Traditionis Cojones (gotta admit, the author of that thing has some big ones!) has ignited a firestorm of passionate responses from so-called “traditionalists” (aka Catholics).
Among the more irksome are those from persons who insist on denying Jorge’s accusation that devotion to the 1962 Missal often goes hand-in-hand with rejection of the Council and the liturgy that it inspired.
No, they protest, only a handful of rad-trad bad apples question the validity of the Novus Ordo and the Almighty Council! Pretty please, Holiness, don’t punish the rest of us!
In reality, devotion to the Mass of Ages most certainly does amount to a vehement rejection of the conciliar revolt and the Pauline Manrite that it birthed, even if many are too ill-informed or too weak to know it, much less admit it aloud.
More tedious still is the claim being made by a subset of this group, evidently growing in number, that Traditionis Cojones itself stands in opposition to the Council, as if Vatican II – the nemesis of all things traditional – can somehow be invoked as a shield to protect the true Roman Rite of Holy Mass from attack.
There are several versions of this fairytale, one of them focuses on the idea that the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, expressed esteem for all the various Catholic liturgical rites, but Francis, that scoundrel, is showing little regard for the Mass of Pius V! How anti-conciliar of him!
What these persons cannot seem to get their hands around, perhaps by choice, is the undeniable reality that the Council in no way intended for the creation of a new stand-alone “use” of the one Roman Rite, much less did the Council Fathers express any desire whatsoever for the creation of a new rite altogether.
Rather, their intention was made perfectly plain: “The liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible.” (SC 25)
This includes, of course, the 1962 Missal.
But, but… the Novus Ordo clearly is a new rite!
No kidding, and it’s and a non-Catholic rite at that. Be that as it may, the opposite view has been consistently upheld by every man since 1970 who has laid claim to the papacy – the same to which “Jesus confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold” (Pastor Aeternus 3).
So, what’s a neo-con in trad clothing (or a trad in… you get the point) to do? HINT:
The more popular objection being put forth by this group focuses on the allegation (not unfounded) that the Novus Ordo deviates considerably from the clearly expressed intent of the Council Fathers on any number of points. The argument goes something like this:
If the new Mass actually reflected the principles set forth in Sacrosanctum Concilium – which don’t include versus populum worship but do include the use of the Latin language and the priority of Gregorian chant – we wouldn’t be in this mess. But since it does not, the Mass of Ages remains necessary!
Two things must be said in response: For one, the Novus Ordo isn’t merely deficient in its visible signs; the Pauline missal itself contains dangerous error! (See HERE). For that reason alone, we can be absolutely certain, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that it’s not a Catholic rite and it did not come to us from the hand of Holy Mother Church. PERIOD.
Secondly, it is obvious that many persons remain unaware of just how poisonous the guiding “principles concerning the promotion and reform of the liturgy” (cf SC 3), as proposed by the Council, truly are.
With this in mind, let’s take a closer look at the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of Vatican II to see what the Council Fathers identified as “the particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy” (SC 1). Two in particular stand out:
This sacred Council has several aims in view … to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. (ibid.)
Right out of the gate the Constitution reveals, albeit in a somewhat veiled fashion, that ecumenism and humanism serve as two sides of a double-barreled shotgun behind the Council’s urgent call for a revision of the sacred liturgy. At this point in time, the veil is off; the Novus Ordo may not be a perfect reflection of every utterance found in the conciliar text, but as a whole it’s just what one should expect given the Council’s inspiration, a heretic-friendly, man-centered, rite.
The Council’s ecumenical aims in particular are reiterated and elaborated upon several paragraphs later:
Nevertheless the liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows. For the aim and object of apostolic works is that all who are made sons of God by faith and baptism should come together to praise God in the midst of His Church, to take part in the sacrifice, and to eat the Lord’s supper. (SC 10)
NB: After many years spent reading commentary from countless “experts,” studying the Council documents in detail, speaking and writing about them, it only very recently dawned on me: The citation above is of the paramount importance! But first…
The real hermeneutic of Vatican II
In order to grasp the true meaning and gravity of any conciliar proposition, it is absolutely necessary to take into consideration the degree to which a certain cohesion exists among all of the Council documents; each one must be read in the light of what is set forth in the others, and not merely on a chronological basis, but rather across the totality of the texts.
This, not “continuity with tradition” is the real hermeneutic, or interpretive key, to the Second Vatican Council.
The “hermeneutic of continuity” approach to the conciliar texts inevitably leads one to conclude that they are ambiguous and loaded with contradiction. The result, even among the sincere, is disunity, a hallmark of the counterfeit church. This is to be expected inasmuch as the imposter church is an inversion of the one true Church wherein unity of faith and charity are ever preserved.
The “hermeneutic of cohesion” as I like to call it – the real hermeneutic of Vatican II – reveals something altogether different, namely, a consistent, well-ordered plan to establish a new religion, one that glorifies man as its “center and crown.” (cf GS 12)
So, what does one discover upon applying the hermeneutic of cohesion to SC 10?
Let’s read it again, carefully:
Nevertheless the liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows. For the aim and object of apostolic works is that all who are made sons of God by faith and baptism should come together to praise God in the midst of His Church, to take part in the sacrifice, and to eat the Lord’s supper. (SC 10)
First, let’s consider how this text is typically understood (rather, misunderstood), that is, when read in “continuity with tradition.”
Indeed, all of the Church’s activities – her teaching, her preaching, her disciplines, devotions and sacramentals, etc. – all is ordered toward, and leads to, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass where the Catholic faithful worship almighty God in Spirit and Truth, partaking of the Source of our Communion with Christ and with one another!
The “hermeneutic of cohesion” diligently applied, however, tells another story.
In this case, in order to interpret SC 10 accurately, it’s necessary to look to the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, for insight, which shouldn’t come as a surprise given the “aims” that are stated in SC 1 as noted above.
For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect … it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church. (UR 3)
Nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from attaining the fullness of catholicity proper to her, in those of her sons who, though attached to her by Baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. (UR 4)
What does this tell us? It tells us that when the Council speaks in SC 10 of “all who are made sons of God by faith and baptism,” it is not referring to the Catholic faithful alone, but rather to the heretics and schismatics also, who, the Council insists, “are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”
Just one more citation from the Decree should suffice to bring us full circle:
Church renewal has therefore notable ecumenical importance. Already in various spheres of the Church’s life, this renewal is taking place. The Biblical and liturgical movements … these should be considered as pledges and signs of the future progress of ecumenism. (UR 6)
Using the hermeneutic of cohesion as our interpretive key, the real meaning of SC 10 emerges, giving us to understand what the text truly intends to convey:
For the aim and object of apostolic works is that Catholics, along with heretics and schismatics, should come together to praise God in the midst of His Church, to take part in the sacrifice, and to receive Holy Communion.
What we have discovered is that the ultimate goal of the conciliar liturgical reform vis-à-vis ecumenism is nothing other than intercommunion with heretics and schismatics.
Did the more tradition-minded bishops who approved Sacrosanctum Concilium understand that intercommunion was the goal for which the architects of the text were shooting? Certainly not, but rest assured that the revolutionaries who were driving the conciliar events knew exactly what they were setting in motion.
The proof is in the lived experience of the past six decades, especially over the most recent eight years.
At this, recall the outrage that ensued when Bergoglio all but publicly encouraged a Lutheran woman to take Holy Communion at Mass with her Catholic spouse? Now you know why.
NB: When the Council speaks of the heretics and schismatics lacking “full communion,” pay very close attention to where it places the burden of removing whatever obstacles stand in the way: “…the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from attaining the fullness of catholicity proper to her.”
In this scenario, it is the Church that is “prevented” from being all that she ought to be.
This turns on its head the traditional teaching which holds, first and foremost, that the Church will always be in full possession of her catholicity, and furthermore, that the divisions that exist between the Church and the heretics and schismatics is due to their state, it is they who are prevented by their obstinance from being all that they should be as willed by Jesus Christ.
The Council’s solution for the division, however, isn’t for the heretics and schismatics to renounce their errors, but rather for the Church to finally embrace these baptized persons as true brothers and sisters. As for how, in practice, the Council tells us:
By bringing them “together [with us] to praise God in the midst of His Church, to take part in the sacrifice, and to eat the Lord’s supper” (SC 10).
So, Sacrosanctum Concilium is best understood not only as a call to make Holy Mass a more comfortable experience for the heretics, but also to pave the way for them to come forward with the Church’s members to receive the Blessed Sacrament.
In closing, my hope is that readers will come away having learned two lessons:
One, the true key to interpreting Vatican II is the “hermeneutic of cohesion.”
Two, the idea that a proper implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium would result in a Catholic rite of any sort is patently absurd.
