A Response to an Email Regarding Fr. Pavone...

I received the following email from Troy Newman, apparently from isupportfatherfrank.com (forgive me if I don't link to it directly).

It reads;

I saw the comment below at AbbyJohnson.org where she posted her letter to Bishop Patrick Zurek of Amarillo, TX. It was written by a Catholic priest, who had his own experience with Bishop Zurek while he was a seminarian, under then-Father Patrick Zurek acting as vocations director for the Diocese of Austin, TX.

Please let me know what you think.

Best,
Troy Newman

Famijoly says:
December 1, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Abby,
First things first: Praise be God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ for what the Holy Spirit has wrought in your life!!! I rejoice with you and for you, Abby!

Second, the title of this column and the date of your entry into the Catholic Church is my birthday. I am honored to share December 4 with you for separate but equally special reasons.

Third, I applaud on you on your decision to write your letter to Bishop Patrick Zurek and on the tone of your letter. You simply stated the facts and your feelings about those facts.

Although I have never met Fr. Frank Pavone, I can empathize with him in his current situation with the Diocese of Amarillo. Before he was ordained a bishop, Fr. Patrick Zurek was vocations director for the Diocese of Austin. In the face of strong recommendations from many sources he himself sought out that I should continue in formation to the priesthood, in 1988, he unilaterally discontinued me as a seminarian for the Austin Diocese. He told me, on the telephone, not in person, that I would never be a priest. He never replied to my letters to him or my requests to meet with him personally. My letter to Bishop John McCarthy was met with a reply that rubber-stamped Fr. Zurek’s decision.

In 1996, I was ordained to the priesthood for another diocese.

I pray, Abby, that your letter will be an instrument of Divine Mercy for Bishop Zurek, that he will submit to God’s call to be the representative of Christ on Earth that a priest and bishop is supposed to be. I pray that as you, Abby, were called from the darkness of error and sin though His unfathomable Divine Mercy, so, too, may Bishop Patrick Zurek be called from the darkness of his cold, manipulative, passive-aggressive ways to embrace and extend the warmth and compassion of the Father’s love in Jesus Christ.

Barring a sudden change of heart between now and Sunday, you will receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divnity of the Father’s dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, in Holy Communion for the first time from someone other than Fr. Frank Pavone. That someone will be a priest whose ordination is equally valid to that of Fr. Pavone and whose good standing as a priest in the Catholic Church is just as strong as that of Fr. Pavone. And while you are disappointed on the human level, you have it right on the grander scale: It is not who you receive from, but Who you receive.

Sunday will be a joyous day, Abby! You will say, with all of us, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.” He has said the Word of healing. His name is Jesus.

God bless you and keep you.

Welcome to the Catholic Church! WELCOME HOME!

I don't know if Troy expected a response from me, but since he took my time in sending the email, I thought that I would return the favor.  Here is my response;

 Troy,

At this time, I can only say one thing.  Fr. Pavone must submit to his Ordinary.  If he be a priest of the Diocese of Amarillo, he promised obedience to that Ordinary and his successors.  This is not something to be taken lightly.  Fr. Pavone should meet with Bishop Zurek and he should joyfully and completely accept whatever assignment His Excellency has for him.  As you know, Fr. Pavone's life is not his own.  While he has done wonderous things for the Pro-Life movement, he is a diocesan priest and that comes first.  Fr. Pavone is bound by his promise at Ordination to be obedient, to follow through.

As for the response of the priest to Ms. Johnson.  Praise God he was able to be ordained to the priesthood.  While I certainly am grateful that Father X was able to find another diocese, I trust that His Excellency had his reasons for excluding the good Father from further studies.  I am sure that there is more than one side to this story (as is normally the case).

This may not be what you want to hear, but I am a very firm believer that Father Pavone should be obedient to Bishop Zurek and he should submit to the promise he made when he was ordained to the priesthood.  In my estimation, this is not a matter of public debate or opinion.

I will continue my prayers that both Fr. Pavone and Bishop Zurek are treated and portrayed in a charitable light and that Fr. Pavone follow through with his promise of obedience to the Ordinary of his diocese and his successors.

May God Keep You Close,

A.

Worship...A Gentle Reminder as We Enter Into Christmas....

The Mass, first and foremost is a prayer to God the Father.  It is offered by the priest as mediator who celebrates the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary anew.

We, the faithful, should not primarily concern ourselves with the words of the Mass.  Our inward participation should first lend itself to worship while the priest, on our behalf as mediator, prays the Mass.  We may assist, him by uniting our prayer to his.  THAT IS OUR ROLE!!!

While it is a noble undertaking to know and pray the words of the Mass as the priest says them, it is not necessary to attain the grace of the liturgical action.  One may attain those same graces while meditating on the Passion.  One may attain those same graces while praying the rosary.  One may attain those same graces while meditating on the scriptures of the day.  How one unites himself to the prayer of the priest is immaterial.  It is just that he does so.  This is not to say that one may act willy nilly.  No.  We are talking about an inward participation.  The outward participation, which should be done according to our state in life AND our vocation is dictated by the rubrics of the Mass.

Please don't confuse the two.  The inward participation which is primary is pariticipatio actuosa.  The outward participation which is always secondary is participatio activa.

The Mass is an opportunity for us to get a glimpse of the heavenly liturgy.  While it is imperfect here on earth, it is formulated according to  the heavenly liturgy when PROPERLY celebrated by the priest.

So, bottom line...it really doesn't matter if we understand or don't understand the words.  If one person thinks they are poorly worded or 1 million, it matters not.  The Mass is not primarily there for our aural pleasure.  It is a vehicle by which we can place our offerings at the foot of the altar for the priest to offer on our behalf as we worship in an authentic way.

This Is Getting Good....

If you want to see how a liberal squirms, read through the combox regarding the posting from yesterday, at US Catholic: Bishop of Covington Stop Holding Hands!

If you didn't think I was a bulldog about Catholicism, au contraire.

Mentality Change....It Makes Me Sad....

I often times tell a story which was told to me by Mons. Schuler.  He told the story in his article on Participatio Actuosa.  But I heard the story around the dining room table....here is the story:

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.

 I share that tome with you because I just had a conversation with someone which literally made me sad.  And this person is a "post-Vatican II" Catholic.  So, he is to be more compassionate, more open, more tolerant...smh....here is what was said:

There is an elderly lady at my parish who puts her head down and ignores anyone's offered hand.  Those of us who have encountered her refusal normally respectfully do not bother her.

There have been a number of times when individuals did not want to shake hands due to having a cold.  

There are all kinds of reasons why a person might not want to shake hands.  They should not be compelled against their will.

You do not bother....

Isn't that a sad commentary on our brethren.  How about joining her in prayer, worshipping, which is what we are called to do through our participatio actuosa.

Perhaps it isn't so much that she would be bothered, but rather it is that she is engaged in the inward prayer which is proper to each of the faithful when worshipping at Holy Mass.

You're right, you do not bother....and that sums up the attitude of most Catholics today.  Rather than look to her as an example, you see her as a hindrance.  A hindrance to what?  Community?  Participation?  Well, that understanding of participation is wrong headed.  That is participatio activa.  While it does have a place, it is NEVER to be imposed and it is meant more as a way of external service, such as a schola, or altar boys, or a choir...not bemoaning the fact that the lady next you is a bother, because she doesn't shake hands and hug and kiss and have a 3 minute conversation on how the grandkids are, cued back into the Mass with Haugan's rendition of Lamb of God...which is liturgically incorrect.

What a slap in the faith (heh, I'm not going to change that, even though I meant to say face) to that lady and to all Catholics...change in mentality.  I should say so.  It speaks to that change in Ecclesiology.  This has nothing to do with her will; this has to do with your changed view of the liturgical action.  Sad that people think that way of other Catholics ....what if my generation just doesn't bother all the "post-Vatican II Catholics"...where will that leave them?

Two Churches?

I am involved in a very spirited discussion at US Catholic; which has become very involved and has ebbed and flowed from the original point made by the writer.  I'll let you read the original post, but I'll post my response to him and then I will get on to my point....

Mr. Cones;

Pax et Bonum...I am speaking to you directly sir.  You ask is the Bishop of Covington out of his mind?  The answer is NO!

The Mass, contrary to popular belief, is dictated by law, not by feelings.  The rubrics are lawful and we, as Catholics, are obliged to follow them.  The Church speaks to us legally in two ways, Canon Law and Liturgical Law.  Does it sound too rigid?  Probably, but it is not in our privy to change that.  We simply must accept it.  Much like, we must stop at that random stop sign, even if we don't like it's presence in the middle of the country on a county road.

I also wonder if you know what participatio actuosa is?  Participatio actuosa is the full, conscious, and active participation that Vatican Council II talks about.  It is the interior application of the mind and soul to the Mass, through the laws which bind the Mass to mankind.  Please don't confuse that with Participatio Activa, which is the "doing stuff" type of participation.  The faithful are not called to "do stuff" at Mass, that is an extraordinary function based on necessity, not on some sort of right or charism.  The "stuff" is to be done by the priest, that is his role.  The role of the faithful is to worship, interiorly first and only then exteriorly in making the responses which are proper to them.

I know this whole concept seems backward and antiquated to you, but in reality, it is the consistent teaching of Holy Mother Church and it is the proper way to think about worship.  The true "spirit of Vatican Council II" isn't found in looking left and looking right at Holy Mass, it is by looking inward and offering those prayers and intentions up by placing them at the foot of the altar, so that the priest who celebrates the Mass may present them to God on our behalf.

Vatican Council II implores us to find the spirit of the law in the letter of the law.  We have laws which bind us to the Mass.  They are liturgical laws and they are better known as rubrics.  The Church is clear through  Vatican Council II and specifically in Sacrosanctum Concilium that "no one may add anything of his own accord to the sacred liturgy, even if he be a priest." (paraphrase SC #22.2)

May God Keep You close.

This was written in response to the notion that holding hands at the Our Father was desirable and that Bishop Foys was "out of his mind" for suggesting otherwise....

The conversation progressed and eventually this was made in response to me, which brings me to my overall point of this blog post today:

I'm sorry, Andy, but I felt just as Catholic, and maybe even more so, when I am praying the Novos Ordo than I did when praying the TLM.  But that could be because when I was praying the TLM I was a child.  Indeed, I identified myself as a Catholic much more with the post-VCII church than I did the pre-VCII Church. 

So much of this is perspective.  So much of this is experience.

I responded to her: There are two different Churches?  A pre-Vatican II Church and a post-Vatican II Church?  I was under the impression that Vatican Council II was the logical updating of the Church in the Modern World.  To speak of two Churches is to define your Ecclesiology.  This is a much bigger problem than just perception.  Perhaps you didn't mean to speak this way, but the sad fact is that you did.  This is the exact reason why there is a break in continuity (re: Pope Benedict XVI).  The Church did NOT change.  The fact that the Novus Ordo is considered the "flagship" of a post-Vatican II Church embodies the flawed and sad notion that the pre-Vatican II Church was somehow left behind in a sort of archive.

Clearly, the post-Vatican II Church has failed.  People my age (39) and younger don't want the post-Vatican II Church, we want the Catholic Church.  That is why since the loosening of the TLM in 1984, this aspect of the Church has grown exponentially, when the rest of the Church has been the fastest growing.  Do you know the two seminaries in the USA which are the fastest growing?  Our Lady of Guadalupe in Denton, NE and St. Thomas Aquinas in Winona, MN.  Both are traddy seminaries, while seminaries like St. Francis in Milwaukee, WI and St. Meinrad in Indiana are woefully empty.

I'm sorry ma'am, I can't agree with you.  The Novus Ordo has failed as an experiment and it has done nothing but make it easier for a Catholic to relate to a Protestant and that should never be the goal of Catholic worship.

-------------------

This idea that there are two different Churches, one that is of antiquity and one that was created after Vatican Council II is not a rare idea.  This is a very common thought.  Have you ever noticed how people talk about the Church?  Listen next time.  I've resorted to discussing in this manner, often times, because it is the only way Catholics can relate, but there is no question in my mind, there is one Church.  It started with the beginning of time, it was made manifest as an entity with the giving of the keys to Peter.  The bottom line, there are not two Churches.  When you hear Pope Benedict speak of a hermeneutic of rupture (or discontinuity), this is of what he speaks.  The idea that the Church was somehow re-imagined or re-created with Vatican Council II is improper Ecclesiology.  The reality is that Vatican Council II was another Council among the history of Councils, it is unique in that it didn't proclaim any dogma or doctrine, but was purely pastoral.  This doesn't, though mean that there was a new Church created.  Please do all you can every day to be clear that the Ecclesiology of the early Church is the Ecclesiology of the Church today.  Even if it makes you unpopular with your pastor and others in your parish.  The Truth is the Truth.  The Catholic Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

The Catholic Family....

I was reading a blog post by Shawn Tribe over at The New Liturgical Movement and I started reflecting on the Catholic family....here is what my thoughts are;

I think that by and large the Catholic family from the 1920s-1950s in America got it, from a Catholic point of view.  They had large families, they were devotional, they went to Mass and they understood that giving a child to the Church, as either a priest or religious (or sometimes both) was not only a duty, but desirable.

I  think that this is one of the great acts of charity that a family can give.  I also think that it could not have happened if families during this time were not "liturgical" in their daily lives.  Families prayed together, went to Mass together and went to devotions together.  All of these things led to vocations.

Parents encouraged things like altar boy corps for their sons and sodalities for their daughters.  Fathers were part of the Men's Club (which often times were ushers) or KofC and mothers were part of the Legion of Mary or the Altar and Rosary Society.  The lives of Catholics revolved around being Catholic.

In my humble opinion (even though it may not seem so), I think that this is what we need to be promoting for the family.  This idea of the liturgical life of the family extends way beyond just praying Grace and going to Mass on Saturday night or Sunday morning.  It also means adding a rosary weekly (or daily) to the routine.  It means adding the Angelus to mealtime prayers (it's the easiest way to make sure it gets done).  It means holding fast to being active in the parish from an early age.

I think that there are three things which really undermined the whole "liturgical life" of the family since the 1960s;

1.  Birth Control/Abortion  --  When the family unit shrunk, the idea of giving a child to the priesthood or religious life went away.  Parents want to be grandparents.  That can't happen when there is only 1 boy and 1 girl in the family.  They expect the kids to both marry and give them grandchildren.

2.  The reductionist view of the Mass (via the Novus Ordo reforms)  --  The sad fact is that during the heyday of the Novus Ordo reforms, people quit going to Mass.  It ceased to be, for a majority of people what it once was.  And with a deficient catechetical model, the Novus Ordo has never come close to any sort of authentic and innate understanding in the way that the TLM had.  Even today, many people comment that their first experience with the TLM is Catholic.  How many say that about the Novus Ordo the first time they assist there?  It isn't nearly the same.

3.  The admittance of female altar servers  --  When boys are taken out of the sanctuary,  they stop thinking about becoming a priest or religious.  How many seminarians count being an altar boy as one of their main reasons for trying their vocation?  How many girls who have  left for the the convent say the same thing?  It's interesting...the vast majority of seminarians do list being an altar boy as an influence, but very few girls do.  What kind of a message is that sending?  Boys need to be put back into the sanctuary, so they can be put back into the seminary.  Sodalities are set up to give girls a view of what community life is like and that fosters vocations to the religious life.  It's really sad that we've lost that perspective.

I think that if we as Catholics are looking at how to recover the liturgical life in our Church, we'd be well served to not only re-evaluate these three issues, but also to get involved with the parish in the traditional roles to which we are best served and which allow us to best serve.  This comes first with an understanding that gender roles are not hermaphroditic.  Women are called to a different role in the Church than men.  This isn't sexist or limiting, but rather, this is empowering one to live their Catholic life to the fullest in the most authentic way.  Authenticity, by the way, isn't a subjective thing.  It is in it's truest Catholic sense objective.  Knowing and embracing this will lead to an inner freedom and clarity of purpose that has not been seen since the mid 1960s, in both the Catholic family and the larger Catholic community.

Obviously, this is presented from an American point of view, the European model may be different, but I can say this with all honesty....if we follow a model close to this, we'll be in a much better place liturgically and vocationally.

There was a heyday for Catholic life in America and this is how it was done, by and large.

Some Serious Reflection re: The SSPX....

After some serious reflection and prayer last night, I think that some clarification about my position is necessary.

I am fully aware of the canonical status of the SSPX. I don't put on any airs that the Priestly Fraternity is in an irregular situation. I also know that their position is not one of willful obstinance or willful disobedience. They are acting in a manner by which they think they need to act, in order to authentically view the Church.

Is this the best way to do it? I don't think so, but that isn't my call. All I can do is recognize the situation for what it is.

Many people look at what the SSPX is doing as a negotiation, I don't see it that way. I see it as a clarification. The issues that the SSPX bring to the table are very valid. All four of them. We have seen that the first of the four issues has been completely rectified. The TLM has been legitimized and liberalized within the Church. This is due in no small part to the SSPX and their steadfastness on this issue. To deny that is to be ignorant of the history of the situation. The Holy Father has gone so far as to even adopt the language of the SSPX regarding the break with Sacred Tradition.

All the SSPX wants and I think at this point, many mainstream Catholics are beginning to realize that there is are major issues with regard as to how the leadership of the Church is progressing in the Modern World. Clearly the views of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s have been shown to be, well....flawed.

The clarification that the SSPX is seeking rests on the premise that Vatican Council II was not dogmatic and was not doctrinal. It was pastoral. This doesn't mean that there was no influence from the Holy Spirit, certainly there was, but the question remains...if the single largest product of Vatican Council II, the Novus Ordo is a break with Tradition, what other parts are as well?

That is the fundamental question the SSPX is asking. If the Hermeneutic of Rupture exists in the Mass, which is a product of Vatican Council II, then does that same Hermeneutic of Rupture exist elsewhere in the Conciliar thought process? This is a very hard question and it is one that cannot be taken lightly.

The SSPX does not deny the entirety of Vatican Council II, but rather they have problems with three remaining areas and as is becoming incredibly clear, those do play a part in the Hermeneutic of Rupture.

The problem with the SSPX is one of bias more than anything else. At no point has the SSPX, as a fraternity, acted with malice or have they acted in a way which is purposefully harmful to the Church. The leadership of the Church, however views this differently and have been promoting this view incessantly. Did the SSPX act properly? No. But, if this is simply a matter of obedience, why has it taken 20 years to get to the point? The SSPX has approached the Holy See numerous times and it wasn't until 2005, that any real discussion started to take place.

Ironically, it was during this time that the leadership of the Church started to recognize that perhaps their attitude toward the SSPX was flawed. So what has happened, well, over time, the status of the SSPX has changed....first, they were schismatic, then they weren't, but they were outside the Church, then they weren't so much outside the Church, but rather they are in an irregular situation, canonically. The bishops were excommunicated and so were the priests, but then the priests weren't, but the bishops were. Now the bishops are not and the priests are not, but they're all suspended. So, it isn't like the leadership of the Church has been crystal clear on how to "handle" them.

Suffice to say that some of the members of the SSPX haven't been difficult, they certainly have, but you're going to have that with any Order or Fraternity. And I'm not condoning that action, I'm just looking at it from an objective point of view. I am not an adherent of the SSPX. I am sympathetic to them, to be sure, but I don't assist at their Masses and I don't converse with them regularly.

My complete opinion on the whole matter is this. The SSPX wants to regularize. That much is clear. They've been doing (since 2005) everything the Holy See has asked of them. But it would seem that the Holy See either a) can't, or b) won't address the three remaining fundamental questions left which deal with Ecclesiology, Religious Tolerance, and the Magisterium of Vatican Council II. I personally think that the Holy See is starting to deal with the third, by admitting there is a Hermeneutic of Rupture, but it really doesn't answer the fundamental questions....and this is ultimately the problem with the Council being pastoral...there is nothing definitive that is ever stated. And ultimately this is where the SSPX sits. They just want concrete answers.

How does the Ecclesiology which has developed since Vatican Council II compliment Sacred Tradition?

How does Religious Freedom and Ecumenism update the ideas of Religious Tolerance, which has existed since the dawn of the Church?

How can the Magisterium of Vatican Council II be properly applied in the world, taking into account that if there is a Hermeneutic of Rupture within the Church, which stems from and immediately after the Council?

I think that this is what the SSPX is asking. They are not negotiating, they are asking for clarification. If the Holy See can't answer these questions, we have bigger issues than canonical irregularity. If the Holy See can answer these questions, but won't do it in a satisfactory way, which is all the SSPX is asking for, then the problem is one of either a) bias, or b) willful wont to keeping the SSPX irregular.

I find it very hard to believe that the Holy See can't satisfactorily apply the doctrinal and dogmatic questions which have come from Vatican Council II to Sacred Tradition. So it begs the question, what is the reasoning for not clarifying these questions?

My speculation...

I think that there is still a liberal bias in the leadership of the Church which does not want to see the SSPX reconciled. This does not include the FSSP or the ICRSS, because they are at a disadvantage, not having bishops. Those groups must rely on the leadership of the Church to dictate everything. So, they are non-factors. On the other hand, the SSPX does have bishops, which leads to a certain level of autonomy, which the leadership of the Church is not willing to reconcile. And if this is the case, then even though he did it for the wrong reasons, the mentality of +Abp. Lefebvre was spot on.

As it is, they are irregular canonically and there isn't much which can be done about it, except for them to submit, but is this submission authentic, from a Catholic point of view? That is what I pray for daily. The authentic submission of the SSPX. All the Holy See has to do is clarify a few positions with regard to Sacred Tradition and the whole thing is over. The SSPX has said time and again that they want to reconcile, but that they won't compromise Sacred Tradition to do so.