THE OLD LATIN MASS
By Richard P. Salbato
Many of you
may never have attended "The Old Latin Mass". When you think about
it, you think of a language you would not understand and wonder why it was ever
said that way. But the old Mass of your fathers was more than a
"Latin" Mass, it was different in many ways.
For me the New Mass
was a tremendous shock. I had left the Church for ten years. I had grown up
with the old way, and when I returned, everything was different. I suppose the
difference was more shocking to me because it didn’t come gradually with
explanations from the priests as it did with those who were in the Church at
the time of the changes.
For you who never
attended the old Mass, it was called the "Mass of the Council of
Trent" or the Tridentine Mass. It
was said in Latin, and everyone had missals that translated it into English.
Unless you knew the Mass by heart, you read along in English with your missal.
The parts of the Mass the people say today were said in Latin by the altar
boys. The people said their part in English silently. The altar boy said the
Latin. Usually he had no idea what he
was saying. I know. I was one of those altar boys. It all sounds kind of dumb,
but it wasn’t.
In those days the
consecration of the Holy Eucharist was a very solemn event. The altar boy rang bells to tell the people
that the great event was about to happen.
Everyone became very still. You
could hear a pin drop. The priest bent
over the host very slowly and said the miraculous words in the unknown
language. Then very slowly and with the utmost respect, he lifted up the Body
of Christ for all to see.
It only lasted a
few seconds and then the Host was hidden again behind the priest, who kept his
back to you. Everyone knew [in that
brief moment] that they were looking at God.
They knew they were just as privileged as Moses, himself, who spoke to
God face to face.
The offering up of
the Body and Blood of Christ to the Father was even more important, for that
was the reason for the whole thing. The offering was the Sacrifice of Calvary,
the raising up of the infant Jesus by Simeon, the raising up of Christ on the
Cross, the continuation of the sacrifice of the lambs in the old law, the new
covenant with His people, the new sacrifice for the sins of mankind. No one
moved a hair on their heads.
When it was time
for communion, not everyone came forward. We all knew that no one could go who
was not in the state of grace. No one dared go to communion in a state of sin,
since we knew that was the worst of all sins, a sacrilege. That was placing the
body of Christ in a "whitened sepulcher, which outwardly appears to men
beautiful, but within is full of dead men’s bones and of all uncleanness."
If you didn’t go to
communion, however, you didn’t have to worry about your reputation. You had to
fast from midnight on. You were not even allowed coffee or cigarettes. Those
who did not go to communion just pretended they forgot and had eaten something.
It was not easy, anyway, especially at the twelve o’clock Mass.
There was no
question about God being in that Church. Is was obvious, even to a two year old
child. When we entered the church, we knelt down and made the sign of the cross
with Holy Water. The women put on their veils or hats. Everyone became very
quiet. They came to pray, not to socialize. No one talked in church. If they
did, the priest would reprimand them publicly. It was truly a house of prayer.
I came to know that the little piece of bread was really God, not by the
lessons from the nuns and priests, but from the example of the people in
church.
Every week holy
women would decorate the altar with flowers and clean the floors and walls,
always with total respect for the presence of God in their midst. No matter how
many times they passed the altar, they would kneel down and bow. The priest of
our parish could be found in church praying by himself at all hours of the day.
Whenever you could not find him, you knew he was in the church. The nuns would
also go into the church for a visit with God whenever they had a free moment.
THE GATE OF HEAVEN
The Churches were
built and decorated to give us an idea of what we knew but could not see,
namely that when the High Priest, Christ, through the hands and words of the
priest said, "This is My Body", Christ came down from Heaven and all
Heaven followed to worship, honor, adore their God. What we could not see is
that Heaven open to Earth. (St. Ambrose) "Let all mortal flesh be silent,
standing there in fear and trembling; for the King of kings, the Lord of lords,
Christ our God is about to be sacrificed and to be given as food to the
faithful." (Liturgy of St. James) We knew that all the prayers and good
works of all the people of the Earth from Adam to the end of the World do not
equal one Mass, because the Mass is the work of God, not the work of man. The
Mass is the Prayer and the Sacrifice of God, Himself. (Cure’de Ars). We knew
that not even the angels were as privileged as we were, because they could not
receive the Body and Blood of Christ. We were made present once again at the
same Sacrifice which occurred at Calvary. We knew that if we could see what
happens in the spiritual world in songs, and praise of God, we would die of joy
and happiness. The Graces flowing out from that one Mass to the whole Church on
Earth and in Purgatory we could never even imagine.
THE CHANGES
Anyway, that’s the
way it was. Then it changed. I’m not privy to the reasons for the modern Mass;
but I will offer my opinion. After it changed; however, it seems everything
else changed with it. Attitudes changed. Respect for the Body and Blood of
Christ left the Church. Belief changed. At one time everyone knew that in the
tabernacle was the real presence of Christ. Now, many either wonder about it,
or out and out do not believe anymore. Even amongst the priests, the belief is
all but gone in many areas. Talking in church is as common and accepted as
talking at the breakfast table. But at least we wash our hands before eating
breakfast.
Many of the
churches have taken out all the kneelers. Many of the younger people do not
know what a communion rail is and have never seen one. There is no sin anymore
because no one believes sin is sin.
UNIVERSAL
The Latin Mass was
never meant to be Universal. When St. Gregory the Great wrote it, it was for
Rome only. However, everyone wanted to copy it and it became almost universal
in time with only minor changes for the different districts. Essentially
though, it was the Mass of St. Peter, with only minor changes made by St.
Gregory, and then by the Popes prior to the Council of Trent. Pope Pius V then
made other minor changes and declared it almost universal amongst the Latin
Rite. I travel all over the world. In the old days no matter where you went,
you could count on the Mass being almost the same everywhere. If one reads the
"Sacramentary" of 1974, it is still meant to be universal with only
minor changes allowed the local bishops.
That is not the way
it is now. Within ten miles of where I live you can go to one church and there
are no kneelers at all. In another church everyone stands for the consecration.
In another they kneel for the consecration but stand for the elevation. Down
the road the whole thing is different. Some churches hold hands during the
Lord’s prayer, and if you don’t want to, they become insulted. The poor
parishioners never know what to do or not to do.
People are told
that they have to receive communion in the hand or not receive at all in some
churches, and in one church I know the Hosts are placed in a basket on a table
and the people come and take them out themselves. I wonder what the angels
think, let alone the Father?
What Pope Pius V
wanted in his "Quo Primum" and what John Paul II wants in the new
"Sacramentary" is universality. That must return.
It will.
ORTHODOX AND PROTESTANT INPUT
When Vatican II set
in motion the possibility for changes in the Mass, it did so because of its
love for our separated brethren. Orthodox and Protestant representatives were
invited in to the Council. The Kingdom of God made a major decision. It decided
to compromise on every single issue of separation that it could. The only thing
the Church cannot do is compromise on Doctrine. Faith cannot change. But Church
laws can change and they did.
The Orthodox
Patriarchs pointed out that the early Christians prayed the Mass in their own
languages. The language of the Mass became Latin because Latin was the language
spoken by the people. The Protestants did not like the statues, the icons and
all the rituals. They even objected to our doctrine, "No salvation outside
the Church." The doctrine, however, cannot change; Vatican II simply
decided not to stress it. In other words, not to talk about it a great deal. Forced
to put it into writing, Vatican II and later Cardinal Ratzinger carefully
worded the Doctrine so as not to offend the separated Christians. Not one word
of the Doctrine changed; but the wording became more loving. However, the
emphasis on reconciliation led many Catholics to believe that the doctrine had
changed. As Pope Pius XII explains "Unam Sanctam", those outside the
Visible Church can be ordered into it in a way sufficient for salvation,
however, to what extent we do not know. Sts. Ambrose, Augustine, and Thomas
said the same thing. St. Thomas says that one may be saved extra-sacramentally
by baptism of desire. However, the likelihood of this possibility is another
thing, especially in countries like America, where knowledge and opportunity to
know the truth are not hampered by anything but tradition and prejudice.
THE SCHISM
Many Cardinals,
Bishops, priests and laymen refused to go along with the changes in the Mass
and the emphasis. In fact, a schism began to unfold. A schism is a
"willful separation from the unity of the Church".
The strange thing
about this schism [known as the Society of St. Pius X and founded by Archbishop
Lefebvre] is that the people who are separating are those who are holding on to
tradition, or so they say. What makes them look so inviting to Conservative
Catholics is that many of those still inside the unity of the faith are not
faithful.
In 1054 A.D. the
eastern Catholics separated from the unity of the faith for the same reasons.
They said that the Church was no longer Orthodox and therefore they did not
have to obey. One of their reasons was the change to Latin. Now we have a new
group who say the Church is no longer Orthodox because they have changed away
from Latin. Who is orthodox?
ORTHODOX CATHOLICS
This separation is
understandable. Inside the Church priests are making orgies out of the New
Mass, whereas those who have left are holding beautiful, solemn Sacrifices.
Much of the holiness inside has gone; the holiness outside is very noticeable.
(See note 1) Inside the Church priests are talking about the "New
Sexuality" or the "Agape" celebration. Outside the Church
priests and nuns are talking "virginity". Inside priests and nuns are
throwing away collars and habits. Outside they still look like priests and
nuns. Vocations on the inside have fallen to an all time low. Outside vocations
are booming. Many of those, who would not change, have been excommunicated.
They have become known as "Traditionalists".
Traditionalist
newspapers and magazines are on the increase. Traditionalist churches, schools
and seminaries are opening everywhere. Catholic schools have become so bad that
lay-Catholic parents are opening their own schools with orthodox books. Home
education has become the fastest growing industry in the United States. Many
parents talk of protecting their children’s faith by keeping them away from
priests and nuns. Inside the unity of the Catholic Church the big problem is
HERESY. (Note
1 This holiness is only externally apparent. Information from insiders of the
Traditionalist groups, and there are a great many different groups now, show
priests leaving the priesthood and getting married, and a complete lack of
charity to anyone who tries to leave. In some cases even life threatening
messages to those who re-enter the Body of Christ.)
HERESY IN THE BODY OF CHRIST
Heresy has a very
specific meaning. It is anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining
nominally a Catholic, denies or doubts ANY OF THE TRUTHS THAT MUST BE BELIEVED
WITH DIVINE AND CATHOLIC FAITH. Among the priests and nuns in my area, 70% have
some truth of faith they do not believe in: Purgatory, Birth Control, Celibacy,
even Hell. One Mother Superior told me no one ever went to Hell in all of
history.
Why? People like Karl
Rahner, Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx (Dominican), Hans Kung, Tad Goosy, Anthony
Willhelm, Kohlberg, and Monika Hellwig have infiltrated the seminaries and
the Catholic School Systems. These people do not believe in the Catholic Church
or in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Monika is now director of
The Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, a branch of The National
Catholic Education Association. "Christ Among Us" (2,000,000
copies), "Understanding Catholicism", and "Six Stages of
Moral Development" are books that spread throughout the Church
destroying true faith, and corrupting the seminaries and schools to the point
that real Catholics opted for home schooling or overseas seminaries like Opus
Dei, Legionaries of Christ, and Daughters of Charity. Nuns, priests, and
bishops have been brain-washed by these anti-Catholics. Words like "the
community" replace the "Body of Christ"; and
"Experiences" replace "the Word of God". They have become
community centered instead of Christ centered. Any of the above mentioned people
who think I have wronged them, can have my apologies by simply taking the oath
St. Gregory VII forced on Berengarius.
WHAT’S A CATHOLIC TO DO?
So, what do we
orthodox Catholics do now? Where do we go? Do we go outside the Church with the
Schismatics or stay inside with the Heretics?
Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre and his St. Pius X Society say that to remain a Catholic we must hold
tight to tradition. They say to be a Catholic is to hold on to the Mass of the
Council of Trent. They cite many great arguments: by their fruits you will know
them, [50% less priests worldwide, 90% less conversions, 30% less attendance at
Mass]. They cite "Quo Primum" [the "will stand perpetually"
statement of Pope Pius V], pro multis [for many] and pro omnibus [for all],
Canon IX, Session XXII of the Council of Trent, etc. All very good arguments.
I am not ignorant
of the problems and the history. Pius V could have written Et Elenitan
(forever) instead of Et Perpetute, but he did not. In fact he opened a Synod of
Bishops right after his declaration to seek possible further changes to the
Liturgy.
Nor am I ignorant
of the theory of Father Gerald Murray, but I also know that Pope Paul VI
suspended Archbishop Lefebvre for ordaining 13 men in defiance of the Holy See.
John Paul II attempted to reconcile, and Cardinal Ratzinger and Lefebvre signed
an agreement in 1988, only to have him change his mind the very next day. He
consecrated four bishops one month later without approval from the Holy Father.
Many attempts since have been made towards unity.
It happens that I
knew Patricia Morley personally (God rest her soul) and have been on her radio
program. I also know Jerry Rienie, who will probably take over the program. I
know all the reasons people look to the Society with a longing for the
reverence of the old Mass, and I go as often as I can to the legal Tridentine
or Byzantine Liturgies.
OBEDIENCE
So, what do we
orthodox Catholics do? We obey. Even though Traditionalists seem to be
very holy and traditional, they fall short on the most important point of
tradition in the Church. That tradition is OBEDIENCE.
St. Thomas Aquinas:
"Objection 3 Whether obedience belongs to religious perfection?
Reply to Objection
3 --- they are nevertheless bound to obey the Sovereign pontiff, not only in
matters affecting all in common, but also in those which pertain specially to
religious discipline."
St. John of the
Cross: "Never consider your superior as less than if he were God, no matter
who the superior is, because to you he stands in the place of God."
St. Pascal Baylon:
" Obedience comes first; devotion must take second place."
St. Teresa of
Avila: "I believe that since Satan sees there is no road that leads more
quickly to the highest perfection than this of obedience, he suggests many
difficulties under the color of some good, and makes it distasteful; let people
look well into it and they will see plainly that I am telling the truth.
Wherein lies the highest perfection? It is clear that it does not lie in
interior delights, not in great raptures, not in visions, not in the spirit of
prophecy, but in the conformity of our will to the will of God, so that there
shall be nothing we know He wills that we do not will ourselves with our whole
will, and accept the bitter as joyfully as the sweet, knowing it to be His
Majesty’s will."
What is God’s will?
"Whatever you loose on earth, I will loose in Heaven."
NOT A MATTER OF FAITH
I don’t know why
the Church has made all these changes. I don’t like many of them. But I am not
going to help my Church by leaving it. I’m not going to put a condition on my
obedience. Yes, it was easier to be obedient when I agreed with everything they
did in Rome. Yes, it’s harder to be obedient now. But OBEDIENCE IS OBEDIENCE.
The only time I have a right [even an obligation] to not be obedient to my
superiors in the Church is when it is a matter of Faith. Fidelity to faith is
stronger than the law of Obedience (St. Augustine). The New Order Mass is not a
matter of Fidelity to doctrine. When the Mass changed, Padre Pio wrote to the
Holy Father offering his support in the changes and turned his altar around
just before his death September 23, 1968.
TRADITIONALISTS HAVE GONE TOO FAR
When someone like
Monsignor Marceau preaches that if there is no Tridentine Mass available, the
Sunday obligation to attend Mass ceases, the Traditionalists have gone too far.
When Archbishop Lefebvre refused to admit that the New Mass is a legitimate
Mass, he went too far.
None of the early Church Liturgies were
Tridentine or even close.
They had different
Liturgies in Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome, Persia, and Edessa. The Liturgy of
James the Apostle (Jerusalem) has a different Canon than the Liturgy of Mark, Clement,
Chrysostom, Basil, and the two of Peter.
The truth is that many of the
Traditionalist Masses are illegal.
Oh! Yes, they are
licit, and it is the real Body of Christ. Even in the Greek Orthodox and Old
Roman Catholic Churches the consecration is real because, unlike Protestants,
they have Apostolic Succession. But those saying and those attending these
Masses by choice are committing Sins of disobedience against the Pope, the
doctrine of the Church, and the first councils of the Church, especially of
Nice.
(De fide)
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - Ott Page 278
"Only that Eucharist is regarded as valid and legal, that is
consummated under the Bishop or by one authorized by him."
WHERE IS THE TRUE CHURCH?
Who then is in the
true Church of Christ: the Catholics under the Pope of Rome, the
Traditionalists under the Pius X Society, the Traditionalists, who are
freelancing away from their bishops and who have left the Pius X Society
because they were too liberal, or the Orthodox, who claim to be more traditional
than the Pope?
There are two
points here that I would like to make regarding which one of these groups is
the true Church of Christ: one is the dying statement of St. Ignatius,
who was taught by St. John, the Apostle. In his letter to the Philadelphians he
pleads,
"I exhort you to have but one Eucharist, for there is one flesh of
the Lord Jesus Christ; and His blood which was shed for us is one; one loaf
also is broken to all the communicants, and one up is distributed among them
all; there is but one altar for the whole Church, and one bishop, --- and one
faith, and one baptism; and one Church which the holy apostles established from
one end of the earth to the other --- For the word is not mine, but God’s, give
heed to the bishop --- Do nothing without the bishop; keep your bodies as
the temples of God; love unity; avoid divisions; be the followers of Jesus
Christ, even as He is of His Father." [To the Smyrnaeans he wrote:] "Let
no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that
be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop. or by
one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear,
there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ
is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either
to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve
of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure
and valid. --- He who honors the bishop has been honored by God; he who
does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does in reality serve the
devil."
I think we have
made the point from St. Ignatius that independent priests going around giving
the so-called Traditional Mass without a bishop’s permission are sinning and
those attending these Masses are sinning. That does not mean that the Mass is
illicit, only illegal.
Now let us look at
those groups who have a bishop. St. Irenaeus,
pupil of Polycarp, writes: "For it is a matter of necessity that
every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent
authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic
tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist
everywhere." Then listing the popes down to his day, he goes on to
say, "Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important
question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches
with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is
certain and clear in regard to the present question?"
It appears to me,
although maybe I am too stupid to understand, that if there is a dispute
between bishops regarding anything of importance, the Bishop of Rome is the
final law of the Church. That being the case, all other arguments regarding
other Popes or Trent or Tradition or whatever, are void.
WHAT ABOUT ST. ATHANASIUS?
Some have made the
absolutely false argument that Athanasius went against the entire Church and
then was found to be correct. This would not only make St. Irenaeus wrong,
but in fact, this is not the truth. Let us take a look at St. Athanasius. If
you read Chapter 13 of Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History you will see that
Pope Liberius of Rome defended Athanasius against Emperor Constantius, and in
fact, was jailed because of it. Of the six exiles of Athanasius, three were
spent in the arms of the Pope of Rome. Athanasius was not standing up for the
truth against the will of the Church, he was standing up for the Church and the
Council of Nice against the will of the Emperor Constantius.
(Constantius
confiscated 80% of the Church buildings and gave them to Arian Bishops, but
only the buildings went with the Arians, not the people. Most of the people
stayed with Athanasius, and therefore with Rome. The big mistake most
historians make is thinking that most of the Christian world became Arian. The
fact that the Emperor forced Arianism on the people is no different than
Catholics living in Communist Russia where only the Orthodox Churches were
legal.)
Athanasius
constantly defended the Council. This same Council states, that if a priest
leaves his own bishop and goes out on his own, let him be excommunicated -ipso
facto; and if a bishop leaves his geographical territory, he has no authority
whatsoever. Many traditional priests throughout the world are roving around
without a bishop.
AT LEAST THREE BISHOPS TO ORDAIN A BISHOP
And in Canon 4 of
the Council of Nice, it states: "It is by all means proper that a
bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this
be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and
the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in
writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the
ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan. [Rome]"
Now I ask, "Do
you know any bishop who would go against the Council of Nice and ordain a bishop
all by himself, without at least three bishops doing the ordination?"
Yes, this has happened in the past. It happened with the Bishop of the New
World in Mexico, when three bishops were sent to Mexico to ordain him, and two
of them died on the way, but after he was ordained by the one bishop it was
ratified by the Pope of Rome and by Our Lady of Guadalupe.
Cannon 13 of the
Council of Antioch (341 AD), accepted as Ecumenical by the Council of
Constantinople, states no bishop shall presume to --- ordain persons ---
without the written invitation of the metropolitan. In the case of Msgr.
Lefebvre, who is of the Latin Rite, this means the Bishop of Rome.
Canon 13 of
Chalcedon: "Strange and unknown clergymen without letters commendatory
from their own Bishop, are absolutely prohibited from officiating in another
city."
And in the present
Code of Canon Law (Canon 378) "In order for a person to be a suitable
candidate for the episcopacy it is required that: 2. The definitive judgment
concerning the suitability of the person to be promoted belongs to the
Apostolic See [Rome]."
"FOR ALL" OR "FOR
MANY"
Now let us look at
the words, "for many" or "for all". In the Maronite Rite
there are 22 Anaphoras, (the most ancient in the Church), and in one of these
Anaphoras it states, "for all men", and has always stated it this way
for a thousand years. In one of the ancient Coptic Rites, instead of "This
is My Body", it states, "This is the Body". Should we say that
these two formulas have resulted in the bread not becoming the Body of Christ
for the last thousand years?
Can you say that
Christ did not die for all, and therefore "for all" is not
theologically correct? Of course not. (2 Corinthians 5:15) "And Christ
died for all." (1 Timothy 2:6) "Who gave himself a redemption for all
---" (1 John 2:2) "not only for our sins but for those of the whole
world."
But does this
make the "transubstantiation" invalid? No! The last Doctor of the
Church, Alphonsus Maria Liguori, (History of Heresies), states that the words,
"This is my body" and "This is the chalice of My blood" are
all that are necessary for a valid Consecration. So said also: St. Thomas
(Summa Theologica - Part III, Q 78, A.3 and Q 60, A.8) and the Council of
Florence. Even a Masonic priest, who does not even believe in the true presence
of Christ, will produce transubstantiation by these words.
LATIN OR VERNACULAR
Pope St. Damasus
was the first to change the Mass to the Latin and to order the Bible into Latin
because it was the language of the people. However, there have been
traditionally five Rites and twenty-five sub-rites subject to the Pope that
have not used the Latin. In fact, the Rumanian have always used the vernacular.
In 865 Sts. Cyril
and Methodius wrote a Cyrillic Mass for the people of the Slavic countries that
they converted. Popes Nicholas I and Adrian II crowned this Mass with the
words, "Let those be cast forth from the fold who condemn this use of the
vernacular."
However, in 873
Pope John VIII forbade the Mass. Then in 874 Pope John VIII approved the
Slavonic Mass. Then Pope Stephon VI condemned the Mass. Pope Alexander II,
200 years later, decreed in his full authority and "in perpetuity"
that the Mass could never again be recited in Slavonic, but only in Latin or
Greek. Then Pope and Saint Gregory VII prohibited the use of the Slavonic
"under any circumstances". Then Pope Saint Leo XIII reinstated
the Slavonic Mass. Then Pope St. Pius X canonized the legitimacy of the
Slavonic Mass.
Now, this is my
question. Which of these Popes were in violation of the tradition of the
Church? Which of these Popes violated "in perpetuity"? It seems that
Pope St. Leo XIII and Pope St. Pius X are in violation of "in
perpetuity".
"In
perpetuity" is merely a legalistic and canonical expression meaning that
whatever is bound by it will remain static and unchanged unless and until
changed.
PAPAL BULLS
Let us consider two
Papal Bulls: "Quo Primum" by Pope St. Pius V and "Novus Ordo
Missae" by Pope Paul VI. Both begin and end in the exact same words.
They are identical in the canonical formula, that is: Superscription,
salutation, signature, and Bullae.
Regarding
ex-cathedra, it must be noted that we must subject ourselves to the Pope in
matters of liturgical discipline just as we do in matters of faith. Obedience
to the Pope is obedience to Jesus Christ, and without it, there is no merit in
the sight of God. Obedience has nothing to do with an ex-cathedra document. We
must be obedient in all, except sin, to all in authority.
St. Robert
Bellarimine states: "The Pope, when determining anything in a doubtful
manner, whether by himself or with his own particular Council, whether it is
possible for him to err or not, is to be obeyed by all the faithful."
I would like to
know why no one complained when Pope John XXIII ordered the name of St. Joseph
be included in the Canon, despite the fact that Pius VII and Leo XIII had
refused to do the same thing.
Actually Pope Paul
VI, in his Bull of April 3, 1969, only added three new Canons to the Mass of
St. Pius V (and he did call them Canons). He did not have the idea to take away
anything but only to add, and he did not abolish the old Latin rite. In
abrogating the authority of all previous Popes in this regard, including that
of Pope St. Pius V, he made the Novus Ordo licit. Three years later an
"Instruction" of the Vatican provided for the continued celebration
of the Tridentine Mass only under certain conditions.
Even St. Pius V
permitted alternate Roman rites, such as the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Dominican,
Carmelite, Carthusian, Lyons, etc. In the new Sacramentary of the Novus Ordo
you will find that all priests are still granted the privilege of offering this
new rite completely in its Latin formula, which is printed in the back of the
book.
POPE’S POWER OF LITURGICAL DISCIPLINE
Padre Pio offered
the New Mass on Pope Paul VI, on a table, facing the congregation. Why? Because
"it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to
be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (Unam Sanctam, 1302, Pope Boniface VIII).
"He who obeys the whole law, yet offends in one point, is guilty in
all." (James 2:10) In "Cum muta sint" Pope Saint Leo
XIII, 1882, states that one is sinning who appeals to past or future popes in
order to justify being disobedient to the authority of the present Pope,
"since the Church is One, her Head is One, her Government is One."
THE WORK FOR UNITY
The major reason
for these changes was to bring back the separated Protestants and Orthodox to
the faith. After a complete generation, there has not been one success. I
believe success with the Protestants will take many more years because their
separation is on matters of major Dogma, which cannot change. But amongst the
Greek Orthodox there is very little Doctrinal differences anymore.
I believe we must
now make a major change in direction and work towards unity with the Orthodox
Churches. In order to do this, there are some changes I think we should make.
These suggestions are based on twelve years of working for unity between the
Orthodox and the Catholic. It is based on talking to Patriarchs, and Bishops of
the East.
First—we must
return to the new Holy of Holies. We must make the Altar a holy place again. In
the Greek Orthodox Church the old "Great Curtain" is still there.
They have a "Great Wall". This wall separates the people from the
altar and the Tabernacle. No one [except the priest and servers] are allowed
behind the wall.
The Orthodox
Churches could understand us when we at least had a communion rail, because
that separated the people from the holy ground. But without the communion rail
there is no holy ground. My favorite Church is the Russian Greek Catholic
Church. It is in Communion with Rome. Its Masses are beautiful. During the
consecration, a curtain is drawn over the priest to show that at that moment a
great mystery will take place. After the Mass, everyone kisses an Icon of the
Madonna and Child; and then they kiss the hands of the priest—the hands that
brought Christ into the world.
The next thing we
can do to aid in this reunion is return to "Extraordinary Ministers".
An extraordinary minister is just that: extraordinary. He is meant to help the
priest in emergency situations—in extraordinary situations. He is not meant to
assist at every Mass of the week. The Greek Orthodox priests I have talked to
are very offended by this, since it violates the Second Commandment. It treats
God commonly.
Another thing they
are very offended by is communion in the hand. Greek Orthodox people cannot
touch the Body or the Blood of Christ even with their lips. They are given
Communion in a spoon. The bread is dipped into the wine and placed on a spoon.
The spoon is placed by the priest into the mouth. There is a great deal of
respect and dignity to this procedure. No one receives standing. They could
never accept our new methods.
No one, not even a
relative, can touch the wife of a Greek Orthodox husband. I was thinking about
this one day as I watched a very beautiful sixteen-year-old girl in the pew in
front of me. She had on a veil. She was praying very devoutly. She did not lift
her eyes to anyone in the Church. A young man dressed in tight pants and a
short-sleeved shirt saw her and sat next to her. He did not kneel during the
entire Mass. He constantly tried to get her attention but he could not. From
two feet away he just stared at her. When time came for the Lord’s Prayer,
everyone reached out to hold hands. She did her best to not hold his hand, but
he would not let her refuse. When the prayer was over he squeezed her hand. She
left the church right after communion.
Holding hands is
not a sign of unity. Faith is a sign of unity. Holding hands is one way
the Charismatics are trying to force their beliefs down our throats. I am a
single man. I do not need some woman holding my hand when I am trying to
concentrate on the Majesty of God. This is not love. It is sensualism. It is
carnal. To make matters worse, after they hold each other’s hands, they take
the Body of Christ in their hands.
The Greek Orthodox
have a proper respect for women. (At least by tradition if not by fact.) They
know that God made woman more perfect than man. She is smarter, lives longer,
has more patience, suffers pain better and longer. She is more civilized, and
more beautiful. She is, in fact, God’s perfect creation with Mary at the peak of
it all. For this reason, God made man the servant of the woman. As her superior
in authority, he is her servant in action. As he takes care of her, she
civilizes the world. As he takes care of her, she teaches the world love and
Christ. However, because of her superiority, especially in looks, she must
never be in the front of man. Whenever the woman takes the role of the man, she
becomes like him, and civilized society will be finished.
BEAUTY AND DIGNITY
The next point in
working towards unity is the churches. The Oriental and Greek Orthodox churches
make our new churches look sick. When we are all one united Kingdom again,
people will flock to these Oriental and Orthodox churches because of their
beauty and dignity. The American Catholic Churches will be empty. Why? Because
for two thousand years all builders of our church buildings knew one major
fact. When we offer the Sacrifice of Christ on the altar, all of the Heavenly
Host come down around that altar and give praise and honor to Our Lord. The angels
come down, the Apostles and Saints come down, Mary comes down. We cannot see
this, so we try to imitate it by making the altar, statues, paintings, vaulted
ceilings, stained glass windows, and light effects look as much like what we
cannot see as possible.
It is time we
realized that we failed with the Protestants and start working on the Orthodox.
We can start with the altar rail. I was in (what is claimed to be) the oldest
Christian Church in the world. It was in a small town outside of Damascus.
Maybe it was built by Saint Jude. It has a stone wall (with three openings)
between the altar and the people. Behind the stone wall the priest consecrated
the Body and Blood of Christ. I do not suggest that we have the wall; but I do
suggest that we separate the altar in some way from the common (public) parts
of the church. The old churches and the priest with the people faced east
towards the Second Coming; at least we should all, including the priest, face
God. St. Ambrose would not even let the Emperor of the World on any part of the
elevated steps of the altar. Why then do we treat God so commonly?
THE CHURCH’S INDEFECTIBILITY
Even though I would
like to see these changes, I will not disobey my bishop or my priest. If he
wants me to stand for communion, I will stand, although there are things that
even my bishop cannot make me do if they are contrary to the Sacramentary.
Christ did not leave me a Tridentine Mass, He left me a Kingdom—the Church,
"the Institution of Salvation, founded by Christ, until the end of the
world. (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma) The Indefectibility of the Church has
been contested in the past by every heresy: the Montanists promising a new
Church of the Holy Spirit; the Orthodox reformers, who maintained that under
the Papacy the Church had degenerated from the teachings of Christ; the
Jansenists, who accused the Church of obscuring individual truths of Faith; the
Modernists, who hold to new development of doctrine; the Liberals, who preach
pluralism and simply ignore the doctrines of the Church; and. the
Traditionalists, who hold that not even the Pope, himself, can change the
traditions of the Church.
If the Church is
not Indefectible then Christ and the Bible are lying. (Is. 9:7; Dn. 2:44; Dn.
7:14; Ps. 88:37; Luke 1:32; etc.) The gates of Hell shall not prevail (Mt.
16:18) means just that. The Church must exist until the end times.
WE CONSERVATIVES NEED YOUR HELP
What saddens me the
most is when the Holy Father needs the help of conservative Catholics, (those
who understand and who love the Mass), they leave the Church. They leave him to
the wolves, the heretics, the modernists. When Christ needed them the most,
they left Him. These people in the Traditional movements are so much like me,
that I want them fighting with me, but inside the Church not outside.
My salvation does
not depend on standing or kneeling for communion. It depends on being in the
Body of Christ. I believe the dignity of the Mass, the communion rail, and the
icons will return to the Church. When they do, I will still be a Catholic. Will
You?
WHAT IF?
As I said earlier
in this writing, I don’t know why the Church made these changes; but, as a
Catholic, my study is not to see IF the Church is correct, but to see WHY the
Church is correct. I still don’t know why they made these changes, but I would
like to offer you my own guess as to why. From my own book, "The Ark of
Apocalypse", I would like to quote myself:
"I am only
speculating, not for the sake of sensation or to show how smart I am, but only
to say, ‘WHAT IF?’ My ‘what if’ is very, very scary. Pope John XXIII read the
Secret Message of Fatima in 1960. He called Vatican Council II into session on
October 11, 1962. He asked Protestant leaders to attend the sessions in order
to advise in all those things we Catholics could do to make it easier for our
Separated Brethren to come back to the faith, without our giving up any
essential truths.
"This we did,
to the very great depression of all us orthodox Catholics. The results have
been that even less Protestants have come back to the faith than before the
Council.
"Nevertheless,
WHAT IF the secret letter of Fatima stated that all those separated brethren
would die in a coming chastisement if they did not return to the faith? What if
Pope John XXIII, who loves all of them, as I do, wanted to do whatever he could
to get them back before it was too late?
"WHAT IF the
Second Vatican Council was their LAST GREAT HOPE? If that were true, would not
all of us conservatives feel very small when we face Our Lord someday, if we
opposed the LAST GREAT HOPE of our separated brethren?"
I’M STAYING
So, please, my
fellow conservatives, my fellow traditionalists, don’t leave the Church. Stay
with me and fight. Maybe all these changes were allowed by God to test the
elect, maybe to expose the unfaithful. I don’t know! But I do know one thing
for sure,
THE CHURCH DID NOT MAKE THESE CHANGES
WITHOUT GOD’S APPROVAL.
If I were to say
that Vatican II was not inspired by the Holy Spirit and free from error, I
would also be forced to admit the possibility exists for Trent and all the
other Councils to err. That is not possible. The ways of God are not always
known, but we do know one thing—He will not leave His Church.
There is a great
story of Saint Bernard, who was asked by his bishop to go to a certain parish
and help a certain priest. The priest was notoriously bad. He embezzled funds
from the parish. He had a mistress and was an alcoholic. Saint Bernard tried to
help the priest by setting an example, but it did not work. He tried talking to
him, shaming him, screaming at him. Nothing worked. He finally gave up, packed
his bags to leave, and made one last visit to the tabernacle.
"I’m sorry,
Lord. I failed, and now I’m leaving."
He turned and
walked down the long aisle. Then from the altar he heard a voice, the voice of
Christ in the Tabernacle.
"I’m
staying."
Well, no matter how
many corrupt priests there are, I’m staying.
No matter how many
changes there are, I’m staying.
No matter how many
leave the Kingdom of God on Earth, I’m Staying.
For outside the
Kingdom there is no Christ.
Without Christ,
there is no salvation.
The Publican -
Richard P. Salbato