Hermeneutic of Continuity, Part II: "Churches" or "Ecclesial Communions"?

            In our last article, we demonstrated how Dr. Alan Schreck, as many orthodox Catholics do, erroneously applies the hermeneutic of discontinuity to the use of the terms “heresy” and “heretic” before Vatican II and the non-use of those terms in the Council. We will now do likewise with the term “church” as it was used before and at Vatican II.

            Dr. Schreck, after praising Vatican II for abandoning the use of the word “heretic” in reference to Protestants, also added: “Not only do Catholics recognize these baptized believers as Christians, but at Vatican II the Catholic church officially recognized for the first time the bodies to which these Christians belong as ‘churches and (ecclesial) communities.’” [page 204] Rather than seeing “churches” and “ecclesial communities” as two different terms being applied to two different situations and groups, he makes them out to be synonymous and to be applied to all, as is evident from his use of the term “Protestant church[es]” which he uses twice more going forth.

            Although in the last article we were not able to get into the footnotes, we will do so here. As in the previous matter, the Council Fathers were also careful to footnote seemingly revolutionary statements. A footnote was inserted after the word “Churches” (“but not ecclesial communities”), and it refers to three ecumenical councils -- the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 [Constitution IV], the Second Council of Lyons from 1274 [Profession of Faith of Emperor Michael Palaiologi], and the Council of Florence held in 1439. [Session VI] In the citation from Lateran IV, the council refers to the schismatic East as the “Greek church”, while in the Council of Florence, the proclamation of union refers to the schism as “the wall that divided the western and the eastern church”.

            Dr. Schreck, in a previous book, Catholic and Christian, explained that from the beginning, the word “church” was used not only to refer to the one universal church or body of believers, but was also used synonymously with “diocese” or “parish” to refer to a local church or body of believers under a bishop or a pastor. Hence we can and often do speak about the “Church in Saskatoon” to refer to the Saskatoon diocese, or the “Church in Estevan” to refer to St. John the Baptist parish in my hometown. But the term has also been used on a much broader scale to refer to a conference of bishops or to the bishops in a particular region or country. Hence we can and often do speak of the “Canadian Church” to refer to those dioceses under the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB), or “the Church in North America” (or the Church in Asia or the Church in Africa as Pope John Paul II did in a series of apostolic exhortations), or, as has been done since the second century, refer collectively to the Latin-speaking dioceses as the “Western Church” and the Greek-speaking dioceses as the “Eastern Church”. These terms continued to be used by the Catholic Church even after the schism.

            Because the Eastern communions are merely in schism rather than heresy and have preserved valid orders and a valid episcopate, the territories ruled by their bishops remain local or “particular churches”, even though these particular churches are in “schism” or no longer in communion or in union with the universal Church Jesus Christ established under the headship of the Pope. As such, the Magisterium has, ever since the schism occurred in the eleventh century, continued to refer to the schismatic Eastern communions as the “Eastern Church”.

            At Vatican II, the Magisterium chose to speak of the Eastern Church in the plural, as the Eastern Churches, for two reasons: first, because there are other schismatic churches which have preserved valid orders, such as the Nestorian churches (although these also profess heresy); and second because, in order to prevent the confusion seen with Dr. Schreck, namely, that of denominationalism or that there are multiple churches rather than just one (the Catholic Church), the East is spoken of as a collection of dioceses or local churches. Thus, if Dr. Schreck is correct that there has been a “radical departure” (which there has not been), it is a change in the opposite direction -- from referring to the Eastern Orthodox collectively as a “Church” to speaking of them as a collection of local churches or dioceses/eparchies separated from Rome.

            This was all made clear by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in the year 2000 when it issued Dominus Iesus, a document correcting various misunderstandings that had arisen in the area of ecclesiology because of the application of the hermeneutic of discontinuity. Seven years later, the CDF issued an even more explicit response to some questions regarding certain aspects of the doctrine on the Church, following the apparent failure of its previous attempt at correcting the errors perpetuated by scholars such as Dr. Schreck. The response from the CDF affirms that it remains true and a valid teaching of the Church that “the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church” but that the word “subsists in” was used at Vatican II in order to better indicate that elements of truth and sanctification, such as baptism and Holy Scripture, are efficaciously used in communions which are separated from the one Church of Christ through schism or heresy.

            The CDF went on to answer the question, “Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term ‘Church’ in reference to the oriental [Eastern Orthodox] Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?” The answer begins with a restatement of the passage in Unitatis Redintegratio which used the term and explained the rationale for it, and then added, “The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term”. In other words, the Council was not stating something “for the first time” in some “radical departure” but was employing a term in line with its “traditional use”.

            Not only does Dr. Schreck make this error with regards to the Eastern Orthodox, but he also falsely states that Vatican II called Protestant bodies “churches and ecclesial communions”. However, the Magisterium gave and still gives two very different definitions to both of these terms, and applies “churches” only to the Eastern Orthodox, while the term “ecclesial communions” is reserved for the Protestant bodies. In Dominus Iesus, the CDF declares that “the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery [ie. Protestant communions], are not Churches in the proper sense”. (paragraph 17) This was also stated in the 2007 response -- two years after Dr. Schreck revised and re-published his book under a different title, but with the same errors.

            If we are to fully and properly implement Vatican II, we must not use it in isolation but read it in light of the broader Tradition of the Church. Dr. Schreck and other orthodox Catholics must heed the advice of St. Vincent of Lerins in his Commonitorium -- a book that is a must-read today in order to avoid the errors of isolating Vatican II from the tradition -- who begins his work by citing Moses: “Ask thy fathers, and they will declare to thee: thy elders and they will tell thee.” (Deuteronomy 32:7) 

Hermeneutic of Continuity and Ecumenism, Part I: "Heretics" or "Separated Brethren"?

            While writing my self-published manuscript, New Things and Old: Re-Implementing Vatican II, I came to the realization that Vatican II had its own emphases and omissions and could only be understood in light of past Magisterial teaching and the sources of the Tradition, for if taken by themselves the documents could lead even orthodox Catholics to formulate or embrace ideas or reach conclusions that were erroneous and run contrary to Catholic teaching.

            This tendency was addressed by Pope Benedict XVI, who spoke of “two hermeneutics” or methods for how Vatican II should be interpreted and understood – the “hermeneutic of continuity and reform” and the “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture”.

            The “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture” was (and still is) employed by not only “liberals” in the Church, but also certain “traditionalists” -- the former believing that there were radical changes and for the better, while the latter believing there were novel and revolutionary teachings and for the worse.

            The “hermeneutic of continuity and reform”, on the other hand, is used by “orthodox” Catholics, who see Vatican II as merely developing certain doctrines but teaching nothing contrary to what was officially taught before.

            However, what has happened and continues to happen is that in certain areas, orthodox Catholics unwittingly and thus innocently apply the wrong hermeneutic, believing that certain previous Magisterial statements contradict Vatican II and therefore must not have been infallible as they are “in error”. In doing so, they make the same mistake that certain traditionalists do.

            One of the most common areas that this has occurred in is ecumenism. Let us take for example an excerpt from The Catholic Challenge, written by my former theology professor, Dr. Alan Schreck. Dr. Schreck states in pages 203-204, “After the Protestant Reformation, it was common for Catholics and Protestants to think of each other as ‘heretics’ (those who believed false doctrine)”. But, he joyfully goes on to exclaim, “what a radical departure from such a posture is the teaching of the Second Vatican Council!” which declared that “‘All those justified by faith through baptism are incorporated into Christ. They therefore have the right to be honored by the title of Christian, and are properly regarded as brothers in the Lord by the sons of the Catholic Church’ (UR [Unitatis Redintegratio], no. 2)”. He goes on to say, “Not only [this], but at Vatican II the Catholic church officially recognized for the first time the bodies to which these Christians belong as ‘churches and (ecclesial) communities,’” the terms, it later becomes clear, Dr. Schreck sees as synonymous and interchangeable and pointing to the same thing. However, if we examine Dr. Schreck’s commentary, we will discover that he employed the wrong hermeneutic, for by using the hermeneutic of continuity, you come up with the following:

            Regarding the term “heretic”, we must begin by first finding out what it means and how it has been used by the Church. The word comes from the Greek airesos, meaning “sect”, and was used by St. Peter in Scripture to refer to splinter groups such as the Gnostics. (2Peter 2:1) From “heresy” comes “heretic”, and the term has been used since the beginning to refer to “the formal denial or doubt by a baptized person of any revealed truth of the Catholic faith”. [Attwater, Donald, ed. A Catholic Dictionary. New York: MacMillan Company, 1951]

            A distinction, however, has long been made between “formal” and “material” heresy. St. Thomas in his Summa Theologica (II-II q.11, a.1) states that when “the heretical tenets [arise from] ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas”, then “such heresy is merely objective, or material”, for “one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness -- free choice -- is wanting”. However, when “the will … freely incline[s] the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the [Magisterium]”, as in the case of “intellectual pride [or] the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power”, then the heresy is “freely willed” and thus it is “formal” and “carries with it varying degree[s] of guilt”.

            The Reformers have always been accused of formal heresy, but not necessarily Protestants who were born into those communions, as the Catholic Dictionary witnesses to: “It can hardly be doubted that the vast majority of non-Catholic Christians are in good faith and labouring under invincible ignorance. It is amusing to note, in this age when many people [anti-Catholic Protestants] boast that they are heretics and resent any stigma of orthodoxy, that the Church refuses them both the name and the odium attaching to it” [emphasis mine].

            At times the Magisterial documents before Vatican II did refer to Protestants as “heretics”. However, these documents refrained from using the term “heretic” when addressing Protestants in a fraternal spirit of invitation and dialogue, using them only when addressing the Catholic faithful alone and when the negative connotations attached to the term were fitting, such as when referring to non-Catholic Christians in certain anti-Catholic activities of theirs. In fact, some Popes before Vatican II used the term later adopted by Vatican II -- “separated brethren” or “separated children”, as Pope Pius XI did in Mortalium Animos [paragraph 12] and as Pope Pius XII did in Orientalis Ecclesiae. [paragraph 38] That the more negative terms are no longer seen can be attributed to the fact that since Vatican II, the Magisterium has so seldom spoken negatively about anyone or any movement (the wisdom of which could be debated).

            However, that is not to say the Magisterium never does. Pope John Paul II, when speaking negatively and critically about the proselytizing of Catholics in Latin America by  Protestant groups, refers to them as “sects” (which is what “heresy” literally means) [Ad Limina Address to the Bishops’ Conference of Brazil, September 5, 1995]. Cardinal Ratzinger also used the same term in The Ratzinger Report to refer to certain proselytizing Protestant groups. [pages 117-118] The fact remains that Protestants are still “material heretics” and the communions they belong to “heretical”, even if the Magisterium generally opts not to use the terms.

            As we can see, this apparent “radical departure” spoken of by Dr. Schreck did not really take place at Vatican II and still does not exist. If the quotation he gave seems like a “radical departure” to him, it is first of all because he knows not the Catholic Tradition, and secondly because he failed to look into the footnotes made by the Vatican II Fathers, who were very careful to root any teaching that could be seen as revolutionary in the sources of Tradition. This, however, is beyond our scope.

            In our next article, we will examine the issue of giving the title “Church” to the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant communions.

Debate on Clerical Celibacy: East vs. West

This article: "Pope Francis has given permission for a St. Louis deacon, who is married, to be ordained into the priesthood. Deacon Wissam Akiki will be ordained this week at St. Raymond's Maronite Cathedral. He will be the first married man to be ordained into priesthood under the U.S. Maronite Catholic Church"


On came the usual and therefore expected onslaught of support from Eastern Catholic readers, with the typical concomitant denegration and critique of the Western practice of a mandatory clerical celibacy and the hopeful expectation that it should change, and/or eventually will change.


The most vocal was Tony Paraskevas, who stated: "It is universal tradition, obscured through unfortunate historical circumstances in the West. Actually, I would hesitate to even call it a tradition, unless priests with hands and feet and a brain is also a tradition ... Bootstrapping celibacy to holy orders is abusive. There are talents and passion in married men, who could minister to the People. Its just a damn shame that we have to choose marriage or the priesthood. Its unnecessary. Mother Church knows (its in her blood) but her Servants seem to lack awareness of what is truly just and true. ... The pastoral benefits of having a 'two-tiered' priesthood seem too good to delay. All too often I hear and read the advise and pulpit teaching from celibates who have little knowledge of the intimate lives of married couples. It would be an immense evangelical asset if married priests in the Tiber weren't seen as an aberration, something bizarre and newsworthy. ... We just want what is fair, what allows for a variety of possible welcome developments on the parish level. We just want what is the most balanced system, which worked for nearly the first half of the Church's history (west). It would take absolutely nothing from the vocations of the current priesthood, and their manifestation of the theology of celibacy would remain intact."


Jonathan Alfaro added some others, "1) The "absorption" of the monastic vocation to celibacy into the secular celibate Diocesan priesthood within the Latin church; 2) The conflation of the vocation to celibacy, with that of the priesthood; 3) The decline, and displacement of monasticism proper in the West, with the rise of mendicant religious Orders; 4) Ad hoc theologizations pertaining to "ritual purity" which whilst not officially espoused by the church, has entered her consciousness; 5) The unnecessary dichotomy between a vocation to marriage, and the celibate life. The celibate vocation is objectively higher than that of the priesthood, and the vocation to marriage. The priesthood is only subjectively higher in so far as it being ministerial. However, given that the dual discipline exists, a vocation to the priesthood need not be conflated with the objectively superior vocation to the celibate life."


But, as usually happens when there are reports of a married man being elevated to the ranks of the presbyterate, either in the Eastern Churches or in the West through the pastoral provision, there was also a barrage of Western Catholics calling for the end to mandatory celibacy. Brandon Wainscott opines: "I'm kind of on Tony's side. I guess looking east I am quite in favour of married clergy, though I understand the benefit of celibacy. But as a rule for all priests, especially in the modern age, seems problematic. The biggest problem, other than certain stubborn Latins who can't think of anything other than Father O'Bryan without wife and kids, is the cost of course of paying a priest with a family. But the Byzantines manage so it can be done."


Roman Catholic, Brad Lindseth, talks rather unflatteringly about how his church is the exception: "One does have to point out that outside of the 'Latin Church' having a mixture of Married and Celibate clergy has worked well for: The Russians, The Ukrainians, The Copts, The Ethiopians, The Christians in modern-day Egypt, The Chaldeans, The Assyrians, The Greeks, The Romanians, The Bulgarians, The Serbs, and The Arabs. And, I'm not even going into Protestants."


The few dissenting (or should I say "assenting" to the Roman discipline) voices were getting hammered pretty hard. That's when I stepped in.


I linked to the following blog articles: 


East vs West: Celibate or Married Priesthood? 


Eastern Contradiction - Re: Clerical Celibacy


Priesthood: Marriage or Celibacy? Eastern Canon 373


Superiority of Celibacy to Marriage: Response to Deacon Scott Dodge


Discerning Vocations: Another Response to Deacon Scott Dodge


Responses from Deacon Scott Dodge


Clark McNabb was the first responder, and as far as I could tell, he was a neutral voice. He began with a bit of an insult, saying, "Nice self promotion there" -- which, of course, I clicked "like" on. Then he gave his opinion: "Any appeal to the Latin Code of Canon law is going to be pointless as to determine the legitimacy of the Eastern practice. Nor does it make sense to create conflict between theologies where the Church has not seen one. If there really was a problem between the two practices on the level of theology, than why would Rome have ever approved married clergy in any circumstance? ... Further you are stretching the meaning of the text to suggest that the use of 'held in honor' to describe the practice of the primitive church and the Eastern Churches is in anyway suggesting that clerical celibacy and married clergy are theologically inconsistent with each other. Adding words into the text (such as 'merely') does nothing to further your argument, rather it just shows how intellectually dishonest your position is that you can not just rest on the Church documents themselves."


I replied by reprinting certain quotes of his and responding to them: "'You are stretching the meaning of the text to suggest that the use of 'held in honor' to describe the practice of the primitive church and the Eastern Churches is in anyway suggesting that clerical celibacy and married clergy are theologically inconsistent with each other.' I didn't imply that Clark nor do I hold that position. ... 'Adding words into the text (such as 'merely') does nothing to further your argument, rather it just shows how intellectually dishonest your position is'. Granted, that was perhaps a somewhat biased interjection; however, I did that to show that the language used in the documents certainly place the Western practice on a higher plane than the Eastern practice. And although the interjection may have been somewhat 'intellectually dishonest', my arguments on the whole are not; rather, it is a result of taking the logical implications to their ends, which I believe I did so compellingly. ... 'Any appeal to the Latin Code of Canon law is going to be pointless as to determine the legitimacy of the Eastern practice.' That is true as far as it goes. However, my point in citing this is to demonstrate that the highest teaching authority in the Church favours the Western practice, even though that same authority attempts ever so delicately to avoid stating it unequivocally or without qualifications -- something that previous Popes had no problem doing (I will cite encyclicals if you wish), and that recent Popes have done which leads to contradictions that require clarification (as I demonstrated in the first link I posted)."


Clark responded, "The Church doesn't 'favor' one regional expression of the Faith over the other." I said, however, that "It is more than just a 'regional expression' -- with liturgy and the like, no, the Church does not 'favour' one or the other. However, the Church does favour certain practices over others, especially when certain practices (i.e. clerical celibacy) are more in line with the Church's teachings and the theology underlying it.


That is when Jonathan Alfaro, an Eastern (Russian) Catholic, began what would be a lengthy exchange with me. Following up on my thought but taking it in a different direction, he challenged:


Jonathan (Eastern): "Of one particular sui iuris church, which for all intents, and purposes seems to be the exception to the general rule when compared to the other 22 sui iuris churches..."


Wade (Western): "[Btw,] This is the encyclical I was talking about: Allatae Sunt, Pope Benedict XIV, 1755, paragraph 22: '[Regarding] the freedom enjoyed by priests of the Oriental and Greek church to remain married to their wives after their ordination ... Considering that this practice was at variance neither with divine nor natural law, but only with Church discipline, the popes judged it right to tolerate this custom, which flourished among Greeks and Orientals, rather than to forbid it by their apostolic authority, to avoid giving them a pretext to abandon unity.' Notice the word 'tolerate' and the reasons given for doing so -- this explains why the Holy See has permitted married priests in the Eastern Churches."


Wade (Western): "'Of one particular sui iuris church, which for all intents, and purposes seems to be the exception to the general rule when compared to the other 22 sui iuris churches...' But if you compare the actual number of souls in that 'one particular sui iuris church' to the 'other 22 sui iuris churches' it is not so lopsided. Furthermore, the Roman Rite comprises the entire historical Western Church, whereas the other 22 are smaller expressions of the Eastern Church, so it is more like half of the Church practices one way, the other half another. It is disingenuous to use numbers such as these in the manner that you have. I could use numbers too, but in the other way -- I could say that 90 percent of Catholics have a celibate clergy, while the other 10 percent do not, but that too would be disingenuous and a smokescreen taking us away from the real issue, which is the unresolved contradiction I spoke of in my blogs."


Jonathan (Eastern): "Thankfully that isn't how the church operates..."


Wade (Western): "Yes, thankfully it doesn't operate in either direction -- by crunching the numbers the way I did, or by considering them in the way you did."


Jonathan (Eastern): "Yay for reductio ad absurdums ! :D" [to which I hit "like"]


Jonathan (Eastern): "You will all enjoy these goodies!" [link to the Amazon listing of the book, "Vested in Grace: Marriage and Priesthood in the Christian East"]


Wade (Western): "Not all of us"


Jonathan (Eastern): "The testimony of the Fathers, and the Early Church can do that sometimes ! :D" 


Wade (Western): "So can the consistent teachings of the Roman Pontiffs."


Jonathan (Eastern): "Citing their words out of context in light of the received tradition of the church does no one any favours."


Wade (Western): "Neither does considering the Fathers to be infallible, especially when there was not unanimous consent."


Jonathan (Eastern): "Yet this isn't a matter of dogma, but rather of testimony to the received tradition of their day."


Wade (Western): "And that is where the East and West diverge -- the West is more open to developments, while the East doesn't believe in any developments after the year 800. Interesting to note, as I did in my blog, that in the age of the early fathers, bishops also married. The East has to explain exactly when the cutoff date is for legitimate developments and modifications. That, I say, is the rub."


Jonathan (Eastern): "Somewhat like the rather unfortunate position you've placed yourself in now, wherein to defend the position of your particular sui iuris church, you have to make an appeal to authority, and engage in special pleading by moving the goalposts, for the ad hominem attack you just hurled at the praxis of the other 22 sui iuris churches ? I mean really man, can the discipline of your sui iuris church SOLELY be defended on those grounds alone ?"


Wade (Western): "And that gets to the crux of the issue and to what led to the schism - the West appeals to papal authority (Roman locuta est) and the East appeals ultimately to the Fathers and the early councils regardless of what the Popes have to say about how to understand and apply that Tradition. It really is the same issue that the Catholic-Protestant debate comes down to: 'Where does authority lie?'"


Wade (Western): "Keep in mind also that the patriarch of my sui iuris church is also the Pope -- which does come to bear heavily on the issue we have been debating. To wit: Allatae Sunt, paragraph 20: 'Since the Latin rite is the rite of the holy Roman church and this church is mother and teacher of the other churches, the Latin rite should be preferred to all other rites.' And if you want to say again that I am citing the Popes out of context, a read of the entire document makes it quite clear that a plain reading of this passage is perfectly in line with the tenor of the whole."

In an earlier comment, Clark stated: "Nor does it make sense to create conflict between theologies where the Church has not seen one." But this debate proves clearly that there is a conflict of theologies, and the only reason the Church does not appear to have seen one is because they will not admit it and avoid getting into the finer points of the debate -- with the exception of Paul VI in Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, and as I pointed out, he gives mere lip service to the Eastern practice after spending the first forty paragraphs explaining to us why the Western practice is superior and why it is therefore not going to change.


If the debate continues, I will update this post accordingly.

Available: "An Acceptable Sacrifice": Reforming the Liturgical Reform

An Acceptable Sacrifice: Reforming the Liturgical Reform
Wade St. Onge


Though available since last December, I just recently revised and expanded the work. It is now twice the size and much better organized. Unfortunately, it is also more expensive. 


DESCRIPTION (from the back cover)

By juxtaposing the Church’s definition of Liturgy and the Mass with the myriad of post-conciliar liturgical changes, it becomes apparent that there has been a deliberate intent to shift from the Catholic idea of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice to the Modernist idea of the “Eucharistic celebration” as a “communal, fraternal meal”. To correct this, the Church must return to the original conciliar document on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, and “reform the liturgical reform” according to the mind of the Council Fathers. To this end, the many changes are explored, the Church’s liturgical laws are consulted, and Sacrosanctum Concilium is re-applied to the preconciliar liturgy. 


INTRODUCTION

            One of my fondest memories as a child was attending Sunday Mass with my family. Although I did not really understand much of what was going on, I did enjoy participating in the singing and in the prayers and following the action of the priest and servers on the altar. Most of all, I experienced a great feeling of peace. When I was in the church, it felt like I was at home –my true home, a spiritual or heavenly one. Unfortunately, upon entering adolescence, like many my age, I stopped paying attention to God and thus stopped going to Mass.

            However, in 1997, my Catholic faith was re-awakened, and I not only returned to Mass, but began to attend daily Mass. The more I went and the more I read about my faith and about the liturgy, the more I came

to appreciate Mass on a whole new level.

            As I continued to devour the library at the Catholic Student Center at Minot State University, I came upon an old missal from the days before the Vatican II Council. As I familiarized myself with its contents, I was drawn to this liturgy that I had never witnessed but could only imagine. I asked my father about it, and he gave me his old missal which he had hung onto all those years from the days back in the 1950s when he was a server at Sacred Heart Parish in Torquay for the priest who would later baptize me, Fr. Peter Rubbens. He then impressed me by reciting by heart in perfect Latin some of the old prayers.  

            I was very excited when I found out that this Mass was still being offered in some places, and that there was one offered every Sunday in Powers Lake, North Dakota, less than an hour’s drive from my hometown of Estevan, Saskatchewan. One Sunday in 1999, I decided to make the trek across the United States border and attend. It was a profound and moving experience. Just as when I was a child, I did not understand what was going on, and in fact, I was quite lost. But it was beautiful. Upon each subsequent visit, I came to understand the “old Mass” more and more and learned to follow it quite well.

            In returning to the “new Mass”, as I called it then, I was struck though not bothered by the contrast. However, as I continued to attend Mass at a variety of different churches in different places, I came to notice that there was considerable difference depending on who was offering Mass and where it was being offered, and some of these differences did begin to bother me. I came to learn about the problem of “liturgical abuse”, whereby the priest deviates or allows those with liturgical roles to deviate from the prayers, gestures, and actions which are prescribed. I became sensitive to these “abuses”, and desired a Mass that was offered “by the book”.

            I had another epiphany in the summer of 2002. I was traveling to Kenrick-Glennon Seminary in St. Louis for meetings and interviews before beginning the five-year program of formation for priestly ministry which, God willing, would see me ordained in 2007 for the Diocese of Bismarck, North Dakota. It was a 24-hour Greyhound bus ride, so I made sure to pack a fair bit of reading material. Upon the first onset of boredom, I dug into my bag, and randomly pulled out
The Documents of Vatican II.

            Naturally, owing to my love for the liturgy, I turned to Sacrosanctum Concilium – “The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy”.
I read the entire document, and was blown away. What the Council had to say about the importance of retaining Latin in the Mass, the praise it gave to Gregorian Chant and the preeminence it gave to the organ among all other instruments, and its warning to priests against being “creative” through its prohibition against changing any prescribed prayer or gesture, was exciting. I had become attached to many of those “traditional” elements I found so beautiful at Powers Lake, and I was consoled to discover that the Council had not rejected them but sought instead to preserve them. I was looking forward to the day when I would become a priest and incorporate those elements into my own offering of the Mass.

            However, I was also beginning to wonder why certain things so explicitly endorsed and commanded by the Council had completely disappeared. I also began to look more deeply into the liturgical abuses that were widespread in the contemporary Church, including the diocese I was studying for and which I expected to commit my life to, for I knew that as a priest and especially as a pastor, I would have to confront many of these issues. I decided that I would turn my research into a manuscript, and hence this project was initiated.

            This work was initially intended to be a handbook for myself and other like-minded seminarians who would someday be priests on how to address these issues, educate the faithful on them, and ensure and provide for a good and proper liturgy, offered according to the theology and discipline of the Church. This began to shift after I left seminary, which combined with periodic realizations that there was more that needed to be addressed as well as a growing liturgical knowledge as I continued graduate studies at Steubenville, led to a series of revisions and expansions between other projects over an almost 10 year period.

            As this work was never intended to be a catalogue of liturgical abuses, many of these will not be addressed here. However, they can be found in the various liturgical documents that I have referenced throughout, which I would recommend the reader reference and depending on the document read more extensive selections from.

            Chapter 1 provides a working definition and explanation of the liturgy, according to the teachings of the Church, as found primarily in The Catechism of the Catholic Church. This may be review for some and thus may be skipped. Chapter 2 presents an alternate view and definition of the liturgy, according to which many liturgical changes in the initial liturgical reform were illicitly introduced. Chapter 3 discusses the reason for liturgical law and how the many violations of the law since the initial reform began can be corrected and why they should. Chapters 4-17 take us through the various parts and elements of the liturgy, outlining what changes have been made (licitly and illicitly), and describe and explain issue by issue what we are doing wrong, why it is wrong, what we should be doing instead, and how to go about changing it, citing the liturgical laws of the Church and various Vatican documents extensively. Chapter 18 addresses the issue of the so-called “Tridentine Mass” (the Mass as it was before the reforms called for by the Vatican II Council) and the arguments of those who say “liturgical reform” should consist in merely going back to the “pre-conciliar liturgy”. Chapter 19 outlines what Vatican II actually said about liturgical reform, including some of the principles that provide us with the necessary parameters for a “reform of the liturgical reform”. Finally, Chapter 20 places the previous eleven chapters in perspective and shows us ultimately what is the “one thing necessary” (Luke 10:42) when it comes to the liturgy.

            Let us all hope, pray, and work with our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, so that the liturgy may more and more effectively renew the Church and transform the World. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction … 10

1^st Part: An Acceptable Sacrifice … 14

I. The Mass Defined and Explained … 16
II. The Initial Liturgical Reform … 45
            A. “Propitiatory Sacrifice” Versus “Community Meal”… 45
            B. Theological Shifts in the Mass … 52
            C. Reasons Given for the Shift … 62
III. The Church Believes as She Prays … 75
            A. Liturgical Law … 75
            B. Correcting Liturgical Abuse, Ensuring Right Practice … 83

2^nd Part: Various Liturgical Issues and Abuses:

            General Principles and Matters … 87

IV. Sacred Liturgy … 89

V. Sacred Priesthood and Ministry … 97

VI. Sacred Dress … 116

VII. Sacred Language … 126

VIII. Sacred Orientation … 145

IX. Sacred Space … 155

X. Sacred Art … 160

XI. Sacred Architecture … 176

XII. Sacred Furnishings … 189

XIII. Sacred Music … 213

3^rd Part: Various Liturgical Issues and Abuses:
            Liturgies and Specific Parts of the Mass … 250

XIV. The Roman Liturgy … 252

XV. Holy Communion … 309
XVI. Holy Triduum … 353

XVII. Ordination, Matrimony, Funerals, Reconciliation … 387

4^th Part: Reforming the Liturgical Reform … 422
XVIII. Tridentine Mass Versus the New Order of the Mass … 424

XIX. The Reform of the Liturgical Reform … 462
XX: “Go, You Are Sent” … 475

Outline … 486
Citations … 532           
Bibliographical Notes … 540

Eastern Contradiction re: Clerical Celibacy

After a lengthy absence from the "blogosphere", an online acquaintance directed me to a new article by Dr. Peters about Canon 277. So my first post in months is about, well, what has apparently become my pet topic (and his as well, or so it would seem). Perhaps we have bigger fish to fry, but I tend to think clerical celibacy, and preserving it, is a pretty big fish. Make no mistake - it is being threatened.
 
Here are my thoughts in response to his article (which I would also encourage everyone to read) ... 



I would go a step further than Cardinal Burke and say, "The implementation of a practice in contradiction to a clear and solid theoretical foundation" which I believe is already there (and has long been) in the Catholic Tradition regarding the connection between orders and celibacy.

The bottom line is this: the current Western practice is in contradiction to the Western theology of orders, which is why the application of the Eastern practice to the permanent diaconate and presbyterate (which was the justification used to allow a married diaconate and implement the pastoral provision) was wrongheaded.

In fact, the Eastern practice itself is in contradiction to its own theology, which I have written about on my blog. I have had 3 readers direct me to the same article from an Eastern monk, which argues that according to Eastern theology, it is not good to have someone living alone, without a community, which is why secular priests are generally married. I responded to two of them, "but what about Eastern bishops - don't they live alone?" Their (cop out) response was always, "we don't know what the Eastern practice is". Well, just today, I was reading an article in the diocesan paper called "Two Lungs" written by a Ukrainian Catholic (there is a large population of them in these parts) who was talking about the life of an Eastern bishop - six of whom he had got to know and befriended in his life. He was talking about how bishops, like Western priests, live alone. So the Eastern argument is that all should live in community, which is why secular priests should marry, but then in the same breath they defend their practice of bishops living alone, without a community? This is a contradiction.

I am also friends with a Ukrainian Orthodox subdeacon who plans on becoming a priest but has delayed his seminary studies so far because, well, none of his romantic relationships have worked out yet. In one of our conversations, he was telling me that the problem with celibate priests is they cannot relate to married couples and thus give them counsel (taken straight out of the Protestant apologetic manual). I said, "is the Eastern bishop the Chief Teacher and Shepherd of his flock?" He said, "Yes". I said, "then how can he teach and guide the faithful with regards to marriage?" He chuckled at first, and then composed himself and said, "Well, he has studied a lot and has a special charism to do so". I said, "so why can't we say the same of celibate priests?" He did not have a response. He also said, "St. Peter was a priest and he was married" (also from the Protestant apologetic manual). I responded, "St. Peter was a bishop - why do you Easterners, who are always telling us we have departed from the apostolic practice, go against the apostolic practice concerning this?" Once again, silence.

This proves that the Eastern practice, or more to the point, the Eastern criticism of the Western practice, backfires because the arguments they use against the Western practice of a celibate priesthood also undercut the Eastern practice of a celibate episcopate.

This was generally understood in the West until Vatican II, when false ecumenism led us to abandon our theology (and common sense) in order to minimize the areas of disagreement we had with the East - one of which was to declare that clerical celibacy was merely a practice and thus the respective disciplines of "both lungs" (another term and concept that has been applied too broadly thanks to that same false ecumenism) were both legitimate and thus complementary rather than contradictory.

Most of the disagreements I have had about this issue have not been with Eastern Catholics (many of whom see the contradiction too - they just happen to fall on the other side of the debate as I do) but with Western Catholics - orthodox ones at that. False ecumenism may have been pushed by "liberals", but for some reason, somehow, orthodox Catholics (including Cardinal Coccopalmerio) were influenced and picked up some of their errors.

Clearly, the Church needs to have this debate. Deliberately leaving the impression that they are equally good and complementary is the dam that is already beginning to burst, though the impression has kept obedient and trusting orthodox Catholics from thinking too deeply about it and therefore continuing to see complementarity in the contradiction.