The Latin Mass in Fitchburg and the wisdom of Gamaliel

Those of you who are regular readers of this Blog know full well that I prefer the Latin Mass and have done much to make the case for it.  A few years ago, I wrote a couple of posts promoting what I thought would be an exciting development for Fitchburg, Massachusetts.  See here for example.  Now Todd Tabbaa, who writes for the Latin Mass Fitchburg Blog (as well as Ecce Agnus Dei), has announced that, "It is with sadness but not without hope for the future that it is announced that Mass in the Extraordinary Form at St. Joseph parish in Fitchburg will terminate on June 5th. The reasons are of simple practicality and a realistic evaluation of the fact that after almost one year of having the Traditional Latin Mass at this parish, the number of attendees has not increased and is not sufficient to maintain basic expenditures. The various considerations which affect growth, including Mass time, location, and proximity to other Traditional Latin Masses in the diocese may all be considered in our decisions for future directions. We will thus meet after our last Mass on June 5th downstairs in the parish hall (at our community potluck) for discussion and planning..."  (See here).

Now the Latin Mass continues to attract young people from every region.  I have said that the Latin Mass movement is largely a youth movement.  One has only to attend the traditional Mass to see this.  What is the problem then?  Why did the Latin Mass fail to take off at Immaculate Conception and later Saint Joseph's Parish in Fitchburg.

I believe there are probably several reasons for this.  But one reason which will probably not be acknowledged by those who were coordinating the effort in Fitchburg is that they had made the decision to associate themselves with the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire, an organization which has engaged in anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.  See here and here for example.

I attended the Latin Mass at Immaculate Conception until the subject of Father Leonard Feeney came up.  After explaining my position regarding Father Leonard Feeney and the Saint Benedict Center (again, the one located in Richmond, New Hampshire) to Mr.Todd Tabbaa and his wife, I was shunned from that point on. 

Two thousand years ago, Gamaliel, a Pharisee and celebrated doctor of the Law, exhorted his fellow Israelites to leave the Apostles alone (they were planning to scourge them).  In doing so (read Acts 5: 38, 39), he explained that if an endeavor or activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself.  Another way of saying that "unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it." (Proverbs 14: 34).

How sad that there are some who insist that the Latin Mass movement has to be associated with the name and ideology of Father Leonard Feeney.  See here.

This just in: Holy Office says Feeneyites "not ok"

The Feeneyite Saint Benedict Center cult in Richmond, New Hampshire has posted the following at its website with the heading, "This just in: Pope Says 'Feeneyites' ok":

"With regards to those who hold strictly the absolute necessity of water baptism, it would be quite wrong to charge them with heretical constructs. As they merely assert that which was the near-universal consensus of the Patristic era, such a charge would be proximate to condemning all but a few of the Fathers as heterodox." (Der Glaube das Pimmelkopfgelauben, Communio April 1997 p 13. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.)

Now our Holy Father, then Cardinal Ratzinger, was not suggesting that Feeneyites are correct or that Feeneyism is "ok." He was merely indicating that it would be wrong to charge them "with heretical constructs." Not all willful rejection of a truth proposed by the Church constitutes heresy. The Feeneyites rejection of the Church's understanding of the dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation" is not strictly speaking heresy. However, it is a serious sin against Catholic faith.

On August 8, 1949, the Holy Office sent a letter to Archbishop Richard James Cushing of Boston condemning Father Feeney’s error. In this letter, the Holy Office explained that, "...among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church. However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church."

This teaching is reaffirmed in the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) of the Second Vatican Council, No. 10: "..the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." See also: Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Humani Generis (Aug 12, 1950): AAS 42 (1950), 568-69; Denz. 2314 (3886).

The Holy Office concluded its letter to Archbishop Cushing with these words: "..let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after ‘Rome has spoken’ they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church ‘only by an unconscious desire.’ Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation."

What does this mean for the Feeneyites? It means that the Lord Jesus will require more from them (children of the Church who have been "lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments," See also Luke 12:48) and that, having heard "the clear voice of their Mother" (the living teaching office of the Church), they have no excuse in rejecting the Church’s understanding of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. In fact, since "to them[as children of the Church] apply without any restriction" the principle that "submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation," the Feeneyites place their salvation in jeopardy by ranging themselves against the Church.

Feeneyites who want to rationalize their pick and choose "cafeteria Catholicism" will no doubt continue to ignore Church documents which do not suit their agenda while plucking out selective quotes as deftly as a fundamentalist would in a vain attempt to justify their particular view. But the Church has spoken:

"Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking." (Lumen Gentium, No. 25).

These same Bishops, gathered at the Second Vatican Council, taught that:

"..those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.." (Lumen Gentium, No. 16).

Can one reject this teaching and still call himself a Catholic? As Ralph McInerny [professor at the University of Notre Dame] explains in his book "What went wrong with Vatican II: The Catholic crisis explained":

"Contemporary accounts of Vatican II portrayed it as a battle between two forces, conservative and liberal, the hidebound and progressive. As a result, the documents of the council came to to be looked upon as the triumph of one side over the other. The good guys who had won were the progressives. That such a political division existed among members of the press who covered the council is undeniable. That a similar division could be found among the theological experts [periti] who advised individual bishops or national conferences of bishops is also true. And there doubtless were prelates who regarded the members of the Vatican Curia as obstacles to the renewal that John XXIII had called for. Does this mean that the council was a victory for one side and a defeat for the other? This question indicates the limitations of such a factional interpretation. The Church is not merely a human organization. She is a divinely instituted mystery whose life is guided by the Holy Spirit. Whatever wrangling went on outside St. Peter's, however much a partisan spirit might have been carried within, when the various schemata were argued over and revised, once they received a majority of the votes of the Fathers of the council and were promulgated by Paul VI, they could no longer be looked upon as the product or property of some party within the Church. Now they were regulative of the faith of all Catholics. No Catholic could presume to reject the council and think that he remained a loyal member of the Church." (pp. 150-151).


Related reading: Did Father Feeney really reconcile with the Church? See here.

What's going on at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website?

Readers of this Blog are already aware of my concerns regarding the HCCNS website and the anti-Semitism which has been promoted at that forum from a previous post. It would appear that things haven't changed much at that forum. Mr. John Ansley initiated a thread entitled "What is happening here?" in which he wrote: "Monsignor Ernest Jouin*, whose work is being promoted at this site by a Feeneyite/anti-Semite follower of Philip Lawler, was a virulently anti-Semitic priest who served as the channel from Russia to France of the highly anti-Semitic propaganda work titled "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion**." He then posted a book review which confirmed his allegations regarding the late Mgsr. Jouin.

Now, Mr. Ansley was merely posing a question: "What is happening here?" However, he received a terse response from Richard B (a Catholic apologist who comments at the HCCNS website). Richard B wrote: "Ever since my association with HCCNS website, it played host to anyone who wanted to post here within specific parameters. Because posters who are favorable to 'Feeneyism' as you put it, or who object to object to 'Feenyism' does not make HCCNS website a party to those posters. I believe your inference does an injustice to this site..."

But Mr. Ansley wasn't inferring anything about the HCCNS website in general. He was merely asking what is going on at that forum. Why? Because, the masthead of this discussion site states that: "HCCNS reserves the right to delete any post it deems inappropriate including, but not limited to, those it feels are vulgar, hostile or a misuse of the intent of this forum."

Let's examine this statement very carefully. Vulgar. Does this not include comments which promote anti-Semitism? Hostile. Isn't anti-Semitism considered "hostile" at the HCCNS website? Gee, you would think so. A misuse of the intent of this forum. Is anti-Semitism the intent of the forum? If not, why is Richard B being so defensive at Mr. Ansley's question?

I don't think Mr. Ansley was looking to generalize or to infer that everyone who comments at the HCCNS website is anti-Semitic. He simply asked a question: "What is happening here?" And judging by the terse response he received, I would say he might have hit a nerve. We should ask ourselves: what exactly are the "specific parameters" according to Richard B? Do these "specific parameters" exclude anti-Semitism? And if not, why not?

Other valid questions: why has Richard B responded to Mr. Ansley with an accusatory tone (suggesting that he was inferring something about the HCCNS website in general or every individual who posts there); and why is he seemingly unconcerned with expressions of anti-Semitism?

* Previous post on Monsignor Ernest Jouin here.

** More on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion here.

Feeneyites: Catholics in Good Standing with the Church?

I have completed a booklet entitled "Feeneyites: Catholics in Good Standing with the Church? A Response to Mr. Pete Vere, JCL

By clicking on the link to Lulu which is located on the sidebar of this Blog, one may purchase a copy of this booklet.

Paul.

There are many ways to fall...Feeneyism is one of them

In his classic work entitled Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton so eloquently explains that: "This is the thrilling romance of Orthodoxy. People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe. There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy. It was sanity: and to be sane is more dramatic than to be mad. It was the equilibrium of a man behind madly rushing horses, seeming to stoop this way and to sway that, yet in every attitude having the grace of statuary and the accuracy of arithmetic. The Church in its early days went fierce and fast with any warhorse; yet it is utterly unhistoric to say that she merely went mad along one idea, like a vulgar fanaticism. She swerved to left and right, so exactly as to avoid enormous obstacles. She left on one hand the huge bulk of Arianism, buttressed by all the worldly powers to make Christianity too worldly. The next instant she was swerving to avoid an orientalism, which would have made it too unworldly. The orthodox Church never took the tame course or accepted the conventions; the orthodox Church was never respectable. It would have been easier to have accepted the earthly power of the Arians. It would have been easy, in the Calvinistic seventeenth century, to fall into the bottomless pit of predestination. It is easy to be a madman: it is easy to be a heretic. It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one's own. It is always easy to be a modernist; as it is easy to be a snob. To have fallen into any of those open traps of error and exaggeration which fashion after fashion and sect after sect set along the historic path of Christendom -- that would indeed have been simple. It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands. To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame. But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect."

"It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls." Truer words were never spoken. This is so because men are tempted by pride to prefer their own opinions and preferences to the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ through the Magisterium of His Church. Such people forget that, "..the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed." (Dei Verbum, No. 10).

Many of those who adhere to Fr. Leonard Feeney's interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus are in this category. Others are simply confused as to what the Church actually teaches. Dr. Germain Grisez provides us with clarification on this teaching:

"Because the Church is the unique new covenant community, outside her there is no savation, as Lateran IV solemnly teaches: 'There is but one universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved' (DS 802/430). Vatican II reaffirms this definitive teaching (see LG, 14, AG, 7). But it must be rightly understood. Already in 1863, Pius IX, while absolutely rejecting indifferentism, teaches (as something taken for granted by both himself and the bishops) that those who are ready to submit to God but are separated from the true faith and Catholic unity by invincible ignorance can receive God's grace, live uprightly, and be saved (see Quanto conficiamur moerore, Pii IX Pontificis maximi acta, 3.1 [Rome 1868], 612-614 [DS 2865-67/1677]; PE, 60.6-8). Also, in a 1949 decree approved by Pius XII, the Holy Office rejected a more restrictive interpretation (see DS 3866-73). What is new in Vatican II's teaching is the clarification that, although the one and only Church subsists in the Catholic Church (see LG, 8; UR, 4; DH, 1), she also embraces in various ways all who 'sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience" (LG, 16; GS, 22)...Thus, it remains true that there is no salvation outside the Church, but it is now recognized that those who are in good faith in not wishing to be inside the Catholic Church are not entirely outside her (see UR, 3; CMP, 30.2)."

In the mid-1990's, I tried to explain this to Mother Teresa Benaway of St. Ann House in Still River, Massachusetts. I had written Mother because a local priest had advanced Fr. Leonard Feeney's strict interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus during Holy Mass at St. Ann House. I also contacted The Most Reverend Daniel P. Reilly, then Bishop of the Worcester Diocese, with my concerns. This after Mother Benaway asked me not to return to St. Ann House for Holy Mass. His Excellency explained to Mother why she was in the wrong and that I could return to Mass there if I so desired (for the sake of prudence, I decided not to). He also explained to Mother Benaway that should he receive additional complaints that Fr. Feeney's strict interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus was being advanced, he would take away the indult for celebrating the Latin Mass.

It is always simple to fall. But when we stand with the teaching of the Magisterium, we have Christ's teaching. And we will not fall.