“Instaurare omnia in Christo” Canonization Saints and Canonizations Santo Subito? What Is Canonization? November - December 2013 Canonization The communion of saints is one of the fundamental tenets of the Catholic Faith. The reality of heaven is made concrete by the knowledge that some souls are already happily united with Our Lord after death. Churches, art and architecture: all bear witness to the example provided by the saints. Throughout history, there have been different methods and processes to determine who should be included in the heavenly chorus. With some of the problems of the current crisis, however, we now have to ask basic questions: What is a saint supposed to be? How is sanctity determined? What should we do? We hope these pages provide some clarity. Photograph: St. Peter’s, Rome. Letter from the Publisher Pope Francis, during the consistory in September, decided to go ahead with the simultaneous canonization of Popes John XXIII and John Paul II. The first date proposed for the ceremony was December 8, although it has now been postponed to next April. This is why The Angelus has dedicated an entire issue to this timely theme. Although no other miracle was found to advance the cause of John XXIII, the reigning Pontiff decided to canonize the Pope who convoked Vatican II, the very Council which has had more disastrous results than the French Revolution. As for John Paul II, he oversaw the implementation of the Council’s work for 27 years. Thus, what this ceremony will bring about is the “canonization” of the Council and its effects. This so far is clear, and this Catholics cannot accept. What remain more difficult to elucidate are the following questions. Would such a declaration making two saints of the post-conciliar Church seal them also as saints of the Catholic Church? How do we define sainthood today? What do the definition and public veneration cover? How is the infallibility of the magisterium involved in a canonization? These are some of the issues we wish to raise in the following articles, being very conscious that they strike at the heart of the present crisis. Many questions have been raised by the Second Vatican Council itself, by the scandalous Assisi meetings, even by the teaching of the recent popes; the “post-conciliar canonizations” provoke also many unanswered interrogations. The Society of Saint Pius X is dedicated first to sounding the alarm bell; however, the Society is also dedicated to offering theological answers and above all practical stances. Given the current crisis of magisterial authority, given the complex and crucial issues at stake, a humble magazine like The Angelus can do nothing more than raise the right questions, offer theological opinions and practical resolutions, awaiting better times for definite answers that only the Magisterium of the Church is able to give. Sincerely yours in the Sacred Heart, Fr. Arnaud Rostand Publisher November - December 2013 Volume XXXVI, Number 6 Publisher Fr. Arnaud Rostand Editor Mr. James Vogel Assistant Editor Mrs. Lesly De Piante Editorial Team Fr. Jürgen Wegner Fr. Dominique Bourmaud Fr. Leo Boyle Fr. Pierre Duverger Design and Layout credo.creatie (Eindhoven, The Netherlands) Mr. Simon Townshend Mrs. Mary Carroll Director of Operations Mr. Brent Klaske U.S. Foreign Countries Subscription Rates 1 year 2 years 3 years $35.00 $65.00 $100.00 $55.00 $105.00 $160.00 (inc. Canada and Mexico) Contents Letter from the Publisher 4 Theme: Canonization – Saints and Canonizations Essential to the Church – The Difference Between a “Saint” and a “Saint” – The New “Canonizations”: Doubt and Confusion – Santo Subito? – What Is Canonization? 6 10 14 24 33 Faith and Morals – Book Review: Vatican Encounter – Liturgy: The Liturgy, the Face of the Church 40 41 Spirituality – Spirituality: Causes for Joy, Causes for Worry 48 Christian Culture – History: St. Joseph and the Canon – Family Life: The Eye of the Storm 52 57 “Instaurare omnia in Christo” All payments must be in U.S. funds only. Online subscriptions: $20.00/year. To subscribe visit: www.angelusonline.org. Register for free to access back issues 14 months and older. All subscribers to the print version of the magazine have full access to the online version. The Angelus (ISSN 10735003) is published bi-monthly under the patronage of St. Pius X and Mary, Queen of Angels. Publication office is located at PO Box 217, St. Marys, KS 66536. PH (816) 753-3150; FAX (816) 753-3557. Periodicals Postage Rates paid at Kansas City, MO. Manuscripts and letters to the editor are welcome and will be used at the discretion of the editors. The authors of the articles presented here are solely responsible for their judgments and opinions. Postmaster sends address changes to the address above. ©2013 BY ANGELUS PRESS. OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE PRIESTLY SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X FOR THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA – Questions and Answers – Church and World – Theological Studies – Letters to the Editor – The Last Word 62 68 79 84 87 Theme Canonization Saints and Canonizations Essential to the Church by Fr. Dominique Bourmaud, SSPX Right from our mother’s lap, we were taught that there would always be saints in the Church. Sanctity is one of her essential marks and it could not be absent from any period of Church history, or even from any place where she exercises her salutary influence. The repeated cry of the pagans was to praise such holy conduct: “See how they love each other.” In other words, their mutual love and forbearance was symptomatic of their deeper love of God above all else, including above their selfinterest. The Church does not hesitate to credit certain heroic men with holiness of life and the beatific vision in heaven, as it is incorporated in her most basic Creed: “I believe in the communion of saints.” This belief in the heavenly communion of the saints is the dogma which sustains the entire question of the canonizations of the saints. 6 The Angelus November - December 2013 Declaration Given his social nature, man is wont to take his rule of conduct from the wise and the just, and he would give them the honor due to heroes always in connection with the divinity: heroes somehow reflect the splendor of God clad in human flesh. Most men indeed are led to the truth, the good, and the beautiful by the imitation of the best models. Christians who have received the revelation of the God made man still feel the need for saints: “Be imitators of me,” says St. Paul to the Corinthians, “as I am of Christ.” And, given the impact their heroes have in the doctrinal and moral formation of nations, the popes gave their utmost care in declaring the genuine sanctity of life of Church heroes. The process of canonization is primarily ordained to promote the public cult or veneration of a saint as our intercessor before God. It does not declare that each circumstance of his life was perfect, but it does affirm that he possessed the essential elements of the way of sanctity. So doing, it proposes him as an example and model of Christian life. More questions have been raised about this process of canonization. What exactly is affirmed when the pope declares that this individual is canonized? Does he give the seal of approval of his saintly life? Does he certify that he is in heaven? No one may doubt the affirmative answer to both questions. When the process is successful, the canonization affirms that he was a saintly man and that he enjoys God in heaven. It also affirms the causal relation of both elements: the saint shines in heaven with the reward of his glory because he shone on earth by the merit of virtue. It is a dogma of the faith that whoever imitates Jesus in this life will necessarily participate of His glory in the next. Any papal declaration of sainthood is a particular affirmation of this universal principle. virtues. But to judge the heroism of virtues can prove also very taxing as we judge them only by their exterior acts and the judgment of intention is easily fallible. The same actions humanly heroic, like giving alms to the poor and throwing oneself into the flames, may be done out of divine charity or out of diabolical fanaticism. Just compare the burning at the stake of some heretic like John Huss and a saint like Joan of Arc. By and large, both were taken for fanatics at the time. One’s life is animated by one’s doctrine. So, the judgment of one’s miracles and heroic life refers us to the first test, that of doctrinal orthodoxy. Hence, all sainthood ultimately hinges on the soundness of doctrine of the candidate which, for once, is easy to determine. To block definitely a cause, it was not needed that the servant of God write formal errors against dogma or morals. It sufficed that there be suspicious novelties, frivolous questions, or some singular opinion opposed to the teachings of the Fathers and the common understanding of the faithful. Supreme Act of the Pope Process Until Pope Paul VI, the process of canonization ran through three specific steps: the preparatory step, called “ordinary process” because it was done under the authority of the Ordinary of the place, concluded with the introduction of the cause to Rome; the “apostolic process” under the pope’s authority ended with the decree of beatification; the reopening of the “apostolic process” terminated with the decree of canonization. But for each of these complex steps, the judges ad hoc had to attest to the orthodoxy of the writings both private and public, to the heroism of the virtues, and finally to the authenticity of the miracles. This process is as enlightening as it is enigmatic: since the divine origin of the miracle is difficult to assert (save rare exceptions since the devil can capably ape God), its authenticity depends, and falls back, on the heroism of the In view of the post-conciliar canonizations which raise legitimate suspicion to tradition­ alists, the assurance of the infallibility of nor­ mal (or pre-conciliar) canonizations has lost some luster. Wrongly so, and this under several headings. Firstly, the purpose of canonization is a public and universal cult given to the saints, which is akin to the profession of faith. St. Thomas Aquinas explains that “the honor which we render to the saints is a certain profession of faith by which we believe in the glory of the saints.” Could the pope induce the entire Church into error in presenting to the veneration of all a damned soul? Would it not be to set up an altar to the devil himself? It seems blasphemous to think that God would let Peter be led so far astray. Saint Thomas explains that a particular canonization is intermediary between general truths (dogmas) and judgments of particular cases (dogmatic facts). He also raises the 7 Theme Canonization objection of error based on false witnesses. But this is properly retorted by the traditional process of canonization. It was going through so many forensic formalities that the seriousness and cross checking virtually annulled the error ratio. These complex measures were precisely meant to give the pope the moral certitude needed to put the seal of papal infallibility on the judgment at hand. Also, we have seen that the whole process of canonization hinges on the purity of faith of the servant of God. The most rigid theological examination of his writings and sayings is needed to discern the authentic motives of human conduct, because we act according as we know. If theologians speak of “infallible canonizations,” this is precisely because the canonizations rely firstly on the doctrinal test. Hence, although the seal of sainthood aims firstly at judging the concrete acts of God’s servant and at allowing the public worship, it is ultimately designed to pass a doctrinal message. And this is why the popes used to write their decrees of canonization in the same way as the dogmatic definitions (compare the formula of canonization of Clement XI in May 22, 1712, and that of the Immaculate Conception): “Ad honorem sanctae et individuae Trinitatis, ad exaltationem fidei catholicae et christianae religionis augmentum, auctoritate D.N.J.C., beatorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli ac Nostra, matura deliberatione praehabita, et divina ope saepius implorata, ac de venerabilium Fratrum nostrorum N.N. consilio, Beatos N.N. sanctos, et sanctam esse decernimus et definimus, ac Sanctorum catalogo adscribimus : statuentes, ab Ecclesia universali illorum memoriam quolibet anno die eorum natali…pia devotione recoli debere. “(For the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the increase of the Christian religion, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul and Ours, after mature deliberation, and having implored often the divine help, and the advice of our venerable Brothers N.N., we declare and define the blessed N.N. to be holy, and we ascribe them in the catalogue of the Saints: commanding that 8 The Angelus November - December 2013 their memory each year in their day of birth be remembered with pious devotion by the universal Church.)” After this short presentation of the stakes of canonization, every Catholic understands how saints and their process of canonization are essential to our faith. Saints are the show window of the Church to the world, the ultimate samples of perfection the Church has ever produced. And because they deal with the best, few things are more harmful to the Church than to tread on the definition of sainthood and pulverize the canonization process. If the Church has been accused in the remote past of the fault of clericalism by clerics overextending their influence to boost up religion, today the Church has been shown to practice an inverted clericalism in which the clerical impulse consists in destroying the Christian order. This distinction seems highly relevant when it comes to modern-day canonizations. Fr. Dominique Bourmaud has spent the past 26 years teaching at the Society seminaries in America, Argentina, and Australia. He is presently stationed at St. Vincent’s Priory, Kansas City, where he is in charge of the priests’ training program. 814 pp. – Printed hardcover – Sewn pages – STK# 6720Q – $39.95 The Church’s Year Explanation of the Epistles and Gospels Fr. Leonard Goffine The perfect book for family reading. Part I: texts and commentaries for the Epistles, Gospels, and most other Mass prayers (e.g., Introit, Collect, Gradual, etc.) for every Sunday and Holy Day of the liturgical year. Part II: The Saints—Epistles and Gospels. Focuses on teaching doctrine and morals through the liturgy. Question and Answer format. Almsgiving  Manner of Following Mass at Home  Bible and Tradition  Blessings  Process of Canonization  Excommunication  Detraction  Education of Children  Consolation in Sickness  Love of Enemies  Indulgences  Holy Orders  Why Christ Spoke in Parables  The Rosary  Processions  Relics  Holy Water  Temptation  The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass  Ceremonies  Regarding the Spirit of the Liturgical Seasons  Miracles  Sacraments  Origins of Church Feasts  Drunkenness  Good Intention  more Hows? Whys? and What-fors? The Church’s Year follows the calendar in effect at the time it was first published (1880), yet all of it is applicable with the use of the 1962 Missal. Totally retypeset. Keepsake edition. “It will bring blessings on any house in which it is kept and used” (Wm. Henry Elder, Archbishop of Cincinnati, 1884). www.angeluspress.org — 1-800-966-7337 Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music. Theme Canonization The Difference Between A “Saint” and A “Saint” by Fr. Paul Robinson, SSPX Words are promiscuous things. Because of their arbitrary nature, they have a willingness to be applied to any reality whatsoever. The four letters b-a-r-k, for instance, are just as happy to make reference to the vocal utterances of a canine as to the outer covering of a tree. The fact is that if sets of letters with their associated sounds refer to anything at all, it is solely by the common agreement of the people who construct them. This proviso is quite germane to the purpose of this article, which seeks to discover in what sense the word “saint” will be applied to Pope John Paul II on April 27, 2014. Will this word indicate the reality of heroic virtue that Catholics have always taken it to mean or will s-a-i-n-t have somehow gone off philandering with another reality? In the past 50 years, Catholics have witnessed remarkable upheavals in every aspect of the life of the Church. At the same time, they have been told that the changes are merely accidental, that all things Conciliar have been in perfect continuity with the past. The older generation may recall the happy memory of Pope St. Pius X’s canonization in 1954, and they are told to welcome with equal gladness the elevation of John Paul to the same status in 2014. 10 The Angelus November - December 2013 1 It seems that popularity is even sufficient to preclude the need for miracles in the case of Pope John XXIII. “There are several likely reasons for waiving the second miracle requirement for the canonization of Pope John XXIII, and the first is timing. The Vatican spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, noted the ongoing 50th anniversary of the 1962-65 Second Vatican Council, convened by John XXIII. The spokesman added that John XXIII was much loved throughout the church, and that ‘none of us has any doubts about John XXIII’s virtues.’” Taken from http:// www.johnthavis.com/a-pairof-popes-headed-towardsainthood#.Ujggg3-1WUN. But does “saint” apply to the two Popes in one same sense? We remember St. Pius X as the Pope of early Communion, the warrior against Modernism, the agent of liturgical renewal, the worker of countless miracles. We remember Pope John Paul II as the Pope of altar girls and lay Eucharistic ministers, the warrior of Ecumenism, the agent of liturgical desacralization, the worker of a miracle initially rejected and later accepted for his process. One was a prisoner of the Vatican, the other forever circling the globe. The one brought countless souls to embrace Catholicism, the other embraced countless souls in their errors. The fact that two popes living in the same century could be at such antipodes is staggering enough, but when the word “saint” is prefixed to both of their names, the mind reels. Clearly, ownership of its conventional meaning has changed hands. What Does It Mean to Be a Saint? I thought that the most likely place to look to find s-a-i-n-t’s new signification would be the decree of Pope John Paul II’s beatification. Unfortunately, the document does nothing to rectify a state of discombobulation. It seems to be a personal reflection of Cardinal Amato, the Prefect of Saints’ Causes, that takes the late Pope’s sanctity more for granted than as needing to be established. His Eminence cobbles together various vignettes of the Pope’s life along with a list of secular and spiritual accomplishments. By failing to find any objective standard for sanctity in the decree, the reader is inevitably led to the conclusion that the new basis for the Church’s highest honor is quite simply this: the subjective approval of the “ecclesial community.” Perhaps that is the only thing that the letter makes crystal clear: “The world’s reaction to his lifestyle, to the development of his apostolic mission, to the way he bore his suffering, to the decision to continue his Petrine mission to the end as willed by divine Providence, and finally, the reaction to his death, the popularity of the acclamation ‘Saint right now!’ which someone made on the day of his funeral, all this has its solid foundation in the experience of having met with the person who was the Pope. The faithful have felt, have experienced that he is ‘God’s man,’ who really sees the concrete steps and the mechanisms of contemporary world ‘in God,’ in God’s perspective, with the eyes of a mystic who looks up to God only.” A More Substantial Sainthood But we must not leave John Paul II’s new sainthood secure solely on the shifting sands of subjectivity. Popularity has no doubt been a canonization catalyst,1 but I think that we must search for something more objective, and without the help of His Eminence. The fact is that Pope John Paul II was indeed a towering figure of his time, and there was something great 11 Theme Canonization 12 2 Bishop Wojtyla himself helped compose this document at the Council, as Cardinal Amato points out in the beatification decree. 3 Fr. Patrick de La Rocque, in his masterful Doubts about a Beatification (Angelus Press, 2011), quotes George Weigel’s biography of the Pope as follows: “No two conciliar texts have been so frequently cited in the teaching of John Paul II as sections 22 and 24 of Gaudium et Spes” (cf. footnote 133 on p. 39). 4 Doubts, p. 48, footnote 168. 5 Doubts, p. 46. 6 Doubts, p. 44. The Angelus about him, in a secular sense. And greatness does not come by accident. It would be wrong to see his 27-year pontificate as a disconnected series of ecumenical scandals and disastrous decisions. No, for as with everyone who commands the world’s attention, the late Pope had two pre-requisites for a hero: firstly, a clearly defined Weltanschauung or worldview; and secondly, an incredible drive to fulfill it using his elevated position. Let us turn briefly to these two things to understand John Paul II and his popularity. If St. Pius X’s “ideology” was to restore all things in Christ, John Paul II’s was to restore all things in man. He was the apostle of a new humanism. Time and again he would come back to the central principle of his ideology, found in two phrases of Gaudium et Spes,2 §22: “It is in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear” and “By His incarnation...the Son of God has in a certain way united himself with each man.”3 Both of these texts, in the mind of the Pope, make clear for modern man something that had been lost in obscurity, namely “the greatness, dignity and value that belong to [man’s] humanity.” The revelation of this great dignity is the purpose of Our Lord’s Redemption and spreading the message of this dignity is the work of the Church. “In reality, the name for that deep amazement at man’s worth and dignity is the Gospel, that is to say: the Good News. It is also called Christianity. This amazement determines the Church’s mission in the world.” Such is the interpretation of Gaudium et Spes given by the Pope in his first encyclical, Redemptor Hominis, §10. Once men begin to appreciate their great dignity, revealed to them by Christ, they grow in mutual respect toward one another. But, as it stands, modern man has been damaged by atheistic humanism and greedy capitalism, which have led to hatred, violence, injustice, and poverty. He needs to rediscover the saving message of Christ and so find his true worth. How does this take place? Through the flourishing of religion—not the Catholic religion per se, but any religion whatsoever. Religion puts a man in contact with God and so shows him his transcendence in relation to the world. It reveals his essential characteristic, personal freedom, which is the “measure of man’s dignity and greatness,”4 and the rights that flow from that greatness. As more men come to a consciousness of human dignity through the mediation of religion, they show greater respect for one another and begin to form a universal brotherhood, for “humanity…is called by God to be a single family.”5 Slowly but surely, there emerges a new civilization, a “civilization of love,” namely, “a conver­ gent meeting of minds, wills, hearts, towards the goal that the Creator has fixed for them. This goal is [not heaven, but] to make the world a place for everybody to live in and one worthy of everybody.”6 It is the mission of the Church to be a leader in the promotion of the civilization of love. She does this in a couple of ways. Firstly, by promoting religious freedom, since if the world religions are to engender this civili­ zation, they must have free scope to exercise their ministries. Secondly, by the practice of prayer. By prayer is meant a “flourishing of religious sentiment.” It is an activity by which a man expresses the transcendence of his person; manifests his freedom (since prayer is the place where the November - December 2013 7 Quoted in Doubts, p. 43. 8 Pope Benedict XVI, quoted in front page of Doubts. According to the Pope of the “hermeneutic of continuity,” John Paul II “internalized the spirit and the word of the Council” and “helps us understand what the Council wanted and what it didn’t.” 9 Time Magazine declared him “Man of the Year” in 1994, saying he was a “clerical superstar in almost perpetual motion.” George W. Bush presented him with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2004 and the same year, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. After his death, the epithet of “Great” has been applied to his name by Pope Benedict XVI and many other public figures. Even universities and other institutions have been dedicated to “Pope John Paul the Great.” primacy of conscience reigns); puts aside his differences with his fellow man; and is drawn to solidarity and brotherhood with his fellow man. In short, prayer, which of old meant union with God, here means union with man. Only when these principles of Pope John Paul are understood can we fathom the famous photograph of the leader of the Catholic Church standing in the midst of a menagerie of religious figures at Assisi, in a moment of collective, silent prayer. “The dream of the unity of the human family,” the Pope says. “I made this dream my own when, in October 1986, I invited to Assisi my Christian brethren and leaders of the great world religions so as to pray for peace.”7 The Pope committed himself, heart and soul, to this vision: the spreading of the message of the dignity of man in order to promote a civilization of love and establish universal brotherhood on this earth. This was his “authentic interpretation of Vatican II.”8 He thought to find in this vision a deeper understanding of the Gospel of Christ, and I think that it would be difficult to question his sincerity. But neither sincerity nor worldly greatness are proof of true worth; it is a very small thing to be judged by man, for he that judges is the Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 4:3-4). A Saint Is a Saint Is not a Saint Is a Saint By his energetic promotion of a new humanism, Pope John Paul II was pleasing to the world. By the way in which he embodied the spirit of Vatican II, he was pleasing to neo-Modernist Rome. On the basis of this double popularity,9 the word s-a-i-n-t will be prefixed to his name in April 2014. Once, those five letters referred to a state of being pleasing to God. Today, they seem to refer to being holy in the sight of modern man. Unfortunately, on the basis of the new meaning, Pope John Paul does indeed deserve to be called a “saint.” 13 Theme Canonization The New “Canonizations” Doubt and Confusion by John Vennari 14 The Angelus Speaking of the rigorous pre-Vatican procedure for beatifications, eminent Catholic historian William Thomas Walsh, who died in 1949, wrote the following: “No secular court trying a man for his life is more thorough and scrupulous than the Congregation of Rites in seeking to establish whether or not the servant of God practiced virtues both theological and cardinal, and to a heroic degree. If that is established, the advocate of the cause must next prove that his presence in Heaven has been indicated by at least two miracles, while a cardinal who is an expert theologian does all he can to discredit the evidence—hence his popular title of advocatus diaboli, or Devil’s Advocate. If the evidence survives every attempt to destroy it after months, years and sometimes centuries of discussion, he is then beatified, that is, he is declared to be blessed.” We will later note the new 1983 process of canonization dispenses with the Devil’s Advocate, and eliminates the stringent juridical method in favor of an academic approach. The discarding of the “thorough and scrupulous” procedure praised by Mr. Walsh cannot help but introduce doubt to the integrity of the entire new process—especially in the case of “fast-track” canonizations. November - December 2013 1 William Thomas Walsh, The Saints in Action (New York: Hanover, 1961), p. 14 (emphasis added). Though Walsh died in 1949, The Saints in Action was not published until 1961. 2 Doubts about a Beatification, Father Patrick de La Rocque, FSSPX (Kansas City: Angelus Press, 2011), p. 99. 3 Doubts about a Beatification, p. 10. 4 “Pope Francis Signs Canonization Decrees for John XXIII and John Paul II,” Vatican Radio, July 5, 2013. Pope Francis ‘waived’ the second necessary miracle for the ‘canonization’ of John XXIII. 5 Doubts about a Beatification, p. xviii. Mr. Walsh further noted the following about the traditional process: “The final stage of canonization, the last of twenty distinct steps, may take even more years or centuries. It must be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that two additional miracles have been performed through the instance of the servant of God, since the beatification. When and if this is done, the Pope issues a bull (a sealed letter) of canonization.” Sound Orthodoxy Walsh also stressed the demand for sound orthodoxy regarding anyone considered for canonization: “Theologians carefully scrutinize all the available writings—books, letters and so on—of the servant of God whose claim to holiness is being urged, together with all the depositions obtainable from those who spoke with him and knew him well. If nothing contrary to faith or morals is found, a decree is published authorizing further investigation.”1 If we begin with the criteria that “nothing contrary to faith or morals” can be found in any legitimate claim to beatification, we read with concern an invocation uttered by one who is now slated for “canonization”: “Hear our prayers for the intention of the Jewish people, which you continue to cherish according to the Patriarchs.…Be mindful of the new generation, the young and the children: may they persevere in fidelity to You, in what is the exceptional mystery of their vocation.”2 Note: the man who offers this prayer does not indicate that Jews should convert to Our Lord’s one true Church for salvation, but prays they “persevere in fidelity” to a counterfeit religious system that formally rejects Jesus Christ. Commenting on The Book of the Dead at Auschwicz, the same man says: “Persons whose names are contained in these books were incarcerated, they underwent tortures and were finally deprived of life solely, in most cases, because they belonged to a certain nation rather than another.…In the light of faith, we see the witness of heroic fidelity, which united them to God in eternity, and a seed of peace for future generations.”3 While we grieve for anyone who undergoes persecution and torture, our speaker indicates that the Jewish people who suffered at Auschwitz suffered a kind of Jewish martyrdom “which united them to God in eternity,” a concept unheard of in Church history. In days of doctrinal sanity, these radical statements—and there are countless more such utterances from the same man—would stop any process of beatification in its tracks, would disqualify the candidate permanently. The Catholic who made these questionable remarks was Pope John Paul II, whom Pope Francis has just approved for ‘canonization.’ 4 In our postConciliar period of ecclesiastical sentimentality, the age-old truths of the Faith no longer stand as the central criteria for determining heroic virtue. As Fr. Patrick de La Rocque notes, “Far from practicing the theological virtue of Faith to a heroic degree, the late pope [John Paul II] departed from it dangerously in a number of his teachings.”5 15 Theme Canonization 16 6 See Chapter III (pp. 89-113), “John Paul II and the Virtue of Charity,” Pope John Paul II: Doubts about a Beatification. 7 Doubts about a Beatification, p. 97. 8 Some background: In the year 1234, Pope Gregory IX established procedures to investigate the life of a candidate saint and any attributed miracles. In 1588, Pope Sixtus V entrusted the Congregation of Rites (later named the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints) to oversee the entire process. Beginning with Pope Urban VIII in 1634, various Popes have revised and improved the norms and procedures for canonization. Prospero Lambertini, a brilliant canonist who had come from the ranks of the Congregation of Rites to become Pope Benedict XIV, set himself the task of reviewing and clarifying the Church’s practice of making saints. His long and masterful work in five volumes, De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione (On the Beatification of the Servants of God and the Canonization of the Blesseds), published between 1734 and 1738, is the touchstone text for the making of saints. 9 Kenneth L. Woodward, Making Saints: How the Catholic Church Determines Who Becomes a Saint, Who Doesn’t, and Why (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990), p. 91. 10 Ibid., p. 91 (emphasis added). 11 See Catholic Encyclopedia entry, “Advocatus Diaboli,” (Devil’s Advocate), Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. I, Robert Appleton Company, 1907. The Angelus Nor do we see with John Paul II the virtue of true Charity, since John Paul throughout his entire pontificate refused to remind non-Catholics—Jews included—that they must convert to Christ’s one true Church for salvation. While presenting an entire chapter full of such quotes from the Polish pope,6 Father La Rocque notes: “By systematically concealing the [objective] sin of disbelief that is involved in formal adherence to Judaism, so as to praise instead the [alleged] fidelity to God of present-day Judaism…Pope John Paul II was seriously lacking in that delicate but important pastoral charity that consists in denouncing sin so as to allow the conversion of the sinner.”7 Yet Father La Rocque, or anyone else, who advances reasoned objections to John Paul II’s orthodoxy and objections to the claim that John Paul practiced heroic virtue, is simply ignored. The challenges are neither acknowledged nor answered. “We in the Vatican have decided that John Paul II is a saint, and that is that!” This type of thinking is due primarily to the more lax system of canonization introduced in 1983, as well as to the “new understanding” of what it means to be Catholic that was spawned by the Second Vatican Council, and by its most zealous evangelist, Pope John Paul II. The New Process On January 25, 1983, Pope John Paul II issued the Apostolic Constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister, the long-awaited revision of the beatifi­ cation and canonization process. Cardinal Suenens, Paul VI, and other pro­gressivists since the Council, had encouraged such an update. John Paul brought it to fruition.8 The change was part of the alleged goal to make the canonization process “simpler, faster, cheaper, more ‘collegial’ and ultimately more productive.”9 In the new system, the Devil’s Advocate has been eliminated. The “Promoter of the Faith,” as the Devil’s Advocate has been called, is given the new title “Prelate Theologian.” His main task is to choose the theological consulters and preside at the meetings. Catholic journalist Kenneth L. Woodward spotlights the root difference between the old and new systems: “At the core of the reform is a striking paradigm shift: no longer would the Church look to the courtroom as its model for arriving at the truth of a saint’s life; instead, it would employ the academic model of researching and writing a doctoral dissertation.” Woodward continues, “In effect, then, the relator had replaced both the Devil’s Advocate and the defense lawyer. He alone was responsible for establishing martyrdom or heroic virtue, and it was up to the theological and historical consultants to give his work a passing or failing grade.”10 Though there may have been some abuses by the lawyers over the centuries, the elimination of lawyers radically transforms the procedure that had been at the heart of the saint-making process for half a millennium: a system deemed necessary by the great master of ascetical and mystical theology, Pope Benedict XIV (1740-58) in his monumental work, The Beatification and Canonization of Saints.11 November - December 2013 12 Making Saints, p. 95. Though many in the post-Conciliar Vatican welcomed John Paul II’s new method, not all were thrilled. Msgr. Luigi Porsi, a 20-year veteran of the Church legal system, decried the elimination of the Devil’s Advocate and the accompanying lawyers as part of the beatification process. In an unanswered letter to Pope John Paul II, Porsi complained the reform went too far: “There is no longer any room for an adversarial function.”12 Thus a central question arises: if there is a radical change in what was the rigorous procedure for making saints, how can we expect the same secure results? Statue of Pope John Paul II at Assumption Cathedral, Thailand 17 Theme Canonization 13 Mark Zima, Mother Teresa: The Case for the Cause (Is Mother Teresa of Calcutta a Saint?) (Nashville: Cold Tree Press, 2007), p. 29. 14 Ibid., p. 65. 15 Quotes from Doctors Musafi, Biswas, and Murshet from Zima’s Mother Teresa: The Case for the Cause, pp. 190-191. 16 18 “Mother Teresa ‘miracle’ patient accuses nuns,” Telegraph, September 5, 2007. The Angelus Indeed, the fast-track beatifications of the past few decades already introduce doubt to the integrity of the process. The two cases that first come to mind are that of Mother Teresa of Calcutta and Opus Dei Founder Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer. Doctors Insist: No Miracle Mother Teresa of Calcutta was a popular figure recognized as ‘saint’ while she was still alive, even though, despite her many good works, she seemed to embrace a theology of indifferentism. She is on record saying, “I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic.”13 In 1976, Mother Teresa organized a 25th-anniversary celebration of the Missionaries of Charity. As part of the celebration, she obtained permission from the Archbishop of Calcutta for her and her sisters to pray in some pagan temples—non-Christian houses of worship—each day of the jubilee. “Her desire was for each group to hold its own worship service of thanksgiving. Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Jains, Jews, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants and so forth joined her and her sisters to thank the one true God in their own way. She and her sister prayed at eighteen different worship sites,” including Hindu temples.14 The central “miracle” employed to justify Mother Teresa’s 2003 “beatifi­ cation” was the alleged cure of Monica Besra in September 1998. Besra, from Dangram, 460 miles northeast of Calcutta, claimed to have been cured of a tumor after praying to Mother Teresa while pressing a medallion of Mother Teresa’s image to her side. Despite this claim, Besra’s doctors insist the cure had nothing miraculous about it, but was the result of strong anti-TB drugs administered over a period of nine months. “This miraculous claim is absolute nonsense and should be condemned by everyone,” said Dr. R. K. Musafi. “She had a medium-sized tumor in her lower abdomen caused by tuberculosis. The drugs she was given eventually reduced the cystic mass and it disappeared after a year’s treatment.” Likewise Dr. T. K. Biswas, the first doctor to treat Besra, said, “With all due respect to Mother Teresa, there should not be any talk of a miracle by her. We advised her a prolonged anti-tubercular treatment and she was cured.” Remember, the Catholic Church has always demanded that a miraculous cure requires rigorous proof beyond any reasonable doubt. The integrity of the Mother Teresa “miracle” is thus seriously compromised. Dr. Manju Murshet, Superintendent of the Balurghat Hospital, complained that the doctors were under pressure from Church members to declare a miraculous cure: “They want us to say Monica Besra’s recovery was a miracle and beyond the comprehension of medical science.”15 Besra’s husband Deiku also challenges the claim of a miraculous cure. “It is much ado about nothing,” he said, “My wife was cured by the doctors, not by any miracle.”16 November - December 2013 17 What’s Mother Teresa Got to Do with It?” Time.com. October 14, 2002. 18 “Mother Teresa ‘miracle’ patient accuses nuns.” It should be noted that Besra still believes she was miraculously cured by Mother Teresa. Her doctors, however, testify that there was nothing miraculous about it. 19 These complaints about Escriva surface elsewhere, including the book by former Opus Dei member, Beyond the Threshold—A Life in Opus Dei: The True, Unfinished Story (Maria del Carmen Tapia, 1998); and were also mentioned by Fr. Gregory Hesse in speeches at our CFN conference, 1998. Further, Besra’s medical records have disappeared from the hospital. The records containing her physician’s notes, prescriptions, and sonograms were taken by Sister Betta of the Missionaries of Charity. When Time magazine contacted Sister Betta to ask about Besra’s medical records, the only response was “no comment.”17 Besra herself now claims she has been abandoned by the Missionary sisters who flocked to her home at the time of the alleged miracle and promised support. “My hut was frequented by nuns of the Missionaries of Charity before the beatification of Mother Teresa,” said Mrs. Besra, squatting on the floor of her thatched and mud house. “They made a lot of promises to me and assured me of financial help for my livelihood and my children’s education. After that, they forgot me. I am living in penury. My husband is sick. My children have stopped going to school as I have no money. I have to work in the fields to feed my husband and five children.”18 It is not our intention to pass a judgment on these events. We merely wish to observe the following: it is hard to imagine this flurry of questions and abuses occurring under the former rigorous system of canonization. With the Devil’s Advocate now eliminated, abuse and suspicion sully not only Mother Teresa’s case, but the entire new beatification process itself. Once again regarding the integrity of the new process, we encounter doubt. Monsignor Escriva Msgr. Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer, the founder of the controversial Opus Dei organization who died in 1975, was also placed on the fast track. Fr. Peter Scott, the then rector of SSPX’s Holy Cross Seminary in Australia, wrote in November 2002 of what he called Escriva’s “shameful” and “highly questionable canonization.” Noting that due process was not followed, Father Scott objected that the procedure contained no Devil’s Advocate, and that “former members of Opus Dei who personally knew Msgr. Escriva and who attempted to register their objections, were not allowed to express their opinion.” In a last ditch effort to provide more objective thinking regarding the hasty canonization, a group of former Opus Dei members wrote an Open Letter to Pope John Paul II in which they said: “It is because we believe that the truth has been in large part hidden that we now give our testimony in order to avoid a danger for the Faith brought about by the unjustifiable reverence for the man that you have the intention of canonizing soon.” They went on to explain that the authors of this Open Letter include “people who have intimately known Msgr. Escriva and who can testify to his arrogance, to his evil character, to his improper seeking of a title (Marquise of Peralta), to his dishonesty, to his indifference towards the poor, to his love of luxury and ostentation, to his lack of compassion, and to his idolatrous devotion towards ‘Opus Dei.’ ”19 After having pointed out that the process was uncanonical and dishonest, they had this to say: “It [the canonization] will offend God. It will stain the 19 Theme Canonization 20 Holy Cross Seminary Newsletter, November 1, 2002. 21 “Fair to Opus Dei?” Letter to the Editor of First Things, No. 61, March 1996, pp. 2-7. [Note: Woodward’s response was written after Escriva’s “beatification” but prior to his “canonization.”]. Posted on Opus Dei Awareness Network webpage, updated June 20, 2005. 22 For example, it is argued that any ‘infallibility’ that deals with canonization would not extend beyond the fact that the soul of the saint is in heaven. Period. Yet the way in which the Church would judge that the soul is in heaven was by means of authentic miracles attributed to the ‘saint’s’ intercession. This is why the old system for determining this was, as William Thomas Walsh noted, “thorough and scrupulous.” Yet if the stringent procedure for determining a miracle is not followed—such as what appears to be the case with the ‘miracle’ attributed to Mother Teresa of Calcutta— how is the ‘saint’s’ presence in heaven determined beyond the pronouncement of a post-Conciliar pope and his will to canonize a given individual? Church forever. It will take away from the saints their special holiness. It will call into question the credibility of all the canonizations made during your Papacy. It will undermine the future authority of the Papacy.” Father Scott notes that those who wrote the Open Letter were not traditionalists; they were former members of Escriva’s organization, “but their supplication was not heard, and the ceremony took place as arranged on October 6, 2002. “Their letter will certainly turn out to be prophetic, for in time they will be proven to be right in their assessment concerning Escriva as well as concerning Opus Dei that they so aptly compare to the liberal Sillon movement, rightly condemned by St. Pius X in 1910. This kind of last minute objection is unheard of in the history of the Church. How could Catholics possibly regard such a man as heroic in virtue, as an extraordinary model of Catholic spirituality, as a saint must be? For all the reasons that they give, we cannot possibly consider this ‘canonization’ as a valid, infallible papal pronouncement.”20 In similar vein, Catholic author Kenneth Woodward expressed grave reservations about the procedure regarding Escriva’s rapid “beatification.” When Fr. John Neuhaus criticized this negative assessment, claiming the liberal-leaning Woodward was always unfavorable to Opus Dei, Woodward responded, “My writing about Opus Dei has focused almost entirely on the beatification of its founder, not the organization itself. On this point, the only fair-minded conclusion I can reach, given the evidence of the positio itself and interviews with people in Rome involved in the process, is that Opus Dei subverted the canonization process to get its man beatified. In a word, it was a scandal—from the conduct of the tribunals through the writing of the positio to the high-handed treatment of the experts picked to judge the cause. That Newsweek caught Opus Dei officials making claims that were not true is a matter of record. Escriva may have been a saint—who am I to judge? but you could never tell from the way his cause was handled.”21 Once again regarding the integrity of the process, we encounter doubt and more doubt. Assisi: Catholic Youngsters Can’t Believe It It seems clear that the real purpose of the upcoming “canonizations” of John XXIII and John Paul II is to “canonize” Vatican II and its entire liberal orientation of religious liberty, ecumenism, and pan-religious activity. For now we will content ourselves with another objection to John Paul’s canonization. At the time of the 2011 “beatification” of John Paul II, I learned of a homeschool online discussion taking place among 6th to 9th graders. A traditional Catholic youth (whom I know) was telling non-traditionalist Catholic acquaintances about Pope John Paul II’s pan-religious meeting at Assisi; that John Paul invited Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Jains, and pagans to pray together at the event in October 1986. He also posted photos of the Assisi gathering. 20 The Angelus November - December 2013 23 Though the mysteries, such as the Blessed Trinity and Transubstantiation, are said to be above reason, but not contrary to it. 24 Fr. Joseph de Sainte Marie was a capable Carmelite theologian who worked in Rome in the 1970s and ’80s. An expert on Fatima and a loyal son of Pope John Paul II, he helped compose the formula for the Pope’s 1982 Consecration of the World to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Despite this, Father de Saint Marie issued the following warning about the unfortunate present state of the Church and those at its highest levels: “In our time, 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.” (Cited from Apropos, Isle of Sky, No. 16, 1994, p. 5.) Fr. Joseph de Saint Marie thus tells in a respectful and gentlemanly manner, that our Holy Church now passes through an extraordinary period of history. He uses the word “abnormal.” Yet in the face of this “extraordinarily abnormal character of the current state of the Church,” he does not advise us to follow the Pope blindly. Aligning himself, rather, with the traditional teaching of Popes and Saints (for example, that of Pope Innocent III and St. Robert Bellarmine) Father de Saint Marie cautions us that “in our time,” we have to be careful. We have to exercise “prudence and discernment” when it comes to the actions of the Holy See itself; that is, even when it comes to papal actions. Further, he tells us it is “very often the case” that we have to now exercise this caution. The homeschooled youngsters refused to believe it. They claimed it could not be true; that the John Paul II/Assisi photos were doctored, that no pope— especially one “beatified” by the allegedly conservative Benedict XVI—would perform this act of ecclesiastical treason. The young traditional Catholic who told his acquaintances about Assisi was accused of making up the account; of trying to defame the name of “Blessed” Pope John Paul II; of inventing a malicious story about a paganpacked, pan-religious prayer-fest that no pope would countenance. Here then is the striking point: The children knew the Assisi prayer meeting was not Catholic. The children knew it was not a manifestation of heroic virtue. The children knew it was a scandal of colossal dimension, and refused to believe John Paul could be guilty of it. To their credit, these youngsters displayed a better sensus Catholicus than today’s Vatican leaders. If Catholic homeschool children, age 13 and under, recognize the outrage of the pan-religious meeting at Assisi, why did not Pope Benedict XVI who placed Papa Wojtyla on the fast-track to beatification? Why does not Pope Francis, who on July 5 approved John Paul II’s “canonization”? Under today’s streamlined procedure, these crucial questions are ignored as irrelevant. Once again regarding the integrity of the process, we encounter doubt, doubt and more doubt. Defect in Procedure There is an apparent quick-fix solution to the modern canonization dilemma: it is to declare that today’s popes are not popes at all; that they have lost their office due to heresy, and that we have not had a true pope since Pius XII. Yet this sedevacantist reaction, I believe, merely substitutes one collection of thorny questions with others of greater magnitude. A thorough response to the details of our unprecedented situation calls for the genius of a Bellarmine or a Garrigou-Lagrange—genius seemingly lacking in our post-Conciliar period.22 To conclude: Fast-track beatifications where the will to beatify supersedes the worthiness of the proposed candidate is a dangerous and questionable development. This is what we see with the determined push to rapidly canonize John XXIII and John Paul II. Under the new system that eliminates the Devil’s Advocate, legitimate challenges to the sanctity, orthodoxy, and miraculous intervention of the candidate are left unaddressed. As Vatican postulator Msgr. Luigi Porsi warned, “There is no longer any room for an adversarial function.” Everything in the Catholic Faith conforms to reason.23 It seems unreasonable, then, to assume that a drastic loosening in the procedure for canonization would yield the same secure results as the “thorough and scrupulous” method that had been in place for centuries. Thus I believe modern beatifications and canonizations are at best doubtful due to defect in procedure, and due to a new criteria for holiness engendered by the new “ecumenical Catholicism” from Vatican II.24 21 It is due in great part to Pope Pius XII that the original tomb of St. Peter was discovered and the necropolis excavated during 1940-57. The most important part of the necropolis is the area that contained the body of Peter. This little area, which was called “Field P” by the excavators, in relation to the modern basilica, is directly under the Confession. Cosmin Sava | www.shutterstock.com Theme Canonization Santo Subito? by Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, SSPX Introduction: The Viewpoint of the Press The beatification of John Paul II was reported by the press as an historical fact without precedent, since it took place in record time (he was beatified within six years of his death), and as an event at which one has arrived at the conclusion of a serious process. This double affirmation contains a fundamental contradiction, since the seriousness of the traditional process of beatification is, in a large measure, founded on the extension of the delays, which is a prudent guarantee. This caution is opposed to the precipitation of an accelerated procedure. This contradiction is a clear indication, and it represents a legitimate point to raise doubts. In the following pages we shall explain why we may doubt the seriousness of the beatification of John Paul II. Certain Elemental Principles Beatification is an act through which the Sovereign Pontiff grants an authorization so that, in certain places, a public cult be rendered to a blessed 24 The Angelus November - December 2013 1 In De Ecclesia, thesis 17, 726, Salaverri affirms that this is a truth at least theologically certain, if not implicitly defined. person, until he becomes canonized. This permission is not a precept; it is something temporal and reformable. Beatification simply permits the cult. The act of beatification declares directly neither the glorification, nor the heroic virtues of a servant of God who has been beatified. Canonization is the act by which the Vicar of Christ, judging in ultimate instance and emitting a definitive sentence, inscribes in the catalogue of the saints a servant of God previously beatified. Canonization has a triple finality and does not refer only to the worship. In first instance, the pope declares that the faithful deceased is in the celestial glory; secondly, he expresses that the faithful deceased deserved to reach this glory for having practiced heroic virtues, which set an example for the whole Church; thirdly, so as to offer more easily these virtues as an example and to thank God for having cause it, he prescribes that the faithful deceased should receive a public cult. On these three scores the canonization is a precept and obliges the entire Church, and it constitutes a definitive and irreformable act. Both beatification and canonization have for object to admit the cult of a deceased person, which implies that during his life he practiced exemplary virtues and reached the glory. The difference is based on the fact that beatification only permits the cult, supposing the glory and the exemplary virtues, whereas canonization transforms this cult into an obligation and imposes on the faithful the duty to believe explicitly in the reality of the glory and of the heroic virtues of the saint. The essential element in all this falls back on the exemplary or heroic virtue of the defunct; that is what both processes of beatification and canonization intend to elucidate. Indeed, the cult presupposes the existence of that virtue, in the same way as the effect presupposes the causes. The miracles as such are taken into account as signs which ratify the heroic virtue. Without heroic virtue, there can be no sanctity and no veneration. Between a saint and a canonized saint there is a difference. The canonization does not cause one’s sanctity, but reveals it and presents it as an example. This explains why not everybody and not many even are canonized. So as to have an impact, the example must be unique or rare: even if saints were many, few among them, and not the majority, should be elevated to the altars. On the other hand, the Church always presents those examples which the faithful need in the context of a certain period. In this sense, yes, canonization is a political act in the best meaning of the word: it is not a demagogical and partisan act, but an act that generates the common good of the whole Church, an act that has a social implication and is suited to the circumstances. Another difference we need to elucidate is that between salvation and sanctity. A person who died in odor of sanctity was saved. But someone may be saved with­out having lived as a saint. To the eyes of the faithful, the first aim and effect of canoni­zation is to signal the sanctity of a life and to present it as an example. Even if one has been saved and has gone to heaven, the one who has not given an example of sanctity in life will not be canonized. The common and certain doctrine of the majority of theologians considers canonizations to be infallible. All the treatises published after Vatican Council I (and prior to Vatican II), from Billot to Salaverri, teach it as a common theological doctrine.1 25 Theme Canonization 2 Quodlibet 9, art. 16. 3 Benedict XIV, De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione, n. 12. This speculative truth states that whoever perseveres to the end in the heroic exercise of supernatural virtues obtains an eternal recompense in glory. We observe that St. Thomas2 asks the question most precisely: he is not asking whether the pope is infallible when he canonizes a saint. The question consists in knowing whether all the saints canonized are in glory or whether some of them may be in hell. The formulation of the question orientates from the beginning the entire answer. For St. Thomas, canonization is infallible, before all else, inasmuch as it implies the profession of a truth virtually revealed. This does not exclude the other two aspects: the example of the life of the saint and the cult prescribed. In fact, there is an order between the three judgments which the pope pronounces when he canonizes a saint. The first judgment falls back on the theoretical fact and states that a faithful person persevered unto the end of his life in the heroic practice of supernatural virtue and is found presently glorified in eternal beatitude. The second judgment presents to the whole Church the heroic virtues practiced by the canonized person during his life as an example to imitate. The third judgment is a precept which imposes the public cult of this saint on the entire Church. Canonization presents as exemplary the heroic virtues of the saint and renders his cult mandatory. However, this presupposes the fact of the glorification of the saint. Benedict XIV (1740-1758), who, quoting and making his the reflections of St. Thomas, considers that the judgment of the canonization is based, in last instance, on the statement of a speculative truth deduced from revelation.3 Is it of defined faith that a canonized saint is indubitably in the glory of heaven? The most common theological position is that to deny this truth does not bring in itself the fault of heresy, since it is only indirectly opposed to faith: if this truth is presented in the context of the act of canonization, it is defined, not as of divine and Catholic faith, but as certain or of Catholic faith. To deny it would be erroneous or false. Is it of defined faith that the pope cannot err when he canonizes a saint? Benedict XIV affirms that the infallibility of the act of canonization has not yet been defined as a truth of faith, although it could become so, and to deny it would not incur the fault of heresy but at least that of temerity. This denial would also imply an insult to the saints and a scandal to the Church. Hence, it would be deserving of the most severe punishments. Certain Problematic Incertitudes With no pretense of giving the last word (reserved to God), we may at least raise three great difficulties which render doubtful the seriousness of the new beatifications and canonizations. The first two question the infallibility and security of these acts, the third questions the definition itself. The insufficiency of the procedure The divine assistance which causes the infallibility or the security of the acts of the magisterium are exercised according to the workings of Providence. This one, far from excluding the thorough study of the pope 26 The Angelus November - December 2013 regarding the sources of Revelation transmitted by the Apostles, on the contrary, demands by its very nature such an investigation. This is much more necessary in the case of a canonization: this one implies that one verifies seriously the human testimonies which prove the heroic virtues of the future saint and that he examines the divine proof, the miracles, which used to be two for the beatification and two more for the canonization. The procedure followed by the Church until Vatican II was the expression of this extreme rigor. The process of canonization was preceded by a double process substantiated during the beatification: the first was performed before the ordinary tribunal and acted of its own authority; the other was exclusively in the hands of the Holy See. The process of canonization included a revision of the act of beatification, followed by the examination of two new miracles. The procedure was concluded when the pope signed the respective decree, but before doing so, three successive Consistories had to have taken place. Tomb of Pope John Paul II at St. Peter's Basilica 27 Theme Canonization 4 Ap. Constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister, AAS, 1983, p. 351. This text of John Paul II is quoted by Benedict XVI in his “Message to the Members of the Plenary Assembly of the Congregation for the Cause of the Saints," May 16, 2006, p. 6. 5 Benedict XIV, De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione, Lib. 1, cap. 10, n. 6. The new norms, sanctioned by John Paul II in 1983 with the Apostolic Constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister, entrusted the essential part of the procedure to the diocesan bishop: he carries out the investigation of the life of the saint, his writings, his virtues and miracles, and produces the documents which must be transmitted to the Holy See. The Sacred Congregation examines these antecedents and makes a pronouncement before submitting it to the judgment of the pope. Now only one miracle is requested for beatification, and another for the canonization. The access to the documents of the process of beatification and canonization is rendered difficult today; we have hardly any way of ascertaining how seriously these new norms have been put into practice. Despite this, it is clear that, by itself, the procedure does not have the rigor of the older one. It is much less exigent in matters of guarantees from Churchmen, so that the divine assistance may insure the infallibility of the canonization, and, with greater reason, the absence of error of fact in the beatification. Besides, Pope John Paul II decided not to follow the present procedure (which disposes that the beginning of the beatification process not take place before five years after the death of the candidate), by authorizing the introduction of the cause of Mother Teresa of Calcutta three years after her passing away. Benedict XVI did the same regarding the beatification of his predecessor. The doubt becomes much more legitimate when one considers the reasons the Church has to act cautiously in these matters. Collegiality If we examine carefully these new norms, we notice that the legislation is returning to the state which it enjoyed before the twelfth century: the pope left in the hands of the bishops the care of judging immediately the causes of the saints and reserved to himself only the power to confirm the Episcopal sentence. As John Paul II explains, this regression/return is the consequence of the principle of collegiality: “We think that, in light of the doctrine of collegiality taught by Vatican II, it is most fitting that the bishops be more intimately associated with the Holy See when it comes to examining the causes of the saints.”4 However, the legislation of the twelfth century considered beatification and canonization as non-infallible acts.5 This prevents us from assimilating purely and simply the canonizations resulting from these reforms with the traditional acts of the extraordinary magisterium of the pope. This is because these are acts by which the pope limits himself to authenticating the act of a residential ordinary bishop. Behold a first motive which allows us to doubt seriously of the correct fulfillment of the conditions needed for the exercise of infallible canonizations. The Motu Proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem of June 28, 1998, adds more questions. This legislative text is given to explain again certain norms of the 1983 Code and to introduce others which were made necessary because of the new Profession of Faith published in 1989. In first instance, 28 The Angelus November - December 2013 6 Art. 9 of the Note of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, AAS, 1998, pp. 547-548. it affirms that the canonizations are, in principle, infallible. Then the text establishes distinctions which diminish the role of infallibility of the canonizations, since infallibility is not clearly understood in its traditional sense. This is what we can draw from reading the document written by Cardinal Ratzinger which serves as the official commentary of this motu proprio of 1998.6 The comment explains how the pope can, in the future, exercise his infallible magisterium. Until now, we knew the act personally infallible and definitory of the locution ex cathedra, and the decrees of the ecumenical Councils. In the future, we shall have also an act which would be neither personally infallible nor definitory in itself, but the act of the ordinary magisterium of the pope: this act will aim at discerning a doctrine as infallibly taught by the ordinary universal magisterium of the Episcopal college. According to this third mode, the pope acts as a simple interpreter of the collegial magisterium. Yet, if we look at the new norms promulgated in 1983 by the Apostolic Constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister of John Paul II, it is clear that, in the precise case of canonization, the pope—according to the needs of collegiality—will exercise his magisterium according to this third mode. If one takes into account both the Apostolic Constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister of 1983 and the Motu Proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem of 1998, when the pope exercises his personal magisterium to proceed to a canonization, it seems as if his will consists in intervening as an organ of the collegial magisterium. This would suggest that the canonizations are not guaranteed by the personal infallibility of the solemn magisterium of the Sovereign Pontiff. Will it be guaranteed by the ordinary universal magisterium of the Episcopal college? Until now, the entire theological tradition has never said that this was the case; it has always considered the infallibility of canonizations as the fruit of a divine assistance granted strictly to the personal magisterium of the pope, assimilated to the locution ex cathedra. With this, we hold a second motive which authorizes us to doubt seriously of the infallibility of the canonizations realized in concordance with these postconciliar reforms. Heroic Virtue The formal object of the magisterial act of canonization is the heroic virtue of the saint. In the same way as the magisterium is traditional inasmuch as it teaches always the same immutable truth, likewise a canonization is traditional inasmuch as it signals always the same heroism of the Christian virtues, beginning with the theological virtues. Therefore, if the pope proposes as an example the life of a candidate who did not practice the heroic virtues, or if he presents it under a new optic, inspired more by the dignity of human nature than by the supernatural action of the Holy Ghost, it is difficult to equate this as a valid act of canonization. 29 Theme Canonization 7 Benedict XVI, discourse given during the ecumenical meeting in Prague, Sept. 27, 2009, Documentation Catholique, no. 2433, pp. 971-972: “The term salvation has multiple meanings, without prejudice of which, it reflects something fundamental and universal in the human aspiration to well-being and plenitude. It evokes the ardent desire of reconciliation and of communion which is born from the depth of the human mind.” The change of the object implies a change of the act. This change of perspective is present in the new theology and the postconciliar magisterium. It omits to distinguish between a common and a heroic sanctity, which is what sanctity consists of: even the term “heroic virtue” appears nowhere in the texts of Vatican II. After the Council, when the theologians speak of heroic virtue, they have more or less the tendency of defining it by opposition to the simply natural act of virtue, instead of opposing it to the ordinary act of supernatural virtue. This change of optic is corroborated also when we consider the ecumenical orientation of the sanctity which appeared after Vatican II. The ecumenical orientation of sanctity was affirmed by John Paul II in the Encyclical Ut Unum Sint and in the Apostolic Letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente. The Pope refers to a communion of sanctity which transcends the diverse religions, and manifests the redemptive action of Christ and the effusion of His Spirit upon the whole of mankind. As for Pope Benedict XVI, we must recognize that he confers to salvation a definition oriented towards the same ecumenical sense, which also twists the notion of sanctity, correlative of supernatural salvation.7 Hence, one may seriously doubt that the acts of these new beatifications and canonizations are in real continuity with the Tradition of the Church. Conclusion Three serious reasons authorize the Catholic faithful to doubt the seriousness of the new beatifications and canonizations. Firstly, the reforms implanted after the Council have allowed clear insufficiencies in the procedure. Secondly, they have introduced a new collegialist intention. These two consequences are incompatible with the security of the beatifications and the infallibility of the canonizations. Lastly, the judgment which takes place in the procedure is tainted with a new and at least equivocal conception, and hence doubtful, of sanctity and of heroic virtue. In the context of the postconciliar reforms, the pope and the bishops propose to the veneration of the faithful authentic saints, but canonized at the close of a defective and doubtful procedure. No one can put in doubt the heroism of the virtue of a Padre Pio, canonized after Vatican II, but at the same time one may doubt this new type of process which raised him to the altars. On the other hand, the same procedure has rendered possible canonizations which were formerly inconceivable, by granting the title of saint to candidates whose reputation is controversial and whose heroism of virtue does not shine with the utmost brilliancy. Are we sure that the intention of the popes who have made these new types of canonization is the same as that held by their predecessors prior to Vatican II? This unheardof situation is explained by the confusion introduced by the postconciliar reforms, and it cannot be resolved unless one goes to the bottom of the question and asks about the merits of these reforms. 30 The Angelus November - December 2013 Some Practical Certitudes First certitude Did John Paul II merit to be beatified? John Paul II did not give us the example of heroic virtues. He gave rather a bad example, that is to say, scandal, attitudes gravely prejudicial to the good of souls, especially by his doubtful teaching on ecumenism. Moreover he publicly condemned the work of Catholic resistance by excommunicating Archbishop Lefebvre. Second certitude Did John Paul II live saintly? Objectively—considering his acts—John Paul II was not a pope worthy of this name. Subjectively—considering his intentions—it is impossible to make a pronouncement which can be made only by God. Yet, even if John Paul II was animated by the best of intentions, the judgment of sanctity is based on acts, not on intentions. Third certitude Did John Paul II save his soul? It is possible that John Paul II was not totally conscious of the prejudicial consequences of his teaching and pastoral activity, and that this ignorance would more or less excuse him, and that his soul finally will reach (if it has not done so yet) the eternal glory of heaven. However, all this is the secret of God. Fourth certitude Are we obliged by the beatification of May 1st? We have no obligation for three reasons: (1) because it is a simple permission, and this act is in no way infallible; (2) because the reforms which took place after Vatican II (Motu Proprio Divinus Perfectionis Magister, 1983) were animated by a collegialist intention, incompatible with the security of beatifications and the infallibility of canonizations; and (3) because the judgment which guided the procedure was guided by a modernist conception of sanctity and heroic virtue. 31 96 pp. – Softcover – STK# 3056✱ – $7.95 St. Athanasius Defender of the Faith By Michael Davies Michael Davies’s book provides a fascinating insight into one of the most troubled periods in the history of the Church and the life of one of her greatest saints. Documents the facts on the “Fall of Pope Liberius,” who confirmed the excommunication of Saint Athanasius and signed an ambiguous formula of doubtful orthodoxy. Mr. Davies reminds us that the Faith is not served by explaining away historical facts, but in understanding them in the light of Catholic teaching. The fact that the Church survives every crisis with the integrity of her doctrinal teaching intact is a dramatic testimony to her divine origin and the necessity of Athanasian perseverance. 113 pp. – Softcover – STK# 8526✱ – $15.95 Pope John Paul II Doubts About a Beatification Fr. Patrick De La Rocque, FSSPX To many, John Paul II was a hero. He traveled the world and inspired the multitudes. He caused the fall of the Berlin Wall. He invited Catholics to “be not afraid!” He pardoned Ali Agca for the attempt on his life of May 13, 1981. He was an intrepid defender of life, especially against abortion. But the reality is not so simple. An in-depth study of the requirements for beatification and the examination of John Paul II’s pontificate in light of those requirements leads to amazement. Gray areas, sometimes extensive, come to light. The greatest of the Christian virtues—faith, hope, and charity—are not unscathed. Many of the Pope’s teachings and initiatives which for the wide public seem to be titles of glory prove to be in fact matters of grave reproach. Benedict’s beatification of his predecessor on May 1, 2011, may indeed have been a serious mistake. www.angeluspress.org — 1-800-966-7337 Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music. What Is Canonization? An interview with Fr. Dominique Bourmaud, SSPX Angelus: What is canonization? Father Bourmaud: Canonization is the act by which the Vicar of Christ, judging in ultimate instance and emitting a definitive sentence, inscribes in the catalogue of the saints a servant of God previously beatified. The canonization has a triple finality and does not refer only to the worship. In first instance, the pope declares that the faithful deceased is in the celestial glory; secondly, he expresses that the faithful deceased deserved to reach this glory for having practiced heroic virtues, which set an example for the whole Church; thirdly, so as to offer more easily these virtues as an example and to thank God for having caused it, he prescribes that the faithful deceased should receive a public cult. On these three scores the canonization is a precept and obliges the entire Church, and it constitutes a definitive and irreformable act. Angelus: Are canonizations considered infallible? Father: The common and certain doctrine of the majority of theologians consider canonizations to be infallible. All the treatises published after the First Vatican Council (and prior to Vatican II), from Billot to Salaverri, teach it as a common theological doctrine. (In De Ecclesia, thesis 17, 726, Salaverri affirms that this is a truth at least theologically certain, if not implicitly defined.) St. Thomas asks the question in a different way: Are the saints canonized in glory or could some of them be in hell? His viewpoint is that canonization is infallible in 33 Theme Canonization as much as it implies the profession of a truth virtually revealed (whoever fulfilled God’s law, especially those who practiced heroic virtues, deserve the glory of heaven). Angelus: Does the infallibility apply only to the state of the soul canonized, or to his actions and words also? Father: Prior to Vatican II, the judgment of the Church regarding a servant of God, which was regulated by Benedict XIV, was thorough and dealt with the teachings and acts of the potential saint, before he be promoted as an example for the whole Church. It is not a matter of de fide definita that a canonized saint is infallibly in heaven, but rather a matter which is certain or de fide catholica. This is because its denial is opposed only indirectly to the faith, and would not constitute a heresy, but would be taxed as being erroneous or false. Likewise, the infallibility of the canonizations has never been defined as a truth of faith, although this could be done. To deny it would be a fault of temerity but not of heresy. This negation would imply an insult to the saint and a scandal to the Church. Angelus: Is a canonization considered to be part of the extraordinary magisterium or the ordinary magisterium? Father: Until now, the canonizations have always been considered infallible by a divine assistance to the personal magisterium of the pope, assimilated to the locution ex cathedra. Angelus: What has changed in the rite of canonization since Vatican II? Father: From the document commenting on the Motu Proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem of 1998, we see that there will be now another type of “infallible” magisterium of the pope, which is neither personally infallible nor definitory per se, but the act of the ordinary magisterium of the pope which deals with a doctrine infallibly taught by the ordinary universal magisterium of the Episcopal college. In this mode, the pope is acting as the simple interpreter of the collegial magisterium. And given the Apostolic 34 The Angelus November - December 2013 Constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister of 1983, it is clear that this applies to canonizations. Hence, now, canonizations are not guaranteed by the personal infallibility of solemn magisterium of the pope. Will they be guaranteed by the ordinary universal magisterium of the Episcopal college? The answer seems to be negative, if one reads the judgment of Benedict XIV on the legislation of the beatifications and canonizations done up to the twelfth century. (In De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione, lib. 1, cap. 10, n.6.) This pope considered these decrees to be fallible precisely because the popes in those earlier days simply authenticated the acts of a residential bishop. The post-conciliar legislation is returning to the pre-twelfth-century legislation and certainly raises doubts as to the infallibility of present-day canonizations. Angelus: How can one question its infallibility without subjecting an extraordinary pronouncement, like the canonization of John Paul II, to a sort of personal judgment which undermines the raison d’être of the extraordinary magisterium? Are we not attacking the pope and his magisterial power by attacking its use in canonizations? Father: No! It is very important to explain to the faithful the distinction between potency and act. The magisterium is a potency, a power ordained to its act and to the object of the act. Even if you take away the act, even if you twist the object, you have not taken away the potency which is more basic. Many popes in Church history have never exercised their extraordinary infallible magisterium, and yet no one ever discussed their power to do so. Angelus: But what about a pope canonizing someone like Fr. Escriba de Balaguer or Teresa of Calcutta? Are they not infallible? Father: All true canonizations are infallible. But infallibility cannot exist if there is no canonization. And there is no canonization when there is no sanctity: canonization does not cause, but only seals, sanctity and offers the saint’s virtue as an example to follow. In other words, we deny the infallibility of some of these canonizations because they are not true canonizations. He who is no saint is in no way canonizable. Luther is not ‘canonizable’... At bottom, the problem of the modern-day canonization is no different from the ‘universal laws’ of the Church which are considered infallible, i.e. as conducive to eternal salvation. They were considered canonized too, as Archbishop Lefebvre said about the traditional rite: “This Mass has been canonized by St. Pius V”—canonized and infallible in the same way that saints are infallibly canonized. So, in the same way that we refuse the NOM as canonized or infallible because it is no more ‘canonizable’ than Luther’s Supper, likewise, we refuse the canonization of the heroes of Vatican II as valid and as infallible, because they are no more ‘canonizable’ than Luther himself. Angelus: What has changed in the understanding of canonization since Vatican II? Father: The formal object of the magisterial act of canonization is the heroicity of the saint. In the same way as we say that the magisterium is traditional inasmuch as it teaches always the same immutable truths, so also the canonization is traditional inasmuch as it designates always the same heroicity of the Christian virtues, especially the theological ones. To change the object is to change the act itself which is ordained to this object. In this case, to put the seal of canonization on something which is not ‘canonizable’ is per se invalid for lack of the proper object. It would be like trying to put a leaden seal over oil or water: it could not leave its imprint for lack of matter apt to receive this seal! Angelus: Is there a new conception of “holiness”? If so, is it universal? Father: The term “heroic virtue” does not appear in the documents of Vatican II, and afterwards, the theologians who speak of it make no distinction between the ordinary act in the state of grace and heroic virtue. This is confirmed by the ecumenical twist the modern popes give to the notion of sanctity (Ut Unum Sint, on commitment to ecumenism, 1995; Tertio Millennio Adveniente, on preparation for the Jubilee of the Year 2000, 1994), which transcends the diverse religions and the effusion of the Holy Ghost over the whole of mankind. Such a latitudinarian notion of salvation (men of all religions are saved) falsifies the correlative notion of sanctity. The present-day canonizations are a witness to the People of God and favor the democratic conception... It is made to render testimony of the glory of man. The modern saint is expert in humanization. At that rate, Luther has as much ground for canonization as Padre Pio. Angelus: Is the weakened canonical inquiry a question of prudence, or does it possibly affect validity of the canonization? Father: The divine assistance which causes the infallibility, that is, the security, of the acts of magisterium is exercised according to the way of acting of Providence. This one, far from excluding the pope’s cautious study of the sources of Revelation transmitted by the Apostles, on the contrary demands this investigation by its proper nature. This investigation is much more necessary when it comes to a potential canonization: such a positive outcome implies thorough investigations of the human testimonies which assert the heroic virtues of the future saint, the study of all his writings and statements to see whether he erred in the faith, and the examination of the divine proof of the miracles, which were two for the beatification and two more for the canonization. Such things are not a priori conclusions but deal with contingent facts. From such facts, the pope needs the greatest moral certitude to draw a positive conclusion. In former times, anyone who had taught up some original or strange things would have his cause dismissed ipso facto. Angelus: How can human inquiry have any bearing whatsoever on infallibility? Even the most stringent amount of effort cannot in any way lead towards infallibility. Father: Perhaps the best answer was given by Fr. Ambrose Gardeil in Le Donné Révélé et la Théologie. In it, he explains the intellectual procedure which terminates in the definition 35 Theme Canonization of a dogma by the Church in Council or by the pope himself. It is always after a long process of inquiry from the sources of Revelation and the constant tradition of the Church which allows a first draft of the text. Then, after raising against the first draft all possible objections and having perfected it, it gives ultimately the text formulated in such a way that it forces the evidence of the Church Fathers: No straight mind can reasonably doubt the veracity of the defined truth placed in parallel with the sources of revelation. Such was the case for pontifical infallibility. It is enough to read also the long argumentation of the encyclical defining the Immaculate Conception to see how the Church proceeds slowly and most cautiously. Angelus: If canonizations are fallible today, how can the pope claim to bind Catholics to accept the modern? Father: The question is poorly raised, as we mentioned above: today there is no infallibility where there is no real canonization. In the present context, the authorities are proposing to our veneration some persons who are real saints, like Padre Pio, based on a process which is defective and insufficient. The modern “canonization” takes away nothing from Padre Pio’s real sanctity, but it does not give anything either to dubious persons like Fr. Escriba de Balaguer. The problem perhaps lies deep in the mind of the modern popes. An act is defined by its intention or purpose, but this goes back to the object. Now what is the intention of the present popes who are deeply subjectivist, relativist and historicist? If one does not believe in pontifical infallibility, in eternal truth, can he impose on all the Church faithful the cult of dubious saints and their doctrine and example? Angelus: If canonizations are fallible, what kind of magisterial authority is invoked? Father: As said above, Benedict XIV considered these decrees to be fallible precisely because the popes in those earlier days simply authenticated the acts of a residential bishop. The post-conciliar legislation is returning to the pretwelfth-century legislation and certainly raises doubts as to the infallibility of the present-day 36 The Angelus November - December 2013 canonizations. Angelus: If the answer is that they can be fallible (as some in traditional circles openly maintain, even outside the context of the present doubts), how can the Church then answer the objection that it is possible that she canonize saints and demand liturgical recognition of the souls of the damned? How can such a possibility square with the promises of Christ? Father: As mentioned above, the preconciliar faithful who thinks that such and such a “saint” is not in heaven or that a pope made a mistake would not be considered a heretic. Now, the question is distinct. Could the Church demand the public cult of a damned soul without incurring loss of faith altogether? It seems that, in the advancing process of disintegration and decomposition of the postconciliar Church, such a thing is not an impossibility. One who has been a witness to the Assisi fiasco, who has seen a pope kissing the Coran, can very well believe that, to promote a false ecumenism, he would “canonize” his heroes. Perhaps this is part of what Sister Lucy alluded to when she spoke of a “diabolical disorientation” in the Church. 160 pp. – Softcover – STK# 8620Q – $15.95 Vatican Encounter Conversations with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre by José Hanu This book is a long interview between Archbishop Lefebvre and a Dutch Catholic journalist in 1976. It covers everything from the Archbishop’s family background in Northern France to the veneration of the Senegalese people to their bishop and his anti-liberal interdict on the Island of Fadiouth. It includes the courageous attacks made by the Archbishop at the Council, as well as his letter of 1966, one year after the Council. It also features the story of Ecône, the dreary days of of the apostolic visitors, and the accusations and sanctions against the seminary. Yet beyond the wonderful details of the book are underlined the vital principles which animated the founder of the Society of St. Pius X, the same principles which all its members hold as definitive and nonnegotiable. This work reveals a striking characteristic of the man, a mind and heart deeply at peace in the thick of pressure: “I am not worried. God is almighty; what appears insurmountable to us is only a little thing in his eyes. If my work is God’s work, God will preserve it and make it serve the Church for the salvation of souls.” www.angeluspress.org — 1-800-966-7337 Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music. The most striking artwork in the Church of Saint Simpliciano, Milan, is the “Crowning of the Virgin” (early sixteenth century) by Ambrose of Fossano, also known as Bergognone, which is located in the vault of the apse. The work depicts the moment when the Virgin Mary was crowned by Christ in the presence of God the Father and the heavenly choir. There fared a mother driven forth Out of an inn to roam; In the place where she was homeless All men are at home. The crazy stable close at hand, With shaking timber and shifting sand, Grew a stronger thing to abide and stand Than the square stones of Rome. For men are homesick in their homes, And strangers under the sun, And they lay their heads in a foreign land Whenever the day is done. Here we have battle and blazing eyes, And chance and honour and high surprise, But our homes are under miraculous skies Where the yule tale was begun. A child in a foul stable, Where the beasts feed and foam; Only where He was homeless Are you and I at home; We have hands that fashion and heads that know, But our hearts we lost—how long ago! In a place no chart nor ship can show Under the sky's dome. This world is wild as an old wife's tale, And strange the plain things are, The earth is enough and the air is enough For our wonder and our war; But our rest is as far as the fire-drake swings And our peace is put in impossible things Where clashed and thundered unthinkable wings Round an incredible star. To an open house in the evening Home shall all men come, To an older place than Eden And a taller town than Rome. To the end of the way of the wandering star, To the things that cannot be and that are, To the place where God was homeless And all men are at home. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton) Baroque metal relief on the altar of the Cathedral of Our Lady, Antwerp, Belgium. Source: www.shutterstock.com Book Review Vatican Encounter: Conversations with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ByJose Hanu Angelus Press is setting back in print a book which is over 30 years old. It is a long interview between the Archbishop and a Dutch journalist, a concerned Catholic voicing the worries of many about the crisis in the Church. Much of the talk deals with the year 1976, the “hot summer” for the seminary of Ecône and for its founder, during the titanic tug of war with Pope Paul VI, which culminated in the meeting of the two protagonists by the end of the year. The interview was thus conducted only weeks after these events, right hot off the plate! The table of contents suggests the main themes of the interview, from “We are not rebels” and the family background to the Sermon of Lille (July 1976), from demythologizing Vatican II and its fruits, to conclude with the events which led to the illegal condemnation and the meeting with the Pope. The work is embedded with crunchy life details which are virtually unknown. It describes the family background of the textile industrialist from Northern France, and a saintly woman seen with her son’s eyes; the veneration of the Senegalese people for their bishop and his anti-liberal interdict of the Island of Fadiouth. Besides the heated Sermon of Lille which acted as a detonator throughout the Christian world, we read the courageous attacks made by the Archbishop at the conciliar texts, as well as his letter dated 1966, one year after the Council. After a long list of the woes of the conciliar fruits, we get a breath of fresh air with the story of Ecône, its purchase and its chauffeurs, before we bury ourselves again in the dreary events of the apostolic visitors, the accusation and sanctions against Ecône which led to stunning revelations during the Pope’s meeting. Yet beyond the wonderful details of the book are underlined the vital principles which animated the founder of the Society of St. Pius X, those same principles which all its members hold as definitive and non-negotiable. This work reveals a striking characteristic of the man, a mind and heart deeply at peace 40 The Angelus November - December 2013 in the thick of the Roman pressure. The interview’s last words truly give the tone of the entire book: “I am not worried. God is almighty; what appears insurmountable to us is only a little thing in his eyes. If my work is God’s work, God will preserve it and make it serve the Church for the salvation of souls.” Fr. Dominique Bourmaud 160 pp. – Softcover – STK# 8620 – $15.95 The Liturgy The Face of the Church by Fr. Álvaro Calderón, SSPX Why is it harder and harder to believe in the Church? The attractive splendor of the Church has always been visible to men especially in her liturgy, because it is especially in her liturgy where the Four Marks shine the brightest. But the liturgical reform brought about by the last Council has violated each and every one of these four notes of the Church’s visibility eclipsing, in a way, her beauty: “There’s no beauty in him, comeliness: and we have seen him, and there was no sightliness, that we should be desirous of him” (Is. 53:2). The Church’s Apostolicity The Conciliar Constitution on Liturgy offered four reasons to justify the reform: “This sacred Council has several aims in view: (1) it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; (2) to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; (3) to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; (4) to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind 41 Faith and Morals 42 1 Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, DS 3020. 2 Cardinal Alfons Stickler, “Klaus Gamber, historien de la liturgie,” in Msgr. Klaus Gamber, La Réforme liturgique en question (Ed. Sainte-Madeleine, 1992). 3 St. Pius V, Bull Quo Primum, July 19, 1570: "Ad pristinam Missale ipsum sanctorum Patrum normam ac ritum restituerunt.” 4 Press conference of January 4, 1967. 5 Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones: Memoirs, 19271977 (Ignatius Press, 1998). The Angelus into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 1; hereafter, SC). However, the lex orandi (the law of prayer) is so intimately tied to the lex credendi (the law of belief) that it participates significantly in the un-changeability of the dogma. As “the doctrine of faith which God hath revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophic invention, to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared,”1 so also the Liturgy was instituted by Jesus Christ in a substantially perfect state and must be guarded by tradition. “Given the close relationship between the faith and the liturgy (lex orandi—lex credendi) the latter must obey laws corresponding to those of the faith; that is, the liturgy must be guarded with great care and therefore is essentially oriented towards its preservation.”2 Therefore, as the Church, to “impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful” (SC, 1) always reformed the customs with a return to the purest doctrinal tradition, so also all liturgical reform consisted essentially—as the term ‘re-form’ implies—in a return to the traditional forms. When ‘re-forming’ the Missal, St. Pius V declared that rite untouchable, because he brought it back “ad pristinam Sanctorum Patrum normam ac ritum,” to the original form and rite of the Holy Fathers.3 What the Council introduced in the Church, however, was not a liturgical re-form, but rather a re-creation in an obvious rupture with tradition. Monsignor Bugnini himself has admitted: “In what pertains to Catholic worship, we’re not dealing with a mere touch up of a very valuable work of art; rather at times it becomes necessary to give new structures to entire rites. It’s more a question of a fundamental renovation—I’d almost say a recasting and, in certain points, a truly new creation.”4 And Benedict XVI, when still a cardinal, denounced in strong terms “the prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic.…the old building was demolished and another was built to be sure largely using materials from the previous one.… For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something ‘made,’ not something given in advance.…I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy.”5 Just as neither a pope, nor a council, nor an angel from heaven can change the dogmatic definitions established by the previous popes and councils, neither does any pope or any council have the authority to change substantially the traditional liturgical institutions. Renowned liturgical experts speaking of the conciliar reform have reminded us that: “All this leads to the question: Does such a radical reform follow the tradition of the Church?…In fact, there are several authors who state quite explicitly that it is clearly outside of the pope’s scope of authority to abolish the traditional rite. November - December 2013 6 Klaus Gamber, La Réforme liturgique en question, with prefaces from Cardinal Silvio Oddi, Msgr. Wilhelm Nyssen, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Cardinal Alfons Stickler. See Chapter 3: “Le Pape a-t-il le droit de changer le rite?” 7 Noticiae 92, April, 1974; quoted by Celier, La dimension œcuménique de la réforme liturgique (Ed. Fideliter, 1987). 8 St. Pius X, Motu Proprio Tra le Sollecitudini, November 22, 1903. “Thus, the eminent theologian Suarez (who died in 1617) citing even earlier authors such as Cajetan (who died in 1534), took the position that the pope would be schismatic ‘if he, as is his duty, would not be in full communion with the body of the Church as, for example, if he were to excommunicate the entire Church or if he were to change all the liturgical rites of the Church that had been upheld by apostolic tradition.’ ”6 Therefore, the liturgical re-creation that took place under the authority of the Council became a veritable assault against the apostolicity of the Church insofar as it breaks with the traditional liturgy. The Unity of the Church The fundamental unity of the Church resides as on its first foundation in the revealed truth, expressed in the Creed and professed in the worship: “The true Church is called One, because her children of all ages and places are united together in the same faith, in the same worship, in the same law; and in participation of the same Sacraments, under the same visible Head, the Roman Pontiff” (Catechism of St. Pius X). From this it follows that the greatest service the hierarchy can render to the unity of the Church, after that of the integrity in the definition of the faith proclaimed in the Magisterium, is to guard doctrinal purity in liturgical worship, which is where the faith is professed. Now, as we saw earlier, the Council decided to involve the liturgy in the new ecumenism: “This sacred Council has several aims in view…to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ” (SC 1), and this intention dominated the work of the Consilium (the group that carried out the liturgical reform). As Msgr. Bugnini admitted: “The liturgical reform is a major conquest of the Catholic Church, and it has a great ecumenical impact; not only has it caused the admiration of other churches and Christian communities, but also stands forth as a model of sorts for them.”7 But the ecumenical strategy to obtain union with non-Catholics through common activity, brushing aside the conflicting doctrinal aspects, implies the mutilation of the liturgical profession of faith in the measure of their heresies. From the liturgy, then—which, according to St. Pius X, should be the “first and indispensable source” of the Christian spirit among the faithful Catholics—flows instead only the vague spirit of a partial Christianity. In short, due especially to its ecumenical dimension, the liturgy reformed by the Council represents an attack against the unity of the Church. The Holiness of the Church The first quality of the liturgy is its sanctity or sacredness: “It must be holy and must, therefore, exclude all profanity.”8 But a “desacralizing” effect was immediately observed in the liturgical celebrations in the whole world, a loss of the sense of the sacred mystery in the divine worship. This desacralization flows from the conciliar intention of opening to 43 Faith and Morals 9 Paul VI, address to a General Audience, November 26, 1969. 10 Dom Guéranger, Institutions Liturgiques. 11 Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction Inculturation and the Roman Liturgy, 2. the world: “This sacred Council has several aims in view…to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church” (SC 1), for which reason the traditional demands are waived, particularly in regard to receiving the Eucharist. This is also a consequence of the “principle of intelligibility” proposed in SC 21: “In this reform, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things they signify; and so far as possible, the Christian people can understand them easily and take part in them fully, actively and as befits a community.” For the mysterious symbolism of the rites is trivialized by pretending to make their meaning more discernible to the shallow souls of today. Paul VI himself admitted as much when casting off the Latin, the sacred language of the liturgy: “We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance, […but] the understanding the prayer is worth more.”9 In short, the reform that emerged from the Council was not liturgical, but rather anti-liturgical, which is a most grave attempt against the holiness of the Church. This very negative judgment is corroborated by the astonishing fulfillment of the twelve points with which Dom Guéranger characterized the “anti-liturgical heresy”;10 this is the impartial opinion from a great authority, as stated by Pius IX’s Papal Brief of March 19, 1875. The Catholicity of the Church The intention to adapt [to the modern world] expressed by the Council— “This sacred Council has several aims in view: to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change” (SC 1)—would eventually take the official name of liturgical inculturation. This inculturation is regulated by the “Norms for Adapting the Liturgy to the Culture and Traditions of Peoples” (SC 37-40), and it presumes that, over and above the general reform promulgated by Rome, other innumerable special reforms must take place, according to the cultural peculiarities of each region and group. This is—along with ecumenism—the main intention of the conciliar reform: “In his Apostolic Letter Vicesimus Quintus Annus, Pope John Paul II described the attempt to make the liturgy take root in different cultures as an important task for liturgical renovation.”11 This principle of inculturation fractures the centralized liturgical authority reached at the Council of Trent as a means to protect the unity of the Church, since now the local authorities (the Episcopal Conferences) are the only ones allowed to discern the concrete adaptations for each place: “Since it is a question of local culture, it is understandable that the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium assigned special responsibility in this matter to the various kinds of ‘competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established’ (SC 22).”12 It implies as well a process of constant reform, as can be seen from the time of the Council to the present. The conciliar constitution affirms: “Even in the liturgy, the Church has no 44 The Angelus November - December 2013 12. Ibid., 31-32 13 St. Pius X, Motu Proprio Tra le Sollecitudini, November 22, 1903. Translated from “La Liturgia, rostro de la Iglesia,” Iesus Christus, January-March, 2013. wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community” (SC 37). But this statement borders on falsehood in that the Liturgy is the popular profession of faith, and that is the reason why the Church always desired liturgical uniformity, not quite rigid, but rather tolerating diversity. The uniformity of the Latin Rite protected the Roman Church from schisms and supported the wonderful evangelization of the South American peoples. If the catholicity of the Church shines in the liturgy, it is because its most characteristic quality is universality: “...the qualities proper to the liturgy, and in particular sanctity and goodness of form, which will spontaneously produce the final quality of universality.”13 The universality of the Catholic liturgy is based on the universality of truth, as God, first Truth, is the universal foundation of all things; the higher and more perfect things are, the more their universality shines forth. That is why the solemnity of a Gregorian Mass elevates the heart of all men of good will, a fact witnessed over centuries by missionaries in America, Africa, and Asia. The alleged necessity of liturgical “inculturation” denies its universal character—or at least it diminishes it considerably. And the principle this denial comes from is the subjectivism of modern thought which, wounded by a certain skepticism, considers the universality of knowledge as a defect of the human intellect instead of a consequence of the universality of the objective truth of things. In short, inasmuch as diversification has been the end of an infinite multitude of inculturated liturgies, the conciliar liturgical reform has been a grave attempt against the catholicity of the Church. 45 The Church of St. Coloman of Stockerau is located in the village of Schwangau in southern Bavaria near the Austrian border. St. Coloman was an 11th-c. Irish monk who embarked upon a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. He was accused of being a spy at Stockerau, near Vienna, and being unable to speak German in order to clear his name, he was tortured and hanged. His body is said to have been incorrupt, hanging on the gallows for a year and a half, and the scaffolding to have taken root and blossomed. Three years after his death, St. Coloman’s relics were taken to the Benedictine Abbey of Melk on the Danube. Spirituality Causes for Joy, Causes for Worry by Dr. John Rao Dr. Alice von Hildebrand once told me a story that I have often repeated in lectures and in print, but which I find especially useful to mention in the current issue of The Angelus. It concerned a canonization ceremony in Rome attended by her husband, Dietrich von Hildebrand, and the great Catholic historian, Ludwig von Pastor. When the newly recognized saints were proclaimed, and the author of the forty-volume History of the Popes turned to speak to the young philosopher, his face was bathed in tears of joy. This honest, scholarly chronicler of the myriad of intrigues, crimes, corruption, cowardice, and betrayal that have tragically played a major role in the human life of the Church could not but exult with his whole heart and his whole soul when the fruits of her divinity were once again made manifest. Amidst all the disillusionments of life—his own, 48 The Angelus November - December 2013 and those of the centuries, documented and spread out before him on his desk at the Vatican Library—he remained a zealous, believing Catholic. He still believed in transformation in Christ, and the beneficent effects that the holiness of one person could have on everyone less advanced in the love of Our Savior within the union of His Mystical Body. What is of central importance to me in this story is not its revelation of Pastor’s Catholic embrace of the reality of sanctity. Its crucial lesson for us—perhaps more than ever today— is the realization that that embrace came from a man who knew that the Church’s path to recognition of sanctity is a difficult and often crooked one; that it is accompanied by much human calculation and effort; and that while a great deal of this calculation and effort may be totally praiseworthy, not all of it is always without its unpalatable character and side effects. In short, while causes for canonization are in and of themselves causes for joy, some aspects of them, like all human endeavors, may well remind us of the impact of the mystery of iniquity and give us a certain cause for worry. Let us mention just two “facts of life” regarding causes for canonization that I believe will amply illustrate my point. One of these is the Church’s desire to use official proclamations of sanctity as a “teaching tool”—at least during those all too rare moments in time when the Mystical Body of Christ has a clear program that she consciously wishes to emphasize to the faithful. The other is the significance in the whole process of wellorganized and powerful “lobbies” pressing for— or against—the raising of a saint to the altar. Historical knowledge of both these factors is of tremendous value in understanding what does— or does not—happen with respect to recognition of a sanctity that may be given by God regardless of whether the Church openly proclaims it on earth or not. A perfect example of the use of canonization as a teaching tool—and one that summarizes the character of such an enterprise up until our own troubled age—is the entire set of seven canonizations that took place during the pontificates of Paul V (1605-1621) and Gregory XV (1621-1623) between the years 1608 and 1622. What one finds here is a guide to everything that had proven to be needed to rise above the confusion and corruption of the late Middle Ages, reform the Church, and battle the Protestant Revolution; a guide, also, to everything that would always be needed if Christendom were to stay on an even keel. This holistic teaching began to unfold on May 29, 1608, with Paul V’s canonization of Francesca Romana (1384-1440), who was born during the horrors of the Great Western Schism and lived to see the restoration of unity and the final return of the Papacy to her native city. A woman of both mystical fervor as well as highly practical charitable activity, Francesca represented the importance of steadfast embrace of the entirety of the Christian vision of intense personal prayer and public Catholic action. For even in times of the most terrible turmoil, such as those through which she passed, the believer who wishes to serve Christ must cherish both these expressions of the lived Faith. Alas, there was no way that Francesca Romana’s personal example alone could bring about the “reform of head and members” so desired by late medieval thinkers. More authoritative organizational involvement was required for solid Catholic revival, and this did not follow until further disaster befell a “sleeping” Church. The Council of Trent was the most important sign of the arrival of this much-needed authoritative intervention. No one took the measures emerging from Trent more seriously than Charles Borromeo (1538-1584), the young Cardinal nephew of Pope Pius IV. Borromeo’s subsequent pastoral labors in Rome for the Holy See, and even more importantly, those accomplished as Archbishop of Milan, then served prelates throughout Christendom as a model for the practical administrative stimulation of that union of prayer and action represented by Francesca Romana as an individual. Paul V canonized Borromeo for his heroic virtue on November 1, 1610, but it was the exemplary episcopal activity that flowed therefrom that provided the teaching tool that he sought to employ. Pope Gregory XV’s “Great Canonization” of March 12, 1622, brilliantly completed the general lesson being taught through the holiness of the Church’s worthy sons and daughters. Four of the saints “made” on that splendid day were glorious representatives of the work of the Catholic Reformation as a whole. Through Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556) and Philip Neri (1515-1595) a kaleidoscope of very diverse and innovative spiritual and educational activities undertaken on behalf of all social classes were simultaneously blessed. The addition of Theresa of Avila (1515-1582) once more served to indicate the central importance of prayer and mystical union with Christ to any and all Church revival. Finally, the inclusion of Francis Xavier (15061552) showed that the Catholic enterprise was one that missionaries were obliged to spread 49 Spirituality to the very ends of the earth. Isidore the Laborer (c. 1070-1130), a Spanish commoner who died in the twelfth century, might, at first glance, seem to be “the odd man out” in our list of contemporary figures of heroic virtue. This is false, and not merely because his inclusion, along with Ignatius, Theresa, and Francis Xavier indicates the practical importance of Spain for the success of the Catholic Reformation. Aside from the reality of his holiness, Isidore is there for a reason that the Roman Church has been eager to emphasize since the central Middle Ages: the urgent call of everyone to a life of sanctity. It was this that motivated Abbot Odo of Cluny (c. 878-942) to write his Life of St. Gerald of Aurillac (c. 855-902), which demonstrated that soldiers could gain holiness through a proper Christian application of their particular military vocation. It was this that convinced Innocent III—whose whole work as pontiff was designed, as one of his books indicates, to bring about “the marriage of earth with heaven”—to canonize Homobonus (d. 1197), a bourgeois saint who is the patron of businessmen. And it was this same call of everyone to union with Christ that gave the Feast of All Saints’ Day the importance and popularity that it so readily deserves. It is a blessing that the Church periodically goes on these “teaching campaigns,” since the second “fact of life” regarding the process of canonization tends to lead to the proclamation of sainthood of those who have a powerful lobby behind them. Such lobbying has traditionally favored men and women of heroic virtue who come from religious orders, rich dioceses, and politically important aristocratic families, leaving “ordinary” holy men and women in obscurity. As incomplete in number as this may leave the number of recognized members of the Communion of Saints, at least it does not necessarily indicate anything untoward as such. Much more dangerous is the lobbying that is done for men who are indeed worthy of being proclaimed saints, but mostly for the purpose of utilizing them for bad purposes. King Philip the Fair’s campaign for the canonization of Louis IX comes readily to mind in this respect; a 50 The Angelus November - December 2013 canonization designed to lend an aura of sanctity to the entire Capetian Dynasty, bless his own anticlerical actions, and serve as a stick to batter Pope Boniface VIII for opposing him. Perhaps equally unfortunate is the parochial-minded work done by one religious order to prevent the canonization of men from another, rival group of regular clergy. Here the manifold assaults on anything favoring Jesuits and their methodology stand out. This is paralleled by the organized labors of nations and political factions to stifle the causes of Churchmen deemed hostile to the rights of the State. One of the long-term targets of such self-interested secular forces was Pope Gregory VII, who, because of his exaltation of the role of the Papacy in public life was only raised to the altars in 1728—643 years after his death. There are, of course, two other more recent names that share a similar and continuing fate at the hands of “the world”: Popes Pius IX and XII. Both of these men have enemies who outdo even those of Gregory VII in lobbying against their eventual canonization. Is it because these opponents doubt both popes’ heroic virtue? Hardly. It is the message that Pius IX and Pius XII represent—the message encapsulated in everything from the Syllabus of Errors to the encyclical on the Mystical Body and Humani Generis—that stirs their wrath. It is this message that they feel compelled to stop from being blessed along with its teachers. And it is precisely this trenchant resistance to the idea of the transformation of all things in Christ and the men associated with it that makes the canonization of John XXIII and Jean Paul II a most unfortunate leap into the abyss. I am not arguing against the heroic virtue of either of the two more recent pontiffs. Quite frankly, I do not know much about their personal lives, nor would I be personally in any way competent to judge them if I did. What I, as a Catholic, am fully entitled to state is my opinion regarding the message regarding their pontificates that those powerful lobbies working to secure their canonization want the Church systematically to promote along with it. It is not a message of admiration for their personal sanctity. It is a message of anti-Syllabus of Errors and anti-Kingship of Christ content that requires the exclusion of Pius IX and Pius XII from the ranks of the recognized saints. I hope and pray that both of them are indeed in heaven and praying for the Church Militant below. But I do not think that I will shed the same tears that von Pastor did in the presence of von Hildebrand so many years ago were I to be present in Rome next April. The “facts of life” accompanying the process of canonization make their cause more a cause of worry to me than a cause for joy. 106pp – Softcover – STK# 8598 – $11.95 The Nature, Dignity and Mission of Women NEW from Angelus Press This excellent work from the author of Who Are You, O Immaculata, offers a Catholic understanding of the role of woman with all of the importance attached to that role. Against the modern error of women’s “liberation” and against a Protestant conception of woman as the doormat of man, Fr. Stehlin strikes a blow for true femininity, showing that a woman’s real dignity comes from being conformed to God’s order. Perfect for any woman or young lady in your life. “Who shall find a valiant woman? Far and from the uttermost coasts is the price of her.” —Prov. 31:10 51 Christian Culture St. Joseph and the Canon by Fr. Peter Scott This question is once again of topical interest, given the recent decision of Pope Francis decreeing that St. Joseph be invoked in Eucharistic Prayers II, III, and IV of the New Mass, the name of St. Joseph already being in the First Eucharistic Prayer from the time of the first publication of the New Mass in 1969. The decree, signed by Cardinal Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, on May 1, 2013, has this to say: “The faithful in the Catholic Church have shown continuous devotion to Saint Joseph and have solemnly and constantly honored his memory as the most chaste spouse of the Mother of God and as the heavenly Patron of the Universal Church. For this reason Blessed Pope John XXIII, in the days of the Most Holy Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, decreed that Saint Joseph’s name 52 The Angelus November - December 2013 be added to the ancient Roman Canon. In response to petitions received from places throughout the world, the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI deemed them worthy of implementation and graciously approved them. The Supreme Pontiff Francis likewise has recently confirmed them.… Accordingly, mature consideration having been given to all the matters mentioned here above, this Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by virtue of the faculty granted by the Supreme Pontiff, Francis, is pleased to decree that the name of Saint Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary, is henceforth to be added to Eucharistic Prayers II, III, and IV, as they appear in the third typical edition of the Roman Missal…” Of course, the addition of the name of St. Joseph does not stop the New Mass from being “as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent” (Cardinals Ottaviani & Bacci), of being destructive of the Catholic Faith, and consequently evil. However, since the lists of the saints, that so well express the union of the Church militant here on earth with the Church triumphant in heaven, are so necessary to expressing the fruit of the Mass, the sanctification of souls, it can clearly be understood how regrettable was the exclusion of such lists in the Novus Ordo. Consequently, no one with the sense of the Faith could ever object to the very minor addition of the name of St. Joseph in these Eucharistic Prayers, nor would anybody question the authority of Pope Francis, working through the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in making such an addition. What about in the Traditional Mass? More delicate is the question of the addition of the name of St. Joseph to the Canon of the traditional Mass just over 50 years ago, announced by the Cardinal Secretary of State, Cardinal Cicognani, to the 18th General Congregation of Vatican II on November 13, 1962, to take effect as of December 8, 1962. It was at the time, and still remains to some extent, questioned from two opposing perspectives. Certain traditional Catholics objected to it on the grounds that it violated the Bull Quo Primum of St. Pius V, which Bull has never been abrogated (as Pope Benedict XVI admitted on July 7, 2007). For this Bull granted the right “in perpetuity” for all priests to celebrate the Mass as codified by St. Pius V—“this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty.…We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal.” It was not St. Joseph that they objected to, but the fact of making a change in the sacrosanct Canon of the Mass, which change could easily be seen as opening the gate for many other changes. They also object that this insertion of St. Joseph was only legislated by a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, signed by Cardinal Larraona, and that consequently it does not have sufficient authority to overturn the Bull Quo Primum. They also object to the reason given by the decree for the insertion of St. Joseph’s name, namely that Pope John XXIII did not only want St. Joseph to be the heavenly protector of the Second Vatican Council, but that he “also decreed that his name should be mentioned in the Canon of the Mass both as a desired memorial and as a product of that Council.” Given the destruction in the Church wrought by Vatican II, the insertion of St. Joseph as a memorial of it is hardly something to be proud of. The second opposing opinion is that of the modern theologians. They objected to the sudden announcement of the insertion of St. Joseph’s name in the Canon of the Mass on the grounds that the decision was not collegial, done by the Council, but unilaterally by Pope John XXIII himself, and also because they considered it a retrograde step to focus on saints rather than on human dignity. Fesquet reported it thus: “A bombshell fell on the general congregation Tuesday. Cardinal Cicognani, Secretary of State, announced that the Pope has decided to insert the name of Saint Joseph after that of the Virgin Mary in the canon of the mass” (The Drama of Vatican II, p. 69). This is the commentary of Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen in The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, p. 45: “Cardinal Montini later described this unexpected move as ‘a surprise for the Council from the Pope.’ In some quarters Pope John was severely criticized for taking what was termed independent action while the Ecumenical Council was in session.” Perspective In order to form a correct judgment on this question, it is important to put everything into perspective. This is done by Wiltgen (ibid.): “Actually, this decree was only the culmination of sporadic but intensive campaigns, dating back to 1815, through which hundreds of thousands of signatures of the hierarchy and the laity had been gathered and sent to the Vatican. The campaigns had become particularly intensive at the 53 Christian Culture announcements of Vatican I by Pope Pius IX, and of Vatican II by Pope John.…Chiefly responsible for the action taken by Pope John, however, were Frs. Roland Gauthier and Guy Bertrand, directors of the Center of Research and Documentation at the St. Joseph Oratory in Montreal, who in 1961 composed a seventy-five page booklet giving the history of these campaigns. They explained that the placement of St. Joseph’s name after that of the Virgin Mary in the Canon of the Mass would, doctrinally and liturgically, give official recognition to St. Joseph’s eminence in sanctity, after Mary, over all other saints.…In mid-March 1962, Pope John was presented with six volumes containing the signed petitions of 30 cardinals, 436 patriarchs, archbishops and bishops, and 60 superiors general. While examining the signatures, Pope John said, ‘Something will be done for St. Joseph.’ ” Several of the Fathers of Vatican II in their speeches on the Liturgy also requested the insertion of the name of St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass. However, the most noteworthy is this story, as told by Xavier Rynne, in Vatican Council II, pp. 75-76: “The aged Bishop Petar Cule (Mostar, Yugoslavia) put in a long plea for the inclusion of the name of St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass, but as he talked on, nervously repeating himself, murmurs began to be heard and Cardinal Ruffini was prompted to interject: “ ‘Complete your holy and eloquent speech. We all love St. Joseph and we hope there are many saints in Yugoslavia.’ “…Winding up the day’s proceedings at 12:45 with the customary Angelus and Gloria Patri, the Cardinal President brought down the house with a loud invocation of the name of St. Joseph. “It was this cutting off of Bishop Cule that prompted Pope John to order the insertion of the name of St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass on his own authority (decree announced November 13th, effective Dec. 8, 1962), without waiting for any conciliar recommendation in the matter. This caused great astonishment, but few were aware that the pope, following the debates on closed circuit television in his apartments, knew Bishop Cule personally and also knew that his nervous 54 The Angelus November - December 2013 manner of speaking had a tragic source: he had suffered through one of those long trials made famous by the Communists and was sentenced to four years in a concentration camp in Yugoslavia. He and other prisoners were then put on a train which was deliberately wrecked in an attempt to kill all aboard. The bishop survived, but both his hips were broken. In poor health, he had nevertheless made great effort to attend the Council and speak up for St. Joseph. Thus his wish was fulfilled.” Resolution With this perspective in mind, we can now answer the objections, firstly against the modernists. No Catholic can doubt that the Sovereign Pontiff, who is the supreme legislator in the Catholic Church, and in the Latin rite, can motu proprio, by his own initiative, make liturgical changes, such as the insertion of the name of St. Joseph, as Pope Francis has just done. Nor can any Catholic question the importance of veneration of St. Joseph, nor that St. Joseph is immediately after the Blessed Virgin Mary in sanctity and that he ought to be honored directly after her. The more profound understanding of the role of St. Joseph in the mystery of the Incarnation is a development of mystical and dogmatic theology, especially since the 17th century. The difficulty in answering the objections of those who were opposed to any change in the Canon of the Mass, for any reason at all, lies in the fact that for 150 years, despite the petitions, the Canon was not in fact changed. This was not due to any lack of devotion to St. Joseph, but precisely because of the respect due to the most ancient Canon of the Mass. Many popes had made rubrical changes over the centuries, added new Propers and feast days and suppressed other feast days, but none made any change in the Canon of the Mass. A similar difficulty lies in the rather rapid and inconsiderate manner in which Pope John XXIII is said to have come to his decision. Clearly, he was not at all concerned by the objection of those who felt that nothing should be done to the Canon. On top of this comes the linking of this "God doesn't need me to finish his work. Saint Joseph will see to it." Statue of St. Joseph, Crypt of the Oratory, Montreal Saint Brother André Christian Culture decision with Vatican II itself, as if it would be a fruit of it. If this were true, nothing could more dissuade a traditional Catholic from accepting the insertion of the name of St. Joseph. However, again perspective is very important. Just as the addition of St. Joseph by Pope Francis makes no real change to the new rite, so likewise was it that the insertion of St. Joseph in the traditional Mass made no real change to the rite. The insertion of a name in the list of saints can hardly be considered an alteration of the Missal in the real sense of the term, since there is no change in meaning of the Communicantes prayer. If some priests could use Quo Primum for affirming that they cannot be bound to include this name in the Mass, they would demonstrate a punctilious smallmindedness more reminiscent of the Pharisees than of the Catholic Church. But no one could use Quo Primum to affirm that a priest must not add in this name, given that it has been decreed by order of the Sovereign Pontiff. To the argument that the decree ordering the insertion of St. Joseph was not signed by the Pope himself, the argument is very simple. Quo Primum itself was not signed by St. Pius V, but by Cardinal Caesar Glorierius. If the insertion of St. Joseph be considered as no substantial change in the traditional rite, then it needs no act of greater authority than the decree of Cardinal Larraona, just as the insertion by Pope Francis was signed by Cardinal Llovera. Custom Moreover, in liturgical matters, as in Church law in general, custom plays a very important role. This is a concept that is not familiar to those of us who are used to a modern and purely positive concept of law, without reference to the purpose and intention of the law. The principle is given by Canons 25-29 of the 1917 Code (also Canons 23-28 of the 1983 Code): “Custom can obtain the force of law in the Church only by the consent of the competent ecclesiastical superior” (Can. 25) and “Custom is the best interpreter of laws” (Can. 29). In their Practical Commentary of the Code of Canon Law, Woywood and Smith have this to say: “This axiom is taken from the old law, and it is 56 The Angelus November - December 2013 to be understood of customs in harmony with the law. Such customs are the practical applications of the law to the life and activity of the subjects of the Church” (I, p. 17). Custom is the rule that enables us to know how to deal with the insertion of St. Joseph. The universal custom of the insertion of the name of St. Joseph gained force of law, both because it was by order of the ecclesiastical superior and also because it was universally accepted by orthodox Catholics, giving the interpretation of the law. For amongst traditionally-minded Catholics at the time of Vatican II, there was no real objection to the insertion of the name of St. Joseph, many of them having signed the petitions in its favor. The custom had already been established of accepting this insertion by the time the New Mass was introduced in 1969. It was then retroactively, after the disaster of the New Mass had been seen, that objections began to be raised, and that the New Mass, doing away with the most ancient Canon, started to be traced back to the insertion of St. Joseph in the Mass in 1962, affirming rashly that this was the beginning of the destruction of the traditional rite. However, if the New Mass had never come about, these questions would never have seriously been raised. In fact, a quasiunanimity of traditional Catholics accepted the insertion of the name of St. Joseph in the Canon. They did so, firstly because they saw no real change in the prayers of the Canon and secondly because they understood that this was not at all the fruit of Vatican II, as Pope John XXIII claimed, but actually the fruit of the development of Catholic doctrine and devotion to St. Joseph. Consequently, even if one might think that the decree of 1962 in itself does not strictly oblige to the insertion of the name of St. Joseph, and even if one questions the prudence of this decision, and even if one would prefer the absolutely literal immutability of the Canon by the exclusion of St. Joseph, one’s behavior ought to be determined by the universal custom amongst traditional Catholics, a custom which is in harmony with the law, and not opposed to Quo Primum interpreted according to custom, namely that the insertion of the name of St. Joseph does not mean any significant change in the Mass of all time. The Eye of the Storm by Michael Rayes “This is our last chance. Time is running out.” As a traditional Catholic father with young children, I hear this phrase often. It emanates from the wrinkled mouths of sweet, well-meaning senior Catholics. I heard it recently from an active lady, her gray hair bobbing up and down as she spoke. Although she moved slowly, her sparkling eyes had the fire of a boisterous bonfire at a campsite. “God surely isn’t going to put up with this much longer.” Many older, devout Catholics seem to have this sense of urgency and impending doom. “The chastisement can’t be too far off.” I’ve been hearing these comments for more than thirty years. “The most important election ever!” has come and gone every four years. The “coming chastisement” turns out to be nothing more than a beautiful sunrise and then the usual traffic and smog. Day after day. Year after year. Indeed, Mass after Mass. Meanwhile, I keep raising my Catholic kids, making sure they receive the traditional sacraments. In this article, we will examine the spiritual tendency toward urgency and a sense of foreboding, and especially consider its impact on your family. Learning from Older Catholics We owe much respect to our elders in the Faith, who are oftentimes inspiring and edifying. Personally, I find myself consoled on numerous occasions by the devotion and downright tenacity of traditional Catholics a generation above me. 57 Christian Culture Considering this, an analysis of their general perspective on spirituality could be helpful for younger Catholics. I believe there are two reasons why older, devout, traditional Catholics tend to have a sense of urgent, impending doom. One is a growing awareness of their own mortality. Could this awareness be projected into their spiritual lives? The other reason could be a lack of understanding of the depth of God’s patience and charity. Man can only tolerate so much injustice, crime, and sin. Surely God will put a stop to this! Surely things cannot go on getting much worse! But things do get worse. A LOT worse. The community, the culture, the nation—indeed, the whole world slides deeper and deeper into an immoral pit. A couple of generations ago we fought easy divorce and then cohabitation. A few decades back we began fighting abortion in earnest. Today we fight sins which I can’t even mention. In the future our grandchildren will perhaps fight even worse sins. God is letting it get worse. He is allowing it to happen. He has more patience than we do. He has more charity than we do. He is not striking down the chaff—at least not in a way we can easily see. Neo-Gnosticism What does this mean for your family? In a practical sense, consider that the “great chastisement” could already be upon us. What if the chastisement is the gradual descent of what used to be Christendom into moral debauchery and persecution of the faithful? What if the three days of darkness, foretold with such dramatic clarity by the saints, are a metaphorical allusion to the Modernist apostasy? What if the stars and moon that no longer give light are the Vatican and the world’s bishops? What if the windows that you should “keep shut” are your own eyes, shutting them to the outrageous carnal assaults that seem to be everywhere? A few years back I read a pamphlet that exhorted Catholics to literally keep curtains on every window and blessed candles made of real beeswax “always lit” in one’s home. We had 58 The Angelus November - December 2013 a two-story house at the time, with a beautiful, decorative set of windows that were more than fifteen feet high. I couldn’t safely reach them so they remained uncovered. And we never left a burning candle unattended. What if one of our toddlers knocked the candle over? At the time I had a sense of chastisement and doom hanging over my head. I worried about those high windows. St. Francis of Assisi rebuilt the Church of San Damiano when God revealed that Francis was to “rebuild the Church.” Later the saint realized what God really meant: St. Francis was to renew the spiritual life of the universal Church. Even a saint can misunderstand God. That pamphlet I encountered years ago holds out salvation only for a knowing elite who invest in curtains and expensive beeswax. This is neo-Gnosticism, not orthodox Catholicism. Consider historical intervention in human affairs by divine providence. God really does use material means and prophetic events to punish man’s disobedience and to show God’s glory. In 1689 our Lord requested through a humble nun that the king of France spread devotion to the Sacred Heart. The king ignored the request. Exactly 100 years later, the monarchy fell. In the 20th century, World War II came about because Our Lady of Fatima’s warnings were not heeded. Nonetheless, Catholics can get a bit caught up in the sensationalism of prophecy and the drama of dates and doom. The Novus Ordo has its charismatics; traditionalism has its own sensation-seekers. And then there is your own family. Look at your children. What kind of Catholics do you want them to be? You are very much in the eye of a storm. Liberalism, hedonism, and worldliness blast around you on one side. Sedevacantism, sensationalism, and a lack of docility slam past you on another side. Then there is Modernism and the Novus Ordo, swirling all around. The Swirling Storm Meteorology tells us that a hurricane has an “eye” at the center in which the skies are actually sunny and there is relative calm. In the spiritual life today, devout Catholics should strive to live a docile life on the narrow path to Heaven. They find themselves in the eye of a storm of Modernism, sedevacantism, and worldliness. Parents thus need to be the calm in the storm. Your children need your balance. Your docility. Your prayer life. The Church today, afflicted with Modernism, causes scandal to traditionalist Catholics. There are numerous examples: Interreligious prayer meetings, chronic shifting orthopraxis based more on Kant and Hegel than St. Paul and St. Pius V, and now, the canonizations of conciliar popes. The storm is raging. In the other direction, the storm manifests itself with embittered and erroneous reactions against the conciliar Church. It can be challenging to find that balance of recognizing the technical authority of the pope while rejecting those decisions and actions which go against tradition. It requires patience. It perhaps requires a certain cognitive sophistication. It especially requires docility of soul. We have no canonical authority to judge the validity of a pope. Only a future pope can do that. Remember the fruits of the Holy Ghost for your own soul, enumerated by St. Paul (Gal. 5:22): “But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity....” He juxtaposed these against “wraths, quarrels, dissensions.” Practical Approach Now there is yet another event—in this case, canonizations—coming from the postVatican II ecclesiastical structure. Beleaguered traditionalist Catholics may wonder what to do. We certainly pray and offer sacrifices according to our state in life for the Church. There are other practical ways to keep a cool head and raise your children to remain balanced Catholics in the eye of the swirling storm. spouse will look to you for support; your children look to you for guidance. Don’t get too worked up about Vatican maneuverings or talks with the SSPX or international strife and the UN or the latest Novus Ordo change in their liturgical life. Follow St. Ignatius’s advice on continuing your particular devotional practices regardless of what goes on around you. When events in the Church befuddle you, follow the lead of your SSPX pastor. He is in the SSPX for a reason. -- Nod and smile. When a devout older Catholic tells you with all urgency that “God will not be mocked” or “we are soldiers of the end times” (actual quote from an octogenarian Catholic to me), just nod and smile, especially if your children are with you. We certainly are soldiers of the end times. What you do about it is an entirely different matter. I wouldn’t argue about it but I wouldn’t elaborate either. -- Continue praying the rosary daily. Enough said. -- Find like-minded Catholic couples around your age for companionship and edification. -- Express your gratitude. Thank God for His blessings, every day. Meditate on God the Father’s attribute of perfect benevolence. Remember some basic realities when confronted with situations such as scandals in the Church, or on the other hand, urgent doom scenarios: Keep a cool head and do not get caught up in the drama of the swirling storm. Confidence! Persevere in the heart of the true Faith, in the reality of the sacraments, the Real Presence, and eternal Rome. Your family will thrive under your stable Catholic devotion. -- Practice docility, docility, and more docility. Scandals will come. Things will happen. Your 59 Detail of fresco in the apse, Basilica of Our Lady, Maastricht, Netherlands And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly army, praising God, and saying: Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will. Luke 2:14 Questions and Answers by Fr. Peter Scott, SSPX Can a Catholic believe in the “rapture”? You will not find any discussion on the rapture in any Catholic catechism. However, you will often find it mentioned by fundamentalist Protestant preachers, by Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists, and the concept has been popularized in novels and movies as well. The idea of a rapture is based upon an interpretation of this text of St. Paul’s in his first letter to the Thessalonians: “…the dead in Christ 62 The Angelus November - December 2013 will rise up first. Then we who live, who survive, shall be caught up together with them in clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall ever be with the Lord” (4:17). The followers of the rapture take this to mean that Christ would come before the end of the world, that is before His Second Coming, and that at that time the righteous would be raptured, that is caught up into the air with Christ, while sinners would remain on the earth for a period of great tribulation. It would then be after this that Jesus would come on the earth to rule for a thousand years, after which finally there would be the end of the world and the General Judgment. The idea of the rapture is consequently closely intertwined with the theory of millenarianism, which was embraced by a few isolated ecclesi­ astical authors, such as Papias, St. Justin and Tertullian, and later rejected by the Church, notably by the Council of Ephesus, but has been adopted by these sects. This theory of millenarianism is in turn based upon a literal interpretation of Chapter 20 of the Apocalypse, which speaks of the victory of Christ over Satan, holding him bound for a thousand years (v. 3), during which time the souls of those who refused the mark of the beast “reigned with Christ a thousand years,” “but the rest of the dead did not come to life till the thousand years were finished” (v. 5). In a response dated July 21, 1944, the Holy Office condemned millenarianism as an error that “cannot safely be taught” (in Renié, Manuel d’Ecriture Sainte, V, §314), and the same year a work of Fr. Manuel Lacunza was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books on account of the same error. However, it is interesting to know why these ideas are false and how a false understanding of Sacred Scripture lies behind them. The text of St. Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians is very clear in the context of the preceding verses. It refers to the end of the world, to the second coming and to the general judgment, and for this uses the images already employed by the prophet Daniel to describe the end of the world. Hence the preceding verse: “For the Lord himself with cry of command, with voice of archangel, and with trumpet of God will descend from heaven; and the dead in Christ will rise up first. Then, we who live, who survive…” (1 Thess. 4:16). The promise is to be victorious with Christ on the last day, and this is what is consoling, not that we might be snatched away for a period, or even that we might rule with Him on earth for one thousand years. Moreover, we are repeatedly told, but by our Divine Savior, and also by His apostles, that we are not to know the day or the hour of His coming, but that He will come when least expected. “But of that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only” (Mk. 13:32). Or “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief” (2 Pet. 3:10), just to quote a couple of examples. This could hardly be the case if there were to be a rapture. The interpretation of the Apocalypse to mean a thousand physical years’ reign on this earth is likewise based upon a view of the Sacred Scriptures which fails to take into account the various literary genres. The Apocalypse is a prophetic work, and consequently uses the literary style of prophecy, which is full of imagery, which although truthful, is not intended to be chronological nor to give an historical account. The thousand years is symbolic of the long period of time that follows the Resurrection, in which Satan is chained in his control of the faithful who are baptized, at least relatively speaking. It is at the end of the long period during which the Church Militant fights against all kinds of persecution, that finally the devil will be released, the time of the Antichrist will come and then rapidly will take place the Last Judgment, as is described in the last verses of Chapter 20 of the Apocalypse (11-15). To interpret these images in a physical manner so as to indicate a thousand years of peace with Christ is to miss the entire point of the passage, which is to show that this time is a preparation for the Last Judgment, a time for us to combat the devil, to crush evil, to persevere in good works, that our names might be “found written in the book of life” (v. 15). A literal, physical interpretation of these images and texts is just as grossly materialistic as were the Pharisees in their desire for a Messias who would rule over a temporal kingdom. Rather than a millennium of peace and earthly comfort for those who consider themselves to be just, it will be a time of loss of faith, of apostasy, in which the good will have to suffer along with the wicked, which is to precede the General Judgment. This is described by St. Paul: “Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition” (2 Thess. 2:3); and by Our Lord Himself: “There will be great earthquakes in various places, and pestilences and famines, and there will be terrors and great signs from heaven. But before all these things they will arrest you and persecute you.…By your patience you will win your souls” (Lk. 21:11-19). Consequently, there is no doubt that the fantasy 63 Questions and Answers of a rapture is incompatible with Catholic doctrine and spirituality, as also is the millennialist dream. The struggle of our earthly life, lived for the love of God, is the time of preparation for the harvest, and this preparation will continue until the day on which our Divine Savior comes in glory to render judgment to every man “according to his works, whether good or evil” (2 Cor. 5:10): “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world; the good seed, the sons of the kingdom; the weeds, the sons of the wicked one; and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. But the harvest is the end of the world, and the reapers are the angels. Therefore, just as the weeds are gathered up and burnt with fire, so will it be at the end of the world. The Son of Man will send forth his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all scandals and those who work iniquity, and cast them into the furnace of fire, where there will be the weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the just will shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father” (Mt. 33:38-43). Why do crucifixes show Our Lord as woundless, with the exception of His hands, feet and side? The manner of representing Christ on the Cross has changed over the centuries. During the first centuries of our era, when the horror of crucifixion was still known, Christ was never depicted on the Cross. It would have been too horrifying to depict the full extent of His sufferings as a crucified man when people could still see and recall how brutally cruel this really was. The Cross was depicted alone as the symbol of the Faith, especially after the victory of Constantine at the Milvian Bridge in 312, when he beheld in the heavens, above the sun, a cross of light, around which were the words “In this sign you shall conquer.” It was soon thereafter that the Church ornamented and decorated it with precious jewels. It was only in the Middle Ages, when crucifixion was no longer known, that crucifixes began to 64 The Angelus November - December 2013 depict Christ dying on the Cross. But even then, they were very stylized, such as the well-known crucifix of St. Francis, and there was no attempt to depict even the due proportions of His body, let alone the depth and extent of the human sufferings of Christ. Since the Renaissance, various schools have attempted to depict the physical sufferings of Christ much more accurately, including the five principal wounds. However, the aim was to show symbolically the sufferings of the Lamb of God, upon whose shoulders the Lord God laid “the iniquity of us all” (Is. 53:6). It did not pretend to be a literal representation of everything He suffered. In the past century, however, studies on the shroud of Turin, our Divine Savior’s winding sheet, have enabled artists to depict our Divine Savior’s sufferings more accurately. They can, for example, place the nails precisely at the right place, at the wrist, and the feet one over the other. They can include some of the many scourges, with which our Divine Savior’s body was lacerated, as well as the wounds from the crown of thorns and the falls on the Way of the Cross. However, few have been able to capture all the pain and agony of those hours on the Cross, and none (with the shameful exception of Michelangelo) have dared to depict our Divine Savior as He really was, bearing the utter humiliation of being entirely stripped and naked. If there is certainly a place for depicting more accurately our Divine Savior’s sufferings, it is not the only nor even the principal purpose of the Crucifix. It is to show the instrument on which God-made-man vanquished the devil; it is to show the depth of His love; the grandeur of His humility; the kindness of his Holy Face. It is most importantly a symbol of the heroic virtue and charity by which our Divine Savior purchased us back from our sins. Consequently, it does not have to show all His anguish and sufferings as much as it must clearly indicate His ineffable goodness. Should I attend the Mass of a Thuc-line priest? Traditional Catholics sometimes have the tendency of regarding their Sunday Mass as the place to receive the sacraments, and their priests consequently as sacrament vending machines. According to such a point of view, so long as the sacraments are valid, the rest does not matter. Let the priests argue about the details, but they do not concern the simple faithful, they say. In this oversimplification there is a profound misunderstanding of the meaning of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is the unbloody renewal of the sacrifice of Calvary, applying it to souls in time and place. Consequently, it is the source of the spiritual life of the Church, and has a profound symbolism, inseparable from the effects that it produces on our souls. It symbolizes the unity of the Faith and of the Church, and is consequently necessarily a profession of Faith. This is the principal reason why the New Mass is always evil, regardless of the good intentions of the celebrant or of those in attendance: it lacks the perfection that it ought to have of being a Catholic profession of Faith, but is instead a profession of the Vatican II compromise with the errors of Protestantism and Modernism. That is why Protestants and Modernists have repeatedly said that they would have no difficulty in celebrating the New Mass although they have a great aversion to the traditional Mass. To assist at Mass is, then, to make a profession of the Faith as held and taught by the one true Church. It is from this perspective that the status of the priest is of the greatest importance. A priest who has no attachment to the Church’s hierarchy and who presently has no superior is called a wandering or independent priest, in Latin vagus. The Council of Trent legislated against such priests, which legislation is maintained by the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 111) and the 1983 Code (Canon 265), both of which state that such wandering priests are not at all to be accepted in the Church. Such priests, who do not have letters of recommendation from a superior or bishop, are not permitted to celebrate Mass (Canon 804 of the 1917 Code and Canon 903 of the 1983 Code). The reason for this is that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a priest’s personal possession, but belongs to the Church. Without submission to a superior, there is no hierarchical order, no obedience, and no symbolism of the hierarchical unity of the Church. Of course, the situation is not the same for those good traditional priests who have been persecuted by their modernist superiors, and who retain their attachment to their diocese or religious community, although it may reject them, as was the case for the heroic priests who started the traditional movement and who were frequently but wrongly called “independent.” Thuc-line priests are those priests who have been ordained by one of the multitude of bishops that have arisen from the bishops consecrated in the 1980s by Archbishop Pierre-Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc. At the time of these Episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Thuc made clear sedevacantist statements, as have the other bishops from the line repeatedly. There is no hierarchy amongst them, nor amongst their priests, nor any attachment to the visible and hierarchical Church, nor any admission that there has been a pope since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958. Such statements are a denial of the visibility of the Church, and of union with true Catholics throughout the world. They are effectively schismatic. Understanding the obvious scandal of such a position, some of the priests that are issue of this line have attempted to obscure the issue by maintaining that they are not sedevacantist at all, and that they accept Francis as the Pope. However, this claim is but a façade and hypocrisy. By accepting ordination by one of these bishops, they have made a public profession of sedevacantism, which must remain their public position until such time as they recant and place themselves under a Catholic bishop or superior. Consequently, the Masses that they celebrate and the sacraments that they administer are valid, but illicit. They are a false profession of Faith, a profession of separation from the visible Catholic Church, a public adhesion to the false theory of sedevacantism. Add to this that such Thuc-line priests are truly wandering, having no superior on earth, and we have created an independent mentality that is entirely opposed to the Catholic spirit. This way leads to indifference to things sacred and to confusion, and certainly is no way to rebuild the Church, to restore all things in Christ, to strive for sanctity, to bring about the conversion of Rome to Tradition. 65 Archbishop Lefebvre: A Documentary DVD - 90 minutes - STK# 8599 - $14.95 Now Available For the first time ever, the life of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is available in a feature-length documentary film. This professional documentary examines the entirety of the Archbishop’s life: From his childhood in France to his seminary days in Rome, and from Rome to the missions, all the way through his role as Apostolic Delegate, Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, the Conciliar period, and finally, his great work of Catholic Tradition: the Society of St. Pius X. Drawing heavily on new interviews conducted with his family, friends, priests who worked with him in Africa, as well as many who knew him, this telling of Archbishop Lefebvre’s life is like no other. This film is showing in a select number of theaters throughout the country. For information on a showing near you, visit www. lefebvrethemovie.org. Pre-order yours today at www.angeluspress.org or call 1-800-966-7337 Church and World Pope Francis Entrusted the World to Our Lady of Fatima Within the context of the Year of Faith and on the occasion of the Marian Days, October 12-13, 2013, the Pilgrim Virgin statue of Our Lady of Fatima was transported by way of exception from Portugal to the Vatican. On Saturday afternoon, October 12, this statue of Our Lady of the Rosary, which ordinarily is found in the little Chapel of the Apparitions in Fatima, was exposed to the veneration of the faithful on Saint Peter’s Square. Then it was taken to the Marian shrine of the Divine Love, about six miles south of Rome, where pilgrims could venerate it throughout the night. Pope Francis spoke in a video message, associating “all those who are joining us from the Marian shrines of Lourdes, Nazareth, Lujan, Vailankanni, Guadalupe, Akita, Nairobi, Banneux, Czestochowa and Marian Valley”…“united with all of you in praying the Holy Rosary and in Eucharistic Adoration, under the watchful eyes of the Virgin Mary.” On the morning of October 13, Pope Francis presided at a Mass on Saint Peter’s Square, before the statue of Our Lady of Fatima, in the presence of more than 100,000 persons. At the end of the ceremony, the Pope recited the “Act of Entrustment to Mary”: “O Blessed Virgin Mary of Fatima, with renewed gratitude for your maternal presence, we unite our voices to those of all the generations that call you blessed….Receive with motherly benevolence this act of entrustment that we confidently make to you today, before this image of you that is so dear to us. We are sure that each one of us is precious in your sight and that of all that is in our hearts, nothing is foreign to you….Keep our life safe in your arms; bless and strengthen every desire for good; revive and nourish our faith; sustain and enlighten our hope; stir up and animate our charity; guide us all on the path of holiness.” In Rome, Vatican Radio clarified, officials insist that this gesture of the pope is not strictly speaking a “consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary,” as the Fatima Shrine announced on its website. Abp. Rino Fisichella, President of the Pontifical Council for the New Evangelization, which organized these Marian 68 The Angelus September - October 2013 Days, explained that there was a “very intense theological debate” about the meaning of the term “consecration,” but that it had been abandoned by John Paul II after his Encyclical Redemptoris Mater (March 1987). Previously, according to Vatican Radio, in May 1982 in Fatima, and then in March 1984 at the Vatican, the Polish pope had publicly pronounced acts of consecration of the world to the Virgin Mary. After his election on March 13 of this year, Pope Francis had asked Cardinal José da Cruz Policarpo, then Patriarch of Lisbon, for his pontificate to be consecrated to Our Lady of Fatima. The consecration took place on May 13, during the Mass for the 96th anniversary of the apparition of the Blessed Virgin to the three shepherd children of Fatima in 1917. (Cf. DICI, No. 274, April 26, 2013). Reminder: The message of Our Lady to the three children at the Cova da Iria, in Fatima, includes three secrets, the first of which declared: “You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end; but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the pontificate of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that He is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father.” The second secret said: “To prevent this [cf. the first secret], I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.” During a holy hour on the night of Tuesday, June 13, 1929, in Tuy, Our Lady said to Sister Lucy: “The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father, in union with all the Bishops in the world, to make the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means.” And in August 1931, Our Lord Jesus Christ revealed to Sister Lucy, who was convalescing in Rianjo: “They did not wish to heed My request!…Like the King of France they will repent of it, and they will do it, but it will be late. Russia will have already spread its errors in the world, provoking wars and persecutions against the Church. The Holy Father will have much to suffer.” On October 31, 1942, Pius XII consecrated the Church and the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in a radio address, then solemnly on December 8, 1942. “Since he was uninformed about the revelations that Sister Lucy had had in Tuy and about her original letter of October 24, 1940, it was difficult for the Holy Father [Pius XII] to know that there were two requests and that the request of Our Lady had to be fulfilled in union with the bishops of the whole world” (Joseph de Belfont, Mystères et vérités cachées du troisième secret de Fatima [Mysteries and hidden truths of the third secret of Fatima], Éditions Lanore, p. 93). “Pius XII therefore responded to the request that he had known about since 1936…for the consecration of the world; he thus obtained the end of the war. He still had to respond to the second, which he only gradually learned about” (ibid., p. 94). On May 4, 1944, in view of the results that had been obtained, Pius XII declared August 22 (Octave of the Assumption) the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as a commemoration, he explained, of the consecration of December 8, 1942. On July 7, 1952, Pius XII issued an Apostolic Letter Sacro Vergente Anno, consecrating “all the peoples of Russia” to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, but without the bishops of the whole world as the Blessed Virgin had requested. John Paul II, “in union with all the pastors of the Church by that special bond that makes us constitute a body and a college,” pronounced on May 13, 1982, during his journey to Fatima, these words: “O Mother of all men and women, and of all peoples, …accept the cry which we…address directly to your Heart. Embrace…this human world of ours, which we entrust and consecrate to you....In a special way we entrust and conse­ crate to you those individuals and nations which particularly need to be thus entrusted and conse­ crated” (ibid., pp. 160-161). On March 25, 1984, the bishops were invited to join the pope for a consecration in which Russia was not mentioned by name. (Source: DICI) 69 Church and World Appeal for the Filipino Typhoon Yolanda victims 70 The Society of St. Pius X of the District of Asia is making a world-wide appeal on behalf of the victims for the recent super-typhoon Yolanda that has just hit the Philippines last Nov. 7-9, 2013. Described as the worst typhoon known in history, with winds reaching 330 km per hour [in excess of 200 mph], it has had the same devastating effects as the tsunami of 2004. The island of Leyte, in particular, and its capital city of Tacloban have been the worst hit. The number of dead caused by this typhoon is estimated today at over 10,000, and is still growing by the hour. All the houses of this city have been severely damaged or are gone. The Society of St. Pius X too has been directly affected: we have lost our Tacloban chapel and the missionary car, stationed at the chapel; many of our faithful have lost their houses. We do not yet know if some of our faithful have died in the disaster due to a complete breakdown in communications. Please come to their help! This historical typhoon has come just weeks after a 7.2 earthquake hit the Philippines, with its epicenter on the island of Bohol. One of our priests lost his parents’ house as a result of this quake. This appeal is made on the feast of the great St. Martin who did come to the rescue of a poor man in need. NOTE: In whatever way you send funds, please mention clearly: “For the Typhoon Victims.” Also, if you send a cheque to one of these accounts, please also inform us by email, if possible. in USD and send to: Regina Coeli House, 11485 N. Farley Road, Platte City, MO 64079, USA. -- UK: Please make cheques payable to “The Society of St. Pius X” in GBP and send to: The Asian Missions, c/o 5 Fox Lane, Leicester LE1 1WT, U.K. -- France: Please make cheques payable to “ACIM” (tax deductible) and send to: Dr. Jean Pierre Dickès, 2 route d’Equilhen 62360 St Etienne au Mont. -- All Other Countries: Please make cheques payable to “SSPX” in any currency and send to either: Priesterbruderschaft St.Pius X, Menzingen, 6313, Switzerland; or: St. Pius X Priory, 286 Upper Thomson Road, Singapore 574402 (Tel.:[65] 6459 0792, Fax [65] 6451 4920); or write to us for bank details: Email: district@ sspxasia.com. -- Australia: Please make cheques to “The Society of St. Pius X” in AUD and send to: The Asian Missions, c/o 20 Robin Crescent, WOY WOY, NSW 2256 , Australia. -- USA: Please make cheques payable to “SSPX Foreign Mission Trust – Asia” (tax deductible) With the assurance of our prayers and the deep gratitude of the victims. “Amen I say to you: as long as you did for one of these, the least of my brethren, you did it to Me” (Mt. 25:40). The Angelus September - October 2013 You can help in many ways: First by your prayers! That all those who have been affected may have the patience and fortitude to bear this heavy cross. That the others may have great charity and liberality to come to their rescue. Then by your donations. For these, you can either go through the various districts and chapels of the Society of St. Pius X world-wide (who will in turn pass it on to us), or send the funds directly to us in one of our various bank accounts. Fr. Daniel Couture, District Superior Report of Bishop Fellay’s Lecture at the Angelus Press Conference in Kansas City (USA) Bishop Fellay, SSPX Superior General, gave an extensive lecture on Saturday, October 12, during the Angelus Press Conference, that focused on the Third Secret of Fatima and its apparent prediction of both a material chastisement and a great crisis in the Church. We thank Mr. John Vennari for allowing us to publish his report from Catholic Family News. “The situation of the Church is a real disaster, and the present pope is making it 10,000 times worse.” This is what Bishop Bernard Fellay said in an address at the Angelus Press Conference, the weekend of October 11-13 in Kansas City. This report will highlight some of the more dramatic aspects of the bishop’s Saturday conference. Bishop Fellay quoted in detail Sister Lucy, those who have read the Third Secret, and those who have knowledge of the Secret. He noted that Sister Lucia said that if we want to know the contents of the Third Secret, read Chapters 8 through 13 of the Apocalypse. (Details of the Third Secret will be contained in the upcoming November edition of Catholic Family News.) Sister Lucia’s reference to Chapters 8 through 13 of the Apocalypse is particularly chilling, since the end of Chapter 13 speaks of the coming of Antichrist. Bishop Fellay noted that Pope St. Pius X said at the beginning of his pontificate that the “son of perdition” may already be on the earth. He also noted that the original prayer to St. Michael of Pope Leo XIII mentions that Satan aims to establish his seat in Rome. The bishop quoted Cardinal Luigi Ciapi, the Papal Theologian of all the Popes from Pius XII to John Paul II, who said, “In the Third Secret we read among other things that the great apostasy in the Church begins at the top.” He also spent a good bit of time on the famous and dramatic 1957 interview of Fr. Fuentes with Sister Lucia, in which she reiterated that “various nations will disappear from the face of the earth,” and that “the devil will do all in his power to overcome souls consecrated to God.” Since the ministers of God are struck with this confusion and disorder, the faithful are left to fend for themselves for their own salvation. The help that should be provided by Churchmen is not there. This is “the greatest tragedy you can ever imagine for the Church.” The times are very serious. We have to be serious about our salvation, “and to do this we are deprived of a very important element, which is the support of the [Church] authorities. What a tragedy.” He spoke of Sister Lucia’s comforting words that God has given two last remedies for us: the Holy Rosary and devotion to the Immaculate Heart. Rome-SSPX Bishop Fellay alluded to the 2012 difficulties between SSPX and Rome: “When we see what is happening now [under Pope Francis] we thank God, we thank God, we have been preserved from any kind of agreement from last year. And we may say that one of the fruits of the [Rosary] Crusade we did is that we have been preserved from such a misfortune. Thank God. It is not that we don’t want to be Catholics—of course we want to be Catholics and we are Catholics, and we have a right to be recognized as Catholics; but we are not going to jeopardize our treasures for that. Of course not.” He continued, “To imagine that some people continue to pretend we are decided [still] to get an agreement with Rome. Poor people. I really challenge them to prove they mean. They pretend that I think something else from what I do. They are not in my head.” As for the discussions with Rome: “Any kind of direction for recognition ended when they gave me the document to sign on June 13, 2012. That very day I told them, ‘This document I cannot accept.’ I told them from the start in September of the previous year that we cannot 71 Church and World accept this ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ because it is not true, it is not real. It is against the reality. So we do not accept it. The Council is not in continuity with Tradition. It’s not. So when Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘Sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that.’ “The same for the Mass. They want us to recognize not only that the [New] Mass is valid provided it is celebrated correctly, etc., but that it is licit. I told them: we don’t use that word. It’s a bit messy; our faithful have enough [confusion] regarding the validity, so we tell them, ‘The New Mass is bad, it is evil,’ and they understand that. Period!” Of course the Roman authorities “were not very happy with that.” “It has never been our intention to pretend either that the Council would be considered as good, or the New Mass would be ‘legitimate.’ “The [April 15, 2012] text we presented to Rome was a very, shall we say, delicate text that was supposed to be understood correctly; it was supposed to be read with a big principle which was leading the whole thing. This big principle was no novelty in the Church: ‘The Holy Ghost has not been promised to St. Peter and his Successor in such a way that through a new revelation the Pope would teach something new, but under His help, the Pope would saintly conserve and faithfully transmit the deposit of the Faith.’ It belongs to the definition of infallibility [from Vatican I]. That was the principle, the base of the whole document, which excludes from the start any kind of novelty. “And so to take any kind of sentences from the text without this principle is just to take sentences that have never been our thinking and our life. These phrases in themselves are ambiguous, so to take away the ambiguity we wanted to put [in] this principle [from Vatican I]. Unfortunately, maybe that was too subtle and that’s why we withdrew that text, because it was not clear enough as it was written. “So it is very clear, our principle is always the same: to stay faithful! We have received a treasure. This treasure does not ‘belong’ to us. We have received this treasure and we have to hand it to 72 The Angelus September - October 2013 the next generation. And what is requested from us is faithfulness, fidelity. We do not have the right to jeopardize these treasures. These are the treasures we have in our hands and we are not going to jeopardize them.” Pope Francis Bishop Fellay returned to Sister Lucia’s 1957 statement that the Rosary and devotion to the Immaculate Heart are the two last remedies God has given to mankind. He said that there is “definitely a ‘material’ chastisement of the world in sight. There is something big in front of us. How? When? I have no idea. But if you put everything together, it is clear that God has had enough of the sins of man.” He then spoke of those sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance, such as abortion, and the sins against nature, which was an allusion to the unnatural ‘redefinition’ of marriage and related sins. He also spoke of what appears to be a coming persecution of Christians. “What do we do? Don’t panic, because panic is of no use at all. What you need to do is your job— your daily duty. That is the best way to prepare.” He continued to say that we are in “very scary times,” but we are not helpless. He noted that “the situation of the Church is a real disaster. And the present Pope is making it 10,000 times worse.” “In the beginning of the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI, I said, ‘The crisis in the Church will continue, but the Pope is trying to put on the brakes.’ It’s as if to say, the Church will continue to fall, but with a parachute. And with the beginning of this [Pope Francis] pontificate, I say, ‘He cuts the strings, and he put a [downward] rocket.’ “If the present pope continues in the way he started, he is going to divide the Church. He’s exploding everything. So people will say: ‘It is impossible that’s he’s the pope; we refuse him…’ [I say] ‘Wait, consider him as pope, but don’t follow him.’ He’s provoking anger. Many people will be discouraged by what people in the Church do” and will be tempted to “throw it all away.” But, he reminded, God is “much, much bigger than we are. God is able to have the Church continue” and even can work through these imperfect ministers. “But once again,” he repeats, “don’t follow them. Follow them when they say the truth, but when they tell you rubbish, you don’t” follow them on those points. “Any obedience to be true must be related to God. When I say I obey a person” he should be a “mirror of God.” But “when the mirror is contrary to God, it is no longer a mirror; then I don’t follow him.” Bishop Fellay noted that we cannot simply obey the present Popes without question, because then we would destroy ourselves, we would endanger our faith. Following the warning of Sister Lucia, Pope Leo XIII and Pius X, Bishop Fellay further warned that we may be entering into the time of Antichrist, but we cannot know how far off in the future this may be. (Source : Catholic Family News/sspx.org – 10/18/13) Excerpts from the Sermon of Bishop Fellay in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 13, 2013 Bishop Fellay demonstrates how Pope Francis is a “genuine Modernist” through quotes of the Holy Father, while exhorting the faithful to redouble their prayers, particularly through the Rosary. We present some extracts of the sermon given by Bishop Bernard Fellay (SSPX Superior General) during the solemn Pontifical Mass given on Sunday, October 13 at St. Vincent de Paul’s Church in Kansas City, Missouri, for the Angelus Press Conference. We thank Mr. John Vennari for his assistance. Bishop Fellay amplified a few points regarding Fatima, the Secret, the 2012 SSPX relations with Rome, and then spoke of some of the many grave problems with Pope Francis. 73 Church and World “From the start, we have the impression that we have something wrong with this Pope. From the start, he wanted to distinguish himself to be different from anybody else.” We must look, said the bishop, at what is his vision of the Church, his vision of the Council, and what is his plan. It was around the time of World Youth Day, late July of this year, that Francis began an avalanche of talks, interviews, phone calls, etc. “We may not have the entire picture at this point, [but] we have enough to be scared to death.” Contradictory Statements of the Pope As is typical of the Modernist, as Pius X warned in Pascendi, the Modernist will sometimes speak in a heretical fashion, and then speak in an orthodox manner. Bishop Fellay gave the example of one of these contradictions: He spoke of the interview in early October that Pope Francis conducted with the atheist journalist Eugenio Scalfari in Rome’s La Repubblica wherein Francis appears to promote a dangerous relativism: “Scalfari: Your Holiness, is there a single vision of the Good? And who decides what it is? “Pope Francis: Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good. “Scalfari: Your Holiness, you wrote that in your letter to me. ‘The conscience is autonomous,’ you said, ‘and everyone must obey his conscience.’ I think that’s one of the most courageous steps taken by a Pope. “Pope Francis: And I repeat it here. Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place.” With a good deal of emotion, Bishop Fellay said of the Pope’s response: “That’s really not Catholic! Because whatever I think has absolutely no value if it does not fit with reality. The first reality is God!…God is the unique goodness and the reference for everything which is good!…We have a conscience, but it will only lead us to heaven if our conscience is a mirror of God.” The conscience must be formed according to God’s law. “So to pretend that anyone can follow his own idea is just 74 The Angelus September - October 2013 rubbish,” said Fellay, “It has nothing to do with Catholic teaching. It is absolute relativism.” A few days after this, however, Pope Francis spoke of the necessity of fighting the devil, the final battle with the devil, that nobody can fight the devil half way, and that we must fight relativism. Francis said the opposite of what he said to La Repubblica. “He said the contrary of what he just said!” What is the vision of Pope Francis on Vatican II? Bishop Fellay says that Pope Francis “takes it for granted that the Council was a bright success. What was the main theme of the Council? To re-read the Faith in light of modern culture,” you could say, “to incarnate the Gospel in the modern world.” Francis “is very happy with this…” and believes “the Council brought forth many good fruits. The first example he gives is liturgy—the reformed liturgy. That is the beautiful fruit of the Council. That’s what he says. And he’s very happy with it.” Francis tells us “this re-reading of the Gospel within the modern culture is irreversible, so we will not go back. How do you want us to be in agreement with him? We are in front of a major fight.” Pope Francis and the Mass About the liturgy and the old Mass, Francis speaks of “Vetus Ordo” (Old Order). Francis believes that Pope Benedict probably helped restore the traditional Latin Mass as a prudential act for those who still hold to it. “But don’t expect Francis to come back to the old Mass… Maybe he will ‘indulge’ it [let us celebrate it unmolested]. God knows.” But Francis “sees there is a problem with this old Mass, because there are people who ideologize this Mass. Guess at whom he is aiming? I don’t need to say much. So what is going to happen with us?… What I see: there is quite an obsession in him about those people who look to the past. Listen to the Pope’s words: “Pope Francis: What is worrying, though, is the risk of the ideologization of the Vetus Ordo, its exploitation.…If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing. Tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open up new areas to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists—they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies. I have a dogmatic certainty: God is in every person’s life.” Bishop Fellay continues, “The impression we have in the present Pope is that he has a zeal for the ‘more or less,’ for the ‘about’; and he wants at all cost to escape what is too clear and too certain. But the Faith is like that because God is like that. Well, that’s not what he thinks.” Another troubling quote from Pope Francis: “If a person says that he met God with total certainty and is not touched by a margin of uncertainty, then this is not good. For me, this is an important key. If one has the answers to all the questions—that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt.” Bishop Fellay exclaims in response: “What Gospel does he have? Which Bible does he have to say such things. It’s horrible. What has this to do with the Gospel? With the Catholic Faith? That’s pure Modernism, my dear brethren. We have in front of us a genuine Modernist.... “How much time will be needed for people with authority in the Church to stand up and say, ‘By no means!’ [will we accept this new teaching]. I really hope and pray this will happen. But that means an enormous division in the Church.” Francis also tells us he is a greater admirer of the ultra-liberal Jesuit Cardinal Martini (now deceased). Martini wrote a book calling for a total revolution in the Church. “And that is what Francis wants. And he told us the eight cardinals he chose to help him ‘reform’ the Church think like him!” Bishop Fellay says that Pope Francis claims that “very little has been done in this direction.” This is astounding, the bishop notes, because ecumenism has launched untold disaster upon the Church, leading Catholic nations to apostasy. “Yet the present Pope says, ‘Very little, almost nothing has been done in this direction,’ and: ‘But I have the humility and the ambition to do it!’ ” Stick to Tradition and to the Rosary! Bishop Fellay says as part of his summing up: “The mystery of the shadow on the Church has never been so great! We are in front of very hard times. Don’t have any illusions. And it is clear the only solution is to stick to what we have; to keep it, to not let it go by any means… “Pope St. Pius X said that it was the essence of any Catholic to stick to the past, that in this sense, every Catholic is traditional! The present Pope says exactly the contrary: ‘Forget about the past; throw yourself into the uncertainty of the future.’ “Definitely we need the Immaculate Heart of Mary. What we are experiencing is the Secret of Fatima. We know what we have to do: pray, pray, pray, and penance, penance, penance; to pray to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the means given to us precisely in these hard times…and to pray the Rosary. “Be certain, the next [Rosary] Crusade is not far off. Go to the Rosary… Pray it every day. We live in very dangerous times for the Faith, and we need this heavenly protection which is promised, granted, let us just take it!…Let us grow in the intimacy with the Virgin Mary and God!” (Source: Catholic Family News/sspx.org –10/18/13) 75 At high Mass, as soon as the celebrant has chanted the Oremus he first says the Offertory chant. The corporal has been spread on the altar during the Creed. The subdeacon brings the empty chalice and the paten with the bread from the credence table to the altar. The deacon hands the paten and bread to the celebrant. He takes it and holding it up says the prayer: “Suscipe Sancte Pater.” At the end he makes a sign of the cross with the paten over the altar and slips the bread from it onto the corporal. Soon after the paten is given to the subdeacon’s charge until it is wanted again for the fraction. The deacon pours wine into the chalice, the subdeacon water, which is first blessed by the celebrant with the form: “Deus qui humanæ substantiæ.” The deacon hands the chalice to the celebrant, who, holding it up, says the prayer: “Offerimus tibi Domine.” The celebrant makes the sign of the cross with the chalice and stands it behind the bread on the corporal. The deacon covers it with the pall. 352 pp. – Softcover – 24 pp. of illustrations – STK# 6768✱ – $21.95 Saint Pius X Restorer of the Church Yves Chiron Read the definitive story of the peasant boy who eventually ascended to the highest throne in this world, Pope St. Pius X. This biography details the struggles of St. Pius X against modernism, his reformation of the Church from Canon Law to Gregorian Chant, and overall, his great program to restore all things in Christ. A must read for anyone interested in the modern history of the Catholic Church. 327 pp. – Softcover – Illustrations and photos – STK# 8126✱ – $21.95 Pope Pius IX The Man and the Myth Yves Chiron Blessed Pius IX was one of the most interesting and complex individuals ever to become Supreme Pontiff. His pontificate included the proclamation of the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility, the convocation of the First Vatican Council, the publication of the Syllabus of Errors, the beginnings of Catholic Action, and the development of the foreign missions. SET: Saint Pius X, Blessed Pius IX STK# 6769✱ $39.95 Visit www.angeluspress.org — 1-800-966-7337 Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music. Theological Studies The Priority of Ends by Brian M. McCall Much has been and much more could be written about the startling interviews given by Pope Francis recently. Yet, rather than dwelling on the myriad of troubling details, I want to examine a core philosophical belief which undergirds much of what the Pope says, and presumably believes. It has long been my contention that the grave crisis in the Church, the crisis of Modernism, involves more than the fact that utterly false principles are urged upon the faithful. In addition, the due order and priority among true principles is disregarded and in fact inverted. When the Modernist crisis is evaluated from the hindsight of history, I believe it will show that one can do much more harm than a Luther or Calvin, who simply established false principles, by advocating an erroneous priority of true principles. In this article we will consider how the inversion of the proper order of true principles concerning the end of Man leads to disaster. To demonstrate the need for priority of true principles we can begin by resolving an apparent paradox in two editions of the Baltimore Catechism. There are two answers to the question “Why did God make us?” One is that “God made us to show forth His goodness and to share with us His everlasting happiness in heaven” (Baltimore Catechism 1941 edition). The second is “God made us to know, Him, to love Him, and to serve Him” (Baltimore Catechism 1921 edition). Both of these statements are true, but to be fully and properly understood they must be placed in a proper order. To understand this order we can turn to the Greek philosopher Aristotle. Aristotle argued that all men act with an end or purpose in mind. There are, however, different kinds of ends, intermediate and ultimate. An intermediate end is an end, a completion of action, but one which is not done for its own sake but for the sake of another end. An ultimate end is an end sought simply for its own sake. The question “For what sake is that end achieved?” has no meaning with respect to the ultimate end. A simple analogy can help illustrate the point. If I am cooking food, my end is to prepare 79 Theological Studies dinner. Yet, I am not preparing dinner for its own sake. I am preparing it for the end of eating it. The fact that I can ask why I am eating the dinner (to avoid starvation and death) proves that eating dinner is itself an intermediate end. Returning to the Catechism, Man is created for the end of knowing, loving, and serving God in this life in order to be happy in the next. Yet, this is not the ultimate end of Man. This is only his end because he was created in the first place. Thus, we can ask why did God create Man having such a particular end? The answer to this question is the other answer to the Catechism question. God created Man (including the creation of the end of knowing, loving, and serving Him) so as to show forth his goodness and share his happiness. This is the ultimate end of Man; the reason for which the end of knowing, loving, and serving God exists. As St. Thomas explains, “God produced the being of all things, not by natural necessity, but by His intellect and will. His intellect and will can have nothing for an ultimate end other than His own goodness, which He communicates to things. Things participate in Divine goodness through similitude, insofar as they are themselves good. But what is best in created things is the good of the order of the universe, which is the most perfect, as the Philosopher says (XII Metaphysics, c. 10); this is also in accordance with Holy Scriptures, where it is said: ‘And God saw all that He had made, and it was very good’ (Gen. 1:31), whereas of the works of creation taken separately He had simply said that they were good. Consequently, the good of the order of things created by God is also the principal object of the will and intention of God. But to govern a being is none other than to impose an order upon it....”1 That which makes the particular end of each Man to know, love, and serve God to be good is that this particular end is ordered to the manifestation of God’s goodness through the created universe. There is an important principle that lies behind this ordering of ends. The ultimate end is understood from God’s perspective. It is a cosmological end; an order and purpose to the universe. The intermediate end is from Man’s perspective. It is an end of each person’s individual existence. Yet, this individual personal end must be subject to the ultimate end of manifestation of God’s goodness (and especially his charity in desiring to share His happiness). The personal end of each Man is a part of the overall end 80 The Angelus November - December 2013 common to all creation. We maintain this necessary order only by understanding the end of each person in its dependent relation to the end of God’s creation. An error at the heart of the Modernist crisis in the Church, and an error to which many modern popes have been attached, is the error of Personalism. This philosophy places the human person, the end understood from the human perspective, as the highest consideration and the first principle of philosophy. The error of Personalism does not lie in acknowledging and celebrating the dignity and value of each and every human person. The error is in failing to orient that acknowledgment to the higher common end. The error of Personalism is to place the good of the individual person as the highest end, rather than that end common to all persons, the manifestation of God’s goodness. This fatal flaw of Personalism was adopted, or at least accommodated, at Vatican II. The document Gaudium et Spes contains at Number 24 a declaration dearly loved and often quoted by John Paul II: “Man is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself.” In its proper hierarchical context, this statement is true. Man was created to rule over the earth. All lower creatures were created to serve Man in attaining his end. This is symbolized by God granting Man the power to name all the creatures of the earth. Thus, Man is not an end for other worldly creatures, in the way that other lower creatures are means to the sustaining and flourishing of the life of Man. Yet, Man’s sustaining and flourishing is not an end in itself, but rather only a necessary means for Man to serve his ultimate end, to show forth God’s goodness. From the perspective of lower creatures, Man is not willed for them but for himself; but from God’s perspective, lower creatures are willed for Man because Man is willed for the manifestation of God’s goodness. St. Thomas corrects this misleading statement of Gaudium et Spes across the centuries when he declared: “However, we do not understand this statement, that intellectual substances are ordered for their own sake by divine providence, to mean that they are not more ultimately referred to God and to the perfection of the universe.”2 The Thomist Charles De Koninck3 in his refutation of the errors of Personalism (exemplified by the philosopher Jacques Maritain) in the early twentieth century explained the detailed relation of Man to this ultimate end. He explains that the goodness of God that is to be manifested is one in God, yet God needs to divide this unitary goodness into distinct creatures because no one creature is capable of manifesting all goodness (otherwise the creature would be a god). Thus the perfection of all of creation as a whole which reflects the perfection of God is greater than the perfection of one component of the universe. Man’s part in this greater good is to show forth that aspect of God’s goodness that He knows and wills the good that He is. Man as rational agent has the ability to know and will the good and by doing so he fulfills not only his own good—to know, love, and serve God and thereby to attain heaven—but the good of the universe to show forth that divided part of God’s goodness consisting in willing choice of the good. This common end is of a higher order, more perfect, than the particular end of each Man, which is a part of this common end. A part is not greater than the whole. As De Koninck explains: “The good of the universe is the good of each of the rational creatures insofar as it is their good as common good” (emphasis added). Thus, the good of each individual, the perfection of his rational nature, is not an isolated, disconnected end but an intermediate end incorporated within the ultimate end of all creation, the manifestation of God’s goodness. The Personalist error is not in the recognition of the dignity and value of each individual person as part of that common end; it is the failure to orient that dignity and value to the proper end common to each person. John Paul II in continuity with the letter and spirit of Vatican II was constantly waxing lyrical on the dignity of the human person. Pope Francis from initial accounts seems to be cut from the same cloth. Yet, Charles De Koninck’s reply to the Personalists of his day is equally applicable to both of them. “To this we reply that the rational creature draws its dignity from the fact that, by its proper operation, by its intelligence and against its love it can attain to the ultimate end of the universe.” Each individual attains his particular end by perfecting his knowledge of, love for, and service of God, but it is not this particular perfection of this Man which is the primary source of the goodness of such perfection. It is the role that individual’s perfection plays in the ultimate common end of all Men—to manifest God’s goodness by knowingly and willingly attaining their personal perfection for His greater glory. De Koninck explains: “Thus it is an entirely different thing to say that rational creatures are governed and ordered for themselves, and to say that they are such by themselves and for their singular good; they are ordered for themselves to the common good [the manifestation of that aspect of God’s goodness which is a rational choice of goodness]. The common good is for them, but it is for them as common good. The rational creatures can themselves attain in an explicit manner to that good to which all creatures are ordered; thus they differ from irrational creatures, which are pure instruments, merely useful, and which do not by themselves attain in an explicit manner to the universal good to which they are ordered. And therein consists the dignity of rational nature.” Traditional Catholic philosophy and theology affirm the dignity of human nature but deny it is a self-contained dignity. It is not a dignity which is an end in itself. The proper dignity of Man consists in his common end. Gaudium et Spes No. 24 and its repetition by subsequent popes is erroneous in exalting the dignity of Man, not in the sense that Man lacks dignity, but rather in misunderstanding the true nature and source of that dignity as residing in Man himself. Again De Koninck explains: “Hence the rational creature, insofar as it can itself attain to the end of God’s manifestation outside Himself, exists for itself. The irrational creatures exist only for the sake of this being which can by itself attain to an end which will belong to irrational creatures only implicitly. Man is the dignity which is their end. But that does not mean that rational creatures exist for the dignity of their own being and that they are themselves the dignity for which they exist.” Irrational creatures remain in the order created by God by being impelled to do so. The dignity of Man consists in the fact that he causes himself to remain within the order and thereby cooperates with God to create. He is not free for disorder but is free to remain in order so thereby to show the perfection of God to will the good. De Koninck observes that unlike the angels, who could only fail in their supernatural end and not in the natural end of their substance, Man can fail to attain both his supernatural and his natural end (the proper ordination of his sensitive appetites to his intellectual appetites). Man can lose both his supernatural and even his natural dignity. Human dignity 81 Theological Studies is therefore not infallible or incorruptible. To celebrate such dignity universally and univocally is to mislead about its fragile nature. If dignity existed within the person simply as a being who exists, that dignity would be inviolate as long as the person remained in existence. Yet, dignity is not in the person as a person, as De Koninck explains: “Dignity cannot be a proper attribute of the person considered as such, but belongs rather to persons according to their nature. For the person is not an absolute as such... [only God is an absolute necessity]. Likewise in man, dignity is not an attribute of the person considered as such, but rather of the rational nature....” Man can lose his dignity since his dignity consists in his end; to the extent that he fails in his end, he loses this dignity. “God’s dignity is the only dignity which is identical to his Being, and hence infallible.” According to St. Thomas: “By sinning, man sets himself outside the order of reason, and consequently, he loses human dignity, as namely man is naturally free and existing for himself, and he places himself in some way in the servitude of animals....For the bad man is worse than an animal.”4 This conclusion follows from the recognition that Man is not simply a being for self, but Man is a being-for-self-forGod. It is the omission of the phrase “for-God” that makes Gaudium et Spes 24 erroneous by material omission. This omission leaves the focus entirely on the particular individual and his particular end or purpose not harmonized to the common good of the universe of which Man is meant to be an integral part. De Koninck explains the resultant radical individualism: “Through disordered love of singularity, one practically rejects the common good as a foreign good and one judges it to be incompatible with the excellence of our singular condition. One withdraws thus from order and takes refuge in oneself as though one were a universe for oneself, a universe rooted in a free and very personal act.” This consideration of the human person as an end in itself is in reality the destruction of human dignity rather than its purported exaltation. “One freely abdicates dignity as a rational creature in order to establish oneself as a radically independent whole.”5 Unlike secular individualists, Christian Personalists still speak about God and treat Him as relevant, but He has been dethroned from the common end of all to be put solely at the service 82 The Angelus November - December 2013 of each person-for-self-alone. God only becomes relevant because He is necessary to the perfection of the personal human being. The Christian Personalist sees God as a means, albeit a necessary means, of perfecting and celebrating human dignity rather than human dignity at the service of God. Notwithstanding pious affirmations such a Christian “has no need of God except for that same purpose....The act of submission itself would be an act which emanates as surplus from a pure ‘for self’ and from the recognition of one’s proper generosity as being so great that it does it no harm to spread itself forth; on the contrary, the personality thus would fulfill itself and pour forth the good which it already possesses in itself.”6 This attitude distorts our understanding of the supernatural virtue of Faith. A Personalist submits to God through faith, but for the end of completing or perfecting his personal dignity by attaining his personal end and not for the end of glorifying God. “One will even let oneself be directed by someone else [the effect of an Act of Faith]; one will recognize a superior, provided that the latter be the ‘fruit’ of one’s own choice and the vicar, not of the community, but first and foremost of oneself. Any good other than that which is due to us on account of our singular nature, any good anterior to this one and to which we must freely submit ourselves under pain of doing evil, is abhorred as an insult to our personality.”7 Again, if the perfection of an individual Man (even seen in terms of the attainment of heaven) is the ultimate end, submission in faith is oriented to the particular end of the person, not to God.8 In light of this distinction between two radically different understandings of the individual person, we can finally consider two of the most troubling sentences from the recent interview of the Holy Father. “Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good.” “Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place.” To the extent that the Holy Father is affirming that each person is a rational creature, each person can know what is good and evil and must choose to do what he knows to be good, the statements are correct. Yet, they are erroneous and, particularly when uttered to an atheist, extremely dangerous. They omit to connect this particular good of the individual—to know the good and to choose to do it and thereby perfect his nature—to the purpose or end of these dignified powers. We should only encourage people to move toward what they think is good when what they think is good is in fact really good. Otherwise, in using their power to move toward what they perceive, erroneously, as good, they are thwarting their ultimate end and destroying their dignity. They are not manifesting God’s goodness by moving toward evil notwithstanding their thinking it to be good. As even Aristotle understood, we always think that what we desire is good even when it is not. Even though moving toward a perceived good is consistent with a rational nature, it is not consistent with the end of that rational nature unless the good perceived is in fact good. Essentially, the second statement urges people to follow their conscience, to be persistent in fighting for what their conscience identifies as good. Yet, it is contrary to the ultimate end of Man to follow an erroneous conscience. Following an erroneous conscience might be living according to our personal end which requires we act according to our conscience, but in fulfilling a personal end by following an erroneous conscience we are working against our common and ultimate end. We should not follow our perception of good if our perception is in error; rather we should correct our conscience. To utter such unqualified statements to an avowed atheist essentially gives the atheist leave to continue working against the common good of Mankind, to use his rational nature to obscure rather than manifest the aspect of God’s goodness entrusted to Mankind to manifest. Such advice presumes the good of consistency of action of the individual as individual (following his perception of the good) as more important than playing one’s part in manifesting God’s goodness. One can only consistently utter such erroneous statements if one sees the goodness of individuals as an end in themselves and not as necessarily subordinate to the ultimate end of all human persons. In other words, Pope Francis reveals an underlying commitment to the Personalist error proclaimed in Gaudium et Spes No. 24 which has been distorting properly oriented theology and philosophy in the Church for decades. The answer to such a crisis is not the denial of true human dignity (as happens when the world resorts to totalitarian regimes which treat persons like irrational creatures and pure means) but rather its real exaltation by properly understanding that dignity in the context of the ultimate and common end of the universe. Only by such proper ordering can we truly and fully know, love, and serve God in this life and be happy with Him in the next for the purpose of manifesting His goodness. 1 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, III.64. 2 Ibid., III.112 3 Charles De Koninck, On the Primacy of the Common Good Against the Personalists, available at http://ldataworks.com/aqr/V4_BC_ text.html. 4 Summa Theologica, I-II, q. 64, a. 2, reply to obj. 3. 5 Charles De Koninck. 6 Charles De Koninck. 7 Ibid. 8 Notwithstanding many good aspects, many aspects of Pope Francis’s encyclical on Faith, Lumen Fidei, exhibit this distortion of the virtue of Faith. Space in a single article does not suffice to develop this observation fully. Yet, in many passages the encyclical views faith as good because of what it does for individuals and their end. Here is only one example: “We come to see the difference, then, which faith makes for us. Those who believe are transformed by the love to which they have opened their hearts in faith. By their openness to this offer of primordial love, their lives are enlarged and expanded.” 83 Letters to the Editor Dear Angelus Press, I am frankly surprised at Fr. Dominique Bourmaud’s review in The Angelus (Sept.-Oct., 2013, 62-65) of the new book debate on Vatican II’s Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (DH) by Arnold T. Guminski and myself. In the book, Religious Freedom (RF), my opponent affirms, and I deny, that there is such a contradiction. The debate consists of four essays, two by each of us, beginning with a critique by Guminski of my previous writings on this topic. However, it seems that Fr. Bourmaud has misunderstood my position. Space limitations allow me to point out only a few of said misrepresentations. According to Fr. Bourmaud (p. 62), I claim that Blessed Pius IX’s Quanta Cura “gives non-Catholic sects some religious freedom”. More accurately, I merely point out that in QC Pius limits himself to condemning infallibly the opinion that anti-Catholic propaganda may not be restrained by civil authority unless it endangers “public peace”. I then argue that DH, in articles 4 and 7, also allows other restraints on such propaganda, and so is not condemned by QC. (See RF, 174-175 and 217-218.) Father then accuses me (cf. 64, G) of claiming that the right to religious freedom recognized by DH for non-Catholics in predominantly Catholic countries is only an acquired right. I, however, no longer make that claim (cf. RF, 86, paragraph #70). Fr. Bourmaud also says I have “misconstrued pre-conciliar papal doctrine as giving in principle some religious freedom when in fact it denied to any non-Catholic religion any natural right whatsoever to religious freedom” (emphasis added). But I have never read any such “principle” into preconciliar papal teaching. Rather, I claim that such teaching neither affirmed nor denied that there could be circumstances in which non-Catholics might have a natural right to religious freedom (cf. RF, 46 and 180-181). I invite Fr. Bourmaud to show us where any pre-conciliar pope taught that it would not have been unjust (as distinct from imprudent or uncharitable) for a Catholic ruler like Franco to forcibly close down all the mosques in Western Sahara, a then-Spanish colony with a 99% Muslim population? If he can’t, must Father logically concede that pre-conciliar popes left it undecided as to whether those Muslims had a natural right to immunity from that sort of hypothetical government coercion, i.e., the right affirmed by DH? Fr. Bourmaud also accuses me of claiming that DH #7 allows (modern) Catholic states to repress public heresy in view of a “right” of Catholic citizens to be protected from exposure to temptations against their faith. In my first essay (cf. RF, 52-57) I have explicitly denied making that implausible claim. I encourage interested readers to read the 288-page book for themselves. It’s available online for $35 at http://www.staugustine.net/our-books/books/ religious-freedom/ Yours sincerely in Christ the King, Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S. Saint Louis, Missouri Angelus Press would like to invite our readers to follow an upcoming debate between Fr. Harrison and Fr. Laisney, SSPX, on our blog at: http://angeluspress.org/blog/ 80 pp. – Softcover – STK# 8600 – $7.95 Let Yourself Be Led by the Immaculate This short book is nothing else but the very words of St. Maximilian Kolbe about devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. You will return to this book over and over to bring a Marian focus to your daily life, and to help you truly love the Immaculate. There is nothing else like this available. “We believe that the Immaculate exists and that she leads us to our Lord Jesus Christ, and if someone teaches otherwise, let him be anathema!” www.angeluspress.org — 1-800-966-7337 85 Simply the Best Journal of Catholic Tradition Available! “A splendidly serious and deeply Catholic journal.” For over three decades, The Angelus has stood for Catholic truth, goodness, and beauty against a world gone mad. Our goal has always been the same: to show the glories of the Catholic Faith and to bear witness to the constant teaching of the Church in the midst of the modern crisis in which we find ourselves. With a renewed focus and a redesigned layout, our magazine is now better than ever. Each issue contains: -- A unique theme focusing on doctrinal and practical issues that matter to you, the reader -- Regular columns, from History to Family Life, Spirituality and more -- Almost all original content -- Some of the best and brightest Catholic thinkers and writers in the English-speaking world -- An intellectual formation to strengthen your Faith in an increasingly hostile world If you’re tired of wishy-washy Catholicism, confusing presentations of the Faith, or a lack of Catholic fighting spirit in the face of the modern world, then The Angelus is right for you. And the best part is that it only costs $35 to subscribe for a full year! Visit www.angleuspress.org today and help strengthen your Catholic Faith. Subscribe Today Don’t let another year go by without reading the foremost journal of Catholic Tradition, especially when the cost is only $35! PRINT SUBSCRIPTIONS Name______________________________________________________________________________________________ PLEASE CHECK ONE Address____________________________________________________________________________________________ United States $35.00 City______________________________ State______________ ZIP______________ Country______________________  1 year  CHECK  VISA  MASTERCARD  AMEX  DISCOVER  MONEY ORDER Card #_______________________________________________________ Exp. Date_____________________________ Phone # _____________________________________E-mail_________________________________________________ Mail to: Angelus Press, PO Box 217, St. Marys, KS 66536, USA  2 years  3 years $65.00 $100.00 Foreign Countries (inc. Canada & Mexico)  1 year  2 years  3 years $55.00 $105.00 $160.00 All payments must be in US funds only. ONLINE ONLY SUBSCRIPTIONS To subscribe visit: www.angelusonline.org. Register for free to access back issues 14 months and older plus many other site features. Plus, all Magazine Subscribers Now Have Full Access to the Online Version of the Magazine (a $20 Value)! The Last Word Dear Readers, There are few things more vital to a civil or ecclesiastical institution than to present the proper men as heroes for their subjects. In many cities or countries, for instance, when a new party is elected, the new government starts to change numerous street names, or remove statues of previous leaders: they become out of date and need to be replaced with new ones in line with modernity. We have seen that happening, for example, in Russia in recent decades. Hero worship, the canonization of the holy men, is a universal practice. We need an ideal to pursue, spiritual leaders who have been consistent with their principles and who lived their lives in accordance. Our liturgical calendar is replete with such Catholic heroes. Our Martyrologium, which includes the most gruesome details of their death, makes us exclaim “Deo Gratias.” We need to have them present before our eyes as objects of admiration if not of servile imitation. Any candidate who is declared blessed is the object of veneration limited to a particular diocese or Order. See, for example, the Franciscan Ordo, which is replete with blessed as well as saints. If the blessed becomes canonized, he is included formally in the roll of the saints and becomes the mandatory object of veneration on the part of all Catholics. He is publicly on the altars as a model for veneration because of his heroic practice of the virtues. As such, one cannot dissociate the canonizations from the integration of such saints into the liturgical calendar. And yet, because of the reigning spirit of aggiornamento, because of the radical changes made in the process of canonizations, qualitative as well as quantitative, Archbishop Lefebvre gave as a rule to rely on the Liturgical Ordo of 1962 and not to integrate any novel elements, however innocuous these would seem. His was a prudent decision, which gave a steady compass (the last pre-conciliar year), and a dike against improper encroachments. This is why, in our churches, schools and priories, you will not see your priests celebrate the Mass of St. Padre Pio. The problem with accepting the public veneration of a genuine saint like Padre Pio is that it would give the blanket placet to a highly suspicious process of canonization; it would also make it awkward the rejection of another newly “saint” whose résumé is doubtful. “Nihil innovetur”—do not innovate— is the motto of every captain in foggy weather! Sincerely yours in Christ, Father Jürgen Wegner The Society of St. Pius X is an international priestly society of common life without vows, whose purpose is the priesthood and that which pertains to it. The main goal of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X is to preserve the Catholic faith in its fullness and purity, to teach its truths, and to diffuse its virtues. Authentic spiritual life, the sacraments, and the traditional liturgy are its primary means of bringing this life of grace to souls. The Angelus aims at forming the whole man: we aspire to help deepen your spiritual life, nourish your studies, understand the history of Christendom, and restore Christian culture in every aspect. $ 7.00 RETURN UNDELIVERABLE CANADIAN ADDRESSES TO: THE ANGELUS, 480 MCKENZIE STREET, WINNIPEG, MB, R2W 5B9