Skip to content

Smog-O-Scopus: Bp. Williamson on the New Ordination Rite

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

In a November 15 post on his blog, Dinoscopus, Bishop Richard Williamson SSPX dismisses an argument against the 1968 priestly ordination rite with the following comment:

“But the argument above, to arrive at its conclusion, would have to prove that Conciliar documents and reforms in themselves positively exclude the Catholic priesthood and religion, because so long as the new rite can be taken not to exclude the true priesthood, it can still be used validly to ordain a true priest.

“Alas (for purposes of clarity), the will of Paul VI as seen in all his reforms (and now of Benedict XVI) is so to introduce the new religion of man alongside the Catholic religion of God as to include and not exclude the latter! Now any sane mind cannot stand the idea of 2 and 2 being 5 in such a way as not to exclude their being 4. But Conciliar minds are not sane. They want to apostatize while still remaining Catholic! Thus the new rite of Ordination may omit many features of the Catholic ordination, but it introduces nothing that positively excludes a true ordination.”

The passages in question are vintage Williamsonian smog that the bishop puts out when he wants to obscure an issue: a convoluted double-negative construction (“nothing that positively excludes”) that introduces a non-existent or utterly distorted theological principle.

Who says — by this I mean “which theologian says” — that the essential form for a sacrament (“rite” in this passage of his blog) must be considered valid as long as it “introduces nothing that positively excludes a true ordination”?

That is the underlying principle that Bp. Williamson would have us accept.

But it is a diversion from the real issue — whether the Paul VI forms for the conferral of Holy Orders, in Latin or the vernacular, introduced a substantial change in the forms, such that they no longer signify what they need to in order to confer the sacrament validly.

Bp. Williamson knows this underlying principle. Why the mumbo-jumbo then?

Because, I think, the good bishop’s organization needs to satisfy two constituencies:

(1) Lay traditionalists who still worry that Novus Ordo priests working with SSPX may not be validly ordained, and

(2) “Rome,” which, naturally enough, would expect SSPX to recognize the validity of the new sacraments as a condition to further (and eternal) “negotiations.”

By avoiding the issue of the new sacramental forms, SSPX can reassure laymen that the ordinations of Novus Ordo priests who work with SSPX have been “examined on a case by case basis” to insure validity, while at the same time reassuring “Rome” that SSPX does not regard the new forms as invalid.

It’s a win-win situation. Free milk all around!

So, Bp. Williamson cranks out arguments that evade and obscure the central issue.

His blog has a dinosaur for its mascot. How about an eel? Or perhaps the Smog Monster?

Filed in Priesthood, Sacraments, SSPX: Errors | | Comments (0)

Internet Masses: Spiritual Benefits

Saturday, November 1, 2008

Mass PromQUESTION: What benefits do I derive from watching the traditional Latin Mass on the internet? I know I don’t get the full benefit I would if I were there in person.

RESPONSE: It is clear, based on the teaching of pre-Vatican II theologians regarding hearing Mass over the radio or television, that one could not fulfill his Sunday obligation by viewing a Mass broadcast over the internet. The law requires physical presence at the Holy Sacrifice, or at least being part of a group that is actually present (in the case of a congregation so large, for example, that it spills out beyond the doors of the church into the street).

So, if you were able to be physically present at Mass under the usual conditions on a Sunday or a Holy Day, you would be obliged to go to it. You could not choose instead to remain at home glued to your computer— or indeed, to remain in the church parking lot, hovering over your I-Phone — and still fulfill your duty to assist at Mass.

Thus the question of the obligation.

However, the spiritual benefit of a broadcast Mass is another matter — you can indeed benefit from it. This is clear from the comment of Fr. Francis Connell, a well-known moral theologian at Catholic University in the 1950s, who addressed the question of hearing Mass over the radio:

“One may participate in the benefits of the Mass without being actually present — namely, by directing one’s intention and devotion to the sacred rite. By hearing Mass over the radio one can certainly foster his devotion, and thus profit considerably from the offering of the Holy Sacrifice. Indeed, it could happen that one who participates in the Holy Sacrifice in this manner will gain much more benefit than many of those who are actually present.” (Father Connell Answers Moral Questions [Washington: CUA 1959] 75–6)

So, in these days when true Masses offered by real priests are few and far between, Catholics can at least have the consolation of knowing that a facet of modern technology so often used for evil can also be used to foster their own devotion — and indeed, to bring to them the benefits of a true Mass, wherever it is offered.

Deo gratias!

Link for
Sundays: 7.30, 9.00, 11.30 am, 5.45 pm EST
School Days: 11.20 am with children’s sermon
Filed in Canon Law, Liturgy: Misc, Moral Questions | | Comments (0)

Baptism of Desire = Perfect Charity or Contrition

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

QUESTION: On the subject of baptism of desire and blood, when I question the subject on one traditional website to a priest and say I believe in it, I am told I am in heresy. If I tell a priest on another traditional website that I am against it, he tells me I am in heresy.

I am very serious. I don’t know what to believe any more on the subject. If only I knew the complete truth, I would not doubt it at all. Never in my whole life, have I ever doubted the smallest thing I was taught concerning my faith.

What about the doctrine, “Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation”? I was taught that if fallen-away Catholics did not return to the Church before they died they went to hell; that Protestants, Moslems, Jews, etc. went to hell if they did not come into the Church before they died; that if God wanted a soul to be saved, He sent a “preacher” to him to lead him into the Catholic Church. I was taught of the importance of going out and seeking souls to lead to the truth of the Catholic Church. I am not sure of even this part of my faith I was taught as a child.

The last five popes say that you don’t have to be in the Catholic Church to be saved, that protestants, Jews and others don’t need to be converted before they die, etc.

If what I was taught in regards to this doctrine was false, then I wonder what else I could have been taught as a child was wrong. Maybe I don’t know my Catholic faith at all. Can you understand the dilemma I feel?

I have always accepted everything I was taught as a child about my faith without the least question or doubt, and I could not tolerate those who did not believe without question. I could accept baptism of blood and desire as the truth, if I knew it was really the truth.

RESPONSE: Don’t feel bad if you don’t remember everything you were taught. No one can do that!

Baptism of desire and baptism of blood were indeed taught in the old catechisms. This is one of the indications that a teaching belongs to the universal ordinary magisterium, and hence, Catholics are obliged to adhere to it.

No Catholic theologian teaches that these doctrines contradict the teaching “Outside the Church, no salvation.”

Q: So you are telling me it is correct to believe in baptism of desire and blood and it does not go against the doctrine “outside the Catholic church there is no salvation?

R: That is correct. It does not. The same theologians who teach one doctrine also teach the other.

Q: So those souls such as protestants, Jews, etc. that God does not put in contact with the true Faith go to heaven if they live good lives according to their religion?

Isn’t this one of the heresies Benedict XVI is teaching, saying that the protestants, Jews, etc. do not need to convert to the Catholic faith?

R: You misunderstand. This is not baptism of desire, and that is not what the doctrine means.

Here is an explanation of baptism of desire from the pre-Vatican II theologian, Father Felix Cappello:

“The term baptism of the spirit or of desire [flaminis seu desiderii] means an act of perfect charity or contrition, with at least an implicit wish for the sacrament. ‘For the heart of a man,’ says St. Thomas, ‘is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe and love God, and repent of its sins.’

“Thus, baptism of desire serves to justify a man in place of baptism properly speaking, for (as our treatise On Penance says) outside of the sacrament actually received, perfect contrition is in itself [per se] an immediate disposition for justification…

“… baptism of desire [in voto] takes place when at least the implicit intention to receive it [the sacrament of baptism] is present; this intention is contained in the act of charity or contrition, insofar as it is a general will to fulfill all divine commandments and to employ all means divinely instituted as necessary for salvation.” (Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, 4th ed. [Rome: 1945] 1:110, 112.)

Baptism of desire, in other words, is equated with perfect charity or perfect contrition.

Q: What happened to the concept that we must go out and convert protestants, Jews, etc. to the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. In my early years, God sent me to many souls to “preach” to to lead them to the Cathoic Church.

R: Obviously, we’re still obliged to do this.

After all, how many Catholics, still less non-Catholics, have perfect contrition?

So, the missionary apostolate of preaching and converting souls to the one, true faith must ever continue.

Filed in Sacraments, Trad Controversies | | Comments (0)

Juan Fernandez Krohn, “Papal Assassin,” and SSPX

Sunday, October 19, 2008

The recent revelation by Cardinal Dziwisz that John Paul II was actually wounded during an attempt on his life at Fatima in May 1982 raised a number of questions in the blogsphere about the would-be assassin, the Rev. Juan Fernandez Krohn, and about Fr. Krohn’s relationship with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).

It has been said, variously, that Fr. Krohn was not affiliated with or active in SSPX at the time of the assassination attempt, that he was only in SSPX for a short time, that he was a sedevacantist, that he had been expelled from SSPX, that he was part of the Vatican II church at the time of the attack, etc.

For the record, here are a few of my observations:

During the years 1975-77, I was at the SSPX seminary in Ecône, Switzerland, and Juan Fernandez Krohn lived a few doors down the hall from me. He was ordained the year after me, in 1978.

He was a pleasant enough fellow (if a bit tightly wound), belonged to the hard-liner faction (as did I), and was known among the English-speakers as “JFK.” To those of us hard-liners who were occasionally given to making clever remarks (I will name no names here…) he once famously said: Soyez serieux! La situation est grave! (Be serious. The situation is grave.)

As a seminarian, Bishop Daniel Dolan was part of the same hard-liner faction. Of Juan Fernandez, he always says, “He had no sense of humor.”

JFK was also rather clumsy, which caused him to make a memorable debut as thurifer. This probably also explains why he only succeeded in wounding John Paul II with the bayonet.

Anyone who personally knew an assassin is expected to recount an anecdote to prove how weird the fellow was. The only one I can come up with for JFK is this: He took a shower every day — but that was weird only because most seminarians at Ecône were French.

On the day the assassination attempt took place, I was still a member of the Society of St. Pius X, and resided at its Northeast District headquarters at Oyster Bay Cove, New York. When the news arrived, I was suddenly confronted with the difficult task of figuring out what in the world to say to the press.

I phoned Fr. Denis Roch, the SSPX Bursar General, to ask about what Fernandez’s status was with SSPX. Fr. Roch assured me that even though Fr. Fernandez had been ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre, he was NOT affiliated with the Society and had been expelled.

I immediately prepared a press release based on this information, and promptly drove in to New York City to deliver it to the offices of The New York Times. So, even decades later, whenever the story of the May 1982 assassination attempt pops up in the U.S. press, so does the “fact” that Fr. Fernandez had been expelled from SSPX, and that was no longer affiliated with the organization at the time of the attempt.

Several months later, however, some priestly colleagues in France sent me evidence that the story I had been given by Fr. Roch and passed along to the Times was a fabrication. The Sunday before the assassination attempt, Fr. Fernandez’s name was listed on the masthead of the bulletin for an SSPX priory in France, where (it turned out) he had lived and engaged in priestly ministry.

The day he departed for Fatima to assassinate John Paul II, Fr. Fernandez left a note for the local SSPX superior saying simply that he would not be back for dinner.

The fig-leaf for the story that Fr. Fernandez was no longer a member of SSPX, I learned, was based on the notion that his “engagement” with the Society had “voluntarily terminated” on December 8, 1980. (This was also in one of the documents SSPX later produced during our litigation with them.) My informants from France, however, said that SSPX had done this “retroactively” to save face.

Juan Fernandez Krohn, obviously, had developed some deep personal problems. But it always struck me as singularly heartless that his fellow priests engaged in such an elaborate ruse in order to disavow any connection with him for the sake of public relations.

Filed in SSPX: Misc, Trad Controversies | | Comments (2)

The ’68 Consecration Rite and Lutheran Orders

Friday, June 27, 2008

ON JUNE 26, 2008, the conservative Novus Ordo website Rorate Coeli published an article criticizing those modernist theologians who promote the notion that Lutheran ministers may indeed possess valid apostolic succession. (This would mean that the sacraments they confer are all valid.)

This came on the heels of Rorate’s 14 June 2008 article, “Got a Revolution, Got to Revolution,” a withering critique of the modernist innovations in the 1968 ordination rites promulgated by Paul VI. The article alluded to the controversy over the new form for episcopal consecration, which, as I have demonstrated in my study “Absolutely Null and Utterly Void” does not sufficiently specify the order being conferred and therefore renders the whole rite invalid. A 17 June article by Brother Ansgar Santogrossi OSB went on to defend the new form on grounds of “context.”

Now all this is a very interesting juxtaposition, because the principles of post-Vatican II sacramental theology do indeed seem to allow its adherents to maintain that Lutheran orders are valid.

The reason is that the notion of a readily-identifiable essential sacramental form has been replaced with “context” — in the “particular church” or community, and in the sacramental rite itself.

This principle is the basis for the Vatican’s 2001 statement declaring valid an Assyrian anaphora (canon) that contained no words of consecration. General drift and context were sufficient.

(For a discussion, see Bishop Sanborn’s article “O Sacrament Unholy“.)

At the time, members of the modernist theological establishment pointed out that the document could be used as a starting point to declare protestant orders valid.

This “context” argument, of course, seems to be the same one Br. Ansgar used in his earlier thread to defend the validity of the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration — if “spiritus principalis” in the essential form is vague, well, the “context” makes it specific.

All of this, though, is impossible to reconcile to the standard principles of pre-Vatican II sacramental theology.

Might as well just admit that the old rules don’t apply.

Filed in Epis Cons: '68 Rite, Sacraments | | Comments (0)

An Ex-Sede, the Motu Mass and Refusing Sacraments

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

A CASE TO RESOLVE: Father Romanus, a sedevacantist, is asked to offer Mass for and address a small gathering of traditionalists in another state. The topic of his address: Why one should not actively participate in “una cum” Masses — that is, Masses at which the name of Benedict XVI is put into the first prayer of the Canon. (These include Latin Masses offered under the aegis of Benedict XVI’s 2007 Motu Proprio, as well as those offered by such groups as the Fraternity of St. Peter and the Society of St. Pius X.)

As Father Romanus is preparing the temporary altar for Mass, Titus arrives and announces his intention to listen to the address and then assist at the Mass.

Titus was raised in a large and somewhat prominent traditionalist family and is known to all present. For many years, Titus, together with his wife and children, traveled a great distance to assist at the Mass of Fr. Romanus, and was to all appearances, a convinced and highly articulate sedevacantist.

He and his family, however, tired of the travel, and under the influence of “conservative” Catholics in their area, began to assist regularly at the Indult, later, the Motu Mass.

Fr. Romanus and his colleagues repeatedly and with considerable patience explained to Titus why this course of action was wrong and attempted to dissuade him.

These efforts, alas, were to no avail, and sad news of the defection of Titus spread to members of Fr. Romanus’ congregation. Indeed, the story was known to most of the traditionalists present at the gathering at which Titus had unexpectedly arrived.

Fr. Romanus informed Titus privately that he commits a mortal sin by taking himself and his family to the Motu Mass, and that Fr. Romanus was therefore obliged to deny him the sacraments.

Titus became indignant, and accused Fr. Romanus of being “like the St. Pius V Society,” which on spurious grounds publicly withholds the sacraments from various categories of traditional Catholics.

Was the course of action of Fr. Romanus justified in this case?

RESPONSE: Based on the general principles of moral theology governing the refusal of sacraments to the unworthy and upon the facts of this particular case, yes.

.
I. PRINCIPLES.
—————————————

The canonist Cappello lays down the following general principle:

“The minister of a sacrament is bound per se under pain of mortal sin to deny sacraments to the unworthy … because they cannot obtain its effect, since they are in the state of mortal sin without the will to amend.…”

“Sacraments must be denied to a public sinner, whether he asks for them publicly or secretly. The reason is that in this case, a reason for administering sacraments is lacking; indeed, administering the sacraments would give grave scandal to the faithful.

“A public sinner is one whose unworthiness becomes common knowledge.…

“Per se and ordinarily speaking, two things are required for someone to be considered a public sinner: (1) That the sin be grave. (2) That it be continuous and persevering, either by reason of the type of sin itself or at least by reason of the scandal that proceeds from it.” (De Sacramentis 1:58, 63. Cappello’s italics and bold.)

As some examples, Cappello gives concubinage, murder and neglect of Paschal communion or confession, when it is publicly known.

.
II. APPLICATION:
—————————————

As regards how the foregoing applies to the case of Titus:

(1) Gravity of Sin: Titus’s active assistance at the Motu Mass, among other things, (a) affirms that a sacrilegious and invalid rite (the Novus Ordo) is the “Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite,” (b) affirms that a false religion (that of Vatican II) is the religion founded by Jesus Christ, (c) places his family in a proximate occasion of mortal sin against the faith.

These acts are grave sins against religion, faith and charity.

To this is added the grave sin of scandal — “a word or deed (whether of commission or omission) that (1) is itself evil, OR (2) has the appearance of evil, AND (3) provides an occasion of sin for another.” (Prümmer, Moral Theology, 230.)

Other Catholics, knowing that Titus comes from a well-known traditionalist family would conclude that assistance at a Motu Mass is not only permissible but laudable for a Catholic — and thus be induced to imitate his sin.

(2) Continuous and Persevering: Titus’s assistance at the Motu was not simply one-time or occasional, but continued and persevered.

(3) Public: His participation at the Motu Mass is not simply known to a few, but it is somewhat widely known.

(4) Aggravating Circumstances: The point of the address that Fr. Romanus intended to give was to explain why it is wrong to participate in una cum Masses. To have administered sacraments to Titus, especially under those circumstances, would not only have condoned Titus’s sinful example, but also contradicted the principles Fr. Romanus intended to explain.

(5) Imputability: While many (if not most) who assist at the Motu Mass may do so in good faith or out of ignorance of the issues, such excuses would not hold in the case of Titus. He is intelligent, clearly understood the issues, and has had the principles explained clearly to him many, many times.

.
III. CONCLUSION.
—————————————–

For the foregoing reasons, Fr. Romanus was obliged to refuse the sacraments to Titus.

* * *

SOME lay Catholics may find the mere mention of such a conclusion to be distressing. And it will set a-chattering a few lay controversialists who maintain that any valid Latin Mass is just fine, and that for the administration of sacraments, the Prime Directive is “the consumer is king.”

But here the priest is merely doing his job by applying to a particular case the principles of moral theology and canon law that he learned in the seminary and that he applies every day. He is supposed to judge the morality of acts — to separate right from wrong — and then instruct the layman to act accordingly. If this is not the priest’s job, whose is it?

Finally, just as appealing to the correct principle “Outside the Church, no salvation” almost inevitably leads to the accusation that one is a “Feeneyite,” so too, appealing to and applying correct principles about the refusal of sacraments leads to accusations of being “like the St. Pius V Society.”

But such accusations are merely emotional appeals based on honest misunderstandings (or in a few cases, cynical manipulation), rather than real arguments that are based on objective principles in theology or canon law.

That ignorant clergy consistently misapply the Church’s rules for refusing the sacraments does not make these rules the exclusive property of the ignorant and then suspend their application to all other cases.

There are, in fact, situations in which these principles oblige a priest to refuse to administer sacraments to someone. And the case under discussion, alas, is one of them.

Filed in Canon Law, Trad Controversies | | Comments (0)

Ratzinger, Reverence and the Epistle Babe

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

IS BENEDICT XVI launching a liturgical reform to restore tradition and reverence in Catholic worship? Having permitted the use of the ’62 Missal as the “Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite,” is he now trying to make New Mass itself “more traditional”?

Conservative bloggers who devote themselves following liturgical matters in the post-Vatican II Church would answer yes, and they are positively ecstatic.

Members of this group refer to themselves as a “new liturgical movement” and call for “a reform of the reform,” by which they mean a reworking of the Novus Ordo.

Recently they have started to attach great significance to the reappearance of traditional accoutrements in the various Vatican ceremonies that Benedict XVI presides over. An eye-popping jeweled miter on Ratzinger’s head, a Baroque morse (cope clasp) on his chest, or an ornate Pius XII-era throne behind him sets them buzzing in the blogsphere like little Barberini bees.

Another cause for excitement among the restorationists was the appointment of new Vatican Master of Ceremonies with conservative street cred, Mgr Marini. He replaces the JP2-era MC (also named Marini) who had started out as secretary to Bugnini, the principal creator of the New Mass. The “old” Marini favored liturgical theatrics of the “progressive” variety. The new one favors lace surplices. (!)

According to the bloggers, the way Benedict XVI celebrates the New Mass at the Vatican is proof that the great restoration has already begun. Ratzinger is giving us an example and showing us the new liturgical model. Chant is accorded “pride of place,” significant portions of the rite are in Latin, and the celebrant conducts himself a restrained and dignified fashion.

It is, we are assured, a return to tradition in the Roman Rite. Or is it?

To test this out, I decided to watch a re-broadcast of the Christmas Midnight Mass that Benedict XVI celebrated this year in St. Peter’s.

To a layman who goes to a garden-variety Novus Ordo in a standard suburban American parish or to a neo-con diocesan priest persecuted by his Ordinary, I can see how Ratzinger’s Latin-laced Midnight Mass would seem like Roman-Rite retro and the absolute apex of liturgical tradition.

But what Mgr Marini had on offer certainly didn’t bowl me over.

It was Christmas evening, and I had just returned from more than 24 hours’ worth of Christmas liturgical celebrations conducted according to the real Roman Rite: Prime, Vigil Mass, First Vespers, Matins, Solemn Pontifical Mass, Lauds, Low Masses and Second Vespers. I have not only performed most of these ceremonies for decades, but also taught seminary courses on the history and meaning of their prayers and ceremonial. I also teach another course on problems with the Novus Ordo itself.

From this perspective, Benedict XVI’s Midnight Mass was nothing more than rehash, albeit more staid, of the same old modernist assembly-supper. Here are my impressions.

Baroque Miter, Twisted Lizard…

The various pre-Vatican II liturgical furnishings are indeed now used in St. Peter’s once again. For Christmas, the high altar was decked out with a magnificent frontal, and a crucifix stood in the center. The stubby Paul VI candlesticks have been replaced with glorious old-fashioned Baroque ones — including a seventh, which in the old rite was a privilege reserved to Ordinaries. The latter will be especially thrilling for true devotees of Tridentine arcana.

Benedict XVI processed into the Basilica wearing (gasp!) a jeweled miter.

Alas, he was also carrying The Twisted Lizard. This item is a creepy modern “crucifix” staff first employed by Paul VI, and then used in Vatican ceremonies by all his successors. I consider it utterly diabolical.

Once the horde of concelebrants who preceded him had kissed the altar, Benedict incensed it and went to his presidential chair, which had been set up in front of the altar to face the people.

After the Sign of the Cross and a Pax vobis, he read a short vernacular instruction to the people. This is one of the many inventions the modernists introduced into the Mass in order to make it “instructional.” Needless to say, Pontifical Mass in the old rite contains no such thing.

An Invented Rite, an “Edited” Text…

Next, instead of the Novus Ordo equivalent of the Confiteor and the Kyrie, a hokey rite made up especially for Christmas was inserted. This consisted of an “edited” version of the proclamation of the birth of Christ that appeared in the pre-Vatican II Martyrology. Indeed, I had chanted the traditional version the previous day at the Office of Prime.

I’m sure that the restorationists thought this rite was very grand. But removing a part of the Ordinary of the Mass and dumping in a chunk of the Divine Office is pure Vatican II stuff — “needless duplications must be eliminated,” the Council told us.

The text sung at Ratzinger’s Mass, moreover, omitted the phrases from the traditional text about the number of years from Creation, the Flood, etc. Such cannot be reconciled with modernist scripture scholarship, so, tradition be damned. At least they didn’t put in Darwin…

More Invented Stuff…

Ratzinger intoned the Gloria, and presto, another invented rite was interpolated. This time, kids carrying flowers and dressed in cutesy national costumes appeared at the head of a procession, followed by a deacon carrying a Christ Child and wearing a dazzling embroidered dalmatic. The Child was placed in a little shrine, and the kids did something (I forget what) with the flowers — a nice devotional touch, to be sure, but none of it a part of the traditional liturgy.

The Gloria was then sung. The congregation sang bits of the Mass of the Angels in Latin, while the choir chimed in with a fancy musical setting that sounded like a toothpaste commercial. (Really.) At the end, Benedict chanted the Collect in Latin.

Inert at the Chair…

Next came the New Mass’s Liturgy of the Word, during which (unlike the traditional rite) the presider sits mute and inert at his chair. (Others have taken over the jobs he used to do.) All of it was conducted, as required, facing the people, because these bits of the Novus Ordo are supposed to be particularly instructional.

A layman in a suit appeared at the lectern, and proclaimed the First Reading in Spanish.

His place was then taken by a cantor in an alb, who led the congregation in singing the Responsorial Psalm, alternating with them in a hammy voice for the verses. The Responsorial that appears in the Novus Ordo is another post-Vatican II innovation that did not exist in the traditional rite.

And Subbing for the Subdeacon…

Then, to proclaim the Second Reading, there appeared not the Apostolic Subdeacon of days gone by, but that distinguished liturgical functionary who now adorns every post-Vatican II “Papal Mass”: the Epistle Babe

The Epistle Babe this year was young, American and good-looking enough to more than merit her title. There, before the high altar of the greatest church in Christendom, in a basilica packed with prelates of every description, she giggled and smiled her way through a positively perky rendition of the Epistle in English.

Great performance, honey! Glad you’re onboard as the Holy Father and the lace-surpliced Mgr Marini restore our sense of the sacred…

A Missed Opportunity?

Then came the chanting of an Alleluia and the Gospel procession, conducted in a fashion that more or less resembled the traditional rite. The deacon, vested in another dalmatic that would send “reform of the reform” bloggers into a swoon, chanted the Gospel magnificently in Latin.

One element of pre-Vatican II liturgical tradition, however, was overlooked here. When the deacon sings the Gospel in the traditional rite, the book is held open for him by the sacred minister who proclaimed the Epistle. In the new rite, of course, this would be the Epistle Babe…

After the Gospel, Benedict delivered his homily. This had a good, clever opening, but eventually meandered around to offering the obligatory grain of incense to ecology. (His pal, the Archbishop of Canterbury, did the same.)

Line Up at the Lectern…

The congregation then chanted the Credo. According to the new rules, it’s never supposed to be sung by the choir alone, so bye-bye Palestrina.

Then came another made-up part of the Novus Ordo: The Prayer of the Faithful.

Ratzinger read the Introduction — another didactic “instruction” — and a gaggle of lay men and women lined up at the lectern. Each delivered one trendy petition in his or her native language.

This is a hokey bit of theatre, invented to make for “relevant” liturgy, and in this context, to demonstrate that “the Church is universal.” Making the latter point, of course, required no such theatrics when Catholics everywhere used Latin, period.

I advise restorationists to spare me the canard that the Prayer of the Faithful is a restoration of an ancient practice. Litanies were led by deacons in the primitive Church, not divvied up and parceled out to women.

And as for trendy petitions, I’d like to sneak into one of these Prayer of the Faithful conga lines and lay on Marini and Ratzinger a real text used by the primitive Church at this point in the liturgy:

“Let the heretic now depart! Let the Jew now depart! Let the pagan now depart!”

More Cutesy Stuff…

The Offertory Procession, another bit of didactic and empty post-Vatican II symbolism followed. The cutesy kids in costumes appeared with the “gifts” they had gotten from Benedict’s sacristan thirty seconds earlier, and presented them to Benedict. Remember how one of the characteristics of the liturgical reform was supposed to be “authenticity”? An uncomfortable moment occurred when the tots didn’t want to leave; the Laced One eventually stepped up and shooed them off.

The Preparation of the Gifts was standard, stripped down, Novus Ordo version.

Ratzinger, however, recited prayers to himself as he circled the altar. Now, the Paul VI Missal abolished the old prayers, and prescribed that the incensation be done in silence. I suspect, therefore, that the restorationist bloggers are now desperately searching for Latin-speaking lip readers in hopes of discovering that, yes, it was indeed the incensation prayers from the Tridentine Missal (!!) that the Benedict was using…

On the down side, Mgr Marini missed yet another opportunity here to restore a Tridentine practice. Before the Offertory incensation in the old rite, the subdeacon has a humeral veil placed over his shoulders, receives the paten and goes to stand at the foot of the steps, there to hold the paten at eye level.

Perhaps this job, too, could have been handed over to the Epistle Babe… another “overflow” from the Extraordinary Rite!

The whole congregation responded in Latin to the Orate Fratres. In both its origins and in the Tridentine rite, however, this prayer was recited in a low voice exclusively by the clergy at the altar.

Lots of Latin, Loudly…

The Prayer over the Gifts (formerly the Secret), the Preface, the Eucharistic Prayer (the Canon), Our Father, Libera Nos, Pax Prayer, Communion Prayers, etc., were all chanted or recited aloud in Latin.

The Eucharistic Prayer was No. 1, which the restorationists think of as “the old Roman Canon.” In fact, the modernists changed the text in 1969 to bring what they called the Institution Narrative (formerly, the Consecration) into line with the other Eucharistic Prayers they had cooked up. They popped an “acclamation” into the Canon after the Institution Narrative.

Restorationists and most laymen hear all this Latin recited aloud, and think it’s the sound of Benedict XVI turning back clock to the old rite. My perspective, needless to say, is quite a bit different.

All these prayers are recited aloud because of the new theology of the liturgy embodied by the Novus Ordo. The old liturgy, said Father Martin Patino (a member of Study Group 10, that actually formulated the new Ordinary itself) was theocentric (God-centered); the new rite, he said, was anthropocentric (man-centered) instead.

In the old rite under the old theology, it didn’t matter whether the faithful heard all the prayers or not. God did. In the new rite, based on a new theology, hearing everything matters. You’re being “instructed,” and it centers on you, man!

Hence, Benedict must chirp out every last word so you can hear it, even if it is in Latin. If he wanted to be traditional, he’d turn the microphones off after the Preface and shut up.

Some Official Inventions…

Also not traditional and a Vatican II invention: concelebration. Parts of the text of the Canon are assigned to different concelebrants, who then bark them out on cue. The idea, I supposed, is to be egalitarian (all just priests here, folks!) and to engage the interest of the congregation, which is being instructed by long blocks of text recited aloud at them.

Another weird feature was the procedure for consecrating hosts at a service in which everyone (or nearly, it seems) receives communion. The ciboria were not placed on the altar. Instead crowds of priests wearing stoles and holding ciboria stood several yards away from the altar on either side at the bottom of the steps.

The balance of the rite was a standard by-the-book Novus Ordo: Luther’s “for thine is the kingdom” after the Libera Nos, the non-hierarchical Sign of Peace, the priest’s and people’s communion lumped together, and the rest. That those who perform these protestant assembly-supper rituals should now be considered “traditional” because they conduct them in Latin shows how far the Roman Liturgy and the understanding thereof has fallen.

Two other general comments are in order.

First, in the traditional rite, a priest or a bishop is the anonymous functionary. He’s supposed to keep his eyes lowered when he’s moving, sitting, or turned in the direction of the congregation.

Like JP2, Ratzinger has no custody of the eyes. Given the character of the New Mass — man-centered — I suppose that this is not particularly surprising.

Second, though the restorationists had expressed their enthusiasm over the appointment of a new Vatican music director, the choir at the Midnight Mass was horrible. The boys and men have a rough and raw sound that comes through in every piece.

The organist wasn’t much better. Once Ratzinger departed, Twisted Lizard in hand, the organist slowly trudged through Widor’s F-Major Toccata, an old warhorse that’s meant to be played brilliantly at a breakneck speed.

The bottom line on the whole production: The same old New Mass with a few new old trimmings. Neo-Tridentine? A restoration of tradition? You’re kidding yourself.

But Seriously…

Now, I’ve had quite a bit of fun thus far — an inordinate amount, some steely-eyed Dominican moral theologian might insist — at the expense of the reform-of-the-reform and restorationist enthusiasts.

Underneath it all, however, my point is a serious one: the Mass of Paul VI cannot be “redeemed” by tacking onto it various externals from the traditional rite. It is incongruous and absurd to do so because, as Paul VI’s Secretary of State, Mgr Benelli, remarked during the controversy with Archbishop Lefebvre in the 1970s, the old Mass represents “another ecclesiology.”

That ecclesiology was hierarchical. Vatican II swept it away, and substituted the fuzzy ecclesiology of Church as “sacrament,” “mystery,” “communion” and “People of God.”

The New Mass is a product of that new, ecumenical ecclesiology, and indeed a whole new theology. To get excited when the rite is dressed up with lace, embroidered dalmatics and the seventh candlestick is to fall into the trap of High Church let’s-pretend. The old doctrine is gone.

Besides, by permitting the Motu Mass, Ratzinger will now let you play that game with most of the old tea set anyway.

Whether you opt for the “Ordinary” or the “Extraordinary” Rite, though, one rubric still remains non-negotiable: You must adhere to Vatican II and the ecumenical One-World church it created.

But as long as clerics still cling to the myth that Vatican II was a “new springtime” that needs nothing more than to be interpreted correctly, the downward spiral will continue in the Conciliar Church, and no amount of ritual frippery, whether ordinary or extraordinary, will stop it.

So, as far as I’m concerned, the only Vatican ceremony worth getting excited over in the future will be the one in which the MCs get out all the copies of the Vatican II documents they can find, pile ‘em high in St. Peter’s Square and douse the lot of them with gasoline.

Who’d light the match? I’d even let the Epistle Babe do it…

Filed in Benedict XVI, Liturgy: Misc | | Comments Off on Ratzinger, Reverence and the Epistle Babe

The St. Michael Prayer: A “Falsified” Text?

Monday, November 12, 2007

ONE STORY that periodically resurfaces in traditionalist circles alleges that the St. Michael Prayer, recited after the traditional Mass in many places as a part of the Leonine Prayers, is a “falsified” version of a longer prayer written by Leo XIII. The longer prayer, the story goes, warned that Judaeo-Masonic infiltrators would achieve their long-time goal of usurping the papal chair; for this reason conspirators “censored” it twice after Leo’s death. (See Gary Giuffré, “Exile of the Pope-Elect, Part VII: Warnings from Heaven Suppressed,” Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes 69–70 [1991], 4–7)

This is the sort of juicy tale that certain types on the traditional Catholic scene really love to promote. It incorporates some familiar elements: private revelations, infiltrators, altered documents, a deceived pontiff, and prophecies of an evil intruder sitting on the Chair of Peter. For those who understand how the enemies of the Church operate, parts of the account may sound plausible at first. It also (as book reviewers love to say) makes for “a rollicking good read.”

Unfortunately, it is the type of conspiracy story which exposes traditional Catholics to ridicule — because when you look closely at the facts adduced as “proof” for a conspiracy, you discover that the story’s originators managed to get just about everything wrong.

.

TWO PRAYERS: 1886 AND 1888
————————————————————-

The promoters of the falsified text theory begin with an absolutely fatal error. The Latin text of the St. Michael Prayer we all know so well was published in 1886. (See Irish Ecclesiastical Review 7 [1886], 1050.)

The text that they claim was the origin of our St. Michael Prayer, however, in fact appeared two years later when, on 25 September 1888, Pope Leo XIII approved a prayer to St. Michael the Archangel and granted an indulgence of 300 days for its recitation. (For the Italian text, see Enchiridion Indulgentiarum [Vatican: 1950)], 446.) This text was in fact a completely new prayer.

Like the 1886 text, the 1888 prayer also invokes St. Michael’s aid us in our warfare against the devil. But it is a very lengthy text, filled with line after line of vivid and striking imagery about the devil and his minions.

The prayer describes the devil as one who pours out on “men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity.” Of these servants of Satan, the prayer adds:

“These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions.”

The prayer then expands upon this description with the following:

“In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of the abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered. (tr. A. St. John, Raccolta, 11th ed, [London: 1930] 407.)

These two passages, needless to say, are the ones which the censored text theorists claim “predict” the effects of Vatican II.

After its approval, the 1888 text was at some point included in The Raccolta (the Church’s official collection of indulgenced prayers).

.

THE 1890 EXORCISM AGAINST SATAN
———————————————————————–

In an audience two years later, moreover, Leo XIII approved a new and lengthy “Exorcism against Satan and Apostate Angels,” intended to be used by bishops and by priests who received special permission from their ordinaries. (See SCPF, ex aud. SSmi., 18 May 1890, AAS 23 [1890–91], 747.)

This rite employed the 1888 prayer to St. Michael, including the two pas-sages quoted above, as sort of a preface to a series of prayers of exorcism. (See SCPF “Exorcismus…, AAS 23 [1890–91], 743–4.) The rite was then incorporated into the Appendix of The Roman Ritual (the book containing the official texts for sacramental rites and various blessings) among the more recent (novissimae) blessings. (See Rituale Romanum, 6th ed. [Ratisbon: 1898], 163*ff.)

.

SUBSEQUENT OMISSIONS
——————————————————–

Later editions of The Raccolta omitted the conclusion of the 1888 prayer, beginning with the passage which spoke of the “throne of abominable impiety” raised where the See of Peter stood.

Later editions of The Roman Ritual went even further: they omitted not only that passage, but also the one referring those who have laid impious hands on the Church’s most sacred possessions. Other passages were deleted as well, leaving only about one-third of the 1888 text. (See the Appendix below.)

.

THE “CONSPIRACY” EXPLAINED
——————————————————–

Now, having misidentified an 1888 prayer as the antecedent to an 1886 prayer, the proponents of the censored-text theory contend that unnamed infiltrators in the Vatican, fearing exposure of their plot to seize control of the See of Peter, stealthily deleted these passages from the Raccolta and the Ritual after Leo’s death.

All of it is nonsense.

(1) Pope Dead? Pope Alive! The passages were not removed after Leo XIII’s death. They were already suppressed in 1902 — a year and a half before the pontiff died.

(2) Mysterious Author? A Public Document! This suppression was not, as we are told, an “ambiguous forgery” perpetrated “mysteriously” by some “unnamed Vatican official.”

The Sacred Congregation of Rites, in consultation with the Congregation for Indulgences, revised the 1888 prayer and issued a new edition. This was printed in 1902, bearing the seal of the Congregation’s Prefect, Cardinal Ferrata, and the signature of the Congregation’s Secretary, Archbishop D. Panici, and his attestation that is “agrees with the original.” (See supplementary material bound into back of Pustet Rituale Romanum, 6th ed., [1898].)

(3) The Future? The Past! The passages in question, please note, were not written in the future tense, as one would expect for a prophecy. They were written in the past tense, and thus referred to events which had already taken place in 1888.

(4) Crafty Enemies? Revolutionaries! To whom, then, do the passages refer? One has but to look to the situation the Pope faced in Italy in the late 1880s.

The “crafty enemies” of the Church who “laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions” were none other than the revolutionaries who (as we have seen above) invaded the Papal States and despoiled the Church’s properties.

(5) Throne of Impiety? The King of Italy! And the “throne of abominable impiety“ raised up in “the Holy Place itself, where there has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of truth for the light of the world”? This was the throne of the King of Italy, set up in the Quirinale Palace.

Prior to its seizure 1870 by the excommunicated King of Italy, Victor Emmanuel, the Quirinale was the principal papal palace in Rome. It was the customary location for papal conclaves. It was also one of the places where the pope had held court, sitting, of course, on a throne — the “Chair of truth for the light of the world.”

When the 1888 prayer was composed, the throne of a usurping and excommunicated monarch then stood in this palace which had been stolen from the the pope. So — throne of impiety!

(6) Changed Texts? Changed Politics! Why, finally, were the texts altered toward the end of the Leo’s reign? Again, we look to historical situation.

By 1902 Leo XIII had been carrying on secret negotiations for years with the new King, Umberto. The King at one point ap-peared willing to return a substantial part of the city of Rome to the Pope’s control — a proposal that could have infuriated Parliament enough to call for the King’s deposition. (See E. Jarry, “Les États Pontificaux,” Tu es Petrus [Paris: 1934)] 610) Had Umberto made such a risky concession, he would have expected (and received) official recognition of his status from the Pope. (This finally came with the Lateran Treaty in 1929)

Further references to the King in the Church’s Ritual as occupying “a throne of abominable impiety,” needless to say, would have been at odds with papal acknowledgement of the King’s legitimacy.

The prayer also linked the establishment of the King’s throne with the devil, who pours out on “men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity.” Since the King gave signs of wanting to make amends, it probably seemed appropriate to alter the prayer.

* * *

TO SUM UP, then: The lengthy 1888 prayer to St. Michael was composed after the St. Michael prayer in the Leonine Prayers appeared. The passages in the 1888 text which are supposedly “prophetic” refer in fact to the Italian government’s past actions, including seizure of the Church’s property. The “throne of impiety” was the one the excommunicated King Victor Emmanuel had set up in the “holy place” — the Quirinale Palace, where the pope’s throne had previously been.

Once the King of Italy appeared willing to arrive at a settlement of the Roman Question — the dispute over the disposition of seized Church property — the Vatican dropped from the prayer passages which he and the Italian government would have found offensive.

So while in the history of the Church we may indeed find real instances of conspiracies and falsified texts, the case of the St. Michael Prayer isn’t one of them.

Beware the too-juicy tale!

——–

APPENDIX

“Prayer to St. Michael from Exorcism against Satan and the Apostate Angels (Approved 18 May 1890.)”

NOTE: In 1902 the Congregation of Rites issued a decree approving a new version of the prayer. The passages indicated in bold face below were removed.

O GLORIOUS ARCHANGEL St Michael, Prince of the heavenly host, defend us in battle, and in the struggle which is ours against the principalities and Powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, against spirits of evil in high places. (Eph 6.) Come to the aid of men, whom God created immortal, made in his own image and likeness, and redeemed at a great price from the tyranny of the devil, (Wis 2, 1 Cor 6.)

Fight this day the battle of the Lord, together with the holy angels, as already thou hast fought the leader of the proud angels, Lucifer, and his apostate host, who were powerless to resist thee, nor was there place for them any longer in Heaven, But that cruel, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan, who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with all his angels, (Apoc 12.)

Behold, this primeval enemy and slayer of man has taken courage, Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the name of God and of his Christ, to seize upon, slay and cast into eternal perdition souls destined for the crown of eternal glory. This wicked dragon pours out, as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity.

These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions.

In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.

Arise then, O invincible prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and bring them the victory.

The Church venerates thee as protector and patron; in thee holy Church glories as her defense against the malicious powers of this world and of hell; to thee has God entrusted the souls of men to be established in heavenly beatitude.

Oh, pray to the God of peace that He may put Satan under our feet, so far conquered that he may no longer be able to hold men in captivity and harm the Church. Offer our prayers in the sight of the Most High, so that they may quickly conciliate the mercies of the Lord; and beating down the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, do thou again make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer seduce the nations.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ENCHIRIDION INDULGENTIARUM: PRECES ET PIA OPERA OMNIUM CHRISTIFIDELIUM. Vatican: Polyglot Press 1950.

GIUFFRÉ, GARY. “Exile of the Pope-Elect, Part VII: Warnings from Heaven Suppressed,” Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes 69–70 (1991). 3–11.

JARRY, E. “Les États Pontificaux.” In Tu es Petrus: Encyclopédie Populaire sur la Papauté, edited by G. Jacquemet. Paris: Bloud 1934. 551–617.

PARSONS, WILFRED SJ. The Pope and Italy. New York: America Press 1929.

RITUALE ROMANUM. 6th edition post typicam. Ratisbon: Pustet 1898.

SACRORUM RITUUM CONGREGATIO [S.R.C.]. Decree Iam Inde ab Anno, 6 January 1884, Acta Sanctae Sedis 16 (1884). 249–250.
_______________. Decree Mechlin., 31 August 1867, 3157, in Decreta Authentica.
_______________. Decreta Authentica Congregationis Sacrorum Rituum. Rome: Polyglot Press 1898.

S.C. DE PROPAGANDA FIDE. Ex audientia Sanctissimi 18 May 1890, Acta Sanctae Sedis 23 (1890–91). 747.

_______________. “Exorcismus in satanam et angelos apostaticos iussu Leonis XIII P.M. editus,” Acta Sanctae Sedis 23 (1890–91). 743–746.

SCHNÜRER, GUSTAV. “States of the Church.” The Catholic Encyclopedia, edited by Charles G. Habermann et al. New York: Enylopedia Press 1912. 14:257–268.

ST. JOHN, AMBROSE [translator]. The Raccolta or Collection of Indulgenced Prayers and Good Works. 11th edition. London: Burns Oates 1930.

The foregoing was adapted from material in another longer article, “Russia and the Leonine Prayers,” that originally appeared in Sacerdotium 5, (Autumn 1992).

Filed in Liturgy: Misc, Trad Controversies | | Comments (1)

The Traditional Mass: How We “Participate”

Friday, November 9, 2007

QUESTION: Friends who are regulars at the Novus Ordo say that they like all the participation at the service, and that they don’t like the traditional Latin Mass because it doesn’t really have much.

I tell them that there’s nothing wrong with not participating, and that it makes for more reverence. Do you have any thoughts about this?

RESPONSE: Both you and your friends are somewhat mistaken in your understanding of what “participation” is and how that takes place at the traditional Latin Mass.

Traditional Catholics tend to look upon a sacrament as primarily something the priest gives and the layman receives. The priest is active, the layman passive. The priest confers the sacrament; the lay recipient cooperates.

This paradigm does not hold, though, for assistance at Mass. The layman is meant not merely to receive something passively (grace, Holy Communion, “credit” for fulfilling his Sunday obligation, etc.), but to participate and to give something actively. What? Active worship of God, because as a result of his baptism, the layman is privileged and obliged to participate, according to his state, in offering up Holy Sacrifice.

Please note the verb: participate.

Unfortunately, during and after Vatican II, the modernists appropriated this language, corrupted its real meaning, and used it to transform the Mass into an engine for doctrinal revolution throughout the world. Thus, they turned the priest into a president, the “assembly” into the primary agent of worship, and regimented “responses” into the only permissible indicator of participation —this is where your friends got their idea — with all present pummeled into submission by the Giant Amplified Voice.

Traditionalists, therefore, are understandably skittish about any talk of how they are supposed to assist or participate actively in offering the Holy Sacrifice. Nevertheless, active assistance and participation in the Mass, understood in the correct sense, is required of every Catholic.

At the traditional Mass, how do members of the laity manifest their active assistance or participation in the Mass? There are several ways, and this list is by no means exhaustive.

(1) By receiving Holy Communion during the Mass itself.

(2) Serving Mass for the priest at the altar.

(3) Singing in the choir.

(4) Singing responses as a member of the congregation at High Mass, or singing hymns during Low Mass, where either practice is the custom.

(5) Using a Missal to follow and pray on your own the prayers of the Mass as the priest recites them at the altar.

(6) Using a book of meditations or prayers that follows the actions of the Mass.

(7) Reciting the Rosary, while looking at the sacred actions taking place at the altar.

(8) Attentively following the actions of the priest at the altar while making the customary external signs of devotion appropriate to each part of the Mass (standing, sitting, kneeling, striking your breast, making Signs of the Cross, looking up at the Sacred Host, folding your hands, etc.)

(9) Physical presence, accompanied by the intention to assist at Mass and fulfill the Sunday obligation, together with a certain degree of attention during the rite.

In one or more of the foregoing, of course, the traditionalist reader will recognize the method he employs every Sunday when he goes to Mass.

But whichever of these methods the layman chooses, it does in fact constitutes a true and active participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Filed in Liturgy: Misc | | Comments (1)

Bp. Williamson Plays Cat and Mouse

Sunday, November 4, 2007

IN HIS latest blog entry on Pascendi (St. Pius X’s great Encyclical against modernism), Bishop Richard Williamson (SSPX) once again promotes his theory that the modernists of our own days (Ratzinger and company) are not true heretics because “subjectivism unhooks their mind from reality.” See Pascendi II

It is another application of Bishop Williamson’s Mentevacantist Error which I described in an article of the same name.

In his most recent comments Bishop Williamson also uses his typical trick of suggesting (through a series of rhetorical questions) a false general principle — in this case, that modernist heretics are not responsible for their errors (and thus, we are meant to infer, they are unable to lose office):

“However the Conciliar fantasies have taken such a grip on many of today’s churchmen that the temptation arises to consider that none of them are churchmen at all, in particular the last few Popes. But ‘Pascendi’ can offer a way out of this temptation by its same teaching that subjectivism unhooks churchmen’s minds from reality. Are they fully aware of how mad they are, when virtually everyone shares in their madness? And if they are not fully aware, do they necessarily disqualify themselves as churchmen? ‘Pascendi’ suggests to me that sedevacantism is not binding.”

But Bishop Williamson then avoids the objection that would naturally follow from applying the false principle (that modernists are “let off the hook,” i.e. excused), by quickly adding that this issue is “of secondary” importance.”What is of primary importance,” he says, is saving our souls:

“By no means everyone agrees with letting the Conciliar churchmen off the hook in this way, but that is of secondary importance. Back to ‘Pascendi’ – what is of primary importance is to give glory to God and to save our souls by submitting our minds to that one objective Faith which God has revealed, and without which nobody can please God.”

Bishop Williamson has been using this particular trick for decades: False general principle, then switch to another topic before you’re smoked out.

His recently re-published seminary newsletters from the 1980s are full of it. I will offer a prize to any SSPX seminarian (anonymous, of course) who can find the most examples of it in that collection — a great exercise for the First Year Philosophy students.

Bishop Williamson’s rhetoric is dishonest and manipulative. Those who look to him as a “hard-liner” are being toyed with and led astray.

Some European brethren are now criticizing the symbolism on his episcopal coat-of-arms. Bishop Williamson should change it to a cat playing with a mouse.

Filed in SSPX: Errors | | Comments (0)