|
A typical scenario:
You listen to E.W.T.N. or Catholic Answers and have found through them that
the earliest Christians were Catholic, that Catholic dogma is not unscriptural.
You become convinced that Jesus Christ did set up a Church, that He did so
upon the rock of St. Peter, and that the gates of Hell will never prevail
against it. You are willing to intellectually assent to the eternal teachings
of the Church and truly desire to become a serious, committed Catholic who
serves and worships Our Lord Jesus Christ.
You do what most people do in this case; you call up your local parish and
get enrolled in an R.C.I.A. program. You don't hear much about Mary, the
other Saints, sin, Purgatory, or Hell. You hear very little about the Mass
as a propitiatory Sacrifice, but instead hear it described only as a "celebratory
meal." Depending on the parish you find, you may hear and see things that
seem totally contradictory to what you'd always heard the Catholic Church
teaches. Your R.C.I.A. instructor may say things like, "The Catholic Church
doesn't teach that any more since Vatican II" and may come off as religiously
indifferent, not insistent enough that the Church is Christ's Church and
that outside of Her there is no salvation.
The Masses offered seem not too unlike what you'd see at a Lutheran, "low
church" Anglican, or maybe even a Pentecostal faith community. You've always
associated "Catholic" with things like eating fish on Fridays, nuns in habits,
confessionals, and stained glass -- with things that are ancient, mysterious,
and beautiful. You look around your local parish and are wondering why nothing
you see there seems to match up.
You were expecting
this:
but got this:
| You thought
you'd see this: |
|
but see this instead:
|
 |
|
 |
Sincere Catholics speak of the absolute sacredness of Communion,
so you thought that receiving would be more like this:
than like this:
Something in you
is worried. What you are seeing and hearing in your local parish seems too
-- Protestant. Or maybe even pagan or Unitarian. Whatever it is, it
just doesn't add up. All sense of Mystery, of holiness, of ancientness, of
beauty is missing. At the very least, it's just not "Catholic enough." It
isn't reverent. It isn't holy. What is going on? How can you know
if what you're being taught is truly Catholic if the "spirit" of your
parish isn't Catholic? What has happened to the human element of the
Church?
What Happened
Ever since the
time of the so-called "Enlightenment" and up to the mid-twentieth century,
Popes warned us with increasingly greater fervor against the enemies of the
Church. From Pope Gregory XVI's
Mirari
Vos (1832), to Leo XIII's
Humanum
Genus (1884), to Pope Pius XI's
Divini
Redemptoris (1937), to Pope Pius XII's
Humani
Generis (1950), we have been warned that the Church has enemies, and
that their errors are spreading. These errors -- whose roots go back to the
Mystery of the "Synagogue of Satan" of the Apocalypse -- began to germinate
during the so-called "Enlightenment" and are summed up by the word "Modernism."
Called the "synthesis of all heresies" by Pope St. Pius X, Modernism is
summarized in the Catholic Encyclopedia thus:
-
A spirit of complete
emancipation, tending to weaken ecclesiastical authority; the emancipation
of science, which must traverse every field of investigation without fear
of conflict with the Church; the emancipation of the State, which should
never be hampered by religious authority; the emancipation of the private
conscience whose inspirations must not be overridden by papal definitions
or anathemas; the emancipation of the universal conscience, with which the
Church should be ever in agreement;
-
A spirit of movement
and change, with an inclination to a sweeping form of evolution such as abhors
anything fixed and stationary;
-
A spirit of
reconciliation among all men through the feelings of the heart. Many and
varied also are the modernist dreams of an understanding between the different
Christian religions, nay, even between religion and a species of atheism,
and all on a basis of agreement that must be superior to mere doctrinal
differences.
The adherents of
these ideas gained more and more power over time, fueled by Masonry and taking
on guises as apparently disparate as usurious Capitalism and Communism.
Most importantly, the Modernist enemies of Christ have even infiltrated into
the human element of the Church itself. Pope St. Pius X warned about this
in his 1907 encylical about Modernism,
Pascendi Dominici
Gregis:
...the number of
the enemies of the Cross of Christ has in these last days increased exceedingly,
who are striving, by arts, entirely new and full of subtlety, to destroy
the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ's
kingdom itself. Wherefore We may no longer be silent, lest We should seem
to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope
of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be attributed to
forgetfulness of Our office.
That We make no delay in this matter is rendered necessary especially by
the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the
Church's open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared,
in her very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous, the less conspicuously
they appear. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic
laity, nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood
itself, who, feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection
of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous
doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty,
vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly
into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ,
not sparing even the person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious
daring, they reduce to a simple, mere man...
...We have said, they put their designs for her ruin into operation not
from without but from within; hence, the danger is present almost in the
very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain,
the more intimate is their knowledge of her. Moreover they lay the axe not
to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and
its deepest fires. And having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed
to disseminate poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of
Catholic truth from which they hold their hand, none that they do not strive
to corrupt.
There has been
an influx into the Church of those who have, with or without malice, imbibed
the spirit of "the Enlightenment," and there's been a full-scale,
deliberate infiltration by outright malicious political enemies and
religious heretics who share the goals and tactics of those who hold to
"Enlightenment" ideals. Manning Johnson, a former official of the Communist
Party in America, testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee
in 1953:
Once the tactic
of infiltration of religious organizations was set by the Kremlin... the
Communists discovered that the destruction of religion could proceed much
faster through the infiltration of the Church by Communists operating within
the Church itself. The Communist leadership in the United States realized
that the infiltration tactic in this country would have to adapt itself to
American conditions and the religious makeup peculiar to this country. In
the earliest stages it was determined that with only small forces available
to them, it would be necessary to concentrate Communist agents in the seminaries.
The practical conclusion drawn by the Red leaders was that these institutions
would make it possible for a small Communist minority to influence the ideology
of future clergymen in the paths conducive to Communist purposes... The policy
of infiltrating seminaries was successful beyond even our communist
expectations.
A Catholic monk
who heard ex-Communist Bella Dodd speak at Fordham University in the 1950s
had this to say:
I listened to that
woman for four hours and she had my hair standing on end. Everything she
said has been fulfilled to the letter. You would think she was the world's
greatest prophet, but she was no prophet. She was merely exposing the
step-by-step battle plan of Communist subversion of the Catholic Church.
She explained that of all the world's religions, the Catholic Church was
the only one feared by the Communists, for it was its only effective opponent.
The whole idea was to destroy, not the institution of the Church, but rather
the Faith of the people, and even use the institution of the Church, if possible,
to destroy the Faith through the promotion of a pseudo-religion: something
that resembled Catholicism but was not the real thing.
Once the Faith was destroyed, she explained that there would be a guilt complex
introduced into the Church…. to label the ‘Church of the past’
as being oppressive, authoritarian, full of prejudices, arrogant in claiming
to be the sole possessor of truth, and responsible for the divisions of religious
bodies throughout the centuries. This would be necessary in order to shame
Church leaders into an ‘openness to the world,’ and to a more flexible
attitude toward all religions and philosophies. The Communists would then
exploit this openness in order to undermine the Church.
In the human element
of our Church, we are seeing the results of this infiltration coupled with
the effects of the pressures of secular materialism and sheer hedonism in
the popular culture.
The Revolution:
"The Spirit of Vatican II"
In 1870, the First
Vatican Council ("Vatican I") was interrupted when Masonic revolutionaries
invaded Rome and forced the unification and centralization of Italy. There
followed in the next decades the Mexican Revolution, the warnings of Our
Lady of Fatima about Russia spreading its errors throughout the world, the
Russian Revolution, World Wars I and II, the end of European monarchies,
the Spanish Civil War, and other tumultuous upheavals that shook the social
order and proved that the enemies of Christ were quite busy and very
powerful.
Popes Pius XI and Pius XII considered convening a second Vatican Council
in order to address these issues -- especially Communism -- but both shied
away from it, knowing that the enemies Pope Pius X had warned about could
"hijack" their efforts. Cardinal Billot warned Pius XI that such a Council
could be "maneuvered by the Church's worst enemies, the Modernists" who were
already preparing a revolution in the Church, "a new 1789."
1
In 1959, however, less than three months after his rise to the papacy as
the successor of Pope Pius XII, Pope John XXIII -- "the Good Pope," as the
media dubbed him -- told the world that he wanted to convene an Ecumenical
Council. Unlike all other such Councils which were convened to combat heresy
or to clarify dogma, this Council was called because Pope John XXIII wanted
"to throw open the windows of the Church so that we can see out and the people
can see in." The Council he convened, called the Second Vatican Council or
"Vatican II," was opened by him on 11 October 1962 and in his
opening
address to this Council, he scoffed at the "prophets of gloom and doom"
who were mindful of the Church's enemies -- but, blessedly, set the tone
for the Council with these words:
The salient point
of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or
another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been
taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is
presumed to be well known and familiar to all.
For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil
adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness,
as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican
Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world
expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of
consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine,
which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research
and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient
doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is
presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great
consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the
forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral
in character.
In other words,
this Council wasn't about dogma and doctrine themselves; it was
pastoral in nature -- i.e., it was about how dogma and doctrine
were to be presented and handed down.
Layman level
introduction to Tradition |
Scholarly introduction
to Traditon |
|
For an entire two
years before the Council, preparations were made; commissions worked diligently
to produce seventy-two outlines and orders of business called "schemata"
-- but in the very first general session of Vatican II, those schemata were
thrown out, an act that served as a clear signal that those who worried about
the Council being "hijacked" were right.
By the time the Council was formally closed by Pope Paul VI on 8 December
1965, the following sixteen documents had been produced (links go to the
documents at the Vatican website and will open in new browser windows):
A revelatory look at what happened at Vatican II from a liberal
perspective. |
|
These documents
-- which I urge you to read -- are very ambiguously written, i.e., one can,
with some difficulty in areas, read them with Catholic eyes and claim they
support the Holy Faith -- or one can read them with the eyes of a Modernist
and claim they support revolution. It is a matter of debate among traditional
Catholics as to whether any teach -- or even can teach -- outright
error. Some traditionalists work very hard to read them as perfectly Catholic,
seeing the ambiguities as simply that: ambiguities which must be read in
the light of Tradition. Others believe that positive error is contained in
them. All agree, though, that no solemn definitions that a Catholic must
accept de fide (as an article of the Faith) were promulgated. That
this is true is supported by papal statements regarding the Council's intent
(such as the opening address linked to above) and in the fact that none of
the documents are marked by the language used in
infallible definitions.
No matter the case as to the exact nature of the documents in themselves
and how they may have been intended to have been read, it is a fact
that the ambiguities have been exploited in a revolutionary way. This
revolutionary attitude -- called "the spirit of Vatican II" by conservatives
and traditionalists -- has swept through the human element of the Church,
leaving destruction and confusion in its wake. How often are Catholics told
that "since Vatican II, the Church no longer teaches/practices/believes"
various aspects of Catholic doctrine? How often are we told this even by
priests, Bishops and Cardinals?
The leftist (including the "neo-conservative") media aid the revolution by
constantly reporting on Church affairs in a self-serving and/or simply ignorant
way. If the New York Times reports that "'the Catholic Church' says
X," then in the average layman's mind "the Church" most definitely now teaches
"X," even if there are no official documents even remotely attempting to
exercise any level of the Ordinary or Extraordinary Magisterium. If a Cardinal
or Pope expresses his personal opinion Y, we are told that "the Church" or
"the Vatican" now teaches Y. And people believe it. At work here are the
same tactics that have, in a mere forty years, transformed Western culture
from one that, for example, saw active homosexuality as a grave sin that
one doesn't talk about unecessarily around children, to a normal "lifestyle
choice" that should be celebrated, paraded through our city streets, and
described to kindergartners. 2 It is
simply the power of the media and of popular culture, allowed to spread their
errors with little resistance from undisciplined Bishops.
The Basics of the Errors
The single
best catechism you'll find |
|
Know this: true
Catholic teaching has not changed -- cannot change -- in any manner
indicative of contradiction. It doesn't matter if 99 out of 100 priests say
X, or if every single theologian who calls himself "Catholic" teaches X,
or if even the Pope himself teaches X; if X is not truly consistent
with Scripture and Tradition, then X is not an infallible Catholic teaching.
It is as simple as that. Doctrine may be expounded on and explained
more fully, and a doctrine that has always been believed may be clarified
and raised to the level of dogma, but what was true 50 years ago is still
true today, and anything that is not consistent with that Truth
cannot be true. This is logic 101, the principle on non-contradiction
in action. There is no mystery to it. In order to be a good Catholic, you
simply must come to learn what the Church has always taught. And in order
to fully benefit (in the subjective order) from the Church's liturgy, you
must to do all you can to worship the way the Church has always worshiped.
So then, how to know what was taught 50 years ago before things got crazy?
Easy: read catechisms 3 and papal
encyclicals published before the Council. But let me give you a quick rundown
of the basic errors you will see taught even by some of our most powerful
hierarchs:
-
The Error:
A new
ecclesiology that doesn't equate the Catholic Church with the Church
established by Jesus Christ, but states that the Church established by Jesus
Christ is merely partly contained in the Catholic Church in a vague, undefined
way -- a confusion arising over controversies in understanding the true and
intended meaning of the word "subsistet" in Vatican II's "Lumen Gentium."
The meaning of "subsistet" is debated in traditionalist circles, with some
seeing the word as perfectly acceptable if understood correctly, and with
others seeing contradiction in its use.
The Truth: To do less than equate the Catholic Church with Christ's
Mystical Body contradicts Pope Pius XII's
'"Mystici Corporis Christi'' among other
papal documents, and leads to false ideas of ecumenism ("ecumenism,"
in itself, is fine as long as conversion is the goal, Truth is not
watered-down, etc.).
-
The Error:
An acceptance -- deriving from modernist interpretations of "Lumen Gentium"
-- of collegiality, the idea that there exists a "college of Bishops" at
all times (rather than just during Ecumenical Councils) which has authority
and jurisdiction over the Church. This idea has weakened the papacy, attempted
to democratize the Church by destroying the monarchial relationship between
the Pope and his Bishops, and has made bishops' conferences a veritable "second
Vicar of Christ" for the Church. This contradicts, among other documents,
Pope Leo XIII's ''Satis Cognitum'' and even
the "Nota Praevia'' to ''Lumen Gentium.''
The Truth: Catholic teaching is that the Keys were given to Peter
(Matthew 16), that he and his successors are the Vicars of Christ who are
blessed with the charism of infallibility which is exercised in very specific
ways, and who have full and supreme authority over the Church apart from
any other human being. Bishops derive their authority from him, who receives
it from Christ. They have no authority apart from him and do not constitute
an alternate or equal authority -- neither individually, nor collectively.
-
The Error: A
deflated view of the papacy and Magisterium on the part of "progressives,"
and an inflated view of the papacy and the Magisterium on the part of
conservative Catholics who misunderstand papal
infallibility and the different levels of the Magisterium.
The Truth: The Pope exercises his infallibility under very specific
conditions. The Magisterium -- the teaching authority of the Church -- has
three levels, not two, and only two of those levels are infallible. That
which falls outside the Extraordinary Magisterium or the Ordinary and Universal
Magisterium is fallible. It is most certainly owed religious assent, but
not if it leads to sin, to error, harm of souls, etc.
-
The Error: an
overly strong focus on the dignity of man coupled with an over-emphasis on
the natural virtues (as opposed to the supernatural virtues of Faith, Hope,
and Charity which come from God alone rather than nature). This ignores original
sin and the need for supernatural grace, leading to a sort of Utopianism
that sees peace as possible without recognizing the Kingship of Christ, and
seemingly gives the Church a new mission: peace on earth rather than the
salvation of souls. This attitude, and teachings
rooted in it, contradict Pope Pius X's "Quas
Primas'', Pope Leo XIII's "Testem
Benevolentiae Nostrae,'' ''Rerum Novarum,''
Pope Pius X's ''Notre charge apostolique,''
and other papal and conciliar documents that deal with social teaching.
The Truth: There is no peace without the Prince of Peace. Man has
lost his likeness to God through original sin, and this likeness can
only be restored through supernatural grace. Without this likeness, there
will be strife among peoples and nations, and no amount of "Can't we all
just get along?" thinking can overcome it. The purpose of the Church and
all Her laws is the salvation of souls. Peace on earth is a fruit
of man's regaining his likeness to God through the Sacraments and faith,
but not the Church's primary goal.
-
The Error: An
embracing of false ideas of religious liberty and the radical separation
of Church and State (as opposed to recognizing them as two distinct spheres,
the secular being informed by -- but not controlled by -- the religious).
This contradicts the oldest teaching of the Church, Leo XIII's
"Testem Benevolentiae Nostra,"
etc.
The Truth:
While it is often prudent and beneficial to the common good to tolerate error,
while no one may ever be forced to believe against his conscience,
and while those in error must be treated with charity and simple kindness,
error has no positive "rights" in itself. A State whose laws are not based
on natural law, whose laws don't have the Christian understanding of the
True, Good, and Beautiful at their center, and whose laws don't have the
good of the souls of its citizens/subjects at their heart is bound to lead
to trouble with great eternal and temporal consequences.
If one stops to think about it, it is quite obvious that there are
only a few options in this regard:
-
We can have no
rule of law at all.
-
We can have a rule
of law based on Catholic morality.
-
We can have a rule
of law based on Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, or other non-Catholic
views of morality, and have our civic holidays and symbolism based on that
belief system.
-
We can have a rule
of law based on "secular precepts" of radical individualism and tolerance
for the sake of tolerance, the effects of which:
deny any role
of religion or of the religious in the public sphere unless those
religions and religious deny the precepts of their own religions. This forces
the religious into "schizophrenic" lives split in half between their "religious,
private selves" and their "public, political selves";
end in abortion,
"homosexual marriage," euthanasia, divorce, rampant pornography, un-Catholic
economic systems, attacks on the family via social programs (or, in a libertarian
system of this sort, result in no support via acknowledgment of the rights
of fathers), etc. One need not be religious to see the social effects of
such policies;
secularize historically Christian holidays and symbolism in order
to appease all religions, either denying those things any civic status at
all, or forcing recognition of these aspects of all religious systems equally,
giving equal weight in law, for ex., to Satanism, Scientology, and Catholicism;
sacrifice:
man's needs for culture (rooted in the word "cult"); a society's need of
a shared vision of the Good, True, and Beautiful; and a sense of historical
continuity and rootedness, all in favor of ideologies which have shown themselves
to be divisive and socially and psychologically unsatisfying.
That's it. Those
are the options. Which is the right choice for a Catholic? Which ends in
sanity? Which builds community, a sense of place, of belonging and rootedness?
Which system is more likely to be coherent and lead to happiness? Which is
consistent with Catholic teaching? And, most importantly, which is most likely
to lead to the salvation of souls?
-
The Error: The
spread of a false ecumenism (movement toward unity between Christians)
and incessant, fruitless interreligious dialogue (dialogue between Christians
and non-Christians) that has as its goal a religious unity that doesn't require
conversion to the Catholic faith; that has served to water down the Catholic
Faith in order to appease non-Catholics; and that has led to scandalous
"interfaith" prayer and worship services that are based on sentiment
and feelings rather than true charity which is rooted in Truth. This
contradicts Sacred Scripture, Pope Pius X's
"Our Apostolic Mandate" ("Notre Charge
Apostolique"), Pope Pius XI's ''Mortalium
Animos,'' Pope Pius XII's ''Humani
Generis'' and other documents.
The Truth: While understanding between the practitioners of various
religions is quite good, and while it is a wonderful thing to have warm,
mutually beneficial relations with non-Catholics, it is a dogma of
the Faith that "outside the Church there is no salvation" ("extra ecclesiam
nulla salus"). To gain a proper understanding of this teaching, see the
relevant paragraphs on the page "Catholicism
101: A Brief Primer."
-
The Error: A
new view of ecclesiastical tradition that sees it as extremely changeable
and has led to dangerous modifications in Catholic practices, liturgy, and
disciplines, and to an embracing of novelty which had been unheard of it
the Church before the Second Vatican Council. This contradicts, among other
papal and conciliar documents, Pope Pius X's Motu Proprio
''Sacrorum antistitum'' (an oath taken by all
priests prior to the Council), Pope Gregory XVI's
''Mirari Vos'', the Fourth Anathema of the Second
Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, the teaching of the First Vatican Council,
especially the document ''Pastor Aeternus"
and the ''Fourth Anathema of the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea'' which
reads, "If anyone rejects any written or unwritten Tradition of the Church,
let him be anathema."
The Truth: Ecclesiastical traditions can change over time, but they
must do so only organically -- and never if the changes harm souls,
lead to sin, damage the understanding of the Faith, etc. One of the three
Pillars of the Church is Tradition; it must be guarded, whether those traditions
are written or unwritten.
-
The Error: a
new and critical attitude towards Sacred Scripture that contradicts Leo XIII's
''Providentissimus Deus'' and Benedict
XV's ''Spiritus Paraclitus'' among
other documents.
The Truth: Sacred Scripture is inerrant, divinely inspired, and
historically and scientifically accurate even though some parts of it are
to be read poetically or metaphorically. Proper interpretation of Sacred
Scripture can be known by reading the Fathers and Doctors of the Church,
and by reading infallible definitions from Popes and Councils convened by
Popes.
-
The Error: An
ignoring of the fact that the Church and the world are at variance with one
another to some degree, and that the Church has
enemies. This ignores Sacred Scripture, Pope Pius X's warnings in
''Pascendi Dominici Gregis,'' Leo
XIII's ''Humanum Genus'', and many other
papal warnings against secret societies and enemies of Christendom. The most
obvious and dangerous way in which our hierarchs are betraying the Catholic
Faith is in a new attitude toward Judaism, a religion that is not the religion
of the Old Testament, but is Pharisaic rabbinism based
on the explicitly anti-Christ Talmud rather than on Torah.
The Truth: The Church has always had enemies and will always have
enemies until the end of time. Toward the end of
time, Antichrist will come and lead these enemies to persecute the Church
as She follows Christ in His Passion and Resurrection.
-
The Error: A
new "Paschal theology" which de-emphasizes the Sacrificial aspects of our
salvation and which leads the faithful to believe that it is Christ's
Resurrection alone, and not the Blood shed by His Sacrifice on the Cross,
that saves. The revision of the Mass liturgy under Pope Paul VI is a fruit
of this "paschal theology," a theology that contradicts Scripture and Encyclicals
such as Pope Pius XII's "Mediator Dei''. This
paschal theology also de-emphasizes the meaning
of suffering, ignoring Christ's admonition to Christians to "take up
their crosses" (Matthew 10:38), and forgetting St. Paul's admonitions to
mortify the flesh (Galatians 5:18-25, Colossians 1:23-24).
The Truth: 1 Corinthians 1:23 "We preach Christ crucified, unto the
Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness." We get
to the Resurrection through the Cross; we have to pick up our own crosses
and follow Him.
In addition to
these errors, post-conciliar changes in liturgical rites and religious
disciplines have gravely damaged the Church and
the faithful's understanding of the holy religion. Foremost among these
changes is the new Order of the Mass (the Novus Ordo Missae) that
is rooted in the aforementioned Paschal Theology and which, therefore,
de-emphasizes traditional Catholic teaching that the Mass is a Sacrifice
(the offering up of Jesus to to assuage the Father's wrath at our evil ways,
in a re-presentation of Calvary and for the remission of sins).
The Novus Ordo Missae (the Mass published after Vatican II) has been stripped
of important Catholic prayers; is open to abuse because of the various options
allowed; de-emphasizes the ordained priesthood; is divisive because of the
eradiction of Latin which brought people of various nations together; is
subjectively more man-centered; includes an order of readings that omits
controversial things (Hell, Pharisaism, miracles, etc.); and is less beautiful,
poetic, and able to act as a sign of Mystery, etc. Some of these problems
are summarized in the ''Ottaviani
Intervention'' and on the "Introduction
to the Traditional Mass" page in the "Being
Catholic" section of this site. Consider what goes on liturgically in
a typical parish, and then contrast it with the
traditional Order of the Mass. Also in
the "Being Catholic" section of this site, you can contrast the sacramental
rites you see in your parish with the traditional rites of
Baptism, Penance,
Eucharist,
Confirmation, Holy
Orders, Matrimony, and
Unction ("Annointing of the Sick").
In the area of discipline come changes that have served to lead people to
believe that Catholicism is a religion that doesn't reflect the deep meaning
of the Incarnation. The signs, symbols, and external rites that had always
served to discipline the body, inspire holy thoughts, and feed the imagination
have been stripped away. Church buildings have been emptied of their
statues and other icons. Religious habits and cassocks
which once inspired respect and holy thoughts are rare. Fasting and Friday
abstinence from eating meat, though still the
universal law of the Church, are ignored as Bishops' conferences have their
way with them, R.C.I.A. clases don't teach them, and lay Catholics simply
ignore them. The customs of the liturgical year
and the ways and rhythms of the Catholic home
are disappearing. All of these things once had the effect of binding Catholics
together as a single people -- a catholic (universal) people -- by
giving them, as Latin did (and still does for traditionalists), a common
cultural "language."
The Traditional Catholic "Movement"
A "traditional
Catholic" (or "traditionalist Catholic") is a Catholic who recognizes the
above errors in the presentation of Catholic teaching, who sees unwise pastoral
decisions for what they are, and who does all in his power to preserve the
Holy Faith in a manner consistent with how it has always been
understood, and to preserve all of the liturgical rites and customs
of the Church as they were before the "spirit of Vatican II" revolution.
Traditionalists are not some "branch of the Church," or some "splinter group";
they are simply Catholics to whom the adjective "traditional" applies.
Traditional Catholics fall into three main categories:
-
The first group
consists of those Catholics who accept the acclaimed Pope and his recent
predecessors as true Popes and who believe that the Second Vatican Council
was a valid, albeit problematic, Council. In this group are included:
-
those who attend
parishes where Masses are offered in accordance with Pope Benedict XVI's
Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificum", most often
celebrated by priests of the Fraternal Society of St Peter (F.S.S.P.) or
the Institute of Christ the King (I.C.K), and
-
those who attend
chapels or oratories where Masses are offered by priests of the Priestly
Society of St. Pius X (S.S.P.X.) 4
and other such priestly fraternities outside of ordinary diocesan structures.
-
The second group
consists of those who are unsure about the status of the acclaimed Pope.
Many such Catholics worship at Masses offered by the Society of Saint Pius
V (S.S.P.V.).
-
The third and smallest
group consisists of "sedevacantist" Catholics, that is Catholics who believe
that the Catholic Church has not had a true Pope for some time (most consider
Pope Pius XII as the last true Pope) and who, depending on the time they
see as the moment the "Chair of Peter" (sede) became empty
(vacante), may or may not see Vatican II as a valid Council. Many
sedevacantists attend Masses offered by the Congregation of Mary Immaculate
Queen (C.M.R.I.).
5
Though there is
certain level of dispute among these various groups at the priestly
level, traditional Catholic laypeople amongst them generally tend to have
good relations with each other (though often with some strong tension between
sedevacantists and those who accept the acclaimed Pope).
Depending on how he understands the nature of Christian obedience, schism,
and the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass, a given traditional Catholic layman
might have firm opinions for or against the advisability of worshiping outside
of diocesan structures, or, conversely, he might worship at more than one
of the above Mass settings without qualm.
A given traditional Catholic might equally like both the F.S.S.P. and the
S.S.P.X., thinking it good that there are those fighting for (at least) some
level of Tradition both inside and outside of ordinary diocesan structures,
while another may think one group superior to the other or even that one
group is unacceptable for some reason.
Some refuse to attend Novus Ordo Masses (except for funerals and weddings
of family and friends), thinking it invalid or believing it "morally impossible"
to do so because they see it -- not because of what it is, inherently,
but because of what it isn't, what it lacks -- as too dangerous to the Faith
to support, even if valid. If they have no access to the traditional Mass,
some of these traditional Catholics become "home-aloners" making do like
our forbears during various persecutions. Other traditionalists may attend
Novus Ordo Masses out of their understanding of the requirements of obedience
if the traditional Mass is unavailable in their area, while doing all in
their power to find a traditional Mass.
Despite these varying opinions on the requirements of obedience, what
all traditional Catholics who fit the label have in common -- whether
they are sedevacantist, whether they worship inside or outside of diocesan
structures -- are:
-
the dogmas of
the Faith understood in a manner consistent with the way Catholics had
always understood them -- i.e., they reject the errors outlined above
-
a desire to preserve
and restore all of the ancient liturgical rites, and to do so not
because these are "preferred," but because they are objectively superior
to the new rites and should once again become normative
-
a deep understanding
of or intuition about the importance of preserving not only instrinsic tradition
(the unwritten Deposit of the Faith handed down by Christ and His Apostles),
but also the ecclesiastical tradition (extrinsic tradition) which has served
to preserve intrinsic tradition and allows parents and priests to pass it
down in an effective way
6
-
a strong sensus
Catholicus (Catholic "sense" or "instinct"), including a cautious, Catholic
approach to novelty
Traditional Catholics
are a minority in the Church, and their demographics are hard to pin down,
but their numbers are growing quickly with Catholics moving away from modernism,
and with conversions from Protestantism and Orthodoxy. Their parishes, chapels,
and seminaries tend to be full.
Traditional Catholics also tend to have large families, with many of them
homeschooling their children.
For any questions about traditional Catholicism, visit the
Discussion Forum
at this site (read the
F.A.Q.
before posting).
Summary
Study to learn
the Faith as it has always been understood. Read the pages linked to all
throughout this article. Read the articles in the "Offsite Essays" area of
the "For Catholics" section of this site.
And, finally, find a place where traditional Catholics are welcome -- a place
to worship that offers not only the traditional Mass, but all of the
ancient liturgical rites, and sound catechesis.
Traditional Catholics' Motto
We are what you
once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.
Footnotes:
1
http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/1984_November/Church_VaticanII.htm
Link is offsite
and will open in a new browser window.
2 This is precisely how it came about that
Catholic women stopped wearing veils, believe
it or not. During the Second Vatican Council, Archbishop Bugnini -- the Modernist
who fabricated the Novus Ordo Mass -- was asked by journalists whether women
will still have to wear headcoverings. He told them that the Council wouldn't
be addressing that issue. And how did it come out in the newspapers the next
day? The reporters wrote that Catholic women no longer have to wear veils.
And so Catholic women stopped doing it -- even though it had been the immemorial
practice of the Church and a matter of Canon Law. When the new Code of Canon
Law was written after so many years of women not veiling (and, of course,
after feminism won the day), the discipline simply wasn't mentioned.
These sorts of obfuscations, simple errors, or out and out lies happen all
the time! Of this much I will assure you, Catholic: if you get your Catholic
education from newspapers, you are doomed. You must learn to be able to recognize
what is and is not an infallible statement, learn to recognize the different
levels of the Magisterium, and then seek out official documents and attribute
to them proper authoritativeness. If you don't, you will be forever confused
and forever wrong about what the Church teaches.
3
For some online catechisms, see:
Catechism
of Trent
Catechism
of St. Thomas Aquinas
Catechism
of Pius X
The
Baltimore Catechism
4
For information about the Society of St. Pius X, see their F.A.Q:
http://sspx.org/sspxfaqs.htm
(link is offsite and will open in new browser window). To clear up a few
misconceptions about the S.S.P.X.: they see Vatican II as a valid, pastoral
Council; they see the Novus Ordo Mass as valid (but also Protestantized and
to be avoided); and they don't claim ordinary jurisdiction.
5
There are a very, very small number of people who believe we do have
a Pope, but that it is not the man accepted as Pope by the world. These people
are often mistakenly referred to as "sedevacantists," but should be referred
to as "conclavists." There are also "Sedeprivationists" -- those who adhere
to the "Cassiciacum Thesis" which states that the Popes since John XXIII
are Popes materially but not formally due to heresy.
6
See "Conservative vs. Traditional Catholicism" by Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P.
from Latin Mass Magazine:
http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/conservative.asp
Link is offsite and will open in a new browser window.
|
|
