Look at Sandro Magister, never afraid to dish it out for people whom he loves, like Archbishop Piero Marini. Nor do his words seem afire with love for the Pope from Poland.

The person responsible for Bartolucci’s removal in 1997 was the master of pontifical ceremonies, Piero Marini, still in service with Benedict XVI although close to his own dismissal. Marini brought in monsignor Giuseppe Liberto as head of the Sistine Chapel, having noticed and appreciated his work as music director during John Paul II’s visits to Sicily. It was easy to get pope Karol Wojtyla’s permission for the maneuver.

I thought Marini was close to his own dismissal back when Ratzinger was elevated to the supreme pontificate. I understand the Secretary of State, but how hard can it be to give the liturgical director the boot? Anyway, it’s encouraging to think to that Magister is willing to put in writing that Marini is “close to his own dismissal.” Also, I’m pleased to see, owing to my schismatic tendencies, as Iacobus will surely be quick to point out, that Magister is so quick in his criticism of this clearly misguided decision from the former pontificate.

To help lighten the mood of recent discussions on this blog, please check out this article about Liverpool from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. NB: Be sure to read the dedication at the end.

What a delicious editorial on the Liturgy Wars from NCR! Oh, what fun it will be when we win something more than skirmishes over the unsalvagable.

Finally, we suspect that the way forward will also include accommodating those who simply refuse to go along and will stand in place and continue to use the same language they’ve been using for decades. Our suspicion is that God will not be terribly upset by a little show of resistance.

Tables and turning, oh my!

Although God and His transcendental character are timeless and eternal, the human experience of them, while we live in the flesh, is inherently transitory. It is in a moment when the heart is elevated and ennobled by the experience of Beauty in art – if one thinks of a transcendent experience one has had with art, whether in hearing music or encountering a masterpiece of visual art, the recollection is inevitably the recognition of a single moment: the reaching of a climactic chord, or the first step into a glorious antique Cathedral. Thus one of the most mystical prayers of the Mass is said by the priest following communion: Quod ore sumpsimus, Domine, pura mente capiamus: et de munere temporali fiat nobis remedium sempiternum (Into a pure heart, O Lord, may we receive the heavenly food which has passed our lips; bestowed upon us in time, may it be the healing of our souls for eternity.) After much preparation, we encounter God Himself in the Blessed Sacrament at a moment: Eternity shut in a span.

My dear grandmother was just this evening telling me about how easy both my parents and I had things compared to her early life. A first generation Italian immigrant to West Virginia, she speaks often of spending Saturday preparing fish dinners for the morrow that were “this big“, and peeling and canning tomatoes all summer long in the blistering heat. But tonight she told me another story: how she used to pray on Saturday night that it would rain on Sunday. You see, she had rather large holes in her shoes, and if it rained she could wear her rubber overshoes, which would mask this marked deficiency when she knelt at the Communion rail.

I can imagine a thousand sermons that utilize this little anecdote! Frankly, though, I’d rather leave it alone – an unique taste of an age that was, and that I hope, at least in part, to inflict upon future generations.

Iacobus, my dear friend and a man of passionate humours, is now in the third day of his refusal to repost his riposte to my post about His Lordship, Fernando Rifan. Since it was a brilliant reply and a distinguished piece of writing, this is now also the third day of my mourning. Indeed, to be wounded at an absence of rich dialogue, especially in the faith community comprised of the readers of this blog, is a sure sign of a genuine member of the Cornell Society for a Good Time. But my spirits were lifted this evening when I read Mr. Heiner’s transcription (for which labor I thank him greatly) of the homily given by His Lordship, Bernard Fellay, at the recent priestly ordinations in Winona, Minnesota.

And now I say this with all sincerity that I thought it a beautiful, touching homily. I excerpt these passages:

. . . You see a Mass, you see a priest at the altar, and the Faith tells us, there is a real priest acting at the altar as Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

It is not a picture, it is not an idea or concept. It is a reality. At every Mass, the unique and sovereign Priest is really present and making and doing this sacrifice to which we are associated, in which we participate, the Mass, which is done in the visible way by the priest. He is in this very moment an instrument in the hands of the Principal Cause – Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. . . .

When we say you are priests, it has a meaning, it is not just a nice word – it is a tremendous reality. And it is not for you. It is for souls and for God. God wants to save these souls for Him – to share, to diffuse into these souls His charity. And what is the means for this work? He could have used thousands of ways – indeed we may say He is using thousands of ways – but the one He uses the most, the most efficient is charity. . . .

This charity is in the Sacred Heart and it is in this way that the souls will be gained for God. Of course you have to preach, you have to teach, you have to preside, you have to give the sacraments, you have to baptize. All these functions are yours. But above all, you are for the sacrifice. You are offering the sacrifice in which Our Lord was not only priest, but victim, and this Cross is imprinted in your life.

That is the only thing I can promise you about your future: you are priests, you are crucified. If you accept it, your priesthood will be full, but if you reject it, you will have a tremendous life ahead of you – in a bad sense. It is beyond a human being – but the grace you receive today will help you go through it.

Of course when we hear “cross” we think of the worst thing possible. But every day we receive little “crosses” so that the black of the coal will turn into the white of burning charity. Your sacrifices are these things that look black, but will turn into burning instruments to save souls.

I thank Mr. Heiner again for his transcription and for the many wonderful photographs, out which I have taken one for the illustration of this post.

go to main page

By the way Iosephus, I hope you’re happy ;)

Several days ago, discreet Iosephus decided to bully me into an argument over the latest interview with Bishop Rifan. He needn’t have gone to such exertion, since any one of his grating remarks on the subject is sufficient to throw my humours into disarray, and arouse my fighting spirit. Lest my oh-so-important opinion be lost in his already lengthy thread, I’ll post anew, and summon any like-minded persons to my cause.

These last few days, we’ve been discussing the SSPX more than usual. In fact, Bishop Rifan himself often makes a very good indicator for this quintessential traditionalist divide. Although both indultarians, Iosephus and I love to argue over the excellence of His Excellency, so to speak, and we rarely see eye to eye. So, before I address his specific questions, I’ll lay out my wider view on Bishop Rifan.

It is very, very clear that Rifan has softened greatly since his days as the firebrand of Campos. Not only has he toned down his tirades, in his so-called compromise with New Rome, but now, particularly in these two interviews, he takes traditionalists to task for doing the very things that made him famous.

Of course, many dismissed him from the moment he snubbed the SSPX, and proceeded to sell Campos and the work of Antonio de Castro Mayer for the episcopal office and a dirty, dirty deal. Others waited until the infamous simulating con-celebration incident to jump his sinking ship. Iosephus, it seems, likes to let his suspicions age a little longer before he shouts blunt questions at His Excellency.

As for the Campos deal, I am entirely unconvinced by such desperate arguments as those given by SSPX apologist David A. White. I am sick of good Catholics resorting to caricatures, and demeaning the Pontiff by suggesting one casually rebuff his goodwill. When the Vicar of Christ, in his great benevolence, offers you a golden handshake, even going so far as to not demand a specific and public apology, there’s just not much that you can do. There is always the option of schism, and so many friendly to the Society, if not willing to publicly take that step themselves, do so love to encourage others in disobedience, or at least in blatant discourtesy.

If we are willing to grant that perhaps Bishop Rifan felt bound to accept the terms of the Campos Agreement, and that, just perhaps, he has acted with sincerity throughout his ensuing reign, then what remains? We have in Rifan the world’s only “traditional” Bishop (I leave out all of the other characters). If we would merely assume that he is faithful, and pleading our case with Rome, then what else do we expect him to do? Is it not within the purview of his office to admonish his flock in their excesses, especially when they hurt their own cause? Or, do we expect him to exclusively cheer us on, with the toothy grin of a Nervous Disorder patient? It is pretty absurd when we who love to trumpet the classical image of Bishops as strong upholders of the Faith and mighty Lords unafraid to rebuke their enemies, complain in so juvenile a manner about anything a Bishop says that offends our sensibilities.

Or is the real heart of the matter that some loved the old Rifan, saw nothing wrong with his conduct, and suspect that this new Bishop Rifan is a pawn of the New Order? As I noted first, it is obvious that Rifan is a changed man. From his actions and his words, it is a good bet that he considers himself to have been corrected by the Church. Sensing this, we traditionalists want to know the whole story. On what issues has he compromised with New Rome? Can we still trust him? In fact, some have jumped past these entirely sensible questions, part of a healthy skepticism in this age of heresy, to dismiss this good Bishop without grounds. I understand that traditionalists have been wounded for many years by prelates telling them, in substance, the same thing that Bishop Rifan is in this and the “Cardinal Sins of Traditionalists” interview. But is there not some truth in what he says? And if there really are problems in traditionalism, and dangers from which souls must be protected – from whom will we accept the warnings? Must P. St. Pius X again walk the earth, clad in Tiara and Ermine, before we can listen to correction? If we must ignore every single Bishop on earth to guard our souls then where is our Church? My appeal may be an emotional one, but if we cannot place our trust and submit to the authority of Rifan, at the very least, who else is there in the visible Church?

——-

So far as I can tell, these are the important problems Iosephus sees in this latest Bishop Rifan interview: (And yet, Iosephus, for some reason, ignores the most obnoxious line, the one that was really, really wrong-headed and insensitive: when Rifan compares the clearly heretical Greek Orthodox to the SSPX.)

1. Rifan says that as part of any regularization, the Church must correct the doctrinal mistakes made by the SSPX (members, friends, adherents, whatever).

Isn’t this obvious? Why are we so resistant to the suggestion that perhaps the SSPX might not contain the whole and unaltered Faith of Rome? I’m inclined to believe that the doctrinal matters on which this pious Society of priests has gone wrong are very, very few. But we can’t assume that the Holy Spirit has protected this little disobedient (rightfully, or wrongfully) group in the Church from all error, just because the rest of the Church is so burdened with priests and Bishops who have lost the Faith. Although I don’t think it is necessary to point out which particular matters the Bishop has in mind, I’ll try to lend a hand. Iosephus mentions the most obvious issue, the illicit consecrations, and then pretends that these, and other matters of obedience, have no doctrinal implications. (I should mention that I don’t approve of his wishy-washy “I don’t know if the consecrations were a mistake” line.) Iosephus, I’ll ask you a question. What about telling the faithful not to go to Mass unless it be the Old Rite? Is there not a doctrinal problem here, and in other occasions where the Society has invented a new status for this Rite of Mass: where it skirts the border between sinful, ugly and stupid. However, I don’t think that the Bishop is hinting at some hidden dogma in the Council, which the Society has stubbornly refused to accept. The Council was a disaster, as everyone with eyes can see, and should be ignored. But are we free to degrade it completely? I know some of our readers like to consign this Council, because it is “pastoral”, to the ordinary magisterium – which I find highly suspicious. Regardless, would it be sound to accuse the Council of teaching heresy, as some are wont to do? And would not this accusation, made of a legitimately called Council, be a matter of doctrine in need of some correction? I can think of other mistakes the good Bishop might have in mind, most of which deal with these matters of “discipline”, which do, in fact, have doctrinal ramifications. The sooner we deal with them, and are all on the same page, the sooner we can go about the good work of restoring Tradition.

2. He uses the phrase: Supreme Power Dogma.
First, I sure hope this insulting expression, “Down, boy!” is not intended against a successor to the Apostles. It is also helpful that Iosephus reminds us that the Pope, and God, cannot make a square circle. Unlike Iosephus, I will cut directly to the point. How much power does the Pope have over the Liturgy? Now, I will readily admit, this is very difficult question. But I think it is fairly easy to see that Rifan intends by his brief statement no judgement on this complex matter. What, exactly, does he say?

[Why do we love and prefer the Traditional Roman Rite?] Would it be because we deny the power of the Pope to modify and promulgate liturgical laws? This would be against the Pope’s supreme power dogma!

I agree with Iosephus that “supreme power dogma” is an amusing little description. But we need not fear Rifan is overstepping himself by this phrase, just as your common protestant might fear Romish idolatry in “Queen of All Hearts”. Of course, as Iosephus says, this phrase is troublesome particularly because some modern Catholics ascribe to his liturgical office what I might term ultra-supreme power. And the modification and promulgation of liturgical laws hardly begins to describe the grand introduction of the New Mass. But, what exactly are the limits of the Pope’s powers to define the liturgy? Frankly, I’m not sure. In his near destruction of the Roman Rite and promulgation of the fabricated New Mass, acts without precedent in our glorious Church, did the late Pope Paul VI fundamentally overstep or misapply his God-given authority? This is a question to which I’ve yet to hear a cogent answer. However, regardless of their theological implications, we’d all agree that we don’t want to see these Papal actions repeated. Certainly the old priests of Campos never yearned for such a thing. And yet why does Iosephus see in this simple expression, not only Rifan’s endorsement of some ultra-supreme power thesis, but a suggestion that, counter to any kind of traditionalism, the Pope is free to do whatever he wants with Liturgy? Is there not a real problem that Rifan could be addressing here, and not just deliberately brushing aside the larger authority issue? There are certainly many traditionalists who make bold statements limiting the Pope’s ability to change the liturgy. Some suggest that they would not tolerate any changes to the Old Mass whatsoever. Or, deeper in looneyville, they refuse to recognize any modifications that might have been tainted by the seedy anti-liturgical underbelly of the 20th century liturgical movement – cf. the old, old Roman stuff.

For the ordinary Catholic, as opposed to the traditionalist audience, this is a point that we need to continue to emphasize. We do not deny the Pope his power over the Liturgy. We may wish that the wider Church consider how this authority has been excercised in the last 50 years, and by careful study, to reaquaint itself with a more traditional restraint when handling the Sacred Liturgy, but this desire must not become for us blanket disobedience and distrust of any and all change. Were the Roman Pontiff, for example, to modify the 1962 liturgical books, perhaps calling for an Epistle given in the vernacular and eliminating the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar – ignoring the obvious imprudence of such a step at this time – would we revolt? The Pope has granted us the favor of using liturgical rites that are frozen in time. Your run-of-the-mill traditionalist – like myself – thinks of this favor as absolutely essential, or even perhaps the natural state of a liturgical rite. But we mustn’t forget that the Pope retains this Supreme Power to, just as Rifan says, continue to modify and promulgate liturgical laws.

3. He refers to the Unity of Cult Dogma.
I think you answered yourself admirably here, Iosephus. Rifan is not referring entirely to the SSPX, but to all traditionalists, some of whom have been known to challenge the validity of the Mass, or to denigrate the sacred mysteries as performed using the Novus Ordo rite.

———–

I also went a-browsing on Angelqueen to see what criticisms they had brought up regarding this interview. The most interesting to me was the few who had siezed upon the phrase “Classical Roman Rite,” and seen in this diabolic aims. This name thing has always been a curious issue, and one day I’d like to treat it in more detail. I mean, traditionalists as a whole have fixed upon “Novus Ordo” as a perfect description of that Rite – I’ve known some to call the coining of this title as little short of miraculous, and certainly everyone would see the hand of Providence in it. The New Order: they call themselves by name! But, you might say, this only makes the job more difficult for us in choosing our own name (specifically, one in English). Of course, the “enemy” has chosen a name for us, and it is “Tridentine.” (Some are heard to whisper Pian, too.) Though association with the Council of Trent is no shabby thing, there are so many prejudices in this title that it is pretty much unacceptable. Then again, proving the old axiom that you are your own worst enemy, some traditionalists have been known to go about shouting “The Mass of All Time”, in imitation of the French. Or, in shortened parlance, the MOAT. Now if there is a better way to get yourself thought the liturgical fool I know not it. My Cornell fellows and I prefer “Traditional Roman Rite.” But this talk about the “Classical Roman Rite” intrigues me. I’ve always thought the traditional in TRR to seem more the self-congratulatory adjective, by way of party politics, than the real meaning it should have. Is “Classical” the solution here? On one hand, it conjures up some of the right images and avoids the much more loaded “traditional”. On the other hand it doesn’t really sound Catholic, and classical still has some pretty bad notes in it, from “I prefer classical music” to “I just plain flip for classic car shows.” Even worse, 4 out of 5 Angelqueen readers thought it reminded them of something stale, with a distinct hint of play-acting. That’s not to mention the clear scent of New Rome compromise. Can’t you smell it?

Some people are never happy.

go to main page

This guy first caught our attention here. The news of his appointment sounded good back then and it still sounds good today. Only pray God, he will at some point be the Prefect of the CDW and not just its secretary. I would say that he is the one character yet appointed by Benedict who has said things worthy of outright excitement, and this excitement is increased when one considers what has come before and much of what yet remains (like the prefect of the CDW). I’m excited about Bertone as Secretary of State, but Archbishop Don gives every indication, and not just hints, but real words, that he is a friend of Tradition.

Now I know that we’re all fed up with words, words, and more words, but I think we should remain hopeful and give guys like Bertone and Don a chance to do their thing. You know, that old adage about Rome not being built in a day.

So far as I can judge from this picture, the Society for a Good Time does not have cognac expensive enough to toast this guy – the Grand Master of the Order of Malta – if he should ever happen to town. This distinguished, red-coated fellow is, like, the supreme commander of the folks who were tending to the pilgrims’ feet on our way to Chartres? He must have gotten a few looks from the tourists, on account of that fancy get up, on his way to the Apostolic Palace this morning.

A couple things which I saw today and wanted to note . . . . After reading this commentary by Diogenes about Bishop Gumbleton’s latest pontifications in the National Catholic Reporter, I realized that there is not only a special theology of Peace & Social Justice, whose most notable spokesman is Bishop Gumbleton, but there is also a special theology of the Holy Eucharist advocated by Bishop Gumbleton. Diogenes brought it to my attention in this passage:

But if we listen closely to the Scriptures today and try to get a deep understanding of what the Holy Eucharist really is, we will understand, I think. The scriptures today reflect the idea that the Eucharist is most of all the living presence of Jesus. To think of the Eucharist as a kind of prize that you earn, that you make yourself worthy to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus — that’s a very wrong approach, a wrong understanding of the Eucharist. It leads us to the idea that we put Jesus in the tabernacle and we worship him and that’s the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus.

First of all, whatever liberal jumbo Gumbleton has in mind when he speaks of listening closely to the Scriptures, I’m pretty sure it was condemned the Apostolic See in, I believe, Innocent VI’s bull Inter perniciosos Scripturae auditus . . . I’ll get back to you on that one. Anyway, Gumbleton’s deprecating remarks about reserving the Sacred Species for the veneration of the faithful indicate that he is, at least, a material heretic. Consider only this proposition, “The Worship of Adoration (latria) must be given to Christ present in the Eucharist” – this is a de fide proposition (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 387). Is it any surprise that one of the foremost demagogues of the Nervous Disorder sounds like an early protestant? They, too, believed in a “living presence” of Christ in the Eucharist, but they rejected reservation and worship.

Of course, I bandy about the term “heretic” pretty freely, as the other members of this Society can tell you. I once accused Iacobus of heresy when, having been asked the question, “Whether it be a grave sin to recite the so-called Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary?” he answered In the negative, though with qualifications. I also once accused Ambrosius of heresy for maintaining the proposition (condemned in the Syllabus Errorum, I believe) that “Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those women who are not infrequently found to be wearing pants.” So given all of that, you might want to take what I say with a grain of salt, but you can look at the Ludwig for yourself.

Now I wouldn’t care a wit what this freelancing bishop thinks about the Eucharist, but I noticed a connection between his views and the practice at the Cornell Catholic Chaplaincy. You see, last year, during the Year of the Eucharist, before Fr. Daniel McMullin had arrived, we convinced Fr. Smith to expose the Blessed Sacrament for Adoration in the Blessed Sacrament closet after Mass (around noon) until 5PM or so. This was all going well until Sr. Fannon desecrated the whole thing by taking it upon herself to repose the Blessed Sacrament, which incident, as Iacobus, Ambrosius, and Iosephus will all concur, was specifically mentioned in the Book of the Apocalypse as a sure sign of the beginning of the end. At any rate, when certain other students, with whom we only loosely associate on account of their refusal to recognize the degrees of the Holy See laid out in this motu proprio, asked that Adoration be resumed this past fall, the Chaplaincy, under the new leadership of Fr. McMullin, though not necessarily at his insistence, refused.

And now I think I have a better idea why they refused, why they were not eager to encourage or assist in the worship of latria which, de fide, must be given to the Blessed Sacrament. For they are all to a man (and I should say, woman) supporters of Bishop Gumbleton’s new way to be church. Also, their set isn’t a group in which you’ll hear the word “latria” pop up too often. Of course, we’ve known that the Novus Ordo likes to move the Real Presence to the side, but explicit statements of denial concerning the latria to be given to the Blessed Sacrament indicate not just a tendency, but a positive commitment to destroy belief in the Real Presence and to take away honor from Our Lord, as in the Chaplaincy’s refusal to allow Adoration this past year at Cornell.

The second thing I wanted to mention, and completely unrelated – I really liked this piece about David Jones at Seattle Catholic. While reading it, I was reminded that I had first heard of this David Jones fellow while in conversation over a glass of cognac with Ambrosius (whose knowledge of English poetry is excellent) and Fr. Jonathan Robinson (whose knowledge, simpliciter, is excellent) at the Toronto Oratory.

Also, the merit of the author’s concluding advice about how to read Jones’ work and with which piece to begin I did appreciate. Though I would say to Mr. Hennessey that it has been the experience of the Cornell Society for a Good Time, when gathered in solemn assembly, that a “good deep glass of red” enhances the merits of most any poetry, and especially those merits of the fine Catholic poets whom we like to read.

go to main page