I, I, I....Me, Me, Me...

I, I, I….me, me, me…and then “the suffering Church?” Wow!

Can someone explain to me how doing something intrinsically evil provides that same person Grace? I am a loss. Forgiveness and mercy and love…for what? She clearly thinks that what she did was not wrong, so why forgiveness and mercy and love? We are called to be a merciful and forgiving Church. Ok, so lemme stick my neck out…Sr. Margaret, if YOU go to CONFESSION (to the proper authority) and ask for mercy and forgiveness, it will most likely be granted to you. YOUR excommunication will most likely be lifted if YOU recant your position on this abortion, because YOU excommunicated YOURSELF. The Church is merciful, and forgiving and full of love, but YOU, Sr. Margaret must ask for it; not deride the Church for doing something that it is more than willing to do. This is YOUR chapter of faults, all YOU have to do is to ask for absolution and YOU will find those things YOU are looking for. It is there, but YOU have to believe in the Church, believe that the Church will be all of those things to YOU, but YOU don’t believe that, because YOU don’t see the hierarchy as the Church, you only see the faithful as the Church….THAT, Sr. Margaret, IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF PROTESTANTISM. The Church will wait for you, but YOU have to be willing to accept YOUR culpability in the terrible action which YOU supported and participated in (btw, that participation on her part was more than participatio activa, that was participatio actuosa).

Why the Traddy Must Suffer the Liberals

I had two conversations this weekend which really opened my eyes to a couple of things that I had been mulling over in the back of my mind for quite some time.

When I made the move to being a traddy, I thought (and still do) that I can make a difference by my example.  I thought that by showing people that being traddy is being Catholic, they would come to understand that the Church is traditional.  I still believe that.

What I didn't realize was that by making the move to being traddy, that I would never again be mainstream within the Church.  I didn't realize that I was going to have to suffer.  I knew that suffering was part of being Catholic.  I knew that suffering was part of being Christian.  But I didn't realize the amount of suffering that I would have to endure at the hands of other Catholics.

Traditionalism is clear in it's practice.  To adhere to the traditions and the Traditions of the Church, as they have developed, AUTHENTICALLY from the beginning until today.  As has been seen from Pope Benedict, discerning that authenticity is of utmost importance.  Not only should this be understood  from a liturgical point of view, but also from a theological and a  philosophical point of view.  This will necessarily put traditionalists at odds with the liberals, because traditionalists DO NOT seek to reinvent anything, traddy's look to authentically exercise the faith as it has been handed down from the Apostles to the Magisterium today.

So, when someone decides that he is going to simply assist at the TLM, he is immediately stigmatized because he is apparently not in keeping with the "mind of the Church."  Well, what does that really mean?  Pope Benedict has been clear that the TLM and the Novus Ordo are to be equal.  Two expressions of the same rite.  Yet for me, and for thousands of others just like me, we must live on the outskirts and we must practice our faith as best we can doing with as little as possible.  Some will say that this "spiritual poverty" is a good thing.  I disagree.  Spiritual poverty is a good thing when the Catholic can embrace it, not when it is forced upon him.  Why should the traditional Catholic be relegated to the basement?  Why should the traditional Catholic be denied the asperges, or incense or candles for procession?  Why must we simply endure?  The answers to these questions are simply this, the current leadership of the Church is paying lip service to the wishes of Pope Benedict, but not authentically promoting what he asks.  And that is why we must suffer the liberals.

It is clear that the liberals work on a retroactive scale.  When Ecclesia Dei came out and the indult was supposed to be garnered as generous, they limited it, according to Tres Abhinc Annos.  When Summorum Pontificum came out, they are now attempting to limit it to what Ecclesia Dei asked.  So, this is how the suffering begins, we must look at everything as being retroactive, or we can wait for the leadership to change.  The Church is clear, it is her leaders who are not.

I will end this blog post with a series of questions.  Why is it so hard for the leadership of the Church to follow the mind of the Church?  Is it because they don't want to admit that their view is wrong?  Is it because they don't want to admit that the Sacred Tradition of the Church is always going to shine through?

Participatio Actuosa

Yesterday, I had the privilege of hearing Fr. Gregory Pendergraft, FSSP say Mass.  It truly is a blessing to hear Mass by a priest who is not influenced by the Novus Ordo.  While I don't begrudge priests who are influenced by the Novus Ordo (it is simply a different expression of the same rite, no?), there is something more natural about a priest who is only trained in the TLM, celebrating the TLM.

As it is, the good Father preached about Participatio Actuosa and Participatio activa, I thought it would be a good time to post an article written in 1987 on the very same subject.  What is written in this article is very similar to what was preached about at Holy Mass yesterday.

God Bless Fr. Pendergraft and may his priesthood persevere.  The article by Monsignor Schuler is below:

With the constitution on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, issued in 1965 by the Second Vatican Council, everyone became very conscious of personal participation in the sacred liturgy, particularly in the Mass.
But active participation in in the liturgy was not a concept created by the Second Vatican Council. Indeed, even the very words actuosa participatio can be found in the writings of the popes for the past one hundred years. Pope Pius X called for it in his motu proprio, Tra le sollecitudini, published in 1903, when he said that "the faithful assemble to draw that spirit from its primary and indispensable source, that is, from active participation in the sacred mysteries and in the public and solemn prayer of the Church."
Pope Pius XI in his apostolic constitution, Divini cultus, wrote in 1928, that the restoration of Gregorian chant for the use of the people would provide the means whereby "the faithful may participate in divine worship more actively." Such participation was to be achieved both by singing and by an appreciation of the beauty of the liturgy which stirs the heart of the worshiper, who thereby enters into the sacred mysteries.
In his encyclicals, Mystici corporus in 1943, and Mediator Dei in 1947, Pope Pius XII used the term but carefully insisted that true participation was not merely external but consisted in a baptismal union with Christ in His Mystical Body, the Church.
In 1958, the Sacred Congregation of Rites issued the instruction, De musica sacra, which distinguished several qualities of participation:

The Mass of its nature requires that all those present participate in it, in the fashion proper to each.
This participation must primarily be interior (i.e., union with Christ the Priest; offering with and through Him).
b) But the participation of those present becomes fuller (plenior) if to internal attention is joined external participation, expressed, that is to say, by external actions such as the position of the body (genuflecting, standing, sitting), ceremonial gestures, or, in particular, the responses, prayers and singing . . .
It is this harmonious form of participation that is referred to in pontifical documents when they speak of active participation (participatio actuosa), the principal example of which is found in the celebrating priest and his ministers who, with due interior devotion and exact observance of the rubrics and ceremonies, minister at the altar.
c) Perfect participatio actuosa of the faithful, finally, is obtained when there is added sacramental participation (by communion).
d) Deliberate participatio actuosa of the faithful is not possible without their adequate instruction.

It is made clear that it is baptismal character that forms the foundation of active participation.
Vatican II introduced no radical alteration in the concept of participatio actuosa as fostered by the popes for the past decades. The general principle is contained in Article 14 of the constitution on the sacred liturgy:

Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious and active participation in the ceremonies which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy.
Such participation by the Christian people as a "chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people" (I Pet. 2:9; 2:4-5) is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.
In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true spirit of Christ . . .

The word "full" (plena) refers to the integrally human fashion in which the baptized faithful take part in the liturgy, i.e., internally and externally. The word "conscious" (conscia) demands a knowledge of what one is doing on the part of the faithful, excluding any superstition or false piety. But the word "active" (actuosa) requires some greater examination.
A true grasp of the meaning of participation in the liturgy demands a clear understanding of the nature of the Church and above all of Christ Himself. At the basis of so much of today's problems in liturgy lies a false notion of Christology and ecclesiology. Christ, the incarnate Word of God, true God and true Man, lives on in this world now. "I will be with you all days until the end of the world." Even though He has arisen and ascended into heaven, He lives with us. The Church is His mystical Body, indeed His mystical Person. We are the members of that Body. Its activity, the activity of the Church, is the activity of Christ, its Head. The hierarchical priesthood functions in the very person of Christ, doing His work of teaching, ruling and sanctifying. Thus the Mass and the sacraments are Christ's actions bringing to all the members of His Body, the Church, the very life that is in its Head. Participation in that life demands that every member of the Body take part in that action, which is primarily the liturgical activity of the Church. The liturgy is the primary source of that divine life, and thus all must be joined to it in an active way. Baptism is the key that opens the door and permits one to become part of the living Body of Christ. The baptized Christian has not only a right to participation in the Church's life but a duty as well. It is only the baptized person who can participate.
The difference between participation in the liturgy that can be called activa and participation that can be lablled actuosa rests in the presence in the soul of the baptismal character, the seal that grants one the right to participate. Without the baptismal mark, all the actions of singing, walking, kneeling or anything else can be termed "active," but they do not constitute participatio actuosa. Only the baptismal character can make any actions truly participatory. Let us use an example. LEt us say that a pious Hindu attends Mass, takes part in the singing and even walks in a procession with great piety. In the same church is also a Catholic who is blind and deaf and who is unable to leave his chair; he can neither sing nor hear the readings nor walk in the procession. Which one has truly participated, the one who is very active, or the one who has confined himself solely to his thoughts of adoration? Obviously, it is the baptized Catholic who has exercised participatio actuosa despite his lack of external, physical movement. The Hindu even with his many actions has not been capable of it, since he lacks the baptismal character.
Granting then the absolute necessity of baptism, it still is imperative for the Christian to take part in the liturgy actively by a variety of actions. This means that the internal actuosa participatio, which the baptismal mark empowers, must be aided by those external actions that he is capable of. He should do those things that the Church sets out for him according to his role in the liturgy and the various conditions that age, social position and cultural background dictate. He must join participatio activa to his participatio actuosa which he exercises as a baptismal person.
What are those actions that make for true active participation in the liturgy? These must be both internal and external in quality, since man is a rational creature with body and soul. The external actions must be intelligent and understood, sincere and pious internally. The Church proposes many bodily positions: kneeling, standing, walking, sitting, etc. It likewise proposes many human actions: singing, speaking, listening and above all else, the reception of the Holy Eucharist. They demand internal attention as well as external execution.
One of the most active and demanding of human actions is that of listening. It requires strict attention and summons up in a person his total concentrative effort. It is possible, for example, to walk without really knowing that one is walking or advert to where one is going. It is possible even to sing, especially a very familiar tune, and not be conscious of actually singing. But one cannot truly listen without attention. Especially in our day of constant radio and TV broadcasting, we are able to tune out almost every sound we wish. To listen attentively demands full human concentration. Listening can be the most active form of participation, demanding effort and attention. Truly, as the scriptures tell us, faith demands hearing, fides ex auditu.
With that in mind, surely the baptized Christian who listens with care to the proclamation of the gospel or the singing of the preface at Mass truly has achieved participation, both activa and actuosa.
The Church does not have the entire congregation proclaim the gospel text, but rather the deacon or the priest does it. It is the duty of all to listen. The cannon of the Mass is not to be recited by everyone but all are to hear it. Listening is a most important form of active participation.
There is a variety of roles to be observed in the public celebration of the liturgy. There is the role of the priest, deacon, reader, cantor, choir and congregation, among many others. Because each office has its own purpose and its own manner of acting we have the basic reason for a distinction of roles. If the reader or the cantor is to read and sing, certainly the role of the others is to listen. If the choir is to sing, someone must listen and in so-doing participate actively in the liturgy, even if during the period of listening he is relatively inactive in a physical way.
Every age has participated in the liturgy through baptism, as members of the Church and part of the mystical body of Christ. All ages have shared in the right and duty of actuosa participatio. If, as Pius X insists, the liturgy is the primary source of the Christian life, everyone must take part in it to achieve salvation. Active participation is not an invention of our day; the Church throughout the ages constantly shared the life of Christ with its members in the Mass and the sacraments, the very actions of Christ Himself working through His Church and His priesthood. For each age the activities deemed by it to be useful in promoting that participation have varied according to the needs and ideas of the period. One cannot say that because the medieval period developed a chant that was largely the possession of monastic choirs, the congregations who listened were not actively participating. Perhaps not according to post-Vatican II standards, but one must carefully avoid the error of judging the past by the present and applying to former times criteria that seem valuable in our own times. Because Palestrina's polyphonic Masses require the singing of trained choirs, can one assume that non-choir members in the renaissance period were deprived of an active participation in the liturgy? No age could permit such a thing to happen and thus be deprived of the primary source of the spiritual life. The sixteenth-century baptized Roman did participate through listening along with other activites, as no doubt an eighteenth-century Austrian did when he heard a Mozart Mass performed by a choir and orchestra.
We must then carefully consider the roles of each individual, and we must consider the cultural and personal conditions of each one who must find in the liturgy the primary source of his spiritual life. A variety of opportunities for liturgical activity is needed, and good pastoral direction will supply the need. The Church herself does so by the very rubrics of the liturgical books, directing what is to be done. The Vatican Council taught the need of various functions and various roles to carry out completely the liturgical actions.
Surely the spoken and sung responses and acclamations in the liturgy are the right and the duty of all present. But the practice of calling the Sanctus an acclamation is without foundation; it is a hymn, found in the Old Testament and sung by the angels. It is not the exclusive perogative of the congregation as it might be thought to be if it is labelled an acclamation. As a hymn it can be given to a trained group and sung in a more elaborate setting. The same is true of the parts called the ordinary of the Mass, including the Credo, which may be listened to and consented to with great faith without having to be spoken by the congregation. The proper parts of the Mass, because of the great variety of texts and settings, fall of necessity to trained and practiced groups. One may, of course, never exclude the congregation totally from participation by singing, but the variety of methods allows for many possiblities for participation by singing or by listening to singing. The possibilities of participation are almost infinite.
Important too for any participation in the liturgy is the elevation of the spirit of the worshipper. Ultimately, liturgy is prayer, the supreme prayer of adoration, thanksgiving, petition and reparation. Prayer is the raising of the heart and the mind to God as Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. The means to achieve such elevation of the spirit in prayer onvolve all the activities of the human person, both spirit and body. Such means produce true actuosa participatio. Thus beauty, whether it appeals to the sight, the ear, the imagination or any of the senses, is an important element in achieving participation. The architectural splendor of a great church or the sound of great music, or the solemnity of ceremonial movement by ministers clothed in precious vestments, or the beauty of the proclaimed word - all can effect a true and salutary participation in one who himself has not sung a note or taken a step. But he is not a mere spectator as some would say; he is actively participating because of his baptismal character and the grace stirred up in him by what he is seeing and hearing, thinking and praying.
The Church has always promoted Gregorian chant. Especially during this past century, the popes have fostered the music of the renaissance polyphonists. Pope John Paul II celebrated Mass in St. Peter's Basilica with the Vienna orchestra and singers doing Mozart's Coronation Mass. Anyone who was present on that memorable occasion in that great church experienced true participation.
Thus to limit participation to singing impoverishes seriously the opportunity of the Christian to take part in the most essential means for his salvation. One does not have to sing to save his soul. But one must be active (actuosa participatio) in the liturgy, through baptism and other actions according to his ability, state, culture and disposition, in order to enter into the mystery of the redemption wrought by Christ, outside of which there is no salvation.
We can conclude with this definition of participatio actuosa:

(It is) that form of devout involvement in the liturgical action which, in the present conditions of the Church, best promotes the exercise of the common priesthood of the baptized: that is, their power to offer the sacrifice of the Mass with Christ and to receive the sacraments. It is clear that, concretely, this requires that the faithful understand the liturgical ceremonial; that they take part in it by bodily movements, standing, kneeling or sitting as the occasion may demand; that they join vocally in the parts which are intended for them. It also requires that they listen to, and understand, the liturgy of the word. It requires, too, that there be moments of silence when the import of the whole ceremonial may be absorbed and deeply personalized. (Colman E. O'Neill, "The Theological Meaning of Actuosa Participatio in the Liturgy," in Sacred Music and Liturgy Reform after Vatican II. Consociatio Internationalis Musicae Sacrae, Rome, 1969. p. 105.)

Rev. Richard J. Schuler

His Excellency Alexander Sample, Bishop of Marquette in Michigan

'Nuff said....he says that which those of us who have been students of Monsignor Richard Schuler have been saying since the 1970s (myself, since 1994).....

Yep.  This is good stuff!

Busy, Busy, Busy....

I will be posting sporadically for the next several weeks.  This is the busy time of year for my work, but I will make a concerted effort to do what I can.

Expect a post about Mass with the director of development for the FSSP coming early in November.  Also, expect a post in the next couple of days about Bishop Sample of Marquette, MI.  He is one of the disciples of Mons. Schuler, along with Fr. Z, Bishop Sirba (Duluth), Bishop LeVoir (New Ulm), Frs. Joe Sirba, and Bryan Pederson, Deacon Bernie Pederson, Allen Young, esq., and yours truly.  Bishop Sample is making a good name for himself....

May God keep you close, as I wind up my busy season with work.  Pax tecum.

Turned Around Altars

I think that today is a good day to re-post an article from my mentor, Mons. Richard J. Schuler.  It was written 18 years ago, but is just as poignant today.  Take a read:

Father Klaus Gamber, who is recently deceased, has written for many years about the liturgical reforms that followed on the II Vatican Council. <The Reform of the Roman Liturgy> (available from Foundation for Catholic Reform, 1331 Red Cedar Circle, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524, $23) has recently been translated from German into French and English, and has provoked considerable comment in the European press. One of the points considered by Father Gamber is the position of the altar with reference to the congregation. One of the most evident reforms following the council is the practice of having the priest face toward the congregation. Much of the propaganda that brought about the priests' change in position alleged that it was only a return to a custom of the early Church. History and archeology were both cited (but without true facts) as evidence in the claims. Without much study or questioning, priests and parishes across the country accepted the stories and tore out their altars, replacing them with tables of wood and blocks of stone that allowed the priest to face toward the congregation. The designs of the original architects, the over-all lines and focus of the church were set aside and thrown out. In most cases the artistic results were bad, and at best the new arrangement looked like a remodelled dress or suit. The destruction of the church and sanctuary was unfortunate and often costly. In some parts of the country, the damage done to the churches by the altar-bashing reformers was greater than what the Vandals did to Spain or North Africa. But the greater evil was the damage done to the liturgical presence and actions of the priest. He was told to make eye-contact with the people, to direct his words to them, to become the "presider" at the community assembly, the "facilitator" of the active participation of the congregation. The notion of the Mass as sacrifice was discouraged, while the idea of a common meal was promoted. The altar became the table, much like in the days of Archbishop Cranmer in England. Among those asked to comment on Father Gamber's book was Cardinal Ratzinger, who was interviewed in the Italian journal, <Il Sabato> (April 24, 1993). He explained that there is no historical data, either in writing or from archeology, that establishes the position of the altar in the early centuries as having been turned toward the people. To look at the people was not the question in the early Church, but looking toward the east where Christ would appear in His second coming, the parousia, was most important. Thus church buildings and the altars were "oriented" (faced to the east) so that the priest especially would see Him on His arrival. If because of the contour of the land or some other obstacle, the church could not be so located, then the priest, always looking toward the east, would have to stand behind the altar and face toward the people. That he was looking at the congregation was only accidental to the eastward position he took. Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome is a good example of this, because the church could not have the usual west entrance because of the Vatican Hill. The cardinal explains further that the almost universal change to altars facing toward the people is not a decree of the II Vatican Council. Nor was it impossible before the council to offer Mass toward the people. A tradition of fifteen centuries of priests' standing at the head of their congregations was swept away in a few years. That tradition admitted of exceptions. I, myself, probably had a record of celebrating Mass in Latin, facing the people, more than any other priest in the country before the council. The church where I had weekend duty had such an altar in the crypt, and I offered Mass twice each Sunday for nearly ten years, all prior to 1963. The cardinal was asked if the Church would revert to the ancient tradition practiced before the council. He replied that there would not be a change "at this time:" He said that the people are far too confused now by so many changes so quickly introduced. But he did not say that it would not happen at a future date. Surely, a great boost in restoring reverence to the celebration of the Mass would be given by a return. Father Jungmann, whose work on the history of the liturgy (<Missarum solemnia>) was in large part responsible for the introduction of the change, had second thoughts about the value of the change. The interesting aspect of the discussion brought about by Father Gamber's book is that little by little the propaganda and false assertions invoked to bring about the liturgical reforms following the council are now being exposed and found to be without truth or basis, historical, archeological or liturgical. The errors swallowed by the clergy and laity alike in the sixties included such lies as the elimination of Latin, the forbidding of choirs, tearing out of communion rails, statues, tabernacles, and vestments-all in the name of the council or perhaps the "spirit of the council:" Thank God the truth is beginning to re-appear.

This article appeared in the Summer 1993 issue of "Sacred Music." Published by the Church Music Association of America, 548 Lafond Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55103.

Regarding Porta Fidei

I think that first, the Holy Father wants to set straight that the "Year of Faith" is a concrete move toward applying his hermeneutic of continuity to all aspects of Vatican Council II and the proper implementation of it, as well as the proper reading of the documents. For he says;

 I would also like to emphasize strongly what I had occasion to say concerning the Council a few months after my election as Successor of Peter: “if we interpret and implement it guided by a right hermeneutic, it can be and can become increasingly powerful for the ever necessary renewal of the Church.” (PF 5)

This then begs the question and I think that it is a proper question to ask, To what end should we, the faithful, expect the liturgical, ecclesiological, and "ecumenical" (read: religious tolerance) life of the Church to be renewed?

These seem to be the biggest issues facing the Church and the most ambiguous with regard to reading and implementing Vatican Council II.