Thoughts On Ecumenism

...but what about non-Catholics?!

What does the Church teach with regard to the spiritual state of Protestants and the possibility that, although they subscribe to heretical notions, they might go to heaven? 

This is a question that has been posed to the folks at ChurchMilitant.TV on more than one occasion. In a couple of recent Vortex episodes (both embedded below), Michael Voris indirectly tackles this question, pointing to a weakness in the way Church leaders currently present the Catholic faith. In “Yes or No”, Voris says

There is a great reluctance on the part of many Church leaders to proclaim the superiority of the Catholic faith, and this reluctance is a nothing less than astonishing…

Any strategy on the part of some in the hierarchy for proclaiming the faith simply cannot position Catholicism as one faith among many. Nor can the teachings of the Church be proclaimed in the greater marketplace of ideas as just ONE set of beliefs among various equally valid ones. Yet that is precisely the default position of too many clerics these days in the west.

In the episode entitled “The Mission”, Voris makes the point that

For decades now, the average Catholic has been told by local Catholic leaders, directly or indirectly, that the Catholic faith is nice and all that, but nothing special; that all that matters is that a man is nice and pleasant and cares about poverty and the environment.

So…back to the question: What does the Church actually teach with regard to the spiritual state of Protestants and the possibility that they might go to heaven? Did Vatican II change the position of the Church change on this question, as many seem to think?

What follows is an answer provided primarily by ChurchMilitant.TV Executive Producer Terry Carroll, with a few very minor editorial changes and additions from Yours Truly.

The language of the documents of Vatican II has allowed for interpretations that suggest faithful Protestants (or even those claiming no religious affiliation) are on a deficient but nonetheless potentially effective path to eternal salvation without any real necessity of converting to the Catholic Faith. I wish I could say that this is a wholly unfair interpretation of the Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism), but it is not. It is difficult to spin that document as other than a grand invitation to all our “separated brethren” to enter into dialog with Catholic Church so that we can learn from and appreciate each other, all the while acknowledging that it is a scandal that Christians are not one as the Father and Jesus are one.

For instance, while it is the goal of ecumenism to overcome obstacles to unity, Unitatis Redintegratio nevertheless acknowledges that “many of the significant elements and endowments, which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church” and, therefore, these separated communities “most certainly can truly engender a life of grace” and “must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation” (UR, 3). If anyone at the Council of Trent wrote words such as these they would have been taken outside the Council chambers and immediately burned at the stake.

The theological language of today is considerably “softer” and “less dogmatic” than language during the time of the Protestant Revolt. The question you ask is whether the language of today constitutes a rupture from the teaching of the Council of Trent. Because dogmatic teaching cannot change, the only possible answer for a Catholic is “No, Unitatis Redintegratio of Vatican II does not change Church teaching.” Let's see if this last statement is supported by the evidence.

The entire purpose of the Council of Trent was to define Catholic Truth in opposition to Protestants errors. The Council of Trent was a dogmatic council, speaking clearly, “This is true. That is false.” Whatever truth may be contained within Protestant settings, it is Catholic Truth. Protestantism adds absolutely nothing to the Deposit of Faith, it is a multi-headed hydra of heresies that if not abandoned sets one on a path to Hell, and Catholicism is and will always be the “normative” path to salvation established by Our Lord. The “ecumenical strategy” of the Council of Trent is fairly described as “the ecumenism of return”, i.e., the only purpose of ecumenical dialog can be conversion of the dialog partners to the Catholic Church. Anathemas were defined in response to error, not the process whereby one arrived at error. For example, anathemas were not issued as “He who formerly believed Truth but now embraces error, anathema sit.” Anathemas were of the form “He who believes error, anathema sit.” These anathemas, therefore, still apply today.

Vatican II claimed, from the very beginning, that its purpose was pastoral, not dogmatic. While seeking to express the timeless truths of the Catholic Faith in terms more accessible to the contemporary world, it employed language that was less confrontational, but did not, for all that, reject or deny any dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church. Recognizing that the Western world had become more secular in its culture and philosophies, and that the moral authority of the Church was in serious decline, all the documents of Vatican II represent attempts to be heard by a modern world on an accelerating path away from Catholic faith and values. Every document of Vatican II can be received and understood as the reiteration of dogma in modern rather than scholastic philosophical terms, massive amounts of theological reflection, and an attempt to define pastoral strategies in response to contemporary problems. The Fathers of Vatican II seem to have valued quantity over quality of words, eschewing precise and clear language in favor of communication by collage and ambiguity.

So it is not true that Vatican II changed Church teaching on the spiritual state of our separated brethren. For one, no one but God can truly know the spiritual state of anyone, including our separated brethren. But the Church can speak, and has spoken, on what is true and what is not, and Protestantism is just as false a path to salvation today as it was during the Council of Trent. All that has changed is pastoral strategy: the Church now approaches our separated brethren with the respect due all human beings and affirms in their theologies whatever can be affirmed as true. At the time of Trent, Protestantism was largely a freely chosen heresy. Today it is a heresy that is passed on from generation to generation. Protestants today are, in a sense, “born this way”.

The culpability of those who embrace Protestant heresies today is less than the culpability of their forefathers who consciously rejected truth in favor of error. Reduced culpability, however, doesn't convert error into an instrument of salvation.   

Unfortunately, most ecumenical efforts today are exercises in practical indifferentism, the belief that we can all grow by understanding each other but agreement on Truth isn't really essential. Today's ecumenical strategy strives for peace and harmony between Christians, as if how one believes and lives one's faith is on a par with choosing where to live and with whom to socialize. “As long as we all get along, God understands.” This strategy flies in the face of truth expressed at both Trent and Vatican II.

Consider, for example, that Protestants do not have any other sacrament than Baptism. It is true that Baptism is necessary for salvation because it frees us from original sin and bestows sanctifying grace without which we cannot be friends with God. If Baptism is necessary for salvation, does it follow that Baptism is all that is necessary for salvation? What about the other sacraments? Did Our Lord not say in John 6 that we must eat and drink His Body and Blood or we have no life in us? Did Our Lord provide any other mechanism for forgiveness of sins other than what was given to the Apostles? These are the kinds of things that would have been said to Protestants after Trent. Today we delay presenting these truths to them in hopes that a gentler form of evangelization might open hearts to the Truth. We still believe what Trent defined, but we lead with dinner and drinks rather than the prospect of Hell. Results from this new ecumenical strategy have not been promising. It appears that if it isn't really necessary to be Catholic to be saved (as many in the modern ecumenical movement seem to believe), then why should anyone bother? And, not surprisingly, most don't. The retention rate of non-Catholics who enter the Church through RCIA is less than 50%.

What the Church says today that it didn't say at Trent is that Protestants can be saved without formally entering the Church. By virtue of Baptism, Protestants are members of the Catholic Church (although most would be offended to hear that). Since they have been baptized, salvation is at least possible for them. However, unless the other sacraments of the Church are truly unnecessary, the Protestant road to salvation is a dangerous one, because they explicitly reject the normative means of salvation provided by Our Lord through His Church. It is still true today that a mortal sin cannot be forgiven except through the sacrament of Penance or an act of perfect contrition. Protestants can be saved if they never commit a mortal sin after their baptism or, if they do fall, make an act of perfect contrition and stay in the state of grace until they die. These are long odds, don't you think? Protestants may be on a path to Heaven, but the vehicle in which they are riding has flat tires, a broken steering wheel, and a very confusing set of directions. They lack access to the sacraments and the guidance of the Magisterium of Our Lord's Church. They share a limited version of the Bible and no authoritative interpreter beyond their individual selves. But they can be saved.

Finally, in a review of the first chapter of Unitatis Redintegratio, Dr. Jeff Mirus of CatholicCulture.Org – whose view is probably more “mainstream” than the perspective taken in this post – notes that the document

…makes again the important point which provides the motive for ecumenism in the first place: While the unity of the Church “subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose”, it is also true that “the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from attaining the fullness of catholicity proper to her” (4). Thus the Council expresses the hope that the unity proper to the Church “will continue to increase until the end of time” (4).

In other words, even a conservative assessment of Unitatis Redintergratio shows that Church teaching has not changed: there is one true Faith, and all souls should belong to it. Sadly, though, Catholics just don’t seem to have quite the enthusiasm for that idea that we once did.

Here are the Vortex episodes:

Is Michael Voris Married?

The “stat counter” I use gives me information about how viewers arrived at my blog; for instance, if there was a Google search, it tells me the phrase or key words the person submitted to be Googled, which resulted in my blog popping up in the results.

It’s surprising to me how often “Is Michael Voris married” is Googled! Although I get “hits” from people Googling that question, when they visit a Vortex post here, they don’t get the answer – just one of the Vortex posts.

So…I have decided to provide an answer to that oft-Googled question! The information below is from the esteemed and awesome Terry Carroll of ChurchMilitant.TV. (You can become a premium subscriber there at that link.)

The short answer is: No, Michael Voris is not married.

Some people, however, wonder about the ring Michael wears, thinking that it is a wedding ring, and thus prompting the question. The ring Michael Voris wears is a sign of his total consecration to Mary, as documented in the episode of the Vortex embedded below (filmed in Fatima, Portugal, August 23, 2011), which includes the statement:

I, Michael Peter Voris, renew the private consecration of my chastity to you. Forsaking all other loves, I pledge today my mind, my heart, my body and my strength and give them to you my Queen and my Mother.

Michael has made the Total Consecration to Mary per St. Louis de Montfort.

Here is the prayer of consecration of the ChurchMilitant.TV apostolate recited at Fatima, which includes the renewal of Michael's private consecration of his life to Mary:

CONSECRATION TO THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY

O Glorious Queen of Heaven, whose Immaculate Heart is forever bound in loving unity with the Sacred Heart of thy Divine Son, we beg you to look down on your sons and daughters with maternal sweetness and royal compassion.

O Woman of Genesis and Revelation, who dost crush the head of our ancient enemy the serpent, and dost grind him into the dust of the earth, we desire to be consecrated totally and completely to your Immaculate Heart, to be led and guided by you to the Sacred Heart of thy Son and having been so led, brought into the life of grace of the Blessed Trinity of whom you are Mother, Daughter and Spouse.

Unite us in unfailing devotion to the Supreme Godhead in this life, that we may enjoy everlasting joy and solicitude in the next with you and the court of Heaven.

Unite us more firmly to the Chair of Peter the Rock, so that we may live and die in and for the Holy Roman Church.

Blessed Mother and Majestic Queen, I, [full name], place at your royal feet all the instruments of our endeavor in the new media in this epochal struggle for the glory of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in the fight for the salvation of souls. We consecrate to your Immaculate Heart, Heavenly Queen, our Apostolate.

In your Queenship of Heaven and Earth, manifest so visibly and miraculously [here] in

Fatima, I humbly ask that you raise up champions for Yourself to fight against the powers of darkness who seek the destruction of your children, entrusted at so great a price to you by your Divine Son from the throne of His Cross.

In your sweetest kindness, bestow your maternal smile upon all our benefactors, those who wish us well and those who wish we fail.

In your pure and gentle way, preserve and protect all the young people drawn to our apostolate from all the deceptions of the enemy. Obtain for them, humility, purity and charity. Place in them an ardent and burning desire for justice and truth as the sure means for their salvation and all those whom they evangelize.

We entrust to you all those who have grown disheartened and discouraged in the face of scandal, failure and loss of faith within the Body of Christ. Recall and repeat the words you said to your Divine Son at the wedding feast at Cana, “They have no wine”, so that

He may once again, demonstrating His Eternal and everlasting love for you, answer your petition by showering down a torrent of graces to restore the Faith in so many broken and shattered hearts.

[I, Michael Peter Voris, publicly renew the private consecration of my chastity to you. Forsaking all other loves, I pledge today my mind, my heart, my body and my strength and give them to you my Queen and my Mother.]

Most sweet heart of Mary, be my salvation.

Most sweet heart of Mary, be my salvation.  

Most sweet heart of Mary, be my salvation.

Amen.

Vortex: Wolves in Shepherds' Clothing

Well, leave it to Michael Voris to succinctly summarize just exactly why the lack of faith we see in our Church is at an all-time low!

You can read the script for this Vortex here; I’ll give you a summary and few excerpts

Voris starts out by reminding us that the faith was once transmitted in three ways: the family, the pulpit, and the classroom. He goes on to elaborate a bit on each, but I think most of us can immediately recognize that those three paths of transmission are not doing the job they once did.

Catholic wedding:
a rare event

As far as the family goes, even though there are 17 million MORE (alleged) Catholics in the US today than there were 40 years ago, the rate of Catholic marriages has seen a 70% decrease: from 8.6 marriages per thousand baptized Catholics to 2.6 currently. The real problem is not that Catholics aren’t getting married; they are. But they are not getting married in the Church. Therefore, we can assume that there is not a whole heck of a lot of catechesis going on in these “Catholic” families.

As for the pulpit as a path of transmission of the faith:

If being Catholic means MORE than just being baptized – which it does – then you wouldn’t know it from most Sunday Masses. So very little of what is preached from the pulpit is strictly Catholic. References to the Real Presence, Confession, the Saints, devotion to the Mother of God, Sin, Hell, Satan, the Holy Trinity, the Divinity of Our Lord and so forth barely get a mention.

What is heard almost non-stop is generic Christianity, vague references to the faith, if you’re lucky with a heavy dose of social justice and watered-down expressions of the faith. Again, if you’re fortunate, that sound more like what the Presbyterian group down the road preaches than anything resembling the Catholic faith.

That is certainly true in my experience.

As for Catholic education, Voris notes that what happens in Catholic schools and RE classes is “largely just [an extension] of what has happened in the pulpit: gobbledly-gook nonsense that obliterates any sense of the authentic faith.” Just subscribe to the Cardinal Newman Society’s email notifications to see the state of Catholic colleges and universities. Sigh.

Voris sums up:

It’s clear that many people charged with the transmission, the passing on of the faith over the past generation either don’t believe it, or don’t believe it ENOUGH to make it their reason for living – and that is the ONLY way to live the Faith – it must be or become our major goal .. our sole reason for breathing.

… We know of course that lack of zeal is always a problem among the laity owing to their close association with the secular. But when leaders begin exhibiting the same lack of zeal – or their zeal is transferred from love and devotion for Our Blessed Lord to a devotion to the bureaucracy of the establishment Church – then disaster is sure to follow. When secular poison infects the clergy and seizes hold causing indifference and lack of charity for the sheep, then the sheep must step up and remind the shepherds of their duty; they must try and reawaken the zeal and snap them out of their clerical comas.

…It’s not so much wolves in sheep’s clothing we need to watch out for today, but rather wolves in shepherds’ clothing – a much more dangerous proposition.

Pray for our shepherds!

Fr. Andersen Homily: "Do You Love Me?"

A homily by Fr. Eric M. Andersen, Sacred Heart-St. Louis in Gervais, Oregon

April 14, 2013 Dominica III Paschæ

“Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?”

There is a fascinating interchange between the Risen Lord and St. Peter in this account. Jesus asks one thing and Peter answers another. In English, we might not catch this nuance. In the English there is only one word for love. So Jesus asks Peter if he “loves” him and Peter answers that, yes, he “loves” him. In the English we miss the point. In the Greek or Latin, we might get the point because the two words for love are different. But why are they different and what does that mean? Does Peter’s answer just indicate a different degree of love, or is it a different kind of love altogether? This takes some explaining because there are different kinds of love. For instance, when a child says, “I love you mommy and daddy” it is different than when a parent says “I love you my child.” The child loves the parents because it is dependent on them and loves them because they loved the child first. The child loves the parents because they provide the child with everything it needs. They care for their precious child, and they love it. The child’s depends on their love for existence. So the child’s love is a dependent sort of love.

Let’s contrast that with parents who say “I love you” to their children. This is a different kind of love.

The parents have much more invested. The parents have cooperated with God in bringing these children into the world. God has entrusted the parents with the life and the soul of each child. The parents sacrifice their own needs and their own comfort, perhaps their own happiness, or even their very lives for the sake of these children and their needs. The parents are willing to lay down their lives for each child. This is a self-sacrificial kind of love which a parent has for a child. So the child has a dependent sort of love and the parent has a self-sacrificial kind of love.

In English, we simply use the word “love” for both kinds of love. In the classical languages, there are different words for these various kinds of love. The Greek and the Latin languages both articulate this difference. In the Holy Scriptures we encounter different words for different kinds of love. In today’s gospel, we encounter two types of love. Our Lord says to Peter: “do you love me?” The phrase in Latin is diligis me? Diligis in the Latin means to love another with high esteem, to prize that person, to choose that person. So Our Lord says, “diligis me, do you love me Peter with high esteem? Do you prize me above all things? Do you choose me? Are you willing to lay down your life for me with a self-sacrificial love?” This is a godly love. It is the love that Jesus has for Peter and for us. By analogy, this is like the love of a parent for a child–a self-sacrificial love. Peter does not answer saying diligo te. Instead he answers with a different kind of love saying “amo te.” The love that Peter confesses is amore, and amore is inferior to diligere. Amore is like the love of a child for a parent. It is a dependent kind of love, an obligatory kind of love, a love based upon one’s feelings, rather than a love based on choice. Peter seems to have evaded the question. But perhaps Peter recognizes that he is but a child, incapable of loving God back with the same love given to him.

Jesus asks a second time, saying, “Simon son of John, diligis me?” (i.e., do you prize me, do you choose me?). Simon Peter once again answers, “Lord, tu scis quia amo te, you know that I feel love for you.” Peter is unable to commit to giving Jesus his all.

Jesus has been calling Peter to the highest heights. Peter cannot respond to those heights. Finally, Our risen Lord lowers the bar and asks a third time, modifying the question: “Simon son of John, amas me?” (that is, do you care about me? Do you feel obliged to me?). We can understand why Peter is distressed at this third question. He feels shame. Our Lord is calling him to something greater and now he lowers himself to Peter, asking him merely if he is fond of him. Our Lord will accept what Peter is able to give, but He tells Peter that more will be demanded of him.

Jesus reveals to Peter just what will be demanded of him. Peter will be asked to lay down his life with a self-sacrificial love for our Lord. He will be led where he does not care to go. Our Lord reveals that although Peter is only able to care for him he will be asked to go where he does not will to go when he lays down his life for our Lord. By tradition, Peter was crucified upside down in Rome under the persecution of the Emperor Nero. In the end, Peter was given the grace to love Jesus according to the heights that Jesus wished to call him. He loved Jesus with a self-sacrificial love. He chose Jesus, not out of obligation, nor because of his feelings. He willed to choose Jesus because He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. After Peter had received the Holy Spirit he knew this without a doubt. Therefore, there was no other choice but to give his life for Jesus.

We who have been given the Holy Spirit: what is holding us back? Jesus asks us to give Him everything. Are we able to give Him everything? In reality, we are not. He asks us if we love Him with a godly love and we respond that we care about him with a human love. We are as children who are incapable of understanding the love He asks for. So, He will take the love we are able to give to Him and work with it. But He asks us for more. He asks this for our own sake. He knows that we must rise up to that divine love if we ourselves are not to be lost. He knows that. He will continue to call us to that height of divine love.

Many Christians do not believe that they can aspire to that. I want to tell you that each of us can aspire to that. The devil will lie to you and tell you that you are helpless against your sins. That is a lie. The devil will lie to you and tell you that you cannot love God as He asks to be loved. That is a lie. The devil is sinning against the Holy Spirit – an unforgivable sin. He wants us to lose our faith.

We must realize that the Holy Spirit has been given to us by the Father and by the Son in order to help us rise up to that divine self-sacrificial love. The Holy Spirit is the love of God given to us at baptism, to dwell within us, to combat temptation and sin, and to dispel the lies of our enemy the devil. During Easter, we celebrate the triumph of life over death; the triumph of Jesus over the devil; the triumph of holiness and the beauty of purity over the ugliness of sin. The false promises of the devil do not deliver. Jesus calls us to rise up by the power of the Holy Spirit from the depths of this darkness into the heights of heavenly glory. He will not force it upon us. We must desire it. We must ask for it. We must detest our sins and renounce them. We must renounce the lies of the devil. We must put aside our sinful choices and lifestyles and conform ourselves to the ways of God, with the help of God, through living out the sacramental life. That is the Way, and the Truth, and the Life that Easter promises. Let us embrace that way, that truth, and that life and never settle for empty promises that deliver nothing but misery. 

The Bishops Are the Problem

And I’ll be scolded for saying something bad about bishops, but it’s true.

Our bishops have got to get their act together. Together.

On the one hand, we can, along with Fr. Z, give Archbishop Allen Vigneron “kudos” for saying that those Catholics who promote “gay marriage” should not present themselves for Holy Communion. Fr. Z adds, “Hopefully other bishops will take heart at his example and make strong public statements such as this one.”

We didn’t have to wait too long, though, to hear that a retired bishop advocates just the opposite – in the same diocese! Just yesterday (April 11), the author of an article at MyFoxDetroit.com reported:

The Detroit archbishop's recent comments about communion and support for same sex marriage is still sparking debate among Catholics. Now a local priest is speaking out publicly against the archbishop's approach.

"Don't stop going to communion. You're okay," said retired Auxiliary Bishop of Detroit Thomas Gumbleton.

Long a progressive voice in Detroit's Catholic community, Gumbleton is breaking with Archbishop Allen Vigneron days after Vigneron declared that supporters of same-sex marriage should refrain from receiving Holy Communion, comparing it to perjury.

"If you look at it from a pastoral point of view where you're trying to reach out to people, trying to draw them in, then the last thing you want to do is impose a penalty or make them feel like they have to impose a penalty upon themselves," Gumbleton said.

The bishop says the church's approach should be pastoral not punitive.

This just makes me angry – in several ways. First of all, what right does Gumbleton have to undermine the current archbishop of his diocese?! What kind of message does that give the faithful!? Of course, he’s not the only bishop – retired or otherwise – who holds that liberal, “pastoral” position. But the fact that he’s in the same diocese…well, that is just beyond the pale.

And then there’s the simple fact that, as Dr. Ed Peters explains,

Catholics who promote “same-sex marriage” act contrary to Canon 209 § 1 and should not approach for holy Communion per Canon 916. Depending on the facts of the case, they also risk having holy Communion withheld from them under Canon 915, being rebuked under Canon 1339 § 2, and/or being sanctioned under Canon 1369 for gravely injuring good morals.

Those who are not in communion with the Church, should not receive Holy Communion! Duh! Now some bishops persist it characterizing denial of Holy Communion as mean way of scolding a wrong-doer. But that’s not the point! Those who receive when not in a state of grace are receiving unworthily, and that is a sin against Our Lord Himself. Cardinal Raymond Burke has written that in recent years, bishops themselves have seemed to be confused about the issue:

First of all, the denial of Holy Communion was repeatedly characterized as the imposition of a canonical penalty, when, in reality, it plainly articulates the responsibility of the minister of Holy Communion, ordinary or extraordinary, to deny Holy Communion to those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin [1]. The denial of Holy can be the effect of the imposition or declaration of the canonical penalties of Excommunication and Interdict (cf. cann. 1331 §1, 2º; and 1332), but there are other cases in which Holy Communion must be denied, apart from any imposition or declaration of a canonical penalty, in order to respect the holiness of the Sacrament, to safeguard the salvation of the soul of the party presenting himself to receive Holy Communion, and to avoid scandal.

Bishops like Bishop Gumbleton want to be “pastoral”…well, what is “pastoral” about letting a person receive Holy Communion unworthily? What is “pastoral” about NOT letting a person know his or her soul is in mortal danger? What is “pastoral” about not calling a sin a sin?!

No wonder our Church is split right down the middle in this country. The US bishops are split! They cannot seem to present a unified front when it comes to some key moral teachings of the Church. That is ridiculous. And this disagreement of Gumbleton with Vigneron is just the most recent example.

I’m sure the bishops want our respect. And I want to give it to them. But I’m telling you, I’m having a real hard time respecting them as a group. Individuals, maybe – a few here and there – and I try to write about them to show that there is some good news in the Church. But then when you look at the big picture, you see a bunch of men who are supposed to be leading us poor sheep, but who can’t agree on where it is they are leading us! What are we supposed to think?! Should we have Vigneron and Gumbleton duke it out down at the corner after school?

I’m disgusted.

Archbishop Sample Installation Mass Photos

Here are some great photos of the installation Mass of Archbishop Alexander Sample on April 2, 2013, in Portland, Oregon. These photos are all by Marc Salvatore, who was hired as a second photographer by the Archdiocese of Portland for the event.

Bishop Liam Cary, Diocese of Baker

A Diocesan TLM Community In Lansing, Michigan

As a result of my “Good News” post on April 5, I learned that Bishop Earl Boyea of the Diocese of Lansing, Michigan has actually celebrated the extraordinary form of the Mass for a Latin Mass community in Lansing. That information came to me via Cam of “A Woman’s Place” blog, who attends there. More information about this interesting parish/community is available on their website “Get Holy”. (All photos in this post are copied from that website - see more here.)

Blessed John XXIII Community came into existence because the faithful were requesting the Traditional Latin Mass, says Fr. Jeffery Robideau, who serves as the chaplain of the group.  Bishop Boyea asked priests to add the TLM in their parishes, but for whatever reasons, this didn’t come to fruition. The bishop, aware that Fr. Robideau had a preference for the TLM, asked him to start a new community to meet the needs of the faithful who desired the older form of the Mass. Fr. Robideau’s appointment took effect on Sept. 1, 2010 according to one news story. 

Prior to that appointment, though, Fr. Robideau seems to have been put through the wringer in his previous parish. Fr. Z had a post about this back in December 2009; he cited a news article about the situation which reported:

Some 150 members of Our Lady of Fatima had asked Bishop Earl Boyea to remove the Rev. Jeffrey Robideau. Last week, the parish and diocese sent letters to parishioners saying that Robideau will stay.…

Included in parishioners' concerns were Robideau's decision to disband the church's choir and his apparent refusal to train girls to perform altar services or hold church committee meetings.

"It is clear that the pastor has the prerogative to make the decisions in these matters," Boyea stated in his Dec. 17 letter. "You are no doubt aware that in our diocese, as in any diocese, priests will vary, within the guidelines established by universal or diocese law, in their choices in these matters."

Sounds like Fr. Robideau had a clear idea about how to restore some true Catholic identity to his parish, and he actually had the support of his bishop in doing so! Wow! Kudos again to Bishop Boyea! And kudos to Fr. Robideau for standing up for his liturgical and pastoral rights in the first place!

So now, Fr. Robideau is the chaplain for Blessed John XXIII Community in Lansing, Michigan. The extraordinary form of the Mass is celebrated in the crypt of the Cathedral every Sunday, with anywhere from 50-80 people in attendance. This is generally a low Mass, with a missa cantata (sung Mass) on the first Sunday of the month. Fr. Robideau says that the group does have a schola, and plans are in the works to have a sung Mass on two Sundays per month. Easter Sunday marked the group’s first solemn high Mass. (There are also two weekday Masses, one in the evening and one in the morning.)

And, as I mentioned above, Bishop Boyea himself has celebrated the EF Mass for this group. That, to me, is significant.

Take some time to check out Fr. Robideau’s website, “Get Holy”. There are two main pages; one describes “Saintly Acres”, which is a 20-acre farm where Fr. Robideau lives and also conducts short retreats for his parishioners.  The “About Us” section says:

The name Get Holy represents the heart of our spiritual life. We are to “Get Holy.” That is to say, we are to know, love and serve God. We are to transform our lives into the image of the Body of Christ. We are to conquer our personal interior disordered passions and desires known as concupiscence.

Those who want to Get Holy must use a different approach than the one most of the world uses, including most clerics. We are not to take the road of least resistance. Rather, we ask what is the will of God and then we are to take that road whether it be easy or difficult. This is done with the understanding that people will rise to the level of excellence demanded of  them. We are not called to water down the Faith, but to present it in all its fullness for the glory of God and the salvation of souls.

At Saintly Acres, we are dedicated to the tried and true methods of growing in holiness as lived by the many great saints in our rich history.

We look for and demand nothing less than the fulfillment of Jesus’ command “Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

We are here for you.

Fr. Robideau seems to be a no-holds-barred kind of priest when it comes to preaching. In the “News and Articles” section, he posts sermons; the ones I looked through seemed to have solid, honest, no-nonsense Church teaching. When I commented on this in an email to Fr. Robideau, he responded, “Jesus never held back so I figure why should I, as long as I speak truth of faith and not from opinion.”

The other main page of the website is devoted to Blessed John XIII Community. I like the section that says:

Are you nervous about going to your first Extraordinary Form Mass?

Don't be. We have a Pew Buddy for you.

We are more than happy to help you. We have people willing to sit with you and help you follow along in our Latin/English books so you know exactly what is going on.

We all remember our first time. It is an exciting time so forget being nervous and come and be spiritually enrichened through this ancient rite of the Catholic Mass.

I haven’t been to Lansing to experience all of this first hand, but I find it very encouraging toknow that there are groups of the faithful who want this to happen, that there are priests like Fr. Robideau willing to serve the faithful in this way, and that there are bishops like Bishop Boyea who actually seem to support it.

That’s a far cry from the situation in my diocese, but it gives me hope!