Liturgy and Legislation

Pope St. Pius V

Before the 16^th century, there was little notion of ecclesiastical legislation or codification in the realm of liturgy. The liturgy developed almost independently of legislation, by a natural, organic, and almost unconscious process. Certainly, the Popes contributed to its development, but so did many other Christians. It was the piety of the universal Church down through the ages, and not any legislative motive at a given moment, which moved the Christians of old to contribute to the formation of the liturgy. As a human artifact, the liturgy was not the work of lawgivers, but of saints: it was the pious faithful, both clerics and laity, who built up the liturgy – not simply according to their own individual notions, but in the spirit of the traditions of prayer which they had received at the hands of divine Providence. It was this Providence, and not the will of men, which was looked upon as the single source of the means of holiness. 

Then, in the years just preceding the Council of Trent, a kind of liturgical anarchy began to arise within the Church, along with the revolution of the Protestants. More drastic measures were needed, above and beyond the normal, natural progression of tradition which had taken place before. The Council called for a reform of the Missal and the Breviary, which was carried out by Pope St. Pius V. The two bulls Quo Primum and Quod a Nobis, addressing the Missal and the Breviary respectively, were the resultant legislation promulgating the uniform use of the Tridentine books. The reform which had taken place sought to restore the liturgical books according to the sound tradition of the fathers, and a comparison of the Tridentine liturgical books with their predecessors reveals a very substantial continuity. This is not to say that this reform was perfect – probably it was not – but it succeeded in preserving the essential tradition of the Roman rite.

This was the first time in history that such an explicit and high ranking use of ecclesiastical authority had ever been applied in the realm of the liturgy. And yet the content of the liturgy remained essentially the same as it had ever been. This was, on the whole, a prudent exercise of Papal authority, on the part of Pius V. He rightly saw his authority as subject to the tradition of his ancestors. In regards to the content of the reform, it amounted to a further organic contribution to the liturgy, but with the additional note of formal legislative force. This more explicit codification was a practical means of purging the Church of the rampant liturgical abuse which existed in that period, and so preserving the tradition which had been threatened.

But unfortunately, a probably unintended side-effect of this legislation was that the liturgy came to be seen as no longer an object of tradition and organic development, but of legislation. By the time of the 20^th century, it became the popular notion that the Pope was in fact the sole arbiter of the liturgy; tradition had little to do with it. While, on the one hand, the errors of liberalism arose and a habitual disdain for authority began to set in, on the other hand, faithful conservative Catholics became enamored with an equally strange ultramontanism, according to which the Pope might as well be infallible in his every word and decision. This latter was a reaction against liberalism. Ironically, both of these extremes – the liberal anti-authoritarianism and the radical ultramontanism – converged with each other in subjecting religion to the whims of an individual. In the case of liberalism, religion was made subject to any and every individual person – hence the errors of religious indifferentism and so forth. But ultramontanism practically subjected religion to the person of the Pope. The Pope became the object of a kind of cult. This being so, the ultramontanists took the prudential decision of Pope Pius V in the Tridentine liturgical reform and transformed it into the absolute principle that the Pope is the arbiter of liturgy. While I admit the possibility that Pius V might have given too exaggerated an impression of the role of his authority in the liturgy, I do think it can be gathered from his legislation that he viewed himself not as the arbiter of the liturgy, but as its guardian. Even if the centralization which occurred with his legislation was extreme, it nonetheless respected the role of the Papacy as the protector and not the maker of the liturgy. But the ultramontanists reinterpreted it to mean precisely this latter. Thus the path was cleared for a radical liturgical upheaval.

Pope St. Pius X

Pope Pius X made the first move. While most laudably the hammer of the modernists – in which respect I think Pius X’s teaching is of the utmost importance for today’s Church – Papa Sarto was also something of an ultramontanist. Little did he seem to realize that his own ultramontanism was a species of the very modernism which he rightly condemned: for it subjected a most important element of the Catholic religion to the whims of an individual. The reform of the breviary in 1911 was dramatic, ridding the Office of an ancient tradition in the arrangement of the Psalter, which had deep roots in the venerable spirituality of the Roman Church. It has been said that in some parts, this tradition was equal in venerability to that of the Roman Canon in the mass. The tradition of the breviary was thus damaged – though not quite destroyed – and something new put in place. Certainly we should not doubt the good intentions of Pius X, who was otherwise a holy and orthodox Pontiff. But history alone shows that he departed from the tradition of his ancestors, in his exaggerated use of his own authority.

Pope Pius XII

Pope Pius XII was the next Pope to introduce drastic reforms into the liturgy. While Pius XII followed in the footsteps of Pius X in some of his theological opinions, having condemned the offspring of modernism which took the form of the "New Theology," in other respects he does seem to have been something of a progressive, and this shows through in his liturgical decisions. In his encyclical Mediator Dei (which definitely has its good points) he emphasized the role of the Papacy in the liturgy with only vague and week reliance on the concept of tradition. The 1955 reform of the rites of Holy Week damaged an ancient and venerable tradition in the Roman rite. Strangely enough, the principles according to which Pius XII’s liturgical commission operated were strikingly similar to those which would later influence the reform of Pope Paul VI. This is not surprising, considering that many of the same persons on the commission of Pius XII were also prominent members of the Consilium which constructed Paul VI’s liturgy.

Pope Paul VI

Paul VI’s reform surpassed those of his predecessors, in both the Missal and the Breviary. A huge tradition of about 1500 years was practically destroyed. All of the most essential and ancient elements which previously defined the Roman missal were heavily affected, having been eliminated, suppressed, or radically altered. The culminating effect was such a radical change that it is quite ridiculous to identify the content of the Novus Ordo with that of the liturgy which preceded it. The Liturgia Horarum of Paul VI was no less a drastic alteration (Laszlo Dobszay thinks it was an even greater change than that of the missal). While Pius X’s reform of the breviary merely damaged the tradition, preserving some its more basic principles, that tradition can hardly be said to exist at all in the new Liturgy of the Hours.

Again, we should not doubt the good intentions of these Popes. But the fact is that all of these reforms were in large part the result of an over-exaggerated importance which was attributed to the role of Papal authority in the development of the liturgy. The Church’s officially defined doctrine on the Papacy nowhere implies such an absolute and arbitrary power to the Pope in liturgical matters, nor does history before the 20^th century offer any real instances of such extremism. The post-Tridentine reform of Pope Pius V was falsely interpreted to have introduced a new working principle into the Church, whereas in reality it was practical measure intended to unite the liturgical practices of the Roman Church so as to suppress rampant liturgical abuse and preserve the tradition. The legislative decrees of Pius V were rightly exercised for the service of tradition. And so tradition, as was always the case, was the rule or standard of liturgical development. What reason could there have been for this to change so suddenly by the time of the 20^th century?

It is no use to object that Vatican I in Pastor Aeternus gave the Pope the authority not merely of a guide or supervisor but of a supreme enforcer and a ruler. While this is certainly true, these terms are used in Pastor Aeternus with respect to us the faithful, and not with respect to the content of that which is enforced. It is analogous to the Pope’s authority in matters of dogma, which is certainly his very highest authority: the Pope does not invent or arbitrate dogma; rather, it exists prior to his authority. His role is merely to receive dogma and authoritatively command the assent of all Christians to it, thereby guarding and overseeing its preservation. Indeed, in this respect he is not merely a guide for Christians, but an enforcer with the highest authority, who must be obeyed; and yet he has no power to be anything but passive with respect to dogma itself. Similarly, it is not impossible that he should also have a supreme authority in matters pertaining to liturgical discipline, and yet have the duty first to receive, and not to arbitrate, the liturgy.

Papal authority is not a law unto itself. In principle, it cannot be. It exists not for its own sake, but for the sake of the tradition of faith – whether as exemplified in dogmatic propositions or in liturgical prayer. Papal authority in itself is not higher or superior to either of these things. Its purpose is first to preserve them and secondly to enhance them, but never to invent them. I quote the words of Cardinal Ratzinger:

The pope is not an absolute monarch whose will is law; rather, he is the guardian of the authentic Tradition and, thereby, the premier guarantor of obedience. He cannot do as he likes, and he is thereby able to oppose those people who, for their part, want to do whatever comes into their head. His rule is not that of arbitrary power, but that of obedience in faith. That is why, with respect to the Liturgy, he has the task of a gardener, not that of a technician who builds new machines and throws the old ones on the junk-pile. The "rite", that form of celebration and prayer which has ripened in the faith and the life of the Church, is a condensed form of living Tradition in which the sphere using that rite expresses the whole of its faith and its prayer, and thus at the same time the fellowship of generations one with another becomes something we can experience, fellowship with the people who pray before us and after us. Thus the rite is something of benefit that is given to the Church, a living form of paradosis, the handing-on of Tradition (Preface to Alcuin Reid's The Organic Development of the Liturgy).

The SSPX

Archbishop
Marcel Lefebvre,
Founder of the SSPX

I have rarely - just in a couple posts - written about the Society of St. Pius X on this blog. Mostly this is because, for all my sympathies with that Society, discussions in that vein often tend to be driven more by politics and emotion than theology, and I have never been particularly interested in politics, ecclesiastical or otherwise. This has become ever more true in recent months. While I have often come to the defense of the SSPX in debates and discussions with other people, and will probably continue to do so, my true interests lie in studying and defending the actual liturgical, theological, and spiritual tradition of the Church itself.

That having been said, I thought I'd give a general summary of my stance regarding the SSPX, just for the record.

(Note: by "SSPX" I mean the order of priests, and not the laity who attend their masses. No layman is strictly speaking a member of the SSPX: they are simply Catholics. What follows applies to the Society itself, which is a fraternity of priests and brothers. Often the laity who attach themselves to the Society hold opinions which are not representative of the Society's actual positions.)

First, the SSPX is not schismatic. Nor do I think their founder, Archbishop Lefebvre, was a schismatic. Rather, they are disobedient. There is a quite significant difference between disobedience and schism, as understood by the Catholic theological and canonical tradition. The current Code defines schism as "the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (751). This definition is copied almost word for word from that given by St. Thomas Aquinas: “Schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy” (II.II. Q.39, A.1). For St. Thomas, schism is essentially that sin which is opposed to Catholic unity, and he quotes St. Augustine saying that a “schismatic is one who…takes pleasure in the mere disunion of the community.” Unity, says St. Thomas, consists in mutual communion with the Catholic faithful and subordination to Papal authority. The word “schism” in fact originally means a “rip” or “tear,” indicating a kind of separation or break of unity. Hence, Thomas writes that “schismatics properly so called are those who willfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church.” Now St. Thomas does not extend his concept of refusal of submission to include mere disobedience; for otherwise, as one of the objections claims, every sin would be an act of schism, since every sin is an act of disobedience against the Church. Thus, for St. Thomas, since schism is essentially opposed to Catholic unity, it must consist only in a sin in which one willfully and intentionally wishes to separate oneself from that unity. But not every act of disobedience is of such a nature; therefore, disobedience alone is not enough to constitute schism. Schism consists rather in a rebellious disobedience. "Rebellious," as used by St. Thomas, must not be understood in the loose sense in which it is commonly used. Often, the tendency is to call any act of disobedience an act of rebellion, which is clearly not how St. Thomas understands it, since he distinguishes the two. Rebellion, most properly understood, consists in the rejection of a higher authority as such, a "blanket" refusal to be subject to its jurisdiction, and a substitution of some other authority in its place, usually one's own. This is where the line is crossed. This is the sin which severs Christian unity.

The SSPX do not fit this definition, for they have always admitted the authority of the post-conciliar popes, while still maintaining some strong disagreements with certain recent papal statements and directives which appear contrary to tradition. They dissent, and they disobey, and they are sometimes intemperate in their rhetoric, but they do not deny that the recent popes have jurisdiction over them, and they have not set themselves up as an "alternate Church" with an "alternate pope." That would indeed be schismatic. (Think King Henry VIII, who was a schismatic before he was a heretic.) They are still within the fold, cooperating with everything they can in good conscience (registration of new priests, laicization of fallen priests, communication in the transfer of priests, enforcing internal discipline as requested by Rome, etc.), praying for the Pope and the local ordinary, requesting permission to use diocesan churches and facilities, and desiring open canonical recognition.

So is their disobedience justified? This is a hard question. I am inclined to concede the possibility that they lack prudence in their disobedience, but I think they are probably free of culpability in the long run. Somebody needs to take a vocal stand, in witness to tradition, and in combatting the errors against tradition which have been spread in these times even by members of the hierarchy. Saints in the past have always stood up against error. It cannot be a Catholic principle that this is only legitimate until those errors are finally approved by the authorities in the Church, particularly the Pope. Even the Pope does not get to decide what is true or false. His authority is at the service of truth. The primary rule for determining the truth throughout the history of the Church has not been authority by itself, but authority in the service of tradition. The Church and her magisterium do not consist merely in the authority of whoever happens to be in charge at any given moment. The magisterium must be seen as a continuous entity, and so its most authentic authority must be found in its inner continuity. This principle was expressed with great clarity by the father of the Church, St. Vincent of Lerins, who wrote that when one part of the Church deviates from tradition, then it is to tradition which Christians must adhere. Tradition is a criterion for knowing what is true doctrine in the Church. The SSPX act according to this principle. They operate on the basis of the continuous magisterium, which is exemplified in tradition. When a part of the magisterium falls outside of this continuity, the reasonable thing to do, and they do it, is to adhere to the continuity of tradition. Their "disobedience" then turns out to be obedience in the long run. It is an obedience to the authority of the Church as it most properly exists, that is throughout the entire continuous history of the Church, and not solely in the here and now.

That said, I will admit the possibility that the SSPX have often appeared to be too accustomed to the abnormal situation in the Church which sometimes calls for a combative attitude. While there is a need for combat and the taking up of arms in defense of tradition, combat with the ecclesiastical hierarchy should not become a habitual attitude. Thankfully they have been shaping up in this regard too (they recently published a quite good article on this very subject). I do suspect that whatever bad habits they may have picked up are not intentional, for they do recognize in principle that this is an abnormal situation.

On the issue of the episcopal consecrations of 1988, again I think that Lefebvre is free from culpability. The Archbishop was a sick and dying man at that time, and Rome repeatedly ignored his constant pleas to have a bishop for his society. He became desperate. He wanted anything but to disobey the law of the Church, which he knew well, but he saw no other means of continuing the work which he rightly viewed as necessary for the preservation of Catholic tradition. There was a real state of necessity in the Church. It was anything but a schismatic action, as it normally would have been. Lefebvre forbade his bishops from exercising jurisdiction; their only purpose was for the sacraments. There was no intention to set up an "alternate Church." There was no rebellion - even if there was disobedience. All these facts give me reason to suspect that, at the very least, the Archbishop was inculpable for this action, if not positively justified. 

A common objection to the Society’s and Lefebvre’s dissent is that the First Vatican Council defined the authority of the pope to extend not only to faith and morals but also to discipline and Church governance. This is true, but it is also true that Vatican I defined the infallibility of the pope to extend only to faith and morals, and not to discipline and governance per se (the scholastic idea of disciplinary infallibility applies only insofar as discipline contains doctrinal content). Precisely because the pope is not infallible in discipline and Church governance, he can make mistakes in such matters. Therefore it can never be a principle that every single command of the pope in such matters merits obedience unconditionally; his mistakes cannot always merit such absolute submission. The teaching of Vatican I is simply that the pope has authority in such matters, and therefore that obedience is owed to that authority, generally speaking. In a way this corresponds to the distinction between schism and disobedience: schism is a species of disobedience, being the sin against the general duty of obedience which Catholics owe the pope; and it is this duty which is taught by Vatican I. But there is also that disobedience which is only a violation of particular laws or commands. Such particular laws can indeed sometimes be wrong; and therefore disobedience to them can sometimes be justified. The assertion of this is in no way contrary to the teaching of Vatican I.

Regarding the subject of the Second Vatican Council, the above mentioned principles again apply: where there is something out of harmony with the greater continuous tradition of the Church, then it cannot be said to bind in conscience. The SSPX believe that, due to the influence of Modernism, there is a rupture in the conciliar documents with the longstanding tradition of the Church, particularly in subjects such as ecumenism and religious liberty. In my opinion, this is very possible. Even if the SSPX might be mistaken to see an explicit rupture in the texts of these documents - which I am not sure they are - nonetheless I think it is absolutely true that the "spirit" of those documents is something new, something different than what came before. Just an example of this would be the claim, in the document Dignitatis Humanae on religious liberty, that man has both the natural and civil right to religious liberty; whereas previously the notion of a right to religious liberty has been condemned in principle, while admitting exceptions in practice for a liberty of sorts in religious matters. But never was it traditionally taught that man has the right to religious liberty - if by this it is meant that he has the right to worship according to whatever religion he chooses. Granted, the conciliar document insists on man's duty to seek the truth, but this concept is overpowered by the "spirit" of the document which insists also that man has a right to religious liberty. How are these concepts to be reconciled? The SSPX sees no possible reconciliation, and I suspect that they are right.

The same is the case with the conciliar doctrine on ecumenism, and the relation of the Church to other religions, denominations, and non-Catholic churches. There is a movement towards the denial of the doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or at least towards a weakening of that doctrine. Again, while the SSPX might not necessarily be correct in seeing an explicit contradiction with tradition, nonetheless I think it is clear that the "spirit" of Vatican II certainly moves in that direction. It is also clear that the Popes after Vatican II have moved strongly in that direction - I am thinking specifically of Pope John Paul II's Assisi meetings, by which the SSPX were rightly scandalized. Because of all these issues, I believe that Rome's requirement for reconciliation that the SSPX be silent on the subject of Vatican II is quite unfair. There is a problem, and there is ambiguity, if not error, and it needs to be discussed. This discussion should even be public, because it has caused so much public confusion. Sure, it should also be charitable and polite and all that, and perhaps the SSPX have not always been successful in that regard (they have been shaping up lately, though); but the need for this discussion cannot be ignored, and frankly I see it to be a greater evil to turn a deaf ear to the matter than for it to be discussed with some polemics. Some of the saints far surpassed the SSPX in their aggressive tone against those in error (St. Thomas More contra Luther - look it up. Not that the modern Popes and Vatican II are quite as bad as Luther...). Anyhow, I do not want to go into detail on all of these topics (religious liberty, ecumenism, etc.), as they have been hashed out more than enough elsewhere. Some of the relevant past papal teaching can be found in the archives of this blog.

Moving on now, the general principles of tradition and authority apply also to the subject of the liturgy. The SSPX recognizes these principles in regards to liturgy too, and rightly so; although, in fact, I think they do not necessarily apply the principle as well as they should. In general, the SSPX's views on the liturgy are something of a mixed bag, as I see it. They often put forth the argument that the new mass is destructive of Catholic teaching on the Mass. They get around the problem of the Church's immutability and disciplinary infallibility by arguing that the new mass was not promulgated by Paul VI according to the correct legal norms which are required for it to be protected by disciplinary infallibility. This position is, I think, quite consistent, and not necessarily un-Catholic: for they recognize in principle that the Church cannot produce a liturgy which is intrinsically harmful to the faith. They just think that it was not, strictly speaking, the Church who produced the Novus Ordo, since it was not promulgated correctly. I am inclined to disagree with them on this matter. I have a difficult time denying, as they do, that Paul VI did not intend by that legislative act to officially and authoritatively approve the new rite of mass. So I think that, in one sense, the Church did indeed produce the new liturgy, and I think the new mass is not intrinsically harmful to faith. It can be celebrated well and be quite beneficial. But I also think that this does not free it of all objective imperfection. It is easy to tell that, while it contains nothing directly harmful to faith, many theological concepts have been manipulated so as to speak to the false ideologies of the modern world in an appealing way. It is analogous to how the teachings of scripture, containing nothing false or harmful to the faith, are often manipulated by the Protestants to support their own false notions. Something like that has happened in the Novus Ordo. And just as the fact that Protestants have manipulated scriptural teaching to their own ends does not in any way undermine the fact that scripture is divinely inspired and inerrant, so also does the fact that the new liturgy manipulates the truths of Catholic doctrine to support false ends not undermine the infallibility of Catholic doctrine in that liturgy. Anyhow, this is my opinion. The SSPX are not always quite as careful to make these necessary distinctions, but I think the substance of their argument can be restated as I have just stated it.

In their critiques of the new liturgy, they tend to focus on the theological differences between the traditional and new masses, especially as regards the dogmas of the Real Presence and the Propitiatory Sacrifice, and so they focus on the doctrinal propositions especially in parts of the mass like the Offertory and the Canon. I think their discussions in this regard are not without merit, since, as I have just said, there has indeed been a manipulation of doctrinal concepts in the new liturgy. For example, the old Tridentine Offertory prayers which clearly expressed the propitiatory purpose of the divine immolation were suppressed in the new missal. However, the reform affected much more than just the doctrines of the Real Presence and the Propitiatory Sacrifice. The theology of the liturgy revolves around these two central truths, but it is also much, much more than that. For example, the traditional collects contain a vast wealth of spiritual teaching that has been largely ditched in the new liturgy, and replaced with concepts more appealing to modern ears. Something similar can be said of the lectionary. In fact, I am entertaining the possibility that the damage done in these respects is somewhat greater than the loss in regard to the aforementioned two doctrines (after all, these two concepts are clearly present in some of the new Eucharistic prayers, and historically speaking the Offertory prayers are newer and less essential elements of the Roman rite - not that the new ones are all that great). It surprises me somewhat that the SSPX do not speak much of these other doctrinal elements of the liturgy, such as are contained in the collects, since these are also very essential to the Roman liturgical tradition.

Pope St. Pius X

Thus far I have spoken only of the doctrinal connection of the liturgy. While that is certainly important, I have lately been learning that there is far more to the liturgy than doctrinal propositions. The liturgy is something that is naturally embedded in tradition, which gives meaning and force to the liturgy beyond its doctrinal content. This tradition would make it wrong to invent liturgies on the spot even if they were perfectly orthodox in doctrinal content. It seems to me that the SSPX tend to have a narrower understanding of the liturgy than is actually called for by this tradition, and in many ways I think they are not grounded deeply enough in the actual history of the Roman rite. This has led them to a quite strict adherence to the liturgy of 1962. Recent scholarship has revealed the liturgy of 1962 to be not quite the pristine traditional liturgy that it is often assumed to be, particularly in regards to the 1955 rites of Holy Week, created under Pope Pius XII by a committee consisting of many of the same men who later composed the Novus Ordo. Also, the breviary had been quite heavily reformed back in 1911, by the very Pope whose name the Society bears. That reform was not especially favorable to tradition either. (Don't get me wrong: St. Pius X was very great and traditional in other respects, e.g. his condemnation of Modernism.) Of these facts of liturgical history, the SSPX seems to be somewhat unaware, or else they are simply not bothered by them. But the fact is that in regards to the liturgy, they are not as traditional as they should be. This reflects in their critiques of the Novus Ordo as well. While they make many valid points, in their ignorance of liturgical history they have failed to touch adequately on many of the most damaging and far-reaching aspects of the reform, such as the revision of the orations, the practical loss of the propers, the new lectionary, the practical loss of the Canon, and the new "Liturgy of the Hours." These changes constituted by the far the greatest damage to the liturgical tradition. Instead, the SSPX tends to focus almost exclusively on the less important elements, such as the Offertory prayers and the prayers at the foot of the altar. They could much strengthen their case if they looked to those elements which once defined the very heart and essence of the Roman rite. Some of these elements they would do well to restore to their own celebrations of the liturgy - like the singing of the Mass propers and the chanting of the pre-Pius X Office. (I do realize that some of these suggestions might cast an unappreciated shadow on the name of their patron, St. Pius X, as well as Pius XII, both of whom, again, I too hold in great esteem for reasons other than the liturgy… but still.)

I think the main problem with the SSPX as regards the liturgy is that they do not have a well-defined concept of liturgical tradition. I have learned lately that the liturgical tradition of the Church is in many ways more important even than the doctrinal tradition. Such a notion is somewhat foreign, at least in practice, to the scholastic way of thinking to which the SSPX are so attached. Scholasticism is a very doctrinally centered system of thought, and liturgical practice can be somewhat overlooked. The scholastics tended to view the liturgy primarily as another source for the teaching of doctrine, and so the importance a properly liturgical tradition was somewhat lost. I don't think this is necessary. I myself am very attached to the scholastic method, but I think that, if we are to be fully traditional as Catholics, we need to look at the whole picture of the Church, in which the liturgy as such features no less importantly than doctrine. The scholastic emphasis on doctrine can be reconciled with the primacy of the liturgy in the life of the Church. The SSPX have fallen into the same old scholastic habit of viewing the liturgy first as a source of teaching - which it certainly is, but it is also much more than that. The liturgical mode of communicating the faith goes beyond just the texts and phrasing and the explicit expression of doctrinal propositions. The liturgy is less like a textbook than it is like a piece of artwork, or a piece of music, or even a dramatic play. There is much more involved in a drama than just the script. The failure to recognize this truth results in a very limited understanding of the purpose and proper perfection of the liturgy. This has further resulted in a rather weak critical stance on the Novus Ordo, first of all, and in some liturgical unorthodoxies within the ranks of the SSPX itself as well.

Also, there seems to be a prejudice within the Society against the concepts of liturgical development and diversity. This is an impression I have received from reading some of Archbishop Lefebvre's thoughts on Quo Primum and Bishop Tissier de Malleris' article on The True Notion of Tradition (available on my sidebar), and some other sources. First of all, the rootedness of the liturgy in tradition has never prevented it from being able to develop in an organic fashion throughout the ages. That is how the Tridentine liturgy came to be. Granted, its development came to something of a halt after it had been codified by Pope Pius V, but it is not this relative staticism which followed that defines the liturgy as traditional. The tradition of the Roman liturgy is seen in the remarkable continuity which it exhibits all throughout its long development; but the point is that there was such a development, and there is no reason why it should in principle have ceased just because of Pius V's legislation in Quo Primum. Yes, Pius V forbade changes to the missal, but was this to put a break on organic development or simply to provide the needed stability in that time of rampant liturgical abuse and anarchy? Neither did the tradition of the liturgy prevent it from exhibiting some healthy diversity. In the middle ages, the various Cathedrals and religious orders would often have each their own variant on the same Roman liturgy which was received in tradition. These variations added beauty and stylistic significance to the liturgy, without damaging the tradition. This is to be sharply distinguished from the "do-it-yourself" style variety that exists in the Church today. There is a way to do liturgical diversity without damaging the substance of the liturgical tradition. All throughout the liturgical variants, the same Roman tradition was preserved in its stability in all the major elements. The analogy to a dramatic play might help: the script contains the words for the actors and perhaps some stage directions and so forth, but these might be embellished differently by different actors and directors and in different styles, each very beautiful in its own way. Likewise the liturgy. Pope Pius V actually permitted many of the medieval liturgical variants to survive (on the condition that they were 200 years or older). Sadly, only a few of them did - mainly those connected to religious orders. But the fact that the Tridentine reform did not forbid these liturgies indicates that a genuine adherence the Tridentine reform, such as the SSPX claims to have, does not require a rejection of a certain amount of liturgical diversity within tradition.

All this having been said, I think that if we are honest we must admit that we owe the preservation of liturgical tradition in today’s Church largely to Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX, even if they did not go the full way. The 1962 missal is definitely a much more traditional missal, in my opinion, than the missals that followed it, even if it has its defects. Moreover, if it were not for Archbishop Lefebvre, the traditional mass would probably have almost disappeared from the face of the earth a long time ago. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI recognized the attachment of many Catholics to their traditional forms of worship, and gave us Ecclesia Dei and Summorum Pontificum – which, granted, are not perfect, but nonetheless they have established some degree of tolerance for tradition in today’s Church. And this would very likely not have come about were it not for the voice of the SSPX. 

So there's my two-cents. There is obviously still a great deal more that could be said on all of these questions, and more, as lengthy as this post is. I think I have probably left out some important issues in the above summary... But that's the gist of it anyhow. 

Liturgy and the Law of Faith

Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi: “The law of prayer determines the law of belief.” This is the ancient saying of Prosper of Aquitaine, which was apparently reversed by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei. What does it mean? I have lately encountered the idea that the massive liturgical crisis which we are currently witnessing is due largely to an inversion of the traditional relationship between liturgy and faith. Traditionally, it was the law of prayer, such as that which is in the liturgy, which determined, and was prior to, the law of belief. Aidan Kavanagh writes in his book On Liturgical Theology that faith is consequent upon worship, and not the other way around. Worship is an encounter with the Source of the grace of faith, namely God. Faith is an assent to the revelation given to us by God. As such, faith results from the encounter with God that we experience in worship. The truths of faith expressed in the sacred liturgy are, as it were, the means through which we come into contact with God. We approach them in worship, and in consequence we believe.

At first, I found this to be a somewhat strange understanding of faith. I am always uncomfortable speaking of faith as an “encounter” or an “experience,” because that often smacks of modernism. But the modernistic understanding of faith is as an experience which originates from the sentiments within the Christian himself; whereas the above understanding presents faith as a response to Something that is already out there, an Object that is independent of us; and this is God. God and His eternal truths are prior to our faith; it is our responsibility to assent to Him, with the help of His grace, which is communicated through the liturgy and the sacraments, along with those eternal truths themselves. This assent is faith. To me, this is far from a modernistic understanding of faith, but actually aligns very well the traditional scholastic understanding, as an assent of the mind and will to God’s revelation. It would be a modernistic understanding of faith to consider it as something originating in us. And so it would be modernistic to think of ourselves – mere humans – as having the power to shape our “encounter” or “experience” of God in the liturgy according to a faith which originates in us and is thus as changeable as we are. And it is precisely this tendency whose influence we have witnessed in the recent liturgical reforms.

So it is certainly understandable why certain traditionalists are upset that Pius XII reversed the statement legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi to say legem supplicandi lex statuat credendi. However, I wonder if there is not a legitimate way to understand Pope Pius XII’s intended meaning. On the one hand, as I have just stated, it would be truly modernist to consider the liturgy as something subject to a “faith” which originates in us. On the other hand, can it not be said that the truths of faith themselves are prior to the liturgy? Oftentimes these truths are labelled as “doctrines” or “dogmas” insofar as they are taught by the infallible Church. In this sense, it seems that the liturgy is indeed subject to the law of faith, if by this it is meant that the content of the liturgy is determined by a prior truth. We would have a philosophical problem on our hands if we were to contend that the liturgy itself determines what is and is not true. So there are evidently a couple of different ways to understand what lex credendi means: it could refer to the objective truth that is out there, and thus prior to both the liturgy and our personal assent; or it could refer to our personal assent itself, which is called faith. If the former, the liturgy must indeed be subject to the law of faith and determined by it, and Pius XII’s statement seems to me not to be so unreasonable. If the latter, our faith must indeed be subject to the liturgy. Both of these ways of speaking is theologically legitimate, and they are not in opposition. But when it comes to the use of Prosper of Aquitaine's phrase, we appear to have run up against an equivocation on the “law of faith.” 

Some Comparisons from Good Friday

The rites of Holy Week are the object of much controversy. Even among traditional Catholics, there are certain serious disagreements over the 1955 Holy Week of Pope Pius XII, which appears in the 1962 missal. I have not written much on that subject on this blog, and probably won't until a little later - thus far I have learned but little of the subject. However, I thought I'd give a brief comparison of some of the Good Friday intercessions from the traditional and new rites, using the traditional prayers as they are found in the pre-55 Holy Week. The main examples are the prayers for the unity of Christians, for the Jews, and for non-believers.

First Example.

Traditional prayer for the unity of Christians:

Let us pray also for heretics and schismatics: that our Lord God would be pleased to rescue them from all their errors; and recall them to our holy mother the Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Almighty and everlasting God, who savest all, and wouldst that no one should perish: look on the souls that are led astray by the deceit of the devil: that having set aside all heretical evil, the hearts of those that err may repent, and return to the unity of Thy truth. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end.
R. Amen

Novus Ordo prayer for the unity of Christians:

Let us pray also for all our brothers and sisters who believe in Christ, that our God and Lord may be pleased, as they live the truth, to gather them together and keep them in his one Church. 

Almighty ever-living God, who gather what is scattered and keep together what you have gathered, look kindly on the flock of your Son, that those whom one Baptism has consecrated may be joined together by integrity of faith and united in the bond of charity. Through Christ our Lord.

R. Amen.

Note the significant changes. Those who are outside the Catholic Church are no longer referred to as heretics and schismatics, but as our brothers and sisters. They are no longer said to be in error and hence in need of rescuing, but are recognized as believing in Christ and living the truth.  They are no longer recognized as in danger of perishing, nor that they have been deceived by the devil; nor is it prayed that they set aside all heretical evil, or that they may repent of their errors, and return to unity in truth. Rather, now it is merely recognized that they are Baptized, like us, and should all be joined to us in the integrity of faith and the bond of charity. Notice the pattern here: all reference to the bad things about being non-Catholic have been suppressed, and only the good things about non-Catholics are mentioned.

Second example.

The notorious traditional prayer for the Jews:

Let us pray also for the perfidious Jews: that our God and Lord would remove the veil from their hearts: that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ. 

Almighty and everlasting God, who drivest not away from Thy mercy even the perfidious Jews: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people: that, acknowledging the light of Thy truth, which is Christ, they may be rescued from their darkness. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end.
R. Amen.

The Novus Ordo prayer for the Jews:

Let us pray also for the Jewish people, to whom the Lord our God spoke first, that he may grant them to advance in love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant. 

Almighty ever-living God, who bestowed your promises on Abraham and his descendants, graciously hear the prayers of your Church, that the people you first made your own may attain the fullness of redemption. Through Christ our Lord.

R. Amen.

Similar patterns appear in this example. First of all, I should note that Pope John XXIII changed the traditional prayer to omit the word "perfidious," which is horw it appeared in the 1962 missal. Pope Benedict  XVI later made another change to the 1962 version, to no longer mention the "veil over their hearts," and their "blindness," etc., but still prays for their conversion.  I regard the above form as the traditional and optimal form, and would probably rather that John XXIII and Benedict XVI had not made the said changes. The Latin word word perfidis ought not to be interpreted in any sort of anti-semitic sense, nor any of the other "negative" references to the Jews. Perfidis originally just meant "faithless," which is true of the Jews and of all non-Christians - hardly anti-semitic. Probably because these references were viewed as anti-semitic, or simply because they were just downright negative anyway, the prayer of the Novus Ordo omits all such references, as well as any explicit mention of conversion (similarly to the previous example), but only prays that the Jews advance in love and faithfulness to the covenant, and that they may attain the fullness of redemption. As I see it, and as is so often the case in the new missal, this prayer does not say anything false, but is problematic by reason of its omissions and its ambiguities. 

Third example.

Traditional prayer for Pagans:

Let us pray also for the pagans: that almighty God would remove iniquity from their hearts: that, putting aside their idols, they may be converted to the true and living God, and His only Son, Jesus Christ our God and Lord. 

Almighty and everlasting God, who ever seekest not the death, but the life of sinners: mercifully hear our prayer, and deliver them from the worship of idols: and join them to Thy holy Church for the praise and glory of Thy Name. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end.
R. Amen.

The Novus Ordo has two prayers that appear to me to replace this one. The first is the prayer for those who do not believe in Christ:

Let us pray also for those who do not believe in Christ, that, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, they, too, may enter on the way of salvation. 

Almighty ever-living God, grant to those who do not confess Christ that, by walking before you with a sincere heart, they may find the truth and that we ourselves, being constant in mutual love and striving to understand more fully the mystery of your life, may be made more perfect witnesses to your love in the world. Through Christ our Lord.
R. Amen.

And the prayer for those who do not acknowledge God:

Let us pray also for those who do not acknowledge God, that, following what is right in sincerity of heart, they may find the way to God himself. 

Almighty ever-living God, who created all people to seek you always by desiring you and, by finding you, come to rest, grant, we pray, that, despite every harmful obstacle, all may recognize the signs of your fatherly love and the witness of the good works done by those who believe in you, and so in gladness confess you, the one true God and Father of our human race. Through Christ our Lord.
R. Amen.

Again, the pattern is similar. Nothing in the new prayers is false or even especially problematic in itself - these do not have so great a problem of ambiguity as the other two prayers. Nonetheless, those phrases in the traditional prayer which are easily thought of as too pessimistic are suppressed - "inquity," "idols," "sinners," etc.  

This pattern of suppressing "negative" themes is very common in the new missal. The collects of the Sundays  during the seasons throughout the temporal cycle exhibit this pattern to a large degree, as is evident from Dr. Lauren Pristas' book The Collects of the Roman Missals. This is part of the very modernistic tendency to update the liturgy to fit the tastes and the subjective "consciousness" of modern man, who so dislikes to hear the pessimistic spirituality of traditional Catholicism.

Iota Unum - Critique of the Liturgical Reform

A passage from Romano Amerio's brilliant work, Iota Unum, in which he critiques the reforms and changes after Vatican II. In this particular passage from chapter thirty-eight, he critiques the principles of the liturgical reform. We can see here how the liturgical reform was in certain ways influenced by Modernism, which seeks to make religion a thing of self-expression.

------

The motivation underlying the reform combines various significant departures from traditional thinking, all of them connected with an incipient change in doctrine. 

The first change comes from supposing that the liturgy should give expression to the feelings of modern men, when in fact it is designed to express the timeless vision of the Church. Precisely because it is timeless, the Church's vision does include the mentality of contemporary men, but it is not restricted to it; the Church's mentality is not historical, but suprahistorical, and embraces the whole compass of every generation of Christians. According to the classic definition, repeated by the council, the liturgy is the priestly action of Christ and of his mystical body which is the Church: this gives rise to the public worship of God the Father. The priest action of Christ at Mass cannot happen without the action of an ordained priest; the priest given at baptism is utterly incapable of consecrating the Lord's Body which is the centre of the liturgy. This point of faith clearly reiterated in a document entitled Sacerdotium Ministeriale, put out by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in September 1983. Without a priest there can be no Eucharist and, in that sense, no public prayer of the Church, but conversely, a priest who celebrates Mass without a congregation is nonetheless fulfilling a "public and social" act. Mass is now coming to be thought of by some people not as an action essentially of the priest in persona Christi, but an action of the community, in the sense that the community not only offers the sacrifice together with the priest who effects it, but that the community co-offers and con-celebrates on an equal footing with the celebrant himself. 

All of this demonstrates that the new rite, as actually celebrated, has been influenced by theological schools of thought that weaken the special ontological status of the ordained priest, that attempt to enlarge the role of the people of God in worship at the expense of the sacred functions of the priest, that make the meeting of the people more important than the act of consecration, and that promote the subjectivization and thus the instability of the whole of Christian worship. In this view, the essence of divine worship is no longer the unchanging sacrament, and a consequently unchanging worship, but rather a changing set of human feelings that demand expression, and that stamp upon the liturgy the mentality and customs of different peoples. Thus the Church no longer aspires to a strict uniformity in rites but instead "looks favorably upon whatever is not strictly connected with superstition, and preserve it intact, if possible, and sometimes even introduces it into the liturgy itself."

The principle of creativity.

The new liturgy is thus psychological rather than ontological, subjective rather than objective, anthropological rather than theological, and expresses not so much a transcendent mystery as the feelings with which the people react to that mystery. The specific function of worship is to stimulate man's sense of the divine rather than to convey the reality of a divine gift; hence the congregation is more important than the eucharistic rite, and the laity more important than the priest.

This change in turn produces another, which might be described as the principle of liturgical creativity. According to this view, the people of God pour their own culture and their own spirit into the Church's rites, and the priest acts as the means of expressing all this in the celebration. The objectivity of the liturgy, which is a reflection of the absolute Object, must retreat before the importance of a human subject seeking self-expression. Sacrosantum Concilium distinguishes between a changeable and an unchangeable part of the liturgy, but without saying what the latter actually includes. If even the words of consecration are changed, it is hard to see just where the immutability of the liturgy lies. Of course, there has been change down the centuries in the changeable elements of the liturgy, but it has occurred cautiously, modestly, and prudently. The recent reform could certainly find antiquate elements in the liturgy, which were in nee of change. One example would be the Ember Days or Quarter Tense, now out of place in a Church that has spread to countries that have only two seasons, or again the prayer pr Christianissimo Imperatore in the liturgy of Good Friday. It was certainly time to abolish the oath taken by a bishop at his consecration not to murder, or conspire to murder, the pope; and this has been duly abolished. But it is one thing to change rites like this in order to accommodate them to conditions which have obviously changed, and quite another to lay down a general principle that the Church's rites ought to be dependent on the psychology, customs, or spirit of particular peoples, or even of private individuals.

The new liturgy legitimates and encourages the idea of creativity, even though creativity is not a legitimate concept even in artistic matters, because underlying all artistic invention there is something uncreated, indeed uncreatable. Firstly, there are hardly any binding rules in the new liturgy; at many points the celebrant is present with a range of options as to what he should say or do, from which he can choose freely. The idea of creativity does away with conditions and limits, and thus tends to remove the very idea of breaking the rules. This optional spirit means that every celebrant can adjust, add or omit, and thus create whatever form he finds most congenial; as if it were a case of expressing himself instead of adoring God, as if he had to give a form to the mystery, rather than conform himself to it. Hence the enormous variety in the celebration of Mass, which ought to be the same throughout the Catholic world....

Pope Gregory XVI on False Reform

Pope Gregory XVI

A remarkable passage from Pope Gregory's encyclical Quo Graviora, in which he states that just because something in the Church is a discipline and not a doctrine does not mean that it is easily changeable:

“For many years there has been growing and spreading in this country the very false opinion, the result of the impious and absurd system of indifferentism, which holds that the Christian religion is capable of continually perfecting itself. And since the champions of this false opinion hesitate to apply this pretended perfectibility to the truths of faith, they do so to the external administration and discipline of the Church. And to give credit to their error they employ, for the most part not without inconsistency and fraud, the authority of Catholic theologians who, on occasion, establish this distinction between doctrine and discipline: that discipline is subject to change, doctrine remains always the same and is not subject to any modification. Once this is laid down, they state without any hesitation that on many points the discipline, the government, and the forms of external worship in use in the Church are no longer suitable to the character of our times, and that what is harmful to the progress and prosperity of the Catholic religion must be changed, (which is possible) without the teaching of faith and morals suffering any harm. Thus, under color of religious zeal and behind the mask of piety they introduce innovations, project reforms, devise a “regeneration” of the Church… Moreover, without realizing it, or pretending that they do not realize it, they are in direct contradiction to sound doctrine which they say they wish to reestablish and protect. For in fact, when they pretend that all the forms of the Church without distinction can be changed, are they not subjecting to this change those points of discipline which have their foundation in the divine law itself, which are joined to doctrines of faith by so close a bond that the rule of faith determines the rule of action?”

Pope Pius X on Modernism and the Evolution of Dogma

Today being the feast day of Pope Pius X, I present here a section of the magnificent encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, in which the Pope describes the heretical notion of the evolution of dogma. 

The Origin of Dogma

In that sentiment of which We have frequently spoken, since sentiment is not knowledge, God indeed presents Himself to man, but in a manner so confused and indistinct that He can hardly be perceived by the believer. It is therefore necessary that a ray of light should be cast upon this sentiment, so that God may be clearly distinguished and set apart from it. This is the task of the intellect, whose office it is to reflect and to analyse, and by means of which man first transforms into mental pictures the vital phenomena which arise within him, and then expresses them in words. Hence the common saying of Modernists: that the religious man must ponder his faith. - The intellect, then, encountering this sentiment directs itself upon it, and produces in it a work resembling that of a painter who restores and gives new life to a picture that has perished with age. The simile is that of one of the leaders of Modernism. The operation of the intellect in this work is a double one: first by a natural and spontaneous act it expresses its concept in a simple, ordinary statement; then, on reflection and deeper consideration, or, as they say, by elaborating its thought, it expresses the idea in secondary propositions, which are derived from the first, but are more perfect and distinct. These secondary propositions, if they finally receive the approval of the supreme magisterium of the Church, constitute dogma.

12. Thus, We have reached one of the principal points in the Modernists' system, namely the origin and the nature of dogma. For they place the origin of dogma in those primitive and simple formulae, which, under a certain aspect, are necessary to faith; for revelation, to be truly such, requires the clear manifestation of God in the consciousness. But dogma itself they apparently hold, is contained in the secondary formulae.

To ascertain the nature of dogma, we must first find the relation which exists between the religious formulas and the religious sentiment. This will be readily perceived by him who realises that these formulas have no other purpose than to furnish the believer with a means of giving an account of his faith to himself. These formulas therefore stand midway between the believer and his faith; in their relation to the faith, they are the inadequate expression of its object, and are usually called symbols; in their relation to the believer, they are mere instruments.

Its Evolution

13. Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they express absolute truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sentiment in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sentiment. But the object of the religious sentiment, since it embraces that absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner, he who believes may pass through different phases. Consequently, the formulae too, which we call dogmas, must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. An immense collection of sophisms this, that ruins and destroys all religion. Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and as clearly flows from their principles. For amongst the chief points of their teaching is this which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence; that religious formulas, to be really religious and not merely theological speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sentiment. This is not to be understood in the sense that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be made for the religious sentiment; it has no more to do with their origin than with number or quality; what is necessary is that the religious sentiment, with some modification when necessary, should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which spring the secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it comes that these formulas, to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly must be changed. And since the character and lot of dogmatic formulas is so precarious, there is no room for surprise that Modernists regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect. And so they audaciously charge the Church both with taking the wrong road from inability to distinguish the religious and moral sense of formulas from their surface meaning, and with clinging tenaciously and vainly to meaningless formulas whilst religion is allowed to go to ruin. Blind that they are, and leaders of the blind, inflated with a boastful science, they have reached that pitch of folly where they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true nature of the religious sentiment; with that new system of theirs they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, condemned by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can rest and maintain truth itself.

August 21 - Memorial of Pope St. Pius X

The following is a passage from Pope St. Pius X's encyclical E Supremi on the "Restoration of all Things in Christ." Here he speaks with a prophetic voice of the "substitution of man for God," which bears an eerie similarity to the "cult of man" which has so influenced the world and the Church today. St. Pius X, pray for us!

~~~~~

4...We proclaim that We have no other program in the Supreme Pontificate but that "of restoring all things in Christ" (Ephes. i., 10), so that "Christ may be all and in all" (Coloss. iii., 2). Some will certainly be found who, measuring Divine things by human standards will seek to discover secret aims of Ours, distorting them to an earthly scope and to partisan designs. To eliminate all vain delusions for such, We say to them with emphasis that We do not wish to be, and with the Divine assistance never shall be aught before human society but the Minister of God, of whose authority We are the depositary. The interests of God shall be Our interest, and for these We are resolved to spend all Our strength and Our very life. Hence, should anyone ask Us for a symbol as the expression of Our will, We will give this and no other: "To renew all things in Christ." In undertaking this glorious task, We are greatly quickened by the certainty that We shall have all of you, Venerable Brethren, as generous co-operators. Did We doubt it We should have to regard you, unjustly, as either unconscious or heedless of that sacrilegious war which is now, almost everywhere, stirred up and fomented against God. For in truth, "The nations have raged and the peoples imagined vain things" (Ps. ii., 1.) against their Creator, so frequent is the cry of the enemies of God: "Depart from us" (Job. xxi., 14). And as might be expected we find extinguished among the majority of men all respect for the Eternal God, and no regard paid in the manifestations of public and private life to the Supreme Will -- nay, every effort and every artifice is used to destroy utterly the memory and the knowledge of God.

5. When all this is considered there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may be already in the world the "Son of Perdition" of whom the Apostle speaks (II. Thess. ii., 3). Such, in truth, is the audacity and the wrath employed everywhere in persecuting religion, in combating the dogmas of the faith, in brazen effort to uproot and destroy all relations between man and the Divinity! While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God's majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. "He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God" (II. Thess. ii., 2).

6. Verily no one of sound mind can doubt the issue of this contest between man and the Most High. Man, abusing his liberty, can violate the right and the majesty of the Creator of the Universe; but the victory will ever be with God -- nay, defeat is at hand at the moment when man, under the delusion of his triumph, rises up with most audacity. Of this we are assured in the holy books by God Himself. Unmindful, as it were, of His strength and greatness, He "overlooks the sins of men" (Wisd. xi., 24), but swiftly, after these apparent retreats, "awaked like a mighty man that hath been surfeited with wine" (Ps. Ixxvii., 65), "He shall break the heads of his enemies" (Ps. Ixvii., 22), that all may know "that God is the king of all the earth" (Ib. Ixvi., 8), "that the Gentiles may know themselves to be men' (Ib. ix., 20).

7. All this, Venerable Brethren, We believe and expect with unshakable faith. But this does not prevent us also, according to the measure given to each, from exerting ourselves to hasten the work of God -- and not merely by praying assiduously: "Arise, O Lord, let not man be strengthened" (Ib. ix., 19), but, more important still, by affirming both by word and deed and in the light of day, God's supreme dominion over man and all things, so that His right to command and His authority may be fully realized and respected. This is imposed upon us not only as a natural duty, but by our common interest. For, Venerable Brethren, who can avoid being appalled and afflicted when he beholds, in the midst of a progress in civilization which is justly extolled, the greater part of mankind fighting among themselves so savagely as to make it seem as though strife were universal? The desire for peace is certainly harbored in every breast, and there is no one who does not ardently invoke it. But to want peace without God is an absurdity, seeing that where God is absent thence too justice flies, and when justice is taken away it is vain to cherish the hope of peace. "Peace is the work of justice" (Is. xxii., 17). There are many, We are well aware, who, in their yearning for peace, that is for the tranquillity of order, band themselves into societies and parties, which they style parties of order. Hope and labor lost. For there is but one party of order capable of restoring peace in the midst of all this turmoil, and that is the party of God. It is this party, therefore, that we must advance, and to it attract as many as possible, if we are really urged by the love of peace.

8. But, Venerable Brethren, we shall never, however much we exert ourselves, succeed in calling men back to the majesty and empire of God, except by means of Jesus Christ. "No one," the Apostle admonishes us, "can lay other foundation than that which has been laid, which is Jesus Christ." (I. Cor., iii., II.) It is Christ alone "whom the Father sanctified and sent into this world" (Is. x., 36), "the splendor of the Father and the image of His substance" (Hebr. i., 3), true God and true man: without whom nobody can know God with the knowledge for salvation, "neither doth anyone know the Father but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal Him." (Matth. xi., 27.) Hence it follows that to restore all things in Christ and to lead men back to submission to God is one and the same aim. To this, then, it behoves Us to devote Our care -- to lead back mankind under the dominion of Christ; this done, We shall have brought it back to God. When We say to God We do not mean to that inert being heedless of all things human which the dream of materialists has imagined, but to the true and living God, one in nature, triple in person, Creator of the world, most wise Ordainer of all things, Lawgiver most just, who punishes the wicked and has reward in store for virtue.

9. Now the way to reach Christ is not hard to find: it is the Church. Rightly does Chrysostom inculcate: "The Church is thy hope, the Church is thy salvation, the Church is thy refuge." ("Hom. de capto Euthropio," n. 6.) It was for this that Christ founded it, gaining it at the price of His blood, and made it the depositary of His doctrine and His laws, bestowing upon it at the same time an inexhaustible treasury of graces for the sanctification and salvation of men.

You see, then, Venerable Brethren, the duty that has been imposed alike upon Us and upon you of bringing back to the discipline of the Church human society, now estranged from the wisdom of Christ; the Church will then subject it to Christ, and Christ to God. If We, through the goodness of God Himself, bring this task to a happy issue, We shall be rejoiced to see evil giving place to good, and hear, for our gladness, " a loud voice from heaven saying: Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God and the power of his Christ." (Apoc. xii., 10.) But if our desire to obtain this is to be fulfilled, we must use every means and exert all our energy to bring about the utter disappearance of the enormous and detestable wickedness, so characteristic of our time -- the substitution of man for God; this done, it remains to restore to their ancient place of honor the most holy laws and counsels of the gospel; to proclaim aloud the truths taught by the Church, and her teachings on the sanctity of marriage, on the education and discipline of youth, on the possession and use of property, the duties that men owe to those who rule the State; and lastly to restore equilibrium between the different classes of society according to Christian precept and custom. This is what We, in submitting Ourselves to the manifestations of the Divine will, purpose to aim at during Our Pontificate, and We will use all our industry to attain it. It is for you, Venerable Brethren, to second Our efforts by your holiness, knowledge and experience and above all by your zeal for the glory of God, with no other aim than that Christ may be formed in all.

Pope Pius IX - Iam Vos Omnes

Pope Pius IX

This is a stunning text, and far too unknown in today's Catholic world. It is hard to see how modern ecumenism is compatible with this teaching. God bless Pope Pius IX!

---------

Apostolic Letter of His Holiness, Pope Pius IX, to all Protestants and other Non-Catholics at the convocation of the Vatican Council, September 13, 1868, that they might return to the Catholic Church.

Surely you all are aware that We, who have been raised up, though without any merit, to this Chair of Peter, and therefore to the head of the supreme government and care of the entire Catholic Church of Jesus Christ Our Lord, have thought it opportune to call to Us the Venerable Brothers of the Episcopate of all the world, and to reunite them, in the coming year, in an Ecumenical Council; for preparation, with the same Venerable Brothers, calling you to share Our pastoral solicitude, those provisions which will prove more suitable and more incisive to dissipate the darkness of many pestilent errors which, wherever, with added damage of the soul, every day are more affirmed and triumph, and to always give more consistency and to diffuse in the Christian people, entrusted to Our vigilance, the kingdom of the true faith, of justice and of authentic peace of God.

Reposing full confidence in the most tightly bound and most amiable pact of union which in a marvelous way binds to Us and to this Seat the same Venerable Brothers, what testimony the unequivocable tests of fidelity, of love and of obedience towards Us and towards this Our Seat, [they] have never omitted to offer in the course of all Our Supreme Pontificate, we nourish the hope that, as it has happened in ages past through other General Councils, so also in the present age, this Ecumenical Council of Ours will produce, with the help of divine grace, copious and most joyous fruits for the greater glory of God and for the eternal salvation of men.

Sustained therefore by this hope, solicitous and urged by the charity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered His life for the salvation of all the race of men, it is not possible for us to pass by the occasion of the future Council without turning Our paternal and Apostolic word again to all those who, even if they acknowledge Jesus Christ the Redeemer and boast of the name of Christian, do not profess the totality of the true faith of Christ and are not in the communion of the Catholic Church. This being the case, we propose with all zeal and Charity to admonish, exhort, and beseech them for this reason to seriously consider and reflect whether the way in which they continue is that which is indicated by that same Christ the Lord: which is the way that leads to eternal life.

Nobody will certainly be able to doubt or deny that this Jesus Christ, to the end that the fruits of His Redemption might be applied to all the race of men, has built here on earth, upon Peter, the only Church, which is one, holy, catholic and apostolic; and that He has conferred upon her the power necessary to preserve whole and inviolate the deposit of faith; to transmit this same faith to all peoples, tribes, and nations; to call [elect] to unity in this Mystical Body, through baptism, all men, for the purpose of preserving in them, and perfecting, that new life of grace, without which no one can merit and obtain eternal life; wherefore this Church, which constitutes the Mystical Body, will persist and prosper in her own stable and indefectible nature until the end of the ages, and offer to all Her sons the means of salvation.

Whoever thus gives proper attention and reflection to the situation which surrounds the various religious societies, divided amongst themselves and separated from the Catholic Church - which, without interruption, from the time of Christ the Lord and of His Apostles, by means of her legitimate sacred Shepherds, has always exercised, and exercises still, the divine power conferred upon Her by the Lord - it will be easy to convince [them] that in none of these societies, and not even in all of them taken together, can in some way be seen the one and Catholic Church which Christ the Lord built, constituted, and willed to exist. Neither will it ever be able to be said that they are members and part of that Church as long as they remain visibly separated from Catholic unity. It follows that such societies, lacking that living authority established by God, which instructs men in the things of the faith and in the discipline of the customs, directing and governing them in all that concerns eternal salvation, they continuously mutate in their doctrines without that mobility and the instability they find one end. Everyone therefore can easily comprehend and fully reckon that this is absolutely in contrast with the Church instituted by Christ the Lord, in which the truth must always remain constant and never subject to change whatsoever, deposited as if it were into a warehouse, entrusted to be guarded perfectly whole. To this purpose, it has received the promise of the perpetual presence and the aid of the Holy Spirit. No one then ignores that from these dissentions [disagreements] in doctrines and opinions derive social divisions, which find their origin in these innumerable communions and which are always and increasingly diffused with grave damage[s] to the Christian and civil society.

Therefore, whoever recognizes that religion is the foundation of human society must be moved to confess what great violence has been wrought in civil society by the discrepancy of principles and the division of religious societies which fight amongst themselves, and with what force the refusal of the authority willed by God for governing the convictions of the intellect of men through the direction of the actions of men, as much in private life as in social life, has provoked, promoted and fed the lamentable of the things and of the times which agitate and plague [afflict] in this way nearly all peoples.

It is for this reason that so many who do not share “the communion and the truth of the Catholic Church” must make use of the occasion of the Council, by the means of the Catholic Church, which received in Her bosom their ancestors, proposes [further] demonstration of profound unity and of firm vital force; hear the requirements [demands] of her heart, they must engage themselves to leave this state that does not guarantee for them the security of salvation. She does not hesitate to raise to the Lord of mercy most fervent prayers to tear down of the walls of division, to dissipate the haze of errors, and lead them back within holy Mother Church, where their Ancestors found salutary pastures of life; where, in an exclusive way, is conserved and transmitted whole the doctrine of Jesus Christ and wherein is dispensed the mysteries of heavenly grace. 

It is therefore by force of the right of Our supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord, which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ; we desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation in Christ Jesus, and we fear having to render an account one day to Him, Our Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. In all Our prayers and supplications, with thankfulness, day and night we never omit to ask for them, with humble insistence, from the eternal Shepherd of souls the abundance of goods and heavenly graces. And since, if also, we fulfill in the earth the office of vicar, with all our heart we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the salvation of all of them, but above all also of the whole Christian society: the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not of one fold and one shepherd.

Given at Rome, from St. Peter, on the 13th of September, 1868; in the 23rd year of Our Pontificate,

Pius PP IX