November 2008 $4.45 “Instaurare omnia in Christo” A Journal of Roman Catholic Tradition Inside Bishop Fellay: What Do We Ask of the Church? The Faith Enduring Trials in a Spirit of Generosity The Music List Little Sisters of St. Francis of Strict Observance Recreation and Children chapters om r f w ne elus ang ss pr e ages 8-12 171pp. Softcover. Illustrated. STK# 8300 $10.95 The famous author, Fr. Joseph Dunney, dedicated this beautiful book to boys and girls, thus filling the important need of explaining in simple fashion the meaning of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Starting with a description of the Church, the windows, the Stations of the Cross, the altar, the book continues with an explanation of the vestments of the priest and the meaning of the various colors used on the altar. The Mass itself is then described step by step–what the priest says, what he does–from the prayers at the foot of the altar to the final blessing, with a clear and interesting explanation of each act and word. This book will help young readers to observe the beautiful ceremonies closely and wisely understand them. Great for 5th & 6th graders! “Instaurare omnia in Christo—To restore all things in Christ.” Motto of Pope St. Pius X The ngelus A Journal of Roman Catholic Tradition 2915 Forest Avenue “To publish Catholic journals and place them in the hands of honest men is not enough. It is necessary to spread them as far as possible that they may be read by all, and especially by those whom Christian charity demands we should tear away from the poisonous sources of evil literature.” —Pope St. Pius X November 2008 Volume XXXI, Number 11 • Kansas City, Missouri 64109 English-language Editor and Publisher for the International Society of Saint Pius X Letter from the editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Fr. Markus Heggenberger PublisheR Fr. Arnaud Rostand Editor Fr. Markus Heggenberger Assistant Editor Mr. James Vogel operations manager Mr. Michael Sestak Editorial assistant Miss Anne Stinnett Design and Layout growing up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Fr. Paul Robinson, SSPX where do we go? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 James Kalb, Esq. What do we ask of the church? the faith . . . . . 12 Bishop Bernard Fellay little sisters of st. francis of strict observance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Trevoux, France Mr. Simon Townshend comptroller Mr. Robert Wiemann, CPA customer service Mrs. MaryAnne Hall Mr. John Rydholm Miss Rebecca Heatwole Shipping and Handling Mr. Jon Rydholm enduring trials in a spirit of generosity . . . . . 27 Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre the list . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Dr. Andrew Childs recreation and children. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Mrs. Mary Reed Newland Part 18 37 catechism of the crisis in the church . . . . . . . . . . . . Fr. Matthias Gaudron Questions and answers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Fr. Peter Scott September 2008 writing contest winning entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 The Angelus (ISSN 10735003) is published monthly under the patronage of St. Pius X and Mary, Queen of Angels. Publication office is located at 2915 Forest Ave., Kansas City, MO 64109. PH (816) 753-3150; FAX (816) 753-3557. Periodicals Postage Rates paid at Kansas City, MO. ©2008 by Angelus Press. Manuscripts are welcome and will be used at the discretion of the editors. Postmaster sends address changes to the address above. ON OUR COVER: Solemn High Mass during the Society of St. Pius X’s International Pilgrimage to Lourdes to honor the 150th Anniversary of the apparitions, October 24, 2008. The Angelus Subscription Rates 1 year 2 years 3 years US $35.00 Foreign Countries (inc. Canada & Mexico) $55.00 $65.00 $105.00 $100.00 $160.00 All payments must be in US funds only. Online subscriptions: $15.00/year (the online edition is available around the 10th of the preceding month). To subscribe visit: www.angelusonline.org. Register for free to access back issues 14 months and older plus many other site features. 2 Letter from the Editor There is no reason to be overly optimistic about the situation in the Catholic Church. The attitudes of the bishops are too negative towards a true reform of the Faith that would include not only dogma, but morals–i.e., the lifestyle of Catholics–as well. Certain arguments against the Tridentine Latin Mass (TLM) that are commonly repeated are simply wrong: “You can produce a Tridentine Mass, but can’t reproduce the world it came from” (The New York Times, Sept. 11, 2007). That might be true in a certain sense, but we would answer: You can, however, reproduce the Catholic Faith this Mass rests upon. And here lies the crux of the question. Certain people–let us call them liberals–simply do not want this traditional faith. Thus, behind the skirmish of the TLM there is the war of the Catholic Faith with all of its well-known battles: abortion, wishy-washy Masses, publicly known anti-Catholics representing the Church, cowardice and disorientation of Church officials, acceptance of public scandals, breakdown of religious life inside and outside the monasteries, etc. The real front of the war inside the Catholic Church is the front between Catholics and liberal Catholics. Many do not understand this and therefore they do not understand why: “To the surprise of many, the [traditional] rite has attracted priests and parishioners too young to have experienced the Latin Mass when it was the norm” (ibid.). A simple explanation: Those people want to have the Faith of Christ, not fabrications by some epigones of the 20th century. “A tiny but vocal minority was outraged by what they considered abrupt and misguided changes of the council, and Pope Benedict’s letter was meant to heal that rift” (ibid.). Again: The aspiration of what is here called a “minority” is the authenticity of the Catholic Faith. Too many who have responsibility in the Church think and argue like psychologists, as if the Catholic Faith were a feeling. “Assist at this Mass if this is your sensibility.” With this type of argument the questions of truth and dogma are reduced to a question of subjective acceptance, which is not convenient. The second point that is incorrect in the above statement is the expression “tiny minority.” This gives the impression that the majority supported the reforms of Vatican II. But this was and is not so. The majority chose passive resistance by losing confidence and by leaving the Church silently. When today there are no more vocations, when monasteries are sold and churches are empty, this is due to the attitude of the “vast majority” who expressed clearly in their own way that Vatican II was a failure even according to its own standards. “The traditional Latin, or Tridentine, Mass has emerged in just one or two parishes in most of the 25 largest dioceses in the country, according to a phone survey of the dioceses. In some dioceses, there is so far almost no interest, diocesan officials said” (ibid.). How very astonishing, if we consider that not only most of the bishops, but Church officials in general do not want this Mass and all that it entails! Many see the fight against the TLM as a continuation of the “aggiornamento” of the Catholic Church during Vatican II (“aggiornamento” is Italian and could be translated by “updating”), and it is sad to say that “updating” was very often taken in the sense of “throwing Catholic Tradition overboard.” There is right now–it is true–a tiny breeze that is blowing favorably for the TLM. Some want to see in it a wind or even a storm, which it certainly is not. If we take for example the bishop of Madison, Bishop Morlino, he is right now being attacked in his diocese by radicals who feel that their bishop is too conservative. They wrote an open letter to Bishop Morlino, saying that “he is ignoring the input of clergy and lay people, causing some parishioners to stop attending Mass and hurting the morale of priests....” “Many of the contributors are members of the Madison branch of Call to Action (CTA), a national organization of Catholics whose positions on issues such as women’s ordination and priest celibacy are at odds with church hierarchy. The Catholic Media Coalition, a group loyal to church teachings, describes CTA as the leading organization of liberal, dissenting Catholics.” There we are. The historical pattern comes from the French Revolution. First you have moderate reformers and revolutionaries, but they will, in the course of the process, be replaced by more radical ones. And, in turn, the radical revolutionaries finally try to “eliminate” the moderate ones: The Jacobins killed the Girondists in the French Revolution; Stalin killed Trotsky in the aftermath of the Communist Revolution, etc. The conclusion for us is simple: Do not expect that the problems in the Church will find their solution by accident, that they will solve themselves or simply be solved by time. It is not a question of time, it is a question of principles. In the Catholic Church there is the knowledge of the eternal fight between the “City of God” and the “City of man,” and we have been taught by the cross of Christ how this war will be decided. The weapons for this battle are not the weapons of this world, as our fight is not against the rulers of this world. They are those that have been used by Christ Himself and given to us by Him: The Cross and the sacraments. First among these is the Traditional Latin Mass! Instaurare Omnia in Christo, Fr. Markus Heggenberger e g n i w o r G 3 p u F r . p a u l R o b i n s o n , “Whoever tries to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses it will preserve it.” (Lk. 17:33) In these few short words, Our Lord Jesus Christ gave men the key of fulfilling the life of which He is the source and final end. If he wants to grow up, a man must give up: denial of self is the only way to escape from self in order to find self, in this life and hereafter. This final article on adolescence will explore the ways in which parents can give children the strength they need to face the tough realities of adult life. The most important of these is a spirit of self-denial, which in turn must be supported by affection and good rapport. Receiving vs. Giving Emerging from his mother’s womb into the outside world, a man is completely helpless and needy. For at least a decade, he is unable to provide the sine qua non’s of minimal subsistence: food, s s p x clothing, and shelter. In growing older, and especially in the teenage years, he becomes more independent and takes on responsibility, getting ready for the day when he will be on his own. As a child, a man receives everything and gives nothing. To become an adult, he must look to receiving nothing and giving all. But from the very beginning, he is deeply wounded with selfishness; his first impulse is self-gratification. Overcoming this instinctive egotism requires long practice and the guidance of good parents. There are two possible extremes in a man: one seeking to maximize his fun and minimize self-sacrifice, the other seeking to minimize self-gratification and maximize self-sacrifice. The latter has its personification in Our Lord Jesus Christ and the former in the Greek philosopher Epicurus, father of hedonism. We see so clearly today what results when boys are raised on the epicurean model, so deeply ingrained in modern society and pop culture: you get children in adult bodies, “men” who are only looking for enjoyment in all with which they come into contact. Even their wives and children only have value for them insofar as they give them pleasure. Everything is for them. They only give so as to receive, www.angeluspress.org The ANgelus • November 2008 4 and if they cannot receive, they do not give or bother themselves. So many today cannot even get their lives off the ground. They emerge from high school looking for a good time. They cannot persevere in education; they cannot persevere in their job; they cannot persevere in love. Their lives are a roller coaster ride, punctuated with one or more moral disasters: drunkenness, substance abuse, illegitimate children and abortions, sporadic employment. Why could these sad lives never get on track? Because they were not able to give of themselves. The life was never lost and so never gained. For the best of adults, the best of fathers, the best of priests, the reverse is true. He sees himself as one who is to sacrifice all for his loved ones. He gives all that he can for them and for God. No sacrifice is too demanding, no responsibility too big, because his life/ personal interest is lost already…in his life as defined ALL difficult test to adolescence which parents must use to help in this training. Maturation One of the mysteries of nature is the development of the body in advance of the soul. Children reach puberty and become physically capable of bringing forth a family well before they are spiritually and psychologically able to raise that family. Although one can bear children at the age of 13, it would be a disaster to get married at that age. Why did God in His Wisdom choose to ordain nature this way? It is to provide a training ground to children for adulthood by way of a difficult test of restraint and self-denial. The attraction between the sexes awakens and the passions begin raging. In keeping these forces under control during the teenage years, a child attains the spiritual maturity needed to ALL GIVING RECEIVING GROWING UP, THE DISASTER GROWING UP, THE IDEAL RECEIVING NOTHING CHILDHOOD GIVING NOTHING ADOLESCENCE ADULTHOOD by his vocation. He has no overweening sense of entitlement nor is he a slave to empty pleasures. The more a teen learns to sacrifice himself for others, the better position he is in to give himself completely to the plan God has laid out for him when he comes of age. The less he is able to do this, the less he is able to pursue any sort of vocation. Fr. Henry Sattler remarks: Physical maturity is naturally expected in those who marry, but mental and emotional maturity is equally needed and less often possessed. Many modern works [in the 1940s!] have pointed out that emotional immaturity is almost a characteristic of the American nation. Now, unless two people are adult in their approach to reality, they will find it difficult, if not impossible, to make a success of marriage. Sulking, childish traits, lack of decisiveness, inability to give and take, wreck many marriages.1 It should be clear, then, for parents, how important it is to give their children a spirit of sacrifice, both by word and example. God provides a The ANgelus • November 2008 www.angeluspress.org CHILDHOOD ADOLESCENCE ADULTHOOD take on adult responsibility. Indulging and abusing these forces, as teenagers are encouraged to do today, only spoils these powers, rendering them sour, and atrophies the personal growth of the adolescent. This most important test is a huge determinant in shaping the adult life that is coming. What great things are those capable of who have fought this fight and come out victorious! And on the other hand, what pleasure addiction and spiritual anemia besets those who fail to protect their purity. One modern author goes so far as to call depression a sexually transmitted disease because of her experience as a doctor with teenagers. As a first step in her treatment of depression, she has them give up fornication.2 A bishop from the 1930s says, “The soul of one who practices it [impurity] for a long time becomes so dull and unresponsive to all moral influence, that the pleadings of a loving father or the authoritative command of his teachers have no effect. The will power of such a youth decays completely.”3 5 As with every great test given to us by God, both the rewards for passing the test and penalties for failing it are life-defining. For teens to preserve themselves unsullied in a sexually obsessive and oppressive culture, they must be well instructed by their parents and well practiced in self-sacrifice when the onslaught of temptations comes. Teaching Unselfishness It is amazing how willing young children can be to offer sacrifices for a reward that is spiritual and not to be given until this life is finished. This willingness comes from the fact that they believe what they are told–children are not cynical. A parent with a spirit of faith and a certain creativity can easily motivate his children to give things up for God. Why should Johnny share with his sister? “Well, Johnny, you see, there is a treasure box with your name on it in Heaven. Whenever you give up your toys to make your sister happy, your guardian angel takes your action up to Heaven and puts it in the treasure box, and he is very glad to be able to do so. One day you will get to see that treasure box. Don’t you want to make it as full as you possibly can?” We see how early the saints started in practicing mortification. At the age of five, the Little Flower carried a “counting rosary” to add up her daily sacrifices. As a child, St. Teresa of Avila tried to run away with her little brother to become a martyr. Some saints, as St. Philip Benizi, are even reported as abstaining from breast-feeding on certain penitential days! Linking the sacrifice with something tangible (while at the same time emphasizing the need to hide one’s sacrifices) can be helpful. Some families make little slips of paper to represent a Mass, Communion, sacrifice, etc. The child, on performing a good work, puts the appropriate paper in a basket, to be added up after a certain time for a spiritual bouquet for another or some intention. The Eucharistic Crusade, which the SSPX continues, does something similar with its treasure sheets. “Mortification,” says Fr. Sattler, “should be a commonplace in the Catholic home. Friday abstinence, little Lenten mortifications, and tiny voluntary sacrifices offered to God, develop a selfcontrol in the child which will carry over for life.”4 A few examples of little sacrifices are the following:5 • • • Speech: Keep silence a) at meals unless spoken to; b) when told to do something; c) when brother or sister upsets you. Food: Don’t eat between certain meals, eat everything on one’s plate without complaint, wait to be passed food before grabbing it, don’t start eating until everyone else is served. Drink: Don’t drink water between meals, or wait for certain hours before taking a drink. • • • Sleep: Get up immediately when it is time, go to bed without complaint. Generosity: Set aside an “unselfish” time of the day, when for a half-hour or hour you will seek to spend that time only for someone else. It could be spent for God in prayer or for parents in helping out or for siblings in playing with them and taking care of them. Comfort: Don’t brush off the fly, or scratch the itch, or cross your legs when sitting. Beyond exercising oneself in unselfishness through acts of self-denial, the general ambiance of the home is an enormous factor in teaching children to give of themselves. Chaos in the home begets selfishness, while order repels it. Fr. Sattler remarks: Well-ordered home life demands discipline in many matters. Such home discipline should prepare the way for the practice of chastity, which also demands discipline particularly in the realm of thought and imagination. This mental discipline is taught better by direction than by repression. If a child is expected to apply himself diligently to his studies without daydreaming; to perform duties suitable to his age; to stick to a job until it is finished–he will learn this necessary discipline of thought and imagination.6 These last comments bring up a final factor in teaching unselfishness: perseverance to obtain the arduous good. Everything of value in this life requires effort, does not give immediate gratification, and is not glamorous or exciting in the worldly sense; superficial things, on the other hand, ask no effort, give immediate pleasure, but fade without enriching. Heaven itself, the ultimate “valuable,” is only attained by being faithful to God to the end of one’s life. Children who have a habit of self-denial will much more easily develop a good work ethic, strive for the best in all they do, and take interest in what perdures rather than what passes. Rudolf Allers gives this advice to parents along these lines: “Instead of encouraging the tendency toward the superficial and shallow, we ought to try to arouse the slumbering interest of the adolescent in things intellectual.”7 An adolescent who has a yearning for increasing his knowledge, culture, and union with God–and all of these are tough work–is set for great things as an adult. But such a teenager is rarely found these days. Affection and Parent-Teenager Rapport Dysfunctional families produce dysfunctional children, and all of parents’ efforts to teach their children to be unselfish will be in vain if their children are not loved. Being unselfish is to give up oneself for something greater. If the sunshine of confidence and security smiles down on a child’s world, the child will relinquish self with fearless aplomb. Otherwise, the psychological courage required for such an idealistic leap is well-nigh impossible. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • November 2008 6 Rev. Fr. Yves le Roux emphasizes this need for parental affection: The family is a microcosm in which man learns how to live. Later he will reproduce what he has received, and what he did not receive will be almost impossible for him to receive later unless he comes to belong to a family again, such as a monastery, seminary, or school (although these are less of a family). He could also receive it by undergoing some trial, but even this trial must be something truly hard, which will oblige him to face reality. But if it happens, there is a great danger that he will break down. In fact, to be effective, that trial must bring him back into a relationship with some kind of paternity. Nothing, indeed, can replace the family. In a normal family, the children receive affection, and through it their souls receive a deep imprint that gives them balance for their whole life, giving them the ability to judge reality later. On the contrary, it is medically proven that a lack of affection creates some grave psychological problems.8 He also makes clear the distinction between affection and consolation. Affection leads to the sacrifice of oneself for the good of the other; consolation gives candy instead of self. Consoling parents dote on their offspring with toys, soccer meets, lush living, and fuzzy feelings; affectionate parents give them their own lives, sharing with their children work, play, prayer, and meals. Consolation disenchants youth and makes them starved for love; affection makes them strong and able to love. Affection is true love based on self-sacrifice; consolation is saccharin sentimentality. Many parents experience, however, that the changes of the teenage years make it extremely difficult for them to connect with their once innocent and happy-go-lucky child. Keeping teens from quarantining themselves from the family that surrounds them is indispensable for their development. They must remain connected with the family to continue to partake of its benefits, affection being primary. Following are a few strategies directed to maintaining the rapport that was once so simple and straightforward, but now takes much more effort: Gain confidence • Take his ideas and problems seriously. Brushing off or belittling a teen’s concerns or dreams leads to the teen shutting himself up and being incommunicative. He must feel that his parents understand, that they are on his side. • Adaptation. Parents must adapt to the change in the child. The teen is no longer child but not yet adult. Parents cannot expect to deal with him as a child any longer, yet cannot give him the liberty of an adult. • Communication. Parents must take advantage of the willingness of adolescents to speak about things. The more the adolescent is willing to speak on the level of higher values, the better; if the teen does not communicate at all, something THE ANGELUS • November 2008 www.angeluspress.org • is really wrong. Teens desperately need adults in their lives with whom they can confide their problems and fears. If a teen no longer communicates with his parents, he should be directed towards an adult outside the family with whom he will be comfortable baring his soul. Trust. Give a teenager responsibility; it makes them feel valued and trusted. Delegate by a) instructing what to do; b) leaving him alone to do it; c) checking back to see if the job was done. Show your confidence in his powers. Give stability • Show stability yourself and make the life of the teen stable. • Home life must be happy. Teens who hate life at home are destined for trouble when they leave it, which will be at the earliest possibility. This happiness is not to be based on sentimentality and empty smiles, but on true mutual love and peace in the home. Courage! The success of an adult is directly proportional to the spiritual and psychological maturity he achieved in the years leading up to adulthood. This personal development is ultimately accomplished by practiced self-denial, no doubt a tall order for our wounded, egotistical nature. Brave parents will do well to provide the psychological and emotional foundation for acts of self-denial by giving their children true affection and maintaining with them the solid relationship that such affection implies. Having done this, they will find their children generous and even willing to outstrip them in dying to self and living up to God’s plans. Fr. Paul Robinson was ordained in 2006 and is stationed at St. Mary’s Academy and College in St. Marys, Kansas. There he is a professor and chaplain to the St. Joseph Businessmen’s Association, among other responsibilities in the parish. 1 Henry V. Sattler, Parents, Children, and the Facts of Life (New York: Image Books, 1956), p.206. This book has recently been republished by Catholic Treasures. 2 See Meg Meeker, Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters (New York: Ballantine Books, 2006), p.110ff. 3 Tihamer Toth, Youth and Chastity (Toronto: Garden City Press, 1934), p.63. 4 Ibid., p.8. 5 Cardinal Mercier’s little work “The Practice of Christian Mortification” is highly recommended. 6 Ibid., p.78. 7 Rudolf Allers, Forming Character in Adolescents (Fort Collins, Colorado: Roman Catholic Books, 1940), pp.84-85. 8 Taken from a transcript of a conference given at the 2006 Priests’ Meeting in Winona, Minnesota. The transcript appeared in the July, 2006 Angelus. Fr. le Roux’s Rector’s letter of January, 2004, (http://stas.org/publications/ letter/2004/January) on “Problems of Disaffection” is also germane to this subject. 7 Where Do We Go? PART 2 J a m e s K a l b, e s q. In the first article in this series I discussed the view that modern natural science is our only source of reliable knowledge, and how that view leads to a tyranny of liberalism1 that operates by declaring non-liberal views irrational and excluding them from public discourse. We Catholics will never get anywhere with the social dimension of our faith if people believe that faith makes no sense. In the long run, if we are unable to discuss our ideas with others we will be unable to articulate them even to ourselves. So what do we do? Problems with Scientism If the accepted understanding of reason is taken for granted, we lose. It follows that we have to put that understanding in question. That is a big job, because the public understanding of reason is basic to public order. To try to change that understanding is truly a revolutionary act. Still, the present situation is the result of an intellectual revolution that has run into trouble, and a failed revolution is eventually itself overthrown. Our task as Catholics and as citizens is to further the revolution’s departure and ensure that what replaces it is something better rather than something even more inhuman. Dependence of Science on Other Knowledge First, we have to emphasize that modern natural science is incomplete as a system. To work at all it needs things that are not science. It follows that the use of Occam’s Razor to rule out principles that fall outside modern natural science is illegitimate. Science itself cannot do without such principles. For example, treating science as a source of knowledge about the world requires the assumption of a world in which science makes sense. How do we know that the past is the key to the future, or that the apparent success of science shows that what it tells us is true rather than merely useful in current circumstances? As Pope Benedict XVI pointed out at Regensburg: Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question. Further, science cannot be altogether formalized, so it always retains a certain element of personal knowledge and common sense. Scientists cannot do their laboratory work without the informal knowledge that enables them to recognize their apparatus, tells them how to set it up and recognize when it is www.angeluspress.org The ANgelus • November 2008 8 working correctly, and lets them read it and interpret the readings. Nor can they tell whether a scientific theory is true or even worth bothering with by running a chemical test on it. That determination requires judgment and insight, and those things are not science. Nor do scientists agree on what they tell us in particular instances. In any event, science is a system of mutual reliance that includes within itself the uncertainties of social life. Laymen depend on scientists, and scientists depend on each other. The system thus requires the assumption that laymen and scientists can distinguish science and scientists from their bogus versions, and that they can understand the point of what scientists are saying, how seriously it should be taken, and how scientific results should be interpreted and applied. Acceptance of science also requires faith in the scientific community: the assumption that the community is routinely able to sort through the possibilities and pick out the most likely ones—that is, the best supported theories—at least in general, in the long run, and to an extent that makes scientific consensus reliable on the whole. All these assumptions seem reasonable. The point though is not that they are false or unreasonable, but that they are necessary to science but not scientifically demonstrable. The claim that science is the whole of our knowledge must therefore be false. Our general understanding of the world, and our knowledge of other people and the faith we put in them—our common sense and acceptance of our social nature and of the social nature of knowledge—come first. Limited Scope of Modern Natural Science Modern natural science is limited in other ways as well. It cannot deal with all issues. Man cannot live by science alone—which is another reason Occam’s Razor cannot be used to exclude other sources of knowledge. In particular, modern natural science does not deal well with: l Things that cannot be measured, like the good and beautiful or indeed anything that is qualitative and not quantitative. l Things that are not observed by trained observers. Rogue waves, huge waves that suddenly appear at sea and often damage or sink ships, provide an example. For years, oceanographers denied their existence in spite of abundant clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. The reason is that the suddenness and unpredictability of the waves meant that the evidence was “anecdotal”—that is, it was not based on controlled and repeatable observations by trained observers. l Things that cannot be observed repeatedly, such as specific events in the past. Such events are not THE ANGELUS • November 2008 www.angeluspress.org repeatable, and they usually were not observed by anyone with scientific training, so the scientific outlook has trouble with them. Also, if something is really out of the ordinary, science tosses it aside as an anomalous data point. That is why history that claims to be scientific says miracles never happen. It is not that it proves they never happen, it is that if one happened scientific history could not know about it. That is also why the evidence for Darwinian theory must be rather indirect. That theory tells us that living species arise through random mutation and natural selection. That process is not observed as a whole, since present-day mutations and selection events are not observed to lead to speciation, while the events that may have led to existing species are long gone and no longer observable. Nor can the history of life on earth be rerun multiple times to see whether there is a link between the probability of a particular life form arising and the probability of particular mutations and selection events. So the evidence for the theory consists in noting that random mutation and natural selection do take place, and assuming that since no other conceivably adequate mechanism for speciation is known that process must account for the complexity and diversity of life forms. l Things, like my own subjective experience, that cannot be observed at all by randomly chosen observers. Modern natural science has a big problem with consciousness, so theoreticians of science often ignore it, deny its existence, or redefine it as something else. That takes denying the obvious to a whole new level. The movement that started with cogito ergo sum ends by denying consciousness.2 l Things no one knows what to do with, like the match between the coast of Africa and the coast of South America before the continental drift hypothesis was proposed. If you do not know what to do with something, or the answer seems too weird, investigation goes on in other channels. The basic point, once again, is that science can only be a part of our knowledge. It is a specialized application of common sense and reason, but not the whole of those things. Problems with Liberalism The problems of scientism are the problems of trying to do too much with too little. Similar problems arise within liberalism. The basic problem with liberalism is that you will not understand human life or deal with it sensibly if you try to simplify it too much and leave out qualities and distinctions that cannot be measured. 9 Ethical Irrationality To begin, you will not be able to deal intelligently with questions of good and bad. Good and bad are not objects in space, so scientistic reasoning cannot handle them. Liberals try to turn that incapacity into a virtue. They claim their approach lets a hundred flowers bloom because it does not depend on any particular view as to the nature of the good. Each is equally able to choose and pursue his dream. The claim is obviously false. The “good” is simply whatever it is that makes a goal worth pursuing. No government or social order can stand above arguments about what goals are worth pursuing. Decisions must be made that foreclose other decisions, so some goals must be accepted and others suppressed. A government cannot equally favor protection of the unborn and the right to choose abortion. It follows that in order to deliberate rationally about action, a government must adopt some particular understanding of the good and reject others. If a government claims to be based simply on freedom and equality independently of any definite conception of the good, then something is being hidden. Irresolvable Conflicts The attempt to leave the question of the good unsettled—in practice, to define it as equal preference satisfaction—soon leads to insoluble problems. Liberals want to say that freedom is freedom to do what you want. In order to say that, they have to get rid of conflicting desires. Otherwise, as in the case of abortion, some people’s desires will have to give way to other people’s desires. The need to abolish conflicts makes anything anybody wants that affects others a problem. To resolve the problem, advanced liberalism limits legitimate human goals to those that do not affect other people and those that can be fully integrated into a universal rational system of production, distribution, and control. The model for all freedom becomes Burger King’s “have it your way”—the ability to choose completely arbitrarily among goods the system finds equally easy to provide: careers, consumer goods, and private indulgences. All other goals are ruled out of order, because they cannot be managed and are likely to cause disruptions, disputes, and oppression. To that end, human conduct, attitudes, and relationships have to be supervised and controlled. A comprehensive regime of political correctness must be imposed because otherwise the wrong sort of goals will creep in. Someone might want to choose cultural cohesion or traditional marriage, for example, and each would create centers of social power that violate freedom and equality simply by existing. Such an attempt to abolish oppression by abolishing conflict cannot work. The attempt is itself oppressive: man does not live by career, consumption, and private indulgence alone, and to force him to do so is to deny him what he cares about most. In any event, “oppression” cannot be defined without knowing what goods are worth having. Careers compete with careers, consumption of offroad vehicles is at odds with consumption of unspoiled nature, and private indulgences like drugs and pornography have public effects. In such cases, who is oppressing whom? If all goals are equally valued, it is impossible to say. Self-Refutation At bottom, the problem is that equal freedom does not have the substantive content to answer questions. Free to do what? Equal in what respect? Liberalism cannot say, so it cannot deal with the world as it is. As a result, it becomes self-referential. Instead of freedom we get the cause of freedom as the highest good. Freedom becomes freedom to be free, or rather freedom to be liberal. Political correctness is the “left-wing” version of how that works in practice, while the Iraq war and “global democracy” are the “right-wing” version. The idea, it seems, is that we do not know what freedom is, but we do know that everyone must be forced into it. With liberalism as with scientism, overly insistent rationalism defeats itself: Dropping the question of the good in favor of equal freedom seemed a way to avoid insoluble conflicts and promote human flourishing. It has turned out that when equal freedom is made the highest principle it tyrannizes over the human spirit. The attempt to reduce everything to its measure leads to fanaticism that has no place for the goods men love most. Our rulers believe in equal freedom as the selfevident highest principle, and view anything else as irrational, oppressive, and violent. If you are “extremist” or “divisive”—they say that instead of “heretical” and “schismatic” but it means the same thing—you have to be stopped before you plunge the world into hell. Liberalism was intended to put an end to religious oppression and violence but instead sets up a new, perverse, destructive, and infinitely intolerant religion that is quite willing to use force to make its claims good. What Do We Do about All This? To deal with our situation we need a different and broader conception of reason along the lines the Pope set forth at Regensburg: The intention...is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism [of the achievements of modern thought], but of broadening our concept of reason and its application....We [must] overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable and...once more disclose its vast horizons. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • November 2008 10 So we have to put in question modern secularist reason—reason that accepts the self-imposed limitation the Pope mentions—and identify a source of knowledge other than modern natural science. Otherwise nothing we say will make sense to anyone. Common Sense One way to start is to point out the necessity of good sense and judgment for knowledge. That necessity is a consequence of the personal, social, and informal aspects of knowledge. We have seen that good sense and judgment are necessary for science itself, and give it an ineradicable personal and informal aspect. Descartes tried to avoid the problem by claiming he could take good sense for granted. In the very first sentence of his Discourse on Method he says that Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed: for every one thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that those even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else, do not usually desire a larger measure of this quality than they already possess. It is a very amusing quotation. Descartes, though, meant it literally. He had to mean it literally, because his system of universal clear knowledge based on individual subjective experience cannot work unless he can assume personal good sense away as an issue. In fact, good sense and judgment are subtle, complex, and hard to assess. They cannot be defined or quantified, and our need for them is all-pervasive. Some of us have more of them than others, and none has enough. The realization that we ourselves lack them is normally taken to be the beginning of wisdom. It is for that reason that the kind of reasoning Descartes was willing to recognize, which Pascal called l’esprit de géométrie (“the mathematical mind”) and which insists on complete order, clarity, and certainty, is not enough. We also need Pascal’s esprit de finesse (“intuitive mind”), which is equivalent to what Newman calls the “illative sense” and I call good sense and judgment. It is that latter form of reasoning, however named, that enables us to draw reliable conclusions from myriad considerations we could not possibly explain with any clarity, or often even identify. Tradition, Revelation, and the Church So where do we get Pascal’s esprit de finesse? The capacity for it may be an inborn gift to some extent, but if so it is one that needs development. The most important source is experience—dealing with whatever life throws up and seeing what works, what does not, and what comes into focus. If we are ordinarily welldisposed, we become wiser as we grow older. THE ANGELUS • November 2008 www.angeluspress.org Necessity of Tradition Since we are limited, life is short, and the world is subtle and complicated, individual experience is not enough to enable us to know what we need to know. Man is social, and reliance on social experience, or tradition, is basic to what we are. Tradition is necessary to the very language we use to order and articulate experience. Without it we could not say what things are or what they mean. Judgment and good sense would remain at an animal level. The need for tradition applies to particular pursuits as well as life in general. Every complex activity has a tradition. Modern natural science, which is thought to be so strictly rational, also has a tradition. It even involves an element of personal apprenticeship: it matters among scientists who one trained under. So we have a source for the informal knowledge that enables us to evaluate beliefs and actions to decide whether they are worth accepting and doing. That source is tradition. Everybody relies on it, so everybody must admit its authority. Choice of Tradition Which tradition, though? Presumably, one that can make sense of itself as a tradition. That rules out scientism and liberalism right away, since their claim of comprehensive perspicuous rationality rules out principled reliance on any tradition, even their own. The tradition we choose should also be one that is not doomed to fall apart. Such a standard is more demanding than it might seem. Tradition by itself has certain problems. It can be wrong, but that is not the real problem, since it is reasonable to suppose that if experience misleads you then more experience is the best thing to set you straight. The more basic problem is that by itself tradition cannot maintain its coherence and its ability to guide us reliably. The reason is that in and of itself tradition—the simple accumulation of experience and what various people have said and done—cannot resolve all the issues it throws up. Look at where mainstream Protestantism or modern thought in general, which rely solely on the accumulation of experience, discussion, and the decisions of particular men, have ended up. Discussion does not in fact lead to consensus on the most basic issues. The liberal thinker John Rawls admits as much, in his book Political Liberalism. It follows that tradition needs an authority transcending itself to resolve the issues it cannot resolve on its own. Science has recourse to observation for that purpose. That is fine for objects in space. Not everything is an object in space, however, and on other issues the continuing coherence of tradition also requires an authority that appeals to something beyond inherited consensus and present-day discourse. 11 Revelation In the case of ultimate moral and spiritual issues, it is hard to imagine what the authority could be other than revelation. It is important to note that ultimate issues do not keep their distance from us. Human knowledge in general depends on them, since knowledge is social and enduring complex social cooperation depends on ultimate issues. If people do not believe in truth or honesty, for example, scholarship and the scientific enterprise will go nowhere. Without revelation, then, tradition will eventually become incoherent, and coherent thought and reason, which depend on tradition, will become impossible. We thus need revelation, but by itself it is not enough because it does not settle its own interpretation. So we also need an authoritative interpretive method that can be relied on to resolve basic issues. We need, in fact, something that functions like a universal church with an organ of infallibility. In short, we need a pope. If no pope is available we can no longer rely on tradition, since we know in advance it will not be able to resolve the basic issues life will predictably throw up. We know it is going to fall apart—not develop in accordance with its own principles, but fall apart—so we cannot rationally believe in what it tells us. Since we cannot believe in it, and since connected thought and belief must be integrated with some particular tradition, we cannot rationally believe in anything at all complex. In summary: without a coherent tradition worthy of rational belief, reason falls apart. Without some definite way to resolve questions that cannot otherwise be resolved, no such tradition can exist. We cannot get by without something very much like the Church. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is, among other things, a statement of the necessity of an authoritative Church based on revelation to a life of reason. Turning Thought Around The problems that have led us to our present situation are as basic as the definition of what is rational, what is real, and what is good. Our response has to be equally basic. We have to outdo the rationalists on their own ground, and show that our reason is more reasonable than theirs. Traditional Catholics—that is to say, Catholics as such—need a clear intellectual understanding of their position so they can make plain to those who will listen the rationality of that position and the fideism and obscurantism of the opposing views now established. They need to expose the clay feet of modernity and show how to do better. That is not a hopeless task. Liberal modernity is strong at present, but it has fundamental weaknesses that mean it cannot last. It can be beaten if fought at the level of those weaknesses. If we think of it as vulnerable we have a chance to be effective; if we do not, we are more likely to give up on the future and waste our efforts complaining among ourselves. I have discussed the irrationality of liberal modernity, and the rational necessity of certain points of Catholic doctrine, for example a magisterial Church. Many writers have explicated the rationality of Catholicism in other respects. We must assimilate those points and apply them to the present situation so that we will be “ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you” (I Peter 3:15). As to our opponents, victory makes people stupid. That is especially true when the view that has won leaves out as much as scientism does. Scientism deprives good sense and judgment of their basis and eventually their authority. The problem is not merely theoretical. The limited resources on which scientism can draw mean that it must base decisions on default assumptions like equality. When judgment and good sense come into conflict with those assumptions they are abandoned. “Political correctness” and “zero tolerance” show the consequences. Since they are based on equality they cannot be questioned. No matter how stupid people think they are, they cannot get rid of them. That is a sign visible to everyone that something has gone basically wrong in the way people think about things. Such signs can be multiplied. They include the coarseness of modern culture, the ugliness and inhumanity of modern architecture, the irrationalism of a great deal of academic thought, the narrowness of many apologists for modern science, the abusiveness of discussion relating to religion and traditional morality, and the growing censorship, which in much of the West is now backed by fines and imprisonment. We have seen the future, and it does not work. Surely, something so dysfunctional can be beaten. James Kalb is a New York attorney, a Catholic convert through the Traditional Latin Mass, and a widely published commentator on the history of liberalism. He holds a B.A. in mathematics from Dartmouth College and a J.D. from Yale Law School. His book The Tyranny of Liberalism will be published by ISI Books this fall. This article is adapted from a speech given at the Roman Forum’s 2008 Summer Symposium. 1 See James Kalb, The Tyranny of Liberalism: Understanding and Overcoming Administered Freedom, Inquisitorial Tolerance, and Equality by Command (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, forthcoming November 1, 2008). 2 It is difficult for a theory to include everything, and perhaps it is inevitable that a strategy of investigation based on active rational observation of passive mechanistic nature would have trouble accounting for the observer as part of nature. Oddities related to the position of the observer in the generally extremely successful theory of quantum mechanics provide another example of that difficulty. The Schrödinger cat paradox seems to show that in quantum mechanics a cat can be equally dead and not dead if it cannot be observed whether the event that might have killed it actually occurred. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • November 2008 12 Sermon of Bishop Bernard Fellay, preached at Saint-Malo, France, on the Feast of the Assumption (August 15, 2008) WHAT DO YOU ASK OF THE CHURCH? THE FAITH! My very dear Brethren, We are here to fulfill the vow of King Louis XIII.1 We may say that more than ever we must try to fulfill this vow not only by a procession, not only on the occasion of praises to the Blessed Virgin Mary by which we acknowledge her as our queen and mother, but by having her truly enter into our personal lives, 1 It is the vow by which King Louis XIII of France consecrated his kingdom to Jesus through Mary in 1638. This consecration is supposed to be renewed every year on August 15 after a procession in all the parishes in France. Nowadays, however, only the parishes of tradition continue to observe this custom. The ANgelus • November 2008 www.angeluspress.org as well as our family lives and social lives. More than ever we must live in this intimacy with the Most Blessed Virgin Mary. More than ever we need her patronage and protection. For we live in very special times. If you want, I think we can be so bold as to use the word apocalyptic. We are living in apocalyptic times; not that we wish to find some complacency in fantastic things, but quite simply because what we are living corresponds to what is described in the book of Sacred Scripture called the Apocalypse. It is true that, taken in a very broad sense, the Apocalypse describes what has been happening in the Church ever since the death of Our 13 such a prophecy was destined for such a period of time. This is a delicate matter, and we do not wish to attempt this type of application. The fact remains, nevertheless, that what we are living– both in human society and in the Church—is not normal, but completely outside of what is usual and ordinary. We are truly living in a time in which everything is disrupted, and in which even the most basic principles are under attack. It is unbelievable! We wish we could say that this cannot be, that it must not exist. Yet, that is what we are living through. It is a reality. And we cannot use faith against reality. If it is real, it is real! We have the promises of Our Lord: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.” (Mt. 16:18). Our Lord is the Truth. This sentence is and remains true. Yet, when we look at its concrete application, we really feel like saying that the theologians at the time following Vatican I—the council in which the primacy of the pope and the infallibility of the sovereign pontiff were so solemnly affirmed–would certainly have considered what we are living through as impossible, inconceivable. The Message of Our Lady of La Salette ! © DICI, 2008. Lord and until the end of time. In a broad sense, this book must be understood as a description of the life of the Church. Some authors, and saints among them, discerned various interpretations, and set aside some chapters saying: “This chapter applies to such a time, and that to such and such a time.” We know that the future escapes us, and it is always dangerous to want to apply the Word of God, which is beyond us, to particular events. Once the events have occurred, it is easier to say that such and such a part has been fulfilled and that It is very interesting to remember that Our Lady at La Salette had foretold a terrible time for the Church. These predictions, which were passed on to Rome, were placed on the Index because they were so frightful! The fact that they were placed on the Index does not mean that they were false. For a long time, when any one referred to Our Lady of La Salette he was summarily silenced by a: “The Church has condemned it!” The Church simply forbade that the messages be read by placing them on the Index, but it does not mean that they were false. Some years ago, precisely October 3, 1999, the original manuscripts of Melanie and of Maximin were rediscovered in the archives of the Holy Office, which is now called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. There one can find all the reports, those from Melanie, who sent to the pope what the Blessed Virgin had told her, the famous Secret of La Salette. We also have the texts from Maximin, who had also received secrets from Our Lady. Everything was kept and has been published relatively recently. Now, we observe that the texts which had circulated were absolutely faithful and really correspond to what was truly said. And what did the Blessed Virgin say at La Salette? She foretold a terrible time for the Church, going so far as to say: “Rome will lose the Faith.” She stated: “The Church will be as it were eclipsed; Rome will become the see of the Antichrist.” Such words are extremely strong! There were also very severe reproaches addressed to the clergy. Has there been since then a time when these things were confirmed more specifically than in our days? Since La Salette until today, have not these past 40 years been those which came closest to this description? These words are so strong that we dare not make them ours. We do not dare say today: “Rome has lost the Faith.” We say that such or such a cardinal has lost the Faith, or that bishop so and so acts as if he no longer had the Faith. Even today, we do not dare say that Rome has lost the Faith. Now, it seems to me that it is not without reason that we see many things which are being done or published in Rome, and www.angeluspress.org The ANgelus • November 2008 14 which are no longer an expression of the Catholic Faith. We may even go so far as saying that we are witnessing the rise of a new church, a church which claims to be Catholic but no longer has anything Catholic about it. It has its own rites, its Bible, its way of doing things, but it is no longer what the Church has been teaching for centuries. We call this new church “conciliar,” or rather, it calls itself thus. However, it is almost impossible to discern it from the true Church. It is somewhat like a general cancer. In a person, the cancer is not the same as the person, it is not his true nature, but an illness. Yet it is present in him all the same. When the cancer is only a tumor, we can circumvent it and remove it. But once there are metastases all over the body, the physician can no longer do anything, because he observes that the cancer is everywhere. He no longer dares to take his surgical knife to excise the foreign body he finds in the person. Pascendi by St. Pius X and Humani Generis by Pius XII With this image, I am trying to explain as best I can a mystery, the great mystery of this foreign body which spreads something other than the Catholic Church inside the very Church. It wants to be friends with all religions, claims that you can be saved in any religion, and that the Holy Ghost uses them all as means of salvation. All this is false. Never has this been the teaching of the Church! Today we have a Church which is promoting what was condemned less than 50 years ago. And we see that it all happened during the Second Vatican Council. This Council did not so much invent novelties as give its approval to and legalize what was condemned as erroneous ten years earlier. As a side note, I encourage you very much to re-read Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis, concerning modern errors. It is the last great condemnation of the errors in the Church. It has some similarity with St. Pius X’s Pascendi, which condemned Modernism, but at the time, Pius X had managed to neutralize the enemy. He rightly said that the enemy was inside. Already at the beginning of the 20th century he denounced the enemy of the Church as working from within the Church. Now, this undermining work continued, and we find ourselves today in this very delicate situation, for, on the one hand, we are obliged out of necessity to retain our faith in the Church in order to be saved. And the Church cannot remain a mere abstract concept, for it is a visible and concrete reality: the Catholic Church. And even as we confess our faith in the Church, in all it is and has been, we must separate ourselves, take our distance from and oppose a foreign body, a new body, which intends to be new, and which has been spreading for 40 years and is bearing deadly fruits. This revolution in the Church did more harm to the Church than wars and persecutions. More spiritual deaths, more desertions, a greater loss for the Church–in religious congregations and among the priests –were caused by this internal revolution than by wars and persecutions. Even the Communist persecution did not manage to make as many spiritual casualties as the crisis started by Vatican II. Consequently, we fight, we defend ourselves against this poison, which is not the spirit of the Catholic Church. The trouble is that we find promoters of error up to the very top circles of the government of the Church. Yet, they do not all spread these novelties in like manner, nor constantly. Pope Paul VI: “The Smoke of Satan” in the Church Thus Paul VI, who, just after John XXIII, installed this new religion, could say that, in the Church, there were forces and ideas that were not of the Church. He even went so far as to state that the smoke of Satan had entered the Church through some crack. Such a statement chills us to the bone. To Jean Guitton, he said that a way of thinking foreign to the Church might triumph. He said it, but he also added that it would never be the Church, for THE ANGELUS • November 2008 www.angeluspress.org “And what did the Blessed Virgin say at La Salette? She foretold a terrible time for the Church, going so far as to say: ‘Rome will lose the Faith.’ She stated: ‘The Church will be as it were eclipsed; Rome will become the see of the Antichrist.’” 15 there would always be a remnant, no matter how infinitesimal it might be. Thus spoke Paul VI, the man who made the New Mass and stuck to it. The pope who started ecumenism! What a mixed-bag! There is also this fact, which is not well-known: when the same Paul VI published the New Mass, Cardinal Journet went to see him because the definition given in the introduction of the New Mass was outright heresy. So, Cardinal Journet went to see the Pope, and Paul VI broke out in tears before him and said that he had signed the document without reading it. This is how the New Mass was accepted by a pope who trusted his collaborator Bugnini, and who did not even read the texts presented to him! Of course, this definition was corrected, but the Mass was not. This is one example of the irregularities which kept cropping up and destroyed the Church. Take Communion in the hand: The text which introduced this practice in the Church was in fact a condemnation. The document said that it was not allowed, but that since the usage had been introduced in some areas it might be kept there. It was thus that Communion in the hand spread to the whole world. Concerning penance, a text said that penance is a very good thing, that we must do penance–it is the text dealing with indulgences–but when you have finished reading it you no longer know what it means to do penance. And so on. We could take one document after another. It is unbelievable confusion! Pope John Paul II Denounced “a Silent Apostasy” At the beginning of his pontificate, John Paul II, the man who called the Assisi meeting, lamented the fact that errors and heresies were spread by some in the Church, and that today’s Christians were tempted by agnosticism. At the end of his life, this pope deplored a “silent apostasy.” If he could lament thus, he still had a Catholic outlook, and yet he brought about the unspeakable disaster of Assisi. So, you see, my dear brethren, I give you these elements to show you how delicate the situation is, and with how much prudence we must deal with this reality, bearing always in mind that we are here touching upon a mystery. A mystery is a truth which is beyond us. It is a reality which we can observe, yet we do not have the key to explain it. The mystery we see here resembles the mystery of the Passion of Our Lord. The Apostles, all the disciples of Christ were obliged to believe in His divinity and in His omnipotence. Now, they saw this God, whom they adored as Almighty, suffer, be bruised, crucified, and they even saw Him dead on a cross. Human reason says: “But if He is God, He cannot suffer, He cannot die. If He is almighty, He will send these soldiers and His torturers rolling on the ground with a simple wink of His eye.” But it was not so. He let them do to Him whatever they wanted. Yet, He remained God. He is really God. Nevertheless, He suffered, not as God, but in His humanity. I would say that in this, we also have an example which can help us to understand what is happening in the Church. Some mystics, some saints, and Archbishop Lefebvre himself proposed to us this mysterious conception according to which the Church, the Mystical Body of Our Lord, walks in the footsteps of His physical body. If Our Lord willed to undergo a passion in His physical body, this Passion continues in the members of His Mystical Body throughout time and space. There are times when this Passion is more clearly apparent–during persecutions, for instance. The Passion we live today is much more difficult to perceive because the persecution is not physical but spiritual, and the arm of the persecutor is not dealing its blows from the outside but from inside the Church. It becomes almost unbearable. The good God is putting us through a terrible test for our faith. He demands of us heroic faith, and in times such as these, my dear brethren, we must turn to the Blessed Virgin, for if there is someone in history in whom faith shines forth, it certainly is Our Lady. She was the object of a beatitude because of her faith. In the Gospel, her cousin Elizabeth told her: “Blessed art thou, because thou hast believed the things that were told thee” (Lk. 1:45). She was blessed because of this faith. And later on, she would manifest her faith at the foot of the cross. So, we must turn to her and ask her for a faith which can make it through this trial. And if you are here today, it is clearly because God sustains your faith. He keeps you in the Catholic Faith, in the Catholic life which goes on in spite of everything, and in spite of trials. But once again, how much we need this support. The Ultimatum from Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos I would like to take advantage of the occasion to give you some news about what is going on presently in Rome with regard to the Society. You probably heard that there was a question of an ultimatum. Where do we stand now? First of all, this ultimatum was strange, because, usually when this type of action is taken, there is an object. In our case, we really wonder what the point was. At the beginning of the month of June, I was summoned by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos because the latest Letters to Friends and Benefactors of the Society of Saint Pius X was reviewing the situation and clearly stated that we were not ready to swallow the poison found in the Council. The Roman authorities did not like this. What displeased them was the fact that we said that we would not change; that we would resist, and that we would not drink the poison. Consequently, I was summoned to Rome, and there, I was handed a typed sheet. The meeting took place in the offices of the Ecclesia Dei Commission–as a side note, it was the first and only time I went to these offices. So, in the room were present the Cardinal; the vice-president of www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • November 2008 16 the Commission, Msgr. Perl; the secretary, Msgr. Marini; and the Cardinal’s private secretary. I was accompanied by Father Nély. We were handed a written note, and the Cardinal asked me to read it aloud in front of everybody. In this letter, which really sounded like an ultimatum, it basically said: “Up to now, I stated that you were not schismatics, but henceforth I will no longer be able to say so. Today, you must accept the clear conditions which we are going to impose upon you.” After having read it, I asked the Cardinal what the clear conditions were, since they were not written. The Cardinal answered nothing at all. So I asked the question again, saying: “What do you expect of me?” At that moment, almost under his breath, he answered: “If, in conscience, you think you must tell this to your faithful, do so! But you must respect the person of the Pope.” To this I retorted that I had no problem with this. And the meeting ended upon this. How can I affirm that the reason for the meeting was truly the latest Letter to Friends and Benefactors? Because I asked him, since he was referring to it. I said: “Could you tell me what is wrong in this letter?” He read it over in front of me, and the only reproach he could come up with was the fact that I had written that convents and seminaries were empty. He told me: “This is not true.” That was the one and only reproach. So, what was the point of the ultimatum? What was its object? After the meeting, I told Father Nély that I felt very much frustrated, because I had witnessed a stage rehearsal. They had put on a very emotional show with the Cardinal declaring: “That is the end of it! I call a press conference. I give it all up!” As to what they were really expecting of me, I had not the faintest idea. Consequently, I sent Father Nély back the next day to ask the question once again: “What do you want?” That is when they had him wait for half an hour, enough time for them to write the famous five points which were published on the Internet. The first of the five points says: “Bishop Fellay must commit himself to give an answer proportionate to the Pope’s generosity.” What could be the meaning of this? The sentence is extremely vague and could mean everything and nothing. We were forced to suppose that the generosity of the Pope was the Motu Proprio. And the proportionate response was to thank him for it, while acknowledging that it was not made for us, since it was for all the priests of the Church. Otherwise we do not see what it meant. Next, I had to commit myself, in this same letter, to respect the person of the Pope. I suppose it meant that he must not be insulted, but if you consider it an insult to say that he is perfectly liberal right after a visit to the USA during which he did nothing but praise the American State, declaring that religious liberty was great… Truly, you cannot find a statement more liberal than this. I see nothing insulting in my words. The third point is more “touchy” because they ask me not to set myself up as “a magisterium above the pope, and not to place the Society in opposition to the Church.” Once again, this can mean everything as well as nothing at all. With this sentence, each time we would present an objection, we might be told: “You set yourself above the pope.” This point makes us clearly understand that Rome does not at all agree with the fact that we dare say something against the Council. That is where the problem lies. We Consider a Theological Debate Essential It has been said that I had refused an offer from Rome, but there was no offer from Rome. There merely was a cardinal who was getting impatient because, as he said, things “were dragging on.” Now, ever since the year 2000, we had told the Roman authorities that we did not trust them, and that if they wanted a dialogue, they first had to give some tokens which might rebuild some of our confidence. We had requested two tokens: freedom for the traditional Mass and the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication of the bishops. Seven years later, we can say that one of the points has been fulfilled. THE ANGELUS • November 2008 www.angeluspress.org “We simply ask the pope of today to explain how what he tells us corresponds to what his predecessors have said, bearing in mind these very clear words of the Apostle St. Paul: ‘If an angel, or even myself, preaches a Gospel different from that which I have taught you, let him be anathema’” (Gal. 1: 8-9). m 17 There still remains the second to be fulfilled. After that, we had told them we would be ready to discuss. We say it again, because it is very important, and we really consider the theological debate essential since it must make it possible to see whether what was said during and after the Council is faithful to Christian Revelation and the teaching of the Church. We do not set ourselves above the pope. The popes in the past are those who canonized a number of propositions and defined them as dogmas. These propositions can no longer be changed. A dogma is unquestionable. Consequently, we do not set ourselves up as judges. We simply ask the pope of today to explain how what he tells us corresponds to what his predecessors have said, bearing in mind these very clear words of the Apostle St. Paul: “If an angel, or even myself, preaches a Gospel different from that which I have taught you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1: 8-9). You cannot use stronger words. We have the impression that St. Paul already foresaw situations such as ours: “If I, myself–and he was an apostle—begin to teach you something different from what I have told you before, let me be anathema! If an angel comes and teaches you something else, let him be anathema!” We have twenty centuries of teaching of the doctrine of the Church. These are the things which judge the pope, not we. The pope is infallible when he meets the conditions set up for him. And since he knows this, let him use his infallibility! And then he will express the Faith, as all his predecessors did. If now, like at the Second Vatican Council, they do not want to make use of this infallibility, what happened then will happen again. We Do Not Want to Build Upon Sand Yet, on our part, be it well understood that we have refused absolutely nothing from Rome. Even now, we keep telling them that the canonical situation of the Society cannot be resolved if we do not first look into the root problem–this root problem is precisely all the novelties introduced into the Church since Vatican II. If we were to act otherwise, it would be tantamount to accepting the following offer: we give you a house. But a house does not stand in the air, it is built upon something, upon a piece of ground. If the house is built on quicksand, would you take it? If you know that tomorrow it will fall down, and disappear, swallowed up into the marshes, you would tell yourself: it is not worth it. Likewise, if you are told that you are going to be given a Rolls Royce, but that it cannot leave the garage, why is it given to you at all? Or if you are told that you are to be given a ship, but she must remain ashore… That is what is happening to us. Rome, when they want to sign a canonical agreement, or to take the previous image, when they offer us a car, a ship, or a house, absolutely do not want to discuss the rock upon which the house must be built. For the Roman authorities, it goes without saying that the atmosphere in which this car would ride, or this ship would sail, is the doctrinal atmosphere of Vatican II. And that is precisely the crux of the matter, and we want Rome to confront it. As long as Rome does not want to do so, we cannot go forward. We are obliged to take this route, because otherwise we would be building upon sand. And we do not want to build upon sand. We say this in the name of the Faith, of the teaching of the Church, of what the Church has practiced. From Rome We Expect the Faith We are told: “You know, the Pope is well disposed towards you, but who will come after him? We do not know! So, the time to come to an agreement is now or never.” I answered the Cardinal who was telling me this: “Eminence, I believe in the Holy Ghost. If the Holy Ghost is able to enlighten this pope, he can just as well enlighten the next.” And if this pope desires our good, the next one might desire an even greater good for us. Once again, we cannot discuss the Faith. We do not have the right to tamper with the Faith. When we see so clearly what is going on in the Church–and it is God who gives us such a grace–there is no room for negotiations. Besides, I do not like this term. It is wrong. We are not negotiating with Rome. From Rome we expect the Faith. That is the first thing which took place at our baptism. It was the first question: “What do you ask from the Church?” “Faith.” “What does faith offer you?” “Life everlasting.” This is the contract signed at our baptism. We ask faith from the Church, and we know that the Church alone can give it to us. So, we maintain this first request made at baptism. We do nothing else. We could sum up all our combat in this, for we know that the Church is the only entity established by God which can save us–we cannot be saved outside of the Church: Outside of the Church, there is no salvation. We know that salvation comes through faith and grace. This is what we are requesting from Rome, nothing more nor less. It will take whatever time is necessary. Will we still be alive when things improve? Of course, we hope so, but we really do not know. It is true that, humanly speaking, we can observe a number of things which show that we are going towards an improvement. In the domain of principles, there is an awakening, an expectation, especially among the younger generations, those who did not receive anything. In their expectation, they turn towards Tradition, and being dissatisfied with what is given them today, they ask for traditional doctrine. We see priests who turn to the old Mass and quite simply discover their religion. If you knew how many young priests who, having celebrated the old Mass for the first time, tell us: “But these are two different www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • November 2008 18 worlds! When I celebrate this Mass I find out what a priest is.” This does not mean that they had no idea about their priesthood, but in the Mass they discover that Our Lord wants His priests to be united to Him, to be, as it were, His “extensions” and mediators between God and men to wrest men’s salvation from God’s Heart by the Sacrifice of His Son to which they are called to unite themselves. This is the key to today’s crisis: they no longer want the cross, nor suffering; they no longer want to hear about sin or sacrifice. We can say that the souls. We can see that these are the fruits of grace, and even Rome acknowledges it. This same Cardinal Castrillon, speaking about the Society told me: “The fruits are good, hence the Holy Ghost is there.” Then let him draw the consequences. We cannot draw them in their stead. We would not dare to praise ourselves thus, even though we, too, can observe that the fruits are good. So, let us have recourse to the Most Blessed Virgin Mary. Today, in one of the antiphons, we praise her as she who crushes all heresies. We chant: “...the bishops are already treating us as schismatics.... In their churches they welcome everybody. They have ceremonies of prayers with everybody, but as for us, they deal with us as if we were pests.” solution of the crisis lies precisely here. This is the reason why we place so much emphasis on the Mass, because the Mass is the incarnated expression of this faith: salvation comes through the cross; it comes through the sacrifice of Our Lord; it comes through the priest. The crisis we are experiencing is a crisis of the priesthood. They meant to denature the priest, and the priest today no longer finds his identity in the New Mass. When you say this, it gets on the nerves of Rome! They cannot stand that we say that the New Mass is bad. Yet, you only need to have eyes to see; it is obvious. You only have to look at the fruits. Our Lord told us that we would know the tree by its fruits. “The Fruits Are Good, Hence the Holy Ghost Is There!” So we must carry on as long as it is necessary. Will the affair, which occurred at the beginning of the summer, end up with a declaration of schism, as some of our enemies would like it to? I doubt it, but I really have no idea. And then, what would it change? Anyway, the bishops are already treating us as schismatics and as the worst men living on the face of the earth. In their churches they welcome everybody. They have ceremonies of prayers with everybody, but as for us, they deal with us as if we were pests. You should see what they do! And while at Rome they say that we are not schismatics, but we are treated like the scourge of mankind. It will last as long as it is supposed to, my dear brethren. We have the daily comfort given by grace. We clearly see that God is at work in our souls and in our children’s THE ANGELUS • November 2008 www.angeluspress.org “Blessed art thou who hast crushed all heresies.” Mary, who is so sweet on one side, also has something terrible about her under another aspect. And this comes from her love. If we love God, if we love the good, we must hate what is against God in the same measure. We must hate sin. In this, we have, as it were, a thermometer for our spiritual state: to what extent do we hate sin, and our own sins to begin with? Because in that same measure, we also love God. Let us ask the Blessed Virgin to increase this measure of love and the measure of our aversion for all that is opposed to God, His reign, and the salvation of souls. Let us ask Our Lady for this special protection and let us merit this protection by a special devotion. Let us strive to grow in our intimacy with the Immaculate Heart of Mary. May Our Lady be truly our Mother every day, and not only for the space of a Hail Mary or as we pass before her statue. May she truly be our mother! The consecration which we are about to renew according to the vow made by Louis XIII must have consequences in our lives. It must not be mere words. This gift to the Blessed Mary must be real and true. And thereafter, let us live truly as her children. Then, we will ensure our salvation, and consequently the continuation of the Tradition of the Faith of the Church through time and space for the generations to come. Amen. © DICI, 2008. Sermon preached on the occasion of the procession to fulfill the vow of King Louis XIII, at Saint-Malo, France, on the Feast of the Assumption (August 15, 2008). To keep the character proper to the sermon, the oral style was preserved. The subtitles and scriptural references were added by the editor. Traditional Religious Orders 19 LITTLE SISTERS OF ST. FRANCIS OF STRICT OBSERVANCE TREVOUX, FRANCE T he Little Sisters of St. Francis of Assisi “of strict observance” is the off-shoot of a congregation of pontifical right founded in 1873 in the province of Anjou, France, by the Reverend Mother Josephine Renault. Their first monastery was located at Flavigny, near Dijon in eastern France, but now is situated on the southern coast of Brittany in western France, about 330 miles due west of Paris. The Sisters are styled of “strict observance,” for they intend to remain faithful to the primitive rule of the congregation. 20 While at Flavigny, the Sisters made the decision to become a semi-contemplative congregation in order to enable them better to parry the present state of subversion in the Church and to be more powerful in moving the Heart of God. Aided and advised by the Capuchin Fathers of Morgon, France (see The Angelus, September, 2005–Ed.) the nuns live in the cloister and take their inspiration, as their name indicates, from the spirituality of St. Francis of Assisi: poverty, simplicity, joy, holy liberty, and true fraternal charity. Like St. Francis, a Little Sister praises the Lord through every creature, tries to become “another Christ,” reproducing in her life the virtues and the Passion of Jesus, and desires to be “humble and obedient to everyone.” With the Poverello of Assisi, the Little Sister sings her thanksgiving hymn: “Praise and bless my Lord, thank Him and serve Him with all due humility!” The Historical Background The Congregation of Little Sisters of St. Francis of Assisi was founded at Angers, in western France, by a French woman named Aloysia Renault (in religion, THE ANGELUS • November 2008 www.angeluspress.org Mother Josephine). On the advice of her spiritual director, the Reverend Father Louis de Saint-Etienne, Capuchin, the congregation was founded on December 8, 1873, with an apostolate of caring for the sick. Based on sacrifice and renunciation, the young congregation flourished, spreading with amazing rapidity over the West of France. On April 25, 1934, the congregation was affiliated with the Capuchin Order, and on February 28, 1944, it was approved by the Holy See, becoming a congregation of pontifical right. The definitive approbation of their Constitutions was obtained from Pope Pius XII on January 15, 1955. In the beginning, the Little Sisters of St. Francis devoted themselves only to the care of the sick, rich or poor, at their own house or in medical clinics. But after the Second Vatican Council, the Congregation strayed from the observance of the holy rules planned by their venerable foundress. Consequently, in 1971, many of the Sisters left to found a branch of strict observance, adopting a semi-contemplative life in order to save their religious consecration. The Little Sisters of St. Francis want to remain faithful to the spiritual 21 inheritance of Mother Josephine: simplicity, tender compassion to every suffering, unlimited love of Christ the Redeemer, and great confidence in St. Joseph, the celestial Patron of the Congregation: “My daughters, do not forget that you are no more than Little Sisters of St. Francis...very little sisters, the last of all; that you are made to serve, not to be served.” Spirituality Franciscans of the Regular Third Order of Penitence, the Little Sisters join a life of prayer to acts of charity. The congregation is especially dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Mary Immaculate. The Little Sisters have a special devotion to the Passion of the Savior and the Way of the Cross, a devotion that was very dear to their foundress and which continues to be held in high regard. They practise with discretion a certain number of penances, but especially that of humble and joyous obedience. They keep in mind the words of their beloved foundress: “Like St. Francis, our poverty will be our strength...with the fear of God, confidence in His amiable Providence, and the love of neighbor, we shall always be rich enough!” At Le Trevoux, where the monastery and the novitiate of the Little Sisters are located, the liturgy is especially honored. Their prayer life includes: l the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the traditional rite; l psalmody of the Divine Office in choir; l meditation for half an hour morning and evening, with an additional hour of spiritual free time during the day; l adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament day and night; l recitation of the Rosary as a sign of filial piety towards the Immaculate Virgin; l the Way of the Cross, a typically Franciscan devotion. On Sundays and feast days, the schola sings the solemn Mass, Vespers, and Benediction of the most Blessed Sacrament. Compline is sung every night of the week. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • November 2008 22 THE ANGELUS • November 2008 www.angeluspress.org 23 Work While their prayer extends to the great intentions of the Heart of Jesus and the Church, their activities are normally confined to the walls of their convents: hospitality to guests and retreatants, care of the sick, catechism, religious arts and sewing, and, according to their capacities, the divers activities which all religious engage in for the upkeep of their convent: kitchen, laundry, gardening, etc. But whatever her occupations, a Little Sister is an apostle and missionary like St. Theresa of Lisieux by contributing to the redemption of souls and praying for priestly vocations. While staying at Flavigny in July of 1976, Archbishop Lefebvre told the Sisters: “You are working efficaciously for the glory of God because your apostolate in this house brings forth vocations to the religious life or the priesthood”; as a result of their prayers, of course, but also by all their actions accomplished in recollection and consecrated by obedience. The more a Little Sister is united to God amidst her activities, the more she participates in the work of redemption. Their day is made up of the life of prayer, work, and the community life of fraternal charity. Meals are taken in silence while listening to a reading or recording to nourish the spirit at the same time as www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • November 2008 24 What Is the Third Order of St. Francis? Tradition assigns the year 1221 as the date of the foundation of the Brothers and Sisters of Penance, now known as tertiaries. This third order was devised by St. Francis as a sort of middle state between the cloister and the world for those who, wishing to follow in the saint’s footsteps, were debarred by marriage or other ties from entering either the first or second order. There has been some difference of opinion as to how far the saint composed a rule for these tertiaries. It is generally admitted, however, that the rule approved by Nicholas IV, 18 Aug., 1289 (Litt. “Supra Montem”) does not represent the original rule of the third order. ... In connection with the Brothers and Sisters of Penance or Third Order of St. Francis, it is necessary to distinguish between the third order secular and the third order regular. Secular. The third order secular was founded, as we have seen, by St. Francis about 1221 and embraces devout persons of both sexes living in the world and following a rule of life approved by Nicholas IV in 1289, and modified by Leo XIII, 30 May, 1883 (Constit. “Misericors”). It includes not only members who form part of logical fraternities, but also isolated tertiaries, hermits, pilgrims, etc. Regular. The early history of the third order regular is uncertain and is susceptible of controversy. Some attribute its foundation to St. Elizabeth of Hungary in 1228, others to Blessed Angelina of Marsciano in 1395. The latter is said to have established at Foligno the first Franciscan monastery of enclosed tertiary nuns in Italy. It is certain that early in the fifteenth century tertiary communities of men and women existed in different parts of Europe and that the Italian friars of the third order regular were recognized as a mendicant order by the Holy See. Since about 1458 the latter body has been governed by own minister general and its members take solemn vows. New Foundations. In addition to this third order regular, properly so called, and quite independently of it, a very large number of Franciscan tertiary congregations–both of men and women–have been founded, more especially since the beginning of the 19th century. These new foundations have taken as a basis of their institutes a special rule for members of the third order living in community approved by Leo X. 20 Jan., 1521 (Bull “Inter”), although this rule is greatly modified by their particular constitution, which, for the rest, differ widely according to the end of each foundation. The ANgelus • November 2008 www.angeluspress.org These various congregations of regular tertiaries are either autonomous or under episcopal jurisdiction, and for the most part they are Franciscan in name only, not a few of them having abandoned the habit and even the traditional cord of the order. (Source: The Catholic Encyclopedia, (1914), s.v. “The Franciscan Order,” www.newadvent.org) A priest of the Society of Saint Pius X has undertaken the apostolate of the secular Franciscan Third Order. For further information, please write: Fr. John Young Franciscan Third Order Office 1114 Dolman Street St. Louis, Missouri 63104 25 daily Schedule 5:45 AM Rise 6:15 AM Lauds, Prime, and mental prayer 7:15 AM Mass and Tierce 8:20 AM Breakfast, followed by work and chores 10:15 AM Classes for novices, Free time 12:15 PM Sext, lunch, and recreation, followed by chores 2:00 PM Rosary and None 2:35 PM Work 4:15 PM Free time 5:00 PM Vespers, mental prayer, and spiritual reading 6:00 PM Supper, followed by recreation and duties 8:30 PM Compline feeding “Brother Ass.” Recreation follows both lunch and supper, a time of mirth and merriment. As day comes to a close, the Sisters turn towards the Immaculate Virgin Mary: “Salve Regina, Mater misericordiae...” The last antiphon sung, the lights are put out and the Little Sister stays a while before the Tabernacle or retires to her cell. The Great Silence begins: not a word more is spoken, all is quiet and still. The Little Sister remains in recollection until going to bed. The day over, the nun “sleeps, but her heart watches”; her rest is also consecrated to God. In 1983, the monastery opened another house in “Traonfeunteuniou,” a commune of Ploujean, near Morlaix (Finistere, Brittany). There, a small community takes care of the material needs of retired people and also lives a semi-contemplative life. There are currently 47 Sisters in the monastery, including professed Sisters and novices. So far, only two Sisters have come from abroad, one from Belgium and the other from England. Becoming a Little Sister of St. Francis To become a Little Sister of St. Francis, the aspirant spends six to nine months as a postulant and two years as a novice. During their novitiate, the Little Sisters receive a thorough religious education appropriate for fashioning a nun according to the Heart of Jesus. They attend classes on the holy Rule, the vows of religion, and their Constitutions, as well as the Bible, dogma, Church history, www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • November 2008 26 ascetical and mystical theology, and Franciscan spirituality. An essential part is reserved to prayer during the years of formation. The novices have no connection with the world and must prepare themselves to take their vows in silence and meditation. The novitiate is followed by the profession of temporary vows, which are renewed annually for three years, and then renewed for two years before the final profession. United with Jesus by the simple vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, the Little Sisters make themselves poor in order to be rich for God; pure, keeping their hearts for their Divine Spouse and at the same time radiant with charity towards others; obedient in imitation of Christ “obedient unto the death of the cross.” On the evening of their consecration, the newly professed Sister places her crown of roses at the feet of Mary. If a young lady feels called to the religious life, she may come and stay at the monastery to examine her vocation without any commitment. To be admitted to the congregation, she must have a sufficient knowledge of the French language, enjoy good physical and mental health, be good tempered, and have a generous and persevering will to devote herself to others. For information: Reverend Mother Superior The Little Sisters of St. Francis of Assisi “Lanorgard” F-29380 Le Trevoux France THE ANGELUS • November 2008 www.angeluspress.org 27 A r c h b i s h o p M a r c e l L e f e b v r e ENDURING TRIALS IN A SPIRIT OF GENEROSITY Our Lord gave His apostles a glimpse of what their apostolate would be like. He began by saying, “I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves” (Mt. 10:16). What a thing for Our Lord Jesus Christ to say! He is God and knows all things. He starts by warning the apostles of the potentially discouraging opposition they will face. He spoke of it beforehand so that His disciples might remain faithful when facing obstacles, difficulties, and trials. Throughout a long paragraph of the tenth chapter of his gospel, St. Matthew cites the words of Our Lord to His disciples: “You will be persecuted by friends, by your brothers... I came not to send peace, but the sword” (cf. Mt. 10:21-34). Here again a frightful warning! I am sending you not where there is peace, but rather swords. Families will be split apart, there will be opposition between parents and children, between brothers and sisters. What does all that mean? The Church too is a family; so there will be divisions within the Church, and men will persecute their brothers who share the same faith, and then deliver them up before the courts. But Our Lord also says not to fear and not to worry about what to say before the tribunals and judges. The Holy Ghost will give you inspiration (cf. Mt. 10:17-22; Lk. 21:12-18). This is quite a lesson that Our Lord gives, and I do not think it has ever been more relevant than it is today. The apostles gave us an example when, having been sent by Our Lord, they spread throughout the world. From the very beginning of their apostolates they were persecuted, pursued, imprisoned, threatened with death by their brothers, by the members of the synagogue, by the chief priests. St. James (the brother of St. John) had his head cut off by his own brothers. And after having gone www.angeluspress.org The ANgelus • November 2008 28 throughout the world to preach the gospel, all the other apostles died as martyrs. St. Paul tells of all the troubles he experienced during his apostolic work. He underwent persecutions that were not only physical, and some of which were at the hands of bad Christians. He speaks of these to St. Timothy, for example (cf. I Tim. 1:19-20). Already God had put in the mouth of Isaias the following words: “Their lips glorify me, but their heart is far from me...” (Is. 29:13). Our Lord Himself recalls them (Mt. 15:8), so let us consider ourselves warned. Our Lord and all the apostles suffered. And what priest has not experienced suffering? Was ever there a priest whose circumstances were always happy ones and who never faced difficulties or opposition from anyone? The priest is a man offered up in sacrifice. The priest is a man of the cross. That is why you will face difficulties wherever you go. Dear friends, surely you are not unaware of the various obstacles to fervor and the desire for holiness and perfection, certain of which you did not foresee at the time of your ordination. Some of you have been priests for ten years and others for longer than that. One can fall into a rut and begin to do things out of sheer habit or routine, and familiarity breeds contempt (assueta vilescunt). What one does habitually tends to become uninteresting; it becomes automatic and thus a hindrance to our desire for holiness. Or, our felt fervor may disappear along with our sensible consolations of union with God, as we go about accomplishing daily our sacred ministerial duties. Sometimes our apostolate is not too successful. One hopes an apostolate will produce abundant and visible fruits, but after a few years the very limited success obtained is not what we expected. If the sanctification of souls is slower and less perfect than desired, we risk becoming apathetic or lukewarm in carrying out the functions of our priesthood. Even your day-to-day schedule is not without annoyances. Maybe at the time of your ordination you expected to retain a stable prayer time, perhaps adding half an hour to it here and there. Lo and behold, far from increasing it, you find that now you must often shorten it. The faithful make great demands on your time, as do the administrative duties of the apostolate. Thus the irregularity of your prayer and community life can stand in the way of your sanctification, and in fact become unsettling. You think to yourself, “If things keep on like this, what will become of me? With so few opportunities for recollection and such little time for prayer in order to become united to God, what will I be like in four, five, or six years?” At that point one can be prompted either by the Holy Ghost or the devil: “Maybe I would be better off joining a congregation of contemplatives; or perhaps I should request to THE ANGELUS • November 2008 www.angeluspress.org be assigned to a less important area, a rural priory with fewer people and farther from a city.” It is true, people do have temptations like that. Personally, I think they are more likely to come from the devil than from the Holy Ghost. There are also other trials, such as transfers. After having been transferred from a pleasant posting, a priest may think to himself: “There where I was, everything was going well; my priestly life was unfolding just as I had imagined it would when I was still at the seminary. The schedule was regular, the community life was pleasant, and I got on well with my colleagues. Since my duties were not too time-consuming, I was able to live my priesthood as I had dreamed of doing when still a seminarian. And now they’ve given me a position that I don’t care for in the least. I’m not accustomed to this kind of work, and it’s obvious that in these circumstances it will be difficult to become the sort of priest I had hoped to be, etc.” It can all be rather psychologically and emotionally trying. Such things are hindrances to the peace and serenity of our apostolic life. When suffering, doubts, hesitations, and trials come your way, turn your eyes to Our Lord Jesus Christ. Consider His Passion and His Cross. He too suffered. He suffered the faithlessness of all His apostles. With courage He faced being abandoned by all. God rewarded Him by raising Him from the dead. By His own divine power He rose from the dead. Since we are the disciples of a master who himself suffered and died upon a cross, we cannot expect to live without suffering and trials. Yet these trials themselves are graces. And in any case, the priesthood also brings with it great joys. In fact, I believe that, despite the trials, no vocation offers such a profound and interior happiness as does the priesthood, provided that one embrace it whole-heartedly and without reserve. So despite the difficulties encountered in the apostolate, priests do receive many consolations. One still comes across saintly souls, souls desiring to be united to God, souls having the Faith. And this is a great consolation to priests. It helps them to remain grounded in the Faith they learned at the seminary, and to retain the desire for holiness and sanctification so necessary for priests. May the Virgin Mary remain beside them. May she be their mother. May she keep alive in them the unique, profound, everlasting, and unhesitating love of Our Lord Jesus Christ. May they remain true apostles of Christ. Translated exclusively for Angelus Press by Mr. Todd Anderson of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota. The text is from La sainteté sacerdotale (Priestly Holiness), recently published by Clovis publishing house in France. 29 THE LIST D r . T his installment focuses entirely on the good, a collection of pieces that in my estimation provides the best composite representation of composed music. Looking beyond the popular abuse of list-making, instead considering the innate cognitive tendency to organize both in quantitative and qualitative terms, I offer here my list of “The 100 Greatest Pieces of Music Ever Composed”—or something like it—intending not to propose the definitive “Top 100” (impossible), but rather to assemble a collection of works surpassing in quality and importance. I hope it will serve as a reference for those beginning a listening library, inspire those who have already A n d r e w C h i l d s begun the process, and engage those with already established libraries. The challenge in such an exercise lies in organization and in maintaining the distinction between objective ranking and subjective list-making of this type. Balance, in terms of epoch and genre, though important, cannot sufficiently moderate the discussion. No injustice occurs in having Beethoven and Schubert as contemporaries (or Verdi and Wagner); the job remains to compile a group of works related by their lasting impact regardless of chronological distribution. In terms of numbers, the 18th and 19th centuries will contribute many more likely individual candidates than most others, www.angeluspress.org The ANgelus • November 2008 30 perhaps all others combined. Yet, while including a less significant piece from a less productive era to the exclusion of, for instance, another Beethoven symphony may seem unfair, it does not transgress justice anymore than the supernatural decree that determined the inequitable distribution of talent across the ages. A generation devoid of great artistic contributions will not likely inspire the developments of the next, and though the giants seem to stand alone, inevitably important and recognizable influence almost always existed to inspire. Thinking along these lines, tracing developmental trends throughout history reveals stepping stones at regular intervals even in periods of relative inactivity. Composers have left their artistic mark on history in various ways. Some have innovated, others perfected; some have built up, others destroyed; some have defined themselves by the trends they developed, others have defined themselves by resisting trend altogether. In the case of Perotin and Hildegard von Bingen, the music that followed them could not have existed without them; in the case of Beethoven and his nearly destructive disregard for formal convention, one marvels that any recognizable music at all could exist after him. Monteverdi the Renaissance master leaves systematic evidence in his nine books of madrigals of the epic shift from modal to tonal compositional sensibilities. Others defied such “evolutionary pressures”—Elgar, Holst, Vaughan Williams, Rachmaninov, Sibelius are among a generation of composers straddling the 19th and 20th centuries who remain underrated in elite circles if only because they insisted on writing defiantly beautiful and structurally traditional music at a time when musical modernism and abstractism exerted increasing influence. Bach and Ives fit neatly nowhere, artistic cul-de-sacs explicable perhaps by what preceded them, but unique not only in their reaction to these preceding influences, but also in their shared ability to write music of lasting importance in a style nearly none chose to imitate. Mozart never had to work hard enough to innovate—too much talent—and instead went beyond perfecting forms to toying with them; Schubert’s reserved genius could never rise above the din of Beethoven; Mendelssohn never wrote a misplaced note and ranks only behind Mozart as a prodigy, but composed so politely as never to have made an impact in any relation to his talent; other composers—Catholics in Tudor England, Sovietera Russians—worried less about honestly pouring out their hearts than literally keeping their heads. All of these artists responded to their talents and circumstances by creating the masterworks listed below. Regarding formatting, three things: dates, annotation, and classification. Dates provide not only a sense of historical context, but also a sobering reminder of mortality: many of these greats died shockingly young (see Berlioz, Schubert, Mozart, Purcell, and do the math…one wonders what the THE ANGELUS • November 2008 www.angeluspress.org next decades would have produced). In terms of the brief accompanying annotation, I intend to provide some justification and historical context. Finally, I’ve classified the works as belonging in one (or perhaps two) of three categories: “AA” stands for “All Ages,” substantive yet immediately accessible music, mostly masterpieces composed in predictable forms and standard genres—many Baroque favorites fall into this category; “TYL” stands for “Try it—You’ll Like it!,” pieces slightly more challenging to the ear and not suitable for “background” music, but still comprehensible and rewarding to most after a few hearings; “HL” stands for “Heavy Lifting” (alternately referred to “ITSSG?”, or “Is This Supposed to Sound Good?”). HL pieces tend to fall into the “important” rather than the “beloved” category, and benefit from some technical training, or from extensive listening experience; though not immediately pleasing or comprehensible, these works nonetheless represent important phases of development. Now, The List… 1-4) J. S. Bach (1685-1750): Mass in B-minor (TYL for length and difficulty: the single composition I would choose above all others); St. Matthew Passion (TYL: a profound and varied musical meditation on the Passion); Brandenburg Concerti, Solo Cello Suites (AA). 5) Samuel Barber (1910-1981): Adagio for Strings (AA/TYL: the shortest entry on the list but one I can’t exclude, the Adagio is a breathtaking nine minute epitaph for tonality). 6-11) Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827): Symphony no. 9, Piano Concerto no. 5 (TYL: the redefinition of standard forms); String Quartet op. 132 (HL: the sound of Beethoven breaking the Classical mold); Piano Sonata no. 29, “Hammerklavier” (TYL: at the mid point of the slow movement, Beethoven has abandoned traditional structure to the extent that the piece seems to inhabit an alternate existential plane; disturbing from an analytical standpoint, but a singular instance of artistic honesty and revelation); Missa Solemnis (TYL/HL: a monument, but one “respected rather than loved,” at least initially). 12) Hector Berlioz (1803-1869): Symphonie Fantastique (TYL/HL: “Program music,” a wild ride: after Beethoven, composers gained the “freedom” to do things like this…). 13) Georges Bizet (1838-1875): Carmen (TYL only because not everyone likes opera…yet; relentless, infectious music). 14-16) Johannes Brahms (1833-1897): Symphony no. 4 (TYL: the last great Romantic symphony); music for solo piano, op. 116-118 (AA: my favorite piece of solo piano music: the Intermezzo op. 117 no. 1); German Requiem (TYL: a choral masterwork for grownups…). 17-19) Benjamin Britten (1913-1976): Peter Grimes, opera (HL for music and content: unflinching 31 depictions of human temperaments and the imposing beauty of nature); War Requiem (HL: appropriately disturbing music set to the text of British wartime poet Wilfred Owen); Canticles (TYL: highly rewarding for the vocal enthusiast). 20) William Byrd (ca. 1540-1623): Polyphonic Masses (AA: distinctly English, these Masses are remarkable for their simple beauty and clarity of texture). 21) Frederic Chopin (1810-1849): Ballades for solo piano (AA/TYL: through-composed—in sections rather than movements—the moments of downtempo reflection contain music of astonishing, if fleeting, beauty). 22) Arcangelo Corelli (1653-1713): Concerti Grossi (AA: better than Vivaldi…). 24) François Couperin (1668-1733): Tenebrae Lessons (AA/TYL: gorgeous interplay of voices and instruments; plaintive but not somber). 25-26) Claude Debussy (1862-1918): Prelude on the Afternoon of a Fawn; Preludes, Suite Bergamasque, music for solo piano (TYL: ‘Impressionism’ does not suit every taste, but the patient listener reaps ample harmonic rewards). 27) Antonin Dvorák (1841-1904): Symphony no. 9 (AA: a little square compared to many of its epic contemporaries, but deserving of inclusion; a good nineteenth-century symphony to start with). 28) Guillaume Dufay (1397-1474): Missa se la face ay pale (AA: curious cross-pollination—a Mass setting based on a secular tune). 29) Edward Elgar (1857-1934): Enigma Variations (AA: the riddle or enigma relates to identity—each of the variations, notated by initials or a name, represents an Elgar acquaintance. The “Nimrod” variation would make the list on its own). 30) Gabriel Fauré (1845-1924): Requiem (AA: elegant with a poignant sense of modality). 31) Giovanni Gabrieli (ca. 1555-1612): Canzone et Sonate (AA: monumental liturgical music for choir, brass, and orchestra—the sonic equivalent of the great Basilicas and Cathedrals). 32) Carlo Gesualdo (1566-1613): Tenebrae (AA/ TYL: a fascinating and harmonically dazzling contemplation). 33) W. S. Gilbert (1836-1911) & Arthur Sullivan (1842-1900): The Pirates of Penzance (AA: everyone has a favorite G & S; this is mine. As always, Sullivan writes music of real substance). 34) Edvard Grieg (1843-1907): Piano Concerto (AA: beautifully if carefully constructed, a staple of concert repertoire). 35-36) G. F. Handel (1685-1759): Messiah; Water Music/Music for the Royal Fireworks (AA: technical refinement in orchestral form; masterful writing in his operas and oratorios—no composer wrote better for the human voice). 37) Joseph Haydn (1732-1809): London Symphonies (AA: no innovation or surprises, only technical elegance and formal perfection). 38) Johann David Heinichen (1683-1729): Concerti Grossi (AA: if you like the Four Seasons, you’ll love the Dresden Concerti). 39-40) Hildegard von Bingen (1098-1179): Ordo Virtutum (TYL); Canticles (AA: known as a “musical mystic,” the Church lists this abbess in the Martyrology. The music—of real significance in terms of polyphonic development—has an otherworldly beauty). 41) Gustav Holst (1874-1934): The Planets (AA/ TYL: not background or bedtime music…this marvel of orchestration requires one hand on the volume control at all times). 42-43) Charles Ives (1874-1954): Symphony no. 2 (HL); Songs (AA/TYL: America’s defining composer, modern not modernist, innovative not iconoclastic. I recommend Songs of Charles Ives, Centaur Records no. 2796, strictly for your edification…). 44) Josquin Desprez (ca. 1450-1521): Madrigals and Motets (AA: the greatest composer most people have never heard. I’ve said, exaggerating only slightly, that I would trade the entire musical output of the 20th century for his motet setting of the Ave Maria). 45) Franz Liszt (1811-1886): Piano Sonata no. 2 (TYL: this was a tough call in that I knew I would choose one of two Liszt compositions, both definitive examples of virtuoso piano music. The Années de pèlerinages provide a Liszt synopsis, but the Funeral March in the Sonata seals the deal). 46-48) Gustav Mahler (1860-1911): Symphony no. 8, Das Lied von der Erde (TYL/HL: wondrous excess…every listening reveals more); Rückert Lieder (TYL: expansive intimacy—though not my favorite, the Ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen is the greatest song I’ve ever sung). 49) Felix Mendelssohn (1809-1847): Violin Concerto (AA: superbly constructed and lovely—an appropriate description of nearly everything Mendelssohn wrote). 50) Olivier Messiaen (1908-1992): Pentecost Mass, for organ (HL: fascinating and kaleidoscopic). 51-52) Claudio Monteverdi (1567-1643): L’Orfeo, opera; 1610 Vespers (TYL: Orfeo is considered the first successful opera; the 1610 Vespers represent a synopsis of Monteverdi’s madrigal style). 53-58) W. A. Mozart (1756-1791): Symphony no. 41; Piano Concerto no. 21; “Haydn” String Quartets; The Marriage of Figaro, Don Giovanni, operas; Requiem (AA/TYL: unmatched facility and versatility as a composer; Mozart never failed in any form). 59) Modest Mussorgsky (1839-1881): Pictures at an Exhibition (AA/TYL: with brilliant and entertaining orchestration by Ravel—see no. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • November 2008 32 66—Mussorgsky wrote in a defiantly and definitively Russian style). 60) Johannes Ockeghem (ca. 1410-1497): Missa pro defunctis (AA: one of the defining medieval masters, with Dufay and Josquin. This is the earliest known polyphonic Requiem setting). 61) G. P. Palestrina (ca. 1525-1594): Polyphonic Masses (AA: high-renaissance liturgical compositions of supreme elegance). 62) Pérotin (ca. 1200): Organum (TYL: this fascinating early polyphony takes some getting used to…). 63-64) Sergei Prokofiev (1891-1953): Symphony no. 1; Romeo and Juliette, ballet (TYL: brilliance with a contemporary Russian accent; often poignant, always witty). 65-66) Giacomo Puccini (1858-1924): La Bohème, Madama Butterfly, operas (TYL: and the greatest opera of all time is…open to debate. But La Bohème is on the podium). 67) Henry Purcell (1659-1695): Dido and Aeneas, opera (AA: a baroque gem, Dido contains clever and stunning vocal writing). 68-69) Sergei Rachmaninov (1873-1943): Piano Concerto no. 2, Vespers (AA/TYL: the Vespers include all the greatness of the Russian choral tradition; the slow movement of the Concerto may be the most romantic piece of music ever composed). 70) Maurice Ravel (1875-1937): String Quartet (TYL: the second movement is pure frolic). 71-72) Gioachino Rossini (1792-1868): The Barber of Seville, William Tell, operas (AA/TYL: known primarily for his comic operas—of which Barber has become the best-loved—Rossini’s William Tell is a forward-looking dramatic masterpiece). 73-76) Franz Schubert (1797-1828): Symphony no. 9, Quintet in C, Piano Sonata D. 959, Winterreise (TYL: an acknowledged giant, yet still underappreciated: due to his output of over 700 songs—and his lack of personal dynamism—his harmonic power and innovation often escapes notice; chronological proximity to Beethoven also doesn’t help his cause…though forced to choose, I’d take Schubert). 77-79) Robert Schumann (1810-1856): Piano Concerto; Dichterliebe, Frauenliebe und Leben, song cycles (TYL: the poignant richness of his harmonies never ceases to astonish. The songs are dual—vocal and pianistic—masterworks). 80) Dmitri Shostakovich (1906-1975): Op. 87 Preludes and Fugues for solo piano (HL…but worth it). 81-82) Jean Sibelius (1865-1957): Symphony no. 2, Violin Concerto (TYL: Sibelius was a compositional traditionalist, but proved that artistic conservatism could have real vitality). 83-85) Richard Strauss (1864-1949): Death and Transfiguration, tone poem; Rosenkavalier, opera; THE ANGELUS • November 2008 www.angeluspress.org Four Last Songs (TYL/HL: though few would or could continue in his mode, the juxtaposition of his late Romanticism with the prevailing emaciated abstractism of the early 20th century vindicates recognizably traditional procedures. His 1949 Four Last Songs stand as a fitting tribute to 400 years of tonal development). 86-87) Igor Stravinsky (1882-1971): The Rite of Spring, Firebird, ballets (HL: the Parisians rioted at the premiere of The Rite of Spring. Stravinsky’s brutal realism, however, never devolves into sensationalism). 88-89) P. I. Tchaikovsky (1840-1893): Symphony no. 6; The Nutcracker, ballet (AA/TYL: the Sixth contains epic romantic music by a melancholic Russian composer—not for the faint or broken of heart. The Nutcracker rightly remains a cherished classic). 90-91) Ralph Vaughan Williams (1872-1958): Tallis Fantasia, Hodie (AA: lush and substantive. The Hodie is an impressive but relatively unknown Christmas cantata). 92-95) Giuseppe Verdi (1813-1901): La Traviata, Rigoletto, Otello, Falstaff, operas (TYL: the king of opera when opera was king…Verdi’s Sir John Falstaff may be the single greatest operatic portrayal of a literary character, arguably surpassing Shakespeare’s own depiction in terms of revealing the man). 96) Antonio Vivaldi (1678-1741): The Four Seasons / Op. 8 Concerti (AA: though his masterpieces are not the most thought-provoking pieces either of the epoch or the genre, few composers can match Vivaldi’s facility and consistency). 97-99) Richard Wagner (1813-1883): Die Meistersinger, Tristan und Isolde, Der Ring des Nibelungen, operas (HL: an acquired obsession. Few have taken so long to say so little…The Ring cycle alone is a four-opera epic of Norse mythology lasting 20 hours. Wagner succeeds as well as anyone ever has, however, in creating entire worlds—and the harmonies are breathtakingly expansive). 100) Hugo Wolf (1860-1903): Lieder (TYL: the specific list—Wolf composed some 600 songs—on request. He obsessed over text, and would not set the text of a previously composed song unless he considered that song deficient in some way; remarkable considering some of the texts he “re-composed.” The 3-minute song Anakreons Grab would make the list on its own). Let the listening begin. Dr. Andrew Childs serves currently as Assistant Dean and Humanities Chair at St. Mary’s College, and as Assistant to the Director of Education for the US District of the SSPX. He lives in St. Mary’s, Kansas, with his wife and children, and two cats of legendary girth and good nature. He has taught at Yale University, the University of California at Irvine, Missouri State University, and Connecticut College. An active professional performer, he has sung over 100 performances of nearly 30 operatic roles. 33 Recreation and Children m r s . M a r y R e e d N e w l a n d Usually the summer months are the time when recreation is the prime topic of conversation. Mary Reed Newland, who lived with her husband and six children in rural Massachusetts, shares her thinking on the subject Recreation means so many different things to so many people that this trying to sit down and write simply about “recreation” is likely to end up way off center. For some people it means what you do at summer camp, summer resorts, or clam bakes. And for some it means what you do on playgrounds, at nursery schools or on nature walks. And for still some more it means deciding between the movies, TV, dinner and dancing or a drink with friends, and so on. One man’s meat is another man’s poison, and to try to describe recreation as everyone sees it is impossible. It Must Be Fun For parents, recreation is as much a part of the spiritual training of their children as anything else, with one simple distinction: to be recreation, for a child, it must be fun. The other lessons aren’t always fun, and some can be quite painful, but this one doesn’t qualify unless it is. It isn’t always fun for mothers, and in their human weakness, at the end of a long day of interruptions and messes and wasted time, they are likely to look at some of the most satisfying forms of recreation and see them as strictly a pain in the neck. By the same token, a child will sometimes look back on 34 what parents have planned as a recreation and be either too tired, too full, or too confused to get much benefit from it. This is not meant to be, however, a blanket disapproval of planned recreation or a finger-wagging at mothers who can’t take mud pies on the kitchen floor, but simply a reflection on the fact that recreation thinking these days has taken such a specialized turn that we are inclined to lose our really delicate perception in re­gard to it. The first years of a child’s life are almost all recreation, or he won’t get through them happily. From his point of view and for all he doesn’t know it, learning, eating, discovering, inventing, all things that are fun and exciting, even humdrum but satisfying, are a form of recreation, which the dictionary defines as “refresh­ment of body or mind; diversion, amusement, as a pleasurable exercise or occupation.” And the best clues to what recreation is for him come from him. Toys come first of all, at least things to play with, and here he often neatly evades what the grownups would have him accept as proper and fitting things. For example, every family’s experience with the baby who, having unveiled all the Christmas gifts, returns to the kitchen to get out the pots on Christmas morning. After talking a lot but doing nothing about it, this past Christmas we bought our baby’s gifts in the housewares department of the five and ten, and he had the best time ever with sets of colored paper cups, plastic measuring spoons, a plastic scratcher for scrubbing pots and pans and a slightly off-plumb egg beater. Not that he did not enjoy the gifts people gave him, but children have an affinity for imitating grownups in their play, and to take advantage of it is to open one of the widest corridors to a child’s learning. of the very best places to play, also. Just as garages and cellar work benches are, for little boys, very good places to play. If we have lost sight of this, not because we are stupid or insensitive but merely busy and distracted, we can regain the perspective by stopping to put ourselves in their places, to see, not the work schedule interrupted by the pottering child, but the pottering child who will soon be a woman. Con­sidering the span from the cradle to the grave and the reason for man’s being here, play that is imitation of man’s work is really instinctive, and understandable, and God’s way for preparing His creatures little by little for maturity. And it shows that God made man so that no matter how rich or how poor, recreation depends more on what is inside him than what is outside, and why, when to his parents the cluttered yard and the bald spots on the lawn are anathema, to a child they can be a paradise. Sometimes it is the children of the poor who invent the best recreations of all, precisely because they must invent them. Once, when we were really scraping the bottom of the barrel, we discov­ered our boys—with nothing that would qualify remotely as commonly catalogued recreational paraphernalia–had taken an old mop handle, fastened to it a piece of discarded hose, dragged alongside an empty crate and on the crate was the sad, sad remnant of what had once been another child’s toy tractor. One boy was in the crate, under the tractor, giving it a grease job, and another was pumping gas in it with the hose fastened to the mop handle. If we had qualms about what a child needs to be provided with in order to entertain and instruct himself, it was then we cast them to the winds. Work Is Play Educational Toys Little girls love getting toy dishes and stoves, but they prefer being busy around their mothers’ dishes and stoves and until they grow wary enough to identify such carryings on with work (and, absorbing some of the attitude of a fallen world toward work, start to shy away from it) some of their very best times are had washing dishes, overseeing the cooking, and especially, particular joy, scrubbing the sink. They sometimes waste more scouring than they need, and hypnotized by the multiplication of soapsuds, pour out more soap than they need, but the meditations and musings to be bought for a nickel’s worth of soap or scouring powder are rare and wonderful things, and if we really stopped to put a value on them we’d find such soul-satisfactions cannot be bough for price. One of the most confounding evidences for the argument that recreation is sometimes intimately allied to forms of work is that remark often heard from little girls, “I love doing dishes at someone else’s house.” Just because a kitchen is associated in our minds as a place to work does not mean that it is not one It’s so much simpler than the specialists like to imply. We know of a couple who were determined their child should have nothing but the most highly recommended educational toys to play with—which toys are good and fun, but along with them goes a kind of informal I.Q. test. They bought a wooden mailbox equipped with different shaped blocks which fitted into shaped slots, and presenting it, sat back to calculate their small son’s ability to figure out which blocks went into which slots. He looked it over, took out all the blocks, then turning the box up­side down discovered the master slot for removing the blocks, opened it and, willy-nilly, dumped in the blocks. God love him, he was so far ahead of them that one encounter left it behind–for all it was prescribed for his age and development. So recreation, it seems, is a very fluid thing and likely to be discovered under the appearances of mere meddling, or messing around, or cluttering up, and is also sometimes quite recognizable as “play.” Like all other things in life, it has to be subject to some regulation but at the same time not categorized and THE ANGELUS • November 2008 www.angeluspress.org 35 frozen in a set form. No one is suggesting, of course, that all a child’s recreational peccadilloes be catered to or tolerated ad infinitum for fear of cutting him off from his play—or, like one family, the jungle gym be moved into the living room (it really happened) come winter and the end of the climbing outdoors season. It simply takes the same love and judgment (how easy this sounds! ) to handle it as it takes to handle rewards, punishments, assignment of work, and all the rest of the parts of growing up. And like these other things, it has a definite relation to God and along with “recreating” should go learning to offer it to God. Recreation and Religion “You mean,” Peter said, “that you can offer everything that’s good to God? Playing? Even just standing still?” Even playing, just standing still, everything that is good, because everything that is good is a reflection of God’s goodness and is a gift as much as those strange gifts of pain and trial He sends to perfect our wills. We receive the grace to have fun, just as we receive the grace to do other things. I think it was Monsignor Knox who said in one of his Slow-Motion books that he hoped his spiritual charges, offering up things for him, were remembering to offer a movie or two (cinema, he said) or a good cricket match, because he didn’t want sour things only offered as prayers for him. And if we remind them often enough and lovingly enough, and after really good fun perhaps we shall help establish the connection between all forms of recreation and prayer. Otherwise, unless one anticipates a life of endless misery, it would be impossible to “pray always.” At the same time it ought to establish deep in the subconscious, the instinctive awareness of things that are fitting recreation as compared to those which are not fitting, and therefore cannot be offered as prayer. There is a disinclination on the part of some people to “drag religion into the business of having fun, when to ignore our relation to God in our recreation (while bleating constantly to Him about our work, our finances, our aches and pains) is the thing that is out of place, not the reverse. I have never seen a picnic or beach party spoiled yet by the acknowledgment, “Wasn’t God good to give us this lovely day,” or “If it weren’t for original sin, there’d be no sand in the potato salad,” and barring overdoses of out and out sermons, the fabric of detachment—seeing all things against a background of God—is woven step by step a little bit tighter with each acknowledgment that, but for His cloudless sky, or warm sand, or infinite foresight that would permit man to one day invent the hot dog, this party wouldn’t have been half as much fun. And at the times of the great feasts, outright religious recrea­tions, including even mixed groups, are far more successful and satisfying—by virtue of the graces of the feasts, I am sure—than amusement for the sake of amusement. Many times it is the only opportunity for apparently religion-less people to acknowledge, awkwardly perhaps, a divine instinct deep inside which wants to be given a voice. The times when we have invited non-Catholics to celebrate the great vigils or feasts with us have been very happy gatherings, with—in the case of Halloween—the interesting dis­covery that when the background for the vigil is explained, the compulsion to indulge in even mild vandalism seems pointless. Community Recreation Because we are part of society, it is important that we think of recreation in terms of neighborhood and community recreation as well as in terms of family recreation. I know no parents who are deliberately anticipating bad entertainment habits as part of their children’s growing up—only those who worry about the pos­sibility; but too often all thought on the subject omits any real practical effort to forestall what is undesirable. It isn’t an original idea, but neighborhood action is the answer, and recently several nationally circulated articles have told of communities enforcing curfews, party conventions, formal dress customs and so forth. Most of these accounts have dealt with situations already out of hand, and how they were brought under control, but what is to stop the parents of the very young from establishing patterns which will preclude their getting out of hand? We have begun feeling our way with a plan in our neighbor­hood, and even though there is wide difference in our various religious beliefs, we all agree that we want to raise wholesome, moral children. We want our children to grow up with a sense of recreation that does not limit itself to going to movies, listening to the radio, tearing around in hot rods or drinking beer and danc­ing. None of these things is essentially bad in itself, but the world holds so much more. Mountain Climbing Our initial step at a neighborhood entertainment was a moun­tain climb. We have on our land what is (by some people) laugh­ingly called a “mountain” complete with trees, rocks, lichen, moss, fungi, birds, animals and fresh air. Best of all, it has a top which, when you reach it, you sit on and then you turn around and come down. Children from four to ten years old were included, with five mothers—we had twenty people in all. We all climbed, and after the climb we all ate, informally, coffee cake and cocoa. Not very world-shaking, but highly successful as a planned recreation, and the goodbyes were studded with, “Oh thanks—we had the best time.” Living with a mountain ceases to be a novelty after a while, and www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • November 2008 36 under other circumstances I might have heard my children react to the suggestion that they climb it with, “Oh, mother—we already climbed it.” But gather a group of people together and suggest it, and all of a sudden it’s a terrific idea. So too is eating your lunch, or picking blueberries, or wading in the brook—when you all do it together. We haven’t the time or money or transportation facilities to go off on elaborate forays in search of recreation, but we can work away at the business of establishing in our children’s minds many wholesome forms of recreation by planning the simple things and getting them to do them together. Successful group recreation doesn’t seem to depend on the elaborate as much as it does on unity and enthusiasm, and if our experiences have been a measure, I think that city families in the same block or apartment house can make trips to the park, to the zoo, rides on the ferry, a trip to the museum just as exciting for their children as our (really prosaic) mountain climb was for ours, without spending more than bus fare or money for ice cream cones. Families Can Recreate Together What’s new about all this? Nothing—really, except perhaps our stopping to observe that more and more we have grown used to the idea that planned recreation is the function of recreation directors, community centers, summer playground programs, day trips and scout troops. And if we are convinced that this is so, then we have been sold a bill of goods. Somehow, some way, families—even families with one or two babies still in dipes, and fathers working odd shifts in factories—can challenge this idea that recreation for all of them together is no longer possible. If no other way, then by doing as a family I know did—declaring a “children’s day” and leaving the chores where they were at a set time and simply doing things that were fun together. To neglect recreation, to consign it to the category of things “kids will do anyway,” is like saying “kids will eat anyway,” and not bothering to care what they eat. And looking ahead to the day when in high school they will be driven by that overpowering urge to run with the pack—to neglect the opportunities to band together now in neighborhood groups and plan wholesome recreation is missing the one big chance to set the standards of the pack. Groups of Catholic high school girls all over the country have begun to establish conven­tions in modest evening dresses simply by, together, demanding them from designers. Whether it’s strapless evening dresses, driv­ing cars, drinking, whatever, something can be done, and the earlier the better. Small children gather the strength and security for sound social behavior first of all from their spiritual training and their family life, but sometimes the best of them alone will waver before the pressure of ridicule and custom and “everybody does it.” Supported by a group whose tastes are THE ANGELUS • November 2008 www.angeluspress.org as wholesome as theirs, they stand a much better chance of weathering the delicate, dan­gerous years of adolescence and first experiments with maturity. A Community Fair Through organizations like PTA and others, essentially family organizations, there is recreational application to be made on even a broader level—the community itself. Our PTA is hold­ing a Town Fair this year, the first in many years, and almost the entire program depends on the fruits of creative family recreation, whether crafts, hobbies, flowers, herbs, art work or whatever. And for all the fun of entering the exhibits, the best fun of all is going together, with the mothers stopping to see the quilts and hooked rugs and the needlepoint, and the fathers the cabinet work and the metal craft and the chair caning, and the children to smell the herbs—taste them if they are brave, and discuss the flower show awards, criticize the art. Hard work, you may say, putting on a fair— hardly a recreation for any but those who will stroll through it. But not many of the people who work on it would agree. It is hard work, but in a strange way it is also recreation. Re-creating Gladness Defining recreation gets “curiouser and curiouser” as you try to track the meaning down, because it is so many different things to so many different people. For some it is work, for some play, for some study, for one lady I know it is caring for the altar and cleaning the sanctuary (most of her friends tell her this is a job for the janitor). Maybe the reason it is so elusive is that we never really look at the word and what it’s made of—re-creation. What man attempts to do when he seeks recreation as a change and a refreshment from the weariness of his daily work is to re-create the gladness of heart of his first parents before the fall, when all the world and all of life was full of joy in a creation that was free of sin. Christ accomplished a re-creation when He redeemed us and poured His blood over a fallen world, establishing a society in His Mystical Body through which we could find paradise again in spite of the continuing presence of evil. Outside of Him, all our attempts to recreate fall short, the joy is never more than transitory, the recreation rarely more than a diversion. But in Him we can find it—and maybe that is the secret of why the saints’ lives were such a fusion of what we call by the common words—work, suffering, prayer, play— because they discovered that He is the instrument of re-creation, and in Him all human activity can become a recreation. First published in July 1953, this article is included in the forthcoming fourth volume of Integrity articles from Angelus Press called Motherhood and Family. Mary Reed Newland was a prolific writer and mother of seven. She was a regular contributor to Integrity. PART 18 37 F r . M a t t h i a s G a u d r o n The chapter on the New Mass examines the intention to please Protestants that guided its redaction, the influence of Freemasonry, and the possibility of liturgical books containing errors. Catechism Of the Crisis In the Church Question 60 continued from last month l How might we summarize the spirit that inspired the redaction of the New Mass? The spirit that inspired the redaction of the new rite of Mass is clearly visible in the General Introduction to the new Missal. It is especially manifest in its Article 7, which states: The Lord’s Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or meeting of the People of God, met together with a priest presiding, to celebrate the Memorial of the Lord. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of a local congregation of the Church: “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst” (Mt. 18:20). l What stands out in Article 7? The description Article 7 gives of the Mass has nothing specifically Catholic and could just as easily apply to the Protestant Supper. If Article 7 is taken as a definition, it must even be considered heretical. l How does Article 7 contradict Church teaching? Article 7 contradicts Church teaching on the three essential points that distinguish the Catholic Mass from the Protestant Supper: 1) The Mass is essentially a (propitiatory) sacrifice, not an assembly of the faithful met together to celebrate a “memorial.” 2) The priest is essentially a (free and voluntary) instrument by which Christ renews His sacrifice, and not a mere president of an assembly. 3) Our Lord is present in the Eucharist with his body and blood, and not only in a spiritual manner (as when two or three persons are gathered in His name). l Yet is it not true that the Mass is an assembly of the faithful? The presence of the faithful is not necessary for the celebration of holy Mass (even if it is desirable). The third Eucharistic prayer favors error on this point by affirming: “From age to age you gather a people to yourself, so that...a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name.” l Is this bad presentation of the Mass proper to Article 7, or is it to be found throughout the General Introduction of the new missal? This bad presentation of the Mass is to be found throughout the General Introduction of the 1969 missal, of which Article 7 is the perfect summary: www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • November 2008 38 1) The word sacrifice appears a few times in the 341 articles of this Introduction with a vague meaning, but propitiatory sacrifice is never spoken of (the Mass is presented, rather, as a banquet, a feast, etc.). 2) The fact that the priest–and he alone–is the instrument by which our Lord, renews His sacrifice during the consecration is never mentioned either.1 3) The expression “real presence” is equally absent. The “presence” of Christ in the Eucharist is mentioned, but in the same way as one speaks of His “presence” in sacred Scripture. And the term “transubstantiation,” which is the only word that unequivocally expresses the Catholic faith, is also omitted.2 l Surely the mere fact that the word transubstantiation does not appear in the General Introduction to the 1969 missal is not enough to support the conclusion that its authors do not believe it. It is not a matter of judging the personal faith of the new missal’s authors, but of knowing whether, objectively, the Catholic Faith is expressed in it. In 1794, Pius VI condemned a proposition of the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia, which did express the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist correctly, for the sole reason that if failed to employ the word transubstantiation. This single omission was reason enough for Pius VI to declare that the proposition was favorable to heretics.3 Now, the General Introduction of the 1969 missal is much less clear on this subject than the Synod of Pistoia; and at the same time, the new missal suppresses many marks of respect towards the Blessed Sacrament. It is obviously dangerous to the faith. l Was not the General Introduction of the new missal subsequently corrected? The General Introduction of the Missal, and especially its Article 7, raised such an outcry that it was modified as early as 1970. The words transubstantiation and propitiatory were notably added (once, so that it could no longer be said that they were absent) in the “typical” (that is to say, official) edition of the new Missal, promulgated March 26, 1970, by the Roman Congregation on Divine Worship. But the new rite itself, of which Article 7 perfectly expressed the spirit, was not changed! It continues to impart to the faithful who participate in it the same idea of the Mass: an assembly of the People of God celebrating a memorial under the presidency of the priest. This is nearly the Protestant conception. 61) Was the protestantization of the new rite of Mass intentional? The French Academy member Jean Guitton, a great friend and confidant of Paul VI, declared that the Pope had intended to remove from the Mass anything that might trouble the Protestants. In fact, Paul VI asked six Protestant pastors to collaborate in the drafting of the New Mass. A famous photograph shows him in the company of these Protestant ministers. One of them, Max Thurian, a member of the Protestant monastic community of Taizé, later explained: “There is nothing in this renewed Mass that can really bother evangelical Protestants.”4 Later, in 1988, he was ordained priest without having previously abjured Protestantism. l When did Jean Guitton reveal this intention of Paul VI? During a radio program devoted to Paul VI (December 19, 1993, on Radio Courtoisie), Jean Guitton described in the following terms the intention Paul VI had in devising the new rite: First of all, Paul VI’s Mass is presented as a banquet, and emphasizes much more the participatory aspect of a banquet and much less the notion of sacrifice, of a ritual sacrifice before God with the priest showing only his back. So, I do not think I’m mistaken in saying that the intention of Paul VI and the new liturgy that bears his name is to ask of the faithful a greater participation at Mass; it is to make more room for Sacred Scripture and less room for everything...–some would say for magic, others for transubstantiation, which is of Catholic faith. In other words, Paul VI evinced an ecumenical intention to efface, or at least to correct, or at least to relax what is too Catholic, in the traditional sense, in the Mass, and to converge the Mass, I repeat, with the Calvinist Supper. l Are there other testimonies of the ecumenical orientation of the new liturgy? The principal author of the liturgical reform, Fr. Annibale Bugnini (1912-82) never made a secret of his ecumenical intentions. He made a rather significant admission of as much in 1965, in a striking sentence worth reading twice: The Church was guided by the love of souls and the desire to do everything in order to smooth the way to union, to remove every stone which could represent even the shadow of a risk of a stumbling block or some displeasure for our separated brethren.5 Let’s reread it: remove every stone (1) that might represent (conditional tense) (2) even the shadow (3) of a risk (4) of displeasure. l How did the Protestants understand Paul VI’s New Mass? Many Protestants, who obviously refused the traditional Mass, stated that they saw no difficulty henceforth in using the new rite to celebrate their THE ANGELUS • November 2008 www.angeluspress.org 39 Protestant Supper. In addition to Max Thurian (La Croix, May 30, 1969), one can quote G. Siegvalt (Le Monde, November 22, 1969); Roger Mehl (Le Monde, September 10, 1970); Ottfried Jordahn (conference of June 15, 1975, at Maria Laach); and lastly, the official declaration of the Supreme Consistory of the Church of the Augsburg Confession of Alsace and Lorraine on December 8, 1973. l Were the Protestants the only non-Catholics to influence the preparation of the new liturgy? Besides the influence of Protestants, the liturgical reform of 1969 was influenced by Freemasonry. l How did Freemasonry exert its influence on the liturgical reform of 1969? Freemasonry influenced the liturgical reform indirectly at first, thanks to the opening to the world preached by Vatican II at the very moment that civil society began to be dominated by Masonic slogans: progress, the cult of man, freedom, secularization, tolerance, equality, etc. Everything that manifested divine transcendence, the sense of the sacred, respect for authority, contempt for the world, the acknowledgment of our status as sinners, the importance of the spiritual combat, the need for sacrifice and reparation, or simply the clear acknowledgment of a supernatural order, seemed ill-adapted to “modern man,” and was eliminated or watered down. l Can you give some examples of these changes? The new liturgy modified or expurgated texts speaking too clearly of hell or the devil (the Dies Irae in the Mass for the Dead; the Collects of the 17th Sunday after Pentecost and the feasts of St. Nicholas, St. Camillus de Lellis, etc.); of original sin (Collect of Christ the King); of penance (Collects of St. Raymond of Peñafort, St. John-Marie Vianney, the Curé of Ars; of the Thursday after Ash Wednesday); the contempt of the things of the earth (Collect of St. Francis of Assisi, the Postcommunion of the second Sunday of Advent, the Secret of the third Sunday after Easter); the need to make satisfaction for sins (Collect of the Sacred Heart); the enemies of the Church (Communion of the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, and the Collects of St. Pius V, St. John Capistrano, etc.); the dangers of error (the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of heretics and schismatics, and the Collects of St. Peter Canisius, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Augustine of Canterbury); the miracles of saints (Collects of St. Nicholas, St. Francis Xavier, St. Raymond of Peñafort, St. John of God, St. Frances Roman, etc.).6 l Were these suppressions really the expression of a new spirit? That same year of 1969, Paul VI declared: After the Council a wave of peace and optimism has swelled in the Church, a stimulating and positive Christianity, the friend of life, of worldly values.... [result of] an intention to render Christianity acceptable and lovable, indulgent and open, rid of every trace of medieval rigorism or pessimistic outlook on men and morals.7 l Is the promulgation of a rite covered by the Church’s infallibility? Sometimes it is asserted that the promulgation of a new rite or the publication of a universal law (for example, a liturgical law) would automatically come under the Church’s infallibility, such that there could be nothing in it false or harmful to the Church. But this is not true. The same rule applies to the liturgy as applies to papal teaching. Just as not every word of the pope is infallible, but rather he is only infallible under certain conditions, so also not every liturgical rule is infallible per se. It will only be infallible in the event that the ecclesiastical authority promulgates it with the full weight of his authority and invokes his infallibility. l Has it happened that in the past the Holy See published liturgical books that might favor error? Yes, it has happened (though exceptionally) that the Holy See published liturgical books favoring error. l Can you give an example? For a long time the Roman Pontifical contained a rubric recommending that, during an ordination to the priesthood, the bishop assure that the ordinand touch the chalice and the paten, since it was by his so doing that the sacerdotal character was conferred. This rubric was suppressed after the declaration of Pope Pius XII (Sacramentum Ordinis, 1947) clarifying that only the imposition of hands constitutes the essential matter of priestly ordination. l Can you provide another example? The Roman Pontifical of the 13th century contained an even more surprising error: it affirmed that the consecration of wine into the blood of Christ could be effected even without the words of consecration by mere contact of the wine with a consecrated host. l How can the presence of such errors in liturgical books approved by the Holy See be explained? These errors are possible because in approving these rubrics, the Holy See did not intend to give them the value of dogmatic definitions. That was clear to all. (Theologians were discussing the question of the matter of the sacrament of holy orders until the time of Pius XII; they did not consider the rubrics as sufficient to decide the question.) l What can we conclude from these examples? These examples clearly show that the Holy See does not always engage its infallibility in liturgical www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • November 2008 40 matters; in order to ascertain to what extent infallibility is engaged, one must carefully consider the nature, the essential content, the circumstances, and the degree of authority of official decisions. l Isn’t it surprising that the Church does not always engage its infallibility in the liturgy? Even the Ecumenical Councils and pontifical documents are far from engaging infallibility in each of their parts, even when they have as a direct and primary end to teach doctrine. It is therefore logical that liturgical rites, which only teach indirectly, do not always engage it either. l If the liturgy does not always engage infallibility, may one then freely criticize the Church’s established liturgy? Even though it does not always engage infallibility (and thus it can exceptionally contain errors), the liturgy established by the Church must be venerated and respected. It would be rash, scandalous, and offensive to pious ears to pretend to submit it in principle to one’s particular judgment.8 l Must the discipline and liturgy established by the Holy See always be accepted, even when they do not engage infallibility? As a general rule, yes, the discipline and liturgy established by the Holy See must always be accepted integrally (just as one must adhere to the whole of its teaching without limiting oneself to believing infallible dogmas). In case of an exceptional crisis, however, should one possess evidence that a non-infallible decision endangers one’s faith, one may, and even must, resist it. l It is then possible that a pope might require the promulgation of a liturgy dangerous to the faith? The present situation unfortunately shows that, in a time of exceptional crisis, a pope might promulgate a liturgy which, without being properly heretical, is dangerous to the faith. Such a catastrophe is facilitated by the liberal mentality of the post-conciliar popes, who visible shrink from exercising their infallibility. However, it is impossible for such a liturgy to be peacefully accepted by the whole Church (which would mean that the gates of hell had prevailed9). In fact, the harmful character of the new liturgy was solemnly denounced at Rome itself by cardinals (among whom, Cardinal Ottaviani, who had been the pro-prefect of the Holy Office, hence second in command in the Vatican, under three popes in succession); throughout the world, bishops, priests, and faithful publicly refused to celebrate it or associate with it. THE ANGELUS • November 2008 www.angeluspress.org l Can one be sure that Paul VI’s new liturgy does not engage papal infallibility? As regards the New Mass, Pope Paul VI himself declared that its rites can receive differing theological evaluations: ...no particular rite or rubric amounts in itself to a dogmatic definition. Such things are all subject to a theological evaluation, differing according to their context in the liturgy. They are all gestures and words related to a religious activity that is lived and living by reason of an inexpressible mystery, a divine presence, and that is carried out in diverse ways. Such religious activity is of a kind that only a theological critique can analyze and articulate in doctrinal formulas that satisfy logic.10 Translated exclusively for Angelus Press from Katholischer Katechismus zur kirchlichen Kriese by Fr. Matthias Gaudron, professor at the Herz Jesu Seminary of the Society of St. Pius X in Zaitzkofen, Germany. The original was published in 1997 by Rex Regum Press, with a preface by the District Superior of Germany, Fr. Franz Schmidberger. This translation is based on the second edition published in 1999 by Rex Regum Verlag, Schloß Jaidhof, Austria. Subdivisions and slight revisions made by the Dominican Fathers of Avrillé have been incorporated into the translation. Pius XII taught very clearly: “The unbloody immolation at the words of consecration, when Christ is made present upon the altar in the state of a victim, is performed by the priest and by him alone, as the representative of Christ and not as the representative of the faithful” (Mediator Dei, §92). The General Introduction, however, asserts that in the Mass the priest speaks sometimes in the name of the people and sometimes in his own name (Art. 13), but fails to say that at the essential moment, at the consecration, he is the representative of Christ alone. 2 If absolutely necessary, some Protestants will accept the term “real presence,” but not “transubstantiation,” which very precisely designates the change of the entire substance of the bread into the substance of the glorious body of our Lord, the outward appearances alone remaining. 3 DS 2629 [Dz. 1529]. 4 Quoted in La Croix, May 30, 1969. 5 L’Osservatore Romano, March 17, 1965. 6 Here we are summarizing the study of Dom Edouard Guillou, O.S.B., “Les oraisons de la nouvelle messe et l’esprit de la réforme liturgique,” Fideliter, No. 86, March-April 1992, 58ff. It provides the complete text of these prayers and some complementary examples. 7 Pope Paul VI, Documentation Catholique, 1538 (October 20, 1969), col. 1372. 8 In the Bull Auctorem Fidei, Pope Pius VI condemned the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia (1786) which had declared that, in the discipline established and approved by the Church, it is necessary to distinguish “what is necessary or useful...from that which is useless or too burdensome..., but more so, from that which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism.” Pius VI declared this proposition “false, rash, scandalous...” (DS 2678, Dz. 1578). 9 Pius VI, in the Constitution Auctorem Fidei (August 28, 1794), condemned the Jansenists, who spoke “as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome, but which is even dangerous and harmful...” (Dz. 1578). This text, which has neither the authority nor the precision of a dogmatic definition, shows very well that the ecclesiastical authorities enjoy a certain infallibility in disciplinary and liturgical matters, but does not indicate the conditions of its exercise nor its exact limits. While waiting for the Church to decide the matter, theologians are reduced to hypotheses on the matter. 10 Paul VI, Address to a general audience on the new Order of Mass about to be introduced, 19 November 1969: AAS 61 (1969), 777-780; English version: Documents on the Liturgy, 1963-1979: Conciliar, Papal, and Curial Texts (Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1982), p.539. 1 F R . Does the Church’s infallibility extend to disciplinary laws? p e t e r This is a question of the greatest importance for a traditional Catholic in the present crisis in the Church, for in practice he rejects disciplinary laws of the post-conciliar Church. How can he do so if disciplinary laws are infallible? Surely, if they are infallible, then he is obliged either to admit the sedevacantist thesis that there is no pope, or simply submit to them. However, it is theologically certain that the Church’s infallibility does indeed extend to disciplinary laws, based upon the Church’s own condemnations of the contrary propositions of Protestants by the Council of Trent, of Jansenists and the Council of Pistoia by Pope Pius VI, of Liberal Catholics by Gregory XVI, and of Modernists by St. Pius X in the decree Lamentabili and the encyclical Pascendi. Moreover, it can be deduced from the Vatican I definition of papal infallibility. Disciplinary laws are, in fact, a part of the secondary object of the Church’s infallibility. The primary and direct object consists in all those truths of faith and morals that are in themselves revealed in Scripture and Tradition, and subsequently taught by the Magisterium. The secondary or indirect object of the Church’s infallibility consists of those truths that are necessarily connected with the deposit of the Faith, in such a way that it cannot be kept in its entirety without them. It includes some speculative truths, such as the immortality of the soul; some practical facts, such as the legitimacy of the Council of Trent as a true ecumenical council; some definitive and final decisions that solemnly use the fullness of the Church’s authority, such as the (traditional) canonization of saints and the approval of religious orders. Disciplinary laws are to be included in the secondary object of the Church’s infallibility, but only indirectly and inasmuch as they are connected with directly revealed truth (doctrine) by the goal that they attain, the salvation of souls. Note that this is rather a negative quality of the pope’s supreme and universal power of government of the Church, namely, that inasmuch as those acts of government are directed towards the salvation of souls, they cannot impose any obligation opposed to divinely revealed Faith and morals. This infallibility of the Church’s universal disciplinary laws is in no way a positive infallibility, as if the Church’s laws could never be wrong or inappropriate, provided that they are for the whole Church. Clearly, they are often not adapted to present needs, and the fact that they continually change demonstrates this. The most well-known case is that of communion under both kinds, which originally existed in the Roman Rite, but was abolished for very good practical reasons, and for the theological R . s c o t t 41 reason that Christ is present whole and entire under either species. The Council of Constance proclaimed, against the heresy of John Hus, that the practice of receiving Holy Communion under one kind “which is observed by the universal Church and approved by the sacred Council of Constance, must be preserved, so that it be not allowed to condemn this or to change it at pleasure without the authority of the Church” (Dz. 668). This is clearly a disciplinary decision, so connected with the revelation on the Real Presence necessary for the salvation of souls, that it itself benefits from the Church’s infallibility. This was restated by the Council of Trent, when it reiterated the Church’s authority to make laws concerning the administration of the sacraments, while preserving their substance (Dz. 931 ss.). It did the same thing with respect to the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament, and condemned with an anathema anybody who would affirm “that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church… may be disdained or omitted by the minister without sin and at pleasure, or may be changed…” (Dz. 856). It likewise taught that the Canon of the Mass is free from all error, and condemned with an anathema anyone who says that it contains errors or that it ought to be abrogated (Dz. 953). This is a negative but infallible guarantee if ever there was one. Pope Gregory XVI spoke explicitly of this teaching in an encyclical to the Rhineland bishops in 1833 (Quo Graviora), condemning the Indifferentism of innovators and Liberal Catholics, wanting to bring about a general reform of all Catholic discipline and government: When they pretend that all the forms of the Church without distinction can be changed, are they not subjecting to this change those points of discipline which have their foundation in the divine law itself, which are joined to doctrines of faith by so close a bond that the rule of faith determines the rule of action? Are they not trying, moreover, to make of the Church something human; are they not openly diminishing her infallible authority and the divine power which guides her, in holding that her present discipline is subject to decay, to weakness, and to other failures of the same nature, and in imagining that it contains many elements which are not only useless but even prejudicial to the well-being of the Catholic religion? (In Papal Teachings: The Church [Solesmes] p.130) The infallibility of the Church’s disciplinary laws can also be deduced from the condemned Proposition 5 contained in the Decree Lamentabili against the Modernists in 1907: “Since in the deposit of faith only revealed truths are contained, in no respect does it pertain to the Church to pass judgment on the assertions of human disciplines” (Dz. 2005). For denying all immutability of truth and religion, they cry out that the government of the Church must be reformed in every respect, but especially on the www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • November 2008 42 disciplinary and dogmatic side. Thus, both within and without, it is to be brought into conformity with the modern conscience, as they say. (Pascendi, Dz. 2104) It is precisely because the Church’s discipline, its ecclesiastical laws, reflect and express its doctrine that it expresses the Church’s infallibility and need not be reformed in every aspect. The article on Ecclesiastical Discipline in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1909) explains this negative infallibility in this way: Inasmuch as in her general discipline, i.e., the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or Divine law would exact.…It is quite permissible, however, to inquire how far this infallibility extends, and to what extent, in her disciplinary activity, the Church makes use of the privilege of inerrancy granted her by Jesus Christ when she defines matters of faith or morals. It is both interesting and important to note that the defense of the infallibility of the Church’s disciplinary laws has always been against heretics, liberals and modernists, enemies of Catholic Tradition. Is it possible that this teaching could be now turned against traditional Catholics, to force us to accept precisely this liberalism and heresy against which the Church’s constant discipline was such an effective bulwark? If common sense manifestly denies this, there is a reason, and it is contained in the essentially negative nature of this infallibility, which in turn derives from the fact that infallibility is directly a property of the Church’s teaching function, which is of the order of truth, and is only indirectly related to the order of government. It is not a positive characteristic of each law itself that makes it infallible, and it is not because the Church makes a law that it becomes by that very fact infallible, the best possible and unchangeable. This is the common conception of what “infallible” means, but it does not at all apply to disciplinary laws. They are only infallible inasmuch as they do not directly contradict a question of faith and morals necessary for eternal salvation. The Church consequently could not make a universal law, for example, that denies the Real Presence, or that denies the possibility of going to hell. However, it can certainly make bad laws that do not promote devotion to the Real Presence as they ought, or that do not inculcate the fear of eternal damnation as they ought. The Church’s infallibility in no way protects against such laws. Allow me to quote again the above-mentioned article from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which admits that we can very rightly enquire as to the real extent of this infallibility. Doubtless, in last analysis all ecclesiastical laws are based on certain fundamental truths, but as laws their purpose is neither to confirm nor to condemn these THE ANGELUS • November 2008 www.angeluspress.org truths. It does not seem, therefore, that the Church needs any special privilege of infallibility to prevent her from enacting laws contradictory to her doctrine. To claim that disciplinary infallibility consists in regulating, without possibility of error, the adaptation of a general law to its end, is equivalent to the assertion of a (quite unnecessary) positive infallibility, which the incessant abrogation of laws would belie and which would be to the Church a burden and a hindrance rather than an advantage, since it would suppose each law to be the best. This is a profound observation on the negative quality of disciplinary infallibility. It cannot be some positive quality of an ecclesiastical law, as it is commonly understood to be. It is simply the purely negative fact that the Church’s disciplinary law does not contradict divine or natural law. Consequently, there can be in the Church, and frequently have been, bad laws, laws that are not adapted to the common good, laws that contain all kinds of errors of fact and practice. St. Thomas Aquinas would say that such laws are not laws at all, since they are no longer an ordering of reason to the common good (I-II, 96, 4), and that consequently it makes no sense to speak of their infallibility. However, we can certainly admit that inasmuch as such universal “laws” are promulgated by the highest authority in the Church, that of the Pope, they benefit from this purely negative infallibility of which we are speaking. God would not allow the Pope to make a universal law, related to the salvation of souls, that would contain a direct contradiction to a doctrine of faith and morals. Given, then, that there is an infallibility to the Church’s disciplinary laws, how is this applied to the post-conciliar Church, and can it oblige us to accept the disciplinary revolution that issued from Vatican II? There can be no doubt that there are a whole range of disciplinary laws introduced in the Church since Vatican II that are doing great harm to souls, that undermine the Faith and that are consequently evil. Obvious examples include the decrees promoting the New Mass, or permitting Communion in the hand, or permitting altar girls, or encouraging liberty of false religions, ecumenism, or Eucharistic hospitality. The list is endless. The first question to be asked is whether they are truly universal, that is, whether or not they impose an obligation on the entire Church. As a general rule, these novel laws do not. Laws that are limited to the Roman Rite are not properly universal, and so consequently the application of these principles concerning the infallibility of disciplinary laws could well be disputed. However, allowing that they are to be considered as universal, given the predominance of the Roman Rite, the infallibility from which they benefit would in no way oblige us to accept them as just laws. This infallibility simply means that they contain no direct contradiction to Catholic doctrine, on the Real 43 Presence, for example. It does not prevent them from containing grave ambiguities, such as concerning the word “Church,” or the word “Christ’s Presence” or the word “Eucharist.” It does not prevent them from containing grave errors, as for example the laws promoting the freedom of all religions. It does not prevent them doing great harm to souls, and it does not prevent them from being bad laws, and frankly evil, as is the New Mass. Evil is the absence of the good that is due, that ought to be present. The “presence” of evil, therefore, does not mean that there is a contradiction with a Catholic doctrine. It simply means that the Catholic doctrine is not adequately expressed. The New Mass is an evil law that destroys the Faith in the propitiatory nature of the Holy Sacrifice. The Church’s infallibility did not prevent this legislation from being imposed, not did it prevent even a false definition of the Mass in Article 7. Nor does the Church’s infallibility prevent one from denying its true promulgation as Church law, for it manifestly is not in reality a law of the Church, but a modernist imposition. The Church’s infallibility simply negatively prevents a direct contradiction with divinely revealed Catholic doctrine. The argument, then, of the infallibility of the Church’s disciplinary laws, is a red herring in the question as to how to react in the present crisis. It is entirely irrelevant as to how we must resist and refuse the disciplinary revolution of Vatican II. It is, to the contrary, the infallibility of the Church’s disciplinary laws which is precisely the guarantee and assurance that we cannot be wrong in holding firm to the ecclesiastical traditions and laws that maintained the Faith for nearly 2,000 years. Does a human-animal hybrid embryo have a soul? This question has become topical because of the May 2008 decision of the British Parliament to permit the creation of such hybrid embryos, for experimentation purposes, for a period of 15 days. Who am I to resolve this question? What precedents do we have to resolve it? Some 20 or more years ago, the same question was asked about test tube babies, and some persons imprudently postulated that they did not have souls. Now, we know that this is not the case and that they do indeed have souls. The soul is the principle of life, and consequently of activity. If the individual has human activities, human life, namely reason and will, then it most certainly has a human soul. When man artificially conceives the embryo, God infuses the soul. Then came the question of clones, who have entirely human genetic material, but only one parent. Can such beings have a human soul? Since the time of Dolly the sheep, we know that they can have an animal soul, that is, the principle of life of a purely material being. We have not yet, to the best of my knowledge, seen such a human clone grow to adulthood, which God forbid that we should ever see. However, if we ever were to do so we would see that if such a clone ever survived the enormous difficulties and great risk of genetically induced deformations, cancers, and abnormalities, he would have human activities, human life, and a human soul, in the same way as a test tube baby. God infuses the soul when the matter is duly prepared, no matter in how perverse a manner it is done. Now comes the horrific possibility of an artificially engineered hybrid embryo. Clearly such an individual, if it were to ever live beyond the embryo stage, and even at its generation, cannot be half man and half animal, as the British bishops attempt to maintain. This is a metaphysical impossibility. It either has a human and spiritual or immortal soul and is a man, or it has the soul of a purely material being, that ceases with death and is not capable of reason and free will, and it is an animal. The only way for us to determine with certainty which of the two it really is, would be to analyze its life and activities. The existence of reason and free will is the only certain experimental proof of the existence of a soul. However, this clearly cannot be done on an embryo. One could postulate that if it were essentially created from human genetic material, with some inclusion of animal genes, that if it managed to survive, it would have the organization, life, and activity of a man, and consequently a human soul. Likewise, if it were essentially created from animal genetic material, with the inclusion of some human genes, then it would not be a man, having only the determination and organization of animal life. However, there could very easily be intermediary situations in which not even such a postulate would be possible. However, the question is irrelevant to the practical action of the Catholic. It is manifestly a perversion of nature, a genetic manipulation of the worst kind, a deliberate program to impose pure materialism, a direct denial of the truth of the natural law of the existence of the immortal soul that is involved here. No Catholic could cooperate in any way, and most certainly not by finding a woman as a host for the implantation and raising of such an embryo, as the Catholic bishops in the UK suggested. This would be a direct cooperation in evil. It would be much better to allow the fruit of such perversion to die a “natural” death rather than to cooperate in any way in its continued existence. Fr. Peter Scott was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. After assignments as seminary professor, US District Superior, and Rector of Holy Cross Seminary in Goulburn, Australia, he is presently Headmaster of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Academy in Wilmot, Ontario, Canada. Those wishing answers may please send their questions to Q &A in care of Angelus Press, 2915 Forest Ave., Kansas City, MO 64109. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • November 2008 STK# 8243 $5.95 STK# 8326 $14.95 STK# 8245 $8.95 Brand New Advent Calendars Some o new Advf eour nt calen availabdlears are not else in by anyone e United States! th today beGet yours fore run out! we STK# 8324 $8.95 STK# 8005 $7.95 STK# 8241 $6.95 A wonderful Advent tradition Old World style imported from Germany! Each calendar has twenty-four little doors (one for each day of December before Christmas). Open each door to reveal a charming little picture and a Scripture verse (on the back of the door) related to the coming of the Messiah. STK# 8323 $8.95 The pictures behind the doors are on translucent paper so when held to the light the image is illuminated. Calendars are richly decorated and adorned with glitter. Calendars are reusable year after year. Children LOVE these calendars! STK# 8066 $7.95 STK# 8242 $6.95 STK# 8325 $7.95 STK# 8244 $5.95 THE VERY FINEST CHRISTMAS CARDS! Impressive 5½" x 8" size Gold foil-embossed Full-color hand calligraphy inside Elegant cream colored paper, smooth finish l Single fold, heavy stock l Beautifully patterned envelope with foil lining l 16 cards with 17 envelopes l l l l Outside Text: CHRIST IS BORN FOR US Inside Text: Let us rejoice in the newborn king! A Blessed Christmas Bible Verse: For a child has been born for us, a son given to us and he is named the Prince of Peace. (Is. 9:6) Outside Text: UNTO US A CHILD IS BORN Inside Text: Peace and Joy be yours this Christmas and throughout the New Year Bible Verse: A child has been born for us, a son given to us...and he is named... Prince of Peace. (Is.9:6) STK# 8330 $15.95 STK# 8331 $15.95 STK# 8328 $11.95 STK# 8329 $11.95 STK# 8332 $15.95 Inside Text: The light of the Savior's coming dispels the night. Let all the earth rejoice in everlasting day! May the joy of Christ's birth be with you. Merry Christmas Bible Verse: The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. (Jn. 1:5) Inside Text: Christ is born among us to fill the world with new and lasting peace The Spirit of peace be upon you these holy days and throughout the year! Bible Verse: In his days may righteousness flourish and peace abound, until the moon is no more. (Ps. 72:7) Outside Text: COME ALL YE FAITHFUL; COME LET US ADORE HIM Inside Text: Christ, the King of angels, is born again in our hearts! A BLESSED CHRISTMAS Bible Verse: On entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother; and they knelt down and paid him homage. (Mt. 2:11) mONtHLY pHOtO WrItING CONteSt For the moment, the monthly photo essay Contest has been discontinued. thank you to all who participated. The ANgelus • November 2008 www.angeluspress.org the winner of the September contest will be published in the December issue. “I raised my 14 children with this book! The new reprint is a God-send. It is essential for young ones.” - Margaret This book was so popular in the 1930s...it was reprinted five times! For Christmas 2008, Angelus Press is reprinting this classic in vivid color. Featuring gorgeous illustrations representing each letter of the alphabet, with a short poem on each page. This book is built with a strong hardback cover to withstand a young child’s playtime. s u o ge ! r o r g o l co 28pp. Hardcover. Illustrated. STK# 8301 $16.95 2009 cal i g r u t i L rs a d n e Cal lue! a Great V 10¾ x 10¾. Full co lor throughout. STK# 8298 $11.9 5 buy one get the second for 1/2 off! both for only panels. $17.95 STK# CAL2009 (Offer only valid when you purchase one of each calendar.) #1046 B/W Full color with 10¾ x 10¾. 1.95 $1 STK# 8297 E-mail Updates from Angelus Press! rom f w e n us angelss pr e A Catholic Child’s Picture Dictionary The book your children will grow up looking at, reading, and remembering. A Catholic child’s “pictionary” of 240 inviting illustrations and 420 childlike definitions of all interesting Catholic persons, places, and things from “Abraham” to “Zeal” to which your child must be introduced. That introduction is better made earlier rather than later, especially with the help of Daddy and Mommy. A great resource for the early education of your Catholic child. Bite-sized definitions and charming pictures satisfy the most challenged attention spans. By ages eight or nine, they’ll be reading it all by themselves. Originally published in 1956 by the Catechetical Guild Educational Society with Cardinal Spellman’s imprimatur. We’ve built this to last forever with a big 8½" x 11" durable hardcover that will withstand rough treatment, your children’s book box, and peanut butter and jelly. A title which should become a family standard. A delightful gift. 58pp, 8½ x 11. Color hardcover. 240 four-color illustrations. STK# 8299 $19.95 If you would like to receive our bi-weekly e-mail, ­updating you on new titles, sales and special offers (most available only online), simply send your e-mail address to: listmaster@angeluspress.org. You can change your e-mail reception preferences or unsubscribe at any time. Shipping & Handling 5-10 days 2-4 days USA Foreign Up to $50.00 $50.01 to $100.00 Over $100.00 $4.00 $6.00 Free 25% of subtotal Up to $50.00 $50.01 to $100.00 Over $100.00 $8.00 $10.00 $8.00 48 Contiguous States only. UPS cannot ship to PO Boxes. Flat fee! angelus Press 2915 Forest Avenue Kansas City, Missouri 64109 www.angeluspress.org l 1-8 00-9 6 6-73 37 Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music.