Rev. Haydock on the Language of the Liturgy

"Did the word of God first come out from you? This he says, to check these new preachers, by putting them in mind, that they are not the first, nor the only Christians, and so must conform themselves to the discipline practised in other Churches, especially since, as their apostle, he hath delivered them the commandments of the Lord. And if any man know not, will not acknowledge, and follow these rules, he shall not be known; God will not know, nor approve his ways. The pretended reformers, from the expressions with which the apostle blames the abuse some new converts made of the gift of tongues, think they have found a plausible argument to reprehend Catholic, for using the same Latin tongue in the Mass, and in the public liturgy. They consider not, whether they have the same reasons to find fault with the present discipline of the Church, as St. Paul then had to blame the Corinthians: whether the circumstances be the same or different: they think it enough that Latin, which is used in the Mass, is a language not understood by a great many ignorant people, and therefore they can say with St. Paul, that an idiot, or an unlearned man, knows not when to say Amen to what he hears. Two things offer themselves here to the consideration of every man, who is disposed to judge impartially. 1. Whether the same reasons and motives now subsist for blaming the Catholics. 2ndly, whether the conveniences and inconveniences, duly examined, it be found more commendable to perform the public liturgy, in those, which are the most general languages, as in Latin or Greek, or to have all liturgies turned into as many tongues, as the ignorant people understand and speak in different places. As to the first, St. Paul does not absolutely forbid the use of this gift of tongues, that were not understood, even by any one (as hath been already observed). All that he blames is, that many, who valued themselves on this gift, spoke at the same time altogether strange tongues, which none understood, but those who had another gift of the Spirit, called the interpretation of speeches, on which account in these meetings there was nothing but confusion, without any profit, edification, or instruction, at a time, and in such circumstances, when instructions were absolutely necessary, both for the new converted Christians, and also for the infidels, who flocked thither as much as the Christians. The case is now quite different, when none but Catholics meet, (especially at the Mass) who have been instructed from their infancy, what they are to believe, as to the mysteries of faith, and what they ought to practise, as to the commandments, the sacraments, prayer, and other points, which they have in their catechisms, or which have been delivered to them by catechetical discourses and instructions. And if they have been happily converted, or are upon their conversion, they are always carefully instructed in the tongue which they understand, as to what they ought to believe, and in the duties of a Christian life. Besides this, all present are frequently instructed by sermons and exhortations, not only on Sundays and holidays, but daily in Advent and Lent, as it is the custom in Catholic countries. I know some of our adversaries have been persuaded, that we preach in Latin to the people; to be convinced of the contrary, let them come and hear us; it is the worst I wish them. As to the sacrifice of the Mass, which none but they who are priests, can offer for the people, of which also a great part, according to the institution of the Church, as the Council of Trent observes, (session 22. cap. 5.) is said with a low voice: it is not performed in Latin in the Western Church, or in Greek in the East, that the meaning of the words may be concealed, since the same Council has laid an express injunction upon all pastors, and upon all that have care of souls, that they frequently, and especially on Sundays, and holidays, expound to the people, what is contained in the Mass, to wit, the parts, and the ceremonies. See 22nd session, cap. 8.) And this command is again repeated, (session 24. cap. 7.) that they instruct the people in their mother tongue concerning the divine mysteries and sacraments. All that can read, may find the Mass translated into their own language, and the most ignorant are taught and instructed, that by the different parts are represented the death and sufferings of our Saviour, Christ: they are taught how to offer up at the same time their intention, their heart, and their prayers: to confess themselves sinners before God, as the priest does, how they ought to endeavour to praise, and adore Christ with the blessed spirits in heaven; how they ought to beg graces of God, by saying the Lord's prayer; how they ought, at the same time, at least in spirit and desire, to receive the holy sacrament of the eucharist, with a sincere repentance, with humility and devotion. Cannot all things, then, be done to edification, as St. Paul requires, though the words of the Mass, and public liturgy, be in a language which the ignorant do not understand, but which, of all others, is the most general! Now the second thing to be examined is, whether, all things duly considered, it be better to retain the public Church-offices in Latin, and in those ancient dead languages, as they are called, or to turn the liturgy into as many tongues, as are spoken in different places and countries! Our adversaries, by this new alteration which they have made, have gone against the judgment of all Christian Churches, both in the West and East, and in all parts of the world. For as Mons. Simon takes notice, in his Critics, all other Churches (the Protestant only excepted) have judged it expedient, to stick to the words and languages of their ancient liturgies, the Grecians to the ancient Greek, which now the ignorant among them do not understand; the like is to be said of the ancient Syriac, Arabic, Coptic, &c. And it is also observed, that the Israelites continued the reading of the law and the prophets, in the ancient Hebrew, which the common people of the Jews did not understand after their return from the Babylonian captivity. It is well known that Latin in this part of the world, is more generally spread and known, than any other language whatsoever. It is taught every where in all public schools. It is learnt, not only by the ministers of the Church, but by almost all gentlemen, and by persons of all conditions, the poorer sort only excepted. There is this great convenience, that the same priest can perform all the public Church-offices, in all places and kingdoms where he travels. All the faithful, whithersoever they have occasion to go, meet with the same Mass, and liturgy in the same words abroad, which they were accustomed to hear at home. The same uniformity is every where preserved without change or confusion. But according to the method introduced by the Protestants, the liturgy must be changed into as many different tongues, as there are countries and places, and in almost every century, as we see by experience, languages are liable and subject to considerable changes and alterations. From hence arises a danger of changes, as to the doctrine and belief of the faithful: errors and heresies are the consequences, that follow such frequent changes, especially, when by another false principle of the said reformers, every private man and woman has a right to expound the hard and obscure place of the holy Scriptures, which make up the chief and greatest part of all public liturgies in all Christian Churches. I might ask of the Protestants, whether the ignorant people at lest, and idiots, as St. Paul calls them, understand the meaning of the Psalms, when they are sung in Hopkins's rhymes; though they may perhaps know when to say Amen, with the rest. Nor yet does every ignorant man know what the word itself, Amen, signifies, and therefore knows not what he answers. I cannot but here take notice of an unfair way of proceeding, even in the best Protestant translation, by sometimes adding in this chapter the word unknown, and sometimes omitting it. All Catholics are willing to allow, that by the gift of speaking tongues, St. Paul means tongues unknown, though the word unknown is not found so much as once, neither in the Latin, nor even so much as in any one Greek manuscript. The Protestant translators, for tongues, have put unknown tongues, in all the verses, where St. Paul blames the abuse of this gift; to wit, ver. 2. 4. 13. 14. 19. 27. but they make no such addition, where St. Paul either commends, or permits the speaking in tongues not understood, as ver. 5. where he says, I would have you to speak tongues; and ver. 29. where he says, forbid not to speak tongues. It is evident, that there is the very same reason for the addition, or the omission equally in all these verses. Is this to translate faithfully? I would by no means judge rashly, even of any adversary; but it looks as if both the addition and omission was with a design of making this popular objection seem to be of greater force against this point of discipline, and practice of the Catholics, and indeed of all Christian Churches." (Witham)

- Haydock Bible Commentary on I Cor. Ch. XIV, Ver. 36-38.

Old Fashioned Ecumenism: St. Francis Xavier

St. Francis Xavier: “...God, most Faithful and True, held the misbelievers and their prayers in abomination, and so willed that their worship, which He rejected altogether, should come to naught.”[1]

“When all are baptized I order the temples of their false gods to be destroyed and all the idols to be broken in pieces. I can give you no idea of the joy I feel in seeing this done, witnessing the destruction of the idols by the people who lately adored them…When I have done all this in one place, I pass to another… In this way I go all around the country, bringing the natives into the fold of Jesus Christ, and the joy I feel in this is far too great to be expressed…”[2]

“For my part, it does not astonish me that the bonzes [the false, pagan religious leaders in Japan] are covered with so many and so great sins. They are a set of men who have the Devil in place of God, and it is a matter of necessity that they should commit crimes innumerable and abominable… I earnestly beg all who read this letter of mine… to pray that Our Lord Jesus Christ will give us the victory over these two demons Xaca and Amida [the false gods of the Japanese], and over the others like them, especially since at present their credit is waxing weak at Amanguchi, not without the special providence of God.” [3]

“These children [converted to Christ]… show an ardent love for the Divine law, and an extraordinary zeal for our holy religion and imparting it to others. Their hatred for idolatry is marvelous. They get into feuds with the heathens about it… The children run at the idols, upset them, dash them down, break them to pieces, spit on them, trample on them, kick them about, and in short heap on them every possible outrage.”[4]


___________
Endnotes:
[1] St. Francis Xavier, Sept. 18, 1542; Colridge, Life and Letters, Vol. 1, p. 116)
[2] St. Francis Xavier, +1545; Colridge, Life and Letters
[3] St. Francis Xavier, Jan. 29, 1552; Ibid.
[4] [St. Francis Xavier, +1543; Ibid.

Old Fashioned Ecumenism: St. Martin Of Tours

"But in a village which was named Leprosum, when he [St. Martin D'Tours] too wished to overthrow a temple which had acquired great wealth through the superstitious ideas entertained of its sanctity, a multitude of the heathen resisted him to such a degree that he was driven back not without bodily injury. He, therefore, withdrew to a place in the vicinity, and there for three days, clothed in sackcloth and ashes fasting and praying the whole time, he besought the Lord, that, as he had not been able to overthrow that temple by human effort, Divine power might be exerted to destroy it. Then two angels, with spears and shields after the manner of heavenly warriors, suddenly presented themselves to him, saying that they were sent by the Lord to put to flight the rustic multitude, and to furnish protection to Martin, lest, while the temple was being destroyed, any one should offer resistance. They told him therefore to return, and complete the blessed work which he had begun. Accordingly Martin returned to the village; and while the crowds of heathen looked on in perfect quiet as he razed the pagan temple even to the foundations, he also reduced all the altars and images to dust. At this sight the rustics, when they perceived that they had been so astounded and terrified by an intervention of the Divine will, that they might not be found fighting against the bishop, almost all believed in the Lord Jesus. They then began to cry out openly and to confess that the God of Martin ought to be worshiped, and that the idols should be despised, which were not able to help them." [1]

"At that time... the most blessed Martin then began to preach in the Gauls, and he overcame the unbelief of the heathen, showing among the people by many miracles that Christ the Son of God was the true God. He destroyed heathen shrines, crushed heresy, built churches, and while he was glorious for many other miracles, he completed his title to fame by restoring three dead men to life."[2]


___________________
Endnotes:
[1] Suplicitus Severus, Life of St. Martin, Ch. XIV
[2] St. Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks, Ch. 39



Related:

• Old Fashioned Ecumenism
• False Ecumenism of Vatican II

Luther's Mass: A Comparison

An Examination of the Shocking Similarities Between the New Mass and Luther's "Mass"
by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

Ladies and Gentlemen,
I wish to speak to you this evening about the evangelical Mass of Martin Luther, and of the striking resemblance between his Liturgical innovations of more than four centuries ago, and the recently promulgated new order of the Mass, the Novus Ordo Missae.
Why are such considerations of significance? Because of the prominent role, according to the President of the Liturgical Commission himself, accorded to the concept of ecumenism in bringing about these reforms. Because, further, if we are able to ascertain that a close relationship does indeed exist between Luther's innovations and the Novus Ordo, then the theological question, that is the question of the faith, must be asked in terms of the well known adage, "lex orandi, lex credendi"; the law of prayer cannot be profoundly changed without changing the law of belief.
It is well, in order to assist our understanding of the present liturgical reforms, to examine carefully actual historical documents on Luther's reforms.
To grasp Luther's goal in bringing forward his reforms we must briefly recall the Church's doctrine with respect to the Priesthood and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
The 22nd session of the Council of Trent (1562) teaches that Our Lord Jesus Christ, wishing His Priesthood to continue after His death on the Cross, instituted at the Last Supper a visible Sacrifice destined to apply the salutary effect of His Redemption to the sins of mankind. Christ therefore, instituted Holy Orders, and choosing His Apostles and their successors to be the priests of the New Testament, marked them as such with a sacred and indelible character.
This Sacrifice instituted by Christ is performed on our altars by the sacrificial action of the Redeemer Himself, truly present under the species of bread and wine, offering Himself as a victim to His Father. And by partaking at Communion of this Victim, we unite ourselves to the Body and Blood of Our Lord, and offer ourselves also in union with Him.
Thus, the Church teaches, first, that the Priesthood of the priest is essentially different from that of the faithful, who do not have the Priesthood but who belong to a Church which essentially requires a Priesthood. It is deeply fitting that this Priesthood be celibate, and that its members be differentiated from the faithful by clerical dress.
Secondly, the essential liturgical act performed by this Priesthood is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, different from the Sacrifice of the Cross only in that the latter was a bloody sacrifice, and the former is an unbloody sacrifice. The Sacrifice of the Mass is accomplished by the sacrificial action of reciting the words of the Consecration, and not simply by reciting a narrative, or by a remembrance of the Passion or of the Last Supper.
Thirdly, it is by virtue of this sublime and mysterious act that the effects of the Redemption are applied to the souls of both the faithful on Earth and the souls in Purgatory. This doctrine is most admirably expressed at the Offertory of the Mass.
Fourthly, the Real Presence of the Victim is thus required, and comes to pass through the change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of Our Lord. Accordingly, we are required to adore the Eucharist and reserve for it the very highest respect, whence comes the tradition that priests alone distribute the Holy Eucharist and see to Its custody.
It follows, finally, that although a priest celebrates the Mass and takes Communion alone, yet he performs a public act, a sacrifice equal in value to any other Mass, and of infinite value to both the celebrant and the entire Church. Privately celebrated Masses, accordingly, are highly encouraged by the Church.
The above principles are the basis of the prayers, the music and the ceremonies which have made the Latin Mass of the Council of Trent a veritable liturgical jewel. The Council of Trent's deeply moving doctrine on the Canon, the most precious element of the Mass, states:
"As it is becoming that holy things he administered in a holy manner and of all things this Sacrifice is the most holy, the Catholic Church, to the end that it might be worthily and reverently offered and received, instituted many centuries ago the Holy Canon, which is so free from error that it contains nothing that does not in the highest degree savor of a certain holiness and piety and raise up to God the minds of those who offer. For it consists partly of the very words of the Lord, partly of the traditions of the Apostles, and also of pious regulations of holy Pontiffs." (Acts of the Council of Trent, session 22, chapter IV).
Let us examine the manner in which Luther achieved his reform of the liturgy, that is implemented the "evangelical Mass", as he himself called it. Of particular interest in this effort are the actual words of Luther himself, or of his disciples, with respect to the reforms. It is enlightening to note the liberal tendencies which inspire Luther:
In first place", he writes "I would kindly and for God's sake request all those who see this order of service or desire to follow it: do not make it a rigid law to bind or entangle anyone's conscience, but use it in Christian liberty as long, when, where, and how you find it to be practical and useful."(T,C. Tappert, ed., Selected Writings of Martin Luther, vol. 3,p. 397). "The cult", he continues, "was formerly meant to render homage to God; henceforth it shall he directed to man in order to console him and enlighten him, Whereas the sacrifice formerly held pride of place, henceforth the most important will be the sermon". (from Léon Christiani, Du luthéranisme au protestantisme (1910), p. 312)
Luther's Thoughts on the Priesthood In his work on privately celebrated Masses, Luther seeks to demonstrate that the Catholic Priesthood is a creation of Satan. He bases this assertion On the principle, henceforth fundamental to his thinking, that what is not in Holy Scripture is an addition of Satan. Accordingly, for Luther, since Scripture makes no mention of the visible Priesthood, there can be but one priest and one Pontiff, Christ. With Christ we are all called to the Priesthood, thus making the Priesthood at once unique and universal. What folly to seek to limit it to the few. Similarly, all hierarchical distinctions between Christians are worthy of the Antichrist; "Woe therefore, to those who call themselves priests". (Christiani, Ibid., p. 269)
In 1520, Luther wrote "To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian State", in which he attacks the Romanists and urges the convocation of a free council:
"The first wall built by the Romanists is the distinction between the clergy and the laity. It is pure invention that pope, bishop, priests, and monks are called the spiritual estate while prince', lords, artisans and peasants are called the temporal estate. This is indeed a piece of deceit and hypocrisy. All Christians are truly of the spiritual estate, and there is no difference among them except that of office... The pope or bishop anoints, confers the tonsure, ordains, consecrates, and prescribes garb different from that of the laity. He might well make a man into a hypocrite in so doing, but never a Christian or a spiritual man... Whoever comes out of the water of baptism can boast that he is already a consecrated priest, bishop, and pope, although of course it is not seemly that just anybody should exercise such office". (Tappert, Ibid., vol. 1, 23-65)
It was from this doctrine that Luther concluded against both clerical garb and celibacy. He and his disciples, in fact, showed the way by marrying.
How many of the reforms of Vatican II reflect Luther's own conclusions? The abandonment of clerical and religious dress, widespread marriages of the religious sanctioned even by the Holy See, the suppression of distinctions between priest and layman. This egalitarianism is further manifested in the sharing of liturgical functions formerly reserved to the Priesthood.
The abolition of the minor orders and the sub-diaconate, and the creation of a married diaconate, have also contributed to the purely administrative conception of the priest, to the detriment of his essentially priestly character, Thus one is ordained primarily to serve the community and no longer for the purpose of offering Christ's Sacrifice which alone is the justification for the Catholic concept of the Priesthood.
Worker priests, priests in labor unions, or in positions remunerated by the State similarly contribute to the blurring of distinctions between Priesthood and laity. In fact, the innovations go much further than those of Luther.
Luther's second grave doctrinal error flows from the first and is founded upon its guiding principle: salvation comes from faith and confidence in God alone, and not from good works. thus negating the value of the sacrificial act which is the Catholic Mass.
For Luther, the Mass is a sacrifice of praise, that is an act of praise, of thanksgiving, but most certainly not an expiatory sacrifice which recreates the Sacrifice of Calvary and applies its merits.
Describing the liturgical "perversions" he observed in some monasteries, he wrote: "The Principal expression of their cult, the Mass, surpasses all impiety and abomination in that they make of it a sacrifice and a good work. Were this the only reason to leave habit and convent and abandon the vows, it would be amply sufficient". (Christiani, p. 258)
For Luther, the Mass, which is meant simply to be a communion, has been subjected to a triple bondage: the laity has been deprived of the use of the chalice, they have been bound as to a dogma to the Thomistic opinion on transubstantiation, and the Mass has been made into a sacrifice.
"It is, therefore, clearly erroneous and impious", he declared, "to offer or apply the merits of the Mass for sins, or the reparation thereof, or for the deceased. Mass is offered by God to man, and not by man to God". (Christiani)
"With respect in the Eucharist, since it ought first and foremost to move one to the Faith, it is fitting that it be celebrated in the vernacular in order that all may comprehend the grandeur of God's promise to man". (Christiani, p. 176)
The logical consequence of this heresy was for Luther to abolish the Offertory of the Mass, which expresses unequivocally the propitiatory and expiatory aims of the Sacrifice. Similarly, he abolished a major part of the Canon, retaining only the essential passages as a narrative of Christ's Last Supper. In order better to emphasize the latter event, he added to the formula of the Consecration of the bread the words "quod pro vobis tradetur" ("which will be given up for you"), and deleted both "mysterium fidei" ("the mystery of faith") and "pro multis" ("for many"). He considered that the passages which both immediately precede and follow the actual Consecration of the bread and Wine were essential.
For Luther, the Mass is firstly the Liturgy of the Word, and secondly a Communion. For us that fact that the current liturgical Reforms have adopted precisely these same modifications is nothing short of astounding. Indeed, as we well know, the texts in use by the faithful today no longer make reference to the Sacrifice, but rather to the Liturgy of the Word, to the Lord's Supper and to the breaking of bread, or to the Eucharist. Article VII of the instruction which introduced the new Liturgy reflected a clearly Protestant orientation. A corrected version which followed in the wake of the outraged protests of the faithful remains sadly deficient.
It goes without saying that, added to these substantial alterations, the large number of lesser liturgical modifications have contributed further to the inculcation of Protestant attitudes which seriously threaten Catholic doctrine: the suppression of the altar stone, the use of a single altar cloth, the priest facing the people, the Host remaining on the paten rather than on the corporal, the introduction of ordinary bread, sacred vessels of less noble substances, and numerous other details.
There is nothing more essential to the survival of the Catholic Church than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. To play it down is to threaten the very foundation of Christ's Church. The whole of Christian life, and the Priesthood, is founded upon the Cross, and upon the re-enactment of the Sacrifice of the Cross, upon the altar.
LUTHER DENIES TRANSUBSTANTIATION AND THE REAL PRESENCE AS TAUGHT BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. For Luther the substance of bread remains. Consequently, in the words of his disciple Melanchton, who strongly opposed the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, "Christ instituted the Eucharist as a memorial of His Passion. To adore It is therefore idolatry".
It follows that Communion is to be taken in the hand and under both species, which reinforces the denial of the presence of Our Lord's Body and Blood; it is thus normal to consider the Eucharist as incomplete under a single species.
Once again we note the strange resemblance between the present renewal and Luther's Reform. Every recent promulgation on the Eucharist tends towards a lessening of respect, a retreat from adoration: Communion in the hand and its distribution by lay men and lay women; the reduced number of genuflections, which many priests have discontinued altogether; the use of ordinary vessels and ordinary bread, all of these innovations have diminished belief in the Real Presence as taught by the Catholic Church.
One cannot but conclude that, principles being inseparable from practice ("lex orandi, lex credendi"), the fact that the Liturgy of the present day imitates Luther's reforms leads inevitably towards the adoption of the very principles propounded by Luther. The experience of the six years which have followed the promulgation of the Novus Ordo is sufficient proof. The consequences, of this so-called ecumenical effort, have been nothing short of catastrophic, primarily in the area of faith, and especially in terms of the perversion of the Priesthood and the serious decline in vocations, in the scandalous divisions created among Catholics the world over, and indeed in the Church's relations with Protestants and Orthodox Christians.
Protestant concepts on the essential questions of the Church, the Priesthood, the Sacrifice and the Eucharist are irrevocably opposed to those of the Catholic Church. It was for no idle purpose that the Council of Trent was convened, and that the Church's Magisterium has spoken so frequently on these very questions for more than four centuries since Trent.
It is impossible in psychological, pastoral and theological terms for Catholics to abandon a Liturgy which has always been the true expression and sustenance of their Faith, and to adopt in its place new rites conceived by heretics without exposing this Faith to the most serious peril. One cannot imitate Protestantism indefinitely without becoming Protestant.
How many of the faithful, how many young priests, how many bishops even have lost their Faith since the adoption of the new liturgical Reforms? One cannot expect to offend both Faith and nature and not expect that these in turn should reap their own vengeance.
In order to grasp the striking analogy between the two Reforms, it is well worth reading contemporary accounts of the early Evangelical Masses. Leon Christiani's descriptions remain vivid:
"During the night of December 24/25 1521, large crowds began arriving at the parish church... The evangelical Mass was about to begin; Karlstadt goes to the pulpit; he is to preach on the Eucharist. He claims that Communion under both species is obligatory and that prior Confession is not required. Faith alone matters. Karlstadt approaches the altar in secular dress, recites the Confiteor, and begins the Mass proper in the usual manner, up to the Gospel. The Offertory and the Elevation, that is those parts which express the idea of the Sacrifice, are omitted. After the Consecration comes the Communion. Many of the congregation have not been to Confession and many have not fasted, not even from alcohol. They approach the Communion table with the others. Karlstadt distributed the hosts and offers the chalice. The communicants receive the consecrated bread in the hand and casually drink from the chalice. A host falls to the ground and Karlstadt beckons to a lay person to pick it up. The layman demurs, and Karlstadt allows it to remain where it is for the time being, cautioning the congregation, however, not to step on it." (Christiani, p. 281-83)
That same Christmas day another priest in the same district gave communion under both species to about fifty persons, of whom only five had gone to Confession. The rest had received a general absolution, their penance being the recommendation to resist sin.
The very next day - December 26 - Karlstadt announced his engagement to Anna de Mochau. Numerous priests followed suit.
In the meantime, Zwilling, having left his monastery, was preaching at Eilenberg. He had discarded the habit and was now bearded. Dressed in lay clothes, he fulminated against privately celebrated Masses. On New Year's Day, he distributed Communion under both species. The hosts were passed from hand to hand. Several were pocketed by the communicants. One lady, while receiving, allowed fragments to drop to the ground. No one appeared to notice. The faithful helped themselves generously to the chalice.
On 29 February 1522, Zwilling married Catherine Falki. By this time there had occurred a rash of marriages of priests and monks. The monasteries were beginning to empty. Those monks who remained removed all altars save one, destroyed statues and images and even the Holy Oils.
Among the clergy, Anarchy reigned. Each priest celebrated Mass in his own fashion. It was resolved finally to prescribe a new Liturgy with a view of restoring order and consolidating the Reforms.
The order of Mass was set to include the Introit, the Gloria, the Epistle, the Gospel and the Sanctus, followed by a sermon. The Offertory and the Canon were both abolished. Henceforth the priest was to simply narrate the institution of the Lord's Supper, reciting aloud in German the words of the Consecration, and distributing Communion under both species. The Agnus Dei, the Communion prayer and the Benedicamus Domino were sung to end the Mass. (Christiani, p 281-85).
One of the preoccupations of Luther at this time was the institution of a repertory of appropriate hymns. With considerable difficulty he was able to enlist the efforts of lyricists. The Saints feast days were abolished. Generally, however, Luther attempted to minimize out-and-out abolitions. He directed his efforts to retaining as many of the ancient ceremonies as possible, seeking rather to orient their significance toward the spirit of his Reforms.
Thus for a time the Mass retained in large measure its external appearances. The churches retained the same decor and the same rites, with modifications but directed towards the faithful, for henceforth much more attention was to be paid to the faithful than formerly, in order that they, might be conscious of a more active role in the Liturgy: thus, they were to participate in the singing and in the prayers of the Mass. And, gradually, Latin gave way definitively to the German vernacular.
Even the Consecration was sung in German, in these words: "Our Lord on the night He was betrayed took bread, rendered thanks, broke it and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take you and eat of this for this is My Body given up for you. Do this, as often as you shall do it, in memory of Me. In like manner, when the supper was done, taking also the chalice saying; Take you and drink of this for this is the chalice of the new covenant, of My Blood which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. Do this, as often as you shall drink of this chalice, in memory of Me."
Thus were added to the Consecration of the bread the words "which is given up for you", and deleted from the Consecration of the wine, the words "the mystery of faith" and "for many".
Do these considerations on the Evangelical Mass not reflect our very feelings towards the reformed liturgy since the Council?
All of these changes which comprise the new Liturgy of the Mass are truly of perilous consequence, especially for younger priests. Not having been nourished with the doctrines of the Sacrifice, of the Real Presence, of Transubstantiation, these no longer have any significance for young priests who, as a result, soon lose the intention to perform what the Church performs. Consequently, they no longer celebrate valid Masses.
Older priests, on the other hand, even when they celebrate according to the Novus Ordo, may still have the Faith of all time. For years they have celebrated Mass according to the Tridentine rite, and in accordance with the intentions of that rite, we can assume that their Masses are valid. To the degree, however, that these intentions disappear, even their Masses may become invalid.
It was intended that Catholics and Protestants draw closer together, but it is evident that Catholics have become Protestants, rather than the reverse.
When five cardinals and fifteen bishops participated recently in a "Council of Youth" at Taizé in France, how were young people to distinguish between Catholicism and Protestantism? Some received Communion from Catholics, others from Protestants.
Recently Cardinal Willebrands, in his capacity as the Holy See's Envoy to the World Council of Churches at Geneva, declared solemnly that we shall have to rehabilitate Martin Luther!
And what has become of the Sacrament of Penance with the introduction of general absolution? Is it truly a pastoral improvement to teach the faithful that, having been granted general absolution, they may receive Communion provided, should they be in the state of mortal sin, that they take the opportunity to go to Confession within the following six months, or year? Who will suggest that this is indeed a pastoral improvement? What concept of mortal sin are the faithful to retain from this argument?
The Sacrament of Confirmation is in a similar situation. A common rite today is to pronounce simply "I sign you with the Sign of the Cross. Receive the Holy Spirit." In administering Confirmation, the bishop must indicate precisely the special sacramental grace whereby he confers the Holy Ghost. There is no Confirmation if he does not say, "I confirm you in the name of the Father..."
Bishops frequently reproach me, and remind me, that I confer the Sacrament where I am not authorized. To them I answer that I confirm because the faithful fear that their children have not received the grace of Confirmation, because they have a serious doubt as to the validity of the Sacrament conferred in their Churches. Therefore, in order that they might at least be secure in their knowledge of the validity of the sacramental grace, they ask that I confirm their children. And I respond to their plea because it appears to me that I may not refuse those who request that their confirmation be valid, even if it may not be licit. We are clearly at a time when divine natural and supernatural law takes precedence over positive Church law when the latter is opposed to the former, when in reality it should he the channel leading to it.
We are living in an age of extraordinary crisis, and we cannot accept its Reforms. Where are the good fruits of these Reforms, of the Liturgical Reform, the Reform of the seminaries, the Reform of the religious congregations? What have all of these General Chapters yielded; what has become of their congregations? The religious life has all but disappeared: there are no more novices, no more vocations!
Archbishop Bernardin of Cincinnati recognized the problem clearly when he declared to the Synod of Bishops in Rome, "In our countries" - he was speaking for English-speaking countries of the world - "there are no more vocations because the priest has lost his sense of identity," It is essential, therefore, that we remain loyal to Tradition, for without Tradition there is no grace, no continuity in the Church. If we abandon Tradition, we contribute to the destruction of the Church.
I have had occasion to say to the Cardinals, "Do you not see that the Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom is a contradiction? Whereas the Introduction states that the council leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine, the body of the document is entirely opposed to Tradition: it is opposed to what has been taught by Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, and Leo XIII."
We are now faced with a grave choice: either we agree with the Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom, and thus oppose the teachings of the Popes, or we agree with the teachings of the popes, and thus disagree with Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Freedom. It is impossible to subscribe to both. I have made my choice: I choose Tradition. I cling to Tradition over novelty which is merely an expression of Liberalism, the very Liberalism condemned by the Holy See for a century and a half. Now this Liberalism has penetrated the Church through the Council, and its catchwords remain the same; liberty, equality and fraternity.
The spirit of Liberalism permeates the Church today, though its catchwords are thinly veiled: liberty is religious freedom; fraternity is ecumenism; equality is collegiality. These are the three principles of Liberalism, the legacy of the 18th century philosophers and of the French Revolution.
The Church today is approaching its own destruction because these principles are absolutely contrary to nature and to faith. There is no true equality possible, and Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical on freedom clearly explained why.
And fraternity! If there is no Father where shall we find fraternity? If there is no Father, there is no God, how then shall we be brothers? Are we to embrace the enemies of the Church, the Communists, the Buddhists, the Masons?
And now we have word that there is no excommunication for Catholics who become Freemasons. Freemasonry nearly destroyed Portugal; Freemasonry was with Allende in Chile, and is now in South Vietnam. Freemasons see it as important to destroy Catholic States. Thus it was during the First World War in Austria, thus it was in Hungary and in Poland. Freemasonry seeks to destroy the Catholic nations. What is in store for Spain and Italy and other countries in the near future? Why does the Church feel compelled to open her arms to the enemies of the Church?
Now we are bound to pray, to redouble our prayers! We are witnessing an assault by Satan against the Church, as has never been seen. We must pray to Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary, to come to our assistance, for we can have no idea what horrors tomorrow may bring. It is not possible for God to tolerate indefinitely these blasphemies, these sacrileges which are committed against His Glory and Majesty! One need only reflect on the horror of abortion, on rampant divorce, on the ruin of moral law and of truth itself. It is inconceivable that all of this can continue without God punishing the world by some terrible chastisement.
This is why we must beg God's mercy for ourselves and for all mankind, and we must struggle, we must fight. We must fight fearlessly to maintain Tradition, to maintain, above all, the Liturgy of the Holy Mass, because it is the very foundation of the Church, indeed of Christian civilization. Were the true Mass no longer to be celebrated in the Church, the Church would disappear.
We must, therefore, preserve this Liturgy, this Sacrifice. Our churches were built for this Mass and for no other: for the Sacrifice of the Mass, and not for a supper, a meal, a memorial or a Communion. Our ancestors built magnificent cathedrals and churches, not for a meal or a simple memorial, but for the Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ which continues upon our altars.

Conservative or Liberal?

One of the games liberals like to play is the name-calling game. They call you a name and suddenly nothing you have to say has any merit or makes any difference. They create a dichotomy between two sides by proposing a position, and opinions regarding it, then denouncing both opinions as somehow extremist, all the while never regarding the positions. A Right-wing and a Left-wing, liberals take the "middle" option, so they say. The "Left wingers" are radicals, and the "right-wingers" are extremists. Generally, the case is an either-or case, as opposed to a both-and, but the game's goal is to turn the either-or into a both-and, it's a game where the rules are based on relativism, whatever opinions there are, they are all placed on the same level, you see, all opinions are equal, and no opinion has any more merit than the other save the amount of people who accept a given side, as a rule.

Let's say the left-winger says water is dry, and the right-winger says it's wet. The "moderate" liberal" proceeds to say both are wrong, water is both dry and wet, calling one side the "dryists", because they insist that it's dry, and the other "wetans" because they insist that it's dry. And the liberal has discarded the other two opinions besides his own because he called them a name. Another case would be one where let's say the majority thinks spiders have six legs, and the minority thinks it has eight. The liberal will denounce the minority "eightists" because their opinion conflicts with the majority. Now, let's say we put these two cases together, the "dryist sixists" hold that the spider, who had six legs, went up the water spout, down came the rain and crushed the spider out, because let's say they think that the water is hard because it's dry. The "wetist eightists" hold that the spider, who had eight legs, went up the water spout and was washed out by the wet rain. But the Liberal denounces both of these without even considering their logic, in his, and probably the majority's view, the spider, who had six legs, went up the water spout, down came the rain and pelted the spider in.

The whole problem with the liberal's view is that his opinion is completely and totally sophistry, his whole view and logic is based on the erroneous principle that there is no absolute truth, but only a relative truth. His thinking is illogical, it has no concept of the principle of contradiction [that a thing cannot both be and not be]. The Liberal is a modernist, his logic is not logical, his logic is one that divorces premises from conclusions, judgments from judgments, amounts from totals. His key principle is that there is no definite conclusion about anything, he denies the central act of the mind. The object of judgment is a conclusion, the whole logical process of the mind is one which is aimed at discerning the truth, at coming to a conclusion, at logically drawing a conclusion from a logical premise. And therefore his mind is stunted epistemologically and psychologically. And so his conclusions cannot help but be erroneous, because his interest is not in ascertaining the absolute truth, but on the possession of a convenient relative fact.
His aim in an argument is not to find the truth, but to win the argument, argumentation for him is not a resolution, it is not about finding out what opinion is right, but towards winning a battle, which for him is no battle at all, his argumentation is the argumentation ad hominem et ad populum. His argument is all about avoiding the issue, he finds that he does not want to face the issue, so he dismisses it by calling it a name, by blindly denouncing it as "radical", or "extreme", he hopes to avoid having to logically and honestly consider his opponent's position, he merely wants to push his own agenda.

So the liberal regards Catholicism and its adherents. He asserts that either one accepts the common opinion or he is a radical extremist, there are no truces, no agreements, no concessions, there must be complete and whole submission to the common view or else. And the common view is usually one which implies that while there is no absolute truth, one must hold the common non-truth. It is a cowardly manner of argument.

The fact is that it is the liberal's opinion which has strayed far left, not the traditionalist's, marking the decades, one may notice that each generation progressively declares the last one to be "radically conservative", no matter how liberal it might have been. It is, in fact, the liberal who has embraced the opinion of the extreme left, no matter how many adherents it may have, it remains the radical left, and no matter how many times the truth is declared to relative, the truth remains the absolute and pure truth, and it holds the primacy over all errors, which have no rights at all.

VITW's First Anniversary

As of this month, April 2008, VITW turns one year old, brandishing over 65 posts and nearly 5,000 page views, bringing to the internet the story of Traditional Catholicism. A big thanks to what regular readers are left hanging after the long interims between posts.

Behind the Council: An Introduction to Vatican II

We've introduced a few prominent Traditional Catholics, and will continue to do so, so to familiarize our readers with some of these key figures and what they did, and what it means. This is the history aspect, the history of Traditional Catholicism, ever since it became known as "traditional" so as to differentiate itself from the changes and modernizations and syncretism of Vatican II and its champions. And before actually telling the whole story we thought it best to introduce some of the characters and events involved in an effort to facilitate a fuller understanding of it, to avoid putting the cart before the horse. But in truth, the only real way to present the history is to tell what it was all about, this story actually begins with the Protestant Revolutions of the 16th century, but the immediate concern is Vatican II and fissure that resulted, is to describe what caused it. The Ottaviani Intervention has been described en pase, but to appreciate it fully, one must understand what was actually being proposed, and why those clerics opposed these changes, and what prompted their actions. This requires an understanding of modernity, the council, and its authors. What happened that there came a need for a movement for a return to or preservation of tradition? What was either incompatible with, or hostile to, that tradition? And so I've resolved to provide a brief introduction to the the thinking behind Vatican II as the Council Fathers and theologians saw it, and as historians have recorded it, which will soon be followed with the story of the Council and its opposition.


Ushering in a Reform

In order to be a witness to the truth, inflame the faith of Christians, and to minister to the welfare of the modern world, Pope John XXIII announced that he would summon a general Council. From the time of his election he had sought a new way of interacting with the world, as well as a renewed Church, a new direction, for the Church, and in particular to papal and Curial affairs. The "Pope"1 would assume a "pastoral" role in the Church, he would be humble and simple, and so the pontiff chose to be referred to as simply "John". He worked to change the atmosphere of veneration for the office he had assumed, and to limit the length of pontifical ceremonies and to reduce the forms and titles by which popes are addressed. The Church was seeming to be stuck in the Renaissance, there was too much undue pomp and celebration for the ceremonies of the Church, and it was thought that it was unappealing to Modern world, almost as though the Church were trapped in one point in time and could not move on.

The Council was to operate on the theme "aggiornamento", a "bringing up to date", or "modernization" of the Church, it was to be a going back to the simple and pure practices of the early Church. There was to be, as Cardinal Bea put it, "a reassessment of the doctrines of the Church", as well as internal ecclesiastical affairs, which meant that the Roman Curia would have to be reorganized, and a move away from the condemnatory character of the Office. The Sacraments would have to be reformed, especially the mass, liturgical ceremonies and the laws regarding education, the seminaries, and marriage. The practices of the Church had to be updated to accommodate the modern world in the spirit of the pure faith of the Early Church.

Ever since the Protestant Revolts in the 16th century the Church had been in a "Counter-Reformation" mode, leaving the Church with a suspicious view towards all things new. The Church had been on the defensive from the vicious attacks of dissenters, but that was four centuries [almost five] ago, and the world had moved on, and now it was time for the Church to move on, and to heal this schism. The Fathers at Vatican II saw the exclusiveness and rigidity of the Church, and failure to acknowledge its own many other indigences, as a barrier to this. Instead of condemning the modern world, it needed to dialogue with it. It needed to open up and work with it, instead of against it.
The Church could never be one as long as it remained at variance with its separated members, and like a good shepherd, it needed to go to them and seek to bring them back into the fold, it needed to accept that they had issues with the Church, and that these things needed to be resolved. The Church could never keep up with the world as long as it insisted that the modern world was evil, as long as it insisted on dwelling on its glory days, it needed to move into the modern world, and keep itself abreast of modern achievements if it was ever to accomplish its goal to unite all peoples in Christ.

To realize this, they vied for a redefinition, a reformulation, of the rights of laymen and bishops in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. They wanted a change in the apparel, the vestiture, of clerics and prelates. The time had come, it was perceived, when a re-evaluation of the mission of the Church was in order, as well as her responsibilities. It was thought that the Church was too pyramidal, too hierarchical. The Pope was seen as being idolized, and the power of the Church was too centralized, it seemed that the rights of the college of bishops were being depreciated, as each of the Apostles had equally received the charism to preach, to teach, and to baptize all men everywhere, including Peter whose position was, to serve his brethren, not to be an autocrat.

Over the Course of history, it was thought, the Western Church had several times had "adopted" the features of the political societies with which it was allied, as all as worldly institutions do, adopting the legal structure of the Roman Empire, in the Fourth and fifth centuries, and becoming a feudal power, in the Middle Ages, the monarchical power of the Pope had been overemphasized until that power was so centralized, as if he alone governed the Church, a centralization which had led to Josephism and Gallicanism as a reaction against this centralization of power within the Church, until gradually the rights of the bishops seemed to have been belittled, that the supremacy of the pope had been so over emphasized and there had been such a shift away from the original constitution of the Church on the College of the Apostles, that the Church was becoming totalitarian, and this, as they saw it, was not the will of Christ. They perceived that this would hamper the assimilation of dismembered Christians and the spirit of ecumenism in the Church. And so there was needed a restoration of the theology of the episcopate, the teaching of Vatican I was to be set in a pastoral and ecumenical formation. To fully explain "the bond joining the head of the Church and the apostolic college" in order to preclude the "danger of misunderstandings" among the Protestants and Orthodox. This restoration would curtail the notion of a pyramidal Church and emphasize the fact that bishops, laity, and religious, were all part of the people of God and that all the members of the Church were equal by virtue of their baptism.

When the First Vatican Council was called, the schema was not, rather, to "disassociate" the Pope from the bishops in defining his supremacy, this only occurred because of political upheaval which had brought the Council to an abrupt end, leaving its work incomplete. This abrupt end, as a result, caused the development of theologizations concerning the nature of the Church which was, in large part, one-sided and not true to the original vision of the Redeemer. In more recent times, it was thought, this notion of almost totalitarian rule had been exaggerated until the need to reform this imbalance had become incumbent upon the summoning of another Council.

To add to this "imbalance" in the structure of the Church, they reasoned, there was judgementalism and suspicion of new ideas and methods, following the condemnation of Modernism in 1907. Every thinker, theologian, and scholar, who did not conform to the Curia's "litmus tests", as it were, were suspected of heresy. It was like a new Spanish Inquisition, where the writings and teachings of Catholics in every field were subjected to a kind of inspection by the rigid and closed-minded clerics in the Curia. Because of this, the works of eminent orthodox historians and theologians such as Msgrs. Louis Duchesne, Le Chartier, and Pierre Batiffol were put on the Index Prohibitorum and "unfairly" charged of Modernism and of promoting relativism. And so even a minor slip in doctrine, dogmatic or moral, came to be the end of many an ecclesiastical career.
A contributing factor to this rigidity was that most of the Curials had never really been acquainted with an other religious experience except through textbook caricatured propositions in seminary. It was, the problem that is, the jealousness of doctrine, and almost fear for them, and for conformity in practice which would lead to a very suspicious and condemnatory perspective of the Modern world.

And thus this "backward" attitude, which resisted the new spirit of ecumenism and unity, prompted Roncalli, soon after his elevation, to bring the Church to terms with that new spirit and to bring the Church out of the Middle Ages and Counter-Reformation and into the Modern world. The Church needed to gather its members who were separated by historical prejudice and misunderstandings, such as the Greek Orthodox and the Protestants, The Church needed a Reform, it was time for the Church to be born anew and to re-assume its position and mission in the world, it was time for a "new springtime".

______________
Footnotes:

1. A reference to the office of "the Papacy", not rather, to the person, as the Papacy would thence forth be considered in a more pastoral light, as a father, and no longer as if he were a monarch.