Pope offers Mass ad orientem,
Sistine Chapel, Sunday January 13,
2008
Full
Disclosure
Editor, The Remnant: Yes, there is much good in the Holy
Father’s new encyclical on hope. But there is at least one apparent
problem. Paragraph 46 implies that “the great majority of people”
are admitted to Purgatory, and thus, eventually, to eternal life.
Such an assumption conflicts with Our Lord’s dire warnings in
Matthew chapters 7 & 20. Our Savior has a very different
perspective on salvation than, for example, Hans Urs von Balthasaar.
The Church needs a clarification from the Holy Father on this
item.
…A Remnant Reader
Response
by MJM:
Many thanks for your note. I’m happy to publish it since I agree
this could be a flaw in an otherwise welcome development. As a
friend recently observed of Spe Salvi, “Who would have ever dreamed
that, following a pope who made us apologize for Galileo, we would
get an attack on Martin Luther, Francis Bacon and the whole of the
Enlightenment such as the one found in Benedict’s new encyclical?”
In addition, a well respected priest recently sent us these comments
on the seemingly problematic passage:
The Pope doesn't teach in #46 that the great majority of mankind
definitely will be saved. The English version says "we may suppose"
that the great majority will make it to Purgatory rather than Hell.
However, I looked up the Latin original and it seems to me they have
opted for a stronger translation than necessary here. In English,
"suppose" sounds almost as strong as "presume". But the official
text says "sic opinari possumus". The verb "opinari" basically means
"to hold as an opinion", with the implication being that the view in
question is uncertain and debatable. The trouble is that "opinari"
CAN be translated by stronger words, such as "suppose", "believe"
"judge" or "deem" something to be the case. But it can also be
translated by weaker words, according to Lewis & Short's
authoritative Latin dictionary, such as "conjecture" or even
"imagine". So it's really pretty hard to say exactly what would be
the most accurate vernacular translation, when the original word is
so flexible in meaning! But on the basis of the general principle
that magisterial documents, if ambiguous, should be interpreted in
the way that most fits in with Tradition, I would use a weaker word
than "suppose" here to translate "opinari": For instance, "we may
hypothesize", or "we may conjecture". There is nothing strictly
unorthodox about such speculation, since the Church has never
formally taught as doctrine that the majority of mankind is damned.
Nor did Jesus Himself ever teach that unambiguously. However, most
Fathers and Saints held as an opinion ("opinari" again!) that this
will unfortunately be the case. The fact that Our Lord said "few
there be that find" the narrow path leading to salvation could
possibly mean simply that at any given time, only a minority of
folks out there living their lives is in the state of grace (on the
road to Heaven). But that doesn't rule out the possibility of many
last-minute conversions when those folks finally find themselves
approaching death and judgment.
In general, there has been
some degree of misunderstanding among friends and critics alike over
The Remnant’s position vis-à-vis Pope Benedict XVI. I would like,
therefore, to take this opportunity to share some thoughts on the
matter. I’d hoped that our strategy would be self evident, and
that, for obvious reasons, it would not become necessary to spell it
out in the public eye. But as some of our friends have expressed
sincere concerns, I would like to divulge some of the thinking
behind the strategy.
First of all,
Pope Benedict is not a Traditionalist in the traditional sense of
the word. His words and actions do still at times give off that
whiff of progressivism so pungent and so prevalent in the Church
during the previous pontificate. However, there can be little doubt
that the current Pope is keenly aware that something has gone awry
in the Church. As every recovering alcoholic knows, the most
important step on the road to recovery is to admit there’s a
problem. This Benedict has done, and in no uncertain terms. Some
Traditionalists insist he’s not gone far enough to be completely
convincing, however, so let’s consider where we stand.
For many
years, we have written about what Sister Lucy termed “diabolical
orientation” in the Church and in the world. Benedict, having been
at the nerve center of Vatican II and its aftermath from the very
beginning, would almost certainly remain affected to some extent by
that disorientation. We all are to varying degrees, but
surely churchmen more than most. Paragraph 46 of the new encyclical,
therefore, should not be surprising, nor does it constitute
sufficient reason to abandon hope in Pope Benedict’s overall efforts
at reform.
When
considering the overtures he’s made to Traditionalists, as well as
his initiatives to undo at least some of the madness of the past 40
years, it would be shortsighted to dismiss his courageous efforts
thus far as nothing more than the work of a committed modernist
merely because of occasional outcroppings of that disorientation.
In addition,
the Holy Father is under enormous political pressure. The
embarrassingly public opposition from the powerful French and German
episcopates during the run up to the release of his motu proprio has
removed this contention from the realm of mere speculation. Benedict
has enemies in the Church. He must face the relentless opposition of
the ambitious, the liberal and the powerful--men for whom Benedict is as much a
“dangerous” Traditionalist as Archbishop Lefebvre himself.
Thus it has
not been difficult to detect the ecclesiastical tug of war taking
place inside the Vatican since April 2005. Just this past Christmas
it seemed to quite literally spill into the public square, in fact. The Nativity
scene erected on St. Peter’s piazza depicted a radical departure
from the Biblical account of the birth of Christ by placing the
first Christmas in Joseph’s house in Nazareth rather than in
Bethlehem’s stable. The controversy raged in the Italian press
before and after Christmas.
By contrast,
the Pope’s official Christmas messages adhered strictly and
repeatedly to the Biblical account: “Like the shepherds, let us
hasten toward Bethlehem,” Benedict said during his Wednesday
audience on December 17. “In the heart of the Holy Night, we too
will be able to contemplate the Babe wrapped in swaddling clothes,
lying in a manger, together with Mary and Joseph.”
“How
important it is, then, to proclaim this mystery in all its saving
power: the Son of Mary, born in Bethlehem…”
“Christmas
makes us commemorate the incredible miracle of the birth of the
Only-Begotten Son of God from the Virgin Mary in the Bethlehem
Grotto…”
“The Child
whom the shepherds adored in a grotto on the night of Bethlehem
about 2,000 years ago, never tires of visiting us in our daily
lives while we journey on as pilgrims towards the Kingdom…”
“In
Bethlehem, the Light which brightens our lives was manifested to
the world…” (See the Vatican’s website:
(http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20071219_en.html
)
Benedict has
plenty of opposition, which makes his overtures toward
Traditionalism all the more serious. According to
John Allen,
opposition to Benedict's motu proprio is heating up dramatically
outside of the Catholic Church, as well:
If a reminder
were needed of Jewish sensitivities about the
Good Friday prayer, which among other things
asks God to “lift the veil from their hearts,”
the Anti-Defamation League included it on a late
December list of “Top Ten Issues Affecting Jews
in 2007.” The ADL called the possible revival of
the prayer “a theological setback to the reforms
of Vatican II, and a challenge to
Catholic-Jewish relations.”
(To be sure, the
ADL statement did not go down well in some
Catholic circles. Putting Benedict XVI on the
same list of anti-Semitic offenders as Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for example,
struck even some Catholics deeply committed to
Jewish/Christian dialogue, and who are
themselves concerned about the Good Friday
prayer, as excessive. Nonetheless, it’s an
indicator that the prayer remains a live issue.)
|
Nevertheless, the
latest news out of Rome is that the Holy Father is preparing yet another document that will
only reinforce his motu proprio because, according to Monsignor Albert Malcolm Ranjith, secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Divine Cult
and Discipline of Sacraments, implementation of the motu proprio has
thus far been uneven, with some bishops “issuing rules that
practically annul or twist the intention of the pope.”
Benedict is
obviously quite serious about his tradition-leaning reforms. With
Europe falling into total hedonism and the human element of the
Church a largely irrelevant and scandal-ridden shadow of its former
self, this should hardly come as a surprise. The Pope is no longer a
young man. His beloved Europe has become a fascist cesspool of
anti-Catholic bigotry, with abortion, homosexuality and immorality
running rampant. Why would it come as any surprise that an aging
Pope, reflecting (as all old men do) on the days of his childhood
and Catholic home, might at this juncture begin reconsidering the
disastrous course the Church has followed these past four decades?
He’s not ready to recall the New Mass or the Council, true; but he
is keenly interested in at least reinterpreting them both in light
of Tradition, while making the Traditional Mass itself a vital part
of the Church’s life.
But even if
this is not the case, and Pope Benedict’s Tradition-friendly
initiatives are part of some Machiavellian plot to squelch the
traditional Catholic resistance (as some so-called 'sedevacantists'
now maintain), would it not still behoove us to
“force the issue”, to use the Pope’s recent words and actions to
help advance the Cause, to encourage as many of our coreligionists
as possible to recognize that Tradition is the only way out
of this novus nightmare—a notion even the Holy Father no longer
considers unreasonable. After all, Benedict’s words and actions in
2007 have made it a simple matter for us to do just that. The media
mock him; the liberals despise him; the progressives are openly
hostile—and yet he continues to plod ahead with initiatives that
enrage the liberals and give hope to the tradition-minded. These
initiatives, it must be said, make little sense unless the most
famous peritus at Vatican II is becoming disillusioned with the
conciliarist course. Should we
not exploit this apparent change of heart for all it’s worth and for
the good of the Cause?
As the
impression takes root in the media that Tradition is storming back
at the highest echelons of Church governance, are we not presented
with a golden opportunity to frustrate the designs of the
enemies of Tradition by rallying around the “traditionalist” pope
and defending his pro-Tradition concessions as loudly and as
publicly as we can? Already since September 2007, thousands of Catholics
have moved away from the Novus Ordo and towards Tradition, at least
liturgically. The New York Times included Benedict’s motu proprio
on its list of most significant news stories of 2007. Newsweek, US
News and World Report, USA Today, the LA Times, The Washington Post
and dozens of major news organizations have front-paged this
apparent return to Tradition as a seismic shift inside the Church,
if not an actual rolling back of the clock on Vatican II.
What ground
can possibly be gained for the Cause, then, by traditionalists
caterwauling that this is not so, that Benedict isn’t traditional at
all, and that we see through such “modernist schemes”? What does
this achieve! The perception of an imminent rise of traditional
Catholicism throughout the universal Church could lead to the
reality of it. Such a perception could change history. No doubt the skeptics and critics
of Constantine issued plenty of dire warnings about a trap and an
Emperor who wasn’t pro-Christian enough to be trusted, and yet God
used the non-Christian Constantine to Catholicize the pagan Roman
Empire.
But even if
things aren’t what they seem, and our cautiously optimistic outlook
is still too rosy, it can nevertheless be argued that we are not the
ones most deceived. In such a scenario, the liberals, progressives
and modernists will have been completely bamboozled. They see
“Benedict the Traditionalist” as a new Torquemada—the man who is
single-handedly dismantling Vatican II. “I will obey the Pontiff,”
sobbed Bishop Luca Brandolini, former secretary to Annibale Bugnini,
when Summorum Pontificum was released, “but it is a day of grief.
The reform [of Vatican II] is canceled.”
We must, it
seems to us, take advantage of this perception and earnestly work to
make it the reality.
And, finally,
history teaches us of the folly of underestimating the grace of the
papal office. Blessed Pius IX—the “liberal” whose Syllabus
would famously condemn the errors of the liberals—should immediately come to
mind. It remains a distinct possibility that Benedict, responding to
the grace of his office, may be the Pope chosen by God to initiate
at least the beginning of the end of the Reign of Terror brought on
by the spirit of Vatican II. As the Church is not merely a human
institution, serious Catholics must at least allow for this
possibility, and pray that it is so.
In any event,
Benedict’s intentions where Tradition is concerned are quite
telling. If the Pope wishes, for example, to actually give the
Church an official interpretation of Vatican II that will be in
accord with Tradition, why in heaven’s name should we balk? If he
manages to accomplish such a seemingly impossible feat, praise God!
Again, what ground can be gained by Traditionalists shouting: “It
can’t be done!”, especially after years of our contending that
Vatican II was deceptively orthodox, mined with “time bombs”, and
susceptible to dangerous interpretations as a result of its
ambiguity? (See Michael Davies’ article on Page 14 of the Dec.
31, 2007 issue of The Remnant).
Archbishop
Lefebvre signed the documents of Vatican II. Why? Because he, like
the majority of the Council Fathers, interpreted them in light of
Tradition. When it became apparent that the conciliarists were not
interested in doing the same, he raised his historic resistance to
the modernist interpretation of Vatican II. In other words, the
documents themselves were sufficiently ambiguous at worst to justify
a traditional/orthodox interpretation even by Archbishop Lefebvre.
If, forty
years later, Pope Benedict wishes to diffuse the time bombs and
offer only one interpretation of the problematic passages of Vatican
II—the traditional one—on what grounds would we base our
objection? And even if this were to prove an impossibility,
shouldn’t the mere effort on the part of a post-conciliar
pope be regarded as a staggering victory for traditionalists? The
Rhineland bishops at Vatican II would surely roll in their graves at
the mere thought of such a thing!
The same could
be said of Benedict’s efforts where the New Mass is concerned. If
he intends to actually restore Latin, sacred music, the correct
translation of pro multis, and a sense of the sacred to the
New Mass—for God’s sake and ours, let him carry on! Traditionalists
wouldn’t settle for a “reform of the reform” liturgy, but if the
Pope can pull it off we should be the first to celebrate the fact
that millions of Catholics would then be attending a Mass that at
least begins to look, sound and feel Catholic again.
Let the Holy Father use the old Mass, if he so desires, as a
benchmark of reform for the new one. At the very least we have a
pope who recognizes that after a mere forty years of existence, the Novus Ordo is in crisis
and in need of total reformation, and this is no
small victory.
Whiffs of
progressivism still creep into the Pope’s writings, yes, but whiffs
are an improvement over the winds of it that were blowing about
before his election. Perhaps what is key to this discussion are
those things growing more and more conspicuous by their
absence—multiple references to Vatican II in his encyclical, heavy
reliance on the teachings of John Paul II, kneeling at the altar of
the insane ecumenism of Cardinal Kasper, etc. Do these omissions
not perhaps shed more light on Benedict’s designs than a few
inaccuracies (e.g., Paragraph 46) in his new encyclical?
Again, he’s
not a Traditionalist. We cannot expect the language of an
Archbishop Lefebvre to immediately flow from his pen. But through
the grace of God, and, despite whatever disorientation he may still
suffer, Benedict is making moves in the right direction. Given the
diabolical success of the revolution these past 40 years, is it
really such a stretch to suggest that there is evidence herein of
the workings of the Holy Ghost? They'd seemingly won already!
The Church was
theirs! The Mass was nearly destroyed! So why this sudden turnaround?
Why is sacred music, Latin and the old Mass storming back into
prominence in the Church the progressivists thought they'd conquered
completely?
As the Holy
Father undertakes the Herculean task of dragging the post-conciliar
Church inch by inch back into the light of Tradition, it would be
wildly unrealistic for us to expect to see no sign of his efforts
being hampered by the effects of several decades of conciliarist
disorientation. And if and when we do detect those signs, it would
be recklessly myopic to see in them grounds for the total dismissal
of the Pontiff’s efforts to initiate some degree of course
correction against all odds and substantial opposition.
Perhaps it
would be beneficial for the sake of this discussion to think of Pope
Benedict as a man coming out of a coma. His thought processes may
not yet be completely free of the effects of his condition, but it
cannot be denied that the patient is showing signs of coming to.
And, rather than blasting him for not yet being fully awake, perhaps
we should thank God for hopeful signs as we pray for complete
recovery. Let’s not forget where we could be right now, and where we
were prior to April 2005. We’re still in the woods, surely, but did
anyone expect to get this far this fast?
If we will
only use our heads there are ample ways to apply Pope Benedict’s
recent initiatives (despite whatever deficiencies, real or imagined,
they may contain) to the advantage of the entire Catholic
counterrevolution. What is needed are strategists, not self-absorbed
crape hangers! The vitality and rapid growth of the worldwide
Traditional Mass movement since July 2007 simply cannot be
dismissed. As this boom continues, it is not at all beyond the
realm of possibility that Benedict will begin to see total
restoration as the only answer, and traditional Catholics as his
best allies. And if that happens there’s no telling where this
could lead.
It serves no
purpose, then, to attack Father Ratzinger, Cardinal Ratzinger or
even Pope Benedict XVI at this critical juncture. We have nothing to
lose from adopting a wait-and-see attitude, especially since no one
is suggesting that the war is over or the catacomb can be sealed.
Patience, prayer and time, my friends! Patience, prayer and time!
The world is
in desperate need of hope, and, at the very least, Benedict has
provided that much. People who have hope do not despair, but rather
get down on their knees and pray. Let us, then, get down on ours
and pray that Benedict continues his program of reform in the
direction of Tradition, that the Holy Ghost will provide the grace
necessary for him to overcome the effects of diabolical
disorientation, to recognize more fully the colossal crisis that
resulted from Vatican II, as well as the complete folly that is the
liturgical revolution of the post-conciliar era.
Long live Pope Benedict XVI! |