Vatican Approves Hula Masses

News has come from Honolulu that the Vatican approved "Hula Masses" for the Catholic Church in Hawaii. Catholics worldwide are shocked by this development, since many see it as an isolated aberration. Yet this latest anomaly is not a quirk in an otherwise flawless "renewal". It is part and parcel of the program for liturgical restructure unleashed upon the world since the Council. Hence, before discussing Hula Masses in particular, it is necessary to examine the spirit of "reform" that has characterized the liturgy over the past thirty years. When placed within the larger context of Vatican II's liturgical revolution, it is obvious that "Hula Masses" are an inevitable result.

In 1964, the renowned British author Evelyn Waugh, disturbed by the "progressive" course adopted by Vatican II, lamented that proponents of change in the liturgy then being imposed had been "with us in parts of the U.S.A., and northern Europe for a generation. We had looked upon them as harmless cranks who were attempting to devise a charade of 2nd Century habits. We had confidence in the abiding Romanità of our Church. Suddenly we find the cranks in authority." 1

Seventeen years earlier, these "cranks," had been foremost in the mind of Pope Pius XII. In his 1947 encyclical Mediator Dei, he warned against those who nurtured a lust for novelty. With regard to those who wished to reinstate practices of the early church as a pretext for tinkering with established liturgical forms, Pius warned:

Pius XII further warned about unorthodox liturgical changes being orchestrated by these "cranks" who wanted to move the tabernacle from the center of the altar. In 1956, only six years before the Council, Pius XII stated:

Today, thanks to the Vatican II revolution, Pius warnings have been flagrantly disregarded by Church authorities. The altar has been replaced by a table. Black has been eliminated from liturgical colors. Pictures and statues have been excluded from many churches. Crucifixes representing the sufferings our Lord have been replaced with the "Cross of the Risen Christ", if not eliminated. In many churches, tabernacle is removed from the altar, thus separating "two things which by their origin and nature should remain untied."

Another post-Vatican II victory for these "cranks" was killing off Latin in liturgy to give way to an all vernacular ritual -- despite that "vernacularizing of the Mass was forbidden by the Council of Trent on doctrinal grounds." 4 In fact, Trent hurled terrifying condemnations against anyone who proposed an all-vernacular Mass. Canon IX from Session XX of the dogmatic Council of Trent infallibly and irrevocably states:

From then until recently, a long line of Popes, faithful to unchangeable doctrine and Catholic patrimony, reiterated the irreplaceable importance of Latin in Liturgy.

Pope Pius VI, in his 1794 letter Auctorum Fidei, called the demand of "expressing the Liturgy in the vernacular language" as "rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it." 6

Pope Pius XI, in his 1922 Apostolic Letter Officiorum Omnium said that the "knowledge and use of this (Latin) language," so intimately bound up with the Churchs life is important "not so much on cultural or literary grounds, but for religious reasons." 7

Today, however, this "sign of unity" has been shattered, this "safeguard against corruption" torn down. It matters little that Vatican II, in its vague Constitution on the Liturgy, displays a toothless phrase of false assurance that "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites". 9 In practice, and in the name of the same Council, Latin as liturgical language has all but disappeared from Catholic churches worldwide.

The vernacularization of the Mass was not the only problem with post-Vatican II liturgical changes. When the New Rite was first introduced in 1969, Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Vatican's Holy Office, along with a group of Roman theologians, produced a brilliant Critical Study of the New Mass. 10 It warned that new liturgy teems with dangerous errors and represents an attack against infallible Catholic dogma.

Cardinal Ottaviani was referring to the many theological problems in the original Latin text of the New Rite itself -- this is apart from the abolition of Latin from liturgical language.

From what has been here presented, 12 it is clear that the Vatican II liturgical "reform" has been distinguished by one principle; sheer contempt of the past -- a thumb-nosing to the Popes and Councils of the centuries. The warnings of Pius XII have been disregarded. The Council of Trent's dogmatic teaching condemning an all-vernacular liturgy, and subsequent Papal reiteration of this truth, has been ignored. The Council of Trent's dogmatic principles as to what constitutes the Sacrifice of the Mass have been scorned. The "insurmountable barriers against heresy that might attack the integrity of the mystery" of the Mass have been torn down.

In fact, the entire liturgical "renewal" could be called the "Revenge of the Modernists." Its principles and practices boldly mock Pope St. Pius X, who warned in his great anti-modernist encyclical Pascendi:

Today, we face a hierarchy that is absolutely revolutionary in its thinking, its designs, its practices. Since these Church leaders think nothing of rejecting the wisdom of the centuries, of cutting themselves loose from the moorings of Sacred Tradition, of disregard for dogmatic pronouncements, of boldly going where no Churchman had gone before, into the forbidden pastures of novelty, and since we are currently in the grip of a generation of prelates who have been formed according to these revolutionary principles, it is no surprise that we are now in a liturgical free-fall where brash innovation is the hallmark and "Anything Goes" is the theme.

On January 7, 1999, the Associated Press reported that the Vatican gave permission for "Hula" and other Native Hawaiian "sacred gestures" to be performed during Roman Catholic services. 14

Over the past few years, Hula dance has made its way into the liturgy throughout the Hawaiian Islands. But last year, a Maui woman who was offended by hula dancing during Mass, complained to the diocese. She then took her complaint to Rome.

Rome temporarily supported the traditional ban. In June, a diocesan spokesman told parish priests that the Vatican said "there should be no dance of any kind in the churches of the Diocese of Honolulu."

That touched a nerve among Hawaiians and inhabitants of the Pacific region. The Dominion, a New Zealand newspaper, blasted the Vaticans rulings stating that "already there is whispered talk of schism between the Catholic church in Hawaii and the Vatican." The newspaper then praised Honolulu bishop Francis Di Lorenzo who was quoted as having no quarrel with "properly done" Hula within the Mass. It was obvious that Di Lorenzo was about to take the matter in hand.

In September, Bishop Di Lorenzo, whose 1994 installation ceremony included hula dancing in Church, 16 traveled to Rome to appeal the Vatican's decision. During this time, the Dec. 8th Honolulu Advertiser fired its own salvo against traditional Catholic directives:

After months of negotiation, the Vatican finally allowed "Hula" and "sacred gestures" to be performed within liturgy. A triumphant Bishop Di Lorenzo issued diocesan guidelines for these "sacred gestures" that took effect January 3rd.

Bishop Di Lorenzo has stated that the traditional ban on dancing in church is still in force. He gets around this, however, by a bold and straightforward abuse of language. He has simply redefined dancing.

Honolulus diocesan newspaper is careful to report that what has been approved is not "dancing" but "sacred gestures" defined as "movements that express praise, thanksgiving, adoration and petition and penitence. It is considered a form of praying with ones whole being ... a natural expression of prayer among Hawaiis indigenous people ..." 17

Yet, Hula dancing has its roots as an expression prayer in the native Hawaiian pagan religions. What Di Lorenzo is saying, then, is that its O.K. to do Hula dancing in church, as long as you don't call it dancing -- in the same way that pro-abortionists proclaim it O.K. for a woman to kill the baby in her womb, so long as you don't call it a baby. Di Lorenzos transparent legalisms are neither original nor clever. It is blatant dishonesty dead-aimed at those "born yesterday".

Worst still, these new Hula guidelines encourage children to get into the act. Di Lorenzos document, Sacred Gestures in the Liturgy-- Norms for the Diocese of Honolulu states:

As we witness this travesty unfold, our hearts cannot but break for the Maui woman who brought the complaint to Rome in the first place -- with the mistaken notion that today's Vatican is a bastion of traditional Catholicism that would offer immediate and unconditional support against pagan aberrations. This poor woman now sees the very abuses she decried established as "Vatican-approved" practice, and even foisted upon young children. It is not unlike the disturbing story of Kevin Untener's rise to the episcopacy.

In the fall of 1980, Catholic writer and activist Randy Engel, along with a group of concerned Catholics, sent a documented dossier to Rome reporting on seminary rector, Fr. Kevin Untener, who had been showing pornographic films -- both heterosexual and homosexual -- to his seminarians. Not long after they lodged this complaint, the Vatican elevated Untener to the episcopacy and appointed him Bishop of Saginaw, Michigan, where he now proudly presides over one of the most ultra-liberal dioceses on earth. 19

Yet in order to be true to its own new revolutionary documents, the Vatican had no choice but acquiesce to Di Lorenzos demands for hula. In 1994, the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued the document "Inculturation and the Roman Liturgy," -- a blanket endorsement for inculturation and liturgical fragmentation worldwide. It reads:

At least the Vatican is honest enough to recognize what dancing is, and calls it by its proper name. The loophole this document provides however, is that its O.K. for hand-clapping, body swaying and dancing to be done in church, so long as you don't call it a performance. This is like granting children permission for loud belching at the dinner table, providing they don't call it amusement.

Before Vatican II, Catholic parishes struck a fitting balance between culture and religion. In fact, particularly in Europe, it was the Catholic Faith that formed and fashioned the culture.

This "fitting balance" migrated to the United States. One could not, for example, visit an Italian parish and not know that one was at an Italian parish. The culture surrounded the exterior of the church, it permeated the people, it displayed itself proudly in the church basement, its dances and customs enriched church-related social events. But the parishioners did not dance the tarantella in the sanctuary. The culture never forced its way inside the church to dilute the Sacred Mysteries with profane activity. These old time Italians, Germans, Irish, etc. were not so insecure about their culture that they needed to have it compete with the duties of reverence they owed to God during Holy Mass.

One of the finest examples of this "fitting balance" is currently found within Ukrainian Byzantine parishes, where strong ethnic culture surrounds the church, permeates the congregations, defines social-events, but does not intrude itself into Divine Liturgy. These people understand that there is a distinction between the natural order of culture and the supernatural order of the Divine, and that these boundaries may not be crossed. The Ukrainian Catholics carry this distinction within their bones, even if they cannot articulate it by reasoned argument.

By contrast, the whole purpose of today's inculturation, is to blend the natural and the supernatural orders into one syncretistic sauce. It is actually the praxis of a new religion.

The new liturgical rites from Vatican II, contrary to the doctrine and practices of 2,000 years of Papal teaching, are characterized by the incorporation of non-Catholic elements.

It is well-known that six Protestant ministers helped formulate the New Mass, and that the New Mass was patterned on the changes made by the 16th Century Protestant Thomas Cramner who disbelieved in the Mass's sacrificial nature, and who transformed it into a barren, Protestant commemoration of the Lords supper.

Journalist Jean Guitton, a close friend and confidant of Pope Paul VI, confirmed that it was the direct aim of the Pope to Protestantize the liturgy. In a recent radio interview, Guitton said:

Ecumenism, a non-Catholic principle consistently condemned by the perennial magisterium, 22 has spawned the incorporation of practices from heretical sects into the Mass. Likewise, inculturation has now produced the incorporation of non-Catholic elements from the surrounding culture into the liturgy, whether these elements are pagan or not.

It has often been stated, and is easy to believe, that the majority of bishops in 1963 did not fully comprehend the liturgical revolution that they had launched by the Councils Constitution on the Liturgy. There were, however, many bishops who knew exactly what was being contrived -- especially regarding inculturation -- and expressed their complete support.

One such prelate, who had sided with the progressives at the Council, 23 happily predicted the fragmentation of the Mass that the liturgical revolution would yield. On December 8, 1965, just a few hours after the closing of the Council, the bishop said:

Thirty-five years after the Council, we reckon the outcome, still unfolding, of this new direction. Victor Kulunday, in his superb book The Paganization of the Church in India, documents the Hindu-izing and paganizing of the Church in his country, thanks to two primary principles of the Vatican II reform: ecumenism and inculturation.

This reckless and irreverent novelty of inculturation is directly responsible for an endless litany of heathen aberrations incorporated into "Catholic" worship: African tribal dance in the sanctuary, Polka Masses, bare-breasted women in native attire reading the Mass's Epistle in Papua New Guinea, Catholic prelates participating in animist pagan rites, Native-American sweet grass rituals in church, the list goes on an on.

In fact, when the Associated Press reported the Vatican's recent permission for "Hula Masses," it reminded the reader:

This "performance" took place within the sanctuary of St. Peters Basilica at the opening Mass of the Vatican Synod. 25

Inculturation is a pet-favorite of the hard-left trendies who now dominate the ecclesiastical scene. The progressive Father Richard McBrien defines inculturation as:

Yet inculturation is actually a further development of the modernist "new theology" of Henri de Lubac and Teilhard de Chardin, which confuses the natural and the supernatural orders. In 1946, the great anti-modernist Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange warned that this new theology is nothing more than a resurgent, pantheistic modernism. 27 Likewise, Pope Pius XII, while not naming specific names, condemned the principles of the "new theology" in 1946 28 and also in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis. 29

This modernist "new theology" triumphed at Vatican II. Its principles are at the root of the endless novelties unfolding before our eyes since the Council.

Father Henrici, SJ, a disciple of the "new theology", clearly stated their position:

Interestingly, the same terminology is encountered within the writings of inculturation advocates. In the book Modern Catholicism, an anthropologist and missiologist, Fr. Aylward Shorter, praises the inculturation in Paul VIs Evangelii Nuntiandi, and also in John Paul IIs Catechesi Tradendae. He calls it a "dialogue between Faith and culture". 31

Nonetheless, he voiced a complaint, both interesting and revealing. He laments that these documents:

Hence, this statement from Aylward Shorter tells us two things about inculturation:

This is not too strong a statement, since it reflects the concerns expressed by Cardinal Siri in his book Gethsemane, which critiqued de Lubac's confusion of the natural and the supernatural orders. In this book, Cardinal Siri rightly warned that if de Lubac's theories are taken to their logical conclusion, it would mean that "Christ is only man, or man is Divine" 33 The "divination of man" is simply another word for pantheism, and pantheism is what Inculturation is really all about.

For confirmation of this fact, one need only consult The Dancing Church, a pro-inculturation video produced by the Paulist Press. In that presentation, while the viewer is shown African tribal dance assimilated into Sunday mass, the narrator bluntly states a prime tenet of the new creed:

Once again, we see this pantheistic principle promoted in the name of the Councils "renewal".

Yet it follows logically. The "new theology" which confuses nature and supernature has become the "official theology of Vatican II". This same "new theology", as Cardinal Siri warned, is a fertile breeding ground for pantheism. Hence, it is no surprise that Cardinal Ratzinger remarked with apparent indifference that "Vatican II is a counter-syllabus." 34 In other words, Vatican II is an attempt to capsize the traditional Catholic principles contained in Venerable Pope Pius IX's magnificent Syllabus of Errors of 1864. The very first error condemned in Pius IX's Syllabus is the pestilence of pantheism.

The final question, however, is whether Vatican approval for these anomalies suddenly transforms them into acceptable Catholic practice. Quite simply, the answer is no -- since to accept these innovations is to reject the entire Sacred Tradition of the Church.

For years, Catholics have labored under the mistaken notion that they must accept the pastoral Council, Vatican II, with the same assent of Faith that they owe to dogmatic Councils. This, however, is not the case.

At the close of Vatican II, the bishops asked the Councils Secretary General, Msgr. Pericle Felici, for that which theologians call the "theological note" of the Council. Felici replied,

In other words, unlike a dogmatic Council, Vatican II does not demand an unqualified assent of Faith. Its verbose and ambiguous decrees are not on a par with dogmatic pronouncements. God is still with His Church. The Holy Ghost prevented the Council Fathers from formulating decrees (containing previously-condemned novelties) that were unconditionally binding on the Catholic faithful.

The fact that Vatican II is inferior to a dogmatic Council is confirmed by the testimony of Bishop Thomas Morris, which at his request was not unsealed until after his death:

Hence Catholics may "make reservations" and even resist those teachings from the Council that conflict with the perennial magisterium of the centuries. Likewise, Catholics may resist novel practices (Hula Masses) that have emanated from the Councils unprecedented "reform".

Throughout the ages, the Popes, Saints and Holy Doctors have taught that the first and foremost duty of all Catholics, and especially of the hierarchy in Rome, is to maintain tradition; that is, the purity of the Faith in doctrine and practice.

St. Peter Canisuis, a Doctor of the Church, wrote in his Summa Doctrinae Chrisstanae "it behooves us unanimously to observe the ecclesiastical traditions, whether defined or simply retained by customary practice of the Church."

Likewise, St. Peter Damian, another Doctor of the Church, teaches "It is unlawful to alter the established customs of the Church ... Remove not the ancient landmarks which the fathers have set."

In our century, Pope Benedict XV repeated almost verbatim the words of Pope St. Stephen, when he declared "Do not innovate anything. Rest content with tradition." 37

But what if even a Pope should not be "content with tradition" and innovate practically everything? The great theologian, Cardinal Juan de Torquemada (1388-1468), citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, speaks of the real possibility of this happening -- that it is possible for a Pope to be disobedient to Catholic teaching. Then, citing the same doctrine of Innocent III, he instructs the Catholic faithful on how they must respond:

It follows, then, that if it is possible for a Pope to command something against divine law, then it is likewise possible for a Pope to permit something that is against divine or natural law, i.e., ecumenism and inculturation.

This truth was recently reinforced by a theologian and loyal son of Pope John Paul II, Father Joseph de Sainte Marie 39 who emitted a brokenhearted lament about the Vatican's present state of instability:

"In our day, and it is one of the most obvious signs of the extraordinarily abnormal character of the current state of the Church, it is very often the case that the acts of the Holy See demand of us prudence and discernment." 40

This is in no way a camouflaged attempt to advance a sede-vacantist position. 41 Its aim is nothing more than to recall the traditional Catholic principle -- advanced by many Popes, saints and theologians 42 -- that if anyone within today's Vatican permits or propagates teaching and practices contrary to Sacred Tradition, the faithful are not bound to follow in blind obedience. In fact, the Catholics duty is to resist. 43

On this point, the Fathers of the Church have given us firm guidance. St. Vincent of Lerins teaches that "if some new contagion infects the whole Church at once", then the Catholics first obligation is to "attach himself to antiquity (tradition) which can no longer be led astray by any lying novelty". 44

Finally, we must draw courage and strength from the words of Pope St. Pius X who assures us "Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither the revolutionaries nor innovators, they are the traditionalists." 45

1. The Tablet, Feb. 15, 1964, p. 195. Cited from Michael Davies Pope Pauls New Mass, (Angelus Press, Kansas City, 1988) p. 82.

2. Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII, from Selected Letters and Addresses of Pius XII, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1949, p.198.

3. Pius XII, Allocution to the International Congress on Pastoral Liturgy, Sept. 22, 1957.

5. The full quote reads "If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned, or that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only, or that water should not be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ: let him be anathema." (Quoted from Denzinger, The Source of Catholic Dogma, 1955 edition.), #956 (theologians teach that this is aimed at the Roman Rite).

6. Auctorum Fidei, Condemning the false Synod of Pistoia, Aug. 28, 1794, Denzinger, #s 1531,1532.

7. Pope Pius XI conducted a scientific inquiry into the subject and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree to the Churchs nature: "(T)he Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time ... of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable and non-vernacular." Cited from Pope Pauls New Mass, p. 377.

12. Much has been written with the problems of the New Rite. See Pope Paul's New Mass, Iota Unum, etc.

14. Associated Press, "Ban on Hula at Hawaiian Masses Reversed" Michael Tighe, Jan. 7 (& Jan. 8), 1999.

21. Dec. 19th Radio Discourse, cited from Anthony Fraser, "Ecumenism - A disaster for the Church", Apropos, No. 18, 1966, (Scotland) p. 122, emphasis added. For complete documentation of the Prostestanization of the Mass, consult Pope Pauls New Mass by Michael Davies.

22. For the finest statement of the traditional teaching against ecumenism, see the encyclical Mortalium Animos by Pope Pius XI.

23. Fr. Ludvik Nemek, a "conservative" Catholic, writes in praise of John Paul II that "Bishop Wojtyla took a progressive stand" at Vatican II, and that he "interacted with progressive theologians" at the Council. Pope John Paul II, A Festive Profile, (Catholic Book Publishing, NY, 1979), p. 98.

24. Bishop Karol Wojtyla from Cracow speaking to Fr. Malinksi. Fr. Malinksi, De. Cath, Eccl. unit 6., p. 220, cited from Abbe Daniel Le Roux, Peter Lovest Thou Me?, Instauratio Press, p. 15, emphasis added.

25. Associated Press, Nov., 23, 1998. Published in January, 1999 Catholic Family News, p. 17. Sadly, John Paul II expressed his delight and encouragement for this startling innovation.

26. Richard McBrien (ed.) Encyclopedia of Catholicism (Harper Collins, 1995), p. 660 -- as quoted in the booklet No Turning Back, "A Lay Perspective on Ministry in the Catholic Church in the United States" -- National Association for Lay Ministry, Chicago, IL.

27. Garrigou-Lagrange, "Where is the New Theology Leading Us", (English translation), Aug. 1998 Catholic Family News (reprint available).

28. In a published Discourse in LOsservatore Romano, Dec. 19, 1946, Pius XII said, "There is a good deal of talk (but without the necessary clarity of concept), about a 'new theology, which must be in constant transformation, following the example of all other things in the world, which are in a constant state of flux and movement, without ever reaching their term. If we were to accept such an opinion, what would become of the unchangeable dogmas of the Catholic Faith; and what would become of the unity and stability of that Faith?"

29. Humani Generis, #s 29, 30, 32, 34. See Catholic Family News, August 1998 issue for numerous articles on "The New Theology". List of CFN reprints on "The New Theology" available upon request.

30. 30 Days, Dec.,1991, cited by sì sì no no in the series "They Think They Have Won". (emphasis added).

31. Modern Catholicism edited by Adrian Hasting, Chapter 8L, "Missionary Activity" by Alward Shorter, (Oxford University Press, 1991) p. 167.

33. Cardinal Joseph Siri, Gethsemane, (Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago, 1981) p. 58.

34. Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, (Ignatius Press, 1987) p. 381.

35. Cited from Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Lefebvre, (Fowler-Wright, London), p. 112.

37. Pope St. Stephen (254-257) said, "Let them innovate in nothing, but keep the traditions."

38. Cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.D., M. Div. (2nd edition, St. Francis Press, India) p. 29.

39. Father Joseph de Sainte Marie worked closely with Pope John Paul II on numerous occasions. He wrote the text for Pope John Paul IIs speech at Fatima for May 13, 1982.

41. Catholic Family News is sometimes accused of being a sede-vacantist publication. It is not. We recognize John Paul II as Pope and pray for him daily. Neither I, nor anyone at Catholic Family News subscribe to the sede-vacantist position. (J.V.)

42. See "Resting Wayward Prelates, According to the Saints", Catholic Family News, January, 1998. (reprint available).

43. Resisting unorthodox novelties goes even further, since Saint Thomas Aquinas, in many passages of his works, upholds the principle that the faithful can question and admonish prelates. For example: "There being an imminent danger for the faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, Saint Paul, who was a subject of Saint Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Gloss of Saint Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2,14), 'Saint Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometime they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects." (Summa theologiae, Taurini/Romae: Marietti, 1948, II.II, q.33, a.4).

44. St. Vincent of Lerins (c. 445 AD) cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Fr. Kramer, (1st edition), pp. 28-29.

...teaching and practices contrary to Sacred Tradition, the faithful are not bound to follow in blind obedience. In fact, the Catholics duty is to resist.

This article makes some very interesting points, one of which I have quoted. One of the almost-amusing things about Vatican II is that it seemed to believe it was discovering the role of individual conscience, which is often discussed by Vatican II fans: but only when said "conscience" is in opposition to Church doctrines and traditional practice. An informed conscience that supports traditional doctrine and resists deformations of practice immediately makes one liable to charges of "disobedience" and schism.

What modernists laud is a totally Zeitgeist-controlled, uninformed and subjective "conscience" that rejects Catholic teaching on everything from abortion to the Real Presence, or permits any and all manner of liturgical atrocity simply because some deluded bishop somewhere has said it's okay with him.

Many, many lay Catholics were violently opposed to the liturgical changes, the destruction of their churches and the corruption of theology. But we were slapped down by Modernist bishops who announced that we, who were, after all, adhering to centuries of tradition, were being disobedient by not wanting to accept what had been dreamed up two weeks before at some politically-motivated bishops' council.

It seems to me, however, that things are beginning to change. The pressure of people who have remained faithful to tradition is beginning to be felt - for one thing, the rest of the Church is busy self-destructing - and I think that we are going to see significant changes in the not too distant future.

I'm new here so perhaps I've misunderstood the purpose of posting. You accuse me of "trolling" for "schismatics" based on three posts:

What bothers me is trolling for schismatics, which from all outward signs is what you appear to be doing.

Fascinating. You ignore the dozens of other posts I've made and focus on these. The two older posts were in response to others posting regards related issues and on subjects that I thought explained them well.

See CATHOLIC PASTOR: SHEPHERD OR HIRED HAND? for example. An older article also, but one that supports the majesty and dignity of the Church and the role of the cleric in Her. What causes you to accuse me of "trolling for schismatics" again? My POSTING of articles for discussion? What next, an Index for Articles vetted for orthodoxy according to your lights?

Very lengthy, informative and extremely opinionated. There are just as many articles and precedents that can be argued FOR Vatican II and the reforms. Catholicism cannot teach to the old, exclusively. The Catholic Church was reaching a point of diminishing returns (in terms of regular affiliation) by the 1960's. Something had to be done to reinforce the message of Jesus to the young and the old in the world. The Mass, as you have pointed out is a celebration. This celebration is of one basic fact: it is a celebration of the LAST SUPPER. It is a dinner, people are invited to eat the Body and Blood of Christ. THAT alone is the distinguishing characteristic of Catholicism. No other Church recognizes that fact. ANYTHING else is fluff and feathers. If Hawaiians want to Hula, if Americans want a Folk Mass,if filipinos want Latin music, that is fine as long as the Mass remains focused on the fundamental precept of the celebration of Christ (the Messiah) being present at every Mass in Body and Blood. All the rest is bells and whistles.

We are invited to dinner with Jesus. Anything that takes place surrounding that fact is merely ceremonial and ornamental. The Council of Trent was the confirmation of transubstantiation. Nothing has changed that fundamental fact. When that is challenged we are no longer Catholics. That is as "they" say , "What sepatates the wheat from the chaff."

. Catholicism cannot teach to the old, exclusively. The Catholic Church was reaching a point of diminishing returns (in terms of regular affiliation) by the 1960's. Something had to be done to reinforce the message of Jesus to the young and the old in the world.

I don't understand the "point of diminishing" return statement. Can you elaborate when you have time? I'm off for the day and will check back later on tonight at work.

I was about 10 or 12 in the early 70s and I remember a lot of my grandmother's friends were scandalized by the changes that Vatican II brought and some of them no longer attended church and almost all of them were upset. Not many Catholics of my parents age attend Mass and that age group was the first big increase in divorce and remarriage. My age group had the Catachism classes largely made up of "Jesus is your friend and don't litter" and we were confused from year to year due to all the changes - one day Communion on the tongue and the next Communion in the hand, one day Confession in the confessionals and the next, Reconciliation face to face in a room. Plus all the smarmy felt banners replacing the beautiful statues, no candles, Tabernacle off of the altar, etc.

Now, 30 or so years later, very few of my Catholic friends and family attend Church at all. Someone just sent me an e-mail of an article that states that we've lost our identity as Catholics since Vatican II... and I think that is true.

"Why else is it posted?" Well we could accept that you read minds or you could accept the stated reasons I posted it.
Your stated reasons were what? This?
I was asked about the replacement of the Crucifix in favor of the statues of the Risen Christ and found this article. This was just a few years ago, does that age make it less worth discussion? Ir is it dissent per se that offends you? I assure you that wasn't my intent. I can remove you from my ping list if you want. Maryz kindly explained the ping list to me and shared her list, but certainly if the issues raised are not of interest to you I wouldn't want to be a bother.
I don’t see a stated reason in there. I see you stating that it was not your intent to post it for dissent per se. I haven’t said I though you posted it for dissent, but rather to encourage sympathy to groups like the SSPX. You are sympathetic to them are you not?
Regardless, prior to my post I didn’t see you explaining why you did post it, just why you didn’t. The closest explanation I see is that you “found this article.” I discounted that because it seems to be a rather silly explanation to post an article simply because you found it, and I didn’t consider you silly. Regardless, I have not called you a liar, since to the best of my understanding prior to my post you had not explained your rationale for posting the article.
Your little rush to jump to conclusions about what I am saying to you is at least as “uncharitable” as what you think I said to you.
Dominus Vobiscum
patent +AMDG

patent, I am reluctant to get in the middle of this discussion, however I think you are being slightly unfair to narses.

It makes it highly likely that, on a news forum, it was discussed within the period of the last several years. This is not news...

One, this was posted in the Religion forum, er, ghetto. Two, there are many philosophical, cultural and scientific discussions on FR (from before the News/Religion split) that aren't exactly newsworthy (nor directly related to rooting out corruption or the Constitution) and Jim Robinson has deemed them OK to remain.

...a 1996 article complaining about Communion in the hand...

From the thread, Eucharistic Ministers, SMEDLEYBUTLER posted the following list of citations (emphasis mine):

St. Sixtus I (circa 115)
"The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord."
Pope St. Eutychian (275-283)
Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.
St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379)
"The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
The Council of Saragossa (380)
Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.
Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461)
Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.
The Synod of Rouen (650)
Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.
The Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681)
Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274),
"Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)
The Council of Trent (1545-1565)
"The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition."
Pope Paul VI (1963-1978)
"This method [on the tongue] must be retained." (Memoriale Domini)
Pope John Paul II
To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, 11)
"It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another." (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

Are you saying that St. Thomas Aquinas and the dogmatic Council of Trent are schismatic? I don't think that is exactly what you meant. The Modernists are and have been using the obedience of faithful Catholics against them in order to achieve their diabolical goal. The good news is the Modernists won't prevail, but it is quite a struggle to fight against their insidious ideas. Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies.

One, this was posted in the Religion forum, er, ghetto.

This, of course, was not my criticism.

Two, there are many philosophical, cultural and scientific discussions on FR (from before the News/Religion split) that aren't exactly newsworthy (nor directly related to rooting out corruption or the Constitution) and Jim Robinson has deemed them OK to remain.

Nor was this.

Are you saying that St. Thomas Aquinas and the dogmatic Council of Trent are schismatic? I don't think that is exactly what you meant.

Then why, ELS, do you suggest something so absurd? Can you explain to me what I have said that leads you to question whether I am calling an Ecumenical Council schismatic? Please quote me.

I think you have entirely missed my point, which is that Narses had appeared to me to be engaged in a pattern, not that he was schismatic for posting any one article or for saying we should receive on the tongue.

Dominus Vobiscum

patent +AMDG

No, the Mass is a sacrifice.

Are you sure? It would appear you disagree with the Church’s teaching authority. From the Catechism, formatting errors are mine:

ARTICLE 1
CELEBRATING THE CHURCH'S LITURGY
I. WHO CELEBRATES?
1136 Liturgy is an "action" of the whole Christ (Christus totus). Those who even now celebrate it without signs are already in the heavenly liturgy, where celebration is wholly communion and feast
The celebrants of the heavenly liturgy 1137 The book of Revelation of St. John, read in the Church's liturgy, first reveals to us, "A throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne": "the Lord God."¹ It then shows the Lamb, "standing, as though it had been slain": Christ crucified and risen, the one high priest of the true sanctuary, the same one "who offers and is offered, who gives and is given."² Finally it presents "the river of the water of life . . . flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb," one of most beautiful symbols of the Holy Spirit.³
1138 "Recapitulated in Christ," these are the ones who take part in the service of the praise of God and the fulfillment of his plan: the heavenly powers, all creation (the four living beings), the servants of the Old and New Covenants (the twenty-four elders), the new People of God (the one hundred and forty-four thousand),⁴ especially the martyrs "slain for the word of God," and the all-holy Mother of God (the Woman), the Bride of the Lamb,⁵ and finally "a great multitude which no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes, and peoples and tongues."⁶
1139 It is in this eternal liturgy that the Spirit and the Church enable us to participate whenever we celebrate the mystery of salvation in the sacraments.

I. THE EUCHARIST - SOURCE AND SUMMIT OF ECCLESIAL LIFE
1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life."¹³⁶ "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch."¹³⁷
1325 "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God's action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit."¹³⁸
1326 Finally, by the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all.¹³⁹
1327 In brief, the Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith: "Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking."¹⁴⁰

The sacrifice at Calvary. We are there to worship God, not to have a party.

This is true.

Dominus Vobiscum

patent +AMDG

I never said those were your criticisms. They were my responses to what I saw as an unfair criticism. Let's look at your comment that I was replying to.

narses: This was just a few years ago, does that age make it less worth discussion?

patent: It makes it highly likely that, on a news forum, it was discussed within the period of the last several years. This is not news, it is another in a line of your postings of articles encouraging schismatic sensibilities.

You appear to be making the point that since the article was not published recently, that it should not be posted "on a news forum." You then go on to say that the article is not newsworthy. The point I was making was that many articles from the recent past and the distant past have been posted on FR as well as articles that do not fit the primary mission of FR, so trying to beat up narses with this reasoning IMHO was unfair. I also pointed out that narses posted this article in the Religion forum which lessens the effectiveness of your non-news argument as well.

You claimed that narses has been posting articles "encouraging schismatic sensibilities" and then include reference to an article complaining about Communion in the hand. If one is not supposed to conclude that you think those who are critical of Communion in the hand are schismatic or have schismatic sensibilities, then I suggest you clarify what you meant.

When given the choice between the Council of Trent or St. Thomas Aquinas versus some idea hatched during a tidal wave of Modernism, I'll follow the Council of Trent and St. Thomas Aquinas.

If one is not supposed to conclude that you think those who are critical of Communion in the hand are schismatic or have schismatic sensibilities, then I suggest you clarify what you meant.

I did so in my post to you, #31. “I think you have entirely missed my point, which is that Narses had appeared to me to be engaged in a pattern, not that he was schismatic for posting any one article or for saying we should receive on the tongue.”

When given the choice between the Council of Trent or St. Thomas Aquinas versus some idea hatched during a tidal wave of Modernism, I'll follow the Council of Trent and St. Thomas Aquinas.

If given the choice between St. Augustine’s ideas of predestination, and some tidal wave of modernism in the 1400s, would you also stick with Augustine? I can also provide you with quotes from Councils forbidding you from dancing at weddings, etc., etc. Would you like to stick with them? What would seperate you from the Orthodox Churches?

The Church has a living Magisterium, ELS. It has both a living teaching authority, and a living jurisidictional authority. The reception of Communion in the hand v. tongue is not infallible doctrine, of course, it is a matter of discipline. But that matter of discipline properly falls within the competent scope of the current Church hierarchy. To try to set statements from Trent or Aquinas against that is to misunderstand and misapply theology. Aquinas does not determine what the current Rite of the Mass – and consequently how we receive communion – should be. Nor does even an Ecumenical Council like Trent, as praiseworthy as it may be.

This is discipline, and is within the Pope’s proper jurisdiction. Vatican I made it clear it is his right and duty.

patent +AMDG

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.