Traditionalists Attack Summorum Pontificum

Any traditionalist reading the title of this post will definitely accuse me of losing my mind. Traditionalists feel that Summorum Pontificum - which opened up the Traditional Latin Mass to the entire Church - was probably the most important and significant document in the last 50 years. They would never attack it! And yet, that is exactly what they do.

How to Be Right Yet Be So Wrong

I have written rather extensively on the controversy surrounding Father James Martin and his book, "Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity".  I am always in favor of reaching out to people and trying to bring them to Jesus Christ, and I saw Father Martin's book as just this.  As I have written, I have no personal stake in this argument, other than wanting to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ to as many people as possible.

Most of the blog posts and articles I have read condemn Father Martin for his approach.  People feel that Father Martin fails to state the sinfulness of homosexual acts and that completely negates anything else he has to say.  People seem to feel that reaching out to homosexuals must always be accompanied by clear and unambiguous condemnation of homosexual sex.

Father Z and the Catholic Blogosphere Proudly Proclaim Their Righteousness

The Catholic blogsophere, as I have previously written, does not like Father James Martin.  They write scathing posts against him because he refuses to condemn homosexuals.

Father John Zuhlsdorf has written against Father Martin for several years, and has recently ramped up his condemnation because of a statement by Father Martin that "pretty much everyone's lifestyle is sinful."  Father Martin made this statement in an interview with the New York Times, which you can read HERE.  The "offensive" statement, in context, reads:

In [Father Martin's book, “Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the L.G.B.T. Community Can Enter Into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion and Sensitivity.”], he calls on church leaders to show respect by using terms like “gay” and “L.G.B.T.,” instead of phrases like “afflicted with same-sex attraction.” He also argues that to expect a sinless lifestyle from gay Catholics, but not from any other group, is a form of “unjust discrimination” and that gay people should not be fired for marrying a same-sex spouse.

“Pretty much everyone’s lifestyle is sinful,” Father Martin said. “Unless the Blessed Mother shows up in the communion line, there is no one sinless in our church.”

This was a bridge too far [pun intended] for Father Z.  In a post entitled, "More of Fr James Martin’s whining", Father Z linked to a tweet by Prof. Chad Pecknold, which Father Z feels "pretty much sums it up about this Jesuit".  Here is a screenshot of Pecknold's tweet:

Father John Zuhlsdorf Again Proves He Is A Danger To The Faithful

Last year I reported that Father John Zuhlsdorf banned me from his blog.  I wasn't banned from just being able to comment.  He actually banned me from even viewing his blog.  When I would try to call up his blog on my home IP address, all I got was the following:

The reason he banned me was because I dared to disagree with a post he wrote in which he said the Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form of the Mass were not two separate forms, as the Church declares them to be, but are actually two separate rites.  When I tried to correct him and pointed out that Pope Benedict had plainly written in his letter to the bishops that "[i]t is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were 'two Rites'.   Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite", Father Z had a "spittle flecked nutty", called me nasty and banned me.  And he not only banned my home IP address, he also banned my work IP address.

A couple of months ago, for some unknown reason, he lifted the ban on my home so that I can now view his blog (I'm not about to try to comment), but my work IP address is still banned.

I occasionally check in on his blog, but for the most part I cannot stomach his ultra right views either theologically or politically.   Just as he attacked me for daring to disagree with him, he attacks anyone with whom he does not agree.  I find his style very combative and in your face.

Father Z Rants: Defending Michael Voris, Bristling at Positive Pope Coverage, Lamenting the Synod

As I previously reported, Father John Zuhlsdorf - whom many view as a great Catholic priest and Internet evangelizer - has tried very hard to ban me from his ministry, going so far as to block my home IP address so that I cannot view his blog.  He has now extended that ban to my IP address at work where I occasionally viewed his blog.  He has made it quite clear that he has no concern for my soul or any other souls using my IP addresses.  I dared to disagree with him, and now I, and anyone else using the same IP addresses. can go to hell as far as he is concerned.

But. alas, much to the chagrin of Father Z, he cannot follow me around and block every IP address to which I have access.  As a result, I still have ways to access his blog and read his diatribes against the establishment Catholic Church.  And it has not been pretty.

First up is Father Z's defense of Michael Voris.  Yes, Father Z is defending the same Michael Voris who makes his living criticizing and condemning Catholic Church hierarchy.  In fact, Father Z feels that Voris "clearly loves the Church"!  It is interesting to note that Father Z bans me - someone who consistently supports the hierarchy of the Catholic Church - and promotes Michael Voris, whose bishop prohibits him from even using the word "Catholic" to describe his organization.  

Father Z Tells Traditionalists They Can "Revitalize" The Church: Wherein CIB Rants

Source

In my days as a Catholic traditionalist, I truly believed that the traditionalist movement was the salvation of the Church.  Without traditionalists, the Church would surely be destroyed by destructive elements from both inside and outside.  I look back at myself back then and I can only shudder at the raging hubris by which I lived.

However, that same hubris continues to infect many of those who call themselves "traditionalists", and it was on full display in a recent post by Father John Zuhlsdorf. (Oh, I'm still banned from viewing his site (that's for life), but that is only on my personal IP address. Like everyone else in the world, I can access his blog from any other IP address.) When I saw the post entitled, "You are the periphery which can revitalize the Church!", I immediately recognized the savior complex by which I had lived for so many years. Father Z and his followers are infected with this savior complex in spades.

Father John Zuhlsdorf Bans Me From His Blog

A few weeks ago I wrote about a cyber encounter with Father John Zuhlsdorf, which you can read HERE. As you will see from the post, Father Zuhlsdorf wrote a post in which he stated his disagreement with official Catholic church teaching that the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form of the Mass are two forms of the same rite.  Father Z says that while he accepts that juridically the two Masses may be one rite, he says that "liturgically and theologically" they are two separate rites.

Pope Benedict XVI declared that the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms are one rite in his Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum dated July 7, 2007, and he restated this teaching again in his letter to the bishops accompanying Summorum Pontificum. This same teaching is stated once again in the further instructions released by the Vatican in 2011.

I commented on Father Z's blog post that he was in disagreement with Pope Benedict XVI and put screen shots of my comments to Father Z in my post. It can be plainly seen that I was very respectful. However, Father Zuhlsdorf had what he would call a "spittle flecked nutty" and called me nasty. Father Z then blocked my home IP address and from that time on, whenever I would try to view his blog from my home IP address, I would get only a blank screen. I have had no further encounters with Father Zuhlsdorf in any way since that time.

Today when I tried to view Father Zuhlsdorf's website, I received a screen with the word "BANNED!", as shown above. It seems pretty obvious that somewhere along the way, Father Zuhlsdorf has read my blog posts, and he has had another spittle flecked nutty, to use his words, and this time it was on steroids. I am sure that Father Z will eventually see this post as well, so I am directing the rest of my post directly to him.

Father Zuhlsdorf, you are showing that you have a massive ego problem. Nothing I wrote either on your blog or on my own blog was in any way disrespectful or "nasty" as you claim. I did not even give my own opinion. I used the words of Pope Benedict XVI, whom you claim to honor and respect. You became upset because I showed that you were wrong, and your ego went into overdrive. May I remind you, Father Zuhlsdorf, that as a Catholic priest, your mission is to serve God's people. As Christ, the Good Shepherd, laid down his life for His sheep, so you are to do. And part of laying down your life for the sheep means getting rid of your ego. I can only say that you have failed miserably in your reaction to me, and by literally banning me from your site, you have only escalated your failure.

One of the basic characteristics of a shepherd must be to love the people entrusted to him, even as he loves Christ whom he serves. “Feed my sheep”, says Christ to Peter, and now, at this moment, he says it to me as well. Feeding means loving, and loving also means being ready to suffer. Loving means giving the sheep what is truly good, the nourishment of God’s truth, of God’s word, the nourishment of his presence, which he gives us in the Blessed Sacrament.

Pope Benedict XVI

Father Z Continues to Shake His Fist at the Mass

Father John Zuhlsdorf recently did a post on his blog in which he criticized the prayers of the Ordinary Form of the Mass (HERE) . In this post, he stated his rejection of official Church teaching that the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form of the Mass are two forms of the same Latin rite. He insists that the Masses are two different rites liturgically and theologically. When I pointed out on his blog that this is in direct contradiction to Summorum Pontificum and the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI, Father Zuhlsdorf had a hissy fit and banned me from his blog. He did not just ban me from commenting.  He has actually banned me from even viewing his blog on my IP address.  I wrote about this HERE.

Father Zuhlsdorf is not backing down from his position, and has done yet another post criticizing and denigrating the Ordinary Form of the Mass.  This post is entitled, "Notes on Eucharistic Prayer II" and can be found HERE.  He starts his post by telling us he refuses to use Eucharistic Prayer II on the rare occasions when he celebrates the Ordinary Form of the Mass:

Every once in the while, when I was saying the Novus Ordo far more often than I do today (last Sunday was the first in several months, after the EF and before an EF baptism), why I used the Roman Canon and never Eucharistic Prayer II. [Emphasis original]

It should be noted that Eucharistic Prayer II is an official prayer of the Church, completely valid and licit. It is honored by the Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - and when used, the great miracle of transubstantiation takes place in which bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. And yet Father Zuhlsdorf feels totally justified in rejecting this official prayer of the Mass.  In writing about it on his blog, he encourages his many followers to also reject this prayer. And of course, his loyal followers willingly comply.

Father Z's Spittle Flecked Nutty Against Pope Benedict XVI and Summorum Pontificum

Credit:  www.slate.com

I recently commented on Father John Zuhlsdorf's blog in which I pointed out that he, Father Z, was in profound disagreement with Pope Benedict XVI.  He admitted that yes, he did disagree with Pope Benedict XVI, but he considered my comment to be "nasty" and as a result, he has completely blocked me so that I cannot even access his blog on my home IP address, much less leave any comments.

	Name:		Rev. John Zuhlsdorf
	Current Position:		President Tridentine Mass Society of Madison
	Parish(es) Currently Serving:		Cathedral Parish of MadisonMadison St. MaryPine Bluff
	Year of Ordination:		1991

Here's the story.

Father Z did a post in which he answered a reader's question, as follows:

I know a [priest] who uses the Old Offertory Prayers when he says an Ordinary Form Mass. Is this okay for a priest to do? Is it a liturgical abuse?

You can read Father Z's answer HERE.  One would think that the answer would be a simple yes or no, and if you have read Summorum Pontificum, you would know that mixing of the two forms of Mass is not permitted.  But Father Z's answer delved much deeper into this question.  He entitled his post, "ASK FATHER: Using the traditional offertory prayers in the Novus Ordo. Wherein Fr. Z rants."  

Father Z started his answer with this paragraph:

The legislation which covers the use of the Extraordinary Form spells out that there is to be no mixing of the two rites (I say “rites”, because I don’t think that they are, liturgically, the same rite… juridically there are two “forms”, but liturgically and in many points theologically there seem to be two… but this is a digression).

Father Z correctly states in his first sentence that there is to be no mixing.  Everything in that sentence is correct up to the word "rites."  As Father Z explains, he feels that the two Masses are not two forms of the same rite, but two distinct and separate rites.  This is in direct contradiction to the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI and Summorum Pontificum as written by Pope Benedict XVI.

Credit:  www.amazon.com

I commented on Father Z's blog that Pope Benedict would not agree with his statement, and quoted from the Pope Benedict's Letter to the Bishops which accompanied the Summorum Pontificum document.  Father Z answered (his answer is in red):

1. Brooklyn says:

   21 April 2015 at 4:50 AM

   Father, you seem to be in disagreement with Pope Benedict XVI who wrote the following in Summorum Pontificum:

   “In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.” [Yes, I disagree with that statement. Summorum Pontificum was clearly a juridical settlement of the disputed question of whether or not priests could use the older Missal. It doesn’t settle the liturgical and theological questions.]

   We may like the prayers of one form over the other, but Jesus Christ is present in both, and that is all that really matters. If Our Lord honors the OF, we should also. [Nice little speech. On the other hand, the content of the prayers, EF and OF parallels compared side by side (which I have done for a couple decades) are at times strikingly different.]

Father Zuhlsdorf, You Might Want to Rethink This One

 

Father Z, you recently did a post on your blog entitled, "'Pause' for a moment to see Michael Voris’ new project." The subject of this post was a new project in which Michael Voris will choose four young men between the ages of 18 and 25 to live in a house behind his studio for a year and basically learn at his feet. Anyone who reads my blog doesn't have to guess at how I feel about that.

However, you, Father Z, are rather excited about the idea, as you wrote:

Like Michael Voris. Hate Michael Voris. Whatever. Voris is a man with convictions and he acts on them. That’s admirable.

Like his projects. Hate his projects. He is doing something concrete with the time, talent and treasure at his disposal.

Would that more Catholics had his energy and determination!

Really, Father Z? Do you know exactly what "convictions" Michael Voris holds?

Michael Voris has made his living by telling Catholics that their No. 1 enemy is the Catholic hierarchy.  He instills paranoia in his listeners by telling them there is a snake under every rock in the Catholic Church.  He tells his listeners to completely reject those in authority and to separate from the establishment Church which he calls the "Church of Nice".

Here are a few excerpts from just one Vortex episode:

If you make your way around the Catholic world today, one thing is blinding. It’s inescapable – there is an apostate Church operating within the power structure of the establishment Church. It is a wicked evil thing. Parish after parish, diocese after diocese has abandoned the true faith.

* * *

Huge swaths, large giant portions of the Church are simply in apostasy – populated with practical heretics – it is in short – the triumph of the Protestant heresy on the ground, even as Protestantism itself crumbles into a million pieces and rejects teaching after teaching of Christ.

* * *

Yes, there is an apostate Church – which encompasses a huge portion of Catholics these days – whose God is not Our Blessed Lord, but man.

* * *

Time is running out .. repent and let go of the apostate Church – the one that teaches you nothing in preparation for standing before Almighty God. Not for nothing did St. Paul himself say – work out your salvation in Fear and Trembling. 

Get away from those in the Church who hide this truth from you. Run from them as you would from the fires of Hell.

Holy Innocents Church Partners With The Devil's Bible

Credit:  theconservativetreehouse.com

In their ongoing attempt to save Holy Innocents Church in Manhattan from being closed, some of those who attend there have given interviews to and cooperated with Hell's Bible, which is the name given to the New York Times by Father John Zuhlsdorf.  However, as Father Z wrote on his blog, The New York Times has ceased being "Hell's Bible" for at least one day.  How did this miraculous transformation come about?  On Friday, June 27, the Times published an article [HERE] which takes the side of supporters of the Traditional Latin Mass at Holy Innocents against the Archdiocese of New York.  

The question is, why would the most liberal newspaper in the nation, which is unceasing in pushing the liberal, secular agenda of gay rights, abortion and all things anti-Catholic, want to throw its support to a couple hundred ultra-orthodox, ultra-conservative Catholics in a small commuter church in the heart of Manhattan?  What would the Times have to gain in this?  

It is no accident that on the day the Holy Innocents article first appeared on the Times website, it was right next to another article concerning an archbishop accused of sexual abuse [HERE].  Per the article, "The Vatican has defrocked its former ambassador to the Dominican Republic, an archbishop from Poland who was accused of sexually abusing boys while he served as the pope’s representative in the Caribbean nation."

So here are two articles concerning the big bad Catholic Church whose priests and bishops not only sexually abuse children, but the evil hierarchy of this Church also seems intent on trying to silence and disabuse the most faithful in her midst who wish nothing more than to worship as they have always done. Father Justin Wylie is prominently mentioned and portrayed as a martyr to the cause, as follows:

Father Wylie, a visiting priest, urged parishioners to be obedient but also to speak up, as traditionalist Catholics, for a place in the church, saying they should not be “turned out like squatters.”

It was an unusual moment of open criticism by a Roman Catholic priest of church policy in New York. And the reaction was swift. Within two weeks, Father Wylie was reprimanded by the New York Archdiocese, and in short order he was dismissed from his job at the Mission of the Holy See at the United Nations.

It is unclear how the New York Times came to write this story. We don't know if someone actually contacted them and asked them to do it, or if the paper picked up on it from the Internet, where so many, many Traditional Catholics have discussed this situation and come to the conclusion that Cardinal Dolan is evil, hates Traditionalists and wants to stamp them out. The article is written from the parishioners' point of view and is completely sympathetic to them.

As we saw with Father Z and as is true in all other cases, Traditionalists are joyful that the New York Times has come to their aid, and as a result have suspended their usual condemnation of this paper. I truly do hope that no one from Holy Innocents purposely contacted the Times to write this story.

Picture of Holy Innocents Church
from the New York Times taken from the balcony

But the fact that the picture used in an accompanying article from the Times City Blog [HERE] was taken from the balcony is a sign of clear cooperation with the Times because no one is allowed in the balcony without specific permission. Further, this article specifically states that parishioners cooperated with the newspaper:

Paul McGregor [the same Paul McGregor who has given interviews to both Christine Niles and Michael Voris], a parishioner at the church, provided The New York Times with a transcript of Father Wylie’s remarks, which he said were based on a recording by another parishioner. Several other parishioners who heard the remarks confirmed the transcript’s validity.

As mentioned, the Catholic blogosphere, including the aforementioned Father Z, immediately picked up on the Times article. Father Z had not commented on the subject of Holy Innocents since Father Wylie had his priestly faculties revoked by the New York Archdiocese. However, the Times article seems to have helped Father Z find his voice again, but within limits as he wrote, "I would post many comments, but I fear retribution for my friends." With this simple statement, Father Z is setting up the hierarchy of the Catholic Church as the enemy of the laity, just as Father Wylie did in his sermon.

All of these elements, I fear, may be building up to schism.

In my previous post on this subject, I urged those at Holy Innocents not to allow themselves to become bitter and angry about this situation, but to follow the example of so many others, both saints and biblical figures, who suffered unjustly but allowed Our Lord to work out the situation.  I was blasted for this and told I don't know what I'm talking about, and accused of being both heretical and demonic.

But what are the people of Holy Innocents thinking when they go to the New York Times in order to find justice?  This reminds me very much of the passage in I Corinthians 6:6-7:

"But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers! Now therefore, there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one against another. Why do ye not rather accept wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?"

The New York Times is the paper of record for the entire United States and is the court of public opinion. By cooperating with this newspaper, the people of Holy Innocents have turned their backs on our Lord and instead enlisted the devil in their cause.

Ad from the New York Times

The Times could not care less about the people at Holy Innocents or the Traditional Latin Mass. The Times has an agenda, and that is to see the entire Catholic Church destroyed. This is the Church that stands in the way of everything they care about - abortion, gay rights, contraception, etc. Every other religion will eventually give way to the agenda of the liberals at the New York Times, and they know it. In contrast, they know that the Catholic Church will never change her position on these issues, so the Catholic Church is their eternal enemy.

But now the liberal, anti-Catholic New York Times has found a group of Catholics who agree that the hierarchy of the church is evil. The people at Holy Innocents, in their desire to keep their church, have unwittingly allowed themselves to be used in the cause of those whose main desire is to destroy the Church.

How can anyone at Holy Innocents honestly believe this is going to help them in any way?  Do they think that getting the most liberal paper in the nation to portray them as the poor abused victims of the evil New York Archdiocese is going to somehow soften Cardinal Dolan's heart and make him realize that closing Holy Innocents is a huge mistake?  Or are they figuring that Cardinal Dolan will now have no other choice but to keep Holy Innocents open because not to do so will make everyone realize what a "horrible ogre" he really is?  Do we ever see these kind of tactics used by any biblical figures or any saints down through Church history?

From Mystics of the Church [HERE]:

On one occasion, the Sacred Heart of Jesus made a request to St. Margaret Mary Alocoque, but when she told her Superior this request, her Superior did not approve. Soon afterwards, when Jesus came to her again, she asked Him about this, and He replied: "…not only do I desire that you should do what your Superior commands, but also that you should do nothing of all that I request of you without their consent. I love obedience, and without it no one can please Me" [Autobiography of St Margaret Mary].

Elsewhere in her Autobiography, we read that St Margaret Mary was told by Our Lord: "Listen, My daughter, and do not lightly believe and trust every spirit, for Satan is angry and will try to deceive you. So do nothing without the approval of those who guide you. Being thus under the authority of obedience, his efforts against you will be in vain, for he has no power over the obedient" [cf. -Autobiography] 

As we see in this example, St. Margaret Mary Alocoque's superior forbade her to follow the request of Our Lord Himself. Yet, she was told by Our Lord that she should obey her superior and do nothing without his consent, even when it goes against what she was specifically told by Jesus Christ Himself.

Further examples from the saints:

In the Diary of St Faustina Kowalska we read: "...Jesus says; 'Obedience. I have come to do My Father’s will. I obeyed my Parents, I obeyed My tormentors and now I obey the Priests' ...I understood that our efforts, no matter how great, are not pleasing to God if they do not bear the seal of obedience.... I understand, O Jesus, the spirit of obedience and in what it consists. It includes not only external actions, but also one’s reason, will and judgment. In obeying our superiors, we obey God.." -Diary of Saint Faustina Kowalska

And elsewhere in her diary she writes: "Satan can even clothe himself in a cloak of humility, but he does not know how to wear the cloak of obedience." (Diary, par. 939).

And St Catherine of Siena states- “Oh! How sweet and glorious is this virtue of obedience, which contains all the other virtues! Because it is born of charity, and on it the rock of the holy Faith is founded; it is a queen, and he who espouses it knows no evil, but only peace and rest.”

And for those who feel that it is okay to speak out against a prelate if he is "evil" as many try to portray Cardinal Dolan, they need to look at the example of King David, whom the Bible says was a man after God's own heart (Acts 13:22). David had been anointed King of Israel in place of King Saul, but Saul still sat on the throne. When Saul realized that David was a threat to him, Saul tried very hard to kill David. But David refused to fight against Saul or harm him in any way, even to protect himself. As he said, "Some urged me to kill you, but I spared you; I said, 'I will not lay my hand on my lord, because he is the LORD's anointed." (I Sam. 24:10).

If the people at Holy Innocents were fighting an unjust landlord or even fighting someone in the government, I would applaud them for what they are doing. I would say they need to stand up against those who are trying to destroy them. But Cardinal Dolan is not just another man. He is the Lord's anointed, like it or not. He is a prince of the Church and his power and authority are given to him directly from the Holy Spirit.

That doesn't mean that every decision he makes is correct.  As shown in the example of St. Margaret Mary Alocoque, those in authority can sometimes make decisions that are actually against the will of God.  But unless we are told something that is inherently sinful, we do not have a right to disobey those in authority over us.

Some have made the argument that the laity are not under the same code of obedience that priests and religious are.  That is true, but that still does not give us the right to try to destroy the reputation of Church authorities.  This can never be the work of the Holy Spirit.  And sadly, attempting to destroy the reputation of Cardinal Dolan and other hierarchy of the New York Archdiocese is the main objective of the article in the New York Times.

Also, those who are supporting the parishioners of Holy Innocents in these tactics should also realize that they are not doing Father Justin Wylie any favors. Father Wylie was completely out of line in his harsh criticism of the New York Archdiocese from the pulpit. He is a priest and has taken vows of obedience. 

Father Wylie is walking on very dangerous ground when he publicly criticizes his superiors, especially from the pulpit. He has lost his position at the UN over this and is no longer allowed to make public appearances in New York City. And there can be no doubt that he will face punishment from his own bishop when he returns to South Africa.

It seems that Father Wylie is not backing down from his statements either. According to the Times article:

Father Wylie, reached by email, said, “I am confident of having tried faithfully at all times to serve the best interests of the Archdiocese of New York.”

Father Wylie obviously feels he has done nothing wrong.  All of the cheering from people like Father Z and this article in the Times seems to have only encouraged that sentiment and hardened his attitude against his superiors even more.   I sincerely pray for him.

One person we have not heard from in all of this is Father George Rutler. Father Rutler is the pastor of St. Michael's Church, which is also on the potential hit list, and the administrator of Holy Innocents. He is very affected by all of this, and yet we have not heard one public word from him on the subject. It could very well be that he feels exactly the same as Father Wylie. But he is a good, obedient priest who takes his vows very seriously. I know this from personal experience because Father Rutler heard my confession and convalidated my marriage when I returned to the Church several years ago.

Father Rutler truly loves the Church and loves Our Lord, and no matter what his personal feelings are, he will never speak out publicly against his superiors, and most definitely would never give any kind of statement to the New York Times.  He models his priesthood very closely on that of Blessed John Henry Newman, St. Jean-Baptiste-Marie Vianney and St. Padre Pio. Father Wylie and all of the people at Holy Innocents would do well to learn from Father Rutler.

I am increasingly concerned that Holy Innocents Church in Manhattan is fast becoming fertile soil for schism. They are so convinced of their own rightness that they feel anything they do is fair game and that the end justifies the means.

We have seen our first casualty of this fight: Father Justin Wylie. How many more will there be? I know those involved blame the Archdiocese for the sad circumstances in which Father Wylie finds himself, but priests cannot be allowed to publicly speak against Church hierarchy. If that is allowed, chaos and anarchy will most certainly follow. Rebelling against authority is never the work of the Holy Spirit.

Because of the Internet, the situation of Holy Innocents has become a cause célèbre among Traditionalists across the nation and probably around the world.  Those who label themselves "loyal Catholics" are taking direct aim at Cardinal Dolan and the New York Archdiocese, and our enemies are going to eat this up and use it against us.  And now they have worsened the situation by enlisting the "aid" of anti-Catholic New York Times.  I pray that all involved will realize that there is something much bigger going on here than the church at 37th and Broadway and the Latin Mass.

We live in very evil times when sin is no longer considered sin. In fact, those who defend the things of God are persecuted and ostracized as bigots and haters. The devil wants most of all to cause disunity and separation among those who are most opposed to him. His biggest enemy is the Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic Church. And he will use any means he can to cause disunity and division. He has convinced many Catholics that their greatest enemy is the Church herself. In this case, the devil is using the Traditional Latin Mass to turn Catholics against each other, which he must surely relish.

Proverbs 6:16-19 tells us the following:

There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

I once again implore all those good people at Holy Innocents. Please stop and consider what you are doing. Show that you trust Our Lord to work this out for you. Do not cause any more conflict and disunity. Follow the examples of our saints. It may sound trite, but don't let your suffering go to waste. Offer it up for the souls in Purgatory and then ask them to pray for you. Enlist the help of the saints, not Satan's Bible.

Save The Liturgy, Save The World? Not Quite

Father John Zuhlsdorf of the famous Father Z blog coined a phrase which many Catholics, particularly Traditional Catholics, have taken to heart and very firmly believe:  "Save The Liturgy, Save The World."  This phrase has become a money maker for Father Z as he now sells items - coffee cups, bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc. - with this quote, as can be seen in the above picture.  But what does "Save The Liturgy, Save The World" mean?  Way back on January 29, 2007, Father Z posted the following, which you can read in its entirety HERE:

The Eucharist, its celebration and itself as the extraordinary Sacrament, is the “source and summit of Christian life”.

If we really believe that, then we must also hold that what we do in church, what we believe happens in a church, makes an enormous difference. 

Mass is not merely a “teaching moment” or a “celebration of unity” or a “tedious obligation”. Our choice of music, architecture, ceremonies and language affect more than one small congregation in one building. We are interconnected in both our common human nature and in baptism. When we sin we hurt the whole Body of Christ the Church.

If that is true for sin, it must also be true for our liturgical choices. They must also have personal and corporate impact. Any Mass can be offered for the intentions of the living or the dead.

Not even death is an obstacle to the efficacy of Holy Mass.

Celebrate Mass well, participate properly – affect the whole world. Celebrate poorly – affect the whole world.

.  .  . 

So I repeat:

In a much more recent post from August 22, 2013, which you can read HERE, Father Z wrote this:

I will repeat what I have assert [sic] many times here.

No true and lasting renewal of the Church can take place until we revitalize our sacred liturgical worship of God.  The virtue of religion requires this first and foremost.  No other initiative we take in any sphere of the Church’s life will undergo a sound and lasting renewal without also a revitalization of our worship of God.  [Emphasis mine]

Reason #4 for Summorum Pontificum.  

So Father Z asserts that if the Church can just get the celebration of Mass down correctly, everything else will fall into place.   Is that true?

As Father Z said in the first post, "The Eucharist, its celebration and itself as the extraordinary Sacrament, is the 'source and summit of Christian life'."  Absolutely no question about that. The Mass is where we re-present the saving Sacrifice of Jesus Christ to the Father. Without the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, we are all doomed to hell.  Quoting Saint Padre Pio: "Every holy Mass, heard with devotion, produces in our souls marvelous effects, abundant spiritual and material graces which we, ourselves, do not know. It is easier for the earth to exist without the sun than without the holy Sacrifice of the Mass."

The Mass is of vital importance in the life of every Catholic, and it is absolutely vital to both the physical and spiritual salvation of the world.  But is a proper and reverent celebration of the Mass THE KEY to a "true and lasting renewal of the Church" as Father Z says?

Many sedevacantist groups have sprung up during the post-conciliar era. Almost without exception, they are "Traditional" Catholics who completely reject everything in the Church that is "post Vatican II", the first and foremost post-conciliar practice being the "Novus Ordo Mass" as they refer to the Ordinary Form of the Mass. When these groups celebrate Mass, it is a wondrous thing to behold, with all of the beauty that the Traditional Latin Mass has to offer. An example of one of these sedevacantist groups is the Society of St. Pius V (not to be confused with the Society of St. Pius X). Here is what the Society of St. Pius V posts on their website:

Welcome to the Society of St. Pius V Home Page

The Society of St. Pius V is an organization of traditional Catholic priests dedicated to the preservation of the Traditional Latin Mass. The priests of the Society do not offer the Novus Ordo Missæ. The priests offer the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively. Likewise, the priests administer the traditional sacraments according to the prescribed rites prior to any of the changes brought about by the Vatican II Council.

Why the Traditional Latin Mass

Priests in the Society do not offer the traditional Latin Mass out of a sense of nostalgia or love of Latin. Nor do they do so for aesthetic considerations, stubbornness, or out of disobedience. They do so because of the content and purpose of the Catholic Mass and because it is the Catholic thing to do. They believe that the new Mass and sacraments compromise the true Catholic Religion and do not convey and profess the Catholic Faith as defined by Our Lord Jesus Christ and passed down to us from the Apostles.

Below is a picture from a Mass offered by the Society of St. Pius V with  "Bishop" Clarence Kelly:

Seems to me that you can't get much more reverent than that. Ah, but looks can be deceiving. This group is in total rebellion against the Catholic Church, completely rejecting all post-conciliar Popes, starting with Pope John XXIII. They may look Catholic, but they are 100% Protestant. As Wikipedia tells us:

The priests of SSPV broke away from the Society of St. Pius X over liturgical issues, and hold that many in the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church no longer adhere to the Catholic faith but instead profess a new, modernist, Conciliar religion. SSPV priests regard the questions of the legitimacy of the present hierarchy and the possibility that the Holy See is unoccupied (sedevacantism) to be unresolved.[1] The SSPV is led by its founder, Bishop Clarence Kelly.

The Society is not in ecclesiastical communion with the Holy See and is independent of the worldwide Catholic Church.

But how can this be? They certainly have the Mass down. There are no "clown" Masses, no liturgical dancing, not even communion in the hand. Everything they do is completely according to Catholic Tradition. Why hasn't the proper celebration of the Mass saved them?

Society of St. Pius X

And what about the Society of St. Pius X, from which the Society of St. Pius V originated? The SSPX is not in formal schism with the Church because they still (nominally) recognize the authority of the Holy Father, but the Society is not canonically recognized because they refuse to accept the authority of the Vatican II council.  (However, with Bishop Fellay recently accusing Pope Francis of being a "modernist", the SSPX may very well be on the edge of schism with the Catholic Church.)  Their priests are not authorized to administer the sacraments, e.g. hear confessions, perform marriages or confirmations.  But certainly no one does the Mass more beautifully than the SSPX. They have it down better than anyone. Why hasn't the Mass saved them? 

Then, of course, there are thousands, maybe millions, of Traditional Catholics who still attend the Catholic Church, but seem to have no hesitation whatsoever in denouncing the Church hierarchy, i.e., the Bishops and the Holy Father, as modernists whose goal is to destroy the Catholic Church.  I had an interesting "conversation" with one such person, John Vennari, on Facebook this week.  This was from a Facebook page advertising a dinner in New York City at which Mr. Vennari spoke on December 6.  I had just posted on my blog about Mr. Vennari in which I exposed an article he wrote completely misrepresenting Pope Francis.  We went back and forth on the Facebook page, which you can read HERE, but Mr. Vennari never addressed my initial question, which was:

Mary Griffin Mr. Vennari, maybe you could explain in NYC why you completely misrepresented what Pope Francis wrote in Evangelii Gaudium.
December 1 at 4:11pm via mobile · Like ·

Vennari totally dodged my questions.  He talked about the Pope celebrating Hanukkah in 2012, he talked about the Pope "receiving a blessing" from a Protestant minister, and called these acts scandalous while at the same time telling me that he is not condemning Pope Francis.  Vennari then recommended a book published by the SSPX on the terrible state of the post Vatican II Church.   But he never addressed the misrepresentations in his article.  

Then Vennari made a statement which, coming from someone who represents himself as a loyal Catholic, I find absolutely chilling:

John Vennari And as for the Pope, it is possible for the Pope to head in the wrong direction. Juan Cardinal de Torquemada (1388-1468) the revered medieval theologian responsible for the formulation of the doctrines that were formulated at the Council of Florence.
Cardinal Torquemada, explaining that it is possible for even a Pope to err [???????], teaches: “Were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scriptures, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands he is to be disregarded. Citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, Cardinal Torquemada further teaches: “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” on these points.
December 2 at 10:26pm · Like · 1

This quote by Cardinal Torquemada is constantly made by those who rebel against the hierarchy of the Church. Yet, we have an ironclad promise from Jesus Christ that His Vicar will never lead us astray. In Matthew 16:18, it is recorded that Jesus Christ said that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church. We, as Catholics, can always rest assured that the Holy Father, no matter who he is and no matter how great a sinner he might be, will never mislead the Church in faith and morals. To rebel against the Holy Father is to rebel against the Church and against Jesus Christ.

Vennari is a great proponent of the Traditional Latin Mass.  But being a proponent of the Traditional Mass has not kept him from constant criticism and condemnation of the Holy Father and the bishops.  In fact, it seems to have fueled his actions, just as it has with the sedevacantist groups.   As shown, Vennari even goes so far as to say it is possible for the Pope to mislead us, thus justifying outright rebellion against the Vicar of Christ.   There was another person posting on the Facebook conversation I had with Vennari who accused me of pope "worship" because I defend Pope Francis.  Martin Luther would applaud this long and loudly.  Again, this was a person who strongly defends the Traditional Latin Mass and condemns the "Novus Ordo" Mass.  In fact, his name for me was a "Novus Ordo Catholic", which in the minds of Traditionalists, is a step below child molestor.

It would seem, therefore, that Father Z's assertion that "Save The Liturgy, Save The World" doesn't play out. Far too many who "save the liturgy" end up in complete rebellion against the Catholic Church and not only do not save the world, but may be in danger of losing their own soul. That is not a reflection on the Mass, which sustained the Church through almost her entire history (and which Mass I personally love). But it does say that the Mass of and by itself does not necessarily bring us into union with Christ and His Church.

So what is the answer? What is a fail-safe way of walking in step with Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church?  The answer can be found in I Samuel 15:22:  

Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.

This statement was made by the Prophet Samuel to King Saul. Saul had just captured and destroyed the Amalekites, the enemy of Israel. God had given Saul the victory and through Samuel had told him to kill all the Amalekites and destroy everything that belonged to them, including their animals. However, Saul disobeyed. From I Samuel 15:7-9:

7 Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur,near the eastern border of Egypt. 8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword. 9 But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed.

Saul thought he knew better than God. Why should all these perfectly good animals be destroyed for no apparent reason? Saul also spared the life of King Agag, which was in complete disobedience. When Samuel confronted Saul and demanded to know why he disobeyed the command of God, Saul answered:

“The soldiers brought them [the sheep] from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the Lord your God, but we totally destroyed the rest.”

What could be wrong with wanting to give sacrifice to God? Isn't that what forgave sin? Isn't that a good thing? Samuel's answer to Saul was that obedience is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams. King Saul thought he knew better than God, and even though he was liturgically correct in offering sacrifices, this was done in complete rebellion and not only did it not forgive sins, it actually caused Saul and his descendants to be cast from the throne of Israel.

Satan, our enemy, does not care how he gets us. If he can get us through immorality, he will do it. And if he can use our religious beliefs, he will, and often does, do that as well.  As can be seen in the above examples, Satan can even use the Holy Mass to destroy people.  All heresy has come from those who think they know better than the Church.  Pride is much more destructive than sins of the flesh. We have a prime example of this in the case of the Pharisees at the time of Christ. I guarantee you that they were completely 100% correct in their liturgical functions. They did everything by the book, never missing a point.  Their liturgies were no doubt a beautiful thing to behold.  But what good did it do them?

Christ's story of the Pharisee and the tax collector praying in the temple exemplifies the destructive nature of pride, especially spiritual pride.  The Pharisee  pointed to himself as being in exact conformity with the law (Luke 18:11-12):

The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

Jesus contrasts the tax collector:

“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

In the next verse, Jesus tells us:

“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

The Pope, the Vicar of Christ, is Christ's earthly authority. We may not like everything he says, and we don't have to accept anything he says that is not in regard to faith and morals. But when he sets standards in the Church and says "this is the law of the Church," we cannot question that. To do so puts us in league with King Saul and the Pharisees of Christ's time, and all heretics down through the ages. Just hanging on to the Mass will not save us. In fact, it could spiritually drown us. Yes, the Traditional Latin Mass is a beautiful thing, and it is very holy and can produce great holiness. But if we use it as a weapon against those with whom we disagree, most especially the hierarchy of the Church, Satan will use that self same Mass to destroy us.

Father Z said that "Not even death is an obstacle to the efficacy of Holy Mass." Physical death is not an obstacle to the efficacy of the Mass, but spiritual death is the greatest obstacle. And when we are not in conformity and obedience to the Magesterium of the Church, then even the beautiful Traditional Latin Mass of the Ages can be our spiritual undoing, as we have seen in far, far too many cases in the past 50 years. Many of those who comment on Father Z's blog prove the point. He has to constantly police the comments left, especially those with regard to the Pope, because they are so condemnatory of the Holy Father and the Church. These comments are left by people who love the Traditional Mass. It doesn't seem to be saving their souls.

Father Z doesn't have it quite right. Saving the Liturgy, of and by itself, will not save the world. The only thing that will save the world is obedience to Jesus Christ and His Vicar. "Save The Liturgy, Save The World"? No. "Obedience Is Better Than Sacrifice." There is no other way.

Vatican II: A Case of Selective Hearing

Songwriter Paul Simon of Simon and Garfunkel wrote a song in the 1960's called "The Boxer", which has some great lines it.  For purposes of this posting, I point out the following line:

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.  

As far as being a Catholic is concerned, this statement is never truer than when discussing the Second Vatican Council and the ramifications therefrom. Father John Zuhlsdorf recently linked to an article from almost five years ago concerning a letter from Bishop R. Walker Nickless. The article was originally posted on Lifesitenews.com and is entitled "Sioux City Bishop Calls for 'Exorcism' of  'Spirit of Vatican II'".  You can read Father Z's post here. The article refers to the 17-page letter written by Bishop Nickless in 2009. He was the then-newly appointed bishop of that diocese, and this was his first letter as bishop.

Father Z's readers saw this and read it as a bishop condemning Vatican II and all that came from it, despite the fact that this was not in any way the intention of Bishop Nickless. Here is the first part of the article as posted by Father Z (the comments in red are his):

Bp. Nickless (D. Sioux City): we must “exorcize” the “spirit of Vatican II”

Posted on 31 May 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I have mentioned Bishop Nickless of Sioux City before.

This is from LifeSite:

Sioux City Bishop Calls for “Exorcism” of “Spirit of Vatican II”

By Kathleen Gilbert

SIOUX CITY, Iowa, October 16, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Catholics must learn to “exorcise” the so-called “spirit of Vatican II” to end the secularization that has “wreaked havoc” on the Church since the Council, says Bishop R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City, Iowa. [Do I hear an "Amen!"?]

Notice that this very clearly says that the Bishop feels "the spirit of Vatican II" needs to be exorcised, which is not Vatican II itself.  Yet the comments left by readers make it very clear that they completely disregard the words of the Bishop and equate the "spirit" of Vatican II with the Council.  Even the few excerpts from the article made it clear that this was not what His Excellency was saying.  The next two paragraphs as quoted by Father Z make that very plain.   The words in bold are from Father Z's post:

In a pastoral letter issued Thursday to the lay and religious of his diocese, Nickless wrote that he has “no other desire” than to see the reforms of Vatican II implemented properly. However, he said, “It is crucial that we all grasp that the hermeneutic or interpretation of discontinuity or rupture, which many think is the settled and even official position, is not the true meaning of the Council.”

The “hermeneutic of discontinuity,” under the guise of the “spirit of Vatican II,” sees “the Second Vatican Council as a radical break with the past,” explained the bishop. However, “There can be no split … between the Church and her faith before and after the Council.”

This makes it very plain that the Bishop does not believe that Vatican II constitutes a break with the past or a "rupture" in Church teaching. He plainly says that those who teach such are teaching falsehoods. The LifesiteNews article continues, and unless the reader is careful, he can continue to read this as Bishop Nickless condemning the Vatican II council:

This “hermeneutic of discontinuity,” said Nickless, “emphasizes the ‘engagement with the world’ to the exclusion of the deposit of faith.”

“This has wreaked havoc on the Church, systematically dismantling the Catholic Faith to please the world, watering down what is distinctively Catholic, and ironically becoming completely irrelevant and impotent for the mission of the Church in the world,” he said.  “The Church that seeks simply what works or is ‘useful’ in the end becomes useless.”

It is important to note that Bishop Nickless is not condemning Vatican II as "systematically dismantling that Catholic Faith", but blames the false "hermeneutic of discontinuity." As quoted above, His Excellency believes that "There can be no split … between the Church and her faith before and after the Council."

The article was so old that the link to the Bishop's original letter was broken.  Fortunately, one of Father Z's readers provided a working link, and therefore we are able to read the Bishop's entire letter, which is here.  Other than the one reader posting a working link, none of Father's Z's readers seem to question the broken link and are presumably not interested in reading the actual letter.  Father Z originally posted about this letter in 2009, and he quoted from the letter at that time, so I don't understand why he did not correct his readers who got it so wrong, as can be seen from their comments.

Here are some of the comments to Father Z's blog:

1. Gratias says:

   31 May 2013 at 10:45 am

   The Church has been taken over by the outside world and they still are not pleased with us. V2 was a rupture and a mistake.
   
   

   
2. Bob B. says:

   31 May 2013 at 12:48 pm

   I’ll bet Fishwrap is having a fit right about now.
   
   
3. backtothefuture says:

   31 May 2013 at 2:42 pm

   We need to exorcise the whole council on the whole.
   
   
4. Catholic Johnny says:
5. 31 May 2013 at 3:59 pm

   Your Excellence, this may be a little more difficult than you think. We have an obstacle in the way of your much needed suggestion: Pope John Paul “the great”:

   “Entrusting myself fully to the Spirit of truth, therefore, I am entering into the rich inheritance of the recent pontificates. This inheritance has struck deep roots in the awareness of the Church in an utterly new way, quite unknown previously, thanks to the Second Vatican Council…”

   This, Bishop Nickless is THE ‘spirit of Vatican II’.
   Kyrie Eleison!
6. 
7. Nancy D. says:

   2 June 2013 at 10:51 am

   Vatican II is a rupture because it made the erroneous claim that the Jews and the Moslems worship the same God as we do, when the fact is, we, who are Catholic, worship The True God, The God of our Salvation, Who desires we overcome our disordered inclinations, including our disordered sexual inclinations, so that we are not led into temptation, but rather, sin no more. The Sacrifice of The Cross, Is The Sacrifice of The Holy Trinity, for “God so Loved us, that He sent His Only Son…”.

   God Is Love. Love exists in relationship. There Is only One Spirit of Love Between The Father and The Son.

I find all of these comments to be very disconcerting. Unlike Bishop Nickless, who is attacking the false "Spirit of Vatican II", these comments are attacking the Council itself. None of these readers seem to understand Bishop Nicklass' message. I won't accuse Father Z of encouraging these kind of comments, but I do question why he let these comments stand without some response or correction.

The 17-page letter from Bishop Nickless is actually a wonderful teaching tool as to the real meaning of Vatican II and why it has not borne the anticipated fruit of its founding fathers.

Would Bishop Nickless agree that "V2 was a rupture and a mistake"? Hardly. This is what he wrote in his letter:

I studied and was ordained a deacon and priest during the exciting, almost intoxicating, time of the Second Vatican Council. I am thoroughly a product of that momentous time, the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church in centuries. It has formed the context and culture of my entire ministerial life. Like Pope John Paul the Great, I have no other desire for my ministry than seeing the hopes and reforms of the Second Vatican Council fully implemented and brought to fruition.

Portions of this excerpt were included in the Lifesite news article, but Father Z did not use these quotes. If he had used these quotes, would Father Z's readers still make such comments as: "Wow, what a great Bishop!" or "Please, dear papal nuncio, Cardinal Ouellet and Pope Francis, we need a few more bishops like this guy!"  Something tells me that their sentiments would be very different if they realized that this is how His Excellency actually views Vatican II.  

As can also be seen from the above quote, Bishop Nickless has great admiration and respect for Blessed John Paul II (who was not a Blessed at the time this letter was written), even calling him "Pope John Paul the Great."  Unlike "Catholic Johnny" above, Bishop Nickless sees Blessed John Paul as anything but an "obstacle."

Bishop Nickless quoted from Blessed John XXIII's opening sermon at the Council:

In opening the Council, Blessed John stated that the “greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council” was twofold: “that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be [both] guarded and taught more efficaciously.” Later in the speech, he elaborated on this: “The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.” The teachings of the Church, our identity and culture as Catholics, must be loved and guarded, yet brought forth and taught in a way understandable to the modern world. 

Bishop Nickless goes on to explain how this is what the "New Evangelization" is all about.  The substance of the Church's teaching is not new, but the way in which it is presented to a changing world is new.  This is the heart and soul of the meaning of Vatican II, and this was the driving force of the pontificate of Blessed John Paul II:

Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul the Great constantly preached the same thing in calling for a “New Evangelization” of the faithful, our separated brothers and sisters in Christ, and all those who do not know Jesus Christ or the Church. This New Evangelization was to be “new not in content but in ardor, methods, and expression.”  It is readily apparent from his teaching and ministry that for Pope John Paul the Great, the New Evangelization was the true fruit of the Second Vatican Council. Indeed, the Council was the beginning and blueprint for evangelization in the modern world. He explicitly stated this as his particular mission at the time of his election, and he lived it to the end.  He spent his entire pontificate interpreting and implementing the Council’s documents according to the light of the Holy Spirit, given in virtue of his office, amid the changing circumstances of the Church and the world.

Bishop Nickless readily admits that something has gone terribly wrong since Vatican II.   He quotes from Pope Benedict XVI:

The question arises: Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult? Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or—as we would say today—on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarreled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.

Bishop Nickless is telling us that the false "hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture" has been the root of the crisis in the Church and has presented a false interpretation of Vatican II:

On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call “a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture,” it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the “hermeneutic of reform,” of renewal in the continuity of the one subject – Church – which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God. The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the postconciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council.

Bishop Nickless quotes extensively from Pope Benedict XVI and says:

the “spirit of Vatican II” must be found only in the letter of the documents themselves. The so-called “spirit” of the Council has no authoritative interpretation. It is a ghost or demon that must be exorcised if we are to proceed with the Lord’s work.

Coincidentally, Michael Voris just released a Vortex video, which you can watch here, regarding comments made by Cardinal Walter Kaspar who has suddenly come to the conclusion that the Vatican II documents were purposely made ambiguous as a result of "compromise forumlas" which "open the door to a selective reception in either direction."  Michael Voris finds this "admission" by Cardinal Kaspar to be "stunning, absolutely stunning" . . . "that the (Vatican II) documents were deliberately written in such a way to please everyone and cause confusion and conflict."  Hmmmm.  That is not what Bishop Nickless of Sioux City, Iowa said, nor is it what Pope Benedict XVI has said, or even our current Holy Father, Pope Francis, who called the Council "a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit" in a homily on April 16 of this year (you can read an article about this homily here).

Quote from Cardinal Kaspar

Michael Voris, to bolster his position, goes on to quote from Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan. From the Vortex video:

About two years ago – a very well respected bishop .. Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan was addressing a large group of bishops and cardinals in Rome. He suggested that the time has come for a Syllabus of Errors to be published by the Holy Father clearing up the misinterpretations of the documents of the Second Vatican Council which have become so rampant.

Bishop Schneider

You can read the address by Bishop Schneider here.  You will see that he quotes extensively from Vatican II documents and in a very positive light.  Bishop Schneider give us basically the same argument as that of Bishop Nickless:  Vatican II has been grossly misinterpreted, and that has been the cause of the crisis in the Church.  Bishop Schneider has only praise for the true intentions of Vatican II, as can be seen in the following quotes:

According to an expression of Blessed Pope John XXIII in the speech given at the final general congregation of the first session of the Council, December 7, 1962, the one purpose of the Council and the one hope and confidence of the Pope and the Council Fathers consists in this: “To make ever more known to the men of our time the Gospel of Christ, that it be practiced willingly and that it penetrate deeply into every aspect of society.” (loc. cit., pp. 881-882). Can there be a more authentic and more Catholic pastoral principle and method than this?

Bishop Schneider explains what he feels are the reasons we have not seen greater fruit from Vatican II:

In substance, there were two impediments against the true intention of the Council and its Magisterium bearing abundant and lasting fruits. One was found outside the Church, in the violent process of cultural and social revolution in the 1960s, which, like every powerful social phenomenon, penetrated within the Church, contaminating vast ranges of people and institutions with its spirit of rupture. The other impediment showed itself in the lack of wise and intrepid Pastors of the Church who would be ready to defend the purity and integrity of the faith and of the liturgical and pastoral life, not letting themselves be influenced either by praise or by fear (“nec laudibus, nec timore”).

Bishop Schneider sums up his position on Vatican II in his final statement:

Thus there truly is the need for a conciliar Syllabus with doctrinal value, and moreover there is need to increase the number of holy, courageous pastors, profoundly rooted in the tradition of the Church, free from any type of mentality of rupture whether in the field of doctrine or of liturgy. In fact, these two elements constitute the indispensable condition so that doctrinal, liturgical, and pastoral confusion may diminish notably and the pastoral work of the Second Vatican Council may bear many and lasting fruits in the spirit of tradition, which joins us with the spirit that reigns at all times, everywhere, and in all true children of the Catholic Church, which is the one and the true Church of God on the earth.

I have shown in previous posts that Michael Voris tends to make very misleading statements, but I think he has outdone himself this time when he invokes Bishop Schneider to back up his argument that Vatican II has been the source of the crisis in the Church.  Bishop Schneider would be the first disagree with Voris.

Interestingly, Father Z posted in regard to the Vortex video about the Vatican II documents.  Father Z starts out his post by writing, "I will remind the readership that in the greater arc of the Church’s history, Vatican II wasn’t all that important."  He writes further, "Vatican II has taken on a kind of mythic importance in the identity of many Catholics of a certain age."  These statements would seem to indicate that Father Z is not in step in his view of Vatican II with Bishop Nickless, whom he had praised just a few days prior, or with any of our recent Popes, including Pope Francis, or with Bishop Schneider, to name just a few good and holy men of the Church, all of whom defend Vatican II and place great importance on it.

Father Z offers his take on Vatican II: "During Vatican II, after many of the working drafts and schemata were junked, committees and subcommittees, working under pressure and time constraints, cobbled the documents together.  Is it any wonder that the documents have some problems?"  I guess Father Z doesn't give much importance to the influence of the Holy Spirit.

So Father Z agrees with Voris that there are problems with the documents in Vatican II.  Again, he would not seem to be in step with any of the post-conciliar Popes or with Bishop R. Walker Nickless or with Bishop Athanasius Schneider.  It should be noted that in January 2011, Father Z praised Bishop Schneider and even did a podcast on the aforementioned speech, which can be found here.  Yet, Father Z's statements in this last post would seem to be at odds with those of Bishop Schneider.  It all gets quite confusing.

Again, the comments to Father Z's post are more enlightening than the actual post.  The following comment is typical of many that were posted, and to which Father Z made no response:

Johnno says:

4 June 2013 at 3:43 pm

There’s a false equivalence here between Vatican II and previous councils.

Previous Councils sought to clarify and nail down certain things and reduce ambguity as much as possible.

Vatican II’s purpose, according to the testimony of those who were involved, seemed primarily set on the objective to purposely further ambiguity and water down the Catholic faith so as to somehow trick Protestants and the world into imagining that they could find common ground with us and therefore join in… An idea so ill-conceivably and amazingly stupid that it makes far more sense to reach the conclusion that the architects of Vatican II didn’t seek to clarify Catholicism or explain ambguities and answer divisive topics like other councils, but rather to destroy tenets of the Catholic Church itself so that it would join the modern world in all its glorious progress.

Regardless of however you want to see it, Vatican II’s supposed goals were never met and are colossal failures, and the only reason we continue to try and find some light in its darkness is to avoid responsibility for it. That and stubborn pride. Whatever good we do salvage from it is likely God making lemonade from the lemons we fostered upon His Church.

The bottom line is this:  All of the Holy Fathers in the last half of the 20th Century and into the 21st Century have told us that Vatican II was an important council and a good and holy council.  The purpose of this council was to aid in spreading the saving message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a changing world.  Many have tried to hijack this council and make it into something it was never meant to be:  a reform of the Church.  If we try to belittle the council or worse, condemn it, we have fallen into the trap of Satan himself.  

Pope Francis

Dr. Jeff Mirus of Catholicculture.org wrote a brilliant post in regard to the previously mentioned April 16 address by Pope Francis in which he said that the Council "is a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit."  From Dr. Mirus:

Just as the Modernists ignore the Magisterium as a relic of the past, replacing it with the spirit of the current age, the Traditionalists ignore the contemporary Magisterium, replacing it with the spirit of some previous age. But please note that these descriptions are not perfect, and that one can have a fairly liberal or a fairly conservative outlook without really crossing the line into either camp. If we agree that the actual Conciliar texts are a great gift of the Holy Spirit for authentic Catholic renewal, it is safe to say we are in neither group. But in any case, the Pope rebukes both groups, insisting that the Council was a wholly legitimate and continuous growth or development of the Church, which everyone is bound to accept and act upon:

Everybody seems happy about the presence of the Holy Spirit but it’s not really the case and there is still that temptation to resist it…. The Council was a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit…. But after 50 years, have we done everything that the Holy Spirit said to us in the Council? In the continuity of the growth of the Church which was the Council?

Pope Francis, in other words, has the same view of the Council as his predecessors, which is really the only properly Catholic view. The same points were made by Paul VI; and by John Paul II; and by Benedict XVI. Every pope since the Council has insisted upon its faithful implementation. And yet too many of us still find ourselves either in one camp or the other, or else we are all too willing to accept things as they are, and to make a comfortable ecclesiastical place for ourselves in the status quo. Indeed, how many churchmen themselves fall into this more universal third category?

We need to turn off all of the chaos and clamor around us and even our own deceptive voices and open our minds and hearts to the Holy Spirit, allowing Him to guide us into all truth.

Credit:  thesestonewalls.com