Editor’s Note: Pope Francis, in a recent address, claimed that the “liturgical reform [i.e. the Novus Ordo Mass] is irreversible.” Vatican specialist Sandro Magister has said that many interpreted these words “as a halt ordered by Pope Francis to the presumed reverse course signaled by Benedict XVI with the 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.” Magister also subsequently published parts of an article written by Cardinal Robert Sarah on the matter of the two forms of the Latin Rite of the Mass. It is in this context that Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, former president of the Vatican Bank, has written his own reflection on the matter of the Mass. We consider it an important contribution to the discussion and thus present here a translation, edited for our audience, of his original Italian article published last month at Formiche.net. Gotti Tedeschi will also be a speaker at the upcoming 14 September Summorum Pontificum Conference, together with Cardinal Gerhard Müller and Cardinal Robert Sarah.
The current pontiff (Francis) recently affirmed that he considers the liturgical reform, initiated by Vatican II, “irreversible.” This irreversibility sounds like a challenge, if not a censure, to the former pontiff, (Benedict XVI), who had authorized the celebration of the pre-conciliar mass with his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. In these days, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship himself, Cardinal Sarah, proposed (in an interview with the monthly journal La Nef) a liturgical reconciliation aimed at integrating the pre-conciliar liturgical rite with the conciliar one.
Well, the reader will say, why should these “clerical conflicts” matter to us? With all the problems there are, why should we preoccupy ourselves with the liturgy? Are we not helplessly witnessing the collapse of a civilization, of a culture, and of moral values, and they are wasting our time with discussions about the liturgy? But what if the liturgy of the Mass was a key element to explain everything? NOM (Nuovo Ordine Mondial [New World Order]) and NOM (Novus Ordo Missae [New Order of the Mass]) coincide both in their acronyms and their times of implementation. It is good to reflect on this debate, which is not about the form, but about the substance (of the liturgy), which is not at all the same in the two cases cited above, and the one in question is about the consequent effects, on the conduct (also economic) of the faithful, which affects the whole of society, not just Catholics.
Let us refer now, to explain with an example, to the relationship between the liturgy and the economy. Since the economy is in itself a neutral instrument that produces good or bad as a function of how it is used, it is important not only to know how to use it, but how to give it meaning, an end. This meaning is a function of the meaning that is given to life itself, a function of what is believed, of the faith that is held and is wanted to be lived. The faith we are speaking of conquers and revives thanks to the Church’s Magisterium, to prayer and the Sacraments. Among these, the first is the Mass, whose value is a function of the liturgy used, which makes it become, or not, the source of all the graces needed for the works of the faithful. For this reason, the liturgy of the Mass strengthens the faith and becomes an “incubator” for the aspirations to that personal holiness from which the whole of society benefits.
The economy should be able to satisfy some human needs thanks to the consumption and instruments of labor with which man achieves. But the economy only works if man has identified and knows how to satisfy his true global needs, which are, in addition to material ones, intellectual and spiritual ones. If this does not happen and only material satisfaction is favored, the economic medium takes on a “moral autonomy” and degenerates, causing economic crises, and these, yes, are “irreversible” and damaging. As we have seen in recent decades.
I have tried to explain that the spiritual need (for the Catholic) is satisfied above all by the Sacraments, the Mass is the most important of these, and the liturgy makes the Mass fit or not for what it is supposed to accomplish, to foster thanks, given that the liturgy is substance, not form. By “corrupting” the liturgy of the Mass, adapting it to the supposed need for it to be simplified (as is often the case with the conciliar liturgical rite, left too much to the “creativity” of individual celebrants) and by reducing, relativizing, and often confusing the value of the Sacrament, there is a risk of depriving those who participate of the aforementioned spiritual nourishment, because the purpose of the Mass is not to be celebrated, but to change man by influencing his behavior.
The liturgy can be corrupted by the acts performed in celebrating the Mass, in the words spoken, in the positions of the priest, in the prayers recited, in the chants, in the thanksgiving, in the intentions to renew the Sacrifice, etc. All of this fosters the inner participation of those attending, which gives validity to the purpose of the Mass. By desacralizing the Mass, it is evident that the moral crisis that is therefore created causes a crisis in behavior, specifically in the economy, which is more sensitive to moral guidance. Hence, the material misery caused by the moral crisis is not “the economy that kills”, but rather, man who uses it poorly because he gives it an errant meaning.
The liturgy of the Mass that Benedict XVI had granted with his motu proprio was not to please “four traditionalists”, it was to save and make available a valuable means that is certain to create the fullness of wealth for man. To prohibit it would be to create the risk of losing the meaning of life, and thus, of total poverty. Without the meaning of life, the economy becomes an end in itself, only oriented to material satisfaction. An economy whose ethics lack a strong and lively faith can hardly stand. After all, why should one do good if evil gives one more advantages? Especially if one allows oneself to believe they are “justified”?
The liturgy and economics are indirectly correlated, the common element being the heart of man, which is nourished by the former and gives meaning to the latter. The Conference on Summorum Pontificum, with the presence of Cardinal [Robert] Sarah and Cardinal [Gerhard] Müller, will be held in Rome on September 14 [2017] (at the Angelicum).
Translation Mr. Andrew Guernsey
Regarding this, I suggest everyone, who has not read it yet, to read ‘The Spirituality of the Ancient Liturgy’, and who has already read it, let’s remind: http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_SU_Ripperger.html
Ivan, thanks so much for the link to “The Spirituality of the Ancient Liturgy,” of which I was unaware. I don’t think I would have found it as meaningful just a few years ago.
I’d wondered about how one might measure (figure? judge?) one’s own spiritual progress. I sort of “fell into” a better sense of it after completing “33 Days to Morning Glory” (Total Consecration to Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary), and then repeating the program a year later as a small-group facilitator for my parish.
Before the first experience, I had tried to read St. Louis de Monfort’s “True Devotion to Mary” but just couldn’t stay interested. I decided that it was far above my level of spiritual maturity and put it back on my bookshelf. (I have a number of Catholic classics waiting for me there and, now, on my Kindle!)
There’s an old joke about how dumb a dad was when his son was 15, compared to how smart he becomes by the time his son is 30. Likewise, I was surprised to find, when I took up “True Devotion” before the second “33 Days,” how much more profound St. Louis had become!
I know that “The Spirituality of the Ancient Liturgy” will be a “classic” that I’ll return to again and again.
You’re very welcome too dear Patricia. I did not much, but just shared it, all credits for such wonderful and important lecture goes to our God and then fr. Ripperger. All good that (and when) we do come from God.
You’re right about regarding the dependence of our maturity for reading certain books. There are some books that we just can’t read now, but after a while it will be a read with big pleasure and totally understandable. It is just that way how things (always) works. For a higher building, a bigger foundation is needed. But there are some lectures that we can, and probably should read every day a bit of it, like Imitation of Christ (T. Kempis), or lectures of st. Francis of Sales and his ‘Filotea’,…
That kind of lectures are the best, besides the Bible and the CCC, for every Catholic. And we should read that more than once, to keep reminding us through simple and practical words, but the truthful speech, to the most profound truths that every true believer needs to know and practice.
This was a wonderful article…. might you have a link to the 2nd part at Latin Mass mag.? (Thank you!)
You’re welcome Molly.
Indeed, this is really great article, and very important for all Catholics to know it.
This just must be read by all and shared with all. May our God the Lord give many blessings to fr. Ripperger and all His faithful priests, and may our Lord give them all the mighty guardian angels to keep them always protected from any evil.
PS. I’ve edited my first comment. There is now also link to the second part.
Thanks Ivan.
I don’t see how anyone could read a reversal of Summorum Pontificum into the Pope’s words. It affirms the reforms backed by his four immediate predecessors, and calls for the correction of distortions and errors in the celebration. Also, rejecting the EF would hardly match Pope Francis openings towards the SSPX.
Bergoglio’s goal is the complete destruction of the SSPX. He must control it to destroy it.
To see his merciless fanaticism at work, look at the FFI.
I don’t agree with your calling PF by his last name, but I have to reluctantly agree with your point.
As I’ve said many times, the SSPX should not even THINK of regularization until the next pontificate. The FFI is one reason among many.
Amen! Unfortunately, “Truth” and “Trust” and not words one associates with PF. It’s surreal to even think it let alone believe it from the Chair of Peter. Then again, this just didn’t happen. It’s been an ongoing process since the Popes that headed the disaster of V2 and their subsequent successors. PF is very crude by comparison but in his own way he is more honest than his predecessors of the Conciliar Church. The shock is how deep the denial remains in the “Professional Catholic” ranks such as the Knights of Columbus. Truly amazing.
So if SSPX thinks it controls its path to regularization, it must be because they will only submit to higher ecclesial authorities again once their demands are met, right? This is how I understand SSPX’s current position, is this correct?
“PF is very crude by comparison but in his own way he is more honest than
his predecessors of the Conciliar Church. The shock is how deep the
denial remains in the ‘Professional Catholic’ ranks such as the Knights
of Columbus. Truly amazing.”
Precisely. Every word you wrote is 110 percent true, as with the other comments I’ve read here so far, but this is so apropos. I help out as a reader at a local N.O. Mass here in Budapest, an English-language one. (It’s a Saturday night Mass, btw, and thus I never need to miss – nor would I – the local exquisite noon-on-Sunday TLM: http://www.szentmihalytemplom.hu/). Fine folks they are at the English Mass, decent, the kind of Mr and Mrs Catholic you’d find in the KofC and so on back in the U.S. But it is SO eerie to talk to them. That’s the only word for it. Somehow, it reminds me of watching a badly dubbed movie.
There’s something profoundly supernatural going on, to the point I keep expecting Rod Serling to appear (yes, in black and white, with a cig), with his guttural voice intoning, “Take for example…”. We’re at a pivotal time, that at least we know.
“Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium…”.
RC
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7c14b3b0e080fec01bdb1e800a1e5f04ed9d35948a3dd8e9425a4772d243981a.jpg
I use ‘Bergoglio’ often when I discuss this wicked, evil man. I use
‘wicked, evil man’ a lot, too.
He is the false prophet. Margaret has not got there yet.
Swing and a miss. I guess this one lost something in translation. No idea what he said.
He was saying this:
1. The Mass is to celebreat the greatness of God, to glorify Him for His magnificence, to prsise Him for His graciousness and benevolence and to offerHim a sacrifice of thanksgiving for His gifts.
2. The more the Mass does this, the more graces we receive.
3. The more we respond positively to those graces, the more our hearts and minds are focussed onGod and doing His will and obeying His commands because we love Him.
4. The economy is morally neutral and, like guns, can be for good or evil.
5. There is a connection betwern the Mass and the economy because most of what we do in some way involves the economy.
6. The closer we are to God and seek to do His will and to obey Him, the more we will employ the economy to selflessly do good. The further we are from Gof, the more we will use the economy for evil or for selfish ends.
7. The amount and strength of the graces we receive comes primarily from the Mass. Therefore, they have a significant effect on how we employ the economy. For example I can use the extra money I have to buy things I desire, but don’t need (selfishness = evil) or to do good such as donating to help the victims of hurricane Harvey (selflessness = good). The more grsces we receive, the more we will trnd toward the latter.
8. The TLM is focussed on celebrating God with glory, prsise and thanksgiving. The NO is focused primarily on celebrating the People of God – the community – rather than on God. Therefore, thr graces received from the TLM are that much greater than those received from the NO.
9. Consequently, the economy is increasingly used for evil rather than for good.
10. The reinstatement of the freedom to offer the TLM whenever and wherever wad an effort to ptevent the totsl loss of the abundent grsces dossrminated through the TLM snd, therefore. reduce the negative effects on the economy (its use for evil) rrdulting from the fewer graces received from the NO.
In short, the TLM moves us toward doing good by becoming better Christians. The NO does not.
Very concise and helpful. I was partly lost in the bushes too.
Thank God, not me!
Thank you, Friend. What an illuminating reply! If only the original [very fancy and Euro-confusing] original article was as clear and articulate as you!
And I’ll tell you something else. Because of your deft and humble defense of the truth [and also bc 1P5 publishes so much Maike Hickson who is just SO good] I will be doubling my monthly contribution to 1P5. No plaudits please. Even doubled, it is still a humble amount, I promise you. But I will double it indefinitely and half the reason is your reply right here. Thank you again. 1P5 contributors and commenters rock!
I cannot help thinking this gnomic statement by Pope Francis is being taken out of context. The complete text is at:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2017/august/documents/papa-francesco_20170824_settimana-liturgica-nazionale.html
I am not a liturgist but scanning it rather hurriedly I am none the wiser as what in practice this irreversible reform is supposed to be except in the most general terms; for example there is nothing about saying the mass ad populum as opposed to ad orientem. In fact one could see his speech as being an appeal to go back to Sacrosanctum Consilium and see what it really did and did not say. I think he is saying that Sacrosanctum Consilium itself is irreversible but its implementation needs more correct development. It is worth reading the whole paragraph in which the word irreversible appears:
“And today, there is still work to be done in this direction, in particular by rediscovering the reasons for the decisions taken with regard to the liturgical reform, by overcoming unfounded and superficial readings, a partial reception, and practices that disfigure it. It is not a matter of rethinking the reform by reviewing the choices in its regard, but of knowing better the underlying reasons, through historical documentation, as well as of internalizing its inspirational principles and of observing the discipline that governs it. After this magisterium, after this long journey, We can affirm with certainty and with magisterial authority that the liturgical reform is irreversible.”
Would Cardinal Sarah have any problem with that?
Don’t know, but I sure have a problem with that. If what Francis says here is what he believes we are in even bigger trouble than it seems at first.
He says that we must go back to the actual documents, and the theological thought behind the changes made to the Mass of the Ages. What possible reason could there have been for the complete destruction of the Traditional Mass? It’s all in the record and it’s been printed over and over. There were NO true reasons. Modernists wanted to bring everyone into the Big Tent so they made a new order of the ‘mass’ and guess what happened? Look around.
Francis truly believes what the new ‘mass’ was designed for is a good. He does acknowledge that watching Cardinals and Bishops parade around the Sanctuary in clown outfits is a bit much – but that’s all he sees as wrong.
As I said I am no expert on liturgy but I think one has to distinguish between what Sacrosanctum Consilium actually says and what actually happened. Remember Cardinal Arinze’s offer of a turkey to anyone who can shown him anything in the documents of VII and therefore Sacrosanctum Consilium that authorises the removal of communion rails. The mass was hijacked after VII.
The council and, therefore, its docunents are Satan’s work. It was his blitzkrieg.
I believe Cdl. Sarah would have a problem because he knows the TLM is the only True Mass. The “more work” Francis wants done is to make (reduce) the Mass to the non-sacred services of other “Christian” churches and as relativistic as possible, even to the inclusion of prayers and invocations to buddha and other false gods to mold us to the point where we will accept first prayers to Satan and then a liturgy devoted to Satan alone. That’s where this is heading because he is Satan’s chief agent at thus time.
Pope Francis cannot make any serious comment on the liturgy because he has never shown any signs of thinking these things through! That he says it does it mean it will have any effect on those doing good work for the liturgy. And this is another example of this Joke’s straw man: Ratzinger never called for the abolition of the missal of Paul VI. He simply showed, from serious scholarly work and a return to the Fathers, that we could and should have a richer liturgy, oriented towards God. But really, who takes Francis seriously these days? He has shot himself at the leg with his promotion of moral and doctrinal relativism. Who is he to judge others about the liturgy?
Mr. Tedeschi says, ‘Well, the reader will say, why should these “clerical conflicts” matter to us? With all the problems
there are, why should we preoccupy ourselves with the liturgy? Are we not helplessly witnessing the collapse of a civilization, of a culture, and of moral values, and they are wasting our time with discussions about the liturgy? But what if the liturgy of the Mass was a key element to explain everything?’
Re the collapse of civilization, of a culture and of moral values. Card Ratzinger had this to say; “the history of the great atheistic dictatorships of our century, National Socialism and Communism, shows that the fall of the Church, the disintegration and the absence of the faith as a formative power, actually does drag the world down into the abyss … when the forces opposed to evil are falling away, the collapse will, as a matter of fact, be terrible.”
“We can say with a certainty backed up by empirical evidence that if the ethical power represented by Christianity were suddenly torn out of humanity, mankind would lurch to and fro like a ship rammed against an iceberg, and then the survival of humanity would be in greatest jeopardy.” Card Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth, p 227.
Re the liturgy. Again, Card Ratzinger said; “I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part upon the collapse of the liturgy, which at times is actually being conceived of etsi Deus non
daretur: as though in the liturgy it did not matter anymore whether God exists and whether He speaks to us and listens to us.
Too often, Ratzinger lamented, “the community is only celebrating itself without its being worthwhile to do so.” From My Life: Remembrances 1927-1977.
Mr Tedeschi sees an effect of the efficacy of the liturgy on the economy. There is a greater effect ─ the apostasy and collapse of the Mass are prerequisites for the advent of the Antichrist.
“And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice, because of sins: and truth shall be cast down on the ground and he shall do and prosper.” (Dan 8:12). “The victim and the sacrifice shall fail: and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation.” (Dan 9:27).
Ratzinger is at least partly responsible for the whole nightmare. I cannot take him seriously. Yet your citations prove that his blindness was not total, as it is with so many others.
I have tremendous problems with him, too. I pray for wisdom, but I cannot have confidence in him. None.
He’s like a spectator watching a house fire, willing to toss half of his can of beer on the flames, but at the sound of the cries of a child inside, walking away to get away from the heat.
He has committed grevious errors. First, he did not go far enough eith rrspect to the TLM – he should have terminated permanently the NO Mass and restored the TLM to its rightful place as the ONLY Mass permissable throughput the entire church; in fact he should have repudiated the council and all its innovations. Second, he should not have resigned regardless of the pressure and threats. His first duty was to God.
We have to remember where Cardinal Ratzinger comes from – a Germany and a seminary where Modernist philosophy and a perverted theology were taught and breathed in by all young priests and budding theologists. It’s in his bones. Let’s not forget he was John Paul II’s right hand man for DECADES. They worked together every day, they both thought the same way, they wrote the same way, they acted the same way.
What we see is the result. So all the good things he says now mean nothing. Too little, too late.
I have read that Ratzinger disagreed with JPII’s multi-religious celebrations at Assisi, and refused to participate in it.
JPII’s “ecunenical” prayer service was acknowledgement or acceptance of false gods, and unrepentent apostates and heretics, in gross violation of the decalogue’s First Commandment and, in my view, an act of formal heresy.
Does it say something about yourself that you can only presume the very worst interpretation possible? John Paul II himself said it was only a gathering to pray for world peace and had absolutely no bearing on the supreme truth of the Catholic Faith. Many will talk about the kissing: he would have kissed any gift to him as a cultural gesture for where he was it.
I’ll admit I find little to no redeeming value in ecumenism, and definitely see the potential for confusion, but I don’t see any credible evidence JPII was at all indifferent of different religions and could make an argument that sugar attracts more flies than vinegar (and could have seen it as a subtle attempt at conversion). Similarly, I would prefer the Holy Father not travel much at all, if not go into seclusion as of old (thus Benedict XVI clearly didn’t need to abdicate, etc).
Yes, my statement says something about myself and it is this, I firmly, fully, with no shadow of doubt believe and KNOW that the authentic, orthodox Catholic faith is the ONLY true religion AND THERE IS NO OTHER. Ny statement is not an interpretation and I am not presuming. It does not natter what JPII said for that was an attempt to rationalize away the act which speaks for itself. Ecumenism in religious services gives acknowledgment and acceptance of false gods and credability to heretical beliefs and doctrines. Canon law at least used to forbid any Catholic from participating in any way in the religious services of other religions. It declared that such participation was an overt act of heresy and apostasy.
Assisi was not a liturgical service. It was just a prayer and photo-op.
And to whom were the representatives of the various religions praying?
What about what we are going to see in every parrish? Take a look to this video. Eventhough strat in Spanish the rest is in English.
What started as a “common prayer” it is going to be impose very soon.
https://youtu.be/_o-4dJpGIvA
If you find no redeeming value in ecumenism then you’re thinking in cross purposes. It’s possible to pray for world peace without gathering with heretics and thereby legitimizing their heresies. JPII was just being a nice guy. He was not serving Christ and His Church.
I agree. I did not say merely ecumenism. I specifically said ecumenical religious services. Cooperating with other religions for the common good of all people, such as helping the victims of Harvey and, now, Irma, is good and proper. Where the line is drawn, not by me alone, but by the Church, is worship. As Catholics we profess belief in one, Triune God and no other and that there is only one True Church and no other. We, therefore, should find it repugnant, offensive and a violation of both our beliefs and the Law of God to give any credability to the existance of false gods or the veracity of false and distorted doctrine by participating.in multi-religion worship/prayer services of any kind. To do otherwise means we have been infected with the same cancer that is consuming the Church since V2, that of relativism.
You got it right, Mike. I must have misunderstood you. Sorry.
Not a problem — I’ve done that too.
Would that everyone “thought in *Cross* purposes”!
What about the JOINT DECLARATION
ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION
by the Lutheran World Federation
and the Catholic Church?
That was with John Paul II.
Right, well back to what I was saying. Can you only conceive of the worst possible interpretation or is it possible that it’s naively well meaning?
Popes don’t do important things naively. Popes have to do this lind of things well thought because this kind of things damage the faith.
Uxi: “I find little to no redeeming value in ecumenism…”
Many of you would have cringed, and worse, as I did, as a parish RCIA assistant. Imagine this scene:
DRAMATIS PERSONAE The “parochial vicar,” an elderly priest with a drinking problem, before an RCIA class of 25-or-so Southern-raised Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists; lapsed Catholics who’d only been baptized; non-Catholic fiance(e)s of mostly-non-practicing Catholics planning their photo-op weddings; secular humanists; and a Jewish lady who’d decided to convert to Catholicism after teaching parish Faith Formation classes for 12 years.
(Yes, you read that correctly.)
FATHER [after writing the word “ECUMENISM” on the blackboard]: “Now, let me first say that, among the Christian denominations, the Catholic Church is not ‘better.’ It’s just ‘different’.”
Letters to the bishop about this and other abominations had no effect … at first. I left the mission attached to that parish because I was angry at every Mass.
I returned several years later, in mid 2016, when Our Lady of Grace, Lancaster, SC, was formally established as a parish of the Diocese of Charleston, SC, and the same bishop appointed as parish administrator the hardest-working priest I’ve ever known: the well-educated, well-spoken, talented, amazingly energetic, orthodox Father Jeffrey F. Kirby, STD/ (He celebrated his 10th anniversary of ordination in July 2017, and we are blessed beyond telling to be his very first parish assignment!)
Perhaps the bishop was listening after all…
So far, no info about adding Mass(es) in the EF, but the progress is nothing short of miraculous!
Amen.
What Seminary ?? There’s like 50 Seminaries in Germany…..
Even if the Extraordinary Rite was restrored to it’s rightful place, The Modernism, and the Securalism would still have continued……
That’s true, but the greater abundance of graces we would receive from the TLM would add significantly to our ability to stand firm against the enemy’s onslaughts both within and outside the Church. The fewer and smaller graces from the NO Mass do not helo us as much, even though they are better than none at all.
The second was possible, the first impossible. You can count on one hand the number of priests who would be willing to learn enough Latin to understand the Mass.
Prior to V2 all priests were required to learn Latin and Greek. The same could be done now. If they don’t like it, that’s tough. One of the vows taken at ordination by both religious and diosesan priests is Obedience.
Prior to VII priests learned Latin in the seminary. That is off the table today except in SSPX seminaries. To as an NO priest, especially one who is over 40 and who now has to minister to two or three parishes and do the work of three priests to study a foreign language is not realistic. I wish it was possible. Unfortunately, the greatest resistance would come from the bishops, who hate TLM with a passion. A pox on them.
Now, with Bergoglio stacking the deck with homosexuals and modernists the possibility recedes even farther into the distance. When it finally happens Our Lord will have returned to earth and all will be well.
There are other orders that require learning Latin (and Greek) as well, I.e. FSSP). I understand what you are saying. However, returning to pre-V2 orthodoxy is quite possible. The TLM can be required for all priests and seninarians with a temporary or even permanent dispensation for priests who meet such conditions as you describe. That dispensation would be petmission to offer the TLM in the vernacular. In addition, knowing how to communicate in Latin for those priests can be waived. Altar boys didn’t have to be able to read, write and speak Latin before they could serve. We were quite able to learn the pronunciations. The priests you mention could do the same. Any hurdle can be overcome with God’s help and guidance. If He wants the re-establishment of the TLM as the ONLY Mass, He will see that it is done. And it can happen before Jesus returns.
I agree with everything you say, MIke, and you bring up a good point. I’ve always supported the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular. I had to use the corresponding English translation in the missal anyway. I would welcome it in any form. It the Mass. The *only* Mass.
To the objection, “Why on earth you think he’s [Benedict] any better than Francis”?
I reply: The “god” of Jorge “Francis” Bergoglio is the “world soul” (anima mundi) of Shaftesbury, Teilhard de Chardin, and the ‘Ancient Mysteries’ of the Pagans and Freemasons — i.e. the pandeistic Deus sive Natura of Spinoza.
The God of Pope Benedict XVI is the God of Christians — the God of the apostles, prophets and philosophers; as he eloquently explained in his first major work, Einführung in das Christentum.
Fr. Paul L. Kramer
Yes, I do accept this (primary!) distinction.
Pope Francis is utterly amazing!!!
Here, yet again, he reveals the physiological capacity for a human body to reverse the direction of the release of flatulence in such a way that the gas passes over the vocal chords producing sound that is moderately intelligible as words in a known language.
LOL. You’re amazing yourself, Rod.
This is great. It confirms what my gut has been telling me for months . Its not just a theological debate about technicalities of the liturgies, this preference, that preference, blah, blah. NO ! It s about civilization. Its about understanding reality. It’s about having a compass. Its about a beacon of light. Not just for Catholics, but for humanity. It’s that important. The NWO gets a green light from the Novus Ordo. Ahhhhhhh!
We need to go back to Basics. What is the Mass ? The Holy Sacrifice presented to a New Generation. What do we receive ? His Body and Blood.
In a sense, that has been the essence since St. Pius X. Recall that before him, the average Catholic layman had Holy Communion 4-5 times a year max. St. Louis would attend Mass 3 times a day when he could yet only received 6 times a year. The Poor Clares had in their Rule to receive 6 times a year, the Dominicanesses 15… They would consult with their spiritual director and undergo a sort of mini-Lent before… hard to say even the most devout are that prepared these days… recall that every cleric had a vastly different breviary with a Psalter arrangement for Lauds that could have well reached back to our Lord Himself sang at the Temple…
Sorry, this Novus Ordo nonsense is just that – nonsense. It’s a man made abomination that defies everything the Church has held dear for 1,965 years.