Now mind you, I have absolutely positively nothing against Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and its “Cycle for Survival” (whatever frivolous fundraising function that might be) but on the first of March the Empire State Building should not be lit orange/orange/orange but rather green/red/white in honor of the Welsh nation on the occasion of its patronal feast, St. David of Wales.

From the venerable and veracious Catholic Encyclopedia: “Bishop and Confessor, patron of Wales. He is usually represented standing on a little hill, with a dove on his shoulder. From time immemorial the Welsh have worn a leek on St. David’s Day, in memory of a battle against the Saxons, at which it is said they wore leeks in their hats, by St. David’s advice, to distinguish them from their enemies. He is commemorated on 1 March. The earliest mention of St. David is found in a tenth-century manuscript of the “Annales Cambriae”, which assigns his death to A.D. 601. Many other writers, from Geoffrey of Monmouth down to Father Richard Stanton, hold that he died about 544, but their opinion is based solely on data given in various late “lives” of St. David, and there seems no good reason for setting aside the definite statement of the “Annales Cambriae”, which is now generally accepted. Little else that can claim to be historical is known about St. David. The tradition that he was born at Henvynyw (Vetus-Menevia) in Cardiganshire is not improbable. He was prominent at the Synod of Brevi (Llandewi Brefi in Cardiganshire), which has been identified with the important Roman military station, Loventium. Shortly afterwards, in 569, he presided over another synod held at a place called Lucus Victoriae. He was Bishop (probably not Archbishop) of Menevia, the Roman port Menapia in Pembrokeshire, later known as St. David’s, then the chief point of departure for Ireland. St. David was canonized by Pope Callistus II in the year 1120. This is all that is known to history about the patron of Wales. His legend, however, is much more elaborate, and entirely unreliable.”

So simply skipping over the pious premise that he was an uncle to King Arthur and other inventive inaccuracies meant to support the claims of the Welsh episcopate’s independence from the see of St. Augustine at Canterbury let us turn quickly to a couple of cute and quaint customs (mainly culinary) wherein devotedly and domestically this feast may be solemnized. Firstly we have the delightfully dainty daffodil, Amaryllidoideae Narcissus, the Welsh national flower, which is worn on this day. Not only is it particularly prettier (confer its scientific name above), it will not be maliciously malodorous in complete contradistinction to other the national emblem, which appeared on the coronation gown of Queen Elizabeth II, the Amaryllidaceae Allioideae, the lavishly lovely leek. Whichever variety of vegetation is victorious in completing one’s holy haberdashery an entertaining extension of this delicious devotion would be to grow the particular plant at least in a pot on the windowsill. Those with a modest modicum of artistic ability may daringly draw and decorate said conventional containers cleverly with vicarious visuals such as the Flag of Wales and the Flag of Saint David. Then there are totally tasty treats, the recipes which are available on wales.com, such as Cawl, a traditional Welsh soup; Bara Brith, a rich fruit loaf made with tea (sometimes known as ‘speckled bread’); Glamorgan Sausages; Welsh Rarebit;and the scone-like Welsh Cakes.

Of course one can simply refresh the palate with a potent pint of Welsh Ale that might be making the rounds for the national day. After dropping off a big box of leeks at 350 Fifth Avenue.

Mr. Screwtape

Once upon a time in a neighborhood in Brooklyn that one had not the pleasure of ever visiting previously this ridiculous redactor was walking a friend home. Midway in the walk, the friend (who was a transplant to the center of civilization from the forsaken barbarian land of Ohio) stopped and broke into laughter almost hysterically. “What’s so funny?” one asked perplexed. “You,” stammered forth the response, “You’ve never been here before, right?” Which query one affirmed simply with a terse “That’s right.” After another gregarious giggle, the friend exclaimed, “But you look like you belong here!” Solemnly speaking this miffed Manhattanite decisively declared: “Well, when you’ve grown up in New York you sure as beans better look like you know where you’re going before something happens to you!”

This little lesson in savvy street survival smoothly segues to the simple story of a saintly scrawny scholastic and unlikely patron saint of self-defense, Gabriel of the Sorrowful Virgin. There are some variations on the story and the one that I have chosen to relate is probably the least canonical but perhaps most colorful. The year 1860 was quite tumultuous in the soon-to-be-non-existent Papal States, as the apostolic works of many religious orders were curtly curtailed by the new national Italian government. Without the merciful moderating ministrations of Holy Mother Church, the naturally rowdy Italian countryside made the contemporaneous American Wild West look positively civilized.The Passionists moved their novices, including one Br. Gabriel Possenti to the town of Isola in the Abruzzi Mountains of the Kingdom of Naples. Now for the fun part. A terrible troop of mean marauders belligerently burst into the terrified town. They got near the Passionist monastery while loudly and liberally violating the second commandment. Coming to a second floor balcony our pious protagonist properly protested the impious incursion. The apparent leader scoffed out loud and challenged: “So waddaya gonna do about it, Skinny?” Now staying at the monastery’s infirmary was a wounded constable from whom the simple son of St. Paul of the Cross borrowed a sidearm.
“Good Sir, do you see that lizard by your feet?,” was our holy hero’s rebuttal.
“Yeah, so what? Youze gonna tell it ta bite me? Hah,” the belligerent buffon scoffed.
Promptly St. Gabriel pulled out the handgun and shot the unfortunate lizard straight between the eyes.
After making a small puddle where he stood, the leader of the mellowed mauraders stammered: “So, so sorry, good Reverend Brudder, that we, um, boddered ya. Bye!”

While the Congregation for Divine Worship, whose competence it is to declare in these matters, seems to have accidentally misfiled the application by the St. Gabriel Possenti Society, Inc. (“An Organization Dedicated to Promoting St. Gabriel Possenti as the Patron Saint of Handgunners”) of PO Box 183, Cabin John, Maryland 20818 perhaps it is not inappropriate for the sensus fidelium to invoke him as the patron saint of the Second Amendment.

Mr. Screwtape

What follows is the first chapter from an account of the life of St. Isaac Jogues, published in 1657, just eleven years after the saint’s martyrdom.  This account has been translated from the Latin for the first time by Society member Nicholas Salazar.

Mr. Salazar’s introduction:

“Recently I was looking at a book on the North American Martyrs and one of the entries in the bibliography for St. Isaac Jogues had the very intriguing title Mortes illustres et gesta eorum de Societate Iesu…, published at Rome in 1657.

Thanks to the miracle of Google Books, I was able to track down this volume, the full title of which is rather remarkable:

Mortes illustres et gesta eorum de Societate Iesu qui in odium fidei, pietatis, aut cuiuscunque virtutis, occasione missionum, sacramentorum administratorum, fidei, aut virtutis propugnatae ab ethnicis, haereticis, vel aliis veneno, igne, ferro, aut morte alia necati aerumnisve confecti sunt

Which means:

The Illustrious Deaths and Deeds of Those of the Society of Jesus Who on the Occasion of Missions, the Administration of the Sacraments, the Faith, or the Defense of Virtue Either Were Killed by Poison, Fire, the Sword, or Another Death by Natives, Heretics, or Others or Were Exhausted by Toils for Hatred Toward the Faith, Piety, or Whatsoever Virtue
From this lengthy tome (a quarto or small folio of 700+ pages) I was able to extract the life of St. Isaac Jogues.

Following is the translation of the first chapter of the life of St. Isaac.

Father Isaac Jogues

Born in Orleans in France.  Killed in Canada.  Among the Mohawks.  18 October 1646.

Father Isaac Jogues was born in France, in the noble city of Orleans, to distinguished as well as pious parents.  When he was scarcely an adolescent, he was so inflamed by a desire to devote himself and his life to procuring the salvation of infidels that, because of this one hope of traveling to the farthest peoples, he enrolled in the Society of Jesus.  It was the twenty-fourth year of this century; he was eighteen years old.  He spent the two years of his novitiate in Rouen; during this time he not only energetically applied himself to the pursuit of all the virtues but also especially to arousing in himself day by day a greater zeal for helping souls, so that Father Louis Lallemant, whom he then had as spiritual director, did not hesitate to tell him frequently and emphatically that he would meet his death in no place but Canada.  In those days at any rate Isaac’s wishes tended elsewhere, since the crop of Christianity was scarcely yet sprouting during that time in Canada; those wishes seemed to be growing white-hot for the harvest in Ethiopia.  In that field he was itching to exercise his industry as quickly as possible.  While he happened to be devoting attention to philosophy in the College of La Flèche [editor’s note: Rene Descartes’s alma mater], he was also impatient with the delay, and because of it he set about moving his superiors to action by letter and God and the saints by the most ardent and constant prayers and very harsh afflictions of the body.  But when all hope of the Ethiopian expedition was snatched from him, he turned his zeal and his thinking to Canada and, in it, to the Huron Mission: he thought continually about leading the Hurons to the faith; he spoke with his companions about the character of that people; this was, in fact, his favorite topic; it was his only pleasure.

While he was turning these plans over in his heart, messages very appropriately came concerning the Japanese’ cruel persecution of the Christians and in particular the noble death of Father Charles Spinola, which he had pursued there.  This affair further inflamed a heart already enkindled with a desire for martyrdom; he began to hold that fortunate hero in such veneration that he everywhere carried around in his bosom an image of the martyr, bound to the stake in the middle of the pyre, looking up to heaven; throughout the day he continually entrusted his prayers and sighs to this image.  Through these and other such lofty proofs of great virtue, and since he displayed both a talent and a will ever equal to handling the highest and most difficult affairs, when the third year of his theological course was ending (which was the thirty-sixth of the current century) and his superiors at last gave their approval, he set out from Paris.  He crossed over into Canada with an astonishing eagerness of spirit to employ his diligence there in training the undeveloped natures of the barbarians for civil and Christian culture; and in proportion to the abundance of the region he satisfied that profound desire, with which he had long been occupied, of doing and suffering many things for Christ.

Now, this is that part of America which is called Canada and is situated to the north.  It is populated by undeveloped, rustic mortals.  Since it was first visited by the French, it is also called New France.  It is a diverse nation: all the inhabitants are barbaric in culture, and are quite poor as far as the necessities of life go.  They survive by hunting, mostly, and fishing, and raising unproductive crops from the soil.  The settlements are separated by the intervals of rivers and mountains.  At tribal borders each nation defends itself with arms against the attacks of another.  They fight light battles, with only a few combatants, but with such dire and immense hatred, that against those captured in war they give vent to their anger more savagely than any beast; and when they have had their fill of brutality, with horrendous gluttony in turn they devour the flesh of their enemies.  This “rich fare” is practically the only fruit of making war.  Upon entering the region the Hurons are the first tribe that one encounters.  They have already been softened by social intercourse with the French.  They are capable of a pacified speech, temperament, and culture.  They are now, whether because of fear, or because of duty, friendly to those born in our country; they live near our fixed settlements and are submissive to authority.

At the beginning of July, having crossed the ocean under favorable conditions, Father Isaac made it to the region.  After a few days, although he had not yet recovered from seasickness, he directed his course to the Hurons, about to set out upon a journey far more dangerous than he had hitherto made (he made the trip in their bark “canoes” or boats).  A ten- year-old boy was entrusted to him to be taken inland.  When, not long afterwards, a bad reaction to the unaccustomed food had made this boy sick, Father Isaac had not a little opportunity to exercise the virtue of charity and to put to the test his tolerance for evils for Christ, especially as he had already been weakened by his labors and fatigued by fasting.  No doubt the boy was unable to undertake the journey on foot because of both his age and lack of strength. Moreover, the barbarians refused to allow him to climb onto their shoulders.  Father Isaac took the burden onto himself, but really it was extraordinarily dangerous for himself and for the boy: there were rushing waterfalls, jagged hills, and huge rocks to traverse, and if you wavered in your step, your life was in danger.  And so, with what skill he had in communicating by nod and gesture, he pointed out to the barbarians the jeopardy to each of them and to the boy.  They gestured back with an offer he accepted: he himself would carry their packs on his shoulders, and they would keep the boy safe.

It was a journey of twenty days.  The equipment which he had to carry was mostly of iron; his strength was not at all equal to the burden; and it had already been weakened before.  But charity urged him on, as did the boy’s need.  Therefore with an eagerness of spirit incapable of being satisfied fully, remembering the cross of Christ, he managed his insane labor, and he rendered the barbarians hard service for so many days.  In the meanwhile he endured hunger with a moderate quantity of Indian flour scarcely once a day, he slaked his thirst with cold water, and he slept on hard ground or sharp rocks.  These first lessons in apostolic warfare were followed by an illness of about forty days, which almost brought him to his end; during this time, when none of those conveniences which are abundant in Europe was available, he displayed patience, and obedience, and a will congruent to the Divine judgment.  Content with little broths of rustic herbs, seasoned by the charity of his companions, and with straw for a bed, he did not seek the aid of physicians, or the delight of food; he did not desire linens or blankets, nor a mattress or any other soft bedding, with which he might pamper his sick body.

By Father Greg Markey
From the Bulletin of St. Mary Church, Norwalk, CT, January 27, 2013

When a young man receives the mysterious call to become a priest, there is a sense of being complete, of having found what he is looking for, and the conviction, like the early apostles, that it is worth leaving all to follow Christ. The priesthood is the greatest of all vocations. He is the most intimate friend of God. Having power to consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ, the Lord has raised him higher than all the kings of the earth, and above the angels of heaven. Similar to the beginning of marriage, he is excited for the future that the Lord has planned for his life, but never really knows what kind of challenges he will have to overcome. Now he must spend the rest of his life being faithful to his vocation.

Catholics have a right to expect holiness from their priests, that their priest would live a life of integrity, offer the Sacraments with reverence, and preach the Gospel with fidelity. However, it is healthy to remember the human potential for sin: no priest has ever been immaculately conceived. When some friars once publicly praised St. Francis of Assisi, he told them, “I may yet have sons and daughters; you cannot safely praise me. No man is to be praised whose end is uncertain.” Although he remained a deacon his whole life, St. Francis was a man who understood the uncertain outcome of this spiritual warfare.

The Lord knew that one of His own priests, Judas Iscariot, would betray his vocation, and Jesus warned the people about the danger of becoming overly attached to individual priests, “Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9).

The priest is involved in the most intense form of spiritual combat simply because he has made the decision to put on the collar and work for the salvation of souls. “Be attentive, dearly beloved priests, for the devils tempt one priest more than a hundred laymen; because a priest that is lost brings with him many people to hell,” says the Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Ligouri. It is only common sense that the enemy will work most diligently to kill the commander because of the damage it causes to the whole company of soldiers. The priest is a shepherd leading the flock to heaven, and is engaged in spiritual battle of the most serious kind because the stakes are nothing less than eternal life and eternal damnation. The devils hate the priest for the number of souls he has freed from their grasp and they pursue him with a vigor that can only be born in hell.

There is nothing more painful and dramatic than a priest who falls from grace, causing all of the Church to suffer. Yet for the intensity of the battle, the priest’s culpability in mortal sin is similar to that of the angels who rebelled. St. Bernard of Clairvaux writes, “The priest having become an angel of the Lord, must expect either the reward or the reprobation of the angels.” Because of his formation, the books he has read, the many instructions he has received and sermons he has heard, he has become like the angels themselves in their great capacity to understand right and wrong. St. Alphonsus says that if the priest commits mortal sin, “he cannot allege ignorance, for he knows the great evil of mortal sin; he cannot plead weakness, because he knows the means by which, if he wishes, he can acquire strength; if he is unwilling to adopt the means, the fault is entirely his own.”

The saints warn that a priest who sins gravely is particularly susceptible to growing indifferent to the gravity of his crime. Because the priest enters the Holy of Holies each day and handles the Sacred Mysteries, he has the temptation of losing the sense of awe before God. The exhortations about hell and all that is terrible in God’s just judgment have lost their power and no longer fill him with terror. He has heard it all before and now they are just words. St. Jerome writes, “There is not in the whole world a monster to be compared with a priest in the state of sin, for the unfortunate man will not bear with correction.” The guilty often responds to accusations by belittling their accusers or intimidating them, but this only postpones the inevitable shame.

Finally, the obstinate sinful priest is the most delicious of all souls in hell. “Oh! How great the rejoicing of the devils when a priest enters hell,” writes St. Alphonsus Ligouri, “All of hell is in confusion to meet the priest who comes.”

Some of the well-meaning faithful will reply to the news of a priest scandal by saying, “There but for the grace of God go I”. While it is a compassionate statement, it is also an inadequate understanding of the human person. Both free will and grace are at work in the human act, and the soul has many chances to turn back before the full horror of mortal sin comes to fruition.

St. Alphonsus tells us, “When you hear of the fall of a spiritual soul, do not imagine that the devil has suddenly precipitated her into sin; for he first brought her into tepidity, and then has cast her into the precipice of enmity with God.” In the spiritual life, mortal sin is never a single moment of weakness when the soul made a bad decision. Rather, mortal sin is a gradual process by which the soul grows tepid, repeatedly consents to small temptations, step by step, through door after door, until the grave monster of darkness has enveloped her. There are many “yes’s” to small temptations before the final consent to the mortal sin. “Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin” (Catechism, 1863). This not only shows how merciful the Lord is in giving the soul numerous opportunities to recognize that there is still time to turn back, but also how the soul is then fully culpable if the act comes to fruition.

To become a good priest is no easy matter. It is not simply avoiding mortal sin to save his soul. It is to walk the narrow path of perfection, to deal with the spiritual warfare day in and day out with often no one but the Lord and his guardian angel keeping tabs on his progress. This is why regular Confession and a spiritual director are especially necessary for priests.

In the old form of the Rite of Ordination, the bishop gave an exhortation to the deacons about to be elevated as priests and finished with these words: “May you thus build up, by preaching and example, the house, that is, the family of God, so that your promotion may not be a cause of damnation for me, nor by the reception of so great an office, for you.” This kind of exhortation is no longer used in the ordination rite today but one can see the wisdom of reminding the newly ordained priests of the serious nature of what he about to undertake.

The lay people should love their priests, pray for their priests, and thank God for their priests, recognizing the hidden spiritual warfare he undergoes all for their salvation. The priest has “put on the breastplate of righteousness”, “the shield of faith”, “the helmet of salvation”, and the “sword of the Spirit” (Ephesians 6:14-17). The battle is raging and no one’s salvation is assured until the last breath.

Holy Communion and the Renewal of the Church

1. The Church in her pilgrimage towards the Heavenly Jerusalem grows and is edified by the work of the Holy Spirit, especially though the fear of God (cf. Act. 9, 31), through the supernatural acts of faith, hope and charity and through concrete acts of adoration towards the Incarnate God in His visible manifestations, especially in His presence under the veils of the Eucharistic sacrament. From the beginning of her historical journey the Church had her most fruitful moments and periods when she paid deep veneration and adoration to the Most Holy Eucharist. Such moments were moments of the authentic effects of the Pentecost.

2. The sacred liturgy of the Church, and particularly the liturgy of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, are the continuation of the prayer, which Christ the High Priest, offered to God on earth, and now continues to offer in Heaven with deep reverence, as He did on earth (cf. Hebr. 5, 7). Those prayers and gestures which are performed with reverence, devotion and the holy fear of God, are truly Pentecostal. Such Pentecostal moments, filled with the Holy Ghost, are especially the main moments during Holy Mass: the moment of Consecration and of Holy Communion. The authentic worship of the Church has to be made according to the model of Christ’s prayer and according to the example of the liturgy of the first Christians. Such a liturgy is pleasing to God, as we are taught by the Letter to Hebrews: “We may adore God acceptably with reverence and fear (cum metu et reverentia), for our God is a consuming fire” (Hebr. 12, 28). This consuming fire is the Holy Spirit. Therefore the more there is reverence and fear of God in the prayers, in the style, in the rites and gestures of the Holy Mass, the more such a liturgy is Pentecostal, the more it is filled with the fruits of the Holy Spirit.

3. The authentic renewal and reform of the life of the Church has to start by the renewal of the liturgy, that is, by deepening the devotion and the fear of God in the liturgical rites. Such a renewal of the holy liturgy is the main expression of the “aggiornamento” which Blessed Pope John XXIII so much desired. Saint JoseMaria Escrivá explained the word “aggiornamento” very correctly in this way: “Aggiornamento means above all fidelity. The delicate, operational and constant fidelity is the best defense against the coldness of the spirit, the aridity of the heart and the mental inflexibility. It would be at least superficial to think the aggiornamento consists primarily in changing” (Conversiones con Mons. Escrivá de Balaguer, ed. José Luis Illanes, Madrid 2012, pp.152-153). Therefore the Second Vatican Council dedicated his first document to the sacred liturgy. The main principles and aims of this document are the following three:

(1) That the rites may express clearer their orientation to God, to Heaven, to contemplation (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 2 and 8).
(2) That the sanctity of the texts and rites may be clearer expressed (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 21).
(3) That there should not be innovations, unless they are organically connected with the existing forms and unless they bring authentic spiritual utility (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 23).

Spiritual utility in liturgy according to the Holy Scripture and the example of the first Christians is given only then, when there is a stronger effect of the presence of the Holy Spirit, Who is God and consuming fire and Who inspires holy love which contains in itself always the fear of God as well (cf. Hebr. 12, 28).
4. When in the most holy and central moments of the Holy Mass there are fewer expressions of reverence and fear of God, then there are doubtless less fruits of the Holy Spirit, then there is less Pentecost, then there is less true “aggiornamento”, then there is less spiritual progress, but on the contrary there is a regress in Christian faith and piety. The manner in which the faithful receive Holy Communion shows if Holy Communion is for them not only the most sacred reality, but the most beloved and the most sacred Person. The reception of the Body of Christ in the little host requires therefore deep faith and purity of heart, and in the same time unequivocal gestures of adoration. This was the constant characteristic of Catholics from all ages, beginning with the first Christians, the Christians in the time of the Church Fathers until the times of our grandparents and parents. Even in the first centuries when in many places the sacred host was deposited by the priest on the palm of the right hand or on a white cloth which covered the right hand of the women, the faithful didn’t touch the consecrated bread with their fingers. The Holy Spirit guided the Church instructing her more deeply about the manner to treat the sacred humanity of Christ during Holy Communion. Already in the 6th century the Roman Church distributed the sacred host directly in the mouth, as it is witnessed by Pope Gregory, the Great (cf. Dial., 3). The next step we observe in the Middle Ages, when the faithful began to receive the Body of Christ kneeling, in an exteriorly more clear expression of adoration (cf. St. Columban, Regula coenobialis, 9). This was another important moment of an “aggiornamento”, a Pentecostal moment.

5. In our times, and there has passed already 40 years, there is a deep wound in the Mystical Body of Christ. This deep wound is the modern practice of Communion in hand, a practice which essentially differs from an analogous rite in the first centuries, as above described. This modern practice is the deepest wound in the Mystical Body of Christ because of the following four deplorable manifestations:

(1) An astonishing minimalism in gestures of adoration and reverence. Generally there is in the modern practice of Communion in hand almost an absence of every sign of adoration.
(2) A gesture as one treats common food, that is: to pick up with one’s own fingers the Sacred Host from the palm of the left hand and put It by oneself in the mouth. A habitual practice of such a gesture causes in a not little number of the faithful, and especially of children and adolescents, the perception that under the Sacred Host there isn’t present the Divine Person of Christ, but rather a religious symbol, for they can treat the Sacred Host exteriorly in a way as they treat common food: touching with his own fingers and putting the food with the fingers in one’s own mouth.
(3) A numerous loss of the fragments of the Sacred Host: the little fragments often fall down in the space between the minister and the communicant because of no use of Communion plate, often the fragments of the Sacred Host stick to the palm and to the both fingers of the person who receives Communion and then fall down. All these numerous fragments are often lying on the floor and crushed under the feet of the people, even so they don’t notice the fragments.
(4) An increasing stealing of the Sacred Hosts, because the manner to receive It directly with one’s own hand effectively greatly facilitates such theft.

There is nothing in the Church and in this earth, which is so sacred, so Divine, so living and so personal as the Holy Communion, because It is the Eucharistic Lord Himself. And such four deplorable things do happen to Him. The modern practice of Communion in hand never existed in such an exterior form. It is incomprehensible that many persons in the Church don’t acknowledge this wound, consider this matter as secondary, and even wonder why one speaks about this theme. And what is even more incomprehensible: many persons in the Church even defend and spread this practice of Communion.

6. Saint John Fisher, cardinal and martyr, stated already in 1526 the following truth: “Indeed, when someone observes with attention the periods of spiritual flourishing of the Church and the times of degeneration as well as the different reforms which often followed one after the other, he must realize this: the cause of the degeneration in the Church is almost always the negligence and the abuse of this most holy Sacrament of the altar. On the opposite side however he will notice this: the times of a genuine reform and of the flourishing of the life of the Church preceded always a tender devotion to this most holy Sacrament” (Holböck, F., Das Allerheiligste und die Heiligen, Stein am Rhein 1986, p. 195). The intention of Blessed John XXIII to celebrate the Second Vatican Council was to foster a genuine reform and a flourishing of the spiritual life of the Church. That means a deepening of the knowledge of the faith, an increased fidelity to the truth of the faith, a more vigilant defense of the deposit of the faith (cf. Allocution on the Inauguration of the Second Vatican Council, October 11th, 1962). A time of new spiritual flourishing of the Church needs necessarily a deeper faith and more rich and faithful expressions of veneration of the Holy Eucharist. When the faith in the Eucharist diminishes and when the Eucharistic rites, especially in the moment of Holy Communion, show less signs of adoration, then surely the life of the Church is not flourishing, and the expectations of Blessed John XXIII are in some way frustrated. In 1961 the same Pope wrote in his spiritual diary the following words: “To promote with care and ardent prayers the Divine worship among the faithful, the exercises of piety and the reception of the sacraments dully administered. This will attract the Divine blessings upon the people. These are my thoughts and my pastoral solicitude, and so it must be today and always.” (John XXIII, Il giornale dell’anima, Cinisello Balsamo, 2000, n. 961).

7. It was the constant belief and practice of the Church that Christ, really present under the species of the bread, has to receive an exclusively Divine adoration, which is realized interiorly as well as exteriorly. Such an act of adoration was called in the Holy Scripture “proskynesis”. Our Lord Jesus Christ rejected the temptations of the devil and proclaimed the first duty of all creatures: “Thou shalt adore God alone” (Math. 4, 10). Jesus used here the word “proskynesis”. In the Bible the act of adoration of God was performed exteriorly in the following manner: kneeling down and bowing the head to the earth or prostration. Such an act of adoration was performed by Jesus Himself, His holy Mother the Blessed Virgin Mary and Saint Joseph when they annually visited the Temple in Jerusalem. In this manner of “proskynesis” the Body of Christ, the Incarnate God, was venerated: firstly by the three wise men (Math. 2, 11); the numerous people, who were healed be Jesus, performed also this exterior act of adoration (cf. Math. 8, 2; 9, 18; 15, 25); the women who saw the risen Lord in the Easter morning fell down in the presence of His glorious Body and adored him (Math. 28, 9); the Apostles as they saw the Body of Christ ascending into Heaven fell down and adored Him (Math. 28, 17; Luc. 24. 52); the Angels and all the redeemed and glorified Saints in the Heavenly Jerusalem are falling down and adoring the glorified humanity of Christ, symbolized in the “Lamb” (Apoc. 4, 10). In the past millennia the Church was growing deeper in the knowledge of the truth about the Eucharistic mystery. Consequently she found ever more perfect expressions of veneration when she was treating the Eucharistic Body of Christ, especially in the moments when the priest or the faithful approach the Eucharistic Body of Christ. In order to express the truth that the Holy Communion in not a common food, but really the Holiest of the Holy, the sacredness in persona, at least from the 8th century in the Occidental as well as in the Oriental churches the priest began to put the sacred host directly in the mouth of the faithful. This gesture symbolizes that it is Christ in the person of the priest who is nourishing the faithful. Furthermore this gesture symbolizes the attitude of humility and the spirit of spiritual infancy, which Jesus Himself requires from all who want to receive the kingdom of God (Math. 18, 3). During the Holy Communion the sacred host is the real heavenly kingdom, because there is Christ Himself, in whose Body all the Divinity dwells (cf. Col. 2, 9). Therefore the most appropriate exterior gesture is to receive the kingdom of God like a child, is to make oneself little, to kneel down and to allow to be fed like a little child, opening the mouth. Consequently the rite of receiving the Divine Body of Christ during Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue was elaborated during several centuries in the Church by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of sanctity and piety. The abolishing of explicit gestures of adoration during Holy Communion, that is the abolishing of kneeling and the abolishing of the biblically motivated gesture of receiving the Body of Christ like a child in the tongue, will surely not bring a deeper flourishing of the Eucharistic faith and devotion. The following words of the Ecumenical Council of Trent remain always valid and continue to be very up-to-date: “There is, therefore, no room for doubt that all the faithful of Christ may, in accordance with a custom always received in the Catholic Church, give to this most holy sacrament in veneration the worship of latria, which is due to the true God. Neither is it to be less adored for the reason that it was instituted by Christ the Lord in order to be received. For we believe that in it the same God is present of whom the eternal Father, when introducing Him into the world, says: And let all the angels of God adore him (Hebr. 1, 6) (session 13, chapter 5). The Council declares further solemnly: “If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of latria, also outwardly manifested, and is consequently neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, … let him be anathema” (session 13, canon 6).

8. The Church teaches us, that the more the faithful growth in the faith in the divine reality of the Holy Communion, the more they have to manifest towards the consecrated host reverence and sanctity. Sanctity means the interior sanctity of the soul, to be free from mortal sins or positively spoken to be in the state of sanctifying grace. This is a Divine law, proclaimed already by Our Lord Jesus Christ and underlined by the tradition of the Apostles, especially by the Apostle saint Paul. Our Lord said: “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine” (Matt. 7, 6). Saint Paul admonishes: “Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup” (1 Cor. 11, 27-28). The Church has always observed this Divine command solicitously and this command shall be observed also in our days with more consciousness. So speaks the same Ecumenical Council of Trent: “If it is unbecoming for anyone to approach any of the sacred functions except in a spirit of piety, assuredly, the more the holiness and divinity of this heavenly sacrament are understood by a Christian, the more diligently ought he to give heed lest he receive it without great reverence and holiness, especially when we read those terrifying words of the Apostle: “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. Wherefore, he who would communicate, must recall to mind his precept: “Let a man prove himself”. Now, ecclesiastical usage declares that such an examination is necessary in order that no one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however contrite he may feel, ought to receive the Sacred Eucharist without previous sacramental confession. This the holy council has decreed to be invariably observed by all Christians” (session 13, chapter 7). Opening the Second Vatican Council Blessed John XXIII said, that the documents and expressions of the previous Ecumenical Councils, namely of the Council of Trent, have to be considered by all as a sacred treasure (Opening speech, October 11th, 1962).

9. The practice of unworthily received Communions represents in our days the deepest wound in the Mystical Body of Christ. The unworthily received Communions refer in first place to the interior unworthiness: the reception of the Holy Communion in the state of actual mortal sins; in a state of habitual mortal sin; receiving Holy Communion without the full catholic faith in the real presence and in the transubstantiation; in the state of non-repentance about venial sins. The unworthily Communions are determined also by exterior unworthy attitudes: the sacrilegious stealing of the sacred host; receiving the sacred host without any exterior sign of adoration; receiving the sacred host without paying attention to the falling down and to the loss of the little fragments; the distributing the Holy Communion with hurry, which seems like a scene of distributing cakes in a school or in a cafeteria. When there is no belief in the real presence of Christ in the consecrated bread, such as in the case of the Calvinists and similar Protestant communities, an exterior attitude of treating the holy host with minimal sacral gestures or without clear sacral gestures does not astonish so much. When there is still belief in the real presence of Christ at least during the distribution of Holy Communion, such as in the case of Martin Luther and in the case of traditional Lutherans, there must be more explicit gestures of reverence. There exists a moving scene from the life of Martin Luther, which shows his reverence and his devotion towards the Holy Communion. It happened in 1542. We cite from an ancient German historical text: “A woman wanted to receive the Lord’s Supper. As she was to kneel down in front of the chair before the altar and drink, she approached in a brusque manner and hit with her mouth hard the chalice of the Lord and so some drops of the blood of Christ were shed on her cloth and on the backrest of the chair on which she was kneeling. As the Reverend Doctor Luther noticed this, he and the Reverend Doctor Bugenhagen suddenly stood up and ran towards the altar and together with the officiating minister they cleaned the drops from the cloth of the woman and lapped up the drops from the chair as much as they could. Such an irreverence moved so deeply Doctor Martin that he sighed because of what was happened with these words: o God, help us. And his eyes were full with tears” (Stahl, R., Martin Luther für uns heute. Erlangen 2008, p. 28). What a moving example! How many priests and faithful today will clean as much as they can and will sigh and weep, when some fragments of the Sacred Host fall down? During the Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist in 2005 I asked a Norwegian Lutheran bishop, who was there present as an observer, in which manner the Lutherans in Norway do receive Holy Communion. He answered to me: “Until some 10 or 15 years ago people received Communion kneeling and by tongue. But now they receive standing and in the hand”. I ask asked what the reason of this change was. And he answered to me: “We changed because of the influence of our Catholic brothers”. In an interreligious meeting in Kazakhstan, in which I participated, we spoke about the most holy realities of each religion. An Imam said, that for the Muslims the holiest of holy is the book of the Koran in Arabic l and he stressed saying: it would be an act of sacrilege when somebody will dare to touch the Arabic Koran with unwashed hands. Hearing this statement I suddenly was thinking about the scenes of the reception of Holy Communion in hand and without almost any clear sacral sign and surely without immediately preceding washing of the hands, which is the case in the vast majority of the Catholic churches all around the world. I was imagining a following possible scene: when this pious Imam one day will occasionally enter a Catholic Church, where the Holy Communion is distributed directly in the hand and the faithful who are approaching in a quick moving queue, he would ask: “What is this little white bread?” The Catholic would answer him: “It is Christ”. The Muslim will say: “This is surely only a sign or a symbol of Christ”. The Catholic would answer him: “No, it is not a symbol or a sacred object. There is Christ really present”. The Muslim will continue to say: “Christ is there only spiritually or symbolically present”. The Catholic will answer: “No, Christ is really, truly present with the substance of His body, of His blood, of His soul, and with all His Divinity”. Then the Muslim will ask: “Then this little piece of bread must be, according to your faith, your God and the holiest of holy for you”. The Catholic will answer: “Yes, this little bread is really our living God personally in His human Body and Blood, and not an object like your Koran”. Then the Muslim will say: “When you treat your God and the holiest of holy in such a banal manner, then you don’t believe in it. I am unable to agree with you that you really believe in what you affirmed”.

10. The Catholics believe more than Martin Luther and more than traditional Lutherans. They believe not only in the real presence but also in the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. The sacred host is for them consequently not a sacred object, even not a most sacred object, but the living Christ Himself with His holy humanity and with His infinite Divine majesty. We must have surely more reverence toward Holy Communion than Martin Luther had. We must have more awe and reverence than the Muslims have towards the Koran. It is of very pastoral urgency that Catholics all over the world start to treat the Eucharistic Body of Christ during Holy Communion in an interior and exterior manner which is unequivocally and explicitly due only to God. A Catholic has to treat the Eucharist, the holiest of the holy, in a manner as It was treated by Our Lady, by the Apostles, by our fathers and grandfathers, by the Christians from all ages according to the axiom: “Dare to give to Christ as much reverence as you can” (in the formulation of saint Thomas Aquinas: quantum potes, tantum aude: sequence Lauda Sion). When we receive the consecrated host in the moment of Holy Communion, then there is required not the minimum, but the maximum of interior and exterior devotion and adoration. The littleness of the sacred host does not justify treating It in the moment of Holy Communion with minimalistic signs of adoration. The most little one, the most fragile one, the most undefended one in the Church in our days is the Eucharistic Lord under the Eucharistic species in the moment of Holy Communion. There could be adduced pastoral reasons in favor of the continuation of the practice of Communion standing and in hand, as for example the rights of the faithful. Such rights, however, violate the right, which Christ the Holiest of the Holy, the King of kings has: His right to receive Divine honors as much as possible also in the little sacred host. In this case this is the right of the most fragile one in the Church. All possible reasons in favor of the continuation of Communion standing and in hand lose their weight in the face of the gravity of the obvious minimalism of reverence and sacredness, in the face of the carelessness with the Eucharistic fragments and of the numerous loss of them and in the face of the increasing theft of the sacred hosts. Possible reasons in favor of the continuation of Communion standing and in hand lose their weight above all in the face of the diminishing, alteration and even disappearance of the full Catholic faith in the dogma of the real presence and of the transubstantiation. This modern practice of Communion in hand, which in this exterior form never existed in the Catholic Church, indisputably weakens step by step the fullness of Catholic Eucharistic faith. Indeed already 1970 the Archdiocese of Vienna in Austria gave the following explanation in favor of the new modern practice of Communion in hand: “The fact that the faithful can take the host with his own hand in the manner as he takes the ordinary bread, will be understood by many people as a simple and natural gesture which corresponds to this sign” (Amtsblatt, April 1970). Such a naturalistic view of the sacred host as a sign, surely increased in the past 40 years, especially among the children and adolescents, who often take the Holiest of the Holy in such a naturalistic manner as they take cakes. To continue with this modern practice of Communion reveals himself ever more as non-pastoral. For when something diminishes the fullness of faith, the reverence, the signs of adoration, when something violates the Divine rights of the Eucharistic Lord, then such a practice is in a high degree non-pastoral.

11. Great periods of the flourishing of the life of the Church were always times of penance and times of an intense veneration of the sacrament of sacraments, the Holy Eucharist. Because of the practice of Communion in hand there is an objective state of Eucharistic minimalistic veneration, and even worse there is a situation of a shockingly widespread loss of Eucharistic fragments which are unperceivably crushed by the feet of the people in our churches, and the astonishing ease of stealing sacred hosts. Such an objective situation demands at least a gradual withdrawal of the practice of Communion in hand. Still more it demands expiation and reparation to the Eucharistic Lord, Who is already too much offended in the sacrament of His love. Such a demand for Eucharistic reparation was pronounced by the Angel who appeared in 1916 to the three little shepherds in Fatima. Sister Lucia reported the following event: “As soon as we arrived there, we began to say the angel’s prayer on our knees, with our faces to the ground. We rose to see what was happening, and we saw the angel bearing a chalice in his left hand. Drops of blood fell into the chalice from a Host suspended over it. Leaving the chalice and the Host suspended in the air, the angel prostrated himself beside us and said the following prayer three times: “Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost…” After this, rising up, he again took the chalice and the Host in his hand; he gave the Host to me and the contents of the chalice to Jacinta and Francisco to drink, saying: ‘Take and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, who is horribly insulted by ungrateful men. Make reparation for their crimes and console your God. He again prostrated himself on the ground and repeated with us the same prayer three more times” (Andrew Apostoli, Fatima for Today. The Urgent Marian Message of Hope, San Francisco 2010, pp. 34-35).

12. It would be a pastorally urgent and a spiritually fruitful measure if the Church would establish in all dioceses of the world an annual “Day of Reparation for the crimes against the Most Holy Eucharist”. Such a day could be the octave day of the Feast of Corpus Christi. The Holy Spirit will give special graces of renewal to the Church in our days only, when the Eucharistic Body of Christ will be adored with all Divine honors, will be loved, will be carefully treated and defended as really the Holiest of the Holy. Saint Thomas Aquinas says in the hymn Sacris sollemniis: “O Lord, visit us to the extent as we venerate you in this sacrament” (sic nos Tu visita, sicut Te colimus). And we can say without doubt: O Lord, you will visit your Church in our days to the extent as the modern practice of Communion in hand will recede and to the extent as we offer to you acts of reparation and love. The day when in the churches of the Catholic world the faithful will receive the Eucharistic Lord, veiled under the species of the little sacred host, in the gesture of the biblical adoration of “proskynesis”, that is kneeling, and in the attitude of child, opening the mouth and allowing to be fed by Christ Himself in the spirit of humility and in the purity of heart, then undoubtedly will be realized an authentic “aggiornamento”, a genuine renewal of the Church, which so much desired Blessed John XXII and Blessed John Paul II, who left us as his spiritual testament this words from his last Encyclical: “There can be no danger of excess in our care for this mystery, for in this sacrament is recapitulated the whole mystery of our salvation (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, q. 83, a. 4c.)” (Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 61).

Brooklyn, January 5th, 2013
+ Athanasius Schneider,
Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana, Kazakhstan

On Saturday, November 17th the Society of Saint Hugh of Cluny invites you to the First Annual Hispanic Heritage Pilgrimage In Honor Of Our Lady of Divine Providence Patroness of Puerto Rico. Solemn Mass in the Extraordinary Form at 10 AM at The Church of Saint Catherine of Genoa Between Amsterdam & Broadway 506 West 153rd Street New York, NY 10031 Followed by a visit to The Hispanic Society of America located on Audubon Terrace, Broadway between 155 and 156 Streets.

Posted by Father Greg Markey in the St. Mary Church Bulletin, October 28, Norwalk, CT

There is a growing epidemic rushing through our country unlike anything we have ever seen in history. Even though it has entered into our homes, our marriages, and even reached our children, leaving havoc in its wake, the media will not mention it. What is it? Pornography.

Today, pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry and it does not seem to be slowing down. Through the internet and our iPhones, Pornography is overwhelming huge numbers, particularly as I see it, Catholic men, and it is hard to underestimate the terrible effect it is having on husbands and their families today. Porn addiction is like any other addictive drug. It is a form of slavery, leaving one feeling empty and guilty, yet searching for more. In his heart man knows that with pornography he has lost his God-given dignity, his freedom, and become a slave to his passions. Thankfully, many regularly come to the Sacraments to receive healing and strength. Trusting in Divine Mercy is always the answer.

Pornography is destructive for various reasons but perhaps most importantly because it strikes at the heart of our interior life and numbs our spiritual senses to the invisible realities that necessarily guide our life. “Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God” (Matthew 5:8). Purity is the necessary condition to seeing the invisible world. One has only to think of the purity of innocent children and their amazing capacity to see God’s presence all around them.

Yet the first effect of impurity is blindness of understanding: one can no longer see spiritual realities and the thought of eternity disappears. As St. Alphonsus Ligouri writes, “When a raven finds a dead body, its first act is to pluck out the eyes; and the first injury that incontinence inflicts on the soul is to take away the light of the things of God.”

Man’s fallen nature is so weak that he must recognize the need for God’s grace to live purity. St. Alphonsus writes, “Man cannot of himself acquire the virtue of chastity: God alone can give it.” Prudence therefore dictates that we must avoid the near occasion of sin and beg the Lord in prayer to receive the grace of chastity. Some of the saints have recommended three Hail Mary’s in the morning and at night in honor of Our Lady’s purity as a proven practice to obtain this grace.

Some suffer from unchastity precisely because they are too self-reliant and proud, and the Lord therefore does not immediately bestow the gift. St. Alphonsus states that humility is as necessary as self-control in the fight for chastity: “It happens, not infrequently, that God chastises the proud by permitting them to fall into some sin against purity.”

The great promise given to us by the Lord is that for those who humbly acknowledge their weakness, prudently avoid near occasions of sin, and ask the Lord for help, the grace is always there to overcome the temptation. “God is faithful, and he will not let you to be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you will be able to endure it” (1 Corinthians 10:13).

In this technological age we live in, I also see a grave mistake being made by far too many parents and I wish I could warn them before it is too late. Parents who allow their children, particularly their teenage boys, to have unsupervised access to the internet are inviting impurity and destruction into their families. I wish more parents understood that boys are learning from the internet that girls are to be the plaything of men, mere objects of pleasure.

Absolutely no teenager should have a computer with internet access in his or her bedroom. A house computer should be in a public space, have internet filters installed, used only when the parents are supervising, and regularly checked for the history of the web searches. Once again, parents are making a grave error when they give their children unhindered access to the internet, in particular with their sons. It is not that they do not trust their boys, but that parents need to have a clear understanding of the effect of Original Sin, traditionally called concupiscence; and the parents who are not attentive to this weakness in their sons will learn to regret it later.

There are a number of good websites out there today to help men with addiction to pornography such as www.integrityrestored.com and www.pornharms.com. I have also left two very good pamphlets in the pamphlet racks called Breaking Free by Stephen Wood and The Pornography Pandemic by Patrick Trueman. I hope this will help create awareness of this epidemic and help for those who have hope of restoring their dignity after having lost their way through impurity. May Our Lady inspire and protect our families from this onslaught in our culture today.

Early this morning turning on the television one saw a very disturbing report about the murder of an ambassador of the United States at the hands of Muslim Libyans outraged at some stiffly acted, low budget blasphemy. Quite quickly upon opening my Breviary the Liturgy divinely dispelled dastardly doubt regarding not only this sickening situation but also the agonizing anniversary of the devilish destruction of the Twin Towers. Today is the fabulous feast of the Holy Name of Mary which religiously recalls the virtuous victory over advancing adversaries by a pious potentate.

From one’s reliable research: “King Jan III Sobieski (1629 – 1696) is still regarded as the last great King of Poland. Revered today in part because his fearless and indomitable spirit represents what has always been such an inseparable part of the Polish national character. A man of intellect, he had an uncommon knowledge of foreign culture. And a true Renaissance man, Sobieski’s passion and warmth were revealed in the hundreds of letters exchanged with his wife, Marysienka.

His lack of royal blood didn’t prevent him from earning the admiration and respect of both his countrymen and enemies – his people elected him King, and his opponents referred to him as “The Lion of Poland.” And at a time when it seemed certain that the invading Ottoman Empire would conquer all of Europe, he led an army to defeat a force nearly double in size at the Battle of Vienna (12 September 1683). This earned him the moniker, “The Savior of Western Civilization.” 1

Therefore after demurely and devoutly dispatching a “De Profundis” (psalm 129), a holy and hearty “Ave” should be proudly proclaimed with a sainted shot of Sobieksi “wodka”!

1. http://www.vodkasobieski.com/about_king.php

Mr. Screwtape

We thought you might want to read the full text of this perceptive analysis of current developments in the blog Messa in Latino. Of course, the story of the oppositon of the three FSSPX bishops to reconciliation between the FSSPX and Rome has since been eclipsed by the emergence of the far more significant opposition of Benedict’s own bishops – both in and outside of Rome. We hope to bring you further information on this too.

(In his introduction, the author refers to the coup de theatre of the last few days with the publication of the letters between Msgr. Fellay and the other three bishops of the FSSPX.  He thinks that all concerned knew that there was a good chance that these letters would be published, and he is very happy that this has happened, because it clearly shows the very real split in the Society that he has spoken about in the past. He then offers his analysis of the situation.)

The situation was already quite clear before the exchange of those letters:  The Fraternity of St. Pius X finds itself in the apparently enviable position of being confronted with a Pope that, in essence, supports it entirely.  ‘We will not discuss whether first the Mass of the ages will have to be set free and the excommunications revoked’ said Msgr. Fellay.   This has happened.  ‘No canonical accord without first deep discussions as equals’.  And there have followed theological discussions at the highest levels during two years (and not thirty years as predicted, with wishful thinking, by Msgr. Tissier de Mallerais.)   ‘There is a need for a structure that guarantees the freedom of action of the Fraternity’ and, even if this point is still to be made clear,  Fellay himself understands that on the part of  Rome this has never constituted a problem.

This attitude of Benedict XVI has taken away from the Fraternity every alibi.  But if the Pope has conceded everything, why is there so much agony in the body of the Fraternity itself?  Why on earth does the very same Msgr. Fellay himself write –but this was already clear to any attentive observer—that he would have preferred to remain indefinitely in the status quo, in which the Fraternity pays lip service respect to the power of the Pope, but in fact acts as a small autocephalous church?  Not certainly (or at least not only) to be able to be at the helm of an entity that, in fact superiorem non recognoscet. But above all because Msgr. Fellay knows very well that the moment of truth will be also a moment of trauma and internal fighting. This is what he, most understandably, would like to avoid at all costs.

Induratum est cor of a significant part of the representatives of the Fraternity, as happens inevitably in all dissident groups.  It is a sickness that is called sectarianism.  Jokingly, I said that for a long time that certain elements in the Fraternity would reject with horror a doctrinal preamble that contained even only the words “Credo in unum Deum”, for the sole reason that it comes from Rome.

The scolding letter written by the bishops Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson and Galarreta serves only to confirm this impression.  Read it attentively:  you do not find in the letter criticisms (which in this case would have been constructive, or at least worthy of attention) of the specific passages of the Preamble, or of the proposed canonical solution, or something similar.  No, sir: the argument put forth is dogmatic and without a direct appeal:  the Pope is a “subjectivist”, that is, he does not believe in the objective reality of the truth of faith; as such he is able to welcome into the pantheon of Conciliar Catholicism all the sensibilities and opinions, even if contradictory, since each is ‘true” only relatively within its own ambience.

Now, to affirm these things about the Pope, about this Pope, who has made the battle against religious relativism (the consequence of subjectivism) the basis of the plan of his pontificate right from the homily of his inauguration Mass,  is not even a caricature (which presumes always a partial basis in truth): it is a turning upside down of the facts and of good sense.

As Msgr. Fellay well responds to this point to his brother bishops, the Church is horribly disfigured, but, on the other hand, one cannot wait in an ivory tower in the hope that she will recover. It is necessary to participate in the battle to heal her ills; and also when her ills have passed,  other new ones will arise.  The life, not only of the individual Christian, but of the whole mystical Body is permanently militia—a fighting action against the Hydra always rising from evil and heresy. 

One should not fail to notice, in general, the dignified and analytical tone of the letter of response of Msgr. Fellay and his assistants, which contrasts with the sloganeering of his opponents.  The letter from the FSSPX headquarters seems written not only to quiet internal dissension by the force of reason, but also to furnish, thanks to its style that is studiously measured and reflective and insistently referring to the sensus ecclesiae,  a preventative weapon for the Vatican when it will have to find how to make the reconciliation with the episcopate palatable.   The apparent silence on this question can be the result of a hopeful skepticism about the outcome of the talks, but it can also be the prelude to a tempestuous rebellion at a critical moment.

What will happen now?  In these final days, the Lefebvrian barometer is registering a turn towards fair weather.  In the months immediately following the delivery of the doctrinal Preamble, those against the accord prevailed, and Msgr Fellay himself could do no better than to delay as long as possible a response.  This caused in the “Romans” a certain feeling of impatience, and also some hardness of position that certainly did not help him in his difficult position of the intermediary. But if the antipapal resistance in the Fraternity organized itself, cementing the positions of the three bishops with those of the Superior of the powerful French district, Cacquerary (who still in the editorial of the last issue of Fideliter describes Benedict XVI as a prisoner of “profound and grave illusions” about the conciliar “new religion”),   there have arisen positions of several Superiors of districts in  favor of a reconciliation.  First among these is the German Schmidberger, who was also the first successor of Msgr. Lefebvre at the head of the Fraternity.  Together with him stand the Superiors of the United States, Holland-Belgium and Asia.  Above all there is the important support of Abbé Simoulin, who in full knowledge of the case—at that time he was the rector of the seminary in Écone—has overturned the reason for which it was necessary for Msgr. Lefebvre to refuse the Roman offer (of reconciliation), revealing that that refusal in 1988 did not depend at all on doctrinal disagreements, but only on the practical questions about the naming of his successor.

Fellay himself must have shrewdly figured out two things.  The first:  that Rome would not allow him to wriggle out of the problem any longer (as he would have preferred) and that he would have to decide on the basis of yes or no.  The second:  that in the case of a negative response to the accord, he, solely from the fact of having conducted the negotiations in a “moderate” way,  would end up quite rapidly dismissed and, probably, even purged from a Fraternity setting out on the road of extremism and self-ghettoization.  This is a real risk, as Msgr. Fellay writes:  ‘This incapacity to distinguish leads one or the other of you towards an absolute hardening.  This is serious because this caricature is outside of reality and will lead logically in the future to a real schism.  And perhaps that fact is one of the reasons that is pushing me to not delay any longer to respond to the Roman requests.’

The exchange of letters that ended up on the Internet in effect expresses two things. On one side, the very strong fear of the three recalcitrant bishops that the accord will indeed be reached.  On the other side, the sense of surety that Msgr. Fellay has acquired by this time. Up till now he seemed instead more similar to “King Tentenna” (ed. note:  a king who could not make up his mind) that to Clausewitz.  Thisnew sense of security is seen clearly from how he does not worry about addressing his confreres with strong accusations (of sedevacantism,  lack of faith in the supernatural, insubordination for direct opposition to his leadership).

The problems tied to the doctrinal preamble seem, in effect, resolved.  So affirms Msgr. Arrieta, the secretary of the Pontifical Council for the interpretation of legislative documents (the dicastery that you can be sure is preoccupied with the next problem: the definition of a canonical structure)  An indiscretion that was revealed to us (take it as such, but I assure you that it is reliable) that the last response of Msgr. Fellay, in which he accepts the famous Preamble but with some significant modifications, before being sent officially to Ecclesia Dei and to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was sent directly, via Msgr. Georg, to the Pope, who did not raise any objections.  This was one way to be sure that some zealous Roman functionary, perhaps because of an excessive affection to the text of the Preamble originally prepared by his dicastery, would not raise problems.  So we are able to wait for Wednesday with confidence, when the CDF is scheduled to tell what their response is to the FSSPX.

With the subject of the doctrinal preambles out of the way, we will pass on to truly serious matters, which are, naturally, the juridical questions.  On one side: what will be the destiny of the Fraternity in case of an internal split: whether in terms of numbers, or in terms of the ownership of the structures and the centers of the apostolate (on this point, however, I hazard a guess that the internal schism—which may happen—will be substantially circumscribed and probably will not involve all the three bishops:  there does not seem to me to be a great desire to create a sort of  a “Lefebvrist refoundation”.)

On the other hand, the question of the canonical structure arises.  Personally I am convinced that this may be the only point on which the FSSPX would have every reason to refuse the accord, if they were not to obtain a canonical exemption from the diocesan bishops.  But on this point, and on the solutions that are impending, I am postponing to a later post, because I realize that I have already bored you enough for today.

Enrico

Translated by Fr. Richard Cipolla

Original: http://blog.messainlatino.it/2012/05/la-tormentata-storia-delle-relazioni.html