In its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), the Second Vatican Council firmly applied the brakes to “ultramontanism” — the overheated theory of papal supremacy that reduced local bishops to branch managers who simply execute dictates from the CEO of Catholic Church Inc. in Rome. The coup de grâce for ultramontanism’s distorted concept of ecclesial authority came in paragraph 27 of the dogmatic constitution:
Bishops, as vicars and ambassadors of Christ, govern the particular churches entrusted to them … This power, which they personally exercise in Christ’s name, is proper, ordinary and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church, and can be circumscribed by certain limits, for the advantage of the Church or of the faithful. In virtue of this power, bishops have the sacred right and the duty before the Lord … to moderate everything pertaining to the ordering of worship…
One of the many oddities of this Catholic moment is that, in the name of a “synodality” proclaimed as fulfilling the promise of Vatican II — which presumably includes the Council’s teaching on the authority of local bishops as true vicars of Christ — the “supreme authority of the Church” is severely undercutting episcopal authority by micro-managing with a heavy hand the use of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (the so-called “Traditional Latin Mass” or TLM).
The latest example of this new ultramontanism came in a February 21 Rescript, when “the supreme authority of the Church” laid down that, henceforth, bishops must obtain permission from Cardinal Arthur Roche and the Dicastery for Divine Worship before allowing the use of the Extraordinary Form in parish churches, and before allowing priests ordained after July 16, 2021, to celebrate the TLM.
The journalistic mouthpiece of the present pontificate, America’s Gerard O’Connell, reliably applauded this diktat for making “clear that bishops cannot take the law into their own hands.” On the contrary: the Rescript of February 21 contradicts the teaching of Lumen Gentium 27 on the local bishop’s role as the chief liturgist of his diocese. It also fails to define the “advantage [to] the Church or [to] the faithful” of the Rescript’s exercise of papal autocracy. Thus, once again, bishops are reduced to order-executing minions of Roman Global HQ.
In an irony that seems to escape them, apologists for the new ultramontanism reply that this bludgeoning of local bishops was necessary because liturgical traditionalists deny the authority of Vatican II. That is true of some. But conciliar deniers are a minuscule fraction of that small but vital minority of Catholics who find their worship enhanced by the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Wouldn’t “the supreme authority of the Church” better direct its corporate attention to the catastrophic collapse of Mass attendance throughout the Western world? Or to the regular abuses of liturgical practice in countries like Switzerland and Germany? How is it to “the advantage of the Church or…the faithful” to scorn as liturgical lepers those who are in church every Sunday — and then instruct their bishops that, from here on in, such miscreants should be exiled to the parish gymnasium for Mass?
The Roche Rescript also raises the most serious questions about “synodality,” heightening concerns that this undefined, clumsy term is cover for a coordinated attempt to impose a Catholic Lite interpretation of Vatican II on the entire world Church. That attempt will fail. But a lot of pastoral damage will be done in the process, and an opportunity to deepen the Church’s reception of the authentic teaching of Vatican II will be missed.
I am a Novus Ordo man. Anyone who doubts that the Novus Ordo can be celebrated with the awe and reverence that TLM Catholics find in the Extraordinary Form might watch the celebration of the Solemn Pontifical Requiem for Cardinal George Pell in Sydney, Australia or the Sunday Mass videos from St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Greenville, South Carolina. I also reject, indeed I deplore, the blunderbuss anti-Vatican II polemic of a marginal minority of liturgical traditionalists, who foolishly handed a loaded gun to their Roman enemies.
Nonetheless, as a close student of the Council and the author of To Sanctify the World, it seems to me that the Roche Rescript violates both the letter and the spirit of what Lumen Gentium taught, while doing nothing to further the proper implementation of the Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.
These matters, and Cardinal Roche, are going to be the focus of considerable attention at Synod-2023 in October — and at the General Congregations before the next conclave.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Those who speak of a reverent Novus Ordo Mass would do well to remember that the modernists don’t want a reverent Mass of any kind. To them, the Ad Populum, communion in the hand, clown shows, pantomimes and other shenanigans are features of the new mass, not flaws.
The modernists will come for all reverent Novus Ordo masses as well as the TLM.
indeed. If a reverent NO was possible Sir George wouldn’t have to point to an obscure Mass said for Pell. The norm is most definitely not reverent. Just visit the average church. The presider infects his own personality… to his congregants, not towards the east.
There is no comparison between the NO v. TLM. None.
Yes, I shouldn’t need to go to Australia in order to witness the NO celebrated with dignity and sanctity.
Thanks to Mr Weigal for this astute analysis. Just one observation from the peanut gallary on his qualifying statement: “In an irony that seems to escape them…” Hmm. The so-called irony does not “escape” the progressives’ awareness. I believe that they are fully aware of the irony, but that they simpy do not care about it or about their hypocracy, or outright contraditory beliefs. They are men whose interests are not about truth—divine or natural– or logical consistency, but about political maneuvering and the projection of power. A brief study of the progressives behavior, including the marxists and the communists, shows their obsession for gaining and maintaining power at any cost. They will go about destroying their enemies with no regard to the divine or natural law, or simple human civility. For the progressive, irony hardly counts as a speed bump.
Agreed that the TLM should not be suppressed. But, it would seem that the number of TLM worshippers who reject Vatican II and believe the Novus Ordo Mass is illicit is really quite large, perhaps the majority. Listen to videos by Michael Lofton and many other former Rad Trads. It is eye opening.
Hello John, I was a faithful and ardent weekly (if not more) attendee of the NO Mass virtually all my life. By the time I was a mere toddler of 2 years, the TLM was considered verboden! Last Lent I decided to do a deep dive into V2 and discovered Michael Davies. His 4 part series on the history of the counsel and the chicanery that gave rise to the more suspect elements of the counsel set me on a faith journey. To make a rather long and compelling story tolerable, I’ll cut to the chase. At this point, I cannot in good conscience ever again set foot in a NO Parish Sanctuary. Quite simply, I cannot bear the thought of treading on Our Lord’s precious body, given to us so vulnerably for our salvation. I would HATE to be that soul Our Blessed Mother wept over at La Salette when she indicated that “filthy feet would soon tread on the holy body of her Son.” I have literally SEEN THIS and other just as distressing HAPPENINGS at the NO Mass. I NEVER have to fear this when I walk into a chapel where Our Lord is given ONLY on the tongue and to those that kneel. Respectfully, it’s a matter of proper worship, proper comportment in the face of so great a sacrifice. Licit, yes. The NO Mass is licit AND valid. For that matter, the marriage of Tom Brady and Gisele Budgen was licit and valid; but, who really wants a marriage like the one that they had? All the best to you for a blessed and nourishing Lenten season!
Joan,
I appreciate this information. Links and/or names of “other former Rad Trads” would be very helpful.
“Ultramontanism”? I thought the original Montanists were a charismatic schism that occurred outside the Church in the post-Apostolic era?
Mark,
Two different things. Montanism was a 2nd-century heresy, in modernday Turkey, which claimed a new revelation under a free-spirited Holy Spirit. The counterpoint Ultamontanism (“beyond the mountains,” meaning the Alps) ripened in the 19th Century and held that the pope was entitled to rule on all things, secular as well as religious, and was opposed by the Montanists who opted for near-total secularization.
The definition of papal infallibility (First Vatican Council, 1870) transcended both factions, but was not simply an average of the two; it clearly proclaimed the authority of the papacy under precisely defined conditions (matters of faith and morals, formally taught, etc.). More than political, but less that caesaropapism.
To look for Montanists today, good hunting might be to consider the schismatic/heretical German Synodal Way which is quite eager to proclaim that the Holy Spirit is now ready to displace the perennial, one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, and human sexual morality, with a construct that is said to be “Catholic but in a new way.”
So, those illiterati who have not even read the deliberations of the Second Vatican Council are now dividing into Germania’s Montanism and, as Weigel points out, the Ultramontanism also advancing under cover of “synodality.”
Meanwhile, Eucharistic coherence–the center and summit of the sacramental Church–struggles forward in the shadows of both.
“Montanism” comes from the name of its founder, Montanus, while “Ultramontanism” comes from the exaggeration of papal authority “beyond the mountain,” meaning the Alps. Ironically, one of the strongest of the early ultramontanes, de Lamennais, labeled the first modernist by Charles Périn of the Louvain, over-exaggerated papal power in his “theory of certitude” and when the popes rejected his theory, repudiated his priesthood and renounced Christianity, forming his own “Religion of Humanity” with himself as infallible head. There is no direct connection between Montanism and Ultramontanism.
This is correct.
“Wouldn’t “the supreme authority of the Church” better direct its corporate attention to the catastrophic collapse of Mass attendance throughout the Western world?”
The current, precise location of the supreme authority of the Catholic Church is contested by some. Of these some, there are heretical sedevacantists. But others aren’t heretical.
However, this point is well taken.
One doctrine of the Catholic faith it is that under pain of mortal sin a Catholic must attend mass every Sunday. Granted, this does include the realistic possibility of attending mass.
For a long time, I understand that there were no priests in Japan. Thus, obviously, Catholics in Japan couldn’t attend The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
It is the fact that people aren’t taught the faith which is the main issue. Orthodoxy will beget an increase in Mass attendance. I know for a fact that it definitely has an effect on vocations. And a great part of this will involve moving away from the “church of nice.”
There are books which point towards this path.
“Exodus : why Americans are fleeing liberal churches for conservative Christianity”
“Why conservative churches are growing : a study in sociology of religion with a new preface for the Rose edition”
A reverent celebration, even of the new mass, is under attack as guidelines have been published forbidding ad orientem service/ sacrifice. So the idea that one can find a middle ground between the TLM and the oddities and novelties of the new mass are quickly fading. What will likely be left STANDING may be the defiant and insular SSPX. Certainly, the urgency of the crisis in the church no one can deny and so long as it continues, even deepens, the SSPX presses onward. Currently, they are the 5th largest order in the church. Their new and glorious cathedral structure, built in the old style, draws inspiration and awe. If you have not seen it, Google “the new immaculate” in St. Mary’s, Kansas. Although it has been a global effort, it is amazing that members have managed to pay over $32,000,000.00 in the course of 3-4 years, during economic stresses and covid cacophony to get it constructed. It will be dedicated early this May. It’s sheer beauty and impressive size reminds one of the (not so distant) glorious past. In contrast, take a quick look at the cathedral of Our Lady in Los Angeles or the newly constructed abomination in Abu Dhabi. Where would you rather worship? What kind of worship do you really think those environs inspire?
My experience growing up in the 1950’s, as well as studying the history of the Catholic Church in the United States, indicates that the Bishops pre-Vatican II wielded just as much authority (or more) than the post Vatican II Bishops, and certainly more than today, as indicated in this article.
The problem with the vagueness and the “read anything you want into it” aspect of much of the Vatican II documents is illustrated in Mr. Weigel’s own quote from Lumen Gentium – “[The bishops] exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church, and can be circumscribed by certain limits…”
So, our Bishops are currently being regulated by the supreme authority of the Church.
George Weigel offers such comfort for the typical Catholic across America, longing for reverence and orthodoxy on Sundays, by informing him that there are examples of such in Sydney, Australia or Greenville, South Carolina! I guess the liturgical collapse that followed Vatican II is just an illusion, or a vast conspiracy theory.
I assist at the Novus Ordo Mass every time that I cannot attend the TLM. But I do not like it. I do not like the use of women and girls at the altar. I do not like shaking hands just before Communion. I do not like the Protestant songs and the Protestant subtext of the NO. After many years of thought on the subject, I have concluded that Vatican II is indeed a modernization of Church doctrine and practice, which means it is a capitulation to the Globalist/neo-pagan agenda. This agenda makes traditional-minded Catholics the enemy, the insurrectionists, the potential terrorists in Christianity who must be not only be oppressed by Vatican decrees but also by the FBI and other agencies hostile to the Gospel. I don’t like it.
I too want to be a “Vatican 2/Novus Ordo” man, I just don’t know which version of the liturgy/Vatican 2 I’m called to embrace. Do I embrace Benedict’s liturgical vision or Cardinal Roche’s? Which edition of the post-Vatican 2 catechism do I follow? Is it JP2’s understanding of the Council or Francis’. Once the real Vatican 2/Novus Ordo stands up I’ll be more than happy to try and embrace it.
It is interesting to note that one of the most radical of the early unltramontanes, de Lamennais with his “theory of certitude” that greatly exaggerated papal infallibility, is also considered “the first modernist” by Charles Périn, who first used defined modernism in its Catholic sense. De Lamennais eventually repudiated his priesthood, rejected Christianity, and founded his own “Religion of Humanity” with himself as infallible head.
In considering the premise/notion of “papal infallibility” today; perhaps the time has come to dispense with the concept once and for all?
Only Jesus was/is qualified to give us perfect guidance.
Blessings
“Dispense!” Thus speaketh guest-commenter Brother Brian, infallibly! As he wipes his feet on the pages of CWR hospitality.
But wait, there’s more: “only Jesus…” This must a scriptural?
As where Christ himself and the Father send the Holy Spirit: “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you (Jn 14:26, Acts 2).
And, not yet with anything in writing (the New Testament!), Christ sends the early-Church (!) apostles, already: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them…” (Matt 28:19-20).
It’s almost as if the Church—from Day One—exists, and is indwelled by the Holy Spirit!
And, that the Church enjoys and is accountable to a gifted charism which, under very precisely defined conditions, does not exclude the teaching authority of the Christ-appointed St. Peter and his successors–that is, not to invent new truths, but (as Cardinal John Henry Newman explains) to preserve intact the Deposit of Faith…
Newman explains that the effect of the definition is “not to enfeeble the freedom or vigour of human thought in religious speculation, but to resist and control its extravagance.” Extravagance as in 30,000 different and infallible sola scriptura sects and neighborhood groups, and counting?
Yours truly apologizes for a seemingly robotic citation of three scriptural passages, but what a witnessing Scripture (written by the Church!) has to say seems germane to the controverted point proposed for papal dispensation!
Not at all “robotic”, instead honouring God by quoting Him. Allow me to commend you for presenting scripture, yet you prefer brickbats as opposed to a genuine compliment. To each his own!
I am a guest on the pages of CWR and appreciate the kindness extended. While I take up the banner of justified criticism, others are considerably more acidic in their denunciation of wrongdoing! The barbed tongue of frustration with the supposed leaders is understood. Do we not have some of the same scoundrels in protestant denominations? Impropriety in the church is to be rebuked and the Bible is the best source for addressing the matter. If it is not, bring your best case to the bar of public opinion for examination.
“The deposit of faith” is the voice of God put on paper, yes God breathed for our comfort and edification.
2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Romans 5:19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.
Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—
1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
Your post/s take the idea of passive/aggressive behavior to entirely new levels. While noting correctly that you are a guest on this site (as are we all), expressing kind appreciation for that fact, you then offer a presumptuous and uninformed judgment against Catholic doctrine, here regarding papal infallibility! YOUR CRITICISM IS ‘JUSTIFIED’ ONLY ON THE BASIS OF FALSE BELIEF.
If you were truly informed and understood the Catholic doctrine on papal infallibility, RC Church indefectibility, and irreformable RC Church teaching, we here would perhaps be more amenable to your little cherry-picked scripture verse-flags which have nothing to do with the RCC faith and practice currently under scope. Your posts incline us to judge that they are motivated by error and uninformed pride made more egregious coming from a SEPARATED SISTER in the Christian tradition. Then you claim to wish us well. No. We most respectfully and more charitably disagree.
We are frustrated that you keep mistaking us as Christians made in the image and likeness of YOUR idea of Christianity. We are NOT INTERESTED. If you would learn about what you presume to judge, our welcome mat could be laid down. Not all doormats express welcome sentiments.
NB: Are you familiar with Uriah Heap?
While we’re at it, three other points of clarification:
(1) the “deposit of faith” is not “the voice of God put on paper;” the deposit of faith is the witnessing offered by both written Scripture and the living Tradition to the facto of the Incarnation: “the Word made flesh” (again, not “the word made book” which is a sola Scriptura notion, both Protestant and in a more exaggerated way, Islamic).
(2) On such matters as these, on what basis are we, all of us, to assume as you seem to assume, the infallibility of the “bar of public opinion?” Public opinion? Surely you do not believe that!
(3) Try not to conflate Catholic discourse over off-the-cuff remarks, the different stature of formal encyclicals, and the non-identical and more limited stature of precisely-defined papal infallibility: “Papa’s encyclicals and off the cuff remarks are met with a barrage of criticism by faithful Catholics who love the church.” Three different things which, if mentioned in the form of a less flippant question (“barrage?”), might merit a more complete answer.
Notwithstanding so much being said here, your uncomplicated commitment to the person of Jesus Christ, as you understand Him, does add to these pages.
CATHOLIC ALERT: Once again “gracing” the comboxes of CWR with full approval of CWR editors/moderators is yet another Protestant attack on Catholic Teaching and Practice by the oleaginous Brian Young.
This time, Mr. Young is more direct in his attack on Papal Infallibility and providing an inane Protestant rationale to really call for the Papacy itself to be abolished despite it being established for all time by Jesus Christ.
But Mr. Young sets forth his heretical Protestant beliefs with a “smiling pen,” so such vile attacks on the Catholic Faith are welcome in the pages of CWR, which is just sad.
Kudos to Peter Beaulieu for also recognizing and exposing the poison of Mr. Young’s ongoing attempts to undermine the Catholic Faith in a Catholic journal.
Dear DocVerit:
Please allow yours truly to clarify. Misunderstandings are part of life and men who put Christ as our saviour and guide will try to resolve differences.
CWR is not afraid to to air varying perspectives.The editors are strong in their Catholic faith and revere the courage and power of Jesus Christ. They are not nervous of another POV because the Catholic Church is built on the solid ground of conviction.
The liberal press of today is averse to truth, whereas CWR celebrates it. It welcomes respectful dialogue because of the tradition of the church and its standing in the world.
“Papal Infallibility”! Papa’s encyclicals and off the cuff remarks are met with a barrage of criticism by faithful Catholics who love the church. CWR is a place to let off steam and to learn. Jesus Christ is infallible and all who follow His teachings can speak with authority.
You have attacked the person and not the argument . A factual rebuttal from church tradition and dogma where offered, will benefit all.
Nowhere have I attempted “to undermine the Catholic Faith in a Catholic journal”. Instead, I have come along side to strengthen her with Scripture which (by the way) was codified by the Church of Rome.
Prayers and blessings to all that celebrate the life and legacy of Jesus Christ.
Brian Young
Dear Meiron:
Allow a response if you will That you take issue with my POV, is to be respected, however an offhand retort to scripture serves no one well. Scripture speaks to your points and far better to hear what God says on a matter instead of the meager attempts of yours truly.
How do you read the following verses?
2 Timothy 4:2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.
1 Timothy 4:13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.
Titus 2:15 Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you.
Titus 1:13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,
2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
1 Corinthians 13:7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
In the exaltation of Jesus Christ,
Brian Young
You will continue to think that Catholicism rests on a few cherry-picked scriptures. Think of it as Protestantism like Rip van Winkle. Your Protestant ancestors in faith have missed or dismiss 1500 years of the best thinkers of Catholicism. I owe you no interpretation of some verses relevant and related only in your mind. My ancestors gave me to consider scripture verses in their entirety with the assistance, direction, reason, and guided interpretation into doctrine and dogma in God’s one church. You may not want to believe or consider that Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to the organization He founded and the person of primacy He chose to represent Him.
You remind me of a neighbor. When my family underwent some struggles which became somewhat public, that neighbor presumed to know exactly what my family needed. All in the name of ‘good intentioned charity,’ that person offered unwanted and nettlesome interference, all of which served only that one person’s purpose. That one person went on to divorce and worse. My family, through God’s and the Church’s help, has gone on to thrive.
Good day.
Again, you are willing to “dispense” with everything without questioning or even noticing your own assumptions. Now we endure you regal anointing the CWR editors as “not nervous of another POV because the Catholic Church is built on the solid ground of conviction.” “Solid ground of conviction?” This is the Protestant premise. Subjective conviction, alone…
The Catholic premise and foundation, namely the person and words of Christ as witnessed in the Scriptures (catalogued, and first written by the Church!), is this: “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it” (Matt 16:18). Yes to personal faith, but also a personal commission and a specifically personal accountability; and therefore an institutional (!) Church with faith (the Faith)–AND neither without the other…
As you continue to pontificate with one-legged certitude—now posturing behind your tutorial that there is a disagreement—has been clear enough to all to see for these most recent five centuries in the much longer history of a mutilated Church. That as an interloper, you continue to airbrush your sola Scriptura premise (and graffiti citations) as the dispensing trump card is also clear to all—that is, all except one at the CWR site.
Having a two-way conversation with you is like trying to read braille through a mattress.
WARNING to all faithful Catholic CWR Readers:
More heresies presented by Protestant Brian Young in his ongoing efforts to undermine the teachings of Christ’s One True Church in his comments:
First Heresy:
Young: “Jesus Christ is infallible and all who follow His teachings can speak with authority.”
Jesus Christ is indeed infallible, but the Protestant heresy claims that anyone who follows Jesus Christ can speak with authority. However, as Jesus Himself established the Church, the only legitimate authority on earth commissioned by Him is the Leadership of the Catholic Church: Pope, Bishops, and Priests. Nobody outside the Catholic Church can speak with legitimate authority. Like many Protestants, Mr. Young defies our Lord Jesus Christ by proudly asserting that he and many others have an authority that Jesus Christ has not granted to them.
Second Heresy Presented by Mr. Young: Mr. Young rejects Papal Infallibility, and he malevolently suggests that Catholics give up this definitive doctrine. No true friend of Catholicism would ever encourage Catholics to sin gravely by rejecting a solemnly defined doctrine, but that is precisely what Mr. Young has done.
Third Heresy Presented by Mr. Young:
Young: “Nowhere have I attempted ‘to undermine the Catholic Faith in a Catholic journal’. Instead, I have come along side to strengthen her with Scripture which (by the way) was codified by the Church of Rome.”
In no way, shape, or form can Mr. Young strengthen the Catholic Church with his heretical beliefs and quoting from a flawed version of the bible (English Standard Version is what he has used often) that is not approved by the Catholic Church. As such, the seriously flawed bible that Mr. Young quotes from was not “codified” by the Catholic Church as he wrongly sets forth to continue his undermining efforts.
Moreover, as the Venerable Bishop Sheen beautifully stated many years ago: ‘The Church Does Not Come Out of the Bible; the Bible Comes Out of the Church.’
This very important insight completely devastates Protestant heresies centered around the false teaching of sola scriptura. Indeed, even if there was no word of Scripture extant, we would still have the One True Church established by our Lord Jesus Christ. Christ came to earth to redeem us and set up his One True Church. He did not come here to set up a bunch of heretical bible societies like the many Protestant churches and other groups who reject Christ’s One True Church and its leadership on Earth.
By the bye, as I mentioned to faithful Catholic Meiron a few weeks back, Mr. Young actually recommended “for Catholics” the despicable New International Version (NIV) of the bible. The NIV has significantly retranslated many parts of the Scriptures to purposely change wording from anything that supports our Catholic beliefs and makes them appear more Protestant, and in many cases the changes are laughably blatant. What does this utterly reprehensible recommendation actually reveal, at least in part, of some of the motivation of Mr. Nice Guy?
In closing, I express many thanks and appreciation to fellow Catholic CWR commentors Meiron and Peter Beaulieu for also seeing through and insightfully exposing the many heretical views of Brian Young that he continues to spew in his ongoing efforts to undermine the faith of all Catholics who read CWR.
Brian,
In one of your comments you say:
“Instead, I have come along side to strengthen her with Scripture which (by the way) was codified by the Church of Rome.”
When the early Church codified the Scripture, as you say it did, it designated writings to include and it specifically denied other writings from being included. When the Church made those decisions were they fallible or infallible? When you quote Scripture you are implicitly affirming the Authority of the Church.
Pope Benedict XVI in a way also acted in an ultramontanist way by taking the local bishops’ prerogative through a blanket authorization for any priest who so wants to celebrate the old mass without his bishop’s permission through Summorum Pontificum. While well meaning in purpose to bring back the SSPX and other boundary schismatic radtrads back to the mainstream of the church, it instead widened the gap of the division between those who accept and those who reject the Vatican II liturgical reforms. Pope Francis as universal pastor is simply mending this divide which was enhanced by that liturgical-theological gymnastics performed by the late Pope to please the rejectionists.
That wouldn’t have been necessary, though, if so many bishops had not stonewalled requests for the TLM and were not so bitterly hostile to anything even remotely traditional. John Cardinal Cody in Chicago, for example, prohibited celebration of the NO in Latin, something he had no canonical authority to do. In my own experience, I have usually been refused with a brusque “no” when I have requested that the Roman Canon in English – repeat, IN ENGLISH – be used in the celebration of the NO, which I attend weekly except 2-3 times annually when I can go to the TLM. The reason for the refusal to use the Roman Canon, you see, is that it’s “too pre VII.” So while the NO can indeed be celebrated with great reverence, practically speaking it almost never is. What is one to do?
Lee, it’s not correct to say the Novus Ordo Mass as currently practiced is an acceptance of ” the liturgical reforms of Vatican ll”. See Fr. Fessio, The Mass of Vatican ll.
Also, Pope Benedict was being the opposite of an ultramontanist. He said there was no authority to abrogate the TLM, His Motu Proprio was necessary to correct the doltish bishops who were not aware of that.
Agreed that the TLM should be allowed and not suppressed. But, the number of TLM attendees who reject Vatican II and consider the Novus Ordo Mass as illicit is very large, not just a small minority. This can be verified by former Rad Trads such as Michael Lofton and many others on line, who emphasize this point. Check them out!
I’m not sure Michael Lofton was around the TLM long enough to last through a haircut (when he had hair). But he has his grift now, and long may he run with it.
But maybe the question is: “What counts as rejecting Vatican II and the liceity of the Novus Ordo?” Because in all honesty, I just don’t see it in any of the TLM’s around DC. Maybe at the SSPX chapel (I have never been there), and certainly at the independent chapel at St Athanasius, but I simply have not run into it at any of the TLM’s authorized by the dioceses around here.
It’s possible to think that the modern rite is entirely valid, licit, and legitimate (and indeed, it is all of these things), and also that it’s impoverished in the spirituality and theological depth it conveys through its normative texts and rubrics.
Correction. The radtrads is just tiny minority but it just happens to be loud to create the false impression that it is big. In fact it is just loud here in the U.S. and a bit of Western Europe like France. The rest of the Catholic world has grown with and gets nourished with the Vatican II Mass and the Churches are growing on grace and members. The numbers speak for themselves. Before Traditionis Custodes when the old pre-Vatican II Mass was still tolerated, it was held in only 1,700 out of the world’s total of 225,000 parishes. In the U.S., it was only celebrated in 700 out of the total 17,000 parishes.
Thank you, George.
I do not attend the TLM but know faithful Catholics who do. At a time of greatly declining Mass attendance, the push to greatly restrict or outright eliminate this faithful form of liturgy suggests to me something fundamentally wrong within the Vatican.
https://fatima.org/news-views/vatican-ii-a-carefully-orchestrated-plan-for-change/
The preeminent Romano Amerio who had contributed significantly to the drafting of the original Vatican II outline cites how the legal framework of the Council was violated by this act: “This departure from the original plan” came about “by an act breaking the Council’s legal framework” so that “the Council was self-created, atypical, and unforeseen.” (Professor Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, 1985)
There is definitely something wrong with the church but mr. weigel still clings to the super council , the non-doctrinal fallible council
WE ALL NEED TO BE BROUGHT TO OUR KNEES.IT SEEMS TO ME A LOT OF PROBLEMS COULD BE SOLVED BY BRINGING BACK THE ALTAR RAIL TO THE NO MASS. IF YOU AGREE WRITE TO AB TIMOTHY BROGLIO AND B. ANDREW COZZENS WHO HAVE THE POWER TO INFLUENCE THE USCCB 3 YEAR EUCHARISTIC EVANGELISTIC AGENDA.
What in the world. There is an 87% difference in content between the 1962 Missal and 1970 Missal! How are we still talking about a “reverent” Novus Ordo? How can such smart people keep missing this essential data point. This is truly mind-numbing…
You don’t get your “reverent” NO Mass–which really just means an aesthetically palatable Mass–without the existence and celebration of the 62 Roman Missal!
well said Fr. C
I had to chuckle here when Sir George says: “Wouldn’t “the supreme authority of the Church” better direct its corporate attention to the catastrophic collapse of Mass attendance throughout the Western world?”
Any chance the council (this super council as i think he thinks) and it’s invention of a new mass having anything to do with the tremendous loss of faith? Weigel speaks of irony… and he misses his own point, entirely.
Even a reverent NO Mass has problems. The liturgy is a cathecism, so when they gutted the old mass of anything remotely catholic to please Protestants, one wanders what cathecises most Catholics are learning every Sunday
Perhaps it is that the few Catholics who reject Vatican Council II in its entirety are the only Catholics (save academics and theologians) who even know anything about the Vatican Council II documents.
The overwhelming majority of Novus Ordo-attending Catholics (I am one), I am convinced, know nothing about these documents. Again, I invite readers to randomly poll exiting Sunday Mass attendees and ask them to tell you any three salient teachings of Vatican Council II. If anyone were to do this, it would show clearly that the Vatican’s suppressing the EF on the basis of their adherents’ rejection of VII is risible (at best). Why? Because the vast majority of NO Catholics themselves cannot possibly accept Vatican II because they couldn’t tell you anything substantive that the Council taught. How can you accept a teaching when you cannot even say what the teaching is?
To which, Deacon Edward, I’d add that, after 60 years, we are still unable to agree on the “authentic” understanding of VII is. Paul VI’s view of the Council was certainly not the same as that of Benedict XVI. Reading the actual documents, as some of us have done, doesn’t seem to resolve this dilemma.
Only a few days ago, Larry Chapp recommended Weigel’s book on VCII. Chapp posits, as does Weigel, that VCII has value in correcting troublesome teaching which preceded it. [See the long and winding articles at gaudiumetspes22.com/topics/defense-of-vatican-ii on truth and error.]
IF one value attributed to VCII is its correction of past teaching, then how can one defend that VCII ought not itself be reformed, revised, or corrected in some or many aspects?
Next, what is it about VCII that propelled Paul VI and now Francis and his papal posse to suppress a type of ‘ressourcement’ liturgy as not worthy of the Church post VCII?
WHAT, SPECIFICALLY, is it about VCII that allows Francis and his henchmen to instrumentalize it, to abuse the faithful in its ‘pastoral’ name? If teaching is open to correction, then a pope should also be. A lie is a lie no matter who tells it.
In response to this and several of the most recent entries, yours truly proposes a view, “specifically,” on the harmonized awkwardness tucked away in parts of the Documents of the Second Vatican Council…
FIRST, those who see the whole glass half full (Weigel) are those who think the hole in the hull of the Barque of Peter is above the waterline, rather than below the waterline. The Documents were written by committees…But, to be valued is the orientation of the Church to dig deeply (ressourcement) and only then to engage the modern world (aggiornamento) or what’s left of it.
Benedict, for example, does not differ from Paul VI in the conviction that Dei Verbum was correct to return directly to Christ rather than simply to former documents on Vatican letterhead. (He openly explains that he and Cardinal Frings did fail to anticipate the fallout from shelving draft texts expected to be rubber stamped.)
SECOND, Sacrosanctum Concilium is only one of the four Constitutions and, yes surely, has been violated—due to a complete lack of governance as mandated by the Council. Yours truly recalls a formal statement by Pope Paul VI that the disastrous NO Mass experience of the 1970s (…) was still “valid” (!), but only if Bugnini’s ambiguities were interpreted and intended by the priest in the orthodox manner.
THIRD, Lumen Gentium (Chapter 3) completes that truncated work of Vatican I (not adjourned, but “suspended” under military assault in 1870) by rounding out the combined role of the papacy and the bishops in a “hierarchical communion.” A text which was clarified against ambiguity by the added Explanatory Note (curiously buried at the end) added by Pope Paul VI and drafted by the International Theological Commission.
FOURTH, now Dei Verbum and Gaudium et Spes, and the question of “what allows Francis and his henchmen…?”
Even in the solid Dei Verbum, Pope Paul VI still inserted nineteen succinct “interventions” to clarify ambiguities or omissions, e.g., supplying explicit reference to both Christ’s words AND his works (as in the historicity of miracles and the fact of the Resurrection). The moral paradigm shift today has been, yes, to affirm doctrinal truths, but to quarantine moral aberrations as exemptions (while burying Veritatis Splendor, 1993). The synodalist Cardinal Hollerich signals going further—to overturn the Catechism which is a “fruit of the Council” (1992/1994/1997).
In Gaudium et Spes we find a muted and narrowly-contexted correction (?) to the lower-ranking Declaration on Religious Freedom (GS n.79: “…the Council wishes to recall first of all the permanent binding force of universal natural law and its all-embracing principles. Man’s conscience itself gives ever more emphatic voice to these principles.” (The abusive phrase “freedom of conscience” does not even appear, anywhere, in the lesser Declaration.) But, a second and offsetting sentence, among others, exploited by termites, is this Tielhardian poetry: “Thus, the human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic, evolutionary one” (GS n. 5).
In SUMMATION, the thrust of the Council and the Documents is a worthy one, but abused and overshadowed especially in later liturgies, and otherwise capable of textual abuse or breezy replacement.
The multi-committee drafting of the Documents sometimes reads like shadow boxing where the progressives signal something, and then it is counterbalanced or even corrected by something else, sometimes even in a different document. No deletions!—fraternal collegiality! This strategy for both retaining identity and dealing with modernity lends itself to manipulation—the “spirit of the Council!” The termites were forced to wait 35 years to undo the reclamation work advanced by St. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict. The Tielhardian mindset has come back up to the surface (like the swarming hecedia beetle—which lies dormant underground but only for 17 years!).
The process IS the message! Exploitable “synodality,” where from the start the bishops as successors of the Apostles are reduced “primarily as facilitators.” Instead, as Benedict said of Councils (and synods!), in the 1985 “Ratzinger Report”: “Councils are what the Church DOES, not what the Church IS.”
Thank you, Peter, for sharing your understanding. The Church is in trouble, and as we go from bad to worse, causes for blame will continue to be placed in many a wrong place, I think.
I find Ratzinger’s quote problematic. Can a person give what he doesn’t have? Can a vicious man act in a holy manner? The Church has Jesus Christ at its head and at core, yet popes and priests and laity act as if He isn’t really there.
So far as Weigel’s blunderbuss is concerned, I suppose he’s never heard that guns don’t kill. People do.
Here’s Ephesians 6:12 as a bullet point for today:
For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
Lenten blessings to you, Peter.
“I deplore, the blunderbuss anti-Vatican II polemic of a marginal minority of liturgical traditionalists, who foolishly handed a loaded gun to their Roman enemies.”
According to George W., our mess is due to that ‘marginal minority of liturgical traditionalists’ handing a loaded gun to their Roman enemies!!! Right. Load it onto the scapegoat of liturgical traditionalists! Load it on. They beg you to give more. Anyone else? Load it on. Lay on the blame.
If George doesn’t feel better now, he will, I trust, lay it on more thick next time. His is a runaway train, I think.
Dear Peter B and Meiron;
Though we have differences, have I not used these verses as a guide in speaking to you?
Colossians 3:12-13 Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.
1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts honour Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defence to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,
On the other hand, if I have not been a respectful respondent to you both, please forgive me.
In Christ’s name,
Brian
Accepted, readily. But it’s not about disrespect, nor only me and Meiron…
What you very recently explain as “coming alongside” puts a whole new face on things. Welcome to the spirited dialogues. But, in retrospect, also appreciate that what has been intended as “coming alongside” (your words) with a broadside of random citations, on the receiving end has every appearance of a drive-by shooting.
But, looking together now to the future, when you formulate your thoughts about the Church, it would be helpful to phrase some of them as questions seeking understanding. Thank you, here, for your sincerity and for citing my favorite line from St. Peter (historically the first of 266 popes, yes, many of whom were scoundrels).
That we interact from time to time gives insight and perspective. To sketch out our ideas and to be a blessing to other readers, is hopefully the aim! You have a circle of supporters, as is to be expected.
What then is the goal of yours truly?
In trying times the follower of jesus Christ is uplifted by His tidings. Numerous readers on CWR have replied to say the Lord’s word is a blessing to them. It is worth the effort despite some comments where they would prefer not to have their allergy inflamed by the sandpaper of God’s advice. As ridiculous as it sounds, it is born out time and again.
We seem to talk over each others head too often. You have your constituents whereas some benefit from scriptural references pasted from my chair. In essence, it is to others that we speak and one of the reasons that causes CWR to be an interesting oasis!
Again, braille through a mattress…Now we are deflected into a reductionist tutorial about “constituents” and “a circle of supporters”–and an “allergy” assigned by yourself to others who or so obtuse as to suggest that there might be something more, something outside the rote quoting “abrasive” (you say), scriptural passages. Three points:
FIRST, what if “the Church” established by Christ is something other than a Protestant-style constituency reciting the Scriptures, written by–and part of the Tradition of–the Church begun before the 16th century?
A Eucharistic and biblical assembly rather than only a biblical congregation founded by whomever? Mine is not an effort to co-opt you, only to propose real recognition of ideas and realities outside the sola Scriptura approach. Talking past each other? No question at this end about the witnessing offered in the Scriptures–and the inspired (not dictated) writers from whom we even have the Scriptures. No question here about finding Christ through the Scripture—your valued contribution.
SECOND. so, how about also engaging in discussion on origins, or something, anything, in addition to a biblical quote-file? I notice in my Lutheran versions of the Bible that the New Testament Gospels and Letters, etc. are not accompanied by any introductory essay on their writers and history. A curious omission…more curious than the limitation of the biblical books to 66 rather than the original 72. About which…
THIRD, yours truly is not a scripture scholar, but—for purposes of engagement—the shorter list of books is easily explained without abrasion by the fact that for the Old Testament Luther worked from the original Hebrew rather than the Greek Septuagint (compiled and translated under Ptolemy, c. 250 B.C). Significantly, the latter version accepted revelation as continuing into the early Jewish diaspora, that is, not limited to Palestine, nor the Hebrew language, nor a narrower slice of Jewish history. This difference is simply an interesting fact of history, because the historical Incarnation (and all of Revelation) was/is not narrowly tribal. The Catholic Vulgate (72 books) is based on St. Jerome’s translation in 382-405 A.D., using both the Hebrew and the Septuagint. (The term Vulgate indicates the more common language Latin, a vernacular pre-dating Luther’s much later translation from Latin to a new German vernacular by more than a thousand years).
When the Church decided upon the Old Testament books and its own New Testament writings, in the early 5th century, she also authoritatively (!) rejected a wide spread of proposed Gnostic writings. She retained the Septuagint, unlike the much later Lutheran translation of 1522 which simply was based on the Old Testament Hebrew (and the New Testament Greek).
“ET INTRO IDO AD ALTARE DEI”.I LEARNED THESE WORDS AS A FIFTH GRADE ALTAR BOY SEVENTY SIX YEARS AGO.SOMETHING SACRED AND PROFOUND HAPPENS AT THAT ALTAR WHATEVER THE LANGUAGE.
I may be wrong, but those words are not spoken at any Novus Ordo Mass. The do remain part of the TLM liturgy. Is it because we prefer the church furniture which holds the sacred vessels to be more like a Last Supper table where one reclines and dines rather than an altar where a sacrificial oblation-offering is made to assuage guilt?
It is a special honour to give service as an alter boy (server). The feeling of being close to God is something well remembered.
@Mark Beaulieu:
Thank you for your query. There are people considerably more qualified to address your point. I referred to the the 66 books of Scripture that are accepted today. When the Catholic Bible was revised, the “Deuterocanonical” books were dropped (there may be one that was kept though) as not being inspired by the Holy Spirit. A Catholic reader would be a more able source to explain why they were first included and subsequently deleted as not divinely revealed.
It has been may years since reading Deuterocanonical Books, however they brought nothing new and in some cases were contradictory to the widely accepted 66 books that make up the bible (as I recall).
When the Church is guided by the canon of scripture, the “Authority of the Church” is according to Christ.
My apologies for not being a better guide in the matter, however maybe someone will stop by with a more complete understanding.
God bless you,
Brian Young
In all matters the Lord is a proper guide. He loves us enough to lay down His life to redeem us. We look to Him as a fitting mentor.
Romans 14:1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.
1 Peter 1:22 Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart,
Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.
Hebrews 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.
Ephesians 4:1-I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, …
We Catholics have a proverb about one’s breadth of study and depth of knowledge of the Bible and where that leads them: “Weak Catholics become Protestants/Evangelicals; Strong Protestants/Evangelicals become Catholics.”
What God says on a matter is decisive. We ask Him what is the road to salvation!
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 10:13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
Romans 10:9-10 Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
2 Timothy 1:9 Who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,
Jesus and our belief and trust in him is the narrow gate. Yet, to be fair have I omitted something?