From the Philadelphia Inquirer: “At Philly Catholic churches, secret renovations expose rift between traditional and Neo-Catechumenal members” (By Valerie Russ, 8/19/2020)

For the last 12 years, Donna Panno, who leads the singing for Sunday Mass at St. Michael Roman Catholic Church in North Philadelphia, sat in the first pew. It was the same pew in which her mother, now 91, fainted as a 6-year-old from a fever. 

But while St. Michael was closed because of the pandemic between March and early June, that pew, along with many others, was ripped from the historic church’s hardwood floors, the altar rails removed. The center-aisle marble floor — down which members and their parents before them had marched to be married — as well as the hardwood floors beneath the remaining pews were covered in bright red carpeting.(See photo above; my bolding)

It all happened under the direction of the Rev. Arturo Chagala, who, since 2014 has led both the traditional Catholic congregation at the church, at Second and Jefferson Streets, as well as the members of the Neo-Catechumenal Way, an evangelical ministry that’s been acknowledged by the Vatican since 2008 and that at St. Michael comprises about 10% of the almost 250 parishioners.

Obviously parishioners – of the “traditional Catholic congregation,” that is – were upset. But this is not the only church where this has taken place:

The uproar marked the second instance this summer where members of a Catholic parish have publicly condemned a Neo-Catechumenal Way leader for major overhauls of their sanctuaries without their input, exposing a growing rift between longtime parishioners and Neo-Catechumenal members.

At St. Charles Borromeo in South Philadelphia, parishioners have taken to public protests, alleging that the Rev. Esteban Granyak made renovations to the chapel without consulting its longtime, predominantly Black, parishioners. Among other changes, he converted the basement gym into a separate worship space for Neo-Catechumenal followers, even though its longtime members used it to gather for repasts after funerals. Also, the marble altar railings used when kneeling for prayer or Communion were removed.(my bolding)

Others, besides the parishioners of St. Charles and St. Michael, are not amused:

Architectural historian Oscar Beisert said his “blood boiled” when he saw pictures of the remodeled St. Michael sanctuary. Although its historic designation by the city only protects a building’s exterior, he called the changes a travesty.

“He took a classically beautiful building and vandalized it,” he said. “I call it architectural vandalism.”

Even Massimo Faggioli is quoted in this article making distinctly critical remarks about the Neocathecumenal way. And the new Philadelphia archbishop, Nelson J. Pérez, has intervened in the matter. The pastor of St Michael’s had to issue an apologetic letter to his congregation:

The case is currently under consideration at both churches. How many of these changes will be reversed – and when – is as of now undecided. Actually these specific “renovations” are very similar to so many others imposed on parishes in the past. What is new is the organized articulate opposition to them – and the hearing given to the protestors by the local archdiocese.

(Below: the wreckage of the Communion Rail at St. Michael’s. Photo:Philadelphia Inquirer)

(Thanks to a friendly reader for the tip.)

Reclaiming Our Roman Catholic Birthright: The Genius and Timeliness of the Traditional Latin Mass

by Peter Kwasniewski

Angelico Press, Brooklyn, NY, 2020

It’s amazing for a traditionalist “old-timer”  – which I guess I now am – to experience the breadth and maturity of American Traditionalism today. The best evidence of that, in addition to the ever growing number of Traditional Masses, parishes, monasteries, and internet apostolates of all kinds, is the extraordinary new literature on the old rite. Earlier this year the English translation of Fiedrowicz’s authoritative The Traditional Mass appeared. Now Peter Kwasniewski gives us Reclaiming Our Roman Catholic Birthright. It is an open, unabashed and unashamed  apology ( in the early Christian sense) for the Traditional Roman Catholic liturgical life.

The first noteworthy thing about Reclaiming our Roman Catholic Birthright is that we have this book in the first place. With the conspicuous exception of Martin Mosebach’s landmark 2002 Heresy of Formlessness  – and perhaps  Fr. Claude Barthes’s more specialized 2011 La messe : Une Forêt de Symboles  – I do not recall previously encountering such books on the liturgy itself from the Traditionalist perspective.  Moreover, I am not sure such works were published even before the Vatican Council. For the pre-conciliar works I have seen tended to be either picture books or descriptive manuals – sometimes with an apologetic (in the contemporary sense!) flavor. The vision that the Traditional Mass  – as it then existed – was the central point of  Christian life and could be even a “selling point” for the Church to evangelize its own flock and the rest of the world seemed to have been obscured. 

Now Kwasniewski eloquently and passionately advocates the celebration of the Traditional Mass. He concentrates more on the advantages of the old rite, not the deficiencies of the new.  Furthermore, Kwasniewski does not shrink from the conclusion that the old rite is intrinsically  superior to its successor; that it should be once again the norm for all Roman Catholics. What is implicit in Mosebach’s and Fiedrowicz’s works is here boldly proclaimed:

From this vantage we can see, more clearly than ever. the vital spiritual, psychological and sociological need in our time for the usus antiquior. The reintroduction of the traditional Mass is not merely a matter of superior aesthetics, rather it concerns all of the crises we face us a society, as a race, as a planet.

In many ways Reclaiming our Roman Catholic Birthright  complements Fiedrowicz’s work. The latter is primarily a description of the Mass and a historical account of its formation, while Kwasniewski systematically presents the arguments why we should frequent and love this Mass – and how to defend it from its enemies. It is remarkable that Kwasniewski draws overwhelmingly on the insights and experience of the last few years under the reign of Pope Francis; indeed, much of the book reflects articles of the author and others from just 2018 to 2020! Could there be any better evidence of the vitality of today’s Traditionalism? Most of this material appeared first on the internet, once again demonstrating the decisive role it plays in the Traditionalist movement.

The solid grounding of this book in experience of the current liturgical practice of the old rite is everywhere evident, such as where Kwasniewski  points out that young children can be better behaved at a lengthy Solemn High Mass than at less elaborate liturgies, because there are so many more things to see and hear. This observation exactly agrees with my own experience in the now distant pre-Vatican II days. Back then he usual Sunday mass I had to attend was a low Mass organized for the pupils of the parochial school. The music was limited to four English hymns. How dazzled I was by the parish Solemn Mass the few times I had the good fortune to be taken to it by my parents.

Kwasniewski reminds us of the continuing  hostility of large parts of the Catholic clergy and laity to the Traditional Mass. Much of Reclaiming our Roman Catholic Birthright is therefore devoted to discussing and refuting the arguments against the Traditional mass. Kwasniewski, in my view correctly, attributes this opposition less to the strength of rationally formulated arguments but to the perception that the celebration of the Traditional Mass is a repudiation of the “Vatican II event”  to which, voluntarily or not, the members of the Church Establishment have irrevocably committed themselves. One more reversal of their liturgcial principles would be an incalculable mental blow. 

As an illustration, Kwasniewski presents a kind of  dialogue with a representative “Conservative Catholic”, Msgr. M. Francis Mannion. (who elsewhere has described the Traditional Mass movement as “idolatry”!) Msgr. Mannion is of the view that the Traditionalist movement will “fade away” if  young people can’t “understand the language” (even if they are doing exactly the opposite of that right now).

Let me digress a bit.  Msgr. Mannion cites in support of this assertion a “study” by Professor George Demacopoulos of Fordham University (naturally!) that supposedly concluded that Greek Orthodox parishes in the United States are losing members (especially the young)because of the use of Byzantine or liturgical Greek, instead of modern Greek or English. How similar to what was being touted in the Roman Catholic Church circa 1963! But, on closer examination, the support for Msgr. Mannion from the Orthodox quarter is not all that strong.  At least in his online post on this topic, Prof. Demacopoulos qualifies his view on the subject: the use of Byzantine Greek is just one contributing factor in the alleged attrition of the younger Greek Orthodox population in America, and in fact a number of other factors are more important.  I believe that significant Orthodox jurisdictions such as the Russian Orthodox Patriarchy and the parent Orthodox Church of Greece have emphatically rejected changing the liturgical language,  explicitly condemning the abandonment of Church Slavonic/Byzantine Greek, among other liturgical innovations. My conclusion is that those hostile to Catholic Traditionalism are grasping at straws to find reasons to support a position based not on facts or theology but upon ideological conviction reinforced by the fear of the consequences of being proven wrong.

One of the best parts of this book is Kwasniewski’s discussion of the view, explicit in the views of Msgr. Mannion, that direct communication of understandable texts is the most effective mode of liturgy. Rather, the transparency of the new mass, the absence of challenging symbolism, tends to decrease, rather than increase, participation by the congregation(much in the way we mentally “turn off” repetitive political harangues on television.) The Traditional Mass, in contrast.  affords many different ways to “actively participate” in the liturgy. I also liked Kwasniewski’s opinionated (the author’s word), argumentative and at times humorous glossary of liturgical terms appended to this book.

I can personally testify to the discomfort aroused among the ranks of the so-called conservative clergy and their lay hangers-on by  Peter Kwasniewski’s fearless and eloquent championship of the Traditional Mass. For he is just as convincing in person as on the written page! If you, however, are seeking a great one-volume exposition of the value and even the necessity of the Traditional Mass, you have found it with this book.

Polyphony has returned to St. Mary Church’s in Norwalk. Bishop Caggiano has granted permsion for a 4-voice schola. This Sunday, August 23, the Schola will sing William Byrd’s Mass for Four Voices at the 9:30 a.m. Solemn Mass.

Since the 9:30 a.m. Mass at St. Mary’s now regularly reaches its mandated capacity of 100 people, a Missa cantata (Extraordinary Form sung mass) will be added to the Sunday schedule at 11:30 a.m. Charles and Elizabeth Weaver will provide music at the 11:30 Mass this Sunday, August 23, including Ludovico Viadana’s Missa Dominicalis for solo voice with lute accompaniment.

Please call the church office at 203-866-5546 x 101 to make a reservation (as with all our weekend Masses).

From the Rorate Caeli Twitter:

Re-read many years later, Fritz Fischer’s “Germany’s Aims in the First World War” (Griff nach der Weltmacht) seems even more convincing: it reads like a thriller, a very well-documented thriller. Highly recommended.

Griff nach der Weltmacht (The Bid for( or “Grasp after”) World Power) is one of the foundational works that sought to provide a theoretical/historical basis for the international order that emerged after World War II. It restated the thesis that the European calamities of the last century were exclusively attributable to a conspiracy of the evil Germans – a problem presumably solved by the establishment of American domination over Western Europe after 1945. To say that this analysis, as history, is questionable is the understatement of the century. What is interesting, however, is when (1961) and where (West Germany) The Bid for World Power appeared – at the start of Europe’s (and America’s) dramatic swing to the left. The historical vision of a clash between good (implicitly, the current establishment) and evil ( in this book, an earlier, no longer existing Germany) has endured until the present day – sometimes with shifting villains. So, on occasion the Poles and the Serbs have since found themselves also in the dock – much to their dismay.

The irony is, of course, that whatever its relevance may be to the origins and conduct of the First World War, just the title alone of The Bid for World Power exactly describes the course of United States policy, above all between 1939 and 1945. For it was in this period, after the abortive crusade of Wilson, that the United States definitively abandoned the status of a relatively “isolationist” power with limited foreign commitments in areas with real or imagined American economic interests (China; Latin America; the Panama Canal; the Philippines) to seek a condominium over the entire world shared with the Soviet Union. And even when that dream collapsed in the Cold War, the United States still found itself in possession of a vast world empire in all but name.

Against this backdrop, why a site that has so constantly and admirably championed Christian Europe – even the Habsburg Empire – would find The Bid for World Power “convincing,” without any reservations, escapes me. What will Rorate Caeli provide a blurb for next, Theodor W. Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality?

By Fr. Richard Cipolla

Brethren, I make known unto you the Gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received and wherein you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received.

To receive and to pass on. That is the essence of what the Catholic Church means by Tradition with a capital T. We are not a people of the Book, like Islam, the basis of which faith is entirely the Koran.  And there are Protestant Christians who are also people of the Book, but their book is the Bible.  And for them the whole faith is contained in the Bible and the purpose of study is to constantly read and examine and analyze the text of the Bible.  That this foundation is shaky should be obvious:  for the original languages of the Bible are Hebrew and Greek, and therefore every translation is subject to that fundamental dictum that translation always involves in a sense a betrayal, for every translation bears the marks and prejudices of particular people and of a particular culture.  There is no total objectivity in translation and in a faith like Christianity that insists that the ultimate truth is found in the person of Jesus Christ whose words are recorded in the gospels this problem is acute. But we Catholics have always believed from the very beginning that what has been handed down, the Tradition, is not merely what is recorded faithfully in the Bible, especially in the New Testament, but also includes the oral tradition handed down from Jesus to the Apostles and to the Church.  

But it goes deeper than this. For the Catholic, the Tradition is a living entity.  It grows and develops under the power and protection of the Holy Spirit.  If this were not true, then the Church could never confront in a real and faithful way the new challenges of every age.  And it is the magisterium of the Church, the Pope and the bishops, who are entrusted with the authentic passing down of the Tradition. But this is not magic.  It is not the case that the bishops and the Pope can be personally inspired apart from the authentic Tradition and declare things that claim to be true that are obviously in contradiction with what has been handed down organically for two thousand years.  In accordance with the narrow definition of papal infallibility as defined by the First Vatican Council, the Pope can define only what has been believed and is believed by the Church.  He can never define anything as true and to be believed that does not have its roots and basis in the Tradition of the Church that always precedes him.  

The development of doctrine always takes place in a particular time and place, a particular culture.  The doctrine of the full humanity and divinity of Christ and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, were debated and developed in a particular time in history.  And these truths were defined at a particular time and place and yet transcended that particular time and place, because the unfolding of Truth is not ultimately in the power of man—although the exercise of man’s intellect, even clouded by sin, can work towards the truth.  

Now we live in a time and place in which those who call themselves Catholic openly support those who declaim moral positions that are antithetical to the teaching of the Catholic Church.  We cannot speak to those in Europe who have deliberately turned their backs on the very essence of their culture, which essence is Christianity.  We can only speak to our own situation in this country.  That both situations are related there is no doubt.  But we can only speak about the peculiar situation that is American culture.  From the beginning there were those bishops in this country who saw that to be Catholic in this country is a different thing than to be Catholic in Europe. And they were right, for Americans did not carry the baggage of a long history in which the Catholic Church played a central role and often ambiguous role.  But these bishops often confused what Americans understood as freedom and liberty with what the Church understands as freedom—which freedom is defined by the Cross of Jesus Christ.  They were happy that the American government tolerated Catholicism and that, despite some real outbreaks of anti-Catholicism in this country, Americans are a tolerant people–as long as you keep your religion to yourself and do not try to claim moral truths that are absolute. 

 I have been blessed in my priesthood to be able several times to be one of the Sacred Ministers at a Solemn Mass at the shrine church of Our Lady of Mount Carmel in East Harlem.  That parish was the home of the Italian immigrants who came to this country at the beginning of the 20^th century to escape the poverty of southern Italy.  The archbishop of New York at that time was furious that these people on their patronal festival that meant so much to them brought their religion into the streets and carried the statue of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel in procession and had a big festa designed to remind them of what they left in Italy and to show the world their devotion to the Mother of God.  The archbishop was furious, because he had made his peace with the radical individualism of an America that relegated the Christian faith to the closed doors of church and home.  

But you see, that view has triumphed in this country in so many ways, where  Catholicism has been tamed, from being a smelly, threatening and majestic lion, to being one more teddy bear of denominations.  Baptist, Episcopalian, Pentecostal, Catholic.  Just different flavors of something called Christian.  But Catholic means universal. The Catholic Church with its historical roots in the city of Rome is that Church founded by Jesus Christ that preaches and teaches one Lord, one faith, one baptism, a Church that knows no man-made boundaries, a Church that embraces every man and woman from every race throughout the world. 

St. Paul’s words:  Brethren, I make known unto you the Gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received and wherein you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received.

We must love our bishops, the successors to the Apostles, those ordained to pass on the Tradition of the Church in a living way. We must pray for their manhood, that they have the courage and insight to fight against those elements of our culture that deny in the name of personal freedom the moral truths that come from God .  We Catholics know only one freedom that is absolute:  the freedom bought for us by our Lord Jesus Christ on the Cross.

Father Richard Gennaro Cipolla

Good news: The Cathedral Parish in Bridgeport, CT now has the Latin Mass on the schedule 7 days a week, including 3 sung Masses a week:

Monday through Friday at 7 am at St. Patrick Church: Low Mass – Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday; Sung Mass – Thursday

Saturday, 9 am at St. Augustine Cathedral, Sung Mass

Sunday, 12:30 pm at  St. Patrick Church, Sung Mass.

It is reported that, without publicity, the K of C have severed (or downsized?) their “partnership” with Crux – the voice of Bergoglio in the United States. As we recall:.

The Knights of Columbus and Crux are pleased to announce that they plan to enter into a partnership in which Crux will remain an independent news outlet headed by John L. Allen Jr. and Inés San Martín. (3/15/2016)

We look forward to hearing more about this most interesting development.

Sermon for Pentecost IX

by Father Richard Cipolla

From the gospel of St. Matthew:  Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil.  And from today’s epistle from Paul to the Corinthians:  Let no temptation take hold on you, but such as is human: and God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able; but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it. 

Another difficult passage to deal with on the Ninth Sunday after Pentecost.  Last Sunday we had to deal with the” dishonest steward” and Jesus’ commendation of him. Today we have to deal with St. Paul’s teaching on temptation.  But we must deal with this, for this passage points to one of the most best known phrases in the Lord’s Prayer. “ Lead us not into temptation.”  

The present Pope has expressed dissatisfaction with the English translation of this part of the Lord’s Prayer from the Latin: ne inducas tentationem.   His problem is with the verb inducas.  For it seems to imply that God leads us into temptation, which we know cannot be true.  God is not a tempter. The Devil and his minions are the tempters.  So he would prefer a translation that makes it clear that God does not lead us into temptation.  But the fact is that the verb in both Greek and Latin is clearly the verb which in English means “to lead.”  Now it is true that in both the Greek and the Latin the “command”, known as the imperative, is softened by the use of the subjunctive.  It is as if it is saying not “Lead!” with an exclamation point but rather a softer order, almost a plea, for God to not lead us into temptation.  That is important.  And just as an aside here, contrary to what is expected of priests at this time in the Church, they should be able to analyze the New Testament in this way.  And if they cannot, they should refer to the interpretations of the Church Fathers in these matters.  That too many priests in the Church today rely on canned homilies or on cursory and contemporary riffs on Scripture is a sign of the times.

 But the problem is not the verb “to lead”.  No one believes that God is a tempter.  The only tempter is Satan and his minions.  And why we are tempted to sin is because we are part of the fallen universe, the whole of which is out of synch with God.  But God defines synch, for God is the creator of all that there is and he created all as good and he created all that there is out of love.  The problem is with the word in Latin ”tentationem”.  Its meaning is more subtle that “temptation”.  Its meaning is also trial, things that one has to go through that one does not want to go through.  What we are talking about is a test of faith.  Few Catholics know anything about the book of Job except that is supposed to be depressing to read.  But it is in this book of the Old Testament that we discover what “do not lead us into the trial” really means.  Everything is taken away from Job, his family, his worldly goods, he is reduced to a man sitting in ashes.  And his friends, pious and real friends, insist that he must have done something against God to merit the terrible situation in which he finds in himself.  And Job insists that he has not succumbed to the temptation to deny God and that whatever he is going through is not because he has succumbed to the temptation to deny God.  And for his reward, when Job tries to cry out to God that he does not deserve the terrible afflictions that have befallen him, God tells him essentially to shut up. His ways are not our ways. But there is a happy ending to the book of Job, where everything is restored to him, a new family, new wealth, new standing in the community.  

This is what we pray when we pray “do not lead us into the trial.”  When I pray this I say to God:

 I am weak, I am not strong, do not put me into a situation where I am going to be tempted to give up my faith, that I am going to want what I want, knowing that what I want is contrary to the will of God.  Who here wants to be put to the test?  And yet it is Jesus, who in the words of the Gospel of Mark is driven into the desert to the tempted by Satan.  God drives him into the desert not to tempt him but to be tempted by Satan who is the ultimate temptor to prepare him for his ultimate trial and temptation.

But if we want to begin to understand what this pleading to not be led into temptation means we must look at the agony in the Garden.  The Son of God prays that if possible his suffering and death be taken away, that there be an alternative to the demand of faith in the Father.  But there is no alternative to the death of the Son of God who cannot die and who must die for the salvation of the world. 

Once we understand this, we understand what ne inducas in tentationem means for you and me.   In our weakness, despite infusions of grace through the Sacraments and prayer and sacrifice, we plead to God to not put us in a situation                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     in which we will because of self love turn our backs on the grace of God that is always there.  It is a plea to God who knows our own weakness.  But that phrase “Do not lead us into temptation” is an affirmation of faith: that God will never abandon us even if we abandon Him.  But you see, that is the definition of love.  Even if I turn my back and abandon the one I am called to love most deeply because he is God, he will never turn his back on me.

I close with St. Paul’s words we heard in the Epistle:

Let no temptation take hold on you, but such as is human: and God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able; but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it. 

Father Richard Gennaro Cipolla