Editor’s note: The following is Part II of a four-part series. Read Part I, Part III, and Part IV at the links.
The Sacred Liturgy
“Lex orandi, lex credendi.” The order of Mass expresses and teaches Catholic doctrine. The changes to the Mass, sadly, are an example of a break from tradition – a “hermeneutic of rupture” from the past – even if many earnestly desire to see continuity. The prayers of the Mass, use of the vernacular, the priest facing the people, the “sign of peace” among the people, calling the priest a “presider,” changes to the altar and sanctuary, changes to the Lectionary, the multiplication of “Eucharistic Prayers” – any one of these innovations would have been a major change in the Mass. Taken together, the new Mass is fundamentally different from the old Mass. For years as a new Catholic, I had no clear understanding that the Mass is a sacrifice. This reality was not explained during my catechesis, and it is not very well communicated or reinforced by the new order of the Mass itself. Therefore, it remained hidden for a long time.
Some have asked: if a saint of old were to visit a typical modern Catholic church on Sunday, would he recognize the activities there as Catholic? Within the same parish church, you can have a 9am Sunday Mass in Latin with chant and the priest distributing Holy Communion to people kneeling, and at 10:30am a Mass in English with rock music, female altar servers, women as lectors, children standing around the altar, and extraordinary lay ministers giving Holy Communion in both kinds, in the hand to standing communicants – completely different experiences of Roman Catholicism, completely different practices that communicate to the people completely different concepts of what the Mass is and therefore of the Faith itself.
Just imagine: tomorrow, the pope could decide to redesign the Mass. He could authorize a committee to rewrite prayers and reorder the Mass any way he wants, and technically the end product would probably still be a “valid Mass.” But the idea of a committee making huge changes to the liturgy is unknown in the history of the Church, and “why fix what ain’t broke”? But that is just what happened in the 1960s. Was the old Mass so bad that it had to be remade? The Vatican II document on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, said Latin and chant should be retained. It said nothing about the priest facing the people. But it contains loopholes, such as provisions for inculturation and above all the principle of “full and active participation by all the people,” which “justified” the changes made in the Mass of Paul VI. But again, if the pope tomorrow rewrote the Mass, even though he has the authority to do so, I would ask, “Why?” It would be a fabrication of a committee, which is an un-Catholic way of revising the liturgy, which until Vatican II was only by a very gradual, organic process over centuries.
That’s why I see seeking out the Tridentine Latin Mass and avoiding the Novus Ordo not as a matter of personal preference, but rather as a choice motivated by a desire to worship God rightly. Take the shift of the priest celebrant’s orientation from ad orientem to versus populum. This changes the meaning of the Mass. When the priest faces the people, the liturgical action (bolstered by the newly worded prayers of the N.O.) now focuses on the people rather than God – based on Modernist “assembly theology.” The Mass becomes a meal, a “love feast.” The meaning and role of the priest change. The role and relation of the people change. The altar rail is ripped out, and women now enter the sanctuary as lectors and even servers. Laypeople distribute Communion in both kinds to people, in the hand. Such changes are not just cosmetic or a matter of preference.
The new Mass was designed to “Protestantize” worship and remove distinct and historical expressions of the Catholic faith. Consider the differences between the traditional offertory and the new “prayer over the gifts.” Abp. Annibale Bugnini, leader of the liturgical reform, said the new Mass was engineered “to strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.” The faith of millions, probably virtually all Catholics today, has been influenced by these new practices. The result is an altered understanding of the Mass, of the Eucharist, of the priesthood, of Catholicism.
Benedict XVI comments on this situation:
We have a liturgy which has degenerated so 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 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.1 From Cardinal Ratzinger’s preface to the 1992 French translation of Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Monsignor Klaus Gamber. (http://www.institute-christ-
king.org/latin-mass-resources/ traditional-latin-mass/ ratzinger-latin-mass)
A valid Mass can be illicit or even sacrilegious, and it is worth asking: even if some new liturgical activity is permitted, does that mean that it is good? Based on my personal experience, I can reasonably expect that any Novus Ordo Mass I attend will have questionable things being said and done. I do not want to participate in anything that may be offensive to Our Lord.
Benedict XVI further elaborates on why seeking out the TLM is not just a matter of preference:
While there are many motives that might have led a great number of people to seek a refuge in the traditional liturgy, the chief one is that they find the dignity of the sacred preserved there. After the Council there were many priests who deliberately raised ‘desacralization’ to the level of a program … Inspired by such reasoning, they put aside the sacred vestments; they have despoiled the churches as much as they could of that splendor which brings to mind the sacred; and they have reduced the liturgy to the language and the gestures of ordinary life, by means of greetings, common signs of friendship, and such things … That which previously was considered most holy – the form in which the liturgy was handed down – suddenly appears as the most forbidden of all things, the one thing that can safely be prohibited. It is intolerable to criticize decisions which have been taken since the Council; on the other hand, if men make question of ancient rules, or even of the great truths of the Faith – for instance, the corporal virginity of Mary, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the immortality of the soul, etc. – nobody complains or only does so with the greatest moderation.2 The translated text of an address to the bishops of Chile by Cardinal Ratzinger on July 13, 1988, in Santiago, Chile. (https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3032)
If we are to judge by fruits, it seems the reforms of Vatican II have been disastrous.
Benedict XVI continues his analysis of the relationship between the change from the old Mass to the new, and problems in the Church:
I was dismayed by the banning of the old Missal, seeing that a similar thing had never happened in the entire history of the liturgy[.] … The promulgation of the banning of the Missal that had been developed in the course of centuries, starting from the time of the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, has brought with it a break in the history of the liturgy whose consequences could be tragic[.] … The old structure was broken to pieces and another was constructed admittedly with material of which the old structure had been made and using also the preceding models[.] … But the fact that [the liturgy] was presented as a new structure, set up against what had been formed in the course of history and was now prohibited, and that the liturgy was made to appear in some ways no longer as a living process but as a product of specialized knowledge and juridical competence, has brought with it some extremely serious damages for us.
In this way, in fact, the impression has arisen that the liturgy is ‘made,’ that it is not something that exists before us, something ‘given,’ but that it depends on our decisions. It follows as a consequence that this decision-making capacity is not recognized only in specialists or in a central authority, but that, in the final analysis, each ‘community’ wants to give itself its own liturgy. But when the liturgy is something each one makes by himself, then it no longer gives us what is its true quality: encounter with the mystery which is not our product but our origin and the wellspring of our life[.] …
I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part upon the collapse of the liturgy, which at times is actually being conceived of etsi Deus non daretur: as though in the liturgy it did not matter any more whether God exists and whether He speaks to us and listens to us. But if in the liturgy the communion of faith no longer appears, nor the universal unity of the Church and of her history, nor the mystery of the living Christ, where is it that the Church still appears in her spiritual substance? [Too often] the community is only celebrating itself without its being worthwhile to do so.3 Quotation from Cdl. Ratzinger’s autobiography, Milestones: Memoirs, 1927-1977 (Ignatius, 2005). (https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=196)
To sum up: according to Benedict XVI, there is a crisis in the Church today. The crisis is connected with the new liturgy. The new liturgy is a fabrication that is a break from history and is commonly a degenerated show. The former pope does not say it, but based on my own experience of liturgical abuses, I conclude with a heavy heart: avoid the new liturgy.
Footnotes
| ↑1 | From Cardinal Ratzinger’s preface to the 1992 French translation of Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Monsignor Klaus Gamber. (http://www.institute-christ- |
|---|---|
| ↑2 | The translated text of an address to the bishops of Chile by Cardinal Ratzinger on July 13, 1988, in Santiago, Chile. (https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3032) |
| ↑3 | Quotation from Cdl. Ratzinger’s autobiography, Milestones: Memoirs, 1927-1977 (Ignatius, 2005). (https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=196) |
The Novus Ordo Missae is not Catholic. Avoid it indeed.
Oh, dear Jesus, Your sheep are being torn to pieces by the wolves who have infiltrated Your Holy Church. You promised to be with us until the end of time! Lord Jesus, have mercy on us all! Come to our aid! We are crying out to You to save us from the evil ones who have invaded Holy Mother Church! What can Your little ones do? I live with my Rosary in my hands and Your Precious Mother’s name on my lips! Save us, we beg You, Lord!
I’ve been to the Extraordinary Form and it is great. But done properly the Ordinary Form can be just as reverent and prayerful. I am so very lucky to have found my little parish in the middle of nowhere, where we have a reverent, prayerful, Mass in the Ordinary Form done « ad orientem » according to the rubrics of the Roman Missal and more than half the time using the Roman Canon. It’s a long drive to get there, but well worth it. The Ordinary Form does not need to be mutilated; it can be done correctly.
I have to disagree. Yes, the Novus Ordo celebrated reverently is infinitely better than the travesties that abound. And I have seen and assisted at the Novus Ordo done exactly according to the rubrics, in Latin, with sacred music. The music is wonderful and the liturgy is beautiful in a way. But it’s decidedly ambiguous in its Catholicity. If you question that, compare the Lutheran Liturgy to the Novus Ordo. Here is a link: http://lsb.cph.org/samples/LSB_Sampler.pdf
There is some difference in language, but the form is nearly identical. The Novus Ordo has protestantized the liturgy. It’s very form and nature make an attempt to gloss over the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the constant responses (some of which belonged solely to the Sacred Ministers in the Old Mass) begins to clericalize the laity, and it is by nature centered on man, even ad orientum. Plus, all of the options present make the liturgy not something stable, but up to the whims of the celebrant.
Please continue to assist at a reverent Novus Ordo, for sure. At least the priest is trying. But there is a fundamental difference between the Old and New, and the new simply isn’t fully Catholic.
The novus ordo is a break from Tradition. Please read the Ottaviani Intervention, it is eye-opening.
http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm
Well, this is probably one of the most controversial issues traditionalists face, now, isn’t it? What to do when one does not have access to the Mass of the Ages and the associated sacraments. I must admit: I waffle back and forth on the matter; some days, I tell myself to simply suffer through liturgical abuse after liturgical abuse in the Novus Ordo, and on others feeling my family and I should simply stay home, assist at an online TLM, read our missal and pray the Rosary.
The problem I have with avoiding Mass altogether is that I do not have the authority to override the obligation to assist at Mass on Sundays and days of obligation, yet, at the same time, I can also understand the arguments of those who maintain that the NO is so offensive to Catholic sensibilities and the reverence due Almighty God in the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary that staying home appears less sinful than assisting at an irreverent, anthrocentric liturgy. So to simply say, as the author does, “avoid the new liturgy” does not resolve this problem, even though I agree with him in principle, as the question then arises: What about confession and the other sacraments? Are those without access to the Mass of the Ages to simply avoid them as well?
Valid question.
I have been confused also. It is a problem, no doubt. But the solution is not to participate in the problem. That is a vote of confidence, agreement and support.
With reference to the growing Church conflict, it has become clear to me the Church Fathers are not purveying orthodox Catholicism any more. They insist on something clearly, and admittedly, different.
The OF Mass is not orthodox (by definition). Its fruit is a collapsed morality and disconnect from our rightful patrimony. This can no longer be ignored. Knowledge brings judgement. We must act on it.
Never again, will I march down the aisle and receive the Host from unconsecrated female hands or worship with a Priest whose back is turned on our Lord. I now understand clearly, and will be judged on that knowledge. Our Lord must be transmitted from the Holy of Holies, via consecrated hands, directly to me in a state of grace, via the Mass of Ages, whose roots extend back through Jesus Christ, to the ancient Mosaic Jewish cult ordained by God directly. Period.
Liturgical abuse is not an issue in the Mass of Ages. Worshipping as all generations of Catholics have always worshipped is assuredly a safe bet, on behalf of our eternal souls; our best chance to commune fully with Christ.
You must attend Mass and if you have committed mortal sin, confess it before a Priest. Period. You do NOT have to receive communion.
Not a N.O. Mass that is irreverent. You can pray the Mass at home, read the Missal, pray the Rosary.
If you are a Catholic, you can certainly do all those things, but they do not and will not meet your obligation.
See, what I am pretty sure Christ intended in establishing the Church and I am certain is embedded in the dogma “extra ecclesiam nula salus” is the DEMAND to stand and fight. for leaving means chaos and the abject evils of Protestantism, Islam and Orthodoxy.
I spent most of my life in that seething cauldron of heterodoxy, and I want no more of it, so I take the Church at Her word, even if I don’t like it. No matter how hard you try, if you leave the confines of the Church you and yours will lose the true faith, even if remaining means staying in a locally unpleasant situation.
Stay and fight.
Also, as an ex-Protestant with a history and theology degree {remember, such folks are good at finding bad times in the history of the Church! LOL} , I am not about to say the Church is at its worst today. I cannot say that. I don’t know. What I DO know is that She has been in some VERY deep ditches in the past and with the hand of Jesus and the true faithful, climbed out. Jesus promised us scandal and trouble. {Mt 18:7}
I was going to reply with something quite similar to what Aqua said, but in the time between when I read your comment and had a chance to reply, Aqua already said most of what I wanted to, but better. I don’t know that I can fully abide by the same conclusion, though I don’t disagree either. However, what I can say is that the conscience DOES have a role to play in our lives, a large one, and all of the recent talk overemphasizing the primacy of conscience doesn’t negate it’s importance. You need to follow it. However, you also need to obey the Church’s laws. There is a solution though.
First, see if there are any Eastern Rite parishes within an hour or so from you if you haven’t already looked… perhaps even 2 hours. Along the same lines, perhaps there is an Anglican Ordinariate Mass within similar distance. The Ordinariate Mass is really quite beautiful, even if in English it’s not celebrated in the vernacular (important difference!) and shares much more in common with the TLM than the NO.
Secondly, and this definitely requires sacrifice and great difficulty, the answer is to move. If there is nothing near you then perhaps the best thing you can do for your family is to move to where you can celebrate God rightly. Even if there’s a significant loss of income or you have to start renting instead of owning a house or whatever, God will reward you for making that leap. And the difference in eternity will certainly be noticed.
In the meantime, I will pray for you and your family. We’re all going through a very difficult time.
ALL of this is what our spiritual forefathers went thru in England and in the Lutheran and later the Calvinist world after the Deformation.
As we have chatted about in the past, imagine yourself an English Catholic after Henry. Your priest is valid, but he has signed on with the “New Pope” Henry. It’s easy for us to say “Well that’s different” but I don’t think so. Imagine the terrible strain a common man must have borne as he looked at his children and wondered what would happen to their souls.
Admittedly, the conditions are not identical, but close enough to relate.
My adult children converted to the Catholic faith but they do not have the theological background I do and for all of us originally, we simply trusted that the “Church Universal” was “good enough”. But now what I see in NO parishes just horrifies me. And I pray that my kids will not just SEE it, but will decide to choose with their feet to do something about it. Gratefully, we have a Traditional parish fairly close by to where they live.
So many do not!!!
It must be a terrible dilemma for those whose Bishops are “Henrelian” and who have rejected the faith and become little Popes in their own domain and now actually aggressively seek to stamp out Traditional Catholicism from their realms as their spiritual forefather Henry did.
And I yours. Thank you. And I agree with you: we are all floundering out here in the ocean, begging for our prelates to step up and be Catholic.
I have a Catholic Church and school just around the corner from my house and it’s so painfully NO, that I get ready and drive 30 minutes to a terrible neighborhood where I have to park on the street to attend the TLM. I am not complaining; I am so very blessed to have it. The church is 106 years old and extremely beautiful, the Institute of Christ the King administers the Oratory, and we have a world class schola and director who gives music summer camps. But sometimes I pass by the church around the corner and the anger rises to the surface. I SHOULD be attending my beautiful Mass there. I feel so robbed and abused. It’s just sickening when I think of all the parishes like this in the country/world and those that have no recourse to the TLM at all. I don’t know how they do it every week and weekdays!! It’s just criminal. There’s no other word. A crime against God robbing Him of the worship due Him in the way He desires it. And also ignoring Our Lady who appeared at Fatima and gave us the warning of what will happen if we don’t amend our lives. How do these prelates sleep at night? Having been raised in Catholic families and gone through seminary, how do they justify what they are doing to the people? They know of hell; don’t they think they will probably end up there? It’s mind boggling! It truly is a diabolical disorientation.
There is a good answer under canon law we take so many of the Kaspers et al with a final coup de grasse even the papal office as layman under canon law we can even stop mailing the bishops just take each of them in their own diocese before the signatura or the rota. That right of the layman is enshrined in cano law. How about this as a answer to your question and to the hierarchy and the clerics
I am confused no longer. If I lack the opportunity to attend TrueMass, I stay home, read the readings,and pray a 15 decade Rosary. The Novus Ordo mass tempts me to the sin of anger, and offends my Faith.
Exactly
Anger is not a sin. By saying so, you specifically blaspheme against God the Father and God the Son, both of whom are explicitly moved to anger, and act in anger, in the Bible. If anger is a sin, your faith is false, and the god you claim to worship is false, and all is for naught.
Rather, anger is an emotion, created by God, and given to his creation to serve a purpose. It is up to you to choose to act, to behave, to exercise your will, in accordance with His Will. He has given you emotions to assist you, not to rule you. It is up to you to learn how to use your emotions in service to Him, and not be a slave to your emotions.
Furthermore, He has commanded you to keep Holy the Sabbath, and His church that He founded has decreed the manner in which to do so. It is not up to you to decide to replace it with something more to your tastes. That is every bit as cafeteria-Catholic as those who believe contraception is just peachy.
Go to Mass, you sinner! Go, and worship your Lord and Savior, who has sacrificed himself for you, allowing every indignity to his own divine person, for your sake. He who is Himself offended by the failings of his Holy Church. Go to Mass, pray your rosary, sit in the back and ignore all others, be the grumpy old bitty who glares and refuses all efforts to participate, who refuses all peace given, who refuses to give our Lord’s peace, but GO TO MASS!
Make better choices. Form your conscience. Cease your blaspheming against the Lord. Go to Mass.
Your questions are very valid. Just remember Christ promised He will never abandon His Church.
To think that we should be avoiding all sacraments from Novus Ordo means not receiving any of His graces at all. We have no authority to do that. What I notice about traditionalists (that includes me) to intellectualize and be suspicious of all that has happened postconciliarly.
I have met so many people who have gone to Novus Ordo masses and are very prolife and profamily. Are we more concerned so much about liturgical modernism rather than growing in holiness from receiving Jesus in the Holy Eucharist in every mass?
I read somewhere, I believe it was on 1P5, of the direct connection between NO Liturgy and Lutheran liturgy.
Does anyone know where I can find that? I recall a side-by-side comparison. I can’t find it any more.
To me, this is the most devastating indictment of NO Liturgy; that in the name of “ecumenism” our Church Fathers took away the Mass of Ages and gave us Lutheran Liturgy instead. We had Filet Mignon; they gave us an M & M. Bon Apetit!
Is there such a thing out there? A side-by-side comparison, NO with Lutheran Liturgies?
That is easy to obtain. As an ex-Lutheran, I was surprised by the similarity as for some reason I thought the Mass was simply the previous Mass said in the vernacular. The two are not identical, but very similar. As a friend who is Catholic married to a Lutheran wife says in not-too-theological terms: “There’s not a nickel’s difference between the two”.
Up until the current Pontificate of the Germanophile and Lutherophilic “Georg Berg”, the case might have been made that it is all a big mistake to link the two together, but when one hears the NO said in the context of the blatant pro-Luther stance of Herr Berg, one can no longer flippantly deny the likely provenance.
Then, look to what happened after the intro of the NO…the “Common Lectionary” with the Protestants mainline liberal {dying} denominations.
A stick was shoved in the spinning spokes of the wheel with the revised readings, but that apears to be Herr Berg’s next target for Martinizing.
We shall see.
In the meantime, trouble abounds, largely I think because so many Catholics 1} don’t know a Lutheran doctrine from a Catholic doctrine and 2} don’t know the Catholic doctrine in the first place….
{“Georg Berg”…AKA Jorge Bergoglio, the Germanophile friend of sketchy Teutonic prelates! LOL}
Maybe it was your previous comment I remembered. Thanks for the idea.
After reading that I googled Lutheran Liturgy and was amazed at the surface similarity.
Perhaps I will do my own side-by-side and post it here. Unless you know of a shortcut.
I think you are headed in the right direction.
It appears to me at least the Pope wants to create a “Communion service” atmosphere in the Mass. By that I mean that the core of the Mass is left more or less in tact but anything else goes, in essentially exactly the same way as is done in the mainline Protestant ecclesial groups. His call for the “Synodal Church” and “decentralization” should be a BLARING SIREN to anyone who understands WHAT has existed and exists in the mainline Protestant “denominations”.
Maybe that is how some of us converts can be of help.
Catholics MUST understand also that while they may be able to conceive of what might be acceptable {to some, mostly folks enamored with the NO} in a sort of blended Lutheran/Catholic “worship service”, that isn’t where it is going to stop.
Catholics must realize that “Lutheranism” is a generic term, it is NOT a specific denomination. “Lutheranism” is a catchall phrase and the Pope has chosen to side with the most immoral and deviant and indeed, demonstrably sexually degenerate of them. Furthermore, the groups the Pope has been most chummy with, have agreements for cross-ordination with other mainline liberal Protestant groups; ELCA in the USA w/ Presbyterian Church USA, Reformed Church USA, Episcopal Church and maybe {??} the United Methodists. Not sure about the latter. Point being, the obvious intent of “ecumenism” is to break down the barriers between “churches” which in practical terms over the last 50 years has meant Catholics divesting themselves from the teachings of the Church that are seen to be divisive and obstacles to “unity”.
Those “obstacles” happen to be the “stumbling block” of the New Testament, folks, AKA Jesus Christ.
Yes, an alliance of some sort in acceptance of communion w/ the Lutherans the Pope has been making nice-nice with would also be an alliance with groups that fall even further away from Catholic teaching. I mean, if you can get any further away than a “Church” led by a lesbian that supports divorce, gay “marriage” and the rest.
Folks, I continue to be amazed that Catholic Bishops sit back and say nothing while this continues to unfold.
That is all very interesting and well said.
I hope the author of this piece, Mr. Vail, explores this further; the connection between NO Liturgy and LO Liturgy, and how this might well explain the strange rapprochement between our Pope and unrepentant Lutheran heretics. We transform ourselves. They remain the same. We get a new Mass. They keep their old mass.
I share your amazement; I am befuddled at Bishops and Cardinals who sit back …. and say nothing. Cdl Burke stands alone. And no one of his brothers comes to his aid. That, as much as anything, is what has completely altered my thinking.
Or do something like this:
http://thecatholicspirit.com/local/archbishop-hebda-preach-prayer-service-reformations-500th-anniversary/
Minneapolis/St Paul! I am in a neighboring diocese to that. May I ask what parish you attend that has the TLM? We have very limited access to the TLM here and the situation in our diocese seems to be leaning farther and farther away as time goes on.
Check your email 😉
“Wait for me downstairs,” said Testastorta quite quietly. “I don’t want to pray for this man but I want him to pray for me.” Fiction, but … Bryan Houghton, Mitre and Crook.
Thank you! I have found a new book to read (actually two; Judith’s Marriage, also). Father Houghton’s life story is perhaps even more interesting and edifying!
Bryan Houghton, Judith’s Marriage
Please do not confuse abuses with the Liturgy itself. The Ordinary Form of the Mass and The Extraordinary Form of the Mass are both valid forms of Mass in the Roman Rite within the Church, with the Roman Rite being one of over 20 liturgical Rites present in the Church today. Cf. CATHOLIC RITES AND CHURCHES | EWTN – https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm
*
On the saints and their treatment of the Ordinary form of the Mass cf.
1) St. Josemaría, the Tridentine Mass and the Mass of Paul VI – http://primacyofreason.blogspot.com/2007/07/st-josemaria-tridentine-mass-and-mass.html and
2) Padre Pio – His Mass – http://ewtn.com/padrepio/priest/Mass.htm
3) Pope St. John Paul II the Great and Mother St. Teresa, etc.
I’m not certain how trying to make the comparison to the Eastern rites of the Church applies in this circumstance. None of them, as far as I am aware, are the product of a committee’s tinkering and experimentation, but are the result, like the classical Roman rite, of organic development over the course of many, many centuries.
I don’t think anyone that regularly comments at 1P5 would argue that the Novus Ordo is invalid per se, but if we are going to be honest, we need to acknowledge it possesses numerous issues—both in its text and rubrics, as well as in the documented writings and statements of Bugnini and co.—that make its theology highly suspect. The butchering of the Offertory alone, in my opinion (and in the opinion of those who drafted the Ottaviani Intervention), for example, should be a matter of grave concern to any Catholic, as should the removal of the Mysterium fidei from the consecration of the chalice.
Padre Pio asked for and received special dispensation to never pray The OF Mass. He spoke of it with great sadness and distress.
Supposedly, Escriva received permission to say only the Mass of the Ages as well.
Padre Pio died in 1968, so he never lived to see what came to be known as “the New Mass,” which was not promulgated until 1969/1970 and did not, completely anyway, reach the U.S. until 1972.
He did see his confreres use the revised liturgy which was in vogue after Vatican II, but that was not the Novus Ordo Missae. Padre Pio was dispensed from using the changes that came in Advent 1964 and subsequently until his death.
Saints can make mistakes, especially when they lived under the assumption, as those who lived in the decades immediately following Vatican I through the 1960s, that the Supreme Pontiff would never do anything damaging to the Faith. Hence the ease with which Bugnini and co. (with Paul VI as a willing participant) were able to force the NO upon Catholics, who simply accepted it as part of the whole “pay, pray, and obey” mentality.
The TLM and Novus Ordo are not two forms of the same Roman rite. They are two different rites. That is the scandal right now. That the Church has two different Roman rites, two different Masses, with two different calendars side by side. Unprecedented in history.
Pope Benedict’s distinction of they being two forms of the same rite is ludicrous. A fabrication. That distinction has no basis in tradition and history. It’s a compromised invention he came up with to kick the problem down the road for a future Pope and the Church to deal with. He did not want to deal with the problem of two rites.
To provide a clarification, there are two uses of the word “rite.” One use, and the one both Benedict used in Summorum Pontificum and that @FM is using here is in reference to the various Eastern Rites in the church. The second use is referring to the smaller matters, particularly referring to the administering of the sacraments. Within the Latin or Roman Rite there are the Benedictine, Dominican, etc. rites which are all valid liturgies, as well as the Anglican rite. These have many fewer differences to say the TLM than the Maronite, Ukrainian, or Byzantine Liturgies would. Basically it’s the difference between Rite and rite.
That said, I do agree with you in principle. The different calendars alone should signify that. And having an Ordinary and Extraordinary form is confusing to say the least, if not downright untruthful. Logically speaking, if you did want to make that innovation as Benedict did (at least he gave us that!), wouldn’t it make more sense to have the NO be the EF since it is a new innovation and the OF being the Mass that was used almost exclusively within the Latin Rite for 500 years?
Logically, yes, but that would require a repudiation of one of the key elements (liturgical reform) of the Council. And if we have learned anything over the past 50 years, “protect the Council” is the number one priority. Vatican II must never be questioned under any circumstances. Period.
Google Common Lectionary and you see the direction the thing took.
How ANY of this ecumenical stuff isn’t a direct condemnation and rejection of Mortalium Animos I have no idea.
The funny (or horrifying) part is that it IS a condemnation and rejection. If you read Mortalium Animos then the Assisi events of JPII and Lund of PF look like apostasy…
@jonathanwabbaschwartzbauer:disqus @disqus_WqnlH7vaiN:disqus Cf. Catholic Encyclopedia > R > Rites – http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm
Juridically, according to Summorum Pontificum, they’re both forms of the same rite. That is Church law now.
Looked at objectively, it seems a hard circle to square. There are western rites recognized as fully distinct rites that are far more similar to the “Extraordinary Form” than the “Ordinary Form” of the Roman Rite.(think Dominican, Ambrosian, etc.),
So for now, we have to take this as a polite juridical fiction on Benedict XVI’s part, undertaken for reasons of internal politics. They might even be reasons I think are justified. But Laszlo Dobszay was right: these really are two different rites, on any meaningful analysis.
Strongly disagree.
It is deeply disturbing that the man who is the champion of the “hermeneutic of continuity” uses such clear words to describe DIScontinuity.
It is the playing with words that has been the toughest part of my journey in the Catholic Church. I hope for a time when the sophistry embedded in Church culture is replaced by the simple “Yea and Nay” of our Blessed Lord.
A good start toward that time would be the “Yea and Nay” of the Dubia.
I long to hear from the Vatican these words: “No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.” I won’t I know, I still long for it.
For awhile I had the thought that Benedict XVI was doing what he could to try to reconcile the new with the old using this “hermeneutic of continuity” and “reform of the reform” and what was discovered is that you simply can’t reconcile the two… the “lesson to be learned” or whatever and that was a noble effort. Now, with his fawning over Francis and the like, I’m not sure what to think. Perhaps he was a wolf all along. Still, in conversations with NO Catholics (most of my friends) it’s a helpful premise for convincing them of the necessity of the TLM.
If you want to get your mind straight, make sure you are looking at the priest’s back 🙂
I am not paying any more attention to all the fine theological points. In my simplicity I expect Jesus to come soon and fix the problem because there is very little I can do to stop the perverts in charge. Dominus! Salvum fac populum tuum!
It was all well and good that Benedict XVl provided greater access to the TLM, but if I could I would love to ask him this question: ” If you truly believed how important the TLM was to the faith, to the Church, to the souls, to the priesthood; why did you not mandate that every parish or at least a parish within a certain square mileage had a TLM with a reasonable mandate to see that it was carried out?”
How many are without any access to the TLM? From what I read here and there, I see there are many.
Unspeakable that this is so.
Shall we be graced to have a strong pope who is traditional, while he may not be able to eradicate the NO, he should make the TLM accessible to every living Catholic on the planet. That would require mandating the seminaries to knowTLM,configuring the churches to provide the sacred and so on. And then….. the TLM would eradicate the NO.
Your answer can be found in the original Jubilatae Deo relealised by Paul V1th. Unfortunately this answer will not help as the version ob the Vatican Website is completely altered and edited. It was published at the same time as his work , No more changes the people are confused”.
Good question. It is reported that Pope Benedict believed he had no power whatsoever, even as pope. A popular anecdote reports that he indicated to a visitor his limitations of influence. He pointed to the door and said “my authority stops right at that door”. So for whatever reason, he felt he could do little to nothing about things. Odd.
Yep, he (Benedict XVI) was another modernist, weak, VII Pope, who helped destroy the Faith. His rampant ecumenism, crappy liberal promotions to the hierarchy, and betrayal of his office as Pope contributed significantly to the ongoing disaster.
I would say it’s good and bad: Good in that a failure is admitted, but bad because the Modernist heretics are still pulling the strings; Ratzinger knew this because he is one of them.
The Devil won’t show up in a red suit and a pitchfork; he’ll show up mixing truth and error, and when you’re at you’re weakest, say, “Now, you can have this (what you want) provided all of this (the truth) is disregarded.”
Truly diabolical if you think about it.
How Would a Saint Treat the Novus Ordo? You mean like Saint JPII?
Touche!!
Well said!
At least he gave us Liturgiam Authenticiam as a stop gap… or do we even have *that* anymore?
In the article he did say a saint of old. A saint of pre-Vatican II times who was not aware of the new Mass and that they changed the Mass. If a saint of old was to walk into a parish with no warning and explanation.
Hi Asbury – Perhaps the Saints of old would defer to the Saints of the time. Sharing heaven must render a certain level of deferring to the differing circumstances each Saint endured, don’t you agree? How would we react if we walked into the great persecution which faced the early Christians? The times define the context of our response.
That scenario you mention has nothing to do with Catholic liturgy or recognizing something Catholic. The question is, if an old saint like Thomas Aquinas or Therese of Lisieux walked into a modern parish, would he recognize the liturgy? They of course would not and they would ask where is the Catholic Mass. The Little Flower having lived in the late 19th century, would think it was a Protestant service.
That is the point that matters. Speculative to be sure. But obviously true imo.
I think Padre Pio’s response would likely be the response of any true Saint. Special dispensation to refrain from it. Sorrow over it.
This is the eternal Mass of Heaven. It will never change and there is nothing more important or beautiful on earth or in heaven. A Saint so intimately connected to heaven as Padre Pio was would be revolted by any human innovation and change that oriented our Catholic crown jewel to an earthly gathering “meal” (hate that phrase) for the sake of men and women and their sense of communal purpose.
The Mass belongs to God alone. It is His. It is for His glory and our salvation. We dare to participate. We must never dare to change that which does not belong to us. We are sustained by it and pass it on intact to the next generation until the end of time.
Hi Asbury – The question itself is defective. It builds in an assumption that the older saint would be more able to critic the mass than a recent saint. That makes the distinction that some in heaven are more holy than others in heaven, which is an erroneous premise.
@fniper:disqus
Actually, there is a hierarchy of Grace in heaven with Mary being at the top (below God of course) so your premise is somewhat wrong. Also the article assumes that it would be an older saint before death- after death any Saint would behold the beatific vision and would have the same opinion.
Hi Michaelj – It is an interesting game to play. Let me play – I wonder how someone who died in 1600 would react to television. I propose they would find it quite perplexing. Is that about right?
WHY should they find a mass perplexing, that’s kind of the point.
In the past the mass was changed slowly, and with good reason, to combat a heresy or to make more clear a divine truth.
Changing it by committee to make it more palatable to material heretics is new. (And may God lead them out of error.)
If by interesting game you mean the author is using a rhetorical point- then yes I’ll concede that. However, that doesn’t mean he is wrong. The best rhetoric is true.
Hi michaelj – I have found that many of the people who attend the TLM find it perplexing at first, and yet that does not lead them to deny that it is less sacred than the Norvus Ordo. There is absolutely no doubt that the Norvus Ordo created an environment into which a myriad of errors flowed, errors which rightly called into question the wisdom of implementing a new form of the mass. And yet I know many persons who remained faithful Catholics, persons who never abandoned a devotional life, persons who were faithful to the Gospels and the teachings of the Church until the day they died. What does that have to do with anything? It means that the Norvus Ordo did not effect their spiritual life, it did not diminish their holiness, it did not result in any of the effects those who introduced error into the Novus Ordo intended. I guess what I am saying is that as long as the form of the mass remains faithful to the sacramental nature it is designed to provide to the faithful, it will serve that purpose. Those who seek holiness will find it in the Norvus Ordo, despite the efforts of those who attempt to use it to introduce elements of the profane and thus prove a distraction, the sacred still remains, for those who are united to the Sacramental Mystery in a way that precludes distraction. The Novus Ordo is not responsible for the loss of Faith, because there are many who remain faithful, and increase in holiness with each Norvus Ordo Mass they attend. Pope Benedict did a great deal to make the Novus Ordo more aligned to the purpose it was originally intended. That Francis finds that some of the changes Benedict made unpalatable, gives Benedicts efforts a great stamp of approval.
The point of the question is that the Catholic Mass should be recognizable to any saint of a previous era. Recognizable to the saints of the previous centuries. We are not talking about criticism yet, merely recognition. Forget criticism, the saints of old first would stumble in recognition. They wouldn’t know what kind of liturgy it was or what they would be looking at. Of course there are distinctions in heaven. Some saints are in higher places than others. Some saints have higher glory than others.
Hi Asbury – How do you know how a Saint of the past would react to the Mass of today?
The saints of old are familiar with the Catholic Latin Tridentine Mass. If they walked into a parish today, they would see a liturgy in the vernacular. Depending on the language, many of the saints wouldn’t even understand the language being used. If the saints are from the post reformation era, they would see a table with the celebrant facing the people, which they would assume was a Protestant service.
Hi Asbury – And then they would see the consecration, and know they were home in the Sacramental Church.
“Perhaps the Saints of old would defer to the Saints of the time.”
Nope. It is exactly the opposite: the Communion of Saints is in complete agreement with the Truth which has always been, is now, and will be forever:
Thus saith the Lord:
Stand ye on the ways,
and see and ask for the old paths
which is the good way,
and walk ye in it:
and you shall find refreshment for your souls.
And they said:
we will not walk.
– Jeremias 6:16
For I am the Lord, and I change not: and you the sons of
Jacob are not consumed.
Malachias 3:6
Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same for ever.
Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Hebrews 13:8
Pax Christi
Sometimes you have to lead a horse to water before they will drink. Here is my post which preceded your response to me by over an hour – Hi Asbury – The question itself is defective. It builds in an assumption that the older saint would be more able to critic the mass than a recent saint. That makes the distinction that some in heaven are more holy than others in heaven, which is an erroneous premise. Keep trying top8305, but, undermining the messenger will not undermine the reality that the SSPX are schismatics.
Top8305 is just quoting the Bible. Surely that can’t be wrong.
The erroneous premise is that just because Saint JP II favored the new Mass therefor all prior Saints would have also favored the new Mass.
That premise lacks support.
The Mass remained essentially unchanged, and recognizable to all for 2,000+ years, from generation to generation, in line with the above scripture references and Catholic practice. Then a new Mass was created by a committee, recognizable by Lutherans but not Catholics. It is vastly, fundamentally different. Would a St. Athanasius, for instance, recognize it as a Catholic Mass? Would he appreciate it? I sincerely doubt it. St. Padre Pio certainly didn’t. So there’s one disagreement.
Hi Aqua – I am sorry to disagree, but I have spent many years posting with the followers of Luther who are in fact often wrong when they quote the Bible. I do see your point though and do not think this is the case with Top8305. I do not think the Saints are locked into the times in which they lived. In heaven, they unite our Eucharistic Prayers to theirs forming a seamless garment of Praise.
That is precisely it.
Someone once told me something along the lines of, “Jesus is Lord. You are not. Thanks be to God!”.
Arguments and differences and politics fade away, once we unite around what you just said. I have no interest in being right about anything else, other than that.
Hi Aqua – John6:48-58 will always guide and inspire those who seek the Lord.
The author is specifically referring to Saints of old, not contemporary Saints (JP II) who were part of the revolution: (“Some have asked: if a saint of old were to visit a typical modern Catholic church on Sunday, would he recognize the activities there as Catholic?”)
If you go back and read the premises of Mr. Vail’s opening paragraph, he is referring to the tidal wave of innovation and Protestant style individualism that connects our Catholic Mass to other Protestant sects …. but disconnects our Mass from previous generations of Saints and our Mass of Ages, passed down through time, literally from antiquity, (from God Himself I imagine).
A simple but important question, not answered by JP II, author of so much of the innovation in question.
Hi Aqua – Are you implying saints of one age would criticize saints of a different age? I think they would not do so.
Hi. Saints of old would not recognize the current Mass. Saints such as Padre Pio received dispensation not to pray it.
The Mass of Ages is recognizable any where, any time, indeed in eternity.
The NO Mass is not.
Hi Aqua – I wonder how many Faithful Catholics would recognize the TLM. It seems like a poor litmus test as to validity. I was born in 1962, so the NO is the mass I know, even so, I find the TLM to be of a higher order when it comes to a sacred form of worship. And leaving aside the obvious differences between the music which accompanies these two different forms of the Mass. Nonetheless, with all its flaws, and despite the errors, some of which Benedict effectively remedied, the Graces which flow each week to those of us who seek forgiveness of our venial sins and unity to Christ through reception of the Eucharist find the satisfaction which the Holy Spirit alone can provide. If one seeks the true benefits of the Eucharist and focuses on the prayers which form the compositional base of the Novus Ordo, they will find a Sacramental Experience which has anchored many a saintly life lived post Vatican II.
Nicely played. LOL.
Read “Auctorem Fidei” by Pius VI.
The progressives used Many reasons for getting their changes accepted. Their aim is to rid us of the Council of Trent as it hinders their ecumenism which is the greatest heresy of them all. Communion in the hand is OK as is extra to the ordinary ministers. The reason was for this change people are complaining of the length of time it takes. The Mass is too long.
We need extra to the ordinary ministers it will alleviate the cry for women priests perhaps and we must humor women. No mention that many of the women in the pews are the jezabels of The Book of Revelations. The baptism of desire a human emotion that the Church has said nowadays cannot die once had it is forever. How many people have I seen stop the catechism lessons because they do not want to change. No more desire. Just like the rich young man of scriptures who could not sell every thing and follow Me. He, too, went on his way.The mini consecration in the NO ritual no longer means or completes the resurrection, whereby the body rejoins the blood.. The mass can forgive sins, utter trash and balderdash. The EF was known to forgive venial sins at the Indulgentionam. People commit a massive blasphemy at he sign of peace. They turn their back on the sacrifice and the altar. They call the introit, the start the penitential rite, It was always the mass of the catecumens. An admittance of sinfulness. There is no sign of repentance. We celebrates Luther’s command that communion is only complete when we take both the bread and wine.
Remove the Council of Trent and we have ecumenism. This attack is a battle strategy long planned. Disordered folks have schemed long and hard to achieve this. How many Bishops sent disordered priests to Rome when they had stocked other dioceses and Parishes with sinners and now finally they have taken over Rome
I believe strongly that you nail the main Enemy of the Progressives in citing the Council of Trent. What passes “on the street” so often is a flagrant disassociation with the teaching of that body.
I appreciate your thoughtful exposition, but I’ll paraphrase more concisely: “He would flee it like the plague.”
I would have just a question for Benedict XVI. Since he really understood the “original sin” of Novus Horror, why he didn’t simply abolish it and restore the Catholic Liturgy?
I cannot reconcile his harsh assessment with his lack of action about what he saw and clearly identified as egregious.
If we could answer that, we would gain insight into why he really resigned.
I think the Vat2 policy was allow all points of view to exist within the Church. Pluralism, and its been killing us for decades. So no more condemnations. But B16 could see the Apostolic Faith was being crowded out so I think he tried to carve out some room to ensure it survived amongst all the tares so it could always be found inside the Church. (I know this sounds fairly harsh). The trouble is the new administration dont think that way. They’ve called ‘time’s up’! They want to move to arrange the federation and as you have said, protestantism has walked away from denominationalism (adherence to doctrines), so pf wants less choice available. Scripture talks about the eclipse of the Church (read darkness) but eclipses are short term phenomena. It lasted 3 hours when Jesus was crucified. How long is 3 hours for us ?
Wow…
Everybody on this thread should read what you say and spend some time unpacking it. I know I will.
Thanks!
Modernits say one thing, do another. He had no trouble going to pray in temples and mosques, and holding another Assisi Pagan Fest.
…
When Bugnini rewrote the Hail Mary, and proposed a New Rosary, Paul VI wrote a blistering denunciation of the idea–including the shock and disorientation it would cause among the “little people.” Every word Paul wrote was applicable to the Mass.
After downloading and reading the Lutheran Liturgy (Missouri Synod), I am going to stop calling the new Catholic Mass, the Ordinary Form (OF).
From now on, it is the Lutheran Form of the Mass to me (LF).
And after his visit to Lund, I’m not certain Pope Francis would consider that inaccurate.
What version did you get? I’d like to take a look myself.
It’s called the “Lutheran Service Book” Missouri Synod.
http://lsb.cph.org/samples/LSB_Sampler.pdf
I am now horrified. I believed it before, but now I see it… ugh… No wonder so many divorced catholics become lutheran. You get the same thing but don’t have to obey the marriage laws.
It should be noted that the Missouri Synod are not part of the LWF that Francis went to Lund with. The LWF are far, far, FAR worse. Lesbian “ordained” ministers, gay marriage, etc.
Same strange, incoherent melodies too.
And these are the so-called “conservative” Lutherans (the Missouri Synod). At least they only provide two basic services (one with their version of “communion” and one without), as well as providing the option for a one-year lectionary (complete with Septuagesima[!]) that in some sense bears resemblance to the traditional Roman calendar.
I have had the misfortune of suffering through (for reasons I’d rather not get into; it was before I returned to the Church) an ELCA (the “progressive” Lutherans) service using their new “cranberry” book. I can’t remember off hand, but I believe there are up to nine different service outlines, complete with option after option. It reminded me of the proposed 1998 ICEL Sacramentary (not so much a translation of the Novus Ordo as a complete rewrite, with option after option nowhere to be found in the actual Latin base text). This, I fear, is what Francis’s “revisit” of Liturgium Authenticum will inevitably result in: so many options that are wholly interchangeable with one another, to the point that no semblance of uniformity remains in the Roman rite.
And more of the same…
http://www.trunews.com/article/norways-lutheran-church-approves-gay-marriage-ceremonies
You’re misunderstanding the settings of the liturgy in the ELCA “cranberry book”; the 9 settings are varying musical settings, not different “service outlines.” These musical settings are akin to the various musical settings you find appearing at any typical NO Mass in the vast majority of US Catholic Churches (Mass of Creation, various Haas, etc. etc. etc.) the only different being that the US Bishops in their suspicious under-the-table dealings with GIA have never seen fit or been able to summon the competence to publish an official hymnal.
The ELCA has a set order of service that’s extremely close to the NO Mass (simply because both were established by the Consultation on Common Texts). Many ELCA churches don’t follow the “official” order of service in the “cranberry book” however.
Same thing w/o the marriage laws. LOL.
And really, not so much any more now that the Pope has diluted them.
You are right about the LCMS {Lutheran Church Missouri Synod AKA “Catholic without the Pope”}. It is not a member of the association w/ ELCA and the Lesbo-Lutherans of Lund {Swedish State Church}. Neither are some others like the LCMC {Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ} I was a member of {many congregations of which broke away from the ELCA due to the liberal bent of the ELCA} which adheres to many basic moral teachings that similar to the LCMS.
Point being that the Pope hand selected the most perverted and frankly, disgusting of deviants to seek out “full communion” with. He stood shoulder to shoulder with a lesbian bishop. Yes, he did. Many Lutherans find the immoral stances of the ELCA and Swedish Lutherans to be diabolical and repulsive to-boot.
I cannot fault any Protestant for looking at the Catholic Church under the reign of Bergoglio right now and declaring it to be an apostate religion. Educate them, yes. Fault them, no. It’s bad, folks.
Agreed. I have one friend who likes to argue with and try to evangelize atheists, which is commendable. He tries to get me to join in or study those things too. I tell him I’d rather focus on getting our own house in order. Then I’ll join. You have to have somewhere for the new ones to go, and a giant mess isn’t really the best.
I think we need to do everything in our ability to point the lost to the truth, and that means taking serious risks. Which…gulp…pointing a friend to a Catholic parish often is….
Bergolio agrees with them. Is there still sin? All depends. Situation ethics rule in HIS church. It ain’t gonna stop either. He spews heresy every day. Crickets from majority of heirachy. Most pro life president since Reagan, and all you hear from Catholic Bishops is migrants. I hope he cuts off their government checks.
Pope Francis is an enigma. He has condemned gay marriage, abortion, etc, but he still won’t condemn Lutheran groups that applaud it all or give it a pass.
His vitriol seems reserved for young folks who attend Mass regularly where Latin is the language of the day…
It the oldest trick in the book. The heretic or evildoer always mixes truth with the heresy or lie. It much easier to promote the untruth by pointing out the orthodoxy you actually mixed in.
From the modernist playbook.
I think the money tree is the key, or at least part of it as well. the USCCB needs to be walked on a short leash. I no longer give to any Catholic operation outside my local parish and save my other monies for pro-life services and outreach to the poor.
And this, just released today in response to Trump’s executive order:
http://www.usccb.org/news/17-027.cfm
“The bond between Christians and Muslims is founded on the unbreakable strength of charity and justice.” What idiotic, post-Conciliar equivocation. And of course there’s the usual “I was a stranger and you welcomed me” misquote, while they forget that many of the strangers want to rape our women, murder our men, and blow up our cities.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
This is a diabolical and quite evil statement.*
Someday we need a Pope who is willing to shed the entire administrative apparatus and issue an ultimatum and if it is not accepted, fire the lot of them.
* Which can be “Akinized” thusly: “What we mean is that the charity and justice of our Blessed Lord compels us to be nice to Muslims”. Which they won’t say at present but might be able to fall back on someday if an orthodox pope is the new sheriff in town…
“Akinized”! Love it!
Seriously, the USCCB has zero credibility as far as I am concerned. Idiotic statements like today’s press release, entirely devoid of both common sense and true Catholic teaching, only reinforce my opinion.
Now to add salt to the wound:
” Pope Francis has defended China’s practice of religious liberty, insisting that one can freely practice his or her faith in the communist country and that the churches there are full. by Christian Daily, Jan. 31. 2017 –
THIS is an OUTRAGE!! Forced abortions, bishops who must be approved by political governance??
What is the source for that ? I’ve seen so many distortions of what he said, and of what B16 has said, that a citation is not enough.
“Christian Daily”, January 31, 2017
by Lorraine Caballero
Perhaps this writer got it wrong? Doubt it.
The stuff coming out of USCCB and from individual bishops/cardinals like Cupich now is pure political propaganda barely disguised as religious reflection. I got an e-mail appeal from USCCB today asking me to …..well, I didn’t read enough of it to know exactly how they wanted me to oppose Pres. Trump’s immigration moratorium, only that this IS what they were after. I answered and told them their stuff was Democrat Party bs, nothing more, and then I suggested something they could do with it, something that might well not meet the moderator’s minimum standards for posting here.
I know I can’t defend the church anymore, in fact, I freely admit the church is a hot mess and he’s horrible and probably an anti-pope at the least. I also say our church is filled to the top with homosexuals and/or men who could care less we have predatory homosexual priests buggering little boys and young men.
Well…it’s true.
Do you know about Fr. Malachi Martin or Fr. Hesse? Those two have really good talks on what has been going on within the Church.
If the Church were a thousand times more rotten than it is, it would still be the Church. We must not let our emotions carry us away, or overcome peace of mind, reason, or justice – or, most importantly, charity.
The Church cannot be destroyed by the sins even of Popes. If a Pope committed every abomination possible, the Church would still be as holy as though Christ Himself were Pope. No members of the Church, not even the Popes, can lessen the Holiness of the Church, which is the Holiness of Christ Himself.
IMHO, such Protestants would be judging by human standards, and not in the light of the grace of Faith. It seems to be a danger-sign if we cannot see Christ in His ministers. The authority of Christ exercised by Christ through St Peter lives also in all of St Peter’s successors, regardless of whatever trainwrecks they may be as individuals. The office conferred by Christ on St Peter is always greater and better than the men on whom it is conferred. The faults and infirmities of Popes cannot destroy that office.
Nothing I say here suggests that a Pope can destroy the Church.
However, the message of Jesus Christ can be so terribly mangled by individuals that in presenting or “living” it they no longer present or model the Gospel and confusion reigns. Jesus warns us of this in Luke 17:1.
CCC 1697 tells us that both the joys and the demands of the Gospel must be presented with CLARITY. It is not just an overemphasis of the demands of the Gospel that can mar the message, but the opposite as well. At this stage in the life of the Church, it appears an exclusion of demands and an overstatement of “joys” is the danger, giving rise to the notion of a new religion.
When prelates or even a Pope no longer are clear in their teaching they lead the lost astray. Thus, when Protestants observe what is going on in the Catholic Church, they may very well make a reasoned decision that the Church has fallen into apostasy, not knowing anything but what they read or hear. I myself steered clear of the Catholic Church for decades because I believed the Church was a big bloated bureaucracy full of socialist universalists and religious indifferentists.
Anyone who has given witness to the Catholic faith to Protestants knows that the ACTUAL doctrines of the faith are not the only issues in dispute. One must educate them to understand what the essential teachings of the Church are in light of the fact that so often what they hear about prelates or even from other Catholics is simply not in line with Church teaching. You’ve got to get them to take the Catholic Church seriously which many simply do not. That may be the biggest hurtle of all.
“The Church cannot be destroyed by the sins even of Popes. If a Pope committed every abomination possible, the Church would still be as holy as though Christ Himself were Pope. No members of the Church, not even the Popes, can lessen the Holiness of the Church, which is the Holiness of Christ Himself.”
Your quote is beautiful and full of Truth! It was and is and always will be Christ’s Church!
…
Not so different that NO Masses.
I get it!
Oh Francis, you are surely up to no good.
A short term solution to the problem of NO masses is what a relative of mine calls the “V2 Neutralizer”. Consists of two tiny wireless earbud earphones connected by Bluetooth to an IPod or Smartphone (in your pocket). He turns them on at Mass during heretical sermons, the Prayers of The Faithless and at the end of the Mass where often the priest has a political or environmental rant. He listens to downloaded sermons by Fr Fulton Sheen or to Traditional Hymns.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a7ec71f7ee8df112b89e39bc739f144306da9d650c0763664c655338e16a8a60.jpg
Wow…technology in the service of orthodoxy…
Sorry but attending any Mass that way is pointless and you have not fulfilled your “duty”. You have to find a Mass where you are consciously connecting with the Sacrifice of Christ being offered and uniting your own with His. If it’s that bad, find somewhere else!
He’s four and a half hours away from the nearest TLM service. I’d imagine he will continue to refuse to listen to heretical sermons and political rants until the Church is cleaned out! Thank you.
Normally, I’d say that’s awful… but used that way, if it keeps you sane… well, heck, go for it!
A Catholic pope cannot give anything harmful due to his infallibility, ya’ll…
Yeah, yeah, we get it, and since AL is harmful therefore Francis is not the pope, is that about right?
Read the comment policy:
https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/comment-policy/
This isn’t a platform for sedevacantism.
Please do not put words into my mouth.
All I’m saying–like any other aspiring good Catholic–is let the popes do the talking, namely Pius VI, Gregory XVI, and Pius XII.
Don’t be coy. You clearly believe that things like the new mass and AL are harmful, ergo, based on what you stated above — that “a Catholic pope cannot give anything harmful” — you must therefore believe that the popes who promulgated them are not true popes.
Great, knock yourself out. Just do it somewhere else.
Most people on here believe they are harmful, Mr. Miles; otherwise, we wouldn’t be here. We wouldn’t be agonizing over what we see and have seen. All of us believe there is a major problem–a total rupture with the past.
Do I believe “sedevacantism” as dogma? No, I don’t. What I do believe is that we’ve been warned time and time again by Our Lord, Our Lady, St. Paul, and the Church Herself that this would come to pass. Whether we receive direct Divine Intervention or the Second Coming occurs is not my call to make, because, I simply do not know. This I know for certain: Our Lord and His Holy Mother will lead us out of this mess on their time; we just have to hang on with what was already taught and handed down.
The truth is not a respecter of persons; truth takes you where it will. Embracing the truth takes a hero–yes, a hero, Mr. Miles–to turn away from the pseudo-theology, the double-talk, cowardice, and the confusion that is so ubiquitous today as well as those who continue it. Confusion got us here, but clarity will get us out of it.
Prayers enclosed.
“Most people on here believe they are harmful”. Yes we do, but very few of us have the cheek to go on to say, by the way “a Catholic pope cannot give anything harmful due to his infallibility, ya’ll”, the logical conclusion of which is obvious.
Neither do we give enthusiastic “amens” to comments like this one:
http://disq.us/p/1frmgs1
It makes so much more sense to me to see our Popes as human beings, subject to the full array of human frailties. They are not God, or even God-like. I see them as true successors of Peter, in all of his wonderful human weakness; standing there, suffering on the road away from Rome and persecution, deciding whether to abandon his Lord all over again.
God gave us His Vicar. He represents Jesus on earth. He shares none of His power; he merely reflects it to the extent he is faithful in his Office.
What Pope Francis is doing shatters my faith, not at all. He is strengthening my faith by refining out laziness, pride which leads to anger, and incorrect belief. Whom the Lord loves, he chastens.
Please spell out the acronym before using it. “AL”?
Amoris Laetitia – sorry for any confusion.
Infallibility? So St. Paul was wrong to correct St. Peter because St. Peter was infallible? No Pope can ever make mistakes, fall into error, perhaps heretical error, and be corrected?
I think there is a lot more to unpack in infallibility than just saying the Pope can never make a mistake; sometimes serious, major mistakes, such as promulgating the NO/LO Mass. I think heresy was the issue between St. Paul and St. Peter. A bedrock dispute; a NO Mass level dispute.
It is a major rabbit trail distraction to mix that issue into this. True, recent Popes have not served us well at all. The sin in our world is largely due to a weak and worldly Church. We are not true “leaven”. We all need to repent and do penance for our sins, especially the Popes who act closest to our Lord. But the Popes are unquestionably valid. That must be assumed and accepted by all Catholics.
Of course St. Paul wasn’t wrong, but that was just due to St. Peter being mistaken in his behavior, not heresy.
Your point is well made and self-evident. Just a heads up, CT is pushing sedevacantism which is against the comment policy here. If he persists he’s going to get banned.
Someone did a song on Youtube on “Amoris” sad and funny at the same time!
https://youtu.be/a3r9lmhZf08
A saint HAS seen the new liturgy. Padre Pio was so disgusted with it he refused to offer it and received special permission to never offer it until his death.
Padre Pio passed in 1968. The Novus Ordo was released in ’69 so he was looking at the 1964 liturgy that he was disgusted with. It should be noted that it is a much more palatable liturgy than what we have today.
The Bergoglians are going to try to get the 1998 abomination imposed on us. The rector of the cathedral in Seattle (in that position for 29 years!) is back, praising it to the skies, in America mag.
I agree with the comments below that every parish in at least the Western world be required to offer a least one Tridentine mass per week. But I have one proviso. The attendance at this mass and the attendance at the ordinary form masses must be published for all to see.
Why the hell does that matter, Willard? Even one person able to assist at the Mass of the Ages makes it worth it.
Because I know very few people in real life who prefer the tridentine. This procedure would either confirm or deny that premise.
And your own personal experience makes you somehow qualified to make such sweeping generalizations?
Speak for yourself, Willard. You don’t speak for everybody, thank you very much. If your insinuation is that the worship praxis should be determined entirely by popular opinion, then why not simply reduce the Mass to the distribution of already-consecrated Hosts followed by a final blessing? Surely the average Catholic in the pew would love to have his Sunday obligation reduced to a mere ten minutes. Or, while we’re at it, why not remove the Sunday obligation altogether and make Mass attendance entirely optional? That would be REALLY popular, therefore, it must be ideal, right?
Regrettably afraid most would be ok with this stuff. By the way Bergolio announced study of revised mass of Paul VI (English). He will further butcher it and then go after Summorum Pontificum.
With all due respect, it’s your side that is always talking about numbers. So MANY young traditionalist Catholics flocking to the tridentine mass having lots of babies. Well I’ve heard that for 30+ years so where are they all?
I can tell you this.
I do not know how many young people stay in our FSSP parish, but our parish is exploding and we are building a new church to accommodate the expansion. It is a dynamic and amazing congregation. In light of how “counter-cultural” Traditionalist Catholicism is, that says something.
Yeah that happened like gangbusters in the early 90’s too. Our SSPX chapel added masses and then proceeded to build a new chapel. A couple of sedevacantist churches opened as well. But here we are nearly 25 years later and there hasn’t been a single new traditionalist mass center opened. This in a city by the way that has more than doubled in size over those 25 years.
It’s interesting you mention “counter-cultural”. That’s what I believe leads to the second generation problem. You come in all gung ho imagining yourself to be a crusader of sorts taking on the liberal establishment. But the kids are then a product of the conservative establishment and they often rebel.
The situation you identify in your area is almost 180 degrees opposite of here. Here the SSPX has been around for a long time and has a large following. It is an active community though it has its challenges as all do. I am not SSPX and will not worship there until they are reconciled/regularized with the Church so I’m not speaking as one with a dog in that fight or a reason to defend them but just giving facts. As I say, they have a large following with about 7 priests on staff. In addition, the FSSP was added almost a decade ago and while the strategy might have been at that time to draw off from the SSPX, in fact, it has largely taken off and grown in addition to the existing SSPX. It continues to as well. There are large numbers of converts from Protestantism in the FSSP parish and I believe that is actually the case in the SSPX as well. There is some hopscotching from one to the other, but neither has suffered for the existence of the other as it turns out.
The SSPX must have some internal recruitment because of its sheer size, but as I mentioned, I think it does have its problems with the second generation. But then, coming from the Protestant world, I can say 100% that so do they. Some years ago I remember a study indicating that of evangelical Protestant high school age kids leaving home and going to college, etc, only about 4% remained associated with their religious groups after 4 years. A good friend of mine with whom I went to seminary 30 years ago is an evangelical pastor. His take is that there is little growth in the evangelical world in the USA. What there is, is shifting around from this to that group which prompts some groups to claim “growth” where in reality it is just shuffling, with little true new evangelization occurring. It gets even fuzzier if you read stats from Baptist groups as many require RE-“baptizing” which then can be used to say “we have had thus and such numbers of baptisms this year”. A Catholic reading that would be impressed and think all sorts of new converts from paganism must be made in that group! But if you know what it means, well, not so much. I have family members who have been “baptized” numerous times because “Pastor Jones” required it.
Go chat with the service organizations and local Elks, etc. Young generations DO NOT join stuff and commit to it. It is part of the rot that has infected our culture. Everybody wants to be associated with benefits, but not with service. This is a reality that infects the Church as well.
In the end, what is most important in the presentation of the Gospel is that the Gospel is presented, that is, both the joys AND demands thereof…with clarity. {see CCC 1697}. Popularity of a given doctrine or organization is irrelevant when we are told straight from the words of Christ Himself that the gate is narrow and few enter. Coming from my own background with many associations with Protestant ministries, missionary work and generations of Protestant pastors, I can tell you without hesitation that Protestantism at its core is fixated on numbers and is willing to alter doctrine to facilitate the “growth” thereof. Which is exactly what I see being copied in a fairly lame way in the novus ordo world of the Catholic Church today where the leadership is adopting policies of the Protestants. The really embarrassing thing is they picked the wrong Protestants if they want play the numbers game. They picked the wholly dying mainline groups that have been going backwards for decades as their model….
The Pope appears to be like the oldster uncle glomming on to something he thinks is “really FAR-OUT…really COOOL, Man”, not realizing that what he thinks is so catchy has been proven to be a worn out, polyester, pastel blue leisure suit worn over a pair of pink plastic platform shoes.
@disqus_9S6QAGQDNE:disqus
I go to an FSSP parish that is also growing rapidly. I don’t have the extensive history with the Traditionalist movement- but I have a theory that a lot of the second generation problem is because some chapels/parishes can be isolationists. When you refuse to allow your kids to have anything to do with the surrounding culture and deny them things that are actualy morally OK, then of course they are going to rebel. Also the attitude- if you are constantly mad at the situation in the Church, then kids are going to pick up on that- and not going to be thrilled to follow in your footsteps. If we want to pass on to our children the traditions that should have been passed on to us- we have to provide for a loving caring home which takes joy in those around us. That doesn’t mean we close our eyes or don’t teach about the problems- but we can’t let our anger affect our relationships with those that we are responsible for.
Again, Willard, you’re relying upon your own personal experience—which, from what you’ve posted here and at the Spectator indicates you are a disgruntled ex-traditionalist with an axe to grind against the SSPX—and making the presumption that it is universally applicable. RTHEVR gave you a perfectly acceptable counterexample, and you responded with a “Well, that’s how it went in MY chapel, but then THIS happened, therefore I know without fail the same will happen to yours.” Like I said before, don’t assume that your circumstances apply to everyone.
I get the impression Willard is very enamored with numbers and the lack of “success” in his eyes might contribute to an erosion of his morale. I get that, as we all have an innate desire not to be kooks. But in the presentation of the Gospel and in the following of our Lord, we must look not to numbers but to truth.
As I said elsewhere, I have some problems with the SSPX on that score, so I’m not defending them specifically, but to attack them because they are small or not growing fast enough is a bankrupt philosophy.
I mean, Jesus got the ball rolling with 12. Well, 12 minus one plus one. Whatever, you know what I mean. LOL.
RTHEVR, I’m not sure if Willard is actually serious in what he posts, merely trolling, or just trying to be contrarian. At the Spectator a few weeks ago, he posted that he’s sympathetic to socialism, while here at 1P5 a few days ago he said something to the effect of “The Left has needed its version of Trump for a long time, and now we have it [in Francis].”
I have no problem having a good faith debate with someone on substantive matters such as liturgical praxis, but Willard seems to be bringing some baggage to this forum that he’s not fully disclosing.
Gotcha.
I simply choose to take his words and use them as an outline to bring up points I think are important. Whether he’s a troll notwithstanding. LOL.
One of the reasons i like debating atheists and Baptists about the Catholic faith. they might not be listening, but others often are.
Not really. I believe the lack of success is caused by the problems inherent in traditionalism. Again neither you or @lb236:disqus have said how long you have been in the traditionalist movement. This matters because the problems sometimes take years to manifest. I went back recently to the SSPX chapel that I was married in and there was only one! couple still going to mass there. Now here is the interesting thing and I don’t know if it really means anything but this one couple was so unlike the rest of us. First of all, they were completely apolitical. In fact if you tried to bring up something like Vince Foster(which for those that don’t know was a conspiracy theory floating at that time that he had been murdered by Clinton) this man would literally roll his eyes and walk away. The other thing about him, again so unlike the rest of us, he never engaged in any polemics about JPII or the Novus Ordo. If you brought up the “horror” of JPII interfaith Assisi meeting he would quickly change the subject to baseball. And finally, he kept himself busy. He didn’t watch Seinfeld like the rest of us hypocritically did, he worked and he prayed and he coached little league. Maybe he had the secret.
I didn’t mean to dodge the time-in-the-saddle issue. I have only been a CATHOLIC for 4 years this Easter and began attending an FSSP parish only 2 years ago. But I have worked with SSPX folks for over 20 years, my son married a gal that came out of that tradition, etc. So what I say is based on my personal experience as a convert, not as a lifelong cradle Traditionalist. I was converted into a NO parish. We are registered members of an FSSP parish.
Every group has a culture and every culture has its good and bad. So possibly some aspects of a culture are less desirable than others.
None of that necessarily speaks to the truth or falsehood of doctrine.
I’d suggest you seek out an FSSP parish and make comparisons. Give it a whirl and see what you think.
Now I mean this with the best possible intentions but I will offer some advice that you can take or leave. You must be older if you have a married son so this probably won’t apply to you but it could apply to your kids and I’m just trying to give you some warning signs. Trad chapel adherents can be notorious busybodies. Be on guard against those who might question your daughter in law if she is not pregnant enough. She could be seriously subjected to passive aggressive comments like “Sweetie, is there anything wrong? I’m surprised God hasn’t blessed you with another baby yet”. Probably the biggest issue I witnessed. I also saw a lot of resentment if the wife worked or if she didn’t work and received any type of government aid. Lots of people left because the husband simply didn’t have enough money to support a large family and not have his wife work. An almost exclusive focus on the deadly sin of lust as compared to the 6 other deadly sins. It often felt like if you had lots of kids and your wife didn’t work the other sins didn’t matter. This is particularly true of wrath, envy, and gluttony. Finally, be careful of constant sniping at the priest. He doesn’t preach enough on mortal sin, etc. Lastly, maybe this was just my experience but since I found the same attitude at both the SSPX chapel I attended and the sedevacantist chapel I attended I don’t think so. Maybe your daughter in law had a completely different experience but, like you said, she no longer attends mass there.
Let’s just say that I included my comment on culture for a reason…
Having said that, I have met jackasses in the corral and in every gathering of human beings I have ever observed. Some bray in tenor, some in bass, but it’s braying just the same…
Fairly accurate in that I’m a rather disgruntled ex-trad but I don’t feel I really have an ax to grind. But I don’t think it’s really true that I’m extrapolating my experience into a universal one. I’m touching on basic facts here. 30 years ago the Trad movement was booming with Trad mothers having 8,9, 10 kids are more. Where are all the people?
1} Don’t build your faith around what others do. You are not a lemming. Commit yourself to our Lord and Savior FIRST. And then grow in Him.
2} Elijah felt the same way. Read 3 Kings 19:9 {1 Kings 19:9 for you NO and Protestant folks. ;} } See what God said to him. He’s saying the same thing to you {and me}.
RTHEVR already gave you a pretty comprehensive answer, so I’ll defer to him on this one. However, I will note that one could easily flip your question around and ask, “Where are all the people?” in the mainstream Novus Ordo church. After all, formerly Catholic Europe is now a shell of its former self with regard to attendance of the faithful at Mass; France, for example, depending on the source, is down to as many as 14% (probably a high estimate) to as low as a catastrophic 5%. Yet, was not one of the primary reasons cited by the reformers in changing the Mass so that the faithful would have more “active participation”, thus stimulating Mass attendance and vocations?
You are the one who seems hyper concerned with numbers. From my perspective, at least, it does not matter if only one person assists at the classical Rite; objectively, textually, and rubrically, there is far more Catholic doctrine expressed in even the simplest of low Masses than in the most reverent NO Mass. Compare the link to the “Lutheran Service Book” Aqua shared elsewhere on this thread to see just how similar the Novus Ordo is to a Lutheran service, and you can see why many of us, while accepting the validity of the NO, express grave concern about its Catholicity.
Most people that I know who prefer the Novus Ordo have never actually seen the Tridentine. And those who have barely believe in God and certainly don’t obey all the church’s moral laws.
I have done a great deal of work with young people in the Church, and nearly all of them I speak to about the Latin Mass who have no experience with it (most of them) are very interested and some even ask the priests at their parish to celebrate it. Some have requested transportation to a Latin Mass. The numbers may be smaller, but they are growing, and it’s growing in the younger generations.
If you don’t mind me asking, how long have you been a Catholic and how long have you been a traditionalist? Because I’ve been around a long time having actually married in an SSPX chapel. And for all those years I was a traditionalist I always heard the same thing. Young people love it. They are the future, etc. Well 30 years later about the same number of people in my diocese attend the tridentine mass between the diocesan, sspx, and sedevacantist chapels. If anything, I would say the height of the interest was in the late 80’s/early 90’s.
It is not about us, but the proper worship due to God for the benefit of our souls. And the majority doesn’t always coincide with the truth. However, with the fast pace of Catholics leaving the Church, the traditional Catholics who remain faithful, will again be in the majority one day.
In my experience, the kids of traditional Catholics leave just as much as the kids of Novus Ordo Catholics. The SSPX even have a name for it, “the second generation problem”.
I see this among the SSPX. Didn’t know they had a name for it, but we live in an area with a high density of SSPX’ers. One of my Daughters-in-law was raised SSPX and is no longer associated with the SSPX. We had this conversation with my kids not too long ago and they don’t know many of their contemporaneity that were raised SSPX that still are. Many aren’t practicing Catholics at all.
Of course, the local Catholic Churches are grayhaired with very few children of any age.
I do not think merely being raised in a Latin Mass community means much. What matters is if the parents have raised their children to love the Lord Jesus, know who He is {!} and have demonstrated their own love for him in the raising of the children.
Otherwise anything can become merely routines and rules and regulations devoid of a relationship with God.
I attend an FSSP parish, but do not know the answer to how many kids raised in FSSP parishes stay associated with the FSSP.
Truth is, folks, let’s not beat around the bush. Our nation is a godless mess, and many leave the faith simply because they don’t believe. Money and comfort are strong enticements to leave the truth of Jesus Christ. We no longer have a culture that rewards Catholics for remaining Catholic. To the contrary. Such an environment is a test of true faith.
Reason #100 why I prefer joining the seminary such as SSPX, ICKSP, FSSP…
I love to worship Jesus Christ in both styles of the Roman Mass – the Tridentine and the properly administered Novus Ordo. From both of these I can sense the sacredness of Jesus on the altar because of the love and devotion the priest and the people have in their hearts. Being a poor worker-bee, it is nice to be able to attend daily mass in English – I think the Tridentine would be pretty intense for a daily Mass, but from what the Lord Jesus has told some saints – it is not intense for Him.
Just from our daily mass people, one person received a miracle on the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul. He had been beset by double vision for several years and last week – at the Consecration, this person was healed. A nice little testimony that Jesus’ Real Presence is fully there at the N.O. Mass.
The disrespectful rock n roll mass was never for me. Just the same, I am very concerned that the Consecration will be edited further until a valid consecration will not take place. That would just be the straw that breaks this Catholic’s back! Have we ever thought of “no more changes anywhere for ten years at least.” That would be a really nice message to hear from the Vatican.
The Koran-kissing JP2 was no saint!
Hi Helen – Totus tuus, makes for a pretty good resume.
He worshipped with pagans, in Assisi, allowed the Blessed Sacrament to be replaced by a statue of Buddha, asked John the Baptist of bless Islam, and this kind of false irenicism was a hallmark of his papacy. Pretty lousy resume, IMHO.
Hi Helen – There is no doubt he made several errors in personal judgment, but I don’t recall JPII ever contradicting the Words of Christ, or undermining any of the teachings of the Church. I have always thought that some of the errors JPII made might have been the result of living through the myriad of evils, and jolting lack of respect for life that was justified by cultivating a false sense of division among mankind, he was exposed to in WWII. I also think he was truly the pope most dedicated to Our Lady of Fatima, and being fully aware of the warnings Mary gave at Fatima, felt that there was a definite limit as to the time men had to evangelize the world, before God’s Wrath was fully felt.
Saints are sinners too. They also make mistakes.
I’ve struggled with this a bit too. However, traditionally canonizations are considered infallible (not beatifications though!) so, if Pope Francis is the Pope then JP2 actually is a saint. And what I figure is, if he’s a saint, he’s lived through the terrible time we’re in and understands it better than almost anyone else… so he’s a great one to ask the intercession of!
He clearly made some serious mistakes… but that doesn’t mean he can’t make it to heaven. It gives us all a bit of hope.
Great article! Well said and well done.
Given the significant changes, removal of ancient prefaces, invented Eucharist prayers (no 3 composed in a trattoria). Given the boasts of members of the “committee” that they destroyed the Roman Rite. Louis Bouyer calling Bugnini an “unctuos liar” I have thought and felt that going to the 1970 Mass is giving life to a huge imposition of a fakery . What power did you average Catholic have? Most just gave up because of the rupture. The new mass is a creation. It is not the Old Mass in English but a substantially different form.
As one who attends the Novus Ordo I think articles like the above are counter productive and will likely hurt your fundraising. Did I read somewhere that Steve said he has about two million readers and only about 1700 donate? Most of your readers probably do attend Novus Ordo and these constant attacks on the NO are off putting. Thousands of holy priests offer this form of the Mass and there are truly great souls who attend the noon weekday Mass here in Northern Cal. I’m familiar with the Pius X crowd here and find some of them to be smug, self satisfied and arrogant. I prefer the sweet, humble people at the NO.
Some of your commentators (including a moderator) were saying if the only Mass available was the NO they would stay home and watch the ancient Mass on TV. What does this say about their love for, need for and desire for the Eucharist?
And as for Bishop Fellay cozying up to this awful pope… that doesn’t elicit my respect. I’d respect him if he spoke out strongly and kept his distance.
Hi Mary,
I find your comment disappointing. While these articles, relying primarily on commentary from Pope Benedict XVI, focus on objective differences between the TLM and the NO, you chose to focus on people. The author in no way denigrated those who attend the NO or the priests who offer it. Instead, he pointed out deficiencies in the NO, when compared with the TLM, that anyone with a love for the Blessed Sacrament should appreciate.
You, on the other hand, were quick to label this group as smug and self-satisfied and that group as sweet and humble. To begin with, most people here are not part of the SSPX, but for those who are I can assure of two things: (1) many of them are also sweet humble people, and (2) NO people are no way immune to smugness and self-satisfaction.
So rather than labeling people, why don’t you explain to us where the author is wrong in his assessment of the NO, or why you find it so edifying.
Lastly, part of the mission here is to wake people up to the crisis in the Church, and those things — such as the implementation of the NO — which precipitated it. Is that going to ruffle a few feathers and send some donations elsewhere? Absolutely. But at the end of the day, isn’t better for Steve and his writers to be honest about their positions rather than pandering for extra money?
I’m going to be sure to donate to 1Peter again next month… I’m a recent revert and am disgusted with is happening in the church, especially morally. Over the months of studying this, I have run across people who blame the NO. Since I am curious, I continued to look into it. Articles like this are VERY helpful to me.
This is good to hear. We plan to do more content along these lines. It’s too important not to.
Obviously, we have to pay the bills, and that’s important. I have quite a few little mouths to feed. But truth comes first here. Always has, always will.
I grew up with the Novus Ordo, as did, I expect, the majority of our readers and commenters. I think we are thus uniquely capable of making a comparison between the “two forms of the Roman Rite,” as Pope Benedict called them.
We’ve never made it a secret here that we believe liturgical restoration can only have one authentic aim – a return to the ancient liturgy, which is the only point from which an authentic, organic development can continue. Not everyone who writes here agrees exactly with this, or with how it can be accomplished. But all more or less fundamentally agree with the premise. The so-called reform of the reform is a dead end if it doesn’t seek to restore what was lost. That is most likely going to take more time than many of us would like, but it needs to be the goal.
We welcome people who still primarily or exclusively attend the NO. I am very happy to have them here and part of the discussion. Pretty much my entire family and a large portion of my friends fall under this category, so I’m not going to throw them under the bus. But I will advocate for what I believe is right and true and fitting in our worship of God. And I do think there’s more than a little truth in the saying, “Save the liturgy, save the world.”
We advocate for the understanding that will move us in that direction. I hope it doesn’t turn you away.
Kudos to you for that, and for this site. A few pennies for your pot are on the way. Hope you can keep it going. Thanks for what you do and have done.
Smug, self satisfied and arrogant is a common human condition. I have seen that here, sure. But pretty much everywhere else, too.
I am fairly sure that, as nice of a guy, as reasonable and as right as I think myself to be, people reading my words here think I am an arrogant jerk at times. Sheesh! I’ve actually been banned by sites I profoundly agree with and love! So, obviously people do think I am a jerk. In truth, I’m just a middle aged Catholic schmuck with a bunch of kids and a wife (at least) who loves me.
One thing about 1P5 that I love is that they are really even tempered here, and fair. They call out Sedevecantism, on the spot. And, so far, they haven’t banned me. The only Catholic site I frequent any more. A well rounded group, I think.
Keep up what you’re doing and you’re more than welcome to stick around! 🙂
Your response exemplifies the man-centered nature of novusordoism. The article was not targeting people, but the form of worship. Taking a cheap shot at the SSPX is unjust and all too common and needs to stop. Most serious Catholics are trying humbly to do the best that they can in the situation they find themselves in. The purpose of this blog is to seek truth and if it bothers you to read about it, that is your problem. God bless.
Instead of speculating how a hypothetical saint, whose behavior is thus unverifiable, would treat the NO Mass, why not use a verifiable example: Pope Saint John Paul II? Every public Mass offered during his pontificate of 26.5 years was in the Ordinary Form, so there are plenty of examples.
Benedict XVI was the Pope, so, if those quotations represent what he thought while Pope, why did he not repair the damage ? He didn’t have to get permission to do so. Or does inflicting a sub-standard Mass on the Roman Church not matter ?
I think we must all wonder about that. What does it say about a man when he is the guy in charge but only complains about stuff he has the power to fix?
This is a central question in need of redress. I am a big supporter of Pope Benedict. It was in reading his books that I re-engaged the Church.
I read with great attention his “Jesus of Nazareth” series. I very much like them but it was in reading them that I noted a distinction he would make that tended to draw out a preference for an academic expression of things that limited his ability to make decisions on those things.
Things he wanted to treat as a dissertation was in urgent need of firm directed decision and enforcement.
What he could articulate in the academy he would not pull the trigger on as the Vicar.
In this, I also wonder whether he was ever able to get past his early intellectual attraction to the dialectic that in many ways he later distanced himself from. I may have read too much into it, but could not help but be struck when he noted that a new liturgy was needed drawing from the traditional (thesis) and novus ordo (anti-thesis).
You make some very good points to ponder. My views of Benedict/Ratzinger have changed somewhat. It is one thing to preach or teach, it is another thing to fight and defend. I see him as comfortable with the former, but no longer see him as representing the latter. Which in a general sense is my take on Catholic prelates overall…except for the progressives who appear to be willing to fight…
http://www.hprweb.com/2017/01/the-new-pagans-and-the-church/
Note that his reflection here touches on some points he made not too long ago about the “abandonment” of EENS after Vatican 2. Obviously, if this piece was written in 1958, he was asserting {and apparently affirming} them long before V2.
It’s an eyeopener….
It is worth noting that just 10 years prior to Fr Ratziner writing his 1959 paper, Pope Pious, in Humani Generis, already condemned the dialectic. It is only through fidelity to the dialectic that one can mangle MT 22:14. From the Fr R’s 1958 paper:
There is, first of all, the difficult and weighty text, in which the opposition of the many and the few is expressed in an especially forceful way: “Many are called, but few are chosen” (Mt 22:14). What does this text mean? Surely it does not say that many are condemned, as one commonly tends to interpret it, but first of all that there are two forms of divine election. To put it still more precisely: It says clearly that there are two different divine acts, both of which have to do with election, without now giving us clarity whether or not both obtain their end . . . There are not two ways in which men justify themselves, but two ways in which God chooses them, and these two ways of election by God are the one way of salvation of God in Christ and his Church; and this relies on the necessary dialectic of the few, and the many, and on the representative service of the few in the prolongation of Christ’s representation, or substitution.
But in fairness, at some point Ratzinger realized he’d been mugged by reality and, I believe, began distancing himself from such thinking. The historical critical approach to biblical research has its roots in the Protestant seminaries of 1800s Germany intent on subordinating hermeneutics to the Hegelian dialectic in furtherance of undermining the Church – think Kultur Kampf. In “Jesus of Nazarath” vol 1, you see him flay the views of those holding to the historical critical approach and yet cannot get himself to call into question the approach itself.
I still respect Pope Benedict as a great mind but not one meant to lead. I fight against the conclusion that he lost the will to carry on the fight in some measure because he seems not to have realized that one cannot truly attack the dialectic from within the dialectic as that simply continues the process as yet another “anti-thesis”. As such, he simply continued the process he sought to stop.
That is very interesting and powerful stuff.
I’m really curious:
Do you believe that in 50 years people will be referring to Evangelii Gaudium, Laudato Si and Amoris Laetitia in the same way as you do Humani Generis {…or the way Mortalium Animos or Quod Apostolici Muneris or Mit Brennender Sorge, etc are referenced} or do you believe a future Pope will have condemned EG, LS and AL?
I think there is a mismatch. Humani Generis was written as a directive to be followed. From Paragraph 42 –
42. Let the teachers in ecclesiastical institutions be aware that they cannot with tranquil conscience exercise the office of teaching entrusted to them, unless in the instruction of their students they religiously accept and exactly observe the norms which We have ordained. That due reverend and submission which in their unceasing labor they must profess toward the Teaching Authority of the Church, let them instill also into the minds and hearts of their students. [I don’t know how to indent with this program]
Much of Pope Francis’s writings are more in the form of exhortations to this point that don’t carry with them authority. Regardless, to your question, I think the current Pope knows he is skirting a thin line and knows his actions will split the Church and yet he proceeds like the ideologue he clearly seems to be. If you accept the essential conclusions of the Denzinger-Bergoglio blogs (https://en.denzingerbergoglio.com) that pit Pope Francis’s comments against the infallible statements of the Magisterium, you have to think he will force a breach that will force the issue to a head. Even if as a remnant at the start, the Church will re-find it’s place and block-off his his impact.
Having said that, I think the Church is in dire need of a re-set that includes a downgrading of V2 in some meaningful way. It happened, the Church has been demonstrably injured because of it. When Fr Ratzinger was a petiti at V2, he was a child of the dialectic. There are elements of the V2 documents that are perfectly fine on one level and yet carry with them a secondary dialectical meaning. The presiding cardinals did not see it, the pariti most certainly did – they sculpted the language to that end. If the Magisterium, Tradition, and Doctrine are “thesis”, all things pastoral – especially things done in the name of being pastoral like meeting people where they are – are “anti-thesis”. On one level, dialogue is just another term for discussion, but on another, it relates to the term “dialectic” – as, for example, Interfaith Dialogue, a program that subordinates faith to the dialectic.
Also, what is EENS?
“extra ecclesiam nula salus”
That 1958 address is full of speculation. It’s very much new ground. Pope Paul VI said all the saved will be ‘arranged’ in ‘spheres of salvation’ in the afterlife so everyone is given different graces and assitance. Ratzinger seemed to suggest that everything is as it should be, but we know that some peoples resist the Gospel even for nationalistic reasons. Gandi said he could never embrace the religion of India’s British oppressors for example. Ideas such as Fr Ratzinger’s then would very much extinguish the missionary impulse of the Church. St.Leonard of Port Maurice wrote ‘the little number of those who will be saved’ and scripture says we are “barely saved” – we scrape in ….just. It’s an essential topic to study.
Well, we do know that Saint Padre Pio asked to be dispensed from celebrating the Novus Ordo. He was quite elderly at the time when the Novus Ordo was promulgated. He was granted the dispensation, but with the stipulation that he celebrate the TLM facing the people, instead of Ad Orientum. He complied.
The Novus Ordo does still contain a few traditional elements. And certainly there are graces that can flow from it. And of course, as Bishop Williamson says, it would be a mistake to think that there is no faith left in the church by those who attend the Novus Ordo.
The Novus Ordo was put together by a committee, overseen by Annabale Bugnini. This is unprecedented. Some on the committee were non-Catholics. How much input they had isn’t exactly known.
From what I understand, one of the goals of the committee was to make the Mass understood in the vernacular, by the people attending it. While this is understandable, from a certain POV, this has lead to a Mass that is man-centered, rather than God-centered, and the mystery has, for the most part, been eliminated. There’s little time for reflection or contemplation.
Though St. Pius X did want the people to have a more active role in the Mass, by singing the processional and recessional hymns, as well as the Credo. So having a sort of dialogue Mass isn’t really a bad thing. But God should be the main focus, and that’s just not the case with the Novus Ordo.
Proverbs 22:28
If Benedict Xvi sincerely believed this, why did he not as Supreme Pontiff correct it. Could his inaction be associated with why he left us to the wolfs.
“why I see seeking out the Tridentine Latin Mass and avoiding the Novus Ordo not as a matter of personal preference, but rather as a choice motivated by a desire to worship God rightly.”
Precisely why my family left the N.O. after a lifetime and haven’t looked back. My catechesis in the V2 Church was not only lacking but it left more questions than it gave answers. It wasn’t until I stumbled onto Steve’s website and others of a traditional bent that I started asking questions and looking for deeper answers. We found a Latin Mass, discovered the Baltimore Catechism and the rest is history as they say. The one thing I can’t grasp is that when I speak with folks in my old Parish about Tradition they often become hostile or just have a blank look on their faces. I mentioned Tradition in front of the monsignor at a Knights of Columbus meeting one time and you’d have thought I’d murdered someone. The hysteria was disproportional to what I was speaking about. It is a very troubling situation no doubt.
The changes especially in missionary Churches like the United States of America were occurring long before VII. Although you make some fine points the concepts being conveyed are not altogether different. You seem to be creating a lot of angst where none should exist. The meaning of the mass should be taught more fully and to every catholic. That’s a project goal.