I am a convert to the One, True Faith. I am also what is called a Traditional Roman Catholic (or prior to 1965, just a regular, every day Catholic). But contrary to what you may have been taught, I, like most Traditionalists, am not a sedevacantist. I am loyal to the Magisterium and to the Holy Father; I believe that the Second Vatican Council was a true Church council and that the Novus Ordo Missae (Mass of Paul VI) can confect a true Eucharist when the rubrics are followed by a properly ordained Catholic priest. However, I believe that the massive destruction over the past fifty-one years has NOT been due to a misinterpretation of the Council’s documents, but is due to the documents themselves. I also believe that the Novus Ordo is grossly inferior to the Traditional Latin Mass (the True Mass, "the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven"), is Protestant in its orientation, and is grievously harmful to the Faith.

I support all Traditional Latin Mass orders (non-Sedevacantists), to include the SSPX, FSSP, ICKSP, and all diocesan priests who struggle to celebrate the True Mass under often terrible conditions.

Lastly, I hope all Roman Catholics who believe, as Holy Mother Church has taught these past 2,000 years, that there is Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, take up the Cross & the Sword, and claim the title of “Faithful Knight.”

--I believe that Christ founded One Church, and that there is NO salvation outside Her.

--I believe that Irish monks saved Western civilization.

--I believe that the Crusades were a good thing.

--I believe that Islam is still the greatest threat to Western civilization.

--I will never apologize for the Catholic Church and Her mandate by Christ to spread the Gospel.

--I believe that at the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), Luther won.

--I believe that homosexuality has devastated the Catholic priesthood.

--I believe that many Novus Ordo bishops are direct successors to only one Apostle, Judas Iscariot.

--I believe that Dante was correct: The floor of Hell is littered with the skulls of bishops.

--I believe the "Reform of the Reform" is a toothless dog.

--I believe that Communion in the hand, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, removal of the altar rails, and removal of our tabernacles from the altar of sacrifice, has destroyed Catholic belief in the Real Presence.

--I believe that Traditional Catholics are at war with Roman-Protestants for the very soul of Holy Mother Church....and We will win!

--I believe that Russia has not been consecrated to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart by any Pope, and that parts of the Third Secret are still hidden by Rome.

--I believe that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre will be raised to the altar as a Saint.

--I believe that if it were not for the Society of St. Pius X, Tradition would have died long ago.

--I believe that the Society of St. Pius X is the Marine Corps of Catholicism.

--I believe that the term "in full communion" is a sham. After all, per Rome, heretics like Cardinal Mahony and sodomites like Archbishop Weakland are "in full communion."

--I believe that the Republican Party is no different from the Democrat Party...and that they deserve each other.

--I believe that the U.S. Military produces the finest young men and women on the face of the earth.

--I believe that America has done more good for others around the world than any nation in history.

--I believe that our current Commander in Chief is a Marxist.

--I believe in the 2nd Amendment, just as the Fathers of our Nation did.

--I believe that the Death Penalty is a good thing.

--I believe in restoring all things in Christ.

Soldier of Christ-Defender of the True Church

Soldier of Christ-Defender of the True Church

Monday, January 20, 2014

The Danger of Equating Vatican II and the Liturgical Reform

Pope John Paul II pointed out: “For many people, the message of the Second Vatican Council was perceived principally through the liturgical reform” (Vicesimus Quintus Annus, 12).
That’s just the problem in a nutshell, isn’t it? If the liturgical reform itself was bungled—and, in the wake of the scathing critiques of Gamber, Ratzinger, Nichols, Lang, Mosebach, Robinson, Reid, et alia, it is no longer intellectually honest to think that it was not, in some very important respects—and, what is worse, if its implementation was still further compromised by the prevailing secularism of the environment into which it was launched, one must ask: What version, or rather, what caricature, of Vatican II did those many people perceive whose idea of the Council came, perhaps exclusively, from the liturgical revolution?
They took in little or nothing of the authentic doctrine of the Council—the salubrious doctrine that, according to John XXIII’s intention and the very words of Vatican II itself, fully accorded with the teaching of former ecumenical councils, especially those of Trent and Vatican I. Instead of bread, the faithful were given a stone. Instead of substantive content, the faithful were given a hermeneutic, a manner of viewing the Church, her teaching, her tradition, her liturgy—and it was decisively one of rupture and discontinuity. To be Catholic in those heady days meant to be different, to be other, to be up-to-date; it certainly did not mean to be stably the same, consistent with one’s past, reliant on tradition. The Church was no longer the Mystical Body and Immaculate Bride of Christ; the Church was reform, reform without an end in sight, without even much of a plan, reform for the sake of reform. As the famous Protestant theologian Karl Barth asked in the wake of the Council: “When will the Church know that it is sufficiently updated?” I think that’s what you call a rhetorical question.
Tragically, generations of clergy have been trained in the same hermeneutic of rupture and discontinuity, including most of the world’s bishops. That is why the unexpected resurgence of traditional forms of faith and worship among young people, mounting at times to passionate commitment, is a source of bewilderment, consternation, and even anger to them. Due to their training and mental habits, such clergy equate today’s liturgy and its multitudinous aberrations with Vatican II, and hence equate a love of or preference for the traditional liturgy and the culture surrounding it with a rejection of Vatican II. This might be true for some people, but it isn't true across the board, and it need not be true at all.
It does not seem to matter that the traditional liturgy and the integral Catholic life it sustains is, in fact, profoundly in harmony with the best and greatest teachings of the Council—one need only think of Lumen Gentium, Dei Verbum, and even Sacrosanctum Concilium. It does not matter that Pope Benedict XVI, the greatest theologian to sit on the Chair of Peter for centuries, saw continuity between his own liturgical doctrine and praxis and that of the Council to which he made significant contributions. No, it does not matter, because it doesn’t look that way to Catholics ignorant of the Council’s documents, ignorant of the liturgical patrimony of the Church, and poorly formed by almost fifty years of liturgical abuse.
What is necessary today is to show, patiently, persistently, and accurately, with the humility and confidence born of careful study, that the fathers of Vatican II did not desire or ask for the liturgical reform that came out of Bugnini’s Consilium, that the Novus Ordo Missae is not in full accord with Sacrosanctum Concilium (see here or here), and that the teaching of the sixteen official documents of Vatican II supports rather than dismantles traditional Catholic theology and piety. The least we can do, in any case, is not to allow ourselves to be tossed to and fro, carried about by every wind of secondhand half-truths or tendentious readings that emphasize rupture, whether modernist or traditionalist in source.
It is true that there are problems, difficulties, and ambiguities in the conciliar documents. It is true that not every formulation is immune to legitimate criticism—even Ratzinger complained that parts of Gaudium et Spes were “downright Pelagian.” And it is beyond doubt that there were bishops and periti at the Council who sought to infuse modernism into the documents and, to some extent, succeeded in influencing the formulations. But it is still more certain that the final documents, reviewed so many times and passed through the crucible of papal and conciliar scrutiny, are, with few exceptions, sound in content and form; and it is most certain that they are free from error in faith and morals, being the formal acts of an ecumenical council and solemnly promulgated by the Pope. We must never, as it were, abandon the Council to the modernists; this would only play into the devil’s hands.
In any case, it is not simply this most recent Council that gives us our map and marching orders; it is the entirety of Catholic Tradition and the totality of the Magisterium for the past 2,000 years, of which this Council is but a part, and within which it is rightly understood. We know that in principle, no reading of Vatican II can possibly be right that results in formal contradiction between past and present. We are guided by all of the Church’s teaching, not just the most recent. Indeed, we are blessed to belong to a body that, while it develops over time, cannot essentially change. The partisans of perpetual change can have their bizarre liturgies and politically correct catechisms, but they will no longer—or not for much longer—be Catholics.
Pasquale Cati, Council of Trent

No comments:

Post a Comment