Pope Francis and Traditionalism

In the Catholic Debate Forum we've recently been discussing Pope Francis and Traditional Catholics vs. Rad-Trads (Radical Traditionalists) and one of the non-Catholic participants asked a question to which I responded and wish to share here as well...

On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Peter S. wrote:

 

ps: Is blasting the pope even up for debate within Catholic circles?!

sw:  In THIS forum, the Catholic Debate Forum, it is permissible for proclaimed Catholics to be challengers - though I will admit, I do watch such challengers a bit more carefully as there can be a fine line between healthy debate and scandal.  Is it appropriate to challenge even a pope?  Certainly!  There have been many examples in our past of popes who not only should have been challenged, but actually were challenged.  I do host two other forums of debate, "ACTS and BattleACTS" which do not allow for Catholics to be the challengers.  

ps: As far as I can tell, Pope Francis seems to follow the "What would Jesus do?" brand of theology, which I support.

sw: Well, I have read through John Vennari's article as I promised I would and am reporting back now.  Vennari is a staunch supporter of SSPX (the Society of St. Pius X) which maintains, in Pope Francis' words, "the Vetus Ordo" (Old Order) and upholds all pre-Vatican II teachings and only supports anything post-Vatican II which are in line with pre-Vatican II.  SSPX, understandably, clings to their namesake, Pope St. Pius X, who was staunchly against Modernism - which was attempting to get into the Church with a vengeance even in his day.  Mr. Vennari, along with Bishop Fellay (Superior General of SSPX) see Pope Francis as "a genuine Modernist."   

 

sw: As for ME (speaking only for myself now) I believe that the original Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of the Mass, hereafter "NOM") was severely lacking in several points.  The manner in which Pope Paul VI promulgated the NOM initially was fine - "I hope you'll use it" but in reality it became the unofficial replacement of the TLM (Traditional Latin Mass).  I will also say that the NOM was not "in the spirit of Vatican II," since in Vatican II it is clearly stated "36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." and parts 2,3 and 4 of that same section explain how certain PARTS of the liturgy MAY be translated from the Latin into the vernacular, "as they pertain to the people," NOWHERE in Vatican II does it promote the ENTIRE liturgy should be in the vernacular!  Thus, a completely vernacular liturgy is CONTRARY to "the spirit of Vatican II!"  Under Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI we have seen a return of some Latin in some places in the Mass to be encouraged, but the official promulgation of even the latest rendition of the NOM does not dictate Latin must be used anywhere in the liturgy, and thus we still have some/many if not most parishes using wholly vernacular renditions.  I would venture to guess that many, again, if not most Catholics (not, for the most part those here, who tend to be better educated in the Faith) do not realize that the TLM also includes a hold-over from the Greek liturgy, which is all but lost in a vernacular only Mass.  I speak of the Kyrie, which even when recited or sang within the NOM in Greek does not adhere to the form of the Greek liturgy, as the TLM maintains.

 

sw: Continuing to speak for MYSELF here... The loss of the universal missal within the Universal Church was tragic.  Prior to 1971 (or 1969 when Pope Paul VI first introduced the NOM, but it was 1971 when it was first officially promulgated) one could go to Mass literally ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD and so long as they had their English/Latin missal (or French/Latin, etc.) you could follow the Mass just like you did in your mother country/home language!  The exception being that often (not always) the Epistle and Gospel are repeated in the vernacular and the sermon would be in the vernacular - but the Canon of the Mass would ALWAYS be in Latin and thus THE REASON we go to Mass could ALWAYS be followed by EVERYONE regardless of their language.  It is not simply a matter of clinging to the past - but clinging to our HERITAGE that the true Traditionalist (not the "Rad-Trad" - a term I helped to coin - see research here) embraces.  

 

sw:  Where do I stand on the matter of the NOM v. the TLM?  Well, since the TLM was NEVER abrogated, it remains a TRUE and VALID order of the Mass where ever it is celebrated.  The NOM is a VALID and LICIT form of the Mass where ever it is celebrated under the auspices of a TRUE and VALID bishop.  To fulfill one's "Sunday Obligation" one may attend Mass at ANY VALID celebration of the Mass.  That being said, there are some limitations of those not in full communion with their local ordinary (local bishop).  Since the rites of Holy Matrimony and Reconciliation (Confession) are wholly under the auspices of the local ordinary, if the local priest does not have explicit permission from the local ordinary/bishop then these sacraments are not VALID under these circumstances.  An exception being that ANY valid priest may validly hear the confession of anyone in the state of emergency which would be death or dying.  Some, like SSPX, would argue that the Church is in a state of emergency and thus these sacraments are indeed valid through their priests.  As for me, I would say this is a matter of conscience (as Pope Francis would say) and if in good conscience you agree with SSPX then sobeit, but if in your conscience you believe SSPX priests should not be regularly hearing confessions and/or celebrating marriages - then you should not go to them for these things.  So, while I can go to virtually any TLM in good conscience - there are limits to what I can do with such independent chapels and with SSPX.  Keep in mind, it is permissible for faithful Catholics to go to the Greek Orthodox Divine Liturgy to satisfy their "Sunday obligation" - but likewise, we cannot go to them for confession or marriage.

 

sw:  Now, as I originally stated, I believe the jury is still out on just how supportive Pope Francis will be of Traditional Catholics.  It is my humble opinion that those who have been responding to the recent "interviews" of Pope Francis and using these interviews as evidence he's "changing Catholic teaching" or is somehow an Anti-Trad - are not only premature, but mistaken.  I've already blogged on the topic of Pope Francis on the CathApol Blog, if you're interested in following that.

 

AMDG,

Scott<<<

--
Accendat in nobis Dominus ignem sui amoris, et flammam aeternae caritatis. Amen.

Does It Matter What You Wear?

Let me begin by saying that I more frequently attend the "Extraordinary Rite of the Mass" (Traditional Latin Rite and hereafter "ER"), but do visit the Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of the Mass), or "Ordinary Rite" (hereafter "OR") from time to time as well.  One of the first things one may notice in comparing the two is the manner of dress of the people between the two rites.  In the ER we see nearly every one wearing their "Sunday best."  On the contrary at the OR we see SOME in their "Sunday best" - but most seem to be wearing casual/relaxed clothes, as if they just realized, "it's time for Mass" and dropped whatever they were doing and showed up with the "come as you are" look.

Now consider this...  if one is going out to dinner at a fancy restaurant they would "dress up" for it, would they not?  The same can be said of say, a wedding or even a nice company dinner party.  Why?  Because it shows respect to the host AND to those around that you actually care.  So when one goes before THE Wedding Feast (which EVERY valid Mass IS a prefiguring for) then why does not God deserve AT LEAST as much respect as a dinner party or friend/relative's wedding?

I can understand differing cultural views - but living in the USA, which is the perspective I speak from, the cultural view of "dressed up" for men would include nice slacks, dress shirt, dress shoes and perhaps a tie or even a suit.  For women, a long dress or skirt (or at least below the knees), nice blouse and for church - head covering (per 1 Cor. 11:6 - see below).  Does not God Himself deserve the respect to show you care enough to "dress up" a bit for Holy Mass?

So, what are your clothes saying about you when YOU go to Mass?  Did you care enough to "dress up" a bit for God?  Some may argue, "God doesn't care what I wear to Mass."  Well, then why is the one who showed up to the Wedding Feast and refused to wear a wedding garment tied, hands and feet, and thrown out of the Feast into the darkness - where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matt. 22:1-14).  Keep in mind, this guest accepted the invitation to attend - but did not dress appropriately.  Now certainly this was a parable relating to the Kingdom of Heaven - but we must consider that the Mass is a prefiguring of the Kingdom of Heaven! 

Back to head coverings for women, let us look to what St. Paul taught us in his letter to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 11:2,5-6:

² I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.  ⁵ But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. ⁶ For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

So, how can a woman justify NOT covering her head in church?  I have heard some women claim that St. Paul is saying that a woman's hair is her covering, but that really makes no sense - for if we look at verses 3 and 4 from the same context and if hair is the "covering" that is spoken of in verses 5 and 6, then every man should be shaved bald before going to church!  Look at verses 3 and 4 now:

³ But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. ⁴ Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.

So again, IF the acceptable "covering" for a woman is hair, then every man who has NOT shaved his head for church is disgracing God.  In short, women should still cover their heads since, as St. Paul opens this chapter with the statement that what he's saying is a tradition he passed down to them and it should be held on to, period.  All the rationalizations aside - THIS is what Scripture tells us to do!  Ironically, most Protestant religions, which claim to be "Bible believing" either ignore this verse or rationalize their way around it to minimize Scripture.

Here is a link to a very Traditionalist view: 

http://olrl.org/virtues/modesty.shtml

*****

Scott,
I hope I might tack on a little more from a woman's perspective here without abusing my privilege as a contributor.

    I agree that modesty is missing from our culture today.  I can't tell you how many times I have sighed, and grieved for the immodesty and disrespect shown by both sexes to the Body of Christ.  I know a family whose father and two sons appear in "dress" shorts, t-shirts, and sandals during the summer months.  The mother still wears a modest dress or skirt--thank God.  I have seen belly buttons, cleavage, underwear peeking out of the top of pants, flip-flops, beach cover-ups, etc.  I don't understand why one would come to the banquet of the king, or the preview of the wedding feast, as you pointed out, in such immodest dress.


The Visitation

   I took the leap to wearing a veil several Advent seasons past.  I just picked the first Sunday of Advent as an excuse--hoping that it would not seem so strange to those around me.  I had felt the conviction to wear a veil for some time before I finally had the courage not to be one of the crowd.  I did not grow up in the Church so it was not a conviction from my past--although other rules of modesty did come from my former Protestant background.  I felt the Holy Spirit was asking me to do so.  It was a tradition of the church that was not stopped by the Church; women just stopped doing it.

I see the veil not so much as a submissive act--though it absolutely is a sign of submission to God--but as an act of holiness.  Our Lady's body carried the most precious of all life, Our Savior Jesus Christ; she wore a veil.  The Ark of the Covenant, a foreshadow of Mary's Body carrying Christ, was veiled in the Temple.  The Tabernacle which holds the Body of Christ in the Sanctuary of our parishes used to be veiled.  The chalice is veiled when it is brought to the altar.  A woman's body is a special place which holds the potential for life in cooperation and submission to God's will.  A woman's body like all other holy places should be veiled.

As one of about 3 or 4 women that wear a veil at the NO Mass that I attend, I wanted to share my perspective.  I believe it is a powerful message of modesty, submission, and holiness.  I have had women tell me how beautiful I look and they wish they had the courage to wear one.  I pray that my continued practice will give them the courage to do so also.

Here is another good article on the veiling of women in Church.  The author is a woman.  http://www.fisheaters.com/theveil.html

I hope that is alright, Scott. 
AMDG

Domine Non Sum Dignus

Along with other changes being proposed to the English vernacular, the domine non sum dignus is making a comeback too! 

Existing Novus Ordo Latin:
Domine, non sum dignus, 
ut intres sub tectum meum, 
sed tantum dic verbo,
et sanabitur anima mea.

Existing Novus Ordo English:
Lord, I am not worthy to receive you,

But only say the word

And I shall be healed.

Proposed Novus Ordo English:
Lord, I am not worthy
that you should enter under my roof,
but only say the word
and my soul shall be healed.

Scripture (Matthew 8:8) where the Centurion pleads for his servant:

And the centurion making answer, said: 
Lord, I am not worthy 
that thou shouldst enter under my roof: 
but only say the word, 
and my servant shall be healed. (DRB)

The centurion said in reply, 
"Lord, I am not worthy 
to have you enter under my roof; 
only say the word 
and my servant will be healed. (NAB)

So while echoing the words of the centurion - but pleading for our own soul - the new reading matches the Latin and the only change to Scripture is in place of "my servant" we say "my soul" - so the proposed change is (again) a better match to Scripture and the Latin.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Pro Multis

The question of "pro multis" is coming to the forefront again.  What is this exactly and why now?  Well, these are Latin terms which mean, literally, "for many" and there are changes to the Mass being proposed which should be going into effect soon.  So let us move into some more detail.  

In the consecration of the the wine into Christ's blood during the Eucharist - Scripture records this as follows:

Matthew 26:27-28:  Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins. (NAB)

Mark 14:23-24: Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it.   He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many. (NAB).

The Latin version (which is the official translation of the Mass) still agrees with the Traditional Latin version - which is in agreement with Scripture!  The Latin at the consecration of the wine into Christ's blood says: 

Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes:  hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.  (Current Novus Ordo in Latin)

So, to recap a bit before proceeding, Scripture says "for many" and the official translation of the Mass says "pro multis" which means "for many" - so to say "for many" is an accurate translation of both Scripture AND the official translation of the Mass!

So, why are we talking about this?  Well, in 1970, when Pope Paul VI offered the "Novus Ordo Missae" (New Order of the Mass) as an alternative (he did not promulgate it as a replacement of the Traditional Latin Mass - yet that's what most bishops did) these words, "pro multis," while they remained in the official translation - in most (not all) vernaculars, these words were translated to "for all."  To say "for all" in Latin that would be "omnibus" or "pro omni."  So clearly, the words "pro multis" do NOT mean "for all" they mean "for many."

I've also heard that many priests are objecting to the change to the more literally correct terminology.  One argument I've heard (all along and again just recently) is that the offering of Christ on the Cross was indeed for all - and YES it IS for all!   However, we know that not all will be saved (that would be the heresy of Universal Salvation).   Well, to these fine priests we must remind them - this would be a matter of good catechesis - something THEY are responsible for!  It is their duty to teach the portion of the Flock to which they have been assigned to serve - to understand both the literal words of consecration, which are the Words of Christ, AND the broader catechetical understand that Jesus' Sacrifice is for all men, but since all men are not forgiven - it is proper to say "pro multis" or "for many," just as Scripture says it. 

We must keep in mind that when these words are spoken the subject matter is the forgiveness of sins.  It must also be noted, that when those who translated the vernacular to say "for all" could not stop with just those words!  Had they stopped there, the statement would have become heretical.  Allow me to explain, using only English.  The traditional translation is,

"...for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on for many for the forgiveness of sins." 

If we only changed the words "for many" to "for all" it would then read: 

"...for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on for all for the forgiveness of sins."

The latter statement is heretical because though He did die for all, the forgiveness of sins is not "for all."  If ALL sins were forgiven, then there would be no more sin whatsoever!  Salvation would be accomplished and ALL MEN would be automatically saved.  Again, this would be the heresy of Universal Salvation.  So, in translating "pro multis" to "for all" - the words which followed HAD to be changed as well!  It goes from "for many for the forgiveness sins" to "for all, so that sins MAY be forgiven."  This would seem to be a much harder catechetical lesson for our priests and bishops to teach!  It leaves open that sins MAY NOT be forgiven, even "for many" whereas to say "for many" that sins WILL BE forgiven makes it clear - that those who sincerely repent (the "many") of their sins, their sins are forgiven them. 

The updated translation of the Mass in English has been approved, but has not yet been promulgated, but for the consecration of the precious blood, it now says:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT,
FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD,
THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT,
WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY
FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.
DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME. 

http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/WhiteBookAnnotated.pdf (Page 19)

And this is true to the Traditional interpretation as well as to Scripture.  There are some other changes as well, but not on the subject of this article.  This translation, getting the Order of the Mass more in line with Scripture and Tradition, is a good move.  Ever since the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae in 1970 by Pope Paul VI, the altering of the words to "for all" has been a sticking point for many (no pun intended).    Many "Traditionalists" have (wrongly) stated that the changing of those words invalidated the Novus Ordo.  As I mentioned earlier, if they had only changed those words and not the words which followed as well, then they may have had a point regarding validity (for outright heresy would have invalidated the Mass).  Perhaps these changes, which are to take effect soon (I have not heard the exact date as yet) will help heal the rift between some Traditionalists too.

The USCCB site, offers answers of "6 Questions" about this topic too: 

Six Questions on the Translation of Pro Multis

An article somewhat critically written by John Vennari expresses many of the same thoughts and addresses many of the same concerns, and demonstrates the frustration of the Traditionalists, which you can see in the title of the article "Post-Conciliar Vatican Finally Tells the Truth About Pro Multis":   http://www.cfnews.org/promultis.htm

Full text proposed for the English Mass:  

http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/WhiteBookAnnotated.pdf