Writing on the Archdiocese of Washington blog, Monsignor Charles Pope posed the rhetorical question:
If the Second Vatican Council had never happened, would we still have a ‘New Mass’?
The relative inevitability of the unprecedented changes that have taken place relative to Catholic life over the last fifty years – in general and not just liturgically – is often cited by those who are loathe to recognize the disastrous consequences of the Council.
If for no other reason than this, Msgr. Pope’s question merits close consideration.
His answer: “Quite possibly.”
Rather than quote from the article extensively, I would invite you to visit his blog to read his supporting arguments, including the assertion that “the Liturgical Movement,” even prior to the Council, “was already moving along quite rapidly and deeply and would likely have continued to do so.”
In his concluding remarks, Msgr. Pope offers this word of advice for those who love the Mass of all ages, as clearly he does:
Be careful to distinguish the Second Vatican Council from the Ordinary Form of the Mass. I encourage this for the two reasons stated above: first, a strategy that allows us to be identified (fairly or not) with the repudiation of an entire Ecumenical Council is an unwise strategy; second, knowledge of the history of the whirlwind 20th century shows that the relationship of the liturgical changes to the Council are more complex than generally appreciated by a simplistic “pre-Conciliar vs. post-Conciliar” mentality.
I’d like to offer a few thoughts of my own on these points.
First, when one references the pre-conciliar “Liturgical Movement,” a distinction must be made between the papal commission established in 1946 under the Sacred Congregation of Rites, and the largely clandestine subversive movement spearheaded by the Belgian monk, Dom Lambert Beauduin, who envisioned a reformed rite crafted specifically to serve as a tool for catechesis, social justice and ecumenism.
(NB: the Encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, was in part a direct response to Beauduin’s ecumenical aspirations.)
As Msgr. Pope pointed out in his piece, Fr. Annibale Bugnini (the architect of the Novus Ordo) was the secretary of the aforementioned papal commission, but what he failed to address is the widely accepted understanding that even then Bugnini was sympathetic to the cause of the subversives, but only secretly so.
Secondly, while I’ve not read the some 300 page document that was produced by the papal commission, Memoria sulla riforma liturgica, summaries written by credible scholars indicate that the document is largely devoted to addressing matters surrounding the liturgical calendar and the Breviary.
Even then, the papal commission’s primary purpose was to propose fundamental principles that should be observed if and when any such efforts to reform the liturgy were undertaken.
Nothing that I’ve encountered in my reading suggests that the Memoria in any way presaged the kind of destruction that was wrought on the Roman Rite following the Council. In fact, according to Dom Alcuin Reid, in the Memoria one will find “no explicit desire for a major structural reform or recasting of the Liturgy.” (The Organic Development of the Liturgy, pg. 152)
This brings me to the suggestion that one does well “to distinguish the Second Vatican Council from the Ordinary Form of the Mass,” and more specifically, to Msgr. Pope’s reasons for encouraging as much, beginning with the following:
“A strategy that allows us to be identified (fairly or not) with the repudiation of an entire Ecumenical Council is an unwise strategy…”
It isn’t immediately clear to whom Msgr. Pope may be referring if indeed anyone, but it would seem that he may have in mind the Society of St. Pius X and people like me who, though not a part of the Society, hold a similar view of the Second Vatican Council.
Whatever the case may be, let’s examine briefly this notion of “repudiating an entire Ecumenical Council.”
Msgr. Pope seems to be making the rather common mistake of lumping Vatican Council II together with the previous twenty ecumenical councils of the Church, as though each one is of equal stature as the others.
This simply isn’t the case; Vatican II stands out as unique in that the intent to define and bind is entirely absent from it.
That said, what clear thinking Catholics cannot help but reject in any text that proposes to articulate the true faith is that which either misrepresents authentic Catholic doctrine, or even simply invites confusion as it concerns the same.
Examples of this nature in the conciliar documents have been discussed at length on this blog.
With this in mind, if one simply applies the “little leaven” standard to the “entire Council,” the idea of repudiation isn’t very radical at all; on the contrary, it is eminently Catholic.
The second reason Msgr. Pope offered for detaching the Council from one’s concerns over the Novus Ordo is as follows:
Knowledge of the history of the whirlwind 20th century shows that the relationship of the liturgical changes to the Council are more complex than generally appreciated by a simplistic “pre-Conciliar vs. post-Conciliar” mentality.
Again, I’m not entirely certain who, if anyone, he has in mind here, but for my part I will readily concede that the matter is far from simplistic, and it would be a mistake to imagine that the Council was the very birthplace of the assault on the Roman Rite that ensued after its closing.
What I will not so readily concede is Msgr. Pope’s conclusion:
Clearly, I speculate here. But, frankly, so do those who would dispute the answer … Some significant overhaul of the liturgy seemed to be in the offing, for better or worse, Council or not.
While it is true that people on both sides of the “what if the Council never happened” question are largely left to speculate, that does not mean that every aspect of the conversation concerning those things that contributed to the making of the Novus Ordo are matters of mere speculation.
In other words, there are quite a few well-known facts that cannot be overlooked.
Though a number of these have already been stated, reviewing the relevant “history of the whirlwind 20th century” chronologically suggests that there is a substantial, one might even say inextricable, link between the Council and the Novus Ordo Missae:
– There is no indication that the official “Liturgical Movement” instituted in 1946 was in any sense suggestive of a “significant overhaul” of the Rite of Mass to come. In fact, one of the three principles set forth in the document issued by the official papal commission (Memoria) is ordered toward preventing as much.
“Valiantly renew, therefore, when it is truly necessary and indispensable to renew, and preserve with zeal, when you can and must preserve.” (As quoted by Fr. Carlo Braga, La Riforma Liturgica, pg. 16)
– The “Liturgical Movement” associated with Dom Lambert Beauduin was forced to operate in the shadows prior to the Council thanks to those responsible popes who saw fit to safeguard the integrity of the sacred liturgy from the corruption this movement’s aims portended.
– This same subversive movement labored behind the scenes in the hope of seeing a reformed rite that would serve as a tool for catechesis, social justice and ecumenism.
– Annibale Bugnini secretly favored the vision of the subversives even as he acted as secretary for the papal commission established by the Sacred Congregation for Rites in the 1940’s.
– Bugnini served as the principal author of the Second Vatican Council document, Sacrosantum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.
– Sacrosantum Concilium includes propositions that directly mirror, and encourage, certain of the reforms desired by Dom Beauduin, et al., and the subversive movement previously mentioned.
For instance, in the opening article of the Constitution, ecumenical aims are placed at the very forefront of the liturgical reform it intended to set in motion:
This sacred Council desires … to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. (SC 1)
(For a more detailed treatment, please see “Liturgical Reform gone wild: Is Vatican II blameless?”)
– The Novus Ordo Missae, having been constructed upon the conciliar propositions, has become precisely what the subversive movement envisioned; namely, a rite that is comfortably received by those with a protestant mindset (a tool for ecumenism, see SC 1 cited above), a rite that has been stripped of sacred mystery so as to be “easily understood” by the faithful (a catechetical tool, see SC 21), and a rite that can be leveraged to promote social justice causes (often via the “Prayer of the Faithful,” see SC 53).
NB: With respect to the so-called “restoration” of the “Prayer of the Faithful” as encouraged in Sacrosanctum Concilium, an article by Fr. Romano Tommasi for Latin Mass Magazine demonstrates that this element enjoys no standing in the Church’s liturgical tradition.
Lastly, when considering the connection between the Second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo Missae, I would remind readers that the full name of the body that ultimately created the new rite was the “Consilium ad Exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia,” or the “Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.”
This fact alone seems to suggest that any attempt to build a wall of separation between the Council and the Mass that emerged from the Consilum is tantamount to a denial of history.
Taking all of this into consideration, one is hard pressed to deny that the Council provided the very gateway through which the subversive aims of the liturgical movement associated with Dom Lambert Beauduin passed from the condemnable aspirations of an underground fringe group to the “official” desires of the Church (in the form of directives that emanated from no less than an ecumenical council, albeit one unlike any other as previously noted).
With all of this said, let us now return to the rhetorical question initially posed:
If the Second Vatican Council had never happened, would we still have a ‘New Mass’?
It is not unreasonable to answer, as Msgr. Pope did, that it is “possible” (quite possible, I am not so sure) but not at all for the reasons he cited.
At this, I think it’s important for us to take a step back to consider very carefully just exactly what we’re discussing here; a “significant overhaul of the liturgy.”
While all concerned realize that this is precisely what happened after the Council, let it be said in no uncertain terms that the very concept of a “significant overhaul” is entirely antithetical to the sacred liturgy of the Catholic Church!
For the record, I feel compelled to say that re-ordering the prayers of the Breviary, as Pope St. Pius X did (regardless of one’s opinion of that re-ordering), does not constitute what one might reasonably consider an “overhaul,” the likes of which took place after the Council.
No intent to disparage, but frankly, I find it very surprising that anyone with a love for the traditional liturgy and a strong knowledge of the same (as Msgr. Pope most certainly has) would so easily concede that such a thing was in some way inevitable; at least apart from a substantial dereliction of duty on the part of Peter’s Successors.
In order for the Novus Ordo to come into existence, it was absolutely necessary for the aspirations of Dom Lambert Beauduin et al. to gain at least the appearance of “official” approval, that they might make the transition from the wild ideas of dreamers whispered in the shadows, to the “inspired” proclamations of respectable clerics openly expressed in very halls of ecclesial power.
I suppose that it is at least possible that this could have taken place directly at the hands of Paul VI or some other utterly feckless pope, but without the gravitas of the Second Vatican Council masquerading as the “higher authority” that was driving the process, it is perhaps just as likely that a perfectly well-justified rebellion would have ensued at the Novus Ordo’s introduction.
In the end, it would seem to me that the “engine” that brought the Church to this place where she stands today; that is, mired in a crisis more than a half-century old with no end in sight, is none other than the ever-present reality of sin.
Be that as it may, let us not be afraid to admit that the fuel for the operation was, and is, none other than the Second Vatican Council.
On the general subject raised by Monsignor Pope of “the repudiation of an entire Ecumenical Council”, the Catholic Encyclopedia writes as follows:
“The first duty of a Christian is to believe…and consequently [they have the right] to require their priests to give them…Christian teaching in the ordinary way” (article on the “Laity”).
In this article, Fr. Brian Harrison discusses the opinion that, according to VII, the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture “applies only to ‘that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation’ (DV 11)”. Fr. Harrison concedes that this opinion “has indeed been very widespread for over four decades in Catholic faculties of theology and seminaries” and that authoritative intervention would be required to “terminate legitimate public discussion [of this interpretation] among…Catholic scholars”.
In other words, VII has, at the very best, reduced (traditional Catholic teaching on) the absolute inerrancy of Scripture to a mere probability that it would presumably take another council to confirm. Given that inerrancy is a consequence of being inspired by God, who is truth, what does this say about the claim that VII was inspired?
I just blogged on one of Msgr. Pope’s earlier swipes at traditional liturgical rites. I’m baffled because he understands the current problem in the Church very well, but forcefully rejects a return to tradition as the solution.
To me, you just have to observe what is happening in the churches that have embraced the traditional rites. The respectful dress, the quiet reverence, the long queue to the confessionals, the absence of flip-flops, etc., etc. I am so hopeful for the next generation of Roman Catholics!
P.S. I also read Dom Alcuin Reid’s The Organic Development of the Liturgy. It was a bit of a challenge, but he clearly distinguished the nature of liturgical development, using extensive evidence, with the dramatic and unprecedented change that resulted from the Second Vatican Council.
It seems to us, that both Vatican II and the New Mass were specially designed (by those who prevailed in influencing them) to tear down as many “walls” as possible, and let the world flood in-while pushing Catholics to begin mingling with everyone they were formerly warned to stay away from- because of false beliefs or states of un-repented sin- as if suddenly we were impervious to corruption, and the Church had been an over-protective mother for 2000 years.
It was a revolt against the safeguards of the past concerning heresy and sin. Anathemas and Scriptural commnds to “avoid” and shun, and the principles that fostered them suddenly became the new “evils”.
Let’s just “do this” and see what happens-seems to have been the plan. Well, corruption happened, the sense of sin has been lost, along with souls, and we need to rebuild those walls and re-teach the old safeguards and preach heavily about all the reasons they existed and worked so well.
You find the same pattern in the Documents of VII. First some Dogma, then the reasons it’s too hard or ineffective, to apply it in practice in the way it was done in the past. In “Ad Gentes” – (on the Missionary activity of the Church), –The madate is there in full, including- preaching to all the nations; Baptizing; the Role of Christ as King, and even the fact that rejecting Him or the Gospel condemns a person automatically.
But then suddenly you’re reading that it’s just not possible to preach in so many places today, so we have no alternative but to settle for mingling and doing charity work- while we wait for the right timing. And then you’re reminded further, of the necessity to keep altering that plan as things keep changing, and that sometimes doing nothing at all for an extended period is the best thing. -We can see what all that mingling and charity work has led to, with this Pope. And the public ecumenism is more of the same. Kissing the Koran was probably just another “friendly gesture” from St. JPII, to warm them all up for the mandated “someday” when the time is right for actual preaching–that never came.
-And now, while Isis is busy crucifying, burying Christians alive and lopping off heads, our Pope is planting olive trees in the Vatican Gardens, holding more ecumenical prayer meetings, and of course, writing a very important encyclical on the most pressing moral issue of our time: ecology.
Rome is burning, and Nero is fiddling around.
Ora Pro Nobis Mater Misericordiae.
You explain very well the contrived, evil and anti-Catholic (and anti-reason) excuses not to obey the Lord’s Commandments and uphold the full unchangeable Deposit of Faith, contained in the VII documents.
I agree with Msgr Pope on the historical aspect of this issue, although I do have my problems with Vatican II. But I do not think that Vatican II was ultimately responsible for the radical liturgical reform that occurred. Rather it was used as an excuse to justify the reform “officially.” The process that produced the Novus Ordo was already underway during the pontificate of Pius XII, and likely with his close knowledge and approval of its principles and intents. Bugnini reported that Pius XII was very closely aware of the reform, which otherwise operated unknown. The Holy Week of 1955 – which is celebrated by the SSPX – was the first major revolution (after Pius X’s overhaul of the breviary, which was radical, but not especially problematic theologically or spiritually). The new Holy Week not only did away with valuable traditions of symbolic and theological significance, but replaced them with elements not completely unlike those found in the Novus Ordo. Fr. Steven Carusi wrote this article on the subject: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/07/reform-of-holy-week-in-years-1951-1956.html
This was merely one of the first steps in a series which would ultimately culminate in the Novus Ordo. Granted, had there not been Vatican II or Paul VI, the “Novus Ordo” might have looked differently than it does now, but there still would have been one, and it would have been radically untraditional in many ways. The corrupted liturgical movement was taking effect before the Council. Paul VI considered his work of reform a continuation of that begun by Pius XII.
“This sacred Council desires … to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. (SC 1)”
In the mid-1960s, “all who believe in Christ” meant what in America what we call “mainline Protestants”: Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Church of Christ, etc. They have litrugies and communion. But by 2015, those denominations all have declined sharply. Today, “all who believe in Christ,” for Protestants, means some man or woman standing up in a megachurch, holding a Bible, preaching for hours about being “raptured” from their cars and bombing somebody in the Middle East to prod God into Armageddon.
The Mass of Paul VI was designed with the input of late-1960s-style Protestants, who hardly exist anymore, having gone the way of hippy love beads and bell-bottoms. That’s what happens when you’re trendy instead of eternal.
Fr. John Hunwicke at his blog had some good things to say about the relation of the Council to the liturgical reform: http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-council-and-liturgy-alternative.html
“I suppose a common analysis of what happened in the 1960s might be: The Council mandated a fairly light revision of the Liturgy; however, particular interests subsequently gained control of the levers of liturgical power and pressed things to extremes. [Or there is the view of the SSPX which Fr. Hunwicke does not mention, that the extremes themselves resulted from the Council.] I suggest that something really quite different happened, realisation of which might have its embarrassments both for Trendies and Traddies. The fontal point is this: The process of change was already firmly in place. I do not think that the Council, in fact, made any real difference whatsoever….Pius XII had initiated the process of radical alteration, using the same people who were to be prominent after the Council, such as Annibale Bugnini, before and without the mandate of an ecumenical Council.”
With all due respect to the Monsignor, he does not seem to think with the mind of the Church.
“Loving the TLM” while nice, is not the proper criterion. The TLM is an unequivocal statement of the Catholic faith; the NO is not. The official mass of the Catholic Church must be an unequivocal expression of the Catholic faith, for if it is not by definition it will not instill and bolster the faith. Thus personal preference is irrelevant. The proper question is what the mass need accomplish in the public expression of our Catholic faith. Since the NO is only an equivocal statement of our Catholic faith it fails in its purpose. The loss of faith in the laity is in part the result of the fact that the NO is not an unequivocal expression of the Catholic faith.
I’m sorry to hear that the Monsignor has to contend with differing pastoral concerns because he is bi-ritual, but he shouldn’t have to! Because the TLM and NO are effectively expressions of a different faith, one is schismatic relative to the other. One of the marks of the Church is unity, and unity is evidenced by unity in worship. The existence of two rites – and two effective faiths evidenced in the respective liturgies – is not a sign of unity but rather a sign of division. Hence the NO must be abolished. If the Monsignor is shocked, I ask that he compare the orthodoxy in belief of a NO community with that of a TLM community. Numerous recent polls indicate that the average NO parish is populated by a significant percentage of at least materially heretical parishioners. Is it any wonder when the NO weekly presents them with a watered down and equivocal “version” of the Catholic faith?
The Monsignor also seems to believe that the ultimate outcome he supposes is desired by the TLM faithful is only the ability to continue to attend “their beloved TLM”. If this is the case, they should be politically adroit and not allow their commitment to the TLM be linked to a general attack on the conciliar church and a particular attack on its sacred cow VII. If they allowed this linkage to occur, something bad would happen, as if it hasn’t already. Thinking in this manner, the Monsignor evidences a belief that the faithful are ultimately in control, at least in part, of the outcome of the situation. We are NOT in control of the outcome, the Lord is! The only thing the faithful can do is provide Our Lord with a choice – between the faithful and the unfaithful. In such a situation, if those who attend the TLM believe they are in the right, they should not measure their devotion according to worldly political considerations, they should magnify their devotion to give Our Lord a clear choice! See 1 Corinthians 11: 17 – 19:
“Now this I ordain: not praising you, that you come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all I hear that when you come together in the church, there are schisms among you; and in part I believe it. For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you.”
By refusing to separate from those in the NO who do not hold the faith, the faithful make it impossible for the Lord to make manifest those who are approved!
Reading Msgr’s post, I was simply amazed.
Not only do the Traditionalists contend that the Novus Ordo Missae was forced on the Church to enact the ecumenical novelties brought about by Vatican II, but the innovators confirm this likewise. I am not sure why anyone would contend this now.
Anyways,and excuse the self serving aspect to what I will write below, I have put up a page on my blog, The Deus Ex Machina blog dedicated to exactly this issue. On the page, I have linked to the promotional video’s for the book Work of Human Hands by Fr. Anthony Cekada. I think that his book is by far the source for understanding what in fact happened at the council and the reason why the liturgical reforms were introduced. The video’s make it easy to grasp the significant points, which by the way, Fr. Cekada does an excellent job of summarizing.
Furthemore, I have included an introduction by Fr. Hesse who explains how the Novus Ordo Missae is the foundation created to support the new church adn the new faith. It is a video that the readers of this blog will be familiar with.
Here’s the link: http://sarmaticusblog.wordpress.com/anatomy-of-the-destruction-of-the-sacred-liturgy/
I will leave off here, but once again, I want to state for the record, that I am simply amazed that this issue would even be debated now!
Amen to your well thought out words. All we have to do is read the Psalms. Therein is a complete description as to what happened when the Hebrews ‘mingled’ with their pagan neighbours. God left them to their ‘own inventions’ and the Hebrews were swept away into pagan hands every time. The Church is supposed to be a bulwork not an open gate.
And the parable of the vineyard with its hedges broken down and the wild boars ravaging the harvest….not hard to understand…and universal, for all time.
But let’s cut to the chase here. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was supposed to remain untouched. So now we’re discussing whether the changes were organic, proposed by nasty people in Pius XII time, just before, or just after him, or can we put the blame on VII…and on and on.
Every attempt to change one iota of the Holy Mass must be seen as evil, not just the horror we see directly after VII. The size of the iceberg that hit the Titanic, or what direction the wind was blowing at the time doesn’t matter.
The good Father Pope is trying to have it both ways, and his posts reflect this every time. He wants to speak truth but hesitates because of his delicate position. PAH!!!!!
And what we often see when discussing ‘those who prefer the TLM’ we get harsh criticism of how unfriendly we are, or how dour, or po-faced, narrow-focused, or badly dressed – long skirts Yikes! All that kneeling when we are now mature!
We can’t separate any of this – 200 years of corrupt philosophy, thus corrupt theology has brought us to a place where change is necessary not just desirable – and we are harvesting the fruits from the ‘permission’ granted through this disastrous council.
Thanks Louie for this very thought-provoking post. St. Thomas Aquinas pray that the darkening of the minds of your fellow theologians and philosophers will be made light by The Light.
Thank you so much for this link. I found the whole article instructive and it leads me to feel even more horror at what has resulted from the pride of those men involved.
We have to remember Pius XII was quoted (before he became Pope) as saying it was suicide to tamper with the liturgy (if I find the exact quote, I’ll post) and this was in reference to the Third Secret of Fatima.
I also now think that few popes have much control of what happens on their watch. Some are evil, some are weak, some are blind, some are proud. But events can occur, and advice can be given, that takes matters out of any pope’s hands. Not the responsibility, mind you, but the actual control of what happens. There are not many popes, bishops or priests who are willing to go to the wall for God.
I remember Card. Dolan saying something like “it’s not something we’re willing to go to the mat for” when some very important point was raised – can’t remember if it was Holy Communion for adulterers, or sexually perverted people attempting marriage or whatever. I wanted to ask him “what would you go to the mat for?” It’s obvious that none of the modern popes would go to the mat for much either.
Satan never sleeps.
We have to question about one line of what you wrote above (though agreeing with just about every other word of what you’ve said in your posts here 🙂 🙂
“Every attempt to change one iota of the Holy Mass must be seen as evil.”
-our reason being, that the “Mass” you’re likely speaking of, is not what Our Lord did at the last Supper, (but incorporates that), nor is it what the Apostles did, nor what the weekly gathering St. Paul referred to when he said “hold fast to the Traditions”… nor even the Mass promulgated for all time
“.Following the Council of Trent, Pope St Pius V, concerned with some innovations in some areas, declared that all priests of the Latin Church throughout the World must use the Roman Missal he prepared- not add a single word to it, or choose to leave a single word out, without his authority.
–“A few Popes changes–since then: Holy Week liturgies were changed in the 1940s. And then, (many thought it was sacrilege), Pope John XXIII added the name of St Joseph to the Canon.
– The modernists tried to claim the N.O. was actually more what Jesus had in mind at the last Supper. (Can’t envision the Apostles shaking hands and greeting one another just after the consecration, though)
So, while we agree that the N.O. was “radical” change, but not with those who claim it is invalid or sinful inherently)we’re wondering who SHOULD decide on changes, since they have been made from the time of Christ ? And why would natural development stop suddenly with no possibility of further alteration by any future pope, unless every word and gesture of the rite were unchanging, dogmatic truth? That thinking doesn’t make sense to us.
We also disagree with the idea of another poster, that “loving the TLM” as we do, (and assume you do, too) has nothing to do with this issue. While the cause for the “love” may be questionable in some as nostalgia; we know ours was a response to the Truth contained in the words of its prayers, which set it so far ABOVE the N.O., there was no doubt of its vast superiority.
-So this “sentiment” which can be so easily dismissed as irrelevant, may very well be the “sesuum fideli” or “sensus Catholicus” said to exist among the laity–which in essence is the Holy Spirit working among the Faithful. And what we see happening behind the scenes with so many traditional communities growing and prospering, may well be the result of all the Rosaries and sacrifices Our Lady asked for and got -at Fatima, from those who did heed her request. (her less- invisible Gideon’s army).
-Since she came to Sister Lucia at Tuy to ask for the Consecration of Russia, in 1929, think of all the Popes from then till now, who have not done as she requested (collegially Consecrating, while naming Russia). It’s therefore not inconceivable that the “diabolic disorientation” has been at work at least that long. She also said the 3rd secret should be revealed “by 1960, because by then it would be evident” logically inferring that what led up to it, started before that time, and was not “evident”.
Between then and her Akita apparitions, Vatican II was held AND the N.O. was promulgated and promoted, AND all Hell broke loose in society and in the Church. At Akita she spoke of the Church being infiltrated to the top levels; Cardinals battling Cardinals; and her sorrow over the “loss” of many consecrated souls. That was said on May 13,th -the anniversary of the first apparition of Fatima- which could very well tie them together–like bookend-apparitions, or a giant parentheses around the time when the great apostasy was being manifested, or as we prefer to see it– Our Mother, putting her arms around her children, bemoaning and weeping over what sin was doing to all of their lives- wanting the lost to be saved and the persecuted to be spared such trials, but knowing the results of free will and sin had to play out fully, before her Time of Triumph will come.
The Gates of Hell shall not prevail, but Satan does keep trying to close them around us All this confusion and the in-fighting it naturally led to, are one of his favorite tangled webs. We all need to keep on thinking, praying and discussing, while at the same time loving one another, despite our differences of opinion, while God brings about His will–and hopefully gives a Pope soon, who is able to discern it correctly at all times. What a gift that would be.
( p.s The above conclusion is just in general, and not directed at any individual who posted here- as all seem nicely civil to us). 🙂 🙂
Speaking of darkening minds….this news from Ireland is fulfilling a prophecy.
Jan.10, 2015 “At Mass on Saturday” Father Martin Dolan, called on his congregation to support same sex marriage in the upcoming Irish referendum,(this May)and then announced “I’m gay myself.”
– “He got a standing ovation” -from his parishioners at St Nicholas of Myra in Dublin’s city center, where he has been the only priest for 15 years.
(Like America, Irish polls now consistently show over 70 percent of the Irish support gay marriage.)
In the Life of St. Patrick by Cistercian- Jocelyn of Furness (fl. 1175-1214), there is a vision recounted -very similar to the one received in Quito, Ecuador during the approved apparaitions of Our Lady of Good Hope, -(in which the sanctuary light gradually went out, and the seer was told it applied to the future-to our times.)
–It his case, St. Patrick, was praying for Ireland’s Faith, and suddenly “beheld the whole island as it were a flaming fire ascending unto heaven; and heard the angel of God saying unto him: “Such, at this time, is Hibernia in the sight of the Lord.”
-Then, after a little space, he beheld in all parts of the island – as mountains of fire stretching unto the skies.
-And again after a little space, he beheld as it were candles burning.
-And after another while, darkness intervened and he beheld fainter lights,
-And at length he beheld coals lying hidden here and there, as reduced unto ashes, yet still burning.
–Then an angel explained to him: “What thou seest here shown, such shall be the people of Hibernia.”
Saint Patrick replied with anguish..ending with “Shall God forget to be merciful, and shut up his mercy in his displeasure?” And the angel said, “Look toward the northern side, and on the right hand of a height shalt thou behold the darkness dispersed from the face of the light which thenceforth will arise.”
— Then the saint- saw a small light arising in Ulydia, (the North)which a long time contended with the darkness, and at length dispersed it, and illumined with its rays the whole island, not ceasing to spread till it restored the whole of Hibernia. The heart of the saint filled with joy, and he gave thanks for all these things which had been shown unto him.
–Many of the Faithful, later believed this represented St. Malachi, who re-spread the Faith beginning in the North, restoring it Faith everywhere.
We seem to be back to the burning embers stage once more, awaiting the Triumph of Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart.
Thanks for that. Yes, Our Lady said Russia would be consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart – that it ‘would be late’ but would be done.
As I’m approaching my 70th year I don’t believe I will see it, but can only pray for my family’s conversion, and for the ‘remnant’ which will be that little shining light.
The Light – it’s everywhere in the Scriptures. Jesus is the Light. May He have mercy on us.
We feel much the same. And like you, we’ve also lived long enough to have seen quite a few other times come and go, in which people thought we must surely be “nearing the end”. We’ve always been the “spoilers” because we’d studied a lot of Catholic prophecy and Scripture, and until now, could always point to major elements still missing. This last decade has eliminated most of those. And one of the last things still undone is the “Muslim invasion of Europe” which is supposed to be short-lived but cruel and violent, with attacks on priests in particular. Don Bosco saw it hitting France and Italy the hardest, which also seems to go along with the part of he 3rd secret released. (Another reason to pray sincerely for the Pope’s conversion-before it is too late)
We’ve seen France get hit again this week, and Jihadists claim responsibility.
A huge rally is due to take place-protesting terrorism–whatever that means.
Things are coming to a head there.
-Another element of prophecy is the great apostasy – as you see in the two mentioned above, which is truly global now, to an extent it’s never been before in the history of the Church.
We know the True Church will not be allowed to completely disappear off the face of the Earth, before God intervenes. And the internet has given us a window into what’s taking place, like we’ve never had before..
– So for the first time, we believe we ARE getting very close to the Triumph, which means the crazier it gets right now, the sooner it is likely to come.
In the strangest way, that is a kind of comfort..
On cue, the news provides support for the claim that I made about the average NO parish being populated by a significant percentage of at least materially heretical parishioners.
But hasn’t this been the case for years? Hasn’t the institutional “Church” for years been an engine of heresy and error? It is apparently only now, with a majority (!) of prelates voting for some Church accommodation of sodomites at the recent synod, that it becomes clear exactly how far the faith of many of our fellow Catholics has flagged.
In years past, though, haven’t even more fundamental errors been prevalent among the “faithful”? For example, the non-uniqueness of the Catholic Church as the means of salvation established by Our Lord; universal salvation; easy salvation (almost all are saved), all “nice” people are saved, even those who deny Christ; amnesia about the origin of heretical sects, even to the point of claiming that they are in some way inspired by the Holy Spirit. I’m sure many of us have heard such errors not only from fellow parishioners, but also from family members!
How has this come about? Listen to the videos posted by S.Armaticus on his blog authored by Father Cekada, especially the videos having to do with the modifications made to the orations and to the lectionary, where conscious decisions were made to downplay or obscure texts that were “too Catholic”. Is it any wonder that not only parishioners, but many priests lose the faith when they are weekly or daily exposed to a liturgy that is INTENTIONALLY not fully and unabashedly Catholic? Should we be surprised that fellow Catholics adopt protestant errors and heresies when the NO was purposely designed to downplay or obscure Catholic teachings so the NO would be acceptable to protestants? What exactly does it say about the NO “Mass” as an expression of Catholic faith that it can be accepted without reservation by those who reject the orthodox Catholic faith?
Let’s get back to basics. Our Lord, in a great act of mercy, took human form and established a new covenant to effect the salvation of men. Our Lord established one Church – the Catholic Church – to accomplish this task on earth. Further, Our Lord declared that no one comes to the Father except through Him. Those in the past and the present who have denied Our Lord, denied his Church, or set up rival “Christian” sects have rejected Our Lord! If these unbelievers truly seek salvation, they are GRIEVOUSLY PRESUMING on Our Lord’s mercy by rejecting either / or all of Him, His faith, or the Church that he established as necessary for salvation. We do these unbelievers no act of charity by not continuously counseling them to reject their errors. Further, we insult Our Lord by assisting at a “Mass” that obscures or falsifies these truths in any way!
We can agree with much of what you wrote above, but the last line is a description of the N.O. which you personally devised based on your own beliefs about it, and which you then use to impugn the virtue of others who are innocent of any wrongdoing.
Your entire premise persuades the reader that the faithful have been victimized by a handful of people who managed to damage their Liturgy, -basically stealing from their treasure. Then you accusing those same victims, of insulting our Lord, by attending the only Liturgy most of them have left, with which to show their fidelity to God by keeping His commandment to Keep Holy the Lord’s day and attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days..
Cardinal Burke whose knowledge of these matters is also well respected by Faithful Catholics, acknowledges what he termed the “violence” done to the Liturgy, but also said about the N.O and the TLM:
” they are the same rite, and I believe that, when the so-called New Rite or the Ordinary Form is celebrated with great care and with a strong sense that the Holy Liturgy is the action of God, one can see more clearly the unity of the two forms of the same rite. ”
“-On the other hand, I do hope that – with time – some of the elements which unwisely were removed from the rite of the Mass, which has now become the Ordinary Form, could be restored, because the difference between the two forms is very stark”.
He understands the need to reform it, but in no way would attack those who attend in the meantime, as if they are blasphemous or sinful or neglecting their duties or love or respect for Our Lord. And we who are blessed with some priests who always say it reverently, believe you are very wrong to imply that He is insulted by our assisting at these Masses, even if they DO “obscure” what the TLM makes much clearer. (We’re not sure, what you mean by falsifying a Truth, as Truth is unchanging.)
What to do??
My cathedral is advertising Choral Vespers, sung by the Cathedral Choir;
The bulletin States”We will be welcoming Rev XX of the Anglican Church as the Guest Preacher”
Question: Will the invited Guest Preacher genuflect as he passes the Tabernacle?
If not, if he gets that so fundamentally wrong , how can I trust whatever else he has to say?
Cyprian, And now we have a Pope who is supporting and propagating the evils you cite. Lord, have mercy! St John the Baptist, St John Vianney, St Michael, intercede for us!
Make a short written complaint to priest, copied to Bishop, citing relevant infallible magisterium. Our current Pope does not genuflect before Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament!!! Reparation. Reparation. Reparation.
What was Our Lord’s reaction to the Pharisees when they questioned the actions of his disciples in not hewing closely to jewish ritual customs?:
“This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me.
And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.” Matthew 15: 8 – 9.
And what was Our Lord’s counsel to those who recognize false teachers and their false, man made doctrines and commandments:
“Then came his disciples, and said to him: Dost thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized? But he answering them, said: Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit.” Matthew 15: 12 – 14
Just to make it perfectly clear to IF: Our Lord here teaches that worship is in vain if the liturgy of the worship teaches false doctrines. Once you recognize this as a Catholic you have a duty to withdraw from it.
Not to pile on, but do you believe those poor souls in Ireland fulfill their Sunday obligation by continuing to attend the “mass” offered by Father Martin Dolan?
Wow. I thought Leo XIII declared Anglican “ordinations” to be invalid.
1. We all know the Pharisees were double-minded and Our Lord condemned them for it, being able to read their hearts and minds. Many people make mention of them to try to discredit the beliefs of others as hypocritical.
-But their lip-service, vain worship, and teaching of manmade doctrines have nothing to do with the sincere worship we were attempting to discuss with you, which many people, including us, practice when we attend the reverently done N.O.( which we frequently do -especially when there is no TLM available.) Though some of the prayers and structure are vastly inferior in our opinions, it is neither illegitimate or false, or we are sure a Faithful Canon Lawyer like Cardinal Burke would not defend it as a legitimate, true, valid rite.
2. Your further examples and arguments about worship that DOES qualify as such, and having a duty to withdraw from it, would only hold true if your personal assumptions that the N.O. teaches false doctrines were true, so further quoting Our Lord on what the consequences would be, isn’t at all persuasive since they don’t apply.
3. RE your question about the scandal in Ireland- i.e. would we believe those who continue attending Fr. Dolan’s Masses be meeting their Sunday obligations–
We hope you are aware that in asking that, you shifted the discussion from the topic of the N.O itself, to one of general Mass-validity, in the case of a priest’s public heresy and the scandal of his attempting to leading others to follow him during a homily regardless of which rite he was presiding over.
Are you presuming he first publicly repented of his sin and scandal and was then allowed to continue saying Mass? (as we don’t know if his faculties would be automatically removed, but certainly hope they would be) or do you mean if they were removed, and he disobeyed and continued to say Mass?.
We’re not currently up on all the regulations the Bishop would be dealing with, but have read in the past that a priest’s sins alone, don’t invalidate a Sacrament. At any rate the technical answer to your question would depend on all those things, and probably a few more. We certainly would recommend the faithful all look for another parish, if he is left there, especially if unrepentant, as is likely.
Since Rev XX is a heretic, it would matter not whether he genuflects or not. No call to trust anything he says.
@IF: Before I continue this disputation with you, how much reading have you done on the deficiencies of the NO? For example, you apparently admit “that the prayers and structure [of the NO] are vastly inferior” to the TLM. What sources did you rely on to reach this conclusion, or is your conclusion the sole result of your comparison of the two forms of mass?
No disrespect intended to you, but we honestly don’t wish to continue disputing these sede positions. We’ve seen them end up leading to a lot of confusion in the past, with opposing sides occasionally quoting the same people, and in some cases, claiming different interpretations of the same quotes. There were a lot of those discussions last year here on Louie’s blog, between, yourself, ACT, Ganganelli and a few others, – until Louie came on as author, asking that such large side issues be taken to Forum,- which we notice a few of you have done occasionally.
– Cardinal Burke, as we said above, is a well-respected Canon Lawyer and Faithful Catholic, who believes Francis is the Pope, and whose ideas on these other issues happen to agree closely with our own conclusions, thus far. We claim no expertise in intricate theological matters like these, but continue to read when we have time, -the list is rather long right now-and use our judgment, to the best of our abilities, delighted when we find someone as trustworthy as him, to rely upon for further guidance. There are existing Forums on this topic, and perhaps others would care to join you in discussing it there, but we most likely would not, as we don’t have the time we would need to devote to that much more research, right now.
God Bless you. 🙂 :-).
Wow, you had me confused for a moment IF. I thought that maybe I was wrong to engage you on the subject of the NO missae, but I reviewed the thread and it appears that you are the one who engaged me! I asked you for the source of your beliefs on the NO missae, and not only do you refuse to provide them, but you are apparently making an appeal to the blog owner to clip my wings so to speak! What is especially confusing is that you started this disputation by stating “we can agree with much of what you wrote above but . . . ” So apparently only opinions that you agree with are allowed to be expressed in the comment section? Is that the case? And what is up with referring to yourself as “we”? My suspicion is that I am always getting in trouble with the feminine side of “we”. In any case, in the future you can avoid the discomfort of not wanting to follow an argument to its possible painful and disconcerting conclusion by gritting your teeth and ignoring my comments.
Below is a link that should answer your question as to whether the Novus Ordo Missea is a legitimate mass.
If anyone would know the answer to this question, it is the SSPX. A propos SSPX, it was Archbishop Lefebvre whose team wrote the Ottaviani Intervention text.
One more thing. The essentials elements in a mass are: substance, form and intent. We can discuss proper form and substance. What we can never do is know what the “intent” was, since only God knows what is in the heart of the priest at the time of the consecration.
Hope his helps.
And of course we must remember that Our Lord would not leave the entire Catholic world without Holy Mass for 60 years….thus, as has been said, if a priest says the NO with the proper intent, in the proper form etc. we must believe this is for God’s glory, and that He accepts it – for now.
God does not make things so difficult for us that we can’t possibly worship Him at all. Our priest has suggested we bring our missals to the NO, keep our heads down and pray the Mass that way.
And what about the suffering that we experience at these Masses? Gold, all gold.
Lynda your suggestion is a good one. We simply must write our priests and bishops when necessity dictates. I always think that even if the person who opens the envelop and reads the words, before it gets passed on to the bishop may be influenced for good.
Note I said letter in an envelop! E-mails are read, and either put into a count for pro/con, or deleted. PAPER! It must be handled and read before being put in the round file.
And we don’t have to be a ‘good writer’ as there are thousands of great blogs and youtube sermons out there to crib from.
@SA: Thanks, but with all due respect, I had already read a wide range of commentary on the mass from all perspectives – conciliar, SSPX, and sedevacantist and was well aware of the Ottavani intervention. I was not given the opportunity to discuss theses sources because IF decided to cut off the debate. In the future, fellow participants shouldn’t presume my positions are merely my own – they result from a consideration of, and weighing of, many sources.
Further, the SSPX source you cited did not mention doubts raised about the validity of NO masses using the vernacular mistranslations of the words of consecration! But my argument wasn’t whether the NO is invalid (a review of my comments will demonstrate this) but that it is merely (!) bad and injurious to souls. I like the words used in the SSPX article you cited and was going to quote them in this debate:
“Now, even if one wanted to contest the heretical elements of the New Mass, the sole refusal to profess Catholic dogmas quintessential to the Mass renders the new liturgy deficient. It is like a captain who refuses to provide his shipmen with a proper diet. They soon become sick with scurvy due, not so much to direct poison, as from vitamin deficiency. Such is the new Mass. At best, it provides a deficient spiritual diet to the faithful. The correct definition of evil—lack of a due good—clearly shows that the New Mass is evil in and of itself regardless of the circumstances. It is not evil by positive profession of heresy. It is evil by lacking what Catholic dogma should profess: the True Sacrifice, the Real Presence, the ministerial priesthood. This deficiency had already been denounced by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci months before the New Mass was promulgated:
‘The recent reforms have amply demonstrated that new changes in the liturgy could not be made without leading to complete bewilderment of the faithful, who already show an indubitable lessening of their faith. Among the best of the clergy, the result is an agonizing crisis of conscience, numberless instances of which come to our notice daily.'”
Thanks SA for the lead-in.
You sound frustrated, and it seems at least partly due to your mistaking our meaning(s) a bit. (btw, The “we” is both of us, commenting together, agreeing on all the text we submit). You were not “in trouble” with us, unless you consider trouble to mean our simply disagreeing with a couple of your statements, and arguing with our usual passion. Please don’t mistake that for anything personal.
In general, we respond to topics we feel we have some experience or competence in addressing, or that one or both of us feels should not be ignored by us, despite a lack of those.
Our earliest response to you on this thread was due to your claim that assisting at an N.O Mass, was giving an “insult” to Our Lord. We thought it possilbe to refute that, without getting into the larger sede-discussion. In retrospect, and in light of your last response, that was probably unrealistic , and your frustration at our trying to head-off the longer conversation is understandable. We apologize for failing to anticipate that and adequately explain why we were doing it..
We were not applealing to Louie. ( to “clip your wings” or anything else) -just including his past wishes in our reasons. As far as we know, he welcomes all people regardless of differences of belief, without prejudice, as long as they behave civilly. So do we. It’s one of the things that make his blog so unique. Sure we wish there was more unity among the faithful right now, but we realize how extremely complicated it all has become. We need a better Pope.
It seems you viewed our cut-off point as a kind of insulting “cop-out”; but it goes deeper than that. We decided after many months of reading, to leave that particular discussion to those with more education that we have in Church History, Canon Law and the Sacraments, because it is so difficult without that expertise, to responsibly judge the teachings of those who hold such controversial opinions, in these areas. We’d found on more than a few occasions, that one or two words, or a phrase in a video or a paragraph of their work, represented a subtle alteration by them of how the Church had always taught or phrased something. We didn’t have a clue of the change or it’s significance, until watching or reading others- educated enough to catch and refute them, which turned out to be too numerous and equally confusiing. We felt we were getting cross-eyed trying to make head or tail of most of it-very unlike many other topics which were much more easily grasped by us. And with not enough spare time to gain all the knowlege necessary, we decided to stop where we were on that subject, and trust our instincts, our 50 years experience and people like Cardinal Burke who shares our Faith and beliefs about the status of the Pope. That’s why we quoted him to you, and our why we believe you are wrong about Our Lord being insulted by our worship. It’s also why we didn’t list to you the many videos and essays we’d watched and read over the past year.
We hope this helps clear things up, and you realize you were not being “attacked” by us.
God Bless you 🙂 🙂 .
thank you for your excellent historical and academic analyses of the argument presented and the ensuing comments on your blog.
The controversy between IF and Cyprian as presented herein by them both is also both riveting and quite edifying. (Cyprian’s criticism of IF’s reference to the pronoun “we” is appreciated: it does strike one as being somewhat presumptuously cliquish.)
A special thanks to to IF in particular for his ongoing encouragement to all participants in the comment section, new or old, and generously sharing the wealth of his theological knowledge and readings without excluding his ample sources.
We are not amused
Would one be sinning against the third commandment “to keep the Lord’s day holy” if one refused to go to a Greek schismatic Orthodox valid mass because it was spiritually scandalous according to their Catholic conscience for them to attend even though this was the only possible mass for them to attend? I would think they would not be sinning.
I do see that the Greek Orthodox eastern Rite have been publicly declared by the Church to be schismatics and heretics and the intent to suppress or remove fundamental Catholic doctrines in the NO mess has not been declared such by our hijacked Church and there is a difference. Nonetheless don’t you think that it would not be a sin to forgo Sunday mass if the NO was the only thing available because of the Catholic spiritual harm that it would cause knowing that these doctrines were being trampled on and tampered with?
Thanks for your kind comment. One thing you may not realize (which hopefully will eliminate the perception of our being “presumptuously cliquish”. -chuckled at that one 🙂 🙂
“We” doesn’t refer to fellow posters or readers who agree with our views.
– We simply are, an old Catholic couple, (grandparents for many years now), posting together here. We submit our combined ideas- actually with surprising ease- as believe it or not, we’ve found our opinions have agreed, on every topic discussed here since we first got up the nerve to post one. We haggle a bit occasionally over a “better” word to use to express a thought; and obviously both have trouble using anything but compound sentences, which makes “short and concise” a constant challenge, and something we envy . 🙂 🙂
Possibly because we come from a mixture of ethnic backgrounds not known for their eagerness to sit-down and shut up; we seem to have acquired a lot of the same “wisdom born of pain” over the last half-century, which we frequently see from others who post here as well. It would be a waste, not to try to share some of that -especially when times are so painful, families are split over beliefs; and the internet, and folks like Louie, are making that so easy to do. We hope and pray the Holy Spirit is always fully involved to keep us all on track and let His Truth be better known and understood, so we all get to heaven some day.
This is likely going in the wrong spot as a response to you,
but we had the exact same reaction and thoughts about God not suddenly depriving His whole flock of the means of worshipping Him on Sundays.
– After they went from Latin to English, and then effectively “banned” that version of the Traditional Mass, there was nothing for many years until Benedict’s motu proprio made the TLM a little more accessible again. And we mean nothing else–not even a gathering in the woods somewhere like they had in the times of persecutions.
hahahahahahaha!!!! Love it.
IF, you and your ‘SO’ can call yourselves whatever you danged like in my book!
How easy it is in comboxes to take a certain flavour from a post when there is nothing really there….we have to be so careful.
Ever, thanks for the laugh.
Dear Ever mindful,
But both of us are… 🙂 🙂
Thanks. We’ll stick with “spouse” for this life, Significant Other leaves a little too much to the imagination these days… 🙂 🙂
Only on-topic in the sense that it’s another man-made “disaster”:
Please pray with us for the survivors and the 2,000+ dead. mostly- women and children. Muslim terrorists in Nigeria (Boko) again. .
The news is sounding more and more like Revelations: -the winepress of God’s wrath .. and still mankind did not repent of sin…despite the ..blood up to a horse’s bridle for 1600 furlongs….
Our Lady, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary pray for all souls.
Dear Louie and all,
With news reports currently circulating of 25-year ruling Italian Bishop Mario Oliveri being notified of “visitation” by the Vatican and/or “normalized” (removed from power in his diocese?) for supporting Tradition in the past and, writing to the Pope on behalf of the FFI more recently, (his supporters say) and for “questionable practices in his diocese concerning “playboy priests” -according to more “official” reports—
Apparently he’s been viewed as interfering in the overall efforts to suppress the TLM and promote the N.O.. It appears there are enough “progressives” around with that express purpose in mind, that even if the Council had never taken place, there would likely still have been a big push to radically change the Mass.
We have no idea how far it would have gotten without the impetus of the council and the documents to use as the “blueprints” or rationality at least, behind it. But there’s little doubt from the political “games” we’re seeing right now, that there is a manhunt on for reasons to depose traditional Bishops, while a concerted effort has been made by the Pope to reinstate prelates who were formerly silenced, disgraced, and damaged the Church with their radical ideas and actions, and regardless of their lack of repentance.
Mundabor calls Francis The Most Amazing Hypocrite in Church History (TMAHICH). Evidence is mounting daily. We’d give the Pope the benefit of the doubt in cases where laxity and disorder were the charges against a Bishop. But with him selectively enforcing rules this way, while discarding others in the name of Mercy, what else can we conclude, but that Mudabor hit this nail right on the head?
And the question for us now, is, can we ever go back?
So much depends upon the Pope, that it would appear Divine intervention will be necessary for any sort of return. If he retires or dies and is replaced, right now it seems there are enough progressives around to continue this process of unravelling all that Benedict tried to do regarding the TLM, and pushing to eradicate it.
Sorry for the lame sarcasm IF. Spouse is good enough for my SO and I too!! How blessed you two are to be on the same page, at the same time. This is just the kind of ‘caring and support’ that has been corrupted in the newspeak coming out of those who support acting out sexual perversion as ‘marriage’ – so to use Card. Dolan’s phrase: Bravo!
Right on. However, until we return to the Schools, and Thomism, we will continue to wander down a rat hole. Bad philosophy was imbibed by John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, and of course almost all priests and bishops (including Francis) over the past lets say 75 years. This has been the cause of our wanderings into craziness.
When we forget the purpose of man’s creation, and substitute will for intellect we’re where we are.
I’m listening to the “Philosophical Psychology” (The Philosophy of Human Nature) cd series from The Aquinas School of Philosophy, given by Professor Waters. This was recommended by John Vennari of Catholic Family News. I’m not only learning about what has gone wrong in the Church, and the world in general, but how I personally go wrong (i.e. sin) when I forget what my purpose is as a human being with body and soul.
Please note I have no vested interest in this stuff. But the more I learn the more I realize that a return to reason and the proper use of our human nature is what will save us.
Amen to that. People who speak as you do, are living proof that following this simple path of Grace and reason can spare souls from the general chaos and confusion of mind and heart we see everywhere today. That’s probably why reading about it strikes such a chord in you. What Thomas did was give substance to ideas through philosophical labels, descriptions and definitions, which his mind was able to “see” by pondering nature and revealed truths which we’ve instinctively been struggling to live in harmony with, for a lifetime.
History records that “three months before he died, in 1273 on the feast of St. Nicholas , he was celebrating Mass when he received a revelation that so affected him that he wrote and dictated no more, leaving his great work the Summa Theologiae unfinished. To Brother Reginald (his secretary and friend) he said, “The end of my labors has come. All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been revealed to me.” When later asked by Reginald to return to writing, Aquinas said, “I can write no more. I have seen things that make my writings like straw.
It’s presumed he was given a vision of heaven, which made his look at his work that way in comparison. At any rate, we sure his ideas have helped many philosophers to better understand their art, and theologians, our God.
But it’s also nice to think that many others, who find it hard to comprehend such lofty ideas, can spend their lives pleasing God, without such a comprehensive vocabulary. 🙂 🙂 .
May our united prayers help open other blind eyes and deaf ears. .
Dear Barbara and IF:
With respect to the suppression of the Catholics, in this case bishop Oliveri, I would just like to point out that time is on our side.
I would also point you to the following post at Rorate Caeli by John Lamont. The subject is the suppression of Thomis by the neo-modernists at VII. He makes a very prescient observation, which goes not only a long way to explaining what has happened post VII, but what the future holds for us. Here is the relevant text:
“The key to the neomodernist capture of power is however also the reason for their failure to sustain a religious culture. Neomodernism is not like Protestantism, which contains ideas with a positive content as well as being a rejection of Catholicism. These ideas – justification by faith, and the like – are not correct, but they say something substantial, and have an appeal that can give rise to an important movement. Neomodernism, however, on a religious level is a purely negative thesis. As a result it has no attractive force of its own, and ecclesiastical structures that fall into its grip eventually die away – a process now visible all over the world. This is one thing that on the natural level permitted the survival of Thomism, despite the drastic measures taken to uproot it from the Church; unlike neomodernism, it has something positive and substantial to say. Moreover, what it has to say is actually true. This is in no way a guarantee of broad success, but it ensures the continued existence of Thomism in the small constituency of good scholars who are concerned with the truth and in a position to discover it. Whether it will expand much beyond this constituency in the future is unknown, but there is no doubt that its future shows more promise than that of neomodernism.”
Evidence can be seen in places like Detroit. Here is that passage:
“This past week, a record of sorts was set: On Tuesday, January 6 at 7:00 PM, five simultaneous Holy Masses were celebrated in our region: Windsor’s Holy Name of Mary Church, Detroit’s St. Josaphat and Assumption Grotto Churches, Wyandotte’s Our Lady of the Scapular Parish, and first-time host Beverly Hills’ Our Lady Queen of Martyrs Church all held High Masses for the Feast of the Epiphany. It is likely the first time since the liturgical reforms of the 1960s that so many Tridentine Masses have been held at the same time. This is a testament of liturgical vitality in our region, particularly the presence of sufficient priests, musicians, altar servers, and other volunteers to make these Masses possible.”
Here is the link: http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2015/01/extraordinary-community-news-oakland-co.html
Concluding, and since someone mentioned heaven, I was at High Mass this past Sunday, and the parochial school choir sang the Kyriale. The impression that I had at that moment was one of heaven. If it’s anywhere as beautiful as in that chapel, it’s worth anything that the modernists can through at us. 😉
PS At communion, the choir sang Adeste Fideles and my 7 year joined in. Needless to say, it was a good day.
A bit OT here, but here’s an interesting video where a Catholic Lord Monckton discusses with Alex Jones issues of Global Warming and also a relevant part about the Pope. Aside from the reference to Galileo about the Church being wrong about the motions of the Sun and Earth (The Church is right, Galileo was wrong, as is Heliocentrism as a whole), he lets us in on some interesting insights. The link I’m providing takes you straight to the portion of the Pope, but I’d recommend taking the time to listen to the whole video about the non-science behind Global Warming.
You’re right, SA,
And it IS all about Truth. And since Truth is beautiful, we can bridge the gap between heaven and earth at times with the beauty of a hymn to God-especially one sung by children, who remind us of purity and innocence.
(if only they’d all behave that way at home more often..) . 😉 ;-).
We hope you know we were kiddin–it’ sometimes hard to make that clear here .
We’d only be “offended” if you put a B on the end of that SO. 🙂 🙂
And yes, being of one mind so much is a blessing we have treasured since the day we met. But looking back, it came with a stiff price tag, because to get to where we each appreciated God and the Faith that much at such young ages- for us at least- had required some rather hefty loads of early suffering in each of our lives. And, then of course, being young adults and idealistic (aka a little stupid), we pretty much assumed it would be “happy ever after time” from then on- since we’d already done our fair share. Yeah, ..if we’d moved to an island inhabited only by wonderful Catholics, maybe. 🙂 🙂
But… as we’re sure you know, life in the last 50 years even for the wanna- be Faithful(s) like us, has meant an automatic heavy dose of spiritual warfare. Sometimes we’d felt like God doubled our portion, which was one reason it was good to get online and see what other people have been going through–gets rid of some of the self-pity immediately, and gives you a chance to share what God has taught you lately. .Good stuff.
Hey, Johnno, thanks a lot for that link.
Question for all of us: Who would you rather have a very long lunch with? Lord Monckton? Or Pope Francis?
And I mean that in all charity.
That’s easy, Lord Monckton, and I’d light up the barbie, (all wood & charcoal fire 😉 ).
There will be no Media/Government incited outrage for these Christians murdered for their Faith. Or those in Libya, Syria, Iraq, etc., Lord, have mercy.
But not without the likely damnation of hundreds of millions of souls . . . It is too much to bear when it comes to those we know and love.
Johnno, someone ought to send Lord Monkton a copy of Robert Sungenis’s book, Galileo was Wrong, the Church was Right. I think he would read it without prejudice, and accept the facts that it narrates.
Already working on it Lynda! 😉
Dear Lynda and Johnno,
We’ve been periodically exploring this Geo-centric theory, from the less-scientific standpoint as well, as the scientific, (which is much harder) and find it fascinating. There are you tube videos about it, and one says the new movie “The Principle” is due to be released in 9 days–January 23, 2015.
The idea appeals to us, partly because it makes sense that the earth would be “different” and “special” in the universe, because of it being the place God prepared for His Only Son to be born of the only Immaculate Virgin, and the location of His Sacrifice and the Church He created to save us all. . He is the center of the Universe Who dwells among us, and promised to remain with us till the end of time. So it makes perfect sense that the earth He created would also be the center.
Yes, at first glance it seems to go against natural law to have all the other planets following orbits that circle the sun, while the earth is so very different, staying in one place with the sun moving around it. But listening to the scientists reasons for discarding the evidence that indicates that is exactly what is taking place, we realized they were less concerned with facts, more intent on not appearing to be “religious”, because what they were seeing, indicated a designer purposely planted the earth where it is, making us so unique and “special” that “evolution” goes right out the window. It was fascinating to hear how they invented new and unprovable theories (a balloon shaped universe) to explain away the evidence that contradicts the helio- theory, such as the red on the light- spectrum that is evenly divided all around us, indicating we’re in the center of it.
Scripture calls what Jesus did for us, the “folly of the Cross” because that’s how the worldly would view such an “incredible” thing as God dying for his Creatures–as if we were all so precious and special to Him.
He brought about the birth of His Son, through a Virgin.- Physically impossible many say. He rose from the dead on Easter Sunday and is present in the Eucharist, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. –just symbols, they claim-against all observable science. Saints like Bernadette lie incorrupt for all to see…inexplicable by science. Yet true.
Deuteronomy 4:19 warns against idolatry, as well as being deceived by the error of misplaced values:
“lest perhaps lifting up thy eyes to heaven, thou see the sun, moon, and stars, and, being deceived by error, thou adore and serve them which the Lord, Thy God Created for the service of all the nations under heaven”
Exploring the Scriptures from this point of view is extremely interesting….
Well done, Johnno! God bless you.
Dear Indignus Famulus, if you haven’t already, you should read Robert Sungenis’s 3 volume book, Galileo was Wrong, the Church was Right. The first two volumes show the evidence through the centuries from modern science, the third from Church, etc. The model of heliocentrism is pushed by academia, Media, government agency but the proponents concede (off camera) that that is simply their preferred model due to ideological motives. Mathematically the two models are the same, whilst all experiments have tended to show that Earth doesn’t move but is encircled. Einstein and others then come up with theories to try to explain away the results of experiments. Of course, each theory proves to be untenable and is changed, adapted to attempt to explain away empirical data. Cosmology is for the most part ideological. You can order the book from the Galileo Was Wrong website. I forget the co-author, another Robert, physics mathematician, as not well enough to go look at book.
The film, The Principle, just deals with the Copernican Principle generally and how recent data from space shows Earth seems to have a special position in the universe. It started showing in Chicago and has moved on the several other cities, such as LA at the moment. See theprinciplemovie.com
Thanks for the info. We’re currently listening (when we get time) to couple-hours long radio show with on-screen models, of an interview with Sungenis, in which he mentioned the book. That’s a LOT of reading, but it’s probably worth it even if we can’t grasp a lot of the science.
Don’t you feel kind of angry finding out you spent all those years in school learning scientific hypotheses and theories as FACTS you were forced to memorize? We do. Although we’re even more ticked at all the bad Theology and Philosophy from Grade School on…..come to think of it.
It’s all part of man’s search for truth, and holding on to it when we find it….
And Prayer. God raises up the lowly and brings down the mighty, Our Lady reminds us. Scientists were pretty high up there all these years…..
I have read Galileo was Wrong, the Church was Right. It is a long read but I recommend it! But I will tell you I don’t remember much from physics in high school. When I read it I tried to just skim the more scientific parts and tried to understand the gist of what the author was saying. And I have to say that I am now a geocentrist, and so should be every faithful Catholic. Basically scientists have made a DOGMA that the Earth is not the center of the universe or of anything. And that DOGMA is unprovable by their own standards. The evidence is showing more and more now that the Earth is in a special place in the universe, and that it is in the center and that the Author of Life put it there. Once you realize that the whole cosmos rotates around the center – the Earth, you realize the significance of the fact that the King of the Universe could not have possibly been born anywhere else!
Galileo Was Wrong, The Church was Right is a very good though very technical work which may be daunting to most people. Though if you’re up for then it’s a must-read even if you can’t grasp the more mathematical & physics side of things. The general picture you will get is that Scientists never had a clue and were always seeking to explain away evidence by grasping at straws.
Anyone looking for simpler versions ought to check out two other books by the same author Rob Sungenis:
The first is GEOCENTRISM 101, which deals with the science aspect.
The second just released and is GEOCENTRISM 102, which deals with the theology and Church history.
You can find the first book on Amazon now, the second book should be up there soon if it isn’t already.
This is where the real war will be fought and begin to transform the world. There is great opposition to it from secular atheists and compromised Catholics who’ve made their bed with secularism. There’s a reason Our Lady of Fatima’s authenticity was marked by the Miracle of the Sun and the warnings about 1960 which certainly point towards the Council. For according to Cardinal Ratzinger, one of the reasons for the Council was because the Church wanted to reconcile itself with the modern world to avoid incidents like the Galileo Affair, and thus had to reinterpret its role as only being infallible with regards to topics of salvation and not historical or social or scientific peripheries.
Thankfully the Holy Spirit protected the Church by not allowing anything with regards to Galileo being included in the Council Documents, and Ratzinger himself would also note with curiosity that given the consensus belief in Relativity, no scientist could demonstrate whether Geocentricity or Heliocentricty were correct as everything was a relative coordinate system.
The Principle documentary is also opening in some U.S. Cities and looking to expand. Please support it by taking everyone in your families to see it, and you can ‘Demand’ the movie be brought to your city through their website at theprinciplemovie.com. If you can get involved. I’m trying to do the same here, and try and get the support of the archdiocese to allow me to promote it in parishes. I’m hoping to organize a private screening for members of the heirarchy. One local bishop already rebuffed me by saying he wasn’t interested and wouldn’t speak to me. I and another friend are hoping to meet the Cardinal and invite him to see it with an open mind. Please pray for our success, this is something every Catholic needs to see, especially our priests and bishops! It is counter-revolutionary! Scientism, through its ridiculous pursuits of atheistic heresies has fallen upon its own sword and has now found itself the unwitting tool of the Divine Will to point out to the world the True Religion and the Truth that God exists in His Holy Catholic Church!
We have been vindicated! How ironic that we can now proudly hold up the bravery and faithfulness of our Traditional Popes and their Holy Inquisitors, while the present Papacy is ruining the image of that Divine Office by placating the erroneous world. Satan is always ahead of us. It’s time to get on our horses and start charging the Gates of Hell and bring them down!
@IF: There were several issues raised by IF in our truncated debate because I wanted to stay on point – that the NO is, at best, only an equivocal expression of the Catholic faith and therefore a positive danger to the faithful.
The first issue raised by IF had to do with the acceptability of so-called “reverent” NO celebrations.
I had the opportunity for many years to attend one of those so-called “reverent” NO celebrations. The Gloria and Credo were chanted in Latin, we had gregorian chant by a schola cantorum every Sunday. Toward the end of my assistance at this mass the priest even began celebrating ad orientem. I was “proud” of my so-called devotion to what I thought was the “latin mass”.
Then came Pope Benedict XVI’s initiative to modify certain prayers in this mass, because of inaccuracies in translation. I had no knowledge of these issues before the initiative, but this event caused me to look into these issues in greater detail. The most frightening thing I learned was that the mistranslation of “pro multis” in the words of consecration from “for many” to “for all” called into question the validity of the sacrament. When I queried priests about the doubt raised by mistranslation after I investigated this issue in great detail I got evasive or ignorant responses. This has nothing to do with the unknowable intent of the priest – this has to do with form of the sacrament. Further, since this change was allegedly done to advance ecumenism, it is arguable that the back story associated with the mistranslation means it really isn’t possible for the priest “to do what the church does” using the vernacular mistranslation if the mistranslation was intentional and done to obscure or obfuscate Church teachings on these issues! Further, the mistranslation FALSIFIES the words of Our Lord, since Our Lord did not say “for all” he said “for many”!
It was at that point I realized that I was in the hands of hacks who either didn’t care about these issues, or were heretical modernists.
This caused me to investigate the TLM, and I was lucky to be find a diocesan TLM in the area. I was warned by the Traditio sede website to be way of diocesan TLMs done according to the 1962 missal because oftentimes it is adulterated with elements of the NO. But I was lucky – the local diocesan TLM was done faithfully according to the 1962 missal, and even added prayers omitted in the 1962 missal.
After a few weeks attending the TLM I felt embarrassed and crestfallen. I felt I had been taken in by a scam – a changeling – a so-called “reverent” NO mass. I felt as if Our Lord had humbled me for the prior pride I had taken in attending the allegedly “reverent” TLM.
But it did not stop there. My investigation continued, and I read about the traditional views on the role of priest and laity, the reasons for the rubrics regarding the treatment of the host after consecration – who gets to touch it, why communion is distributed on the tongue and not in the hand etc.
After reading these explanations I returned to the “reverently celebrated” NO mass in latin etc and right away I noticed the difference. A reverently celebrated NO mass lulls you for most of the mass but after you have read about the traditional teachings on the differences between the priest and laity, communion on the tongue etc they can’t fool you anymore. The so-called reverence is SHATTERED when the “extraordinary eucharistic ministers” [including women] charge the sanctuary to distribute communion in the hand. After reading about the traditional teachings on the priesthood and communion on the hand I no longer could view the spectacle of lay eucharistic ministers invading the sanctuary to distribute communion in the hand as irreverent, sacrilegious and most importantly non-catholic. The whole operation at this point in the mass evidences a protestant understanding of the priesthood and laity, and not a Catholic understanding. Further, if the consecrated host is really the body and blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord, I could not understand why the “faithful” could accept communion in the hand. I view it as an insult to Our Lord.
So I ha
The sentence in the last paragraph starting “After reading . . .” should read:
“After reading about the traditional teachings on the priesthood and communion on the hand I no longer could view the spectacle of lay eucharistic ministers invading the sanctuary to distribute communion in the hand as anything but irreverent, sacrilegious and most importantly non-catholic.”
So, after I had read the primary critique of the NO mass as man-centered and not God-centered I have trouble attending it anymore. Further, since the NO mass was instituted to facilitate false ecumenism I started viewing it as an adulterated rite that reflects false doctrines and commandments taught by men and not by God.
That is why I asked IF about whether the pour souls in Ireland should continue to attend the masses offered by Father Dolan. The mass he offers is an adulterated substitute for a true mass. The liturgy of the mass he offers reflects false, man-made conceptions of what a mass should be, and Father Dolan during the liturgy of the word preaches man-made and not god-instituted commandments regarding human sexuality. It seems like it is all of piece, doesn’t it?
That is why I repeat the words of Our Lord from Matthew here, because I believe they are on point:
“This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me.
And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.” Matthew 15: 8 – 9.
“Then came his disciples, and said to him: Dost thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized? But he answering them, said: Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit.” Matthew 15: 12 – 14
Has anyone seen this??? What the hell??? This is getting more disturbing!