Happiness over Tradition?

I am posting this here because it instructive of our current situation. So-called "progressives" are the evolutionists among us, who hold that anything old (tradition) is bad, and that everything new (latest manifestation of natural selection or Hegel's synthesis) is good, and must be preferred over the 'old.' Here, Coca Cola is juxtaposing tradition and happiness, to say that it is better to be perverted and happy (something yet to be proven possible) than to keep traditional morality. Coke dares to feature the loser in this ad's false dichotomy as the prize - the little child, the ultimate target of indoctrination in the new hedonism.
This is what we are up against, and if you consider yourself an evolutionist, you are part of the problem. This is why Evolutionism is condemned so forcefully by St. Pius X in Pascendi Gregis: it swallows all of reality and introduces the evolution of dogma, here prefigured by the suggestion of the evolution of morals by Coca Cola. So tradition is the enemy for our progressive friends, because it stands in the way of "happiness" for the new Epicureans, and anyone who defends it is defending what 'nature' has already rejected in its perpetual dialectic.
We feel this acutely in the Church where Tradition is openly despised in favor the "New Pentecost" of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae preferred to the old stodgy missal of St. Pius V. Perhaps this is why Pope Francis can now openly refer to the false prophet of Evolution Teilhard de Chardin in his encyclical Laudato Si: he wants us to be happy.

Rambling Thoughts on the Role of Philosophy Since Vatican II and its Impact on Religion

 
    For most Catholics, the theology and message of Pope John Paul II is shrouded in a sort of cloudy, opaque ambiguity. Even theologians struggle to extract a plain, clear meaning from his encyclicals and locutions. This itself can be a cause for concern. The duty of a bishop is to present the Gospel to the faithful in clear, firm and unambiguous terms, passing on faithfully what he has received.

    Existentialist philosophy cannot be an ally in the discharge of that duty. The calculus of the partisans of the Nouvelle Theologie was that 'modern man' could not accept the Gospel as presented in Thomistic terms (Scholastic philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas) because they are too 'fixed, firm, and static '. Therefore, the Gospel needed to be communicated to 'modern man' with malleable, dynamic terminology that 'modern man' would deem acceptable. Vatican II teaches this openly:

"Thus, the human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic, evolutionary one. In consequence there has arisen a new series of problems, a series as numerous as can be, calling for efforts of analysis and synthesis." 
(Gaudium et Spes  #5)

    Now, the New Theology claims that it has not changed the contents of the Deposit of Faith at all. It has merely changed the way dogmas are explained philosophically. Existentialism is a philosophy that sees that the only reliable 'truth' is that we exist and that this existence (based on experience) is absurd, bereft of meaning unless man gives meaning to it. To go further, personalism holds that existence is only understood from the perspective of personhood - what the New Theologians called an anthropocentric (man-centered) philosophy. Personalism holds that man must determine what is real or true by his own subjective judgment or experience.  The Second Vatican Council invokes a personalistic idea known as the mystery of man, a phrase to be found nowhere in tradition as tradition is firmly theocentric (God-centered). Therefore, existentialist philosophy plus personalism equals the imprecise, ambiguous "pastoral language" of the council and the conciliar Popes.

    Because existential personalism holds that man can only know truth by his experience, it requires that this truth does not come to man from outside himself, viz, by external revelation, but from within. This error is known as immanentism. Immanentism teaches that there is nothing that is in man that does not come from man. Of course, this error rejects the possibility of objective truth and external revelation. It argues that all men have the truth within, and the truth within resonates with others through 'consciousness.' This is condemned in the strongest, clearest terms by Pope St. Pius X in his 1907 encyclical Pascendi gregis. In layman's terms, it means that truth goes from the heart to the head, while tradition teaches that truth goes from the head to the heart. When properly understood, these two opinions are seen as polar opposites, completely at variance with one another. Immanentism is a key component of Modernism, the synthesis of all heresies.

  Teilhard de Chardin taught that all the universe is evolving towards a mythical 'Omega Point' which he imagined as a sort of Cosmic Christ, where God and the creation become one. This is condemned in Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani generis as pantheism (nature is God) and monism (God and His creatures are of the same substance). Teilhard was a hero to many because he seemed to 'rescue' Catholicism from its apparent inability to adapt to the new 'truth' of evolution. He syncretized Catholicism and evolutionism by subordinating the Deposit of Faith to a scientific theory. This is also condemned in Pascendi, and Teilhard's teacher, George Tyrell, S.J., was excommunicated by Pope St. Pius X for teaching it. Pius XII suppressed Teilhard by not permitting him to teach theology or philosophy nor to publish any of his speculations. As soon as Pius XII died, theologians that were suppressed under his Pontificate for their sympathy with Teilhard's views were not only rehabilitated, but some were appointed to the Second Vatican Council as periti, theological experts. Among these was Fr. Henri DeLubac, S.J., a vigorous defender of Teilhard. At the time of the council, Bishop Karol Wojtyla credited DeLubac with shaping a great deal of his theological outlook.

Fr. Teilhard de Chardin, S.J. subjugated the
Catholic Faith to the theory of evolution.

    Whether the Popes personally believed this way or not is a topic for another discussion. What is evident is that they believed it necessary to present the Gospel in ways that men who DO believe this way will find reasonable. Let me repeat that: What is evident is that they believed it necessary to present the Gospel in ways that men who DO believe this way will find reasonable.
This is why the strong, clear Thomistic language disappears from Papal encyclicals beginning with John XXIII. Modern man, who believes in an 'evolutionary explanation of reality' (GS 5) needs to hear the Gospel in a way he will find acceptable to his enlightened, modern, scientific way of reasoning. Hence, you have the council teaching this way:

"by his incarnation, Christ has in some fashion united himself to every man" (GS 22).

What does this mean?

Pope John Paul II teaches in Redemptor hominis,

"...by the Son, his Word, who became man and was born of the Virgin Mary. This act of redemption marked the high point of the history of man within God's loving plan. God entered the history of humanity and, as a man, became an actor in that history..."

    Clearly here he calls the incarnation the efficient cause of the redemption.

    It plainly points to the incarnation and not the passion as the source of being united with Christ. For it does not say that by his passion, death and resurrection, Christ has united himself with those who believe, repent and are baptized, but that by becoming man, Christ has "in some fashion" united himself with each man. This is existentialist - viz, Christ joined himself to his creation and therefore changed the existence of humanity itself, profoundly affecting each and every man to whom he is now "in some fashion" united.

    But what does this really mean? It appears to teach immanentism, that by his incarnation (again, not by the cross, but the birth of Christ), that the divinity is already joined to man by virtue of his existence. Man has divinity 'within', it only needs to be aroused by consciousness. His consciousness is awakened to his true dignity (the mystery of man) as already being united to Christ by the church's witness. The church witnesses to every man by dialogue, not preaching. Dialogue requires a universal ecumenism, which is modeled at the Assisi Prayer meetings. Hence, John Paul II could write in Redemptor hominis,

"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..."

    The mystery of man idea was probably the conception of Fr. Henri DeLubac, S.J., who for his  book Surnaturel was forbidden to teach by the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII. The theory as proffered in GS and the encyclical Redemptor hominis (1979) advances thusly: Christ reveals the Father to man. In so doing, he reveals man to man himself. Man is called to divinity, and therefore is destined to it by his Creator. Therefore, man is already divinized, but does not realize it without Christ.

    The difficulty with this doctrine should be evident. What complicates its already questionable line of reasoning is the way the council conflates the church with humanity. It does this by a confusing reference to 'man' as opposed to men or more specifically, Christians when speaking abstractly. In other words, 'man is called to divinity.' This is then applied in a more concrete way as to appear to teach that all men are saved. The council and the conciliar Popes (especially John Paul II) utilize this abstract, philosophical way of reasoning to great effect. Repeated so often it then appears to be a Catholic dogma that the 'People of God' encompasses the entire human race. Lumen gentium advances this idea when it refers to the church as the "sacrament of salvation to the whole human race." What is a sacrament? A sacrament is a tangible, physical sign of a spiritual operation performed by Christ. So, the church is mediating this sacramental action for the whole human race. LG is not clear as to whether this is potential or actual. I believe that these ambiguities were intentionally calculated to make both an orthodox or a Modernist interpretation possible.

    This idea is famously explained by Fr. Karl Rahner's doctrine of 'anonymous Christians.' Rahner taught that by the mystery of man, many were really Christians but did not know it because they were born in non-Christian societies or lacked opportunity to hear the Gospel. This is extending the theory of Baptism of Desire to extravagant lengths. Is this what Pope John Paul II refers to three times in RH as "the truth about man"?  It completely agrees with the Modernist idea that all men have divinity within them, and that it merely needs to be stirred or awakened in their consciousness. One can easily see how the preaching of the cross (most specifically in the Mass of St. Pius V) would be an obstacle to dialogue and ecumenism so necessary to awakening consciousness in men who are already united to Christ but do not realize it. Therefore a new liturgy was necessary to mitigate the preaching of the cross and to focus on ecumenical themes.

    And that is the source of my problems with Vatican II and in particular, the teaching of Pope John Paul II. St. Paul teaches that the Word of the cross is the power of God unto salvation (1 Cor. 1:18). Men are saved by hearing the preaching of the cross. It comes to them from without. It is external to the hearer. St. Paul teaches that for this reason, preachers are sent (Romans 10). For what cause? To preach Jesus Christ, and him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2). Rather than awaken something already within men, God gives supernatural grace to the one that believes the message of the cross and enlivens a soul that was previously dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1).

    The council seems to want to avoid the offense of the cross. This may be argued from Pope John's opening address which eschews condemnations and rebuking of errors for 'the medicine of mercy.' Modern man is offended by the message of Christ crucified for sins. This is known in theology as the scandal of the cross. As St. Paul teaches,

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.  For the word of the cross, to them indeed that perish, is foolishness; but to them that are saved, that is, to us, it is the power of God.  For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the prudence of the prudent I will reject. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world, by wisdom, knew not God, it pleased God, by the foolishness of our preaching, to save them that believe.  For both the Jews require signs, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:  But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness:  But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." 
(1 Cor 1:17-25)

    John Paul II saw in framing the doctrines of church in Modern philosophical terms a deeper penetration of the mystery of Christ:

"...The opening made by the Second Vatican Council has enabled the Church and all Christians to reach a more complete awareness of the mystery of Christ, "the mystery hidden for ages" in God, to be revealed in time in the Man Jesus Christ, and to be revealed continually in every time." (RH)

    And how are we to understand this more complete awareness?

"...Accordingly, what is in question here is man in all his truth, in his full magnitude. We are not dealing with the "abstract" man, but the real, "concrete", "historical" man. We are dealing with "each" man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself for ever through this mystery.

...this is "each" man, "the most concrete" man, "the most real"; this is man in all the fullness of the mystery in which he has become a sharer in Jesus Christ, the mystery in which each one of the four thousand million human beings living on our planet has become a sharer from the moment he is conceived beneath the heart of his mother." (RH)

    What are we to make of this "utterly new way" of seeing the church, this "more complete awareness of the mystery of Christ"? Perhaps the Pope himself has provided us with the hermeneutical key:

"Assisi Prayer is a "visible illustration, an exegesis of the events, a catechesis, intelligible to all, of what is presupposed and signified by the commitment to ecumenism and to the interreligious dialogue which was recommended and provided by the Second Vatican Council."

(Christmas address of the Pope to the Cardinals and members of the Curia on 22 December, 1986, L'Osservatore Romano, 5 January 1987, page 7)

"Look at Assisi in the light of the Council!"

(Papal address in the General Audience of 22 October, 1986)

Full and Active Participation?

"The Holy Mass is a prayer itself, even the highest prayer that exists. Is is the

Sacrifice dedicated by our Redeemer at the Cross, and repeated every day on the

Altar. If you wish to hear the Mass as it should be heard, you must follow with eye,

heart, and mouth all that happens at the Altar. Further, you must pray with the priest

the holy words said by him in the Name of Christ and which Christ says by him. You

have to associate your heart with the holy feelings which are contained in these

words and in this manner you ought to follow all that happens on the Altar. When

acting in this way, you have prayed Holy Mass. Don't pray at Mass, but pray the

Mass." - Pope St. Pius X

+

    Sacrosanctum concillium, the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy from Vatican II urges "in the reform and restoration of the sacred liturgy, the full and active participation of all the people is to be considered before all else..." (CSL 14)

[Edit. note: the original Latin translation renders the phrase "actual participation," and not "active participation," (participatio actuosa)]

    Apologists for the liturgical revolution occurring in the Church since the Council and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae (Mass of Pope Paul VI) are fond of citing Pope St. Pius X who first used the phrase "full and active participation" early in the 20th century. They do this as a way of justifying almost any innovation conceivable as if it proceeded from that great champion of orthodoxy. What is beyond any shadow of a doubt for those conversant with the magisterium of this incorruptible Saint is that Pope Pius X could never have envisioned the noisy, activist, ecumenical, vernacular-only, anthropocentric caricature that the Novus Ordo has been established as in the so-called "ordinary form" of the liturgy.

It all boils down to two verbs defining what it is we do at Mass.

    In the Mass of All Ages, the form of the liturgy handed down from antiquity (at least as early as the 6th century) the verb used to describe the action of the Catholic at Mass is assist. This is what Pope Pius X is teaching in the quote at the top of the page. Assist at what? Assist in the offering of the propitiatory sacrifice offered by the priest in persona Christi - in the person of Christ - the unbloody immolation of the Divine Victim on the altar offered to God. We assist the priest as he re-presents the passion of the Lord Jesus Christ at Calvary, as he offers to the Father the transubstantiated accidents of bread and wine as the body and blood of the Redeemer for the sins of the living and the dead. What then is Catholic worship? Pope Pius XII defined it for us in the encyclical Mediator Dei as the perfect worship the Son offers to the Father. To assist in this offering, this sacrifice, to offer and unite one's self, one's sufferings, one's prayer and spiritual sacrifices to this Holy and Blameless Victim immolated on the altar is the worship the Catholic offers in the Mass of St. Pius V.

    But outside a tiny group of so-called "Traditionalists", who uses this verb anymore?  What do modern Catholics say they do in a Novus Ordo Mass?  Most say they attend Mass.

    For 14 years I "attended" the Novus Ordo Mass never knowing what the mass truly was supposed to be or what I was supposed to be doing in it. Attending indicates the very opposite of "full and active participation" according to the definition given by Pope St. Pius X. It is passive. It is watching, observing, being entertained. Now after all the innovations, creativity, ad libbing, injection of popular music, hand shakes, lay people lectoring, distributing holy communion, "altar girls", "prayers of the faithful" ejaculated from the congregation, applause, Father's "jokes", guest musicians, lay evangelists, etc..., wouldn't it seem a bit ironic if all this frenetic activity actually failed to meet the Vatican II Fathers' intent of "full and active participation"?

Let's look at what is being offered.

    In the Missal of Pope St. Pius V, there is offered a "pure Victim +, a holy Victim +, a spotless Victim +" on the altar where the priest and people are directionally oriented together towards the tabernacle, the main altar crucifix, and the ceiling of the chancel or sanctuary symbolizing heaven.  In the Missal of Pope Paul VI the priest offers "bread... and wine... the work of human hands..."  While the language of transubstantiation is present, albeit in a veiled, tempered manner, what is not clear is whether this is an offering of bread and wine or of the immolated Victim. Unless the priest prays the rarely offered Roman Canon (also known as Eucharistic Prayer I) there is little to identify the offering as the sacrifice of the Son to the Father. This is further confused by the priest's orientation towards the people which seems to symbolically indicate that the offering is being made to the people rather than for them. [An alternate explanation might be the liturgical action of facing the people (ad populum) emphasizes the offering being made to God present within the gathered community - the error of so-called "assembly theology."]

    The complete loss of reverence adds to this confusion. In the Mass of All Ages, only a priest or deacon may handle the Sacred Species. The faithful receive kneeling and on the tongue behind an altar rail separating the chancel from the nave, careful not to handle the Host as this privilege belongs only to the consecrated. Further, women and girls must veil according to the Apostolic requirements set out in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 11). In the Novus Ordo Mass, laity swarm the chancel and flutter around the altar, handling not only the ciborium and chalice, but the Sacred Species. The tabernacle usually resides in a side room and the ciborium containing the Sacred Species is transported in and out by a layman. The faithful receive standing, in the hand, without veils, and usually to the accompaniment of hymns that sound like pop music.

Priest distributing communion at a Mass offered by Pope Francis, 8 July 2013 on the tiny Sicilian island of Lampedusa .

    Back to our verbs assist and attend. Even if the faithful were carefully instructed that the Catholic assists in the sacrifice offered at a Novus Ordo Mass, what would they actually find to assist with/at? In the incessant noise, motion, speaking, praying aloud, singing, shaking hands, chatting, applauding the musicians, engaging the priest in 'dialogue', does all this activity add up to full and active participation in the offering of the Divine Victim immolated on the sacred altar?

    In Israel the worshiper brought his sacrifice to the priest and added his prayers to the priest's actions of immolating the lamb, goat or bullock on the altar. Afterwards a portion of the sacrifice was given to the worshiper who was required to cook and eat it with his family. They partook of what they offered through the priest on the holy altar in Jerusalem. They didn't "do the work" of the sacrifice but joined their intentions to the sacrificing priest who offered the victim on their behalf. The Epistle to the Hebrews explains that the mediatorial actions of the Old Covenant priests is a picture of our great High Priest in heaven, Jesus Christ.

    Full and active participation is primarily an interior disposition. Pope St. Pius X tells us, "Don't  pray at Mass, but pray the Mass." Listen carefully to his words: pray the Mass. Assist in the sacrifice. If you merely attend and pray, you have prayed at Mass. This is not full and active participation. We must follow the example of our Blessed Mother who assisted at the first Mass at the cross with her Divine Son, sharing in his sacrifice as a sword pierced her own soul. This is praying the Mass. The Mass is the sacrifice of Calvary. It is the mystery of our Blessed Lord's priesthood. It is the perfect worship that the Son offers to the Father. No amount of incessant activity, audience participation, 'dialogue with our presider', or hands-on-liturgical busy-ness can attain to this goal. Would one really behave this way at Golgotha on that dreadful Good Friday long ago?

    Let us with caution indulge the idea that the "two forms" of the Mass are "equal." There is assisting at the sacrifice, and there is attending Mass. Let us endeavor to obey the words of Pope St. Pius X and truly pray the Mass with "full and active particpation."