jump to navigation

Solemn Vespers of the Dead for the Centenary of the Conclusion of WWI at UD Nov 6 November 5, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, history, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Tradition.
comments closed

I hope I can attend this tomorrow night.  Solemn Vespers for the Dead in the traditional Rite will be offered Nov 6 on the campus of the University of Dallas at 7:30 pm at the Church of the Incarnation.  All details below:

Check out the generous confession times at the Church of the Incarnation, too – 45 minutes a day or more Mon, Wed, Fri, and Sat.

I heard the Catholic Action for Faith and Family Conference was a big success.  My daughter was there yesterday to sing in the schola for the solemn pontifical low Mass Cardinal Burke offered on Sunday morning.  Many other events over the weekend were sparsely attended because so many other folks were off at the big conference at the Irving convention center.  Bishop Burns was there.  I’ve heard some other good things about Bishop Burns in the last several days on other fronts.  Even though he is closely associated with the sad triad of Wuerl/McCarrick/Farrell he seems cut from a bit different cloth.

But the opening of the diocesan records on priest boy rape is a nothingburger.  It’s all been carefully checked over in advance but there may be a few belated revelations.

All that aside, I have a small but growing pious hope that in Bishop Burns Dallas has finally gotten someone a bit virtuous as bishop.

Advertisements

Archbishop Sample’s Sermon Praising TLM, Criticizing Novus Ordo May 7, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Restoration, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

Everyone else has done a post on this, I guess I may as well, too.

Actually, given the superlatives I’ve seen lauded on this sermon, I was a trifle disappointed.  It was very good, especially from a prelate in this age of the Church, and something that is very much appreciated, but I guess my expectations had been built up to the point that I thought I was going to get a Wolfe-ian or Rodriguezesque full throated takedown of the Novus Ordo, but that’s not quite what this was.  Still, it was very good.  We’ve known Archbishop Sample has been a strong supporter of the TLM for years, but he makes clear here that he sees the liturgical revolution – or the revolution against the authentic Liturgy – as a serious mistake and something from which the Church must pull back and, in essence, recover.  He also vociferously argues that the TLM is not the domain of an aging, nostalgic remnant but is strongly, one might even say overwhelmingly, the province of the young.  Which, good to note, the revolutionaries love their pat responses and easy misrepresentations, so the truth has to be repeated over and over to counter those.

Nevertheless, I still get a bit nervous when I hear talk of “mutual enrichment” – to me, the only enriching is the slow replacement of the Novus Ordo by the Mass of the Ages (which term I was very glad to see Archbishop Sample use).  +Sample did not indicate much at all how he felt the Novus Ordo might enrich the TLM, but I still feel the concept itself is flawed.  The liturgical reform to me was a mistake, a mistake in conception and, at best, horribly botched in execution (though I would also argue that the preponderance of the evidence makes clear that the revolutionaries got just about exactly what they wanted in the Novus Ordo, and that what they wanted was to protestantize the Mass as a first, giant step towards humanizing the Church – that is to say, turning the Church into a humanist construct, a religion more of man, than of God).  Yes there was some pushback and modification at the 11th hour, but later developments removed even much of that, at least in the form of some truly deplorable products such as Bugnini’s “children’s Mass.”

I also see basically no ways in which the Novus Ordo might enrich the TLM – I know this might be a harsh or extreme view, but having read a fair amount about how the propers have been butchered and even corrupted and the 3 year cycle of readings almost totally divorced from the ancient (and one might say, inspired) flow of the liturgical year, I don’t think it an unsupportable assertion.  That’s not to say that the Novus Ordo is always a disaster or a danger to one’s faith – there are Greenville’s and Hanceville’s and other locales where the Novus Ordo is offered in ways vastly superior to the standard offering in 99% of parishes, but those are all cases where the Novus Ordo was “enriched” by the traditional Mass, rather confirming the fact that “mutual enrichment” is a dead letter, a red herring, and quite likely a grave danger to be avoided.  The enrichment must run in one direction only.

It’s still a nice sermon in a lovely setting with a properly vested prelate, which is still far too rare a sight.  I am very glad Archbishop Sample offered this Mass and I pray he will continue drawing nearer and nearer to the traditional practice of the Faith and its authentic presentation in the Liturgy:

Coulombe Critiques the Novus Ordo and a Few Pics from Fatima Conference May 3, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, different religion, Father Rodriguez, General Catholic, Liturgy, Restoration, Revolution, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

A great excerpt from the weekly Tumblar House series of video Q&As with Charles Coulombe wherein Mr. Coulombe discusses the Novus Ordo and the problems with it.  He gives a fair and accurate assessment, though not as harsh and thoroughly critical as perhaps I might be.  He does note, quite rightly, that some “presentations” of the Novus Ordo are much better than others.  Indeed, the Novus Ordo in Latin, Ad Orientem, offered with great reverence with the Asperges and a solid priest giving good catechesis in the sermon with all the bells and smells, is what the Novus Ordo perhaps should have been, though I would argue that no change to the Mass was necessary and that humans are always on perilous ground in playing around with divine creations, which I would say the Mass largely is.  My family and I derived great fruit from just such a Mass for several years in the mid-2000s, and that experience paved the way for our eventual “transition” to the TLM.  Having said that, I strongly believe the TLM is the once and future Mass for the entire Church, but getting back there will likely take a very long time.

But what is generally offered in most parishes is a far, far cry from that relatively benign Novus Ordo experience.  In fact, what is offered in most parishes is a positive danger to the faith of many souls, especially those badly formed in the Faith (or formed well but in some false simulacrum of Catholicism).

What I really like in the analysis below, however, one thing Mr. Coulombe says: the Council did not address the problem truly affecting the Church, that the Mass did not need a radical makeover but that the penetration of Leftism into the minds and heart so most priests did, but this was ignored, as was the original driving force behind the Council, at least in the minds of the large majority of bishops polled before it took place – formally condemning communism as a philosophy and condemning those who embraced it.

I also very much appreciate the fact that many of the liturgical innovations that came as a result of the Council, though very few were called for in Sacraosanctum Concilium, already stood condemned before the Council took place!  These were condemned by Pius XII in his encyclicals Humanii Generis and Mediator Dei (which reminds me, I really need to re-read those).  Anyway, it’s a really good video and I hope you find watching it edifying:

Are those five Eucharistic miracles, or miracles associated with the Eucharist, he mentions above approved or clearly demonstrated?  I’m only familiar with one or two.

The pics below came from the March conference of Our Lady’s Army of Advocates at the DFW airport. It was a wonderful experience, not only for the talks, but for meeting so many good friends and readers of this blog.  The wonderful Rodriguez family of El Paso was there, and I got to take some pictures with members of their family, along with others.  The pics are a bit on the blurry side, but you takes what you gets.  Thank you to the kind Beatrice Rodriguez for sending these to me, and sorry it took so long to get them posted!

David Rodriguez, myself, Beatrice Rodriguez, and Father Michael Rodriguez

Michael Matt, Beatrice Rodriguez, me

Coulombe: Attendance at SSPX not Grave Disobedience……. February 28, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Restoration, SSPX, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
comments closed

……….or necessarily sinful, because even if one grants that the SSPX “rejects” certain parts of Vatican II, according to Benedict XVI, any novel declarations made at Vatican II were not dogmatic and thus not binding on conscience.  Thus, the SSPX has been and remains free to disagree with Guadium Et Spes, Dignitatis Humanae, and Nostra Aetate to their heart’s content, in so far as those parts they disagree with present novel but non-dogmatic explanations.

Now, of course, many partisans of the revolution in the Church will argue that every single last jot and tittle of Vatican II represent THE most dogmatic things ever produced by the Church, especially the most novel or revolutionary parts.  But I think Benedict is correct here, and has the support of both Paul VI and John XXIII in these respects – both of them declared the intent of the Council was not to define any new dogmas, but simply to explicate Church “teaching in a modern light.”  The revolutionaries must make every utterance of Vatican II dogmatic in order to try to compel souls to adhere to the revolutionary program.

Now there are other matters surrounding the SSPX, as to whether they somehow disobeyed papal directives under Paul  VI or John Paul II, but those matters really dealt with specific individuals and the individual excommunications have either been lifted, or the individuals in question have long since passed to their reward.  I read some claim that all SSPX priests were suspended a divinis in 1976 and that those suspensions remain in effect and this serves as the basis for SSPX Masses being “valid but not licit,” according to many.

As to the actual question, however – whether attendance at an SSPX Mass constitutes “grave disobedience” or not – I think it very much depends on the spirit of the person who attends the Mass, does it not?  One can attend a Novus Ordo offered by their bishop in a spirit of grave disobedience.  I can think of a variety of reasons why one might feel compelled to attend SSPX Masses regularly without doing so from a standpoint of disobedience or bad faith.  Perhaps all local Novus Ordos are so filled with abuse, error, and heresy that they represent a positive danger to one’s faith (and that of their children), perhaps one is just blown away with the beauty, reverence, and majesty of the TLM and no other option is available, perhaps the SSPX just happens to be close by, the Mass is beautiful and the soul in question isn’t hung up on which side in this debate might be right or wrong (IOW oblivious to the political situation), etc., etc.

Anyway Mr. Coulombe:

 

FSSP Given Indult to Offer Pre-“Reform” Easter Rites February 28, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, Francis, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, history, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Restoration, sanctity, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

I am happy about this permission given to the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, to offer the Holy Week and Easter rites according to the 1945 Missal, thus not including the revolutionary changes to the Mass introduced by Pius XII. Even though many traditional Catholics have relatively little problem with the changes Pius performed, it must be made clear that it was these “relatively innocuous” changes that established a precedent for what before had always been seen as out of bounds – making inorganic changes to the structure of the Mass.  Without the Holy Week, or “Easter Rite” changes, there would have been no Novus Ordo, no mutilation of the ancient canon, probably in use since apostolic times or shortly thereafter, and its replacement by modernist fabrications, to paraphrase Pope Benedict.

So Francis of Rome has given permission to go back to the old rite before the revolution against the Liturgy began, but not, it seems, to the SSPX.  Which is actually kind of revealing – the fact that they have not been given this permission argues that they are an organic part of the Church, and being governed similar to other organizations, while not being given this permission may have much to do with internal SSPX politics, where there has long existed some division over whether Archbishop Lefebvre made the right call in settling on the 1962 Missal as the standard for the Society, rather than an earlier, unadulterated version.  I have no real opinion on these matters, save that I very much prefer the 1945 Missal and personally use one.  I also like to hear the Good Friday prayer that calls the Jews, even the perfidious ones, to conversion.

More from Angel Queen, via reader TT:

The Priestly Fraternity of St Peter has been granted an indult by the Vatican Commission Ecclesia Dei to use the liturgical books for Holy Week as they were until the [failed] reform of Pius XII (+1958). The indult is granted ad experimentum for three years. [Isn’t it interesting how the revolutionary changes are always unleashed full force and forever, while any kind of return to tradition must always be furtive, experimental, and non-committal?]

The information was published in several of the Fraternity’s US-parish bulletins. Each church of the Fraternity has to request permission from the superiors before taking advantage of the indult. According to rumours, 25 parishes have been granted permission so far.

However, on Good Friday, the prayer for the Jews published by Pope Benedict XVI must be used.

So it’s not an entire return to the ancient order – Benedict’s highly unfortunate capitulation to worldly opinion will still be used.  So, I’ll just have to read the old style prayer myself again.

I do not know if the local FSSP parish has requested permission to use the pre-1958 Mass.

 

Lovely Video on the FSSP Seminary in Nebraska November 30, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in Art and Architecture, awesomeness, Basics, Christendom, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, Liturgy, priests, Restoration, sanctity, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

Via Rorate, a PBS News video on Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary in Denton, NE.  It covers the Gregorian chant that is of course a central part of the seminary’s daily life, as well as the CD the Fraternity produced last year.  That record apparently “topped the charts.” I doubt that means it’s sold a million copies, but one takes what one can get.  In fact, the second video gives a bit more coverage of the seminary’s vocal efforts.

I was tickled to see a local boy young man presently enrolled in the seminary around the 1:41-1:44 mark and at 2:14-7.

I wonder if the people who saw this segment thought: “Finally, some priests who look like priests?”  Love to see all the birettas and cassocks!  Bring back the tonsure!

A bit more for you:

The album is available for sale on most online music outlets, including the Christ-denying (well……) Amazon.

Was that a surprisingly friendly take from PBS?

Dallas Own “Ultraliberal” Cardinal Farrell Attacks Correctio Signers……. October 5, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, Dallas Diocese, different religion, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Liturgy, persecution, Revolution, scandals, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

…….and thus serves his patron and master.  GloriaTV calls Farrell ultraliberal – an assessment I would have argued with once but not so much today (Farrell is a veritable weathervane for the ecclesiastical winds) – and notes his line of ad hominem attack against the signers of the Correctio Filialis:

Pope Francis “is not a heretic” according to the ultraliberal Curia Cardinal Kevin Farrell, 70. Taking to cruxnow.com on October 2, Farrell attacked the Filial Correction by launching personal attacks against the signatories rather than by responding to their arguments. According to him the signatories “use any excuse just to attack him [Francis].”

In response to the interview, one of the signatories, Deacon Nick Donnelly, states on twitter that Francis “is not accused of being a heretic, but of promulgating heresy”.

During a NCR-interview in 2016, Farrell insinuated that Amoris Laetitia has the same authority as the Bible, “Basically this is the Holy Spirit speaking to us.”

Please don’t tell me what good things Bishop Farrell did while he was here.  First, that was then, this is now, but even more, he did a heckuva lot of bad things like totally ghettoizing the TLM and even blocking priests from offering Mass partially in Latin, Ad Orientem, or basically anything that substantially improved the reverence of the Mass. And that’s only his malfeasance with regard to the Liturgy.  He did a few things better than his seminary but on the grand scale – and as we find out more and more after his departure – he was just what you would expect a creature of McCarrick would be.

I will say that there is scant difference between “promulgating heresy” and being a heretic.  I suppose one can maintain the pious hope that Francis is acting in ignorant innocence with his manifold attacks upon the ancient Faith (get ready for further attacks on the Liturgy and Communion for protestants!), but I believe the massive evidence we have accrued in less than 5 years indicates that invincible ignorance is out of the question.  I am also becoming increasingly aware of very poignant, pained, and emotional personal interventions made by good souls to Francis to amend his ways, but he has coldly and brusquely dismissed all of these.  Perhaps some of these will make it to print one day, unfortunately what I have learned is too much of hearsay and unsubstantiated to print.

For some good news, Cardinal Farrell maintains that his small advisory role at the  Apostolic Signatura will not prevent him from pursuing formal correction of Francis should the situation demand it:

The nomination as a member of the Apostolic Signatura is “not a full-time position”, Cardinal Raymond Burke told journalists on Monday. He will assist in the work and serve as a judge when asked to do so.

Burke further stated according to Vaticanista Edward Pentin, that the nomination will not change nor delay his plans to issue a fraternal correction of Pope Francis if he further declines to answer the dubia.

I’d say the time for that correction is now, good Cardinal Burke.  However, I can understand delay if you are having difficulty finding others to join you in this correction, though I suspect with the Correctio out there are gathering support, now is about as good as time as you will find.

Please pray for Cardinal Burke and all those who are working to stop the total dissolution of the Church.  They need much support for strength.  I am personally praying that more bishops – especially some active ones- will sign the Correctio and then join Burke in his own correction.  Where things go from there will be in God’s hands, but I pray the truth may see the light of day and the Lord’s will be done.

The TLM Demands More and Delivers More…… September 27, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Restoration, sanctity, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

……..much, much more!

Before I begin excerpting Dr. Peter Kwasniewski’s excellent post comparing the TLM, as predominately offered today (very well and reverently), and the Novus Ordo, as predominately offered today (poorly), I will point out, as Dr. K does, that there are rare examples of the Novus Ordo, offered in Latin, that offer many of the same benefits as does the TLM (while making many of the same “demands,” as well).  I have been blessed to assist at Novus Ordos offered in Latin that feature the Asperges and with the priest facing the tabernacle, speaking lowly in Latin during the consecration and with bells and smells lifted from the TLM, and both my family and I derived great spiritual fruit from this.  You could easily say the NO in Latin was a quite beneficial and necessary step for us on the way to the TLM.

However, while I don’t wish to be accused of “typical” Trad pridefulness, I do believe that, even when offered as beautifully and reverently as possible, the Novus Ordo in Latin does not quite reach the standard of the TLM in terms of fruitfulness for souls and benefits not only for the life of the Church, but for the world at large.  There were simply too many changes.  Even the Canon was not left untouched, and most sadly, the very words of the Consecration.  Also less beneficial were the massive changes to the readings, and especially the deliberate excision of “problematic” parts of Scripture, the ones that speak of condemnation, blasphemy, even damnation, or – horror of horrors – which point to the Church as the unique body instituted by God for salvation.

But, having said that, if Francis or some other evil force were to somehow abrogate the TLM tomorrow and get all the bishops and priests to go along – if the TLM disappeared – I could probably get by without much ill effect on the best NO in Latin I ever experienced, one that even, perhaps against the “rules,” but of enormous benefit for souls, lifted a few bits of the TLM back into the NO – like the Canon and consecration (yes, that happened).  This assumes basically the situation I encountered, that of a fully orthodox priest who desperately desired to offer the TLM but was barred by diocesan regulations – though I understand he is back to offering Mass ad orientem again, now that a certain Cardinal who stopped him from doing so is out of this diocese.

At any rate, to portions of Kwasniewski’s post, about what the TLM demands, but, even more, what it delivers:

We have probably all met people who are thinking of attending the traditional Latin Mass on a regular basis and who, when they actually start going, are struck by how much extra effort it costs. Perhaps we ourselves once felt the same way.

For starters, you are expected to kneel for long stretches of time. There is a lot of silence to get used to (and, if you are a parent, to keep your children relatively quiet in). Sometimes there are lengthy readings, chants, or prayers that may test your patience and stretch to the limit your capacity for meditation. You might be confused about what words the priest or the schola is saying or singing, because the hand missal you picked up from a bookcase in the foyer is over a thousand pages long, and you haven’t figured out how to use it yet. So much is strange, even overwhelming; sometimes it seems random. And the whole of a High Mass might last for an hour and a half or even longer, depending on the solemnity of the rite or the volubility of the preacher. Everyone dresses up more; women are expected to wear veils; the atmosphere is more serious. An eager devotee might volunteer the information that Catholics who come to Mass here often try to observe either the three-hour Eucharistic fast or the fast from midnight. The usus antiquior is premised on asceticism and a reverential beauty in no hurry to be done. This Mass demands a lot of you and your family, physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually. Is it worth the effort?

On the other hand, going to the Novus Ordo can be such a breeze………[I’ll skip the explanation.  He means, a breeze, in the sense of making few demands in terms of personal effort]

[Onto the benefits of the TLM]……First, you come to realize that even after years of attending the Novus Ordo, you had not developed much of a “liturgical interior life”—that is, the ability to rest in the mysteries shining forth in the Mass, to absorb the prayers or Scripture texts, to connect deeply with the Real Presence of the Savior. The usus antiquior makes ample room for the growth of the spiritual life at the pace and in the way most suited to each individual, offering many helps or “handles” for penetrating into the marvels of the Eucharist and of the Church’s liturgical year. It gives you a lot more to pray about and a lot more room to pray in.

After experiencing this for a while, it can be like a shower with ice-cold water to return to the Novus Ordo and discover that it is pretty much a non-stop extroverted exchange from start to finish, with now the priest speaking, now the congregation, always “something doing,” and never, or rarely ever, an expanse for resting, absorbing, connecting. Even though the classical liturgy has a lot more going on in its minutiae, it operates on broader lines at a more leisurely pace—an inheritance from the ancient Mediterranean world and the monastery-rich Middle Ages……..

………..Second, at the traditional Mass you start to notice a plethora of little things that serve as windows to the infinite and eternal: the priest kissing the altar time and again; the bowing of heads at certain phrases in the Gloria or the Credo; many signs of the cross made at significant moments; the clink of thurible chains and floating clouds of sweet smoke; the subdeacon holding the paten under the humeral veil; the pregnant silence of the Canon; the lifting of the chasuble at the elevations; the many ringings of bells; the corps of servers with straight backs and folded hands; the touching of sacred vessels and of Christ’s holy Body by ordained ministers alone…. All these little things (and the list could go on) are so many signs or calls of love from God, who is drawing us with exquisite gentleness into the depths of His mystery, preparing us for our beatitude with Him. He would never wish to give us anything less than the fullness of the orthodox Faith, in the fullness of its sacral expression.

(“Now wait a minute,” you may say; “can we not sometimes find the same little things in the Novus Ordo, too?” Yes, you might find some of them, on a good day, if you’re lucky.[1] The problem is that they rarely appear in that context, and when they do, it is with the slightly awkward feel of strangers who have arrived at a casual party vastly over-dressed. [There is something to this.  I don’t mean to insult anyone’s preferences, but even at the very best Latin NO there was a little sense that all the pomp and reverence was something of an affectation – and at the very worst it was obvious.The NO was intended to be a Mass in the vernacular, and offering it in Latin comes across, at times, a bit false.]……..

………Third, by immersing oneself in the ancient Roman liturgy, one’s identity as a Catholic, and the content of Catholicism, becomes thicker and richer. With the aid of good illustrated books, sound catechesis at home, and patient parenting, your children will have the opportunity to become more fully Catholic, too, and their unspoken sense of the reality of the Faith, the powerful reality of the things we say we believe (such as the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament), will grow. This, in itself, is worth all that it takes to get to the traditional Mass: children will be confronted again and again with unequivocal signs of the holiness of God, the dignity of priests, the set-apart sacredness of the sanctuary, the altar as a place of sacrifice, and the special privilege of receiving the Lord from the anointed hands of His minister, as we kneel along the altar rail to receive the precious Body of Jesus. [This is something I do see: it’s not universal, but there is frequently a connection children make to the TLM that I’ve simply never seen in the NO of any stripe, no matter how good.  You will see little boys literally playing priest at home, asking their moms to make them little chasubles to wear.  Their brothers will help “assist” at the play mass, and sisters will be the congregation.  Children start paying better attention to Mass at a younger age, in my experience, too.]

The traditional liturgy is like the old catechism writ large, in vivid characters, imprinting fundamental truths on the souls of those who attend it—truths for which there is little obvious support in the Novus Ordo, with its democratic permeable barriers that allow laypeople and clergy to mix roles and functions, its positioning of the priest versus populum as a “presider” at a social event, its treatment of the altar as a table, its dearth of signs and symbols to catch hold of and elevate the mind, its nearly institutionalized use of substandard church music, its lack of intrinsic silence, its encouragement of informal attitudes, and much else besides.  If we want to avoid all this, we must not dither and second-guess. We must make up our minds to attend the Church’s traditional liturgy, which enshrines the totality of Catholic dogma and responds to man’s deepest religious needs. Whatever our vocation is, whatever our state in life, whatever the state of our soul, we stand to receive a treasure infinitely greater than any sacrifice we might make in order to obtain it. If we are parents with children, we are greatly increasing the possibility that God may give our families the greatest gift after the Most Holy Eucharist, namely, a vocation to priestly or religious life—a vocation that the traditional liturgy awakens in a disproportionate number of its adherents. [So true – the number of vocations from TLMs compared to Novus Ordo is exponentially higher – by percentage of souls attending who follow their vocation.]

An awakening to the interior life; the finding of dozens of new paths to the knowledge and love of God; the enrichment of one’s identity and faith as a Catholic—this is what the extra effort of attending the traditional Mass wins for you. Is it worth it? Can we say that this is a “reasonable” demand for modern people?

Maybe that is the wrong question to ask, for the truth is better than we expect or deserve. The tradition makes foolish, unreasonable demands because it aims not at our comfort but at our divinization. Its aims at passion, death, resurrection, and ascension, and efficaciously accomplishes them. We would do well to follow this narrow way that leads to abundant life.

Thanks to MFG for the link.

I know a few folks who tried the TLM once or twice and did not feel comfortable. It is an enormous change.  But it is so very much worth the effort.  And if you’ve had a bad experience, if you felt lost or not welcomed enough, please, try again.  Locally, at any rate, there are strong efforts underway to try to make newcomers feel as welcome and involved as possible.  Especially if you go to the 9am High Mass on Sunday.

For those who have never been, it is truly an experience every Catholic should have a serious exposure to – and by serious, I mean, attending at least 3 or 4 times in relatively short succession.  If you still don’t like it after that, so be it – and there are a few, I must admit, especially those of the generation that were taught that the TLM was really bad and just had to be replaced, for their own good – but you owe it to yourself to try it, even at the cost of some effort (one which Dr. K does not mention – often very long travel times, and in other dioceses, inconvenient hours).

Out of time.  2000 words anyway.  You got your fill!

Shall We Come to the Point in the Church Where the Faithful Are Legal Schismatics and the Obedient Manifest Heretics? May 26, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, different religion, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, reading, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

From Mitre and Crook by Father Bryan Houghton (sadly long out of print), a fictional discussion between the hero of the story, Bishop Edmund Forester of England, who in the book returned to Tradition in 1977, and another fictional bishop who took him to task for going against the plain will of the then-Pope Paul VI and the “new orientation” of the Church after Vatican II.

The argument is framed around the following declaration the critic of good Bishop Forester made to try to prove why Forester was in the wrong:

“There is only one object of the Faith: the Church.  I am baptized into the Church, and it is she who gives me Faith.  On her authority I believe all other doctrines.  She can deal with them as she likes, since she is the only constant.  Christ revealed no doctrines but a praxis: His Kingdom the Church.”

With this, I think Houghton is trying to summarize the conservative Catholic but hostile to Tradition camp – the my Church right or wrong camp.  Logically speaking, there are giant holes in the above, least of all in that it subverts constant Truth to the will of fallen men – men who have been guided for 2000 years by the Holy Spirit, but a guidance which sad experience has shown they can all too easily reject.

Bishop Forester replies at length, portions of which I excerpt below – see if you will follow his train of logic to conclude that we may well be in a time where the faithful are generally at variance to the expressed will of the hierarchy, if not “legal schismatics,” whereas most of the so-called obedient have truck with heresy:

But surely it is evident that such an argument is tautological or a vicious circle? I am to know what God has revealed by the authority of the Church.  And how am I to know that the Church has such authority?  Because the Church says that God has revealed it.  It is patently nonsense.  [This actually is a subtle and complex argument, but, in a nutshell, keeping the principle of non-contradiction and knowing that solemnly defined Dogma can never change, you can safely exclude appeals to authority such as those above when they seek to change what cannot be changed.]

……You said: “Christ revealed no doctrines but a praxis: His Kingdom, His Church.” You thereby concede that there is at any rate one object of Faith logically prior to the Church: the authority of Christ. And once you admit that, allthe rest follows.  Is His authority divine? Is He God Incarnate, the Second Person of the Trinity, born of the Virgin Mary, etc?  Indeed, one of those things which follows from your prior faith in the divine authority of Christ is the authority of the Church.  It does not work the other way around: you do not believe that Christ receives His authority from the Church.  The Church is the guardian of God’s revelation but not its source.  She herself is one of the objects of Faith: I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Therein, it seems to me, lies the crux of the present crisis. I mean the crisis between honest Catholics……I am not referring to the heretics who have lost the Faith although the Church no longer excludes them……..Faced with the same crisis, we react in diametrically opposite ways.  Your immediate reaction, along with the overwhelming majority of the institutional Church, is to save the Church and the Faith will have to look after itself.  Mine, along with some laymen [and a handful of priests], is to save the Faith and the Church will have to look after herself. We cannot both be right. Indeed, each day the gulf between us is growing wider.  if we pursue our ways indefinitely we shall come to the point when the faithful are legal schismatics and the obedient factual heretics………[What do you make of that?]

……..At this moment of time it is patently untrue to say that in defending the Church one is automatically defending the Faith and this for two reasons: a) the Faith is ambiguously formulated; b) heretics are no longer excluded from the Church.  The fact is that the Faith is exclusive whereas the Church has become inclusive.  She has changed Our Lord’s lapidary sentence, “He who is not with Me is against Me” into the coward’s whine “He is my friend who bullies me.” [Think how much more boldly error is proclaimed in the highest levels of authority even than it was in the time of Paul VI.  We’re well beyond ambiguity and well into full-throated proclamation of error.]

……The fact is, and we know it, that in our own dioceses it is not we who have defended the Faith; it has been left to pathetic little groups of laity, helped or hindered by a stray priest, to do so.  

It is a very different matter when it comes to enforcing the New Outlook.  Have you ever promoted a priest who has stuck to the Immemorial Mass? Of course not……..What has been your attitude to priests who mumble that Vatican II failed to face the facts and that the post-conciliar legislation has been disastrous; who refuse to be brainwashed by attending compulsory study-days, who jeer at the Bishop’s Collegiality, the National Conference of Priests and the new structures generally; who will not give Communion standing and in the hand; who administer Extreme Unction as of yore; who still say the Breviary, the Rosary and make their meditation, who…….?  Have you reserved key positions in your administration for such men of probity and principle? No more than I have.  We have looked after the Church all right but not after the Faith.

The crowning example is Archbishop Lefebvre.  He has been attacked from all sides, yet nobody has dared impugn his Faith and accuse him of being unorthodox.  In fact, if only he would utter the tiniest, wee little heresy, authority could indulge in charity and all would be forgiven.  The trouble is that the old devil won’t, so there is nothing to forgive.  Thus, he gets suspended and threatened with excommunication on a trumped up charge of disobeying ecclesiastical law.

……..Up to and including the Council, Catholics were bound to believe in all defined doctrines and to obey the commands of the Church’s Magisterium.  Now, apparently, [quoting Paul VI] we are expected to submit to “an outlook.” We must all look in the same direction as the reigning Pontiff: “Company, eyes left!”…….Paul VI is absolutely right – the new look in the Church is due precisely to the substitution of a human outlook for Divine Revelation.  [Paul IV proclaimed that] Vatican II has no less authority than Nicaea and in many respects is more important.”  Exactly.  Nicaea merely defined the Divinity of Christ, whereas Vatican II has given rise to an “orientation,” an “outlook.”  As a matter of fact, Lefebvre is defending the decrees of all Councils, from Nicaea to Vatican II inclusive: he is defending decrees as against “orientations.

————End Quote————-

Well, what do you make of that?  Any thoughts? Do you think we are headed – or already well at – a time when the faithful are at least opposed to much of what the institutional Church does, and where the “Catholics” with ecclesiastical approbation are often practical heretics?  Or you think that’s been the case for 50 years?

Does not this point up the ultimate divide between the loosely defined “conservative” and “traditional” camps?  At least how they define each other, if not themselves?

A Little Beautiful Catholic Culture: Saint Benedict Center Sings Byrd’s Ave Verum March 29, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in Art and Architecture, awesomeness, Basics, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, Liturgy, religious, Restoration, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

This is the Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire, the one with the catholicism.org website.  Sensus Fidelium added the following description on  Youtube:

On October 22, 2016 the Brothers and Sisters from Saint Benedict Center, with some students and volunteers, went to The Arbors of Bedford, an Assisted Living Facility in New Hampshire, to sing and play for the residents. Here is our recording of William Byrd’s Ave Verum.

Great, and really well suited to this time of Lent!