News has come from Honolulu that the Vatican approved "Hula Masses" for the Catholic Church in Hawaii. Catholics worldwide are shocked by this development, since many see it as an isolated aberration. Yet this latest anomaly is not a quirk in an otherwise flawless "renewal". It is part and parcel of the program for liturgical restructure unleashed upon the world since the Council. Hence, before discussing Hula Masses in particular, it is necessary to examine the spirit of "reform" that has characterized the liturgy over the past thirty years. When placed within the larger context of Vatican IIs liturgical revolution, it is obvious that "Hula Masses" are an inevitable result.
In 1964, the renowned British author Evelyn Waugh, disturbed by the "progressive" course adopted by Vatican II, lamented that proponents of change in the liturgy then being imposed had been "with us in parts of the U.S.A., and northern Europe for a generation. We had looked upon them as harmless cranks who were attempting to devise a charade of 2nd Century habits. We had confidence in the abiding Romanità of our Church. Suddenly we find the cranks in authority."1
Seventeen years earlier, these "cranks," had been foremost in the mind of Pope Pius XII. In his 1947 encyclical Mediator Dei, he warned against those who nurtured a lust for novelty. With regard to those who wished to reinstate practices of the early church as a pretext for tinkering with established liturgical forms, Pius warned:
"... the desire to restore everything to its ancient custom is neither wise nor praiseworthy. It would be wrong, for example, to want the altar restored to its ancient form of table, to want black eliminated from liturgical colors, and pictures and statues excluded from our churches; to require crucifixes that do not represent the bitter sufferings of our divine Redeemer."2
Pius XII further warned about unorthodox liturgical changes being orchestrated by these "cranks" who wanted to move the tabernacle from the center of the altar. In 1956, only six years before the Council, Pius XII stated:
"To separate tabernacle from altar is to separate two things which by their origin and nature should remain united."3
Today, thanks to the Vatican II revolution, Pius warnings have been flagrantly disregarded by Church authorities. The altar has been replaced by a table. Black has been eliminated from liturgical colors. Pictures and statues have been excluded from many churches. Crucifixes representing the sufferings our Lord have been replaced with the "Cross of the Risen Christ", if not eliminated. In many churches, tabernacle is removed from the altar, thus separating "two things which by their origin and nature should remain untied."
Another post-Vatican II victory for these "cranks" was killing off Latin in liturgy to give way to an all vernacular ritual -- despite that "vernacularizing of the Mass was forbidden by the Council of Trent on doctrinal grounds."4 In fact, Trent hurled terrifying condemnations against anyone who proposed an all-vernacular Mass. Canon IX from Session XX of the dogmatic Council of Trent infallibly and irrevocably states:
"If anyone says ... that the Mass should be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only... let him be anathema."5
From then until recently, a long line of Popes, faithful to unchangeable doctrine and Catholic patrimony, reiterated the irreplaceable importance of Latin in Liturgy.
Pope Pius VI, in his 1794 letter Auctorum Fidei, called the demand of "expressing the Liturgy in the vernacular language" as "rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it."6
Pope Pius XI, in his 1922 Apostolic Letter Officiorum Omnium said that the "knowledge and use of this (Latin) language," so intimately bound up with the Churchs life is important "not so much on cultural or literary grounds, but for religious reasons."7
Later on, Pope Pius XII explained:
"The use of the Latin language prevailing in a great part of the Church affords at once an imposing sign of unity and an effective safeguard against corruption."8
Today, however, this "sign of unity" has been shattered, this "safeguard against corruption" torn down. It matters little that Vatican II, in its vague Constitution on the Liturgy, displays a toothless phrase of false assurance that "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites".9 In practice, and in the name of the same Council, Latin as liturgical language has all but disappeared from Catholic churches worldwide.
The vernacularization of the Mass was not the only problem with post-Vatican II liturgical changes. When the New Rite was first introduced in 1969, Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Vaticans Holy Office, along with a group of Roman theologians, produced a brilliant Critical Study of the New Mass.10 It warned that new liturgy teems with dangerous errors and represents an attack against infallible Catholic dogma.
Cardinal Ottaviani wrote to Paul VI:
Cardinal Ottaviani wrote to Paul VI:
"The Novus Ordo Missae ... represents as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XX of the Council of Trent. The 'canons of the rite definitively fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery."11
Cardinal Ottaviani was referring to the many theological problems in the original Latin text of the New Rite itself -- this is apart from the abolition of Latin from liturgical language.
From what has been here presented,12 it is clear that the Vatican II liturgical "reform" has been distinguished by one principle; sheer contempt of the past -- a thumb-nosing to the Popes and Councils of the centuries. The warnings of Pius XII have been disregarded. The Council of Trents dogmatic teaching condemning an all-vernacular liturgy, and subsequent Papal reiteration of this truth, has been ignored. The Council of Trents dogmatic principles as to what constitutes the Sacrifice of the Mass have been scorned. The "insurmountable barriers against heresy that might attack the integrity of the mystery" of the Mass have been torn down.
In fact, the entire liturgical "renewal" could be called the "Revenge of the Modernists." Its principles and practices boldly mock Pope St. Pius X, who warned in his great anti-modernist encyclical Pascendi:
"For Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the Second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those who dare, after the impious fashions of heretics, to deride ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind or to endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church."13
Today, we face a hierarchy that is absolutely revolutionary in its thinking, its designs, its practices. Since these Church leaders think nothing of rejecting the wisdom of the centuries, of cutting themselves loose from the moorings of Sacred Tradition, of disregard for dogmatic pronouncements, of boldly going where no Churchman had gone before, into the forbidden pastures of novelty, and since we are currently in the grip of a generation of prelates who have been formed according to these revolutionary principles, it is no surprise that we are now in a liturgical free-fall where brash innovation is the hallmark and "Anything Goes" is the theme.
On January 7, 1999, the Associated Press reported that the Vatican gave permission for "Hula" and other Native Hawaiian "sacred gestures" to be performed during Roman Catholic services.14
Over the past few years, Hula dance has made its way into the liturgy throughout the Hawaiian Islands. But last year, a Maui woman who was offended by hula dancing during Mass, complained to the diocese. She then took her complaint to Rome.
Rome temporarily supported the traditional ban. In June, a diocesan spokesman told parish priests that the Vatican said "there should be no dance of any kind in the churches of the Diocese of Honolulu."
That touched a nerve among Hawaiians and inhabitants of the Pacific region. The Dominion, a New Zealand newspaper, blasted the Vaticans rulings stating that "already there is whispered talk of schism between the Catholic church in Hawaii and the Vatican." The newspaper then praised Honolulu bishop Francis Di Lorenzo who was quoted as having no quarrel with "properly done" Hula within the Mass. It was obvious that Di Lorenzo was about to take the matter in hand.
The Dominion cried,
The Dominion cried,
"Surely all of us in the South Pacific ought to rally around, support the good bishop in his crusade to break the northern hemisphere cultural mold and get some undulating hips in front of the altar. The Hawaiians need our support, and they need it now."15
In September, Bishop Di Lorenzo, whose 1994 installation ceremony included hula dancing in Church,16 traveled to Rome to appeal the Vaticans decision. During this time, the Dec. 8th Honolulu Advertiser fired its own salvo against traditional Catholic directives:
"Clearly, if the church is to continue to be relevant in an increasingly cynical age, it cannot keep itself at a distance from the people it serves by sending down orders that deny an important part of the culture."
After months of negotiation, the Vatican finally allowed "Hula" and "sacred gestures" to be performed within liturgy. A triumphant Bishop Di Lorenzo issued diocesan guidelines for these "sacred gestures" that took effect January 3rd.
Bishop Di Lorenzo has stated that the traditional ban on dancing in church is still in force. He gets around this, however, by a bold and straightforward abuse of language. He has simply redefined dancing.
Honolulus diocesan newspaper is careful to report that what has been approved is not "dancing" but "sacred gestures" defined as "movements that express praise, thanksgiving, adoration and petition and penitence. It is considered a form of praying with ones whole being ... a natural expression of prayer among Hawaiis indigenous people ..."17
Yet, Hula dancing has its roots as an expression prayer in the native Hawaiian pagan religions. What Di Lorenzo is saying, then, is that its O.K. to do Hula dancing in church, as long as you dont call it dancing -- in the same way that pro-abortionists proclaim it O.K. for a woman to kill the baby in her womb, so long as you dont call it a baby. Di Lorenzos transparent legalisms are neither original nor clever. It is blatant dishonesty dead-aimed at those "born yesterday".
Worst still, these new Hula guidelines encourage children to get into the act. Di Lorenzos document, Sacred Gestures in the Liturgy-- Norms for the Diocese of Honolulu states:
"Participation through gestures and posture should be strongly encouraged in Masses with children with due regard for age and local custom."18
As we witness this travesty unfold, our hearts cannot but break for the Maui woman who brought the complaint to Rome in the first place -- with the mistaken notion that todays Vatican is a bastion of traditional Catholicism that would offer immediate and unconditional support against pagan aberrations. This poor woman now sees the very abuses she decried established as "Vatican-approved" practice, and even foisted upon young children. It is not unlike the disturbing story of Kevin Unteners rise to the episcopacy.
In the fall of 1980, Catholic writer and activist Randy Engel, along with a group of concerned Catholics, sent a documented dossier to Rome reporting on seminary rector, Fr. Kevin Untener, who had been showing pornographic films -- both heterosexual and homosexual -- to his seminarians. Not long after they lodged this complaint, the Vatican elevated Untener to the episcopacy and appointed him Bishop of Saginaw, Michigan, where he now proudly presides over one of the most ultra-liberal dioceses on earth.19
Yet in order to be true to its own new revolutionary documents, the Vatican had no choice but acquiesce to Di Lorenzos demands for hula. In 1994, the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued the document "Inculturation and the Roman Liturgy," -- a blanket endorsement for inculturation and liturgical fragmentation worldwide. It reads:
"Among some peoples, singing is instinctively accompanied by hand-clapping, rhythmic swaying and dance movements on the part of the participants. Such forms of external expression can have a place in the liturgical actions of these peoples on condition that they are always the expression of true communal prayer of adoration, praise, offering and supplication, and not simply a performance."20
At least the Vatican is honest enough to recognize what dancing is, and calls it by its proper name. The loophole this document provides however, is that its O.K. for hand-clapping, body swaying and dancing to be done in church, so long as you dont call it a performance. This is like granting children permission for loud belching at the dinner table, providing they dont call it amusement.
Before Vatican II, Catholic parishes struck a fitting balance between culture and religion. In fact, particularly in Europe, it was the Catholic Faith that formed and fashioned the culture.
This "fitting balance" migrated to the United States. One could not, for example, visit an Italian parish and not know that one was at an Italian parish. The culture surrounded the exterior of the church, it permeated the people, it displayed itself proudly in the church basement, its dances and customs enriched church-related social events. But the parishioners did not dance the tarantella in the sanctuary. The culture never forced its way inside the church to dilute the Sacred Mysteries with profane activity. These old time Italians, Germans, Irish, etc. were not so insecure about their culture that they needed to have it compete with the duties of reverence they owed to God during Holy Mass.
One of the finest examples of this "fitting balance" is currently found within Ukrainian Byzantine parishes, where strong ethnic culture surrounds the church, permeates the congregations, defines social-events, but does not intrude itself into Divine Liturgy. These people understand that there is a distinction between the natural order of culture and the supernatural order of the Divine, and that these boundaries may not be crossed. The Ukrainian Catholics carry this distinction within their bones, even if they cannot articulate it by reasoned argument.
By contrast, the whole purpose of todays inculturation, is to blend the natural and the supernatural orders into one syncretistic sauce. It is actually the praxis of a new religion.
The new liturgical rites from Vatican II, contrary to the doctrine and practices of 2,000 years of Papal teaching, are characterized by the incorporation of non-Catholic elements.
It is well-known that six Protestant ministers helped formulate the New Mass, and that the New Mass was patterned on the changes made by the 16th Century Protestant Thomas Cramner who disbelieved in the Masss sacrificial nature, and who transformed it into a barren, Protestant commemoration of the Lords supper.
Journalist Jean Guitton, a close friend and confidant of Pope Paul VI, confirmed that it was the direct aim of the Pope to Protestantize the liturgy. In a recent radio interview, Guitton said:
"The intention of Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy -- but what is curious is that Paul VI did that to get as close as possible to the Protestant Lords supper ... there was with Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic, in the traditional sense, in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass."21
Ecumenism, a non-Catholic principle consistently condemned by the perennial magisterium,22 has spawned the incorporation of practices from heretical sects into the Mass. Likewise, inculturation has now produced the incorporation of non-Catholic elements from the surrounding culture into the liturgy, whether these elements are pagan or not.
It has often been stated, and is easy to believe, that the majority of bishops in 1963 did not fully comprehend the liturgical revolution that they had launched by the Councils Constitution on the Liturgy. There were, however, many bishops who knew exactly what was being contrived -- especially regarding inculturation -- and expressed their complete support.
One such prelate, who had sided with the progressives at the Council,23 happily predicted the fragmentation of the Mass that the liturgical revolution would yield. On December 8, 1965, just a few hours after the closing of the Council, the bishop said:
"It is not only the words that are significant, but likewise the behavior, the movements, the gestures, the open arms, the hands joined, the kiss of peace; all of these are Roman gestures. If the Blacks or the Japanese ... wish to translate these gestures into their traditional mode of behavior, for that is necessary, one must translate them. Where will it end? In comparing an African Mass to a European Mass in 50 years time, will we observe anything in common? Certainly we preserve the basic elements; the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local traditions: the words, gestures, colors, the vestments, chants, architecture, the decors. The problem of liturgical reform is enormous and it is difficult to imagine where it will all end."24
Thirty-five years after the Council, we reckon the outcome, still unfolding, of this new direction. Victor Kulunday, in his superb book The Paganization of the Church in India, documents the Hindu-izing and paganizing of the Church in his country, thanks to two primary principles of the Vatican II reform: ecumenism and inculturation.
This reckless and irreverent novelty of inculturation is directly responsible for an endless litany of heathen aberrations incorporated into "Catholic" worship: African tribal dance in the sanctuary, Polka Masses, bare-breasted women in native attire reading the Masss Epistle in Papua New Guinea, Catholic prelates participating in animist pagan rites, Native-American sweet grass rituals in church, the list goes on an on.
In fact, when the Associated Press reported the Vaticans recent permission for "Hula Masses," it reminded the reader:
"Just this past November (1998), barefoot, tribal people performed for Pope John Paul II during a Vatican synod for bishops from Oceania."
This "performance" took place within the sanctuary of St. Peters Basilica at the opening Mass of the Vatican Synod.25
Inculturation is a pet-favorite of the hard-left trendies who now dominate the ecclesiastical scene. The progressive Father Richard McBrien defines inculturation as:
"The process by which individuals learn their groups culture through experience, observation and instruction ... Through inculturation the church endeavors to reformulate Christian life and doctrine within the thought pattern of each people."26
Yet inculturation is actually a further development of the modernist "new theology" of Henri de Lubac and Teilhard de Chardin, which confuses the natural and the supernatural orders. In 1946, the great anti-modernist Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange warned that this new theology is nothing more than a resurgent, pantheistic modernism.27 Likewise, Pope Pius XII, while not naming specific names, condemned the principles of the "new theology" in 194628 and also in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis.29
This modernist "new theology" triumphed at Vatican II. Its principles are at the root of the endless novelties unfolding before our eyes since the Council.
Father Henrici, SJ, a disciple of the "new theology", clearly stated their position:
"Our allegiance is that tradition in line of the 'new theology of Lyon (the cradle of de Lubacs theology), which insists on the non-opposition between nature and supernature, that is, nature and supernature are really identically the same thing (and consequentially) between faith and culture and which became the official theology of Vatican II."30
Interestingly, the same terminology is encountered within the writings of inculturation advocates. In the book Modern Catholicism, an anthropologist and missiologist, Fr. Aylward Shorter, praises the inculturation in Paul VIs Evangelii Nuntiandi, and also in John Paul IIs Catechesi Tradendae. He calls it a "dialogue between Faith and culture".31
Nonetheless, he voiced a complaint, both interesting and revealing. He laments that these documents:
"continue unrealistically to imply a distinction between faith and culture, and to ignore the massive obstacle to a truly multi-cultural Church posed by monoculturally biased structures of universal communion."32
Hence, this statement from Aylward Shorter tells us two things about inculturation:
1) It is an outgrowth of the modernist "new theology". Father Henrici says that there is "no difference between nature and supernature and ultimately between faith and culture." Shorter says, "no difference between faith and culture." In truth, they are both saying the same thing.
2) It gives us a clue as to the final goal of inculturation. The goal is a universal multi-cultural Church, in other words, a global Church of syncretism and pantheism.
This is not too strong a statement, since it reflects the concerns expressed by Cardinal Siri in his book Gethsemane, which critiqued de Lubacs confusion of the natural and the supernatural orders. In this book, Cardinal Siri rightly warned that if de Lubacs theories are taken to their logical conclusion, it would mean that "Christ is only man, or man is Divine"33 The "divination of man" is simply another word for pantheism, and pantheism is what Inculturation is really all about.
For confirmation of this fact, one need only consult The Dancing Church, a pro-inculturation video produced by the Paulist Press. In that presentation, while the viewer is shown African tribal dance assimilated into Sunday mass, the narrator bluntly states a prime tenet of the new creed:
"There is no separation of sacred and secular, of sacred and profane."
Once again, we see this pantheistic principle promoted in the name of the Councils "renewal".
Yet it follows logically. The "new theology" which confuses nature and supernature has become the "official theology of Vatican II". This same "new theology", as Cardinal Siri warned, is a fertile breeding ground for pantheism. Hence, it is no surprise that Cardinal Ratzinger remarked with apparent indifference that "Vatican II is a counter-syllabus."34 In other words, Vatican II is an attempt to capsize the traditional Catholic principles contained in Venerable Pope Pius IXs magnificent Syllabus of Errors of 1864. The very first error condemned in Pius IXs Syllabus is the pestilence of pantheism.
But Its Approved!
The final question, however, is whether Vatican approval for these anomalies suddenly transforms them into acceptable Catholic practice. Quite simply, the answer is no -- since to accept these innovations is to reject the entire Sacred Tradition of the Church.
For years, Catholics have labored under the mistaken notion that they must accept the pastoral Council, Vatican II, with the same assent of Faith that they owe to dogmatic Councils. This, however, is not the case.
At the close of Vatican II, the bishops asked the Councils Secretary General, Msgr. Pericle Felici, for that which theologians call the "theological note" of the Council. Felici replied,
"We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic definitions in the past; as for the declarations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations."35
In other words, unlike a dogmatic Council, Vatican II does not demand an unqualified assent of Faith. Its verbose and ambiguous decrees are not on a par with dogmatic pronouncements. God is still with His Church. The Holy Ghost prevented the Council Fathers from formulating decrees (containing previously-condemned novelties) that were unconditionally binding on the Catholic faithful.
The fact that Vatican II is inferior to a dogmatic Council is confirmed by the testimony of Bishop Thomas Morris, which at his request was not unsealed until after his death:
"I was relieved when we were told that this Council was not aiming at defining or giving final statements on doctrine, because a statement on doctrine has to be very carefully formulated and I would have regarded the Council documents as tentative and liable to be reformed."36
Hence Catholics may "make reservations" and even resist those teachings from the Council that conflict with the perennial magisterium of the centuries. Likewise, Catholics may resist novel practices (Hula Masses) that have emanated from the Councils unprecedented "reform".
Throughout the ages, the Popes, Saints and Holy Doctors have taught that the first and foremost duty of all Catholics, and especially of the hierarchy in Rome, is to maintain tradition; that is, the purity of the Faith in doctrine and practice.
St. Peter Canisuis, a Doctor of the Church, wrote in his Summa Doctrinae Chrisstanae "it behooves us unanimously to observe the ecclesiastical traditions, whether defined or simply retained by customary practice of the Church."
Likewise, St. Peter Damian, another Doctor of the Church, teaches "It is unlawful to alter the established customs of the Church ... Remove not the ancient landmarks which the fathers have set."
In our century, Pope Benedict XV repeated almost verbatim the words of Pope St. Stephen, when he declared "Do not innovate anything. Rest content with tradition."37
But what if even a Pope should not be "content with tradition" and innovate practically everything? The great theologian, Cardinal Juan de Torquemada (1388-1468), citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, speaks of the real possibility of this happening -- that it is possible for a Pope to be disobedient to Catholic teaching. Then, citing the same doctrine of Innocent III, he instructs the Catholic faithful on how they must respond:
"By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent on its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding something that is against the divine or natural law."
It follows, then, that if it is possible for a Pope to command something against divine law, then it is likewise possible for a Pope to permit something that is against divine or natural law, i.e., ecumenism and inculturation.
Cardinal Torquemada continues:
"By doing so, the Pope separates himself from the body of the Church because the body is itself linked to Christ by obedience. In this way the Pope could, without doubt, fall into schism ... Especially is this true with regard to the divine liturgy as for example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal customs and rites of the Church. ... Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states (De Consuetudine) that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, "he need not be followed ..."38
This truth was recently reinforced by a theologian and loyal son of Pope John Paul II, Father Joseph de Sainte Marie39 who emitted a brokenhearted lament about the Vaticans present state of instability:
"In our day, and it is one of the most obvious signs of the extraordinarily abnormal character of the current state of the Church, it is very often the case that the acts of the Holy See demand of us prudence and discernment."40
This is in no way a camouflaged attempt to advance a sede-vacantist position.41 Its aim is nothing more than to recall the traditional Catholic principle -- advanced by many Popes, saints and theologians42 -- that if anyone within todays Vatican permits or propagates teaching and practices contrary to Sacred Tradition, the faithful are not bound to follow in blind obedience. In fact, the Catholics duty is to resist.43
On this point, the Fathers of the Church have given us firm guidance. St. Vincent of Lerins teaches that "if some new contagion infects the whole Church at once", then the Catholics first obligation is to "attach himself to antiquity (tradition) which can no longer be led astray by any lying novelty".44
We attach ourselves to Tradition by:
Finally, we must draw courage and strength from the words of Pope St. Pius X who assures us "Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither the revolutionaries nor innovators, they are the traditionalists."45
1) The Tablet, Feb. 15, 1964, p. 195. Cited from Michael Davies Pope Pauls New Mass, (Angelus Press, Kansas City, 1988) p. 82.
2) Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII, from Selected Letters and Addresses of Pius XII, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1949, p.198.
3) Pius XII, Allocution to the International Congress on Pastoral Liturgy, Sept. 22, 1957.
4) Father John W. Mole, essay "Assault on the Roman Liturgy". Currently posted on Una Voce website.
5) The full quote reads "If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned, or that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only, or that water should not be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ: let him be anathema." (Quoted from Denzinger, The Source of Catholic Dogma, 1955 edition.), #956 (theologians teach that this is aimed at the Roman Rite).
6) Auctorum Fidei, Condemning the false Synod of Pistoia, Aug. 28, 1794, Denzinger, #s 1531,1532.
7) Pope Pius XI conducted a scientific inquiry into the subject and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree to the Churchs nature: "(T)he Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time ... of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable and non-vernacular." Cited from Pope Pauls New Mass, p. 377.
8) Ibid. p. 197.
9) Sacrosanctum Concilium, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, #36.
10) The Ottaviani Intervention, available from CFN
11) Ibid. p., 27 emphasis added.
12) Much has been written with the problems of the New Rite. See Pope Pauls New Mass, Iota Unum, etc.
13) Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi, Encyclical against Modernism, 1908, para. #42.
14) Associated Press, "Ban on Hula at Hawaiian Masses Reversed" Michael Tighe, Jan. 7 (& Jan. 8), 1999.
15) The Dominion, "Faith Hoop and Charity", July 11, 1998.
16) Associated Press, see footnote 14.
17) Hawaii Catholic Herald, Jan. 8, 1999, p.10.
19) The full story appeared in The Homiletic and Pastoral Review, June, 1984.
20) Hawaii Catholic Herald, Jan. 8, 1999, p.10.
21) Dec. 19th Radio Discourse, cited from Anthony Fraser, "Ecumenism - A disaster for the Church", Apropos, No. 18, 1966, (Scotland) p. 122, emphasis added. For complete documentation of the Prostestanization of the Mass, consult Pope Pauls New Mass by Michael Davies.
22) For the finest statement of the traditional teaching against ecumenism, see the encyclical Mortalium Animos by Pope Pius XI.
23) Fr. Ludvik Nemek, a "conservative" Catholic, writes in praise of John Paul II that "Bishop Wojtyla took a progressive stand" at Vatican II, and that he "interacted with progressive theologians" at the Council. Pope John Paul II, A Festive Profile, (Catholic Book Publishing, NY, 1979), p. 98.
24) Bishop Karol Wojtyla from Cracow speaking to Fr. Malinksi. Fr. Malinksi, De. Cath, Eccl. unit 6., p. 220, cited from Abbe Daniel Le Roux, Peter Lovest Thou Me?, Instauratio Press, p. 15, emphasis added.
25) Associated Press, Nov., 23, 1998. Published in January, 1999 Catholic Family News, p. 17. Sadly, John Paul II expressed his delight and encouragement for this startling innovation.
26) Richard McBrien (ed.) Encyclopedia of Catholicism (Harper Collins, 1995), p. 660 -- as quoted in the booklet No Turning Back, "A Lay Perspective on Ministry in the Catholic Church in the United States" -- National Association for Lay Ministry, Chicago, IL.
27) Garrigou-Lagrange, "Where is the New Theology Leading Us", (English translation), Aug. 1998 Catholic Family News (reprint available).
28) In a published Discourse in LOsservatore Romano, Dec. 19, 1946, Pius XII said, "There is a good deal of talk (but without the necessary clarity of concept), about a 'new theology, which must be in constant transformation, following the example of all other things in the world, which are in a constant state of flux and movement, without ever reaching their term. If we were to accept such an opinion, what would become of the unchangeable dogmas of the Catholic Faith; and what would become of the unity and stability of that Faith?"
29) Humani Generis, #s 29, 30, 32, 34. See Catholic Family News, August 1998 issue for numerous articles on "The New Theology". List of CFN reprints on "The New Theology" available upon request.
30) 30 Days, Dec.,1991, cited by sì sì no no in the series "They Think They Have Won". (emphasis added).
31) Modern Catholicism edited by Adrian Hasting, Chapter 8L, "Missionary Activity" by Alward Shorter, (Oxford University Press, 1991) p. 167.
32) Ibid., p. 167-168.
33) Cardinal Joseph Siri, Gethsemane, (Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago, 1981) p. 58.
34) Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, (Ignatius Press, 1987) p. 381.
35) Cited from Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Lefebvre, (Fowler-Wright, London), p. 112.
36) Catholic Word News, January 22, 1997.
37) Pope St. Stephen (254-257) said, "Let them innovate in nothing, but keep the traditions."
38) Cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.D., M. Div. (2nd edition, St. Francis Press, India) p. 29.
39) Father Joseph de Sainte Marie worked closely with Pope John Paul II on numerous occasions. He wrote the text for Pope John Paul IIs speech at Fatima for May 13, 1982.
40) Cited from Apropos, Isle of Skye, Scotland, Issue No. 16, 1994, p. 5.
41) Catholic Family News is sometimes accused of being a sede-vacantist publication. It is not. We recognize John Paul II as Pope and pray for him daily. Neither I, nor anyone at Catholic Family News subscribe to the sede-vacantist position. (J.V.)
42) See "Resting Wayward Prelates, According to the Saints", Catholic Family News, January, 1998. (reprint available).
43) Resisting unorthodox novelties goes even further, since Saint Thomas Aquinas, in many passages of his works, upholds the principle that the faithful can question and admonish prelates. For example: "There being an imminent danger for the faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, Saint Paul, who was a subject of Saint Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Gloss of Saint Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2,14), 'Saint Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometime they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects." (Summa theologiae, Taurini/Romae: Marietti, 1948, II.II, q.33, a.4).
44) St. Vincent of Lerins (c. 445 AD) cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Fr. Kramer, (1st edition), pp. 28-29.
45) Pope St. Pius X, Our Apostolic Mandate, Aug. 25, 1910, para. 44.
This is reprinted from the March 1999 issue of Catholic Family News --- a Roman Catholic monthly published 12 times a year.
Catholic Family News
M.P.O. Box 743
Niagara Falls, NY 14302
Subscriptions to Catholic Family News are obtainable at a special price of $18.00 per year ($25.00 Canadian plus GST). Sample issues available upon request List of reprints from various issues available by sending a self-addressed stamped business envelope.