Is Recognizing the SSPX Questioning the Council?

The following analysis was posted to the homepage of the SSPX United States District website and emailed to the SSPX email list yesterday.  It explains precisely what the Society's position is vis-a-vis the Second Vatican Council.  I highly recommend reading it as it is short and easily understood.  For convenience, I will paste it below in its entirety and exactly as presented by the SSPX (with their original empases).  Here you go:

From the recent media flurry about Bishop Fellay’s anticipated (and now given) second response to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith concerning the Doctrinal Preamble, there is a general noteworthy item. Many journalists have recognized that this event concerning the SSPX is of great importance to the entire Church, labeling it a “historic moment”, one “crucial for the Church”, and even a “turning point” which will have long-lasting effects for the Catholic world. One excellent commentary on this aspect comes from the keyboard of Inside the Vatican’s editor, Dr. Robert Moynihan:

But more important than the effect on the historical judgment of this pontificate, the way this matter is resolved will have a profound impact on the Church herself, on how she views herself and her mission in the world, in time, in history, and, therefore, on how the Church orients her activity and life with regard to the secular world outside of the Church.[1] [sspx.org emphasis]

Dr. Moynihan does not merely stop here¾he gives the reason why this will occur:

The matter at issue is the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X… but the deeper question is the Second Vatican Council and how that Council should be interpreted.[2] [sspx.org emphasis]

This gets to the root of the matter: What level of authority does the Second Vatican Council possess? How does one reconcile certain conciliar teachings that are out of sync with the pre-conciliar Magisterium?

Adding to such questionnaires made by Msgr. Brunero Gherardini and Roberto de Mattei, Dr. John Lamont[3] published on Chiesa[4] a careful analysis[5] of the written debate between Rome’s Msgr. Fernando Ocariz[6] and the SSPX’s Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize[7], which also asked similar crucial questions. Dr. Lamont clearly expresses the SSPX’s doctrinal position on Vatican II vis-à-vis the authentic Magisterium:

The first question that occurs to a theologian concerning the SSPX position concerns the issue of the authority of the Second Vatican Council. [Msgr. Ocariz’s article] …seems to claim that a rejection of the authority of Vatican II is the basis for the rift referred to by the Holy See. But for anyone familiar with both the theological position of the SSPX and the climate of theological opinion in the Catholic Church, this claim is hard to understand. The points mentioned by Fr. Gleize are only four of the voluminous teachings of Vatican II. The SSPX does not reject Vatican II in its entirety: on the contrary, Bishop Fellay has stated that the society accepts 95% of its teachings.

With irony Dr. Lamont adds:

This means that the SSPX is more loyal to the teachings of Vatican II than much of the clergy and hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

It is relevant that the texts of Vatican II that are rejected by the SSPX are accepted by the groups [liberals¾Ed.] within the Church that reject other teachings of that council.

Continuing his analysis:

One might then suppose that it is these specific texts—on religious liberty, the Church, ecumenism, and collegiality—that are the problem. The rift between the Holy See and the SSPX arises because the Society rejects these particular elements of Vatican II, not because of an intention on the part of the Holy See to defend Vatican II as a whole…

(…)

The latter group [liberals¾Ed.] simply holds that certain doctrines of the Catholic Church are not true. They reject Catholic teaching, full stop. The SSPX, on the other hand, does not claim that the teaching of the Catholic Church is false. Instead, it claims that some of the assertions of Vatican II contradict other magisterial teachings that have greater authority, and hence that accepting the doctrines of the Catholic Church requires accepting these more authoritative teachings and rejecting the small proportion of errors in Vatican II. It asserts that the actual teaching of the Catholic Church is to be found in the earlier and more authoritative statements.

Dr. Lamont raises another question: “how can there be any objection to the SSPX upholding the truth of magisterial pronouncements of great authority?”

This question really answers itself. There can be no such objection. If the position of the SSPX on doctrine itself is to be judged objectionable, it must be claimed that this position is not what these magisterial pronouncements actually teach, and hence that the SSPX falsifies the meaning of these pronouncements. This claim is not easy to sustain, because when these earlier pronouncements were promulgated, they gave rise to a very substantial body of theological work that aimed at their interpretation. The meaning that the SSPX ascribes to them is derived from this body of work, and corresponds to how these pronouncements were understood at the time they were made.

The author then logically asks these final questions:

This fact gives more point and urgency to the third question that occurs to a theologian: what do these pronouncements actually teach, if it is not what the SSPX say that they teach?

...what is the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church on the points that are in dispute between the SSPX and the Holy See?

Dr. Lamont concluded his analysis with this statement, underlining the universal significance of the SSPX’s relations with Rome:

The nature of the teaching of the Catholic Church on religious freedom, ecumenism, the Church, and collegiality, is of great importance to all Catholics. The questions raised by the discussions between the Holy See and the SSPX thus concern the whole Church, not merely the parties to the discussion.

Certainly it is pleasing to read such reflections about the Council’s teachings and the Church’s future, however, more can be done as suggested by Dr. Moynihan:

[Pope] Benedict now finds himself at the center of many very powerful interests who will wish to sway his judgment as he decides this matter. For this reason, he will need our prayers.[8]

To this end, the providential deadline of our Rosary Crusade (Pentecost Sunday, May 27) becomes more relevant and urgent.

What is the Smoke of Satan?

And here we have already some of the artifices employed by Modernists to exploit their wares. What efforts do they not make to win new recruits! They seize upon professorships in the seminaries and universities, and gradually make of them chairs of pestilence. In sermons from the pulpit they disseminate their doctrines, although possibly in utterances which are veiled. In congresses they express their teachings more openly. In their social gatherings they introduce them and commend them to others. Under their own names and under pseudonyms they publish numbers of books, newspapers, reviews, and sometimes one and the same writer adopts a variety of pseudonyms to trap the incautious reader into believing in a multitude of Modernist writers. In short, with feverish activity they leave nothing untried in act, speech, and writing. And with what result? We have to deplore the spectacle of many young men, once full of promise and capable of rendering great services to the Church, now gone astray. It is also a subject of grief to Us that many others who, while they certainly do not go so far as the former, have yet been so infected by breathing a poisoned atmosphere, as to think, speak, and write with a degree of laxity which ill becomes a Catholic. They are to be found among the laity, and in the ranks of the clergy, and they are not wanting even in the last place where one might expect to meet them, in religious communities If they treat of biblical questions, it is upon Modernist principles; if they write history, they carefully, and with ill-concealed satisfaction, drag into the light, on the plea of telling the whole truth, everything that appears to cast a stain upon the Church. Under the sway of certain a priori conceptions they destroy as far as they can the pious traditions of the people, and bring into disrespect certain relics highly venerable from their antiquity. They are possessed by the empty desire of having their names upon the lips of the public, and they know they would never succeed in this were they to say only what has always been said by all men. Meanwhile it may be that they have persuaded themselves that in all this they are really serving God and the Church. In reality they only offend both, less perhaps by their works in themselves than by the spirit in which they write, and by the encouragement they thus give to the aims of the Modernists.

(Pascendi Dominici Gregis 43, 1907)

Pope Paul VI's actual statement on "the smoke of Satan"

     One section of the lost post (see entry below) referred to the “smoke of Satan” entering the sanctuary. Some of my statements in the lost post could have been taken out of context to try show that I was advocating schism or even sedevacantism. (Such isn’t the case. I advocate neither.) I replied with the “smoke of Satan” quotation to show that a post VII pope shared my grave concerns.

     This led me to run down the provenance of the quotation to see if it was real. It is, so I present the formal version for you here, direct from the Vatican Website. It’s found in one of Paul VI’s 1972 homilies.

     As the original is in Italian only, you should be able to click here for a Google English translation. (If it doesn't work, I'm sure you can figure out how to run the translator yourself.)

     From the translation, which is a bit rough, the indications are that Paul VI believed that secular society constituted the smoke—that it’s a case of Church versus world and that we listen to the world rather than the Church. But what is modernism but a secular philosophy? And the point of his quotation, after all, is that the smoke isn’t just without but  within the Church.

     Other quotations from this same homily are equally interesting. For instance: “He [i.e., Satan] entered the doubt in our minds, and came to the windows who were to be opened to light.” And another: “In the Church this state of uncertainty reigns. It was believed that after the Council there would be a sunny day in the history of the Church. It came a day instead of clouds, storm, darkness, research, and uncertainty.”

     So there you have it.

Oops . . .

Well, I just spent an hour writing an addendum to Marc’s fine piece on the SSPX. The gist of it was that Vatican II was an attempt to respond to the new conditions of the twentieth century, and that those conditions have changed so drastically just in the past 50 years as to render many of the pastoral statements of VII outdated. The changes include massive rises in divorce and abortion rates, the Pill, the coming out of the LGBT movement, the vastly increased importance of developing nations, consumerism far in excess of that of the 1960’s, cloning, computing, communications, and the Internet, all of which have actual or potentially profound theological consequences. I wrote about how the hierarchy, in implicitly portraying VII as a dogmatic rather than a pastoral council, has adopted a position that is implicitly indefensible given these vast and ongoing changes, and that simply defining it as a pastoral council would make the problem go away entirely, at the expense of a hysterical outcry from vast swaths of laity, priests, and bishops who have either been unwittingly infected by or willingly embraced the heresy of modernism. The only alternative is for the hierarchy to formally embrace modernism, which will result in schism, scandalization and confusion of the laity and the world, the endangering of souls, and ultimately a much smaller Church on the order of the first century Church: little-known, unheeded, ridiculed, and violently persecuted.

Alas, through a hiccup I lost the entire post. Due entirely to age and poor reflexes, I clicked not one, but two wrong buttons in a row. What are the odds? I don’t think I’ve ever done that before. (This from a person who stored multiple copies of important files in locations farther away from each other than the diameter of a megaton-range airburst back in the days before the Cloud.)

Therefore, I will leave you to read the above paragraph, which is actually a pretty good summary of the lost post.

SSPX Interpretation of Vatican II

The main issue in the discussions between the SSPX and Rome is what sort of interpretation is to be given to Vatican II. The Holy Father has proposed reading Vatican II in light of Tradition, which is a good idea but sometimes difficult to do in practice (where the two appear at odds). The SSPX basically seeks a statement that Vatican II is not a binding doctrinal Council, which is probably correct. The question then becomes what level of assent the faithful must give to this anomalous pastoral Council, as it is the only such council in Church history (although there have been prior ecmenical councils that basically did nothing - like the Fifth Lateran Council).

The following demonstrates the thinking of Bishop Williamson, SSPX, on the ambiguities of interpreting Vatican II. It also points out an important characteristic for any future agreement reached between the SSPX and Rome: there can be a proper method of interpretation for these documents and that method must be chosen over a modernist interpretation.

Bishop Williamson (with my additional comments following):

CONCILIAR AMBIGUITY

Imagine a strong and well-armed foot-soldier who in hot pursuit of the enemy walks into a quicksand. That is what it is like for a brave Catholic armed with the truth who ventures to criticize the documents of Vatican II. They are a quicksand of ambiguity, which is what they were designed to be. Had the religion of man been openly promoted by them, the Council Fathers would have rejected them with horror. But the new religion was skillfully disguised by the documents being so drawn up that they are open to opposite interpretations. Let us take a clear and crucial example.

From section 8 of Dei Verbum comes a text on Tradition which John-Paul II used to condemn Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988: “A/ Tradition...comes from the Apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. B/ There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are passed on. This comes about in various ways. C/ It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. D/ It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. E/ And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession to the apostolate, the sure charism of truth.”

Now true Catholic Tradition is radically objective. Just as common sense says that reality is objective, meaning that objects are what they are outside of us and independently of what any subject pretends that they are, so the true Church teaches that Catholic Tradition came from God, and is what he made it, so that no human being can in the least little bit change it. Here then would be the Catholic interpretation of the text just quoted : “A/ With the passage of time there is a progress in how Catholics grasp the unchanging truths of the Faith. B/ Catholics can see deeper into these truths, C/ by contemplating and studying them, D/ by penetrating more deeply into them, and E/ by the bishops preaching fresh aspects of the same truths.” This interpretation is perfectly Catholic because all the change is placed in the people who do indeed change down the ages, while no change is placed in the truths revealed that make up the Deposit of Faith, or Tradition.

But see now how the same passage from Dei Verbum can be understood not objectively, but subjectively, making the content of the truths depend upon, and change with, the subjective Catholics : “A/ Catholic truth lives and grows with the passing of time, because B/ living Catholics have insights that past Catholics never had, as C/ they discover in their hearts, within themselves, newly grown truths, D/ the fruit of their inward spiritual experience. Also, E/ Catholic truth grows when bishops preach things unknown before, because bishops can tell no untruth (!).” (In other words, have the religion that makes you feel good, but make sure that you “pay, pray and obey” us modernists.)

Now here is the huge problem: if one accuses this text from Dei Verbum of promoting modernism, “conservative” Catholics (who conserve little but their faith in faithless churchmen) immediately reply that the real meaning of the text is the Traditional meaning first given above. However, when John-Paul II in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta used this text to condemn Archbishop Lefebvre, and therewith the Consecrations of 1988, obviously he can only have been taking the text in its modernist sense. Such actions speak far louder than words. Dear readers, read the text itself again and again, and the two interpretations, until you grasp the diabolical ambiguity of that wretched Council.

Kyrie eleison

There are a couple of interesting things being mentioned here: the first is the proper interpretation of this vague statement, which has been the lurking problem with the Vatican II documents for a very long time. Note, though, that Bishop Williamson is not discussing one of the “big four” points at issue, but the larger issue of Tradition itself. He is doing so in presumably the manner that would be permitted by any eventual agreement with Rome – I cannot imagine the SSPX will enter into any agreement that prevents them from attacking the perceived errors of Vatican II (nor should they, in my opinion). And that brings me to the final point: Bishop Williamson directly says Vatican II was a “wretched Council” and mentions its “diabolical ambiguity”. Not only that, he espouses a critique of Blessed John Paul II and so-called “conservative” Catholics (which are usually ultramontanist and seem to worship everything a pope says or does).

Is Rome prepared to allow a bishop to publicly espouse such views? I hope they are because these views need to be espoused. Even looking at this situation objectively, Rome presumably has very little problem with most bishops who daily espouse liberal views in the realm of Church doctrine. Perhaps the Holy Father wishes to bring some balance to the discussion by having an actual voice for Catholic Tradition at the discussion table. My guess (and my firm hope) is that the Holy Father’s views about the nature of Tradition and the proper interpretation of Vatican II in light thereof are much closer to those of Bishop Williamson than to liberal bishops.

SSPX Update

Just in case anyone happens to read this blog and does not also read Rorate Caeli:

For the record - Latest Tornielli: "Fellay's response has arrived; it is positive"

This appears very promising. Let us continue to pray the SSPX is not made subject to diocesan bishops as part of this agreement (surely Bishop Fellay would not agree to such subjection...)!

Concelebration in the Latin Rite

Tonight, St. Joseph Church in Macon, which is currently hosting the Savannah Diocese Clergy Conference, will be home to Holy Mass celebrated by the Bishop of Savannah and concelebrated by many priests of the Diocese. This raises an important question about concelebration and its use in the Latin Rite.

(Note - there is no question about the practice of concelebration in the Byzantine Rite as concelebration has always had a place due in part to restrictions on celebrating the Divine Liturgy only once per day per altar, among other historical reasons.)

According to pre-eminent liturgical historian Adrian Fortescue, concelebration had a place in the Latin Rite until the 8th or 9th Century. Generally, concelebration properly speaking would occur when the bishop was concelebrating with his priests. This is still the case in the Usus Antiquor only during priestly and episcopal ordinations (the only time the Roman Canon and Words of Consecration are said audibly, by the way). There is no other provision for concelebration prior to Sacrosanctum Concilium in the Latin Rite of which I am aware. Recently, Antonio Cardinal Canizares, Prefect for the Congregation of Divine Worship and Sacraments said, "[T]he daily concelebrations of priests only, which are practised 'privately', so to speak... do not form part of the Latin liturgical tradition." Therefore, it is worth considering whether this change was for the better.

The lack of concelebration between the 9th Century and the mid-20th Century is probably due at least in part to better theological understanding of the propitiatory nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass. The more Masses said each day, the more graces are poured upon the world!

There is also the effect upon the priestly identity. The Holy Father has addressed this squarely:

I join the Synod Fathers in recommending 'the daily celebration of Mass, even when the faithful are not present'. This recommendation is consistent with the objectively infinite value of every celebration of the Eucharist, and is motivated by the Mass's unique spiritual fruitfulness. If celebrated in a faith-filled and attentive way, Mass is formative in the deepest sense of the word, since it fosters the priest's configuration to Christ and strengthens him in his vocation.

Cardinal Canizares goes so far as to suggest “the possibility of individual celebration or of participating in the Eucharist as a priest, but without concelebrating.” (!!)

The lay faithful must also be considered, as the Cardinal points out:

Here we find the limits of a right to concelebrate or not, which also respects the right of the faithful to take part in a liturgy where the ars celebrandi makes their actuosa participatio possible. We are thus touching on points which are a matter of justice; and indeed the author also refers to the Code of Canon Law.

As you can see, there are many reasons against concelebration in situations where the bishop is not present with his priests (that position being at least somewhat defensible, albeit with reference to the sort of liturgical archaeologism decried by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei).

Since concelebration in the absence of the bishop is clearly not favored by the Holy Father himself, as well as the prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of Worship and Sacraments, what is the alternative? One priest – one Mass – everyday. This is why there are side altars in Catholic Churches (and you thought they were just there to hold flowers)! I have had the immense pleasure of going to a Church for Sunday High Mass to find a priest saying a private Low Mass on a side altar. It was an incredible sight and a great experience to be able to prepare for the Mass at which I would assist while a priest offered the great Sacrifice privately. That is the Catholic Faith as it existed for a very long time until the relatively recent past. Perhaps it is time to reclaim that.

As for priests concelebrating Mass with the bishop, it tends to get a little sloppy. So, perhaps if there were more concrete rubrics in place (as there were previously), the practice would make more sense…

Preparation for Holy Communion

In the recent past, I read quite a bit about Eastern Catholic and Orthodox praxis. In doing so, I discovered a some ideas regarding the reception of Holy Communion that we would do well to consider as Roman Catholics.

One Confession, One Communion; Saturday Preparation; & Frequent Communion

There is an idea prevalent in the Orthodox world that one must go to Confession before each Holy Communion. That is to say, many would submit that one must either go to Confession every week or one should not receive Communion at each Divine Liturgy. This idea is based on what we know about the Eucharist and the gift of Holy Communion, as well as the idea that "Holy Things are for the Holy" as announced in the Divine Liturgy at roughly the point Latin Catholics would hear the "Ecce Agnus Dei..."

Our Roman Patrimony does not currently favor the idea of one Confession, one Communion. But, that is not to say that this does not have a basis in Roman Catholicism. Pope St. Pius X, in the early 20th Century, in a document called Sacra Tridentina, set out the idea that those in a state of grace should receive Holy Communion. He also sets out other conditions of soul to which we should strive in order to approach Communion daily or frequently. Most importantly, we should not receive Communion "out of routine."

Since 1905, when Pope St. Pius wrote those suggestions for frequent Communion, times have changed significantly. Many now approach our Lord in Holy Communion on a weekly basis "out of routine" without having examined their consciences and not in a state of grace. This happens even to those of us who, through the grace of God, have not given into to the temptation to lukewarmness.

Therefore, I suggest that we examine our consciences and try to make a greater effort to approach our Lord worthily each Sunday we receive Him in Holy Communion. Not only should we go to Confession on a regular basis, at least every two weeks, we should spend time on Saturday preparing our hearts through prayer so that we may have a fruitful Communion. In this regard, we can learn from the Eastern Churches, who admonish their adherents to spend time in prayer on Saturday evening preparing to receive the great gift of the Eucharist on Sunday morning.

As for those who have fallen into routine or who receive our Lord while not in a state of grace, we should pray for them that they will perhaps consider the one Confession, one Communion way of thinking in order to get back on track with the spiritual life. We should also do our part by making sure we receive our Lord as worthily as possible in Holy Communion so as to make reparation for so many who do not bother to do so.

Finally, let us remember that we need not receive Holy Communion at every Mass at which we assist. If we are doubtful about our worthiness to receive, let us remember that we receive grace from being present at Mass (although not the same grace we would receive if we could worthily partake of Holy Communion, to be sure).

SSPX, Offertory Prayers, & Ecumenism

With the impending "reuniting" of the SSPX with Rome (how does one reunite with something to which he already belongs?), Anonymous 5 has tasked our readers with explaining away apparent discrepancies in post-Conciliar teaching with prior Magesterial statements.

I hope his post shows that Catholic Traditionalism is not just about the return to the Tridentine Mass... it is about serious theological issues that culminate in the way we celebrate the Sacraments: lex credendi, lex orandi.

As part of the "reunification" of the SSPX and Rome, the Vatican may finally explain to us what we need to believe on the important issues of ecumenism, religious liberty, the Church, and collegiality. For my part, I believe what the Church has always taught. Since the Vatican II documents did not teach any new doctrine, I simply disregard their pastoral statements on these theological issues. Because I believe what the Church has always taught, it is necessary to express that faith in the very same way the Church has always expressed it: the Traditional Mass.

This is not about our personal preference of which "form" of the Mass we prefer -- this is about objectively manifesting our Catholic Faith in the propitiatory Sacrifice offered on the Catholic altar by Catholic priests on behalf of the Catholic Church. If Sacrosanctum Concilium and the Liturgical Movement were about making the aim of the Mass clearer to the people (which I submit they were not), then isn't the form of Mass which best sets forth the reality of the propitiatory Sacrifice the objectively superior Mass?

With that in mind, let's consider the most problematic change in the Novus Ordo: the Offertory. Compare these and decide for yourself which best shows forth the coming Sacrifice to be made manifest with the Words of Consecration:

Novus Ordo Offertory:

Blessed are you Lord God of all creation through your goodness we have this bread to offer which earth has given and human hands have made it will become for us the bread of life.

Blessed are you Lord God of all creation through your goodness we have this wine to offer fruit of the vine and work of human hands it will become our spiritual drink.

(What exactly is a spiritual drink, anyway? Does that sound like the Precious Blood offered to the Father on our behalf by Christ upon the Cross? Anyway...)

Traditional Mass Offertory:

Accept, O holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this unspotted host, which I, Thy unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my innumerable sins, offenses, and negligences, and for all here present: as also for all faithful Christians, both living and dead, that it may avail both me and them for salvation unto life everlasting. Amen.

O God, who, in creating human nature, didst wonderfully dignify it, and still more wonderfully restore it, grant that, by the Mystery of this water and wine, we may be made partakers of His divine nature, who vouchsafed to be made partaker of our human nature, even Jesus Christ our Lord, Thy Son, who with Thee, liveth and reigneth in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God: world without end. Amen.

We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the chalice of salvation, beseeching Thy clemency, that it may ascend before Thy divine Majesty, as a sweet savor, for our salvation, and for that of the whole world. Amen.

Accept us, O Lord, in the spirit of humility and contrition of heart, and grant that the sacrifice which we offer this day in Thy sight may be pleasing to Thee, O Lord God.

Jewish Home Ritual Prayer:

Blessed are You, Lord, our God, King of the Universe, who brings forth bread from the earth.

Blessed are You, Lord, our God, King of the Universe, who creates the fruit of the vine.

(Suspicious, right? Exactly.)

Anyway... while we are discussing logical conundrums in light of the Rome-SSPX thing, I thought I'd add one to the mix:

Prayer with Protestants and Other Non-Catholics?

Catechism of the Catholic Church para. 821:

Certain things are required in order to respond adequately to this call: prayer in common, because "change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name 'spiritual ecumenism[.]"'

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos:

Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it.

An Open Invitation to All Comers to Explain the Documents of Vatican II and Their Relation to Other Church Documents

I’m a lawyer. Well, at least, I’m a former law professor. That means I like to play with not just ideas but language. In the words of One L author Scott Turow it means that I can—or at least am supposed to be able to—“frame a legal argument, to distinguish between seemingly indistinguishable ideas[, and to understand] the mysterious language of the law, full of words like estoppel and replevin.”

I have also studied theology both at the undergraduate and doctoral levels. As a result it’s easy for me to apply my legal skills in the subject of theology, which has its own mysterious language that often doesn’t mean what it seems to say.

That’s one of the keys to understanding both disciplines. When you use the word “malice” in law, it looks like a perfectly good English word. But it isn’t really English. It’s legalese. And legalese may have a meaning that is somewhat different, very different, or totally different from the word’s English meaning.

Or, in Catholic theology, the word “substance.” Sounds like a term of modern science, and it is. But Catholic theologians use it in a totally different way. And unless you understand this, you can’t understand the meaning or the theology into which it fits.

As a result, in both disciplines, you can get some interesting results. In 1761, James Otis, American lawyer, declared that “An act against the Constitution is void.” In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall stated in Marbury v. Madison (aka, the case that President Obama forgot to read in law school) that “a law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” But while the wording of these two clauses is almost identical, they in fact reflect very different ideas of constitutionalism and government.

With that in mind, I wish to raise a major problem—perhaps even a potential crisis—facing the Catholic Church. And the crisis may (or may not) hit any day now. On 15 April, the deadline will arrive for the SSPX to reply to the “doctrinal preamble” to reconciliation of SSPX to the Church that has been issued by the Vatican.

According to one commentator, the defect of the doctrinal preamble is this:

On at least four points, the teachings of the Second Vatican Council are obviously in logical contradiction to the pronouncements of the previous traditional Magisterium, so that it is impossible to interpret them in keeping with the other teachings already contained in the earlier documents of the Church’s Magisterium.  Vatican II has thus broken the unity of the Magisterium, to the same extent to which it has broken the unity of its object.

Now, as I noted at the outset, one thing I do as a legal scholar is to “distinguish between seemingly indistinguishable ideas.” But I want your help on this one, because two heads (or the hive mind of the Internet) are better than one. I am going to list the four ways in which the SSPX declares that Vatican II documents have contradicted earlier teachings of the Church. Your goal is to provide, on this blog, convincing arguments that the VII documents did not contradict the earlier teachings of the Church in the ways alleged below by SSPX.

This is a big deal, because there are only a few broad possibilities here. Either 1) SSPX is wrong about this or 2) SSPX is right about this. If SSPX is wrong, then either 1a) the VII statements can be logically reconciled with earlier magisterial documents (no problem) or 1b) the VII documents are merely pastoral and not magisterial, and thus there is no actual magisterial conflict (again, no problem), or 1c) the documents prior to Vatican II did not rise to the magisterial level (unlikely, but if so, again no problem as regards the current crisis-in-the-making), or 1d) some combination of the previous three possibilities (again, no problem for our current purposes). 

If SSPX is right, then either 2a) the Church has taught doctrinal error prior to Vatican II, 2b) the Church has taught doctrinal error in Vatican II documents, or 2c) the Church has taught doctrinal error both in Vatican II documents and in magisterial documents prior to Vatican II. All three of these means that the Church has fallen into error, that it isn’t infallible, that all of its teachings on faith and morals are thus suspect, and that consequently it cannot be the One True Church established by Christ against which the gates of hell cannot prevail.

Obviously, no Catholic wants 2a, 2b, or 2c to be the case. I doubt even that anyone in SSPX wants 2a, 2b, or 2c to be the case. But to avoid 2a, 2b, and 2c, we all of us have to credibly establish that either 1a, 1b, 1c, or 1d) is the case.

So here’s where I turn it over to you. For the sake of the Faith, can you reconcile the following four statements of  Vatican II documents to the earlier magisterial statements, or in some other fashion show that there is no conflict between them? Here they are. I've provided the links; all you have to do is analyze the documents.

“[AA)] The doctrine on religious liberty, as it is expressed in no. 2 of the Declaration Dignitatis humanae, contradicts the teachings of Gregory XVI in Mirari vos and of Pius IX in Quanta cura as well as those of Pope Leo XIII in ImmortaleDei and those of Pope Pius XI in Quas primas.

“[BB)] The doctrine on the Church, as it is expressed in no. 8 of the Constitution Lumen gentium, contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius XII in Mystici corporis and Humani generis.

“[CC)] The doctrine on ecumenism, as it is expressed in no. 8 of Lumen gentium and no. 3 of the Decree Unitatis redintegratio, contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius IX in propositions 16 and 17 of the Syllabus, those of Leo XIII in Satis cognitum, and those of Pope Pius XI in Mortalium animos.

“[DD)] The doctrine on collegiality, as it is expressed in no. 22 of the Constitution Lumen gentium, including no. 3 of the Nota praevia [Explanatory Note], contradicts the teachings of the First Vatican Council on the uniqueness of the subject of supreme power in the Church, in the Constitution Pastor aeternus.”

     Please spread this out to other Catholic blogs and ask people to come comment here in good faith. Thanks.

This Sunday Has A Lot of Names!

This coming Sunday historically has been referred to by a number of different names! Let's take a few minutes to examine its various monikers!

1. The Second Sunday of Easter - This is the Novus Ordo name for this Sunday and the most banal. But, it is accurate as this is indeed the second Sunday of Easter!
2. The Octave Day of Easter - Another descriptive name for this Sunday and a good reminder that we are in the midst of one of the few remaining octaves in the Church's liturgical year (there are many, many less octaves these days than there have been historically).
3. Pascha Clausum - Literally, "the closing of the Pascha" -- that is, the closing of the Octave of Easter.
4. Low Sunday - This is actually a bit more descriptive than it sounds once you understand why it is called "Low Sunday." Although it seems unclear historically, I tend to buy the explanation that this Sunday is low in tone compared to all we have experienced over the last few weeks with Palm Sunday, Passiontide, The Sacred Triduum, and Easter (with its octave).
5. Quasimodo Sunday - Taken from the first words of the Introit for this Sunday's Mass ("Quasi modo geniti infantes..." -- "As newborn infants..."), this name evokes images of Victor Hugo's famous hunchback of Notre Dame. And that is with good reason, as he was named after the day on which he was found abandoned at Notre Dame! This name is a good one as it quite common for Sunday's to be referred to by the first word(s) of the Introit (think Gaudete Sunday and Laetare Sunday, for example).
6. Dominica in albis - A good explanation to provide for the newly baptized, who would have historically worn their baptismal garments throughout the octave and removed them on this Sunday: hence, "Sunday of putting away the albs."
7. Divine Mercy Sunday - This is the newest title for this Sunday and it is a fitting one as we consider the events we have recalled over the past few weeks (and throughout Lent for that matter). It is certainly fitting that we consider the Divine Mercy as the Octave of Easter comes to a close! As an aside, the Divine Mercy celebration on this day has fascinated me as an organic intertwining of the new and the old. Divine Mercy was placed on this day in the calendar only in 2000 and yet we see the Divine Mercy devotions prayed in the afternoon even in Traditional Chapels and parishes -- surely this is reminiscent of the sort of organic development that has historically occurred in the Church's calendar and liturgy.
8. St. Thomas Sunday - The Eastern Churches call this Sunday St. Thomas Sunday because the Gospel for the Mass (from that of St. John) relates St. Thomas the Apostle's doubts about the resurrection of our Blessed Lord. The Gospel is, interestingly, the same in the Eastern Churches, the Traditional Lectionary, and the the Novus Ordo Lectionary!

I cannot think of any other day in the Church calendar with so many potential names! Fascinating!

The Spirit of Vatican II

For some reason, I was thinking about the "spirit" of Vatican II yesterday. All of a sudden, I had this image in my head. I scoured the internet and found nearly the exact image that I was imagining. Therefore, for your viewing pleasure, I present an image of what I picture when I think of the "spirit" of Vatican II...

So, what do you picture when you think of the "spirit" of Vatican II...?

The Liturgical Movement: Dedication to Innovation

Anyone interested in the liturgy of the Catholic Church, particularly in the changes that have occurred in the Mass and other liturgies in the last fifty to sixty years, should consider carefully the history of the Liturgical Movement that sought to bring about a "renewal" of the Liturgy. Only by understanding the history of the Liturgical Movement can the nefarious nature of the movement be properly understood and therefore rejected as a false movement that sought to deliberately Protestantize the Mass and the Faith.

What many do not understand is that the Liturgical Movement began decades before the Second Vatican Council. By understanding the patience exhibited by the reformers, we can understand quite clearly how interested they were in co-opting the Council for their own sordid purposes. Moreover, we can understand that it is not the "spirit" of Vatican II that is completely to blame - it is often the documents themselves, which were written in a deliberately vague way to allow the "spirit" to later flourish.

At any rate, it is fascinating to note that the Liturgical Movement (in essence a Modernist movement) began to exert themselves during the reign of Venerable Pius XII, who had written in his great encyclical Mediator Dei about the legitimate areas of renewal needed in the Roman Rite. During a time when the late Holy Father was undergoing a serious illness, however, the Liturgical Movement struck, after decades of patient groundwork.

The reformers began with the Rites of Holy Week. By studying the revisions to the Holy Week Rites accomplished in 1955, we can see the beginnings of their false theology. I present the following link, which has an in-depth analysis of the changes to the Holy Week Rites in 1955. (Note - you do not need any knowledge of the pre-1955 Rites or the Rites according to the 1962 Missale Romanum to understand what is presented in this link as it will explain how the Rites were changed).

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/07/reform-of-holy-week-in-years-1951-1956.html

NB: Unlike some (mostly sedevacantists, who happen to believe Pope Pius XII was the last pope), I am not arguing that we need to seek out chapels that celebrate Holy Week in the pre-1955 Rites. I am simply posting this as a primer for those seeking to understand the beginnings of the Liturgical Movement's actions because the Holy Week changes demonstrate many of their principles that would later become the very foundations of the Novus Ordo Missae that most Catholics experience every Sunday.

Appeasement, Part III

The fight over Fr. Marcel Guarnizo's denial of communion to self-avowed Buddhist and lesbian activist Barbara Johnson, and the archdioce's subsequent (consequent?) actions of placing him on administrative leave and suspending his faculties continues. (You can read my earlier coverage here and here.) One of the more interesting turns is a mutual flame war between  George Neumayr, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, and  Edward Peters, a canon lawyer who blogs on  . . . well, canon law.


Peters, who claims that he has often called in strong terms for bishops to apply Canon 915 and deny Communion to those who meet its conditions (such as pro-abort politicians), has argued that Johnson doesn't fall under that canon, or at the very least, that Fr. Guarnizo was in no position to reach the conclusion that she did. He further argues that Neumayr is engaging in unwarranted invective towards Cardinal Wuerl. I'm not going to provide links to all of Peters's posts on the issue since there are so many; simply take a look at his dozen or so most recent entries here as of this date (i.e., 3 April 2012) and you'll see them.


Normally I'm a stickler for understanding and applying the close wording of the law--canonical, constitutional, administrative, statutory, judicial, you name it. My great complaint with the "spirit of Vatican II" is that it's a code-word for a deliberate abrogation, an open flouting, of the text of that council as well as all of the councils that preceded it, leading to a "Catholicism" that is both Gnostic and Montanist. (Coincidentally, Montanists were sometimes known to refer to themselves as spiritales or "spiritual people.")


Furthermore, I'm aware that my patron saint, Thomas More, pointed out (at least in A Man for All Seasons) that "I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake." (The actual quotation from Roper's biography is "[T]his one thing I assure thee on my faith, that if the parties will at my hand call for justice, then were it my father stood on the one side and the devil on the other side (his cause being good) the devil should have right.")


Yet furthermore, I do think that Peters has at least a theoretical point (and perhaps Canon 212 § 3) on his side regarding the danger of taking a disrespectful tone towards clergy.


But (you knew there was a "but" coming, right?) it is also true that the law, if applied too rigorously, can sometimes lead to injustice, and Peters doesn't seem to get that. Perhaps in canon law, such a maxim doesn't exist, but it does in the legal systems I'm most conversant with, and I believe that the reasoning behind the maxim applies in the current instance. let's take a look at the facts, as Peters exhorts us to do--at least as we know them.


Fact # 1: Johnson is a self-identified Buddhist lesbian.


Fact # 2: Father Guarnizo denied her Communion.


Fact # 3. The vicar general of the archdiocese apologized to Johnson, and in the course of doing so mischaracterized the nature of a requiem Mass.


Fact # 4: Father Guarnizo was placed on administrative leave and his faculties removed pending an investigation.


I may be wrong, but for some reason I suspect that if the shoe were on the other foot, the modernists out there wouldn't give the same kind of close legal analysis to the issue that Peters has in defense of an affronted orthodox Catholic in a state of grace. In fact, I wonder if the authorities have conducted such an analysis of Fr. Guarnizo's rights, or have even attempted to do so.


In short: Canon 915 may give Johnson the legal right to receive Communion, but if so, the result--together with the reaction of the archdiocese, including the cardinal's deafening silence--is, at least on the face of it, absurd as well as unjust. And the law, at least the law that I have most thoroughly studied, should never be taken so far as to lead to such an absurd and unjust result as this.


I'll close with a quotation and a hypothetical. Peters states that "personal disclosure of a sin, even an unrepented grave sin, to a priest does not allow him to withhold holy Communion from that person if s/he approaches for it publicly." So if, just before Mass, I tell a priest that I have desecrated consecrated Hosts in televised Black Masses, and that I will do so again with the Host he gives me at Communion today, he can't withhold it from me under 915? (Perhaps there's another canon that would apply to such a situation as this, but stick to 915 for the moment. Right now I'm just trying to see if there is ever a 915 reason for a priest to deny Communion based on a one-off revelation to him just before Mass.)


Sorry, Mr. Peters, I think you're in the wrong wrong on this one.

Aquinas and . . . Zombies???

Pop culture's recent attention to zombies isn't something particularly goth, to my way of thinking--at least not in the same way that vampires are goth. There's a lot of sensuality in many goth genres: Romanticism was a reaction to the Enlightenment, when human reason was not merely celebrated but, in the extreme, nearly deified as providing the answer to everything. Romanticism finally got enough of that and countered that true humanism was to be found in the aesthetics of emotional and sensory experience; take, for instance, Edmund Burke's essay on the Sublime and Beautiful. Gothic began as a literary exploration of Romanticism's dark side. If Romanticism is a dream, then the Gothic is the corresponding nightmare.



Two things that the Gothic tends to dwell upon, then, are by their very nature incomprehensible to human reason: madness and death. Yes, we can engage in clinical discussions of both. But no description of madness can be existentially the same as experiencing it. That experience simply cannot be rationally communicated or objectively understood. Likewise with death, "the undiscovere'd country, from whose bourn
 No traveller returns." Dawkins and his ilk notwithstanding, reason can't reveal to us what, if anything, happens afterward. But the visceral appeal--and perhaps actual experience--of ghosts gives us a tantalizing glimpse of a country that human reason does not enlighten. (catholicism, with its understanding of Purgatory, gives us an excellent framework both for understanding ghosts (to an extent) and for accepting their reality, you know.) 


Hence one of Goth's more famous juxtapositions--the sexual and the macabre. What is humanity's only known way to defeat death? Through reproduction, the passing on of the genes that give us our identities. And what is the only means of reproduction (other than in the rational scientist's laboratory, which--not coincidentally--the Church has condemned as an abuse of reason out of Frankenstein)? Sex. Or (quoting the Bard again)  "From fairest creatures we desire increase/ That thereby beauty's rose might never die . . . .  Die single and thine image dies with thee." Take, as an example, the delightful Morticia Addams, either in the 1960's TV version or the slightly less G-rated movie version.  


Of course there's also the flip side: that sex, at least illicit sex, can lead to death and even damnation. Here's where the vampire comes in. Through intimate contact and an exchange of fluid, often described in highly sexualized terms, a new creature is born to damnation. Take, for example, this passage that Jonathan Harker writes in Dracula: 

 There was a deliberate voluptuousness which was both thrilling and repulsive [about the vampire]. Lower and lower went her head as the lips went below the range of my mouth and chin and seemed to fasten on my throat. Then she paused, and I could hear the churning sound of her tongue as it licked her teeth and lips, and I could feel the hot breath on my neck. Then the skin of my throat began to tingle as one's flesh does when the hand that is to tickle it approaches nearer, nearer. I could feel the soft, shivering touch of the lips on the super sensitive skin of my throat, and the hard dents of two sharp teeth, just touching and pausing there. I closed my eyes in languorous ecstasy and waited, waited with beating heart.  

But zombies . . . they just leave me cold. There's not only nothing sensual about them; there's not even any way to converse with them, to engage mutually with them in a discussion about the meaning of life or the nature of death, salvation, or damnation. Nor is there anything the least elegant--as Burke would put it, neither the sublime nor the beautiful--about a zombie. There is, however, a lot of running, screaming, blood, gore, and violence, which I suppose is enough for Hollywood consumers and their Burger King fast-food mentality.


Nevertheless, I give you something that has just appeared over at newadvent.org, and I strongly urge those of you who are inclined to read the entire article. Given the combination of the intellectual and the humorous in this article, it's definitely goth--even if the subject of zombies, per se, is not. At any rate, here's the excerpt: a new addition to St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa.

Article 1. Whether the souls of those who become zombies are in hell?

Objection 1. It would seem that just as the incorruptibility of the bodies of certain Saints evidences their sanctity and election, the reanimation of the corpses of certain individuals as zombies evidences of their corruption and reprobation.

Objection 2. Further, David proclaims in Psalm 16:9-11, “my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay.” Yet even bodily decay is to be preferred to reanimiation as a zombie. Therfore, those who become zombies would appear to have been wholly forsaken by God at their death, and reprobate.

 On the contrary, after Christ tells Peter how he will die (John 21:19), He says of the Beloved Disciple, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me” (John 21:22).

I answer that, the grace of bodily incorruptibility is not given to all the Saints, but to a small handful.  And just a righteous man's body may decay, so may it be reanimated as a flesh-mongering zombie.  For we know that “[b]y faith Joseph, when his end was near, spoke about the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and gave instructions about his bones” (Heb. 11:22).  Thus, while he lived and died by faith, his body was reduced to bones (Ex. 13:19).  For even Martha, the sister of Lazarus, feared that his body would stink of death (John 11:39), though she did not doubt of his sanctity (John 11:24).  And just as the bodies of the righteous can be skeletonized, or decay or rot in the earth, they can likewise zombify.

Reply to Objection 1. The bodies of many of the greatest Saints were degraded in their death (Matthew 14:9-10) or after. For while Elijah was preserved from death and corruption (2 Kings 2:11), Elisha was not (2 Kings 13:21). Yet Elisha was not inferior to Elijah in sanctity, as he received a double portion of Elijah’s own spirit (2 Kings 2:9-12). Therefore, the body of a man who dies in the state of grace may be preserved inviolate, may decay in the earth, or may be reanimated as a zombie.

Reply to Objection 2. Peter tells us that the prophetic Psalm 16 was not fulfilled in the life of David, but only in Jesus Christ (Acts 2:25-32). Yet David was a man after God’s own heart (1 Sam. 13:14). Therefore, the corruption of the grave, including zombification, is not proof of reprobation.

Article 2. Whether zombies will experience the bodily resurrection?

Objection 1.  It would seem that since zombies have already risen from the dead, they shall not experience the resurrection of the body at the end of time.  For Paul, drawing on the image of a harvest, says of the resurrection of the dead that the “body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable” (1 Cor. 15:42).  Just as one plant cannot be harvested twice, it would see that zombies, who have already risen as the ravenous undead, shall not rise again in imperishable glory.

Furthermore, for zombies to experience the resurrection of the dead, they would have to die a second time, yet Scripture says that “man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Heb. 9:27).  Therefore, it would seem that zombies cannot die twice, and thus, cannot be resurrected twice.

Objection 2. The Nicene Creed declares, “I look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.”  Yet, the bodies of zombies are a sight of ghastly horror, and an eternity with, or as, such creatures would not be something to look forward to. Thus, it would seem that zombies shall not participate in this glorious resurrection of the dead.

On the contrary, “a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28-29).


I answer that, Scripture provides that everyone will be restored in the resurrection of the body: the elect to eternal glory, and the reprobate to eternal shame.  For the LORD said to Daniel, “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt” (Dan. 12:3).  Thus, all, whether saved or damned, zombie or otherwise, will stand before the Throne of God in their mortal body at the Judgment.

 Reply to Objection 1.  The Theologian says that the miracles of Christ were not intended to last for eternity, but for this life only, saying that “the eyes of the blind, that were opened by those acts of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, were again closed in death; and limbs of the paralytics that received strength were loosened again in death; and whatever was for a time made whole in mortal limbs came to nought in the end” (Tractates on John, 17).  Thus, we know that Lazarus, raised once from the dead (John 11:44), fell asleep in death again.  When Scripture speaks of man's destiny to die once, then, it is man's natural destiny being spoken of, not the power of God.  For just as Lazarus had to die twice, as did the man who touched Elisha's bones (2 Kings 13:21), the prophet Elijah never tasted death at all (2 Kings 2:11).  Likewise, while a plant does not natural grow to harvest twice, “out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham” (Mt. 3:9).

Reply to Objection 2.  The resurrection will be glorious for the elect, but not for the damned.  Yet we look forward to this resurrection because we hope in God, for as Paul says: “I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked” (Acts 24:15).

Furthermore, while the bodies of zombies are ghastly now, they shall not be so at the resurrection.  For Tertullian tells us that as “life is bestowed by God, so is it restored by Him. As we are when we receive it, so are we when we recover it. To nature, not to injury, are we restored; to our state by birth, not to our condition by accident, do we rise again” (De Resurrectione Carnis, 59).  Thus, he promises the healing and glorification of the body from “when it is dead, when it is cold, when it is ghastly, when it is stiff, when it is a corpse” (Id.).  That the bodies of zombies are ghastly in this life does not mean that they shall not be restored and glorified in the next.  As Paul says, the body “is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory.” (1 Cor. 15:43).