Philadelphia Chapter

From Jon Frey, LLA Advisory Council Member

Hi Will,

I wanted to let you know that the pastor at Nativity BVM, where Fr. McKale is in residence, has agreed to the offering of the TLM at the parish on a trial basis. No date or time has been announced yet, but the pastor is seeking outside input on possible times and number of interested souls in attending Mass. Those who are interested can mail in a clipping from today’s bulletin to help them schedule the Mass. Due to Fr. McKale’s commitment at Holy Trinity, a regularly scheduled Sunday Mass will not be possible. Also, the first Mass will likely be a Low Mass due to the resources available to the parish (i.e., trained Schola, etc). I have made my interest known to the pastor, and offered any assistance that he may need. I’m sure the response to this and how well the first Mass is attended will impact future decisions.

I would appreciate it if you could post something on the LLA website that this parish is in the early stages of planning its first TLM in almost 40 years. If you could also attach the [following link to the] bulletin, so interested parties could notify the rectory via the form contained in the bulletin, that would be of help as well.

Thanks!
Jon

Click here for the parish bulletin

Rev. Fr. Leonard Goffine’s
The Church’s Year

What is this festival?

This is the festival on which the Church venerates the humility and obedience of Mary who, though not subject to the law of Moses, which required purification and presentation in the temple, yet subjected herself to it. From this comes the name Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the Presentation of Jesus in the temple. It is also called Candlemas, because before Mass on this day the candles used in divine service are blessed and carried in procession.

Why are the candles blessed on this day and carried in procession?

In remembrance of the presentation of Jesus to His Heavenly Father on this day, when the aged Simeon called Him: A light to the revelation of the Gentiles, and the glory of the people of Israel, (Luke II. 32.) and to remind us that, like the five wise virgins, we should go to meet Christ with the light of faith and good works.

With what intention are candles blessed?

With the intention of obtaining from God by their pious use and the prayers of those who devoutly carry them, health of body and soul; that our hearts, through the doctrine of Jesus and the grace of the Holy Ghost, may be interiorly enlightened; and that the fire of the love of God may be kindled in our hearts, purify them from all remains of sin, and make us partakers in the joyous light of heaven, which will never be extinguished.

The Introit of the Mass is: We have received Thy mercy, O God, in the midst of Thy temple: according to Thy name, O God, so also is Thy praise, unto the ends of the earth: Thy right hand is full of justice. Great is the Lord, and exceedingly to be praised: in the city of our God, in His holy mountain. (Ps. XLVII.) Glory etc.

COLLECT Almighty, everliving God, we humbly beseech Thy Majesty, that as Thine only-begotten Son was this day presented in the temple in the substance of our flesh; so we also may, with purified hearts, be presented unto Thee. Thro’. etc.

EPISTLE (Malach. III. 1-4.) Thus Saith The Lord God: Behold, I send my Angel, and he shall prepare the way before my face. And presently the Lord, whom you seek, and the Angel of the testament, whom you desire, shall come to his temple. Behold, he cometh, saith the Lord of hosts, and who shall be able to think of the day of his coming, and who shall stand to see him? For he is like a refining fire, and like the fuller’s herb: and he shall sit refining and cleansing the silver, and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and shall refine them as gold and as silver: and they shall offer sacrifices to the Lord in justice. And the sacrifice of Juda and of Jerusalem shall please the Lord, as the days of old, and the ancient years: saith the Lord Almighty.

EXPLANATION The angel or messenger who shall prepare the way for the Lord, is John the Baptist, (Matt. XI. 10.) and the long desired Ruler and Messiah is Christ, who on this day comes into his temple. He is called the Angel of the testament, because He has arranged between God and man a new and far more excellent covenant than God had made with the Jews; inasmuch as He has given to the Christians not merely temporal but eternal good. This Angel of the testament, Christ, came the first time in all the humility of a little child into the temple, but His second coming at the end of the world will be terrible. The prophet likens Him to a fire which purifies the gold, and to that herb with which cloth is whitened in the fuller’s machine; under which figures he alludes to the severity of judgment, with which Christ will judge the just and the unjust. Pure as refined gold, and as the white linen (corporal) on which the Body of Christ is laid in the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, must be the heart of those who receive Christ in the blessed Sacrament, or seek worthily to offer the holy Sacrifice with the priest.

GOSPEL (Luke II. 22-32.) At that time, After the days of Mary’s purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they carried Jesus to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord, as it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord. And to offer a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtle doves, or two young pigeons. And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem named Simeon, and this man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Ghost was in him. And he had received an answer from the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Christ of the Lord. And he came by the Spirit into the temple. And when his parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the law: he also took him into his arms, and blessed God, and said: Now thou dost dismiss thy servant, O Lord, according to thy word, in peace: Because my eyes have seen thy salvation: which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples: a light to the revelation of the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

Why was Jesus brought into the temple of Jerusalem?

That He might be offered to God, who had commanded the Jews to offer their first-born sons to Him in grateful commemoration of the destroying angel having spared their first-born at the departure from Egypt, when all the firstborn of the Egyptians were slain. (Exodus XII. 12.) These children had to be redeemed afterwards by certain gifts. (Exodus XIII. 13.)

How soon after birth was this offering to be made?

On the fortieth day; for according to the law the mother’s impurity lasted for this length of time after the birth of a boy, after which she went to the temple, and in order to be declared purified, made her offering of purification. (Lev. XII.)

Was Mary subject to this law of purification?

No, for she had not, like other mothers, conceived in sin, and, therefore, did not need purification; but she placed herself with her divine Child among sinners and fulfilled the law by which these were bound. “Nothing”, says St. Bernard, “was impure in her conception, nothing impure in her birth; there was nothing to be cleansed, for the Child itself was the origin of all purity, and came into the world to purify it from sin. Truly, O happy Virgin, thou wast not in need of purification, but thou wouldst pass as a woman among women, as thy Son also passed for a child among children.”

Why did Mary comply with the law of purification?

She did this to give us an example of obedience and true humility, for she interiorly thought little of herself and wished externally to be so regarded; to teach us to thank God for the favors He has shown to our ancestors, for the law of the Jews was given to encourage them to gratitude for the preservation of the first-born of their ancestors from the hands of the destroying angel; (Exodus XII. 12.) and in order not to scandalize, by being regardless of this law, those who did not know that she was not required to observe it.

Learn, O Christian, from Mary’s example to be truly humble and obedient, to be grateful to God for the benefits which your ancestors and parents have received, and to be on your guard never to give scandal, by failing to observe the commandments of God and His Church.

Why did not Mary offer a lamb as did the rich, (Lev. XII. 6). but merely, like the poor, a pair of doves?

Because she was poor, and was not ashamed to appear as such before the world. Mary loved humility and the poverty connected with it. Be not ashamed, therefore, if thou art poor, love poverty the more; but if rich, be poor in spirit, and love the poor and distressed.

How did it come to pass that Simeon met the Saviour in the temple?

Because he was a pious and faithful servant of God, it had been promised him that he should not die, until he had seen the Saviour. When Jesus was brought into the temple, Simeon was inspired by God to go there also, and when he found Jesus there, he by divine inspiration knew Him to be the Messiah, and gave testimony of Him.

See how God rewards those who sincerely love and serve Him, giving Himself to them to be known always more and more!

Why was Simeon ready to die when he had held Jesus in his arms?

Because his wish was fulfilled; for since he had not only seen with his own eyes, but had held in his arms the Desired of all nations, for whom the patriarchs had so vainly longed, what more could he wish than to leave this miserable world, and commend his spirit into the hands of his Saviour?

Why did Simeon call Jesus a light for the revelation of the Gentiles?

Because Jesus had come into the world as the true light, (John I. 9) which was to free the Gentiles from the darkness of superstition and idolatry, and from the blindness and slavery of Satan, as well as to conduct the Jews out of the bondage of the Mosaic Law into the liberty of the children of God. (Gal. IV. 31.)

PRAYER Heavenly Father! look down from Thy throne of mercy upon the face of Thy Anointed in whom Thou art well pleased. Behold, He is this day offered to Thee in the temple for the sins of His brethren. Let this offering please Thee, and move Thee to have compassion on us sinners. In consideration of His humility and obedience, forgive us our pride and disobedience, and grant us, that purified by His blood, we may one day, having like Simeon departed this life in peace, behold Thee as the eternal Light which shall never be extinguished in the temple of Thy glory, be presented to Thee by Mary, our beloved Mother, and love and praise Thee forever. Amen.

INSTRUCTION ON CHURCHING

In the Jewish law (Lev. XII.) women for forty days after the birth of a boy, and for eighty after that of a girl, were regarded as unclean and kept out of the temple, and required, at the end of that time, to bring a lamb as a holocaust, and a dove as a propitiatory sacrifice to the temple, and be pronounced pure by the prayer of the priest. This law does not, it is true, apply to Christian women, because the Church has abolished the Jewish ceremonies: but the Church, nevertheless, permits them to remain absent from church for six weeks, or so long as circumstances may require, after the birth of a child, in order to take care of their health. This should be remembered by husbands, who should see that their wives have the necessary quiet and attendance which nature requires for recovery after the birth of a child. The Church desires that at the end of this time the mother, following Mary’s example, should resort to the church to obtain the blessing of the priest, thank God for her delivery, offer the child to God, praying with the priest for the grace to bring up her offspring in sanctity and piety. This comprises the Churching of women, which is a very old and praiseworthy custom and should not be neglected. This practice was not instituted to prevent their being harmed by the devil, by malicious persons, or by ghosts, and it would be not only a foolish fear, but a superstition to be condemned, if one were to suppose that a woman were liable to harm if she should go abroad before she were churched. The delicate health of women and of children is generally owing to their having injured themselves by want of proper care and attention.

PRAYER Almighty and beneficent God! who didst impose upon our mother Eve, in punishment for her sin, that she should give birth to her children in pain: I offer to Thee all the pains which I have thus suffered in atonement for my sins, and thank Thee, that I have safely brought a child into the-” world, whom I now offer to Thee, according to the example of the Mother of Thine only-begotten Son, for Thy holy service, whom I shall zealously endeavor to educate for Thy honor. Give me but this grace through the intercession and merits of this most blessed Mother. Bless me and my child, and grant, that we may here live in accordance with Thy divine will, and receive eternal salvation. Through Christ, our Lord, &c. Amen.

From Fisheaters
Demonic Possession Stuns Authorities
Posted on January 29, 2014 by S. Brinkmann

Authorities in Gary, Indiana were stunned by the demonic possession of a woman and her three children that saw a nine year-old boy walk backward up a wall and a little girl levitate above her bed.

According to IndyStar.com, whose report was gleaned from over 800 pages of official records, it all started when Indianapolis resident Latoya Ammons and her family moved into a rental home on Carolina Street in Gary in November, 2011. Not long after Latoya, her mother, Rosa Campbell, and her three children ages 6, 9 and 12 moved into the home, strange things started happening.

First, it was the flies, big and black and swarming all over their screened-in porch in the middle of December. No matter how many they killed, the bugs kept coming back.

Then came the occasional sound of footsteps climbing the basement stairs and coming into the kitchen, even though no one was ever there. One night, Rosa awoke in the middle of the night and saw a shadowy figure pacing in the living room. When she turned on the lights, no one was there, except for a set of large, wet boot prints.

In March, 2012, the strange occurrences escalated beyond that of an annoyance when Latoya came into her 12 year-old daughter’s bedroom in the middle of the night and saw the child levitating in the air above the bed. The girl was sound asleep.

At this point, Latoya and her mother realized they needed help, but the police and local churches refused to listen. At best, officials at one church visited the home and determined that it had spirits in it and recommended that they use bleach and ammonia to clean the house, then use oil to draw crosses on all the doors and windows.

That didn’t work, nor did the advice of two clairvoyants who said the home was filled with more than 200 demons and suggested the family move. Unfortunately, they couldn’t afford to do so.

Instead they took the clairvoyants’ advice and built an altar in the basement, which seemed to be the source of the problem, and place a candle and statues of Jesus, Mary and Joseph on it. They also burned sage and sulfur throughout the house, starting upstairs and working their way down. All the while, they read Psalm 91 aloud, “You shall not fear the terror of the night . . .”

That didn’t work either. In fact, things just got worse.

The demons began to possess both Latoya and the children but not Rosa, who claims she “and others like her” have protection from demons, although the Star does not state what kind of protection this is.

During the possession, the children’s eyes would bulge, evil smiles would cross their faces and their voices would deepen. Latoya claimed to feel weak, lightheaded and warm when she was possessed. Her body would shake and she’d feel out of control.

Rosa said the demons once threw her now seven year-old grandchild out of the bathroom and smacked her granddaughter in the head with a headboard so hard she required stitches. The girl would later tell mental health professionals that she sometimes felt as if something was holding her down and choking her.

Some nights were so bad the family slept at a hotel, the Star reports.

They finally reached out to their family doctor, Dr. Geoffrey Onyeukwu, on April 19, 2012. Dr. Onyeukwu found their story to be “bizarre” and wrote “delusions of ghost in home” and “hallucinations” in his medical notes.

But that wasn’t to be the final word on this story. Even while the family was still in his office, the Ammon boys began cursing the doctor in demonic voices. Medical staff said the youngest child was “lifted and thrown into the wall with nobody touching him.” Both boys abruptly passed out and could not be awakened.

Staff called 911 and more than a half dozen police showed up with multiple ambulances. The boys were taken to Methodist Hospital’s campus in Gary where they were revived. The older boy was okay, but the youngest was said to scream and thrash and required five grown men to hold him down.

Meanwhile, the Department of Child Services (DCS) was called to investigate the family for possible child abuse. The case was given to Valerie Washington who reported that while the family was being examined by medical staff, the seven year-old began growling and showing his teeth and his eyes began rolling back in his head. At one point, he put his hands around his brother’s throat and refused to let go until staff intervened.

Later that evening, Washington and a registered nurse named Willie Lee Walker brought the two boys into an examining room along with Rosa. The youngest began to growl at his brother again and threatened, “It’s time to die. I will kill you” in a deep, unnatural voice.

Suddenly, a weird grin crossed the older boy’s face and staff looked on in astonishment as he got up and began walking backward up the wall until he reached the ceiling where he flipped over and landed on his feet.

“He walked up the wall, flipped over her and stood there,” Walker told The Star. “There’s no way he could’ve done that.”

Terrified, Washington and Walker both ran out of the room.

The three children were taken into protective custody.

Finally, someone contacted the hospital chaplain who got in touch with Father Michael Maginot at St. Stephen, Martyr Parish, in Merrillville who asked him to perform an exorcism on the nine year-old boy.

Maginot agreed to interview Latoya and her mother and said even while he was doing so, strange things were happening, such as lights flickering on and off, Venetian blinds swinging without any sign of a breeze and wet footprints appearing on the living room rug. Latoya complained about a headache and started convulsing when Maginot put a crucifix on her head.

After a four-hour interview, Maginot came away convinced that the family was being tormented by demons and received permission from Bishop Dale Melczek to perform an exorcism on Latoya. Bishop Melczek said it was the first time in his 21 years as bishop of the Diocese of Gary that he had done so.

Two police officers and DCS case manager Samantha Ilic accompanied Maginot on the day he performed the first ritual. Ilic later said the whole time the prayers were being said, “we felt like someone was in the room . . . breathing down your neck.”

She experienced several medical problems after visiting the home and police officers said their radios wouldn’t work and one officer’s car seats began moving back and forth on their own.

Ultimately, it took three exorcisms to free Latoya from the demons who were possessing her and her family.

Latoya regained custody of her three children and they are now living in peace in a new home in Indianapolis.

From Mark Matthews

First Saturday, February 1, A.D. 2014, Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) will be offered by Fr. Harold B. Mc Kale of Nativity B.V.M. Roman Catholic Church, at the Rectory Chapel of St. Albert The Great Parish, 212 Welsh Road, Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006, (T) 215-947-3500, at 9:00 a.m. preceded by Confessions at 8:30 a.m. Fr. Mc Kale will be offering the Mass of St. Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop and Martyr, in Reparation to The Immaculate Heart of Mary.

First Friday, February 7, A.D. 2014, Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) will be offered by Fr. Gerald P. Carey of Our Lady of Perpetual Help Roman Catholic Church, also at the Rectory Chapel of St. Albert The Great Parish, 212 Welsh Road, Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006, (T) 215-947-3500, at 7 p.m. preceded by Confessions at 6:30 p.m. Fr. Carey will be offering a Votive Mass of The Sacred Heart in Reparation to The Sacred Heart of Jesus.

The Rectory, also known as the Parish Center, is behind the Church, which fronts on Welsh Road.

Thank you for publicizing these Traditional Latin Masses.

From Father Carbonaro

A Solemn High Mass in the Extraordinary Form will be celebrated for the Solemnity of Saint Joseph, Wednesday March 19, 2014, at Our Lady of the Assumption Parish, Strafford, Pa. Rosary will be prayed beginning at 6:40 p.m., with Mass to follow at 7:00 p.m. Celebrant will be Father Dennis J. Carbonaro, Pastor of Our Lady of the Assumption, and Homilist will be Msgr. Charles L. Sangermano, Pastor, Holy Saviour, Norristown. Following Mass a reception will be held in the Parish Hall. A collection will be taken up to help defray some of the expenses incurred for this celebration.

P.S. Let’s all show our support and appreciation of Fr. Carbonaro. We all remember him as a regular celebratant of the Missa Cantata at St. Paul’s.

by Ben Yanke

On the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, The Most Rev Edward J Slattery will be celebrating a pontifical Solemn Mass, with the blessing of candles beforehand, at the National Shrine of the Infant of Prague in Prague, OK. This will be one of the first solemn pontifical Masses celebrated at the Shrine in more than 50 years, and this year, the shrine celebrates 65 years of existence. The Mass will be on February 2nd.

It may also be noted that Bishop Slattery is a great supporter of both the Extraordinary Form, as well as the reform of the reform, as it relates to the Ordinary Form. He now celebrates his Ordinary Form Masses ad orientem in his Cathedral, and also celebrates the Extraordinary Form there as well (he celebrated a pontifical Mass there as recently as October of this year!).

Additionally, it is a day of indulgence at the shrine for those who attend and fulfill the normal requirements.

It is also likely that the Mass will be broadcast on EWTN. More details will be provided here as we receive them.

Update: The rector has just informed me that they will indeed carry it on EWTN. They are just unsure whether it will be taped or live. Also, he has some additional information about the shrine where this Mass will be celebrated:

This National Shrine was established in 1949, at the end of WWII, when the local pastor needed to build a new church and entrusted his need to the Infant of Prague; the local bishop, being prophetic, and knowing that communism had swept across Europe and thus blocking pilgrims from going to Prague Czechoslovokia, told the pastor to write to Rome to request permission for pilgrims to make their way to a town of the same name, so as to accomplish the devotions to the Holy Infant here in the states. In a town of 2300 people, and a parish of less than 100 families, the Shrine now has over 8000 members from all 50 states and 15 foreign countries, and has an annual attendance of over 75,000 people. Devotees from everywhere come to honor the Infant King and to seek His blessings and special favors, knowing, “the more you honor me, the more I will bless you,” (the lesson learned in the 16th century when the Carmelites of Prague received the original image from the Crown Princess who married the Grand Duke of Bohemia and gave the then 600 year old statue to the Order).

This year, the 65th anniversary will see several celebrations marking it. The Carmelite Generalate, who in August 1949 established the Shrine, gave the Shrine 29 days of Indulgence, including the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Most shrines, cathedrals and basilicas are given just one or two. The National Shrine of the Infant of Prague is so blessed and richly enhanced with so many days of indulgence. Many pilgrims come seeking the Lord’s blessings and hearings. The church, the grounds and the bookstore welcome pilgrims from all over the world. Situated on the boundaries between the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa, it is one of the best kept secrets in the midwest.

The image of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, the most important image of Our Lady for the Carmelite community will be crowned by Bishop Slattery at the end of the Mass. She is a gift to the Shrine from Shrine members in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area. Our Lady of Mt. Carmel is the only image from when Our Blessed Mother appeared on earth, holding Her beloved Son, and the only time she ever spoke English (as an approved apparition), when she spoke to St. Simon Stock on Mt. Carmel.

by Peter Kwasniewski

Pope John Paul II pointed out: “For many people, the message of the Second Vatican Council was perceived principally through the liturgical reform” (Vicesimus Quintus Annus, 12).

That’s just the problem in a nutshell, isn’t it? If the liturgical reform itself was bungled—and, in the wake of the scathing critiques of Gamber, Ratzinger, Nichols, Lang, Mosebach, Robinson, Reid, et alia, it is no longer intellectually honest to think that it was not, in some very important respects—and, what is worse, if its implementation was still further compromised by the prevailing secularism of the environment into which it was launched, one must ask: What version, or rather, what caricature, of Vatican II did those many people perceive whose idea of the Council came, perhaps exclusively, from the liturgical revolution?

They took in little or nothing of the authentic doctrine of the Council—the salubrious doctrine that, according to John XXIII’s intention and the very words of Vatican II itself, fully accorded with the teaching of former ecumenical councils, especially those of Trent and Vatican I. Instead of bread, the faithful were given a stone. Instead of substantive content, the faithful were given a hermeneutic, a manner of viewing the Church, her teaching, her tradition, her liturgy—and it was decisively one of rupture and discontinuity. To be Catholic in those heady days meant to be different, to be other, to be up-to-date; it certainly did not mean to be stably the same, consistent with one’s past, reliant on tradition. The Church was no longer the Mystical Body and Immaculate Bride of Christ; the Church was reform, reform without an end in sight, without even much of a plan, reform for the sake of reform. As the famous Protestant theologian Karl Barth asked in the wake of the Council: “When will the Church know that it is sufficiently updated?” I think that’s what you call a rhetorical question.

Tragically, generations of clergy have been trained in the same hermeneutic of rupture and discontinuity, including most of the world’s bishops. That is why the unexpected resurgence of traditional forms of faith and worship among young people, mounting at times to passionate commitment, is a source of bewilderment, consternation, and even anger to them. Due to their training and mental habits, such clergy equate today’s liturgy and its multitudinous aberrations with Vatican II, and hence equate a love of or preference for the traditional liturgy and the culture surrounding it with a rejection of Vatican II. This might be true for some people, but it isn’t true across the board, and it need not be true at all.

It does not seem to matter that the traditional liturgy and the integral Catholic life it sustains is, in fact, profoundly in harmony with the best and greatest teachings of the Council—one need only think of Lumen Gentium, Dei Verbum, and even Sacrosanctum Concilium. It does not matter that Pope Benedict XVI, the greatest theologian to sit on the Chair of Peter for centuries, saw continuity between his own liturgical doctrine and praxis and that of the Council to which he made significant contributions. No, it does not matter, because it doesn’t look that way to Catholics ignorant of the Council’s documents, ignorant of the liturgical patrimony of the Church, and poorly formed by almost fifty years of liturgical abuse.

What is necessary today is to show, patiently, persistently, and accurately, with the humility and confidence born of careful study, that the fathers of Vatican II did not desire or ask for the liturgical reform that came out of Bugnini’s Consilium, that the Novus Ordo Missae is not in full accord with Sacrosanctum Concilium (see here or here), and that the teaching of the sixteen official documents of Vatican II supports rather than dismantles traditional Catholic theology and piety. The least we can do, in any case, is not to allow ourselves to be tossed to and fro, carried about by every wind of secondhand half-truths or tendentious readings that emphasize rupture, whether modernist or traditionalist in source.

It is true that there are problems, difficulties, and ambiguities in the conciliar documents. It is true that not every formulation is immune to legitimate criticism—even Ratzinger complained that parts of Gaudium et Spes were “downright Pelagian.” And it is beyond doubt that there were bishops and periti at the Council who sought to infuse modernism into the documents and, to some extent, succeeded in influencing the formulations. But it is still more certain that the final documents, reviewed so many times and passed through the crucible of papal and conciliar scrutiny, are, with few exceptions, sound in content and form; and it is most certain that they are free from error in faith and morals, being the formal acts of an ecumenical council and solemnly promulgated by the Pope. We must never, as it were, abandon the Council to the modernists; this would only play into the devil’s hands.

In any case, it is not simply this most recent Council that gives us our map and marching orders; it is the entirety of Catholic Tradition and the totality of the Magisterium for the past 2,000 years, of which this Council is but a part, and within which it is rightly understood. We know that in principle, no reading of Vatican II can possibly be right that results in formal contradiction between past and present. We are guided by all of the Church’s teaching, not just the most recent. Indeed, we are blessed to belong to a body that, while it develops over time, cannot essentially change. The partisans of perpetual change can have their bizarre liturgies and politically correct catechisms, but they will no longer—or not for much longer—be Catholics.

From Father Carbonaro

A Solemn High Mass in the Extraordinary Form will be celebrated for the Solemnity of Saint Joseph, Wednesday March 19, 2014, at Our Lady of the Assumption Parish, Strafford, Pa. Rosary will be prayed beginning at 6:40 p.m., with Mass to follow at 7:00 p.m. Celebrant will be Father Dennis J. Carbonaro, Pastor of Our Lady of the Assumption, and Homilist will be Msgr. Charles L. Sangermano, Pastor, Holy Saviour, Norristown. Following Mass a reception will be held in the Parish Hall. A collection will be taken up to help defray some of the expenses incurred for this celebration.

P.S. Let’s all show our support and appreciation of Fr. Carbonaro. We all remember him as a regular celebratant of the Missa Cantata at St. Paul’s.

by Peter Kwasniewski

Over the past 20 years, I have often encountered or noticed a curious phenomenon. One might refer to it as “Vatican II weariness.” Briefly described, it is the attitude of being tired out by the very topic of the Council; not really caring to discuss it because the Vatican II just seems so incredibly long-winded in its documents, so controversial, so trapped in its time period—and, well, can’t we just get on with life and stop worrying so much about it?

We had a Year of Faith that was supposed to be dedicated, at least in large part, to a rediscovery and re-reading of the documents of the last Council. Granted, Benedict XVI dropped a bombshell during this Year and pretty much tore everyone’s minds off of his original intention. Still, even if he had never abdicated the chair of Peter, wouldn’t many people be dragging their feet when it comes to re-reading those sixteen documents? Wasn’t the great upheaval of the election of Pope Francis and his megaton interviews a worthy excuse for quietly filing away Benedict’s original script for this special Year? At least many people acted that way. A period of time in which we are ticking off many half-century conciliar milestones appears to be unfolding in an atmosphere of surprising indifference.

I have often wondered what is the root cause of this Vatican II malaise. Some traditionalists would say the cause is the very muddledness and problematic pastorality of the Council itself; but that, of course, is a begging of the question, since people would have to read and study the Council first in order to reach a fair judgment that it’s muddled and problematic—and that’s what we don’t see happening on a large scale. Your typical liberal might just as well appeal or not appeal to Vatican II, whether he has read a single sentence of it or not.

My theory is that it is precisely those who have abused Vatican II by continually ignoring or even counterfeiting its teaching who have produced a situation in which the same Council is becoming increasingly distant, wearisome, vexed, and irrelevant. For example, had there been a clear and humble acceptance of the teaching of Sacrosanctum Concilium, and, therefore, had the Church been free from widespread liturgical abuses and the hermeneutic of rupture that is still the modus operandi of most parish communities, there can be no question that the traditionalist movement would have spent far less of its time critiquing Vatican II as such. Put simply: it was not inherently necessary that the Council become a lightning-rod of discontent. It was made to be that by the purveyors of its “spirit.”

If Vatican II dies the death of an irrecoverable failure, it will be solely the fault of the progressives who thought they could ride the horse of Vatican II all the way home to a “new Church,” and who met with considerable success in persuading the world to believe the same lie. As there is one Body of Christ planned from all eternity, sojourning on earth in the unity of faith and charity, and destined to live forever, there cannot ever be a “new Church.” Those who were content to remain in the one and only Church there is can hardly be blamed for turning a deaf ear to so much tiresome twaddle about the Council. Over time, the historical Council insensibly merged with the virtual or media Council, and as a result, the real teaching, the authentic documents, have become marginalized.

Imagine with me a counterfactual situation in which, because the Council had been judiciously received and faithfully implemented, traditionalists of 2014 would be shoring up their spiritual counsels and pastoral plans with frequent citations of the Council, even if they might be uncomfortable with some of the ambiguous language or the novel directions taken in certain documents. But we are now radically polarized, and Vatican II has become a source of dismay because of the liberals and the modernists who insisted on selfishly abusing it for their own agendas back in the 60s and 70s and up to the present. It will be their ignominy in the annals of the Church to be the ones who defeated the hopes of John XXIII by dropping the atomic bomb on the new springtime and leading us into a nuclear winter.

It is no wonder that Pope Francis spoke so highly of Archbishop Marchetto and his correct hermeneutic of the Council. If there is ever to be a future fruitful reception and application of the Second Vatican Council, it will be purchased by that hermeneutic and by no other.

by Ben Yanke

The Latin Mass: The Journal of Catholic Culture and Tradition has specially shared with NLM an article by Dr. Nicholas Postgate that appears in their current issue, which has just been mailed out. Readers will find the entire article posted as a PDF, but here are some excerpts to whet the appetite (or sizzle the ears).

Certainly many readers of NLM will not agree with everything Postgate says—and, of course, NLM itself is an open forum for many perspectives ranging from a rigorous restorationism to a broad-minded reform of the reform. However, the work of a new liturgical movement can only be enriched and enlivened by having these perspectives out in the open, unedited, for the consideration of the public, and it is with the intention of promoting the larger conversation that we open the gate for this post.

The massive crisis in the Church since the Second Vatican Council, especially in the affluent Western countries, doubtless has many and complex causes, but I am convinced that the foremost cause of it is the fact that churchmen have betrayed much of Catholic tradition and legislation, and have merited a certain divine punishment as a result—let us call it a period of disciplinary suffering as an invitation to repentance and conversion. Bishops, priests, and sometimes even popes have, practically speaking, turned their backs on the preconciliar liturgy and magisterium as well as on many points in the actual teaching of the Second Vatican Council, and this is a kind of sin against the Holy Spirit, one that serves as a standing impediment to true renewal. This impediment will not go away of its own accord, but only through a conscientious repudiation of discontinuity and a courageous effort to rebuild the desolate city.

For example, the Second Vatican Council, in harmony with the Magisterium before it, says that the language of the liturgy is and shall remain Latin, while allowing for a limited use of the vernacular, and that Gregorian chant has and shall have chief place as the music proper to the Roman Rite. To the extent that the Church has abandoned Latin and chant or allowed them to be abandoned, she has rejected the decisions of the Council and therefore deserves to be deprived of that “second spring” for which Pope John XXIII prayed. He prayed for it sincerely, and he was a saintly soul. But even for saints the Lord does not grant every prayer—at least not according to their own understanding of their intentions—and it is clear that we are still in the midst of the deepest, darkest, coldest winter the Church has ever known. The Church will fail miserably in the New Evangelization unless she first cleans up her own house.

As bishop, cardinal, and pope, Joseph Ratzinger did not believe that pretending or keeping quiet was the approach to take. So many of the faithful clergy and laity have, for decades, sat back twiddling our thumbs while the Church has been crumbling around us, for fear of speaking hard truths. While we must always intend to speak with humility, charity, and respect for legitimate authority, it can never help to tiptoe gingerly around the real issues that face us—beginning with the absolutely unprecendented rupture in the Roman liturgy that was perpetrated by Pope Paul VI. One may not contest the validity or licitness of the Novus Ordo, but one may seriously question its fidelity to Vatican II, its continuity with the Tradition, the pastoral wisdom of its promulgation, and its long-term viability. These are wide-open questions that we can and must discuss for the sake of the Church’s common good—a good that is not exclusively the hierarchy’s concern, although the hierarchy makes final dispositions and judgments concerning it, but one that extends to and involves every Catholic according to his abilities and circumstances.

In a technical sense the pope has the authority to change the human elements of the liturgy, but such an exercise of papal authority risks bringing many evils in its wake. When Paul VI, in virtue of promulgating the new Missale Romanum, abolished the Offertory rite of the traditional Mass or the Octave of Pentecost, did he have the authority of office to do so? Undeniably. But did he do the right thing—was this a virtuous exercise of papal authority, or could it have been a moral abuse of his power, one that was destined to produce bad fruits? A pope should receive the benefit of the doubt whenever possible, but there is by now simply too much evidence, both theoretical and practical, of the failure of the liturgical reform and its implementation to allow us to be ostriches with our heads stuck in the sand of pious platitudes. Can anyone read the sober scholarly work of Dr. Lauren Pristas on how the orations of the new Missal were produced by a modernism-driven committee with scissors and glue, and come away feeling anything other than a sense of profound tragedy and even righteous indignation? The Catholic people were robbed of their tradition. No wonder the Church is in a state of crisis!

The Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, the Missal of Paul VI, is irreparably broken. . . . As far as incremental reform goes (for example, if we look to how some Oratorians celebrate the new rite), nearly every successful step has involved adding or substituting something from the old Missal, or removing something painfully novel. In most respects, the Ordinary Form becomes better by becoming the Extraordinary Form. As such, the Ordinary Form does not so much need to be reformed as it needs to be retired, so that the genuine Roman Rite may once again occupy its proper place in the life of the Catholic Church, as it had done for centuries before.

. . . we will never find a solution to our crisis until we recover our innermost Catholic identity through the celebration of the traditional Sacred Liturgy. When the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Divine Office, and the sacramental rites of the Church are once again offered to God in a manner truly in continuity with Catholic Tradition, then and only then will come that Second Spring about which postconciliar Popes have spoken with such premature confidence; only then will the New Evangelization begin in earnest, with the Mass of the Ages as its pulsing heart.