Cardinal Brandmueller On A Few Topics

Cardinal Brandmueller is coming out with a new book on Church history. In this interview with Zenit, he had several interesting comments that deserve circulation:

ZENIT: Of what use today is this trip, through the centuries of the Church’s history?

Cardinal Brandmuller: I think that, in our times, this book might have little success. The interest of the majority today, also in directive environments of the Church, is orientated to the present, or better, to the future. “Yes – it is said – we must study ecclesiastical history,” but there aren’t many who consider the urgency of this discipline. Instead, there are so many who hold that it is “a dealer in antiquity,” that keeps curiosity, recounts edifying episodes, sometimes also scandalous and amusing ones but, all together, of little use to resolve the problems of today. Isn’t it true that many say this? This thought is symptomatic of those widely spread philosophical heresies, such as utilitarianism and pragmatism, which are truly destructive intellectual currents, especially when they invade theological thought and the pastoral approach.

We live in a bizarre world where people will attempt to paint history as God, while all the time loathing the events, contexts, and tradition of history.

ZENIT: Taking a step back and concentrating on the last 50 years since Vatican Council II, how can this crucial half century be described for the life of the Church? 

Cardinal Brandmuller: (Laughs) There are so many things to say … In the book there is a study of mine which focuses in particular on the post-conciliar conflicts of interpretation. Decades, certainly many [years] – too many – moved by problems that to a great extent still await a resolution.

ZENIT: Is it also the fault of the “Council of the Media,” of which Benedict XVI spoke?

Cardinal Brandmuller: Yes, also, but it isn’t a distinctive trait of the Vatican. During Vatican Council I the newspapers of the time also reported inexact news and played an important role.

While there is a similarity, I think the access of media and the phenomenon of higher speed transmission of disinformation makes Vatican II's events a whole new ball of wax. There can be no doubt that the press was a far greater factor in the 60s than in the 19th century. Moreover, I don't think it can be argued that the media continues to be heavily invested in keeping alive its version of Vatican II. When was the last time you heard a story on Vatican I?

ZENIT: What, then, is the cause of these distortions of the conciliar teachings? 

Cardinal Brandmuller: They are due, perhaps, to a false concept of what the Church is. If the Church defines herself as the mystical Christ present in history, a human-divine reality, a Council is certainly interpreted differently. An Ecumenical Council, such as Vatican II, is the implementation of the supreme Magisterium of the Church, whose documents are of decisive value for the Church. Many, instead, have always considered it, recounted it and interpreted it only as an historical, human, sociological, political reality and so on. 

Which Pope Francis has denounced with little publicity.

ZENIT: Are fifty years, therefore, not yet enough to understand and implement the conciliar teachings?  

Cardinal Brandmuller: No. Vatican Council II is still far from being realized in the life of the Church. It is still necessary to study the documents in a more profound way and then implement them.

This is so obvious that it shouldn't even need to be said. It is staggering that anyone can read the documents of Vatican II and their stated goals, along with the goals of the conciliar and post-conciliar popes, and actually believe that it has been "implemented." Or that if it has been "implemented" that it could be regarded as a success.

What is wrong with simply admitting that the Council was a failure? There's plenty of precedent for failed councils. Lateran V? Failure. Lyons II? Failure. Florence? Mostly a failure.

Vatican II? Failure? Why not?

Confirming What We Already Knew About Vatican II

As reported by Boniface at Unam Sanctam, Cardinal Kaspar basically let fly to the public one of the worst kept secrets in the world. The documents of Vatican II contain intentional ambiguities that are subject to wildly conflicting interpretations.

While I agree with Boniface that this is a stunning admission, that's only the case because someone like Cardinal Kaspar made it. I disagree with this point:

In the Cardinal's statements, we basically have an affirmation of a fundamental thesis of Michael Davies and most Traditionalists: that the Council documents themselves have ambiguities in them and are subject to a multitude of interpretations. This concept of Conciliar ambiguity has been denied by many conservative/pop apologists, who insist that the Council documents are plain as day and it is only the malice of dissenters pushing a false implementation that is responsible for our current confusion.

What Michael Davies and others have said isn't a thesis. It is the universal consensus of anyone who has ever written a history of the Council. Whether it's a conciliar peritus (Romano Amerio), a priest reporting at the Council (Fr. Wiltgen), a cardinal who was present and voting (Cardinal Heenan), a Catholic reporter (Gary MacEoin), a secular bigot reporter (Paul Blanshard), a Protestant observer at the Council (Robert MacAffee Brown), a canon of St. Peter's (Msgr. Brunero Gherardini) or a modern Jesuit (Fr. Robert O'Malley), everybody knows what happened. This isn't a foreign concept to Pope Benedict either. Ignoring this historical reality is a widespread disease, especially among the crowds the Boniface mentions.

I'm not sure there is a way to cure it.

More significant than the above, I think, are Cardinal Kaspar's admissions that the post-conciliar era has been bad.

For most Catholics, the developments put in motion by the council are part of the church’s daily life. But what they are experiencing is not the great new beginning nor the springtime of the church, which were expected at that time, but rather a church that has a wintery look, and shows clear signs of crisis.

That's a direct quote from His Eminence. It is remarkable. It isn't hard to find comments by a number of prominent Church figures, including Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis that describe the Council's achievements in glowing terms. Phrases like "springtime of evangelization" and "New/Second Pentecost" are frequently used with reference to Vatican II. These terms ignore the utter collapse of the Faith in so many circles. It's easy to focus on Africa and SE Asia. What about everywhere else? Why did Pope Benedict feel the need to start a "New Evangelization" if we're going through all these roses and rainbows of the last 50 years?

People need to get real about things. It isn't sinful or schismatic to say that an ecumenical council failed. I haven't seen anybody championing Lateran V recently. That unification at Florence didn't exactly mend the fence with the Orthodox.

It's amazing that Catholic apologists are so well-equipped to talk about mistakes made by popes, yet they absolutely refuse to come to grips with how a council might do likewise. Not only that, but many seem to shudder at the mere possibility. All this intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance does the Church no favors.

Maybe Cardinal Kaspar will have wound up doing some good by being so open about these things.

Preparing His Departure, The Pope Confirms What We All Knew

As Rorate has already provided a full report on this topic, I'm just going to comment. Basically, the Pope addressed the Roman clergy and laid out why Vatican II has been so problematic. In a nutshell:

The media saw the Council as a political struggle, a struggle for power between different currents within the Church. It was obvious that the media would take the side of whatever faction best suited their world. There were those who sought a decentralization of the Church, power for the bishops and then, through the Word for the “people of God”, the power of the people, the laity. There was this triple issue: the power of the Pope, then transferred to the power of the bishops and then the power of all … popular sovereignty. Naturally they saw this as the part to be approved, to promulgate, to help.

Make sure you read the whole thing at the link.

He hedges a bit on the "factions" involved, choosing instead to focus on the media's role, but it's still there. The good news is that there is a papal recognition that the Council was, in fact, hijacked. Our readers here should know this story well, as it's been covered in our prior postings on the matter. The hijacking was possible by a media presence who hyped the fact that there was a group advocating for heterodox positions to the detriment of those supporting the Catholic position.

This is a striking statement considering our theory on why the Pope is resigning and all the media speculation (and obvious preferences) on who the next Vicar of Christ will be. Moreover, it brings the Council back to the forefront on the eve of the conclave and not as a good thing, but rather as something that must be overcome. At least in terms of the operative Council, which is the "virtual" one he refers to in the speech.

Let's hope the clergy, not to mention the cardinals, were listening attentively.

Vatican II's Real Birthday

What most folks don't realize is that, while Blessed John XXIII did formally open the Council on October 11, 1962, the initial working session was October 13. On that day, the whole thing came unraveled. You can read the full account of what happened at our prior posts here and here.

The gentleman in the picture above could probably be regarded as the Godfather of the Spirit of Vatican II. He's Cardinal Achille Lienart of France. Most folks don't understand how Blessed John's original vision of the Council was shattered, largely thanks to this guy and his allies. As mentioned previously, the whole story is above, but for those looking for the nutshell version, a group of prelates, mostly from the Rhine area of Europe, essentially desired to change the Church's teachings on a plethora or issues. They knew that they would be unable to do so. With that in mind, they met in advance of the Council and formed a plan to overthrow all of the initial preparatory work initiated by Pope John.

In a blatant violation of the Council's rules of order, Cardinal Lienart took the microphone and demanded that all of the individual schema commissions be revisited and that new members of each commission be appointed. This was quickly seconded by Cardinal Frings and enough bishops followed along to pass the motion. The Rhine group block voted their way to power on the commissions, meaning they controlled the draft language to be submitted to the approving votes by the bishops as a whole. The plan at this point called for obfuscation and ambiguity so that, in the words of Dutch theologian Ed Schillebeecx:

We have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards.

Hence the Spirit of Vatican II was born.

This is all very important, though. There is a tendency to claim that the documents of Vatican II have nothing to do with the current crisis and that the "Spirit" promoted by the current crop of modernists is somehow a total fabrication. What we know from the actual conciliar events is that the documents are indeed part of the problem because they were drafted with the purpose of muddying the waters and making the "Spirit" defensible to the masses. Does this mean that the entirety of Vatican II is somehow bad or that there is no orthodox reading thereof? No. It means that the difficulties we've had with the interpretation of the Council was intentional and, as a result, we should be cautious in reading it.

Moreover, it calls us to focus on the fact that Vatican II lacks dogmatic character and infallible content except in the cases when it repeats content previously identified as infallible. If we were being objective, we'd have to acknowledge that VII is on the bottom rung for ecumenical council importance.  Yet somehow it is heralded by some as a "New Pentecost" and other such superlative titles. This is the perception fostered by the re-interpreters who must de-emphasize what came before and exalt what they are using as the foundation of their novelties.

There's been a lot of work done to fix all this, but the genie doesn't go back in the bottle so easily. For anyone reading the documents on their own, we can only recommend sticking to the text and considering the footnotes. If you think something sounds hope-and-changeish, consider why you think that and what other interpretation might be possible.

What are we left with at the moment? We are left with the inescapable conclusion that the Council is a failure. Sure, you can always point to some undefined period in the future when we'll all look back at the now and laugh because the conciliar fruit is so awesome. Until then, all we have seen is an enormous loss of faith, withering vocations, disco liturgy, etc. A good synopsis was furnished by Kenneth Jones back in 2003. And he's an ND grad.

Anyways, what makes the Vatican II situation so unique is that the content of the Faith and its attending disciplines are painted as their opposites. Nobody has ever said that Nicea said that Jesus wasn't of the same substance as the Father. Or that Chalcedon said Christ wasn't Divine. With Vatican II, you have folks saying the Council said things like:

1. Any religion can save you.
2. Latin should not be the language of the liturgy.
3. The Mass is just a communal meal.
4. Lay folk are the same as priests.
5. Personal conscience dictates morality.

These are the exact opposites of Catholic teachings. This is completely different from anything we've faced before. We know how it happened. The question is whether or not the "decomposition of Catholicism," as Fr. Bouyer called it, that was wrought in the post-conciliar era will be reversed anytime soon.

Not necessarily.

Luke 18:8

Cardinal Brandmuller Beat Us To The Punch

One of the things we were going to use as a capstone for our discussion of Sacrosanctum Concilium was to compare what we know as the Pauline Mass with what appears to have been envisioned by the liturgical constitution itself. The question would then be posed whether or not what was discussed in the Council was what was actually done in practice.

Cardinal Brandmuller, who I'm certain is a huge fan and reader of this blog (who isn't?), has decided to go ahead and answer the question for us. Per Rorate:

I must emphasise that the form of the post-conciliar liturgy with all its distortions, is not attributable to the Council or to the Liturgy Constitution established during Vatican II which by the way has not really been implemented even to this day. The indiscriminate removal of Latin and Gregorian Chants from liturgical celebrations and the erection of numerous altars were absolutely not acts prescribed by the Council.

With the benefit of hindsight, let us cast our minds back in particular to the lack of sensitivity shown in terms of care for the faithful and in the pastoral carelessness shown in the liturgical form. One need only think of the Church’s excesses, reminiscent of the [Iconoclastic crisis] which occurred in the [8th] century. Excesses which catapulted numerous faithful into total chaos, leaving many fumbling around in the dark.

Just about anything and everything has been said on this subject. Meanwhile, the liturgy has come to be seen as a mirror image of Church life, subject to an organic historical evolution which cannot - as did indeed happen - suddenly be changed by decree par ordre de mufti. And we are still paying the price today.

Interesting stuff, and dead-on accurate, I think.

Sacrosanctum Concilium, Pt. 10

In our last entry, we closed with a comment about concelebration, and how manufacturing a new rite for concelebration in the West appeared to contradict the liturgical constitution's own terms that spoke of restricting innovations. Moving along, we now reach a new chapter that discusses the other sacraments and sacramentals:

The purpose of the sacraments is to sanctify men, to build up the body of Christ, and, finally, to give worship to God; because they are signs they also instruct. They not only presuppose faith, but by words and objects they also nourish, strengthen, and express it; that is why they are called "sacraments of faith." They do indeed impart grace, but, in addition, the very act of celebrating them most effectively disposes the faithful to receive this grace in a fruitful manner, to worship God duly, and to practice charity.

This is a loaded paragraph. In a day and age where the sacraments tend to be reduced entirely to exercises of feel-good Oprahism. Here, the emphasis is on the supernatural order, the worship of God, and the faithful's need of grace. I'm not sure that there has been anything more devastating to the liturgy than the loss of sense that the Mass is the supreme act of worship. It is, quite literally, the most important thing that happens on the planet, and its status as an act of worship is what makes it that way. Yet few seem to grasp this.

It is therefore of the highest importance that the faithful should easily understand the sacramental signs, and should frequent with great eagerness those sacraments which were instituted to nourish the Christian life.

For me, this sentence encapsulates something that should be an approach that everyone should take to the Council. The Council had a goal for the faithful to better understand certain things, such as the sacraments. With the complete collapse of the Faith in the last half century, it's obvious that the Council was a miserable failure on this point. It wouldn't be the first time a Council bombed on an important goal. Lateran V did likewise. So did Florence. And they were dogmatic councils. A big part of the problem here has been the constant drumbeat of absurd optimism and praise about Vatican II.

There's no shame in admitting the Council failed. Continuing to double down on what a huge success it was doesn't make it true.

Holy Mother Church has, moreover, instituted sacramentals. These are sacred signs which bear a resemblance to the sacraments: they signify effects, particularly of a spiritual kind, which are obtained through the Church's intercession. By them men are disposed to receive the chief effect of the sacraments, and various occasions in life are rendered holy.

I guess now is a good time to mention that most Catholics probably have no idea what a sacramental is.

Thus, for well-disposed members of the faithful, the liturgy of the sacraments and sacramentals sanctifies almost every event in their lives; they are given access to the stream of divine grace which flows from the paschal mystery of the passion, death, the resurrection of Christ, the font from which all sacraments and sacramentals draw their power. There is hardly any proper use of material things which cannot thus be directed toward the sanctification of men and the praise of God.

The last sentence poses a problem because, while true, such things only function in that way when  they are adopted as such on God's terms, rather than our own. It's easy to read this in after decades of abuses, but if VII has taught us anything, it's that stuff like this can be reinterpreted to suit the needs of the reader. In this case, you see it when folks use this line to justify their own activities above the Church's. For example, going to Seder meals and such during Holy Week. Sure, it might be an educational experience, but I see more and more Catholics trying to make such events into a religious ritual, often whilst scorning legitimate Catholic traditions.

With the passage of time, however, there have crept into the rites of the sacraments and sacramentals certain features which have rendered their nature and purpose far from clear to the people of today; hence some changes have become necessary to adapt them to the needs of our own times. For this reason the sacred Council decrees as follows concerning their revision.

Adaptation. Again. Somehow, these rites and sacramentals were able to nourish the faith of Catholics for centuries, across all continents, and through myriad cultural settings. What happened in 1963 that demonstrated this need for change? The fact that Catholics actually participated in these rites or used the sacramentals? The 80%+ Mass attendance and literacy in the Faith?

And has the adaptation worked? Are things better? Take a look around and let me know what you see.

One other thing about this section (and the document as a whole). Notice that there isn't a lot of detail on what the problems are and why they are so bad or ineffective. This makes fixing any potential problem very difficult since you don't really know what the problem is.  It also makes novelty more palatable, as folks can come up with their own view of what the problem is, then go about "fixing" it in the manner that they feel is appropriate.

Because of the use of the mother tongue in the administration of the sacraments and sacramentals can often be of considerable help to the people, this use is to be extended according to the following norms

And we're back to the vernacular again.

The vernacular language may be used in administering the sacraments and sacramentals, according to the norm of Art. 36.

But not really, since any use of the vernacular is subject to the prior point that Latin is is to be preserved as the regular language of the Western Church.

On this point, I'd like to refer back to one of our commentators, Mr. Gary MacEoin, from his book What Happened in Rome? MacEoin foresaw these sorts of items as leading to a demolition of liturgical Latin altogether. Of course, this is done without reference to Blessed John XXIII's views or the language of the Council itself. Here's what Mr. MacEoin said on pg. 68:

In January 1964, Pope Paul set up a permanent committee in Rome, charged with the duty of completing the liturgical reform according to the principles established in the Council decree. This will mean not only an extension of the use of the living language, perhaps to the entire text of the Mass, but a reformation and reformulation of the content of the Mass and other public prayers of the Latin rite. The result will be a liturgy closer to that of the early Church and at the same time more meaningful to twentieth-century man.

Not only does this analysis ignore the principles of SC that are supportive of Latin, but he basically refers to the stated norm as being on its way to extinction. This shift will lead to a more "meaningful" liturgy. Just check out the average wardrobe at Mass and discern for yourself if its more meaningful now than 50 years ago.

In harmony with the new edition of the Roman Ritual, particular rituals shall be prepared without delay by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, of this Constitution. These rituals, which are to be adapted, also as regards the language employed, to the needs of the different regions, are to be reviewed by the Apostolic See and then introduced into the regions for which they have been prepared. But in drawing up these rituals or particular collections of rites, the instructions prefixed to the individual rites the Roman Ritual, whether they be pastoral and rubrical or whether they have special social import, shall not be omitted.

First, notice that there is only a mention of a new edition of the Roman Ritual. It's not that there is going to be a whole new thing created, merely a new edition of the old. Of course, that isn't what happened.

Second, the latter part flings open the door to all  sorts of shenanigans. We've already discussed the problems with Art. 2, 22, but the remainder seems to give a blank check for novelty at first glance. That's not the case either. Any adaptation, whether linguistic or cultural must be approved by Rome. Even if it gets approved by some whackjob cardinal, the other restrictions on all other rites of the Church are still maintained. In other words, if you're only supposed to be using water for baptism, it doesn't matter if you're in a society that likes beer a lot. You can't baptize with beer.

The catechumenate for adults, comprising several distinct steps, is to be restored and to be taken into use at the discretion of the local ordinary. By this, means the time of the catechumenate, which is intended as a period of suitable instruction, may be sanctified by sacred rites to be celebrated at successive intervals of time.

I have no idea what this means. The Rite of Election perhaps? I'm not aware of there being any other "successive intervals" here or anywhere else. Somebody out there know?

In mission lands it is found that some of the peoples already make use of initiation rites. Elements from these, when capable of being adapted to Christian ritual, may be admitted along with those already found in Christian tradition, according to the norm laid down in Art. 37-40, of this Constitution.

We've talked before about the value of pulling from the local culture for liturgical practice. It's not that it's bad. It's just something that has to be monitored closely, lest the local element overpower the Catholic part of what is going on. Like Skillet vs. chant. Anyways, the other side of this is the cases where our existing Catholic heritage should be enough. We've seen how the TLM can be welcome, even in diverse places like Africa. Why the urge to jump immediately to novel developments, rather than first seeing if what we already have will work?

I must add that, like with so many other provisions of Sacrosanctum Concilium, none of the assertions made in the foregoing sections carry a single footnote or other reference. There is nothing from Scripture, the Magisterium, the Fathers, or the Doctors of the Church that might be used to judge what the parameters are for the benefits of  inculturation, the instruction period for catechumens, etc. to give anybody a better idea of what is supposed to be going on. As mentioned above, people tend to fill in these gaps with their own ideas. It's been with poor results for the Church. For what it's worth, even MacEoin admits that the sections here are ambiguous on purpose:

The Council decreed that the national and regional bishops' conferences should decide whether and to what extent the living language was to be used. The point was left deliberately vague in deference to some Fathers who were opposed to any change.

In other words, it was vague in order to deceive them. As we know from Cardinal Stickler's testimony, the issue of replacing Latin altogether was mentioned at the Council and met with derision. By making it sound conservative, it was easier to rope in the orthodox bishops' votes.

This is running a bit long, so I think I'll close out this entry there. We're probably about halfway done with the whole thing now. Maybe I'll do a better job of keeping up with it.

Msgr. Gherardini On Cardinal Ottaviani's Humiliation

We've mentioned before how Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, the head of the Holy Office during Vatican II, was singled out as the dissenters' main adversary during the Council. Recently, Rorate ran a piece where Msgr. Gherardini recalled one of the early signs of how the conciliar proceedings were going to go, especially when it came to His Eminence's participation.

Whenever I think about the Council, I said, I always have one image in my mind: an aging Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, now blind, about age 80, limping, the head of the Holy Office and so the chief doctrinal officer of the Church, born in Trastevere to parents who had many children, so a Roman from Rome, from the people of Rome, takes the microphone to speak to the 2,000 assembled bishops.


And, as he speaks, pleading for the bishops to consider the texts the curia has spent three years preparing, suddenly his microphone was shut off. He kept speaking, but no one could hear a word. Then, puzzled and flustered, he stopped speaking, in confusion. And the assembled fathers began to laugh, and then to cheer...


"Yes," Gherardini said. "And it was only the third day." 


"What?" I said. 


"Ottaviani's microphone was turned off on the third day of the Council." 


"On the third day?" I said. "I didn't know that. I thought it was later, in November, after the progressive group became more organized..." 


"No, it was the third day, October 13, 1962. The Council began on October 11." 


"Do you know who turned off the microphone?" 


"Yes," he said. "It was Cardinal Lienart of Lille, France." 


"But then," I said, "it could almost be argued, perhaps, that such a breech of protocol, making it impossible for Ottaviani to make his arguments, somehow renders what came after, well, in a certain sense, improper..."  

"Some people make that argument," Gherardini replied.

Sacrosanctum Concilium, Pt. 9

At the Last Supper, on the night when He was betrayed, our Saviour instituted the eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries until He should come again, and so to entrust to His beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of His death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is eaten, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.

What can be gleaned from this? Stuff like Christ instituted the Eucharist. None of this "evolving worship service" garbage that seems to be popular among certain RCIA programs.

Or how about the Mass as a sacrifice? Or that Christ is eaten? I wonder what the folks scandalized by Mysterium Fidei were thinking when that language was included. We know from prior posts how scandalized Robert MacAffee Brown was when Paul VI wrote that particular encyclical.

I'd go so far as to say that maybe 75% of the heresies involving the Eucharist that claim "the spirit of Vatican II" could be refuted by this one paragraph.

The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ's faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators; on the contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration. They should be instructed by God's word and be nourished at the table of the Lord's body; they should give thanks to God; by offering the Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest, but also with him, they should learn also to offer themselves; through Christ the Mediator, they should be drawn day by day into ever more perfect union with God and with each other, so that finally God may be all in all.

I just heard a tremendous "Aha!" from some readers. There it is! We shouldn't be silent spectators! No more TLM!

This is the standard McBrienish argument. In other words, one with no foundation. Such an argument presupposes that those attending the TLM are silent spectators. We already know from prior statements in SC that participation doesn't mean "doing things." In fact, contemplation is superior to action. If anything, people these days are completely violative of this section by having no idea what they are doing, if we are to believe the surveys on what Catholics believe.

Oh, and if you're looking for the footnotes to this, check out Cyril of Alexandria's Commentary on John here, especially chapters XI and XII.

For this reason the sacred Council, having in mind those Masses which are celebrated with the assistance of the faithful, especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation, has made the following decrees in order that the sacrifice of the Mass, even in the ritual forms of its celebration, may become pastorally efficacious to the fullest degree.

"Pastorally efficacious." I'm not sure what that means. I'm assuming that it's to encourage the above-mentioned dispositions.

The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

A revision. Not an entirely new rite of Mass. One can debate the success of the latter sentence as well, since it seems that fewer and fewer Catholics believe (or even know) the dogmas associated with the Mass. We are participating at the wrong level, I guess.

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.

So they are looking for a liturgy that's more like what the Fathers were using. Maybe no Second Confiteor and that sort of thing. Have you ever been to a liturgy that hasn't been all that "reformed"? The Eastern ones, for example.

Are they more like the TLM or the Pauline Mass?

The treasures of the bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God's word. In this way a more representative portion of the holy scriptures will be read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years.

We did this, hence the new cycle of readings. I'm not sure how well this worked out, since we seem to have more Scripture but don't really know much of it very well.

By means of the homily the mysteries of the faith and the guiding principles of the Christian life are expounded from the sacred text, during the course of the liturgical year; the homily, therefore, is to be highly esteemed as part of the liturgy itself; in fact, at those Masses which are celebrated with the assistance of the people on Sundays and feasts of obligation, it should not be omitted except for a serious reason.

See, here's one of those things that really bothers me. All this talk about how important the homily is, yet I hear all these stories about random layperson or whoever delivering it.

Especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation there is to be restored, after the Gospel and the homily, "the common prayer" or "the prayer of the faithful." By this prayer, in which the people are to take part, intercession will be made for holy Church, for the civil authorities, for those oppressed by various needs, for all mankind, and for the salvation of the entire world.

Someone more qualified than me can answer this one. What's the difference between these and the intercessory prayers in the TLM or Divine Liturgy?

In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Aha! again. See, the mother tongue is supposed to be used! To the dustbin with that Latin stuff!

Let's take this in context. First, all it really mentions are the readings and intercessory prayers. Then there's a reference to some vague "local conditions." Even those "conditions," though, are subject to the norm of Article 36. Remember that one? It's the one that said for Latin to be preserved as the language of the liturgy.

So what does the Constitution say? Latin is the norm. The vernacular is the exception. What do we have? The exact opposite.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

Whoa. Probably don't hear this one much, huh? The faithful are actually supposed to be learning Latin. Can you imagine the upheaval if this was implemented these days? People are going insane over having to say "And with your Spirit." Et cum spiritu tuo would make heads explode.

And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.

If you don't recall Article 40, it's discussed in our entry here. It's the one that mentions things like "carefully and prudently" considering any liturgical adaptations with "circumspection," including special reference to the mission field. As mentioned earlier, there weren't all that many objections to liturgical adaptations in this area. Even Bishop Castro de Mayer admitted as much.

Now, does a place like the USA really fall into this kind of category? Did most of the world back in the 1960s? I'm not sure, but it strikes me as very weird that all these adaptations going on meet the criteria of Art. 36 or Art. 40.

That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest's communion, receive the Lord's body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended.

Is this about private Masses? Anybody know?

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.

The reference to Trent probably shocks the modernist conscience, but it's worth taking a look at, I think. It's in Session XXI. Some readers might be surprised to see the Tridentine statement that communion under both species is something the Church can change. Other readers might be surprised to see this:

[I]f any one saith, that the holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate, under the species of bread only, laymen, and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be be anathema.

Think about that the next time you hear someone ramble on about how communion under one species was the product of some kind of clerical snobbery or pride.

The other thing about this paragraph is that it mentions the occasion of communion under both kinds as being isolated special events, rather than every single Sunday.

The two parts which, in a certain sense, go to make up the Mass, namely, the liturgy of the word and the eucharistic liturgy, are so closely connected with each other that they form but one single act of worship. Accordingly this sacred Synod strongly urges pastors of souls that, when instructing the faithful, they insistently teach them to take their part in the entire Mass, especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation.

Of course.

Concelebration, whereby the unity of the priesthood is appropriately manifested, has remained in use to this day in the Church both in the east and in the west. For this reason it has seemed good to the Council to extend permission for concelebration to the following cases:

1.

a) on the Thursday of the Lord's Supper, not only at the Mass of the Chrism, but also at the evening Mass.

b) at Masses during councils, bishops' conferences, and synods;

c) at the Mass for the blessing of an abbot.

2. Also, with permission of the ordinary, to whom it belongs to decide whether concelebration is opportune:

a) at conventual Mass, and at the principle Mass in churches when the needs of the faithful do not require that all priests available should celebrate individually;

b) at Masses celebrated at any kind of priests' meetings, whether the priests be secular clergy or religious.

2.

1. The regulation, however, of the discipline of concelebration in the diocese pertains to the bishop.

2. Nevertheless, each priest shall always retain his right to celebrate Mass individually, though not at the same time in the same church as a concelebrated Mass, nor on Thursday of the Lord's Supper.

A new rite for concelebration is to be drawn up and inserted into the Pontifical and into the Roman Missal.

So there is a new rite for concelebration in the West. Can someone explain why? Here's the thing I don't get. Why did we need one? The East does a lot of stuff that we don't do in the West and vice versa. Was this really so big of a deal? It admits to being an innovation. However, as we learned from Article 23:

Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.

So what's the deal?

More to come.

More Vatican II Insight From Roberto De Mattei

This is from Rorate and is worth checking out. It's basically about how most of the bishops at Vatican II weren't in either theological camp, but were instead swayed by the more effective organization of the Rhine group. We've talked about this a little in the past and mentioned that the orthodox bloc were blind-sided at the opening bell by Cardinal Leinart's shenanigans and then played from behind for the rest of the game. The Rhine camp, on the other hand, had been planning for some time about how they would go about "refusing to accept the tyrannical rules laid down by John XXIII."

To this point, I don't think de Mattei's book is in English, which is a shame. I eagerly await a translation, though. In the interim, check out the excerpts at the link and marvel at what a well-organized machine can do in a campaign for votes.

Cardinal Siri On VII's First Session

Rorate seems to be getting into the act by recounting some of the Council's historical highlights. Naturally, we welcome the contribution to the project. We've already discussed the first session ourselves and all the shenanigans that ensued as the Rhine faction hijacked the proceedings. I'd never seen the Cardinal Siri account provided by Rorate, though, so we're trying to help spread it around.

The Council has revealed: that a vague direction in the Church is being outlined, this is represented by a group of the German language and the like. It is organized aliquatenus [to a certain degree]. This is a partial attempt that you cannot affirm with certainty, but you see it in the facts, that someone has a clear and deliberate plan in mind; there is rage against reason, theology and the law. One sees the end of kerygmalism, that is, often that of eliminating Tradition, Ecclesia etc., this is more unconscious than conscious, but it is helped along by the lack of intuition of those who want absolutely to adapt as much as possible to the protestants, to the orthodox etc.,in very many cases, literature prevails on theology. Many beautiful and also true dissertations pertain to literary considerations on dogma, not dogma itself; there is talk of a Theologia nova and the concept of this, let alone the aim, appear to be very dark and perhaps dangerous. The term Theologia nova was coined by a Belgian bishop at the Council.”

Rorate includes a footnote of exactly what items Cardinal Siri was so worried about. It's an astounding bit of prophecy for something written in 1963.

Sacrosanctum Concilium, Pt. 8

Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples' way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.

I see this section quoted a lot. Up to the semicolon, at least. The first clause is often used to justify liturgical abuse in the name of pushing back against "rigid uniformity." They conveniently leave out the qualifier about this being related to evangelization. This is not about legitimizing disco liturgy. Please see our previous post here for more on Vatican II and liturgy in the mission field.

Provisions shall also be made, when revising the liturgical books, for legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands, provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved; and this should be borne in mind when drawing up the rites and devising rubrics.

Notice that even in these mission situations, that bit about the substantial unity of the Roman Rite is to be preserved. Too bad none of us know what that means. The more relevant consideration here is that, if the Council was so concerned about preserving the unity of the Roman Rite for the missions, why was there any kind of effort at all to develop a new Mass?

Within the limits set by the typical editions of the liturgical books, it shall be for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to specify adaptations, especially in the case of the administration of the sacraments, the sacramentals, processions, liturgical language, sacred music, and the arts, but according to the fundamental norms laid down in this Constitution.

Again, the national conferences appear. Once more, though, we see that they aren't as powerful as is sometimes claim. Naturally, they are supposed to be subservient to the Holy See. Here, we also see that they are superseded by the norms of the Constitution. In other words, stuff like that preserving Latin business. I really wonder how many priests and bishops are even aware of this these days.

In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore:

Ugh. Talk about opening the door. Why even bring up that "radical adaptation" is even possible?

1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should when be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.

So some things have to go to the Apostolic See. If anyone knows of some examples of the things the Vatican has approved, I'm curious to see them. The stuff I've looked up has conflicting accounts as to what is Vatican-approved and what was strictly introduced by the local authority. Or what the criteria is for distinguishing radical, useful, necessary, and so forth from what doesn't qualify.

2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.

Experiments?

3) Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, particularly in mission lands, men who are experts in these matters must be employed to formulate them.

If we've learned anything from the Vatican II event, it's that empowering experts is typically a bad idea.

E) Promotion of Liturgical Life in Diocese and Parish

The bishop is to be considered as the high priest of his flock, from whom the life in Christ of his faithful is in some way derived and dependent.

Therefore all should hold in great esteem the liturgical life of the diocese centered around the bishop, especially in his cathedral church; they must be convinced that the pre-eminent manifestation of the Church consists in the full active participation of all God's holy people in these liturgical celebrations, especially in the same eucharist, in a single prayer, at one altar, at which there presides the bishop surrounded by his college of priests and by his ministers [35].

Admirable statements. And, if I might add, the only footnote for this entire part, which is to the epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch.

But because it is impossible for the bishop always and everywhere to preside over the whole flock in his Church, he cannot do other than establish lesser groupings of the faithful. Among these the parishes, set up locally under a pastor who takes the place of the bishop, are the most important: for in some manner they represent the visible Church constituted throughout the world.

And therefore the liturgical life of the parish and its relationship to the bishop must be fostered theoretically and practically among the faithful and clergy; efforts also must be made to encourage a sense of community within the parish, above all in the common celebration of the Sunday Mass.

Remember all this the next time someone suggests that Vatican II is why lay folk can consecrate the Eucharist or preach homilies or read the Gospel. The parishes are set up below both the bishop and pastor. It goes without saying that community bears no indication of equality in roles.

F) The Promotion of Pastoral-Liturgical Action

Zeal for the promotion and restoration of the liturgy is rightly held to be a sign of the providential dispositions of God in our time, as a movement of the Holy Spirit in His Church. It is today a distinguishing mark of the Church's life, indeed of the whole tenor of contemporary religious thought and action.

So that this pastoral-liturgical action may become even more vigorous in the Church, the sacred Council decrees:

It is desirable that the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, set up a liturgical commission, to be assisted by experts in liturgical science, sacred music, art and pastoral practice. So far as possible the commission should be aided by some kind of Institute for Pastoral Liturgy, consisting of persons who are eminent in these matters, and including laymen as circumstances suggest. Under the direction of the above-mentioned territorial ecclesiastical authority the commission is to regulate pastoral-liturgical action throughout the territory, and to promote studies and necessary experiments whenever there is question of adaptations to be proposed to the Apostolic See.

Again with the national conferences and experts. And experiments. But also again, the novelties are to be regulated by Rome.

For the same reason every diocese is to have a commission on the sacred liturgy under the direction of the bishop, for promoting the liturgical apostolate.

Sometimes it may be expedient that several dioceses should form between them one single commission which will be able to promote the liturgy by common consultation.

Besides the commission on the sacred liturgy, every diocese, as far as possible, should have commissions for sacred music and sacred art.

These three commissions must work in closest collaboration; indeed it will often be best to fuse the three of them into one single commission.

If our diocese has any of this stuff, I've never heard of it. Does yours? The thing that bothers me about all this is that the Church seemed to be fine without it. We know from earlier in the Constitution that innovations are prohibited unless "genuinely and certainly" needed. That seems to set a pretty high standard. So why is so much here dedicated to creating machinery that appears aimed at facilitating innovations?

I just don't get it.

Sacrosanctum Concilium, Pt. 7

When we last left the Constitution on the Liturgy (which, yes, was a while back), we had just gotten to the bit about how Latin was to be preserved as the language of the liturgy. I wanted to carve out some discussion about this because the context seems very important to understanding what was going on and what more than a few bishops might have been thinking in going along with it. We know, for example, that the wholesale replacement of Latin by the vernacular was regarded as a joke. Literally. So what was the discussion about?

Mostly, it seems to have been focused on the mission fields. For example, as Fr. Wiltgen relates in The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber:

Archbishop D'Souza [of Nagpur, India] . . . added: "The use of the vernacular in the administration of the sacraments is a must, for the simple reason that the beautiful rites are completely lost on our people if they are in Latin." If local languages and customs were not introduced into the liturgy, the Church would "never make the impact it should on our country. . . "

This is all very interesting coming from a Indian bishop. First off, I'm not sure how significant the whole Latin issue would be for someone in his situation. Aren't most Catholics in India of the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara persuasion? I'm having trouble finding information on this, but all indications are that the Indian liturgies wouldn't have been in Latin anyway. Second, it's kind of weird to hear these kinds of comments given that one of the primary proponents of the TLM is Cardinal Ranjith of Sri Lanka. Third, I have to wonder how legitimate these concerns are. The major evangelical global evangelical pushes were from the Latin Church. This would mean the TLM as the primary liturgical expression. Was the culture of the indigenous folks in South America really so different from Southeast Asia that entirely new liturgical practices were necessary? To my knowledge, the vernacular wasn't introduced to make it any easier. Saying that one group of people is just way too unique to be open to something carries an air of hubris.

There's no doubt, though, that the mission fields were heavily promoted in the conciliar debates about the liturgical reform. Was there perhaps a ulterior motive for eliminating Latin? Fr. Wiltgen, somewhat approvingly, seemed to think so:

As long as Latin texts and Latin rites were universally used in the Church, the Roman Curia would be competent to check and control them. But if hundreds and even thousands of local languages and customs were introduced into the liturgy, the Curia would automatically lose this prerogative. Episcopal conferences with knowledge of the local languages and understanding of local custom would then become the more competent judges in the matter. And this was precisely what the evolving majority was insisting upon.

We've been over the Curia-hate as a major force behind the conciliar reforms already. This looks to have been another manifestation somewhat clothed in the trappings of concerns for potential converts. However, we can't chalk the whole movement up to such motives. There were clearly some legit concerns over this, expressed by parties as conservative as Bishop Antonio Castro de Mayer who Fr. Wiltgen reports as being willing to permit a limited use of the vernacular in "certain cultural areas."

Let's be clear here that I'm discussing this because of the overall collapse of Latin in the liturgy. Whether or not local customs or rituals can be incorporated into the liturgy strikes me as a completely different topic. This has been done successfully in the past and without major incident (the Chinese Rites stuff being a notable exception). For the areas already accustomed to the Latin Rite, why was any accommodation needed? I'm not really finding any explanation for that, other than some comments by Bishop Zauner of Linz, Austria, who was a figure in the Rhine alliance of bishops.

He emphasized that the vernacular was a necessary condition for the active participation of the people. If that was the case, then why does the Council say otherwise both directly (in preserving Latin) and indirectly (by emphasizing the contemplative aspects of participation)? As we've been focusing on, how much stock can we put into the exaltation of participation in the Pauline Mass when the whole liturgy of the Church has been put in permanent workshop mode after its implementation?

The other thing I wanted to point out in all this is the popular "knowledge" of the Council's stand on language. MacAffee Brown, Blanshard, and MacEoin take it for granted that all liturgy will be in the vernacular after the Council. Why would they do this given the actual text of the Constitution and the positioning of Latin as primary and vernacular as an exception to the rule? Their own works don't explain. It's just how they reported on it, which is more proof that you can't trust secular sources for honest news about Catholic events.

Hopefully, my recovery will give me the chance to get back on track with my review of the Council. I know I'm not the kind of guy Msgr. Gherardini had in mind for conducting this kind of study, but I know some of you ask about it and enjoy, so I'm working on getting back into it again.

More to come...

Comic Books, Aquinas, Law, And Liturgy

Bear with me on this. Despite the weird title of this post, I will work everything in.

A lot of you have probably heard by now that DC Comics has re-launched pretty much every book they have. They are kicking off 52 new titles and doing so in the name of "innovation" and "surprise" and a whole bunch of other stuff.

This isn't nearly as innovative, creative, or whatever as they claim it is. Both DC and Marvel have had major "re-boots" like this in the past. Many times. If things get stale, they just restart everything. People, being suckers, run out and buy the new crap without wondering if it will be good or not. It's just new, ergo, good. Things will rock along for a while. Then the newness wears off, and readers start drifting away with the realization that what they've been reading is crap.

Time for another re-boot! And so forth.

For the purposes of our discussion today, by the way, let's leave aside that these re-boots (or re-launches or whatever you want to call them) are, on their substantive merits, typically events of the most awful caliber. There are exceedingly rare exceptions, but for today, let's just think about the point of a re-boot itself.

I'm saying that re-booting things this way lends itself to a complete lack of respect for the stories and characters. It's sort of like killing off a character then bringing them back to life. It cheapens the character. Nobody can take any threat to them seriously anymore, whether it's a super-villain or some sort of internal conflict/angst. They just have to wait for the writer to retcon or re-boot the badness into oblivion.

Indulging in such practices is one of the many reasons why Dan DiDio and Joe Quesada are scourges upon the literary world and should be banished from civilized society until they have done sufficient penance for the crimes against the comic book world and good taste in general. But I digress...


Novelty is a dangerous drug. People crave it without even knowing they do so. Stuff is old. Stuff is therefore seen as dull or tiresome. Rather than looking inward and realizing that the problem might not be with what is old but instead with ourselves, we look for something new to stimulate our senses back into enjoyment. Especially in an age driven so much by entertainment and titillation, we are constantly looking for something to feed our appetite for innovation.

Chesterton put it this way:

All the towering materialism which dominates the modern mind rests ultimately upon one assumption; a false assumption. It is supposed that if a thing goes on repeating itself it is probably dead; a piece of clockwork. People feel that if the universe was personal it would vary; if the sun were alive it would dance. This is a fallacy even in relation to known fact. For the variation in human affairs is generally brought into them, not by life, but by death; by the dying down or breaking off of their strength or desire. A man varies his movements because of some slight element of failure or fatigue. He gets into an omnibus because he is tired of walking; or he walks because he is tired of sitting still. But if his life and joy were so gigantic that he never tired of going to Islington, he might go to Islington as regularly as the Thames goes to Sheerness. The very speed and ecstacy of his life would have the stillness of death. The sun rises every morning. I do not rise every morning; but the variation is due not to my activity, but to my inaction. Now, to put the matter in a popular phrase, it might be true that the sun rises regularly because he never gets tired of rising. His routine might be due, not to a lifelessness, but to a rush of life. The thing I mean can be seen, for instance, in children, when they find some game or joke that they specially enjoy. A child kicks his legs rhythmically through excess, not absence, of life. Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, "Do it again"; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, "Do it again" to the sun; and every evening, "Do it again" to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.


I wonder if the idea has ever occurred to any of these empirical thrill-seekers that perfection is changeless and therefore rejects novelty.


Back to the main issue. It's the same thing with the law. St. Thomas states the following:


Objection 1. It would seem that human law should be changed, whenever something better occurs. Because human laws are devised by human reason, like other arts. But in the other arts, the tenets of former times give place to others, if something better occurs. Therefore the same should apply to human laws.

Objection 2. Further, by taking note of the past we can provide for the future. Now unless human laws had been changed when it was found possible to improve them, considerable inconvenience would have ensued; because the laws of old were crude in many points. Therefore it seems that laws should be changed, whenever anything better occurs to be enacted.

Objection 3. Further, human laws are enacted about single acts of man. But we cannot acquire perfect knowledge in singular matters, except by experience, which "requires time," as stated in Ethic. ii. Therefore it seems that as time goes on it is possible for something better to occur for legislation.

On the contrary, It is stated in the Decretals (Dist. xii, 5): "It is absurd, and a detestable shame, that we should suffer those traditions to be changed which we have received from the fathers of old."

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), human law is rightly changed, in so far as such change is conducive to the common weal. But, to a certain extent, the mere change of law is of itself prejudicial to the common good: because custom avails much for the observance of laws, seeing that what is done contrary to general custom, even in slight matters, is looked upon as grave. Consequently, when a law is changed, the binding power of the law is diminished, in so far as custom is abolished. Wherefore human law should never be changed, unless, in some way or other, the common weal be compensated according to the extent of the harm done in this respect. Such compensation may arise either from some very great and every evident benefit conferred by the new enactment; or from the extreme urgency of the case, due to the fact that either the existing law is clearly unjust, or its observance extremely harmful. Wherefore the jurist says [Pandect. Justin. lib. i, ff., tit. 4, De Constit. Princip.] that "in establishing new laws, there should be evidence of the benefit to be derived, before departing from a law which has long been considered just."

Reply to Objection 1. Rules of art derive their force from reason alone: and therefore whenever something better occurs, the rule followed hitherto should be changed. But "laws derive very great force from custom," as the Philosopher states (Polit. ii, 5): consequently they should not be quickly changed.

Reply to Objection 2. This argument proves that laws ought to be changed: not in view of any improvement, but for the sake of a great benefit or in a case of great urgency, as stated above. This answer applies also to the Third Objection.

New for the sake of being new isn't a good reason to change the law. In fact, even if the new law would be better, that isn't enough. It has to be so good that the goodness in the change will exceed the damage done to the overall respect for the law as a whole. After all, who would appreciate a law that changed all the time? I've often wondered what a session of Congress or our state legislatures would look like if they decided not to pass any new laws. Was their previous year/years of work so shoddy that all these new laws and changes were required? Why are they always trying to pass new laws or change old ones?

My opinion is that they do so just for the newness. They can go home and tell everyone about all the laws they passed. They can't really state a case for these new precepts having any utility. They won't have been in effect long enough. Many will probably get repealed before they have an effect at all. People hear all the shiny newness, though, and are led to think that something was actually accomplished with all this statutory diarrhea. To the contrary, the Angelic Doctor says, the only thing accomplished is a deterioration of the legal system and the public perception of their lawmakers.


Where else do we see this addiction to the new played out most palpably? You've probably guessed from my post title. It's the liturgy of course. The fact that the Gregorian Mass went pretty much unchanged for 1500 years wasn't a sign of life or vitality as Chesterton might point out. It was a sign of stagnation and death. What was needed, in direct contradiction to Vatican II's Constitution on the Liturgy, was a completely new Mass, with all sorts of new stuff. This was called reform.


You see it even today. Liturgical committees get together to decide what kind of Mass they want to have. Clown Mass, Halloween Mass, Gay Mass, LifeTeen Mass, Contemporary Mass, etc. If attendance is down, what's the solution? Bring in secular music. Liturgical dance. The list goes on. How odd that Mass attendance was at 80% back when we had the stodgy and dull "Old Mass." I still recall how the "expert" in my wife's RCIA group spoke about how the "Old Mass" just wasn't fun enough to enjoy.


Don't think that lust for novelty was at the root of the alleged reform? Consider the words of Fr. Joseph Gelineau, SJ, one of Archbishop Bugnini's foremost liturgical consultants in his work The Liturgy Today and Tomorrow:

It would be false to identify this liturgical renewal with the reform of rites decided on by Vatican II. This reform goes back much further and goes forward far beyond the conciliar prescriptions. The liturgy is a permanent workshop.



At the root of all this is the same gluttony for sensations that drives all the other stuff I mentioned. Whether it's Justice League Dark, or the latest change in trapping regulations, or Disco Liturgy, it's all about people being addicted to the new. We look to feed our senses instead of our souls. More tragically, many think these are the same thing.


In the words of Archie Bunker, we need to stifle ourselves. Whether in terms of our literary, legal, or liturgical preferences, some acknowledgement of stability, tradition, and custom is needed. This is why the Extraordinary Form is so vital to the future of the Church. It subdues our appetite for this sort of stuff. We are decreased so that He may increase. And not just us, but the priests as well. You can't have Disco Liturgy in the Extraordinary Form. Priests making themselves the center of attention is impossible. Everything is degraded in favor of God's Presence.


Humans have a bad habit of screwing things up. We're fallen, so it's understandable. Let's not give ourselves so many opportunities, though.

Re: Rahner

Since I've been on a bit of a Jesuit kick lately, let me go ahead and do a post that I've been meaning to do for a while now.

Let's talk about Fr. Karl Rahner, SJ.

If you've never heard of him, he's a German theologian who was the biggest thing in the whole science back in the 60s and 70s. How big of a deal was he? So big that he almost single-handedly reshaped Catholic theology So big that there are some who call him the greatest genius ever produced by the Catholic Church in Her entire history.

I've mentioned him a few times before in other posts, usually connected with Vatican II stuff. This is because he was the chief theological expert for the "Rhine group" bishops who hi-jacked the Council. Consider Fr. Wiltgen's description of him in The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber:

Since the position of the German-language bishops was regularly adopted by the European alliance, and since the alliance position was regularly adopted by the Council, a single theologian might have his views accepted by the whole Council if they had been accepted by the German-speaking bishops. There was such a theologian: Father Karl Rahner, SJ.

Technically, Father Rahner was Cardinal Konig's consultant theologian. In practice, he was consulted by many members of the German and Austrian hierarchy, and he might well be called the most influential mind at the Fulda conference. Cardinal Frings, in private conversation, called Father Rahner "the greatest theologian of the century."

This doesn't really begin to make the point, though. The book goes on to provide many examples of Rahner's sway over the conciliar proceedings. For example, he pretty much led the way in de-railing the proposed schema on Our Lady. Why was the schema so threatening? Because:

... unimaginable harm would result from an ecumenical point of view, in relation to both Orientals and Protestants...

And that

... all the success achieved in the field of ecumenism through the Council and in connection with the Council will be rendered worthless by the retention of the schema as it stands."

These are Wiltgen's quotes from Rahner, so please pardon the lack of context. Anyways, the point is that there was no separate schema. Its contents were heavily redacted and instead moved over to Lumen Gentium. On a side note, I have to wonder what all this "success" is that the Council had to this point. It was January of 1963. The first session had just closed. Was there some kind of mass conversion to the Faith or huge breakthrough that somehow nobody noticed except Rahner?

Like I said, he was a big deal. But back to the real point of this post.

For over a decade now, I've been reading Rahner's stuff. Off and on for years, I've constantly gone back to his writings to check his thoughts on things. I've come to a few conclusions.

First off, the man was frightfully smart, but he wasn't a genius. This might be a personal idiosyncrasy of mine, but the hallmark of genius is the ability to make the complex more understandable to the average joe. Geniuses are people who are lucid and coherent when talking about their chosen subject.

Some might think that my criticism here is a product of my own pride and frustration. After all, I'm not a theologian or even frightfully smart. Maybe I'm just mad that my inferior intellect can't grasp Rahner's awesomeness.

I don't think so. Rahner's lack of lucidity is a joke. Literally. His own brother, Fr. Hugo Rahner, SJ, once commented that someone should work on getting Karl's works translated into German. It's probably not all his fault. He takes a lot of his views, including epistemology, from Martin Heidegger, who was probably more incoherent than Rahner, if such a thing is possible.

This lack of clarity winds up throwing one's work open to interpretation, which no real genius would want to tolerate. If you're bright enough to come up with an idea, why would you allow somebody else to screw up what you were saying? Then you look like a jackass all because of someone else's mistake. This kind of ambiguity and poor rendering of thought (not to mention sometimes completely making words up) makes it easy for a lot of folks to label Rahner as a heretic.

But was he?

I resist the idea of flinging h-bombs at people. Really, I do. In charity, everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt. So when I read his writings on the Trinity and all this "the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity" and try to figure out how he says such things without completely ditching the doctrine of appropriation (as very lucidly taught by Pope Leo XIII) and coming up with a bizarre tritheism (even though others say it's modalism), I shrugged and let it go. Hey, it's the Trinity. It's complicated stuff. It's easy to be wrong about, right?

Then I picked up something like the Theological Investigations and read, say, the passages about Christ's human knowledge, which essentially amount to a denial that Christ always held the Beatific Vision. Or bits like this about the Resurrection:

Secondly we should achieve for ourselves a clear understanding of what really can be meant in theological terms by resurrection. The moment we picture to ourselves a dead man returning once more into our temporal dimension, with the biological conditions belonging to it, we have conceived of something which has nothing whatever to do with the Resurrection of Jesus, and which cannot have any significance for our salvation either. In fact to say that any individual has risen from the dead must be precisely tantamount to saying: "This man in this fate of his which seems so absolutely negative, has in a true sense, as himself, and together with his history, really attained God." What it does not say, however, is this: "He has once more extricated himself from the process of death, and is once more there on the same plane as ourselves."

My first thought was "What the hell is that supposed to mean?" Then I progressed to trying to figure out how this isn't gnostic what with the apparent denial of a dead man coming back to life and all. Even then, I figured that maybe I'm missing something. He IS frightfully smart, after all. I'm not. Let's move on.

Anonymous Christianity. I'll be honest. I don't even come close to understanding this one. It seems to involve Rahner's very confused muddling of nature and grace, where sanctifying grace comes off as some sort of elemental force that just pops in and out with no real connection to the Church. The supernatural is brought down to the level of nature, which I always thought was weird for a guy whose thought is referred to as "Transcendental Thomism." It's neither of those things.

I continued to ramble through Fr. Rahner's stuff with absolutely no idea how the bulk of it fits in with Catholic dogma. Still, I never used the h-bomb in describing him.

Then I stumbled across a work called The Unity of the Churches: An Actual Possibility. He wrote this with a guy named Heinrish Fries. I'm making an appeal to all the Fr. Rahner fans out there. Can you please explain to me how this book isn't heretical? I've tried to come up with some impressive mental gymnastics to get around it. I'm done. Whatever comments you've got, I'll be happy to post. I won't even argue. I'm just looking for a defense that doesn't involve junking Catholicism to make it work.

Ultimately, I have realized that there's way better stuff out there to read than Fr. Rahner's work. Way better. Like actual Church documents or MAD Magazine or the back of a soup can or Green Eggs and Ham or . . .

More Historical Insight On The Liturgical Reform

The New Liturgical Movement has a review of the book The Development of the Liturgical Reform: As Seen by Cardinal Ferdinando Antonelli from 1948-1970. From the sound of things, Cardinal Antonelli's diaries and papers contain a good bit of material verifying the points we've made here before regarding the hijacking of Vatican II. Check out these bits:

I am not enthusiastic about this work. I am unhappy about how much the Commission has changed. It is merely an assembly of people, many of them incompetent, and others of them well advanced on the road to novelty. The discussions are extremely hurried. Discussions are based on impressions and the voting is chaotic. What is most displeasing is that the expositive Promemorias and the relative questions are drawn up in advanced terms and often in a very suggestive form. The direction is weak.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

As the Consilium’s work proceeded, Antonelli’s concerns about its competence, its predilection for innovation and its consuming haste, grew. After some years’ experience of the Consilium he wrote that the liturgical reform was becoming “more chaotic and deviant” , adding:

That which is sad... however, is a fundamental datum, a mutual attitude, a pre-established position, namely, many of those who have influenced the reform...and others, have no love, and no veneration of that which has been handed down to us. They begin by despising everything that is actually there. This negative mentality is unjust and pernicious, and unfortunately, Paul VI tends a little to this side. They have all the best intentions, but with this mentality they have only been able to demolish and not to restore.

We have to ask ourselves at some point how much praise we can give to the liturgical reform without being willfully obtuse. Knowing where it came from and how, doesn't it get pretty easy at some point to just admit it was a mistake?

Non-Catholic Influence At Vatican II

We've spoken a bit about the non-Catholic "observers" who were invited to the Council. As you read through the ongoing (really, it is) series about Vatican II, I pull a lot from Robert McAffee Brown, who was one of those very guys.

On a similar note, Rorate has put up a bit about an article published that attempts to quantify how much influence non-Catholic groups actually had, albeit indirectly. No surprise, it looks to have been quite a bit.

A new analysis of voting patterns among bishops at the Second Vatican Council points to the indirect influence of non-Catholic churches in the Council’s liberalization of the Catholic Church.

Melissa Wilde, an associate professor of sociology in the School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania, led a team of researchers that investigated data from the Vatican Secret Archive to determine the critical factors influencing how bishops voted at the Second Vatican Council.

Their findings are outlined in “Religious Economy or Organizational Field? Predicting Bishops’ Votes at the Second Vatican Council,” published in the August issue of American Sociological Review.

The researchers found that the relationship between the church and state as well as changes in the institution’s situation in relation to other institutions, particularly a loss of dominance and the presence of and relationship with other religious institutions, were crucial factors in predicting whether religious leaders would be open to change and also what kinds of change they would prioritize.

I haven't read the article, but I'm going to try and get my hands on a copy. Sounds like interesting stuff.

Sacrosanctum Concilium, Pt. 6

Continuing on with the Constitution on the Liturgy:

Although the sacred liturgy is above all things the worship of the divine Majesty, it likewise contains much instruction for the faithful [34]. For in the liturgy God speaks to His people and Christ is still proclaiming His gospel. And the people reply to God both by song and prayer.

A couple of things here. First, this is something lost in the Pauline Mass. I remember when my wife was first looking to convert to Orthodoxy, I had a lot of good conversations with our contributor Karl about the best resources for learning about it. He was absolutely correct when he told me to focus on the liturgy. With the exception of the Roman Canon, I really don't think the current Eucharistic Prayers in the West are very good at laying out the Church's beliefs. This is especially true with Prayer #2, which we all know is the most popular because it's the shortest. That should tell you something right there.

Second, the Mass is presented as God speaking to the people and the people responding to God. The number of Catholics who think the Mass is a dialogue with the priest is huge.

Third, the footnote is a Cf. to Session XXII, Chapter 8, of the Council of Trent on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. To begin, how many "spirit of Vatican" types would freak out if they knew Trent was cited at VII about the liturgy.

More significant, though, is what Chapter 8 actually says about the instruction given to the laity:

Although the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, nevertheless, it has not seemed expedient to the Fathers, that it should be every where celebrated in the vulgar tongue. Wherefore, the ancient usage of each church, and the rite approved of by the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, being in each place retained; and, that the sheep of Christ may not suffer hunger, nor the little ones ask for bread, and there be none to break it unto them, the holy Synod charges pastors, and all who have the cure of souls, that they frequently, during the celebration of mass, expound either by themselves, or others, some portion of those things which are read at mass, and that, amongst the rest, they explain some mystery of this most holy sacrifice, especially on the Lord's days and festivals.

In other words, the Mass is all in Latin and is going to stay that way, so you priests had best be explaining what's going on. This will be an even bigger deal later, but I think it's interesting to check where the citation leads us on this. It certainly isn't to the cliche of "Vatican II said that we needed to understand stuff better so it switched the Mass to the vernacular."

Moving on:

Moreover, the prayers addressed to God by the priest who presides over the assembly in the person of Christ are said in the name of the entire holy people and of all present. And the visible signs used by the liturgy to signify invisible divine things have been chosen by Christ or the Church. Thus not only when things are read "which were written for our instruction" (Rom. 15:4), but also when the Church prays or sings or acts, the faith of those taking part is nourished and their minds are raised to God, so that they may offer Him their rational service and more abundantly receive His grace.

The best thing to take away from this is the bit about nourished faith and minds being raised to God. Somebody needs to explain how liturgical experimentation raises minds to God, rather than keeping them in the room with the committee.

Wherefore, in the revision of the liturgy, the following general norms should be observed:

Ok, this should give us specifics on what liturgical reform should look like, right?

The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people's powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.

And right out of the gate, the ambiguity shows itself. First, you've got the stuff about noble simplicity. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, but check these articles from the New Liturgical Movement and Nova et Vera for the explanations on why noble simplicity doesn't mean iconoclasm. I will interject the question of how most of the Disco Liturgy that we see on YouTube and such can in any way qualify as noble or simple. Most of the abuses that we encounter are the opposite of this. Moreover, is this really something that wasn't already present? The TLM is very noble and simple, even at High Mass. As the NLM article shows, the exuberant liturgies are all in the East.

Second, I don't think anyone can gripe about the TLM not being short, clear, and non-repetitive. You have a second Confiteor, but outside of that, all the repeated stuff is just as repetitive in the Pauline Mass. So the question becomes what exactly are they talking about here?

Third, stuff is supposed to be comprehensible and without need for explanation. Didn't we just read a citation that said the opposite? The Mass is useful for instruction. Isn't it typical that people who need instruction aren't going to comprehend something and instead need it explained to them? This part is just plain weird, but you see it relied upon a lot by folks who have well-nigh Jansenist ideas on liturgy (see this article for a description of such ideas).

That the intimate connection between words and rites may be apparent in the liturgy:

In sacred celebrations there is to be more reading from holy scripture, and it is to be more varied and suitable.

So here we have the new cycle of readings. I get the intent here. I'm just not sure it worked out that way. Sometimes, it seems like having to work in more readings has made for less suitable selections for the occasion.

Because the sermon is part of the liturgical service, the best place for it is to be indicated even in the rubrics, as far as the nature of the rite will allow; the ministry of preaching is to be fulfilled with exactitude and fidelity. The sermon, moreover, should draw its content mainly from scriptural and liturgical sources, and its character should be that of a proclamation of God's wonderful works in the history of salvation, the mystery of Christ, ever made present and active within us, especially in the celebration of the liturgy.

Nothing wrong with this. I'm just not sure how much it's actually done.

Instruction which is more explicitly liturgical should also be given in a variety of ways; if necessary, short directives to be spoken by the priest or proper minister should be provided within the rites themselves. But they should occur only at the more suitable moments, and be in prescribed or similar words.

This is basically a repetition of what we quoted from Trent above. Again, though, the weirdness is palpable since we are having to explain stuff again when it's already been said that you shouldn't have to explain anything.

Bible services should be encouraged, especially on the vigils of the more solemn feasts, on some weekdays in Advent and Lent, and on Sundays and feast days. They are particularly to be commended in places where no priest is available; when this is so, a deacon or some other person authorized by the bishop should preside over the celebration.

I'm not sure what is meant by Bible services. It is noteworthy that the Constitution again demands that whoever is leading must be someone authorized by the bishop.

Which brings us to:

Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

Boom. Vatican II actually says that Latin is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

Let's look at the rest of the section:

But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

Note the language. "May be of great advantage." "May be extended." Start with readings and directives, then "some of the prayers and chants." In what measure of this do we find the impetus for an abolition of Latin?

These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

We've talked about the Art. 22 section before. This is a big part of where our troubles come from.

Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

We're seeing this happen now with the new ICEL translation.

I'm going to stop here because the whole Latin business is usually what most people think of when VII liturgical reform is discussed. It's also the reason given for many as to why they don't like the TLM, even if they've never been to one before. There's a lot of info I think we need to go over for this to make it clear that, even with the ambiguity inserted into these passages, it's a huge stretch to claim that the Council was remotely contemplating an all-vernacular liturgy, and even more off-case to say that the vernacular was mandated. Our suggestion here is that the thing most cited as the defining characteristic of the Pauline Mass is actually nothing like the proposed conciliar reform.