This is the second volume of the collected works of Frits Albers. The first volume has been published only recently. The works concerned first appeared as articles dating from as early as the 1970s but with later editions appearing as late as AD 2000.
I have provided a testimonial to the first volume and what I said in it applies to the present works. There are three books that are included in this second volume. Put shortly, the first two are defences of Vatican II and the Novus Order of the Mass, and the third is a guide to how to deal with the threats to the Faith by the controversies surrounding what the changes are, let alone how they are to be interpreted.
As may be expected, Frits Albers has embarked upon quite a task, for as he himself notes in quoting St. Paul, such are the profundity and eternal consequences of the issues involved, we are up against “Principalities and Powers”. However, as I see his effort as a man of strong faith, he is well up to the task. One indication of the pointed truth of what he says may be gathered from the fact that his books have been neglected to be widely published for nigh on 50 years since they appeared at the very time when the theological errors and their related sinful practices were begun to be promoted with an enthusiasm that would be gratifying to their evil originators.
Indeed, such has been the forcefulness of this promotion, reaching even to the highest levels of the religious and hierarchical life of the Church, that their malign influence is today deeper and wider than ever.
The publication of Albers’ works could not be more urgent. His assessment and refutation of the modernist error (presented most insidiously in Teilhard de Chardin’s writings) that underlies the whole push to change the doctrinal basis of Catholic life and practice is so thorough and telling, that it is hard to see how any person of honest disposition, prepared to give him a fair hearing, would not be won over by his clear exposition of the positions of the parties to the controversy and even clearer determination of the issues. There is much in this volume to be digested and we have space to make only one point, hopefully to give the reader some idea of the value of his work.
With regard particularly to the first two books included we need to note a problem of language which is to do with the inability of the modern mind to make distinctions, so that even in ecclesiastical Latin phrases there is a hidden prejudice to taking the word in a sense that favours the modernist position. As is clear from what we observe about his work, Frits Albers is one who has been able to make the distinctions needed to avoid the modernist mind-set that sadly even afflicts “not a few” modern Catholic theologians. (cf. Fides et ratio n. 61)
The problem of language use, or rather misuse, can apply even to words used by popes, such as Pope John XXIII’s use of the Italian aggornimento. Words such as “renew” and “reform” are used constantly in the modern era to close down opposition to the hidden intent or real meaning of “deform” or “destroy”. Even the word “deconstruction” is used openly to imply some sort of constructive change instead of simple destruction.
So too the Latin Novus Ordo is subtly taken to mean the rejection of the old rite. Then, the Magisterium has to go to great lengths to explain the distinction between what in the liturgy is capable of change and what is not. So, as regards the latter, there is no new rite replacing the old. The Novus Ordo has to be the same in essence, or in substance, as the old, or it is not Catholic. Of course, those who are opposed to the “new rite” are keen to find differences of substance.
The Novus Ordo is the same in essence as the one it has replaced and the Mass is the same as it was from the beginning. This problem of preference for taking any change as an essential (or substantial) change is applied throughout. It is applied to the fabricated distinction between Vatican II and “Pre-Vatican II”. Confusion reigns all round, including among “well educated” Catholics at University level.
The Magisterium is occupied constantly in explaining that there is no discontinuity between the teachings of Vatican II and previous doctrinal positions in the long history of Catholic Tradition. One wonders however, with the barrage of loud voices to the contrary, how much effect these magisterial “interventions” have.
A poor education in the use of language and logic (which are intimately connected) hampers the one side of the argument and favours the other (no prizes for guessing which is which).
Without making any criticism of Frits Albers himself, for his intent is clear where he does so, he uses the word “community” in a way that could be problematic. There is nothing wrong with the ordinary meaning of the word itself. Indeed, transferred to the order of grace and the divine it can be used of the Trinity. But, precisely because of its soundness and sacred application, it is used or rather misused in the most profound way in modern political and religious life.
As to the former, it is as if we confused it with Communism, whereby the very notion of civil community is destroyed and citizens brutalized. This misuse has become insinuated even into Catholic thinking (and practice) in most recent times. (The word “synod” can be misused in the same way)
A more appropriate word in the place concerned would in my view be “collective”, for Albers is referring to a grouping where there is no true unity but a kind of herd-like gathering that tries to bully individual Catholics who are deprived of the leadership they deserve. (This is not a condition peculiar to Catholic congregations but is a general condition of modern political life)
It is quite remarkable that Albers picked up this abusive application of the word so early. The malign connotation exploited by them, some clergy were referring to the “parish community” when a good portion of the congregation were losing their faith in central doctrines, especially with regard to sexual morality, and so did not really have unity with those that had kept them. It became almost impossible to use the word in its right sense.
We put this comment then only to show how difficult it is in modernist (which equates with “fashionable” – those people Chesterton called “Thursdayites”) controlled conversations to have any intelligent/ intelligible dialogue at all.
In connection with this we might note that the very word “Thomist” was coming to be given a fabricated connotation that suited the modernist climate of thought, and used as opposed in some way to a less “rigid” Catholic Franciscan sentiment. This is very subtle in that it is designed to undermine the unity of mind and spirit that existed (and still exists in Heaven) in relation to the two great saints, when it might apply to some of their not so holy or learned followers. Read the two wonderful books of Chesterton on the saints to get the balanced view of their holy relationship.
Despite the linguistic difficulty, which all the faithful have to contend with, this collection of books of Frits Albers is powerful in all respects and one can only pray that it reaches the audience that needs it, which is all of us today.
— Dr. Donald G. Boland, author of Rev. Fr. Austin M. Woodbury, SM, PhD, STD and the Aquinas Academy (1945 – 1975); also see his Compendium
Piotr Mazurkiewicz: Catholic priest, professor of political science and Catholic social thought at Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw. Editor-in-chief of the journal “Christianity – World – Politics”. From 2008-2012 Secretary General of the Commission of Bishops of the European Community COMECE.
A convert from Greek Orthodoxy, James Likoudis is an internationally known apologist, one who has dedicated his life to reconciling his Eastern Orthodox brethren with the Catholic Church Jesus Christ founded. He excels in analyzing the key issues that separate Catholics and Orthodox, including regarding papal and conciliar history, and he cherishes all we hold in common in Christ.