According to CathNews – the news service of the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference – Cardinal John Dew, Archbishop of the Archdiocese of New Zealand, encouraged his pastors to make some changes to the Mass for Sunday, October 29; presumably as a dry run for something more permanent.
… parishioners at Catholic churches in New Zealand will notice the Liturgy of the Word is a little different: the Gospel will be prayed using an ancient process called Lectio Divina (Holy Reading).
Cardinal Dew explained:
There will be only one reading (the Gospel), which the lay reader will read. The lay reader – called the Lectio Divina Leader – will also guide the congregation through the Lectio Divina process, which involves both listening to and reflecting on the Gospel.
Guess who Cardinal Dew cited as his inspiration?
This Lectio Divina initiative is a way the Archdiocese is responding to the plea of Pope Francis to make the sacred Scriptures better known and more widely diffused. He has reminded us that we can take creative initiatives in our parishes so that we can become ‘living vessels for the transmission of God’s word.’
Cardinal Dew explained further:
What will happen is the reader will invite the congregation to close their eyes and listen prayerfully while the Gospel is being read.
Picture the scene:
Mary Agnes Busybody, longtime parish secretary and gatekeeper at the Catholic Community of Heresyville, ascends the pulpit to proclaim the Gospel of the Lord; meanwhile, Father Les Manly, vested in daisies and rainbows, sits in the presider’s chair with his eyes closed.
Priceless!
As news of Cardinal Dew’s “creative initiative” spread, neo-conservative commentators took to social media to express their concerns.
Even in my limited review of such responses, I’m fairly confident that readers of this space will find none more entertaining than the one posted by Fr. Dwight Longenecker; an Anglican convert who is familiar to many.
Barely able to contain his outrage, Fr. Longenecker asks rhetorically:
What on earth does a cardinal in the church actually believe about the liturgy? Does he really think it is some kind of touchy feely retreat experience? … Does the cardinal really not understand the formal and ritualistic function of the liturgy, and that to personalize it too much takes away the corporate, ritualistic aspect of the Mass which touches people more deeply than a conscious meditation session? It would seem not.
Fr. Longenecker made it clear where he stands on the matter:
The liturgy is a great gift from the ages to the world today. It is a masterpiece of culture, spirituality, worship and ritual. It is not up to us to be creative with it. Being creative with the liturgy is like painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa.
All of these sentiments seem quite appropriate until one is reminded that the liturgy under discussion is the Novus Ordo Missae.
That’s right, we’re talking about Annibale Bugnini’s “masterpiece;” the same that Pope Paul the Pathetic unceremoniously crammed down the throats of Latin Rite Catholics less than fifty years ago.
This, according to Fr. Longenecker, is the “great gift from the ages” that one dare not sully with creative initiatives.
What on earth does a married former-Anglican priest actually believe about the way the Novus Ordo came to be? Does he really not understand that the entire affair is but one big manmade creative initiative? It would seem not.
It gets better.
After rightly identifying the idea of “Lay Leaders” as nothing more than “a ruse to bring women into roles reserved to the clergy,” Fr. Longenecker says:
The final worry about this news item is that being “creative” in the liturgy continues the trend of team Francis to insinuate ambiguity into the church wherever possible, and for ambiguity it is ok to read “relativism.”
I find the choice of words here hilarious.
Contributors and commenters at akaCatholic have often criticized as weak those who insist upon charging Francis with making “ambiguous” statements that stand in need of “clarification;” even when (as in the case of Amoris Laetitia) his words and deeds are perfectly clear.
Fr. Longenecker goes further still, charging Francis & Friends with merely insinuating ambiguity!
You can’t make this stuff up.
In any case, getting back to the CathNews report, Cardinal Dew is quoted as saying:
The Leader will remind them [the congregation and the priest] they are in God’s presence, so all they need to do is let the Holy Spirit lead their understanding of what has been read.
Isn’t this the same process by which Protestants came to “understand” that Our Lord’s words as recorded in John 6 (“My flesh is food indeed…”) are merely symbolic and entirely spiritual?
Look, the undeniable fact of the matter, evident from simple observation alone, is that the Novus Ordo Missae is where self-identified Catholics go to lose their faith – or what little faith they may have had – often without their knowledge.
It is a bastard rite with no Apostolic pedigree whatsoever – even though its architects strategically stole certain elements from tradition to give it the appearance of Catholicity.
As far as I’m concerned, Cardinal Dew’s “creative initiative” isn’t the least bit out of keeping with the “spirit of the new liturgy;” rather, it fits like hand-in-glove.
So, once again, I say, bring it on!
I’m reminded of those like Alex Jones who endlessly (and rightly) lament globalism and the New World Order yet remain blissfully blue-pilled on its supreme architects and promoters, as brilliantly described in books like The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit by E. Michael Jones.
“Pope Paul the Pathetic.” That’s a good one. Almost as good as “Pope Francis the Groovy.” 😉
“Great gift of the ages ” lol, so is 1995 the beginning of the ages for this poor fellow and his family? Or When it in his mind did the great ages begin 1967-68?
How cool… ☮️
It boggles the mind!
Is that Fr. Les Manly who is seated on the left in the above picture?
With Mediator Dei of 1947, Pius XII had set the stage for “active participation” of the laity. Not only did he strongly encourage the “Dialogue Mass” and congregational singing in this encyclical, but he also exhorted the Bishops to set up diocesan committees to ensure that these revolutionary measures “in which the people take part in the liturgy” would be everywhere promoted as a “liturgical apostolate” for the laity.
Here we see the first intimation of the “theology of lay liturgical ministry” that would be ordered by Vatican II, whereby the whole assembly shares the responsibility for celebrating Mass. Thus, Pius XII effectively undermined his own teaching on the Catholic priesthood found elsewhere in the same document. With such confusion between the ordained and the non-ordained, is there any wonder that there developed a crisis of priestly identity?
One could say that the decline of the sense of the sacred began in embryonic form with the 1951-1955 changes (in the Holy Week liturgy).
Under pressure from the French and German Bishops, Pius XII made a new rule that the Church should no longer hold the Easter Vigil in daylight hours, as had been the case since the 7th or 8th centuries, but should revert to the practice of the first Christians who held it after dark.
No convincing reason was given by the Congregation of Rites as to why the night time should be deemed the “proper hour” for the Vigil service. In fact, there is no “proper” hour for a vigil.The mystery of the Church’s liturgy is, in its essence, not bound by the clock. In liturgical terms, a vigil refers to the eve of a feast day and can be celebrated with propriety at any time of the day.
However, Maxima Redemptionis arbitrarily insisted that the ceremonies “may not begin before twilight, or certainly not before sunset.” But the timing of the Easter Vigil had never been set by astronomical calculation, as if everything depended on how many degrees the sun is above or below the horizon.
The Church was ordered to return to the catacombs. It is perplexing that the same Pope who had condemned such a retrograde step in the strongest terms as “antiquarianism” only four years earlier, could have countenanced this reversal of his own teaching:
“The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.” (Mediator Dei, 1947, n. 61)
There is no mistaking the language used in the Decree to denigrate the liturgical tradition as it had developed up to the 1950s. Maxima Redemptionis carried a note of reprobation of what had been approved and maintained as Catholic practice for centuries, with the scarcely veiled implication that for most of her history the Church had conducted her worship on wrong lines.
In it, the accusation was made that the Easter Vigil had lost its original clarity and the meaning of its words and symbols when it was “torn” from its “proper” nocturnal setting and was no longer in line with the Gospel accounts. According to the reformers, it had even become “harmful” to the symbolic meaning of the Vigil. Anyone would think they were referring to a monstrous iniquity that must be removed from the Church.
In other words, the Holy See (echoing the reformers) was claiming that the public prayers of the Church celebrated continually for many centuries, sanctified by long usage and codified by the Council of Trent were theologically defective and liturgically “improper.”
Is it conceivable that the traditional manner of celebrating the Easter Vigil in the daytime was a disastrous mistake and that the Church had to wait 14 centuries for Bugnini and his henchmen to put the matter right?
Such a pitiful sight, isn’t it?
I wish I could laugh at this like you could. I am not at that level yet, but it is reassuring to see that you could laugh at it. It is painful and makes me squirm uncomfortably. I am so embarrassed for them all. It is so cringeworthy. Right? I am glad you could laugh. That comforts me.
Awww, c’mon Cortez ……here’s something you can ONLY laugh about.
Pope Leo the X111 dinner honoring Cardinal Dolan!
Fr James Martin and former LC Fr Jonathan Morris are keynote speakers.
Ya think Pope Leo will be there is spirit or move his chair to the farthest regions of heaven?
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-inaugural-pope-leo-xiii-award-fundraising-gala-tickets-37739143795
Excellent summaries Katherine. What strikes me is that PIUS XII came perilously close to the Anathemas of Trent, especially the one addressed to those who claim that “the received Rites of the Church are defective”.
PIUS XII could be the first true modernist Pope, not John XXIII. Afterall, Pius XII appointed the hordes of modernists as Cardinals and officials, chief of which was Bugnini, all of which paved the way for JOHN XXIII and Aggiornamento. A lot was already in place by 1958–indeed the entire foundation of the upcoming revolution was already laid in the Vatican. I own a book called “The Mass of the Future” which essentially lays out the prototype Novus Ordo mindset way back in Pius XII’s late 1940’s. This book was mainstream and approved by the Church even then.
What is also shattering is that PIUS XII coined the term “Novus Ordo” not Paul VI!
If Katherine keeps posting articles like this about Pope Pius XII sedes may have to start reconsidering who they have DECLARED their first official sedevacantist Pope. (although in what could be the Mother Of All “Contradictions” they continue to deny they’re DECLARING anything despite their own 24/7 non-stop DECLARATIONS about who is and isn’t the pope right here on this very website.)
My views on Pius XII haven’t changed in years. He made grave mistakes that damaged the faith, but he was never an apostate. Bad Pope—yes. For me, the only sede Pope that is 100% demonstrable is Bergolio. The other Conciliar Popes are all “doubtful” Popes, since they all fomented a brand new and false religion.
The problem is even if you are right, you, yourself have no authority to officially declare that for the whole worldwide Catholic Church so he is still officialy the Pope since, as the Church teaches, NO ONE (NO ONE includes Bishops, Cardinals, Semper Fidelis, Tom A, In Carita, etc.) earth can depose a Pope, only God has power to “officially” depose a Pope “ipso facto” whether he is a heretic or not, and the only way we can know when God decides for this to happen for certain is when God allows a Pope to die. Otherwise we are just stuck with heretical Popes that God has allowed for whatever reasons but imo likely as most severe type of punishment along with His Mercy to wake us all up.
And by the way since you believe the only sede Pope is Pope Francis proves point that sedes all act on their own authority with their own DECLARATIONS even though they keep arguing it’s not a DECLARATION or IT JUST IS IPSO FACTO because its so obvious to everyone when it happens. How obvious is it if right on this blog page alone I’ve heard about 5 different opinions on who the first sede Pope really is yet all deny they are making a self DECLARATION.
Louie , you hit the nail on the head in a past video! Fr Jonathan Morris is a guest speaker at the award dinner above and Fr James Martin touts him as his good friend.
One wonders if he was indoctrinated in defending the indefensible while in the Legion of Christ?
https://akacatholic.com/fr-jonathan-morris-spits-back/
http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/2017/09/church-militant-under-attack-for.html
Sad….and thats the nicest word that comes to mind.
Well, a pope can officially reject the Faith and therefore depose himself. He doesnt have to die for that to happen. There is at least one other way for us to humans to know that a pope is not a pope. Basically, we dont have to wait until a supposed pope dies to know that he wasnt a pope.
Youre no different John in the fact that you remain the same ——a practical sedevacantist who does not obey your Pope on matters of faith and morals but who assigns himself the divine right to dissent—-Hans Kung like—-again all based on your own personal authority. At least my position is philosophically and theologically consistent—-yours is not. You refuse submission to a man you 100% believe is Pope.
Its worse than that Semper, R&R types refuse submission to the person the believe Jesus Christ Himself empowered with authority to teach us. A Pope is Christs Vicar, empowered with a charism to teach without error. Apparently, the R&Rers know better than Christ’s chosen authority. I truly think we are all wasting our time. It is becoming obvious to me that those who profess sede and those who profess R&R, profess two differing faiths. This has turned from an in house squabble into a schism within the trad community. We have two differing beliefs on the Papacy. Both cannot objectively be true. Bergolio is or isnt Pope. One belief is Catholic and one is not. Choose wisely.
The fact they casually bandy about the phrase “heretical popes” Tom is proof positive that they’ve disavowed the very idea of a Catholic Papacy altogether. Certainly one endowed with the apostolic authority to enforce an infallible ordinairy magisterium on matters of faith and morals. Either Aggiornamento is Divinely ordained or it is not. They always smear us with the canard that we demand perfection from a Pope. This is absurd——they however have relegated the papacy itself to such irrelevamce in the daily life of a Catholic to not even regard the Catholic Faith as having any connection to the papacy at all. “Heretical Popes” what ballyhoo and really what a blasphemy.
R&R’s reject the definition of the papacy and worship the man (or nowadays, make excuses for him). Sede’s bow down before the the papacy and denounce the man who defiles it.
There is way too much “huffing and puffing” concerning what constitutes true heresy (thank you siscoe and salza). If you walk like a duck and quack like a duck then you are a duck…or at least want to be a duck. What more does bergoglio, who embodies all that is the heretical vatican 2 (protestant) religion, have to do before people get it?
Francis is not the pope and never was. Gosh. Don’t you people read Louie and Canon Law? They’re right.
BXVI is still pope. Warts and all.
Dinner in honer of Cardinal Dolan.
$375.00 – $15,000.00 a plate wow these people have some cash!