Amidst the swirling tempest of false and misleading reporting stirred up by the MSM in an attempt to de-rail the papacy of Benedict XVI, a number of important posts have begun to surface about the blogosphere which can help, not only in clearing the name of an unjustly maligned pope, but perhaps more importantly, by re-focusing the attention upon the true source of the crisis – and thereby upon it’s solution.  Chief among those is a wonderful interview between Alexander Goerlich of The European and Martin Mosebach, the award-winning German author of The Heresy of Formlessness helpfully translated from the original German by the folks at The Society of St. Hugh of Cluny.  I reproduce the entire interview (with some added emphasis) here because not only is the topic so important, but Mosebach so clearly “connects the dots” in ways that we simply *must* learn to do if we are to recognize the crisis for what it truly is, and to thereby recognize it’s solution.

A Conversation with Martin Mosebach led by Alexander Goerlach of The European.

The European: Personally, how do you assess the five years in which Benedict XVI has been in Office?

Mosebach: Benedict XVI has set for himself the most difficult mission. He wants to heal the evil consequences of the Church’s Revolution of 68 in a non-revolutionary manner. This pope is precisely not a papal dictator. He relies on the strength of the better argument and hopes that the nature of the Church will overcome that which is inappropriate to her if certain minimal assistance is provided. This plan is so subtle that it can be neither presented in official explanations nor understood by an almost unimaginably coarsened press. It is a plan that will show its effects only in the future – probably only with clarity after the death of the Pope. But already now we can recognize the courage with which the pope establishes reconciliation beyond the narrow limits of the canon law (through the integration of the Patriotic church in China; in relation to Russian and Greek Orthodoxy) or by his novel fusion of traditional and enlightened biblical theology that leads us out of the dead end of rationalistic bible criticism.

The European: Don’t we also have to prepare for cases of abuse in Catholic institutions in other countries? In your view how should Pope Benedict react to them?

Mosebach: The Church of course always has to be prepared for the fact that individual educators will sexually abuse students in her schools and boarding schools. That’s the nature of things. Wherever children are instructed, personalities with pedophile inclinations are always found. We have to ask ourselves, however, why just in the years immediately following the Second Vatican council the sexual crimes of priests occurred so frequently. There is no way of avoiding the bitter realization: the experiment of “aggiornamento”, the assimilation of the Church to the secularized world, has failed in a terrible way. After the Second Vatican Council, most priests dropped their clerical garb, ceased celebrating the mass daily and did not pray the breviary daily any more. The post-conciliar theology did everything in its power to make people forget the traditional image of the priest. All the institutions were called into question which had given the priest aid in his difficult and solitary life. Should we be astonished if many priests in these years could no longer view themselves as priests in the traditional manner? The clerical discipline that was deliberately eliminated had been largely formulated by the Council of Trent. At that time the mission was likewise to resist the corruption of the clergy and to reawaken the consciousness of the sanctity of the priesthood. It is nice that the leaders of the church ask the victims of abuse for forgiveness but it will be still more important if they tighten the reins of discipline in the sense of the Council of Trent and return to a priesthood of the Catholic Tradition.

The European: How will the Catholic Church look which Benedict will eventually leave behind him?

Mosebach: One would wish that this Pope might perceive himself the first manifestations of a healing of the Church. But this Pope is so modest and lacking in vanity that he hardly would view any such glimmerings as the result of his own actions. I believe that he wants to spare his successor thankless yet necessary labors by assuming them himself. Hopefully this successor will utilize the great opportunity that Benedict has created for him.

The European: The “Reform of the Liturgy” has fundamentally changed the Catholic Church – in what way?

Mosebach: The interventions of Paul VI in a liturgy over 1500 years old are called only “reform of the liturgy.” In reality it was a revolution that was not authorized by the instruction of the Second Vatican Council, to “gently” review the liturgical books. The “liturgical reform” centered upon man a celebration that had been orientated for the last two thousand years to the adoration of God. It undermined the priesthood and largely obscured the doctrine of the Church on the sacraments.

The European: In the late sixties there were many upheavals: the Cultural Revolution in China, the Prague Spring in Czechoslovakia, the student riots here at home, the Vietnam War – and the Second Vatican Council. Can we name all these upheavals in the same breath?

Mosebach: 1968 is, in my opinion, a phenomenon that is still not sufficiently understood. Here in Germany we like to occupy ourselves in this context with happy memories of communes and battles over the right interpretation of Marx. In reality, 1968 is an “axial year” in history with anti-traditionalist movements in the entire world that are only in appearance fully separate from each other. I am convinced that, when sufficient distance exists, the Chinese Cultural Revolution and the Roman Liturgical Reform will be understood to be closely connected.

The European: Pope Benedict XVI participated in this upheaval as a theologian of the Council. How do you experience today his commitment to revive individual liturgical elements of the pre-conciliar Church?

Mosebach: Benedict XVI views as one of his main tasks making the essence of the Church more clearly visible – for Catholics and then also for non-Catholics. The Pope knows that the Church is indissolubly bound to her Tradition. Church and revolution are irreconcilable contradictions. He attempts to intervene where the image of the Church has been distorted through a radical break with the past. Now the Church, like its Founder, has exactly two natures: historical and timeless. She cannot forget from where she came and cannot forget where she is going. Especially the Church in the West has problems with this. She has neither any sense for her historical organic evolution nor for her life in eternity.

The European: The reintroduction of the old rite allowed again the petition for the conversion of the Jews, as it was in use prior to the Council. Was that the right step?

Mosebach: When the organic liturgy was permitted again (which had been suppressed, very often violently, under Paul VI) so also was the petition for the conversion of the Jews once again admitted into the official liturgical books of the Church. It dates from early Christianity and forms part of the Good Friday petitions. This early Christian petition, based on wording of the Apostle Paul, contains the wording that God might liberate the Jews from “their blindness” and “lift the veil from their hearts.” These expressions appeared to the Pope to permit the misunderstanding of contempt for the Jews because of recent history. Therefore he intervened when the traditional rite was authorized again and ordered a new formulation in the old rite. It also asks God to lead the Jews to Jesus Christ, but excludes the interpretation of contempt for them. The Pope has been condemned because he permits praying for the conversion of the Jews to Jesus Christ at all. But can the Church of the Jews Peter and Paul be expected to renounce such an intention?

The European: How do you assess the relationship of the Pope to the Jews and Israel?

Mosebach: Benedict XVI is probably the first pope since Peter to understand Christianity so closely from out of Judaism. His book on Jesus reveals in many passages the attempt to read the New Testament with the eyes of the Old Testament. The relationship of the Pope to Jewry is not superficial, political or a mere liking derived from a trendy philosemitism but is theological and rooted in faith. One has at times the impression that if Benedict were not a Christian he would be a Jew. To accuse this Pope of anti-Semitism betrays an ignorance and incompetence that should exclude one from public discourse.

The European: The controversy surrounding the FSSPX has yielded no visible success for the Vatican up till now. In your view what does this group bring to the Catholic Church other than its love for the old liturgy?

Mosebach: Other than the old liturgy? What is there more important for the Church than the liturgy? The liturgy is the body of the Church. It is faith made visible. If the liturgy falls ill, so does the entire Church. That is not a merely a hypothesis but a description of the current situation. One can’t present it drastically enough: the crisis of the Church has made possible that her greatest treasure, her Arcanum, was swept out of the center to the periphery. The FSSPX and especially its founder, Archbishop Lefebvre, are due the historical glory to have preserved for decades and kept alive this most important gift. Therefore the Church owes the FSSPX above all gratitude. Part of this gratitude is to work to lead the FSSPX out of all kinds of confusion and radicalization.

The European: The FSSPX don’t appear to be heading towards Rome.

Mosebach: In the discussions with the FSSPX what is important is the patient labor of persuasion, as is appropriate in spiritual questions. The discussions appear to be proceeding in a very good atmosphere. If one day it is successful in integrating once again the FSSPX in the full unity of the Church, the papacy of Benedict XVI would have obtained a success whose importance exceeds by far the number of FSSPX members.

The European: Christianity is one of the foundations of Europe. In the future will it still be relevant for the continent?

Mosebach: Christianity is the foundation of Europe – I don’t see any other. All intellectual movements of modern times, even when they opposed Christianity, owe their origins to it. We have also received ancient philosophy and art from the arms of Christianity. If European society should turn away totally from Christianity, it would mean nothing less than it would deny its very self. What one doesn’t know or want to know nevertheless exists. Repression cannot be the basis for a hopeful future.

The European: You were in Turkey for a while. Would Turkey enrich the European Union as a full member or is it difficult to integrate a land dominated by Islam into the Western community of values?

Mosebach: You surely understand that I cannot give you a political or legal answer. I can only see that Turkey – especially the anti-Islamic, modernizing Turkey – has had enormous difficulties with its Christian European minorities. Until the 1950’s there was still a Greek-dominated Constantinople. But living together with Christians was intolerable for the modern Turks so they put an end to it. Now they seem to find desirable drawing near to Europe because of economic concerns without, however, rethinking in their internal politics the battle against Christians. I believe that we are very far removed from what you call “integration into the Western community of values.”

Translation by kind permission of Martin Mosebach.

V. Allelluia, surrexit Christus!
R. Dominus surrexit vere, alleluia!

Watch Respighi Pines of Rome Karajan .wmv in Classical  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

I shared an excellent article (H/T Pertinacious Papist) recently on Google’s “BUZZ” which elicited a question from a (protestant) friend of mine.   Since my response seemed quickly to outgrow the limitations of the format of the BUZZ com-box, I thought I’d post the full response here, and simply link to it there.

NOTE:  Please do read the original article first, including the footnotes, as it will be important for understanding the context for the question!

With that noted, here was my friends’ question:

 i know i’m not considered part of the family, but i find the question interesting. i don’t have a view on whether a priest should do a mass before doing another one in public. i think the author makes too strong a case for private masses. if private masses should be done before public ones for all the reasons he cites, then additional private masses should be done prior to those private masses just prior to the public ones…and additional ones for those too, etc. 
i’m sure this kind of reply has been made by someone not for private masses.

1) Nonsense: whatever the problems with Vatican II, or with it’s implementation, there is certainly one truth which shines out from it’s documents: and that is that if it can be said that many elements of sanctification and truth exist within the ecclesial communities of the separated brethren (including protestants), then these ecclesial communities must indeed be “brethren” (by virtue of their baptism) even if they are, for the moment (and sadly) “separated”.  

Nevertheless, to honor the kernel of truth in your comment about not being “part of the family,” it is a sad fact of “separation” that over time it creates barriers of understanding because the common foundations for that understanding have not all been passed down within the ecclesial communities of the separated brethren, and without that context, discussions of this sort become complicated by the need to create some meaningful context in which such questions can be asked and in which the answers to such questions will be meaningful. 

But my point (e.g. my “Nonsense:”) is that such is due not to myself or any other catholic not “considering” someone to be a “part of the family”, but rather to the sad objective reality of such separatedness, and the sad barriers to communication which necessarily flow from such separatedness – particularly when it has extended, as with protestant communities, for over 500 years.

2) Some of these barriers to communication can be observed, I believe in your next statement where you speak of “whether a priest should do a mass before doing another one in public”.  It might not be so obvious coming to this article from the context of a separation extending back 500 years or more, but that’s not what the article is talking about – indeed, it is specifically rejected in footnote 4. which states:

“Note that if there are twelve Priests in the community, one of them would not celebrate a private Mass that day in order to be the Priest who offers the conventual Mass in the midst of his brethren. No Priest celebrates twice a day (bination) unless pastoral need requires it, which would not be the case in such a community.”

This point about the traditional norm of “1 mass per priest per day” (in both it’s positive – e.g. “at least” interpretation, and it’s negative – e.g. “no more than” interpretation) is, on one level, merely an issue of cannon law and it’s interpretation. However, cannon law is a codification of the will of, and itself a tool of, the Holy Spirit, who, since he is, as St. Augustine said, “the bond of charity flowing between the Father and the Son”, works through the the norms, laws, and traditions of the Church’s sacraments to build up the Body of Christ in charity, and to vivify it towards the goal of that charity in the glorification of the Head, Christ himself, who in turn, seeks the glorification of the Father – “that God may be All in all.” (1 Cor. 15:28)

And that is why, on another level, what has to be understood is bigger than merely an argument about the interpretation of some canon or other, be it Canon 904 or 906 or whatever.  What is at stake here is the root question of why do we even HAVE priests at all?  What is a Priest? For what purpose are priests ordained?  Here is where the context becomes important.  Within the unbroken tradition of the Catholic Church (and to a great extent, this statement applies to our separated Eastern Orthodox brethren as well) a man is ordained a Priest “in order to offer the sacrifice of the Mass for the living and for the dead”.  Another way of saying this is to say that the sacrifice of the Mass is offered to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Ghost, “for” (in the different senses pertaining to each) the Church in each of it’s Militant, Expectant, and Triumphant manifestations – and, through and as a consequence of this, also “for” the whole world. 

What I’m getting at here particularly is the way in which the Sacrifice of the Mass is an expression of the faith, hope, and particularly, the charity, of the Church - charity flowing between, and thus creating a bond between, not only herself and her Divine Lord, but also a bond of charity flowing between one another – which is another reason why Masses are offered *both* for living and for dead, since two thirds (and indeed, far MORE than two thirds if measured numerically!) of that Militant/Expectant/Triumphant-complex refers to those who have “fallen asleep in the Lord”. 

Furthermore, this bond of charity flowing between the faithful – both living and dead – results in an overflowing of grace which spills out into the world as well. I’ll never forget the chill that ran up my spine when it hit me, while watching the FSSP training video for the Latin Mass, that the final Trinitarian “Blessing” at the end of the Mass is still spoken, “versus populum” as-it-were, *even if* the church building is empty and no one else but the priest himself is present – e.g. it is pronounced towards an “empty” room!  The reason?  This blessing is placed, in fulfilment of the Church’s commission to be a blessing to all the families of the earth, as an objective reality, not merely upon the faithful, but upon the whole world.  It is the final aspect of the great Cosmic “Yes” which Christ, through his Sacrifice on our behalf, and not only on our behalf, but on behalf of the “whole world” has offered to the Father, that such a blessing is pronounced, even if there is no one else (visibly) present but the Priest.

It should not go without mention, since we’re discussing the Mass in it’s aspect of charity, that the “intentions” of the priest at Mass are one of the primary ways in which the bond of charity, subsisting among and flowing between the faithful within this Militant/Expectant/Triumphant-complex, is made fruitful in the honoring of one another (in the case of the Triumphant and Expectant), and in the procurement of grace and blessings for one another (in the case of the Militant and Expectant).  This is another element of the “context” behind this discussion of so-called “private” masses which could easily be mis-understood or overlooked by someone coming at the discussion from the quite different context of a separated protestant ecclesial community.  Because within the protestant context, this aspect of the Mass as the primary means by which the “whole” Church celebrates and actualizes that bond of charity betwixt her members, and betwixt herself and her Lord, is often truncated, and the result is that what is offered or celebrated there tends to be understood as only applying with reference to the particular individuals living within that particular ecclesial community and in attendance at that particular moment.

As a result, from a protestant context, it would seem silly and irrelevant to celebrate a Mass in front of an empty church building – e.g. with no one else there but the priest.  Leaving aside completely for the moment the question of whether the Mass is or could be a conduit for God’s Grace and Blessing – which is not going to be necessarily granted by a protestant anyway – there is the further problem that in the protestant understanding, what is celebrated exists, and can only exist, “for” whoever is in that building at the moment – after all, as a protestant praying for the dead (e.g. the Church Expectant) is frowned upon, and praying “to” the dead (e.g. the Church Triumphant) is, in the immortal words of Monty Python’s Flying Circus, ”RIGHT out!”   This is, in one sense, merely another part of (perhaps the core of?) what I have meant in the past when I have spoken more generally about the ecclesiological differences between the Catholic Church and the ecclesial communities of protestant brethren separated from her, which, as I recognized even before becoming convinced of the truth of the Catholic Church’s position, had reduced the protestant ecclesial community to a “merely” horizontal, political organization – which exists, and accomplishes whatever rites it celebrates, “of, by, and for The People”.

By contrast, from a catholic perspective, ANY Mass, including so-called “private” Masses *even if* no one is (visibly) present but the Priest who is celebrating, is FULL of rich meaning and import – to say nothing of the graces which it contains – with which it blesses the WHOLE Militant/Expectant/Triumphant Church, and, in so doing, enriches and blesses the whole world.

In conclusion, I can say that I definitely understand why this question would occur to you, and while I can’t claim that I’ve necessarily given a “complete” or “satisfying” answer, hopefully I’ve at least broached upon some of the issues of difference in context which affect the asking, and answering, of such a question.