Hall of Honour (8): Rodolfo Vargas Rubio (1958 - 2025)

Rodolfo Vargas Rubio was born in Lima, Peru on 23rd November 1958 from Spanish parents. He had both Peruvian and Spanish nationality. His elementary and secondary schools were with the Jesuits in Lima. He studied Law at the Peruvian University of San Marcos, Philosophy at the Seminary of Cuenca (Spain), Theology at the Angelicum of Rome and History at the UNED (Spain). In 2005, Rodolfo Vargas Rubio wrote a biography of Pope Benedict XVI, published in Spain. He had the unique privilege of presenting a copy of this book ¿El último Papa? Benedicto XVI y su tiempo : perfil biográfico del Papa Ratzinger to His Holiness.

Vargas Rubio was a founder member and chairman of the Consociatio Culturalis Roma Aeterna, that joined the FIUV in 1997. He was also a founder member and chairman of the Sodalitium Internationalis Pastor Angelicus (SIPA), a lay association active from 1998 to contribute to the cause of beatification and canonization of the Venerable Pope Pius XII. Vargas Rubio spoke fluently Spanish, English, French, Italian and Catalan and knew Latin. He was also a knight of the Constantinian Order of Saint George and of the Royal Order of Saint Michael of the Wing (Portugal).

Rodolfo Vargas Rubio entered into the FIUV Council in 2007 and was elected Secretary of the Board in the same year and in 2009. During this time, he supported wholeheartedly Pro Tridentina (Malta)'s membership in the same organisation. He had to resign in 2011 for health reasons but stayed as councillor until 2017. 

As FIUV councillor FIUV he focused on two main areas: 

1) the promotion and diffusion of the FIUV in Spanish-speaking countries and strengthening the links between the associations of Spain, Portugal and Latin-America, and 

2) To fortify inner unity of the FIUV around its President in the challenge represented by the new circumstances that were being raised in Rome. 

In September 2025, Rodolfo Vargas Rubio passed away. He was a great Latinist and connoisseur of the liturgy and was also highly appreciated for his humility and generosity.

Requiescat in Pace

Quotes to reflect upon (24)

From the encyclical Mediator Dei of Pope Pius XII (1947). 

23. The worship rendered by the Church to God must be, in its entirety, interior as well as exterior. It is exterior because the nature of man as a composite of body and soul requires it to be so. Likewise, because divine Providence has disposed that “while we recognize God visibly, we may be drawn by Him to love of things unseen.”[26 – Roman Missal, Preface for Christmas.] Every impulse of the human heart, besides, expresses itself naturally through the senses; and the worship of God, being the concern not merely of individuals but of the whole community of mankind, must therefore be social as well. This obviously it cannot be unless religious activity is also organized and manifested outwardly. Exterior worship, finally, reveals and emphasizes the unity of the mystical Body, feeds new fuel to its holy zeal, fortifies its energy, intensifies its action day by day: “for although the ceremonies themselves can claim no perfection or sanctity in their won right, they are, nevertheless, the outward acts of religion, designed to rouse the heart, like signals of a sort, to veneration of the sacred realities, and to raise the mind to meditation on the supernatural. They serve to foster piety, to kindle the flame of charity, to increase our faith and deepen our devotion. They provide instruction for simple folk, decoration for divine worship, continuity of religious practice. They make it possible to tell genuine Christians from their false or heretical counterparts.”[27]

24. But the chief element of divine worship must be interior. For we must always live in Christ and give ourselves to Him completely, so that in Him, with Him and through Him the heavenly Father may be duly glorified. The sacred liturgy requires, however, that both of these elements be intimately linked with each another. This recommendation the liturgy itself is careful to repeat, as often as it prescribes an exterior act of worship. Thus we are urged, when there is question of fasting, for example, “to give interior effect to our outward observance.”[28 – Roman Missal, Secret for Thursday after the Second Sunday of Lent.] Otherwise religion clearly amounts to mere formalism, without meaning and without content.  You recall, Venerable Brethren, how the divine Master expels from the sacred temple, as unworthily to worship there, people who pretend to honor God with nothing but neat and well-turned phrases, like actors in a theater, and think themselves perfectly capable of working out their eternal salvation without plucking their inveterate vices from their hearts.[29]  It is, therefore, the keen desire of the Church that all of the faithful kneel at the feet of the Redeemer to tell Him how much they venerate and love Him. She wants them present in crowds – like the children whose joyous cries accompanied His entry into Jerusalem – to sing their hymns and chant their song of praise and thanksgiving to Him who is King of Kings and Source of every blessing. She would have them move their lips in prayer, sometimes in petition, sometimes in joy and gratitude, and in this way experience His merciful aid and power like the apostles at the lakeside of Tiberias, or abandon themselves totally, like Peter on Mount Tabor, to mystic union with the eternal God in contemplation.

25. It is an error, consequently, and a mistake to think of the sacred liturgy as merely the outward or visible part of divine worship or as an ornamental ceremonial. No less erroneous is the notion that it consists solely in a list of laws and prescriptions according to which the ecclesiastical hierarchy orders the sacred rites to be performed.  

26. It should be clear to all, then, that God cannot be honoured worthily unless the mind and heart turn to Him in quest of the perfect life, and that the worship rendered to God by the Church in union with her divine Head is the most efficacious means of achieving sanctity.

Vatican II and the hermeneutic law of Pope John XXIII

Jack Oostveen, author of this letter, with Pope Benedict XVI

Open letter to the diocesan Bishops and Auxiliary Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church

This letter has been sent by e-mail to about 3100 Bishops (Diocesan and Auxiliary ).

 

January 13th, 2019 – Sunday after Epiphany, the baptism of the lord.

Your Excellency,For the good of the Church I respectfully request some of your valuable time in bringing the following matter to your attention and with a request to present this to the Holy Father.
 

It is a fact that the most of you were ordained after the Second Vatican Council. At the opening of the Council, only the eldest among you were about 19 years old and maybe young seminarians, while others were still in their childhood or even among the growing population of “not-yet-born”. Therefore, the Council is becoming more and more a historical event of which one has only second hand knowledge, which confronts us with contradictory ways of understanding the underlying hermeneutics: ‘continuity’ and ‘discontinuity’ being the main problems.
 

Herewith, it appears that lethal fruits are more and more manifestly apparent in the Church, namely “confusion, bitterness in human relations and fratricidal wars”. I maintain that these are direct consequences of the fact that a majority of Council Fathers and their theologians had acted in free will, contrary to a “gracious collaboration concerning the inspiration of the Holy Spirit” even on the first working day of the Council [Ref. 1]. And I also provide evidence that false portrayals of Pope John XXIII and the Council’s objectives have been deliberately created [Ref. 2]. This has led in subsequent years to a deliberate and deceitful referencing of the so-called ‘Spirit of the Council’ for interpreting the Council’s documents, in a manner contradictory to the hermeneutic law as set by Pope John XXIII in his Opening Address.
 

Pope John XXIII stated this as being: a renewal, not in a vague kind of continuity or a discontinuity, but explicitly in unity and in accordance with the Doctrine taught by the Fathers, never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers” [Ref. 3].
 

Consequently, referring to the ‘Spirit of the Council’ has led to a departure “from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers”, by which more and more faithful have lost their Faith. Others wandering as sheep found themselves focussing on Sacred Tradition (i.e. “the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers”) as their anchorage of Faith. While some others who consider that the false portrayals were true, have reached the ultimate conclusion and accused Pope John XXIII for what was laid down in these false portrayals. Therefore, those who have created and cherished these false portrayals or who have continually proclaimed them, bear a great responsibility for the consequences.
 

Evidently, with the words of Pope John XXIII in his Opening Address we find here a clear and prophetical explanation why these lethal fruits exist since the years of Vatican II:

‘Men are either with Him and His Church, and then they enjoy light, goodness, order, and peace. Or else they are without Him, or against Him, and deliberately opposed to His Church, and then they give rise to confusion, to bitterness in human relations, and to the constant danger of fratricidal wars’

 

Nevertheless, one must acknowledge that by allowing these irregular acts and their lethal fruits, the Holy Spirit always respect the free will of man, even that of each individual Council Father and their theological advisors individually. Just like Jesus respected the free will of Peter, when he three times denied knowing Jesus. Whereas, at the same time and above all in a wonderful way, the Holy Spirit also protected the Pastoral Council against creating full heresies. This by leaving open the possibility of interpreting the Council’s documents by free will in accordance with the rule set by the lawmaker of the Council, Pope John XXIII when he stated: “a renewal in unity and in accordance with the Doctrine taught by the Fathers”. Thereby, given that the Council was set up as “Pastoral”, the full Doctrine of the Church is the leading guide and has to be maintained “pure and integral” and undoubtedly “without attenuations or distortion” [Ref. 4].

Please, I humbly beg you for your heartfelt and sincere prayers for the Holy Father. While Pope Francis has been drowned in, and as such betrayed for more than 55 years, by the dissident liberal spirit of the Jesuits, he certainly needs and deserves our spiritual support. So that, as St. Peter initially denied to know Jesus thrice, similarly, he may have a change of heart, following which he can also confirm his brethren.

With my heartfelt gratitude for your kind and generous consideration, I offer you the assurance of my filial support and prayers, I hope for a speedy reply, and I humbly ask for the grace of your blessing.

Faithfully in Christo

-o-o-o-o-

 

Additionally to this letter:

To whom, who has some difficulties regarding the conservative understanding of Pope John XXIII, please, consider the Opening Address of the Council by Pope John XXIII as well as the following contributions of Peter Kwasnewski published at the New Liturgical Movenent:

1. The Opening Address by Pope John XXIII on the on the Vatican website only in Latin, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese. The English translation can be found outside the Vatican website here.
2. Remembering the Real John XXIII
3. A New Series: Pope John XXIII in His Own Words
4. John XXIII in His Own Words (2): The Mass and the Priesthood
5. John XXIII in His Own Words (3): Devotion to Saint Pius X and Blessed Pius IX
6. John XXIII in His Own Words (4): The Defense of Catholic Truth
7. St John XXIII Asks the Faithful Not to Applaud in Church

-o-o-o-o-

Reference 1

This concerns a chain of irregular acts on October 13th, 1962, the first working day of the Council, that were deliberately initiated by Father Yves Congar O.P. and had been discussed by the French Bishops on the previous evening, October 12th. These irregular acts are enumerated as follows:

1. Cardinal Liénart, a member of the Presidium, reading a paper prepared by Mgr. Garonne. This was doubly irregular, firstly the intervention itself, and secondly by addressing the request for changing the Council’s rule for that specific day to the Council Fathers instead of towards the Holy Father.
2. An intervention by Cardinal Frings, also a member of the Presidium, confirming the intervention by Cardinal Liénart. He also did this in the name of Cardinal König, who did not belong to the Presidium. Evidently, this meant that these German Cardinals were informed by the French, prior to this first session.
3. The applause that was started by a few Council Fathers, but which grew to include the majority. This occurred despite the fact that it was officially forbidden to applaud.
4. The change of the Council’s rule by the Presidium.
5. The lie by Cardinal Liénart to convince the Pope that his intervention, which was deliberate, premediated and prepared at the evening before was a spontaneous, charismatically inspired act.

All these successive irregularities broke the council’s legal framework, putting Pope John XXIII in a situation of ‘a fait accompli’ and demonstrating a lack of ‘a humble and gracious collaboration with the intention of the Holy Spirit’. Surely, it is obvious that these acts have had direct consequences regarding the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for each individual Council Father involved.

(Return to letter)

 

-o-o-o-o-

Reference 2

 

Among others, these false portrayals become clear by referring to the quote from the Opening Address of Pope John XXIII about the “prophets of doom”. Even during the Council, by using the pseudonym ‘Xavier Rynne’, a Redemptorist priest and theology professor had anonymously made such a false portrayals in his book “Letters from Vatican City”, which was internationally published in several languages. He wrote that regarding this quotation, Pope John XXIII especially mentioned here the conservative Curial Cardinals, and that he would agree with the objectives of the dissident liberal Council Fathers. With this he made a statement that still is hugely cherished by the liberal wing, as it was recently referred to in that way by Pope Francis in his Opening Address to the Synod of Youth.

 

For a good understanding to whom Pope John XXIII had referred as the “prophets of doom”, please first consider the full context of this quotation. He stated:

“In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure. In these modern times they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They say that our era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse, and they behave as though they had learned nothing from history, which is, none the less, the teacher of life. They behave as though at the time of former Councils everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper religious liberty. We feel we must disagree with those prophets of doom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand”

 

So, to which of the following groups among the Council Fathers did Pope John XXIII refer to?

 

1. Was it the conservative wing, who accepted to discuss the preparatory documents, which were called by Pope John XXIII in his Opening Address as the “initial gift of celestial grace”? At the time of the Opening Address, they had nothing to fear from this Council, and in what way would they have been motivated to predict “doom” scenarios for the Church and the world, by seeking to prevent the Council? Moreover, they had encouraged Pope John XXIII to call this Council.

 

2. Or was it the liberal wing, who disagreed with this “initial gift of celestial grace” and worked on its replacement? They had at the time of the opening address, to fear for a full condemnation of their liberal thoughts by the Council, as this was clearly present in the preparatory documents and even mentioned in the Opening Address itself. Herein Pope John XXIII condemned the ‘uncertain opinions of men’ and the ‘new-born errors’, as well as he acknowledged that there certainly were ‘fallacious teachings, opinions, and concepts to be guarded against’.

 

Isn’t it obvious that it must be the liberal wing? Because of their knowledge of the progress of the preparatory work, they had to fear most the outcome of the Council and therefore had every motive to come up with “doom” scenarios for the Church and the world to prevent the Council proceeding as originally planned. At the start of the Council, it was the liberal wing that confronted Pope John XXIII with “a fait accompli” by deliberately breaking the Council’s rule on the first working day of the Council, creating a conditional situation to reject and replace the preparatory documents. Wasn’t it the liberal wing which after the Council made efforts to replace the hermeneutic rule as set by Pope John XXIII’s objectives for the Council? Even despite Pope Paul VI repeated the original hermeneutic rule in his closure address to the Council: “never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers”, they changed this rule for a vague and ambiguous terminology “spirit of the council”. In this way they were able to eliminate all undesired conservative influences, including the interventions by Pope Paul VI and the original hermeneutic rule of Pope John XXIII. (Return to letter)

-o-o-o-o-

Reference 3

To further explain and clearly illustrate these false portrayals, I beg you to consider the following quotes taken from the Opening Address of Pope John XXIII on October 11th, 1962. These were the stated goals and objectives of the Second Vatican Council, were they not?

1. The sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously;
2. The Church should never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers;
3. Men, without the assistance of the whole of revealed doctrine, cannot reach a complete and firm unity of minds with which are associated true peace and eternal salvation.
4. The truth of the Lord will remain forever;
5. Not, certainly, that there is a lack of fallacious teaching, opinions, and dangerous concepts to be guarded against and dissipated. But these are so obviously in contrast with the right norm of honesty, and have produced such lethal fruits that by now it would seem that men of themselves are inclined to condemn them, particularly those ways of life which despise God and His law or place excessive confidence in technical progress and a wellbeing based exclusively on the comforts of life;
6. Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us, pursuing thus the path which the Church has followed for twenty centuries;
7. The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all;
8. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character;
9. To transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion, which throughout twenty centuries, notwithstanding difficulties and contrasts, has become the common patrimony of men. It is a patrimony not well received by all, but always a rich treasure available to men of good will.

Clearly, these quotations from Pope John XXIII are fully in accordance with his Encyclical Ad Petri Cathedram, 1959, in which he condemned in harsh terms anyone who denies the revealed Truth or interferes by the spread of lies or indifferences. It is very obvious from these citations that Pope John XXIII showed absolutely no desire to change one iota of Doctrine. From this Opening Address one can only conclude that he sought the traditional teaching of the Fathers, his ‘recent and not-so-recent predecessors’, so that the primary rule of the Council should be understood as: a renewal in unity and in accordance with the Doctrine taught by the Fathers: “never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers”?. And evidently a “renewal” clearly meant how ‘to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion’. Thereby it appears that, as a ‘conditio sine qua none’, the use of the term ‘medicine of mercy’ may never be decoupled from the need to explain 'the validity of its doctrine more fully’ as he said: ‘pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion'. He did not abrogate any condemnations made by his predecessors, rather he spoke about ‘uncertain opinions of men’, ‘newborn errors’, and ‘fallacious teaching, opinions, and concepts to be guarded against’ in a way he confirmed the condemnation by Pius XII in his Encyclical Humani Generis, of the main principles of the New Theology.

Isn’t it obvious that the Council’s documents with their deliberate ambiguities, contradictory texts and one-sided use of the doctrine cannot be interpreted well, without the correct application of the hermeneutic that considered the full use of the Church’s doctrine: “never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers”? This should be the hermeneutic rule for interpreting and referring to the Second Vatican Council.

(Retour to letter)

-o-o-o-o-

Reference 4

To provide you with more factual information on this statement, please, find here the additional document: Vatican II, a Council in threefold?. This document is the extended summary of two other reports. Report 1 is an observational analysis of the evaluation of male religious memberships since 1950 that can be found here , while Report 2 concerns a substantial analysis concerning the general process behind the observations in Report 1 (here ).
(Return to letter)

Profession of the immutable truths about sacramental marriage

After the publication of the Apostolic Exhortation "Amoris Laetitia" (2016) various bishops issued at local, regional, and national levels applicable norms regarding the sacramental discipline of those faithful, called "divorced and remarried," who having still a living spouse to whom they are united with a valid sacramental matrimonial bond, have nevertheless begun a stable cohabitation more uxorio with a person who is not their legitimate spouse.

The aforementioned rules provide inter alia that in individual cases the persons, called "divorced and remarried," may receive the sacrament of Penance and Holy Communion, while continuing to live habitually and intentionally more uxorio with a person who is not their legitimate spouse. These pastoral norms have received approval from various hierarchical authorities. Some of these norms have received approval even from the supreme authority of the Church.

The spread of these ecclesiastically approved pastoral norms has caused a considerable and ever increasing confusion among the faithful and the clergy, a confusion that touches the central manifestations of the life of the Church, such as sacramental marriage with the family, the domestic church, and the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist.

According to the doctrine of the Church, only the sacramental matrimonial bond constitutes a domestic church (see Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 11). The admission of so-called "divorced and remarried" faithful to Holy Communion, which is the highest expression of the unity of Christ the Spouse with His Church, means in practice a way of approving or legitimizing divorce, and in this meaning a kind of introduction of divorce in the life of the Church.

The mentioned pastoral norms are revealed in practice and in time as a means of spreading the "plague of divorce" (an expression used by the Second Vatican Council, see Gaudium et spes, 47). It is a matter of spreading the "plague of divorce" even in the life of the Church, when the Church, instead, because of her unconditional fidelity to the doctrine of Christ, should be a bulwark and an unmistakable sign of contradiction against the plague of divorce which is every day more rampant in civil society.

Unequivocally and without admitting any exception Our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ solemnly reaffirmed God's will regarding the absolute prohibition of divorce. An approval or legitimation of the violation of the sacredness of the marriage bond, even indirectly through the mentioned new sacramental discipline, seriously contradicts God's express will and His commandment. This practice therefore represents a substantial alteration of the two thousand-year-old sacramental discipline of the Church. Furthermore, a substantially altered discipline will eventually lead to an alteration in the corresponding doctrine.

The constant Magisterium of the Church, beginning with the teachings of the Apostles and of all the Supreme Pontiffs, has preserved and faithfully transmitted both in the doctrine (in theory) and in the sacramental discipline (in practice) in an unequivocal way, without any shadow of doubt and always in the same sense and in the same meaning (eodem sensu eademque sententia), the crystalline teaching of Christ concerning the indissolubility of marriage.

Because of its Divinely established nature, the discipline of the sacraments must never contradict the revealed word of God and the faith of the Church in the absolute indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage. "The sacraments not only presuppose faith, but by words and objects they also nourish, strengthen, and express it; that is why they are called "sacraments of faith." (Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium, 59). "Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1125).

The Catholic faith by its nature excludes a formal contradiction between the faith professed on the one hand and the life and practice of the sacraments on the other. In this sense we can also understand the following affirmation of the Magisterium: "This split between the faith which many profess and their daily lives deserves to be counted among the more serious errors of our age." (Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, 43) and "Accordingly, the concrete pedagogy of the Church must always remain linked with her doctrine and never be separated from it" (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 33).

In view of the vital importance that the doctrine and discipline of marriage and the Eucharist constitute, the Church is obliged to speak with the same voice. The pastoral norms regarding the indissolubility of marriage must not, therefore, be contradicted between one diocese and another, between one country and another. Since the time of the Apostles, the Church has observed this principle as St. Irenaeus of Lyons testifies: "The Church, though spread throughout the world to the ends of the earth, having received the faith from the Apostles and their disciples, preserves this preaching and this faith with care and, as if she inhabits a single house, believes in the same identical way, as if she had only one soul and only one heart, and preaches the truth of the faith, teaches it and transmits it in a unanimous voice, as if she had only one mouth"(Adversus haereses, I, 10, 2). Saint Thomas Aquinas transmits to us the same perennial principle of the life of the Church: "There is one and the same faith of the ancients and the moderns, otherwise there would not be one and the same Church" (Questiones Disputatae de Veritate, q. 14, a. 12c).

The following warning from Pope John Paul II remains current and valid: "The confusion, created in the conscience of many faithful by the differences of opinions and teachings in theology, in preaching, in catechesis, in spiritual direction, about serious and delicate questions of Christian morals, ends up by diminishing the true sense of sin almost to the point of eliminating it" (Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitenia, 18).

The meaning of the following statements of the Magisterium of the Church is fully applicable to the doctrine and sacramental discipline concerning the indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage:

• "For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient doctrines faithfully and wisely, which the faith of the Fathers has transmitted. She strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grow only within their own genus — that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning” (Pius IX, Dogmatic Bull Ineffabilis Deus)

• "With regard to the very substance of truth, the Church has before God and men the sacred duty to announce it, to teach it without any attenuation, as Christ revealed it, and there is no condition of time that can reduce the rigor of this obligation. It binds in conscience every priest who is entrusted with the care of teaching, admonishing, and guiding the faithful "(Pius XII, Discourse to parish priests and Lenten preachers, March 23, 1949).

• "The Church does not historicize, does not relativize to the metamorphoses of profane culture the nature of the Church that is always equal and faithful to itself, as Christ wanted it and authentic tradition perfected it" (Paul VI, Homily from October 28, 1965).

• "Now it is an outstanding manifestation of charity toward souls to omit nothing from the saving doctrine of Christ" (Paul VI, Encyclical Humanae Vitae, 29).

• "Any conjugal difficulties are resolved without ever falsifying and compromising the truth" (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 33).

• "The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm [of the Divine moral law]. In obedience to the truth which is Christ, whose image is reflected in the nature and dignity of the human person, the Church interprets the moral norm and proposes it to all people of good will, without concealing its demands of radicalness and perfection" (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 33).

• “The other principle is that of truth and consistency, whereby the church does not agree to call good evil and evil good. Basing herself on these two complementary principles, the church can only invite her children who find themselves in these painful situations to approach the divine mercy by other ways, not however through the sacraments of penance and the eucharist until such time as they have attained the required dispositions” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34).

• "The Church's firmness in defending the universal and unchanging moral norms is not demeaning at all. Its only purpose is to serve man's true freedom. Because there can be no freedom apart from or in opposition to the truth"(John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 96).

• “When it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the "poorest of the poor" on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal" (emphasis in original) (John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 96).

• "The obligation of reiterating this impossibility of admission to the Eucharist is required for genuine pastoral care and for an authentic concern for the well-being of these faithful and of the whole Church, as it indicates the conditions necessary for the fullness of that conversion to which all are always invited by the Lord“ (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration on the admissibility to the Holy Communion of the divorced and remarried, 24 June 2000, n. 5).

As Catholic bishops, who - according to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council - must defend the unity of faith and the common discipline of the Church, and take care that the light of the full truth should arise for all men (see Lumen Gentium, 23) we are forced in conscience to profess in the face of the current rampant confusion the unchanging truth and the equally immutable sacramental discipline regarding the indissolubility of marriage according to the bimillennial and unaltered teaching of the Magisterium of the Church. In this spirit we reiterate:

• Sexual relationships between people who are not in the bond to one another of a valid marriage - which occurs in the case of the so-called "divorced and remarried" - are always contrary to God's will and constitute a grave offense against God.

• No circumstance or finality, not even a possible imputability or diminished guilt, can make such sexual relations a positive moral reality and pleasing to God. The same applies to the other negative precepts of the Ten Commandments of God. Since “there exist acts which, per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object" (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17).

• The Church does not possess the infallible charism of judging the internal state of grace of a member of the faithful (see Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 1). The non-admission to Holy Communion of the so-called "divorced and remarried" does not therefore mean a judgment on their state of grace before God, but a judgment on the visible, public, and objective character of their situation. Because of the visible nature of the sacraments and of the Church herself, the reception of the sacraments necessarily depends on the corresponding visible and objective situation of the faithful.

• It is not morally licit to engage in sexual relations with a person who is not one’s legitimate spouse supposedly to avoid another sin. Since the Word of God teaches us, it is not lawful "to do evil so that good may come" (Romans 3, 8).

• The admission of such persons to Holy Communion may be permitted only when they with the help of God's grace and a patient and individual pastoral accompaniment make a sincere intention to cease from now on the habit of such sexual relations and to avoid scandal. It is in this way that true discernment and authentic pastoral accompaniment were always expressed in the Church.

• People who have habitual non-marital sexual relations violate their indissoluble sacramental nuptial bond with their life style in relation to their legitimate spouse. For this reason they are not able to participate "in Spirit and in Truth" (see John 4, 23) at the Eucharistic wedding supper of Christ, also taking into account the words of the rite of Holy Communion: "Blessed are the guests at the wedding supper of the Lamb!" (Revelation 19, 9).

• The fulfillment of God's will, revealed in His Ten Commandments and in His explicit and absolute prohibition of divorce, constitutes the true spiritual good of the people here on earth and will lead them to the true joy of love in the salvation of eternal life.

Being bishops in the pastoral office those, who promote the Catholic and Apostolic faith ("cultores catholicae et apostolicae fidei", see Missale Romanum, Canon Romanus), we are aware of this grave responsibility and our duty before the faithful who await from us a public and unequivocal profession of the truth and the immutable discipline of the Church regarding the indissolubility of marriage. For this reason we are not allowed to be silent.

We affirm therefore in the spirit of St. John the Baptist, of St. John Fisher, of St. Thomas More, of Blessed Laura Vicuña and of numerous known and unknown confessors and martyrs of the indissolubility of marriage:

It is not licit (non licet) to justify, approve, or legitimize either directly or indirectly divorce and a non-conjugal stable sexual relationship through the sacramental discipline of the admission of so-called "divorced and remarried" to Holy Communion, in this case a discipline alien to the entire Tradition of the Catholic and Apostolic faith.

By making this public profession before our conscience and before God who will judge us, we are sincerely convinced that we have provided a service of charity in truth to the Church of our day and to the Supreme Pontiff, Successor of Saint Peter and Vicar of Christ on earth .

31 December 2017, the Feast of the Holy Family, in the year of the centenary of the apparitions of Our Lady at Fatima.

+ Tomash Peta, Archbishop Metropolitan of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

+ Jan Pawel Lenga, Archbishop-Bishop of Karaganda

+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

How the ordinary form of the Mass can “enrich” the extraordinary form

Following our scoop on liturgical changes expected in 2018, the post was given a wide publicity, most of which agreed that the possibility exits. Others, in particular Rorate Caeli (see here and here) and Fr Z tried to mock this Blog.

 

We do not recall any outcry to this article that is being reproduced hereunder. This shows that 'preparation' has been already in the pipeline for some months, at least. We all know the way things are done ... first an innocuous article appears and afterwards, provided there are no reactions the reform starts taking place...

 

How the ordinary form of the Mass can “enrich” the extraordinary form

In Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict hoped the celebration of the extraordinary and ordinary forms of the Mass would be “mutually enriching.” So what healthier elements of the ordinary form might benefit the extraordinary?

 

January 31, 2017 Peter M.J. Stravinskas Essay 0 Print

 

In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI issued his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (SP), in which he gave broader scope to the earlier permissions of Pope John Paul II regarding the celebration of Holy Mass according to the Missale Romanum of 1962. In the Pope’s accompanying letter to the bishops of the Catholic world, he expressed the conviction that the availability of the older rite (now to be called the “extraordinary form”) would be “mutually enriching” for the extraordinary form and for the “ordinary” form of the Mass. It would appear that the Pontiff was looking toward an organic process, whereby a “new and improved” form of the Roman Mass would result. Many priests and liturgists have identified various elements of the extraordinary form (EF) which would be helpful in shoring up the “sacrality” of the ordinary form (OF). When the conversation turns to how the OF could provide a positive influence on the EF, it is not uncommon to hear serious doubts raised that this could be the case. That response puts me in mind of the famous rhetorical (and probably sarcastic) question of Tertullian when pressed to consider the value of philosophy to theology: “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?”

 

Since the promulgation of SP, when I celebrate according to the EF, thoughts about useful adaptations surface. I suspect that many of these thoughts of mine were likewise in the minds of the Fathers of Vatican II, whose very first document was their Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC). That document provided a theological framework for liturgical renewal, born of the liturgical movement spanning almost a century in the lead-up to Vatican II. In addition to the theological basis, the bishops also identified areas where modification and development were needed; it should be noted that SC obtained near-unanimous approval (including that of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre). To be sure, much of what emerged in 1970 (and beyond) was not in the least envisioned by the Council Fathers.

 

 

With all that said, how might the EF benefit from some of the healthier aspects of the OF?

 

Adoption of the revised lectionary
 

Many people do not realize that prior to Vatican II, not only did we have only a one-year Sunday cycle of readings, but we did not have any lectionary for weekdays at all! As a result, either the Sunday readings were repeated or those from the “commons” of the saints were employed. Hence, SC clearly calls for an expansion of the lectionary, putting it in the context of providing the People of God with a greater exposure to the Word of God.

 

The proclamation of most of the New Testament and vast segments of the Old Testament in the current lectionary is one of the most positive achievements of the post-conciliar liturgical reform—so much so that most mainline Protestant denominations have adopted our lectionary.

 

Incorporation of additional Mass formularies

 

The Missal of 1970 (and subsequent editions) contains a rich collection of euchological texts, culled from the vast liturgical storehouse of the Church. Many of the orations have pedigrees dating to the fourth century. Pope Benedict in SP actually suggested the possibility of integrating those prayers into the 1962 Missal, highlighting in particular the array of beautiful prefaces that comprise the OF Missal (in contrast to the very limited number in the EF Missal).

 

Expand possibilities for solemnity

 

The EF has clearly defined categories for the celebration of Mass: Low Mass, Missa Cantata, Solemn Mass. The normative form is the Solemn Mass, wherein a full complement of ministers functions, along with incense and chant. The Low Mass (which, in the United States, unfortunately, was the most familiar and common liturgical experience) had none of those components. The Missa Cantata is an attempt to have at least some of the solemnity, even without all the desired ministers.

 

The OF does not have such mutually exclusive categories, thus allowing for as much solemnity to be incorporated as possible. And so, even at a daily Mass with a single priest-celebrant, one can chant any and all the prayers and use incense. Regrettably, that opening is not taken advantage of very often—even on Sundays. However, it would be a good element to add to the liturgical menu of the EF.

 

Elimination of duplicate recitations

 

In sung Masses of the EF, the celebrant is required to recite quietly texts which are chanted by the choir and/or congregation (e.g., Introit, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus). In the celebration of Holy Mass, the priest moves in and out of various modes: at times, he prays as one of the faithful; at other times, he prays in persona Christi Capitis (“in the person of Christ the Head”). When he operates in the former mode, there is no theological reason for him not to pray the text in union with the whole assembly. Those who attend the EF will know the awkwardness of the current rubrical practice, especially when a text calls for a gesture on the part of the priest (e.g., the Sign of the Cross to end the Gloria or the genuflection during the Credo) which is not “in sync” with what is being sung because the schola/congregation have not gotten there yet.

 

Restoration of Offertory Procession and Prayer of the Faithful

 

Both of these rituals were specifically identified by SC as elements to be restored. The emphasis here is on “restored”; unlike some other rites introduced into the post-Vatican II liturgy, these two have a venerable tradition to them. Indeed, the intercessory prayers of the Good Friday liturgy are a witness to the antiquity of the Prayer of the Faithful. Justin Martyr is an even more ancient witness to the offertory procession.

 

Re-order the dismissal rite

 

The EF dismissal rite is anti-climactic, inasmuch as the priest dismisses the congregation and then bestows the blessing, followed by the Last Gospel. The OF has a more logical conclusion, in that the “Ite, missa est” is truly the last word. Perhaps the Last Gospel could be retained as an optional text, given its historical value.

 

Move the “fractio”

 

In the OF, the “breaking of the bread” occurs during the Agnus Dei, which is the quintessential hymn to the “Lamb who was slain.” The action and the text for this rite in the EF do not correspond to each other as well.

 

Make clear that the homily is a true part of the Sacred Liturgy

 

Removing the maniple and donning the biretta during the homily (along with the opening and closing Sign of the Cross) declare that the homily does not form part of the Mass; indeed, that is an “interrupter.” On the contrary, the homily is an essential part of the Sacred Liturgy. Furthermore, if it is not such, then any baptized Christian should be able to deliver it!

 

Maintain the integrity of the Sanctus

 

When polyphonic Masses are sung, it is not unusual for the Benedictus to be separated from the rest of the Sanctus, being sung after the Consecration. This is an obvious accommodation to the problem of a musical offering that so overshadows the liturgy itself that it cannot be performed without creating an undue delay in the celebration. If a musical composition would have that effect, it certainly comes under the condemnation of Pope Pius X’s Tra le Sollecitudini. Beyond that, if it is being used as a “filler” for the silence after the Consecration, it flies in the face of the whole rationale for an inaudible Canon, evoking a deeper sense of mystery.

 

Adopt the rubrics of the OF for the Communion Rite

 

If the Pater Noster is the prayer of the family of the Church to her heavenly Father, why should not the entire congregation pray it together? Of course, Pope Benedict’s norms in SP already allow for that, however, I have rarely seen the option taken. It would also make sense to have the other prayers of the Communion Rite recited audibly or chanted aloud (as in the OF), with the priest’s private preparation prayers done sotto voce (again, as in the OF).

 

Face the people when addressing the people; face God when addressing God.

 

We have used this formula to justify celebrating Mass ad orientem in the OF, that is, to face liturgical east from the Liturgy of the Eucharist forward. The converse is also true: when proclaiming the Scripture readings, face those to whom those texts are addressed. Whatever the historical origins of facing east for the Epistle and facing north for the Gospel at Solemn Mass, they are not truly communicative of the significance of the rite being celebrated.

 

Unite the calendars of the OF and EF

 

For the EF to be unable to commemorate the saints canonized since 1962 is an impoverishment—a point also raised by Pope Benedict in SP. Certain calendar changes were good (e.g., making the Solemnity of Christ the King the last Sunday of the liturgical year), while others were destructive of long-standing traditions (e.g., Epiphany, Ascension). Regardless of what one thinks of either calendar (and no calendar will ever be perfect), operating with a dual-calendar system bespeaks division, the very antithesis of what good liturgy should be.

 

Modify the rubrics

 

SC calls for the modification of signs and symbols that are duplicative or arcane. One thinks immediately of the multiple Signs of the Cross during the Canon. Just as the OF admits of a certain laxity, the EF can lean toward an unhealthy rigidity or rubricism. In medio stat virtus! (“Virtue stands in the middle”).

 

Rename the two principal parts of the Mass

 

To continue to call the first part of the Mass the “Mass of the Catechumens” is a form of the antiquarianism pilloried by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei. We have not been dismissing catechumens (or penitents) for centuries (except in silly parishes where baptized Christians preparing for reception into full communion are “dismissed”). The post-conciliar nomenclature is quite accurate: Liturgy of the Word/Liturgy of the Eucharist.

 

These are my recommendations for “mutual enrichment” as gifts of the ordinary form to the extraordinary form. I hope this helps answer the contemporary liturgical version of Tertullian’s question.

Mater Boni Consilii - 25-26 April

Pope Pius XII composed the below powerful prayer, in honour of Our Lady of Good Counsel:

Holy Virgin, moved by the painful uncertainty we experience in seeking and acquiring the true and the good, we cast ourselves at thy feet and invoke thee under the sweet title of Mother of Good Counsel. We beseech thee: come to our aid at this moment in our worldly sojourn when the double darkness of error and of evil plot our ruin by leading minds and hearts astray.
Seat of Wisdom and Star of the Sea, enlighten the victims of doubt and of error so that they may not be seduced by evil masquerading as good; strengthen them against the hostile and corrupting forces of passion and of sin.
Mother of Good Counsel, obtain for us our most urgent need….. (here mention your request) and secure for us from thy Divine Son the love of virtue and the strength to choose, in doubtful and difficult situations, the course agreeable to our salvation.
Supported by thy hand we shall thus journey without harm along the paths taught us by the word and example of Jesus our Savior, following the Sun of Truth and Justice in freedom and safety across the battlefield of life under the guidance of thy maternal Star, until we come at length to the harbor of salvation to enjoy with thee unalloyed and everlasting peace. Amen.

Quotes to reflect upon (13)

Sir Alec Guinness in The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)

“Much water has flown under Tiber's bridges, carrying away splendour and mystery from Rome, since the pontificate of Pius XII. The essentials, I know, remain firmly entrenched and I find the post-Conciliar Mass simpler and generally better than the Tridentine; but the banality and vulgarity of the translations which have ousted the sonorous Latin and little Greek are of a super-market quality which is quite unacceptable. Hand-shaking and embarrassed smiles or smirks have replaced the older courtesies; kneeling is out, queueing is in, and the general tone is rather like a BBC radio broadcast for tiny tots (so however will they learn to put away childish things?) The clouds of incense have dispersed, together with many hidebound, blinkered and repressive attitudes, and we are left with social messages of an almost over-whelming progressiveness. The Church has proved she is not moribund. ‘All shall be well,’ I feel, ‘and all manner of things shall be well,’ so long as the God who is worshipped is the God of all ages, past and to come, and not the idol of Modernity, so venerated by some of our bishops, priests and mini-skirted nuns.” Sir Alec Guinness in Blessings in Disguise.

Quotes to reflect upon (11)

Venerable Pope Pius XII celebrating Holy Mass

The liturgical movement is thus shown forth as a sign of the providential dispositions of God for the present time, of the movement of the Holy Ghost in the Church, to draw men more closely to the mysteries of the faith and the riches of grace which flow from the active participation of the faithful in the liturgical life.

 ...

As We have said in the encyclical Mediator Dei, the liturgy is a vital function of the Church as a whole, and not of a single group or “movement” only: “The sacred liturgy is the public worship of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ in the entirety of its Head and members.” 

… 

Therefore everything is directed towards God, His service and His glory. The Church, filled with the gifts and the life of God, devotes itself with an interior and spontaneous movement to the adoration and praise of the infinite God, and through the liturgy, renders Him, as from a society, the worship that is due to Him.

… 

The solemn liturgical ceremonies are, besides, a profession of faith in action. They express the great truths of faith concerning the inscrutable designs of God’s generosity and His inexhaustible goodness to men, concerning the love and mercy of the heavenly Father for the world, to save which He sent His Son and delivered Him to death. Thus, the Church in the liturgy abundantly dispenses the treasures of the “deposit of faith,” the truth of Christ.

The care of the hierarchy extends still further to everything which contributes to the greater beauty and dignity of the liturgical ceremonies, whether in the matter of places of worship, of furnishings, of liturgical vestments, of sacred music or sacred art.

...

1) The Action of Christ

What is this principal action of the eucharistic sacrifice? We have spoken of it explicitly in the Allocution of November 2, 1954. We then quoted, first, the teaching of the Council of Trent:

In this divine sacrifice which takes place at Mass, the same Christ is present and is immolated in an unbloody manner who on the cross once and for all offered Himself in a bloody manner . . . . For the victim is one and the same, now offering Himself through the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the Cross; only the manner of offering is different.

We then continued in these terms:

Therefore it is the priest-celebrant, and he alone, who, putting on the person of Christ, sacrifices: not the people, nor clerics, nor even priests who reverently assist. All these, however, can and should take an active part in the sacrifice.

 ...

2) The Presence of Christ

Anyone who adheres sincerely to this doctrine does not think of the formulating objections against the presence of the tabernacle on the altar. In the Instruction of the Holy Office “On Sacred Art” of June 30, 1952, the Holy See insists, among other things, on this point:

This Supreme Sacred Congregation strictly commands that the prescriptions of Canons 1268, par. 2, and 1269, par. 1, be faithfully observed: “The Most Blessed Sacrament should be kept in the most distinguished and honorable place in the church, and hence as a rule at the main altar unless some other be considered more convenient and suitable for the veneration and worship due to so great a Sacrament. . . . The Most Blessed Sacrament must be kept in an immovable tabernacle set in the middle of the altar.”

It is not so much to the material presence of the tabernacle on the altar as to a tendency toward a lesser esteem for the presence and the action of Christ in the tabernacle that We would like to draw your attention. The sacrifice of the altar is considered sufficient, and the importance of Him who accomplished it is diminished. But the person of the Lord must occupy the centre of worship, for it is that which unifies the relations of the altar and the tabernacle and gives to them their meaning.

3) The Infinite and Divine Majesty of Christ

In conclusion we would like to add two observations on “the liturgy and the past” and “the liturgy and the present time.”

The liturgy and the past. In the matter of liturgy, as in many other spheres, one must avoid two extreme attitudes with regard to the past: a blind attachment and a complete contempt. There are found in the liturgy unchangeable elements, a sacred content which transcends time, but also elements which are variable and transitory, and sometimes even imperfect. The present-day attitude of liturgical milieux towards the past seems to Us in general to be entirely sound: there is investigation, serious study, attachment to that which truly deserves it, without, moreover, a falling into excess. Here and there, however, there appear ideas and erring tendencies, oppositions, enthusiasms or condemnations with whose concrete from you are well acquainted and of which We have said a word above.

The liturgy and the present time. the liturgy confers on the life of the Church, and even on the whole religious attitude of today, a characteristic mark. Above all, one notices an active and intelligent participation by the faithful in liturgical actions. On the part of the Church, the liturgy today admits of a preoccupation with progress, but also with conservation and defence. She returns to the past without slavishly copying it, and creates anew in the ceremonies themselves, in the use of the vernacular, in popular chant and in the building of churches. It would be, however, superfluous to recall once again that the Church has serious reasons for retaining steadfastly in the Latin rite the unconditional obligation of the celebrating priest to use the Latin language, and, likewise, for insisting that the Gregorian chant at the holy sacrifice shall be in the language of the Church. The faithful, on their part, are concerned with responding to the measures taken by the Church, but in so doing they adopt profoundly different attitudes. Some will show readiness, enthusiasm, occasionally even a too active desire, which demands interventions of authority. Others will show indifference and even opposition. Thus is manifested the diversity of temperaments, as also preferences for individual piety or for community worship.

Allocution by Pope Pius XII, taken from The Assisi Papers: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Pastoral Liturgy, Assisi-Rome, September 18-22, 1956. Published as a Supplement to Worship, by The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn, 1957: pp. 223-236.