Return to Commentaries from the Mailbox.Dear Fr. Moderator:
What is your opinion of Msgr. Arthur Burton Calkins, of Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei in his address "On the Latin Liturgical Tradition; Extending an Solidifying the Continuity"? I think that there was some double-speak in his address. Am I considered "far out" just because I want my Traditional Latin Mass back?
Fr. Moderator Replies.
It's the usual "indult" line. This is, after all, a Vatican bureaucrat who has to support the Novus Ordo to keep his job. What are the propositions to which that he objects:
Well, these propositions aren't so far out, are they?
But, you see, these Vatican bureaucrats cannot admit that their Novus Ordo farce of the last thirty years might be on its last legs. With their last breath, they want to keep their jobs and exonerate their terrible mistake, which more and more of them are admitting publicly.
The "Ecclesia Dei" Commission is also a farce. Its announced purpose in 1988 was to undermine the Traditional Movement, and most especially Abp. Lefebvre. It has been used as a club by which diocesan bishops committed to the Novus Ordo can beat traditional Catholics into submission by handing out a few crumbs. In the last year, it has been used as a club to suppress effectively the "indult" groups (Fraternity of St. Peter, etc.).
Unfortunately, too many traditional Catholics are concerned more about being "one of the boys" than in standing by the Faith at whatever cost, trusting in the Lord to deal with the popes and bishops.
I am just concluding reading a biography of St. Thomas More, one of my favorite Saints, a "man for all seasons" (as Erasmus called him), and certainly a Saint for our modern times. All the "Catholic" bishops except one said that he was wrong. The king and all his counsellors said that he was wrong. His family said that he was wrong. He was called a traitor.
Nevertheless, he stood by his Faith against all the bishops of England, who had become schismatics. Now, even the Anglicans build statues to his honor! He is a profile in courage, in opposition to the petty bishops of his time who all but one sold themselves out to a corrupt king who was power-mad and a womanizer and connived in the building of a New (Protestant) Order in the 16th century.
As the Psalmist warns us: "It is better to trust in the Lord rather than in kings." As St. Peter warns us: "Obey God rather than man."
Dear Fr. Moderator:
As a devout Catholic, I was troubled in my youth about the position of Catholics, particularly the pope, during the "holocaust." What is the general consensus among historical scholars as to his position? I've heard the range from Pius XII as an anti-Semite to a man who worked behind the scenes to help the Jews.
Fr. Moderator Replies.
I don't know why you would be troubled. I think that you must be listening too much to the "political correctness" crowd, who are dead wrong on the facts in most things, as they are on this one.
As confirmed by many prominent Jewish leaders of the wartime, Pope Pius XII did more for the Jews than any other European leader, even though the Jews were not in the purview of his religious responsibility. He even went so far as to break the sacred seal of the convents to hide Jews and gave 50 kilograms of pure gold to ransom the lives of the Roman Jews. You will note that the Jews of Rome were very well treated by the Nazis in contrast to what went on in Germany, France, Holland, etc.
Remember too that this name of holocaust is a misnomer. It is a Jewish term that implies that the Jews were burned up as a sacrifice to God. Hardly was it that. There were more Poles, Catholics, and others imprisoned and killed in the concentration camps than Jews. There were more Christians martyred under the Romans than there were Jews killed under the Nazis.
People need to put this into perspective. The Jews of the war period talked about their sufferings as joined with the sufferings of others under Nazism, to give the world and awareness of the evil that man can do to man, which, after all, is much more against the Christian theology, in which all men are children of God, than against the Jewish one, in which the Jews are the exclusive "chosen people."
The Jews of the post-modern period (and their P.C. associates) want to have people believe that they were the only ones that suffered under the Nazis. This concept is so patently false that it is laughable. So, you should be proud as a Catholic that your pope did more for the Jews than anyone else, even though they were not his charge. Don't capitulate to the anti-Catholic bigotry that exists in our post-modern world even more than anti-Semitism.
As readers of TRADITIO know, we consistently warn about undue "visions" and "prophecies" and "apparitions" about disasters, the end of the world, etc., that seem so rife in our times, just as they were when pagan Roman empire began to fall. People despair of true faith and instead cling to the occult. It has happened before; it is happening now. The internet in particular spreads around a lot of this nonsense, like the recent hoax about some prophecy of Nostradamus predicting the recent disasters.
VATICAN CITY, OCT. 28, 2001 (ZNS). - A bishop in Portugal denied Italian press reports that Sister Lucia, the last surviving Fatima visionary, sent a letter to John Paul II warning him that his life is in danger.... Bishop Serafim de Sousa Ferreira e Silva of the Diocese Leiria-Fatima confirmed in statements to the press that Sister Lucia "has not sent any letter to John Paul II expressing fear for the Pope´s life."
If such an occurrence should occur, one need look no farther than human circumstances. This pope, perhaps rashly, exposes himself to areas and peoples of the world that are harshly anti-Catholic, any one of whom might take advantage of the opportunity to shoot or knife him.
Dear Fr. Moderator:
Now that the "Divine Comedy" has come up on your page, would you please tell me which translation into English is the best? My high-school Latin of 50 years ago would be of no help now in interpreting mediaeval Italian.
Thank you for all of your words of wisdom on every subject. It is so good to hear the voice of reason, especially today with the need to have Our Lord on His rightful throne as our Christ The King!
Fr. Moderator Replies.
Realizing than any translation is a betrayal of the original, I prefer straightforward prose translations, even of poetry. I have the John D. Sinclair version, first published for Oxford University Press in 1939 and now available in paperback in three volumes (Inferno, Purgatorio, Paradiso). It is a bilingual version, with Dante's original on the left and a prose translation on the right. It has notes on each canto, as well as footnotes on specific references.
Per me si va nella citta` dolente,
Per me si va nell' etterno dolore,
Per me si va tra la perduta gente.
Giustizia mosse il mio alto fattore:
Fecemi la divina potestate,
La somma sapi`ienza e 'l primo amore.
Dinanzi a me non fuor cose create
Se non etterne, e io etterna duro.
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch' entrate.
--Inscription on the Gateway to Hell,
Dante Aligheri, Divina Comedia: Inferno, III.1-9
Through me the way into the woeful city,
Through me the way to the eternal pain,
Through me the way among the lost people.
Justice moved my maker on high,
Divine power made me and supreme wisdom
and primal love;
Before me nothing was created but eternal
things and I endure eternally.
Abandon every hope, ye that enter.
Dear Fr. Moderator:
I am in high school, and recently we've been studying the Renaissance. We read a section of Dante's Inferno, which I enjoyed so much that I read the rest on my own and am in the midst of the rest of the Divine Comedy. My question is how much (if any) religious authority can be accredited to works of art that are "secular," but which contain religious themes? Should we take artistic expressions to be merely products of the artist's imagination, with no other purpose but to incite souls to penitence, or can they be taken as vehicles with which to develop one's own private theological opinions? I am a student of Latin as well: Vergil, Cicero, and the rest.
Fr. Moderator Replies.
Dante Alighieri was a Tertiary of St. Francis and, although his Divina Comedia is not a theological work, it has been highly praised for its Christian literary merits by several popes. I am particularly fond of a prose work of Dante entitled De Monarchia," which includes a very revealing discussion about why Christ was born when he was, under the Pax Augusta of the early Roman Empire. Dante sheds a bright light on the workings of Providence in the world and gives us a truly Catholic perspective that has been essentially lost in the modern world. When you reach that point in your Latin studies, try to get hold of a copy.
Considering the de-facto paganism of our time, which all too often passes under the banner of Christianity in the Novus Ordoism or Protestantism, the "high paganism" of pre-Christian Rome looks quite virtuous. The intelligensia of the Romans were sober enough to hold up a high standard of virtue in their philosophic systems, which greatly influenced early Christian thinking.
Certainly Cicero does so in his philosophical works. Vergil was held to have prophesied the Nativity in his Fourth Eclogue. The Stoics, like Seneca, were very close to Christianity, and a correspondence between Seneca and St. Paul, when he was in Rome, is extant, though sometimes questioned on academic grounds. That is another fascinating Latin work for you to read. The letters are short and show a great familiarity between the Roman Stoic philosopher, the Apostle of the Gentiles, and the Roman Emperor Nero, who was apparently an aficionade of St. Paul in the early years.
So often we have occasion to lament the state of mind and culture in our postmodern society, it is pleasant to remind our readers that there are quite a number of such serious young people as yourself that reject so much of the nonsense that passes as "education" today and cling to the classics. I find it hard to believe that anyone who is reading Cicero, Vergil, and Dante for the instruction and enlightenment they exude is going to go far wrong in life.
Dear Fr. Moderator:
Can the Pope at will change Canon Law and the form/matter of the seven Holy Sacraments established by Jesus Christ? Your answer would be much appreciated.
Fr. Moderator Replies.
The essence of the Sacraments, viz., their form and matter as established by Sacred Scripture and Tradition, cannot be changed by anyone, let alone the pope, as they are instituted by Our Lord.
Canon law is a "mixed bag." Some of it is ecclesiastical law, which is changeable for prudent reason. Some of it is an expression of Divine Positive Law, which cannot be changed. Some of it expresses a continuous Tradition of the Church, to change which would open a pope up to suspicion of schismatic tendencies.
Of course, nothing should be changed for light reason, or just to be "modern," or as part of some "aggioranamento" Canon law is based on ancient principles and traditions of the Faith that, if changed, cause confusion in the Church and scandalize the faithful.
Exactly this happened when the Novus Ordo Code of Canon Law was issued in 1983. Many changes appeared suspect doctrinally, such as the administration of Sacraments to heretics, communicatio in sacris [participation in heretical rites], etc., which imply a rejection of the First Commandment and run contrary to apostolic tradition.
Doctors of the Church and leading theologians (St. Cajetan and Cardinal Toquemada, Defender of the Faith, for example), basically agree that the pope can become schismatic "if he were unwilling to be in normal union with the whole body of the Church, as would occur if he attempted to excommunicate the whole Church, or, as both Cajetan and Torquemada observe, if he wished to overturn the rites of the Church based on Apostolic Tradition."
I draw readers' attention to that last statement of the Doctors of the Church: the pope himself can become a schismatic. The Novus Ordo conservatives try to knock (without basis) certain traditional Catholics as "schismatic," but they will never tell you that it is the teaching of the Church that the pope himself can become a schismatic. Therefore, it is not automatically the case that the pope is orthodox and others are schismatic. If the pope deviates from orthopraxis (correct practice), he himself can be the schismatic!
This Sunday traditional churches and chapels will celebrate the Feast of Christus Rex [Christ the King]. This feast was specifically set by Pope Pius XI on the last Sunday of October to counter Reformation Day, celebrated by the Protestants on that date. The pope wanted to emphasize in the minds of Catholics that Christ must be our king, in our observance of correct Catholic doctrine and correct Catholic practice.
The Novus Ordo, of course, doesn't like that concept, particularly the emphasis on the fact that Protestants are different in their beliefs and practices from Catholics. Therefore, the Novus Ordo moved the feast to the last Sunday in November. Since the last Sunday of November is usually the Last Sunday after Pentecost and is thus now often superseded, with its vivid apocope from the Gospel of St. Matthew describing and reminding us of the end of the world, the Novus Ordo was able to kill two birds of the traditional Catholic Faith with one stone.
On the Feast of Christus Rex, the rubrics direct that before the Blessed Sacrament Exposed, the Litany of the Sacred Heart and the Consecration of the World to the Sacred Heart of Jesus be recited. The Consecration is a particularly powerful prayer and includes a very direct reference to the error of Judaism and the darkness of Islamism. When "political correctness" came to the fore under John XXIII, the prayer in the last paragraph of the Consecration, in which those phases occur, was bowdlerized, as was the reference in the prayer on Good Friday pro perfidis Iudaeis" [for the faithless Jews].
Particularly in view of the recent education we have all received in the "darkness of Islamism" since September 11, all traditional churches and chapels should recognize the wisdom of using the original version of the Consecration prescribed by Pope Pius XI. However, as those using the 1962 Missal may be apt to omit the prayer of the last paragraph, it would not be out of place for the traditional faithful to inquire of their priests to determine whether the prayer of the final paragraph against the "darkness of Islamism" will be included and, if not, attempt to persuade the priest, particularly in the present urgency, to include it this Sunday.
The question often arises at this time of year about the celebration of Halloween by Catholics. Is it, for instance, "pagan" to dress up and go about as ghosts and goblins? The question often comes up because many modern Christians (mostly non-Catholic ones) believe Halloween has something to do with worshipping the devil and participating in witchcraft. The truth is, the origins of Halloween are rooted deeply in the theology and popular customs of Catholics.
It is a revision of actual history to say that our modern celebration of Halloween has origins in Druid customs. It is true that the ancient Celts celebrated a major feast (the Celtic New Year) on October 31st, but the fact is that they celebrated a festival on the last day of almost every month.
First of all, the celebration of Halloween, i.e., people dressing up in costumes, going to parties, and "begging" for candy, is not un-Catholic. Halloween falls on October 31st because the Feast of All Saints or "All Hallows" falls on November 1st. The feast in honor of all the Saints used to be celebrated on May 13th, but Pope Gregory III, in 731, moved it to November 1st, the dedication day of All Saints Chapel in St. Peter's in Rome. This feast spread throughout the world.
In 998, St. Odilo, the abbot of the powerful monastery of Cluny in France, added a celebration on November 2nd. This was a day of prayer for the souls of all the faithful departed. Therefore, the Church had a feast of the Saints and those in Purgatory.
It was the Irish Catholics who came up with the idea to remember somehow those souls who did not live by the Faith in this life. It became customary for these Irish to bang on pots and pans on All Hallow's Eve to let the damned know that they were not forgotten. In Ireland, then, all the dead came to be remembered. This, however, is still not exactly like our celebration of Halloween. On Halloween we also dress up in costumes.
This practice arose in France during the 14th and 15th centuries. During the horrible bubonic plague, the Black Death, Europe lost half of her population. Artists depicted this on walls to remind us of our own mortality. These pictures and representations are known as the "Dance of Death" or "Dance Macabre." These figures were commonly painted on cemetery walls and showed the devil leading a daisy chain of people into the tomb. Sometimes the dance was re-enacted on All Soul's Day as a living tableau, with people dressed up as the dead. But the French dressed up on All Souls, not Halloween, and the Irish, who celebrated Halloween, did not dress up.
The two were brought together in the colonies of North America during the 18th century, when Irish and French Catholics began to intermarry. Thus the two celebrations became mingled, and we began dressing up on Halloween. It is, as we can see, a very "American" holiday, but Catholic as well.
"Trick-or-Treating" is a very odd addition to Halloween. It is the most American aspect of the holiday, and is the (unwilling) contribution of English Catholics.
Guy Fawkes Day became a great celebration against Catholics in England. It celebrated the day the plot to blow up Parliament and King James I was discovered. This was on November 5, 1605. Guy Fawkes was the rather reckless man guarding the gunpowder. He was arrested and hanged. During these times of persecution of the Catholic Church, bands of revelers would wear masks and visit Catholics in the night demanding they be given cakes and beer.
Guy Fawkes Day arrived in the American colonies with the first English settlers. Old King James had long been forgotten, but "Trick-or-Treating" was too much fun to give up. Eventually, it moved to the Irish/French Catholic masquerade. This practice of "Trick-or-Treating" was simply moved to coincide with the Catholic celebration involving dressing up. Also, among he Druids, candy was used to welcome the good spirits, and masks (jack o'lanterns) were used to scare away the evil spirits.
Halloween can still serve the purpose of reminding us about Hell and how to avoid it. Halloween is also a day to prepare us to remember those who have gone before us in Faith, those already in Heaven and those still suffering in Purgatory. The next time someone claims Halloween is a cruel trick to lure our children into devil worship, I suggest you tell them the real origin of Halloween and let them know about its Catholic roots and significance. (By Fr. Scott Archer)
Catholic parents who are not comfortable with the worst secular aspects of Halloween can avail themselves of alternative activities on that day: family prayer and fasting for the Vigil of All Saints Day, visitations of houses in the garments of non-devilish personae, the reading aloud of stories of the Saints or of seasonal literature such as Edgar Allen Poe's "The Masque of the Red Death" and Washington Irving's "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow", and the playing of seasonal music such as Saint-Saens "Danse Macabre, Modest Moussorgsky's "Night on Bald Mountain," and Sergei Rachmaninoff's "Isle of the Dead."
A word of caution, however. The Church has always condemned as sins against the First Commandment, and thus cautioned her children to stay far away from: astrology, charms, divination, fortune-telling, magic, the ouija boards, sorcery, spells, witchcraft, and other occult activities, even if they are treated in a trivial or jesting fashion.
St. Thomas Aquinas says that it is not permitted to Christians even to dabble in such things: "Man has not been entrusted with power over the demons to employ them to whatsoever purpose he will. On the contrary, it is appointed that he should wage war against the demons. Hence, in no way is it lawful for man to make use of the demons' help by compacts -- either tacit or express" (II- II, Q96, Art. 3).
We remember too the enjoinder of the Prayer to St. Michael concerning Satanam aliosque spiritus malignos qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo [Satan and the other evil spirits who roam in the world for the ruin of souls]. As in all things, parents must be sure to teach their children the proper balance in such matters, erring neither on the side of defect or excess.
Dear Fr. Moderator:
I must begin by thanking you for your site. I am a young Catholic who has found many of the issues within the Church revolting and disgusting. I am so glad that there is a site such as this where people can go to get information on the Church and the ways that things should be.
I know from your "Commentaries" that Pope Pius XII made changes to the Eucharistic fast. My question is: what was the amount of time before Mass to which the Eucharistic fast applied before the change of Pius XII?
Fr. Moderator Replies.
First of all, a "change" was not made: a mitigation was offered. Pius XII still advised the traditional Eucharistic fast. That fast is an absolute fast from food and drink, including water, until Communion. That has been the traditional fast of Catholics from the early Church because we prepare our bodies as well as our spirits to receive Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.
It seems that this offered mitigation was an outgrowth of the commencement of evening Masses during the emergency conditions of World War II. Those who have medical conditions, or are elderly, or attend an afternoon or evening Mass might reasonably consider the mitigated Eucharistic fast. Others should make every effort to conform to the traditional fast, as the pope advised.
Dear Fr. Moderator:
Here's another sad story about an "indult" group. I pass this on, not with the intent of damaging reputations or accusing anybody, but of encouraging you to spread the word about [Organization X], "which has been extremely reckless in financial matters and guilty of gross mismanagement of donations. As a result, they are in very, very serious financial debt, a debt which, in my opinion, they will never repay."
Fr. Moderator Replies.
It is not the practice of TRADITIO to focus on such information about specific organizations, so we have removed all identifying information. However, we reproduce the gist of the situation without identifying the organization, since that organization has engaged in a certain type of activity that TRADITIO has warned about in the past, pertaining to deceptive and intrusive fund-raising.
TRADITIO has consistently cautioned its readers in the past about giving money to pie-in-the-sky "indult" and even Novus Ordo organizations that spend exorbitant amounts of money buying mailing lists and producing expensive mass mailings. All too many well-intentioned traditional Catholics fall prey to this ploy, hoping that by their money they can support the Traditional Movement. But they do it in the wrong way.
The "indult" organization mentioned is the one that was the most imprudent of all. The amount of money poured into these expensive mass mailings was beyond belief. Almost monthly these mailings were sent out to a number of expensive traditional Catholic mailing lists. The recipients were supposed to cough up large amounts of money for a fairy-tale project that wasn't even off the ground.
Now, St. Francis of Assisi never went around with his hand out in such a manner. "Hi, I'm Francis. Give me your money so that I can set up a Franciscan order." No, he first got his own spiritual life in order. Then others voluntarily associated with him. As far as I know, he never asked for a dime.
Another "indult" organization sent mailings almost as frequently as Organization X, and at as much expense, for another fairy-tale project. This organization even stooped to lottery gambling to support its chimaerical project. It turned out that the project -- and presumably the money - came under the control of a bishop dedicated to the Novus Ordo. Later, the organization fell on hard times with the Vatican, and one hears little about it now.
TRADITIO repeats its long-standing prudent and balanced advice about contributions to traditional causes. Of the 10% that a Catholic should be donating to support the Church in accordance with the Fifth Precept:
Finally, I will state that TRADITIO's mailing list, for seven years now, has never been given to any outside organization. Its sole use has been to send one postcard annually, notifying our participants of the release of the annual directory, which is the general purpose for which their contact information was given to us. TRADITIO has been offered some very lucrative arrangements for use of its mailing list. All such offers have been turned down immediately and absolutely.
Nor does TRADITIO hawk for contributions. We would rather have a freely-motivated contribution come from our participants if they believe that the have benefited from our work and wish to contribute toward the expenses of that work. A simple clickbox is provided in the "TRADITIO's Apostolate section the home page for such donations, and simple information is contained in the Library of Files in FAQ1: "How Can I Help TRADITIO's Work?"
Dear Fr. Moderator:
I wanted to ask you about the difference between the Traditional Latin Mass that is celebrated using the 1962 Missal and the previous missals that various traditional groups use when they celebrate the Mass. I use a St. Andrew handmissal of 1956, and it seems to coincide with my St. Joseph 1962 handmissal. Do you foresee a reconciliation between the Novus Ordo and traditional Catholicism?
Fr. Moderator Replies.
The Missale Romanum editions issued before 1962 are venerable missals, much more venerable that that of 1962, which was something of a novelty. The earlier missals were approved first by Pope St. Pius V and then Pope St. Pius X, not to speak of the ancient Sacred Tradition from which they have come virtually untouched from the early Church.
There have been several grave objections raised to the changes of 1956, 1960, and 1962, which in various ways violated Sacred Tradition, even to touching the apostolic text of the Mass itself. The objections to the 1956 Missal include its significant tampering with the most sacred rites of Holy Week, which are the most ancient texts in the Roman Missal.
The 1960/62 version introduces some changes that are of suspect theology (integrating the congregational Communion with the sacrificial Communion of the priest, for example), and certainly the 1962 tampering with the Sacred Canon was unheard of and was condemned by numbers of popes previously, who said that no Catholic pope had such power.
In addition to these serious flaws, other novelties were introduced 1956-1962 under the label of "simplification," which led to a diminution in the veneration of the Saints.
There can be no "reconciliation" between truth and falsity. After thirty years, there is no question that the "New Order" introduces, falsely under the name of Catholicism, doctrinal and liturgical changes that cannot be squared with true Catholic doctrine. The very name "New Order" indicates that.
It is not numbers that define the Church, but true doctrine and true practice. Our Lord implies in the Scriptures that the true Church will be reduced to a remnant. If that is God's will, so be it. Better to be part of a true remnant than part of a "New Order" that falsely presumes the name "Catholic."
Dear Fr. Moderator:
I once heard of three Latin words that stand for the three types of love: romantic love, brotherly love, and Christian love. What are these words?
Fr. Moderator Replies.
The nuances in the Greek (Latin) words that are variously translated as love are:
Unfortunately, the English noun "love" is much too broad to cover the nuances of the Greek (Latin) adequately, and its use in translations, particularly biblical translations, is often ambiguous, or even deceptive.
Dear Fr. Moderator:
There are many different views within the Traditional Movement about the "New Mass," the "Indult Mass," and Traditional Latin Masses Offered by independent priests and priests of the Society of St. Pius X. I am being advised by some well-intentioned friends that any traditional priest offers a valid Mass. Others opine that the only valid Masses offered are those "with the approval of Rome" (whatever that means in these confused times in the Church!). Still others opine that only traditional priests who deny the validity of the New Mass can offer the Sacrifice of the Mass. Can you comment?
Fr. Moderator Replies.
The statement that "the only valid Masses offered are those with the approval of Rome" (I take it that you are talking about an individual priest's Mass, not the form of the Mass as a whole) is clearly erroneous, even heretical. You will not find any such notion in Catholic theology -- quite the opposite.
This is not my opinion. It is defined dogma that the Sacraments operate from the power of Christ (ex opere operato), not from the state of the priest. Heretic priests can offer a perfectly valid Mass, as long as they use the proper form and matter and have the intention of "doing what the Church does" (whether they personally happen to believe it or not, just as atheists may validly baptize under the same provisions).
You will find this dogma amply set forth in any text on Catholic Sacramental or Dogmatic Theology. Perhaps its most articulate expositor was St. Augustine himself, who wrote on several occasions that the Masses of the heretic Donatists were perfectly valid.
One has to be careful when using the term "Rome," which can be quite ambiguous in the modern day. In Catholic theology, "Rome" is not a transient bureaucracy, but the eternal Rome of the Roman Catholic Faith, the Rome of Saints Peter and Paul, the Rome that leads the Roman Catholic Church faithfully to do the will of Jesus Christ, as defined in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the doctrines and practices of the Church based upon them, which are called orthodoxy and orthopraxis, respectively.
To this definition even the pope is bound, as you probably know, from the dogmatic definition of Vatican I (Decree Pastor Bonus) on papal infallibility. In accordance with the constitution of the papacy, the power of the pope is limited to acting within the Deposit of Faith. Should a pope dare, for example, to overturn the apostolic Sacred Liturgy, that pope is operating ultra vires, so, as the Doctors of the Church teach, is not to be followed in such error.
Dear Fr. Moderator:
The only thing I would add is we Americans need to consider seriously our choices on election days. Those who think we need to hide our patriotism probably are not a good choice to lead our country.
Fr. Moderator Replies.
My question is: how many of the people that are waving flags practice their patriotism by voting. How many of them have even read the Declaration of Independence through? Or the Constitution and Bill of Rights? How can you be patriotic about something that you know little or nothing about?
The virtue of patriotism (a species of the virtue of piety: due thankfulness for and responsibility toward one's country) is primarily an interior disposition. These days, people revel in externals. But what do they know? This has certainly been a problem in religion. How many Novus Ordo flag-wavers really know that the "New Mass" came almost wholecloth from the mind of a Freemason and six Protestant ministers?
But I digress. How many people can say -- and understand -- the Pledge of Allegiance? How many have ever pondered the words of the "Star Spangled Banner" or "America the Beautiful"? (The current mantra, "God Bless America," is, after all, an offshoot of the musical stage, not a traditional patriotic hymn.)
How many people say "God Bless America" and then turn around and say "God d--- it" or some other blasphemy? What are they doing to make America the kind of country that God would bless? Let's face it. We Americans have sunk into blasphemies, abortions, immoralities against nature, filthy music, and disgusting films. It is shocking to see how much America has become degraded in just the last fifty years.
Again, the externals are much less important that the internal disposition. That is why the expression "flag-waving" has a negative, rather than a positive, connotation. I think that St. Thomas More put it best: "I die the king's good servant -- but God's first." Or as St. Benedict put it: "Morals are the foundation upon which a country rises to great heights. Take away morals, and countries, leaders, and individuals fall."
Dear Fr. Moderator:
What is your comment on the Declaration of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments "On the Orientation of the Priest at Mass" (Prot. No. 2036/00/L, September 25, 2000):
The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has been asked whether the expression in n. 299 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani constitutes a norm according to which the position of the priest versus absidem [facing the apse] is to be excluded. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, after mature reflection and in light of liturgical precedents, responds: Negatively, and in accordance with the following explanation.
Fr. Moderator Replies.
With few exceptions, the versus populum arrangement that has now become almost the invariable norm in the Novus Ordo, was not countenanced in traditional practice. There were a few exceptions, such as St. Peters, where all were turned ad orientem that is, toward the East (which happens to be the direction looking toward the entrance to St. Peter's Basilica, for example).
This Novus Ordo gobbledegook is the same approach that the Novus Ordo took with the use of the sacred tongue at Mass: reject Latin, then allow it back, under very limited circumstances, as an exception, as an "indult." Just ignore the infallible decrees of the dogmatic Council of Trent against the vernacular in sacred services, let alone Sacred Tradition right back to Apostolic times.
You can bet that this response of the Vatican bureau will be totally ignored, just like everything else that confirms the correctness of the Church's 2000-year traditional practices.
Dear Fr. Moderator:
Why does the Curia make an obviously ill, 82-year-old man travel? To me, the Curia is trying to make the Pope look ridiculous, superfluous even, by having him jet-set all over the world. I can remember a time when people went to the Holy Father, not vice versa.
Fr. Moderator Replies.
All this traveling has been quite problematical, in my opinion. Traditionally, the pope remained in Rome as the Roman Pontiff, as in Apostolic times, St. Peter pretty much stayed put, first in Antioch, then in Rome, while St. Paul traveled around the world. It was only after Vatican II that all this traveling began -- Paul VI to the United Nations and now John Paul II all over the world, even to areas where he's not invited or not welcome.
One school of thought, led by the late Fr. Martin, was that the pope early on determined that he could not do anything traditional, or even conservative, given the gross liberalist attitude of the bishops, so he stopped trying and instead decided at least to let the world know that there was a pope by traveling all over the world. (Remember those conservative encyclicals in the early years [1978-1980] of his pontificate, in which he condemned numerous aspects of the Novus Ordo, communion in the hand, etc.?).
Nonetheless, as you say, he often became a spectacle in this and has ended up celebrating "Mass" for horsetracks, city parks, baseball stadia, and all the rest -- hardly bringing a religious quality to any of his activities, which have also included equally ridiculous "apologies" to heretics, Eastern schismatics, Muslims, and all the rest. I am waiting just to hear someone finally say: "The Catholic Church was proven right about the Crusades and the danger of Islam all the time!"
Dear Fr. Moderator:
Yesterday, I went with a friend to visit the Miraculous Medal Shrine on the grounds St. Joseph's Seminary. We were told that there are no longer any seminarians there, and so the property is used as a "renewal center", offering retreats and workshops. Their literature says they welcome people of all faiths.
We were startled to learn that some of what they are offering in their so-called Interfaith Spirituality workshops: "Contemplative Yoga", "Zen Meditation", "A Pilgrimage to the Ganges River", "Spiritual Eldering", which is a course on "the emerging inner sage," taught by a Rabbi, and other similar things.
Fr. Moderator Replies.
When the Novus Ordo rejected the traditional Romanitas (Romanness) of the Roman Catholic Church, which was the natural heir, as St. Augustine and so many other doctors point out, of the soberness and prudence of classical Rome, it opened wide the doors for just this kind of nonsense. The Roman Republic faced the same problem with the importation of the pagan orgiastic mystery religions from the East. The Roman Republicans dealt with that shortly and swiftly: the interlopers were prosecuted and banished from Rome and didn't return until four to five centuries later.
Unfortunately, the Novus Ordo apparatus has embraced an anti-Romanness in the concept of "inculturation," contained in the documents of Vatican II. The concept of inculturation means that the Faith can be changed to suit non-Roman cultures. If you're a voodist who sacrifices chickens, bring that into the "New Mass." If you're an aboriginal that smears your face with eucalyptus pitch, bring that into the "New Mass." If you're a Hinduist marking your face with cow dung, bring that into the "New Mass." I kid you not. The Novus Ordo in Central Africa is officially considering the use of blood sacrifice in the "New Mass" because the native tribes understand that, but not the bloodless sacrifice of the Roman Rite.
We must be careful about calling the modern Vatican "Rome." It is Rome only insofar as it hands down by Tradition (traditio) the truths of the Faith and correctly represents both Roman Catholic orthodoxy (correct doctrine) and Roman Catholic orthopraxis (correct practice). This is what dogmatic council Vatican I infallibly taught. Otherwise, it is simply the "Vatican," a hill in Rome that was anciently the seat of a pagan oracle.
Dear Fr. Moderator:
As you noted yesterday, Our Lady at LaSalette said: "The church will be in eclipse." In that connection, it is interesting to note the current Pope, John Paul II, was born during the partial solar eclipse of May 18, 1920.
Now, one could play games ad nauseam with such historical coincidences. But permit me to wonder whether Providence allowed the current Pope to be born during an eclipse so that we might recognize the time of fulfillment, the pontificate under which the true Church would reach the zenith of its eclipse?
The good news is that the eclipse of May 18, 1920 was not a total, but a partial eclipse. The light of Jesus Christ still partially shines through traditional Catholic priests and faithful.
Dear Fr. Moderator:
Some delegates to the United Nations are now accusing religion -- all religion -- of fostering and encouraging terrorism, stating that secular governments are more moral than religions, and encouraging a body similar to the United Nations to be created with ambassadors from all world religions to deal with this problem. Among the items that supposedly needs to be addressed is the removal of all violence from Scripture.
C-FAM. October 12, 2001. The founder of the United Religions Initiative, a movement that seeks to become the dominant religious voice at the UN, blamed religion for the September 11th terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. At a Wednesday meeting at the UN Church Center, the Episcopal Bishop of San Francisco, William E. Swing, asserted that the hijackers did not hold a corrupted version of Islam because religions -- all religions -- are guilty of fostering terrorism. "There is a lot of terror and violence in a lot of Scripture. There has to be a critique of that. We have to hold the religions' feet to the fire for the violence and terror within them."
Swing said, "The nations of the world have met every day for the past fifty years, the religions of the world have not. Who is more moral, the nations of the world or the religions of the world?" URI seeks to create a permanent body of religious ambassadors -- a parallel organization to the UN -- to address the problem of "fundamentalists in our own groups," an issue that religion "wimps out on." Swing proclaimed that, in light of the terrorist attack, "It's a new day for inter-religious activity in the United States."
Fr. Moderator Replies.
This development should come as no surprise. The New Order was bound somehow to use the current crisis to suppress true religion in the name of "peace," just as it has used it in the secular side to repress civil liberties in the name of "safety."
The last forty years of the 20th century can be seen as the time when organizations went sour. The Church in the 13th century built great cathedrals that have stood the test of time. The Church of the late 20th century has destroyed its great churches, replacing them with quanset huts and ghastly structures that do not speak of God. The government in the 1940s conducted a successful war against one form of tyranny. The government of the late 20th century fell into disrepute under the administrations of Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton. Swing & Co. have created yet another organization to advance their corrupt notions of One-World Religion and One World Government.
Episcopalian bishop Swing has long been known as a rabid liberalist, who wishes to destroy the Christian Church as we know it, along with the former "Catholic" bishop Quinn. It was Swing who allowed the defrocked Matthew Fox to turn Episcopalian and conduct his "jive masses," complete (as some say) with drugs, in the basement of the cathedral. It is he who enshrines St. Harvey Milk along with St. Martin Luther King in stained glass.
This is the New Order that wishes to take over Christianity and mould it to its own image and control. Notice how Swing's proposal matches what the Novus Ordo apparatus has already done. These people do not even hesitate to monkey with Sacred Scripture. Whatever happened to the Protestants' original call: "Bible only"? They have long since gone well beyond that, cutting themselves off entirely from Scripture, having already cut themselves off from Sacred Tradition. Thus, such people can no longer call themselves even authentic Christians, having cut themselves off from the apostolic Deposit of Faith.
And never forget that to these far-out liberalists, traditional Catholicism is "fundamentalist." It is to be suppressed. It is to be stamped out. That is why the "indult" of 1988, starting out wrong in its conception, has fizzled out. Traditional Catholics are too outspoken. They cannot be forced to admit the validity of the Novus Ordo just so they can go off in their own little corner and have own Mass at some odd hour.
The modern Vatican will rescind the SSPX "excommunications" in an instant. What they won't do is allow traditional Catholics to call the Novus Ordo what it is: a wrong-headed "experiment," based in heresy and schism, a shrewd ploy imposed by liberalists in priests' clothing on ignorant bishops in council, who allowed the true Faith to slip through their fingers into the hands of the Innovators, who then proceeded with their long-held plans to destroy it.
Dear Fr. Moderator:
One can find many historical parallels to the chaos now reigning in the Church, especially from the Old Testament. In times when the kingdoms of Israel and Judaea were still in existence, the kings, with few exceptions, led the people to sin through the worship of false gods (Baal, Moloch, etc.).
One can easily see that the Church's leaders are now leading the people to destruction with the New Order, in the same way that the kings of Israel and Judaea did. The consequence of Israel and Judaea erring was to have their kingdoms destroyed and their people sent into exile in a pagan land.
What will be the ultimate consequence of the present aberration in the Church? Many people would prefer not even to think about it, choosing to remain cocooned in their desolate state, rather than using a little courage to leave the New Order and hold fast to the true Faith that was passed down to them.
Fr. Moderator Replies
The Psalms warn us: it is better to trust in the Lord than in leaders. Your analogies from the Old Testament are certainly apt to our time. The leaders of the Old Covenant, both the secular leaders and the religious leaders, even to the high priest Aaron himself, Moses' brother, frequently led their people astray.
Perhaps Providence allowed this to occur in order to show the people that, ultimately, they could have no true leader but God. Perhaps too this is why Providence allowed the first pope to fall into such sin. After all, he abandoned his Lord, denied Him, swore an oath against Him, and then persisted in disobeying His commandment to baptize all nations, instead continuing for some time in being an obstinate Judaizer. But he did eventually learn, and later wrote his two wonderful epistles, full of faith in the Lord, and suffered martyrdom.
Perhaps Providence was showing us from the first that even the leader of the Church, could fall from grace, if he too did not accept the Lord and His Deposit of Faith in toto and that sometimes even he had to be called to task for failing in his sworn duty, just as St. Paul had to chastise St. Peter before the Council of Jerusalem.
Dear Fr. Moderator:
Even though the Traditional Latin Mass was modified in the Missal of John XXIII, is it still proper to attend those Masses if there are no Masses said according to the 1940s rubrics?
Fr. Moderator Replies
The rubrical and calendrical changes introduced in 1960 under Pope John XXIII (actually said to have been developed under Pope Pius XII, but not implemented then because of that pope's impending death) followed on the 1956 "simplification" of the rubrics introduced under Pius XII, when Hannibal Bugnini, the Architect of the Novus Ordo, was already running the show.
The Divine Office was more impacted than the Mass itself, both in 1956 and in 1960. However, the whole idea of "simplification" now seems in hindsight to have been used as a Trojan Horse to introduce modernistic ideas about the Saints and even into the Mass itself.
In 1962, one further change was introduced. For the first time in a millennium and a half, the Sacred Canon of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, handed down to us from the Apostles, was tampered with: to add the name of St. Joseph incongruously in a catalog of Roman popes and martyrs.
Even though tainted, the 1960 rubrics can barely be considered to be the last in the "traditional" form of Mass. Certainly, the earlier rubrics of the 1940s are much to be preferred, but in the absence of any other choice, it would be difficult to object to the 1960 Mass, as long as everything else was absolutely untampered with.
Dear Fr. Moderator:
Thank you for your helpful insights on "Only One Church." Another possible insight comes from the Apparition of Our Lady of LaSalette, shortly before Lourdes, in the middle of the 19th century.
Our Lady of LaSalette predicted that the Church would be in "eclipse." This is an interesting choice of words. During a total solar eclipse, the new moon passes directly between the Sun and the Earth, and the Moon's shadow casts an eerie darkness over the earth. The sun still exists but its light is not visible to most. Indeed, this is a perfect description of the Church's condition today.
The Church (her sacraments, teachings, etc.) still exists, but something is obscuring her light from view. That something is the Novus Ordo, or "New Order." Unfortunately, most people's gaze remains fixed on that dark, eclipsed globe, never looking beyond it to discover the light of the true Church.
So many "Catholics" of our time base their understanding of the faith only on the pastoral council Vatican II, the Novus Ordo worship service, alleged apparitions and locutions (like Medjugorje), and the words and example of the one current pope. He does not hold with the Creed that the true Church must be "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic"; that there have been 263 popes in the apostolic succession, not just one; and that the Novus Ordo worship service is a thirty-year aberrancy in the 2000-year history of the Church.
Another interesting aspect of an eclipse is the fact that the new moon itself never touches the earth. Likewise, we might say the New Order, which obscures the brilliance of the Church, does not touch her, the perfect society. It does not diminish her. It only hides her for a time, making it more difficult to discover her. So the negative side to this eclipse is that the world has been plunged into spiritual darkness, but the positive side is that the Church will emerge suddenly and radiantly, as the brilliant sun gradually emerges from behind the moon.
Fr. Moderator Replies
Such "visions" are often no more easily interpreted that a quatrain of Nostradamus or, for that matter, Vergil's Fourth Eclogue. Our Lord chastized his Apostoles for their tendencies in this wrong direction: "It is not for you to know the times or moments, which the Father hath put in his own power" (Acts 1:7/DR). Let us focus our prayer and meditation upon the Deposit of Faith and eschew endless "visions" and "prophecies." The Deposit of Faith contains all we need for salvation; nothing else is really important.
Dear Fr. Moderator:
What is the difference between a Roman Catholic Church and the Traditional Catholic Church?
Fr. Moderator Replies.
There is only the "Roman Catholic Church." There is no entity called the "Traditional Catholic Church." Traditional Catholics are Roman Catholics, who observe all of the doctrines and practices of the Roman Church since apostolic times. Until the 1960, the adjective "traditional" did not have to be used. Everyone was traditional.
Since the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), there has arisen a new group of Novus Ordinarians, sometimes called Neo-Catholics. That council was not a doctrinal, but a pastoral council, after which an unCatholic "New Order" was introduced that affected the Mass, the Sacraments, and the doctrine of the Faith in a way that cannot be equated with the Catholic teaching of 2000 years. The Novus Ordinarians don't generally call themselves "Roman Catholic." In fact, many of them despise the name "Roman."
Yet, for the time being, the Novus Ordinarians have physical possession of most churches; the inmates have control of the asylum, if you will. That is why the situation is so confusing right now. All will be sorted out by Divine Providence in good time.
Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.
If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
and anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.
Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.
We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the "unwed daddy," our Senior King.
It's "inappropriate" to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such "judgments" do not belong.
We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.
It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns, the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take! Amen.
The Vatican is one again showing that it is taking some kind of side excursion. The latest novelty in a constant barrage of New Orders since 1962 is a denial of God's Holy Saints. When Pope John XXIII tried to suppress devotion to the young Virgin and Martyr, St. Philomena, who has been dubbed "the Saint of Traditional Roman Catholicism," the little Saint played a trick on Pope John.
I have no doubt that she will play a trick on the current pope if he is blasphemous enough to deny the little wonder-worker, whom his papal predecessors venerated with deep devotion. For the whole miraculous story, see the Library of Files for St. Philomena, Wonder-Worker: Patron Saint of the Traditional Roman Catholic Movement.
Apparently, the same Vatican that toyed with canonizing Martin Luther and Martin Luther King -- until the universal outcry of Catholics prevented it -- now wishes to "demartyrize" many traditionally venerated Saints in the New Order Martyrology. Just another reason to believe that the Modern Vatican is out of step with the faith and that anything in the Conciliar Period, whether it be the New Saints, the New Canon Law, the New Liturgy, the New Theology, or the New Bible, must be positively suspected.
Whenever this issue of Saints comes up, TRADITIO is asked whether the Church's (whether that term applies to the Novus Ordo apparatus is even questionable to begin with) decisions on Saints and canonization is infallable. The answer is no. And that doctrine come from, among others, the Church's chief theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, who prudently understood that factual errors could be made in such processes, where therefore could not be indisputably infallible. For further information, see the Library of Files for FAQ10: How Do You Explain These Traditional Catholic Beliefs? under the article "Canonizations -- Post-Conciliar."
We shall, therefore, have to wait until that future time when the Vatican comes to its senses, in complete accord with orthodoxy and orthopraxis.
(See the Times of London, October 11, 2001, for a related article.) Many were startled last week to learn that the Vatican had apparently decided that a number of saints, including the much-revered Saint Philomena, are not really saints. The Congregation for Divine Worship said that much scholarly investigation over the past half century had shed light on "errors" and that it needed to revise a volume known as the Roman Martyrology, a list of saints.
Still, the Vatican move was startling because through the ages Philomena has been widely acknowledged as a miraculous saint. She was accepted by popes: Pius IX, Leo XI, Leo XIII, Pius X, and Gregory XVI (the later himself witnessing the miraculous cure of a Paris woman named Pauline Marie Jaricot after a visit to the main Philomena shrine in Mugnano, Italy, in 1835).
Then there is the veneration. Shrines to Philomena stretch from Italy to Dickinson, Texas, and among those devoted to Philomena, besides the popes, was the famous Cure of Ars, St. John Vianney. A saint himself, he ascribed the miracles worked at Ars to her. Pope Gregory XVI called her the "Wonderworker of the 19th Century"!
Dear Fr. Moderator:
Which year of the Breviarium Romanum do you recommend using and why? Was the Holy Father within his rights to modify the Breviary that gave us the 1961 edition? Also, since I don't understand Latin well (although I am studying), does this oblige me to read the Breviary in English, or can I read it in Latin? I've heard many opinions as to the answers to my above questions, and I am thoroughly confused. I'm hoping you'll be able to put my mind at ease!
Fr. Moderator Replies.
I would go with an edition before 1945. In that year, the "Pius XII" psalter done by the Jesuits was introduced in some editions in place of the traditional psalter of St. Jerome. Even Pope John XXIII had to admit that the "Pius XII" psalter was inferior, and although he wouldn't criticize it during the pope's lifetime, he had it replaced in editions after 1958.
In 1956 started the so-called "simplification of the rubrics." On the surface perhaps seeming relatively innocuous, these changes led to the radical alteration of the liturgical calendar, a disruption of the balance of the dominical and sanctoral cycles, a change in ancient traditional Offices for Holy Week, including Tenebrae, and ultimately to the abominable Novus Ordo "Liturgy of the Hours," which not even the Novus Ordo pays much attention to now.
By the way, Pius XII was not behind these changes. Rather, it was that Hannibal Bugnini, Modernist and Freemason, the architect of the New Order, who began in the late 1940s to introduce his poison into the Sacred Liturgy under such terms deceitful terms as "simplification." Now that we have the perspective in 2001 of seeing the whole trail of events, we can see that the corruption of the Liturgy began with him in the late 1940s.
The Divine Office is the public liturgy of the Church; therefore, it should be chanted or recited in Latin. Since the object is God, not man, you don't have to understand every word (do you understand every word of even the Mass in the English?!); God, the object of your prayer, will understand, you can be sure. Moreover, you will find that this will be an excellent way of increasing your understanding of Latin dramatically. As with all language learning, the best way is total immersion. You can supplement your understanding by vernacular commentaries (e.g., Parsch), Scriptural reading (e.g., Psalms), etc.
Dear Fr. Moderator:
We have heard from various parts of the country allegations that the Blessed Mother has appeared to Sister Lucia recently with regards to the situation in the world at large. Do you have any information that supports this?
There are so many phony "apparitions" these days that Catholics must be all the more careful to base their Catholic Faith where it is supposed to be: on public revelation, that is, the apostolic Deposit of Faith: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. We don't want to slide into a kind of "occult" approach to our religion. We are promised by Our Lord that everything we need to know for our salvation is in public revelation. Our Lord's word should be good enough for us.
If a private revelation should happen to be true, we know doctrinally that it can add nothing to the Faith. Let's not trivialize our religion by going here and there following visions of end-times -- which Our Lord has said it is not for us to know (Acts of the Apostles 1:7). Even otherwise good Catholics, because of our confused times, are prone to be sucked into the latest "apparition" or "seer" and seem little better than astrologers or fortune-tellers attempting to prognosticate secular events. Yet these same people can't even recite from memory the Apostles Creed, the essential statement of their Faith!
Dear Fr. Moderator:
One writer stated in a traditional periodical recently: "It is one thing to protest the effects of liturgical novelties..., but it is quite another thing to declare it [the Novus Ordo worship service] per se invalid or a mortal sin, especially when our progressivist enemies could easily demonstrate that our logic in this case is based more on emotion and less on the actual prohibitions of the law itself." Another writer pointed out that some traditional Catholics flirt with fanaticism.
Fr. Moderator Replies.
To the contrary, the traditional position is firmly and soundly based not only in law, but in the apostolic Deposit of Faith, upon which, up until 1963, no Catholic would ever have doubted. The traditional position is not based on "emotion"; rather, it is the Novus Ordo that is based on emotion -- by its own admission. The traditional position is ably set out in many logical treatments, such as those of P.H. Omlor and Fr. Wathen.
What Vatican official is going to admit that the whole post-conciliar period has been a travesty? Is the President of Coca Cola Corporation going to say that all these years Coke ads have been false and that Pepsi was really the better cola drink all the time? Of course, not. And yet, most suprisingly, the Vatican has admitted that many Novus Ordo services are invalid.
There is always the fanatic fringe; there certainly is in the New Order. But we must look to the Saints. Was St. Catherine of Siena a fanatic when she castigated in public the pope of the Babylonian Captivity for his error and weakness? Eventually, he came around and went back to Rome, which he had abandoned.
Was St. Athanasius of Alexandria a fanatic when he went against a semi-heretic pope, stood for the apostolic faith, and was "excommunicated" for his courage? Now, in the eyes of history, it is the pope who is suspect of heresy, and Athanasius who is the Saint and Doctor of the Church.
Dear Fr. Moderator:
The assistant presbyter of our parish is a charismatic. My brother asked him about this. The presbyter called my brother a fundamentalist and told him that since 1945 the Church has gained a new understanding. My brother was flabbergasted at his denial of Christ as God.
Fr. Moderator Replies.
I think that you are asking the wrong question. The question to ask yourself is why you continue to attend a sacrilegious (and probably invalid) worship service led by a priest involved in charismaticism, a heresy that was condemned even in the early Church.
Rather, you should follow Our Lord's advice, wipe the dust of that place from your shoes, and leave it never to return. To be assuredly Catholic and safe, attend only the Traditional Latin Mass.
Dear Fr. Moderator:
Some 7 or 8 years ago one of our daughters decided to marry a divorced man in a non-Catholic church. I, of course, refused to have anything to do with it whatsoever. I explained that I could not attend a ceremony legitimizing the state of adultery that she was entering into, that I had been a Catholic all my life, and that she had no right to ask me to set my faith aside to make her "special" day a "happy" one.
She let me know that I was causing a lot of trouble, and I simply told her this was not a situation of my own making. She was raised Catholic, and it was her doing that was making problems. Our Lord told us the priorities: God first, family next.
Dear Fr. Moderator:
It is likely that one of our children will announce his plans to marry in the near future. For the last three years he has "found the Lord" in the Assembly of God. I would like to know what our responsibility to God is when we are invited to attend "the occasion".
Fr. Moderator Replies.
According to the traditional canon law, it is not lawful for the faithful in any way to assist actively or to take part in the religious services of non-Catholics. Passive or merely material presence can be tolerated of a civic official or on account of respect ... at funerals, marriages, and similar functions of non-Catholics, as long as there be absent the danger of perversity or scandal.
There are two common cases concerning attendance by Catholics at non-Catholic marriages. In the first case, both parties are non-Catholic, and one can look to the above principle.
The more difficult case occurs when one or both parties are Catholic and are marrying outside the Church. In effect, the attendees are witnessing the excommunication of the Catholic party or parties, as any Catholic who marries before a Protestant minister or Justice of the Peace is traditionally held by that act to be excommunicated. One would, therefore, not wish to be present at such an "excommunication ceremony" because of its perversity and scandal. In some cases, for peace in the family, one might consider attending the subsequent reception party, which is a social event, not a religious one.
Naturally, you need to explain the reason for your action, in as rational and sincere a way as possible. Aren't we all supposed to be so "understanding" these days? Well, your child will have to understand that your religion is important to you, and that although you cannot attend the religious ceremony, you will continue to pray for his conversion and do your best to keep family peace, without implying approval of the action.
N.B. What is said in this article may pertain to some sects within Mohammedan-ISM, not all current-day Mohammedan-S. However, it appears to be undeniable that a not insignificant segment of Mohammedanism is militaristic after the fashion of the Mohammedan Turks of history described in the article below. Nevertheless, we must give due fairness to the Mohammedans who are not of the militaristic sects, just as traditional Catholics should not be held responsible for the abominations of Novus Ordo Catholicism.
Today is October 7. It is the day on which Christians commemorate the military victory that saved Europe from being overrun by the Mohammedans (otherwise known as Muslims or Islamics). The historic sea battle of October 7, 1571, took place off Lepanto in the Gulf of Corinth in southern Greece.
Some background. Islam arose in the eighth century at Mecca in Arabia after one Mohammed had a mystical vision, allegedly of the Archangel Gabriel. His new sect advanced westward by terrorism through the Christian lands of Egypt, Libya, and what is today called Algeria and Morocco. Today, hardly a single Christian has survived in these countries. While we (including the pope at the Vatican) allow Muslims to build mosques, the Muslims do not allow Christians to build churches.
That is why it is said that Islam is not so much a religion of the word as a religion of the sword. The practice of the militant Muslims was to cut off the heads of their victims. Ask the people of Mindinao in the Philippines whether they do this. Or the people of Kosovo after the "ethnic Albanian" invasion.
A hundred years after Mohammed's vision, the followers of Islam had conquered Spain and were pouring into France. Their advance was repelled at the Battle of Poitiers in year 732 by French Christian forces led by Charles Martel, father of the Holy Roman Emperor, Charlemagne. The Spanish tried again and again to be rid of this scourge. But they did not manage to drive them out for eight hundred long years. Back in the east, the crescent swept northwards, consuming in blood, fire and sword the Holy Land, Syria, and Persia. Once fertile lands were turned into deserts by these uncivilized nomads and their constant fighting.
With the Turko-Mongol invasions of the 13th century, the inhabitants of the Middle East became subject to a new people. The Turks adopted Islam. Nearly all Muslims of the Middle East today are either of Turkish descent or descendants of the original Christian inhabitants who renounced their faith when confronted with the persuasive power of the sword. The political center of the Muslim Empire had shifted from Arabia to Turkey.
Under Ozman, the Turks took up the Arab's holy war against Christianity, advancing on Byzantium, or Constantinople, capital of the successor to the Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire. By the time of Murad I, the Byzantine Empire had been reduced to the lonely city of Constantinople. Millions of Christians were dead, and millions of others had been compelled to convert to Islam. In 1453 Constantinople finally fell to the Muslims.
Pope Pius V called on the monarchs of Europe to join in the urgent defence of Christendom. The action that was to follow was the biggest naval engagement anywhere on the globe since Octavian defeated Marc Antony in the Battle of Actium in 30 B.C. Propelled by a favourable wind, the Muslim ships advanced in crescent moon formation in the Bay of Lepanto. The Christian admiral, Don Juan, knelt in prayer. Suddenly the wind changed. The two fleets charged, firing their cannon, and, coming alongside, the men met in hand-to-hand combat. The Muslim admiral, Ali Pasha, was killed. The Crusaders had won. 8,000 Europeans had been killed and 25,000 Turks. 15,000 Christian slaves who had been rowing in the Turkish galleys were liberated.
At that moment Pope Pius V had a vision. He suddenly got up and went to the window, peered at the sky, and then turning to those present, announced, "This is not the time for doing business. Let us return thanks to God. Our armada has even now defeated the Turkish fleet." The people of Rome had prayed the prayer of the Rosary in vigil throughout the eve of the battle and into the day.
The feastday of 7 October is honored as a victory accomplished by the prayerful intercession of Our Lady on behalf of her children, Mary Help of Christians, Our Lady of Victories. Catholics now call this day the feastday of Our Lady Of the Most Holy Rosary. It was a sad and ominous day, January 29, 1965, when Pope Paul VI handed the glorious standard of Lepanto, snatched in a daring attack from the Turkish flagship, back to the Turks.
Dear Fr. Moderator:
What advice would you or you do give to Catholic coeliac sufferers (allergic to wheaten flour) regarding reception of Communion, if they are concerned about the small amount of gluten "accident" present in the Host affecting them?
Fr. Moderator Replies.
Since even the smallest Particle of the Sacred Host is Holy Communion, the person should arrange with his priest to be given a Particle.
Satan called a worldwide convention of demons. In his opening address he said, "We can't keep Christians from going to Church. We can't keep them from reading Scripture and knowing the truth. So let them go to their churches, but steal their time so that they don't have time to develop their spiritual lives.
"This is what I want you to do," said the devil: "Distract them from gaining hold of their Savior and maintaining that vital connection throughout their day!" "How shall we do this?," his demons shouted. "Keep them busy in the non-essentials of life and invent innumerable schemes to occupy their minds," he answered.
"Tempt them to spend, spend, spend, and borrow, borrow, borrow. Persuade husbands and wives to go to work for long hours, so they can afford their empty lifestyles. As their families fragment, soon their homes will offer no escape from the pressures of work.
Overstimulate their minds so that they cannot hear that still, small voice of the divine. Entice them to play the radio or cassette player whenever they drive. To keep the TV, VCR, CDs, and PC going constantly in their home, and see to it that every store and restaurant in the world plays profane music constantly. This will jam their minds and break that union with Christ.
"Pound their minds with the news 24 hours a day. Flood their mailboxes with junk mail, mail-order catalogues, sweepstakes, and every kind of promotional offering for free products and false hopes. Keep models on TV so they will believe that outward beauty is what's important.
"Give them Santa Claus to distract them from teaching their children the real meaning of Christmas. Give them the Easter bunny so they won't talk about His resurrection and power over sin and death. Even in their recreation, let them be excessive. Send them to sporting events and keep their heads full of game scores instead of the catechism. And when they meet other Christians, involve them in gossip and small talk rather than the truths of the Faith."
It was quite a plan! The demons went eagerly to their assignments causing Christians everywhere to become more sated going here and there, having little time for their God. Having no time to tell others about the power of the Savior to change lives.
Has the devil been successful at his scheme? You be the judge.
Mother Angelica is head of the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) on cable television. Although in many ways Mother Angelica has personally been a courageous Catholic, speaking out against the worst abuses of the New Order, we have noted here before our disappointment that her station carries the Novus Ordo worship service (with a little Latin and Gregorian chant thrown in sometimes to make the conservatives happy) and features program hosts, like Scott Hahn, who are publicly associated with condemned movements such as "Catholic Charismaticism." In one way or another, all the programs are contaminated with a New Order perspective, to one degree or another.
We are certainly saddened to hear of her recent stroke and present excerpts from her September 25 statement on the recent disaster, which put that in a spiritual perspective. It does no good to say "God bless America" when America is so far falling from its Christian foundation, and when the same mouths that ask for a blessing are issuing the foulest blasphemies.
I'd like to talk to you tonight about other terrorists. Let's take social terrorists -- in our country. The kind of terrorists that go into schools and spread drugs. The kind of terrorists that kidnap little children and make them prostitutes and what was always known as white slavery. The kind of terrorists in the entertainment world that put out on television in public, in Europe and all over the world, the worst, worst kind of movies, the most immoral movies. Those are social terrorists.
We've had two beautiful buildings destroyed on our land. And many innocent people. People who were blown to bits -- just like the first 10, 20 years of abortion. Cut to pieces, thrown in garbage cans and eaten by cats. Same as now. Those are terrorists. I think they're the worst because they destroy innocence and life and populations. Isn't that a terrorist thing?
Isn't it terrorism to have Satan's music for our little ones to absorb and to begin to murder and kill? Isn't it terrorist to spread drugs everywhere, to push prostitution and immorality among our youth, weaken their hearts, their souls, their minds? Isn't that terror?
Then there's spiritual terror, the kind that makes you afraid to say a prayer in public, the kind that makes you hide your crucifixes and anything religious in your office. The kind that says you can't have a crib in public. That's terrorist because in your heart you want to love God. You want to praise God. You want to say thank you, Jesus, for coming to save us as a little child. Thank you, Lord. I think that's terrorism.
Mr. President, this nation, great, mighty, a sleeping giant, could bring the whole world to holiness, goodness, compassion, strength, and hope, but I don't think, unless we tackle the terrorists in our country, that we can expect God to protect and guide us. Mr. President, would you consider putting prayer back in the schools and letting us pray at social functions? I understand that you prayed at a football game or baseball game. Could we pray in restaurants and could we have reminders of the Lord God? Can we put a crib back on our lawns and not be afraid of being ridiculed?
Mr. President, would you consider having prayer back in the schools? Would you consider taking that horrible law with permission to kill, to terrorize the innocent? Would you consider saying no more abortion is allowed in this country? We can't keep offending God here, then ask for his blessing here. It's not going to work.
I'm only saying that if we're going to clear out or try to bring to justice terrorists, we had better first look at home. We must be brave, and we must accept our penance. We must also change. We must pray, not only for those who died in those terrible, terrible attacks, but have we ever prayed for the children who were murdered, every day? Have we ever said Lord, I can't stop it, but I pray that they have a high degree of glory in your kingdom. Let us become a repenting nation and change.
Dear Fr. Moderator:
Tony's recent question (Martial Messias) made me recall something I read years ago, but unfortunately have never been able to find since. It seems that one day the Catholic writer G.K. Chesterton was sternly reminded by a female critic (who apparently thought she could shame him) that more wars had been fought over religion than anything else.
Chesterton's reply was, "Of course, madam. Religion is the only thing truly worth fighting for." Since I agree with Chesterton, the Vatican's self-flagellation over the Crusades seems even more ridiculous.
The following news article simply confirms the fact that Card. Ratzinger is a loose canon, trying to play all ends against the middle. To place the traditional cause in his hands is to commit suicide.
CATHOLIC NEW SERVICE -- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has taken public exception to a statement by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who caused an uproar in Italy by saying that Western culture is superior to Islam.
"One cannot speak of the superiority of one culture over another, because history has shown that a society can change from one age to another," the cardinal remarked, speaking to the Italian daily La Repubblica.
Catholic World News reports that the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith suggested that at various times in the past several centuries, Islam has been superior to other cultures, while at other times Western Christian cultures have been superior.
Dear Fr. Moderator:
What do you think about a petition for retaining the papacy and restoring the Traditional Latin Mass?
Fr. Moderator Replies.
We've had thirty years of petitions, and they don't do anything against the Novus Ordo juggernaut. The Novus Ordo apparatus loves petitions, because it can look sympathetic and give out with a few syrupy words, but do nothing. Card. Ratzinger is the best example of such a politician. His words sometimes seem sympathetic, but he won't do anything.
The only effective course of action to get a jackass's attention is by slugging him with a brickbat (with apologies to jackasses). What that means, in this situation, is that we must stand fast with the Traditional Latin Mass, Sacraments, and Faith and must brand the New Order publicly for what it is -- not Catholic. The SSPX has stood fast -- at least so far -- and the Vatican has come crawling.
The compromising "indult" apparatus, on the other hand, has been effectively silenced and forced to accept more compromises than it wished, with more in the offing. Pretty soon, "indult" will equal "Novus Ordo." When you compromise with Mephistopheles, you end up selling your very soul.
Dear Fr. Moderator:
Several days ago on one of the news channels an interview with an anti-religion spokeswoman was shown. She had made the claim that throughout history all warfare stemmed somehow from religious conviction. She repeatedly quoted St. Matthew 10:34/DR: "I come not to send peace, but the sword." I know she used this very much out of context, but can you further explain this passage to me so I may be stronger in defense of its misinterpretation?
Fr. Moderator Replies.
Such biblical passages are best taken in a spiritual sense, which it is pretty evident should be done from the context. Remember, Our Lord also said: "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36/DR). The "sword" here can be taken as meaning a strong adherence to the true Faith.
Dear Fr. Moderator:
I went to a Novus Ordo seminary one, not for a day, but almost the whole way, so I can tell you how it is. Mine was one of the best (of a bad bunch, maybe) in Rome, and I went to the Gregorian University for my philosophy and theology. No formal teaching of Latin ever took place during my entire time. Greek and Hebrew idem, but a number of us did two or all three of these anyway.
John XXIII's Veterum Sapientia and other like-minded traditional documents on seminary studies were smiled at, laughed at, and ridiculed. Liturgical Latin was very carefully restricted to motets and the occasional Kyrie or Sanctus. Latin was wheeled out when the occasion demanded what the Romans call bella figura, a good show. It was used for its aesthetic benefit, nothing more.
The Traditional Latin Mass was known to be celebrated in the city, but we were forbidden to attend, upon pain of dismissal. You simply did not take risks -- you would have been denounced for going to such a Mass, were you discovered, and you would then have been sent home -- there was no tolerance and certainly no "religious freedom" for the traditionally-inclined Catholic seminarian.
Communicatio in sacris by attending a communion service at the Anglican Church would have drawn approval as an ecumenical act, and no censure or penalty would have been expected. Too frequent or assiduous attendance at even a Novus Ordo Latin Mass or other Office would have raised eyebrows of suspicion and drawn adverse comment from the politically correct "College Police," who thought they saw into the hearts and minds of all and thought themselves able to judge where, in times past, the Holy Ghost was left space and time to show His Will.
It is sadly true to say that there is much 'bad academics' in so-called "Catholic" seminaries. It may perhaps be more accurate to say that there are very few Catholic seminaries in existence, and this is a fearful thing because it may give some people the false and dangerous idea that they are our saviors or that they are producing the crop or generation of priests and bishops who will lead and guide us through the darkness and into the light.
That would be a terrible error in which to fall. Much of the "institutional Church" at Rome is rotten and has given every sign of having strayed from doctrinal orthodoxy. Holy Church is nonetheless bigger and greater than all these ecclesiastical pygmies and she will return to her own, in time.
Is not ours a crusade of study, prayer, fidelity and constancy so that we, individually and collectively, may not fall away as have the men in purple and crimson? If their philosophy and theology is lousy, is it not incumbent upon the faithful Catholic -- priest and layman alike and in equal measure -- to study all the harder and more diligently? As it says in the prayer -- it is all in the recta sapere, isn't it?
Fr. Moderator Replies
On the September 19, 1846, shortly before Lourdes, the Blessed Virgin Mary is thought to have appeared on the mountain of La Salette, in a private apparition recognized by the Church. The Virgin said, among many other chilling things: Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.
To any Catholic, these are astonishing words indeed. The report of our correspondent about the situation in Rome itself forces us to harken back to La Salette and to view what has gone on since at least 1962 in a different light. We must begin to realize that "Rome" (the Vatican really) may not be the solution to the problem (at least in our lifetimes), but its cause. Eternal Rome, of course, is indefectible. That is the Rome of Sts. Peter and Paul, the Rome of Apostolic Tradition. The Rome of the Roman Catholic Faith.
We still have the Roman Catholic Traditional Latin Mass, Sacraments, Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition. We have the Fathers and Doctors, popes and councils. We can consider ourselves like the underground Church of many ages, which kept the true Faith in spite of persecution (sometimes even from the Church itself) and came out to the light when the darkness had been beaten back. Ours is to fight a holding action, to stand fast and hold the Traditions.
The auxiliaries will eventually come to relieve us, and Scripture intimates that it will be TRADITIO's patron saint, St. Michael, who will lead that restoration. His Faith was tested in a cosmic way, and Pope Leo XIII, in his famous vision, saw the Prince of the Heavenly Host save the Church in the end from the Modernists who are attempting to destroy it.
Papolators have constantly lambasted traditional Catholics because they allegedly don't "obey the pope." But what if the pope decides he isn't pope? What if he decides that there is no papacy? Impossible, you say? Read the following news release.
VATICAN CITY (AP) - September 30, 2001 08:11 -- A weary-looking Pope John Paul II opened a meeting of the world's bishops Sunday, inviting them to openly discuss calls to re-think the supreme role of the pontiff and to give more power to the church at local levels....
Papal primacy, or the supreme role of the pope, both within the church and with respect to other Christian religions, will be discussed, said Cardinal Jan Schotte, who is in charge of the synod. John Paul has acknowledged that papal primacy has been a stumbling block in his quest for closer relations with other Christians, notably the Orthodox church. John Paul has issued a papal letter on the question, but has made no concrete proposals about on how to deal with it.
Schotte said bishops also indicated they wanted to talk about having greater democracy within the church. Earlier this year, some cardinals proposed that the Vatican share power with local dioceses, giving them a say in, for example, the selection of bishops. Many [Modernist] Catholics in the United States and Western Europe are unhappy with the Vatican's strong hand in church matters. In a reflection of that resentment, rank-and-file faithful as well as Catholic and other Christian theologians who want more power for local churches are expected to hold a ``shadow synod'' in Rome in the coming days.
Dear Fr. Moderator:
Do Novus Ordo seminarians still learn how to read and pronounce Latin? Do they learn to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass?
Fr. Moderator Replies.
A survey published a few years ago indicated that Novus Ordo seminaries were breaking all of the papal prescriptions for a proper sacerdotal education. Even Pope John XXIII prescribed that seminarians should have multiple years of Latin (and even Greek) and that all religious classes should be conducted entirely in Latin, since that is the Roman Catholic Church's language and the language in which theology, liturgy, etc., are written, from apostolic times to the present.
Not only were the Novus Ordo seminarians not learning any Latin (excepting in a few seminaries), but they were not learning the orthodox interpretation of Scripture, dogmatic theology, sacramental theology, moral theology, sacred music and chant, patristics, ecclesiastical history, hagiography, and all the rest. Novus Ordo seminaries are, for the most part, a cesspool of bad academics, not to say Modernism. It used to be that a seminary education was equivalent to a four-year college degree. No longer. Just another way in which the New Order is trying to stamp out the traditional Mass, Sacraments, and Faith -- by ignorance.
Return to Commentaries from the Mailbox.