A great deal of attention has been paid of late to the story of Fr. Justin Wylie, a priest of the Archdiocese of Johannesburg, South Africa, who was unceremoniously relieved of his duties in the United States where he served as attaché to the Holy See’s Permanent Observer Mission at the United Nations.
During his time in New York, Fr. Wylie was a frequent celebrant of the traditional Mass at Holy Innocents in Manhattan, the only parish in the Archdiocese that offers the traditional Mass daily and now finds itself up for possible closure in spite of reportedly being debt-free and financially self-sustaining.
The priest’s dismissal was apparently triggered by a strongly worded homily delivered on May 18, 2014, in which he called for adequate pastoral care for the so-called traditional community.
Citing the fact that a similar home for these faithful is unavailable elsewhere in the Archdiocese should Holy Innocents close, Fr. Wylie called their potential displacement, “an injustice which you [the parishioners] should bring to the attention of your shepherd.”
“You are fully-fledged members of the baptized Faithful, for heaven’s sake,” he continued. “Why are you scurrying about like ecclesiastical scavengers, hoping for a scrap or two to fall from the table for your very existence?”
Had he preached in support of “gay marriage” he may have received a “Bravo!” from the Cardinal’s office; as it is, he received his walking papers.
(A more detailed account of the events leading to Fr. Wylie’s dismissal is available at Rorate Caeli.)
In his remarks, Fr. Wylie contrasted the 1980s and 90s – a time when the faithful were forced to organize celebrations of the traditional Mass in whatever parishes were willing to accommodate them – with today, saying:
“In a post-Summorum Pontificum Church, after Pope Benedict courageously proclaimed that the extraordinary form of the liturgy pertains equally to the fullness of the Roman rite, this approach cannot any more, I think, be characterized as true magnanimity.”
While one can hardly be surprised that Fr. Wylie claimed recourse to Summorum Pontificum, the fact of the matter is, it’s part of the problem.
Now, don’t get me wrong, Summorum Pontificum was a profoundly important step in the right direction. At the same time, it has always been a ticking time bomb that was destined to blow up in the faces of the very people who received it with an abundance of gratitude.
The reason is simple; it’s constructed upon a mixture of truth and falsehood, and all of us know what a little leaven does, do we not?
“There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the Liturgy growth and progress are found, but not a rupture. What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful.” (Letter of Pope Benedict XVI to the Bishops on the publication of Summorum Pontificum)
In the three sentences cited, Pope Benedict made three important claims; the first two of which are simply untrue. What’s more, all indications are that even he realized as much, but offered them just the same in a calculated attempt to pacify skittish bishops as a means to an end.
Tick, tick, tick…
I suppose one could labor over the precise meaning of “contradiction” and “rupture,” but I’ll leave that to those who prefer such distractions to the nasty work of addressing the bitter reality of the situation.
For everyone else, there can be no question whatsoever that there are any number of points of disparity between the two Missals; not simply as it regards mere style points, but rather as it concerns profoundly important elements, some theological in nature, that speak to the very essence of the sacred liturgy.
In other words, one Missal communicates (“dictates”) one thing about the nature of the rite; the other Missal something different (“contrary”). That, in my book, is the very definition of “contradiction.”
This is so much the case that we may add a related “little white lie” to the Summorum Pontificum mix, as all but the most gullible among us know perfectly well that the Missal of Paul VI is a rite all its own, and not, as Pope Benedict asserted, another “form” of the one Roman Rite.
The folly that unfolded after the Council, wherein a handful of so-called “liturgical experts” (with input from Protestant, ahem… “observers”) sat around a conference table to concoct a new “order” of Mass, is anything but an example of authentic liturgical “growth and progress.”
Based upon certain liturgical insights freely shared by Josef Ratzinger prior to his elevation to the papacy, it would appear rather obvious that Pope Benedict himself recognized very well that the birth of the Novus Ordo Missae is so antithetical to the legitimate organic process observable in the sacred liturgy over many centuries as to constitute a genuine rupture, and a very painful one at that.
So, what have we in Summorum Pontificum?
A much needed act of justice that also happens to be flawed by the presence of half-truths and calculations on the part of its author.
Can a case be made that Pope Benedict was acting as wise as a serpent to avoid a nasty split in the Church?
In order for that dog to hunt one must first accept the premise that a split hasn’t already taken place; i.e., one has to buy the “continuity” illusion hook, line and sinker, and I, for one, do not.
Returning to the case of Fr. Wylie, by failing to state the plain truth; namely, that the Mass of Pius V is far the superior to the Novus Ordo Missae, and promoting instead the false notion that both Masses are of equal dignity, Pope Benedict gave the Captains of Newchurch all they need to feel justified in dismissing the South African priest’s legitimate concerns.
One can very well imagine them reasoning, for example, if indeed the two “forms” are mere equals, sending the flock of Holy Innocents out to forage for themselves in Novus Ordo Land is ultimately no more unjust than feeding a hungry man a chicken instead of a steak.
So what is the lesson?
In spite of any good intentions and otherwise favorable results, whenever a pope hesitates to rule with the firmness and charity demanded of fathers and kings, choosing instead to tiptoe around the hypersensitivities of his unruly children, such as Pope Benedict appears to have done in Summorum Pontificum, eventually his actions will come back to haunt the entire family.
I have no doubt that Father Wylie knew that his strongly worded homily would lead to his dismissal in NY. Yet, he had the courage to say what needed to be said. Let’s see if Father George Rutler of St. Michael’s Church will come forward with equally strong comments. I certainly hope so. Let’s face it, Tradition is the greatest unforgivable sin in the New Order Church. Benedict’s Motu Proprio stating that the TLM was never abrograted was greatly welcomed by many who love the True Mass. However, it has been proven that this document was not ironclad and had built into it many loopholes for those who would obstruct its apparent intent. Tradition is the enemy and the New Order “church” will not stop the attack until it is crushed. It will NOT happen. Our Lord’s Church will prevail–He promised this!
I’ve read that the poor flock of financially stable Holy Innocents will be folded into the abominable St. Francis of Assisi….of the “pre-Pride Mass”….un-be-freakin-lievable.
Holy Innocents indeed.
One begins to wonder if the perverts have something on +Dolan and are blackmailing him. Or perhaps he is just a wolf in buffoon’s clothing, cut from the same mold as Bergoglio.
Un-be-freakin’-lievable indeed, susan!
Thanks, too, to Michael Voris for spreading the word on this travesty. Yes, many here don’t like Voris, but look at it this way–his silence on Francis is deafening. He knows the score, but I think is being as crafty as a fox to spread the Truth. A shout out of love and thanks to Louie, Voris and his Church Militant TV, Mundabor, Creative Minority Report, Rorate Caeli, Eponymous Flower, and all others who are fighting the good fight. We must march in sync!
Since criticism of the Holy Father is tolerated here, let me offer my own criticism. Holy Father, you have to put an end to the festering sore that is Catholic on Catholic warfare. Here is my solution, for what it is worth.
Announce that within 90 days, ALL Catholic Churches throughout the western world will be required to offer at least one WEEKLY Tridentine mass. At that mass, the priest will be required to read a statement that any of those in attendance who are using contraception, watching pornography or otherwise transgressing the teachings of the Church are NOT to present themselves for communion.
Finally, require that those masses be videotaped and put online. Overlayed on the video put the attendance and collection plate revenues for all to see.
Do that, Holy Father, and within a year you won’t have to worry about the trad problem anymore.
Were your suggestion heeded it would be a greater show of tolerance and charity towards us TLM lovers, but it’s hard to see how that would eliminate His Holiness’s Trad problems. We would be better fed, but the Divine Mandate to convert the world would still be subverted in favor of the current ecumania, the attacks on the Holy Eucharist would grow larger from the promotion of sacrilegious reception for those who find it too hard to repent and change, and the Papal instructions to remain silent on Dogma in favor of making friends with the world, would continue to display an indifferentism that plays right into the demands of the United Religions Initiative/New World Order of Peace- people, leaving abortion, and same sex marriage to run even more rampant, while we sip tea with atheists and feed the hungry on their way to Hell. Nope, we need a bit more than just a weekly Mass schedule, sorry to say.
Ratzinger had a big role to play in Vatican II. He’s been riding the “soul train” of the New Church ever since. He’s a tough one to figure out. If Bergoglio is a judo-phile then I think Ratzinger is a Luther-phile. I think his ideal VII reform/revolution was to end up transforming the Cathlic Church into something resembling a high Lutheran church (or high Anglican church). However, this meant rejecting the true priesthood and the sacrifice of the Mass. The Ratzinger style is to convert this into a faux-priesthood and a faux-sacrifice — leaving just enough behind of the true Catholic religion to let people fool themselves into believing the magical illusion that nothing had changed. Or in the words of Ratzinger “Abra-cadabra!” …. I mean “Her-meneutic-of-contin-uity!” This charm seemed to work for a while, but now the illusion has worn off. And we are left with the ugly reality. Goodbye Father Wylie. We will remember you in our prayers. Our Lady Help of Christians, pray for us.
Another comment. Funny how our bishops claim to be absolutely powerless when it comes to abortion loving Catholic politicians or gay masses or fighting against homosexual marriage or liturgical abuses or heretical “nuns”, etc, etc, etc… but when it comes to dealing with anyone that doesn’t fully endorse the letter and spirit of Vatican II “it’s hammer time!” Suddenly these incompetent, bumbling shepherds find ways to exhert their apostolic authority… and no excuses about seeming to be uncharitable or using the eucharist as a political weapon, etc, etc, etc.,,, What conclusions can we draw from these patterns of actions? I would say that we can easily draw the conclusion that many of them are actually in favor of abortion and homosexual marriage etc, etc etc, but are not willing to admit it publicly.
And I’m sorry to say that I think that good Catholics that conclude otherwise are deceived and naive. They keep demanding that pro-abort politicians be ex-communicated by these same bishops. Well you can stop holding your breath because it’s not going to happen — not until we get some new bishops that actually believe what the Church clearly teaches.
One thing we know for certain, God knows every hidden motive of all their hearts, and He will bring good out of all of this. We never heard of Archbishop Cordileone until these last few days, when he publicly took on Nancy Pelosi in a way–well, just as you said, like he actually believes what the Church clearly teaches on marriage, and is willing to stand up publicly for it. How many others, like Cardinal Burke, will surface more and more as this crisis worsens?
An analogy has been flitting through my head concerning Pope Benedict XVI. I do not claim to read minds, but I cannot help but think that it makes things easier to understand. The analogy I have been entertaining is that BXVI and his reformer comrades at VII treated the ensemble of Church doctrines somewhat like a cooking recipe.
I will give them the benefit of the doubt that the existence of protestant sects and resulting disunion scandalized them. But instead of adopting the orthodox Catholic explanation – that the protestant reformers were heretics – they came up with the novelty that the leaders on both sides were naturally human and made mistakes that contributed to the revolt. On the Catholic hierarchy side it seems that BXVI apparently thought that too much emphasis was placed on doctrinal orthodoxy and not enough on the maintenance of unity. So to foster unity BXVI and the VII reformers came up with an approach that deemphasized doctrine.
It is here that the analogy to a recipe can be understood. The Catholic “recipe” for the Faith was unpalatable to Protestant tastes because it went heavy on certain “spices” – doctrines. So treating the Faith like a recipe they tried a new recipe – someone I believe has already likened the VII “faith” to New Coke. But that isn’t the point I wanted to make. The point I wanted to make is that the analogy of a “recipe” captures the juvenile nature of the attitude of BXVI and the reformers – they placed so little importance on doctrine and dogma they thought they could change the “recipe” for making the faith by putting in a little less of catholic ingredients and adding a few protestant ingredients. Although BXVI is supposed to be very smart – the fact that he and the reformers thought they could effectively treat the faith like a recipe and muck around with it really does demonstrate a juvenile, unserious attitude that could only be adopted by someone who was also a little lacking in the faith department as well.
What they didn’t realize is that while the recipe analogy may be apt – they didn’t recognize that certain recipes are NOT subject to change. When poorly made examples of a fine food or alcoholic beverage arose in culinary history other makers of the fine food or beverage joined together to establish certain standards. For example – a fine wine or cheese cannot be called by a certain name unless it adheres to the standards established by a controlling authority for the food or wine. And then there is the truth in labeling like that of Coca Cola which was honest enough to identify a coke style drink made with a new recipe by a new name.
But Benedict XVI also apparently has a problem with branding and truth-in-labeling – although VII used a new recipe to create a new faith – they continue to call the new faith “Roman Catholic”. In the commercial field there are names that describe such activities – e.g., false advertising or “bait and switch” and the people who do them – “con artists”.
Another great post, Louie.
Joseph Ratzinger wrote: “The result [of liturgical reform via VII] was not re-animation but devastation. On the one hand, we have a liturgy which has degenerated so much that it has become a show which, with momentary success for the group of liturgical fabricators, strives to render religion interesting in the wake of the frivolities of fashion and seductive moral maxims. Consequently, the trend is the increasingly marked retreat of those who do not look to the liturgy for a spiritual show-master [what the GIRM calls the ‘presider’ (the artist formerly know as the priest)] but for the encounter with the living God in whose presence all the “doing” becomes insignificant since only this encounter is able to guarantee us access to the true richness of being…What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced – as if it were a technical production – with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product.”
So much for the hermeneutic of continuity, and from the very pen of Cardinal Continuity, no less.
Fr Wylie said: “but responsibility for the matter continues to rest upon the initiative and resourcefulness of the laity, who with enormous difficulty have to source priests hither and thither as though we were seemingly still living in Reformation England or Crom[h]ellian Ireland.”
Abbé Combe regarding the La Salette prophecies. “I have from Melanie that the Church will be eclipsed in this sense, that 1) one will not know which is the true pope; 2) for a time: the holy Sacrifice will cease to be offered in churches, and also in houses: so there will be no more public worship. But she saw that yet the holy Sacrifice would not cease: it would be offered in caves, in tunnels, in barns and in alcoves.” [as one commenter noted, ‘or Holiday Inns or disused Pubs’].
Bait and switch catholicism – spot on. “For example – a fine wine or cheese cannot be called by a certain name unless it adheres to the standards established by a controlling authority for the food or wine.” Also with Cognac and Champagne. The ‘controlling authority’ in this instance sold out to ‘you-better-believe-it’s-champagne-even-though-it-tastes-like-dirty-water INC.’
one might add, ‘and if you’re too reasonable to believe it’s not dirty water we’ll call you a schismatic.’
Dear Indignus. I have also noticed that our bishops are very good at playing the “too little too late” game. The purpose of which seems to be for them to be able to say later — “hey, I tried”. No, not really. I’m not speaking here of Archbishop Cordileone — I’m unfamiliar with what he did with respect to Pelosi. I’m thinking of Cardinal Dolan and his pathetic actions when New York was faced with the legalization of “homosexual marriage” — led by “Catholic” Governor Cuomo. I think Dolan afterwards said they were “out maneuvered”. No, not really. It was more like Dolan surrendered before the battle ever began — and then he wants us to believe that he fought valiantly for the cause. There is a name for people like that — “traitors”.
And with regards to the virtue of charity, someone much wiser than me said that the problem with the Conciliar Church is that it has inverted the priorities of the virtues of charity and truth. Jesus Christ said “I am the Truth”. The Truth must come first and then charity follows.
I apologize Indignus, it is not that I disagree with you. It is just that I was one of those faithful Catholics calling for our bishops to act and it finally dawned on me that many of them had no intention of defending the faith. The villain in this story is Dolan. He is the one who had Father Wylie expelled. And he is no ordinary bishop He is a Cardinal and former head of the USCCB. He was even rumored to be a possible next Pope. When Bergoglio was announced as Pope I was just so glad that it wasn’t Dolan and I thanked God. Little did I know…
+ + +
From Sandro Magister’s review of Iota Unum by Romano Amerio:
“Amerio essentially says that the gravest evils present today in Western thought, including Catholic thought, are mainly due to a general mental disorder according to which ‘caritas’ is put before ‘veritas’, without considering that this disorder also overturns the proper conception that we should have of the Most Holy Trinity.”
In effect, Amerio saw precisely in this overturning of the primacy of Logos over love – or in a charity separated from truth – the root of many of the “variations of the Catholic Church in the 20th century”: the variations that he described and subjected to criticism in the first and more commanding of the two volumes cited: “Iota unum,” written between 1935 and 1985; the variations that led him to question whether with them, the Church had not become something other than itself.
BIG NEWS. The video of Henrique Cymerman’s interview with Bergoglio is on YouTube. Once again, “Call me Jorge” has the scoop:
The video is in Spanish and is nearly an hour long. I just discovered it and just started watching it.
This line from Summorum – “What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful” – brings to my mind the following lines from Pascendi (#39):
“Let us for a moment put the question: if experiences have so much value in [Modernists’] eyes, why do they not attach equal weight to the experience that thousands upon thousands of Catholics have that the Modernists are on the wrong road? It is, perchance, that all experiences except those felt by the Modernists are false and deceptive?”
The difference, as I see it, between Ratzinger and Bergoglio is that, while the former still preserved the Modernist ascendancy in the Church he conceded this charge of inconsistency from St. Pius, Summorum being his response. Bergoglio, on the other hand, would say that all experiences except those felt by the Modernists are indeed
false and deceptive. He would say this, for example:
“When we look at these Christians, with their many triumphalist attitudes, in their lives, in their speeches and in their pastoral theology, liturgy, so many things, it is because they do not believe deep down in the Risen One”.
We agree and we have experienced many betrayals as well. Have your read Dietrich Von Hildebrand’s “Charitable Anathema”? He nails this subject.
We don’t have to do this mental exercise anymore, because it’s plain as day now, but if we were all to try to come up with a way to sabotage Christ’s Church, we’d couldn’t do better in attacking it’s core by using distortion of Who Christ is, to promote masquerading of vices as virtues-especially Charity.
That’s what Satan is doing. So in the “false” church, Christ is only about mercy and love, which ignore justice and the need for change, damning souls to hell by leading them into unrepentant sin and pride great enough to resist correction.
So it’s now wrong to correct your brother and right to ignore Christ’s mandate to do so; wrong to deny access to the Eucharist, and right to ignore the unchanged states of sin which make the soul unworthy to receive it; wrong to believe in the Truths revealed and preserved in the past, and right to create new understandings of them which essentially reverse what they mean-like ecumenism and everything else connected with the heresy of modernism-which Christ doesn’t now embrace, but the false Christ relishes..
Yep, it’s him–the same voice that said, ” I will not serve”, and was cast out of heaven.
The best thing we can do to foil him is trust God, Who is with His Church to the end of time, practice the virtures-including true Charity which continues to declare truth, lovingly, even to the duped and seriously harmful prelates, and stay close to the Sacraments and sacramental that give us Grace.
We need to direct and re-direct all our justified anger, to stay on track till Jesus kicks the Devil out of His Church. And Mary reminds us that He will do that.
And what if faithful traditional Catholics assert their rights to the Latin mass all the way up to the archdiocese? What would happen to them? I shudder to think that under in this pontificate, the church might actually formally excommunicate them.
Given that this is a modernist’s ‘risen one’: “How are we to picture to ourselves the appearances of the Risen One, who had not returned to normal human life, but had passed over into a new manner of human existence?…we could regard the Resurrection as something akin to a radical ‘evolutionary leap’, in which a new dimension of life emerges, a new dimension of human existence…in this sense, it follows that the Resurrection is not the same kind of historical event as the birth or crucifixion of Jesus. It is something new, a new type of event.”
I’d say that I don’t believe in Bergoglio’s “Risen One”, but rather the real flesh and blood historical resurrection of God the Son who rose from the dead.
p.s. the quote is from Benedict XVI ‘Jesus of Nazareth’.
I am regarding those like Voris and Longenecker as being valuable future converts and allies, once Freaky Francis goes so far that the blinders must finally come off.
Sure, there will be many in the clergy and laity who always will follow whatever Francis does, because they are born followers and are not driven by principle. There will also be those in the hierarchy who will follow because that is their best “career” strategy. But I can’t help believe that there are many conservative Catholics who will abandon Francis once his true (rainbow) colors are no longer deniable. Then some even will take the next step — to actively oppose Francis and his gang.
Dear Mary Regina
Good point. Church History (and many of our personal experiences) gives many examples of non-Divine retributions of various kinds. Reactions of those in power, who remain determined to hold and promote errors, seem often correlated to how threatened they felt by the influence of their opponents-whether politically within the Church, or publicly and spiritually among the Faithful. The internet has become a big factor in that regard in our day..
It would seem logical that much depends on whether they are sincerely mistaken about truth, and thus liable to be more cautious and considerate of their opponents’ views, or more sinister in their intentions and reactions.
Determining which of those is the case, gives a huge opening to the devil to tempt the Faithful to sin, whereas he otherwise is more handicapped by our continued awareness and practice of virtues and closeness to the sources of Grace through the Sacraments. The Council of Trent- in its teachings on the 5th Commandment reminds us not to let our words cross the fine line into slander and detraction. Even too much pubic speculation on the likely evil intentions of someone in authority, can lead others into sins of anger and hate, while we ourselves might not go that far. So we should all (yours, truly included) watch what we say more closely in that regard..
While the faithful have certain rights, according to Church teachings, asserting them is tricky because we’re not in a democracy in the Church, despite the attempts by some at the top to pretend that’s what they want. (Ask a Franciscan who loves the TLM how fast authority gets asserted-when agendas are felt to be threatened by a preference for Tradition, or even for the simplest traditions).
These are the things that make this a “time of great distress”. It’s a sort of martyrdom of the spirit, leading up to the more physical kind that our brothers and sisters in other countries seem to be experiencing more and more lately–as yesterday’s news reminds us.
We’re working on it, but our family hasn’t quite yet reached the point where we feel ready to say while being roasted alive, “turn me over, on done on this side”
This also reveals Cardinal Dolan as the Grand Inquisitor of the Progressive Inquisition — a tyrant: Gay good; Tridentine Mass bad.
Please let us know of any high – uh no – “low”lights in the interview ; )
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?”
Why don’t the faithful in New York form a barricade around Holy Innocents church when the apostate clergy come to close down the church under lock and key? Where are the guts and courage of faithful catholics? Have we become too effeminate that we can’t punch back against the apostate modernists?
The faithful catholics who protected the cathedral of San Juan in Argentina forming a human barrier on 24/11/13 and who faced horrible abuse from pro-abortion feminists (spitting, mocking, spraying, insults, obscenities) should be an example to us catholics. I don’t want to link to the video of the event because of the obscenity of those vile, wretched women.
As the centenary of the death of Pope St Pius X approaches, maybe we might do well to remember and take to heart these words of the saint:
“They [the modernists] want to be treated with oil, soap and caresses. But they should be beaten with fists. In a duel, you don’t count or measure the blows, you strike as you can.”
Your comment brings to mind a huge part of the problem we are facing with way things happen in the media today:
(I toss in the following -not my views or personal beliefs-, but rather what I imagine Cardinal Dolan might say in his own defense to those two charges:)
1. I said Bravo to an interviewer’s question about what I think of an athlete coming out in public. I was applauding his courage in admitting his gayness, not condoning any sins in which he may or may not engage as a result of being gay.
2. It is not the Tridentine Mass that I see as bad, but the threat to my authority as Bishop which those who are attracted to it have manifested so often in their condemnation of the Novus Ordo as sinful, their refusal to recognize the lawful judgment of their superiors in matters related to it and Vatican II.
Personally, I think there are a lot more good discussions and arguments against those views, than against the charges you leveled. But this is part of the problem with the spin doctors at the Vatican. They can take your statement and argue it isn’t true, on the two grounds stated here,while ignoring all the truth that led you to make it.–such as the obvious connection 99.99 people make today between sexually immoral acts and being “gay”-especially when someone “comes out”, which make it almost absurd to assume their innocence or any intent to claim innocence, rather than “pride” and rejection of God’s natural laws, as well as His Church authority. And I’m sure if there are numerous instances where he has publicly made statements displaying animosity towards the Tridentine Rite, others on this blog will be able to give examples where I am uninformed.
The point is, how do we battle the sound bites that falsely defend the guilty, when we don’t have the means to express the truth in the proper way?
There is a technical difference between defending Church property from outsiders who would deface it or mock God, and standing against the legitimate authority of the local. Bishop. If I am not mistaken the Faithful in Cleveland, Ohio went through proper channels, and protested the closing of their parishes under Bishop Lennon, and he was rebuked by the Vatican and forced to re-open something like 10 of the 50? parishes he had closed, after forming partnerships between the ones remaining–even after removing all the statuary and emptying the buildings. There was great rejoicing and much news coverage. Just another possible option, as opposed to risking excommunication unnecessarily
Also, I remember seeing photos of some very beautiful old interiors, well maintained by the parishioners which I believe was the reason the Vatican forced the reopenings. They charged the Bishop with something amounting to improper procedures in making the decisions, as those churches were financially viable. So there is now precedent for what is being face by those at Holy Innocent.
It wouldn’t be legal, so the human barrier would have to yield at the correct point. Still, it would make a very loud point which would get through to some and also give Dolan a black eye. As it is, the liberals do what they want and suffer almost zero negative consequences.
The demonstration would have to be planned and executed very carefully, so as to give no possibility for the bigoted media to validly make claims about “right wing radicals” etc.
For some reason I picture Dolan better suited working somewhere like Home Depot instead of being a Cardinal Bishop.
Though I’m sure most on this blog hope you are right, does it not boggle your mind as it does ours, that seasoned veterans of this battle, who continue to denounce falsehood and error from every other source both within and without Holy Mother Church, would be able to act as they are doing right now, with all that has already been done? What in tarnation is too far, if it is not advising a mortal sinner to go to Communion while continuing to live in that state, as well as providing the opportunity for Moslems to denounce the Blessed Trinity as a false teaching, in public, in the Vatican, on Pentecost Sunday, not to mention telling Atheists to just “do good” and Jews that they don’t need to convert…
Any one of those things–even the least hint of them would have the Michael Voris we know so well, howling on a series of Vortexes, IF it applied to anyone but the Pope. He’s a proud Irishman who has declared himself right and every other commentator wrong. It also seems he’s acting out a long-standing habit he may have developed or been taught in childhood–and perhaps not wanting to disappoint his Saintly deceased mother? We’ve been wondering just as you are, WHAT will it take to push him back into reality? He’s given up his journalistic integrity by reporting on every good thing the Pope says, giving the Faithful the false impression that this Pope is a Faithful Catholic. Something he denounces in current vortexes–the Silence about evil in the Church, is something he is practicing daily. This looks to us like Diabolic disorientation.
I would argue that they would indeed be defending church property from “outsiders” who are trying to “deface it” and “mock God”. As I see it, Dolan is indeed an “outsider” who is nothing less than an apostate, hence outside the Mystical Body of Christ, and therefore has lost any legitimate authority he may have held.
Are faithful catholics going to buckle to unlawful and illegitimate orders, or are they going to provide fierce resistance, like Bishop de Castro Meyer and Archbishop Lefebvre? Remember, if it were not for the latter, the Tridentine mass would all but be wiped out from the face of the earth.
As far as I understand, Catholic theology holds that we are not bound to obey illegitimate, unlawful orders. In addition, the closure of the church would be morally gravely sinful and would constitute grave harm to the faithful catholic, hence the “order” to vacate the church would be illegitimate on that account alone.
If anything, at the very least, a human barrier protesting against the closure would indeed give Dolan a “black eye” which would make him (and other like minded apostates) think twice next time before mocking Christ the King and tampering with the rights of the faithful with such incredible arrogance and temerity.
Who cares what the (corporate bought and paid for) MSM media would have to say about such an event? They would spin the event to their own liking regardless of the actions of the people protesting.
I have no doubt that morally speaking, your reasons for wanting to physically protest make sense. But the government’s law-enforcers typically don’t change their tactics or actions based on moral arguments, expecting those to be carried out in the courts–or in this case in the Church courts or office of the local Bishop.
And since there were good results in Cleveland’s case, why not try that avenue first? Then again, there are different people in charge in the Vatican, today.
It just occurred to me that Holy Innocents parish may already be set up by Dolan to take a huge fall in the court of public opinion.
All he has to tell the press, is that he’s sorry they are one of the many parishes he has to close, but he offered the faithful there a wonderful opportunity to embrace Christian tolerance towards gay Catholics in the community at St. Francis, only to be sorely disappointed by the archaic, homophobic views and prejudices expressed by them which will prevent such an positive union from taking place.
Then imagine the vitriolic gay and lesbian community, who will show up to counter-demonstrate at your sit-in, and probably sway the public in their favor, judging from polls which show that even most Catholics want “tolerance”
Remember, Dolan is a SODOMITE PROMOTING “Cardinal” who wants to move the faithful in Holy Innocents to SODOMITE PROMOTING St Francis of Assisi Church. This is a man who is objectively speaking HELL BENT ON ACTIVELY TRYING TO DESTROY THE FAITH and who is wittingly or unwittingly dragging along souls to hell in the process. THIS IS NOTHING LESS THAN DIABOLICAL. At this juncture, it seems entirely unreasonable to hope for some kind of reasonable deal to be reached with this man who has thus far done so much evil.
“Then imagine the vitriolic gay and lesbian community, who will show up to counter-demonstrate at your sit-in, and probably sway the public in their favor”
This is precisely why I mentioned the example of the brave people defending the cathedral of San Juan in Argentina against lesbians, prostitutes and pro-abortion feminists. Unless catholics are prepared to be spat upon, mocked, insulted and persecuted like Our Blessed Lord the sacrilege of the closing down of Holy Innocents will infallibly take place.
Edu, the lying media will try to spin everything, true. But they will have far greater success by being able to write about “Catholics arrested for trespass and obstruction” and would the even be able to paint Dolan as the victim.
On the other hand, stories showing nice families talking about how their parish is financially self-sufficient, while pointing out that Dolan is spending $200 million to renovate his home base, would put Dolan in a bad light.
Ignoring how things work is a good way to lose every time.
That video from San Juan would anger any decent person who saw it. It’s a perfect counter to the homosexual claim of always being innocent victims of the supposedly mean and bigoted Christians. An important aim would be to get as many people as possible to see it.
But the last time I looked, there were only a few hundred views, if that.
I don’t like to mention “them” by name in a thread that is solely about “us” and what should be right for “we Catholics” but Dolan has a lot of acquaintances among our “elder brothers” in New York (he probably believes they are his “dear friends”). I believe one of his “dear friends” is on record as stating that the traditional form of the Mass gives rise among the faithful to irrational hatred of his community (according to him). I shudder to think that Dolan is using the cover provided by the necessity to reduce parish numbers to suppress a form of the Mass that his friends in this community are uncomfortable with. He already allows parochial school children for whose spiritual formation he is responsible to be instructed in the rites of this community. I wonder if these parochial school children are taught that the practice of these rites was proclaimed to be mortally sinful by a Pope? I doubt it. Dolan is just . . . beyond comprehension. What would be worse – that he doesn’t hold the faith – or that he really does hold the faith but he is just self-deluded and cowardly?
At that point, Indignus, I would facilely switch from appealing to the public to instead appealing to Catholics. Such as:
1) Are you, Dolan, claiming that homosexual acts are no longer a sin according to the Catholic church? Do you feel that you have the power, Dolan, to say that your own personal views are dogma of the Church? Do you think that as a Catholic clergy, you have no duty or wish to save Michael Sam from the life of sin that he is also actively promoting to others, including those fans who are children?
2) Dolan, by opposing the TLM, are you opposing Pope B16 and saying that you know better?
The problem we have tactically with the bad guys, from Francis and Dolan and the rest of the snake, is that they have so far been able to operate completely on their own terms. They almost never have to appear at press conferences or publicly answer complaints against them.
The bishop who effectively shut down PTP.com did feel compelled to give at least some cursory explanation. That was good for our side. But then the Catholic victims, as usual, folded and shut up instead of pressing more. The FFI did the same.
P.S. Dolan probably has a lifetime of experience in being a slick manipulator, so I doubt he would be seen criticizing the church’s protesting families. But he probably would have proxies do it for him.
Though Michael Voris is apparently anathema for some of the regulars here, I don’t think he’s actively trying to deceive anyone. The CMTV declaration reads:
“Yes, there is a crisis in the Church today, possibly the worst crisis in Her history, and it makes no sense to be completely ignorant of that reality. It helps to know one’s enemy so that effective strategies for daily living can be pursued. But the Church Herself cannot be our enemy. There may be apostasy throughout the Church, even at the very top, but the Church doesn’t cease to be the Church any more than Our Lord ceased to be Our Lord during His Passion and Death. We shouldn’t and don’t need to go looking for reasons to lose faith in the Church.”
Voris is not categorically against criticizing the pope. He’s against publicly criticizing the pope when one cannot be sure that doing so will not cause additional scandal among the faithful – which is a sin. That’s certainly his call to make as executive producer of CMTV. As stated in the declaration: “We also believe that […] articles and essays [openly criticizing the pope] should not be published anywhere for public consumption but, rather, reserved for those capable of reading such without risk of damaging their faith in the Church and the Vicar of Christ.” While I find it highly regrettable that he took it as far as naming individuals in the above cited declaration – it was completely uncalled for, in my opinion – I think he takes this position on the pope after a good deal of prayerful consideration.
Dear Indignus. Thanks for your reply. God only knows how the Church will emerge from this crisis. Pray for the Church. If she remains faithful to Christ then countless souls will be saved, if not…
Cyprian, as everyone probably knows, for decades any Christian (especially any Catholic) who criticized any Jew for any reason was immediately branded as “anti-Semitic Nazi bigot KKK Nazi anti-Semite bigot”. Thus, the Jews were immune from any criticism whatsoever. It is thus a tremendous irony that those such as Zionist Pam Geller get regularly jeered at on college campuses these days as being “racist” against Muslims. The tide is turning, fast.
Further irony is that those like Geller are needed as allies against the head-chopping Islamists. But I wouldn’t trust them. It’s a tricky situation.
As to the Jewish Supremacist claim of being the “elder brothers”, which strongly connotes their being superior and we being the inferior? I’d say, “elder brothers, my butt”.
As to your last point, I’d ask this: does any reasonable person think that Dolan was promoted into his position because he is a good and holy Catholic? (I had to laugh as I typed that 🙂
Indignus, my answer would be that Francis is apparently very well versed in deception, and so he has so far been successful in giving enough excuses for the supposedly conservative followers to hang onto and not (yet) believe that Francis is as bad as we know he is.
E..g., the contents of the phone call to the divorcee were never acknowledged. That’s one tactic, putting a story out, then not confirming it.
E..g., even I’d agree that saying prayers next to the imam was not as bad s praying *with* the imam. That’s another tactic, going right up to the line but not crossing it. And so on with other tactics.
But here’s the rub: until now, Francis has primarily been involved with only preparing for his “unimaginable” and “unthinkable” changes. Once he pushes through the changes, that’s when he can no longer hide behind his cloud of obfuscation. (All he can do, and will do, is claim that he didn’t do much, the bishops did what the bishops wanted. Roncalli, AFAIK, said the same.)
I should explain that saying “elder brothers, my butt” is a derogatory Americanism, meant to show complete disdain for the claim of superiority. If anyone says it is not meant to claim superiority, I’d say that in Biblical understanding, the term ‘elder’ is meant to convey being superior in many ways. Always has been.
Dear Edu. I think the main hi/lo-light is that the Pope would sit down in front of TV cameras for a 60-minutes style interview (with a non-Catholic) as if he was a typical secular celebrity. When the Pope speaks it is always a teaching moment for the faithful — and yet here he is giving “spontaneous off-the-cuff” replies to a journalist with the full intention that this message should be broadcast world-wide. I put “spontaneous” in quotes because I wonder how staged this really is — was Bergoglio given the questions before-hand and already had a prepared answer? (I would sort of hope so.) Was the interview edited — were some parts deleted? (It’s certainly possible.) There were at least 2 cameras which imples possibly 2 camera operators and a director to do the switching in the same room. You can see that Bergoglio was “mic’d up”. This was hardly a “spontaneous” interview — there was some definite planning that went into producing this and preparing the questions.
As far as the actual content, the general theme seems to be New Church vs. Old Church. New Church = good. Old Church = BAD! Bergoglio couldn’t stop apologizing for the Church’s “sins” of the past. The part about Pope Pius XII seems much more of an apology than a defense when seen on video as opposed to reading it. At best it is a weak defense. He is certainly not going to be canonizing Pius XII as he did John XXIII and JP II (and Paul VI?). See the difference?
Overall I would like to repeat my comparison of Bergoglio’s view of the Church with Malachi Martin’s in the hit piece that he wrote during Vatican II called “The Pilgrim”. Both focus on putting a “guilt trip” on the head of Catholics. And BTW it is proven that Malachi’s hit piece (which he wrote under a pseudonym) was clandestinely financed by Jewish organizations for the express purpose of influencing the bishops at Vatican II on the question of the relationship of the Church with the Jewish people. And they were successful in getting all their demands met in “Nostra Aetate”. So this interview can be viewed as a follow-up to Nostra Aetate. I compare Nostra Aetate with the Balfour Declaration which paved the way for the future zionist state of Israel in the Holy Land. Both are seemingly innocuous documents, but both are used in a legalistic manner pry open the door and to set the stage for future events. The zionists have conquered the Old Jerusalem and now it seems they have there sights set on the New Jerusalem. The siege is already under way…
Organize the demonstration to incorporate a soup-kitchen, a canned-food collection, and a blood-donation station.
That’s why I used “scare quotes” around the term – it means the same thing as “my butt” with scare quotes. I like to keep my references to them phrased as innocuously as possible to defuse their knee-jerk ire and self-ritousness. I don’t believe anyone who comments on this thread is anti anyone just because of their racial or ethnic identity. However, we certainly don’t agree with their point of view either. When brain-washed Catholics get worked up about issues involving this community and espouse a position that basically says we can’t betray a personal belief that this group often acts in concert against the interests of many other groups – not just the Church – I ask a simple question – do they preach the gospel of Our Lord, or a different gospel? If they don’t preach the gospel of Our Lord, than they will be at odds with those who do about a great many things.
Excellent points, Matthew. If handled correctly, the whole thing could be a nightmare for Dolan. The cornerstone is that this is not an economic closing, or a lack-of-a-priest closing. In fact, America now has one less priest.
Everything hinges on the Catholics getting roused out of their attitudes about having to obey the bad guys, because they have a hat. I think that’s exactly what the Good Father Wylie is exhorting them to do.
Cyprian, here is the theological question that I ask (e.g., of end times Protestants):
If Jesus is not the Messiah, then He must be a false Messiah. Is He then a liar or a lunatic? Is there any other possibility?
Why should Christians proclaim a kinship of faith with those who say that Jesus is a liar or lunatic? That doesn’t mean we have to hate Jews, but it sure means that we can’t pray together in cathedrals or call them “elder brothers” as they arrogantly say that we should.
Well, I remember one other option, which I’d heard from an American Jewish Supremacist online: Jesus was always an “observant Jew”, never changed that or started a new religion. Everything that Christians believe was made up by (lying) gospel writers 200 years after Jesus.
Thank you for your comments. Michael Voris may be anathema to some, but we are not among those. We still watch him daily, and agonize over his decisions-which you mentioned. What makes little sense to us, is equating speaking of the wrongdoing of the Pope with attacking the Church. Mr. Voris never hesitates taking on Cardinals, Bishops, priests, any religious, with no trace of that same compunction. He manages quite well, to leave his listeners with the distinct impression he is not attacking the Church they represent–and we are talking often about the hierarchy here–but rather their false ideas, hypocritical statements and actions, and the damage those do to the common good and the Faithful in particular. If there ever was a need for THAT particular kind of analysis and leadership, it is now, while people need it most and are being thrown into such confusion.
Without any publicizing of his decisions in regard to the pope–such as a small disclaimer when he speaks about His Holiness, he is actually creating a false image of only good coming from the man’s lips. That adds to the false perception the world already has, and contributes to their being deceived. We had to look at other blogs to even learn of Michaels decision, which was presented while he was out of town at the time, so he doesn’t explain to his viewers that they are being given only silence about anything controversial the Pope does, and new people watching him, won’t have a clue as to the reality.
We fully respect Mr. Voris’ right to do as he feels he must regarding avoiding any scandals related to the Pope. But the examples you gave, are the very type of controversy he handles best–where public perceptions are being manipulated by the media on behalf of the person harming the Faithful. He unspins those, digs in, without respect of the office–usually, and helps us understand the Truth.
When the Vatican confirmed the phone call but refused to comment on it, the world was left hearing the woman’s version of what took place, with no explanation for her great delight, other than the obvious one–that the Pope had actually told her to go to Communion in her ongoing state of mortal sin.
That was like an atom bomb to people like us. The Core of the Church is the Blessed Sacrament, Our Lord Himself, and in effect the world will take what the Pope said in that publicized phone call, as permission to receive in Mortal sin. That not only affects divorced, not annulled and remarried people, but every type of person in Mortal sin without distinction. For if Confession is not necessary in one case, it is not necessary in any case.
This was and remains a terrible attack on the entire Sacramental system of the Church, even greater than the blasphemous words in the outer courts on Pentecost, which nothing excuses. (The reason for Pius X’s warnings about ecumenism were specifically to prevent such a thing. If you don’t pray together, with a microphone handy, especially, it can’t happen)
For someone like Mike Voris to ignore all this, and go on broadcasting the nice things the Pope does, is inexcuseable to us and harmful. We still love and pray for him, but remain in agony over the tragic results of this decision.
Indignus, I think it is quite likely that Francis did tell the divorced woman to go to Communion at a church where she is not known. When you say, “For if Confession is not necessary in one case, it is not necessary in any case”, I think you are 100% correct but I also believe that such is Francis exact plan.
Francis had come right out and announced his strategy, saying that “many think that changes and reforms can take place in a short time. I believe that we always need time to lay the foundations for real, effective change.”
He is and has been laying the groundwork for “unimaginable” and “unthinkable” change. Communion for homosexuals fits that description.
Well, opinions on this will vary and only time will tell.
Btw, I will certainly acknowledge that you know far more about Voris that I do. I have seen him only a few times. If anyone can link to one of his most obnoxious defenses of Francis, I’d like to see.
Appreciate the sentiment (honestly), but such actions would not get rid of the “trad problem”.
The “trad problem” is the entire New Orientation of the Church, which is not Catholic and can never be Catholic. Part of this is the new Rite, which is indeed a “NEW Rite”, according to its authors, with no basis whatsoever in Tradition, a “banal fabrication” (Benedict XVI) that was intentionally designed to subjugate the most critical Catholic theology to satisfy heretics who hate it.
The “trad problem” will go away when this entire disaster of a “pastoral council” with its complete lack of defined teaching or anathemas and its intentionally vague documents (according to council cheerleaders such as Cardinal Kasper) is done away with, once and for all, including its most rotten of fruit, the aforementioned New Rite.
At such a point, the Church will be essentially as She was before this [planned] Revolution, this intentional marrying of the Church with modernism, this “French Revolution in the Church” (according to its cheerleaders), that proudly ushered in “the Cult of Man” (Paul VI) and uncrowned Him as a necessary corollary.
The following are recent episodes of the Vortex – the weekday show for which Michael Voris is probably most well-known – which treat the issue of the pope:
March 13, 2014: It Always Comes Back to the Pope (http://bit.ly/1vW7S4B)
March 17, 2014: The Pope IS Different (http://bit.ly/1lBmUe3)
March 18, 2014: Tell the Pope, Not the World! (http://bit.ly/1phWMD8)
March 28, 2014: The Pope, the Press and the People (http://bit.ly/SVwOdA)
April 8, 2014: The Pope, Obama and the Devil (http://bit.ly/1spOI8Q)
April 11, 2014: Pope Francis: Closed Minds (http://bit.ly/1lEaG2H)
These episodes were all made shortly after the declaration of CMTV – the one which mentioned Christopher Ferrara and John Vennari by name (http://bit.ly/1lBq0yO) – was made public.
Cardinal Ottaviani wrote in 1969 to Montini – Ottaviani Intervention – “The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The ‘canons’ of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery…Desacralising omissions everywhere debase the mystery of the Church. Above all she is not presented as a sacred hierarchy: Angels and Saints are reduced to anonymity in the second part of the collective Confiteor: they have disappeared, as witnesses and judges, in the person of St. Michael, for the first…The unity of the Church is gravely compromised by the wholly intolerable omission from the entire Ordo, including the three new Prayers, of the names of the Apostles Peter and Paul, Founders of the Church of Rome, and the names of the other Apostles, foundation and mark of the one and universal Church, the only remaining mention being in the Communicantes of the Roman Canon…It is evident that the Novus Ordo has no intention of presenting the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent, to which, nonetheless, the Catholic conscience is bound forever. With the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, the loyal Catholic is thus faced with a most tragic alternative. St. Pius V had the Roman Missal drawn up (as the present Apostolic Constitution itself recalls) so that it might be an instrument of unity among Catholics. In conformity with the injunctions of the Council of Trent it was to exclude all danger, in liturgical worship, of errors against the Faith, then threatened by the Protestant Reformation. The gravity of the situation fully justified, and even rendered prophetic, the saintly Pontiff’s solemn warning given at the end of the Bull promulgating his Missal “should anyone presume to tamper with this, let him know that he shall incur the wrath of God Almighty and his blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul. (Quo Primum, July 13, 1570)”
Cardinal Ottaviani wrote in 1969 to Pope Paul VI – Ottaviani Intervention – “The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The ‘canons’ of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery…Desacralising omissions everywhere debase the mystery of the Church. Above all she is not presented as a sacred hierarchy: Angels and Saints are reduced to anonymity in the second part of the collective Confiteor: they have disappeared, as witnesses and judges, in the person of St. Michael, for the first…The unity of the Church is gravely compromised by the wholly intolerable omission from the entire Ordo, including the three new Prayers, of the names of the Apostles Peter and Paul, Founders of the Church of Rome, and the names of the other Apostles, foundation and mark of the one and universal Church, the only remaining mention being in the Communicantes of the Roman Canon…It is evident that the Novus Ordo has no intention of presenting the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent, to which, nonetheless, the Catholic conscience is bound forever. With the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, the loyal Catholic is thus faced with a most tragic alternative. St. Pius V had the Roman Missal drawn up (as the present Apostolic Constitution itself recalls) so that it might be an instrument of unity among Catholics. In conformity with the injunctions of the Council of Trent it was to exclude all danger, in liturgical worship, of errors against the Faith, then threatened by the Protestant Reformation. The gravity of the situation fully justified, and even rendered prophetic, the saintly Pontiff’s solemn warning given at the end of the Bull promulgating his Missal “should anyone presume to tamper with this, let him know that he shall incur the wrath of God Almighty and his blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul. (Quo Primum, July 13, 1570)”
Thank you, Matthew. I appreciate your having expended the effort to post that list. I’ll watch every one of them tonight.
Thank you for your comments about the Good Bishop of SF, I hope a few more prelates begin to become more vocal soon. This is my first time on this site. I must say that I had no idea that so many have the same concerns as I about Pope Francis. The people that I am around like him, as they believe they have his permission to believe that our Church has been wrong and in need of “change”.
Well, there exists a massive amount of writings from the Fathers from the period before 233 AD to refute that nonsense quite easily.
“Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” – St. Ignatius of Antioch, 110 AD
I had wondered why they use that figure of 200 years, but didn’t pursue that aspect.
I think Matthew’s suggestion is perfect. If any counter-protesters accuse the parishioners of ‘anti-anything’, the Holy Innocents people may then accuse of a lack of concern for the hungry, or whatever. Great idea!