Although some may not be aware, Roman Catholics can still attend a traditional 'Tridentine' Latin Mass, even in today’s 21st century. The Novus Ordo Missae ("New Order Mass"), promulgated in the 1960's and undergoing frequent "updating", is much more common today, but the traditional Latin Mass, "the Mass of all ages" is making a great comeback among Catholics of all ages. Some might be wondering why anyone would still want to attend an "old Latin Mass" - we are in the 21st century. The majority of people probably don't know a thing about Latin and, to top it off, traditional Latin Masses can be pretty hard to come by, which involve much silence, and require a lot of kneeling (for those physically able). So why is it attracting more youth of today? That's a great question that many Catholics are asking themselves. Nowadays, many younger people who were never exposed to the traditional Latin Mass are flocking to it with great joy. They are in love with the traditional Mass and are willing to undergo long drives to attend licit Latin Masses, and may even be willing to uproot their entire family and move to be near them. Those blessed enough to remember attending the traditional Mass before the 1960's changes may also go through great pains to attend this incomparable Mass. So what is the attraction of this ancient Mass? The reasons for such devotion are many, and they are: * The great reverence of the Mass - evident with the priest and devoted faithful, * The great respect shown to the Holy Eucharist, * The unquestionable Catholicity and orthodoxy of the Mass, * The lack of liturgical abuse, distraction, sacrilege, and profanation, (which, unfortunately, are so common to Novus Ordo Masses), * The prayerful atmosphere of the Mass, * The beauty and majesty of the Mass - in the ceremony and vestments, * The clear sense of the Mass as a sacrifice - the priest offering the Eucharist facing the Cross with his back facing the people, * The clarity of the doctrine of the Real Presence, * The reception of Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue, * The modestly dressed women and veiled, * The good inspirational sermons by the priests, * The emphasis on our sinfulness and dependence on God, * The safeguards inherent in the Mass * The clear vertical focus of the Mass * And many other reasons... Devotees may also point to the Mass' long history, its outstanding fruits, its ability to keep persons safe from modernism ("the synthesis of all heresies"), and the ability of the Mass to foster one's faith. It also preserves a link to our Catholic ancestors. Furthermore, attendance at 'Tridentine' Masses enables one to avoid the concerns so often associated with the Novus Ordo Mass. For example concerns: * regarding the assistance of Protestant 'advisors' in the fabrication of the Novus Ordo Mass (during Vatican Council II); the parallels to the Protestant 'worship services' and the changes made to the Mass parallel to the changes made by the 16th century Protestant 'Reformers' who purposely introduced changes to destroy the faith of Catholics; * regarding the near elimination of all negative topics in the readings and prayers of the Novus Ordo Mass (e.g. references to sin, judgment, hell, purgatory, etc.) * that the Novus Ordo Mass fail to produce a sacred atmosphere conducive to prayer; * regarding the blurring of the distinction between the laity and the priest in the Novus Ordo Mass * over the irreverence at the Novus Ordo Mass, (e.g. no women's head coverings (1 Cor. 11:4-10), silence of women in church (1 Cor. 14:33-35), worship in reverence and awe (Heb. 12:28), communion in the hand, etc.) * over the rampant liturgical abuse and novelties in the Novus Ordo Mass (e.g. altar girls, loud pop music, communion lay 'ministers', etc.) * over the bad fruits associated with the Novus Ordo Rite of Mass (e.g. reduced Mass attendance, loss of belief in the Real Presence, etc.) * Etc. Some are also troubled by the fact that the Novus Ordo Mass may vary so widely among parishes as to be almost unrecognizable - unlike the 'Tridentine' Mass which remains fixed, with only the variations of High Mass and Low Mass. Ultimately, many Catholics have come to believe that the Traditional Latin Mass must be more pleasing to God and that it is best suited to our primary duty in life [that is, "to know, love, and serve God" (Baltimore Catechism)]. Today’s Catholics who have never experienced a 'Tridentine' Latin Mass may consider the time spent at Mass as a time for "religious entertainment" or socializing. In fact, some even think the "sign of peace" is the focal point of Mass! The cure for such mistaken beliefs surely is knowledge of and attendance at traditional Latin 'Tridentine' Masses, which makes the purpose of the Mass eminently clear. Although such Catholics may initially be perplexed about the silence and majesty of the traditional Latin Mass and might not immediately "get it", a little perseverance and some additional knowledge, prayer, and reflection, may cause them to also flock to the Mass of their grandfathers, regardless of what obstacles may be placed in the way. They may soon find themselves so in love with this Mass - the "Mass of the saints" and "the most beautiful thing this side of heaven" - that they would do just about anything they could to attend it. We warmly invite you to attend this incomparable Mass and see for yourself what has captured the hearts of so many other good and faithful Catholics over the centuries.
The Chartres pilgrimage, also known in French as the pèlerinage de Chrétienté (pilgrimage of Christendom), is an annual pilgrimage from Notre-Dame de Paris to Notre-Dame de Chartres, usually takes place around the feast of Pentecost. It is usually organized by Notre-Dame de Chrétienté (Our Lady of Christendom), a Catholic lay non-profit organization based in Versailles, France. Although the pilgrimage has existed since 1983, the organisation was officially founded in 2000. The traditionalist Catholic organization Centre Henri et André Charlier decided to initiate a traditionalist pilgrimage from the cathedral of Paris to that of Chartres. The pilgrimage gradually grew in popularity. In 2007, on the 25th anniversary of the pilgrimage, amid rumours of a forthcoming papal document favouring the use of the 1962 Roman Missal – the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum was in fact published on 7 July of that year – there were nearly ten thousand pilgrims in Chartres on Pentecost Monday May 28 despite difficult weather conditions. The tradition of walking from Notre Dame to Chartres Cathedral dates back to the 12th century as a stage in the route of the Camino de Santiago. Chartres Cathedral, built between 1194 and 1220, has been an important pilgrimage destination throughout French history due to its relic of the Virgin Mary's veil and its blue rose window depicting Mary holding Christ. Chartres Cathedral, has been an important pilgrimage destination throughout French history due to its relic of the Virgin Mary's veil and its blue rose window depicting Mary holding Christ. Our Lady of Chartres is the site of possibly the oldest existing devotion to Mary – tradition states that an ancient order of Celts paid homage, centuries before her birth to the mother of the prophesier Savior, the Virgin who was to bear a Son. The story of the student’s pilgrimage to Chartres started in 1935 with a group of fifteen young men and girls of the Sorbonne, who sacrificed their Pentecostal holidays in prayer to the Holy Spirit and to Mary. They marched 62 miles to the shrine in the Chartres pilgrimage and prayed in common as did their predecessors. The following year there were 36 who went, and in the following year 150. Then the war came; but during the eight hard years that followed, the pilgrimages were not given up. The numbers increased, until in 1948 about 6,500 students formed their line of march to Mary. In previous years before the 2021 lock-downs, the numbers of pilgrims were around 10 to 15,000. This year, more than 20,000 Catholics will be walking 62 miles from Paris to Chartres Cathedral in three days in an annual Pentecost pilgrimage of prayer and penance. It’s SOLD OUT in the first time in her history. For 3 days pilgrims and priests from across the globe will trek through the French countryside praying the rosary, singing, making their confessions, stopping only for Mass (the traditional Latin Mass) and the nights are camped in the open space. It is not expensive. This is not an event tailored to the affluent. The 3-day event –which covers two nights accommodation in communal tents, food (soup and bread) plus all the facilities provided by the organizers – comes to 50 euros per adult pilgrim and 10 euros for under 18s. It is also extremely difficult since it entails walking for about 12 hours per day and finding no shelter apart from floor-less communal tents at night. For example, after last year’s pilgrimage, one young lad in a US group spent five days recuperating in a French hospital. Why? Because he left everything on the Road to Chartres. He gave his all to finish the Pilgrimage. So, yes, the Pilgrimage to Chartres is physically grueling, which is another reason it is so spiritually beneficial. Along the road to Chartres, you will suffer. This trek is an open act of faith and reparation, a thing almost never seen in modern times. In making the Chartres pilgrimage, these young people help to give France a new birth of devotion to Mary; something new and spotless has been born as in the warmth of Bernadette, the Cure of Ars, Vincent de Paul – re-lighted in the hearts of the youth. France must now place her hope in youth, the youth of France and the international youth of the Church, through Our Blessed Mother, the Lady of Chartres. When the pilgrimage was launched in 1982 at the initiative of a dynamic group of laypeople called the Centre Henri et André Charlier – named for two converts of the first half of the 20th century, a Catholic artist and a Catholic schoolmaster of philosophy – conditions were not good for faithful attached to the traditional Mass. During the pilgrimage’s first years, the several thousand participants would have an outdoor Mass in Paris and then walk to Chartres where the Cathedral “welcomed” them (or rather, did not welcome them) with tightly shut doors. The organizers would set up a temporary platform with an altar in front of the railings at the building’s main entrance, and the pilgrims would celebrate the climax of their three-day walk and its many sacrifices with the awareness of being closed out of the objective of their efforts. Today the Pentecost Chartres pilgrimage is the largest of its kind in Western Europe, in both number of participants and distance covered. The pilgrimage is divided into four age groups with varying difficulty and pace, including a "family group" in which parents with children 6 and under camp and walk a portion of the route together. For those who could not physically complete each days walk there are vehicles readily available to take them to the destinations. Many of the past participants were part of youth groups or Catholic scouting troops, who walked together carrying flags representing their country or region, crosses, and banners with the image of their chosen patron saint. Most of the pilgrims were in their early twenties or late teens, from the universities, colleges and schools. Often there are number of unbelievers, atheists among the students; while Protestants and Jews also make up a goodly part of the pilgrims. Some come out of curiosity, some following the persistent urging of a friend; some for the sport of hiking, or to answer an invitation to test their grit and endurance; but whatever their reasons for starting, few end without a definite spiritual “lift.” In the past, many had made their pilgrimage in bare feet over gravel roads, which is not easy; sometimes the sick and crippled go, too. This year there pilgrims from 28 countries the biggest ever so there will even be more of the same as in the past. For example, teenagers from Ireland carried the Irish flag with babies' feet painted on it to represent her prayer intention for the unborn after abortion was legalized in her country. Couples from Portugal walked the pilgrimage together to consecrate their state of life to Mary. The following are some testimonies of pilgrims in past years: "I have prayed for peace, especially in Syria, and in all the world because I don't want other people to live what I have lived, my experience," Kassouha told CNA. He and his family remained in Aleppo throughout the country's civil war and said he witnessed the death of many of his friends and family. "We have to pray ... we cannot do anything without praying. We are so weak. That is my experience," Kassouha, a 26 year-old Melkite Catholic, said. "We need this time to think about our lives and make a meditation." "Each year it is a great moment because we can leave our work, leave Paris, leave everything to concentrate on our faith and prayer. I think it is the spiritual summit of our year," 31-year-old Parisian Raphaëlle de Feydeau told CNA. Feydeau has walked the Chartres pilgrimage together with her family over Pentecost weekend annually for the past thirty years. Her mother carried her along the way when she was an infant. "Each year we have people asking if they can follow us," Rolland told CNA. "Two years ago there was a lady who was struck by the children walking ... she asked, 'Can I follow you?' She did, and six months later she asked to be baptized." Rolland said that many vocations have also been discovered or confirmed for young people as they prayerfully walk the pilgrimage. Priest chaplains could often be seen walking behind the pilgrimage groups hearing confessions of the young participants. Each group had a chaplain who provided meditations on the saints and catechists on the social doctrine of the Church.
Three Masses will take place over the course of the pilgrimage, each in the extraordinary form (traditional Latin Mass), though many private Masses will be said as well. The culminating Mass was celebrated in Chartres Cathedral by the appointed dignitary. With Traditionis Custodes in 16th July 2021, the motu proprio with which Pope Francis placed brutal restrictions on the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass and the old form of the Sacraments, the monster of liturgical wars has again raised its hand against those who find their faith, hope, and charity better nourished by the age-old prayers of the Church. With calculated irony, many of last year’s pilgrims wore specially printed T-shirts or sweatshirts emblazoned with the words “Gardiens de la Tradition,” (guardians of tradition), the French translation of the motu proprio’s title. By their youth and their numbers, the waves of young people who walked towards Chartres with their banners and flags, their enthusiasm and their obvious piety clearly showed that they want God, the Eucharist, solemnity, and age-old beauty at the center of their devotion. At the end of last year’s pilgrimage, in the presence of the Bishop of Chartres, Monsignor Philippe Christory, Father Alexis Garnier the general almoner of Notre-Dame de Chrétienté, also called on the pilgrims to remain faithful to their “two loyalties: tradition and the Catholic Church.” Both are so clearly under threat, and indeed, the packed cathedral surrounded by thousands of pilgrims who were not able to enter for the final Mass for want of space, was a living reproach against the attempt by Traditionis Custodes to push the traditional Latin Mass into a dark corner, as an exception that must not even be considered and given any publicity. If thousands of Catholic youths who have been to this pilgrimage the past many decades, can recognize the value of Catholic tradition, all the more should all Catholics stay true to tradition. After all wasn’t it through tradition that we received the Catholic faith? The Pilgrimage to Chartres, is for the unchangeable realities of Catholic Tradition – the Latin Mass, the Rosary, the Catholic family, the Four Last Things, and the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ. Traditionally, in Christianity, women were enjoined to cover their heads, and men were instructed to remove their hat when praying or prophesying. Wearing a veil (also known as a head-covering) is seen as a sign of humility before God, as well as a reminder of the bridal relationship between Christ and the church. In 1917, it was made into a Canon law 1262.2 that a woman should cover her head and wear modest dress while attending holy rituals or if she is in the holy church The veil is also meant to be an external sign of a woman's interior desire to humble herself before God, truly present in the Blessed Sacrament. As women, we are symbols of the Church - the Bride of Christ - and "the veil is meant to be a visible reminder of the perfect submission of the Church to the loving rule of Christ." "The veil is a visual sermon, ... a public proclamation before the Lord that He IS the Lord and that we love Him and that we are ready to obey him. It's a totally counter-cultural statement proclaiming obedience in the midst of a culture that is totally permeated with this attitude of 'I will not serve.'" The veil is a sign of the great dignity inherent to a woman, who has the potential to receive life within herself... both human life and the supernatural life of God. This is an important message the world needs to hear, now more than ever! The practice of women covering their heads during the Mass liturgy has its roots in biblical and canonical sources. It will be helpful to understand the historical and theological underpinnings that have shaped this tradition. The biblical basis for women covering their heads during worship can be traced to two primary passages: Genesis 24:64-65 and 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Genesis 24:64-65: This passage recounts the story of Rebekah, who covered her head upon meeting Isaac, indicating her modesty and reverence in the presence of a future husband. Since women are icons of the Church and men of Christ (see 1 Corinthians 13), the practice of women covering their heads during worship properly reflects this relationship. 1 Corinthians 11:2-16: In this section, the apostle Paul addresses the issue of head coverings in the context of public worship. Paul asserts that men should pray with their heads uncovered while women should pray with their heads covered. He draws upon the theological concept of headship, emphasizing the hierarchical order between God, Christ, man, and woman. The covering symbolizes a woman's submission to this divinely established order. As we progress down in this narrative, let us keep in mind that although Saint Paul is the writer of this passage, the true author is God, who cannot deceive nor be deceived and thus not subject to temporal or cultural fads. The two biblical passages above allow us to see that the practice of women covering their heads during the Mass has been tied to several theological and symbolic interpretations: order and hierarchy; unity and communion; and modesty and reverence. Order and hierarchy: The theological concept of headship, as explained in 1 Corinthians 11, establishes a hierarchy of authority and submission. By wearing a head covering, women are seen to embrace their role within this hierarchical structure, acknowledging their place and function within the divine plan. Unity and communion: The practice of women covering their heads can also be seen as fostering a sense of unity and communal identity within the parish community. By adhering to a shared practice, women express their solidarity with one another and their commitment to the teachings and traditions of the Church. In 1 Corinthians verses 4-6, Saint Paul introduces the issue of head coverings: "Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head." Saint Paul argues that men (the ordained of whom would act in persona Christi) should not cover their heads while praying or prophesying because it dishonors Christ. On the other hand, women (who represent the Church) should cover their heads as a sign of submission to their husbands (who represent Christ) since this would maintain the proper order established by God. In verses 7-10, Saint Paul provides theological reasoning for his instructions: "For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." Here, Saint Paul draws upon the creation account in Genesis to explain his argument. He states that man is the image and glory of God, while woman is the glory of man. This is the order of creation, where woman was made from man and for man. Saint Paul's use of "glory" emphasizes the complementary nature of men and women and their respective roles. The phrase "because of the angels" in verse 10 may puzzle many, but tying this passage with another in a letter by Saint Paul, to that to the Ephesians, may clarify the matter. First, it is clear that wherever God is, so are His angels, and thus, angels are definitely present during the Mass. We must remember that the fall of the angels was due to their rejection to serve creatures (the human race) significantly inferior to them. Thus, angels are supremely interested in the affairs of human beings as they are attentive to the proper functioning of God's created order. The helpful passage is in Ephesian 3:8-11: “To me, the least of all the saints, is given this grace, to preach among the Gentiles, the unsearchable riches of Christ, And to enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God, who created all things: That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church, According to the eternal purpose, which he made, in Christ Jesus our Lord.” The reference to “principalities and powers in heavenly places” is a way to refer to all the nine choirs of angels who through the Catholic Church and her liturgy come to know the “manifold wisdom of God”. In the liturgy both man and woman have a role to play in God's plan, which requires the practice of head coverings for women, emphasizing that it is a symbol of authority and submission. Angels perfectly execute the will of God, which includes maintaining the created order, and are “scandalized” (a more adequate word could not be found, since angels lacking concupiscence after having made their in alterable choice to obey God, are unable to sin) when women disturb the proper order of the due submission of women to men, as the apostle states. This is why women should cover their heads as a sign of submission and recognition to the established order precisely in the most sacred liturgy of the Mass, for the sake of the angels. Modesty and Reverence: Head coverings have often been associated with modesty and reverence before God. They serve as a visible sign of humility and acknowledgment of the sacredness of the liturgy and the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In recent times, the practice of women covering their heads during the Mass has declined in many Catholic communities. This change can be attributed to various factors, including cultural shifts, redefining understandings of gender roles with a consequent false interpretation regarding the equality of men and women in the Church. Not to be overlooked in all this was the significant role the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) had, with its aggiornamento (“bringing up to date”) mandate, in ushering significant reforms to the liturgy under the guise of the participation of all the faithful, regardless of gender, in the worship of the Church. Following the Council, many local churches and bishops' conferences around the world chose not to enforce the practice of women covering their heads during the liturgy. Modernism reared its ugly head when it artificially introduced the false dichotomy of pitting the internal disposition of the faithful against external symbols or physical practices. They were quite successful in emphasizing the interior reverence, attentiveness, and active engagement of all the faithful during the Mass at the expense of exterior appearances. But this approach entirely overlooks the traditional Catholic way of accepting paradoxes, which are indeed at the heart of our theology: for instance, Jesus is both man and God, Mary is both virgin and mother. In fact, as human beings, we first learn the “moves” proper to the different parts of the Mass, such as sitting, standing, and kneeling early in our childhood, and, as we mature, we integrate those positions with what is going on at the Mass. For instance, we kneel at the consecration because God has substantially and sacramentally appeared, and we must worship Him Whom we will later eat. The reverence of wearing the mantilla is inspirational to others, including the men. The opposite is also true: when the reverence reflected in the use of the mantilla disappears, the “world” makes its appearance with women in immodest attires and men dressing as if they were going to a picnic or a ballgame, in sneakers, t-shirts and jeans. We do not need to be biblical scholars to appreciate the Matthew 22:11 verse, which many, including clergy, are quick to spiritualize, forgetting that the Church teaches that the primordial biblical meaning is the literal one. However, the 1983 Code of Canon Law, currently in force, does not contain a requirement that women cover their head in church. As Cardinal Burke, Prefect of the Supreme Apostolic Signatura, stated in a private letter: "The wearing of a chapel veil for women is not required when women assist at the Holy Mass according to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. It is, however, the expectation that women who assist at the Mass according to the Extraordinary Form cover their heads, as was the practice at the time that the 1962 Missale Romanum was in force. It is not, however, a sin to participate in the Holy Mass according to the Extraordinary Form without a veil." Just as the Church does not mandate that every person pray the Rosary, neither does she mandate that every woman wear a veil. This does not mean, however, that either is not a worthy devotion. On the contrary, these devotions are pleasing to God when done out of love for Him. This the most beautiful explanation of the theological significance of the veil I've ever heard. Here is a transcript: We've talked about the meaning of the bridal veil before. Remember that on one level, as everyone knows and as St. Paul makes clear in 1 Corinthians, the veil is a visible sign that the woman is under the authority of a man. These days, the idea of submission to the authority of her husband is frowned upon, to put it mildly. But it shouldn't be, once we realize that the bridal veil signifies the submission of this particular woman to the loving care of her husband. It signifies her trust, her confidence in his Christ-like leaderhsip. It signifies that she has chosen to follow him as a loving partner and companion. It also signifies that he has been specifically consecrated to handle that sacred vessel - to safely touch that ark - and that's something mysterious and beautiful. But that doesn't explain why little girls would wear a veil, does it? It doesn't explain why professed virgins, nuns, religious sisters would wear veils, does it? Obviously, the mystical symbolism of a veil goes far, far beyond the relationship of one particular woman and one particular man. What does it mean? What sort of a mystery is presented us when we see a woman veiled before the altar? It's a very great mystery. Like Our Lady, every Catholic woman, as a woman, is a living icon of the church. So when she veils herself here, in the presence of Our Lord, it's a visible reminder for all of the spousal relationship - the bridal relationship - between the Church and Christ. That relationship between the Church and Christ is a very deep mystery, indeed. So whenever we see a veiled woman here, before the altar, be she six or be she sixty, it's a visible reminder for all of us of this spousal relationsihp, this bridal relationship between Christ and His Church. And because the veil also signifies the submission of the bride to the loving care of her husband, it means that the veil of a Catholic woman is also a visible reminder of the perfect submission of the church to the loving rule of Christ. The veil is a visual sermon, it's a visual statement, it's a public proclamation before the Lord that He IS the Lord and that we love Him and that we are ready to obey him. It's a totally counter-cultural statement proclaiming obedience in the midst of a culture that is totally permeated with this attitude of "I will not serve." That, in any age, but especially in ours, is a very great mystery indeed. Why don't men wear veils? St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:7 "A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man." In Ephesians 5:25, St. Paul says "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loves the Church" and this, taken in conjunction with 1 Corinthians 11:7 (and the rest of the passage), reveals beautiful nuptial imagery: man is to Christ as woman is to the Church. Since the Church is the "bride" of Christ, it makes sense that the bride should cover her head "as a sign of authority" (1 Cor 11:10) and submission to the bridegroom - Christ, whom men represent. The Church submits to Christ, not the other way around. And the nature of this submission is one of love - who wouldn't submit to Him Who loves her unto death? “Here are the words of a wise man, an outstanding Catholic and something of a prophet. And, let’s not forget: Archbishop Lefebvre was a Council Father at Vatican II. He was there. He knew what went on. And his extraordinary testimony from 1972 in the pages of The Remnant puts the lie to the claim that Vatican II was somehow misinterpreted and diverted from its original 'noble' mission.” -Michael J. Matt Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: My dear Friends: I have been asked to speak to you of the priesthood but it seems to me that I cannot explain the position we are now in without going back to the Second Vatican Council. I revert to it because I believe it to be essential that the Council’s drafts should be carefully studied if we are to expose the doors that have been opened to Modernism, and I shall emphasize the fact that within the Council there was a marked unwillingness to define exactly the subjects under discussion. It was this shying away from definitions, this refusal to examine philosophically and theologically the matters under discussion which resulted in our being able only to describe them—not define them. Not only have they not been defined but, as often as not, in the course of the debates, the traditional definitions were falsified. It is for this reason, I believe, that we are now faced with a complete system which we cannot readily accept, but which is extremely difficult to stand against since the traditional and true definitions are no longer admitted. Matrimony Take, for example, the subject of Marriage. The traditional definition of Marriage was always based on the first end of Marriage, which was procreation, and the second end, which was conjugal love. Well, the members of the Council wished to change that definition and state that there was no longer a primary end, but that the two ends—procreation and conjugal love—were one and the same. It was Cardinal Suenens who launched this attack on the end itself of marriage, and I still remember Cardinal Brown, master General of the Dominicans, rising to warn: “Caveatis! Caveatis! Beware! Beware!” He declared vehemently: “If we accept this definition we are going against the whole tradition of the church.” And he quoted several texts. So great was the feeling aroused in the Assembly that Cardinal Suenens was asked by the Holy Father himself, I think, to modify to some extent the terms he had used and even to change them. That is only one example. But you see that everything now said on the subject of Marriage is linked to the false notion put forth by Cardinal Suenens, that conjugal love—now called simply and far more crudely ‘sexuality’— means all acts become licit—contraception, or the practices within marriage aimed at preventing the begetting of children, finally abortion, and so forth. “There was a reluctance to describe the Church as a necessary means of salvation; hence, into the texts of the Council, there crept unnoticed the idea that the Church was no longer a necessary means, but a useful— merely useful— means. It means destroying the whole missionary spirit of the church at its roots.” Collegiality and Ecumenism. Hence, one bad definition and we are plunged into utter confusion. Or absence of definition. We have often asked for a definition of ‘collegiality’. No one has ever been able to define collegiality. We have often asked for a definition of ‘ecumenism’. Out of the mouths of the Chairmen and Secretaries of the Commissions, we have been told: “But this is not a dogmatic Council; we are not making philosophical definitions. We are a pastoral Council, intended to serve the man in the street, it follows that it is useless to frame here definitions which would not be understood.” Yet it is indeed absurd that we should meet but fail adequately to define the terms under discussion. The Church Herself Thus, too, the definition of the Church has been falsified. The very definition of the Church! There was a reluctance to describe the Church as a necessary means of salvation; hence, into the texts of the Council, there crept unnoticed the idea that the Church was no longer a necessary means, but a useful— merely useful— means. Accordingly, Catholics should infiltrate the body of humanity which, as a whole, is on the road to salvation; Catholics should do their part by uniting with them (all of mankind) in charity. That is all. It means destroying the whole missionary spirit of the church at its roots. Beware of Proselytizing Quite literally, the entire design of the missions has been undermined as a result of this concept. Today we are seeing many missionaries who have returned from the field refusing to go back. The idea is drummed into them at all the sessions, all the meetings everywhere. Delegates from France have assured them: “Beware especially of proselytizing. You should realize that all the religions you may encounter have considerable value and that missionaries should therefore stick to the development of these countries, with its resulting progress—social progress.” No longer true evangelization and sanctification. Those missionaries who went overseas to evangelize and save souls with the thought: “There will be some souls saved because of my mission,” now reflect: “What we were always taught, that souls in Original Sin and all the personal sins deriving from it might be in danger of not being able to save themselves and hence we must do all in our power to evangelize them— today that is no longer true.” If I had with me the first draft of Council’s famous text which deals with the Church in the world, “Gaudium et spes”, I would read it to you, so that you might be alerted to the content of other schemas on the same subject. “What evangelization?” I replied. “If it is not fundamentally and essentially related to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, what meaning can be found in it? The political gospel? The social gospel? The humanist gospel? What are the grounds of this evangelization?” The first draft is inadmissible. It is there explicitly stated that all humanity is bound for its final end—happiness. There is no allusion to Original Sin, no allusion to Baptism, no allusion to the sacraments. This is indeed a wholly novel conception of the Church. Once again, the Church is merely a useful instrument; the faithful are constantly rebuked, since Catholics must not think themselves any better than others, nor believe that they alone know all truth; in sum, Catholics should make themselves useful to humanity, but must not believe that they alone are possessed of the way to salvation. That is the spirit in which “Gaudium et Spes” was written. It begins with a lengthy description of the changes which have taken place in humanity. That is a postulate constantly reiterated today to justify the changes proposed to us: the world evolves, all things evolve, times change, humanity changes, humanity progresses, its progress is continual. For them, the consequences follow naturally. No longer can we conceive of religion as in the past. We cannot envisage the relations of the Catholic religion with other faiths as they were conceived in the past. Hence, it follows that all our conceptions should differ wholly from that of our religion. I assure you that a re-editing of these drafts would be very useful for bringing out the erroneous thinking of their compilers. Bishop Conferences There is another subject which should also have been defined with great precision. Episcopal Assemblies. [Bishops Conferences] What is an Episcopal Assembly? What does it represent? What are its powers? What is the purpose of an Episcopal Assembly? Actually, no one has yet been able to define the Episcopal Assembly. The Pope himself has said that the scope and powers of Episcopal Assemblies would prove to be best defined in action, and the effects as seen in practice. On his theory, they embarked hastily on practical action, though lacking any definition or knowing where they were going. It was a matter of enormous gravity. It is obvious that the more numerous these Episcopal Assemblies become and the greater their rights, the more the bishops themselves cease to matter. Hence the episcopate, which is the true mainstay of Our Lord’s church, disappears with these Episcopal Assemblies. New Evangelization That is what is happening at this moment. The failure to define is still going on. In May of last year, I went to see a Cardinal and explained to him what I was doing. I described the seminary with its spiritual life directed especially towards the deepening of the theology of the Mass and liturgical prayer. He said: “But Monsignor, that is the exact opposite of what our young priests want today. The priest is no longer defined in terms of sanctification or with regard to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but to evangelization.” “What evangelization?” I replied. “If it is not fundamentally and essentially related to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, what meaning can be found in it? The political gospel? The social gospel? The humanist gospel? What are the grounds of this evangelization?” That is how things now stand. It is evangelization, not sanctification which holds the field now. Hence there follows a wrong definition of the priest, and, once the true definition is no longer given, all the consequences must be suffered. “Baptism is no longer redemption from Original Sin, but only the sacrament which unites one to God. There is no mention of the remission of Original Sin. The Mass is now defined as the Lord’s Supper—a gathering, and no longer the true Sacrifice of the Mass. We see all too clearly the resulting consequences.” New Sacraments It is the same with all the Sacraments. Take all the Sacraments one after the other and they are no longer defined as in the past. Baptism is no longer redemption from Original Sin, but only the sacrament which unites one to God. There is no mention of the remission of Original Sin. Of Marriage we have already spoken. The Mass is now defined as the Lord’s Supper—a gathering, and no longer the true Sacrifice of the Mass. We see all too clearly the resulting consequences. Extreme Unction is no longer the Sacrament of the disable and of the sick; it is now the sacrament of the old. It is no longer the sacrament of preparation of that last moment which washes away our sins before death and thus prepares us for our final union with God. And the Sacrament of Penance? Following the new decree, I sincerely believe that the very definition of the Sacrament of penance is affected, for there can be no exception to the rule. The contrary of the definition and the very essence of the Sacrament of penance, which is a judgment, a judicial act, is expressed. One cannot judge without investigation of a case. Judgement can be given only following individual pleading, if sins are to be forgiven or left unabsolved. This new stance, as I see it, will end by destroying the very essence of the Sacrament of Penance and there can be no question but that, from now on, it will spread rapidly. Confessors will find it much simpler to say to people waiting at the confessional: “Listen, I haven’t time to hear your confession. You realize that we are now permitted to give a general absolution. We give you general absolution.” In theory, one may still confess sins if grave sins have been committed. But psychologically, how absurd! Who will go to confession if it becomes obvious to others that he is in mortal sin? Moreover, those who have already received Holy Communion and absolution will say to themselves: “Since I’ve already been to Communion, why should I make my confession?” The matter is very serious indeed. It may prove to be the beginning of the end of the Sacrament of Penance. I sincerely believe that it is the Council which is at the bottom of all this, since a considerable number of bishops, especially those chosen as members of Commissions, were men raised in existentialist philosophy but were lacking in training in that of St. Thomas and hence were ignorant of the meaning of definition. For them there is no such thing as essence—one no longer defines, one expresses, one describes—but definition is a thing of the past. This lack of philosophy was manifest throughout the Council, and it is, I believe, responsible for its being a conglomeration of ambiguities, inexactitudes, vaguely expressed feelings, terms susceptible to any interpretation and opening wide all doors. “An attack on the Mass is an attack on the Church, and, by that very fact, an attack on the priest. It is the priest who, in the final instance, is most greatly affected by all these reforms, for he is at the very heart of the Church, charged with the duty of propagating the faith and holiness.” The New Mass But we must return to the Mass, the primary concern of all priests. As the Council of Trent so well expressed it, the Mass is the heart of the Church. An attack on the Mass is an attack on the Church, and, by that very fact, an attack on the priest. It is the priest who, in the final instance, is most greatly affected by all these reforms, for he is at the very heart of the Church, charged with the duty of propagating the faith and holiness. By reason of his sacerdotal character, he is the minister responsible. The Church is essentially sacerdotal. Thus, where anything touching the Church is concerned, it is the priest who suffers the consequences. It is for this reason that today the priest is in the most dramatic, the most tragic situation imaginable. Seminaries have ceased to exist since the definition of the priest and the true conception of the priesthood have been abandoned. I confess that I am incapable, honestly incapable, of founding a seminary with the new Mass as a basis. Crisis in the Priesthood Since it is by the Sacrifice that the priest is precisely defined, the priest cannot be defined save by reference to the Sacrifice, nor the Sacrifice defined without reference to the priest. The concepts are indissolubly linked together by their very essence. Hence, if the Sacrifice no longer exists, there is no priest. Moreover, there is no longer a Sacrifice without a Victim, and there is no longer a Victim if there is no longer the Real Presence and Transubstantiation. Where there is no Victim, no Sacrifice, what is there to hold the priest or the seminarist? On what are his fervor and his piety grounded? What is it that gives meaning to his being in the seminary? It is the Sacrifice of the Mass! I believe it was true of all of us: our happiness, our joy throughout our life in the seminary was the thought of receiving the tonsure, minor orders, of approaching the altar, of becoming a sub-deacon, a deacon, and at last a priest. To be able, at last, to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass! As seminarists (seminarian), that was our whole life. Now doubt is cast on the Real Presence in the Sacrifice of the Mass. It is a ‘supper’, a ‘meal’, a presence. The Savior is present in the same way as we. But that is not our Lords’ Real Presence in the Eucharist, which is the Presence of the Victim, that same Victim who suffered on the cross. Therein lies the very reason for the existence of seminarists, of vocations. To be able to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass, the true Sacrifice of the Mass, makes it worth all the travail of becoming a priest. It is not worth-while to become a priest merely to bring together a gathering, where the laity can almost concelebrate, where all is open to the laity. In this new conception of the Mass, nothing remains. It is a Protestant conception and leads to Protestantism. It is for this reason that I cannot conceive the possibility of creating a seminary with the new Mass. It can neither win the love and loyalty of seminarists nor inspire vocations. There, as I see it, lies the fundamental reason for the present lack of seminaries; there is no longer a sacrifice of the Mass. Without that Sacrifice, there is no priest, for the priest cannot be defined apart from the sacrifice. There are no other motives. Until the true Sacrifice of the Mass is restored in all its divine reality, there will be no more seminaries and no more candidates of the priesthood. You will answer me: “But there are other rites.” Certainly, there are other rites— Coptic, Maronite, Slavonic—take your choice. But in each and every one of these Catholic rites one finds the concept of the Sacrifice, of the Real Presence, and of the nature of priesthood. The Pope could indeed have changed certain rites, laying even greater stress perhaps on the three or four fundamental concepts of the Mass. Agreed. A change for the better, yet stronger and more comprehensive statement of these fundamental truths could be accepted. But a watering down or a suppression of them—never! Concelebration It has recently been well said, and I wholly agree, that concelebrating is contrary to the very end of the Mass. The priest himself has been individually consecrated for the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass, his Sacrifice, the Sacrifice for which he, as an individual consecrated for the offering of the Sacrifice of the Mass, his Sacrifice, the Sacrifice for which he, as an individual, not an assembly, a person, who had been consecrated. There was no all embracing, mass consecration of all the priests. Everyone was truly and individually anointed and each received the stamp which is not given to a group. It is a Sacrament. Individually received; hence the priest is ordained to offer the holy Sacrament of the Mass as an individual. Indubitably, concelebrating has not the value of the sum of Masses individually celebrated. That is an impossibility. There is but one Transubstantiation, hence there is but one Sacrifice of the Mass. Why multiply Sacrifices of the Mass if one Transubstantiation imports all Sacrifices of the Mass? If the practice had a point, it would imply that there had been one Mass only in the world, since Our Lord’s own. The multiplication of Masses is useless if concelebrating by ten priests is the equivalent of ten separate Masses. It is untrue, utterly untrue. Why must we say three Masses at Christmas and on All Saints’ Day? It would be a senseless practice. Truly, the Church needs this multiplication of Sacrifices of the Mass, both in pursuance of the Sacrifice on the Cross and for all the other ends of Mass—worship, thanksgiving, propitiation, and prayer for grace. All the novelties show an inherent lack of theology and a lack of definition of terms. Celibacy From that point of view, I am grateful to the Abbe Deen for his little treatise on “Priestly Celibacy”, showing that celibacy was practiced from the earliest times. For it is untrue to say that celibacy was imposed some centuries later than the beginning of the Christian era. I think there is also a weakness in theological logic. Celibacy is not asked of the priest solely for the purpose of facilitating his apostolate and making him more accessible to the faithful. That was an added reason, but not the real reason. I think the priest should be likened to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Why is the Blessed Virgin Mary virgin? It is by reason of her divine motherhood, because she is the Mother of Our Lord. So closely has she thus been united to the Word of God, to God Himself, that it is natural that she should be a virgin. Fundamentally, the priest also reenacts what the Virgin Mary was chosen to do. The Virgin Mary, by her “Fiat”, brought Our Lord to earth in her womb. Through the word he speaks, the priest brings Our Lord down to earth in the Holy Eucharist. The priest is so closely united with Him and has such power over Him, that it is meet that he should be a virgin! Where there are exceptions, it is because the Church suffers them. In the Near East, for instance, if one is well aware of them and discusses them with Orthodox priests, they always remain exceptions. Married priests cannot be given high office in a diocese. Bishops may not marry. Such exceptions are merely tolerated. “I believe that, if the dioceses, seminaries, and charities have been stricken today with barrenness, it is because the recent deviations have drawn down the curse of God upon her. All attempts to recover what is being lost, to reorganize, reconstruct, and rebuild—all these have grown sterile, lacking the true source of holiness, which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.” It is, however, fitting—almost essential—that, in some ways and to some extent, the priest should be a virgin. For it is he who speaks the words of Consecration. Therein lies the function, the great mystery, of the priest—at once his greatness and his humility. Before the Sovereign Priest, the Supreme Pontiff, Our Lord Jesus Christ, the priest is nothing. It is Christ who is the Priest, He who is the Victim, He who offers Himself again. The priest, of course, is only His minister. As such, he must humble himself before Our Lord, but therein lies his whole greatness, the greatness of the priesthood. He should always meditate upon it. We can never plumb the depths of the great Mystery of the Mass! In it the Mystery of the faith has its life. It is that, not the Mystery of Jesus, which we face at the end of the world. The coming of Our Lord should not be presented to us (“He will come again”) when the great mystery of our Faith has just been re-enacted. Why should it be? The words “Mystery of the Faith” were introduced for the very purpose of emphasizing the Mystery of the Word taking flesh at the words of Consecration. I have been asked to suggest themes for your meditation, or rather your sanctification. There is one in particular—our likeness to the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Blessed Virgin Mary is not a priest, but she is the mother of a priest—as near the priest as possible. There could be no greater likeness our union between the Mother of Jesus and the priest, since both bring Our Lord Jesus Christ down to earth, both give Our Lord Jesus Christ to the world; it is for that they are virgin. That, I believe, is a theme of meditation which can help us in all our difficulties and struggles. Communion in the Hand Our Sacrifice of the Mass must essentially be a true Sacrifice if we are to preserve our sacerdotal holiness. Insofar as our Sacrifice of the mass is diminished in any way, we lose the source of our priestly holiness. The present problem of the Mass is a very grave problem for Holy Church. I believe that, if the dioceses, seminaries, and charities have been stricken today with barrenness, it is because the recent deviations have drawn down the curse of God upon her. All attempts to recover what is being lost, to reorganize, reconstruct, and rebuild—all these have grown sterile, lacking the true source of holiness, which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Profaned as it now is, it no longer gives grace, no longer passes on grace. How many priests do we now see who still say Mass unless they can concelebrate, or when there is no congregation? Alone, they no longer say Mass. This happens all too frequently, even among our religious communities. Consider, also, the many forms of sacrilege to which the present contempt for the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament lead. It was the Council of Trent which declared that Our Lord was present in the smallest particles of the Holy Eucharist. What, then, is the lack of reverence in those who may have fragments of the Host in their hands and then go back to their seats without purifying those hands? When a Communion plate is used, a few fragments always remain even if there are not many communicants. As a result, these fragments remain in the hands of the faithful and such lack of reverence for the Presence of Our Lord amounts to sacrilege. St. Thomas cites reception of the Eucharist in the hand of the laity as an example of sacrilege. Admittedly, it is now authorized (not in the United States—Ed.), but, so vital was the importance of the Church’s ruling forbidding it that the faith of many of the faithful, especially children, has certainly been shaken. How can children truly preserve their faith in the Real Presence? How can they continue to respect a priest who has ceased to respect himself? How can they have a true conception of the Sacrifice of the Mass when even the crucifix (in all too many instances) is no longer on the altars? All its meaning has been destroyed. The New Breviary Now I am drawing to a close. I should be loath to overtax your patience. I believe that over and above the desire to preserve our Holy Mass intact, we should wish to keep our Breviary. Its definition too has been changed. In the preface to these famous “Prayers of the Present”, it is stated that from now on these prayers are to be modified so that, on occasion, the laity may recite the breviary with the priest. That is to falsify the very meaning of the breviary. The breviary is the priest’s prayer. Only the priest is obliged, under pain of mortal sin, to recite the hours of the breviary. The laity are not. The priest is God’s religious; he is a man of prayer, also a breviary is put into his hands that he may pray all day long, make acts of thanksgiving and give praise to God, thereby in some fashion continuing his Mass. “A liturgy without rules ceases to be a liturgy. That is why we must stand by our pre-conciliar position and not fear to uphold a tradition two thousand years old. It cannot be disobedience.” Suddenly, it is now proclaimed: “No, no, no! All that has changed! The priest’s prayers are prayers designed so that, from time to time, he may recite them with the laity.” This is a total illusion. Come! People have no time for reciting these prayers with parish priests. Such statements could only be made by those who have never known the ministry in practice. Of course, one may sometimes say evening prayers with the laity. But for them to recite all these prayers, all these incomprehensible psalms! If you are anxious to say evening prayers with the faithful, you would do well to choose very simple prayers, such as they understand. Otherwise let it be Latin, real Latin, beautiful Latin, sung as in compline. People join in song, in melody, and their souls are uplifted. We must keep our Breviary! I assure you that it is vital. The closer we come to giving up our Breviary, the farther we are from the sources of sanctifying grace. Today they have gone back to the old Psalter, modified only by the revisions made by the Abbaye de Saint-Jerome. It was at the wish of Pope John XXIII. He disliked the new Psalter. He said so openly to the Central Commission before the Council. To all of us who were there, he said: “Oh, I’m not in favor of the new Psalter”. He loved the old Psalter. Now it seems that, in the new Breviary, the old Psalter, as modified by the study undertaken by the monks of Saint Jerome, has been adopted. That shows that it is still possible today to go back to the sound decisions of the past. Destruction of Liturgy I have heard rumors that the congregation for Sacred Liturgy is drafting yet another new decree on the Holy Mass. The priest will be free to do as he pleases, save for the words of consecration, which have nevertheless been changed already! Thus, the change will be complete. The new decree will do no more than give a few new directions for creating new Canons. Everyone is free to make his own Canon (so-called), adapted to his particular congregation. You see, what they want to achieve! We should be wrong to let ourselves be swept into the current which leads only to the utter and complete ruin of the Holy Sacrifice. I do not know what the bishops will think of that. Will they be satisfied with this new reform, if it ever sees the light of day? We are coming to the end of any conception of the Liturgy. A liturgy without rules ceases to be a liturgy. That is why we must stand by our pre-conciliar position and not fear to uphold a tradition two thousand years old. It cannot be disobedience. By what criterion should we decide whether the ordinary Magisterium is, or is not, infallible? By faithfulness to Tradition…to the extent to which the Council goes back to Tradition, we must conform, since that belongs to the ordinary Magisterium, but, where the measure is new and not in conformity with Tradition, there is a greater liberty of choice…We must not let ourselves be dragged into the current of Modernism, which might endanger our own Faith and turn us, unwittingly, into Protestants. That is a very serious matter, but it is what is happening to our poor faithful people, who, without realizing, are drawn into a new Protestantism, a “neomodernism”, as the Holy Father himself has called it. This is happening in the case of many priests also. Let us then thank God for the grace of seeing clearly in the midst of all this trouble in the Church. And may we stay united, as we have today, united in a prayer, united in effort, and united in our undertakings. God is there! That is why we must never lose courage. God still watches over His Church. It is for us so to act that She may endure in safety through her present grievous trials! |
Details
AuthorAn artist, entrepreneur, a loving family man, 30 years a Catholic traditionalist upholding traditions for the love of God. Shop for Catholic giftsArchives
January 2024
Categories
All
|