Crossing the Line

by Thomas A. Droleskey

"Leave the  Novus Ordo alone!" demanded one priest in a meeting with me in October of 2004. "It's dying off. There's no need to criticize it."

"Pope Benedict XVI is reforming the Novus Ordo," said another priest earlier this year. "To criticize the Novus Ordo would be to undermine the work of the Holy Father as he makes overtures to traditionalists."

Neither one of these two priests offers the Novus Ordo Missae. Both, however, want to work within the realm of the world of the "indult," believing that it is necessary to "work within the structures" in order to best promote a love of the Traditional Latin Mass. It is more than a "love" of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that we must foster. No, we must be about the business of defending the entirety of the Catholic Faith, which is not expressed fully in the Novus Ordo Missae and is actually undermined by the ethos of conciliarism. Who is going to resist the schemes and the slogans of revolutionaries if one is required to silent about the novelties of the recent past as part of the price for working "within" the structures? How will the Faith be defended it one is unable to point out the truth about the deficiencies of the Novus Ordo Missae and how the errors of ecumenism and religious liberty are at odds with the consistent, authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church?

Pope Benedict himself is a disciple of men whose theological bent was denounced in no uncertain terms by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis. Take a look at the new catalog of goods sold by Ignatius Press. In addition to numerous works written by the late Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, there is one volume, Hans Urs von Balthasar: His Life and Work, edited by David L. Schindler, that features articles by Henri Cardinal de Lubac, S.J., Walter Cardinal Kasper, Louis Dupre, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, and Pope John Paul II. Von Balthasar's work has been reviewed in several articles on this site in recent months. He was, unquestionably, an exponent of the New Theology. His work has been praised constantly by Pope Benedict XVI, whose ideas of what constitutes "Tradition" are shaped by von Balthasar, not by an acceptance of the defined dogmas as they have been handed down to us, as I indicated in "Meet the Metz" and "Clothing the Emperor." Von Balthasar's Razing the Bastions, which argues that the Catholic Church has to "take down" the "bastions" that protected her from the modern world in the past century, has had a direct and powerful influence on the mind of the Holy Father.

Pope Benedict XVI views the entirety of the history of the Church through the Modernist eyes of Hans Urs von Balthasar and Henri de Lubac, among others. His concept of what constitutes "Tradition" is not the same as that of Pope Saint Pius X or Blessed Pius IX or Pope Leo XIII or Pope Pius XI. Any objective observer can see this. The current Holy Father wrote quite specifically in Principles of Catholic Theology that past doctrinal formulations, although "remaining forever valid," lose their force once they have fulfilled the specific purposes of the historical context in which they were made. This has nothing to do with Catholicism. The First Vatican Council stated quite clearly that there is no room whatsoever to re-formulate any dogma of the Faith according to some "new" and supposedly "deeper" understanding:

Hence, that meaning of the sacred dogmata is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be an abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.... If anyone says that it is possible that at some given time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmata propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has always understood and understands: let him be anathema.

It is important once again to contrast this anathemization of novel interpretations of dogma with the Holy Father's own words, found in L'Osservatore Romano in 1990:

The text [of the Second Vatican Council] also presents the various forms of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching.  It affirms -- perhaps for the first time with this clarity -- that there are decisions of the Magisterium that cannot be a last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition.  Its nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times have influenced, may need further ramifications.

In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time.  As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified.  A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from immersion in the liberal-bourgeois world.  But in the details of the determinations they contain, they become obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at the proper moment.

Furthermore, Father Joseph Ratzinger taught us in 1966 his future embrace of the errors of ecumenism was no mere prudential judgment. It was founded in a belief that there are "multiple churches" in Christianity. Consider this excerpt from his 1966 book, Theological Highlights of Vatican II:

The Catholic Church has no right to absorb the other Churches ... [A] basic unity--Christian churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church--must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it.

Thus, there is no need to seek the conversion of Protestants, although Protestants are free to seek conversion on their own if they are so motivated. So much for the work of Saint Peter Canisius, who gave up his life to convert Protestants to the true Church, the Catholic Church. So much for the work of Saint Francis de Sales, who brought back 60,000 Calvinists to the true Church, the Catholic Church. They were mistaken. Vatican II is correct.

There is no reconciliation between the words of then Father Ratzinger above and the rejection  by Pope Pius XI, writing in Mortalium Animos, of the existence of "multiple churches:"

And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: "That they all may be one.... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd," with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal. They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils. Controversies therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers. The manifold churches or communities, if united in some kind of universal federation, would then be in a position to oppose strongly and with success the progress of irreligion. This, Venerable Brethren, is what is commonly said. There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it. Among the chief of these they number that which concerns the primacy of jurisdiction, which was granted to Peter and to his successors in the See of Rome. Among them there indeed are some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor or even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider not to arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful. Others again, even go so far as to wish the Pontiff Himself to preside over their motley, so to say, assemblies. But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ. . . .

So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly."The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills." For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.

A Catholic has the obligation to defend the truth and to point out error, yes, even when it is promoted by the works of one who later ascended to the Throne of Saint Peter and who continues to believe those errors after his elevation. A more liberalized offering of the Mass of Tradition in "approved" venues, certainly welcome in and of itself, does not vitiate a Catholic's need to know the truths of the Faith clearly and to refute all instances of falsehood and error. Nothing than than the proper formation and thus the salvation of human souls depends upon this.

We have found, however, that those who offer the Mass of all ages in "approved" circumstances cannot fully and completely oppose the novelties of the recent past. Indeed, there is the spectacle of publications purporting to promote the restoration of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that plaster advertisements for the works of Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) from cover to cover. This convinces the average Catholic that there is nothing wrong in the writings of the current Holy Father. Those who do not know their Faith well will come to believe that the theological proclivities of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now our Holy Father, are perfectly in accord with the Deposit of the Faith, which they are not. Why is it opportune to place souls in such jeopardy by advertising works that are not easy for trained theologians to understand at first glance, no less Catholics who want, most understandably, to give the Vicar of Christ the benefit of the doubt and who would be thus inclined to conclude that his writings are perfectly orthodox in all aspects? Is this not the result of a desire to convince the Holy Father himself that traditionally-minded Catholics find his works of use in the formation of their souls unto eternity? No thought is given, apparently, to the uncritical promotion of works that promote the errors of Hans Urs von Balthasar and are steeped in various other Modernist errors. If this is the price of the extension of the Mass in "approved" circumstances, one must state clearly that the price is too high. Error has no rights. Error must be refuted. This is the patrimony of the Catholic Church.

Therein lies the nub of the problem, you see. Pope John XXIII, addressing the opening of the Second Vatican Council on October 11, 1962, specifically rejected the necessity refuting errors, thus paving the way for traditionally-minded Catholics who want only "the Mass" to keep their tongues silent in the midst of grievous errors and novel practices:

At the outset of the Second Vatican Council, it is evident, as always, that the truth of the Lord will remain forever. We see, in fact, as one age succeeds another, that the opinions of men follow one another and exclude each other. And often errors vanish as quickly as they arise, like fog before the sun The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She consider that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations.

Pope John XXIII went on to say that the errors of the day would be obvious for men to see without their being pointed out, something that is just not so. The errors of Modernity in the world and Modernism in the Church have proliferated and mutated by leaps and bounds in the past forty-four years. Most of those who promote these errors remain in "good standing" canonically in the Church. At least three generations of souls have now been deformed as a result. I know. I taught in college classrooms throughout this country for nearly thirty years, encountering baptized and confirmed Catholics who knew nothing about the Faith (and the little that they thought they knew was wrong). The wreckage is vast. The wreckage is vast because error has been promoted by the highest reaches of the Church in her human elements. The wreckage is vast because many Catholics, including those who want to see "just" the Mass restored, have made decisions, largely for reasons of supposedly clever strategies, believe that to do so would jeopardize the "approved" offerings of the Mass of Tradition. The martyrs cared for nothing other than being faithful to God. Why should we?

Pope Leo XIII put the matter this way:

The first law of history is not to dare to utter falsehood; the second, not to fear to speak the truth.

Thus, no matter what happens with respect to the status of negotiations between the Society of Saint Pius X and the Holy See, a matter that we must keep in our prayers at all times, the truth about the events of the past forty years and the problems that exist in the inherent nature of the Novus Ordo Missae and why it must be avoided at all times must continue to be spoken. Perhaps the bishops and the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X will be able to continue their critique of ecumenism and religious liberty in an agreement is reached with the Holy See. Perhaps they would be able to continue to critique the harm of the Novus Ordo Missae. The history of what happens to "approved" communities that offer the Mass of Tradition since the Ecclesia Dei motu proprio of 1988 is not encouraging, though, as Michael Matt and John Vennari pointed out in their masterful Joint Statement.

Indeed, there is one line that must not be crossed, as a priest told parishioners at the late Father Paul Wickens's Saint Anthony of Padua Chapel in West Orange, New Jersey, which is now under the control of the Archdiocese of Newark. "You can't trash the Novus Ordo Mass," Father Anthony Forte explained to a parishioner. Why the fear of critiques of the Novus Ordo Missae, Father Forte? To critique the false foundations of the Novus Ordo Missae and the false representations made by Annibale Bugnini and his cohorts forty years ago is not to condemn the priests who offer it or the laity who assist at it. The critiques of the Novus Ordo Missae are either true or false. Annibale Bugnini said in 1965 that: "We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants." That was either good or bad. To point out the harm of the Novus Ordo Missae and to exhort priests to stop offering it and the laity to stop assisting at it is not to personally attack any human being. It is merely to point out the Mass left us by God Himself is the best means to worship Him and the best means to safeguard the fullness of the Catholic Faith from any taint of error or novelty, re-presenting the Sacrifice of the Cross in an unbloody manner as it conveys at the same time the glories of eternity without being time-bound to any particular cultural fad.

Pope Benedict XVI can express a personal appreciation for the Mass of Tradition now and again. He can bemoan some of the decisions made by the Consilium. That is not the same thing, however, as his desiring the restoration of the Mass of Tradition as normative. He does not want this. The Mass of Tradition contains prayers that speak of a God Who judges and the eternity of Hell. A disciple of Hans Urs von Balthasar does not want to see such a Mass restored to its rightful place as the only Mass of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. After thirty-six years and endless efforts at stopping "liturgical abuses," the upcoming Post-Synodal Exhortation of the Holy Father concerning liturgical reform will result in nothing. That which is synthetic cannot bear good fruit universally and at all times, admitting that there are people, both priests and laity, in the diocesan structures who dearly love God--and who exhibit frequently far more charity than many traditional Catholics. Believing Catholics, both priests and laity, who have remained in the diocesan structures need to come to realize that all of their understandable anxiety about liturgical abuses can be resolved in a moment if the liturgical abuse par excellence, the Novus Ordo Missae, was suppressed forever in favor of the Missale Romanum of Pope Saint Pius V in all of its completeness.

No, we must continue to "cross the line" to speak the truth. We must continue to speak the truth without fear of the consequences (which include, at least for the laity, the loss of friends and the loss of one's reputation and good name, things that are never, humanly speaking, easy or desirable) as long as we are told by ecclesiastical officials to accept uncritically novelties and errors that are alien to the Catholic Faith. Mind you, seeing the truth of our situation makes no one the least bit better than any other Catholic. We must work out our salvation in fear and in trembling, praying always for our neighbors to receive the grace of Tradition. Nevertheless, mindful of the need to focus first on the salvation of our own souls, those who see the truth of our situation must not hide it under a bushel basket.

Careful to base all of their words and actions in assisting at the Mass of all ages on a daily basis and in their own time spent before the Blessed Sacrament in fervent prayer outside of Mass and in the prayerful recitation of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary, Catholics who see the truth of our situation must be willing to remind others that the perennial teaching of the Church is immutable and that the only way for the problems in the world to be ameliorated is for the Church once again to recover and to restore fully and completely the Deposit of Tradition.

Our prayers must be with the Holy Father and his cardinals and bishops and priests on a daily basis. Our prayers must be with Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, as he continues his discussions with the Holy See. We must storm Heaven so that the Holy Father will have the humility to obey Our Lady and to consecrate Russia to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, thereby restoring Tradition in the Church and the Social Reign of Christ the King in the world as the penultimate fruits of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Pope Saint Gregory the Great, pray for us.

Saint John Damascene, pray for us.

Saint Peter Canisius, pray for us.

Saint Ignatius Loyola, pray for us.

Saint Francis de Sales, pray for us.

Saint Josaphat, pray for us.

Saint Philomena, pray for us.

Saint Padre Pio, pray for us.

Saint Maximilian Mary Kolbe, pray for us.

Blessed Pauline Jaricot, pray for us.

Blessed Francisco, pray for us.

Blessed Jacinta, pray for us.

Sister Lucia, pray for us.