Jesus Christ victorious, with symbols of His Passion

An Epilogue
for the Sacred Triduum

Fourth Sunday of April 2011:
Easter Sunday

See What it is to Love!

The Epilogue of the Passion Play given at St. Mary’s in April 2011

You’ve witnessed more than just a play.
These lessons must be lived each day.
The grace is there for you to take,
Heed, then, this call; from sleep awake!

You’ve seen the love of God for men.
Do not forsake Him even when
Pressed by temptation ever-strong,
You are inclined to do Him wrong.
For in the end there is no gain;
The fruit of sin is dread and pain.

The cross upon your shoulders bear;
Ensure this is our daily care.
For though this word is hard to hear,
Much harder still and filled with fear
Is that last word which God will make,
“Depart into the fiery lake!”

Contrariwise, it will be grand,
To find ourselves at God’s right hand;
With all the Saints and angels, too,
And enter into mansions new.
With sin no more shall we contend,
For Jesus’ reign shall never end.

Amen! So may we hope; so may it be!

Beatification and Continuity

Third Sunday of April 2011:
Palm Sunday

On the eve of the beatification of John Paul II, there is no lack of reservations and critiques, as we see in the book by Professor Heinz-Lothar Barth in Germany and the report in the American magazine The Remnant.

This beatification raises the question about a pontificate that publicly took the Second Vatican Council as its compass: the interreligious meetings in Assisi, kissing the Koran, the invocation, “may St. John the Baptist protect Islam,” participating in pagan worship in a “sacred forest” in Togo, bestowing the pectoral cross on two Anglican “bishops”…, is all that in line with the direction set by Vatican II? And if so, where is the continuity between that Council and all the ones that preceded it?

One understands, then, the logical reasoning of Msgr. Brunero Gherardini, in his final book, Concilio Vaticano II: Il discorso mancato [The Ecumenical Vatican Council II: a failed discussion], the sequel to his Concilio Vaticano II: Un discorso da fare [English edition: The Ecumenical Vatican Council II: A much-needed discussion]. The emeritus professor of the Pontifical Lateran University and editor-in-chief of the Thomist journal Divinitas writes:

If one wishes to continue blaming the post-conciliar period alone, one may indeed do so, because in fact it is not at all blameless. But we should also keep in mind that it is the natural child of the Council, and has drawn from the Council those principles upon which, by exaggerating them, it has then based its most devastating developments.

But as Msgr. Gherardini observes, the dominating factor at the highest levels of the Church is a blind admiration for the Council, which “clips the wings of critical analysis” and “prevents one from looking at Vatican II with a more penetrating, less dazzled eye.” And those mainly responsible for this uncritical admiration are the popes of the conciliar and post-conciliar period, from John XXIII and Paul VI to John Paul II. As for Benedict XVI, “until now he has not yet corrected even one period or one comma of that ‘vulgate’ edition which was favored by his predecessors.” Although “like few others within the Catholic hierarchy he has truly thundered against the distortions of the post-conciliar era, he has never ceased either to sing the praises of the Council or to affirm its continuity with all of the previous Magisterium.”  Fr. Alain Lorans [DICI source]

Come!
See what it is to love!

Second Sunday of April 2011:
Passion Sunday

As our minds focus on the mysteries of Holy Week, the SSPX’s chapels are gearing up to commemorate the great Passion—perhaps St. Mary’s more than others. There a large cast of 90 persons is offering a play on the last 24 hours of Our Lord—Come, see what it is to love!—starring the Grazianos (brother and sister attending the college) from Charlotte, North Carolina; a magnificent play in many ways.

In the same vein, What Jesus Saw from the Cross by Fr. Sertillanges is an uplifting book for Lent. In the chapter dealing with the passersby, the author explains that Jesus was also a passerby, as are all of us in our earthly pilgrimage during our way of the Cross. This gripping work elaborates on the different types of people met by Our Lord on the Via Dolorosa.

First, Christ saw His friends and those whom He loved: the Mother of God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, would have been there; as would have been the Disciple whom Christ loved, the young St. John; and St. Mary Magdalene, the erstwhile whore who was reformed by her love for Our Lord. Others showed compassion, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, both members of the Sanhedrin. Many realized there was something strange about this Man: “He is not a thief, like those He is accompanying.”

Some were the avowed enemies of Christ. There was the evil Caiaphas, the ringleader of the plot to kill Christ. The youngest high priest to ever serve the Temple in Jerusalem, Caiaphas was by then an old man. For all his cleverness, he could not recognise the truth—not even when Truth personified was standing right in front of him. Other members of the haughty, hair-splitting Sanhedrin were also there. This was the second group.

But the vast majority of people, nunc pro tunc (now for then: i.e., as it is today), were indifferent to Our Lord and His pain and suffering. This was by far the majority, who rubbed shoulders with Our Lord (like us) without acknowledging that God was near them: “Ibis ad crucem—You will go to the cross.” “Too bad for him. Death is on my face. Life goes on!” Jesus had been judged and condemned to death. They couldn’t care less. They were in a state like that of many souls in the world today. They would betray God, His laws and their own nations. In cities of the Orient, the street was the physical and spiritual refuse of town. Life and death were cheap money in those ancient cities.

Our Lady and St. John must have accompanied Jesus at least part of the Way of the Cross. Simon of Cyrene, for helping Our Lord to bear His Cross at least part of the way obtained for himself an unfathomable measure of sanctifying grace and Heaven itself. Here is our lesson: Our Lord is saving the world, and we need to be on His side—totally.

Cardinal Newman and Fr. Calmel on the Pope

First Sunday of April 2011:
Fourth (Laetare) Sunday of Lent

Cardinal Newman was initially reluctant about the doctrinal proclamation of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council. His fear was that it would be defined in such broad terms as to turn the power of the Pope into a quasi-tyrannical power without limits, whether his pronouncements were doctrinal or personal. He was greatly relieved when the conciliar definition came with such precision as to leave room for error, as had been manifest in the history of the popes (e.g., Liberius and Honorius).

Newman had other interesting reasons for the limitations of the dogma of papal infallibility. In normal circumstances, the belief and piety of the faithful encompasses a larger amount of doctrinal matter than what has been properly defined as dogma by the Church. Thus, the Faith is bigger than is imperative on each Catholic conscience. He gave another interesting reason: if the Church made a clear distinction between revealed doctrine and doctrine which was not revealed, She would be misrepresenting Her role and Her proper function. Indeed, She would be considered a thing of the past, a mere oracle relaying a list and not what She is: the perpetual organ of revelation. Our act of faith should say: “I believe in whatever God has revealed and presented through the organ of the Catholic Church, whether explicit or implicit.”

On the theme of the Pope and his privileges, here is a piece of sound advice given by a French priest before the crisis in the Church (during the 1950’s). Fr. Calmel (O.P.) was the spiritual father of the Dominican Sisters of Fanjeaux, who have two foundations in America. He would not fall into the trap of “papalotria”—adoration of the Pope—although he knew Pius XI and Pius XII. Even the authority of St. Pius X could not tear him from a certain skepticism regarding the Pope. St. Pius X had said that “there could be no sanctity where there was disagreement with the Pope.” Fr. Calmel energetically opposed such a proposition. Although he had a great veneration for St. Pius X, he believed that that statement was a private opinion which was incorrect. The history of the Church shows us canonized saints who dissented with Popes who were not canonized.

Although he wrote these words during the time of Pius XII, the following decades and subsequent events would show us more clearly the sound advice of Fr. Calmel.

< click to read May 2011 letters

click to read March 2011 letters >