The Bishop's Weekly Column from the Parish Bulletin

OUR LADY OF FATIMA

CATHOLIC CHURCH

The Two "Premises" of "Traditionalism" Re-examined

February 24, 2006

Fr Cekada has written:

TRADITIONALISTS (apart from Indult types) usually agree on two general points:

(1) The New Mass (as well as much post-Vatican II legislation) is evil and harmful to the faith.

(2) The teachings of Vatican II and the post-Vatican II hierarchy (on ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, the Church, etc.) often contradict pre-Vatican II teachings, and at least fall under the heading of “doctrinal error” — a general term for “all doctrine at variance with the truths of the faith.”

In a nutshell he's right, that is what Trads have been led to believe by the poorly trained clergy that emerged from Econe in its heyday in the 70s and early 80s but let's take these points one by one:

When I read the first point I was stopped in my tracks. "The New Mass is evil ?" I asked myself. I never quite heard it put that way before. I really started thinking now ! In the meanderings and musings for the last few weeks on this point, my mind went back to some words of an interview with Cardinal Medina Estevez last year:

I must say that there are certain prayers of the old Rite, notably the offertory prayers, which seem to me to possess a truly extraordinary richness, which ought at least, in my opinion, to have been kept as an alternative. I tried in the publication of the third edition of the Roman Missal but was blocked by quite strong opposition...and I had to give it up. Without backtracking, of course, on my impression that there are some beautiful things that it would have been necessary to keep for the richness of the spiritual life and above all because they greatly highlight the sacrificial character of the Holy Mass

Because the three aspects of the Eucharist: the sacrifice, the Real Presence and the Communion are interlinked, and the primary one of them is the sacrificial aspect. Communion flows from the sacrificial aspect; and it is the Real Presence that gives the deeper meaning to the sacrificial offering. I have always been very aware of this aspect since my youth. I recall that the first theological article that I wrote after my priestly ordination was on the Mass as a sacrifice more than 50 years ago. That's why I enormously appreciated the last encyclical of John Paul II on the Mass as a sacrifice Ecclesia de Eucharistia, where the word "sacrifice" appears at least 42 times. (...)

It remains to be hoped, for my part, that certain elements eliminated from the old rite should become alternatives in the new rite; for example, the offertory prayers, and the prayer at the end of the mass, like the offering of the sacrifice to the Holy Trinity - extremely beautiful and pedagogical prayers in my opinion.

Medina quite rightly states that the offertory prayers of the Traditional Mass emphasize the sacrificial aspect of the Mass. The offertory prayers of the New Mass emphasize the "meal" aspect of the Mass. Most Trads would agree with the Cardinal's assessment that the offertory prayers of the Traditional Mass are "extremely beautiful and pedagogical prayers". Yes the prayers of the liturgy actually instruct us in our Faith. They teach us what we believe as Catholics. Cekada's point about the New Mass being evil hinges on the teaching aspect of the prayers of the New Mass which highlight different realities than the offertory prayers of the Traditional Mass.

There is, however, an obvious fallacy here which almost all Trads have mistakenly overlooked and it is this: the offertory prayers in the Traditional Mass are recited inaudibly by the priest and, until the late 19th century, hand missals for laity, (if they could read at all) were not available. Similarly, in the New Mass, where a hymn is sung at the offertory, the celebrant prays the prayers silently as well. Thus in either the old or the new rite the offertory prayers themselves can and may not be heard. So if we were to ask some illiterate peasant what was being said and done at the altar in either rite they wouldn't, without instruction, have a clue. The "prayers" would, in this case, have no "pedagogical" value whatsover. Conclusion: the texts of the New Mass cannot be causing a loss of Faith, nor are they in themselves intrinsically evil, so what is going on here ?

I think the distinctions between matter and form or that of substance and accidents in philosophy explain the problem. The matter / substance is the text of the Mass as it stands printed in the Missal. The form / accidents of the Mass are the variables such as the priest who offers the Mass: What is his personal piety like? Does he follow the rubrics ? Are the correct elements used (unleavened bread of wheat / sacramental altar wine etc) ? Is the ceremony performed with reverence ? What things are preached in the sermon: orthodox Catholicism or heresy ? And so on.

We have all watched the Masses celebrated by the new Pope in Rome since April, and at this point I offer some anecdotal evidence to prove my point: when Cardinal Ratzinger was celebrating the funeral Mass for Pope John Paul II, the Mass for the conclave and his own inaugural Mass, parishioners in Spring Hill, I mean educated ones, thought the Mass he was celebrating was the Tridentine one. I had a hard time convincing them that it was, in point of fact, the Novus Ordo. Almost in every case the people, once disabused of the idea that it was "our" Mass, commented on the reverence of the New Mass, and the beauty of the singing etc. (No I'm not advocating celebrating the Novus Ordo) I'm just illustrating that the New Mass cannot be said to be evil in itself and that ultimately the reason for the decline in Mass attendance, in belief in the modern church has to hinge not on the text of the Mass, but on the secondary and accidental aspects such as the personal piety, vestments, reverence, adherence to rubrics etc. Thus for example you have this:

both are Novus Ordo Masses but two quite different approaches.

The second point about the council contradicting the previous magisterium has been dealt with before and we reproduce it again:

That Vatican II has points of teaching at apparent divergence with the Magisterium prior to the Second Vatican Council is accepted by most traditionalists. The question which we have now to consider, though, is could an Ecumenical Council err and give us bogus teaching as the Society (and others) allege ?

Here is Catholic teaching on the matter:

At Vatican I Bishop Vincent Gasser made an interesting intervention on the subject of Papal infallibility and its exercise by the body of bishops in an ecumenical council. Gasser's Relatio, as it is called, is the tool, par excellence, for a true understanding of the Pope's infallibility. Gasser said in part:

Further, we do not separate the Pope infallibly defining from the co-operation and concourse of the Church, at any rate in this sense, that we do not exclude such co-operation and such concourse of the Church. The end is the preservation of truth in the Church, generally when some controversy arises, and some question is referred to the Holy See for settlement. Here we do not exclude the co-operation of the Church, because the Pope's infallibility does not come to him by way of inspiration or revelation, but by way of divine assistance. Hence the Pope is bound by his office and the gravity of the matter to take the means apt for ascertaining the truth and enouncing it; and such means are Councils, or the counsel of bishops, cardinals, theologians, etc. These means will be different in different cases; and we ought piously to believe that in the divine assistance given to Peter and his successors by Christ there is included a promise as to the means necessary and apt for making an infallible judgement by the Pope.

Finally, we do not in the least separate the Pope from the consent of the Church, provided that consent be not put as a condition, be it antecedent or consequent consent. We cannot separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent can never be withheld. As we believe the Pope to be by divine assistance infallible, we thereby believe also that the assent of the Church. can never be wanting to these definitions; as it is not possible that the body of bishops can be separated from their head, nor can the universal Church fail.

The Vatican Council Volume 2, Dom Cuthbert Butler OSB, New York, 1930 pp 136 & 7

So an Ecumenical council, since it consists in the gathering together of the Church's bishops, cannot teach error because the universal Church cannot fail. This idea is echoed in another work:

So an Ecumenical council, since it consists in the gathering together of the Church's bishops, cannot teach error because the universal Church cannot fail. This idea is echoed in another work:

The mission of the Holy Ghost is so to guide the leaders of the Church that they do not fall into error, and with them the whole Church of Christ. They are not, however, thereby in the smallest degree released from their duty to think, and a General Council (at which is presented the teaching of the Church as a whole) does not make its decisions at random, as might some Delphic oracle, nor work in a sort of trance. The preparations for such a Council follow a perfectly businesslike and matter-of-fact course.

Bishops from all over the world, accompanied by their theologians, meet together, and only after much prayer, and study, and discussion, do they come, under the guidance of the Pope, to some final conclusion: that is to say to a considered judgment of the Church as a whole.

On such an occasion one may be infallibly assured of the presence of the Holy Ghost, since otherwise it would be possible for the entire Church to fall into error. When reached, such a final conclusion, which is usually expressed in a short, clear formula, is called a dogma.

A declaration of this kind is never a matter of surprise to the Faithful for, as has already been said, the germ of every dogma of the Church is already contained in divine Revelation. Thus a newly formulated dogma has necessarily already been a matter of general belief within the Church. It is however possible, of course, that some people still had an open mind upon the subject; but, after a solemn pronouncement of this kind by the Pope, either alone or in conclave with the bishops, every doubt is removed. Should anyone, after such a formal statement, still obstinately and against his better judgment, continue to deny the truth of that dogma, he would be called a heretic and place himself outside the communion of the Faithful.

The Triptych of the Kingdom - A Handbook of the Catholic Faith Dr. S.G.M. Van Doornik, Rev. S. Jelsma, Rev. A. Van de Lisdonk, Glasgow 1954, p 122

Indeed another great theologian makes a rather similar observation:

205 PROPOSITION. The college of bishops, whether gathered in an ecumenical council, or dispersed throughout the world but morally united to the supreme pontiff, in its teaching on matters of faith and morals, is infallible.

This proposition is of faith.

In the analysis of this proposition, keep in mind the principles laid down above (see nos. 77-99) about the object, nature, and conditions of infallibility.

The first part of this proposition states that the college of bishops is endowed with the charism of infallibility when it is assembled together somewhere in an ecumenical council. What is required to constitute an ecumenical council will be explained in detail below (no. 207). Here we emphasize simply one point: there cannot be an ecumenical council without the consent and cooperation of the supreme pontiff (CIC 222).

The second part of the proposition states that the college of bishops is also endowed with infallibility when dispersed throughout the world, but morally united with the Roman pontiff. In other words, when the individual bishops, residing in their home dioceses, unanimously propose the same doctrine as the pope and impose that doctrine in unqualified fashion, they are infallible.

The doctrinal agreement of the bishops dispersed throughout the world can be discerned in a variety of ways: for example, from the catechisms they allow to be published for the instruction of the faithful; from the pastoral instructions the bishops issue to oppose some erroneous doctrine which is beginning to spread; from the decrees of local councils held in various parts of the world; from the fact that a given doctrine is normally preached throughout the entire Catholic world in sermons to the people, or is found regularly in prayerbooks possessing episcopal approbation, and so forth.

It hardly needs stating that the unanimity of the bishops does not have to be mathematically universal, as though the dissent of one or two bishops would cripple the teaching power of the rest of the episcopal college. What suffices is a morally universal unanimity which in most instances will not be difficult to determine, even though it is impossible to fix mathematically the minimum requirements for such unanimity. On the other hand, no matter how unanimous the agreement of bishops might conceivably be, such unanimity would never suffice for infallibility if the Roman pontiff were to be in opposition to it. We deliberately use the phrase, "might conceivably be," because the more probable opinion of theologians maintains that factually it could never happen that a majority of the bishops would depart from the doctrine of the pope.

Even though the proposition as laid down above has never been explicitly defined, it is a dogma of faith in both its parts. For ecumenical councils have really been proclaiming their own infallibility every time they exercised it; and they have exercised it every time they have handed down a definitive decree condemning heresies. As for the second part of the proposition, the infallibility of the episcopal college dispersed throughout the world was implicitly asserted by the Vatican Council when it stated: «By divine and Catholic faith must be believed all those matters which are contained in the written or handed-down word of God and which are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, whether she does so by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium" (DB 1792).

Proof:

Proof of the proposition is contained in all the arguments given previously (no. 79 ff.) to prove the infallibility of the Church's magisterium; for the magisterium of the Church, viewed concretely, is the body of the bishops united to their head.

The following three brief theological arguments will pinpoint the reasons why the Catholic episcopate, when united to the pope, is endowed with infallibility in teaching matters on faith and morals. Although these arguments speak formally of an «ecumenical council," they are equally applicable to the college of bishops dispersed throughout the world.

1. It has been proven: (a) Christ instituted an infallible magisterium in the apostolic college; (b) this magisterium was to be perpetual or continued in the legitimate successors of the apostles; ( c) the apostolic college is continued by the episcopal college; (d) but an ecumenical council is the episcopal college together with its head. Consequently we have present in an ecumenical council the infallible magisterium instituted by Christ.

2. If the teaching Church in an ecumenical council could fall into error, the universal Church would also err in believing. But the universal Church cannot err in believing, otherwise (contrary to the promise of Christ), "the gates of hell would prevail against her."

8. If an ecumenical council were to err, so too would the pope speaking ex cathedra. But the pope when speaking ex cathedra cannot err, as was previously demonstrated. The conclusion is clear.

First of all, then, the Roman Catholic episcopate exercises infallibility when assembled in conciliar fashion, for a definition by an ecumenical council is the clearest and most solemn way in which the magisterium instituted by Christ can exercise its prerogative. That is why St. Athanasius stated in reference to a decree of the Council of Nicaea: "The word of the Lord expressed through the ecumenical Council of Nicaea will remain forever" (Epistula ad Afros 2); and St. Gregory the Great stated: "For just as I accept and venerate the four books of the Holy Gospel, so, too, do I accept and venerate the four councils. And I likewise equally venerate a fifth council [i.e., should there be a fifth council]" (Epistulae i. 25).

Second, the Roman Catholic episcopate exercises its infallibility when dispersed throughout the world. For Christ's promise of divine assistance to the magisterium of the Church was given in unqualified fashion. Consequently there are no grounds whatsoever to support the restriction of Christ's promise exclusively to the extraordinary case of an ecumenical council. Indeed, in saying: "And mark: I am with you at all times," Christ declared in very plain terms that His help would primarily pertain to that daily and ordinary exercise of teaching power carried on by the episcopacy dispersed throughout the world.

Dogmatic Theologogy Vol II - Christ's Church Monsignor G. Van Noort, Cork, 1958 pp 330 -32

What is strange is that some sedevacantists use this textbook in their seminaries but unhappily they fail to follow the consequences of the Catholic teaching laid out above. Evidently Vatican II was a gathering of the world's bishops and just as evidently the decisions were ratified by Popes John XXIII and Paul VI. Logically if you accept these men as Pope you accept what they ratified as infallible otherwise the only possible conclusion is sedevacantism. We know from Vatican I these men are popes since there will be a perpetual succession in the Petrine Ministry until the end of time; therefore what they have ratified must be Catholic teaching since as Gasser and the theologians cited above unanimously maintain: "it is not possible that the body of bishops can be separated from their head, nor can the universal Church fail.

I'm not an indultarian and no I do not share the supposed two premises of Cekada and his ilk. That is why I wrote a day or so ago: "As far as sedevacantists are concerned, for all their vitriol and shoddy theology, I (...) have more than a little difficulty in believing in a "theology" that sows so much bitterness and discord amongst Catholics.