Tag Archives: Mass

News

Mario Dersken shows total incompetence in his recent attack on the Rev. Gregory Hesse

11 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Mario Derksen, a native of the German Federal Republic, who began his public career by being an anti-Catholic protestant like baiter of Catholics, and who has never studied canon law or theology at any institution with credentials, recently took a long shot at the reputation and argumentation of the Rev. Gregory Hesse, STD, JCD, a man who held a double doctorate in Canon Law and Theology. Derksen holds a gradutate degree in Philosophy, I believe.

I do not know of anyone who will come to the defense of Father Gregory Hesse, so I will. Though I never met him, I did have the honor to correspond with him by email and written letter before his passing. He was a highly learned man who sought to navigate through the many errors of the post Vatican II age, while remaining faithful to Christ and His Church.

In this my critique, I will consider each false claim of the editor of Novus Order Watch who has gone completely off the rails, in that he has begun to anathematize persons without any ecclesiastical authority — he is after all a layman.

The Novus Ordo Missae: valid but illicit?

Mario — why he has an Italian first name, as a German is a curiosity to me as an Anthropologist — first puts his foot in his mouth by contesting that the Rev. Gregorious Hess is confused by distinguishing between validity and liceity of the Mass.

The truth is, here, however, that Mario is confused. For he is confounding the validity of a Sacrament with the lawfulness of a liturgical ritual.

As he does not understand this distinction, his critique is utterly worthless. This is inexcusable for someone with a degree in Philosophy.

First, validity of a Sacrament regards the reality of a true Sacrament, which reality comes into being when the correct matter and form of the Sacrament are united in the same ritual act. — The correct matter of the Eucharist is true bread made from wheat, and true wine made from the juice of grapes. — The correct form of the Eucharist is the affirmation of the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood being in each, through a recitation of the words of institution signifying this: “This is my body …. This is my blood”.

The form of the sacrament is the truth contained in the words according to their signification. It is not the words. The words are part of a sacramental formula. In the 23+ rituals of the Catholic Church the formulae are all different. But the signification is the same.

Thus, it does not matter whether any Pope declared that certain words are to be included in the formulae for the Roman Rite, WHEN it is a question of Sacramental validity, that is, whether the bread or wine has been truly transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The decree of a pope only touches the lawfulness of using one formulae rather than another. A pope can no more change or restrict the form of sacramental validity than he can make the sun move or stop, since the Sacramental forms come from God, Our Savior, who instituted them. But a pope can establish a law that a certain formula be used to fulfil the juridical requirements of the priest. This restriction of formula if harmonious with the form of the Sacrament only is binding as regards juridical requirements not sacramental validity.

Thus, the Rev. Gregorius Hess is correct when he says the form of the Sacrament in the Novus Ordo is sufficient for a valid consecration.

But liceity, which I have defined above as lawfulness, also refers in Latin to a wider category of morality, as what is morally worthy of approbation.

And when you study moral theology you know this. Thus the question of the liceity of a mass regards both the juridical and the moral requisites. It is a very broad category. But it has nothing to do whether the Sacrament be valid or not; though obviously if an invalid formula be used, the Mass will also be illicit juridically always and illicit morally if the priest knew what he was doing.

Thus Mario who has never studied moral theology, evidently — a think I must assume to avoid charging him with bad will rather than ignorance — misunderstands what the Rev. Gregorius Hess has said, when he says that the Novus Ordo is illicit but valid. That is, it is not morally acceptable to offer it, from the point of view of what is best and right, compared to what is merely valid and sufficient. Father Hess has high morals, as is right and proper in the care of the things sacred to God. So illicit in his mouth could refer to juridically or morally.

What is always morally illicit to some men is not always morally illicit to all men. Because good and honest men avoid not only what is positively evil, that is which leads astray, but what is merely negatively evil, that is, which does not lead effectively to the proper goals.

To use an example. You may use any pot to cook eggs, but you will never find a chef trained at a school of chefs in France use anything other than a specific kind of pot. What would be a sin for him is not what would be a sin for the ignorant.

Objectively speaking the same holds for the Mass. A priest poorly instructed and threatened might say one form of the mass, which if well instructed and under no duress he would never say.

Further, if a priest believes that the decree of Pius XII applies to all forms of the Roman Rite in the future which ever may come into existence, he might consider the Novus Ordo Mass also illicit, on account of the violation of the prescription of Pius XII. That would not be juridically the most sound of arguments, but some make it. But this still does not effect the validity of the Sacrament.

As regards the validity of the Mass,  it is sloppy if not improper in theology to speak of the validity of a mass, because a mass said is efficacious in the order of propitiation, not validity. So a mass can be efficacious or not, ilicit or not; and of liceity, according to juridical right, canonical order or morality.

Papal authority vs. Papal Idolatry

Father Gregorius Hesse knew his faith well. He knew that there are limits to the obedience that Catholics should show the pope. Mario, however, does not understand this, and that is probably why he is a sedevacantist.

I will show this from a quote from his diatribe above:

If we assume for a minute that Paul VI was a true Pope, as Hesse insists he was, then his magisterial documents were legally effective, that is, they had the power to bind consciences. Then what he taught or legislated on earth was also “bound in heaven” (Mt 16:18), that is, ratified by Almighty God. That is how the Papacy works, and that by divine institution.

Therefore, if Paul VI was indeed Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff of the holy Roman Catholic Church, then the ‘new Order of Mass’ (novus Ordo Missae) he instituted in 1969 was precisely what he decreed it to be, namely, a “revision of the Roman Missal” (‘Apostolic Constitution’ Missale Romanum; italics added) and not the establishment of a new, non-Catholic rite.

Here Mario shows also his ignorance of history, because in his Missale Romanum of 1969, Pope Paul VI only published a Missal. He did not impose it by law on the faithful, but only expressed his desire that it be used universally. But as anyone knows who studies law, a desire of a monarch is not a law unless it be promulgated in legal form of a command.

So Father Hesse is right again.

Can a true Pope change the Mass?

This failure by Mario to understand the fundamental notions of juridical right is the basis of his next argument whether true popes can change the Mass.

Since true popes did publish Missals which contained things which older Missals did not contain, and which did not contain things which older Missals did contain, the answer is an obvious yes.

But Mario denies that, because for him certain changes are alterations of nature. But he defines alterations of nature only as substantial not accidental, that is, which change the essence of a thing.

So if we apply Mario’s logic to apples, a red apple is an entirely different fruit from a yellow apple. And a German native is an entirely different human being than an Italian. So in Mario’s book, I must be of another species than he, since he is German and I am Italian.

Likewise, for Mario every change is a substantial one, and none is accidental. And since he proceeds by that measure, he might as well declare the Missale Romanum of St. Pius V illegal because it did not contain what the Curial Missale of his predecessor of 100 years ago contained.

So you can see that Mario has either lost it entirely — because this refusal to distinguish between things essential and things accidental, in a philosopher as himself is unpardonable — or he is writing out of such anger and bad will that truth has been jettisoned in principles.

But whether a true Pope can change the Mass or not, the real question is whether he ought to, and whether the changes he makes ought to be accepted, when he only whimsically asks, or whether they ought to if he commands. The Catholic position is that by the grace of his office a Pope will never command that a change which harms the Faithful be accepted. But his grace of office does permit him to wish changes which can be harmful, even heretical. And thus, his grace of office allows him to obstruct the Apostolic See by unholy requests which are not contained in definitive legal commands, such as that contained in the Bull, “Missale Romanum” of Saint Pius V.

Descriptive vs. Normative

Finally, Mario rails against Fr. Hesse in his own conclusion, where he claims that Fr. Hesse’s position is that Vatican I taught that God had promised infallibility to the Roman Pontiff only normatively and not descriptively, by which terms Mario wants to signify that Fr. Hesse only held (normatively) that the Pope was infallible when he taught correctly and not when he did not, rather than (descriptively) that a Pope was infallible at all times.

Leaving aside Mario’s terms, the actual Church teaching has always been that when the man who is the Roman Pontiff exercises his petrine authority, he is protected by the gift of infallibility of not teaching error in faith or morals. This means that one first must distinguish whether he is acting as Roman Pontiff or not. Being that the Pope is also the Patriarch of the West, the Primate of Italy and the Bishop of Rome, and a private theologian, whenever he teaches one must clearly discern in what capacity he is teaching if at all.

Thus whatever he declares about eggs at breakfast should not worry anyone. But I suppose Mario would be very shocked and scandalized to find that Bergoglio eats eggs Argentine style, not in the style of Frankfurt, Germany.

CONCLUSION

And thus the entire rant of Mario is seen for what it is, an absurd libelous calumny, for which, if he does not repent, he cannot be saved no matter who he thinks the Pope is or is not.

His website NovusOrdoWatch is the moral equivalent of a Flat-Earther site which denigrates all cartographers and geologists for saying the world is a globle; or like some nut who insults mathematicians with doctorates for asserting 2+2=4.  He is a total loon, who should not be listened to or quoted by anyone except to show that he is such. — I do not say this out of any spirit of uncharitableness, but because his errors are so gross and his form of argumentation so false, someone has to rebuke him in public for his outrageous article.

Personally, I will be praying for him, because to end up in a moral state as his requires a very great pride and exceedingly great presumption. I ask you to pray with me too. His condition is a very sad one. But the hate which motivates him, because he insists on defining reality as he sees it, is intolerable.

UPDATE: Not wanting to avoid disaster by another publication full of errors, Mario Derksen the day after this article published a defense of Pope Benedict IX, going so far as to reproduce a holy card of the most immoral pope in the history of the Church. — In that article Mario shows complete ignorance of the forensic method in determining a historical controversy, by his citing of sources which were written centuries later which summarize other sources imprecisely, and ignorance of the nature of the juridical controversy at the Council of Sutri, which was one regarding the validity of claims to the papacy, not of the judgment of men as popes. — He also continues to fall into the error committed by many who have no capacity to use language in anything other than simplistic puritanical forms, insisting as he does that to say “Henry III deposed three popes at Sutri” to be false simply speaking, even though it is historically true when once speaks of Henry III’s responsibility in causa. — His favorite source for the Council of Sutri, Dr. Carrol, was in fact a CIA agent, working in the Anti-Communism division and collaborated in their founding of Christendom College, and institution for the recruitment of Catholics into the FBI, CIA, NSA etc.. (See this video for more information) And by his emphatic citation of Fr. Fernand Mourret’s “History of the Catholic Church”, he fails to realize that this work was not intended to be a rigorous academic work, but a textbook for seminaries, and that it was written nearly 900 years after the event, from a anti-conciliarist point of view, which commonly glossed over Sutri because of not understanding its precise juridical controversy. — But what is most worthy of attention is this: what is Mario trying to demonstrate? That a true pope can never be deposed for any reason? If so, then is he saying that Pope Francis is a true pope and that he should never be deposed? or that he is a false pope and should be deposed? — If you look at Novus Ordo Watch, you will find that he has never urged the deposition of Pope Francis, whom he claims is a false pope, and attempts to undermine Sutri as a legal precedent that true popes can be deposed. So in the end his argumentation serves only one end, to keep Pope Francis in power even if he be a false pope. Maybe Mario’s German background has something to do with the Mafia of St. Gallen, which was founded just as Mario emigrated to the U.S.A.. — Let Mario correct his record by publicly calling for Pope Francis to be deposed at a provincial council like Sutri on the ground he is a false pope. But I won’t wait until Hell freezes over to see it; rather, I expect that if he were to respond to such a call, he would publish dozens of reasons not to do it and attempt to convince the Catholic world not to do it.

Moral Theology

Did Saint Thomas Aquinas approve of receiving communion from heretics, schismatics or sinners?

1 Comment

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Now that it is becoming more and more clear that a great majority of the clergy have lost the Catholic Faith or are at least acting in such a way as to make themselves appear to have done so, many Catholics are wondering whether they can or cannot continue to attend Mass or receive the sacraments at their local parishes or from priests of whom they formerly had no doubts, but by whom they now have been gravely scandalized.

And in this matter, I have already discussed here, at FromRome.Info, the teaching of Saint Alphonsus Liguori, who is the Doctor of the Church on moral questions, that is to say, in regard to specific questions, is the prime authority on such matters.

But as Saint Thomas Aquinas was named along with St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio, as one of the two primary Doctors of the Church, his mere mentioning of this matter carries no small weight in the Church.  And as he did speak of it briefly in the Summa Theologica, III, q. 82, a. 9, it merits a discussion.

First of all we need to understand that Saint Thomas wrote the Summa Theologica for what we would call highschool students of his day. That is for those who could not or had not yet qualified to attend the Unviersity. In the Middle Ages such students were seminarians who were preparing to be ordained simple priests, with faculties only to say Mass, not preach or hear confessions.  And for this reason, we must recognize that the Summa Theologica speaks always in a brief manner about everything, and is not a technical handbook on theology.  Indeed, most who misuse it, fall into this misuse for using it in such a manner.

So let us consider what Saint Thomas does say, and to do this, have recourse to the Latin text of Pars III, q. 82, article 9, which I take form the Corpus Thomisticum website. You can compare it in English here. After the Latin text, I will publish my own translation, which I did this morning.

First, as regard the format of an Article in Saint Thomas. He begins first by citing arguments for and against his position, and then he explains his own position, and then he replies to the arguments he moved against it.  So nothing of what he says in the first list of arguments, does he say in his own name. He is merely quoting others or paraphrasing them. Only what he says in his Reply and refutation of the objections is the words of the Angelic Doctor.

Now, to the text.

Summa Theologica, III, q. 82, a. 9

Articulus 9

[51087] IIIª q. 82 a. 9 arg. 1 Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliquis licite possit communionem recipere a sacerdotibus haereticis vel excommunicatis, vel etiam peccatoribus, et ab eis Missam audire. Sicut enim Augustinus, contra Petilianum, dicit, neque in homine bono neque in homine malo aliquis Dei fugiat sacramenta. Sed sacerdotes, quamvis sint peccatores et haeretici vel excommunicati, verum conficiunt sacramentum. Ergo videtur quod non sit vitandum ab eis communionem accipere vel eorum Missam audire.

[51088] IIIª q. 82 a. 9 arg. 2 Praeterea, corpus Christi verum figurativum est corporis mystici, sicut supra dictum est. Sed a praedictis sacerdotibus verum corpus Christi consecratur. Ergo videtur quod illi qui sunt de corpore mystico, possint eorum sacrificiis communicare.

[51089] IIIª q. 82 a. 9 arg. 3 Praeterea, multa peccata sunt graviora quam fornicatio. Sed non est prohibitum audire Missas sacerdotum aliter peccantium. Ergo etiam non debet esse prohibitum audire Missas sacerdotum fornicariorum.

[51090] IIIª q. 82 a. 9 s. c. Sed contra est quod canon dicit, XXXII dist., nullus audiat Missam sacerdotis quem indubitanter concubinam novit habere. Et Gregorius dicit, in III Dialog., quod pater perfidus Arianum episcopum misit ad filium, ut ex eius manu sacrilegae consecrationis communionem acciperet, sed vir Deo devotus Ariano episcopo venienti exprobravit ut debuit.

[51091] IIIª q. 82 a. 9 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, sacerdotes, si sint haeretici vel schismatici vel excommunicati, vel etiam peccatores, quamvis habeant potestatem consecrandi Eucharistiam, non tamen ea recte utuntur, sed peccant utentes. Quicumque autem communicat alicui in peccato, ipse particeps peccati efficitur, unde et in secunda canonica Ioannis legitur quod qui dixerit ei, ave, scilicet haeretico, communicat operibus illius malignis. Et ideo non licet a praedictis communionem accipere aut eorum Missam audire. Differt tamen inter praedictas sectas. Nam haeretici et schismatici et excommunicati sunt per sententiam Ecclesiae executione consecrandi privati. Et ideo peccat quicumque eorum Missam audit vel ab eis accipit sacramenta. Sed non omnes peccatores sunt per sententiam Ecclesiae executione huius potestatis privati. Et sic, quamvis sint suspensi quantum est ex sententia divina, non tamen quantum ad alios ex sententia Ecclesiae. Et ideo, usque ad sententiam Ecclesiae, licet ab eis communionem accipere et eorum Missam audire. Unde super illud I Cor. V, cum huiusmodi nec cibum sumere, dicit Glossa Augustini, hoc dicendo, noluit hominem ab homine iudicari ex arbitrio suspicionis, vel etiam extraordinario usurpato iudicio, sed potius ex lege Dei, secundum ordinem Ecclesiae, sive ultro confessum, vel accusatum et convictum.

[51092] IIIª q. 82 a. 9 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in hoc quod refugimus audire talium sacerdotum Missam aut ab eis communionem recipere, non refugimus Dei sacramenta, sed potius ea veneramur, unde hostia a talibus sacerdotibus consecrata est adoranda, et, si reservetur, licite potest sumi a sacerdote legitimo. Sed refugimus culpam indigne ministrantium.

[51093] IIIª q. 82 a. 9 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod unitas corporis mystici est fructus corporis veri percepti. Illi autem qui indigne percipiunt vel ministrant, privantur fructu, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo non est sumendum ex eorum dispensatione sacramentum ab eis qui sunt in unitate Ecclesiae.

[51094] IIIª q. 82 a. 9 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet fornicatio non sit gravior ceteris peccatis, tamen ad eam sunt homines proniores, propter carnis concupiscentiam. Et ideo specialiter hoc peccatum a sacerdotibus prohibitum est ab Ecclesia, ne aliquis audiat Missam concubinarii sacerdotis. Sed hoc intelligendum est de notorio, vel per sententiam quae fertur in convictum, vel confessionem in iure factam, vel quando non potest peccatum aliqua tergiversatione celari.

My Translation of Summa Theologica, III, q. 82, a. 9

ARTICLE 9

  1. To the ninth (article) one proceeds in this manner.  It seems that somone may licitly receive communion from heretical and/or excommunicated priests, and/or even from sinners, and to hear a Mass (said) by them. For (St.) Augustine (of Hippo) says “Against Petilianus”, Let no one flee the Sacraments of God neither for the good in a man nor for the evil in a man. But priests, though they be sinners and heretics and/or excommunicate, truly confect the Sacrament.  Therefore, it seems that one must not avoid accepting communion from them and/or hearing their Mass.
  2.  Moreover, the Body of Christ is truly figurative of the Mystical Body, just as has been said above.  But the true Body of Christ is consecrated by the aforesaid priests.  Therefore, it seems, that those who are of the Mystical Body, may communicate in their sacrifices.
  3. Moreover, there are many sins more grave than fornication. But the hearing of the Masses of priests sinning in another manner is not prohibited.  Therefore, also, the hearing of the Masses of priest fornicators ought also not be prohibited.

But on the contrary there is that which Canon XXXII, says in the distinction, “Let no one hear the Mass of the priest who undoubtedly is known to have a concubine”.  And (Pope St.) Gregory (the Great) says in the Third (Book) of (his) Dialogues, that A treacherous father sent an Arian bishop to (his) son, so that he might accept from his hand the communion of a sacrilegious consecration, but the man, devoted to God reproached the Arian bishop at his arrival, as he should have.

I RESPOND, that it must be said, that just as was said above, priests, if they be heretics and/or schismatics and/or excommunicated, and/or even sinners, though they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not use that uprightly, but sin using (it).  Moreover, whosoever communicates in the sin of another, is himself made a participant in the sin, wherefore, there is also read in the Second Canonical (Letter) of (St.) John (the Apostle), that he who will have said to him, namely the heretic, “Greetings”, communicates in his malign works.  And for that reason it is not licit to accept communion from the aforesaid or to hear their Masses.  However, there is a difference between the aforesaid groups.  For heretics and schismatics and the excommunicate are deprived from executing a consecration through a (canonical) sentence of the Church.  And for that reason, whomsoever hears their Mass and/or receives the Sacraments from them, sins.  But not all sinners have been deprived of the execution of this power through the sentence of the Church. And in this manner, though they have been suspended as much as is on account of the Divine Sentence, yet not as much as regards the others on account of the sentence of the Church. And for that reason, up until (there is) a sentence of the Church, it will be licit to accept communion from them and to hear their Masses.  Wherefore, on that (verse) of First Corinthians, Chapter V, with these of this kind do not even take food, the Gloss of (St.) Augustine says, “by saying this, he did not want that a man be judged by a man on account of an arbitrary suspicion, and/or even by an extra-ordinary usurped judgement, but rather on account of the law of God, according to the order of the Church, or without having confessed, and/or having been accused and convicted.

Ad arg. 1.  To the first, therefore, it must be said, that in this, that we flee the hearing of the Mass of such priests or the receiving of communion from them, we do not flee the Sacraments of God, but rather we venerate Them, on which account the Hosts consecrated by such priests are to be adored, and, if they be reserved, they can be licitly taken in hand by a legitimate priest.  But we do flee from the fault of the ones ministering (them) unworthily.

Ad arg. 2.  To the second, it must be said, that the unity of the Mystical Body is the fruit of the True Body received.  Moreover, those who receive and/or minister unworthily, are deprived of the fruit, as has been said above.  And for that reason, there is not to be a taking up of the Sacraments from their distribution by those who are in the unity of the Church.

Ad arg. 3.  To the third, it must be said, that though fornication is not more grave than all other sins, yet men are more prone to it, on account of the concupiscence of the flesh.  And for that reason, this sin is to be especially prohibited to priests by the Church, so that no one hear the Mass of a fornicating priest.  But this is to be understood concerning the notorious (sinner), and/or through the sentence which was borne against the convict, and/or through a confession made formally [in iure], and/or when the sin cannot be hidden by any subterfuge.

Discussion of the Text

It is clear that Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches the perennial doctrine, handed down from the Apostles, that one must not partake of the Sacraments from one who is a heretic, schismatic or public sinner. And he specifies in every case that he is speaking of those who are not merely suspected by private judgement — as Sedevacantists do in our own day — but by those who are know as such by an official judgment, such as excommunication or such like, published by the Church or by facts which are manifest and public and cannot be factually denied.

So here Saint Thomas founds his doctrine upon the knowledge of the truth, whether that knowledge come to us through public means: the sentence of the Church; or by non pubic means: by facts which cannot be denied by any sort of explanation.  When the believer is cogniscent of such truth, he must refrain from receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist from such sinners.*

So, to all those who would say that we can receive the Sacrament from such men, we can say that St. Thomas stands against them.  But to those who entertain unreasonable or irrational suspicions against a priest, we can say that St. Thomas teaches that on that account they should not refuse the Sacraments of a priest.  — I add, so long a the one suspecting has not fallen into mortal sin of rash judgment, defamation or calumny against such a priest, because then he should not receive until he first confesses and repents of his sin.

And thus is clear the true teaching of the Angelic Doctor and under what conditions he speaks.

Applying this teaching to current events

Clearly then we must avoid the Sacraments from priests who have abandoned the Catholic Faith, such as those who give them to public sinners of any kind, on account of the error taught in Amoris Laetitia. We must also refuse the Sacraments of priests who push the vaccine or commit the daily sacrilege of celebrating with the Mask or sanitizing gel, and would fear less to offend God than to drop Him like a cookie in the hand.  Also we must refuse the sacraments from priests who are in communion with the Antipope, however so friendly and orthodox they be, because otherwise we are partaking in their sin.

Our Lady at Akita told us that there would come a time when the Church would be full of those who make compromises, and that the true faithful would only have the consolation of the Rosary and the crucifix.  Those days have come, for those who still have the eyes of faith to see and the will to see.

SPECIAL CASES:

In the case of the priest who rejects the heresies of Bergoglio and all other heresies, and names Benedict in the canon of the Mass while also naming Bergoglio, because he does not know who is the pope, one can receive the Sacraments from him. But if he names Bergoglio sometimes and Benedict other times, when we come to know of this, we cannot attend his masses, since what he is doing is gravely dishonest. But if we did not know of this, and only attended masses where he named Benedict, then so long as we did not come to know of it, we could attend them and receive the Sacraments from him.

As Saint Thomas teaches, if a Deacon or priest in communion with Pope Benedict, finds the Sacrament confected by heretics or schismatics or the excommunicated or even a Bergoglian, he can take the sacrament and consume it so as to remove it from existence (such as would be necessary if he were to celebrate at the same altar or take possession of a Church where such be found). But he should not distribute it, so as to avoid scandal, except in the case of a Deacon who being in a place without priests in communion with the true Pope, transports such hosts to another place and distributes them to the faithful who are in communion with Him for the sustenance of their souls, since in such a rare case, scandal is avoided and a good work is done, since it is holy and righteous thing to take back the property stolen form the Church.

_________________

* Contrary to the opinion of many ill instructed Catholics, it is not necessary for salvation to receive the Eucharist worthily, if you have done so already at least one time in your life.  For that reason, Saint Thomas admits of no exceptions to the rule he cites here.  However, Saint Thomas does not discuss the Sacrament of Confession, in the case of extraordinary, that is singular, events or occasions, in which not in public but in secret a Catholic who is in the state of mortal sin, can confess his sin and be validly absolved by priests who are sinners or schismatics.  In such cases St. Alphonsus says it can be permitted, that is, the mortal sinner can ask the Sacrament of Confession, are receive it without sin, even though the priest giving it might by his fault alone sin in giving it. That is not the fault of the penitent. But the case must be only under the most urgent circumstance and rarely done and then not in public, to avoid scandal. This sole exception is allowed, because the Sacrament of Confession for one in mortal sin is necessary for salvation or must be presumed as such, since God’s granting of the grace of perfect contrition, outside of confession, is extremely rare, and as the Council of Trent teaches, never to be presumed.

Liturgy, Videos

Quinquagesima Sunday: Mass una cum Papa Benedicto

The goal of all Catholics is to attend Mass on Sunday, offered in communion with the true Pope. FromRome.Info for that reason recorded the entire Mass of Don Enrico Maria Roncaglia, O.S.B., offered on Sunday, February 23, 2020, in the Ancient Roman Rite, so that Catholics who are in communion with Pope Benedict XVI can have the grace at least virtually of attending the Holy Sacrifice said as all priests should be saying it, in communion with the true and only pope.

The readings are read in Latin and Italian, and Father Preaches in Italian.

The Mass was offered in the Sala Glauca, at the Hotel Pineta Palace, Rome, Italy, yesterday.

This Video was made possible by a generous donation of a Reader of FromRome.Info which enabled the purchase of a cellphone with the memory capable to record an hour long video. As soon as FromRome.Info Video gets 1000 subscribers, Br. Bugnolo will be able to transmit such Masses at Rome, live to all the world. There are currently 540 subscribers. The link to subscribe and views the Video content of FromRome.Info is found at:

https://www.youtube.com/FromRomeInfoVideo

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Liturgy

Priestly Solidarity and the Altar

Immagine 052Signs and Symbols are not reality, they signify or indicate it.  And a good sign or symbol indicates in a manner understood by all, that which it was intended to indicate.

There are many such signs and symbols in the Ancient Roman Rite which are not so easily understood today.  Part of this has to do with the great cultural changes which have taken place since the time of the Protestant Reformation and the French Revolution.  In the second, just mentioned, phase of cultural change, the slogan of the day was, “Equality, Liberty, Fraternity”.  In the name of a slogan, often what happens is the opposite of the slogan.  In the French Revolution, the slogan was practiced as if it meant, “Superiority for the Revolutionaries, Liberty to do as we please to our enemies, and Fraternity in homicide and the destruction of the State and Church.”

Egalitarianism is one of the doctrines which are consequent to the slogan of the French Revolution, “Equality!”.  So deep is this only-apparent value in French Society today, that you must beware when taking a train, because the first class car is not the first car in the train, it can be positioned anywhere among the many coaches.  When I happened to be in France a few years ago, I asked a Frenchman the reason for this bizarre practice, and he said, “We are a nation that abides by equality for all.  If the first class car was always first, it would mean that all others were second class citizens!”  To which I wryly remarked, “Well if equality is so important to the French, tell me, why is it that the First Class car is still called “First Class”?”

Egalitarianism seeks as a philosophy to affirm the equality of all, by means of symbols, which are not so apt; they are not so apt, because as a philosophy, Egalitarianism is not really about equality, it is about disorder.  Right order requires, as I mentioned in my previous post on the Short Treatise to Order and Disorder, a relation among superior and inferior, before and after, father to son, etc..  When you affirm that all should be equal in dignity or rights, then you are affirming that there should be no order.  That is why the slogan of the French Revolution was the slogan of a chaotic political movement which pushed the slaughter of thousands of noblemen and clergy and anyone else who decried its own barbarity.

In the recent history of the Catholic Church we have seen the pervading influence of modern culture, the culture in which we live, find its way into proposals regarding how the Church should be or is conducting its Mission in the world.  Some of these proposals have taken root in the manner in which the liturgy is conducted.  And one of these regards where the priest stands when offering the August Sacrifice of the Mass.

Now, to be a priest, is to be a mediator, and to be a mediator is to stand between the two things among which one mediates. As Aristotle remarked, a means participates in both extremes.  And commenting on this observation of the great Philosopher, St. Bonaventure drew out its conclusion regarding Christ’s own Priesthood:  to be our Mediator, the Son of God became man, so that having assumed a singular human nature, the Man Christ, the Eternal Word could occupy, as it were, a middle position between the Eternal Father and sinful humanity.

The Incarnation, therefore is signified by an intermediary position.  And thus, the priesthood’s proper role as mediator can rightly be signified by an intermediary position.  The Redemption, too, is signified by an intermediary position, because it is precisely when God become Man is put to death as a criminal, that the Son of God as Mediator takes the absolute position between the All Holy God and sinful humanity.  The position from which the great prayer of Christ upon the Cross obtained the Redemption of the world!

This is what, I believe, is signified in the ancient practice, found in all the liturgies of East and West, known in popular terms, today, as the position Ad Orientem.

When a priest offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass he must stand at the Altar.  If he stands at the Altar facing the people, the Altar is between him and the people.  If he stands Ad Orientem, the people are at his back, and he is between Altar and people.

Priestly Solidarity, that is the solidarity a priest should have with his people, as mediator for them with God, is signified well when he stands at the Altar and faces Ad Orientem, that is, toward the Tabernacle, the Aspe of the Church, the liturgical direction of God. Doing so, makes him take an intermediary, and hence sacerdotal position, the position of a mediator, who prays for AND with his flock, to God, supplicating Mercy, seeking pardon and grace.

Ad Orientem, therefore, can be seen as the optimum position for the priest offering sacrifice, for the mediator, for the sacerdos who wishes to stand together with Christ, in the most significant physical position possible, with the One who offered Himself on behalf of mankind to the Father, and who now offers Himself again for the flock gathered in prayer with His priest on earth.

In such wise, the Altar no longer divides priest and people; the priest no longer looks down upon his flock, but rather, with them, looks up to God. — Seen thus, it is easy to understand why the alteration of the position where the priest stands to offer the Sacrifice, affected the architecture of churches and the desire of architects to depart from the classical forms of Catholic church design (But I’ll leave that topic for another post).