+
JMJ
A Dominican has joined the SSPX and ... it is because of Traditionis Custodes.
That's not unexpected and neither is it expected that many will follow him. The path to and of Traditional Catholics is a hard one to follow. Few there are that can walk it and fewer still that find it.
Just as modern Catholic Laity have to overcome huge cultural barriers to make the switch and for Religious it is even greater.
For them it comes down to the realization that if the SSPX is right, then practically EVERYTHING they thought and believed as Catholic was either a lie or twisted.
Not an easy barrier to break through. As Traditional Catholics, based on my experience, God will lead some to the SSPX, all we have to do is help the Modern Catholics stay Catholic and not despair as their heroes turn out to be zeroes.
So my challenge to you trads: Be strong in your faith, share that strength and knowledge with others in True Catholic Charity.
I am relieved to finally be able to post something of importance. Yep, the Pandemic is nothing compared to the crisis of the Church.
Let's put some perspective on this:
- Crisis of the Catholic Church ~60+ years.
- Pandemic <3y.
P^3
Courtesy of Rorate-Caeli
His Holiness Pope Francis
Domus Sanctae Marthae
The Holy See
Vatican City
For the attention of:
Rev. General Master of the Order, Gerard Francisco Timoner III OP
Rev. Provincial of the Polish Province, Paweł Kozacki OP
H.E. Bishop of the Tarnów Diocese, Andrzej Jeż
Rev. Superior of the House in Jamna, Andrzej Chlewicki OP
Brothers and Sisters in the Order
Rev. Superior of the Polish District of the Fraternity of St Pius X, Karl Stehlin FSSPX
Omnes quos res tangit
Most Holy Father,
I
was born 57 years ago and joined the Dominican Order 35 years ago. I
took my perpetual vows 29 years ago and have been a priest now for 28
years. I had only vague recollections from my early childhood of the
Holy Mass in its form predating the reforms of 1970. Sixteen years after
my ordination, two lay friends (unknown to each other) urged me to
learn how to celebrate the Holy Mass in its traditional form. I listened
to them.
It was a shock to me. I discovered that the Holy Mass in its classical form:
- directs the entire attention of both priest and faithful towards the Mystery,
- expresses, with great precision of words and gestures, the faith of the Church in what is happening here and now on the altar,
- reinforces, with a power equal to its precision, the faith of the celebrant and of the people,
- does not lead either priest or faithful towards any invention or creativity of their own during the liturgy,
- places them, quite on the contrary, on a path of silence and contemplation,
- offers by the number and nature of its gestures the possibility of incessant acts of piety and love towards God,
- unites the priest and faithful, placing them on the same side of the altar and turning them in the same direction: versus Crucem, versus Deum.
I said to myself: so this is what the Holy Mass is! And I, a priest of 16 years, did not know it! It was a powerful eureka, a discovery, after which my idea of the Mass could not remain the same.
From
the beginning it had struck me that this rite is the opposite of the
stereotype. Instead of formalism, free expression of the soul before
God. Instead of frigidity, the fervour of divine cult. Instead of
distance, closeness. Instead of strangeness, intimacy. Instead of
rigidity, security. Instead of the passivity of the laity, their deep
and living connection to the mystery (it was through the laity, after
all, that I was led to the traditional Mass). Instead of a chasm between
priest and the faithful, a close spiritual union between all those
present, protected and expressed by the silence of the Canon. In making
this discovery it became clear to me: this very form is our bridge to
the generations who lived before us and passed on the faith. My joy in
this ecclesial unity which transcends all time was enormous.
From
the beginning, I experienced the powerful force of spiritual attraction
of the Mass in its traditional form. It was not the signs in themselves
which attracted me, but their significance, which the soul knows how to
read. The very thought of the next celebration filled me with joy. I
sought every opportunity to celebrate with eagerness and longing. Very
soon a complete certainty matured within me, that, were I to celebrate
Mass (as well as every Sacrament and ceremony) only in its traditional
form till the end of my days, I would not miss the post-conciliar form
in the least.
Had
someone asked me to express with a single word my feelings about the
traditional celebration in the context of the reformed rite, I would
have replied “relief.” For it was indeed a relief, one of indescribable
depth. It was like that of someone who, having walked all his life in
shoes with a pebble in them that rubs and irritates his feet, but who
has no other experience of walking, is offered, 16 years later, a pair
of shoes with no pebble and the words: “Here,” “Put them on,” “try
them!” Not only did I rediscover the Holy Mass, but also the
astounding difference between the two forms: that which had been in use
for centuries and the post-conciliar one. I had not known this
difference because I had not known the earlier form. I cannot compare my
encounter with the traditional liturgy to a meeting with someone who
has adopted me and has become my adoptive parent. It was a meeting with a
Mother who has always been my Mother, yet I had not known her.
I
was accompanied in all this by the blessing of the Supreme Pontiffs.
They had taught that the missal of 1962 “had never been legally
abrogated and remained therefore, in principle, always permitted,”
adding that “what had been sacred for previous generations remained
sacred and great also for us, and could not suddenly become completely
forbidden nor even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to
preserve the riches which have developed through the faith and prayer of
the Church and to give them their proper place” (Benedict XVI, Letter
to the Bishops, 2007). The faithful were also taught: “On account of its
venerable and ancient use, the forma extraordinaria is to be maintained with the honour due to it”; it has been described as “a precious treasure to be preserved” (Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, 2011).
These words followed earlier documents which made it possible for the
faithful to use the traditional liturgy after the reforms of 1970, the
first being Quattuor abhinc annos of 1984. The foundation and source for all these documents remains the Bull of Saint Pius V, Quo primum tempore (1570).
Holy
Father, if, without forgetting the solemn document of Pope Pius V, we
take into consideration the lapse of time covering the declarations of
your immediate predecessors we have a duration of 37 years, from 1984 to
2021, during which the Church said to the faithful, concerning the
traditional liturgy, and ever more strongly: “There is such a way. You
may walk along it.”
I therefore took the path offered to me by the Church.
Whoever
takes this road—whoever wants this rite, which is the vessel of divine
Presence and divine Oblation, to bear fruit within his own life—should
open himself entirely so as to entrust himself and others to God,
present and acting within us through the vessel of this holy rite. This I
did, with complete confidence.
Then came the 16th of July 2021.
From your documents, Holy Father, I learnt that the path I had been walking on for 12 years had ceased to exist.
We
have affirmations of two Popes. His Holiness Benedict XVI had said that
the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V “must be considered the
extraordinary expression of the lex orandi of the Catholic
Church of the Roman Rite.” Yet His Holiness Pope Francis says that “the
liturgical books promulgated by Popes St. Paul VI and St. John Paul II
(...) are the only expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” The affirmation of the successor thus denies that of his still-living predecessor.
Can
a certain manner of celebrating Mass, confirmed by immemorial,
centuries-old Tradition, recognized by every Pope, including yourself,
Holy Father, until the 16th of July of 2021, and sanctified by its
practice over so many centuries, suddenly cease to be the lex orandi of
the Roman Rite? If this were the case, it would mean that such a
characteristic is not intrinsic to the rite but is an external
attribute, subject to the decisions of those who occupy places of high
authority. In reality, the traditional liturgy expresses the lex orandi of
the Roman Rite by its every gesture and every sentence and by the whole
that they compose. It is guaranteed also to express this lex orandi,
as the Church has always held, on account of its uninterrupted use,
since time immemorial. We must conclude that the first papal affirmation
[of Benedict] has solid foundations and is true and that the second [of
Francis] is groundless and is false. But despite its being false, it is nevertheless given power of law. This has consequences about which I will write below.
Concessions
regarding the use of the Missal of 1962 now have a different character
than earlier ones. It is no longer about responding to the love with
which the faithful adhere to the traditional form, but about giving the
faithful time—how much time, we are not told—to “return” to the reformed
liturgy. The words of the Motu Proprio and your Letter to the
Bishops make it entirely clear that the decision has been taken, and is
already being implemented, to remove the traditional liturgy from the
life of the Church and cast it into the abyss of oblivion: it may not be
used in parish churches, new groups must not be formed, Rome must be
consulted if new priests are to say it. The bishops are now indeed to be
Traditionis Custodes, “custodians of Tradition,” yet not in the sense of guardians who protect it, but rather in the sense of custodians of a jail.
Allow
me to express my conviction that this will not happen, and that the
operation will fail. What are the grounds for this conviction? A careful
analysis of both Letters of July 16th exposes four components:
Hegelianism, nominalism, belief in the Pope’s omnipotence, and
collective responsibility. Each one is an essential component of your
message and none of them can be reconciled with the deposit of the
Catholic faith. Since they cannot be reconciled with the faith, they
will not be integrated into it either in theory or in practice. Let us examine each of them in turn.
1) Hegelianism. The
term is a conventional one: it does not mean literally the system of
the German philosopher Hegel, but something that derives from this
system, namely the understanding of history as a good, rational, and
inevitable process of continuous changes. This way of thinking has a
long history, from Heraclitus and Plotinus, to Joachim of Fiore, down to
Hegel, Marx, and their modern heirs. The characteristic of this
approach is to divide history into phases, such that the beginning of
each new phase is joined to the end of the preceding one. Attempts to
“baptize” Hegelianism are nothing other than attempts to endow these
supposed historical phases with the authority of the Holy Spirit. It
is assumed that the Holy Spirit communicates to the next generation
something that He has not spoken of to the preceding one, or even that
He imparts something that contradicts what He has said before. In the
latter case, we must accept one of three things: either in certain
phases the Church failed to obey the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit is
subject to change, or He carries contradictions within Him.
Another
consequence of this world-view is a change in how we understand the
Church and Tradition. The Church is no longer seen as a community
uniting the faithful by transcending time, as the Catholic faith holds,
but as a set of groups belonging to the various phases. These groups no
longer have a common language: our ancestors had no access to what the
Holy Spirit says to us today. Tradition itself is no longer one message
that is continuously studied; it consists rather in receiving again and
again new things from the Holy Spirit. We then come to hear instead,
as in Your Letter to the Bishops, Holy Father, of “the dynamic of
Tradition,” often with an application to specific events. An example of
this is when you write that this dynamic’s “last stage is the Second
Vatican Council, during which Catholic bishops gathered in order to
listen and discern the way shown to the Church by the Holy Spirit.” This
line of reasoning implies that a new phase requires new liturgical
forms, because the former ones were suited to the previous stage, which
is over. Since this sequence of stages is sanctioned by the Holy Spirit,
through the Council, those who hold on to the old forms despite having
access to new ones oppose the Holy Spirit.
Such
views, however, are contrary to the faith. Holy Scripture, the norm of
Catholic faith, provides no grounds for such an understanding of
history. Rather, it teaches us an altogether different
understanding. King Josiah, having learned about the discovery of the
old book of the Law, ordered that the celebration of Passover be
conducted in accordance with it, despite an interruption of half a
century (2 Kgs 22-23). In the same way, Ezra and Nehemiah on their
return from the Babylonian captivity celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles
with the entire people, strictly according to the ancient records of
the Law, despite many decades having passed since the previous
celebration (Neh 8). In each case, the old documents of the law were
used to renew the divine worship after a period of turmoil. No one
demanded a change in the ritual on the ground that new times had
arrived.
2) Nominalism. While
Hegelianism influences one’s understanding of history, nominalism
affects one’s understanding of unity. Nominalism implies that
introducing outward unity (by means of a top-down administrative
decision) is equivalent to achieving real unity. This is because
nominalism abolishes spiritual reality by seeking to grasp and regulate
it with material measures. You write, Holy Father, that: “It is to
defend the unity of the Body of Christ that I am forced to withdraw the
faculty granted by my predecessors.” But to reach this goal, true unity,
your predecessors made the opposite decision, and not without reason.
When one understands that true unity includes something spiritual and
internal, and thus differs from mere external unity, one no longer seeks
it simply by uniformity of external signs. We do not obtain true unity
in this way, but rather, impoverishment, and the opposite of unity:
division.
Unity
does not result from the withdrawal of faculties, the revocation of
consent, and the imposition of limitations. King Rehoboam of Judah,
before deciding how to treat the Israelites, who wished him to improve
their lot, consulted two groups of advisors. The older ones recommended
leniency and a reduction of the people’s burdens: age, in Holy
Scripture, often symbolises maturity. The young, who were contemporaries
of the king, recommended increasing their burdens and the use of harsh
words: youth, in Scripture, often symbolises immaturity. The king
followed the advice of the young. This failed to bring unity between
Judah and Israel. On the contrary, it started the division of the
country into two kingdoms (1 Kgs 12). Our Lord healed this division
through mildness, knowing that the lack of this virtue had caused the
split.
Before
Pentecost, the apostles assessed unity by external criteria. This
approach was corrected by the Saviour Himself, who, in reply to the
words of St. John: “Master, we saw a man driving out evil spirits in
your name, and we did not let him do it, because he was not one of us,”
answered “Let him do so, for he who is not against you is with you” (Lk
9,49-50, cf. Mt 9,38-41). Holy Father, you had many hundreds of
thousands of the faithful who “were not against” you. And you have done
so much to make things difficult for them! Would it not have been better
to follow the words of the Saviour indicating a deeper, spiritual
foundation of unity? Hegelianism and nominalism frequently become
allies, since the materialistic understanding of history leads to the
conviction that each stage must irrevocably end.
3) Belief in the Pope’s omnipotence. When
Pope Benedict XVI granted greater freedom to the use of the classic
form of liturgy, he referred to a centuries-old custom and usus.
These provided a solid basis for his resolve. The decision of Your
Holiness is based on no such foundations. On the contrary, it revokes
something that has existed and endured for a very long time. You
write, Holy Father, that you find support in the decisions of St. Pius
V, but he applied criteria which are exactly the opposite of your own.
According to him, what had existed and lasted for centuries would
continue undisturbed; only what was newer was abrogated. The sole basis
left for your decision is therefore the will of one person endowed with
papal authority. Can this authority, though, however great it may be,
prevent ancient liturgical customs from being an expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Church? Saint
Thomas Aquinas asks himself whether God can cause something which once
existed, never to have existed. The answer is no, because contradiction
is not part of God's omnipotence (Summa Theologiae, p. I, qu. 25, art. 4). In a similar way, papal authority cannot cause traditional rituals that have expressed the faith of the Church (lex credendi) for centuries, suddenly, one day, no longer to express the law of the prayer of the same Church (lex orandi).
The Pope may make decisions, but not ones that violate a unity which
extends to the past and to the future, far beyond the duration of his
pontificate. The Pope is at the service of a unity greater than his own
authority. For it is a God-given unity and not one of human origin. It
is therefore unity which takes precedence over authority, and not
authority over unity.
4) Collective responsibility. Indicating
the motives of your decision, Holy Father, you make various and grave
allegations against those who exercise the faculties recognised by Pope
Benedict XVI. It is not specified, however, who perpetrates these
abuses, or where, or in what number. There are only the words “often”
and “many.” We do not even know whether it is a majority. Probably not.
Yet not a majority, but all those who make use of the above-mentioned
faculties have been affected by a draconian penal sanction. They have
been deprived of their spiritual path, either immediately or at some
unspecified future time. There are certainly people who misuse knives.
Should the production and distribution of knives therefore be banned?
Your decision, Holy Father, is far more grievous than would be the
hypothetical absurdity of a universal prohibition against making knives.
Holy
Father: why are you doing this? Why have you attacked the holy practice
of the ancient form of celebrating the Most Holy Sacrifice of Our Lord?
The abuses committed in other forms, widespread or universal though
they are, lead to nothing beyond words, to declarations expressed in
general terms. But how can one teach with authority that “the
disappearance of a culture can be just as serious, or even more serious,
than the disappearance of a species of plant or animal” (Laudato si 145),
and then a few years later, with a single act, destine a great part of
the Church’s own spiritual and cultural heritage to extinction? Why do
the rules of “deep ecology” formulated by you fail to apply in this
case? Why did you not instead ask whether the constantly growing
number of the faithful assisting at the traditional liturgy could be a
sign from the Holy Spirit? You did not follow the advice of Gamaliel
(Acts 5). Instead, you struck them with a ban that had not even a vacatio legis.
The
Lord God, the model for earthly rulers and, in the first place, for
church authorities, does not use His power in this way. Holy Scripture
speaks thus to God: “For thy power is the beginning of justice: and
because thou art Lord to all, thou makest thyself gracious to all (…)
But thou being master of power, judgest, and with great favour disposest
of us: for thy power is at hand when thy wilt” (Wis 12, 16-18). Real
power does not need to prove itself by harshness. And harshness is not
an attribute of any authority which follows the divine model. Our
Saviour Himself left us a precise and reliable teaching on this (Mt 20,
24-28). Not only has the carpet been pulled, so to speak, from beneath
the feet of people who were walking towards God; an attempt has been
made to deprive them of the very ground they walk on. This attempt will not succeed. Nothing which is in conflict with Catholicism will be accepted in God’s Church.
Holy
Father, it is impossible to experience the ground under one’s feet for
12 years and suddenly assert that it is no longer there. It is
impossible to conclude that my own Mother, found after many long years,
is not my Mother. Papal authority is immense. But even this authority
cannot make my Mother cease to be my Mother! A single life cannot
bear two mutually exclusive ruptures, one of which opens a treasure,
whilst the other claims that this treasure must be abandoned because its
value has expired. If I were to accept these contradictions I should no
longer be able to have any intellectual life, nor, therefore, any
spiritual life either. From two contradictory statements, any
affirmation, true or false, may be made to follow. This means the end of
rational thinking, the end of any notion of reality, the end of
effective communication of anything to anyone. But all these things are basic components of human life in general, and of Dominican life in particular.
I
have no doubts about my vocation. I am firmly resolved to continue my
life and service within the Order of St Dominic. But to do so I must be
able to reason correctly and logically. After the 16th of July 2021 this
is no longer possible for me within the existing structures. I see
with complete clarity that the treasure of the holy rites of the Church,
the ground under the feet of those who practice them, and the mother of
their piety, continues to exist. It has become equally clear to me that
I must bear witness to it.
I
have been left no choice now but to turn to those who from the very
beginning of the radical changes (changes, let it be noted, that go far
beyond the will of the Second Vatican Council) have defended the
Tradition of the Church, together with the Church’s respect for the
requirements of reason, and who continue to pass on the unchangeable
deposit of Catholic faith to the faithful: the Priestly Fraternity of
Saint Pius X. The SSPX has shown a readiness to accept me, whilst fully
respecting my Dominican identity. It is providing me not only with a
life of service to God and the Church, a service not impeded by
contradictions, but also with an opportunity to oppose those
contradictions which are an enemy to Truth, and which have attacked the
Church so vigorously.
There
is a state of controversy between the SSPX and the official structures
of the Church. It is an internal dispute within the Church, and it
concerns matters of great importance. The documents and the decisions of
the 16th of July have caused my position on this subject to converge
with that of the SSPX. As in the case of any important dispute, this one
too must be resolved. I am determined to devote my efforts towards this
end. I intend this letter to be part of this effort. The means used can
only be a humble respect for Truth, and gentleness, both springing from
a supernatural source. Thus we can hope for the solution of the
controversy and the rebuilding of a unity that will embrace not only
those living now but also all generations, both past and future.
I thank you for the attention you have granted to my words and beg, Most Holy Father, for your apostolic blessing.
With filial devotion in Christ,
Fr. Wojciech Gołaski, O.P.
By
Peter Kwasniewski
at
11/10/2021 11:00:00 AM
Comments
Post a Comment