Fueled most recently by an article on the sacred liturgy published in L’Osservatore Romano, Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, is skyrocketing toward the outer limits of neo-conservative stardom.
The highlight of the article – what some headlines are disingenuously portraying as the imminent return of ad orientem worship to the Novus Ordo – reads:
Contrary to what has sometimes been maintained, it is in full conformity with the conciliar Constitution [on the Sacred Liturgy]—indeed, it is entirely fitting—for everyone, priest and congregation, to turn together to the East during the penitential rite, the singing of the Gloria, the orations, and the Eucharistic prayer…
For the record, even the Novus Ordo missal itself presumes that the rite is being celebrated ad orientem. As such, it’s difficult to imagine why the cardinal’s words are being received with so much excitement.
More importantly, while it is true that Sacrosanctum Concilium does not specifically call for a liturgy versus populum (facing the people), it most certainly set the stage for it.
By positioning the purpose and the value of the so-called “reform” in terms of its contribution to ecumenism.
In the words of the Constitution, the reason for undertaking the effort of reforming the ancient Mass “is to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ.”
In reality, this translates to nothing more inspired than a directive to craft a rite wherein Protestants will feel right at home, and that includes, of course, a rite wherein the priest-as-presider faces the people in the manner of a heretic minister.
In spite of this, Cardinal Sarah, like just about every other “full communion” prelate in Rome, is determined to hold the Council harmless, and what’s more, to treat it as if it is a widely misunderstood gift from Above, saying:
Sacrosanctum Concilium is not in fact a simple catalogue of “recipes” for reform, but a true and proper Magna Carta for all liturgical action. In that Constitution, the Ecumenical Council gives us a masterful lesson in methodology.
He even goes so far as to say, “The hour has come to listen to the Council.”
Right, as if the nonsense that has come to define Catholic life over the last fifty years (liturgical and otherwise) isn’t attributable in large measure to the Roman Pontiffs who, far from ignoring the conciliar text, have allowed it to serve as the guiding light of their pontificates.
Note as well the gratuitous reference to Vatican II as “the Ecumenical Council.”
Not only is Vatican II not the ecumenical council, given its lack of intent to define and bind, it is truly more akin to a glorified Synod of Bishops, and we all know how faithful they can be in providing a Magna Carta for the Church’s renewal!
More to the point, the Second Vatican Council was – as the documents it produced most surely attest (Sacrosanctum Concilium included) – a “pastoral” exercise that provided Masons and modernists with an unprecedented opportunity to construct the foundation upon which the anthropocentric church of their dreams would be built; all under the guise of a solemn act of the sacred magisterium.
And boy did they seize it!
Unable to recognize this reality, Cardinal Sarah maintains:
The conciliar Constitution invites us to rediscover the Trinitarian origin of the work of the liturgy.
This is simply a variation on the false notion that the Church prior to Vatican II had drifted away from its most fundamental principles and was therefore in great need of ressourcement – a return to sources – with the specific implication here being that prior to the Council, the Church had somehow lost sight of the true nature of Holy Mass.
This is what psychologists would call “projection,” and Our Lady, “diabolical disorientation.”
The immediate pre-conciliar era was one during which the overwhelming majority of self-described Catholics faithfully assisted at Mass without fail every Sunday and Holy Day, they frequented the sacraments, and had an unshakeable belief in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.
Today, nearly fifty years after Sacrosanctum Concilium was officially implemented, leading to the “reformed” (more properly, deformed) liturgy known as the Novus Ordo, the exact opposite is true.
Undaunted, Cardinal Sarah points to the “conciliar Constitution” that effectively set the current liturgical crisis in motion as the key to its restoration; a proposition that cannot but call to mind Einstein’s definition of insanity.
Quoting from Sacrosanctum Concilium, he writes:
The hour has come to listen to the Council. The liturgy is “above all things the worship of the divine majesty” (§33). It can form and teach us only insofar as it is completely ordered to divine worship and the glorification of God.
As indicated, Cardinal Sarah is quoting from SC 33.
Now, pay very close attention as this reference gives us a perfect opportunity to consider just how dangerous the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy truly is, and why the last thing anyone needs to do is to “listen to the Council.”
In context, the reference given by Cardinal Sarah reads:
Although the sacred liturgy is above all things the worship of the divine Majesty, it likewise contains much instruction for the faithful . For in the liturgy God speaks to His people and Christ is still proclaiming His gospel. And the people reply to God both by song and prayer.
Moreover, the prayers addressed to God by the priest who presides over the assembly in the person of Christ are said in the name of the entire holy people and of all present. (Sacrosanctum Concilium 33)
There is a great deal to discuss here; perhaps more than meets the eye, so we’ll take it a portion at a time.
Although the sacred liturgy is above all things the worship of the divine Majesty, it likewise contains much instruction for the faithful .
Cardinal Sarah quoted the first half of this sentence as if to suggest that it’s emblematic of those allegedly overlooked portions of the conciliar text that, once “listened to,” will contribute to the liturgical renewal desired.
Not all that long ago, I may have agreed with him, but thanks be to God, I now recognize that these words of the Council are highly deceptive and gravely dangerous.
First of all, let us ask, what is “worship of the divine Majesty,” and how is it performed?
No doubt, there are countless ways in which mankind worships the divine Majesty; Eucharistic adoration, individual and communitarian prayer, various devotions like the Way of the Cross, etc.
Keeping well in mind the ecumenical impetus behind the proposed liturgical reform, it is important to recognize that when individual heretics gather to participate in their “Sunday services,” the majority do so with the intention of offering praise and worship of the divine Majesty as well.
At this, it should be evident why it is a dangerous thing to imagine that the sacred liturgy (and here I speak specifically of Holy Mass) is above all things the worship of the divine Majesty. (The Latin text uses the word, praecipue, which can also be translated, especially.)
In reality, Holy Mass is above all things (i.e., more than anything else) the true and propitiatory Sacrifice of Jesus Christ offered for both the living and the dead unto the attainment of mercy, that each might enter ever more perfectly into Holy Communion with Almighty God.
As such, while we can say that the Mass is the most excellent worship of the divine Majesty at our disposal (precisely because it is the perfect Sacrifice of Christ into which we enter by the power of the Holy Ghost), it is at best misleading to characterize the Mass as this above all things.
Why is this distinction so important?
Embracing the Council’s false characterization of the Mass as simply worship “above all else” leads one to imagine that it is essentially the Catholic version of the Protestant Sunday service.
Can there be any doubt that this is precisely what most Catholics, including even many a daily communicant, believe?
Notice as well that the conciliar proposition under review provides a footnote (34) that reads:
Cf. Council of Trent, Session XXII, Doctrine on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, c. 8.
Session XXII, Chapter VIII of the Council of Trent reads, under the heading, “On not celebrating the Mass everywhere in the vulgar tongue; the mysteries of the Mass to be explained to the people”:
Although the Mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, nevertheless, it has not seemed expedient to the Fathers, that it should be everywhere celebrated in the vulgar tongue…
Setting aside for the moment the fact that the Novus Ordo is “everywhere celebrated in the vulgar tongue,” note that from here, the chapter goes on to briefly exhort pastors to explain the mysteries of the Holy Sacrifice in their sermons. That’s it.
The intent of this chapter is plain; nowhere does it or any other portion of the canons and decrees of Trent suggest that the Mass is “above all else” or “especially” a worship service, but this is precisely the message imparted in the text of Vatican II.
SC 33 promotes a Protestant view of the Mass more plainly still when it goes on to say:
For in the liturgy God speaks to His people and Christ is still proclaiming His gospel. And the people reply to God both by song and prayer.
Imagine that! The liturgy of the Catholic Church is thus reduced to a reading of the Gospels that invites the people to respond by breaking out in song and prayer!
To top it all off, as if to leave no room for confusion, the priest must also be reduced:
Moreover, the prayers addressed to God by the priest who presides over the assembly in the person of Christ are said in the name of the entire holy people and of all present.
Don’t let the gratuitous reference to the priest acting “in the person of Christ” distract you; the real intent here is to paint the priest as presider, even to the point where the masterminds of the text evidently found it necessary to put forth yet another falsehood; namely, that the prayers spoken by the priest at Holy Mass are “said in the name of the entire holy people and of all present.”
In this, the revolutionaries, the same who looked forward to a new rite wherein the priest would largely lose his unique identity, tipped their hand.
In the Mass of Ages (the one celebrated by the Council Fathers and the one to which they necessarily refer), there are numerous prayers that are spoken exclusively by the priest (i.e., not in the name of the people); e.g., his Confiteor, the Munda cor meum (prior to the reading of the Gospel), the Lavabo, the Placeat Tibi, and most notably the Prayers at the Consecration…
More can be said about the degree to which the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy is indeed culpable for the liturgical disaster that followed, but that at this, I trust the point has been made.
While it may be the case that Cardinal Sarah is more Catholic in his thinking than many of his confreres (including his humble boss), ultimately he’s but another man of the Council; unable to see it for what it truly is – a grave danger to any and all who wish to find, embrace, and persist in the one true faith.
He is, therefore, part of the problem; not the solution.
Until such time as the leaders of the Church, the pope chief among them, abandon the increasingly untenable proposition that Vatican Council II was an outpouring of Divine guidance, if only we will listen, the crisis through which we are currently suffering will most certainly worsen.
More specifically as it concerns the sacred liturgy; until the Novus Ordo Missae is acknowledged for what it truly is – an unmitigated disaster, born of impious desires, that needs to be abrogated – no amount of reforms-of-the-reform (a return to ad orientem worship included) will amount to a hill of beans.
Cardinal Sarah, by contrast, even went so far as to fire what looks like a “warning shot” of sorts, daring faithful Catholics (often called “traditionalists” in our day) to point out the obvious deficiencies and dangers inherent to the all-too-ordinary form posing as the Roman Rite:
[The liturgy] must cease to be a place of disobedience to the prescriptions of the Church. More specifically, the liturgy cannot be an occasion for divisions among Christians.
As prelates like Cardinal Sarah content themselves with proposing traditional band aids to mask the Novus Ordo’s deficiencies (not through binding legislation, mind you, but only via the occasional newspaper article or conference lecture), the liturgical life of the Church remains earthbound and arid, promising to produce yet another generation of self-identified Catholics who have no idea that they’ve effectively become Protestant.
And this, my friends, is the stuff of neo-conservative stardom.
“[T]he nonsense that has come to define Catholic life over the last fifty years (liturgical and otherwise)….”
Meanwhile, if it is of interest, in his July newsletter, Bp. Sanborn reports on the twentieth anniversary of Most Holy Trinity Seminary, which he describes as “one of the few places on earth which is producing priests who are not only trained as they should be, but who also have uncompromising attitudes toward the Novus Ordo religion”.
The existence of this seminary has only come to my attention during the reign of Jorge Bergoglio as Sovereign of the Vatican City. From what I have seen so far, however, it makes me wonder: if any one of the bishops or cardinals frequently touted as potential “saviors” from this crisis were to do what we all seem to want them to do, how different would it look from what Bp. Sanborn appears actually to be doing?
I do not mean this as a rhetorical question.
And so the “reform of the reform” continues.
It’s difficult, however, to re-form ashes into lumber.
What is doubly sad is that this bishop is African. We’re often told that the bishops in Africa are traditional, or at least conservative, for the most part. I think in the next few years we will see more of these bishops brought forward. Unfortunately, we will be disappointed. The only ones the Vatican will allow any prominence will be those like Sarah who have bought the party line.
African bishops who wish to speak out against the horrors of the new church will be shunted aside – and in Kasper’s infamous words “we should not listen to them so much.” (paraphrase)
If they truly converted to Catholicism, it would not only look the same, they would be the same.
And then there was St Moses the Ethiopian, 4th Century
About the “above all things”: Either I’m missing the point, or there is no problem. Is Holy Mass not worship of God? Is it not the most sublime form of worship precisely because it is the Sacrifice of Christ? How is saying “Before the Liturgy [which is more than the Mass!] is anything else, it is the worship of God. All other things are subordinate to this highest goal” Protestant? I really don’t see what’s wrong with that statement.
Furthermore, in the section on “For in the liturgy God speaks to His people and Christ is still proclaiming His gospel. And the people reply to God both by song and prayer”, you say that the Liturgy is “thus reduced to a reading of the Gospels”. No such thing is going on in this passage, from my reading. It’s not a “reduction”, but an aspect of the whole. Is Christ not proclaiming his Gospel in Holy Mass? I can’t imagine you’re denying that, so what is it you’re saying?
In your comments on the “prayers in the name of the people”, do you understand that to refer only to the Mass? It seems to me that there is a danger of equating “Liturgy” with “Mass” here. Sure, the Mass is the Liturgy, but not all Liturgy is the Mass. Should not SC 33’s remarks be taken as referring generally to the Liturgy and not each and every prayer, esp. of the Mass?
Marvelous, Louie, simply marvelous, and written with such expertise and apparent ease.
Second Vatican Council is not a ‘done deal’. This monolithic council must be attacked relentlessly again and again and again, until all Catholics, especially the professional class of them — i.e. the freeloading academic, theologian and prelate —, cease viewing the Church and the history of the Church through its prism. And I pray to God Almighty that in my lifetime it may be reviewed and considered by the One and Holy mind and Spirit of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and that this time you, Louie, may be present there as a ‘peritus.’
I meant to say “reconsidered”, not “considered”.
If only what you say were all there is. I think Louie, in his comments on what Bishop Sarah said, make it clear that this is what Modernists do best: use words, and phrases, and bring forward concepts THAT HAVE SOME TRUTH. However, THEY THEN EITHER TWIST THE MEANING, HAVE ANOTHER MEANING IN MIND, OR LEAVE OUT A CRUCIAL PART.
Of course, as Louie points out, the Mass is perfect ‘worship’. But to say that and only that (especially to cherry-pick) leaves the impression that that is all there is.
We know the richness of the whole concept but Bishop Sarah is emphasizing only the common knowledge of ‘the people of god’ and it’s just not good enough.
Regarding your comment on “Liturgy” – this concept also has been conflated to mean only the Mass in the minds of most modern Catholics. How many pray The Divine Office? (and I don’t mean the ‘morning and evening prayer’ as they are stripped of any relationship to The Office). How many say prayers as they are presented to us by the great Saints? Or how many say prayers that have been made up by Sister Know-it-Better? The Mass has become ‘the liturgy.’ I never even heard that word before Vatican II. The Mass was Mass. The Divine Office was The Office. This was called liturgy by priests, bishops and theologians but certainly not by the man in the pew. Tradition. We must return to Tradition and clear away all the modern blather!
“The Mass has become ‘the Liturgy.’ I never even heard that word before Vatican II. The Mass was the Mass. The Divine Office was The Office.”
Very interesting, Barbara. It’s worth repeating.
I don’t mean to dump on the Eastern Orthodox, but don’t they use the Greek term “liturgia”, or some variant of that word? How technically and psychologically different that Greek term is to the history we experienced when for centuries our fathers and forefathers before us heard from the priest, who immediately descended from the altar, say to them: “Ita missa est.”
That difference reminds me of another, that between the Latin “sacramentum” and the Greek “mystery”, the Greek one which refers to the Latin….sacrament. I’m wondering if anyone out there who is a … ahem…’liturgical’ expert has anything to add about the inference of the word ‘mystery’ in the Novus Ordo ….ahem.. mass.
Louie, Barbara, you both have me working hard today.
I’ve looked up the etymology of the word “liturgy”. which comes from the Greek word, “Leitourgia”, which is a compound of two words, “Leit”, meaning ‘people’, and “ergon”, meaning ‘work.’ Together, it seems the word “Liturgy” means ‘the work of the people’, which, applied to the term, “Liturgy of the Word”, means the Eucharistic Celebration.
Therefore, the Paul VI mass teaches us that the “Eucharistic celebration” is the “work of the people.” Not the work of Christ, but the “work of the people.”
I mean… is there absolutely nothing correct about the Novus Ordo? Why is everything in the Novus Ordo upside down?
The often neglected issue here is that the good “bishop” here in question had as much power as your postman to consecrate the Eucharist. Paul VI’s new rite of episcopal ordination is invalid.
Excellent points. The writer of this blog often interprets statements of his opponents in the worst possible manner. Not very just, and not very Catholic.
This gives ammunition to those who do ad orientem. It is also a stepping stone toward the future restoration.
Well I’d make a better Pope than bergolio 🙂
Seriously thogh, why is the new rite of ordination valid?
Claves, I’m with you. It seems that Louie has moved more from harvesting the fruit to falling in with the “one bad apple spoils the bunch” group. When you start examining from the micro level, especially with the intent of proving a hypothesis, you run the danger of missing the forest for the trees.
Louie, come back. Your falling into the Throw It All Out crowd, and I think that’s way excessive. If I may, that Easter Sunday Mass you’ve spoken of, where you came back to Church with your Dad, and things started to come alive, was that TLM or Novus Ordo? I may be wrong, but I thought it was the N.O. Is that the Mass that spreads poison in your and my soul.
Sorry for the grammar—You’re, not Your. (Also, last line ends with?) 😉
So are we saying that Louie is unfair? That there is some good in what Sarah says? Some?
Can’t we ask another question? Can you find good in the NO? I guess you could if you looked hard enough (although witnessing Our Lord’s Sacred Body and Blood trampled upon as fragments are scattered around as people receive in their hands is reason enough to run screaming out of the church). But second question: why do you have to look? Why struggle and sift through the words and gestures to find something recognizable? Third question: what the heck was wrong with the way things were before?
Here we are pouring over ancient writings, texts from The Fathers, books from the good old days before VII…trying to find ourselves…trying to find The Faith…trying to find Holy Mother Church…trying to find The Blessed Trinity…trying to find The Holy Sacrifice of The Mass…trying to find Our Lady…trying to find The Saints…trying to find our salvation!
Louie is performing a real service – exposing the latest in what will be a long series of attempts to put lipstick on that same ole pig – Vatican II.
Louie is trying to make/defend a point. You ask if he’s unfair; check out the link he supplied to the article. http://www.ccwatershed.org/blog/2015/aug/12/cardinal-robert-sarah-liturgical-english/ After all those bishops in Rome cast all those votes for the documents, it appears the modernists took control of the interpretation/implementation. How/why? God knows. What I know is that He loves us and wants to draw us all closer to Him. What should we do? “See how they love one another.” I also know that if you’re not the authority, saying “My way or the highway” doesn’t get you a seat in the discussion. I have a hard time envisioning the Church resetting to 1961, so if one wants to influence the discussion, we need to find and emphasize why the good bishops thought it was right to vote for it and not attack each and every word as if the Gates of Hell had formed it. Set about separating the nuts and tossing out the bad fruit. Check out what ++Sarah said and read it as from one who longs to draw the sheep to the One True Shepherd. Some of his thoughts on the Liturgy:
“It must cease to be a place of disobedience to the prescriptions of the Church. More specifically, the liturgy cannot be an occasion for divisions among Christians. Dialectical readings of Sacrosanctum Concilium, or the hermeneutics of rupture in one sense or another, are not the fruit of a spirit of faith.
“The Council did not intend to break from the liturgical forms inherited from tradition – indeed, it desired to deepen them. The Constitution establishes that “any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (§23). In this sense, it is necessary that those who celebrate according to the usus antiquior do so without a spirit of opposition, and thus in the spirit of Sacrosanctum Concilium. “
It wouldnt look any different…..and yet we all see who is trying to truly preserve the Faith as opposed to all of those who are cursed with weak-knee syndrome and refuse to, and we still continue to debate. The writing is on the wall for those of us who have opened our eyes. Those who are considered outcasts today will soon be considered living saints….its only a matter of time a this point.
What do you consider “very Catholic”?? That all should have an equal voice and all of those voices should be respected regardless of whether or not they are wrong? Louie knows full well that every one of our cardinals has failed us….and also themselves…at this point. These are all very intelligent and learned men….shame on you for excusing them.
Its funny….if vatican2 never existed, blogs like this one and countless others would never have been necessary. Confusion = satanical. Lets all stop sugarcoating this and call it what it is….and then attack it together as we should. God would NEVER allow something satanical to be a part of His Perfect Church as that would be a total contradiction of His perfect being.
Read Abp. Lefebvre’s Letter to a Confused Catholic to get a first hand account of how the judeo-masons, lead by Roncalli, then Montini, threw out the original skemas and hijacked the council to their pre-planned ends.
I think if you watch this viseo from 51mins fr gregory hesse will explain why its valid.
Peter, you may have missed the point. +Lefebvre was one of those who joined in with the voting. What was his intent/understanding at the time? That’s what we need to get back to, that’s what we need to profess.
In short the old rite (latin roman rite ) is not the new rite. There are i think 22 ? valid rites in the church the form of episcopal ordinations in these other rites wont be the same as in the roman rite during pius xii etc, but their still considered valid. We have to remember the russian/greek orthodox church are still heretics & schismatics but the church has always recognized their episcopal ordinations as valid along with the other sacraments.
Whenever a N.O. prelate says something that actually “sounds” catholic, the neo-catholic world kicks up its heels and shouts: “Look, everything is OK now!” They don’t have a clue that you can’t reform this mess. The only real solution is a total return to the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church and a total condemnation of the post-conciliar “church”. I know I’m living in “La La Land” but with God all things are possible.
Dear Claves, I believe your missing two points:
1) firstly, it’s not the difference between the ‘mass’ and the ‘liturgy’ per se, but that between the Sacrifice of the Mass as an act primarily of Christ ‘once and for all time’ which Catholics have recognized and participated in for over 2000 years through the agency of consecrated priests, and the modern liturgy which downplays and the role of the priesthood and reduces the divinely sacrificial element of the mass; and
2) Cardinal Sarah’s obsessive reliance on Vatican II as a ‘progressive’ and ‘modernist’ threshold in the Church’s history through which we are now obligated to view all issues concerning the Church, without direct reference to our rich patrimony, while always echoing the post-conciliar mantra, if only we “listen to the council.”
This second point is girded on the belief that human nature has changed, or advanced, and that society has progressed. It is the essence of the modernist and progressive heresy.
Why the disproportionately heavy reliance on “the documents of Vatican II”, when we do have direct access to our 2000 year patrimony?
I dare say there is a folly and pride in all of this.
Yes. And Sarah saying that “the liturgy” (sic) should not be a source of division for Catholics sounds great, and true, until you understand that he is saying traditionalists who love The Mass of The Ages should just sit down and shut up – and get with the program as laid out by Vatican II.
This is clear by reading what he said. Even worse, what he wants is a new harmonization of the Mass of The Ages, and the new ‘liturgy,’ something which is simply impossible.
He also said: “Dialectical readings of Sacrosanctum Concilium, or the hermeneutics of rupture in one sense or another, are not the fruit of a spirit of faith.”
So we should stop comparing what is now, with what was then? We should have ‘faith’ that it will all work out in the end if we just do what Vatican II told us to do – don’t worry, be happy?
Fine, but anyone with a real Catholic sense knows that we MUST compare what is now, with what has been – that’s what the pope and bishops are supposed to do: guard the deposit of Faith – ALL OF IT.
Sarah is one of the worst wolves we have: because he is portrayed as conservative, as faithful, as knowledgeable – but as Louie pointed out in this piece, he is dangerously modern. Better wolves are those whose fangs are obvious like Francis and Kasper et al. At least we know them for what they are. Turkson is another dangerous man – these bishops are like Father Barron – smooth and plausible but dangerous.
Me no expert on the good Archbishop. Other guys here will know much better, but I think he changed his mind the very next day? He was hoodwinked into signing it in the first place?
I think it was Chesterton who said something like “we CAN go back, we just have to WANT to go back.” Massive paraphrase, but the point is simple: when we have tradition that is inspired by God Himself, but have gone terribly astray, the only sensible thing to do is GO BACK to where we went wrong and travel the right path.
We would do this in every area of our lives, no? If you are on your way to New York and you take a wrong turn in Ohio and end up in Cleveland what would you do? Get out the map and drive back to where you took the wrong turn.
Why is that concept so complicated? Pride keeps us from admitting we’ve gone wrong. Kinda like men. When a man finds himself lost he will never stop to ask for directions! He keeps going. All the while the poor wife sits there in silence, knowing she will end up in Cleveland with him. Her instinct is to stop at the nearest gas station and ask for directions! That’s a not very funny way of describing what has happened in our world.
This will surely happen when the true Pope arrives – and be quite sure he will come.
Jolly true Barbara!
LOL! You know us too well! 🙂
Barbara, you are right. Sadly, the vast majority of Catholics don’t want to go back on the right road because they don’t know that road ever existed. That is how thorough the architects of the novus ordo church are. That is why we must be grateful to Louie, Michael Matt, John Vennari and others who are constant reminders that the road to the true Catholic Church does exist and it is our only hope.
You’re right except when the vast majority of Catholics read or hear Francis telling us we can’t go back, they are duty bound to ask “go back to what?”
We were made in the image and likeness of God – that means we were given an intellect and a will – we are duty-bound to use them!
When the vast majority of Catholics are told we must welcome sexually deviant men and women into our homes and Churches they are duty-bound to ask in what way is this different from what our parents and grandparents thought and acted.
There is NO excuse for anyone not using a God-given gift. We will be graded on this!!!
A FINAL grade indeed. It’s called Eternity!!!!
Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it.
For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God? Vanity of vanities and all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone.
Thomas a Kempis
Imitation of Christ
This is the truth:
Regarding Vatican II, it pretty much boils down to this:
“A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.”
“We consider it our primary duty to be that of promoting, with prudent but encouraging action, the most exact fulfillment of the norms and directives of the Council. Above all we must favor the development of Conciliar attitudes. First one must be in harmony with the Council. One must put into effect what was started in its documents; and what was ‘implicit’ should be made explicit in the light of the experiments that followed and in the light of new and emerging circumstances.”
Pope JP2, October 17, 1978
What was “implicit” in the Conciliar documents was the new mass and all the other innovations and novelties that followed since…
Mike: I replied to your comment re. your agreement with Claves at the end of the discussion to that specific comment near the top of the thread.
Saw it, thanks. Who can decide what quote applies? “Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle?  And he said to them: An enemy hath done this.” Matthew 13:27b-28a
I’m just saying we should be precise and fair to people we agree with and to those we diagree with. St. Augustine, I believe, once said “God does not need our lies.”
Of course, most of this here is intemperant speech, but still.
We are not saying anyone needs to know the whole Bible by heart, and the principles of all the philosophers! We are saying one has to know the Faith! Didn’t Saint Peter tell us we had to be able to defend our Faith?
I think you are saying that Sarah had some good points in what he said. Please correct me if I’m wrong. So think about this: you and I are sitting at a table. On the table is a lovely glass of cold clear water, and you are very, very thirsty. I have in my hand an eye-dropper filled with poison. How many drops of poison will you let me put in the water before you tell me to stop?
If a prelate, anywhere, ever, speaks or writes with even one drop of poison therein – the whole thing is ruined.
That’s how we got into this mess in the first place. Louie has done a lot of work looking into the documents of Vatican II – he began this blog thinking he’d sift through and make the whole thing easier for folks to understand and assimilate.
Guess what? He found quite a few drops of poison.
Bottom Line: If a talk or an article is not completely, 100% faithful to Catholic Teaching it’s poison.
“How many drops of poison will you let me put in the water before you tell me to stop?”
I love that…
I think I could answer simply to your quote:
Where/what are the “good” fruits that have germinated out of the seeds of Vatican II amidst the “cockle” (presumably represented in your example by big bad modernists like Rahner, Kung, de Lubac etc)? Are they present in the New Mass? In Assisi? In altar girls? In communion in the hand? In ecumanical extravanganzas? In the wild praise of heretical groups like the “NeoCatechumenal Way” (whose founder Kiko Arguello has admitted his heretical group has been made possible thanks to Vatican II) by both JP2 and BXVI? In the soon to be allowed sacrilegious communion for public adulterers? And etc ad nauseam? (All sanctioned by the post-conciliar popes…)
A departure from Tradition, in any point of doctrine, is heresy.
SOS SOS SOS
When JP2 is now signaled as a great defender of ORTHODOXY (…to be perfectly honest, as time goes on, I find he [JP2] is looking better and better… As the Polish pope’s overpowering personality and whimsical decisions recede into the background, certain of his writings acquire greater and greater relevance (one might even dare to use the word “prophetic”) for our contemporary situation, serving as tall guideposts for the orthodox and a fearful scaffolding for dissenters.) this should serve as a clear SOS signal from Holy Mother Church of HOW BAD the crisis has become!!!
PS Honestly – considering the slant in some of the articles of Rorate these past couple of years (ever since they did away with the comment section – lol I mean are they afraid of us poor lay catholics speaking out the truth too loudly or what?!) I’m hardly surprised they don’t include Louie’s site among a big list of blog sites in their blog roll.
The Readings of Scripture as they are in the NO Mass, are from a format in the Latin Rite, which Pope Saint Gregory The Great did away with, either in the Late 6th or Early 7th Century.
Now in the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, which is 4th Century, the Readings are Epistle, Gradual, Alleluia & Gospel. The Eastern Form was adopted by the Latin Rite in the Late 6th or Early 7th Century.
The Old Latin Rite Form was Old Testament, Responsorial Psalm, New Testament, Responsorial Psalm, and Gospel.
This Old Form was used by Luther in the 16th Century and by the Anglicans in the 16th Century.
The Old Form returned to the Latin Rite in 1969, after not being in use since the Late 6th/Early 7th Century, upon the suggestion by Anglican “Bishop” John Mohrmann. The form disappeared for close to 13 Centuries and was in Protestant Hands for over 4 Centuries.
Apparently, Pope St. Gregory The Great and St. John Chrysostom knew Catholic Liturgy well.