novus Ordo. The idea that it is the TLM rather than the NO that should be abandoned is taken for granted by this argument, which concludes that only the Novus Ordo should be permitted. The paper shows that the existence of legitimate liturgical pluralism within the Catholic Church means that the first premise of this objection is false – it is not the case that Catholics must all have the same form of worship – and hence it shows that this objection has no value.

The trouble with the paper is that it does not limit itself to the useful service of providing a purely negative, dialectical refutation of this objection. It goes further; it attempts to argue for a positive thesis, which is that the use of the TLM in the Church can be justified as an instance of legitimate liturgical pluralism.

It asks: 'the question to be addressed by this paper is whether the existence in the Latin Rite of an extra, ‘extraordinary’, ‘Form’ of the Roman Rite is problematic, and therefore something to be overcome if possible, in the short or long term, perhaps by the creation of a single, amalgamated, Form of the Roman Rite.' It gives an affirmative answer to this question on the basis of an appeal to 'the value of pluralism'.

One can discern a good intention behind this positive answer. It is to fend off the possibility of an attempt at creating a hybrid between the TLM and the NO, which would be presented as the real fruit of the liturgical 'reform' called for by the Second Vatican Council, and then used to replace the 1962 missal currently in use by traditionalists. (The word 'reform' is in scare quotes here because the Latin word actually used by the Council is not 'reformare', but 'instaurare', which means to restore rather than to reform; the English word 'reform' is an interpolation of the English translators of the conciliar text.) The plan of imposing such a hybrid as the sole liturgy of the Latin church is unrealistic, but the plan of replacing the 1962 missal with a hybrid (perhaps closely modelled on the 1965 missal), while leaving the Novus Ordo in place, is a real one that is promoted in some liturgical circles.

Such a hybrid would be a disaster, so the intention of fending it off is indeed a good one. But I want to argue that the appeal to liturgical pluralism is not the way to go about it.

The first step in this argument is to clarify the nature of the liturgical pluralism that is to be discussed. One understanding of liturgical pluralism is an abstract one, that simply claims that the number of legitimate forms of Catholic rite is more than one, without identifying any particular forms as being legitimate ones. This abstract sense is the only sense needed to rebut the objection that only one form of Catholic worship should exist. It is legitimate to use in in the negative, dialectical argument mentioned above.

The other understanding of liturgical pluralism as applied to the Roman rite is a particular one, that claims that both the TLM and the Novus Ordo, while different, are legitimate forms of the Roman rite. It is this particular understanding that is used by the paper to argue for its positive claim. The trouble with this understanding of liturgical pluralism is that if both the TLM and the Novus Ordo are legitimate forms of the Roman rite, it follows that the Novus Ordo on its own is a legitimate form of the Roman rite, and that both the TLM and the Novus Ordo are a 'response of faith to different conditions', and represent 'a treasury of theological and spiritual insights which complement each other'.

This position is untenable. As I remarked in an earlier comment on the paper, the Novus Ordo was devised on purpose to replace the TLM, because the theological content and general structure of the old mass were judged to be wrong and in need of abolition. Robert Mickens points this out:
'The old Mass mirrored a vertical hierarchy of truths, a strict discipline, legalism, conformism, and marked separation of clerics from the laity; the New Mass highlighted a dialogical dimension between priest and people, the active participation of the laity, and the possibility of adaptation (although this was often exaggerated early on). The argument was that the Tridentine Rite was not just a different way of celebrating the Mass, but that it was undergirded with a theology and understanding of the Church that was inconsistent with the Second Vatican Council. This was one of the reasons why the vast majority of members and consulters at the Congregation of Divine Worship, of which Archbishop Bugnini was secretary, believed any concession to traditionalists on the old Mass would be harmful to the liturgical reform and the pastoral efforts of the bishops to apply it.' ¹
Whether or not Mickens is right about the TLM being incompatible with the Second Vatican Council, he is certainly right about its being incompatible with the ecclesiology that undergirds the Novus Ordo, and is right about the designers of the Novus Ordo having introduced this incompatibility on purpose, because they disagreed with the ecclesiology behind the TLM. This is only one way in which the Novus Ordo is at odds with the TLM; the importance of the notion of sacrifice in the TLM, and its deliberate and virtually complete exclusion from the Novus Ordo, is another. The liturgist Fr. Joseph Grayland explains the fundamental reason for the differences between the two:
In the Christian tradition, liturgical rites express the church’s understanding of the ‘how’ of salvation as this is mediated through the ministry, mission and worship of the church. As ecclesial rites, the 1962 missal and the 1970 missal show the believer who can and cannot be saved and it is at this fundamental point that they part company, to such an extent that their difference becomes irreconcilable. These two missals ritualise totally diverse understandings of salvation, damnation and the Church’s role as mediator of salvation. ²
He points out the implications of accepting both the TLM and the Novus Ordo as legitimate rites:
In responding to this development, Summorum Pontificum opens up real vistas of possibility in most seminaries, where any request by seminarians to be instructed in the sacramental rituals of the 1962 missal (as well as the 1970 missal) will have to be considered legitimate. The future direction of seminarians’ formation must include a serious debate over the use of two liturgical calendars, two forms of the liturgy of the hours and two forms of confession/ reconciliation-penance. In order to effectively minister as priests of ‘a twofold use of the same Roman rite’ seminarians will require formation in two theologies of church, priesthood, (lay) ministry and salvation.

… To view the reinstatement of the 1962 missal as just a liturgical change, offering another equally valid option for ‘saying Mass’ indicates, at least to me, a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and role of liturgical worship in the life of the Christian Church. Those who will have no problem with this development will do so, because their understanding of worship is essentially ritualistic, not ecclesiological, and not liturgical. What is rejected and reinstated here are not two forms of religious ritual but two entirely distinct, and in my opinion, two irreconcilable theologies of how the Church mediates salvation sacramentally and pastorally. This development cannot be reduced to a crass competition between liturgical traditions or equally valid ritual gestures, as if the significant issue lay at that level. What is at stake here is the Church’s self-understanding of her role in the work of God’s salvation and how that role is mediated theologically through the Church’s liturgical worship.

As a Church, we are left with the reality that Catholics may now view the divergent theologies of salvation and sacramental-liturgical mediation as simply additional choices available to them as ritual-consumers. As long as they suspend their understanding of liturgy as being more than just ritual then worshipping according to one rite or the other will not constitute a choice by the worshipper for one understanding of salvation and sacramental-liturgical mediation over the other. This would then be, as Mark Francis observes, to ‘have succumbed to…relativism’ and to have created the ultimate expression of ‘the ‘Catholic cafeteria’’ (Mark Francis, ‘Beyond Language’, The Tablet, London 14 July 2007, p. 6). ³
Fr. Grayland thinks that the theology of the Novus Ordo is correct and the theology of the TLM is wrong, but his analysis of how and why the two are incompatible is entirely correct. The incompatibility of the two rituals is well known to both traditionalists and non-traditionalists, and beyond reasoned dispute. And clearly the existence of two liturgies that have not only different but incompatible presuppositions and approaches, presuppositions and approaches that are incompatible on purpose because one liturgy was judged to be wrongheaded by the designers of the other liturgy, cannot be an example of legitimate liturgical pluralism. At least one of them must be wrong.

The paper might be defended on this count by its being pointed out that nowhere does it explicitly state that legitimate liturgical pluralism includes the Novus Ordo; it only claims that such pluralism applies to the TLM. But unless this legitimate pluralism is understood to include the Novus Ordo, at whom is the paper aimed? A response to this objection that appeals to legitimate pluralism must have in mind more than one legitimate form of the Latin rite. If there is not more than one, there is no pluralism to appeal to. But the different forms of the Latin rite that are in question here cannot be the traditional forms that existed alongside the Roman liturgy. No-one is objecting to the traditional Roman rite being accepted as a legitimate form of worship among other traditional forms of the Latin rite, such as the Mozarabic or Ambrosian rites; such an objection would be totally absurd to everyone. So the legitimate liturgical pluralism that is being defended can only be understood as the existence of both the TLM and the Novus Ordo as legitimate forms of the Latin rite. And that is untenable for the reasons given.

Of course a defence of the TLM that involves rejecting the Novus Ordo will attract great hostility from ecclesiastical authority and make life difficult for traditionalists. But Una Voce has encountered such difficulties before and survived. Michael Davies, the most important English-speaking critic of the Novus Ordo, served as the president of Una Voce for years without disaster ensuing. Leo Darroch's obituary of Michael Davies in Mass of Ages states; 'Perhaps [Davies'] most telling intervention [as president of the International Federation Una Voce] was in 2000 when he informed the [Ecclesia Dei] commission that moves to adapt the Missal of 1962 to include changes introduced in the 1960s would be rejected in their entirety by the traditional movement worldwide. The proposed moves were dropped.'⁴

Davies' example indicates that firmness is the right course to take with respect to attempts to hybridise the 1962 missal. But this firmness needs to be backed up by arguments, as it was by Davies, and the most important argument is precisely based on rejection of the Novus Ordo. Traditionalists have to argue that the Novus Ordo is based on bad principles, and hence that any moves to make the TLM more like the Novus Ordo are themselves bad and must be rejected. If this argument is not made, and the Novus Ordo is accepted as an example of legitimate liturgical pluralism, then there cannot be anything wrong with the Novus Ordo in itself, and there thus cannot be anything intrinsically objectionable about changes to the TLM that bring it closer to the Novus Ordo. The paper's positive argument from liturgical pluralism thus completely undermines its purpose of resisting such hybridisation. It could be objected that such changes would diminish the extent of legitimate liturgical pluralism, but as long as the hybrid was noticeably different from the Novus Ordo – which seems to be the intent of proposed hybrids - this argument would be extremely weak. The differences between the hybrid and the Novus Ordo would mean that liturgical pluralism had been preserved in the Latin rite. On this question the International Federation Una Voce needs to return to the correct stance of Michael Davies.

Notes:

The Tablet, 18 June 2005. [back]

Fr. Joseph Grayland, 'The Tridentine Mass again: Can the Church celebrate in two rites?', Compass: A Review of Topical Theology 41/3 (Spring 2007). [back]

Grayland (2007). [back]

http://www.ifuv.org/docs/michaeldavies_01.html. [back]

"Big Mass in the Big Apple"

2012-05-22T22:10:00.001-04:00

Well, that's what it was called over at the Rorate Caeli blog today, which adds:

The bad news is only one priest was ordained for the Archdiocese of New York this year.

The good news is that priest offered a traditional Latin Missa Solemnis as his first Mass.

Photos here >>.

Telling words of Pope to FSSPX's Bp. Fellay

2012-05-21T22:14:00.002-04:00

"Rome-SSPX - Fellay speaks in Vienna: the words of Pope Benedict XVI" (Rorate Caeli, May 21, 2012):

You have surely heard that, in the last few months, Rome has offered us a solution - we could rather say, a recognition.

... It is quite clear that this offer is also very, very controversial in the Church at large. I can assure you: it is the will of the Pope. This must not be doubted. But it is certainly not the will of everyone in the Church....

"One must not think that things will be easy afterwards. To use the words of the Pope that describe the situation quite well: 'I know,' he said, 'that it would be easier both for the Society and for myself to leave the situation as it currently is.' This describes very well the situation, and also that the Pope himself knows that he, when he does it, will be attacked.

Related: "Fellay speaks in Saltzburg" (Rorate Caeli, May 21, 2012).

Extraordinary Community News

2012-05-21T19:19:00.000-04:00

Tridentine Community News (May 20, 2012):

The Types of Candles Found in a Church

A church where the Traditional Latin Mass is celebrated tends to be replete with candles. They all have specific names and purposes, for devotions and for the Sacred Liturgy.

The first and most prominent type are the Altar Candles. For Low Mass and other rites celebrated at the altar two candles are lit, one on each side of the central Altar Crucifix. High Masses require four or six candles to be lit, two or three on each side, respectively. For a Solemn Pontifical Mass, a seventh candle is placed on the altar as a sign of the Bishop’s office.

One typically only sees the use of four candles for High Mass when only four are available, such as at the Rosary Chapel and at St. Hyacinth Church; if six are available, all six are used. Some churches will have smaller Low Mass candles in addition to the four or six High Mass candles; their smaller size serves to distinguish the lesser solemnity of the Low Mass, as well as to allow all the High Mass candles to burn out at the same rate.

The two sets of three candles are but one of numerous Trinitarian expressions in the Mass. Consider how when incensing the altar, the priest makes three sets of three swings on each side of the Altar Crucifix; the triple Kyrie; and triple Signs of the Cross during the Canon.

In the Extraordinary Form, the above are the only candles permitted at the altar during Mass. Additional devotional candles, no matter how aesthetically appealing they may be and tempting they might be to light, are not to be used.

The two acolytes, or principal altar servers, at a High Mass carry Processional Candles. These candles are used during the entrance and exit processions, and are held by the acolytes next to the priest or deacon while he is chanting the Gospel.

Up to six Torches may be used. A Torch is most properly a candle enclosed in glass. In the absence of proper Torches, Processional Candles or Low Mass Candlesticks may be used.

At High Masses when there are insufficient altar servers for Torches and at Low Masses, a Sanctus Candle may be placed on the altar. The Torches and Sanctus Candle serve the same purpose: They arrive at the Sanctus and depart after the Blessed Sacrament is reposed after Holy Communion. The Torches and the Sanctus Candle highlight the Real Presence of Christ on the altar during that portion of Holy Mass.

A Bugia (“BOO-zhee-yah”) is the candle held by the books during a Bishop’s Mass. A proper Bugia has a long handle to enable the Bugia bearer to stand back from the bishop. If a proper Bugia is not available, a simpler Sanctus Candle may be used instead.

Six Requiem Candlesticks are placed around the casket at a Funeral Mass or around the catafalque at a memorial Requiem Mass. The two sets of three candles on each side of the casket or catafalque are yet another sign of the Holy Trinity.

When the Blessed Sacrament is exposed, a minimum of six candles must be on each side of the monstrance on the altar. Typically those candles are in Benediction Candelabras.

A Tenebrae Hearse is a floor-standing triangular stand holding 15 candles, used for the service of Tenebrae during the Sacred Triduum, during which one candle at a time is extinguished to signify the darkness in the world following Christ’s death.

The Paschal Candle which is blessed at the Easter Vigil Mass is lit at all Masses from the Easter Vigil through the Feast of the Ascension, as a sign of the Risen Christ during the Easter season. It is extinguished after the Gospel on the Feast of the Ascension as a sign that our Lord has departed earth for heaven.

A Baptismal Candle is given to the sponsors at the end of the Sacrament of Baptism to represent the Light of Christ.

The Sanctuary Lamp is a long-lasting candle, usually enclosed in red glass, that is lit in all places where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved. Sometimes the Sanctuary Lamp is an elaborate hanging fixture. Sometimes it is a wall-mounted candle. Sometimes there are multiple Sanctuary Lamps, so that one can be lit in anticipation of the other burning out. In more modest churches and chapels where there is no proper Sanctuary Lamp, red candles may be placed on the altar adjacent to the tabernacle. Such candles have temporarily replaced St. Josaphat’s Sanctuary Lamp until a more secure mounting method for it can be determined.

Votive Candles are the small glass cup candles that one sees on Benediction Candelabras and on side altars and shrines. Occasionally one sees electric Votive Candles. In many cases these are required by local fire regulations. Do not jump to the conclusion that it is the choice of the parish.

Larger Devotional Candles, such as the ones by the statue of St. Anthony and the side altars at St. Josaphat, are designed to last several days. This is an appropriate time to bust a myth: The church does not profit from the $2.00 it asks for each large devotional candle. Those candles actually cost around $2.00 each in bulk. Quality candles are not cheap.

The Church prohibits the use of gas or oil candles; she likewise requires a certain percentage of beeswax to be used in certain candles, a topic addressed in our July 3, 2011 column. This is an example where common sense must be the First Rubric: Yes, we strive to use beeswax candles, however if we have run out and only have non-beeswax candles, or even only gas or oil candles available fifteen minutes before Mass, they will have to do. Perfection must not be the enemy of the good.

Tridentine Masses This Coming Week

Mon. 05/21 7:00 PM: Low Mass at St. Josaphat (Feria [Celebrant may choose a Votive Mass])

Tue. 05/22 7:00 PM: Low Mass at Assumption-Windsor (Daily Mass for the Dead [Low Requiem Mass])

[Comments? Please e-mail tridnews@stjosaphatchurch.org. Previous columns are available at www.stjosaphatchurch.org. This edition of Tridentine Community News, with minor editions, is from the St. Josaphat bulletin insert for May 20, 2012. Hat tip to A.B.]

Books to prepare for the presidential election season

2012-05-19T22:42:00.000-04:00

[Advisory: anyone finding the subject of this post linguistically offensive is advised to stop reading now.]
Harry G. Frankfurt is Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Princeton University. His most recent publication is On Truth,which was published the year after his philosophical investigation, On Bullshit,the subject of my interest in this post. Frankfurt first developed his ideas about bullshit in a 1986 philosophical investigation of the concept. This was subsequently republished as a small 67-page book in 2005, leading to media appearances such as Jon Stewart's The Daily Show.

It is obvious from the fact that our nation elected Barack Obama as President of the United States in 2008 on a platform of demonstrably bullshit slogans like "Hope," "Change" and "Yes we can" that the best-seller publicity received by Frankfort's study has more to do with the public's fascination and amusement with its title than with the actual, serious content of the volume. Perhaps if more people actually read Frankfurt's study, they would force our politicians to deal with issues more honestly and forthrightly -- a pressing issue in this election year. (And, no, I'm not supposing that bullshit is the exclusive province of Mr. Obama or the Democratic party, although they have certainly set new records of late.)

While Frankfurt's study of bullshit may not be philosophically dense or profound, it is far more than a book about (excuse me) shits and giggles. Frankfurt is quite serious. While there are passages that will certainly make the reader smile, this is generally because of the juxtaposition of serious conceptual and linguistic analysis with a subject generally treated as crude and trivial. For example, in his opening pages, he writes:

One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit.... I propose to begin the development of a theoretical understanding of bullshit, mainly by providing some tentative and exploratory philosophical analysis.

Frankfurt compares bullshit with adjacent concepts such as "humbug," "lying," and "bluffing," referencing points made by Max Black, Wittgenstein, St. Augustine, and the Oxford English Dictionary.

He concludes that unlike the liar, the bullshitter is never serious about truth. Lying is parasitic upon truth, because the liar is concerned that the truth not be discovered. Like the liar, the bullshitter is also represents himself falsely as endeavoring to communicate the truth; but unlike the liar, who hides the fact that he is trying to deceive us, the bullshitter hides the fact that truth is of no basic interest to him. "It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth," writes Frankfurt. "Producing bullshit requires no such conviction." He continues:

For this reason, telling lies does not tend to unfit a person for telling the truth in the same way that bullshitting tends to.... Someone who lies and someone who tells the truth are playing on opposite sides, so to speak, of the same game.... The bullshitter ignores these demands altogether.... By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.

Anyone who wishes to continue making assertions but who no longer believes in the possibility of identifying certain statements as true, cannot do anything but bullshit, says Frankfurt. In conclusion, he asks why there is so much bullshit, and offers two basic hypotheses.

First, people bullshit whenever circumstances require them to talk without knowing what they are talking about. This phenomenon is widespread, obviously, in the public life of politicians, who are expected to be able to talk intelligently about everything under the sun, most of which they are capable of addressing only in memorized sound bites and cliches that are no more than forms of bullshit.

Second, the contemporary proliferation of bullshit, says Frankfurt, has deeper sources in "various forms of skepticism which deny that we can have any reliable access to an objective reality." One response to these "antirealist" doctrines and loss of confidence has been, he says, a retreat from "the discipline required by dedication to the ideal of correctness" to a quite different sort of habit, which involves the cultivation of an alternative ideal of sincerity. "Convinced that reality has no inherent nature, which he might hope to identify as the truth about things, he devotes himself to being true to his own nature." Frankfurt observes:

But it is preposterous to imagine that we ourselves are determinate, and hence susceptible both to correct and to incorrect descriptions, while supposing that the ascription of determinacy to anything else has been exposed as a mistake. As conscious beings, we exist only in response to other things, and we cannot know ourselves at all without knowing them.... Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial -- notoriously less stable and less inherent than the natures of other things. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit.

Related: Mark Steyn, "The Great Barry" (NRO, May 19, 2012).

Two thumbs up

2012-05-19T15:33:00.001-04:00

Straight eye for the queer guy

2012-05-19T09:46:00.002-04:00

[Hat tip to Fr. Z., "Dust up in the Diocese of Davenport"]

Double-standard intolerance

2012-05-17T13:51:00.001-04:00

Michael Polanyi once pointed out that when freedom of thought is extended to embrace freedom to reject the basis for freedom of thought, it undermines itself. I have never understood how so-called "liberals" have so often failed to see something so basic about their own "liberalism," that what begins as advocacy for "tolerance" ends in brutal intolerance.

J. L. Talmon, a scholar from Hebrew University in Jerusalem, saw this clearly in his study, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, a study of, among other things, J.-J. Rousseau's Social Contract.

Flannery O'Connor once spoke on the issue of liberal compassion: "Do you know where [their] tenderness leads? It ends in forced labor camps and in the fumes of the gas chambers," she declared.

But all of this is too theoretical. The simple point is this: there is nothing more authoritarian and intolerant that a certain kind of "liberalism." True, the Christian right can be intolerant too; but there is a difference. The Christian right opposes many vices that are now generally defended as acceptable by the public mainstream. It does not reject the very basis for toleration, however, which lies in clearly distinguishing between vices and virtues.

Tolerance only has meaning, and can only be implemented with any even-handedness, within a context of a larger framework of traditional values based on moral insight, understanding of human nature, and natural law.

[Hat tip to Fr. Z.]

NYT corrects Andrew Sullivan

2012-05-17T10:46:00.000-04:00

A reader writes:

As usual these days, Newsweek, when it comes to religion, pretty much gets it all wrong. Hard to explain outside of spiritual blinkers.

(Note the ironic headline on the Supreme Court ["Will the Supreme Court Betray Us?"]).

The reader continues:

A plummeting fall it has been, from the days of its class-act religion reporter Kenneth Woodward, to the current squad of progressive, Oprah-like scribes found in John Meachem, Lisa Miller, and yes, Andrew Sullivan ...

What is very much *not* usual, however, is to find a sane retort in the NYT of all places ... [Gary Gutting, "Returning to the Sermon on the Mount" (NYT, April 19, 2012)]

To get a feel for [what] the older school Woodward represented, check out this (excellent): [Kenneth L. Woodward, "God is not my Buddy" (Homiletics Online, 2002)].

[Hat tip to J.M.]

Same-sex 'marriage'? Squaring the circle

2012-05-17T09:31:00.000-04:00

Our friend, Zach Mabee, writes: "This is a pretty nice summary - by Alan Keyes, in a debate with then-Senator Obama - of the key claim regarding same-sex "marriage" that I've attempted to defend a couple times of late."

Abraham Lincoln dealt with this by raising the question: "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" The irony now is that people no longer understand the answer which was then obvious to any listner: No matter what you may call a tail, it still remains a tail.

For the beauty of the earth ...

2012-05-16T21:45:00.000-04:00

... Lord of all to Thee we raise, this our hymn of grateful praise.

Well, it may be only David Attenborough and the BBC, but the reference is quite apt, as I think most of you may agree. Enjoy.

[Hat tip to R. Farrugia]

Let's go shopping! Obama Messiah's plan to save America

2012-05-14T22:12:00.000-04:00

Related:

"Is Barack Obama the Messiah?" a blog created by Christopher Blosser during the 2008 US Presidential campaign.
Evan Moore, "Obama's Support Steeped in Messianic Terminology" (CNSNews.com, July 7, 2008):
In an interview with Cybercast News Service, Christopher Blosser, who runs the Obama Messiah blog from his home in New York, admitted that his site was a parody, designed to "provoke some of Obama's more ardent disciples among the masses - and the media - to re-evaluate their actions and speech."

Democrats, meet Gianna Jessen

2012-05-14T18:37:00.000-04:00

Planned Parenthood Celebration Jolted by Abortion Survivor, by Ted Harvey (2006).

(In a Denver Post story on the 2006 incident, we learn that Ted Harvey received a rebuke on the House Floor for his introduction of Jessen, and the head of the Planned Parenthood sniffed, "There's no statistical evidence that cerebral palsy has been caused by failed abortions." Missing the more important point that Jessen wouldn't even be alive today had the execution been carried out to completion.

Ted Harvey would go on to be elected to the Colorado State Senate in 2006, and re-elected in 2010.

Gianna Jensen
[Hat tip to C.B., Against the Grain, May 8, 2012]

Thanksgiving

2012-05-13T22:59:00.001-04:00

Give thanks with me for our daughter, Hannah Cabrini, age seven, who today received her First Holy Communion at St. Josaphat Church. Thanks to all, far and near, who played a role in assisting her to this end. Soli Deo gloria.

The gaying of America: too late to stop?

2012-05-13T22:56:00.000-04:00

A great and growing evil smolders on the horizon. The world of all that is light and good and true is rapidly falling into the shadow of oppressive darkness. Men have exchanged the truth of God for lies, and repressed the truth in iniquitous perversions in high places. It is now affecting our entire political, popular, and educational culture. One cannot expect to escape the effects of this evil by self-isolation or even identification with a counter-culture of virtue. The darkness is coming upon us all.

The term goetia refers, quite apart from its Greek etymology, to the unmaking of nature that is commonly called "perversion." To call evil "good"; to seek to normalize and call "natural" what is gravely distorted and un-natural, to embolden the weakness of capitulation to vice by undergirding it with the public legitimation of civil rights -- all of this is goetia.

We can expect over the next months and years a rapid acceleration of legal legitimation of perversions and the increasingly heavy hand of state-sanctioned repression against traditional Judeo-Christian family values -- a repression, in the final analysis of what we can't not know: that our society is increasingly perverting the natural order and committing collective moral suicide as a nation and a people.

We can expect this to happen despite the fact that those who promote such perversion haven't even a shred of justification in legal or moral precedent, logic or natural law. No doubt the Hollywood Sodomites are winning -- they and their useful idiots in positions of power. This does not make them right. Their 'case' lies in scoffing derision of their opponents, not in evidence or argument.

Much that once was -- what was good and true and beautiful -- is now rapidly being forgotten. Few now live who remember it. The greater part of generations now living are rapidly falling into the world of shadows and oblivion.

Nothing in this declaration stems from fear or is intended to provoke fear. Perfect love and light and truth casts out all fear. We are an Easter People who know that our Lamb has already conquered: Vicit agnus noster, eum sequamur! But we must not delude ourselves about our era being a "Springtime" of hope for our American or Western world. We have entered into a new Dark Ages. The barbarians are already at the gates; and they are on the inside.

Fear nothing but the judgment of God. Be confident. Do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God.

[Hat tip to E. Echeverria]