Pray for erring sheep - and shepherds, like Fr Jay Scott Newman

As we have seen, Fr Jay Scott Newman has one rule for himself and quite another for others (see earlier posts about him).

He has a blog which he calls Ecclesia Semper Reformanda

Where does this Latin tag come from?

It is a Protestant tag.

It is un-Catholic.

Ecclesia semper reformanda est (Latin for "the church is always being reformed", sometimes shortened to semper reformanda, "always being reformed") is one of the basic tenets of the Protestant Reformation, particularly in the ideas of German theologian Martin Luther.

The phrase itself comes from the Nadere Reformatie movement in the seventeenth century Dutch Reformed Church and widely but informally used in Reformed and Presbyterian churches today (for example, the French Reformed Church use "Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda" as motto).

It refers to the conviction of certain Reformed Protestant theologians that the church must continually change itself in order to maintain its purity of doctrine and practice.

The term first appeared in print in Jodocus van Lodenstein, Beschouwinge van Zion (Contemplation of Zion), Amsterdam, 1674, a Dutch Protestant work.

The phrase is also put into the mouth of the fictional Pope Gelasius III in Mary Doria Russell's 1998 novel The Children of God.

The term was also used by ecclesiastical reformers of the Roman Catholic Church who were caught up in a false interpretation of Vatican II. And we know where that has led!

To counter the diabolic itch for novelty that this phrase represents, Pope Benedict XVI has re-introduced the concept of “the hermeneutic of continuity”.

Thus, we see that Fr Jay Scott Newman is at odds with the spiritual head of the Church he claims to belong to.

It is fitting, perhaps, that we should pray this Holy Week for sheep - and shepherds - who are straying from the true path.

Let us pray for them.

Fr Newman responds - on MY blog - but censors out others on HIS blog. Fair?

Fr Jay Scott Newman responds.

But on MY blog - not HIS.

He continues to censor out those he cannot answer on his own blog.

I, on the other hand, have posted his comments to my blog.

They do him no credit, however.

He simply descends into bad grace.

For those who missed it:

"I have nothing for which to apologize, and that's why there has been no apology. Before the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum (SP), I expressed my thoughts on the matter of a wider use of what is now the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, and all in the Church were free to do do. Since the promulgation of SP, I have neither written nor spoken on the subject, precisely because I am obedient to the Roman Pontiff. Would that we could say the same for the bishops and priests of the SSPX. And by the way, I always publish under my real name so that I am accountable for everything I write. I suggest you try the same."

So - although he has traduced, mocked, jeered and jibed at lovers of the traditional mass and made ridiculous prognostications about the motu proprio ("invisible", "kinda sorta" etc - see earlier posts) which fell flat on their face once, very shortly after his fatuous diatribes, the Pope issued Summorum Pontificum, he thinks he need not apologise.

Perhaps, being a priest, he thinks he has no call to apologise to anyone.

So "obedient" is he to the Roman Pontiffs that he mocked Veterum Sapientiae of Blessed Pope John XXIII calling it "dead on arrival".

Obedient, eh?

And he thinks that, with Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI, "threw a spanner in the works".

Yes. He thinks it is "loyal and obedient", to accuse the Pope of trying to destroy the "works" of the Church.

Well, it's a point of view. Just not a very rational one.

Note, too, how he attacks the SSPX for "disobedience" but says nothing whatever about the far greater disobedience of the liturgical, moral and doctrinal anarchists who now occupy so many key posts in the Church and are busily white-anting it from within.

Never mind the massive apostasy caused thereby for the last 40 years.

And appreciate, too, the note of self-righteousness: he is loyal and obedient but they are not. "I thank God that I am not as other men..." said the unjustifed Pharisee. Moreover, Fr Newman, as we have seen, is not loyal and obedient, but rather chooses to be loyal only to those parts of Catholic tradition of which he approves.

The words of our Lord spring to mind:

"But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter.

Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves.

Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint, and anise, and cummin, and have left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith. These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone.

Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness."

Matt 23:13-27

But seemingly, Fr Newman is not concerned about the great apostasy or the Pharisees who have brought it about. Those who do not condemn evil, thereby tolerate and accept it.

What's next:

" 'Tribunus', if you visit my blog, you'll see under the Comments Policy that Rule 2 stipulates no anonymous comments will be published. That is why none of your comments appear on my blog. Give you real name, and that will change. Until then, may the LORD be gracious to you."

Oh, right.

So there you have it, folks. He does not need to apologise because that would be to respond to anonymous comments. And he is too grand to do that. Never mind that Tribunus is openly connected to this blog. He is to be treated as if he were just some anonymous blogger who happened to check in from nowhere.

Well, folks. It's a point of view. Just not a very rational one.

And next:

"You attack my character, hide behind the shield of anonymity, and then refuse to post my reply to your charge. If you do not post my first comment from earlier today, I shall be forced to conclude that you are either a coward or a man of no honor. Please post my first reply, or take down your attack on me."

Attack his character? No. I pointed out what he had said. It was already self-rebutting. If he didn't like it, then he must blame himself.

Then, having complained about attacks on character, what does the Parish Priest of St Mary's, Greenville, South Carolina do next?

Yep, he launches a character-attack!

But he goes further:

"You are a coward, sir, and I pity you.

I do not publish anonymous comments -- as my blog notice makes clear -- and you offer only anonymous comments. Hence, I shall not publish your remarks on my blog.

Then you assault my character, and I offer a rational defense. And your response? Pretend that you did not see my reply and double down on your anonymous attack.

Tell me. Do you live in your mother's basement?"

Yes, really, folks!

He thinks this is appropriate language for a Catholic priest.

A rational defence? Er, no, Father. The whole point is that you offered NO defence of your seamy, sordid attacks on those whose only offence is to love the traditions of our fathers.

His only excuse is to hide behind his "policy" of not answering the "anonymous".

And then he who so deprecates "attacks on my character" hypocritically launches further character-attacks, not forgetting to add some fatuously childish snipes.

Well, father, I need add no more. Your own words defy you.

Pity, if it need be mentioned, is all I can commend others to have for your rather sad and silly posts.

I am at least glad that you no longer foolishly criticise the "kinda sorta" motu proprio. That, I suppose, is something. But, oh no, you won't be withdrawing your previous attacks on it.

Perhaps, and may God grant it, you might even come to learn what folly it is for you to criticise the traditions of our Holy Mother the Church, traditions stretching back not, as you absurdly suppose, to Pope St Pius V, but, as Pope Benedict XVI has taught us, to Pope St Gregory the Great and earlier.

Lord, open the eyes of the blind, that they may see....

+++

Fr Jay Scott Newman rejects natural justice, hearing the other side and fair play

Well, I guess that proves it, folks. Whatever Fr Jay Scott Newman may be, he is not a believer in natural justice, hearing both sides or fair play.

And he simply will not recognise his own failure of charity and justice toward those who have a preference for the traditional Roman rite.

He shot his mouth off before the motu proprio of Pope Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum, came out claiming that it was "invisible" and predicting it would not come and then engaged in the usual cheap and insulting offensive against lovers of the traditional Roman rites that we have had to put up with for 40 years from people who ought to know better.

That was already unworthy.

But next, he would tolerate no attempt to put the alternative view. He simply censored out any comment critical of his position by blanking it from his blog or website.

Father Newman recently apologised for his comments that those voting for President Obama should repent before taking communion. But, folks, you can be sure he won't be apologising any time soon for his offensive comments against lovers of the traditional Roman rites.

Well, Father, you can fool your readers but you cannot fool God.

...

More ammo for trads - all from the Saints, Doctors and Magisterium of the Church

Here's the ammo, trads...


St Thomas Aquinas

“It is absurd, and a detestable shame, that we should suffer those traditions to be changed which we have received from the fathers of old." - The Decretals (Dist. xii, 5) Cited by St Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica, II, I, Q. 97, art. 2.

"'One faith,' St. Paul writes (Eph. 4:5). Hold most firmly that our faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny this, and you dissolve the unity of the Church ... We must hold this for certain, namely: that the faith of the people at the present day is one with the faith of the people in past centuries. Were this not true, then we would be in a different church than they were in and, literally, the Church would not be One."

St Thomas Aquinas

St Irenaeus

"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" – St Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10:2, 189 AD.

St Jerome

“The best advice that I can give you is this. Church traditions – especially when they do not run counter to the Faith – are to be observed in the form in which previous generations have handed them down.” - St Jerome, Letters, 71, 6. (4th Century).

Origen

"Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition" – Origen, The Fundamental Doctrines, 1:2, 225 AD.

Pope St Leo the Great

"Teach nothing new, but implant in the hearts of everyone those things which the fathers of venerable memory taught with a uniform preaching ... Whence, we preach nothing except what we have received from our forefathers. In all things, therefore, both in the rule of faith in the observance of discipline, let the pattern of antiquity be observed." - Pope St Leo the Great, Father and Doctor of the Church.

Pope St Leo the Great

Pope Leo XIII

"They knew only too well the intimate bond which unites faith with worship, 'the law of belief with the law of prayer,' and so, under the pretext of restoring it to its primitive form, they corrupted the order of the liturgy in many respects to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators." - Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, September 13, 1896.

Pope St Pius X

"But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those 'who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind . . . or endeavour by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church'. . . . Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: 'I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church'.” - Pope St Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (Encyclical Against Modernism.

"The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists." - Pope St Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique.

Pope St Pius X

Second Council of Nicea (Seventh Ecumenical Council)

"If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the Church, let him be anathema."

"Let everything that conflicts with ecclesiastical tradition and teaching, and that has been innovated and done contrary to the examples outlined by the saints and the venerable Fathers, or that shall hereafter at any time be done in such a fashion, be anathema."

Pope Pius XII

"The day the Church abandons Her universal tongue will be the day before She returns to the Catacombs." - Pope Pius XII (a few days before his death).

Pope Paul VI

"We would warn against the danger and damage of the blind rejection of the inheritance which the past, through a wise and selective tradition, transmits to new generations. If we did not hold this transmission in proper regard we could lose the treasure accrued by civilization.” - October 29, 1972.

St Augustine

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is vital to the Church.” – St Augustine, Letter to Januarius, 400 AD.

St Simeon of Thessalonica

"With love, we pass on to you that which we have taken from the Fathers, for we offer nothing new, but only that which has been passed on to us, and we have changed nothing but we have retained everything, like a creed, in the state in which it has been given to us. We worship exactly as Christ Himself did and as did the Apostles and the Fathers of the Church." - St Simeon of Thessalonica, in Migne, Patrologia Graeca, 155:701 a-b.

St Simeon of Thessalonica

St Isidore

"Therefore, heresy is from the Greek word meaning 'choice' . . . . But we are not permitted to believe whatever we choose, nor to choose whatever someone else has believed. We have the Apostles of God as authorities, who did not . . . choose what they would believe but faithfully transmitted the teachings of Christ. So, even if an angel from heaven should preach otherwise, he shall be called anathema. - St Isidore, Doctor of the Church and last of the great Latin Fathers, Etymologies, 7th Century.

St Athanasius

"You are fortunate, you have remained in the Church through your faith. You held fast to the foundations of the faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. . . .In the present crisis, it is they who have broken away from it." - St Athanasius, Doctor of the Church, died 373 AD.

"But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able" – St Athanasius, Festal Letters 29, 330 AD.

St Vincent of Lerins

"What then shall the Catholic do if some portion of the Church detaches itself from communion of the universal Faith? What other choice can he make -- and if some new contagion attempts to poison, no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole Church at once, then his great concern will be to attach himself to antiquity (Tradition) which can no longer be led astray by any lying novelty."

"The Church of Christ, zealous and cautious guardian of the dogmas deposited with it, never changes any phrase of them. It does not diminish them or add to them; it neither trims what seems necessary now grafts things superfluous . . . but it devotes all its diligence to one aim: To treat tradition faithfully and wisely; to consolidate and to strengthen what already was clear; and to guard what already was confirmed and defined." - St Vincent of Lerins, Commonitoria (5th Century).

“With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity. I received almost always the same answer from all of them—that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law [Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.” – St Vincent of Lerins, The Notebooks, 434 AD.

Blessed John Henry, Cardinal Newman

"It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.”

Blessed John Henry, Cardinal Newman

St Peter Canisius

"Better that only a few Catholics should be left, staunch and sincere in their religion, than that they should, remaining many, desire as it were, to be in collusion with the Church's enemies and in conformity with the open foes of our faith." - St Peter Canisius (1521-1597)

“It behoves us unanimously and inviolably to observe the ecclesiastical traditions, whether codified or simply retained by the customary practice of the Church.” – St Peter Canisius (1521-1597)


What could be clearer? Abandon tradition at your spiritual peril...

...

Summorum Pontificum 5 years on: have the detractors like Fr Jay Scott Newman apologised?

Well, we are now 5 years down the track from Summorum Pontificum (long enough time to beatify Blessed John Paul II) and there is still no sign of any apology from Rev Jay Scott Newman for his intemperate and disloyal remarks made against it, and the Pope, at the time the decree came out.

That is, I suggest, is a little ungracious.

It may be instructive to repeat now what I said then, in August 2007, on the Roman Christendom blog.

Here it is repeated:

...

“Before the motu proprio was issued Fr Jay joined in with the 'Latin Questions' discussion on his blog and made this unhelpful comment:

"...The long-rumored and still invisible motu proprio notwithstanding, there is simply no interest in the Church beyond the statistically insignificant world of specialists and bloggers in retrieving what 99.999% of the Catholic people (and hierarchy) consider a noble part of our heritage but not a living part of our future (think of the papal navy!)..."

Where does he get his stats? Wake up and smell the coffee, Father!

And this:

"...All of which leads to my conclusion that those who harbor hope that the general liturgical life of the Church will be improved by a few more celebrations of the Pian Mass have simply and profoundly misunderstood the situation of the Church in our time..."

Yep. Pretty offensive and ill-informed stuff. It's not the Pian mass. It is much, much older. He has simply 'profoundly misunderstood'!

Someone replied to him thus:

'Your over-emphasis on numbers might lead an observer to think that you put a higher premium on popularity than truth or right practice...

If you want to get with what is 'serious' then you need to concern yourself less with numbers and more with truth and tradition.

Otherwise you may find yourself numbered with those disciples who got with the numbers by running away, rather than with those who stood at the foot of the Cross.

I know it is difficult for a priest these days to give any favour to the traditional rite without incurring trouble with his bishop but do not let that skew your vision or compromise your intellectual impartiality.'

He got cross with that and replied:

'...Based on 20 years of experience, I believe that such folk will be sadly disappointed, no matter what the yet-to-be published (or even seen) motu proprio may or may not say...'

Someone replied to him beginning:

'I catch a glimpse of a straw man in your last comment...'

Well, indeed!

There were other replies to Fr Newman but - mysteriously - they were removed from his blog.

US-style "free speech"?

See how it works?

I am free to say whatever I like but if you say something I don't like, I just erase it.

This is called "free speech". Apparently!

But then, all of a sudden, and within only a few weeks, out came the motu proprio.

Whoops! Now the boot was on the other foot. The 'long-rumoured and yet invisible' and the 'yet to be published (or even seen)' had suddenly been seen, published and hugely exceeded the expected minimalist concessions that unnecessarily aggressive Novus Ordo priests like Fr Jay had expected.

And it came from the Pope himself!

Golly! What to do, now? Um, err, aaah....

You guessed it - back-peddle. Fast! (But without apologising to anyone - never apologise, never explain, apparently!).

Here's an extract from Fr Jay's very grudging back-peddle:

'In any event, last Saturday, Pope Benedict XVI threw a spanner in the works with his long-awaited, much-rumored, and oft-debated Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum, which more or less (kinda, sorta) gives any priest of the Latin Rite the choice of which Mass to offer: the Mass codified by Pope Pius V after the Council of Trent or the Mass codified by Pope Paul VI after the Second Vatican Council. It remains to be seen what effect, if any, this document will have on the life of the Church as it is lived in parishes, religious houses, seminaries, etc...'

Get that, folks? The Pope 'threw a spanner in the works'.

The Pope did it!

And this from a priest who thinks himself a papal loyalist. And Paul VI apparently only 'codified' the new mass - no new Eucharistic prayers or anything like that...err...

But let's read on:

'In February 1962, Pope John XXIII promulgated an Apostolic Constitution called Veterum Sapientia, mandating very specific requirements for the teaching and preservation of Latin in the Church, but because of the radical changes taking place in the world at the time, this authoritative document was Dead On Arrival and had zero effect in the life of the Church. Today, if this document is read at all, it is usually read with mirth. Well might we all mourn the passing away of Latin from wide use in the Church, but pass away it has....'

Oh really?

So we should rejoice in our ignorance of our own history, culture and the language in which most of our theology is written, should we? We should think it's all 'DOA'? And we should read 'with mirth' the writings of a beatified pope, should we?

More papal loyalism? Err, sorry Father, I don't think so!

But there's more...

'Will Summorum Pontificum be DOA in the same way as Veterum Sapientia? I honestly don’t know, and to tell the truth, I don’t much care one way or the other...'

'Don't much care...'!

Does this sound like loyalty to the Pope? I doubt that many would see it that way!

So whilst Fr Jay has been forced to back off he has done so with singularly bad grace. That is a great shame because he is a priest who made much of his loyalty under Pope John Paul II but is acting rather differently under Pope Benedict. But even more so because he is not a bad guy. Indeed, he is basically a good guy but he has allowed his thinking and theology to get sloppy and complacent.

Come on now, Fr Jay. You're basically a good priest but you can do better. Don't cheat yourself or your parishioners!"

...

Fr Jay for a long time refused to receive any further comments on his blog. He clearly wanted it all just to go away. Of course, burying your head in the sand like that does no-one any good.

His penultimate post was, aptly but sadly, entitled "Liturgy Wars". But the simple truth is that it was not traditional-rite Catholics who started the war. It was anti-traditionalists who started it.

There should, of course, be no wars over liturgy. We should all be on the same side, not divided internally.

Unfortunately, it is the kind of statement that appeared in Fr Jay's Parish newsletter that can sometimes tend to prolong the war. I publish it below as it is in the public domain and a commentator has sent it to me.

If any priest is going to claim to be loyal to the Pope and to say "Where Peter is, there is the Church", then he needs to be open and willing to implement the motu proprio, and should avoid minimising it by suggesting that it "kinda, sorta" gives wider permission for the traditional rites.

The reality is that the motu proprio gives extremely wide and extensive permission for the use of the traditional rites.

But here is Fr Jay's advice to his parishioners on 1 July 2007, just before the publication of the motu proprio:

"When this document is finally published, there will no doubt be a circus of media attention of the most sensational kind, but please do not be confused or disturbed by what you read in the papers or see on television. Whatever else may be the case, there will certainly be no changes made in the present way we celebrate the Missal of 1970 in our scheduled liturgies, and pending a careful study of the document, I do not anticipate that a regularly scheduled Tridentine Mass will be celebrated here at St. Mary’s. For now, simply know that a document will probably appear this summer, and when it does, we will study it together."

To be fair to Fr Jay, he clearly did not anticipate the breadth and width of the rights granted by the motu proprio and, I suspect, is still slightly in denial about it all. On his blog, he certainly admits to being a bit confused by it all.

I had hoped that when he had had time to digest it all, reflect upon it all and pray about it, he would take a more balanced view.

No sign, I’m afraid.

He remains, it seems, stuck in his arrogance toward those whose only “fault” is to want to preserve the traditions of prayer of the Roman Catholic faith.

I also wrote this then which I believe is still apposite:

...

“I cannot help recalling that Cardinal James Knox, when he was still alive, brutally and carelessly ordered a forward altar and mass versus populum at the Chiesa Nuova in Rome despite the strong opposition of the protectress of the Church, Princess Borghese, and the strong feelings of the Faithful, not to mention the Fathers (they are Oratorians).

This was all too typical of those times - brutal, senseless, unjust and uncharitable actions were all too common in liturgical matters. That is partly why Pope John Paul II felt it necessary to apologise for them in 1988 and after, and the present pope likewise in Summorum Pontificum.

Too many of those with authority rode roughshod over the deeply-held traditions, and religious beliefs and sensibilities of all too many of the Faithful without a word of apology or sympathy.

Those of the Faithful who had been deeply loyal and loved the Church to the uttermost, politely asked if they could worship as they always had and were brushed aside like so much chaff. Heedless of age, sex or sensibility, decent and humble people were arrogantly treated.
No wonder so many people left the Church!

The sheep looked up to be fed and what happened?

They were clouted on their snouts even by their own shepherds!

It was particularly odious to witness the ill-treatment of elderly people who often had the greatest difficulty adapting to the liturgical changes. What did this behaviour say about the attitude that Christians should have to old people?

Personally, I think it added to the general decline in proper behaviour toward the elderly in our society. It was a scandalous bad example.

Thank God we have had two popes who finally understood and sympathised with the Faithful who have been so bruised, battered, scandalised and horrified by the senseless uncharity of so many of those in authority in relation to liturgical issues in the recent past.

Still, there are too many who, whilst abusing and insulting those whose tastes are for the traditional, nevertheless accuse them of being sour, cross and abusive.

They never seem to stop and think about the insults, calumnies, detractions and abuse that the Faithful who love the traditions of the Church have had to put up with over the recent past.

If, as the calumniators claim, the Faithful who love the traditions of the Church are but a small number of disaffected people, then why abuse and insult them?"

...

In fact, of course, the traditional movement is now inundated with youngsters. The movement Juventutem is but one example of many new traditional youth movements filled with youngsters who want the authentic and ancient Catholic tradition, not mere pap and pope music from the 1960s.

I say to all priests your loyalty should be primarily to JESUS CHRIST and the long traditions of His Church. If you abandon the past then you abandon the present also, for, as St Thomas Aquinas teaches us:

“It is absurd, and a detestable shame, that we should suffer those traditions to be changed which we have received from the fathers of old"

The Decretals (Dist. xii, 5) cited in the Summa Theologica, II, I, Q. 97, art. 2.

To do so is to follow the traditions of men, not the traditions of God, something St Paul expressly warned us against:

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle"

2 Thessalonians 2:15

"Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep the traditions as I have delivered them to you."

1 Corinthians 11:2

So, my dear Fathers. Don’t dissemble, dissent or detract but, instead, keep the traditions handed on from of old. That is your noble task. Be worthy of it.

+++

St Thomas teaches that "those who throw contempt on the customs of the Church ought to be punished as those who disobey the law of God."

St Thomas Aquinas

teaches that those who throw contempt on the customs of the Church ought to be "punished as those who disobey the law of God"


...and yet we see how the liturgical laws and traditions of the Church have been radically altered and many now throw contempt on such traditions

St Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica.

Prima Secundae. Question 97.
"On change in laws"

Article 2. "Whether human law should always be changed, whenever something better occurs?"

Objection 1. It would seem that human law should be changed, whenever something better occurs. Because human laws are devised by human reason, like other arts. But in the other arts, the tenets of former times give place to others, if something better occurs. Therefore the same should apply to human laws.

Objection 2. Further, by taking note of the past we can provide for the future. Now unless human laws had been changed when it was found possible to improve them, considerable inconvenience would have ensued; because the laws of old were crude in many points. Therefore it seems that laws should be changed, whenever anything better occurs to be enacted.

Objection 3. Further, human laws are enacted about single acts of man. But we cannot acquire perfect knowledge in singular matters, except by experience, which "requires time," as stated in Ethic. ii. Therefore it seems that as time goes on it is possible for something better to occur for legislation.

On the contrary, It is stated in the Decretals (Dist. xii, 5): "It is absurd, and a detestable shame, that we should suffer those traditions to be changed which we have received from the fathers of old."

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), human law is rightly changed, in so far as such change is conducive to the common weal. But, to a certain extent, the mere change of law is of itself prejudicial to the common good: because custom avails much for the observance of laws, seeing that what is done contrary to general custom, even in slight matters, is looked upon as grave. Consequently, when a law is changed, the binding power of the law is diminished, in so far as custom is abolished. Wherefore human law should never be changed, unless, in some way or other, the common weal be compensated according to the extent of the harm done in this respect. Such compensation may arise either from some very great and every evident benefit conferred by the new enactment; or from the extreme urgency of the case, due to the fact that either the existing law is clearly unjust, or its observance extremely harmful. Wherefore the jurist says [Pandect. Justin. lib. i, ff., tit. 4, "De Constit. Princip."] that "in establishing new laws, there should be evidence of the benefit to be derived, before departing from a law which has long been considered just."

Reply to Objection 1. Rules of art derive their force from reason alone: and therefore whenever something better occurs, the rule followed hitherto should be changed. But "laws derive very great force from custom," as the Philosopher states (Polit. ii, 5): consequently they should not be quickly changed.

Reply to Objection 2. This argument proves that laws ought to be changed: not in view of any improvement, but for the sake of a great benefit or in a case of great urgency, as stated above. This answer applies also to the Third Objection.

Article 3. "Whether custom can obtain force of law?"

Objection 1. It would seem that custom cannot obtain force of law, nor abolish a law. Because human law is derived from the natural law and from the Divine law, as stated above (93, 3; 95, 2). But human custom cannot change either the law of nature or the Divine law. Therefore neither can it change human law.

Objection 2. Further, many evils cannot make one good. But he who first acted against the law, did evil. Therefore by multiplying such acts, nothing good is the result. Now a law is something good; since it is a rule of human acts. Therefore law is not abolished by custom, so that the mere custom should obtain force of law.

Objection 3. Further, the framing of laws belongs to those public men whose business it is to govern the community; wherefore private individuals cannot make laws. But custom grows by the acts of private individuals. Therefore custom cannot obtain force of law, so as to abolish the law.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Ep. ad Casulan. xxxvi): "The customs of God's people and the institutions of our ancestors are to be considered as laws. And those who throw contempt on the customs of the Church ought to be punished as those who disobey the law of God."

I answer that, All law proceeds from the reason and will of the lawgiver; the Divine and natural laws from the reasonable will of God; the human law from the will of man, regulated by reason. Now just as human reason and will, in practical matters, may be made manifest by speech, so may they be made known by deeds: since seemingly a man chooses as good that which he carries into execution. But it is evident that by human speech, law can be both changed and expounded, in so far as it manifests the interior movement and thought of human reason. Wherefore by actions also, especially if they be repeated, so as to make a custom, law can be changed and expounded; and also something can be established which obtains force of law, in so far as by repeated external actions, the inward movement of the will, and concepts of reason are most effectually declared; for when a thing is done again and again, it seems to proceed from a deliberate judgment of reason. Accordingly, custom has the force of a law, abolishes law, and is the interpreter of law.

Reply to Objection 1. The natural and Divine laws proceed from the Divine will, as stated above. Wherefore they cannot be changed by a custom proceeding from the will of man, but only by Divine authority. Hence it is that no custom can prevail over the Divine or natural laws: for Isidore says (Synon. ii, 16): "Let custom yield to authority: evil customs should be eradicated by law and reason."

Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (Question 96, Article 6), human laws fail in some cases: wherefore it is possible sometimes to act beside the law; namely, in a case where the law fails; yet the act will not be evil. And when such cases are multiplied, by reason of some change in man, then custom shows that the law is no longer useful: just as it might be declared by the verbal promulgation of a law to the contrary. If, however, the same reason remains, for which the law was useful hitherto, then it is not the custom that prevails against the law, but the law that overcomes the custom: unless perhaps the sole reason for the law seeming useless, be that it is not "possible according to the custom of the country" [95, 3], which has been stated to be one of the conditions of law. For it is not easy to set aside the custom of a whole people.

Reply to Objection 3. The people among whom a custom is introduced may be of two conditions. For if they are free, and able to make their own laws, the consent of the whole people expressed by a custom counts far more in favour of a particular observance, that does the authority of the sovereign, who has not the power to frame laws, except as representing the people. Wherefore although each individual cannot make laws, yet the whole people can. If however the people have not the free power to make their own laws, or to abolish a law made by a higher authority; nevertheless with such a people a prevailing custom obtains force of law, in so far as it is tolerated by those to whom it belongs to make laws for that people: because by the very fact that they tolerate it they seem to approve of that which is introduced by custom.

St Thomas Aquinas, pray for us!

...

Vernacular readings: the discussion continued

The discussion continues on Shawn Tribe’s website The New Liturgical Movement at:

http://thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/

He writes:

“As I’ve said as well however, there are two problematic extremes. One is change for its own sake; the other is immobilism.

While there needs to be a certain caution and prudence, there also needs to be discussion and some reasonable sense of the normal, living liturgical process and how that might be manifest or approached. This is more than ever necessary given the problematic ways in which it has been approached in the 20th century.

What can concern me in addition to needless and arbitrary change -- which does concern me -- is that there can develop amongst some an attitude that seems somewhat reactionary, which possibly categorizes any development as equally problematic or undesirable.

Veneration of the liturgy has to occur with a respect to its natural context which is neither innovationist nor immobilist.

We need not agree whether a particular development -- such as this one we’ve been discussing -- is a reasonable development, but it seems to me that there should be at least be an openness to such possibilities in principle; possibilities that must be balanced off by a rejection of mastery over the liturgy; a rejection of liturgy-by-committee; a rejection of any sense of the liturgy and its form as arbitrary.”

And the reader replies:

“Dear Shawn,

Your approach seems to be that we should aim at a compromise as our first goal - a compromise between what you see as two extremes.

This is not the way the Church has ever thought about liturgy. Liturgy is not primarily an exercise in compromising. Liturgy is about worshipping God in the way He wants. And He indicates that by the test of time of time and continuity, as Newman eloquently tells us in his Development of Christian Doctrine.

All liturgical reforms of the Roman rite, save that of Bugnini’s Novus Ordo, have been, first and foremost, preservative and restorative and only after that have they been additive.

They have never been - and mark this well - subtractive.

To subtract from the sacred liturgy has always been seen as akin to sacrilege.

Thus the Gregorian reforms, the Gelasian reforms, the Pian reforms and all reforms (save Bugnini’s) have been what you would call ‘reactionary’. They have sought to eliminate recent and inconsistent novelties encrusted onto the old rite and to restore the rite to its ancient splendour, not by false antiquarianism but by careful preservation of that which has been handed down to us by Sacred Tradition.

Anything new has only ever been additive and then only at the edges of the rite by way of approved and authorised devotions, themselves of considerable antiquity and always entirely fitting to the ancient rite.

Bugnini’s reforms were as far away from such a model as could be imagine and were more comparable to those carried about by the ‘slash and burn’ technique used by the early Protestants who butchered the Roman rite for their own nefarious purposes.

This is how the Apostolic See has, in times past, reformed liturgy. Its approach has been consciously preservative and not innovative. It has indeed been what you would call ‘reactionary’.

There is not only no condemnation by any pope or Council of a reactionary approach to liturgy but, on the contrary, it is the approach that the popes and Councils themselves have always used.

Even Vatican II was largely preservative and not innovative. The innovations came about AFTER the Council.

Liturgy, since it involves the way in which the Church prays to God publicly, is, together with doctrine, the very paradigm of Sacred Tradition and the handing on of that which we have received from our fathers.

The liturgy is not about compromises, development, liturgical processes and so on. To think so is inevitably to hand oneself over to liturgical committees.

It is about the preservation of Sacred Traditions handed down from the time of the Apostles until our time.

Any additions to the liturgy can only come after centuries of the hallowed use BY ALL THE PEOPLE (and not just in the mind of some specious expert) of holy prayers and ceremonies, in keeping with sacred tradition and, eventually after long usage, approved, by such continuous usage, by the Holy See.

Subtractions are never permitted since they savour of suggesting that the Holy Spirit made a mistake in the past.

This is not to suggest that devotions, processions and so on, around and outside the sacred liturgy should be avoided. On the contrary, even certain very slight changes have been allowed within the rite itself giving rise to ‘uses’ of the Roman rite such as the Sarum, York and Aberdeen uses among many others.

Some of these, when hallowed by centuries of use, may, if approved for universal use by the Holy See, become part of the main rite.

That is how the Holy See has, historically, introduced feasts into the Calendar.

But the idea that we can, within anyone’s lifetime, see wholesale novelties added to the rite, no matter how fitting some people may think they are, is simply an idea without any precedent whatever.

The addition of a new feast or saint to the calendar and rite is not a novelty since the idea of venerating the feasts and saints in the liturgy is as old as the liturgy itself and thus not a novelty at all but the continuance of an exceedingly ancient and hallowed tradition.

The idea that we should introduce novelties in each generation but, in doing so, should avoid ‘extremes’ of ‘reaction’ or ‘needless innovation’ is already itself an ‘extreme’ idea and one with not the slightest foundation or basis in Catholic tradition or teaching.

It comes rather from the jejune shallows of modern political discourse where change, revolution, innovation and compromise are the key concepts and where the very idea of hallowed and sacred tradition are laughed to scorn.”

Any further thoughts ladies and gentlemen?

Vernacular readings: treat with caution!

On his site The New Liturgical Movement, on 23 January 2008, Shawn Tribe posts this:

"The Vernacular Option for the Lessons; A Call for Discussion

One of our readers sent in this story: Aufer A Nobis: Missa Pro Pace at St. Mary's in Washington, DC. The Mass, offered in the ancient form of the Roman rite, occurred in relation to the Pro-life March in that same capital city.

What I found particularly interesting however was that the celebrating priest, a European priest from the Institute of Christ the King, employed a practice that -- to my knowledge -- tended to be employed within continental Europe, and in particular France: while the celebrating priest quietly read the Epistle and Gospel from the altar in Latin, another member of the clergy read the lessons in the vernacular aloud concurrently.

For whatever reason this practice had not found liturgical expression within the English speaking world -- enough so that to even see or hear of this might seem novel to some -- with the preference instead being for the proclamation of the readings in Latin from the altar and later again from the pulpit (in the vernacular) prior to the homily.

The former, more European practice has always seemed to me to be a more elegant solution that meshed better with the flow of the liturgy. Today however, the option for the use of vernacular readings has been made available to us by the Pope, therefore firming up a development that had been already occuring:

‘In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognised by the Apostolic See.’ (Article 6, Summorum Pontificum)

Simply put, the readings proper to the 1962 Missal may be spoken or chanted by the priest at the altar in the natural course of the liturgy.

While it is a point of legitimate disagreement amongst those of us attached to the ancient Roman liturgy, I myself believe that if one is going to have vernacular readings proclaimed (rather than simply read as we might do elsewhere in the liturgy with our missals) then doing so in the way described in article 6 of Summorum Pontificum is a preferable option to exercise given the right conditions -- i.e. pastoral preparation.

Previously we were more limited in this regard and so the aforementioned workarounds were implemented. These have served their purpose in the context of their day, but in the present situation I think we need to now re-analyze our approach to this.

In my mind, neither of the aforementioned practices are the best liturgical solution any longer. After all, if we wish to have the readings proclaimed in the vernacular, why have the priest say them in Latin at the altar while having someone else do so concurrently? Likewise, why have the same epistle read twice and why have people stand and listen to the same gospel proclaimed twice?

In the case of the latter, what I have often found mentioned is the aspect of the preserving the chanted Latin readings. I'd propose that we need not be all or nothing about this. A vernacular equivalent can be worked out using those same melodies -- thereby preserving the chanted aspect -- and if a community wishes to preserve the tradition of the Latin readings (a good thing as well) why not simply make the translation of the readings available to the faithful so that they might read along as the priest or deacon says/sings them in Latin, just as they might at other times in the Mass?

Some might say that I am myself being rather ‘all or nothing’ in promoting a choice between using either the vernacular or Latin for the readings of a particular liturgy -- rather than both-and. However, it seems to me there is something to be said for preserving the normal place of the readings in the context of the natural ebb and flow of the liturgy itself with its associated prayers, tracts, alleluias and ceremonial. So perhaps we need to just make our choice for that Mass, Latin or vernacular readings, and proceed with it accordingly.

There may indeed be some need for preparation of course. Perhaps all that will be required in one community is a simple explanation by the priest of this in the light of the Pope's motu proprio. Perhaps time will be needed for priests to learn how to chant the reading in the vernacular. Perhaps it will take time to source out an approved edition of the readings in question. Moreover, perhaps one's congregation is peculiarly sensitive to this issue, in which case it may be best to work in such possibilities gradually over a more extended period of time.

This is all fine of course. We have had enough rushing into things to last us for quite some time and we need measured, prudent and responsible applications. I am not interested in promoting such rushing in. However, I think it would also be a mistake to not at least begin to approach the issue, or to simply assume that there will be a negative response, particularly now that the Pope has made it a formalized option.

With that in mind, I would be curious to hear your comments either in support, caution, or disagreement. Let's hear your thoughts. In particular, I would be interested in hearing from our clergy celebrating the usus antiquior."

A reader replied to him thus:

“Dear Shawn,

Well! That certainly generated a discussion!

The temptation to change for the sake of compromise is very great but, alas, the itch for compromise and change is what got us in a mess in the first place.

I think there is something mystical at work, here, if it’s not too dramatic to say so.

Why did God allow the virtual suppression of the TLM? In one sense, I suppose, God has preserved His treasure by allowing foolish men to act as if it were suppressed. Thus it has been curiously preserved whole and intact, amidst all the liturgical chaos of the last 40 years.

That seems providential, indeed.

In times past, as the English bishops said in response to Apostolicae Curae in the early 20th century, the idea that anyone could make substantial changes to the liturgy was utterly unthinkable and like a kind of sacrilege. Additions, yes, but subtractions, no, and the vernacular was viewed cautiously because it so easily lends itself to mistranslation and misinterpretation.

The Eastern Churches have a horror of such (and their liturgies are in a sacred vernacular, like Old Slavonic or Geez, which seems to give them, like 1662 Anglicans, an extra sensitivity to the unbridled vernacular). Their view is that the Last Supper was like what we would call a ‘collegial’ or ‘conventual’ mass and that our Lord used Hebrew, as was used in the Temple worship, and not vernacular Aramaic or Koine Greek. And, today, liturgical Aramaic and Greek are not at all colloquial or ‘vernacular’ but more akin to the relationship between Classical Arabic and vernacular Arabic.Which translation of Scripture would be used?

The Earl of Clarendon said, in his history of the English Civil War, that three words had destroyed all peace and stability in the nation. They were: ‘Search the Scriptures’. He did not mean that there was anything bad about Scripture but rather that men wrought Scripture to their own damnation.

For this reason it is better kept in a sacred language and not broadcast promiscuously to the people who may then wrest the meaning to their spiritual destruction. Better that the learned understand it and the clergy explain it (in sermons etc).

When Vatican II urges greater reading of Scripture, that is, of course, right, but that surely meant under the guidance of the Church and not simply by promiscuous reading of Scripture in the vernacular so that the people might make of it what they will.

Liturgically, it seems odd, too, since it can interrupt the flow of the dramaturgy like, say, a man walking on stage during a Shakespeare play to explain in modern English to the audience what the dialogue means.

Yes, more than one thing can happen at a time in a play/liturgy but it can destroy the harmony of the whole if it does not fit the drama or is intruded into the drama.

Some will say that this is just the ‘old guard’ moaning again. Actually, it was a twenty-something black student who made the comment to me.

I think it is wiser to treat phrases like ‘it always seemed to me’ or ‘in my mind’ with caution.

Whenever Tradition is set aside or dismantled it is usually in the name of someone who has had a bright new idea and wishes it to replace what has been handed down for centuries.”

Any views, folks?



...