Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

The New Motu Proprio: the Antithesis of Authentic Liturgical Development

A new papal motu proprio letter on the liturgy was released today. It’s called Magnum Principium, and in my opinion, it’s a ticking timebomb.

But to better understand it, we must first have something to contrast it against.

If you’ve ever read Pope St. Pius V’s famous apostolic constitution on liturgy, Quo Primum (1570), you know that the Tridentine liturgical reforms were focused on the unification of the Latin Rite of the Mass, in order that the same Missal would be used everywhere throughout the universal Church. Some highlights:

[B]esides other decrees of the sacred Council of Trent, there were stipulations for Us to revise and re-edit the sacred books: the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary. With the Catechism published for the instruction of the faithful, by God’s help, and the Breviary thoroughly revised for the worthy praise of God, in order that the Missal and Breviary may be in perfect harmony, as fitting and proper – for its most becoming that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass – We deemed it necessary to give our immediate attention to what still remained to be done, viz, the re-editing of the Missal as soon as possible.

Hence, We decided to entrust this work to learned men of our selection. They very carefully collated all their work with the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and with reliable, preserved or emended codices from elsewhere. Besides this, these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers. When this work has been gone over numerous times and further emended, after serious study and reflection, We commanded that the finished product be printed and published as soon as possible, so that all might enjoy the fruits of this labor; and thus, priests would know which prayers to use and which rites and ceremonies they were required to observe from now on in the celebration of Masses.

Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women – even of military orders – and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever.


We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal. [emphasis added]

Magnum Principiumon the other hand, is not concerned at all with the “original form and rite of the holy Fathers”. Instead, it references the “great principle” (from which the name of the letter is taken) of the Second Vatican Council “according to which liturgical prayer be accommodated to the comprehension of the people so that it might be understood”. This means, of course, to the liturgical revolutionaries (then and now) “the weighty task of introducing the vernacular language into the liturgy and of preparing and approving the versions of the liturgical books, a charge that was entrusted to the Bishops.”

I do not plan here to offer an in-depth analysis of the new motu proprio. I have no doubt that others far more qualified than I will come forward soon, taking the letter apart piece by piece. My purpose here is instead to leave you with my sense of what it will mean for the Church.

The upshot of this letter — clearly not written in the pope’s usual meandering, loquacious, and incomprehensible language, and therefore, almost certainly the work of someone else’s hand — is that the pope is ordering canon law be amended as follows:

Can. 838 – §1. The ordering and guidance of the sacred liturgy depends solely upon the authority of the Church, namely, that of the Apostolic See and, as provided by law, that of the diocesan Bishop.

§2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books, recognise adaptations approved by the Episcopal Conference according to the norm of law, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.

§3. It pertains to the Episcopal Conferences to faithfully prepare versions of the liturgical books in vernacular languages, suitably accommodated within defined limits, and to approve and publish the liturgical books for the regions for which they are responsible after the confirmation of the Apostolic See.

§4. Within the limits of his competence, it belongs to the diocesan Bishop to lay down in the Church entrusted to his care, liturgical regulations which are binding on all.

As some noted very early in this papacy, one of its key themes was an abuse of the principle of subsidiarity — the otherwise laudable notion that matters should be decided by the lowest or least central authority competent to do so. But the key word here is “competent.” Bishops’ conferences, which have never had real authority, have demonstrated anything but competence over the past half century. Of course, this isn’t the sense of the word used when examining subsidiarity – it instead refers to the question of whether the body making the decisions has the legal qualifications and authority to do so. When it comes to the liturgy of the Universal Church, episcopal conferences are quite simpy out of their depth.

It should be noted that this false subsidiarity has been a feature of the present pontificate from its earliest stages. Bishops’ conferences were identified by Francis almost immediately as a means of decentralizing the power rightly concentrated in the Apostolic See.  See, for example, Evangelii Gaudium 32:

The papacy and the central structures of the universal Church also need to hear the call to pastoral conversion. The Second Vatican Council stated that, like the ancient patriarchal Churches, episcopal conferences are in a position “to contribute in many and fruitful ways to the concrete realization of the collegial spirit”.[36] Yet this desire has not been fully realized, since a juridical status of episcopal conferences which would see them as subjects of specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority, has not yet been sufficiently elaborated.[37] Excessive centralization, rather than proving helpful, complicates the Church’s life and her missionary outreach.

We saw this again, in a more concrete and damaging way, in Amoris Laetitia 3:

Since “time is greater than space”, I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium. Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it. This will always be the case as the Spirit guides us towards the entire truth (cf. Jn 16:13), until he leads us fully into the mystery of Christ and enables us to see all things as he does. Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs. For “cultures are in fact quite diverse and every general principle… needs to be inculturated, if it is to be respected and applied”.3

This is moral relativism, plain and simple.

And we have seen how well it has worked out for the faithful, haven’t we? With the decision on whether it is permissible to offer the sacraments to the divorced and remarried becoming the purview of individual bishops’ conferences, local ordinaries, and even parish priests, chaos has ensued. What is permitted in Poland is forbidden in Germany. And so on. The fundamental moral teachings of the Church were never intended to be relativized and parceled out through delegation. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, and this perversion of subsidiarity dangerously erodes in an obvious way both her unity and Catholicity, while at the same time undermining her holiness and her apostolic charge.

And now we are witnessing the delegation of authority over liturgical texts to groups of bishops that are all too often morally compromised or otherwise unwilling to prioritize the Divine Will, and thus, the good of the Church and the souls entrusted to her care. The accretions and substitutions and variations that Quo Primum sought to definitively end through the enforcement of a single liturgical missal for the Church’s primary and most ancient rite are now being willfully re-introduced. Only this time, they almost certainly won’t be well-meaning but misguided manifestations of regional piety, but rather a competitive race to the bottom to banalize and desacralize the Mass. What the Second Vatican Council did to the liturgy was bad enough, by giving license to the consilium to dissolve its structure and form and to replace its magnificent prayers with ersatz fabrications, ecumenical and interfaith gestures, and an overarching diminution in sacramental theology. But at the very least, one could say that the Novus Ordo had a singular missal, and a general instruction on how it should be followed. It was still possible for liturgical reformers to argue that what had been happening in so many parishes around the world were abuses, because they could point to texts from Rome indicating the way Mass should be offered if one wanted to incorporate reverence (which has always been, alas, only an option in the new rite, not a requirement).

Now, however, these abuses can become a true grassroots effort. Think globally, abuse locally — with ecclesiastical approval! Does anyone really believe that the completely gutted Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments won’t put its stamp of approval on any changes submitted? I don’t know if it’s standard practice for the secretary of the CDW to add the explanatory note on a papal motu proprio on liturgy, but the prefect of that congregation’s name — Cardinal Robert Sarah — was conspicuous by its absence. And it is hard not to wonder if it is because he wanted nothing to do with its contents.

Some are already speculating that the battle over “pro nobis” and “pro multis” in the words of the Consecration will come back with gusto, with individual conferences potentially allowing even more substantive changes to this most important prayer of the Mass — changes significant enough that the validity of the sacrament could be called into question. How naive must we be to hope that the damnable scourge of inclusive language won’t rear its ugly head after we thought it had breathed its last? It takes only a little imagination to envision just how unpleasant things might become.

Nevertheless, let it not be said that Catholics are not optimists. I have also already seen arguments that nothing of substance has really changed here. This delegation of the translation of texts is still supposed to be faithful to the originals, and still has to be approved by Rome, so why are people worried? This argument sounds strikingly similar to the one advanced by those who said that Amoris Laetitia didn’t change doctrine. The truth is, it didn’t. And that has done nothing to slow down the devastation to praxis that has followed in its wake.

And so it will be with the liturgy.

There is, however, a hopeful note in all this mess. The intentional balkanization of the Church’s “ordinary form” of the liturgy will undoubtedly only weaken it further. It will become harder and harder to sustain. It will create preferences and peculiarities, potentially pit diocese against diocese, and cost the Novus Ordo what little integrity it yet retains.

Perhaps this is the intention. Perhaps knowing that the vast majority of Catholics attend the so-called “ordinary form” of the Mass, the forces hell-bent on the deconstruction of the Catholic faith think this will “lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fires.” But as my friend Hilary White has so often said, “The Church couldn’t have survived another ‘conservative’ pope.” Francis has woken people up, and they will never be able to sleep again. And once they began to evaluate why what he was doing was wrong, many began examining with a more critical eye all that has happened since the council that made the present moment possible.

The same may be true of the liturgy: the Church could not survive this ongoing divide between two forms of the same rite, expressing two discordant visions of liturgical theology and anthropology. I’ll never forget speaking with someone who only attends the Novus Ordo, and he surprised me by saying, “The future of the Church is the old Mass.” He hadn’t made the change in his own life, but he saw the handwriting on the wall.

And so, as these changes begin rolling out, more people will be turn their eyes to the Traditional Latin Mass. And while the fear exists — and I see it growing — that Summorum Pontificum will be revoked, I do not believe this is truly possible. Because as Pope Benedict XVI said, “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.”

For those of us who have found the Mass of the Ages, there is no turning back. And if they try to take it from us, they will fail. If they remove us from the churches, we will have Masses in schools, in auditoriums, in fields, in people’s homes.  We will do so with the confidence that others have trod this via dolorosa before us:

Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer and assembled in the deserts, — a pitiable sight; women and children, old men, and men otherwise infirm, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid most profuse rains and snow-storms and winds and frosts of winter; and again in summer under a scorching sun. To this they submit because they will have no part of the wicked Arian leaven.

– St. Basil the Great; Epistulae 242, 376 AD.

I, for one, will not go back. The ancient liturgies of the Church nourish and sustain us. They are our armor and armament. And if they come for them…Molon Labe!

381 thoughts on “The New Motu Proprio: the Antithesis of Authentic Liturgical Development”

  1. “But the key word there is ‘competent.’ Bishops’ conferences, which have
    never had real authority, have demonstrated anything but competence over
    the past half century.”

    Little to argue with there to be sure. But a more serious problem that no one ever talks about is that there’s no competence in Rome either. For example, in terms of the problems of translation—which is only one aspect of liturgy, but an important one—it’s pretty clear that no one in Rome passed first semester Latin if they think “The Lord BE with you” is a strict English translation of Domimus vobiscum. And that’s a basic example. When it comes to much more complex translations–e.g. the Bible and ancient prayers, there’s no end to the problems that both Rome and the Bishops’ Conference have created and they will be difficult if not impossible to ever root out from the psyche and practice of the faithful.

    Someone need to pull the curtain back on this entire Wizard of Oz charade.

  2. Magnum Principium and all of this nonsense that sin in Poland is not a sin in Germany would not be possible without the time-bomb called Christus Dominus. And that was who (would have guessed!) given to us by rotten Vatican II and its roots in masonic French revolutionary principle- Egalite. along with Nostra Aetate -Fraternite and Dignitatis humanae -Liberte. And brave soul, archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did not sign them for a reason!

        • Good morning! “Self evident euphemism”? Please do us, dull traditionalists, a favor, and let your yeah be yeah, and your no be no!

          • Please. Full stop. Brian is for us not against us and he didn’t obfuscate. We don’t need to fight amongst ourselves, we need to unite in the Truth of Jesus Christ and support each other in that Truth.

          • Not fighting, Father, except for the Truth of Jesus Christ. Just trying to make sure we’re on the same page. God bless!

          • Ok. And thank you for the blessing, it is truly needed. May the Lord Bless You and may He lead us all into the Glory of His Holy Name. Amen, forever, Amen.

    • I’ve never posted on any website before. I don’t have a Facebook account. The only activities I use the internet (purposefully not capitalized) for are reading articles and checking email. However, the “left after the asteroid” comment struck me in a particular way, having always been one fascinated by the study of astronomy (in an admittedly mediocre capacity). Has anyone considered the potential meaning/impact of the rather large asteroid that will pass very close by our planet on Oct. 12th? Just wondering. Esp. regarding the importance of the 100th anniversary of Our Lady’s final appearance at Fatima on Oct. 13th. Perhaps this isn’t relevant. But, personally, I find the “coincidence” striking. I apologize if this is too off-topic.

        • I think it was GKC who said that coincidence is a situation where God prefers to remain anonymous. On retreat many years ago the priest told us: “Providence! Providence! Always and everywhere Providence!”

      • There is an asteroid passing by earth on October 12? In addition to the “signs in heaven,” solar eclipse, apocalyptic wildfires, earthquakes and hurricanes that we are already dealing with?


    • And what happens to an army (remember Screwtape? Saying the Church through time looked like an army with banners?) when it is scattered across the field, in small, disorganized groups? With a totally chaotic battle order?

      It’s ripe for conquest.


  3. The future is diversity. With this motu, Pope Francis recognizes diversity and that decentralization is the goal if the Church is to thrive.

    Centralization is bad unless it refers to government programs. Why? Government leaders are scientifically trained in producing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The same cannot be said for the private sector and the Catholic Church is in this camp. The private sector works only for its own interests and it ignores the needs of the immigrant. Christians are told by the Old Testament to welcome the newcomer and Jesus confirms this in his teachings. The modern state is best equipped to enact real charity in society.

    We must embrace the immigrant no matter their legal status and Christians are obliged to speak to the immigrant in whatever tongue he brings to enrich our bland, white, normal shores. We cannot fathom a world in which white people are allowed to use fancy language to alienate the stranger at worship. This is not the law, the prophets or the Gospel.

    Latin is, I would kindly suggest, a sign of white privilege, a way of putting barriers before our brown and black sisters and whites who have been exploited ad infinitum by white capitalism and patriarchy.

    I welcome Pope Francis’s initiative. It’s a long sought for balm to the endless National Socialism of the current American president. Every people should be able to speak to God in their own language. This is diversity and this, I personally believe, makes God very happy.

    • Send your résumé to the Vatican. If you can keep following the talking points like you have here, I’m sure you’d have a career as a papal speechwriter.

      • Seriously, I’m super worried about the fate of the TLM.

        Please say a decade for me and my family. The world has gone nuts and I am spiritually weak.

        • Have no fear about the Mass of the Ages. A diocesan priest desiring to be faithful to Tradition still needs to be prudent and cautious, but he’s not not without options. I’m very much in the minority, but I know I am far from alone.

  4. We will have the Mass of All Time, a gift from God to us.
    We’ll have the sacraments to save our souls.

    They will go insolvent.

      • Just a thought. “Oath Against Modernism” was taken until 1969. The Cardinals who were at the Second Vatican Council took the Oath. Who relieved them of their Oath? Dictionary synonym of ‘Modern’ is ‘New’. Today we have the Novus Ordo (NEW ORDER). Could it be a slap in the face of; “Think ye I’ll find Faith on earth when I come again”.????

  5. Yes, another axe laid to the root and with a smile and whispered words of for the good. An old and bitter boil thought to have been lanced is invigorated with fresh puss waiting to ooze forth from Conference Committees on the Liturgy upon the beleaguered remnant who remain pew bound in their parish where they are left to perish. Bring on the dancing girls, bring on the bongos, sing a neutered church and feminized goddess into eternal death.

    All faithful Catholics should be praying everyday for Cardinal Sarah to take up the Cross and sign the dubia and proclaim the Truth unto his last breath.

    The Novus Ordo Gospel for the 23rd Sunday in Ordinal Time is the very one the Cardinal Burke proclaimed when he announced the course of the formal correction, and I am certain that he is aware of that. May he be supported by every Cardinal and Bishop who has the Faith and may they act in unity for the sake of the salvation of souls and may they do so soon.

    The Congregation for Divine Worship was gutted for this Moto Proprio so that it could rubber stamp the Episcopal Conferences ‘translations’ with Archbishop Piero Marini rejoicing over the destruction of the Liturgy.
    Cardinal Sarah’s signature being absent says everything…

    • Pray for me, my Latin is not worthy.

      Father, as long as you are able to reasonably pronounce the words, that’s all that matters. Fluency isn’t necessary. I, for one, will take a priest who genuinely tries his best to say the classical rite with the occasional stumble over the type of “innovations” found in so many Novus Ordo parishes, and which are sure to increase in frequency after today’s disaster.

      • Still, pray for me and my brethren. Sincerely, I mean that with all of my heart and soul. It’s very hard out here in the fields. And thank you for your kindness, would that all of us would be so on a more regular basis.

        • Father please pray for the countries and the many souls that don’t have any access to the Traditional Latin Mass. It seems like further destruction and confusion is coming to the whole Church and valid Holy Masses will be rearer and rearer.

          Dear Lord, have mercy on us, sinners.

          • 10 new FSSP priests recently ordained and 82 in seminary
            now. Young men are pounding down the door at the
            Carmelite monastery (contemplative) in Wyoming (they make Mystic Monk coffee).
            Not sure what’s happening at the SSPX seminary, but while
            the Novus Ordo is dying in the “choke hold,” tradition is
            building. Each new traditional priest opens the
            spigot of grace wider for more holy priests. The race
            is definitely on, and we already know Who wins.
            I say, if we need the desolation in order to right this mess,
            then bring it on, please God soon, before any more souls are lost!

          • O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead ALL souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy!

      • Rorate published the Latin of the motu. I was able to read most of it because of muh ejucashun. I am not exactly the smartest thing on two legs, but I made choices while at uni.

        The motu reads like standard corporate emails, just in Latin. Which is fine because Latin should be juridical when it matters, but this was cold. Most of the readers without Latin could follow about 20-30% of it.

        This motu was juridical, but the Pope still gets to be his own special person. Benedict’s TLM motu is sticking in the current Pope’s brain and I have to believe he wants to undo it.

        I graduated from a Jesuit college with a theology degree. I sort of know them and this Pope is like every Jesuit save a couple I have ever known.

        The old Jesuit who brought me home was an awesome priest as was another chaplain I knew. I love St. Ignatius, but this Pope is personally very difficult to bear. He is everything that is modern about most Jesuits. The old ones have died out and, hopefully, found rest from their labors. They were awesome.

        • St. Ignatius helped me to commit to my Vocation as a Priest. I made the 30 day retreat under great direction and the Lord drew me unto Himself and called me to His service as a priest to bear His Standard on the battle field for souls. Those bastard sons who have forsaken their Father and yet still dare to call themselves his sons have brought destruction upon themselves and many souls, may the Good Lord rebuke them in this life so that they may repent and once again bear His Standard. Amen.

          • I got asked a lot of questions about what I thought about living with gay men when I applied to the Society. Every. Single. Interview. Having worked for years in a world where I had gay bosses, I didn’t think much of it because I got along with gay folks even if I did not support their way of living.

            When I was called by the vocations director about the Society’s decision after a long application/interview process, I was told to become Greek Orthodox.

            I had asked a Melkite priest to write a recommend because I had served at his parish for, uh, sometime. I probably shouldn’t have since I was Latin, but I found Arabs who made me feel welcomed. I asked Abouna about whether I was in error for serving at Divine Liturgy since I was Latin, etc.

            I think I was viewd as “infected” because I loved certain Jesuits who had served Eastern Catholics. I wrote about them in my biography when I applied.

            You cannot imagine the wreckage caused by this. The vocations director metioned on a drive that, “Hey, there are more ex-Jesuits than Jesuits…” The guy who did my psych profile was an ex-Jesuit. He was licensed, degreed, etc. in the area of psychology.

            I am glad I was declined, but I’ve never heard a Catholic priest tell someone to leave the Faith for Orthodoxy.

            There is no sarcasm here at all.

            I know of a couple of other men who were seriously messed up by novitiates in the Dominicans. So I probably escaped easily.

            As someone from a WASP background, I’ve never seen a religion work so hard to drive people out of it. Whether I had a vocation is doubtful, but my life has been super empty since then and now, I’m too old to do what I want to do and live monastically. Some men dream of riches, I have spent about eight years day dreaming about monasticism. Honestly, I am attached to two cats who mean a lot to me and giving them up would be hard.

            Instead, I work long hours voluntarily for my employer. I am grateful to have a good job, but life is lonely as a Catholic convert. After 20+ years.

          • May Our Blessed Lord Keep You in His Grace. Continue to serve Him in anyway that you can and pray for your former brethren that they may repent and follow Him Who Is lest they become they who are not for eternity. It is lonely here too for us Diocesan Priests who hold fast to the Faith, but loneliness is an avenue to God which promises eternal Joy if one seeks Him with their whole heart.

          • You diocesans are the work horses. I admire you and your brothers. You do so much and get so little credit, but Our Lord and Our Lady see you everyday.

            The Cure d’Ars was a diocesan if memory serves. What a great man and he wants you and all your brothers to labor with him.

          • Because your suffering is so hearfelt and free, your Offerendums will be all the all the more efficacious! “And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” 2 Corinthians 12:9 (And remember He said, ”
            Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” Matt 5:48)

            Prayers, always.


          • Father: I read the Baltimore Cathechism, pray the Rosary every day, attend Eucharistic Adoration for one hour per week. Saying all of that–and knowing that I cannot earn the Beatific Vision–your comment kind of scares me because my family and I attend NO as the nearest FSSP parish is five hours away in good weather. Are we going to be dragged to hell by the NO despite our efforts to uphold truth as passed down through the ages?

          • Of course not, Brian! As Cardinal Burke said re which type of Mass to attend, “Just go to Mass”. Daily prayer, confession, Mass, the Rosary.

          • We drive an hour and a half to our FSSP parish.

            I think continuously of all those who are in the weeds like you are.


            Just GO.

            And go to every single Holy Day of Obligation.

            Get a Latin Mass missal and read the Mass to your family.

            Do it!

            And the other stuff.

            I pray God’s special blessings on you and every other who is stuck in that situation.

            I’ll be happy to be gardener to your mansion when we get to heaven.

          • By the grace of God, I pray to meet you there, too. We are faitfhful–we do attend all the holy days, which is pretty weird as we’re always the youngest people in the chapel by thirty years. But then when the bulletin list holy days of obligation in a one inch by one inch square accouncement on page three and labels them “Holy Day” (no mention of “obligation”), it is no surprise!

          • Brian, no way! Stay faithful to the Lord and know well the structure of the NOM. If something goes wrong, don’t attend the Mass in that parish. But as long as you have a good and faithful priest, you are close to Our Lord even if you celebrate the NOM. God bless you!

    • Dear Father, although I don’t know you personally, I learn a lot from your wisdom posted here on this forum. You can be assured that during my morning prayers when I pray for our priests, you are always mentioned by your initials RP. You are a true blessing from above for those who are not fortunate to hear good sermons.

      I’d also would thank Steve for “finding” you for the benefit of all of us.

    • For me, this debate about Latin is quite bizarre. The best Missals before Vatican II were bilingual. Each page had two columns: the inside column, in Latin; the outside column, in vernacular. In Europe, the best of that kind was the one composed by the Benedictine monk Lefèbvre. I own a 1957 copy: the vernacular (i.e., Portuguese) translation was simply perfect. The argument that, nowadays, nobody knows Latin is false: using that kind of Missals, the faithful knows what is going on right on the spot!

      • Precisely. No matter what the vernacular- no matter where in the world you can assist in the Mass. Unfortunately the real debate is Pastoral v the full doctrine of the faith. If we keep it in context no room for error. This is for this exact intention – introducing error.

        • You just cannot look at this situation any other way Barbara!! You’re exactly right. They really are as surreal as it seems, out to destroy the Church of Christ.

          • Oh I know it – thankfully we know how it ends – it’s just getting through to the ending 🙂 Most Holy Mary pray for us.

      • As a fourth grader we used the St Joseph Missal in 1964. I knew exactly what was being said at Mass. The beauty of the Mass was astounding. Every day was High Latin Mass sung by the schools choir. Our organist was European and classically trained. This was all smashed a few years later after the asteroid hit.

        • I am late to this discussion, Pearl. We are about the same age. (I was in first grade when I made my First Holy Communion on May 22, 1960, at age 6-1/2.) What you say is absolutely true.

          We children received excellent catechesis. “Religion” was the first class of every day and was graded on our report cards. We knew what was happening at Mass, and that each Mass we attended was a solemn and holy moment in our lives. We attended Mass each school day at 8:00 a.m. and were expected at the 9:00 a.m. Mass on Sunday, where we sat with our class, monitored (and disciplined as necessary) by Franciscan sisters, our regular teachers.

          It was because of this fine preparation that I am a faithful Catholic today.

      • Certainly, modernists (et cetera) wanted to push the idea that “no one understands Latin”…so that (false) idea is a big part of it. But another big false, and perhaps related, idea is that one is obliged to follow minutely the texts of the Mass in the first place. I think that it’s possible, based on some pre-Vatican II documents, to make the claim that it would be ideal to know, understand, and pray in heart with the priest each part of the Latin Mass perfectly (though I know many “traddies” don’t like this idea), but I think it’s equally possible, while not rejecting this ideal, to legitimately discern for oneself that one cannot truly pray while attempting to do so and therefore don’t make any large effort to follow the missal minutely. While one is I think obliged to learn as much as he can about the Mass so as to interiorly be united to our Lord and His sacrifice during the Mass, I don’t think that the only way to do this is to have one’s eyes glued to the Missal at every moment.

        • Having one’s eyes glued to the Missal is not an argument against the use of Latin in Mass.
          At first, any faithful *must* have his/her eyes glued to the Missal, whether the Mass is in Latin or in vernacular. Why? Because, at first, nobody knows the whole Mass by heart.
          Only after some time, the faithful becomes able to follow most of the Mass without the help of a Missal.
          But there is more to it. Books like the one I showed above were more than Missals. They were also Breviaries, Hymnals… They contained the main devotions, such as the Rosary and the Via Crucis… and so on.
          I’m not against the use of vernacular in everyday’s Mass, provided the translation is absolutely acurate and the priest follows the Missal with the utmost scruple. Fidelity to Tradition is paramount here.
          And let us not forget that the official language of the Catholic Church is Latin; and that solemn Masses must be in Latin.
          Dismissing the Latin Mass just because many of the faithfuls of our days must have *at first* their eyes glued to the Missal is more or less like dismissing the common citizen to get his/her driver’s license just because he/she must learn how to drive with an instructor at his/her side…

          • I’m not trying to argue anything against the Latin Mass; I would never do that! I was merely expressing my opinion (though I think I did so rather poorly above) that with the Liturgy – if I am understanding things correctly, and I am ready to admit that I may not be understanding things correctly – the most important thing is to unite with the priest in offering oneself and our Lord to the Father, with the fourfold intention of Atonement, Adoration, Thanksgiving, and Supplication/Petition. And that our task is to do whatever is necessary to better do this. And so if one better does this with the use of a missal, then great – let him use a missal; but not all unite themselves to our Lord in the Sacrifice of the Mass by knowing exactly what is being said when it is being said; for those people (and I think there are many of these who attend the TLM!) it will be best to seldom or never use a missal during Mass. This is much more important than to know what (for example) the epistle is for the Mass of the day. To be frank (or very possibly, this is just my own flawed spirituality showing through), knowing the epistle of the day will do no good if one does not meditate upon it at some time beforehand; the same goes for the Gospel and the propers.

            I’m sure my understanding of some of these things is dubious and rather foggy, but maybe all I am trying to say is that I think it is generally safe to say there is a lot of leeway for different “ways” of “participating” in the Traditional Mass, both in the beginning of one’s spiritual journey and further on; both using the missal and not using the missal (and the latter, even at the beginning of the spiritual journey). Especially given the differences of participation required in the Low Mass compared to High Mass!

          • I see what you mean. Nevertheless, allow me one final remark. The meditation over the lectures in Mass is supposed to be done, first of all, by the priest in homily.
            All homilies should be a sort of short catechesis for the day. And even that is almost lost…
            Sad times these we are living in…

          • Can’t disagree with you there! I think that even a brief, to the point homily is wonderful for the weekdays (though I think others will disagree with good reasons), if the priest is able to do so effectively – whether it’s about one line (or more) of a proper text, something about the beauty and wonder of the Mass, or especially about the saint of the day. But for Sundays, it seems to be the ideal to build a homily on something from the readings from the day, and especially to expound on a concept or passage that people are more likely to have trouble understanding.

            *I say the latter, because I remember specifically on the 8th Sunday after Pentecost, the Gospel was a passage with which I was very unfamiliar (I haven’t consistently attended the TLM until recently) and didn’t know what to draw from it, and to me it seemed like an odd passage. And there wasn’t a word about it from the priest in the homily! Haha…then again, maybe it was just me that thought it was confusing; that is certainly very possible! All the “old-timers” probably knew perfectly well what it was about/what to draw from it.

      • That’s not it.

        It’s the MASS itself, and the culture of the Mass that is the big deal. Study the two and you’ll see the difference. Experience the two and it becomes plain as day.

        Yeah, this from a convert of 4 1/2 years.

        As my wife says when we go to a NO Mass for some reason….

        “Rod, it’s almost like a different religion”.

        The disgusting novelties from talking out loud in the nave before worship to the sacrilegious and Protestant long-haired, pot-smoking Mama Cass hippie music to the “Look at Me” positioning of the priest all might be said to be fleas on the hound, not essential to the dog, but man, every hound of that breed seems to be covered with fleas! When you think about it, you start wondering if it’s the dog….

        • Ok I hate to ask: please someone tell me how a priest who doesn’t have intention (doesn’t even believe in the True Presence) can confect the Eucharist?
          I apoligize, but I don’t understand.

        • Mind you, I fully agree with you here! My point was simply that not knowing Latin was no argument against the Latin Mass — the Traditional Latin Mass, that goes without saying!
          In passing, let me add that the problems around the Novus Ordo Mass have caused many fractures among its own defenders. Just check how many times it was already revised! For a Mass that was supposed to be closer to the people, that’s quite impressive…

          • That is a good point. But then we must give them some slack. Anything of that substantial size cooked up over just a couple years with the help of a bunch of theologically and doctrinally disparate Protestants is bound to have some kinks to work out…………………

    • Poor poor Cardinal Sarah. What he is experiencing interiorly is a grave form of suffering. He has become an object of his brothers derision within the CDW. He is in my prayers and Adoration hours each day because I know that the finger of God is upon him in a special way. Whether that amounts to something we can see or whether it is simply an interior scourging,in union with the Lamb that will bear fruit, only God knows.

      • I know….Pray for Cardinal Sarah. He has to be going through absolute hell!!! And not much he can do about it practically speaking. But you are so correct. The finger of God is absolutely upon him in a very special way!!

      • Yes, I have praying for Cardinal Burke but I realize now that I really should be praying for Cardinal Sarah as well!


    • Why do you think that it is necessary for Cardinal Sarah to sign the dubia and why do you think that this is the course of action to take.

      Cardinal Sarah is a holy man so your discernment of what action he should take is probably not the right course of action.

      Just because you thinks this and that is what you think some prelates should do does not necessarily that it is what they should do according to God.

    • “All faithful Catholics should be praying everyday for Cardinal Sarah to take up the Cross and sign the dubia and proclaim the Truth unto his last breath.”

      Let’s get him to ditch that hybridized three-legged mule of a sycnretistic no/TLM liturgy, first………


    • Fr. RP,

      on the 23rd Sunday in Ordinary time, my parish priest made an announcement at the end of mass about a prayer he published on the church bulletin, “Prayer to Mother Earth” (Oracion a la Madre Tierra). It is utterly pagan. I write to you because I know I must do something, but I have no idea what that is. What is my duty? The only thing I could think of was writing a letter to my priest explaining to him how horrible it is to have this prayer announced during mass and published in our Church bulletin. I’ve written that letter and I plan on delivering it today, but our priest has gone on a three week trip out of town. I’ve already spoken to my family and a good friend of mine about the pagan prayer and told them not to touch it with a ten foot pole. What do I do next? please help. You can email me at [email protected] or you could just respond here. All input from others is welcomed as well.

      • You need to tell him that this is pantheism and therefore not compatible with Christianity. We do not pray to the Earth. If he doesn’t listen you need to get some other parishioners to go with you to speak to him. If he doesn’t listen you need to make a formal complaint to the Diocesan Bishop.

        • I wrote him the letter and delivered it to the parochial office, but as our priest is out of town for three weeks, he wont get it until then. Until then I’ll keep praying. Should I talk to any other parishoners about this? what about the other parish priest?

  6. More filth from a reliable source.
    The gift that just keeps giving.
    Can you see what these morons will come up with? You can’t make it up. Roman Catholicism committing suicide before our very eyes at the hands of a pontificate gone berserk.

  7. “…to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.”

    Except for rites and uses more than two centuries old at that time – important to note that.

    Quo Primum was, in Pius’s view, a necessary (and unprecedented) measure of uniformity at a time when the Church was under siege from mass heresy. It did come at a price – quickly eradicating most legitimate organic development of the liturgy, which in the first fifteen centuries of Church history had produced so many remarkable fruits.

    Today, of course, legitimate organic development is an impossibility virtually everywhere, no matter what the law says, since the necessary orthodoxy and orthopraxy has been replaced by mass apostasy, even of bishops.

    • Yes, an important clarification. Many people are so upset by the synthetic development of the Liturgy that they forget that the TLM is a product of Organic Development and that it continued to develop, albeit in a minor way, after Quo Primum was issued. And, that the Eastern Rites of the Church have existed in Harmony with the Latin Rite for eons.

      • I don’t know if I could call the Ordinariate missal “organic” – it was put together by a committee in Rome – but it certainly *benefits* from centuries of past organic development, in terms of the sources it draws upon.

        On its most traditional options, it represents at least a glimpse of what a traditional vernacular liturgy could look like in the Western Church. It is not perfect, but it ended up being far better than any of us had a right to expect it to be.

        • So very true! Not perfect, but God’s hand was with those who worked on it, as we can see by its success.

          I remember reading that EVelyn Waugh was horrified that they, the English Catholics, were to have the same Mass as the Americans. That idiocy on the party of the Reformers – that one size fits all sort of thing – showed they weren’t really about beautiful, local-derived vernacular liturgies, but all about manipulation, shoe-horning us into clogs that didn’t fit our feet or our souls.


      • Yes, but the Anglican Use parishes are few and far in between. Would that there would be more of them for that liturgy, I believe, is what the Novus Ordo SHOULD have been. Already there are so many theme Masses and Eucharistic Prayer two is about 95%.

  8. I never made it past the first line. That did me in. Here it is:

    The great principle, established by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, according to which liturgical prayer be accommodated to the comprehension of the people so that it might be understood…….

    After that sweeping statement, I knew that the rest of the piece would send my blood pressure through the stratosphere so I carefully backed away and went out and mowed the grass. Some thoughts;

    1) How about a citation to back up that statement? Exactly which Vatican II document and where in that document is this claim substantiated? I’ve read the bit about “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” in Sacrosanctum concilium but I’ve not read anything which supports the claim that “liturgical prayer be accommodated to the comprehension of the people”.

    2) The phrase “… that it might be understood” is a solution without a problem. The old Missal had the Latin Mass prayers on one side of the page and the vernacular translation on the other side. “Understanding”, in the human sense, was never an issue and was not difficult.

    3) Implicit in this statement is the false idea that the Sacred Mysteries can be “comprehended” by the human intellect and therefore more fully entered into by ditching Latin, as if the Mass is simply a grammatical formulation. Only Divine grace can bring us more deeply into this mystery.

    4) The appeal to the “Second Vatican Council” as the ultimate historical authority which overrides whatever went before.

    5) Notice the use of the banal term “liturgical prayer” rather than “the Holy Sacrifice”, “the Sacred Mysteries”, or even just “the Mass”. The tendency to downplay the sacred and the mystical is ever present.

    Cupich, McElroy and their fellow travelers are going to go hog wild with this.

    • “So that it might be understood” is not only a solution w/o a problem, it was a tactic. A strategem. A Saul Alinksy-ish manipulation. It’s what I keep saying about the Modernist (or now Progressives, whatever they go by): that they’re a political faction using a “tried and true” War of Position for the last 100 years to bring the Church down. Now they’re out on the field, in an open War of Maneuver. Like sharks “smelling” blood, they smell victory. We, on the other hand, too often quote “Starfleet rules and Vulcan philosophy”; we’re not like the guy who brought a knife to a gun fight, we’ve brought a Breviary.

      God may well have us surrounded by legions of good angels, as Elisha showed his servant in 2 Kings 6:17 , but we have to “keep the Faith” in such until they manifest.

      in the meantime, no Trad Catholic or more Conservative Catholic should ever, ever, ever take these people at their word. Read Alinsky. He’s written their playbook.


    • Re: where in V2. This is from an 1p5 old article of mine. The condescenion toward the Old Mass in Sacrosanctum Concillium is just sickening.

      In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an
      abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires
      to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy
      itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely
      instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but
      ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from
      the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the
      liturgy or have become unsuited to it… The rites should be distinguished
      by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by
      useless repetitions… In this restoration, both texts and rites should
      be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they
      signify…The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way
      that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the
      connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout
      and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

      Sacrosanctum Concilium (21, 36, 50)

      While a measured degree of self-criticism can be a fruitful
      undertaking, in the passage quoted above, which comes to us from the
      Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, it is
      difficult to ignore the tacit indictment of the very Tradition the
      Council was presumably called to uphold. Whatever merits the Council
      Fathers were willing to concede in the liturgy of their forebears, their
      stated goals nevertheless betray a marked conviction that prevailing
      rite of Holy Mass had become somehow unfit to provide for the needs of
      the faithful. From even a cursory reading of the text, one can readily
      discern that what we now know as the Tridentine or Traditional Latin
      Mass was evidently thought to suffer from a number of rather
      considerable defects:

      Its facility for the transmission of graces was noted to be less certain than it might have been.

      Its so-called mutable elements were said to have suffered from intrusions – useless encumbering repetitions – unsuited and out of harmony with the interior nature of the Mass.

      Its expression of holy things, and the mysteries they signify, were found to be less clear than they might have been.

      Its manifestation of the intrinsic nature and purpose of the Mass was thought to be more obscure than it might have been.

      Its fostering of the devout and active participation of the faithful
      was considered to be less effective than it might have been.

      In other words, the Mass itself – in both its efficacy and
      expressions – was perceived to be somehow inhibiting the very ends it
      was meant to achieve. If such an appraisal of the Church’s supreme act
      of worship sounds a bit strange and self-loathing, what remains stranger
      still is the fact that the text provides us with little insight into
      the grounds for these condemnations. Instead, it simply asserts that the
      Mass needed to change in order to fulfill a threefold purpose; namely,
      “to adapt more suitably to the needs of our time…to foster whatever can
      promote union among all who believe in Christ…[and] to strengthen
      whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the

      • It is amazing, isn’t it.

        So if there was so much ignorance of “what was going on” in the Mass…why not just TEACH what WAS going on?

        Cases closed, problem solved.

        But no, the Lutherans and communists in the prelature couldn’t have THAT.

        • They attacked the liturgy because they understood its power. It had to be compromised for their plans to succeed. Many of these men were not misguided do-gooders; they were malicious revolutionaries.

        • Of course not. They weren’t out to ‘teach’ us anything. They were out to keep us dumbed down as much as possible. They were out to program Catholics into a peaceful abdication of the true faith. They didn’t want a bloody fight on their hands!! Just wanted to get us all to ‘walk away peacefully’, and accept their Pagan Satanic new religion.

  9. While I agree with most of this article, I do not agree with the last part. It sounds like a sense of false-entitlement and a propensity towards disobedience to say that “if they try to take it (the TLM) from us, they will fail.” Who is they? Pope Francis? Because like it or not that he is Pope (which I don’t like), we owe him obedience if he revokes Summorum Pontificum (which I also reap the benefits of every Sunday). If Pope Francis makes the Novus Ordo the only approved liturgy, then that is where we will fulfill our Sunday obligation. Period. Such insolence only leads to damnation. Our cross is in being obedient for the time being if that happens. Don’t have such tunnel vision to think we won’t be delivered from such a disaster if we humbly accept the Pope’s decision and let him bare the guilt of whatever damage it might cause in the meantime.

    • And if he is not validly the Pope? I’ll take my chances and follow the Latin Mass wherever it is being given. With the abuse this will bring to the NO Jesus won’t be there anyway. Oremus

      • Hahaha I’m sure you would’ve accepted Pope Francis as validly pope if he was orthodox. You’re probably in a state of denial to think he’s not actually the Pope, as scary as that reality actually is. But sedevacantism is a claim not to be made lightly as you just did.

        • I did not say the chair was vacant – you made that leap. I am merely inferring that he may have already excommunicated himself with his heresy (not answering the Dubia) or Pope Emeritus B16 may in fact still be the valid Pope. Let your ears hear.

          • Even if you think PBXVI might still be Pope, that is still a level of denial and potential scandal on par with sedevacantism. Unless there is considerable outward proof that Pope Francis is not in fact Pope, we should accept what has been presented to us as fact because we have no way to proove such an audacious claim ourselves and we have no way to fix it ourselves. It’s just an out-there claim and I think it stems from a state of denial. Just pray Pope Francis shapes up or ships out, not pretend that he isn’t Pope in the first place. Because he probably is, as scary as it is. Oremus about it.

          • Even if he is truly a valid Pope – I will take my chances and still follow the Latin Mass where it may be found – SSPX – Eastern Rite – any of those as opposed to the Liturgical abuses that are being blessed by Francis.

          • Yes, take your chances with your eternal life for not obeying the visible head of Christ’s Church because you are willing to put your discernment against his even though he has the authority to make prudential decisions on behalf of the Church (even though it seems imprudent to me also, but I am not pope).

            Haven’t you heard the news, that Pope Boniface VIII said the following in his document Unam Sanctam:

            “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”?

            So is it really being subject to Pope Francis if you pick and choose when you’re going to obey him? Groups like SSPX are only paying lip service when they say they are subject to the Pope. If this were the case, then they would be in full communion with the Church and thanking the Lord every day that Pope Francis allows them to exist, just like we should be thankful that Pope Francis’s demon of modernism has not yet prompted him to stamp out the TLM altogether. But if he does, you bet my eternal salvation I will stop attending for the time being! Because Pope Boniface VIII was pretty clear when he said,” it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” How’s that for tradition?

          • To be honest you sound very conflicted. Heresy is heresy whether he is the Pope or not. He is putting himself above Jesus Christ by picking and choosing what he finds worthy of the 10 commandments and what he does not. Do not worry about my eternal salvation- only God knows what’s in my heart. Stop getting your knickers in a twist. The lukewarm our Lord will spit out.

          • You really don’t want to bring up the SSPX, Dom’nic; whether or not they are in schism is far from settled, especially in the wake of Benedict’s lifting of the bishops’ excommunications. One isn’t automatically in schism just because they fail to obey the reigning pontiff; it is much more nuanced than that (cf. Heribert Jone, Moral Theology, no. 432.1: “A schismatic is someone who, as a matter of principle, does not want to be subject to the pope…, but someone who simply refuses to obey the pope is not schismatic, even if it is for a long time.”) [emphasis added]. And since the Holy See has acknowledged that Catholics may fulfill their Sunday obligation by assisting at the Society’s Masses, it’s awfully presumptuous of you to go ahead and declare they are in schism.

            You seem to have a strange view of obedience, frankly, in that you seem to honestly believe it can be sinful to do something (e.g., assist at the traditional Mass) on a Tuesday if the day before the pope says it’s forbidden. If that is the case, then we as Catholics would be forever stuck in a constant back-and-forth tennis match of what’s permissible with the most important element of a Catholic’s life, the public worship of the Church, depending entirely on what the current man in white happens to say. How does that serve the faithful in any way?

        • Father that was not very charitable – the Church is under attack by the evil one – surely by your previous posts you recognize this. You have asked for prayers. I am praying for you to be strong – learn the Mass of the ages and feed your sheep✝️

          • It was said with the utmost charity, for it is the Truth. Thank you for your prayers, I truly need them and I am learning the TLM and am striving with all my heart to feed His Sheep with His Word spoken and Transubstantiated on the Altar of Sacrifice.

          • I am praying and do pray daily for all Priests, Bishops and Cardinals as our Holy Mother asked us to do at Fatima. God Bless you and your brothers in Christ – you all are Satans target.

          • Fr. RP, as an old-time language teacher who was asked any number of times by students of Irish to help them pronounce old sayings, prayers, or bits of poetry, whatever, I’ll tell you there’s an old rule about helping one give a smooth rendition of a text. Read a line of it forward, Then carefully read it backward. “The cow eats fine green grass. Grass green fine eats cow the.” Then read it forward again. You’ll notice an immediate improvement in its flow and in how it sounds. It’s amazing how well it works. Also, it doesn’t take very much practice that way and wow, you’ll sound like a native!

            (Of course, reading sacred texts this way might give some pause, but you’re only practicing for a good cause. I shouldn’t think it would be a problem spiritually.)


          • Thanks!!!

            Oops, I’m not Fr RP but I’m stealing your teaching anyhow!!


            Also, there are I think, two primary, accepted forms of translation for Latin. Thankfully the language is, like German, pronounced as it is written. No nonsense like all the Norse and Old French leftovers in English that get ignored like the “GH” in night, etc, etc, etc.

            I have never studied Latin in school, but have come to enjoy reading it in my Missal and learning certain prayers,. i find the cognates and some of the learned words prompt added meditation I miss when praying structured prayers in English.

            All I remember from my childhood about Latin was a line from my Methodist minister father who had to learn it in seminary:

            “Latin is a language as dead as it can be. First it killed the Romans, now it’s killing ME!”


            Well, it only kills us if we let it!

            People all over the world live in multilingual regions where they must learn a second or third language to merely buy a loaf of bread.

            And WE cannot learn an additional language so we can partake in worldwide unity of the Bread of Life?

            God save the Catholic Church!

          • Fr., there’s a great t-shirt out there: “When I Speak Latin, Its Extraordinary”
            (Maybe we’ll get you a sweater…)

          • Fr if you are struggling with the Latin a good way to learn is to sing it. Learn the sung Mass first. God bless.

          • I have seen great love for our Lord in the Eucharist by priests who pray the Novus Ordo Mass. GREAT LOVE!
            And I have seen great love for our Lord by parishioners who attend the Novus Ordo Mass as well. Your priesthood will be strengthened as you pray the TLM, as you know.
            And that is a great thing for you and your sheep.

            Patience…………..God is with you.

          • Barbara, one of the problems with the leaders here in this wonderful site is that Bergoglio is pushing changes and chaos a LOT faster than anyone realized, or should I say, faster than even the the most depressing “Cassandra” could have foreseen (well, perhaps in prophecy this was foreseen). It takes time to digest, like the time it took at Pearl Harbor for everyone to finally “get it” that the attack was NOT a drill. See?

            After much more news like that of today, though…whew. Well, we’ll see.


        • Exactly, it doesn’t help anything since we can’t definitively proove it ourselves and we can’t fix it ourselves in our current state of life.

          • We can pray. Fast. “Vote with our feet.” And always and ever, we are free, in the original sense of freedom I detailed earlier above. “Abdul” or “Abdulla” are not Christian names. They mean “slave” (the 2nd means “slave of Allah”).

            In other words, “Just following orders!” isn’t going to work on God any more than the War Crmes Tribunals.


    • If Pope Francis makes the Novus Ordo the only approved liturgy, then that is where we will fulfill our Sunday obligation. Period.

      Well, that’s not going to happen. And it would not be a lawful measure.

      At any rate, there’s always the Eastern Rites.

      • Please see my replies to LB236. You both have the same objections based on the supposed illegality of such an action, though I would see it as an act of PF loosening the directives of Quo Primum (or whatever document or papal directive you think currently prevents PF from banning the TLM.)

        • Both St. Pius V and Benedict XVI appear to be saying that outright abrogation of the (traditional) Roman Rite is a legal impossibility. Were Francis or some other pope to attempt to do so expressly, it would place us in a very strange and ominous state of contradiction. The limits of the Pope’s authority in the liturgy, be it over the rite of Rome or any other Latin Rite, have never really been defined, but such an action *would* raise the question (as if 1969 did not) of just whether there *are* any limits – a concern expressed by Joseph Ratzinger himself some years ago.

          It is a hypothetical I would rather not dwell on. Obedience is an important virtue, and one I take seriously, but even a great virtue can be abused, or directed to an evil end. Let us pray it does not come to that.

          • “…but even a great virtue can be abused, or directed to an evil end…”. Precisely.

            Chesterton says somewhere that no vice is remotely as dangerous a virtue gone off the rails. That is so true, especially of “obedience” because unscrupulous types (Saul Alinsky disciples or whoever, someone operating from some defective idea or ideology) can use it to murderous effects, as with my example of German soldiers above.


          • Improperly defined, “Obedience” can mean making excuses to follow the worse sort of evil. And how can we expect the vast masses of Catholics today to properly define much as we know the catechesis has been so poor for decades and the formation of conscience weak as many have noted and is obvious in the pressure even by prelates to makes excuses for adultery, homosexuality, etc?

            From the Incensing of the Offerings at Solemn Mass: “Incline not my heart to evil words: to make excuses in sins.”

    • He can’t legally outlaw, suppress, whatever you want to call it the classical rite, because if he were to do so, he would directly contradict the received tradition of the Church. Which is beyond the scope of his authority as pontiff. There’s a reason Paul VI/Montini never formally suppressed the classical rite when the Novus Ordo was first instituted: he simply didn’t have the authority.

      • I think it is fallacious to think that is beyond his authority as Pope. He is *the* Supreme Pontiff, so at what specific point in time throughout the development of tradition is there someone of higher ecclesial authority that bound it so that in this day and age, Pope Francis has been pre-prevented from making the NO the only liturgy? But of course, that is an absurdity, because no one throughout tradition has ever had more authority than the Pope, not even past popes. What one Pope has bound, another can loosen, and this has happened before. He has the authority, let’s just pray he doesn’t exercise it or we will be bound to attend the NO as we await our deliverance.

        • The only way it could even be possible to argue that he could do so would be for him to formally invoke his supreme apostolic authority and place any dissenters under the wrath of Sts. Peter and Paul, as Pius V did in Quo primum; this is precisely why the Mass of Paul VI lacks any sort of real legal teeth, as Paul VI/Montini did neither when he promulgated it. And even then, one can make the legitimate argument that what was once lawful and beneficial for the faithful cannot be suddenly forbidden (as Benedict/Ratzinger did).

          And even if you’re right, Aquinas teaches that we are not obliged to obey unjust orders from superiors. So if Francis/Bergoglio was to demand that all Catholics smash every high altar and burn every copy of the 1962 missal, no pre-Conciliar theologian of repute would argue that Catholics were obliged to obey.

          • It seems to me that even if PF commanded us to exclusively attend the Novus Ordo in an informal matter, that is, without invoking Sts Peter and Paul, but clearly commanding us nonetheless, there is no “legal” ambiguity about it, we must comply. He would certainly be undoing the directives of Quo Primum in such an instance, but Peter can “loose” as well as “bind”. And in such an instance, Pope Francis would be loosing the directives of Quo Primum and binding us to his own. No fancy wording required, since his intent to bind us to obedience would be clear just the same.

          • I’m not a canon lawyer, but I do know that formal language matters, and I know of many sources I’ve read over the years, whether theologians or canon lawyers, who would agree with me. It does matter if a pope uses precise terminology in a pronouncement or not, as it dictates the level of assent to which the faithful are obligated to give a papal decree. A matter cannot become de fide (i.e., dogma), for example, unless formally defined as such; a pope cannot just declare a teaching a dogma in an informal statement at a press conference.

            Like I said earlier, the whole argument used by Benedict/Ratzinger with regard to the non-abrogation of the classical rite hinges precisely on the fact that in Missale Romanum, Paul VI/Montini never, ever formally suppressed the classical rite, nor legally and in binding fashion declared his new missal to supplant the norms in effect under Quo primum. All he did was present a new missal which, legally, was nothing more than an option; granted, it became the de facto form of the Roman rite, but from a legal standpoint, it never formally replaced the rite of Pius V.

          • Given that on current trends we’re less than two decades away from the majority of Masses celebrated in France being TLM’s, I’m left to ponder the strangeness of a situation where a Pope would willingly eliminate lawful access (by the few faithful who remain) to the Mass across entire regions of….well, a country as important as France.

          • I did not know that the TLM is gaining so in France. How awesome if France would truly return to her Catholic roots. Makes perfect sense.

          • You can see the projection here:


            Let us be clear: This is mostly a function of the utter and complete collapse of the diocesan priesthood and “modernized” religious orders in France. Yes, the traditional orders and societies are growing impressively, but not THAT much.

            What this means is that by the 2030’s, the Catholic Church in France will be quite traditionalist – and *quite* small.

          • B16 made that prophetic statement- the true church would in fact be small. But at least the wheat will have been sifted.

          • You are whirling about in a tight little vicious circle of positivism.

            No one would be bound to obey by any papal pretense of suppressing the Old Mass, because such a command would be intrinsically vicious and unjust.

          • Oh it’s good to see we have Pope Arthur McGowan here to define for us that it
            is intrinsically vicious and unjust to suppress the old Mass. I guess I wasn’t aware that lay people could come to their own conclusion as to what is a sin to such an extent that they disobey an order of the Pope.

            Now if a pope ordered us to all to go jump off a bridge, we could not obey that because suicide is a clearly defined sin. But the suppression of the Latin Mass is a sin? How do you know that? I think I’ll stick to what has been defined, that Peter is in charge that “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Unam Sanctam).

            Would you believe that there are so many secretive Cafeteria Catholics out there, not the Novus Ordo contracepting ones, but the ones, who in an attempt to be Catholic, go to the other end of the devil’s disobedience spectrum and start picking and choosing the papal directives they will follow based on their own personal determination of its Catholicity? I wouldn’t have forseen such a crafty snare of Satan at first, but it makes sense. The SSPX schismatics are on par with Cafeteria Catholics and the Protestant schismatics as far as their unwillingness to submit to Church authority.

            As orthodox as SSPX and the traditional-minded personal-popes are in all other matters, Satan only needs one mortal sin to sink a soul, and they’ve found theirs in not following what has been defined as necessary for salvation- subjection to the Pope.

          • Yes, suppressing the “Latin” Mass would be a sin that would put him in the lowest depths of Hell, if only for this, – the great distress and suffering which would needlessly be caused to the simple faithful trying to work out their salvation in fear and trembling with the Holy Sacrifice. That alone would send him to Hell. Wake up, papolater.

          • Again, you have no authority to say that it is a sin to suppress the Latin Mass. You don’t know that his intentions are evil, as anti-Catholic he appears to be. To judge his motives is judging in the truest sense of what God himself warns us not to do. We can judge objectively his actions, but don’t pretend you know his heart via “common sense”.

            But to otherwise say that suppressing the Latin Mass, regardless of intention, is in itself a sin, is not something that has been dogmatically defined by the Catholic Church. You apparently have the basic theological understanding of a Cafeteria Catholic, thinking you can just pick and choose what you consider a sin and pick and choose to disobey the Pope if he violates your self-determined definition of a sin.

            SSPX and people who would defend them clearly have an authority issue even though they think they are doing what is Catholic in disobeying. It’s ironic how quasi-Catholic SSPX has already fragmented into many other branches just like the Protestant schismatics that they would certainly find fault with. So which flavor of rebellious “Catholic” are you? Do some of your comrads not go far enough in their rejection of Pope Francis? Has his hostility to tradition already excommunicated him? Or what is your understanding of tradition so that we might know when Pope Francis transgresses it?

          • SCRIPTURE ITSELF COMMANDS us to flee from those peddling innovations and any new teachings.

            We all know well the dichotomy of a Nu-Church which tells us we now have so much more Scripture than before – yet Nu-Church and its followers seem not to care a fig for it.

          • This Pope has ALREADY commanded acts that are intrinsically vicious–giving Communion to manifest grave sinners.

            There is a body–a whole world–of theological work that supports the assertion that it is impossible for a Pope to suppress an ancient rite. It has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion.

            You are indeed a disciple of papal positivism, a monstrously deformed version of the proper relationship of a Catholic to the Pope.

          • Hahaha. You think I’m a papal positivist? I know he can’t change truth. But changing liturgy isn’t changing truth. If various traditional sources “supports the assertion that it is impossible for a Pope to suppress an ancient rite”, then they are likely wrong. Therefore Pope Francis would not be changing truth if he suppressed the TLM. He would be proving those traditional sources wrong.

            So let’s take a step back, since the many people, believably and rightly so, are emotionally tied to the TLM. What if the Pope, for the sake of unity, made the TLM the exclusive Mass of the Catholic Church and got rid of the Eastern Catholic rites?

            But wait, the Maronite liturgy (Eastern Catholic) is one of the most ancient rites of the Catholic Church, so by your alleged sources, such a unifying move would be impossible! But then what is so intrinsic to the Maronite liturgy that it cannot be suppressed? Did it descend from the heavens never to be touched? No, it was made by holy men but yet can still be abolished. And the same goes for the TLM!

            When the Pope during the Council of Trent abolished rites younger than 200 years old, 200 years was an arbitrary cutoff point. Could he not abolish rites 500 years or younger? What about 1000 years or younger? 1400 years? At what point did a rite become “ancient” like the Latin Mass, at which point in time your traditional sources believe it is
            “impossible for a Pope to suppress an ancient rite”? It’s clearly an absurd argument to say that the Pope cannot choose which rites to suppress based on the sources from tradition that you have given me. Get more specific please. “Ancient” is a vague, nebulous term, and it befits many people’s vague understanding of tradition that apparently gives them the right to disobey the Pope when he violates their so-called ‘tradition’.

          • Karl Rahner, no traditionalist, argued in his 1965 book Studies in Moral Theology that while a pope, theoretically, could legally suppress the Eastern rites, morally, he would be committing mortal sin.

            The following is Rahner’s summation, applicable to your argument:

            1. The exercise of papal jurisdictional primacy remains even when it is legal, subject to moral norms, which are not necessarily satisfied merely because a given act of jurisdiction is legal. Even an act of jurisdiction which legally binds its subjects can offend against moral principles.

            2. To point out and protest against the possible infringement against moral norms of an act which must respect these norms is not to deny or question the legal competence of the man possessing the jurisdiction. (emphasis added)

          • So then according to where he says, “Even an act of jurisdiction which legally binds its subjects can offend against moral principles”, then that would affirm our need to obey PF in the event that he suppressed the TLM, would it not? Because it would be sinful for him to command, but not for us to obey. It’s like if someone robs you. It’s sinful for the robber to rob, of course, but it is not a sin to listen to the robber and give him your money. And so if PF demands the TLM from us, it might be a sin to him, but it is not a sin for us to give it to him. In fact, it is sinful for us *not* to comply with his demand, because he is Pope and we owe him obedience even if he is a liturgical thug.

            Also, if it was sinful for PF to bind, I would think that it would be sinful because it is imprudent or because it would be done so maliciously, not because suppressing the TLM is evil within itself. I just don’t buy that argument because I fully believe that Christ gave Peter that authority, an authority that is not to be underestimated. The Latin Mass is not as exaulted as the uncanny amount of power that has been given to the Pope by God himself. What part of “what is bound on Earth will be bound in Heaven” don’t people understand? Has the TLM been bound in Heaven so as to be unchangeable and insuppressible? Not that I know of, and if it has, the Pope can loosen our obligation to use the TLM.

          • The root of the problem is that this specific issue—whether or not a pope can wholesale suppress a lawful and received rite and (here’s the key) replace it with an entirely new rite (bear in mind that Pius V’s actions are not similar, as he did not create a new missal from scratch) that has not arisen organically from within the Church—has never been addressed by the standard theological references (e.g., Aquinas, Liguouri, Jone) as far as I can tell. Indeed, if one was to travel in a time machine to 1940 or so and ask the question of any orthodox seminary professor, they would most certainly answer either a) that such a thing is impossible or b) that no pope would ever consider doing something so harmful to the Church. So I think we need to step outside the standard notion of obedience to papal directives and the standard theological and moral arguments in its favor.

          • “And even if you’re right, Aquinas teaches that we are not obliged to obey unjust orders from superiors.”

            GO RAIBH MÍLE MÍLE MAITH AGATSA! (That’s “Thanks thounds and thousands of times’)


          • Ultramontanism. That’s what it is, for some. “Oh, whatever X says is true, regardless what it is.” And what happens when X says, “Jump off a cliff!”

            I can remember my mother, when her city-living sisters would visit and tell her about he latest outrage in Vat2 land, and my mother would say, “Why do you put up with that?” And they would shrug and say, “Father says its ok.” My mother’s look was preiceless. Very Irish. “And if he told ye ta jump in a lake, would ya do it now?”

            Some things never change.


        • Oh, c’mon. Church Sacred Tradition is in the style of English Common Law, in which judges were bound by precedent. In fact, English Common Law probably got this idea from the Church’s Sacred Tradition! When the 1787 U.S. Constitution was established, however, the Supreme Court decided it would NOT be bound by precedent, which has of course given us the legal chaos we face in the U.S. today.

    • Papal positivism.

      Paul VI had no authority to have the Novus Ordo fabricated or imposed on the Church. He knew he had no authority to abrogate the Old Mass, and so only pretended to have done so.

      If Bergoglio does not have even that shred of humility, and attempts to suppress the Old Mass, he must be ignored.

      Summorum does not “permit” or “allow” the Old Mass. It ANNOUNCED. What it announced was that no Pope has the authority to suppress the Old Mass.

      Because Summorum was an announcement, no one can ever “rescind” or “revoke” it.

    • Sorry, that sort of “false legalism” won’t work. We’re like soldiers in the Wehrmacht, the German Heer, and it is the late 1930s. We’re being given orders ever more egregious morally. So, what to do? They were in a chain of command; they “had” to follow orders, orders from a government legally elected (initially, at least). But when the war began and they were required to murder Jews (and others), then what? Few of them knew it at the time, but in a four or five years many of them (who weren’t slaughtered fighting for evil in the war) were put in the dock and their “We were just following orders” excuse was ruled out as a defence.

      God made us like the Angels in the sense of giving us FREEDOM. That doesn’t mean the modern idea or “free to choose 100 different types of canned peas or morality” but “free to say Yes to God.” For in saying yes, we are “free” in the sense we are then as GOD INTENDED US TO BE, and so made us to be, i.e., fully conforming to His will. If our immediate superiors in the Heer, or even generals or field marshals give us very questionable, doubtful morally orders, we MUST be “FREE” to chose God over them, and break the chain of command.

      Little-known fact: when the commander of the sub that sank the Lusitania gave the order, one crewman refused. I forget his position, his task, even his name – I’m sorry to say, for he is worthy to be remembered – and the commander had him arrested then and there and had others do the deed that murdered all those people. When they got back Germany, the seaman was sentenced to prison and stayed there till the war was over. I think they let him out when the Kaiser’s regime fell.

      But that ONE sailor MUST be an example to us all.


    • And while you continue to hold to this papal positivism and papolatry, the wolf devours the sheep. But that’s okay Dom, you sit by and watch it happen in some kind of false obedience to a false truth.

    • The Pope’s decision is not based upon the teachings of the faith. He knows better than that.
      He knows that Vatican ll was NEVER intended to be filled with such calamities in the Mass as we see now in the NO ( most).

      I do not owe Francis obedience when it jeopardizes my faith and the faith of others.
      And the Novus Ordo in all its antics does just that.
      You are confusing who is insolent? It is Pope Francis who is insolent and he will held accountable.

      As far as tunnel vision; my eyes are WIDE OPEN! No more of this papal idolatry.
      The pope cannot take away the TLM………it is NOT of his authority to do so.
      The pope has not sense of guilt, my friend. He is on a rather deliberate course with great arrogance.

      • Entitled, entitled, entitled. You are really *owed* the Latin Mass? What an immature and ultimately unappreciative attitude. Are the people who live in the jungle far away from a Catholic church entitled to the Latin Mass, or is it clear enough that the Mass (especially the Latin Mass) is a gift from God that is a priveledge, not a right. Of course, we always have the Sunday obligation to attend Mass if it is possible, but that doesn’t mean Mass is a right. I don’t think you appreciate how good it is to have the Latin Mass accessible at all. There was a time when the Latin Mass *was not*.

        And yet people, especially those from SSPX, are So. Darn. Entitled. To the Latin Mass.

        And I’m really sick of the malarkey that “the Pope doesn’t have the authority to suppress the Latin Mass”. You wish he didn’t! Show me where it says that the Latin Mass, as superior to the NO Mass as it is, decended from the heavens as an irrevocable, untouchable liturgy. But no, you will just live in a state of denial regarding your illicit Latin Masses if they happened to be outlawed (or if you already go to SSPX), just like the whole rest of the world lives in denial of their sin when they fornicate, blaspheme, and other works of the flesh.

        It’s just so absurd that people think they can hide behind a NEBULOUS understanding of tradition and defy the CONCRETE, straightforward commands of our current Pontiff only because you think he somehow violates your personal understanding of tradition. The pope can bind and he can loose! If he wants to loose previous papal statements saying that the TLM is to be celebrated exclusively, he can! And many people will be condemned on the last day for abandoning their loyalty to Christ’s representative on Earth only because they think they know with utmost certainty what ought to be done or not done in regards to liturgy.

        • Now you’re just being stubborn, Dom. Literally NO theologian of repute would agree with your position. Multiple posters on this thread and others have pointed out how yours is a shallow and un-Catholic position, but you instead double down and accuse the rest of us of being wrong.

          How far do you want to take blind obedience, Dom? If the Pope ordered you to murder a fellow Catholic (say, an FSSP priest) because he was supposedly an enemy of the Faith, yet absolutely no evidence existed to support that assertion, would you kill him anyway because “the Pope commanded me to”?

        • The fact that you equate supposedly illicit celebrations of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with fornication and blasphemy boggles my mind.

        • Yes the Mass is a gift and shame on you for projecting selfis and immature attitudes on my part. I never said I felt entitled. Who feels entitled to attempt to cause such angst in those who just want the chance to pray the MASS where there is no sense of entitlement. Please cool it with you personal digs. You sound like someone else know who happens to be our pope.

  10. This latest action by his holiness only proves that now, more than ever, we must return to the Latin Mass. It is our lifeline! It is the rope that will keep us connected to the Church Triumphant, without it we are lost. I am so convinced of this that I am telling any one I meet about the greatness of the Latin Mass and the many protections it offers us in this time of confusion and apostasy. It cannot be manipulated or changed.

  11. Bergoglio is simply faithfully enacting the promise of Bugnini made in about 1970 that now would follow the adaptation of the new rite to the cultural nuances of each country.

    Catholicity, one of the marks of the Catholic Church, has finally succumbed to the Jesuit ideology of inculturation initiated by Ricci some centuries ago.

    I note that in this motu proprio Bergoglio makes reference to “the authority vested in me”.

    By whom?

  12. When I first saw this, I thought about a certain definition of insanity – thinking that the way to produce results is to keep doing the same thing until it works a different way. Liturgical anarchy is one of the main reasons we got into our current mess in the first place, and they think more of the same is going to fix it? Or is ‘fixing it’ not their intent, but in fact just the opposite.

    • “Liturgical anarchy is one of the main reasons we got into our current mess in the first place…”. Exactly.
      “…and they think more of the same is going to fix it?” Oh no, they know exactly what they’re about. They WANT to bring it all down, and they will. Whatever the original goals by young idealists like the young Ratzinger and Wojtyla, etc., this is the “end game” – to wreck the Church beyond repair.

      Of course, as its Soul is the Holy Spirit Himself, that won’t happen. But still, we “live in interesting times”.

      • One time Cardinal Arinze laught out this attitude that TLM keeps us protected from the liturgical anarchy for it existed even in traditional rite but the faithful were not knoweledgable of what the priest was doing, given that the whole Mass was in Latin and most faithful didn’t know its structure nor could they hear every word the priest say to know it was according to the rubrics. Briefly, some priests are creative, some are lazy, some don’t care… and it all leads into anarchy no matter of the (valid) rite, and we have them more than one in the Catholic Church.

  13. I do not envy faithful priests or religious at the moment. I can very easily say I’m done with the Novus Ordo, and simply refuse to go to anything but the Traditional Latin Mass. With priests and religious, however, it is not that easy. Perseverance, however, really does pay off. Sometimes, it only pays off in the next life, but very often consolations come in this life as well.

    I am reminded of Sr. Wilhelmina Lancaster, the foundress of the Benedictines of Mary Queen of Apostles. She’s 93 years old, and is such a beautiful example of perseverance and of how it really does pay off. The changes in the 60’s and 70’s were very difficult for her, but she kept her faith and her vocation. Eventually, she was called to found the traditional community of Benedictine sisters, where she has the life of prayer she came to know and love as a young woman.

    • If Our Lord Jesus Christ comes to meet the faithful during the Novus Ordo Mass, how can you say that you are “done with it”? It is acceptable to the Son of God, but not to you? You know better or you are more worthy or what?

      • Kora how do you know this Liturgy is acceptable to God? Bishop Sheen foresaw the church being aped. Many church recognized mystics prophesied these abuses. As our Lord said “read the signs of the times”. I for one feel safer in the TLM because of it being the recognized Mass before 1960. The 3rd secret of Fatima is being played out before our very eyes. I am not suggesting where you attend is not valid but please don’t chastise us who prefer the old rite.

        • I am not trying to “chastise you”, but to make things clear for not only the TLM goers come on the 1P5 but also faithful who attend other rites that should be respected because they are vaild if celebrated in right manner. There is no invalidity in rite itself and there are also wonderful, faithful and humble priests, who celebrate the NOM in a inspiring way. Please, show respect towards them as well.

          When it comes to what the Bishop Sheen foresaw, there is no doubt that we meet liturgical abuses in many parishes and on divers levels, from the priests to the faithful. Since I have witenessed by chance the celebration of the Mass by the Neocathechumenal priest, who openly spoke against Our Lord Jesus Christ – by saying that Jesus has done nothing for us, that people are equaly sick as before Him, that we are equaly sinful and miserable, that we equaly need the hospitals and prisons, and that our journey of salvation starts with the Neocathechumenal Way), the Bishop Sheen really knew what will come in our time. Moreover, the Catholic Church has been constantly correcting the Neocathechumenal Way but they refused to accept the Catholicism fully and betrayed the trust of the Popes. What they believe and teach has nothing to do with us, the same as how they behave towards people or how they celebrate their “liturgy”. I have no doubt that the “Neocathechumenal Mass” is completely corrupted, meaning it is not the Holy Mass at all but perfect examole of the so-called “invented (religious) tradition” by the Zionist guru Kiko Arguello and the Marxists who support him. Unfortunately, many Bishops are involved into this sect and cause grave problemes for the Universal Church.

      • I did not say that I personally am done with the Novus Ordo and that I refuse to go to it. I just said that I COULD choose to do that more easily than a priest would be able to, who has responsibilities that involve offering it.

        I prefer the Traditional Latin Mass. I would attend it exclusively if I could, but I do attend the Novus Ordo when I go to a weekday Mass or when the timing doesn’t work out for me to go to the Traditional Latin Mass. I love that liturgy. If others do too and want to attend it, great. If they don’t, that’s fine too. Most of my family isn’t Catholic, so I’m used to people not being on the same page as me on religion. I’m not a nosy person and I don’t really care what others do. I just want what aides and inspires me to be left alone.

        • My dear brother moved away just so he could live near an FSSP parish. He is thrilled to be there. I miss his company but understand and I am not in a place to make that sort of move but the Lord has provided an opportunity for a Sunday TLM which I can get to at least once or twice a month. Deo Gratias! And there is no irreverence, no immodesty, no joking around by the priest, no liturgical abuse, etc.

        • Thank you. This is much more clear. It stands in line with what Cardinal Arinze has said: one can prefere (be more spiritualy attached or “inspired”) to the NOM or to the TLM, but we need to have respect for both liturgical forms as long as they are validly celebrated by priests and faithful. I appreciate Catholics who maintain tradition of the TLM, though I personaly attend the NOM. However, some proclaim that the NOM is invalid (even if celebrated according to the Missal and with deep respect towards Our Lord), and here is where I raise my voice for such general statements (by lay people) can mislead the others. There are abuses by some modernist priests, but the NOM is a valid rite and we shouldn’t spread further confusions.

      • God has always demanded Sacrifice. The first murder was committed over Sacrifice, ‘Cain slew Abel’. They both offered Sacrifice but one was slightly deficient in it’s Sacrificial nature.

    • Don’t we all know of faithful priests who have found their way to the TLM and are now cut loose? I know of several. And was told that at least 4 holy priests from our diocese who have found that path are no longer in the diocese.

  14. Pray for the Traditional Church. (1) “In the name of Our Lady, God Jesus Christ, and the holy Ghost who
    was, is and ever shall be.” (3) “Oh my Jesus Christ, please pardon my
    sins and save me from the fires of hell. Please deliver all souls from
    purgatory, especially those in most need.” (150) “Hail, full of grace,
    God is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the
    fruit of they womb. Our Lady, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and
    at the hour of our death.” (3) “Glory be to our Lady, God Jesus Christ,
    and the Holy Ghost who was, is and ever shall be.” (1) “Hail Holy Queen
    of Heaven, our sweetness, our life, our hope. To you do we cry, poor
    banished children of Eve, to you do we send up our sighs, mourning and
    weeping in this valley of tears. Please turn your eyes towards us, and
    after this, our exile, please show us unto the blessed fruit of your
    womb, God Jesus Christ. Oh clement, loving, sweet mother of God, pray
    for us that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.” – The 150
    count Rosary

  15. Steve writes, “And now we are witnessing the delegation of authority over liturgical texts to groups of bishops that are all too often morally compromised or otherwise unwilling to prioritize the Divine Will, and thus, the good of the Church and the souls entrusted to her care.”


    Also: “I, for one, will not go back. The ancient liturgies of the Church nourish and sustain us. They are our armor and armament. And if they come for them…Molon Labe!”

    I’m with you on that one, whatever it takes.

    At least now we know what El Bergo was talking about a few weeks ago with his comments about using his Magisterium authority to make the Vat2 “changes” permanent.


    • PS If they just leave the TLM alone, give us “benign neglect”, in 100 years, maybe even 50, we’ll be the only “Catholics” left – the others will have vanished, or transformed into grunge rock bands.


      • I think you are right.

        And one good, Catholic Pope will sift the wheat from the chaff quicker than that, and THEN we can get back to the work of evangelizing the nations, work that is being hamstrung by this civil war that rages inside the Body of Christ.

        • Thanks, RodH. I hope one good CATHOLIC pope will “do the job” but if nothing else, this fiasco with the Modernists, both in whole Vat2 shebang (the run-up, the opening, when they seized power from John23’s appointees, and on thereafter, pure “open-field running” with the fumbled ball they picked up, and then whole putrid thing with B16 being forced out – I mean, one looks at all that and one has to realize they’ve been planning for this for 100 years (over 100) and they’re “playing for keeps”, and “armed to the teeth, Bukaroo!” (great movie, that :). As I keep saying, their long “war of place”, their “long march through the Church’s institutions”, has put them in an extraordinary powerful position.

          So I don’t know how we’d get one good pope, and if we did, what he could do. You know, I know, everyone here knows, if a Trad pope appeared on the scene, huge chunks of the Church would go into open Schism; the Germans would, they almost did under B16, the Latin American Church, big bits and pieces around the world, more than half of the American Church, etc.

          On the other hand, at the next conclave, most of the cardinals will be Ar-Pharazôn’s men, of course. We’d be lucky in Cardinal Tagle got elected, no one worse!

          Of course, a few cardinals COULD provide a “minority report”, and walk out, then elect one of their number pope. Then we’d have a true, official, medieval-style Schism.

          But I really don’t look for that to happen.


          • “Creepy” is a good word for it, c2.

            But what I wonder: this is so obviously going to rip the guts out of the Vat2 Church, as powerful sub-groups, like the Germans, who “go their own way” and in a “group-decision process” based on obtuse bishops’ conferences, they’ll be no place where the “buck stops here”. It will mirror what the American Episcopals did to the world-wide Anglican Communion a few years ago.

            Ok, so they want to wreck the Vat2 Church. “More of the same” times infinity, trying something that didn’t work before and make it many magnitudes worse than ever.

            But if they do all that yet ignore the Trads, we’ll completely replace ’em in half a century or a bit more. So therefore I’d expect some attempt to cripple the TLM movement in the near future.

            I mean, why oh why would they be so nice as to shoot themselves in a circular firing squad and leave us out of it, so we can thrive by “picking up the pieces”?

            We’ll see.


        • No, RC is not right. Those of us who worship according to the Byzantine Rite, along with those in other rites (that’s millions of people throughout the world) are not going anywhere, so it is not a correct statement to say that “we’ll be the only ‘Catholics’ left” when referring to those who worship exclusively at the old Latin Mass.

      • This is a complete nonsense. The Universal Church is not made up of the TLM Catholics. It has other faithful who are able to keep the Catholic faith though they express it in a different ways and have different rites. I really can’t understand why are you so focused on yourself. How can you be so sure that you and only you are the “true Catholic Church”?

          • Sorry, but at this moment I am not angry at all and such argument won’t go. Besides, according to all what I have heard from the TLM goers, such assertation (at least for some of them) would be very true.

          • I do and I seek for it constantly. Only I don’t consider everything that the TLM goers clame on 1P5 to be truthful. Inspite to that, with most of their observation I do agree.

          • Why like this? Kora did not say something wrong. I know more rites – also the beautiful byzantine rite, the Armenian rite celebrated by Catholics. They both have a big worth! The problem we have to fear that the new rite in the Catholic Church will be even more banalized.
            I participate in both rites, if the ordinary one is cebrated in a very solemn way. So I can live with this rite. But I p r fe r e the Latin rite – the new one is in camparison too much “head” and less transcendent than the other one – but guilty.
            We should not quarrel about this. The danger is not the rite but the misuse which is widespread. And I fear this will grow with the new concept of Pope Francis. May be the Latin rite (Tridentina) will be like a refuge for us when things are turned to more oekumenical-rites threatening the faith!

          • As you pray, so you believe. The TLM is vertical, the Novus Ordo is horizontal. The Novus Ordo is like the Burger King meal, “Have it your way”. It deserves to fade away, the sooner, the better.

            That many do not get that is unfortunate but it needs to die and this Tower of Babel that Pope Francis is building will be one of the nails in its coffin.

          • Wow! Are you sure about this wish regarding the NOM? I can’t say with certanity, but I believe that majority of Catholics in China dipend on the NOM. What will they got if you take this (valid) Mass away from them?

          • Do you mean the government-established Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA)? The Novus Ordo won’t disappear overnight but given that it waters down the faith of the people going to it, remember, horizontal not vertical, the sooner the better. The Church went underground in China in the 1950s while the TLM was still the main Latin Rite Mass. I know that the SSPX goes there to say Masses.

          • If they have enough priests to have the TLM, that is great.

            However, there is one more concern I have about this statement: “The Novus Ordo is like the Burger King meal, ‘Have it your way’. It deserves to fade away, the sooner, the better.”

            Maybe the NOM has simplified form of celebration and much higher potential to be abused by priests or faithful than the TLM, but it is a valid Holy Mass – meaning the true unbloody Sacrifice of Our Lord. How can you compare ot to the “Burger King meal”? Can we look at this way the liturgical rites at all? Can we say that the Sacrifice of Our Lord in the TLM is bigger and more important than the Sacrifice in the NOM? Is it where the “primacy” of the TLM comes out? If it is, I dare to say that the TLM goers are not only wring but quite desorientated.

          • “The danger is not the rite but the misuse which is widespread. ”


            The new rite is inherently Protestant. It was after all designed by six Protestants and a probable Mason. The Catholic parts were ripped out. This was deliberate and has been admitted to.

          • Yes, and seminary formation, rites of ordination, sacramemts (baptism: what happened to the exorcism parts?) catechism, prayers, devotions, burial rites, feast days, fast days…were all demolished by changing a few words hear & there, or ignored so that they might slowly disappear…this is not a matter of ‘style’ or ‘precerence.’ The attempted demolition of the church is all I can see anymore when I even drive past a Novus Ordo building. Really, would it be better to remain ignorant?

          • Yes. The destruction of tradition, both big and small ‘t’, has gone on so long and so swimmingly that humanly, it looks as if the Enemy has won. While everyone was busy drawing yet another line in the sand, Satan has used his time and tools to great effect. I greatly regret the loss of all you mentioned.

          • Exactly. And I’m a convert so I know that the NOM is pretty much a Protestant service with the trappings of Catholicism, the church building, the crucifix, etc. And I have attended the NOM from California to New York and in between. I would say that people may prefer it to the TLM because so little is required of the pewsitter. One is spoonfed banalities from start to finish. I have known two priests especially, who said the NOM reverently, and neither was a parish priest. One was a missionary and the other a monk. The NOM is killing the NO Church. Francis knows it, hence his bid to begin the destruction of the TLM. He will lose the race. BXVI and Bishop Lefebvre have won. The Church will become the Mustard Seed Church for a time, but She will become mighty again in time.

          • Or maybe I am just more inspired by the greatness of the very old Catholic rite celebrated in Aramaic there where Our Lord and Our Lady have walked.

          • I agree with your posts. Its not the rites, its the people, especially bishops and priests that care nothing for the salvation of people.

        • What’s your point? That there are 24 rites in the Catholic faith?

          That’s great. But are you denying that within the universal Church there has been a collapse of moral, doctrinal and liturgical teaching and a corresponding collapse of belief and practice?

          Would this opening of the primary rite of the Church to whatever local novelty a bishop allows have any connection to the history and tradition in the Church? Is it not obvious that within such a “teaching” there is inherent chaos?

          I don’t think anyone denies that. Not even the Modernists who want that chaos so desperately!

          • Why are you putting in my mouth the words I didn’t say? I am not denying the crises in the Church and responsibility of high ranked prelats. I am only claiming that it is the unfaithful people who caused it, and not the rite itself. There are rites who are different from the TLM yet persist abuse as much as the TLM does, and as much as the NOM can as well. It is the question of who and how one celebrates the Holy Mass within the Catholic Church.

          • How is asking questions putting words in your mouth?

            I am asking because I think the questions are valid and I don’t understand your position. It is not clear.

        • And you, how can you be sure that your approach is right, that you yourself are not in fact confused? That what you say is not “complete nonsense”? Consider, for example, that previous to the 2nd Vat council no one challenged the status of primus inter pares assigned to the Mass of Pius V, that it enjoyed that role in the Church for four centuries. Do you really think yourself worthy to challenge the thinking of men like Pascal, Belloc, Dawson, Knox, Garrigou-Lagrange, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Sheen, and a host of others who, to my knowledge, never challenged the primacy of the Tridentine Mass? Our times are plagued by perhaps the worst educated men and women in human history, and the current pope and most of his cohort are stunning examples of the genre. For that reason alone we should be leery of any and all changes they propose.

          • “Primacy” is not the term I would bet on if we speak in the context of the Universal Church. For me, it is one of the valid rites according to which the Catholics celebrate the Holy Mass today. It is old, it is beautiful, it is traditional, it is precious… but not the only one that is valid.

          • Where I use the word “primacy,” it is clear I am referencing the 4 centuries between Pius V and that vessel of studied ambiguity we call Vatican II. Even a source as pedestrian as Wikipedia knows what you seem to be ignorant of:

            “Pope St. Pius V accordingly imposed uniformity by law in 1570 with the papal bull “Quo primum”, ordering use of the Roman Missal as revised by him. He allowed only those rites that were at least 200 years old to survive the promulgation of his 1570 Missal.”

          • I saw the word here: “Do you really think yourself worthy to challenge the thinking of men like Pascal, Belloc, Dawson, Knox, Garrigou-Lagrange, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Sheen, and a host of others who, to my knowledge, never challenged the primacy of the Tridentine Mass?”

            Anyway, I am not challenging the “doctors of the Church” nor traditional values and religious heritage of the Catholic Church, only certain attitudes of the TLM goers that seem to me too much exclusive. That’s all.

          • Fair enough. Examine the list. You’ll soon note all of those I listed lived, spoke, and wrote during the time of ….the primacy of the Tridentine Mass.

          • I still stick to the attitude that “primacy” is not good term for what you (and I guess all those gentlemen you have mentioned) are trying to say in connection to the Traditional Latin Mass.

      • I agree, tho I’d add that there are other rites that will remain.

        The problem with the novus ordo is that from its inception it has been a dumping ground for chaos, heresy and modernism. Indeed, the “father” of the Mass, Pope Paul VI noted the mess very soon after it was created!

        That alone makes it seem quite reasonable for people to ask if there is something inherently skewed or problematic in the Mass itself or at least the people who support it.

  16. ALL of this is setting the stage for ONE GOOD, CATHOLIC POPE who when elected {by a miracle, I suppose} can in about two seconds separate the sheep from the goats.

    Notice how CLEAR the lines are being drawn in the now totally-fractured Church?

    Jesus said a house divided cannot stand.

    Neither can a Barque divided float.

    Our house, our Barque IS DIVIDED.

    One good Pope can make the decisions that will drive out the heretics and the Lutherans who just might make up a majority of “Catholics” today.

    So what.

    “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” Luke 14:26

    We converts know that verse well. Most all of us have paid a price for converting.

    It’s worth it, folks.

    If the future Pope is reading this, he needs to know that we must stand for Christ and let the heretics go wherever and do whatever they want.

    But we must cease this culture of compromise with the Devil and we must stand for Christ.

    • It is worth it, RodH.

      And I think for my kids, 50 years from now, when they’re retiring and all that – provided we haven’t blown up the world or killed us all off in a White Plague, or just surrendered to Islam, etc., etc., etc., – when my adult kids look back on this mess, they’ll just shake their heads and quote the old Irish adage that everything outlives a human being, i.e., that time goes on and leaves so much of the current day’s nonsense behind, forgotten and good riddance to it.

    • Yes – & we can’t be afraid of being at odds with our own beloved family members, friends, though it brings pain. Pray hard for them. Trust God, who loves them more than we do.

    • We faithful, priests included, must take refuge in the SSPX. That is the logical solution. The asteroid council is the root cause of the destruction around us.

    • I have heard some people complaining of an alleged plan to ghettoise the TLM in a fully regularised SSPX. I am not sure this would be a problem. As long as it’s all legal people could vote with their feet….and let the cookie crumble as it may. I think it highly likely that the newer improveder NO will become pretty much extinct with time and the TLM will thrive & grow and retake it’s rightful place as the ordinary form.

      • I don’t think the SSPX will be tempted to regularize. They recognize the evil of Vatican II. I predict Bergoglio will “outlaw” the TLM. The FSSP will have to disband or return to the SSPX. So be it. More and more people will recognize the state of emergency and follow the Latin Mass. Thus will civilization be saved via th SSPX.

          • Why? Because if it still exists, the Old Church, the Church faithful to Jesus Christ, still exists. The Catholic Church is to be wiped off the map – that is the aim.

            Read the prophecy of Daniel about the Sacrifice being stopped.

          • My opinions mind only here: to further minimize, if not destroy the Sacrifice of the Mass, so as to denigrate the holy priesthood; to further destroy the belief of the ” Real Presence” and to further destroy objective Truth found in God’s Laws.

            It should be alarming to all Catholics who practice their faith, regardless of attending the TLM, or the Novus Ordo. And yet, it will only cause further division that is very ugly.

        • Absolutely!! This is EXACTLY what’s coming, make no mistake about it!! We will literally in a short time, be in the catacombs. Pray that the SSPX will NOT regularize!! This latest ‘move’ by Bergoglio isn’t even literally part of Vatican ll, but the ‘spirit’ of Vatican ll. And it seems that nobody can or at least WILL stop him. Vatican ll did NOT call for dissolving the Latin Mass, quite the opposite, but with this bomb that he has ignited, it will be at the very least severely limited. In my neighboring Diocese where the Latin Mass was thriving, but their new Bishop (a Francis Bishop) has already taken his hammer to it. No one in the entire Diocese is allowed to say the TLM unless they get special permission from HIM.

    • When I was in my senior year in college, I met a non-Catholic girl. She and I became friends. We’d go to the Catholic Community center off campus and she met some of my other Catholic friends.

      One day, the two of us were comparing Bible translations – the New American, New Jerusalem and Douay-Rheims Bibles, in particular the Our Father in St. Matthew, chapter 6. This shocked us:

      [9] Thus therefore shall you pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. [10] Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

      [11] Give us this day our supersubstantial bread. [12] And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors. [13] And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen. [14] For if you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences. [15] But if you will not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you your offences.

      [11] “Supersubstantial bread”: In St. Luke the same word is rendered daily bread. It is understood of the bread of life, which we receive in the Blessed Sacrament.

      [13] “Lead us not into temptation”: That is, suffer us not to be overcome by temptation.

      “Supersubstantial bread”? We never heard that before! Then we read the footnote cited above. WOW!

      She started taking RCIA classes. At the end of the year, she and another girl both made their Profession of Faith, were confirmed by the bishop (he was there that day), and received their First Holy Communion. One Asian girl received Baptism, Confirmation and First Holy Communion. One Catholic girl received Confirmation.

      My friend’s family was against her conversion to the Faith. She suffered a lot but was still joyful.

  17. As a layperson, We need to support our Priests that refuse to surrender to this nonsense. Mass, Confession, Prayer, Adoration, we also need to let our voices be heard when things are not correct. we should also pray for the Catholics that know the truth to have the courage to stand up to errors that are being spread!

    It was Arch Bishop Fulton Sheen that said that the revolution would happen from the pews! If anyone needs prayers, please post it on here!

    In Christ.


      • Dear Veritase, It’s the down to up as I see it because of where we are today. If we rewind back to being familiar with the Priest………….. it failed! We need to go back to our roots.

  18. Only Our Lady, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, can save us. This is what Our Lady said in Fátima in 1917. We are there, folks. We are witnessing the complete de-construction of the Roman Catholic Church. Obedience to Our Lady’s twin requests at Fatima must happen for the Grace of recovery to occur. First: the contents of the Full 3rd Secret of Fatima must be released by someone in authority in the Church. Pray for Pope Benedict XVI to do this. He knows the content of the Secret and he has admitted to close friends that this needs to be done, regardless of what has been said in the media. Second: the Holy Father, in union with the bishops of the universal Church, must publicly consecrate Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. Nothing short of complete compliance with Our Lady’s commands will work. We will continue to see more death/spiritual death and destruction until Our Lady is obeyed – in the Church and consequently in the world also. The Lord Himself told this to Sr. Lucia. Nothing else will suffice. He wants Our Lady’s Heart acknowledged and honored alongside His Sacred Heart because this is the way Reality exists. And the time has come for this truth of Divine Revelation to be known and honored by all. So, pray, pray and fast for Pope Benedict XVI to do his papal task of releasing the 3rd Secret while he is still alive.

  19. Let our hearts not be too troubled by this matter.

    I doubt if any of us are so surprised by this declaration of Pope Francis.
    He will do, what he will do and has great support now, in the doing.
    Sometimes I ask myself, ” is this a blessing or a curse to KNOW the Mass, to unite with the Sacrifice of our Lord,
    to Pray the Mass?” Of course it is a great, great grace………but it comes with a price, ( any grace from Christ comes with a price to paid).

    The priest will pay the highest price, I am afraid. I am so very sorry, so very sorry for this.
    I pray they have close earthly support…….IMPORTANT……and that means “us” laity!
    Pray the Rosary for your priest and the many who have given so much.
    And “buck up” and stay strong in the faith…..

  20. The German bishops who never complied with “pro multis” (for the many), will now try to bless homosexual civil unions. It’s guaranteed to be on the agenda down the road. Sister Lucia (Fatima visionary) was told by Our Lady that “the final battle between the Lord and the kingdom of Satan” will be over “marriage and the family”.

  21. Evelyn Waugh, who died in 1963 while the Council was underway wrote in a letter that Pope John and his Council had knocked the stuffing of him. I feel the same about this Pope and anger with his predecessor for fleeing from the wolves.

  22. I just found out this morning that we will be getting the Traditional Mass in my diocese starting on the First Sunday in Advent. Right now it is a 6 hour minimum one-way trip to the nearest one. I have been praying for this for years. Deo Gratias.

  23. Does anyone really believe that the completely gutted Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments won’t put its stamp of approval on any changes submitted?
    Yes, all changes that are in traditional direction will be denied immediately.

  24. Am I wrong for seeing Bergoglio as not dissuading the wicked…… Who am I to judge indeed.

    Ez 33:7-9
    Thus says the LORD:
    You, son of man, I have appointed watchman for the house of Israel;
    when you hear me say anything, you shall warn them for me.
    If I tell the wicked, “O wicked one, you shall surely die, ”
    and you do not speak out to dissuade the wicked from his way,
    the wicked shall die for his guilt,
    but I will hold you responsible for his death.
    But if you warn the wicked,
    trying to turn him from his way,
    and he refuses to turn from his way,
    he shall die for his guilt,
    but you shall save yourself.

  25. from “Catholic in the Ozarks” facebook page
    I found this to probably be true.
    “The effect of Pope Francis’ liturgical decentralisation will likely be as follows…
    1.) traditional/conservative bishop will be outvoted and forced to use newer (possibly defective) translations of the Novus Ordo (vernacular) mass.
    2.) traditional/conservative bishops will only have the Vetus Ordo (Traditional Latin Mass) as a their recourse. Expect more of that in conservative/traditional dioceses.
    3.) Divine Worship, used in Ordinariate parishes, will continue to flourish in the English-speaking world.”

    any revolution, including the revolutionary seeds contained in Vatican II, undoes itself.
    It’s like the episcopalian having “good ideas” to renew their denomination: they always come up with actually the worst possible ideas (being “inclusive”, accepting contraception, etc….) and just “shoot themselves in the foot”, as we say in French.

  26. I do hereby reject and denounce any acknowledgement of Bergoglio as pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and any utterance he may babble. I see Bergoglio as the very “gates of hell” attacking the very foundation of the Church our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ warned us of in Matt 16:18 “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”

  27. Because the “current pontiff” is an enemy of the good of the Church, I obey Jesus and pray for him. Otherwise, since there is nothing wholesome about the pontiff, his name is never spoken in my house, except for prayer for him.

  28. These are days of true existential emergency. Could faithful priests not seek refuge with the SSPX? The sheep would follow. It seems even the FFSP are at risk for being smashed. The SSPX rejects the asteroid council which seemingly is the font of all the destruction. It is there, in the SSPX, that the Faith lives and thrives. It would entail great upheaval and re-organizing that’s for sure. But a decade hence it would be recognized as the only One, Catholic, Holy and Apostolic Church. Nuchurch would be off holding yoga classes and Transgender Meet and Greet after NuMass, eliminating the words of consecration, so repellent to the Lutherans,

    • You very well may be right that the “FSSP are at risk for being smashed”…but I hope you’re not trying to give the impression that the SSPX is currently the only place in the Church where “the Faith lives and thrives” – There are a number of FSSP parishes, first and foremost the one with which I am familiar, in which “the Faith lives and thrives.” And I know that there are even some diocesan churches (granted, fairly small in number) in which there is at least a movement in the direction towards a living and thriving faith, if not already so.

      • I love the FSSP. I support them with money though they don’t have a presence in my “dead” diocese. But Rome will soon eat them alive as long as they are aligned with those who have lost the faith.

  29. Keep the faith. It is Dubia time again! Someone needs to ask Bergoglio what happened to Quo Primium (1570) and the Ottaviani intervention (1969).

  30. Instead of the pope shepherding his flock through stormy weather, this pope has seen fit to scatter the flock in a panic while adding to the weather (as if the proverbial storm is not bad enough without the pope deciding he needs to create chaos).

    At this point I cannot figure out if he is a heretic, senile, sincerely wrong or simply unintelligent. He is one or some combination of the four–there is no other explanation.

    • There is a very good possibility that he is the False Prophet of Scripture.

      Brian, you’re an intelligent man – what do you mean you can’t decide if he’s a heretic? He is self-evidently a heretic. Do you mean “only a heretic, or also mentally ill”? A combination is possible, I grant.

      • I suppose I hesitate to pronounce him a heretic primarily due to concern for my own soul but also because ostensibly faithful and intelligent theologians defend him on some points. Those theologians defenses are often tortured and can be seen as stretching (as in tearing every ligament and dislocating every joint stretching) the bounds of reason but nonetheless they try and while arguments continue between theologians, it’s not for me to make a pronouncement.

        Now, I grant you, the theologians are not going to come together with a unified statement or stance but at least we might get a large group willing to come out and label him heretical, which has yet to happen as far as I am aware.

        • The man said early on in his pontificate (I can’t bring myself to give it a capital “P” in his case) that you don’t even need to believe in God to be saved; and that natural good works justify.

          Nothing more was needed that that. But there has been a non-stop stream ever since.

          The arrogance of the man and of his cohorts is astonishing: they appear to truly believe that they are the first to understand what Christianity is. Maybe they would give Luther that honour – which is why they esteem other heretics like themselves so much.

          • I have been sickened about what has happened over the past four years during which I’ve followed the event closely and will continue to do so. However, I’m focused on the souls I’m charged with helping to obtain eternal life in Heaven (my wife and our children). Call me a coward (and I wouldn’t be offended or disagree) but I believe Francis is pope by the power of the Holy Spirit and I am TERRIFIED to insult or question the man to such an extent that I may be in danger of blaspheming the Holy Spirit–terrified.

            So I cling to my Baltimore Catechism, Rosary and daily prayers and pray that I won’t be judged not to have done enough but, truly, I’m confused.

          • Brian, you have shown – forgive me – your total confusion on this question a number of times here.

            Allow me to summarise it for you here.

            1. Bergoglio is indeed the Pope.
            2. He may or may not be already outside the Church (as far as God is concerned) – that’s subjective and not for us to know or judge.
            3. We may, however (and MUST) judge objective fact. The man is a heretic. If he is not, the word has lost all meaning whatsoever.
            4. Scripture tells us in diverse places that we must have nothing whatever to do with heretics or schismatics. The Fathers taught this, the Councils uttered anathemas for this.
            5. Fleeing Nu-Church for the SSPX (the only clear choice) is not to reject the Papacy but to reject a heretic Pope. Such an act is the act of a Catholic, not that of a schismatic.

          • In charity, I disagree with a few points:
            First, I’m not generally confused by most teachings of the faith. The situation of declaring a pope a heretic, however, has not fallen to me. I feel strongly that it’s up to his brother bishops (even just a few of them) and/or to theologians to formally declare the pope a heretic.

            Second, never have I seen it declared authoritatively anywhere that individual laity or clerics have the authority to leave communion with the one holy, catholic and apostolic church due to their own judgement. Somebody from SSPX will have to explain to me what exactly separates them from Luther or Calvin, both of whom also claimed that they were the keepers of the true words, the true intentions of Christ.

            Finally, I have an understanding–albeit a dim understanding–of the idea that we have free will and that, yes, the pope is elected by men acting under their collective free will. However, it’s all part of God’s unfolding plan.

            As I explain God’s unalterable plan and free will to my own kids: Our lawn to be mowed every Saturday. I have instructed them on how to mow the lawn and told them it’s their responsibility to do it. Come Saturday, if none of them have mowed the lawn, it will nonetheless be mowed because I will do it, or hire somebody else to do it. But it will happen whether they do it or not. But if they do not, their lives will be considerably less pleasant than they otherwise would be. So I’m not dependent on them to mow it….I just expect them to. Such is the gift of free will: God will make happen what He will no matter what but our eternal lives are on the line if we choose not to do what God wills in accordance with our gifts.

            So….no, I don’t contend that the Holy Spirit made Francis pope. But it’s all part of God’s plan so whether he was the choice God would have willed the cardinals to make does nothing to interfere with His Plan. In other words, I think he is exactly the pope we deserve and it’s for us to suffer and beg forgiveness while remaining in the Church.

          • When most of the Bishops are themselves guilty of the same crime Brian, don’t look to them for judgement of Bergoglio. Look to your own heart in prayer. The answer will be given to you there and then to your intellect.

            As for myself, I will have nothing to do with Bergoglio or with the Anti-Church. Does God have anything in common with Belial?

          • What did Saint Athanasius say? And do?

            Denying the full divinity of Christ is very much the equal {or exceeds!!} the heresies being touted today.

            And he stayed in.

            You know, when he was allowed to!!!


          • “Denying the full divinity of Christ is very much the equal {or exceeds!!} the heresies being touted today.”

            Modernism – the synthesis of ALL HERESIES.

            Modernism contains the lot, including the denial of the Divinity of Christ. It is infinitely worse than Arianism and would have shocked the Arians to their boots.

          • We’ll see how it plays out, won’t we?

            A question for you in return: what will you do if your American Bishops’ Conference bans the Old Mass from the country? A mere majority would suffice, according to Bergoglio’s MP.

            Like Professor Seifert, I look to logic. Summorum Pontificum is now effectively dead.

          • Legally, I don’t believe they can. Again, Benedict said it succinctly: “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.”

            The operative word there is “cannot”.

            To be honest, I don’t think allowing ourselves to be driven out of the parishes and religious orders set up to preserve the TLM is going to make anything better. It will only make it easier for us to be marginalized and dismissed. The TLM is, in its essence, the Church’s most ancient liturgy. On what grounds can it be forbidden? Even Quo Primum made provisions for “immemorial custom”.

            When they implemented the New Mass in the 1970s, people either accepted it or left.

            This time, I think we should stand and fight. I already know priests who say they won’t stop offering it. And if it comes to that, they can offer it in my home and anyone who wants to come can come.

            I’m not willing to concede any more ground to those who want to destroy our faith.

          • I am with you on the general defiance Steve. But then again I am not if one’s choice of ground is *within* the visible Novus Ordo Church. I am more or less at the point where I think the whole game is over and all that remains is the Great Chastisement which I think is imminent.

            Perhaps I am succumbing to a temptation and making a mistake thinking this, I don’t know.

          • The Holy Spirit does not “choose the Pope.” The Catholic Church has never taught this superstitious idea.

            Criticism of a pope’s vicious actions or heretical statements is not blasphemous.

  31. I will admit to being rather skeptical of the merits of this one too. Vatican II aimed for the vernacular in Mass to better enable the faithful to understand the Word. It did not intend for language to be the divisive influence it has become. I can see how the various conferences would go their separate ways after a time. After all, no American would be eager to “take orders” from a Brit regarding how Mass might be offered, nor would I expect the British to eagerly embrace the American slant.
    Even now, depending on how disciplined a diocese might be, one may find two separate parishes in the same city offering Mass according to their own perceptions of “traditions” they have settled upon.

      • GBS died before the production of My Fair Lady.

        “Why Can’t the English?”

        An Englishman’s way of speaking absolutely classifies him,

        The moment he talks he makes some other

        Englishman despise him.

        One common language I’m afraid we’ll never get.

        Oh, why can’t the English learn to set

        A good example to people whose

        English is painful to your ears?

        The Scotch and the Irish leave you close to tears.

        There even are places where English completely


        In America, they haven’t used it for years!

    • Imagine every single country in Africa having its own Mass, with one tribe’s “culture” influencing this part and another’s that part. Same for all the Asian countries and Latin America too.

      The universality of the Church (it’s Catholicity) ripped apart.

      • Ouch! I hadn’t thought about Africa. I had thought of South America; we might ultimately wind up with some 21 or more different Spanish translations. Africa could well be worse.

      • It’s not that difficult to imagine. That’s exactly what the Church has experienced for at least half a century. Anyone who has traveled, starting in the 1970s, has seen that firsthand.

  32. I am sick and tired that the Vatican has published several versions of the Roman Missal since 1965 and still they are not satisfied. As it is now I am not sure to whether the Masses I celebrate are valid because of all these changes. And now they will DESACRALIZE the Holy Mass with this new Motu Propio. I am ready to jump out of the new world order church and join any traditional movement. I say adios to the Vatican cult….

  33. In short let’s break up the liturgy. Then we will succeed in breaking up the Church.

    The Holy Spirit unites. The devil divides.

    So we know what spirit is beihnd this.

  34. In Oz, there seems to be local “Covenants” which have quietly sprung up in various dioceses between denominations. That arrangement would exert enough of a reason to amend or “inculturate” the NO to be more ‘covenant friendly’. So that “Pan ecumenical umbrella church” idea much talked about in prophecies and recorded in the “future plans” of the unmentionable sect, does not seem that far away. We have been frogs slowly boiled in the tepid water of the 70’s but the water is hot enough now for some to realise they need to jump out of the way or get flayed. These covenants just clutch at straws.

    • The false spirit of the prince of this world has entered the Church a bit earlier before 70’s. At least by, through some prominent theologians and some other agents of their prince, the minions who were dressed in shepherd’s habits.

  35. What is it with Bergoglio? He seems to be totally focused on the deconstruction of the Catholic faith, and the erasure of anything that could rightly be called “Catholic identity”. He gives the distinct impression that he regards the very concept of a “Catholic identity” as a detestable thing. It cannot be merely a kind of ‘cultural cringe’ or neurosis because such a man would not attract men in positions of power in the Church who would go to extraordinary lengths to have him installed as the apparent Vicar of Christ. Is he possessed by that same foul spirit that governed Martin Luther? And is that what drives others to support him?

    • “Is he possessed by that same foul spirit that governed Martin Luther? And is that what drives others to support him?” – Of course it is. The same false spirit of the prince of this world, which btw. is overworking constantly, for very long time as we know. Especially working (with) on some persons, for a years already, preparing them to be the executors of his final plan of destroying as many human souls as possible before his final destruction finally come. Which is likely to happen soon.

      • The similarities of background might be worthy of more investigation. Bergoglio is obviously obsessed with what he feels was the excessive “rigidity” of the Church {his past experiences in the Church} of the ’50’s. Luther was psychologically effected by the rigidity of his specific branch of the Augustinian order.

        I think they both characterize the Catholic faith as nothing but a pile of oppressive rules that must be trashed. They both appear to me to HATE the Catholic faith, especially its moral teaching.

        So nothing is sacred.

  36. THEY

    They have no sons
    Of spirit or body
    Perhaps illegitimate
    For those proud and shoddy

    They have no sons
    Of spiritual repute
    And their Flesh-less words
    Dwell to dispute

    But we have sons
    Of souls and mortal
    Manning, guarding
    The Barque’s every portal

    While Son-less men
    Lie like whores
    Forever in fornication
    With the lion who roars!!

  37. Perhaps the “Prophecy of the Popes” is playing out in a way that few have ever guessed: Francis may be trying to abolish the papacy. Think about it: refuses the red shoes and cope; he is the head of an independent state but keeps a passport from his country of birth; takes step at every turn to make Rome illegitimate (undermining Cardinals heading up dicasteries…..

  38. If ecclesial authority can revoke the ex cathedra, magisterial and, therefore, infallible command of a pope (Pius V) with a lie (the Novus Ordo) then the only True Mass can be eliminated completely. This document advances the satanic deconstruction of the Church by authorizing even individual bishops to alter the Mass according the customs and “needs” of their dioceses. The result will be similar to what has occurred in protestantism — virtually every individual church has its own unique service or liturgy just as there is a broad range of dictrinal beliefs and moral standards. Jesus prated we be one and NOT in name only or the general concept of Christianity. The word unity has as its roots thr words unite and unit. The former is a cohesive body and the latter is the action to form such a body. A marching military UNIT is always in step and no one does their own thing according to their own inclinations, whims, desires or so called “needs”. The Holy Spirit does NOT say one thing to one person or group and something else to another person or group concerning an identical topic or issue. To do so would negate the concept of truth, especially divine Truth. This document is leading toward the destruction of the Mass by cutting the heart from it and making the consecration optional, thus rendering the Mass a non-Mass by its invalidity. At that point the Church will no longer be the Catholic Church.

    I wonder what part Cdl. Sarah played in this abd what his thoughts are.

  39. An obvious point suddenly occurs to me.

    The timing of this motu proprio: Bergoglio will have timed it deliberately. With him, all is planned well in advance. We should shortly expect some small local Church (Papua New Guinea? Cape Verde?) to apply for some awful “liturgical dancing” or similar sacrilege to be included in their version of the Nervous Ordeal.

    Make no mistake. Just as Protestantism allied itself with Masonry to produce the inhuman philosophies of the 17th – 19th centuries and inevitably ended in atheism, the fall of Nu-Church and its rituals will certainly end in bloody paganism.

    • Stuff like that has been going on for nearly half a century, with or without permission. It certainly wouldn’t be anything new. One can find “liturgical dancing” even in the U.S. A Roman Rite parish around the corner from where I lived many years ago had it regularly. That was in the 1980s.

      • Yes, of course, but you miss the point entirely.

        Until now, such things have been seen as an abuse (even if no-one has been disciplined for it). This MP now effectively means such abuses can (and at some point will) be made lawful at the whim of a majority of Bishops on a Bishops’ Conference – a body, note, which has no Canonical authority whatsoever.

        That will be one of Bergoglio’s next moves: to give Bishops’ Conferences a canonical authority which they currently lack.

        Doctrinal and liturgical “democracy” placed squarely within the constitution of the Catholic Church. The authority of Peter destroyed by Peter – the ultimate joke (and victory) of the Revolution.

        • But, but,…
          “I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen. But that the scripture may be fulfilled: He that eateth bread with me, shall lift up his heel against me.” (John 13,18)
          There is no difference between that one and this one. Both possessed by the legion, the legion which is controlled and moved by the same (evil) one.

        • “Until now, such things have been seen as an abuse…”

          That statement is not correct universally.

          I did not miss the point; it’s just that I’m aware, being older than most posters here, of what went on liturgically since Vatican II.

          “Liturgical dance” was not “seen as an abuse” in numerous places throughout the world. It was viewed as inculturation in various venues, was introduced after Vatican II, and was permitted.

          It was already lawful decades ago.

          See, e.g., the 1994 instruction on Inculturation and the Roman Liturgy issued by the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship.

          Also see the instruction from the Most Reverend Peter John Elliott, Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne, Australia, of uncertain date.

          What the pope is doing is bringing back things that we saw years ago. I’m not agreeing with the pope’s actions; all I’m stating is that it’s not new stuff.

          Been there, done that, as they say nowadays.

          • No, liturgical dance has never been licit in any Catholic liturgy. Yes, Bergoglio will now be allowing all the worst abuses to return.

            The difference is that this time around they will be written into the “rubrics” (as if the Nauseous Ordure has any).

          • While I don’t agree with it, “liturgical dance” was made licit for certain cultures back in the 1990s.

            This is not a new phenomenon.

            It was done in the presence of Pope John Paul II in several of his numerous journeys years ago.


            March 29, 1994.

            42. Among some peoples, singing is instinctively accompanied by hand-clapping, rhythmic swaying and dance movements on the part of the participants. Such forms of external expression can have a place in the liturgical actions of these peoples on condition that they are always the expression of true communal prayer of adoration, praise, offering and supplication, and not simply a performance.

  40. Steve, for the reasons you have mentioned above, I began celebrating the Novus Ordo mass Ad Oreintem last advent and will introduce The Latin Mass this advent. I think the danger of making too many changes to the Novus Ordo will eventually result in calling the Eucharist ‘a meal” rather than ‘the Sacrifice’. At that point, I will no longer celebrate the NO, but the TLM exclusively. Fortunately having studied three years of Canon Law improved my latin. 🙂

    • This is good news and I sincerely hope many other Priests are doing likewise in view of the looming threat to the NO. Worth remembering that the Latin Mass can be privately said. This is important in the time to come. More important that the Mass as Sacrifice continue to be said on earth – without sacrifice there is no forgiveness of sins, and in the words of Padre Pio “the earth could not exist”. God bless!

  41. Wasn’t it Lefebvre who introduced a number of novelties in his diocese in Africa before V2, only to find such novelties to be destructive of the Church?

    Isn’t that the sea change that led him to denounce those similar changes that came later?

      • A priest. He told me Bp Lefevbre was forced to into accepting what might be called “experimental” novelties only to see the destructive tendencies they introduced. This was said to be the fuel that fired his critique of the Mass of Pope Paul VI when it was released full of similar novelties as the ones he had already seen to be so destructive. I cannot find this in print anywhere, but to be frank, having worked in foregin missions as a Protestant, and knowing what I do about the tendencies of the various faiths to “get along” especially in Arica, it wouldn’t surprise me.

        I do know that you can read what are surely some seeds of the NO in Jungmann’s famous 2 volumes on the Mass. I read them when a fresh convert and found the “hints” curious. The ideas for the NO surely were floating around for a long time before 1969.

        • Thank you for sharing your knowledge on this. I have already chased up a commentary on Jungman’s role in the liturgical movement; he’s big. Your comments on Africa dont surprise me. I figure it is the same as in India : there is a group who hold to tradition in liturgy and then there are those who want to inculturate the Mass – I think one priest has just been “retired” because he inculturated a Hindu goddess into a Mass. With the new Motu Proprio breaking up the Rite officially, I hope we wont suddenly have reappear smoking ceremonies instead of the Confiteor at Mass. It’s the kind of thing that if one were to object, one could be seen (falsely) as racist! (the new paradigm). Hopefully Bishops Conferences will realise they are cutting off their nose to begin playing around with the Mass as many Catholics will walk out and wont be seen again!

          • “With the new Motu Proprio breaking up the Rite officially, I hope we wont suddenly have reappear smoking ceremonies instead of the Confiteor at Mass.”

            I’ve seen such ROT firsthand.


            It was BLOODY Awful.

            Obese Indian guy {yes, tribal members refer to themselves as Indians and where they live as “Indian country”} dressed up in hysterical dyed-feather truckstop style, trinket-infused “Native American” getup dancing up the aisle {outdoor Mass} to and around the altar!! And Bishop Christensen sat up there watching the whole charade. I’m trying to find out how big of a carnival it was this year as I refused to attend.

            I wrote him a letter expressing my concern and also my concern about the fawning praise lavished on the Tribe itself. The same tribe that wallows in tens of millions of dollars of Casino mob blood money. Maybe that’s the reason for the lavish praise?

            A friend reminded me that back when the Tribe was converted, they were converted by the “Black Robes” and worshiped according to the Latin Mass!!

            I really do not have a doubt in my mind where this is all headed. I reckon we are about to see a total, stinking collapse of reverence and anything like worship in our Masses if this new Lutheran “DIY” Mass rule remains in force.

          • I’m not calling BS on Jungmann’s whole tome, but I did have my questions as to its true scholarly value.

            IIRC he wrote it immediately after World War 2 in the wreckage of Germany when he was living in the hills of Bavaria somewhere. Just how did he access archives to support his work or did he write it all “from memory”?

            Anybody have any light to shed on this?

          • I read jungman worked from an Austrian convent. I read a quote from Klaus Gamber “the Reform of the Liturgy” that Jungman’s work on the Mass was “full of erroneous assumptions” I understood to be ….about how Mass was celebrated in the early times of Christianity post Constantine.

    • He reinvigorated the missionary effort across the entire Continent with new organisation and new energy. It goes without saying that he introduced no novelties whatever in ritual or belief.

      • I’m aware of his great work in Africa, but I cannot say he never experienced novelties or was himself involved in them. The story about him is not mine, but I have witnessed the ecumenical movement very strongly in Africa and it is NOT a recent development.

        I do not find the story to be inherently self-contradictory.

        Many reacted strongly to the introduction of the NO, but some very well may have seen the corrosive effects of some of the novelties personally before.

  42. As I recall in Quo Primum, there is the admonition that anyone who seeks to change the liturgy would incur the wrath of Sts. Peter and Paul.

    Galatians 1:8 & 9 . . (8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. (9) As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a
    gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

    I guess they’ve chosen their lot . . . .


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...