Insight into the Catholic Faith presents the Catholic Tradition Newsletter

Catholic New Years resolution. Replace your television with an altar in the home.

Vol 11 Issue 1 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
January 6, 2018 ~ Feast of the Epiphany

1. Is the Chair of Peter Vacant? An Argument for Sedevacantism
2. Feast of the Holy Family
3. Saint Lucian
4. Family and Marriage
5. Articles and notices

Dear Reader:
When one is asked what will happen during the year of 2018, it is easy to speculate—especially with the events of 2017. But 2018 should not be a year of speculation; rather it should be a year of planning how one is going to live the faith during the year. As the Church was once the center of community activity, from birth to death, it has now been replaced by an altar in the home named Television. Life, now, is directed by the Television—only competed by public schools—as the State god directs its citizens to eternal perdition by inviting humanity to forsake its true purpose and moral course. As true children of our Father, having been washed in Christ’s blood through baptism, we came under His rule and way of life as members of His kingdom. It means not only an obligatory Sunday Mass, but a striving for sanctification that involves prayer, sacrifice and virtue. The television should not be the altar we worship at, but there should be in the home the image of the Crucified, that of His most holy Mother and the Saints that are of particular devotion. At that place of prayer the father should be the one leading, the mother should be the one supporting and the children should be gathered together as a true family that understands the center of their life is Our Father in heaven with His Son and being guided by their Holy Spirit. The morning offering should direct them that all whatsoever you do in word or in work, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. (Colossians 3:17) The consecration to Mother Mary should instill in our children that their lives must be pure and according to God’s will—a corollary of the wearing of the Brown Scapular. In the evening, because of the absence of parish life, without a parish school and evening devotions, there should be the common Rosary (takes between 15-20 minutes), which was asked by Our Lady both at Lourdes and Fatima. Reading the New Testament for 5-10 minutes is also recommended (or the readings from the Mass book). Having Catholic books about the life of Our Lord, His Holy Mother, the Saints and books about the Faith in general should be in a family library with encouragement to all family members reading them with the Father and Mother providing the example. If our parents begin to live their faith openly in their homes, maybe the children will see it is not just a closet private life that one can chose or reject. This means that a schedule must be incorporated into the daily plans that, though not written in stone, still has those present partaking in the prayers and praying for those absent. The graces obtained will be seen in having children continue in their faith instead of fleeing as soon as the cage of the home is opened, and the parents are only left with an empty nest.
As always, enjoy the readings and commentaries provided for your benefit. —The Editor
Is the Chair of Peter Vacant?

An Argument for Sedevacantism

by Rev. Courtney Edward Krier

Sixth Contradiction: Holy Mass: A Sacrifice or a Meal?

Of course Reid is sure to still claim that the Novus Ordo of Giovanni Montini is valid because he accepts him as pope, though he goes far enough to say Giovanni Montini made a mistake.
These papers written decades after only repeat what was stated by many Catholic authors of that period. Few bishops and priests were willing to publicly oppose the changes for fear of being left out in the cold (cf. Yves Normandin, Pastor out in the Cold); it was the laity who took up the pen as Tito Casini did. Patrick Omlor wrote Questioning the Validity of the Masses Using the New, All-English Canon in 1968. It pointed directly to the invalidity of the Novus Ordo Missae by perverting the Canon, specifically the words of Consecration. This raised the laity and clergy alike to face the fact that the Holy Eucharist, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, was being removed. Guerard des Laurier, a Domincan priest teaching at the Lateran and Angelicum, upon examining the Novus Ordo to be published by Giovanni Montini, wrote A Short Critical Study of the New Ordo of Mass on June 5, 1969. This was given to Giovanni Montini with the signatures Cardinal Ottaviani and Bacci signed September 25, 1969. It was called The Ottaviani Intervention, where the letter states:

. . . Despite its brevity, the study shows quite clearly that the Novus Ordo Missae—considering the new elements widely susceptible to widely different interpretations which are implied or taken for granted—represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery.
The pastoral reasons put forth to justify such a grave break, even if such reasons could still hold good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place—if it subsists at all—could well turn into a certainty the suspicion, already prevalent, alas in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound forever. The recent reforms have amply demonstrated that new changes in the liturgy could not be made without leading to complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful, who already show signs of restiveness and an indubitable lessening of their faith. Among the best of the clergy, the result is an agonizing crisis of conscience, numberless instances of which come to us daily.

The Ottaviani Intervention was sent by Giovanni Montini to Franjo Seper of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (created in 1965). First there was the decree on October 20, 1969, that starting the First Sunday of Advent, November 30, 1969, the Novus Ordo would be adapted as the new liturgy by all priests celebrating publicly (It would be delayed to Palm Sunday 1970 because the Novus Ordo wasn’t even published or translated in the various languages). This was followed by a reply to objections on November 12, 1969, which was never published but Bugnini (on page 285) mentions his reply that The work, Short Critical Study. . . contains many statements which are superficial, exaggerated, inexact, impassioned and false. Giovanni Montini, on November 19, 1969, found it necessary to address publicly a rebuttal to the Ottaviani Intervention which had spread throughout much of the Catholic World. In doing so, he confirms, rather than disproves, the rejection by faithful Catholics as well founded. He points to the Council, but the Council Fathers did not agree to rejecting the codified Tridentine Mass. That is, it understood that the Council of Trent already purified the Mass of any extraneous elements and that same Council imposed the Canon of the Mass at its twenty-second session on September 17, 1562, stating:

And since it is fitting that holy things be administered in a holy manner, and this sacrifice is of all things the most holy, the Catholic Church, that it might be worthily and reverently offered and received, instituted the sacred canon many centuries ago, so free from all error [can. 6], that it contains nothing in it which does not especially diffuse a certain sanctity and piety and raise up to God the minds of those who offer it. For this consists both of the words of God, and of the traditions of the apostles, and also of pious instructions of the holy Pontiffs. (Cf. DB 942)
Canon 6. If anyone says that the canon of the Mass contains errors, and should therefore be abrogated: let him be anathema. (Cf. DB 953).

The Fathers (Bishops) of the Vatican Council knew they could not change Trent. They knew they could not oppose the constant teaching of the Church where, as this same Session of the Council of Trent states:

Although the Mass contains much instruction for the faithful, it has nevertheless not seemed expedient to the Fathers that it be celebrated everywhere in the vernacular [can. 9]. For this reason, since the ancient rite of each church has been approved by the holy Roman Church, the mother and teacher of all churches, and has been retained everywhere, lest the sheep of Christ suffer hunger, and “little ones ask for bread and there is none to break it unto them” [cf. Lam. 4:4], the holy Synod commands pastors and everyone who has the care of souls to explain frequently during the celebration of the Masses, either themselves or through others, some of the things which are read in the Mass, and among other things to expound some mystery of this most holy Sacrifice, especially on Sundays and feast days. (Cf. DB 946)

And issued the following Canon:

Canon 9. If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned, or that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only, or that water should not be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ: let him be anathema. (Cf. DB 956)

Therefore, to all the inquiries whether the Tridentine Mass would change, the Vatican II document, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, was touted as a guarantee that the Tridentine Mass, in essence, that is, the Offertory and Canon, would not be changed and would be said in Latin, referencing this section of the Constitution: 36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. Then only those parts that could change (Propers), that is, the Mass of the Catechumens and extraneous ceremonies, i.e., such as what was restored in the Holy Week Liturgy, would be revised, as the Conciliar document continued:

But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters. (Sacrosanctum Concilium)

To change the Mass, or even to change to the vernacular would go contrary to the Constitution, Auctorem fidei of August 28, 1794, where Pius VI condemned the following errors of the heretical Synod of Pistoia:

33. The proposition of the synod by which it shows itself eager to remove the cause through which, in part, there has been induced a forgetfulness of the principles relating to the order of the liturgy, “by recalling it (the liturgy) to a greater simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice”; as if the present order of the liturgy, received and approved by the Church, had emanated in some part from the forgetfulness of the principles by which it should be regulated,—rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it. (Cf. DB 1533)

Catholics also remembered the recent words of Pope Pius XII, who reminded the clergy that there were certain things that could not be changed, in his encyclical, Mediator Dei, of November 20, 1947:

59. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days—which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation—to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.
60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.
61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world. [Cf. Matt. 28:20.] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.
62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.
63. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.
64. This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the “deposit of faith” committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn. [Cf. Pius VI, Constitution Auctorem fidei, August 28, 1794, nn. 31-34, 39, 62, 66, 69-74.] For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls’ salvation.
65. In every measure taken, then, let proper contact with the ecclesiastical hierarchy be maintained. Let no one arrogate to himself the right to make regulations and impose them on others at will. Only the Sovereign Pontiff, as the successor of Saint Peter, charged by the divine Redeemer with the feeding of His entire flock, [Cf. John, 21:15-17.] and with him, in obedience to the Apostolic See, the bishops “whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church of God,” [Acts, 20:28.] have the right and the duty to govern the Christian people. Consequently, Venerable Brethren, whenever you assert your authority – even on occasion with wholesome severity – you are not merely acquitting yourselves of your duty; you are defending the very will of the Founder of the Church.
(To be continued)
Dr. Pius Parsch
The Church’s Year of Grace (1957)

[Message clipped] View entire message