Worse than deja vu all over again: Vatican caves

The Remnant ^ | March 31, 2004 | Thomas Drolesky

[ultima ratio]

Worse Than Deja Vu All Over Again:

Vatican caves on meaningful reform of disastrous New Mass

Thomas A. Droleskey, Ph.D.

“Certainly, we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local traditions: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense.”

--Pope John Paul, while still Bishop of Krakow, as quoted in Mon Ami: Karol Wojtyla. P. 220

When last we left the saga of the Novus Ordo Missae, Pope John Paul II promised Catholics worldwide that a new set of instructions to correct liturgical abuses would be drawn up and issued by the Holy See as a follow up to his Ecclesia de Eucharistica encyclical letter. This caused many well-meaning Catholics in the Novus Ordo community to jump up and down for joy, believing that the long awaited crackdown from Rome was forthcoming. Some commentators said at the time that the Pope’s encyclical letter was just the word “we needed” to have during the Easter season. Others of us said that the Holy Father’s encyclical letter made many of the same points as his 1980 Holy Thursday letter to priests, Dominicae Cenae, which promised a set of instructions to correct liturgical abuses.

Well, if a news report from Catholic World News’s website is to be believed, the forthcoming document from Rome about the liturgy is worse than deja vu all over again. The 1980 instruction, Inaestimabile Donum, issued by the then named Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship, did list the major abuses in the new Mass and called for them to be corrected. This gave much hope to those of us who did not then have the grace of tradition. Indeed, I waved copies of Inaestimabile Donum in the faces of offending priests for a year or two before I realized that Rome wasn’t going to enforce anything, including the reaffirmation of the ban on girl altar boys. Many of us did not realize at the time that the abuses were simply manifestations of the false presuppositions of a synthetic liturgy that sought to empty the Mass of its authentic tradition while claiming positivistically that tradition had been maintained as it was “updated.” There was no correcting the Novus Ordo then. There is no correcting it now. There will never be any correction of abuses in the Novus Ordo.

According to the CWN.com news story, the new document from Rome dealing with the liturgy will not mandate any disciplinary measures against liturgical abuses. It will merely call for an adherence to existing norms by “proper training” in the liturgy. If true, this is actually worse than Inaestimabile Donum. All of the thunder made by Francis Cardinal Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, in the immediate aftermath of the Pope’s encyclical last year was merely rhetoric, which yielded in the final instance to the desires of the ideological descendants of the late Archbishop Annibale Bugnini to keep exploding the liturgical time bombs that Michael Davies has noted with great precision were placed into the Novus Ordo as it was being created synthetically by the Consilium. Although this was entirely predictable, the fact that the new document will not represent the salvation of the Novus Ordo, which admits of so many legitimate adaptations and exceptions as to make any discussion of a liturgical “rite” an absolute oxymoron, should give traditionally minded priests who remain in the diocesan structure a wake up call. Rin Tin Tin and the Cavalry are not coming from Fort Apache.

All discussion of a “universal indult” for priests to offer the Traditional Latin Mass evidently has disappeared from the final text of the soon to be released liturgical document. Of course, Quo Primum is the only universal and perpetually binding indult any priest has ever needed to offer the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. The powers that be in Rome, however, do not want to admit that on behalf of the Holy Father, who must give his approval to the new document. Thus, those traditionally minded priests who thought that they were going to get a golden parachute from the Holy See so as to be able to offer the Traditional Latin Mass in the daylight rather than in the underground have been deceived. As good sons of the Church, many of these priests wanted to wait and see, although the outcome was predictable. Now that the outcome is clear, it is time for these priests to respond to this wake up call. They will receive no help from this pope.

Indeed, Pope John Paul II is wedded to the liturgical revolution, and has been since the Second Vatican Council. He is not going to be leading the cavalry over the hill. The late Father Vincent Miceli gave me a very important insight into the mind of the Holy Father back in January of 1983. As a self-deceived Catholic conservative who held out high hopes for the pontificate of the former Karol Cardinal Wojtyla when he was elevated to the Throne of Saint Peter on October 16, 1978, I was flabbergasted that the Pope had appointed the then Archbishop of Cincinnati, Joseph Bernardin, to succeed the late John Cardinal Cody as Archbishop of Chicago. Bernardin? Chicago? That was the stuff of Father Andrew Greeley. I had written a priest-friend in Canada in 1979 at around the time Greeley began to push Bernardin for Chicago, that “this will never happen in the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. Father Miceli took a few bites out of his meal at a diner in Massapequa Park, Long Island, New York, looked at me and said, “The Pope’s a liberal. Bernardin is a friend of his from the Second Vatican Council. They are fellow progressives. Don’t kid yourself.” He continued eating his meal in perfect peace. Well, although I filed Father Miceli’s wise counsel away, I didn’t want to believe it at the time. He was, of course, quite right.

To wit, I received a letter from a reader of Christ or Chaos (which is going to become an online publication by the end of February) that contained a nugget from a 1980 book, Mon Ami: Karol Wojtyla, written by a fellow named Malinski and published in France:

"In 1965—when Pope John Paul II was still the Bishop of Krakow, he discussed the phenomenon referred to as inculturation with a friend, saying: 'Certainly, we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local traditions: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense.'" (page 220)

The reader, Mr. A. E. Newman, had a pithy comment or two of his own in his letter to me: “Tell me, what hope is there from a man who thinks like this–what hope for a stable liturgy, for upholding of age long traditions? What hope from a man who flies in the face of his predecessors? Now that his reign is drawing to a close I can answer that [there is] no hope! My own view is that in the eyes of history the last three popes will bear a heavy responsibility for our present shambles and [the loss] among the faithful of millions. Just at the moment when Islam is strong. We can credit him for one thing: he followed through! God will deal with him, but we [will deal] with the deformation of our Faith.”

Although the fodder for an entire series of articles, the comments of the then Archbishop of Krakow are quite instructive. They should serve as a sobering reminder to good priests and laity who believed that the Novus Ordo can be reformed that the problem rests in the new Mass itself. Not much time needs to be wasted on this as the proverbial handwriting is really on the wall. Those traditionally minded priests who have remained in the Novus Ordo structure should stop believing that their words or even their presence can counteract entirely the harm to the Faith contained within the new Mass, admitting that there are priests within the diocesan structure who are zealous for the salvation of souls and who spend themselves tirelessly for the flock entrusted to their pastoral care. They should, as painful as it may be for them to consider, simply follow the courageous examples of Father Stephen P. Zigrang and Father Lawrence Smith. They should assert their rights under Quo Primum no matter what unjust ecclesiastical consequences might befall them. Many of their sheep will follow them, and those sheep will provide for their temporal needs, as is happening at Our Lady Help of Christians Chapel in Garden Grove, California, where hundreds upon hundreds of fed-up Catholics have found their way to the Catholic underground simply by word of mouth. It is simply time to force the Novus Ordo structure, built on quicksand, to collapse of its own intellectual dishonesty and liturgical incompleteness. It is time for good priests to say goodbye to a synthetic concoction and to bravely embrace the glory of Tradition.

Each priest must make his own decision in this regard. It is, though, a grave disservice to the faithful to try to pretend that the Novus Ordo itself is not the problem and/or that the problems will get better over the course of time. They will not. The Novus Ordo remains the prisoner of its own false presuppositions and of the devolution of liturgical decision making to local level, as was envisioned in Paragraph 22 of Sacrosanctum Concilium itself on December 1, 1963.

What applies to priests applies as well to the long-suffering laity who have waited for such a long time to see the abuses that have their origin in the Novus Ordo itself come to an end. So many good people, who dearly love God and want to save their souls, have fought valiant but ever failing efforts in most instances to keep the liturgical time bombs from exploding in their own local parishes and dioceses. Some of these people have tried to equip themselves with the latest “information” from Rome about what is licit and illicit in the context of Holy Mass. What these good people need to realize, though, is that the Novus Ordo is impermanent and unstable of its very nature. The new Mass is entirely predicated upon the idiosyncratic predilections of a bishop or a priest or diocesan and/or parish liturgical committees.

The Mass of Tradition has always been beyond even the realm of a bishop to change for reasons of “inculturation” or the “genius of the peoples.” The Immemorial Mass of Tradition gives God the fitting and solemn worship that is His due, communicates clearly and unequivocally the nature of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice for human sins, and provides a permanence and stability that are reflective of the nature of God Himself and of man’s need for Him and His unchanging truths. It is time for good lay people themselves to say goodbye to the angst and confusion and anger generated by all of the problems associated with the Novus Ordo Missae.

Enough said.

Our Lady, Help of Christians, pray for us.

[pascendi]

"Therefore Lumen Gentium §21 contains an infallible definition."

No it doesn't.

[GirlShortstop]

**Therefore Lumen Gentium §21 contains an infallible definition.**

    No it doesn't.

Is there more to follow pascendi, or can I laugh at your statement as it stands?

[pascendi]

"Is there more to follow pascendi, or can I laugh at your statement as it stands?"

My suggestion is to laugh at it.

That way we could let it go. If not, then we pursue it. If we pursue it, you'll find out that the statement I made is correct.

[GirlShortstop]

My suggestion is to laugh at it. That way we could let it go. If not, then we pursue it...

I think that'd be alright, but only if you laugh with me.   :-)

[pascendi]

That would be fair, imho. You did say that you would laugh at my statement and not at me; so it seems fair enough. I render full submission of will and intellect to the proposal of laughing with you as opposed to at you.

Let's start here: why is my statement laughable? This should be interesting.

[ultima ratio]

You are obviously woefully out of your depth and hope that by setting up a smoke screen of verbal gobbledegook, I will tire of the discussion.

1. First you cite me, then you cite John XXIII, then you cite yourself, then myself, then yourself, then myself. You make no logical connections among these citations, but you write as if expecting me to miraculously intuit your point. You hint at some connection, for instance, between my argument that Vatican II was not infallible and the statement by John XXXIII about the bishops' need to guard the deposit of faith--but you don't make clear what the connection is between my point and the Pontiff's. And since you won't do this, neither will I.

2. Then you present this incredibly obscure and syntactically involuted statement: "That is not what we are talking about. John XXIII was talking about the 'substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith,' most of the individual items of which neither Church Councils nor Popes have ever held up for scrutiny and then formally declared the given item as binding on us." Say again? This makes absolutely no sense as good English, let alone good theology. But I hope you don't mean that nobody in the Church had ever bothered to look into the truths of faith before Vatican II came along.

3. In any case, I'm still waiting for this list of doctrines Vatican II SPECIFICALLY DECLARED BINDING. Don't give me vague nonsense about "the substance of ancient doctrines," etc. etc. Just type out the new teaching that is binding. Just one new doctrine will do. One little teentsy-weentsy doctrine. I'm still waiting very very patiently. It shouldn't be so hard for you to do. Tell us clearly and unambiguously what great truths were infallibly defined by Vatican II.

Cat got your tongue?

[GirlShortstop]

Let's start here: why is my statement laughable?

Best summary:  because the absence of depth was glaring; as a contribution to a substantial topic, it was out of place.  It required no further thought, and I considered that to be humorous.  I didn't (and don't) want to laugh at you, so I asked the questions.
I'm pleased to make your acquaintance pascendi.  Sorry that time's up so to speak for FReeping this evening.  Adios and Happy Easter!

[ultima ratio]

The first passage is from a speech by Paul VI asking the Council to settle long disputed issues regarding the role of bishops. It is speculative at best. In fact, when the Council in Lumen Gentium ended up exalting the role of the bishops and diminishing that of the papacy, Paul VI issued his famous Nota Praevia in which he reversed himself, saying nothing was to be made binding on the Church unless it was openly so stated. Nothing ever was.

The second passage is simply stating the obvious--that the bishops and the pope govern the Church. Nothing new here, nothing that hadn't been said before in a million different venues. The same goes for the following statement on Sacred Orders. This is old hat--issues settled in the earliest stages of the Church's history. And again, the statement regarding the infallibility of councils was also long-held Church doctrine.

The issue of how dogmatic statements are defined was interesting--because I have been saying this all along. (See some of my former posts on this thread.) The faithful must have certainty as to what was intended as a binding decree made by a pope or council. Ambiguity or lack of clarity cannot bind the intellect of anybody. This is so obvious it hardly needs mentioning. This is why it is incumbent upon pope or council to make its definitions with great clarity.

[pascendi]

"Best summary: because the absence of depth was glaring; as a contribution to a substantial topic, it was out of place."

Actually, I thought it rather efficient. Clarity inside three words. =)

"I'm pleased to make your acquaintance pascendi. Sorry that time's up so to speak for FReeping this evening. Adios and Happy Easter!"

Same, and same to you.

"Just type out the new teaching that is binding. Just one new doctrine will do. One little teentsy-weentsy doctrine. I'm still waiting very very patiently. It shouldn't be so hard for you to do. Tell us clearly and unambiguously what great truths were infallibly defined by Vatican II."

I've found this same question to be the most powerful unmasking strategy possible. There's absolutely no answer to it, and no answers will be forthcoming, ever, because Vatican II neither defined nor declared anything in the proper sense of those words.

It helps to actually know what a dogmatic definition is. Heck, it helps to have actually read the documents of the council themselves. You've read all the documents of Vatican II, right Shortstop?

People hear what they want to hear. Give them an ambiguity and they'll run with it.

[nika]

I am sorry you don't get it. I will try again.

• You misinterpret statements by Paul VI as to the binding nature of Vatican II because you don't like the new liturgy.
• I responded with the fact that John XIII made it clear that Vatican II was to reiterate the ancient deposit of the faith in terms the modern world could understand and pointed out that according to your "logic" that ancient deposit of faith was then no longer binding.
• You said you had no problem whatsoever with the Council's having REPEATED doctrines that formerly had been declared as binding by other councils or popes.
• I pointed out that the deposit of faith consisted mostly of doctrines that had never been the subject of an "ex cathedra" statement or the canons of council documents.
• I pointed out that the traditional, pre-conciliar belief of Catholics was stated in the Catholic Encylopedia in 1910:

  All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope.

• You avoided this inconvenient truth because you are in the awkward position of claiming to be the "traditional" Catholic yet your beliefs are contrary to the traditional belief of the Church.
• You also ran like a scared rabbit from a discussion of the fact that in so far as Vatican II reiterated the ancient deposit of faith, which includes those truths that have never been the subject of "ex cathedra" papal statements or the canons of council documents, you have no good reason to deny it was infallible and binding according to the traditional, pre-conciliar beliefs of the Church. This because you aren't really a traditional Catholic. You are a heretic.

There. Do you get it now?

---

"John Paul II is the legitimate Successor of Peter."
--ultima ratio

[nika]

I've found this same question to be the most powerful unmasking strategy possible. There's absolutely no answer to it, and no answers will be forthcoming, ever, because Vatican II neither defined nor declared anything in the proper sense of those words.
--pacendi

What do you think these words mean?

All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope.
--GENERAL COUNCILS, Section VIII. INFALLIBILITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS, Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910

[pascendi]

"You misinterpret statements by Paul VI as to the binding nature of Vatican II because you don't like the new liturgy."

What did Vatican II bind? Good luck producing one item that is not something all Catholics already knew.

It might help to actually read all the documents of Vatican II. In fact, I would like that question answered: Nika, have you read all the documents of Vatican II, or have you simply read the what laymen have said about them? Be honest. A total of two questions to answer, if you would. One, have you read all the documents, and two, what did you find in them that is new and not a restatement of known doctrine?

"I responded with the fact that John XIII made it clear that Vatican II was to reiterate the ancient deposit of the faith in terms the modern world could understand and pointed out that according to your "logic" that ancient deposit of faith was then no longer binding."

Actually, what you did was state that Pope John XIII made it clear that Vatican II was to reiterate what is in the Deposit of Faith, insert the hidden premise that modern people are not as intellectually well-formed as their ancestors were (which is probably true), and leaped forward with a really lousy attempt at a 'reductio ad absurdem' argument which didn't work.

"You said you had no problem whatsoever with the Council's having REPEATED doctrines that formerly had been declared as binding by other councils or popes."

Wherever it restates known doctrine, it is binding.

"I pointed out that the deposit of faith consisted mostly of doctrines that had never been the subject of an "ex cathedra" statement or the canons of council documents."

Fine... and:

"I pointed out that the traditional, pre-conciliar belief of Catholics was stated in the Catholic Encylopedia in 1910:"

It's a great encyclopedia, but it's not where we get our doctrine from; sorry.

"...All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope."

...which proves nothing for you, because you won't say what it is that Vatican II said that's new, that traditional Catholics didn't already know. You have not identified what is/are the teaching(s) of Vatican II which are unique to Vatican II, whereby you might differentiate your stance on Catholic truth & reality from ultima's. That there is a difference is clear; I would like to know exactly what that difference consists, between your Catholicism and ultima's, and what is the origin of that difference. We will then be well into the territory of what you think Vatican II said and what it didn't.

What you really, really want to say is that Vatican II says something that ultima doesn't accept, right? Well then... what is it? If there's nothing, then what the heck makes you a different kind of Catholic from ultima? There is a difference, isn't there? That's interesting.

Until you provide the proprietary doctrine(s) of Vatican II, the origins of which are found in Vatican II, you will be running in circles.

"You avoided this inconvenient truth because you are in the awkward position of claiming to be the "traditional" Catholic yet your beliefs are contrary to the traditional belief of the Church."

Which belief of ultima's is a denial of the truth?

"You also ran like a scared rabbit from a discussion of the fact that in so far as Vatican II reiterated the ancient deposit of faith, which includes those truths that have never been the subject of "ex cathedra" papal statements or the canons of council documents, you have no good reason to deny it was infallible and binding according to the traditional, pre-conciliar beliefs of the Church."

Which reiteration of which doctrine in the Deposit of the Faith is ultima in denial of?

"This because you aren't really a traditional Catholic. You are a heretic."

This is the conclusion that you are working towards, no doubt.

Better get started.

Btw, I like the introduction of the heresy charge. I know a couple whopper infallible declarations that would make your head spin trying to lend your assent to them without, well, really lending your assent to them. We could squeeze the heresy thing for all it's worth. Would you like to see a few?

[nika]

It's a great encyclopedia, but it's not where we get our doctrine from; sorry.
--pascendi

Believe me, I can tell it's not where you get your doctrine from. Official Church councils aren't where you get your doctrine from either. Neither is traditional Catholicism. You guys do your own thing. You refuse to submit to the authority of the Church, making your own private and incorrect opinions your ultimate authority. You make yourselves Pope.

Are you really denying the authority of Church Councils when they are in union with the Successor of St. Peter? Obviously, you are either intellectually dishonest and cowardly, or are all bluff and don't really know anything about Catholicism -- or both.

So keep blathering on and whatever the case may be will soon be evident to all.

[pascendi]

"Believe me, I can tell it's not where you get your doctrine from. Official Church councils aren't where you get your doctrine from either. Neither is traditional Catholicism. You guys do your own thing. You refuse to submit to the authority of the Church, making your own private and incorrect opinions your ultimate authority. You make yourselves Pope."

Uh huh.

Look, quit with the rhetoric and support your very serious accusations. Please.

[pascendi]

"So keep blathering on and whatever the case may be will soon be evident to all."

I would be more than happy to oblige.

What I'll be pressing for is what exactly, and I do mean exactly, makes you a different kind of Catholic from ultima.

If you do not believe ultima to even be a Catholic, I'm going to press you into an oblivion for the exact reason why ultima isn't a Catholic. Let's do it.

[nika]

You are hilarious. I am going to bed. I might find time to respond tomorrow.

[pascendi]

Eight ball, corner pocket.

[gbcdoj]

nika,
ultima does have a point. Fr. Most does say in his article that the Declaration on Religious Liberty is only at the teaching level of the Ordinary Magisterium and isn't infallible. LG 25 states that only the definitions of a Council are infallible. I think a case can be made that LG 21 contains a definition, and perhaps DV 9 as well, but there weren't very many. In theory, it would seem that any non-definitive part of the council documents could be erroneous.

[gbcdoj]

I know a couple whopper infallible declarations that would make your head spin trying to lend your assent to them without, well, really lending your assent to them. We could squeeze the heresy thing for all it's worth. Would you like to see a few?

What are these?

[pascendi]

"LG 25 states that only the definitions of a Council are infallible."

No it doesn't.