The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter welcomes the May 13 publication by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei of Universae Ecclesiae, the instruction on the application of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

PONTIFICAL COMMISSION ECCLESIA DEI

INSTRUCTION

on the application of the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum of
HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI given Motu Proprio

I. Introduction

1. The Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum of the Sovereign Pontiff Benedict XVI given Motu Proprio on 7 July 2007, which came into effect on 14 September 2007, has made the richness of the Roman Liturgy more accessible to the Universal Church.

2. With this Motu Proprio, the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI promulgated a universal law for the Church, intended to establish new regulations for the use of the Roman Liturgy in effect in 1962.

3. The Holy Father, having recalled the concern of the Sovereign Pontiffs in caring for the Sacred Liturgy and in their recognition of liturgical books, reaffirms the traditional principle, recognised from time immemorial and necessary to be maintained into the future, that “each particular Church must be in accord with the universal Church not only regarding the doctrine of the faith and sacramental signs, but also as to the usages universally handed down by apostolic and unbroken tradition. These are to be maintained not only so that errors may be avoided, but also so that the faith may be passed on in its integrity, since the Church’s rule of prayer (lex orandi) corresponds to her rule of belief (lex credendi).”[1]
4. The Holy Father recalls also those Roman Pontiffs who, in a particular way, were notable in this task, specifically Saint Gregory the Great and Saint Pius V. The Holy Father stresses moreover that, among the sacred liturgical books, the Missale Romanum has enjoyed a particular prominence in history, and was kept up to date throughout the centuries until the time of Blessed Pope John XXIII. Subsequently in 1970, following the liturgical reform after the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI approved for the Church of the Latin rite a new Missal, which was then translated into various languages. In the year 2000, Pope John Paul II promulgated the third edition of this Missal.

5. Many of the faithful, formed in the spirit of the liturgical forms prior to the Second Vatican Council, expressed a lively desire to maintain the ancient tradition. For this reason, Pope John Paul II with a special Indult Quattuor abhinc annos issued in 1984 by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted the faculty under certain conditions to restore the use of the Missal promulgated by Blessed Pope John XXIII. Subsequently, Pope John Paul II, with the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei of 1988, exhorted the Bishops to be generous in granting such a faculty for all the faithful who requested it. Pope Benedict continues this policy with the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum regarding certain essential criteria for the Usus Antiquior of the Roman Rite, which are recalled here.

6. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI and the last edition prepared under Pope John XXIII, are two forms of the Roman Liturgy, defined respectively as ordinaria and extraordinaria: they are two usages of the one Roman Rite, one alongside the other. Both are the expression of the same lex orandi of the Church. On account of its venerable and ancient use, the forma extraordinaria is to be maintained with appropriate honor.

7. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum was accompanied by a letter from the Holy Father to Bishops, with the same date as the Motu Proprio (7 July 2007). This letter gave further explanations regarding the appropriateness and the need for the Motu Proprio; it was a matter of overcoming a lacuna by providing new norms for the use of the Roman Liturgy of 1962. Such norms were needed particularly on account of the fact that, when the new Missal had been introduced under Pope Paul VI, it had not seemed necessary to issue guidelines regulating the use of the 1962 Liturgy. By reason of the increase in the number of those asking to be able to use the forma extraordinaria, it has become necessary to provide certain norms in this area.
Among the statements of the Holy Father was the following: “There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the Liturgy growth and progress are found, but not a rupture. What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful.”[2]

8. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum constitutes an important expression of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff and of his munus of regulating and ordering the Church’s Sacred Liturgy.[3] The Motu Proprio manifests his solicitude as Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church,[4] and has the aim of:
a. offering to all the faithful the Roman Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, considered as a precious treasure to be preserved;
b. effectively guaranteeing and ensuring the use of the forma extraordinaria for all who ask for it, given that the use of the 1962 Roman Liturgy is a faculty generously granted for the good of the faithful and therefore is to be interpreted in a sense favourable to the faithful who are its principal addressees;
c. promoting reconciliation at the heart of the Church.

II. The Responsibilities of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei

9. The Sovereign Pontiff has conferred upon the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei ordinary vicarious power for the matters within its competence, in a particular way for monitoring the observance and application of the provisions of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum (cf. art. 12).

10. § 1. The Pontifical Commission exercises this power, beyond the faculties previously granted by Pope John Paul II and confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, artt. 11-12), also by means of the power to decide upon recourses legitimately sent to it, as hierarchical Superior, against any possible singular administrative provision of an Ordinary which appears to be contrary to the Motu Proprio.
§ 2. The decrees by which the Pontifical Commission decides recourses may be challenged ad normam iuris before the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.

11. After having received the approval from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will have the task of looking after future editions of liturgical texts pertaining to the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite.

III. Specific Norms

12. Following upon the inquiry made among the Bishops of the world, and with the desire to guarantee the proper interpretation and the correct application of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, this Pontifical Commission, by virtue of the authority granted to it and the faculties which it enjoys, issues this Instruction according to can. 34 of the Code of Canon Law.

The Competence of Diocesan Bishops

13. Diocesan Bishops, according to Canon Law, are to monitor liturgical matters in order to guarantee the common good and to ensure that everything is proceeding in peace and serenity in their Dioceses[5], always in agreement with the mens of the Holy Father clearly expressed by the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.[6] In cases of controversy or well-founded doubt about the celebration in the forma extraordinaria, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will adjudicate.

14. It is the task of the Diocesan Bishop to undertake all necessary measures to ensure respect for the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite, according to the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

The coetus fidelium (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, art. 5 § 1)

15. A coetus fidelium (“group of the faithful”) can be said to be stabiliter existens (“existing in a stable manner”), according to the sense of art. 5 § 1 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, when it is constituted by some people of an individual parish who, even after the publication of the Motu Proprio, come together by reason of their veneration for the Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, and who ask that it might be celebrated in the parish church or in an oratory or chapel; such a coetus (“group”) can also be composed of persons coming from different parishes or dioceses, who gather together in a specific parish church or in an oratory or chapel for this purpose.

16. In the case of a priest who presents himself occasionally in a parish church or an oratory with some faithful, and wishes to celebrate in the forma extraordinaria, as foreseen by articles 2 and 4 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, the pastor or rector of the church, or the priest responsible, is to permit such a celebration, while respecting the schedule of liturgical celebrations in that same church.

17. § 1. In deciding individual cases, the pastor or the rector, or the priest responsible for a church, is to be guided by his own prudence, motivated by pastoral zeal and a spirit of generous welcome.
§ 2. In cases of groups which are quite small, they may approach the Ordinary of the place to identify a church in which these faithful may be able to come together for such celebrations, in order to ensure easier participation and a more worthy celebration of the Holy Mass.

18. Even in sanctuaries and places of pilgrimage the possibility to celebrate in the forma extraordinaria is to be offered to groups of pilgrims who request it (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, art. 5 § 3), if there is a qualified priest.

19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.

Sacerdos idoneus (“Qualified Priest”) (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, art 5 § 4)

20. With respect to the question of the necessary requirements for a priest to be held idoneus (“qualified”) to celebrate in the forma extraordinaria, the following is hereby stated:
a. Every Catholic priest who is not impeded by Canon Law[7] is to be considered idoneus (“qualified”) for the celebration of the Holy Mass in the forma extraordinaria.
b. Regarding the use of the Latin language, a basic knowledge is necessary, allowing the priest to pronounce the words correctly and understand their meaning.
c. Regarding knowledge of the execution of the Rite, priests are presumed to be qualified who present themselves spontaneously to celebrate the forma extraordinaria, and have celebrated it previously.

21. Ordinaries are asked to offer their clergy the possibility of acquiring adequate preparation for celebrations in the forma extraordinaria. This applies also to Seminaries, where future priests should be given proper formation, including study of Latin[8] and, where pastoral needs suggest it, the opportunity to learn the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite.

22. In Dioceses without qualified priests, Diocesan Bishops can request assistance from priests of the Institutes erected by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, either to the celebrate the forma extraordinaria or to teach others how to celebrate it.

23. The faculty to celebrate sine populo (or with the participation of only one minister) in the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite is given by the Motu Proprio to all priests, whether secular or religious (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, art. 2). For such celebrations therefore, priests, by provision of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, do not require any special permission from their Ordinaries or superiors.

Liturgical and Ecclesiastical Discipline

24. The liturgical books of the forma extraordinaria are to be used as they are. All those who wish to celebrate according to the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite must know the pertinent rubrics and are obliged to follow them correctly.

25. New saints and certain of the new prefaces can and ought to be inserted into the 1962 Missal[9], according to provisions which will be indicated subsequently.

26. As foreseen by article 6 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, the readings of the Holy Mass of the Missal of 1962 can be proclaimed either solely in the Latin language, or in Latin followed by the vernacular or, in Low Masses, solely in the vernacular.

27. With regard to the disciplinary norms connected to celebration, the ecclesiastical discipline contained in the Code of Canon Law of 1983 applies.

28. Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962.

Confirmation and Holy Orders

29. Permission to use the older formula for the rite of Confirmation was confirmed by the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum (cf. art. 9 § 2). Therefore, in the forma extraordinaria, it is not necessary to use the newer formula of Pope Paul VI as found in the Ordo Confirmationis.

30. As regards tonsure, minor orders and the subdiaconate, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum does not introduce any change in the discipline of the Code of Canon Law of 1983; consequently, in Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life which are under the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, one who has made solemn profession or who has been definitively incorporated into a clerical institute of apostolic life, becomes incardinated as a cleric in the institute or society upon ordination to the diaconate, in accordance with canon 266 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law.

31. Only in Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life which are under the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, and in those which use the liturgical books of the forma extraordinaria, is the use of the Pontificale Romanum of 1962 for the conferral of minor and major orders permitted.

Breviarium Romanum

32. Art. 9 § 3 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum gives clerics the faculty to use the Breviarium Romanum in effect in 1962, which is to be prayed entirely and in the Latin language.

The Sacred Triduum

33. If there is a qualified priest, a coetus fidelium (“group of faithful”), which follows the older liturgical tradition, can also celebrate the Sacred Triduum in the forma extraordinaria. When there is no church or oratory designated exclusively for such celebrations, the parish priest or Ordinary, in agreement with the qualified priest, should find some arrangement favourable to the good of souls, not excluding the possibility of a repetition of the celebration of the Sacred Triduum in the same church.

The Rites of Religious Orders

34. The use of the liturgical books proper to the Religious Orders which were in effect in 1962 is permitted.

Pontificale Romanum and the Rituale Romanum

35. The use of the Pontificale Romanum, the Rituale Romanum, as well as the Caeremoniale Episcoporum in effect in 1962, is permitted, in keeping with n. 28 of this Instruction, and always respecting n. 31 of the same Instruction.

The Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI, in an audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei on 8 April 2011, approved this present Instruction and ordered its publication.

Given at Rome, at the Offices of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, 30 April, 2011, on the memorial of Pope Saint Pius V.

William Cardinal LEVADA
President

Mons. Guido Pozzo
Secretary

[1] BENEDICTUS XVI, Litterae Apostolicae Summorum Pontificum motu proprio datae, I, AAS 99 (2007) 777; cf. Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, tertia editio 2002, n. 397.
[2] BENEDICTUS XVI, Epistola ad Episcopos ad producendas Litteras Apostolicas motu proprio datas, de Usu Liturgiae Romanae Instaurationi anni 1970 praecedentis, AAS 99 (2007) 798.
[3] Cf. Code of Canon Law, Canon 838 §1 and §2.
[4] Cf. Code of Canon Law, Canon 331.
[5] Cf. Code of Canon Law, Canons 223 § 2 or 838 §1 and §4.
[6] BENEDICTUS XVI, Epistola ad Episcopos ad producendas Litteras Apostolicas motu proprio datas, de Usu Liturgiae Romanae Instaurationi anni 1970 praecedentis, AAS 99 (2007) 799.
[7] Cf. Code of Canon Law, Canon 900 § 2.
[8] Cf. Code of Canon Law, Canon 249; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36; Declaration Optatum totius, 13.
[9] BENEDICTUS XVI, Epistola ad Episcopos ad producendas Litteras Apostolicas motu proprio datas, de Usu Liturgiae Romanae Instaurationi anni 1970 praecedentis, AAS 99 (2007) 797.

by Fr. James B. Buckley, FSSP
From the May 2011 Newsletter

Our Lord introduces the parable of the wheat and the cockle by saying that “the kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field.” The kingdom of heaven is the Church which Christ established for the salvation of all men and not only for the Jews. When in His explanation of the parable Our Lord identifies the field as the world, He is indicating the divine intention to save all men (cf. I Tim. 2:4). However, as Father Leopold Fonck, S.J. wrote: “But as unbelievers have rejected this kingdom, our divine Redeemer will regard the Faithful in their visible community which He himself founded as His special kingdom of Heaven, and it is in this more restricted sense that He applies the image in this parable” (Parables of the Gospel, p. 140).

This parable, as St. Thomas Aquinas observed, explains the origins of the good and the evil in the Church, their intermingling in this life and their final separation in the next. In the words of Monsignor Ronald Knox, it “is an answer to the question, ‘Do all Christians go to Heaven?’ And the answer is ‘No’.”

Just as in the parable, the wheat resulted from the good seed sown by the farmer and the cockle from what was sown over the wheat by his enemy, so Christ’s word brings into His Church those “who are born… of the will of God” but the devil through his blandishments seduces some in that Church from their allegiance to Christ.

The cockle in the parable was allowed to grow together with the wheat because uprooting it would certainly also destroy the wheat. Saint Thomas comments that the good can exist without the evil but the evil cannot exist without the good; therefore, he says, the Lord tolerates many who are evil so that the many who are good may not perish.

Furthermore, St. Thomas gives reasons why on account of the good members of the Church the evil ones should not be removed before the Judgment. One reason is that those who are evil provide the good with opportunities for the practice of virtue, especially that of patience. Secondly, it does happen that one who was once evil afterwards becomes good. If Saul who had persecuted the Church of God had been extirpated, the Church would not have had Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles. Thirdly, there are many who seem to be evil but are in reality good. If these were destroyed, the good would be destroyed.

In the parable the final separation of the wheat and the cockle takes place at the harvest; the wheat is placed in the farmer’s barn and the cockle bound “in bundles to burn.” In His explanation Our Lord says that at the end of the world the angels “shall gather out of his kingdom… them that work iniquity. And shall cast them into the furnace of fire…Then shall the just shine as the sun, in the kingdom of their Father” (cf. Matt. 13:39–43). The importance of this teaching cannot be overestimated for Catholics of our day who have heard from false teachers either that there is no hell or that no one goes there.

Indeed the final separation of the good and the evil who had been together in the Church is emphasized by its appearance in a companion parable found in the same thirteenth chapter of St. Matthew’s Gospel: “Again the kingdom of heaven is like to a net cast into the sea, and gathering together of all kind of fishes. Which when it was filled, they drew out, and sitting by the shore, they chose out the good into vessels but the bad they cast forth.

“So shall it be at the end of the world. The angels shall go out, and shall separate the wicked from the just” (Matt. 13:47–49).

These two parables force us to reflect on the words of St. Augustine who said that God, who made us without our willing it and who redeemed us without our willing it, will not save us unless we will it.

by Fr. James B. Buckley, FSSP
From the April 2011 Newsletter

The Gospel selected by the Church for Septuagesima Sunday is taken from Matthew 20:1–16, the parable of the workers in the vineyard. Since the season before Easter represents the time of trial and temptation of this passing world, this Gospel  encourages us to labor manfully for the one thing necessary, the salvation of our souls.

In the parable a householder goes out five times in a single day to recruit workers for his vineyard. Only the group he meets the first time are hired for the agreed upon wage of a denarius. Those employed at the third, sixth and ninth hours are told that he will give them “what is just.” To those he finds at the eleventh hour he says, “Go you also into my vineyard. And when evening was come, the lord of the vineyard saith to his steward: call the laborers and pay them their hire, beginning from the last even to the first” (Matt. 20:7–8).

Seeing that those who worked only an hour were given a denarius, the ones employed first expected more but were bitterly disappointed when they also received a denarius. They complained against the master, “Saying: These last have worked but one hour and thou hast made them equal to us that have borne the burden of the day and the heats. But he answering said to one of them: Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst thou not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is thine, and go thy way: I will give to this last even as to thee. Or is it not lawful for me to do what I will?”

In paying those who came last a denarius for their labor, the owner of the vineyard displays his generosity. One commentator suggests, not without reason, that the householder was moved by kindness because he knew that the payment of anything less than a denarius, would not relieve the necessities of the laborer and his family.

What is the point of comparison between this image and the kingdom of heaven? It is suggested by the reaction of those who complained to the householder. They expected to receive more than the others because they had worked longer and endured more difficulties. By granting a denarius to those who worked a single hour, however, the householder shows that the work done is not the exclusive determinant.

So also in the kingdom of heaven, the Lord God, who sees the love which inspires men’s good works, even though these  appeared insignificant in comparison to those of others, may reward equally those who worked a brief time with great love and those who worked a longer time with lesser love. “The decisive factor,” Father Leopold Fonck, S.J., observes “is the interior grace and co-operation on the part of man.”

We are not to conclude that there is no difference of degree among those who are saved, nor should we think that God rewards capriciously. He orders all things and judges all men most wisely. The point made in this parable is that those whom men, who can not see everything, judge to be first in the kingdom of heaven may be last and those, whom they consider last may be first. As God revealed to Samuel when the prophet thought Eliab would be the Lord’s anointed: “Man sees those things that appear, but the Lord beholds the heart” (I Kings 16:7).

Many things in this parable have their counterpart in the supernatural realm. The householder denotes Christ who will reward the just with the crown of eternal life. The time of the payment represents the general judgment when everyone will see the rewards and punishments given to others. The denarius signifies the eternal reward and the workers those who are saved.

The complaint of those paid last has no counterpart but is mentioned for the sake of the parable’s realism. In heaven all the just will rejoice over the happiness of others; envy will have no place.

Finally, a comment by Saint Augustine deserves mention. He says that those asked to go into the Lord’s vineyard early in the morning must not say: “Why should I tire myself out when I can go at the last hour and receive the same reward? When you are called, come. The reward promised is indeed the same but the great question concerns the hour of working. No one promised you that you will live until the eleventh hour. Take care lest what he by promising is prepared to give you, you by deferring
take away from yourself.”

by Dr. Dennis Q. McInerny, Ph.D.
(Originally in the April 2011 Newsletter)

Immanentism? It is probably safe to say that many a good Catholic has never even heard of the term. Presuming that to be the case, a definition is in order. For that definition I call upon the eminent French theologian Father Louis Bouyer, who defines immanentism as follows: “A tendency to understand the immanence of God or of His action in us in such a way that it would, in fact, exclude the reality of His transcendence.” How is the immanence of God to be rightly understood? (By the way, the word “immanence” comes from the Latin verb immanere, meaning “to abide within.”) The immanence of God refers to the fact that He is present in a very special way in everyone who is in the state of sanctifying grace. One is reminded in this respect of Blessed Elizabeth of the Trinity, who sought to structure her entire religious life around the sublime truth of the indwelling of the Blessed Trinity.

Immanence, then, is very much a good thing. Immanentism, on the other hand, is not at all a good thing, and that is because, by denying the transcendence of God, it of course utterly falsifies the divine nature. To deny the transcendence of God is to refuse to acknowledge the fact that He is absolutely distinct from and superior to His creatures, and the result of doing that is to end up with a knowledge which, whatever else may be said of it, is not knowledge of the one true God at all. Furthermore, to deny the transcendence of God is to undermine the rationale of immanentism itself, for “immanence” becomes meaningless if it refers to anything other than the transcendent God who dwells within us through His grace.

Father John Hardon, in writing on the subject of immanentist apologetics, refers to it as “A method of establishing the credibility of the Christian faith by appealing to the subjective satisfaction that the faith gives to the believer.” Coupled with this emphasis on the subjective, there is a downplaying of the objective criteria of our faith, even to the point of rejecting miracles and prophecies. Purely personal motives for faith, motives that have mainly to do with feelings, are given primary of place. “Religion, therefore, would consist,” Father Bouyer remarks, “entirely in the religious feeling itself.” Reason is marginalized, and the idea of belief, as being essentially the assent of the intellect, loses its currency.

Immanentism may be summed up by saying that it represents a stance of reckless subjectivism with regard to the faith. It cavalierly dismisses, as being of only secondary importance, the objective foundations of religion, as revealed to us by God Himself and as incorporated in the deposit of faith.

In 1907 Pope St. Pius X published his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, whose purpose was to sound the alarm against Modernism, which the Holy Father had defined as “the synthesis of all heresies.” And he described the Modernists themselves as “the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church.” In his analysis of the phenomenon, St. Pius X identified two major parts of Modernism; one was agnosticism, the other was immanentism. By agnosticism Modernism denies that man is capable of gaining a reasoned knowledge of God. Thus, with a stroke, it effectively does away with natural theology, that philosophic discipline whose principal task is to show that we can arrive at a knowledge of the existence of God through natural reason. Now, that such is possible is actually a matter of faith for Catholics, as was taught by the First Vatican Council.

Having disposed of natural theology, Modernism then proposes immanentism to explain what religious experience is supposedly all about. Human beings, the Modernists argue, are invested with a “religious sense” which wells up out of the unconscious and creates in us a need for the divine. It is in response to this need that we positively respond to ideas about the reality and nature of God which, as it happens, are comfortably conformable to our feelings. What this comes down to, in practical terms, is that the “God” to which one gives one’s allegiance is but a fiction of one’s own devising, a pseudo-being having its source nowhere else but in the demands of deep-set emotions. Here Modernism can be said to be reflecting the thought of the nineteenth century atheistic philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach, who argued that what we call God is no more than the imagined product of human longings and wishes.

The kind of attitude which is represented by immanentism is very much a part of the religious consciousness of the age in which we live, and that is because Modernism, of which it is an integral part, is not, unfortunately, a thing of the past. Immanentism, carried to the extreme, is nothing more than a wholesale abandonment of the Christian faith, for which it substitutes a bland and anemic secularism vainly trying to disguise itself under a thin veneer of religion. Because immanentism places feelings above reason, it negates the objective reality of the faith as manifested in its doctrines, doctrines which have their source in divine revelation. To state the obvious, in contradistinction to immanentism, we give our assent to this or that doctrine of the faith because we believe it to be true, not because it is consonant with however we might feel about it.

In what way, specifically, could the spirit of immanentism be said to be present in the Church today? Generally, it would be in what we call “pick and choose Catholicism,” where individuals decide what they will and will not accept, as dictated by their feelings, not by reason. Feelings are fickle, but the right use of reason as applied to religious matters will never let us down, and that is because we know that there can be no conflict between faith and reason.

How many Catholics today treat the Church’s clear and unalterable teaching on contraception as if it were a minor matter that can be brushed aside with a whimsical wave of the hand? And surely there is a close connection between that attitude and the way in which, as the statistics make clear, a large number of Catholics view the institution of marriage today, looking at it in a way not much different from how our secular culture looks at it. Holy Matrimony would seem to have lost its holiness, and the vital necessity of recognizing marriage’s status as a sacrament, which means accepting its sanctity and permanence, is too often made difficult by the dominance of a befogging and self-serving legalism.

We are all immanentist to the extent that we deign to put our wills above the will of God, as that will has been clearly made known to us through revelation, and as that revelation is given concrete embodiment in the Church. To be seduced by  immanentism is, at bottom, to make a pact with unreality, to succumb to subjectivism, to prefer “my way” over the right way, even though the mindless pursuit of “my way” involves setting out on a path which leads inevitably to my ultimate unravelment.

The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter was blessed to have His Excellency, Czeslaw Kozon, Bishop of Copenhagen, Denmark, ordain five seminarians from Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary to the diaconate on March 19, 2011.

Those ordained were Gregory Eichman, Kevin O’Neill, Brian McDonnell, Karl Marsolle, and Kenneth Walker.

To view the full photo album, please visit the Seminary Archive here.

The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter is hosting an 11-day altar-boy training camp/RADIX Boot Camp for boys between the ages of 11 to 16 years, located at Camp Gargano. It will be staffed by one priest and six seminarians from the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, along with Mr. Doug Barry (founder of RADIX) and his staff. This unique opportunity will provide campers with the mass-serving expertise of the seminarians and Mr. Barry’s professionally developed RADIX programs.

COST: The cost for this year’s camp is $350, payable by check, which should be sent along with the application form. (This check will only be deposited if your applicant is accepted.)

Director, Camp St. Michael
PO Box 147
Denton, NE 68339

For further information, please contact the Camp Director at:
campstmichael@olgseminary.com
(402) 797-7700

If you would like to know more about Doug Barry and RADIX, please visit his website at: http://www.radixguys.com/

For more information, please visit our Summer Camp Website

Camp St. Isaac Jogues, centered on the Mass, challenges boys to practice fortitude and prudence by daily catechism, sports, and hiking. It is staffed by seminarians of Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary and a priest of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. Boys 13 to 15 years old may apply.

The cost per boy is $350.00, payable to Camp St. Isaac Jogues. Please send with completed medical/parental release (click here for form) to:

Camp St. Isaac Jogues,
Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary,
PO Box 147,
Denton, NE 68339.

The Camp is held at St. Gregory’s Academy in Elmhurst, PA. Its length is 10 days, beginning at 2 pm on Wednesday, July 13th and ending at 2pm on Saturday, July 23rd.

For more information, please visit our Summer Camp website.

The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter is hosting a two-week, outdoor summer camp for boys aged 13 to 15 years old, at Custer State Park, located an hour south of Rapid City, South Dakota. The camp will be staffed by one priest and six seminarians from the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter.

COST: The cost for this years camp is $350, payable by check, which should be sent along with the application form. This check will only be deposited if your applicant is accepted. (Please send a separate check for each applicant.)

DATES: July 18 – 29th, 2011

For More Information, please visit our Summer Camp website.

On January 29th of this year, the His Excellency Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln conferred the tonsure and subdiaconate upon several men at Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary in Denton, Nebraska.   Please view our photo gallery of the liturgy from the seminary’s website.

by Fr. James B. Buckley, FSSP
From the March 2011 Newsletter

The Gospel for the eighth Sunday after Pentecost is taken from Saint Luke 16:1-9 and contains the parable of the Unjust Steward: (1) “And He said also to his disciples: There was a certain rich man who had a steward: and this man was accused unto him, that he was wasting his goods. (2) And he called him, and said to him: What is this I hear of you? Give an account of your  stewardship: for now you can be steward no longer. (3) And the steward said within himself: What shall I do, since my lord is taking from me my stewardship? To dig I am not able; to beg I am ashamed. (4) I know what I will do, that when I am removed from my stewardship they may receive me into their houses. (5) Calling therefore together every one of his lord’s debtors, he said to the first: How much do you owe my lord? (6) But he said: A hundred barrels of oil. And he said to him: Take your bond and sit down quickly and write fifty. (7) Then he said to another: And how much do you owe? And he said a hundred quarters of wheat. He said to him: Take your bond and write eighty. (8) And the lord commended the unjust steward forasmuch as he had done wisely: for the children of this world are wiser in their own generation than the children of light. (9) And I say to you: Make for yourselves friends of the mammon of iniquity; that when it comes to an end, they may receive you into everlasting dwellings.”

The chief difficulty the modern reader finds with the realism of this parable is that the steward after being told of his dismissal is still allowed to exercise his office. Father Leopold Fonck, S.J., a great scriptural scholar, maintains, however, that in Palestine during Our Lord’s public ministry some time would elapse before a discharged steward would surrender his office to a successor.

A more serious difficulty, Fonck observes, concerns the debtors’ bonds which, he surmises, represent the rents on the tenants’ farms. He writes: “For, if the steward, as was usual amongst Oriental officials, in previous years had exacted from the farmers or with their aid, from the peasants, much larger sums of money than he transmitted to his master, he, now, without resorting to any very clumsy or conspicuous fraud upon his master, could make a considerable reduction in the charges of the peasants.” On this supposition it is not difficult to see why the unjust steward expected to be rewarded by the tenant farmers after his master dismissed him.

The master praises the unjust steward not for his dishonesty but for his sagacity. Using the remaining time of his employment with cunning, he was able to provide for his future.

To discover this parable’s meaning one can follow the advice of Tertullian who wrote that one will find no parable which was not either explained by Christ or illumined by a commentary of an evangelist. “For the children of this world are wiser in their own generation than the children of light” is a comment emphasizing the necessity of prudence. The unjust steward represents the “children of this world” because he lives his life estranged from God. He, however, acts more wisely to secure his temporal good in this passing world than do those enlightened by the truth of Christ to attain their eternal good. Since prudence is the virtue which directs man’s actions to their goal, Christ is exhorting His disciples not to be outdone by the cunning of the wicked but to pursue those virtuous acts which will lead to their everlasting happiness.

Money is called the mammon of iniquity because it can be gained by sinful means and used for sinful purposes. The implication of verse 9 is that Christ’s faithful should use their legitimate wealth to aid the needy. By so doing they will exercise prudence because these virtuous actions are the means to the eternal life of heaven where Christ and all His saints will receive them in everlasting mansions. This detail contrasts sharply with the knavery of the unjust steward who used sinful means to be received by his beneficiaries into earthly dwellings which will pass away.